id|nct_id|outcome_id|non_inferiority_type|non_inferiority_description|param_type|param_value|dispersion_type|dispersion_value|p_value_modifier|p_value|ci_n_sides|ci_percent|ci_lower_limit|ci_upper_limit|ci_upper_limit_na_comment|p_value_description|method|method_description|estimate_description|groups_description|other_analysis_description|ci_upper_limit_raw|ci_lower_limit_raw|p_value_raw
91831775|NCT01321554|183542848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.14|0.31||||||||0.31|0.14|
91895243|NCT03405792|183685639|OTHER|||||||||||||||||We will use one-sample log-rank test to compare PFS between the triple combination arm relative to the historical control arm.|We took a look at median survival time and CI of our population and we compared it to the median PFS and CI of the historical control descriptively. There is no yielded P value.|||
91895244|NCT03405792|183685640|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Every participant (26/26; 100%) experienced an adverse event.|||
91895245|NCT02319525|183685648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91895246|NCT02319525|183685649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||We compared informed choice vs. no informed choice made between the decision aid and the pamphlet groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.08
91895247|NCT02319525|183685650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||Chi-squared|||We compared concordance between preferred and actual roles vs. no concordance between roles between decision aid and pamphlet.||||0.252
91895248|NCT02319525|183685651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.504
91895249|NCT02319525|183685652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91895250|NCT02319525|183685653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the Impact of lupus nephritis"||||0.006
91895251|NCT02319525|183685653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the Risk factors"||||0.006
91769472|NCT00179621|183425932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||To compare the response rates of Lenalidomide 5 mg QD vs. placebo, the Hochberg procedure was used to control the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
91831776|NCT04128293|183542854|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7585|1.0152|||||Relative bioavailability between treatment A and B assessed using analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameter of AUC(0-infinity).|||1.0152|0.7585|
91895252|NCT02319525|183685653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the medication options"||||0.003
91831777|NCT04128293|183542856|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7778|1.0239|||||Relative bioavailability between treatment A and B assessed using analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameter of AUC(0-t).|||1.0239|0.7778|
91831778|NCT04128293|183542858|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8594|1.0404|||||Relative bioavailability between treatment A and B assessed using analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameter of Cmax.|||1.0404|0.8594|
91895253|NCT02319525|183685653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the evidence about medications"||||<0.001
91831779|NCT04128293|183542861|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.533||||0.4252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0||The p-value was assessed based on the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||The median difference and the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the median difference was estimated from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||2.0000|-1.0000|0.4252
91895254|NCT02319525|183685653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the study about other patients"||||<0.001
91895255|NCT02319525|183685654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||The test of significance compared all the rows, i.e., all response options for the statement.||||0.006
91895256|NCT02842827|183685691|OTHER|||||||0.3868|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.3868
91895257|NCT02842827|183685692|OTHER|||||||0.7744|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.7744
91895258|NCT02842827|183685693|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.5080
91895259|NCT02842827|183685694|OTHER|||||||0.6109|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.6109
91895260|NCT02842827|183685695|OTHER|||||||0.1151|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.1151
91895261|NCT02842827|183685696|OTHER|||||||0.0791|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.0791
91895262|NCT01815138|183685698|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91895263|NCT01815138|183685699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91895264|NCT01588496|183685802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|-18.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-18.62|-40.94|<0.001
91895265|NCT01588496|183685803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.83|-11.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.45|-34.83|<0.001
91769473|NCT00179621|183425932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||To compare the response rates of Lenalidomide 10 mg QD vs. placebo, the Hochberg procedure was used to control the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
91769474|NCT00179621|183425933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
91769475|NCT00179621|183425933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
91769476|NCT00179621|183425943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91769477|NCT00179621|183425943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91769478|NCT00179621|183425944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.054
91769479|NCT00179621|183425944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.080
91769480|NCT00179621|183425945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.062
91769481|NCT00179621|183425945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.113
91769482|NCT02722564|183425947|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p value associated with the change between estimated and actual BrAC when the participants BrAC was ascending to 0.1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91769483|NCT02722564|183425947|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p value associated with change between estimated and actual BrAC as participants BrAC descended to 0.08.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91769484|NCT00865345|183425948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intercept from ANCOVA model|70.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|100.0|||ANCOVA|null model ANOVA is used to calculate 95% CI around accuracy rate. Intercept was fit in the abscence of other predictors.||||100|60|<0.05
91769485|NCT03692208|183425957|OTHER|Quantitative outcomes from chart and survey data were summarized by basic descriptive statistics.|||||<|0.01||||||P-values were calculated. Only P values of \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared tests, Fisher's Exact tests, two-sample t-tests, and paired two-sample t-tests were utilized to assess the outcomes between study arms.||||||<0.01
91769486|NCT05482308|183425984|OTHER||Mean differences(Test-Reference)|98.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|104.1|||Mixed effect model|"Mixed effect model was fitted to obtain:~1.Adjusted mean differences 2.90% Confidence intervals(CI)"||||104.10|92.92|
91769487|NCT05482308|183425985|OTHER||Mean difference (Test-Reference)|91.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.5|102.9|||Mixed effect model|"Mixed effect model was fitted to obtain:~1.Adjusted mean differences 2.90% Confidence intervals(CI)"||||102.90|81.50|
91769488|NCT01693029|183425988|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence margin (-0.5, 0.5) g/dL. Results from ANCOVA with factors treatment group and covariates mean baseline Hb and mean weekly dose during the evaluation period (Week 21-28)"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2264|0.0413|||||||95% confidence interval for the difference is (-0.2522, 0.0670).|0.0413|-0.2264|
91769489|NCT00657540|183426006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0185|||||||Chi-squared|The proportion of treatment failures was compared between groups using a one-sided test at the 0.025 level of significance.||||||0.0185
91769490|NCT00657540|183426007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2302|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared tests at the 0.025 level of significance were used to test for a difference in proportions between the treatment groups.||||||0.2302
91769491|NCT00657540|183426008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8213|||||||Chi-squared|The proportion of subjects with at least one drug-related adverse event by treatment groups using a two-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.||||||0.8213
91769492|NCT00657540|183426009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2765|||||||Chi-squared|The proportion of subjects with decreased pain at any time point between treatment groups using a one-sided test at the 0.025 level of significance.||||||0.2765
91769493|NCT00141453|183426011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.79||95.0|0.75|1.24|||Regression, Cox|The covariates were urinary albumin:creatinine ratio and serum creatinine at baseline \& regions (Japan/Hong Kong) for the renal composite event rate.||We planned to collect 400 patients to detect 35% risk reduction for renal outcome in olmesartan group with 80% power at 2-sided .05 alpha level. The Cox regression model was applied to estimate the hazard ratios (HR)between treatment groups with 95% confidence intervals for the renal and cardiovascular composite event rate.||1.24|0.75|0.79
91769494|NCT00141453|183426012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.039||95.0|0.43|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Covariates baseline urinary albumin:creatinine ratio, age and history of cardiovascular disease for cardiovascular composite event rate.||||0.98|0.43|0.039
91769495|NCT02656017|183426032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in GSRS score as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||0.26|-0.13|0.50
91769496|NCT02656017|183426033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Gray's test|||The Gray's test of homogeneity for competing risks was used to compare cumulative incidence of tolerating the drug between study arms.||||0.12
91769497|NCT02656017|183426034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Cumulative incidence between study arms and logistic regression was used to assess the association between study arms.||||0.98
91769498|NCT02656017|183426035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in SF-36 PCS as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||2.60|-1.81|0.72
91769499|NCT02656017|183426036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in SF-36 MCS as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||4.25|-2.02|0.49
91769500|NCT02656017|183426037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare back pain frequency as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.44
91769501|NCT02656017|183426038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in eGFR as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||6.87|-1.40|0.20
91769502|NCT02656017|183426039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|5.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htTKV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||5.62|-2.11|0.38
91769503|NCT02656017|183426040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|11.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htTKCV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||11.65|-3.48|0.31
91769504|NCT02656017|183426041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htLV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||2.61|-1.78|0.72
91769505|NCT02656017|183426042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|14.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htLCV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||14.76|-10.05|0.80
91769506|NCT02656017|183426043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare abdominal fullness interfered as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.83
91769507|NCT02656017|183426044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare interference of pain with sleep frequency as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.72
91769508|NCT02656017|183426045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare interference of pain with strenuous physical activity frequency as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.28
91769509|NCT04755816|183426046|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Win Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.54||||||"Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group B and D. No Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group A and C. By the unmatched pairs win ratio method, each participant receiving the intervention will be compared to each participant not receiving the intervention. For each comparison, winners will be determined according to the hierarchy described above. The win ratio is the number winners divided by the number of losers associated with the intervention."||1.54|1.08|
91769510|NCT04755816|183426047|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Win Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.54||||||"Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group C and D. No Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in group A and B. By the unmatched pairs win ratio method, each participant receiving the intervention will be compared to each participant not receiving the intervention. For each comparison, winners will be determined according to the hierarchy described above. The win ratio is the number winners divided by the number of losers associated with the intervention."||1.54|1.08|
91769511|NCT04755816|183426049|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|3.743||||||Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group B and D. No Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group A and C.||3.743|0.321|
91769512|NCT04755816|183426050|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Slope|-15.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|6.76|||||"The total score for the MLHFQ ranges from 0 to 105, with higher scores indicating more significant impairment in health-related quality of life. The change in MLHFQ is defined as MLHFQ at Week 12 minus MLHFQ at Week 0."|Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group B and D. No Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group A and C. Simple linear regression models will be used to assess the outcome of change in MLHFQ over 12 weeks as a function of treatment group assignment. Beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals will be reported.||6.76|-37.5|
91769513|NCT04755816|183426051|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|1.901||||||Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group C and D. No Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group A and B.||1.901|0.163|
91831780|NCT04128293|183542861|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|5.25||The p-value was assessed based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||The median difference and the 90% confidence interval of the median difference were estimated from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||5.2500|-0.7500|0.3125
91790122|NCT00282464|183459371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.349||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.349
91831781|NCT00514943|183542911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.188|8.202||P-value obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model including treatment, stratification factor prior chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic disease and the baseline sum of longest distance of target lesions.|ANCOVA|Receipt of prior chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic disease and the baseline sum of longest distance for target lesions are covariates|Mean difference calculated is actually the adjusted mean difference.|||8.202|-11.188|0.7606
91831782|NCT00514943|183542924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.387|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies for R/M setting (0 or \>=1)|||1.387|0.640|0.764
91831783|NCT00514943|183542925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|1.212|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies for R/M setting (0 or \>=1)|||1.212|0.434|0.219
91831784|NCT00514943|183542926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.067||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|1.608|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies for R/M setting (0 or \>=1)|||1.608|0.708|0.758
91769514|NCT04755816|183426052|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Slope|-12.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.67|7.72|||||"The total score for the MLHFQ ranges from 0 to 105, with higher scores indicating more significant impairment in health-related quality of life. The change in MLHFQ is defined as MLHFQ at Week 12 minus MLHFQ at Week 0."|Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group C and D. No Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group A and B. Simple linear regression models will be used to assess the outcome of change in MLHFQ over 12 weeks as a function of treatment group assignment. Beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals will be reported.||7.72|-33.67|
91769515|NCT02653326|183426075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
91769516|NCT02653326|183426076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
91769517|NCT00702468|183426102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.335||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.162|0.691|||Chi-squared|||||0.691|0.162|0.013
91769518|NCT00702468|183426103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|-0.21||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.79|||ANCOVA||Negative difference indicates the comparison is in favour of Sativex|||0.79|-1.22|0.720
91769519|NCT00702468|183426104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.53||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.68|5.74|||ANCOVA|||||5.74|-4.68|0.86
91895266|NCT01588496|183685804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.72|-12.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-12.05|-33.72|<0.001
91705872|NCT02442206|183306249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.209|14.331|||ANOVA|||||14.331|6.209|<0.0001
91769520|NCT00702468|183426106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.78||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.52|10.96|||ANCOVA||Negative difference indicates the comparison is in favour of Sativex|It is important to emphasise that only four placebo subjects were included in the analysis and 11 of the Sativex subjects - this sample size is too small for a meaningful comparison between treatments. The reason for not including some of the data in this analysis is that a number of the subjects who withdrew early from the study restarted their own Sativex before the assessment was done.||10.96|-14.52|0.81
91769521|NCT00702468|183426107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.64||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.33|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates the comparison is in favour of Sativex|||0.33|-1.60|0.271
91769522|NCT00702468|183426108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.562||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.585|13.997|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.997|1.585|0.017
91705873|NCT02442206|183306250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.49|||ANOVA|||||0.49|0.36|<0.0001
91705874|NCT02442206|183306251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.80|0.55|<0.0001
91769523|NCT00702468|183426109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.55||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.942|118.773|||Regression, Logistic|||||118.773|3.942|0.0011
91769524|NCT00702468|183426110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.444||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|13.718|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.718|0.948|0.1151
91769525|NCT04201431|183426131|OTHER|Comparison of pooled data from Groups 1 and 2 volunteers who completed primary CHMI with pooled data of infectivity controls undergoing primary CHMI from VAC069 study running in parallel (NCT03797989).||||||0.01||||||Two tailed p value reported for Mann-Whitney test comparing infectivity controls with vaccinees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of parasite multiplication rate in vaccinated subjects compared to infectivity controls in a blood-stage controlled human malaria infection model||||0.01
91895267|NCT01588496|183685805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.48|1.82||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||1.82|-25.48|0.088
91769526|NCT00300755|183426188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||<0.001
91769527|NCT00300755|183426188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.063
91769528|NCT00300755|183426188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||< 0.001
91769529|NCT00300755|183426188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis with treatment group and baseline age as fixed effects, and baseline GERD symptom score and baseline antacid use as covariates||Between group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.004
91769530|NCT00300755|183426188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis with treatment group and baseline age as fixed effects, and baseline GERD symptom score and baseline antacid use as covariates||Between group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.082
91769531|NCT00300755|183426188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis with treatment group and baseline age as fixed effects, and baseline GERD symptom score and baseline antacid use as covariates||Between group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.217
91895268|NCT01588496|183685806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.11|0.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||0.56|-23.11|0.088
91895269|NCT01588496|183685807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.86|-18.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|LDL-C lowering was analyzed by comparing evolocumab and placebo. Statistical analysis was 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-18.00|-43.86|<0.001
91705875|NCT02442206|183306252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.446|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.541|||ANOVA|||||0.541|0.352|<0.0001
91769532|NCT00300755|183426189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Vomiting/regurgitation.||||0.002
91769533|NCT00300755|183426189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Vomiting/regurgitation.||||0.033
91769534|NCT00300755|183426189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Choking/gagging.||||<0.001
91769535|NCT00300755|183426189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Choking/gagging.||||0.002
91769536|NCT00300755|183426189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Refusal to eat.||||0.009
91769537|NCT00300755|183426189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Difficulty swallowing.||||0.004
91769538|NCT00300755|183426189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Difficulty swallowing.||||0.044
91769539|NCT00300755|183426189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Abdominal/belly pain.||||0.002
91831785|NCT05072457|183542939|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"MANOVA analysis with independent variable being the intervention condition (type of microphone used) and dependent variable being the performance on lateralization task.~Null hypothesis: There will be no statistically significant difference in lateralization test scores between the Roger On and the Roger Select in the experimental group."||||<.05
91895270|NCT03143166|183685808|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|28.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|86.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.346|38.996|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||38.996|21.346|
91895271|NCT03143166|183685809|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|26.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.066|34.665|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||34.665|20.066|
91895272|NCT03143166|183685810|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.914|37.537|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||37.537|20.914|
91895273|NCT03143166|183685811|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|27.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.023|36.118|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||36.118|21.023|
91895274|NCT03143166|183685812|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|30.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.26|40.234|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||40.234|23.260|
91895275|NCT03143166|183685813|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|30.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.404|40.037|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||40.037|23.404|
91895276|NCT00803751|183685817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
91895277|NCT00803751|183685818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
91895278|NCT00803751|183685819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91769540|NCT00300755|183426189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Abdominal/belly pain.||||0.026
91769541|NCT00300755|183426189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Abdominal/belly pain.||||0.026
91769542|NCT00300755|183426190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for Cough without cold.||||0.004
91769543|NCT00300755|183426190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for Noisy breathing.||||0.047
91769544|NCT04571944|183426192|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-8.7||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Analysis was stratified by hospitalization reason (acute disease, elective surgery) and age category (\<75 years, ≥75 years).||||2.6|-20.1|0.129
91769545|NCT04571944|183426193|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|11.0||||||||11.0|-9.3|
91769546|NCT04571944|183426194|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.2||||||||5.2|-5.1|
91769547|NCT04571944|183426195|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo|-0.5||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||Based on aligned rank test.|Hodges-Lehmann method|||||1.0|-2.0|0.485
91895279|NCT00803751|183685820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91895280|NCT00803751|183685821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91895281|NCT00803751|183685822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
91895282|NCT03102645|183685823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|13.5|||t-test, 2 sided|CROS. DF=14.||CROS test||13.5|-0.5|0.07
91895283|NCT03102645|183685824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|28.2|||t-test, 2 sided|CROS test||CROS test||28.2|2.0|0.03
91895284|NCT01413087|183685825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Log Rank|P value by log-rank test for the difference between treatment groups||||||0.483
91895285|NCT01413087|183685826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Log Rank|P value by log-rank test for the difference between treatment groups||||||0.992
91895286|NCT05026710|183685845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
91769548|NCT04571944|183426196|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-8.6||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Analysis was stratified by hospitalization reason (acute disease, elective surgery) and age category (\<75 years, ≥75 years).||||2.8|-20.2|0.136
91769549|NCT03192826|183426197|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
91769550|NCT03192826|183426198|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
91769551|NCT03192826|183426199|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
91769552|NCT03192826|183426200|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
91769553|NCT02694744|183426201|OTHER||||||||||||||||||If the 95% confidence interval for the w/out food Arm overlapped the confidence interval for the w/ food Arm, the study will conclude that there is no evidence of a statistically significant difference between treatment arms.|||
91831786|NCT05072457|183542940|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Independent variable: intervention condition (type of microphone used), Dependent variable: performance on spatial hearing task. Null hypothesis: There will be no statistically significant difference in spatial hearing test scores between the Roger On and the Roger Select in the experimental group.||||>.05
91831787|NCT01786512|183542983|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0047|0.0176|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.0176|0.0047|0.0007
91769554|NCT02694744|183426202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Estimation of mean change in serum potassium from Baseline to week 4.||0.22|-0.17|0.7893
91769555|NCT00883779|183426209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.46|<0.0001
91769556|NCT00883779|183426211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.64|||Log Rank|||PFS in adenocarcinoma subgroup||0.64|0.39|<0.0001
91769557|NCT00883779|183426211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||=|0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33|||Log Rank|||PFS in non-adenocarcinoma subgroup||1.33|0.60|=0.579
91769558|NCT00883779|183426211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.53|||Log Rank|||PFS in never smoked subgroup||0.53|0.28|<0.0001
91769559|NCT00883779|183426211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||=|0.2067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Log Rank|||PFS in former/current smoker subgroup||1.10|0.64|=0.2067
91769560|NCT00883779|183426211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.35|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR mutation||0.35|0.12|<0.0001
91895287|NCT05026710|183685846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
91895288|NCT05026710|183685847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.58
91895289|NCT05026710|183685848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.72
91769561|NCT00883779|183426211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR wild-type||1.34|0.67|=0.7511
91769562|NCT00883779|183426211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.58|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup KRAS mutation||1.58|0.25|=0.3169
91769563|NCT00883779|183426211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.7|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup KRAS wild-type||0.70|0.37|<0.0001
91769564|NCT00883779|183426211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||=|0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.86|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR IHC positive||0.86|0.31|=0.0091
91769565|NCT00883779|183426211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||=|0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.88|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR IHC negative||0.88|0.18|=0.0179
91769566|NCT00883779|183426211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.64|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR FISH positive||0.64|0.11|=0.0017
91769567|NCT00883779|183426211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||=|0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.22|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR FISH negative||1.22|0.37|=0.1880
91769568|NCT00883779|183426212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Log Rank|||OS in overall participants (FAS population)||1.04|0.70|=0.1213
91769569|NCT00883779|183426212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup adenocarcinoma||0.98|0.62|=0.0356
91895290|NCT05026710|183685849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
91895291|NCT05026710|183685850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects; covariates: days since URS, study arm, days\*arm, baseline LURN, stone location; random intercept with unstructured covariance||||||0.80
91769570|NCT00883779|183426212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||=|0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.03|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup non-adenocarcinoma||2.03|0.92|=0.1157
91769571|NCT00883779|183426212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.89|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup never smoked||0.89|0.49|=0.0056
91769572|NCT00883779|183426212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||=|0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.5|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup current/former smoker||1.50|0.87|=0.3473
91831788|NCT01786512|183542983|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0184|0.0315|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.0315|0.0184|<0.0001
91831789|NCT01786512|183542984|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.65|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||7.65|1.50|0.0036
91831790|NCT01786512|183542984|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.72|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||6.72|0.53|0.0217
91831791|NCT01786512|183542985|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.035|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.035|-0.194|0.1732
91895292|NCT05026710|183685851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||WinRatio, unmatched unstratified|WinRatio using unmatched method.||||||0.25
91895293|NCT05026710|183685852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
91769573|NCT00883779|183426212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||=|0.1614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.14|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup EGFR mutation||1.14|0.45|=0.1614
91895294|NCT05026710|183685853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
91769574|NCT00883779|183426212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup EGFR wild-type||1.11|0.55|=0.1691
91769575|NCT00883779|183426212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||=|0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.28|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup KRAS mutation||1.28|0.19|=0.1415
91769576|NCT00883779|183426212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup KRAS wild-type||1.08|0.59|=0.1447
91831792|NCT01786512|183542985|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|-0.062|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-0.062|-0.295|0.0027
91831793|NCT01786512|183542986|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.033|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.033|-0.166|0.1899
91831794|NCT01786512|183542986|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|-0.028|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-0.028|-0.231|0.0128
91831795|NCT01786512|183542987|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.79|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.79|-3.47|0.2177
91895295|NCT01323972|183685873|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.65|||||Consistency was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio between all pairs of lots were within \[0.5, 2\].|Demonstration of the lot-to-lot consistency between GSK 257049-Lot 1 and GSK 257049-Lot 2 in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1.65|1.06|
91895296|NCT01323972|183685873|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32|||||Consistency was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio between all pairs of lots were within \[0.5, 2\].|Demonstration of the lot-to-lot consistency between GSK 257049-Lot 1 and GSK 257049-Lot 3 in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1.32|0.85|
91769577|NCT00883779|183426212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.96|||Log Rank|||OS in EGFR IHC positive||0.96|0.35|=0.0310
91769578|NCT00883779|183426212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||=|0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.05|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup EGFR IHC negative||1.05|0.21|=0.0581
91769579|NCT00883779|183426212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.75|||Log Rank|||OS of subgroup EGFR FISH positive||0.75|0.14|=0.0063
91769580|NCT00883779|183426212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||=|0.3268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.36|||Log Rank|||OS of subgroup EGFR FISH negative||1.36|0.40|=0.3268
91769581|NCT00883779|183426214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81|||=|0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.8|||Chi-squared|||Difference in non-progression response rates||11.8|-6.2|=0.5289
91769582|NCT00883779|183426215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|33.5|||Chi-squared|||Difference in objective response rates||33.5|16.7|<0.0001
91769583|NCT00883779|183426216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.5|||Log Rank|||||0.50|0.21|<0.0001
91895297|NCT01323972|183685873|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.64|1.0|||||Consistency was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio between all pairs of lots were within \[0.5, 2\].|Demonstration of the lot-to-lot consistency between GSK 257049-Lot 2 and GSK 257049-Lot 3 in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1|0.64|
91831796|NCT01786512|183542987|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-0.81|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-0.81|-5.12|0.0070
91895298|NCT01323972|183685873|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the pilot scale lot (Control Group) over the pooled commercial scale lots (Pooled Log Group) was below 2.|GMT ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.79|1.15||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the commercial scale lots of GSK 257049 to the pilot scale lot in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1.15|0.79|
91895299|NCT03218397|183685879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|5.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first antibiotic modification (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||10|1.2|0.013
91895300|NCT03218397|183685880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265||||||alpha = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.265
91895301|NCT03218397|183685881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|T-test for the difference in mean length of stay (days) between treatment arms among subjects alive at 30 days.||||||0.093
91895302|NCT03218397|183685882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||alpha = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
91769584|NCT00883779|183426217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.45|<0.0001
91769585|NCT00883779|183426219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.63|=0.0364
91895303|NCT03218397|183685883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|7.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.1||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first antibiotic escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||13.1|1.9|0.009
91895304|NCT03218397|183685884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|6.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-negative antibiotic escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||12.0|0.9|0.022
91895305|NCT03218397|183685885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.7||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-positive antibiotic escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||2.7|-1.2|0.46
91895306|NCT03218397|183685886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|4.6||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|9.6||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first antibiotic de-escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||9.6|-0.4|0.074
91895307|NCT03218397|183685887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|6.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.2||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-negative antibiotic de-escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||11.2|1.7|0.008
91895308|NCT03218397|183685888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.2||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-positive antibiotic de-escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||2.2|-5.9|0.37
91895309|NCT01049217|183685908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, dideoxynucleoside analogue (D-drug) anti-retroviral agent (ART) use and baseline score.||0.45|-0.30|0.7090
91769586|NCT00883779|183426221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.61|=0.0181
91895310|NCT01049217|183685909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5049|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.5049
91769587|NCT00883779|183426223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.73|||=|0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.59|=0.0035
91769588|NCT00883779|183426224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.60|0.9130
91790123|NCT00282464|183459371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.685
91790124|NCT00282464|183459371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.257||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.257
91895311|NCT01049217|183685910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4271|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.4271
91895312|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.07|-0.31|0.2084
91895313|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.07|-0.43|0.1516
91895314|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||-0.00|-0.56|0.0468
91895315|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.07|-0.62|0.1224
91895316|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||-0.02|-0.75|0.0373
91895317|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.12|-0.67|0.1660
91895318|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.3246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.21|-0.63|0.3246
91895319|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.4879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.28|-0.58|0.4879
91831797|NCT01786512|183542988|OTHER||Treatment difference|-822.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|353.0||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1516.0|-127.0|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-127|-1516|0.0205
91831798|NCT01786512|183542988|OTHER||Treatment difference|-970.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|357.0||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1672.0|-268.0|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-268|-1672|0.0069
91831799|NCT00605293|183542991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4778|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4778
91895320|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.19|-0.69|0.2669
91769589|NCT03748823|183426244|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was determined based on the 90% Confidence interval calculated from the combination z-score that accounts for the interim analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.257|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.361||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on log-transformed Ctrough and included treatment and stratified weight group as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Geometric least squares mean are the least squares mean from the mixed model after back transformation to the original scale. The 90% confidence interval is presented after back transformation to the original scale.|||1.361|1.160|<0.0001
91895321|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.5452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.30|-0.56|0.5452
91895322|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.31|-0.59|0.5469
91895323|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.41|-0.54|0.7843
91895324|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.44|-0.50|0.9008
91705876|NCT02442206|183306253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.177||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|-0.07|||ANOVA|||||-0.070|-0.285|0.0017
91705877|NCT02442206|183306254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.751|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|-0.577|||ANOVA|||||-0.577|-0.925|<0.0001
91705878|NCT02442206|183306255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.639|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.945|-1.332|||ANOVA|||||-1.332|-1.945|<0.0001
91790125|NCT00282464|183459372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 1||||0.0099
91831800|NCT03581981|183542997|SUPERIORITY|see statistical plan|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-10.7|0.33
91831801|NCT03581981|183542998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
91831802|NCT03581981|183542999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
91831803|NCT03581981|183543000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-3.6|0.99
91831804|NCT03581981|183543001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-7.3|0.52
91895325|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.50|-0.45|0.9064
91895326|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.7205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.39|-0.57|0.7205
91895327|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.31|-0.71|0.4334
91895328|NCT01049217|183685911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.35|-0.43|0.8402
91895329|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.3098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.08|-0.25|0.3098
91895330|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.09|-0.37|0.2429
91895331|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.00|-0.54|0.0504
91895332|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.06|-0.58|0.1141
91831805|NCT03581981|183543002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-1.4|0.50
91831806|NCT03581981|183543003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91831807|NCT03581981|183543004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91895333|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.02|-0.66|0.0667
91895334|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.2104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.13|-0.61|0.2104
91769590|NCT00890825|183426260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|1.14||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate (e.g. HR comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel) on the outcome measure - Overall survival.|Regression, Cox|Analysis adjusted for the following covariates; WHO PS, gender, histology and smoking status|A Hazard Ratio less than 1 favoured AZD6244 + Docetaxel|||1.14|0.56|0.2069
91895335|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.25|-0.53|0.4830
91769591|NCT00890825|183426261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.79||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate (e.g. HR comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel) on the outcome measure.|Regression, Cox|The model allowed for the effect of treatment and included terms for WHO PS, gender, histology, and smoking status.|A Hazard Ratio (HR) \< 1 favoured AZD6244 + Docetaxel|||0.79|0.42|0.0138
91769592|NCT00890825|183426262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|53.0||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||||53|23|< 0.0001
91769593|NCT00890825|183426264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmeans difference|-17.03||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.2|-8.86||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel on the outcome measure.|ANCOVA|LS means were adjusted for baseline tumour size, time from baseline scan to randomisation, WHO PS, gender, histology, and smoking status.|(AZD6244 + Docetaxel) - (Placebo + Docetaxel)|||-8.86|-25.2|0.004
91790126|NCT00282464|183459372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0654||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 2||||0.0654
91831808|NCT03581981|183543005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
91831809|NCT03581981|183543006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
91831810|NCT03581981|183543007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
91831811|NCT03581981|183543008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
91831812|NCT00781391|183543012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.632|0.985||Two stratification factor covariates: 1) CHADS2 score 2) dose-adjustment factor. If upper limit of CI of HR was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was established for group.|Cox proportional hazards model|||The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.||.985|.632|<.0001
91852134|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.7238|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.5|0.7238
91895336|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.29|-0.51|0.5757
91895337|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.20|-0.62|0.3231
91895338|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.20|-0.63|0.3143
91895339|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.33|-0.54|0.6300
91895340|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.32|-0.57|0.5752
91895341|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.40|-0.46|0.8905
91895342|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.45|-0.45|0.9991
91895343|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.42|-0.48|0.8927
91895344|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.42|-0.54|0.8067
91831813|NCT00781391|183543012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.874|1.314||Two stratification factor covariates: 1) CHADS2 score 2) dose-adjustment factor. If upper limit of CI of HR was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was established for group.|Cox proportional hazards model|||The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.||1.314|.874|.0055
91831814|NCT00781391|183543013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.719|1.029|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Non-inferiority or equivalence analysis; Non-inferiority analysis. The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.029|.719|<.0001
91895345|NCT01049217|183685912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.40|-0.35|0.9009
91895346|NCT01049217|183685913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.05|-0.64|0.0948
91895347|NCT01049217|183685913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.23|-0.57|0.4167
91895348|NCT01049217|183685913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.8179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.50|-0.39|0.8179
91769594|NCT00890825|183426265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.34|-13.7||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel on the outcome measure.|ANCOVA|LS means were adjusted for baseline tumour size, time from baseline scan to randomisation, WHO PS, gender, histology, and smoking status|(AZD6244 + Docetaxel) - (Placebo + Docetaxel)|||-13.7|-38.34|0.004
91790127|NCT00282464|183459372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1807||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 3||||0.1807
91895349|NCT01049217|183685913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.6913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.50|-0.33|0.6913
91895350|NCT01049217|183685913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.9475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.41|-0.39|0.9475
91895351|NCT01049217|183685913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.7412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.33|-0.47|0.7412
91705879|NCT02442206|183306256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.761|-0.489|||ANOVA|||||-0.489|-0.761|<0.0001
91895352|NCT01049217|183685913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.43|-0.41|0.9715
91895353|NCT01049217|183685913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.48|-0.38|0.8163
91895354|NCT01049217|183685913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.3682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.58|-0.22|0.3682
91895355|NCT01049217|183685913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.3511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.58|-0.21|0.3511
91831815|NCT00781391|183543013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.955|1.336|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Non-inferiority or equivalence analysis; Non-inferiority analysis. The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.336|.955|.0074
91831816|NCT00781391|183543014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.634|0.989|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||.989|.634|<.0001
91831817|NCT00781391|183543014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.878|1.32|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.32|.878|.0064
91831818|NCT00781391|183543015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.~If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|1.032|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on-treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.032|.720|<.0001
91831819|NCT00781391|183543015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.~If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.958|1.34|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on-treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.34|.958|.0084
91895356|NCT01049217|183685914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Burning: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9686
91895357|NCT01049217|183685914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Squeezing: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.3|-0.6|0.4476
91895358|NCT01049217|183685914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pressure: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.3|-0.6|0.5630
91895359|NCT01049217|183685914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Electric Shocks: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9937
91895360|NCT01049217|183685914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Stabbing: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.8718
91895361|NCT01049217|183685914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Light Touching: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.4|-0.5|0.8241
91895362|NCT01049217|183685914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pressure of Area: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.2|-0.7|0.3164
91895363|NCT01049217|183685914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Cold of Area: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.8996
91831820|NCT00781391|183543016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.709|1.068|||Log Rank|||The superiority analysis included the ITT analysis set||1.068|.709|.081
91895364|NCT01049217|183685914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pins and Needles: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9676
91895365|NCT01049217|183685914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Tingling: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9091
91895366|NCT01049217|183685915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Duration of Spontaneous Pain: Overall p-value was derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.7300
91895367|NCT01049217|183685915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Pain Attacks: Overall p-value was derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.0559
91831821|NCT00781391|183543017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|0.959|||Log Rank|||the time to first event was estimated by a KM estimate and was compared between the edoxaban 60 mg group and the warfarin group using a log-rank test at a pairwise comparison significance level of α=0.01.||.959|.786|.0053
91831822|NCT00781391|183543018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|0.972|||Log Rank|||the time to first event was estimated by a KM estimate and was compared between the edoxaban 60 mg group and the warfarin group using a log-rank test at a pairwise comparison significance level of α=0.01.||.972|.806|.0109
91895368|NCT01049217|183685916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Burning Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.05|-0.05|0.9686
91895369|NCT01049217|183685916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.4711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pressing Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.03|-0.06|0.4711
91831823|NCT00781391|183543019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.981|||Log Rank|||the time to first event was estimated by a KM estimate and was compared between the edoxaban 60 mg group and the warfarin group using a log-rank test at a pairwise comparison significance level of α=0.01.||.981|.823|.0168
91831824|NCT00781391|183543020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|0.914|||Regression, Cox|||All Major Adjudicated Bleeding Events, Safety Analysis Set On-treatment period||.914|.707|.0009
91831825|NCT00781391|183543020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.548|||Regression, Cox|||"All Major Adjudicated Bleeding Events, Safety Analysis Set On-treatment period.~The HR, two-sided CI, and p-value for pairwise comparisons versus Warfarin are based on the Cox regression model with counting process approach for on-treatment including treatment and the two stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized CHADS2 score and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor"||.548|.406|<.0001
91831826|NCT00781391|183543020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.918|||Regression, Cox|||Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major, high dose vs. warfarin||.918|.800|<.0001
91895370|NCT01049217|183685916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Paroxysmal Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.05|-0.04|0.9215
91895371|NCT01049217|183685916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Evoked Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.03|-0.05|0.6042
91895372|NCT01049217|183685916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.9394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, P/D: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.04|-0.05|0.9394
91895373|NCT01049217|183685916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.7801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Total Score: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.03|-0.04|0.7801
91895374|NCT01049217|183685917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.6012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Endpoint TST: ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.6012
91895375|NCT01049217|183685917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Endpoint MIS: ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.0534
91895376|NCT01049217|183685918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0966|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.0966
91895377|NCT01049217|183685919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0611|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.0611
91895378|NCT01049217|183685920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8436.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6855.2||0.2195|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.2195
91895379|NCT01049217|183685921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.|LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.8241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8241
91895380|NCT01049217|183685922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.052||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|3.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Sleep Disturbance: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||3.66|-4.42|0.8528
91895381|NCT01049217|183685922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.179||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|9.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Snoring: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||9.14|-3.37|0.3650
91895382|NCT01049217|183685922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.525||0.7237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|5.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, SOB: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||5.86|-4.07|0.7237
91895383|NCT01049217|183685922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Quantity: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.15|-0.50|0.2783
91895384|NCT01049217|183685922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.611||0.2475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|8.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Adequacy: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||8.16|-2.11|0.2475
91895385|NCT01049217|183685922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.933||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|4.96|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||4.96|-2.64|0.5492
91831827|NCT00781391|183543020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.666|||Regression, Cox|||Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major, low dose vs. warfarin||.666|.575|<.0001
91895386|NCT01049217|183685922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.614||0.9113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Sleep Problems Index: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||3.36|-3.00|0.9113
91895387|NCT01049217|183685923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7399|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Endpoint: Overall p-value was derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.7399
91895388|NCT01049217|183685924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.8258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.84|-0.67|0.8258
91895389|NCT01049217|183685924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||1.38|-0.09|0.0840
91895390|NCT01049217|183685925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.393||0.6114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|5.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Ph Fn: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||5.92|-3.49|0.6114
91895391|NCT01049217|183685925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.522||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|5.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, R-P: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||5.53|-4.39|0.8209
91895392|NCT01049217|183685925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.335||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|4.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, BP: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||4.67|-4.52|0.9737
91769595|NCT00890825|183426266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|0.78||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate (e.g. HR comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel) on the outcome measure.|Log Rank|Confidence interval (CI) used Greenwood's formula for the standard error of a survival estimate|A hazard ratio (HR) \<1 favours AZD6244 75 mg bd+Docetaxel|||0.78|0.37|0.0158
91895393|NCT01049217|183685925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.937||0.6966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|4.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, GH: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||4.57|-3.05|0.6966
91895394|NCT01049217|183685925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.807||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Ph C: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||1.73|-1.44|0.8569
91895395|NCT01049217|183685925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.847||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Vit: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||2.31|-4.96|0.4734
91705880|NCT02442206|183306257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.209||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|2.836|||ANOVA|||LV EF||2.836|-0.419|0.1420
91705881|NCT02442206|183306257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.131||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|2.774|||ANOVA|||RV EF||2.774|-0.512|0.1732
91831828|NCT01984684|183543021|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for noninferiority testing was computed based on the difference in responder rates for vancomycin + aztreonam and delafloxacin at the primary endpoint. If the upper limit (UL) of the CI was less than 0.10, delafloxacin would be considered noninferior to vancomycin + aztreonam.|Difference in Responder Rates|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.3||||||||8.3|-2.0|
91895396|NCT01049217|183685925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.159||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, So Fn: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||2.28|-6.22|0.3625
91895397|NCT01049217|183685925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.543||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|7.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, R-E: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||7.79|-2.21|0.2736
91895398|NCT01049217|183685925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.811||0.8199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, MnH: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||3.15|-3.98|0.8199
91895399|NCT01049217|183685925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Mn C: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||1.98|-1.82|0.9361
91895400|NCT00589121|183685946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|The fixed rate of 37% comes from the published National Cancer Institute of Canada trial SR2 (CAN-NCIC-SR2: Phase III Randomized Study of Pre- vs Postoperative Radiotherapy in Curable Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma) receiving preoperative radiation therapy without image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT).||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Initially designed to test for a 20% absolute improvement from 37% (fixed rate) to 17% using Fisher's exact test, requiring 41 patients per cohort (51 with 20% ineligibility) with 5% type I error and 90% statistical power. During accrual, the sample size for cohort B was increased to 66 (83 with 20% ineligibility) to test for a 15% improvement with 5% type I error and 85% power.||||0.0005
91895401|NCT02495792|183685964|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|21.7||||||||21.7|1.6|
91831829|NCT01984684|183543022|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the investigator's assessment of response of signs and symptoms of infection (cure only) was performed using the Miettinen-Nurminen method without stratification for the ITT analysis set.|Difference in Cure Rates|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.6||||||||4.6|-8.6|
91705882|NCT02442206|183306258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.241||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|4.417|||ANOVA|||LV ESV||4.417|0.066|0.0437
91705883|NCT02442206|183306258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.095||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.591|4.782|||ANOVA|||RV ESV||4.782|-0.591|0.1236
91705884|NCT02442206|183306259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.357||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.649|14.065|||ANOVA|||||14.065|4.649|0.0002
91705885|NCT02442206|183306260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.337||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.555|||ANOVA|||LVCO||0.555|0.118|0.0032
91895402|NCT03519971|183685965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.123|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||The hazard ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age \[\< 65 versus (vs.) \>= 65 years\] and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.123|0.647|0.247
91895403|NCT03519971|183685966|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.2||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|99.5|-15.2|16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was performed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).|The CIs for difference in percentages were estimated using Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|||16.3|-15.2|0.976
91895404|NCT03519971|183685967|SUPERIORITY|The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.386|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.386|0.778|0.823
91705886|NCT02442206|183306260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.281||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.512|||ANOVA|||RVCO||0.512|0.050|0.0182
91769596|NCT01363700|183426267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.11|-1.52|<0.001
91769597|NCT01363700|183426268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.92|-1.71|<0.001
91769598|NCT01363700|183426269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority in Mean Ocular itching score compared to Olopatadine was assessed on the non-inferiority margin (0.5) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the Epinastine (DE-114) and Olopatadine treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.21|
91769599|NCT01363700|183426270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority in Mean Ocular hyperemia score compared to Olopatadine was assessed on the non-inferiority margin (0.5) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the Epinastine (DE-114) and Olopatadine treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.81|
91769600|NCT02920892|183426271|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.22|0.1587
91769601|NCT02920892|183426272|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.66||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.34|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-3.34|0.1054
91895405|NCT03519971|183685968|SUPERIORITY|For the comparison between treatments, the Kaplan-Meier estimator of survival at 24 months for each treatment was used to obtain the HR and the test is based on the method described in Klein 2007. To account for the stratification factors, the estimates and test statistics in each strata were combined by weighting inversely proportionately according to each within stratum variance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.502|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.502|0.716|0.847
91895406|NCT03519971|183685969|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was performed using a CMH test, stratified by age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.0|||||The CIs for difference in percentages was calculated using Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|||3.0|-4.8|
91705887|NCT03300050|183306317|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.29|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||4.29|1.73|<0.0001
91769602|NCT02920892|183426273|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.67||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-1.79|0.32
91769603|NCT02920892|183426274|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-1.98|0.78
91769604|NCT02920892|183426275|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.05|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-2.05|0.94
91769605|NCT02920892|183426276|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.81|0.1428
91769606|NCT02920892|183426277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9462||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8764|1.0215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0215|0.8764|0.24
91769607|NCT02920892|183426278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.27|0.4|0.92
91769608|NCT03649217|183426279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0001
91769609|NCT03649217|183426280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0001
91769610|NCT03649217|183426281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
91769611|NCT03649217|183426282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0002
91769612|NCT03649217|183426283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
91769613|NCT01721161|183426284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-3.48||||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|3.65|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|||3.65|-10.61|0.3337
91769614|NCT01721161|183426285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-3.89||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.92|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|||1.92|-9.70|0.1868
91769615|NCT01721161|183426286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.76||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|1.74|||ANCOVA|||||1.74|-11.26|0.1488
91769616|NCT01721161|183426287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.15||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|2.21|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|||2.21|-4.51|0.4975
91769617|NCT01721161|183426288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.76||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.98|||ANCOVA|||||1.98|-5.50|0.3505
91769618|NCT01721161|183426289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.6||||0.5371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.6|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|LCLA 1.25% chart||3.6|-6.9|0.5371
91769619|NCT01721161|183426289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.8||||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.9|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|LCLA 2.5% chart||4.9|-6.5|0.7741
91769620|NCT01721161|183426290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.2||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|||LCLA 1.25% chart||4.3|-6.6|0.6645
91769621|NCT01721161|183426290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference|-0.8||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|5.2|||ANCOVA|||LCLA 2.5%||5.2|-6.7|0.8015
91895407|NCT03519971|183685972|SUPERIORITY|The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.413|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.413|0.649|0.790
91895408|NCT03519971|183685973|SUPERIORITY|The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.071|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.071|0.614|0.132
91895409|NCT02545933|183685981|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|27.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|34.0|||ANOVA||DAPT group vs DAPT plus vorapaxar group|We hypothesized that adjunctive vorapaxar would result in a significant reduction of CAT-induced platelet aggregation. Assuming a 10% absolute reduction in CAT-induced maximal platelet aggregation with a common standard deviation of 13%, 37 patients per group with valid primary endpoint data were required to detect a significant difference with a 90% power and 2-sided alpha=0.05.||34|19|0.011
91895410|NCT05180500|183685989|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
91895411|NCT05180500|183685990|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
91705888|NCT03300050|183306317|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.06||||0.9411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.66|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.66|0.68|0.9411
91705889|NCT03300050|183306317|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.62|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||0.62|0.24|<0.0001
91769622|NCT01721161|183426291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.55||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-15.12|0.0504
91769623|NCT01216202|183426294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||The association between change in serum testosterone levels and cumulative mean testicular radiation dose was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE). No preoperative RT contributed with baseline values.||||0.014
91769624|NCT01216202|183426295|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-4.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for time between preoperative radiotherapy (RT) and surgery.||The association between change in total number of sperms per ejaculate and relative mean testicular dose was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE).||-1.0|-6.9|0.008
91895412|NCT05180500|183685993|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
91895413|NCT05180500|183685994|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91895414|NCT05180500|183685995|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
91895415|NCT05180500|183685996|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
91705890|NCT03300050|183306318|OTHER||Difference|59.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.59|81.02|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||81.02|23.59|0.0025
91769625|NCT00614380|183426304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||||95.0|0.22|0.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.53|0.22|
91769626|NCT00614380|183426304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||||95.0|0.12|0.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.81|0.12|
91769627|NCT00614380|183426304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||||95.0|0.06|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.13|0.06|
91769628|NCT00614380|183426304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||||95.0|0.34|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.41|0.34|
91769629|NCT00614380|183426304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||||95.0|0.16|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.39|0.16|
91769630|NCT00614380|183426304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||||95.0|0.1|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.72|0.10|
91769631|NCT00462306|183426343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||4000 parturients and 500 non-pregnant achieves 90% power to detect a difference of 3% positive Berlin Questionnaire rates between pregnant and non-pregnant women using a two sided chi squared test at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||We hypothesized that the rate of positive Berlin questionnaires would be higher in pregnant women compared to age matched controls undergoing surgery.||||0.001
91895416|NCT05180500|183685997|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
91895417|NCT05180500|183685998|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91895418|NCT01775124|183686016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Descriptive, no hypothesis||-0.2|-2.95|
91895419|NCT02317432|183686032|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91895420|NCT02317432|183686033|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91895421|NCT02317432|183686034|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91895422|NCT02317432|183686035|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.24||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
91895423|NCT02317432|183686036|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
91895424|NCT00346268|183686051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square (LS) mean difference (net)|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|-0.53||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||||-0.53|-14.63|0.035
91895425|NCT00346268|183686052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square (LS) mean difference (net)|-15.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.47|-4.85||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||||-4.85|-25.47|0.004
91769632|NCT00462306|183426344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.01
91895426|NCT00346268|183686053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified by center||||||0.257
91895427|NCT00346268|183686054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.53||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANCOVA|Covariates:Total RBCUs and RBCUs substituted during surgery, baseline hemoglobin, swab and lavage weights, intraoperative blood loss fluid volume||||0.53|-0.68|0.810
91895428|NCT00346268|183686056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference (net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35|||ANOVA|||The difference in pain at rest prior to administration and pain at rest post administration compared between treatments at 48 hours post surgery.||0.35|-0.01|0.070
91895429|NCT00346268|183686056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.33|||ANOVA|||The difference in pain at movement prior to administration and pain at movement post administration compared between treatments at 48 hours post surgery.||0.33|-0.02|0.074
91895430|NCT00346268|183686057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.26||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||24 hours post surgery||-0.26|-1.16|0.002
91769633|NCT00452790|183426361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.483
91769634|NCT00452790|183426361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.698
91769635|NCT00452790|183426361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.782
91895431|NCT00346268|183686057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.23||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||48 hours post surgery||-0.23|-1.22|0.004
91895432|NCT00346268|183686058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.56||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||24 hours post surgery||-0.56|-1.77|0.001
91895433|NCT00346268|183686058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.24||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||48 hours post surgery||-0.24|-1.41|0.006
91895434|NCT04487834|183686072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91895435|NCT04487834|183686073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
91769636|NCT00452790|183426361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
91769637|NCT00452790|183426361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.729
91895436|NCT04487834|183686074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4852|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4852
91895437|NCT02831387|183686080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.696|9.936|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline to Day 29 in the Subject Reported Dry Eye Questionnaire||9.936|-13.696|0.749
91895438|NCT02831387|183686081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline (Visit 2) to Day 29 in Frequency Scores||5.3|-18.4|0.267
91895439|NCT02831387|183686082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline (Visit 2) to Day 29 in Severity Scores||15.4|-7.6|0.495
91895440|NCT02831387|183686083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline to Day 29 in Fluorescein Staining of the Cornea||1.9|-0.6|0.316
91895441|NCT02831387|183686084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline to Day 29 in Lissamine Green Staining of the Conjunctiva||1.5|-1.9|0.823
91895442|NCT02831387|183686085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|7.184||||||Statistical Analysis 1 for the Number of participants with at least 20% improvement in symptoms from baseline to Day 29||7.184|0.515|
91895443|NCT02831387|183686086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.666||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.759|11.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline (Visit 2) to Day 15 (Visit 3) in the Subject-reported Dry Eye Symptom Score||11.092|-7.759|0.723
91895444|NCT00192647|183686087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by viral load and country||||1.52|0.88|0.2893
91895445|NCT00192647|183686088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.63||||||||1.63|0.91|
91895446|NCT00192647|183686089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.27||||||Week 4||2.27|1.24|
91895447|NCT00192647|183686089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.17||||||Week 8||2.17|1.24|
91895448|NCT00192647|183686089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.53||||||Week 12||2.53|1.40|
91895449|NCT00192647|183686089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.98||||||Week 24||1.98|1.08|
91895450|NCT01828073|183686095|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|31.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.0|51.5|||||With the small sample size, the CI estimate tend to be wide.|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage of full term infants meeting the composite safety endpoint (grade 3/4 adverse event, adverse birth outcome, death)||51.50|16.00|
91895451|NCT01828073|183686095|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.1|70.9|||||With the small sample size, the CI estimate tend to be wide.|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage of full term infants meeting the composite safety endpoint (grade 3/4 adverse event, death)||70.90|29.10|
91895452|NCT01828073|183686099|OTHER|||||||0.747||||||The study was not powered to do the comparison. This was an exploratory analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To investigate the relationship between neonatal RAL elimination and UGT1A1 genotype in full term infants.||||0.747
91895453|NCT01828073|183686099|OTHER|||||||0.341||||||The study was not powered to do the comparison. This was an exploratory analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To investigate the relationship between neonatal RAL elimination and UGT1A1 genotype in LBW infants.||||0.341
91895454|NCT00118755|183686114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.67|0.3883
91895455|NCT00118755|183686115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.64|0.2458
91769638|NCT00452790|183426361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Induration-Severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
91769639|NCT00452790|183426361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Erythema-Any within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.819
91769640|NCT00452790|183426361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.904
91895456|NCT00118755|183686116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|9.8||||||95.0|0.9|18.7|||||95% Wald asymptotic CI using normal approximation (continuity corrected)|||18.7|0.9|
91895457|NCT00118755|183686117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.6294||95.0|0.66|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.66|0.6294
91895458|NCT01765192|183686125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0219|0.1795|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model adapted for the crossover design. The following fixed factors and covariates were included in the model: Treatment, sequence, period, and baseline FEV1 measurement of the respective treatment period. The reported analysis results are for the 2 crossover treatment periods combined.||0.1795|0.0219|0.013
91769641|NCT00452790|183426361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Erythema-Moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
91895459|NCT01765192|183686126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0185|0.1422||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator FVC measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1422|-0.0185|0.129
91895460|NCT01765192|183686127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0113|0.2364||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator FEF measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2364|0.0113|0.032
91895461|NCT01765192|183686128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.105||0.635||95.0|-23.0531|37.466||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator PEF measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||37.4660|-23.0531|0.635
91769642|NCT00452790|183426361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
91831830|NCT01984684|183543023|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the investigator's assessment of response (cure only) at the Late Follow-up Visit was assessed using the Miettinen-Nurminen method without stratification.|Difference in Cure Rates|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.1||||||||3.1|-9.3|
91895462|NCT01765192|183686129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.206||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1896|24.0553||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator PEF measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||24.0553|3.1896|0.011
91895463|NCT01765192|183686130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|-0.0271||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline Daytime Asthma Symptom Score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.0271|-0.3850|0.025
91895464|NCT01765192|183686131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2426|0.0563||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline Nighttime Asthma Symptoms measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.0563|-0.2426|0.217
91895465|NCT01016977|183686138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9597||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.9597
91895466|NCT01016977|183686138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5538||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.5538
91895467|NCT01016977|183686138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6315||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.6315
91895468|NCT01016977|183686138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5655||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.5655
91895469|NCT01016977|183686138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7917||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.7917
91895470|NCT01016977|183686139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5961||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.5961
91895471|NCT01016977|183686139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2293||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.2293
91895472|NCT01016977|183686139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9852||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.9852
91895473|NCT01016977|183686139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5538||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.5538
91895474|NCT01016977|183686139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.6540
91895475|NCT01016977|183686140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8545||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.8545
91895476|NCT01016977|183686140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2895||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.2895
91895477|NCT01016977|183686140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8234||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.8234
91895478|NCT01016977|183686140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3644||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.3644
91895479|NCT01016977|183686140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.6540
91895480|NCT01016977|183686141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7546||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.7546
91769643|NCT00452790|183426361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any local reaction (tenderness, induration and erythema) within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.690
91790128|NCT00282464|183459372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0957||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 4||||0.0957
91895481|NCT01016977|183686141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7705||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.7705
91895482|NCT01016977|183686141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0259||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.0259
91895483|NCT01016977|183686141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9252||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.9252
91895484|NCT01016977|183686141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2927||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.2927
91895485|NCT01016977|183686142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.4010
91895486|NCT01016977|183686142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.0963
91895487|NCT01016977|183686142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9291||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.9291
91895488|NCT01016977|183686142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5523||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.5523
91895489|NCT01016977|183686142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2556||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.2556
91895490|NCT01016977|183686143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4037||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.4037
91895491|NCT01016977|183686143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8662||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.8662
91895492|NCT01016977|183686143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5951||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.5951
91895493|NCT01016977|183686143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2349||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.2349
91895494|NCT01016977|183686143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3461||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.3461
91895495|NCT01016977|183686144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.7250
91895496|NCT01016977|183686144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9743||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.9743
91705891|NCT03300050|183306318|OTHER||Difference|17.9||||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|49.0|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||49.00|-16.24|0.4421
91705892|NCT03300050|183306318|OTHER||Difference|-41.8||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.75|-4.8|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||-4.80|-68.75|0.0461
91895497|NCT01016977|183686144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9816||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.9816
91895498|NCT01016977|183686144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8809||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.8809
91895499|NCT01016977|183686144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1679||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.1679
91895500|NCT01981473|183686232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||As there was only one primary endpoint, no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|Logistic regression was to be used but the model was not fit as there were no antibodies in the etanercept group. Fisher's exact test was used.||This sample was to provide \>95% power to detect a difference of 12% in the proportion of participants positive for antidrug antibodies between the group of participants treated with a soluble receptor TNF inhibitor (etanercept) and the group of participants treated with mAB TNF inhibitors (adalimumab and infliximab) (5% vs 17%, respectively), using a Chi square test with continuity correction, an alpha of 0.05, and attrition rate of 15%.||||<0.0001
91895501|NCT03486457|183686305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|32.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.45|42.25|||Normal approximation|||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between tofacitinib 5 mg BID and placebo and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||42.25|22.45|<0.0001
91895502|NCT03486457|183686306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|15.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.79||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|24.83|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||24.83|6.05|0.0013
91895503|NCT03486457|183686306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|30.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.53|40.76|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.76|19.53|<0.0001
91895504|NCT03486457|183686306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|51.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.57|62.37|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||62.37|40.57|<0.0001
91895505|NCT03486457|183686306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|36.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|50.12|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||50.12|23.41|<0.0001
91895506|NCT03486457|183686306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.14|38.39|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||38.39|10.14|0.0008
91895507|NCT03486457|183686306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|27.85|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||27.85|0.09|0.0486
91895508|NCT03486457|183686307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.1|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||4.10|-1.90|0.4730
91895509|NCT03486457|183686307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|5.14|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||5.14|-1.48|0.2792
91895510|NCT03486457|183686307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.91|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||12.91|1.79|0.0095
91895511|NCT03486457|183686307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.63|19.84|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||19.84|6.63|<0.0001
91895512|NCT03486457|183686307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|22.44|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||22.44|4.03|0.0048
91895513|NCT03486457|183686307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|26.17|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||26.17|0.30|0.0449
91895514|NCT03486457|183686308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|7.42|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||7.42|-1.54|0.1985
91769644|NCT00452790|183426362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.933
91769645|NCT00452790|183426362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.776
91895515|NCT03486457|183686308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|13.8|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||13.80|2.38|0.0055
91895516|NCT03486457|183686308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|27.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|35.9|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||35.90|18.51|<0.0001
91895517|NCT03486457|183686308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|22.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|34.54|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||34.54|9.58|0.0005
91895518|NCT03486457|183686308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|18.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|32.57|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.57|4.20|0.0111
91895519|NCT03486457|183686309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.03|-0.20|0.0097
91895520|NCT03486457|183686309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.04|-0.22|0.0043
91895521|NCT03486457|183686309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.11|-0.30|<0.0001
91895522|NCT03486457|183686309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.11|-0.32|<0.0001
91895523|NCT03486457|183686309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.00|-0.18|0.0535
91895524|NCT03486457|183686309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.16|0.0940
91895525|NCT03486457|183686310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|29.85|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||29.85|-3.72|0.1270
91895526|NCT03486457|183686310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.6634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|22.1|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||22.10|-14.07|0.6634
91895527|NCT03486457|183686310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|40.33|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.33|3.23|0.0214
91895528|NCT03486457|183686310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|42.57|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||42.57|5.50|0.0110
91895529|NCT03486457|183686310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.1896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|31.36|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||31.36|-6.21|0.1896
91895530|NCT03486457|183686310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|24.41|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||24.41|-10.75|0.4466
91895531|NCT03486457|183686311|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|29.85|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||29.85|-3.72|0.1270
91705893|NCT03300050|183306322|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.71||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.48|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgA (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||3.48|0.84|0.1665
91705894|NCT03300050|183306322|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.2|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgA (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.20|0.55|0.9377
91705895|NCT03300050|183306322|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.64||||0.3088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.33|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.33|0.31|0.3088
91705896|NCT03300050|183306323|OTHER||Difference|16.3||||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.85|48.88|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||48.88|-19.85|0.4667
91895532|NCT03486457|183686311|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.6634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|22.1|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||22.10|-14.07|0.6634
91705897|NCT03300050|183306323|OTHER||Difference|-1.8|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.76|32.17|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||32.17|-34.76|>0.9999
91895533|NCT03486457|183686311|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|40.33|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.33|3.23|0.0214
91895534|NCT03486457|183686311|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|42.57|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||42.57|5.50|0.0110
91895535|NCT03486457|183686311|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.1896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|31.36|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||31.36|-6.21|0.1896
91895536|NCT03486457|183686311|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|24.41|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||24.41|-10.75|0.4466
91831831|NCT04322604|183543024|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|80.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.1|87.9|||Fisher Exact|||||87.9|70.1|<0.0001
91705898|NCT03300050|183306323|OTHER||Difference|-18.1||||0.4495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.15|19.37|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||19.37|-51.15|0.4495
91769646|NCT00452790|183426362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.596
91769647|NCT00452790|183426362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.909
91769648|NCT00452790|183426362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.683
91769649|NCT00452790|183426362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
91769650|NCT00452790|183426362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.203
91769651|NCT00452790|183426362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Erythema-Mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.399
91769652|NCT00452790|183426362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.382
91769653|NCT00452790|183426362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
91895537|NCT03486457|183686312|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.633|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.45|-3.95|<0.0001
91705899|NCT03300050|183306327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.61||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.77|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.77|0.94|0.0928
91705900|NCT03300050|183306327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.32||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.26|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.26|0.77|0.4198
91769654|NCT00452790|183426362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any Local reaction (tenderness, induration, erythema) within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.738
91769655|NCT00452790|183426363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.918
91769656|NCT00452790|183426363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.906
91769657|NCT00452790|183426363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.404
91769658|NCT00452790|183426363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.305
91769659|NCT00452790|183426363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.771
91769660|NCT00452790|183426363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
91705901|NCT03300050|183306327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.82||||0.6754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.45|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.45|0.47|0.6754
91705902|NCT03300050|183306328|OTHER||Difference|19.2||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.19|50.49|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||50.49|-17.19|0.4515
91831832|NCT04322604|183543025|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|1.5||||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.7|-1.6|0.3427
91769661|NCT00452790|183426363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.867
91769662|NCT00452790|183426363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.735
91769663|NCT00452790|183426363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
91769664|NCT00452790|183426363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
91769665|NCT00452790|183426363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any Local Reaction (tenderness, induration, erythema) within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.842
91769666|NCT00452790|183426364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.908
91769667|NCT00452790|183426364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4(12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.772
91705903|NCT03300050|183306328|OTHER||Difference|14.3||||0.4837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.22|46.19|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||46.19|-21.22|0.4837
91705904|NCT03300050|183306328|OTHER||Difference|-4.9|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|30.46|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||30.46|-38.80|>0.9999
91705905|NCT03300050|183306331|OTHER||Difference|2.93||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|7.49|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on log10 AUC, using the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||7.49|1.56|0.0031
91705906|NCT03300050|183306331|OTHER||Difference|1.25||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.23|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on log10 AUC, using the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||2.23|0.73|0.2048
91769668|NCT00452790|183426364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.681
91769669|NCT00452790|183426364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.881
91769670|NCT00452790|183426364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.509
91769671|NCT00452790|183426364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-severe within 4 days of the toddler dose (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
91769672|NCT00452790|183426364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-any within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.880
91769673|NCT00452790|183426364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-mild within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.739
91769674|NCT00452790|183426364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-moderate within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
91769675|NCT00452790|183426364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
91769676|NCT00452790|183426364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any local reaction (tenderness, induration, erythema) within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.446
91705907|NCT03300050|183306331|OTHER||Difference|0.43||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||1.00|0.18|0.0392
91705908|NCT03300050|183306332|OTHER||Difference|1.16||||0.8243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|4.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference on the log scale then back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: Fold Increase in AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||4.95|0.14|0.8243
91831833|NCT04322604|183543026|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-34.2|||ANCOVA|||||-34.2|-48.1|<0.0001
91769677|NCT00452790|183426365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.625
91895538|NCT03486457|183686312|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.39|-5.20|<0.0001
91895539|NCT03486457|183686312|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.39|-6.39|<0.0001
91895540|NCT03486457|183686312|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.852|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-4.17|-7.53|<0.0001
91895541|NCT03486457|183686312|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.04|-4.35|<0.0001
91895542|NCT03486457|183686312|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.27|-3.91|0.0002
91895543|NCT03486457|183686313|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.012||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.40|-5.40|0.0010
91705909|NCT03300050|183306332|OTHER||Difference|1.74||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|6.06|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference on the log scale then back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: Fold Increase in AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||6.06|0.67|0.2530
91705910|NCT03300050|183306332|OTHER||Difference|1.83||||0.5654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|39.92|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference on the log scale then back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: Fold Increase in AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||39.92|0.47|0.5654
91705911|NCT03300050|183306336|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.21||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.27|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||3.27|0.45|0.8830
91705912|NCT03300050|183306336|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.86||||0.9238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.26|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.26|0.33|0.9238
91705913|NCT03300050|183306336|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.71||||0.6926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.97|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.97|0.26|0.6926
91705914|NCT03300050|183306337|OTHER||Difference|11.7||||0.7036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|45.82|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||45.82|-25.72|0.7036
91705915|NCT03300050|183306337|OTHER||Difference|-3.8|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|31.31|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||31.31|-37.90|>0.9999
91705916|NCT03300050|183306337|OTHER||Difference|-15.5||||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.56|22.79|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||22.79|-49.56|0.6951
91790129|NCT00282464|183459372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0752||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 5||||0.0752
91705917|NCT03300050|183306341|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.65||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.33|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days post-Boost Dose||1.33|0.32|0.3203
91705918|NCT03300050|183306341|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.72||||0.5009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.47|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days post-Boost Dose||1.47|0.35|0.5009
91705919|NCT03300050|183306341|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.37|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days post-Boost Dose||2.37|0.51|0.9542
91705920|NCT03300050|183306342|OTHER||Difference|-1.7|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.62|23.79|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days post-Boost Dose||23.79|-30.62|>0.9999
91705921|NCT03300050|183306342|OTHER||Difference|6.7|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|30.34|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days post-Boost Dose||30.34|-16.24|>0.9999
91895544|NCT03486457|183686313|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.01|-7.05|<0.0001
91895545|NCT03486457|183686313|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.66|-7.70|<0.0001
91895546|NCT03486457|183686313|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-4.82|-9.20|<0.0001
91895547|NCT03486457|183686313|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.83|-6.07|0.0003
91895548|NCT03486457|183686313|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.20|-4.58|0.0323
91895549|NCT03486457|183686314|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.481||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.68|-11.46|0.0087
91895550|NCT03486457|183686314|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.487|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-6.79|-16.60|<0.0001
91895551|NCT03486457|183686314|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.796|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.66|-10.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-10.63|-21.66|<0.0001
91895552|NCT03486457|183686314|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.84|-15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-15.90|-27.84|<0.0001
91895553|NCT03486457|183686314|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.865||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.29|-12.60|0.0163
91895554|NCT03486457|183686314|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.967||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.76|-8.95|0.2977
91895555|NCT03486457|183686315|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|-0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.93|-11.37|0.0211
91769678|NCT00452790|183426365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.375
91790130|NCT00282464|183459372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3964||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 6||||0.3964
91895556|NCT03486457|183686315|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|-7.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-7.58|-18.59|<0.0001
91895557|NCT03486457|183686315|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.928|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.93|-7.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-7.38|-18.93|<0.0001
91895558|NCT03486457|183686315|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.187|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|-12.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-12.49|-25.06|<0.0001
91895559|NCT03486457|183686315|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.827||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.43|-12.59|0.0140
91895560|NCT03486457|183686315|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.931||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.64|-10.93|0.0811
91895561|NCT03486457|183686316|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.939|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|-5.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.81|-13.46|<0.0001
91895562|NCT03486457|183686316|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-4.98|-14.07|<0.0001
91895563|NCT03486457|183686316|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.472|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-12.10|-21.85|<0.0001
91705922|NCT03300050|183306342|OTHER||Difference|8.3||||0.4615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|36.04|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days post-Boost Dose||36.04|-19.94|0.4615
91895564|NCT03486457|183686316|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.506|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.36|-13.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-13.48|-23.36|<0.0001
91895565|NCT03486457|183686316|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.453||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.38|-12.06|0.0037
91895566|NCT03486457|183686316|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.267||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.18|-12.13|0.0009
91895567|NCT03486457|183686317|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|-5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.02|-9.39|<0.0001
91895568|NCT03486457|183686317|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-5.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.56|-10.18|<0.0001
91895569|NCT03486457|183686317|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.182|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|-5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.08|-9.74|<0.0001
91895570|NCT03486457|183686317|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.39|-10.21|<0.0001
91895571|NCT03486457|183686317|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615||0.6264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||1.51|-0.91|0.6264
91895572|NCT03486457|183686317|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.778||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.25|-2.82|0.1008
91895573|NCT03486457|183686318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|3.9|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||3.90|-3.02|0.8032
91769679|NCT00452790|183426365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.624
91895574|NCT03486457|183686318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|14.21|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||14.21|0.73|0.0298
91769680|NCT00452790|183426365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased appetite within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
91769681|NCT00452790|183426365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of irritability within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.282
91895575|NCT03486457|183686318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.88|1.5|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||1.50|-23.88|0.0840
91895576|NCT03486457|183686319|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.13|-0.57|0.0020
91895577|NCT03486457|183686319|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.32|-0.87|<0.0001
91895578|NCT03486457|183686319|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.9678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.31|-0.30|0.9678
91705923|NCT03300050|183306346|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.9164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.8|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||3.80|0.38|0.9164
91769682|NCT00452790|183426365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Increased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.307
91895579|NCT03486457|183686320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|26.3|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||26.30|3.63|0.0097
91705924|NCT03300050|183306346|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.76||||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.79|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.79|0.21|0.8642
91705925|NCT03300050|183306346|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.63||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.27|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.27|0.18|0.6545
91705926|NCT03300050|183306347|OTHER||Difference|7.7|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|40.96|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||40.96|-27.10|>0.9999
91769683|NCT00452790|183426365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.939
91769684|NCT00452790|183426365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any systemic event (fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.085
91769685|NCT00452790|183426366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>= 38 but \<= 39 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.111
91769686|NCT00452790|183426366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<= 40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
91790131|NCT00282464|183459372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0287||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Overall||||0.0287
91831834|NCT04322604|183543027|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|81.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|88.8|||Fisher Exact|||||88.8|71.7|<0.0001
91831835|NCT04322604|183543028|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|52.2|||Fisher Exact|||||52.2|25.4|<0.0001
91831836|NCT04322604|183543029|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|7.0||||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|21.6|||Fisher Exact|||||21.6|-7.4|0.3549
91895580|NCT03486457|183686320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.81|40.97|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.97|8.81|0.0024
91895581|NCT03486457|183686320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-17.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.55|3.7|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||3.70|-39.55|0.1042
91895582|NCT03486457|183686321|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.858||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.49|-10.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-10.29|-41.49|0.0014
91895583|NCT03486457|183686321|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.948||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.69|-17.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-17.13|-52.69|0.0002
91895584|NCT03486457|183686321|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.663||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|26.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||26.51|-15.90|0.6200
91895585|NCT03486457|183686322|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.862||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.21|-18.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Erythema: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-18.08|-61.21|0.0004
91895586|NCT03486457|183686322|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.453||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.97|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Induration: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-8.40|-41.97|0.0037
91895587|NCT03486457|183686322|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.423||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Scaling: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.61|-42.00|0.0438
91895588|NCT03486457|183686322|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-49.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.529|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.03|-28.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Erythema: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-28.19|-70.03|<0.0001
91705927|NCT03300050|183306347|OTHER||Difference|30.8||||0.1045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|58.19|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||58.19|-1.76|0.1045
91705928|NCT03300050|183306347|OTHER||Difference|23.1||||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|50.86|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||50.86|-8.62|0.2292
91831837|NCT04322604|183543030|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|8.3||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|22.7|||Fisher Exact|||||22.7|-6.3|0.2262
91831838|NCT04322604|183543031|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|5.0||||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Percent Change from Baseline||16.0|-6.1|0.3812
91895589|NCT03486457|183686322|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-29.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.47||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.52|-10.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Induration: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-10.89|-48.52|0.0023
91895590|NCT03486457|183686322|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.72||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.08|-15.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Scaling: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-15.49|-58.08|0.0009
91769687|NCT00452790|183426366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.488
91769688|NCT00452790|183426366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Decreased appetite within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.736
91769689|NCT00452790|183426366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Irritability within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.856
91769690|NCT00452790|183426366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Increased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.098
91769691|NCT00452790|183426366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Decreased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.034
91769692|NCT00452790|183426366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Any systemic event (fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
91895591|NCT03486457|183686322|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.495||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|27.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Erythema: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||27.90|-13.84|0.5048
91895592|NCT03486457|183686322|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.273||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|33.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Induration: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||33.57|-15.24|0.4575
91895593|NCT03486457|183686322|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.539||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.26|23.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Scaling: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||23.65|-22.26|0.9523
91895594|NCT03486457|183686323|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.386||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.24|-12.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-12.15|-45.24|0.0008
91895595|NCT03486457|183686323|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-46.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.632|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.45|-25.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-25.49|-67.45|<0.0001
91769693|NCT00452790|183426367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>= 38 but \<= 39 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.085
91769694|NCT00452790|183426367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<= 40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
91769695|NCT00452790|183426367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.489
91769696|NCT00452790|183426367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased appetite within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.840
91769697|NCT00452790|183426367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of irritability within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.605
91769698|NCT00452790|183426367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of increased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
91895596|NCT03486457|183686323|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.778||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.05|-5.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.47|-48.05|0.0141
91895597|NCT03486457|183686324|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.399|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.48|-6.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-6.02|-15.48|<0.0001
91769699|NCT00452790|183426367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.265
91769700|NCT00452790|183426367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any systemic event (fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.422
91769701|NCT00452790|183426368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>= 38 but \<= 39 degrees within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.815
91769702|NCT00452790|183426368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<= 40 degrees within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
91769703|NCT00452790|183426368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
91895598|NCT03486457|183686324|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.575|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|-14.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-14.37|-24.52|<0.0001
91895599|NCT03486457|183686324|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.289||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|-2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.18|-11.22|0.0039
91895600|NCT03486457|183686325|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|14.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|25.73|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||25.73|2.64|0.0160
91705929|NCT00564278|183306465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GEE model Beta|17.46||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.61|51.53||All analyses presented are at 9 months.|t-test, 2 sided|t(193) = -1.14, p=.26||"We also conducted an analysis using a Generalized Estimating Equations model adjusting for a number of covariates.~We will conduct a three-part regression analysis assessing early/middle/late effects of MPT on retention. We will also conduct moderator analyses, as described in the original study grant, to determine whether there are specific patient groups for whom a significant difference in days in treatment is found."||51.53|-16.61|0.26
91769704|NCT00452790|183426368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased appetite within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.401
91769705|NCT00452790|183426368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of irritability within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.511
91895601|NCT03486457|183686325|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|25.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.86|41.44|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||41.44|9.86|0.0015
91769706|NCT00452790|183426368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of increased sleep within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.487
91769707|NCT00452790|183426368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased sleep within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.388
91769708|NCT00452790|183426368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any systemic event fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.753
91769709|NCT02360228|183426394|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|Difference from day 5 to baseline was compared between the tACS, tDCS, and sham groups using a one way ANOVA. Degrees of freedom: df=19||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the AHRS score from baseline to 5 days between the groups.H0: μ1=μ2=μ3 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tACS group (n=8) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=7) μ3: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=7)||||0.47
91900799|NCT02876835|183696014|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.78|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.78|-0.47|0.3155
91769710|NCT02360228|183426396|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|Difference from day 5 to baseline was compared between the tACS, tDCS, and sham using a one way ANOVA. Degrees of freedom: df=19||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the PANSS score from day 5 to baseline. H0: μ1=μ2=μ3 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tACS group (n=8) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=7) μ3: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=7)||||0.37
91790132|NCT00282464|183459373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.965||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to endpoint||||0.965
91769711|NCT02360228|183426397|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|Difference from day 5 to baseline was compared between the tACS, tDCS, and sham groups using a one way ANOVA. Degrees of freedom: df=19||"The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the BACS score from baseline to 5 days between the groups:~H0: μ1=μ2=μ3 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tACS group (n=8) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=7) μ3: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=7)"||||0.11
91769712|NCT00383552|183426407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91769713|NCT00383552|183426408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91769714|NCT00383552|183426410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91769715|NCT00383552|183426411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91769716|NCT00383552|183426412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073|||||||Longitudinal Model|||||||0.073
91769717|NCT00383552|183426413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||||||BMI 25 to \<30|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91831839|NCT00295022|183543097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-1.88|||ANCOVA|||||-1.88|-4.35|<0.001
91895602|NCT03486457|183686325|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|23.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.16||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|41.0|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||41.00|5.11|0.0118
91705930|NCT00564278|183306466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.01||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline depressive symptoms and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean depressive symptoms over follow-up.|||1.01|-1.57|
91705931|NCT00564278|183306467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Work - Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.95||See under Method of Estimation, below|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline work-related disability score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean disability score in the work domain over follow-up.|||0.95|-0.50|
91769718|NCT00383552|183426413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||BMI less than 25 and for BMI 30 or more|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91769719|NCT02764385|183426432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.01||||||||2.01|1.73|
91769720|NCT02764385|183426432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|We adjust for clustering of visit within clinician and clinical site and the stepped wedge study design using generalized estimating equation methods.||||1.02|.45|.05
91769721|NCT02764385|183426433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.1||||||||2.10|1.73|
91769722|NCT03016312|183426463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.184||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.445|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.445|0.971|0.0940
91769723|NCT03016312|183426463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|1.37|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.370|0.913|0.2786
91831840|NCT00295022|183543097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-2.04|=0.001
91831841|NCT00295022|183543097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-3.43|<0.001
91705932|NCT00564278|183306467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Social-Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.92||See under Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline social-related disability score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean disability score in the social domain over follow-up.|||0.92|-0.49|
91769724|NCT03016312|183426464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.2||||0.9391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|4.97|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 6 months||4.97|-5.38|0.9391
91769725|NCT03016312|183426464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-4.03||||0.2706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|3.14|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 12 months||3.14|-11.21|0.2706
91769726|NCT03016312|183426466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.086|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.086|0.775|0.3157
91769727|NCT03016312|183426466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.2366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.072|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.072|0.754|0.2366
91769728|NCT03016312|183426467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|2.21||||0.5959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|10.37|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 6 months||10.37|-5.95|0.5959
91769729|NCT03016312|183426467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.44||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|7.23|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 12 months||7.23|-4.35|0.6262
91769730|NCT03016312|183426468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in 50% Decrease Response Rate|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-4.5|7.8|||||||Odds Ratio: 1.1 95%CI: 0.8, 1.5|7.8|-4.5|
91769731|NCT03016312|183426469|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.055||||0.5359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.251|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.251|0.890|0.5359
91769732|NCT03016312|183426469|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.238|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.238|0.869|0.6857
91769733|NCT02210000|183426481|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.212||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3716|-0.0448||Posterior probability of the treatment difference in response rate at Week 12 being greater than 0%.|Bayesian method|||||-0.0448|-0.3716|0.017
91769734|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2353|0.6553|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Nausea at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.6553|-0.2353|
91831842|NCT01239030|183543128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0046|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0046
91831843|NCT04403698|183543129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed models were used to compare bone turnover markers (CTX-I) between both treatment groups. These models were performed with an intention to treat approach, where drop-outs were considered as non-responders. The models accounted for repeated measures.||||<0.01
91895603|NCT03486457|183686326|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.259||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.60|-5.58|0.0156
91895604|NCT03486457|183686326|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.10|-6.02|<0.0001
91895605|NCT03486457|183686326|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.28|-1.65|0.0061
91895606|NCT03486457|183686327|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.01||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|32.64|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.64|-6.59|0.1930
91895607|NCT03486457|183686327|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|44.11|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||44.11|4.48|0.0162
91895608|NCT03486457|183686327|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.83||0.7068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.15|25.3|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||25.30|-17.15|0.7068
91895609|NCT03486457|183686328|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.2811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.25|-0.83|0.2811
91895610|NCT03486457|183686328|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.22|-0.96|0.2140
91895611|NCT03486457|183686328|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.22|-0.74|0.2817
91769735|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2275|1.2705|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Feeling full after meals at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||1.2705|0.2275|
91769736|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.489|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0592|1.0374|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Bloating at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||1.0374|-0.0592|
91895612|NCT03486457|183686329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.9407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.35|-0.37|0.9407
91895613|NCT03486457|183686329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.35|-0.81|0.4295
91895614|NCT03486457|183686329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.2946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.29|-0.95|0.2946
91895615|NCT03486457|183686330|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|21.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.32|32.33|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.33|10.32|0.0001
91895616|NCT03486457|183686330|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.31|48.75|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||48.75|23.31|<0.0001
91769737|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.497|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0396|0.955|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Not able to finish meal at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9550|0.0396|
91769738|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3386|0.4395|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Retching at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.4395|-0.3386|
91769739|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3242|0.2492|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Vomiting at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.2492|-0.3242|
91895617|NCT03486457|183686330|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|52.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.86|63.55|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||63.55|40.86|<0.0001
91895618|NCT03486457|183686330|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|39.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.38|53.03|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||53.03|26.38|<0.0001
91895619|NCT03486457|183686330|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|18.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|32.55|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.55|4.22|0.0110
91895620|NCT03486457|183686330|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|16.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|29.5|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||29.50|2.85|0.0173
91895621|NCT03486457|183686331|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.47|-0.79|<0.0001
91895622|NCT03486457|183686331|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.62|-0.99|<0.0001
91895623|NCT03486457|183686331|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.66|-1.08|<0.0001
91895624|NCT03486457|183686331|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.80|-1.28|<0.0001
91895625|NCT03486457|183686331|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.18|-0.69|0.0009
91895626|NCT03486457|183686331|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.06|-0.51|0.1202
91895627|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Physical Functioning Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.69|1.76|0.0003
91895628|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Role - Physical Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.35|1.01|0.0043
91895629|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Bodily Pain Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.82|1.42|0.0004
91895630|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.938||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, General Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.39|1.69|0.0002
91895631|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.203||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Vitality Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.41|0.67|0.0123
91895632|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.115||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Social Function Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.78|0.38|0.0216
91769740|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0483|0.9978|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Stomach visibly larger at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9978|-0.0483|
91895633|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Role - Emotional Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.67|-0.60|0.1290
91895634|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Mental Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.22|-0.40|0.1043
91895635|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.763|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.27|2.26|<0.0001
91895636|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.178||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.10|-0.54|0.1318
91895637|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.225||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Physical Functioning Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.95|0.11|0.0402
91895638|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Role - Physical Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.83|1.99|0.0004
91895639|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Bodily Pain Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.40|3.18|<0.0001
91895640|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|7.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, General Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.76|2.79|<0.0001
91895641|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.366||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Vitality Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.80|-0.59|0.1254
91895642|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.186||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Social Function Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.68|2.00|0.0003
91705933|NCT00564278|183306467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Family-Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.18||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline family-related disability score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean disability score in the family domain over follow-up.|||1.18|-0.08|
91705934|NCT00564278|183306468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|3.64||See Method of Estimation, below|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline QOL score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean percent of quality of life over follow-up.|||3.64|-3.61|
91769741|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0519|0.9748|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Stomach fullness at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9748|-0.0519|
91769742|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0967|0.9745|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Loss of appetite at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9745|0.0967|
91769743|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.196|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2746|0.6671|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Upper abdominal pain at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.6671|-0.2746|
91769744|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.314|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2013|0.8292|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Upper abdominal discomfort at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.8292|-0.2013|
91769745|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0323|0.7997|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Overall severity of your GP symptoms at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.7997|-0.0323|
91769746|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2366|0.3723|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Nausea/Vomiting Subscale at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.3723|-0.2366|
91769747|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1333|0.9628|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Fullness/Early Satiety Subscale at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9628|0.1333|
91769748|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.479|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0386|0.9966|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Bloating Subscale at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9966|-0.0386|
91769749|NCT02210000|183426482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0049|0.7179|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Total GCSI-DD at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.7179|-0.0049|
91769750|NCT00833040|183426490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||difference between the active and placebo groups||||<0.001
91705935|NCT00564278|183306469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.66||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline patient satisfaction and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean patient satisfaction over follow-up.|||0.66|-0.74|
91895643|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.384||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Role - Emotional Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.16|0.70|0.0140
91895644|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.268||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Mental Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.98|0.97|0.0067
91705936|NCT00564278|183306470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|15.57||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician to model the effect of MPT vs. SADT on the mean proportion of fully adherent days over the study period. We used an exchangeable covariance structure.|||15.57|2.71|
91705937|NCT03077607|183306476|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant % coefficient of variation (CV) of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|139.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.26|172.87||||||Confidence interval (CI): 90 percent (%) CI on geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with itraconazole and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using analysis of variance (ANOVA)||172.87|113.26|
91705938|NCT03077607|183306477|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|150.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.47|166.43||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with itraconazole and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||166.43|136.47|
91705939|NCT03077607|183306478|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|156.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.58|177.42||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with itraconazole and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||177.42|137.58|
91705940|NCT03077607|183306479|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|136.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.2|180.87||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with rifampin and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||180.87|103.20|
91705941|NCT03077607|183306480|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|105.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.04|113.24||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in Combination with rifampin and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||113.24|98.04|
91769751|NCT00904813|183426505|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|2.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank|An overall p-value was calculated.|SRT was used as reference group. Estimation described above is for SRT-delay. For LRT-delay HR (90% CI) was 1.22 with lower limit: 0.33, and upper limit: 3.45.|The effect of treatment regimen on local recurrence as first event in the three-armed group comparison (n = 385) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||2.56|0.06|0.52
91895645|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.12|2.23|<0.0001
91705942|NCT03077607|183306481|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|102.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.02|110.74||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in Combination with rifampin and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||110.74|94.02|
91705943|NCT04401202|183306501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91705944|NCT04165135|183306567|OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Heart zone minutes: Comparison among the age groups was performed by means of a Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.7630
91705945|NCT04165135|183306567|OTHER|||||||0.0913|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Active zone minutes: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0913
91705946|NCT04165135|183306567|OTHER|||||||0.0956|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||MVPA minutes: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0956
91705947|NCT04165135|183306568|OTHER|||||||0.0649|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0649
91705948|NCT04165135|183306569|OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0026
91769752|NCT00904813|183426505|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.35||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank|An overall p-value was calculated.|SRT was used as reference group (1.00). Estimation described above is for SRT-delay. For LRT-delay HR (95% CI) was 0.99 with lower limit: 0.68, and upper limit: 1.42.|The effect of treatment regimen on recurrence-free survival in the three armed randomisation comparison (n = 385) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||1.35|0.64|0.92
91769753|NCT00904813|183426505|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|2.27||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank||SRT was used as reference group (1.00). Estimation described above is for SRT-delay.|The effect of treatment regimen on local recurrence as first event in the pooled short-course RT comparison (n = 712) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||2.27|0.36|0.59
91769754|NCT00904813|183426505|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank||SRT was used as reference group. Estimation described above is for SRT-delay.|The effect of treatment regimen on recurrence-free survival in the pooled short-course RT comparison (n = 712) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||1.18|0.69|0.39
91769755|NCT00904813|183426506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.32||The threshold of statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group B was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and short-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||1.32|0.40|0.289
91769756|NCT00904813|183426506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.84||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group B was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and short-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||0.84|0.30|0.009
91831844|NCT04403698|183543130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed models were used to compare bone turnover markers (PINP) between both treatment groups. These models were performed with an intention to treat approach, where drop-outs were considered as non-responders. The models accounted for repeated measures.||||0.05
91895646|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.73|0.81|0.0094
91705949|NCT04165135|183306570|OTHER|||||||0.9493|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.9493
91705950|NCT04165135|183306570|OTHER|||||||0.8305|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.8305
91705951|NCT04165135|183306570|OTHER|||||||0.8725|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.8725
91769757|NCT00904813|183426506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p-value=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group B was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and short-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||0.65|0.23|<0.001
91831845|NCT04403698|183543131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in patient numbers exceeding reference ranges between both treatment groups at week 48||||0.042
91831846|NCT04403698|183543132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in patient numbers exceeding reference ranges between both treatment groups.||||0.042
91895647|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.049||0.7098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Physical Functioning Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.46|-1.68|0.7098
91895648|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.234||0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Role - Physical Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.47|-1.40|0.4019
91705952|NCT04165135|183306570|OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym Weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.3380
91705953|NCT04165135|183306570|OTHER|||||||0.9706|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at Intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.9706
91705954|NCT04165135|183306570|OTHER|||||||0.1727|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1727
91705955|NCT04165135|183306570|OTHER|||||||0.0099|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0099
91705956|NCT04165135|183306571|OTHER|||||||0.6151|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.6151
91705957|NCT04165135|183306571|OTHER|||||||0.9332|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.9332
91705958|NCT04165135|183306571|OTHER|||||||0.4726|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.4726
91769758|NCT00904813|183426506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p-value = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group E was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and long-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||6.37|0.39|0.521
91769759|NCT00904813|183426507|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age, sex and type of surgery.|No pCR was used as reference group.|The association between pathological complete response (pCR), eg no signs of viable tumour or metastatic nodes (T0N0) and overall survival (OS) was assessed using Cox-regression model.||0.99|0.26|0.046
91831847|NCT00977665|183543135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.603||||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.677|2.47||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures model|Fixed effects: categorical week in trial by treatment interaction, center, and baseline UMSARS score.||||2.470|-3.677|0.6984
91895649|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.186||0.7537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Bodily Pain Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.71|-1.97|0.7537
91705959|NCT04165135|183306571|OTHER|||||||0.4111|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym Weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.4111
91705960|NCT04165135|183306571|OTHER|||||||0.0892|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at Intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0892
91705961|NCT04165135|183306571|OTHER|||||||0.1642|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1642
91831848|NCT00977665|183543144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|2.186||||||||2.186|0.646|
91831849|NCT01662882|183543189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.0253
91705962|NCT04165135|183306571|OTHER|||||||0.7256|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.7256
91705963|NCT04165135|183306572|OTHER|||||||0.0745|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0745
91705964|NCT04165135|183306572|OTHER|||||||0.2177|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2177
91705965|NCT04165135|183306572|OTHER|||||||0.2121|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2121
91769760|NCT01755234|183426529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91769761|NCT01755234|183426530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91769762|NCT01755234|183426531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.96
91769763|NCT01755234|183426532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.84
91769764|NCT04663321|183426618|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.0|||ANCOVA|||||8.0|-1.4|0.168
91769765|NCT04663321|183426618|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.7|-6.9|0.697
91769766|NCT04663321|183426619|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.6|||ANCOVA|||||6.6|-0.8|0.124
91769767|NCT04663321|183426619|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.4|||ANCOVA|||||6.4|-2.7|0.417
91769768|NCT04663321|183426622|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-1.0|0.187
91769769|NCT04663321|183426622|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.1|||ANCOVA|||||3.1|-4.3|0.738
91769770|NCT04663321|183426623|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS means|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-0.8|0.182
91769771|NCT04663321|183426624|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.4|0.630
91769772|NCT04663321|183426624|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.9|0.549
91769773|NCT04663321|183426625|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.0|0.062
91769774|NCT04663321|183426625|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.878
91769775|NCT05108246|183426627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||P-value is calculated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in balance was assessed by calculating a change score between pre-test and end point scores for balance. Change scores were then compared using Mann-Whitney U test and reported as Median (Interquartile range).||||.001
91769776|NCT05108246|183426627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P-value is calculated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in balance was assessed by calculating a change score between pre-test and end point scores for balance. Change scores were then compared using Mann-Whitney U test and reported as Median (Interquartile range).||||.003
91769777|NCT04862065|183426686|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.92|99.99|||Binomial Distribution|Specificity sample size is a minimum of 15,000 donors.||||99.99|99.92|
91769778|NCT04862065|183426687|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.09|
91769779|NCT04862065|183426688|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.87|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|94.87|
91831850|NCT01662882|183543189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.0004
91831851|NCT01662882|183543189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4184||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.4184
91769780|NCT00718510|183426690|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||General Psychopathology Subscale Score|ANOVA|F(1,11)=5.03||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of PANSS between L-arginine and Placebo. A two-factor ANOVA was used across all subjects with the within-subject factor being the treatment phase (L-arginine first/Placebo second or Placebo first/L-arginine second) and the between-subject factor being the day of treatment (time). A sample size of 14 patients was needed to give 90% power to detect a 4 point difference on the PANSS. This included a drop-out rate of about 10%.||||<0.05
91769781|NCT00718510|183426691|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of CGI ratings between L-arginine and Placebo. A two-factor ANOVA was used across all subjects with the within-subject factor being the treatment phase (L-arginine first/Placebo second or Placebo first/L-arginine second) and the between-subject factor being the day of treatment (time).||||0.46
91769782|NCT00718510|183426692|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of CDSS ratings between L-arginine and Placebo. A two-factor ANOVA was used across all subjects with the within-subject factor being the treatment phase (L-arginine first/Placebo second or Placebo first/L-arginine second) and the between-subject factor being the day of treatment (time).||||0.55
91895650|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, General Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.85|-1.40|0.3595
91895651|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Vitality Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.99|-1.01|0.1919
91895652|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.209||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Social Function Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.67|-2.10|0.8163
91895653|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.368||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|4.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Role - Emotional Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.93|-0.47|0.1048
91895654|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.392||0.6118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Mental Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.45|-2.04|0.6118
91705966|NCT04165135|183306572|OTHER|||||||0.2336|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2336
91895655|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.6996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.39|-1.61|0.6996
91705967|NCT04165135|183306572|OTHER|||||||0.419|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.4190
91705968|NCT04165135|183306572|OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0252
91769783|NCT00423657|183426695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure between ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam was calculated. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95%CI was higher than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.0|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in clinical cure rate of ceftaroline in comparison with vancomycin plus aztreonam in adult subjects with cSSSI.||5.0|-5.8|
91769784|NCT04664153|183426711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.74||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.76|-20.12|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-20.12|-58.76|0.0004
91769785|NCT04664153|183426712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.02|-2.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-2.77|-7.02|<0.0001
91769786|NCT00474123|183426744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.3
91790133|NCT00282464|183459374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to endpoint||||0.860
91895656|NCT03486457|183686332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.424||0.2122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.59|-1.03|0.2122
91895657|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.25|0.0722
91705969|NCT04165135|183306572|OTHER|||||||0.2143|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2143
91705970|NCT04165135|183306573|OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0085
91705971|NCT04165135|183306573|OTHER|||||||0.1098|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1098
91705972|NCT04165135|183306573|OTHER|||||||0.2703|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2703
91769787|NCT00474123|183426745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.65
91769788|NCT00474123|183426746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.02
91769789|NCT00474123|183426747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.85
91769790|NCT01009060|183426761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.049||||0.7239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.288|0.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 1||0.190|-0.288|0.7239
91769791|NCT01009060|183426761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018||||0.8351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.127|0.163|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 2||0.163|-0.127|0.8351
91895658|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.05|-0.27|0.0035
91895659|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.00|-0.27|0.0475
91769792|NCT01009060|183426761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.088||||0.4541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.287|0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 3||0.110|-0.287|0.4541
91769793|NCT01009060|183426761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089||||0.4148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.272|0.093|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 4||0.093|-0.272|0.4148
91769794|NCT01009060|183426761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.086||||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.082|0.254|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 5||0.254|-0.082|0.3887
91769795|NCT01009060|183426761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.195||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.093|0.484|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 6||0.484|-0.093|0.2594
91769796|NCT01009060|183426761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.139|0.344|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 7||0.344|-0.139|0.4778
91831852|NCT01662882|183543189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.0008
91895660|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.00|-0.26|0.0537
91895661|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.04|-0.20|0.1977
91769797|NCT01009060|183426762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.737||||0.6947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.884|2.409|||ANCOVA|||||2.409|-3.884|0.6947
91769798|NCT01009060|183426763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.252||||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.535|0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Speed of Processing/Simple Reaction Time|||0.030|-0.535|0.1399
91769799|NCT01009060|183426763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179||||0.3992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.176|0.534|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Attention/Vigilance|||0.534|-0.176|0.3992
91769800|NCT01009060|183426763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.391||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.845|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Working Memory|||0.845|-0.063|0.1547
91895662|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.13|-0.38|0.0001
91769801|NCT01009060|183426763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.279||||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.127|0.685|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Visual Learning|||0.685|-0.127|0.2531
91769802|NCT01009060|183426763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.398||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.167|0.963|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Verbal Learning|||0.963|-0.167|0.2417
91769803|NCT01009060|183426763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.177||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.055|0.409|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Reasoning/Problem Solving|||0.409|-0.055|0.2069
91769804|NCT01009060|183426763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.8645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.262|0.322|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Social Cognition|||0.322|-0.262|0.8645
91769805|NCT01009060|183426763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.7873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.364|0.503|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Working Memory (Two-Back Memory)|||0.503|-0.364|0.7873
91769806|NCT01009060|183426764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.024||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.872|-1.175|||ANCOVA||For Speed of Processing|||-1.175|-6.872|0.0225
91831853|NCT01662882|183543190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance P value testing for an overall difference in the mean cortical SUVR between the clinical diagnostic groups.||||0.0039
91831854|NCT01662882|183543190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0357||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.0357
91705973|NCT04165135|183306573|OTHER|||||||0.3366|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym Weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.3366
91769807|NCT01009060|183426764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.24||||0.3317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.085|1.605|||ANCOVA||For Attention/Vigilance|||1.605|-6.085|0.3317
91769808|NCT01009060|183426764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.038||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.482|1.406|||ANCOVA||For Working Memory|||1.406|-5.482|0.3243
91769809|NCT01009060|183426764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.746||||0.7497|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.667|3.175|||ANCOVA||For Visual Learning|||3.175|-4.667|0.7497
91831855|NCT01662882|183543190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.0010
91895663|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.07|-0.29|0.0018
91895664|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.19|-0.47|<0.0001
91895665|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.14|-0.42|0.0002
91895666|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.23|0.0835
91705974|NCT04165135|183306573|OTHER|||||||0.0992|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at Intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0992
91769810|NCT01009060|183426764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.112||||0.1585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.537|6.761|||ANCOVA||For Verbal Learning|||6.761|-0.537|0.1585
91895667|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.21|0.0825
91895668|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.07|-0.13|0.5616
91895669|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.24|0.0748
91895670|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.16|-0.15|0.9477
91705975|NCT04165135|183306573|OTHER|||||||0.1194|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1194
91769811|NCT01009060|183426764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.972||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.709|4.654|||ANCOVA||For Reasoning and Problem Solving|||4.654|-2.709|0.6582
91769812|NCT01009060|183426764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.338||||0.9092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.316|4.639|||ANCOVA||For Social Cognition|||4.639|-5.316|0.9092
91769813|NCT01009060|183426765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.024||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.237|1.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||1.190|-3.237|0.4406
91769814|NCT01009060|183426766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.876||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.743|2.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||2.990|-6.743|0.5197
91769815|NCT01009060|183426767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.824||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.334|5.982|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||5.982|-2.334|0.4637
91769816|NCT03349723|183426794|OTHER||Slope|0.9806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0322|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9155|1.0457|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate.||1.0457|0.9155|
91769817|NCT03349723|183426795|OTHER||Slope|0.9892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0339|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9207|1.0577|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate.||1.0577|0.9207|
91769818|NCT03409796|183426800|OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Gluten 3 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. Change in Vh:Cd follows a normal distribution. A 1-sided paired t-test was used to compare Baseline and follow-up Vh:Cd measures. The normality assumption was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. If the data was not normal at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare Vh:CdBaseline (B) and Vh:Cd15.||||0.385
91705976|NCT04165135|183306573|OTHER|||||||0.0549|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0549
91831856|NCT01662882|183543190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2118||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.2118
91831857|NCT00518115|183543191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.18|0.2968
91831858|NCT00518115|183543191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.64|0.1860
91831859|NCT00518115|183543191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.03|0.0027
91831860|NCT00518115|183543191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.2766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.62|0.2766
91705977|NCT04165135|183306574|OTHER|||||||0.0088|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison among age groups was performed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0088
91769819|NCT03409796|183426800|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Gluten 10 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. Change in Vh:Cd follows a normal distribution. A 1-sided paired t-test was used to compare Baseline and follow-up Vh:Cd measures. The normality assumption was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. If the data was not normal at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare Vh:CdB and Vh:Cd15.||||0.003
91769820|NCT03409796|183426801|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Poisson distribution|||Gluten 3 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. The Poisson distribution assumption was checked using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Poisson generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) was fitted to data, where IEL measurements were grouped by participant (the random effect) and the change in IEL counts was the fixed effect. If the data was found to not be Poisson at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare IELB and IEL15.||||0.010
91769821|NCT03409796|183426801|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Poisson distribution|||Gluten 10 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. The Poisson distribution assumption was checked using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Poisson GLMM was fitted to data, where IEL measurements were grouped by participant (the random effect) and the change in IEL counts was the fixed effect. If the data was found to not be Poisson at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare IELB and IEL15.||||0.006
91769822|NCT00770653|183426814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.267||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2264|5.3076|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (H0) = mean increase of HDL after 24 weeks of treatment of Pio/Met group ≤ the mean increase in the Gli/Met group. Alternate hypothesis (H1) = mean increase of HDL after 24 weeks of treatment of Pio/Met group \> the mean increase in the Gli/Met group. The relevant clinical effect size to detect with adequate power was 0.35. With this assumption, a one sided t-test with a type I error rate had 80% power to reject the H0 for the H1 when the sample size was 130 patients per group.||5.3076|1.2264|0.0018
91769823|NCT00770653|183426815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.267||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2264|5.3076|||ANCOVA||Deviation from the normal distribution assumption was detected for original and rank-transformed data for all time-points due to p-value of Shapiro-Wilk test, indicating the normal distribution assumption might be distrusted for HDL-cholesterol data.|||5.3076|1.2264|0.0018
91831861|NCT00518115|183543191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.94|0.0057
91831862|NCT00518115|183543191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.96|0.0032
91895671|NCT03486457|183686333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.19|-0.07|0.3829
91769824|NCT00770653|183426816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1311||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2951|0.0329|||ANCOVA|||||0.0329|-0.2951|0.1167
91769825|NCT00770653|183426817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9479||||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4331|3.5373|||ANCOVA|||||3.5373|-39.4331|0.1012
91769826|NCT00770653|183426818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1292||||0.7486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0109|23.2693|||ANCOVA|||||23.2693|-17.0109|0.7486
91769827|NCT00770653|183426819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2355||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1253|6.6543|||ANCOVA|||||6.6543|-7.1253|0.9464
91769828|NCT00770653|183426820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1574||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0193|0.3341|||ANCOVA|||||0.3341|-0.0193|0.0807
91895672|NCT03486457|183686334|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.084||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|10.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||10.12|1.90|0.0044
91769829|NCT00770653|183426821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5039|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4222|-2.5855|||ANCOVA|||||-2.5855|-6.4222|<.0001
91769830|NCT00770653|183426822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0707||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4665|8.6079|||ANCOVA|||||8.6079|-6.4665|0.7799
91769831|NCT00770653|183426823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3161|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0994|7.5329|||ANCOVA|||||7.5329|5.0994|<.0001
91769832|NCT00770653|183426824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8323||||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8312|1.1665|||ANCOVA|||||1.1665|-2.8312|0.4131
91769833|NCT00770653|183426825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8847|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3067|-0.4627|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4627|-1.3067|<.0001
91769834|NCT00770653|183426826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4903||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3979|0.4172|||ANCOVA|||||0.4172|-5.3979|0.0929
91769835|NCT00770653|183426827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8832||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6571|0.8906|||ANCOVA|||||0.8906|-2.6571|0.3279
91769836|NCT00770653|183426828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher Exact|-3.33||||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|8.39|||Fisher Exact|||The number and percentage of participants with a calculated compliance \>80% and \<120% are presented for both treatment groups. In addition, the p-values of Fisher's exact test, the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the percentage of patients per treatment group and for the difference between the treatment groups are provided.||8.39|-14.83|0.2895
91831863|NCT00518115|183543191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.72|0.0786
91831864|NCT00518115|183543191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.99|0.0022
91831865|NCT04891419|183543210|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|91.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|95.9||P-value is based on the Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||95% exact unconditional confidence interval for between-group difference in responder rate.|||95.9|83.7|<.0001
91895673|NCT03486457|183686334|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|15.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||15.88|5.71|<0.0001
91831866|NCT04891419|183543211|SUPERIORITY||Control Difference|54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|59.9||P-value estimated using mixed effects model.|Mixed Models Analysis||95% CI estimated using mixed effects model.|||59.9|49.2|<.0001
91831867|NCT04891419|183543212|SUPERIORITY||Control Difference|42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|48.0||95% CI and p-value estimated using mixed effects model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.0|37.6|<.0001
91895674|NCT03486457|183686334|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.74|-3.90|0.7062
91895675|NCT03486457|183686335|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.404||0.7228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Work Time Missed: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.63|-3.92|0.7228
91769837|NCT00770653|183426829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.9516||||0.3517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.1999|34.2967|||ANCOVA|||||34.2967|-94.1999|0.3517
91769838|NCT00770653|183426830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-151.4477||||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-386.2256|83.3302|||ANCOVA|||||83.3302|-386.2256|0.1979
91769839|NCT00770653|183426831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.8589||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.3229|113.6052|||ANCOVA|||||113.6052|-163.3229|0.7186
91769840|NCT00770653|183426832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9728||||0.5058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9915|20.0459|||ANCOVA|||||20.0459|-39.9915|0.5058
91769841|NCT00770653|183426833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.3988||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7193|117.5169|||ANCOVA|||||117.5169|-60.7193|0.5230
91895676|NCT03486457|183686335|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.561||0.1682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.39|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Impairment While Working: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.72|-15.39|0.1682
91895677|NCT03486457|183686335|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.707||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Overall Work Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.13|-15.56|0.1900
91895678|NCT03486457|183686335|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.581||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Work Time Missed: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.05|-6.22|0.6757
91895679|NCT03486457|183686335|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.905||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|7.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Impairment While Working: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.37|-12.13|0.6285
91895680|NCT03486457|183686335|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.333||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|7.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Overall Work Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.97|-13.23|0.6228
91895681|NCT03486457|183686336|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-6.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Activity Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-6.72|-18.90|<0.0001
91705978|NCT03714776|183306641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91769842|NCT00770653|183426834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-367.2639||||0.2203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-964.3923|229.8646|||ANCOVA|||||229.8646|-964.3923|0.2203
91769843|NCT00770653|183426835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0794||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.6468|151.8057|||ANCOVA|||||151.8057|-95.6468|0.5850
91769844|NCT00770653|183426836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4205||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3207|-0.5202|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5202|-4.3207|0.0138
91769845|NCT00770653|183426837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0009||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1139|1.8578|||ANCOVA|||||1.8578|-30.1139|0.0817
91769846|NCT00770653|183426838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9935||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4843|2.4712|||ANCOVA|||||2.4712|-0.4843|0.1761
91769847|NCT00770653|183426839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5263||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3832|3.6695|||ANCOVA|||||3.6695|1.3832|0.0002
91769848|NCT00770653|183426840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2345||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0675|5.4016|||ANCOVA|||||5.4016|1.0675|0.0055
91831868|NCT04891419|183543213|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|93.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.1|97.2||P-value is based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||95% exact unconditional confidence interval for between-group difference in responder rate.|||97.2|86.1|<.0001
91831869|NCT04891419|183543214|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|92.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.9|96.5||P-value is based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||95% exact unconditional confidence interval for between-group difference in responder rate.|||96.5|84.9|<.0001
91831870|NCT01055769|183543215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Linezolid 600 mg oral suspension was the Test treatment, while linezolid 600 mg tablet was the Reference treatment.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|97.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.11|102.75||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of linezolid was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||102.75|93.11|
91769849|NCT00770653|183426841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9712||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3863|5.5562|||ANCOVA|||||5.5562|0.3863|0.0264
91769850|NCT00770653|183426842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5394||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0114|5.0901|||ANCOVA|||||5.0901|-0.0114|0.0509
91769851|NCT00770653|183426843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1718||||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|4.8097|||ANCOVA|||||4.8097|-0.4660|0.1013
91769852|NCT00770653|183426844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1346||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7338|5.0031|||ANCOVA|||||5.0031|-0.7338|0.1363
91769853|NCT00770653|183426845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4181||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6561|5.4922|||ANCOVA|||||5.4922|-0.6561|0.1165
91769854|NCT01908426|183426858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by etiology of disease, geo. region, presence of extrahepatic spread of disease and/or macrovascular invasion.||||0.92|0.63|0.0049
91769855|NCT01908426|183426859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.52|||Log Rank|The Log Rank Test was stratified by etiology of disease, geographic region, presence of extrahepatic spread of disease and/or macrovascular invasion.||||0.52|0.36|< 0.0001
91895682|NCT03486457|183686336|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.157||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Activity Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.28|-5.17|0.7384
91895683|NCT00372229|183686337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45|||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-39.7|-17.3||||||||-17.3|-39.7|
91769856|NCT01908426|183426860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0086
91769857|NCT01782898|183426868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.82
91769858|NCT01782898|183426869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
91769859|NCT01782898|183426870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
91852135|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.5743|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-11.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-11.1|0.5743
91895684|NCT00372229|183686338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83|||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-19.2|-3.4||||||||-3.4|-19.2|
91895685|NCT00372229|183686339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1838||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.2271|0.7289|||F-test|||||0.7289|-0.2271|0.1739
91895686|NCT00372229|183686372|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|13.9||||||||13.9|-20.2|
91705979|NCT03714776|183306642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.454
91705980|NCT03714776|183306642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||0.909
91705981|NCT03714776|183306642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||0.132
91705982|NCT03714776|183306642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||0.659
91705983|NCT03714776|183306642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||0.474
91705984|NCT03714776|183306642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||0.483
91705985|NCT03714776|183306643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.064
91705986|NCT03714776|183306643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||<0.001
91705987|NCT03714776|183306643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||<0.001
91705988|NCT03714776|183306643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||<0.001
91769860|NCT02973100|183426871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-1.07|<.001
91769861|NCT02973100|183426871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.14|<0.001
91769862|NCT02973100|183426871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.24|<.001
91769863|NCT02973100|183426872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.489|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.368|71.667|||Regression, Logistic|||||71.667|8.368|<.001
91769864|NCT02973100|183426872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.906|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.238|84.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||84.300|9.238|<.001
91769865|NCT02973100|183426872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.852|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.672|62.242|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.242|7.672|<.001
91769866|NCT02973100|183426873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-2.02|<0.001
91769867|NCT02973100|183426873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.91|<0.001
91769868|NCT02973100|183426873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.72|-2.12|<0.001
91769869|NCT02973100|183426874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-2.3|0.025
91769870|NCT02973100|183426874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-3.4|<0.001
91769871|NCT02973100|183426874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-3.7|<0.001
91895687|NCT00372229|183686373|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|24.2||||||||24.2|-0.1|
91895688|NCT04055090|183686388|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, and use of gabapentin/pregabalin as main fixed effects|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, and use of gabapentin/pregabalin as main fixed effects. The Baseline average 24-hour pain score was included as a covariate.|||-0.02|-1.76|0.0460
91705989|NCT03714776|183306643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||<0.001
91705990|NCT03714776|183306643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||<0.001
91895689|NCT04055090|183686390|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2190
91769872|NCT00960622|183426879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-tests for inter-group differences between baseline and end-of-study measurements.Regression analysis, physiological correlates of statistically significant between-group changes.~P\<0.05 chosen for statistical significance"||11.3|-6.3|<0.05
91769873|NCT01419236|183426895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|1.91|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.91|-0.59|0.380
91769874|NCT01419236|183426896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.08|-0.96|0.164
91769875|NCT01419236|183426897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|1.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.15|-0.31|0.342
91769876|NCT01419236|183426898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.57|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.57|0.05|0.079
91769877|NCT01419236|183426899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.10|-0.50|0.535
91769878|NCT01419236|183426900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.03||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|2.27|||ANCOVA|||||2.27|-0.22|0.172
91769879|NCT01419236|183426901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|1.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.04|-0.41|0.473
91769880|NCT01419236|183426902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.87|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||0.87|-1.03|0.885
91831871|NCT01055769|183543216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Linezolid 600 mg oral suspension was the Test treatment, while linezolid 600 mg tablet was the Reference treatment.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|113.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.26|122.75||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of linezolid was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||122.75|105.26|
91705991|NCT01618916|183306651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.92|||<|0.001||90.0|-63.84|-35.99|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-35.99|-63.84|<0.001
91705992|NCT01618916|183306651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.85|||<|0.001||90.0|-48.78|-20.93|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-20.93|-48.78|<0.001
91769881|NCT01419236|183426903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||0.55|-0.61|0.938
91769882|NCT01342913|183426914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.022||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.063|||ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.018|0.282
91705993|NCT01618916|183306651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.72|||<|0.001||90.0|-62.1|-33.34|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-33.34|-62.10|<0.001
91769883|NCT03112681|183426917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0001
91769884|NCT03112681|183426917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0002
91705994|NCT01618916|183306651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.26|||<|0.001||90.0|-46.69|-17.82|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-17.82|-46.69|<0.001
91769885|NCT03287791|183426923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-5.73|||ANOVA|||Analyses was performed using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model with percent change from baseline to Week 12 in the lesion count as outcome and treatment, center and treatment-by-center interaction as factors.||-5.73|-16.80|<.0001
91769886|NCT03287791|183426923|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.71||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|-4.14|||ANOVA|||Analyses was performed using an ANOVA model with percent change from baseline to Week 12 in the lesion count as outcome and treatment, center and treatment-by-center interaction as factors.||-4.14|-15.28|0.0007
91769887|NCT02891174|183426928|EQUIVALENCE|margin=10 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.7|||||The adjusted mean difference between ibuprofen and acetaminophen is presented here. The adjusted mean difference was calculated using a linear mixed model adjusting for time period by intention-to-treat principles.|||5.7|-3.7|
91769888|NCT02891174|183426929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Abdominal pain|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in abdominal pain||||0.59
91852136|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.619|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-19.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-19.3|0.6190
91705995|NCT01618916|183306651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.36|||<|0.001||90.0|-60.07|-30.64|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-30.64|-60.07|<0.001
91705996|NCT01618916|183306651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.04|||<|0.001||90.0|-46.76|-17.32|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-17.32|-46.76|<0.001
91705997|NCT01618916|183306651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.8|||<|0.001||90.0|-61.12|-32.49|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-32.49|-61.12|<0.001
91705998|NCT01618916|183306651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.64|||<|0.001||90.0|-58.95|-30.32|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-30.32|-58.95|<0.001
91705999|NCT01618916|183306651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.53||||0.44||90.0|-20.51|7.44|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127||||7.44|-20.51|0.440
91769889|NCT02891174|183426929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Perineal pain|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in perineal pain||||0.91
91769890|NCT02891174|183426929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Overall pain|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in overall pain||||0.88
91769891|NCT02891174|183426930|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91769892|NCT02891174|183426931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||First intervention (24 hours)||||0.02
91769893|NCT02891174|183426931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Second intervention (24 hours)||||0.06
91769894|NCT02891174|183426931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall satisfaction with pain control during study period||||0.04
91769895|NCT04607668|183426945|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6||Two-sided p-value for treatment effect was generated from a nonparametric ANCOVA controlling for stratification factors of Region and Prior chemotherapy with study baseline ANC value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.7|<0.001
91769896|NCT04607668|183426946|OTHER||aRR|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.19|||modified Poisson model|||||0.19|0.01|<0.001
91769897|NCT02250326|183426960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.94||||Based on stratification factors of ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1), sex (male or female), and current smoker status (yes or no).||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.||1.94|0.90|
91769898|NCT02250326|183426961|SUPERIORITY||Disease Control Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.207|||||95% CI was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method.||Direction of Disease Control Rate Ratio is DCR of Nab-Paclitaxel + CC-486 Combination Arm over DCR of Nab-Paclitaxel Alone|1.207|0.778|
91769899|NCT02250326|183426962|SUPERIORITY||Overall Response Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.754|||||95% CI was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method.||Direction of Overall Response Rate Ratio is ORR of Nab-Paclitaxel + CC-486 Combination Arm over ORR of nab-Paclitaxel Alone.|1.754|0.398|
91769900|NCT02250326|183426963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.57||||Based on stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 or 1), sex (male or female), and current smoker status (yes or no).||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.||2.57|1.08|
91769901|NCT04073186|183426982|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the First wearing Cycle was concluded if the lower confidence limit of leastsquare mean as greater than 32.|Least-square Mean|59.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|64.0|||Linear Mixed Model|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||64.0|54.6|
91769902|NCT04073186|183426983|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper confidence limit of least-square mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.10 logMAR.|Least-square Mean|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|-0.044||Distance (4 Meter)|Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the demoninator degrees of freedom.||||-0.044|-0.124|
91769903|NCT04073186|183426983|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper confidence limit of least-square mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.17 logMAR.|Least-square Mean|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.012|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the demoninator degrees of freedom||Intermediate (64 CM)||0.012|-0.068|
91769904|NCT04073186|183426983|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper confidence limit of least-square mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.17 logMAR|Least-square Means|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.077|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the demoninator degrees of freedom||Near (40 CM)||0.077|-0.003|
91831872|NCT01055769|183543217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Linezolid 600 mg oral suspension was the Test treatment, while linezolid 600 mg tablet was the Reference treatment.|Adjusted Geometric means ratio|97.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|102.63||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf of linezolid was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||102.63|92.92|
91895690|NCT04055090|183686391|OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.48||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, and use of gabapentin/pregabalin as main fixed effects. Baseline average 24-hour pain score is included as a covariate.|||-0.29|-2.67|0.0155
91769905|NCT04073186|183426984|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens at 4-week followup compared to it at 2-week follow-up will beconcluded if the lower confidence limit of leastsquare mean difference is greater than 0.|Least-square Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.1|||Linear Mixed Model|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Second Wearing Cycle minus First Wearing Cycle|||-0.1|-8.1|
91769906|NCT05757648|183427000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91769907|NCT05757648|183427001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
91769908|NCT05757648|183427002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.682
91769909|NCT02201524|183427025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.15|-1.01||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo: Longitudinal analysis of covariance (LANCOVA) model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.01|-9.15|
91769910|NCT02201524|183427025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.375|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.61|-1.62||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.62|-9.61|
91769911|NCT02201524|183427025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.506|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.19|-5.77||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.77|-14.19|
91769912|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.291|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.19|4.56||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||4.56|-23.19|
91769913|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.177|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.87|2.5||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||2.50|-24.87|
91769914|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.504|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.45|-4.99||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.99|-33.45|
91769915|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.387|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.71|13.11||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||13.11|-21.71|
91769916|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.273|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.25|-0.82||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.82|-35.25|
91769917|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.9|-9.23||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.23|-44.90|
91769918|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.013|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.53|8.39||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||8.39|-28.53|
91769919|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-29.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.793|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.33|-11.13||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-11.13|-47.33|
91769920|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.299|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.92|-31.05||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-31.05|-68.92|
91769921|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-24.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.26|-5.24||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.24|-43.26|
91769922|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.18|-8.75||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.75|-46.18|
91769923|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.697|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.24|-33.02||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-33.02|-72.24|
91851558|NCT02716324|183586757|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Child Patient Reported Outcomes Teacher Connectedness Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child PRO Teacher Connectedness Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.735
91769924|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-17.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.605|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.8|-0.15|||LANCOVA|||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.15|-35.80|
91706000|NCT01618916|183306651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.1||||0.108||90.0|-28.53|0.33|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127.||||0.33|-28.53|0.108
91769925|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.513|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.44|2.88||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-32.44|
91769926|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.125|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.61|-29.27||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-29.27|-66.61|
91769927|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-21.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.459|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.0|-2.49||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.49|-41.00|
91769928|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.416|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.92|1.42||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||1.42|-36.92|
91769929|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.893|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.85|-15.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.90|-55.85|
91769930|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.985|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.57|11.07||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||11.07|-32.57|
91769931|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.902|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.71|8.64||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||8.64|-34.71|
91769932|NCT02201524|183427026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-34.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.44|-11.48||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-11.48|-57.44|
91769933|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|0.72||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.72|-4.73|
91769934|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.99|0.38||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-4.99|
91769935|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.668|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|-0.86||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.86|-6.45|
91769936|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.032|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.49|2.32||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||2.32|-4.49|
91769937|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.011|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.23|-0.49||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.49|-7.23|
91769938|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.084|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.65|-1.67||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.67|-8.65|
91769939|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.224|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.07|1.39||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||1.39|-6.07|
91831873|NCT02235493|183543220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test to determine whether the median of change from Baseline in MPOMA-G score differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||Videos were reviewed and scored by 3 independent raters who were masked to patient identifiers and the clinic visits and dates when the videos were recorded. Each rater scored the individual components required for the calculation of the total MPOMA-G score for each evaluable patient video. The median of the scores across the 3 raters was obtained for each individual component and summed to generate the median MPOMA-G score used in the analyses.||||0.0625
91831874|NCT02235493|183543221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test to determine whether the median of change from Baseline in POMA-G score differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||Videos were reviewed and scored by 3 independent raters who were masked to patient identifiers and the clinic visits and dates when the videos were recorded. Each rater scored the individual components required for the calculation of the total POMA-G score for each evaluable patient video. The median of the scores across the 3 raters was obtained for each individual component and summed to generate the median POMA-G score used in the analyses.||||0.1250
91831875|NCT00827918|183543229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.8|||Difference in the Least Squares Mean|||||5.8|-7.0|0.8590
91831876|NCT00827918|183543229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|3.1|||Difference in the Least Squares Mean|||||3.1|-11.7|0.2534
91895691|NCT05478499|183686398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Full Analysis Set||15.3|2.5|<0.0001
91706001|NCT01618916|183306651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.41||||0.013||90.0|-37.13|-7.69|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127.||||-7.69|-37.13|0.013
91831877|NCT00827918|183543232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.64|||Generalized linear mixed analysis model|||||2.64|0.62|0.4976
91831878|NCT00827918|183543232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.09|||Generalized linear mixed analysis model|||||5.09|0.95|0.0653
91831879|NCT00827918|183543233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.3|-0.4|0.8199
91831880|NCT00827918|183543233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.4|-0.4|0.9486
91831881|NCT00827918|183543234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||2.0|-2.0|0.9937
91831882|NCT00827918|183543234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.9|-3.6|0.2406
91831883|NCT00827918|183543235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.2|-2.0|0.5953
91706002|NCT01618916|183306651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.93||||0.042||90.0|-32.42|-3.44|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127.||||-3.44|-32.42|0.042
91769940|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.177|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.78|-2.47||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.47|-9.78|
91769941|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.22|-5.56||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.56|-13.22|
91769942|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.71|0.21||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.21|-6.71|
91769943|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.035|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|0.45||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.45|-6.40|
91769944|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.167|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.24|-4.95||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.95|-12.24|
91769945|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.321|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.89|-0.08||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.08|-7.89|
91769946|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.304|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.68|0.07||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.07|-7.68|
91831884|NCT00827918|183543235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.6|-2.0|0.8567
91895692|NCT05478499|183686398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Patient sub-population (s-PGA ≥ 3)||18.4|2.7|<0.0001
91706003|NCT03292471|183306652|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: PNT T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time point (Pre-treatment, Post-treatment) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions (PNT raw score converted to T-score scale with m = 50, sd = 10 based on sample estimates from Fergadiotis, Hula, \& Kellough, 2015)|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.92|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and post-treatment timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||2.92|-2.07|
91706004|NCT03292471|183306652|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: PNT T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time point (Pre-treatment, Follow-up) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions (PNT raw score converted to T-score scale with m = 50, sd = 10 based on sample estimates from Fergadiotis, Hula, \& Kellough, 2015)|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|2.46|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and follow-up (2 months post-treatment) timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||2.46|-2.38|
91706005|NCT03292471|183306653|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: CAT Mean-modality T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time point (Entry, Exit) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0719|2.25|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and post-treatment timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||2.25|-0.0719|
91706006|NCT03292471|183306653|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: CAT Mean-modality T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time-point (Pre-treatment, Post-treatment) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.443|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|1.58|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and follow-up (2 months post-treatment) timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||1.58|-0.596|
91706007|NCT00911586|183306663|OTHER|Part 1 of piecewise linear regression model.|Slope|-4.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.02||0.806|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Part 1 of piecewise linear regression model.|Part 1 of piecewise linear regression model.|||||0.8060
91706008|NCT00911586|183306664|OTHER|Part 2 of piecewise linear regression model.|Slope|4.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.456||0.8286|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Part 2 of piecewise linear regression model.|Part 2 of piecewise linear regression model.|||||0.8286
91706009|NCT00938587|183306666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|-0.24|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on least squares (LS) mean difference using mixed-model repeated measure (MMRM) where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and compound symmetry (CS) as covariance structure.||-0.24|-1.21|0.0141
91706010|NCT00938587|183306666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.79|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90 % CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.79|-1.73|<0.0001
91706011|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.865||0.437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.54|1.63|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.63|-4.54|0.4370
91831885|NCT02979262|183543236|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Repeated Measures GLM|Time 2 at 16 weeks||||||>.10
91831886|NCT02979262|183543237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GEE|||||||<.01
91831887|NCT02979262|183543238|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE|||||||>.10
91831888|NCT02979262|183543239|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE|||||||>.10
91895693|NCT05478499|183686399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.6|352.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Full Analysis Set||352.0|4.6|<0.0001
91895694|NCT05478499|183686399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|317.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Patient sub-population (s-PGA ≥ 3)||317.6|4.4|<0.0001
91895695|NCT05478499|183686400|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.3|-1.6|||analysis of covariance model||analysis of covariance model|Full Analysis Set||-1.6|-3.3|<0.0001
91706012|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.858||0.1802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.58|0.57|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.57|-5.58|0.1802
91706013|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.832||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|2.07|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.07|-3.99|0.6012
91706014|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.834||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.04|1.03|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.03|-5.04|0.2753
91831889|NCT02979262|183543240|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE|||||||>.10
91831890|NCT02979262|183543241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GEE|||||||<.01
91895696|NCT05478499|183686400|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.5|||analysis of covariance model||analysis of covariance model|Patient sub-population (s-PGA ≥ 3)||-1.5|-3.3|<0.0001
91895697|NCT05478499|183686401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|105.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||105.6|5.4|<0.0001
91895698|NCT00552240|183686424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A point estimate of -6.5% or higher for the diff. in the prop. of responders (NVP - ATV/r) was to be considered consistent with a successful ArTEN study. In the worst case for both studies, if the 2 studies were to be pooled, the non-inferiority margin of -12% would then be outside the 95% confidence interval (CI).|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.041||||0.7142||95.0|-0.183|0.101|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||With 75 evaluable patients per treatment group, this study had 80% power to observe a difference no lower than -6.5% assuming the true proportions of responders are both 65%.||0.101|-0.183|0.7142
91895699|NCT00552240|183686425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for the primary analysis|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.027||||0.6479||95.0|-0.167|0.113|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.113|-0.167|0.6479
91895700|NCT00552240|183686426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for primary analysis|Difference in proportion of responders|0.084||||0.1477||95.0|-0.03|0.197|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.197|-0.030|0.1477
91706015|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.844||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|3.55|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.55|-2.56|0.7892
91706016|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.937||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.92|1.49|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.49|-4.92|0.3765
91706017|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.69|-0.49|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.49|-6.69|0.0571
91706018|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.896||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|2.29|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.29|-3.99|0.6553
91706019|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.847||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.78|0.33|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.33|-5.78|0.1427
91706020|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|3.97|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.97|-2.23|0.6430
91895701|NCT00552240|183686427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for primary analysis|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.067||||0.3703||95.0|-0.215|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.080|-0.215|0.3703
91895702|NCT00552240|183686428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.666||||0.0314||95.0|0.46|0.964|||Regression, Cox|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories.||Hazard ratio Atazanavir plus ritonavir / Nevirapine. Values \< 1 indicate faster response in nevirapine.||0.964|0.460|0.0314
91706021|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918||0.5868|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.13|4.22|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||4.22|-2.13|0.5868
91895703|NCT00552240|183686429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.628||||0.0172||95.0|0.428|0.921|||Regression, Cox|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||"Responders only~Hazard ratio Atazanavir plus ritonavir / Nevirapine. Values \< 1 indicate faster response in nevirapine."||0.921|0.428|0.0172
91895704|NCT00552240|183686457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.7315||95.0|-8.4|11.9|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||11.9|-8.4|0.7315
91706022|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873||0.586|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.12|2.08|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.08|-4.12|0.5860
91706023|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.879||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|4.95|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||4.95|-1.27|0.3288
91706024|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.846||0.9027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|2.83|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.83|-3.28|0.9027
91895705|NCT00552240|183686458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.6||||0.3625||95.0|-33.4|12.3|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||12.3|-33.4|0.3625
91895706|NCT00552240|183686459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.0164||95.0|0.9|8.8|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||8.8|0.9|0.0164
91895707|NCT00552240|183686460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9257||95.0|-8.4|9.3|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||9.3|-8.4|0.9257
91895708|NCT00552240|183686461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0375||95.0|-0.64|-0.02|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||-0.02|-0.64|0.0375
91895709|NCT00552240|183686462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.4645||95.0|-1.02|0.47|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.47|-1.02|0.4645
91895710|NCT02679573|183686472|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.1|||||Difference = Difference in responder rates (Delafloxacin treatment group minus Moxifloxacin treatment group). Confidence intervals are calculated using Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125 where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) were presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test, without stratification, was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||4.1|-4.4|
91706025|NCT00938587|183306667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871||0.671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|3.89|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.89|-2.30|0.6710
91769947|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.412|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|-2.89||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.89|-11.00|
91831891|NCT01565707|183543324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|24.0|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||"The following hypotheses were tested at the 2-sided significance level 0.05:~* H0: Change from baseline to EoT in mean MVV per micturition is the same for placebo and solifenacin succinate oral suspension~* H1: Change from baseline to EoT in mean MVV per micturition is not the same for placebo and solifenacin succinate oral suspension"||24.0|0.2|0.046
91831892|NCT01565707|183543324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|27.4|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||27.4|-36.7|
91831893|NCT01565707|183543325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|59.5|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||59.5|4.3|0.024
91895711|NCT02679573|183686473|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.3||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||16.3|3.0|
91900800|NCT02876835|183696014|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.41|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.41|-1.06|0.8069
91900801|NCT02876835|183696015|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0234||||0.9724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0474|0.0005|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0005|-0.0474|0.9724
91769948|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.607|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.65|3.11||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||3.11|-5.65|
91769949|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.586|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.18|1.51||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||1.51|-7.18|
91831894|NCT01565707|183543325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.5|41.9|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||41.9|-76.5|
91831895|NCT01565707|183543326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-0.3|0.763
91831896|NCT01565707|183543326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.0|-0.8|
91831897|NCT01565707|183543327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-0.5|0.402
91831898|NCT01565707|183543327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.5|
91895712|NCT02679573|183686474|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.8||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||4.8|-3.3|
91895713|NCT02679573|183686475|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.6||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||4.6|-3.0|
91895714|NCT02679573|183686476|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.9||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||5.9|-4.8|
91895715|NCT02679573|183686477|OTHER|||||||0.5951||||||The log-rank test was used to compare the time to all-cause mortality between the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.5951
91895716|NCT02476279|183686478|NON_INFERIORITY|To declare noninferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) needed to be less than 5% in both the intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.066|||||These numbers are in the intention-to-treat analysis population. Risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is calculated as risk of PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.066|0.006|
91895717|NCT02476279|183686478|NON_INFERIORITY|To declare noninferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) needed to be less than 5% in both the intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.06|||||These numbers are in the per protocol analysis population. Risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is calculated as risk of PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.060|-0.003|
91895718|NCT02476279|183686479|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.043|||||These numbers are in the intention-to-treat analysis population. Risk difference is calculated as risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.043|-0.002|
91895719|NCT02476279|183686479|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.044|||||These numbers are in the per protocol analysis population. Risk difference is calculated as risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.044|-0.004|
91895720|NCT00912301|183686489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|pairwise comparison low dose NaCDC against placebo||||||0.031
91895721|NCT00912301|183686489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|pairwise comparison high dose NaCDC against placebo||||||0.010
91895722|NCT01831856|183686538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.85|||Log Rank|||The primary criterion, time to first Atrial Fibrillation (AF) recurrence or atrial flutter emergence, was described using survival curves according to the Kaplan-Meier method, reporting the first and third quartiles (Q1, Q3), median, and 95% confidence interval. The time to first AF recurrence or atrial flutter emergence was compared between treatment groups using the Log rank test. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated with the Cox regression model.||1.85|0.71|0.5749
91895723|NCT02996565|183686574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|planned contrast|The planned contrast compares model-predicted change in SBP from index to 365 days in Telehealth Care vs. Best Practice Clinic-Based Care.|adjusted for baseline SBP, baseline DBP, baseline age, sex, Asian race|||1.33|-2.84|0.45
91895724|NCT02996565|183686575|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted all EHR-documented DBPs from treatment group, days elapsed from index to each DBP (time) and treatment group by time with random clinic and patient intercepts.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.51||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|planned contrast|The planned contrast compares the model-predicted change in DBP from index to 365 days in Telehealth care vs. index to 365 days in clinic based care.|adjusted for baseline SBP, baseline DBP, baseline age, sex, Asian race|||1.51|-0.95|0.64
91895725|NCT02996565|183686576|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood pf reporting high satisfaction at 6 months relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.85|1.27|<0.001
91895726|NCT02996565|183686577|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood pf reporting high satisfaction at 6 months relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.52|1.02|0.03
91831899|NCT01565707|183543328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2|0.0|0.630
91831900|NCT01565707|183543328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate..|||0.2|-0.2|
91831901|NCT01565707|183543329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-1.0|0.563
91831902|NCT01565707|183543329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.9|-1.6|
91831903|NCT01565707|183543330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-0.9|0.770
91831904|NCT01565707|183543330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.3|-0.4|
91831905|NCT01565707|183543331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.8|0.303
91831906|NCT01565707|183543331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.1|-0.9|
91831907|NCT01565707|183543332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-0.8|0.640
91831908|NCT01565707|183543332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.4|-0.9|
91831909|NCT01565707|183543333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1|-0.3|0.846
91831910|NCT01565707|183543333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.5|-1.0|
91831911|NCT01565707|183543334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.8|-1.4|
91831912|NCT01371851|183543344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0529||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was applied to urine data obtained at all time points during weeks 1-8.||||0.05
91831913|NCT03969719|183543349|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.44||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.37|-1.25|||ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-22.37|0.0696
91831914|NCT03969719|183543349|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.64||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.18|-3.89|||ANCOVA|||||-3.89|-24.18|0.0288
91831915|NCT03969719|183543350|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.36|0.6336
91831916|NCT03969719|183543350|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.52|0.1266
91831917|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.87
91831918|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.78
91831919|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.67
91831920|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.52
91895727|NCT02996565|183686578|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted the likelihood that smoking was current 12 months by treatment group with random clinic intercept.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The risk ratio compares the likelihood of current smoking at 12 months in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|unadjusted|||1.07|0.95|0.73
91895728|NCT02996565|183686579|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.4|.98|0.08
91831921|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.39
91831922|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.26
91831923|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.31
91895729|NCT02996565|183686580|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.29|0.95|0.18
91895730|NCT02996565|183686581|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.11|0.87|0.77
91895731|NCT02996565|183686582|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.08||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.08|0.80|0.32
91895732|NCT02996565|183686583|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.19|0.76|0.62
91895733|NCT02996565|183686584|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.08|0.91|0.87
91895734|NCT02996565|183686585|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.11|0.82|0.51
91895735|NCT02996565|183686586|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.37|0.87|0.41
91895736|NCT02996565|183686587|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity was helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.06|0.77|0.18
91831924|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.22
91831925|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.14
91831926|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.09
91831927|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.05
91831928|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.03
91831929|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.85
91831930|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.79
91831931|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.71
91831932|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.61
91706026|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|2.09|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.09|-1.63|0.8370
91706027|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.81|-0.11|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.11|-3.81|0.0819
91900802|NCT02876835|183696016|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.7||||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.9|-1.5|0.2687
91706028|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.106||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|1.67|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.67|-1.98|0.8892
91706029|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.106||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.17|-0.52|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.52|-4.17|0.0353
91831933|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.51
91831934|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.41
91831935|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.47
91831936|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.36
91831937|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.26
91831938|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.19
91831939|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.13
91831940|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.09
91831941|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.78
91831942|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.69
91831943|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.59
91831944|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.50
91831945|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.39
91831946|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.30
91831947|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.68
91769950|NCT02201524|183427027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.758|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.15|-1.89||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.89|-11.15|
91831948|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.59
91895737|NCT02996565|183686588|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.09|0.78|0.31
91831949|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.50
91831950|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.40
91831951|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.30
91831952|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.22
91831953|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.41
91831954|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.32
91831955|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.24
91831956|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.16
91831957|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.11
91831958|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.07
91831959|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.41
91706030|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.7283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|1.45|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.45|-2.22|0.7283
91769951|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.5|19.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||19.6|-21.5|
91831960|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.32
91900803|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.22||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.03|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.03|-2.40|0.9780
91706031|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|2.08|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.08|-1.81|0.9083
91831961|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.25
91831962|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.18
91769952|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|40.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||40.3|-5.9|
91769953|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|38.0|||Difference in Percentage Analysed using|||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||38.0|-9.3|
91769954|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.0|9.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||9.3|-38.0|
91831963|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.12
91831964|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.07
91831965|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.45
91831966|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.37
91831967|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.30
91831968|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.22
91831969|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.17
91831970|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.12
91831971|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.72
91831972|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.65
91831973|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.57
91895738|NCT02996565|183686589|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.22|0.89|0.56
91895739|NCT02996565|183686590|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.03|0.68|0.08
91895740|NCT02996565|183686591|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.11|.73|0.32
91895741|NCT02996565|183686592|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.33|0.98|0.09
91895742|NCT02996565|183686593|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.16|0.83|0.77
91831974|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.48
91831975|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.39
91831976|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.30
91831977|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.76
91831978|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.71
91831979|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.65
91831980|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.59
91831981|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.53
91831982|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.46
91831983|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.68
91831984|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.61
91831985|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.55
91831986|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.46
91895743|NCT02996565|183686594|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.5|.97|0.09
91895744|NCT02996565|183686595|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||0.92|0.45|0.02
91769955|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.4|29.1||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||29.1|-25.4|
91831987|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.40
91831988|NCT02130193|183543381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.33
91831989|NCT02130193|183543385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.013
91831990|NCT02130193|183543385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.006
91831991|NCT02130193|183543385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.003
91831992|NCT02130193|183543385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.001
91831993|NCT02130193|183543385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|<0.001
91831994|NCT02130193|183543386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|2.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.17|-2.81|0.60
91831995|NCT02130193|183543386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.37||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.37|-3.11|0.65
91831996|NCT02130193|183543386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|1.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.45|-4.43|0.83
91831997|NCT02130193|183543386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.53||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.90|-4.07|0.78
91831998|NCT02130193|183543386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.28|-3.82|0.73
91769956|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|48.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||48.3|-10.2|
91831999|NCT02130193|183543386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|2.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.26|-4.01|0.72
91832000|NCT02130193|183543386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.09|-4.15|0.73
91706032|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.45|0.29|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.29|-3.45|0.1641
91706033|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|2.18|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.18|-1.64|0.8170
91706034|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.116||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.29|0.4|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.40|-3.29|0.1958
91706035|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|2.0|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.00|-1.74|0.9070
91706036|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|5.5|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||5.50|1.67|0.0023
91769957|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.7|31.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||31.0|-26.7|
91769958|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|49.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.8|-6.9|
91832001|NCT02130193|183543386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.76||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.76|-4.71|0.81
91832002|NCT02130193|183543386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.75||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.22||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.22|-4.66|0.76
91832003|NCT02130193|183543386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.99||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.99|-5.66|0.91
91832004|NCT02130193|183543386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.73||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|2.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.13|-4.73|0.71
91832005|NCT02130193|183543386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|2.04||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.04|-4.77|0.78
91832006|NCT02130193|183543390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.278
91832007|NCT02130193|183543390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.138
91832008|NCT02130193|183543390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.05
91832009|NCT02130193|183543390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.011
91832010|NCT02130193|183543390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.002
91832011|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.62
91832012|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.64
91832013|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.81
91832014|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.77
91832015|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.71
91832016|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.70
91832017|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.74
91769959|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|67.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.4|85.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||85.3|36.4|
91832018|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.79
91832019|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.77
91832020|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.90
91832021|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.66
91832022|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.74
91832023|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.43
91832024|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.45
91832025|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.67
91832026|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.62
91832027|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.55
91832028|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.55
91832029|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.59
91832030|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.65
91832031|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.63
91706037|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|3.49|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.49|-0.25|0.1531
91832032|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.81
91832033|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.52
91832034|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.60
91832035|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.24
91832036|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.28
91832037|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.50
91769960|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|67.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||67.1|7.6|
91832038|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.43
91832039|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.37
91832040|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.38
91832041|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.43
91832042|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.51
91832043|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.50
91832044|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.70
91832045|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.38
91832046|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.45
91832047|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.11
91832048|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.15
91832049|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.32
91706038|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.141||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|3.53|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.53|-0.24|0.1506
91706039|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.116||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|1.53|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.53|-2.16|0.7800
91769961|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|67.1||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||67.1|7.6|
91832050|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.28
91832051|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.23
91832052|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.24
91832053|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.29
91832054|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.36
91832055|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.35
91832056|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.57
91832057|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.25
91832058|NCT02130193|183543391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.32
91832059|NCT02130193|183543392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.477
91706040|NCT00938587|183306668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|-0.07|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.07|-3.80|0.0883
91706041|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.87|-1.07|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-1.07|-15.87|0.0599
91769962|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.7|77.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||77.6|19.7|
91832060|NCT02130193|183543392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.343
91832061|NCT02130193|183543392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.221
91832062|NCT02130193|183543392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.116
91832063|NCT02130193|183543392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.052
91832064|NCT02130193|183543393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.212
91832065|NCT02130193|183543393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.111
91769963|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|43.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||43.4|-21.4|
91769964|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.4|36.4||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||36.4|-29.4|
91832066|NCT02130193|183543393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.049
91832067|NCT02130193|183543393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.012
91832068|NCT02130193|183543393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.001
91832069|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.25||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.25|-1.53|0.64
91832070|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.1||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.10|-1.91|0.75
91832071|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.98||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.98|-2.09|0.77
91832072|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.87|-2.23|0.74
91832073|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.27|-1.88|0.67
91832074|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.26|-1.99|0.69
91832075|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.08||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.08|-2.10|0.72
91832076|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.14|-2.11|0.71
91832077|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.23|-2.14|0.66
91706042|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.436||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.61|-5.96|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.96|-20.61|0.0030
91832078|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-2.71|0.84
91832079|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.41|-2.15|0.65
91900804|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.23|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.23|-2.18|0.9430
91706043|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.483||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.03|-5.22|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.22|-20.03|0.0053
91832080|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.13|-2.36|0.71
91832081|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.25||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.25|-1.53|0.13
91706044|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.445||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.78|-10.1|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-10.10|-24.78|0.0001
91832082|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.1||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.10|-1.91|0.27
91832083|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.98||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.98|-2.09|0.31
91832084|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.87|-2.23|0.29
91832085|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.27|-1.88|0.23
91832086|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.26|-1.99|0.26
91832087|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.08||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.08|-2.10|0.28
91832088|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.14|-2.11|0.29
91832089|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.23|-2.14|0.23
91832090|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-2.71|0.45
91706045|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.427||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.46|3.16|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.16|-11.46|0.3492
91706046|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.661||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.38|-1.98|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure||-1.98|-17.38|0.0389
91895745|NCT02996565|183686596|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||.89|.55|0.006
91832091|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.41|-2.15|0.24
91832092|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.13|-2.36|0.28
91832093|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.25||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.25|-1.53|0.26
91832094|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.1||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.10|-1.91|0.41
91832095|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.98||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.98|-2.09|0.46
91832096|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.87|-2.23|0.43
91832097|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.27|-1.88|0.36
91832098|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.26|-1.99|0.39
91832099|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.08||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.08|-2.10|0.42
91832100|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.14|-2.11|0.42
91832101|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.23|-2.14|0.35
91832102|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-2.71|0.58
91832103|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.41|-2.15|0.36
91706047|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.51|-3.68|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-3.68|-18.51|0.0142
91832104|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.13|-2.36|0.41
91832105|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.84|0.66
91832106|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-0.94|0.66
91832107|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.46|0.91
91832108|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.44||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.44|-1.16|0.79
91769965|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|45.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.1|69.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||69.0|17.1|
91832109|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.41|-1.24|0.84
91832110|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.47||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.47|-1.23|0.81
91832111|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.56||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.56|-1.14|0.76
91832112|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.43|0.84
91832113|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.38||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.38|-1.49|0.83
91832114|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.68|0.94
91832115|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.48||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.48|-1.45|0.84
91832116|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-1.36|0.81
91832117|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.84|0.01
91832118|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-0.94|0.02
91832119|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.46|0.15
91832120|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.44||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.44|-1.16|0.05
91832121|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.41|-1.24|0.08
91832122|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.47||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.47|-1.23|0.08
91832123|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.56||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.56|-1.14|0.06
91832124|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.43|0.14
91832125|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.38||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.38|-1.49|0.14
91832126|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.68|0.29
91832127|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.48||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.48|-1.45|0.15
91832128|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-1.36|0.13
91832129|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.84|0.06
91832130|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-0.94|0.09
91832131|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.46|0.37
91832132|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.44||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.44|-1.16|0.18
91832133|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.41|-1.24|0.24
91832134|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.47||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.47|-1.23|0.24
91832135|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.56||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.56|-1.14|0.19
91832136|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.43|0.32
91832137|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.38||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.38|-1.49|0.32
91832138|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.68|0.52
91832139|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.48||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.48|-1.45|0.33
91832140|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-1.36|0.29
91832141|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.59|0.43
91900805|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.77|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.77|-1.98|0.8042
91706048|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.612||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.13|-5.89|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.89|-21.13|0.0037
91832142|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.85||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.85|-0.53|0.29
91832143|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.94|0.70
91832144|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.5||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.50|-0.92|0.71
91832145|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.61||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.61|-0.82|0.61
91832146|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.69|0.48
91832147|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.79|0.58
91832148|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.12|0.83
91832149|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-1.07|0.74
91832150|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.29||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.29|-1.40|0.89
91832151|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.89|0.59
91832152|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.54|-1.12|0.77
91832153|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.59|0.01
91832154|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.85||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.85|-0.53|0.01
91832155|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.94|0.09
91832156|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.5||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.50|-0.92|0.09
91832157|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.61||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.61|-0.82|0.05
91832158|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.69|0.02
91832159|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.79|0.04
91832160|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.12|0.22
91832161|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-1.07|0.14
91832162|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.29||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.29|-1.40|0.36
91832163|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.89|0.07
91706049|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.447||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.27|-7.58|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-7.58|-22.27|0.0009
91706050|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.484||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.23|3.57|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.57|-11.23|0.3939
91706051|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.95|19.13|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||19.13|3.95|0.0127
91706052|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.9425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.09|7.74|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||7.74|-7.09|0.9425
91706053|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|11.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.544||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.58|18.59|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||18.59|3.58|0.0155
91706054|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.447||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.48|7.21|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||7.21|-7.48|0.9757
91706055|NCT00938587|183306669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.484||0.9184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.86|6.94|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||6.94|-7.86|0.9184
91832164|NCT02130193|183543396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.54|-1.12|0.17
91832165|NCT01212770|183543401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use and and ≥ 3% body surface area (BSA) psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|The percentage of participants with an ACR20 response was compared using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test. The Hochberg procedure was used to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level. The results were considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||31.6|13.0|<0.0001
91832166|NCT01212770|183543401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.8||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||18.6|1.1|0.0295
91706056|NCT00938587|183306670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.06|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.06|-0.38|0.2403
91706057|NCT00938587|183306670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|-0.08|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.08|-0.52|0.0270
91706058|NCT00938587|183306670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.09|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.09|-0.36|0.3139
91706059|NCT00938587|183306670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|-0.05|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.05|-0.50|0.0415
91832167|NCT01212770|183543402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.034|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.034|-0.220|0.0073
91832168|NCT01212770|183543402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.066||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.027|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||0.027|-0.158|0.1619
91832169|NCT01212770|183543403|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|15.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|24.3||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.3|6.7|0.0007
91832170|NCT01212770|183543403|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|19.5||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.5|2.7|0.0110
91832171|NCT01212770|183543404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.139||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.042|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||-0.042|-0.236|0.0050
91832172|NCT01212770|183543404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.084||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.012|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||0.012|-0.181|0.0860
91832173|NCT01212770|183543405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.32||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.95|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||3.95|0.69|0.0053
91832174|NCT01212770|183543405|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|1.15||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.77|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||2.77|-0.48|0.1658
91832175|NCT01212770|183543406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||35.3|15.5|<0.0001
91706060|NCT00938587|183306670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.25|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.25|-0.20|0.8585
91706061|NCT00938587|183306670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.7284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.18|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.18|-0.28|0.7284
91706062|NCT00938587|183306670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|-0.1|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.10|-0.55|0.0171
91706063|NCT00938587|183306670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.06|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.06|-0.39|0.2277
91706064|NCT00938587|183306670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|-0.22|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.22|-0.67|0.0013
91706065|NCT00938587|183306670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.3908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.11|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.11|-0.34|0.3908
91706066|NCT00938587|183306671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.093||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.43|8.1|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.10|-15.43|0.6067
91706067|NCT00938587|183306671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.101||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.32|2.23|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.23|-21.32|0.1816
91706068|NCT00938587|183306671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.029||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|8.82|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.82|-14.50|0.6873
91706069|NCT00938587|183306671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.42|2.98|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.98|-20.42|0.2188
91706070|NCT00938587|183306671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.024||0.9067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.82|12.47|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||12.47|-10.82|0.9067
91706071|NCT00938587|183306671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.254||0.5803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.05|8.0|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.00|-16.05|0.5803
91706072|NCT00938587|183306671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.156||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.16|3.57|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.57|-20.16|0.2490
91706073|NCT00938587|183306671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.178||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.52|0.28|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.28|-23.52|0.1081
91706074|NCT00938587|183306671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.098||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.66|-4.12|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-4.12|-27.66|0.0271
91706075|NCT00938587|183306671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.121||0.2881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.41|4.21|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||4.21|-19.41|0.2881
91706076|NCT00938587|183306672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.059||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.23|5.19|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||5.19|-18.23|0.3579
91706077|NCT00938587|183306672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.046||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.24|3.14|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.14|-20.24|0.2274
91706078|NCT00938587|183306672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-10.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.973||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.72|1.41|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.41|-21.72|0.1482
91706079|NCT00938587|183306672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-12.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.962||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.74|-0.64|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.64|-23.74|0.0828
91706080|NCT00938587|183306672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.953||0.6021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.17|7.9|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||7.90|-15.17|0.6021
91706081|NCT00938587|183306672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.213||0.7528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.24|9.68|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||9.68|-14.24|0.7528
91706082|NCT00938587|183306672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.94|3.6|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.60|-19.94|0.2523
91706083|NCT00938587|183306672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.118||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.43|0.17|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.17|-23.43|0.1049
91706084|NCT00938587|183306672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.006||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.14|-5.91|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.91|-29.14|0.0138
91706085|NCT00938587|183306672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.05|2.34|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.34|-21.05|0.1873
91832176|NCT01212770|183543406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.4||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||20.0|0.8|0.0372
91706086|NCT00938587|183306673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.339||0.509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.4|5.32|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||5.32|-12.40|0.5090
91706087|NCT00938587|183306673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.354||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.78|-0.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.01|-17.78|0.0998
91832177|NCT01212770|183543407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.6||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||24.8|4.5|0.0062
91832178|NCT01212770|183543407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.0||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||23.1|3.0|0.0134
91832179|NCT01212770|183543408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-2.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||-2.9|-12.8|0.0021
91895746|NCT02996565|183686597|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.01|0.60|0.06
91706088|NCT00938587|183306673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.282||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.52|8.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.01|-9.52|0.8866
91769966|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|63.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||63.4|1.9|
91769967|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|47.0||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||47.0|-21.4|
91769968|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|24.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|54.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||54.9|-11.8|
91706089|NCT00938587|183306673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.88|2.66|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.66|-14.88|0.2499
91706090|NCT00938587|183306673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.283||0.5995|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.99|11.55|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||11.55|-5.99|0.5995
91706091|NCT00938587|183306673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.429||0.9117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|9.61|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||9.61|-8.40|0.9117
91706092|NCT00938587|183306673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.381||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.84|-0.98|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.98|-18.84|0.0684
91706093|NCT00938587|183306673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.366||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.39|2.42|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.42|-15.39|0.2292
91706094|NCT00938587|183306673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.308||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.81|-8.19|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-8.19|-25.81|0.0018
91706095|NCT00938587|183306673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.337||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.95|1.76|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.76|-15.95|0.1867
91832180|NCT01212770|183543408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||1.3|-8.6|0.1482
91706096|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.708||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.64|4.38|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.38|-4.64|0.9624
91832181|NCT01212770|183543409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-1.0|0.5349
91832182|NCT01212770|183543409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9|-0.7|0.8231
91832183|NCT01212770|183543410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1|-1.7|0.0720
91832184|NCT01212770|183543410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-1.3|0.3641
91706097|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.9493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|4.58|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.58|-4.24|0.9493
91706098|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.738||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|8.02|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.02|-1.10|0.2100
91706099|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.651||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|8.18|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.18|-0.66|0.1602
91769969|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.4|32.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||32.3|-40.4|
91769970|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|48.2||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||48.2|-23.7|
91769971|NCT02201524|183427028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.0|49.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.3|-28.0|
91832185|NCT01212770|183543411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-2.53|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.53|-7.34|0.0001
91832186|NCT01212770|183543411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.56|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.56|-4.27|0.1325
91706100|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.1892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|8.1|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.10|-0.92|0.1892
91706101|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.89|5.38|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.38|-3.89|0.7899
91706102|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.719||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|8.49|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.49|-0.56|0.1490
91706103|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.766||0.6238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.97|3.24|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.24|-5.97|0.6238
91706104|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.699||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|6.35|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.35|-2.64|0.4933
91706105|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.739||0.4445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.67|2.46|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||2.46|-6.67|0.4445
91706106|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.897||0.2288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|8.34|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.34|-1.31|0.2288
91706107|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.844||0.098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|9.5|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate||9.50|0.03|0.0980
91832187|NCT01212770|183543412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.24|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.24|-0.70|0.0001
91832188|NCT01212770|183543412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.04|-0.50|0.0237
91832189|NCT01212770|183543413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.54||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.30|0.77|0.0049
91900806|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.57||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-0.03|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.03|-3.11|0.9770
91706108|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.941||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|10.43|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate||10.43|0.64|0.0637
91706109|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.831||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.07|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||11.50|2.07|0.0190
91832190|NCT01212770|183543413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.44|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.44|-1.09|0.4505
91706110|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.903||0.4886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.81|6.86|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.86|-2.81|0.4886
91706111|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.879||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.12|3.14|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.14|-3.12|0.9951
91706112|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|4.34|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.34|-1.71|0.4721
91769972|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|27.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.0|-10.2|
91832191|NCT01212770|183543414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.34||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.94|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.94|0.74|0.0043
91832192|NCT01212770|183543414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.67||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.27|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.27|0.07|0.0404
91852137|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.9473|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-32.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-32.1|0.9473
91706113|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.879||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|2.36|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||2.36|-3.90|0.6835
91706114|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.49|3.56|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.56|-2.49|0.7701
91706115|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.831||0.671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.83|2.27|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||2.27|-3.83|0.6710
91706116|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.827||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|7.73|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.73|-1.69|0.2886
91706117|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.784||0.134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|8.86|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.86|-0.42|0.1340
91706118|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|7.95|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.95|-1.48|0.2563
91706119|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.771||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|9.05|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||9.05|-0.18|0.1138
91706120|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.793||0.9386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.44|4.87|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.87|-4.44|0.9386
91706121|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.701||0.8814|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.09|4.9|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.90|-4.09|0.8814
91706122|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|8.37|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.37|-0.42|0.1363
91706123|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.682||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|5.2|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.20|-3.74|0.7864
91706124|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.619||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|8.66|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.66|-0.06|0.1048
91706125|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.643||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.08|4.73|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.73|-4.08|0.9024
91706126|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.819||0.4954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|8.98|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.98|-3.74|0.4954
91706127|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.735||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|11.36|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||11.36|-1.08|0.1729
91706128|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|8.57|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.57|-4.15|0.5650
91706129|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|10.94|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||10.94|-1.48|0.2087
91706130|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.771||0.9139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.69|5.87|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.87|-6.69|0.9139
91706131|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.371||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.11|7.12|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.12|-4.11|0.6559
91706132|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.315||0.7304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.37|6.67|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.67|-4.37|0.7304
91769973|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.0|10.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||10.2|-27.0|
91706133|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.369||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|10.25|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||10.25|-0.98|0.1729
91706134|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.335||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|9.83|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||9.83|-1.28|0.2038
91706135|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.328||0.3503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.41|8.67|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.67|-2.41|0.3503
91706136|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.63|-3.06|0.8875
91706137|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.971||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.25|-1.31|0.3203
91706138|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.046||0.5232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|4.72|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.72|-2.09|0.5232
91706139|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.971||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|6.28|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.28|-0.28|0.1324
91706140|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.024||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|4.4|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.40|-2.34|0.6134
91706141|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.387||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|7.91|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.91|-3.38|0.5059
91706142|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.329||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|8.99|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.99|-2.10|0.3042
91706143|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|8.82|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.82|-2.47|0.3519
91706144|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.342||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|9.92|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||9.92|-1.21|0.1966
91832193|NCT01212770|183543415|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and and involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||30.9|11.5|< 0.0001
91706145|NCT00938587|183306674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.345||0.786|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.66|6.48|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.48|-4.66|0.7860
91706146|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.01|-0.93|0.1090
91706147|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.45|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.45|-1.38|0.0014
91706148|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|-0.09|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.09|-1.03|0.0506
91706149|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|-0.55|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.55|-1.48|0.0004
91706150|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.37|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.37|-0.56|0.7272
91706151|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.07|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.07|-1.05|0.0604
91769974|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|32.2||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||32.2|-14.4|
91769975|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.7|43.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||43.6|-6.7|
91769976|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|12.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||12.1|-28.8|
91769977|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|55.4||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||55.4|5.4|
91769978|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|55.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||55.3|0.8|
91832194|NCT01212770|183543415|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.7||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.0|-0.5|0.0661
91832195|NCT01212770|183543416|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.8||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.7|3.8|0.0099
91832196|NCT01212770|183543416|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.8||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.4|0.1|0.0515
91832197|NCT01212770|183543417|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-6.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.7|-11.4|0.0080
91900807|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||MMRM||CP/SOB,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.20|-2.20|0.9905
91769979|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.3|27.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.3|-27.3|
91769980|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|59.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||59.8|1.0|
91769981|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|43.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.8|69.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||69.3|8.8|
91769982|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|49.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.3|2.1|
91769983|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.4|71.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||71.8|25.4|
91769984|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.2|86.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||86.1|39.2|
91769985|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.3|18.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||18.3|-36.3|
91769986|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2|68.5||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||68.5|6.2|
91769987|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|31.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|60.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||60.5|-2.9|
91769988|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.8|13.7||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||13.7|-47.8|
91769989|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.6|24.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||24.8|-40.6|
91769990|NCT02201524|183427029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.4|36.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||36.4|-36.4|
91769991|NCT02201524|183427030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|27.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.0|-10.2|
91769992|NCT02201524|183427030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.0|10.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||10.2|-27.0|
91769993|NCT02201524|183427030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.7|22.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||22.8|-20.7|
91832198|NCT01212770|183543417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||1.0|-8.6|0.1218
91769994|NCT02201524|183427030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.3|24.8||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||24.8|-20.3|
91769995|NCT02201524|183427030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|33.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||33.8|-5.6|
91769996|NCT02201524|183427030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.3|61.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||61.1|15.3|
91769997|NCT02201524|183427030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|57.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||57.3|11.3|
91769998|NCT02201524|183427030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.7|80.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||80.9|34.7|
91769999|NCT02201524|183427030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|49.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.3|2.1|
91770000|NCT02201524|183427030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.4|70.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||70.2|19.4|
91832199|NCT01212770|183543418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.3|0.2761
91832200|NCT01212770|183543418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6|-1.1|0.5012
91900808|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.65||||0.8939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.37|||LS mean difference||CP/SOB,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.37|-1.67|0.8939
91770001|NCT02201524|183427030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|46.6||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||46.6|-2.7|
91770002|NCT02201524|183427030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.4|56.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||56.4|6.4|
91770003|NCT02201524|183427030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|54.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||54.9|-4.9|
91770004|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|33.8||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||33.8|-4.4|
91770005|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|32.0||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||32.0|-5.2|
91770006|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|27.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.0|-10.2|
91770007|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|45.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||45.5|-3.2|
91770008|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|40.7||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||40.7|-8.1|
91770009|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.3|59.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||59.4|7.3|
91770010|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|45.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||45.5|-11.2|
91770011|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|31.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|55.7||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||55.7|1.7|
91770012|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|57.4|||Difference in Percentage Analysed using|||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||57.4|-1.2|
91770013|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|52.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||52.5|-6.4|
91770014|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.7|66.7||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||66.7|8.7|
91770015|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.5|76.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||76.6|18.5|
91770016|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.1|36.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||36.6|-26.1|
91770017|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.9|44.5||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||44.5|-18.9|
91770018|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|50.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.9|75.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||75.3|12.9|
91770019|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.2|41.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||41.4|-25.2|
91770020|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.5|37.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||37.3|-30.5|
91832201|NCT01212770|183543419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.0|-1.9|0.0399
91770021|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.9|46.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||46.2|-21.9|
91770022|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|34.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||34.6|-33.2|
91770023|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.6|51.9||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||51.9|-17.6|
91770024|NCT02201524|183427031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.4|48.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||48.1|-26.4|
91770025|NCT02646826|183427044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0017
91770026|NCT02646826|183427045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.44
91770027|NCT00097500|183427059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91832202|NCT01212770|183543419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6|-1.3|0.4413
91832203|NCT01212770|183543420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-2.82|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.82|-7.73|< 0.0001
91770028|NCT00097500|183427060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4185||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4185
91770029|NCT00097500|183427061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 52.||||<0.0001
91770030|NCT00097500|183427061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1188||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 56.||||0.1188
91770031|NCT00097500|183427062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 52.||||<0.0001
91770032|NCT00097500|183427062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1996||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 56.||||0.1996
91770033|NCT00097500|183427063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5522||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5522
91770034|NCT00097500|183427064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91770035|NCT00097500|183427066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91770036|NCT00119847|183427068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.04||p\<0.05 required for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||The planned sample size of 300 subjects was chosen to provide 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 0.1 in the change in α1 from baseline to 1 year between the 2 treatment groups on the basis of data from prior studies that indicated that baseline levels of α1 would be 1.0 with a common SD of 0.2.||0.04|-0.12|0.34
91770037|NCT00119847|183427069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.7||p\<0.01 required for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||10.7|-4.8|0.45
91770038|NCT00119847|183427070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.9||p\<0.01 required for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.9|-1.4|0.23
91770039|NCT01553084|183427076|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Combination NRT will be compared statististically versus Nicotine patch only (the reference or control group).||1.7|0.8|.3623
91770040|NCT01553084|183427076|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Varenicline will be compared statististically versus Nicotine patch only (the reference or control group).||1.2|0.6|.1947
91770041|NCT01553084|183427077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.107|||Regression, Cox|||||1.107|.756|.3613
91770042|NCT01553084|183427077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.943||||0.5503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.142|||Regression, Cox|||||1.142|.779|.5503
91770043|NCT01553084|183427078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.1|.03
91770044|NCT01553084|183427078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|0.6|.19
91770045|NCT01553084|183427079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00625||0.3282|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=710||||||.3282
91770046|NCT00647296|183427162|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.1385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||0.19|-1.41|0.1385
91770047|NCT00647296|183427162|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||0.88|-0.65|0.7718
91770048|NCT00647296|183427162|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||1.18|-0.38|0.3146
91770049|NCT00647296|183427163|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents a better outcome.|||3.40|-2.61|0.7973
91770050|NCT00647296|183427163|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|4.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||4.89|-0.87|0.1732
91770051|NCT00647296|183427163|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.497||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents a better outcome.|||3.39|-2.48|0.7635
91770052|NCT00647296|183427174|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||50 mg/day minus 150 mg/day arm, negative direction represents worse outcome.|||0.64|-0.12|0.1772
91770053|NCT00647296|183427175|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||50 mg/day minus 300 mg/day treatment arm, negative direction represents worse outcome.|||0.83|-2.06|0.4025
91832204|NCT01212770|183543420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.65||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|-0.19|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.19|-5.11|0.0349
91770054|NCT01300234|183427176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|58.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|45.8|71.3||HBeAg-positive participants|Roche COBAS Taqman HBV test||"A non-completers equal failures approach is used for the primary analysis. The estimated value represents the difference between the percentage of participants achieving HBV DNA \<400 copies/mL at Week 48 in the TDF group and the ADV group."|||71.3|45.8|<0.0001
91770055|NCT01300234|183427176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.7|34.3||HBeAg-negative participants|Roche COBAS Taqman HBV test||"A non-completers equal failures approach was used for the primary analysis. The estimated value represents the difference between the percentage of participants achieving HBV DNA \<400 copies/mL at Week 48 in the TDF group and the ADV group."|||34.3|16.7|<0.0001
91770056|NCT04879628|183427231|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.56||||||Negative binomial regression model adjusting for the categorical baseline GdE T1 lesion count (presence/absence) as covariate, treatment as factor, with offset equal to the log of the duration (in months) between the Week 12 MRI and previous MRI at Week 8.||0.56|0.08|
91770057|NCT04879628|183427231|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.38||||||Negative binomial regression model adjusting for the categorical baseline GdE T1 lesion count (presence/absence) as covariate, treatment as factor, with offset equal to the log of the duration (in months) between the Week 12 MRI and previous MRI at Week 8.||0.38|0.03|
91770058|NCT00871871|183427258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.01||one-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.22|0.067
91770059|NCT00871871|183427259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.1|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|0.86|>0.500
91770060|NCT00871871|183427260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.016||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.044||one-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||0.044|-0.012|0.130
91770061|NCT00871871|183427261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.54|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.67|||ANCOVA|||||0.67|0.40|>0.500
91770062|NCT00871871|183427262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.004||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.023|0.014||one-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||0.014|-0.023|0.342
91832205|NCT01212770|183543421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.24|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.24|-0.72|0.0001
91706152|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|-0.59|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.59|-1.53|0.0003
91770063|NCT00871871|183427263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0016|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.011|||ANOVA|||||0.011|-0.008|>0.500
91770064|NCT00871871|183427264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.003|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.003|0.01|||ANOVA|||||0.010|-0.003|>0.500
91770065|NCT04612725|183427265|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.01||||0.3824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|1.26||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.26|-3.28|0.3824
91770066|NCT04612725|183427265|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.79||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|0.5||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.50|-4.09|0.1244
91770067|NCT04612725|183427266|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.07||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|2.8||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.80|-6.95|0.4016
91770068|NCT04612725|183427266|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.36||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|0.56||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.56|-9.28|0.0819
91770069|NCT04612725|183427266|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.56||||0.3314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|2.63||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.63|-7.74|0.3314
91770070|NCT04612725|183427266|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.74||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|1.47||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.47|-8.95|0.1582
91770071|NCT04612725|183427267|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.62||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.86||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.86|-4.10|0.1995
91770072|NCT04612725|183427267|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.76||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|0.73||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.73|-4.25|0.1654
91770073|NCT04612725|183427268|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|11.72||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|25.82||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||25.82|-2.37|0.1373
91770074|NCT04612725|183427268|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|10.73||||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|24.88||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||24.88|-3.42|0.1697
91770075|NCT04612725|183427268|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|1.03||||0.9105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|18.96||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||18.96|-16.90|0.9105
91770076|NCT04612725|183427268|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|9.27||||0.3389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|27.9||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||27.90|-9.37|0.3389
91832206|NCT01212770|183543421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.06|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.06|-0.54|0.0147
91770077|NCT04612725|183427269|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.16||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.68||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.68|-4.00|0.4203
91770078|NCT04612725|183427269|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.6||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|0.27||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.27|-5.46|0.0754
91770079|NCT04612725|183427269|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.06||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.89||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.89|-4.01|0.4772
91770080|NCT04612725|183427269|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.0||||0.1851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|0.97||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.97|-4.96|0.1851
91770081|NCT04612725|183427271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9678||||||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9678
91770082|NCT04612725|183427271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3689||||||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3689
91770083|NCT04612725|183427271|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-3.43||||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|12.11||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||12.11|-18.96|0.6624
91770084|NCT04612725|183427271|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|0.28||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|16.4||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||16.40|-15.84|0.9726
91770085|NCT04612725|183427273|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.7256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.32||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.32|-1.90|0.7256
91832207|NCT01212770|183543422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.44||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.24|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.24|0.64|0.0078
91770086|NCT04612725|183427273|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.09||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.72||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.72|-0.54|0.1890
91770087|NCT04612725|183427273|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63||||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.24||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.24|-2.51|0.5048
91706153|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|-0.13|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.13|-1.09|0.0377
91770088|NCT04612725|183427273|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.99||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.88||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.88|-0.89|0.2991
91770089|NCT04612725|183427274|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.63||||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|7.32||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 12= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||7.32|-4.05|0.5704
91770090|NCT04612725|183427274|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.24||||0.4416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|3.5||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 12= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||3.50|-7.98|0.4416
91770091|NCT04612725|183427274|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.47||||0.6591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|8.02||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 24= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||8.02|-5.09|0.6591
91770092|NCT04612725|183427274|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.04||||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|3.54||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 24= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||3.54|-9.62|0.3624
91770093|NCT04612725|183427275|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.48||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.98||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 12= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.98|-2.02|0.7037
91770094|NCT04612725|183427275|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.25||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|1.29||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 12= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.29|-3.78|0.3320
91770095|NCT04612725|183427275|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.24||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|3.9||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 24= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||3.90|-1.42|0.3590
91770096|NCT04612725|183427275|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|1.8||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 24= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.80|-3.56|0.5175
91770097|NCT03863509|183427278|OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 384) = 0.707, p = .494||||||.494
91770098|NCT03863509|183427279|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference F(2, 381) = 7.409, p = .001||||||0.001
91832208|NCT01212770|183543422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.19||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.98|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.98|-0.61|0.1936
91770099|NCT03863509|183427279|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|3.24|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried.||these are pairwise follow-up tests probing a larger omnibus group difference involving three groups.||3.240|-4.080|0.822
91770100|NCT03863509|183427279|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.267||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.974|11.559|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||these are pairwise follow-up tests probing a larger omnibus group difference involving three groups.||11.559|2.974|0.001
91770101|NCT03863509|183427279|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.485|11.889|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||These are pairwise follow-up tests probing a larger omnibus group difference involving three groups.||11.889|3.485|<0.001
91770102|NCT03863509|183427280|OTHER|||||||0.074||||||Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 2.616, p = .074|ANCOVA|||||||.074
91770103|NCT03863509|183427281|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time ef|6.609||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 378.467) = 6.609, p = .002. Age, race, and sex were covaried.|F (2, 378.467) = 6.609, p = .002|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||.002
91770104|NCT03863509|183427281|OTHER||interaction estimate|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in systolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||5.24|1.36|0.001
91770105|NCT03863509|183427281|OTHER||interaction term estimate|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in systolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive cigarette smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||5.38|1.20|0.002
91770106|NCT03863509|183427281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.948||0.992|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.992
91770107|NCT03863509|183427282|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time ef|5.843||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 378.999) = 5.843, p = .003|F (2, 378.999) = 5.843, p = .003|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||0.003
91895747|NCT02996565|183686598|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.10|0.94|0.65
91706154|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|-0.65|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.65|-1.57|0.0001
91706155|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.8612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.42|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.42|-0.52|0.8612
91706156|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.93|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.93|-0.04|0.1330
91706157|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.42|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.42|-0.52|0.8542
91770108|NCT03863509|183427282|OTHER||Interaction term Coefficient|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in diastolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||0.05|0.01|.002
91706158|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.82|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.82|-0.13|0.2339
91706159|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.31|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.31|-0.61|0.5927
91706160|NCT00938587|183306675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.7304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.37|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.37|-0.57|0.7304
91770109|NCT03863509|183427282|OTHER||Interaction term Coefficient|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in diastolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||0.05|0.01|.003
91770110|NCT03863509|183427282|OTHER||Interaction term Coefficient|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.917|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in diastolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||||.917
91770111|NCT03863509|183427283|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|49.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 376.099) = 49.420, p \< .001|F (2, 376.099) = 49.420, p \< .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||< .001
91770112|NCT03863509|183427283|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Heart Rate, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||7.3|4.83|<0.001
91770113|NCT03863509|183427283|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Heart Rate, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||6.42|3.76|<0.001
91770114|NCT03863509|183427283|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.107|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Heart Rate, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.107
91770115|NCT03863509|183427284|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|6.194||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2,372.971) = 6.194, p = .002|F (2,372.971) = 6.194, p = .002|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||0.002
91770116|NCT03863509|183427284|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Diameter, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.002|-0.01|0.003
91770117|NCT03863509|183427284|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Diameter, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-0.002|-0.01|0.001
91770118|NCT03863509|183427284|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Diameter, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.582
91770119|NCT03863509|183427285|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time E|1.753||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried.|FMD responses in e-cigarette users, cigarette users, and never-users controls after adjusting for changes in brachial artery diameter.|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||0.175
91770120|NCT03863509|183427285|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Flow Mediated Dilation, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||1.56|-0.05|0.067
91832209|NCT01212770|183543423|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.1||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||15.0|-10.9|0.7585
91706161|NCT00938587|183306676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|-0.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.01|-0.97|0.0956
91770121|NCT03863509|183427285|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Flow Mediated Dilation, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.20|-0.55|0.464
91790134|NCT00282464|183459375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.428||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Baseline to endpoint||||0.428
91832210|NCT01212770|183543423|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.9||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||9.7|-17.4|0.5808
91832211|NCT01212770|183543424|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.0||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD useinvolvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline..|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||27.0|-3.1|0.1303
91832212|NCT01212770|183543424|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|7.5||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|23.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||23.2|-8.3|0.3610
91832213|NCT01212770|183543425|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||32.6|12.4|< 0.0001
91832214|NCT01212770|183543425|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.0||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|20.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.9|1.2|0.0309
91832215|NCT01212770|183543426|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.8||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.7|-9.1|0.5731
91895748|NCT02996565|183686599|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.25|0.83|0.83
91895749|NCT02996565|183686600|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.13|0.95|0.41
91895750|NCT02996565|183686601|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.16|0.94|0.40
91895751|NCT02996565|183686602|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.07|0.95|0.74
91770122|NCT03863509|183427285|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing effects of group, time, and group x time in FMD, age, sex, race adjusted, for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.284
91770123|NCT03863509|183427286|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|8.323|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 342.847) = 8.323, p = \<.001|F (2,342.847) = 8.323, p = \<.001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||<0.001
91790135|NCT00282464|183459376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.708||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANOVA|ANOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center and prior hospitalization status||Change from baseline to endpoint||||0.708
91832216|NCT01212770|183543426|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.0||||0.8876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||14.6|-12.6|0.8876
91895752|NCT02996565|183686603|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted the likelihood that a new statin was current at 12 months by treatment group with random clinic intercept.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The risk ratio compares the likelihood of a new statin medication that is current at 12 months in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline SBP , baseline DBP, baseline age, sex, Asian race|||1.37|0.81|0.71
91895753|NCT01602562|183686610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.11|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with an HSV infection.|||16.11|0.00|
91895754|NCT01602562|183686610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.65|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with an HSV infection.|||17.65|0.00|
91895755|NCT04964414|183686625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.6
91895756|NCT04964414|183686626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.6
91895757|NCT04964414|183686627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.09
91895758|NCT04964414|183686632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2
91895759|NCT04964414|183686633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2
91895760|NCT00116753|183686636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of partcipants|78.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|69.0|86.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||86|69|
91895761|NCT00116753|183686636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|79.5|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|71.0|87.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||87|71|
91770124|NCT03863509|183427286|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in PNN50, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-3.20|-9.89|<0.001
91895762|NCT00116753|183686636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|85.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|77.0|91.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||91|77|
91770125|NCT03863509|183427286|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in PNN50, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-2.52|-9.71|0.001
91790136|NCT00282464|183459377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.898||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.898
91895763|NCT00116753|183686636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3022||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3022
91895764|NCT00116753|183686636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7797||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.7797
91895765|NCT00116753|183686636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1557||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.1557
91895766|NCT00116753|183686636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2208||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2208
91895767|NCT00116753|183686637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|80.7|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|72.0|88.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from after Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||88|72|
91895768|NCT00116753|183686637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|80.2|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|72.0|87.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||87|72|
91895769|NCT00116753|183686637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|78.0|92.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||92|78|
91895770|NCT00116753|183686637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3830
91895771|NCT00116753|183686637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9587||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.9587
91895772|NCT00116753|183686637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2579||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2579
91895773|NCT00116753|183686637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2072||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2072
91895774|NCT00116753|183686638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|99.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. Measure dispersion is the 95% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|93|
91895775|NCT00116753|183686638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. Measure dispersion is the 95% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|94|
91895776|NCT00116753|183686638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. Measure dispersion is the 95% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|94|
91895777|NCT01200589|183686641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49||||||||1.49|0.89|
91895778|NCT00986973|183686651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91895779|NCT00986973|183686652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.82
91895780|NCT00986973|183686653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.46
91895781|NCT00986973|183686654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.071
91770126|NCT03863509|183427286|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.787|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in PNN50, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.787
91770127|NCT03863509|183427287|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|7.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 345.918) = 7.260, p = .001|F (2,345.918) = 7.260, p = .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use Outcome measure ln transformed for analysis.||||0.001
91770128|NCT03863509|183427287|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in RMSSD, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.08|-0.31|0.001
91770129|NCT03863509|183427287|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in RMSSD, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-0.09|-0.33|0.001
91770130|NCT03863509|183427287|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in RMSSD, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.847
91770131|NCT03863509|183427288|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|1.712||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 312.081) = 1.712, p = .182|F (2, 312.081) = 1.712, p = .182|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||.182
91770132|NCT03863509|183427288|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in HRV-Standing Ratio, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|||0.004|-0.09|0.07
91770133|NCT03863509|183427288|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in HRV-Standing Ratio adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||0.02|-0.09|0.196
91770134|NCT03863509|183427288|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in HRV-Standing Ratio adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.69
91770135|NCT03863509|183427289|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|4.096||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 373.239) = 4.096, p = .017|F (2, 373.239) = 4.096, p = .017|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||0.017
91770136|NCT03863509|183427289|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-0.91|-5.18|0.005
91770137|NCT03863509|183427289|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.03|-3.61|0.274
91770138|NCT03863509|183427289|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.098
91770139|NCT03863509|183427290|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|0.26||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 373.434) = 0.260, p = .771|F (2, 373.434) = 0.260, p = .771|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||.771
91770140|NCT03863509|183427290|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||2.12|-2.35|0.918
91770141|NCT03863509|183427290|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.63|-3.22|0.518
91770142|NCT03863509|183427290|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.539|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.539
91770143|NCT03863509|183427291|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|7.157||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 375.412) = 7.157, p = .001|F (2, 375.412) = 7.157, p = .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||0.001
91770144|NCT03863509|183427291|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|-1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1/FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-1.35|-5.43|0.001
91770145|NCT03863509|183427291|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1/FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.89|-2.53|0.778
91770146|NCT03863509|183427291|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1/FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.002
91770147|NCT03863509|183427292|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|4.317||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 373.170) = 4.317, p = .014|F (2, 373.170) = 4.317, p = .014|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||0.014
91770148|NCT03863509|183427292|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEF 25-75, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.95|-9.21|0.016
91770149|NCT03863509|183427292|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEF 25-75, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||4.48|-4.47|0.998
91770150|NCT03863509|183427292|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEF 25-75, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.013
91770151|NCT03863509|183427293|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|6.694||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2,376.779) = 6.694, p = .001|F ((2,376.779) = 6.694, p = .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and-between-group responses following product use Outcome measure ln transformed for analysis.||||0.001
91770152|NCT03863509|183427293|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FeNO, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.04|-0.14|0.001
91770153|NCT03863509|183427293|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FeNO, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||0.04|-0.08|0.555
91770154|NCT03863509|183427293|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FeNO, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.007
91770155|NCT03863509|183427294|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||ANCOVA for group differences|ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 12.869, p \< .001||||||< .001
91770156|NCT03863509|183427294|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.352||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.048|3.752|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||3.752|-1.048|0.269
91770157|NCT03863509|183427294|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.575|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-2.78|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-2.780|-8.37|<0.001
91770158|NCT03863509|183427294|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.927|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.672|-4.183|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried.||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-4.183|-9.672|<0.001
91770159|NCT03863509|183427295|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 361) = 3.392, p = .035|||Group difference did not survive correction for false discovery rate at .05, therefore not followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||.035
91770160|NCT03863509|183427296|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 0.601, p = .549||||||.549
91895782|NCT00986973|183686655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.25
91706162|NCT00938587|183306676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.45|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.45|-1.40|0.0016
91770161|NCT03863509|183427297|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 381) = 3.877, p = .022|||Group difference tested after correction for false discovery rate at .05, therefore we followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||.022
91770162|NCT03863509|183427297|OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||||0.952
91770163|NCT03863509|183427297|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||post hoc pairwise group comparisons.. Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||||0.014
91770164|NCT03863509|183427297|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Age, sex, and race were covaried|ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||||0.011
91770165|NCT03863509|183427298|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Outcome variable log-transformed for analysis. Test for group difference: F (2, 381) = 33.442, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05 and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||< .001
91770166|NCT03863509|183427298|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.322|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried|Estimated marginal mean differences (log-transformed scale)|Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users:||0.322|0.039|0.013
91770167|NCT03863509|183427298|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.679|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.844|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried|Estimated marginal mean differences (log-transformed scale)|Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||0.844|0.514|<0.001
91770168|NCT03863509|183427298|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.498|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.336|0.66|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried|"Estimated marginal mean differences (log-transformed scale)"|Exclusive E-Cig users minus Exclusive Smokers||0.660|0.336|<0.001
91770169|NCT03863509|183427299|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 361) = 1.904, p = .150||||||.150
91770170|NCT03863509|183427300|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 385) = 17.872, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons. Estimated marginal mean differences:|||< .001
91770171|NCT03863509|183427300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.632||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.019|-1.245|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||-1.245|-6.019|0.003
91770172|NCT03863509|183427300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|-5.62|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-5.62|-11.14|<0.001
91770173|NCT03863509|183427300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.748||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.456|-2.04|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-2.040|-7.456|0.001
91770174|NCT03863509|183427301|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 343) = 17.056, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||< .001
91770175|NCT03863509|183427301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.824|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||1.824|0.733|<0.001
91770176|NCT03863509|183427301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.395|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||2.395|1.083|<0.001
91770177|NCT03863509|183427301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.11|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|age, sex and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||1.110|-0.190|0.165
91770178|NCT03863509|183427302|OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 1.621, p = .199||||||.199
91770179|NCT03863509|183427303|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 343) = 17.056, p\< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||<0.001
91770180|NCT03863509|183427303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.824|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig users||1.824|0.733|<0.001
91770181|NCT03863509|183427303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.395|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|age, sex, race covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||2.395|1.083|<0.001
91770182|NCT03863509|183427303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.11|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||1.110|-0.190|0.165
91770183|NCT03863509|183427304|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 343) = 17.056, p\< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||<0.001
91770184|NCT03863509|183427304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.824|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||1.824|0.733|<0.001
91770185|NCT03863509|183427304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.395|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||2.395|1.083|<0.001
91770186|NCT03863509|183427304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.11|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||1.110|-0.190|0.165
91770187|NCT03863509|183427305|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 344) = 10.075, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons. Estimated marginal mean differences:|||<0.001
91770188|NCT03861273|183427306|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measure negative binomial regression model was used to do the hypothesis test on non-inferiority with one-sided test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-0.81|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.||||-0.81|-5.44|0.0081
91770189|NCT03861273|183427307|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measure negative binomial regression model was used to do the hypothesis test on non-inferiority with one-sided test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.96|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.||||-0.96|-4.27|0.0019
91770190|NCT03861273|183427308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.64|-45.1|||Paired t-test|||The treatment difference (PF-06838435 - FIX Prophylaxis) estimate (95% CI) and p-value were obtained from paired t-test.||-45.10|-63.64|<.0001
91770191|NCT03861273|183427309|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value from one-sided t-statistic testing the log transformation of the steady state FIX:C \> log(5). Cumulative for 3 assays.|One-sided t-statistic testing|||Week 12 to Month 15||||<.0001
91770192|NCT03861273|183427311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2935.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3403.1|-2468.3|||Paired t-test|||||-2468.30|-3403.10|<.0001
91770193|NCT03861273|183427312|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.42|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|||||-0.42|-4.67|0.0191
91770194|NCT03861273|183427313|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.21|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|||||0.21|-1.35|0.1528
91770195|NCT03861273|183427314|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.61|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|||||0.61|-1.63|0.3738
91770196|NCT03861273|183427317|OTHER|||||||0.0117|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0117
91770197|NCT03861273|183427318|OTHER|||||||0.0052|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0052
91770198|NCT03861273|183427319|OTHER|||||||0.0237|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0237
91770199|NCT03270436|183427344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3599||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean weight from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.3599
91770200|NCT03270436|183427344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3207||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean weight from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.3207
91770201|NCT03270436|183427345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5698||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HbA1c from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.5698
91770202|NCT03270436|183427345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4106||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4106
91706163|NCT00938587|183306676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|-0.17|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.17|-1.13|0.0258
91770203|NCT03270436|183427346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0293||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.0293
91770204|NCT03270436|183427346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4686||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4686
91770205|NCT03270436|183427347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.0068
91770206|NCT03270436|183427347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9181||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.9181
91895783|NCT00986973|183686656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.050
91895784|NCT00986973|183686657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91770207|NCT03270436|183427348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5984||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in sugar-sweetened beverages consumed per day from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.5984
91770208|NCT03270436|183427348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3376||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in sugar-sweetened beverages consumed per day from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.3376
91770209|NCT03270436|183427349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in fruit \& vegetable consumption scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.2960
91770210|NCT03270436|183427349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1519||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in fruit \& vegetable consumption scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.1519
91770211|NCT03270436|183427350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2824||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mantel Haenszel|The model includes only the study arm and time interaction.||Adjusted repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) model.||||0.2824
91770212|NCT03270436|183427350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7547||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mantel Haenszel|The model includes only the study arm and time interaction.||Adjusted repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) model.||||0.7547
91770213|NCT03270436|183427351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6928||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in eating self-efficacy scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.6928
91770214|NCT03270436|183427351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4947||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in eating self-efficacy scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4947
91770215|NCT03270436|183427352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1539||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in physical activity self-efficacy scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.1539
91770216|NCT03270436|183427352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1878||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in physical activity self-efficacy scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.1878
91770217|NCT03270436|183427353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4322||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in family support scale scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4322
91770218|NCT03270436|183427353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9529||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in family support scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.9529
91770219|NCT01959503|183427359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
91900809|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.66|||MMRM||CP/SOB,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.66|-1.70|0.8070
91706164|NCT00938587|183306676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|-0.62|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.62|-1.56|0.0002
91770220|NCT01959503|183427360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|19.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.89|4.07|<0.0001
91900810|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.13|||MMRM||CP/SOB,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.13|-2.49|0.9615
91770221|NCT01959503|183427361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|18.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.11|3.27|<0.0001
91770222|NCT02413918|183427376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.0|<|0.0094|TWO_SIDED|||||p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons (see above). A priori threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||BISS Outcomes: Mean changes in depression and mania for study completers were measured. The a priori hypothesis was a mean change of 50%.||||<0.0094
91770223|NCT02413918|183427376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BISS Outcomes: Mean changes in mania for study completers were measured. The a priori hypothesis was a mean change of 50%.||||<0.0001
91770224|NCT04233801|183427377|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.71|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.71|-1.28|< 0.0001
91770225|NCT04233801|183427377|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.70|-1.26|< 0.0001
91770226|NCT04233801|183427378|OTHER|Logistic regression including treatment, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), background therapy, and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.83|0.77|0.1375
91770227|NCT04233801|183427378|OTHER|Logistic regression including treatment, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), background therapy, and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.01||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|17.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.10|2.11|0.0008
91770228|NCT04233801|183427379|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.34|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-1.34|-2.66|< 0.0001
91770229|NCT04233801|183427379|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-1.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.67|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.67|-1.96|< 0.0001
91770230|NCT04233801|183427380|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-3.6||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.40|-7.61|0.0774
91770231|NCT04233801|183427380|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-1.01||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|2.96|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||2.96|-4.98|0.6160
91770232|NCT04233801|183427381|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-1.78||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|0.48|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.48|-4.05|0.1222
91770233|NCT04233801|183427381|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|0.65||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|2.89|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||2.89|-1.59|0.5687
91770234|NCT04233801|183427382|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-20.05||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.73|-9.38|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-9.38|-30.73|0.0003
91770235|NCT04233801|183427382|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-24.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-13.54|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-13.54|-34.72|<0.0001
91900811|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.76||||0.9015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.39|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.39|-1.91|0.9015
91770236|NCT04233801|183427383|OTHER|The Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and background therapy as classification effects, baseline PPG and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as the linear covariates.|Adjusted mean|-56.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.22|-34.41|||ANCOVA|||||-34.41|-78.22|<0.0001
91770237|NCT04233801|183427383|OTHER|The Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and background therapy as classification effects, baseline PPG and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as the linear covariates.|Adjusted mean|-60.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.31|-39.11|||ANCOVA|||||-39.11|-82.31|<0.0001
91770238|NCT04233801|183427384|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression including treatment and continuous baseline glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).|Odds ratio used Placebo as the reference group.|||4.55|0.68|0.2422
91770239|NCT04233801|183427384|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression including treatment and continuous baseline glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).|Odds ratio used Placebo as the reference group.|||2.50|0.29|0.7661
91770240|NCT01841281|183427408|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||The p-value is for the interaction term|testing for interaction term|||||||0.78
91790137|NCT00282464|183459378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.559||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANOVA|ANOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center and prior hospitalization status.||Endpoint||||0.559
91770241|NCT01841281|183427409|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The p-value is for the interaction term|testing for interaction term|||The treatment effect was tested as an interaction term between treatment and FeNO. The null hypothesis is the effect of treatment is stratified by the FeNO status. We used a regression model instead of t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test in order to control period and carry-over effect which is common in a cross-over study design||||0.09
91770242|NCT00683878|183427410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1175||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.17||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-0.63|0.0007
91770243|NCT00683878|183427410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1175|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.31||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.78|<0.0001
91770244|NCT00683878|183427411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.007|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7|-33.2||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-33.2|-68.7|<0.0001
91770245|NCT00683878|183427411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|-35.6||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-35.6|-71.1|<0.0001
91770246|NCT00683878|183427412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3896|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.79||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-2.32|<0.0001
91770247|NCT00683878|183427412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3896|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.02||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-2.55|<0.0001
91770248|NCT00683878|183427413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-11.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-11.4|-27.5|<0.0001
91770249|NCT00683878|183427413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.082|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-16.1||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-16.1|-32.2|<0.0001
91770250|NCT00683878|183427414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.119||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.1||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||20.1|0.0|0.0496
91770251|NCT00683878|183427414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.253||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|26.7||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||26.7|6.1|0.0018
91770252|NCT00683878|183427415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6006||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.33||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-2.03|0.1566
91770253|NCT00683878|183427415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5995||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.37||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-2.73|0.0101
91706165|NCT00938587|183306676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.5692||90.0|-0.63|0.31|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.31|-0.63|0.5692
91770254|NCT00683878|183427416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4838|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.62||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. The comparison was stopped due to the preceding test (PLACEBO + Pio vs Dapa 5MG + Pio) not statistically significant P value = 0.1566.|ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-2.53|
91770255|NCT00683878|183427416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4688|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.98||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-2.83|<0.0001
91770256|NCT04024891|183427417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
91770257|NCT00308139|183427467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The choice of a 0.4% noninferiority margin was resulted from the considerations of expected clinical benefit of BYETTA in this study based on clinical data evaluating exenatide LAR and BYETTA, regulatory guidance, published literature, and statistical considerations.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.12|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors.||Superiority of exenatide long-acting release (LAR) once weekly to BYETTA if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference (LAR minus BYETTA) is less than 0; non-inferiority if this upper limit is less than 0.4%. Power:Assuming 20% dropout rate with 246 subjects will complete the study. This sample size would provide 90% power for non-inferiority test with assumption of greater reduction (0.1%) in LAR and a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||-0.12|-0.54|0.0023
91770258|NCT00308139|183427470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target value of \<7% at Week 30 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0003
91770259|NCT00308139|183427472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target value of \<=6.5% at Week 30 were compared between treatments using CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.2042
91790138|NCT00282464|183459379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.458||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple adjustments were made|ANOVA|ANVOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center and prior hospitalization status.||Endpoint||||0.458
91770260|NCT00308139|183427474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target values of \<=6.0% at Week 30 were compared between treatments using CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.1513
91770261|NCT00308139|183427476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|30.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.458||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.88|53.28|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in 2h postprandial glucose from baseline (Day -3) to Week 14 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the 2h postprandial glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline 2h postprandial glucose.||53.28|6.88|0.0124
91770262|NCT00308139|183427478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline body weight. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.12|-1.29|0.8916
91770263|NCT00308139|183427480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-9.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline fasting plasma glucose. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-9.4|-24.4|<.0001
91770264|NCT00308139|183427484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in total cholesterol from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline total cholesterol. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-2.2|-14.1|0.0077
91770265|NCT00308139|183427486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.5613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in HDL-C from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline HDL. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.9|-1.0|0.5613
91770266|NCT00308139|183427489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometic Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 30 to baseline (Day -3), expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline triglycerides. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.04|0.87|0.2915
91770268|NCT00435409|183427536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2239||||0.9409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9487|1.5789||Stratification factors included metastatic organ sites (2 or less versus \[vs\] more than \[\>\] 2 sites), hormone receptor status (HER2-/ER-/PR-) vs all others), and prior chemotherapy regimens (1 vs \>1), from interactive voice response system (IVRS).|Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (1-sided, α=0.025) based on randomization stratification factors||1.5789|0.9487|0.9409
91770269|NCT00435409|183427536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1084||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8817|1.3935||Stratification factors include metastatic organ sites (2 or less versus \[vs\] 2 or more sites), hormone receptor status (HER2-/ER-/PR-) vs all others), and prior chemotherapy regimens (1 vs more than 1), from IVRS.|Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (1-sided, α=0.025) based on randomization stratification factors||1.3935|0.8817|0.8120
91770270|NCT00435409|183427537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.97||A stratified CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors was used to compare objective response rate (ORR) between two treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Independent radiology assessment||1.97|0.69|0.3143
91895785|NCT00598273|183686658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.19|0.26|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.26|-0.19|
91900812|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.03|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.03|-2.32|0.9781
91900813|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.53|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.53|-2.07|0.8778
91706166|NCT00938587|183306677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.29||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.65|35.98|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||35.98|-8.65|0.1460
91770271|NCT00435409|183427537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.13||A stratified CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors was used to compare ORR between two treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Investigator's assessment||2.13|0.83|0.1269
91770272|NCT00435409|183427539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0372||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8322|1.2927||Stratification factors (all from IVRS) included number of metastatic organ sites (\<=2 vs \>2 sites), hormone receptor status (HER2-/ER-/PR- vs all others), and prior chemotherapy regimens (1 vs \>1).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for sunitinib + capecitabine versus capecitabine.|||1.2927|0.8322|0.6275
91770273|NCT03192176|183427569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.25||LS Means(LSM), standard errors(SE), confidence intervals(CI), \& p-values come from an ANCOVA model with CFB as the dependent variable \& treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-3.56|0.0240
91770274|NCT03192176|183427569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.38||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.38|-4.68|0.0004
91770275|NCT03192176|183427569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-1.14||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-4.44|0.0010
91770276|NCT03192176|183427569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.89||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.89|-5.20|<0.0001
91895786|NCT00598273|183686658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.04|0.48|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.48|0.04|
91770277|NCT03192176|183427569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0058||95.0|-4.0|-0.68||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-4.00|0.0058
91770278|NCT03192176|183427569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-1.41||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.41|-4.65|0.0003
91770279|NCT03192176|183427569|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|0.76||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.76|-4.06|0.0042
91770280|NCT03192176|183427570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.35||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-3.30|0.0154
91770281|NCT03192176|183427570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.67||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.67|-3.60|0.0043
91770282|NCT03192176|183427570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.83||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.83|-3.76|0.0023
91770283|NCT03192176|183427570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.16||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.16|-4.09|0.0005
91770284|NCT03192176|183427570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.58||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-3.52|0.0064
91895787|NCT00598273|183686659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.10|0.51|
91770285|NCT03192176|183427570|SUPERIORITY||-2.6|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-1.15||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.15|-4.04|0.0005
91895788|NCT00598273|183686659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.56|0.62|
91895789|NCT00598273|183686660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.05|0.94|
91895790|NCT00598273|183686660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.95|
91770286|NCT03192176|183427570|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.59||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-3.52|0.0063
91770287|NCT03192176|183427571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.07||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.84|0.0215
91770288|NCT03192176|183427571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.24||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-1.01|0.0017
91770289|NCT03192176|183427571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.44||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-1.21|<0.0001
91770290|NCT03192176|183427571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.59||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.37|<0.0001
91770291|NCT03192176|183427571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.04||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.81|0.0322
91770292|NCT03192176|183427571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.23||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.99|0.0017
91770293|NCT03192176|183427571|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.31||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-1.08|0.0004
91770294|NCT03192176|183427572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.67|0.2324
91770295|NCT03192176|183427572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.04||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.80|0.0736
91770296|NCT03192176|183427572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.15||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.98|0.0080
91770297|NCT03192176|183427572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.22||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.07|0.0028
91770298|NCT03192176|183427572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.26||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.58|0.4647
91770299|NCT03192176|183427572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.1||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.92|0.0160
91770300|NCT03192176|183427572|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.06||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.78|0.0901
91770301|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 1||0.20|-2.92|0.0865
91706167|NCT00938587|183306677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|38.1||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.25|59.46|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||59.46|12.25|0.0052
91770302|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-1.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.10|-4.22|0.0009
91706168|NCT00938587|183306677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.0|24.66|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||24.66|-22.00|0.5094
91770303|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-1.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.94|-5.06|<0.00001
91770304|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-2.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.47|-5.63|<0.00001
91770305|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.63|-2.55|0.2360
91770306|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-2.4||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.80|-3.92|0.0032
91770307|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.19|-4.29|0.0006
91770308|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.38|-2.86|0.1318
91770309|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.04|-4.30|0.0014
91770310|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.58|-4.82|0.0001
91770311|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.00|-5.30|<0.0001
91770312|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.15|-3.15|0.0752
91770313|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.13|-3.38|0.0343
91770314|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.71|-3.95|0.0049
91770315|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.20|-3.50|0.0285
91770316|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.37|-4.69|0.0004
91770317|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-1.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.84|-5.14|<0.0001
91770318|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-2.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRm|||Week 3||-2.28|-5.65|<0.0001
91832217|NCT01212770|183543427|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.2||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.9|-2.5|0.1172
91770319|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.37|-3.74|0.0169
91770320|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.73|-4.04|0.0049
91770321|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-1.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.18|-4.48|0.0008
91770322|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.06|-3.36|0.0428
91770323|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-1.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.34|-4.65|0.0004
91770324|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.84||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.58|-4.88|0.00001
91770325|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-2.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.37|-5.73|<0.0001
91770326|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.28|-3.64|0.0225
91770327|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.19|-4.49|0.0008
91770328|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.42|-4.70|0.0003
91895791|NCT00409773|183686673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-16.5|-9.8||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-9.8|-16.5|<0.001
91770329|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.31|-2.80|0.1168
91770330|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.03|-4.15|0.0012
91770331|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.42|-4.54|0.0002
91895792|NCT00409773|183686673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-13.6|-6.9||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.9|-13.6|<0.001
91706169|NCT00938587|183306677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|25.11||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|48.34|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||48.34|-0.69|0.0551
91770332|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-2.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.28|-5.44|<0.0001
91770333|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.42|-3.58|0.0134
91895793|NCT00409773|183686673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-11.3|-4.6||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.6|-11.3|<0.001
91706170|NCT00938587|183306677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-12.99||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.09|8.78|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||8.78|-34.09|0.9999
91770334|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.65|-3.76|0.0057
91770335|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.96|-4.06|0.0016
91770336|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||0.19|-2.94|0.0843
91770337|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.77|-3.90|0.0035
91770338|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.52|-4.66|0.0001
91770339|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|-2.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.10|-5.28|<0.0001
91770340|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.16|-3.33|0.0315
91770341|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.62|-3.75|0.0063
91770342|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-1.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.14|-4.25|0.0007
91770343|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||0.29|-2.89|0.1090
91770344|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-0.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.95|-4.14|0.0018
91770345|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.34|-4.54|0.0004
91895794|NCT00409773|183686674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-9.6|-4.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.8|-9.6|<0.001
91770346|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-2.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.15|-5.40|<0.0001
91770347|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.26|-3.50|0.0231
91770348|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.67|-3.86|0.0056
91706171|NCT00938587|183306677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|10.56||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.18|37.67|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||37.67|-17.18|0.3027
91895795|NCT00409773|183686674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-7.8|-2.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.9|-7.8|<0.001
91895796|NCT00409773|183686674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-2.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.0|-6.8|<0.001
91895797|NCT00409773|183686675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.69||95.0|-5.4|3.3|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||3.3|-5.4|0.690
91770349|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-1.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.17|-4.35|0.0007
91770350|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.3568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|0.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.85|-2.35|0.3568
91770351|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.43|-3.65|0.0129
91770352|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.97|-4.19|0.0018
91770353|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.42|-4.70|0.0003
91770354|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.27|-3.00|0.1004
91770355|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.35|-3.57|0.0173
91770356|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.77|-3.97|0.0038
91770357|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.48|-2.57|0.1767
91770358|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.16|-3.20|0.0308
91770359|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.00|-4.07|0.0013
91770360|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-1.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.36|-4.47|0.0003
91770361|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.2109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.56|-2.55|0.2109
91832218|NCT01212770|183543427|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|7.2||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|22.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.6|-8.2|0.3695
91770362|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.37|-3.44|0.0152
91770363|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.56|-3.61|0.0075
91770364|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||0.20|-2.96|0.0869
91706172|NCT00938587|183306677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|21.67||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.24|46.16|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||46.16|-6.24|0.1074
91770365|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||0.01|-3.14|0.0520
91770366|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.12|-4.30|0.0009
91770367|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.46|-4.68|0.0002
91770368|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||-0.03|-3.25|0.0456
91770369|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.59|-3.76|0.0073
91770370|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.86|-4.01|0.0026
91770371|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.20|-2.87|0.0878
91770372|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.32|-3.39|0.0182
91770373|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.44|-4.55|0.0002
91770374|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|-1.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.40|-4.53|0.0002
91770375|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.09|-3.22|0.0387
91770376|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.80|-3.89|0.0031
91770377|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.81|-3.88|0.0029
91770378|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.09|-2.90|0.0653
91832219|NCT01212770|183543428|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||32.1|13.0|< 0.0001
91770379|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.47|-3.46|0.0102
91770380|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-1.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.36|-4.38|0.0002
91895798|NCT00409773|183686675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.2||95.0|-1.6|7.1|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||7.1|-1.6|0.200
91770381|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-1.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.67|-4.72|<0.0001
91770382|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.25|-3.30|0.0231
91770383|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.87|-3.88|0.0021
91770384|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.87|-3.88|0.0021
91770385|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.97|-3.96|0.0013
91770386|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.43|-2.89|0.1460
91770387|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.6066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||1.23|-2.10|0.6066
91770388|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.54|-1.88|0.8422
91770389|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.67|-2.74|0.2346
91770390|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.33|-3.11|0.1128
91770391|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.55|-2.89|0.1811
91770392|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.3521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.87|-2.45|0.3521
91770393|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.88|-2.44|0.3570
91770394|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.9227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.57|-1.73|0.9227
91770395|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.60|-1.84|0.8894
91770396|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.5074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.13|-2.29|0.5074
91770397|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.53|-2.91|0.1753
91895799|NCT00409773|183686675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.48||95.0|-4.7|3.9|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||3.9|-4.7|0.480
91770398|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.36|-3.09|0.1212
91770399|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.90|-2.41|0.3702
91770400|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.6459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.96|-1.22|0.6459
91770401|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.75|-1.40|0.8248
91770402|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|2.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.33|-0.98|0.4226
91770403|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.6469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.01|-1.25|0.6469
91770404|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.91|-1.41|0.7642
91770405|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.966||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.966|-2.36|0.4068
91770406|NCT03192176|183427573|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.78|-1.37|0.7974
91770407|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.17|-3.23|0.0297
91770408|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.58|-4.66|<0.0001
91770409|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.02|-5.10|<0.00001
91770410|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-2.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.66|-5.78|<0.0001
91895800|NCT00409773|183686676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.013||95.0|0.7|6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||6.0|0.7|0.013
91770411|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.36|-2.76|0.1318
91770412|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.05|-4.13|0.0010
91770413|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.04|-4.10|0.0011
91895801|NCT00409773|183686676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.378||95.0|-1.5|3.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||3.8|-1.5|0.378
91895802|NCT00409773|183686676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.003||95.0|1.3|6.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||6.6|1.3|0.003
91770414|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.07|-3.20|0.0405
91770415|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.55|-4.70|0.0001
91770416|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.52|-4.66|0.0001
91770417|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.07|-5.26|<0.0001
91770418|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.15|-3.34|0.0325
91770419|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.78|-3.92|0.0035
91770420|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.49|-3.61|0.0102
91770421|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.51|-3.69|0.0098
91770422|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-1.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.98|-5.18|<0.0001
91770423|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.70|-4.89|<0.0001
91832220|NCT01212770|183543428|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.7||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.7|2.7|0.0123
91770424|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|-2.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.37|-5.61|<0.0001
91770425|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.93|-4.17|0.0021
91770426|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.52|-4.71|0.0001
91770427|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-0.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.93|-4.11|0.0020
91770428|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.27|-3.27|0.0210
91790139|NCT02239120|183459399|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.03|0.69|0.1028
91852138|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.8014|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.4|0.8014
91770429|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.58|-4.59|<0.0001
91770430|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|-1.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.33|-4.34|0.0003
91770431|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|-2.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.23|-5.29|<0.0001
91770432|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.86|-3.91|0.0023
91770433|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-1.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.24|-4.25|0.0004
91770434|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.74|-3.73|0.0036
91770435|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.29|-3.33|0.0195
91770436|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-1.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.17|-4.21|0.0006
91770437|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.27|-4.32|0.0004
91770438|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-1.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.92|-5.01|<0.0001
91770439|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.62|-3.71|0.0061
91770440|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-1.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.14|-4.19|0.0006
91770441|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.78|-3.81|0.0030
91770442|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.09|-3.17|0.0383
91770443|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.24|-4.33|0.0004
91770444|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.04|-4.14|0.0011
91770445|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-1.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.93|-5.07|<0.0001
91790140|NCT02239120|183459400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.97|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.97|0.94|0.1076
91770446|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.66|-3.80|0.0055
91770447|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-0.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.99|-4.09|0.0014
91770448|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.73|-3.80|0.0040
91770449|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.41|-2.68|0.1502
91770450|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.64|-3.74|0.0057
91770451|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.66|-3.76|0.0054
91770452|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-1.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.22|-4.38|0.0006
91770453|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.07|-3.21|0.0412
91770454|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.66|-3.76|0.0054
91770455|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.34|-3.43|0.0167
91895803|NCT00409773|183686677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-13.3|-7.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-7.3|-13.3|<0.001
91770456|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.02|-2.94|0.0533
91770457|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.58|-3.54|0.0065
91770458|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.82|-3.80|0.0025
91770459|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-1.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.20|-4.22|0.0005
91770460|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.03|-2.99|0.0541
91770461|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.71|-3.69|0.0039
91895804|NCT00409773|183686677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-10.2|-4.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.3|-10.2|<0.001
91790141|NCT02239120|183459401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.03|0.68|0.0892
91770462|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.22|-3.18|0.0245
91770463|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.31|-3.36|0.0187
91770464|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.62|-3.68|0.0060
91770465|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.98|-4.06|0.0014
91770466|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.37|-4.49|0.0003
91770467|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.49|-3.61|0.0100
91770468|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.91|-3.98|0.0019
91770469|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.67|-3.73|0.0049
91770470|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.30|-3.25|0.0186
91770471|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-0.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.82|-3.77|0.0024
91770472|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-1.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.30|-4.28|0.0003
91770473|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.29|-4.30|0.0003
91770474|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.62|-3.63|0.0058
91770475|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.7|-4.04|0.0008
91770476|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|-0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.64|-3.59|0.0050
91852139|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.7929|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.5|0.7929
91770477|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.31|-3.63|0.0205
91790142|NCT02239120|183459402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.06|0.73|0.1911
91770478|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.2818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.75|-2.58|0.2818
91770479|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.83|-2.60|0.3102
91770480|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.43|-2.99|0.1422
91770481|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.68|-4.12|0.0064
91770482|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.16|-3.28|0.0752
91770483|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.89|-2.43|0.3632
91770484|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.09|-3.32|0.0625
91770485|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.32|-2.07|0.6613
91770486|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.04|-2.48|0.4209
91770487|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.88|-2.63|0.3288
91770488|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.33|-3.86|0.0202
91770489|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.12|-3.42|0.0682
91895805|NCT00409773|183686677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-9.9|-3.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.9|-9.9|<0.001
91770490|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.3912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.96|-2.44|0.3912
91832221|NCT01212770|183543429|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.8||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||13.5|0.0|0.0520
91770491|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.4964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.09|-2.25|0.4964
91770492|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.68|-1.64|0.9830
91895806|NCT00409773|183686678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.809||95.0|-5.7|4.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.5|-5.7|0.809
91770493|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.78|-1.71|0.9715
91770494|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.86|-1.58|0.8715
91770495|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.2233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.66|-2.83|0.2233
91770496|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.2882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.80|-2.69|0.2882
91770497|NCT03192176|183427574|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.8643||95.0|-1.52|1.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.80|-1.52|0.8643
91770498|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.07|-0.53|0.0104
91770499|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.09|-0.56|0.0060
91770500|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.24|-0.71|<0.0001
91895807|NCT00409773|183686678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.217||95.0|-1.9|8.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||8.4|-1.9|0.217
91770501|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.38|-0.85|<0.0001
91770502|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.19|-0.28|0.6977
91770503|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.07|-0.53|0.0121
91832222|NCT01212770|183543429|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.2||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||10.6|-2.2|0.2052
91895808|NCT00409773|183686678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.796||95.0|-5.8|4.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.4|-5.8|0.796
91770504|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.08|-0.54|0.0086
91770505|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.08|-0.66|0.0138
91790143|NCT02239120|183459403|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||0.96|0.36|0.0354
91895809|NCT00409773|183686679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-12.1|-6.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.6|-12.1|<0.001
91895810|NCT00409773|183686679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.1|-2.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.6|-8.1|<0.001
91895811|NCT00409773|183686679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.0|-2.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.5|-8.0|<0.001
91770506|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.19|-0.78|0.0014
91770507|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.43|-1.02|<0.0001
91770508|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.59|-1.19|<0.0001
91770509|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.14|-0.46|0.2831
91770510|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.13|-0.72|0.0051
91770511|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.22|-0.81|0.0006
91770512|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.14|-0.83|0.0058
91770513|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.28|-0.97|0.0004
91770514|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.46|-1.14|<0.0001
91832223|NCT01212770|183543430|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.2||||0.5154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||4.8|-2.4|0.5154
91770515|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.57|-1.27|<0.0001
91770516|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||0.04|-0.66|0.0807
91770517|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.22|-0.91|0.0014
91770518|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.34|-1.02|0.0001
91770519|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.16|-0.85|0.0046
91770520|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.29|-0.99|0.0003
91770521|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.45|-1.14|<0.0001
91790144|NCT02239120|183459404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.38|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.38|0.66|0.8074
91770522|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.70|-1.14|<0.0001
91770523|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.06|-0.77|0.0209
91770524|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.24|-0.93|0.0011
91770525|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.38|-1.07|<0.0001
91770526|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.05|-0.67|0.0956
91770527|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.89|0.0050
91770528|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.45|-1.18|<0.0001
91770529|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.65|-1.40|<0.0001
91770530|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.05|-0.69|0.0915
91895812|NCT00409773|183686680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.042||95.0|0.1|4.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.8|0.1|0.042
91770531|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.02|-0.75|0.0378
91770532|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.89|0.0053
91770533|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.08|-0.83|0.0614
91770534|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.18|-0.92|0.0040
91770535|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.58|-1.33|<0.0001
91770536|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.71|-1.47|<0.0001
91770537|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||0.06|-0.70|0.0967
91770538|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.15|-0.90|0.0063
91770539|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.38|-1.13|<0.0001
91770540|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||0.02|-0.75|0.0632
91770541|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.23|-1.00|0.0020
91790145|NCT02239120|183459405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.83|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.83|0.58|0.9064
91790146|NCT02239120|183459407|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.36|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.36|0.49|0.4352
91790147|NCT02239120|183459408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.47|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.47|1.12|0.0003
91790148|NCT00603642|183459421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91790149|NCT00603642|183459422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91790150|NCT00603642|183459423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91895813|NCT00409773|183686680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-0.2|4.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.5|-0.2|<0.001
91895814|NCT00409773|183686680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-7.0|4.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.0|-7.0|<0.001
91790151|NCT00603642|183459424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91790152|NCT00603642|183459425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6015
91790153|NCT00853996|183459431|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons since this was primary endpoint. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91790154|NCT00853996|183459432|OTHER|||||||0.067||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.067
91790155|NCT00853996|183459433|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91790156|NCT00853996|183459434|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91790157|NCT00853996|183459435|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91790158|NCT01607203|183459440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t -test||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
91790159|NCT00548405|183459441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.87||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression model with robust variance estimation using treatment group and geographic region as covariate was used.||0.87|0.38|0.0084
91790160|NCT00548405|183459442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Proportional means regression|||Proportional means regression model with robust variance estimation and covariate adjustment for geographic region was used.||0.65|0.39|<0.0001
91790161|NCT00548405|183459443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with robust variance estimation and covariate adjustment for geographic region was used.||0.69|0.41|<0.0001
91790162|NCT00548405|183459444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wei-Lachin|||The analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures.||||<0.0001
91790163|NCT00548405|183459445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Wei-Lachin|||Change at Year 2: the analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures.||||0.0022
91790164|NCT00548405|183459446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA models with covariate adjustment for geographic region and Baseline T2 lesion volume was used.||||0.1371
91790165|NCT03735238|183459502|OTHER|Not applicable. No statistical test was performed for this outcome.||||||||||||||||This is a single arm implementation trial with no comparison group. This outcome represents the reach/penetration of the implementation at each site over the trial duration. We did not perform power calculation. There was no null hypothesis stated. Our aim was to enroll at least 28 patients per site in this implementation trial during regular outpatient rheumatology clinic visits. No statistical test was performed for this outcome.|Our aim was to enroll at least 28 patients per site in this implementation trial during regular outpatient rheumatology clinic visits. No statistical test was performed for this outcome.|||
91791310|NCT00492063|183460305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 after one vaccination in the elderly population.||1|-2|
91770542|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.51|-1.29|<0.0001
91770543|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.69|-1.48|<0.0001
91770544|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.04|-0.82|0.0308
91770545|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.12|-0.89|0.0105
91770546|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.26|-1.03|0.0010
91832224|NCT01212770|183543430|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.3||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.2|-1.5|0.2527
91770547|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.11|-0.69|0.1469
91770548|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.04|-0.84|0.0315
91770549|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.38|-1.18|0.0002
91895815|NCT00409773|183686681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-11.6|-6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.0|-11.6|<0.001
91895816|NCT00409773|183686681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.2|-2.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.5|-8.2|<0.001
91895817|NCT00409773|183686681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.7|-3.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.1|-8.7|<0.001
91895818|NCT00409773|183686682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-17.6|-10.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-10.5|-17.6|<0.001
91770550|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.43|-1.26|<0.0001
91770551|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.25|-0.56|0.4494
91770552|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.02|-0.79|0.0595
91770553|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.16|-0.96|0.0065
91770554|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.04|-0.77|0.0745
91895819|NCT00409773|183686682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-13.2|-6.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.1|-13.2|<0.001
91895820|NCT00409773|183686682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-12.0|-4.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.9|-12.0|<0.001
91770555|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.01|-0.80|0.0540
91770556|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.41|-1.22|0.0001
91770557|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.43|-1.26|<0.0001
91770558|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.28|-0.54|0.5317
91770559|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.01|-0.83|0.0424
91770560|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.11|-0.91|0.0134
91770561|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.04|-0.84|0.0300
91770562|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||0.02|-0.78|0.0605
91770563|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.40|-1.20|0.0001
91770564|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.56|-1.38|<0.0001
91770565|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||0.13|-0.68|0.1848
91770566|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.04|-0.84|0.0321
91770567|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.22|-1.01|0.0025
91770568|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.01|-0.81|0.0441
91770569|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.01|-0.82|0.0422
91770570|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.45|-1.27|<0.0001
91770571|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.62|-1.44|<0.0001
91770572|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.11|-0.71|0.1464
91770573|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.10|-0.91|0.0144
91770574|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.26|-1.06|0.0013
91770575|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.02|-0.80|0.0596
91770576|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.03|-0.85|0.0360
91895821|NCT00409773|183686683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-14.0|-8.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-8.0|-14.0|<0.001
91895822|NCT00409773|183686683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-9.4|-3.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.3|-9.4|<0.001
91770577|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.32|-1.15|0.0006
91770578|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.39|-1.23|0.0002
91895823|NCT00409773|183686683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-8.7|-2.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.7|-8.7|<0.001
91770579|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.21|-0.62|0.3227
91770580|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.07|-0.89|0.0220
91770581|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.02|-0.84|0.0380
91770582|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.10|-0.60|0.0067
91770583|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.05|-0.45|0.1227
91770584|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.05|-0.57|0.0208
91770585|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.10|-0.41|0.2396
91770586|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.15|-0.67|0.0022
91770587|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.00|-0.53|0.0479
91852140|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.9963|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-37.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-37.3|0.9963
91770588|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.15|-0.35|0.4152
91770589|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.03|-0.52|0.0262
91770590|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.05|-0.43|0.1210
91770591|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.02|-0.52|0.0369
91895824|NCT00409773|183686684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-15.0|-8.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-8.1|-15.0|<0.001
91770592|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.18|-0.32|0.5855
91770593|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.12|-0.62|0.0041
91895825|NCT00409773|183686684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-10.4|-3.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.6|-10.4|<0.001
91895826|NCT00409773|183686684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-11.2|-4.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.3|-11.2|<0.001
91895827|NCT00409773|183686687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.42||95.0|-11.0|5.0|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||5.0|-11.0|0.420
91770594|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.01|-0.50|0.0614
91832225|NCT01212770|183543431|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||15.1|1.6|0.0180
91832226|NCT01212770|183543431|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.8||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||12.3|-0.6|0.0807
91852141|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.7387|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-17.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-17.1|0.7387
91895828|NCT00409773|183686687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.555||95.0|-9.5|7.2|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||7.2|-9.5|0.555
91895829|NCT00409773|183686687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.41||95.0|-5.1|9.6|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||9.6|-5.1|0.410
91895830|NCT01919814|183686696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold P-Value was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91895831|NCT02164383|183686699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||ANOVA results: F(1,28)=.04, p=.85, partial eta-squared (as a measure of effect size) = .001|||||.85
91895832|NCT03057977|183686719|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.65|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|"Model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.~alpha = 0.0496 (resulting from interim analysis) eGFR (CKP-EPI)cr: Glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction."||0.86|0.65|<0.0001
91895833|NCT03057977|183686720|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.58|0.85|||Joint frailty model||HR vs placebo of recurrent HFF|"Model accounts for dependence between recurrent HHF and cardiovascular death, with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.~eGFR (CKP-EPI)cr: Glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction."||0.85|0.58|0.0003
91895834|NCT03057977|183686721|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Treatment by time interaction|1.733|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.669|2.796|||Random intercept random coef. model||Empa vs Placebo slope \[/year\]|"Random coefficient model allowing for random intercept and random slope per patient, with the same factors used for the primary endpoint (age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment) and additional factors time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr-by-time interaction. Only on-treatment data from treated patients were used.~alpha=0.001"||2.796|0.669|<0.0001
91895835|NCT03057977|183686722|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.77|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo|||0.77|0.32|0.0019
91895836|NCT03057977|183686723|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.81|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo|||0.81|0.59|<0.0001
91895837|NCT03057977|183686724|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo|||1.12|0.75|0.4133
91895838|NCT03057977|183686725|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF and treatment.|Comparison vs. placebo|||1.10|0.77|0.3536
91895839|NCT03057977|183686726|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CDK-EPI), region, sex, baseline LVEF and treatment.|Comparison vs. placebo|||1.19|0.62|0.3576
91895840|NCT03057977|183686727|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.96|||Mixed Model|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Comparison vs. placebo|Mixed model with age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI) as linear covariate(s) and region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, week reachable, treatment by visit interaction, baseline KCCQ - Clinical Summary Score by Visit interaction as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance structure has been used.||3.96|0.16|0.0340
91895841|NCT03057977|183686728|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.95|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. placebo|Joint frailty model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CDK-EPI), region, sex, baseline diabetes status and baseline LVEF. Model accounts for dependence between recurrent all-cause hospitalizations and all-cause mortality.||0.95|0.75|0.0065
91895842|NCT01350336|183686734|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 2 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1251|0.0497||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 2||0.0497|-0.1251|
91895843|NCT01350336|183686734|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 3 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.0325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1197|0.0565||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 3||0.0565|-0.1197|
91895844|NCT01350336|183686734|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 4 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.0566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1444|0.0329||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 4||0.0329|-0.1444|
91895845|NCT01350336|183686734|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 5 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.0765|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1661|0.013||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 5||0.0130|-0.1661|
91895846|NCT04234425|183686747|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.702|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.36||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.017
91895847|NCT04234425|183686748|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.06||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
91895848|NCT04234425|183686749|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.33||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
91895849|NCT02795429|183686755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561|||||||||||Bayesian Logistic Regression Model||Posterior probability that the odds ratio (ORRspartalizumab +capmatinib to ORRspartalizumab) was ≥ 1|||||
91895850|NCT02079610|183686783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91895851|NCT02079610|183686784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91895852|NCT02079610|183686785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91895853|NCT04776148|183686786|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis|Log Rank|||||0.85|0.56|0.0003
91895854|NCT04776148|183686787|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.7421|TWO_SIDED|85.0|0.75|1.77||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.77|0.75|0.7421
91895855|NCT04776148|183686788|OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. SOC|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|13.5|||Chi-squared||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by presence of liver metastasis|||13.5|4.7|<0.0001
91895856|NCT04776148|183686789|OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. SOC|3.3||||0.2456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|14.3|||Chi-squared||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||14.3|-7.7|0.2456
91895857|NCT04776148|183686796|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|2.71||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|6.46||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||6.46|-1.03|0.1553
91832227|NCT01212770|183543432|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.8||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.2|-2.6|0.4230
91895858|NCT04776148|183686797|OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.16||||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|4.51||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||4.51|-2.19|0.4967
91895859|NCT04776148|183686798|OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.36||||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.82||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||8.82|-2.10|0.2271
91895860|NCT04776148|183686799|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.46||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-0.65||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||-0.65|-10.27|0.0264
91895861|NCT04776148|183686800|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).||||1.14|0.73|0.4338
91895862|NCT04776148|183686801|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.87|0.4316
91895863|NCT04776148|183686802|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).||||1.32|0.85|0.5587
91895864|NCT04776148|183686803|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.6794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.23||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.73|0.6794
91832228|NCT01212770|183543432|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.6||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||4.6|-3.5|0.7870
91895865|NCT04776148|183686804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.02|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|HR=Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab vs. SOC treatment|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).||1.02|0.68|0.0379
91895866|NCT04776148|183686805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|HR=Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab vs. SOC treatment|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.||1.42|0.60|0.3574
91895867|NCT01052103|183686806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.732||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.732
91895868|NCT01052103|183686807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.846||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.846
91895869|NCT01052103|183686808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.201||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.201
91895870|NCT01052103|183686809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.136||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.136
91900814|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.65||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-0.19|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.19|-3.11|0.9864
91852142|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.6286|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-16.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-16.8|0.6286
91895871|NCT01052103|183686810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.739||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.739
91895872|NCT01052103|183686811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.19||95.0|||||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.190
91895873|NCT01052103|183686812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.702||95.0|||||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.702
91895874|NCT01052103|183686813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.851||95.0|||||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.851
91895875|NCT01052103|183686817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.3||P-value is for standing systolic BP.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||4.3|-4.3|0.999
91895876|NCT01052103|183686817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|3.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.7||P-value is for standing diastolic BP.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||6.7|1.0|0.009
91895877|NCT01052103|183686818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.5||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.9|||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||3.9|-5.0|0.818
91895878|NCT01052103|183686819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.44||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.1|||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.10|-1.98|0.571
91895879|NCT01052103|183686824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.682||95.0||||P-value is for treatment-emergent suicidal ideation.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.682
91895880|NCT01052103|183686825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.727||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.727
91895881|NCT01052103|183686829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.305||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.305
91895882|NCT01052103|183686830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.42||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.420
91895883|NCT00666679|183686831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||0.033||95.0|0.0|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||0.09|0.00|0.033
91770595|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.12|-0.36|0.3391
91770596|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.00|-0.49|0.0515
91895884|NCT00666679|183686832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.15||||0.005||95.0|-0.26|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||-0.05|-0.26|0.005
91895885|NCT00666679|183686833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.09||||0.015||95.0|-0.17|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||-0.02|-0.17|0.015
91895886|NCT00666679|183686834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.6||||0.073||95.0|-1.26|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||0.06|-1.26|0.073
91770597|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.02|-0.47|0.0667
91895887|NCT00666679|183686835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|6.08||||0.004||95.0|1.94|10.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction and period.|Least-Squares Means for average percentage of days are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction and period.|||10.23|1.94|0.004
91895888|NCT00666679|183686836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-5.43|||<=|0.001||95.0|-8.67|-2.19|||ANCOVA|Model with terms for patient, treatment and period.|Least-Squares Means for percentage of days are derived from ANCOVA model with terms for patient, treatment and period.|||-2.19|-8.67|<=0.001
91895889|NCT00666679|183686837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.07||||0.013||95.0|-0.12|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for change from baseline are derived from mixed model with terms for treatment, period and baseline covariate.|||-0.01|-0.12|0.013
91895890|NCT00666679|183686838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||0.002||95.0|0.03|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||0.13|0.03|0.002
91895891|NCT01616056|183686848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91770598|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.12|-0.63|0.0047
91895892|NCT01616056|183686850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91895893|NCT01616056|183686852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91895894|NCT01616056|183686855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91895895|NCT03339570|183686857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test was used if they were variables adjusted to a normal distribution, or the Mann-Whitney U test if they were non-normal variables.||||<0.01
91895896|NCT03881553|183686918|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedmans||||||0.081||||||χ2 =5.03|Friedman's|||||||0.081
91895897|NCT03881553|183686918|OTHER|Post hoc: Wilcoxon||||||0.05||||||ON1 compared to OFF1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91895898|NCT03881553|183686918|OTHER|Post Hoc Wilcoxon||||||0.021||||||ON1 compared to OFF2|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91895899|NCT01718353|183686923|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||%ARNL change from baseline at Cycle 1 Day 8 in participants with ≥50% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4 was compared with that of participants who did not have ≥50% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4||||0.02
91895900|NCT01718353|183686931|OTHER|||||||0.0927|||||||ANOVA|||MTB change from baseline at Cycle 1 Day 8 in participants with ≥30% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4 was compared with that of participants who did not have ≥30% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4||||0.0927
91895901|NCT01959516|183686932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0250
91895902|NCT01959516|183686933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1439|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1439
91895903|NCT01191268|183686977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of 1.5 mg LY2189265 versus Insulin Glargine was below 0.4%, 1.5 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||The study was designed to enroll 837 randomized participants (279 per treatment arm) with 90% power to detect non-inferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 versus Insulin Glargine on HbA1c change from baseline at the 26-week primary endpoint with a margin of 0.4%, a standard deviation of 1.3%, and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 assuming no true difference between treatments. This corresponds to 248 participants per arm, with an assumed drop-out rate of 11%.||-0.07|-0.38|<0.001
91895904|NCT01191268|183686977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 1-sided adjusted p-value was below 0.025, then 0.75 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.33|<0.001
91895905|NCT01191268|183686977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.07|-0.38|0.005
91770599|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.17|-0.34|0.5130
91895906|NCT01191268|183686977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.02|-0.33|0.015
91895907|NCT01191268|183686978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of 1.5 mg LY2189265 versus Insulin Glargine was below 0.4%, 1.5 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.42|<0.001
91895908|NCT01191268|183686978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 1-sided adjusted p-value was below 0.025, then 0.75 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.37|<0.001
91895909|NCT01191268|183686978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.07|-0.42|0.005
91895910|NCT01191268|183686978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.02|-0.37|0.014
91895911|NCT01191268|183686979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
91895912|NCT01191268|183686979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.010
91895913|NCT01191268|183686979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.027
91895914|NCT01191268|183686979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.384
91895915|NCT01191268|183686979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91895916|NCT01191268|183686979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.250
91895917|NCT01191268|183686979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.272
91895918|NCT01191268|183686979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.623
91895919|NCT01191268|183686980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91895920|NCT01191268|183686980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91895921|NCT01191268|183686980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91895922|NCT01191268|183686980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91895923|NCT01191268|183686981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.21||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.35|0.628
91895924|NCT01191268|183686981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.15|0.368
91895925|NCT01191268|183686981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.42||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.16|0.370
91895926|NCT01191268|183686981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.26|0.879
91895927|NCT01191268|183686982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.79||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|0.83|<0.001
91895928|NCT01191268|183686982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.28||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.28|1.32|<0.001
91895929|NCT01191268|183686982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.64||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.55|<0.001
91895930|NCT01191268|183686982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.96||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.96|0.88|<0.001
91895931|NCT01191268|183686984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-2.59||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-2.59|-3.81|<0.001
91895932|NCT01191268|183686984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-1.54||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.54|-2.76|<0.001
91895933|NCT01191268|183686984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-2.48||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-2.48|-3.99|<0.001
91895934|NCT01191268|183686984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.27||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-2.78|<0.001
91895935|NCT01191268|183686986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.96||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.96|-1.44|<0.001
91895936|NCT01191268|183686986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.55||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-1.03|<0.001
91895937|NCT01191268|183686986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.94||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.55|<0.001
91895938|NCT01191268|183686986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.46||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.06|<0.001
91895939|NCT01313689|183687013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.24|0.50|0.2677
91895940|NCT01313689|183687013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.53|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.53|0.19|0.0837
91895941|NCT01313689|183687014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.87|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum.|||0.87|0.35|0.0030
91895942|NCT01313689|183687014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.17|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.17|0.21|0.0262
91895943|NCT01313689|183687015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.942||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|7.424|||Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum||||7.424|1.166|0.0223
91895944|NCT01313689|183687015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.999||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|999.999|||Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum||||999.999|0.001|0.9985
91895945|NCT01313689|183687016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.366||||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|2.899||Odds ratios and p-value are based on conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum included in the Strata statement|Regression, Logistic|||||2.899|0.644|0.4159
91895946|NCT01313689|183687016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.225||||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|19.862||Odds ratios and p-value are based on conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum in the strata statement|Regression, Logistic|||||19.862|0.076|0.8866
91895947|NCT01313689|183687017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.17|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.17|0.48|0.1732
91770600|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.23|-0.75|0.0002
91895948|NCT01313689|183687017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.68||P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Log Rank||Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||2.68|0.46|0.8128
91895949|NCT01337115|183687077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.55|45.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between mean VAS pain scores. Power 80%. Null hypothesis states there is no difference between pains scores in both groups||45.34|11.55|0.001
91895950|NCT01337115|183687078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||||||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in patient satisfaction distribution by the three categories used (Bad; Reasonable; Good/Very Good) between groups.|Fisher's exact test|Fisher's Exact test allows to test for the significance of the distribution in the results table with three categories.||||||0.537
91770601|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.07|-0.60|0.0126
91895951|NCT01337115|183687079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|28.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. Power 80%||28.33|5.52|0.006
91895952|NCT01337115|183687080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.93|11.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis states there is no difference between both groups. Power 80% to detect 15% difference in means||11.83|-16.93|0.723
91895953|NCT03386110|183687082|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.19||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 3-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 3-month follow-up, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||2.54|-0.15|0.08
91895954|NCT03386110|183687082|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 6-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 6-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||1.89|-0.49|0.25
91895955|NCT03386110|183687082|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.79||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline use (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on illicit drug use at 3-months||"Moderation analysis in 3-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 3-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||3.09|0.49|0.007
91706173|NCT00938587|183306677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|17.46||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.08|43.7|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||43.70|-10.08|0.2340
91895956|NCT03386110|183687082|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.36||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline use (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on illicit drug use at 6-months||"Moderation analysis in 6-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 6-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||1.53|-2.26|0.71
91895957|NCT03386110|183687083|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted CAS events at 3-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 3-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||1.37|-0.65|0.36
91895958|NCT03386110|183687083|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted CAS events at 6-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 6-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||0.78|-1.15|0.63
91895959|NCT03386110|183687083|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.54||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline rates of CAS (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on CAS events at 3-months||"Moderation analysis in 3-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 3-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||0.77|-1.85|0.42
91895960|NCT03386110|183687083|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-1.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline rates of CAS (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on CAS events at 6-months||"Moderation analysis in 6-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 6-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||-0.27|-3.14|0.02
91895961|NCT03386110|183687084|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.48||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use at 3-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 3-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||1.44|-0.18|0.15
91895962|NCT03386110|183687084|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.24||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use at 6-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 6-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||0.92|-0.44|0.50
91895963|NCT03386110|183687084|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline use moderated the effect of condition on marijuana use at 3-months||"Moderation analysis in 3-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||0.31|-0.34|0.910
91895964|NCT03386110|183687084|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.34||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Moderation analysis in 6-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||0.75|-0.07|0.11
91895965|NCT02697292|183687085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|98.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||98.9|1.1|0.044
91895966|NCT02697292|183687086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.100
91895967|NCT03426267|183687089|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91895968|NCT03426267|183687090|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91895969|NCT01043393|183687146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.779|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|11.126||||||||11.126|0.055|
91895970|NCT01551212|183687205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|8.91|||ANCOVA|factors: treatment, center, HCV-Class (positive, negative) and lab MELD (≤ 30 vs \> 30) covariate: baseline value||||8.91|-0.74|0.097
91895971|NCT01551212|183687206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.92|||ANCOVA|factors: treatment, center, HCV-Class (positive, negative) and lab MELD (≤ 30 vs \> 30) covariate: baseline value||||13.92|2.06|0.0085
91895972|NCT01551212|183687207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.699
91895973|NCT00705523|183687212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|beta=-0.67, exp(beta)=0.51, chi-squared(1) = 0.2.71||Self-reported drinking results, as gathered by the TLFB, were compared by the generalized estimating equations (GEE) (Diggle et al., 1994), using Poisson models for counts of drinking and heavy drinking days, and logistic regression models for absence/presence binary indicators of drinking. In the GEE model, the pre-treatment of the response was included as a covariate, together with the treatment group indicator, and a linear time effect.||||0.10
91895974|NCT02673515|183687239|OTHER|||||||0.797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of changes from baseline to 4 weeks between groups was tested with student´s t-test or Mann Whitney-U-Test||||0.797
91895975|NCT01370590|183687252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Ezetimibe/atorvastatin 10 mg/20 mg combination tablet was considered equivalent to co-administration of ezetimibe 10 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg, if the two-sided 97.5% expanded confidence intervals of the treatment difference in least squares means for percent change in LDL-C from baseline after 6 weeks of treatment (combination minus co-administration) was contained within -4% and 4% (equivalence margins).|Difference in Least-square Means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|3.3|||ANCOVA|||It was anticipated that 85% of the enrolled participants would be evaluable to achieve 95% power in order to establish equivalence between the Ezetimibe/Atorvastatin Fixed Dose Combination and the co-administration of Ezetimibe and Atorvastatin with respect to percent change from baseline in LDL-C after 6 weeks of treatment using two one-sided tests each at 2.5% α-level, assuming the underlying true treatment difference is ±1.4% and that the standard deviation of the difference is 12.8%.||3.3|-1.7|
91895976|NCT01370590|183687253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-square means|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.8|
91895977|NCT01370590|183687254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-0.6|
91895978|NCT01370590|183687255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.3|
91895979|NCT01370590|183687256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-0.6|
91895980|NCT01370590|183687257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.2|6.3|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Analyses were based on log-transformed data.||6.3|-3.2|
91895981|NCT03992846|183687264|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 1.10 or greater from baseline pain for Dysmenorrhea (DYS).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.46|4.49|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||4.49|1.46|<0.001
91895982|NCT03992846|183687264|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 1.10 or greater from baseline pain for Dysmenorrhea (DYS).|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.86|15.91|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||15.91|4.86|<0.001
91895983|NCT03992846|183687265|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 0.80 or greater from baseline pain for Non-Menstrual Pelvic Pain (NMPP).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|2.45|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||2.45|0.83|0.279
91895984|NCT03992846|183687265|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 0.80 or greater from baseline pain for Non-Menstrual Pelvic Pain (NMPP).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.18|3.42|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||3.42|1.18|0.007
91895985|NCT01440374|183687273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.202||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.868|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||||0.868|0.047|0.0315
91895986|NCT00876928|183687316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of patients developing diabetes|10.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|12.0||A chi square test was used for the number of participants developing diabetes and a 2-way repeated measures ANOVA for the disposition index|Chi-squared||Primary outcome compared the number of participants developing diabetes after receiving vitamin D or placebo for one year. Secondary outcome compared changes in 2-way repeated measures ANOVA; therefore,no confidence intervals/dispersion parameters|Null hypothesis is that there is no effect of vitamin D on the development of diabetes in people with pre-diabetes and hypovitaminosis D. There were no published data when this trial was started on the effect of vitamin D in pre-diabetes making a power calculation difficult.||12|8|0.61
91895987|NCT00876928|183687317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in the changes in the Disposition Index between the 2 groups over the year.||||0.39
91895988|NCT03645057|183687327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.433
91895989|NCT03645057|183687328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.836
91895990|NCT03645057|183687329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.073
91895991|NCT03645057|183687330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.989
91895992|NCT03645057|183687331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.565
91895993|NCT03645057|183687332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.479
91895994|NCT03645057|183687333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.577
91895995|NCT03645057|183687334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.439
91895996|NCT03645057|183687335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.242
91895997|NCT01171807|183687356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91895998|NCT03907410|183687419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|28.0||||||Multivariate comparison of Experiment phase adherence (Months 1-3) comparing Arm 1 (Full Intervention arm) to Arm 3 (Active control). Arm 3 is used as the reference. This randomized controlled trial was powered for Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 comparisons, hence the Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 outcome data for adherence to the inhaled corticosteroid regime. The study did not have sufficient power for Arm 2 comparisons.||28|2|
91895999|NCT03907410|183687419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.0||||||Multivariate comparison of Observation phase adherence (Months 4-6) comparing Arm 1 (Full Intervention arm) to Arm 3 (Active control). Arm 3 is used as the reference. This randomized controlled trial was powered for Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 comparisons, hence the Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 outcome data for adherence to the inhaled corticosteroid regime. The study did not have sufficient power for Arm 2 comparisons.||7|-20|
91896000|NCT00757588|183687426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.24||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-0.24|-0.59|<0.0001
91896001|NCT00757588|183687427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3829.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1165.99||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6122.4|-1537.1||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-1537.1|-6122.4|0.0011
91896002|NCT00757588|183687428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-8.7||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-8.7|-37.2|0.0016
91896003|NCT00757588|183687429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.732||0.3958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|5.28||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||5.28|-13.32|0.3958
91896004|NCT00757588|183687431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.1||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-1.1|-5.6|
91896005|NCT02563522|183687440|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|45.81|||Fisher Exact|No imputation was performed for subjects with missing response data||The statistical hypotheses were H0: Pt = Pc versus Ha: Pt ≠ Pc, where Pt and Pc are the proportions of subjects with a confirmed target would closure by the 4-month follow-up for Active (Engensis) and Control (Placebo) groups, respectively. The hypothesis testing was a two-sided alpha of 0.05||45.81|-12.37|0.3455
91896006|NCT04874415|183687449|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.3|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||5.3|-6.2|
91896007|NCT04874415|183687449|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.6|||||Fixed step count is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||4.6|-9.4|
91896008|NCT04874415|183687449|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|3.1|||||Loss framed incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.1|-11|
91896009|NCT04874415|183687449|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.8|||||Daily step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||9.8|-1.0|
91896010|NCT04874415|183687450|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-686.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2997.0|1626.0|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||1626|-2997|
91896011|NCT04874415|183687450|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2340.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4794.0|115.0|||||Fixed step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||115|-4794|
91770602|NCT03192176|183427575|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.13|-0.36|0.3507
91770603|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.08|-0.60|0.0098
91770604|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.11|-0.63|0.0048
91770605|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.28|-0.80|<0.0001
91770606|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.47|-1.00|<0.0001
91770607|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.21|-0.32|0.6761
91770608|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.05|-0.57|0.0188
91770609|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.10|-0.61|0.0067
91770610|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.03|-0.68|0.0335
91770611|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.25|-0.91|0.0007
91770612|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.48|-1.14|<0.0001
91770613|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.74|-1.41|<0.0001
91770614|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.17|-0.50|0.3227
91770615|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.11|-0.77|0.0085
91770616|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.30|-0.95|0.0002
91770617|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.12|-0.87|0.0102
91770618|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.39|-1.15|<0.0001
91770619|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.54|-1.29|<0.0001
91770620|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.68|-1.46|<0.0001
91770621|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||0.03|-0.73|0.0740
91770622|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.21|-0.97|0.0024
91770623|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.41|-1.17|<0.0001
91770624|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.08|-0.72|0.1197
91770625|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.18|-0.98|0.0046
91770626|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.47|-1.28|<0.0001
91770627|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.69|-1.51|<0.0001
91770628|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.01|-0.80|0.0553
91770629|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.05|-0.76|0.0823
91770630|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.96|0.0060
91770631|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.03|-0.83|0.0374
91770632|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.19|-1.00|0.0042
91770633|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.56|-1.38|<0.0001
91770634|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.71|-1.54|<0.0001
91770635|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||0.03|-0.79|0.0710
91770636|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.09|-0.91|0.0160
91770637|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.34|-1.15|0.0003
91770638|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||0.07|-0.76|0.1013
91770639|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.28|-1.11|0.0011
91770640|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.53|-1.36|<0.0001
91770641|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.72|-1.57|<0.0001
91770642|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.00|-0.85|0.0476
91770643|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.07|-0.90|0.0220
91770644|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.24|-1.07|0.0019
91770645|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.11|-0.74|0.1457
91770646|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.05|-0.91|0.0284
91770647|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.39|-1.26|0.0002
91770648|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.48|-1.36|<0.0001
91770649|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.26|-0.61|0.4223
91770650|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.01|-0.87|0.0442
91770651|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.16|-1.02|0.0071
91770652|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.05|-0.80|0.0823
91770653|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.04|-0.89|0.0336
91770654|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.46|-1.32|<0.0001
91770655|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.47|-1.34|<0.0001
91770656|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.28|-0.59|0.4819
91770657|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.03|-0.88|0.0371
91770658|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.12|-0.97|0.0121
91770659|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.05|-0.89|0.0281
91770660|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.01|-0.86|0.0436
91770661|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.49|-1.34|<0.0001
91770662|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.60|-1.47|<0.0001
91770663|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||0.11|-0.75|0.1488
91770664|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.06|-0.91|0.0251
91770665|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.23|-1.08|0.0027
91770666|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.07|-0.77|0.1053
91770667|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.04|-0.90|0.0304
91770668|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.43|-1.33|<0.0001
91770669|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.61|-1.49|<0.0001
91770670|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.06|-0.81|0.0873
91770671|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.12|-0.97|0.0124
91770672|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.27|-1.12|0.0014
91770673|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.00|-0.68|0.0479
91770674|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.13|-0.54|0.2342
91770675|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.13|-0.84|0.0070
91770676|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.21|-0.49|0.4291
91770677|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.13|-0.83|0.0076
91770678|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.10|-0.62|0.1506
91770679|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.5479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.24|-0.44|0.5479
91770680|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.08|-0.57|0.1427
91770681|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.09|-0.56|0.1498
91770682|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.11|-0.79|0.0103
91770683|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.32|-0.36|0.8984
91770684|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.11|-0.79|0.0095
91770685|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.08|-0.60|0.1370
91770686|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.19|-0.46|0.4223
91770687|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.17|-0.50|0.3265
91770688|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.04|-0.62|0.0852
91770689|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.21|-0.91|0.0021
91770690|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.25|-0.45|0.5717
91770691|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.12|-0.82|0.0084
91770692|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.04|-0.75|0.0277
91770693|NCT03192176|183427576|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.21|-0.46|0.4627
91770694|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.97|-8.62|0.0142
91770695|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-4.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-4.05|-11.73|<0.0001
91770696|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|-5.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.31|-12.98|<0.0001
91770697|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|-6.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-6.61|-14.39|<0.0001
91770698|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.44|-7.36|0.0819
91770699|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|-3.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-3.09|-10.78|0.0004
91770700|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|-3.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-3.05|-10.69|0.0005
91770701|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.23|-8.01|0.0380
91770702|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-3.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-3.64|-11.46|0.0002
91770703|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-4.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-4.17|-11.96|<0.0001
91770704|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-5.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-5.25|-13.17|<0.0001
91770705|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.59|-8.52|0.0245
91770706|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-2.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.01|-9.83|0.0031
91770707|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|-1.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.75|-9.53|0.0046
91770708|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-1.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.59|-9.61|0.0064
91770709|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|-4.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.65|-12.72|<0.0001
91770710|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.78|-4.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.75|-12.78|<0.0001
91770711|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|-6.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-6.09|-14.27|<0.0001
91770712|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-2.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.36|-10.54|0.0021
91770713|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-3.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-3.66|-11.71|0.0002
91770714|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-2.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.95|-10.96|0.0007
91770715|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-1.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.47|-9.46|0.0075
91770716|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|-4.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.42|-12.44|<0.0001
91770717|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-4.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.16|-12.15|<0.0001
91770718|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-6.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-6.16|-14.30|<0.0001
91770719|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|-2.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.34|-10.46|0.0021
91770720|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-4.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.25|-12.25|<0.0001
91770721|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|-3.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-3.62|-11.58|0.0002
91770722|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.05|-8.60|0.0123
91770723|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-4.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.07|-11.63|<0.0001
91770724|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-4.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.23|-11.80|<0.0001
91770725|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-6.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-6.03|-13.73|<0.0001
91770726|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-2.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.47|-10.13|0.0013
91832229|NCT01212770|183543433|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.1||||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.5|-14.8|0.4707
91770727|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|-3.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-3.41|-10.97|0.0002
91770728|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|-2.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.89|-10.41|0.0006
91770729|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-1.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.07|-8.54|0.0119
91770730|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|-3.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.09|-10.58|0.0004
91770731|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|-4.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-4.06|-11.57|<0.0001
91770732|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-5.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-5.27|-12.89|<0.0001
91770733|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.58|-9.18|0.0057
91770734|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-2.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.90|-10.40|0.0006
91770735|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-2.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.81|-10.27|0.0006
91770736|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|-0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.68|-8.27|0.0210
91770737|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.98|-3.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.38|-10.98|0.0002
91770738|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|-3.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.49|-11.12|0.0002
91770739|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.99|-5.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-5.25|-12.99|<0.0001
91770740|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-1.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.73|-9.45|0.0047
91770741|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-2.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.67|-10.29|0.0009
91770742|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|-2.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.71|-10.28|0.0008
91770743|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.51|-7.10|0.0889
91770744|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|-2.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.13|-9.76|0.0023
91770745|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|-2.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.71|-10.36|0.0009
91770746|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.36|-3.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-3.58|-11.36|0.0002
91770747|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.55|-8.30|0.0255
91770748|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|-1.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.98|-9.63|0.0031
91770749|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-1.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.85|-9.45|0.0037
91770750|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.35|-7.59|0.0316
91770751|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|-1.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.78|-9.02|0.0036
91770752|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-2.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.94|-10.23|0.0004
91770753|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|-3.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-3.54|-10.93|0.0001
91770754|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.00|-7.37|0.0502
91770755|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|-1.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.99|-9.28|0.0025
91770756|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|-1.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.44|-8.67|0.0063
91770757|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-1.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.08|-8.58|0.0117
91770758|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|-1.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.67|-9.17|0.0047
91770759|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-3.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.23|-10.80|0.0003
91770760|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-3.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.86|-11.51|<0.0001
91770761|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.97|-1.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||-1.34|-8.97|0.0083
91770762|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-2.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.56|-10.10|0.0011
91770763|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.29|-9.77|0.0017
91770764|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.05|-8.37|0.0119
91770765|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.29|-9.61|0.0015
91770766|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|-3.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.99|-11.38|<0.0001
91770767|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-3.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.87|-11.33|<0.0001
91770768|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-1.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.62|-9.07|0.0051
91770769|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|-2.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.96|-10.33|0.0004
91770770|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|-2.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.34|-9.64|0.0014
91770771|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|-1.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.51|-8.67|0.0054
91770772|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.55|-9.71|0.0008
91770773|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-3.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.97|-11.20|<0.0001
91770774|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-4.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-4.59|-11.88|<0.0001
91770775|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|-1.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.99|-9.27|0.0026
91770776|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|-3.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.16|-10.35|0.0003
91770777|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-2.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.75|-9.88|0.0006
91770778|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-1.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-1.15|-9.48|0.0126
91770779|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||1.27|-7.06|0.1724
91770780|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|2.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||2.27|-6.31|0.3548
91770781|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.53|-8.04|0.0860
91770782|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|-1.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-1.28|-9.89|0.0111
91770783|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.33|-8.94|0.0349
91770784|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|1.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.57|-6.77|0.2205
91770785|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.24|-8.29|0.0645
91770786|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|2.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.80|-5.69|0.5031
91770787|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|2.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.99|-5.84|0.5263
91770788|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.2782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|1.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.97|-6.83|0.2782
91770789|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|-0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.84|-9.67|0.0198
91770790|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.18|-9.05|0.0417
91770791|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|2.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.00|-6.52|0.2963
91770792|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.83|-5.39|0.5408
91770793|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.7473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|3.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||3.41|-4.74|0.7473
91706174|NCT00938587|183306677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|28.57||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|53.07|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||53.07|0.91|0.0442
91770794|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.9214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|4.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.50|-4.07|0.9214
91770795|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.9876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|4.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.26|-4.19|0.9876
91770796|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|1.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.71|-6.86|0.2379
91770797|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|1.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.14|-7.45|0.1491
91770798|NCT03192176|183427577|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|4.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.19|-3.96|0.9560
91770799|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-1.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.30|-9.01|0.0089
91770800|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|-4.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-4.48|-12.22|<0.0001
91770801|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.06|-5.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.34|-13.06|<0.0001
91770802|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-6.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-6.75|-14.58|<0.0001
91770803|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.20|-7.65|0.0630
91770804|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-3.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-3.30|-11.04|0.0003
91770805|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-2.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.84|-10.53|0.0007
91770806|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-0.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.63|-8.43|0.0231
91770807|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.94|-4.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-4.09|-11.94|<0.0001
91770808|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.87|-4.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-4.05|-11.87|<0.0001
91770809|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|-5.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-5.26|-13.21|<0.0001
91706175|NCT00938587|183306677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.9||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.82|32.92|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||32.92|-19.82|0.3813
91770810|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.84|-8.80|0.0177
91770811|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|-2.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.60|-10.45|0.0012
91770812|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-2.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.64|-9.26|0.0072
91770813|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|-1.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.84|-9.86|0.0044
91770814|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|-5.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-5.21|-13.27|<0.0001
91770815|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|-4.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.55|-12.57|<0.0001
91770816|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|-6.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-6.11|-14.29|<0.0001
91770817|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-2.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.87|-11.04|0.0009
91770818|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|-4.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.39|-12.44|<0.0001
91770819|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|-2.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.64|-10.65|0.0012
91770820|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|-1.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.71|-9.72|0.0053
91770821|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.77|-4.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.73|-12.77|<0.0001
91770822|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-3.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-3.84|-11.84|0.0001
91770823|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|-5.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-5.96|-14.12|<0.0001
91770824|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|-2.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.78|-10.92|0.0010
91770825|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|-4.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.46|-12.49|<0.0001
91770826|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|-3.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-3.13|-11.12|0.0005
91770827|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.58|-9.15|0.0057
91770828|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-4.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.56|-12.15|<0.0001
91770829|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|-4.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.08|-11.68|<0.0001
91770830|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.66|-5.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-5.93|-13.66|<0.0001
91770831|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-2.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.85|-10.54|0.0007
91770832|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|-3.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-3.95|-11.55|<0.0001
91770833|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|-2.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.60|-10.16|0.0010
91770834|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|-1.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.48|-8.99|0.0064
91770835|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|-3.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.42|-10.94|0.0002
91770836|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|-3.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.75|-11.29|0.0001
91770837|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|-5.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-5.03|-12.69|<0.0001
91770838|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|-1.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.99|-9.62|0.0030
91770839|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|-3.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.37|-10.92|0.0002
91770840|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-2.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.42|-9.91|0.0013
91770841|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|-0.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.99|-8.61|0.0137
91770842|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|-3.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.60|-11.24|0.0002
91770843|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|-3.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.13|-10.79|0.0004
91770844|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|-4.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-4.97|-12.74|<0.0001
91770845|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.07|-9.82|0.0028
91770846|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.94|-10.60|0.0006
91770847|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-2.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.21|-9.82|0.0020
91770848|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.14|-7.46|0.0588
91770849|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.14|-9.90|0.0018
91770850|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|-2.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.34|-9.98|0.0017
91770851|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|-3.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-3.32|-11.09|0.0003
91770852|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.81|-8.55|0.0810
91770853|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-2.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.23|-9.88|0.0020
91770854|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-1.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.39|-8.98|0.0076
91770855|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|-0.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.75|-8.01|0.0182
91770856|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-2.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.16|-9.42|0.0019
91770857|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.02|-2.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.71|-10.02|0.0007
91770858|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-3.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-3.35|-10.76|0.0002
91832230|NCT01212770|183543433|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.4||||0.3547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||5.7|-16.6|0.3547
91770859|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|-0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.50|-7.89|0.0263
91770860|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.29|-9.61|0.0015
91770861|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-1.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.07|-8.32|0.0113
91770862|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|-1.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.54|-9.04|0.0059
91770863|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|-2.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.25|-9.76|0.0018
91770864|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|-3.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.05|-10.62|0.0004
91770865|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|-3.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.73|-11.39|0.0001
91770866|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||-1.75|-9.40|0.0044
91770867|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-2.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.84|-10.40|0.0006
91770868|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|-2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.07|-9.57|0.0025
91770869|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.81|-1.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.49|-8.81|0.0059
91770870|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|-2.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.74|-10.06|0.0007
91770871|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-3.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.79|-11.18|<0.0001
91770872|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-3.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.72|-11.18|0.0001
91706176|NCT00938587|183306678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|9.52||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|27.09|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||27.09|-3.90|0.1017
91770873|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-2.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.11|-9.56|0.0022
91770874|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|-3.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.19|-10.56|0.0003
91770875|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|-2.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.13|-9.44|0.0020
91770876|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-2.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.01|-9.18|0.0023
91770877|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|-2.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.89|-10.06|0.0004
91770878|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|-3.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.81|-11.05|<0.0001
91770879|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-4.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-4.49|-11.80|<0.0001
91770880|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-2.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.47|-9.77|0.0011
91770881|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-3.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.32|-10.54|0.0002
91770882|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.56|-9.71|0.0008
91770883|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|-1.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-1.80|-10.26|0.0054
91770884|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.83|-7.63|0.1145
91770885|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.2106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.58|-7.13|0.2106
91770886|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.31|-8.39|0.0685
91770887|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-2.29|-11.02|0.0029
91770888|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.67|-9.42|0.0239
91770889|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.60|-6.86|0.2224
91770890|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.45|-9.17|0.0308
91770891|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.4194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|2.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.56|-6.13|0.4194
91770892|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|2.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.48|-6.55|0.3759
91770893|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|1.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.74|-7.26|0.2285
91770894|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-1.70|-10.71|0.0072
91770895|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.38|-9.46|0.0338
91770896|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.3026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.07|-6.64|0.3026
91770897|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.07|-6.45|0.3120
91770898|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.6816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|3.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||3.34|-5.11|0.6816
91770899|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.8599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|4.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.05|-4.85|0.8599
91770900|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|4.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.13|-4.64|0.9093
91770901|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.46|-8.43|0.0788
91770902|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.00|-7.92|0.1278
91770903|NCT03192176|183427578|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.9848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|4.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.27|-4.19|0.9848
91770904|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|28.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 1||28.49|0.76|0.0388
91770905|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|37.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||37.02|9.17|0.0012
91770906|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|37.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|51.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||51.22|23.41|<0.0001
91770907|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|41.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.88|55.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||55.05|26.88|<0.0001
91770908|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|22.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||22.32|-5.98|0.2569
91770909|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.65|39.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||39.47|11.65|0.0003
91770910|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.39|44.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||44.06|16.39|<0.0001
91770911|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|29.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||29.71|2.11|0.0240
91770912|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.62|38.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||38.37|10.62|0.0006
91770913|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.87|47.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||47.52|19.87|<0.0001
91770914|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.93|52.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||52.04|23.93|<0.0001
91770915|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|28.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||28.53|0.38|0.0441
91770916|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.58|33.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||33.28|5.58|0.0061
91770917|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.96|39.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||39.53|11.96|0.0003
91770918|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|35.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||35.07|5.36|0.0078
91770919|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.36|43.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||43.22|13.36|0.0002
91770920|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|36.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.07|51.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||51.77|22.07|<0.0001
91770921|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.41|55.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRm|||Week 3||55.67|25.41|<0.0001
91770922|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.59|34.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||34.88|4.59|0.0108
91770923|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|39.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||39.84|10.09|0.0011
91770924|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.03|45.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||45.67|16.03|<0.0001
91770925|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|35.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||35.23|5.84|0.0063
91770926|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.98|43.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||43.46|13.98|0.0002
91770927|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.66|48.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||48.00|18.66|<0.0001
91770928|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.52|56.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||56.41|26.52|<0.0001
91770929|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|34.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||34.66|4.78|0.0098
91770930|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|44.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||44.61|15.26|<0.0001
91770931|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|47.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||47.73|18.50|<0.0001
91770932|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|29.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||29.40|1.48|0.0303
91770933|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|38.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||38.74|10.77|0.0006
91770934|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.77|44.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||44.75|16.77|<0.0001
91770935|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.55|53.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||53.00|24.55|<0.0001
91770936|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|33.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||33.23|4.88|0.0086
91770937|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|36.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||36.24|8.33|0.0018
91770938|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.24|39.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||39.05|11.24|0.0004
91770939|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|27.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||27.60|1.56|0.0282
91770940|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|32.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||32.92|6.85|0.0029
91770941|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.58|42.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||42.73|16.58|<0.0001
91770942|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.42|48.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||48.99|22.42|<0.0001
91770943|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|27.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||27.90|1.40|0.0304
91770944|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.38|33.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||33.50|7.38|0.0022
91770945|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.56|39.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||39.50|13.56|<0.0001
91770946|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|27.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||27.95|0.93|0.0362
91770947|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.41|36.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||36.47|9.41|0.0009
91770948|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.27|42.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||42.46|15.27|<0.0001
91770949|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|36.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.99|50.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||50.57|22.99|<0.0001
91770950|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|29.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||29.34|1.83|0.0265
91770951|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.89||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|34.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||34.71|7.60|0.0023
91770952|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.64|40.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||40.59|13.64|<0.0001
91770953|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|22.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||22.99|-3.75|0.1580
91770954|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|31.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||31.50|4.72|0.0082
91770955|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.77|38.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||38.71|11.77|0.0003
91770956|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.93|44.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||44.31|16.93|<0.0001
91770957|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|24.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||24.84|-2.45|0.1074
91706177|NCT00938587|183306678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.05||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.49|38.44|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||38.44|4.49|0.0218
91770958|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|31.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||31.76|4.87|0.0077
91770959|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.29|37.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||37.01|10.29|0.0006
91770960|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|24.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||24.53|-0.92|0.0689
91770961|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|27.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||27.27|1.84|0.0250
91770962|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.51||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.54|37.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||37.17|11.54|0.0002
91770963|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|42.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||42.57|16.60|<0.0001
91770964|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|21.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||21.36|-4.58|0.2041
91770965|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|31.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||31.20|5.62|0.0049
91770966|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|33.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||33.37|8.00|0.0015
91770967|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|28.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||28.89|2.68|0.0184
91706178|NCT00938587|183306678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|9.52||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.71|27.06|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||27.06|-3.71|0.1082
91770968|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|25.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||25.93|-0.28|0.0551
91770969|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.51|39.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||39.00|12.51|0.0002
91770970|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.17|44.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||44.93|18.17|<0.0001
91770971|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|27.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||27.62|0.89|0.0367
91770972|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|34.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||34.34|7.99|0.0017
91770973|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|37.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||37.44|11.29|0.0003
91770974|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|27.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||27.15|1.78|0.0255
91852143|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.9538|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-27.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-27.8|0.9538
91770975|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|27.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||27.94|2.57|0.0186
91770976|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.71|39.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||39.36|13.71|<0.0001
91770977|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.94|42.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||42.81|16.94|<0.0001
91770978|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|26.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||26.85|1.01|0.0347
91770979|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|34.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||34.65|9.16|0.0008
91770980|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.75|36.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||36.04|10.75|0.0003
91770981|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|27.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||27.43|2.13|0.0221
91770982|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|29.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||29.62|4.32|0.0087
91770983|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.65|39.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||39.23|13.65|<0.0001
91770984|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.13|43.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||43.94|18.13|<0.0001
91770985|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|27.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||27.70|1.92|0.0244
91770986|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|34.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||34.62|9.21|0.0008
91770987|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|35.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||35.83|10.63|0.0003
91770988|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|24.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||24.30|-4.77|0.1871
91770989|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.7552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|16.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||16.83|-12.23|0.7552
91770990|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.8407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|16.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||16.50|-13.44|0.8407
91770991|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|22.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||22.14|-7.77|0.3450
91770992|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|20.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||20.80|-9.34|0.4550
91770993|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|25.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||25.44|-4.64|0.1747
91770994|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.5476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|18.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||18.97|-10.08|0.5476
91770995|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.01||0.7954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|17.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||17.84|-13.69|0.7954
91770996|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|16.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||16.95|-14.41|0.8731
91770997|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31||0.9689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|16.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||16.03|-16.68|0.9689
91770998|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.6378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|20.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||20.21|-12.40|0.6378
91770999|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.82|17.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||17.97|-14.82|0.8503
91771000|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|29.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||29.44|-3.51|0.1224
91771001|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|22.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||22.85|-8.62|0.3743
91771002|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.44|7.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||7.63|-23.44|0.3173
91771003|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|13.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||13.32|-17.48|0.7905
91771004|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.24||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.46|8.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||8.98|-23.46|0.3804
91771005|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.58|10.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||10.38|-21.58|0.4905
91771006|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.83|3.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||3.68|-28.83|0.1289
91771007|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.24||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|22.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||22.61|-9.86|0.4398
91771008|NCT03192176|183427579|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.45|13.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||13.33|-17.45|0.7921
91771009|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|33.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 1||33.46|4.82|0.0090
91771010|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.61|41.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||41.39|12.61|0.0003
91771011|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.14|53.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||53.90|25.14|<0.0001
91771012|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|44.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.27|59.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||59.39|30.27|<0.0001
91771013|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|26.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||26.79|-2.43|0.1019
91771014|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.45|42.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||42.22|13.45|0.0002
91771015|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.21|43.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||43.82|15.21|<0.0001
91771016|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|33.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||33.76|6.10|0.0049
91771017|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.64|42.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||42.46|14.64|<0.0001
91771018|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.96|47.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||47.69|19.96|<0.0001
91771019|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|53.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||53.58|25.40|<0.0001
91771020|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|31.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||31.70|3.50|0.0146
91771021|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|38.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||38.00|10.21|0.0007
91771022|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.05|37.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||37.70|10.05|0.0008
91771023|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.56|37.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||37.90|8.56|0.0020
91771024|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|49.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||49.11|19.60|<0.0001
91771025|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.96|50.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||50.32|20.96|<0.0001
91771026|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.03|57.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||57.93|28.03|<0.0001
91771027|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|40.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||40.37|10.48|0.0009
91706179|NCT00938587|183306678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.05||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.81|38.44|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||38.44|4.81|0.0166
91771028|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.49|45.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||45.90|16.49|<0.0001
91771029|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.44||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.24|43.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||43.52|14.24|0.0001
91771030|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.46|37.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||37.66|8.46|0.0021
91771031|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.42|46.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||46.71|17.42|<0.0001
91771032|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.73|45.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||45.91|16.73|<0.0001
91771033|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|41.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.95|56.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||56.68|26.95|<0.0001
91771034|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|40.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||40.43|10.77|0.0008
91771035|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.75|45.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||45.94|16.75|<0.0001
91771036|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.91|43.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||43.97|14.91|<0.0001
91771037|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|34.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||34.06|6.31|0.0045
91771038|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.68|44.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||44.49|16.68|<0.0001
91771039|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.14|42.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||42.98|15.14|<0.0001
91771040|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|40.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.96|54.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||54.26|25.96|<0.0001
91771041|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.28|38.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||38.42|10.28|0.0007
91771042|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|40.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||40.55|1.78|0.0002
91771043|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.55|37.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||37.22|9.55|0.0010
91771044|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.13|32.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||32.11|6.13|0.0040
91771045|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|36.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||36.83|10.80|0.0004
91771046|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|40.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||40.24|14.10|<0.0001
91771047|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.34|48.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||48.88|22.34|<0.0001
91771048|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|33.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||33.19|6.76|0.0032
91771049|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|37.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||37.13|11.02|0.0003
91771050|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.17|36.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||36.08|10.17|0.0005
91771051|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|31.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||31.04|4.20|0.0102
91771052|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.42|39.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||39.29|12.42|0.0002
91771053|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.29|39.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||39.33|12.29|0.0002
91771054|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.58|49.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||49.98|22.58|<0.0001
91771055|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||34.29|7.00|0.0031
91771056|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.43|36.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||36.38|9.43|0.0009
91771057|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.42|36.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||36.19|9.42|0.0009
91771058|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|26.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||26.97|0.58|0.0408
91771059|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.77|33.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||33.21|6.77|0.0031
91771060|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|35.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||35.40|8.80|0.0012
91771061|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.39|43.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||43.42|16.39|<0.0001
91771062|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|28.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||28.32|1.42|0.0303
91771063|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|32.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||32.87|6.30|0.0040
91771064|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|32.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||32.73|6.34|0.0038
91771065|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|28.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||28.68|3.29|0.0137
91771066|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|30.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||30.82|5.44|0.0052
91771067|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.81|35.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||35.39|9.81|0.0006
91771068|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.41|42.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||42.32|16.41|<0.0001
91771069|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|26.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||26.63|0.78|0.0378
91771070|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|32.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||32.85|7.31|0.002
91771071|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|30.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||30.09|4.77|0.0071
91771072|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|33.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||33.71|7.61|0.0020
91771073|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|31.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||31.79|5.68|0.0050
91771074|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|37.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||37.60|11.20|0.0003
91771075|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.77|45.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||45.42|18.77|<0.0001
91771076|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|32.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||32.38|5.79|0.0050
91771077|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.68||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|36.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||36.22|9.95|0.0006
91771078|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.79|35.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||35.85|9.79|0.0006
91771079|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.11|30.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||30.98|6.11|0.0036
91771080|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.77|32.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||32.65|7.77|0.0015
91771081|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.41|37.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||37.57|12.41|0.0001
91771082|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.12|42.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||42.49|17.12|<0.0001
91771083|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|32.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||32.21|6.90|0.0026
91771084|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|35.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||35.94|10.92|0.0003
91771085|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.34|34.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||34.14|9.34|0.0006
91771086|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|31.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||31.83|6.78|0.0026
91771087|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.29|33.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||33.33|8.29|0.0012
91771088|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.48|37.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||37.82|12.48|0.0001
91771089|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.11|44.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||44.67|19.11|<0.0001
91771090|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|32.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||32.81|7.32|0.0021
91771091|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|35.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||35.29|10.10|0.0004
91771092|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.42|34.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||34.38|9.42|0.0006
91771093|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|32.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||32.40|1.62|0.0304
91771094|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|22.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||22.19|-8.60|0.3857
91771095|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|23.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||23.40|-8.31|0.3497
91771096|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|26.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||26.75|-4.95|0.1771
91771097|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|32.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||32.29|0.41|0.0444
91771098|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|27.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||27.63|-4.25|0.1500
91771099|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.6196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|19.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||19.29|-11.51|0.6196
91771100|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.48||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|26.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||26.15|-7.25|0.2664
91771101|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.6388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|20.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||20.59|-12.66|0.6388
91771102|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79||0.5797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|22.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||22.19|-12.43|0.5797
91771103|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.4817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|23.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||23.47|-11.10|0.4817
91771104|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|27.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||27.79|-6.87|0.2358
91771105|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|31.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||31.77|-3.11|0.1070
91771106|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.4268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|23.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||23.43|-9.94|0.4268
91771107|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|16.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||16.08|-17.81|0.9197
91771108|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.77|16.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||16.87|-16.77|0.9954
91771109|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.9607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.28|18.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||18.17|-17.28|0.9607
91771110|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87||0.6625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.33|13.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||13.59|-21.33|0.6625
91771111|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|17.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||17.70|-17.81|0.9952
91771112|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.4001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|25.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||25.36|-10.16|0.4001
91771113|NCT03192176|183427580|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.52|14.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||14.10|-19.52|0.7510
91771114|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|18.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||18.64|1.95|0.0018
91771115|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|25.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.42|2.70|0.0002
91771116|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.53|33.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.74|3.53|<0.0001
91771117|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|37.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||37.89|3.91|<0.0001
91771118|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.92|0.64|0.2244
91771119|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.58||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|26.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||26.53|2.77|0.0002
91771120|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|25.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.13|2.71|0.0002
91771121|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|7.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.45|1.24|0.0149
91771122|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|11.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.73|1.85|0.0011
91771123|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|16.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.45|2.46|0.0001
91771124|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.87||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|18.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.46|2.56|0.0001
91771125|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.34|0.89|0.0897
91771126|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|8.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.53|1.42|0.0070
91771127|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|9.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.23|1.52|0.0041
91771128|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|6.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.78|1.13|0.0254
91771129|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|10.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.04|1.59|0.0032
91771130|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|16.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.51|2.37|0.0002
91771131|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|25.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||25.70|3.00|<0.0001
91771132|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|7.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.18|1.17|0.0214
91771133|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|9.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.09|1.48|0.0049
91771134|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|8.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.22|1.38|0.0078
91771135|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.63|0.93|0.0727
91771136|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.29|1.19|0.0199
91771137|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.21||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|11.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||11.01|1.61|0.0034
91771138|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|18.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||18.26|2.16|0.0007
91771139|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.92|0.83|0.1206
91771140|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|9.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.03|1.42|0.0070
91771141|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.41||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|8.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.54|1.36|0.0088
91771142|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.40|0.58|0.4485
91771143|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.47|1.14|0.0255
91771144|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|11.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.75|1.49|0.0066
91771145|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|13.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.01|1.53|0.0061
91706180|NCT00938587|183306678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22||||0.4776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.61|25.87|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||25.87|-21.61|0.4776
91771146|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.57|0.89|0.0879
91771147|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.83|1.05|0.0389
91771148|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.73|1.02|0.0446
91771149|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||2.72|0.45|0.8196
91771150|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.10|0.79|0.1450
91771151|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|12.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||12.11|1.37|0.0114
91771152|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|9.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.71|1.12|0.0307
91771153|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.24|0.51|0.5921
91771154|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.26|1.00|0.0502
91771155|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|9.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.25|1.18|0.0224
91771156|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||2.93|0.47|0.7225
91771157|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.48|0.91|0.0762
91771158|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|10.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.53|1.17|0.0252
91771159|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.87|1.00|0.0490
91771160|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.30|0.74|0.1773
91771161|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.16|0.96|0.0609
91771162|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.61|0.79|0.1364
91771163|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.51|0.53|0.5268
91771164|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.46|0.75|0.1645
91771165|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|12.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||12.57|1.22|0.0215
91771166|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.69|0.95|0.0600
91771167|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.32|0.47|0.6503
91771168|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|7.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.88|0.93|0.0683
91771169|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|8.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||8.44|0.95|0.0618
91771170|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.63|0.50|0.5621
91771171|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.40|0.68|0.2182
91771172|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|10.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.15|0.95|0.0600
91771173|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|18.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||18.12|1.17|0.0290
91771174|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.04|0.40|0.8485
91771175|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.42|0.73|0.1652
91771176|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.65|0.67|0.2244
91771177|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.84|0.71|0.2097
91771178|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.92|0.60|0.3708
91771179|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.66|0.92|0.0704
91771180|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|27.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||27.73|1.88|0.0040
91771181|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.55|0.75|0.1625
91771182|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|14.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||14.50|1.46|0.0093
91771183|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.44||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|13.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||13.87|1.42|0.0103
91771184|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.95|0.72|0.1965
91771185|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.42|0.98|0.0549
91771186|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.09|1.00|0.0503
91771187|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.03||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|27.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||27.10|1.82|0.0046
91771188|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|6.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.88|0.88|0.0866
91771189|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.96||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|20.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||20.40|1.74|0.0045
91771190|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|10.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.62|1.22|0.0207
91771191|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.91|0.70|0.2127
91771192|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.43|0.77|0.1521
91771193|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|17.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||17.70|1.48|0.0098
91771194|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|27.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||27.50|1.82|0.0047
91771195|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.51|0.72|0.1817
91771196|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|20.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.95|1.77|0.0042
91771197|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|20.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.74|1.78|0.0039
91771198|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.7025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.57|0.42|0.7025
91771199|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||2.97|0.36|0.9599
91771200|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.10|0.34|0.9671
91771201|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.83|0.42|0.6810
91771202|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.04|0.43|0.6346
91771203|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.57|0.38|0.7929
91771204|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.28|0.39|0.8188
91771205|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.60|0.30|0.8226
91771206|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.72|0.32|0.9088
91771207|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.35|0.24|0.6189
91771208|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.03|0.42|0.6463
91771209|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.54|0.47|0.5060
91771210|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.31|0.53|0.3842
91771211|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.23|0.49|0.5021
91771212|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.31|0.14|0.1349
91771213|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.71|0.19|0.3191
91771214|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.06|0.09|0.0623
91771215|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.48|0.15|0.1958
91771216|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.05|0.19|0.4353
91771217|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.31|0.31|0.9729
91771218|NCT03192176|183427581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.4211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.89|0.22|0.4211
91771219|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|16.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.35|0.57|0.1938
91771220|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.97||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|33.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.91|1.43|0.0162
91771221|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.37||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|67.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||67.96|3.04|0.0008
91771222|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.02||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|75.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||75.68|3.39|0.0005
91771223|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|16.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.17|0.56|0.1971
91771224|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|22.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||22.27|0.83|0.0811
91832231|NCT01212770|183543434|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.6||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|21.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.8|-8.6|0.4175
91706181|NCT00938587|183306678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|27.62||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|50.78|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||50.78|2.53|0.0347
91771225|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.44||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|53.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||53.94|2.43|0.0021
91771226|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.64|0.79|0.1370
91771227|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.40|1.22|0.0181
91706182|NCT00938587|183306678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|7.94||||0.3343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.71|31.59|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||31.59|-13.71|0.3343
91706183|NCT00938587|183306678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|33.33||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.35|55.0|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||55.00|8.35|0.0117
91771228|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.43||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|17.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||17.05|2.43|0.0002
91771229|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|16.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.31|2.26|0.0003
91771230|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.49|0.61|0.3241
91771231|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.03|0.68|0.2249
91771232|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.18|1.36|0.0096
91771233|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.05|0.91|0.0768
91771234|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.00251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.39|1.14|0.00251
91771235|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.99||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|15.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.57|2.30|0.0002
91771236|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|19.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||19.71|2.70|<0.0001
91771237|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.50|0.83|0.1144
91771238|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.30|0.80|0.1341
91771239|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|11.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.22|1.75|0.0017
91771240|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.50|0.77|0.1488
91771241|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|10.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.30|1.54|0.0043
91771242|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.57|2.10|0.0005
91771243|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|43.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||43.58|4.85|<0.0001
91771244|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.68|1.14|0.0262
91771245|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|13.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||13.19|1.95|0.0009
91771246|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||13.80|2.06|0.0006
91771247|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.75|0.61|0.3673
91771248|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.91|0.83|0.1207
91771249|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.21|1.90|0.0011
91771250|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|27.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||27.38|3.08|<0.0001
91771251|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|5.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.86|0.97|0.0594
91771252|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.09|1.00|0.0500
91771253|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.03|1.29|0.0123
91771254|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.37|0.71|0.2243
91771255|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.24|0.87|0.0976
91771256|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|16.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.44|2.25|0.0004
91771257|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|27.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||27.40|3.04|<0.0001
91771258|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.17|0.82|0.1237
91771259|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.41|1.16|0.0226
91771260|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|8.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.91|1.42|0.0069
91771261|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.75|0.76|0.1666
91771262|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.67|1.09|0.0317
91771263|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|14.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||14.39|1.94|0.0011
91771264|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|25.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||25.46|2.81|0.0001
91771265|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.27|0.84|0.1142
91771266|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.39|1.14|0.0250
91771267|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|7.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.75|1.23|0.0166
91771268|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.11|0.52|0.6033
91771269|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.02|0.84|0.1170
91771270|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.91|1.05|0.0400
91771271|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|16.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||16.72|1.88|0.0020
91771272|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.37|0.54|0.5177
91771273|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.48|0.72|0.2117
91771274|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.67|1.03|0.0426
91771275|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.3508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.82|0.62|0.3508
91771276|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.45|0.58|0.4431
91771277|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|11.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||11.78|1.55|0.0050
91771278|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|16.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||16.30|1.84|0.0023
91771279|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.32|0.52|0.5663
91771280|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.83|1.02|0.0461
91771281|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.38|0.98|0.0552
91771282|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.88|0.78|0.1536
91771283|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.20|0.68|0.2575
91771284|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|10.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.11|1.38|0.0096
91771285|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.48||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|26.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||26.76|2.69|0.0003
91771286|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.35|1.48|0.1047
91771287|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.35|1.48|0.0060
91771288|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.71|1.04|0.0414
91771289|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.89|0.90|0.0809
91771290|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.34|0.69|0.2377
91771291|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.21||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|12.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.34|1.44|0.0087
91771292|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|18.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||18.94|1.90|0.0022
91771293|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.55|0.55|0.4788
91771294|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|10.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.94|1.45|0.0074
91771295|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.75|1.22|0.0187
91771296|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.00|0.62|0.3443
91771297|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.22|0.65|0.2867
91771298|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|15.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||15.78|1.66|0.0044
91771299|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|17.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||17.87|1.74|0.0038
91771300|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.60|0.78|0.1424
91771301|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.07|1.22|0.0191
91771302|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|8.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.56|1.16|0.0244
91771303|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.67|0.71|0.1462
91771304|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.7403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.97|0.32|0.7403
91771305|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.07|0.61|0.2144
91771306|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.96|0.44|0.4321
91771307|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|9.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.75|0.66|0.1778
91771308|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.20|0.28|0.8016
91771309|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.64|0.71|0.1486
91771310|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.2881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.77|0.15|0.2881
91771311|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.1217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.31|0.10|0.1217
91771312|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.28|0.07|0.1027
91771313|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||0.94|0.03|0.0428
91771314|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.44|0.21|0.5943
91771315|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.28|0.27|0.9280
91771316|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.94|0.30|0.9160
91771317|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.69|0.11|0.2262
91771318|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.75|0.13|0.2682
91771319|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.81|0.09|0.2344
91771320|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.22|0.04|0.0835
91771321|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.72|0.19|0.6322
91771322|NCT03192176|183427582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.4845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.17|0.20|0.4845
91771323|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|17.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||17.98|0.06|0.9587
91771324|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.89|0.06|0.9895
91771325|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|63.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||63.32|0.83|0.0736
91771326|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|61.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||61.78|0.81|0.0767
91771327|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||35.49|0.35|0.2880
91771328|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|22.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||22.47|0.17|0.5894
91771329|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|13.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||13.78|0.44|0.3093
91771330|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|17.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||17.58|0.62|0.1606
91771331|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.92||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|56.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||56.87|2.50|0.0019
91771332|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|68.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||68.73|3.02|0.0008
91771333|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.55|0.11|0.8803
91771334|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|16.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.46|0.54|0.2096
91771335|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.69||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|37.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||37.11|1.60|0.0110
91771336|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|11.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.11|0.86|0.0845
91771337|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.13|0.79|0.1094
91771338|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.97||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|30.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||30.07|2.68|0.0004
91771339|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|24.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||24.09|2.10|0.0016
91771340|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.4375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.64|0.44|0.4375
91771341|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.85|0.84|0.0898
91771342|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|21.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||21.06|1.90|0.0027
91771343|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.64|0.78|0.1242
91771344|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.03|0.88|0.0815
91706184|NCT00938587|183306678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.71||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.86|27.04|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||27.04|-15.86|0.3720
91771345|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.21||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|18.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||18.27|2.11|0.0009
91771346|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|15.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||15.64|1.78|0.0027
91771347|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.6267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.46|0.41|0.6267
91771348|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|8.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.38|0.92|0.0709
91771349|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|13.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||13.59|1.59|0.0049
91771350|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.98|0.45|0.5107
91771351|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.22|0.78|0.1297
91771352|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.04||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|21.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.22|2.34|0.0005
91771353|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|25.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||25.63|2.82|0.0001
91771354|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.81|0.58|0.2990
91771355|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.42|0.76|0.1355
91771356|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|15.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||15.14|1.76|0.0028
91771357|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.47|0.41|0.7422
91771358|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.52|0.91|0.0750
91771359|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|16.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.67|2.16|0.0006
91771360|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|21.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||21.65|2.69|0.0001
91771361|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.23|0.38|0.8405
91771362|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.79|0.45|0.6257
91771363|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.36|1.48|0.0060
91771364|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.3556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.68|0.54|0.3556
91771365|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|10.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.90|1.24|0.0190
91771366|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|30.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||30.68|3.20|<0.0001
91771367|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|47.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||47.05|4.67|<0.0001
91771368|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.67|0.68|0.1936
91771369|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.47|1.10|0.0335
91771370|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|18.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||18.17|2.10|0.0009
91771371|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.39|0.34|0.8330
91771372|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.91|0.62|0.3410
91771373|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|9.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.69|1.42|0.0075
91771374|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|13.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||13.26|1.78|0.0020
91771375|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.10|0.29|0.6216
91771376|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.71|0.55|0.4615
91771377|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|7.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.19|1.12|0.0281
91771378|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.35|0.33|0.8028
91771379|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.07|0.48|0.6846
91771380|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.67|1.26|0.0149
91771381|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.64||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|15.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.65|2.03|0.0009
91771382|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.15|0.29|0.6434
91771383|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.69|0.54|0.4784
91771384|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.55|0.87|0.0955
91771385|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.79|0.40|0.9082
91771386|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.21|0.48|0.6478
91771387|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|9.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.82|1.35|0.0104
91771388|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.66||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|18.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||18.94|2.34|0.0004
91771389|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.45|0.34|0.8560
91771390|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.3319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.17|0.62|0.3319
91771391|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.95|0.92|0.0747
91771392|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.76|0.41|0.8986
91771393|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.53|0.38|0.9712
91771394|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.98|1.22|0.0910
91832232|NCT01212770|183543434|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.4||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|21.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.8|-9.1|0.4370
91771395|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|16.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||16.06|2.01|0.0011
91771396|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.39|0.35|0.8466
91771397|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.21|0.79|0.1409
91771398|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.25|0.82|0.1212
91771399|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.88|0.56|0.4269
91771400|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.49|0.52|0.5454
91771401|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.15|0.96|0.0595
91771402|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|12.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.98|1.62|0.0041
91771403|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.13|0.28|0.6121
91771404|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.2329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.75|0.68|0.2329
91771405|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.90|0.88|0.0891
91771406|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|9.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.97|0.03|0.6857
91771407|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.7291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|19.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||19.71|0.12|0.7291
91771408|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|14.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||14.41|0.05|0.8951
91771409|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|19.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||19.74|0.14|0.6865
91771410|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.9132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|20.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||20.24|0.07|0.9132
91771411|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.7982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|16.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||16.59|0.12|0.7982
91771412|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|15.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||15.57|0.09|0.9029
91771413|NCT03192176|183427583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|11.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||11.94|0.04|0.7971
91771414|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|12.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.34|0.04|0.7899
91771415|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|14.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.73|0.05|0.9186
91771416|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.5303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|25.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||25.46|0.19|0.5303
91771417|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|52.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||52.66|0.65|0.1149
91771418|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.07||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|77.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||77.71|1.06|0.0442
91771419|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.2851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||35.68|0.35|0.2851
91771420|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|39.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||39.48|0.45|0.2073
91771421|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|37.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||37.16|0.36|0.2700
91771422|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.41||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|34.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||34.27|0.34|0.2982
91771423|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.3||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|102.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||102.6|1.47|0.0204
91771424|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|93.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||93.74|1.31|0.0270
91771425|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|25.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||25.68|0.19|0.5224
91771426|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|46.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||46.35|0.52|0.1635
91771427|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.97||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|91.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||91.15|1.32|0.0266
91771428|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|31.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||31.21|0.23|0.4299
91771429|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|45.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||45.84|0.52|0.1667
91771430|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.11||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|71.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||71.35|0.92|0.0592
91771431|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.28||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|151.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||151.2|2.21|0.0070
91771432|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|38.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||38.32|0.37|0.2594
91771433|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.14||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|71.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||71.67|0.92|0.0589
91771434|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.08||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|85.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||85.20|1.19|0.0338
91771435|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.88|0.12|0.7756
91771436|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.74|0.20|0.9246
91771437|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|21.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.93|1.34|0.0177
91771438|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|21.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.65|1.34|0.0178
91771439|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|6.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.20|0.22|0.8564
91771440|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|11.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.00|0.58|0.2202
91771441|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|10.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.25|0.55|0.2498
91771442|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|72.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||72.29|0.93|0.0576
91771443|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|33.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||33.59|0.33|0.3065
91771444|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.9||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|165.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||165.1|2.40|0.0056
91771445|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.05||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|205.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||205.5|3.05|0.0027
91771446|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.2762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|36.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||36.51|0.36|0.2762
91771447|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.93||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|62.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||62.69|0.77|0.0851
91771448|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.02||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|138.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||138.7|2.09|0.0081
91771449|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.37||||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|57.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||57.62|0.70|0.0995
91771450|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|51.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||51.80|0.64|0.1184
91771451|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.54||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|218.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||218.3|3.23|0.0023
91771452|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.09||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|157.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||157.9|2.31|0.0062
91771453|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.49||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|65.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||65.87|0.85|0.0695
91771454|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.64||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|75.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||75.98|0.98|0.0520
91771455|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.3||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|180.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||180.6|2.75|0.0036
91771456|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|24.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||24.23|0.89|0.0676
91771457|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|21.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||21.38|0.80|0.0903
91771458|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.46||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|75.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||75.14|3.18|0.0007
91771459|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.94||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|53.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||53.77|2.22|0.0032
91771460|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|16.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||16.85|0.55|0.2031
91771461|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.13||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|22.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||22.10|0.77|0.0972
91771462|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.04||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|53.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||53.06|2.30|0.0027
91771463|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|13.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.02|0.72|0.1306
91771464|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|19.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||19.10|1.22|0.0248
91771465|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.14||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|28.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||28.53|1.79|0.0054
91771466|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|39.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||39.36|2.55|0.0010
91771467|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.45|0.23|0.8271
91771468|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.95|0.77|0.1089
91771469|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|21.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||21.93|1.42|0.0138
91771470|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|9.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.15|0.63|0.1987
91771471|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|7.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.02|0.46|0.3984
91771472|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|14.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||14.45|1.06|0.0402
91771473|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|27.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||27.95|2.32|0.0010
91771474|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.08|0.17|0.8287
91771475|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.92|0.79|0.1083
91771476|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|20.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||20.66|1.76|0.0043
91771477|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|13.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||13.79|0.76|0.1126
91771478|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|12.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.30|0.69|0.1479
91771479|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|42.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||42.46|2.59|0.0010
91771480|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.01||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|51.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||51.14|3.31|0.0002
91771481|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|12.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.41|0.68|0.1483
91771482|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|16.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||16.84|0.97|0.0557
91771483|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.47||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|25.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||25.28|1.66|0.0072
91771484|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.24|0.32|0.9715
91771485|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.39|0.50|0.4720
91771486|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.1262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.05|0.79|0.1262
91771487|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|8.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.92|1.05|0.0396
91771488|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.5137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.29|0.19|0.5137
91771489|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.58|0.77|0.1370
91771490|NCT03192176|183427584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.07|0.47|0.5526
91771491|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|16.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.62|1.99|0.0012
91771492|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|25.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.68|3.06|<0.0001
91771493|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|33.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.85|3.94|<0.0001
91771494|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|40.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||40.38|4.55|<0.0001
91771495|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|8.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.61|0.98|0.0555
91771496|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|23.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.18|2.75|0.0001
91771497|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.07||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|23.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.19|2.81|0.0001
91771498|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|11.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.39|1.82|0.0012
91771499|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||13.43|2.06|0.0005
91771500|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|14.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||14.39|2.20|0.0003
91771501|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|23.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||23.74|2.99|<0.0001
91771502|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.70|1.12|0.0277
91771503|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|10.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.32|1.66|0.0022
91771504|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.41|1.26|0.0314
91771505|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|9.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.97|1.54|0.0041
91852144|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.5701|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-13.4|0.5701
91771506|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|10.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.74|1.64|0.0028
91771507|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|12.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||12.98|1.90|0.0011
91771508|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|26.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||26.99|2.86|0.0001
91771509|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|10.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.57|1.59|0.0036
91771510|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|11.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.67|1.75|0.0018
91771511|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|6.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.68|1.14|0.0243
91771512|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.96|0.91|0.0770
91771513|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.69|1.02|0.0451
91771514|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.04|1.25|0.0165
91771515|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|16.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||16.23|1.72|0.0037
91771516|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.82|0.90|0.0812
91771517|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|6.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.22|0.97|0.0577
91771518|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.85|0.93|0.0706
91771519|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.00|1.04|0.0404
91771520|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|11.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.99|1.54|0.0054
91771521|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.27|1.22|0.0186
91771522|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|22.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||22.14|1.96|0.0023
91771523|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|9.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.93|1.33|0.0118
91771524|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|16.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||16.53|1.88|0.0020
91771525|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|7.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.14|1.03|0.0430
91771526|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.2197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.66|0.70|0.2197
91771527|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.42|0.80|0.1341
91771528|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|11.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.05|1.23|0.0196
91771529|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|16.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.26|1.41|0.0121
91771530|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.56|0.77|0.1511
91771531|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|15.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||15.68|1.55|0.0068
91771532|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.79|0.91|0.0741
91771533|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.43|0.65|0.2772
91771534|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.02|0.92|0.0705
91771535|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|12.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.39|1.22|0.0220
91771536|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|14.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||14.82|1.27|0.0196
91771537|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|9.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.24|1.03|0.0433
91771538|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|9.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.20|1.08|0.0355
91771539|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.28|0.62|0.3238
91771540|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.68|0.60|0.3208
91771541|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.40|0.67|0.2281
91771542|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|10.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.46|0.97|0.0566
91771543|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.78|0.73|0.1491
91771544|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.23|0.74|0.1477
91771545|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|10.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.64|0.98|0.0532
91771546|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.76|0.73|0.1616
91771547|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.11|0.55|0.4320
91771548|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.35|0.68|0.2231
91771549|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.64|1.10|0.0347
91771550|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|18.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||18.07|1.17|0.0291
91771551|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.38|0.61|0.2805
91771552|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|10.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.11|0.95|0.0602
91771553|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.88|0.51|0.5087
91771554|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.38|0.80|0.1224
91771555|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.02|0.68|0.2280
91771556|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|6.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.02|0.71|0.1835
91771557|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|22.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||22.69|1.51|0.0107
91771558|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.96|0.97|0.0576
91771559|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.68||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|46.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||46.77|2.00|0.0047
91771560|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.64|0.97|0.0569
91771561|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.68|0.83|0.1078
91771562|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.47|0.90|0.0772
91771563|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.22|0.77|0.1311
91771564|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.64||||0.01255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|21.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||21.96|1.45|0.01255
91771565|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|17.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||17.54|1.41|0.0128
91771566|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|24.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||24.63|1.62|0.0079
91771567|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.67|0.97|0.0572
91771568|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|9.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.79|1.14|0.0284
91771569|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.22|0.92|0.0705
91771570|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|16.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||16.77|1.38|0.0136
91771571|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.96||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|48.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||48.29|2.06|0.0043
91771572|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.83|0.90|0.0760
91771573|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|20.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.00|1.65|0.0059
91771574|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|13.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||13.35|1.33|0.0143
91771575|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.35|0.62|0.2779
91771576|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.41|0.41|0.7559
91771577|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.23|0.35|0.9050
91771578|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.38|0.66|0.2163
91771579|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.14|0.70|0.1713
91771580|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.09|0.52|0.3981
91771581|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||2.96|0.35|0.9692
91771582|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.2978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.22|0.60|0.2978
91771583|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.18|0.38|0.8525
91771584|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.13|0.21|0.5028
91771585|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.4594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.73|0.50|0.4594
91771586|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||8.17|0.80|0.1124
91771587|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.58|0.55|0.3415
91771588|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.83|0.56|0.3635
91771589|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.20|0.24|0.5716
91771590|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.05|0.23|0.5028
91771591|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.3982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.98|0.18|0.3982
91771592|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.87|0.30|0.93
91771593|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|7.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||7.32|0.61|0.2364
91771594|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.7095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.04|0.39|0.7095
91771595|NCT03192176|183427585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.20|0.26|0.6011
91771596|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.78||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|33.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.10|1.39|0.0181
91771597|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.97||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|47.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||47.48|2.10|0.0039
91771598|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|99.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||99.65|4.51|0.0001
91771599|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|112.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||112.9|5.09|<0.0001
91771600|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.1766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|16.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.87|0.59|0.1766
91771601|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.68||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|37.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||37.43|1.58|0.0116
91771602|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.74||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|59.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||59.81|2.71|0.0013
91771603|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.43|1.07|0.0359
91771604|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||15.33|2.20|0.0004
91771605|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|18.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.98|2.68|<0.0001
91771606|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.84||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|18.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.46|2.53|0.0001
91771607|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.47|0.76|0.1540
91771608|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.12|1.46|0.0065
91771609|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.14|1.50|0.0052
91771610|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.39|1.44|0.0064
91771611|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|15.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.21|2.26|0.0003
91771612|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|16.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.69|2.47|0.0001
91771613|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|22.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||22.42|3.01|<0.0001
91771614|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|7.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.97|1.22|0.0171
91771615|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|11.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.18|1.71|0.0020
91771616|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|9.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.99|1.58|0.0034
91771617|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.59|1.05|0.0399
91771618|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|14.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.84|2.23|0.0003
91771619|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.23|1.60|0.0031
91771620|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|28.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||28.28|3.41|<0.0001
91771621|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|10.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.01|1.57|0.0036
91771622|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|12.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||12.11|1.89|0.0009
91771623|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|8.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.21|1.35|0.0091
91771624|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.34|0.73|0.2043
91771625|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|12.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||12.01|1.84|0.0012
91771626|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|9.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.70|1.47|0.0058
91771627|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|23.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||23.83|2.73|0.0002
91771628|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.12|1.16|0.0221
91771629|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|10.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.13|1.58|0.0034
91771630|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.04|1.29|0.0123
91771631|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.78|0.64|0.3291
91771632|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.21|1.30|0.0118
91771633|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|10.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.40|1.49|0.0058
91771634|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.98||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|17.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||17.65|2.03|0.0012
91771635|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.32|0.85|0.1043
91771636|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|13.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||13.54|1.85|0.0015
91771637|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.73|0.95|0.0658
91771638|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.98|0.82|0.1253
91771639|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|13.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||13.34|1.88|0.0013
91771640|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|9.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.75|1.37|0.0096
91771641|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.06||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|17.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||17.96|2.04|0.0012
91771642|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|7.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.02|1.08|0.0344
91771643|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|10.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.72|1.55|0.0045
91771644|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.55|0.91|0.0810
91771645|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.70|0.92|0.0761
91771646|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|9.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.51|1.41|0.0078
91771647|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|7.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.82|1.15|0.0253
91771648|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.23||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|19.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||19.55|1.99|0.0017
91771649|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.3512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.87|0.62|0.3512
91771650|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.13|1.07|0.0352
91771651|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.97|0.93|0.0704
91771652|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.93|0.76|0.1651
91771653|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.62|0.87|0.0964
91771654|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.59|1.13|0.0276
91771655|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|15.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.70|1.58|0.0060
91771656|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.39|0.76|0.1556
91771657|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||9.18|1.21|0.0202
91771658|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.67|0.72|0.2063
91771659|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.92|1.06|0.0383
91771660|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.10|1.32|0.0118
91771661|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.97|1.10|0.0314
91771662|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|21.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||21.34|2.17|0.0010
91771663|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.80|0.87|0.0956
91771664|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|13.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||13.40|1.72|0.0027
91771665|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.14|0.94|0.0660
91771666|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.05|0.89|0.0853
91771667|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|9.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.62|1.26|0.0159
91771668|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|9.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.53|1.12|0.0303
91771669|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.84||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|15.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||15.28|1.54|0.0071
91771670|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|7.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.09|0.95|0.0621
91771671|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|12.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.15|1.45|0.0081
91771672|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.09|0.99|0.0533
91771673|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.42|0.66|0.2666
91771674|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.52|0.91|0.0754
91771675|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.64|1.11|0.0313
91852145|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.9242|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-31.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-31.3|0.9242
91771676|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|19.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||19.88|1.67|0.0056
91771677|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|7.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.28|0.91|0.0736
91771678|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|10.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||10.00|1.24|0.0184
91771679|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.81|0.82|0.1187
91771680|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|12.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||12.69|1.14|0.0299
91771681|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.89|0.40|0.5989
91706185|NCT00938587|183306679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.61|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-8.61|0.2630
91706186|NCT00938587|183306679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.61|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-8.61|0.2630
91771682|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.14|0.74|0.1337
91771683|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.89|0.45|0.4605
91771684|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|15.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||15.65|1.28|0.0188
91771685|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.42|0.39|0.5854
91771686|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|7.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.86|0.68|0.1768
91771687|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.78|0.29|0.8426
91771688|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.73|0.17|0.3017
91771689|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.43|0.21|0.5958
91771690|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.01|0.05|0.0515
91771691|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.11|0.31|0.9734
91771692|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.93|0.25|0.7969
91771693|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.40|0.25|0.6637
91771694|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.4921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.15|0.45|0.4921
91771695|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.64|0.33|0.8910
91771696|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.5881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.78|0.16|0.5881
91771697|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.02|0.01|0.0523
91771698|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.61|0.46|0.4646
91771699|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.14|0.40|0.5806
91771700|NCT03192176|183427586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.12|0.28|0.9220
91771701|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|42.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||42.25|0.47|0.1933
91771702|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|50.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||50.44|0.62|0.1240
91771703|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.16||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|117.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||117.2|1.71|0.0140
91771704|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.5||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|142.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||142.7|2.15|0.0075
91771705|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.5853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|22.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||22.96|0.17|0.5853
91771706|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|47.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||47.05|0.53|0.1596
91771707|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.48||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|56.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||56.51|0.74|0.0908
91771708|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|12.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.19|0.72|0.1318
91771709|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.99||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|23.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||23.04|1.56|0.0093
91771710|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.13||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|38.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||38.22|2.69|0.0006
91771711|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|59.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||59.40|4.11|<0.0001
91771712|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.64|0.60|0.2054
91771713|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|11.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.72|0.67|0.1592
91771714|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|24.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||24.07|1.66|0.0070
91771715|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.85|1.06|0.0392
91771716|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|13.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||13.96|1.44|0.0096
91771717|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|31.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||31.16|3.28|<0.0001
91771718|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|36.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||36.90|3.75|<0.0001
91771719|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.2217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.03|0.64|0.2217
91771720|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|13.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||13.38|1.36|0.0131
91771721|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|16.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.46|1.76|0.0031
91771722|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.10|0.76|0.1485
91771723|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|9.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.56|1.31|0.0128
91771724|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|17.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||17.81|2.37|0.0003
91771725|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|17.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||17.77|2.32|0.0003
91771726|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.26|0.67|0.2354
91771727|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|6.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.65|0.87|0.0894
91771728|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.67|1.20|0.0201
91771729|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.94|0.74|0.1614
91771730|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.66|1.32|0.0123
91771731|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|17.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.03|2.17|0.0006
91771732|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|28.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||28.36|3.40|<0.0001
91771733|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.81|0.75|0.1609
91771734|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|6.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.79|0.86|0.0930
91771735|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.91|1.48|0.0063
91771736|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.74|0.65|0.2621
91771737|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|9.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.21|1.37|0.0092
91771738|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.69||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|15.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||15.48|2.09|0.0007
91771739|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|25.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||25.43|3.08|<0.0001
91771740|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.08|0.55|0.4259
91771741|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.74|0.79|0.1334
91771742|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.77|1.31|0.0120
91771743|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.10|0.66|0.2443
91771744|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|12.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.25|1.73|0.0022
91706187|NCT00938587|183306679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-7.51|0.2539
91771745|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|18.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||18.58|2.35|0.0004
91771746|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|36.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||36.63|4.05|<0.0001
91771747|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.71|0.61|0.3101
91771748|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|10.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.00|1.34|0.0116
91706188|NCT00938587|183306679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-7.51|0.2539
91771749|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|11.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||11.05|1.56|0.0045
91771750|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.88|0.62|0.3505
91771751|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.62|0.92|0.0739
91771752|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|8.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||8.20|1.24|0.0163
91771753|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.49||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|25.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||25.64|2.81|0.0001
91771754|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.35|0.35|0.8358
91771755|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.52|0.86|0.1006
91771756|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.34|1.01|0.0484
91771757|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.08|0.50|0.6492
91832233|NCT01212770|183543435|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|195.0|-12.1|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||11.3|-12.1|0.9463
91832234|NCT01212770|183543435|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-7.7||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||3.8|-19.3|0.2032
91832235|NCT01212770|183543436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.8||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.4|-5.8|0.2321
91771758|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.27|0.71|0.2230
91771759|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|9.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||9.02|1.30|0.0126
91771760|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.56||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|15.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.98|1.94|0.0014
91771761|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||1.83|0.27|0.4713
91771762|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.12|0.79|0.1397
91771763|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.34|0.71|0.2272
91832236|NCT01212770|183543436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.6||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|25.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.3|-6.2|0.2520
91832237|NCT01297959|183543457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Regression, Logistic|p-value was based on a logistic regression (Chi-square test) model with treatment group as a factor, adjusting for the stratification factors.||||||0.39
91832238|NCT01297959|183543458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Logistic|p-value was based on a logistic regression (Chi-square test) model with treatment group as a factor, adjusting for the stratification factors.||||||0.34
91832239|NCT02460692|183543532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||This is the primary comparison.||||0.78
91832240|NCT02460692|183543532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|Unstructured covariance model|||This is the secondary comparison.||||0.070
91832241|NCT02460692|183543532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|Unstructured covariance model|||This is an exploratory comparison||||0.044
91832242|NCT02460692|183543533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The average change of impact scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.27
91832243|NCT02460692|183543533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||The average change of impact scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.96
91832244|NCT02460692|183543533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||The average change of impact scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.30
91832245|NCT02460692|183543534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||The average NPS change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.44
91832246|NCT02460692|183543534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.53
91832247|NCT02460692|183543534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The average NPS change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.18
91832248|NCT02460692|183543535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The average change of learning scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.95
91832249|NCT02460692|183543535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||The average change of learning scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.94
91832250|NCT02460692|183543535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The average change of learning score at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||.90
91832251|NCT02460692|183543536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||The average change of total time completing task in grooved pegboard test on dominant hand (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.93
91832252|NCT02460692|183543536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||The average change of total time completing task in grooved pegboard test on dominant hand (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.92
91832253|NCT02460692|183543536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The average change of total time completing task in grooved pegboard test on dominant hand (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.85
91832254|NCT02460692|183543537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The average change in Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)-III test score (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model.|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.89
91832255|NCT02460692|183543537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||The average change in WAIS-III test score (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.13
91706189|NCT00938587|183306679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.29||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|32.92|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||32.92|0.23|0.0477
91832256|NCT02460692|183543537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The average change in WAIS-III test score (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.14
91832257|NCT02460692|183543538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||The average change of total mood disturbance scores (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.10
91832258|NCT02460692|183543538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The average change of total mood disturbance scores (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.67
91832259|NCT02460692|183543538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The average change of total mood disturbance scores (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.25
91832260|NCT02460692|183543539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||The average change of beck score (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.84
91832261|NCT02460692|183543539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The average change of beck score (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.91
91832262|NCT02460692|183543539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||The average change of beck score (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.75
91832263|NCT02460692|183543540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.24
91832264|NCT02460692|183543540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.080
91832265|NCT02460692|183543540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
91832266|NCT02460692|183543541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.60
91832267|NCT02460692|183543541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.40
91832268|NCT02460692|183543541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.72
91832269|NCT02460692|183543542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The average change of pain sensitivity (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.19
91832270|NCT02460692|183543542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The average change of pain sensitivity (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.70
91832271|NCT02460692|183543542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||The average change of pain sensitivity (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.36
91832272|NCT02460692|183543543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in withdrawal intensity from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||.14
91832273|NCT02460692|183543543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in withdrawal intensity from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||.60
91832274|NCT02460692|183543543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in withdrawal intensity from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||.34
91832275|NCT02460692|183543544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.34
91832276|NCT02460692|183543544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.007
91832277|NCT02460692|183543544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.055
91832278|NCT02460692|183543545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.69
91832279|NCT02460692|183543545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.79
91832280|NCT02460692|183543545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.97
91832281|NCT02460692|183543546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
91832282|NCT02460692|183543546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.029
91832283|NCT02460692|183543546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
91832284|NCT02460692|183543547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in negative impact of withdrawal from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||0.084
91832285|NCT02460692|183543547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in negative impact of withdrawal from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||0.98
91832286|NCT02460692|183543547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in negative impact of withdrawal from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||0.085
91832287|NCT02460692|183543548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The average change of pain tolerance (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.95
91832288|NCT02460692|183543548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||The average change of pain tolerance (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.78
91832289|NCT02460692|183543548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The average change of pain tolerance (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.99
91832290|NCT02048072|183543549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
91832291|NCT02298361|183543609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|1.93|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of gaining Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to within-clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||1.93|1.60|
91832292|NCT02298361|183543609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.72|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of gaining Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to control clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||2.72|1.91|
91832293|NCT02298361|183543610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.94|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of losing Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to within-clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||0.94|0.53|
91832294|NCT02298361|183543610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.67|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of losing Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to control clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||0.67|0.45|
91832295|NCT00772590|183543613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91832296|NCT03813238|183543628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS mean of the change in MDCRS part II total score from baseline to Week 15 was compared (TEV-50717 arm versus placebo) using a 1-sided test for superiority at a nominal significance level of α=0.025.||1.19|-3.49|0.335
91832297|NCT02066402|183543657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. Predefined margin for non-inferiority is -10%.|Difference of responder rate|-4.6||||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.2|||Fisher Exact|||||2.2|-11.2|0.2027
91832298|NCT02066402|183543658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.8||||||||3.8|-8.3|
91832299|NCT02066402|183543659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.2||||||||3.2|-7.4|
91832300|NCT02066402|183543660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1||||||||4.1|-8.6|
91832301|NCT02066402|183543661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.0||||||||2.0|-8.4|
91832302|NCT00152464|183543668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002|||=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.338|||Regression, Cox|||||1.338|0.750|=0.991
91832303|NCT00863655|183543721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.54|||Log Rank|||||0.54|0.35|<0.0001
91832304|NCT00716092|183543748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-28.0|-11.9||There was no adjustment for multiple primary endpoints, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the endpoint WMG was not successful, any analysis of the GLP-1 (AUEC 0-24h) was to be considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||-11.9|-28.0|<0.0001
91832305|NCT00716092|183543749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001||95.0|12.4|23.9||There was no adjustment for multiple primary endpoints, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the endpoint WMG was not successful, any analysis of the GLP-1 (AUEC 0-24h) will be considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||23.9|12.4|<0.0001
91832306|NCT00716092|183543750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0283||95.0|-20.4|-1.2|||ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||-1.2|-20.4|0.0283
91832307|NCT00716092|183543751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-106.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-147.0|-66.0|||ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||-66.0|-147.0|<0.0001
91832308|NCT00716092|183543752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.1274||95.0|-1.7|13.8|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||13.8|-1.7|0.1274
91832309|NCT00716092|183543753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.313||95.0|-2.7|8.2|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||8.2|-2.7|0.3130
91832310|NCT00716092|183543754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.2281||95.0|-3.3|13.8|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||13.8|-3.3|0.2281
91832311|NCT00716092|183543755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.6||0.223||95.0|-14.0|59.5|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||59.5|-14.0|0.2230
91832312|NCT02436330|183543756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0615||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1344|0.0115||We checked the distribution of bmiz changes between baseline and 6 months, and there is one subject from control group had bigger changes than others. After excluding this subject, the results are still similar with previous.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0115|-0.1344|0.0967
91832313|NCT02436330|183543757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0775||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1485|-0.00652|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.00652|-0.1485|0.0335
91832314|NCT02436330|183543758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.1|-5.2|0.991
91832315|NCT02436330|183543759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|11.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11|-9|0.851
91832316|NCT02436330|183543760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.8|-11.7|0.501
91832317|NCT02436330|183543761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2971||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0224|0.5718|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5718|0.0224|0.035
91832318|NCT02436330|183543762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9464||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4954|0.6025|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6025|-2.4954|0.2207
91832319|NCT02436330|183543763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0491||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6407|1.5425|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5425|-3.6407|0.4164
91832320|NCT02436330|183543764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2433.7||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18579.7|23447.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||23447.2|-18579.7|0.812
91832321|NCT02436330|183543765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2837||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3037|0.8711|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8711|-0.3037|0.3326
91832322|NCT02436330|183543766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2995||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2051|0.8041|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8041|-0.2051|0.1856
91832323|NCT02436330|183543767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-247.9||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-531.7|35.8686|||t-test, 2 sided|||||35.8686|-531.7|0.0849
91706190|NCT00938587|183306679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.29||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|32.92|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||32.92|0.65|0.0442
91832324|NCT02436330|183543768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2048||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3835|1.974|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9740|-10.3835|0.176
91832325|NCT02436330|183543769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.2151||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|13.457|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.457|0.973|0.0247
91832326|NCT02436330|183543770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8169||||0.2764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4147|0.7808|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7808|-2.4147|0.2764
91832327|NCT02436330|183543771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7958||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.235|-0.3566|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3566|-1.2350|0.0008
91832328|NCT02436330|183543772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7024||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9377|4.3425|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.3425|-2.9377|0.6974
91832329|NCT02436330|183543774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2122|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2122
91832330|NCT02436330|183543775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.61||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|8.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.33|-1.15|0.1265
91832331|NCT02436330|183543776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3671|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3671
91832332|NCT02436330|183543777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4892
91832333|NCT00677235|183543792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.449
91832334|NCT05120115|183543803|EQUIVALENCE|Examined differences between conditions||||||0.05||||||Used Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc test|ANOVA|||||||0.05
91832335|NCT05120115|183543804|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between conditions||||||0.05||||||Used Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91832336|NCT05120115|183543805|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between conditions||||||0.05||||||Used Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91832337|NCT03871595|183543806|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|99.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.36|103.83|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. The standard deviation is actually the intraindividual geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'sequence' (fixed effect), 'subjects within sequences' (random effect), 'period' (fixed effect) and 'treatment' (fixed effect).||103.83|95.36|
91832338|NCT03871595|183543807|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|70.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.67|78.44|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. The standard deviation is actually the intraindividual geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'sequence' (fixed effect), 'subjects within sequences' (random effect), 'period' (fixed effect) and 'treatment' (fixed effect).||78.44|62.67|
91832339|NCT03871595|183543808|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|99.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.64|104.11|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. The standard deviation is actually the intraindividual geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'sequence' (fixed effect), 'subjects within sequences' (random effect), 'period' (fixed effect) and 'treatment' (fixed effect).||104.11|95.64|
91832340|NCT03923959|183543832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5597|1.834|||Regression, Logistic||||A two-sample proportion test was also completed; the test utilized an α \< 0.049 to account for the O'Brien-Fleming adjustment. The p-value for the two-sample proportion test was 0.966.|1.834|0.5597|0.966
91832341|NCT03923959|183543833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.183
91832342|NCT03923959|183543834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.729
91832343|NCT03923959|183543835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.655
91832344|NCT03923959|183543836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7832||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7832
91832345|NCT04575051|183543852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in the adjusted means for the Consult model and HearCARE model.|The null hypothesis is that the HearCARE intervention does not improve satisfaction with social participation.||1.96|-1.10|0.58
91706191|NCT00938587|183306682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.75|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.75|-0.34|0.5403
91832346|NCT04575051|183543853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated parameter represents the difference between the adjusted means for the Consult and HearCARE models.|The null hypothesis is that the HearCARE intervention does not improve hearing related quality of life.||1.10|-1.13|0.95
91832347|NCT04575051|183543854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value represents the difference in the means for the Consult and HearCARE models.|||1.14|-1.20|0.96
91832348|NCT04575051|183543855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Estimated Value is the difference between the means of the Consult and HearCARE models.|||0.48|-0.07|0.13
91832349|NCT00951483|183543856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-2.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that C-reactive protein (CRP) is no different between the experimental and healthy control cohorts at 12 weeks.||||.001
91832350|NCT00951483|183543857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.544|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAM-D-7 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAM-D-7 score.||||<.001
91832351|NCT00951483|183543858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.627|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAMD-17 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAMD-17 score.||||<.001
91832352|NCT00951483|183543859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.624|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAMD-21 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAMD-21 score.||||<.001
91832353|NCT00951483|183543860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAM-A score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAM-A score.||||<.001
91832354|NCT00951483|183543861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline BDI score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) BDI score.||||<.001
91832355|NCT00951483|183543862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-3.911|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline PSS-14 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) PSS-14 score.||||<.001
91832356|NCT03565887|183543863|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoints were tested sequentially. The Day 1 Hour 6 time point was tested first and if P\<0.05, the Day 14 Hour 2 time point was tested at a significance level of 0.05. If the Day 1 Hour 6 endpoint is statistically significant (at the 0.05 level) but Day 14 Hour 2 was not statistically significant (at the 0.05 level), the study will still be considered positive.|||||<|0.0001||||||If both primary endpoints (LPFT) are significant at 0.05 significance level, then the secondary efficacy endpoints (MRD) were also tested sequentially. Testing stopped if a P≥ 0.05 for a comparison.|ANCOVA|2 sided t-test with treatment as fixed factor and baseline as covariate.||A two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level had 90% power to detect a difference in LPFT means of 3.50 assuming that the common standard deviation was 6.0, when the sample sizes in the 2 groups were 94 and 47, respectively (a total sample size of 141).||||<0.0001
91832357|NCT03565887|183543864|SUPERIORITY|If both primary endpoints (LPFT) are significant at 0.05 significance level, then the secondary efficacy endpoints (MRD) were also tested sequentially. Testing stopped if a P≥ 0.05 for a comparison.|||||<|0.0151|||||||ANCOVA|||A two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level had 90% power to detect a difference in LPFT means of 3.50 assuming that the common standard deviation was 6.0, when the sample sizes in the 2 groups were 94 and 47, respectively (a total sample size of 141).||||<0.0151
91832358|NCT00689221|183543865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.021||||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.291||P-value is not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||||1.291|0.808|0.8623
91832359|NCT01292239|183543886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||(see comment)|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.38|40.56||The p-value was based on the asymptomatic distribution of the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic controlling for stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for stratification factors (age and IL28B genotype).|The parameter estimated was the difference of stratum adjusted proportion between groups.|||40.56|14.38|<0.0001
91832360|NCT01292239|183543887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||(see comment)|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.75|45.4||The p-value was based on the asymptomatic distribution of the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic controlling for stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for stratification factors (age and IL28B genotype).|The parameter estimated was the difference of stratum adjusted proportion between groups.|||45.40|19.75|<0.0001
91654913|NCT00936975|183202608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6943|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Age was included in the model as a confounder|Estimated value is the slope of the Normal bone. Tumor Bone was used as reference category. GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for clustering and correlation of bone measurement values within a patient|H0: No difference in uptake b/w normal \& tumor bones||||<0.001
91832361|NCT00765388|183543900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference in the multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.96
91832362|NCT00765388|183543902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference in the multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.92
91832363|NCT00765388|183543904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||0.0|||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.40
91832364|NCT00765388|183543905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.64
91832365|NCT00765388|183543906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.55
91832366|NCT00765388|183543907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.48
91832367|NCT03923933|183543911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|anova repeated measures||||||<0.001
91832368|NCT03923933|183543912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures||||||0.006
91832369|NCT03923933|183543913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.371
91832370|NCT03923933|183543914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91832371|NCT03923933|183543916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
91832372|NCT03923933|183543917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
91832373|NCT01995461|183543918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.0252
91832374|NCT01995461|183543919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.0154
91832375|NCT01995461|183543920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.1349
91832376|NCT01939548|183543929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.409||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|6.21||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), PANSS Total baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value of PANSS Total by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||6.21|0.01|0.1991
91832377|NCT01939548|183543929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.445||0.3488|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.85|5.45||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), PANSS Total baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value of PANSS Total by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||5.45|-0.85|0.3488
91832378|NCT01939548|183543930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.476||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.13|1.67||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.67|-2.13|0.8786
91832379|NCT01939548|183543930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502||0.4483|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.08|0.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.79|-3.08|0.4483
91832380|NCT01939548|183543931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.809||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|1.85||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.85|-0.23|0.3201
91832381|NCT01939548|183543931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.813||0.2961|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|1.9||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.90|-0.19|0.2961
91852146|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.9876|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-38.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-38.8|0.9876
91832382|NCT01939548|183543931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.6015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|1.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.35|-0.57|0.6015
91832383|NCT01939548|183543931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761||0.7787|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.77|1.19||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.19|-0.77|0.7787
91832384|NCT01939548|183543931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|3.29||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|General Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||3.29|-0.02|0.2068
91832385|NCT01939548|183543931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|2.69||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|General Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||2.69|-0.73|0.4611
91832386|NCT01939548|183543932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.591||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|1.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Anxiety/depression symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.72|0.19|0.1083
91832387|NCT01939548|183543932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|1.84||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Anxiety/depression symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.84|0.27|0.0869
91832388|NCT01939548|183543932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.8601|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.84|0.64||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Disorganized thought symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.64|-0.84|0.8601
91832389|NCT01939548|183543932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.593||0.3454|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.33|0.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Disorganized thought symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.20|-1.33|0.3454
91852147|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.9802|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-32.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-32.5|0.9802
91832390|NCT01939548|183543932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.789||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|1.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.79|-0.24|0.3273
91832391|NCT01939548|183543932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|1.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.72|-0.35|0.3963
91832392|NCT01939548|183543932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|1.78||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.78|-0.50|0.4713
91832393|NCT01939548|183543932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|2.36||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||2.36|0.06|0.1787
91832394|NCT01939548|183543932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|0.9||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Uncontrolled hostility/excitement symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.90|-0.20|0.4123
91832395|NCT01939548|183543932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.01|0.13||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Uncontrolled hostility/excitement symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.13|-1.01|0.3202
91832396|NCT01939548|183543933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.7399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.19||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.19|-0.11|0.7399
91832397|NCT01939548|183543933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.2747|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.29||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.29|-0.02|0.2747
91832398|NCT01939548|183543934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.17|0.31||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANOVA|||Analysis of change at Week 12. Mixed effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction; random effect: participant.||0.31|-0.17|0.7219
91832399|NCT01939548|183543934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.9315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|0.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANOVA|||Analysis of change at Week 12. Mixed effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction; random effect: participant.||0.23|-0.26|0.9315
91851559|NCT02716324|183586758|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Parent Patient Reported Outcomes Peer Relationships Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Parent-reported PRO Peer Relationship Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.873
91852148|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.5705|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-19.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-19.5|0.5705
91852149|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.8063|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-26.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-26.1|0.8063
91852150|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.6667|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-19.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-19.1|0.6667
91851560|NCT02716324|183586758|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Child Patient Reported Outcomes Peer Relationships Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child-reported PRO Peer Relationship Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.888
91852151|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4||0.464|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-16.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-16.4|0.4640
91706192|NCT00938587|183306682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.48|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.48|-0.61|0.8374
91832400|NCT01022762|183543966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be shown if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was less than 0.4%. This corresponds to a one-sided test with a significance level of 2.5% of the hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||||95.0|-0.115|0.143||The p-value corresponds to one-sided hypotheses of superiority with a significance level of 2.5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was with treatment, centre as explanatory variables and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.|If non-inferiority of repaglinide alone was shown, a test for superiority would be performed based on FAS. Superiority of repaglinide alone over gliclazide alone would be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference was lower than 0%.|H0: Change from baseline in HbA1c of repaglinide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment - change from baseline in HbA1c of gliclazide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment \>= 0.4%. H1: Change from baseline in HbA1c of repaglinide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment - change from baseline in HbA1c of gliclazide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment \< 0.4%. Sample size was calculated to achieve a power of at least 85%, assuming an equal change in HbA1c and a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||0.143|-0.115|
91832401|NCT01302119|183543977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91832402|NCT01302119|183543978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91832403|NCT01302119|183543979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91832404|NCT01302119|183543980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91832405|NCT00205348|183544021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Burden was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0007
91832406|NCT00205348|183544021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Physical was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
91832407|NCT00205348|183544021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Mental was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0002
91832408|NCT00205348|183544021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Fear was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
91832409|NCT00205348|183544021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0973|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Eating Desire was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0973
91832410|NCT00205348|183544021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Eating Duration was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.1772
91832411|NCT00205348|183544021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Food Selection was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0062
91832412|NCT00205348|183544021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Sleep was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
91832413|NCT00205348|183544021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Fatigue was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0002
91832414|NCT00205348|183544021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Social was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.2125
91832415|NCT00205348|183544021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0332|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Communication was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0332
91832416|NCT00450411|183544022|OTHER|||||||||||||||||It was projected that ≤10% of patients would experience late treatment-related GI/GU AEs under the protocol treatment (alternative hypothesis). A rate of ≥20% was considered unacceptable (null hypothesis). With a one-sided significance level of 0.05, it was estimated that 87 analyzable patients were required to detect the above-mentioned effect size with an 85% statistical power using Fleming's multiple testing procedure with two interim analyses and one final analysis.|Stopping Rules for a Late GI/GU Adverse Event: For 44 patients, if ≤2 then reject H0, if ≥8 then reject HA; for 73 patients, if ≤7 then reject H0, if ≥10 then reject HA; for 87 patients, if ≤10 then reject H0, if ≥11 then reject HA.|||
91832417|NCT05725317|183544030|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance visual acuity was declared if the upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens-by-visit interaction and sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID220365 minus LID006961. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||0.00||
91832418|NCT00829387|183544031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.69|||Linear mixed model|||||0.69|-1.47|0.47
91832419|NCT00829387|183544032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.47|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 36 weeks post-baseline||0.47|-1.15|0.40
91832420|NCT00829387|183544033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|2.32|||Linear mixed model|||baseline to 12 weeks post-baseline||2.32|-7.02|0.31
91832421|NCT00829387|183544034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.06|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 12 weeks comparison||1.06|-1.03|0.98
91832422|NCT00829387|183544035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.07|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 36 weeks post-baseline||-0.07|-1.76|0.03
91832423|NCT00829387|183544036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|1.55|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 36 weeks post-baseline||1.55|-9.86|0.15
91832424|NCT00707031|183544037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference between lixisenatide and exenatide on mITT population was \<=0.4%.|Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.297||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), BMI (\<30, \>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.||||To detect that upper confidence limit of 2-sided 95% confidence interval for least square (LS) mean difference between the 2 arms do not exceed 0.4% HbA1c, 300 patients per group would provide 96% power assuming a standard deviation of 1.3 and true difference in HbA1c between the 2 arms as 0.||0.297|0.033|
91706193|NCT00938587|183306682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.4305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.8|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.80|-0.28|0.4305
91832425|NCT02085252|183544046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0318||||||A 2-sided significance level of 5% was used. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the two treatment strategies.||||0.0318
91832426|NCT05540522|183544097|OTHER||RVE|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|53.9||||||||53.9|7.4|
91832427|NCT05540522|183544098|OTHER||RVE|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|23.8||||||||23.8|-47.2|
91832428|NCT05540522|183544119|OTHER||GMR|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.38||||||A/H3N2||1.38|1.10|
91832429|NCT05540522|183544119|OTHER||GMR|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.39||||||A/H1N1||1.39|1.10|
91832430|NCT05540522|183544119|OTHER||GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||||||B/Yamagata||0.80|0.67|
91832431|NCT05540522|183544119|OTHER||GMR|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.35||||||B/Victoria||0.35|0.26|
91832432|NCT05540522|183544120|OTHER||GMR|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|1.84||||||A/H3N2||1.84|1.47|
91832433|NCT05540522|183544120|OTHER||GMR|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.92||||||A/H1N1||1.92|1.51|
91654914|NCT00936975|183202609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equations|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.16
91654915|NCT00936975|183202610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0027||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.53
91654916|NCT00936975|183202610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized estimating equations|Age was included in the model as a confounder|Estimated value is the slope of the Normal bone. Tumor Bone was used as reference category. GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for clustering and correlation of bone measurement values within a patient|H0: influx(Ki) is the same in normal and tumor bones||||0.1095
91654917|NCT00936975|183202611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0021||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equations|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 bones in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.0033
91654918|NCT00936975|183202611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0097||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized estimating equations|Age was included in the model as a confounder|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|H0: Change Patlak Flux from TP1 to TP2 is the same in normal and tumor bones||||0.0670
91654919|NCT00936975|183202611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|32.3288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.6956||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized estimating equations||Estimated value is the slope of the Normal bone. Tumor Bone was used as reference category. GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for clustering and correlation of bone measurement values within a patient|H0: %Change in Patlak Flux between timepoint 1 and 2 is the same for Normal and Tumor bones||||0.0278
91654920|NCT01656889|183202629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5896|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the chi-squared proportion of wounds closed in each group.||||||0.5896
91654921|NCT01656889|183202630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||.3675
91654922|NCT01656889|183202631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6426|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 01||||0.6426
91654923|NCT01656889|183202631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3843|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 02||||.3843
91654924|NCT01656889|183202631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 03||||0.2792
91706194|NCT00938587|183306682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.9733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.53|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.53|-0.55|0.9733
91654925|NCT01656889|183202631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 04||||0.1502
91654926|NCT01656889|183202631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3823|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 05||||0.3823
91654927|NCT01656889|183202631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 06||||0.5528
91654928|NCT01656889|183202631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02913|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 07||||.02913
91832434|NCT05540522|183544120|OTHER||GMR|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.14||||||B/Yamagata||1.14|0.95|
91832435|NCT05540522|183544120|OTHER||GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69||||||B/Victoria||0.69|0.54|
91832436|NCT05540522|183544121|OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|16.4||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||16.4|6.4|
91832437|NCT05540522|183544121|OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|18.6||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||18.6|8.6|
91654929|NCT01656889|183202631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 08||||0.3896
91896012|NCT04874415|183687450|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1293.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3477.0|890.0|||||||Loss framed incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|890|-3477|
91654930|NCT01656889|183202631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 09||||0.3989
91654931|NCT01656889|183202631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8682|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 10||||0.8682
91654932|NCT01656889|183202631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8083|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 11||||0.8083
91654933|NCT01656889|183202631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6687|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 12||||0.6687
91654934|NCT01656889|183202633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3601|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 01||||0.3601
91654935|NCT01656889|183202633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9398|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 02||||0.9398
91654936|NCT01656889|183202633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 03||||0.905
91654937|NCT01656889|183202633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 04||||0.4471
91832438|NCT05540522|183544121|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-11.2||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-11.2|-19.5|
91832439|NCT05540522|183544121|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-36.1||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-36.1|-44.7|
91832440|NCT05540522|183544122|OTHER||Difference in percentage|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|26.5||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||26.5|16.7|
91654938|NCT01656889|183202633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 05||||0.3004
91654939|NCT01656889|183202633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 06||||0.1815
91654940|NCT01656889|183202633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 07||||0.399
91832441|NCT05540522|183544122|OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|30.4||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||30.4|20.9|
91832442|NCT05540522|183544122|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.6||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||0.6|-4.8|
91832443|NCT05540522|183544122|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-18.5||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-18.5|-26.7|
91654941|NCT01656889|183202633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8027|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 08||||0.8027
91654942|NCT01656889|183202633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4913|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 09||||0.4913
91832444|NCT05540522|183544123|OTHER||GMR|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.07||||||A/H3N2||2.07|1.78|
91832445|NCT05540522|183544123|OTHER||GMR|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|1.82||||||A/H1N1||1.82|1.55|
91832446|NCT05540522|183544123|OTHER||GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.94||||||B/Yamagata||0.94|0.82|
91832447|NCT05540522|183544123|OTHER||GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.63||||||B/Victoria||0.63|0.53|
91832448|NCT05540522|183544124|OTHER||GMR|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|2.54||||||A/H3N2||2.54|2.23|
91832449|NCT05540522|183544124|OTHER||GMR|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|2.54||||||A/H1N1||2.54|2.22|
91832450|NCT05540522|183544124|OTHER||GMR|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.43||||||B/Yamagata||1.43|1.29|
91832451|NCT05540522|183544124|OTHER||GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.81||||||B/Victoria||0.81|0.71|
91832452|NCT05540522|183544125|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|29.9||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||29.9|23.7|
91832453|NCT05540522|183544125|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|26.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|29.8||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||29.8|23.9|
91832454|NCT05540522|183544125|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-0.6|-6.6|
91832455|NCT05540522|183544125|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-16.6||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-16.6|-21.9|
91832456|NCT05540522|183544126|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|40.5||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||40.5|35.2|
91832457|NCT05540522|183544126|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|47.4||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||47.4|42.4|
91654943|NCT01656889|183202633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5227|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5227
91832458|NCT05540522|183544126|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|12.8||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||12.8|8.5|
91832459|NCT05540522|183544126|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-11.3||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-11.3|-16.3|
91832460|NCT00251745|183544170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
91832461|NCT00251745|183544170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
91832462|NCT00251745|183544170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15505||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.15505
91832463|NCT00251745|183544172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.00001
91832464|NCT00251745|183544172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
91832465|NCT00251745|183544172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3874||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.38740
91832466|NCT00636649|183544176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-TASK||||0.993
91832467|NCT00636649|183544176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-EMOT||||0.185
91832468|NCT00636649|183544176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-DIS||||0.196
91832469|NCT00636649|183544176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-AVD||||0.759
91832470|NCT00636649|183544176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-SOC||||0.396
91832471|NCT00636649|183544177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.579
91832472|NCT00636649|183544178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||ANCOVA|||TFEQ-RES||||0.225
91832473|NCT00636649|183544178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||ANCOVA|||TFEQ-DIS||||0.498
91832474|NCT00636649|183544178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||ANCOVA|||TFEQ-HUN||||0.724
91832475|NCT05520138|183544186|SUPERIORITY|With a 2-sided Type I of 0.05 significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.16|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.16|1.04|
91832476|NCT05520138|183544187|SUPERIORITY|With a 2-sided Type I of 0.05 significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.27|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.27|1.06|
91832477|NCT05520138|183544188|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.1|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.10|0.99|
91832478|NCT05520138|183544189|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.22|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.22|1.06|
91832479|NCT00789815|183544202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A preliminary study was performed to determine the sample size before this trial. 15 and 15 patients undergoing FB received BIS-guided propofol sedation and clinical-judged midazolam sedation, respectively. The incidences of hypoxemia were 0.33 and 0.20, respectively. The selected sample size of 225 in each group will yield 90% power for detecting a clinically meaningful difference of 0.13 at the 5.0% level of significance. To allow for 10% missing data, we recruited 250 patients per group.||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis: the incidence of hypoxemia occured during FB with BIS-guided propofol infusion is higher than that with clinical-judged midazolam administration.~Power calculation is described below."||||0.05
91832480|NCT00789815|183544203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis: the incidence of hypotension during FB in patients of study group is higher than that in the control group.||||0.05
91832481|NCT00789815|183544204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91832482|NCT00789815|183544205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91832483|NCT00789815|183544206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91832484|NCT00789815|183544207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis: the global tolerance of patients in study is worse than that in the control group.||||0.05
91832485|NCT00789815|183544208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91832486|NCT00789815|183544209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91832487|NCT02586025|183544210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.45||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|28.01||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||28.01|6.89|0.0014
91832488|NCT02586025|183544211|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.36||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|28.83||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||28.83|7.89|0.0008
91832489|NCT02586025|183544212|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|29.15||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||29.15|7.60|0.0010
91832490|NCT02586025|183544213|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.14|29.51||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||29.51|8.14|0.0006
91832491|NCT02586025|183544215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.4||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|19.69||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm|||19.69|1.12|0.0125
91832492|NCT02586025|183544216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.89|||Stratified log-rank|Two-sided log-rank test used, stratified by disease category (early-stage/locally advanced) \& hormone-receptor status (ER+ \&/or PgR+ or ER- \& PgR-)|The hazard ratio was calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio for EFS Event in the Pertuzumab arm vs. Placebo arm||0.89|0.32|0.0140
91832493|NCT02586025|183544216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates|-8.16||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-2.32|||Z-test||The difference in EFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||-2.32|-14.00|0.0062
91654944|NCT01656889|183202633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 11||||0.7032
91832494|NCT02586025|183544216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates|-9.17||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.05|-0.29|||Z-test||The difference in EFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||-0.29|-18.05|0.0429
91832495|NCT02586025|183544216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates|-11.1||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.95|-1.24|||Z-test||The difference in EFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 5 Years||-1.24|-20.95|0.0274
91832496|NCT02586025|183544217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.88|||Stratified log-rank|Two-sided log-rank test used, stratified by disease category (early-stage/locally advanced) \& hormone-receptor status (ER+ \&/or PgR+ or ER- \& PgR-)|The hazard ratio was calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio for DFS Event in the Pertuzumab arm vs. Placebo arm||0.88|0.30|0.0140
91832497|NCT02586025|183544217|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates|-5.47||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|0.21|||Z-test||The difference in DFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||0.21|-11.15|0.0592
91832498|NCT02586025|183544217|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates|-9.0||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.69|-0.3|||Z-test||The difference in DFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||-0.30|-17.69|0.0426
91832499|NCT02586025|183544217|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates|-10.97||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.73|-1.21|||Z-test||The difference in DFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates at 5 years||-1.21|-20.73|0.0276
91832500|NCT02586025|183544218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.19|||Stratified log-rank|Two-sided log-rank test used, stratified by disease category (early-stage/locally advanced) \& hormone-receptor status (ER+ \&/or PgR+ or ER- \& PgR-)|The hazard ratio was calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio for OS Event in the Pertuzumab arm vs. Placebo arm||1.19|0.23|0.1181
91832501|NCT02586025|183544218|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates|0.46||||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.36|||Z-test||The difference in OS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||1.36|-0.44|0.3162
91654945|NCT01656889|183202633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9366
91832502|NCT02586025|183544218|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates|-6.02||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.11|0.08|||Z-test||The difference in OS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||0.08|-12.11|0.0529
91832503|NCT02586025|183544218|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates|-3.89||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|2.9|||Z-test||The difference in OS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 5 years||2.90|-10.69|0.2616
91832504|NCT02586025|183544224|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.93|||||Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm|||0.93|-1.62|
91654946|NCT01656889|183202634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 01||||0.9853
91654947|NCT01656889|183202634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7083|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 02||||0.7083
91643984|NCT01461369|183180051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-11.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.806||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.17|-4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.19|-19.17|0.0024
91643985|NCT01461369|183180051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.739||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.94|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-13.94|0.0795
91643986|NCT01461369|183180052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-15.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.552|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.82|-8.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.83|-22.82|<0.0001
91643987|NCT01461369|183180052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.481||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-2.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.95|-16.66|0.0052
91643988|NCT01461369|183180053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.776||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.87|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.99|-19.87|0.0011
91643989|NCT01461369|183180053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.707||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.74|-12.86|0.1349
91643990|NCT01461369|183180054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.377||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|-6.59|||ANCOVA|||||-6.59|-19.89|0.0001
91643991|NCT01461369|183180054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.313||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.96|||ANCOVA|||||-0.96|-14.00|0.0248
91643992|NCT01461369|183180055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.396||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.32|-5.94|||ANCOVA|||||-5.94|-19.32|0.0002
91643993|NCT01461369|183180055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.339||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-13.60|0.0363
91643994|NCT01461369|183180056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.16|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.60|-17.16|0.0028
91643995|NCT01461369|183180056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.385||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|1.21|||ANCOVA|||||1.21|-12.13|0.1081
91643996|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|6.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.976|6.255|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||6.255|5.976|<.0001
91643997|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|6.073|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.963|6.183|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||6.183|5.963|<.0001
91643998|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.736|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.605|5.868|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.868|5.605|<.0001
91643999|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.687|5.897|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.897|5.687|<.0001
91644000|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.835|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.701|5.969|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.969|5.701|<.0001
91644001|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.799|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.694|5.904|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.904|5.694|<.0001
91654948|NCT01656889|183202634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6744|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 03||||0.6744
91654949|NCT01656889|183202634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2891|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2891
91654950|NCT01656889|183202634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9923|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 05||||0.9923
91654951|NCT01656889|183202634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1775|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 06||||0.1775
91654952|NCT01656889|183202634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 07||||0.499
91644002|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.713|5.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.048|4.713|<.0001
91644003|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.844|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.711|4.977|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||4.977|4.711|<.0001
91644004|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.185|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.021|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.350|5.021|<.0001
91644005|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.933|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.801|5.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.066|4.801|<.0001
91644006|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.852|5.175|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.175|4.852|<.0001
91644007|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.892|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.763|5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.020|4.763|<.0001
91644008|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.379||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|-0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.112|-0.646|0.0013
91644009|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.281||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|-0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.065|-0.496|0.0034
91654953|NCT01656889|183202634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 08||||0.4423
91654954|NCT01656889|183202634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 09||||0.5138
91832505|NCT00415610|183544235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The repeated measure analysis of the hourly average SBP was calculated with and without adjusting for baseline NIHSS and age.|repeated measure|Adjusted for initial deficit severity of using baseline NIHSS instead of GCS to better discriminate among patients with GCS score \> 8.||The hourly average (of maximum and minimum) SBP measurements were graphed with box-and-whiskers plot. In addition, a repeated measures analysis of the 25 average SBP (baseline and subsequent 24 hourly measures) was conducted with a mixed effects model (assuming autoregressive covariance structure in SAS version 9.1 PROC MIXED) to determine statistically the effect of treatment intensity (tier) on the average SBP over the 24 hrs with and without adjustment for baseline NIHSS score and age.||||< 0.01
91644010|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.281||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|-0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.012|-0.549|0.0354
91644011|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.274||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|-0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.059|-0.489|0.0044
91644012|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.539|-0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.930|-1.539|<.0001
91644013|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.229|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.475|-0.983|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.983|-1.475|<.0001
91644014|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.630|-1.230|<.0001
91644015|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.383|-0.896|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.896|-1.383|<.0001
91644016|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.723|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|1.009|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||1.009|0.436|<.0001
91644017|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.901|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.134|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||1.134|0.667|<.0001
91644018|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.821|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||1.109|0.533|<.0001
91654955|NCT01656889|183202634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3409|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.3409
91654956|NCT01656889|183202634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6358|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 11||||0.6358
91654957|NCT01656889|183202634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6753|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6753
91644019|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.907|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||1.140|.675|<.0001
91644020|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.133||||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.188|-0.453|.8291
91644021|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.213|-0.308|0.9997
91644022|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.172||||0.5755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.488|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.488|-0.145|0.5755
91644023|NCT03692078|183180075|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.042||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.301|-0.217|0.9999
91644024|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.629|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.317|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||2.940|2.317|<.0001
91644025|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.632|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.321|2.943|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||2.943|2.321|<.0001
91644026|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.006|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.714|2.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||2.298|1.714|<.0001
91644027|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.847|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||2.440|1.847|<.0001
91654958|NCT01656889|183202635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis|||||||< 0.05
91654959|NCT02114307|183202640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91654960|NCT02114307|183202641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sham Group - 6 week Time Point - Pre-stimulation versus Post-Stimulation||||0.0023
91644028|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|1.987|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.284|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||2.284|1.690|<.0001
91644029|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.261|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.964|2.559|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||2.559|1.964|<.0001
91644030|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.263||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.109|-0.635|0.1658
91644031|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.659||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.036|-0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.282|-1.036|0.0007
91644032|NCT03692078|183180077|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.302||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.064|-0.667|0.1055
91644033|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.243||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.617|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.132|-0.617|0.2040
91644034|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.244||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.116|-0.603|0.1829
91644035|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.248||||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.115|-0.612|0.1801
91644036|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.622||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|-0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.019|-1.225|0.0391
91654961|NCT02114307|183202641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test Group - 6 week Time Point - Pre-stimulation versus Post-Stimulation||||0.0815
91654962|NCT02114307|183202642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.127
91832506|NCT00415610|183544236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Observed average SBP change at 2 hrs after treatment initiation between subjects who did or did not have neurologic deterioration within 24 hrs.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|Mean decrease measured for subjects with neurological deterioration and subjects without neurological deterioration.||Done as a surrogate to evaluate the relationship between early SBP reduction and safety events.||||< .5
91832507|NCT01490502|183544302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
91832508|NCT01490502|183544302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.67|0.57
91832509|NCT01490502|183544303|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Andersen Gill model for recurrent events|||||||0.07
91832510|NCT01490502|183544304|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.45|||Negative Binomial Model|||||3.45|0.94|0.07
91832511|NCT01490502|183544305|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.47||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.46|||Negative Binomial Model|||||2.46|0.88|0.14
91832512|NCT01490502|183544306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
91832513|NCT01490502|183544307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The average rate of change in MSFC Z-score over time was analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with unstructured covariance structure and random intercepts. The p-value is a test of whether there is a difference in the rate of change in the MSFC Z-score between treatment arms.||||0.20
91832514|NCT01490502|183544308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Rate of change in 2.5% low-contrast acuity was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance structure and random intercepts. The p-value is a test of whether there is a difference in the rate of change in low-contrast acuity between treatment arms.||||0.67
91832515|NCT01490502|183544309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Rate of change in quality of life was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance structure and random intercepts. The p-value is a test of whether there is a difference in the rate of change in health-related quality of life between treatment arms.||||0.21
91832516|NCT01490502|183544310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91654963|NCT02275364|183202652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|15.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.32|18.25||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||18.25|12.32|<0.0001
91832517|NCT01490502|183544311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91832518|NCT04186780|183544315|SUPERIORITY|"The differences between Shiitake and placebo groups were analyzed by the Chi-square test, Exact of Fisher test and Student's t-test.~Descriptions of all biochemical parameters were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. To investigate the differences in biochemical parameters between the groups, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements was applied. All results of biochemical parameters were normalized to logarithmic scale."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between T0 and T66 in the placebo group and intervention group in total cholesterol.|||||0.59
91832519|NCT04186780|183544316|SUPERIORITY|"The differences between Shiitake and placebo groups were analyzed by the Chi-square test, Exact of Fisher test and Student's t-test.~Descriptions of all biochemical and oxidative stress parameters were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. To investigate the differences in biochemical parameters between the groups, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements was applied. All results of biochemical parameters and oxidative stress were normalized to logarithmic scale."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between T0 and T66 in the placebo group and intervention group.|||||0.8284
91832520|NCT04186780|183544317|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between T0 and T66 in the placebo group compared to the intervention group.|||||0.0058
91832521|NCT04186780|183544318|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Reduced difference in TBARS in the placebo group compared to the intervention group at T66.|||||0.0384
91832522|NCT04186780|183544319|SUPERIORITY|"The differences between Shiitake and placebo groups were analyzed by the Chi-square test, Exact of Fisher test and Student's t-test.~Descriptions of all biochemical and oxidative stress parameters were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. To investigate the differences in biochemical parameters between the groups, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements was applied. All results of biochemical parameters and oxidative stress were normalized to logarithmic scale."|Mean Difference (Net)|47.0||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between placebo group and intervention group of T66.|||||0.0352
91832523|NCT02606903|183544354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (%)|110.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.8|125.44|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (AI/PFS) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale was used including treatment and body mass index (BMI) group as fixed effects||125.44|96.80|
91832524|NCT02606903|183544355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (%)|100.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.354|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.15|117.76|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (AI/PFS) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale was used including treatment and BMI group as fixed effects||117.76|85.15|
91832525|NCT02606903|183544356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (%)|100.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.137|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.13|122.29|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (AI/PFS) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale was used including treatment and BMI group as fixed effects||122.29|82.13|
91832526|NCT00430248|183544367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of febuxostat 40 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage|3.1||||||95.0|-1.9|8.1||||||The primary comparison was between febuxostat 40 mg and allopurinol treatment groups.||8.1|-1.9|
91644037|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.489||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.096|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.119|-1.096|0.1864
91644038|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.642||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|-0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.037|-1.246|0.0310
91644039|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.642||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|-0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.037|-1.246|0.0310
91644040|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.891|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-2.202|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.202|-3.580|<.0001
91644041|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.985|-2.597|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.597|-3.985|<.0001
91644042|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.605|-2.255|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.255|-3.605|<.0001
91644043|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.875|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.559|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.190|-3.559|<.0001
91644044|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.604|2.896|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.896|1.604|<.0001
91654964|NCT02275364|183202653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|4.57||Obtained from ANOVA with treatment, period and region of interest as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||4.57|-6.43|0.7366
91832527|NCT00430248|183544367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0||||The test for superiority was performed using Fisher's exact test (two-tailed 0.05 significance level).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.233
91832528|NCT00430248|183544367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.9|||<|0.001||95.0|20.1|29.8||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test (two-tailed 0.05 significance level).|Fisher Exact|||||29.8|20.1|<0.001
91832529|NCT00430248|183544367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|21.9|||<|0.001||95.0|17.0|26.8||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test (two-tailed 0.05 significance level).|Fisher Exact|||||26.8|17.0|<0.001
91644045|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.737|3.046|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.046|1.737|<.0001
91644046|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.231|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.582|2.879|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.879|1.582|<.0001
91644047|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.509|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.857|3.162|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.162|1.857|<.0001
91644048|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.019||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|0.705|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.705|-0.743|1.0000
91644049|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.411||||0.5639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.142|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.320|-1.142|0.5639
91644050|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.771|0.656|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.656|-0.771|1.0000
91644051|NCT03692078|183180077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.006||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.721|0.732|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.732|-0.721|1.0000
91644052|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.691|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.519|2.863|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.863|2.519|<.0001
91644053|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.718|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.546|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.890|2.546|<.0001
91654965|NCT02275364|183202654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1533.74||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|794.16|2273.32||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||2273.32|794.16|0.0004
91832530|NCT00430248|183544368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
91832531|NCT00430248|183544368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832532|NCT00430248|183544368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832533|NCT00430248|183544369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
91832534|NCT00430248|183544369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832535|NCT00430248|183544369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832536|NCT00430248|183544370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.578
91832537|NCT00430248|183544370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832538|NCT00430248|183544370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832539|NCT00430248|183544371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.426
91832540|NCT00430248|183544371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91654966|NCT02275364|183202655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.7278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|2.14||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||2.14|-3.06|0.7278
91832541|NCT00430248|183544371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832542|NCT00430248|183544372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.050
91832543|NCT00430248|183544372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832544|NCT00430248|183544372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832545|NCT00430248|183544373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.428
91832546|NCT00430248|183544373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832547|NCT00430248|183544373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832548|NCT00430248|183544374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
91832549|NCT00430248|183544374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832550|NCT00430248|183544374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832551|NCT00430248|183544375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.083
91832552|NCT00430248|183544375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832553|NCT00430248|183544375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832554|NCT00430248|183544376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.421
91832555|NCT00430248|183544376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832556|NCT00430248|183544376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832557|NCT00430248|183544377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.520
91832558|NCT00430248|183544377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832559|NCT00430248|183544377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832560|NCT00430248|183544378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.195
91832561|NCT00430248|183544378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832562|NCT00430248|183544378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832563|NCT00430248|183544379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.196
91832564|NCT00430248|183544379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832565|NCT00430248|183544379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91832566|NCT00430248|183544380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.079
91832567|NCT00430248|183544380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91832568|NCT00430248|183544380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91644054|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.252|2.577|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.577|2.252|<.0001
91832569|NCT00430248|183544381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.685
91832570|NCT00430248|183544381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91832571|NCT00430248|183544381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91832572|NCT00430248|183544382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.153
91832573|NCT00430248|183544382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91832574|NCT00430248|183544382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91832575|NCT00430248|183544383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.050
91832576|NCT00430248|183544383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91832577|NCT00430248|183544383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91832578|NCT01624948|183544384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
91832579|NCT01624948|183544386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in p70S6 kinase phosphorylation as measured by mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) between those patients who reached the primary endpoint and those who did not||||0.67
91832580|NCT01624948|183544387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91832581|NCT01624948|183544389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
91832582|NCT02219048|183544423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0909|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2243|0.0805|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 1||0.0805|-0.2243|
91832583|NCT02219048|183544423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2362|0.0523|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 2||0.0523|-0.2362|
91832584|NCT02219048|183544423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0837|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2536|0.0274|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 3||0.0274|-0.2536|
91832585|NCT02219048|183544423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0829|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1971|0.0812|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 4||0.0812|-0.1971|
91832586|NCT02219048|183544423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.0837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0742|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2081|0.0406|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline Over Week 1 to 4||0.0406|-0.2081|
91832587|NCT02219048|183544426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.285|0.106|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline Averaged Over Week 1 to 4||0.106|-0.285|
91832588|NCT02219048|183544428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.003|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.76|22.794|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 1||22.794|-10.760|
91832589|NCT02219048|183544428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.228|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.926|27.108|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 2||27.108|-13.926|
91832590|NCT02219048|183544428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.954|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.673|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.644|20.552|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 3||20.552|-18.644|
91832591|NCT02219048|183544428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.069|17.333|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 4||17.333|-26.069|
91832592|NCT02219048|183544428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.323|19.92|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB Averaged Over 4 Weeks||19.920|-15.323|
91644055|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.276|2.603|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.603|2.276|<.0001
91644056|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.583|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.417|2.748|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.748|2.417|<.0001
91644057|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.591|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.426|2.757|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.757|2.426|<.0001
91644058|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.314|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.314|0.901|<.0001
91644059|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.017|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.225|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.225|0.810|<.0001
91644060|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.828|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.624|2.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.031|1.624|<.0001
91644061|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.782|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.577|1.988|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.988|1.577|<.0001
91644062|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.350|-0.750|<.0001
91832593|NCT02219048|183544428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.961|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.248|19.519|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 1||19.519|-17.248|
91832594|NCT02219048|183544428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.956|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.871|19.54|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 2||19.540|-13.871|
91832595|NCT02219048|183544428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.652|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.933|11.185|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 3||11.185|-27.933|
91644063|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.051|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.650|-1.051|<.0001
91644064|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.276||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.057|-0.609|0.1608
91644065|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.278||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.056|-0.613|0.1575
91644066|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.108||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.226|-0.442|0.9728
91644067|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.127||||0.9262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.208|-0.461|0.9262
91644068|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.584|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.963|-1.204|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.204|-1.963|<.0001
91644069|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.701|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.081|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.320|-2.081|<.0001
91644070|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.863|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.237|-0.489|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.489|-1.237|<.0001
91654967|NCT02275364|183202656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|191.72||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.62|462.06||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||462.06|-78.62|0.1639
91832596|NCT02219048|183544428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.573|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.245|22.356|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 4||22.356|-23.245|
91832597|NCT02219048|183544428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.317|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.52|16.096|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB Averaged Over 4 Weeks||16.096|-18.520|
91644071|NCT03692078|183180079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.936|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.312|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.560|-1.312|<.0001
91644072|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.630|3.310|<.0001
91644073|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.508|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.348|3.668|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.668|3.348|<.0001
91644074|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.891|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.741|3.042|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.042|2.741|<.0001
91644075|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.873|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.719|3.027|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.027|2.719|<.0001
91644076|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.928|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.775|3.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.082|2.775|<.0001
91644077|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.896|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.742|3.049|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.049|2.742|<.0001
91644078|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.864|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.055|0.672|<.0001
91832598|NCT00995501|183544434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.45|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with intensive glucose control vs. 4 arms with conventional glucose control||2|0.45|0.86
91832599|NCT00995501|183544434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.45|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with Dexamethasone vs. 4 arms with Placebo||2|0.45|0.87
91832600|NCT00995501|183544434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.49|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with light anesthesia vs. 4 arms with deep anesthesia||2.2|0.49|0.90
91832601|NCT00995501|183544435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.37|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with intensive glucose control vs. 4 arms with conventional glucose control||2.3|0.37|0.8
91832602|NCT00995501|183544435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.43|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with Dexamethasone vs. 4 arms with Placebo||2.7|0.43|0.84
91832603|NCT00995501|183544435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.42|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.7|0.42|0.87
91706195|NCT00938587|183306682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.8613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.6|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.60|-0.48|0.8613
91706196|NCT00938587|183306682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.78|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.78|-0.35|0.5245
91706197|NCT00938587|183306682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.8917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.51|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.51|-0.60|0.8917
91706198|NCT00938587|183306682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.03|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.03|-0.09|0.1695
91706199|NCT00938587|183306682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.5339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.75|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.75|-0.34|0.5339
91706200|NCT00938587|183306682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.8|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.80|-0.30|0.4520
91706201|NCT03763058|183306708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.19||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.012
91706202|NCT03763058|183306709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.52||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.002
91832604|NCT01274182|183544436|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.106|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.21|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|PK bioequivalence is defined as AUC(0-inf) of the drugs being comparable, i.e. the two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means (GP2013/MabThera) is within the predefined bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25.||1.210|1.010|
91832605|NCT01274182|183544436|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.925|1.108|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and Rituxan arm is the denominator|PK bioequivalence is defined as AUC(0-inf) of the drugs being comparable, i.e. the two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means (GP2013/MabThera) is within the predefined bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25.||1.108|0.925|
91851561|NCT02716324|183586759|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Child Patient Reported Outcomes Family Relationships Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child-reported PRO Family Relationship Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.679
91706203|NCT03763058|183306710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.71||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.045
91706204|NCT03763058|183306711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||<0.001
91706205|NCT03763058|183306712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||Total HAD score||||<0.001
91706206|NCT02759835|183306713|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.56
91706207|NCT02759835|183306715|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.40
91706208|NCT00055497|183306739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.142
91706209|NCT00055497|183306740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
91706210|NCT00055497|183306741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.330
91706211|NCT00055497|183306741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.001
91706212|NCT00055497|183306741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.508
91706213|NCT00055497|183306741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.044
91706214|NCT00055497|183306742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.191
91706215|NCT00055497|183306742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.003
91706216|NCT00055497|183306742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.508
91706217|NCT00055497|183306742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.004
91706218|NCT00055497|183306743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91706219|NCT00048165|183306748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent mean difference|-12.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-3.3|-20.9|0.007
91706220|NCT00048165|183306749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent mean difference|-8.6||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.5|-17.7|0.063
91706221|NCT00048165|183306752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Daclizumab and Placebo for 6 months were presented||||0.0005
91706222|NCT00048165|183306752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Daclizumab and Placebo for 12 months were presented||||0.0008
91706223|NCT00678470|183306774|OTHER||Correlation|1.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||||Using Fisher's non-parametric test of associations, correlations were determined between the patients who were intralesional responders with their response at ‡70% change in PASI score.|||0.0003
91706224|NCT00508157|183306776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.14|-2.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: log of on-treatment to baseline ratio = log of baseline value, treatment, previous antipsychotic.|Relative difference of Aripiprazole vs. Control Group in terms of (mean % change from baseline/100)+1.|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDLC between aripiprazole and the control group at Week 16||-2.66|-19.14|
91706225|NCT00508157|183306777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A relative risk \< 1 favors Aripiprazole over Control Group.||null hypothesis: no difference between Aripiprazole and Control Group||1.06|0.54|
91706226|NCT02134353|183306801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|54.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Missing data for withdrawals related to safety or efficacy imputed using BOCF (baseline observation carried forward). Data collected at 6, 14 and 26 weeks.|||100|8|0.020
91706227|NCT02134353|183306802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|40.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|92.0||Missing data for withdrawals due to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF. Data collected at 6,14 and 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis||Missing data for withdrawals related to safety or efficacy imputed using BOCF. Data collected at 6, 14 and 26 weeks.|||92|-12|0.128
91706228|NCT02134353|183306803|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|1.936|||Regression, Cox|||||1.936|0.671|0.629
91706229|NCT02134353|183306804|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.75||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|2.846|||Negative binomial model|||||2.846|0.198|0.673
91832606|NCT01274182|183544436|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.208|||||Rituxan arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|PK bioequivalence is defined as AUC(0-inf) of the drugs being comparable, i.e. the two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means (GP2013/MabThera) is within the predefined bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25.||1.208|0.989|
91851562|NCT02716324|183586760|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.074||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.311|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Access Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.311|-0.164|0.495
91706230|NCT02134353|183306805|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.273||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|5.154|||Negative binomial model|||||5.154|0.315|0.735
91706231|NCT02134353|183306806|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.545||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.411|||Negative binomial model|||Patients withdrawing early without an exacerbation had rate imputed based on number of exacerbations in 12 months prior to screening.||2.411|0.990|0.055
91706232|NCT02134353|183306806|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.357||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.275|||Negative binomial model|||Sensitivity analysis with no imputation of missing data.||2.275|0.810|0.246
91706233|NCT02134353|183306807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.009||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.836|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.836|0.555|0.976
91851563|NCT02716324|183586760|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.013||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.191|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Patient Family Centered Care Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.191|-0.217|0.885
91706234|NCT02134353|183306808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.259||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|Missing values due to withdrawal related to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF||||0.551|-0.034|0.083
91706235|NCT02134353|183306809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.406|3.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||Missing values due to withdrawal related to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF|||3.145|-1.406|0.453
91706236|NCT02134353|183306810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|87.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|155.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Missing data due to withdrawals for reasons related to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF|||155|20|0.012
91706237|NCT01953432|183306811|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Probability of 0.75 that the OR exceeded 1.00 (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.98-1.05)|||||
91706238|NCT01953432|183306811|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Probability of 0.96 that the odds ratio exceeded 1.00 (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.00-1.07)|||||
91706239|NCT01783821|183306815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Type 3 Wald Test|||Overall p-value of the day by treatment interaction from the random effects model using a type 3 Wald test.||||0.02
91706240|NCT01783821|183306816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between the two arms for the 3 categories.||||0.01
91706241|NCT01783821|183306817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91706242|NCT01783821|183306818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91706243|NCT01783821|183306819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Cox Proportional Hazard, Fine/Gray adj.|||||||0.02
91706244|NCT01783821|183306820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91706245|NCT01653327|183306841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3198
91706246|NCT01653327|183306842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3522
91706247|NCT02440854|183306849|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.002
91706248|NCT02440854|183306849|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.014
91706249|NCT02440854|183306849|OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.246
91706250|NCT02440854|183306849|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.103
91706251|NCT02440854|183306849|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.004
91706252|NCT02440854|183306849|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706253|NCT02440854|183306849|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.012
91706254|NCT02440854|183306849|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.024
91706255|NCT02440854|183306849|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.009
91706256|NCT02440854|183306849|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.008
91706257|NCT02440854|183306850|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.027
91706258|NCT02440854|183306850|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.030
91706259|NCT02440854|183306850|OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.351
91706260|NCT02440854|183306850|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.143
91706261|NCT02440854|183306850|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.163
91832607|NCT01274182|183544437|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.076|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.184|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and Rituxan arm is the denominator|To conclude bioequivalence the 90% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25.||1.184|0.979|
91706262|NCT02440854|183306850|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.001
91706263|NCT02440854|183306850|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.003
91706264|NCT02440854|183306850|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.036
91706265|NCT02440854|183306850|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.043
91706266|NCT02440854|183306850|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.040
91706267|NCT02440854|183306851|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706268|NCT02440854|183306851|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.003
91706269|NCT02440854|183306851|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706270|NCT02440854|183306851|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706271|NCT02440854|183306851|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706272|NCT02440854|183306851|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706273|NCT02440854|183306851|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706274|NCT02440854|183306851|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706275|NCT02440854|183306851|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706276|NCT02440854|183306851|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.163
91706277|NCT02440854|183306852|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.003
91706278|NCT02440854|183306852|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.009
91706279|NCT02440854|183306852|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.012
91706280|NCT02440854|183306852|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.332
91706281|NCT02440854|183306852|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.029
91706282|NCT02440854|183306852|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.001
91706283|NCT02440854|183306852|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.177
91706284|NCT02440854|183306852|OTHER|||||||0.436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.436
91706285|NCT02440854|183306852|OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.302
91706286|NCT02440854|183306852|OTHER|||||||0.291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.291
91706287|NCT02440854|183306853|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706288|NCT02440854|183306853|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706289|NCT02440854|183306853|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706290|NCT02440854|183306853|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706291|NCT02440854|183306853|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706292|NCT02440854|183306853|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706293|NCT02440854|183306853|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706294|NCT02440854|183306853|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706295|NCT02440854|183306853|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.002
91706296|NCT02440854|183306853|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.025
91706297|NCT02440854|183306854|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706298|NCT02440854|183306854|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706299|NCT02440854|183306854|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706300|NCT02440854|183306854|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706301|NCT02440854|183306854|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706302|NCT02440854|183306854|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91644079|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.786|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.981|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.981|0.592|<.0001
91644080|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.641|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.829|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.829|0.452|<.0001
91706303|NCT02440854|183306854|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706304|NCT02440854|183306854|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706305|NCT02440854|183306854|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.003
91706306|NCT02440854|183306854|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.025
91644081|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.485|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.680|0.290|<.0001
91644082|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.747|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|0.932|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.932|0.562|<.0001
91706307|NCT02440854|183306855|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706308|NCT02440854|183306855|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91832608|NCT01274182|183544437|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.131|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.027|1.244|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude bioequivalence the 90% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25||1.244|1.027|
91851564|NCT02716324|183586760|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.073||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.328|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Communication Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.328|-0.182|0.527
91706309|NCT02440854|183306855|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706310|NCT02440854|183306855|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706311|NCT02440854|183306855|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706312|NCT02440854|183306855|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706313|NCT02440854|183306855|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706314|NCT02440854|183306855|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706315|NCT02440854|183306855|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706316|NCT02440854|183306855|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706317|NCT02440854|183306856|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706318|NCT02440854|183306856|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706319|NCT02440854|183306856|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91644083|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.833|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.021|0.645|<.0001
91644084|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.579|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.889|-0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.268|-0.889|<.0001
91644085|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.635|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.949|-0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.321|-0.949|<.0001
91644086|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.853|-0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.231|-0.853|<.0001
91644087|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|-0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.301|-0.924|<.0001
91644088|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.959|-2.253|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.253|-2.959|<.0001
91654968|NCT02275364|183202657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02||||0.4621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||Obtained from ANOVA with treatment, period and region of interest as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||0.07|-0.03|0.4621
91706320|NCT02440854|183306856|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706321|NCT02440854|183306856|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706322|NCT02440854|183306856|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706323|NCT02440854|183306856|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706324|NCT02440854|183306856|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706325|NCT02440854|183306856|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706326|NCT02440854|183306856|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.002
91706327|NCT02440854|183306857|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.022
91706328|NCT02440854|183306857|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706329|NCT02440854|183306857|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.004
91706330|NCT02440854|183306857|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.032
91706331|NCT02440854|183306857|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.066
91706332|NCT02440854|183306857|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.042
91706333|NCT02440854|183306857|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.045
91706334|NCT02440854|183306857|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.014
91706335|NCT02440854|183306857|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.015
91706336|NCT02440854|183306857|OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.462
91644089|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.722|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.078|-2.366|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.366|-3.078|<.0001
91644090|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.829|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.177|-2.481|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.481|-3.177|<.0001
91644091|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.024|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.378|-2.669|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.669|-3.378|<.0001
91644092|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.144|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.811|2.478|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.478|1.811|<.0001
91644093|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.701|2.379|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.379|1.701|<.0001
91644094|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.846|2.516|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.516|1.846|<.0001
91644095|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.063|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.725|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.400|1.725|<.0001
91706337|NCT02440854|183306858|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706338|NCT02440854|183306858|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.004
91706339|NCT02440854|183306858|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.008
91706340|NCT02440854|183306858|OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.315
91706341|NCT02440854|183306858|OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.237
91706342|NCT02440854|183306858|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91706343|NCT02440854|183306858|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.002
91706344|NCT02440854|183306858|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.004
91706345|NCT02440854|183306858|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.010
91706346|NCT02440854|183306858|OTHER|||||||0.683|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.683
91706347|NCT02440854|183306859|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.062
91706348|NCT02440854|183306859|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.062
91706349|NCT02440854|183306859|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.027
91706350|NCT02440854|183306859|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.170
91644096|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.117||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.490|-0.256|0.9705
91644097|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.047||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.332|-0.425|1.0000
91644098|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106||||0.9835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.475|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.263|-0.475|0.9835
91644099|NCT03692078|183180081|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.348||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.725|0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.029|-0.725|0.0854
91644100|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.028|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.901|3.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.154|2.901|<.0001
91644101|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.927|3.141|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.141|2.927|<.0001
91644102|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.603|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.483|2.722|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.722|2.483|<.0001
91644103|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.465|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.670|2.465|<.0001
91644104|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.716|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.595|2.838|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.838|2.595|<.0001
91706351|NCT02440854|183306859|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.271
91706352|NCT02440854|183306859|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.002
91706353|NCT02440854|183306859|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.003
91832609|NCT01274182|183544437|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.946|1.167|||||Rituxan arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude bioequivalence the 90% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25.||1.167|0.946|
91644105|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.643|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.541|2.746|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.746|2.541|<.0001
91644106|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|1.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.386|1.083|<.0001
91644107|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|1.304|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.304|1.045|<.0001
91644108|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.219|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.368|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.368|1.070|<.0001
91644109|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|1.306|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.306|1.046|<.0001
91644110|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.322|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.322|1.029|<.0001
91644111|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.049|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.300|1.049|<.0001
91706354|NCT02440854|183306859|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.157
91706355|NCT02440854|183306859|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.064
91706356|NCT02440854|183306859|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.439
91706357|NCT02440854|183306860|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.388
91851565|NCT02716324|183586760|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.136||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.41|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Understanding Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.410|-0.138|0.285
91851566|NCT04347954|183586792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.349|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.584|0.886||||||Analysis of change in mean Ct values incorporating baseline, hour 1, and day 3 values.||0.886|-1.584|
91644112|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|-0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.181|-0.669|<.0001
91644113|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.467|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|-0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.256|-0.677|<.0001
91644114|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.311||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.556|-0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.066|-0.556|0.0052
91644115|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.182|-0.600|<.0001
91644116|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.793|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.516|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.516|-2.070|<.0001
91644117|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.859|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|-1.621|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.621|-2.098|<.0001
91644118|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.809|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.082|-1.535|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.535|-2.082|<.0001
91644119|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.858|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.096|-1.621|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.621|-2.096|<.0001
91644120|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.427|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|1.688|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.688|1.166|<.0001
91706358|NCT02440854|183306860|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.006
91706359|NCT02440854|183306860|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.077
91644121|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.393|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.620|1.166|<.0001
91644122|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.541|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.278|1.803|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.803|1.278|<.0001
91706360|NCT02440854|183306860|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706361|NCT02440854|183306860|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.508
91706362|NCT02440854|183306860|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706363|NCT02440854|183306860|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706364|NCT02440854|183306860|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706365|NCT02440854|183306860|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706366|NCT02440854|183306860|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706367|NCT02440854|183306861|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706368|NCT02440854|183306861|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706369|NCT02440854|183306861|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706370|NCT02440854|183306861|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706371|NCT02440854|183306861|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706372|NCT02440854|183306861|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706373|NCT02440854|183306861|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706374|NCT02440854|183306862|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.774
91706375|NCT02440854|183306862|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706376|NCT02440854|183306862|OTHER|||||||0.607|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.607
91706377|NCT02440854|183306862|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.774
91706378|NCT02440854|183306862|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706379|NCT02440854|183306862|OTHER|||||||0.453|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.453
91706380|NCT02440854|183306862|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.688
91706381|NCT02440854|183306862|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706382|NCT02440854|183306862|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.250
91706383|NCT02440854|183306862|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706384|NCT02440854|183306863|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.077
91706385|NCT02440854|183306863|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||<0.001
91706386|NCT02440854|183306863|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.006
91706387|NCT02440854|183306863|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.344
91706388|NCT02440854|183306863|OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.146
91706389|NCT02440854|183306863|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.180
91706390|NCT02440854|183306863|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.289
91644123|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|1.695|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.695|1.243|<.0001
91644124|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.9987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.351|-0.233|0.9987
91644125|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.254|-0.253|1.0000
91644126|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.332|-0.246|0.9999
91644127|NCT03692078|183180083|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.254|-0.251|1.0000
91644128|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.283|2.531|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.531|2.283|<.0001
91644129|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.398|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.253|2.543|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.543|2.253|<.0001
91644130|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.187|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.420|2.187|<.0001
91644131|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.112|2.389|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.389|2.112|<.0001
91706391|NCT02440854|183306863|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.125
91706392|NCT02440854|183306863|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91832610|NCT01274182|183544438|EQUIVALENCE|Ratio of geometric means and 95% confidence interval were estimated by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log-transformed PD parameter with treatment as the factor. Results were then back-transformed to the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.004|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and Rituxan arm is the denominator|To conclude equivalence the 95% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalencelimits of 0.8-1.25||1.004|0.974|
91644132|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.285|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.166|2.404|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.404|2.166|<.0001
91644133|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.272|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.133|2.412|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.412|2.133|<.0001
91644134|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.992|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.844|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.140|1.844|<.0001
91644135|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.894|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.719|2.069|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.069|1.719|<.0001
91644136|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.955|2.248|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.248|1.955|<.0001
91644137|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.250|1.900|<.0001
91644138|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.746|2.033|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.033|1.746|<.0001
91644139|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.944|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.775|2.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.114|1.775|<.0001
91706393|NCT02440854|183306863|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.500
91706394|NCT02440854|183306864|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.210
91896013|NCT04874415|183687450|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2424.0|2153.0|||||Daily step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2153|-2424|
91706395|NCT02440854|183306864|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.263
91706396|NCT02440854|183306864|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706397|NCT02440854|183306864|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706398|NCT02440854|183306864|OTHER|||||||0.629|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.629
91706399|NCT02440854|183306864|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706400|NCT02440854|183306864|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706401|NCT02440854|183306864|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706402|NCT02440854|183306864|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91706403|NCT02440854|183306864|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91832611|NCT01274182|183544438|EQUIVALENCE|Ratio of geometric means and 95% confidence interval were estimated by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log-transformed PD parameter with treatment as the factor. Results were then back-transformed to the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|1.04|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude equivalence the 95% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalencelimits of 0.8-1.25||1.040|1.003|
91706404|NCT02440854|183306865|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.098
91706405|NCT02440854|183306865|OTHER|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.359
91706406|NCT02440854|183306865|OTHER|||||||0.393|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.393
91706407|NCT02440854|183306865|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.055
91706408|NCT02440854|183306865|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.124
91706409|NCT02440854|183306865|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.376
91706410|NCT02440854|183306865|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.033
91706411|NCT02440854|183306865|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.048
91706412|NCT02440854|183306865|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.071
91706413|NCT02440854|183306865|OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.848
91706414|NCT02243046|183306878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.091
91706415|NCT02243046|183306879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91706416|NCT02243046|183306880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||< 0.001
91706417|NCT02243046|183306881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||0.571
91706418|NCT02243046|183306882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||< 0.001
91706419|NCT02243046|183306883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||< 0.001
91706420|NCT02669082|183306884|OTHER|||||||0.2955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.2955
91706421|NCT02669082|183306885|OTHER|||||||0.1358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.1358
91706422|NCT02669082|183306886|OTHER||Median|||||0.1706|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.1706
91706423|NCT02669082|183306887|OTHER|||||||0.1969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.1969
91706424|NCT02669082|183306888|OTHER|||||||0.0534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.0534
91706425|NCT02669082|183306889|OTHER|||||||0.4125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.4125
91832612|NCT01274182|183544438|EQUIVALENCE|Ratio of geometric means and 95% confidence interval were estimated by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log-transformed PD parameter with treatment as the factor. Results were then back-transformed to the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|1.05|||||Rituxan arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude equivalence the 95% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25||1.050|1.016|
91706426|NCT02669082|183306890|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.0220
91706427|NCT02669082|183306891|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.0420
91706428|NCT02669082|183306892|OTHER|||||||0.8166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.8166
91706429|NCT02301039|183306896|SUPERIORITY|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.|Binomial estimate of response rate of PR|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|32.8|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Confidence Interval. Excluded from rate due to no response evaluation: Soft Tissue: 2; Bone: 2; Expansion: 7 patients|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.||32.8|7.3|
91851567|NCT04347954|183586792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.318|0.201||||||Analysis of change in mean Ct values incorporating baseline, hour 1, and day 3 values.||0.201|-2.318|
91851568|NCT03257813|183586803|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 1.5 mmHg||||||0.013||||||Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
91644140|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.104||||0.8674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.345|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.137|-0.345|0.8674
91644141|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.148||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.133|-0.429|0.6519
91644142|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.122||||0.7301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.119|-0.363|0.7301
91644143|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.126||||0.8076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.154|-0.405|0.8076
91644144|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.415||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|-0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.142|-0.689|0.0004
91644145|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.504||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.822|-0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.185|-0.822|0.0002
91644146|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.306||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|-0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.034|-0.578|0.0183
91644147|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.323||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.005|-0.641|0.0443
91706430|NCT02301039|183306896|SUPERIORITY||Binomial estimate of response rate of PR|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.9|||||Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval; Excluded from rate due to no response evaluation: Soft Tissue: 2; Bone: 2; Expansion: 7 patients|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.||16.9|1.0|
91851569|NCT03257813|183586803|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 1.5 mmHg||||||0.001||||||CrossOver|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91851570|NCT03257813|183586803|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 1.5 mmHg||||||0.05||||||Final Visit|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
91832613|NCT01274182|183544439|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority margin is further justified by the EULAR criteria which define no response as change from baseline being \< 0.6.~LS means, standard errors and 95% CI were estimated by a repeated measures mixed model with treatment, time and treatment\*time interaction term as categorical variables and baseline DAS28 as a continuous variable.~A negative change from baseline represents an improvement in assessment of rheumatoid arthritis."|LS Mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|0.24|||||The direction of comparison is LS mean of GP2013 - LS mean of Rituxan|To conclude non-inferiority the upper 95% CI should be less than or equal to 0.6. This margin was statistically justified by the results of the REFLEX (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA) trial (Cohen et al 2006) providing a 95% CI for the mean difference between rituximab/MTX and MTX alone of (-1.74;-1.25). The margin of 0.6 was determined by retaining more than 50% of the reference treatment effect which was considered clinically acceptable.||0.240|-0.397|
91832614|NCT01274182|183544439|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority margin is further justified by the EULAR criteria which define no response as change from baseline being \< 0.6. LS means, standard errors and 95% CI were estimated by a repeated measures mixed model with treatment, time and treatment\*time interaction term as categorical variables and baseline DAS28 as a continuous variable.~A negative change from baseline represents an improvement in assessment of rheumatoid arthritis."|LS Mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.462|||||The direction of comparison is LS mean of GP2013 Part I - LS mean of MabThera|To conclude non-inferiority the upper 95% CI should be less than or equal to 0.6. This margin was statistically justified by the results of the REFLEX (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA) trial (Cohen et al 2006) providing a 95% CI for the mean difference between rituximab/MTX and MTX alone of (-1.74;-1.25). The margin of 0.6 was determined by retaining more than 50% of the reference treatment effect which was considered clinically acceptable.||0.462|-0.328|
91832615|NCT01274182|183544440|NON_INFERIORITY|The predefined noninferiority margin of 0.15 for ACR20 is based on the historical placebo-controlled phase III study to evaluate the response rate benefit of adding rituximab to the conventional small molecule-based treatment of patients with RA (Cohen et al. 2006).|Response rate difference (%)|9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|23.08|||||The direction of comparison is response rate of GP2013 - response rate of Rituxan|To conclude non-inferiority the lower 95% CI should be greater than -15.0%.||23.08|-3.54|
91832616|NCT01274182|183544440|NON_INFERIORITY|The predefined noninferiority margin of 0.15 for ACR20 is based on the historical placebo-controlled phase III study to evaluate the response rate benefit of adding rituximab to the conventional small molecule-based treatment of patients with RA (Cohen et al. 2006).|Response rate difference (%)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|13.6|||||The direction of comparison is response rate of GP2013 Part I - response rate of MabThera|To conclude non-inferiority the lower 95% CI should be greater than -15.0%.||13.60|-14.74|
91851571|NCT03257813|183586804|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 2 points on the snellen scale||||||0.823||||||Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.823
91644148|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.414||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.672|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.672|0.155|0.0002
91644149|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.306||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.608|0.004|0.0454
91644150|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.396||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.655|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.655|0.136|0.0004
91644151|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.328||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.630|0.026|0.0261
91644152|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.102||||0.9455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.392|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.392|-0.187|0.9455
91832617|NCT01970982|183544445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.41|28.95||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||28.95|18.41|<0.001
91832618|NCT01970982|183544446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|52.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|61.17||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||61.17|45.67|<0.001
91832619|NCT01970982|183544447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|15.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.09|18.78||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||18.78|13.09|<0.001
91832620|NCT01970982|183544448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.3|50.08||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||50.08|44.30|<0.001
91832621|NCT03364751|183544485|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.068||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.196|-0.060|0.297
91644153|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.287|-0.387|0.9999
91706431|NCT02301039|183306896|SUPERIORITY||Binomial estimate of response rate of PR|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|25.3|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Confidence Interval Excluded from rate due to no response evaluation: Soft Tissue: 2; Bone: 2; Expansion: 7 patients|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.||25.3|5.5|
91832622|NCT03364751|183544485|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.064||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and Dual Use||0.146|-0.273|0.550
91832623|NCT03364751|183544486|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.043||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.171|-0.084|0.502
91832624|NCT03364751|183544486|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and Dual Use||0.189|-0.229|0.851
91832625|NCT03364751|183544487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.224|-0.085|0.376
91832626|NCT03364751|183544487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.025||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and DualUse||0.279|-0.229|0.848
91832627|NCT03364751|183544487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.092||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.247|-0.064|0.246
91832628|NCT03364751|183544487|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.105||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and Dual Use||0.150|-0.359|0.417
91851572|NCT03257813|183586804|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 2 points on the snellen scale||||||0.507||||||CrossOver|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.507
91896014|NCT04874415|183687451|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.04|-0.05|
91644154|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.212||||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.498|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.498|-0.074|0.2633
91644155|NCT03692078|183180085|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.465|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.465|-0.205|0.8769
91832629|NCT02413580|183544503|OTHER|The hypothesis test is to test the null hypothesis: H0: μd = 0 versus alternative hypothesis Ha: μd ≠ 0 where μd is the mean change from Baseline to Day 14. The Shapiro-Wilk test is used to test the normality. If the assumptions for parametric test are met, a paired t-test (comparison between the pre- and post-treatment) is used to test for the treatment effect. Otherwise, a non-parametric test (Wilcoxon signed rank test) is used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.957|-4.787|||Paired t-test|||||-4.787|-7.957|<0.001
91832630|NCT02342886|183544507|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavourable status on the intervention (6 months moxifloxacin + 200 mg PA-824 + pyrazinamide) and the control regimen (2 months HRZE/ 4 months HR). The intervention was considered to be non-inferior to the control arm if the upper bound 95% CI was \< 12%.|Treatment difference: unfavourable rate|9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|23.89|||||(DS-TB: 6 Months Moxifloxacin + PA-824 (200 mg) + Pyrazinamide) - (DS-TB: 2 Months HRZE/ 4 Months HR).|||23.89|-4.13|
91832631|NCT02342886|183544508|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavourable status on the intervention (6 months moxifloxacin + 200 mg PA-824 + pyrazinamide) and the control regimen (2 months HRZE/ 4 months HR). The intervention was considered to be non-inferior to the control arm if the upper bound 95% CI was \< 12%.|Treatment difference: unfavourable rate|6.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|15.4|||||(DS-TB: 6 Months Moxifloxacin + PA-824 (200 mg) + Pyrazinamide) - (DS-TB: 2 Months HRZE/ 4 Months HR).|||15.40|-2.15|
91832632|NCT03015402|183544516|SUPERIORITY|Pre-randomization characteristics of 2 groups will be presented using the median (IQR) or frequency tables at each study sequence. The difference of mPAP during submax exercise compared between placebo and nitrite at 10 weeks (i.e. week 10 RHC of placebo vs week 10 RHC of nitrite) using parametric PK-cross analysis (i.e. ANOVA to determine the sequence, period, carryover, \& treatment effects). Post-exercise values before \& after crossover will be compared between 2 groups using similar approach.||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.20
91851573|NCT03257813|183586804|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 2 points on the snellen scale||||||0.495||||||Final Visit|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.495
91851574|NCT03257813|183586805|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.085|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.085
91644156|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.417|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.315|5.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||5.520|5.315|<.0001
91644157|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.436|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.324|5.548|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||5.548|5.324|<.0001
91644158|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.957|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|5.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||5.053|4.860|<.0001
91710562|NCT02634983|183313759|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|4.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (-0.75 hrs post-dose)||4.23|1.41|0.0017
91832633|NCT01163097|183544554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of the treatments was assessed using the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio for Ki67. The lower bound of the CI needed to be greater than 0.70 and the upper bound needed to be below 1.43 for the treatments to be considered equivalent.|Geometric mean ratio|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.759|0.982|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to estimate the treatment effect and the Schuirmann's two one-sided test was used to test for statistical equivalence.||H0: mean ratio\<0.7 or mean ratio\>1.43; H1: 0.7\< mean ratio \<1.43 Sample size calculation assumed change in Ki67 expression following palifermin administration would not be affected by co-administration of heparin. With n=26 (13 + 13), an approx. 80% probability that the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means of Ki67 for palifermin when co-administered with heparin compared to palifermin alone would fall in the interval (0.7, 1.43). This assumed a Coefficient of Variation (CV) for Ki67 of 31%.||0.982|0.759|
91832634|NCT01163097|183544556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.885|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA (with dependent variable:natural log of the ratio to baseline, independent variable:treatment, covariate:natural log of the baseline value)||80% power achieved for detecting a 20% increase (or 17% reduction) when Treatment A was compared to Treatment B; assuming that the coefficient of variation of amylase would be 14% (as observed in other study)||0.885|0.614|
91832635|NCT01163097|183544557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean|0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.645|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA (with dependent variable:natural log of the ratio to baseline, independent variable:treatment, covariate:natural log of the baseline value)||80% power achieved for detecting a 70% increase (or 41% reduction) when Treatment A was compared to Treatment B; assuming that the coefficient of variation of lipase would be 49% (as observed in other study)||0.645|0.216|
91851575|NCT03257813|183586806|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.001||||||Baseline|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91771764|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.64|0.72|0.2024
91771765|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.1716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.79|0.76|0.1716
91771766|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.51|1.20|0.0199
91771767|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|25.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||25.54|2.80|0.0002
91771768|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.77|0.57|0.4243
91771769|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.09|0.78|0.1507
91771770|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.60|1.02|0.0449
91771771|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.2759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.24|0.66|0.2759
91771772|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.78|0.76|0.1700
91771773|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|9.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.51|1.27|0.0153
91771774|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.04||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|17.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||17.53|2.08|0.0009
91771775|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.23|0.50|0.6228
91771776|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.76|1.02|0.0460
91832636|NCT01163097|183544558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.231|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA (with dependent variable:natural log of the ratio to baseline, independent variable:treatment, covariate:natural log of the baseline value)||80% power achieved for detecting a 140% increase with 13 and 6 subjects (respectively) when Treatment B was compared to Treatment C; assuming that the coefficient of variation of the protein/creatinine ratio would be 67% (Ginsberg et al 1983)||1.231|0.768|
91832637|NCT01163097|183544559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91832638|NCT01163097|183544560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91832639|NCT01163097|183544561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91832640|NCT01163097|183544562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91832641|NCT01163097|183544563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4123||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4123
91832642|NCT01163097|183544564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9944||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.9944
91832643|NCT01163097|183544565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91832644|NCT01163097|183544566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91832645|NCT02510144|183544583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative cultures were compared on the treated side vs the non-treated side||||0.68
91832646|NCT02510144|183544583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative cultures were compared on the treated side versus the non-treated side||||<0.01
91832647|NCT00541450|183544594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.002
91832648|NCT00541450|183544595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.001
91832649|NCT00541450|183544596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||||95.0|-0.37|0.05|||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.05|-0.37|
91832650|NCT00541450|183544598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.030
91832651|NCT00981084|183544600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.19||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the RVLT learning, yeilding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .19
91706432|NCT01687283|183306916|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (FP minus BUD) in the mean change from baseline in daily AM PEF averaged over the 12 week treatment period was greater than -12 L/min.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|8.59||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, center, sex, age and treatment|ANCOVA||The analysis only included participants who had at least 4 days of non-missing AM PEF data in the baseline week prior to randomization and at least 4 days of non-missing AM PEF data after randomization.|||8.59|-12.19|0.733
91832652|NCT00981084|183544600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the RVLT delay, yielding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .0005
91832653|NCT00981084|183544600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the BVMT learning, yeilding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .21
91832654|NCT00981084|183544600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the BVMT delay, yielding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .10
91832655|NCT00981084|183544601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the CPT, yielding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||.33
91832656|NCT00981084|183544602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to examine whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the Stroop, yielding a difference score. We conducted an independent samples t-test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||.37
91832657|NCT00981084|183544603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to examine whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the Word Generation, yielding a difference score. We conducted an independent samples t-test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||.53
91832658|NCT01112579|183544604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.9|||ANCOVA|||||14.9|-2.0|0.3
91832659|NCT01112579|183544605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-106.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-845.8|633.6|||ANCOVA|||||633.6|-845.8|0.79
91706433|NCT01687283|183306917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (FP minus BUD) in the mean change from baseline in daily AM PEF averaged over the 12 week treatment period was greater than -12 L/min.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.28||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|8.38|||ANCOVA|||||8.38|-12.95|0.674
91706434|NCT01687283|183306918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|7.04|||ANCOVA|||||7.04|-12.57|0.579
91706435|NCT01687283|183306919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.24|||ANCOVA|||||7.24|-6.00|0.854
91706436|NCT01687283|183306920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in median day-time symptom score||||0.123
91706437|NCT01687283|183306920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in median night-time symptom score||||0.949
91706438|NCT01687283|183306921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.74||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|2.59|||ANCOVA|||||2.59|-12.07|0.204
91706439|NCT01687283|183306922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank sum|||||||0.170
91771777|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.23|0.82|0.1215
91706440|NCT01687283|183306923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.041||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, centre, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 2||0.041|-0.118|0.337
91706441|NCT01687283|183306923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.085||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, center, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction.|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 4||0.085|-0.101|0.866
91706442|NCT01687283|183306923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.062||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, center, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 8||0.062|-0.113|0.566
91706443|NCT01687283|183306923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.112||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, center, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction.|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 12||0.112|-0.078|0.727
91706444|NCT00497146|183306927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model includes treatment, visit, gender, baseline RAAS inhibitor use, country, baseline value, and treatment by visit interaction.||||||0.145
91706445|NCT04575584|183306944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.45|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||1.45|0.68|0.5620
91706446|NCT04575584|183306944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.65|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||1.65|0.78|0.3145
91706447|NCT04575584|183306944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.4894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.47|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||1.47|0.69|0.4894
91706448|NCT04575584|183306947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|12.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Miettinen and Nurminen method. Unknown Day 29 survival status treated as failure.|||12.1|-2.3|0.1642
91706449|NCT04575584|183306947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|13.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Miettinen and Nurminen method. Unknown Day 29 survival status treated as failure.|||13.9|-1.1|0.0900
91771778|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.48|0.68|0.2470
91771779|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.66|0.72|0.2072
91771780|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.94|0.95|0.0621
91771781|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.67||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|16.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||16.69|1.93|0.0016
91771782|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.84|0.56|0.4372
91771783|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.66|0.84|0.1100
91706450|NCT04575584|183306947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|12.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Miettinen and Nurminen method. Unknown Day 29 survival status treated as failure.|||12.3|-2.3|0.1594
91706451|NCT04575584|183306948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.35|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.35|0.73|0.3623
91706452|NCT04575584|183306948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.12|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.12|0.66|0.5714
91706453|NCT04575584|183306948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.75|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.75|0.54|0.9313
91706454|NCT04575584|183306949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.30|0.70|0.4398
91706455|NCT04575584|183306949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.57|0.47|0.6277
91706456|NCT04575584|183306949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.62|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.62|0.49|0.7069
91706457|NCT04575584|183306950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.85|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.85|0.77|0.2422
91832660|NCT01112579|183544606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-1.6|0.93
91706458|NCT04575584|183306950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.44|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.44|0.66|0.4789
91706459|NCT04575584|183306950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.59|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.59|0.45|0.6052
91706460|NCT04575584|183306951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.88|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.88|0.75|0.2644
91706461|NCT04575584|183306951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.14|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.14|0.77|0.2184
91706462|NCT04575584|183306951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.94|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.94|0.53|0.9771
91706463|NCT04575584|183306952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.06|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.06|0.46|0.9945
91706464|NCT04575584|183306952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.37|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.37|0.67|0.3227
91706465|NCT04575584|183306952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.61|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.61|0.39|0.5200
91706466|NCT04575584|183306953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.25|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.25|0.70|0.4472
91706467|NCT04575584|183306953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.12|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.12|0.66|0.5714
91706468|NCT04575584|183306953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.75|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.75|0.54|0.9313
91706469|NCT04575584|183306954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.21|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.21|0.67|0.5222
91706470|NCT04575584|183306954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.57|0.47|0.6277
91706471|NCT04575584|183306954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.62|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.62|0.49|0.7069
91706472|NCT04575584|183306955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.8|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.80|0.75|0.2627
91706473|NCT04575584|183306955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.44|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.44|0.66|0.4789
91706474|NCT04575584|183306955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.58|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.58|0.45|0.5938
91706475|NCT04575584|183306956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.88|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.88|0.75|0.2644
91706476|NCT04575584|183306956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.14|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.14|0.77|0.2184
91706477|NCT04575584|183306956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.94|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.94|0.53|0.9771
91706478|NCT04575584|183306957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.06|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.06|0.46|0.9445
91706479|NCT04575584|183306957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.37|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.37|0.67|0.3227
91706480|NCT04575584|183306957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.61|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.61|0.39|0.5200
91706481|NCT04575584|183306958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.47|||Wald Chi-Square||Proportional odds model with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.47|0.46|0.8732
91706482|NCT04575584|183306958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.19|||Wald Chi-square||Proportional odds model with NEWS categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.19|0.25|0.1277
91706483|NCT04575584|183306958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.61|||Wald Chi-Square||Proportional odds model with NEWS categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.61|0.33|0.4326
91706484|NCT04575584|183306959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.88|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.88|0.50|0.6830
91851576|NCT03257813|183586806|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.148||||||CrossOver|Fisher Exact|||||||0.148
91706485|NCT04575584|183306959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.39|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.39|0.42|1.000
91706486|NCT04575584|183306959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.2|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.20|0.37|0.8244
91706487|NCT04575584|183306960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.64|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.64|0.36|0.5022
91706488|NCT04575584|183306960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.5204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.64|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.64|0.37|0.5204
91706489|NCT04575584|183306960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.13|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.13|0.24|0.0991
91706490|NCT04575584|183306961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.29|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.29|0.60|0.6346
91706491|NCT04575584|183306961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.75|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.75|0.46|0.7596
91706492|NCT04575584|183306961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.84|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.84|0.49|0.8879
91706493|NCT04575584|183306962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.82|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.82|0.55|0.6002
91706494|NCT04575584|183306962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.21|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.21|0.58|0.4733
91706495|NCT04575584|183306962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.78|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.78|0.38|0.6220
91706496|NCT04575584|183306963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.6|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.60|0.28|0.7871
91706497|NCT04575584|183306963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.06|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.06|0.31|0.9598
91706498|NCT04575584|183306963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.31|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.31|0.27|0.6670
91706499|NCT02634801|183306964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|6.77|||Fisher Exact|||||6.77|2.46|<.0001
91706500|NCT02634801|183306964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.56|||Fisher Exact|||||1.56|1.06|0.0137
91706501|NCT02178358|183307019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|1.226|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||||1.226|0.434|0.837
91706502|NCT02178358|183307019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.266|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||||1.266|0.633|0.704
91706503|NCT05600036|183307039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0025
91706504|NCT05600036|183307039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
91706505|NCT05600036|183307039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91832661|NCT03053050|183544659|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.1||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.0||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||4.0|-8.3|0.4941
91706506|NCT05600036|183307039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91706507|NCT05600036|183307039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91706508|NCT04348500|183307043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value was not adjusted.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the use of clazakizumab as a treatment compared to placebo in reducing or eliminating the incidence of severe adverse events among patients with COVID-19.||||0.10
91706509|NCT04348500|183307049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that there is no change in the need for mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO at 14 days after the first administered dose in comparison to placebo.||||0.10
91706510|NCT02722746|183307050|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|20.8||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|47.3|||Z-test for proportions|||||47.3|-8.9|0.165
91706511|NCT02722746|183307050|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|14.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|42.2|||Z-test for proportions|||||42.2|-15.9|0.353
91706512|NCT02722746|183307051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For PACU spread||||0.06
91706513|NCT02722746|183307051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For Pre-op spread||||0.22
91706514|NCT02722746|183307051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For POD 1||||0.74
91706515|NCT02722746|183307052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.551
91706516|NCT02722746|183307053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.349
91706517|NCT02722746|183307054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||For Pruritis||||0.18
91706518|NCT02722746|183307054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||For Nausea/Vomiting||||0.44
91706519|NCT02722746|183307054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||For Respirartory Depression||||0.74
91706520|NCT02722746|183307058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||ANOVA|||For SBP||||0.524
91706521|NCT02722746|183307058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||ANOVA|||For DBP||||0.585
91706522|NCT02722746|183307058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||ANOVA|||For MAP||||0.199
91706523|NCT02722746|183307059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.231
91706524|NCT02722746|183307060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
91706525|NCT02722746|183307061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.055
91706526|NCT02722746|183307062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.567
91706527|NCT00703118|183307088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of response|46.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|56.7||Overall significance level was set at 5% (two-sided). Adjustment of significance level for multiple comparisons was carried out using the Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|Included: treatment, type of prior response (relapser, partial responder, null-responder) and their interaction, and baseline HCV RNA as a covariate|Difference in percentage of response was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Null hypothesis: Assuming a 55% response rate in the groups receiving Treatment T12/PR48, a 29% response rate in the group receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48, a 2-sided continuity corrected Chi-squared test, with an overall significance level of 5% and a 2:2:1 randomization, a sample size of 140 patients receiving Treatment T12/PR48 and 70 patients in receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48 provided a power of approximately 90% to demonstrate a statistically significant difference.||56.7|36.8|<0.001
91706528|NCT00703118|183307088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of response|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|59.7||Overall significance level was set at 5% (two-sided). Adjustment of significance level for multiple comparisons was carried out using the Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|Included: treatment, type of prior response (relapser, partial responder, null-responder) and their interaction, and baseline HCV RNA as a covariate|Difference in percentage of response was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Null hypothesis: Assuming a 55% response rate in the groups receiving Treatment T12/PR48 or T12(DS)/PR48, a 29% response rate in the group receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48, a 2-sided continuity corrected Chi-squared test, with an overall significance level of 5% and a 2:2:1 randomization, a sample size of 140 patients receiving Treatment T12(DS)/PR48 and 70 patients in receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48 provided a power of approximately 90% to demonstrate a statistically significant difference.||59.7|39.9|<0.001
91706529|NCT02005627|183307122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91706530|NCT02005627|183307125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91706531|NCT02005627|183307126|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Null Hypothesis was no difference between Grazax and Placebo treatment at 12 months. 80% power to detect 30% difference in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) after nasal challenge|Comparison of nasal symptom score at 0-60 mins after nasal challenge after 12 months treatment with Grazax compared to Placebo treatment. Mixed model analysis. 80% power to detect a 30% difference at p\<0.05.|||
91706532|NCT04000360|183307127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes.|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.85||This was the sole primary outcome. The test was conducted with a priori p-value threshold of α=0.05, with no multiple comparison adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Test of equality of slopes with time (change in points/year) between aerobic exercise (AE) and usual and customary care (UCC) treatment arms.|Higher MDS-UPDRS III score reflects worse Parkinson's symptoms; increases reflect PD progression. The reported effect is the estimated difference between annual rates of change in scores of AE and UCC patients.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and AR(1) covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX.||-1.85|-5.40|<0.0001
91706533|NCT04000360|183307128|SUPERIORITY|Equality of annual slopes in squared 10 Meter Walk Test Comfortable Pace Velocity for the AE and UCC groups.|Difference in squared velocity slopes|12.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|21.32||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 Meter Walk Test fast pace velocity, TUG duration \& turning velocity, Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported effect is the difference in annual slope of meters\^2/second, in 100ths of meters\^2/second/year. The confidence interval is not multiple comparison adjusted. Parkinson's progression limits mobility; higher slope reflects less progression.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test velocity was squared ((meters/second)\^2) for modeling. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||21.32|3.10|0.043
91706534|NCT04000360|183307129|SUPERIORITY|Equality of annual slopes in 10 Meter Walk Test Fast Pace Velocity for the AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.42||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 meter walk test comfortable pace, Timed Up and Go Test duration and turning velocity, Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes of the AE and UCC treatment arms, in 100ths of meters/second/year. The confidence interval is not multiple comparison adjusted. Higher slope reflects less Parkinson's disease progression.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and heterogeneous compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX.||8.42|-2.10|0.48
91706535|NCT04000360|183307130|SUPERIORITY|Equality of annual slopes of inverse Timed Up and Go Test duration, i.e., of TUG completions/second, the speed of completing the test.|Difference in slopes|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.89||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 meter walk test comfortable \& fast pace, Timed Up and Go Test turning velocity, and Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis|Difference between estimated annual slopes in TUG completions/second/year for the AE and UCC groups.|Timed Up and Go test speed is expected to decline with Parkinson's progression. The reported effect is the difference between estimated annual slopes for the AE and UCC groups in 1000ths of a TUG completion/second/year.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test duration was inverted to TUG completions/second. Sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||7.89|0.20|0.16
91710563|NCT02634983|183313759|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|5.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (-0.25 hrs post-dose)||5.09|2.51|<0.0001
91832662|NCT03053050|183544659|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-0.3||||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.0||Difference between SEL 6 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||6.0|-6.6|0.9321
91832663|NCT03053050|183544661|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-4.0||||0.2593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.9||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||2.9|-10.8|0.2593
91706536|NCT04000360|183307131|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of average turning velocities.|Difference in slopes.|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|4.88||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 meter walk test comfortable \& fast pace, Timed Up and Go Test duration, and Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||Timed Up and Go test speed is expected to decline with Parkinson's progression. The reported effect is the difference between estimated annual slopes of average turning velocity for the AE and UCC groups in degrees/second/year.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||4.88|-1.17|0.69
91706537|NCT04000360|183307132|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of slopes of test performance speed (peg transfers/second/year) for AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes.|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.68|16.45||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) duration \& turning velocity and 10 meter walk test comfortable \& fast pace.|Mixed Models Analysis||Manual dexterity expressed as peg transfers/second is expected to decline with Parkinson's progression. The reported effect is the difference between estimated annual slopes for the AE and UCC groups in 1000ths of a peg transfer/second/year.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test duration was transformed for modeling to peg transfers/second (18/seconds). Sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||16.45|-23.68|0.72
91706538|NCT04000360|183307133|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of slopes of squared match scores (matches\^2/year) between AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes.|-96.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.12||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.41|38.6||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other non-motor domain secondary outcomes: Visual Memory Test and Trail Making Test B to A duration ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis||Processing speed is expected to decline with Parkinson's, hence duration of the test to increase. The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes (matches\^2/year) between the AE and UCC treatment arms.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and heterogeneous compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test duration was squared (matches\^2) for analysis. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||38.60|-232.41|0.48
91706539|NCT04000360|183307134|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of annual slopes of log(TMT B to TMT A duration ratio) for AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.31|8.46||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other non-motor domain secondary outcomes: Processing Speed Test and Visual Memory Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||Visual attention and set switching speed decline with Parkinson's, hence duration of Trail Making Test B increases. The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes of (log TMT B/TMT A), i.e., change/year, between AE and UCC treatment arms.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, the ratios were transformed to their natural logarithms for modeling. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||8.46|-15.31|1.00
91706540|NCT04000360|183307135|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of annual slopes of squared test score.|Difference in slopes|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.91||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other non-motor domain secondary outcomes: Processing Speed Test and Trail Making Test Ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis||Visual memory declines with Parkinson's, hence the score declines. The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes, i.e., changes in mean score\^2/year, for AE and UCC treatment arms, shown in hundreds. Higher slope indicates slower decline.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, the score was squared for statistical modeling. Sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||2.91|-2.58|0.91
91706541|NCT04006509|183307191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.985
91706542|NCT04006509|183307192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Marginal Two-Part Model|||||||0.539
91706543|NCT04006509|183307193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.959
91706544|NCT04006509|183307194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||Marginal Two-Part Model|||||||0.743
91706545|NCT04006509|183307195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.886
91706546|NCT04006509|183307196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.107
91706547|NCT04006509|183307197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.687
91706548|NCT04006509|183307198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.871
91706549|NCT04006509|183307199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.376
91706550|NCT04006509|183307200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.770
91706551|NCT04006509|183307201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.237
91832664|NCT03053050|183544661|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-0.9||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.1||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||6.1|-7.9|0.8080
91832665|NCT03053050|183544663|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.0||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.8||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||4.8|-8.7|0.5636
91706552|NCT00048997|183307208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.2853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.38||One-sided significance level of 0.025.|Log Rank||Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is the reference arm for the hazard ratio.|This study was designed to detect a 20% relative improvement in hazard rate: null hypothesis (observation): MST (median survival time) = 23.5 mo.; alternative hypothesis (PCI): MST= 29.4 mo. A one-sided log-rank test at a significance level of 0.025 would have 80% power to detect this difference with a sample size of 1007 patients (527 deaths were required for the final analysis).||1.38|0.84|0.2853
91706553|NCT00048997|183307209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.01
91706554|NCT00048997|183307210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.008
91706555|NCT00048997|183307211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.20
91706556|NCT00048997|183307212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.14
91706557|NCT00048997|183307213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.52
91706558|NCT00048997|183307214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.51
91706559|NCT00048997|183307215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Other [Z-test, 2-sided]|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.11
91706560|NCT00048997|183307216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = PCI arm|The development of CNS metastases was assessed using logistic regression modeling comparing presence vs. absence of brain metastases at 1 year.||4.80|1.32|0.005
91706561|NCT00002525|183307225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.178||||||one-sided log-rank test p value|Log Rank|||||||0.178
91706562|NCT00002525|183307226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.847||||||two-sided log rank test|Log Rank|||||||0.847
91706563|NCT03304184|183307229|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in global base changes scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0001
91706564|NCT03304184|183307229|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in global base changes scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine) over timepoints|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0005
91706565|NCT03304184|183307230|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in 49 questions on oral health related quality of life scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison between two groups for treatment|ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0910
91706566|NCT03304184|183307230|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in 49 questions on oral health related quality of life scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine) over time points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison between the two arms for treatment time points with analysis|ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0262
91706567|NCT03304184|183307231|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in brief pain inventory scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine) over different time points.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0289
91706568|NCT01505179|183307232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
91706569|NCT01505179|183307233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91706570|NCT01505179|183307234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
91706571|NCT01505179|183307235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
91706572|NCT02051335|183307253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.8|-1.4|0.573
91706573|NCT02051335|183307253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.4|-1.8|0.210
91706574|NCT02051335|183307253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.2|-1.0|0.821
91706575|NCT02051335|183307253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.5|-0.7|0.426
91706576|NCT02051335|183307253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.9||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.9|-0.2|0.126
91706577|NCT02051335|183307254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.992||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.9||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||3.9|-0.1|0.057
91832666|NCT03053050|183544663|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.9||||0.5915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.9||Difference between SEL 6 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||4.9|-8.6|0.5915
91706578|NCT02051335|183307254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.981||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.1|-2.8|0.394
91706579|NCT02051335|183307254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.0||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.0|0.1|0.042
91706580|NCT02051335|183307254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.0||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||2.0|-1.9|0.928
91706581|NCT02051335|183307254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.7||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.7|1.0|0.004
91706582|NCT01490697|183307275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|16.0|||||Placebo plus Placebo - Mifepristone plus d-Cycloserine (DCS)|||16|-18|
91706583|NCT01490697|183307276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.7|||||Placebo plus Placebo - Mifepristone plus d-Cycloserine (DCS)|||14.7|-6.9|
91706584|NCT00090584|183307277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in cumulative success rates|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||Log Rank|||Kaplan Meier Lifetable analysis was used to compute the 8 month cumulative success rates.||0.12|-0.12|0.74
91706585|NCT00090584|183307278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.9||Mixed effect repeated measures analysis of variance controlling for study site.|ANOVA|||Test of hypothesis of no difference in change in episodes between the two groups.||5.9|-2.0|0.34
91706586|NCT00090584|183307279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1||Repeated measures ANOVA controlling for clinical site.|ANOVA||Difference (group 1 - group 2) in change from baseline to follow-up in voids per day.|Null hypothesis of no difference between arms in change in number of voids per day from baseline to 10 weeks.||0.1|-1.7|0.08
91706587|NCT00090584|183307280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.0006||95.0||||Repeated measures ANOVA|Mixed Models Analysis|Main hypothesis tested by F-test for treatment by time interaction (2 and 509 degrees of freedom). No parameters estimated.||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between treatment groups in improvement in UDI over time||||0.0006
91706588|NCT00090584|183307281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.0005||95.0||||P-value for test of time by treatment group interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for study site||Repeated measures analysis of difference in symptom bother over time by treatment group.||||0.0005
91832667|NCT03053050|183544665|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-3.2||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.2||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||2.2|-8.5|0.2455
91706589|NCT00090584|183307282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum|Ratio of odds of complete satisfaction in Combination therapy arm to Drug only arm.|Null hypothesis: no difference in satisfaction at 10 weeks||2.92|1.09|0.02
91706590|NCT00090584|183307283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum|Ratio of odds of complete satisfaction in combination therapy group compared to drug only group.|Null hypothesis: No difference in satisfaction at 8 months post intervention||3.70|1.11|0.02
91706591|NCT00090584|183307284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|5.13||P-value from logistic regression analysis|Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum||Null hypothesis: No difference in perceived improvement between women in combination therapy group compared to those in drug only group||5.13|1.27|0.008
91706592|NCT00090584|183307285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum||Null hypothesis: No difference in perceived improvement at 8 months between women in combination therapy group compared to those in drug only group.||5.52|1.83|<0.0001
91706593|NCT00379808|183307286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical power was calculated using G\*Power (Dusseldorf, Germany). Based on previously observed effects of statin drugs on hsCRP levels, 22 subjects provided 80% power to detect a moderate effect on hsCRP levels.||||0.22
91706594|NCT00379808|183307287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|3.8||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon sign rank|||Null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect HDL. Not powered for this endpoint||||0.57
91706595|NCT00379808|183307288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|7.4||||0.33|||||||wilcoxon sign rank|||The null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect triglycerides. The study was not powered to this outcome measure.||||0.33
91706596|NCT00379808|183307289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|11.9||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon|||null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect MCP-1. Study not powered to the biomarker.||||0.12
91706597|NCT00379808|183307290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|13.3||||0.03|||||||wilcoxon sign rank test|||null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect IL1ra.||||0.03
91706598|NCT00379808|183307291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|16.5||||0.09|||||||wilcoxon sign rank|||null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect ENA-78. The study is not powered to this biomarker||||0.09
91832668|NCT03053050|183544665|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-4.0||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.3||Difference between SEL 6 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.3|-9.3|0.1371
91832669|NCT02459574|183544678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.25||Bonferonni corrected alpha of 0.05/2 = 0.025|Log Rank||95% Wald Confidence Limits Point estimate relates to AVATAR-AF in relation to Anti-Arrhythmic Therapy|Primary Analysis - AVATAR-AF vs Anti-Arrhythmic Therapy||0.250|0.097|<0.0001
91706599|NCT01578499|183307292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.5|56.8||P-value was stratified by baseline disease diagnosis (pcALCL and MF).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Based on a two-sided Χ² test with a significance level of 0.05, and a 10% dropout rate, a sample size of approximately 124 participants was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a 30% improvement in ORR4 in the brentuximab vedotin group.||56.8|27.5|<0.001
91706600|NCT01578499|183307293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|33.0||P-value was stratified by baseline disease diagnosis (pcALCL and MF).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.0|-2.5|0.0002
91706601|NCT01578499|183307294|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.378|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|0.577|||Log Rank||||Hazard ratio brentuximab vedotin/ comparator (methotrexate or bexarotene) with the 95% CI from a stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the explanatory variable and baseline disease diagnosis (MF or pcALCL) as stratification factor.|0.577|0.247|<0.001
91706602|NCT01578499|183307295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimate of difference|-19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-11.4|||ANCOVA|||P-value is calculated using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model controlling for baseline symptom domain score, eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status score (=0 and ≥1), and disease diagnosis (pcALCL and MF) between the brentuximab vedotin and comparator (methotrexate or bexarotene) arms.||-11.4|-26.7|<0.001
91706603|NCT00862459|183307339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 sample t-test between the dose groups||||0.003
91706604|NCT00862459|183307339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.59||0.844|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.844
91706605|NCT00862459|183307340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.92||||95.0|-0.825|0.69|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.69|-0.825|
91706606|NCT00862459|183307340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.18||||95.0|-0.9|0.79|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.79|-0.90|
91706607|NCT00862459|183307341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42||||95.0|-1.17|-0.42|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||-0.42|-1.17|
91706608|NCT00862459|183307341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57||||95.0|-0.44|0.41|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.41|-0.44|
91706609|NCT00862459|183307342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||||95.0|-0.619|-0.17|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||-0.17|-0.619|
91706610|NCT00862459|183307342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01||||95.0|-0.25|0.22|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.22|-0.25|
91706611|NCT00862459|183307343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76||||95.0|-0.58|-0.18|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||-0.18|-0.58|
91706612|NCT00862459|183307343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76||||95.0|-0.1|0.31|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.31|-0.10|
91706613|NCT00862459|183307344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|76.45||||95.0|-37.11|2.02|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||difference in CNR between doses and confidence interval||2.02|-37.11|
91706614|NCT00862459|183307344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.11||||95.0|-15.86|25.35|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||25.35|-15.86|
91706615|NCT00862459|183307345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.8||95.0|-10.93|14.24|||Chi-squared|Adjusted for clustering||||14.24|-10.93|0.80
91706616|NCT00862459|183307345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracies|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.13||95.0|-24.41|2.9|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||2.90|-24.41|0.13
91896015|NCT04874415|183687451|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||||Fixed step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.02|-0.07|
91706617|NCT00862459|183307346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|13.43||||0.03||95.0|1.53|25.33|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||25.33|1.53|0.03
91706618|NCT00862459|183307346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracies|-13.58||||0.02||95.0|-25.07|-2.09|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||-2.09|-25.07|0.02
91706619|NCT00862459|183307347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-6.13||||0.11||95.0|-13.73|1.48|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||1.48|-13.73|0.11
91706620|NCT00862459|183307347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracies|2.87||||0.55||95.0|-6.59|12.32|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||12.32|-6.59|0.55
91706621|NCT00862459|183307348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|24.63||||0.02||95.0|5.39|43.86|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||43.86|5.39|0.02
91706622|NCT00862459|183307348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-10.75||||0.13||95.0|-24.41|2.9|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||2.90|-24.41|0.13
91706623|NCT00862459|183307349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|12.91||||0.07||95.0|-1.44|27.26|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||27.26|-1.44|0.07
91706624|NCT00862459|183307349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-18.37||||0.02||95.0|-33.6|-1.35|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||-1.35|-33.60|0.02
91706625|NCT00862459|183307350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|18.46||||0.02||95.0|3.15|33.77|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||33.77|3.15|0.02
91706626|NCT00862459|183307350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-5.29||||0.45||95.0|-18.83|8.24|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||8.24|-18.83|0.45
91706627|NCT03168919|183307418|OTHER|Comparison||||||||||||||||The baseline and the end of therapy MRI parameters are compared.|Due to very small accrual, the statistical analysis couln't be performed.|||
91706628|NCT01085136|183307423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.85||P-value is calculated from two-sided stratified log-rank test|stratified log-rank test|||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only factor, stratified by gender and maximum duration of erlotinib or gefitinib (\<6 months vs \>=6 months).||0.85|0.44|0.0030
91851577|NCT03257813|183586806|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.212||||||Final Visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.212
91706629|NCT01085136|183307425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44|||Stratified log-rank test.|P-value is calculated from two-sided stratified log-rank test.||Hazard ratio was calculated from Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only factor, stratified by gender and maximum duration of erlotinib or gefitinib (\<6 months vs \>=6 months).||1.44|0.76|0.7905
91706630|NCT01085136|183307427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.357|6.543|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified for maximum treatment duration of prior erlotinib or gefitinib (\>=6 months vs \<6 months) and gender.||6.543|1.357|0.0065
91706631|NCT02993354|183307494|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|0.95||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.31|0.69|0.75
91706632|NCT04459598|183307503|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|55.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.24|67.46|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||67.46|45.24|
91706633|NCT04459598|183307503|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|32.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.79|44.05|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||44.05|23.79|
91706634|NCT04459598|183307505|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.47|14.56|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||14.56|8.47|
91706635|NCT04459598|183307505|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.47|5.45|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||5.45|2.47|
91706636|NCT04459598|183307506|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|10.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.73|13.7|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||13.70|7.73|
91706637|NCT04459598|183307506|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|5.76|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||5.76|2.62|
91706638|NCT00410072|183307529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 96||14.9|-1.0|0.0882
91706639|NCT00410072|183307530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|24.8|||NC=F|||||24.8|2.3|
91706640|NCT00410072|183307530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.0|||NC=F|||||12.0|-7.7|
91706641|NCT00410072|183307530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.0|0.2|0.0460
91706642|NCT00410072|183307530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|9.5|||NC=F|||||9.5|-12.0|
91706643|NCT00410072|183307531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|16.0|||NC=F|||Analysis at week 48. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||16.0|-1.8|
91706644|NCT00410072|183307531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|15.2|||NC=F|||Analysis at week 96. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||15.2|-1.1|
91832670|NCT02459574|183544678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.173||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|2.154||Bonferonni corrected alpha 0.05/2 = 0.025|Log Rank||95% Wald Confidence Limits Point estimate relates to AVATAR-AF in relation to Conventional Ablation|Secondary analysis of Primary Outcome measure - AVATAR-AF vs Conventional Ablation||2.154|0.639|0.6061
91832671|NCT04508699|183544684|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.36
91832672|NCT04508699|183544685|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91832673|NCT04508699|183544686|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91832674|NCT04508699|183544687|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91832675|NCT04508699|183544688|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91832676|NCT04508699|183544689|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00001
91706645|NCT00410072|183307532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||17.1|-1.5|
91706646|NCT00410072|183307532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|17.3|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||17.3|-0.2|
91706647|NCT00410072|183307534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-2.0|||NC+F|||Analysis at Week 48. The stratified analysis is based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||-2.0|-18.8|
91706648|NCT00410072|183307534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-4.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96. The stratified analysis is based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||-4.1|-21.5|
91706649|NCT00410072|183307535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.2|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||4.2|-15.9|
91706650|NCT00410072|183307535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|2.3|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||2.3|-20.6|
91706651|NCT00410072|183307536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|5.6|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||5.6|-13.8|
91706652|NCT00410072|183307536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-0.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||-0.1|-21.5|
91706653|NCT00410072|183307537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.9|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||1.9|-5.3|
91706654|NCT00410072|183307537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||6.1|-3.9|
91706655|NCT00410072|183307538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.0|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||2.0|-2.2|
91706656|NCT00410072|183307538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.9|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||4.9|-2.3|
91706657|NCT01421147|183307545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.108||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.219|||ANCOVA|||||0.219|-0.002|0.055
91706658|NCT01421147|183307546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.05||P-value is for change at 6 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.05|-0.23|0.205
91706659|NCT01421147|183307546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.4||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.21||P-value is for change at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-0.40|0.320
91706660|NCT01421147|183307546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.21||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-0.46|0.373
91706661|NCT01421147|183307546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.86||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.86|-0.25|0.131
91706662|NCT01421147|183307547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.007||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.072||P-value is for change at 6 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.072|-0.087|0.860
91706663|NCT01421147|183307547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.113||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.215||P-value is for change at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.215|0.011|0.030
91832677|NCT04508699|183544690|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00001
91706664|NCT01421147|183307547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.098||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.208||P-value is for change at 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.208|-0.012|0.080
91706665|NCT01421147|183307547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.177||P-value is for change at 36 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.177|-0.057|0.314
91706666|NCT01421147|183307547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.004||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.127||P-value is for change at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.127|-0.119|0.948
91706667|NCT01421147|183307547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.14||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.140|-0.099|0.737
91706668|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.69||P-value is for Baseline-AM Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.33|0.489
91706669|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.03||P-value is for Baseline-AM 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.00|0.066
91706670|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.16||P-value is for Baseline-MD Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.71|0.209
91706671|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.82||P-value is for Baseline-MD 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.82|-0.20|0.232
91706672|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.58||P-value is for Baseline-EV Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.49|0.856
91706673|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.44||P-value is for Baseline-Bed Time.|ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.66|0.693
91706674|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.41||P-value is for Baseline-0300 hrs.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.61|0.700
91706675|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.58||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-AM Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.23|0.399
91706676|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.68||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-AM 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.68|-0.18|0.248
91706677|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.38||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-MD Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.44|0.883
91706678|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.52||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-MD 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.34|0.687
91706679|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.65||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-EV Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.65|-0.24|0.364
91706680|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.05||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk- Bed Time.|ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.95|0.030
91706681|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.04||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-0300 hrs.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.86|0.033
91706682|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.16||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-AM Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.68|0.230
91706683|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.11||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-AM 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.76|0.148
91706684|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.36||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-MD Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.43|0.866
91706685|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.3||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-MD 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.30|-0.56|0.545
91706686|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.42||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-EV Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.42|-0.44|0.955
91706687|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.04||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Bed Time.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.92|0.031
91706688|NCT01421147|183307548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23||P-vale is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-0300 hrs.|ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.65|0.355
91706689|NCT01421147|183307549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.17||P-value is for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.52|0.320
91706690|NCT01421147|183307549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.25||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.33|0.781
91706691|NCT01421147|183307549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.01||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.53|0.060
91706692|NCT01421147|183307550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29||P-value is for change at 6 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.23|0.823
91706693|NCT01421147|183307550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.47||P-value is for change at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-0.25|0.541
91706694|NCT01421147|183307550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.59||P-value is for change at 18 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.25|0.435
91706695|NCT01421147|183307550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.71||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.71|-0.23|0.320
91706696|NCT01421147|183307550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.93||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.93|-0.25|0.253
91706697|NCT01421147|183307551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.15||P-value is for Baseline-Behavior TS.|ANCOVA|||||2.15|-0.86|0.401
91832678|NCT04508699|183544691|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00001
91706698|NCT01421147|183307551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.55||P-value is for 24 weeks-Behavior TS|ANCOVA|||||1.55|-1.16|0.778
91706699|NCT01421147|183307551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.45||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 weeks-Behavior TS.|ANCOVA|||||1.45|-1.12|0.804
91706700|NCT01421147|183307551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.21||||0.304||95.0|-1.1|3.51||P-value is for Baseline-Worry TS.|ANCOVA|||||3.51|-1.10|0.304
91706701|NCT01421147|183307551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.12||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.34||P-value is for 24 weeks-Worry TS.|ANCOVA|||||3.34|-1.10|0.323
91832679|NCT02293395|183544718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.5|0.8|0.584
91706702|NCT01421147|183307551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.824||95.0|-1.92|2.41||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 weeks-Worry TS.|ANCOVA|||||2.41|-1.92|0.824
91706703|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.77||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|2.89||P-value is for IR-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.89|-4.42|0.681
91706704|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|3.9||P-value is for IR-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.90|-2.79|0.744
91706705|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|2.41||P-value is for IR-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.41|-4.29|0.582
91706706|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|4.89||P-value is for LF-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||4.89|-3.26|0.694
91706707|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.77||P-value is for LF-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||4.77|-3.08|0.673
91706708|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.91||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|2.97||P-value is for LF-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.97|-4.79|0.645
91706709|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|3.81||P-value is for GC-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||3.81|-3.62|0.961
91706710|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.61||P-value is for GC-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||4.61|-2.10|0.463
91706711|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|4.41||P-value is for GC-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||4.41|-2.59|0.609
91706712|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.59||P-value is for HC-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.59|-3.81|0.708
91706713|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.03||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|2.03||P-value is for HC-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.03|-4.09|0.510
91706714|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|1.82||P-value is for HC-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.82|-4.34|0.422
91706715|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.53||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|1.8||P-value is for IDD-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-4.85|0.367
91706716|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|3.35||P-value is for IDD-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.35|-2.54|0.786
91706717|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.59||P-value is for IDD-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.59|-3.16|0.845
91706718|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.18||P-value is for ITSQ Total-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.18|-3.36|0.676
91706719|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.78||P-value is for ITSQ Total-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.78|-2.33|0.862
91706720|NCT01421147|183307552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|2.07||P-value is for ITSQ Total-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.07|-3.15|0.685
91706721|NCT01421147|183307553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.014||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.036||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.036|-0.009|0.235
91706722|NCT01421147|183307553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.006||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.038||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.038|-0.026|0.726
91706723|NCT01421147|183307553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.019||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.062||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.062|-0.023|0.377
91706724|NCT01421147|183307553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.018||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.042||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.042|-0.007|0.159
91706725|NCT01421147|183307553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.032||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.032|-0.034|0.957
91706726|NCT01421147|183307553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.062||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.062|-0.028|0.450
91706727|NCT01421147|183307554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.724||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|3.755||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||3.755|-0.308|0.096
91706728|NCT01421147|183307554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.267||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|4.065||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||4.065|-1.531|0.374
91706729|NCT01421147|183307554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.964||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.081|7.01||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||7.010|-1.081|0.151
91832680|NCT01023568|183544738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GlideScope and Truview PCD video laryngoscopes were individually assessed for non-inferiority on time to intubation vs direct laryngoscopy at the 0.025 significance level using an a priori specified non-inferiority delta of seven seconds (about 40% of the expected standard deviation of 18 sec and not thought to be clinically important).|Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|26.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Glidescope - direct laryngoscopy|||26|7|>0.99
91832681|NCT01023568|183544738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GlideScope and Truview PCD video laryngoscopes were individually assessed for non-inferiority on time to intubation vs direct laryngoscopy at the 0.025 significance level using an a priori specified non-inferiority delta of seven seconds (about 40% of the expected standard deviation of 18 sec and not thought to be clinically important).|Median Difference (Final Values)|17.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|28.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Truview PCD - direct laryngoscopy|||28|6|>0.99
91706730|NCT01421147|183307554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.059||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|4.305||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||4.305|-0.187|0.072
91706731|NCT01421147|183307554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.702||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.058|3.462||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||3.462|-2.058|0.617
91706732|NCT01421147|183307554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|6.971||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||6.971|-1.370|0.188
91706733|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at Baseline \<7.0 %.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
91832682|NCT01023568|183544739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.28
91832683|NCT01023568|183544740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-tailed Wilcoxon sum-rank test|"The median difference was Hodges-Lehmann estimation and the confidence intervals were exact confidence limits. The SAS NPAR1WAY procedure was used for test and estimation."|The Cormack-Lehane grade with a grade 1 (best grade) to 4 (worst grade) was analyzed as an ordinal outcome.||2|1|> 0.99
91851578|NCT03257813|183586807|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.497||||||Baseline|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.497
91706734|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at Baseline ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.606
91706735|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 6 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
91706736|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 6 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
91706737|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 12 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.398
91706738|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 12 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.170
91706739|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 24 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.926
91706740|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.824||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 24 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.824
91706741|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 36 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.385
91706742|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 36 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.408
91706743|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 52 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.551
91706744|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 52 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.900
91706745|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 24 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.646
91706746|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 24 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
91706747|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 52 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.209
91706748|NCT01421147|183307555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 52 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.540
91706749|NCT01421147|183307556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL,if available-24 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.703
91706750|NCT01421147|183307556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL,if available-52-wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.495
91832684|NCT01023568|183544740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-tailed Wilcoxon sum-rank test|"The median difference was Hodges-Lehmann estimation and the confidence intervals were exact confidence limits. The SAS NPAR1WAY procedure was used for test and estimation."|The Cormack-Lehane grade with a grade 1 (best grade) to 4 (worst grade) was analyzed as an ordinal outcome.||0|0|0.18
91706751|NCT01421147|183307556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||||||P-value is for Severe Events-24 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.174
91706752|NCT01421147|183307556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828||||||P-value is for Severe Events-52 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.828
91706753|NCT01421147|183307556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-24 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
91706754|NCT01421147|183307556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-52 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.606
91706755|NCT01421147|183307557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL, if available-24 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.717
91706756|NCT01421147|183307557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||||||P-value is for Severe Events-24 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.163
91706757|NCT01421147|183307557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-24 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.669
91706758|NCT01421147|183307557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL, if available-52 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.738
91706759|NCT01421147|183307557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||||||P-value is for Severe Events-52 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
91832685|NCT01023568|183544741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
91832686|NCT01023568|183544742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91832687|NCT01106430|183544743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.001||95.0|||||Peto-Peto-Prentice Wilcoxon Test|||||||=0.001
91832688|NCT01106430|183544744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|28.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.7|7.5|0.001
91832689|NCT01106430|183544745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-9.3|<0.001
91832690|NCT01106430|183544746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-0.17|0.046
91832691|NCT00297115|183544751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|58.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|75.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||75|41|<0.0001
91832692|NCT00297115|183544752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.815|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.935||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||0.935|0.710|0.0035
91832693|NCT00297115|183544753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|79.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||79|44|<0.0001
91851579|NCT03257813|183586807|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.497||||||CrossOver|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.497
91706760|NCT01421147|183307557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-52 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
91706761|NCT00904917|183307564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.015
91706762|NCT00904917|183307566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.037
91706763|NCT05025332|183307636|OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|null median = 4, not 0||Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots and histograms/bar charts were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants.||||.0039
91706764|NCT05025332|183307637|OTHER|||||||0.0234|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|null median = 4, not 0||Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants.||||0.0234
91706765|NCT05025332|183307638|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.0313
91706766|NCT05025332|183307639|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.0039
91706767|NCT05025332|183307640|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.1934|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.1934
91706768|NCT05025332|183307641|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.7480
91706769|NCT05025332|183307642|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.3203|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.3203
91706770|NCT05025332|183307643|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.3574|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.3574
91832694|NCT00297115|183544754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|2.137||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Cox proportional hazards regression||The statistical analysis is based on the ITT Analysis Set (n= 772 in the roflumilast group, n= 796 in the placebo group).|||2.137|0.689|0.5028
91832695|NCT00297115|183544755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference calculated as ratio|1.0593||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9356|1.1994||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including last observation carried forward (LOCF) method||||1.1994|0.9356|0.3627
91832696|NCT00297115|183544756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.489||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.489|0.082|0.0059
91832697|NCT00175825|183544767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction over Placebo|9.8|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|24.0|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with baseline seizure frequency per week and each of the stratification factors as independent variables.||24.0|-7.2|=0.240
91832698|NCT00175825|183544767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction over Placebo|14.9|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|28.2|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with baseline seizure frequency per week and each of the stratification factors as independent variables.||28.2|-0.8|=0.062
91832699|NCT00175825|183544767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction over Placebo|22.1|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|34.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with baseline seizure frequency per week and each of the stratification factors as independent variables.||34.3|7.6|=0.004
91832700|NCT03466086|183544836|SUPERIORITY|This was a pilot study and the sample size was not based on any empirical power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.59||Superiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% credible interval of the difference between Test and Control is greater than 0.|Multivariate Bayesian Model|The correlation between measurements across periods were modeled using unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|||2.59|-2.35|
91832701|NCT03466086|183544837|SUPERIORITY|Superiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% credible interval of the difference between Test and Control is less than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.951|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.37|||Multivariate Bayesian Analysis|The correlation between measurements across periods were modeled using unstructured variance-covariance matrix.||This was a pilot study and the sample size was not based on any empirical power calculation.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|3.37|-0.40|
91832702|NCT01113502|183544838|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|300.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91832703|NCT03440372|183544896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.7|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.70|1.19|0.0049
91832704|NCT03440372|183544897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.43|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.43|1.09|0.0179
91832705|NCT03440372|183544898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.93|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||1.93|0.83|0.2720
91832706|NCT03440372|183544899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.15|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.15|1.07|0.0193
91832707|NCT03440372|183544900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.05|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.05|0.79|0.3167
91832708|NCT03440372|183544901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.05|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.05|0.79|0.3167
91832709|NCT03440372|183544902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.77|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.77|0.73|0.2978
91832710|NCT03440372|183544903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.72|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.72|0.82|0.1895
91832711|NCT03440372|183544904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.97|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.97|1.00|0.0452
91832712|NCT03440372|183544905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.14|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.14|1.08|0.0173
91832713|NCT03440372|183544906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.20|0.97|0.0670
91832714|NCT03440372|183544907|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.16|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.16|0.95|0.0835
91832715|NCT05711641|183544908|OTHER|VAS was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||||||||||"The alternative hypothesis of this study is that 10% lidocaine, applied topically to the external auditory canal (EAC), acts on tinnitus intensity differently than placebo, while the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the action of lidocaine and placebo on tinnitus intensity.~The analyses were performed using the IBM-SPSS for Windows software version 22.0 and tabulated using the Microsoft-Excel 2010 software, and the tests were performed with a significance level of 5%."|VAS was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|||
91851580|NCT03257813|183586807|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0||||||"Final Visit~No statistic will be calculated because Final Chemosis is a constant"|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0
91851581|NCT03257813|183586808|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||1||||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
91851582|NCT03257813|183586808|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.391||||||Cross Over|Chi-squared|||||||0.391
91832716|NCT05711641|183544909|OTHER|Tinnitus loudness was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).||||||||||||||||"The alternative hypothesis of this study is that 10% lidocaine, applied topically to the external auditory canal (EAC), acts on tinnitus intensity differently than placebo, while the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the action of lidocaine and placebo on tinnitus intensity.~The analyses were performed using the IBM-SPSS for Windows software version 22.0 and tabulated using the Microsoft-Excel 2010 software, and the tests were performed with a significance level of 5%."|Tinnitus loudness was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|||
91832717|NCT05711641|183544910|OTHER|MML was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).||||||||||||||||"The alternative hypothesis of this study is that 10% lidocaine, applied topically to the external auditory canal (EAC), acts on tinnitus intensity differently than placebo, while the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the action of lidocaine and placebo on tinnitus intensity.~The analyses were performed using the IBM-SPSS for Windows software version 22.0 and tabulated using the Microsoft-Excel 2010 software, and the tests were performed with a significance level of 5%."|MML was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|||
91832718|NCT03574597|183544911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial period. The outcome measure was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor. Participants without events of interest were censored at the end of their in-trial period.||0.89|0.72|< 0.0001
91832719|NCT01215292|183544973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power to detect 20% difference in ITT|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91832720|NCT01215292|183544974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91832721|NCT01215292|183544975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91832722|NCT01596582|183544992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
91832723|NCT01596582|183544993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
91832724|NCT01596582|183544994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91832725|NCT01596582|183544995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91832726|NCT01596582|183544996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91832727|NCT01596582|183544997|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value for each comparison was non-significanct.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91832728|NCT01596582|183544998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
91832729|NCT01596582|183544999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
91832730|NCT01596582|183545000|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91832731|NCT01596582|183545001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
91832732|NCT01786967|183545005|SUPERIORITY|This was a pilot study to provide preliminary data to inform future sample size estimates for a larger more definitive trial|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.71|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that there will be no difference in treatment benefit scale between the two groups||1.71|0.53|1.0
91832733|NCT01786967|183545006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.95|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the rate of moderate to severe adverse events.||.95|.76|1.0
91832734|NCT00182754|183545031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
91832735|NCT02816138|183545061|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|For change in depression severity (MADRS) over time, we used a linear mixed effects model with autoregressive of order 1 (AR(1)) temporal process.||||||<0.001
91832736|NCT02816138|183545062|OTHER|||||||0.761|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.761
91832737|NCT02816138|183545063|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessing for change from baseline to 12-weeks||||0.084
91832738|NCT02816138|183545064|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessing for change from baseline to 12-weeks||||0.073
91832739|NCT02816138|183545065|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.002
91832740|NCT02816138|183545066|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
91832741|NCT02816138|183545067|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.049
91832742|NCT02816138|183545068|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.502
91832743|NCT02816138|183545069|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.049
91832744|NCT02816138|183545070|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.068
91832745|NCT00818753|183545071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.08|12.76||p-values were not presented as the study was exploratory and not powered to to detect a difference in the treatments|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dabigatran 110mg BID vs Heparin||12.76|0.08|
91832746|NCT00818753|183545071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||||95.0|0.13|16.82||p-values were not presented as the study was exploratory and not powered to to detect a difference in the treatments|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dabigatran 150mg BID vs Heparin||16.82|0.13|
91832747|NCT00902694|183545076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4||||||6 month intervention versus control||-0.4|-2.6|
91832748|NCT00902694|183545076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.2||||||18 month intervention versus control||-1.2|-5.1|
91832749|NCT00902694|183545078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.4||||||6 month intervention versus control||-0.4|-3.6|
91832750|NCT00902694|183545078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.3||||||18 month intervention versus control||0.3|-4.1|
91832751|NCT00902694|183545079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.4||||||6 month systolic intervention versus control||2.4|-3.2|
91832752|NCT00902694|183545079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1||||||6 month diastolic intervention versus control||2.1|-1.6|
91832753|NCT00902694|183545079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.8||||||18 month systolic intervention versus control||4.8|-1.6|
91832754|NCT00902694|183545079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.4||||||18 month diastolic intervention versus control||3.4|-0.9|
91706771|NCT05025332|183307644|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.4131|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.4131
91706772|NCT05025332|183307645|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.9063|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.9063
91706773|NCT05025332|183307646|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||1.00
91706774|NCT05025332|183307647|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.7002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.7002
91706775|NCT05025332|183307648|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.3750
91706776|NCT05025332|183307649|OTHER|||||||0.7695|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.7695
91706777|NCT05025332|183307650|OTHER|||||||0.2402|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.2402
91706778|NCT01031004|183307673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0466||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.0466
91706779|NCT01031004|183307674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1069||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.1069
91706780|NCT01031004|183307675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4605||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.4605
91706781|NCT01031004|183307676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5774||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.5774
91706782|NCT01031004|183307677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6403||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B will not be statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.6403
91706783|NCT01031004|183307678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7217||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.7217
91706784|NCT04727528|183307702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|563.6|||Wald Chi-Squared test||Logistic regression model included response status (response / non-response) as the dependent variable and randomized treatment as an independent factor.|||563.6|5.6|0.001
91706785|NCT04727528|183307703|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares mean|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups||3.29|-0.00|0.050
91706786|NCT04727528|183307704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|15.8|||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups||15.8|0.6|0.153
91706787|NCT04727528|183307705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|57008.6||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval = 13124060000000000000000000000||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups|||0.0|0.940
91706788|NCT04727528|183307706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.6|||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups||8.6|0.5|0.271
91706789|NCT04727528|183307707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|102.8|||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups||102.8|1.1|0.039
91706790|NCT04727528|183307708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|57008.6||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval = 13124060000000000000000000000||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups|||0.0|0.940
91706791|NCT04656301|183307710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 1.92||||||<0.001
91706792|NCT01964989|183307722|SUPERIORITY|Relative vaccine efficacy (rVE; ≥6 to \<72 months) rVE = (1-HR) is the relative vaccine efficacy of aQIV and HR is defined as hazard ratio between aQIV and non adjuvanted comparator.|Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.81|15.41||||||||15.41|-19.81|
91832755|NCT00902694|183545080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|4.1||||||6 month total chol intervention versus control||4.1|-9.9|
91832756|NCT00902694|183545080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|4.4||||||18 month total chol intervention versus control||4.4|-14.9|
91832757|NCT00902694|183545080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.1||||||6 month LDL chol intervention versus control||5.1|-7.5|
91832758|NCT00902694|183545080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|3.9||||||18 month LDL chol intervention versus control||3.9|-13.1|
91832759|NCT00902694|183545080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7||||||6 month HDL chol intervention versus control||1.7|-2.9|
91832760|NCT00902694|183545080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.1||||||18 month HDL intervention versus control||3.1|-1.8|
91832761|NCT00902694|183545080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|12.4||||||6 month TRIG intervention versus control||12.4|-23.5|
91832762|NCT00902694|183545080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|23.9||||||18 month TRIG intervention versus control||23.9|-27.0|
91832763|NCT04154787|183545084|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of adjusted geometric mean ratios on Day 169|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.37||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.08||Calculated at one-sided 10% level from a lower-tailed test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|0.90|0.2670
91832764|NCT04154787|183545087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted geometric mean ratios|0.81||||0.4598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.42||Calculated from a two-sided test at the 0.05 significance level|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Comparison of adjusted geometric mean ratios: Test vs Ref.|Day 15||1.42|0.47|0.4598
91832765|NCT04154787|183545087|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|1.3||||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.61||Calculated from a two-sided test at the 0.05 significance level|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Comparison of adjusted geometric mean ratios: Test vs Ref.|Day 169||2.61|0.65|0.4528
91832766|NCT01337674|183545105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.42|5.98|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 1||5.98|-8.42|
91832767|NCT01337674|183545105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.92|9.49|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 7||9.49|-4.92|
91832768|NCT01337674|183545105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.31|8.62|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 1||8.62|-5.31|
91644159|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.974|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.867|5.081|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||5.081|4.867|<.0001
91832769|NCT01337674|183545105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.06|5.88|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 7||5.88|-8.06|
91832770|NCT01337674|183545106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.85|6.75|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 1||6.75|-2.85|
91644160|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.984|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.886|5.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||5.082|4.886|<.0001
91644161|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.975|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.868|5.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||5.082|4.868|<.0001
91644162|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.367|3.612|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||3.612|3.367|<.0001
91851583|NCT03257813|183586808|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.534||||||Final Visit|Chi-squared|||||||0.534
91832771|NCT01337674|183545106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.71|-1.11|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 7||-1.11|-10.71|
91832772|NCT01337674|183545106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.47|-1.03|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 1||-1.03|-11.47|
91832773|NCT01337674|183545106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.79|3.65|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 7||3.65|-6.79|
91832774|NCT01787097|183545114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91832775|NCT00224770|183545140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.324|ONE_SIDED|95.0||16.2|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=14.8, 95% upper limit=25.1; medical rate=9.5, 95% upper limit=20.5; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of mortality within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of mortality than the medical arm.||16.2||0.324
91832776|NCT00224770|183545140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.633|ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.2|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=7.1, 95% upper limit=29.7; medical rate=9.5, 95% upper limit=20.5; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of mortality within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher rate of mortality than the medical arm.||11.2||0.633
91832777|NCT00224770|183545141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.174|ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.7|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=5.6, 95% upper limit=13.7; medical rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=6.9; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of procedure-related mortality within 7 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of procedure-related mortality than the medical arm.||11.7||0.174
91832778|NCT00224770|183545142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.437|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.5|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=5.4; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of cerebritis, meningitis and ventriculitis within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of these infections than medical.||1.5||0.437
91832779|NCT00224770|183545142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.75|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.5|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=19.3; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of cerebritis, meningitis and ventriculitis within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher rate of these infections than medical.||1.5||0.750
91832780|NCT00224770|183545143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.409|ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.6|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=5.6, 95% upper limit=13.7; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate|Null hypothesis is that rate of symptomatic rebleeding 72 hours post last dose is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of symptomatic rebleeding than the medical arm.||9.6||0.409
91832781|NCT00224770|183545143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.75|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.2|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=19.3; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate|Null hypothesis is that rate of symptomatic rebleeding 72 hours post last dose is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher rate of symptomatic rebleeding than the medical arm.||2.2||0.750
91832782|NCT00224770|183545144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.468
91832783|NCT00224770|183545144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.294
91832784|NCT00224770|183545145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.395
91832785|NCT00224770|183545145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.175
91851584|NCT03257813|183586809|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.023||||||Baseline|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.023
91706793|NCT01964989|183307729|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.0||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.0|1.8|
91832786|NCT00224770|183545146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of percentage of blood clot resolved are the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||<0.0001
91832787|NCT00224770|183545146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of percentage of blood clot resolved are the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||<0.0001
91832788|NCT00224770|183545147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is 0. The alternative hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is not equal to 0.||||<0.0001
91832789|NCT00224770|183545147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Two-sided||Null hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is 0. The alternative hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is not equal to 0.||||0.791
91832790|NCT00224770|183545148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.189|ONE_SIDED|95.0||26.6|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=34.6, 95% upper limit=46.9; medical rate=23.7, 95% upper limit=37.7; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that the proportion with mRS score of 0-3 at 180 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher proportion than the medical arm.||26.6||0.189
91832791|NCT00224770|183545148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.9||0.156|ONE_SIDED|95.0||43.7|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=42.9, 95% upper limit=67.5; medical rate=23.7, 95% upper limit=37.7; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that the proportion with mRS score of 0-3 at 180 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher proportion than the medical arm.||43.7||0.156
91832792|NCT00437645|183545149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for non-inferiority of valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 mg to amlodipine 10 mg alone with a non-inferiority margin of 3 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-3.00|
91832793|NCT02713711|183545169|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.||||||0.3262|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||0.3262
91832794|NCT02713711|183545169|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||0.01
91832795|NCT02713711|183545169|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.||||||0.0646|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||0.0646
91832796|NCT02713711|183545169|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||<0.001
91832797|NCT02713711|183545169|SUPERIORITY|Two-way ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intergroup analysis.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91832798|NCT02713711|183545170|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2080
91832799|NCT02713711|183545170|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.0136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0136
91832800|NCT02713711|183545170|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.2987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2987
91832801|NCT02713711|183545170|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.8347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8347
91832802|NCT02713711|183545170|SUPERIORITY|two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test (intergroup analysis)||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91832803|NCT02274857|183545264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2179|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2179
91832804|NCT02274857|183545265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2782|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2782
91832805|NCT02274857|183545266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7266|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7266
91832806|NCT02274857|183545267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3522|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3522
91832807|NCT00117676|183545269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a sample size of 200 subjects in the tenofovir DF group and 100 subjects in the adefovir dipivoxil group, a two group large-sample normal approximation test of proportions with a one-sided 0.025 significance level would have 95% power to reject the null hypothesis that the tenofovir DF treatment was inferior to the adefovir dipivoxil treatment (difference in proportions was less than -0.100) in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the tenofovir DF treatment was not inferior.|Difference in proportions|23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|33.8||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted (baseline ALT ≥ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN) difference is 0.|Z-test|||A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), stratified by baseline ALT (≤ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN) was used to evaluate the difference (tenofovir DF - adefovir dipivoxil) in the proportion of complete responders between treatment groups.||33.8|13.2|<0.001
91832808|NCT00117676|183545270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|39.2||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and the CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN).|Z-test|||||39.2|21.3|<0.001
91832809|NCT00117676|183545271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.0||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals, stratified by baseline ALT (baseline ALT ≤ 2 x ULN, \> 2 x ULN), were used to evaluate treatment arm differences.|Z-test|||||8.0|-5.2|0.672
91832810|NCT00117676|183545276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.9||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Confidence interval stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT (≤ 2 x ULN, \> 2 x ULN).|Z-test|||||14.9|-4.5|0.293
91832811|NCT00117676|183545282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|8.5||Statistical tests were not adjusted for baseline ALT stratum. Analysis set included only randomized and treated participants with baseline ALT \> ULN (biochemically evaluable analysis set).|Z-test|P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero.||||8.5|-10.2|0.859
91832812|NCT00117676|183545283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|15.3||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and confidence interval are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN).||||15.3|-5.5|0.359
91832813|NCT00952822|183545301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence limits of -0.223 to 0.223 in accordance with FDA Guidance for Industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence; 2001.|Difference of Least-Squares Means|-0.052||||||90.0|-0.117|0.012||||||||0.012|-0.117|
91832814|NCT00952822|183545302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence limits of -0.223 to 0.223 in accordance with FDA Guidance for Industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence; 2001.|Difference of Least-Squares Means|-0.016||||||90.0|-0.076|0.043||||||||0.043|-0.076|
91832815|NCT01250990|183545333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||p value is for comparison between changes in reverse cholesterol transport in niacin versus placebo groups after 12 weeks of treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a pilot study to assess the effects of niacin on reverse cholesterol transport. The null hypothesis is that niacin has no effect on reverse cholesterol transport.||||0.8
91832816|NCT03786952|183545334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.453
91832817|NCT03786952|183545335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.931
91832818|NCT03786952|183545336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.923
91832819|NCT03786952|183545337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.399
91832820|NCT03786952|183545338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.872
91832821|NCT03786952|183545339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.998
91832822|NCT03786952|183545340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
91832823|NCT03786952|183545341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.992
91832824|NCT03786952|183545342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.519
91832825|NCT03786952|183545343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
91832826|NCT03786952|183545344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.457
91832827|NCT03786952|183545345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.415
91832828|NCT03786952|183545346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.923
91706794|NCT01964989|183307729|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.0||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.0|1.7|
91832829|NCT03786952|183545347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.981
91832830|NCT03786952|183545348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.627|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.627
91832831|NCT03786952|183545349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.901
91832832|NCT03786952|183545350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.166
91832833|NCT03786952|183545351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.252
91832834|NCT03292146|183545364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
91832835|NCT03292146|183545365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91832836|NCT03292146|183545366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Matched pairs|||||||0.06
91832837|NCT03292146|183545366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Matched pairs|||||||0.01
91832838|NCT03905330|183545382|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-1.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3691|=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.845|-0.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between maralixibat and placebo treatment groups in the mean change in the average ItchRO(Obs) severity score between baseline and Weeks 15-26||-0.334|-1.845|= 0.0063
91832839|NCT03905330|183545383|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-186.723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.9501|=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.454|-79.992|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-79.992|-293.454|= 0.0013
91832840|NCT03905330|183545384|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.727|-0.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.674|-1.727|< 0.0001
91832841|NCT03905330|183545385|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-160.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1827|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.836|-99.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-99.970|-220.836|< 0.0001
91832842|NCT03905330|183545386|OTHER||||||=|0.0736|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0736
91832843|NCT03905330|183545387|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.041|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0410
91832844|NCT03905330|183545388|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0023|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0023
91832845|NCT03905330|183545389|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0004
91832846|NCT03624504|183545409|OTHER|Assume expected performance to be 94%. The Objective Performance Criterion (OPC) is set at 83% (same performance threshold in FDA approved global study). Assumes 0.05 significance level, 2-sided, 80% power and 10% study attrition.|Kaplan-Meier survival probability (%)|97.6||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.6|99.4||The threshold for significance was 0.05.|z test, 1-sided||The major complication free rate (i.e. survival probability) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.|"Null hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is less than or equal to 83%~Alternative hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is greater than 83%."||99.4|90.6|0.0021
91832847|NCT01812655|183545418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.7||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|45.0|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference = PD group - VR group|||45.0|2.4|0.029
91832848|NCT01812655|183545418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|28.9|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference = VR group - SC group|||28.9|-9.5|0.32
91832849|NCT01812655|183545419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|0.223||||0.26||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between desire for distraction and STAIC State Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||.26
91832850|NCT01812655|183545419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|0.119||||0.59||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between desire for distraction and STAIC Trait Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||.59
91832851|NCT01812655|183545419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|-0.059||||0.6||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between desire for distraction and Procedural Pain (Outcome Measure #1) for all participants|||||.60
91832852|NCT01812655|183545420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||semipartial correlation|-0.276||||0.15||95.0|||||Semipartial Correlation||Semipartial correlation between Engagement with Distraction and STAIC State Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.15
91832853|NCT01812655|183545420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|-0.347||||0.18||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between Engagement with Distraction and STAIC Trait Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.18
91832854|NCT01812655|183545420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|0.21||||0.054||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between Engagement with Distraction and Procedural Pain (Outcome Measure #1) for all participants|||||0.054
91832855|NCT01812655|183545420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial Correlation|-0.102||||0.61||95.0|||||Semipartial Correlation||Semipartial correlation between Belief in Distraction's Efficacy and STAIC State Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.61
91832856|NCT01812655|183545420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial Correlation|-0.622||||0.007||95.0|||||Semipartial Correlation||Semipartial correlation between Belief in Distraction's Efficacy and STAIC Trait Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.007
91832857|NCT01812655|183545420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|-0.217||||0.045||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between Belief in Distraction's Efficacy and Procedural Pain (Outcome Measure #1) for all participants|||||0.045
91832858|NCT00419263|183545438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|P-value is based on the treatment parameter from the Cox Regression Model including treatment, current smoking behavior, and geographic region.||||||0.377
91832859|NCT00419263|183545439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on the log-rank statistic controlling for current smoking behavior and geographic region.|Log Rank|||||||0.007
91832860|NCT00419263|183545440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on the log-rank statistic controlling for current smoking behavior and geographic region.|Log Rank|||||||0.537
91832861|NCT00419263|183545441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91832862|NCT00419263|183545442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91832863|NCT00419263|183545443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
91706795|NCT01964989|183307729|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|1.8||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||1.8|1.6|
91832864|NCT00419263|183545444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
91832865|NCT00540124|183545446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.073
91832866|NCT00540124|183545446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.186
91832867|NCT00540124|183545447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.155
91832868|NCT00540124|183545447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.155
91832869|NCT00540124|183545447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.108
91832870|NCT00540124|183545447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.112
91832871|NCT00540124|183545448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.137
91832872|NCT00540124|183545448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91832873|NCT00540124|183545448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.118
91832874|NCT00540124|183545448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
91832875|NCT00540124|183545448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.207
91832876|NCT00540124|183545448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.581
91832877|NCT00540124|183545449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.306
91832878|NCT00540124|183545449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.762
91832879|NCT00540124|183545449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.203
91832880|NCT00540124|183545449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.464
91832881|NCT00540124|183545449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.169
91832882|NCT00540124|183545449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.243
91832883|NCT00540124|183545450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.206
91832884|NCT00540124|183545450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.457
91832885|NCT00540124|183545450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.892
91832886|NCT00540124|183545450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.593
91832887|NCT00540124|183545450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.887
91832888|NCT00540124|183545450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.762
91832889|NCT00540124|183545451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.691
91832890|NCT00540124|183545451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.415
91832891|NCT00540124|183545452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.176
91832892|NCT00540124|183545452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.921
91832893|NCT00540124|183545453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.429
91832894|NCT00540124|183545453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.304
91832895|NCT00540124|183545454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Waking Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.254
91832896|NCT00540124|183545454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Waking Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.359
91832897|NCT00540124|183545454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Sleeping Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.098
91896016|NCT04874415|183687451|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|0.06|-0.02|
91706796|NCT01964989|183307729|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.7||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||1.7|1.4|
91832898|NCT00540124|183545454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Sleeping Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.632
91832899|NCT00540124|183545454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Total Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.102
91832900|NCT00540124|183545454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Total Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.348
91832901|NCT00540124|183545455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.208
91832902|NCT00540124|183545455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.985
91832903|NCT00540124|183545456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Terminal Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.385
91832904|NCT00540124|183545456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Terminal Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.595
91832905|NCT00540124|183545456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Post Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.704
91832906|NCT00540124|183545456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Post Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.439
91832907|NCT00540124|183545457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmax. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.838
91832908|NCT00540124|183545457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmax. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.831
91832909|NCT00540124|183545457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmean. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.696
91832910|NCT00540124|183545457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmean. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.257
91832911|NCT00540124|183545458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.709
91832912|NCT00540124|183545458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.494
91832913|NCT02291679|183545478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.2||P-value is obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|||5.20|1.76|< 0.0001
91832914|NCT02291679|183545479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.841|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.176||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||1.176|0.505|< 0.0001
91832915|NCT02291679|183545480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.438||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||1.438|0.636|< 0.0001
91832916|NCT02291679|183545481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.806||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.806|0.450|< 0.0001
91832917|NCT02291679|183545482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.329|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.449|-0.21||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||-0.210|-0.449|< 0.0001
91832918|NCT02291679|183545483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.87||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region.|||4.87|1.47|0.0008
91851585|NCT03257813|183586809|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||1||||||CrossOver|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
91832919|NCT02291679|183545484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.2||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|||4.20|1.58|< 0.0001
91832920|NCT02291679|183545485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.26||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|||3.26|1.42|0.0002
91832921|NCT02291679|183545486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.17||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|||2.17|1.03|0.0342
91832922|NCT02291679|183545487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.319||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|-0.09||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||-0.090|-0.548|0.0063
91832923|NCT02291679|183545488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.178||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.036||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.036|-0.391|0.1028
91832924|NCT02291679|183545489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.8||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|||4.80|1.61|0.0001
91706797|NCT01964989|183307729|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.4||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.4|2.0|
91832925|NCT02276222|183545512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.0084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01012||0.4041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0114|0.0283|||ANCOVA|||||0.0283|-0.0114|0.4041
91832926|NCT02170025|183545513|OTHER||Bayesian analysis|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|6.0||||||Treatment effect describes the difference in outcomes between 0.5 mg riociguat and placebo on Day 14. This was an exploratory analysis. For sample size determination a probabilistic assessment on predicted point estimates and width of credible intervals was performed.||6.0|-8.7|
91832927|NCT02170025|183545513|OTHER||Bayesian analysis|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.4|2.4||||||Treatment effect describes the difference in outcomes between 1.0 mg riociguat and placebo on Day 28. This was an exploratory analysis. For sample size determination a probabilistic assessment on predicted point estimates and width of credible intervals was performed.||2.4|-12.4|
91832928|NCT01031810|183545528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.81||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|19.86|||paired t-test 2 sided|||Compare the mean differences between baseline (week00) and week12 hamd17 summary scores||19.86|3.25|0.012
91832929|NCT00506493|183545557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial Proportions|42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|97.5|30.0|||The percent of patients off Class I and III AADs and successfully converted out of AF following treatment (ptest) will exceed the percent of patients off Class I and III AADs and convereted out of AF, as reported in literature (pcontrol=22.1%)|Fisher Exact|||"The specific test hypothesis is as follows:~H0: ptest ≤ 22.1% Ha: ptest \> 22.1%"|||30.0|<0.01
91832930|NCT00506493|183545558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||binomial proportions|6.7|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||14.9|||Fisher Exact|||||14.9||<0.0001
91832931|NCT02532179|183545563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.29||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in immune modulation over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.29|2.09|<0.001
91832932|NCT02532179|183545564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|3.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|5.25||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in immune modulation over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.25|2.77|<0.001
91832933|NCT02532179|183545565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|6.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|11.06||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in immune modulation over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.06|3.87|<0.001
91832934|NCT04958785|183545599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.456||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|1.409|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) along with its 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||1.409|0.147|0.1617
91832935|NCT04958785|183545601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|10.938|||||Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using chi-square test.|||10.938|0.379|
91832936|NCT01224925|183545614|SUPERIORITY||Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)|842.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|693.0|991.0|||Log Rank|||The power calculation was based on the intention to show a 30% difference in success rates. The following parameters were used (binomial scale): type I error: 5%; expected success rate in the CH group: 55% (based on Barthel et al. 2000); minimal difference between success rates not to be overlooked: 30%; type II error: 5%. The calculations revealed the need for 64 subjects in each group. After adding 20% for eventual drop-outs, we planned to recruit 160 subjects in one year.||991|693|<0.01
91832937|NCT01224925|183545614|SUPERIORITY||Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)|1201.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1068.0|1335.0|||Log Rank|||||1335|1068|<0.01
91832938|NCT01224925|183545615|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91832939|NCT04149925|183545617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Significant when p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91832940|NCT02472652|183545624|OTHER||change in prolactin|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91851586|NCT03257813|183586809|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.793||||||Final Visit|Chi-squared|||||||0.793
91832941|NCT03675451|183545636|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Proportion of Participants|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.||0.99|0.74|
91832942|NCT03675451|183545637|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Proportion of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.||1.00|0.66|
91832943|NCT05131165|183545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.056
91832944|NCT05131165|183545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.062
91832945|NCT05131165|183545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.364||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.364
91832946|NCT05131165|183545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.409
91832947|NCT05131165|183545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.158
91832948|NCT05131165|183545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.017
91832949|NCT05131165|183545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.654||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.654
91832950|NCT05131165|183545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.035
91832951|NCT05131165|183545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analyses compared the change in viral suppression status of the participants from baseline to month 9. For each participant, we derived the change in viral suppression status by subtracting two binary variables - one indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at baseline (based on their chart records from around 3 months prior to baseline) and the other indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at around month 9 of the study.||||0.5468
91644163|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.347|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.212|3.483|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||3.483|3.212|<.0001
91832952|NCT05131165|183545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5255|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analyses compared the change in viral suppression status of the participants from baseline to month 9. For each participant, we derived the change in viral suppression status by subtracting two binary variables - one indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at baseline (based on their chart records from around 3 months prior to baseline) and the other indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at around month 9 of the study.||||0.5255
91832953|NCT01904864|183545792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||Regression, Linear||Change at 12 weeks compared|||1.6|0.4|<0.001
91851587|NCT03257813|183586810|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.825||||||Baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.825
91832954|NCT05674890|183545816|EQUIVALENCE|"Any deviation greater that +/- 0.60 (Effect size/Stdev OR 0.15/0.25=0.60) between device means was considered non-equivalent."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.49||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prior to patient enrollment, a power calculation was conducted to assess the ability of our analyses to reliably detect differences between the HFA and SSVR. With a sample size of 80, assumed effect size of 0.15, standard deviation of 0.25, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.50, and significance level of 0.05, our analysis reaches a power of 0.87.||||0.297
91832955|NCT05674890|183545817|EQUIVALENCE|"Any deviation greater that +/- 0.60 (Effect size/Stdev OR 0.15/0.25=0.60) between device means was considered non-equivalent."|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prior to patient enrollment, a power calculation was conducted to assess the ability of our analyses to reliably detect differences between the HFA and SSVR. With a sample size of 80, assumed effect size of 0.15, standard deviation of 0.25, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.50, and significance level of 0.05, our analysis reaches a power of 0.87.||||<0.001
91832956|NCT05674890|183545818|EQUIVALENCE|"Any deviation greater that +/- 0.60 (Effect size/Stdev OR 0.15/0.25=0.60) between device means was considered non-equivalent."|Mean Difference (Net)|-48.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prior to patient enrollment, a power calculation was conducted to assess the ability of our analyses to reliably detect differences between the HFA and SSVR. With a sample size of 80, assumed effect size of 0.15, standard deviation of 0.25, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.50, and significance level of 0.05, our analysis reaches a power of 0.87.||||<0.001
91832957|NCT03387579|183545893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.590
91832958|NCT03387579|183545893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.224
91832959|NCT03387579|183545893|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91832960|NCT03387579|183545894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.471
91832961|NCT03387579|183545895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.525
91832962|NCT03387579|183545896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.753
91832963|NCT03387579|183545897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
91832964|NCT03387579|183545898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.127
91832965|NCT03387579|183545899|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91832966|NCT03387579|183545900|SUPERIORITY||estimate|8.553||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.249|||||0.046
91832967|NCT03387579|183545900|SUPERIORITY||estimate|7.023||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 3.376|||||0.040
91832968|NCT03387579|183545900|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-1.53||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% Historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.231|||||0.718
91832969|NCT03387579|183545901|SUPERIORITY||estimate|13.436||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus Smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.440|||||0.003
91832970|NCT03387579|183545901|SUPERIORITY||estimate|3.936||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 3.553|||||0.270
91832971|NCT03387579|183545901|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-9.5||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.416|||||0.034
91832972|NCT03387579|183545902|SUPERIORITY||estimate|42.674||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus Smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 15.216|||||0.006
91832973|NCT03387579|183545902|SUPERIORITY||estimate|11.117||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 10.771|||||0.305
91832974|NCT03387579|183545902|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-31.557|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 67.673|||||<0.001
91832975|NCT03387579|183545903|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-0.593||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 2.848|||||0.835
91832976|NCT03387579|183545903|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-0.522||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 2.050|||||0.799
91832977|NCT03387579|183545903|SUPERIORITY||estimate|0.714||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 2.758|||||0.714
91832978|NCT03387579|183545904|SUPERIORITY||estimate|11.162||||0.379|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intralipid 20% reduction versus smoflipid 20%|standard error 12.626|||||0.379
91832979|NCT03387579|183545904|SUPERIORITY||estimate|3.853||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 10.615|||||0.717
91832980|NCT03387579|183545904|SUPERIORITY|Intralipid 20% historic versus intralipid 20% reduction|estimate|-7.31||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 13.025|||||0.576
91832981|NCT03387579|183545905|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||ROP||||1.00
91832982|NCT03387579|183545905|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||ROP||||1.00
91832983|NCT03387579|183545906|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91832984|NCT03387579|183545906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.640
91832985|NCT03387579|183545906|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91832986|NCT03387579|183545907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.211
91832987|NCT03387579|183545908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.720
91832988|NCT03387579|183545909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
91832989|NCT03387579|183545910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.774
91832990|NCT03387579|183545911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
91832991|NCT03387579|183545912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.475
91832992|NCT01804816|183545938|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
91832993|NCT01804816|183545939|EQUIVALENCE|a = 0.05||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on results from prior small clinical trials we estimate the need for 20 patients enrolled to reach 80% statistical power.||||0.005
91832994|NCT01804816|183545939|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91832995|NCT01804816|183545939|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.441
91832996|NCT01804816|183545940|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.729|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.729
91832997|NCT01123382|183545950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Group X time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|we included a random intercept for each individual participant. We used a first-order antedependent covariance structure.||To detect a minimum clinically important difference of 2 points2 on the BPI-SF3 with an anticipated standard deviation for each mean of 2.5, estimated from a prior study, with an alpha level of 0.05 and a power of 80%, for five waves of data, a sample size of 10 participants per group was necessary. With anticipated dropouts, a sample size of at least 12 participants per group was required.||||0.04
91832998|NCT01123382|183545951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||group x time interaction 0.059|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
91832999|NCT01123382|183545952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||||||group x time interaction 0.543|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.543
91644164|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.539|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.418|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||3.660|3.418|<.0001
91706798|NCT01964989|183307729|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.0||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.0|1.7|
91833000|NCT01123382|183545953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||group x time interaction 0.33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
91833001|NCT01123382|183545954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||group x time 0.61|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
91833002|NCT01123382|183545955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398||||||group x time interaction 0.398|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.398
91833003|NCT01123382|183545956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||group x time interaction 0.46|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
91833004|NCT01123382|183545957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||group x time interaction 0.59|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91833005|NCT01123382|183545958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||group x time interaction 0.69|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
91833006|NCT00834106|183545961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.7|91.1|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%.|||91.1|43.7|
91833007|NCT00834106|183545962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|82.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.3|96.7|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%.|||96.7|38.3|
91833008|NCT00834106|183545963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|100.0|||Exact test, 1-sided||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%.|||100|32.3|0.0072
91833009|NCT00834106|183545969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.8|97.4|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\].|||97.4|79.8|
91833010|NCT00834106|183545970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|93.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.9|99.2|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\].|||99.2|72.9|
91833011|NCT01755702|183545996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.90|0.83|0.2840
91833012|NCT01755702|183545996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.01|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||2.01|0.86|0.2008
91833013|NCT01755702|183545996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.74|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.74|0.78|0.4552
91833014|NCT01755702|183545996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.71|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.71|0.75|0.5579
91833015|NCT01755702|183545996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.61|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.61|0.72|0.7214
91833016|NCT01755702|183545996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.45|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.45|0.62|0.8192
91833017|NCT03882879|183546010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91833018|NCT03882879|183546011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91833019|NCT03882879|183546012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||Between-group two-sided t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91833020|NCT03882879|183546013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91833021|NCT03882879|183546014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91833022|NCT04496219|183546021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p value relates to instillation adherence||||0.97
91833023|NCT04496219|183546021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p value relates to missed visits.||||0.17
91833024|NCT04496219|183546022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5638|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Constipation Symptoms.||||0.5638
91833025|NCT04496219|183546022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1753|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Diarrhea Symptoms.||||0.1753
91833026|NCT04496219|183546022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2062|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Urinary Symptoms.||||0.2062
91833027|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8092|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Global Health.||||0.8092
91833028|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5492|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Physical Function.||||0.5492
91833029|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6464|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Emotional Function.||||0.6464
91833030|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Social Function.||||0.586
91833031|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8999|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Fatigue Symptoms.||||0.8999
91833032|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2007|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Pain Symptoms.||||0.2007
91833033|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9921|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Malaise Symptoms.||||0.9921
91833034|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5723|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Role Function.||||0.5723
91833035|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Cognitive Function.||||0.812
91833036|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Nausea Symptoms.||||0.96
91833037|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1062|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Dyspnoea Symptoms.||||0.1062
91833038|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3259|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Insomnia Symptoms.||||0.3259
91833039|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9664|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Appetite Loss Symptoms.||||0.9664
91833040|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4564|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Finances.||||0.4564
91833041|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1036|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Intravesical Symptoms.||||0.1036
91833042|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1789|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Worries.||||0.1789
91833043|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5186|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Bloating Symptoms.||||0.5186
91833044|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0757|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Sexual Function.||||0.0757
91833045|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Male Sex Problems.||||0.1174
91833046|NCT04496219|183546023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3129|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Intimacy.||||0.3129
91833047|NCT00416182|183546027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value of \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
91833048|NCT00416182|183546028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value of \< 0.05 is considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
91833049|NCT00416182|183546029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91833050|NCT00416182|183546030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||P \<0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
91833051|NCT04102579|183546049|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Difference|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-1.95||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|MMRM||LS Means Difference = Valbenazine - Placebo|Results were analyzed using a mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The model included the screening period baseline TMC as a covariate, and treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects. Participant was included as a random effect.||-1.95|-4.37|<0.0001
91833052|NCT04102579|183546050|OTHER||Percent Difference in Responders|29.65||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|45.37||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact||Percent Difference in Responders (%) = Valbenazine - Placebo|||45.37|10.77|0.0007
91706799|NCT01964989|183307729|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.6||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.6|2.0|
91833053|NCT04102579|183546051|OTHER||Percent Difference in Responders|26.31||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.32|43.74||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact||Percent Difference in Responders (%) = Valbenazine - Placebo|||43.74|6.32|0.0062
91833054|NCT04102579|183546052|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|4.31||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|MMRM||LS Means Difference = Valbenazine - Placebo|LS mean was based on the MMRM model which included corresponding baseline value of the Neuro-QoL Upper Extremity Function T-score as a covariate; treatment group, visit, baseline-by-visit interaction, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; and participant as a random effect.||4.31|-1.46|0.3304
91833055|NCT05899686|183546054|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as ANOVA p\<0.05||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||Maximum percent change from baseline (light transmittance) during 60 heart beats after the tetanic stimulus were compared between the three stimulus locations using ANOVA||||0.65
91833056|NCT00572195|183546055|OTHER||Wilson score interval|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.1|81.9|||||The value is for all serious adverse events, regardless of device relation.||95% confidence interval estimated using the Wilson score interval|81.9|71.1|
91833057|NCT00572195|183546056|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||For all 6-month periods, from 6 months through 9 years post-implant, p \<0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.05
91833058|NCT00572195|183546058|OTHER||GEE estimated intercept|48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|49.2|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||49.2|46.8|<0.0001
91833059|NCT00572195|183546058|OTHER||Slope|0.0||||0.6729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||0.1|-0.2|0.6729
91833060|NCT00949884|183546078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline DBP as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change in seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to end of treatment. Sample size of 900, this study had 90% power to detect a true difference in mean change from baseline in mean trough SDBP of 2.0 mmHg for Combined Olmesartan vs Losartan.||-1.3|-3.8|<0.0001
91833061|NCT00949884|183546079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline SSBP as a covariate.||||-1.8|-5.3|<0.0001
91833062|NCT00949884|183546080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.9|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline SSBP as a covariate.||||-1.9|-5.8|0.0001
91833063|NCT00949884|183546081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline blood pressure value as a covariate.||||-1.5|-3.8|<0.0001
91833064|NCT00949884|183546083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.2|-2.0|0.1121
91833065|NCT00949884|183546083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.1|-2.0|0.0783
91833066|NCT00949884|183546084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.2312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.7|-2.9|0.2312
91833067|NCT00949884|183546084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.3|-3.2|0.0979
91833068|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833069|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||0.0001
91833070|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833071|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833072|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833073|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833074|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2755||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.2755
91833075|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1646||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.1646
91833076|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833077|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833078|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833079|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833080|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0010
91833081|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0011
91833082|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833083|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833084|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0005
91833085|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0004
91833086|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0023
91833087|NCT00949884|183546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0012
91833088|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833089|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833090|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||0.0009
91833091|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||0.0007
91833092|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0347||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||0.0347
91833093|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||0.0280
91833094|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0519||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.0519
91833095|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0605||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.0605
91833096|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||0.0001
91833097|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||0.0003
91706800|NCT01964989|183307729|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.1||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.1|1.6|
91706801|NCT01964989|183307731|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H1N1 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.0|0.8|
91706802|NCT01964989|183307731|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H3N2 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.9|
91833098|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||0.0070
91833099|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||0.0066
91833100|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0061
91833101|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0096
91833102|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833103|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
91833104|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0047
91833105|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0063
91833106|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0589
91833107|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0594||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0594
91833108|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<120/80 mmHg||||0.0476
91833109|NCT00949884|183546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0657||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<120/80 mmHg||||0.0657
91833110|NCT00949884|183546087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure as a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in systolic blood pressure.||1.5|-4.4|0.3250
91833111|NCT00949884|183546087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure as a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in systolic blood pressure.||1.5|-4.4|0.3491
91833112|NCT00949884|183546087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in diastolic blood pressure.||0.7|-3.2|0.2085
91833113|NCT00949884|183546087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in diastolic blood pressure.||0.8|-3.0|0.2542
91833114|NCT00949884|183546088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in systolic blood pressure.||-0.5|-6.6|0.0209
91833115|NCT00949884|183546088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in systolic blood pressure.||-0.6|-6.6|0.0186
91833116|NCT00949884|183546088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in diastolic blood pressure.||-0.4|-4.5|0.0175
91833117|NCT00949884|183546088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in diastolic blood pressure.||-0.4|-4.4|0.0177
91706803|NCT01964989|183307731|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/YAM at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
91833118|NCT00949884|183546089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.3104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||1.7|-5.2|0.3104
91833119|NCT00949884|183546089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||1.8|-4.9|0.3653
91833120|NCT00949884|183546089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||0.5|-4.1|0.1197
91833121|NCT00949884|183546089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-3.9|0.1654
91833122|NCT00949884|183546089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||1.9|-4.4|0.4362
91833123|NCT00949884|183546089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||1.8|-4.5|0.4039
91833124|NCT00949884|183546089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||1.2|-3.1|0.3929
91833125|NCT00949884|183546089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.4259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||1.3|-3.0|0.4259
91833126|NCT00949884|183546090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||-0.2|-6.8|0.0396
91833127|NCT00949884|183546090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||-0.3|-6.8|0.0345
91833128|NCT00949884|183546090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||-0.2|-4.8|0.0324
91833129|NCT00949884|183546090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||-0.2|-4.7|0.0363
91833130|NCT00949884|183546090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||0.6|-6.5|0.0988
91833131|NCT00949884|183546090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||0.5|-6.4|0.0926
91833132|NCT00949884|183546090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||0.3|-4.5|0.0900
91833133|NCT00949884|183546090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||0.3|-4.4|0.0942
91833134|NCT00949884|183546091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.3229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||1.8|-5.4|0.3229
91833135|NCT00949884|183546091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||2.0|-5.1|0.3863
91833136|NCT00949884|183546091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.6|-4.5|0.1277
91833137|NCT00949884|183546091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.8|-4.3|0.1799
91833138|NCT00949884|183546091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||1.4|-5.1|0.2708
91833139|NCT00949884|183546091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||1.6|-5.0|0.3133
91896017|NCT04874415|183687451|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.04|-0.04|
91833140|NCT00949884|183546091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.1621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-3.9|0.1621
91833141|NCT00949884|183546091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.9|-3.7|0.2314
91706804|NCT01964989|183307731|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/VIC at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
91833142|NCT00949884|183546091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||1.3|-5.0|0.2461
91833143|NCT00949884|183546091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||1.3|-5.0|0.2558
91833144|NCT00949884|183546091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-3.8|0.1700
91833145|NCT00949884|183546091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.8|-3.7|0.2011
91833146|NCT00949884|183546092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||1.4|-7.0|0.1895
91833147|NCT00949884|183546092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||1.8|-6.5|0.2701
91833148|NCT00949884|183546092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.1328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-5.2|0.1328
91833149|NCT00949884|183546092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.9|-4.9|0.1778
91833150|NCT00949884|183546092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||0.2|-7.3|0.0620
91833151|NCT00949884|183546092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||0.6|-6.9|0.1011
91833152|NCT00949884|183546092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||-0.4|-5.6|0.0249
91833153|NCT00949884|183546092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.0|-5.2|0.0497
91833154|NCT00949884|183546092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||0.1|-7.1|0.0552
91833155|NCT00949884|183546092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||0.3|-6.8|0.0767
91833156|NCT00949884|183546092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||-0.3|-5.3|0.0279
91833157|NCT00949884|183546092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||-0.1|-5.0|0.0434
91833158|NCT00949884|183546093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline blood pressure is a covariate.||Diastolic blood pressure||-1.8|-6.8|0.0009
91833159|NCT00949884|183546093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline blood pressure is a covariate.||Systolic blood pressure||-4.7|-12.5|<0.0001
91833160|NCT03896009|183546166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91833161|NCT03896009|183546167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91833162|NCT00662857|183546168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.141|||||"Geometric Mean Ratio of serum insulin from a single 30 U cartridge to 2 x 15 U cartridges of TI.~Based on pair-wise comparisons from analysis of covariance fitting the model: natural log of parameter = cohort, treatment, visit, subject (cohort)."|||1.141|0.846|
91833163|NCT00662857|183546169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.099|||||"Geometric Mean Ratio of serum insulin from a single 30 U cartridge to 2 x 15 U cartridges of TI.~Based on pair-wise comparisons from analysis of covariance fitting the model: natural log of parameter = cohort, treatment, visit, subject (cohort)."|||1.099|0.823|
91896018|NCT04874415|183687452|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||10.3|-10.3|
91706805|NCT01964989|183307731|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H1N1 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
91833164|NCT00662857|183546170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3531|||||||Signed Rank Test|||||||0.3531
91833165|NCT00662857|183546171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.366|0.578|||||"Geometric Mean Ratio of serum insulin from a single 30 U cartridge of TI to 10 U sc insulin lispro.~Based on pair-wise comparisons from analysis of covariance fitting the model: natural log of parameter = cohort, treatment, visit, subject (cohort)."|||0.578|0.366|
91833166|NCT00998400|183546184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||0.030
91833167|NCT00998400|183546185|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
91833168|NCT00998400|183546186|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
91833169|NCT00998400|183546187|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis|||||||>0.05
91833170|NCT00998400|183546188|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
91833171|NCT00998400|183546189|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
91833172|NCT00998400|183546190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||0.013
91833173|NCT00998400|183546191|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
91833174|NCT00998400|183546192|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
91833175|NCT00998400|183546193|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
91833176|NCT00998400|183546194|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
91833177|NCT00998400|183546195|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
91833178|NCT00105235|183546216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.423|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||.423|.086|
91833179|NCT00105235|183546217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||0.3|0|
91833180|NCT00105235|183546219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||0.3|0.04|
91833181|NCT00105235|183546220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.2|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||0.2|0.01|
91833182|NCT02052310|183546221|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference in least square (LS) means from MI ANCOVA model between the 2 treatment groups lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.287|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with multiple imputation||Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation (MI) strategy by combining the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, region and cardiovascular/cerebrovascular/thromboembolic medical history (yes vs. no) as factors.||0.287|0.079|0.0005
91833183|NCT02052310|183546222|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.7||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI was analyzed from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||7.7|-0.7|
91833184|NCT02052310|183546223|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI analyzed was from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||8.7|-0.1|
91833185|NCT02052310|183546224|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference in LS means of change from baseline Hb averaged over Weeks 28 to 52 lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening hemoglobin (≤8.0 vs. \>8.0 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.296|0.032|0.0148
91833186|NCT02052310|183546225|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa (roxadustat - epoetin alpha) was less than 0.|LS Mean Difference|-18.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.448|-15.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using a MMRM with baseline LDL cholesterol as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-15.232|-21.448|<0.0001
91833187|NCT02052310|183546226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was fixed as a difference of -0.75.|LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.8178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.217|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA multiple imputation||Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation strategy by combining the results of ANCOVA model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, region and cardiovascular/cerebrovascular/thromboembolic medical history (yes vs. no) as factors.||0.217|-0.171|0.8178
91833188|NCT02052310|183546227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00028||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Rank ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison was made using an ANCOVA model with baseline iron repletion status, treatment, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||||0.00028
91896019|NCT04874415|183687452|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
91833189|NCT02052310|183546228|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups was 1.8.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|2.016|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||Analysis was done using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb and other stratification factors except mean qualifying screening hemoglobin (\<= 8.0 vs. \>8.0 g/dL) as fixed effects.||2.016|0.791|0.3284
91833190|NCT02563002|183546242|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.79|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log rank test|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||0.79|0.45|0.0001
91833191|NCT02563002|183546243|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.03|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log rank test|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.03|0.53|0.0359
91833192|NCT02563002|183546244|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.0||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|22.6||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||22.6|1.0|0.0159
91833193|NCT02416492|183546262|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||||0.0401
91851588|NCT03257813|183586810|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||1||||||CrossOver|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
91851589|NCT03257813|183586810|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.765|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.765
91833194|NCT02416492|183546263|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||0.3|-1.7|0.1655
91833195|NCT02416492|183546264|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|2.7||||0.3398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E scores, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E by visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||8.3|-2.9|0.3398
91833196|NCT02416492|183546265|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.8974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|37.1||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||37.1|-42.2|0.8974
91833197|NCT02416492|183546266|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.8534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|4.8||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E scores, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E by visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction||Change from Baseline in NeuroQOL Upper Extremity Function T Score at Week 24||4.80|-5.77|0.8534
91833198|NCT02416492|183546266|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.41||||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|4.6||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E scores, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E by visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction||Change from Baseline in NeuroQOL Lower Extremity Function T Score at Week 24||4.60|-3.78|0.8443
91833199|NCT02093663|183546268|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.88|||Uncorrected Chi-squared Test|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (last observation carried forward \[LOCF\] and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||9.88|1.04|0.039
91833200|NCT02093663|183546269|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.34||P-value were based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior response status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-value s were presented as descriptive statistics.||2.34|0.42|0.981
91833201|NCT02093663|183546270|OTHER||Difference in proportions|50.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|100.0||P-value was calculated based on Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||100.0|-19.3|0.400
91833202|NCT02093663|183546271|OTHER||Difference in proportions|50.0||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|100.0||P-value was based on a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate.||100.0|-19.3|0.333
91833203|NCT02093663|183546272|OTHER||Difference in Least squares Mean|-5.4||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.4||P-value is based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment arm as a factor and baseline DUCS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||2.4|-13.1|0.168
91833204|NCT02093663|183546273|OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.5||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|50.6||P-value was based on a continuity-corrected chi-squared test. PUCAI Score was compared between treatment arms using a continuity corrected chi-squared test. Expected cell counts are very low (\< 5), then Fisher's Exact Test is alternative method.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||50.6|-1.6|0.131
91833205|NCT02093663|183546274|OTHER||Difference in Proportions Percentage|-6.5||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|12.3||P-value is based on a CMH test adjusted by prior response status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||12.3|-25.3|0.539
91833206|NCT02093663|183546275|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-16.2||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|3.6||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by prior response status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||3.6|-36.0|0.129
91833207|NCT02093663|183546276|OTHER||Difference in Least squares Mean|3.0||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.4||P-value was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment arm and with prior response status.|ANCOVA|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||7.4|-1.4|0.182
91896020|NCT04874415|183687452|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||12.7|-12.7|
91833208|NCT02093663|183546277|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.0||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|11.0||P-value was based on a CMH test adjusted by prior response status. Participants with remission (PUCAI \<10) at double-blind maintenance phase at Week 26 was compared between treatment arms using a CMH test stratifying by Week 8 responder status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||11.0|-29.1|0.194
91833209|NCT00508404|183546278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.45|||||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the KRAS Wild-type group relative to the odds in the KRAS Mutant group.|||4.45|1.02|
91833210|NCT00508404|183546279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.93|||||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the KRAS Wild-type group relative to the odds in the KRAS Mutant group.|||3.93|0.88|
91833211|NCT00508404|183546280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.89|||||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the KRAS Wild-type group relative to the odds in the KRAS Mutant group.|||3.89|0.30|
91833212|NCT00508404|183546281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.283|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.614|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||0.614|0.130|
91833213|NCT00508404|183546282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.642|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.721|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||2.721|0.990|
91833214|NCT00508404|183546283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.464|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.703|||||Hazard ratio presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||0.703|0.306|
91833215|NCT00508404|183546284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.618|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||0.618|0.252|
91833216|NCT00508404|183546285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.756|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.43|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||1.430|0.400|
91833217|NCT00508404|183546286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.002|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||1.002|0.503|
91833218|NCT00508404|183546288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in rates|8.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|19.08||||||||19.08|-4.01|
91833219|NCT01197508|183546298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.79||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.79|-0.53|1.000
91833220|NCT01197508|183546298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.13|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.13|-1.22|1.000
91833221|NCT01197508|183546298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.22|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.22|-1.21|1.000
91833222|NCT01197508|183546299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.12|0.45|0.144
91833223|NCT01197508|183546299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.17|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.17|0.47|0.203
91833224|NCT01197508|183546299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.82|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.82|0.32|0.005
91833225|NCT01197508|183546300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.45|0.54|0.636
91833226|NCT01197508|183546300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.20|0.44|0.215
91833227|NCT01197508|183546300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.96|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.96|0.35|0.034
91644165|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.419|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.284|3.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||3.554|3.284|<.0001
91833228|NCT01197508|183546301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.99|0.36|0.711
91833229|NCT01197508|183546301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.85|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.85|0.34|0.594
91833230|NCT01197508|183546301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.65|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.65|0.50|0.749
91833231|NCT01197508|183546302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.96|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.96|0.28|0.037
91833232|NCT01197508|183546302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.25|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.25|0.38|0.222
91833233|NCT01197508|183546302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.98|0.28|0.042
91833234|NCT01197508|183546303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.27|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.27|0.48|0.913
91833235|NCT01197508|183546303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.01|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.01|0.42|0.841
91833236|NCT01197508|183546303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.39|0.26|0.239
91833237|NCT01197508|183546304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.705||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|2.481|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.481|-0.288|0.120
91833238|NCT01197508|183546304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|2.354|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.354|-0.452|0.184
91833239|NCT01197508|183546304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|3.484|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||3.484|0.692|0.003
91833240|NCT01197508|183546305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.131||95.0|-0.05|0.42|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.42|-0.05|0.131
91833241|NCT01197508|183546305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.31|-0.17|0.551
91833242|NCT01197508|183546305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.3|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.30|-0.19|0.645
91833243|NCT01197508|183546306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.99|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||0.99|0.38|0.046
91833244|NCT01197508|183546306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.00|0.38|0.051
91706806|NCT01964989|183307731|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H3N2 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
91833245|NCT01197508|183546306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||0.98|0.37|0.040
91833246|NCT01197508|183546307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.03|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.03|-0.58|0.273
91833247|NCT01197508|183546307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.0|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.00|-0.65|0.315
91833248|NCT01197508|183546307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|2.51|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.51|-0.13|0.078
91833249|NCT01197508|183546308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.19|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.19|-0.68|0.590
91833250|NCT01197508|183546308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.14|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.14|-0.74|0.679
91833251|NCT01197508|183546308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.53|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.53|-0.35|0.215
91833252|NCT01197508|183546309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.38|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.38|-0.01|0.052
91833253|NCT01197508|183546309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.3|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.30|-1.11|0.874
91833254|NCT01197508|183546309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.24|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.24|-0.19|0.099
91833255|NCT01197508|183546310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.95|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.95|-0.77|0.394
91833256|NCT01197508|183546310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.63|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.63|-1.11|0.712
91833257|NCT01197508|183546310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.38|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.38|-0.41|0.167
91833258|NCT01197508|183546311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.95|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.95|0.02|0.046
91833259|NCT01197508|183546311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.79|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.79|-1.17|0.681
91833260|NCT01197508|183546311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.84|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.84|-0.19|0.087
91851590|NCT02878330|183586811|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|70.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|81.2|||Poisson regression|||||81.2|52.3|<0.0001
91706807|NCT01964989|183307731|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/YAM at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
91851591|NCT02878330|183586812|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|78.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|90.3|||Poisson regression|||||90.3|51.9|0.0002
91833261|NCT01197508|183546312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|2.427||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.427|-0.464|1.000
91833262|NCT01197508|183546312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.188||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.188|-0.740|1.000
91706808|NCT01964989|183307731|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/VIC at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.2|0.7|
91833263|NCT01197508|183546312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.762||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|2.346||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.346|-0.649|1.000
91833264|NCT01197508|183546313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.61|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.61|-0.54|0.914
91833265|NCT01197508|183546313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.81|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.81|-0.36|0.446
91833266|NCT01197508|183546313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.75|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.75|-0.47|0.656
91833267|NCT01197508|183546314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.82|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.82|-0.21|0.248
91833268|NCT01197508|183546314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.7|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.70|-0.34|0.498
91833269|NCT01197508|183546314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.74|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.74|-0.32|0.441
91833270|NCT01197508|183546315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.87|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.87|-0.16|0.174
91833271|NCT01197508|183546315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.74|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.74|-0.30|0.402
91833272|NCT01197508|183546315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.88|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.88|-0.18|0.197
91833273|NCT01197508|183546316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.643||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.697|1.756|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.756|-4.697|0.371
91833274|NCT01197508|183546316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.672||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.597|1.967|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.967|-4.597|0.432
91833275|NCT01197508|183546316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.672||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.992|0.573|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.573|-5.992|0.105
91833276|NCT01197508|183546317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.09|-0.29|0.312
91833277|NCT01197508|183546317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.21|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.21|-0.18|0.885
91833278|NCT01197508|183546317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.01|-0.37|0.067
91833279|NCT01197508|183546318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.05|-0.33|0.152
91833280|NCT01197508|183546318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.02|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.02|-0.37|0.078
91833281|NCT01197508|183546318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.41|0.033
91833282|NCT01197508|183546319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0181||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0465|0.0245||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0245|-0.0465|0.543
91833283|NCT01197508|183546319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.0361||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0361|-0.0360|0.998
91833284|NCT01197508|183546319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0432|0.0308||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0308|-0.0432|0.743
91833285|NCT01197508|183546319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.56||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.56|-6.10|0.244
91833286|NCT01197508|183546319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|2.18||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.18|-5.59|0.389
91833287|NCT01197508|183546319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|1.16||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.16|-6.79|0.165
91833288|NCT02629991|183546329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.|Mixed effects model|||||||0.059
91833289|NCT02629991|183546330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.|Mixed effects model|||||||0.088
91833290|NCT02629991|183546331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.027
91833291|NCT02629991|183546332|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.16|||||||Mixed effects model|||||||0.16
91833292|NCT02629991|183546333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.69
91833293|NCT02629991|183546334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.|Mixed effects model|||||||0.034
91833294|NCT02629991|183546335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.009
91833295|NCT02629991|183546336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.033
91833296|NCT02629991|183546337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.78
91833297|NCT02629991|183546338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.53
91833298|NCT02799784|183546339|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the (UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg versus TIO/OLO 5/5 mcg) treatment difference is above -50 milliliter then UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg was to be considered non-inferior to TIO/OLO 5/5 mcg.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.080|0.026|<0.001
91833299|NCT03086330|183546395|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.24|||ANCOVA|||The responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, stratification factor and region as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including stratification factor and region as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-1.24|-1.61|<0.0001
91833300|NCT03086330|183546396|OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.93|||ANCOVA|||The responses were analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, stratification factor and region as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including stratification factor and region as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-2.93|-4.70|<0.0001
91833301|NCT02740049|183546467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P value is the comparison between the IFN/TNF induction group versus the VR588 (10-7M) treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical differences is determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test or a Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate.||||0.0002
91833302|NCT02740049|183546468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3994||||||P value is the comparison between the IFN/TNF induction group versus the VR588 (10-7M) treatment group|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical differences is determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate.||||0.3994
91833303|NCT02740049|183546469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104||||||P value is the comparison between the IFN/TNF induction group versus VR588 (10-7M) treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical difference is determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test or a Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate.||||0.0104
91833304|NCT00330174|183546472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Drinking outcomes were analyzed using multiple linear regression, controlling for site and baseline drinking level. Drinking and psychiatric symptoms assessed over time were examined using repeated measures (intercept only) mixed linear models (PROC MIXED in SAS). Analyses were performed using SAS statistical software (version 9.2; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). All tests were two-tailed and p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.64
91833305|NCT01032733|183546476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||This trial represented a pilot study, which was designed to demonstrate the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of the intervention; therefore, a power analysis was not conducted. The statistical analyses consisted of descriptive and intent-to-treat (ITT) modeling procedures.||||<0.05
91706809|NCT01964989|183307733|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the unadjusted difference of percentages of subjects seroconverted for HI antibody exceeds 0%.|Seroconversion difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.3||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1.||11.3|5.0|
91833306|NCT01032733|183546477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91833307|NCT01032733|183546478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91833308|NCT01032733|183546479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91833309|NCT01032733|183546480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91833310|NCT04570436|183546485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|26.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The sensitivity and integrity of the study was validated by comparing the mean responses of diazepam, the positive control (C), to the placebo (P):~H0: μC - μP ≤ δ1 versus Ha: μC - μP \> δ1 where δ1 = 15"|||26.2|<0.0001
91833311|NCT04570436|183546485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.3581|ONE_SIDED|95.0||14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo.~H0: μT - μP ≥ δ3 versus Ha: μT - μP \< δ3 where δ3 =11"||14.7||0.3581
91833312|NCT04570436|183546485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.3051|ONE_SIDED|95.0||14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo.~H0: μT - μP ≥ δ3 versus Ha: μT - μP \< δ3 where δ3 =11"||14.3||0.3051
91833313|NCT04570436|183546485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.2179|ONE_SIDED|95.0||13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo.~H0: μT - μP ≥ δ3 versus Ha: μT - μP \< δ3 where δ3 =11"||13.5||0.2179
91833314|NCT04570436|183546485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than diazepam (C) were:~H0: μC - μT ≤ δ2 versus Ha: μC - μT \> δ2 where δ2 =0"|||16.3|<0.0001
91833315|NCT04570436|183546485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than diazepam (C) were:~H0: μC - μT ≤ δ2 versus Ha: μC - μT \> δ2 where δ2 =0"|||16.7|<0.0001
91833316|NCT04570436|183546485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|17.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than diazepam (C) were:~H0: μC - μT ≤ δ2 versus Ha: μC - μT \> δ2 where δ2 =0"|||17.4|<0.0001
91833317|NCT04570436|183546487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|325.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.38||0.0023|ONE_SIDED|90.0|138.2||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||138.2|0.0023
91833318|NCT04570436|183546487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.01||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-82.7|363.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||363.7|-82.7|0.2157
91833319|NCT04570436|183546487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|155.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.25||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.3|379.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||379.1|-68.3|0.1720
91833320|NCT04570436|183546487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|212.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.01||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|435.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||435.5|-11.0|0.0622
91833321|NCT04570436|183546487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-185.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.04||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-409.0|37.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||37.94|-409|0.1031
91833322|NCT04570436|183546487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-170.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|112.97||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-394.0|52.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||52.71|-394|0.1334
91833323|NCT04570436|183546487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-114.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.59||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-338.0|110.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.8|-338|0.3189
91833324|NCT04570436|183546488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.362|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|46.89||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||46.89|<0.0001
91833325|NCT04570436|183546488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.348||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.61|27.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.74|6.61|0.0016
91833326|NCT04570436|183546488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.79|31.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.96|10.79|0.0001
91833327|NCT04570436|183546488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.352|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.92|33.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.07|11.92|<0.0001
91833328|NCT04570436|183546488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.312|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.1|-28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.1|-49.1|<0.0001
91833329|NCT04570436|183546488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.308|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.9|-23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.9|-44.9|<0.0001
91833330|NCT04570436|183546488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.8|-22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.7|-43.8|<0.0001
91833331|NCT04570436|183546490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|234.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.174|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|171.7||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||171.7|<0.0001
91833332|NCT04570436|183546490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.048||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.86|141.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||141.5|-8.86|0.0834
91833333|NCT04570436|183546490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.128||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.75|174.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||174.4|23.75|0.0103
91833334|NCT04570436|183546490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.048||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.05|172.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||172.4|22.05|0.0116
91833335|NCT04570436|183546490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-169.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-244.0|-93.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-93.4|-244|<0.0001
91833336|NCT04570436|183546490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-136.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.036||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-211.0|-60.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-60.7|-211|0.0005
91833337|NCT04570436|183546490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-138.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.243||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-213.0|-62.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-62.2|-213|0.0004
91833338|NCT03088267|183546529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-2.17|||ANCOVA|||||-2.17|-14.94|0.0118
91833339|NCT03088267|183546530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|42.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison at 30 minutes post-dose||42.50|-4.94|0.1128
91833340|NCT03088267|183546530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.91|87.75|||ANCOVA|||Comparison at 3 hours postdose||87.75|32.91|0.0003
91833341|NCT02279043|183546536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|4.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.88|0.16|0.89
91833342|NCT02279043|183546537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91833343|NCT02279043|183546538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91833344|NCT02279043|183546538|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariate analysis adjusting for cluster, as association was significant in bivariate test.||1.11|0.08|0.02
91833345|NCT02279043|183546539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91833346|NCT02279043|183546540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91833347|NCT02279043|183546541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.20|0.75|0.34
91833348|NCT02279043|183546542|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.49|0.99
91833349|NCT02279043|183546543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.95|0.08
91833350|NCT02279043|183546544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.58|1.05|0.03
91833351|NCT02279043|183546544|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression||Multivariate analysis adjusting for cluster, as association was significant in bivariate test.||0.97|0.04|0.03
91833352|NCT02279043|183546545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|1.42|<0.01
91833353|NCT02279043|183546545|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.84|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression||Multivariate analysis adjusting for cluster, as association was significant in bivariate test.||1.35|0.33|<0.01
91833354|NCT02279043|183546546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|0.52|0.93
91833355|NCT02279043|183546547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|0.52|0.68
91833356|NCT02279043|183546548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.08|0.33
91833357|NCT00774579|183546551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
91833358|NCT00774579|183546552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
91833359|NCT02963974|183546558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed CNC Word scores from 3 months through 24 months to evaluate change over time with device use. Scores were converted to Rau prior to analysis.||||< 0.001
91833360|NCT02963974|183546558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analyzed pre-op to 3 month post activation CNC Word scores to test superiority of cochlear implant use to pre-operative hearing aid use.||||< 0.001
91833361|NCT02963974|183546560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. This was a two-way repeated measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||Analyzed BKB-SIN SNR-50 scores at 12 months post activation to evaluate the impact of device use (CI off vs on) and masker location (front, to the affected ear, or to the normal hearing ear) on hearing in noise.||||< 0.001
91833362|NCT02963974|183546561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed BKB-SIN SNR-50 scores across all time points (6, 12, and 24 months post activation) to evaluate the impact of time, device use (CI off vs on), and masker location (front, to the affected ear, or to the normal hearing ear) on hearing in noise.||||< 0.001
91833363|NCT02963974|183546565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01911||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed overall RMS error at 3, 9, 18, and 24 months post activation to evaluate the impact of device use (CI off vs on) and time on localization.||||0.01911
91833364|NCT02963974|183546566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores across time to investigate change in scores over time: Speech subtest.||||< 0.001
91833365|NCT02963974|183546566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores across time to investigate change in scores over time: Spatial subtest.||||0.001
91833366|NCT02963974|183546566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores across time to investigate change in scores over time: Qualities subtest.||||< 0.001
91833367|NCT02963974|183546567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores over time.||||< 0.001
91833368|NCT02963974|183546568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores to evaluation change over time: General Fatigue Subtest||||0.1009
91833369|NCT02963974|183546568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores to evaluation change over time: Sleep Fatigue Subtest||||0.109
91833370|NCT02963974|183546568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1733||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores to evaluation change over time: Cognitive Fatigue Subtest||||0.1733
91833371|NCT00567190|183546576|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75||Tested at two-sided 5% significance level|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0) was that the survival distributions of PFS in the two treatments arms (pertuzumab vs. placebo) are the same. The alternative hypothesis (H1) was that the survival distribution of PFS in the experimental arm (pertuzumab) and control arm (placebo) are different.||0.75|0.51|<0.0001
91833372|NCT00567190|183546576|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76||Tested at two-sided 5% significance level|Log Rank (unstratified)|Unstratified|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0) was that the survival distributions of PFS in the two treatments arms (pertuzumab vs. placebo) are the same. The alternative hypothesis (H1) was that the survival distribution of PFS in the experimental arm (pertuzumab) and control arm (placebo) are different.||0.76|0.52|<0.0001
91833373|NCT00567190|183546577|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82||Exploratory|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|End-of-Study OS Analysis: This end-of-study OS analysis is considered exploratory only as the confirmatory OS analysis for statistical interpretation had previously occurred at the second interim OS analysis.||0.82|0.58|<0.0001
91833374|NCT00567190|183546577|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.84||Exploratory|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|Event-Driven Final OS Analysis: This final OS analysis was event-driven and planned to take place after a total of 385 deaths had occurred. It is considered exploratory only as the confirmatory OS analysis for statistical interpretation had previously occurred at the second interim OS analysis.||0.84|0.56|0.0002
91833375|NCT00567190|183546577|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84||The threshold for statistical significance was HR≤0.739, p≤0.0138.|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio (HR) is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|Second Interim OS Analysis: For this second interim OS analysis, the pre-defined O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for the Lan-DeMets α-spending function was: HR≤0.739, p≤0.0138.||0.84|0.52|0.0008
91706810|NCT01964989|183307733|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the unadjusted difference of percentages of subjects seroconverted for HI antibody exceeds 0%.|Seroconversion difference|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.4||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2.||8.4|1.9|
91706811|NCT01964989|183307733|SUPERIORITY||Seroconversion difference|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|24.5||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM.||24.5|18.1|
91833376|NCT00567190|183546577|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88||The threshold for statistical significance was HR≤0.603, p≤0.0012.|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio (HR) is comparing pertuzumab with placebo arms.|First Interim OS Analysis: For this first interim OS analysis, the pre-defined O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for the Lan-DeMets α-spending function was: HR≤0.603, p≤0.0012.||0.88|0.47|0.0050
91833377|NCT00567190|183546578|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.81|||Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|PFS by Investigator - Stratified||0.81|0.59|<0.0001
91706812|NCT01964989|183307733|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the unadjusted difference of percentages of subjects seroconverted for HI antibody exceeds 0%.|Seroconversion difference|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|17.3||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC.||17.3|10.0|
91833378|NCT00567190|183546579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Objective Response Rates|10.83||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Difference in the objective response rates between arms is calculated as Pertuzumab arm minus Placebo arm. The 95% CI was calculated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference in Objective Response (CR + PR) Between Arms||17.5|4.2|0.0011
91833379|NCT00567190|183546579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.54||||||Odds Ratio for Objective Response (CR + PR)||2.54|1.26|
91833380|NCT00567190|183546580|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85||||||||0.85|0.51|
91833381|NCT00567190|183546581|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.7161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Log Rank (stratified)||Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|||1.16|0.81|0.7161
91833382|NCT00567190|183546590|OTHER|||||||0.7174|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Wilcoxon Test of Maximum Decrease in LVEF From BL||||0.7174
91833383|NCT03184792|183546620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|12.4|||ANOVA|||||12.4|6.6|<0.000
91833384|NCT03184792|183546620|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|17.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.0|3.7|0.010
91833385|NCT03184792|183546621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91833386|NCT00374322|183546627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08||The p-value was calculated from a stratified log-rank test, stratifying for hormone receptor status, time since initial diagnosis, and lymph node involvement.|Log Rank||Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (HR) was calcuated using the pike estimator.|||1.08|0.77|0.286
91833387|NCT00313820|183546654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.578||95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and country as factors and baseline pain score as covariate.||Modelled Results: Endpoint Mean Pain Score Pregabalin vs Placebo||0.4|-0.7|0.578
91833388|NCT00313820|183546654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.294||95.0||||Interaction p-value based on adding interaction term to the main model.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results: Treatment by country interaction||||0.294
91833389|NCT00313820|183546655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.161||95.0|-0.8|0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results||0.1|-0.8|0.161
91833390|NCT00313820|183546655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.062||95.0|-1.0|0.0||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results||0.0|-1.0|0.062
91833391|NCT00313820|183546655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.024||95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results||-0.1|-1.1|0.024
91833392|NCT00313820|183546655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.026||95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results||-0.1|-1.1|0.026
91833393|NCT00313820|183546655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.105||95.0|-0.9|0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 9 Modelled Results||0.1|-0.9|0.105
91833394|NCT00313820|183546655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.592||95.0|-0.6|0.4||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Modelled Results||0.4|-0.6|0.592
91833395|NCT00313820|183546656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.087||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for country under the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30% Responders||||0.087
91833396|NCT00313820|183546657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for country under the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% Responders||||0.622
91833397|NCT00313820|183546658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.027||95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Modelled Results||-0.1|-1.0|0.027
91833398|NCT00313820|183546658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.038||95.0|-1.0|0.0||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Modelled Results||-0.0|-1.0|0.038
91833399|NCT00313820|183546658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004||95.0|-1.2|-0.2||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Modelled Results||-0.2|-1.2|0.004
91833400|NCT00313820|183546658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.005||95.0|-1.1|-0.2||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Modelled Results||-0.2|-1.1|0.005
91833401|NCT00313820|183546658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.078||95.0|-0.9|0.0||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 9; Modelled Results||0.0|-0.9|0.078
91833402|NCT00313820|183546658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.663||95.0|-0.6|0.4||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Modelled Results||0.4|-0.6|0.663
91833403|NCT00313820|183546658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.627||95.0|-0.6|0.4||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Endpoint \[Week 12 or ET\]; Modelled Results||0.4|-0.6|0.627
91833404|NCT00313820|183546659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.741||95.0|-7.0|5.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||5.0|-7.0|0.741
91833405|NCT00313820|183546660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.216||95.0|-1.0|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Burning Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.2|-1.0|0.216
91833406|NCT00313820|183546660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.76||95.0|-0.4|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Pressing Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.6|-0.4|0.760
91833407|NCT00313820|183546660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.36||95.0|-0.7|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) general linear model with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.3|-0.7|0.360
91833408|NCT00313820|183546660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.239||95.0|-0.8|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Evoked Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.2|-0.8|0.239
91833409|NCT00313820|183546660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.118||95.0|-1.0|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||P/D Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.1|-1.0|0.118
91833410|NCT00313820|183546660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.138||95.0|-6.5|0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total Score Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.9|-6.5|0.138
91833411|NCT00313820|183546661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.086||95.0|-10.3|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sleep disturbance; Modelled Results||0.7|-10.3|0.086
91833412|NCT00313820|183546661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.039||95.0|0.4|15.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Snoring score; Modelled Results||15.1|0.4|0.039
91833413|NCT00313820|183546661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.169||95.0|-9.1|1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Awaken SOB or headache; Modelled Results||1.6|-9.1|0.169
91833414|NCT00313820|183546661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.03||95.0|0.0|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sleep quantity; Modelled Results||0.7|0.0|0.030
91833415|NCT00313820|183546661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44||0.013||95.0|1.8|15.4||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sleep adequacy; Modelled Results||15.4|1.8|0.013
91833416|NCT00313820|183546661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.399||95.0|-2.8|7.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Somnolence; Modelled Results||7.1|-2.8|0.399
91706813|NCT01964989|183307734|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|13.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1.||13.7|9.4|
91706814|NCT01964989|183307734|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|9.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2.||9.7|6.1|
91833417|NCT00313820|183546661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.049||95.0|-8.4|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Overall sleep problems index; Modelled Results||-0.0|-8.4|0.049
91833418|NCT00313820|183546662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.201||95.0|0.8|2.9||Estimated from a logistic regression model with treatment and the baseline assessment as factors.|Regression, Logistic||Standard error of the mean = standard error of the odds ratio.|Modelled Results||2.9|0.8|0.201
91833419|NCT00313820|183546663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.015||95.0|-1.8|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 \[LOCF\] Anxiety score; Modelled Results||-0.2|-1.8|0.015
91833420|NCT00313820|183546663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.6||95.0|-0.6|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 \[LOCF\] Depression score; Modelled Results||1.0|-0.6|0.600
91833421|NCT00313820|183546664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.566||95.0|-0.1|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||0.1|-0.1|0.566
91833422|NCT00313820|183546665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.22||95.0|-1.8|7.9||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and coutntry as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||7.9|-1.8|0.220
91833423|NCT00313820|183546666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.144||95.0|-0.5|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treament and country as factors.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||0.1|-0.5|0.144
91833424|NCT00313820|183546667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.049||95.0|-0.6|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||-0.0|-0.6|0.049
91833425|NCT02453685|183546675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference at week 32|0.18||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||"'Treatment difference' refers to BIAsp 30 minus Basal-bolus"|Analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measurements including treatment, region, and strata as fixed effects, HbA1c at baseline as covariate, interactions between all fixed effects and visit and using an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.36|0.01|0.0435
91833426|NCT01984697|183546699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.53|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.53|1.83|<0.001
91833427|NCT01984697|183546699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.36|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.36|1.73|<0.001
91833428|NCT01984697|183546699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|4.11|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.11|2.93|<0.001
91833429|NCT01984697|183546700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.0|-1.8|<0.001
91833430|NCT01984697|183546700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.0|<0.001
91833431|NCT01984697|183546700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.1|<0.001
91833432|NCT01984697|183546701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|2.82|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.82|2.03|<0.001
91833433|NCT01984697|183546701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|2.88|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.88|2.09|<0.001
91833434|NCT01984697|183546701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|5.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|5.94|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||5.94|4.32|<0.001
91833435|NCT01984697|183546702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.0|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.00|2.14|<0.001
91833436|NCT01984697|183546702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|3.15|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.15|2.29|<0.001
91833437|NCT01984697|183546702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|4.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|5.37|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||5.37|3.84|<0.001
91833438|NCT01984697|183546703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.96|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.96|2.05|<0.001
91644166|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.373|3.611|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||3.611|3.373|<.0001
91833439|NCT01984697|183546703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|2.92|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.92|2.04|<0.001
91833440|NCT01984697|183546703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.45|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.45|3.06|<0.001
91833441|NCT01984697|183546704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.0|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.00|2.10|<0.001
91833442|NCT01984697|183546704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.12|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.12|2.20|<0.001
91833443|NCT01984697|183546704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|4.45|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.45|3.08|<0.001
91833444|NCT01984697|183546705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.5|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.50|2.50|<0.001
91833445|NCT01984697|183546705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|3.5|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.50|2.55|<0.001
91833446|NCT01984697|183546705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|6.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|7.43|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||7.43|5.36|<0.001
91833447|NCT01984697|183546706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.03|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.03|1.38|<0.001
91833448|NCT01984697|183546706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.99|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.99|1.37|<0.001
91833449|NCT01984697|183546706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.37|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.37|1.61|<0.001
91833450|NCT01984697|183546707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.87|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.87|1.36|<0.001
91833451|NCT01984697|183546707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.05|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.05|1.51|<0.001
91833452|NCT01984697|183546707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|3.61|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.61|2.64|<0.001
91833453|NCT01984697|183546708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|3.01|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.01|2.15|<0.001
91833454|NCT01984697|183546708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.16|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.16|2.30|<0.001
91833455|NCT01984697|183546708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|4.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|5.86|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||5.86|4.23|<0.001
91833456|NCT01984697|183546709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.1|<0.001
91833457|NCT01984697|183546709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.0|<0.001
91833458|NCT01984697|183546709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.1|<0.001
91833459|NCT01984697|183546710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.2|-1.0|<0.001
91833460|NCT01984697|183546710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.2|-1.0|<0.001
91833461|NCT01984697|183546710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.2|-1.0|<0.001
91833462|NCT01984697|183546711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.8|0.1|<0.001
91833463|NCT01984697|183546711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.8|0.1|<0.001
91833464|NCT01984697|183546711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.8|0.1|<0.001
91833465|NCT01984697|183546712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.8|-1.7|<0.001
91833466|NCT01984697|183546712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
91833467|NCT01984697|183546712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
91833468|NCT01984697|183546713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.7|-1.7|<0.001
91833469|NCT01984697|183546713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.0|-1.0|<0.001
91833470|NCT01984697|183546713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.0|-1.1|<0.001
91833471|NCT01984697|183546714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.0|-0.7|<0.001
91833472|NCT01984697|183546714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.0|-0.7|<0.001
91833473|NCT01984697|183546714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.6|0.7|<0.001
91833474|NCT01984697|183546715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.7|-1.7|<0.001
91833475|NCT01984697|183546715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
91833476|NCT01984697|183546715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
91833477|NCT01984697|183546716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
91833478|NCT01984697|183546716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
91833479|NCT01984697|183546716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.1|<0.001
91833480|NCT01345630|183546721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the analysis of the primary endpoint conducted at Week 48, the alternative hypothesis was to test for non-inferiority of MVC+DRV/r to FTC/TDF+DRV/r with a non-inferiority margin of -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|-4.24||||||The difference in the percentages between the maraviroc and the emtricitabine/tenofovir treatment arms and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference was provided using the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method over the two assays and the screening plasma HIV-1 RNA levels (\>=100,000 copies/mL or \<100,000 copies/mL). The sample size was chosen to yield a power of ≥90%. The 95% CIs and mean difference (final values) are presented as percentages above.||-4.24|-14.83|
91833481|NCT01345630|183546729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0303|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1343|-0.0157||||||The difference in proportions of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL at Week 48 between the \[MVC+DRV/r\] and the \[FTC/TDF+DRV/r\] treatment arms, with two-sided 95% confidence interval, is shown for those patients who were R5 by genotype (including all who were originally randomized to ESTA and were R5 by genotype upon retesting), via the maximum likelihood (ML) method.||-0.0157|-0.1343|
91833482|NCT01345630|183546734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|23.6|||ANCOVA|||Results were from an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||23.6|-24.4|0.9750
91833483|NCT01345630|183546735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Results were from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||-1.5|-3.1|<0.0001
91833484|NCT01345630|183546736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|127.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.5|178.8|||ANCOVA|||Results were from ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||178.8|76.5|<0.0001
91833485|NCT01345630|183546737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.1|||ANCOVA|||Results were from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||3.1|1.1|<0.0001
91833486|NCT01345630|183546738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||-0.07|-0.15|<0.0001
91833487|NCT01345630|183546739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.861||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-658.181|809.903|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||809.903|-658.181|0.8379
91833488|NCT01345630|183546740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.094|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.094|-0.033|0.3376
91833489|NCT01345630|183546741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.023|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.023|0.004|0.0043
91833490|NCT01345630|183546742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.2273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.022|-0.005|0.2273
91833491|NCT01345630|183546743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.018|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.018|-0.007|0.4188
91833492|NCT01345630|183546744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.94|-5.17|0.1722
91833493|NCT01345630|183546745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-126.78||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.34|-35.23|||ANCOVA|||Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||-35.23|-218.34|0.0071
91833494|NCT04676425|183546746|OTHER||Least-Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.01|||||Moderate hepatic impairment participants represent the numerator and healthy participants represent the denominator in the geometric mean ratio.|||2.01|0.70|
91833495|NCT04676425|183546747|OTHER||Least-Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.74|||||Moderate hepatic impairment participants represent the numerator and healthy participants represent the denominator in the geometric mean ratio.|||1.74|0.86|
91833496|NCT02597907|183546778|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91833497|NCT00949715|183546779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|10.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||HO: Pacing at selective RV sites (mid-septum or apex) has no different impact on the change in LVEF after 24 months follow-up. With 12% SD and 80 subjects in groups will have 90% power to detect an absolute difference in LVEF of 6.2% at 24 months follow-up at an alpha level of 0.05.||10.8|-2.7|0.2352
91833498|NCT00949715|183546780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Ho: Packing at selective RV sites (mid-Septum or apex) has no different impact on LVEF change from 2 weeks to 24 months.||5.5|-7.6|0.7405
91833499|NCT00949715|183546781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Ho: Pacing at selective sites (RVS or RVA) has no different impact on LV end systolic volume||2.4|-25.1|0.1051
91833500|NCT00949715|183546782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.9||||0.9835||95.0||||Adjusting for age and gender|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Rank Sum||Ho: The AT/AF burden in the RVS group is the same as the RVA group.||||0.9835
91833501|NCT00939874|183546813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91833502|NCT02231177|183546817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.27|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.27|0.99|
91833503|NCT02231177|183546818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.22|1.01|
91833504|NCT02231177|183546819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.06|0.91|
91833505|NCT02231177|183546820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.13|0.98|
91833506|NCT02231177|183546821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.98|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||0.98|0.83|
91833507|NCT02231177|183546822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg : Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.07|0.87|
91706815|NCT01964989|183307734|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|25.6||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM.||25.6|18.1|
91706816|NCT01964989|183307734|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|25.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC.||25.7|15.9|
91833508|NCT02231177|183546823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg : Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.12|0.93|
91833509|NCT02231177|183546824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg : Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.00|0.84|
91833510|NCT02231177|183546825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.77|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg; Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.77|0.98|
91833511|NCT02231177|183546826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg; Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.24|0.79|
91833512|NCT02954354|183546858|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-17.8||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||The primary analysis of time to alleviation of symptoms was a comparison of baloxavir with placebo in all participants in the intention-to-treat infection population. Statistical tests were performed at the 0.05 significance level.||-17.8|-35.8|<0.0001
91833513|NCT02954354|183546858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||<0.0001
91833514|NCT02954354|183546859|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.3||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.6||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||A secondary analysis of time to alleviation of symptoms, consisting of a comparison between the 20 to 64 years of age stratum of the baloxavir group and the oseltamivir group, was conducted if statistical significance was observed in the primary analysis in order to maintain the overall Type I error.||6.6|-6.6|0.7560
91833515|NCT02954354|183546859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3761||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||0.3761
91833516|NCT02954354|183546860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
91833517|NCT02954354|183546860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
91833518|NCT02954354|183546860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||<0.0001
91833519|NCT02954354|183546860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||<0.0001
91833520|NCT02954354|183546860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4767||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.4767
91833521|NCT02954354|183546860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3353||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.3353
91833522|NCT02954354|183546861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
91833523|NCT02954354|183546861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
91833524|NCT02954354|183546861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0852||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.0852
91833525|NCT02954354|183546861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0063
91833526|NCT02954354|183546861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6187||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.6187
91706817|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|9.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:110 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||9.7|5.9|
91833527|NCT02954354|183546861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8637||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|||Day 9||||0.8637
91833528|NCT02954354|183546862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6145||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||0.6145
91833529|NCT02954354|183546862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2505||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||0.2505
91833530|NCT02954354|183546862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.4190
91833531|NCT02954354|183546862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0095
91833532|NCT02954354|183546862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7393||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.7393
91833533|NCT02954354|183546862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.0049
91833534|NCT02954354|183546863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2266||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||0.2266
91833535|NCT02954354|183546863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1379||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||0.1379
91833536|NCT02954354|183546863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5479||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.5479
91833537|NCT02954354|183546863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0241||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0241
91833538|NCT02954354|183546863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0898||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.0898
91833539|NCT02954354|183546863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2548||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.2548
91833540|NCT02954354|183546864|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
91833541|NCT02954354|183546864|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
91833542|NCT02954354|183546864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.0008
91833543|NCT02954354|183546864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0132
91706818|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|11.9||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:151 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||11.9|7.8|
91833544|NCT02954354|183546864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9307||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.9307
91833545|NCT02954354|183546864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1677||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.1677
91833546|NCT02954354|183546865|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
91833547|NCT02954354|183546865|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
91833548|NCT02954354|183546865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.8010
91833549|NCT02954354|183546865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9451||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.9451
91833550|NCT02954354|183546865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2256||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.2256
91833551|NCT02954354|183546865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3332||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.3332
91833552|NCT02954354|183546866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
91833553|NCT02954354|183546866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
91833554|NCT02954354|183546866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||<0.0001
91833555|NCT02954354|183546866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||<0.0001
91833556|NCT02954354|183546866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.0010
91833557|NCT02954354|183546866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.0002
91833558|NCT02954354|183546867|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
91833559|NCT02954354|183546867|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
91833560|NCT02954354|183546867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4148||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.4148
91833561|NCT02954354|183546867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0338
91833562|NCT02954354|183546867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9619||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.9619
91833563|NCT02954354|183546867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8491||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.8491
91833564|NCT02954354|183546868|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
91833565|NCT02954354|183546869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.0313
91833566|NCT02954354|183546870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
91833567|NCT02954354|183546871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2424||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.2424
91833568|NCT02954354|183546872|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-72.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-48.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||-48.0|-72.0|<0.0001
91833569|NCT02954354|183546873|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-24.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||-24.0|-72.0|<0.0001
91833570|NCT02954354|183546874|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.0|0.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||0.0|-120.0|0.0020
91833571|NCT02954354|183546875|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.0||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|24.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||24.0|-48.0|0.0102
91833572|NCT02954354|183546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5973||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.5973
91833573|NCT02954354|183546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||0.0010
91833574|NCT02954354|183546876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||<0.0001
91833575|NCT02954354|183546876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||48 hours||||<0.0001
91833576|NCT02954354|183546876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||<0.0001
91833577|NCT02954354|183546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0115||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||96 hours||||0.0115
91833578|NCT02954354|183546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1298||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.1298
91833579|NCT02954354|183546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||144 hours||||0.1170
91833580|NCT02954354|183546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0757||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.0757
91706819|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|18.7||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:215 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||18.7|13.5|
91833581|NCT02954354|183546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9453||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.9453
91833582|NCT02954354|183546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8657||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.8657
91833583|NCT02954354|183546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0458||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.0458
91833584|NCT02954354|183546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7565||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||0.7565
91833585|NCT02954354|183546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3297||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||0.3297
91833586|NCT02954354|183546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4442||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||48 hours||||0.4442
91706820|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|26.4||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:330 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||26.4|19.8|
91833587|NCT02954354|183546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6029||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||0.6029
91833588|NCT02954354|183546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9881||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||96 hours||||0.9881
91833589|NCT02954354|183546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9257||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.9257
91833590|NCT02954354|183546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5317||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||144 hours||||0.5317
91833591|NCT02954354|183546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2144||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.2144
91833592|NCT02954354|183546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0413||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.0413
91833593|NCT02954354|183546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0409||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.0409
91833594|NCT02954354|183546878|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-19.8|||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
91833595|NCT02954354|183546879|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7||||0.4194||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.4194
91833596|NCT02954354|183546880|SUPERIORITY|The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Difference|-23.1|||<|0.0001|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
91833597|NCT02954354|183546881|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.3||||0.4856||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.4856
91833598|NCT02954354|183546882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||12 hours||0.7|-0.5|0.7173
91833599|NCT02954354|183546882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||24 hours||-0.4|-1.7|0.0009
91833600|NCT02954354|183546882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||36 hours||-1.1|-2.4|<0.0001
91833601|NCT02954354|183546882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.2||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||48 hours||-1.2|-2.4|<0.0001
91833602|NCT02954354|183546882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.9||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||72 hours||-0.9|-2.0|<0.0001
91833603|NCT02954354|183546882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||96 hours||-0.5|-1.5|0.0001
91833604|NCT02954354|183546882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||120 hours||0.2|-0.8|0.1979
91896021|NCT04874415|183687452|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
91833605|NCT02954354|183546882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||144 hours||0.1|-0.8|0.1079
91833606|NCT02954354|183546882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||168 hours||0.3|-0.6|0.5805
91833607|NCT02954354|183546882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||192 hours||0.5|-0.4|0.8057
91833608|NCT02954354|183546882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||216 hours||0.6|-0.6|0.9525
91833609|NCT02954354|183546883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||12 hours||0.8|-0.3|0.4091
91833610|NCT02954354|183546883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||24 hours||0.8|-0.3|0.3073
91833611|NCT02954354|183546883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||36 hours||0.3|-0.8|0.3465
91833612|NCT02954354|183546883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||48 hours||0.7|-0.3|0.4285
91833613|NCT02954354|183546883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||72 hours||0.6|-0.4|0.6703
91833614|NCT02954354|183546883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||96 hours||0.5|-0.3|0.7187
91833615|NCT02954354|183546883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||120 hours||0.7|-0.1|0.1350
91833616|NCT02954354|183546883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||144 hours||0.5|-0.3|0.7046
91833617|NCT02954354|183546883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||168 hours||0.6|-0.2|0.2765
91833618|NCT02954354|183546883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||192 hours||0.8|0.0|0.0274
91833619|NCT02954354|183546883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||216 hours||0.6|-0.3|0.6001
91833620|NCT02954354|183546884|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-11.9||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||-11.9|-21.1|<0.0001
91833621|NCT02954354|183546885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9225||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.9225
91833622|NCT02954354|183546886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7866||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.7866
91833623|NCT02954354|183546886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||<0.0001
91833624|NCT02954354|183546886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||<0.0001
91833625|NCT02954354|183546886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||48 hours||||<0.0001
91833626|NCT02954354|183546886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||<0.0001
91833627|NCT02954354|183546886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7044||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||96 hours||||0.7044
91833628|NCT02954354|183546886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8512||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.8512
91833629|NCT02954354|183546886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8783||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||144 hours||||0.8783
91833630|NCT02954354|183546886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8291||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.8291
91833631|NCT02954354|183546886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8644||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.8644
91833632|NCT02954354|183546886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9312||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.9312
91833633|NCT02954354|183546887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2953||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.2953
91833634|NCT02954354|183546887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5414||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||0.5414
91833635|NCT02954354|183546887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2079||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||0.2079
91833636|NCT02954354|183546887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7771||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||48 hours||||0.7771
91833637|NCT02954354|183546887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||0.0215
91833638|NCT02954354|183546887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8033||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||96 hours||||0.8033
91833639|NCT02954354|183546887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4157||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.4157
91833640|NCT02954354|183546887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5908||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||144 hours||||0.5908
91833641|NCT02954354|183546887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2975||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.2975
91833642|NCT02954354|183546887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8644||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.8644
91833643|NCT02954354|183546887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5573||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.m|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.5573
91833644|NCT02954354|183546888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||0.06|-0.24|0.2557
91833645|NCT02954354|183546888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.22||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||-0.22|-0.46|<0.0001
91833646|NCT02954354|183546888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.29||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||-0.29|-0.52|<0.0001
91833647|NCT02954354|183546888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.27||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||-0.27|-0.48|<0.0001
91833648|NCT02954354|183546888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.13||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||-0.13|-0.31|<0.0001
91833649|NCT02954354|183546888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Dfference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.06||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.06|-0.13|0.4484
91833650|NCT02954354|183546888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||0.11|-0.07|0.5963
91833651|NCT02954354|183546889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||0.24|-0.02|0.0937
91833652|NCT02954354|183546889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||0.16|-0.05|0.3343
91833653|NCT02954354|183546889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||0.10|-0.09|0.9258
91833654|NCT02954354|183546889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||0.06|-0.10|0.6574
91833655|NCT02954354|183546889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||0.07|-0.09|0.8520
91833656|NCT02954354|183546889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.11||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.11|-0.05|0.4532
91833657|NCT02954354|183546889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||120 hours||0.13|-0.02|0.1570
91833658|NCT02954354|183546890|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-23.1||||0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Cough||||0.0001
91833659|NCT02954354|183546890|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.0||||0.0298||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Sore throat||||0.0298
91833660|NCT02954354|183546890|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.8||||0.0297||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Headache||||0.0297
91833661|NCT02954354|183546890|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.7||||0.0027||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Nasal Congestion||||0.0027
91833662|NCT02954354|183546890|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.9||||0.0003||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||Feverishness or chills||||0.0003
91833663|NCT02954354|183546890|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.1||||0.0094||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Muscle or joint pain||||0.0094
91833664|NCT02954354|183546890|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.3||||0.0007||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Fatigue||||0.0007
91833665|NCT02954354|183546891|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.8||||0.6623||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Cough||||0.6623
91833666|NCT02954354|183546891|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.8||||0.8184||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Sore throat||||0.8184
91833667|NCT02954354|183546891|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.3||||0.9989||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Headache||||0.9989
91833668|NCT02954354|183546891|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.7||||0.3706||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Nasal congestion||||0.3706
91833669|NCT02954354|183546891|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.1||||0.9973||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Feverishness or chills||||0.9973
91833670|NCT02954354|183546891|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7||||0.676||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Muscle or joint pain||||0.6760
91833671|NCT02954354|183546891|SUPERIORITY||Difference|2.2||||0.4241||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Fatigue||||0.4241
91833672|NCT02954354|183546892|SUPERIORITY|The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Difference|-39.5||||0.0563|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.0563
91833673|NCT02954354|183546893|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.6||||0.7176||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.7176
91833674|NCT02954354|183546894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6728||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||0.6728
91833675|NCT02954354|183546895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2217||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||0.2217
91706821|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|27.6||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:629 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||27.6|20.6|
91833676|NCT03039023|183546902|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.2||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.20
91833677|NCT03039023|183546902|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
91833678|NCT03039023|183546902|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
91833679|NCT03039023|183546902|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
91833680|NCT03039023|183546902|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.27||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.27
91833681|NCT03039023|183546903|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.1||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.10
91833682|NCT03039023|183546903|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.0002||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0002
91833683|NCT03039023|183546903|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.01||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.01
91833684|NCT03039023|183546903|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.006||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.006
91833685|NCT03039023|183546903|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.79||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.79
91833686|NCT03039023|183546904|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.28||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.28
91833687|NCT03039023|183546904|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
91833688|NCT03039023|183546904|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
91833689|NCT03039023|183546904|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
91833690|NCT03039023|183546904|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.11||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.11
91833691|NCT03039023|183546905|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.005||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.005
91833692|NCT03039023|183546905|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.001
91833693|NCT03039023|183546905|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.001
91833694|NCT03039023|183546905|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.009||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.009
91833695|NCT03039023|183546905|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.04||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.04
91833696|NCT03039023|183546906|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.93||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.93
91833697|NCT03039023|183546906|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.01||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.01
91833698|NCT03039023|183546906|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.003||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.003
91833699|NCT03039023|183546906|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.04||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.04
91833700|NCT03039023|183546906|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.99||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.99
91833701|NCT03039023|183546907|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.02||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.02
91833702|NCT03039023|183546907|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
91833703|NCT03039023|183546907|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
91833704|NCT03039023|183546907|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.001
91833705|NCT03039023|183546907|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.02||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.02
91833706|NCT00448448|183546925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|The success rate was adjusted for the propensity score (probability of receiving a brace) and the duration of follow-up.||||3.46|1.08|<0.0267
91833707|NCT02684006|183546931|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|0.79||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.790|0.475|0.0001
91833708|NCT02684006|183546932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.057||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.057|0.701|0.1509
91833709|NCT02684006|183546933|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.84||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.840|0.563|0.0002
91833710|NCT02684006|183546934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.039||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.039|0.749|0.1338
91833711|NCT02684006|183546943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.768||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.768|0.565|<.0001
91833712|NCT02684006|183546944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|0.754||||||||0.754|0.551|
91833713|NCT00162370|183547011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis evaluated is that the scores are not associated with outcome. Of the two measures, wall motion index is considered to be the primary endpoint measure. The cardiac event rate will be summarized by categorical levels of wall motion index score and the difference in wall motion index score.||||0.014
91833714|NCT00162370|183547012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.0001
91833715|NCT01895972|183547068|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reduction from baseline in IOP was significant at all post-baseline assessment time points through Week 52.|t-test, 2 sided|||comparison vs. baseline||||<0.001
91833716|NCT04085328|183547072|NON_INFERIORITY|Predefined margin of 0.05 for noninferiority|Difference in proportion|-0.0154|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.0015|||Generalized linear model|Proportion of events was analyzed using a generalized linear model, with a logit link function, accounting for within-subject correlation.|Difference in proportion = LID015385 minus Biofinity.|||-0.0015||
91833717|NCT01422408|183547096|OTHER|Two-sided test that the change is different from zero. Not tested against alternative treatment; single arm study.|||||<|0.001||||||2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal dryness from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in symptoms of dyspareunia from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.||||<0.001
91852152|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.8821|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-29.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-29.3|0.8821
91706822|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|7.5||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:110 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||7.5|4.5|
91833718|NCT01422408|183547096|OTHER|Exact McNemar's test was used to test if the proportion of severe symptoms at baseline are equal to the proportion of severe symptoms at the end of the study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.36||Since there are two-co-primary endpoints, the significance level is 2.5%|McNemar|||"GEE (general estimating equation) methods were planned as a secondary analysis of the primary endpoints. Missing data for some of the weeks prevented these models from converging and we could not obtain valid results with these methods. Since this is a secondary analysis, we decided to compare symptom severity at baseline vs. week 4 (end of study). Symptoms are considered severe for scores 3 or 4 and not severe for scores 0, 1, 2"||0.36|0|0.001
91833719|NCT01422408|183547097|OTHER|Two-sided test that the change is different from zero. Not tested against alternative treatment; single arm study.||||||0.002||||||2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal dryness from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in symptoms of dyspareunia from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.||||0.002
91833720|NCT01422408|183547097|OTHER|Exact McNemar's test was used to test if the proportion of severe symptoms at baseline are equal to the proportion of severe symptoms at the end of the study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.09||Since there are two-co-primary endpoints, the significance level is 2.5%|McNemar|||"GEE (general estimating equations) methods were planned as a secondary analysis of the primary endpoints. Missing data for some of the weeks prevented these models from converging and we could not obtain valid results with these methods. Since this is a secondary analysis, we decided to compare symptom severity at baseline vs. week 4 (end of study). Symptoms are considered severe for scores 3 or 4 and not severe for scores 0, 1, 2"||1.09|0|0.062
91833721|NCT01422408|183547098|OTHER|Two-sided test that the change is different from zero. Not tested against alternative treatment; single arm study.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The secondary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal itching from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in vaginal index score from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-secondary endpoints.||||0.001
91833722|NCT01422408|183547099|OTHER|2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The secondary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal itching from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in vaginal index score from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-secondary endpoints.||||0.002
91833723|NCT01422408|183547101|OTHER|||||||0.1029||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.1029
91833724|NCT01422408|183547102|OTHER|||||||0.2678||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.2678
91833725|NCT01422408|183547103|OTHER|||||||0.2472||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.2472
91833726|NCT01422408|183547104|OTHER|||||||0.507||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.507
91833727|NCT01422408|183547105|OTHER|||||||0.3676||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.3676
91833728|NCT01422408|183547106|OTHER|||||||0.6023||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.6023
91833729|NCT01422408|183547107|OTHER|||||||0.6587||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.6587
91833730|NCT01422408|183547108|OTHER|||||||0.8772||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.8772
91900815|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0|-2.3|0.9725
91706823|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|9.6||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:151 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||9.6|6.1|
91833731|NCT01422408|183547109|OTHER|||||||0.7395||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.7395
91833732|NCT01422408|183547110|OTHER|||||||0.9618||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.9618
91833733|NCT01422408|183547111|OTHER|||||||0.5113||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.5113
91833734|NCT01422408|183547112|OTHER|||||||0.8833||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.8833
91833735|NCT01422408|183547113|OTHER|||||||0.7983||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.7983
91833736|NCT01422408|183547114|OTHER|||||||0.4937||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.4937
91833737|NCT01422408|183547115|OTHER|||||||0.9106||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.9106
91833738|NCT01422408|183547116|OTHER|||||||0.507||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.507
91833739|NCT01422408|183547117|OTHER|||||||0.3676||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.3676
91833740|NCT01422408|183547118|OTHER|||||||0.6023||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.6023
91833741|NCT01422408|183547119|OTHER|||||||0.08531||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.08531
91833742|NCT01422408|183547120|OTHER|||||||0.2011||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.2011
91833743|NCT01422408|183547121|OTHER|||||||0.1187||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.1187
91833744|NCT02038894|183547129|NON_INFERIORITY|A previous study for evaluating respiratory complications with intubated and insufflated techniques found a difference in the incidence of respiratory complications of 9.1%, a power analysis was determined. 200 subjects per group was estimated provide 82% power to detect a difference. We elected to do an interim analysis when 60 children per group were recruited because of a clinical impression that one of the techniques had a grossly divergent incidence of respiratory complications.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14||Threshold for significance \<0.05 Comparing SPO2 \<95%|Mean equality test|||||0.14|0|<0.0001
91852153|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.7591|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.4|0.7591
91900816|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.7188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.8|-1.5|0.7188
91833745|NCT02038894|183547129|NON_INFERIORITY|A previous study found an incidence of respiratory complications of 9.1%. 200 subjects per group was estimated provide 82% power to detect a difference when conducting a two- sided test at a significance level of a = 0.05.We did an interim analysis when 60 children per group were recruited because of a clinical impression that one of the techniques had a grossly divergent incidence of respiratory complications. Based on the results of that interim analysis, recruitment was discontinued|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.27||p\<0.05. Sp02\<85%|Mean equality test||Odds ratios were calculated to the respiratory complications comparing the different groups and by regrouping by the differences in airway management (IS + IP vs NA) and by the medication used for anesthesia maintenance (IS vs IP + NA)|||0.27|0|0.0001
91833746|NCT02038894|183547130|NON_INFERIORITY|No previous data was available to calculate a power calculation for the secondary outcome.||||||0.901||||||Threshold of Significance|Mean equality test|||Total OR Time||||0.901
91833747|NCT00724152|183547131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: The Cognitive Behavioral Therapy group would not demonstrate decreased distress at post-treatment as compared to the Tinnitus Education group on the primary outcome measure (THI) between pre-treatment and post-treatment.||||<0.05
91833748|NCT03266770|183547142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.29|-1.07|0.83
91833749|NCT04274894|183547144|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis for the primary safety analysis is:~H0: Change in 24-hour average SBP from Baseline to EOT ≥ 3 mmHg Vs. H1: Change in 24-hour average SBP from Baseline to EOT \< 3 mmHg"|LS Mean Change from Baseline to EOT|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.13||||||The primary endpoint of change from Baseline to End of Treatment (EOT) in average 24-hour SBP was evaluated using a linear regression model with change in average 24-hour SBP from Baseline to EOT as the dependent variable, centralized baseline average 24-hour SBP, ongoing medical history of hypertension, and pooled study center as covariates in the per protocol population.||3.13|0.63|
91833750|NCT03848403|183547150|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means Difference|-21.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.48|-26.90|<0.0001
91833751|NCT03848403|183547150|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-21.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.39|-15.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.88|-26.39|<0.0001
91833752|NCT03848403|183547150|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|0.55||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.75|-4.65|0.8341
91833753|NCT00101933|183547171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0||||Since a treatment-by-visit interaction remains in the final model, the results were analyzed by visit. The results shown are for the last month in the blinded phase (month 3-4).|Generalized Estimating Equations|This analysis is adjusted for significant baseline covariates.||The numbers presented are the percentage reduction in the number of seizures in each group. A negative percentage change indicates a seizure reduction.||||0.0017
91833754|NCT00101933|183547173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate per 1000 years of stimulation|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|17.79|||No statistical test||The rate is calculated per 1000 subject years of follow-up based on 406 subject years of stimulation. The confidence interval is the 95% Poisson confidence interval. Per protocol, only definite and probable SUDEP were included in the calculation.|||17.79|0.60|
91833755|NCT00101933|183547174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact test. The numbers presented in this analysis are the number of subjects who were responders based on a responder definition including all subjects with 50% or greater improvement in total seizure count.||||0.830
91833756|NCT00101933|183547175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.105
91833757|NCT00101933|183547176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.498
91833758|NCT00101933|183547177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91833759|NCT00101933|183547178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387||95.0||||Since a visit-by-treatment interaction did not remain in the final model, the results shown are for the entire blinded phase.|Generalized Estimating Equations|This analysis is adjusted for significant baseline covariates.||The numbers presented are the percentage reduction in the number of seizures in each group. A negative percentage change indicates a seizure reduction.||||0.0387
91833760|NCT00101933|183547179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Numbers provided indicate the percentage change from baseline in seizure frequency of each participant's most severe seizures. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.||||0.047
91833761|NCT01218126|183547214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4.||5.2|-10.4|0.517
91833762|NCT01218126|183547214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.5|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||6.5|-8.9|0.763
91833763|NCT01218126|183547214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|13.3|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||13.3|-2.3|0.164
91833764|NCT01218126|183547214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.5|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||10.5|-9.2|0.900
91833765|NCT01218126|183547214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|8.4|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||8.4|-11.1|0.788
91833766|NCT01218126|183547214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|11.8|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||11.8|-8.2|0.722
91833767|NCT01218126|183547214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|4.9|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||4.9|-18.2|0.260
91833768|NCT01218126|183547214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.8|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||6.8|-16.1|0.422
91833769|NCT01218126|183547214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|8.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||8.2|-15.1|0.564
91833770|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|38.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||38|-39|0.968
91833771|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|31.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||31|-45|0.715
91833772|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|66.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||66|-10|0.152
91833773|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|40.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||40|-45|0.922
91833774|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|50.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||50|-34|0.694
91833775|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|79.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||79|-6.3|0.094
91833776|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||58|-26|0.456
91833777|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|61.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||61|-22|0.355
91833778|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|91.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||91|6.7|0.023
91833779|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|65.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||65|-21|0.320
91833780|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|67.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||67|-19|0.267
91833781|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|67.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||67|-20|0.289
91833782|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|49.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||49|-37|0.786
91833783|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|76.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||76|-10|0.134
91833784|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.0||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|74.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||74|-15|0.191
91833785|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|46.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||46|-38|0.852
91833786|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|60.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||60|-24|0.397
91833787|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||58|-28|0.494
91833788|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|40.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||40|-31|0.807
91833789|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|51.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||51|-20|0.386
91833790|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|67.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||67|-4.8|0.089
91833791|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|43.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||43|-45|0.958
91833792|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|50.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||50|-37|0.766
91833793|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.0||||0.06||95.0|-1.7|87.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||87|-1.7|0.060
91833794|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|35.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||35|-53|0.678
91833795|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|54.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||54|-33|0.636
91833796|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|83.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||83|-6.5|0.094
91833797|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|37.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||37|-49|0.772
91833798|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.0||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|61.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||61|-24|0.387
91833799|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.0||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|69.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||69|-18|0.243
91833800|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|25.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||25|-62|0.398
91833801|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.0||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|70.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||70|-16|0.214
91833802|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.0||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||58|-30|0.526
91833803|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|34.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||34|-53|0.671
91833804|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|64.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||64|-23|0.355
91833805|NCT01218126|183547215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|50.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||50|-38|0.781
91833806|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|93.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||93|-66|0.742
91833807|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.0||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.0|48.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||48|-109|0.446
91833808|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|137.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||137|-22|0.157
91833809|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.0|74.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||74|-93|0.826
91833810|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.773||95.0|-95.0|70.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||70|-95|0.773
91833811|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|47.0||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|131.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||131|-38|0.277
91833812|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.0||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|132.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||132|-43|0.319
91833813|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|103.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||103|-71|0.716
91644167|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.437|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.306|3.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||3.568|3.306|<.0001
91644168|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-0.262|-0.660|<.0001
91644169|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.462|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|-0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-0.244|-0.679|<.0001
91644170|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.433|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|-0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-0.233|-0.633|<.0001
91644171|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.678|-0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-0.244|-0.678|<.0001
91644172|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.928|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.154|-1.701|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-1.701|-2.154|<.0001
91644173|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.089|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.336|-1.842|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-1.842|-2.336|<.0001
91644174|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.879|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.102|-1.656|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-1.656|-2.102|<.0001
91706824|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|13.9||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:215 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||13.9|9.6|
91706825|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|22.0||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:330 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||22.0|16.1|
91706826|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|24.3||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:629 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||24.3|17.8|
91706827|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|32.3||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:110 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||32.3|25.1|
91706828|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|29.9||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:151 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||29.9|22.6|
91833814|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|75.0||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|163.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||163|-14|0.098
91833815|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|100.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||100|-80|0.832
91833816|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.0||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|114.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||114|-64|0.579
91833817|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.0||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|133.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||133|-49|0.369
91833818|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||58|-121|0.487
91833819|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|95.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||95|-82|0.887
91833820|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|123.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||123|-59|0.486
91833821|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.0||||0.604||95.0|-113.0|66.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||66|-113|0.604
91833822|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|82.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||82|-97|0.872
91833823|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|134.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||134|-48|0.355
91833824|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|80.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||80|-65|0.839
91833825|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.0||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|84.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||84|-60|0.741
91833826|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|71.0||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|143.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||143|-1.8|0.056
91833827|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.0|57.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||57|-107|0.554
91833828|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.0||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.0|51.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||51|-110|0.472
91833829|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|149.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||149|-16|0.116
91833830|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.0|76.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||76|-98|0.805
91833831|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|100.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||100|-73|0.763
91833832|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|75.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|163.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||163|-13|0.096
91833833|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|56.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||56|-118|0.485
91833834|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.0||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|103.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||103|-69|0.704
91833835|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|72.0||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|159.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||159|-16|0.108
91833836|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-64.0||||0.147||95.0|-151.0|23.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||23|-151|0.147
91833837|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.0|75.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||75|-98|0.792
91833838|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.0||||0.275||95.0|-39.0|138.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||138|-39|0.275
91833839|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.0|59.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||59|-115|0.530
91833840|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|96.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||96|-77|0.827
91833841|NCT01218126|183547216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.0||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|124.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||124|-53|0.434
91833842|NCT01218126|183547217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||2.2|-3.3|0.686
91833843|NCT01218126|183547217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||4.2|-1.2|0.279
91833844|NCT01218126|183547217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.9|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||0.9|-4.6|0.193
91833845|NCT01218126|183547217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.5|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||3.5|-2.7|0.803
91644175|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.017|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.262|-1.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-1.772|-2.262|<.0001
91644176|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.465|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.679|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||1.679|1.250|<.0001
91644177|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.537|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.303|1.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||1.772|1.303|<.0001
91644178|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.277|1.707|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||1.707|1.277|<.0001
91644179|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.538|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.304|1.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||1.772|1.304|<.0001
91644180|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||0.237|-0.242|1.0000
91644181|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||0.172|-0.351|0.9399
91644182|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.047||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||0.283|-0.190|0.9993
91644183|NCT03692078|183180087|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||0.242|-0.278|1.0000
91833846|NCT01218126|183547217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||5.0|-1.2|0.229
91644184|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.805|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.639|1.971|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.971|1.639|<.0001
91644185|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.788|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.622|1.954|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.954|1.622|<.0001
91644186|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.145|1.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.462|1.145|<.0001
91644187|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.304|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.447|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.447|1.134|<.0001
91644188|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.353|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|1.513|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.513|1.194|<.0001
91644189|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.313|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|1.472|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.472|1.153|<.0001
91644190|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.956|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.155|-0.756|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.756|-1.155|<.0001
91706829|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|25.3||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:215 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||25.3|18.3|
91833847|NCT01218126|183547217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.8|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||1.8|-4.5|0.390
91833848|NCT01218126|183547219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.01|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||1.01|0.91|0.157
91833849|NCT01218126|183547219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.95|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||0.95|0.86|0.000
91706830|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|14.5||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:330 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||14.5|8.6|
91644191|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.315|-0.913|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.913|-1.315|<.0001
91644192|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.999|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.195|-0.803|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.803|-1.195|<.0001
91644193|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.164|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.364|-0.964|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.964|-1.364|<.0001
91644194|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.775|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|-0.582|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.582|-0.969|<.0001
91644195|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.795|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.600|-0.990|<.0001
91644196|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.514||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.836|-0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.193|-0.836|0.0002
91644197|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.160|-0.808|0.0005
91644198|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.452||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.775|-0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.128|-0.775|0.0014
91706831|NCT01964989|183307735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|9.4||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:629 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||9.4|4.3|
91706832|NCT02769312|183307746|OTHER||Effect size (cohen's d)|0.16||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.46
91706833|NCT02769312|183307747|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (cohen's d)|0.12||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.61
91706834|NCT02769312|183307748|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (cohen's d)|0.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
91706835|NCT01579669|183307752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-post comparison||||0.0269
91706836|NCT01579669|183307753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-post intervention comparison||||<0.0001
91706837|NCT01579669|183307754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-post intervention comparison||||0.016
91644199|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.475||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.799|-0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.152|-0.799|0.0007
91644200|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.127|-2.394|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.394|-3.127|<.0001
91644201|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.902|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.271|-2.533|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.533|-3.271|<.0001
91644202|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.804|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.165|-2.443|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.443|-3.165|<.0001
91644203|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.952|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.317|-2.587|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.587|-3.317|<.0001
91644204|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.066|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.719|2.413|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.413|1.719|<.0001
91644205|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.099|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.748|2.449|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.449|1.748|<.0001
91644206|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.129|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.779|2.478|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.478|1.779|<.0001
91771784|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|6.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.59|0.99|0.0533
91833850|NCT01218126|183547219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||0.96|0.86|0.000
91644207|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.756|2.459|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.459|1.756|<.0001
91644208|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.209|-0.569|0.7678
91644209|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.319||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.073|-0.711|0.1691
91644210|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.224||||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.606|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.158|-0.606|0.5178
91644211|NCT03692078|183180089|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.369||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.018|-0.757|0.0699
91706838|NCT02131233|183307790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Reformulated Raltegravir is concluded non-inferior to Raltegravir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Estimated Difference|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.204|5.223|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL or HIV-1 RNA \>100,000 copies/mL)||5.223|-4.204|
91833851|NCT01218126|183547219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.072||95.0|0.9|1.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||1.00|0.90|0.072
91833852|NCT01218126|183547219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.95|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||0.95|0.85|0.000
91833853|NCT01218126|183547219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.94|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||0.94|0.83|0.000
91833854|NCT01218126|183547219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.05|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||1.05|0.93|0.728
91833855|NCT01218126|183547219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.97|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||0.97|0.86|0.002
91833856|NCT01218126|183547219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.95|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||0.95|0.84|0.001
91852154|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.4001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.6|0.4001
91644212|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.062|6.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.292|6.062|<.0001
91644213|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.197|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.082|6.312|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||6.312|6.082|<.0001
91644214|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.798|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|5.906|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.906|5.690|<.0001
91644215|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|5.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.930|5.710|<.0001
91644216|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.863|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.753|5.974|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.974|5.753|<.0001
91644217|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.816|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.706|5.927|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.927|5.706|<.0001
91833857|NCT01218126|183547219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||1.07|0.95|0.823
91833858|NCT01218126|183547219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.02|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||1.02|0.90|0.153
91833859|NCT01218126|183547219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.01|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||1.01|0.90|0.126
91833860|NCT01218126|183547220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||1.12|0.68|0.291
91833861|NCT01218126|183547220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||1.00|0.61|0.046
91833862|NCT01218126|183547220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||0.94|0.57|0.014
91644218|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.947|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.809|5.084|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.084|4.809|<.0001
91644219|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.913|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.774|5.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.052|4.774|<.0001
91644220|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.862|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.727|4.998|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.998|4.727|<.0001
91644221|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.938|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.799|5.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.076|4.799|<.0001
91644222|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.826|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.693|4.959|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.959|4.693|<.0001
91644223|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.902|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.767|5.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.037|4.767|<.0001
91710564|NCT02634983|183313759|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.45|5.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||5.02|2.45|<0.0001
91833863|NCT01218126|183547220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||1.32|0.82|0.755
91833864|NCT01218126|183547220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||0.97|0.60|0.029
91833865|NCT01218126|183547220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||0.94|0.58|0.015
91833866|NCT01218126|183547220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||1.17|0.71|0.468
91833867|NCT01218126|183547220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.011||95.0|0.57|0.93|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||0.93|0.57|0.011
91833868|NCT01218126|183547220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.82|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||0.82|0.50|0.000
91833869|NCT01218126|183547220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.22|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||1.22|0.74|0.696
91833870|NCT01218126|183547220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||1.04|0.64|0.099
91833871|NCT01218126|183547220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.11|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||1.11|0.67|0.256
91833872|NCT01218126|183547221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.54|||Negative Binomial regression model|Covariates of treatment, group, smoking status, history of exacerbations and region, with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.|Rate ratio= (Rate of exacerbation in Losmapimod 2.5 mg arm) / (Rate of exacerbation in placebo arm)|Losmapimod 2.5 mg versus Placebo||1.54|0.64|0.989
91833873|NCT01218126|183547221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.915||95.0|0.64|1.5|||Negative Binomial regression model|Covariates of treatment, group, smoking status, history of exacerbations and region, with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.|Rate ratio= (Rate of exacerbation in Losmapimod 7.5 mg arm) / (Rate of exacerbation in placebo arm)|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg||1.50|0.64|0.915
91833874|NCT01218126|183547221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.74||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.18|||Negative Binomial regression model|Covariates of treatment, group, smoking status, history of exacerbations and region, with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.|Rate ratio= (Rate of exacerbation in Losmapimod 15 mg arm) / (Rate of exacerbation in placebo arm)|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg||1.18|0.47|0.210
91833875|NCT05380947|183547228|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R)|135.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.7|183.6|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 39.7%|||183.6|99.7|
91833876|NCT05380947|183547228|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1)|74.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.6|81.6|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 9.8%|||81.6|67.6|
91833877|NCT05380947|183547228|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1)|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|110.0|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.8%|||110.0|85.8|
91833878|NCT05380947|183547229|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R)|139.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.7|221.3|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 62.3%|||221.3|87.7|
91833879|NCT05380947|183547229|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1)|53.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.5|70.8|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 31.0%|||70.8|40.5|
91833880|NCT05380947|183547229|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1)|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.8|113.2|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 30.5%|||113.2|66.8|
91644224|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.379|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|-0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.156|-0.602|<.0001
91833881|NCT05380947|183547230|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R)|129.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.2|173.4|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) =36.6%|||173.4|96.2|
91833882|NCT05380947|183547230|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1)|74.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.6|81.7|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 9.0%|||81.7|68.6|
91833883|NCT05380947|183547230|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1)|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.3|110.2|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.2%|||110.2|85.3|
91833884|NCT01563536|183547241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Maximal Decrease)|-1.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.13||Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline log10 HCV RNA values as a covariate and with an effect for treatment arm.||||-0.13|-2.81|0.035
91833885|NCT01860703|183547243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|5.01||||||||5.01|1.02|
91833886|NCT01860703|183547249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.26|7.19||||||||7.19|3.26|
91833887|NCT01860703|183547252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.1|15.75||||||||15.75|11.10|
91833888|NCT02532556|183547255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxan signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91833889|NCT02532556|183547256|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxan signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91833890|NCT00538590|183547270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||0.95
91833891|NCT00538590|183547272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||1.00
91833892|NCT00538590|183547273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||0.40
91833893|NCT00538590|183547274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||0.91
91833894|NCT00251862|183547283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference|8.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|14.2|||Chi-squared|||Sample size and power considerations focused on a two-group comparison of the DA alone versus control study arms for the primary outcome of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test completion at 12 months. Based on crude estimates of baseline test completion rates, we calculated that a target sample of 275 subjects per arm provided greater than 80% power of detecting a 54% vs. 40% difference at the P\<0.05 level.||14.2|-2.2|0.046
91706839|NCT02131233|183307791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Reformulated Raltegravir is concluded non-inferior to Raltegravir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Estimated Difference|1.449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|7.308|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL or HIV-1 RNA \>100,000 copies/mL)||7.308|-4.410|
91833895|NCT00251862|183547283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference|6.0||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|16.5|||Chi-squared|||||16.5|0.2|0.153
91833896|NCT00251862|183547284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons: DA+YDR vs. Control, P\<0.001; DA alone vs. Control, P\<0.001|ANCOVA|||The three study groups were compared on cumulative pre-test and post-test knowledge through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.||||<0.001
91833897|NCT00251862|183547285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The three study groups were compared through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.||||<0.001
91833898|NCT00251862|183547286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The three study groups were compared through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.||||<0.001
91833899|NCT01515748|183547288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152||||||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.049.|Stratified Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison was stratified based on site and TNM classification (T4/N-, T2/N+, T3-4/N+).||||0.0152
91833900|NCT05050578|183547374|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID18869 minus AOHG. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||0.00||
91833901|NCT00990964|183547379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|0.951||||||||.951|.929|
91833902|NCT00990964|183547380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965|0.98||||||||.980|.965|
91833903|NCT03386032|183547392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Model adjusted means.||Change from baseline in variables were analyzed separately using a mixed model for repeated measures with Subject nested within treatment (random effect), and Treatment, Week, Treatment-by-Week, Age \& Baseline (fixed effects). Last Observation was Carried Forward (LOCF) for drops. Sporadic missing data were left missing.||||<0.05
91706840|NCT02131233|183307792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|26.7|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.||26.7|-30.9|
91833904|NCT03386032|183547393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Model adjusted means. Last Observation was Carried Forward (LOCF) for drops. Sporadic missing data were left miss||"Change from baseline in variables were analyzed separately using a mixed model for repeated measures with Subject nested within treatment (random effect), and Treatment, Week, Treatment-by-Week, Age \& Baseline (fixed effects). Last Observation was Carried Forward (LOCF) for drops. Sporadic missing data were left missing.~Significance level: 0.05 (2-sided)"||||<0.05
91833905|NCT04082442|183547409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0001
91833906|NCT04082442|183547410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.34
91833907|NCT04525547|183547412|OTHER|||||||0.817|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8170
91833908|NCT04525547|183547413|OTHER|||||||0.6533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6533
91833909|NCT01493687|183547438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91833910|NCT01493687|183547439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-6.13|||ANCOVA|||||-6.13|-10.12|<0.001
91833911|NCT01493687|183547440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91833912|NCT01783418|183547442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline and Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.613
91833913|NCT01783418|183547443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.957
91833914|NCT01783418|183547444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||.256
91833915|NCT01783418|183547445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.97
91833916|NCT01783418|183547446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention||||0.241
91833917|NCT01783418|183547447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.358
91833918|NCT01783418|183547448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.95
91833919|NCT00508261|183547457|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|4.71||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, at month 1.||4.71|-0.33|
91833920|NCT00508261|183547457|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.24||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup C, at month 1.||6.24|0.73|
91833921|NCT00508261|183547457|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|4.64||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup W-135, at month 1.||4.64|-0.36|
91833922|NCT00508261|183547457|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|6.18||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup Y, at month 1.||6.18|0.71|
91833923|NCT00508261|183547458|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMC ratio for anti-PT (ELISA) is greater than or equal to a pre-defined clinical limit of delta = 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratios|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine co-administered with Nimenrix vaccine to Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies to pertussis toxoid (PT), at month 1.||1.12|0.83|
91833924|NCT00508261|183547458|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMC ratio for anti-FHA (ELISA) is greater than or equal to a pre-defined clinical limit of delta = 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratios|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine co-administered with Nimenrix vaccine to Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies to filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA), at month 1.||1.13|0.85|
91833925|NCT00508261|183547458|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMC ratio for anti-PRN (ELISA) is greater than or equal to a pre-defined clinical limit of delta = 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratios|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine co-administered with Nimenrix vaccine to Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies to pertactin (PRN), at month 1.||1.1|0.78|
91833926|NCT00508261|183547459|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with anti-HBs antibody concentrations ≥10 mIU/ml is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|4.6||||||||4.6|-1.47|
91833927|NCT00508261|183547460|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in the percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentrations (ELISA) ≥1.0 μg/mL is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|4.5||||||||4.5|-1.45|
91833928|NCT00180479|183547486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculation for endpoint of in-segment LL at 240 days is based on these assumptions: one-tailed non-inferiority= (δ)=0.025, Power=99%, Randomization ratio 2:1, True mean in-seg. LL is assumed to be 0.24 mm in both arms.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Primary endpoint analyzed for intent-to-treat \& per-treatment evaluable pop. Hypothesis test based on per-subject analysis of intent-to-treat pop. using analysis lesion. The null hypothesis evaluated using non-inferiority test with asymptotic test statistic.||||<0.0001
91833929|NCT00180479|183547487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study had 89% statistical power based on major secondary endpoint to prove non-inferiority of XIENCE® V to TAXUS®, non-inferiority delta=5.5%, true TVF rate 9.4% in both arms with overall 5% alpha (one-sided), assuming 1% subject dropout rate.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority Z statistic. Non-inferiority was defined as a one-sided alpha of 0.05 and a difference in TVF rate of no more than 5.5%.||||<0.0001
91833930|NCT03315143|183547540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-cardiovascular (non-CV) death treated as a competing event.||0.88|0.63|<0.001
91833931|NCT03315143|183547541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.82|0.55|<0.001
91833932|NCT03315143|183547542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||=|0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||1.12|0.73|=0.35
91833933|NCT03315143|183547543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.83||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.83|0.63|
91833934|NCT03315143|183547544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.89|0.65|
91833935|NCT03315143|183547545|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||1.08|0.46|
91833936|NCT03315143|183547546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction.||1.18|0.83|
91833937|NCT03315143|183547547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.91|0.65|
91833938|NCT00840801|183547548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A stratified score test was used to test the non-inferiority with a margin of -10% at 2.5% type I error (one-sided).|||||<|0.001|||||||Stratified score test|||Non-inferiority Test on Seropositive Response Rate||||<0.001
91833939|NCT00335452|183547563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|6.1||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for ASA dose level and qualifying condition.|||16.6|-5.8|0.3037
91833940|NCT00335452|183547564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model including terms for ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI).||||||0.012
91833941|NCT00335452|183547565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|3.1||||0.6047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|14.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by clopidogrel treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg or 600/150/75 mg) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (ASA high dose versus ASA low dose) is estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for Clopidogrel treatment regimen.|||14.0|-9.2|0.6047
91833942|NCT00335452|183547566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|-6.5||||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|9.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for qualifying condition.|||9.9|-26.0|0.4579
91833943|NCT00335452|183547566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|17.6||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|30.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for qualifying condition.|||30.5|2.2|0.0262
91833944|NCT00335452|183547566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Chi-squared|Interaction chi-squared test of the Cox proportional hazards model.||||||0.0355
91852155|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.8707|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-30.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-30.3|0.8707
91833945|NCT00335452|183547567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|14.7||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|26.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) Log-rank test. No adjustment was made.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for ASA dose level and qualifying condition.|||26.3|1.2|0.0332
91833946|NCT00335452|183547568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model including a term for Clopidogrel treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg or 600/150/75 mg).||||||0.945
91833947|NCT00335452|183547569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|32.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|45.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for ASA dose level and qualifying condition.|||45.8|16.2|0.0004
91833948|NCT02736825|183547570|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 15% between two independent percentages using the z-test with unpooled variance||||||0.367|||||||Z-test|||||||0.3670
91833949|NCT02901626|183547589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2||||||||1.20|0.83|
91833950|NCT02901626|183547590|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.0||||||||8|-4|
91833951|NCT02901626|183547591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.8||||||||0.80|-1.06|
91833952|NCT02901626|183547592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.71||||||||1.71|0.92|
91833953|NCT02901626|183547593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55||||||||1.55|0.93|
91833954|NCT02901626|183547594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45||||||||1.45|0.93|
91833955|NCT02901626|183547595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.82||||||||1.82|0.92|
91833956|NCT02901626|183547596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19||||||||1.19|0.79|
91833957|NCT02901626|183547597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.39||||||||2.39|0.61|
91833958|NCT02901626|183547598|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.31||||||||1.31|0.79|
91833959|NCT02901626|183547599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.04||||||||2.04|0.55|
91833960|NCT02901626|183547600|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0|0|
91833961|NCT02901626|183547601|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94||||||||1.94|0.95|
91833962|NCT02901626|183547602|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.11||||||||2.11|1.00|
91833963|NCT02901626|183547603|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||||1.18|0.88|
91833964|NCT02901626|183547604|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|12.0||||||||12|-12|
91833965|NCT02901626|183547605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||||1.17|0.69|
91833966|NCT02901626|183547606|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|14.0||||||||14|-12|
91833967|NCT02901626|183547607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.7||||||||15.7|0.06|
91833968|NCT02901626|183547608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.65||||||||2.65|0.25|
91833969|NCT02901626|183547609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.9||||||||1.90|0.17|
91833970|NCT02901626|183547610|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.96||||||||1.96|0.68|
91833971|NCT02901626|183547611|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27||||||||1.27|0.71|
91896022|NCT04874415|183687453|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2311.0|2311.0|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2311|-2311|
91833972|NCT02901626|183547612|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.41||||||||1.41|0.37|
91833973|NCT02901626|183547613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.37||||||||3.37|0.39|
91833974|NCT02901626|183547614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.29||||||||1.29|0.78|
91833975|NCT02901626|183547615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1||||||||1.10|0.58|
91833976|NCT02901626|183547616|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|12.57||||||||12.57|0.48|
91833977|NCT02901626|183547617|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.58||||||||1.58|0.27|
91833978|NCT02901626|183547618|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.97||||||||0.97|0.47|
91833979|NCT02901626|183547619|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.66||||||||2.66|0.09|
91833980|NCT02901626|183547620|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.37||||||||1.37|0.81|
91833981|NCT02901626|183547621|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0|0|
91833982|NCT02901626|183547622|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|36.0||||||||36|-16|
91833983|NCT03662074|183547634|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The pre-specified analysis plan as per the protocol is to proceed to the second stage of recruitment for additional participants if the response proportion exceeds the historical control of 10%.|||
91833984|NCT01446666|183547655|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||The HCC detection rate was defined as the number of patients with HCC detected by a given modality divided by the total number of patients with HCC detected by all modalities and by follow-up dynamic CT scan. The HCC detection rates from ultrasonography and MRI were compared.||||<0.01
91833985|NCT01446666|183547656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.01
91833986|NCT01446666|183547657|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.01
91833987|NCT01446666|183547658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||McNemar|||||||0.004
91833988|NCT03701399|183547679|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based summary statistics were from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, randomization stratum (SCA genotype group), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country, baseline score as a covariate|All SCA participants||0.34|-0.47|0.7581
91833989|NCT03701399|183547679|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based summary statistics were from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, randomization stratum (SCA genotype group), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country.|SCA3 genotype participants||-0.01|-1.11|0.0450
91833990|NCT03945292|183547704|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-66.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.18|-56.45||From a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, presence of metabolic syndrome, presence of NAFLD or NASH, baseline serum Z-AAT as covariate, and subject as a random effect.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|NAFLD=non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; NSH=non-alcoholic steatohepatitis||||-56.45|-77.18|< 0.0001
91833991|NCT03945292|183547704|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-90.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.72|-79.34||From a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, presence of metabolic syndrome, presence of NAFLD or NASH, baseline serum Z-AAT as covariate, and subject as a random effect.|MMRM|||||-79.34|-100.72|< 0.0001
91833992|NCT03945292|183547704|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-97.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.21|-86.94||From a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, presence of metabolic syndrome, presence of NAFLD or NASH, baseline serum Z-AAT as covariate, and subject as a random effect.|MMRM|||||-86.94|-108.21|< 0.0001
91833993|NCT03945292|183547708|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-129.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.409||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.52|-53.11||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline total liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-53.11|-205.52|0.0021
91833994|NCT03945292|183547708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-124.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.207||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-201.9|-46.15||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline total liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-46.15|-201.9|0.0035
91833995|NCT03945292|183547708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-140.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.906||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.27|-75.89||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline total liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-75.89|-205.27|0.0002
91833996|NCT03945292|183547710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-98.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.291||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.53|-55.6||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline soluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-55.6|-140.53|0.0001
91833997|NCT03945292|183547710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-109.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.81|-64.32||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline soluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-64.32|-154.81|< 0.0001
91833998|NCT03945292|183547710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-118.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.95|-82.12||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline soluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-82.12|-153.95|< 0.0001
91833999|NCT03945292|183547712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-180.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.087||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.77|-25.64||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline insoluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-25.64|-335.77|0.0247
91834000|NCT03945292|183547712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-163.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.513||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-317.65|-9.93||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline insoluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-9.93|-317.65|0.0382
91834001|NCT03945292|183547712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-193.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|63.089||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-325.25|-61.15||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline insoluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-61.15|-325.25|0.0064
91834002|NCT06060457|183547769|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.686||||||RSV-A: Arm 1 versus Arm 2||0.686|0.570|
91834003|NCT06060457|183547769|OTHER||GMR|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|0.697||||||RSV-B: Arm 1 versus Arm 2||0.697|0.584|
91834004|NCT00514735|183547845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||In order to maintain the overall level of significance at the α=0.025 level after a planned interim analysis using α=0.003, this test will actually be performed using an adjusted α=0.0245 at the completion of the study.|Chi-squared|||"H0: Pa ≤ Pm Ha: Pa \> Pm~where Pa is the proportion of successfully treated subjects in the ablation management arm and Pm is the proportion of successfully treated subjects in the optimal medical management/drug therapy arm."||||<0.0001
91834005|NCT00514735|183547846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1427||||||An exact, one-sample binomial test was conducted at a one-sided α=0.025 level of significance.|Fisher Exact|||"H0: Pa ≥ 0.16 Ha: Pa \< 0.16~where Pa is the proportion of acute safety failures in the ablation management arm."||||0.1427
91834006|NCT00514735|183547847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This objective was not statistically powered. The non-inferiority chronic safety margin was 0.06.||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0: Pa ≥ Pm + 0.06 Ha: Pa \< Pm + 0.06~where Pa is the proportion of failed subjects in the ablation management arm and Pm is the proportion of failed subjects in the optimal medical management/drug therapy arm."||||0.0033
91834007|NCT00514735|183547849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||"H0: μa = μm Ha: μa ≠ μm~where μa is the change of LAD from baseline to 6 month in Ablation Management arm, and μm is the change of LAD from baseline to 6 month in Medical Management arm."||||0.35
91834008|NCT00514735|183547850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||"H0: μa = μm Ha: μa ≠ μm~where μa is the change of LVEF from baseline to 6 month in Ablation Management arm, and μm is the change of LVEF from baseline to 6 month in Medical Management arm."||||0.06
91834009|NCT00514735|183547851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91834010|NCT00514735|183547852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.025
91834011|NCT01499082|183547867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Stepwise closed testing approach was used to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.107||||||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the HbA1c baseline value as a covariate.||0.107|-0.112|
91834012|NCT01499082|183547868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A one-sided test (at alpha=0.025) for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed in case the non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus for the primary endpoint was demonstrated. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with treatment as a factor and stratified on strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%).||0.93|0.67|0.0045
91834013|NCT01499082|183547869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.6909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.254|||ANCOVA|||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the pre-injection SMPG baseline value as a covariate. A test for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed one-sided at level alpha = 0.025 if previous analysis for nocturnal hypoglycemia was significant.||0.254|-0.383|0.6909
91834014|NCT01499082|183547878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.298||||||Analysis was performed using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment regimen and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||0.298|-0.189|
91834015|NCT04557930|183547886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested the association between exposure to the intervention and the incidence of ACP billing in the pre- and post-intervention periods using a mixed effects logistic regression model, adjusting for time, patient and hospital covariates.||1.06|0.88|0.41
91834016|NCT04557930|183547886|SUPERIORITY|Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Overall effect allowing effect heterogeneity across steps \<0.001 Interaction effect \<0.001|Step 1 cohort|||1.19|0.89|0.74
91834017|NCT04557930|183547886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Step 2 cohort|1.36|0.98|0.09
91834018|NCT04557930|183547886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Step 3 cohort|1.33|0.97|0.11
91834019|NCT04557930|183547886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Step 4 cohort|Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.||0.76|0.57|<0.001
91834020|NCT04557930|183547886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Step 5 cohort|1.19|0.89|0.49
91834021|NCT03063294|183547950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.5|||||"The difference in difference equals the follow-up minus baseline change in Hassles scale results for the toolkit plus coaching clinics, minus the follow-up minus baseline change in the Hassles scale results for the toolkit only clinics."|"Zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to obtain predicted mean Hassles scale scores for the toolkit only clinics and toolkit plus coaching clinics at baseline and follow-up, adjusting for study design and characteristics of survey respondents. The difference-in-difference was then computed as described below, under method of estimation. Bootstrap resampling was used to calculate the 95% confidence intervals around the predicted means and the difference-in-difference."||0.50|-0.47|
91834022|NCT00803452|183547956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91834023|NCT01971723|183547978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Groups were compared against each other at the two different time points and against themselves at the same time points.||This statistical analysis is for the squat one repetition maximum outcomes, only.||||.38
91834024|NCT01971723|183547978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for the bench press one repetition maximum outcomes, only.||||0.0001
91834025|NCT01971723|183547978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for the deadlift one repetition maximum measures, only.||||.3
91834026|NCT01971723|183547978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis compares the outcomes of the total weight lifted.||||0.0001
91834027|NCT01971723|183547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91834028|NCT01971723|183547980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical measurement is for cholesterol measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91834029|NCT01971723|183547980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for glucose measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91834030|NCT01971723|183547980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for HDL measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91834031|NCT01971723|183547980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for LDL measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91834032|NCT01971723|183547980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis for the triglyceride measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91834033|NCT01971723|183547981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91834034|NCT01971723|183547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91834035|NCT01971723|183547983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91834036|NCT01971723|183547984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91834037|NCT01971723|183547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91834038|NCT01971723|183547986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91834039|NCT01971723|183547987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for deadlift volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91834040|NCT01971723|183547987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for auxiliary squat volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91834041|NCT01971723|183547987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for squat volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91834042|NCT01971723|183547987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for bench volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91834043|NCT01971723|183547987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for total squat volume measures, only.||||>.05
91834044|NCT01971723|183547987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for total weight lifted volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91834045|NCT01971723|183547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91834046|NCT01971723|183547989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91834047|NCT01971723|183547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
91834048|NCT03017079|183547992|NON_INFERIORITY|a:0.05;β：0.01 P=.046||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P=.046||||0.05
91834049|NCT03017079|183547993|NON_INFERIORITY|a 0.05|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91834050|NCT03017079|183547994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.05
91834051|NCT03017079|183547996|NON_INFERIORITY|According to the rule of a=0.05, P\<0.05 means that the hypothesis was true|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.05
91834052|NCT04450108|183547997|SUPERIORITY|The change of FeNO values will be estimated in ANCOVA with baseline values as the covariable and will be reported as percent change together with the 95%-confidence interval.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Since the effect size of the change (mean change / standard deviation) is on the order of 1 (resulting in N=10 and 13 for power = 80% and 90%, respectively) and therefore large, the sample size is not determined by the primary objective but by the necessity to achieve representative data of FeNO measurement data over all age groups, measurement ranges (\<, ≥ cut off) and sites. Thus, 120 subjects will be recruited.||||<0.001
91834053|NCT01255592|183548010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of AZD5069 80 mg to placebo|0.31||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, and baseline as covariates. The analysis was done on log-transformed data. The results were back-transformed after the analysis on the log scale.||0.59|0.17|0.004
91834054|NCT01255592|183548011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of AZD5069 80 mg to placebo|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, and baseline as covariates. The analysis was done on log-transformed data. The results were back-transformed after the analysis on the log scale.||0.84|0.49|0.008
91834055|NCT01255592|183548012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.298||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|12.33|||ANCOVA|||The 24-hour sputum weight on Visit 4 was compared between groups using ANCOVA (additive model) with treatment and inhaled corticosteroids/P. aeruginosa infection as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||12.33|1.22|0.047
91834056|NCT01255592|183548013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.26|-0.05|0.284
91834057|NCT01255592|183548014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.929|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.14|-0.12|0.929
91834058|NCT01255592|183548015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.10|-0.11|0.966
91834059|NCT01255592|183548016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.17|-0.13|0.791
91834060|NCT01255592|183548017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model used TDI as the response variable with treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and BDI as covariates.||0.6|-1.6|0.433
91834061|NCT01255592|183548018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.81|14.13|||ANCOVA|||Morning PEF: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||14.13|-12.81|0.935
91834062|NCT01255592|183548018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.02|15.64|||ANCOVA|||Evening PEF: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||15.64|-9.02|0.654
91834063|NCT01255592|183548019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Describe your breathing: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.36|-0.09|0.329
91834064|NCT01255592|183548019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.27|||ANCOVA|||How often do you cough?: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.27|-0.16|0.664
91834065|NCT01255592|183548019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Night time symptom score: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.54|-0.04|0.152
91834066|NCT01255592|183548019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.05|||ANCOVA|||What color is your sputum?: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.05|-0.80|0.150
91834067|NCT01255592|183548019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.35|||ANCOVA|||The amount of sputum you produced: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.35|-0.06|0.248
91834068|NCT01255592|183548019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Type of sputum: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||-0.04|-0.45|0.053
91834069|NCT01255592|183548019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.42|||ANCOVA|||How do you feel?: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.42|-0.04|0.179
91834070|NCT01255592|183548019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Number of puffs of inhalers: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.68|-0.75|0.942
91834071|NCT01255592|183548020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.374||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.32|4.0|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||4.00|-7.32|0.625
91834072|NCT01255592|183548020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.342||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.49|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Symptom domain: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.74|-10.49|0.151
91834073|NCT01255592|183548020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.524||0.773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.91|6.28|||ANCOVA|||Activity domain: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||6.28|-8.91|0.773
91834074|NCT01255592|183548020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.84|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Impact domain: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||6.07|-6.84|0.920
91834075|NCT01255592|183548021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.69||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.14|0.42|0.220
91834076|NCT01255592|183548022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|4.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.05|6.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||6.54|3.05|<0.001
91834077|NCT01255592|183548023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.92||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.26|0.68|0.670
91834078|NCT01255592|183548024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.99||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.27|0.78|0.968
91834079|NCT01255592|183548025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.43||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||2.24|0.91|0.193
91644225|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.601|-0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.152|-0.601|<.0001
91834080|NCT01255592|183548026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.19|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||4.79|2.19|<0.001
91834081|NCT01255592|183548027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.02||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.48|0.71|0.917
91834082|NCT01255592|183548028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.17||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.08|0.03|0.111
91834083|NCT01255592|183548029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.33||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||2.26|0.79|0.367
91834084|NCT01255592|183548030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.54||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||2.40|0.98|0.112
91834085|NCT01255592|183548031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.05||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.12|0.98|0.241
91834086|NCT01255592|183548032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.18|7.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||7.23|4.18|<0.001
91896023|NCT04874415|183687453|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0000004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|27.9|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||27.9|-27.9|
91834087|NCT01255592|183548033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.16||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.47|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.47|0.92|0.281
91834088|NCT01255592|183548034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.28|1.91|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.91|1.28|0.001
91834089|NCT01255592|183548035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|6.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.42|8.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||8.35|4.42|<0.001
91834090|NCT03928028|183548038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.507
91834091|NCT03928028|183548038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.017
91834092|NCT03928028|183548038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.139
91834093|NCT03928028|183548039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compare mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+CRTp||||.389
91834094|NCT03928028|183548039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.447
91834095|NCT03928028|183548039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||<.001
91834096|NCT03928028|183548040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.778
91834097|NCT03928028|183548040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.297
91834098|NCT03928028|183548040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.062
91834099|NCT03928028|183548041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.069
91706841|NCT02131233|183307793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|31.6|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.||31.6|-32.8|
91834100|NCT03928028|183548041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.323
91771785|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|44.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||44.00|0.50|0.1769
91834101|NCT03928028|183548041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.225
91834102|NCT03928028|183548042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.196
91834103|NCT03928028|183548042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.812
91834104|NCT03928028|183548042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.499
91834105|NCT03928028|183548043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.446
91834106|NCT03928028|183548043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.647
91834107|NCT03928028|183548043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.765
91834108|NCT03928028|183548044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.425
91834109|NCT03928028|183548044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.630
91834110|NCT03928028|183548044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.854
91834111|NCT02802501|183548048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.693|||Cox Proportional Hazard||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then there are lower chances of relapse with Tafenoquine+DHA-PQP compared to DHA-PQP only.|||0.693|0.285|<0.001
91834112|NCT02802501|183548049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|2.875|||||If hazard ratio was found to be \>1 then there are higher chances of relapse with Tafenoquine+DHA-PQP compared to Primaquine+DHA-PQP.|||2.875|1.031|
91834113|NCT02802501|183548050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.431|||||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then there are lower chances of relapse with Primaquine+DHA-PQP compared to DHA-PQP only.|||0.431|0.155|
91834114|NCT02802501|183548051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.433|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|0.686|||||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then there are lower chances of relapse with Tafenoquine+DHA-PQP compared to DHA-PQP only.|||0.686|0.273|
91834115|NCT05067439|183548088|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|288.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|240.56|346.73||||||Omeprazole 10 mg was Reference and abrocitinib 200 mg + omeprazole 10 mg was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect and estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and 90% CIs were obtained. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||346.73|240.56|
91834116|NCT05067439|183548089|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|139.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.98|159.74||||||Caffeine 100 mg was Reference and abrocitinib 200 mg + caffeine 100 mg was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinfCR was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect and estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and 90% CIs were obtained. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||159.74|121.98|
91834117|NCT05067439|183548090|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|110.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.45|117.17||||||Efavirenz 50 mg was Reference and abrocitinib 200 mg + efavirenz 50 mg was Test. Natural log-transformed AUClastCR was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect and estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and 90% CIs were obtained. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||117.17|103.45|
91834118|NCT02323646|183548100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0019
91834119|NCT02323646|183548100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0063
91834120|NCT02323646|183548101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0237
91834121|NCT02323646|183548101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0272|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0272
91834122|NCT02323646|183548102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test.|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 1.||||0.0145
91834123|NCT02323646|183548102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0662|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test.|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 1.||||0.0662
91834124|NCT02323646|183548102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 2.||||0.0061
91834125|NCT02323646|183548102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0296|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 2.||||0.0296
91834126|NCT02323646|183548103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2642|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.2642
91710565|NCT02634983|183313759|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.16|6.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (1 hrs post-dose)||6.03|3.16|<0.0001
91834127|NCT02323646|183548103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4383|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.4383
91834128|NCT02323646|183548103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5333|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.5333
91834129|NCT02323646|183548103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8791|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.8791
91834130|NCT02323646|183548103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up||||0.3666
91834131|NCT02323646|183548103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up||||0.3450
91834132|NCT02323646|183548104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0473|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.0473
91834133|NCT02323646|183548104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0191|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.0191
91834134|NCT02323646|183548104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0749|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0749
91834135|NCT02323646|183548104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0233|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0233
91834136|NCT02323646|183548104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7569|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.7569
91834137|NCT02323646|183548104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5399|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.5399
91834138|NCT02323646|183548105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1683|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1683
91834139|NCT02323646|183548105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.2560
91834140|NCT02323646|183548105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4997|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.4997
91834141|NCT02323646|183548105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1334|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.1334
91834142|NCT02323646|183548105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.0323
91834143|NCT02323646|183548105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.3847
91834144|NCT02323646|183548106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6356|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.6356
91834145|NCT02323646|183548106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9539|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.9539
91834146|NCT02323646|183548106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5219|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.5219
91834147|NCT02323646|183548106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2678|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.2678
91834148|NCT02323646|183548106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3086|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.3086
91834149|NCT02323646|183548106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.3847
91834150|NCT02323646|183548107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8393|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.8393
91834151|NCT02323646|183548107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1361|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1361
91834152|NCT02323646|183548107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0382|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0382
91834153|NCT02323646|183548107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6273|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.6273
91834154|NCT02323646|183548107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8237|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.8237
91834155|NCT02323646|183548107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.1370
91834156|NCT02323646|183548108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7949|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.7949
91834157|NCT02323646|183548108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1928|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1928
91834158|NCT02323646|183548108|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||1.0000
91834159|NCT02323646|183548108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.3920
91834160|NCT02323646|183548108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.5410
91834161|NCT02323646|183548108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4602|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.4602
91834162|NCT02323646|183548109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9536|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.9536
91834163|NCT02323646|183548109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1355|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1355
91834164|NCT02323646|183548109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9396|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.9396
91834165|NCT02323646|183548109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9102|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.9102
91834166|NCT02323646|183548109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6266|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.6266
91834167|NCT02323646|183548109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9302|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.9302
91834168|NCT02323646|183548110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.8170
91834169|NCT02323646|183548110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8177|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.8177
91834170|NCT02323646|183548110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3167|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.3167
91834171|NCT02323646|183548110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5503|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.5503
91834172|NCT02323646|183548110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6929|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.6929
91834173|NCT02323646|183548110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.7260
91834174|NCT02323646|183548111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3896|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.3896
91834175|NCT02323646|183548111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1358|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1358
91834176|NCT02323646|183548111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7903|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.7903
91834177|NCT02323646|183548111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8206|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.8206
91834178|NCT02323646|183548111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7891|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.7891
91834179|NCT02323646|183548111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.4010
91834180|NCT02323646|183548112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.0294
91834181|NCT02323646|183548112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1934|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1934
91834182|NCT02323646|183548112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0442|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0442
91834183|NCT02323646|183548112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8314|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.8314
91834184|NCT00089141|183548113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.22||95.0|0.7|3.7||P values are 2 sided and are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|Regression, Cox|Analysis for all endpoints was stratified by number of affected organs and type of conditioning regimen.|For all analyses, MMF arm in numerator, and placebo arm in denominator. Hazard ratio estimate includes 3 efficacy success events that occurred after two years in the placebo arm.|||3.7|0.7|.22
91834185|NCT00089141|183548114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.03||95.0|1.1|2.6|||Regression, Cox|Statistical analysis did not count treatment continuing beyond 2 years as efficacy failure (n = 2 in each arm).||||2.6|1.1|.03
91834186|NCT00089141|183548115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.55||95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.1|0.7|.55
91834187|NCT00089141|183548116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.48||95.0|0.4|6.0|||Regression, Cox|||||6.0|0.4|.48
91834188|NCT00089141|183548117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.17||95.0|0.8|3.9|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for risk category||||3.9|0.8|.17
91834189|NCT00089141|183548118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.41||95.0|0.5|5.0|||Regression, Cox|||||5.0|0.5|.41
91834190|NCT00089141|183548119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69||||0.14||95.0|0.9|3.2|||Regression, Cox|||||3.2|0.9|.14
91834191|NCT00089141|183548120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99||||0.1||95.0|0.9|4.3|||Regression, Cox|||||4.3|0.9|.10
91834192|NCT00089141|183548121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.34||95.0|0.08|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.1|.08|.34
91834193|NCT00089141|183548122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.28||95.0|0.7|3.2|||Regression, Cox|||||3.2|0.7|.28
91834194|NCT02459262|183548130|OTHER|ANOVA repeated measures: In-transformed antibody concentrations as dependent variable; dose level, time, presence of adjuvant and dose\*time interaction as fixed effects; subjects as random effects||||||0.0193||||||Adjuvant effect at Day 85, the primary immunological endpoint|ANOVA|Adjuvant effect, with higher antibody concentration values after all dose levels of vaccine was significant at all time points (D29, D43, D57, Day 85)||The objectives for Part A were to evaluate the effect of adjuvant and to inform the selection of dose levels for Part B. The study was not powered for inter-group comparisons.||||0.0193
91834195|NCT02459262|183548131|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91834196|NCT02459262|183548132|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91834197|NCT05168579|183548135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|69.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||69.6|2.76|<0.001
91834198|NCT01242748|183548137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Degarelix was considered to be non-inferior to goserelin with regard to the hazard ratio of PSA PFS failure rates as the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the adjusted hazard ratio was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.33.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.774||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.106|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio of PSA PFS failure rates was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model with time to PSA PFS failure as dependent and treatment as independent variables and adjusted for baseline PSA category, prostate cancer stage, weight and geographical region. Degarelix was to be considered non-inferior to goserelin if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted hazard ratio was less than or equal to the non-inferiority margin of 1.33.||1.106|0.542|0.1589
91834199|NCT01242748|183548138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.783||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.07|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.070|0.574|0.1244
91834200|NCT01242748|183548139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.263||||||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.263|0.580|
91834201|NCT01242748|183548140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.511||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.739|7.09|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||7.090|1.739|0.0005
91834202|NCT01242748|183548141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.739||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.108|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.108|0.493|0.143
91834203|NCT01242748|183548142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.595||||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.368|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.368|0.259|0.2212
91834204|NCT02347657|183548188|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|4.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||4.8|3.1|<0.0001
91834205|NCT02347657|183548189|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|8.3|||MMRM|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||8.3|5.3|<0.0001
91834206|NCT02347657|183548190|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.65||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.88|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||0.88|0.48|0.0054
91834207|NCT02347657|183548191|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||MMRM|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||0.19|-0.08|0.4127
91834208|NCT00677352|183548206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sertraline was concluded to be non-inferior to paroxetine when the upper limit of the CI fell below the non-inferiority margin of 4.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the intergroup difference (sertraline group - paroxetine group) of the mean reduction in the PAS total score at each dose during the treatment phase was calculated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor and baseline PAS total score as a covariate.||1.6|-2.5|
91834209|NCT00677352|183548212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0062
91834210|NCT02182973|183548213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91834211|NCT02182973|183548214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.875
91834212|NCT02182973|183548215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
91834213|NCT00762450|183548216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|paired t-tests||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91834214|NCT05614089|183548217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time-in-range), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in serious hypoglycemia at baseline||6-month (primary)||||0.43
91834215|NCT05614089|183548217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time-in-range), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in serious hypoglycemia at baseline||12-month||||0.008
91834216|NCT05614089|183548218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time in serious hypoglycemia), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % TIR at baseline||6-month (primary)||||0.71
91834217|NCT05614089|183548218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time in serious hypoglycemia), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % TIR at baseline||12-month||||0.64
91834218|NCT05614089|183548219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in hypoglycemia at baseline||6-month||||0.54
91834219|NCT05614089|183548219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in hypoglycemia at baseline||12-month||||0.07
91834220|NCT05614089|183548220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time above range at baseline||6-month||||0.58
91834221|NCT05614089|183548220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time above range at baseline||12-month||||0.21
91896024|NCT04874415|183687453|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.8|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||6.8|-6.9|
91834222|NCT05614089|183548221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and number of nocturnal events at baseline||6-month||||0.70
91834223|NCT05614089|183548221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and number of nocturnal events at baseline||12-month||||0.02
91834224|NCT05614089|183548222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and HbA1c at baseline||6-month||||0.81
91834225|NCT05614089|183548222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and HbA1c at baseline||12-month||||0.29
91834226|NCT05614089|183548223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 6-month||||0.98
91834227|NCT05614089|183548223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 12-month||||0.61
91834228|NCT05614089|183548224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 6-month||||0.83
91834229|NCT05614089|183548224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 12-month||||0.09
91834230|NCT05614089|183548225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Symptoms score at baseline||6-month||||0.95
91834231|NCT05614089|183548225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Symptoms score at baseline||12-month||||0.73
91834232|NCT05614089|183548226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Management score at baseline||6-month||||0.81
91834233|NCT05614089|183548226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Management score at baseline||12-month||||0.44
91644226|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.314||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.090|-0.537|0.0014
91710566|NCT02634983|183313759|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.56|6.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (2 hrs post-dose)||6.39|3.56|<0.0001
91834234|NCT05614089|183548227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and ITSQ at baseline||6-month||||0.04
91834235|NCT05614089|183548227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and ITSQ at baseline||12-month||||0.10
91834236|NCT05417620|183548228|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.21||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.31||Threshold for significance: 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||"This statistical analysis is done at the district level where counts of initiations in intervention districts are compared to standard of care districts. In the measure type we report rate = average counts of PrEP initiations per number of study months."||3.31|0.44|0.707
91834237|NCT03937219|183548239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.57|0.0131
91834238|NCT04393441|183548241|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM with fixed effects=treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction,Baseline total staining stratum(TSS),and Baseline TSS by visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.27|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Total Staining Score at Day 90: The null hypothesis was that 011516X tear formulation was to be considered noninferior to Systane Ultra MD if the upper limit of 2-sided confidence interval (CI) was less than 2.3 units.||2.27|0.01|0.0475
91834239|NCT04393441|183548242|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. The p-value for treatment differences is reported for reference.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.32||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.03|34.14|||MMRM|MMRM with fixed effects=treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Baseline TSS, and Baseline TSS by visit interaction.||||34.14|-30.03|0.9001
91834240|NCT02782169|183548243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
91834241|NCT02953938|183548279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.07|-1.49|0.3680
91834242|NCT02953938|183548280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.042||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|-0.48|||ANOVA|||||-0.48|-12.67|0.0349
91834243|NCT02953938|183548281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.051||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.158|||ANOVA|||||0.158|-0.045|0.2707
91834244|NCT02953938|183548283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.32||||0.7602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.65|85.28|||ANOVA|||||85.28|-62.65|0.7602
91834245|NCT03371082|183548288|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of the lower and upper equivalence margin were -11.3 and 11.3, respectively.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|6.5|||||The asymptotic standard error was planned and is reported above.|This is a two-arm study.||6.5|-5.4|
91834246|NCT00810264|183548369|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint 1 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, non-inferiority test comparing a binomial proportion (overall SAEFR at 5 years) to 92.5%, with a non-inferiority delta of 5%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Proportion|||||||<0.0001
91834247|NCT01648348|183548383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.77|||Log Rank|||||1.77|0.73|0.57
91834248|NCT01648348|183548384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91834249|NCT01648348|183548385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.69|||Log Rank|||||1.69|0.66|0.82
91834250|NCT01648348|183548387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91834251|NCT01648348|183548388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Future uncertainty symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.55
91834252|NCT01648348|183548388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Visual disorder symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.16
91834253|NCT01648348|183548388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Motor dysfunction symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.99
91834254|NCT01648348|183548388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Communication deficit symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.75
91834255|NCT01648348|183548388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Headaches symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.17
91834256|NCT01648348|183548388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Seizures symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.90
91834257|NCT01648348|183548388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Drowsiness symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.82
91834258|NCT01648348|183548388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Itchy skin symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.15
91834259|NCT01648348|183548388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hair loss symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.77
91834260|NCT01648348|183548388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Weakness of legs symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.10
91834261|NCT01648348|183548388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bladder control symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.65
91834262|NCT01648348|183548389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||proportion test|||||||0.83
91834263|NCT00696410|183548393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.068
91834264|NCT00696410|183548393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.022
91834265|NCT00696410|183548394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.71
91834266|NCT00696410|183548394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.33
91834267|NCT00696410|183548395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.69
91834268|NCT00696410|183548395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.004
91834269|NCT00696410|183548396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.48
91834270|NCT00696410|183548396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.39
91834271|NCT00696410|183548397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.92
91834272|NCT00696410|183548397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.22
91834273|NCT02134587|183548402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00001
91834274|NCT02134587|183548403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91834275|NCT01165775|183548491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2155|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2155
91834276|NCT03355326|183548492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.971
91834277|NCT03355326|183548493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.900
91834278|NCT03355326|183548494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.648
91834279|NCT03355326|183548495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.967
91834280|NCT03355326|183548496|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91834281|NCT03355326|183548497|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91834282|NCT03355326|183548498|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91834283|NCT00608582|183548508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.028||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|Post-hoc paired t-tests were performed.||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 Mo. Post rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||<0.028
91834284|NCT00608582|183548508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||p\<.05 considered significant; Pairwise comparisons not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired, t-tests were performed if the ANOVA yields a significant interaction (p\<0.05, two-sided) for Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment.||||<0.05
91834285|NCT00608582|183548508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.237||||||p\<0.05 considered significant. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired, t-tests were performed if the ANOVA yields a significant interaction (p\<0.05, two-sided) for Baseline vs. 2 Mo. after last Sham rTMS treatment.||||<0.237
91834286|NCT00608582|183548509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||0.414
91834287|NCT00608582|183548509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.822||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||<0.822
91834288|NCT00608582|183548509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.835||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||<0.835
91834289|NCT04922554|183548510|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in response rates|14.15||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-values are provided for descriptive purposes.|Chi-squared|Analysis stratified by prior NTM antibiotic treatment was not performed due to small sample size in one randomization stratification subgroup.||||||0.2182
91834290|NCT04922554|183548511|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in response rates|22.15||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-values are provided for descriptive purposes.|Chi-squared|Analysis stratified by prior NTM antibiotic treatment was not performed due to small sample size in one randomization stratification subgroup.||||||0.0460
91834291|NCT04922554|183548520|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|0.8||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|7.52||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||7.52|-6.01|0.8240
91834292|NCT04922554|183548521|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|5.1||||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|13.2||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||13.20|-3.03|0.2149
91834293|NCT04922554|183548522|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|8.3||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|18.88||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||18.88|-2.31|0.1230
91834294|NCT04922554|183548523|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|5.5||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|12.43||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||12.43|-1.41|0.1168
91834295|NCT04922554|183548524|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|6.5||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|13.66||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||13.66|-0.66|0.0743
91834296|NCT04922554|183548525|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|7.1||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|15.23||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||15.23|-1.13|0.0899
91834297|NCT04922554|183548526|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|0.5||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.59||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||8.59|-7.60|0.9019
91834298|NCT04922554|183548527|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|13.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|21.89||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||21.89|5.43|0.0015
91834299|NCT04922554|183548528|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|0.9||||0.8269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|9.05||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of Omadacycline and Placebo for activity score has been presented.|||9.05|-7.26|0.8269
91834300|NCT04922554|183548528|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-0.2||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|7.35||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Omadacycline and Placebo for impact score has been presented|||7.35|-7.74|0.9584
91834301|NCT04922554|183548528|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-5.0||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.88|2.92||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Omadacycline and Placebo for symptom score has been presented.|||2.92|-12.88|0.2123
91834302|NCT04922554|183548528|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-0.8||||0.8161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|5.99||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Omadacycline and Placebo for total score has been presented.|||5.99|-7.58|0.8161
91834303|NCT04922554|183548529|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-5.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|-2.38||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||-2.38|-8.95|0.0010
91834304|NCT04922554|183548530|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in improvement rates|39.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.66|62.56|||Fisher Exact|||||62.56|16.66|0.0020
91834305|NCT04922554|183548531|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in improvement rates|15.41||||0.3051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|39.93|||Fisher Exact|||||39.93|-9.10|0.3051
91644227|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|-0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.157|-0.604|<.0001
91644228|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.484|-0.977|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.977|-1.484|<.0001
91644229|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.539|-1.029|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.029|-1.539|<.0001
91644230|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.564|-1.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.065|-1.564|<.0001
91644231|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.259|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|-1.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.006|-1.512|<.0001
91644232|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.972|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.211|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.211|0.732|<.0001
91644233|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.918|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.161|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.161|0.676|<.0001
91644234|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.278|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.278|0.797|<.0001
91706842|NCT01006590|183307853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||ANCOVA|With baseline value as covariate and treatment group as factor; comparison of LSmeans for treatment||The null hypothesis H0: µt-µC=0, where μT denotes the mean absolute change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the group of patients treated with saxagliptin (test medication, T) and μC the mean absolute change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the group of patients with uptitration of metformin (comparator, C) A sample size of 120 randomized and treated patients per treatment group yielded 80% power under the assumption of a true treatment difference of 0.4% and a standard deviation of 1.1%||0.07|-0.26|0.26
91706843|NCT01006590|183307854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.1|-5.6|0.3202
91644235|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.914|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.156|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.156|0.672|<.0001
91644236|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.121||||0.7939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.388|-0.147|0.7939
91644237|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.281|-0.260|1.0000
91644238|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.301|-0.228|1.0000
91706844|NCT01006590|183307855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.3|-6.7|0.6203
91644239|NCT03692078|183180091|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.305|-0.233|1.0000
91644240|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|7.367|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.25|7.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||7.485|7.250|<.0001
91706845|NCT01006590|183307856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.38|0.7627
91706846|NCT01006590|183307857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.7|-2.0|0.7701
91706847|NCT01006590|183307858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|10.93|||ANCOVA|||||10.93|-6.22|0.5882
91706848|NCT04942210|183307904|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-5%|Difference in percentage of participants|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.2|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|||3.2|-1.2|
91834306|NCT04922554|183548532|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.3552|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3552
91706849|NCT02776670|183307918|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was deemed established if the lower limit of the 95% CI (equivalent to the 1-sided 97.5% CI) for the adjusted estimate of the difference (Systane Balance-Refresh Optive Advanced/Optive Plus) was above the noninferiority margin of -1.0 second.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.601||p-value for testing noninferiority of Systane Balance with respect to Refresh Optive Advanced/Refresh Optive Plus is calculated for predefined noninferiority margin of -1.0 second.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.601|-0.341|<0.0001
91706850|NCT02776670|183307919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.585|||MMRM|||||0.585|-0.349|0.310
91706851|NCT02776670|183307921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.7|||MMRM|||||4.7|-6.4|0.618
91706852|NCT05460078|183307924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.68|1.16|<0.001
91834307|NCT04922554|183548533|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.0753|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0753
91834308|NCT04922554|183548535|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|11.87|||Chi-squared|||||11.87|1.24|0.0168
91834309|NCT04922554|183548536|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.0233|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0233
91834310|NCT04922554|183548537|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.0349|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0349
91834311|NCT03810534|183548556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.62
91834312|NCT03810534|183548557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.31
91834313|NCT03810534|183548558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.93
91834314|NCT03810534|183548559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.60
91834315|NCT03810534|183548560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.53
91834316|NCT03810534|183548561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.83
91834317|NCT03810534|183548562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.75
91834318|NCT03810534|183548563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.50
91834319|NCT03810534|183548564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.48
91834320|NCT03810534|183548565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.22
91834321|NCT03810534|183548566|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.88
91834322|NCT03810534|183548567|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.23
91834323|NCT03092375|183548575|OTHER|Study is not intended to be powered|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|5.12|||||Excludes re-infection and death|The difference in the percentage of subjects with on-treatment virologic failure (Defined as increase of \>1 log10 IU/mL above nadir during treatment, or HCV RNA \>= 15 IU/mL at end of treatment with at least 6 weeks of treatment between Arms A and B are summarized with two-sided 95% Wilson score intervals.||5.12|-9.48|
91834324|NCT03092375|183548576|OTHER|The difference in the percentage of subjects with post-treatment relapse between Arms A and B are summarized with two-sided 95% Wilson score intervals.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|5.49||||||||5.49|-10.49|
91834325|NCT03092375|183548577|OTHER|Difference in percentage of subjects with on-treatment virologic failure between Arms C and D will be summarized with two-sided 95% Wilson score intervals|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|22.08||||||||22.08|-3.03|
91834326|NCT03092375|183548578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|10.22||||||Excludes re-infection and death||10.22|-13.85|
91834327|NCT03092375|183548579|OTHER|Study was not powered to compare efficacy|Logistic Regression Contrast Estimate|-0.812||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.947|0.323|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression contrast estimates with Wald confidence intervals and Chi-square p values|Comparison of Arm Pair A/C versus B/D overall on mITT population|||0.323|-1.947|0.161
91834328|NCT03092375|183548579|OTHER|Study is not powered to compare efficacy of 12 wks vs 16 weeks of treatment|Logistic regression contrast estimate|0.89||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.239|1.076|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression contrast estimates with Wald confidence intervals and Chi-square p values|Difference in proportion of SVR12 rates for 12 vs 16 weeks on mITT Comparing Cirrhotic subjects versus non-cirrhotic subjects.|||1.076|-1.239|0.890
91834329|NCT03092375|183548579|OTHER|Study is not powered|Logistic regression contrast estimate|0.977||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.694|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of 12 weeks vs 16 weeks in Genotype 1b vs non-1b||2.694|-0.740|0.265
91834330|NCT00861614|183548589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Log Rank||Ipilimumab over placebo|||0.96|0.71|0.0127
91834331|NCT00861614|183548591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82|||||Ipilimumab over placebo|||0.82|0.61|
91834332|NCT00861614|183548593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.0|||||Ipilimumab over placebo|||4.00|0.02|
91834333|NCT00944658|183548603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.139
91834334|NCT00944658|183548604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.58
91834335|NCT00944658|183548605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||ANCOVA|Rank Ancova||||||0.108
91644241|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|7.368|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.251|7.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||7.485|7.251|<.0001
91644242|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.883|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.773|6.994|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.994|6.773|<.0001
91644243|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.892|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|7.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||7.004|6.780|<.0001
91644244|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.829|7.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||7.054|6.829|<.0001
91644245|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.896|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.784|7.008|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||7.008|6.784|<.0001
91644246|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.879|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.739|6.019|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.019|5.739|<.0001
91706853|NCT05460078|183307925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.65|1.18|<0.001
91706854|NCT05460078|183307926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.48|1.54|<0.001
91834336|NCT00605202|183548637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value of the change in the plasma potassium (baseline to 2 weeks) between arms|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis applies to the change in the plasma potassium (baseline to 2 weeks) between arms||||0.007
91834337|NCT00838682|183548638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91834338|NCT00838682|183548639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91706855|NCT05460078|183307927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.66|1.17|<0.001
91706856|NCT01119846|183307968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5782|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.523|0.6335|||||Dose Proportionality for GSK1292263 Using the Power Model.|||0.6335|0.5230|
91706857|NCT01119846|183307970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5282|0.6375|||||Dose Proportionality for GSK1292263 Using the Power Model for AUC0-24.|||0.6375|0.5282|
91706858|NCT01119846|183307970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5325|0.6291|||||Dose Proportionality for GSK1292263 Using the Power Model for AUC0-last.|||0.6291|0.5325|
91834339|NCT00838682|183548640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91834340|NCT00838682|183548641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91834341|NCT00838682|183548642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91834342|NCT00838682|183548643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91834343|NCT02305381|183548644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Hierarchical testing was performed as per sequence listed below:Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment, country and stratification variable (HbA1c at screening \[≤8.0% or \>8.0%\] crossed with use of metformin \[yes or no\]; 2 by 2 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate||-1.50|-2.01|< 0.0001
91644247|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.804|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.662|5.946|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.946|5.662|<.0001
91644248|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.916|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.778|6.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.054|5.778|<.0001
91644249|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.917|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.775|6.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||6.058|5.775|<.0001
91644250|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.017|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.881|6.153|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.153|5.881|<.0001
91644251|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.012|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.874|6.149|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||6.149|5.874|<.0001
91644252|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|-0.257|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.257|-0.711|<.0001
91644253|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.476|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.705|-0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.248|-0.705|<.0001
91644254|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.426|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.198|-0.654|<.0001
91644255|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.701|-0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.244|-0.701|<.0001
91852156|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.4629|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.0|0.4629
91644256|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.489|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.747|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.230|-1.747|<.0001
91644257|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.564|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.825|-1.304|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.304|-1.825|<.0001
91644258|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|-1.197|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.197|-1.706|<.0001
91644259|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.193|-1.710|<.0001
91644260|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.866|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.110|0.622|<.0001
91644261|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.128|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.128|0.633|<.0001
91644262|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.924|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.169|0.680|<.0001
91644263|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.884|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.131|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.131|0.638|<.0001
91644264|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.138||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.134|-0.411|0.6800
91644265|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.208||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.483|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.068|-0.483|0.2371
91644266|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101||||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.169|-0.371|0.9133
91644267|NCT03692078|183180093|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095||||0.9432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.180|-0.370|0.9432
91644268|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.513|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.383|4.643|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.643|4.383|<.0001
91644269|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.491|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.371|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.610|4.371|<.0001
91644270|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.027|4.272|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.272|4.027|<.0001
91644271|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.128|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.014|4.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.242|4.014|<.0001
91644272|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.051|4.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.301|4.051|<.0001
91706859|NCT01119846|183307985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.1||||||||1.10|-1.17|
91706860|NCT01119846|183307985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.35||||||||1.35|-0.90|
91706861|NCT01119846|183307985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.19||||||||1.19|-1.10|
91706862|NCT01119846|183307985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.45||||||||0.45|-1.80|
91706863|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.33|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.33|-1.80|
91852157|NCT00430300|183587392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2023|2.0419||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in Statistical Analysis System (SAS), using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.0419|0.2023|
91644273|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.024|4.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.254|4.024|<.0001
91644274|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.997|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.842|3.153|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.153|2.842|<.0001
91644275|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.994|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.849|3.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.138|2.849|<.0001
91644276|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.317|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.164|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.470|3.164|<.0001
91644277|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.342|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.199|3.486|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.486|3.199|<.0001
91644278|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.886|3.187|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.187|2.886|<.0001
91644279|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.019|3.299|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.299|3.019|<.0001
91644280|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.363||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|-0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.113|-0.613|0.0008
91706864|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.76|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.76|-1.53|
91706865|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.451|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.54|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.54|-1.64|
91706866|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.469|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.33|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.33|-1.39|
91852158|NCT00430300|183587392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5574|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1505|2.0647||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.0647|0.1505|
91706867|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.95|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||1.95|-2.53|
91706868|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.3|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||2.30|-2.35|
91644281|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.362||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.595|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.129|-0.595|0.0003
91644282|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.337||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|-0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.085|-0.588|0.0026
91834344|NCT02305381|183548644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Hierarchical testing was performed as per sequence listed below:Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment, country and stratification variable (HbA1c at screening \[≤8.0% or \>8.0%\] crossed with use of metformin \[yes or no\]; 2 by 2 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate||-1.10|-1.61|< 0.0001
91834345|NCT02276066|183548652|OTHER|We performed a delta analysis, by graphing the difference between the two measurements, we wanted to visually assess the degree of agreement or discrepancy between the two methods. We were looking to evaluate the consistency, accuracy, or bias between different measurement techniques.|||||<|0.05|||||||Delta analysis|||||||<0.05
91834346|NCT02943941|183548665|OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.429
91834347|NCT02943941|183548666|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Pressure during coughing versus normal breathing initially measured at baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.059
91834348|NCT02943941|183548667|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91834349|NCT03286751|183548687|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.01||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.974|0.5495
91834350|NCT03286751|183548687|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.02||||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.986|0.2236
91834351|NCT03286751|183548687|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.03||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.07|0.997|0.0727
91834352|NCT03286751|183548688|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.97||||0.5749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.87|0.5749
91834353|NCT03286751|183548688|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.92||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.83|0.1578
91834354|NCT03286751|183548688|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.92||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.83|0.1351
91834355|NCT01301391|183548698|SUPERIORITY||Single proportion|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.74||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||H0:p≤ 25% vs H1:p\> 25% with an interesting PFS-3 rate of 50% (median PFS of 3 months), alpha=0.05 and beta=0.10, 30 evaluable patients are required for a single stage trial. If at the end of the trial 12 or more out of 30 evaluable patients are alive and progression-free at 3 months since the treatment start date, the null hypothesis are rejected. A Fleming multiple-testing procedure is applied. If \>=4 successes out of the first 15 patients are observed, accrual will continue up to 30.||0.74|0.33|<0.001
91706869|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.15|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||2.15|-2.48|
91706870|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.21|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||2.21|-1.88|
91834356|NCT00106184|183548713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|No confidence intervals as no parameters were estimated.||Proportional hazards model||||=0.74
91834357|NCT00106184|183548714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Difference in baseline muscle enzymes therefore tested the difference in the proportions adjusting for the baseline values.||||||>0.90
91834358|NCT00106184|183548715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Log Rank|||||||>0.90
91834359|NCT01814748|183548732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.12||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.49|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||0.49|-0.26|0.535
91834360|NCT01814748|183548733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.0||||||||13.0|-13.8|
91834361|NCT01814748|183548734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-2.0||||||||||||||||||
91834362|NCT01814748|183548735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|4.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|24.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||24.4|-16.1|0.685
91834363|NCT01814748|183548736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.7||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|9.7|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||9.7|-17.1|0.586
91834364|NCT01814748|183548737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|13.1|||Mietinnen and Nurminen|||||13.1|-14.0|
91834365|NCT01814748|183548738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|15.5|||Mietinnen and Nurminen|||||15.5|-7.4|
91644283|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.351||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.584|-0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.118|-0.584|0.0004
91644284|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.515|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.230|-1.800|<.0001
91644285|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.497|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|-1.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.231|-1.762|<.0001
91644286|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.196|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.477|-0.915|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.915|-1.477|<.0001
91644287|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.886|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.886|-1.410|<.0001
91852159|NCT00430300|183587392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|1.2879||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||1.2879|0.0830|
91644288|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.382|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.382|0.844|<.0001
91644289|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.969|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.221|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.221|0.717|<.0001
91644290|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.410|0.869|<.0001
91706871|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.87|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||0.87|-1.58|
91706872|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.13|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||1.13|-1.41|
91706873|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|1.18|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||1.18|-1.36|
91706874|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.91|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||0.91|-1.33|
91644291|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.231|0.728|<.0001
91644292|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.262|-0.340|1.0000
91644293|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.5184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.115|-0.447|0.5184
91644294|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.578|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.578|-0.017|0.0743
91644295|NCT03692078|183180095|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.183||||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.462|-0.095|0.3889
91644296|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.264|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.155|5.373|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.373|5.155|<.0001
91644297|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.204|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.106|5.302|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.302|5.106|<.0001
91644298|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.902|5.108|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.108|4.902|<.0001
91644299|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.958|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.864|5.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.051|4.864|<.0001
91706875|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.68|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||0.68|-1.68|
91706876|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.21|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||1.21|-1.24|
91644300|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.009|5.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.219|5.009|<.0001
91644301|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.052|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.958|5.146|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.146|4.958|<.0001
91644302|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.539|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.407|4.671|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.671|4.407|<.0001
91644303|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.295|4.534|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.534|4.295|<.0001
91644304|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.431|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.302|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.560|4.302|<.0001
91644305|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.361|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.243|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.480|4.243|<.0001
91644306|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.359|4.612|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.612|4.359|<.0001
91644307|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.473|4.703|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.703|4.473|<.0001
91644308|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.259||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|-0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.049|-0.469|0.0073
91706877|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.95|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||0.95|-1.44|
91644309|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.246||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|-0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.055|-0.438|0.0041
91644310|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.061|-0.361|0.3080
91834366|NCT00409682|183548750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.29||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|23.71||There is no adjustment for multiple comparison on the primary outcome measure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is between adalimumab High-dose and adalimumab Low-dose group.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical remission in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference were provided. The P value is from the CMH test adjusted for infliximab use and response status at Week 4. The primary analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) using the non-responder (NRI) imputation method.||23.71|-3.14|0.075
91834367|NCT00409682|183548751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.18||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|22.97||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A significance test for any individual major secondary efficacy endpoint in the hierarchy was to be inferential only if the hypothesis tests of all preceding major secondary efficacy endpoints were statistically significant at 0.050.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical remission in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% CIs for the difference were provided. The analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the non-responder imputation (NRI) method.||22.97|-2.62|0.100
91834368|NCT00409682|183548752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.72||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|24.89||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A significance test for any individual major secondary efficacy endpoint in the hierarchy was to be inferential only if the hypothesis tests of all preceding major secondary efficacy endpoints were statistically significant at 0.050.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical response in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference were provided. The analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the non-responder imputation (NRI) method.||24.89|-3.45|0.073
91834369|NCT00409682|183548753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.51||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|27.04||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A significance test for any individual major secondary efficacy endpoint in the hierarchy was to be inferential only if the hypothesis tests of all preceding major secondary efficacy endpoints were statistically significant at 0.050.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical response in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference were provided. The analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the non-responder imputation (NRI) method.||27.04|-0.01|0.038
91851592|NCT04246762|183586818|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-inf))|70.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.62|81.91|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of midazolam with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||81.91|60.62|
91644311|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.152||||0.1982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.039|-0.343|0.1982
91706878|NCT01119846|183307986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.4|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||0.40|-1.72|
91706879|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-479.74|379.94|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||379.94|-479.74|
91706880|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.642|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-507.32|384.04|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||384.04|-507.32|
91706881|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.849|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-530.07|358.37|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||358.37|-530.07|
91706882|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-494.09|291.25|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||291.25|-494.09|
91706883|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-340.32|261.85|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||261.85|-340.32|
91644312|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.725|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|-0.486|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.486|-0.965|<.0001
91644313|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.008|-0.571|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.571|-1.008|<.0001
91644314|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.833|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.069|-0.597|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.597|-1.069|<.0001
91644315|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.843|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.059|-0.627|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.627|-1.059|<.0001
91644316|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.745|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.745|0.294|<.0001
91644317|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.577|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.577|0.163|<.0001
91644318|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|0.855|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.855|0.402|<.0001
91644319|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.464|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.670|0.257|<.0001
91644320|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.053||||0.9984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.306|-0.200|0.9984
91706884|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-117.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-429.61|194.74|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||194.74|-429.61|
91706885|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-121.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-433.14|189.18|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||189.18|-433.14|
91644321|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.173||||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.058|-0.405|0.2491
91644322|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054||||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.195|-0.304|0.9977
91644323|NCT03692078|183180097|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.003|-0.456|0.0554
91644324|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.294|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.208|3.379|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.379|3.208|<.0001
91644325|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.176|3.348|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.348|3.176|<.0001
91644326|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.039|3.202|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.202|3.039|<.0001
91644327|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.099|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.017|3.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.181|3.017|<.0001
91644328|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.182|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|3.264|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.264|3.100|<.0001
91644329|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.149|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.066|3.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.231|3.066|<.0001
91852160|NCT00430300|183587393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5709|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|1.8204||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||1.8204|0.1790|
91644330|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.777|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.673|2.881|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.881|2.673|<.0001
91644331|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.651|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.546|2.756|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.756|2.546|<.0001
91644332|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.618|2.823|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.823|2.618|<.0001
91644333|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.649|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.544|2.753|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.753|2.544|<.0001
91644334|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.751|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.651|2.851|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.851|2.651|<.0001
91644335|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.819|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.718|2.919|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.919|2.718|<.0001
91644336|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.173||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.006|-0.340|0.0377
91644337|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.006|-0.331|0.0643
91644338|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.056|-0.279|0.3875
91852161|NCT00430300|183587393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6416|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1736|2.3715||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.3715|0.1736|
91644339|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.113||||0.3725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.054|-0.280|0.3725
91644340|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.516|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.327|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.327|-0.706|<.0001
91644341|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.802|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.420|-0.802|<.0001
91644342|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.573|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.386|-0.760|<.0001
91644343|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.803|-0.423|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.423|-0.803|<.0001
91644344|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.369|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.548|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.548|0.190|<.0001
91644345|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.462|0.099|0.0003
91644346|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.431|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|0.611|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.611|0.251|<.0001
91706886|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.07|194.03|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||194.03|-356.07|
91706887|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.812|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|13.7|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||13.70|-8.08|
91706888|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|14.32|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||14.32|-8.27|
91706889|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|22.74|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||22.74|0.23|
91706890|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|2.86|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||2.86|-17.04|
91706891|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|12.28|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||12.28|-7.28|
91834370|NCT00409682|183548754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.903||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|1.66||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population.|ANCOVA||Difference is between adalimumab High-dose and adalimumab Low-dose groups. Baseline means include subjects who had both Baseline and post-Baseline measurements.|"Analyzed as change from Baseline to Week 26, and compared between the two treatment groups. The estimated treatment mean difference, P values, and 95% CI for the treatment difference were provided. Analysis was conducted in the ITT population for OC.~The P value is from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for the baseline value, and the strata (response status at Week 4 and prior infliximab experience)."||1.66|-9.86|0.161
91834371|NCT00409682|183548755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.941||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|4.88|||ANCOVA||Difference is between adalimumab High-dose and adalimumab Low-dose groups. Baseline means include subjects who had both Baseline and post-Baseline measurements.|Analyzed as change from Baseline to Week 52, and compared between the two treatment groups. The estimated treatment mean difference, P values, and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference were provided. Analysis was conducted in the ITT population for OC.||4.88|-6.88|0.735
91834372|NCT04710927|183548759|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91834373|NCT04710927|183548759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91834374|NCT03595332|183548760|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis tests whether for both groups combined, the baseline to 10-week follow-up BMI percentile scores are significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9846||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|3.067||This test compares baseline to 10-week post-test for both groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the BMI Percentile score would not be different from zero. A p-value of 0.05 was used as a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equations to account for nested data structure of 222 children nested within 150 families and 4 schools.||||3.067|-0.793|0.248
91834375|NCT03595332|183548761|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis tested whether BMI Percentile score change among overweight participants (BMI equal or greater than 85th percentile at baseline) significantly changed from baseline to follow-up (was significantly different from zero). This was a subset analysis among the highest risk participants in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.806|-0.541||The p-value threshold was 0.05 for all comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equations to account for nested data structure of children within schools and families.|A negative parameter suggests a decreased BMI Percentile.|||-0.541|-5.806|0.018
91834376|NCT03595332|183548762|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis tested the difference in BMI percentile between baseline and 1-year follow-up among participants in the immediate intervention group to test the null hypothesis that no change occurred.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.676||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.922|3.648||A prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Regression, Linear|Analysis included Generalized Estimating Equations with linear response variable, accounting for nested data structure.||||3.648|-2.922|0.829
91834377|NCT03595332|183548763|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis test whether for both groups combined, Baseline to 10-week change in reported intention of physical activity was significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.534||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression models with Generalized Estimating Equations to account for nested data were made.|A positive parameter would suggest an increase in intentions to be physically active.|||0.534|0.034|0.026
91834378|NCT02227875|183548764|NON_INFERIORITY|Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.218||||||||0.218|-0.098|
91834379|NCT01069354|183548920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91834380|NCT01069354|183548921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Binomial proportion, two-sided Fisher's exact test|Fisher Exact|||91 (90.1%) of 101 subjects had a ≥ 2.0 cm lower VAS Score in treatment versus control NLF at Time 0||||<0.0001
91834381|NCT01069354|183548922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91834382|NCT01069354|183548923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91706892|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.526|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|13.67|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||13.67|-6.61|
91706893|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|18.04|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||18.04|-2.17|
91834383|NCT01069354|183548924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91834384|NCT01069354|183548925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91834385|NCT01069354|183548926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5663||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5663
91834386|NCT01069354|183548927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3197||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3197
91834387|NCT03138733|183548930|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -15%, the non-inferiority of ceftobiprole to daptomycin therapy was to be concluded.|Adjusted proportion difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|11.1||||||The observed difference in percentage of responders at PTE (ceftobiprole group minus the daptomycin group) were determined and a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed difference was computed, with adjustment for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use). Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights were used for the stratum weight in the calculation of the CI||11.1|-7.1|
91900817|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.5|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.5|-2.3|0.8903
91834388|NCT03138733|183548931|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.5|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||9.5|-8.3|
91644347|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.511|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.511|0.149|<.0001
91644348|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.228|-0.176|1.0000
91644349|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.168||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.036|-0.371|0.1589
91644350|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.168|-0.230|0.9999
91644351|NCT03692078|183180099|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.032|-0.372|0.1453
91644352|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|1.382|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.382|0.788|<.0001
91644353|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.104|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.400|0.807|<.0001
91644354|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|0.886|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.886|0.326|<.0001
91706894|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|1.88|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||1.88|-15.99|
91706895|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.76|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||0.76|-0.79|
91834389|NCT03138733|183548932|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.0|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||13|-2.9|
91834390|NCT03138733|183548933|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.2|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||5.2|-6.2|
91834391|NCT03138733|183548934|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.8|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||4.8|-4.6|
91834392|NCT02521285|183548983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
91834393|NCT02521285|183548983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.149
91834394|NCT02521285|183548984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.878
91834395|NCT02521285|183548985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.382
91834396|NCT02521285|183548985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91834397|NCT02521285|183548986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91834398|NCT02521285|183548986|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91834399|NCT02521285|183548987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.234
91834400|NCT02521285|183548987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.442
91644355|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.476||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.760|0.192|0.0011
91834401|NCT02521285|183548988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.645
91706896|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||0.82|-0.78|
91834402|NCT02521285|183548988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.878
91834403|NCT02521285|183548996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
91834404|NCT02521285|183548997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms||||0.397
91706897|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.85|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||0.85|-0.78|
91706898|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|4.17|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||4.17|2.74|
91706899|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.75|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||0.75|-0.78|
91834405|NCT02521285|183548997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in arms.||||0.983
91834406|NCT02521285|183548998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.065
91834407|NCT02521285|183548998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.203
91834408|NCT02521285|183548999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
91834409|NCT02521285|183548999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
91834410|NCT02521285|183549000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.281
91834411|NCT02521285|183549000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.189
91834412|NCT02521285|183549001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
91834413|NCT02521285|183549001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.195
91834414|NCT02521285|183549002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
91834415|NCT02521285|183549002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.432
91834416|NCT02521285|183549003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.463
91834417|NCT02521285|183549003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.189
91834418|NCT02521285|183549004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.105
91834419|NCT02521285|183549004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.161
91834420|NCT02521285|183549007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.518
91834421|NCT02521285|183549008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.876
91834422|NCT02521285|183549008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.505
91834423|NCT02521285|183549009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.463
91834424|NCT02521285|183549009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
91834425|NCT02521285|183549010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.105
91834426|NCT02521285|183549010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91834427|NCT05701995|183549023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|23.6|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set||23.6|2.5|0.0001
91834428|NCT05701995|183549023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|30.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||30.4|2.4|0.0003
91834429|NCT05701995|183549024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set||4.4|1.2|0.0107
91834430|NCT05701995|183549024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.7|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||4.7|1.2|0.0175
91834431|NCT05701995|183549025|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.2|||Covariance model|||Full Analysis Set||-1.2|-2.9|<0.0001
91834432|NCT05701995|183549025|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3|||Covariance model|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||-1.3|-3.0|<0.0001
91834433|NCT05701995|183549026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|17.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||17.4|2.0|0.0004
91834434|NCT00715429|183549033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27||||||Daily cramp rate at baseline\& on treatment, were calculated as % of each subjects total # of cramps, for comparison among subjects. Change in % cramp rates from baseline to treatment was computed for each subject in vit D and placebo groups.|t-test, 2 sided|T test was used to compare the change in % cramp rate from baseline to treatment for each subject in each treatment group.||||||0.27
91852162|NCT00430300|183587393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1516|2.2777||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.2777|0.1516|
91644356|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.505||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.790|0.219|0.0006
91644357|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.775|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.060|0.490|<.0001
91644358|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.472|-1.761|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.761|-2.472|<.0001
91644359|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.016|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.376|-1.656|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.656|-2.376|<.0001
91644360|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.605|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.958|-1.253|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.253|-1.958|<.0001
91644361|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.642|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.003|-1.282|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.282|-2.003|<.0001
91644362|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.578|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.922|-1.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.234|-1.922|<.0001
91644363|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.726|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.074|-1.378|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.378|-2.074|<.0001
91706900|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||0.80|-0.79|
91706901|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.83|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||0.83|-0.79|
91706902|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.399|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.11|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||4.11|2.69|
91706903|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.17|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||2.17|-2.06|
91896025|NCT04874415|183687453|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.0|125.0|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||125|-126|
91644364|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.479||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.054|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.097|-1.054|0.1579
91644365|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.628||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.207|-0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.048|-1.207|0.0260
91644366|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.158|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.003|-1.158|0.0483
91644367|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.329||||0.5842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.906|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.249|-0.906|0.5842
91644368|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.201|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.856|-2.546|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.546|-3.856|<.0001
91644369|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.119|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.779|-2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.460|-3.779|<.0001
91644370|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.338|-2.043|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.043|-3.338|<.0001
91644371|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.746|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.402|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.090|-3.402|<.0001
91706904|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.42|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||2.42|-1.97|
91834435|NCT00406133|183549035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||"A P value of 0.0167 was considered the significance level for the primary analysis in each age group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.~P value is for age 8-14 group."|ANCOVA|Performed in each age group and adjusted for the baseline A1c and clinical center.||The study was to test whether the use of CGM will lower A1c at 26 weeks. The estimated sample size was 110 for each age group, which will provide 90% power to detect a difference between treatment groups in each of the age groups assuming a population difference of 0.5%, a two-tailed test with type I error rate of 5%, standard deviation of the 6 month HbA1c values of 0.9, correlation between baseline and 26-week values of 0.58.||||0.29
91644372|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.184|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.565|2.803|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.803|1.565|<.0001
91834436|NCT00406133|183549035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||"A P value of 0.0167 was considered the significance level for the primary analysis in each age group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.~P value for age 15-24 group."|ANCOVA|Performed in each age group and adjusted for the baseline A1c and clinical center.||||||0.52
91834437|NCT00406133|183549035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"A P value of 0.0167 was considered the significance level for the primary analysis in each age group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.~P value is for age \>=25 group."|ANCOVA|Performed in each age group and adjusted for the baseline A1c and clinical center.||||||<0.001
91834438|NCT00406133|183549036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-value was for the comparison of RT-CGM group and Control group.|ANCOVA|Based on the ranks of the 26wk values using VDW scores, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||A sample size of 120 subjects was planned to have 90% power to detect a difference in this outcome between treatment groups, assuming a population difference of 29 min/day, standard deviation of the 26-week values of 59 min/day, correlation between baseline and 26-week values of 0.66, an α=0.05, and no more than 15% losses to follow-up.||||0.16
91834439|NCT00406133|183549037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event in the 8-14 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||0.74
91834440|NCT00406133|183549037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event in the 15-24 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
91834441|NCT00406133|183549037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event in the \>=25 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91834442|NCT00406133|183549037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event with seizure or comma in the 8-14 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||0.74
91834443|NCT00406133|183549037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event with seizure or comma in the 15-24 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||0.48
91834444|NCT00406133|183549037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event with seizure or comma in the \>=25 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||1.0
91834445|NCT00406133|183549038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.53
91834446|NCT00406133|183549038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.79
91706905|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.835|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.02|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||4.02|-0.35|
91706906|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.629|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.3|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||0.30|-3.56|
91834447|NCT00406133|183549038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91852163|NCT01063517|183587402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|1.03|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of progression in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of progression in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group, ATM status and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||1.03|0.62|
91706907|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.86|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||1.86|-1.70|
91706908|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.13|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||2.13|-1.56|
91644373|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.576|2.828|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.828|1.576|<.0001
91644374|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.083|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|2.704|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.704|1.461|<.0001
91644375|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.501|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.876|3.126|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.126|1.876|<.0001
91644376|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.538||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.231|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.154|-1.231|0.2085
91644377|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.289||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.988|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.410|-0.988|0.8557
91644378|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.658|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.658|-0.713|1.0000
91644379|NCT03692078|183180101|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.084||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.780|-0.612|1.0000
91644380|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.081|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.484|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.484|0.679|<.0001
91706909|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.764|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.6|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||2.60|-1.08|
91706910|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.336|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.29|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||0.29|-2.96|
91706911|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|6.18|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||6.18|-4.26|
91896026|NCT04874415|183687454|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.9|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.9|-3.9|
91706912|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.067|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|8.69|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||8.69|-2.56|
91644381|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.309|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.716|0.902|<.0001
91644382|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.996|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.377|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.377|0.615|<.0001
91644383|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.728||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.116|0.339|0.0003
91644384|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.987|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.381|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.381|0.593|<.0001
91644385|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.865|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|1.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.254|0.475|<.0001
91644386|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.436||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.920|-0.047|0.0768
91644387|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.091||||0.7155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.583|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.583|-0.400|0.7155
91644388|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.237||||0.3282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.713|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.713|-0.239|0.3282
91644389|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.262|-0.722|0.3578
91706913|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|8.01|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||8.01|-2.98|
91706914|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|4.13|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||4.13|-5.56|
91644390|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.338||||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.814|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.814|-0.138|0.1638
91644391|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.8384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.533|0.433|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.433|-0.533|0.8384
91644392|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.086||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|0.698|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.698|-0.869|1.0000
91644393|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.581||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.377|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.214|-1.377|0.2808
91644394|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.887|0.698|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.698|-0.887|1.0000
91644395|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.444||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.237|0.349|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.349|-1.237|0.6018
91644396|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.645||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.536|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.246|-1.536|0.2935
91644397|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.218||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.315|-2.120|0.0023
91706915|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.67|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||0.67|-6.40|
91706916|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|2.95|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||2.95|-4.68|
91706917|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.436|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|3.29|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||3.29|-4.16|
91706918|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.573|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|1.71|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||1.71|-4.86|
91896027|NCT04874415|183687454|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.6|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2.6|-2.6|
91644398|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.844||||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.723|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.035|-1.723|0.0669
91644399|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.539|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.438|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.640|-2.438|<.0001
91644400|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.658||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|1.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.509|-0.192|0.2120
91644401|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.778||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|1.642|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.642|-0.087|0.0993
91644402|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.649||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|1.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.509|-0.211|0.2347
91644403|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.915||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|1.778|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.778|0.052|0.0320
91644404|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.849|1.047|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.047|-0.849|1.0000
91644405|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.141||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.103|-0.820|0.9999
91644406|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.038|0.837|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.837|-1.038|1.0000
91706919|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.38|118.9|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||118.90|-168.38|
91706920|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.16|136.7|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||136.70|-161.16|
91834448|NCT00406133|183549039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.58
91834449|NCT00406133|183549039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.85
91834450|NCT00406133|183549039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.002
91834451|NCT00406133|183549040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.18
91834452|NCT00406133|183549040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for the baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.44
91834453|NCT00406133|183549040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||<0.001
91834454|NCT00406133|183549041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.29
91834455|NCT00406133|183549041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.79
91834456|NCT00406133|183549041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.41
91834457|NCT00406133|183549042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.50
91834458|NCT00406133|183549042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.99
91834459|NCT00406133|183549042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.10
91834460|NCT00406133|183549043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Glucose variability was assessed by computing the absolute rate of change.||||0.66
91834461|NCT00406133|183549043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.48
91834462|NCT00406133|183549043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.07
91834463|NCT00406133|183549044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center.||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center).||||<0.001
91834464|NCT00406133|183549045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Based on the ranks of the 26wk values using VDW scores, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, clinical center and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||<0.001
91644407|NCT03692078|183180103|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|0.779|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.779|-1.139|0.9995
91644408|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.964|3.276|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.276|2.964|<.0001
91644409|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.141|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.953|3.328|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.328|2.953|<.0001
91644410|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.658|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.511|2.806|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.806|2.511|<.0001
91644411|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.638|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.458|2.817|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.817|2.458|<.0001
91644412|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.754|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.604|2.903|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.903|2.604|<.0001
91644413|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.652|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.471|2.832|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.832|2.471|<.0001
91644414|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.517|1.889|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.889|1.517|<.0001
91706921|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.628|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.07|138.81|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||138.81|-158.07|
91706922|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.15|64.28|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||64.28|-198.15|
91706923|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.57|78.48|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||78.48|-150.57|
91900818|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.5011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.6|-1.6|0.5011
91706924|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.525|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.27|96.22|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||96.22|-141.27|
91644415|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.637|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.865|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.865|1.410|<.0001
91644416|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.656|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.472|1.839|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.839|1.472|<.0001
91644417|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.485|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|1.711|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.711|1.259|<.0001
91644418|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.713|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.532|1.895|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.895|1.532|<.0001
91644419|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.617|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.397|1.837|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.837|1.397|<.0001
91644420|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.462||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.766|-0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.158|-0.766|0.0003
91644421|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.503||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|-0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.139|-0.867|0.0018
91644422|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.366||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.062|-0.670|0.0089
91706925|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.36|96.36|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||96.36|-140.36|
91706926|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.95|38.3|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||38.30|-170.95|
91706927|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|14.62|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||14.62|-2.66|
91706928|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|17.86|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||17.86|-0.05|
91706929|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|23.24|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||23.24|5.39|
91706930|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|2.45|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||2.45|-13.33|
91644423|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.489||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.851|-0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.126|-0.851|0.0025
91644424|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.417|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|-1.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.072|-1.762|<.0001
91644425|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.504|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.916|-1.091|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.091|-1.916|<.0001
91644426|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.464|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.804|-1.125|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.125|-1.804|<.0001
91644427|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.656|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.065|-1.247|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.247|-2.065|<.0001
91644428|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|1.273|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.273|0.617|<.0001
91644429|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.413|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.413|0.628|<.0001
91644430|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|1.369|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.369|0.712|<.0001
91644431|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|1.426|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.426|0.644|<.0001
91706931|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|11.87|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||11.87|-1.87|
91644432|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|0.355|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.355|-0.376|1.0000
91644433|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.457|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.457|-0.417|1.0000
91644434|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.418|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.303|-0.418|0.9999
91644435|NCT03692078|183180105|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.132||||0.9669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.566|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.301|-0.566|0.9669
91644436|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.604|-1.279|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.279|-1.604|<.0001
91644437|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.576|-1.251|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.251|-1.576|<.0001
91644438|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.754|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.907|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.600|-1.907|<.0001
91644439|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.816|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.972|-1.659|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.659|-1.972|<.0001
91644440|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.654|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.498|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.498|-1.810|<.0001
91706932|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|14.03|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||14.03|-0.22|
91644441|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.829|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.986|-1.673|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.673|-1.986|<.0001
91644442|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.184|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.379|-1.989|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.989|-2.379|<.0001
91644443|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.468|-2.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.071|-2.468|<.0001
91644444|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.607|-2.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.219|-2.607|<.0001
91644445|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.349|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.549|-2.149|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.149|-2.549|<.0001
91644446|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|-2.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.038|-2.416|<.0001
91644447|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.154|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.345|-1.962|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.962|-2.345|<.0001
91644448|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.004|-0.628|0.0552
91706933|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|16.14|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||16.14|1.93|
91706934|NCT01119846|183307987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|-0.11|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||-0.11|-12.67|
91706935|NCT01119846|183307988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.56|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.56|-2.69|
91706936|NCT01119846|183307988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.846|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.36|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.36|-3.05|
91706937|NCT01119846|183307988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|1.02|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.02|-3.37|
91706938|NCT01119846|183307988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.33|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.33|-2.56|
91644449|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.402||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|-0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.083|-0.722|0.0055
91644450|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.212||||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.105|-0.530|0.3834
91644451|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.416||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.734|-0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.099|-0.734|0.0033
91644452|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.743|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|-0.382|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.382|-1.103|<.0001
91644453|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.857|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.493|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.493|-1.220|<.0001
91644454|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.327|-0.616|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.616|-1.327|<.0001
91644455|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.936|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.298|-0.574|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.574|-1.298|<.0001
91644456|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.473||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.813|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.813|0.133|0.0016
91644457|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.338||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.683|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.683|-0.007|0.0582
91706939|NCT01119846|183307988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.626|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.39|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||0.39|-1.64|
91706940|NCT01119846|183307988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.956|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.09|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||0.09|-2.01|
91644458|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.573|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|0.914|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.914|0.232|<.0001
91644459|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.324||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.668|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.668|-0.020|0.0745
91644460|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.422|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.422|-0.337|1.0000
91644461|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.116||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.501|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.268|-0.501|0.9759
91644462|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.186||||0.7128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.192|-0.565|0.7128
91644463|NCT03692078|183180107|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.195||||0.6816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.192|-0.582|0.6816
91644464|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.948|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.146|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.750|-1.146|<.0001
91644465|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.019|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.242|-0.796|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.796|-1.242|<.0001
91644466|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.358|-0.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.986|-1.358|<.0001
91706941|NCT01119846|183307988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.103|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.06|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||-0.06|-2.15|
91706942|NCT01119846|183307988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.07|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||-0.07|-1.91|
91834465|NCT00406133|183549046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined.|ANCOVA|||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||0.03
91834466|NCT00406133|183549047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P-value for the 8-14 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.04
91834467|NCT00406133|183549047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||P-value for the 15-24 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.46
91834468|NCT00406133|183549047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value for the \>=25 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
91834469|NCT00406133|183549048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||P-value for 8-14 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.24
91834470|NCT00406133|183549048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P-value for the 15-24 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.98
91834471|NCT00406133|183549048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value for the \>=25 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.48
91834472|NCT00406133|183549049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined|ANCOVA|||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||0.005
91834473|NCT00406133|183549050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined.|ANCOVA|||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||0.05
91834474|NCT00406133|183549051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined.|ANCOVA|||Glucose variability was assessed by computing the absolute rate of change.||||0.39
91834475|NCT00406133|183549052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||||0.04
91834476|NCT00406133|183549053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatment differences|408148.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176644.0|3475108.0||||||"ICER = Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio is defined as the mean difference in costs between the treatment groups divided by the mean difference in QALY (quality-adjusted life-year) between the treatment groups:~(mean cost\[CGM\] - mean cost \[control\]) / (mean QALY\[CGM\] - mean QALY\[SMBG\]).~Units are dollars per QALY."||3475108|-176644|
91834477|NCT00406133|183549054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||P-value for the 8-14 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.009
91834478|NCT00406133|183549054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||P-value for 15-24 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.57
91834479|NCT00406133|183549054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the \>=25 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91834480|NCT00406133|183549055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||P-value for 8-14 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.18
91834481|NCT00406133|183549055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||||||P-value for 15-24 year old age group.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.84
91834482|NCT00406133|183549055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-value for \>=25 year old age group.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
91834483|NCT00406133|183549056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value for 8-14 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.01
91834484|NCT00406133|183549056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||P-value for 14-24 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.80
91834485|NCT00406133|183549056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-value for \>=25 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.005
91834486|NCT00406133|183549057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-value for the 8-14 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||A post-hoc defined binary outcome of 26-week glycated hemoglobin \<7.0% with no severe hypoglycemic events was analyzed in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.02
91834487|NCT00406133|183549057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||P-value for the 15-24 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.67
91834488|NCT00406133|183549057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value for the \>=25 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.006
91834489|NCT00406133|183549058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center) and 26-week binary A1c outcomes (decrease and increase in A1C from baseline by \>=0.3% and 26-week value \<7.0%) evaluated similarly using logistic regression models.||||<0.001
91644467|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.196|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.409|-0.983|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.983|-1.409|<.0001
91644468|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.049|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.239|-0.859|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.859|-1.239|<.0001
91644469|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.414|-0.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.986|-1.414|<.0001
91644470|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.337|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.574|-1.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.099|-1.574|<.0001
91644471|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.345|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.616|-1.075|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.075|-1.616|<.0001
91644472|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.685|-1.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.219|-1.685|<.0001
91644473|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.339|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.608|-1.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.071|-1.608|<.0001
91644474|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.348|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.577|-1.118|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.118|-1.577|<.0001
91644475|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.488|-0.966|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.966|-1.488|<.0001
91706943|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|152.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.57|506.49|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||506.49|-200.57|
91706944|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.69|480.42|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||480.42|-252.69|
91644476|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.224||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.607|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.160|-0.607|0.5646
91644477|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.177||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.254|-0.609|0.8765
91644478|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101||||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.287|-0.488|0.9954
91644479|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.181||||0.8665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.252|-0.613|0.8665
91644480|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.389||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.829|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.052|-0.829|0.1165
91644481|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.326||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.168|-0.821|0.3896
91644482|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.504||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.934|-0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.074|-0.934|0.0122
91644483|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.807|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.167|-0.807|0.3938
91644484|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.176||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.589|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.589|-0.237|0.8501
91706945|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|114.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.89|479.83|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||479.83|-250.89|
91706946|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|136.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.32|459.6|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||459.60|-186.32|
91644485|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.031||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|0.496|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.496|-0.435|1.0000
91644486|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.299||||0.2928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.715|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.715|-0.117|0.2928
91644487|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.027||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.493|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.493|-0.439|1.0000
91644488|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.475|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.475|-0.453|1.0000
91644489|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.118||||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.403|-0.640|0.9966
91644490|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.104||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.352|-0.560|0.9976
91644491|NCT03692078|183180109|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.404|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.404|-0.628|0.9976
91706947|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|163.622|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.31|454.55|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||454.55|-127.31|
91706948|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.074|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-243.57|359.72|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||359.72|-243.57|
91706949|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.32|379.0|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||379.00|-222.32|
91834490|NCT00406133|183549059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center) and 26-week binary A1c outcomes (decrease and increase in A1C from baseline by \>=0.3% and 26-week value \<7.0%) evaluated similarly using logistic regression models.||||0.002
91834491|NCT00406133|183549060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center) and 26-week binary A1c outcomes (decrease and increase in A1C from baseline by \>=0.3% and 26-week value \<7.0%) evaluated similarly using logistic regression models.||||<0.001
91834492|NCT06916468|183549127|OTHER||Proportion|86.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|Comparing preference to 50/50 baseline||||||<0.001
91706950|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|157.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.73|422.82|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||422.82|-108.73|
91834493|NCT06916468|183549128|OTHER||Proportion|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Proportion|Out of the 53 participants , what proportion preferred the device without the cotton dampener on majority of anatomical sites||||||<0.001
91644492|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|180.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.9|195.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||195.2|164.9|<.0001
91644493|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|181.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|165.9|196.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||196.2|165.9|<.0001
91644494|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|132.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.2|147.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||147.5|117.2|<.0001
91644495|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|137.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.1|152.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||152.5|122.1|<.0001
91644496|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|136.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.0|151.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||151.7|122.0|<.0001
91644497|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|150.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|136.0|165.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||165.7|136.0|<.0001
91644498|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|61.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||61.4|25.1|<.0001
91644499|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|61.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|80.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||80.1|43.2|<.0001
91644500|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|55.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||55.1|18.6|<.0001
91706951|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|17.87|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||17.87|-4.79|
91644501|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|35.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|54.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||54.3|16.7|0.0002
91644502|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|38.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|57.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||57.6|19.9|<.0001
91644503|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|44.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|63.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||63.8|26.0|<.0001
91644504|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-47.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-17.4|-78.0|0.0002
91644505|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-13.4|-74.1|0.0009
91644506|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.2||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.2|-13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-13.3|-73.2|0.0009
91644507|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-30.2||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.3|-60.2|0.0466
91644508|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-136.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.4|-103.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-103.3|-170.4|<.0001
91644509|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-119.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.3|-85.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-85.5|-153.3|<.0001
91706952|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|15.84|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||15.84|-7.65|
91644510|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-143.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.6|-109.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-109.7|-176.6|<.0001
91644511|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-145.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.7|-111.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-111.4|-179.7|<.0001
91644512|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|93.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|127.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||127.2|60.0|<.0001
91644513|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|92.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.8|126.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||126.1|58.8|<.0001
91644514|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|98.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.6|131.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||131.5|64.6|<.0001
91644515|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|106.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.5|139.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||139.4|72.5|<.0001
91644516|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||40.9|-32.0|1.0000
91706953|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|24.74|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||24.74|1.33|
91644517|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|16.8||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|53.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||53.5|-20.0|0.7714
91706954|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.824|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|7.52|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||7.52|-13.17|
91706955|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|15.93|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||15.93|-3.47|
91706956|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|14.65|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||14.65|-5.46|
91706957|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|19.51|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||19.51|-0.54|
91644518|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|34.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||34.5|-38.3|1.0000
91644519|NCT03692078|183180111|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4||||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|27.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||27.6|-46.4|0.9926
91644520|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.872|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|1.935|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.935|1.810|<.0001
91644521|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.913|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|1.976|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.976|1.851|<.0001
91644522|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.467|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.408|1.525|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.525|1.408|<.0001
91644523|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.493|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|1.551|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.551|1.434|<.0001
91644524|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|1.609|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.609|1.490|<.0001
91644525|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.594|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.533|1.654|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.654|1.533|<.0001
91644526|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.557|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|0.631|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.631|0.482|<.0001
91706958|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|6.08|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||6.08|-11.65|
91706959|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||0.52|-0.38|
91644527|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.589|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.665|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.665|0.514|<.0001
91644528|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.533|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|0.605|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.605|0.461|<.0001
91644529|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.662|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.662|0.514|<.0001
91644530|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|0.652|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.652|0.508|<.0001
91644531|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|0.653|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.653|0.507|<.0001
91644532|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.406|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|-0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.285|-0.526|<.0001
91644533|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.300|-0.541|<.0001
91644534|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.323|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|-0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.201|-0.444|<.0001
91644535|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.198|-0.442|<.0001
91706960|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.72|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||0.72|-0.21|
91706961|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.51|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||0.51|-0.42|
91706962|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|3.11|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||3.11|2.28|
91644536|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.453|-1.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.178|-1.453|<.0001
91644537|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.463|-1.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.186|-1.463|<.0001
91644538|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.339|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.473|-1.205|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.205|-1.473|<.0001
91644539|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.461|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.190|-1.461|<.0001
91644540|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.887|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.016|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.016|0.757|<.0001
91644541|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.912|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.043|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.043|0.782|<.0001
91644542|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.100|0.839|<.0001
91644543|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.145|0.882|<.0001
91644544|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.122|-0.168|0.9999
91706963|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.5|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||0.50|-0.36|
91706964|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.69|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||0.69|-0.20|
91644545|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.155|-0.138|1.0000
91834494|NCT04295005|183549129|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Total cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91644546|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.047||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.095|-0.189|0.9577
91644547|NCT03692078|183180113|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.008||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.152|-0.136|1.0000
91644548|NCT01339858|183180123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
91644549|NCT00996632|183180131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||null hypothesis is that drainage volumes are not different||||<0.05
91644550|NCT00996632|183180132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||null hypothesis is that Stay in Hospital Days are not different||||0.05
91644551|NCT02861534|183180142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.06|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.06|0.81|0.269
91644552|NCT02861534|183180143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.00|0.81|0.048
91644553|NCT02861534|183180144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.98|0.82|0.019
91644554|NCT02861534|183180145|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.99|||Andersen-Gill model|||||0.99|0.84|0.023
91644555|NCT02861534|183180146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.98|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.98|0.83|0.021
91644556|NCT02861534|183180147|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.07|0.84|0.377
91706965|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.47|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||0.47|-0.41|
91644557|NCT02861534|183180150|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.2||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||2.8|-0.3|0.121
91644558|NCT02861534|183180151|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||1.6|-0.5|0.303
91644559|NCT01211873|183180172|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91644560|NCT01211873|183180173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91644561|NCT01211873|183180173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91644562|NCT01211873|183180174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91644563|NCT01211873|183180174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91644564|NCT01393626|183180197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|21.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tofacitinib-Placebo||21.36|-7.64|0.3249
91644565|NCT01393626|183180197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.36||||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tofacitinib-Placebo||20.80|-8.09|0.3916
91644566|NCT02426125|183180217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.943||Stratified|Log Rank||Stratified|||0.943|0.607|0.0118
91644567|NCT02426125|183180218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.086||Stratified|Log Rank||Stratified|||1.086|0.724|0.2461
91644568|NCT02426125|183180221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|1.158|||Log Rank|||||1.158|0.473|0.189
91644569|NCT02426125|183180222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.167||Stratified|Log Rank||Stratified|Global health status/QoL||1.167|0.663|0.357
91644570|NCT00077766|183180230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with 90% power assuming that the true difference between the RO0503821 group and darbepoetin was not larger than 0.3 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.408||The p-value for the non-inferiority test was derived using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups|Degrees of Freedom : 246|Difference between groups based on the adjusted means derived from the ANCOVA model.|RO0503821 group was compared to darbepoetin alfa group, using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the independent variable as treatment group and Hb at baseline and geographical region as covariates. The test for non-inferiority was based on the lower limit of 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in adjusted mean between 2 groups. If this lower limit was \> or = to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 group was regarded as clinically non-inferior to darbepoetin alfa group, with 90% power.||0.408|-0.049|< 0.0001
91644571|NCT00118209|183180273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.68|0.6519
91644572|NCT00118209|183180274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91644573|NCT00118209|183180275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.75|0.6414
91644574|NCT01418365|183180277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|0.998|||ANOVA|||||0.998|0.961|
91644575|NCT01418365|183180278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.951|
91644576|NCT03226366|183180279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|6.1|||Regression, Linear||Change in emergency department door-to-antibiotic time (minutes) based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in emergency department (ED) door-to-antibiotic time after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed over the same time period at the control sites and for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and ED arrival via ambulance.||6.1|-20.4|0.29
91644577|NCT03226366|183180280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.61|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for hospital mortality after versus before intervention implementation based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in odds of hospital mortality after versus before implementation at the intervention site with adjustment for observed change in outcome over the same time period at the control sites as well as for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, an initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and arrival to the ED via ambulance.||2.61|0.25|0.72
91644578|NCT03226366|183180281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|7.0|||Regression, Linear||Change in emergency department length of stay (minutes) after versus before intervention implementation based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in emergency department length of stay after versus before implementation at the intervention site with adjustment for the change observed over the same time period at the control sites as well as for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, an initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and arrival to the ED via ambulance.||7.0|-25.9|0.26
91644579|NCT03226366|183180282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.8|||Regression, Linear||Estimated change in emergency department door-to-physician evaluation time (minutes) after versus before intervention implementation based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in emergency department (ED) door-to-physician evaluation time after versus before implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed over the same time period at the control sites and for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and ED arrival via ambulance.||1.8|-3.3|0.55
91644580|NCT02180659|183180295|NON_INFERIORITY|"For the primary efficacy variable, a test of non-inferiority of Probuphine (active) versus SL BPN (control) responders was conducted. A non-inferiority margin of 20% was employed to define noninferiority.~A Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportions was calculated, and non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference of proportions (Probuphine - SL BPN) was greater than -0.20."|Difference in Response Rate|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.167|||Chi-squared|||||0.167|0.009|<.001
91644581|NCT02180659|183180296|SUPERIORITY|At month 6 comparing those subject with no illicit drug use.||||||0.306|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.306
91644582|NCT02180659|183180297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Log Rank|||||||.037
91644583|NCT02180659|183180299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparing change in baseline to week 24 between the two groups.||||0.832
91644584|NCT02180659|183180300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.922
91644585|NCT02180659|183180301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.425|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.425
91644586|NCT02180659|183180302|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparing change in baseline to week 24 between the two groups.||||0.505
91644587|NCT00518011|183180304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.842||||0.3644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|7.027|||Log Rank|||||7.027|0.483|0.3644
91644588|NCT00518011|183180308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.278||||0.7165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|4.824|||Log Rank|||||4.824|0.339|0.7165
91644589|NCT00090259|183180330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|0.988|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||0.988|0.818|0.027
91644590|NCT00090259|183180331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.006|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||1.006|0.848|0.068
91644591|NCT00090259|183180332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.044|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||1.044|0.840|0.235
91644592|NCT00090259|183180333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.865||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|0.982|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||0.982|0.762|0.025
91644593|NCT00090259|183180334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.892||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|0.984|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||0.984|0.808|0.023
91706966|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.643|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|3.04|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||3.04|2.25|
91644594|NCT03701516|183180335|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the lower bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is greater than -5.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.781|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-4.53|3.85|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||3.85|-4.53|
91644595|NCT03701516|183180336|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the lower bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is greater than -5.|Posterior Mean Difference|-2.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.263|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-5.36|0.61|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.61|-5.36|
91644596|NCT03701516|183180337|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the lower bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is greater than -1.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.10|-0.22|
91644597|NCT03701516|183180338|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the upper bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.006|||Bayesian repeated measurement random-eff|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.006|-0.005|
91644598|NCT03701516|183180339|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the upper bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.002|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.002|-0.009|
91644599|NCT00956813|183180382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91644600|NCT00956813|183180384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.93
91644601|NCT00956813|183180385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for vasomotor-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.19
91644602|NCT00956813|183180385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for Psychosocial-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.78
91644603|NCT00956813|183180385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for Physical-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.238
91644604|NCT00956813|183180385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for Sexually-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.497
91644605|NCT00956813|183180386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.089
91644606|NCT03083639|183180394|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between esomeprazole capsules (Regimen A) and esomeprazole tablets (Regimen B) was assessed for the natural logarithms of AUC∞ using analysis of variance (ANOVA) models. The models included regimen, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Within ANOVA framework, point estimates and their 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of AUC central values between esomeprazole capsules and tablets are presented.|Point estimate|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.07||||||||1.070|0.969|
91644607|NCT03083639|183180395|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between esomeprazole capsules (Regimen A) and esomeprazole tablets (Regimen B) was assessed for the natural logarithms of AUCt using ANOVA models. The models included regimen, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Within ANOVA framework, point estimates and their 90% CIs for the ratio of AUC central values between esomeprazole capsules and tablets are presented.|Point estimate|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.939|1.05||||||||1.050|0.939|
91644608|NCT03083639|183180396|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between esomeprazole capsules (Regimen A) and esomeprazole tablets (Regimen B) was assessed for the natural logarithms of Cmax using ANOVA models. The models included regimen, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Within ANOVA framework, point estimates and their 90% CIs for the ratio of Cmax central values between esomeprazole capsules and tablets are presented.|Point estimate|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.009||||||||1.009|0.880|
91644609|NCT03611751|183180407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.00|6.54|<0.0001
91644610|NCT03611751|183180408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|16.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.55|6.65|<0.0001
91644611|NCT03611751|183180409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|23.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.93|5.45|<0.0001
91644612|NCT03611751|183180409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.56|1.18|0.0046
91644613|NCT03611751|183180410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.40|2.89|<0.001
91644614|NCT03611751|183180410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.00|1.30|0.0051
91644615|NCT03611751|183180411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|45.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.11|4.62|<0.0001
91644616|NCT03611751|183180411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|5.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.03|1.61|0.0002
91644617|NCT03611751|183180412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-20.3|||ANCOVA|||||-20.3|-26.9|<0.0001
91644618|NCT03611751|183180412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-3.9|||ANCOVA|||||-3.9|-10.5|<0.0001
91644619|NCT03611751|183180413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|21.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.15|1.94|0.0005
91644620|NCT03611751|183180413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.71|0.89|0.0928
91644621|NCT03611751|183180414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|10.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.81|4.34|<0.0001
91644622|NCT03611751|183180414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.91|1.77|<0.0001
91644623|NCT03611751|183180415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|8.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.47|3.42|<0.0001
91644624|NCT03611751|183180416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.79|0.88|0.0621
91644625|NCT03611751|183180417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.46|0.06|0.6692
91644626|NCT03611751|183180417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.56|0.02|0.3793
91644627|NCT03611751|183180418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.41|1.29|0.0004
91644628|NCT03611751|183180419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.78|1.45|<0.0001
91644629|NCT03611751|183180420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91644630|NCT03611751|183180421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.43|1.78|<0.0001
91644631|NCT03611751|183180422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.36|1.78|<0.0001
91644632|NCT03611751|183180423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.01|1.43|0.0001
91644633|NCT00903409|183180436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The difference between Non-switchers and Switchers in the percent change in non-HDL-C level from the end of the OM6 double-blind study (average of Weeks 6 and 8 for the statistical analysis) to 4 months of OM6X open-label treatment (Month 4).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91644634|NCT03539952|183180455|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized the serum NCC values from all study visits that were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood based general linear model for correlated data. The correlation due to repeated measures was modeled by specifying the variance covariance matrix. Considering a comparison of means in both treatment arms (D-penicillamine minus TETA 4HCl) at the 1-sided 2.5% level of Type 1 error, a non-inferiority margin of 50 μg/L was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary endpoint was the assessment of the non-inferiority of TETA 4HCl in relation to D-penicillamine. The non-inferiority assessment was made on the basis of the mean serum NCC level at Week 36.||||
91644635|NCT01371006|183180460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|105.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.81|122.82|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (50 mg Efavirenz+240 mg Faldaprevir : 50 mg Efavirenz) of Efavirenz||122.82|90.81|
91644636|NCT01371006|183180461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|116.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.87|132.35|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (50 mg Efavirenz+240 mg Faldaprevir : 50 mg Efavirenz) of Efavirenz||132.35|101.87|
91644637|NCT01371006|183180462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|71.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.46|83.95|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir+600 mg Efavirenz : 7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir) of Faldaprevir||83.95|61.46|
91644638|NCT01371006|183180463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|64.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.32|79.16|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir+600 mg Efavirenz : 7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir) of Faldaprevir||79.16|53.32|
91644639|NCT01371006|183180464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|54.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.47|72.88|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir+600 mg Efavirenz : 7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir) of Faldaprevir||72.88|40.47|
91644640|NCT03256526|183180477|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|11.45||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|25.09|||ANCOVA|||||25.09|-2.19|0.1654
91644641|NCT03256526|183180477|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.73||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.55|-3.9|||ANCOVA|||||-3.90|-33.55|0.0395
91644642|NCT01186744|183180485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0008
91644643|NCT01186744|183180485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91644644|NCT01186744|183180486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0027
91644645|NCT01186744|183180486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91644646|NCT03515837|183180625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||0.97|0.65|0.0122
91644647|NCT03515837|183180626|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||1.02|0.69|0.0362
91644648|NCT03515837|183180627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|9.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||9.9|-6.0|
91644649|NCT03515837|183180629|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|5.1|||||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors PD-L1 expression, treatment history, and geographic region of the enrolling site as covariates.|||5.10|-1.93|
91644650|NCT03515837|183180630|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||||95.0|0.68|1.27|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||1.27|0.68|
91644651|NCT01856686|183180638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56593|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.56593
91644652|NCT01856686|183180638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44929|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.44929
91644653|NCT01856686|183180638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81844|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.81844
91644654|NCT01856686|183180639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71152|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.71152
91644655|NCT01856686|183180639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27795|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.27795
91644656|NCT01856686|183180639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47616|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.47616
91644657|NCT01856686|183180640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.10036|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.10036
91644658|NCT01856686|183180640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0082|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group changes||||0.00820
91644659|NCT01856686|183180640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||1.00000
91644660|NCT01856686|183180641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92193|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.92193
91644661|NCT01856686|183180641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.50704|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.50704
91644662|NCT01856686|183180641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42314|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.42314
91644663|NCT01856686|183180642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08946|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.08946
91644664|NCT01856686|183180642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27795|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.27795
91644665|NCT01856686|183180642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0109|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.01090
91644666|NCT01856686|183180643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73209|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.73209
91644667|NCT01856686|183180643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07965|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.07965
91644668|NCT01856686|183180643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61613|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.61613
91644669|NCT01856686|183180644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33027|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.33027
91644670|NCT01856686|183180644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00013|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00013
91644671|NCT01856686|183180644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28019|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.28019
91644672|NCT01856686|183180645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94449|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.94449
91644673|NCT01856686|183180645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94574|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.94574
91644674|NCT01856686|183180645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85428|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.85428
91644675|NCT01856686|183180646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.83929|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.83929
91644676|NCT01856686|183180646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97213|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.97213
91644677|NCT01856686|183180646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58323|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.58323
91644678|NCT01856686|183180647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05158|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.05158
91644679|NCT01856686|183180647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94574|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.94574
91644680|NCT01856686|183180647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09331|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.09331
91644681|NCT01856686|183180648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17383|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.17383
91644682|NCT01856686|183180648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00092|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00092
91644683|NCT01856686|183180648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15544|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.15544
91644684|NCT01856686|183180649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39707|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.39707
91644685|NCT01856686|183180649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27945|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.27945
91644686|NCT01856686|183180649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19739|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.19739
91644687|NCT01856686|183180650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.50964|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.50964
91644688|NCT01856686|183180650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0071|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00710
91644689|NCT01856686|183180650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00595|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00595
91644690|NCT01856686|183180651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48336|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.48336
91644691|NCT01856686|183180651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08739|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.08739
91644692|NCT01856686|183180651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37046|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.37046
91644693|NCT01856686|183180653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45013|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.45013
91644694|NCT01856686|183180653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17374|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.17374
91644695|NCT01856686|183180653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07548|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.07548
91644696|NCT01856686|183180654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23226|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.23226
91644697|NCT01856686|183180654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08812|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.08812
91644698|NCT01856686|183180654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00776|||||||Pairedt-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00776
91644699|NCT01856686|183180655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.90843|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.90843
91644700|NCT01856686|183180655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00413|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00413
91644701|NCT01856686|183180655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00775|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00775
91644702|NCT02367729|183180668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3947||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.93|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.93|1.37|0.003
91644703|NCT00759174|183180674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.34|||Conditional logistic regression|||Conditional logistic regression was stratified by participant.||4.34|1.06|0.033
91644704|NCT00759174|183180675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.19|||Conditional logistic regression|||Conditional logistic regression was stratified by participant.||4.19|1.33|0.003
91644705|NCT00759174|183180676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.69|||Conditional logistic regression|||Conditional logistic regression was stratified by participant.||7.69|1.70|<0.001
91644706|NCT01890109|183180677|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.83|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||Repeated measures analysis of covariance was performed on the log transformed ratio to baseline of the number of daily moderate to severe hot flashes. Independent variables included treatment, week, and the treatment-by-week interaction; subject served as a random effect; and the log transformed baseline number of daily moderate to severe hot flashes was used as a covariate.||1.83|0.66|0.723
91644707|NCT01890109|183180678|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.74|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||Repeated measures analysis of covariance was performed on the log transformed ratio to baseline of the daily hot flash severity score. Independent variables included treatment, week, and the treatment-by-week interaction; subject served as a random effect; and the log transformed baseline daily hot flash severity score was used as a covariate.||1.74|0.74|0.551
91644708|NCT03359473|183180810|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|10.36|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||10.36|-1.30|
91644709|NCT03359473|183180810|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|14.76|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||14.76|0.83|
91644710|NCT03359473|183180811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.86|23.56|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||23.56|9.86|
91644711|NCT03359473|183180811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.09|14.78|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||14.78|-4.09|
91644712|NCT03359473|183180812|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.67|15.01|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||15.01|-4.67|
91644713|NCT03359473|183180812|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|13.58|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||13.58|0.46|
91644714|NCT03359473|183180813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|13.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||13.2|-1.4|
91644715|NCT03359473|183180813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|25.5|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||25.5|1.6|
91644716|NCT03359473|183180814|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.1|31.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||31.2|10.1|
91644717|NCT03359473|183180814|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|25.8|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||25.8|-11.1|
91644718|NCT03359473|183180815|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|18.4|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||18.4|-2.5|
91644719|NCT03359473|183180815|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|24.0|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||24.0|-0.5|
91644720|NCT03359473|183180816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.643|1.121|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.121|0.643|
91706967|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.55|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||1.55|-1.44|
91644721|NCT03359473|183180816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.291|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.156|0.738|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.738|-0.156|
91644722|NCT03359473|183180817|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.629|1.334|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.334|0.629|
91706968|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.82|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||1.82|-1.28|
91644723|NCT03359473|183180817|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.682|1.571|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.571|0.682|
91644724|NCT03359473|183180818|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.795|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.795|0.964|
91644725|NCT03359473|183180818|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.124|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.594|1.654|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.654|0.594|
91644726|NCT03359473|183180819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.167|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.677|1.658|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.658|0.677|
91644727|NCT03359473|183180819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.222|1.623|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.623|0.222|
91644728|NCT03359473|183180820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.493|2.678|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.678|1.493|
91644729|NCT03359473|183180820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|2.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.600|0.801|
91644730|NCT03359473|183180821|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.108|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.271|2.945|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.945|1.271|
91644731|NCT03359473|183180821|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|3.277|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||3.277|0.949|
91644732|NCT03359473|183180822|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-0.6|
91644733|NCT03359473|183180822|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.5|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.5|-0.4|
91644734|NCT03359473|183180823|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-0.6|
91644735|NCT03359473|183180823|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.9|-0.2|
91644736|NCT03359473|183180824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.9|-0.4|
91644737|NCT03359473|183180824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-0.5|
91644738|NCT03359473|183180825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.082|0.977|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.977|-2.082|
91834495|NCT04295005|183549129|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Total cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91644739|NCT03359473|183180825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.977|0.832|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.832|-0.977|
91644740|NCT03359473|183180826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.816|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.252|0.619|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.619|-2.252|
91644741|NCT03359473|183180826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.096|1.422|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.422|-1.096|
91644742|NCT03359473|183180827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.668|0.748|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.748|-2.668|
91644743|NCT03359473|183180827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.208|1.333|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.333|-5.208|
91644744|NCT03359473|183180828|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.314|0.233|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.233|-0.314|
91644745|NCT03359473|183180828|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.209|0.324|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.324|-0.209|
91644746|NCT03359473|183180829|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.287|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.077|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.077|-0.650|
91706969|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.44|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||2.44|-0.65|
91644747|NCT03359473|183180829|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.534|0.152|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.152|-0.534|
91644748|NCT03359473|183180830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.555|0.532|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.532|-0.555|
91644749|NCT03359473|183180830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.541|0.08|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.080|-0.541|
91644750|NCT03359473|183180831|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.1|79.2|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline CWR duration as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||79.2|-57.1|
91644751|NCT03359473|183180831|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-149.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-280.6|-18.1|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline CWR duration as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||-18.1|-280.6|
91644752|NCT03359473|183180832|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.7|29.2|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline peak performance as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||29.2|-42.7|
91644753|NCT03359473|183180832|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-34.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.0|2.4|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline peak performance as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||2.4|-72.0|
91644754|NCT03359473|183180833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.9|-2.6|
91644755|NCT03359473|183180833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|2.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.1|-3.4|
91644756|NCT03359473|183180834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|1.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.1|-2.9|
91644757|NCT03359473|183180834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.5|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||4.5|0.0|
91644758|NCT03359473|183180835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.9|-0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-0.6|-8.9|
91644759|NCT03359473|183180835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|3.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||3.1|-7.2|
91644760|NCT03359473|183180836|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|-0.4|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-0.4|-9.5|
91834496|NCT04295005|183549129|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Total cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91644761|NCT03359473|183180836|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|2.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.2|-10.3|
91644762|NCT03359473|183180837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|-0.3|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-0.3|-5.9|
91644763|NCT03359473|183180837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|4.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||4.2|-4.6|
91644764|NCT03359473|183180838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|8.8|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||8.8|-0.8|
91644765|NCT03359473|183180838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|9.4|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||9.4|-2.3|
91644766|NCT03359473|183180839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-1.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-1.9|-6.5|
91644767|NCT03359473|183180839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|1.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.1|-4.1|
91644768|NCT03359473|183180840|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|1.8|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.8|-3.8|
91706970|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.12|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||-0.12|-2.85|
91706971|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.34|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||1.34|-1.18|
91896028|NCT04874415|183687454|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.02|-0.02|
91644769|NCT03359473|183180840|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|3.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||3.2|-4.6|
91644770|NCT03359473|183180845|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|7.4|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline total score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.4|-1.4|
91644771|NCT03359473|183180845|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|6.5|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline total score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||6.5|-2.3|
91644772|NCT03359473|183180846|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|10.1|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline symptoms score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||10.1|-5.0|
91644773|NCT03359473|183180846|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|7.5|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline symptoms score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.5|-8.4|
91644774|NCT03359473|183180847|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|7.1|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline activity score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.1|-3.2|
91644775|NCT03359473|183180847|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|6.5|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline activity score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||6.5|-5.6|
91644776|NCT03359473|183180848|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|8.6|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline impact score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||8.6|-1.7|
91644777|NCT03359473|183180848|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|7.7|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline impact score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.7|-0.7|
91644778|NCT04101721|183180860|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 5%|Adjusted difference|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-15.71|19.33||||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline ROP status.||19.33|-15.71|
91644779|NCT04101721|183180861|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-19.86|12.54||||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline ROP status.||12.54|-19.86|
91644780|NCT04101721|183180862|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-9.83|30.02||||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline ROP status||30.02|-9.83|
91644781|NCT01215955|183180865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.22|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model.|||0.22|-0.15|
91644782|NCT01215955|183180865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.24|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model.|||0.24|-0.12|
91644783|NCT01215955|183180866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.520|0.128
91644784|NCT01215955|183180866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.39||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|0.580|0.625
91644785|NCT01215955|183180866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.53|0.162
91644786|NCT01215955|183180866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Linear|||||1.40|0.61|0.723
91644787|NCT01215955|183180867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.67||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.520|0.701
91644788|NCT01215955|183180867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.7||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.70|0.710|0.249
91644789|NCT01215955|183180867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.8||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|Included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: Baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use.||||0.80|0.13|0.015
91644790|NCT01215955|183180867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.1||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.17|0.078
91644791|NCT01215955|183180868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.81||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.46||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.46|0.17|0.014
91644792|NCT01215955|183180868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.5||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.11||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.12|0.108
91644793|NCT01215955|183180869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Cox|Cox Regression model with effects for treatment and baseline stratification variables (HbA1c, country, sulfonylurea/meglitinide use) was used.||||1.11|0.57|0.182
91644794|NCT01215955|183180869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.22||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Cox|Cox Regression model with effects for treatment and baseline stratification variables (HbA1c, country, sulfonylurea/meglitinide use) was used.||||1.22|0.65|0.460
91644795|NCT01215955|183180870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.77|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|||0.77|-0.19|
91644796|NCT01215955|183180870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.31|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|||1.31|0.30|
91644797|NCT01215955|183180871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.59||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.58||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model.|||1.58|-0.40|0.242
91644798|NCT01215955|183180871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.13||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.41||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without 24-week values were handled by the statistical model.|||2.41|-0.15|0.082
91644799|NCT01215955|183180872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.15||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.66||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model|||0.66|-0.95|0.723
91644800|NCT01215955|183180872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.28||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.52||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model|||0.52|-1.08|0.495
91644801|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.32||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|8.93||P-value is for Morning Pre-meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.93|-2.28|0.245
91644802|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.71||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|6.29||P-value is for Morning 2-HR PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.29|-7.71|0.842
91706972|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.63|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||1.63|-0.97|
91834497|NCT04295005|183549129|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Inpatient cost comparison||||< 0.001
91644803|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42||||0.626||95.0|-4.32|7.16||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.16|-4.32|0.626
91644804|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.48||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|3.95||P-value is for Midday 2-Hr PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.95|-10.91|0.358
91644805|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.38||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|10.07||P-value is for Evening Pre-meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.07|-3.32|0.322
91644806|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.25||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|6.58||P-value is for Bed Time. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.58|-11.08|0.617
91644807|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.37||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|9.6||P-value is for 0300 hours. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.60|-4.86|0.519
91644808|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|7.15||P-value is for Morning Pre-meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.15|-2.96|0.415
91644809|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.38||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.06||P-value is for Morning 2-hr PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.06|-2.30|0.198
91644810|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.22||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|12.29||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.29|0.14|0.045
91644811|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.07||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.64||P-value is for Midday 2-hr PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.64|-4.50|0.426
91644812|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.66||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|13.17||P-value is for Evening Pre-Meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.17|-1.86|0.140
91706973|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.12|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||1.12|-1.48|
91706974|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.04|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||-0.04|-2.34|
91644813|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.18||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|20.63||P-value is for Bed Time. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.63|1.74|0.020
91644814|NCT01215955|183180873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.01||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|17.49||P-value is for 0300 hours. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.49|0.53|0.037
91644815|NCT01215955|183180874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|4.84||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.84|-2.55|0.543
91644816|NCT01215955|183180874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.72||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|14.6||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.60|-1.17|0.095
91644817|NCT01215955|183180874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.86||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|18.06||P-value is for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.06|-0.35|0.059
91644818|NCT01215955|183180874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|4.23||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-2.05|0.497
91644819|NCT01215955|183180874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.37||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|12.79||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.79|-2.06|0.156
91644820|NCT01215955|183180874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.05||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|15.76||P-value of for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.76|-3.67|0.222
91644821|NCT01215955|183180875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|LS Mean Difference|||||0.05|-0.02|0.442
91644822|NCT01215955|183180875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|0.00|0.037
91706975|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|3.98|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||3.98|-1.51|
91644823|NCT01215955|183180875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.16||P-value is for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|0.05|<0.001
91644824|NCT01215955|183180875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|LS Mean Difference|||||0.05|-0.01|0.275
91644825|NCT01215955|183180875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.02|0.194
91644826|NCT01215955|183180875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.15||P-value is for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.04|0.245
91644827|NCT01215955|183180876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.435
91644828|NCT01215955|183180876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.351
91644829|NCT01215955|183180877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.802
91644830|NCT01215955|183180877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.205
91644831|NCT01215955|183180878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Q3D vs Q1D Ratio of Negative Binomial|1.06||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.30|0.86|0.586
91644832|NCT01215955|183180878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Q3D vs Q1D Ratio Negative Binomial|1.05||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.3||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Negative Binomial|||||1.30|0.84|0.689
91644833|NCT01215955|183180879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.258
91644834|NCT01215955|183180879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.856
91644835|NCT02643394|183180909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.252
91644836|NCT02643394|183180910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.402
91644837|NCT04193033|183180925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Linear Growth Curve Model|||||||0.001
91644838|NCT04193033|183180926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91644839|NCT04193033|183180927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
91644840|NCT04193033|183180929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Linear Growth Curve Model|Time was included as a fixed effect and both time and intercept were included as random effects.||||||.49
91706976|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.71|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||5.71|0.04|
91706977|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.473|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|4.16|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||4.16|-1.21|
91644841|NCT04193033|183180931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Paired t-test, alpha = .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91644842|NCT01154673|183180942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.4||"The estimated difference in mean change from baseline to 48 weeks was calculated as the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Intensive HAART minus the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Placebo Arm"|Regression, Linear||"The estimated difference in mean change from baseline to 48 weeks was calculated as the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Intensive HAART minus the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Placebo Arm"|||0.4|-.006|0.056
91644843|NCT03728257|183180955|SUPERIORITY|Change in average steps per day between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.8793||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8793
91644844|NCT03728257|183180956|SUPERIORITY|Change in average steps per day between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.9597||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9597
91644845|NCT03728257|183180957|SUPERIORITY|Change in Berg balance between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.3||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
91644846|NCT03728257|183180958|SUPERIORITY|Change in Berg balance between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.81||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
91644847|NCT03728257|183180959|SUPERIORITY|Change in 30 Second Sit-to-Stand Test between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.2262||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2262
91644848|NCT03728257|183180960|SUPERIORITY|Change in 30 Second Sit-to-Stand Test between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.59||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91644849|NCT03728257|183180961|SUPERIORITY|Change in SGRQ between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.26||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91706978|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.74|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||2.74|-2.20|
91706979|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|0.56|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||0.56|-4.92|
91706980|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.93|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||0.93|-4.74|
91706981|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.63|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||1.63|-3.74|
91706982|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.249|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.22|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||1.22|-3.72|
91834498|NCT04295005|183549129|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Inpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91644850|NCT03728257|183180962|SUPERIORITY|Change in SGRQ between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.78||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91644851|NCT03728257|183180963|SUPERIORITY|Change in MVPA between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.7073||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7073
91644852|NCT03728257|183180964|SUPERIORITY|Change in MVPA between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.313||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.313
91644853|NCT03728257|183180965|SUPERIORITY|Change in count of participants with the same or improved stage of hypertension between baseline and 6 months.||||||0.91||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.91
91644854|NCT03728257|183180966|SUPERIORITY|Change in count of participants with the same or improved stage of hypertension between baseline and 6 months.||||||0.72||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91644855|NCT01516684|183180976|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||T-test and chi-square|||Raw mean total dose administered and raw percentage of times additional propofol was administered will be presented by sedation group treating each event (sedation with lumbar puncture) as the unit. T-test and chi-square tests will be performed as appropriate for the outcome. GEE methods will be used when analyzing the percentage of times additional propofol was administered. Mixed model regression methods will be used when analyzing the total dose administered.||||0.036
91644856|NCT01516684|183180978|OTHER|Marginal mixed model (GEE type)||||||0.094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.094
91644857|NCT01516684|183180979|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.382
91644858|NCT01516684|183180980|OTHER|Marginal mixed model (GEE type)||||||0.426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.426
91644859|NCT01977482|183181060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||E0 (g/dL)|-0.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.387|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||-0.387|-0.960|
91644860|NCT01977482|183181060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED50 (milligrams[mg])|33.531|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.566|48.948|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||48.948|15.566|
91644861|NCT01977482|183181060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Emax (g/dL)|5.234||||||95.0|2.691|7.94|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||7.940|2.691|
91644862|NCT01977482|183181060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Gamma|1.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.738|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||1.738|0.748|
91644863|NCT01977482|183181060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Var|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.234|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||1.234|0.840|
91644864|NCT01977482|183181060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Alpha|-0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|-0.014|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||-0.014|-0.397|
91644865|NCT01977482|183181060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Minimally Effective Dose (MED) (mg)|0.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.342|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||2.342|0.000|
91644866|NCT01977482|183181060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of -0.25g/dL|2.423|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.15|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||4.150|0.000|
91644867|NCT01977482|183181060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Target Dose (TD) (mg)|4.406|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.544|5.995|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||5.995|2.544|
91644868|NCT01977482|183181060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 0.25 g/dL|6.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.698|8.01|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||8.010|4.698|
91644869|NCT01977482|183181060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 0.5 g/dL|8.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.931|10.523|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||10.523|6.931|
91644870|NCT01977482|183181060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 0.75 g/dL|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.024|14.004|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||14.004|9.024|
91644871|NCT01977482|183181060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 1 g/dL|13.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.891|18.916|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||18.916|10.891|
91644872|NCT02547779|183181086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91644873|NCT02547779|183181087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91644874|NCT02957682|183181111|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper confidence interval (CI) limit was compared to the noninferiority margin, which was 0.2%, and noninferiority was declared if the upper CI limit was below the noninferiority margin.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.6055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.055||P-value was taken from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures||Model: fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point, strata-by-time point, continuous fixed covariates of baseline SWMS raw score value, baseline value by time-point interaction.|Change at Week 96||0.055|-0.094|0.6055
91644875|NCT02953262|183181124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.057
91644876|NCT02953262|183181124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.753
91644877|NCT02953262|183181124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.613
91644878|NCT02953262|183181125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.308
91644879|NCT02953262|183181125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.154
91706983|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.389|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.82|122.59|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||122.59|-95.82|
91834499|NCT04295005|183549129|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.||||||0.126|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Inpatient cost comparison||||0.126
91644880|NCT02953262|183181125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91644881|NCT02953262|183181126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.102
91644882|NCT02953262|183181126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
91644883|NCT02953262|183181126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.439
91644884|NCT02953262|183181127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.982
91644885|NCT02953262|183181127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.559
91644886|NCT02953262|183181127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.032
91644887|NCT00203892|183181141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
91644888|NCT00203892|183181142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91644889|NCT02964910|183181148|NON_INFERIORITY|The criteria of the immunogenicity non-inferiority between CHB group and healthy adults group were: the lower limit of 95% CI of the seroconversion rate difference was not less than -10%.|the seroconversion rate difference(%)|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|0.22||||||||0.22|-5.23|
91644890|NCT02964910|183181149|NON_INFERIORITY|The criteria of the immunogenicity non-inferiority between CHB group and healthy adults group were: the lower limit of 95%CI of the GMC ratio was not lower than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||||||||0.85|0.55|
91644891|NCT02964910|183181153|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.778|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.778
91644892|NCT02964910|183181154|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.728|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.728
91644893|NCT02964910|183181155|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.949|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.949
91644894|NCT02964910|183181156|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.614|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.614
91644895|NCT02964910|183181157|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.956|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.956
91644896|NCT03829462|183181158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Log Rank|||To show an increase of median overall survival from 7 to 15 months (30% to 57% rates, respectively), with a HR=0.47 and a power of 80% and alpha=5%, 55 events are required for the 78 patients to be randomized considering 15% additional patients for lost to follow-up.||1.98|0.7|0.5334
91644897|NCT03829462|183181158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.82|||Chi-squared|||||1.82|0.59|0.8894
91644898|NCT03829462|183181159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||Log Rank|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||1.11|0.4|0.1104
91644899|NCT03829462|183181159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.4|0.1165
91644900|NCT03829462|183181160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.42||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Log Rank|||||1.42|0.26|0.2425
91644901|NCT03829462|183181160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.26|0.2519
91644902|NCT03829462|183181161|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|46.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91644903|NCT03829462|183181162|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|7.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91644904|NCT03000075|183181184|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA) at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Adjusted percentage difference|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|85.0||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||85.0|62.2|< 0.001
91644905|NCT03000075|183181184|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Adjusted percentage difference|72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.6|84.1||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||84.1|60.6|< 0.001
91644906|NCT03000075|183181186|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|75.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.8|86.2||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||86.2|63.8|< 0.001
91644907|NCT03000075|183181186|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|82.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.2|92.6||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||92.6|72.2|< 0.001
91644908|NCT03000075|183181188|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|80.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.1|90.4||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||90.4|70.1|< 0.001
91644909|NCT03000075|183181188|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|86.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.8|95.1||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||95.1|76.8|< 0.001
91644910|NCT03000075|183181190|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|33.4||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||33.4|11.8|< 0.001
91644911|NCT03000075|183181190|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|45.0||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||45.0|20.0|< 0.001
91644912|NCT03000075|183181192|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|39.2||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|90.1||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||90.1|-11.6|0.131
91706984|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.25|123.21|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||123.21|-103.25|
91706985|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.426|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.43|145.28|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||145.28|-80.43|
91706986|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.77|122.76|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||122.76|-76.77|
91644913|NCT03000075|183181192|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Adjusted percentage difference|31.3||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|86.7||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||86.7|-24.2|0.269
91644914|NCT00111007|183181194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.31|||log rank test|||||1.310|0.627|0.492
91644915|NCT00111007|183181195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.333|||log rank test|||||1.333|0.744|0.979
91644916|NCT00111007|183181196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.162|||log rank test|||||1.162|0.641|0.331
91644917|NCT00111007|183181197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.398||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.437|||log rank test|||||1.437|0.110|0.146
91644918|NCT00111007|183181198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.389
91644919|NCT03332212|183181207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.087|||ANOVA|||ANOVA on the PCr/ATP ratio absolute change using treatment (empagliflozin vs. placebo), history of diabetes (yes vs, no) and history of atrial fibrillation (yes vs no) as between subjects factor.||0.087|-0.582|0.1418
91644920|NCT03332212|183181207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|0.286|||ANOVA|||ANOVA on the PCr/ATP ratio absolute change using treatment (empagliflozin vs. placebo), history of diabetes (yes vs, no) and history of atrial fibrillation (yes vs no) as between subjects factor.||0.286|-0.604|0.4650
91644921|NCT00929864|183181237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis tested for non-inferiority. Abatacept will be considered non-inferior to adalimumab if the upper limit of the 95% two-sided CI of difference in ACR20 response rates between the adalimumab arm and the abatacept arm is smaller than or equal to 12%. Estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference based on minimum risk weights method with randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).|Difference from adalimumab at Day 365|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.2|||minimum risk weights method|adjusted for randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).||The null and alternative hypotheses are H0: T - C\<= δ vs. Ha:T - C \> δ, where T is the treatment effect of abatacept, C is the effect of active control (adalimumab),and δ is non-inferiority margin. Abatacept is defined as δ non-inferior to adalimumab when H0 is rejected. More specifically, if the lower bound of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for C-T is greater than δ,, then that Abatacept is δ non-inferior to adalimumab can be claimed.||9.2|-5.6|
91644922|NCT00929864|183181238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.37||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|-1.62|||Chi-squared|||Analysis is p-value of difference in proportions. n=number of participants with event, N=number of participants at risk. Proportion = n/N. In order to maintain the overall type I error rate of 0.05 for testing both the primary non-inferiority hypothesis and the key secondary local injection site reaction (LISR) hypothesis, the LISR hypothesis was tested at the 5% significance level only after the primary non-inferiority hypothesis is established at the 5% level.||-1.62|-9.13|0.006
91771786|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.4942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|23.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||23.53|0.22|0.4942
91644923|NCT00929864|183181239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-1.72||||||Analysis of incidence rate at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||-1.72|-6.55|
91644924|NCT00929864|183181240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab at Day 365|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.9|||minimum risk weights method|Adjusted for randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).||This analysis is for Day 365.||3.9|-6.5|
91644925|NCT00929864|183181240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab at Day 729|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.3|||minimum risk weights method|Adjusted for randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).||This analysis is for Day 729.||7.3|-5.5|
91644926|NCT00929864|183181241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|6.11||||||Analysis for incidence rate of SAE at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||6.11|-4.51|
91644927|NCT00929864|183181241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.94||||||Analysis for incidence rate of Serious Infections and Infestations at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||1.94|-3.27|
91644928|NCT00929864|183181241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.91||||||Analysis for incidence rate of Opportunistic Infections at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.91|-0.92|
91644929|NCT00929864|183181241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|1.41||||||Analysis for incidence rate of discontinuation for any cause at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||1.41|-12.06|
91644930|NCT00929864|183181242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|1.61||||||Analysis for incidence rate of SAE at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||1.61|-5.43|
91644931|NCT00929864|183181242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.63||||||Analysis for incidence rate of Serious infections and infestations Adverse Events at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.63|-3.12|
91706987|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.79|90.97|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||90.97|-86.79|
91644932|NCT00929864|183181242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.36|||minimum risk weights method|||Analysis for incidence rate of opportunistic infections at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.36|-1.39|
91644933|NCT00929864|183181242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|0.92||||||Analysis for incidence rate of discontinuations (all cause) at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.92|-7.13|
91644934|NCT00929864|183181243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-2.2||||||Analysis for ANA at Day 365. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference.||-2.2|-13.9|
91644935|NCT00929864|183181243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-1.5||||||Analysis for ANA at Day 729. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference||-1.5|-15.3|
91644936|NCT00929864|183181243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-5.7||||||Analysis for dsDNA at Day 365. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference.||-5.7|-13.4|
91644937|NCT00929864|183181243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-7.6||||||Analysis for dsDNA at Day 729. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference.||-7.6|-16.9|
91644938|NCT03940742|183181244|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.879|1.32||||||||1.32|0.879|
91644939|NCT03940742|183181244|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.17||||||||1.17|0.790|
91644940|NCT03940742|183181244|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.699|1.04||||||||1.04|0.699|
91644941|NCT03940742|183181245|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.726|1.16||||||||1.16|0.726|
91771787|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.82||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|112.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||112.7|1.46|0.0214
91644942|NCT03940742|183181245|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|1.25||||||||1.25|0.802|
91644943|NCT03940742|183181245|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.784|1.21||||||||1.21|0.784|
91644944|NCT03428217|183181253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 1: Stratified by prior programmed cell death protein 1/programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-1/PDL1) inhibitor therapy (yes vs no) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC) prognostic risk group (favorable vs intermediate vs poor).||1.21|0.74|0.6528
91644945|NCT03428217|183181253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 2: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.24|0.76|0.8193
91644946|NCT03428217|183181253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.25|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 3: Stratified by the number of prior anti-angio cancer therapy \[0 vs. \>=1\].||1.25|0.76|0.8345
91644947|NCT03428217|183181253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.27|0.78|0.9479
91644948|NCT03428217|183181254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.6|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 1: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor\].||1.6|0.83|0.3867
91644949|NCT03428217|183181254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.62|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 2: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.62|0.85|0.3367
91644950|NCT03428217|183181254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.69|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 3: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.69|0.88|0.2416
91644951|NCT03428217|183181254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.64|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.64|0.86|0.3043
91644952|NCT03428217|183181255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 1: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor\].||1.25|0.79|0.9692
91644953|NCT03428217|183181255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 2: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.27|0.8|0.9235
91644954|NCT03428217|183181255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 3: Stratified by the number of prior anti-angio cancer therapy \[0 vs. \>=1\].||1.26|0.8|0.9549
91644955|NCT03428217|183181255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.29|0.82|0.8193
91644956|NCT03252015|183181371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.049||||||Day 7||0.049|-0.412|
91644957|NCT03252015|183181371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.224||||||Day 7||0.224|-0.081|
91644958|NCT03252015|183181371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Day 21||0.000|0.000|
91644959|NCT03252015|183181371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Day 21||0.000|0.000|
91644960|NCT03252015|183181372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||||||Day 7||0.050|-0.340|
91644961|NCT03252015|183181372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.224||||||||0.224|-0.081|
91644962|NCT03252015|183181372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.294||||||Day 21||0.294|-0.151|
91644963|NCT03252015|183181372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Day 21||0.000|0.000|
91644964|NCT02262507|183181398|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91706988|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.47|91.84|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||91.84|-92.47|
91644965|NCT00975000|183181401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square test statistic|66.437|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corrected total serum calcium level (≤ 11.2 mg/dL and \> 11.2 mg/dL)||The primary endpoint was tested at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91644966|NCT00975000|183181401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|91.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.76|445.41|||||Odds ratio of Cinacalcet/Placebo|||445.41|18.76|
91644967|NCT00975000|183181401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|75.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.83|87.05|||||Difference = Cinacalcet-Placebo|||87.05|63.83|
91644968|NCT00975000|183181402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.41||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.93|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the percent change in BMD between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||3.93|-1.10|0.266
91644969|NCT00975000|183181403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in mean serum phosphorus between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||0.64|0.26|<0.001
91644970|NCT00975000|183181404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.4||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|3.57|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in mean eGFR between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||3.57|-4.37|0.842
91644971|NCT00975000|183181405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-1.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in corrected total calcium between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||-1.16|-1.62|<0.001
91644972|NCT00975000|183181406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-117.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.88|-44.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in iPTH between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||-44.55|-189.88|0.002
91644973|NCT00975000|183181407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.42||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|13.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in urine phosphorus between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||13.06|-15.91|0.846
91771788|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|22.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||22.99|0.16|0.6013
91834500|NCT04295005|183549129|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Outpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91834501|NCT04295005|183549129|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Outpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91834502|NCT04295005|183549129|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Outpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91644974|NCT00902486|183181415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.15|||Cochran-Armitage trend test||LOGISTIC regression model for odds ratio estimates : LOGIT(Response 0/1) = Treatment + Biologics|The prespecified primary analysis for ACR 20 was the Cochran-Armitage trend test looking for a dose-response relationship. The treatment effect was also assessed using a logistic regression model including background therapy (more than 8 weeks of biologics or not) and treatment.||6.15|0.77|0.0619
91644975|NCT00902486|183181415|OTHER|||||||0.1978|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sensitivity analysis for pairwise comparisons of 4 mg QD versus placebo.||||0.1978
91644976|NCT00902486|183181415|OTHER|||||||0.0437|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sensitivity analysis for pairwise comparisons of 7 mg QD versus placebo.||||0.0437
91644977|NCT00902486|183181415|OTHER|||||||0.1236|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sensitivity analysis for pairwise comparisons of 10 mg QD versus placebo.||||0.1236
91644978|NCT00526227|183181477|OTHER|An exact one-sided 97% upper confidence bound or a p-value will be calculated based on the observed percentage of subjects with an USADE within the first month post-implant. This rate will be considered acceptable if the one-sided 97% upper confidence bound is less than 10% or, equivalently, if the p-value is less than 0.0304.|Percentage|7.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.0|||||||The CI was calculated based on 44 patients at interim analysis: 0 USADE were reported within 1-month post implant, ie 0% of subjects experienced a USADE. The one-sided 97% exact binomial upper confidence bound was 7.7% which is lower than 10%.|"H 0 (null hypothesis): P ≥ 10%; H A (alternative hypothesis): P \< 10%, where P is the percentage of subjects experiencing a USADE through the 1-month post implant.~An upper limit of the confidence interval of the percentage subjects with USADE not greater than or equal to 10% at the 1-month follow-up visit provides a reasonably-sized clinical study with sufficient power to detect USADEs."||||
91644979|NCT05257109|183181492|OTHER|Mixed effects models with water concentration as the within subject factor and irritation as outcome. Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models. If model assumptions will appear to be violated, we will transform the data or fit more flexible generalized linear or nonparametric mixed models. A significant main effect of condition will be considered supportive of our hypothesis. Formal power analyses were not conducted for this pilot study.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|||||Significant p-value set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
91644980|NCT05257109|183181493|OTHER|Mixed effects models with water concentration as the within subject factor and LHS as outcome. Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models. If model assumptions will appear to be violated, we will transform the data or fit more flexible generalized linear or nonparametric mixed models. A significant main effect of condition will be considered supportive of our hypothesis. Formal power analyses were not conducted for this pilot study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91644981|NCT05257109|183181494|OTHER|Mixed effects models with water concentration as the within subject factor and DEQ as outcome. Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models. If model assumptions will appear to be violated, we will transform the data or fit more flexible generalized linear or nonparametric mixed models. A significant main effect of condition will be considered supportive of our hypothesis. Formal power analyses were not conducted for this pilot study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91644982|NCT00858234|183181497|OTHER|Accumulation Ratio (Day 11 AUC0-24hr/Day 1 AUC0-24hr)|Accumulation ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.45|||||Back-transformed least squares mean difference and 90% confidence interval from mixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values.|||1.45|0.80|
91644983|NCT02253654|183181548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.46|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.58||||t-test, 1 sided|||The difference between treatment groups for the percent of hemoglobin measurements within 10.0 to 11.0 g/dL during the evaluation period was tested using a 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|||-6.58|0.46
91644984|NCT00149669|183181568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|17.73|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||17.73|4.24|<0.01
91644985|NCT00149669|183181569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.95|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.95|.43|0.82
91644986|NCT00149669|183181570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.26|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.26|0.29|=0.19
91644987|NCT02458365|183181575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.75|.51|<.0001
91644988|NCT02458365|183181575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.68|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.68|.45|<.0001
91644989|NCT02458365|183181576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.84|.57|<.001
91644990|NCT02458365|183181576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.75|.50|<.0001
91644991|NCT02458365|183181577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.67|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.67|.43|<.0001
91644992|NCT02458365|183181577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.56|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.56|.36|<.0001
91644993|NCT02458365|183181578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.62|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.62|.41|<.0001
91644994|NCT02458365|183181578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.54|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.54|.35|<.0001
91644995|NCT02458365|183181579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.78|.38|.001
91644996|NCT02458365|183181579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.90|.40|.013
91644997|NCT02458365|183181580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.76|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.76|.37|<.001
91644998|NCT02458365|183181580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.82|.35|.004
91644999|NCT02458365|183181581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.78|.35|.002
91645000|NCT02458365|183181581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.81|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.81|.31|.005
91645001|NCT02458365|183181582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.64|.29|<.0001
91645002|NCT02458365|183181582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.77|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.77|.29|.003
91645003|NCT00468312|183181615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||<0.001
91645004|NCT00468312|183181616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||0.026
91645005|NCT00468312|183181617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||<0.001
91645006|NCT00468312|183181618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||<0.001
91645007|NCT00468312|183181619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.269||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||0.269
91645008|NCT01052038|183181620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91645009|NCT01052038|183181620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|<0.001
91645010|NCT01052038|183181620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|<0.001
91645011|NCT01052038|183181621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's post hoc-test corrected for 12 comparisons.||||||<0.001
91645012|NCT01052038|183181621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|22.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|29.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||29|14|0.005
91645013|NCT01052038|183181621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|14.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|22.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||22|7|0.004
91645014|NCT01052038|183181622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.004
91645015|NCT01052038|183181623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Post hoc test using Dunn's test corrected for 12 comparisons||||||0.01
91645016|NCT01052038|183181623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.003||95.0|0.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20|0|0.003
91834503|NCT04295005|183549129|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Medication cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91645017|NCT01052038|183181624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.04
91645018|NCT03349437|183181625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||This p-value is in reference to the total Modified 6MWT Distance|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.02
91645019|NCT00602641|183181725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Presuming the control over the experimental arm (MPT-T/mPR-R), the inferiority of mPR-R was defined as a PFS treatment hazard ratio (HR) of less than or equal to 0.82 corresponding to median PFS on the mPR-R arm of 20.5 months (mos) vs. 25 mos on the MPT-T arm. With 304 patients and 221 PFS events, there was 86% power to detect non-inferiority of mPR-R at a 1-sided 0.05 significance level assuming a superiority alternative of HR=1.2 corresponding to median PFS on the mPR-R arm of 30 mos.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.045|||||Analysis based on stratified cox regression by ISS stage (I-II vs. III) and age (\< 65y vs. ≥ 65y). The fact that the lower-bound was less than 0.82 and the upper bound was above 1.0 indicates that results were inconclusive for the primary objective.|Since mPR-R was expected to be considerably less toxic and to confer slightly longer PFS, a non-inferiority design with superiority alternative was used.||1.045|0.67|
91645020|NCT00602641|183181726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Analysis was based on stratified cox regression by ISS stage (I-II vs. III) and age (\< 65y vs. ≥ 65y).||||||0.476
91645021|NCT00602641|183181727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.204|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.204
91645022|NCT00602641|183181728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91645023|NCT03901339|183181729|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.653||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|0.812||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.812|0.526|0.0001
91645024|NCT03901339|183181730|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.952||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.952|0.652|0.0133
91645025|NCT03901339|183181731|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.662||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|2.609|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by BICR Assessment||2.609|1.058|0.0268
91645026|NCT03901339|183181731|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.989||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.174|3.369|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by LIR Assessment||3.369|1.174|0.0098
91645027|NCT03901339|183181733|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.796||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.628|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by BICR Assessment||2.628|1.227|0.0025
91645028|NCT03901339|183181733|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.834||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.237|2.717|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by LIR Assessment||2.717|1.237|0.0024
91645029|NCT03901339|183181734|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.881||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.881|0.602|0.0010
91645030|NCT03901339|183181735|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|0.922||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.922|0.612|0.0059
91645031|NCT03901339|183181736|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.126||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||1.126|0.748|0.4151
91645032|NCT03901339|183181737|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.894||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.894|0.598|0.0021
91645033|NCT01294709|183181756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.66|3.86|||mixed effects model|mixed effects model with MK-0974 pooled over doses||Telcagepant minus Placebo Treatment Difference||3.86|-17.66|
91645034|NCT01294709|183181757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least squares meand|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.076|||mixed effects model|mixed effects model with MK-0974 pooled over doses||Telcagepant minus Placebo Treatment Difference||0.076|-0.19|
91645035|NCT01294709|183181758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.03|7.74|||mixed effects model|mixed effects model with MK-0974 pooled over doses||Telcagepant minus Placebo Treatment Difference||7.74|-22.03|
91706989|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.8|111.91|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||111.91|-71.80|
91645036|NCT00110084|183181787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of confirmed responses (%)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|64.0|||||95% Confidence intervals were calculated for the true confirmed response rate using properties of the binomial distribution.|Proportion of confirmed responses was estimated by the number of patients who achieved a confirmed response divided by the total number of assessable patients.||64|36|
91645037|NCT02446496|183181791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point estimate percent|95.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.67|107.37||||||||107.37|85.67|
91645038|NCT02446496|183181792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point estimate percent|102.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.46|115.7|||||Comparison of AUC (0-t) between Treatment A and Treatment B|||115.70|90.46|
91645039|NCT02446496|183181792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point estimate percent|103.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|116.62|||||Comparison of AUC(0-infinity) between Treatment A and Treatment B|||116.62|91.19|
91645040|NCT02446496|183181793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Wilcoxon's Signed-Rank Test|Comparison of T-max between Treatment A and Treatment B.||||||0.2670
91645041|NCT04854707|183181795|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91645042|NCT04854707|183181795|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91645043|NCT04854707|183181796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0161|0.0501|||Chi-squared|z-value = 1||95% Confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binominal distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions||0.0501|-0.0161|0.314
91645044|NCT04854707|183181796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0207||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0369|0.0782|||Chi-squared|||95% Confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binominal distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions||0.0782|-0.0369|0.482
91645045|NCT04854707|183181797|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91645046|NCT04854707|183181797|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91645047|NCT04854707|183181798|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91645048|NCT04854707|183181799|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91645049|NCT04854707|183181799|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91645050|NCT05302414|183181823|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
91645051|NCT05302414|183181823|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
91645052|NCT05302414|183181823|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
91645053|NCT05302414|183181824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For pretest at the 0 week||||<0.05
91645054|NCT05302414|183181824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
91645055|NCT05302414|183181824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
91645056|NCT05302414|183181825|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|40.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
91645057|NCT05302414|183181825|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|45.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
91645058|NCT05302414|183181825|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|43.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
91645059|NCT05302414|183181826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
91645060|NCT05302414|183181826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
91645061|NCT05302414|183181826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
91645062|NCT05302414|183181827|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
91645063|NCT05302414|183181827|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
91645064|NCT05302414|183181827|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
91645065|NCT05302414|183181828|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||<0.05
91645066|NCT00742859|183181829|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|1.14|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 40mg compared to Warfarin||1.14|0.017|0.035
91645067|NCT00742859|183181829|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.711||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|2.24|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 60mg compared to Warfarin||2.24|0.225|0.546
91645068|NCT00742859|183181829|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|2.39|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 80mg compared to Warfarin||2.39|0.239|0.712
91645069|NCT00742859|183181830|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.508||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.856|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 40mg compared to Warfarin||0.856|0.301|0.011
91645070|NCT00742859|183181830|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|1.22|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 60mg compared to Warfarin||1.22|0.481|0.308
91645071|NCT00742859|183181830|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.914|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 80mg compared to Warfarin||0.914|0.332|0.022
91645072|NCT00956709|183181831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Two patients in each group had incomplete block before sugery.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91645073|NCT00956709|183181833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3354|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3354
91645074|NCT00956709|183181834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0445
91645075|NCT03706209|183181857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|35.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.97|0.47|0.161
91645076|NCT03706209|183181857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.52||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|55.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.43|0.55|0.111
91645077|NCT03706209|183181858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.25|0.71|0.222
91706990|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.59|104.8|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||104.80|-57.59|
91706991|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|10.14|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||10.14|-3.13|
91706992|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.295|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|14.18|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||14.18|0.41|
91706993|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|13.87|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||13.87|0.15|
91706994|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|3.51|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||3.51|-8.62|
91706995|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|7.17|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||7.17|-2.13|
91706996|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|10.12|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||10.12|0.47|
91706997|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.726|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|6.53|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||6.53|-3.08|
91706998|NCT01119846|183307989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|0.74|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||0.74|-7.75|
91706999|NCT01119846|183307990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.32||||||||1.32|-0.84|
91707000|NCT01119846|183307990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.64||||||||1.64|-0.60|
91834504|NCT04295005|183549129|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Medication cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91834505|NCT04295005|183549129|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Medication cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91834506|NCT00685945|183549143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The effect of bradykinin on net t-PA release was determined using general linear model-repeated measures ANOVA in which the between-subject variable was gender, and the within-subjects variables were drug (control, +L-NMMA, +L-NMMA plus isosorbide, or +L-NMMA plus sildenafil) and dose of bradykinin.||||0.04
91834507|NCT00685945|183549144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.001
91834508|NCT00847405|183549152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.64||||||90.0|95.93|111.97|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.97|95.93|
91645078|NCT03706209|183181858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.91|0.75|0.182
91707001|NCT01119846|183307990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.06||||||||1.06|-1.17|
91707002|NCT01119846|183307990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.16||||||||1.16|-0.81|
91707003|NCT01119846|183307991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.06|-0.08|
91707004|NCT01119846|183307991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.07|-0.07|
91707005|NCT01119846|183307991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.07|-0.07|
91707006|NCT01119846|183307991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.08|-0.04|
91707007|NCT01119846|183307991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.269|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|12.85|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||12.85|-8.31|
91707008|NCT01119846|183307991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|13.93|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||13.93|-8.01|
91707009|NCT01119846|183307991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|16.99|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||16.99|-4.88|
91707010|NCT01119846|183307991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|13.68|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||13.68|-5.65|
91707011|NCT01119846|183307992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.22|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.22|-0.28|
91707012|NCT01119846|183307992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.31|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.31|-0.20|
91707013|NCT01119846|183307992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.23|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.23|-0.29|
91707014|NCT01119846|183307992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.19|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.19|-0.27|
91707015|NCT01119846|183307993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.37||||||||1.37|-2.06|
91707016|NCT01119846|183307993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.73||||||||1.73|-1.82|
91707017|NCT01119846|183307993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.388|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.38||||||||1.38|-2.16|
91707018|NCT01119846|183307993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.7||||||||1.70|-1.43|
91707019|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|2.0|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||2.00|-3.04|
91707020|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.94|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||1.94|-3.07|
91707021|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|4.57|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||4.57|-0.45|
91707022|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|2.82|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||2.82|-2.19|
91707023|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.02|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||1.02|-3.99|
91707024|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.68|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||1.68|-3.27|
91834509|NCT00847405|183549153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.81||||||90.0|97.95|107.91|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.91|97.95|
91645079|NCT03706209|183181859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|25.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.39|0.33|0.294
91645080|NCT03706209|183181859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|53.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.14|0.31|0.291
91645081|NCT03706209|183181860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.77|0.45|0.617
91645082|NCT03706209|183181860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5|0.6|0.319
91645083|NCT03706209|183181861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.52|0.5|0.47
91645084|NCT03706209|183181861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.82|0.76|0.136
91645085|NCT03706209|183181862|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.0|||ANCOVA|||||3|-2.6|0.894
91645086|NCT03706209|183181862|SUPERIORITY||least square means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||1.7|-3.8|0.456
91645087|NCT03706209|183181864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 75 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.572
91645088|NCT03706209|183181864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4494|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 75 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.4494
91645089|NCT03706209|183181865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7922|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 50 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.7922
91645090|NCT03706209|183181865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1425|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 50 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.1425
91645091|NCT03706209|183181866|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.992
91645092|NCT03706209|183181866|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.143
91645093|NCT03706209|183181869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.178
91645094|NCT03706209|183181869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.48|0.05|0.718
91645095|NCT03706209|183181870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|28.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.05|0.21|0.474
91645096|NCT03706209|183181870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|19.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.05|0.08|0.867
91645097|NCT03706209|183181871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|12.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.84|0.38|0.375
91645098|NCT03706209|183181871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|27.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.08|0.66|0.116
91645099|NCT03706209|183181872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.27|0.08|0.287
91645100|NCT03706209|183181872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.4|0.53|0.332
91645101|NCT03706209|183181873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.63|0.25|0.719
91645102|NCT03706209|183181873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.32|0.55|0.357
91645103|NCT03706209|183181874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.72|0.53|0.355
91645104|NCT03706209|183181874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.37|0.67|0.198
91645105|NCT03706209|183181875|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||2.3|-1.7|0.757
91645106|NCT03706209|183181875|SUPERIORITY||least square means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||0.9|-3.1|0.267
91645107|NCT03706209|183181876|SUPERIORITY||least square means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||3.4|-1.4|0.412
91645108|NCT03706209|183181876|SUPERIORITY||least square means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||1.4|-3.5|0.401
91645109|NCT03706209|183181877|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||3.9|-3|0.801
91645110|NCT03706209|183181877|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||3.3|-3.4|0.957
91645111|NCT03706209|183181881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.8|0.55|0.45
91645112|NCT03706209|183181881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.26|0.74|0.186
91645113|NCT03706209|183181882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.18|0.41|0.884
91645114|NCT03706209|183181882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.64|0.61|0.384
91645115|NCT03706209|183181883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.26|0.63|0.311
91645116|NCT03706209|183181883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.17|0.47|0.699
91645117|NCT03706209|183181884|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.671
91645118|NCT03706209|183181884|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.183
91645119|NCT03706209|183181885|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.542
91645120|NCT03706209|183181885|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.328
91645121|NCT03706209|183181886|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.921
91645122|NCT03706209|183181886|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.488
91645123|NCT03706209|183181897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1193|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1193
91645124|NCT03706209|183181897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0054
91645125|NCT03706209|183181898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2439|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2439
91645126|NCT03706209|183181898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2461|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2461
91645127|NCT03706209|183181899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4395|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4395
91645128|NCT03706209|183181899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0593
91645129|NCT03706209|183181901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0507|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0507
91645130|NCT03706209|183181901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0005
91645131|NCT03706209|183181902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0504
91645132|NCT03706209|183181902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0013
91645133|NCT03706209|183181903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.098
91645134|NCT03706209|183181903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0032
91645135|NCT00038467|183181916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.58|0.00003
91645136|NCT00038467|183181917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.15737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.036|||Log Rank|||||1.036|0.806|0.15737
91645137|NCT00038467|183181919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months on-treatment (lumbar spine): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||3.23|1.63|<0.0001
91645138|NCT00038467|183181919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months on-treatment (total hip): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.79|0.57|0.0002
91645139|NCT00038467|183181919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months on-treatment (lumbar spine): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||3.81|1.77|<0.0001
91645140|NCT00038467|183181919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months on-treatment (total hip): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.46|1.12|<0.0001
91645141|NCT00038467|183181919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months on-treatment (lumbar spine): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||4.35|2.10|<0.0001
91645142|NCT00038467|183181919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months on-treatment (total hip): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.69|1.10|<0.0001
91645143|NCT00038467|183181928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.86|-1.76|0.500
91645144|NCT00038467|183181928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||-0.52|-3.67|0.009
91645145|NCT00038467|183181928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.16|-2.86|0.079
91645146|NCT00038467|183181928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.77|-1.24|0.729
91645147|NCT00038467|183181928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.75|-2.43|0.302
91645148|NCT00038467|183181928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.54|-2.76|0.187
91645149|NCT00038467|183181929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.49|-1.80|0.260
91645150|NCT00038467|183181929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.44|-2.02|0.209
91645151|NCT00038467|183181929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.92|-1.38|0.698
91645152|NCT00038467|183181929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.09|-0.42|0.192
91645153|NCT00038467|183181929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.15|-1.46|0.813
91645154|NCT00038467|183181929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.75|-0.91|0.537
91645155|NCT00038467|183181930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.42|-3.46|0.727
91645156|NCT00038467|183181930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||-0.05|-6.12|0.047
91645157|NCT00038467|183181930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.08|-3.88|0.553
91645158|NCT00038467|183181930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|3.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||3.99|-2.17|0.563
91645159|NCT00038467|183181930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|2.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.36|-3.83|0.643
91645160|NCT00038467|183181930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.82|-6.63|0.126
91645161|NCT00038467|183181931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.23|-0.83|0.265
91645162|NCT00038467|183181931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||-0.57|-1.84|0.0002
91645163|NCT00038467|183181931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.13|-1.00|0.132
91645164|NCT00038467|183181931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.43|-0.70|0.635
91645165|NCT00038467|183181931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.33|-0.75|0.449
91645166|NCT00038467|183181931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.36|-0.81|0.454
91645167|NCT00038467|183181932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.335|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.335|-0.53|0.712
91645168|NCT00038467|183181932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.356|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.356|-0.65|0.899
91896029|NCT04874415|183687454|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|22.8|||||Daily Step Count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||22.8|-22.8|
91645169|NCT00038467|183181932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.359|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.359|-0.76|0.882
91645170|NCT00038467|183181932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.37|-0.54|0.604
91645171|NCT00038467|183181932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.454|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.454|-1.16|0.562
91645172|NCT00038467|183181933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.18|-0.20|0.892
91645173|NCT00038467|183181933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.24|-0.21|0.881
91645174|NCT00038467|183181933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.21|-0.18|0.883
91645175|NCT00038467|183181933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.27|-0.16|0.604
91645176|NCT00038467|183181933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.41|-0.05|0.118
91645177|NCT00038467|183181933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.34|-0.11|0.307
91645178|NCT00038467|183181934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.56|-0.42|0.792
91645179|NCT00038467|183181934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.31|-0.76|0.405
91645180|NCT00038467|183181934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.36|-0.75|0.484
91645181|NCT00038467|183181934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.80|-0.19|0.229
91645182|NCT00038467|183181934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.32|-0.84|0.381
91645183|NCT00038467|183181934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.33|-0.82|0.405
91645184|NCT00038467|183181935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.48|-0.77|0.648
91707025|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.313|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.15|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||2.15|-2.78|
91834510|NCT00847405|183549154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.25||||||90.0|98.35|108.41|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.41|98.35|
91834511|NCT02790073|183549174|OTHER|Within group comparison vs baseline|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91834512|NCT02790073|183549175|OTHER|Within group comparison vs baseline||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91834513|NCT02790073|183549176|OTHER|Within group comparison vs baseline||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91834514|NCT00514683|183549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.118||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.118|-0.086|0.8530
91834515|NCT00514683|183549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7558||||||The p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.7558
91834516|NCT00514683|183549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.08||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.080|-0.119|0.7920
91834517|NCT00514683|183549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6991||||||The p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.6991
91834518|NCT00514683|183549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.128||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.128|-0.071|0.8530
91834519|NCT00514683|183549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5736||||||Additionally the p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.5736
91834520|NCT00514683|183549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.235||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.235|0.027|0.0639
91834521|NCT00514683|183549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136||||||Additionally the p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.0136
91834522|NCT00514683|183549182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.312||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|4.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.01|-1.15|0.2774
91834523|NCT00514683|183549182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.312||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.68|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||3.68|-1.48|0.4014
91834524|NCT00514683|183549182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.324||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.46|0.26|0.0314
91834525|NCT00514683|183549182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|7.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||7.56|2.37|0.0002
91645185|NCT00038467|183181935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.40|-1.08|0.366
91834526|NCT00514683|183549183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.3644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.13|-0.05|0.3644
91834527|NCT00514683|183549183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.4525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.13|-0.06|0.4525
91834528|NCT00514683|183549183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.18|0.00|0.0471
91834529|NCT00514683|183549183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.26|0.08|0.0004
91834530|NCT00514683|183549184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|4.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.26|-2.43|0.5920
91645186|NCT00038467|183181935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.03|-1.33|0.062
91771789|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|76.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||76.58|0.97|0.0537
91645187|NCT00038467|183181935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.00|-0.53|0.545
91645188|NCT00038467|183181935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.70|-0.77|0.932
91645189|NCT00038467|183181935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.32|-1.24|0.244
91645190|NCT00038467|183181936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.73|-0.62|0.876
91645191|NCT00038467|183181936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.26|-1.25|0.195
91645192|NCT00038467|183181936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.55|-0.92|0.630
91645193|NCT00038467|183181936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.98|-0.50|0.530
91645194|NCT00038467|183181936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.21|-1.43|0.147
91645195|NCT00038467|183181936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.46|-1.18|0.389
91645196|NCT00038467|183181938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||6 months: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0174
91645197|NCT00038467|183181938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||12 months: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0059
91645198|NCT00038467|183181938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||24 months: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0037
91645199|NCT00038467|183181938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||12 months post-treatment: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.8084
91645200|NCT00038467|183181938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||24 months post-treatment: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.6449
91645201|NCT03972709|183181944|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.1206||95.0|-0.08|0.66|||MMRM|||||0.66|-0.08|0.1206
91645202|NCT03972709|183181944|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.6127||95.0|-0.34|0.57|||MMRM|||||0.57|-0.34|0.6127
91645203|NCT03972709|183181951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.901||0.8388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.36|||MMRM|||||3.36|-4.14|0.8388
91645204|NCT03972709|183181951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.384||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|4.23|||MMRM|||||4.23|-5.18|0.8412
91645205|NCT03972709|183181952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.052||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.88|||MMRM|||||4.88|-3.22|0.6865
91645206|NCT03972709|183181952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.9355||95.0|-4.73|5.13|||MMRM|||||5.13|-4.73|0.9355
91645207|NCT01523301|183181953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.12|||=|0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.33||The null hypothesis was assessed with a 2-sided test and not rejected at p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline to the end of the Maintenance period in the score of the HAM-D of rotigotine-treated subjects has been compared with those subjects on placebo in the EES. The null hypothesis (H0) was that there was no difference in the change of the HAM-D score between the active treatment and the placebo group. The alternative hypothesis (H1) was that there was a difference in the change of HAM-D score between the rotigotine and the placebo arm.||0.33|-2.56|=0.1286
91645208|NCT00728988|183181965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected||95% confidence interval for the true difference in the incidence of MACE between the two treatment groups. Difference of incidence = usual care minus atorvastatin.|Total MACE: treatment difference. Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||9.3|-7.3|0.9237
91645209|NCT00728988|183181965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|10.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence limits were calculated by the exact unconditional inference. Difference of incidence = usual care minus atorvastatin.|Death: treatment difference. Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of events was less than 5.||10.7|-10.7|1.0000
91645210|NCT00728988|183181965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.9158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|9.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference of incidence = usual care minus atorvastatin.|Myocardial Infarction: treatment difference. Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||9.2|-7.2|0.9158
91645211|NCT00728988|183181965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5104|1.6846|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval calculated by including treatment group as the only covariate in the logistic regression model. Reference group = usual care.||1.6846|0.5104|0.80
91707026|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.441|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.91|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||4.91|-0.03|
91645212|NCT00728988|183181965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4887|1.8836|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted odds ratio: model includes treatment group and potential confounding covariates age, gender, country, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, LVEF \<=40, and use of beta-blockers, ACE-inhibitors, angiotension receptor blockers, calcium channel antagonists, and diuretics. Reference group = usual care.||1.8836|0.4887|0.90
91645213|NCT00728988|183181965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8494|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier log rank test.||MACE-free survival up to Day 30. A censoring variable with a value of 1 denoted that the subject had the event and 0 indicated that the subject was censored. A log-rank test was applied to investigate any differences on the survival distribution function between two treatment groups.||||0.8494
91645214|NCT00728988|183181966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference of incidence = atorvastatin minus usual care.|Treatment difference (%). Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||6.3|-5.6|1.0000
91645215|NCT00728988|183181967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.7896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|6.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference of incidence = atorvastatin minus usual care .|Treatment difference (%). Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||6.5|-9.7|0.7896
91645216|NCT00728988|183181968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||5.4|-10.1|0.631
91645217|NCT00728988|183181968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||5.5|-12.1|0.518
91645218|NCT00728988|183181968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|12.0|||Fisher Exact|||30 days post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of biomarker elevation was less than 5.||12.0|-9.6|0.236
91645219|NCT00728988|183181969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|15.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||15.9|-6.2|0.425
91645220|NCT00728988|183181969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|16.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||16.7|-6.1|0.392
91645221|NCT00728988|183181969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|10.9|||Fisher Exact|||30 days post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of biomarker elevation was less than 5.||10.9|-10.7|1.000
91645222|NCT00728988|183181970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||4.3|-9.6|0.529
91645223|NCT00728988|183181970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||3.6|-5.8|0.827
91834531|NCT00514683|183549184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.20|-2.49|0.6155
91834532|NCT00514683|183549184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.716||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|7.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||7.18|0.43|0.0271
91834533|NCT00514683|183549184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|8.83|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||8.83|2.11|0.0015
91834534|NCT00514683|183549185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.692||0.5601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.31||ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|ANCOVA||Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.31|-2.34|0.5601
91645224|NCT00728988|183181970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|11.5|||Fisher Exact|||30 days post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of biomarker elevation was less than 5.||11.5|-10.3|0.616
91645225|NCT00728988|183181971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.53||||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.87|156.81|||ANOVA|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (% change).||156.81|-215.87|0.7554
91645226|NCT00728988|183181971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.58||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-253.42|354.58|||ANOVA|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (% change).||354.58|-253.42|0.7436
91645227|NCT00728988|183181971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.22||||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.12|101.68|||ANOVA|||30 days post-PCI: difference (% change).||101.68|-218.12|0.4741
91645228|NCT00116207|183181972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||BASELINE||||0.32
91645229|NCT00116207|183181972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24-MONTH||||0.045
91645230|NCT00116207|183181973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||BASELINE||||0.52
91645231|NCT00116207|183181973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24 MONTH||||0.82
91645232|NCT00116207|183181974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24 MONTH||||0.24
91645233|NCT00116207|183181975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24 MONTH||||0.83
91645234|NCT00345969|183182059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91645235|NCT00345969|183182060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
91645236|NCT00345969|183182061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.23
91645237|NCT00345969|183182062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
91645238|NCT00345969|183182063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.33
91645239|NCT00345969|183182064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
91645240|NCT00345969|183182065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
91645241|NCT00345969|183182066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.49
91645242|NCT00345969|183182067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
91645243|NCT00345969|183182068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.71
91645244|NCT00345969|183182069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
91645245|NCT00345969|183182070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
91645246|NCT00345969|183182071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
91645247|NCT00609115|183182072|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.010
91645248|NCT00609115|183182072|SUPERIORITY||Effect|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91645249|NCT00609115|183182073|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-value was calculated.|ANCOVA|||||||1.00
91645250|NCT00609115|183182073|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.06
91645251|NCT00609115|183182074|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.33||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
91645252|NCT00609115|183182074|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
91645253|NCT00609115|183182075|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.83
91645254|NCT00609115|183182075|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.27||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.83
91645255|NCT00609115|183182076|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.25||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.28
91645256|NCT00609115|183182076|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.38||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.09
91645257|NCT00609115|183182077|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.23||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
91645258|NCT00609115|183182077|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.37||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.10
91645259|NCT00609115|183182078|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.18||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
91645260|NCT00609115|183182078|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91645261|NCT00609115|183182079|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.17||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
91645262|NCT00609115|183182079|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.77||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91645263|NCT00609115|183182080|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.48||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91645264|NCT00609115|183182080|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91645265|NCT00609115|183182081|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.26||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
91645266|NCT00609115|183182081|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.45||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.045
91645267|NCT00584831|183182083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645268|NCT00584831|183182083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hyposthesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645269|NCT00584831|183182083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645270|NCT00584831|183182083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645271|NCT00584831|183182083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645272|NCT00584831|183182083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645273|NCT00584831|183182084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645274|NCT00584831|183182084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645275|NCT00584831|183182084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645276|NCT00584831|183182084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91707027|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.34|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||3.34|-1.58|
91707028|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.24|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||1.24|-3.69|
91707029|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.03|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||2.03|-2.06|
91707030|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.51|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||2.51|-1.56|
91707031|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.512|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.55|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||3.55|-0.53|
91707032|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.26|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||3.26|-0.80|
91707033|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.02|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||1.02|-3.05|
91707034|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|2.67|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||2.67|-3.05|
91707035|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|3.3|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||3.30|-2.39|
91707036|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.706|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.56|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||5.56|-0.14|
91707037|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.062|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.91|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||3.91|-1.78|
91707038|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|0.14|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||0.14|-5.55|
91707039|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|2.7|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||2.70|-2.41|
91707040|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.99|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||2.99|-2.09|
91707041|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.96|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||4.96|-0.13|
91707042|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.6|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||3.60|-1.47|
91707043|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|1.03|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||1.03|-4.05|
91707044|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.6|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||1.60|-4.20|
91707045|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|1.56|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||1.56|-4.21|
91707046|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|3.89|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||3.89|-1.89|
91707047|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|2.62|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||2.62|-3.14|
91707048|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.37|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||2.37|-3.40|
91707049|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.26|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||1.26|-2.29|
91707050|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.55|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||1.55|-1.99|
91707051|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.501|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.28|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||2.28|-1.28|
91707052|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.65|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||1.65|-1.98|
91707053|NCT01119846|183307994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.73|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||0.73|-2.81|
91707054|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.457|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.72|73.8|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||73.80|-214.72|
91707055|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-151.722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.98|-7.46|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||-7.46|-295.98|
91707056|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-69.113|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.48|75.25|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||75.25|-213.48|
91707057|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-104.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-248.72|39.78|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||39.78|-248.72|
91707058|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-118.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-263.93|27.01|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||27.01|-263.93|
91707059|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-114.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.78|36.1|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||36.10|-264.78|
91707060|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-116.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-266.9|33.98|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||33.98|-266.90|
91707061|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.201|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.75|146.35|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||146.35|-154.75|
91707062|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.7|102.16|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||102.16|-198.70|
91707063|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.31|101.1|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||101.10|-202.31|
91707064|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.84|26.38|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||26.38|-40.84|
91707065|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.63|28.58|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||28.58|-38.63|
91707066|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.11|43.16|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||43.16|-24.11|
91707067|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.22|30.99|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||30.99|-36.22|
91707068|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|54.69|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||54.69|-13.09|
91707069|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-58.864|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.11|38.38|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||38.38|-156.11|
91707070|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-77.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.15|19.35|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||19.35|-175.15|
91707071|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|125.65|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||125.65|-69.00|
91707072|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.74|72.74|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||72.74|-121.74|
91707073|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.82|38.31|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||38.31|-157.82|
91707074|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.85|69.4|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||69.40|-69.85|
91707075|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.28|61.98|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||61.98|-77.28|
91707076|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.55|76.85|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||76.85|-62.55|
91707077|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.734|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.89|102.36|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||102.36|-36.89|
91707078|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.01|61.49|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||61.49|-81.01|
91707079|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.36|84.18|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||84.18|-123.36|
91707080|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.69|56.85|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||56.85|-150.69|
91707081|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.16|128.59|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||128.59|-79.16|
91707082|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.73|95.8|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||95.80|-111.73|
91707083|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.08|109.29|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||109.29|-103.08|
91707084|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.114|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.12|4.89|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||4.89|-25.12|
91707085|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.718|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.71|6.28|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||6.28|-23.71|
91707086|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.622|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.63|14.38|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||14.38|-15.63|
91707087|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.78|2.88|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||2.88|-27.78|
91707088|NCT01119846|183307995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.681|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.02|6.66|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||6.66|-24.02|
91707089|NCT00212264|183308027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
91707090|NCT00212264|183308028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Note that the no-treatment control group completed the study after 2 months and was not included in this analysis of treatment effect durability.||||||.32
91707091|NCT00187278|183308029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.0088||adjusted p|Regression, Cox|||||1.0088|0.789|0.3492
91707092|NCT00187278|183308030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.02||adjusted p|Regression, Cox|||||1.020|0.756|0.0882
91707093|NCT00187278|183308031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.74|0.8215
91707094|NCT04424914|183308074|OTHER|||||||0.3006|||||||Chi-squared|p-values for comparison of proportions of CLASS I+II vs CLASS III+IV were based on a Chi-square test.||||||0.3006
91707095|NCT04424914|183308075|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
91707096|NCT02195427|183308094|NON_INFERIORITY|"A WSRS change of 1 grade is considered to be clinically significant. A difference of ≤0.5 grade between the two treatment groups (i.e., half of the clinically significant difference) = non-inferiority margin.~The primary efficacy endpoint uses a paired-design and is analyzed by calculating two-sided confidence intervals of the mean difference between TEOSYAL® RHA Global Action and the control device, between the V1 enrollment visit (baseline) and V7 (24 weeks after baseline)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.11|||||The decision is based on the upper limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the difference for the change from baseline, between test and comparator treatment. For achieving non-inferiority, the upper confidence limit of a 97.5% CI must be ≤0.5|"Efficacy of TEOSYAL® RHA Global Action versus control is analyzed in a non-inferiority statistical model using the 5-grade Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) as rated by the Blinded Live Evaluator at 24 weeks after baseline.~The primary endpoint is the aesthetic improvement from pre-injection of the NLF at the side of the face treated with TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep compared to the one at the side of the face treated with the control device, as assessed by the BLE at 24 weeks after baseline."||0.11|-0.17|
91707097|NCT02195427|183308094|NON_INFERIORITY|"A WSRS change of 1 grade is considered to be clinically significant. A difference of ≤0.5 grade between the two treatment groups (i.e., half of the clinically significant difference) = non-inferiority margin.~The primary efficacy endpoint uses a paired-design and is analyzed by calculating two-sided confidence intervals of the mean difference between TEOSYAL® RHA Deep Lines and the control device, between the V1 enrollment visit (baseline) and V7 (24 weeks after baseline)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.06|||||The decision is based on the upper limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the difference for the change from baseline, between test and comparator treatment. For achieving non-inferiority, the upper confidence limit of a 97.5% CI must be ≤0.5|"Efficacy of TEOSYAL® RHA Deep Lines versus control is analyzed in a non-inferiority statistical model using the 5-grade Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) as rated by the Blinded Live Evaluator at 24 weeks after baseline.~The primary endpoint is the aesthetic improvement from pre-injection of the NLF at the side of the face treated with TEOSYAL® RHA Deep Lines compared to the one at the side of the face treated with the control device, as assessed by the BLE at 24 weeks after baseline"||0.06|-0.25|
91834535|NCT00514683|183549185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.6366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|4.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.13|-2.53|0.6366
91707098|NCT03782974|183308109|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||-0.37|-0.77|<0.0001
91834536|NCT00514683|183549185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||7.18|0.49|0.0246
91707099|NCT03782974|183308110|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.59||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||0.59|0.10|<0.0001
91707100|NCT03782974|183308111|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|8.77||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||8.77|3.93|<0.001
91707101|NCT03782974|183308112|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.049|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|7.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||7.01|1.08|<0.05
91707102|NCT03782974|183308113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.6
91707103|NCT03782974|183308114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||||0.054
91707104|NCT03782974|183308115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||||0.13
91707105|NCT03782974|183308116|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||-0.56|-0.96|<0.0001
91707106|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in basal ganglia Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.08
91707107|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in basal ganglia Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Mi/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
91707108|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in basal ganglia Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.9
91707109|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.7
91707110|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.4
91707111|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.6
91707112|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
91707113|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy ofMI/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
91707114|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
91707115|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in Basal ganglia. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.4
91707116|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in Basal ganglia. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.9
91834537|NCT00514683|183549185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||8.78|2.10|0.0015
91707117|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in Basal ganglia. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.6
91707118|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.7
91707119|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.1
91707120|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.6
91707121|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.5
91707122|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.4
91707123|NCT00136214|183308117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Crat time points 1 and 2||||0.9
91707124|NCT00136214|183308118|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 1 on change between scores for HVLT||||>0.05
91707125|NCT00136214|183308118|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 1 on change between scores for ROCF||||< 0.05
91707126|NCT00136214|183308118|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 2 on change between scores for HVLT||||>0.05
91707127|NCT00136214|183308118|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 2 on change between scores for ROCF||||>0.05
91707128|NCT04985942|183308119|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|-3.44|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|MMRM Analysis Based on Hypothetical Estimand Strategy||||-3.44|-6.38|<0.0001
91707129|NCT04985942|183308120|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.48|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|MMRM Analysis Based on Hypothetical Estimand Strategy||||-0.48|-0.85|<0.0001
91707130|NCT02757352|183308123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.51|1.23|0.009
91707131|NCT02757352|183308123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|5.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.25|1.48|0.002
91707132|NCT02757352|183308124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.77|1.38|0.004
91707133|NCT02757352|183308124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.77|1.40|0.004
91707134|NCT02757352|183308125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.81|<0.001
91707135|NCT02757352|183308125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-0.94|<0.001
91707136|NCT02757352|183308126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.96|<0.001
91707137|NCT02757352|183308126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-1.05|<0.001
91707138|NCT02757352|183308128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6092|5.0926|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0926|0.6092|0.013
91707139|NCT02757352|183308128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1278||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5299|4.9694|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9694|0.5299|0.015
91707140|NCT02757352|183308129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6467||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9525|7.4477|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.4477|0.9525|0.012
91707141|NCT02757352|183308129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6455||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3629|7.8533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.8533|1.3629|0.006
91707142|NCT02757352|183308130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.76|1.30|0.008
91707143|NCT02757352|183308130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|7.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.08|1.66|<0.001
91707144|NCT02757352|183308131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|10.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.41|2.02|<0.001
91707145|NCT02757352|183308131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|9.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.05|1.76|<0.001
91771790|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|39.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||39.91|0.36|0.2662
91707146|NCT02757352|183308132|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Square Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.28|0.031
91707147|NCT02757352|183308132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.61|0.001
91707148|NCT02757352|183308133|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-1.92|0.006
91707149|NCT02757352|183308133|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-2.08|0.002
91707150|NCT02757352|183308134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.57|||ANCOVA|||||-1.57|-4.58|<0.001
91707151|NCT02757352|183308134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.751|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-2.72|||ANCOVA|||||-2.72|-5.68|<0.001
91707152|NCT02757352|183308135|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-1.35|0.849
91707153|NCT02757352|183308135|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.93|-1.48|0.648
91707154|NCT02757352|183308136|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-1.93|0.018
91707155|NCT02757352|183308136|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-2.05|0.008
91707156|NCT02757352|183308137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.47|19.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.40|1.47|0.0011
91707157|NCT02757352|183308137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|15.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.66|1.14|0.031
91707158|NCT02757352|183308138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8507||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.418|1.804|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.804|-9.418|0.183
91707159|NCT02757352|183308138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8202||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.294|2.807|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.807|-8.294|0.331
91707160|NCT02757352|183308139|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.69|0.008
91707161|NCT02757352|183308139|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.60|0.038
91707162|NCT02757352|183308140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.70|-0.59|0.871
91707163|NCT02757352|183308140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-0.30|0.295
91707164|NCT02757352|183308141|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-1.26|0.257
91707165|NCT02757352|183308141|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-1.56|0.057
91707166|NCT02757352|183308142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.85|0.082
91707167|NCT02757352|183308142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-1.82|0.088
91707168|NCT02757352|183308143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TJC||1.09|-4.66|0.219
91707169|NCT02757352|183308143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.388||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TJC||-0.76|-6.30|0.013
91707170|NCT02757352|183308143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SJC||-0.26|-1.68|0.009
91707171|NCT02757352|183308143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SJC||-0.06|-1.46|0.034
91707172|NCT02757352|183308145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.5|0.325
91707173|NCT02757352|183308145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.6|0.206
91707174|NCT02757352|183308146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-1.77|0.330
91707175|NCT02757352|183308146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-2.15|0.110
91707176|NCT02757352|183308147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-2.4|0.348
91645277|NCT00584831|183182084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91707177|NCT02757352|183308147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-2.3|0.386
91707178|NCT02757352|183308148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.835||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.32|-4.2|||ANCOVA|||Overall Impairment Score||-4.20|-23.32|0.005
91707179|NCT02757352|183308148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.697||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|3.0|||ANCOVA|||Overall Impairment Score||3.00|-15.58|0.183
91707180|NCT02757352|183308148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.114||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of absenteeism||0.26|-12.05|0.060
91707181|NCT02757352|183308148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.098||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|1.97|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of absenteeism||1.97|-10.27|0.182
91834538|NCT00514683|183549186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.911||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.637|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.637|0.506|0.7543
91707182|NCT02757352|183308148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.558||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.62|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of presentism||-4.60|-22.62|0.003
91707183|NCT02757352|183308148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.446||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.58|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of presentism||2.58|-15.00|0.164
91707184|NCT02757352|183308148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.669||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|-3.41|||LS Mean Difference|||Percentage of Impairment in Activities Performed Outside of Work||-3.41|-17.85|0.004
91707185|NCT02757352|183308148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.621||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.12|-2.86|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Impairment in Activities Performed Outside of Work||-2.86|-17.12|0.006
91707186|NCT01212159|183308173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison of mean reduction in LDL cholesterol between no monitor (control) and monitor (intervention) groups|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test analysis of 6 month change in LDL cholesterol for no monitor and self monitor groups Independent sample t-test to compare ldl change between groups||||0.391
91707187|NCT02085070|183308194|SUPERIORITY|A response of \> 10% of patients was defined as superior.|% response|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|47.0||||||Each group was assessed individually. The primary goal of this study is to determine the efficacy of MK-3475 in patients with untreated brain metastases from NSCLC. The primary endpoint is the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR). A drug with minimal activity would be expected to have a BMRR of 10%.||47.0|15.9|
91707188|NCT02085070|183308194|SUPERIORITY|A response of \> 10% of patients was defined as superior.|% of patients|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|48.0||||||Each group was assessed individually. The primary goal of this study is to determine the efficacy of MK-3475 in patients with untreated brain metastases from melanoma. The primary endpoint is the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR). A drug with minimal activity would be expected to have a BMRR of 10%.||48.0|10.0|
91707189|NCT02815267|183308203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.88|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, which included treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.||4.88|0.72|0.0083
91707190|NCT02815267|183308204|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|8.19||P-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk difference equals 0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.19|-1.54|0.1805
91771791|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||17.84|0.13|0.7431
91896030|NCT04874415|183687455|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|38.2|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||38.2|-38.3|
91707191|NCT02815267|183308205|SUPERIORITY|Percent change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline non-inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor. For the superiority comparison between FMX101 4% and vehicle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|21.39|||ANCOVA|||||21.39|4.07|0.0040
91707192|NCT02815267|183308206|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 6 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.87|||ANCOVA|||||5.87|1.85|0.0002
91707193|NCT02815267|183308206|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 9 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|6.4|||ANCOVA|||||6.40|2.38|<.0001
91707194|NCT02815267|183308207|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for null hypothesis that the combined risk difference equals 0. Percentage of participants achieving IGA treatment success at Week 6|Risk Difference (RD)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.3|0.13|0.0395
91707195|NCT02815267|183308207|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for null hypothesis that the combined risk difference equals 0. Percentage of participants achieving IGA treatment success at Week 9.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.80|-0.28|0.0748
91707196|NCT00527124|183308234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2973||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.624|||Regression, Cox|||||1.624|0.506|0.7428
91707197|NCT00527124|183308234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7425
91707198|NCT04677387|183308287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00325||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression using a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model clustering on pharmacy.||||||0.473
91707199|NCT04677387|183308288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model.||||||.007
91707200|NCT04677387|183308289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression with a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model.||||||.002
91707201|NCT04677387|183308290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model.||||||0.169
91707202|NCT00548249|183308298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.32||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals comparing each SFP treatment group to placebo, and p-value from cox proportional hazards model||3.32|0.30|0.999
91645278|NCT00584831|183182084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91707203|NCT00548249|183308298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.17||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.09|||Log Rank|||||4.09|0.33|0.807
91707204|NCT00548249|183308298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.02|||Log Rank|||||3.02|0.21|0.748
91707205|NCT00548249|183308298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.77||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.19|||Log Rank|||||5.19|0.60|0.299
91707206|NCT00548249|183308299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.234||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect.||||0.234
91645279|NCT00584831|183182085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91707207|NCT00548249|183308299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect||||0.049
91707208|NCT00548249|183308299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.375||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect||||0.375
91707209|NCT00548249|183308299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.625||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect||||0.625
91707210|NCT02007278|183308314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power=95%; significance level=5%, characteristic operation curves were used with a non-central F distribution for the calculation of the sample size||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4510
91707211|NCT04475718|183308331|OTHER|Preliminary Efficacy|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91645280|NCT00584831|183182085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91707212|NCT02651688|183308336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7103|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7103
91707213|NCT02651688|183308336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4529|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4529
91707214|NCT02651688|183308337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9302|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9302
91707215|NCT02651688|183308337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7509
91707216|NCT02651688|183308338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5095|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5095
91707217|NCT02651688|183308338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6230
91707218|NCT02651688|183308339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2960
91707219|NCT02651688|183308339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2723|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2723
91707220|NCT02651688|183308340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0034
91707221|NCT02651688|183308340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0027
91707222|NCT02651688|183308341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0146
91707223|NCT02651688|183308341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0018
91707224|NCT02651688|183308342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1524|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1524
91707225|NCT02651688|183308342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0227
91707226|NCT02651688|183308343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5873|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5873
91707227|NCT02651688|183308343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9509|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9509
91707228|NCT02651688|183308344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4341|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4341
91707229|NCT02651688|183308344|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||1.0000
91707230|NCT02651688|183308345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0220
91707231|NCT02651688|183308345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3677|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3677
91707232|NCT02651688|183308346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9074|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9074
91707233|NCT02651688|183308346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4517|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4517
91707234|NCT02651688|183308347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2962|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2962
91707235|NCT02651688|183308347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3261|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3261
91707236|NCT02651688|183308348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0450
91707237|NCT02651688|183308348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2235|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2235
91707238|NCT02651688|183308349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8260
91834539|NCT00514683|183549186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.136||||0.6704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|2.045|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.045|0.631|0.6704
91707239|NCT02651688|183308349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4183|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4183
91707240|NCT02651688|183308350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1144|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1144
91707241|NCT02651688|183308350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3263|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3263
91707242|NCT02651688|183308351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1546|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1546
91707243|NCT02651688|183308351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5732|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5732
91834540|NCT00514683|183549186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.657||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|1.189|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.189|0.363|0.1649
91707244|NCT02651688|183308352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5581|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5581
91707245|NCT02651688|183308352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5833|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5833
91707246|NCT02651688|183308353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0168|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0168
91900819|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0|-2.2|0.9716
91707247|NCT02651688|183308353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0364
91707248|NCT02651688|183308354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0992|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0992
91707249|NCT02651688|183308354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1333|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.1333
91707250|NCT02651688|183308355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0139|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0139
91707251|NCT02651688|183308355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0225
91707252|NCT03409120|183308358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||linear mixed effects model|||We tested the equivalence of Burke-Fahn-Marsden scores over time (at baseline and at two time periods following DBS surgery) using a repeated measures ANOVA.||||<0.001
91707253|NCT02670382|183308359|SUPERIORITY||mean values, log transformed|||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
91707254|NCT02670382|183308359|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
91707255|NCT02670382|183308359|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
91707256|NCT02670382|183308360|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91707257|NCT02670382|183308360|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
91707258|NCT02670382|183308360|SUPERIORITY||mean differences, log transformed values|||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
91707259|NCT02670382|183308361|EQUIVALENCE|primary hypothesis is that EPA will not differ from placebo|mean differences|||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91707260|NCT02670382|183308361|SUPERIORITY||mean difference|||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91707261|NCT02670382|183308361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
91707262|NCT00386425|183308395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||p-value is for change to Day 7|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91707263|NCT00386425|183308396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||p-value is for the moderate Protein C Deficiency (difference in change of pc between alt and standard groups)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91707264|NCT00386425|183308396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||p-value is for the severe Protein C Deficiency (difference in change of pc between alt and standard groups)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
91707265|NCT00386425|183308397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||p-value is for Day 28 mortality|Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
91707266|NCT00386425|183308398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||p-value is for Day 90 mortality|Fisher Exact|||||||0.090
91707267|NCT00386425|183308399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||p-value is for total SOFA difference between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.190
91707268|NCT00386425|183308399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||p-value is for difference in cardiovascular SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.268
91707269|NCT00386425|183308399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||p-value is for difference in respiratory SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
91707270|NCT00386425|183308399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||95.0||||p-value is for difference in renal SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.367
91707271|NCT00386425|183308399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0||||p-value is for difference in hematology SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.274
91707272|NCT00386425|183308399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||p-value is for difference in liver SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.341
91707273|NCT00386425|183308401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for difference between participants normalizing protein C and not normalizing protein C.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91707274|NCT00386425|183308402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0||||p-value is for 28-Day Mortality, Dead at Day 28 vs. Alive at Day 28|Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.622
91707275|NCT00386425|183308402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||p-value is for Hospital Mortality|Fisher Exact|||||||0.815
91707276|NCT01907217|183308404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The prespecified noninferiority margin was no more than a -4 point difference at the end of treatment between the bilateral and unilateral groups.~The predicted difference at the end of treatment was 1.08 (95% confidence interval \[CI\] = -1.67 to 3.84."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.84||Primary statistical analysis was assessment of difference in HAM-D scores between arms at end-of-treatment, supplemented by 95% CIs and this interval compared with the pre-specified noninferiority threshold (-4 points). The p-value was calculated.|Regression, Linear|A regression model was fitted to end-of-treatment HAM-D measures, with baseline HAM-D scores, trial arm, randomization stratifiers as covariates.|The prespecified noninferiority margin was no more than a -4-point difference at the end of treatment between bitemporal and unilateral groups. The predicted difference at the end of treatment was 1.08 (95% confidence interval \[CI\]=-1.67 to 3.84).|Based on a large bitemporal ECT series, we estimated that 69 patients were required per group to have 80% power to demonstrate, using a one-sided equivalence t test at 5% level, that the mean reduction in the 24-item HAM-D score following high-dose unilateral ECT was no more than 4 points (i.e., equivalent to 3 points on the 17-item HAM-D, deemed to be clinically relevant \[30\]) less than that achieved using bitemporal ECT.||3.84|-1.67|<0.05
91707277|NCT01907217|183308405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85||As above|generalized linear models with a binomia|||"The AMI-SF at end of treatment was analyzed using generalized linear models with a binomial distribution and logit-link. Post treatment AMI-SF measures provide the number of baseline items recalled after ECT; such number of items recalled variables were therefore modeled as arising from binomial distributions, with maximum number of possible recalls set to the number of items obtained at baseline."||0.85|0.51|0.001
91707278|NCT01907217|183308406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78|||Regression, Linear|Analyzed using a generalized linear models with a binomial distribution and logit-link.||||0.78|0.45|0.001
91707279|NCT01907217|183308407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.79|||Regression, Linear|generalized linear models with a binomial distribution and logit-link||||0.79|0.45|0.001
91707280|NCT03704948|183308408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91707281|NCT04607980|183308411|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence of the primary endpoint was evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference of PASI percent improvement from Baseline to Week 12 between ABP 654 versus (vs) ustekinumab with an equivalence margin of (-15, +15).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|3.43||||||Multiple imputation was applied for the point estimate and CI of the mean difference between the 2 groups.||3.43|-3.16|
91707282|NCT04607980|183308412|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the initial randomized groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.94||||||"Week 4: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||5.94|-2.05|
91707283|NCT04607980|183308412|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the initial randomized groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|3.31||||||"Week 16: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||3.31|-2.97|
91707284|NCT04607980|183308412|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the initial randomized groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|4.07||||||"Week 28: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||4.07|-1.39|
91707285|NCT04607980|183308412|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the dose intensification groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|7.98||||||"Week 36: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||7.98|-5.46|
91707286|NCT04607980|183308412|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the dose intensification groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|3.28||||||"Week 44: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||3.28|-10.71|
91645281|NCT00584831|183182085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91707287|NCT04607980|183308412|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the dose intensification groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|7.13||||||"Week 52: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||7.13|-8.45|
91707288|NCT04607980|183308412|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ABP 654/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.59||||||"Week 40: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||0.59|-3.42|
91710567|NCT02634983|183313760|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung Clearance Index||0.60|-0.62|0.9820
91707289|NCT04607980|183308412|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ustekinumab/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.48||||||"Week 40: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||1.48|-3.17|
91707290|NCT04607980|183308412|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ABP 654/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|2.17||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||2.17|-3.29|
91707291|NCT04607980|183308412|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ustekinumab/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|3.86||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||3.86|-2.46|
91707292|NCT04607980|183308413|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|6.42||||||"Week 4: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||6.42|-4.02|
91707293|NCT04607980|183308413|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|7.23||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||7.23|-7.87|
91707294|NCT04607980|183308413|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|7.37||||||"Week 16: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||7.37|-5.75|
91707295|NCT04607980|183308413|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|9.84||||||"Week 28: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||9.84|-2.37|
91707296|NCT04607980|183308413|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference in dose intensification participants (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the generalized linear model adjusted for the baseline PASI and the stratification factors with an identity link was used to obtain the point estimate and 95% CI for the risk difference of PASI 75 response rate at each scheduled timepoint.|Response difference|-3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|21.76||||||"Week 36: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||21.76|-28.15|
91707297|NCT04607980|183308413|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|7.54||||||"Week 40: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||7.54|-3.74|
91707298|NCT04607980|183308413|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|8.39||||||"Week 40: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||8.39|-4.89|
91707299|NCT04607980|183308413|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|4.41||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||4.41|-8.61|
91707300|NCT04607980|183308413|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|7.43||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||7.43|-7.32|
91707301|NCT04607980|183308414|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|3.21||||||"Week 4: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||3.21|-3.16|
91707302|NCT04607980|183308414|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|8.18||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||8.18|-5.03|
91707303|NCT04607980|183308414|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|11.17||||||"Week 16: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||11.17|-3.62|
91707304|NCT04607980|183308414|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|10.78||||||"Week 28: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||10.78|-4.68|
91707305|NCT04607980|183308414|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|8.89||||||"Week 40: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||8.89|-12.85|
91707306|NCT04607980|183308414|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-4.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.39|7.73||||||"Week 40: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||7.73|-17.39|
91707307|NCT04607980|183308414|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|13.3||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||13.30|-8.42|
91707308|NCT04607980|183308414|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|10.19||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||10.19|-14.91|
91707309|NCT04607980|183308415|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|10.71||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||10.71|-5.65|
91707310|NCT04607980|183308415|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|3.29||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||3.29|-15.41|
91707311|NCT04607980|183308415|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-7.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|3.74||||||"Week 52: ABP 654/Ustekinumab vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||3.74|-18.41|
91707312|NCT04607980|183308416|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated for treatment group A and treatment group B using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.1||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||2.10|-1.15|
91707313|NCT04607980|183308416|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated in dose intensification participants (treatment group A and treatment group B) using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.67||||||"Week 52: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||3.67|-0.90|
91707314|NCT04607980|183308416|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated for ABP 654/ ABP 654 and ustekinumab/ ustekinumab using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.74||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||0.74|-0.99|
91707315|NCT04607980|183308416|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated for ustekinumab/ABP 654 and ustekinumab/ ustekinumab using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||1.10|-0.90|
91707316|NCT03372382|183308433|EQUIVALENCE|We prespecified an equivalence margin of -10 to 10mm. We would consider non-opioid analgesia to be equivalent to opioid analgesia if the pain score mean difference between the groups and it's 95% confidence interval (CI) were within the prespecified margin. Pain score mean difference or 95% CI boundaries outside this range would be considered a clinically important difference between treatments|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.9|||||The upper boundary of the CI is out of pre-specified limits.|Sample size calculations were based on VAS pain score at 2-4 weeks, assuming a mean of 10mm and standard deviation (SD) of 20 mm in the opioid group Assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 80% power to detect equivalence, a total of 138 participants would be needed. To account for a 25% expected attrition rate and crossover, a total of 170 participants would be needed.||11.9|-2.1|
91707317|NCT01128400|183308481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91707318|NCT01128400|183308482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91707319|NCT05725824|183308490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
91707320|NCT05725824|183308491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
91707321|NCT05725824|183308492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Arms/Groups were collapsed for RM-ANOVA to compare between various earmold types. A post-hoc paired t-test w/ Bonferroni correction was utilized to compare ear mold material types.|Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
91707322|NCT05725824|183308493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
91707323|NCT03782571|183308494|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-4.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 1 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||7.4|-4.0|
91645282|NCT00584831|183182085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645283|NCT00584831|183182085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645284|NCT00584831|183182085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645285|NCT00584831|183182086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645286|NCT00584831|183182086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645287|NCT00584831|183182086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645288|NCT00584831|183182086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645289|NCT00584831|183182086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645290|NCT00584831|183182086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91645291|NCT01607398|183182087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.05||||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|7.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The analysis was done using the Van Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon rank sum test.|From Van-Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, adjusted for smoking status strata and Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the 95% CI, not stratified and unadjusted for multiplicity.|||7.600|-20.500|0.5146
91645292|NCT01211613|183182107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value above relates to the comparison of differences in baseline/4-week Oswestry change scores between manual and mechanical manipulation methods (primary hypothesis). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression model was adjusted for these covariates: baseline Oswestry score, age, and treatment expectancy.||||||0.009
91645293|NCT01211613|183182108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value above relates to the comparison of differences in baseline/4-week Numeric pain change scores between manual and mechanical manipulation methods (secondary hypothesis). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression model was adjusted for these covariates: baseline Numeric pain score, age, and treatment expectancy.||||||0.002
91645294|NCT03853213|183182109|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|2.54||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|16.71|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is adjusted using the Satterthwaite correction due to unequal variances between the two groups.|A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference in change score indicates a greater reduction in the measure for the intervention group relative to the attention control group.|||16.71|-11.62|0.698
91645295|NCT03853213|183182110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided||A lower value of the estimation parameter of mean difference indicates lower extent of medication nonadherence for the intervention relative to the control group.|Note that the measure of extent of medication nonadherence used the older 5-item version of the scale rather than the newer 3-item version of the scale because the IRB modification to change the measure took effect after the majority of participants who provided data for Visit 2 had completed the measure.||1.24|-9.00|0.123
91645296|NCT03853213|183182111|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|66.29||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3081.7|3214.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3214.3|-3081.7|0.965
91645297|NCT03853213|183182112|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|-6.17||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|5.81|||t-test, 2 sided||A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference in change score indicates a greater increase in context sensitivity for the intervention group relative to the attention control group.|||5.81|-18.15|0.290
91645298|NCT03853213|183182113|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|-5.07||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|8.38|||t-test, 2 sided||A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference in change score indicates a greater increase in future time perspective for the intervention group relative to the attention control group.|||8.38|-18.51|0.434
91707324|NCT03782571|183308494|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-4.0|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||13.4|-4.0|
91834541|NCT00514683|183549186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.415||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.757|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.757|0.227|0.0041
91645299|NCT03853213|183182114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.05||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.07|53.17|||t-test, 2 sided||A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference indicates a lower extent of objectively measured medication adherence for the intervention relative to the control group.|||53.17|-19.07|0.293
91645300|NCT00069160|183182117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91645301|NCT02576054|183182146|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.57|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio= GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 6||1.57|1.00|<0.001
91707325|NCT03782571|183308494|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-2.7|19.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||19.1|-2.7|
91707326|NCT03782571|183308494|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-2.6|15.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||15.5|-2.6|
91707327|NCT03782571|183308494|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-2.0|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 2|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||8.9|-2.0|
91707328|NCT03782571|183308494|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-4.3|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||10.3|-4.3|
91707329|NCT03782571|183308495|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-1.0|17.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 1 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||17.8|-1.0|
91707330|NCT03782571|183308495|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-7.8|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||20.9|-7.8|
91707331|NCT03782571|183308495|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-15.1|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||20.9|-15.1|
91707332|NCT03782571|183308495|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-20.4|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||9.4|-20.4|
91707333|NCT03782571|183308495|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-12.6|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 2|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||5.3|-12.6|
91707334|NCT03782571|183308495|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-13.9|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||10.3|-13.9|
91707335|NCT01088711|183308518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.7|99.37|||Difference in geometric means (GMs)|||||99.37|82.70|
91707336|NCT01088711|183308520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least-squares means|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.55|2.38|||||GMR is ratio of active GLP-1 levels in omarigliptin:placebo groups.|||2.38|1.55|
91707337|NCT01088711|183308521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least-squares means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.17|||||GMR is ratio of total GLP-1 levels in omarigliptin:placebo groups.|||1.17|0.72|
91707338|NCT01240902|183308523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|30.1|||z-test, 1 sided||Kaplan-Meier Event Rate Greenwood Standard Error|TAVR with the Medtronic CoreValve System meets the Performance Goal in the 12 month rate of all-cause mortality or major stroke H0: = πMCS TAVI ≥ 43.0% HA: = πMCS TAVI \< 43.0% In the above expressions πMCS TAVI denotes the rate of all-cause mortality or major stroke during a fixed follow-up of 1 year.||30.1|22.3|<0.0001
91707339|NCT01240902|183308523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Kaplan-Meier Event Rate Greenwood Standard Error|No performance goal created, only descriptive statistics are provided.||||
91707340|NCT01240902|183308523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The 12 month all-cause mortality estimated rate was 20% for each group with a noninferiority margin of 7.5 percentage points. Assuming a 1:1 ratio in the treatment assignments, we estimated that a total of 355 patients were required in each group for the study to have power of 80% at a one-sided alpha level of 0.05. Accounting for a 10% loss to follow-up, we calculated that we would need to enroll 790 patients.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91707341|NCT01240902|183308524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #5, MACCE at 30 days or hospital discharge; whichever was longer. K-M rates TAVR 8.21%, SAVR 10.93%, Difference -2.73%, Standard Error 2.16%, and Upper 95% CI 1.5%.|Kaplan-Meier Point Estimate|Using Greenwood formula||"Powered Secondary Hypothesis: TAVR with the Medtronic CoreValve System was superior to SAVR in binary rate of MACCE at 30 days or hospital discharge, whichever was longer:~H0: πMCS TAVR = πSAVR HA: πMCS TAVR \< πSAVR In the above expression πMCS TAVR and πSAVR denoted rates of MACCE at 30 days or hospital discharge, whichever was longer.~Assumptions:~1:1 treatment allocation ratio One-sided alpha=0.025 SAVR = 20.0% MCS TAVI = 12.1% Power = \>80%"||||0.1033
91707342|NCT01240902|183308528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #3, change from baseline to 1 year.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in NYHA classification from baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #5. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero.||||<0.0001
91707343|NCT01240902|183308528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin= 0.375. For subjects with NYHA categories at both baseline and 1 year visit, the NYHA classification improvements were calculated as NYHAbaseline - NYHA1year.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #3, change from baseline to 1 year.|t-test, 1 sided|||"Change in NYHA classification from baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs. SAVR from secondary objective #5. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR ≤ µ SAVR -0.375 HA: µ MCS TAVR \> µ SAVR -0.375 In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean number of classification improvements in NYHA from baseline to 1 year."||||<0.0001
91707344|NCT01240902|183308531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #4|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score from baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #8. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero.||||<0.0001
91707345|NCT01240902|183308531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin 5||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #4|t-test, 1 sided|||"Change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score from baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs. SAVR from secondary objective #8. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR ≤ µ SAVR -5 HA: µ MCS TAVR \> µ SAVR -5 In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in the KCCQ score from baseline to 1 year."||||0.0063
91707346|NCT01240902|183308531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #6. Item #5 failed, therefore, item #6 also fails. Nominal p- value provided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in SF-12 Physical Summary Scale from baseline to 30 days: TAVR vs. SAVR from secondary objective #8. The two-sided two-sample t-test was used to test at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR = µ SAVR HA: µ MCS TAVR ≠ µ SAVR In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in the SF-12 Physical Summary Scale from baseline to 30 days."||||<0.0001
91707347|NCT01240902|183308532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #2|t-test, 2 sided|||"EOA:~Change in effective orifice area from Baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #9. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero."||||<0.0001
91707348|NCT01240902|183308532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin 0.375|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #2|t-test, 1 sided|||"EOA:~Change in effective orifice area from Baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs.SAVR from secondary objective #9. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR ≤ µ SAVR -0.375 HA: µ MCS TAVR \> µ SAVR -0.375 In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in effective orifice area from Baseline to 1 year measured in cm2."||||<0.0001
91707349|NCT01240902|183308533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #1|t-test, 2 sided|||"Transvalvular Mean Gradient:~Change in transvalvular mean gradient from baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #9. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero."||||<0.0001
91707350|NCT01240902|183308533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin 15|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #1|t-test, 1 sided|||"Transvalvular Mean Gradient:~Change in transvalvular mean gradient from baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs.SAVR from secondary objective #9. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level of 0.05 the hypotheses: H0: μ MCS TAVR ≤ μ SAVR -15 HA: μ MCS TAVR \> μ SAVR -15 In the above expression μ MCS TAVR and μ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in mean gradient from Baseline to 1 year measured in mmHg."||||<0.0001
91707351|NCT03543176|183308547|OTHER|||||||0.448||||||P-value for low impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.448
91707352|NCT03543176|183308547|OTHER|||||||0.033||||||P-value for medium impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91707353|NCT03543176|183308547|OTHER|||||||0.172||||||P-value for high impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.172
91707354|NCT03543176|183308547|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value for very high impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.010
91707355|NCT03543176|183308548|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||P-value for breathlessness reported in COPD assessed using mMRC is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.176
91707356|NCT03543176|183308549|OTHER|||||||0.732||||||P-value for Baseline comorbidity burden score was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.732
91707357|NCT03543176|183308550|OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-value for count of unique medications was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
91771792|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.2829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||35.22|0.35|0.2829
91771793|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||22.29|0.20|0.5311
91771794|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|46.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||46.83|0.47|0.1857
91707358|NCT03543176|183308551|OTHER|||||||0.178||||||P-value for total number of medications dispensing was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.178
91707359|NCT03543176|183308557|OTHER|||||||0.692||||||P-value for count of unique COPD medications was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.692
91707360|NCT03543176|183308558|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for total number of COPD medications dispensing was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91707361|NCT01267929|183308566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.5||Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare mean score of GMFM at the second month between two groups.|ANCOVA|||A sample size of 30 children, 15 for each group, was needed to obtain 80% power at 0.05 level of significance (two-sided) to test that the successful event rate (increasing GMFM scores at least 30% from baseline at the end of 2 months) in experimental group and control group of 0.3 and 0.8 respectively. The mean changes of GMFM total scores in the experimental group at the second month compared to those in the control group after adjusted for the baseline level.||6.5|-2.3|0.34
91707362|NCT01267929|183308566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.7||Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare mean score of GMFM at the sixth month between two groups.|ANCOVA|||A sample size of 30 children, 15 for each group, was needed to obtain 80% power at 0.05 level of significance (two-sided) to test that the successful event rate (increasing GMFM scores at least 30% from baseline at the end of 2 months) in experimental group and control group of 0.3 and 0.8 respectively. The mean changes of GMFM total scores in the experimental group at the sixth month compared to those in the control group after adjusted for the baseline level.||4.7|-6.3|0.78
91707363|NCT03441685|183308576|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (receptive)||||||0.73||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.73
91707364|NCT03441685|183308576|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (receptive)||||||0.69||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.69
91707365|NCT03441685|183308576|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (receptive)||||||0.79||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.79
91707366|NCT03441685|183308576|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.002||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.002
91707367|NCT03441685|183308576|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.049||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.049
91707368|NCT03441685|183308576|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.016||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.016
91707369|NCT03441685|183308577|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.76||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.76
91707370|NCT03441685|183308577|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.79||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.79
91707371|NCT03441685|183308577|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||1||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||1.00
91707372|NCT03441685|183308577|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.003||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.003
91707373|NCT03441685|183308577|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.029||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.029
91707374|NCT03441685|183308577|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.027||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.027
91707375|NCT03441685|183308578|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.72||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.72
91707376|NCT03441685|183308578|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.46||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.46
91707377|NCT03441685|183308578|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.89||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.89
91707378|NCT03441685|183308578|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.|||||<|0.001||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<.001
91707379|NCT03441685|183308578|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.018||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.018
91707380|NCT03441685|183308578|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.027||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.027
91707381|NCT03441685|183308579|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (expressive)||||||0.64||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.64
91707382|NCT03441685|183308579|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (expressive)||||||0.16||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.16
91707383|NCT03441685|183308579|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (expressive)||||||0.18||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.18
91707384|NCT03441685|183308579|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0|||||<|0.001||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<.001
91707385|NCT03441685|183308579|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.034||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.034
91707386|NCT03441685|183308579|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.063||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.063
91707387|NCT03441685|183308580|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.35||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.35
91707388|NCT03441685|183308580|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.18||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.18
91707389|NCT03441685|183308580|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.58
91707390|NCT03441685|183308580|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.006||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.006
91707391|NCT03441685|183308580|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.02||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
91707392|NCT03441685|183308580|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.18||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.18
91707393|NCT03441685|183308581|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.56||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.56
91645302|NCT02576054|183182146|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.78|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio = GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 11||2.78|1.89|<0.001
91707394|NCT03441685|183308581|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.1||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.10
91707395|NCT03441685|183308581|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.71||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.71
91707396|NCT03441685|183308581|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0|||||<|0.001||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<.001
91707397|NCT03441685|183308581|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.024||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.024
91707398|NCT03441685|183308581|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.1||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.10
91707399|NCT01796301|183308582|SUPERIORITY|A two-step, step-down, fixed-sequential testing procedure was used to test the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints for the comparison of romosozumab to teriparatide in the order presented for multiplicity adjustment to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05. The Key Secondary Efficacy Endpoints are the first 8 secondary endpoints reported below.|Treatment difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|3.8|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||The primary analysis to assess the treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) employed a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures. The model included main effects for treatment group, visit (categorical), baseline sCTX, baseline hip DXA BMD value, machine type (categorical), and machine type-by-baseline value interaction (to adjust for the effect of machine type on baseline DXA BMD value) as fixed main effects using an unstructured within-subject variance-covariance structure.||3.8|2.7|< 0.0001
91707400|NCT01796301|183308583|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.7|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.7|2.5|< 0.0001
91707401|NCT01796301|183308584|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.0|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.0|2.8|< 0.0001
91707402|NCT01796301|183308585|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.0|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.0|2.8|< 0.0001
91707403|NCT01796301|183308586|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.3|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||5.3|3.9|< 0.0001
91707404|NCT01796301|183308587|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.6|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.6|2.5|< 0.0001
91707405|NCT01796301|183308588|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.2|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.2|2.9|< 0.0001
91707406|NCT01796301|183308589|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.8|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.8|2.4|< 0.0001
91707407|NCT01796301|183308590|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.3|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.3|2.1|< 0.0001
91707408|NCT01796301|183308591|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.6|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.6|2.6|< 0.0001
91710568|NCT02634983|183313761|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Diffusion Capacity of Lung for CO||1.27|0.04|0.0821
91707409|NCT01796301|183308592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.2|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.2|2.9|< 0.0001
91707410|NCT01796301|183308593|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.9|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.9|2.5|< 0.0001
91707411|NCT01796301|183308594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.2|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.2|2.6|< 0.0001
91707412|NCT01796301|183308595|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.6|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.6|2.9|< 0.0001
91707413|NCT01796301|183308596|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|5.4|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||5.4|3.4|< 0.0001
91707414|NCT01884545|183308612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1073|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1073
91707415|NCT01884545|183308612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0615|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0615
91707416|NCT01884545|183308613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6732|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6732
91707417|NCT01884545|183308613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3754|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3754
91834542|NCT00514683|183549187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.278||||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|3.102|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.102|0.526|0.5882
91707418|NCT01884545|183308614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.853||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.326|6.139|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.139|1.326|0.0073
91707419|NCT01884545|183308614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.045||||0.9068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.183|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.183|0.5|0.9068
91707420|NCT01884545|183308615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.333||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|10.254|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.254|0.173|0.7822
91707421|NCT01884545|183308615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.333||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|10.254|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.254|0.173|0.7822
91707422|NCT01884545|183308616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7985|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7985
91707423|NCT01884545|183308616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1642
91707424|NCT01884545|183308617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8027
91707425|NCT01884545|183308617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7751|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7751
91707426|NCT01884545|183308618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5557|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5557
91707427|NCT01884545|183308618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7834|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7834
91707428|NCT01884545|183308619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1439|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1439
91707429|NCT01884545|183308619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2275|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2275
91707430|NCT01884545|183308620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7639|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7639
91707431|NCT01884545|183308620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9999
91707432|NCT01884545|183308621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4673|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4673
91707433|NCT01884545|183308621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2297|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2297
91707434|NCT01884545|183308622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2192|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2192
91707435|NCT01884545|183308622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9062|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9062
91707436|NCT01884545|183308623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1466|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1466
91707437|NCT01884545|183308623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2070
91707438|NCT01884545|183308624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6289|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6289
91707439|NCT01884545|183308624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9631|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9631
91707440|NCT01884545|183308625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2313|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2313
91707441|NCT01884545|183308625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8029|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8029
91707442|NCT01884545|183308626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0710
91707443|NCT01884545|183308626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8069|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8069
91707444|NCT01884545|183308627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0512|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0512
91707445|NCT01884545|183308627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4478|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4478
91707446|NCT01884545|183308630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7923|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Consequences subscale||||0.7923
91707447|NCT01884545|183308630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0636|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Personal control||||0.0636
91707448|NCT01884545|183308630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2063|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Treatment control||||0.2063
91707449|NCT01884545|183308630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2529|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Emotional representations||||0.2529
91707450|NCT01884545|183308630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1085|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), Consequences subscale||||0.1085
91707451|NCT01884545|183308630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), personal control subscale||||0.3370
91707452|NCT01884545|183308630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3483|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), treatment control subscale||||0.3483
91707453|NCT01884545|183308630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5384|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), emotional representations||||0.5384
91707454|NCT01884545|183308631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7447|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Consequences subscale||||0.7447
91707455|NCT01884545|183308631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6378|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Personal control||||0.6378
91707456|NCT01884545|183308631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3209|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Treatment control||||0.3209
91707457|NCT01884545|183308631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Emotional representations||||0.0058
91645303|NCT02576054|183182146|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.11|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio= GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 16||2.11|1.35|<0.001
91645304|NCT02576054|183182146|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|3.99|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio= GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 18||3.99|2.33|<0.001
91645305|NCT01818414|183182182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91645306|NCT01818414|183182183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
91645307|NCT00450177|183182196|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91707458|NCT01884545|183308631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3769|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), Consequences subscale||||0.3769
91707459|NCT01884545|183308631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), personal control||||0.0872
91707460|NCT01884545|183308631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4302|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), treatment control||||0.4302
91707461|NCT01884545|183308631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4133|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), emotional representations||||0.4133
91707462|NCT01884545|183308632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3106|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3106
91707463|NCT01884545|183308632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7087|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7087
91707464|NCT01884545|183308633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.034||||0.9259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|2.094|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Weight reduction||2.094|0.511|0.9259
91645308|NCT01227954|183182235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To detect a minimum relative 50% improvement leading to an absolute 15% mean relative decline (MRD) in HVLT-R DR, 51 analyzable patients were required to ensure 80% statistical power with 0.05 alpha. Assuming a death rate of 40% before 4 months (based on trial NCT00003563) and a 10% nonevaluable rate, the target sample size was 102. The target MRD was determined from NCT00003563 which demonstrated 30% MRD in HVLT-R DR score from baseline to 4 months, with a standard deviation of 41%.||||<0.001
91707465|NCT01884545|183308633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.252||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.234|4.111|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Exercise behavior||4.111|1.234|0.0082
91707466|NCT01884545|183308633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.423||||0.2954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Smoking behavior||2.120|0.084|0.2954
91707467|NCT01884545|183308633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.216||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.376|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Healthier eating behavior||2.376|0.622|0.5669
91707468|NCT01884545|183308633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.622||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|1.134|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Stress behavior||1.134|0.341|0.1210
91707469|NCT01884545|183308633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.928||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.872|||Regression, Logistic|||Weight reduction||1.872|0.461|0.8355
91707470|NCT01884545|183308633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|3.311|||Regression, Logistic|||Exercise behavior||3.311|1.011|0.0459
91707471|NCT01884545|183308633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.563||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|2.629|||Regression, Logistic|||Smoking behavior||2.629|0.121|0.4650
91707472|NCT01884545|183308633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|1.808|||Regression, Logistic|||Healthier eating behavior||1.808|0.478|0.8303
91707473|NCT01884545|183308633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.347||||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|2.439|||Regression, Logistic|||Stress behavior||2.439|0.744|0.3254
91707474|NCT01884545|183308634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0174
91707475|NCT01884545|183308634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8694|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8694
91707476|NCT01884545|183308635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4768|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4768
91707477|NCT01884545|183308635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8452|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8452
91707478|NCT01884545|183308636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|7.544|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.544|0.335|0.5589
91707479|NCT01410240|183308637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453|||||||one-sided, two-sample t-test|||||||0.453
91707480|NCT01410240|183308638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708|||||||one-sided, two-sample t-test|||||||0.708
91707481|NCT01410240|183308639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||one-sided, two-sample t-test|||||||0.527
91707482|NCT01410240|183308640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561|||||||one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.561
91707483|NCT01410240|183308641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356|||||||one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.356
91707484|NCT01410240|183308642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|||||||one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.533
91707485|NCT01410240|183308643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.734
91707486|NCT01410240|183308646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.314
91707487|NCT01410240|183308647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.063
91707488|NCT01410240|183308650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.058
91645309|NCT01227954|183182238|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and recursive partitioning analysis class (RPA) (I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Intercept is reported here.||||<0.0001
91645310|NCT01227954|183182238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1961|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Time is reported here.||||0.1961
91645311|NCT01227954|183182238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0715|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Primary site (lung) is reported here.||||0.0715
91645312|NCT01227954|183182238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0554|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Neurologic status (no symptoms) is reported here.||||0.0554
91645313|NCT01227954|183182239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Intercept is reported here.||||<0.0001
91645314|NCT01227954|183182239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1579|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Time is reported here.||||0.1579
91645315|NCT01227954|183182239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0559|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Neurologic function status (some symptoms) is reported here.||||0.0559
91645316|NCT01227954|183182239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0749|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Age (\>= 60) is reported here.||||0.0749
91645317|NCT04256759|183182270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12||||0.018
91645318|NCT04256759|183182270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 18||||0.021
91645319|NCT04256759|183182271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91645320|NCT04256759|183182272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91645321|NCT03901352|183182283|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSM vs placebo|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.34|||ANCOVA||"The multiple imputation (MI) was based on a nonfuture dependence model using the pattern mixture model (PMM) approach with shifting parameters under the missing not at random (MNAR0 mechanism for the missing weekly ADPS."|||-0.34|-1.08|0.0001
91645322|NCT02742818|183182346|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Generalized Estimation Equations (GEE)|Model assuming Gaussian distribution and AR-1 correlation structure, considering repeated measures in time.|||Through inference, changes in body temperature and proportional occurrence of hypothermia during surgery were evaluated using general models of estimating equations (GEE, Liang e Zeger, 1986). Binominal and normal distributions were taken into account, respectively, and assumptions for errors normalities were verified using residual plot graphs and fitted values. The significance of other associated factors and probable outcomes were verified, including gender, age, surgery type and total surgery duration, in minutes. Since analyses were longitudinal, AR-1 working correlation matrix was created.|||0.190
91645323|NCT02742818|183182347|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
91645324|NCT02742818|183182348|OTHER|||||||0.529|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.529
91645325|NCT02742818|183182349|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.999
91645326|NCT02742818|183182350|OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.462
91645327|NCT03889197|183182379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.162
91645328|NCT03889197|183182380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.242
91645329|NCT03889197|183182381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.956
91645330|NCT03889197|183182382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.132
91645331|NCT03889197|183182383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.445
91707489|NCT01410240|183308651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.421
91834543|NCT00514683|183549187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|1.081|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.081|0.078|0.0653
91645332|NCT03889197|183182384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.746
91645333|NCT03889197|183182385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.979
91645334|NCT03889197|183182386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.289
91645335|NCT03889197|183182387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.940
91645336|NCT03889197|183182388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.126
91645337|NCT03889197|183182389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.738
91645338|NCT03889197|183182390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.676
91645339|NCT03889197|183182391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.996
91645340|NCT03889197|183182392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.095
91645341|NCT03193190|183182408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|18.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|61.71||||||||61.71|-25.60|
91645342|NCT03193190|183182408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.85|39.85||||||||39.85|-18.85|
91645343|NCT03193190|183182408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-10.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|22.03||||||||22.03|-43.70|
91645344|NCT03193190|183182408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-5.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.58|18.99||||||||18.99|-30.58|
91645345|NCT03193190|183182408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.19|19.19||||||||19.19|-34.19|
91645346|NCT03193190|183182408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|8.57||||||||8.57|-25.96|
91645347|NCT03193190|183182408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|8.57||||||||8.57|-25.96|
91645348|NCT03193190|183182408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|13.17||||||||13.17|-18.44|
91645349|NCT03193190|183182408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|8.33||||||||8.33|-25.72|
91645350|NCT03193190|183182408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.04|21.93||||||||21.93|-25.04|
91645351|NCT03193190|183182410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.64||||||||2.64|0.48|
91645352|NCT03193190|183182410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.08||||||||2.08|0.66|
91645353|NCT03193190|183182410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.23||||||||1.23|0.29|
91645354|NCT03193190|183182410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.89||||||||1.89|0.67|
91645355|NCT03193190|183182410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||||||||1.87|0.61|
91645356|NCT03193190|183182410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|4.75||||||||4.75|0.96|
91645357|NCT03193190|183182410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|8.57||||||||8.57|1.54|
91645358|NCT03193190|183182410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.92||||||||1.92|0.68|
91645359|NCT03193190|183182410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.05||||||||3.05|0.72|
91645360|NCT03193190|183182410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.06||||||||3.06|0.84|
91645361|NCT03193190|183182411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.0||||||||3.00|0.59|
91645362|NCT03193190|183182411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.29||||||||2.29|0.71|
91645363|NCT03193190|183182411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.74||||||||1.74|0.45|
91645364|NCT03193190|183182411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68||||||||1.68|0.58|
91645365|NCT03193190|183182411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.84||||||||1.84|0.59|
91645366|NCT03193190|183182411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.77||||||||4.77|0.87|
91645367|NCT03193190|183182411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.94||||||||2.94|0.60|
91645368|NCT03193190|183182411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.6||||||||1.60|0.48|
91645369|NCT03193190|183182411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.36||||||||3.36|0.68|
91645370|NCT03193190|183182411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.02||||||||2.02|0.44|
91707490|NCT01410240|183308652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.161
91834544|NCT00514683|183549187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|1.154|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.154|0.106|0.0847
91645371|NCT03193190|183182412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-31.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.07|3.04||||||||3.04|-66.07|
91645372|NCT03193190|183182412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|15.37||||||||15.37|-22.55|
91645373|NCT03193190|183182412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-7.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.52|16.38||||||||16.38|-30.52|
91645374|NCT03193190|183182412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-14.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.72|3.68||||||||3.68|-32.72|
91645375|NCT03193190|183182412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.38|16.57||||||||16.57|-17.38|
91645376|NCT03193190|183182412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-50.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.51|-18.46||||||||-18.46|-83.51|
91645377|NCT03193190|183182412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-36.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.43|-3.18||||||||-3.18|-70.43|
91645378|NCT03193190|183182412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-26.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|-4.2||||||||-4.20|-49.39|
91645379|NCT03193190|183182412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-35.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.44|-3.42||||||||-3.42|-67.44|
91645380|NCT03193190|183182412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-28.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.94|3.42||||||||3.42|-60.94|
91645381|NCT03193190|183182413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.51||||||||3.51|0.24|
91707491|NCT01410240|183308653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.016
91707492|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Pain||||0.534
91707493|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Stiffness||||0.269
91707494|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Physical Functioning||||0.693
91707495|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Average Score||||0.343
91707496|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Total Score||||0.343
91707497|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Pain||||0.978
91707498|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Stiffness||||0.709
91707499|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Physical Functioning||||0.594
91707500|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Average Score||||0.501
91707501|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Total Score||||0.501
91707502|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Pain||||0.171
91645382|NCT03193190|183182413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.6||||||||1.60|0.23|
91707503|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Stiffness||||0.077
91707504|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Physical Functioning||||0.026
91707505|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Average Score||||0.012
91707506|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Total Score||||0.012
91707507|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Pain||||0.126
91707508|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Stiffness||||0.044
91707509|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153||||||Change Week 6: Physical Functioning|two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.153
91707510|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Average Score||||0.134
91707511|NCT01410240|183308655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Total Score||||0.134
91707512|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Physical Functioning||||0.962
91645383|NCT03193190|183182413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.47||||||||5.47|0.44|
91645384|NCT03193190|183182413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.44||||||||2.44|0.35|
91645385|NCT03193190|183182413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.93||||||||1.93|0.24|
91707513|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Role-Physical||||0.714
91707514|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Bodily Pain||||0.668
91707515|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: General Health||||0.556
91707516|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Vitality||||0.705
91707517|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Social Functioning||||0.122
91707518|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Role-Emotional||||0.254
91707519|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Mental Health||||0.500
91707520|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Physical Component Summary||||0.849
91707521|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change Week 1: Mental Component Summary||||0.959
91707522|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Physical Functioning||||0.574
91707523|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Role-Physical||||0.524
91707524|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Bodily Pain||||0.049
91707525|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: General Health||||0.447
91707526|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Vitality||||0.823
91707527|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Social Functioning||||0.661
91707528|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Role-Emotional||||0.086
91707529|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Mental Health||||0.635
91707530|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Physical Component Summary||||0.481
91707531|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Mental Component Summary||||0.140
91707532|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Physical Functioning||||0.107
91707533|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Role-Physical||||0.298
91707534|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Bodily Pain||||0.071
91707535|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: General Health||||0.940
91707536|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Vitality||||0.293
91707537|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Social Functioning||||0.265
91707538|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Role-Emotional||||0.036
91707539|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Mental Health||||0.307
91707540|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Physical Component Summary||||0.448
91707541|NCT01410240|183308657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Mental Component Summary||||0.255
91707542|NCT01410240|183308659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.052
91707543|NCT03244618|183308742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.544|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.712|-0.377|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative difference favours first named toothpaste.|||-0.377|-0.712|<0.001
91707544|NCT03244618|183308743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|14.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first names toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a positive difference favours the first named toothpaste.|||14.0|7.5|<0.001
91707545|NCT03244618|183308744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-5.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative difference favours the first named toothpaste.|||-5.5|-16.4|<0.001
91707546|NCT03244618|183308745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.489|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative value favours the first named toothpaste.|||-0.489|-0.850|<0.001
91707547|NCT03244618|183308746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|15.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a positive difference favours first named toothpaste|||15.1|8.6|<0.001
91645386|NCT05004181|183182444|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|13.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.14|15.45|||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were based on the analysis of logarithmically transformed neutralizing titers using a linear regression model with terms of age, sex, and group.|||15.45|11.14|
91707548|NCT03244618|183308747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-5.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative difference favours the first named toothpaste.|||-5.2|-16.6|<0.001
91707549|NCT01215435|183308764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean HbA1c treatment difference was below or equal to 0.4%. This is equivalent to using a one-sided test of size 2.5%.|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.4|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||H0: D \> 0.4% against H1: D ≤ 0.4% where D is the mean treatment difference for change in HbA1c (pre-breakfast OD minus pre-dinner OD)||0.13|-0.40|<0.001
91707550|NCT01215435|183308765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-3.14||||0.6215||95.0|-15.65|9.37|||Regression, Linear|||||9.37|-15.65|0.6215
91707551|NCT00435019|183308852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was that the mean HbA1c with insulin detemir was greater than or equal to the mean HbA1c with NPH insulin plus 0.4%. A sample size of 344 subjects, in total, with a drop-out rate of 20 percent would yield 274 subjects for evaluation of HbA1c. This would give 85 percent power to detect a difference in means of HbA1c of 0.4 percentage points assuming that the standard deviation was 1.1 using a two-sided t-test with a 0.05 significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||||95.0|-0.12|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.12|
91707552|NCT01180049|183308885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.52|1.027||||||||1.027|0.520|
91707553|NCT01180049|183308886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.568|1.064||||||||1.064|0.568|
91707554|NCT01180049|183308887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in arms|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|20.3||||||Independent assessment- Difference (%) TEMSR 175/75 mg - TEMSR 75 mg (80% CI)||20.3|-6.9|
91707555|NCT01180049|183308888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between arms|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|26.7||||||Investigator's assessment- Difference (%)TEMSR 175/75 mg - TEMSR 75 mg (80% CI)||26.7|-0.4|
91707556|NCT01180049|183308889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.453|0.922||||||||0.922|0.453|
91771795|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|17.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||17.50|0.06|0.9879
91707557|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change between pre-test and post-test for the Positive Conflict Management subscale using multilevel modeling||||>.05
91707558|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change between pre-test and post-test for the Positive Conflict Management subscale using multilevel modeling||||<.001
91707559|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||<.001
91707560|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in Negative Conflict Management for the Control Group||||>.05
91707561|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
91707562|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected decrease from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
91707563|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes in the Relationship Quality subscale from Pre-test to post-test in the control group||||<.05
91707564|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes in the Relationship Quality Subscale from pretest to posttest in the intervention group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
91707565|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Relationship Qualitty subscale|The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||<.05
91707566|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||<.05
91707567|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the intervention group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
91707568|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Emotional Abuse subscale|The expected decrease from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||<.05
91645387|NCT05004181|183182445|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the difference of percentages was greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|-4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|0.83|||||Adjusted difference in percentages were estimated using minimum risk weights and stratified by sex and age group.|||0.83|-10.04|
91707569|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||>.05
91707570|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707571|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Relationship Satisfactionn subscale||||<.001
91645388|NCT05004181|183182447|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|36.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.21|51.17|||||Adjusted difference was estimated using the minimum risk weights and stratified by sex and age group.|||51.17|19.21|
91707572|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707573|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707574|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Relationship Commitment subscale||||<.001
91707575|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Depression subscale for the control group||||<.001
91707576|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Depression subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
91707577|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Depression subscale||||>.05
91707578|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Anxiety subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707579|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Anxiety subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707580|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test and post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test and post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Anxiety subscale||||>.05
91707581|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in Budgeting subscale for the control group||||<.05
91707582|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Budgeting subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707583|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Budgeting subscale||||<.10
91707584|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the control group||||<.10
91707585|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707586|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale|Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||>.05
91707587|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in Time with Partner subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707588|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in Time with Partner subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91645389|NCT02239692|183182529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed by examining whether the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is less than the specified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 points.|Adjusted estimated mean difference|-3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-2.87||p-value corresponds to a two-sided test of superiority.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, country and time of colonoscopy (AM/PM) as factors.|Treatment difference in mean total Ottawa Scale score was calculated as PICOPREP tailored dosing schedule minus PICOPREP day-before dosing schedule.|Null hypothesis was no treatment difference between the two dosing schedules.||-2.87|-4.99|<0.0001
91645390|NCT02239692|183182530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed by examining whether the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is less than the specified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 points.|Adjusted estimated mean difference|-4.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-3.41||p-value corresponds to a two-sided test of superiority.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, country and time of colonoscopy (AM/PM) as factors.|Treatment difference in mean total Ottawa Scale score was calculated as PICOPREP tailored dosing schedule minus PICOPREP day-before dosing schedule.|Null hypothesis was no treatment difference between the two dosing schedules.||-3.41|-5.34|<0.0001
91645391|NCT02239692|183182531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted estimated odds ratio|9.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|19.32||p-value corresponds to a two-sided test of superiority.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with the failure/success status as dependent variable, and treatment, country and timing of colonoscopy as factors.|The estimated odds ratio compares the odds of being a responder in the PICOPREP tailored dosing schedule vs. the PICOPREP day-before dosing schedule.|Null hypothesis was no treatment difference between the two dosing schedules.||19.32|4.36|<0.0001
91645392|NCT02007369|183182538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.89|0.05|0.033
91645393|NCT02007369|183182538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.01|0.36|0.934
91645394|NCT02007369|183182539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91645395|NCT02007369|183182539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.199
91645396|NCT02007369|183182540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.50|0.25|0.285
91645397|NCT02007369|183182540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.31|0.597
91645398|NCT02007369|183182541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
91645399|NCT02007369|183182541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.527
91645400|NCT01901146|183182542|EQUIVALENCE|The clinical equivalence between ABP 980 and trastuzumab was first evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the risk difference of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab with a fixed margin of (-13%, 13%).|Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|13.4|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The clinical equivalence between ABP 980 and trastuzumab was first evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the Risk Difference (RD; ABP 980 - Trastuzumab) of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab with a fixed margin of (-13%, 13%), estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for stratification factors tumor (T)-stage, nodal status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||13.4|1.2|0.0508
91645401|NCT01901146|183182542|EQUIVALENCE|If the test of equivalence on the RD of pCR was successful, then equivalence was tested on the risk ratio of pCR at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the RR of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for stratification factors, with the margin of (0.7586, 1/0.7586). If the test of equivalence on the RD was not successful, the RR of pCR and 90% CI were considered to be descriptive.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1877||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0327|1.366|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||If the test of equivalence on the RD of pCR was successful, then equivalence was tested on the Risk Ratio (RR; ABP 980 / Trastuzumab) of pCR at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the RR of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab, estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for stratification factors: tumor (T)-stage, nodal status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||1.3660|1.0327|0.0430
91645402|NCT01901146|183182543|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.0||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|12.2|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk difference (ABP 980 - Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||12.2|-0.2|0.1086
91645403|NCT01901146|183182543|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1463||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.008|1.3035|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk ratio (ABP 980 / Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||1.3035|1.0080|0.0807
91645404|NCT01901146|183182544|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|13.9|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk difference (ABP 980 - Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||13.9|2.1|0.0253
91645405|NCT01901146|183182544|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2746||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0673|1.5222|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk ratio (ABP 980 / Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||1.5222|1.0673|0.0245
91834545|NCT00514683|183549187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.5383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.271|1.977|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.977|0.271|0.5383
91707589|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to pos-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Time with Partner subscale||||>.05
91707590|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Positive values indicate an increase whereas a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in banking subscale for control group||||>.05
91707591|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in banking subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707592|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Banking subscale|Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|||>.05
91707593|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in parenting stress subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707594|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in parenting stress subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707595|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Parenting stresss subscale||||>.05
91707596|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in conflict management satisfaction subscale for the control group||||<.001
91707597|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in conflict management satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707598|NCT04227405|183308938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||The increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale||||<.001
91707599|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707600|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707601|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up n the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
91707602|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict subscale for the control group||||>.05
91771796|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|43.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||43.19|0.48|0.1853
91771797|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|46.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||46.93|0.42|0.2170
91771798|NCT03192176|183427587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.8354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|12.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||12.62|0.04|0.8354
91834546|NCT00514683|183549188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.39|-0.51|0.3658
91771799|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.04|0.06|0.9671
91771800|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16||||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|31.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||31.87|0.31|0.3289
91771801|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|32.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||32.71|0.32|0.3157
91771802|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.83|0.06|0.991
91771803|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.5139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|26.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||26.12|0.20|0.5139
91771804|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.3079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|33.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||33.45|0.33|0.3079
91771805|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.83||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|75.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||75.68|1.03|0.0469
91771806|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.39||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|119.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||119.1|1.74|0.0134
91834547|NCT00514683|183549188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.27|-0.61|0.4956
91645406|NCT00297492|183182545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined by a two-sided p value less than 0.05.|Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 2||"Null hypothesis: prolonged abstinence from smoking is the same for the three groups at 6 month follow-up~Sample size was based on an assumption of 6 month abstinence of 25% in the gradual group, 15% in the abrupt group, and 10% in the minimal group. Sample sizes of 300, 300, and 150 for gradual, abrupt, and minimal provides 97% to detect a difference between the groups, with 2-sided alpha = 0.05."||||0.30
91707603|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Manageement subscale for the intervention group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
91707604|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected decrease from pre-test to follow-i\[in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up n the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
91707605|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the control group||||>.05
91771807|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|46.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||46.90|0.53|0.1606
91834548|NCT00514683|183549188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.31|0.41|0.0051
91707606|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707607|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables. Pvalue set at \<.05|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is not significantly (p \> .05) different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up n the Relationship Quality subscale||||<.10
91707608|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||<.10
91707609|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91710569|NCT01677182|183313835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.783|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|3.0||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||3.0|-1.4|0.783
91710570|NCT01677182|183313835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.329|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.6|1.7||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.7|-2.6|0.329
91710571|NCT01677182|183313836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.088|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|1.1||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.1|-0.1|0.088
91710572|NCT01677182|183313836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.642|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|0.5||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.5|-0.7|0.642
91834549|NCT00514683|183549188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.07|0.17|0.0211
91710573|NCT01677182|183313837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.792|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.3||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.3|-0.2|0.792
91834550|NCT00514683|183549189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.428||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|1.184|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.184|0.155|0.1021
91834551|NCT00514683|183549189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.682||||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.773|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.773|0.262|0.4318
91710574|NCT01677182|183313837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.171|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.1||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.1|-0.4|0.171
91710575|NCT01677182|183313838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.653|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.3||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.3|-0.2|0.653
91710576|NCT01677182|183313838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.673|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.2||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.2|-0.3|0.673
91710577|NCT01677182|183313839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.119|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|2.0||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.0|-0.4|0.119
91710578|NCT01677182|183313839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.791|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.3|1.0||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.0|-1.3|0.791
91710579|NCT01677182|183313840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.422|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.0|2.1||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.1|-1.0|0.422
91834552|NCT00514683|183549189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.412||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|1.161|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.161|0.146|0.0934
91710580|NCT01677182|183313840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.655|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.3|1.9||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.9|-1.3|0.655
91645407|NCT00297492|183182545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.22|||||The reported odds ratio represents the odds of 6 month prolonged abstinence in the gradual reduction group divided by the odds of 6 month prolonged abstinence in the abrupt cessation group.|||1.22|0.28|
91645408|NCT02675426|183182546|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|37.0||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.0|19.1|<0.001
91645409|NCT02675426|183182546|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|39.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.4|21.6|<0.001
91645410|NCT02675426|183182547|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|39.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.5|23.0|<0.001
91645411|NCT02675426|183182547|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|39.0||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.0|22.5|<0.001
91645412|NCT02675426|183182548|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.94||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.94|-1.42|<0.001
91645413|NCT02675426|183182548|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-1.08||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.08|-1.56|<0.001
91645414|NCT02675426|183182549|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.24||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.24|-0.43|<0.001
91645415|NCT02675426|183182549|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.18||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.18|-0.38|<0.001
91645416|NCT02675426|183182550|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.98||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.98|3.13|<0.001
91645417|NCT02675426|183182550|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|6.42||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.42|3.54|<0.001
91645418|NCT02675426|183182551|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|20.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|28.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.1|13.6|<0.001
91710581|NCT01677182|183313841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.696|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.5|2.8||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.8|-4.5|0.696
91645419|NCT02675426|183182551|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|25.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||25.5|11.2|<0.001
91645420|NCT02675426|183182552|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|29.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.5|13.0|<0.001
91645421|NCT02675426|183182552|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.3||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.3|14.7|<0.001
91645422|NCT02675426|183182553|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-51.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.14|-23.87||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.87|-78.14|<0.001
91645423|NCT02675426|183182553|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-50.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.19|-23.53||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.53|-78.19|<0.001
91645424|NCT02675426|183182554|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|6.6||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.60|3.31|<0.001
91645425|NCT02675426|183182554|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|6.44||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.44|3.12|<0.001
91645426|NCT02675426|183182555|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|31.0||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.0|15.1|<0.001
91645427|NCT02675426|183182555|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|28.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|36.5||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.5|20.4|<0.001
91645428|NCT02675426|183182556|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|21.1||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.1|8.7|<0.001
91645429|NCT02675426|183182556|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|27.2||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.2|14.0|<0.001
91645430|NCT02675426|183182557|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.2||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||20.2|7.0|<0.001
91645431|NCT02675426|183182557|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|26.7||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.7|12.7|<0.001
91645432|NCT00080288|183182572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.67|3.69|||ANCOVA|||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05.||3.69|1.67|<0.0001
91645433|NCT00080288|183182573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group. Adjusted for country.||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05.||||0.0010
91834553|NCT00514683|183549189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.313||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.903|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.903|0.108|0.0317
91834554|NCT00514683|183549190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.6443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|3.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||3.51|-5.66|0.6443
91834555|NCT00514683|183549190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||3.18|-5.80|0.5656
91834556|NCT00514683|183549190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|4.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.64|-4.18|0.9181
91834557|NCT00514683|183549190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.387||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|5.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.63|-3.77|0.6970
91834558|NCT00514683|183549191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.9811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|4.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.96|-4.84|0.9811
91834559|NCT00514683|183549191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.412||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|5.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.75|-3.74|0.6772
91834560|NCT00514683|183549191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.379||0.8631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|5.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.09|-4.27|0.8631
91834561|NCT00514683|183549191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.523||0.5942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|6.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||6.31|-3.62|0.5942
91834562|NCT00514683|183549192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.19|-0.62|0.2716
91834563|NCT00514683|183549192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.56|-1.18|0.7871
91834564|NCT00514683|183549192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.685||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.24|-1.46|0.8721
91834565|NCT00514683|183549192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.734||0.8523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.31|-1.58|0.8523
91834566|NCT00514683|183549193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.093||||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.175|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.175|0.549|0.7997
91834567|NCT00514683|183549193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.916||||0.7989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|1.797|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.797|0.467|0.7989
91834568|NCT00514683|183549193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|1.508|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.508|0.403|0.4596
91834569|NCT00514683|183549193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.665||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.341|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.341|0.330|0.2548
91834570|NCT00514683|183549194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.051||||0.8887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|2.122|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.122|0.521|0.8887
91834571|NCT00514683|183549194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.216||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.410|0.613|0.5758
91834572|NCT00514683|183549194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.949|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.949|0.506|0.9829
91834573|NCT00514683|183549194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.972||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.985|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.985|0.476|0.9375
91834574|NCT00514683|183549195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1456||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.385|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.385|-0.188|0.4998
91834575|NCT00514683|183549195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1399||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.120|-0.430|0.2679
91834576|NCT00514683|183549195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.195|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.195|-0.355|0.5678
91707610|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected decrease from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is not significantly (p \> .05) different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale||||<.10
91707611|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707612|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707613|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale||||<.001
91707614|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707615|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707616|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale||||<.001
91707617|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707618|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for th eintervention group||||>.05
91834577|NCT00514683|183549195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1448||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.164|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.164|-0.406|0.4053
91707619|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||>.05
91707620|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Management subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707621|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Management subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707622|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||>.05
91707623|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707624|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707625|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale||||>.05
91707626|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707627|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707628|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale||||>.05
91707629|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||>.05
91834578|NCT00514683|183549196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.892||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.710|0.465|0.7307
91834579|NCT00514683|183549196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.317||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|2.458|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.458|0.706|0.3869
91834580|NCT00514683|183549196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.8237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.741|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.741|0.498|0.8237
91707630|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the interventionn group||||>.05
91707631|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship satisfaction subscale||||>.05
91707632|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the control group||||>.05
91834581|NCT00514683|183549196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.676||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|3.202|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.202|0.878|0.1177
91707633|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707634|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale||||>.05
91707635|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707636|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707637|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Banking subscale||||>.05
91707638|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the control group||||<.001
91707639|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707640|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Banking subscale|Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.10
91707641|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Difficulty to Pay Bills for the control group||||>.05
91707642|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91645434|NCT01875991|183182622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||Van Elteren test|P-value for 'All subjects' from Van Elteren test adjusting for strata (RA or PsO)||||||0.501
91707643|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Difficulties to pay bills subscale||||>.05
91707644|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Difficulty to Pay Bills subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707645|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707646|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Difficulty to Pay Bills subscale||||>.05
91707647|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p vallue|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the control group||||<.001
91707648|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707649|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Depression subscale||||>.05
91707650|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the control group||||>.05
91834582|NCT00514683|183549197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-11.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.86|22.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||22.37|-44.86|0.5111
91645435|NCT04971226|183182636|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.59|28.17|||Mantel Haenszel||The Estimate Value is a percentage.||The Confidence Interval are percentages.|28.17|9.59|<0.001
91645436|NCT04971226|183182668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.91|42.18|||Mantel Haenszel||The Estimate Value is a percentage.||The Confidence Interval are percentages.|42.18|16.91|<0.001
91645437|NCT03131817|183182777|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91645438|NCT03131817|183182778|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91645439|NCT03131817|183182779|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This statistical analysis corresponds to the first outcome row, Reward magnitude effect (higher reward, higher acceptance). The generalized linear mixed model examined the effect of reward magnitude on the probability of accepting offers."||||<0.0001
91645440|NCT03131817|183182779|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This statistical analysis corresponds to the second outcome row, Effort cost effect (higher effort, lower acceptance). The generalized linear mixed model examined the effect of effort cost on the probability of accepting offers."||||<0.0001
91645441|NCT05734014|183182828|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Qualitative Analysis of arts-based reflections. Thematic analysis and count of whether the participant drew or mentioned Crow stories related to relationality.|||
91645442|NCT00379821|183182841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0413|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1746||0.8097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7497|1.4463||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05/3.|Poisson regression|No adjustments|The denominator for the risk ratio is the CQ Monotherapy arm.|Number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR was compared using Poisson regression assuming null hypothesis that the number of malaria episodes are the same in both groups.||1.4463|0.7497|0.8097
91645443|NCT00379821|183182841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1973||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8333|1.6211||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05/3.|Poisson regression|No adjustments.|The denominator for the risk ratio is the CQ Monotherapy arm.|Number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR was compared using Poisson regression assuming null hypothesis that the number of malaria episodes are the same in both groups.||1.6211|0.8333|0.3767
91645444|NCT00379821|183182841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1795||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7708|1.4872||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05/3.|Poisson regression|No adjustments.|The denominator for the risk ratio is the CQ Monotherapy arm.|Number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR was compared using Poisson regression assuming null hypothesis that the number of malaria episodes are the same in both groups.||1.4872|0.7708|0.6277
91645445|NCT00379821|183182875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34||Not adjusted, 0.05|Regression, Cox|There are no adjustments.|The reference category is those who did not travel.|||1.34|0.68|0.79
91645446|NCT00633217|183182879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in 2-hour post-dose FEV1 change from baseline fell above -75 mL, then HFA MDI could be deemed non-inferior to DISKUS treatment response.||||||0.021||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.021
91645447|NCT05838755|183182882|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported using Bayesian mixed model repeated measures analysis.|||0.18|-1.47|
91645448|NCT05838755|183182882|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.61|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported using Bayesian mixed model repeated measures analysis.|||0.61|-1.04|
91645449|NCT02044094|183182931|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|3.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|7.344|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 1~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||7.344|-0.032|
91645450|NCT02044094|183182931|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|6.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.848|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.243|10.612|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|Week 1 Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05.||10.612|3.243|
91645451|NCT02044094|183182931|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|0.586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.283|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.977|3.149|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 2~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||3.149|-1.977|
91645452|NCT02044094|183182931|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|2.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|5.465|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 2~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||5.465|0.333|
91707651|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91645453|NCT02044094|183182931|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|0.863|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.959|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.053|4.778|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 3~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||4.778|-3.053|
91645454|NCT02044094|183182931|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|4.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.956|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|8.837|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 3~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||8.837|1.016|
91645455|NCT02044094|183182931|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|3.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.367|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.425|8.025|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 4~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||8.025|-1.425|
91645456|NCT02044094|183182931|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|6.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.367|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.936|11.418|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 4~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||11.418|1.936|
91645457|NCT03205163|183182962|OTHER||GMR|1.35||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.77|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and geometric mean ratio (GMR) were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.77|1.04|0.032
91645458|NCT03205163|183182963|OTHER||GMR|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.25|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.25|1.09|<0.001
91645459|NCT03205163|183182964|OTHER||GMR|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|5.79|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||5.79|2.94|<0.001
91645460|NCT03205163|183182965|OTHER||GMR|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|3.79|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||3.79|2.76|<0.001
91645461|NCT03205163|183182966|OTHER||GMR|0.143|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.172|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.172|0.118|<0.001
91645462|NCT03205163|183182967|OTHER||GMR|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.17|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.170|0.138|<0.001
91645463|NCT03205163|183182968|OTHER||GMR|0.622||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.786|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.786|0.492|0.003
91645464|NCT03205163|183182969|OTHER||GMR|0.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|0.684|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.684|0.525|<0.001
91645465|NCT03205163|183182970|OTHER||GMR|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.78|8.48|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||8.48|5.78|<0.001
91645466|NCT03205163|183182971|OTHER||GMR|6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|7.27|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||7.27|5.89|<0.001
91645467|NCT03205163|183182972|OTHER||GMR|4.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|5.66|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||5.66|3.64|<0.001
91645468|NCT03205163|183182973|OTHER||GMR|4.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|4.72|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||4.72|3.96|<0.001
91707652|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in depression subscale||||>.05
91707653|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Change from pre-test to follow-up in the Anxiety subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.05
91707654|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in the Anxiety subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91707655|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Anxiety subscale||||>.05
91707656|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in anxiety subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707657|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in anxiety subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707658|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in the Anxiety subscale||||>.05
91707659|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707660|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707661|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale|Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||>.05
91834583|NCT00514683|183549197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.234||0.4176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.11|18.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||18.76|-45.11|0.4176
91834584|NCT00514683|183549197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.506||0.9454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|31.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||31.34|-33.60|0.9454
91707662|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the control group||||<.05
91707663|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707664|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Parenting Stress subscale||||>.05
91707665|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale for the control group||||<.10
91707666|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Time with Parter subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707667|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up inn Time with Partner subscale||||>.05
91707668|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale for the control group||||<.001
91707669|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91834585|NCT00514683|183549197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.98||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.08|39.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||39.72|-27.08|0.7101
91645469|NCT03205163|183182974|OTHER||GMR|1.36||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.89|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.89|0.978|0.063
91645470|NCT03205163|183182975|OTHER||GMR|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.26|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.26|1.10|<0.001
91645471|NCT03205163|183182976|OTHER||GMR|4.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.23|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||5.23|4.00|<0.001
91645472|NCT03205163|183182977|OTHER||GMR|4.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|4.79|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||4.79|4.16|<0.001
91645473|NCT01238172|183182980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.75|0.76
91645474|NCT01238172|183182981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|8.41|||Log Rank|||||8.41|0.23|0.71
91645475|NCT01238172|183182982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.995
91645476|NCT01238172|183182983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided||||||<0.001
91645477|NCT03229941|183183000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. restrictive arm comparison.|||1.27|0.62|0.515
91645478|NCT03229941|183183001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.73|1.61|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||1.61|0.73|0.587
91645479|NCT03229941|183183002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.33|0.98|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||0.98|0.33|0.007
91645480|NCT03229941|183183003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.63|1.38|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||1.38|0.63|0.634
91645481|NCT03229941|183183004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.41|1.37|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||1.37|0.41|0.212
91645482|NCT03229941|183183005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.786
91645483|NCT01020773|183183006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91645484|NCT03302299|183183009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.71||global p-value for 3-category alcohol use variable in a multivariable generalized estimating equation logistic regression model of sub-optimal INH adherence.|Regression, Logistic||OR for participants with moderate alcohol use in the prior 3 months, compared to those with no alcohol use in the prior 3 months.|||2.71|0.94|<0.01
91645485|NCT03302299|183183009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.76||global p-value for 3-category alcohol use variable in a multivariable generalized estimating equation logistic regression model of sub-optimal INH adherence.|Regression, Logistic||OR is for participants with unhealthy alcohol use in the prior 3 months, compared to those with no alcohol use in the prior 3 months.|||4.76|1.62|<0.01
91645486|NCT01788163|183183055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|81.1237||||0.0001||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
91645487|NCT01788163|183183055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.973||||0.0001||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression stepwise|10% significance level for model entry||||||0.0001
91645488|NCT01788163|183183055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|7.1526||||0.0075||||||Gender: Male vs. Female|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0075
91645489|NCT01788163|183183055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.409||||0.0075||||||Gender: Male vs. Female|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0075
91645490|NCT01788163|183183055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|51.8456||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
91645491|NCT01788163|183183055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.515||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
91645492|NCT01788163|183183055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|98.1065||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
91645493|NCT01788163|183183055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.929||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
91645494|NCT01788163|183183055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|2.8589||||0.0909||||||Number of organs with metastasis|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0909
91645495|NCT01788163|183183055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.086||||0.0909||||||Number of organs with metastasis|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for model entry||||||0.0909
91645496|NCT01788163|183183058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|11.106||||0.0009||||||Age: \<=65 vs. \>65|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0009
91645497|NCT01788163|183183058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.561||||0.0009||||||Age: \<=65 vs. \>65|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0009
91645498|NCT01788163|183183058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|34.1075||||0.0001||||||Number of Organs with Metastisis|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
91645499|NCT01788163|183183058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.386||||0.0001||||||Number of Organs with Metastisis|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for model entry||||||0.0001
91645500|NCT01788163|183183058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|14.0806||||0.0002||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs. Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0002
91707670|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale|Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.001
91707671|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||<.05
91707672|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||<.001
91707673|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale||||<.05
91707674|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||>.05
91771808|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.69||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|58.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||58.35|0.77|0.0854
91771809|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.07||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|54.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||54.72|0.67|0.1082
91771810|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|63.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||63.04|0.83|0.0737
91771811|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.98||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|99.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||99.74|1.44|0.0217
91771812|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.24||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|157.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||157.1|2.36|0.0058
91771813|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.44||||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|41.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||41.87|0.47|0.1924
91771814|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.54||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|66.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||66.00|0.86|0.0680
91771815|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.95||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|129.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||129.4|1.97|0.0095
91771816|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|37.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||37.21|0.36|0.2690
91771817|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.28||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|86.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||86.53|1.22|0.0321
91771818|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.48||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|119.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||119.7|1.75|0.0131
91771819|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.22||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|204.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||204.6|3.11|0.0025
91771820|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|43.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||43.72|0.49|0.1788
91771821|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.33||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|87.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||87.31|1.22|0.0320
91645501|NCT01788163|183183058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.955||||0.0002||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs. Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0002
91645502|NCT01788163|183183058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|33.8574||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
91645503|NCT01788163|183183058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.077||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
91645504|NCT01788163|183183058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|21.2537||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
91645505|NCT01788163|183183058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.084||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
91645506|NCT03610646|183183063|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of \[-3, 3\] letters was used to demonstrate equivalence for the difference of mean change in BCVA, from baseline to Week 8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|1.24||||||||1.24|-1.16|
91645507|NCT04318535|183183083|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric least square mean ratio of Cmax falls within the 0.80-1.25 range.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.103|1.213|||||T1 versus R was the primary interest of comparison for this outcome measure.|||1.213|1.103|
91645508|NCT04318535|183183084|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric least square mean ratio of AUC(0-t) falls within the 0.80-1.25 range.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.094|||||T1 versus R was the primary interest of comparison for this outcome measure.|||1.094|0.974|
91645509|NCT04318535|183183085|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric least square mean ratio of AUC(0-inf) falls within the 0.80-1.25 range.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.093|||||T1 versus R was the primary interest of comparison for this outcome measure.|||1.093|0.971|
91645510|NCT00883740|183183182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.69|-11.61||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-11.61|-26.69|<0.0001
91645511|NCT00883740|183183183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.29|-11.8||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-11.80|-23.29|<0.0001
91771822|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.24||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|93.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||93.33|1.35|0.0251
91645512|NCT00883740|183183184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.3841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|2.3||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||2.30|-5.92|0.3841
91645513|NCT00883740|183183185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.48|33.61||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||33.61|17.48|<0.0001
91645514|NCT00883740|183183186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|7.11||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||7.11|3.74|<0.0001
91645515|NCT00883740|183183187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.51||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-0.51|-4.31|0.0135
91645516|NCT00883740|183183188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.66||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-0.66|-2.41|0.0008
91645517|NCT00883740|183183189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.18||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.18|-0.17||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-0.17|-14.18|0.0447
91645518|NCT00883740|183183190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.39||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 1||0.39|-1.07|0.3613
91645519|NCT00883740|183183190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.09||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 2||0.09|-2.29|0.0686
91645520|NCT00883740|183183190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-1.03||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 3||-1.03|-3.85|0.0009
91645521|NCT00883740|183183190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-1.71||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 4||-1.71|-5.33|0.0002
91771823|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.83|0.35|0.6154
91771824|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|8.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.63|0.65|0.1906
91771825|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|13.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.07|1.03|0.0450
91771826|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|24.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||24.66|2.10|0.0017
91771827|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.97|0.47|0.3939
91771828|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.2869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|7.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.74|0.55|0.2869
91771829|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.80|0.66|0.1817
91834586|NCT00514683|183549198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2271||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.502|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.502|-0.392|0.8090
91834587|NCT00514683|183549198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2158||0.3995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.606|0.242|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.242|-0.606|0.3995
91834588|NCT00514683|183549198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2193||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.464|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.464|-0.399|0.8822
91834589|NCT00514683|183549198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2257||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.584|0.303|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.303|-0.584|0.5338
91771830|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.41||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|96.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||96.77|1.35|0.0256
91771831|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.65||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|112.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||112.8|1.65|0.0153
91771832|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.76||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|179.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||179.2|2.64|0.0042
91771833|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.75||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|291.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||291.5|4.39|0.0008
91771834|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.45||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|58.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||58.21|0.71|0.0967
91771835|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.3||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|72.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||72.95|0.94|0.0564
91771836|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|190.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||190.5|2.93|0.0030
91834590|NCT00514683|183549199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3272||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.532|0.755|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.755|-0.532|0.7329
91771837|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.72||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|83.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||83.68|1.13|0.0384
91771838|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.65||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|112.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||112.9|1.65|0.0153
91771839|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.55||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|250.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||250.6|3.72|0.0015
91771840|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.99||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|293.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||293.5|4.41|0.0008
91771841|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.67||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|106.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||106.1|1.51|0.0192
91771842|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.92||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|141.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||141.0|2.03|0.0089
91771843|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.96||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|201.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||201.6|3.09|0.0025
91771844|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.94|0.84|0.0910
91771845|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|13.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||13.67|1.15|0.0296
91771846|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.23||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|28.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||28.44|2.38|0.0009
91771847|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.54||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|29.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||29.63|2.46|0.0007
91771848|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|6.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.86|0.45|0.4152
91771849|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|11.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||11.93|0.91|0.0700
91771850|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.83||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|19.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||19.84|1.71|0.0048
91771851|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|8.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.23|0.72|0.1497
91771852|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||9.77|0.95|0.0608
91771853|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.99||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|19.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||19.34|1.85|0.0028
91771854|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|25.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||25.13|2.45|0.0005
91834591|NCT00514683|183549199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3109||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.533|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.533|-0.690|0.8009
91645522|NCT00883740|183183190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.86||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 5||-0.86|-5.16|0.0065
91645523|NCT00883740|183183190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|-1.41||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 6||-1.41|-6.36|0.0024
91834592|NCT00514683|183549199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3159||0.6358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.771|0.472|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.472|-0.771|0.6358
91645524|NCT00883740|183183190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-0.16||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 7||-0.16|-5.01|0.0366
91645525|NCT00883740|183183190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|0.11||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 8||0.11|-5.82|0.0593
91645526|NCT00883740|183183191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|0.29||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 1||0.29|-2.79|0.1106
91645527|NCT00883740|183183191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-3.51||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 2||-3.51|-8.49|<0.0001
91645528|NCT00883740|183183191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.83||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-3.13||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 3||-3.13|-10.53|0.0004
91645529|NCT00883740|183183191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-0.88||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 4||-0.88|-10.00|0.0199
91771855|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.39|0.30|0.8393
91834593|NCT00514683|183549199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3252||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|0.307|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.307|-0.973|0.3064
91645530|NCT00883740|183183192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.5||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||3.50|0.78|0.0024
91645531|NCT00883740|183183193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.13||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.59|0.32||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 5||0.32|-16.59|0.0591
91645532|NCT00883740|183183193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|-10.2||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 11||-10.20|-27.43|<0.0001
91645533|NCT00883740|183183194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.47||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|1.26||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 5||1.26|-12.20|0.1101
91645534|NCT00883740|183183194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.39||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.36|-6.42||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 11||-6.42|-20.36|0.0002
91645535|NCT00883740|183183195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.24||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||1.24|0.58|<0.0001
91645536|NCT00883740|183183195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.53||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||1.53|0.76|<0.0001
91834594|NCT00514683|183549200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.906|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.906|0.540|0.9646
91645537|NCT00883740|183183195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||1.28|0.46|<0.0001
91645538|NCT00883740|183183195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.26||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||1.26|0.51|<0.0001
91645539|NCT00883740|183183196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.66||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|-3.89||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||-3.89|-11.44|0.0001
91645540|NCT00883740|183183196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.67||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|-2.07||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||-2.07|-13.27|0.0077
91645541|NCT00883740|183183196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.68||||0.2196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|3.44||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||3.44|-14.81|0.2196
91834595|NCT00514683|183549200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.994||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.844|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.844|0.536|0.9850
91834596|NCT00514683|183549200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.089|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.089|0.604|0.7136
91834597|NCT00514683|183549200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.551||||0.1705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.906|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.906|0.828|0.1705
91834598|NCT00514683|183549201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||-0.01|-2.69|0.0479
91834599|NCT00514683|183549201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||0.09|-2.58|0.0685
91834600|NCT00514683|183549201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.684||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||-0.43|-3.12|0.0099
91645542|NCT00883740|183183196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|-1.64||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||-1.64|-10.73|0.0081
91834601|NCT00514683|183549201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||-0.32|-3.01|0.0152
91834602|NCT00514683|183549202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.253||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|3.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||3.64|-5.22|0.7250
91834603|NCT00514683|183549202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.213||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|1.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||1.07|-7.63|0.1389
91834604|NCT00514683|183549202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.221||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.39|-8.35|0.0741
91834605|NCT00514683|183549202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.262||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|-1.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||-1.67|-10.57|0.0071
91834606|NCT00514683|183549203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.183||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|3.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||3.20|-9.32|0.3370
91834607|NCT00514683|183549203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.126||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|1.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||1.81|-10.49|0.1659
91834608|NCT00514683|183549203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.138||0.1897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||2.05|-10.29|0.1897
91834609|NCT00514683|183549203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.184||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.86|-3.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||-3.34|-15.86|0.0028
91834610|NCT00514683|183549204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.586||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|4.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||4.58|-5.59|0.8458
91771856|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|13.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.10|1.23|0.0215
91771857|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.94|1.40|0.0112
91771858|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.29|0.55|0.3498
91771859|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.08|0.69|0.1981
91771860|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|15.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||15.78|1.76|0.0029
91834611|NCT00514683|183549204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|2.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||2.51|-7.48|0.3286
91834612|NCT00514683|183549204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||1.59|-8.43|0.1799
91834613|NCT00514683|183549204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.597||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.76|-9.46|0.0948
91834614|NCT00514683|183549205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.484||0.9708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|4.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||4.79|-4.98|0.9708
91645543|NCT00883740|183183197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.37||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||-0.37|-1.02|<0.0001
91645544|NCT00883740|183183197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.36||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||-0.36|-1.06|0.0001
91645545|NCT00883740|183183197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.24||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||-0.24|-0.95|0.0014
91645546|NCT00883740|183183197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.14||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||-0.14|-0.90|0.0084
91771861|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.95||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|17.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||17.40|2.03|0.0011
91771862|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.23|0.29|0.9511
91771863|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.45|0.57|0.3241
91771864|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|11.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||11.16|1.36|0.0111
91771865|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|8.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.48|0.74|0.1375
91771866|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|9.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.83|0.93|0.0670
91834615|NCT00514683|183549205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|0.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.85|-8.74|0.1069
91771867|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.57||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|25.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||25.04|2.29|0.0009
91771868|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.42||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|30.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||30.49|2.91|0.0002
91771869|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|9.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.14|0.83|0.0982
91771870|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.80|0.77|0.1233
91771871|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|14.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||14.64|1.46|0.0091
91771872|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.10|0.34|0.9620
91771873|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.59|0.58|0.3527
91834616|NCT00514683|183549205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.453||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.34|-9.31|0.0682
91771874|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|8.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.76|1.06|0.0394
91896031|NCT04874415|183687455|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.3|-0.3|
91645547|NCT00883740|183183198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.02|-9.52||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||-9.52|-27.02|<0.0001
91771875|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|9.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.53|1.19|0.0224
91771876|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.44|0.39|0.7891
91771877|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|6.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.99|0.88|0.0851
91771878|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.83|0.63|0.2885
91771879|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|13.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||13.30|0.05|0.8611
91771880|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||17.42|0.13|0.7549
91771881|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.5658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|24.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||24.66|0.17|0.5658
91771882|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|21.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||21.86|0.15|0.6319
91645548|NCT00883740|183183198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-7.87||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||-7.87|-24.24|0.0002
91645549|NCT00883740|183183198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.23||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|-3.46||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||-3.46|-23.01|0.0085
91645550|NCT00883740|183183198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.25||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|-2.48||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||-2.48|-18.01|0.0102
91645551|NCT00883740|183183199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.25|36.4||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||36.40|13.25|<0.0001
91645552|NCT00883740|183183199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.59|40.21||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||40.21|18.59|<0.0001
91645553|NCT00883740|183183199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.37|38.21||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||38.21|15.37|<0.0001
91645554|NCT00883740|183183199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.03|35.86||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||35.86|15.03|<0.0001
91645555|NCT00396981|183183248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study used a non-inferiority design to demonstrate that the Matrix Coil is non-inferior to the GDC Coil, with a clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin set at 10%. Non-inferiority was used to establish the baseline estimate, which future superiority studies could be conducted. Non-inferiority was shown with a one-sided 95% CI of the difference less than the pre-specified 10% margin||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||Intent-to-Treat, All Subjects (N=626) GDC (N=315) Matrix (N=311) All Subjects (N=626) Subjects Who Met Primary Endpoint 35 (11.1%) 34 (10.9%) 69 (11.0%)||||0.76
91645556|NCT02494583|183183255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.03918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the first primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.02|0.70|0.03918
91645557|NCT02494583|183183256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.04611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the second primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.03|0.70|0.04611
91645558|NCT02494583|183183257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.15804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the SOC arm to address the third primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.17|0.62|0.15804
91645559|NCT02494583|183183258|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin: if the upper bound of the confidence interval (based on the alpha level allocated to the analysis) for the hazard ratio (\[HR\], pembro mono arm vs SOC) is \< 1.2, the pembro mono arm could be considered as non-inferior to the SOC arm in terms of OS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.69|1.18|||||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the fourth primary hypothesis (non-inferiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.18|0.69|
91645560|NCT02494583|183183258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.16205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the fifth primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.10|0.74|0.16205
91771883|NCT03192176|183427588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.9526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||18.96|0.06|0.9526
91834617|NCT00514683|183549205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.494||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-2.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||-2.26|-12.06|0.0043
91834618|NCT00514683|183549206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.31|0.72|0.2698
91834619|NCT00514683|183549206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||4.01|0.90|0.0891
91834620|NCT00514683|183549206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|5.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||5.66|1.29|0.0069
91771884|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||4.26|0.71|0.2251
91771885|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|9.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||9.20|1.39|0.0084
91771886|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.71||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|15.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||15.62|2.09|0.0007
91771887|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.11||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|14.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.00|1.87|0.0015
91834621|NCT00514683|183549206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||4.61|1.05|0.0341
91834622|NCT00514683|183549207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1015||0.8288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.222|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.222|-0.178|0.8288
91834623|NCT00514683|183549207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0974||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.332|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.332|-0.051|0.1506
91834624|NCT00514683|183549207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0977||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.351|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.351|-0.034|0.1059
91834625|NCT00514683|183549207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1008||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.556|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.556|0.160|0.0004
91834626|NCT00514683|183549208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.115|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.115|-0.153|0.7789
91834627|NCT00514683|183549208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0652||0.3149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.194|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.194|-0.063|0.3149
91834628|NCT00514683|183549208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.153|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.153|-0.104|0.7062
91834629|NCT00514683|183549208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0675||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.255|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.255|-0.010|0.0703
91834630|NCT00514683|183549209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0884||0.4792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.236|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.236|-0.111|0.4792
91834631|NCT00514683|183549209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0839||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.268|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.268|-0.062|0.2221
91834632|NCT00514683|183549209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.287|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.287|-0.044|0.1510
91771888|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||2.95|0.48|0.6976
91771889|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|12.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.05|1.73|0.0021
91771890|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|7.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.68|1.22|0.0171
91834633|NCT00514683|183549209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0874||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.509|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.509|0.165|0.0001
91896032|NCT04874415|183687455|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.8|-0.8|
91896033|NCT04874415|183687455|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.4|-0.4|
91645561|NCT02494583|183183259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.01491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.97||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the SOC arm to address the sixth primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||0.97|0.49|0.01491
91645562|NCT02494583|183183260|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|11.5||||0.00447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|20.0||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||20.0|2.9|0.00447
91645563|NCT02494583|183183262|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-22.3|||>|0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-14.9||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||-14.9|-29.6|>0.99999
91707675|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in conflict management satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707676|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale|Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|||>.05
91707677|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in budgeting subscale for the control group||||<.10
91707678|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Budgeting subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91707679|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Budgeting subscale|Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.01
91707680|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in budgeting subscale for the control group||||<.001
91771891|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.04|0.69|0.2224
91834634|NCT00514683|183549210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0609||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.217|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.217|-0.023|0.1129
91707681|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in budgeting subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707682|NCT04227405|183308939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Budgeting subscale|Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.001
91707683|NCT04227405|183308941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||<.05
91707684|NCT04227405|183308941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91707685|NCT04227405|183308941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Acceptance subscale||||<.001
91707686|NCT04227405|183308941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||<.05
91707687|NCT04227405|183308941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91707688|NCT04227405|183308941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Active Coping subscale|The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||<.001
91707689|NCT04227405|183308941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.05
91707690|NCT04227405|183308941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
91707691|NCT04227405|183308941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Planning subscale||||<.001
91707692|NCT04227405|183308941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707693|NCT04227405|183308941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707694|NCT04227405|183308941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Instrumental Support subscale||||>.05
91707695|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||<.10
91707696|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91707697|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Aceptance subscale||||<.001
91707698|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||<.10
91771892|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.69|0.65|0.2716
91771893|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|14.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||14.32|1.41|0.0112
91771894|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|9.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.31|1.02|0.0461
91771895|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.47|0.59|0.3463
91771896|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|8.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.92|1.04|0.0419
91771897|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.46|0.63|0.2977
91896034|NCT04874415|183687456|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|31.5|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||31.5|-31.4|
91771898|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.21|0.67|0.2300
91771899|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|8.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.58|0.94|0.0655
91771900|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|12.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||12.11|1.19|0.0245
91771901|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.62||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|21.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||21.93|1.44|0.0129
91771902|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.15|0.79|0.1259
91771903|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.82|0.84|0.1015
91771904|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|15.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.33|1.31|0.0167
91771905|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.95|0.50|0.5232
91771906|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.82|0.68|0.2055
91771907|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.64|0.93|0.0658
91771908|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|35.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||35.75|1.51|0.0136
91771909|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.00|0.59|0.3238
91771910|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|23.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||23.21|1.48|0.0118
91771911|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.29||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|20.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||20.62|1.36|0.0163
91771912|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.18|0.42|0.6363
91771913|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||15.25|0.89|0.0722
91771914|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.2019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|8.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.73|0.63|0.2019
91771915|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.15||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|86.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||86.09|1.20|0.0337
91771916|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.24|0.61|0.2207
91771917|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|14.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.57|0.84|0.0849
91771918|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|14.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.24|0.84|0.0844
91771919|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.65|0.60|0.2383
91771920|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|9.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.58|0.68|0.1653
91771921|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|9.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.48|0.65|0.1836
91771922|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.3||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|70.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||70.80|0.97|0.0529
91771923|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|7.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.27|0.52|0.3197
91771924|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.88||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|31.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||31.25|1.11|0.0376
91771925|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.08||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|85.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||85.64|1.19|0.0343
91771926|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.09|0.49|0.4435
91834635|NCT00514683|183549210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0584||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.199|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.199|-0.031|0.1498
91834636|NCT00514683|183549210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0585||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.224|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.224|-0.006|0.0632
91834637|NCT00514683|183549210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0604||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.320|0.083|0.0009
91834638|NCT00514683|183549211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0676||0.6306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.100|-0.165|0.6306
91834639|NCT00514683|183549211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.7426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.106|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.106|-0.149|0.7426
91834640|NCT00514683|183549211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0651||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.121|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.121|-0.134|0.9209
91834641|NCT00514683|183549211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0671||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.152|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.152|-0.112|0.7701
91834642|NCT00514683|183549212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.6671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.93||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.93|0.36|0.6671
91834643|NCT00514683|183549212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.5926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.84||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.84|0.34|0.5926
91834644|NCT00514683|183549212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.27||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.27|0.18|0.1381
91834645|NCT00514683|183549212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.7||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.70|0.03|0.0150
91834646|NCT00514683|183549213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.8282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|2.336|||Negative binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||2.336|0.347|0.8282
91707699|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91834647|NCT00514683|183549213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.5326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|1.938|||Negative Binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||1.938|0.278|0.5326
91834648|NCT00514683|183549213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|1.438|||Negative Binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||1.438|0.167|0.1944
91834649|NCT00514683|183549213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.882|||Negative Binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||0.882|0.056|0.0324
91834650|NCT00514683|183549214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.765|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.765|0.326|0.5206
91834651|NCT00514683|183549214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.841||||0.6862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.952|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.952|0.362|0.6862
91834652|NCT00514683|183549214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.517||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|1.384|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.384|0.193|0.1891
91834653|NCT00514683|183549214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.158||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.711|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.711|0.035|0.0161
91834654|NCT00514683|183549215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.173||||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|3.072|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.072|0.448|0.7449
91834655|NCT00514683|183549215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.316||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|1.209|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.209|0.083|0.0925
91834656|NCT00514683|183549215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.911|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.911|0.040|0.0379
91834657|NCT00514683|183549215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.225||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|1.065|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.065|0.048|0.0600
91834658|NCT00514683|183549216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.055||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.563|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.563|0.713|0.7883
91645564|NCT02494583|183183264|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.98||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.98|1.36|1.00000
91645565|NCT02494583|183183265|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|4.69||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events; strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||4.69|-5.01|0.948
91645566|NCT02494583|183183266|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.98||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|6.31||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||6.31|-2.34|0.368
91834659|NCT00514683|183549216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958||||0.8293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.419|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.419|0.646|0.8293
91645567|NCT02494583|183183267|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.35||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|6.89||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-STO22 Pain symptom subscale score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||6.89|-2.18|0.308
91834660|NCT00514683|183549216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.805||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.216|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.216|0.534|0.3030
91834661|NCT00514683|183549216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.369|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.369|0.605|0.6505
91834662|NCT00643123|183549235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
91834663|NCT00530062|183549271|OTHER||Difference in adjusted mean|0.946||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.293|4.185||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using the mixed-effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of center, sequence, treatment group and period, and random effect of the participant within sequence.||4.185|-2.293|0.5595
91834664|NCT01376323|183549289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.6||||||||0.60|-0.13|
91834665|NCT01376323|183549289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.35||||||||0.35|-0.37|
91834666|NCT01376323|183549289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23||||||||0.23|-0.49|
91834667|NCT01376323|183549289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.66|
91834668|NCT01376323|183549290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.551|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.645|0.543|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.543|-1.645|
91834669|NCT01376323|183549290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.382|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.472|0.708|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.708|-1.472|
91834670|NCT01376323|183549290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.696|0.516|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.516|-1.696|
91834671|NCT01376323|183549290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.595|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.669|0.48|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.480|-1.669|
91834672|NCT01376323|183549290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.113|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||0.113|-0.042|
91834673|NCT01376323|183549290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.081|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||0.081|-0.073|
91834674|NCT01376323|183549290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.099|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||0.099|-0.058|
91834675|NCT01376323|183549290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.007|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||-0.007|-0.160|
91771927|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|8.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.13|0.67|0.1805
91771928|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54||||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|14.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||14.95|0.84|0.0857
91771929|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|89.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||89.63|1.23|0.0316
91771930|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.3471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.27|0.52|0.3471
91771931|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|32.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||32.09|1.18|0.0313
91771932|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.49||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|106.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||106.3|1.47|0.0208
91771933|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.97|0.31|0.8669
91771934|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.6592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.89|0.37|0.6592
91834676|NCT01376323|183549292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.79|
91834677|NCT01376323|183549292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.90|
91834678|NCT01376323|183549292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.85||||||||0.85|-0.90|
91771935|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.98|0.50|0.2923
91771936|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.78||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|51.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||51.04|0.65|0.1145
91771937|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.78|0.40|0.4470
91771938|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.31||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|65.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||65.41|0.82|0.0753
91771939|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|60.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||60.24|0.78|0.0829
91771940|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.59|0.28|0.9978
91771941|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.65|0.43|0.4571
91771942|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|8.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.94|0.44|0.3681
91834679|NCT01376323|183549292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.42||||||||0.42|-1.27|
91834680|NCT01376323|183549293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.62|53.16||||||||53.16|-48.62|
91834681|NCT01376323|183549293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.04|42.7||||||||42.70|-58.04|
91834682|NCT01376323|183549293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|24.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.75|75.92||||||||75.92|-27.75|
91834683|NCT01376323|183549293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.72|48.53||||||||48.53|-52.72|
91645568|NCT02494583|183183268|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-6.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|-2.58||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-STO22 Pain symptom subscale score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||-2.58|-10.55|0.001
91645569|NCT02617446|183183317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.32||Alpha set at 0.05.|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E/Ea ratio between istaroxime and placebo||-0.32|-5.68|0.029
91645570|NCT02617446|183183317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.55||Alpha set at 0.05.|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E/Ea ratio between istaroxime and placebo||-0.55|-3.61|0.009
91645571|NCT02617446|183183318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7632||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2751|3.8014||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVEF % between istaroxime and placebo participants.||3.8014|-0.2751|0.089
91645572|NCT02617446|183183318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9848||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4668|3.4365||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVEF % between istaroxime and placebo participants.||3.4365|-1.4668|0.423
91645573|NCT02617446|183183319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.684||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|7.083||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model.||Null hypothesis: No difference in SVI between istaroxime and placebo participants.||7.083|0.285|0.034
91645574|NCT02617446|183183319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|4.992||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||4.992|-0.373|0.090
91645575|NCT02617446|183183320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.777||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.522|-0.032||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||-0.032|-1.522|0.042
91645576|NCT02617446|183183320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.829||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.568|-0.091||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||-0.091|-1.568|0.029
91645577|NCT02617446|183183321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.368||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.999|1.262||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVESV between istaroxime and placebo participants.||1.262|-11.999|0.110
91645578|NCT02617446|183183321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.439||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.735|10.614||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVEDV between istaroxime and placebo participants.||10.614|-9.735|0.931
91645579|NCT02617446|183183322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.657||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.777|4.461||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||4.461|-7.777|0.589
91645580|NCT02617446|183183322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.944||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.886|13.774||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model.||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||13.774|-5.886|0.424
91645581|NCT02617446|183183323|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model with treatment, center, timepoint, gender, baseline cTnT value, atrial fibrillation, and treatment\*timepoint interaction included in the model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.216|5.133||Unadjusted alpha of 0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustment used for the degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment groups||5.133|-5.216|0.987
91645582|NCT02617446|183183323|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model with treatment, center, timepoint, gender, baseline cTnT value, atrial fibrillation, and treatment\*timepoint interaction included in the model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.015||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.168|8.198||Unadjusted alpha of 0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustment used for the degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment groups.||8.198|-2.168|0.251
91645583|NCT00644228|183183375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.712||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.56|0.906||The p-value is from a one-sided, stratified log-rank test. Stratification factors include those factors by which patients were randomized: intent to transplant (yes vs no) and ISS Stage (I vs II vs III).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio compares Bortezomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone against Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone.|With four years of patient accrual and two and a half years of follow-up, 220 patients per arm yields 87% power to detect an increase of PFS of 50%, from a median of 3 years to 4.5 years, which corresponds to a hazard ratio of 1.5. These calculations are based on a one-sided stratified log-rank test at level 0.025 with two interim analyses. The final analysis will be carried out at the 0.02 significance level to allow for two interim analyses at the 0.0025 significance level.||0.906|0.560|0.0018
91707700|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale||||<.01
91707701|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.10
91707702|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91645584|NCT00644228|183183376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.709||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.959||The p-value is based on a two-sided, stratified log rank test. Stratification factors include those factors by which patients were randomized: intent to transplant (yes vs no) and ISS Stage (I vs II vs III).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio compares Bortezomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone against Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone.|Overall survival will be compared between the two treatment arms using a stratified log-rank test.||0.959|0.524|0.0250
91645585|NCT00644228|183183377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||The p-value is based on a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factors include those factors by which patients were randomized: intent to transplant (yes vs no) and ISS Stage (I vs II vs III).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.20
91645586|NCT00417859|183183424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FB group was designated the control group. We determined a sample size based in clinical criteria. Using an α of 0.05 and β of 0.8, the required sample size was calculated to be 24 patients in each group to achieve a power of 80%. Descriptive analysis was completed on demographic information and clinical and radiological outcomes. Nonparametric tests (Wilcoxon's signed ranks or rank sum tests) were used for comparison of scores. The chi-squared test was used for dichotomous variables.||||0.05
91645587|NCT04223193|183183479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-6.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-6.5|-11.7|<0.0001
91645588|NCT04223193|183183480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-0.6|-2.4|0.0007
91645589|NCT04223193|183183481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.209|7.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.037|2.209|<0.0001
91645590|NCT04223193|183183482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-6.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-6.5|-11.7|<0.0001
91645591|NCT04223193|183183483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-5.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-5.3|-11.3|<0.0001
91645592|NCT04223193|183183484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I: Week 26||1.6|-0.1|0.0766
91645593|NCT04223193|183183484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II: Week 26||-0.6|-2.4|0.0007
91645594|NCT04223193|183183484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-5.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III: Week 26||-5.6|-9.7|<0.0001
91645595|NCT04223193|183183485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Wek 26||-0.2|-0.5|<0.0001
91645596|NCT04223193|183183486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
91771943|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|54.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||54.38|0.69|0.1038
91645597|NCT04223193|183183487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
91645598|NCT04223193|183183488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.9795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.6|-0.6|0.9795
91645599|NCT04223193|183183489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.8|-0.9|0.8916
91645600|NCT03594175|183183492|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|29.51||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.76|48.26|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||CUSA-081 vs Placebo Dwell Time Up To 90 Min -- FAS||48.26|10.76|0.003
91645601|NCT03594175|183183493|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed based on the constructed 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the rate of treatment success between CUSA-081 vs alteplase, with non-inferiority considered as demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in rate of success is greater than -10%.|Mean difference of proportions, Wald|-10.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|-1.24|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||-1.24|-19.38|0.030
91645602|NCT03594175|183183494|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|24.13||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|42.41|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||42.41|5.84|0.017
91645603|NCT03594175|183183495|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|41.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.94|60.21|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||60.21|21.94|<0.001
91645604|NCT03594175|183183496|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|-10.96||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|-2.04|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||-2.04|-19.89|0.019
91645605|NCT03594175|183183497|SUPERIORITY||Probability Re-Occlusion Free at Day 30|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|7.121||||||Time to first re-occlusion.||7.121|0.126|
91645606|NCT03594175|183183497|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.654|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|1.27||||||Time to first re-occlusion.||1.270|0.337|
91645607|NCT03594175|183183497|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.448|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|10.848||||||Time to first re-occlusion.||10.848|0.193|
91645608|NCT03732677|183183500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.084|||Regression, Logistic|Strata adjusted odds ratio by the logistic regression method adjusting for stratification factors: renal function , tumor stage and PDL1 status .||||2.084|1.227|0.0005
91645609|NCT03732677|183183501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.877|0.554|824.0||Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)||95% CI for hazard ratio: 0.558 - 0.817|0824|0.554|<0.0001
91645610|NCT03732677|183183502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on a chi-squared test with one degree of freedom.|The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)|||0.90|0.62|0.0021
91645611|NCT03732677|183183503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|2.095|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|Strata adjusted odds ratio by the logistic regression method. Stratified by adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative).|||2.095|1.047|0.0265
91645612|NCT03732677|183183504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|98.457|0.563|0.985|||Log Rank|Stratified by renal function (adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|||95% CI: 0.594 to 0.934|0.985|0.563|0.0106
91645613|NCT03732677|183183505|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|0.826|||Log Rank|Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)|||0.826|0.541|0.0002
91645614|NCT03732677|183183506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|0.907|||Log Rank|Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)|||0.907|0.516|0.0081
91645615|NCT01500434|183183546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study had 85% statistical power to demonstrate that the 12-month rate for TLF (accounting for an expected 1-year attrition rate of 5%) is less than the performance goal, assuming a 1-year TLF rate of 9.0%.|Target Lesion Failure Rate|3.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||7.96|||One-group exact binomial test|||A one-group exact binomial test was used to test the hypothesis that the primary endpoint rate in the PROMUS Element cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 19.4%.||7.96||<0.0001
91645616|NCT03353415|183183679|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91645617|NCT03353415|183183680|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91645618|NCT03353415|183183681|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91645619|NCT03353415|183183682|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91645620|NCT03353415|183183683|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
91645621|NCT03353415|183183684|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91645622|NCT03353415|183183685|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
91645623|NCT03353415|183183686|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
91645624|NCT03353415|183183687|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91645625|NCT03353415|183183688|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91645626|NCT03353415|183183689|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91645627|NCT03353415|183183690|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91645628|NCT03353415|183183691|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91645629|NCT03353415|183183692|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91645630|NCT03353415|183183693|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91645631|NCT03353415|183183694|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91645632|NCT03353415|183183695|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91645633|NCT03353415|183183696|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91645634|NCT03353415|183183697|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91645635|NCT03353415|183183698|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91645636|NCT03353415|183183699|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91645637|NCT04647253|183183715|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference between treatment groups|-10.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-3.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|z-test with unpooled variance|||||-3.3|-18.4|0.0025
91834684|NCT01376323|183549295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|16.2||||||||16.20|-19.36|
91834685|NCT01376323|183549295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|2.81||||||||2.81|-33.00|
91834686|NCT01376323|183549295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.41|4.23||||||||4.23|-32.41|
91834687|NCT01376323|183549295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.55|-1.68||||||||-1.68|-36.55|
91834688|NCT04681729|183549297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.56||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed on the association between the ice cube provocation test result and intervention group, stratified by region and background H1-antihistamine regular/daily use (Yes or No). Threshold of significance at 0.01.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the family-wise type-I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints were reported and continued when primary endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.01.||2.56|0.41|0.9492
91834689|NCT02436811|183549314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A stepwise forward selection model was used. All independent variables with P\<0.20 in the univariate analysis were selected and those which were significant (P\<0.05) were kept in the final model. The level of significance was 5%.|Regression, Poisson|||Univariate and multivariate Poisson regressions with robust variance were obtained to estimate the rate ratios (RR) and their respective 95% confidence intervals. Two Poisson regression models were generated, using the knowledge score 15 minutes after the intervention (post-test) and 4 weeks after the interventions (follow-up test) as dependent variables.||||<0.001
91834690|NCT02856113|183549320|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.102|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3677|=|0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.627|0.831||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|||0.831|-0.627|=0.782
91834691|NCT02856113|183549321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.046|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2635|=|0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|0.476||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.476|-0.567|=0.863
91834692|NCT02856113|183549321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.004|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3123|=|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|0.622||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 18||0.622|-0.614|=0.990
91834693|NCT02856113|183549321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.412|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3664|=|0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|0.316||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 39||0.316|-1.139|=0.264
91834694|NCT02856113|183549321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.483|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4165|=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.314|0.348||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 52||0.348|-1.314|=0.250
91834695|NCT03494166|183549332|SUPERIORITY|Key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm variable in the mixed model, reflecting average difference of group means over time (weeks 1-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.25||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models were used for 13 repeated measures of symptom severity index, adjusting for baseline value.|The mean of the group that started with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that started with SMSH+TIPC (average over time).|"The null hypothesis was that the means in two arms were equal, the alternative hypothesis was that the means were not equal.~We planned to randomize 224 survivors in approximately 3:1 ratio in the first randomization; power was 0.92 to detect the adjusted d=0.54 in the comparison of the SMSH and SMSH+TIPC in the first randomization. The planned number of 224 was exceeded because more survivors than planned were determined to have high need for symptom management."||1.25|-3.90|.31
91834696|NCT03494166|183549333|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the variable reflecting trial arm from the second randomization in the mixed model. This parameter reflected average difference between means of two groups over time (weeks 5-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|4.55||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models were used for 9 repeated measures of symptom severity index (weeks 5-13), adjusting for baseline value.|The mean of the group that continued with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that had TIPC added to the SMSH after week 4.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The required sample size was 60 per group for .80 power or greater in two-tailed tests at the 0.05 level of significance using the effect size of Cohen's d=0.54 (adjusted for baseline and repeated measures). The actual sample size was smaller (61 total) due to the higher than planned rate of response to the SMSH alone by week 4.||4.55|-8.91|.52
91771944|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.4639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.72|0.39|0.4639
91645638|NCT01209234|183183716|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.96|||Regression, Cox||This is the estimated standard error of the log hazard ratio|||0.96|0.52|0.026
91834697|NCT03494166|183549334|SUPERIORITY|Key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm from the first randomization variable in the linear regression model.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|1.81||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear||The mean of group that started with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that started with SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.81|-2.63|.71
91834698|NCT03494166|183549335|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm from the second randomization variable in linear regression model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|5.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|The model included the adjustment for baseline value of the outcome.|The mean of the group that continued with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that had TIPC added to the SMSH after week 4.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||5.01|-6.53|.79
91834699|NCT02110901|183549342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.61|0.254
91834700|NCT02110901|183549343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.43|0.048
91834701|NCT02110901|183549344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.109
91834702|NCT02110901|183549345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
91645639|NCT01209234|183183717|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox||CDC-defined all-cause infection secondary outcome This is the estimated standard error of the log hazard ratio|||1.01|0.70|0.061
91645640|NCT01209234|183183717|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox||Clinical criteria for all-cause infection This is the estimated standard error of the log hazard ratio|||0.99|0.70|0.035
91707703|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale||||<.001
91834703|NCT00855595|183549350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0903|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0903
91834704|NCT01058304|183549375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|0.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis compares study Arm 1 and Arm 2 at 24-week follow-up, with 12-week data also included in the response trajectory.~The hypothesis being tested is that group-based PT (Arm 1) will result in a significantly greater improvement WOMAC scores compared to individual PT (Arm 2)"||0.538|-5.87|0.1024
91834705|NCT01058304|183549375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The hypothesis being tested is that the group-based PT program (Arm 1) will result in greater improvements in WOMAC scores at 24-week follow-up (12 weeks after the end of the group program) when compared to usual PT care (Arm 2).||2.04|-4.64|0.444
91834706|NCT01058304|183549376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis compares Arms 1 and 2 at 12-week follow-up. The hypothesis being tested is that the group-based PT program (Arm 1) will result in a significantly greater improvement in SPPB scores compared with the individual PT program (Arm 2).||0.238|-0.463|0.527
91707704|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707705|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the Intervention group||||>.05
91834707|NCT02496767|183549378|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9365||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.089|5.503|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||5.503|-2.089|0.3782
91834708|NCT02496767|183549378|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0245||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.359|4.583|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||4.583|-3.359|0.7625
91834709|NCT02496767|183549378|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1081||0.8394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.711|4.566|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||4.566|-3.711|0.8394
91834710|NCT02496767|183549379|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.12|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||1.12|-0.50|0.4521
91834711|NCT02496767|183549379|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.68|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.68|-1.00|0.7120
91834712|NCT02496767|183549379|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.53|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.53|-1.19|0.4510
91707706|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale||||>.05
91834713|NCT02496767|183549380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0011||||0.9505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0374|0.0351|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.0351|-0.0374|0.9505
91834714|NCT02496767|183549380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0066||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0317|0.045|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.0450|-0.0317|0.7336
91834715|NCT02496767|183549380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0088||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0303|0.0479|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.0479|-0.0303|0.6593
91834716|NCT02496767|183549381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.818||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.141|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.141|0.587|0.2369
91645641|NCT04502862|183183722|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.14||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 2 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|MMRM|||The MMRM model included study intervention, age, body mass index (BMI), region (Eastern Europe, rest of world \[ROW\]), inhaled corticosteroids \[ICS\] dose level at baseline (ICS dose level medium, ICS dose level high), visit (up to Week 12), study intervention-by-visit interaction, baseline asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5), baseline sleep disturbance score and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.14|-0.28|0.512
91645642|NCT04502862|183183723|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.22||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 2 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|MMRM|||The MMRM model included study intervention, age, BMI, region (Eastern Europe, ROW), ICS dose level at baseline (ICS dose level medium, ICS dose level high), visit (up to Week 12), study intervention-by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-5, baseline number of nocturnal awakenings and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.22|-0.21|0.967
91645643|NCT04502862|183183724|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.01||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 2 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05|MMRM|||The MMRM model included study intervention, age, BMI, region (Eastern Europe, ROW), ICS dose level at baseline (ICS dose level medium, ICS dose level high), visit (up to Week 12), study intervention-by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-5, baseline PROMIS total score and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||1.01|-2.40|0.422
91645644|NCT02038959|183183735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91645645|NCT02038959|183183740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91645646|NCT00819091|183183767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.24|-0.70|< 0.0001
91645647|NCT00819091|183183768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.2406||95.0|-17.2|4.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||4.3|-17.2|0.2406
91645648|NCT00819091|183183769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.466||||0.0065||95.0|1.684|24.825|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||24.825|1.684|0.0065
91645649|NCT00819091|183183770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.653||||0.2431||95.0|0.515|13.652|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||13.652|0.515|0.2431
91645650|NCT00819091|183183771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.125||||0.0001||95.0|2.747|9.562|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||9.562|2.747|0.0001
91645651|NCT00819091|183183772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.585|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, number oral anti-diabetic drugs, week within patients, week-treatment interaction and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.230|-0.585|<0.0001
91645652|NCT00819091|183183773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.72|-0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, number oral anti-diabetic drugs, week within patients, week-treatment interaction and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.276|-0.720|<0.0001
91645653|NCT00819091|183183774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.0002||95.0|-0.716|-0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, number oral anti-diabetic drugs, week within patients, week-treatment interaction and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.226|-0.716|0.0002
91645654|NCT00819091|183183775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.197||95.0|-14.9|3.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||3.1|-14.9|0.197
91645655|NCT00819091|183183776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0105||95.0|-25.5|-3.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-3.4|-25.5|0.0105
91645656|NCT00545441|183183777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = 0.05 and power = 0.8, a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
91645657|NCT04071366|183183790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRS rate|-0.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6463|-0.1363|||One-sided Z-test|||||-0.1363|-0.6463|0.0030
91771945|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|63.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||63.27|0.81|0.0770
91645658|NCT04071366|183183790|OTHER||Difference in CRS rate|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6073|-0.1231||||||||-0.1231|-0.6073|
91645659|NCT04071366|183183790|OTHER||Difference in CRS rate|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1778|0.2299||||||||0.2299|-0.1778|
91645660|NCT01336608|183183808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.74|-0.71|0.969
91834717|NCT02496767|183549381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.372|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.372|0.711|0.9420
91645661|NCT01336608|183183808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.96|-0.53|0.568
91645662|NCT01336608|183183808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.89|-0.49|0.566
91645663|NCT01336608|183183809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.082||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.141||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.141|0.023|0.007
91645664|NCT01336608|183183809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.155|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.215||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.215|0.095|<0.001
91645665|NCT01336608|183183809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.074||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.131||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.131|0.016|0.012
91645666|NCT01336608|183183810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.22||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.72|<0.001
91645667|NCT01336608|183183810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.24||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.76|<0.001
91645668|NCT01336608|183183810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.29|0.803
91645669|NCT02437890|183183825|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.526||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: linear model"||||= 0.526
91645670|NCT02437890|183183825|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.504||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: Emax model"||||= 0.504
91645671|NCT02437890|183183825|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.548||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: logistic model"||||= 0.548
91645672|NCT02437890|183183825|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.985||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: 1st Beta model"||||= 0.985
91645673|NCT02437890|183183825|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.524||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: 2nd Beta model"||||= 0.524
91645674|NCT04604496|183183922|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|133.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.97|216.37||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||216.37|81.97|
91771946|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.01|0.26|0.9838
91834718|NCT02496767|183549381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.304|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.304|0.668|0.6853
91645675|NCT04604496|183183922|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|219.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.39|357.41||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||357.41|135.39|
91645676|NCT04604496|183183922|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|334.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|205.7|543.0||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||543.00|205.70|
91645677|NCT04604496|183183923|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|122.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.33|245.49||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||245.49|61.33|
91645678|NCT04604496|183183923|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|282.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.32|565.66||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||565.66|141.32|
91645679|NCT04604496|183183923|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|640.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|320.27|1282.0||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||1282.00|320.27|
91645680|NCT04604496|183183924|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|122.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.51|245.51||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||245.51|61.51|
91645681|NCT04604496|183183924|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|283.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|142.1|567.13||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||567.13|142.10|
91645682|NCT04604496|183183924|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|636.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|318.51|1271.24||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||1271.24|318.51|
91834719|NCT02496767|183549382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.066||||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.627|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.627|0.698|0.7667
91834720|NCT02496767|183549382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.904||||0.6619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.419|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.419|0.577|0.6619
91834721|NCT02496767|183549382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.5856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.386|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.386|0.561|0.5856
91834722|NCT02496767|183549383|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.17|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||2.17|-2.17|0.9991
91834723|NCT02496767|183549383|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.138||0.4808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.43|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||1.43|-3.04|0.4808
91834724|NCT02496767|183549383|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.165||0.6082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.69|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||1.69|-2.89|0.6082
91834725|NCT02496767|183549384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.2602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.206|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.206|0.500|0.2602
91834726|NCT02496767|183549384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094||||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.662|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.662|0.720|0.6748
91834727|NCT02496767|183549384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.7694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.443|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.443|0.609|0.7694
91834728|NCT00166296|183549385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|2.141|||Fisher Exact|||||2.141|0.075|0.441
91834729|NCT00166296|183549386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91834730|NCT00166296|183549387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.443||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.443
91834731|NCT00166296|183549388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.930
91645683|NCT04604496|183183925|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|85.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.6|114.1||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||114.10|63.60|
91645684|NCT04604496|183183925|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.95|129.07||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||129.07|71.95|
91834732|NCT03477279|183549389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.3|||||Couple (HIV+ Women) - Individual (HIV+ Women)|||7.3|-5.6|
91834733|NCT03477279|183549390|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|14.0|||||Couple (HIV+ Women) - Individual (HIV+ Women)|||14.0|-0.8|
91834734|NCT03477279|183549391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|21.7|||||Male Partners of Women in Couple - Male Partners of Women in Individual|||21.7|-1.7|
91834735|NCT03477279|183549392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|32.3|||||Male Partners of Women in Couple - Male Partners of Women in Individual|||32.3|0.9|
91834736|NCT03477279|183549393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|31.8||||||||31.8|-1.6|
91834737|NCT03477279|183549394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|8.5|||||Male Partners of Women in Couple - Male Partners of Women in Individual|||8.5|-13.2|
91834738|NCT03477279|183549395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.7|||||Couple (HIV+ Women) - Individual (HIV+ Women)|||10.7|-10.0|
91834739|NCT03477279|183549396|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.9||||||||13.9|1.7|
91834740|NCT02277990|183549414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.36|0.98||The 0.05 critical value for assessing the primary endpoint was adjusted to 0.0488, to account for a planned interim analysis.|Regression, Cox|The Cox regression was stratified according to device type (pacemaker or CRT-P vs. ICD or CRT-D).||||0.98|0.36|0.0406
91834741|NCT02277990|183549415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.47|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.47|0.0248
91834742|NCT02277990|183549416|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority test was performed on the as-treated cohort, per the statistical analysis plan. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio was 1.33 (i.e., the hazard ratio for complications in the envelope group vs. the control group must be significantly lower than 1.33).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.77|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.77|<0.01
91834743|NCT02277990|183549417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.4|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.40|0.0402
91834744|NCT04581200|183549418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.80|-1.63|0.61
91834745|NCT04581200|183549419|OTHER|This is an exploratory pilot trial|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.08|-2.66|0.89
91834746|NCT04581200|183549420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.30|-2.58|0.81
91834747|NCT04581200|183549421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.14|-2.98|0.75
91834748|NCT04581200|183549422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-0.57|0.45
91834749|NCT04581200|183549423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.13|0.98
91834750|NCT04581200|183549424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91834751|NCT04581200|183549425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
91834752|NCT04711603|183549428|SUPERIORITY||Placebo difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.42|||MMRM|||||-0.42|-1.52|<0.001
91834753|NCT04672941|183549509|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) assuming random missingness was fitted. The dependent variable was the CAT score at each visit. Visit, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates.|Score on a scale|-5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|-4.89|||||Least Square Mean for Visit, change from baseline (3 months - baseline) total CAT Score estimates.|||-4.89|-5.67|
91645685|NCT04604496|183183925|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|135.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.94|181.1||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||181.10|100.94|
91645686|NCT02533505|183183930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.114||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.943|17.286||All p-values ≤ 0.05 after rounding will be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.286|2.943|0.007
91645687|NCT02533505|183183931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.196|-0.021|0.111
91645688|NCT02533505|183183932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.018|1.719|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔHR||1.719|-1.018|0.609
91645689|NCT02533505|183183933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔFEV1||0.233|0.150|<0.001
91645690|NCT02533505|183183933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.312|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔFVC||0.388|0.236|<0.001
91645691|NCT02533505|183183933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔIC||0.342|0.218|<0.001
91645692|NCT02533505|183183934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.315||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.723|42.907|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVT/Ti||42.907|3.723|0.021
91645693|NCT02533505|183183935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.204||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.454|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.045|-0.454|0.106
91645694|NCT02533505|183183936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.245||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.469|18.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVCO2||18.021|2.469|0.011
91645695|NCT02533505|183183937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.738|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔSaO2||0.738|-0.255|0.333
91645696|NCT02533505|183183938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔRR||0.913|-0.439|0.484
91645697|NCT02533505|183183939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔTi/Ttot||0.036|-0.004|0.113
91645698|NCT02533505|183183940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.624|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.701|85.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVt||85.546|29.701|<0.001
91645699|NCT02533505|183183941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|862.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|439.817|1284.496|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVe||1284.496|439.817|<0.001
91645700|NCT02533505|183183942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔFEV1/FVC||0.033|0.005|0.007
91645701|NCT02609178|183183958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.003||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
91645702|NCT02609178|183183958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|stated above in statistical analysis 1||||||0.366||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.366
91645703|NCT02609178|183183958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.002||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.002
91645704|NCT02609178|183183958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.054||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.054
91645705|NCT02609178|183183959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.006||||||alpha value was set at 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
91645706|NCT02609178|183183959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistic analysis 1.||||||0.739||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.739
91645707|NCT02609178|183183959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.03||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91645708|NCT02609178|183183959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.009||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91645709|NCT02609178|183183960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.001||||||alpha value was set at 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91645710|NCT02609178|183183960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.579||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.579
91645711|NCT02609178|183183960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.001||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91645712|NCT02609178|183183960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.002||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91645713|NCT02609178|183183961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.007||||||alpha value was set at 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.007
91645714|NCT02609178|183183961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.308||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.308
91645715|NCT02609178|183183961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.005||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.005
91645716|NCT02609178|183183961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.141||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.141
91645717|NCT03583931|183183963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
91645718|NCT03583931|183183964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.84
91645719|NCT03583931|183183969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.48
91645720|NCT03583931|183183970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
91645721|NCT03583931|183183971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.45
91645722|NCT03583931|183183972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
91645723|NCT05016765|183183989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.001
91707707|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||>.05
91771947|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.86|0.21|0.6995
91771948|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.71|0.26|0.8808
91771949|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|45.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||45.13|0.54|0.1570
91771950|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|12.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||12.26|0.39|0.3742
91771951|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.24||||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|48.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||48.26|0.57|0.1436
91771952|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|50.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||50.77|0.61|0.1277
91771953|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.81|0.20|0.6689
91834754|NCT04672941|183549510|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with CAT response \>= 10 as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.745|8.987|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit.|||8.987|5.745|< 0.001
91834755|NCT04672941|183549511|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) assuming random missingness was fitted. The dependent variable was EQ-VAS score. Visit, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates.|Score on a scale|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|12.6|||||Least Square Mean for Visit, mean change from Baseline (3 months - baseline) of EQ-VAS based on non-responder imputation.|||12.60|11.00|
91771954|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.8019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.95|0.29|0.8019
91771955|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.05|0.23|0.9591
91771956|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.3364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|13.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||13.06|0.42|0.3364
91771957|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|12.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.32|0.39|0.3698
91771958|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|45.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||45.01|0.54|0.1587
91771959|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|50.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||50.06|0.61|0.1300
91771960|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|7.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.53|0.43|0.4152
91771961|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.50|0.27|0.9645
91771962|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|8.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.96|0.43|0.3884
91645724|NCT05016765|183183989|OTHER|Pearson correlation test|Pearson's R|0.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.56|||Regression, Linear|Pearson's R||Correlation of this Outcome measure (change in tic frequency with stimulation during this study) with the change in tic frequency (measured as the number of 10-second tic-free intervals) during active, rhythmic stimulation in the randomized, controlled trial of MNS that all participants had previously completed.||0.56|-0.22|0.33
91645725|NCT05016765|183183990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Paired Samples Wilcoxon Test||||||<0.001
91645726|NCT05016765|183183990|OTHER|Pearson's R|Pearson's R|0.36||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.66|||Regression, Linear|Pearson's R||Correlation of this Outcome measure (change in tic intensity during this study) with change in tic intensity during active, rhythmic stimulation during the randomized, controlled trial that all participants had previously completed.||0.66|-0.05|0.08
91645727|NCT05016765|183183995|OTHER|Traditional comparative||||||0.84|||||||Paired Sample t-Test, 2-Sided|||||||0.84
91645728|NCT00068770|183183997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.5||not adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||two independent group comparisons||5.5|1.5|0.82
91645729|NCT00068770|183183998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.3|||Log Rank|||||6.3|1.1|0.11
91645730|NCT02328404|183184015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Fisher Exact test was used||The participants in the treatment and placebo groups will be classified into two categories of prognosis (improved and not improved) and will be analyzed using Chi-square test, if Chi-square is higher than 3.84 (df=1) it will be statistically significant (p-value\</= 0.05)||||0.001
91645731|NCT02328404|183184016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0||||||A P-value \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Both arms where evaluated at which paired t-test for the mean difference in the two arm was calculated . where the serum 25-OH Vit D3 was measured at 0 day time and after the end of the study. after that a paired t-test where applied for the difference for the 25-OH VitD3 levels between the two time points||||<0.000
91645732|NCT02328404|183184017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91645733|NCT02328404|183184018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
91645734|NCT02328404|183184019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91645735|NCT02328404|183184020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91645736|NCT02328404|183184021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91645737|NCT02328404|183184022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
91645738|NCT02328404|183184023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91645739|NCT02328404|183184024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91645740|NCT02328404|183184025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91645741|NCT02328404|183184026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91645742|NCT02328404|183184027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91771963|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|14.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.41|0.48|0.2670
91645743|NCT02328404|183184028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91645744|NCT02328404|183184029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91645745|NCT00285012|183184046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.99|14.14||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Primary endpoint was based on a CO confirmed 4-week CQR (weeks 4 through 12 inclusive). Intent was to evaluate the alternative hypothesis that varenicline is superior to placebo for smoking cessation after 12 weeks of treatment in subjects with mild to moderate COPD.||14.14|4.99|<0.0001
91645746|NCT00285012|183184047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.75|8.65||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline versus (vs) placebo at Week 24||8.65|2.75|<0.0001
91645747|NCT00285012|183184047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.13|7.67||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||7.67|2.13|<0.0001
91645748|NCT00285012|183184048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.96|9.02||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 24||9.02|2.96|<0.0001
91645749|NCT00285012|183184048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.18|7.07||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||7.07|2.18|<0.0001
91645750|NCT00285012|183184049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.99|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.39|11.11||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 12||11.11|4.39|<0.0001
91645751|NCT00285012|183184049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.79|4.54|||Regression, Logistic|p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 24||4.54|1.79|<0.0001
91771964|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.91||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|62.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||62.90|0.76|0.0861
91771965|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.21||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|64.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||64.66|0.80|0.0774
91771966|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|20.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||20.65|1.08|0.0389
91771967|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.57|0.50|0.3695
91771968|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.89|0.48|0.3501
91771969|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|10.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||10.14|0.61|0.2021
91771970|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.6201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.62|0.36|0.6201
91771971|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.71||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|132.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||132.0|1.42|0.0235
91771972|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|14.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||14.48|0.81|0.0929
91771973|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.33|0.29|0.9820
91771974|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.41|0.44|0.4956
91771975|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.44|0.20|0.5708
91771976|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||10.61|0.61|0.1985
91771977|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.32|0.31|0.8368
91771978|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|14.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||14.76|0.68|0.1397
91771979|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.85|0.52|0.0366
91771980|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.05|0.23|0.7968
91771981|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.81|0.30|0.9074
91834756|NCT04672941|183549512|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with mobility as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.14|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||5.14|3.90|< 0.001
91645752|NCT00285012|183184049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0008||95.0|1.37|3.48||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||3.48|1.37|0.0008
91645753|NCT00285012|183184050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0002||95.0|1.52|3.95||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||3.95|1.52|0.0002
91645754|NCT00285012|183184051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 12 \[LOCF\] pre-bronchodilator||||0.140
91645755|NCT00285012|183184051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 12 \[LOCF\] post-bronchodilator||||0.007
91645756|NCT00285012|183184051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52 \[LOCF\] pre-bronchodilator||||0.684
91645757|NCT00285012|183184051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52 \[LOCF\] post-bronchodilator||||0.901
91645758|NCT00285012|183184052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Mental State||||0.078
91645759|NCT00285012|183184052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Mental State||||0.109
91645760|NCT00285012|183184052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Mental State||||0.281
91645761|NCT00285012|183184052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Functional State||||0.581
91645762|NCT00285012|183184052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Functional State||||0.290
91645763|NCT00285012|183184052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Functional State||||0.063
91771982|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.1987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.60|0.10|0.1987
91645764|NCT00285012|183184052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Respiratory Symptoms||||0.002
91645765|NCT00285012|183184052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Respiratory Symptoms||||0.081
91645766|NCT00285012|183184052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Respiratory Symptoms||||0.016
91645767|NCT00285012|183184052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Total Score||||0.033
91645768|NCT00285012|183184052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Total Score||||0.078
91645769|NCT00285012|183184052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Total Score||||0.023
91645770|NCT05631093|183184083|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL) - Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 4 percentage points.|Estimated difference|-3.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-0.77|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.||||-0.77|-7.81|<0.001
91645771|NCT05631093|183184084|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|2.8|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||2.8|-10.7|
91645772|NCT05631093|183184085|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-4.9|0.2|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.2|-4.9|
91645773|NCT05631093|183184086|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|-0.08||||||95.0|-3.49|4.21|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.21|-3.49|
91645774|NCT05631093|183184087|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|3.75||||||95.0|-0.31|8.89|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||8.89|-0.31|
91645775|NCT05631093|183184094|OTHER|Difference in mean change from baseline versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART)|Estimated difference|-15.43||||||95.0|-46.32|15.47|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on a cDLA model.|||15.47|-46.32|
91645776|NCT05631093|183184100|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|-2.21||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.91|20.49|||ANCOVA||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|PI-containing regimens (including PI- + InSTI-containing regimens)||20.49|-24.91|0.8340
91645777|NCT05631093|183184100|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|3.44||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|11.97|||ANCOVA||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|non-PI- and non-InSTI-containing regimens||11.97|-5.08|0.4250
91645778|NCT05631093|183184100|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|3.72||||0.1618||95.0|-1.5|8.95|||ANCOVA||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|InSTI-containing regimens (non-PI-containing regimens)||8.95|-1.50|0.1618
91645779|NCT05631093|183184101|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|15.77|||||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|PI-containing regimens (including PI- + InSTI-containing regimens)||15.77|-29.80|
91645780|NCT05631093|183184101|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|3.99||||||95.0|-5.22|13.21|||||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|non-PI- and non-InSTI-containing regimens||13.21|-5.22|
91645781|NCT05631093|183184101|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|8.87|||||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|InSTI-containing regimens (non-PI-containing regimens)||8.87|-6.83|
91645782|NCT02873195|183184110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.491|0.051
91645783|NCT02873195|183184111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.56|||Log Rank|||||1.56|0.56|0.40
91645784|NCT02873195|183184112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4876|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4876
91645785|NCT01190098|183184245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: there is a non-inferiority region of 4 points.||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.027
91645786|NCT01190098|183184246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91645787|NCT01190098|183184247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91645788|NCT01190098|183184248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91645789|NCT01190098|183184249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91645790|NCT01190098|183184250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91645791|NCT01190098|183184251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91645792|NCT01190098|183184252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91645793|NCT00606801|183184266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.006
91645794|NCT00606801|183184267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.04
91645795|NCT00606801|183184268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.02
91645796|NCT00606801|183184269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.03
91645797|NCT00606801|183184270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.5
91645798|NCT00606801|183184271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.7
91707708|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91645799|NCT00606801|183184272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.3
91645800|NCT00606801|183184273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.3
91645801|NCT00606801|183184274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.3
91645802|NCT00606801|183184275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.9
91645803|NCT00606801|183184276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.8
91645804|NCT00606801|183184277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.5
91645805|NCT00606801|183184278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.01
91645806|NCT00606801|183184279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.60
91645807|NCT00606801|183184280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.50
91645808|NCT01143272|183184282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||||1.90|0.55|0.94
91645809|NCT01143272|183184282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
91645810|NCT01143272|183184282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.87
91645811|NCT01143272|183184284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.73|||Regression, Cox|||||1.73|0.49|0.80
91645812|NCT01143272|183184284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.03||adjusting for age, sex, CRP, leukocyte count, duration of antibiotic treatment, and administration of antibiotics|Regression, Cox|||||2.03|0.53|0.93
91645813|NCT01143272|183184285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.08||Association between initial leukocyte count and incidence of AAD|Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.96|0.6
91645814|NCT01143272|183184285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01||Association between the initial C-reactive protein and incidence of AAD|Regression, Logistic|||||1.01|1.00|0.653
91645815|NCT00545181|183184289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.75
91645816|NCT02320838|183184294|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91645817|NCT02320838|183184295|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.04
91645818|NCT02320838|183184296|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9
91645819|NCT02320838|183184297|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91645820|NCT02320838|183184298|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91645821|NCT02320838|183184299|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
91645822|NCT02320838|183184300|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0,05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91645823|NCT02320838|183184301|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.8
91645824|NCT02320838|183184302|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.02
91771983|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||11.18|0.60|0.2040
91771984|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.99|0.13|0.3318
91771985|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.10|0.31|0.7437
91771986|NCT03192176|183427589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.71|0.36|0.6848
91771987|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.32|0.84|0.1114
91771988|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|12.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.04|1.83|0.0013
91771989|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|18.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||18.54|2.65|<0.0001
91771990|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|12.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.89|1.91|0.0010
91771991|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||3.22|0.49|0.6384
91771992|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|14.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.93|2.23|0.0003
91834757|NCT04672941|183549513|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with self-care as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|2.96|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||2.96|2.35|< 0.001
91645825|NCT02320838|183184303|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.4
91645826|NCT02320838|183184304|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
91771993|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|10.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||10.45|1.65|0.0025
91771994|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|7.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.12|1.12|0.0279
91771995|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.61|1.31|0.0114
91771996|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|21.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||21.45|2.66|0.0001
91771997|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|18.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.26|2.25|0.0005
91771998|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.02|0.93|0.0695
91771999|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|12.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.77|1.83|0.0015
91834758|NCT04672941|183549514|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with usual activities as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|5.12|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||5.12|3.89|< 0.001
91645827|NCT02320838|183184305|OTHER|||||||1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
91645828|NCT02320838|183184306|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.4
91645829|NCT02320838|183184307|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.1
91645830|NCT02320838|183184308|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9
91645831|NCT02320838|183184309|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9
91645832|NCT02320838|183184310|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.5
91645833|NCT02320838|183184311|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.6
91645834|NCT02320838|183184312|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.1
91645835|NCT02320838|183184313|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.2
91645836|NCT02320838|183184314|OTHER|||||||1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
91645837|NCT03231709|183184319|OTHER|||||||0.0141|||||||Mainland-Gart Test|||||||0.0141
91645838|NCT04840901|183184345|EQUIVALENCE|PK parameters were powered to test equivalence with a power of 90% that the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio fall within 0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.16|||ANCOVA|||||1.16|1.03|
91645839|NCT04840901|183184346|EQUIVALENCE|PK parameters were powered to test equivalence with a power of 90% that the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio fall within 0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|1.02|
91645840|NCT04840901|183184347|EQUIVALENCE|PK parameters were powered to test equivalence with a power of 90% that the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio fall within 0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|1.03|
91645841|NCT04075292|183184353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.18|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the unstratified log-rank test.|HR was calculated using an unstratified Cox model with treatment as the only covariate. The CI for HR was calculated using the profile likelihood method.|||0.18|0.03|<0.0001
91645842|NCT01988493|183184366|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.28|0.0087
91645843|NCT01988493|183184367|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0229||90.0|0.33|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.33|0.0229
91645844|NCT01988493|183184368|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.2333||90.0|0.45|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.45|0.2333
91645845|NCT01988493|183184369|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0059||90.0|0.28|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.28|0.0059
91645846|NCT01988493|183184382|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8915||90.0|0.62|1.77|||Log Rank|||||1.77|0.62|0.8915
91645847|NCT01988493|183184383|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.||||||0.0438|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0438
91645848|NCT01988493|183184385|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.38|0.0496
91645849|NCT01988493|183184386|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.||||||0.0527|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0527
91645850|NCT00535301|183184388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||Chi-squared|||Sample size was calculated based on previously-published anatomic success rates of standard anterior colporrhaphy (50%) and polypropylene mesh-reinforced anterior vaginal repair (85%) (1-10). Assuming a 2-sided hypothesis test with 5% type I error and 80% power, 33 patients in each group would be required to detect an absolute difference of 35% or more in recurrent stage II prolapse. Assuming a 15% drop-out rate, we sought to enroll 76 patients into the clinical trial.||0.6|0.1|0.005
91645851|NCT00535301|183184389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91645852|NCT00535301|183184390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91645853|NCT05144477|183184406|OTHER|Proportion of referrals who provided consent and enrolled into the study was calculated.|Proportion|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.82||||||||0.820|0.425|
91645854|NCT05144477|183184407|OTHER|Proportion of enrolled participants who remained in the study at 30 days after the end of hospital care was calculated.|Proportion|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.985||||||||0.985|0.617|
91645855|NCT05144477|183184408|OTHER|Proportion of participants randomized to the FAID Fear Diary Intervention who wrote in the diary at least twice per week up until the end of hospital care was calculated.|Proportion|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|0.891||||||||0.891|0.308|
91645856|NCT05144477|183184409|OTHER|Proportion of enrolled participants who provided complete data for at least 90% of all study assessments was calculated.|Proportion|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.985||||||||0.985|0.617|
91834759|NCT04672941|183549515|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with pain/discomfort as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.85|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||3.85|3.00|< 0.001
91834760|NCT04672941|183549516|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with anxiety/depression as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|3.73|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||3.73|2.95|< 0.001
91645857|NCT05144477|183184410|OTHER|Proportion of intervention participants who agreed that the ICU diary was acceptable for reducing fear about their loved one's heart was calculated.|Proportion|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.975||||||||0.975|0.444|
91645858|NCT05144477|183184411|OTHER|Proportion of intervention participants who agreed that the ICU diary was feasible for reducing fear about their loved one's heart was calculated.|Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.998||||||||0.998|0.555|
91645859|NCT05144477|183184412|OTHER|Proportion of intervention participants who agreed that the ICU diary was appropriate for reducing fear about their loved one's heart was calculated.|Proportion|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.933||||||||0.933|0.348|
91645860|NCT05144477|183184413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis at the end of hospital care.||1.32|-0.83|.63
91645861|NCT05144477|183184413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis for 30 days after the end of hospital care.||1.08|-0.92|.86
91645862|NCT05144477|183184414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis for the end of hospital care.||1.21|-1.43|.86
91645863|NCT05144477|183184414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis for 30 days after the end of hospital care.||1.58|-1.10|.75
91645864|NCT05144477|183184415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.26|5.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.86|-23.26|.22
91645865|NCT05144477|183184415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||χ2(1) = 1.29|||.26
91645866|NCT05144477|183184415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's Exact Test was conducted to compare the number of participants with a positive screen for PTSD symptoms (score \>=33) to those who did not have a positive screen for PTSD symptoms (score \< 33).||||1.00
91645867|NCT00639158|183184416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The treatment group comparisons for both primary efficacy variables must have demonstrated superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe to declare this arm successful. Thus, no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A sample size of 212 per arm provided 90% power and \> 99% power with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05 level to detect differences between treatment arms of 6% and 17% in the percent change in HDL-C and TG, respectively, assuming an SD of 19% and 30%, respectively. This sample size provided an overall power of approximately 90% for the 2 primary comparisons. If a loss to follow-up rate of 8% was assumed, the sample size needed to be increased to 230 per arm to maintain the above power.||||< 0.001
91645868|NCT00639158|183184417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||0.004
91645869|NCT00639158|183184418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The treatment group comparisons for both primary efficacy variables must have demonstrated superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe to declare this arm successful. Thus, no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||A sample size of 212 per arm provided 90% power and \> 99% power with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05 level to detect differences between treatment arms of 6% and 17% in the percent change in HDL-C and TG, respectively, assuming an SD of 19% and 30%, respectively. This sample size provided an overall power of approximately 90% for the 2 primary comparisons. If a loss to follow-up rate of 8% was assumed, the sample size needed to be increased to 230 per arm to maintain the above power.||||< 0.001
91834761|NCT04672941|183549522|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) assuming random missingness was fitted. The dependent variable was the mMRC score. Visit, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates.|Score on a scale|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.51|||||Least Square Mean for Visit, change from baseline (3 months - baseline) of mMRC based on non-responder imputation.|||-0.51|-0.60|
91645870|NCT00639158|183184419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
91645871|NCT00639158|183184420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
91645872|NCT00639158|183184421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
91834762|NCT00386022|183549533|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the LH response to GnRH as a function of dose in young or old postmenopausal women|||||<|0.001||||||LH % change with dose|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91834763|NCT00386022|183549533|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the LH response to GnRH between younger and older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.03||||||LH % change with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the LH and FSH responses to graded doses of GnRH between younger and older postmenopausal women||||<0.03
91834764|NCT00386022|183549533|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the FSH response to GnRH as a function of dose in younger or older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.001||||||FSH % change with dose|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91834765|NCT00386022|183549533|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the FSH response to GnRH between young and old postmenopausal women|||||<|0.005||||||FSH % change with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.005
91834766|NCT00386022|183549534|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of estrogen on the LH response to GnRH in younger and older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.01||||||LH amplitude response with estrogen|Repeated measured ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91834767|NCT00386022|183549534|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of estrogen on the FSH response to GnRH in younger and older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.0001||||||FSH amplitude response with estrogen|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91834768|NCT00386022|183549534|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of age on the effect of estrogen on the FSH response to GnRH|||||<|0.02||||||FSH amplitude response to estrogen with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.02
91834769|NCT00386022|183549534|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of age on the effect of estrogen on the LH response to GnRH|||||=|0.4||||||LH amplitude response to estrogen with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||=0.4
91834770|NCT03933826|183549568|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment estimate (ATE)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.4||We tested the hypothesis that the average treatment effect (ATE) is different from zero. This was the only hypothesis test in our primary manuscript, and so no adjustment for multiple comparisons is necessary.|TMLE|TMLE stands for targeted maximum likelihood estimation|The causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with radical cystectomy versus with bladder-sparing therapy. A positive value indicates greater physical functioning associated with radical cystectomy.|||2.4|-0.6|<0.05
91834771|NCT03933826|183549571|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater urinary health associated with radical cystectomy.|||2.9|-0.5|
91834772|NCT03933826|183549574|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-9.0|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater sexual health associated with radical cystectomy.|||-9.0|-14.7|
91834773|NCT03933826|183549577|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A negative value indicates worse bowel health associated with radical cystectomy.|||-0.3|-2.5|
91834774|NCT03933826|183549580|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater financial health associated with radical cystectomy.|||2.6|0.2|
91834775|NCT03933826|183549583|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.6|||||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A negative value indicates lower anxiety associated with radical cystectomy.|-1.6|-3.1|
91834776|NCT03933826|183549586|SUPERIORITY|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3|||||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A negative value indicates less depression associated with radical cystectomy.|-0.3|-1.8|
91834777|NCT03933826|183549589|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04|||||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater quality of life associated with radical cystectomy.|0.04|0.01|
91834778|NCT03933826|183549592|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.59|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \> 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a greater chance of surviving without recurrence than those who choose BST.|||1.59|1.33|
91834779|NCT03933826|183549595|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.03|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a lower chance of surviving without metastasis than those who choose BST.|||1.03|0.94|
91834780|NCT03933826|183549598|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.88|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a lower chance of surviving without cancer progression than those who choose BST.|||0.88|0.73|
91834781|NCT03933826|183549601|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a lower chance of surviving cancer than those who choose BST.|||1.01|0.96|
91645873|NCT00639158|183184422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
91645874|NCT00639158|183184423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Rank-sum test||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
91834782|NCT03933826|183549604|SUPERIORITY|Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.08|||||A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose radical cystectomy have a lower chance of surviving than those who choose bladder-sparing therapy.|||2.08|0.38|
91645875|NCT01787188|183184432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.097||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.93|-4.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.75|-16.93|0.0005
91645876|NCT01787188|183184432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.154||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.53|-14.94|0.0059
91645877|NCT01787188|183184433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-4.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.42|-14.80|0.0003
91645878|NCT01787188|183184433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.696||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.40|-9.20|0.1486
91645879|NCT01787188|183184434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.865||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.70|-15.97|0.0004
91645880|NCT01787188|183184434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.917||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.10|-15.58|0.0008
91645881|NCT01787188|183184435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.521|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.48|||ANCOVA|||||-5.48|-15.40|<0.0001
91645882|NCT01787188|183184435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.561||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-12.85|0.0024
91645883|NCT01787188|183184436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.623|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-5.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.18|-15.49|<0.0001
91645884|NCT01787188|183184436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.84|-9.63|0.0997
91645885|NCT01787188|183184437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.54|-4.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.11|-15.54|0.0008
91645886|NCT01787188|183184437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.951||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|-3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.62|-15.22|0.0015
91645887|NCT01787188|183184438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.32|-3.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.94|-16.32|0.0014
91834783|NCT02638948|183549607|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|4.9||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|20.1||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||20.1|-10.2|0.5224
91834784|NCT02638948|183549607|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|11.8||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|27.2||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||27.2|-3.6|0.1360
91645888|NCT01787188|183184438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.198||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.69|-16.27|0.0019
91645889|NCT01787188|183184439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.57|-5.37|||ANCOVA|||||-5.37|-15.57|<0.0001
91645890|NCT01787188|183184439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.627||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|-2.99|||ANCOVA|||||-2.99|-13.33|0.0020
91645891|NCT01787188|183184440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.686||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|-5.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.17|-15.73|0.0001
91645892|NCT01787188|183184440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.725||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|-9.77|0.1065
91645893|NCT01787188|183184441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.961||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-3.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.85|-15.50|0.0012
91645894|NCT01787188|183184441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.006||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|-3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.74|-15.56|0.0014
91645895|NCT01787188|183184442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.194||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.97|-16.54|0.0014
91645896|NCT01787188|183184442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.82|-4.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.08|-16.82|0.0014
91645897|NCT01787188|183184443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|-5.31|||ANCOVA|||||-5.31|-15.72|<0.0001
91645898|NCT01787188|183184443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.71|-3.17|||ANCOVA|||||-3.17|-13.71|0.0018
91834785|NCT02638948|183549607|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|0.1||||0.9922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|20.7||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||20.7|-20.5|0.9922
91834786|NCT02638948|183549608|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.5||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||16.5|-16.0|1.0000
91834787|NCT02638948|183549608|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|5.6||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|21.9||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||21.9|-10.5|0.2058
91834788|NCT02638948|183549608|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.2||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||22.2|-22.5|1.0000
91645899|NCT01787188|183184444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.831||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|-5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.41|-16.55|0.0001
91645900|NCT01787188|183184444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-11.71|0.0379
91645901|NCT01787188|183184445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.152||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.42|-6.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.02|-18.42|0.0001
91645902|NCT01787188|183184445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|-2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.78|-15.41|0.0049
91645903|NCT01787188|183184446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.359||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.55|-4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.33|-17.55|0.0012
91645904|NCT01787188|183184446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.422||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.09|-2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.63|-16.09|0.0066
91645905|NCT01787188|183184447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-11.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.751|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.08|-6.26|||ANCOVA|||||-6.26|-17.08|<0.0001
91645906|NCT01787188|183184447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.795||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-13.74|0.0034
91645907|NCT00854607|183184448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.77||One-Sided P-value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.77|-0.20|0.166
91645908|NCT00854607|183184449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.3||One-Sided P-value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.30|-0.65|0.269
91645909|NCT00854607|183184450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.44||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.44|-0.06|0.101
91645910|NCT00854607|183184451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.47||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference Between Non-Responders and Responders||0.47|-0.42|0.457
91645911|NCT00854607|183184452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.23||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.23|-0.87|0.168
91645912|NCT00854607|183184453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.46||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.46|-0.09|0.127
91772000|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.28|1.30|0.0120
91645913|NCT00854607|183184454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.96||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.96|-0.01|0.054
91645914|NCT00854607|183184455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.83||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.83|-0.41|0.285
91645915|NCT00854607|183184456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|1.08||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||1.08|-0.27|0.159
91645916|NCT00854607|183184457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.32||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.32|-0.02|0.071
91645917|NCT00854607|183184458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.38||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.38|-0.03|0.078
91645918|NCT00854607|183184459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.91||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.91|-0.13|0.109
91645919|NCT00854607|183184460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.22||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||1.22|0.09|0.030
91645920|NCT00854607|183184461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|0.32||One-Sided P-value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.32|-0.63|0.293
91645921|NCT00854607|183184462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.29||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.29|-0.83|0.213
91645922|NCT01783483|183184465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean CT scan scores.||||<0.0001
91645923|NCT01783483|183184466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
91645924|NCT01783483|183184467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.0539
91645925|NCT01783483|183184467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.0015
91645926|NCT01783483|183184468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.2125
91645927|NCT01783483|183184468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.0014
91645928|NCT01783483|183184469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.0049
91645929|NCT01783483|183184469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.0183
91645930|NCT01783483|183184470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.6653
91645931|NCT01783483|183184470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2295|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.2295
91645932|NCT01783483|183184472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Index (Day 0 to Hospital Discharge)||||0.370
91645933|NCT01783483|183184473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||From Hospital Discharge to 3-week||||0.778
91772001|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.57|0.94|0.662
91772002|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.80|0.85|0.1019
91772003|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|16.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.18|1.83|0.0023
91772004|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.33||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|25.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||25.02|2.15|0.0015
91772005|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.66|0.68|0.2380
91772006|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|9.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.81|1.33|0.0120
91772007|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.77|0.88|0.0910
91772008|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.18|0.72|0.1926
91772009|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.15|0.85|0.1017
91772010|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|11.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||11.45|1.29|0.0153
91834789|NCT04506775|183549638|NON_INFERIORITY|As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \<5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively.|Mean Error|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \<5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively.||||||||
91772011|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.52||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|28.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||28.98|1.95|0.0034
91772012|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.76|0.55|0.4539
91772013|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.40|1.10|0.0327
91772014|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.30|0.98|0.0555
91772015|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.67|0.58|0.3505
91772016|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|13.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.11|1.17|0.0265
91772017|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|17.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.32|1.32|0.0174
91645934|NCT01783483|183184474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||From 3-week to 6-week post-op||||0.055
91772018|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.95||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|44.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||44.61|1.80|0.0075
91772019|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.68|0.78|0.1228
91772020|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|10.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.38|1.04|0.0431
91772021|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|8.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.35|0.87|0.0851
91772022|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.99|0.53|0.4726
91772023|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.67|0.79|0.1289
91772024|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.84|1.06|0.0400
91772025|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|40.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||40.55|1.67|0.0097
91772026|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.94|0.66|0.2260
91772027|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.63||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|35.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||35.96|2.07|0.0031
91851593|NCT04246762|183586818|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-inf))|67.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.73|81.21|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of omeprazole with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||81.21|56.73|
91772028|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.16||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|49.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||49.90|2.07|0.0043
91772029|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.04|0.47|0.5571
91772030|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.59|0.69|0.1911
91772031|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.41|0.80|0.1101
91772032|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.86||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|34.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||34.74|1.36|0.0199
91772033|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.33|0.61|0.2600
91772034|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.93||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|46.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||46.19|1.73|0.0090
91772035|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.22||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|145.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||145.2|2.04|0.0089
91772036|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.19|0.36|0.8966
91772037|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.51|0.48|0.5031
91772038|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.92|0.59|0.2603
91772039|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.88|0.59|0.2447
91772040|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.55|0.49|0.4239
91772041|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.72||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|99.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||99.35|1.38|0.0240
91772042|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|9.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.41|0.72|0.1457
91772043|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.38|0.34|0.9000
91900820|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.6908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.9|-1.4|0.6908
91772044|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.64|0.39|0.7644
91772045|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.2245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.67|0.60|0.2245
91772046|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|27.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||27.40|1.02|0.0475
91772047|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|8.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.07|0.57|0.2569
91772048|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.32||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|79.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||79.44|1.09|0.0412
91772049|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.61|0.76|0.1201
91772050|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.23|0.53|0.3814
91772051|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.23|0.38|0.8549
91772052|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|10.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.24|0.75|0.1274
91772053|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|15.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||15.01|0.90|0.0703
91772054|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.76|0.66|0.1821
91772055|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.96||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|109.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||109.5|1.53|0.0187
91772056|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|17.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||17.00|1.03|0.0458
91772057|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.89|0.41|0.6806
91772058|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.45|0.38|0.8090
91772059|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.26|0.60|0.2352
91772060|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|12.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.50|0.74|0.1231
91834790|NCT04506775|183549639|NON_INFERIORITY|As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively|Mean Error|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively|||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively|||
91772061|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||11.76|0.70|0.1445
91772062|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.03||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|102.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||102.7|1.41|0.0230
91772063|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|14.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||14.36|0.86|0.0801
91772064|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.32|0.50|0.4152
91772065|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.3845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.65|0.51|0.3845
91772066|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|9.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.39|0.65|0.1864
91772067|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.01268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|12.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.86|0.73|0.01268
91772068|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|11.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.76|0.67|0.1600
91834791|NCT05007392|183549641|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|35.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.36|44.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P value based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline SUA level and baseline body mass index (BMI) level.|The difference of percentage and stratified 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on Mantel-Haenszel method.|||44.37|27.36|<0.001
91834792|NCT05007392|183549642|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was -10% in the analysis.|Difference of percentage|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|14.17|||||The difference of percentage and stratified 95% CI was based on Mantel-Haenszel method.|||14.17|-3.69|
91645935|NCT01783483|183184476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||From 3 month to 6-month post op||||0.113
91645936|NCT02268045|183184477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The RR, with the corresponding 95% CI, was calculated for each treatment arm and compared using Fisher's exact test at a one-sided 0.025 type I error rate. A non-inferiority margin of 13% was assumed with ≥ 80% power to detect treatment differences. Non-inferiority was concluded if the one-sided 95% CI was above the -13% margin set for the study.|Percentage difference|0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.0||||||For the ITT population||||-13|
91645937|NCT02268045|183184477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The RR, with the corresponding 95% CI, was calculated for each treatment arm and compared using Fisher's exact test at a one-sided 0.025 type I error rate. A non-inferiority margin of 13% was assumed with ≥ 80% power to detect treatment differences. Non-inferiority was concluded if the one-sided 95% CI was above the -13% margin set for the study.|percentage difference|3.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.0||||||For the PP population||||-13|
91645938|NCT02268045|183184478|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|105.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||105|93.6|
91645939|NCT02268045|183184479|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.5|107.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||107|98.5|
91645940|NCT02268045|183184480|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.9|105.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||105|93.9|
91645941|NCT02268045|183184481|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|109.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||109|99.5|
91645942|NCT02268045|183184485|OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4570
91645943|NCT01766310|183184486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.44|-0.09|0.05
91645944|NCT02125734|183184521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.081||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.130|0.031|0.0017
91645945|NCT01556490|183184527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.89|0.4552
91645946|NCT01556490|183184528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.61|0.0626
91645947|NCT01556490|183184529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Log Rank|||||.96|.59|0.0227
91645948|NCT01556490|183184530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.89|||Log Rank|||||.89|.52|0.0043
91645949|NCT01556490|183184531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|22.3|||2 sided calculated using continuity|2 sided calculated using continuity adjusted Wald Approach||||22.3|8.6|0.0001
91645950|NCT01652872|183184539|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|5.85|||||Difference is fixed dose - titration.|||5.85|-6.39|
91645951|NCT01652872|183184539|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.285|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by RBC transfusion received within 12 months prior to randomization (yes/no) and site practice setting (nephrology/non-nephrology).|A risk ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the fixed dose group relative to Hb-based titration group.|||1.285|0.776|
91645952|NCT01652872|183184540|OTHER|Stratified by RBC transfusion received within 12 months prior to randomization (yes/no) and site practice setting (nephrology/non-nephrology) and accounting for participant exposure time.|Least Squares Mean (LSM) Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.05|||Negative binomial regression model||Least Squares Mean (LSM) ratio is fixed dose relative to titration.|||2.05|0.81|
91645953|NCT01652872|183184541|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|Stratified by RBC transfusion received within 12 months prior to randomization (yes/no) and site practice setting (nephrology/non-nephrology).|Hazard ratio is fixed dose relative to titration.|||1.35|0.76|
91645954|NCT01652872|183184542|OTHER||Median of the difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.22|||Hodges-Lehmann estimate||Difference is fixed dose - titration.||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum statistic.|-0.22|-0.46|
91645955|NCT01652872|183184543|OTHER||Median of the difference|-22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-18.1|||Hodges-Lehmann estimate||Difference is fixed dose - titration.||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum statistic.|-18.1|-26.1|
91645956|NCT03985293|183184566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.47||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.18|-0.76|0.0071
91645957|NCT03985293|183184566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.62|-1.18|<.0001
91645958|NCT03985293|183184566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.73|-1.30|<.0001
91645959|NCT03985293|183184566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.65|-1.24|<.0001
91834793|NCT04058353|183549652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||4.7|2.2|<0.0001
91772069|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|32.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||32.11|1.17|0.0317
91772070|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||15.53|0.89|0.0709
91772071|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|5.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.41|0.47|0.4533
91772072|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||2.60|0.24|0.7053
91772073|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.99|0.49|0.3677
91772074|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.40|0.35|0.7350
91772075|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.6443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.15|0.36|0.6443
91772076|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.76|0.43|0.4865
91772077|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|9.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.27|0.69|0.1628
91834794|NCT04058353|183549653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-20.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-20.1|-26.1|<0.0001
91772078|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.57|0.24|0.6935
91772079|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.28|0.32|0.9753
91772080|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.81|0.23|0.7407
91772081|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.49|0.44|0.4929
91772082|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.15|0.25|0.8496
91772083|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|7.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.05|0.52|0.3248
91772084|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.92|0.59|0.2589
91772085|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.87|0.16|0.3318
91834795|NCT04058353|183549655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|12.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||12.1|5.3|<0.0001
91834796|NCT00985010|183549660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.05|||||||Chi-squared||The difference is between the percentage of deaths (males versus females) after six months in the patients with hepatic encephalophathy.|Clinical evolution was reported as percentage (still alive or death after six months of follow up).||||0.05
91772086|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.01|0.26|0.8536
91772087|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.84|0.12|0.2817
91772088|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.07|0.17|0.4091
91772089|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.3147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.93|0.13|0.3147
91772090|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.24|0.24|0.8547
91772091|NCT03192176|183427590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.19|0.20|0.5023
91772092|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|11.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.35|1.41|0.0093
91772093|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|13.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||13.09|1.66|0.0035
91772094|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|23.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.90|3.01|<0.0001
91772095|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.57||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|21.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||21.59|2.65|0.0002
91834797|NCT00985010|183549661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.72||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The difference is between manganese levels of women minus manganese levels of men.|Laboratory results were expressed in means and standard deviations. Between group comparisons (female versus male values) were made with the Mann-Whitney U test using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program version 10 (SPSS Inc., North Carolina, USA).||||0.05
91834798|NCT00316173|183549664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with CR+PR|30.9||||||95.0|18.7|43.1||||||||43.1|18.7|
91772096|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.22|0.73|0.1664
91772097|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|14.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.96|1.94|0.0012
91772098|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|27.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||27.86|3.49|<0.0001
91772099|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.89|1.08|0.0334
91772100|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.62|1.60|0.0034
91772101|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|17.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||17.47|2.45|0.0002
91772102|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|12.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.98|1.85|0.0014
91772103|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.74|0.89|0.0872
91772104|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|7.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.98|1.28|0.0131
91772105|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.43|1.05|0.0386
91772106|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.05|1.20|0.0191
91772107|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.26|1.11|0.0291
91772108|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|16.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.58|2.23|0.0004
91772109|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|21.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||21.02|2.49|0.0003
91772110|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.72|0.86|0.0992
91772111|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|15.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.16|2.11|0.0006
91772112|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|9.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.59|1.46|0.0060
91834799|NCT03764072|183549689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2107||||||Dose response Model - Linear|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.2107
91834800|NCT03764072|183549689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0766||||||Dose response Model - Emax|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.0766
91772113|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.14|0.78|0.1472
91772114|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.15|0.81|0.1284
91772115|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.50|1.32|0.0117
91772116|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|12.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||12.03|1.49|0.0067
91772117|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.71|0.59|0.4088
91772118|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.96|1.20|0.0194
91772119|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.73|1.03|0.0423
91834801|NCT03764072|183549689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0989||||||Dose response Model - Logistic|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.0989
91834802|NCT03764072|183549689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0927||||||Dose-response Model - Sigmoid Emax|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.0927
91834803|NCT03764072|183549691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3162
91772120|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.99|0.70|0.2151
91772121|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.42|0.99|0.0531
91772122|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|12.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||12.34|1.37|0.0118
91772123|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.28||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|80.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||80.46|3.29|0.0006
91772124|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.22|0.59|0.3698
91772125|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|13.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.53|1.55|0.0059
91772126|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|9.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.44|1.17|0.0241
91772127|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.77|0.50|0.5308
91772128|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.8603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||2.90|0.41|0.8603
91772129|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|11.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.95|1.17|0.0264
91834804|NCT03764072|183549691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4613|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4613
91834805|NCT03764072|183549691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4095|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4095
91772130|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|16.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.42|1.29|0.0188
91772131|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.27|0.42|0.7642
91772132|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|16.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.53|1.46|0.0101
91772133|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.55|0.97|0.0572
91772134|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.20|0.44|0.7348
91772135|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.25|0.77|0.1397
91772136|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|13.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||13.64|1.21|0.0231
91834806|NCT03764072|183549691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1570
91834807|NCT03764072|183549691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9843|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9843
91834808|NCT03764072|183549692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8714|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8714
91834809|NCT03764072|183549692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5815|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5815
91834810|NCT03764072|183549692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4308|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4308
91772137|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.54||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|16.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||16.15|1.27|0.0196
91772138|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.24|0.42|0.7703
91772139|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|12.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.12|1.21|0.0222
91772140|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|8.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.21|0.93|0.0668
91772141|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.22|0.43|0.7533
91772142|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.73|0.59|0.3325
91772143|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||8.57|0.86|0.0899
91772144|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|11.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||11.79|0.93|0.0642
91772145|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.89|0.46|0.5964
91772146|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|15.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||15.91|1.23|0.0224
91772147|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.96|0.60|0.3139
91772148|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.76|0.45|0.6343
91772149|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.61|0.45|0.6557
91772150|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|13.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.51|0.99|0.0516
91772151|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|17.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||17.91|1.07|0.0400
91772152|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.5825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.24|0.44|0.5825
91772153|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.46||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|37.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||37.83|1.47|0.0152
91772154|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.30|0.73|0.1565
91834811|NCT03764072|183549692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4434
91834812|NCT03764072|183549692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8550
91834813|NCT03764072|183549693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6870
91772155|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.25|0.50|0.4932
91772156|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.12|0.39|0.8504
91772157|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.61|0.89|0.0759
91772158|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|13.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||13.46|1.01|0.0477
91772159|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|8.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.36|0.73|0.1448
91772160|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.54||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|22.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||22.71|1.35|0.0173
91772161|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|8.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.17|0.81|0.1101
91772162|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.78|0.46|0.6022
91772163|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.73|0.46|0.6128
91772164|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|9.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.68|0.82|0.1001
91772165|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|20.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.12|1.22|0.0255
91772166|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|8.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.10|0.72|0.1521
91772167|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.37||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|47.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||47.69|1.84|0.0071
91772168|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.93|0.80|0.1150
91772169|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.22|0.40|0.8101
91772170|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.33|0.51|0.4663
91772171|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|14.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.01|1.03|0.0453
91772172|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|12.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.21|0.92|0.0659
91834814|NCT03764072|183549693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1515|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1515
91834815|NCT03764072|183549693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6030
91834816|NCT03764072|183549693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1361|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1361
91772173|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.86|0.57|0.3117
91645960|NCT03985293|183184566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.86|-1.47|<.0001
91645961|NCT03985293|183184567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|14.18|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||14.18|1.84|
91645962|NCT03985293|183184567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.18|45.93|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||45.93|6.18|
91645963|NCT03985293|183184567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.03|50.21|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||50.21|7.03|
91707709|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||>.05
91707710|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||||>.05
91707711|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707712|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Active Copinng subscale||||>.05
91834817|NCT03764072|183549693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5640
91645964|NCT03985293|183184567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.66|66.39|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||66.39|8.66|
91645965|NCT03985293|183184567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.72|68.57|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||68.57|8.72|
91645966|NCT03985293|183184568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.09||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.01|-0.19|0.1578
91645967|NCT03985293|183184568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.22||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.12|-0.32|0.0003
91645968|NCT03985293|183184568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.10|-0.30|0.0013
91645969|NCT03985293|183184568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.14|-0.34|0.0001
91645970|NCT03985293|183184568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.16|-0.36|<.0001
91645971|NCT03985293|183184569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.3||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.15|-0.46|0.0013
91645972|NCT03985293|183184569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.28|-0.58|<.0001
91645973|NCT03985293|183184569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.40|-0.70|<.0001
91645974|NCT03985293|183184569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.35|-0.66|<.0001
91645975|NCT03985293|183184569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.41|-0.71|<.0001
91645976|NCT03985293|183184570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.22|-0.59|0.0004
91645977|NCT03985293|183184570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.46|-0.81|<.0001
91645978|NCT03985293|183184570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.59|-0.95|<.0001
91645979|NCT03985293|183184570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.53|-0.91|<.0001
91645980|NCT03985293|183184570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.59|-0.95|<.0001
91645981|NCT03985293|183184571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.37||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.15|-0.59|0.0054
91645982|NCT03985293|183184571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.44|-0.86|<.0001
91645983|NCT03985293|183184571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.63|-1.06|<.0001
91772174|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|24.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||24.73|1.46|0.0129
91834818|NCT03764072|183549694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.5405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.67|||Regression, Cox|||||2.67|0.60|0.5405
91834819|NCT03764072|183549694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.27|||Regression, Cox|||||2.27|0.49|0.9011
91645984|NCT03985293|183184571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.57|-1.02|<.0001
91772175|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|14.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.83|1.14|0.0303
91772176|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.42|0.59|0.2772
91772177|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.16|0.29|0.9432
91772178|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.2577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.36|0.59|0.2577
91772179|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.12|0.71|0.1496
91772180|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|7.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.67|0.55|0.2874
91834820|NCT03764072|183549694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.26|||Regression, Cox|||||2.26|0.48|0.9127
91645985|NCT03985293|183184571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.67|-1.11|<.0001
91772181|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|7.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.78|0.65|0.1981
91772182|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|11.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.43|0.98|0.0531
91772183|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.35|0.22|0.5858
91772184|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.16|0.21|0.5122
91772185|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.89|0.16|0.3415
91772186|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.98|0.25|0.8263
91772187|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.03|0.24|0.8085
91834821|NCT03764072|183549694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.56|||Regression, Cox|||||2.56|0.60|0.5619
91834822|NCT03764072|183549694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79|||Regression, Cox|||||2.79|0.50|0.7090
91834823|NCT03764072|183549695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.72|||Regression, Cox|||||2.72|0.61|0.5141
91834824|NCT03764072|183549695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.12|||Regression, Cox|||||2.12|0.45|0.9614
91834825|NCT03764072|183549695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.14|||Regression, Cox|||||2.14|0.46|0.9756
91834826|NCT03764072|183549695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.57|||Regression, Cox|||||2.57|0.60|0.5582
91772188|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.43|0.38|0.6745
91772189|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.45|0.34|0.9019
91772190|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.10|0.18|0.4425
91772191|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.77|0.17|0.3106
91772192|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.20|0.08|0.0912
91772193|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.41|0.20|0.5681
91772194|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.21|0.15|0.4261
91772195|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.82|0.24|0.7514
91772196|NCT03192176|183427591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.67|0.16|0.2712
91772197|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.89||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|16.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.40|1.46|0.0103
91772198|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|23.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.48|2.20|0.0011
91772199|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|35.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||35.86|3.41|<0.0001
91772200|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|34.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||34.55|3.18|0.0001
91772201|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.55|0.71|0.1571
91772202|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|23.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.04|2.21|0.0010
91772203|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.35||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|23.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.61|2.29|0.0008
91772204|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|7.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.18|1.08|0.0342
91772205|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.66|1.16|0.0231
91645986|NCT03985293|183184572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.44||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.18|-0.71|0.0061
91834827|NCT03764072|183549695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.71|||Regression, Cox|||||2.71|0.49|0.7543
91834828|NCT01024608|183549704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.5|-1.3|<0.001
91834829|NCT01024608|183549705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.5|-1.3|<0.001
91834830|NCT01024608|183549706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.48||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||||-0.1|-0.8|0.005
91834831|NCT01024608|183549707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction||||-0.2|-0.9|0.002
91834832|NCT04791761|183549732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: No difference in average pain scores before medication between opioid and non-opioid groups.||||0.8
91834833|NCT04791761|183549732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference in average pain scores after medication between opioid and non-opioid groups.||||0.7
91772206|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.55|1.60|0.0032
91772207|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.22|1.48|0.0059
91834834|NCT04791761|183549733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in the proportion of patients visiting the emergency department or urgent care post-operatively between opioid and non-opioid groups.||||0.2
91834835|NCT00676130|183549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|||<|0.05||95.0|-9.3|15.0|||Chi-squared|||The study was powered to detect a difference in cure rate of 98% in the intervention group vs. 85% in the control group, with 2-sided alpha 0.05. This would yield a number needed to treat of 7.7 for intervention vs. control, and required 144 subjects to achieve 80% power. No data were analyzed until study completion.||15|-9.3|<0.05
91834836|NCT00676130|183549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.3|||Chi-squared|||We assessed the rate of progression to abscess in the two groups.||6.3|-6.5|<0.05
91834837|NCT01564368|183549761|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve (AUC)|0.53||||0.484|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.61||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC1 - ADC0)/ADC0 (Test: %change in ADC; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.61||0.484
91834838|NCT01564368|183549761|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.6||||0.017|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.68||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC2 - ADC0)/ADC0 (Test: %change in ADC; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.68||0.017
91834839|NCT01564368|183549761|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.61||||0.013|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.69||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) is considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC3 - ADC0)/ADC0 (Test: %change in ADC; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.69||0.013
91896035|NCT04874415|183687456|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|44.5|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||44.5|-44.3|
91645987|NCT03985293|183184572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.54|-1.05|<.0001
91772208|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.59|0.68|0.2471
91772209|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.70|1.05|0.0381
91772210|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.48|1.31|0.0113
91772211|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.52|1.01|0.0486
91772212|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|6.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.87|1.07|0.0350
91772213|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|10.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.90|1.65|0.0027
91772214|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|12.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||12.47|1.76|0.0020
91772215|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.19|0.94|0.0686
91772216|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|10.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.21|1.58|0.0034
91772217|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.22|1.16|0.0222
91772218|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.84|0.89|0.0876
91772219|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.88|1.08|0.0345
91851594|NCT04246762|183586818|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-inf))|122.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.98|139.93|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of baseline-adjusted PK parameters of caffeine with a with fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||139.93|107.98|
91772220|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.99|1.09|0.0319
91772221|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.27||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|14.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.47|1.92|0.0013
91772222|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.87|0.75|0.1751
91772223|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|11.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||11.50|1.73|0.0019
91772224|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.97|1.11|0.0284
91772225|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.45|0.66|0.2650
91772226|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.38|0.82|0.1238
91772227|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|8.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.74|1.18|0.0219
91772228|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.46||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|16.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||16.16|1.84|0.0022
91772229|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.77|0.69|0.2230
91772230|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.97|1.83|0.0018
91772231|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|8.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.42|1.19|0.0205
91772232|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.81|0.54|0.4628
91772233|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.4015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.92|0.58|0.4015
91772234|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|16.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.47|1.76|0.0031
91772235|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|12.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||12.50|1.38|0.0115
91772236|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.98|0.66|0.2513
91772237|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|11.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.14|1.39|0.0099
91772238|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|8.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.74|1.16|0.0242
91645988|NCT03985293|183184572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.72|-1.24|<.0001
91772239|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.60|0.77|0.1518
91772240|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.17|0.73|0.1811
91772241|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||11.55|1.30|0.0150
91900821|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.7462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.9|-1.8|0.7462
91645989|NCT03985293|183184572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.56|-1.10|<.0001
91645990|NCT03985293|183184572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.75|-1.30|<.0001
91645991|NCT03985293|183184573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-17.13||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.94|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-8.33|-25.94|0.0014
91645992|NCT03985293|183184573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-16.38||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.08|-7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Difference in LS Mean|||-7.67|-25.08|0.0021
91645993|NCT03985293|183184573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.88|-13.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-13.53|-30.88|<.0001
91645994|NCT03985293|183184573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-18.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.43|-9.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-9.76|-27.43|0.0006
91645995|NCT03985293|183184573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.0|-16.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-16.67|-34.00|<.0001
91645996|NCT03985293|183184574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.79||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.55|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.04|-21.55|0.0468
91645997|NCT03985293|183184574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-18.68||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.12|-9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-9.25|-28.12|0.0012
91645998|NCT03985293|183184574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.03|-17.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-17.85|-37.03|<.0001
91645999|NCT03985293|183184574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.22|-17.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-17.51|-37.22|<.0001
91646000|NCT03985293|183184574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.72|-18.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-18.45|-37.72|<.0001
91646001|NCT03985293|183184575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.9||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-5.90|-25.90|0.0091
91646002|NCT03985293|183184575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.18|-15.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-15.89|-35.18|<.0001
91646003|NCT03985293|183184575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-30.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.8|-20.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.21|-39.80|<.0001
91646004|NCT03985293|183184575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.63|-17.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-17.33|-37.63|<.0001
91646005|NCT03985293|183184575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.77|-21.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-21.78|-41.77|<.0001
91646006|NCT03985293|183184576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.63||||0.5449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.51|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||6.25|-13.51|0.5449
91646007|NCT03985293|183184576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-17.12||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.62|-7.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-7.63|-26.62|0.0031
91646008|NCT03985293|183184576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-20.64||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.31|-10.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-10.96|-30.31|0.0005
91646009|NCT03985293|183184576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.2|-14.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-14.04|-34.20|<.0001
91646010|NCT03985293|183184576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.44|-14.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-14.97|-35.44|<.0001
91646011|NCT03985293|183184577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.7||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.78|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||4.38|-19.78|0.2940
91646012|NCT03985293|183184577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-23.77||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.37|-12.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-12.17|-35.37|0.0008
91646013|NCT03985293|183184577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.05|-21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-21.40|-45.05|<.0001
91646014|NCT03985293|183184577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.14|-19.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-19.19|-44.14|<.0001
91646015|NCT03985293|183184577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.67|-20.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.51|-46.67|<.0001
91646016|NCT03985293|183184578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.12||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.77|-2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.47|-25.77|0.0464
91646017|NCT03985293|183184578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.05|-14.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-14.62|-37.05|0.0002
91646018|NCT03985293|183184578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.2|-20.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.35|-43.20|<.0001
91646019|NCT03985293|183184578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.03|-15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-15.01|-39.03|0.0002
91646020|NCT03985293|183184578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.63|-20.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.84|-45.63|<.0001
91646021|NCT03985293|183184579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.06||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.44|-0.33|0.8011
91646022|NCT03985293|183184579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.02||||0.9149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.40|-0.35|0.9149
91646023|NCT03985293|183184579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08||||0.7216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.30|-0.46|0.7216
91646024|NCT03985293|183184579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.42||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.03|-0.80|0.0758
91646025|NCT03985293|183184579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.02|-0.77|0.0860
91646026|NCT03985293|183184580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08||||0.7898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.42|-0.59|0.7898
91646027|NCT03985293|183184580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.16||||0.5829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.66|-0.33|0.5829
91646028|NCT03985293|183184580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.52||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.03|-1.02|0.0827
91646029|NCT03985293|183184580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.8||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.29|-1.31|0.0101
91646030|NCT03985293|183184580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.59|-1.59|0.0004
91646031|NCT03985293|183184581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.55|-0.75|0.7985
91646032|NCT03985293|183184581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.23||||0.5484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.40|-0.86|0.5484
91646033|NCT03985293|183184581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.75||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.11|-1.38|0.0541
91646034|NCT03985293|183184581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.26|-0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.95|-2.26|<.0001
91646035|NCT03985293|183184581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-1.60|-2.90|<.0001
91851595|NCT04246762|183586819|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-last))|90.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.72|95.13|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of S-warfarin with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (S-warfarin (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to initial S-warfarin administrated alone (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail)) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimate of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||95.13|86.72|
91646036|NCT03985293|183184582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.31||||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.03|-0.40|0.4692
91646037|NCT03985293|183184582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.09||||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.78|-0.60|0.8274
91646038|NCT03985293|183184582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.72||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.02|-1.42|0.0887
91646039|NCT03985293|183184582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.88|-2.33|0.0003
91646040|NCT03985293|183184582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.67|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.22|-3.67|<.0001
91646041|NCT03985293|183184583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.99|-0.70|0.7758
91646042|NCT03985293|183184583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.23||||0.6367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.05|-0.58|0.6367
91646043|NCT03985293|183184583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.81||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.02|-1.63|0.1082
91646044|NCT03985293|183184583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.14|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-1.42|-3.14|<.0001
91646045|NCT03985293|183184583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.44|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.70|-4.44|<.0001
91646046|NCT03985293|183184584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.45||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.41|-0.50|0.4325
91646047|NCT03985293|183184584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.38||||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.30|-0.54|0.4978
91646048|NCT03985293|183184584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.73||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.20|-1.66|0.1970
91646049|NCT03985293|183184584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.04||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.01|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-1.07|-3.01|0.0006
91646050|NCT03985293|183184584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.15|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-3.18|-5.15|<.0001
91646051|NCT02913261|183184632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.22|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.22|1.65|<.0001
91646052|NCT02913261|183184633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.94|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.94|1.43|0.0005
91646053|NCT02913261|183184634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.17|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.17|1.24|0.0029
91646054|NCT02913261|183184646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.25|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.25|1.80|<.0001
91646055|NCT01236053|183184659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)"|||1.24|1.07|0.0002
91646056|NCT01236053|183184659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.15|0.99|0.0976
91646057|NCT01236053|183184659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)"|||1.36|1.23|<0.0001
91646058|NCT01236053|183184659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.26|1.13|<0.0001
91646059|NCT01236053|183184660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.23|0.97|0.1468
91646060|NCT01236053|183184660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.8545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.14|0.90|0.8545
91646061|NCT01236053|183184660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.48|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.48|1.27|<0.0001
91646062|NCT01236053|183184660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.37|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.37|1.18|<0.0001
91646063|NCT01236053|183184660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.43|1.07|0.0033
91646064|NCT01236053|183184660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.33|1.00|0.0474
91707713|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Plannning subscale for the control group||||>.05
91646065|NCT01236053|183184660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.43|1.16|<0.0001
91646066|NCT01236053|183184660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.32|1.08|0.0008
91646067|NCT01236053|183184660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.33|1.03|0.0190
91646068|NCT01236053|183184660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.3366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.21|0.94|0.3366
91646069|NCT01236053|183184660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.31|1.09|0.0001
91646070|NCT01236053|183184660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.20|1.00|0.0464
91646071|NCT01236053|183184661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.26|0.97|0.1194
91646072|NCT01236053|183184661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.17|0.90|0.7004
91646073|NCT01236053|183184661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.49|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.49|1.26|<0.0001
91646074|NCT01236053|183184661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.38|1.16|<0.0001
91646075|NCT01236053|183184661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.34|1.03|0.0134
91707714|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
91646076|NCT01236053|183184661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.25|0.96|0.1592
91646077|NCT01236053|183184661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.47|1.24|<0.0001
91646078|NCT01236053|183184661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.36|1.14|<0.0001
91646079|NCT01236053|183184661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.33|1.03|0.0131
91646080|NCT01236053|183184661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.2731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.22|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.22|0.95|0.2731
91646081|NCT01236053|183184661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.28|1.06|0.0012
91707715|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale||||>.05
91707716|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707717|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707718|NCT04227405|183308942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale||||>.05
91707719|NCT04227405|183308944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||<.05
91707720|NCT04227405|183308944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||<.01
91707721|NCT04227405|183308944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Acceptance subscale||||<.001
91707722|NCT04227405|183308944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707723|NCT04227405|183308944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
91707724|NCT04227405|183308944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Active Coping subscale||||<.05
91707725|NCT04227405|183308944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.05
91707726|NCT04227405|183308944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the Intervention group||||<.05
91707727|NCT04227405|183308944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Planning subscale||||<.001
91646082|NCT01236053|183184661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.17|0.98|0.1477
91646083|NCT01236053|183184662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.41|1.01|0.0369
91707728|NCT04227405|183308944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707729|NCT04227405|183308944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
91707730|NCT04227405|183308944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Instrumental Support subscale||||<.01
91707731|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707732|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
91707733|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale|The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.01
91707734|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707735|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
91707736|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale||||<.10
91707737|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.10
91707738|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91707739|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale||||<.01
91707740|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707741|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
91707742|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale||||<.01
91707743|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707744|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the interventionn group||||>.05
91707745|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale||||>.05
91707746|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707747|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping in the intervention group||||>.05
91707748|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale||||>.05
91834840|NCT01564368|183549762|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.68|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.75||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in functional tumor volumes (FTV1 - FTV0)/FTV0 (Test: %change in FTV; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.75||<0.001
91834841|NCT01564368|183549762|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.63|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.71||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in functional tumor volumes (FTV2 - FTV0)/FTV0 (Test: %change in FTV; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.71||<0.001
91834842|NCT01564368|183549762|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.68|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.75||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in functional tumor volumes (FTV3 - FTV0)/FTV0 (Test: %change in FTV; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.75||<0.001
91834843|NCT01564368|183549763|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin was used.||||||0.032|||||||z-test|||AUC (optimized) = AUC (ΔADC)||||0.032
91834844|NCT04810221|183549789|OTHER|Paired T-test 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.54|||Paired T-test 0||||Additional statistical analysis were: Bland Altman plot and linear regression analysis.|0.54|-0.17|0.31
91834845|NCT04810221|183549790|OTHER|Paired T test 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.75|||Paired T test 0||||Additional statistical analysis were: Bland Altman plot and linear regression analysis.|0.75|-0.24|0.32
91834846|NCT01342458|183549793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sample size was calculated based on pain WOMAC score and was accomplished using a moderate effect size (f=0.30). Standard deviation estimates were taken from our previous study. A sample size of 56 patients was needed to provide 80% power for detecting a moderate effect difference between the highest and lowest group pain means, with an alpha level of 0.05, a statistical design of F test of repeated measures (between and within effects), and assuming a 10% loss to follow-up.||||0.006
91834847|NCT01342458|183549793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc newman keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
91834848|NCT01342458|183549793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
91834849|NCT01342458|183549793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.82||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||0.001
91834850|NCT01342458|183549793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
91834851|NCT01342458|183549794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.015
91834852|NCT01342458|183549794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
91834853|NCT01342458|183549794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
91834854|NCT01342458|183549794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
91834855|NCT01342458|183549794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
91834856|NCT01342458|183549795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||<0.001
91834857|NCT01342458|183549795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
91834858|NCT01342458|183549795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
91834859|NCT01342458|183549795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
91834860|NCT01342458|183549795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
91834861|NCT01342458|183549796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||<0.001
91834862|NCT01342458|183549796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
91834863|NCT01342458|183549796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.69||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||0.019
91834864|NCT01342458|183549796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
91834865|NCT01342458|183549796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
91834866|NCT01342458|183549797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.019
91834867|NCT01342458|183549797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
91707749|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707750|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91707751|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in Planning subscale||||>.05
91707752|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
91707753|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
91707754|NCT04227405|183308945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Supportt subscale||||>.05
91707755|NCT04227405|183308947|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.05
91707756|NCT04227405|183308947|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest for the intervention group||||<.01
91707757|NCT04227405|183308947|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test t in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test||||>.05
91707758|NCT04227405|183308948|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91707759|NCT04227405|183308948|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up for the intervention group||||<.10
91707760|NCT04227405|183308948|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up||||>.05
91707761|NCT04227405|183308948|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91707762|NCT04227405|183308948|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91707763|NCT04227405|183308948|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up||||>.05
91707764|NCT04227405|183308950|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in Difficulties in Emotion Regulation for the control group||||>.05
91707765|NCT04227405|183308950|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group||||<.05
91707766|NCT04227405|183308950|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test||||>.05
91707767|NCT04227405|183308951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||>.05
91707768|NCT04227405|183308951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91834868|NCT01342458|183549797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
91834869|NCT01342458|183549797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
91834870|NCT01342458|183549797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
91834871|NCT01342458|183549798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.425
91834872|NCT01342458|183549799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.443
91834873|NCT01342458|183549800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in paracetamol intake at 6-month.||||<0.001
91834874|NCT01181726|183549801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.22|116.25|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||116.25|94.22|
91834875|NCT01181726|183549802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.91|101.02|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.02|93.91|
91834876|NCT01181726|183549803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|101.3|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.30|94.05|
91834877|NCT01181726|183549804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|107.06|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.06|92.21|
91834878|NCT01181726|183549805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.21|99.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.39|91.21|
91834879|NCT01181726|183549806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.18|99.51|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.51|91.18|
91834880|NCT01181726|183549807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|107.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||107.00|92.21|
91834881|NCT01181726|183549808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.18|99.38|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.38|91.18|
91834882|NCT01181726|183549809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.17|99.47|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.47|91.17|
91707769|NCT04227405|183308951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up||||>.05
91707770|NCT04227405|183308951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91707771|NCT04227405|183308951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91707772|NCT04227405|183308951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up||||>.05
91707773|NCT04227405|183308953|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in psychological agggression subscale for the control group||||<.001
91707774|NCT04227405|183308953|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in psychological aggression subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707775|NCT04227405|183308953|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Psychological Aggression subscale||||<.10
91707776|NCT04227405|183308953|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Change from pre-test to post-test in physical assault subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||>.05
91707777|NCT04227405|183308953|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in the physical assault subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707778|NCT04227405|183308953|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Physical Assault subscale||||<.05
91707779|NCT04227405|183308954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in the psychological aggression subscale for the control group||||<.001
91707780|NCT04227405|183308954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in the Psychological Aggression subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91707781|NCT04227405|183308954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up inn the psychological aggression subscale||||>.05
91707782|NCT04227405|183308954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group in the psychological aggression subscale||||<.10
91707783|NCT04227405|183308954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the intervention group for the psychological aggresssion subscale||||>.05
91707784|NCT04227405|183308954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in the psychological aggression subscale||||>.05
91772242|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|16.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||16.68|1.67|0.0046
91772243|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.34|0.57|0.3788
91707785|NCT04227405|183308954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group for the physical assault subscale||||>.05
91707786|NCT04227405|183308954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group for the Physical Assault Subscale||||<.05
91772244|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.70|1.04|0.0424
91772245|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.43|1.30|0.0139
91772246|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.42|0.63|0.3057
91772247|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.3717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.02|0.59|0.3717
91772248|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|9.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.50|1.16|0.0252
91772249|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.69|1.19|0.0235
91772250|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.39|0.46|0.6580
91772251|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|13.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||13.62|1.54|0.0061
91772252|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.61|1.29|0.0149
91772253|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.62|0.35|0.9282
91772254|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.35|0.33|0.7902
91772255|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.74|0.73|0.1603
91772256|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.14|0.80|0.1144
91772257|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.13|0.26|0.5903
91772258|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|13.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.16|1.15|0.0290
91772259|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.26|0.72|0.1721
91772260|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.09|0.66|0.2439
91772261|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.19|0.44|0.7402
91772262|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.63|1.04|0.0422
91772263|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|18.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||18.27|1.62|0.0061
91772264|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.92|0.59|0.3191
91772265|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.91||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|19.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||19.66|1.78|0.0037
91772266|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|12.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||12.20|1.33|0.0139
91772267|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.42|0.57|0.3757
91772268|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.28|0.45|0.7087
91772269|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.88|0.81|0.1083
91772270|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|10.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.14|1.01|0.0473
91772271|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.2481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.60|0.64|0.2481
91772272|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.84||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|20.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||20.89|1.64|0.0066
91772273|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.18|1.02|0.0466
91772274|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.53|0.34|0.8769
91772275|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.5448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.82|0.49|0.5448
91772276|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.4125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.64|0.53|0.4125
91772277|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.30|1.00|0.0500
91772278|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.87|0.45|0.6167
91772279|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|13.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||13.26|1.21|0.0233
91772280|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|8.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.09|0.89|0.0803
91772281|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.18|0.76|0.1274
91772282|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.71|0.29|0.9445
91772283|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.4204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.03|0.47|0.4204
91772284|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|10.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||10.49|0.74|0.1315
91772285|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|12.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||12.87|0.82|0.0944
91772286|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.2801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.89|0.57|0.2801
91772287|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|8.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.30|0.72|0.1524
91834883|NCT01181726|183549810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.44|102.61|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.61|93.44|
91834884|NCT01181726|183549811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.92|101.78|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.78|93.92|
91772288|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.6129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.75|0.40|0.6129
91772289|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.4617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.18|0.18|0.4617
91772290|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.70|0.20|0.6519
91772291|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.18|0.22|0.8011
91772292|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.41|0.51|0.3254
91772293|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.94|0.58|0.2730
91772294|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.41|0.39|0.6601
91772295|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.76|0.20|0.6588
91772296|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.92|0.14|0.3257
91772297|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.2229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.69|0.10|0.2229
91772298|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.77|0.10|0.2425
91772299|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.11|0.23|0.9672
91772300|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.5838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.09|0.40|0.5838
91772301|NCT03192176|183427592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.24|0.28|0.9361
91772302|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.55|1.03|0.0429
91772303|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.12|1.11|0.0296
91834885|NCT01181726|183549812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.42|105.3|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||105.30|94.42|
91772304|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|12.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.13|1.65|0.0032
91772305|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|21.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||21.90|2.31|0.0006
91772306|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||4.47|0.72|0.2073
91772307|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||9.20|1.36|0.0096
91772308|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.27|1.02|0.0462
91772309|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.63|0.77|0.1387
91772310|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.84|0.60|0.3130
91772311|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.40|1.06|0.0392
91772312|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|22.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||22.71|1.43|0.0135
91772313|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.36|0.87|0.0840
91772314|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.47||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|15.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||15.17|1.32|0.0163
91772315|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||3.84|0.52|0.5056
91772316|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.90|0.58|0.3358
91772317|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|10.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.18|0.91|0.0696
91772318|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|8.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.82|0.89|0.0794
91772319|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.32||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|36.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||36.28|1.48|0.0149
91772320|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|17.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||17.59|1.09|0.0377
91834886|NCT01181726|183549813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.71|103.87|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.87|94.71|
91772321|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|10.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.77|1.03|0.0454
91772322|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||13.26|1.07|0.0390
91772323|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.64|0.68|0.1947
91772324|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.2913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.25|0.61|0.2913
91772325|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.82|0.72|0.1665
91772326|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.41||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|110.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||110.3|1.63|0.0157
91772327|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|10.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.49|0.86|0.0846
91772328|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|21.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||21.75|1.35|0.0171
91772329|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|18.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||18.49|1.20|0.0262
91772330|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.2858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.95|0.59|0.2858
91772331|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.65||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|39.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||39.72|1.47|0.0155
91772332|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.31|0.76|0.1249
91772333|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|15.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||15.82|0.94|0.0616
91772334|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.32||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|43.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||43.90|1.58|0.0126
91772335|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|11.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.23|0.85|0.0853
91772336|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.35|0.70|0.1562
91772337|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|10.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.91|0.74|0.1297
91834887|NCT01181726|183549814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|101.21|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.21|94.55|
91772338|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.55|0.64|0.2001
91772339|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|73.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||73.70|1.00|0.0495
91772340|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|12.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||12.20|0.67|0.1553
91772341|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.67||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|42.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||42.67|1.38|0.0199
91772342|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|27.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||27.34|1.02|0.0472
91772343|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.3736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.98|0.51|0.3736
91772344|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.2628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.26|0.58|0.2628
91772345|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|9.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.39|0.63|0.1998
91772346|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|12.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.28|0.68|0.1507
91772347|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.92||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|31.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||31.94|1.10|0.0385
91772348|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.85||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|93.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||93.28|1.26|0.0299
91772349|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.8034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.74|0.30|0.8034
91772350|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.42|0.29|0.8532
91772351|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.41|0.28|0.8823
91772352|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|43.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||43.76|0.52|0.1651
91772353|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.36||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|59.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||59.55|0.68|0.1048
91772354|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.87||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|53.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||53.53|0.64|0.1168
91834888|NCT01181726|183549815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|101.6|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.60|94.54|
91772355|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.95|0.35|0.6936
91772356|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.4315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.90|0.44|0.4315
91772357|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.53|0.31|0.7936
91772358|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|56.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||56.03|0.71|0.0990
91772359|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|52.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||52.21|0.66|0.1128
91772360|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.36||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|65.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||65.38|0.83|0.0732
91772361|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.91|0.33|0.6559
91772362|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.96|0.21|0.7333
91772363|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.74|0.24|0.9266
91772364|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|46.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||46.13|0.55|0.1518
91772365|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|42.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||42.91|0.51|0.1714
91772366|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|51.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||51.95|0.60|0.1299
91772367|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.2495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|15.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||15.44|0.49|0.2495
91772368|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.60|0.31|0.7065
91772369|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.7504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.24|0.30|0.7504
91772370|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.29|0.21|0.7862
91772371|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|45.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||45.59|0.54|0.1550
91772372|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|42.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||42.96|0.51|0.1706
91772373|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|49.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||49.11|0.57|0.1415
91772374|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.67||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|51.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||51.74|0.62|0.1241
91772375|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|12.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.29|0.57|0.2169
91772376|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.60|0.28|0.9982
91772377|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.54|0.38|0.5364
91772378|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|51.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||51.07|0.63|0.1210
91772379|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.65||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|70.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||70.58|0.83|0.0726
91772380|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|65.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||65.81|0.82|0.0749
91834889|NCT01181726|183549816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.22|102.74|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.74|93.22|
91834890|NCT01181726|183549817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.66|102.46|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.46|93.66|
91834891|NCT01181726|183549818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.17|104.11|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.11|94.17|
91834892|NCT01181726|183549819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.39|104.1|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.10|94.39|
91834893|NCT01181726|183549820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.03|101.56|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.56|94.03|
91834894|NCT01181726|183549821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.11|102.02|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.02|94.11|
91834895|NCT01264380|183549822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.83|7.6||||||The point estimate and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of vemurafenib plasma AUC geometric means ratios of the Fed to Fasted conditions following an oral administration of a single dose of 960 mg vemurafenib were analyzed.||7.60|2.83|
91834896|NCT01264380|183549823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|5.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.99|8.55||||||The point estimate and 90% CI of vemurafenib plasma AUC geometric means ratios of the Fed to Fasted conditions following an oral administration of a single dose of 960 mg vemurafenib were analyzed.||8.55|2.99|
91834897|NCT01264380|183549824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|3.32||||||The point estimate and 90% CI of vemurafenib plasma Cmax geometric means ratios of the Fed to Fasted conditions following an oral administration of a single dose of 960 mg vemurafenib were analyzed.||3.32|1.81|
91834898|NCT04998604|183549834|SUPERIORITY|At each post-baseline visit, each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.25||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the type-I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analysis. Testing was performed sequentially in order the endpoints were reported and continued when primary endpoint was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05.||-1.25|-1.96|<0.001
91834899|NCT04998604|183549835|SUPERIORITY|At each post-baseline visit, each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|9.7||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.7|6.3|<0.001
91834900|NCT04998604|183549836|SUPERIORITY|Each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.61||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.61|-1.01|<0.001
91834901|NCT04998604|183549837|SUPERIORITY|Each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.42||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.42|-0.74|<0.001
91772381|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|16.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||16.35|0.98|0.0530
91772382|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|8.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.72|0.62|0.2134
91772383|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.41|0.48|0.3688
91772384|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|22.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||22.11|0.96|0.0563
91772385|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|19.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||19.52|0.79|0.0935
91772386|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|16.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||16.93|0.81|0.0901
91772387|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|11.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.26|0.72|0.1366
91772388|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.08|0.34|0.7876
91772389|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.59|0.45|0.4658
91834902|NCT04998604|183549838|SUPERIORITY|Each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.33|-2.15|<0.001
91772390|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.20|0.25|0.8707
91772391|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.3584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.36|0.49|0.3584
91772392|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|14.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||14.57|0.67|0.1455
91772393|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|28.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||28.66|0.90|0.0661
91772394|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|7.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.17|0.54|0.3034
91772395|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.60|0.28|0.9901
91772396|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.68|0.42|0.5070
91772397|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.26|0.21|0.7927
91834903|NCT00659984|183549898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.2||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|13.9|||Cochran Armitage Trend Test|||||13.9|-3.4|0.363
91834904|NCT02623855|183549914|SUPERIORITY|Our hypothesis was that park prescriptions with group visits would have a superior result than park prescriptions alone.||||||0.6099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The study is powered for our primary outcome, caregiver stress as measured by the 10-item perceived stress s score (PSS10). Normative data from population samples show a mean PSS10 score of 13.2 points with a standard deviation of 6.35 points and a within-subject correlation coefficient of 0.77 over 2 weeks.We powered the study to detect a three point difference in the change of the PSS10. This effect size is consistent with other estimates of a clinically significant change.||||0.6099
91834905|NCT02623855|183549916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0085
91834906|NCT02623855|183549918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1749|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1749
91834907|NCT01972529|183549938|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion vs placebo|42.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|58.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion versus (vs) placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the 60 mg avatrombopag and matched placebo treatment groups.||58.1|27.2|<0.0001
91834908|NCT01972529|183549938|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion vs placebo|49.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|68.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups.||68.2|31.6|<0.0001
91834909|NCT01972529|183549939|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion vs placebo|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.6|75.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups||75.8|53.6|<0.0001
91834910|NCT01972529|183549939|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage vs placebo|67.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.6|83.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups||83.4|51.6|<0.0001
91834911|NCT01972529|183549940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|32.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test for each avatrombopag treatment group vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort is based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% confidence interval is the asymptotic (Moses) CI.|||32.5|22.5|<0.0001
91834912|NCT01972529|183549940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|41.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test for each avatrombopag treatment group vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort is based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% confidence interval is the asymptotic (Moses) CI.|||41.5|25.5|<0.0001
91834913|NCT01889186|183549943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||The ORR for ABT-199 was tested to reject the null hypothesis of ORR = 40%. If the null hypothesis is rejected and the ORR is higher than 40%, then ABT-199 has been shown to have an ORR significantly higher than 40%.The p-value is from the exact binomial distribution comparing ABT-199 ORR to the 40% historical control rate.||||<0.001
91834914|NCT00252538|183549956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||All statistics employed Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 17.0. Analysis of variances were used to compare viral responses in genotypes of interest, employing Scheffe's post-hoc analyses. Repeated-measure mixed-effect analyses were used to compare changes in subjective symptoms over time, including age, gender, and self identified race as covariates. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses examining time until MDD development were compared using theMantel-Cox log rank test.||||>0.05
91834915|NCT00118716|183549959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6||LS Mean Difference, SE, CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diff was calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for maximal percent change in FEV1 following exercise challenge at Week 4.||5.6|0.5|0.021
91834916|NCT00118716|183549960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.58||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diff was calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for post-dose FEV1 AUC Day 1.||0.58|0.24|<0.001
91834917|NCT00118716|183549961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.6||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diffs were calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for AM PEF||17.6|-1.5|0.097
91772398|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.4426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||6.69|0.44|0.4426
91772399|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.56|0.23|0.8925
91772400|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.4285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||7.52|0.42|0.4285
91772401|NCT03192176|183427593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.72|0.31|0.9000
91772402|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.06|0.96|0.0602
91772403|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|12.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.57|1.89|0.0010
91772404|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.24||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|13.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||13.51|2.03|0.0006
91772405|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|25.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.45|3.23|<0.0001
91772406|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.22|0.82|0.1259
91834918|NCT00118716|183549962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.1||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diffs were calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID PM PEF.||12.1|-4.8|0.396
91772407|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|18.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||18.71|2.65|<0.0001
91772408|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|8.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.76|1.41|0.0070
91772409|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.23|1.20|0.0193
91772410|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|8.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.81|1.27|0.0148
91772411|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||13.94|1.83|0.0018
91772412|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.27||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|22.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||22.78|2.32|0.0007
91772413|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|8.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.35|1.16|0.0246
91772414|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|14.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||14.60|1.87|0.0016
91834919|NCT00118716|183549965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.43||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for activity limitation at Week 2||0.43|-0.08|0.168
91834920|NCT00118716|183549965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.4||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for activity limitation at Week 4.||0.40|-0.18|0.465
91834921|NCT00118716|183549965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.42||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values are from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for activity limitation at Endpoint.||0.42|-0.10|0.222
91834922|NCT00118716|183549965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for emotional function at Week 2.||0.09|-0.29|0.294
91834923|NCT00118716|183549965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for emotional function at Week 4.||0.19|-0.24|0.828
91834924|NCT00118716|183549965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.22||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for emotional function at Endpoint.||0.22|-0.19|0.903
91834925|NCT00118716|183549965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.14|||ANCOVA|LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for symptoms at Week 2.||0.14|-0.30|0.464
91834926|NCT00118716|183549965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.17||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for symptoms at Week 4.||0.17|-0.32|0.551
91834927|NCT00118716|183549965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for symptoms at Endpoint.||0.18|-0.30|0.633
91834928|NCT00118716|183549965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.15||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values are from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for overall score at Week 2.||0.15|-0.22|0.700
91834929|NCT00118716|183549965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for overall score at Week 4.||0.20|-0.23|0.860
91834930|NCT00118716|183549965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.21||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for overall score at Endpoint.||0.21|-0.19|0.919
91834931|NCT00855062|183549968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|0.46||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||"The null hypothesis was that the 24-week changes of U NP Sum between the minocycline and placebo groups are the same.~The sample size calculation showed that 100 (50 participants in each group) were required to detect the clinically meaningful difference of 0.5 with 85% power, 0.05 Type I error, two-sample and two-sided test."||0.460|-0.512|0.370
91834932|NCT00855062|183549970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.053||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.062||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is that the percentage of participants feeling better in the minocycline group after 24 week treatment is the same as the one in the placebo group."||0.062|0.043|0.613
91834933|NCT00855062|183549971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the survival curve for the first Grade ≥ 2 toxicity and/or sign and symptoms in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.661
91834934|NCT00855062|183549972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.941||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the 48-week survival curve for the first Grade ≥ 2 toxicity and/or sign and symptoms in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.941
91834935|NCT00855062|183549973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.63||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.23|43.45||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the baseline CD4 counts.||The null hypothesis is that the mean 24-week change of CD4 cell counts in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||43.45|-27.23|0.647
91834936|NCT00855062|183549974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.51||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.07|74.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the baseline CD4 counts.||The null hypothesis is that the mean 48-week change in CD4 cell counts in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||74.60|-59.07|0.813
91834937|NCT00855062|183549975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.764||95.0|0.26|6.34||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|"The model was not adjusted for any covariate (due to small number of being better in both groups."||"The null hypothesis is that the percentage of being better at week 24 compared to baseline in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group."||6.34|0.26|0.764
91772415|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.62|0.90|0.0825
91772416|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.20|0.98|0.0542
91772417|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.33|0.89|0.0837
91772418|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|10.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.26|1.31|0.0131
91772419|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.34||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|36.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||36.19|2.41|0.0012
91772420|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|8.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.93|1.08|0.0359
91772421|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|17.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||17.92|1.91|0.0019
91772422|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.38|0.93|0.0715
91772423|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.20|1.02|0.0465
91772424|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.53|0.89|0.0839
91772425|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|10.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.28|1.23|0.0191
91772426|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.11||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|58.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||58.22|2.52|0.0019
91772427|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.90|0.96|0.0593
91772428|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|15.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||15.04|1.63|0.0048
91772429|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.57|1.00|0.0494
91772430|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.1887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.70|0.69|0.1887
91772431|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|10.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.7|0.91|0.0717
91772432|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.92|0.74|0.1419
91834938|NCT00855062|183549976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|The chi-square score was 0.024 and the degree of freedom was 1.||The null hypothesis is that the median log10-transformed HIV RNA viral loads in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.766
91772433|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY|0.0141|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.37||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|120.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||120.6|1.71|0.0141
91772434|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.54|0.88|0.0775
91772435|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|16.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||16.19|1.17|0.0283
91772436|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.96|0.70|0.1767
91772437|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.72|0.72|0.1675
91772438|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.49|0.62|0.2717
91772439|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.64|0.76|0.1367
91772440|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.53||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|113.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||113.0|1.62|0.0162
91772441|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.78|0.88|0.0765
91772442|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.8||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|33.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||33.87|1.79|0.0061
91772443|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|21.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||21.85|1.33|0.0181
91772444|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.99|0.53|0.3925
91772445|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.12|0.54|0.3740
91772446|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|7.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.93|0.69|0.1753
91772447|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.85||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|109.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||109.5|1.51|0.0195
91772448|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.02|0.66|0.1932
91772449|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|12.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.86|0.98|0.0537
91772450|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.72||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|39.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||39.66|1.50|0.0144
91834939|NCT00855062|183549977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.78||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the baseline CES-D and MSK scores.||The null hypothesis is that the mean 24-week change of CES-D score in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||3.78|-3.40|0.915
91834940|NCT02755597|183549978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.656|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.913|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||0.913|0.471|=0.012
91834941|NCT02755597|183549979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||||<0.001
91834942|NCT02755597|183549981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.508|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.753|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||0.753|0.343|<0.001
91772451|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.09|0.41|0.6660
91772452|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.62|0.37|0.7923
91772453|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.90|0.51|0.3796
91772454|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|21.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||21.73|0.81|0.0874
91772455|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|10.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.96|0.62|0.1925
91772456|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|17.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||17.38|0.92|0.0651
91834943|NCT02755597|183549986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.191|||=|0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.77|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||1.770|0.802|=0.385
91834944|NCT02755597|183549987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.571|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.805|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||0.805|0.405|=0.001
91834945|NCT02755597|183549988|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||||=0.019
91772457|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.81|0.44|0.5361
91772458|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.17|0.42|0.6258
91772459|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.06|0.43|0.6275
91772460|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.90|0.62|0.2212
91772461|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.13||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|95.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||95.49|1.30|0.0280
91772462|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|25.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||25.32|0.94|0.0589
91834946|NCT02755597|183549989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||||<0.001
91834947|NCT04252742|183549990|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-4.46||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates.|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-4.46|-11.45|< 0.001
91772463|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|15.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.39|0.86|0.0799
91772464|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|10.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.87|0.78|0.1112
91772465|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.11|0.84|0.0959
91772466|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.3886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.85|0.54|0.3886
91772467|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|10.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.52|0.85|0.0864
91772468|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.22||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|119.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||119.5|1.69|0.0145
91772469|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.08||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|110.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||110.0|1.56|0.0180
91772470|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.53||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|160.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||160.6|2.14|0.0080
91772471|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|20.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||20.65|1.24|0.0236
91834948|NCT04252742|183549991|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-3.92||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates.|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.92|-10.80|< 0.001
91772472|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4303|TWO_SIDED|0.4303|0.5|5.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.07|0.50|0.4303
91772473|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.39|0.45|0.5529
91772474|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.3268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.55|0.53|0.3268
91772475|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.02||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|84.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||84.66|1.19|0.0343
91772476|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.45||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|79.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||79.82|1.12|0.0391
91772477|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.31||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|115.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||115.1|1.54|0.0187
91772478|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.47|0.71|0.1475
91772479|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.55|0.63|0.2161
91834949|NCT04252742|183549992|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-3.87||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.87|-10.34|< 0.001
91834950|NCT04252742|183549993|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-3.34||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.34|-10.76|< 0.001
91834951|NCT04252742|183549994|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|-3.27||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.27|-10.37|< 0.001
91834952|NCT04252742|183549995|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.07||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.22||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates.|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-0.22|-1.92|0.013
91834953|NCT04252742|183549996|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.48||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.11||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-0.11|-0.85|0.011
91834954|NCT01091948|183550003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Intubations accomplished with another device due to difficulty with assigned device and those took \>180 s were considered as failed intubations.||||||0.19
91834955|NCT01091948|183550004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.89||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.35|||ANCOVA||The mean intubation difficulty score was tested after logarithmic transformation, and then back transformed for the estimated treatment effect.|||1.35|0.58|0.58
91834956|NCT01091948|183550005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.33|0.95|0.15
91834957|NCT01091948|183550006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.67||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|0.28|0.57
91834958|NCT01091948|183550007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.09|0.93|0.79
91834959|NCT01091948|183550008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|proportional odds logistic regression model||||2.76|0.45|0.82
91834960|NCT01542957|183550028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-3.35|0.60
91834961|NCT01542957|183550029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.25|-0.71|0.21
91834962|NCT01542957|183550030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.01||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.14|0.84
91834963|NCT05805657|183550051|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-7.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Immediate TranS-C (Standard/Adapted combined) versus UC-DT on change in sleep disturbance from pre to post.||||<0.001
91834964|NCT05805657|183550051|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|2.22||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in sleep disturbance from pre to post.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.52
91834965|NCT05805657|183550051|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-10.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting sleep disturbance.||||0.02
91834966|NCT05805657|183550051|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-6.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting sleep disturbance.||||0.04
91834967|NCT05805657|183550051|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-10.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting sleep disturbance.||||0.001
91834968|NCT05805657|183550053|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-6.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in sleep- related impairment from pre to post.||||0.001
91834969|NCT05805657|183550053|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.36||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in sleep-related impairment from pre to post.||||0.72
91834970|NCT05805657|183550053|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-3.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting sleep-related impairment.||||0.30
91834971|NCT05805657|183550053|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.79||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting sleep-related impairment.||||0.78
91834972|NCT05805657|183550053|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-4.45||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting sleep-related impairment.||||0.15
91834973|NCT05805657|183550054|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.55||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in Composite Sleep Health Score from pre to post.||||0.09
91834974|NCT05805657|183550054|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.05||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in sleep health from pre to post.||||0.11
91834975|NCT05805657|183550054|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.45||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting sleep health.||||0.59
91834976|NCT05805657|183550054|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.72||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting sleep health.||||0.14
91834977|NCT05805657|183550054|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.89||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting sleep health.||||0.06
91834978|NCT05805657|183550055|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in functional impairment from pre to post.||||0.002
91834979|NCT05805657|183550055|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-2.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.83|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.83|-3.57|0.002
91772480|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.04|0.53|0.3478
91772481|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.14|0.61|0.2269
91772482|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|24.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||24.35|0.89|0.0683
91772483|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|38.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||38.49|1.31|0.0228
91772484|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|16.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||16.72|0.93|0.0620
91772485|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.67|0.62|0.2251
91772486|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.99|0.35|0.7908
91772487|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.3735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.06|0.48|0.3735
91772488|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.64|0.64|0.1856
91772489|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.01798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|11.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.20|0.64|0.01798
91772490|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||13.22|0.77|0.1101
91772491|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|11.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.31|0.79|0.1060
91772492|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.5258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.86|0.45|0.5258
91772493|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.50|0.34|0.8746
91772494|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.77|0.24|0.7434
91772495|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.3211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.80|0.53|0.3211
91772496|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.48|0.41|0.5330
91772497|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|11.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||11.64|0.77|0.1119
91834980|NCT05805657|183550055|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-2.76||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-1.08|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI). The parameter of interest was the indirect effect at post||-1.08|-4.44|0.001
91834981|NCT05805657|183550055|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.84||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in functional impairment from pre to post.||||0.78
91834982|NCT05805657|183550055|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.41||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting functional impairment.||||0.49
91834983|NCT05805657|183550055|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting functional impairment.||||0.27
91834984|NCT05805657|183550055|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-2.07||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting functional impairment.||||0.09
91834985|NCT05805657|183550056|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in psychiatric symptoms from pre to post.||||0.002
91834986|NCT05805657|183550056|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-1.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.36|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.36|-3.54|0.02
91834987|NCT05805657|183550056|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-1.62||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.38|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.38|-2.87|0.01
91834988|NCT05805657|183550056|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.79||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in psychiatric symptoms from pre to post.||||0.56
91834989|NCT05805657|183550056|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-3.46||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting psychiatric symptoms.||||0.34
91834990|NCT05805657|183550056|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-5.54||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting psychiatric symptoms.||||0.01
91834991|NCT05805657|183550056|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-5.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting psychiatric symptoms.||||0.01
91834992|NCT01951638|183550080|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.137|||=|0.8991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.31|||t-test, 1 sided|||For the primary analysis, the three highest active treatment groups BAY1021189 (2.5mg, 2.5 to 5mg, 2.5 to 10mg) were pooled and compared to the assigned placebo treatment group with a one-sided two-sample t-test. The Hochberg procedure was used to test the two primary end points at study-wise significance level of 5%. Results are reported including 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the difference of means. The difference between the comparison groups is difference of means on the log scale.||0.31|-0.04|= 0.8991
91834993|NCT01951638|183550080|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.076|||=|0.7194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.33|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.33|-0.18|= 0.7194
91834994|NCT01951638|183550080|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.156|||=|0.8653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.43|-0.12|= 0.8653
91834995|NCT01951638|183550080|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.171|||=|0.9041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.43|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.43|-0.09|= 0.9041
91834996|NCT01951638|183550080|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.052|||=|0.6572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.3|-0.2|= 0.6572
91834997|NCT01951638|183550081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.629|||=|0.8156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|4.62|||t-test, 1 sided|||For the primary analysis, the three highest active treatment groups (BAY1021189 2.5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 10mg) were pooled and compared to the assigned placebo treatment group with a one-sided two-sample t-test. The Hochberg procedure was used to test the two primary end points at study-wise significance level of 5%. Results are reported including 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the difference of means.||4.62|-1.36|= 0.8156
91834998|NCT01951638|183550081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.707|||=|0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|5.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||5.8|-2.39|= 0.7945
91834999|NCT01951638|183550081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.109|||=|0.7917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|7.23|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||7.23|-3.01|= 0.7917
91835000|NCT01951638|183550081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.219|||=|0.7241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|5.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||5.26|-2.82|= 0.7241
91835001|NCT01951638|183550081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.198|||=|0.7546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|4.63|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||4.63|-2.23|= 0.7546
91835002|NCT01338025|183550086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
91835003|NCT03188055|183550090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91835004|NCT03188055|183550091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.709
91835005|NCT03188055|183550092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91835006|NCT03188055|183550093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
91835007|NCT03188055|183550094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.892
91835008|NCT03188055|183550095|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Using an a priori statistical significance of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of concordance status by intervention status (outcome by predictor).||||> . 99
91835009|NCT03188055|183550096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.188
91835010|NCT03188055|183550097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
91835011|NCT03188055|183550099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.698
91835012|NCT03188055|183550100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91835013|NCT00201864|183550206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9102|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9102
91835014|NCT01782742|183550227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.03|-0.13|0.22
91835015|NCT01782742|183550228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.428|2.428|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.428|-4.428|0.57
91835016|NCT01782742|183550229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.625||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.029|6.279|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.279|-5.029|0.83
91835017|NCT01782742|183550230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.000|0.000|
91835018|NCT01782742|183550231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.375||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.674|8.924|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.924|-9.674|0.94
91835019|NCT01782742|183550232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.563||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.975|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.100|-1.975|0.18
91835020|NCT01782742|183550240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.021|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.021|-0.010|0.46
91835021|NCT01782742|183550241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.040|-0.020|0.53
91835022|NCT04425902|183550257|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.32|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.32|0.94|
91835023|NCT04425902|183550258|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.32|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.32|0.95|
91835024|NCT04425902|183550259|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.08|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.08|0.83|
91835025|NCT04425902|183550262|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|2.14|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||2.14|0.71|
91835026|NCT04425902|183550263|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|2.14|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||2.14|0.71|
91835027|NCT04425902|183550264|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.69|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.69|0.72|
91835028|NCT04425902|183550267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.2|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.20|0.97|
91835029|NCT04425902|183550268|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.21|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.21|0.98|
91835030|NCT04425902|183550269|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.17|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.17|0.92|
91835031|NCT04425902|183550272|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.18|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.18|0.88|
91835032|NCT04425902|183550273|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.19|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.19|0.89|
91835033|NCT04425902|183550274|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.18|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.18|0.93|
91835034|NCT04425902|183550277|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.75|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.75|0.72|
91707787|NCT04227405|183308954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up for the Physical Assault subscale||||<.05
91707788|NCT04227405|183308954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group for the Physical Assault subscale||||>.05
91707789|NCT04227405|183308954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the intervention group for the Physical Assault subscale||||>.05
91707790|NCT04227405|183308954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up||||>.05
91707791|NCT04227405|183308956|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group||||<.001
91707792|NCT04227405|183308956|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group||||<.001
91707793|NCT04227405|183308956|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Time||||<.05
91707794|NCT04227405|183308957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group||||<.05
91707795|NCT04227405|183308957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the intervention group||||<.001
91707796|NCT04227405|183308957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up||||<.05
91835035|NCT04425902|183550278|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.73|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.73|0.54|
91707797|NCT04227405|183308957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91707798|NCT04227405|183308957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91707799|NCT04227405|183308957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up||||>.05
91707800|NCT04227405|183308959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for Supportive Dyadic Coping subscale||||>.05
91707801|NCT04227405|183308959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group||||<.05
91707802|NCT04227405|183308959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Supportive Dyadic Coping subscale|Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||>.05
91707803|NCT04227405|183308959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for the common dyadic coping subscale||||>.05
91835036|NCT04425902|183550279|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.78|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.78|0.73|
91772498|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.85|0.53|0.3540
91772499|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.5076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.29|0.19|0.5076
91772500|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.5801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.41|0.21|0.5801
91772501|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.82|0.13|0.2785
91772502|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.45|0.19|0.5656
91772503|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.81|0.19|0.6445
91772504|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.99|0.32|0.7363
91772505|NCT03192176|183427594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.86|0.17|0.3455
91772506|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.54|1.60|0.0037
91835037|NCT04425902|183550282|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.11|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.11|0.80|
91772507|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|10.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||10.48|1.49|0.0057
91772508|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|16.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.13|2.26|0.0003
91772509|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|17.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||17.39|2.37|0.0003
91772510|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.73|0.78|0.1410
91772511|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||15.55|2.20|0.0004
91772512|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|14.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.54|2.08|0.0006
91772513|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|10.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.57|1.58|0.0037
91772514|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|11.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.16|1.67|0.0026
91835038|NCT04425902|183550283|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.1|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.10|0.79|
91772515|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|16.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.60|2.63|0.0002
91772516|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|27.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||27.34|3.23|<0.0001
91772517|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.76|1.03|0.0431
91772518|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|11.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.29|1.72|0.0020
91772519|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.86|1.11|0.0291
91772520|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.61|1.48|0.0063
91772521|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|8.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.11|1.19|0.0202
91772522|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|10.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.84|1.55|0.0044
91772523|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.21||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|29.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||29.38|2.89|0.0002
91835039|NCT04425902|183550284|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.12|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.12|0.73|
91835040|NCT04425902|183550287|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.22|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.22|0.94|
91772524|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.37|0.93|0.0706
91772525|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|24.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||24.08|2.79|0.0001
91772526|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|8.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.32|1.26|0.0146
91772527|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.24|0.90|0.0816
91772528|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.81|0.87|0.0930
91772529|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.39|1.07|0.365
91772530|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|14.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.73|1.65|0.0042
91772531|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.41|1.01|0.0488
91772532|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|10.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.36|1.43|0.0075
91772533|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.59|0.86|0.0984
91772534|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.29|0.68|0.2226
91772535|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.08|0.76|0.1467
91772536|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|8.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.19|0.92|0.0705
91772537|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.62||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|223.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||223.9|3.16|0.0025
91772538|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.40|0.90|0.0757
91772539|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|18.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||18.74|1.71|0.0045
91772540|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.67|0.90|0.0771
91835041|NCT04425902|183550288|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.19|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.19|0.92|
91772541|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.81|0.71|0.1856
91772542|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.54|0.48|0.5973
91772543|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|7.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.77|0.85|0.0935
91772544|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.52||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|22.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||22.10|1.38|0.0157
91772545|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.32|0.68|0.1963
91772546|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|18.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||18.43|1.53|0.0085
91772547|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.38|0.76|0.1433
91772548|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.1577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.37|0.74|0.1577
91772549|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.34|0.74|0.1608
91835042|NCT04425902|183550289|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.63|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.63|0.96|
91835043|NCT04425902|183550292|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.03|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.03|0.52|
91835044|NCT04425902|183550293|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.82|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||0.82|0.45|
91835045|NCT04425902|183550294|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.14|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.14|0.54|
91835046|NCT04425902|183550400|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.71|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.71|0.49|
91835047|NCT04425902|183550401|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.16|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.16|0.74|
91772550|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.53|0.92|0.0693
91772551|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.57||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|48.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||48.39|1.89|0.0063
91772552|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.05|0.72|0.1637
91772553|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|11.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||11.47|1.11|0.0326
91835048|NCT04425902|183550402|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.72|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.72|0.43|
91835049|NCT04425902|183550405|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.29|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.29|0.75|
91835050|NCT04425902|183550406|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.29|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.29|0.75|
91835051|NCT04425902|183550407|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.22|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.22|0.73|
91772554|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.67|0.76|0.1455
91772555|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.32|0.69|0.1951
91772556|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.53|0.54|0.4097
91772557|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.22|0.73|0.1554
91835052|NCT04425902|183550410|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.3|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.30|0.93|
91835053|NCT04425902|183550411|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.19|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.19|0.83|
91835054|NCT04425902|183550412|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.44|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.44|0.88|
91835055|NCT04425902|183550415|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.09|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.09|0.75|
91772558|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|17.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||17.14|1.04|0.0440
91772559|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.47|0.67|0.1928
91772560|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|17.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||17.47|1.25|0.0222
91772561|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.65|0.54|0.4075
91772562|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.93|0.56|0.3659
91772563|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.24|0.41|0.7878
91772564|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|11.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||11.38|0.94|0.0635
91772565|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.62||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|123.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||123.3|1.73|0.0137
91835056|NCT04425902|183550416|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.09|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.09|0.76|
91835057|NCT04425902|183550417|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.1|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.10|0.65|
91835058|NCT01544998|183550433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PSD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.26
91772566|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.62|0.79|0.1069
91772567|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|23.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||23.47|1.33|0.0186
91772568|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|7.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.56|0.75|0.1434
91772569|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.75|0.72|0.1670
91772570|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.28|0.41|0.7810
91772571|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.1682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.26|0.71|0.1682
91772572|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|21.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||21.39|1.28|0.0215
91772573|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|19.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||19.52|1.16|0.0306
91835059|NCT01544998|183550434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PDD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.90
91707804|NCT04227405|183308959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group in the Common Dyadic Coping subscale||||<.01
91772574|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.1||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|52.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||52.29|1.92|0.0059
91835060|NCT01544998|183550435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PSD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.003
91835061|NCT01544998|183550436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PDD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.14
91835062|NCT01544998|183550437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PSD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||<0.001
91835063|NCT01544998|183550438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PDD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||<0.001
91835064|NCT00331344|183550453|OTHER||Dose Level VIa|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Dose level VIa (mitoxantrone hydrochloride 12 mg/m2 IV over 30 minutes, ixabepilone 30mg/m2 IV over 3 hours on day 1, pegfilgrastim 6mg SC on day 2, oral prednisone twice daily on days 1-21) was determined to be MTD, based on 1 event of DLT at VIa.|Cohorts of 3 patients will be enrolled at each dose level; if 1 dose limiting toxicity (DLT) is observed then the cohort will be expanded to 6 patients. If a second DLT is observed, the previous dose level will be considered the MTD. If all observed DLT are due to neuropathy (specific to ixabepilone), then we would consider the previous dose level of Ixabepilone the MTD for that drug, and escalate mitoxantrone hydrochloride as described above to a maximum dose of 12 mg/m\^2.||||
91835065|NCT02940574|183550474|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect analyses, exploring whether a single-dose of OT could reduce amygdala connectivity, revealed a tentative effect of 'treatment' (F(1,36)=2.00; p=.08 (one-sided))|||||<|0.08||||||Linear mixed-effect analyses, exploring whether a single-dose of OT could reduce amygdala connectivity, revealed a tentative effect of 'treatment' (F(1,36)=2.00; p=.08 (one-sided))|Mixed Models Analysis|(F(1,36)=2.00; p=.08 (one-sided))||||||<0.08
91835066|NCT00520975|183550492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.43|0.24
91835067|NCT00520975|183550493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.97|||Regression, Cox|||||1.97|0.61|0.75
91835068|NCT04382924|183550506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.0001|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.025
91835069|NCT00261495|183550523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tested using 95% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 1.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.011||95.0|-0.27|0.84||Statistical significance level was 0.05. Two-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference based on LS means \& error terms obtained from ANCOVA (covariate: baseline; factors: country, previous pain treatment, underlying disease, and treatment).|ANCOVA|If the right side of CI\<1 then the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of the alternative, and non-inferiority of OROS hydromorphone was concluded.|LS mean difference has been presented, which was calculated as hydromorphone minus oxycodone.|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was less than or equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was greater than 1.~Sample size needed to detect a clinically significant difference of 1 was 151 per treatment arm (standard deviation = 2.4, significance level 0.025 one-sided, based on 90% power)."||0.84|-0.27|0.011
91835070|NCT00261495|183550524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.706||95.0|-0.32|0.47||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure was stopped here, subsequent tests were exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.47|-0.32|0.706
91835071|NCT00261495|183550525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tested using 95% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 1.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.53|0.29||Statistical significance level was 0.05. Two-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference based on LS means \& error terms obtained from ANCOVA (covariate: baseline; factors: country, previous pain treatment, underlying disease, and treatment).|ANCOVA|If the right side of CI\<1 then the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of the alternative, and non-inferiority of OROS hydromorphone was concluded.|Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was less than or equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was greater than 1.~Sample size needed to detect a clinically significant difference of 1 was 151 per treatment arm (standard deviation = 2.4, significance level 0.025 one-sided, based on 90% power)."||0.29|-0.53|<0.001
91835072|NCT00261495|183550526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.87||||0.065||95.0|-5.94|0.19||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.19|-5.94|0.065
91852164|NCT01063517|183587403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|1.08|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of progression in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of progression in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||1.08|0.51|
91772575|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|8.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.43|0.83|0.1004
91772576|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.36|0.70|0.1837
91772577|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.75|0.47|0.5929
91772578|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.07|0.62|0.2588
91772579|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.69||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|38.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||38.41|1.54|0.0129
91772580|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.12||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|35.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||35.61|1.42|0.0168
91772581|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.95||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|50.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||50.97|1.94|0.0058
91772582|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.26|0.69|0.1934
91772583|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.2181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|6.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.12|0.66|0.2181
91835073|NCT00261495|183550527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.348||95.0|-0.62|0.22||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference was calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.22|-0.62|0.348
91835074|NCT00261495|183550528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.616||95.0|-0.54|0.32||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference was calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.32|-0.54|0.616
91772584|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.71|0.53|0.4116
91772585|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.66|0.84|0.0938
91772586|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.02||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|41.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||41.08|1.57|0.0125
91772587|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|12.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.23|0.88|0.0761
91772588|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|14.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.16|1.14|0.0305
91772589|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.68|1.00|0.0501
91772590|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|8.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.77|0.78|0.1212
91772591|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.68|0.35|0.8332
91772592|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.4285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.76|0.48|0.4285
91772593|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|10.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||10.74|0.83|0.0954
91772594|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|11.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.38|0.78|0.1110
91772595|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.55|0.69|0.1642
91772596|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.24|0.66|0.1976
91772597|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.58|0.43|0.5761
91772598|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.04|0.20|0.4540
91772599|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.96|0.17|0.3732
91772600|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.50|0.46|0.4665
91772601|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.5634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.25|0.41|0.5634
91772602|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.70|0.48|0.4297
91772603|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.14|0.31|0.9789
91772604|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.70|0.24|0.7357
91772605|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.50|0.14|0.1977
91772606|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.88|0.14|0.3203
91772607|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.44|0.30|0.9739
91900822|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.5||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0|-2.9|0.9770
91772608|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.97|0.36|0.6714
91772609|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.52|0.22|0.6375
91772610|NCT03192176|183427595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.71|0.17|0.2980
91772611|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.35||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|16.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.96|1.69|0.0044
91772612|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|26.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||26.83|2.79|0.0002
91772613|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|33.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.54|3.49|<0.0001
91772614|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|31.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||31.29|3.20|<0.0001
91772615|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.15|0.77|0.1266
91772616|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.72||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|17.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||17.66|1.85|0.0024
91772617|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.93||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|24.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||24.26|2.59|0.0003
91772618|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|8.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.17|1.18|0.0217
91772619|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|12.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.25|1.75|0.0021
91772620|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.72||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.37|1.80|0.0016
91772621|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.86|1.79|0.0018
91772622|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.14|1.01|0.0467
91772623|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.28|1.80|0.0016
91772624|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.65|1.16|0.0234
91772625|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.46|1.11|0.0294
91772626|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.73|1.44|0.0068
91772627|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|11.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.29|1.68|0.0025
91772628|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|15.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.92|2.13|0.0006
91772629|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|6.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.61|0.97|0.0572
91772630|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|15.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.97|2.28|0.0003
91772631|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.38|1.02|0.0460
91772632|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.23|0.79|0.1406
91772633|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.63|1.16|0.0234
91772634|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.22|1.10|0.0302
91772635|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|14.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.63|1.87|0.0016
91772636|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.64|0.71|0.2105
91772637|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|10.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.81|1.61|0.0033
91772638|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.21|0.85|0.1087
91772639|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.03|0.60|0.3600
91772640|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.32|0.79|0.1394
91772641|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.36|0.99|0.0522
91772642|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|11.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.61|1.63|0.0119
91772643|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.53|0.77|0.1474
91772644|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|14.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.67|1.76|0.0026
91772645|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.51|0.81|0.1263
91772646|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.95|0.68|0.2327
91772647|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.70|0.79|0.1359
91772648|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|9.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.69|1.16|0.0258
91772649|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|15.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||15.04|1.51|0.0076
91772650|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.75|0.83|0.1088
91772651|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.89||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|14.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||14.62|1.64|0.0045
91772652|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.50|1.00|0.0493
91772653|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|8.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.41|1.06|0.0376
91835075|NCT00261495|183550529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall Type I error. Hierarchical testing procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-squared statistic stratified for country was used.||"Null hypothesis: There is no association between study medication and dose escalation.~Alternative hypothesis: There is an association between study medication and dose escalation."||||0.249
91772654|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.94|0.92|0.0723
91772655|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|9.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.17|1.06|0.0396
91772656|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|20.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||20.67|1.85|0.0031
91772657|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.96|0.83|0.1044
91772658|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|16.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||16.75|1.78|0.0029
91772659|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|8.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.45|1.07|0.0364
91772660|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.37|0.47|0.6396
91835076|NCT00261495|183550530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.05||95.0|0.0|0.84||0.05 two-sided testing, exploratory comparison|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.84|-0.00|0.050
91772661|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.91|0.55|0.4378
91772662|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.2045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.44|0.70|0.2045
91772663|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|7.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.62|0.85|0.0958
91772664|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.85|0.60|0.3210
91772665|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|11.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||11.39|1.23|0.0199
91772666|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.36|0.80|0.1219
91772667|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.76|0.62|0.2975
91772668|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.2763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.80|0.64|0.2763
91772669|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.82|0.79|0.1235
91772670|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|14.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||14.19|1.27|0.0190
91772671|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.93|0.66|0.2213
91772672|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|20.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||20.25|1.71|0.0050
91772673|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.85|0.83|0.1053
91772674|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.72|0.85|0.0991
91772675|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.32|0.70|0.2056
91772676|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.57|1.05|0.0407
91772677|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|18.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||18.30|1.63|0.0059
91772678|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||12.30|1.20|0.0230
91835077|NCT00261495|183550531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.105||95.0|-0.06|0.67||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.67|-0.06|0.105
91835078|NCT00261495|183550532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.058||95.0|-0.01|0.79||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.79|-0.01|0.058
91835079|NCT00261495|183550533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.21||95.0|-0.13|0.59||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hdromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.59|-0.13|0.210
91835080|NCT00261495|183550534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.941||95.0|-4.87|4.52||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||4.52|-4.87|0.941
91835081|NCT00261495|183550535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.073||95.0|-0.03|0.65||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.65|-0.03|0.073
91835082|NCT00261495|183550536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.431||95.0|-0.52|0.22||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.22|-0.52|0.431
91835083|NCT00261495|183550537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.835||95.0|-0.4|0.33||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.33|-0.40|0.835
91835084|NCT00261495|183550538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.837||95.0|-5.36|4.35||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||4.35|-5.36|0.837
91835085|NCT00261495|183550539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.832||95.0|-0.38|0.31||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.31|-0.38|0.832
91835086|NCT00261495|183550540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.143||95.0|-0.1|0.71||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.71|-0.10|0.143
91835087|NCT00261495|183550541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.345||95.0|-0.23|0.64||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.64|-0.23|0.345
91835088|NCT00261495|183550542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.552||95.0|-0.33|0.61||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.61|-0.33|0.552
91835089|NCT00261495|183550543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.042||95.0|0.02|0.93||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.93|0.02|0.042
91835090|NCT00261495|183550544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.171||95.0|-0.14|0.81||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.81|-0.14|0.171
91835091|NCT00261495|183550545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.475||95.0|-0.31|0.65||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.65|-0.31|0.475
91835092|NCT00261495|183550546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.359||95.0|-0.26|0.72||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.72|-0.26|0.359
91835093|NCT00261495|183550547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.611||95.0|-0.52|0.3||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.30|-0.52|0.611
91835094|NCT00261495|183550548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.526||95.0|-0.6|0.31||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.31|-0.60|0.526
91835095|NCT00261495|183550549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.769||95.0|-0.49|0.36||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.36|-0.49|0.769
91835096|NCT00261495|183550550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.843||95.0|-0.4|0.49||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.49|-0.40|0.843
91835097|NCT00261495|183550551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.977||95.0|-0.45|0.44||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.44|-0.45|0.977
91835098|NCT00261495|183550552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.977||95.0|-0.47|0.49||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.49|-0.47|0.977
91835099|NCT00261495|183550553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.902||95.0|-0.51|0.45||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.45|-0.51|0.902
91835100|NCT00261495|183550555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.36||||0.169||95.0|-5.74|1.02||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.02|-5.74|0.169
91835101|NCT00261495|183550556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.245||95.0|-5.09|1.31||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.31|-5.09|0.245
91835102|NCT00261495|183550557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.64||||0.071||95.0|-5.51|0.23||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.23|-5.51|0.071
91835103|NCT00261495|183550558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03||||0.297||95.0|-5.85|1.8||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.80|-5.85|0.297
91835104|NCT00261495|183550559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41||||0.205||95.0|-1.32|6.14||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||6.14|-1.32|0.205
91835105|NCT00261495|183550560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.35||||0.107||95.0|-7.43|0.73||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.73|-7.43|0.107
91835106|NCT00261495|183550561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.475||95.0|-2.8|6.0||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||6.00|-2.80|0.475
91835107|NCT00261495|183550562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.16||||0.02||95.0|-7.67|-0.65||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||-0.65|-7.67|0.020
91772679|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.36||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|25.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||25.29|2.14|0.0015
91772680|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|10.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.16|1.17|0.0248
91772681|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.83|0.82|0.1091
91772682|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.75|0.61|0.3054
91772683|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.61|0.81|0.1129
91772684|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|10.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.37|1.04|0.0432
91835108|NCT00261495|183550563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.88||95.0|-0.3|0.26||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.26|-0.30|0.880
91835109|NCT00261495|183550564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory comparison||||0.320
91772685|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|12.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.60|1.13|0.0315
91772686|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|13.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||13.64|1.33|0.0147
91835110|NCT00261495|183550569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory comparison||||0.575
91772687|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.59|1.05|0.0405
91772688|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.93|0.50|0.5238
91772689|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.97|0.60|0.3060
91772690|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.86|0.55|0.3747
91772691|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|11.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.80|1.03|0.0443
91835111|NCT00261495|183550570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory comparison||||0.807
91835112|NCT00261495|183550571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.61||||0.118||95.0|-5.88|0.67|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.67|-5.88|0.118
91835113|NCT00261495|183550572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.956||95.0|-3.08|2.91|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||2.91|-3.08|0.956
91835114|NCT00261495|183550573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.299||95.0|-0.08|0.26|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.26|-0.08|0.299
91835115|NCT00261495|183550574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.471||95.0|-4.2|1.95|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxymorphone|Exploratory comparison||1.95|-4.20|0.471
91835116|NCT00261495|183550575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.84||||0.025||95.0|0.48|7.19|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.19|0.48|0.025
91835117|NCT00261495|183550576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.556||95.0|-5.61|10.42|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||10.42|-5.61|0.556
91896036|NCT04874415|183687456|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.2|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||14.2|-2.7|
91835118|NCT00261495|183550577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.12||||0.551||95.0|-9.11|4.88|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||4.88|-9.11|0.551
91835119|NCT00261495|183550578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.98||||0.207||95.0|-7.63|1.66|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.66|-7.63|0.207
91835120|NCT00261495|183550579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.46||||0.123||95.0|-5.6|0.68|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.68|-5.60|0.123
91835121|NCT00261495|183550580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.602||95.0|-4.27|2.48|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||2.48|-4.27|0.602
91835122|NCT00261495|183550581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.647||95.0|-2.14|3.44|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||3.44|-2.14|0.647
91835123|NCT00261495|183550582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.627||95.0|-0.17|0.1|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.10|-0.17|0.627
91835124|NCT00261495|183550583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.414||95.0|-4.45|1.84|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.84|-4.45|0.414
91835125|NCT00261495|183550584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.05||||0.01||95.0|0.94|7.16|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.16|0.94|0.010
91835126|NCT00261495|183550585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.955||95.0|-7.2|7.62|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.62|-7.20|0.955
91835127|NCT00261495|183550586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.669||95.0|-4.72|7.34|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.34|-4.72|0.669
91835128|NCT00261495|183550587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.595||95.0|-3.15|5.49|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||5.49|-3.15|0.595
91772692|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.06|0.77|0.1269
91835129|NCT00261495|183550588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.543||95.0|-3.98|2.1|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||2.10|-3.98|0.543
91835130|NCT05383417|183550617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
91835131|NCT05383417|183550618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.18
91835132|NCT05383417|183550619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 2||||||0.007
91835133|NCT05383417|183550619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 7||||||0.04
91835134|NCT05383417|183550620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 1||||||0.03
91835135|NCT05383417|183550620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 7||||||0.04
91835136|NCT05383417|183550621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 1||||||0.04
91835137|NCT05383417|183550622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day2||||||0.02
91835138|NCT05383417|183550623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91835139|NCT05383417|183550624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
91835140|NCT05383417|183550625|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91835141|NCT05383417|183550626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
91835142|NCT05383417|183550627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91835143|NCT05383417|183550628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91835144|NCT03243422|183550629|SUPERIORITY||change in Standard Deviation|0.002||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-level linear mixed effects model with an unstructured covariance matrix from the baseline and the year 3 in-person neurocognitive assessment||||0.081|-0.077|0.96
91835145|NCT03243422|183550630|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.079||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.187||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.187|-0.029|0.15
91835146|NCT03243422|183550631|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.078||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.078|-0.118|0.69
91835147|NCT03243422|183550632|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.017||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.104||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.104|-0.070|0.70
91835148|NCT03243422|183550633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.33||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Regression, Cox|Discrete-time interval model||||1.33|0.61|0.59
91835149|NCT03243422|183550634|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.191||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was restricted to ARIC participants who were enrolled in ACHIEVE||0.360|0.022|0.027
91835150|NCT03243422|183550635|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.061||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.028|-0.151|0.18
91835151|NCT01083654|183550649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.20|.262
91835152|NCT03525548|183550676|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.6|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||12.6|7.4|<0.0001
91835153|NCT03525548|183550677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-40.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-40.1|-50.1|<0.0001
91835154|NCT03525548|183550678|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|23.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.0|11.8|<0.0001
91835155|NCT01226511|183550681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.27|-4.03|<0.001
91835156|NCT02696564|183550695|SUPERIORITY|We will estimate a 95% confidence interval for the losartan vs placebo mean difference, using the regression estimate and the t-distribution; we will reject the null that losartan is equivalent to placebo if the 95% interval excludes 0.0.||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.||||||0.133
91835157|NCT02696564|183550696|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.762||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.762
91835158|NCT02696564|183550697|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.834||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.834
91835159|NCT02696564|183550698|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.783||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.783
91835160|NCT02696564|183550699|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.053||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.053
91835161|NCT02696564|183550700|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.016||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
91835162|NCT02696564|183550701|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.065||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
91835163|NCT02696564|183550702|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.293||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.293
91835164|NCT02696564|183550703|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.356||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.356
91835165|NCT02696564|183550704|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.009||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
91896037|NCT04874415|183687456|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|2.4|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2.4|-13.3|
91835166|NCT02696564|183550705|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate (losartan to placebo)|0.8||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|18.77|||Negative binomial model|||P-value for rate of mild exacerbations between treatment groups (measured in events per 100 person-years).||18.77|0.03|0.892
91835167|NCT02696564|183550705|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate (losartan to placebo)|0.91||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|14.97|||Negative binomial model|||P-value for rate of moderate exacerbations between treatment groups (measured in events per 100 person-years).||14.97|0.05|0.946
91835168|NCT02696564|183550705|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate (losartan to placebo)|0.36||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|6.51|||Negative binomial model|||P-value for rate of severe exacerbations between treatment groups (measured in events per 100 person-years).||6.51|0.02|0.487
91896038|NCT04874415|183687457|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.1|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.1|-3.1|
91835169|NCT04067401|183550730|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.13||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||.01|-.29|.062
91835170|NCT04067401|183550731|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.09|-.39|.001
91835171|NCT04067401|183550732|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.16||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.02|-.34|.027
91835172|NCT04067401|183550733|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.24||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.08|-.41|.002
91835173|NCT04067401|183550734|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.01||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||.11|-.12|.821
91835174|NCT04067401|183550735|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.14||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.02|-.31|.024
91835175|NCT04067401|183550736|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.18||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||.29|.04|.012
91835176|NCT04067401|183550737|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.35||Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.35|.05|.010
91835177|NCT00141739|183550754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.001
91835178|NCT02287584|183550756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-1.6||adjusted p value, Hochberg procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|||Using Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||-1.6|-9.6|0.007
91835179|NCT02287584|183550756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-6.4||adjusted p-value, Hochberg procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-14.4|<0.001
91835180|NCT01892345|183550759|OTHER|Treatment Effect|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.058|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.197|||Stratified Log-Rank Test||HR based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Confidence interval = Wald confidence interval. HR for eculizumab compared with placebo represented a 94.2% reduction in the risk of relapse, 95% Wald confidence interval (80.3%, 98.3%).|||0.197|0.017|<0.0001
91835181|NCT02657317|183550777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-3.7|||GLMM|||To detect a medium effect (d = 0.50) at 2-sided α = 0.05, 50 participants were needed in each study arm (total N = 100). We anticipated 30% attrition in each arm. Data for the primary aim were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models adjusting for baseline levels of prognostic variable and using random intercepts at the level of participants. The primary analysis was based on intent-to-treat.||-3.7|-14.4|.001
91835182|NCT01800968|183550852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3087|||||||Rank score|||||||0.3087
91772693|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.15||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|17.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||17.13|1.49|0.0095
91835183|NCT01800968|183550853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1549|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1549
91835184|NCT01800968|183550854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1932|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1932
91835185|NCT01800968|183550855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9535|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9535
91835186|NCT01800968|183550856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8548|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8548
91835187|NCT01800968|183550857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4266|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4266
91835188|NCT01800968|183550858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1705|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1705
91835189|NCT01800968|183550859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1309|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1309
91772694|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.94|0.79|0.1254
91835190|NCT01800968|183550860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7920
91835191|NCT01800968|183550861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7026|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7026
91835192|NCT01800968|183550862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2662|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2662
91835193|NCT01800968|183550863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6395|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6395
91835194|NCT01800968|183550864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8218|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8218
91835195|NCT01800968|183550865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1124|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1124
91835196|NCT01800968|183550866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8088|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8088
91835197|NCT01800968|183550867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7764|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7764
91835198|NCT01800968|183550868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1701|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1701
91835199|NCT01800968|183550869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6532|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6532
91835200|NCT01800968|183550870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2033|||||||Rank score|||||||0.2033
91835201|NCT00755040|183550881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91835202|NCT02220894|183550898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.86||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.86|0.58|0.0003
91835203|NCT02220894|183550899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.91|0.65|0.0012
91835204|NCT02220894|183550900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.93|0.71|0.0013
91835205|NCT02220894|183550901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.00|0.69|0.0260
91835206|NCT02220894|183550902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.10|0.80|0.2134
91835207|NCT02220894|183550903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.19|0.93|0.7964
91900823|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.3|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.3|-3.2|0.9471
91772695|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|12.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||12.63|1.06|0.0402
91772696|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|5.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.42|0.47|0.4547
91772697|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.99|0.49|0.4008
91772698|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.22|0.71|0.1535
91772699|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|28.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||28.95|1.79|0.0055
91772700|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.50|0.64|0.2116
91772701|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.83|0.70|0.1668
91772702|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.98|0.67|0.1824
91772703|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.90|0.25|0.7970
91772704|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.85|0.21|0.7065
91772705|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.93|0.29|0.9126
91772706|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|10.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||10.70|0.74|0.1282
91772707|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.04|0.58|0.2661
91772708|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.09|0.36|0.7457
91772709|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.4095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||6.41|0.47|0.4095
91772710|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.77|0.28|0.9571
91835208|NCT02220894|183550904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage (DP)|7.0||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|14.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentages=0 vs. H1: difference in percentages \>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous).|||14.6|-0.6|0.0353
91835209|NCT02220894|183550905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage (DP)|4.6||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentages=0 vs. H1: difference in percentages \>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||10.9|-1.7|0.0744
91772711|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.59|0.23|0.8827
91772712|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.74|0.17|0.5944
91772713|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|11.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||11.39|0.66|0.1647
91772714|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|7.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||7.48|0.57|0.2684
91772715|NCT03192176|183427596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.07|0.43|0.5338
91772716|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-0.18|-1.95|0.0179
91772717|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.47|-2.25|0.0027
91772718|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.73|-2.50|0.0004
91852165|NCT01063517|183587404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|0.75|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of death in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of death in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group, ATM status and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||0.75|0.41|
91772719|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.64|-2.43|0.0009
91772720|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.64|-1.14|0.5806
91772721|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.27|-2.03|0.0105
91772722|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.39|-2.16|0.0048
91772723|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.29|-1.52|0.1801
91772724|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.04|-1.76|0.0609
91772725|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.49|-2.33|0.0028
91772726|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.55|-2.40|0.0018
91772727|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.5519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.64|-1.19|0.5519
91835210|NCT02220894|183550906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage (DP)|0.6||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.4||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentages=0 vs. H1: difference in percentages \>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||5.4|-4.2|0.4060
91835211|NCT00394355|183550923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.261|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.261
91835212|NCT00394355|183550923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.644|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.644
91835213|NCT00394355|183550924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.359|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.359
91835214|NCT00394355|183550924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.390
91835215|NCT00394355|183550925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.169
91835216|NCT00394355|183550925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.526|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.526
91835217|NCT00394355|183550926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Least square means and Pstd (pooled standard deviations) are obtained from the ANOVA model with treatment effects.||||<0.001
91835218|NCT00394355|183550926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Least square means and Pstd (pooled standard deviations) are obtained from the ANOVA model with treatment effects.||||0.023
91835219|NCT00079001|183550927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority and futility analysis were conducted for time to first SRE. Lan-Demets analog of the Emerson-Fleming sequential boundary was used to maintain overall significance level of α = .05 while conducting interim analyses on time to first SRE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.174||Because of early termination, conditional power was performed under the alternative hypothesis. This is the probability that zoledronic acid is superior to placebo, given time to first SRE data at interim analysis under alternative hypothesis.|Log Rank||Patients randomly assigned to zoledronic acid were compared with patients assigned to placebo|The null hypothesis was that the hazard ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis that the hazard ratio is less than 0.77. With a target of 470 SREs, log-rank statistic had 88% power to detect a 23% decrease in hazard of SRE (equivalent to an increase in median time to SRE from 30 months to 39 months), assuming a one-sided type I error rate of .05.||1.174|0|0.385
91835220|NCT00079001|183550928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors: performance status, prior SRE, and serum alkaline phosphatase.|Zoledronic acid versus placebo group|||1.12|0.70|0.29
91835221|NCT00079001|183550929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07|||Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors: performance status, prior SRE, and serum alkaline phosphatase.|Zoledronic acid versus placebo group|||1.07|0.74|0.22
91835222|NCT02618616|183550930|OTHER||least square difference|8.7||||0.8495|ONE_SIDED|90.0|8.4|||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-389 Least square (LS) mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA of PASI at Week 12|||8.4|0.8495
91835223|NCT02618616|183550931|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.562||||0.9058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression PASI-50||1.16|0.27|0.9058
91835224|NCT02618616|183550931|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.946||||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression PASI-75||2.25|0.4|0.5422
91835225|NCT05878197|183550966|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Linear Mixed Models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
91835226|NCT05878197|183550966|OTHER|||||||0.822||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
91835227|NCT05878197|183550966|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||Linar mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.290
91835228|NCT05878197|183550966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|0.1|0.035
91835229|NCT05878197|183550966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|0.1|0.038
91835230|NCT05878197|183550966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-1.9|1.000
91835231|NCT05878197|183550967|OTHER|||||||0.107||||||Linear mixed models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.107
91835232|NCT05878197|183550967|OTHER|||||||0.996||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
91835233|NCT05878197|183550967|OTHER|||||||0.639||||||Linear mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
91835234|NCT05878197|183550967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.6|0.731
91835235|NCT05878197|183550967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-1.1|0.217
91835236|NCT05878197|183550967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.9|0.253
91835237|NCT05878197|183550968|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Linear mixed models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
91835238|NCT05878197|183550968|OTHER|||||||0.449||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.449
91835239|NCT05878197|183550968|OTHER|||||||0.786||||||Linear mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.786
91772728|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.31|-1.51|0.1922
91772729|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.02|-1.82|0.0463
91772730|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.19|-1.53|0.1288
91772731|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.03|-1.72|0.0577
91772732|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.48|-2.26|0.0027
91772733|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||-1.3|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.41|-2.20|0.0043
91772734|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.52|-1.27|0.4089
91835240|NCT05878197|183550968|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.7||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-7.2|0.099
91772735|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.31|-1.44|0.2050
91772736|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.11|-1.84|0.0265
91772737|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.88|-1.20|0.7617
91772738|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.32|-0.77|0.6061
91772739|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.21|-0.93|0.7997
91772740|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.60|-0.55|0.3391
91772741|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.61|-1.55|0.3934
91772742|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.04|-1.08|0.9750
91772743|NCT03192176|183427597|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.97|-1.13|0.8830
91835241|NCT05878197|183550968|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-8.3|0.074
91835242|NCT05878197|183550968|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.2||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-6.7|0.472
91835243|NCT05878197|183550969|OTHER|||||||0.115||||||Linear mixed models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.115
91835244|NCT05878197|183550969|OTHER|||||||0.516||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.516
91835245|NCT05878197|183550969|OTHER|||||||0.276||||||Linear mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.276
91835246|NCT05878197|183550969|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.9||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.9|-12.2|0.025
91835247|NCT05878197|183550969|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.9||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9|-6.4|0.794
91835248|NCT05878197|183550969|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.7||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-7.7|0.760
91835249|NCT03421808|183550985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||For categorical clinical remission data we performed a chi-square test on the IIT and completer sample using Graph-Pad Prism.||||0.6
91835250|NCT07069764|183550988|OTHER|"This study was not designed as a non-inferiority or equivalence trial. It was powered (80% power, α = 0.05) to detect clinically significant differences in pain reduction between 635 nm and 980 nm diode lasers, based on prior LLLT studies in TMD. Sample size was calculated before recruitment."|Effect size (Kendall's W and r)|0.75||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.79||P-values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Friedman test, Mann-Whitney U test|Non-parametric tests were used due to non-normal data distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test). Effect size measures were also reported.||"The study was designed to compare the effects of 635 nm and 980 nm low-level laser therapy on pain and jaw function. Statistical analysis methods are described below."|"Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality. Non-parametric tests were applied. Friedman test for within-group comparisons, followed by Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests. Mann-Whitney U test for between-group comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using Kendall's W (within groups) and r (between groups)."|0.79|0.68|0.05
91835251|NCT03183388|183551003|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and endpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare Least Square (LS) estimate of endpoint minus baseline to zero. The best-fitting model was chosen based on information criteria.|Endpoint minus Baseline|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.93|-4.14|0.0001
91835252|NCT03183388|183551004|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and midpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare LS estimate of midpoint minus baseline to zero.|Midpoint minus Baseline|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|4.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.23|-6.97|0.60
91835253|NCT03183388|183551005|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and endpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare LS estimate of endpoint minus baseline to zero.|Endpoint minus Baseline|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.146|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.146|0.074|0.0001
91835254|NCT03183388|183551006|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and midpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare LS estimate of midpoint minus baseline to zero.|Midpoint minus Baseline|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.157|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.157|-0.095|0.58
91835255|NCT00071721|183551010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.958||||0.88||95.0|||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||||0.88
91835256|NCT00803101|183551034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 80 participants."|Difference in effective hemostasis (%)|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|25.8||No P-value is provided as non-inferiority was assessed via calculation of the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.|95% confidence interval|The Newcombe-Wilson score method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex-plasma) in the % participants with effective hemostasis||The analysis of hemostatic efficacy was via calculation of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.||25.8|2.8|
91835257|NCT00803101|183551035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 80 participants."|Difference in effective hemostasis (%)|45.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|56.4||No P-value is provided as non-inferiority was assessed via calculation of the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.|Newcombe-Wilson score method|The Newcombe-Wilson score method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex-plasma) in the % pts with rapid decrease of the INR.||The analysis of rapid decrease of the INR was via calculation of the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with INR ≤ 1.3 at 30 minutes after the end of infusion.||56.4|31.9|
91835258|NCT02026232|183551042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91835259|NCT01529008|183551044|SUPERIORITY||Proportion treatment responder Differenc|-0.08||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.18|||Fisher Exact||"Percentage of treatment responders in PREOB® group is 60.9% ((14/23)\*100), compared with 69.2% ((18/26)\*100) in Placebo.~Difference in percentage is -8.3 Difference in treatment responders proportion: PREOB® (0.609) - Placebo (0.692) = -0.08"|||0.18|-0.35|0.539
91835260|NCT02487498|183551045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 97.5% one -sided confidence interval (CI) \> -20 mL|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00813||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0342|-0.0023|||Linear Mixed Model|||Ho: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d; Ha: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is non-inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d.||-0.0023|-0.0342|0.415
91835261|NCT02487498|183551046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00813|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0342|-0.0023||||||||-0.0023|-0.0342|
91835262|NCT02487498|183551047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0313|0.0131||||||||0.0131|-0.0313|
91772744|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.5872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|10.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||10.73|-6.09|0.5872
91772745|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.3779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|12.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||12.35|-4.70|0.3779
91772746|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|4.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||4.49|-12.61|0.3506
91772747|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39||0.8236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|9.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||9.62|-7.66|0.8236
91772748|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.5949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|10.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||10.87|-6.24|0.5949
91772749|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|7.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||7.85|-8.65|0.9237
91772750|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|12.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||12.46|-4.54|0.3599
91772751|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|11.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||11.68|-8.33|0.7422
91772752|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|7.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||7.37|-12.67|0.6030
91772753|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.07|4.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||4.17|-16.07|0.2478
91772754|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.5295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|13.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||13.47|-6.94|0.5295
91772755|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.6938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|8.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||8.13|-12.20|0.6938
91772756|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|9.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||9.63|-9.93|0.9765
91772757|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|13.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||13.76|-6.45|0.4771
91772758|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|12.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||12.27|-5.19|0.4256
91772759|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.9559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|9.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.01|-8.52|0.9559
91772760|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|3.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||3.07|-14.60|0.2003
91772761|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|6.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||6.98|-10.86|0.6692
91772762|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|7.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||7.08|-10.68|0.6894
91772763|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|2.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||2.48|-14.66|0.1627
91772764|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48||0.9371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|8.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||8.47|-9.18|0.9371
91772765|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.8521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|9.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.77|-8.07|0.8521
91772766|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|9.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.35|-8.62|0.9367
91772767|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||0.19|-17.82|0.0551
91772768|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.32|5.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||5.96|-12.32|0.4936
91772769|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.6404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|11.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||11.17|-6.89|0.6404
91772770|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|9.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.34|-8.17|0.8955
91772771|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|9.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.17|-8.91|0.9776
91772772|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|7.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||7.01|-9.27|0.7852
91772773|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.7812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|9.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||9.33|-7.02|0.7812
91772774|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|3.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||3.61|-13.07|0.2648
91772775|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|6.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||6.32|-10.41|0.6312
91835263|NCT02487498|183551048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00874|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0086|0.0258||||||||0.0258|-0.0086|
91835264|NCT00755222|183551054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91835265|NCT00755222|183551055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.046
91835266|NCT00755222|183551056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.164
91835267|NCT00755222|183551057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.442
91835268|NCT00755222|183551058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.095
91772776|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.7416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|9.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||9.67|-6.89|0.7416
91772777|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.4254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|11.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||11.41|-4.83|0.4254
91772778|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|11.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||11.54|-4.66|0.4038
91772779|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|4.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||4.85|-14.49|0.3270
91772780|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.7333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|7.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||7.90|-11.21|0.7333
91772781|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|2.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||2.28|-17.36|0.1319
91772782|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|7.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||7.32|-12.38|0.6132
91835269|NCT02228967|183551062|OTHER||||||=|0.274||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.274
91646084|NCT01236053|183184662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.29|0.92|0.3132
91772783|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|5.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||5.63|-13.98|0.4024
91772784|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.4904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|6.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||6.23|-12.97|0.4904
91772785|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|6.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||6.69|-12.48|0.5521
91772786|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|7.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||7.35|-10.38|0.7370
91772787|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|5.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||5.96|-11.62|0.5269
91772788|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.3937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|5.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||5.11|-12.93|0.3937
91772789|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|9.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.94|-8.15|0.8460
91772790|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|6.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||6.38|-11.62|0.5673
91835270|NCT02228967|183551063|OTHER||||||=|0.083|||||||Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.083
91835271|NCT02228967|183551064|OTHER||||||=|0.028|||||||Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.028
91835272|NCT02228967|183551065|OTHER||||||=|0.708|||||||Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.708
91835273|NCT02228967|183551066|OTHER||||||=|0.197||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tets (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.197
91835274|NCT02228967|183551067|OTHER||||||=|0.023||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.023
91835275|NCT02228967|183551068|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||<0.001
91835276|NCT02228967|183551069|OTHER||||||=|0.348||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||=0.348
91835277|NCT02228967|183551070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||0.091
91835278|NCT02228967|183551071|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.278|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha set at 0.05|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||.278
91835279|NCT02228967|183551072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||0.029
91835280|NCT02228967|183551073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||0.897
91835281|NCT02228967|183551074|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.15
91835282|NCT02228967|183551075|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.20
91835283|NCT02228967|183551076|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.38
91835284|NCT02228967|183551077|OTHER|A priori alpha set at 0.05||||||0.48|||||||Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.48
91835285|NCT02228967|183551078|OTHER|A priori alpha set at 0.05.||||||0.09|||||||Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.09
91835286|NCT02228967|183551079|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Linear mixed effects|||A priori alpha set at 0.05||||0.08
91835287|NCT02228967|183551080|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Linear mixed effects|||A priori alpha set at 0.05||||0.11
91835288|NCT02228967|183551081|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Linear mixed effects|||A priori alpha set at 0.05||||0.84
91835289|NCT02466646|183551093|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
91835290|NCT02466646|183551094|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was P=0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
91835291|NCT02466646|183551095|OTHER|||||||0.229||||||Threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.229
91835292|NCT02466646|183551096|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||Threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.280
91835293|NCT02466646|183551097|OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||||||0.712
91835294|NCT02466646|183551098|OTHER|||||||0.674||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.674
91835295|NCT02466646|183551099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
91835296|NCT02466646|183551100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.373
91835297|NCT02466646|183551101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.528|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.528
91835298|NCT02466646|183551102|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.208
91835299|NCT02466646|183551103|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.051
91835300|NCT02466646|183551104|OTHER|||||||0.647||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.647
91835301|NCT03261271|183551105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6489||||||P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6489
91835302|NCT03261271|183551106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0323
91835303|NCT03261271|183551107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91772791|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|12.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||12.79|-4.88|0.3791
91772792|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|9.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.73|-7.86|0.8340
91772793|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.9457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|8.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||8.88|-9.51|0.9457
91772794|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|7.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||7.09|-11.22|0.6570
91772795|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|3.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||3.64|-15.00|0.2310
91772796|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.9066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|9.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||9.96|-8.84|0.9066
91772797|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|4.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||4.30|-14.26|0.2914
91772798|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|9.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||9.57|-8.73|0.9277
91772799|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|8.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||8.77|-9.51|0.9367
91772800|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|13.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||13.69|-3.46|0.2407
91772801|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|15.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||15.89|-2.06|0.1305
91772802|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.2152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|14.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||14.75|-3.34|0.2152
91772803|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|16.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||16.89|-1.73|0.1099
91835304|NCT03261271|183551108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91646085|NCT01236053|183184662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.26|0.99|0.0762
91772804|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|16.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||16.75|-1.99|0.1219
91835305|NCT03261271|183551109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups from Baseline to Study End.||||0.09
91835306|NCT03261271|183551109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups from baseline to pre-surgery.||||0.04
91835307|NCT02173054|183551110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had erythema among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91835308|NCT02173054|183551110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had dryness among 3 groups|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.016
91835309|NCT02173054|183551110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had scaling among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.025
91835310|NCT02173054|183551110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had stinging among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.571
91835311|NCT02173054|183551110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had pruritus among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.449
91835312|NCT02173054|183551111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in total lesion counts at baseline and 8th week|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.059
91835313|NCT02173054|183551111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in total lesion counts at baseline and 8th week|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.697
91835314|NCT02173054|183551111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in total lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.028
91835315|NCT02173054|183551111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.001
91835316|NCT02173054|183551111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.755
91835317|NCT02173054|183551111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.003
91835318|NCT02173054|183551111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in non inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.205
91835319|NCT02173054|183551111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in non inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.576
91835320|NCT02173054|183551111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in non inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.160
91835321|NCT02173054|183551112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin sebum content at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel group|Paired t-test|||||||0.078
91835322|NCT02173054|183551112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin sebum content at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with placebo moisturizer group|Paired t-test|||||||0.167
91835323|NCT02173054|183551112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin sebum content at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with Eucerin group|Paired t-test|||||||0.134
91835324|NCT02173054|183551112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin hydration at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel group|Paired t-test|||||||0.978
91835325|NCT02173054|183551112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin hydration at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with placebo moisturizer group|Paired t-test|||||||0.273
91835326|NCT02173054|183551112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin hydration at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with Eucerin group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.735
91835327|NCT02173054|183551113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in TEWL at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.0002
91835328|NCT02173054|183551113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in TEWL at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with placebo moisturizer group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.007
91835329|NCT02173054|183551113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in TEWL at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with Eucerin group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.123
91835330|NCT02173054|183551114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in ASI score at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.005
91835331|NCT02173054|183551114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in ASI score at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.606
91835332|NCT02173054|183551114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in ASI score at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.001
91835333|NCT01932697|183551120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.01
91835334|NCT01932697|183551121|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91835335|NCT01932697|183551122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91835336|NCT01932697|183551123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91835337|NCT00215540|183551142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.476
91835338|NCT00215540|183551142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.208
91835339|NCT00215540|183551143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.500
91835340|NCT00215540|183551143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.146
91835341|NCT00215540|183551144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.267
91835342|NCT00215540|183551144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.313
91835343|NCT00215540|183551144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.944
91835344|NCT00215540|183551145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.476
91835345|NCT00215540|183551145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.208
91835346|NCT00215540|183551145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.046
91835347|NCT00215540|183551146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.285
91835348|NCT00215540|183551146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.229
91835349|NCT00215540|183551146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.030
91835350|NCT00215540|183551147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.483
91835351|NCT00215540|183551147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.123
91835352|NCT00215540|183551147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.006
91835353|NCT00215540|183551148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.843
91835354|NCT00215540|183551148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.543
91835355|NCT00215540|183551148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.537
91835356|NCT00215540|183551149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.813
91835357|NCT00215540|183551149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.449
91835358|NCT00215540|183551149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.275
91835359|NCT00215540|183551150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.267
91835360|NCT00215540|183551150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.313
91835361|NCT00215540|183551151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.311
91835362|NCT00215540|183551151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.516
91835363|NCT00215540|183551151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.094
91835364|NCT00246337|183551153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|The p-value is based on the average response of the MK0974 200mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups vs. placebo.||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis. Overall power =85%||||0.015
91835365|NCT00246337|183551154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|The p-value is based on the average response of the MK0974 200mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups vs. placebo.||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis.||||<0.001
91835366|NCT00246337|183551155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis.||||<0.001
91835367|NCT00246337|183551156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|The p-value is based on the average response of the MK0974 200mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups vs. placebo.||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis.||||<0.001
91835368|NCT00674570|183551158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning Beginning (first trial)||.10|-.15|=.66
91835369|NCT00674570|183551158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning Beginning (first trial)||.07|-.17|=.41
91835370|NCT00674570|183551158|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning End (last trial)||.18|-.07|=.43
91835371|NCT00674570|183551158|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning End (last trial)||.17|-.07|=.47
91835372|NCT00674570|183551158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Extinction Beginning (first trial)||.20|-.01|=.065
91835373|NCT00674570|183551158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Extinction Beginning (first trial)||.15|-.05|=.34
91835374|NCT00674570|183551158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction End (last trial)||.26|.06|=.003
91835375|NCT00674570|183551158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction End (last trial)||.22|.02|.02
91835376|NCT00674570|183551158|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction Retention (first 2 trials) First trials were selected as a test of extinction retention, since repeated presentations of the CS without a UCS were expected to result in additional fear extinction.||.30|.05|=.006
91835377|NCT00674570|183551158|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction retention||.28|.04|=.01
91835378|NCT02798211|183551168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|7.45|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR20 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||7.45|1.65|0.0011
91835379|NCT02798211|183551168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.15|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR20 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||4.15|0.89|0.0961
91835380|NCT02798211|183551169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of dactylitis by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.68|0.22|0.3330
91835381|NCT02798211|183551169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of dactylitis in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.13|0.14|0.0841
91835382|NCT02798211|183551170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.30|0.21|0.1618
91835383|NCT02798211|183551170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.13|0.19|0.0898
91835384|NCT02798211|183551171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (LEI) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.75|0.09|0.0125
91835385|NCT02798211|183551171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.70|0.09|0.0086
91835386|NCT02798211|183551172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC and LEI) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.92|0.13|0.0338
91835387|NCT02798211|183551172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC and LEI) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.93|0.14|0.0359
91835388|NCT02798211|183551173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.3||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|21.88|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR50 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, week 16||21.88|1.81|0.0038
91835389|NCT02798211|183551173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|16.77|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR50 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||16.77|1.36|0.0149
91835390|NCT02798211|183551174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|10.5||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|81.3|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR70 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, week 16||81.30|1.36|0.0243
91835391|NCT02798211|183551174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|43.64|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR70 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||43.64|0.67|0.1120
91835392|NCT02798211|183551175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|24.16|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI75 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, week 16||24.16|3.73|<0.0001
91835393|NCT02798211|183551175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|16.24|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI75 response by visit - in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||16.24|2.51|0.0001
91835394|NCT02798211|183551176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|30.45|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI90 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, week 16||30.45|3.19|<.0001
91835395|NCT02798211|183551176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|16.21|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI90 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||16.21|1.68|0.0043
91896039|NCT04874415|183687457|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2.3|-2.3|
91835396|NCT02798211|183551177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|14.38||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|111.53|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI100 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, week 16||111.53|1.86|0.0107
91896040|NCT04874415|183687457|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.4|-3.4|
91835397|NCT02798211|183551177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|77.9|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PAS100 response by in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||77.90|1.24|0.0307
91835398|NCT02798211|183551178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.65|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP score in treatment period 1 (LOCF)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks|"Standard Error of Treatment Difference~0.203"|-0.65|-1.45|<.0001
91835399|NCT02798211|183551178|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Treatment Difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP score in treatment period 1 (LOCF)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection|"LS Mean of Treatment Difference~0.207"|-0.43|-1.24|<.0001
91835400|NCT02798211|183551179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.21||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in HAQ-DI score by in treatment period 1 (LOCF)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection|"Standard Error of Treatment Difference~0.081"|-0.05|-0.37|0.0107
91835401|NCT02798211|183551179|SUPERIORITY|secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.13||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in HAQ-DI score by visit - in treatment period 1 (LOCF)|||"Standard Error of Treatment Difference~-0.083"|0.03|-0.30|0.1109
91835402|NCT01287611|183551206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Group sample sizes of 51 in study group and 65 in control group achieve 98% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of -0.3300. The proportion in study group is assumed to be 0.4800 under the null hypothesis and 0.1500 under the alternative hypothesis. The proportion in control group is 0.4800. The test statistic used is the two-sided Z test with pooled variance. The significance level of the test was targeted at 0.0500.||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91772805|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|18.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||18.36|0.85|0.0316
91772806|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|15.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||15.16|-2.44|0.1557
91772807|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.8592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|10.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||10.67|-8.91|0.8592
91772808|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.6891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|12.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||12.20|-8.08|0.6891
91772809|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|9.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||9.92|-10.59|0.9481
91772810|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|8.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||8.68|-12.46|0.7246
91772811|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|11.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||11.53|-9.94|0.8842
91772812|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05||0.8103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|11.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||11.17|-8.74|0.8103
91772813|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|10.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||10.28|-9.81|0.9631
91772814|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.9788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|9.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.47|-9.73|0.9788
91772815|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|8.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||8.54|-11.26|0.7875
91772816|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.9746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|10.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||10.17|-9.85|0.9746
91772817|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21||0.9092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|10.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||10.86|-9.67|0.9092
91896041|NCT04874415|183687457|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.5|-0.5|
91772818|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.9745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|10.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||10.21|-10.55|0.9745
91772819|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|14.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||14.44|-5.08|0.3458
91772820|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|13.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||13.45|-6.17|0.4657
91772821|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.5838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|12.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||12.76|-7.20|0.5838
91772822|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|11.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||11.39|-9.18|0.8322
91772823|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|12.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||12.13|-8.59|0.7366
91772824|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|16.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||16.28|-4.99|0.2971
91772825|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.9562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|10.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||10.37|-10.96|0.9562
91772826|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||0.28|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|18.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||18.76|-1.44|0.0926
91772827|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||13.70|-6.70|0.4996
91772828|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|8.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||8.75|-9.99|0.8960
91772829|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|12.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||12.58|-6.68|0.5471
91772830|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|11.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||11.36|-8.06|0.7380
91772831|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|19.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||19.69|-0.58|0.0644
91835403|NCT01287611|183551207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Group sample sizes of 51 in study group and 65 in control group achieve 98% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of -0.3300. The proportion in study group is assumed to be 0.4800 under the null hypothesis and 0.1500 under the alternative hypothesis. The proportion in control group is 0.4800. The test statistic used is the two-sided Z test with pooled variance. The significance level of the test was targeted at 0.0500.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91835404|NCT01856712|183551211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|9.98||||||||9.98|0.35|
91835405|NCT04074590|183551224|OTHER|A Bayesian analysis of clinical remission rate (based on total Mayo score) with binomial distribution, was modelled with baseline total Mayo score and treatment group as explanatory variables, to compare the remission rates between LYS006 and placebo groups.|Posterior estimate treatment difference|-3.29||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.02|13.23||Posterior probability that clinical remission rate is better than placebo: Prob (diff\>0)|Bayesian analysis||90% credible intervals are reported on the treatment difference|||13.23|-18.02|0.314
91900824|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.9|-2.6|0.8330
91772832|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.8475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||8.96|-10.90|0.8475
91772833|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.3044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|14.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||14.59|-4.57|0.3044
91772834|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.3895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|13.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||13.86|-5.42|0.3895
91772835|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.4551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|7.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||7.42|-16.50|0.4551
91772836|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.7182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|9.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||9.81|-14.21|0.7182
91772837|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|9.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||9.20|-15.26|0.6259
91772838|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|19.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||19.40|-6.22|0.3120
91772839|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|6.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||6.37|-18.89|0.3297
91772840|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|15.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||15.26|-9.02|0.6130
91772841|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22||0.7292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|14.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||14.40|-10.09|0.7292
91772842|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.8695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|11.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||11.96|-1.11|0.8695
91772843|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|14.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||14.25|-7.99|0.5800
91772844|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.74||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|13.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||13.50|-9.11|0.7024
91772845|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|23.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||23.23|-0.35|0.0572
91772846|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|13.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||13.31|-10.04|0.7830
91772847|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||0.1|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|26.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||26.67|4.19|0.0074
91772848|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|22.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||22.32|-0.24|0.0551
91772849|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|5.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||5.08|-16.63|0.2959
91772850|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.2976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|16.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||16.74|-5.14|0.2976
91772851|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|13.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||13.05|-9.07|0.7236
91772852|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|21.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||21.63|-1.52|0.0884
91772853|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.35|6.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||6.38|-16.35|0.3887
91772854|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|17.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||17.24|-4.80|0.2671
91772855|NCT03192176|183427598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.6076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|13.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||13.99|-8.20|0.6076
91772856|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.67|-2.93|0.2159
91772857|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||-0.08|-3.70|0.0405
91772858|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||-0.53|-4.18|0.0115
91772859|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.04|-3.62|0.0553
91772860|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.80|-2.82|0.2753
91772861|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.40|-1.20|0.5140
91772862|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||-0.38|-4.03|0.0178
91772863|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.98|-1.02|0.9675
91646086|NCT01236053|183184662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.7243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.15|0.91|0.7243
91900825|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.7|-3.2|0.8918
91835406|NCT04074590|183551224|OTHER|A Bayesian analysis of clinical remission rate (based on total Mayo score) with binomial distribution, was modelled with baseline total Mayo score and treatment group as explanatory variables, to compare the remission rates between LYS006 and placebo groups.|Posterior estimate treatment difference|-3.29||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.02|13.23||Posterior probability that clinical remission rate \>15% over placebo: Prob (diff\>0.15)|Bayesian analysis||90% credible intervals are reported on the treatment difference|||13.23|-18.02|0.037
91835407|NCT01355458|183551226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||||<0.001
91835408|NCT00509236|183551227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline A1c.||||<0.001
91835409|NCT00509236|183551228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Affected|-4.8||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|5.6||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent).|Miettinen & Nurminen|||||5.6|-15.7|0.336
91835410|NCT00509236|183551229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Affected|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|16.5||||||||16.5|-10.9|
91835411|NCT00509236|183551230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline in LS Mean|-26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-15.3|||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline FPG.||-15.3|-38.0|<0.001
91835412|NCT00509236|183551230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline in LS Mean|-31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-19.9|||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline FPG.||-19.9|-42.6|<0.001
91835413|NCT00509236|183551230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|20.7||||||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline FPG.||20.7|-11.5|
91835414|NCT00509236|183551231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline A1c.||0.49|-0.18|
91835415|NCT02709005|183551237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.08||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Clinical Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with clinical cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction. The statistical informational goal for the study of 90 participants eligible in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) efficacy population was an ad-hoc sample size determined by logistical considerations, as there was insufficient pilot data upon which to base more formal sample size calculations.||0.08|-0.26|0.420
91835416|NCT02709005|183551238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants Experiencing Solicited Events between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with solicited urogenital AEs between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||0.33|-0.06|0.200
91835417|NCT02709005|183551239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||No SAEs were reported; therefore the Fisher's Exact Test was not performed.||||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with related SAEs between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||||
91835418|NCT02709005|183551240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Therapeutic Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with therapeutic cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||0.08|-0.13|>0.999
91835419|NCT02709005|183551241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Therapeutic Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with therapeutic cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||-0.01|-0.24|0.035
91835420|NCT02709005|183551246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Clinical Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with clinical cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||0.14|-0.18|>0.999
91835421|NCT02634788|183551251|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.283|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.82|110.04|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||110.04|53.82|<0.0001
91835422|NCT02634788|183551251|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.099||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.43|63.93|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||63.93|8.43|0.0108
91835423|NCT02634788|183551251|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.02||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|63.05|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||63.05|7.86|0.0120
91835424|NCT01591382|183551308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0241||||||A P-value of \<0.05 was indicative of statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0241
91835425|NCT01591382|183551309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4102||||||A P-value of \<0.05 was indicative of statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4102
91772864|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.49|-1.52|0.3122
91772865|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||1.00|-1.00|0.9977
91772866|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.97|-1.05|0.9312
91772867|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.74|-1.27|0.6005
91772868|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||1.32|-0.68|0.5284
91772869|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.19|-1.82|0.1111
91772870|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.21|-1.16|0.1764
91772871|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms||-0.34|-1.73|0.0037
91772872|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.92|-2.30|<0.0001
91772873|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.81|-2.21|<0.0001
91772874|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.18|-1.21|0.1444
91772875|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.23|-1.60|0.0088
91772876|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.54|-1.93|0.0005
91772877|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.01|-0.69|0.0416
91772878|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.03|-0.71|0.0353
91772879|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.16|-0.84|0.0040
91835426|NCT01591382|183551310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1085||||||A P-value of \<0.05 was indicative of statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1085
91646087|NCT01236053|183184662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.65|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.65|0.97|0.0775
91772880|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.00|-0.69|0.0495
91772881|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.37|-0.31|0.8665
91772882|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.32|-0.35|0.9303
91772883|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.06|-0.62|0.1039
91772884|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||1.27|-4.78|0.2547
91772885|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-0.50|-6.60|0.0225
91772886|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-1.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-1.26|-7.38|0.0058
91772887|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-0.33|-6.48|0.0301
91772888|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|1.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||1.51|-4.59|0.3220
91772889|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.8782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||3.27|-2.80|0.8782
91772890|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|-1.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-1.17|-7.27|0.0069
91772891|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.25|-3.49|0.0890
91772892|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.48|-3.25|0.1444
91772893|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.32|-3.51|0.1022
91772894|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.75|-3.07|0.2342
91772895|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.9906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||1.87|-1.89|0.9906
91772896|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.40|-1.34|0.5770
91772897|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.61|-3.14|0.1865
91772898|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.65|-1.45|0.4575
91772899|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.77|-1.33|0.6016
91772900|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||1.28|-0.86|0.7026
91772901|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.50|-1.64|0.2971
91772902|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.5491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.74|-1.38|0.5491
91772903|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||1.25|-0.86|0.7142
91772904|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.21|-1.89|0.1157
91772905|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.14|-1.30|0.1114
91772906|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.40|-1.83|0.0025
91772907|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Scre||-0.74|-2.20|<0.0001
91772908|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.5093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.48|||MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.48|-0.96|0.5093
91772909|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.86|-2.33|<0.0001
91772910|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.24|-1.67|0.0090
91772911|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.40|-1.84|0.0024
91772912|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.25|-0.47|0.5497
91835427|NCT01591382|183551311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7480
91646088|NCT01236053|183184662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.52|0.89|0.2649
91835428|NCT00558064|183551359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|6.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as telmisartan 40 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg fixed-dose combination minus amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy|||6.23|3.98|<0.0001
91772913|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.04|-0.76|0.0276
91772914|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.08|-0.65|0.1274
91772915|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.12|-0.61|0.1865
91772916|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.12|-0.61|0.1857
91772917|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.39|-0.33|0.8631
91772918|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.04|-0.75|0.0304
91772919|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.70|-5.71|0.1246
91772920|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.22|-6.19|0.0680
91772921|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.28|-6.28|0.0729
91772922|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.06|-6.49|0.0541
91772923|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|2.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||2.59|-3.87|0.6960
91772924|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|3.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||3.15|-3.27|0.9725
91772925|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||-0.12|-6.53|0.0419
91772926|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.20|-3.57|0.0794
91835429|NCT00939731|183551432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|92.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.84|101.09||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-02341066 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||101.09|84.84|
91835430|NCT00939731|183551435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|92.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.86|100.68||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-02341066 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||100.68|84.86|
91772927|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.38|-3.47|0.1153
91772928|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||-1.5|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.46|-3.47|0.1334
91772929|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|1.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||1.03|-2.93|0.3457
91772930|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.83|-3.07|0.2607
91772931|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.7816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||1.64|-2.18|0.7816
91772932|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.29|-3.54|0.0955
91772933|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.42|-1.57|0.2582
91772934|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||1.52|-0.53|0.3448
91772935|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||1.28|-0.81|0.6587
91772936|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.93|-1.16|0.8299
91772937|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.92|-1.17|0.8129
91772938|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||1.66|-0.37|0.2130
91772939|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.59|-1.42|0.4131
91772940|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.15|-1.20|0.1273
91772941|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.31|-1.69|0.0046
91772942|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.80|-2.19|<0.0001
91772943|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.78|-2.19|<0.0001
91772944|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.06|-1.45|0.0333
91772945|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.02|-1.39|0.0423
91772946|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.12|-1.49|0.0208
91772947|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.19|-0.55|0.3435
91772948|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.22|-0.98|0.0021
91772949|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.02|-0.79|0.0408
91772950|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.05|-0.73|0.0911
91772951|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.33|-0.44|0.7891
91772952|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.38|-0.38|0.9973
91772953|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||-0.1|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.6377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.29|-0.47|0.6377
91772954|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.40|-5.95|0.0862
91772955|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.74|-5.74|0.1305
91772956|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.26|-6.34|0.0707
91772957|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.71|-5.92|0.1232
91772958|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||1.37|-5.18|0.2530
91772959|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||3.04|-3.40|0.9133
91646089|NCT01236053|183184662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.43|1.02|0.0257
91835431|NCT00939731|183551436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|98.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|108.48||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-02341066 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CI for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||108.48|90.18|
91772960|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.58|-5.85|0.1078
91772961|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.18|-4.07|0.0719
91772962|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.49|-3.80|0.1298
91772963|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.13|-2.26|0.9532
91772964|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.55|-1.84|0.7510
91772965|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.42|-3.95|0.1120
91772966|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|2.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.19|-2.13|0.9781
91772967|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.77|-3.57|0.2060
91772968|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||0.76|-1.46|0.5332
91772969|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||0.70|-1.54|0.4599
91772970|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.55|-0.72|0.4752
91772971|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.07|-1.21|0.9051
91772972|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.15|-1.14|0.9937
91772973|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.35|-0.91|0.6956
91772974|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||0.44|-1.81|0.2302
91835432|NCT01392300|183551439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
91835433|NCT01392300|183551440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|0.1|0.003
91835434|NCT01392300|183551441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|7.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.52|2.43|<0.001
91772975|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.25|-1.55|0.1544
91772976|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.72|-1.10|0.6847
91772977|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.64|-1.20|0.5520
91772978|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.50|-1.36|0.3632
91772979|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.42|-1.43|0.2828
91772980|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.58|-1.24|0.4702
91772981|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.81|-1.02|0.8262
91772982|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.19|-0.60|0.3152
91772983|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.24|-0.56|0.4399
91772984|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.13|-0.67|0.1898
91772985|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.41|-0.40|0.9791
91772986|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.20|-0.61|0.3178
91772987|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.24|-0.57|0.4174
91772988|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.16|-0.63|0.2490
91772989|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||0.79|-6.57|0.1233
91835435|NCT01392300|183551442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.63|1.56|<0.001
91835436|NCT01392300|183551443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.61|1.33|0.004
91835437|NCT01392300|183551444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.57|1.76|<0.001
91835438|NCT01392300|183551445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.34|1.10|0.021
91772990|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.2858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||1.70|-5.76|0.2858
91772991|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|3.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||3.73|-3.87|0.9716
91772992|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||4.03|-3.58|0.9072
91772993|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.2334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|1.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||1.49|-6.07|0.2334
91772994|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|3.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||3.72|-3.79|0.9859
91772995|NCT03192176|183427599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|1.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||1.72|-5.77|0.2870
91772996|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.24|-1.41|0.1632
91772997|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.38|-2.03|0.0045
91772998|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.77|-2.43|0.0002
91772999|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-1.02|-2.70|<0.0001
91773000|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.76|-0.91|0.8569
91773001|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.15|-1.49|0.1110
91773002|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.17|-1.83|0.0187
91773003|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.36|-0.73|0.4972
91773004|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.23|-0.86|0.2568
91773005|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.23|-0.86|0.2609
91773006|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.32|-0.78|0.4148
91773007|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.71|-0.38|0.5575
91773008|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.92|-0.16|0.1671
91773009|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.9462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.53|-0.57|0.9462
91773010|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.04|-0.91|0.0699
91773011|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||-0.20|-1.15|0.0056
91773012|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.09|-0.86|0.1117
91773013|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||-0.06|-1.02|0.0265
91773014|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.09|-0.86|0.1119
91773015|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.40|-0.54|0.7607
91773016|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||-0.01|-0.97|0.0437
91773017|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||-0.12|-1.51|0.0211
91773018|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||-0.42|-1.82|0.0017
91773019|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.03|-1.37|0.0598
91773020|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.20|-1.21|0.1573
91773021|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.7257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.58|-0.83|0.7257
91773022|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.66|-0.72|0.9324
91773023|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.26|-1.14|0.2172
91773024|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.04|-0.88|0.0742
91773025|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Score||-0.23|-1.16|0.0035
91773026|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||-0.06|-0.99|0.0266
91773027|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||-0.13|-1.06|0.0124
91773028|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.28|-0.65|0.4367
91773029|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.44|-0.48|0.9318
91773030|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.04|-0.89|0.0714
91773031|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.29|-1.35|0.2027
91773032|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.53|-2.16|0.0013
91773033|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.87|-2.53|<0.0001
91773034|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-1.16|-2.83|<0.0001
91773035|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.45|-1.19|0.3791
91773036|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.15|-1.78|0.0211
91773037|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.47|-2.10|0.0021
91773038|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.48|-0.55|0.8890
91835439|NCT01392300|183551446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.05|1.32|0.006
91773039|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.36|-0.67|0.5568
91835440|NCT01392300|183551447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|6.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.72|2.06|<0.001
91835441|NCT01392300|183551448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.46|1.40|0.002
91835442|NCT01392300|183551449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.22|0.90|0.102
91835443|NCT01392300|183551450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.23|1.67|<0.001
91835444|NCT01392300|183551451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.41|1.37|0.002
91835445|NCT01392300|183551452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.69|0.95|0.069
91835446|NCT01392300|183551453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.00|1.05|0.034
91835447|NCT01392300|183551454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|0.82|0.169
91835448|NCT01392300|183551455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.49|0.920
91835449|NCT01392300|183551456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|6.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.91|1.83|<0.001
91773040|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.30|-0.75|0.3989
91773041|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.39|-0.66|0.6094
91773042|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.69|-0.35|0.5229
91773043|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.72|-0.31|0.4409
91773044|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.58|-0.45|0.8062
91773045|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.26|-0.71|0.3663
91835450|NCT01392300|183551457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.28|0.007
91835451|NCT01392300|183551458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.41|1.15|0.018
91773046|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||-0.02|-0.99|0.0424
91835452|NCT01392300|183551459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
91835453|NCT01392300|183551460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.011
91835454|NCT01392300|183551461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.032
91835455|NCT01392300|183551462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
91835456|NCT01392300|183551463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.5|<0.001
91835457|NCT01392300|183551464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.029
91835458|NCT01392300|183551465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
91835459|NCT01392300|183551466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.019
91835460|NCT01392300|183551467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.137
91835461|NCT01392300|183551468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.013
91835462|NCT01392300|183551469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.131
91835463|NCT01392300|183551470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.714
91835464|NCT01392300|183551471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
91835465|NCT01392300|183551472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.008
91896042|NCT04874415|183687458|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00000001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00002|0.00002|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.00002|-0.00002|
91773047|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.14|-0.85|0.1597
91773048|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.02|-0.97|0.0595
91773049|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.18|-0.80|0.2162
91773050|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.48|-0.49|0.9833
91773051|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.17|-0.81|0.2034
91773052|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.67|-0.70|0.9576
91773053|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||-0.03|-1.40|0.0410
91773054|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.40|-1.00|0.3961
91773055|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.46|-0.94|0.5012
91773056|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.30|-1.10|0.2592
91773057|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.6141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.86|-0.51|0.6141
91773058|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.41|-0.95|0.4390
91773059|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.29|-0.64|0.4521
91773060|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||-0.06|-0.99|0.0257
91773061|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.01|-0.93|0.0564
91773062|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 8: Overall Mean Score||-0.05|-0.99|0.0293
91773063|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.26|-0.68|0.3742
91773064|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.44|-0.49|0.9106
91773065|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean SCore||0.15|-0.78|0.1844
91773066|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.09|-1.69|0.0287
91773067|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.43|-2.05|0.0028
91773068|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.67|-2.32|0.0004
91773069|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-1.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-1.22|-2.87|<0.0001
91773070|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.26|-1.38|0.1826
91773071|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.17|-1.79|0.0178
91773072|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.44|-2.06|0.0025
91773073|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.50|-0.55|0.9163
91773074|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.15|-0.92|0.1597
91773075|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.35|-0.74|0.4871
91773076|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.38|-0.72|0.5401
91773077|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.79|-0.30|0.3788
91773078|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||0.28|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.74|-0.33|0.4541
91773079|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.56|-0.51|0.9233
91773080|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.35|-0.61|0.6043
91773081|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.15|-0.82|0.1781
91773082|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.34|-0.66|0.5221
91773083|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.4744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.32|-0.68|0.4744
91773084|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.33|-0.66|0.5167
91773085|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.72|-0.25|0.3441
91773086|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.33|-0.64|0.5362
91773087|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.71|-0.78|0.9349
91773088|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||-0.26|-1.78|0.0084
91773089|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.16|-1.38|0.1212
91773090|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.66|-0.89|0.7709
91773091|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.23|-1.33|0.1667
91773092|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.79|-0.72|0.9213
91773093|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.29|-1.21|0.2315
91773094|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.29|-0.63|0.4731
91773095|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||-0.05|-0.98|0.0310
91773096|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.11|-0.84|0.1320
91773097|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.10|-0.85|0.1212
91773098|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.34|-0.62|0.5689
91773099|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||0.1|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.55|-0.39|0.7340
91773100|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.20|-0.73|0.2704
91773101|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.67|-1.24|0.5610
91773102|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.09|-0.83|0.7966
91773103|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.40|-0.56|0.3965
91773104|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.10|-0.87|0.8189
91773105|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.70|-1.27|0.5693
91773106|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.5217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.65|-1.29|0.5217
91773107|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.48|-0.46|0.2988
91773108|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.53|-0.69|0.7957
91773109|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.26|-0.97|0.2540
91773110|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.50|-0.75|0.6956
91773111|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.68|-0.57|0.8694
91835466|NCT01392300|183551473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.062
91835467|NCT01392300|183551474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.006
91835468|NCT01392300|183551475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.076
91835469|NCT01392300|183551476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.416
91835470|NCT01392300|183551477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
91707805|NCT04227405|183308959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test for the Common Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.10
91707806|NCT04227405|183308959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group in the Negative Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.10
91707807|NCT04227405|183308959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group for the Negative Dyadic Coping subscale||||<.05
91707808|NCT04227405|183308959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test inn the Negative Dyadic Coping Scale||||>.05
91707809|NCT04227405|183308960|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group for the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
91707810|NCT04227405|183308960|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the intervention group for the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.05
91707811|NCT04227405|183308960|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up for the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
91707812|NCT04227405|183308962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group in the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subcale||||>.05
91707813|NCT04227405|183308962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group in the Supportive Dyadic Coping Scale||||<.001
91707814|NCT04227405|183308962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test||||<.01
91707815|NCT04227405|183308962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for the Common Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
91707816|NCT04227405|183308962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group in the Common Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.001
91707817|NCT04227405|183308962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test inn the Common Dyadic Coping subscale||||<.01
91707818|NCT04227405|183308962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for the Negative Dyadic Coping Scale||||>.05
91835471|NCT01392300|183551478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.175
91707819|NCT04227405|183308962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group for the Negative Dyadic Coping Scale||||<.10
91835472|NCT01392300|183551479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.140
91707820|NCT04227405|183308962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test for the Negative Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
91707821|NCT02187029|183309013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.32|-48.78|||Bayesian ANCOVA|||||-48.780|-56.320|
91707822|NCT02187029|183309013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.31|-61.54|||Bayesian ANCOVA|||||-61.540|-71.310|
91707823|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||||90.0|-0.55|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||-0.06|-0.55|
91707824|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||-0.28|-0.95|
91707825|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||-1.16|-1.52|
91707826|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|-1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||-1.33|-2.38|
91707827|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||-1.48|-2.18|
91707828|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||-1.37|-2.11|
91707829|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.89|-2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-2.06|-2.89|
91707830|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.29|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||-2.20|-3.29|
91835473|NCT01392300|183551480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.007
91707831|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|-2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||-2.21|-3.39|
91707832|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|-2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||-2.41|-3.72|
91707833|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.03|-2.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day7, Hour 4||-2.77|-4.03|
91707834|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.82|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||-2.79|-3.82|
91707835|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|-2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||-2.68|-3.72|
91707836|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|-2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||-2.32|-3.30|
91707837|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.19|-3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11||-3.92|-5.19|
91707838|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.75|-3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||-3.88|-4.75|
91707839|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.02|-4.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||-4.08|-5.02|
91707840|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.47|-4.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||-4.47|-5.47|
91707841|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.83|-5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||-5.02|-5.83|
91707842|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.08|-5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||-5.05|-6.08|
91707843|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|-4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||-4.82|-5.86|
91707844|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.12|-4.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||-4.18|-5.12|
91707845|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.97|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||0.79|-2.97|
91707846|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||-0.32|-0.92|
91707847|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||-0.75|-1.61|
91707848|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.14|-2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||-2.69|-3.14|
91707849|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.36|-3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||-3.03|-4.36|
91707850|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||-3.40|-4.28|
91835474|NCT01392300|183551481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.018
91835475|NCT01392300|183551482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.105
91835476|NCT01392300|183551483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.016
91707851|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||||90.0|-3.94|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||-3.00|-3.94|
91707852|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.29|-4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-4.23|-5.29|
91773112|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.5047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.41|-0.84|0.5047
91707853|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||-5.00|-6.62|
91707854|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.72|-4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||-4.95|-6.72|
91707855|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.17|-5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||-5.19|-7.17|
91707856|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.46|-5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||-5.55|-7.46|
91707857|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||-5.51|-7.07|
91707858|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.03|-5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||-5.44|-7.03|
91707859|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||-4.99|-6.50|
91707860|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.59|-4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11||-4.65|-6.59|
91835477|NCT01392300|183551484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.014
91707861|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.42|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||-5.10|-6.42|
91707862|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.67|-5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||-5.24|-6.67|
91707863|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|-5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||-5.38|-6.90|
91707864|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.03|-5.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||-5.81|-7.03|
91707865|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.41|-5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||-5.87|-7.41|
91707866|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.18|-5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||-5.63|-7.18|
91707867|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|-5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||-5.07|-6.47|
91773113|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.71|-0.52|0.7515
91835478|NCT01392300|183551485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.220
91707868|NCT02187029|183309018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.96|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||-0.35|-4.96|
91707869|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0423|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1103|0.0394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.0394|-0.1103|
91707870|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1269|0.0966|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.0966|-0.1269|
91707871|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0422|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1078|0.0417|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.0417|-0.1078|
91707872|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.0820|-0.0750|
91707873|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0367|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1153|0.0149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.0149|-0.1153|
91707874|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0553|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1058|0.0899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||0.0899|-0.1058|
91707875|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0539|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0561|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1538|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.0460|-0.1538|
91707876|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0506|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0793|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.1010|-0.0793|
91707877|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0496|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0554|0.1213|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.1213|-0.0554|
91707878|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0459|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0733|0.0905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.0905|-0.0733|
91707879|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0349|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0865|0.0378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.0378|-0.0865|
91707880|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0251|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0973|-0.0079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||-0.0079|-0.0973|
91707881|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0331|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0889|0.0292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.0292|-0.0889|
91835479|NCT01392300|183551486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.429
91773114|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.53|-0.70|0.7818
91773115|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.36|-0.65|0.5770
91773116|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.17|-0.85|0.1893
91773117|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.79|-0.25|0.2997
91773118|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.44|-0.60|0.7529
91773119|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.31|-0.73|0.4173
91773120|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.69|-0.34|0.4944
91773121|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.49|-0.54|0.9231
91773122|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.52|-1.04|0.5112
91835480|NCT01392300|183551487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.884
91835481|NCT01392300|183551488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.844
91835482|NCT02401464|183551501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1) 90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|Least Squares (LS) mean difference (ln)|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.927|1.001||||||Based on the analysis of variance (ANOVA) in which the natural logarithms of AUC(0-48) of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||1.001|0.927|
91773123|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||-0.09|-1.66|0.0300
91773124|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.04|-1.57|0.0634
91773125|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.9406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.84|-0.78|0.9406
91773126|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.16|-1.46|0.1168
91773127|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.80|-0.79|0.9937
91773128|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.26|-1.32|0.1858
91773129|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.36|-0.65|0.5765
91773130|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.17|-0.86|0.1848
91773131|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.61|-0.43|0.7299
91773132|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.50|-0.54|0.9415
91773133|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.23|-0.82|0.2742
91773134|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.62|-0.41|0.6946
91773135|NCT03192176|183427600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.50|-0.53|0.9442
91835483|NCT02401464|183551502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1)90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|LS mean difference (ln)|0.906|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.933||||||Based on the ANOVA in which the natural logarithms of Cmax of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% CIs for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||0.933|0.880|
91852166|NCT01063517|183587405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|0.56|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of death in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of death in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||0.56|0.22|
91773136|NCT03631940|183427615|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.49||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|5.37|||Hierarchical generalized linear mixed mo|Hierarchical generalized linear mixed models||||5.37|-6.36|.87
91773137|NCT00836589|183427626|NON_INFERIORITY|"Estimated SAEFR at 5 years is 92.5% with a 5% non-inferiority margin (87.5%).~Type I error (alpha) is 0.05 (one-sided for non-inferiority).~Statistical power is 80%."||||||0.002|||||||Binomial Proportion|||||||0.0020
91773138|NCT00117637|183427636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.27||The log rank test is stratified by region (western Europe, Eastern Europe, USA) and by Motzer risk category (low, intermediate).|Log Rank|||The study was planned to show a 80% improvement in PFS for the group treated with Sorafenib compared to the group treated with Interferon, with a 80% power and a 2-sided type I error of 5%||1.27|0.61|0.50
91773139|NCT00117637|183427637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.239||The log rank test is stratified by region (western Europe, Eastern Europe, USA) and by Motzer risk category (low, intermediate).|Log Rank|||The study was planned to show a 80% improvement in PFS for the group treated with Sorafenib compared to the group treated with Interferon, with a 80% power and a 2-sided type I error of 5%||1.239|0.628|0.469
91773140|NCT00117637|183427638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics was stratified by region and Motzer risk category.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.006
91773141|NCT00117637|183427639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics was stratified by region and Motzer risk category.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
91773142|NCT00117637|183427641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline) and using the baseline respiratory score as covariate.||||0.022
91773143|NCT00117637|183427643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline) and using the baseline respiratory score as covariate.||||0.015
91773144|NCT00117637|183427645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.073
91835484|NCT02401464|183551503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1) 90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|LS mean difference (ln)|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.011||||||Based on the ANOVA in which the natural logarithms of AUC(0-48) of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% CIs for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||1.011|0.958|
91835485|NCT02401464|183551504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1) 90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|LS mean difference (ln)|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.022||||||Based on the ANOVA in which the natural logarithms of Cmax of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% CIs for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||1.022|0.938|
91835486|NCT01337986|183551510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Per protocol Analysis||||0.84
91835487|NCT01337986|183551510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in EDTRS between Visits 2 and 3.||||.29
91835488|NCT01337986|183551512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the change relevant to baseline (visit 1) in EDTRS 5% contrast sensitivity with dalfampridine vs placebo.||||.64
91835489|NCT01337986|183551512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis for period effect: there will be no difference in the change relevant to baseline (visit 1) in EDTRS 5% contrast sensitivity for those who started on dalfampridine and crossed over to placebo, compared to those who started on placebo and crossed over to dalfampridine.||||0.11
91835490|NCT01337986|183551513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.93
91835491|NCT01337986|183551514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.34
91835492|NCT01337986|183551516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.1||Probability of being in the lowest quartile for Visual Field Index deficits.|Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio for Visual Field Index|||2.10|1.02|0.04
91835493|NCT01337986|183551517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.94
91835494|NCT01337986|183551518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91835495|NCT01337986|183551519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.72
91835496|NCT02313909|183551521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.51884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.33|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Stroke + Systemic embolism: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.33|0.87|0.51884
91835497|NCT02313909|183551522|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.72||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.39|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: ISTH major bleeding events: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||4.39|1.68|0.00002
91835498|NCT02313909|183551523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.56922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.29|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Confidence intervals were calculated, if at least 1 event in each treatment arm existed. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.29|0.87|0.56922
91835499|NCT02313909|183551524|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.22078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.81|||Log Rank|||Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Confidence intervals were calculated, if at least 1 event in each treatment arm existed. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.81|0.87|0.22078
91835500|NCT02313909|183551525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 1: Stroke: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.34|0.87|0.47970
91852167|NCT02974634|183587439|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.6||Comparison of intervention and usual care at 6 month follow up|t-test, 2 sided||Interaction coefficient (slope) of arm by time period (6 months follow up vs baseline) from mixed linear model|||5.6|-3.5|0.06
91852168|NCT02974634|183587440|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.91||Comparison of intervention and usual care at 6 month follow up|t-test, 2 sided||Interaction coefficient (slope) of arm by time period (6 months follow up vs baseline) from mixed linear model|||0.91|-0.24|0.68
91852169|NCT05011396|183587441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-10.5|0.0153
91773145|NCT00117637|183427647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.067
91773146|NCT00117637|183427648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.005
91773147|NCT00117637|183427649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.001
91773148|NCT00117637|183427650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.019
91773149|NCT00117637|183427659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.014
91773150|NCT03324607|183427672|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.006
91773151|NCT01890343|183427716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The effect of diagnostic group on mean cortical florbetapir binding relative to cerebellar cortex was determined.||||0.002
91773152|NCT00189098|183427728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-6.0|||risk differences (RD)||Risk difference and 95% confidence intervals reported for 6 weeks follow-up.|"Assuming a spontaneous recovery of 25% and a treatment effect of TMP-SMX of 50% (based on a retrospective study of children treated with TMP-SMX for COM at our hospital), and taking α=0.05 and a power of 0.80, we calculated that each group should consist of 50 children.~Rate differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the three control visits to compare both groups for the outcome measures."||-6|-44|
91773153|NCT00189098|183427728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|4.0|||risk difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for 12 week follow-up|"Assuming a spontaneous recovery of 25% and a treatment effect of TMP-SMX of 50% (based on a retrospective study of children treated with TMP-SMX for COM at our hospital), and taking α=0.05 and a power of 0.80, we calculated that each group should consist of 50 children.~Rate differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the three control visits to compare both groups for the outcome measures."||4|-34|
91773154|NCT00189098|183427728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|22.0|||risk difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for 1 year follow-up.|"Assuming a spontaneous recovery of 25% and a treatment effect of TMP-SMX of 50% (based on a retrospective study of children treated with TMP-SMX for COM at our hospital), and taking α=0.05 and a power of 0.80, we calculated that each group should consist of 50 children.~Rate differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the three control visits to compare both groups for the outcome measures."||22|-12|
91835501|NCT02313909|183551525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.78738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.29|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 2: Ischemic stroke: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.29|0.83|0.78738
91852170|NCT05011396|183587442|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.1625||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0132|0.3119|||Wald Normal Approximation (Z)|||||0.3119|0.0132|0.0330
91646090|NCT01236053|183184662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.3|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.30|0.93|0.2540
91773155|NCT00189098|183427729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|10.0|||rate differences (95%CI intervals)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for eardrop usage between 6 and 12 weeks follow-up.|||10|-34|
91773156|NCT00189098|183427730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|14.0|||rate difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for eardrop usage between 12 weeks and 1 year follow-up.|||14|-22|
91773157|NCT00189098|183427731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|9.0|||Rate differences (95%CI interval)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for the use of additional systemic antibiotics other than the study medication between 6 to 12 weeks follow-up.|||9|-23|
91773158|NCT00189098|183427732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|37.0|||Rate difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for the use of additional systemic antibiotics other than the study medication between 12 weeks and 1 year follow-up.|||37|-7|
91773159|NCT00189098|183427733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|24.0|||Rate differences (95%CI intervals)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for participants who underwent Ear Nose and Throat Surgery between 12 weeks and 1 year follow-up.|||24|-12|
91773160|NCT00265564|183427761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We investigated treatment condition differences in change of drug and alcohol use over four time-points using generalized linear mixed modeling analyses. A trajectory for each participant was modeled yielding estimates of baseline scores (intercept), slope, and error. Four between-person parameters were estimated: average baseline score for all participants, average slope over time in TAU condition, effect of being in SS on average intercept, effect of being in SS on average slope.||||> .05
91773161|NCT00265564|183427762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91773162|NCT00265564|183427763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed modeling analysis||||>.05
91773163|NCT00467740|183427790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0754||95.0|-0.008|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|-0.008|0.0754
91773164|NCT00467740|183427790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0571||95.0|-0.003|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.174|-0.003|0.0571
91773165|NCT00467740|183427790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0906||95.0|-0.012|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|-0.012|0.0906
91773166|NCT00467740|183427790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0011||95.0|0.059|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.234|0.059|0.0011
91773167|NCT00467740|183427791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.843||0.0393||95.0|0.801|31.675|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||31.675|0.801|0.0393
91773168|NCT00467740|183427791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.875||0.0005||95.0|12.379|43.378|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||43.378|12.379|0.0005
91773169|NCT00467740|183427791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.906|<|0.0001||95.0|20.512|51.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||51.633|20.512|<0.0001
91773170|NCT00467740|183427791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.848|<|0.0001||95.0|27.498|58.389|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||58.389|27.498|<0.0001
91773171|NCT00467740|183427792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.1264||95.0|-0.019|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.154|-0.019|0.1264
91773172|NCT00467740|183427792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0232||95.0|0.014|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.014|0.0232
91773173|NCT00467740|183427792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0106||95.0|0.027|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.027|0.0106
91707882|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0268|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0649|0.0315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.0315|-0.0649|
91773174|NCT00467740|183427792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.260|0.087|0.0001
91773175|NCT00467740|183427793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0329||95.0|0.008|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.198|0.008|0.0329
91835502|NCT02313909|183551525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.14822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.28|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 3: Disabling stroke: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||2.28|0.88|0.14822
91896043|NCT04874415|183687458|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
91773176|NCT00467740|183427793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0666||95.0|-0.006|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|-0.006|0.0666
91773177|NCT00467740|183427793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3738||95.0|-0.052|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.052|0.3738
91773178|NCT00467740|183427793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0037||95.0|0.046|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.234|0.046|0.0037
91773179|NCT00467740|183427794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.2646||95.0|-0.039|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.142|-0.039|0.2646
91773180|NCT00467740|183427794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.3527||95.0|-0.048|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|-0.048|0.3527
91773181|NCT00467740|183427794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.1369||95.0|-0.022|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|-0.022|0.1369
91773182|NCT00467740|183427794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0051||95.0|0.039|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.039|0.0051
91773183|NCT00467740|183427795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.017||95.0|0.023|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.232|0.023|0.0170
91773184|NCT00467740|183427795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0646||95.0|-0.006|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|-0.006|0.0646
91773185|NCT00467740|183427795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.602||95.0|-0.077|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.132|-0.077|0.6020
91773186|NCT00467740|183427795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0147||95.0|0.026|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.026|0.0147
91773187|NCT00467740|183427796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.4902||95.0|-0.068|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.142|-0.068|0.4902
91773188|NCT00467740|183427796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.2832||95.0|-0.048|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|-0.048|0.2832
91773189|NCT00467740|183427796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.6516||95.0|-0.081|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|-0.081|0.6516
91835503|NCT02313909|183551525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.14051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.52|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 4:CV death: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||2.52|0.87|0.14051
91835504|NCT02313909|183551525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.34284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.38|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 5: Myocardial infarction: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.38|0.39|0.34284
91835505|NCT02313909|183551526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.34||||0.00443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.29|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||4.29|1.28|0.00443
91835506|NCT02313909|183551527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.00451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.0|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||2.00|1.13|0.00451
91835507|NCT02313909|183551528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.04409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.02|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 1: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||4.02|1.00|0.04409
91773190|NCT00467740|183427796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.006||95.0|0.042|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.042|0.0060
91773191|NCT00467740|183427797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0005||95.0|0.079|0.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.277|0.079|0.0005
91773192|NCT00467740|183427797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.007||95.0|0.038|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.237|0.038|0.0070
91773193|NCT00467740|183427797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0512||95.0|-0.001|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.198|-0.001|0.0512
91773194|NCT00467740|183427797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.331|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.331|0.133|<0.0001
91646091|NCT01236053|183184662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.75|0.76|0.5141
91896044|NCT04874415|183687458|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
91896045|NCT04874415|183687458|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.000003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.004|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.004|-0.004|
91707883|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0337|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.001|0.1222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.1222|0.0010|
91773195|NCT00467740|183427798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.1811||95.0|-0.039|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|-0.039|0.1811
91773196|NCT00467740|183427798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.2118||95.0|-0.044|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|-0.044|0.2118
91773197|NCT00467740|183427798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.5504||95.0|-0.085|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|-0.085|0.5504
91773198|NCT00467740|183427798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.0022||95.0|0.069|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.312|0.069|0.0022
91773199|NCT00467740|183427799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.102|<0.0001
91773200|NCT00467740|183427799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.260|0.106|<0.0001
91773201|NCT00467740|183427799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.096|<0.0001
91773202|NCT00467740|183427799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.214|0.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.367|0.214|<0.0001
91773203|NCT00467740|183427800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.279|0.101|<0.0001
91773204|NCT00467740|183427800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.286|0.107|<0.0001
91773205|NCT00467740|183427800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0007||95.0|0.067|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.067|0.0007
91773206|NCT00467740|183427800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.352|0.174|<0.0001
91835508|NCT04026165|183551534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.81|||Random Slope Model|||Estimates were from a random slope model with change in eGFRcr from treatment-specific Baselines at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 84 as outcome, including terms for treatment-specific Baseline eGFRcr, pre-run-in urine albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) category (\< 1500 mg/g vs. \>= 1500 mg/g), concomitant use of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors at Randomization, treatment group, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, where week has a random effect.||2.81|-0.41|0.1439
91896046|NCT00701220|183687462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The data were analyzed using analysis of variance for repeated measures with two groups. The repeated measure was the proportion of circulating blood cells that were positive for aldehyde dehydrogenase using the commercially available Aldofluor assay. The two groups were those with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. This analysis permitted both intergroup and intragroup analysis of the change in aldehyde dehydrogenase positive cells.||||<0.05
91896047|NCT02700945|183687463|SUPERIORITY|The 12-month Kaplan-Meier estimate will be reported for each arm. The hazard ratio estimate for the treatment effect with its 95% confidence interval will be reported.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|21.3||A priori threshold is .05|Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \> 1 indicates that continuous monitoring arm is superior to control arm in detecting AF.|H0: h(t) = hT(t) for t ≤ 12 months HA: hC(t) ≠ hT(t) for t ≤ 12 months where hT(t) and hC(t) are the hazard functions of first detected and adjudicated AF at time t for subjects with and without the Reveal LINQ diagnostics for AF, respectively. Hazard functions and survival functions are transformations of each other.||21.3|2.6|<0.001
91707884|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0512|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0104|0.1945|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.1945|0.0104|
91896048|NCT04018092|183687476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573||||||Only 2 values, thus not necessary to adjust.|Regression, Linear|The independent variable = intervention (active, sham); Covariates=baseline scores, site (Florida, Arizona), age (yrs), sex (m,f), and education (yrs)||linear regression was used to analyze pre-post intervention changes in the active vs sham group. Covariates in regression were baseline cognitive performance, site (University of Florida, University of Arizona), age (yrs), sex (F, M) and education (years)||||0.573
91773207|NCT00467740|183427801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.313|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.313|0.115|<0.0001
91773208|NCT00467740|183427801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0021||95.0|0.057|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.057|0.0021
91773209|NCT00467740|183427801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0795||95.0|-0.01|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|-0.010|0.0795
91773210|NCT00467740|183427801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.326|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.326|0.129|<0.0001
91773211|NCT00467740|183427802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0003||95.0|0.082|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.276|0.082|0.0003
91773212|NCT00467740|183427802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0077||95.0|0.035|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.035|0.0077
91773213|NCT00467740|183427802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0427||95.0|0.003|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.003|0.0427
91773214|NCT00467740|183427802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.143|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.336|0.143|<0.0001
91773215|NCT00467740|183427803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0005||95.0|0.074|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.263|0.074|0.0005
91773216|NCT00467740|183427803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0003||95.0|0.08|0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.269|0.080|0.0003
91773217|NCT00467740|183427803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0004||95.0|0.078|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.268|0.078|0.0004
91773218|NCT00467740|183427803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001||95.0|0.202|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.390|0.202|<0.0001
91773219|NCT00467740|183427804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0004||95.0|0.078|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.268|0.078|0.0004
91773220|NCT00467740|183427804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0002||95.0|0.09|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.090|0.0002
91896049|NCT04018092|183687477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Default Mode Network Analysis: Regression was performed using permutation tests with 5000 iterations for significance and to address multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Covariates: Baseline network segregation values, Age, Sex, Education years, study site Baseline white matter hyperintensity volume. DOF = (1, 135)||||||0.043
91773221|NCT00467740|183427804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0047||95.0|0.043|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.043|0.0047
91773222|NCT00467740|183427804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.332|0.142|<0.0001
91773223|NCT00467740|183427805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0002||95.0|0.096|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.312|0.096|0.0002
91773224|NCT00467740|183427805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0057||95.0|0.045|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.261|0.045|0.0057
91835509|NCT04026165|183551535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.1||||0.8353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|11.4||p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors= pre-run-in eGFRcr stratum, pre-run-in UACR category and concomitant use of SGLT-2 inhibitors at Randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% exact CI based on the Santner-Snell method was presented for the difference in proportions between SEL and placebo arms.|||11.4|-10.9|0.8353
91835510|NCT04026165|183551536|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.72|||Stratified Log-Rank|P-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Hazard ratio and 95% CI were estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by randomization stratification factors and were reported only for outcomes with more than 10 events, and have at least 1 event in each treatment arm.|||2.72|0.81|0.2010
91835511|NCT04026165|183551538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.86|||Random Slope Model|||Estimates were from a random slope model with change in eGFRcys from pre-run-in Baseline at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 84 as outcome, including terms for pre-run-in Baseline eGFRcys, pre-run-in UACR category (\< 1500 mg/g vs. \>= 1500 mg/g), concomitant use of SGLT-2 inhibitors at Randomization, treatment group, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, where week has a random effect.||1.86|-0.97|0.5399
91835512|NCT01257880|183551540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the null hypothesis that basilar artery vasomotor reactivity was equivalent between the two groups.||||0.39
91835513|NCT01059630|183551547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.40|<0.0001
91835514|NCT01059630|183551549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.45|<0.0001
91835515|NCT01059630|183551550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|0.98||||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.65|0.58|0.9298
91835516|NCT01059630|183551551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|-0.9||||0.7857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|6.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.64|-8.44|0.7857
91835517|NCT01059630|183551556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|2.24||||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|11.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.69|-7.20|0.8347
91835518|NCT01059630|183551557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|8.55||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|17.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.32|-0.22|0.0466
91835519|NCT01059630|183551558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.61||||||||0.61|0.31|
91835520|NCT01059630|183551559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.67||||||||0.67|0.39|
91835521|NCT01059630|183551560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45||||||||0.45|0.04|
91835522|NCT01059630|183551561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.81||||||||0.81|0.29|
91835523|NCT01059630|183551562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.74|||Log Rank|||||0.74|0.44|0.0001
91896050|NCT04018092|183687477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||Frontoparietal Control Network Analysis: Regression was performed using permutation tests with 5000 iterations for significance and to address multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Covariates: Baseline network segregation values, age, sex, education years, study site and baseline white matter hyperintensity volume. DOF = (1, 135)||||||0.285
91835524|NCT01059630|183551564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.57|0.0810
91835525|NCT00985985|183551609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio based on logistic model (adjusted by center)|Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference in the smoking cessation success rate for the active treatment versus its matching placebo.||1.92|0.78|0.3851
91835526|NCT00985985|183551609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio based on logistic model (adjusted by center).|Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference in the smoking cessation success rate for the active treatment versus its matching placebo.||3.32|0.99|0.0565
91835527|NCT03532308|183551637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||This is for the effect of treatment with time, risk stratification and treatment\*time interaction in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
91835528|NCT03720938|183551643|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 26 children per group was needed with the assumption of Cohen's d = 0.8, the alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 80%.||||||0.001||||||The outcomes of weight was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.||||0.001
91835529|NCT03720938|183551643|OTHER|||||||0.0002535||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.||||0.0002535
91835530|NCT03720938|183551643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000397||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.||||0.000397
91835531|NCT03720938|183551644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The outcome of weight z score was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight z scores.||||0.005
91835532|NCT03720938|183551644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight z score.||||0.002
91773225|NCT00467740|183427805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.1513||95.0|-0.029|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|-0.029|0.1513
91773226|NCT00467740|183427805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001||95.0|0.114|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.328|0.114|<0.0001
91773227|NCT00467740|183427806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0022||95.0|0.06|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.271|0.060|0.0022
91773228|NCT00467740|183427806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0307||95.0|0.011|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.223|0.011|0.0307
91773229|NCT00467740|183427806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.132||95.0|-0.025|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|-0.025|0.1320
91773230|NCT00467740|183427806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.337|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.337|0.127|<0.0001
91773231|NCT00467740|183427807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1585||95.0|-0.031|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|-0.031|0.1585
91773232|NCT00467740|183427807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0848||95.0|-0.013|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|-0.013|0.0848
91773233|NCT00467740|183427807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0838||95.0|-0.013|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|-0.013|0.0838
91773234|NCT00467740|183427807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0014||95.0|0.07|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis||Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.289|0.070|0.0014
91773235|NCT00467740|183427808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0959||95.0|-0.018|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|-0.018|0.0959
91773236|NCT00467740|183427808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.047||95.0|0.002|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.237|0.002|0.0470
91773237|NCT00467740|183427808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.196||95.0|-0.04|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|-0.040|0.1960
91773238|NCT00467740|183427808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.002||95.0|0.068|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.068|0.0020
91773239|NCT00467740|183427809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.027||95.0|0.016|0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.269|0.016|0.0270
91773240|NCT00467740|183427809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.1031||95.0|-0.021|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|-0.021|0.1031
91773241|NCT00467740|183427809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.4378||95.0|-0.077|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|-0.077|0.4378
91773242|NCT00467740|183427809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0064||95.0|0.05|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.303|0.050|0.0064
91773243|NCT00467740|183427810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.2781||95.0|-0.061|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.210|-0.061|0.2781
91773244|NCT00467740|183427810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.3284||95.0|-0.068|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|-0.068|0.3284
91773245|NCT00467740|183427810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.602||95.0|-0.1|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|-0.100|0.6020
91835533|NCT03720938|183551644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00386||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality. Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom correction method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||||0.00386
91835534|NCT03720938|183551645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcomes of weight was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the body mass index at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.||||0.000
91835535|NCT03720938|183551645|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.06e-06||||||"Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.~Adjusted for cluster effect, and small sample sizes, baseline value and age."|Linear mixed effects model|Satterthwaite's correction method for denominator degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.||||0.00000306
91835536|NCT03720938|183551645|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.67e-06||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.||||0.00000367
91835537|NCT03720938|183551646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcome of body mass index z score was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the body mass index z score at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index z score.||||0.000
91835538|NCT03720938|183551646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001402||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index z score.||||0.0001402
91835539|NCT03720938|183551646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000235||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body index z score.||||0.000235
91835540|NCT03720938|183551647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259||||||The outcomes of fat ratio was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the fat ratio at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.||||0.259
91835541|NCT03720938|183551647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.||||0.220
91835542|NCT03720938|183551647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.250006||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.||||0.250006
91773246|NCT00467740|183427810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0006||95.0|0.104|0.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.375|0.104|0.0006
91773247|NCT00467740|183427811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.4331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|-0.079|0.4331
91773248|NCT00467740|183427811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.178|-0.089|0.5150
91773249|NCT00467740|183427811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|-0.095|0.5714
91773250|NCT00467740|183427811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.296|0.028|0.0177
91773251|NCT00467740|183427812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.665||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.883|38.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.057|7.883|0.0030
91773252|NCT00467740|183427812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.446|39.754|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||39.754|9.446|0.0016
91773253|NCT00467740|183427812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.727|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.598|52.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||52.015|21.598|<.0001
91773254|NCT00467740|183427812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.675|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.399|57.611|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||57.611|27.399|<.0001
91773255|NCT00467740|183427813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.055||0.2898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.194|0.957|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.957|-3.194|0.2898
91773256|NCT00467740|183427813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.432|-0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.269|-4.432|0.0270
91773257|NCT00467740|183427813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.138|-0.952|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.952|-5.138|0.0045
91773258|NCT00467740|183427813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.865|-5.010|0.0056
91773259|NCT00467740|183427814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|0.218|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|-0.793|0.2645
91773260|NCT00467740|183427814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.034|-0.018|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.018|-1.034|0.0423
91773261|NCT00467740|183427814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.842|0.178|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.178|-0.842|0.2008
91773262|NCT00467740|183427814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|-0.087|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.087|-1.098|0.0218
91773263|NCT00467740|183427823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.2156||95.0|-0.368|0.083|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.083|-0.368|0.2156
91773264|NCT00467740|183427823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.0869||95.0|-0.422|0.029|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.029|-0.422|0.0869
91773265|NCT00467740|183427823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.0044||95.0|-0.552|-0.103|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.103|-0.552|0.0044
91773266|NCT00467740|183427823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0158||95.0|-0.499|-0.052|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.052|-0.499|0.0158
91773267|NCT02374164|183427892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.612|0.847|||||Ratio Fed/Fasted. Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data. Bioequivalence was reached if the value was 0.80 to 1.25.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in the fasted and fed (high-fat meal) states.||0.847|0.612|
91773268|NCT00844376|183427898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.77||||||90.0|85.82|106.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed AUC48 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for AUC48; restricted (residual) maximum likelihood (REML) method of estimation.||106.88|85.82|
91773269|NCT00844376|183427899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.04||||||90.0|84.99|106.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for AUCinf||106.27|84.99|
91773270|NCT00844376|183427900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.86||||||90.0|83.86|107.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for AUClast||107.29|83.86|
91773271|NCT00844376|183427901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|117.9||||||90.0|98.22|141.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for Cmax||141.53|98.22|
91773272|NCT00539981|183427909|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. B falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|1.07||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36||Threshold for significance of p value was 0.05.|ANOVA|||A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot B||1.36|0.85|0.009
91773273|NCT00539981|183427909|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.91||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|0.91|0.71|1.15||Threshold for significance of p value was 0.05.|ANOVA|||A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.15|0.71|0.009
91773274|NCT00539981|183427909|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot B vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.85||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||ANOVA|Threshold for significance of p value was 0.05.||A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.07|0.67|0.009
91773275|NCT00539981|183427909|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. B falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|2.03||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.64||Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.|ANOVA|||A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot B||2.64|1.56|0.065
91773276|NCT00539981|183427909|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|1.63||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.11|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot C||2.11|1.26|0.065
91773277|NCT00539981|183427909|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot B vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.04|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.04|0.62|0.065
91773278|NCT00539981|183427909|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. B falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.88||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.13|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot B||1.13|0.69|0.011
91773279|NCT00539981|183427909|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.85||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.09|0.65|0.011
91773280|NCT00539981|183427909|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot B vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.96||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.23|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.23|0.75|0.011
91773281|NCT00539981|183427910|SUPERIORITY|Relative protective efficacy is equivalent to absolute efficacy which is defined as the reduction in the influenza rate for Flublok relative to placebo.|Relative protective efficacy|75.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.0|99.5||||||FluBlok versus Placebo||99.5|-148.0|
91773282|NCT03069352|183427924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.071|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|||1.071|0.524|0.114
91773283|NCT03069352|183427924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.061|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.061|0.521|0.103
91773284|NCT03069352|183427925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
91773285|NCT03069352|183427925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91773286|NCT03069352|183427926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
91773287|NCT03069352|183427926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91773288|NCT03069352|183427927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
91773289|NCT03069352|183427927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91773290|NCT03069352|183427928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
91773291|NCT03069352|183427928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91773292|NCT03069352|183427929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
91835543|NCT03720938|183551648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcome of visual reaction time was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time.||||0.000
91773293|NCT03069352|183427929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91773294|NCT03069352|183427930|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-0.41|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 3, Day 1||-0.41|-8.60|
91773295|NCT03069352|183427930|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.923|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|0.19|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 5 Day 1||0.19|-10.03|
91773296|NCT03069352|183427930|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|4.36|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 7 Day 1||4.36|-5.98|
91773297|NCT03069352|183427930|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|4.64|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 9 day 1||4.64|-7.94|
91773298|NCT03069352|183427930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Regression Model|Model included AML status (de novo vs. secondary), age (18-\< 75 vs. ≥ 75), treatment arm, time, and treatment arm by time interaction as fixed factors||A linear mixed effects regression model with a variable covariance structure was fitted to the longitudinal data (considering all time points) to test for differences between treatment arms.||||0.126
91773299|NCT03069352|183427931|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|12.06|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 3 Day 1||12.06|-6.23|
91773300|NCT03069352|183427931|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.659|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|24.59|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 5 Day 1||24.59|2.18|
91773301|NCT03069352|183427931|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|19.06|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 7 Day 1||19.06|-4.83|
91773302|NCT03069352|183427931|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.511|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|21.26|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 9 Day 1||21.26|-8.49|
91773303|NCT03069352|183427931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Regression Model|Model included AML status (de novo vs. secondary), age (18-\< 75 vs. ≥ 75), treatment arm, time, and treatment arm by time interaction as fixed factors||A linear mixed effects regression model with a variable covariance structure was fitted to the longitudinal data (considering all time points) to test for differences between treatment arms.||||0.085
91773304|NCT03069352|183427932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.817|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|||0.817|0.416|0.002
91773305|NCT03069352|183427932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.839|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.839|0.430|0.003
91773306|NCT03069352|183427933|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|22.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).|Treatment difference = Venetoclax - Placebo|||35.0|10.8|0.001
91773307|NCT03069352|183427933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91773308|NCT03069352|183427934|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|15.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).|Treatment difference = Venetoclax - Placebo|||29.0|1.4|0.040
91773309|NCT03069352|183427934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
91900826|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.2||||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.1|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-1.1|-5.4|0.9986
91773310|NCT03069352|183427935|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|22.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|35.8||||||||35.8|9.0|
91773311|NCT03069352|183427936|SUPERIORITY||Slope|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.8||||||||35.8|-0.4|
91773312|NCT03069352|183427937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||0.162
91773313|NCT03069352|183427937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.277
91773314|NCT03069352|183427938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||0.162
91773315|NCT03069352|183427938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.277
91773316|NCT03069352|183427942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.985|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|||0.985|0.503|0.040
91773317|NCT03069352|183427942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.0|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.000|0.514|0.049
91773318|NCT04906499|183427961|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.93||||||||0.93|-0.68|
91773319|NCT04906499|183427963|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.24||||||||1.24|-0.44|
91773320|NCT04906499|183427965|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.77||||||||1.77|-0.13|
91773321|NCT04906499|183427967|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.93||||||||1.93|-0.05|
91773322|NCT04906499|183427969|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.67|
91773323|NCT04906499|183427970|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.48|
91773324|NCT04906499|183427971|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.71||||||||0.71|-0.88|
91773325|NCT04906499|183427972|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.73||||||||0.73|-0.87|
91773326|NCT04906499|183427974|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.44||||||||0.44|-1.24|
91773327|NCT03346434|183427986|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|34.37||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.37|13.27|< 0.0001
91773328|NCT03346434|183427987|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.47|55.16||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.16|29.47|< 0.0001
91773329|NCT03346434|183427996|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-50.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.38|-38.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-38.40|-62.38|< 0.0001
91773330|NCT03346434|183427997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.47|-34.79||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-34.79|-59.47|< 0.0001
91773331|NCT03346434|183427998|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.18|52.27||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.27|26.18|< 0.0001
91773332|NCT03346434|183427999|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|43.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.03|56.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||56.67|30.03|< 0.0001
91773333|NCT03346434|183428000|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|48.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.03|62.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.00|35.03|< 0.0001
91773334|NCT03346434|183428001|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|22.5|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.37|32.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.60|12.37|= 0.0001
91773335|NCT03346434|183428002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.204|-17.329||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-17.329|-31.204|< 0.0001
91773336|NCT03346434|183428003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|-6.89||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-6.89|-11.26|< 0.0001
91773337|NCT03346434|183428004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.65|-30.21||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-30.21|-46.65|< 0.0001
91773338|NCT03346434|183428005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|2.317||Threshold significance was at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.317|1.093|< 0.0001
91773339|NCT03346434|183428006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.029|-2.6||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-2.600|-4.029|< 0.0001
91773340|NCT03346434|183428007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.789|-5.814||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-5.814|-9.789|< 0.0001
91773341|NCT03346434|183428008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-4.75||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-4.75|-10.29|< 0.0001
91773342|NCT03346434|183428009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.711|-6.202||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-6.202|-11.711|< 0.0001
91835544|NCT03720938|183551648|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.||||||1.196e-05||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||The outcome of visual reaction time was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.||||0.00001196
91773343|NCT03346434|183428010|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0015||||||Threshold significance is at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||||= 0.0015
91773344|NCT03346434|183428011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||=|0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|0.56||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-6.35|= 0.0997
91773345|NCT01751061|183428046|SUPERIORITY|To test the primary hypothesis, we used a general linear model fit with generalized estimating equations, a linear link, and an exchangeable correlation (PROC GENMOD). Model parameters included indictor variables for intervention, Interview 2, the interaction between intervention and Interview 2, and a 4-level site variable. The mean CSCS between-groups difference, corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and p value were derived from the intervention-by-Interview 2 interaction term.|||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated. A two-sided type-I error rate of 0.05 was set for all tests; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons. All participants were included in analyses as per their group randomization.|GEE|||We estimated that 210 patients (315 surrogates, assuming \~1.5 per patient) would provide a power of 80% to detect a between-groups mean CSCS score difference of 9 percentage points between Interviews 1 and 2, assuming a baseline mean of 50, SD=24, a type-I error=5%, a correlation between interviews of 0.5, an expectation that 50% of patients would have multiple surrogates, an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.8 for multiple surrogates for a patient, and 5% dropout before Interview 2.||||<0.05
91773346|NCT01751061|183428047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear model|||Generalized linear model.||||<0.05
91773347|NCT01751061|183428048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear model|||||||<0.05
91773348|NCT01751061|183428049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear models|||||||<0.05
91773349|NCT01751061|183428050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear models|||||||<0.05
91773350|NCT01751061|183428051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear models|||||||<0.05
91773351|NCT01751061|183428052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|GEE|||To test the hypothesis, we used a general linear model fit with generalized estimating equations, a linear link, and an exchangeable correlation (PROC GENMOD). Model parameters included indictor variables for intervention, Interview 2, the interaction between intervention and Interview 2, and a 4-level site variable. The mean CSCS between-groups difference, corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and p value were derived from the intervention-by-Interview 2 interaction term.||||<0.05
91773352|NCT05635461|183428077|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|60.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.12|64.42|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet fasted) and reference (CVN424 suspension fasted).|||64.42|56.12|
91773353|NCT05635461|183428078|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|60.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.12|64.42|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet fasted) and reference (CVN424 suspension fasted).|||64.42|56.12|
91773354|NCT05635461|183428079|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|27.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.09|31.13|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet fasted) and reference (CVN424 suspension fasted).|||31.13|25.09|
91773355|NCT05635461|183428080|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9265|2.247|||ANOVA|||||2.2470|0.9265|<0.0001
91773356|NCT05635461|183428080|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4475|3.0035|||ANOVA|||||3.0035|2.4475|<0.0001
91773357|NCT05635461|183428081|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.000|0.000|
91773358|NCT05635461|183428081|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.251|||ANOVA|||||0.2510|0.0000|0.0010
91773359|NCT05635461|183428082|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|161.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.96|172.92|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet Fed) and reference (CVN424 tablet fasted).|||172.92|150.96|
91773360|NCT05635461|183428083|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|161.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.98|172.95|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet Fed) and reference (CVN424 tablet fasted).|||172.95|150.98|
91773361|NCT05635461|183428084|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|304.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|273.51|338.31|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet Fed) and reference (CVN424 tablet fasted).|||338.31|273.51|
91773362|NCT05635461|183428085|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.006|1.537|||ANOVA|||||1.5370|0.0060|0.0662
91773363|NCT05635461|183428086|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.251|||ANOVA|||||0.2510|0.0000|0.0039
91773364|NCT00614575|183428089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91773365|NCT00614575|183428090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.8|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91773366|NCT00614575|183428091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91773367|NCT00614575|183428092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91773368|NCT00189540|183428094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison made is the difference from baseline at Month 3.||||0.35
91773369|NCT00189540|183428094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison made is the difference from baseline at Month 6.||||0.17
91773370|NCT00189540|183428095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The comparison of groups at Month 3||||0.55
91773371|NCT00189540|183428095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The comparison of groups at Month 6.||||0.28
91773372|NCT00189540|183428096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups at Month 3||||0.2
91773373|NCT00189540|183428096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups at Month 6||||0.04
91773374|NCT00189540|183428097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91773375|NCT00189540|183428098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison at Month 3||||0.77
91773376|NCT00189540|183428098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison at Month 6||||0.45
91773377|NCT00189540|183428099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups for mean TBI at Month 3 versus baseline.||||0.06
91773378|NCT00189540|183428099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups for mean TBI at Month 6 versus baseline.||||0.05
91773379|NCT03882021|183428108|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Survival Estimate|57.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|62.8|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from recurrence after removal from AAD at one year.|||62.8|51.2|
91773380|NCT03882021|183428109|OTHER|Kaplan Meier Estimate of freedom from symptomatic recurrence.|Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate|61.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.8|67.1|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from symptomatic AF/AFL/AT recurrence after removal from AAD|||67.1|55.8|
91773381|NCT03882021|183428110|OTHER|Kaplan Meier estimate of single procedure clinical success.|Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate|79.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|83.6|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from symptomatic AF/AFL/AT without new or increased dose of Class I/III AAD at one year.|||83.6|74.2|
91773382|NCT03882021|183428111|OTHER|Kaplan Meier estimate of freedom from AF/AFL/AT|Kaplan Meier Survival Estimate|75.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.9|80.1|||||Kaplan Meier estimate of freedom from AF/AFL/AT at 12 months.|||80.1|69.9|
91773383|NCT00286442|183428117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.32||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at wk 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of participants meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.32|-0.68|<0.001
91773384|NCT00286442|183428117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.3||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at week 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level and \>=80% of participants meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.30|-0.67|<0.001
91773385|NCT00286442|183428118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.16||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.16|-0.37|<0.001
91835545|NCT03720938|183551648|SUPERIORITY||||||‬|2.82e-05||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time.||||0.0000282‬
91835546|NCT03720938|183551649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcome of visual reaction time of non-dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the visual reaction time of non-dominant hand at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.000
91773386|NCT00286442|183428118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.19||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.19|-0.40|<0.001
91773387|NCT00286442|183428119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.24|-0.52|<0.001
91773388|NCT00286442|183428119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.24|-0.52|<0.001
91773389|NCT00286442|183428120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.66|<0.001
91773390|NCT00286442|183428120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.66|<0.001
91773391|NCT00286442|183428121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.36||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.36|-0.70|<0.001
91773392|NCT00286442|183428121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.69|<0.001
91773393|NCT00286442|183428122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.69|<0.001
91773394|NCT00286442|183428122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.69|<0.001
91773395|NCT00286442|183428123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-6.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the metformin arm.|||-6.8|-20.7|<0.001
91835547|NCT03720938|183551649|SUPERIORITY|||||||9e-08||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.00000009
91896051|NCT01205152|183687480|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change is relative to Baseline in Study ENB-002-08 (NCT00744042). The RGI-C score represents evaluation of skeletal X-rays at each post-treatment study timepoint compared with pre-treatment X-rays from Study ENB-002-08 using an ordinal scale. Therefore, an RGI-C score is not applicable for radiographs obtained at Baseline.||||0.0020
91773396|NCT00286442|183428123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-4.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the metformin arm.|||-4.9|-18.9|<0.001
91773397|NCT00286442|183428124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-9.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.5|-23.9|<0.001
91773398|NCT00286442|183428124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|-9.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.6|-24.1|<0.001
91773399|NCT00286442|183428125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-11.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-11.0|-24.6|<0.001
91773400|NCT00286442|183428125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-10.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.6|-24.3|<0.001
91773401|NCT00286442|183428126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.2|-28.0|<0.001
91773402|NCT00286442|183428126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-9.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.7|-25.6|<0.001
91773403|NCT00286442|183428127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-8.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.9|-25.6|<0.001
91773404|NCT00286442|183428127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-8.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.6|-25.4|<0.001
91773405|NCT00286442|183428128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-10.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.8|-27.4|<0.001
91773406|NCT00286442|183428128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-8.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.3|-25.0|<0.001
91773407|NCT00286442|183428129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-9.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.4|-26.7|<0.001
91773408|NCT00286442|183428129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.8|-24.2|<0.001
91773409|NCT00286442|183428130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-10.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.2|-27.3|<0.001
91773410|NCT00286442|183428130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-8.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.8|-25.9|<0.001
91773411|NCT00286442|183428131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.372|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|0.65||no multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.650|0.213|<0.001
91835548|NCT03720938|183551649|SUPERIORITY|||||||55||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||000000055
91835549|NCT03720938|183551650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcomes of auditory reaction time of dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the auditory reaction time of dominant hand at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.||||0.000
91773412|NCT00286442|183428131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.405||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.708||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.708|0.231|0.002
91773413|NCT00286442|183428132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.302||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.635||no multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.635|0.143|0.002
91773414|NCT00286442|183428132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.236|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.51|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.510|0.109|<0.001
91773415|NCT00286442|183428133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.5|-7.4|0.634
91773416|NCT00286442|183428133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.4|-10.5|0.136
91773417|NCT00286442|183428134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.0|-6.9|0.274
91773418|NCT00286442|183428134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-0.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA||Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.1|-9.1|0.046
91773419|NCT00286442|183428135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-7.4|0.655
91773420|NCT00286442|183428135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-7.4|0.645
91773421|NCT00286442|183428136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-6.3|0.748
91773422|NCT00286442|183428136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.3|-7.7|0.432
91773423|NCT00286442|183428137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.3|-7.8|0.427
91835550|NCT03720938|183551650|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.633e-05||||||The outcomes of auditory reaction time of dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.||||0.00001633
91773424|NCT00286442|183428137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.5|-4.6|0.746
91707885|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0495|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0827|0.0952|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||0.0952|-0.0827|
91773425|NCT00286442|183428138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.2|-5.0|0.727
91835551|NCT03720938|183551650|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.67e-05||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.||||0.0000367
91773426|NCT00286442|183428138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.601||||1.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.8||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.8|-4.5|1.6
91773427|NCT00286442|183428139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|4.52||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.52|-0.15|0.066
91773428|NCT00286442|183428139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|3.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.93|-0.74|0.180
91773429|NCT00286442|183428140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|4.68||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.68|-5.02|0.944
91773430|NCT00286442|183428140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.40|-7.40|0.316
91773431|NCT00286442|183428141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|4.77||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.77|-5.42|0.901
91773432|NCT00286442|183428141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|3.68||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.68|-6.59|0.578
91773433|NCT00286442|183428142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|3.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.93|-2.67|0.708
91773434|NCT00286442|183428142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|4.21||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.21|-2.44|0.601
91773435|NCT00286442|183428143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.72||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.72|-1.48|0.398
91773436|NCT00286442|183428143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.69||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.69|-1.56|0.425
91773437|NCT00286442|183428144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.23||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.23|0.50|0.018
91773438|NCT00286442|183428144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.60|-0.15|0.067
91773439|NCT00286442|183428145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|-0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.009|-0.064|0.011
91773440|NCT00286442|183428145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|-0.019||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.019|-0.075|<0.001
91773441|NCT00286442|183428146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.021||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.021|-0.070|<0.001
91707886|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0672|0.0919|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.0919|-0.0672|
91773442|NCT00286442|183428146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|-0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.012|-0.062|0.004
91773443|NCT00286442|183428147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|-0.011||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm|||-0.011|-0.068|0.007
91773444|NCT00286442|183428147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|-0.008||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm|||-0.008|-0.066|0.011
91773445|NCT00286442|183428148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.024||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.024|-0.080|<0.001
91773446|NCT00286442|183428148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.015||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.015|-0.072|0.003
91773447|NCT00286442|183428149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.005||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.005|-0.097|0.078
91773448|NCT00286442|183428149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.047||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.047|-0.056|0.860
91773449|NCT00286442|183428150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|-0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.001|-0.106|0.048
91773450|NCT00286442|183428150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.05||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.050|-0.057|0.889
91835552|NCT03720938|183551651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||The outcomes of auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.008
91646092|NCT01236053|183184662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.6|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.60|0.69|0.8208
91773451|NCT00286442|183428151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.336||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.642||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.642|0.030|0.031
91773452|NCT00286442|183428151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.304||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.611||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.611|-0.002|0.051
91773453|NCT00286442|183428152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.384||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.384|-0.209|0.563
91773454|NCT00286442|183428152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.41||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.410|-0.188|0.467
91773455|NCT00286442|183428153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.501||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.501|-0.127|0.243
91835553|NCT03720938|183551651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.006
91835554|NCT03720938|183551651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006602||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.006602
91835555|NCT03720938|183551652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.615648||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for sports competence at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of sports competence.||||0.615648
91835556|NCT03720938|183551652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.||||0.608
91835557|NCT03720938|183551652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.60938||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of sports competence.||||0.60938
91835558|NCT03720938|183551653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||The outcome of self-perception for physical condition competence was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for physical condition competence at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of physical condition competence.||||0.094
91835559|NCT03720938|183551653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||The outcome of self-perception for physical condition competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of physical condition competence.||||0.085
91835560|NCT03720938|183551653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08818||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.||||0.08818
91835561|NCT03720938|183551654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058102||||||The outcome of self-perception for strength competence was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for strength competence at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.||||0.058102
91835562|NCT03720938|183551654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.||||0.051
91835563|NCT03720938|183551654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534||||||The outcome of self-perception for strength competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.||||0.0534
91835564|NCT03720938|183551655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638505||||||The outcome of self-perception for body attractiveness was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for body attractiveness at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.||||0.638505
91835565|NCT03720938|183551655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.||||0.632
91835566|NCT03720938|183551655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6328||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.||||0.63280
91835567|NCT03720938|183551656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007061||||||The outcome of self-perception of global physical self-worth was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for global physical self-worth at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.||||0.007061
91896052|NCT00069108|183687486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.00584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24|||Chi-squared||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population|||1.24|0.87|0.00584
91773456|NCT00286442|183428153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.279||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.595||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.595|-0.037|0.083
91773457|NCT00286442|183428154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.463||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.463|-0.152|0.321
91773458|NCT00286442|183428154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.577||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.577|-0.041|0.089
91773459|NCT00286442|183428155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.42||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.420|-0.132|0.305
91773460|NCT00286442|183428155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.468||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.468|-0.086|0.177
91773461|NCT00286442|183428156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.394||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.68||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.680|0.107|0.007
91773462|NCT00286442|183428156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.550|-0.025|0.074
91773463|NCT00286442|183428157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.117|17.864||no multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||17.864|2.117|<0.001
91773464|NCT00286442|183428157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.322||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|15.564||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||15.564|1.820|0.002
91773465|NCT00286442|183428158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.271|11.345||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||11.345|3.271|<0.001
91773466|NCT00286442|183428158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.451|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.388|8.296||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||8.296|2.388|<0.001
91773467|NCT00286442|183428159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.327|7.717||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||7.717|2.327|<0.001
91773468|NCT00286442|183428159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.293|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.814|5.979|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||5.979|1.814|<0.001
91773469|NCT00286442|183428160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.103|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.428|6.934||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||6.934|2.428|<0.001
91773470|NCT00286442|183428160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.314|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.545|7.312||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||7.312|2.545|<0.001
91773471|NCT00286442|183428161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.601|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.554|12.282||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||12.282|2.554|<0.001
91646093|NCT01236053|183184662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.62|0.99|0.0562
91773472|NCT00286442|183428161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.793|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.645|12.684||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||12.684|2.645|<0.001
91773473|NCT00286442|183428162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.449||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|6.797||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||6.797|0.883|0.085
91773474|NCT00286442|183428162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.958||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|8.046||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||8.046|1.087|0.034
91773475|NCT00286442|183428163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.404||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|5.803||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||5.803|0.340|0.639
91773476|NCT00286442|183428163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.959||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|4.223||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||4.223|0.218|0.956
91773477|NCT00286442|183428164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.27|-0.63|0.439
91773478|NCT00286442|183428164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.04||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.04|-0.86|0.075
91773479|NCT00286442|183428165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.83||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.83|-0.26|0.305
91773480|NCT00286442|183428165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.47||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.47|-0.63|0.788
91773481|NCT00286442|183428166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.63||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.63|-0.58|0.930
91773482|NCT00286442|183428166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.43||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.43|-0.79|0.559
91773483|NCT00286442|183428167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.66||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.66|-0.66|0.996
91773484|NCT00286442|183428167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.38|-0.94|0.407
91773485|NCT02174731|183428177|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.75. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean changes.|||0.18|0.01|<0.001
91773486|NCT02174731|183428178|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.75. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.25|||MMRM||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean change.|||0.25|0.03|<0.001
91896053|NCT00069108|183687487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While the study was not designed to demonstrate non-inferiority in PFS based on IRC assessments the pre-specified margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.00223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Chi-squared||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population|||1.17|0.74|0.00223
91896054|NCT00069108|183687488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.37||||||||1.37|0.91|
91707887|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0408|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0918|0.0547|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.0547|-0.0918|
91773487|NCT02174731|183428179|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.15. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||0.05|0.00|<0.001
91773488|NCT02174731|183428180|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.15. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||0.05|-0.01|<0.001
91773489|NCT02174731|183428181|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was also declared as the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0 and p-value was lower than 0.05.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.27|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||-0.27|-0.39|<0.001
91773490|NCT02174731|183428182|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.75. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.36|||ANCOVA|MAR-based multiple imputation.|Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||0.36|0.04|<0.001
91773491|NCT02174731|183428183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
91773492|NCT02174731|183428184|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the upper bound of the HR 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa was less than or equal to 1.8. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided. The CIs were from Wald and ties were calculated using the Efron method.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.64|<0.001
91773493|NCT00079040|183428187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|63.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.4|73.6||||||||73.6|52.4|
91773494|NCT00867165|183428294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-26.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-22.69|||ANCOVA|||||-22.69|-30.80|<0.001
91773495|NCT00867165|183428295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-17.65|||ANCOVA|||||-17.65|-24.20|<0.001
91773496|NCT00867165|183428296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.02|-16.45|||ANCOVA|||||-16.45|-24.02|<0.001
91773497|NCT00867165|183428297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.7||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|6.36|||ANCOVA|||||6.36|-4.97|0.807
91773498|NCT00867165|183428298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Differrence in least-squares means|-25.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.59|-21.91|||ANCOVA|||||-21.91|-29.59|<0.001
91835568|NCT03720938|183551656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.||||0.005
91835569|NCT03720938|183551656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00603||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.||||0.00603
91773499|NCT00867165|183428299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-14.68||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.35|-2.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-2.00|-27.35|0.021
91773500|NCT00867165|183428300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.95|-20.99|||ANCOVA|||||-20.99|-28.95|<0.001
91773501|NCT00867165|183428301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-23.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.49|-20.39|||ANCOVA|||||-20.39|-27.49|<0.001
91773502|NCT00867165|183428302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-27.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-23.73|||ANCOVA|||||-23.73|-31.70|<0.001
91773503|NCT00867165|183428303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-16.89|||ANCOVA|||||-16.89|-23.30|<0.001
91896055|NCT00069108|183687489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47||||||||1.47|0.95|
91773504|NCT00867165|183428304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|-17.15|||ANCOVA|||||-17.15|-23.39|<0.001
91773505|NCT00867165|183428305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-21.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.67|-18.08|||ANCOVA|||||-18.08|-24.67|<0.001
91773506|NCT00867165|183428306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-0.95||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|4.55|||ANCOVA|||||4.55|-6.46|0.733
91773507|NCT00867165|183428307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|0.53||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|6.66|||ANCOVA|||||6.66|-5.59|0.863
91773508|NCT00867165|183428308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|1.92||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|7.56|||ANCOVA|||||7.56|-3.71|0.501
91773509|NCT00867165|183428309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.78|-20.58|||ANCOVA|||||-20.58|-27.78|<0.001
91773510|NCT00867165|183428310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|-21.16|||ANCOVA|||||-21.16|-28.06|<0.001
91773511|NCT00867165|183428311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-26.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.35|-22.75|||ANCOVA|||||-22.75|-30.35|<0.001
91773512|NCT00867165|183428312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-9.73||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|3.27|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||3.27|-22.73|0.137
91773513|NCT00867165|183428313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-15.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.05|-4.34|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-4.34|-26.05|0.005
91896056|NCT00069108|183687490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.77||p-value is for difference between response rates.|Chi-squared|||||1.77|0.79|0.4028
91773514|NCT00867165|183428314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-8.61||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|3.23|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||3.23|-20.44|0.149
91773515|NCT00867165|183428315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-1.91||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|2.32|||ANCOVA|||||2.32|-6.15|0.373
91773516|NCT00867165|183428316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares mean|-19.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-14.82|||ANCOVA|||||-14.82|-24.70|<0.001
91773517|NCT00867165|183428317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.59|-16.07|||ANCOVA|||||-16.07|-25.59|<0.001
91773518|NCT00867165|183428318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-23.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-17.97|||ANCOVA|||||-17.97|-29.00|<0.001
91773519|NCT00867165|183428319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-22.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.25|-17.34|||ANCOVA|||||-17.34|-27.25|<0.001
91773520|NCT00867165|183428320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.88|-19.12|||ANCOVA|||||-19.12|-29.88|<0.001
91773521|NCT00867165|183428321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-25.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.69|-19.62|||ANCOVA|||||-19.62|-30.69|<0.001
91773522|NCT00867165|183428322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-29.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.71|-22.91|||ANCOVA|||||-22.91|-35.71|<0.001
91773523|NCT00867165|183428323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-28.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.41|-22.29|||ANCOVA|||||-22.29|-34.41|<0.001
91773524|NCT00867165|183428324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-19.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.87|-14.7|||ANCOVA|||||-14.70|-23.87|<0.001
91773525|NCT00867165|183428325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-46.11||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.14|15.92|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||15.92|-108.14|0.116
91835570|NCT03720938|183551657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002879||||||The outcome of self-perception for global self-worth was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for global self-worth at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.||||0.002879
91707888|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0413|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0433|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1192|0.0365|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||0.0365|-0.1192|
91773526|NCT00867165|183428326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|17.27||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|55.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||55.00|-20.46|0.382
91773527|NCT00867165|183428327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-49.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.36|-43.87|||ANCOVA|||||-43.87|-55.36|<0.001
91773528|NCT00867165|183428328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-58.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.67|-53.38|||ANCOVA|||||-53.38|-63.67|<0.001
91773529|NCT00867165|183428329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-61.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.51|-54.53|||ANCOVA|||||-54.53|-67.51|<0.001
91773530|NCT00867165|183428330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-62.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.22|-52.26|||ANCOVA|||||-52.26|-73.22|0.001
91773531|NCT00867165|183428331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-49.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.83|-44.14|||ANCOVA|||||-44.14|-54.83|<0.001
91773532|NCT00867165|183428332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-57.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.87|-53.11|||ANCOVA|||||-53.11|-62.87|<0.001
91773533|NCT00867165|183428333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-62.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.54|-56.66|||ANCOVA|||||-56.66|-68.54|<0.001
91773534|NCT00867165|183428334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-64.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.11|-55.23|||ANCOVA|||||-55.23|-74.11|<0.001
91773535|NCT00867165|183428335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-18.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-11.99|||ANCOVA|||||-11.99|-24.70|<0.001
91773536|NCT00867165|183428336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-25.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-20.02|||ANCOVA|||||-20.02|-31.20|<0.001
91773537|NCT00867165|183428337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-28.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.89|-22.59|||ANCOVA|||||-22.59|-34.89|<0.001
91773538|NCT00867165|183428338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-32.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.38|-23.9|||ANCOVA|||||-23.90|-40.38|<0.001
91773539|NCT00867165|183428339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|20.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.91|||ANCOVA|||||31.91|8.10|0.001
91773540|NCT00867165|183428340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|26.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.99|38.58|||ANCOVA|||||38.58|13.99|<0.001
91773541|NCT00867165|183428341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|36.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.12|49.28|||ANCOVA|||||49.28|24.12|<0.001
91773542|NCT00867165|183428342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|24.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.43|37.67|||ANCOVA|||||37.67|10.43|<0.001
91773543|NCT00988884|183428384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 6||1.08|0.88|<0.001
91773544|NCT00988884|183428384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 11||1.07|0.87|<0.001
91773545|NCT00988884|183428384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 16||1.09|0.89|<0.001
91773546|NCT00988884|183428384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 18||1.12|0.88|<0.001
91773547|NCT00988884|183428384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 31||1.17|0.93|<0.001
91773548|NCT00988884|183428384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 33||1.11|0.89|<0.001
91773549|NCT00988884|183428384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.25|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 45||1.25|0.97|<0.001
91773550|NCT00988884|183428384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 52||1.10|0.88|<0.001
91773551|NCT00988884|183428384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 58||1.10|0.88|<0.001
91773552|NCT00988884|183428385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|9.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup A||9.3|-1.7|<0.001
91773553|NCT00988884|183428385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.4|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup C||1.1|-5.4|<0.001
91773554|NCT00988884|183428385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8|6.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup Y||6.1|-1.8|<0.001
91773555|NCT00988884|183428385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.7|0.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup W-135||0.3|-4.7|<0.001
91773556|NCT00988884|183428386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-diphtheria titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||0.9|-0.8|<0.001
91773557|NCT00988884|183428386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-tetanus titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||0.7|-1.2|<0.001
91773558|NCT00988884|183428387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.69|0.92|||ANOVA|||Anti-PT||0.92|0.69|0.003
91835571|NCT03720938|183551657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.||||0.002
91835572|NCT03720938|183551657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00238||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.||||0.00238
91773559|NCT00988884|183428387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.01|||ANOVA|||Anti-FHA||1.01|0.83|<0.001
91773560|NCT00988884|183428387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.08|||ANOVA|||Anti-PRN||1.08|0.84|<0.001
91773561|NCT00988884|183428387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.76|1.21|||ANOVA|||Anti-FIM 2/3||1.21|0.76|<0.001
91773562|NCT00988884|183428390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.4||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.7|-3.5|0.806
91773563|NCT04621448|183428394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference estimate of 2.2 was confirmed. It is slightly different than the difference of the raw change values \[+.7 - (-1.7) = 2.4\] because it comes from the mixed effects model.|||4.39|0.01|0.048
91773564|NCT04621448|183428395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.40|-4.12|0.603
91773565|NCT04621448|183428396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.92|-2.75|0.734
91773566|NCT04621448|183428397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.74|-0.62|0.159
91773567|NCT04621448|183428398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.56|-1.97|0.818
91835573|NCT03720938|183551658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194||||||Tested the significance of gender between genders|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Enjoyment scale of physical activity sports in intervention group between male and female genders"||||0.194
91835574|NCT03720938|183551659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the Active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from sports category.||||0.809
91773568|NCT04621448|183428399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|3.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.51|-0.26|0.089
91773569|NCT04621448|183428400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-0.96|0.631
91773570|NCT04621448|183428401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.49|-0.71|0.484
91773571|NCT04621448|183428402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.01|-2.36|0.81
91773572|NCT04621448|183428403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.00|-0.77|0.384
91773573|NCT04621448|183428404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.81|-1.65|0.509
91773574|NCT04621448|183428405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.01|0.24|0.021
91773575|NCT04621448|183428406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-1.94|0.156
91773576|NCT04621448|183428407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|-0.62|0.582
91773577|NCT04621448|183428408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-1.21|0.271
91835575|NCT03720938|183551660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from balance category.||||0.843
91835576|NCT03720938|183551661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from aerobic category.||||0.247
91773578|NCT04621448|183428409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.88|-1.52|0.834
91773579|NCT04621448|183428410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.15|-1.62|0.529
91773580|NCT04621448|183428411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.377
91835577|NCT03720938|183551662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from training category.||||0.543
91773581|NCT04621448|183428412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.043
91773582|NCT00549640|183428413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-tailed||||||0.973
91773583|NCT00549640|183428414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 tailed test||||||0.500
91773584|NCT00549640|183428415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|For each subject, the average daily withdrawal score for the 14 days following target quit date was calculated and expressed as a change from baseline||||||0.65
91773585|NCT00549640|183428415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|analysis performed using daily scores||||||0.79
91773586|NCT03550378|183428416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.384|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.27|-19.498|||ANCOVA|||||-19.498|-41.270|<0.001
91773587|NCT04999839|183428451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.727|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|14.885||P-value was calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method.|||14.885|0.933|=0.052
91773588|NCT04999839|183428451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.733|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.525|45.994||P-value was calculated using a CMH test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the MH method.|||45.994|3.525|<0.001
91773589|NCT04999839|183428451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.014|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.526|98.735||P-value was calculated using a CMH test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the MH method.|||98.735|8.526|<0.001
91773590|NCT04999839|183428451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.277|156.548||P-value was calculated using a CMH test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the MH method.|||156.548|10.277|<0.001
91773591|NCT03546621|183428475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Bonferroni-Holm|||For each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups, a null hypothesis of no clinically significant difference in proportion of responders compared to the control group (Tenofovir only), at week 24, were tested using the one-sided Wald test for superiority, at a one-sided overall significance level of 0.05 adjusted for multiple testing according to Bonferroni-Holm, with the superiority limit (test margin) set to 5%.||||<.0001
91835578|NCT00499863|183551685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between MTS and placebo.||||< 0.001
91835579|NCT00499863|183551686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91835580|NCT00499863|183551687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91835581|NCT00499863|183551688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91835582|NCT00499863|183551689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.288
91835583|NCT00571701|183551697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91773592|NCT03546621|183428476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9818||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used to test null hypothesis of no difference in the proportion of responders compared to the Tenofovir only group. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.9818
91773593|NCT03546621|183428476|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value as smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used to test null hypothesis of no difference in the proportion of responders compared to the Tenofovir only group. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||1.0000
91773594|NCT03546621|183428476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7132||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used to test null hypothesis of no difference in the proportion of responders compared to the Tenofovir only group. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.7132
91773595|NCT03546621|183428477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0232||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computered using the Bonferroni-Holm method.~This analysis, and presentation of descriptive statistics, was repeated for the subgroups of patients with normal/abnormal baseline ALT values."||||0.0232
91773596|NCT03546621|183428477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computered using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.0047
91773597|NCT03546621|183428477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computered using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.0010
91773598|NCT03546621|183428478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. The change from baseline to week 24 and week 48 in ALT levels was performed using van Elteren tests.~Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions (of patients with normal ALT values) against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||0.1642
91773599|NCT03546621|183428478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428||||||A test is considered statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.0428
91773600|NCT03546621|183428478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428||||||A test is considered statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.0428
91773601|NCT03546621|183428478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2388||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Boferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.2388
91773602|NCT03546621|183428478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7157||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.7157
91773603|NCT03546621|183428478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2388||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.2388
91773604|NCT03546621|183428479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7416||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. Two-sided van Elteren tests, stratified by presence of cirrhosis, were used to test for differences compared to the control group.~Separate comparisons were made for each of the three MXB groups versus the control group, and adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||0.7416
91773605|NCT03546621|183428479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.4434
91773606|NCT03546621|183428479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7371||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24.||||0.7371
91773607|NCT03546621|183428479|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
91773608|NCT03546621|183428479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9441||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.9441
91773609|NCT03546621|183428479|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
91835584|NCT00571701|183551698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
91646094|NCT01236053|183184662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.47|0.90|0.2596
91707889|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3916|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2968|1.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||1.0990|-0.2968|
91646095|NCT01236053|183184663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.28|0.99|0.0709
91646096|NCT01236053|183184663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.19|0.92|0.4996
91835585|NCT00571701|183551699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.3||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.3
91773610|NCT03546621|183428480|SUPERIORITY||Bonferroni-Holm|||||0.5984||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. The change from baseline to Week 24 in HBsAg was performed using van Elteren tests. Tests were performed on log-10 transformed data.~Separare comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||0.5984
91773611|NCT03546621|183428480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7529||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.7529
91773612|NCT03546621|183428480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3305||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.3305
91773613|NCT03546621|183428480|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
91773614|NCT03546621|183428480|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
91773615|NCT03546621|183428480|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
91773616|NCT03546621|183428481|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. Two-sided van Elteren tests, stratified by presence of cirrhosis, were used to test for differences compared to the control group.~Tests were performed on log-10 transformed data. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three MXB groups versus the control group, and adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||1.0000
91773617|NCT03546621|183428481|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24.||||1.0000
91773618|NCT03546621|183428481|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||1.0000
91773619|NCT03546621|183428481|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
91773620|NCT03546621|183428481|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
91835586|NCT00571701|183551700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91835587|NCT00571701|183551701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.5
91707890|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0537|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0223|0.2127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.2127|0.0223|
91707891|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0802|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2424|0.5266|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.5266|0.2424|
91773621|NCT03546621|183428481|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
91773622|NCT00660192|183428484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0347
91773623|NCT00660192|183428485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0300
91707892|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0536|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2862|0.4762|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.4762|0.2862|
91773624|NCT01069484|183428498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the study by Mørkved and Bø (1997), showing 67% prevalence reduction of UI in the PFMT group and 34% reduction in the control group. Assuming a similar effect, two-sided significance of \<0.05, and a power of 0.90, required a total of 62 women. Stratified analysis on major levator ani (LA) muscle defects was planned, but the effect of PFMT in women with such defects was unknown. The statistical advice was to aim for 80 women with- and 80 women without such defects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||P-values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|Mantel Haenszel||"Pelvic floor muscle training arm represents the numerator for relative risk and usual care arm represents the denominator for relative risk"|"Intention to treat was the principal analysis. Missing values for categorical data (self-reported UI) the approach of last observation carried forward was used."||1.32|0.60|0.57
91773625|NCT01069484|183428499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.42||P-values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|Mantel Haenszel||"Pelvic floor muscle training arm represents the numerator for relative risk and usual care arm represents the denominator for relative risk"|"Intention to treat was the principal analysis. Missing values for categorical data (self-reported UI) the approach of last observation carried forward was used."||1.42|0.49|0.51
91773626|NCT02732600|183428522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 year||1.68|-0.66|0.39
91773627|NCT02732600|183428522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 year||2.06|-0.75|0.35
91773628|NCT02732600|183428522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 year||2.60|-0.57|0.21
91835588|NCT00571701|183551702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.56
91835589|NCT00691132|183551705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||% difference between Placebo and PEITC periods in the ratio of \[pyridine-D4\]Hydroxy acid : \[pyridine-D4\] total NNAL||-1.2|-13.8|0.023
91835590|NCT00691132|183551706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total ITC||||0.005
91835591|NCT00691132|183551708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total ITC||||0.017
91835592|NCT00691132|183551709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
91835593|NCT00691132|183551709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.623
91835594|NCT00691132|183551709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
91773629|NCT02732600|183428523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|13.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test used to compare group differences in Cohesiveness at BASELINE||13.48|-2.2|0.156
91773630|NCT02732600|183428523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|19.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test to compare group means on Communication at BASELINE||19.8|-3.85|0.182
91773631|NCT02732600|183428523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|22.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test to compare group differences on Role Clarity at BASELINE||22.57|-5.74|0.234
91773632|NCT02732600|183428523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.63||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|33.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test to compare group values on Goals at Baseline||33.5|-5.22|0.149
91773633|NCT02732600|183428523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|13.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of differences between groups on Cohesiveness at 6-Months||13.8|-14.7|0.947
91773634|NCT02732600|183428523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|18.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of groups differences on Communication at 6 Months||18.4|-15.6|0.870
91773635|NCT02732600|183428523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|23.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Role Clarity at 6 months||23.63|-11.26|0.478
91773636|NCT02732600|183428523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.35|17.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Goals at 6 Months||17.83|-13.35|0.773
91773637|NCT02732600|183428523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|38.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Cohesiveness at 1year||38.6|-20.4|0.498
91773638|NCT02732600|183428523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|26.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Communication at 1 year||26.7|-20.3|0.780
91773639|NCT02732600|183428523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.54||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.19|46.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Role Clarity at 1 year||46.11|-23.19|0.474
91773640|NCT02732600|183428523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|28.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Goals at 1 year||28.21|-8.21|0.267
91773641|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparison across groups on CORE PEER at 6 months||1.00|-0.09|0.098
91773642|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on COLLABORATION at 6 months||1.43|-0.43|0.282
91773643|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on PEER SPECIALIST AS LIAISON at 6 months||2.29|-0.05|0.06
91773644|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on PROVIDES INFO ON SERVICES at 6 months||1.59|0.07|0.34
91773645|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Symptoms and Medication at 6-months||2.62|-0.94|0.34
91773646|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Training and Preparation at 6-months||1.50|-1.03|0.66
91773647|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Team Integration and Relationships at 6 Months||2.16|-0.36|0.15
91773648|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Leadership at 6-months||0.59|-1.01|0.59
91773649|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Fits to Experience at 6 months||1.68|-1.77|0.95
91773650|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Role Clarity at 6 months||1.68|-0.58|0.32
91773651|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across both groups on Resources at 6 months||2.04|-0.60|0.27
91773652|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Performance Reviews at 6 months||1.85|-1.71|0.93
91773653|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.005|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on CORE PEER at 1 year||-0.005|-1.45|0.15
91773654|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Collaboration at 1 year||0.32|-1.7|0.04
91646097|NCT01236053|183184663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.45|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.45|1.23|<0.0001
91646098|NCT01236053|183184663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.35|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.35|1.14|<0.0001
91646099|NCT01236053|183184663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.36|1.05|0.0062
91835595|NCT04037436|183551807|OTHER|GEE|GEE|1.65||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|7.73|||GEE|To model the interaction between exposure to the MoveStrong program and site on secondary outcomes we applied a generalized estimating equation (GEE).||To model the interaction between exposure to the MoveStrong program and site on secondary outcomes we applied a generalized estimating equation (GEE).||7.73|-4.44|0.05
91835596|NCT01859793|183551818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Primary and secondary outcome variables were compared across measurement periods by repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc analyses using Tukey's test were applied if significant differences were detected. A priori sample size calculation demonstrated our study design has 80% power to detect a 1.5% absolute increase in FMD% with 30 subjects completing the entire study protocol at α=0.05.||||<0.05
91835597|NCT01859793|183551819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Outcome variables were compared across measurement periods by repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc analyses using Tukey's test were applied if significant differences were detected||||<0.05
91835598|NCT01859793|183551820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Outcome variables were compared across measurement periods by repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc analyses using Tukey's test were applied if significant differences were detected||||<0.05
91773655|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Peer Specialists as Liaison at 1 year||0.17|-2.07|0.08
91773656|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Provides Info on Services at 1 year||0.18|-0.58|0.26
91773657|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison between groups on Symptoms and Medication at 1 year||2.83|-4.53|0.61
91773658|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Training and Preparation at 1 year||1.01|-2.87|0.30
91773659|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Team Integration and Relationships at 1 year||-0.52|-2.08|0.004
91773660|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Leadership at 1 year||-0.60|-4.20|0.01
91773661|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|23.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Fits to Experience at 1 year||23.5|-24.1|0.90
91773662|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Role Clarity at 1 year||0.12|-3.02|0.06
91773663|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Resources at 1 year||1.37|-0.97|0.71
91773664|NCT02732600|183428524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison on Performance Reviews at 1 year||2.23|-5.03|0.41
91773665|NCT02732600|183428525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|5.88||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Group Comparison at Baseline||5.88|1.29|0.002
91773666|NCT02732600|183428525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Group Comparison at 6 Months||5.78|-0.54|0.10
91835599|NCT01064297|183551868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.2||||||95.0|1.6|3.1|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||3.1|1.6|
91773667|NCT02732600|183428525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|4.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Group Comparison at 1 year||4.14|-3.06|0.77
91773668|NCT02732600|183428526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|6.38||p value for 1st year only|t-test, 2 sided|||||6.38|0.56|0.02
91773669|NCT02732600|183428526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|5.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.04|-4.67|0.93
91773670|NCT02732600|183428527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|p value for 1st year||||1.37|0.68|0.0001
91773671|NCT02732600|183428528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|9.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.96|1.46|0.02
91773672|NCT02732600|183428528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|8.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.54|-3.14|0.38
91773673|NCT02732600|183428529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-99.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.73||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.2|-12.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-12.66|-186.2|0.027
91773674|NCT02732600|183428530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.92|0.28|0.001
91835600|NCT01064297|183551868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|4.2||||||95.0|1.4|11.0|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||11.0|1.4|
91835601|NCT01064297|183551868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.4||||||95.0|1.7|3.3|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||3.3|1.7|
91773675|NCT02051764|183428557|OTHER|||||||0.2837||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was selected.|ANCOVA|Adjustments included baseline tau deposition, age, time (in years) between imaging, and included an interaction of time and enrolling diagnosis.||Overall change from baseline between groups. Test compared slopes of cognitively impaired (CI) vs healthy volunteers (HV). As the time between scans varied across subjects, an ANCOVA model was used to estimate slopes in each diagnosis group and test whether they were the different at 1 year. The flortaucipir change from baseline was used as the dependent variable in the model.||||0.2837
91773676|NCT02051764|183428557|OTHER|||||||0.9276||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was selected.|ANCOVA|Adjustments included baseline tau deposition, age, time (in years) between imaging, and included an interaction of time and enrolling diagnosis.||Change from baseline between groups for amyloid negative only. Test compared slopes of CI vs HV. As the time between scans varied across subjects, an ANCOVA model was used to estimate slopes in each diagnosis group and test whether they were different at 1 year. The flortaucipir change from baseline was used as the dependent variable in the model.||||0.9276
91773677|NCT02051764|183428557|OTHER|||||||0.6324||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was selected.|ANCOVA|Adjustments included baseline tau deposition, age, time (in years) between imaging, and included an interaction of time and enrolling diagnosis.||Change from baseline between groups for amyloid positive only. Test compared slopes of CI vs HV. As the time between scans varied across subjects, an ANCOVA model was used to estimate slopes in each diagnosis group and test whether they were different at 1 year. The flortaucipir change from baseline was used as the dependent variable in the model.||||0.6324
91773678|NCT00591006|183428558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91773679|NCT00591006|183428558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.12
91773680|NCT00591006|183428558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.15
91773681|NCT00591006|183428558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.10
91773682|NCT00591006|183428559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
91773683|NCT00591006|183428559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.01
91773684|NCT00591006|183428559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.01
91773685|NCT00591006|183428559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
91773686|NCT00591006|183428560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
91773687|NCT00591006|183428560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.01
91773688|NCT00591006|183428560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.11
91773689|NCT00591006|183428560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.06
91773690|NCT02898454|183428561|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||Data was analyzed using a hybrid method of the worst-observation carried forward (WOCF) and multiple imputation (MI). The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.71|-1.03|<0.0001
91773691|NCT02898454|183428562|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.51|||ANCOVA|||Data was analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-1.51|-2.10|<0.0001
91773692|NCT02898454|183428563|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. For regions outside of Japan, this first secondary endpoint was not tested unless both co-primary endpoints were significant at the 0.05 level. Hierarchical testing continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant. For Japan submission, LMK was instead a co-primary endpoint which also had to be met before secondary endpoints were tested in the hierarchy. Last endpoint in hierarchy is Week 52 SNOT-22.|LS mean difference|-5.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-4.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-4.46|-5.80|<0.0001
91835602|NCT01064297|183551869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|10.7||||||95.0|6.4|17.0||||||||17.0|6.4|
91835603|NCT01064297|183551869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|9.3||||||95.0|5.5|15.2|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||15.2|5.5|
91773693|NCT02898454|183428564|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-2.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-2.02|-2.87|<0.0001
91773694|NCT02898454|183428565|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|10.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.98|12.07||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||12.07|8.98|<0.0001
91835604|NCT01064297|183551870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.8||||||95.0|1.5|5.0||||||||5.0|1.5|
91835605|NCT01064297|183551870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.8||||||95.0|1.6|4.9|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||4.9|1.6|
91773695|NCT02898454|183428566|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.81||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.81|-1.15|<0.0001
91773696|NCT02898454|183428567|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-17.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.87|-13.85||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-13.85|-20.87|<0.0001
91773697|NCT02898454|183428568|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.83||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w then q4w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-1.83|-2.59|<0.0001
91773698|NCT02898454|183428568|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-2.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-2.03|-2.78|<0.0001
91773699|NCT02898454|183428569|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.92||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w then q4w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.92|-1.30|<0.0001
91773700|NCT02898454|183428569|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.80|-1.18|<0.0001
91773701|NCT02898454|183428570|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-21.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|-17.27||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w then q4w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-17.27|-25.45|<0.0001
91773702|NCT02898454|183428570|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-20.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|-16.65||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-16.65|-24.81|<0.0001
91773703|NCT03040141|183428604|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|13.55|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||13.55|1.03|0.181
91773704|NCT03040141|183428604|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.13|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||12.13|0.90|0.073
91773705|NCT03040141|183428604|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|11.48|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||11.48|1.08|0.037
91773706|NCT03040141|183428604|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||3.25|0.40|0.814
91773707|NCT03040141|183428606|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.748||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level. The goal will be used to assess the strength of evidence to select the endpoints for a Phase 3 trial.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.748
91896057|NCT00069108|183687491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.2911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.01||p-value is for difference between response rates.|Chi-squared|||||2.01|0.81|0.2911
91707893|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0563|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1843|0.3838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.3838|0.1843|
91773708|NCT03040141|183428606|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.94||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 low-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference||||0.940
91773709|NCT03040141|183428606|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.902||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The total VIS410 high-dose group (high-dose + low-dose) was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.902
91773710|NCT03040141|183428606|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.283||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the VIS410 low-dose group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.283
91773711|NCT03040141|183428607|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.919||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.919
91773712|NCT03040141|183428607|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.9||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 low-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.900
91773713|NCT03040141|183428607|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.99||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level||The combined VIS410 high- and low-dose groups was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.990
91773714|NCT03040141|183428607|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.521||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the VIS410 low-dose group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.521
91773715|NCT03040141|183428608|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.36||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.360
91773716|NCT03040141|183428609|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.735|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.735
91773717|NCT03040141|183428609|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.259|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.259
91773718|NCT03040141|183428609|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.644||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||||||0.644
91773719|NCT03040141|183428609|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.146|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.146
91773720|NCT03040141|183428610|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.624||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||||||0.624
91773721|NCT03040141|183428610|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.399||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||||||0.399
91773722|NCT03040141|183428610|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.837|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.837
91773723|NCT03040141|183428610|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.183|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.183
91773724|NCT03040141|183428611|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.880
91773725|NCT03040141|183428611|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference||||||0.778|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.778
91773726|NCT03040141|183428611|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.940
91773727|NCT03040141|183428611|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.662|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.662
91646100|NCT01236053|183184663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.26|0.98|0.1144
91773728|NCT03040141|183428612|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.640
91773729|NCT03040141|183428612|OTHER|||||||0.775|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.775
91773730|NCT03040141|183428612|OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.701
91773731|NCT03040141|183428612|OTHER|||||||0.638|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.638
91773732|NCT03040141|183428613|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.127
91773733|NCT03040141|183428613|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||1.000
91773734|NCT03040141|183428613|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.458
91773735|NCT03040141|183428613|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.127
91773736|NCT03040141|183428614|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.371|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.371
91773737|NCT03040141|183428614|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.735|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.735
91835606|NCT00947661|183551875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of covariance included treatment, site, and intraocular pressure group as a covariate. Two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between treatment groups in estimated mean change from baseline lease square means was computed for each time point. Non-inferiority of SPARC drug relative to Reference was established if: 95% confidence interval included 0, the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5, and upper limit of 95% CI was \<1 at most (at least 7 of 12) time point.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91835607|NCT00511875|183551886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
91835608|NCT00511875|183551887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Foveal Sensitivity||||.33
91835609|NCT00511875|183551887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean field sensitivity||||.16
91835610|NCT00511875|183551888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Foveal Sensitivity||||.02
91835611|NCT00511875|183551888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mean FDP sensitivity||||.3
91707894|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0467|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0635|0.2289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.2289|0.0635|
91835612|NCT00511875|183551889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.98
91835613|NCT00511875|183551890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.46
91835614|NCT00511875|183551891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.81
91835615|NCT00511875|183551892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.88
91835616|NCT00511875|183551893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
91835617|NCT00511875|183551894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.62
91835618|NCT01349920|183551905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Multiple Linear Regression|||Week 6||||0.071
91835619|NCT01349920|183551905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|||||||Multiple Linear Regression|||Week 22||||0.381
91835620|NCT01678131|183551940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Percentage Probability|100.0||||||||||||||The posterior percentage probability of the true success rate of the FNA procedure for the 3 combined treatment groups (n=29) was determined by a Bayesian calculation, using a Jeffrey's prior distribution (i.e. Beta \[0.5,0.5\]) on the true success rate. Neither P-values, nor confidence intervals are estimated in this analysis. The primary hypothesis was met if the posterior percentage probability was \> 80% that the true success rate is at least 60%.||||
91835621|NCT03152084|183551952|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-5.21||||0.4462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.542|9.12||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.120|-19.542|0.4462
91835622|NCT03152084|183551953|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|3.69||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.817|32.195||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.195|-24.817|0.7842
91707895|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0702|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0436|0.2924|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||0.2924|0.0436|
91707896|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0172|0.2778|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.2778|-0.0172|
91835623|NCT03152084|183551953|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-16.72||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.109|0.664||Follow-up vs End of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||0.664|-34.109|0.0581
91835624|NCT03152084|183551954|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|344.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|272.785|416.905||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||416.905|272.785|<0.0001
91835625|NCT03152084|183551955|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|311.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.528|398.064||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||398.064|224.528|<0.0001
91835626|NCT03152084|183551956|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-203.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235.983|-170.162||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||-170.162|-235.983|<0.0001
91835627|NCT03152084|183551957|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-5.2658||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5459|-1.9856||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.9856|-8.5459|0.0047
91835628|NCT03152084|183551958|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-7.0987||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0379|-4.1595||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.1595|-10.0379|0.0003
91835629|NCT03152084|183551959|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.7287||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9894|3.4468||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||3.4468|-1.9894|0.5592
91835630|NCT03152084|183551960|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.0315||||0.9288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7274|0.7904||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7904|-0.7274|0.9288
91835631|NCT03152084|183551961|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-0.4318||||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0761|0.2125||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2125|-1.0761|0.1659
91835632|NCT03152084|183551962|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.4755||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0963|0.8548||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||0.8548|0.0963|0.0190
91835633|NCT03152084|183551963|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-0.6713||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1914|-0.1511||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1511|-1.1914|0.0157
91835634|NCT03152084|183551964|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-0.0324||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4631|0.3984||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3984|-0.4631|0.8700
91835635|NCT03152084|183551965|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.1718||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1358|0.4795||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||0.4795|-0.1358|0.2446
91835636|NCT03152084|183551966|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-2.1||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.299|-0.902||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.902|-3.299|0.0023
91835637|NCT03152084|183551966|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.929|-1.256||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.256|-1.929|<0.0001
91835638|NCT03152084|183551966|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|3.88||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.215|5.553||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||5.553|2.215|0.0002
91835639|NCT05361655|183552008|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.87|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.87|0.65|<0.0001
91835640|NCT05361655|183552009|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.76|0.62|<0.0001
91835641|NCT05361655|183552011|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||score test|||||||<0.0001
91835642|NCT05361655|183552014|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.72|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.72|0.60|<0.0001
91835643|NCT05361655|183552015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.62|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.62|0.51|<0.0001
91835644|NCT05361655|183552016|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
91835645|NCT05361655|183552017|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.7|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.70|0.54|<0.0001
91835646|NCT03750006|183552019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0238||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|paired T-test||||||0.0238
91835647|NCT03750006|183552020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.3029
91835648|NCT03750006|183552021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1713|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1713
91835649|NCT03750006|183552022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1261
91835650|NCT03750006|183552023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1367
91835651|NCT03750006|183552024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.0111
91835652|NCT03750006|183552025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.0219
91835653|NCT03750006|183552026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 considered significant.||||||0.3660
91835654|NCT03750006|183552029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1563|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1563
91835655|NCT03750006|183552030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.0110
91835656|NCT03750006|183552031|OTHER|||||||0.3282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.3282
91835657|NCT03750006|183552032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.5244
91835658|NCT03750006|183552033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5718|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.5718
91835659|NCT01147822|183552046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0184|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7658|1.3542|||||The HR was estimated by the Cox regression model using treatment stratification factors as covariates. The HR was adjusted for Karnofsky Performance Scale scores, prior nephrectomy, and Baseline levels of lactate dehydrogenase.|||1.3542|0.7658|
91835660|NCT01147822|183552047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.441|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared with Sunitinib.|||1.441|0.808|0.604
91646101|NCT01236053|183184663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.55|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.55|1.30|<0.0001
91835661|NCT03010462|183552053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.62
91835662|NCT03010462|183552054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91835663|NCT03010462|183552055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91835664|NCT03010462|183552056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91835665|NCT03010462|183552057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
91835666|NCT01966003|183552058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence of the primary endpoint was demonstrated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the risk ratio in objective response rate between ABP 215 and bevacizumab with an equivalence margin of (0.67, 1.5).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.09||||||The risk ratio (ABP 215/Bevacizumab) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (region, sex, and ECOG performance status).||1.09|0.80|
91835667|NCT01966003|183552058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.26|3.45||||||Risk difference (ABP 215 - Bevacizumab) and 90% CI were estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors geographic region, ECOG performance status, and sex.||3.45|-9.26|
91835668|NCT01966003|183552060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.29||||||The hazard ratio for ABP 215 relative to bevacizumab was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Stratification factors are geographic region, ECOG performance status, and sex.||1.29|0.83|
91835669|NCT01966003|183552063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.61||||||Hazard ratio for ABP 215 relative to bevacizumab, based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Stratification factors are geographic region, ECOG performance status, and sex.||1.61|0.75|
91835670|NCT03299686|183552118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.043||0.7374|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.029|0.082||Probability CJM112 better than placebo|Bayesian linear repeated measures model||||Lower limit and upper limit represents the Credibility Interval from the Bayesian analysis.|0.082|-0.029|0.7374
91835671|NCT03299686|183552119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434||0.263|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.939|2.766||1-sided p-value; p-value smaller than 0.1 is considered as statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.766|-0.939|0.263
91835672|NCT03299686|183552120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.061|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.41|-0.04||1-sided p-value; p-value smaller than 0.1 is considered as statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.41|0.061
91835673|NCT03299686|183552121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|-0.06||1-sided p-value; p-value smaller than 0.1 is considered as statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.40|0.040
91835674|NCT01060553|183552127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for mcs||||.15
91835675|NCT01060553|183552127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for pcs||||.28
91835676|NCT01060553|183552128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for sleep duration||||.34
91835677|NCT01060553|183552128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for sleep disturbance||||.001
91835678|NCT01060553|183552128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for sleep latency||||.015
91896058|NCT00069108|183687492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.23||||||||1.23|0.87|
91896059|NCT00069108|183687494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.68||||||||1.68|0.79|
91773738|NCT03040141|183428614|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.476
91773739|NCT03040141|183428614|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.581|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.581
91773740|NCT03040141|183428615|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.980
91773741|NCT03040141|183428615|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.955
91773742|NCT03040141|183428615|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.955
91773743|NCT03040141|183428615|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.955
91773744|NCT03040141|183428616|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.695|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.695
91773745|NCT03040141|183428616|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.542|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.542
91773746|NCT03040141|183428616|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.899|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.899
91773747|NCT03040141|183428616|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.321|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.321
91773748|NCT03040141|183428617|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.663|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.663
91773749|NCT03040141|183428617|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.540
91773750|NCT03040141|183428617|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.918|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.918
91773751|NCT03040141|183428617|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.294|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.294
91773752|NCT03040141|183428619|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.250
91773753|NCT03040141|183428619|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.133|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.133
91773754|NCT03040141|183428619|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.177|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||||||0.177
91773755|NCT03040141|183428619|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons||||0.360
91773756|NCT03040141|183428620|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.636|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.636
91773757|NCT03040141|183428620|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.446|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||||||0.446
91773758|NCT03040141|183428620|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.530
91773759|NCT03040141|183428620|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.463|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.463
91773760|NCT03040141|183428621|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.152|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.152
91773761|NCT03040141|183428621|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.176|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.176
91773762|NCT03040141|183428621|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.157
91773763|NCT03040141|183428621|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.844|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||||||0.844
91773764|NCT03040141|183428622|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.531|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.531
91773765|NCT03040141|183428622|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.582|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.582
91773766|NCT03040141|183428622|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.550
91773767|NCT03040141|183428622|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|P-value determined based on Cox proportional hazards model Wald Chi-Square Statistic.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.840
91773768|NCT03040141|183428623|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.3534|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.3534
91773769|NCT03040141|183428623|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.7839|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.7839
91707897|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747||||90.0|0.0625|0.3281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.3281|0.0625|
91773770|NCT03040141|183428623|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.4893|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.4893
91773771|NCT03040141|183428623|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.5101|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.5101
91773772|NCT03040141|183428624|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.5436|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.5436
91773773|NCT03040141|183428624|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.8215|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.8215
91773774|NCT03040141|183428624|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.6319|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.6319
91773775|NCT03040141|183428624|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.7011|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.7011
91773776|NCT03040141|183428625|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.478|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.478
91773777|NCT03040141|183428625|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.468|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.468
91773778|NCT03040141|183428625|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.412|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons||||0.412
91773779|NCT03040141|183428625|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.982|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons||||0.982
91773780|NCT03071263|183428663|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||α-level 0.05. Stratified by baseline potassium category (4.3-\<4.7 mEq/L or 4.7-5.1 mEq/L) and history of Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Yes or No) as randomized|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A sample size of 280 subjects has 90% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 20% or more in the proportion of subjects remaining on spironolactone at Week 12, at α = 0.05.||||<0.0001
91773781|NCT03071263|183428664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5757||||||Baseline AOBP SBP as a covariate and treatment group, baseline serum potassium (K+ 4.3-\<4.7 or 4.7-5.1 mEq/L), and history of Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Yes or No) as factors in the model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5757
91773782|NCT03071263|183428665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6367||||||Baseline AOBP SBP as a covariate and treatment group, baseline serum potassium (K+ 4.3-\<4.7 or 4.7-5.1 mEq/L), and history of Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus as factors in the model.|ANCOVA|||The p-value is from a test comparing the difference between two groups in the mean change in AOBP SBP from baseline.||||0.6367
91773783|NCT01650194|183428725|OTHER|||||||0.615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Testosterone biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||0.6150
91773784|NCT01650194|183428727|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cortisol biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
91773785|NCT01650194|183428728|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Androstenedione biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
91773786|NCT01650194|183428729|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Progesterone biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
91773787|NCT01650194|183428730|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pregnenolone biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
91773788|NCT01650194|183428731|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Testosterone blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
91773789|NCT01650194|183428733|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cortisol blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
91773790|NCT01650194|183428734|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Androstenedione blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
91773791|NCT01650194|183428735|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Progesterone blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||0.0002
91773792|NCT01650194|183428736|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pregnenolone blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
91773793|NCT01602224|183428760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.401|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||100 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib compared with Placebo Comparator: Placebo + Dexamethasone + Bortezombib, only tabalumab odds ratio compared to placebo.||||0.401
91773794|NCT01602224|183428760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||300 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib compared with Placebo Comparator: Placebo + Dexamethasone + Bortezombib, only tabalumab odds ratio compared to placebo.||||0.455
91773795|NCT01602224|183428760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||100 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib and 300 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib compared with Placebo Comparator: Placebo + Dexamethasone + Bortezombib, only compared to placebo.||||0.419
91773796|NCT01352117|183428762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911||||||The critical value for the final analysis was adjusted for the three interim analyses conducted for the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) review using the Haybittle-Peto guidelines, at the p-value cutoff of 0.0487.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (asymptotic method) known as van Elteren test, stratification by screening CD4 (\<200 vs. \>=200 cells/mm\^3).||||||0.911
91835679|NCT01991821|183552133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||The complete response of the primary efficacy analysis occurred in 95 patients (56.2%; 95% confidence interval \[CI\] 48.4 - 63.8%) in the APD421 group and 83 patients (46.6%; 95% CI 39.1- 54.2%) in the placebo group|Chi-squared, Corrected|Pearson square test with Yates's continuity correction and with the two- sided significance level of 5%||The primary efficacy analysis was a complete response which is defined as protection from PONV1, which was absence of any episode of emesis, significant nausea or use of rescue medication with the first 24 hours post-operatively.||||0.093
91835680|NCT01991821|183552134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.059
91835681|NCT01991821|183552135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.053
91835682|NCT01991821|183552136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.26
91835683|NCT01991821|183552137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.06
91835684|NCT01991821|183552138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.079
91835685|NCT01991821|183552139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.096
91835686|NCT03131960|183552142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
91835687|NCT03131960|183552143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA||||0.0077
91835688|NCT03131960|183552144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0098
91835689|NCT03131960|183552145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91835690|NCT01625923|183552149|OTHER|T-test comparing GCSI-DD scores before/after intervention||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.06
91835691|NCT01462162|183552156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in DAS-28 score||||0.006
91835692|NCT01462162|183552156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in sleepiness score||||0.000
91835693|NCT01462162|183552156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in depression score||||0.000
91835694|NCT01462162|183552157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in DAS-28 score||||0.023
91835695|NCT01462162|183552157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in sleepiness score||||0.007
91835696|NCT01462162|183552157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in depression score||||0.000
91646102|NCT01236053|183184663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.43|1.20|<0.0001
91835697|NCT01462162|183552158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus Week 12||||<0.001
91835698|NCT01462162|183552158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus Week 24||||<0.001
91835699|NCT01462162|183552159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
91835700|NCT01462162|183552159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
91835701|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in DAS-28 at Week 12||||0.003
91835702|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in DAS-28 at Week 24||||0.006
91835703|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in serum hemoglobin Week 12||||0.791
91835704|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in serum hemoglobin Week 24||||0.847
91835705|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in swollen joint count Week 12||||0.182
91835706|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in swollen joint count Week 24||||0.022
91835707|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in morning stiffness Week 12||||0.163
91835708|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in morning stiffness Week 24||||0.115
91835709|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in degree of pain Week 12||||0.037
91835710|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in degree of pain Week 24||||0.044
91835711|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in sleepiness at Week 12||||0.003
91835712|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in sleepiness at Week 24||||0.001
91835713|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in depression Week 12||||<0.001
91835714|NCT01462162|183552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in depression at Week 24||||<0.001
91835715|NCT01462162|183552161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 12)||||0.678
91835716|NCT01462162|183552161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 24)||||0.348
91835717|NCT01462162|183552161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 12)||||0.679
91835718|NCT01462162|183552161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 24)||||0.556
91835719|NCT01462162|183552161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 12)||||0.692
91835720|NCT01462162|183552161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 24)||||0.771
91835721|NCT01462162|183552161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 12)||||0.878
91773797|NCT03525444|183428794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|15.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||The data presented for Primary endpoint was based on interim analysis at Week 4.||15.4|12.1|<0.0001
91773798|NCT03525444|183428795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|15.8|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||15.8|12.7|<0.0001
91773799|NCT03525444|183428796|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.55|0.25|<0.0001
91773800|NCT03525444|183428797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-39.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-39.3|-44.4|<0.0001
91773801|NCT03525444|183428798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|23.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.0|17.5|<0.0001
91773802|NCT03525444|183428799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||1.23|0.85|<0.0001
91773803|NCT03525444|183428800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-38.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-38.5|-44.0|<0.0001
91773804|NCT03525444|183428801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|23.2|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.2|16.9|<0.0001
91773805|NCT03525444|183428803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43||||||||0.43|0.17|
91773806|NCT03525444|183428804|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.4||||||||3.4|2.3|
91773807|NCT01183689|183428859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.41||No interim analyses were conducted. Pairwise differences among the three arms were assessed with a 2 degree of freedom Wald Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||Above is provided the mean difference between Arms 1 and 2.|Mean changes from random effects model applied to repeated measures to compute the average differences among groups over time.||1.41|0.23|<0.05
91773808|NCT01183689|183428859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.64|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|This was fitted with Proc Mixed in SAS.|95% confidence interval excludes 0|Mean changes from a random effects model applied to repeated measures to compute the average differences between groups over time. This entry is for the comparison between groups 1 and 3.||3.22|2.05|<0.05
91773809|NCT01183689|183428860|OTHER|Generalized Estimating Equations|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Generalized estimating equations were used to compare the average percent of weight gainers over time among the three groups. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in these average percentages. Participants were assigned values of 0 or 1 at each visit depending on their weight gain status. The percentages were summarized with odds ratios for weight gain over time.||1.90|1.02|<0.05
91773810|NCT01183689|183428860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.19|||generalized estimating equations|||This is a parallel analysis, comparing groups 1 and 3, using generalized estimating equations to summarize the odds ratio for weight gain in group 1 versus group 3,||3.19|1.64|<0.05
91773811|NCT01183689|183428861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on a 2 degree of freedom Wald test within the mixed effect model to test for pairwise differences among the 3 arms.|Listed above is the mean difference between arms 1 and 2|Mean differences at 2 years are calculated from a linear contrast within a mixed effects model. Note that this comparison is between Groups 1 and 2.||2.24|0.39|<0.05
91773812|NCT01183689|183428861|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear contrast was used to compare groups 1 and 3 at 24 months.||A linear contrast from a mixed effects model was used to compare mean differences at 24 months between groups 1 and 3.||2.98|1.11|<0.05
91773813|NCT01183689|183428862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.99||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.92||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for pairwise difference among the 3 arms within an analysis of variance.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance to assess mean differences in changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure. This analysis compares groups 1 and 2.||3.92|0.06|0.13
91773814|NCT01183689|183428862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|2.84|||ANOVA|||Mean differences in systolic blood pressure between groups 1 and 3 over time.||2.84|-0.98|0.13
91773815|NCT01183689|183428863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.14||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from an analysis of variance to compare mean differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|||Mean differences from baseline to 2 years were compared among the 3 arms using analysis of variance.||3.14|0.32|0.06
91773816|NCT01183689|183428863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.33||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom omnibus test for differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to 2 years in diastolic blood pressure.||2.33|-0.49|0.06
91773817|NCT01183689|183428864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|3.52||The p-value results from a 2 degree of freedom F-test.|ANOVA|||Mean changes from baseline to 2 years were compared between Groups 1 and 2.||3.52|-6.12|0.73
91773818|NCT01183689|183428864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.58||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences in total cholesterol changes from baseline among groups.||0.58|-4.36|0.73
91773819|NCT01183689|183428865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.52||The p-value is a 2 degree of freedom test from the generalized estimating equations analysis applied to the longitudinal binary data among the 3 study arms.|generalized estimating equations|||The average percentage of participants who were obese across follow-up were compared among the 3 arms using a generalized estimating equations approach for repeated binary measures. Participants were assigned values of 0 or 1 depending on their obesity status at each exam. Differences were summarized with odds ratios.||4.52|1.23|<0.001
91773820|NCT01183689|183428865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.1||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 groups.|generalized estimating equations|||Generalized estimating equations were used. Differences were summarized with odds ratios.||4.10|1.12|0.008
91835722|NCT01462162|183552161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 24)||||0.139
91835723|NCT01462162|183552161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 12)||||0.249
91835724|NCT01462162|183552161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 24)||||0.610
91835725|NCT01462162|183552162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 12)||||0.257
91835726|NCT01462162|183552162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 24)||||0.487
91835727|NCT01462162|183552162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 12)||||0.644
91835728|NCT01462162|183552162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 24)||||0.498
91835729|NCT01462162|183552162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 12)||||0.650
91835730|NCT01462162|183552162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Regression, Cox|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 24)||||0.750
91835731|NCT01462162|183552162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.936|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 12)||||0.936
91835732|NCT01462162|183552162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 24)||||0.075
91835733|NCT01462162|183552162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 12)||||0.098
91835734|NCT01462162|183552162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 24)||||0.090
91835735|NCT01462162|183552163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Multiple Regression|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 12)||||0.077
91835736|NCT01462162|183552163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.961|||||||Multiple Regression|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 24)||||0.961
91835737|NCT01462162|183552164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
91646103|NCT01236053|183184663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.29|1.00|0.0469
91835738|NCT01462162|183552164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
91835739|NCT01462162|183552165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
91835740|NCT01462162|183552165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
91835741|NCT01462162|183552166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
91835742|NCT01462162|183552166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
91835743|NCT01462162|183552167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
91835744|NCT01462162|183552167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
91835745|NCT01462162|183552168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
91835746|NCT01462162|183552168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
91835747|NCT01462162|183552169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
91835748|NCT01462162|183552169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
91835749|NCT01462162|183552170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||0.172
91835750|NCT01462162|183552170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.05
91835751|NCT01462162|183552171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||0.162
91835752|NCT01462162|183552171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 24||||<0.001
91835753|NCT01462162|183552172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
91835754|NCT01462162|183552172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.005
91835755|NCT01462162|183552173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
91835756|NCT01462162|183552173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.005
91835757|NCT01462162|183552174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
91835758|NCT01462162|183552174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
91835759|NCT03485911|183552178|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|30.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|48.7|||negative binomial regression model|||||48.7|4.6|0.024
91835760|NCT03485911|183552178|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|44.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|59.5|||negative binomial regression model|||||59.5|23.0|<0.001
91835761|NCT03485911|183552180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|4.53|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups.||4.53|-10.08|0.453
91835762|NCT03485911|183552180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|2.43|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups.||2.43|-12.23|0.188
91896060|NCT00069108|183687495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||||1.12|0.81|
91900827|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4||||0.3035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.1|-1.2|0.3035
91835763|NCT03485911|183552181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.062||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of proportion of days with angioedema symptoms through 24 weeks for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||-0.008|-0.117|0.025
91835764|NCT03485911|183552181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.078||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of number and proportion of days with angioedema symptoms through 24 weeks for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||-0.023|-0.133|0.006
91835765|NCT03485911|183552182|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|30.4||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|49.3|||negative binomial regression model|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed HAE attacks during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values reported are nominal.||49.3|4.3|0.026
91835766|NCT03485911|183552182|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|46.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|61.5|||negative binomial regression model|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed HAE attacks during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values reported are nominal.||61.5|25.6|<0.001
91835767|NCT00462280|183552236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
91835768|NCT01987817|183552273|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|79.0|||Fisher Exact|||||79|35|<0.0001
91835769|NCT01987817|183552274|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.912|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5184|1.3065||The p-value is based on the F-test for treatment effect adjusted for MTD from baseline (log10 mg). The p-value and confidence intervals are based on the normality assumption.|ANCOVA|Least squares means and 95% CIs based on ANCOVA model of change from baseline in MTD at Exit DBPCFC (terms for treatment \& MTD at baseline (log10 mg).||MTD for the baseline and Exit DBPCFC are transformed back to log10 scale before calculations. A value of 0.3 mg is substituted for subjects who could not tolerate the lowest DBPCFC dose before log10 transformation.||1.3065|0.5184|<0.0001
91835770|NCT00279201|183552315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value from ANCOVA, baseline value as covariate. Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + thiazolidinedione (TZD) use + Sulfonylurea (sulfo) use.||||||0.005
91835771|NCT00279201|183552316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified by country, thiazolidinedione (TZD) use, sulfo use.||||||0.040
91835772|NCT00279201|183552317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.271
91835773|NCT00279201|183552317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.990
91835774|NCT00279201|183552318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.005
91835775|NCT00279201|183552319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for \<=7.0%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.002
91835776|NCT00279201|183552319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835777|NCT00279201|183552319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.174
91835778|NCT00279201|183552320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0||||P-value for baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.416
91835779|NCT00279201|183552320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91900828|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.9563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.2|-3.1|0.9563
91835780|NCT00279201|183552320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.003
91835781|NCT00279201|183552320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.005
91835782|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean fasting blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.179
91835783|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for mean fasting blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835784|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.700
91835785|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for AM 2-hour postprandial blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.016
91835786|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday premeal BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.971
91835787|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Midday premeal blood glucose (BG).|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835788|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2-hour postprandial BG|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.759
91773821|NCT01183689|183428866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.45||the p-value results from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to assess pairwise differences among the 3 groups|ANOVA|the p-value results from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to assess pairwise differences among the 3 groups||Mean changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups were assessed using a 2 degree of freedom F-test||0.45|-0.61|0.002
91773822|NCT01183689|183428866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.08||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among all 3 groups|ANOVA|||Differences among the 3 groups were based on analyses of variance.||1.08|0.02|0.002
91773823|NCT01183689|183428867|SUPERIORITY|A 2 degree of freedom F-test from ANOVA was used to compare mean differences in changes among the 3 arms of the study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.38||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F test to assess differences among the 3 arms of the study.|ANOVA|The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F test to assess differences among the 3 arms of the study.||Changes in units of the scale from baseline to 2 years||-0.38|-1.32|<0.001
91773824|NCT01183689|183428867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.37||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test to compare differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||0.37|-0.57|<0.001
91773825|NCT01183689|183428868|SUPERIORITY|2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.71||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study, not adjusted for multiple comparisons among endpoints|ANOVA|2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study||0.71|-0.31|<0.001
91773826|NCT01183689|183428868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.39||This p-value is from a 2 degree freedom test of differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to year 2 among the 3 groups.||1.39|0.37|0.002
91773827|NCT01183689|183428869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.45||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance|ANOVA|2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare mean differences among arms||2 degree F-test from analysis of variance applied to 2 year changes in scores from baseline||0.45|-0.71|<0.001
91773828|NCT01183689|183428869|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.98||This p-value is from the omnibus 2 degree of freedom test for mean differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||1.98|0.82|<0.001
91773829|NCT01183689|183428870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|2 degree of freedom test from analysis of variance to assess mean differences among the 3 arms||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences in general health index values among the 3 arms||0.09|-0.24|0.24
91773830|NCT01183689|183428870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02||This p-value is from the 2 degree of freedom test of differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare differences in changes from baseline to 2 years among the three arms.||0.02|-0.32|0.24
91773831|NCT01183689|183428871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.81||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare the 3 arms using analysis of variance.|ANOVA|||Mean differences between baseline and year 2 were compared among the 3 arms using analysis of variance.||3.81|-0.77|0.16
91773832|NCT01183689|183428871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|4.51||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F test.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compared mean differences among the 3 groups.||4.51|-0.09|0.16
91773833|NCT01183689|183428872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|4.23||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance.|ANOVA|||Mean changes from baseline to year 2 among the 3 arms were compared using analysis of variance.||4.23|-3.89|0.75
91773834|NCT01183689|183428872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|5.49||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test.|ANOVA||No significant differences between groups 1 and 3.|Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes among the 3 groups.||5.49|-2.61|0.75
91773835|NCT01183689|183428873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.28||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare the 3 arms within an analysis of variance.|ANOVA||No significant difference between groups 1 and 2.|Mean changes from baseline to year 2 among the 3 arms were compared using analysis of variance.||0.28|-2.44|0.05
91773836|NCT01183689|183428873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.32||This p-value is from an F-test to compare differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences in changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||-0.32|-3.00|0.05
91773837|NCT01183689|183428874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.45||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from an analysis of variance to assess differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|||Mean changes between baseline and year 2 were compared among the 3 arms using analysis of variance.||0.45|-1.37|0.03
91773838|NCT01183689|183428874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.3||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||-0.30|-2.11|0.03
91835789|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||P-value Midday 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.514
91835790|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline evening pre-meal BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.321
91835791|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value for Evening pre-meal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.161
91835792|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline evening 2hour postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.297
91835793|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value Evening 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835794|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline 3 AM blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.199
91835795|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693||95.0||||P-value is for 3 AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.693
91835796|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.021
91835797|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835798|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.567
91835799|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.005
91835800|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.994
91835801|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835802|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all meal time excursions.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.436
91835803|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all meal time excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835804|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all 2hour PP BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.628
91835805|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835806|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM/PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.677
91835807|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for AM/PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835808|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all premeal BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.364
91835809|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.055
91835810|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM/PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.165
91835811|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for AM/PM 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835812|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean of all BG values.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.464
91835813|NCT00279201|183552321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all blood glucose values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.305
91835814|NCT00279201|183552322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.003
91835815|NCT00279201|183552323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 6.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835816|NCT00279201|183552323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 12.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835817|NCT00279201|183552323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 18|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835818|NCT00279201|183552323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 24.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835819|NCT00279201|183552323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at endpoint.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835820|NCT00279201|183552324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||95.0||||P-value for Actual weight at baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.497
91835821|NCT00279201|183552324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835822|NCT00279201|183552324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Actual weight at Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835823|NCT00279201|183552324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Week 18.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835824|NCT00279201|183552324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835825|NCT00279201|183552324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.0001
91835826|NCT00279201|183552325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.016
91835827|NCT00279201|183552325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemic episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.037
91773839|NCT01183689|183428875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.0||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from an analysis of variance to assess mean differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA||The 95% confidence interval for differences between groups 1 and 2 includes 0.|Mean differences from baseline to year 2 among the 3 arms were assessed using analysis of variance.||3.00|-0.84|0.20
91773840|NCT01183689|183428875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.35||This p-value is from an analysis of variance comparing all 3 groups.|ANOVA||The 95% confidence interval for differences between groups 1 and 3 includes 0.|Analysis of variance was used to compare differences among the 3 groups.||1.35|-1.45|0.20
91773841|NCT01183689|183428876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.1||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance, with no adjustment for multiple outcomes|ANOVA|||2 degree of freedom F-test to compare mean 2 year differences among 3 arms||0.10|-0.34|0.02
91773842|NCT01183689|183428876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.08||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences in changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||-0.08|-0.52|0.02
91773843|NCT01183689|183428877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-52.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.0|60.0||2 degree of freedom F-test to compare 3 arms with respect to 2-year changes in kilocalories|ANOVA|||2 degree of freedom F-test to compare mean differences among 3 arms in changes in kilocalories from baseline to year 2||60|-164|0.58
91773844|NCT01183689|183428877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.0|61.0||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare differences among the 3 groups|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to assess mean differences in 2 year changes in kilocalories intake among the 3 groups.||61|-162|0.58
91773845|NCT01183689|183428878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.02||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare changes in waist circumference from baseline among the three arms|ANOVA|No adjustment to degrees of freedom|Difference between groups 1 and 2: 95% confidence interval includes 0|2 degree of freedom F-test from ANOVA to compare differences among 3 arms||0.02|-2.55|0.001
91773846|NCT01183689|183428878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-1.14||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test for differences among the 3 arms|ANOVA||The 95% confidence interval for differences between groups 1 and 3 does not include 0.|Mean change in waist girth from baseline to year 2||-1.14|-3.69|0.001
91773847|NCT01183689|183428879|SUPERIORITY|Chi-squared test to compare the percentage of participants reporting self-weighing more than once per week among the 3 arms.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.02||This is based on a 2 degree of freedom likelihood ratio test to compare differences among the 3 arms.|Regression, Logistic||The 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio comparing the rates of self-weighing at year 2 between groups 1 and 2 excludes 0.|Logistic regression to compare differences among the 3 groups||3.02|1.04|0.004
91773848|NCT01183689|183428879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.94||2 degree of freedom likelihood ratio statistic to compare differences among the 3 arms|Regression, Logistic|No adjustments|The 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio comparing groups 1 and 3 excludes 0.|Logistic regression analysis was used to compare the rates of daily self-weighing at 2 years among the 3 groups.||3.94|1.40|0.004
91773849|NCT01690052|183428883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|The p-value is calculated from the ANOVA||||||0.05
91773850|NCT01194830|183428888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0005||95.0|-0.91|-0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.26|-0.91|0.0005
91773851|NCT01194830|183428889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.62|-0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.22|-0.62|<0.0001
91773852|NCT01194830|183428890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0002||95.0|-0.84|-0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.26|-0.84|0.0002
91773853|NCT01194830|183428891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0003||95.0|-0.85|-0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.26|-0.85|0.0003
91773854|NCT01194830|183428892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.063||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.764|9.358|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.358|1.764|0.0010
91773855|NCT01194830|183428893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.433||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.124|26.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.260|1.124|0.0352
91773856|NCT01194830|183428894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.951||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.651|5.274|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.274|1.651|0.0003
91773857|NCT01194830|183428895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.0972||95.0|-26.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||2.2|-26.1|0.0972
91773858|NCT01194830|183428896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.45||0.9368||95.0|-53.8|49.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline 2-hour PPG, and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||49.86|-53.80|0.9368
91773859|NCT03583099|183428932|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|15.0|||generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.0|-6.9|0.47
91773860|NCT03583099|183428933|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|20.7|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||20.7|0.1|0.05
91773861|NCT03583099|183428934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.3||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.2|-6.7|0.75
91773862|NCT03583099|183428935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||6.1|-11.5|0.54
91773863|NCT03583099|183428936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|5.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|12.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.3|-2.1|0.16
91773864|NCT03583099|183428937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.6||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||5.1|-6.4|0.82
91773865|NCT03583099|183428938|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-6.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.4|-13.0|0.06
91773866|NCT03583099|183428939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||9.5|-14.5|0.68
91773867|NCT03583099|183428940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|13.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|33.38|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||33.38|-6.72|0.19
91773868|NCT03583099|183428941|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.85||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|19.52|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||19.52|-17.82|0.93
91773869|NCT03583099|183428942|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|6.83||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|24.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||24.50|-10.84|0.45
91773870|NCT03583099|183428943|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|25.78|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||25.78|-10.58|0.41
91773871|NCT03583099|183428944|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|16.88|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||16.88|-13.17|0.81
91773872|NCT03583099|183428945|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|8.01||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|31.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||31.40|-15.38|0.51
91773873|NCT03583099|183428946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-10.34||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.78|14.09|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.09|-34.78|0.41
91773874|NCT03583099|183428947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.94||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|23.16|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||23.16|-31.03|0.76
91773875|NCT03583099|183428948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.76||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|23.83|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||23.83|-25.36|0.95
91773876|NCT03583099|183428949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.32||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.36||The p-value is adjusted for baseline CAT score.|Mixed Models Analysis||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.36|-2.01|0.55
91773877|NCT03583099|183428950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|8.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|17.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||17.4|-0.1|0.05
91773878|NCT03583099|183428951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.81||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.47|25.08|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||25.08|-21.47|0.88
91773879|NCT03583099|183428952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-5.62||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|11.97|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.97|-23.21|0.53
91773880|NCT03583099|183428953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.68||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|28.63|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||28.63|-7.27|0.24
91773881|NCT03583099|183428954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-13.55||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.65|6.55|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.55|-33.65|0.19
91773882|NCT03583099|183428955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.38||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|13.27|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.27|-12.50|0.95
91773883|NCT03583099|183428956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-6.97||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|2.17|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.17|-16.12|0.14
91773884|NCT03583099|183428957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.06||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|11.27|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.27|-13.39|0.87
91773885|NCT03583099|183428958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.8||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|12.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.4|-15.9|0.81
91773886|NCT03583099|183428959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|11.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.8|-7.2|0.63
91773887|NCT03583099|183428960|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|5.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|14.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.2|-2.5|0.17
91773888|NCT03583099|183428961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.9||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|7.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.3|-13.0|0.58
91773889|NCT03583099|183428962|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.6||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.1|-8.3|0.89
91773890|NCT03583099|183428963|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.5|-9.2|0.16
91773891|NCT03583099|183428964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.5|-10.9|0.62
91773892|NCT03583099|183428965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.64||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.27|13.99|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.99|-17.27|0.84
91773893|NCT03583099|183428966|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|6.09||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|16.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||16.80|-4.63|0.27
91773894|NCT03583099|183428967|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.91||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|12.41|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.41|-6.59|0.55
91773895|NCT03583099|183428968|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.37||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|13.83|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.83|-9.09|0.69
91773896|NCT03583099|183428969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.36||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|8.85|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.85|-8.13|0.93
91773897|NCT03583099|183428970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.01||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|2.95|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.95|-10.97|0.26
91773898|NCT03583099|183428971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|10.21|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||10.21|-14.28|0.74
91707898|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0729|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.411|0.6707|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.6707|0.4110|
91773899|NCT03583099|183428972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.1|-7.9|0.98
91773900|NCT03583099|183428973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.6||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|9.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.6|-4.3|0.46
91773901|NCT03583099|183428974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.1|-3.0|0.50
91835828|NCT00279201|183552325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.834
91707899|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0675|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4032|0.6438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.6438|0.4032|
91773902|NCT03583099|183428975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.2||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.5|-6.8|0.96
91773903|NCT03583099|183428976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.5|-3.0|0.40
91773904|NCT03583099|183428977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.0|-4.3|0.96
91773905|NCT03583099|183428978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.1|-7.9|0.98
91773906|NCT03583099|183428979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|6.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.8|-15.2|0.46
91773907|NCT03583099|183428980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|12.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.4|-4.7|0.37
91773908|NCT03583099|183428981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.8||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.4|-6.0|0.75
91773909|NCT03583099|183428982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|0.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.9|-18.3|0.08
91773910|NCT03583099|183428983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.1|-10.6|0.11
91773911|NCT03583099|183428984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.4||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||5.9|-5.1|0.89
91773912|NCT03583099|183428985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|0.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-0.0|-17.5|0.05
91773913|NCT03583099|183428986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|16.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|36.42|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||36.42|-2.89|0.09
91773914|NCT03583099|183428987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|15.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.9|-8.6|0.56
91773915|NCT03583099|183428988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.41||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|40.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||40.20|-19.39|0.49
91773916|NCT03583099|183428989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.8||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|22.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||22.1|-0.5|0.06
91773917|NCT03583099|183428990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.41||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|11.79|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.79|-10.97|0.94
91773918|NCT03583099|183428991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|11.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.8|-6.5|0.57
91773919|NCT03583099|183428992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.36||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|20.73|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||20.73|-18.01|0.89
91835829|NCT00279201|183552325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.585
91835830|NCT00279201|183552325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||P-value is for Severe hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.241
91773920|NCT03583099|183428993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|7.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.6|-12.1|0.65
91773921|NCT03583099|183428994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|12.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|29.96|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||29.96|-5.00|0.16
91773922|NCT03583099|183428995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.2|-3.6|0.29
91773923|NCT03583099|183428996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|5.28||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|18.62|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||18.62|-8.07|0.44
91773924|NCT03583099|183428997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.5|-7.6|0.62
91773925|NCT03583099|183428998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.18|9.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.0|-23.18|0.39
91773926|NCT03583099|183428999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-6.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.8|-13.9|0.08
91773927|NCT03583099|183429000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-11.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.06|7.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.00|-29.06|0.23
91773928|NCT03583099|183429001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.14||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|4.13||The p-value adjusts for baseline CAT score.|Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.13|-6.42|0.97
91773929|NCT03583099|183429002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.003||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.85|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.85|-1.86|0.47
91773930|NCT03583099|183429003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|17.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|33.34|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||33.34|2.34|0.02
91773931|NCT03583099|183429004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|17.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||17.6|-2.0|0.12
91773932|NCT03583099|183429005|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test. This test is appropriate since only one outcome per practice was seen.||||||1.0
91773933|NCT03583099|183429006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.06||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.67|26.79|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||26.79|-22.67|0.87
91773934|NCT03583099|183429007|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
91773935|NCT03583099|183429008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-5.53||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.33|13.28|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.28|-24.33|0.56
91773936|NCT03583099|183429009|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
91773937|NCT03583099|183429010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|12.66||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|32.37|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||32.37|-7.05|0.21
91773938|NCT03583099|183429011|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
91773939|NCT03583099|183429012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-18.29||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.66|2.08|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.08|-38.66|0.08
91773940|NCT03583099|183429013|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
91773941|NCT03583099|183429014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.67||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.06|12.71|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.71|-14.06|0.92
91773942|NCT03583099|183429016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-5.47||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|4.77|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.77|-15.72|0.29
91773943|NCT03583099|183429018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.87||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.14|11.39|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.39|-17.14|0.69
91773944|NCT03583099|183429019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-13.15||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|12.76|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.76|-39.06|0.32
91773945|NCT03583099|183429020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|15.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.0|-15.5|0.98
91773946|NCT03583099|183429022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.1|-7.0|0.55
91773947|NCT03583099|183429023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.61||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.19|12.97|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.97|-30.19|0.43
91773948|NCT03583099|183429024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||16.5|-1.4|0.10
91773949|NCT03583099|183429025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.82||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|21.92|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||21.92|-20.92|0.94
91773950|NCT03583099|183429026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|7.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.6|-14.4|0.55
91773951|NCT03583099|183429028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|7.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.1|-9.3|0.80
91773952|NCT03583099|183429030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.8|-9.7|0.18
91773953|NCT03583099|183429031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.17||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.06|25.72|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||25.72|-26.06|0.99
91773954|NCT03583099|183429032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|6.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.8|-12.0|0.59
91773955|NCT03583099|183429034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|18.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||18.4|-14.5|0.82
91773956|NCT03583099|183429036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|19.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||19.3|-4.1|0.20
91773957|NCT03583099|183429038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|15.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.3|-5.5|0.36
91773958|NCT03583099|183429040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.6||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|17.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||17.1|-7.9|0.47
91773959|NCT03583099|183429042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.0|-7.8|0.88
91773960|NCT03583099|183429044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.4|-12.0|0.27
91773961|NCT03583099|183429045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.94||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.92|38.04|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||38.04|-47.92|0.82
91773962|NCT03583099|183429046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|12.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.2|-14.5|0.87
91707900|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0512|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2944|0.4769|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.4769|0.2944|
91773963|NCT03583099|183429047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-37.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.8|-3.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-3.5|-71.8|0.03
91773964|NCT03583099|183429048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|10.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||10.3|-5.6|0.56
91773965|NCT03583099|183429049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-23.07||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|1.27|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.27|-47.40|0.06
91773966|NCT03583099|183429050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.2||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|10.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||10.4|-4.0|0.39
91773967|NCT03583099|183429051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.72||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.24|14.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.80|-18.24|0.84
91773968|NCT03583099|183429052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.9|-2.9|0.42
91773969|NCT03583099|183429053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-42.09||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.27|-9.92|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-9.92|-74.27|0.01
91773970|NCT03583099|183429054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.4||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.1|-4.2|0.47
91773971|NCT03583099|183429055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.27||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.72|13.18|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.18|-37.72|0.34
91773972|NCT03583099|183429056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.9|-3.1|0.39
91773973|NCT03583099|183429058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.1|-5.5|0.59
91773974|NCT03583099|183429060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.3||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.8|-8.2|0.94
91773975|NCT03583099|183429061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|13.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.4|-12.2|0.93
91773976|NCT03583099|183429062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|5.7|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||5.7|-22.0|0.25
91773977|NCT03583099|183429063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|6.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.0|-12.7|0.48
91835831|NCT00279201|183552325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||P-value is for Severe hypoglycemic episodes overall. Initiation phase and maintenance phase are included.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.080
91773978|NCT03583099|183429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|14.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.2|-6.3|0.45
91773979|NCT03583099|183429066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.9|-8.4|0.48
91773980|NCT03583099|183429067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.4||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|19.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||19.5|-20.4|0.97
91773981|NCT03583099|183429068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-0.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-0.6|-23.5|0.04
91835832|NCT00279201|183552326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.009
91707901|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0368|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0439|0.0872|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||0.0872|-0.0439|
91773982|NCT03583099|183429069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.3|-5.8|0.39
91773983|NCT03583099|183429070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|0.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.4|-14.9|0.06
91773984|NCT03583099|183429071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.0|-8.8|0.82
91773985|NCT03583099|183429072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.9|-6.6|0.86
91773986|NCT03583099|183429073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|2.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.5|-17.3|0.14
91773987|NCT03583099|183429075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-14.66||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|8.22|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.22|-37.54|0.21
91773988|NCT03583099|183429076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.4||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.7|||Generalized estimating equation contrast|||||2.7|-2.0|0.76
91773989|NCT03583099|183429079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.4|-2.1|0.66
91773990|NCT00807911|183429097|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.994|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.994|0.434|0.047
91773991|NCT00807911|183429098|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.602||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|0.977|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.977|0.371|0.040
91773992|NCT00807911|183429099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.744||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|1.657|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.657|0.334|0.47
91773993|NCT00807911|183429100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.456||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.97|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.970|0.215|0.036
91773994|NCT02648204|183429109|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin: 0.4|Treatment difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.55|<0.0001
91773995|NCT02648204|183429109|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.55|<0.0001
91773996|NCT02648204|183429109|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin: 0.04|Treatment difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.57|<0.0001
91773997|NCT02648204|183429109|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.57|<0.0001
91773998|NCT02648204|183429110|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.51|-3.02|<0.0001
91773999|NCT02648204|183429110|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.78|-4.32|<0.0001
91774000|NCT01018030|183429149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.386||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.1|||ANCOVA||The estimation for least squares mean was adjusted for baseline value, country, allergic rhinitis status, age, and gender.|||-0.10|-0.67|0.008
91774001|NCT01018030|183429149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.357||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.07|||ANCOVA||The estimation for least squares mean was adjusted for baseline value, country, allergic rhinitis status, age, and gender.|||-0.07|-0.64|0.014
91774002|NCT03111875|183429190|SUPERIORITY|common effect|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.87|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|0.87|0.69
91774003|NCT03111875|183429190|SUPERIORITY|average relative effect|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.43|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.43|0.10
91774004|NCT03111875|183429191|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.87|1.47|||log-binomial models|The relative risk was estimated using a GEE model to adjust for within-patient correlation across components and log link (to estimate relative risk).||||1.47|0.87|0.25
91774005|NCT03111875|183429192|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.87|1.33|||log-binomial models|The relative risk was estimated using a GEE model to adjust for within-patient correlation across components and log link (to estimate relative risk)||||1.33|0.87|0.41
91774006|NCT02588599|183429255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=8.0; df=53||||||<0.0001
91774007|NCT00402168|183429263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.9||||||At Month 6, difference in percentage of participants with acute rejection (number with acute rejection/number randomized) using exact method.||14.9|2.1|
91774008|NCT00402168|183429263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.9||||||At Month 12, difference in percentage of participants with acute rejection using exact method.||14.9|2.1|
91774009|NCT00402168|183429264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.1||||||Participants surviving with a functioning graft by Month 6: For 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of difference, exact method was used.||6.1|-3.3|
91774010|NCT00402168|183429264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.1||||||Participants surviving with a functioning graft by Month 12: For 95% CI of difference, exact method was used.||6.1|-3.3|
91774011|NCT00402168|183429267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.8||||||||13.8|-0.1|
91774012|NCT00402168|183429272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Scales (MCS)||3.9|-1.7|0.4491
91774013|NCT00402168|183429272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Scales (PCS)||1.9|-2.5|0.7892
91774014|NCT00402168|183429274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0252||||||Difference in Symptom Occurrence between treatment groups.||.0252|-.010|
91774015|NCT00402168|183429274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0321||||||Difference in Symptom Distress between treatment groups.||.0321|-.002|
91774016|NCT00550407|183429290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.010
91774017|NCT03883581|183429313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91774018|NCT03883581|183429314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.647
91774019|NCT03883581|183429315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.103
91774020|NCT03883581|183429316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
91774021|NCT03883581|183429317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.103
91774022|NCT02099864|183429319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|108.8|||Fisher Exact|Due to sample size, Fisher's exact test was used rather than simple logistic regression.||||108.8|0.9|0.055
91774023|NCT02099864|183429320|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.3|||Fisher Exact|Due to sample size, Fisher's exact was used rather than regression.||||5.3|0.1|1.000
91774024|NCT02099864|183429321|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.0|||Fisher Exact|||||17.0|0.0|1.000
91774025|NCT02099864|183429322|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference is the median for responders minus the median for non-responders.|||||0.84
91774026|NCT02099864|183429323|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference is the median for responders minus the median for non-responders.|||||0.14
91774027|NCT02099864|183429324|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|60.2|||Fisher Exact|||||60.2|0.1|1.00
91774028|NCT02099864|183429326|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference is the median for the responders minus the median for the non-responders.|||||0.01
91774029|NCT02099864|183429329|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.45|||Regression, Cox|||||0.45|0.07|<0.001
91774030|NCT02099864|183429330|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.56|||Regression, Cox|||||0.56|0.08|0.002
91774031|NCT02099864|183429331|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.59|||Regression, Cox|||||0.59|0.02|0.23
91774032|NCT02099864|183429332|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.45|||Regression, Cox|||||0.45|0.07|<0.001
91774033|NCT02099864|183429337|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|11.82|||Regression, Cox|||||11.82|2.03|<0.001
91774034|NCT03224130|183429338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.21
91774035|NCT03224130|183429339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.31
91774036|NCT03224130|183429340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||censored Poisson model|||||||0.24
91774037|NCT03224130|183429341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Poisson model|||||||<0.01
91774038|NCT03224130|183429342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.50
91774039|NCT03224130|183429343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.998
91774040|NCT03224130|183429344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.92
91774041|NCT04673214|183429431|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis for the modification in the clinical evolution of the conjunctivitis sign in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 under early intervention treatment with Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol for 14 days followed by video call is rejected.||||||0.05||||||Presence of a p \<0.05 as significant in the comparison of treatment with clinical symptoms|Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There will be no modification in the clinical evolution ≥ 25% of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 under an early intervention treatment with Azithromycin / Ivermectin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol vs. Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol for 14 days followed by video call from U.M.F 13 and U.M.F 20 from I.M.S.S., during the period of December 2020- February 2021, with a power of 90%, type I error rate 1% and loss to follow-up 20%.||||0.05
91774042|NCT04673214|183429431|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is rejected with a difference of 2 days in the modification of the clinical evolution (symptoms of fever, cough, headache, myalgia, odynophagia, anosmia, rhinorrhea, arthralgia, chest pain, dyspnea, conjunctivitis) of patients diagnosed with COVID -19 in early intervention treatment. vs. therapeutic failure, for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, a type I error rate of 1% and a loss to follow-up of 20%||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming a difference of 2 days in the modification of the clinical course (symptoms of fever, cough, headache, myalgia, odynophagia, anosmia, rhinorrhea, arthralgia, chest pain, dyspnea, conjunctivitis) of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in early intervention treatment vs. therapeutic failure, for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, a type I error rate of 1% and a loss to follow-up of the twenty%||||0.05
91774043|NCT04673214|183429432|SUPERIORITY|Assuming a difference in the percentage of effectiveness in the clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with the outcome of improvement in the Modification of the clinical evolution of the symptoms of patients with COVID-19 using double therapy was reported 95.7% (n = 44) Vs. triple therapy 90.8% (n = 59) and therapeutic failure 4.3% (n = 2) vs. 9.2% (n = 6), respectively.||||||0.05||||||Presence of a p \<0.05 as significant in the comparison of treatment with clinical symptoms the clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with COVID-19|Chi-squared|||Assuming a difference in the percentage of effectiveness in the clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 under treatment with Azithromycin / Ivermectin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol vs. Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol followed for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, a type I error rate of 1% and a loss to follow-up of 20%||||0.05
91774044|NCT04673214|183429433|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is rejected with a mean duration of 2 days with clinical symptoms of COVID-19 in early intervention treatment as a result of improving the modification of the clinical evolution of symptoms vs therapeutic failure.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming a difference in days of effectiveness in clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in treatment with Azithromycin / Ivermectin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol vs. Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol followed for 14 days followed by video call, with a potency 90%, a Type I error rate of 1%, and a loss to follow-up of 20%||||0.05
91774045|NCT04673214|183429434|SUPERIORITY|A total of 62 patients was calculated, however due to the availability of medication, it was recalculated to 111 patients, that is, 65 cases in the triple therapy group and 46 in the double therapy group would be necessary for the analysis.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Gehan) statistical test|||Assuming a 25% efficacy in modifying the clinical course (COVID-19 mild phase symptoms) of patients with COVID-19 under a comparative treatment for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, type I error rate 1% and loss to follow-up 20%||||0.05
91774046|NCT05546476|183429441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Posterior Median|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|2.34||||||Bayesian Emax model was used for statistical calculation. The posterior medians and 90% credible intervals (5th and 95th percentiles of the relevant posterior distribution) were reported for differences relative to placebo). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||2.34|0.49|
91774047|NCT05546476|183429441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Posterior Median|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|3.15||||||Bayesian Emax model was used for statistical calculation. The posterior medians and 90% credible intervals (5th and 95th percentiles of the relevant posterior distribution) were reported for differences relative to placebo). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||3.15|1.08|
91774048|NCT05546476|183429441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Posterior Median|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.68|4.34||||||Bayesian Emax model was used for statistical calculation. The posterior medians and 90% credible intervals (5th and 95th percentiles of the relevant posterior distribution) were reported for differences relative to placebo). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||4.34|1.68|
91774049|NCT05546476|183429442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|53.36|||=|0.826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.89|147.6|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||147.60|-40.89|=0.8260
91774050|NCT05546476|183429442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-37.9|||=|0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-132.94|57.14|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||57.14|-132.94|=0.2540
91774051|NCT05546476|183429442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.95|||=|0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-101.63|97.73|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||97.73|-101.63|=0.4870
91774052|NCT05546476|183429442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|37.76|||=|0.0497|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|75.46|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Non-Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||75.46|0.07|=0.0497
91774053|NCT05546476|183429442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.36|||=|0.5745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.94|34.22|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Non-Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||34.22|-42.94|=0.5745
91774054|NCT05546476|183429442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|49.85|||=|0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.62|89.08|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Non-Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||89.08|10.62|=0.0189
91774055|NCT05546476|183429442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.51|||=|0.1302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|21.03|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||21.03|-4.00|=0.1302
91774056|NCT05546476|183429442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.49|||=|0.278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.18|17.16|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||17.16|-8.18|=0.2780
91774057|NCT05546476|183429442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.11|||=|0.1529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.01|21.23|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||21.23|-5.01|=0.1529
91774058|NCT05546476|183429443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-130.27|||=|0.5762|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1257.31|996.77|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||996.77|-1257.31|=0.5762
91835833|NCT00279201|183552326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.420
91835834|NCT00279201|183552326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.165
91835835|NCT00279201|183552326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.167
91774059|NCT05546476|183429443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|724.14|||=|0.1486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-425.81|1874.09|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1874.09|-425.81|=0.1486
91774060|NCT05546476|183429443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|185.62|||=|0.3972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-997.94|1369.18|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1369.18|-997.94|=0.3972
91774061|NCT05546476|183429444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1587.26|||=|0.0985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-443.79|3618.31|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3618.31|-443.79|=0.0985
91774062|NCT05546476|183429444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-98.54|||=|0.5315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2169.67|1972.58|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1972.58|-2169.67|=0.5315
91774063|NCT05546476|183429444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2203.18|||=|0.0437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.51|4321.85|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||4321.85|84.51|=0.0437
91774064|NCT05546476|183429445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|0.5052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.045|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.045|-0.046|=0.5052
91774065|NCT05546476|183429445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.004|||=|0.5599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.042|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.042|-0.050|=0.5599
91774066|NCT05546476|183429445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.017|||=|0.277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.064|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.064|-0.030|=0.2770
91774067|NCT05546476|183429445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|0.5047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.071|0.07|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||95th Percentile of Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.070|-0.071|=0.5047
91774068|NCT05546476|183429445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.026|||=|0.7316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.097|0.045|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||95th Percentile of Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.045|-0.097|=0.7316
91774069|NCT05546476|183429445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.4145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.082|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||95th Percentile of Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.082|-0.063|=0.4145
91774070|NCT05546476|183429446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.24|||=|0.0114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|7.28|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||7.28|1.19|=0.0114
91774071|NCT05546476|183429446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.64|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|3.57|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3.57|-2.30|=0.3600
91835836|NCT00279201|183552326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.006
91835837|NCT00279201|183552326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835838|NCT00279201|183552327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 1.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
91707902|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0486|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0841|0.2574|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.2574|0.0841|
91707903|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0377|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0982|0.2338|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.2338|0.0982|
91835839|NCT00279201|183552327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 2.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
91835840|NCT00279201|183552327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 3.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
91835841|NCT00279201|183552327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 4.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
91835842|NCT00279201|183552327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 5.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
91835843|NCT00279201|183552327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
91835844|NCT00279201|183552327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 8.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
91835845|NCT00279201|183552327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 10.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
91835846|NCT00279201|183552327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
91835847|NCT00279201|183552327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 18.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.001
91835848|NCT00279201|183552327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
91835849|NCT00279201|183552327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
91835850|NCT00279201|183552328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
91835851|NCT00279201|183552329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835852|NCT00279201|183552330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
91835853|NCT00279201|183552331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use and Sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
91835854|NCT00279201|183552332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835855|NCT00279201|183552333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
91835856|NCT00279201|183552334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Pre Meals Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
91707904|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0477|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2667|0.438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.4380|0.2667|
91835857|NCT00279201|183552334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Post Meals Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
91835858|NCT00279201|183552334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Average of All Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
91835859|NCT00279201|183552334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Fasting Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
91835860|NCT00279201|183552335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/Metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||<0.001
91835861|NCT00279201|183552335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for TZD/Metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||<0.001
91835862|NCT00279201|183552335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.969
91835863|NCT00279201|183552335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0||||P-value is for Patients with 3 drugs (Sulfonylurea/TZD/Metformin).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.225
91835864|NCT00279201|183552336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||P-value is for Week 0.|ANOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.204
91835865|NCT00279201|183552336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.004
91835866|NCT00279201|183552336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.657
91835867|NCT00279201|183552336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value is for Week 36.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.595
91835868|NCT00279201|183552336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||P-value for Week 48.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.142
91835869|NCT00279201|183552336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551||95.0||||P-value for Week 60.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.551
91835870|NCT00279201|183552336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0||||P-value is for Week 72.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.779
91835871|NCT00279201|183552336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||P-value is for Week 84.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.175
91835872|NCT00279201|183552336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for Week 96.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.018
91835873|NCT00279201|183552336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value is for Week 108.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.047
91835874|NCT00279201|183552336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for Week 120.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.027
91707905|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0724|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.433|0.6932|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.6932|0.4330|
91707906|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4549|0.7065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||0.7065|0.4549|
91707907|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0627|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1688|0.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.3940|0.1688|
91707908|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0945|0.3019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.3019|0.0945|
91707909|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0615|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0361|0.2569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||0.2569|0.0361|
91707910|NCT02187029|183309024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4796|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0017|1.7112|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||1.7112|0.0017|
91707911|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.707|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.010|-0.707|
91707912|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.533|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.175|-0.533|
91707913|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.568|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.052|-0.568|
91707914|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||||90.0|-0.39|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.298|-0.390|
91707915|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||||90.0|-0.575|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.006|-0.575|
91707916|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.569|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||0.237|-0.569|
91707917|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.657|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.132|-0.657|
91707918|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.299|-0.460|
91707919|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.392|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.228|-0.392|
91707920|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.408|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.242|-0.408|
91707921|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.508|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.095|-0.508|
91707922|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.451|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||0.191|-0.451|
91707923|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.445|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.196|-0.445|
91707924|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.472|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.097|-0.472|
91707925|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.434|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.130|-0.434|
91707926|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.504|0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.043|-0.504|
91707927|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.405|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.722|-0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||-0.088|-0.722|
91707928|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.062|-0.560|
91707929|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.467|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.141|-0.467|
91707930|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.633|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||-0.002|-0.633|
91707931|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.683|0.496|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||0.496|-0.683|
91707932|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.406|0.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.505|-0.406|
91707933|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.193|0.707|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.707|-0.193|
91707934|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.302|0.485|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.485|-0.302|
91707935|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.107|0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.768|-0.107|
91707936|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.087|0.653|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.653|-0.087|
91707937|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.024|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||1.000|-0.024|
91707938|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.356|0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.768|-0.356|
91707939|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.656|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.656|-0.410|
91707940|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.025|0.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.818|-0.025|
91707941|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.523|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.368|-0.523|
91707942|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.154|0.661|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.661|-0.154|
91707943|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.564|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||0.315|-0.564|
91835875|NCT00279201|183552336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.017
91835876|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value for Baseline mean fasting blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.218
91835877|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean fasting blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835878|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2-hour (hr) postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.897
91835879|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint AM 2-hour postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.138
91835880|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday premeal blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.867
91835881|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint midday premeal blood.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.031
91835882|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.792
91835883|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint midday 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.510
91835884|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM pre-meal blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.535
91835885|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint PM pre-meal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.517
91835886|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.869
91835887|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint PM 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91900829|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.5|-2.3|0.6548
91707944|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.019|0.897|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.897|0.019|
91835888|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline 3AM blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.164
91835889|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint 3AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.234
91835890|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2hr excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.175
91835891|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint AM 2hr excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91707945|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.043|0.792|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.792|0.043|
91835892|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2hr excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.589
91835893|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint midday 2hr excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.161
91835894|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM 2hr excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.674
91835895|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint PM 2hr excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835896|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all meal time excursions.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.201
91835897|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean all meal time excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835898|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean of all 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.956
91835899|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean of all 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.019
91835900|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all premeal.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.445
91835901|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean all premeal.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.371
91835902|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline combined AM/PM 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.848
91835903|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint combined AM/PM 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.002
91835904|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM/PM 2hr postprandial excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.281
91835905|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint AM/PM 2hr postprandial excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835906|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all blood glucose values.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.588
91707946|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.893|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.893|0.150|
91707947|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.172|0.888|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.888|0.172|
91707948|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.069|0.782|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||0.782|-0.069|
91707949|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.328|0.503|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.503|-0.328|
91707950|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.812|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.812|0.000|
91707951|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.047|0.802|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||0.802|-0.047|
91707952|NCT02187029|183309025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.949|0.502|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||0.502|-0.949|
91707953|NCT02187029|183309026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|316.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|166.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.91|611.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||611.88|21.91|
91707954|NCT02187029|183309026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-94.87|218.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||218.82|-94.87|
91707955|NCT02187029|183309026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|107.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|100.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.2|287.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||287.11|-71.20|
91707956|NCT02187029|183309026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|433.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|211.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.3|808.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||808.13|58.30|
91707957|NCT02187029|183309026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|125.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-208.07|234.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||234.47|-208.07|
91707958|NCT02187029|183309026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|142.95|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-285.26|225.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||225.60|-285.26|
91707959|NCT02187029|183309027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|6.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||6.17|0.71|
91707960|NCT02187029|183309027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|5.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.37|1.97|
91707961|NCT02187029|183309027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.24|9.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||9.96|6.24|
91707962|NCT02187029|183309027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.65|16.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||16.59|9.65|
91707963|NCT02187029|183309027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.49|30.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||30.49|25.49|
91707964|NCT02187029|183309027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.14|31.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||31.41|26.14|
91707965|NCT02187029|183309028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||3.10|-1.31|
91707966|NCT02187029|183309028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|5.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.11|0.71|
91707967|NCT02187029|183309028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|5.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||5.85|1.33|
91835907|NCT00279201|183552337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean all blood glucose values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.217
91707968|NCT02187029|183309028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||4.31|-1.29|
91707969|NCT02187029|183309028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.57|10.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||10.89|4.57|
91707970|NCT02187029|183309028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.91|12.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||12.23|5.91|
91707971|NCT01537835|183309074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
91707972|NCT01535443|183309083|OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Traza Pillai|The test was performed with degrees of freedom: 2||||||.374
91707973|NCT03224624|183309105|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change (mean difference) between the two groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided||direction of comparison: (self-management change over 12 months) - (usual care change over 12 months) in SBP|t- tests were done to compare group mean differences between self-management and usual care and within groups Mean differences were calculated by subtracting 12-month blood pressure from baseline blood pressure for each participant. t-tests were done to compare mean differences between the two groups.||||0.72
91707974|NCT03224624|183309105|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month DBP change (mean difference) between the two groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||direction of comparison: (self-management change over 12 months) - (usual care change over 12 months) in DBP|Mean differences were calculated by subtracting 12-month blood pressure from baseline blood pressure for each participant. t-tests were done to compare mean differences between the two groups.||||0.15
91707975|NCT03224624|183309105|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change within self-management group (null hypothesis no change).|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.95||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month SBP)-(baseline SBP) for self-management group (as given in table)|change in SBP from baseline to 12-months within self-management group.||||0.01
91707976|NCT03224624|183309105|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change within usual care group (null hypothesis no change).|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month SBP)-(baseline SBP) for usual care group (as given in table)|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change within usual care group.||||<0.05
91835908|NCT00279201|183552338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, Baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.300
91835909|NCT00279201|183552339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-value for \<=7.0%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.134
91835910|NCT00279201|183552339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.089
91774072|NCT05546476|183429446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.11|||=|0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|7.17|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||7.17|1.06|=0.0138
91774073|NCT05546476|183429447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.35|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|3.97|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3.97|0.72|=0.0090
91774074|NCT05546476|183429447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|0.4987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|1.56|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.56|-1.55|=0.4987
91774075|NCT05546476|183429447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.3|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|3.92|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3.92|0.68|=0.0100
91774076|NCT05546476|183429448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.43|||=|0.1912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.24|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Appetite: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.24|-0.38|=0.1912
91774077|NCT05546476|183429448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.46|||=|0.1866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|1.3|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Appetite: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.30|-0.39|=0.1866
91774078|NCT05546476|183429448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.92|||=|0.0349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.75|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Appetite: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.75|0.09|=0.0349
91774079|NCT05546476|183429448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.47|||=|0.8754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.14|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Nausea: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.14|-0.20|=0.8754
91835911|NCT00279201|183552339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.235
91774080|NCT05546476|183429448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.38|||=|0.8205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|1.08|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Nausea: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.08|-0.31|=0.8205
91774081|NCT05546476|183429448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.17|||=|0.3375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.51|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Nausea: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.51|-0.86|=0.3375
91835912|NCT00279201|183552340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 24.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835913|NCT00279201|183552340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 36.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91774082|NCT05546476|183429448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.66|||=|0.9138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|1.45|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Physical Fatigue: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.45|-0.14|=0.9138
91835914|NCT00279201|183552340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 48.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835915|NCT00279201|183552340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 60.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835916|NCT00279201|183552340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 72.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835917|NCT00279201|183552340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 84.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91774083|NCT05546476|183429448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.64|||=|0.9011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|1.46|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Physical Fatigue: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.46|-0.18|=0.9011
91774084|NCT05546476|183429448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||=|0.6618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|1.02|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Physical Fatigue: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.02|-0.61|=0.6618
91774085|NCT03585660|183429462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||bootstrap z-test|The standard error of the difference in accuracy was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap, with B=9999 resamples.||The null hypothesis is that the accuracy of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the accuracy of HM-MRI is greater than the accuracy of mp-MRI.||||0.02
91774086|NCT03585660|183429463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||bootstrap z-test|The standard error of the difference of AUCs was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap, with B=9999 resamples.||The null hypothesis is that the AUCs of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the AUC of HM-MRI is greater than the AUC of mp-MRI.||||0.08
91774087|NCT03585660|183429464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||bootstrap z-test|||The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the sensitivity of HM-MRI is greater than the sensitivity of mp-MRI.||||0.97
91774088|NCT03585660|183429465|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||bootstrap z-test|||The null hypothesis is that the specificity of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the specificity of HM-MRI is greater than the specificity of mp-MRI.||||<0.01
91774089|NCT03585660|183429466|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the PPV of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the PPV of HM-MRI is greater than the PPV of mp-MRI.||||||0.06|||||||bootstrap z-test|||||||0.06
91774090|NCT03585660|183429467|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the NPV of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the NPV of HM-MRI is greater than the NPV of mp-MRI.||||||0.97|||||||bootstrap z-test|||||||0.97
91774091|NCT00910104|183429598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.6|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|37.3||All P-values were 2-sided. Analyses were performed in SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute, USA) and S-plus 8 (Insightful, USA). P\<0.05 was established as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|||The primary efficacy end-point was time to reversal of cholestasis (direct bilirubin \[DB\]\<=2 mg/dL). Crude (unadjusted) hazard ratios were estimated using proportional hazard regression. Subjects who died, were transplanted, or still on PN at the end of follow-up were censored (Ref: PMID 19661785).||37.3|2.0|=0.001
91835918|NCT00279201|183552340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 96.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91774092|NCT00910104|183429598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|17.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|83.0||All P-values were 2-sided. Analyses were performed in SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute, USA) and S-plus 8 (Insightful, USA). P\<0.05 was established as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|||The primary efficacy end-point was time to reversal of cholestasis (direct bilirubin \[DB\]\<=2 mg/dL). Adjusted hazard ratios were estimated using proportional hazard regression adjusted for baseline covariates (including duration of parenteral nutrition (PN) and baseline DB). Subjects who died, were transplanted, or still on PN at the end of follow-up were censored (Ref: PMID 19661785).||83|3.7|0.001
91774093|NCT00910104|183429598|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportion with reversal of cholestasis (direct bilirubin \<=2.0 mg/dL).||||<0.0001
91774094|NCT03137654|183429599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||Linear Mixed Model|||||||.0078
91774095|NCT03137654|183429603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.393
91774096|NCT03137654|183429605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0344
91774097|NCT03137654|183429606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0344
91774098|NCT03137654|183429607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0365|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0365
91774099|NCT03137654|183429608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANOVA|||||||.212
91774100|NCT03137654|183429609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91774101|NCT03137654|183429610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||ANOVA|||||||.445
91835919|NCT00279201|183552340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 108|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91774102|NCT03137654|183429611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||ANOVA|||||||.245
91774103|NCT04890652|183429612|OTHER|single group. The power-related information was estimated by calculating the effect size, specifically partial eta squared.|||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.001
91774104|NCT04890652|183429613|OTHER|Single group. The power-related information was estimated by calculating the effect size, specifically partial eta squared.|||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.001
91774105|NCT04386291|183429619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.071
91774106|NCT04386291|183429619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.46
91774107|NCT04386291|183429620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
91774108|NCT04386291|183429620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.04
91774109|NCT04386291|183429621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
91774110|NCT04386291|183429621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5
91835920|NCT00279201|183552340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 120.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||0.002
91835921|NCT00279201|183552340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91774111|NCT04386291|183429622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.25
91774112|NCT04386291|183429622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.065
91774113|NCT04386291|183429623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.88
91774114|NCT04386291|183429623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7
91774115|NCT04386291|183429624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.038
91774116|NCT04386291|183429624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.059
91774117|NCT04386291|183429625|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Reappraisal subscale analysis||||0.9
91774118|NCT04386291|183429625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Subpression subscale analysis||||0.23
91774119|NCT04386291|183429625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Reappraisal subscale analysis||||0.7
91835922|NCT00279201|183552341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.128
91774120|NCT04386291|183429625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Suppression subscale analysis||||0.5
91774121|NCT04386291|183429626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
91774122|NCT04386291|183429627|SUPERIORITY||mean rank difference|79.0||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Witney was used because assumption of normality of variance was violated||||||0.076
91774123|NCT04386291|183429627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.8
91774124|NCT00772538|183429644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.011||95.0|0.02|0.152||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.152|0.020|0.0110
91774125|NCT00772538|183429645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.005||95.0|0.027|0.149||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.149|0.027|0.0050
91774126|NCT00772538|183429646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0343||||||Confirmatory only if previous hypotheses for each of the 2 twin studies had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A pre-specified interim analysis was performed. Cui et al (Biometrics,1999) was used to calculate the p-value.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regression regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||||0.0343
91774127|NCT00772538|183429647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0362||95.0|0.006|0.173||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.173|0.006|0.0362
91774128|NCT00772538|183429648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0007||95.0|0.058|0.214||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.214|0.058|0.0007
91774129|NCT00772538|183429649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0067||95.0|0.024|0.149||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.149|0.024|0.0067
91774130|NCT00772538|183429650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0139||95.0|0.02|0.176||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.176|0.020|0.0139
91774131|NCT00772538|183429651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0347||95.0|0.005|0.14||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.140|0.005|0.0347
91774132|NCT00772538|183429652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.1896||95.0|-0.021|0.104||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.104|-0.021|0.1896
91774133|NCT00772538|183429653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0247||95.0|0.009|0.136||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.136|0.009|0.0247
91835923|NCT00279201|183552341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
91835924|NCT00279201|183552341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 36.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
91835925|NCT00279201|183552341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
91835926|NCT00279201|183552341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 60.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
91835927|NCT00279201|183552341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 72.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
91835928|NCT00279201|183552341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 84.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
91774134|NCT00772538|183429654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0039||95.0|0.04|0.21||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.210|0.040|0.0039
91774135|NCT00772538|183429655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0063||95.0|0.031|0.19||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.190|0.031|0.0063
91774136|NCT00772538|183429656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0027||95.0|0.042|0.201||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.201|0.042|0.0027
91774137|NCT00772538|183429657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.584|<|0.0001||95.0|13.279|31.308||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||31.308|13.279|<0.0001
91774138|NCT00772538|183429658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.699|<|0.0001||95.0|14.027|32.507||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||32.507|14.027|<0.0001
91774139|NCT00772538|183429659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.061|0.173||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.173|0.061|<0.0001
91774140|NCT00772538|183429660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.181||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.181|0.068|<0.0001
91774141|NCT00772538|183429661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||0.7012||95.0|-1.165|1.731||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||1.731|-1.165|0.7012
91774142|NCT00772538|183429662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0499||95.0|0.49|1.0||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||1.00|0.49|0.0499
91774143|NCT00772538|183429663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0102||95.0|0.55|0.92||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||0.92|0.55|0.0102
91774144|NCT00772538|183429664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0062||95.0|0.46|0.88||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||0.88|0.46|0.0062
91774145|NCT00772538|183429665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0065||95.0|0.4|0.88||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||0.88|0.40|0.0065
91774146|NCT00772538|183429666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0561||95.0|0.42|1.01||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||1.01|0.42|0.0561
91774147|NCT00772538|183429667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.5604||95.0|0.3|1.92||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium|||1.92|0.30|0.5604
91774148|NCT00772538|183429668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5538||95.0|0.54|1.39||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||1.39|0.54|0.5538
91774149|NCT00772538|183429669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.633||95.0|0.25|2.13||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||2.13|0.25|0.6330
91774150|NCT00772538|183429670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5714||95.0|-0.103|0.186||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.186|-0.103|0.5714
91774151|NCT00772538|183429671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.6099||95.0|-0.109|0.185||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.185|-0.109|0.6099
91774152|NCT00772538|183429672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0586||95.0|-0.256|0.005||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.005|-0.256|0.0586
91774153|NCT00772538|183429673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0727||95.0|-0.253|0.011||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.011|-0.253|0.0727
91835929|NCT00279201|183552341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 96.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
91835930|NCT00279201|183552341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 108.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
91774154|NCT00772538|183429674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.9807||95.0|-0.048|0.047||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.047|-0.048|0.9807
91774155|NCT00772538|183429675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.5927||95.0|-0.43|0.246||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.246|-0.430|0.5927
91774156|NCT00772538|183429676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.73||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 24 weeks||1.73|1.01|0.0427
91774157|NCT00772538|183429676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.21||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 48 weeks||2.21|1.28|0.0001
91774158|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.692
91774159|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.467
91774160|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.281
91774161|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.075
91835931|NCT00279201|183552341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for Week 120.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||0.002
91835932|NCT00279201|183552341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
91774162|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91835933|NCT00279201|183552342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91774163|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91774164|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.803
91774165|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.175
91774166|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.552
91774167|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91835934|NCT00279201|183552342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 36.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835935|NCT00279201|183552342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91774168|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91774169|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.618
91774170|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.149
91774171|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.255
91774172|NCT00713609|183429684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91774173|NCT00713609|183429685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.922
91774174|NCT00713609|183429685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.132
91774175|NCT00713609|183429685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.020
91774176|NCT00713609|183429685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.706
91774177|NCT00713609|183429685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.009
91774178|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.504
91774179|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.504
91774180|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
91774181|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.084
91774182|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91774183|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91774184|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.776
91774185|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.465
91774186|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.288
91774187|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91774188|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91774189|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.620
91774190|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.291
91774191|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.085
91835936|NCT00279201|183552342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 60.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835937|NCT00279201|183552342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 72.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835938|NCT00279201|183552342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 84.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835939|NCT00279201|183552342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 96.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835940|NCT00279201|183552342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 108.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835941|NCT00279201|183552342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 120.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835942|NCT00279201|183552342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91835943|NCT00279201|183552343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.370
91774192|NCT00713609|183429686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91774193|NCT00713609|183429687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.652
91774194|NCT00713609|183429687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.279
91774195|NCT00713609|183429687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.312
91774196|NCT00713609|183429687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.063
91774197|NCT00713609|183429687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
91774198|NCT01903356|183429688|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis.||Comparison of % of HbA1c before and 24 weeks after administration of TrajentaDuo® Tablet treatment.|The difference considered in the analysis is HbA1c values after drug administration minus HbA1c values before drug administration|||<0.0001
91774199|NCT01903356|183429691|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis.||Comparison of FPG before and 24 weeks after administration of TrajentaDuo® Tablet treatment|The difference considered in the analysis is FPG values after drug administration minus FPG values before drug administration|||<0.0001
91774200|NCT04529083|183429693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.19|-1.06|0.011
91774201|NCT04529083|183429695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.26|0.63|0.006
91774202|NCT03305666|183429701|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conduced using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
91774203|NCT03305666|183429702|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #1.||||0.41
91774204|NCT03305666|183429702|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #2.||||0.25
91774205|NCT03305666|183429702|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #3.||||0.12
91774206|NCT03305666|183429702|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #4.||||0.04
91774207|NCT03305666|183429702|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #5.||||0.32
91774208|NCT03305666|183429703|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conduced using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.23
91774209|NCT04196686|183429704|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.51|||Cox mixed effects model|||||0.51|0.25|<0.001
91774210|NCT04196686|183429705|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.455||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59|||Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was controlled for dominant hand treatment assignment, dominant hand order, and gender. Overall mean difference calculated from regression model.||0.59|0.32|0.200
91774211|NCT04196686|183429706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00007|0.00368|||Linear mixed effects model|||The variables in the physiologic model were SCRD change over time and the SCRD change between groups, defined as those with and without VR.||0.00368|0.00007|0.047
91774212|NCT03448406|183429777|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|4.0||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||13.0|-5.0|0.3660
91774213|NCT03448406|183429778|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|2.08||||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|6.25|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||6.25|-2.08|0.2783
91774214|NCT03448406|183429779|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|-0.07||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.2|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||0.20|-0.35|0.5512
91774215|NCT03448406|183429780|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (HL-estimate)|3.0||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||11.0|-4.0|0.3657
91774216|NCT03448406|183429781|OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|Covariates: visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction. Unstructured covariance structure was used to model within-patient errors.||||0.14|-0.31|0.4440
91774217|NCT03448406|183429782|OTHER|||||||0.3924|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.3924
91835944|NCT00279201|183552343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-Value for Overall hypoglycemia episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.006
91835945|NCT00279201|183552343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.397
91774218|NCT03448406|183429783|OTHER|||||||0.4435|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.4435
91774219|NCT03448406|183429784|OTHER|||||||0.5124|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.5124
91774220|NCT03448406|183429785|OTHER|||||||0.5713|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.5713
91774221|NCT03448406|183429786|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.95||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Mixed model repeated Measure (MMRM)|Covariates: Visit-by-treatment interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Unstructured covariance structure to model within-patient errors.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio \[Empagliflozin/Placebo\] of relative change to baseline.|||1.07|0.85|0.4032
91774222|NCT01292486|183429787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 2 days.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehman estimation|||The null hypothesis was that the median day to neutrophil recovery in this study was more than two days longer than historical controls.||0.0|0.0|<0.025
91774223|NCT04369404|183429797|SUPERIORITY|We hypothesize that participants who received the decision aid will have higher knowledge. This is pilot study, thus we did not have a power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|24.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.6|0.7|0.06
91774224|NCT04369404|183429798|OTHER||Pearson Chi-Square|2.97||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"a chisquare test was conducted to determine if the proportion of treatment unsure responses were different between the usual care and intervention arms."||||0.085
91774225|NCT04369404|183429799|OTHER||Pearson Chi-Square|1.524||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91774226|NCT01210716|183429813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower 97.5% confidence limit on the mean of the paired differences is greater than -15% of the Control group mean (i.e., p-value \<=0.05), then the Test group will be considered non-inferior in the primary efficacy parameter to Control at the margin of 15%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.97|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|4.0||||paired t-test|||A one-sample t-test on the mean of paired differences was used to evaluate the primary objective. Sample size was determined using historical data and the 95% chi-square upper confidence limit on the observed standard deviation of the paired differences. A minimum sample of 27 pairs was required to demonstrate the AMICUS procedure to be non-inferior to Spectra with a mean efficiency of plasma removal with a non-inferiority margin of 15% with at least 97.5% (one-sided) confidence and 90% power.|||4.0|<0.001
91774227|NCT01791244|183429820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.48||||0.9148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.25|||linear mixed model|||Linear mixed model, with baseline value, time, Expanded Disability Status Score (EDSS) at baseline and sex as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||9.25|-8.30|0.9148
91774228|NCT01856270|183429843|SUPERIORITY|The data from this study was compared with the data from the Natural History of Headache after Mild TBI which was previously published (Lucas, Hoffman, Bell, Dikmen. (2014), A prospective study of prevalence and characterization of headache following mild traumatic brain injury. Cephalalgia (34) 93-102).|Difference of proportions|0.114||||0.101|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|||A priori significance threshold α=.05|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimation method from Wallenstein (1997). 71 of 205 participants (at 3 Mo post) in the Natural History study endorsed having a headache more than once per week.|A positive difference of proportions would indicate an improvement in the Amitriptyline sample, while a negative difference would indicate a worsening.|||-0.017|.101
91774229|NCT01856270|183429844|SUPERIORITY|The data from this study was compared with the data from the Natural History of Headache after Mild TBI which was previously published (Lucas, Hoffman, Bell, Dikmen. (2014), A prospective study of prevalence and characterization of headache following mild traumatic brain injury. Cephalalgia (34) 93-102).|Difference of proportions|0.194||||0.017|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.057|||A priori significance threshold α=.05|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimation method from Wallenstein (1997). 56 of 148 participants (at 3 mo post) in the Natural History study reported pain \>=6.|A positive difference of proportions would indicate an improvement in the Amitriptyline sample, while a negative difference would indicate a worsening|||.057|.017
91774230|NCT01856270|183429845|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.093||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.286||A priori significance threshold α=.05|Fisher Exact||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed). Confidence interval estimation method from Wallenstein (1997).|||.286|-.106|.456
91774231|NCT01856270|183429846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.4||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||3.4|-5.1|.684
91774232|NCT01856270|183429847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||2.9|-1.0|.306
91774233|NCT01856270|183429848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||1.6|-0.9|.583
91774234|NCT01856270|183429849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.8||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||8.8|-4.0|.444
91774235|NCT01856270|183429850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.3||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|53.3||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||53.3|1.2|.041
91774236|NCT01856270|183429851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.3||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||0.3|-3.8|.089
91774237|NCT03535974|183429879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.122||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91774238|NCT02913482|183429934|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
91835946|NCT00279201|183552343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.253
91835947|NCT00279201|183552343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.893
91835948|NCT00279201|183552343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.391
91835949|NCT00279201|183552344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||95.0||||P-value for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.497
91835950|NCT00279201|183552344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.071
91835951|NCT00279201|183552344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.065
91835952|NCT00279201|183552344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.021
91835953|NCT00279201|183552344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.200
91835954|NCT00279201|183552344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.208
91835955|NCT00279201|183552345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for Change.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, TZD use and sulfo use.||||||0.004
91835956|NCT00279201|183552346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline at Week 0.|ANOVA|ANOVA used with treatment, country, TZD use and Sulfo use in the model.||||||0.204
91835957|NCT00279201|183552346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-Value is for Change from baseline to endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, Baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.017
91835958|NCT00279201|183552346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is for Change Week 24 to Week 120 endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, Baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.020
91835959|NCT00279201|183552347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.036
91835960|NCT00279201|183552348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0|||||ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.708
91835961|NCT00279201|183552349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and Sulfo use.||||||0.028
91835962|NCT00279201|183552350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.738
91900830|NCT02876835|183696017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.4||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.2|-4.5|0.9832
91835963|NCT00279201|183552351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
91835964|NCT00279201|183552352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.043
91835965|NCT00279201|183552353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91835966|NCT00279201|183552354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.032
91835967|NCT00279201|183552355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.037
91835968|NCT00279201|183552355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.025
91835969|NCT00279201|183552355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0||||P-value is for Metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.132
91835970|NCT00279201|183552355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.849
91835971|NCT00279201|183552356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/TZD|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.006
91835972|NCT00279201|183552356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.048
91835973|NCT00279201|183552356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value is for Metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.258
91835974|NCT00279201|183552356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.848
91835975|NCT00279201|183552357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.004
91835976|NCT00279201|183552358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0|||||ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.553
91835977|NCT00279201|183552359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all post meals blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.010
91835978|NCT00279201|183552359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||P-value is for Average of all blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.035
91835979|NCT00279201|183552360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of post-meals blood glucose.|ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.516
91835980|NCT00279201|183552360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425||95.0||||P-value is for Average of all blood glucose.|ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.425
91835981|NCT00279201|183552361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.770
91835982|NCT00279201|183552361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.990
91835983|NCT00279201|183552361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.552
91835984|NCT00279201|183552361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.271
91835985|NCT00279201|183552362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for \<=7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
91835986|NCT00279201|183552362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
91835987|NCT00279201|183552362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.799
91835988|NCT00279201|183552362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0||||P-value is for \<=7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.676
91774239|NCT02913482|183429935|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 17% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
91774240|NCT02913482|183429936|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 17% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
91835989|NCT00279201|183552362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91835990|NCT00279201|183552362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91835991|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||P-value is for Mean fast blood glucose (BG).|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.241
91835992|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour postprandial (PP) BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.305
91835993|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842||95.0||||P-value is for Midday premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.842
91774241|NCT02913482|183429942|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 12% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
91774242|NCT02913482|183429944|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
91774243|NCT02913482|183429945|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
91774244|NCT02913482|183429946|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.||||||1|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||1.0000
91774245|NCT02913482|183429947|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.||||||1|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||1.0000
91774246|NCT02913482|183429951|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 42% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||<0.0001
91774247|NCT02913482|183429952|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 60% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.||||||0.0005|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||0.0005
91835994|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour (hr) PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.917
91835995|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648||95.0||||P-value is for PM premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.648
91835996|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.613
91835997|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0||||P-value is for 3 AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.813
91835998|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.953
91835999|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.933
91836000|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.348
91836001|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all mealtime excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.625
91836002|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all 2-hour PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.573
91836003|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.711
91836004|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0||||P-value is for Mean combined AM/PM 2hr PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.372
91836005|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0||||P-value is for Mean AM/PM 2hr BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.516
91836006|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all BG values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.639
91836007|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||95.0||||P-value is for Mean fast blood glucose (BG).|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.131
91836008|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour postprandial (PP) BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.530
91836009|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0||||P-value is for Midday premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.578
91836010|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour (hr) PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.004
91774248|NCT02913482|183429953|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 89% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.||||||0.2595|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||0.2595
91774249|NCT01983228|183429996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.77||Multiple logistic regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Logistic|||measured change as a responder yes/no (30% or greater improvement from baseline).||2.77|0.94|0.09
91774250|NCT01983228|183429997|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.21||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.21|-0.62|0.34
91774251|NCT01983228|183429998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.65||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.65|-1.69|0.38
91774252|NCT01983228|183429999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.49||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.49|-1.68|0.28
91774253|NCT01983228|183430000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.77||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.77|-0.00|0.05
91774254|NCT01983228|183430001|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|193.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-454.93|842.73||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||842.73|-454.93|0.56
91774255|NCT01983228|183430002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.62||Multiple logistic regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Logistic|||measured change as a responder yes/no (30% or greater improvement from baseline).||2.62|0.85|0.16
91774256|NCT01983228|183430003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.23||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||-0.23|-0.99|0.002
91774257|NCT01983228|183430004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.51||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.51|-0.79|0.54
91774258|NCT01983228|183430005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.62||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.62|-0.66|0.41
91774259|NCT01983228|183430006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.38||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||-0.38|-1.07|<0.0001
91774260|NCT01983228|183430007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|540.78||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.77|1110.33||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1110.33|-28.77|0.06
91774261|NCT01983228|183430008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|5.86||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||5.86|-0.01|0.05
91774262|NCT01983228|183430009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.36||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.36|0.15|0.01
91774263|NCT01983228|183430010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.39||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.39|-2.53|0.15
91774264|NCT01983228|183430011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.47||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.47|-0.80|0.56
91774265|NCT01983228|183430012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.46||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.46|-0.17|0.38
91774266|NCT01983228|183430013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.19||Logistic regression modeling the odds of yes to using opioids for pain treatment adjusting for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.66|0.56
91774267|NCT01983228|183430014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.84||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.84|-0.18|0.21
91774268|NCT01650558|183430028|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.82||P-Value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.82|0.89|<=0.05
91646104|NCT01236053|183184663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.19|0.92|0.5169
91774269|NCT01650558|183430028|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.83||P-Value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.83|0.89|<=0.05
91774270|NCT01650558|183430029|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Fisher Exact|||||2.30|0.83|<=0.05
91774271|NCT01650558|183430029|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.49||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Fisher Exact|||||2.49|0.91|<=0.05
91774272|NCT01650558|183430030|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.93||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|||||1.93|0.66|<=0.05
91774273|NCT01650558|183430030|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.68||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|||||1.68|0.55|<=0.05
91774274|NCT01650558|183430031|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||2.00|1.07|<=0.05
91774275|NCT01650558|183430031|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.96||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.96|1.04|<=0.05
91774276|NCT01650558|183430032|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.55||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.55|1.11|<=0.05
91774277|NCT01650558|183430032|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.58||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.58|1.14|<=0.05
91836011|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.951||95.0||||P-value is for PM premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.951
91836012|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.580
91836013|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value is for 3 AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.071
91836014|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.081
91774278|NCT02960217|183430036|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|1.46||||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.36||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% confidence interval (CI) and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Participants completing both UX007 treatment period and placebo period (n=42). Per protocol, when the normality assumption is not met (p value for Wilk-Shapiro test \< 0.05), Wilcoxon rank-sum test will be considered as the primary analysis to assess treatment difference in movement disorder event frequency.||4.36|-1.12|0.2684
91774279|NCT02960217|183430036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilk-Shapiro test for normality|||||||< 0.0001
91774280|NCT02960217|183430039|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|25.0||||0.6419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|91.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=34).||91.5|-62.5|0.6419
91774281|NCT02960217|183430039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0005
91774282|NCT02960217|183430040|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-2.0|0.9513
91774283|NCT02960217|183430040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8214|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.8214
91774284|NCT02960217|183430041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.7||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||4.7|-0.8|0.1572
91774285|NCT02960217|183430041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8451|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.8451
91774286|NCT02960217|183430042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.8345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.1||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||3.1|-3.8|0.8345
91774287|NCT02960217|183430042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2894|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.2894
91774288|NCT02960217|183430043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0005
91774289|NCT02960217|183430043|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|0.2||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.8||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=21).||5.8|-5.4|0.4898
91774290|NCT02960217|183430044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.5853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.8||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||3.8|-2.2|0.5853
91774291|NCT02960217|183430044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1066|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.1066
91774292|NCT02960217|183430045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.0||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||1.0|-4.6|0.1875
91774293|NCT02960217|183430045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2034|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.2034
91774294|NCT02960217|183430046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.9||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||5.9|-0.7|0.1138
91774295|NCT02960217|183430046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1478|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.1478
91774296|NCT02960217|183430047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.6||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||2.6|-4.6|0.5505
91774297|NCT02960217|183430047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4459|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.4459
91774298|NCT02960217|183430048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.6||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||4.6|-8.1|0.5544
91774299|NCT02960217|183430048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1104|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.1104
91774300|NCT02960217|183430049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|6.1|||ANCOVA|||||6.1|-8.5|0.7145
91774301|NCT02960217|183430049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8255|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.8255
91774302|NCT02960217|183430050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.4176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.6||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||5.6|-2.5|0.4176
91774303|NCT02960217|183430050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6557|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.6557
91774304|NCT02960217|183430051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.5||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||4.5|-0.4|0.0935
91774305|NCT02960217|183430051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7267|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.7267
91836015|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||<0.001
91774306|NCT02960217|183430052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for study baseline CGI-S score, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for subject within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.8329
91774307|NCT02960217|183430052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2348|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.2348
91774308|NCT02960217|183430054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0315|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0315
91774309|NCT02960217|183430054|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|-0.5||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=13).||0.5|-1.5|0.2425
91774310|NCT02960217|183430055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0072
91774311|NCT02960217|183430055|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|13.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=12).||13.5|-14.5|1.0000
91774312|NCT02960217|183430056|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for subject within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||2.2|-0.3|0.1076
91774313|NCT02960217|183430056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.7698
91774314|NCT02960217|183430057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0138|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0138
91774315|NCT02960217|183430057|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|2.0||||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|20.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=13).||20.5|-3.5|0.3907
91774316|NCT02960217|183430058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for subject within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||2.4|-4.4|0.5233
91774317|NCT02960217|183430058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6918|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.6918
91774318|NCT02734693|183430059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.565|-2.802|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, effect sizes, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), mean SKAMP-CS at baseline, and site as fixed effects. The dasotraline 6 mg/day treatment arm was discontinued in Version 3.00 of the protocol.||-2.802|-7.565|<0.001
91774319|NCT02734693|183430062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.395||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.987|38.346|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, effect sizes, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), PERMP at baseline, and site as fixed effects. The dasotraline 6 mg/day treatment arm was discontinued in Version 3.00 of the protocol||38.346|8.987|0.002
91774320|NCT02734693|183430062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.389||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.381|38.714|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, effect sizes, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), PERMP at baseline, and site as fixed effects. The dasotraline 6 mg/day treatment arm was discontinued in Version 3.00 of the protocol||38.714|9.381|0.002
91774321|NCT02649556|183430086|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|3.65||||||"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of LS Mean difference of HDL-C levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on original values with visit, baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|3.65|-0.160|
91774322|NCT02649556|183430087|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.694|-0.131||||||"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of LS Mean difference of White Blood Cell counts between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on original values with visit, baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|-0.131|-0.694|
91774323|NCT02649556|183430088|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|2.17||||||"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of LS Mean difference of FEV1 levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on original values with visit, baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|2.17|-0.339|
91774324|NCT02649556|183430089|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0231|6.1|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of sICAM-1 levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect|6.10|0.0231|
91707977|NCT03224624|183309105|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month DBP change within self-management group (null hypothesis no change).|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.51|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month DBP)-(baseline DBP) for self-management group (as given in table)|change in DBP from baseline to 12-months within self-management group.||||<0.01
91707978|NCT03224624|183309105|EQUIVALENCE|change in DBP from baseline to 12-months within usual care group.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month DBP)-(baseline DBP) for usual care group (as given in table)|||||0.34
91707979|NCT02488018|183309115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||ANOVA|Degree of freedom for the model (treatment) was 8.||Hypothesis Ho: Honey plant origin does not affects the glycemic index of human subjects. Ha: Honey plant origin affects the glycemic index of human subjects.||||<0.01
91707980|NCT00482170|183309116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the difference of mean participant satisfaction (alpha = 2.5%). Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.77||Statistical testing, one-sided, was done at 2.5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||1.77|0.87|<0.001
91707981|NCT00482170|183309117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95% CI of the difference of mean participant satisfaction (alpha = 2.5%). Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.87||Statistical testing, one-sided, was done at 2.5% significance level.|ANOVA|||ANOVA using a mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||1.87|0.95|<0.001
91707982|NCT00482170|183309118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.12||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|126.9||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||126.9|2.05|0.008
91707983|NCT00482170|183309118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|51.83||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||51.83|2.44|0.002
91707984|NCT00482170|183309118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|27.44||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||27.44|2.26|0.001
91707985|NCT00482170|183309118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|29.47||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used for the analysis.||29.47|2.59|<0.001
91774325|NCT02649556|183430090|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|14.3|||||Derived as 100 x (1-Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of 11-DTXB2 levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect|14.3|-8.74|
91836016|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.542||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.542
91707986|NCT00482170|183309119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.17||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.34|0.00|0.045
91707987|NCT00482170|183309120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.09||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, female and male (reference).||0.39|-0.58|0.707
91707988|NCT00482170|183309121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.38||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.14||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, high school or baccalaureate level and reading or writing capacity (reference).||0.14|-0.89|0.195
91707989|NCT00482170|183309121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.55||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, university level and reading or writing capacity (reference).||0.11|-1.21|0.195
91707990|NCT00482170|183309122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.09||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, HAD-A: =\< 4, HAD-A: \> 4 to 7, HAD-A: \> 7 to 10 and HAD-A: \> 10; by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.17|-0.36|0.493
91707991|NCT00482170|183309122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.16||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, HAD-D: =\< 3, HAD-D: \> 3 to 5, HAD-D: \> 5 to 8 and HAD-A: \> 8; by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.14|-0.46|0.287
91836017|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all mealtime excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.003
91836018|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all 2-hour PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.105
91836019|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.487
91836020|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0||||P-value is for Mean combined AM/PM 2hr PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.491
91836021|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||P-value is for Mean AM/PM 2hr BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.127
91836022|NCT00279201|183552363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all BG values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.861
91836023|NCT00279201|183552364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.745
91836024|NCT00279201|183552364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.467
91836025|NCT00279201|183552364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.575
91836026|NCT00279201|183552364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.726
91707992|NCT00482170|183309123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.13||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.30|-0.04|0.123
91836027|NCT00279201|183552364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.978
91836028|NCT00279201|183552364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.345
91836029|NCT00279201|183552364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.166
91836030|NCT00279201|183552364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.064
91836031|NCT00279201|183552364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.199
91836032|NCT00279201|183552364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.098
91707993|NCT00482170|183309124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.24||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.28||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, yes and no (reference).||0.28|-0.76|0.359
91836033|NCT00279201|183552365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, and TZD use in model.||||||0.467
91836034|NCT00279201|183552365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.575
91836035|NCT00279201|183552365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.726
91836036|NCT00279201|183552365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.978
91836037|NCT00279201|183552365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.345
91836038|NCT00279201|183552365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, and TZD use in model.||||||0.745
91836039|NCT00279201|183552365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.166
91836040|NCT00279201|183552365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.064
91836041|NCT00279201|183552365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.199
91836042|NCT00279201|183552365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.098
91836043|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value is for Week 1.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.837
91836044|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||P-value is for Week 2.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.205
91836045|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0||||P-value is for Week 3.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.704
91836046|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||P-value is for Week 4.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.610
91836047|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||P-value is for Week 5.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.352
91836048|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.636
91836049|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||P-value is for Week 8.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.880
91836050|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0||||P-value is for Week 10.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.904
91836051|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.859
91836052|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.654
91836053|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.566
91836054|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||95.0||||P-value is for Week 1.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.926
91774326|NCT02649556|183430091|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|14.7|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of 8-epi-PGF2α levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|14.7|-1.03|
91774327|NCT02649556|183430092|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|54.8|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of Total NNAL levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect|54.8|36.2|
91774328|NCT02649556|183430093|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|39.1|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of COHb levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|39.1|23.3|
91774329|NCT01766050|183430094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.093||||||||1.093|0.898|
91774330|NCT01766050|183430094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||||1.000|0.830|
91774331|NCT01766050|183430094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.116||||||||1.116|0.885|
91774332|NCT01766050|183430112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.976|1.13||||||AUC (0-T)||1.130|0.976|
91774333|NCT01766050|183430112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.049||||||AUC (0-T)||1.049|0.889|
91774334|NCT01766050|183430112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.033|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.123||||||AUC (0-T)||1.123|0.950|
91774335|NCT01766050|183430112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.127||||||AUC (INF)||1.127|0.975|
91774336|NCT01766050|183430112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.892|1.049||||||AUC (INF)||1.049|0.892|
91774337|NCT01766050|183430112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.121||||||AUC(INF)||1.121|0.948|
91774338|NCT01766050|183430113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.093||||||||1.093|0.898|
91774339|NCT01766050|183430113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||||1.000|0.830|
91774340|NCT01766050|183430113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.116||||||||1.116|0.885|
91836055|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value is for Week 2.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.902
91774341|NCT01766050|183430114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.088||||||AUC (0-T)||1.088|0.944|
91774342|NCT01766050|183430114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.936|1.103||||||AUC (0-T)||1.103|0.936|
91774343|NCT01766050|183430114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.893|1.121||||||AUC (0-T)||1.121|0.893|
91774344|NCT01766050|183430114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|1.085||||||AUC (INF)||1.085|0.942|
91774345|NCT01766050|183430114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.101||||||AUC (INF)||1.101|0.938|
91774346|NCT01766050|183430114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.896|1.121||||||AUC (INF)||1.121|0.896|
91774347|NCT01766050|183430115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.118|1.421||||||||1.421|1.118|
91774348|NCT01766050|183430115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.292|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.531||||||||1.531|1.090|
91774349|NCT01766050|183430115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.178|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.429||||||||1.429|0.971|
91774350|NCT01766050|183430116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.056|1.272||||||AUC (0-T)||1.272|1.056|
91774351|NCT01766050|183430116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.228|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.092|1.381||||||AUC (0-T)||1.381|1.092|
91774352|NCT01766050|183430116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.215|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.047|1.41||||||AUC (0-T)||1.410|1.047|
91774353|NCT01766050|183430116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.193|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.091|1.304||||||AUC (INF)||1.304|1.091|
91774354|NCT01766050|183430116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.227|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.093|1.379||||||AUC (INF)||1.379|1.093|
91774355|NCT01766050|183430116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.141|1.482||||||AUC (INF)||1.482|1.141|
91774356|NCT01766050|183430117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.746|0.997||||||||0.997|0.746|
91774357|NCT01766050|183430117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.793|1.071||||||||1.071|0.793|
91774358|NCT01766050|183430117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.709|1.034||||||||1.034|0.709|
91774359|NCT01766050|183430118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.024||||||AUC (0-T)||1.024|0.817|
91836056|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0||||P-value is for Week 3.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.766
91707994|NCT00482170|183309125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.02||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.12|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.12|-0.08|0.693
91707995|NCT00482170|183309126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.22||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.53||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 1 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.53|-0.09|0.170
91707996|NCT00482170|183309127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.02||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 1 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.04|-0.01|0.211
91707997|NCT00482170|183309128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.09||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.18|0.00|0.045
91707998|NCT00482170|183309129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.01||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.11|-0.12|0.913
91707999|NCT00482170|183309130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.17|-0.17|0.968
91708000|NCT00482170|183309131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.15||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.32||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, current tobacco usage: yes and current tobacco usage: no (reference).||0.32|-0.61|0.531
91708001|NCT00482170|183309131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.44||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.9||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, current alcohol usage: yes and current alcohol usage: no (reference).||0.90|-0.02|0.061
91708002|NCT00482170|183309132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.73||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|3.92||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, yes and no (reference).||3.92|-5.37|0.759
91708003|NCT00482170|183309133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.09||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.55||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, yes and no (reference).||0.55|-0.37|0.713
91774360|NCT01766050|183430118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|1.175||||||AUC (0-T)||1.175|0.856|
91708004|NCT00482170|183309134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.49||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.49|1.63|<0.001
91708005|NCT00482170|183309134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.67||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4:A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.67|1.61|<0.001
91708006|NCT00482170|183309134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||4.21|1.78|<0.001
91708007|NCT00482170|183309134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.8||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.80|1.66|<0.001
91708008|NCT00482170|183309135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.89||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.89|1.22|0.004
91708009|NCT00482170|183309135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.72||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.72|1.10|0.017
91708010|NCT00482170|183309135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.73||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.73|1.47|<0.001
91774361|NCT01766050|183430118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.821|1.13||||||AUC (0-T)||1.130|0.821|
91836057|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||95.0||||P-value is for Week 4.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.449
91708011|NCT00482170|183309135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.21|1.32|0.001
91708012|NCT00482170|183309136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.64||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.64|1.07|0.025
91774362|NCT01766050|183430118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.783|0.982||||||AUC (INF)||0.982|0.783|
91774363|NCT01766050|183430118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.2||||||AUC (INF)||1.200|0.885|
91774364|NCT01766050|183430118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.839|1.245||||||AUC (INF)||1.245|0.839|
91774365|NCT01766050|183430119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.021||||||||1.021|0.880|
91774366|NCT01766050|183430119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.857|0.993||||||||0.993|0.857|
91774367|NCT01766050|183430119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.028||||||||1.028|0.885|
91774368|NCT01766050|183430120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.013||||||AUC (0-T)||1.013|0.874|
91774369|NCT01766050|183430120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.902|1.076||||||AUC (0-T)||1.076|0.902|
91774370|NCT01766050|183430120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|1.12||||||AUC (0-T)||1.120|0.942|
91774371|NCT01766050|183430120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.017||||||AUC (INF)||1.017|0.868|
91774372|NCT01766050|183430120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|1.098||||||||1.098|0.914|
91774373|NCT01766050|183430120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.142||||||AUC (INF)||1.142|0.940|
91774374|NCT01097668|183430131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||negative binomial model|||Comparison of the baseline 'ITT population' MRI data with week 16 data.||||<0.001
91774375|NCT01097668|183430131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||negative binomial model|||Comparison of the baseline 'MRI population' data with data from week 16.||||0.030
91774376|NCT02421172|183430138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior probablility|0.9729||||||||||||||||||
91774377|NCT02670811|183430152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The primary outcome, systolic blood pressure (mmHg), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91774378|NCT02670811|183430152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The primary outcome, systolic blood pressure (mmHg), was analyzed using a paired student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91774379|NCT02670811|183430153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, diastolic blood pressure (mmHg), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91774380|NCT02670811|183430154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, total cholesterol (mg/dL), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91774381|NCT02670811|183430155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, low density lipoprotein (mg/dL), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91774382|NCT02670811|183430156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, high density lipoproteins (mg/dL), between groups were analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91774383|NCT02670811|183430157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, triglycerides (mg/dL), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91774384|NCT04516746|183430169|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|73.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.34|80.47|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||80.47|65.34|<0.001
91774385|NCT04516746|183430173|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|64.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.05|71.03|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||71.03|56.05|<0.001
91774386|NCT04516746|183430174|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|69.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.68|76.57|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||76.57|60.68|<0.001
91774387|NCT04516746|183430175|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|70.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.62|77.64|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||77.64|61.62|<0.001
91774388|NCT04516746|183430176|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|73.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.13|80.13|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||80.13|65.13|<0.001
91836058|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||P-value is for Week 5.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.797
91836059|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.438
91836060|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0||||P-value is for Week 8.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.602
91836061|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493||95.0||||P-value is for Week 10.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.493
91836062|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.335
91836063|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.398
91836064|NCT00279201|183552366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.903
91836065|NCT00279201|183552367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.953
91836066|NCT00279201|183552367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemia episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.953
91836067|NCT00279201|183552367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.188
91836068|NCT00279201|183552367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.226
91836069|NCT00279201|183552367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.855||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.855
91836070|NCT00279201|183552367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes at endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.250
91836071|NCT00279201|183552367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemia episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.123
91836072|NCT00279201|183552367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.166
91836073|NCT00279201|183552367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.273
91836074|NCT00279201|183552367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.039
91646105|NCT01236053|183184663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.24|1.03|0.0103
91646106|NCT01236053|183184663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.4182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.14|0.95|0.4182
91836075|NCT00279201|183552368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.623
91836076|NCT00279201|183552368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.949
91836077|NCT00279201|183552368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.730
91836078|NCT00279201|183552368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.445
91836079|NCT00279201|183552368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.949
91836080|NCT00279201|183552368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.590
91836081|NCT00279201|183552368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.657
91836082|NCT00279201|183552368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.108
91836083|NCT00279201|183552368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.161
91836084|NCT00279201|183552368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.178
91836085|NCT00279201|183552369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.917
91836086|NCT00279201|183552369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||95.0||||P-value for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.754
91836087|NCT00279201|183552369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-value is for Change.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, and TZD use.||||||0.420
91836088|NCT00279201|183552369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||P-value for Change.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, and TZD use.||||||0.514
91836089|NCT00279201|183552370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.770
91836090|NCT00279201|183552370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.566
91836091|NCT00279201|183552370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.812
91836092|NCT00279201|183552370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.990
91774389|NCT04516746|183430177|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|71.62||||Poisson regression exact conditional|||The exact 1-sided 97.5% CI and p-value were estimated based on stratified Poisson regression with exact conditional method (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as strata factor and log of total number of participants for each combination of study arm and strata as an offset).|||71.62|<0.001
91774390|NCT04516746|183430178|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|84.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.97|94.5|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and age group at screening (18-65 years, ≥ 65 years) as covariates and log of the follow-up time as an offset).||94.50|58.97|<0.001
91774391|NCT04516746|183430179|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|94.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.98|99.34|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||99.34|58.98|0.005
91774392|NCT04516746|183430186|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|54.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.48|61.26||||||The 95% CI were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and age group at screening (18-65 years, ≥ 65 years) as covariates and log of the follow-up time as an offset).||61.26|46.48|
91774393|NCT03489863|183430187|NON_INFERIORITY|see above|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint is non-inferiority in PRU, at 24 hours of prasugrel versus ticagrelor. Under the assumption of 0 difference at 24 hours in mean PRU between ticagrelor and prasugrel and a common standard deviation of 50 PRU, a sample size of 22 patients per group allows for the 95% CI to stay within ± 45 PRU with a 90% power and alpha = 0.05.||2|-38|<0.05
91774394|NCT01706458|183430200|OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9060
91774395|NCT03547518|183430207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111
91774396|NCT03547518|183430208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.487
91774397|NCT03547518|183430209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0393
91774398|NCT03547518|183430210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.242
91774399|NCT03547518|183430211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.855
91774400|NCT02542865|183430270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of variance(ANCOVA):cluster/school=random effect,product group and gender=fixed effects,baseline Individual Dietary Diversity Score=covariate|Difference is difference in back-transformed adjusted means for Test Group (fortified malt based food plus dietary counselling) minus Control Group (dietary counselling only).|||0.8|-12.7|0.0628
91774401|NCT02542865|183430270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.039|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:cluster/school=random effect,product group and gender=fixed effects,baseline Individual Dietary Diversity Score=covariate|Difference is difference in back-transformed adjusted means for Test Group minus Control Group. The corresponding CI is not presented as there is no direct back-transformation.|Since the distribution of the data was found to be more skewed with more zero counts than was anticipated at the time the trial was designed, an additional analysis of log (+1)-transformed data was performed.||||0.0390
91774402|NCT03164668|183430304|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.72|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which participants can continue smoking usual cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which can continue smoking usual cigarettes||0.72|0.13|
91774403|NCT03164668|183430304|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day among those in conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes||1.22|0.78|
91774404|NCT03164668|183430305|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.61|||||Model estimated mean ratio in puffs of e-cigarettes used per day among those randomized to conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which participants can continue smoking usual cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which can continue smoking usual cigarettes||6.61|1.39|
91774405|NCT03164668|183430305|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||||Estimated mean ratio of number of puffs of e-cigarettes used per day among those in conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes||0.92|0.59|
91774406|NCT00528957|183430333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the randomized phase, it was assumed that the respective proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL was 92% for participants switching to tenofovir DF and 90% for participants continuing stavudine or zidovudine, as estimated from previous GSI studies. The equivalence limit was set at -15% for the lower boundary of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48.|Difference in percentages between groups|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|4.5|||Normal approximation|The difference between the two proportions and its CI were based on normal approximation methods.|Difference is for tenofovir DF minus stavudine or zidovudine (randomized phase)|"The statistical hypotheses for the primary endpoint was as follows:~* Null Hypothesis: tenofovir DF group is more than 15% worse than the stavudine or zidovudine group with respect to the proportion of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA concentrations \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48.~* Alternate Hypothesis: tenofovir DF group is no more than 15% worse than the stavudine or zidovudine group with respect to the proportion of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48."||4.5|-21.5|
91836093|NCT00279201|183552370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.552
91836094|NCT00279201|183552370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.179
91836095|NCT00279201|183552370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.377
91774407|NCT00528957|183430334|NON_INFERIORITY|In the randomized phase, it was assumed that the respective proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL was 92% for subjects switching to tenofovir DF and 90% for subjects continuing stavudine or zidovudine, as estimated from previous GSI studies. The equivalence limit was set at -15% for the lower boundary of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48.|Difference in percentages between groups|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|11.8|||||The difference between the two proportions and its CI were based on normal approximation methods.|||11.8|-13.7|
91774408|NCT02675907|183430386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0034
91774409|NCT02675907|183430387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 1 (SPID6)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91774410|NCT02675907|183430387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 2 (SPID12)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91774411|NCT02675907|183430387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 3 (SPID24)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91774412|NCT02675907|183430387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 4 (SPID12-48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91774413|NCT02675907|183430387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 5 (SPID24-48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91774414|NCT02675907|183430388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0076
91774415|NCT02675907|183430389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91774416|NCT02675907|183430389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.01
91774417|NCT02675907|183430389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.01
91774418|NCT02675907|183430390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||<0.05
91774419|NCT02675907|183430390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||<0.05
91836096|NCT00279201|183552370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.271
91836097|NCT00916032|183552371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.103||95.0|||||paired t-test done on the Log(AUC 0-48h)|||||||0.103
91836098|NCT00916032|183552372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162||95.0|||||paired t-test done on the Log(AUC 0-48h)|||||||0.162
91774420|NCT02675907|183430390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||<0.05
91774421|NCT02675907|183430391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1228|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1228
91774422|NCT02675907|183430392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1048|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1048
91774423|NCT02675907|183430393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0451|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0451
91774424|NCT02675907|183430394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0107
91774425|NCT02675907|183430395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0781|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0781
91774426|NCT02675907|183430396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0430
91774427|NCT02675907|183430397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.1070
91774428|NCT02675907|183430398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.0046
91774429|NCT01611792|183430399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
91774430|NCT01611792|183430400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.86||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0038
91774431|NCT01611792|183430401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.36||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
91774432|NCT01611792|183430402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.98||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0018
91774433|NCT01611792|183430403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
91774434|NCT01611792|183430404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
91774435|NCT00960375|183430414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Smoking reduction outcomes were examined in the randomized sample using data from baseline and post-treatment assessments. The variable examined was self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day during the last 7 days. This variable was skewed so a natural log transformation was applied before linear mixed model analysis.||||0.489
91774436|NCT00960375|183430415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This outcome was examined in the randomized sample. Abstinence was defined as self-reported no smoking in the last 7 days + expired CO ≤ 10 PPM. To assess difference in change between conditions, we tested the significance of the condition-by-time interaction using repeated measured mixed models with a random participant effect. Time was binary: post-treatment versus baseline. We used a logistic model for binary outcomes.||||0.685
91774437|NCT00083889|183430416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4316|0.643||p-value from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio les than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α). Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed in each treatment arm using the Kaplan-Meier method.||0.6430|0.4316|<0.0001
91836099|NCT05559866|183552443|OTHER|Variance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Scores from the proximal stomach, mid-stomach and distal stomach in the control and treatment groups were analyzed to determine if there was a significant difference between the mean difference in durability scores for the control and treatment groups.||.74|.31|<0.01
91836100|NCT05559866|183552444|OTHER|Variance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0000013||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.125|19.125|||ANCOVA|||||19.125|19.125|1.00
91836101|NCT05559866|183552445|OTHER|Variance||||||0.757||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.757
91836102|NCT05559866|183552446|OTHER|Variance||||||0.271||||||Alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.271
91836103|NCT05559866|183552447|OTHER|Variance||||||0.29||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.29
91836104|NCT05559866|183552448|OTHER|Variance||||||0.72||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.72
91774438|NCT00083889|183430416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5136|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4196|0.6288||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors were: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248: a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-a).||0.6288|0.4196|<.00001
91774439|NCT00083889|183430417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment difference|30.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.31|36.56|||Chi-squared||95% confidence interval was calculated based on a normal distribution.|||36.56|25.31|<0.001
91774440|NCT00083889|183430418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment difference|33.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.62|39.69|||Chi-squared||95% confidence interval was calculated based on a normal distribution.|||39.69|27.62|<0.001
91774441|NCT00083889|183430419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8209||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.0013||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified tests.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||1.0013|0.6730|0.0510
91774442|NCT00083889|183430419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8209||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.0013||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified tests.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||1.0013|0.6730|0.0128
91774443|NCT00083889|183430419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8179||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6692|0.9995||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified tests. Stratification factors were: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||0.9995|0.6692|0.0490
91774444|NCT00083889|183430420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5332|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4345|0.6544||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a|Unstratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-a)||0.6544|0.4345|<0.0001
91774445|NCT00083889|183430420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.516|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4191|0.6352||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors are: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-a)||0.6352|0.4191|<.00001
91774446|NCT00083889|183430421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5454|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4558|0.6526||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio \> 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α)||0.6526|0.4558|<0.0001
91774447|NCT00083889|183430421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5417|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4519|0.6492||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors were: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α)||0.6492|0.4519|<.00001
91774448|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.913|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.376|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.450|1.376|<.0001
91774449|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.935|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.421|2.449|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Difference in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.449|1.421|<.0001
91774450|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.948|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.443|2.452|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Difference in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.452|1.443|<.0001
91646107|NCT01236053|183184664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.65||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.62|0.26|0.3597
91774451|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.476|2.464|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.464|1.476|<.0001
91836105|NCT05559866|183552449|OTHER|Variance||||||0.41||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.41
91646108|NCT01236053|183184664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.1845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.34|0.21|0.1845
91774452|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.983|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.491|2.475|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.475|1.491|<.0001
91774453|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.501|1.510|<.0001
91774454|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.018|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.517|2.519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.519|1.517|<.0001
91774455|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.522|2.559|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.559|1.522|<.0001
91774456|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.053|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.522|2.584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.584|1.522|<.0001
91774457|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.515|2.635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.635|1.515|<.0001
91774458|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.088|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.509|2.667|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.667|1.509|<.0001
91774459|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.494|2.727|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.727|1.494|<.0001
91774460|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.123|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.483|2.763|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.763|1.483|<.0001
91774461|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.146|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.830|1.461|<.0001
91774462|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.158|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.447|2.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.869|1.447|<.0001
91774463|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.941|1.420|<.0001
91774464|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.193|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.404|2.983|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.983|1.404|<.0001
91774465|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.216|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.373|3.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.059|1.373|<.0001
91836106|NCT05559866|183552450|OTHER|Variance||||||0.53||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.53
91836107|NCT05559866|183552451|OTHER|Variance||||||0.91||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.91
91708013|NCT00482170|183309136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.64||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.64|0.63|0.936
91708014|NCT00482170|183309136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.99||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.99|0.75|0.420
91708015|NCT00482170|183309136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.79||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.79|0.71|0.625
91708016|NCT00482170|183309137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.94||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.94|0.86|0.210
91774466|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.355|3.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.102|1.355|<.0001
91774467|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.251|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.321|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.180|1.321|<.0001
91774468|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.263|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.302|3.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.225|1.302|<.0001
91774469|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.266|3.305|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.305|1.266|<.0001
91836108|NCT05559866|183552452|OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-Square: 1.043478||||||0.307
91708017|NCT00482170|183309137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.85|0.227
91708018|NCT00482170|183309137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.08||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.08|0.84|0.220
91708019|NCT00482170|183309137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.0||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.00|0.84|0.249
91708020|NCT00482170|183309138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.21|1.48|<0.001
91708021|NCT00482170|183309138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.62||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.62|1.62|<0.001
91708022|NCT00482170|183309138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.51||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.51|1.58|<0.001
91708023|NCT00482170|183309138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.59||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.59|1.64|<0.001
91836109|NCT05559866|183552453|OTHER|Association|||||||||||||||||Unable to perform Chi-Square test as data in both categorical sets was identical - there is no variation to test.|||
91836110|NCT00856167|183552467|SUPERIORITY||Regression coefficient|-0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Regression coefficient of TCM indicator variable, with change in CFP as the outcome, and controlling for start of treatment values: CFP, depression, gender, age, site|Regression, Linear|||Participants were allocated to one of the two treatments in order to balance baseline CFP, a depression score, age, gender, and site (Tucson or Portland).|"Since some participants could appear in both the 1st and 2nd period, the regression included random effects to account for correlation between measures on the same person.~In the 1st period, participants could either be allocated to TCM or SC, or if their pain scores were below 5, simply assigned to continuing self-care. Comparisons from this period were only between the allocated TCM and SC groups. In the 2nd period, those allocated or assigned to SC in the 1st period could be allocated to TCM or SC, or again assigned to continuing SC if their pain scores were too low. Comparisons from this period were only between the allocated TCM and SC groups."|||0.020
91836111|NCT01061333|183552470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|16.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.74|21.69||p-value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||21.69|10.74|<0.0001
91836112|NCT01061333|183552470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|15.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|21.02||p-value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||21.02|10.00|0.0001
91836113|NCT01061333|183552470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|8.49||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.78|15.2||p-value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||15.20|1.78|0.0432
91836114|NCT01061333|183552471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|1.27||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.54||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.54|1.05|0.0430
91836115|NCT01061333|183552471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|1.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.72||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.72|1.15|0.0100
91836116|NCT01061333|183552471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|1.3||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.67||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.67|1.01|0.0860
91836117|NCT01061333|183552472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.7||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.70|0.50|<0.0001
91836118|NCT01061333|183552472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.7||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.70|0.49|<0.0001
91836119|NCT01061333|183552472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.87||||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.08|0.69|0.2679
91836120|NCT01061333|183552473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.9||||0.7622|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.59||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.59|0.51|0.7622
91836121|NCT01061333|183552473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.94||||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.65||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated on log scale||||1.65|0.53|0.8468
91836122|NCT01061333|183552473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.91||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.26||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.26|0.65|0.6140
91836123|NCT01061333|183552474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.67||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.8||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.80|0.57|0.0006
91836124|NCT01061333|183552474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.79||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.94||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.94|0.67|0.0291
91836125|NCT01061333|183552474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.92||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.08||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.08|0.77|0.3738
91836126|NCT01061333|183552475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.03||||0.7501||90.0|0.88|1.2||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.20|0.88|0.7501
91836127|NCT01061333|183552475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.01||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.25||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.25|0.81|0.9410
91646109|NCT01236053|183184664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.84|0.58|0.9142
91836128|NCT01061333|183552475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|0.89||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.01||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.01|0.79|0.1165
91836129|NCT01061333|183552476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.03||||0.8616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.41||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.41|0.76|0.8616
91836130|NCT01061333|183552476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.06||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.45||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.45|0.77|0.7512
91836131|NCT01061333|183552476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|0.99||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.37||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.37|0.72|0.9723
91836132|NCT01061333|183552477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.3||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.82||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.82|0.92|0.1983
91836133|NCT01061333|183552477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.57||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|2.42||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||2.42|1.02|0.0872
91836134|NCT01061333|183552477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.22||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.62||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.62|0.91|0.2499
91836135|NCT02243202|183552490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.8|-5.3|<0.001
91836136|NCT02243202|183552490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.4|-3.1|0.142
91710582|NCT01677182|183313841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.472|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|3.8||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||3.8|-3.6|0.472
91710583|NCT01677182|183313842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.998||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.53||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.530|0.651|0.994
91710584|NCT01677182|183313842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.886||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.352||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.352|0.580|0.575
91710585|NCT01677182|183313843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.978||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.577||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.577|0.606|0.927
91710586|NCT01677182|183313843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.865||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.397||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.397|0.536|0.553
91710587|NCT00995722|183313845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|N=80, (40 per group), 80% power to detect a group difference of 30%-35% and 5% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA used to compare mean values adjusting for the baseline value|QMG Score ranges from 0-15, where 0 is normal and a reduction in score represents imrovement.|Mean Ocular QMG Changes from Baseline to Week 16 . 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||2.8|-7.20|0.37
91710588|NCT00995722|183313846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change in quality of life as measured by the NEI-VFQ-25 at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment|Mean Difference (Net)|6.56||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|15.71|||ANCOVA||Scores ranges fro 0-100 , where 100 is normal and an increase in score represents an improvement|Mean Change in quality of life as measured by the NEI-VFQ-25 at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment. 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||15.71|-2.59|0.13
91710589|NCT00995722|183313847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change in quality if life as measured by the MG-QOL-15 score at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|1.75|||ANCOVA||Ranges from 0-60, where 0 is Normal and a reduction in score represents improvement.|Mean Change in quality if life as measured by the MG-QOL-15 score at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment. 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||1.75|-9.37|0.15
91710590|NCT00995722|183313848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change NEI-VFQ-25 10 item neuro-opthtalmological supplement score baseline to week 16.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.98||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|43.17|||ANCOVA||Ranges 0-100, where 100 is normal and an increase in score represents an improvement.|Mean Change NEI-VFQ-25 10 item neuro-opthtalmological supplement score baseline to week 16. 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||43.17|-9.22|0.16
91710591|NCT01431313|183313861|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91710592|NCT01431313|183313861|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91710593|NCT01431313|183313861|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
91710594|NCT01431313|183313863|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91710595|NCT01431313|183313863|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91710596|NCT01431313|183313863|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91710597|NCT01431313|183313864|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8
91710598|NCT01431313|183313864|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91710599|NCT01431313|183313864|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91710600|NCT01431313|183313865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91710601|NCT01431313|183313865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91710602|NCT01431313|183313865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91710603|NCT01431313|183313866|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91710604|NCT01431313|183313866|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91710605|NCT01431313|183313866|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91710606|NCT01431313|183313867|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91710607|NCT01431313|183313867|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91710608|NCT01431313|183313868|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all doses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91710609|NCT01431313|183313868|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all doses.||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91710610|NCT01431313|183313868|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all doses.||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91710611|NCT00762762|183313869|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91710612|NCT00762762|183313870|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91710613|NCT00762762|183313871|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91710614|NCT00762762|183313872|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91710615|NCT00762762|183313873|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91710616|NCT00762762|183313874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91710617|NCT00762762|183313875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91710618|NCT00762762|183313876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91710619|NCT00762762|183313877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91710620|NCT00762762|183313878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91710621|NCT02542397|183313900|SUPERIORITY|"It has been reported that, based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) pain scale, about 30% of cancer patients receiving standard of care pain management experienced \>= 2-point improvement in pain score between visits \[Ref\].~Ref: Scharpf, J., et al., The role of pain in head and neck cancer recurrence and survivorship. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2009. 135(8): p. 789-94."|Exact binomial proportion|0.5556|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|0.6908||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha = 0.10.|Exact binomial test of proportions|||A single-stage design was used to test the hypothesis that the pain improvement rate, assessed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, is \<= 0.30. Our study targeted enrollment of 71 evaluable subjects for the final analysis; 54 subjects met the criteria at study closure. Assuming a one-sided alpha=0.10 significance level, 71 evaluable subjects would provide approximately 90% power to reject the null hypothesis (based on an exact binomial test) assuming the true pain improvement rate is 0.45.||.6908|.4140|<0.0001
91710622|NCT00105989|183313931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. The primary efficacy analysis compared the time to recurrence during the maintenance phase between all duloxetine and placebo patients using the log-rank test, stratified by country at α=.05.|Log Rank|The log rank method provides a single p-value comparing time to depressive recurrence for placebo and duloxetine.||A total of 257 randomized patients (randomly assigned with equal probability to the two treatment groups) were needed to have 90% power to detect 40% versus 20% recurrence rates over 52 weeks, using a log rank test at a two-sided significance level of .05.||||<0.001
91710623|NCT00105989|183313932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Frequencies are analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel controlling for investigator||||||<0.001
91710624|NCT00105989|183313933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Log Rank|The log rank method provides a single p-value comparing time to depressive recurrence for placebo and duloxetine.||||||0.003
91710625|NCT00105989|183313934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Frequencies were analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel controlling for investigator.||||||0.003
91710626|NCT00105989|183313935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710627|NCT00105989|183313935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.016
91710628|NCT00105989|183313936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91710629|NCT00105989|183313937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710630|NCT00105989|183313937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.153
91710631|NCT00105989|183313938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91710632|NCT00105989|183313939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean value at endpoint is significant from 4.||||||<0.001
91710633|NCT00105989|183313939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean value at endpoint is significant from 4.||||||<0.001
91710634|NCT00105989|183313940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91710635|NCT00105989|183313941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for Change from Baseline to Endpoint for all Subscales during Acute phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710636|NCT00105989|183313941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.334
91710637|NCT00105989|183313941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for Core Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.019
91710638|NCT00105989|183313941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Maier Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.046
91774470|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.298|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.246|3.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.351|1.246|<.0001
91774471|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.321|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.209|3.433|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.433|1.209|<.0001
91774472|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.333|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.188|3.479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.479|1.188|<.0001
91774473|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.356||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.562|1.150|0.0001
91774474|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.369||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|3.609|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.609|1.128|0.0002
91774475|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.391||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|3.693|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.693|1.089|0.0003
91774476|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.404||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.067|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.740|1.067|0.0004
91774477|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.426||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|3.825|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.825|1.027|0.0007
91774478|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.439||||0.0009||95.0|1.005|3.872|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.872|1.005|0.0009
91774479|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.461||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|3.958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.958|0.964|0.0013
91774480|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.474||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|4.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.006|0.942|0.0016
91774481|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.496||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|4.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.092|0.901|0.0022
91774482|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.509||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.140|0.878|0.0026
91774483|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.531||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|4.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.226|0.836|0.0034
91836137|NCT02243202|183552490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-5.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-5.2|-8.6|<0.001
91774484|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.544||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|4.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.274|0.813|0.0040
91774485|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.566||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|4.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.361|0.772|0.0051
91774486|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.579||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.410|0.748|0.0058
91774487|NCT00083889|183430424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.602||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|4.497|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.497|0.706|0.0071
91774488|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.234|4.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.095|2.234|<.0001
91774489|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.205|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.318|4.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.092|2.318|<.0001
91774490|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.358|4.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.097|2.358|<.0001
91774491|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.418|4.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.119|2.418|<.0001
91774492|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.443|4.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.139|2.443|<.0001
91774493|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.331|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.474|4.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.189|2.474|<.0001
91774494|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.354|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.484|4.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.224|2.484|<.0001
91836138|NCT02243202|183552491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|10.14|||Generalized linear Mixed Model|||||10.14|1.70|0.002
91774495|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.489|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.300|2.489|<.0001
91836139|NCT02243202|183552491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.06|||Generalized linear Mixed Model|||||3.06|0.41|0.825
91836140|NCT02243202|183552491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|25.05|||Generalized linear Mixed Model|||||25.05|4.15|<0.001
91836141|NCT02243202|183552492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||4.8|-2.1|0.456
91836142|NCT02243202|183552492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||3.1|-3.9|0.827
91836143|NCT02243202|183552492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.8|-7.7|0.015
91836144|NCT02243202|183552493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.7|-5.3|<0.001
91836145|NCT02243202|183552493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.5|-3.1|0.153
91836146|NCT02243202|183552493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-8.5|-4.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-4.9|-8.5|<0.001
91836147|NCT00871403|183552497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.2647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.28|||Log Rank||The hazard ratios is estimated using a Pike estimator. The estimated value is the hazard ratio comparing Pazopanib 800 mg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2 to Cisplatin 75 mg/m\^2 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2.|||1.28|0.43|0.2647
91836148|NCT00871403|183552500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference in response|-12.0||||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|7.2|||Binomial asymptotic||The estimated value is the percent difference in the response rate comparing Pazopanib 800 mg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2 to Cisplatin 75 mg/m\^2 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2.|||7.2|-30.6|0.2113
91836149|NCT03170375|183552510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity||||||0.28
91836150|NCT03170375|183552511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline left ventricular mass index||||||0.60
91836151|NCT03170375|183552512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline global left ventricular longitudinal strain||||||0.27
91836152|NCT03170375|183552513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity||||||0.03
91836153|NCT03170375|183552517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||generalized estimating equations|Model includes time (baseline, phase 2 month 1, phase 2 month 6), randomization assignment, and time x randomization assignment||||||0.47
91836154|NCT03170375|183552518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||generalized estimating equation|Model includes time (baseline, phase 2 month 1, phase 2 month 6), randomization assignment, and time x randomization assignment||||||0.28
91836155|NCT03170375|183552519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||generalized estimating equations|Model includes time (baseline, phase 2 month 1, phase 2 month 6), randomization assignment, and time x randomization assignment||||||0.43
91836156|NCT03170375|183552520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91836157|NCT03170375|183552521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
91836158|NCT02007434|183552522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.6803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.41|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 1 - Paradigm 2|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.41|-0.93|0.6803
91836159|NCT02007434|183552522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.6|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 1 - Paradigm 3|Day 0, 1 Minute. Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.60|-0.82|0.5206
91708024|NCT00482170|183309139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.65||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.65|1.50|<0.001
91836160|NCT02007434|183552522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.606|TWO_SIDED|395.0|-0.86|1.46|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 1 - Paradigm 4|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.46|-0.86|0.6060
91836161|NCT02007434|183552522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.27|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 2 - Paradigm 3|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.27|-0.98|0.7935
91836162|NCT02007434|183552522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.15|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 2 - Paradigm 4|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.15|-1.03|0.9140
91836163|NCT02007434|183552522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.04|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 3 - Paradigm 4|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.04|-1.21|0.8754
91836164|NCT01691521|183552536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72||Hochberg procedure with a gamma parameter of 1 used for multiplicity adjustment.|Negative binomial model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 75mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.72|0.40|<0.001
91836165|NCT01691521|183552536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.64||Hochberg procedure with a gamma parameter of 1 used for multiplicity adjustment.|Negative binomial model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 100 mg SC arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.64|0.35|<0.001
91836166|NCT00560612|183552548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7054
91836167|NCT00560612|183552549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4583|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4583
91836168|NCT00560612|183552550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7443
91836169|NCT00560612|183552551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.065
91836170|NCT00861601|183552566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104||95.0||||Linearity. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0104
91774496|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.417|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.486|4.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.348|2.486|<.0001
91774497|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.458|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.469|4.446|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.446|2.469|<.0001
91774498|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.455|4.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.505|2.455|<.0001
91774499|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.521|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.422|4.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.620|2.422|<.0001
91774500|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.543|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.399|4.687|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.687|2.399|<.0001
91774501|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.584|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.354|4.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.814|2.354|<.0001
91774502|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.326|4.887|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.887|2.326|<.0001
91774503|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.647|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.272|5.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.022|2.272|<.0001
91774504|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.669|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.099|2.240|<.0001
91774505|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.240|2.180|<.0001
91774506|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.733|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.145|5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.320|2.145|<.0001
91774507|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.773|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.466|2.080|<.0001
91774508|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.796|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.043|5.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.548|2.043|<.0001
91774509|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.836|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.975|5.698|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.698|1.975|<.0001
91836171|NCT00861601|183552566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0057||95.0||||Saturation at the medium dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0057
91774510|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.859|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.936|5.781|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.781|1.936|<.0001
91774511|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.899||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.866|5.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.933|1.866|0.0002
91774512|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.922||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.826|6.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.018|1.826|0.0002
91774513|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.962||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.753|6.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.172|1.753|0.0004
91774514|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.985||||0.0006||95.0|1.712|6.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.258|1.712|0.0006
91774515|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.026||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.638|6.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.413|1.638|0.0010
91774516|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.048||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.597|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.500|1.597|0.0012
91774517|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.089||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.521|6.656|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.656|1.521|0.0018
91774518|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.111||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.479|6.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.743|1.479|0.0022
91774519|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.152||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.403|6.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.901|1.403|0.0031
91774520|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.174||||0.0037||95.0|1.36|6.988|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.988|1.360|0.0037
91774521|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.215||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.283|7.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.147|1.283|0.0048
91774522|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.237||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|7.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.235|1.240|0.0056
91774523|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.278||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.162|7.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.394|1.162|0.0071
91646110|NCT01236053|183184664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.57|0.49|0.6524
91774524|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|7.482|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.482|1.119|0.0081
91774525|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.341||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|7.642|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.642|1.041|0.0099
91774526|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.364||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.730|0.997|0.0111
91774527|NCT00083889|183430425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.404||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|7.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.890|0.918|0.0133
91774528|NCT00083889|183430426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5404|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4532|0.6444||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248: a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||0.6444|0.4532|<0.0001
91774529|NCT00083889|183430426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5418|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4536|0.6473||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors are: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248: a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||0.6473|0.4536|<.00001
91774530|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.852|7.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.119|3.852|<.0001
91774531|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.535|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.955|7.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.115|3.955|<.0001
91774532|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.562|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|7.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.124|4.000|<.0001
91774533|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.061|7.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.162|4.061|<.0001
91774534|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.639|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.083|7.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.195|4.083|<.0001
91774535|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|7.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.276|4.100|<.0001
91774536|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.715|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.098|7.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.333|4.098|<.0001
91774537|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.764|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.075|7.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.454|4.075|<.0001
91836172|NCT00861601|183552566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0808||95.0||||Onset of response at the higher dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0808
91646111|NCT01236053|183184665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.70|0.17|0.2875
91774538|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.053|7.531|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.531|4.053|<.0001
91774539|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.841|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.998|7.684|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.684|3.998|<.0001
91836173|NCT00861601|183552567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116||95.0||||Linearity. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0116
91836174|NCT00861601|183552567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||95.0||||Saturation at the medium dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0066
91836175|NCT00861601|183552567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0846||95.0||||Onset of response at the higher dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0846
91836176|NCT04750655|183552593|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Used the Kruskal-Wallis (nonparametric one-way ANOVA), comparing all 3 arms. Note that for each individual, a single number (normalized read) is obtained.||||1
91836177|NCT00879996|183552598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9134||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4156|2.007|||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Methadone and buprenorphine treatment do not differ in treatment retention.||2.007|0.4156|0.77
91836178|NCT00879996|183552599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.043||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: Methadone treatment is as effective as buprenorphine treatment in reducing pain.||||<0.043
91836179|NCT00879996|183552600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|<|0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||null-hypothesis: methadone and buprenorphine treatment are equally effective in reducing self-reported functioning at 6 months.||||<0.665
91710639|NCT00105989|183313941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Retardation Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710640|NCT00105989|183313941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||P-value for Sleep Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.319
91710641|NCT00105989|183313941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0||||P-value for Depressed Mood Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.275
91710642|NCT00105989|183313942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Anxiety Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91710643|NCT00105989|183313942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Core Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91710644|NCT00105989|183313942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Maier Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91710645|NCT00105989|183313942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Retardation Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91710646|NCT00105989|183313942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Sleep Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91710647|NCT00105989|183313942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Depressed Mood Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91710648|NCT00105989|183313943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for all Change from Baseline to Endpoint measures in the Acute Phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710649|NCT00105989|183313943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||P-value for Overall Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.273
91710650|NCT00105989|183313943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||P-value for Headache Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.968
91710651|NCT00105989|183313943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998||95.0||||P-value for Back Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.998
91710652|NCT00105989|183313943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||95.0||||P-value for Shoulder Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.703
91710653|NCT00105989|183313943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.346||95.0||||P-value for Interference with Daily Activities Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.346
91710654|NCT00105989|183313943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-value for Pain While Awake Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.963
91710655|NCT00105989|183313944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Overall Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.792
91710656|NCT00105989|183313944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Headache Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.407
91774540|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.868|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|7.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.777|3.960|<.0001
91774541|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.917|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|7.955|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.955|3.880|<.0001
91774542|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|8.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.060|3.830|<.0001
91774543|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.994|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.731|8.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.257|3.731|<.0001
91774544|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.672|8.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.370|3.672|<.0001
91774545|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.071|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|8.581|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.581|3.560|<.0001
91774546|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.495|8.701|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.701|3.495|<.0001
91774547|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.147|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.373|8.921|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.921|3.373|<.0001
91774548|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.303|9.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.045|3.303|<.0001
91774549|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.224|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.174|9.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.273|3.174|<.0001
91774550|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.251||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.101|9.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.401|3.101|0.0001
91774551|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.966|9.634|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.634|2.966|0.0002
91774552|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.327||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|9.765|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.765|2.890|0.0003
91774553|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.377||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.751|10.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.002|2.751|0.0006
91774554|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.404||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.673|10.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.135|2.673|0.0008
91836180|NCT00879996|183552601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: methadone or buprenorphine treatment equally reduce illicit drug use.||||<0.039
91836181|NCT01148862|183552616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.2||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91900831|NCT02876835|183696018|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.08|-0.05|0.6917
91774555|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.453||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|10.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.376|2.530|0.0013
91774556|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.48||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.451|10.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.510|2.451|0.0016
91774557|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.53||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.306|10.754|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.754|2.306|0.0025
91774558|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.557||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.224|10.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.889|2.224|0.0030
91774559|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.606||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|11.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.135|2.077|0.0043
91774560|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.634||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.995|11.272|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.272|1.995|0.0051
91774561|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.683||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.847|11.519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.519|1.847|0.0068
91774562|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.71||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.764|11.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.657|1.764|0.0079
91774563|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.759||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.613|11.905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.905|1.613|0.0100
91774564|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.787||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|12.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.043|1.530|0.0114
91774565|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.836||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.378|12.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.293|1.378|0.0141
91774566|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.863||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.294|12.432|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.432|1.294|0.0157
91774567|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.912||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.142|12.683|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.683|1.142|0.0189
91774568|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.94||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|12.822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.822|1.057|0.0208
91836182|NCT01148862|183552617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91774569|NCT00083889|183430427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.989||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|13.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||13.074|0.904|0.0244
91774570|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.459|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Physical Well Being (PWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.114|0.805|<.0001
91774571|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.453|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|2.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.079|0.827|<.0001
91774572|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.063|0.837|<.0001
91774573|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|2.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.041|0.847|<.0001
91774574|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|2.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.032|0.848|<.0001
91774575|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.434|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|2.024|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.024|0.844|<.0001
91774576|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.431|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|2.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.023|0.838|<.0001
91774577|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.424|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|2.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.029|0.819|<.0001
91774578|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.037|0.805|<.0001
91836183|NCT02583763|183552683|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance value stated as p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample T test were used to analyse normally distributed data.||||>0.05
91836184|NCT02583763|183552684|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance value was stated as p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91774579|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|2.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.056|0.774|<.0001
91774580|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.411|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|2.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.069|0.753|<.0001
91774581|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.405|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|2.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.099|0.711|<.0001
91836185|NCT02583763|183552685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Significance value was set to p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91900832|NCT02876835|183696018|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.11|-0.01|0.9510
91900833|NCT02876835|183696018|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.11|0.1136
91710657|NCT00105989|183313944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Back Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.475
91710658|NCT00105989|183313944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Shoulder Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.241
91710659|NCT00105989|183313944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Interference with Daily Activities Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.885
91710660|NCT00105989|183313944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Pain While Awake Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.717
91710661|NCT00105989|183313945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710662|NCT00105989|183313945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.157
91710663|NCT00105989|183313946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.979
91710664|NCT00105989|183313947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in all SDS items in Acute Phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710665|NCT00105989|183313947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in all SDS items in the Continuation Phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710666|NCT00105989|183313948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Global Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91710667|NCT00105989|183313948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Work/School.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
91710668|NCT00105989|183313948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Social Life.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.110
91710669|NCT00105989|183313948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Family Life/Home Responsibilities.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
91710670|NCT00105989|183313949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in all SF-36 subscales in the Acute Phase were \<0.001|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710671|NCT00105989|183313949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.947
91710672|NCT00105989|183313949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary Change to Endpoint|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710673|NCT00105989|183313949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.118
91710674|NCT00105989|183313949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain Change from Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.550
91710675|NCT00105989|183313949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for Role Limitations Due to Physical Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.029
91710676|NCT00105989|183313949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710677|NCT00105989|183313949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for General Health Perceptions Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.002
91710678|NCT00105989|183313949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710679|NCT00105989|183313949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Social Function Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710680|NCT00105989|183313949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Vitality Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710681|NCT00105989|183313949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||P-value for Rate Current Health Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.815
91710682|NCT00105989|183313949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Health Compared to a Year Ago Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710683|NCT00105989|183313950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Physical Component Summary.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.415
91710684|NCT00105989|183313950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Mental Component Summary.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91710685|NCT00105989|183313950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Physical Functioning.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.731
91710686|NCT00105989|183313950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Bodily Pain.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.438
91710687|NCT00105989|183313950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Role Limitations Due to Physical.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91710688|NCT00105989|183313950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Role Limitations Due to Emotional problems.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91710689|NCT00105989|183313950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-General Health Perceptions.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
91710690|NCT00105989|183313950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Mental Health.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91710691|NCT00105989|183313950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Social Functioning.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.142
91710692|NCT00105989|183313950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Vitality.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.240
91710693|NCT00105989|183313950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Rate General Health.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.615
91710694|NCT00105989|183313950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Health Compared to a Year Ago.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.218
91710695|NCT00105989|183313951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Primary Health Care Provider Visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.838
91710696|NCT00105989|183313951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychiatrist visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710697|NCT00105989|183313951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychologist/Therapist visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.236
91710698|NCT00105989|183313951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other Specialist Physician visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.145
91710699|NCT00105989|183313951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other (Specified by Patient) visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.423
91710700|NCT00105989|183313951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Primary Health Care Provider visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.325
91710701|NCT00105989|183313951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychiatrist visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710702|NCT00105989|183313951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychologist/Therapist visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.915
91710703|NCT00105989|183313951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other Specialist Physician visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.223
91710704|NCT00105989|183313951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other (Specified by Patient) visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.362
91710705|NCT00105989|183313952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Primary Health Care Provider visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.462
91710706|NCT00105989|183313952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Psychiatrist visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.668
91710707|NCT00105989|183313952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Psychologist/Therapist visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.746
91710708|NCT00105989|183313952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Other Specialist Physician visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.511
91710709|NCT00105989|183313952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Other (Specified by Patient) Provider visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.271
91710710|NCT00105989|183313953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506||95.0||||P-value for Change in Average Number of Hours Worked In a Week in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.506
91710711|NCT00105989|183313953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0||||P-value for Change in Average Number of Hours Worked In a Week in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.057
91710712|NCT00105989|183313954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.826
91710713|NCT00105989|183313955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0||||P-value for Change in Number of Missed Paid Work Hours in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.105
91710714|NCT00105989|183313955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value for Change in Number of Missed Paid Work Hours in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.174
91710715|NCT00105989|183313956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
91710716|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.785
91710717|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.354
91710718|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.170
91710719|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.825
91710720|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.877||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.877
91710721|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.009
91710722|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.670
91710723|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.100
91710724|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.021
91710725|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.047
91710726|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.023
91710727|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.668
91710728|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.136
91710729|NCT00105989|183313957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.152
91710730|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710731|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710732|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710733|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710734|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.005
91710735|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.050
91710736|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.022
91710737|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.002
91710738|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710739|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710740|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710741|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.186
91710742|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91774582|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.402||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|2.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.119|0.685|0.0001
91774583|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.396||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|2.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.157|0.634|0.0003
91774584|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.392||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.180|0.604|0.0005
91774585|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.386||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|2.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.225|0.547|0.0012
91774586|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.383||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|2.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.252|0.514|0.0018
91774587|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.376||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|2.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.301|0.451|0.0035
91774588|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.373||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.330|0.416|0.0049
91774589|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.367||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.383|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.383|0.350|0.0084
91774590|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.363||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|2.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.414|0.313|0.0110
91774591|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.357||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.470|0.245|0.0168
91774592|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.354||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|2.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.501|0.206|0.0208
91774593|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.348||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|2.559|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.559|0.136|0.0293
91774594|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.344||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|2.592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.592|0.096|0.0348
91774595|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.338||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|2.652|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.652|0.024|0.0459
91774596|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.335||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|2.685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.685|-0.016|0.0528
91774597|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.328||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.746|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.746|-0.090|0.0663
91774598|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.325||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.780|-0.131|0.0744
91774599|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.319||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|2.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.842|-0.205|0.0898
91774600|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.315||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|2.877|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.877|-0.246|0.0988
91774601|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.309||||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.940|-0.321|0.1156
91774602|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.306||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|2.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.975|-0.363|0.1252
91774603|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|3.038|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.038|-0.439|0.1429
91774604|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.296||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|3.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.074|-0.481|0.1529
91774605|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|3.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.138|-0.558|0.1711
91774606|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.287||||0.1813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.173|-0.600|0.1813
91774607|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|3.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.238|-0.677|0.1998
91774608|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.277||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.273|-0.720|0.2100
91774609|NCT00083889|183430428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.271||||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.797|3.338|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.338|-0.797|0.2283
91836186|NCT03815019|183552691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.2218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13083.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participants in the megestrol group who successfully transitioned to oral feeding.|Analysis conducted using Generalized Linear Mixed Models with a logit link within SAS Proc GLIMMIX to model the binary outcome of transitioned to oral feeding (y/n) defined as at least 90 percent of calories consumed orally. Fixed effects (dummy variables) will be entered for each site as described by McNeish and Stapleton (2016) to account for the clustering of the participants within sites. This will result in essentially, a logistic regression model with appropriate standard errors.||||
91774610|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.214|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Social/Family Well Being (SWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.708|0.719|<.0001
91774611|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.216|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.703|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.703|0.729|<.0001
91774612|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.217|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.704|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.704|0.731|<.0001
91774613|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.710|0.730|<.0001
91774614|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.221|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.716|0.727|<.0001
91774615|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.224|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.732|0.716|<.0001
91774616|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.225|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.744|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.744|0.707|<.0001
91774617|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.769|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.769|0.687|<.0001
91774618|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.229|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.785|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.785|0.673|<.0001
91896061|NCT02783768|183687497|OTHER|Testing for difference in the outcome measure according to the exposure (which was not a treatment) in a randomized crossover setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.98||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.012|23.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Measurements were included for participants with at least one valid MRI measurement.|"Within-person effects of e-cigarette exposure on pulmonary microvascular blood flow (PMBF) was assessed via mixed models accounting for order effects.~Null hypothesis: e-cigarette exposure is NOT associated with a change in PMBF.~Alternative hypothesis: e-cigarette exposure IS associated with a change in PMBF.~Power calculation: not applicable since this was a pilot/feasibility study."||23.94|4.012|0.012
91774619|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.232|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.818|0.646|<.0001
91774620|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.233|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.629|1.838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.838|0.629|<.0001
91774621|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.236||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.876|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.876|0.595|0.0002
91900834|NCT02876835|183696018|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.13|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.13|-0.03|0.8859
91710743|NCT00105989|183313958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.308
91708025|NCT00482170|183309139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.77||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||4.77|1.83|<0.001
91708026|NCT00482170|183309139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.12||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||4.12|1.62|<0.001
91708027|NCT00482170|183309139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.86||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.86|1.55|<0.001
91708028|NCT00482170|183309140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.62||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.62|0.73|0.681
91708029|NCT00482170|183309140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.54||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.54|0.67|0.947
91708030|NCT00482170|183309140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.36||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.36|0.59|0.604
91708031|NCT00482170|183309140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.27||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.27|0.57|0.430
91708032|NCT00482170|183309141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.03|0.48|0.072
91708033|NCT00482170|183309141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.86|0.205
91708034|NCT00482170|183309141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.78||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.78|0.78|0.434
91708035|NCT00482170|183309141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.55||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.55|0.69|0.857
91708036|NCT00482170|183309142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.56||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.56|0.70|0.837
91708037|NCT00482170|183309142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.15||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.15|0.87|0.172
91708038|NCT00482170|183309142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.24||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.24|0.94|0.096
91710744|NCT00105989|183313959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 to 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773
91900835|NCT02876835|183696019|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.7716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.33|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.33|-0.74|0.7716
91900836|NCT02979925|183696025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.246
91836187|NCT03815019|183552691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.1544|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13083.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participants in the placebo group who successfully transitioned to oral feeding.|Analysis conducted using Generalized Linear Mixed Models with a logit link within SAS Proc GLIMMIX to model the binary outcome of transitioned to oral feeding (y/n) defined as at least 90 percent of calories consumed orally. Fixed effects (dummy variables) will be entered for each site as described by McNeish and Stapleton (2016) to account for the clustering of the participants within sites. This will result in essentially, a logistic regression model with appropriate standard errors.||||
91836188|NCT03815019|183552693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7846, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
91836189|NCT03815019|183552694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7025, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
91836190|NCT03815019|183552695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.6764, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
91836191|NCT03815019|183552696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7649, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
91836192|NCT03815019|183552697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.9487, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
91836193|NCT03815019|183552698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7669, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
91836194|NCT03815019|183552699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.5883, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
91836195|NCT03815019|183552700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.4749, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
91836196|NCT03815019|183552701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.8781, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
91836197|NCT04270747|183552728|OTHER|A pre-specified similarity margin of (-3, 3) ETDRS letters was used to demonstrate clinical similarity for the mean change from Baseline in BCVA at Week 8.|Difference between means|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|1.3|||||Estimated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||1.3|-1.1|
91836198|NCT04270747|183552729|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|2.2|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who maintained vision at Week 52.||2.2|-5.2|
91836199|NCT04270747|183552729|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|2.8|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who maintained vision at Week 52.||2.8|-6.2|
91836200|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||1.2|-1.3|
91836201|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|0.7|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||0.7|-2.3|
91836202|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.2|-1.9|
91836203|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||2.1|-1.3|
91836204|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|0.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||0.5|-3.1|
91708039|NCT00482170|183309142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.08||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.08|0.88|0.164
91836205|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.4|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||1.4|-2.3|
91836206|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|0.8|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||0.8|-3.2|
91836207|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-3.4|0.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.5|-3.4|
91836208|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||0.0|-3.0|
91836209|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|-0.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||-0.2|-3.6|
91836210|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.5|-2.1|
91900837|NCT02979925|183696026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.651
91900838|NCT02979925|183696027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
91836211|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||2.0|-1.9|
91836212|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|0.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||0.2|-4.0|
91836213|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||2.2|-2.2|
91836214|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|1.7|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||1.7|-2.9|
91836215|NCT04270747|183552730|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|1.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||1.1|-3.5|
91836216|NCT04270747|183552731|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|3.1|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who gained at least 10 letters of vision at Week 8.||3.1|-9.8|
91836217|NCT04270747|183552732|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|2.5|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who gained at least 15 letters of vision at Week 52.||2.5|-13.6|
91836218|NCT04270747|183552732|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|4.2|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who gained at least 15 letters of vision at Week 52.||4.2|-14.4|
91836219|NCT04270747|183552733|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.734|0.638|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||0.638|-0.734|
91836220|NCT04270747|183552733|OTHER||Difference between means|0.431|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.367|1.229|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.229|-0.367|
91836221|NCT04270747|183552733|OTHER||Difference between means|0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.625|1.019|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||1.019|-0.625|
91836222|NCT04270747|183552733|OTHER||Difference between means|0.156|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-0.561|0.872|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.872|-0.561|
91708040|NCT00482170|183309143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.69||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.69|0.83|0.356
91836223|NCT04270747|183552733|OTHER||Difference between means|0.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.682|0.891|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||0.891|-0.682|
91836224|NCT04270747|183552733|OTHER||Difference between means|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.667|1.158|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.158|-0.667|
91836225|NCT04270747|183552733|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.065|0.834|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||0.834|-1.065|
91836226|NCT04270747|183552733|OTHER||Difference between means|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.186|1.479|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||1.479|-0.186|
91900839|NCT05629962|183696033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.954
91836227|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|17.9|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||17.9|-5.6|
91900840|NCT03951220|183696041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7343|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7343
91900841|NCT03951220|183696042|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman (r)|0.39||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.68|||Spearman's rank correlation coeffcieitn|||||0.68|0.00|0.0445
91900842|NCT03951220|183696043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test|Kruskal-Wallis|||For baseline P1NP||||0.0079
91708041|NCT00482170|183309143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.56||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.56|0.73|0.737
91708042|NCT00482170|183309143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.91||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.91|0.90|0.156
91708043|NCT00482170|183309143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.76||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.76|0.85|0.290
91708044|NCT00482170|183309144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.02||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.02|0.50|0.065
91708045|NCT00482170|183309144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.06|0.50|0.100
91708046|NCT00482170|183309144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.21|0.54|0.298
91708047|NCT00482170|183309144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.11|0.51|0.148
91708048|NCT00482170|183309145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.94|0.098
91708049|NCT00482170|183309145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.87||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.87|0.82|0.311
91708050|NCT00482170|183309145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.85||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.85|0.79|0.376
91708051|NCT00482170|183309145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.86||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.86|0.83|0.299
91708052|NCT00482170|183309146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.28||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.28|0.60|0.494
91708053|NCT00482170|183309146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.97|0.44|0.036
91710745|NCT00105989|183313959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.405||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 and 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
91774622|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.237||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|1.899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.899|0.575|0.0003
91774623|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.942|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.942|0.537|0.0005
91710746|NCT00105989|183313959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 1-Sex Drive.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.443
91774624|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.241||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.967|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.967|0.515|0.0008
91774625|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.244||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|2.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.013|0.474|0.0015
91836228|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|13.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||13.5|-11.0|
91900843|NCT03951220|183696043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0482||||||Dunn's multiple comparison test|ANOVA|||For baseline sclerostin||||0.0482
91900844|NCT03951220|183696054|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test|||||||0.015
91710747|NCT00105989|183313959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 2-Arousal.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.384
91710748|NCT00105989|183313959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.268
91710749|NCT00105989|183313959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 4-Orgasm.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.093
91710750|NCT00105989|183313959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 5-Satisfaction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.566
91710751|NCT00105989|183313960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 to 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.979
91710752|NCT00105989|183313960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 and 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
91710753|NCT00105989|183313960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 1-Sex Drive.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.180
91710754|NCT00105989|183313960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 2-Arousal.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.163
91710755|NCT00105989|183313960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.844
91710756|NCT00105989|183313960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 4-Orgasm.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
91710757|NCT00105989|183313960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 5-Satisfaction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
91710758|NCT00105989|183313961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Weight Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710759|NCT00105989|183313961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Weight Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710760|NCT00105989|183313962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.314
91710761|NCT00105989|183313963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pulse Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710762|NCT00105989|183313963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pulse Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91710763|NCT00105989|183313964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.891||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891
91710764|NCT00105989|183313965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0||||P-value for systolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.659
91710765|NCT00105989|183313965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value for diastolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.064
91710766|NCT00105989|183313965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0||||P-value for systolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.224
91710767|NCT00105989|183313965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||P-value for diastolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.210
91710768|NCT00105989|183313966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline: systolic blood pressure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.134
91710769|NCT00105989|183313966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline: diastolic blood pressure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.816
91710770|NCT00105989|183313967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91710771|NCT00105989|183313968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.007
91710772|NCT00105989|183313969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.035
91836229|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|16.6|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||16.6|-12.9|
91836230|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|14.4|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||14.4|-14.1|
91836231|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|12.9|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||12.9|-15.3|
91836232|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|14.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||14.1|-13.7|
91836233|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|21.4|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||21.4|-7.4|
91836234|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-9.3|12.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||12.5|-9.3|
91836235|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|20.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||20.0|-7.4|
91836236|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.3|9.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||9.1|-19.3|
91836237|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|13.3|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||13.3|-20.9|
91836238|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.6|10.6|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||10.6|-22.6|
91836239|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.3|9.3|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||9.3|-23.3|
91836240|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.8|9.8|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||9.8|-22.8|
91708054|NCT00482170|183309146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.04||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.04|0.45|0.079
91836241|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.3|16.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||16.2|-17.3|
91836242|NCT04270747|183552734|OTHER||Difference between means|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|15.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||15.0|-10.5|
91836243|NCT02134925|183552771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
91836244|NCT02134925|183552776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
91836245|NCT02612064|183552858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.18||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.072|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response, treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity as a covariate.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|All statistical analyses were conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.||0.072|-0.442|0.1575
91836246|NCT02036645|183552874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||1.04|0.82|
91836247|NCT02036645|183552874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||1.30|0.71|
91836248|NCT02036645|183552875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||0.98|0.81|
91900845|NCT03951220|183696057|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||||||0.007
91774626|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.245||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.040|0.450|0.0021
91774627|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.248||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|2.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.089|0.406|0.0037
91774628|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.249||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|2.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.116|0.382|0.0048
91774629|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.251||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.336|2.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.167|0.336|0.0074
91774630|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.253||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.196|0.310|0.0092
91774631|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.255||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|2.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.248|0.262|0.0132
91774632|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.257||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|2.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.278|0.236|0.0159
91774633|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.259||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|2.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.332|0.187|0.0213
91708055|NCT00482170|183309146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.02||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.02|0.46|0.063
91774634|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.261||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.362|0.160|0.0248
91774635|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.263||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.416|0.110|0.0318
91774636|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.265||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|2.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.447|0.083|0.0360
91774637|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.267||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|2.502|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.502|0.032|0.0443
91774638|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.269||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|2.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.533|0.004|0.0493
91836249|NCT02036645|183552875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.27|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||1.27|0.65|
91836250|NCT00696384|183552897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|-5.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Includes participants with both a double-blind baseline and postbaseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-5.78|-9.78|<0.001
91900846|NCT05461794|183696064|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|23.9|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||23.9|0.3|
91836251|NCT00696384|183552898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|-9.29||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Includes participants with both a double-blind baseline and postbaseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-9.29|-15.47|<0.001
91836252|NCT03881696|183552951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.853|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1274|111.2144||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0001 at the interim analysis OR p \< 0.05 at the final analysis. Gatekeeping and multiple testing strategies were performed to ensure the overall family-wise error rate was ≤ 5%.|Fisher Exact||The odds ratio (OR) represents the odds of success among subjects randomized to omalizumab (numerator) compared to the odds of success among subjects randomized to placebo (denominator, reference group).|The null hypothesis is that the odds of 'success' (defined as consumption of a single dose of ≥600 mg of peanut protein without dose-limiting symptoms during the DBPCFC at the end of Stage 1) in omalizumab and placebo for omalizumab arms are equal. Participants missing the blinded OFC to peanut at the end of Stage 1 will be considered a 'failure' for the primary efficacy endpoint.||111.2144|9.1274|<0.00001
91836253|NCT05690776|183553048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|15.0|||paired t-test|||||15.0|9.2|<0.0001
91836254|NCT05690776|183553049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.128|||paired t-test|||||0.128|0.053|<0.0001
91836255|NCT05690776|183553051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|24.5|||paired t-test|||||24.5|16.9|<0.0001
91836256|NCT00975221|183553056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic|39.866|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91836257|NCT00975221|183553057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH statistic|40.953|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91836258|NCT00975221|183553058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.23|-10.88|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline corrected serum calcium and baseline bisphosphonate included as covariates.|Treatment difference: cinacalcet-placebo|||-10.88|-16.23|<0.001
91836259|NCT00975221|183553059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.01|-11.57|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline corrected serum calcium and baseline bisphosphonate included as covariates.|Treatment difference: cinacalcet-placebo|||-11.57|-34.01|<0.001
91836260|NCT04022889|183553060|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.66 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.2|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||6.2|-3.5|
91836261|NCT04022889|183553060|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.66 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.8|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||4.8|-6.4|
91646112|NCT01236053|183184665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.51|0.15|0.2042
91774639|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.271||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|2.589|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.589|-0.047|0.0587
91836262|NCT04022889|183553060|OTHER|Variant 1-BEST = Test Variant 1 Endpoint - Test BEST Endpoint|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.7|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||8.7|-5.0|
91774640|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.273||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.620|-0.075|0.0642
91774641|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.275||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|2.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.677|-0.127|0.0746
91774642|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.276||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|2.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.708|-0.155|0.0806
91836263|NCT04022889|183553060|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.66 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||2.6|-2.5|
91836264|NCT04022889|183553061|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.58 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|39.4|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||39.4|18.5|
91774643|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279||||0.0917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|2.765|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.765|-0.207|0.0917
91774644|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|2.797|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.797|-0.236|0.0980
91774645|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.283||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|2.854|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.854|-0.288|0.1095
91774646|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.284||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|2.886|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.886|-0.318|0.1161
91774647|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.287||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.944|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.944|-0.370|0.1280
91774648|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.288||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|2.976|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.976|-0.399|0.1346
91774649|NCT00083889|183430429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.291||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|3.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.034|-0.452|0.1466
91774650|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.929||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.398|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Emotional Well Being (EWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.398|0.460|0.0001
91774651|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.922|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.469|1.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.375|0.469|<.0001
91774652|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.918|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.471|1.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.365|0.471|<.0001
91774653|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.911|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.469|1.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.352|0.469|<.0001
91774654|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.907|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.466|1.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.348|0.466|<.0001
91774655|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.899|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.453|1.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.345|0.453|<.0001
91836265|NCT04022889|183553061|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.58 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|41.6|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||41.6|9.5|
91836266|NCT04022889|183553061|EQUIVALENCE|Variant 1-BEST = Test Variant 1 Endpoint - Test BEST Endpoint|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|15.8|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||15.8|-12.7|
91646113|NCT01236053|183184665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.4733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||8.06|0.38|0.4733
91836267|NCT04022889|183553061|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.58 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|37.8|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||37.8|21.8|
91836268|NCT02202434|183553099|NON_INFERIORITY|10.5% non-inferiority margin|Difference in Percentages|3.1||||0.0027|ONE_SIDED|97.5||8.32|||Farrington-Manning|||||8.32||0.0027
91836269|NCT02202434|183553100|NON_INFERIORITY|9.5% Non-Inferiority margin|Difference in Percentages|-10.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-4.41|||Farrington-Manning|||||-4.41||<0.0001
91836270|NCT02202434|183553100|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-10.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-4.0|||Chi-squared|||"Superiority analysis was only to be run if the non-inferiority analysis was met.~Superiority analysis was run on Intent to Treat Population."||-4.0|-16.3|0.0006
91836271|NCT02202434|183553101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-2.6|||Chi-squared|||||-2.6|-9.6|<0.0001
91836272|NCT04858802|183553138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.08||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|8.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area|The null hypothesis was that there would no difference in FSO cross-sectional area between treatment and control sides at Day 45.||8.6|-0.2|0.059
91836273|NCT04858802|183553139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.98||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45|Day 45||4.5|-1.5|0.328
91836274|NCT04858802|183553139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.64||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180|Day 180||0.2|-5.7|0.063
91836275|NCT04858802|183553140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|430.8||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|149.4||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 45||149.4|-47.5|0.306
91836276|NCT04858802|183553140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|413.22||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.5|67.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 180||67.6|-122.5|0.567
91836277|NCT04858802|183553141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 45||0.9|0.0|0.031
91708056|NCT00482170|183309147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.33||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.33|0.62|0.628
91836278|NCT04858802|183553141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.27||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 180||0.5|-0.5|0.943
91836279|NCT04858802|183553142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus|Day 45||0.2|-0.3|0.715
91836280|NCT04858802|183553142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus|Day 180||0.4|0.0|0.129
91708057|NCT00482170|183309147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.15||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.15|0.51|0.203
91836281|NCT04858802|183553143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 21||3.60|0.28|1.00
91710773|NCT00105989|183313970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.021
91710774|NCT00105989|183313971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91836282|NCT04858802|183553143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.73||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 45||1.73|0.36|0.453
91836283|NCT04858802|183553143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.61||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 90||1.61|0.31|0.219
91836284|NCT04858802|183553143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 180||1.61|0.31|0.289
91774656|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.895||||0.0001||95.0|0.444|1.347|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.347|0.444|0.0001
91774657|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.888||||0.0002||95.0|0.421|1.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.355|0.421|0.0002
91774658|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.884||||0.0003||95.0|0.406|1.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.362|0.406|0.0003
91774659|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.877||||0.0006||95.0|0.375|1.379|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.379|0.375|0.0006
91774660|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.873||||0.0009||95.0|0.356|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.390|0.356|0.0009
91774661|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.866||||0.002||95.0|0.318|1.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.414|0.318|0.0020
91774662|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.862||||0.0029||95.0|0.295|1.428|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.428|0.295|0.0029
91774663|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.854||||0.0055||95.0|0.251|1.457|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.457|0.251|0.0055
91774664|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.0076||95.0|0.226|1.475|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.475|0.226|0.0076
91774665|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.843||||0.0129||95.0|0.179|1.508|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.508|0.179|0.0129
91774666|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.839||||0.0168||95.0|0.151|1.527|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.527|0.151|0.0168
91774667|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.832||||0.0257||95.0|0.101|1.563|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.563|0.101|0.0257
91774668|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.828||||0.0318||95.0|0.072|1.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.583|0.072|0.0318
91774669|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.821||||0.0447||95.0|0.019|1.622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.622|0.019|0.0447
91774670|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.817||||0.0529||95.0|-0.01|1.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.643|-0.010|0.0529
91774671|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.809||||0.0696||95.0|-0.065|1.683|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.683|-0.065|0.0696
91836285|NCT04858802|183553144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.12||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.8||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area|Day 180||4.8|-4.9|0.971
91836286|NCT04858802|183553145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 45|Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45|0.1|-0.1|1.00
91836287|NCT04858802|183553145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180|Day 180||0.1|0.0|0.288
91836288|NCT04858802|183553146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45|Day 45||0.1|-0.2|0.225
91836289|NCT04858802|183553146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180|Day 180||0.1|-0.2|0.388
91836290|NCT04858802|183553147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 21||0.1|-0.2|0.537
91836291|NCT04858802|183553147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 45||0.0|-0.3|0.010
91836292|NCT04858802|183553147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 90||-0.1|-0.4|0.003
91836293|NCT04858802|183553147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 180||-0.1|-0.4|0.007
91836294|NCT04858802|183553148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.55||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|7.9||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 21||7.9|-12.8|0.634
91900847|NCT05461794|183696064|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|19.5|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||19.5|-9.3|
91774672|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.805||||0.0797||95.0|-0.095|1.706|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.706|-0.095|0.0797
91774673|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.798||||0.0994||95.0|-0.151|1.747|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.747|-0.151|0.0994
91774674|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.794||||0.111||95.0|-0.182|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.770|-0.182|0.1110
91774675|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.787||||0.1328||95.0|-0.239|1.813|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.813|-0.239|0.1328
91836295|NCT04858802|183553148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.04||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 45||-0.1|-15.2|0.048
91836296|NCT04858802|183553148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.79||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-0.9||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 90||-0.9|-14.7|0.028
91900848|NCT05461794|183696066|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by PD-L1 tumor area positivity score (\>=10% versus \< 10%)|||1.61|0.45|
91774676|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.783||||0.1454||95.0|-0.271|1.836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.836|-0.271|0.1454
91774677|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.776||||0.1686||95.0|-0.329|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.880|-0.329|0.1686
91774678|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.771||||0.1817||95.0|-0.361|1.904|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.904|-0.361|0.1817
91774679|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.764||||0.2055||95.0|-0.419|1.948|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.948|-0.419|0.2055
91774680|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.2188||95.0|-0.452|1.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.972|-0.452|0.2188
91774681|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.753||||0.2427||95.0|-0.51|2.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.016|-0.510|0.2427
91774682|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.749||||0.2559||95.0|-0.543|2.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.041|-0.543|0.2559
91774683|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.742||||0.2794||95.0|-0.602|2.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.086|-0.602|0.2794
91774684|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.738||||0.2923||95.0|-0.635|2.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.111|-0.635|0.2923
91774685|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.3152||95.0|-0.695|2.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.156|-0.695|0.3152
91774686|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.726||||0.3276||95.0|-0.728|2.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.181|-0.728|0.3276
91774687|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.719||||0.3497||95.0|-0.788|2.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.227|-0.788|0.3497
91774688|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.715||||0.3616||95.0|-0.822|2.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.252|-0.822|0.3616
91836297|NCT04858802|183553148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.99||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.3||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 180||-0.3|-13.2|0.041
91774689|NCT00083889|183430430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.708||||0.3827||95.0|-0.882|2.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.298|-0.882|0.3827
91836298|NCT04858802|183553149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 21||0.0|-0.5|0.063
91774690|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.897|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.261|2.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Functional Well Being (FWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.533|1.261|<.0001
91774691|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.924|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.309|2.539|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.539|1.309|<.0001
91774692|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.939|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.331|2.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.546|1.331|<.0001
91774693|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.965|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.363|2.568|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.568|1.363|<.0001
91774694|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.376|2.584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.584|1.376|<.0001
91774695|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.007|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.392|2.622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.622|1.392|<.0001
91774696|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.022|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.396|2.647|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.647|1.396|<.0001
91774697|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.048|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.397|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.700|1.397|<.0001
91774698|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.063|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.394|2.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.732|1.394|<.0001
91774699|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.383|2.797|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.797|1.383|<.0001
91774700|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.105|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.374|2.836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.836|1.374|<.0001
91774701|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.132|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.353|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.910|1.353|<.0001
91836299|NCT04858802|183553149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 45||-0.1|-0.4|0.015
91836300|NCT04858802|183553149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 90||-0.1|-0.4|0.007
91836301|NCT04858802|183553149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 180||0.0|-0.4|0.034
91900849|NCT05461794|183696067|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.8|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics|||6.8|0.9|
91836302|NCT04858802|183553150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 21||0.2|-0.2|0.830
91774702|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.146|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.339|2.954|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.954|1.339|<.0001
91774703|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.173|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.311|3.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.036|1.311|<.0001
91774704|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.188|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.294|3.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.082|1.294|<.0001
91774705|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.215|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.26|3.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.169|1.260|<.0001
91774706|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.241|3.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.219|1.241|<.0001
91774707|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.256|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.203|3.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.309|1.203|<.0001
91774708|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.271|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.182|3.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.361|1.182|<.0001
91836303|NCT04858802|183553150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 45||0.1|-0.2|0.829
91710775|NCT00105989|183313972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||The mean change to endpoint of -0.00 indicates that on average, endpoint score decreased from baseline score by less than 0.005 units.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.019
91774709|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.298|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.142|3.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.454|1.142|<.0001
91774710|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.313||||0.0001||95.0|1.119|3.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.507|1.119|0.0001
91774711|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.0003||95.0|1.076|3.603|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.603|1.076|0.0003
91774712|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.354||||0.0004||95.0|1.052|3.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.657|1.052|0.0004
91774713|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.381||||0.0007||95.0|1.008|3.754|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.754|1.008|0.0007
91774714|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.396||||0.0009||95.0|0.983|3.809|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.809|0.983|0.0009
91774715|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.423||||0.0014||95.0|0.938|3.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.908|0.938|0.0014
91774716|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.438||||0.0017||95.0|0.912|3.963|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.963|0.912|0.0017
91774717|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.464||||0.0025||95.0|0.866|4.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.063|0.866|0.0025
91774718|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.479||||0.003||95.0|0.84|4.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.119|0.840|0.0030
91774719|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.506||||0.0042||95.0|0.792|4.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.219|0.792|0.0042
91774720|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.521||||0.0049||95.0|0.766|4.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.275|0.766|0.0049
91774721|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.547||||0.0064||95.0|0.718|4.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.377|0.718|0.0064
91774722|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.562||||0.0073||95.0|0.691|4.433|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.433|0.691|0.0073
91774723|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.589||||0.0091||95.0|0.643|4.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.535|0.643|0.0091
91708058|NCT00482170|183309147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.17|0.51|0.222
91774724|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.604||||0.0103||95.0|0.616|4.592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.592|0.616|0.0103
91774725|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.631||||0.0125||95.0|0.567|4.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.695|0.567|0.0125
91774726|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.645||||0.0138||95.0|0.539|4.752|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.752|0.539|0.0138
91774727|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.672||||0.0164||95.0|0.49|4.855|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.855|0.490|0.0164
91774728|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.687||||0.0179||95.0|0.462|4.912|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.912|0.462|0.0179
91708059|NCT00482170|183309147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.19|0.53|0.263
91708060|NCT00482170|183309148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.50|0.70|0.914
91708061|NCT00482170|183309148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.57||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.57|0.70|0.827
91708062|NCT00482170|183309148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.40|0.61|0.712
91708063|NCT00482170|183309148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.39|0.62|0.733
91708064|NCT00482170|183309149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.95||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.95|0.95|0.090
91708065|NCT00482170|183309149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.91||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.91|0.90|0.154
91708066|NCT00482170|183309149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.22||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.22|1.02|0.037
91708067|NCT00482170|183309149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.24||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.24|1.05|0.028
91708068|NCT00482170|183309150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.21|1.06|0.022
91708069|NCT00482170|183309150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.41||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.41|1.17|0.005
91774729|NCT00083889|183430431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.714||||0.0208||95.0|0.413|5.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||5.015|0.413|0.0208
91774730|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EuroQoL Five Dimension (EQ-5D): Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||0.076|0.022|0.0004
91708070|NCT00482170|183309150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.97|0.076
91708071|NCT00482170|183309150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.11|1.00|0.049
91710776|NCT00105989|183313973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.005
91774731|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.0003||95.0|0.022|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.075|0.022|0.0003
91836304|NCT04858802|183553150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 90||0.0|-0.3|0.132
91836305|NCT04858802|183553150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 180||0.1|-0.3|0.310
91836306|NCT04858802|183553151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 21||0.1|-0.2|0.666
91836307|NCT04858802|183553151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 45||0.1|-0.2|0.497
91836308|NCT04858802|183553151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 90||0.0|-0.2|0.235
91836309|NCT04858802|183553151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 180||0.1|-0.1|0.677
91836310|NCT04858802|183553152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.48||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 21||0.6|-0.7|0.868
91836311|NCT04858802|183553152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 45||0.7|-0.5|0.823
91836312|NCT04858802|183553152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.26||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 90||0.5|-0.5|1.00
91836313|NCT04858802|183553152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.16||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 180||0.2|-0.8|0.188
91836314|NCT04858802|183553156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.12||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.7||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area|||11.7|0.8|0.025
91836315|NCT04858802|183553157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.49||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.8||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45|Day 45||7.8|0.2|0.04
91836316|NCT04858802|183553157|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.02||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180|Day 180||0.6|-7.5|0.09
91836317|NCT04858802|183553158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|460.18||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.7|199.8||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 45||199.8|-76.7|0.375
91836318|NCT04858802|183553158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|434.64||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.1|80.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 180||80.2|-184.1|0.432
91836319|NCT04858802|183553159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 45||1.4|0.1|0.023
91836320|NCT04858802|183553159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.24||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 180||0.5|-0.8|0.646
91836321|NCT00332332|183553160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|73.5||||||95.0|67.2|79.1||||||||79.1|67.2|
91710777|NCT00105989|183313974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.031
91836322|NCT02670538|183553180|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.4||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||-0.4|-4.6|0.0417
91836323|NCT02670538|183553180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.4||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||0.4|-3.9|0.1051
91836324|NCT02670538|183553181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.0417
91836325|NCT02670538|183553181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||0.1|-0.4|0.1370
91836326|NCT02207725|183553197|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-74.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.39|-66.28|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-66.28|-78.39|<0.0001
91836327|NCT02207725|183553197|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-59.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1|-55.17|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-55.17|-64.10|<0.0001
91836328|NCT02207725|183553198|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-77.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.98|-74.04|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-74.04|-79.98|<0.0001
91836329|NCT02207725|183553200|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-7.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|-5.42|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-5.42|-8.86|<0.0001
91836330|NCT02207725|183553200|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-3.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|-1.25|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-1.25|-5.66|0.0002
91836331|NCT02207725|183553201|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|1227.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|984.01|1456.38|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1456.38|984.01|<0.0001
91836332|NCT02207725|183553201|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|999.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|819.5|1200.53|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1200.53|819.50|<0.0001
91774732|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.0003||95.0|0.022|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.074|0.022|0.0003
91774733|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.0003||95.0|0.021|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.021|0.0003
91836333|NCT00708435|183553245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 83 participants."|Difference in effective hemostasis (%)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|19.9||Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. No P-value is entered as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI calculation for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with effective hemostasis.|95% confidence interval|Farrington and Manning's method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of participants with hemostasis.|Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. There is no P-value as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI calculation for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with effective hemostasis.|The analysis of hemostatic efficacy was via calculation of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.||19.9|-5.8|
91836334|NCT00708435|183553246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 83 participants."|Difference in the decrease of INR (%)|52.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.4|65.9||Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. No P-value is entered as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with a rapid decrease of the INR.|95% confidence interval|Farrington and Manning's method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of participants with a rapid decrease of the INR.|Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. There is no P-value as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with a rapid decrease of the INR.|The analysis of the percentage of participants who had a rapid decrease of the INR was via calculation of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with a rapid decrease of the INR.||65.9|39.4|
91710778|NCT00105989|183313975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91836335|NCT04766086|183553260|OTHER||Risk difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.8|3.7||||||||3.7|-3.8|
91710779|NCT00105989|183313976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91836336|NCT04766086|183553261|OTHER||GMR|0.546|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.736||||||GMR for Anti-PT Antibody: GMR for GBS6 + Tdap/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||0.736|0.405|
91836337|NCT04766086|183553261|OTHER||GMR|0.567|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|0.707||||||GMR for Anti-FHA Antibody: GMR for GBS6 + Tdap/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||0.707|0.455|
91836338|NCT04766086|183553261|OTHER||GMR|0.588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.766||||||GMR for Anti-PRN Antibody: GMR for GBS6 + Tdap/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||0.766|0.451|
91836339|NCT04766086|183553262|OTHER||GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.089||||||GMR for serotype Ia: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||2.089|0.380|
91836340|NCT04766086|183553262|OTHER||GMR|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|2.901||||||GMR for serotype Ib: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||2.901|0.455|
91836341|NCT04766086|183553262|OTHER||GMR|1.032||||||95.0|0.551|1.931||||||GMR for serotype II: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||1.931|0.551|
91836342|NCT04766086|183553262|OTHER||GMR|0.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|1.329||||||GMR for serotype III: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||1.329|0.303|
91836343|NCT04766086|183553262|OTHER||GMR|1.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|2.58||||||GMR for serotype IV: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||2.580|0.842|
91836344|NCT04766086|183553262|OTHER||GMR|0.559|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|1.349||||||GMR for serotype V: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||1.349|0.232|
91836345|NCT01674621|183553286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0066||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0066
91836346|NCT01674621|183553286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0005
91836347|NCT01674621|183553286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||<0.0001
91836348|NCT01674621|183553286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.555|-2.305|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-2.305|-5.555|
91836349|NCT01674621|183553286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.104|-1.837|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-1.837|-5.104|
91836350|NCT01674621|183553286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|-1.193|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-1.193|-4.519|
91710780|NCT00105989|183313977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91836351|NCT01674621|183553287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0547||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0547
91836352|NCT01674621|183553287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0056
91836353|NCT01674621|183553287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0018
91836354|NCT01674621|183553287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.864|-0.672|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-0.672|-2.864|
91836355|NCT01674621|183553287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.522|-0.318|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-0.318|-2.522|
91836356|NCT01674621|183553287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.368|-0.126|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-0.126|-2.368|
91836357|NCT01674621|183553288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9493||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9493
91836358|NCT01674621|183553288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9806||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9806
91836359|NCT01674621|183553288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5191||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.5191
91836360|NCT01674621|183553288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.168|1.04|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||1.040|-2.168|
91836361|NCT01674621|183553288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.115|1.15|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||1.150|-2.115|
91836362|NCT01674621|183553288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.106|2.139|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||2.139|-1.106|
91836363|NCT01674621|183553289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2549||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BSAP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.2549
91836364|NCT01674621|183553289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9115||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BSAP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9115
91836365|NCT01674621|183553289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.239||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BSAP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.2390
91836366|NCT01674621|183553289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.501|-3.79|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-3.790|-40.501|
91836367|NCT01674621|183553289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.086|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.543|6.372|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||6.372|-30.543|
91836368|NCT01674621|183553289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.614|-4.041|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-4.041|-41.614|
91836369|NCT01674621|183553290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1632||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PICP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.1632
91836370|NCT01674621|183553290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9834||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PICP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9834
91836371|NCT01674621|183553290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2179||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PICP from baseline to end-of-treatment (EOT) to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.2179
91836372|NCT01674621|183553290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.541|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.557|-6.525|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-6.525|-48.557|
91836373|NCT01674621|183553290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.835|2.43|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||2.430|-39.835|
91836374|NCT01674621|183553290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.914|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.424|-5.405|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-5.405|-48.424|
91836375|NCT01674621|183553291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of serum osteocalcin from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||1.0000
91836376|NCT01674621|183553291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of serum osteocalcin from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.1200
91836377|NCT01674621|183553291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9998||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of serum osteocalcin from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9998
91836378|NCT01674621|183553291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.926|-50.886|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-50.886|-96.926|
91836379|NCT01674621|183553291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.872|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.019|-39.725|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-39.725|-86.019|
91836380|NCT01674621|183553291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.367|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.927|-49.807|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-49.807|-96.927|
91836381|NCT01674621|183553292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8569||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PINP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.8569
91710781|NCT00105989|183313978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91836382|NCT01674621|183553292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6091||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PINP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.6091
91836383|NCT01674621|183553292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9999||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PINP from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9999
91836384|NCT01674621|183553292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.966|-63.831|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-63.831|-156.966|
91836385|NCT01674621|183553292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-96.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.94|-49.29|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-49.290|-142.940|
91836386|NCT01674621|183553292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-104.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.079|-56.758|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-56.758|-152.079|
91836387|NCT01674621|183553293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3483||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of CTXI from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.3483
91836388|NCT01674621|183553293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6839||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of CTXI from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.6839
91836389|NCT01674621|183553293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1067||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of CTXI from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.1067
91836390|NCT01674621|183553293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.748|-11.694|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-11.694|-75.748|
91836391|NCT01674621|183553293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.665|-7.257|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-7.257|-71.665|
91836392|NCT01674621|183553293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.113|-16.555|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-16.555|-82.113|
91836393|NCT01725386|183553304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895|||||||Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)|||||||0.895
91836394|NCT01216163|183553311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|17.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.08|22.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference(Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and 95 percent(%) confidence interval(CI):based on LS means from Analysis of Variance(ANOVA).Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:Ibuprofen sodium(IBU Na) versus(vs) Placebo(PBO), IBU Na vs Acetaminophen(APAP), APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||22.27|13.08|<0.001
91836395|NCT01216163|183553311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.96||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.72||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and 95% CI: based on LS means from ANOVA. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||8.72|1.21|0.010
91836396|NCT01216163|183553311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.12|17.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and 95% CI: based on LS means from ANOVA. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||17.30|8.12|<0.001
91836397|NCT01216163|183553312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.13|27.36||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||27.36|5.13|<0.001
91836398|NCT01216163|183553312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||1.60|0.81|0.468
91836399|NCT01216163|183553312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|24.17||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||24.17|4.50|<0.001
91836400|NCT01216163|183553313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|14.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.02|32.8||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||32.80|6.02|<0.001
91836401|NCT01216163|183553313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.68||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.68|0.84|0.323
91836402|NCT01216163|183553313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.06|27.59||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||27.59|5.06|<0.001
91836403|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.83|0.24|<0.001
91900850|NCT05461794|183696067|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.7|||||The odds ratio was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||3.7|0.3|
91710782|NCT00105989|183313979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91774734|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.0004||95.0|0.021|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.021|0.0004
91774735|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.0005||95.0|0.02|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.071|0.020|0.0005
91774736|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.0007||95.0|0.019|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.019|0.0007
91774737|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.0011||95.0|0.017|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.017|0.0011
91774738|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.0016||95.0|0.016|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.016|0.0016
91774739|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.0029||95.0|0.014|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.014|0.0029
91774740|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.0041||95.0|0.013|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.013|0.0041
91774741|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.0076||95.0|0.011|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.071|0.011|0.0076
91836404|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.44|-0.04|0.101
91708072|NCT00482170|183309151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.83||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.83|1.32|<0.001
91774742|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.0105||95.0|0.009|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.071|0.009|0.0105
91774743|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.0179||95.0|0.007|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.007|0.0179
91774744|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.0236||95.0|0.005|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.005|0.0236
91774745|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038||||0.037||95.0|0.002|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.073|0.002|0.0370
91774746|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.0464||95.0|0.001|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.074|0.001|0.0464
91900851|NCT05461794|183696067|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|43.3|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||43.3|-1.5|
91774747|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.0667||95.0|-0.002|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.075|-0.002|0.0667
91774748|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.08||95.0|-0.004|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.076|-0.004|0.0800
91774749|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035||||0.107||95.0|-0.007|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.077|-0.007|0.1070
91774750|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.1237||95.0|-0.009|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.078|-0.009|0.1237
91774751|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033||||0.1561||95.0|-0.013|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.079|-0.013|0.1561
91774752|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033||||0.1752||95.0|-0.015|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.080|-0.015|0.1752
91774753|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.2112||95.0|-0.018|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.081|-0.018|0.2112
91774754|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.2319||95.0|-0.02|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.082|-0.020|0.2319
91774755|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.2698||95.0|-0.023|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.084|-0.023|0.2698
91774756|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.291||95.0|-0.025|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.085|-0.025|0.2910
91774757|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.3293||95.0|-0.029|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.086|-0.029|0.3293
91774758|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.3504||95.0|-0.031|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.087|-0.031|0.3504
91774759|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.3881||95.0|-0.034|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.089|-0.034|0.3881
91774760|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.4086||95.0|-0.036|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.090|-0.036|0.4086
91900852|NCT05461794|183696067|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|28.4|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||28.4|-24.5|
91774761|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.4449||95.0|-0.04|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.091|-0.040|0.4449
91774762|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.4646||95.0|-0.042|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.092|-0.042|0.4646
91774763|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.499||95.0|-0.046|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.094|-0.046|0.4990
91774764|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.5176||95.0|-0.048|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.095|-0.048|0.5176
91774765|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.5501||95.0|-0.051|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.097|-0.051|0.5501
91774766|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.5675||95.0|-0.054|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.098|-0.054|0.5675
91774767|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.5979||95.0|-0.057|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.099|-0.057|0.5979
91774768|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.6141||95.0|-0.059|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.100|-0.059|0.6141
91774769|NCT00083889|183430432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.6424||95.0|-0.063|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.102|-0.063|0.6424
91774770|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.088|5.965|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Euro-QoL Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.965|2.088|<.0001
91774771|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.165|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.269|6.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.061|2.269|<.0001
91774772|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.243|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.358|6.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.128|2.358|<.0001
91774773|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.382|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.494|6.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.269|2.494|<.0001
91774774|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.459|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.558|6.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.361|2.558|<.0001
91774775|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.598|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.65|6.547|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.547|2.650|<.0001
91836405|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.62||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.62|0.03|0.029
91710783|NCT00105989|183313980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.004
91774776|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.676|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.689|6.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.662|2.689|<.0001
91774777|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.815|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.741|6.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.889|2.741|<.0001
91774778|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.892|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.76|7.024|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.024|2.760|<.0001
91774779|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.031|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.78|7.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.283|2.780|<.0001
91774780|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.109|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.783|7.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.435|2.783|<.0001
91774781|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.248|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.776|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.720|2.776|<.0001
91774782|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.325|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.767|7.884|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.884|2.767|<.0001
91774783|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.464|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.741|8.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.188|2.741|<.0001
91774784|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.542||||0.0001||95.0|2.723|8.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.361|2.723|0.0001
91774785|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.681||||0.0002||95.0|2.683|8.679|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.679|2.683|0.0002
91774786|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.758||||0.0003||95.0|2.657|8.859|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.859|2.657|0.0003
91774787|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.898||||0.0004||95.0|2.607|9.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.188|2.607|0.0004
91774788|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.975||||0.0006||95.0|2.576|9.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.374|2.576|0.0006
91774789|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.114||||0.0009||95.0|2.517|9.711|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.711|2.517|0.0009
91836406|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.87|1.01|<0.001
91900853|NCT05461794|183696068|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|40.8|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||40.8|0.7|
91710784|NCT00105989|183313981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.010
91836407|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|-0.11|0.178
91836408|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.63|0.77|<0.001
91836409|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.49|1.64|<0.001
91836410|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.78|0.09|0.014
91836411|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.06|1.21|<0.001
91836412|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.70|1.79|<0.001
91836413|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.74|-0.01|0.055
91836414|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.34|1.43|<0.001
91836415|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.83|1.80|<0.001
91774790|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.191||||0.0011||95.0|2.482|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.900|2.482|0.0011
91774791|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.331||||0.0015||95.0|2.417|10.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.244|2.417|0.0015
91774792|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.408||||0.0018||95.0|2.379|10.436|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.436|2.379|0.0018
91774793|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.547||||0.0025||95.0|2.309|10.785|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.785|2.309|0.0025
91774794|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.624||||0.0029||95.0|2.269|10.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.980|2.269|0.0029
91774795|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.764||||0.0037||95.0|2.195|11.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||11.332|2.195|0.0037
91774796|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.841||||0.0042||95.0|2.153|11.529|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||11.529|2.153|0.0042
91774797|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.98||||0.0053||95.0|2.076|11.884|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||11.884|2.076|0.0053
91774798|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.057||||0.0059||95.0|2.032|12.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||12.083|2.032|0.0059
91774799|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.197||||0.0072||95.0|1.953|12.441|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||12.441|1.953|0.0072
91774800|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.274||||0.0079||95.0|1.908|12.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||12.640|1.908|0.0079
91774801|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.413||||0.0093||95.0|1.826|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.000|1.826|0.0093
91774802|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.491||||0.0101||95.0|1.78|13.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.201|1.780|0.0101
91774803|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.63||||0.0117||95.0|1.697|13.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.562|1.697|0.0117
91774804|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.707||||0.0126||95.0|1.65|13.764|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.764|1.650|0.0126
91774805|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.846||||0.0144||95.0|1.565|14.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.127|1.565|0.0144
91774806|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.924||||0.0153||95.0|1.518|14.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.329|1.518|0.0153
91774807|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.063||||0.0172||95.0|1.432|14.693|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.693|1.432|0.0172
91774808|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.14||||0.0182||95.0|1.384|14.896|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.896|1.384|0.0182
91774809|NCT00083889|183430433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.279||||0.0201||95.0|1.297|15.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||15.261|1.297|0.0201
91774810|NCT00168844|183430454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
91774811|NCT00168844|183430454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
91774812|NCT00168844|183430455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.996||0.0011||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||0.0011
91774813|NCT00168844|183430455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
91774814|NCT00168844|183430456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
91836416|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.51||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.93||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.93|0.08|0.019
91836417|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.32|1.29|<0.001
91836418|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.66|1.53|<0.001
91836419|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.59||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.05|0.13|0.013
91774815|NCT00168844|183430456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.||||||<0.0001
91774816|NCT00168844|183430457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.782||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.89|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||0.890|0.687|0.0002
91774817|NCT00168844|183430457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.725|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|0.828|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||0.828|0.635|<0.0001
91774818|NCT00168844|183430501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91774819|NCT00168844|183430501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91774820|NCT00168844|183430502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91774821|NCT00168844|183430502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91900854|NCT05461794|183696068|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.9|||||The odds ratio was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||2.9|0.1|
91774822|NCT00168844|183430503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91774823|NCT00168844|183430503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91774824|NCT00168844|183430504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91774825|NCT00168844|183430504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91774826|NCT00168844|183430505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91774827|NCT00168844|183430505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91774828|NCT00168844|183430506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91774829|NCT00168844|183430506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91774830|NCT03309020|183430556|OTHER|||||||0.802||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||Null hypothesis is no difference in grade between survivor statuses one month after cataract surgery||||0.802
91774831|NCT03309020|183430557|OTHER|||||||0.713||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||Null hypothesis is no difference in grade between survivor statuses three months after cataract surgery||||.713
91774832|NCT03309020|183430558|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.69|||||Odds of eye with at least 20/40 best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 12 months after cataract surgery for controls vs. EVD survivors|Null hypothesis is no difference in the proportion of participants with at least 20/40 best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between survivor statuses||0.69|0.01|
91774833|NCT03309020|183430559|OTHER|||||||0.832||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||||||.832
91774834|NCT03309020|183430560|OTHER|||||||0.995||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||||||.995
91774835|NCT03309020|183430561|OTHER|||||||0.441||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||||||0.441
91774836|NCT03309020|183430562|OTHER|||||||0.892||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment, survivor status (EVD survivor/control) included as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||.892
91774837|NCT03309020|183430563|OTHER|||||||0.913||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment, survivor status (EVD survivor/control) included as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||.913
91774838|NCT03309020|183430564|OTHER|||||||0.106||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Gender (male/female), survivor status (EVD survivor/control) as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||.106
91774839|NCT03309020|183430565|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Gender (male/female), survivor status (EVD survivor/control) as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||0.09
91774840|NCT03062358|183430604|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99||Log-rank test|One-sided p-value|Stratified by macrovascular invasion, α-Fetoprotein and region with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||Stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|0.99|0.63|0.0180
91774841|NCT03062358|183430605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.92||Log-rank test|One-sided p-value|Stratified by macrovascular invasion, α-Fetoprotein and region with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||Stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|0.92|0.60|0.0032
91774842|NCT03062358|183430606|OTHER||Percent Difference|11.4||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|16.0|||One-sided p-value for testing|H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Difference in % vs Placebo|Difference in % vs Placebo|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. \>= 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|16.0|6.7|0.00004
91774843|NCT03062358|183430608|OTHER||Percent Difference|5.4||||0.13281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|14.8|||One-sided p-value for testing|H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Difference in % vs Placebo|Difference in % vs Placebo|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|14.8|-4.1|0.13281
91774844|NCT03062358|183430609|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9||Log-rank test|One-sided p-value|Stratified by macrovascular invasion, α-Fetoprotein and region with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||Stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|0.90|0.58|0.0019
91774845|NCT05893862|183430612|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 1 Hr|LS Mean Difference|9.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.4|11.04|||t-test, 1 sided|||||11.04|7.40|<0.0001
91774846|NCT05893862|183430612|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 2 Hr|LS Mean Difference|8.44||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.31|10.56|||t-test, 1 sided|||||10.56|6.31|0.0141
91774847|NCT05893862|183430612|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 3 Hr|LS Mean Difference|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.85|12.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||||12.74|8.85|<0.0001
91774848|NCT05893862|183430612|OTHER|LS Mean Difference Week 4 Hr|LS Mean Difference|6.43||||0.1045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.96|8.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||||8.91|3.96|0.1045
91774849|NCT05893862|183430612|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 8 Hr|LS Mean Difference|6.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.66|8.38||||||||8.38|4.66|
91774850|NCT05893862|183430612|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 11 Hr|LS Mean Difference|7.33||||||90.0|4.74|9.93||||||||9.93|4.74|
91774851|NCT05893862|183430612|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 14 Hr|LS Mean Difference|6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.95|8.88||||||||8.88|3.95|
91774852|NCT05893862|183430612|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 24 Hr|LS Mean Difference|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|4.76||||||||4.76|0.81|
91774853|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 0.5 Hr|LS Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|2.14||||||||2.14|-1.11|
91774854|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 1 Hr|LS Mean Difference|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|1.98||||||||1.98|-1.26|
91774855|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 2 Hr|LS Mean Difference|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|3.66||||||||3.66|-1.04|
91774856|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 3 hr|LS Mean Difference|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|6.64||||||||6.64|1.90|
91646114|NCT01236053|183184665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.7867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||5.85|0.26|0.7867
91646115|NCT01236053|183184665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|8.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||8.50|1.47|0.0049
91646116|NCT01236053|183184665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|7.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||7.08|1.17|0.0218
91836420|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.07|0.95|<0.001
91836421|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.56|1.39|<0.001
91836422|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.10|0.15|0.010
91836423|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.93||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.93|0.77|<0.001
91836424|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.14|0.95|<0.001
91836425|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.91||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.91|-0.06|0.088
91836426|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.71||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.71|0.52|<0.001
91836427|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.07|0.85|<0.001
91836428|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.47||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.97|-0.02|0.061
91836429|NCT01216163|183553314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|0.38|0.002
91896062|NCT01037244|183687522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|6.73|||ANCOVA|Baseline Domain Score and pooled sites as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||6.73|3.36|<0.0001
91900855|NCT05461794|183696068|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|29.5|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||29.5|-2.3|
91836430|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.49|0.13|<0.001
91836431|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.21||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.21|-0.08|0.387
91836432|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.42|0.07|0.007
91836433|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.15|0.64|<0.001
91774857|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 4 Hr|LS Mean Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.35|9.64||||||||9.64|4.35|
91836434|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|0.04|0.019
91836435|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.9||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.90|0.38|<0.001
91836436|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|1.01|<0.001
91836437|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.57||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.57|0.09|0.006
91836438|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.26|0.68|<0.001
91836439|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.74|1.12|<0.001
91836440|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.32||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.58|0.07|0.014
91836441|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.42|0.80|<0.001
91836442|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.78|1.09|<0.001
91836443|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|0.03|0.030
91836444|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.46|0.78|<0.001
91836445|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.66|0.91|<0.001
91836446|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.73|0.12|0.007
91900856|NCT05461794|183696068|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|13.8|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||13.8|-34.7|
91774858|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 6 Hr|LS Mean Difference|7.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.35|9.64||||||||9.64|4.35|
91774859|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 8 Hr|LS Mean Difference|9.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.71|11.8||||||||11.80|6.71|
91646117|NCT01236053|183184665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.92|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.92|0.27|0.8490
91774860|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 12 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.27|7.35||||||||7.35|2.27|
91774861|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 14 Hr|LS Mean Difference|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|6.23||||||||6.23|0.91|
91774862|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 24 Hr|LS Mean Difference|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.18|6.85||||||||6.85|3.18|
91774863|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 1 Hr|LS Mean Difference|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|6.34||||||||6.34|1.56|
91774864|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 2 Hr|LS Mean Difference|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|6.35||||||||6.35|1.49|
91836447|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.24|0.49|<0.001
91836448|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.65||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.65|0.89|<0.001
91836449|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.76|0.15|0.004
91774865|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 3 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.33|7.03||||||||7.03|2.33|
91774866|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 4 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.45|7.12||||||||7.12|2.45|
91774867|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 8 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|7.71||||||||7.71|1.93|
91774868|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 11 Hr|LS Mean Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|8.09||||||||8.09|2.51|
91836450|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.19|0.44|<0.001
91836451|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.31|0.54|<0.001
91836452|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|-0.04|0.084
91774869|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 14 Hr|LS Mean Difference|5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.97|8.74||||||||8.74|2.97|
91774870|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 16 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.79|6.45||||||||6.45|1.79|
91774871|NCT05893862|183430615|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 24 Hr|LS Mean Difference|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|3.26||||||||3.26|-1.69|
91774872|NCT00880698|183430627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|14.8||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference and 95% confidence interval (RotaTeq minus Placebo) in percentage of HIV-uninfected participants experiencing a new grade \>=3 adverse event|||14.8|-20.6|0.62
91774873|NCT00880698|183430627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|23.4||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference and 95% confidence interval (RotaTeq minus Placebo) in percentage of HIV-infected participants experiencing a new grade \>=3 adverse event|||23.4|-21.0|1.00
91774874|NCT00880698|183430628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|46.1||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G1||46.1|11.5|<0.001
91774875|NCT00880698|183430628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|68.6||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G1||68.6|27.1|<0.001
91774876|NCT00880698|183430628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|24.8||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G2 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G2||24.8|-11.3|0.20
91774877|NCT00880698|183430628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|36.7||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G2 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G2||36.7|-10.6|0.19
91774878|NCT00880698|183430628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|36.4||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G3 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G3||36.4|0.9|<0.001
91774879|NCT00880698|183430628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|50.6||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G3 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G3||50.6|4.7|<0.001
91774880|NCT00880698|183430628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|42.9||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G4 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G4||42.9|8.0|<0.001
91774881|NCT00880698|183430628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|75.9||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G4 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G4||75.9|37.2|<0.001
91774882|NCT00880698|183430628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|34.2||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA P1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA P1||34.2|-1.7|0.024
91774883|NCT00880698|183430628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|35.5||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA P1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA P1||35.5|-12.0|0.34
91774884|NCT00880698|183430628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.3|66.3||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for IgA in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|IgA||66.3|34.3|<0.001
91774885|NCT00880698|183430628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|81.7||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for IgA in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|IgA||81.7|42.7|<0.001
91774886|NCT05316597|183430732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.914
91774887|NCT05316597|183430733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||.554
91774888|NCT05316597|183430734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.905
91774889|NCT05316597|183430735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.076
91774890|NCT05316597|183430735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||Exploratory ANOVA results comparing full and reduced models to test the effect of terpene exposure on pattern of outcome over time.||||0.02
91774891|NCT05316597|183430736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.210
91774892|NCT05316597|183430736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||Exploratory ANOVA results comparing full and reduced models to test the effect of terpene exposure on pattern of outcome over time.||||0.57
91774893|NCT05316597|183430737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.921
91774894|NCT05316597|183430737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.82
91774895|NCT05316597|183430738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.265
91774896|NCT05316597|183430738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.63
91774897|NCT05316597|183430739|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.724
91774898|NCT05316597|183430740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.716
91774899|NCT05316597|183430741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.852
91774900|NCT05316597|183430742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.166
91774901|NCT05316597|183430743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.046
91774902|NCT02766023|183430766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.18|||Fisher Exact|||||0.18|-0.10|0.467
91774903|NCT02766023|183430767|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.95|||Chi-squared|||||0.95|0.30|0.031
91774904|NCT02766023|183430768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15|||Chi-squared|||Analysis is for self-reported compliance||0.15|-0.08|0.643
91774905|NCT02766023|183430768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||Chi-squared|||Analysis is for compliance assessed by staining.||0.17|-0.07|0.446
91774906|NCT02766023|183430777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.02|218.57|||Chi-squared|||||218.57|29.02|<0.001
91774907|NCT02766023|183430785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.07|188.66|||Chi-squared|||||188.66|28.07|<0.001
91774908|NCT02766023|183430786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.94|||Chi-squared|||||0.94|0.31|0.030
91774909|NCT00286468|183430788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.19||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for glycosylated hemoglobin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at week 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 94% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per-protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level, and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.19|-0.59|<0.001
91774910|NCT00286468|183430788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.33||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at week 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 94% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per-protocol criteria.||-0.33|-0.73|<0.001
91774911|NCT00286468|183430789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.13||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.13|-0.33|<0.001
91774912|NCT00286468|183430789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.18||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.18|-0.38|<0.001
91774913|NCT00286468|183430790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.26||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.26|-0.53|<0.001
91774914|NCT00286468|183430790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.61|<0.001
91774915|NCT00286468|183430791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
91774916|NCT00286468|183430791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.36||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.36|-0.68|<0.001
91774917|NCT00286468|183430792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.19||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.19|-0.54|<0.001
91774918|NCT00286468|183430792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.68|<0.001
91774919|NCT00286468|183430793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
91774920|NCT00286468|183430793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.71|<0.001
91774921|NCT00286468|183430794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-3.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-3.4|-20.8|0.006
91774922|NCT00286468|183430794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-10.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.6|-28.0|<0.001
91774923|NCT00286468|183430795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-7.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-7.2|-22.5|<0.001
91774924|NCT00286468|183430795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-12.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.4|-27.7|<0.001
91774925|NCT00286468|183430796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-2.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.6|-19.3|0.010
91774926|NCT00286468|183430796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-9.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.1|-25.8|<0.001
91774927|NCT00286468|183430797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-8.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.2|-25.2|<0.001
91774928|NCT00286468|183430797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-6.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.9|-23.9|<0.001
91774929|NCT00286468|183430798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-1.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-1.0|-19.2|0.030
91774930|NCT00286468|183430798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-2.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.5|-20.8|0.012
91774931|NCT00286468|183430799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|7.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.8|-11.6|0.701
91774932|NCT00286468|183430799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|3.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.7|-15.7|0.228
91774933|NCT00286468|183430800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|1.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.6|-19.6|0.097
91774934|NCT00286468|183430800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-2.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.7|-23.9|0.014
91774935|NCT00286468|183430801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-18.3|0.241
91900857|NCT05461794|183696069|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.96|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors PD-L1 tumor area positivity score (\>=10% versus \< 10%)|||0.96|0.29|
91836453|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.03||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.03|0.27|0.001
91836454|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.32|0.54|<0.001
91836455|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|0.06|0.020
91836456|NCT01216163|183553315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.94||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.94|0.17|0.005
91836457|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.28|0.40|<0.001
91836458|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.63|-0.10|0.148
91836459|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.57||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.02|0.13|0.011
91836460|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.99||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.99|1.68|<0.001
91836461|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.03||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.03|-0.04|0.071
91836462|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.50|1.19|<0.001
91836463|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|4.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.06|2.67|<0.001
91836464|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.77||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.33|0.20|0.008
91836465|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.30|1.91|<0.001
91836466|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.43|2.92|<0.001
91836467|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.69||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.30|0.07|0.028
91900858|NCT05461794|183696069|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.82|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors PD-L1 tumor area positivity score (\>=10% versus \< 10%)|||4.82|0.79|
91710785|NCT00105989|183313982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.003
91836468|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.74|2.24|<0.001
91836469|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.59|2.90|<0.001
91836470|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.51|0.13|0.020
91836471|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|3.77||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.77|2.09|<0.001
91708073|NCT00482170|183309151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.87||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.87|1.78|<0.001
91708074|NCT00482170|183309151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.19||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.19|1.42|<0.001
91708075|NCT00482170|183309151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.39|1.52|<0.001
91836472|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|4.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.30|2.46|<0.001
91708076|NCT00482170|183309152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.11|0.99|0.057
91708077|NCT00482170|183309152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.96||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.96|0.90|0.151
91708078|NCT00482170|183309152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.44||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.44|1.06|0.024
91708079|NCT00482170|183309152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.39|1.06|0.025
91900859|NCT05461794|183696070|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics|||2.7|0.1|
91708080|NCT00482170|183309153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.49||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.49|0.24|<0.001
91708081|NCT00482170|183309153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.37||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.37|0.18|<0.001
91708082|NCT00482170|183309153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.45||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.45|0.21|<0.001
91836473|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.01||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.76|0.26|0.009
91836474|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.30|1.46|<0.001
91836475|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.19||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.19|2.30|<0.001
91774936|NCT00286468|183430801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|0.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.9|-22.0|0.072
91774937|NCT00286468|183430802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.775||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.306||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.306|0.460|0.338
91774938|NCT00286468|183430802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.521||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.887||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.887|0.306|0.016
91774939|NCT00286468|183430803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.374||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.72||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.720|0.194|0.003
91774940|NCT00286468|183430803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.372||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.718||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.718|0.193|0.003
91774941|NCT00286468|183430804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.7|-6.1|0.923
91774942|NCT00286468|183430804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|10.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||10.1|-2.7|0.259
91774943|NCT00286468|183430805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.9|-6.6|0.916
91774944|NCT00286468|183430805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||9.5|-3.0|0.305
91774945|NCT00286468|183430806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.8|-6.1|0.953
91774946|NCT00286468|183430806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.8|-6.1|0.957
91774947|NCT00286468|183430807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.6|-5.9|0.908
91836476|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.08||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.85|0.31|0.006
91900860|NCT03019796|183696086|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.040
91900861|NCT03019796|183696087|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.054
91708083|NCT00482170|183309153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.47||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.47|0.23|<0.001
91774948|NCT00286468|183430807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.0|-5.6|0.826
91774949|NCT00286468|183430808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.8|-5.9|0.894
91774950|NCT00286468|183430808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||8.9|-3.8|0.432
91774951|NCT00286468|183430809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.3|-8.1|0.548
91774952|NCT00286468|183430809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.2|-6.3|0.986
91774953|NCT00286468|183430810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|4.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.30|-1.78|0.415
91774954|NCT00286468|183430810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|4.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.55|-1.54|0.332
91774955|NCT00286468|183430811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.85||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.85|-2.47|0.890
91774956|NCT00286468|183430811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.86||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.86|-1.48|0.380
91836477|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.10|1.22|<0.001
91774957|NCT00286468|183430812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|4.85||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.85|-2.14|0.448
91774958|NCT00286468|183430812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.52||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.52|-2.48|0.568
91774959|NCT00286468|183430813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|6.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.22|-0.32|0.077
91836478|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.43|1.51|<0.001
91900862|NCT03019796|183696088|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.040
91900863|NCT03019796|183696089|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.321
91900864|NCT03019796|183696090|OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.401
91900865|NCT03019796|183696091|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.021
91836479|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.49|-0.09|0.080
91836480|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.73|0.81|<0.001
91836481|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.37|1.41|<0.001
91836482|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.85||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.65||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.65|0.05|0.037
91836483|NCT01216163|183553316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.52||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.52|0.57|0.002
91836484|NCT01216163|183553317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|2.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.88|1.88|<0.001
91836485|NCT01216163|183553317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.97|0.15|0.007
91836486|NCT01216163|183553317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.32|1.32|<0.001
91836487|NCT01216163|183553317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|4.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.49|2.85|<0.001
91836488|NCT01216163|183553317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.98||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.66|0.31|0.004
91836489|NCT01216163|183553317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.51|1.87|<0.001
91836490|NCT01216163|183553317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.96|8.64||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||8.64|4.96|<0.001
91836491|NCT01216163|183553317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.09||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.59|0.59|0.007
91836492|NCT01216163|183553317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|6.54||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||6.54|2.87|<0.001
91708084|NCT00482170|183309154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.54||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.54|0.27|<0.001
91710786|NCT00105989|183313983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91836493|NCT01216163|183553318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.57||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.57|3.05|<0.001
91708085|NCT00482170|183309154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.46|0.21|<0.001
91710787|NCT00105989|183313984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.015
91774960|NCT00286468|183430813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|4.99||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.99|-1.55|0.303
91774961|NCT00286468|183430814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|4.57||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.57|-2.08|0.461
91774962|NCT00286468|183430814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.32||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.32|-2.34|0.559
91774963|NCT00286468|183430815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.62||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.62|-1.54|0.430
91774964|NCT00286468|183430815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|4.61||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.61|-0.56|0.124
91774965|NCT00286468|183430816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.013||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.013|-0.099|0.011
91774966|NCT00286468|183430816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.009|-0.078|0.116
91774967|NCT00286468|183430817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|-0.006||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.006|-0.081|0.024
91774968|NCT00286468|183430817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.001|-0.074|0.059
91774969|NCT00286468|183430818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.011||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.011|-0.067|0.159
91774970|NCT00286468|183430818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.001|-0.077|0.055
91774971|NCT00286468|183430819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.002||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.002|-0.080|0.062
91774972|NCT00286468|183430819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.002||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.002|-0.084|0.041
91900866|NCT01389765|183696137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed was a ratio of geometric LS means between the 2 treatment states (fed/fasted), and the 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||||1.05|0.97|
91774973|NCT00286468|183430820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.01||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.010|-0.069|0.148
91774974|NCT00286468|183430820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.009|-0.071|0.135
91774975|NCT00286468|183430821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.012|-0.065|0.177
91774976|NCT00286468|183430821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.012|-0.065|0.177
91774977|NCT00286468|183430822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.486||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.486|-0.161|0.324
91774978|NCT00286468|183430822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.500|-0.147|0.284
91774979|NCT00286468|183430823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.54||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.540|-0.004|0.053
91774980|NCT00286468|183430823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.349||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.621||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.621|0.077|0.012
91774981|NCT00286468|183430824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.458||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.458|-0.094|0.196
91774982|NCT00286468|183430824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.502||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.502|-0.051|0.110
91774983|NCT00286468|183430825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.517||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.517|-0.060|0.121
91774984|NCT00286468|183430825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.448||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.448|-0.130|0.280
91774985|NCT00286468|183430826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.320|-0.290|0.924
91774986|NCT00286468|183430826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.444||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.444|-0.168|0.376
91774987|NCT00286468|183430827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.393||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.393|-0.242|0.642
91774988|NCT00286468|183430827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.381||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.381|-0.255|0.698
91774989|NCT00286468|183430828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|3.306||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.306|0.503|0.596
91774990|NCT00286468|183430828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|4.885||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.885|0.787|0.148
91774991|NCT00286468|183430829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.925||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|3.666||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.666|1.011|0.046
91774992|NCT00286468|183430829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.505||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.313|4.78||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.780|1.313|0.005
91774993|NCT00286468|183430830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.955||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|3.519||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.519|1.086|0.025
91774994|NCT00286468|183430830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.707|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.012|6.831||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.831|2.012|<0.001
91774995|NCT00286468|183430831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.994|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|5.213||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.213|1.720|<0.001
91774996|NCT00286468|183430831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.401|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|5.933||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.933|1.950|<0.001
91774997|NCT00286468|183430832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.776||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.627||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.627|0.870|0.115
91774998|NCT00286468|183430832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.703|6.851||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.851|1.703|<0.001
91774999|NCT00286468|183430833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.991||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|2.689||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||2.689|0.365|0.986
91775000|NCT00286468|183430833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|5.203||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.203|0.808|0.131
91775001|NCT00286468|183430834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||95.0||||no multiplicity adjustments|Mantel Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.626
91775002|NCT00286468|183430834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||||||no multiplicity adjustments|Mantel Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.178
91775003|NCT00286468|183430835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.16||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.16|0.32|<0.001
91775004|NCT00286468|183430835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.02||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.02|0.17|0.006
91775005|NCT00286468|183430836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.18||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.18|0.20|0.006
91775006|NCT00286468|183430836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.01||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.01|0.02|0.040
91775007|NCT00286468|183430837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.73||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.73|0.47|<0.001
91775008|NCT00286468|183430837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.55|0.28|0.005
91775009|NCT00286468|183430838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.46|0.14|0.018
91775010|NCT00286468|183430838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.54||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.54|0.21|0.010
91775011|NCT00072462|183430863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||1.14|0.67|0.33
91775012|NCT00072462|183430863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||1.15|0.66|0.33
91775013|NCT00072462|183430864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||1.01|0.52|0.06
91775014|NCT00072462|183430864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||1.05|0.52|0.09
91775015|NCT00072462|183430865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.84|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||2.84|0.75|0.13
91775016|NCT00072462|183430865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.84|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||2.84|0.75|0.26
91775017|NCT00072462|183430866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.11|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||5.11|0.21|0.97
91775018|NCT00072462|183430866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.36|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||5.36|0.22|0.93
91775019|NCT00072462|183430867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||1.32|0.65|0.67
91775020|NCT00072462|183430867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.22|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||1.22|0.59|0.38
91775021|NCT02927301|183430884|SUPERIORITY||Other/Percentage|20.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|14.9||||binomial test||||||14.900|<.0001
91775022|NCT02927301|183430885|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.41||||0.0358|ONE_SIDED|80.0|5.279||||Fisher Exact||||||5.279|0.0358
91775023|NCT02927301|183430886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.363||||0.0395|ONE_SIDED|80.0|6.509||||Chi-squared||||||6.509|0.0395
91775024|NCT04742556|183430892|OTHER||Probability of true DLT rate in [0.33-1]|0.0051||||||||||||||Probability of true DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
91775025|NCT04742556|183430892|OTHER||Probability of true DLT rate in [0.33-1]|0.03105||||||||||||||Probability of true DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
91775026|NCT04742556|183430892|OTHER||Probability of true DLT rate in [0.33-1]|0.27405||||||||||||||Probability of true DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
91775027|NCT03562195|183430918|SUPERIORITY||Posterior probablity|0.9999|||||||||||Bayesian Dynamic Borrowing|A BDB approach was used in the estimation of primary endpoint in the Chinese participants of this study, with information borrowed from MEA115588.|"Pr (rate ratio \<1 \| data)\>0.999. The 'positive result' is defined as if the posterior probability that the rate ratio is less than 1 is at least 0.95"|||||
91775028|NCT03562195|183430918|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is defined as the rate ratio of events between Mepolizumab 100mg SC versus placebo is less than 1.|Rate Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5|||Negative binomial model|||||0.50|0.24|<0.001
91775029|NCT02218372|183430937|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|23.9||||||Adjusted difference of CCR at EOT + 2 Days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method. Newcombe 95% confidence intervals (CIs) presented for adjusted treatment difference.||23.9|-7.4|
91900867|NCT01389765|183696138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed was a ratio of geometric LS means between the 2 treatments states (fed/fasted), and the 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||||1.01|0.92|
91836494|NCT01216163|183553318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.76||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.38|0.14|0.016
91836495|NCT01216163|183553318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|3.8||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.80|2.29|<0.001
91836496|NCT01216163|183553318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|7.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.15|4.66|<0.001
91836497|NCT01216163|183553318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.37|0.33|0.010
91836498|NCT01216163|183553318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|5.8||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.80|3.31|<0.001
91836499|NCT01216163|183553318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|13.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||13.70|8.05|<0.001
91836500|NCT01216163|183553318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.87||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.18|0.57|0.015
91836501|NCT01216163|183553318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|10.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||10.83|5.18|<0.001
91836502|NCT01216163|183553319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.96|7.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.43|4.96|<0.001
91836503|NCT01216163|183553319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.33|0.32|0.010
91896063|NCT01037244|183687522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.49|8.86|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled sites as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||8.86|5.49|<0.0001
91775030|NCT02218372|183430938|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|34.2||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOT +9 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||34.2|1.8|
91836504|NCT01216163|183553319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|6.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||6.10|3.63|<0.001
91836505|NCT01216163|183553319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|11.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||11.61|7.54|<0.001
91775031|NCT02218372|183430939|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|37.7||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOT +9 days. Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||37.7|4.5|
91775032|NCT02218372|183430940|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|-16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-1.8||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD recurrence at EOT +9 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||-1.8|-34.2|
91836506|NCT01216163|183553319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|4.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.00|0.67|0.006
91836507|NCT01216163|183553319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|9.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||9.28|5.21|<0.001
91775033|NCT02218372|183430941|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|35.6||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOT +16 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.6|1.9|
91836508|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|21.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.99|29.84||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||29.84|12.99|<0.001
91836509|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.58||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|13.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.70|-10.54|0.799
91836510|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|20.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|28.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||28.72|11.45|0.001
91836511|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|53.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.92|63.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.53|42.92|<0.001
91775034|NCT02218372|183430942|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|35.9||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOT +16 days. Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.9|2.3|
91775035|NCT02218372|183430943|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-1.9||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD Recurrence at EOT +16 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||-1.9|-35.6|
91836512|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.98||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|11.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.70|-17.67|0.695
91836513|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|57.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.53|67.6||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||67.60|46.53|<0.001
91836514|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|70.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.28|80.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||80.88|60.28|<0.001
91836515|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.99||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|21.84||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.84|-5.85|0.261
91900868|NCT01389765|183696139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Analyzed were the median of paired differences between the 2 treatment states (fed versus fasted) and the 90% confidence interval.||||1.50|0.50|0.0031
91775036|NCT02218372|183430944|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|34.5||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOT +23 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||34.5|-0.5|
91775037|NCT02218372|183430945|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|35.3||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOT +23 days. Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.3|1.5|
91775038|NCT02218372|183430946|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|0.5||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD Recurrence at EOT +23 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||0.5|-34.5|
91775039|NCT02218372|183430947|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|34.5||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOS (EOT +30 days). Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||34.5|-0.5|
91710788|NCT00105989|183313985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||The mean change to endpoint of -0.00 indicates that on average, endpoint score decreased from baseline score by less than 0.005 units.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.021
91775040|NCT02218372|183430948|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|35.3||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOS (EOT +30 days). Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.3|1.5|
91775041|NCT02218372|183430949|OTHER|Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.|adjusted treatment difference|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|0.5||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD recurrence at EOS/EOT +30 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||0.5|-34.5|
91775042|NCT02218372|183430950|OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||Log Rank|||Time to resolution of diarrhea.||||0.579
91775043|NCT02218372|183430951|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Log Rank|||Time to recurrence of CDAD.||||0.023
91775044|NCT02923726|183430960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.57|0.92|||Log Rank||Shock only was the reference group. Confidence interval adjusted for interim analyses.|||0.92|0.57|0.005
91775045|NCT02923726|183430961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Log Rank||Shock Only was the reference group.|||1.07|0.78|0.284
91775046|NCT02923726|183430962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.95|||Log Rank||Shock Only arm is reference group.|||0.95|0.56|0.020
91775047|NCT02923726|183430963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97|||Log Rank||Shock Only is the reference group.|||0.97|0.44|0.033
91775048|NCT02923726|183430964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.41|||Log Rank||Shock Only is the reference group.|||1.41|0.94|0.184
91646118|NCT01236053|183184665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.46|0.22|0.6263
91775049|NCT02753283|183430965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.007
91775050|NCT02753283|183430965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.018
91775051|NCT02753283|183430966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.014
91775052|NCT02753283|183430966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.002
91775053|NCT02753283|183430967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.060
91775054|NCT02753283|183430967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.055
91775055|NCT02753283|183430968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.112
91775056|NCT02753283|183430968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.070
91775057|NCT02753283|183430969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.904|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.904
91775058|NCT02753283|183430969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.616
91775059|NCT02753283|183430970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||<.001
91775060|NCT02753283|183430970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.005
91775061|NCT02753283|183430971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.001
91646119|NCT01236053|183184665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.4122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.97|0.19|0.4122
91775062|NCT02753283|183430971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.038
91775063|NCT02795117|183430987|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|105.4||No p-value was calculated for bioequivalence, only a T/R ratio and 90% confidence interval|ANOVA|||||105.4|91.0|
91775064|NCT02795117|183430988|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence difference|-6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.31|1.85|||Wald's method|||||1.85|-18.31|
91775065|NCT02546609|183430996|OTHER|||||||0.0572|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model: with treatment group as the factor. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0572
91775066|NCT02546609|183430996|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model: with treatment group as the factor. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3770
91775067|NCT02546609|183430997|OTHER|||||||0.3811|||||||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3811
91646120|NCT01236053|183184665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.66|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.66|0.16|0.2642
91775068|NCT02546609|183430997|OTHER|||||||0.8479|||||||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.8479
91836516|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|62.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.78|73.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.99|51.78|<0.001
91836517|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.77|78.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.71|53.77|<0.001
91836518|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.38||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|17.64||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.64|-8.89|0.522
91836519|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.06|74.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.80|49.06|<0.001
91775069|NCT02546609|183430998|OTHER|||||||0.7742|||||||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.7742
91836520|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.61|79.09||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.09|53.61|<0.001
91836521|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.46||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|18.44||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.44|-7.53|0.415
91836522|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|60.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.65|74.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.19|47.65|<0.001
91836523|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|65.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.18|78.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.46|52.18|<0.001
91836524|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.21||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|16.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.81|-8.39|0.519
91836525|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
91836526|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
91646121|NCT01236053|183184666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.43|0.31|0.7891
91775070|NCT02546609|183430998|OTHER|||||||0.6666|||||||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.6666
91775071|NCT02546609|183430999|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0020
91775072|NCT02546609|183430999|OTHER|||||||0.0164|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0164
91836527|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
91775073|NCT02546609|183431000|OTHER|||||||0.4099|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.4099
91775074|NCT02546609|183431000|OTHER|||||||0.1455|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.1455
91775075|NCT02546609|183431001|OTHER|||||||0.2559|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.2559
91775076|NCT02546609|183431001|OTHER|||||||0.9776|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.9776
91775077|NCT02546609|183431002|OTHER|||||||0.2265|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.2265
91775078|NCT02546609|183431002|OTHER|||||||0.8366|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.8366
91775079|NCT02546609|183431003|OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3470
91775080|NCT02546609|183431003|OTHER|||||||0.6221|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.6221
91775081|NCT02546609|183431004|OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3470
91775082|NCT02546609|183431004|OTHER|||||||0.6221|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.6221
91775083|NCT02546609|183431005|OTHER|||||||0.0129|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0129
91775084|NCT02546609|183431005|OTHER|||||||0.4316|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.4316
91836528|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
91775085|NCT02546609|183431006|OTHER|MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||||0.1946|||||||MMRM|||||||0.1946
91775086|NCT02546609|183431006|OTHER|||||||0.4697|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.4697
91775087|NCT02546609|183431007|OTHER|||||||0.3474|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3474
91775088|NCT02546609|183431007|OTHER|||||||0.8832|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.8832
91775089|NCT02212015|183431008|OTHER||Rate|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Question is, if 6 months progression free survival rate (PFS-R) denoted by pPFS is higher than 35%. Test hypothesis is thus formulated as: H0: pPFS ≤0.35 versus H1: pPFS ≥0.35. This hypothesis is tested at the one-side significance level of 0.05. A 6 months PFS-R of 0.55 of cases or more is considered as clinically relevant success rate. The design is chosen such that rates of 0.55 or higher can be detected with a power of at least 0.8.||||
91775090|NCT02212015|183431009|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775091|NCT02212015|183431010|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775092|NCT02212015|183431011|OTHER||Median|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"The analysis of secondary endpoints is of descriptive nature and generally consists of summary statistics and interval estimation.~Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time of start of treatment until death (event status=1) or last contact (censoring, event status=0). OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Median survival time is provided alonsgside two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), if possible."||||
91775093|NCT02212015|183431012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||Log Rank|||"The analysis of secondary endpoints is of descriptive nature and generally consists of summary statistics and interval estimation.~Overall survival (OS) for subgroup 1 was defined as the time of start of treatment until death (event status=1) or last contact (censoring, event status=0). OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Median survival time is provided alonsgside two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), if possible."||||0.752
91836529|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
91775094|NCT02212015|183431013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||Log Rank|||"The analysis of secondary endpoints is of descriptive nature and generally consists of summary statistics and interval estimation.~Overall survival (OS) for subgroup 2 was defined as the time of start of treatment until death (event status=1) or last contact (censoring, event status=0). OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Median survival time is provided alonsgside two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), if possible."||||0.621
91775095|NCT02212015|183431014|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Frequency of each category is given|||
91775096|NCT02212015|183431015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Chi squared test, exact|||Response Rate (RR) is given as Best Overall Response (BOR) and given be absolute and relative frequencies. Categories of BOR are CR, PR, SD, PD and NE)|Response Rate (RR) is given as Best Overall Response (BOR) and given be absolute and relative frequencies applied to the total of 26 enrolled subjects.. Categories of BOR are CR, PR, SD, PD and NE).|||0.349
91775097|NCT02212015|183431016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Chi squared test, exact|||||||0.385
91775098|NCT00659061|183431044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||at baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91775099|NCT00659061|183431044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||at endline|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91775100|NCT00659061|183431046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0||95.0|||||ANOVA|adjusted for baseline, child age, sex, number of sprinkles sachets consumed, number of mths between enrollment and endline Hb measurement)||||||<0.000
91775101|NCT00659061|183431047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.34
91775102|NCT00659061|183431047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91775103|NCT00659061|183431048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||endline|ANOVA|adjusted for baseline child age, sex, # of sprinkle sachet consumed, # of mths between enrollment and endline Hb measurement||||||0.000
91775104|NCT00659061|183431049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91775105|NCT00659061|183431049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91775106|NCT00659061|183431050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91775107|NCT00659061|183431050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||0.89
91775108|NCT00659061|183431051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.93
91775109|NCT00659061|183431051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||0.49
91775110|NCT01168349|183431093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.71||||||||0.71|0.42|
91775111|NCT01168349|183431096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91775112|NCT02005016|183431146|OTHER|This was a single-group study. A t-test was administered comparing pre- and post-treatment PNT scores (range: 1-175; higher scores are better).|||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.005
91775113|NCT02005016|183431147|OTHER|This was a single-group study. A t-test was administered comparing pre- and post-treatment CAT modality mean T-scores (range: 30-70, mean: 50; higher scores are better).|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91775114|NCT01323582|183431166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|28.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite corrected t-test was used|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|Study planned to accrue 50 subjects, but due to difficult recruitment was not able to meet its objective.||28.6|-21.5|0.76
91775115|NCT01323582|183431167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.65||95.0|-4.8|7.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite Correction used|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|Study planned to accrue 50 subjects, but due to difficult recruitment was not able to meet its objective.||7.5|-4.8|0.65
91775116|NCT01323582|183431168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|5.19|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction for unequal standard deviations was used|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|Half of the period 2 minus period 1 differences were used, since the difference between these two derived means is an unbiased estimate of the effect size.||5.19|-4.58|0.88
91775117|NCT01323582|183431169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|10.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite Corrected t-test|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|||10.9|-13.9|0.80
91775118|NCT01323582|183431170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values suggest shorter emptying time post-treatment.|||7.3|-30.9|0.21
91775119|NCT01323582|183431171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-1.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values suggest shorter emptying time post-treatment.|||-1.26|-28.7|0.034
91836530|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
91836531|NCT01216163|183553320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
91836532|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.87|36.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.93|15.87|<0.001
91836533|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.53||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|16.91||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.91|-9.85|0.602
91836534|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|22.72||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|33.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||33.05|12.39|0.001
91836535|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|60.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.61|72.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||72.12|48.61|<0.001
91836536|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.25||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|16.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.59|-12.10|0.761
91836537|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|58.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.59|70.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||70.05|46.59|<0.001
91775120|NCT01323582|183431172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-1.16|||t-test, 2 sided||Lower scores are favorable.|||-1.16|-9.48|0.015
91775121|NCT01323582|183431173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|-1.83|||t-test, 2 sided||Lower scores are favorable.|||-1.83|-10.97|0.0083
91775122|NCT00525512|183431186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.13||||0.1062||95.0|0.97|1.32||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|0.97|0.1062
91775123|NCT00525512|183431187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.12||||0.008||95.0|1.03|1.23||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.23|1.03|0.008
91775124|NCT00525512|183431188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.1||||0.0597||95.0|1.0|1.21||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|1.00|0.0597
91775125|NCT00525512|183431189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.15||||0.0131||95.0|1.03|1.29||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.29|1.03|0.0131
91775126|NCT00525512|183431190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.18||||0.0041||95.0|1.05|1.32||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|1.05|0.0041
91775127|NCT00525512|183431191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.11||||0.0945||95.0|0.98|1.26||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|0.98|0.0945
91775128|NCT00525512|183431192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.12||||0.0899||95.0|0.98|1.28||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|0.98|0.0899
91775129|NCT00525512|183431193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.16||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.160|0.073|<0.0001
91775130|NCT00525512|183431194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.0005||95.0|0.036|0.128||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.128|0.036|0.0005
91775131|NCT00525512|183431195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089||||0.0003||95.0|0.041|0.137||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.137|0.041|0.0003
91775132|NCT00525512|183431196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.058|0.153||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|0.058|<0.0001
91775133|NCT00525512|183431197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.0005||95.0|0.04|0.141||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.141|0.040|0.0005
91775134|NCT00525512|183431198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.094||||0.0002||95.0|0.045|0.144||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.144|0.045|0.0002
91775135|NCT00525512|183431199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.0059||95.0|0.022|0.128||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.128|0.022|0.0059
91775136|NCT00525512|183431200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.198||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.198|0.110|<0.0001
91710789|NCT00105989|183313986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91710790|NCT00105989|183313987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.032
91775137|NCT00525512|183431201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.117|0.208||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.208|0.117|<0.0001
91775138|NCT00525512|183431202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.099|0.192||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.192|0.099|<0.0001
91775139|NCT00525512|183431203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.176||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.176|0.077|<0.0001
91775140|NCT00525512|183431204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.185||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.185|0.083|<0.0001
91775141|NCT00525512|183431205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.202||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.202|0.097|<0.0001
91775142|NCT00525512|183431206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.183||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.183|0.077|<0.0001
91775143|NCT00525512|183431207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.307||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.307|0.127|<0.0001
91775144|NCT00525512|183431208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157||||0.0019||95.0|0.058|0.255||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.255|0.058|0.0019
91775145|NCT00525512|183431209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182||||0.0006||95.0|0.078|0.286||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.286|0.078|0.0006
91775146|NCT00525512|183431210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.339||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.339|0.130|<0.0001
91775147|NCT00525512|183431211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161||||0.009||95.0|0.04|0.281||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.281|0.040|0.009
91775148|NCT00525512|183431212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212||||0.0002||95.0|0.102|0.322||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.322|0.102|0.0002
91775149|NCT00525512|183431213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.355||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.355|0.128|<0.0001
91775150|NCT00525512|183431214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.277|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.375||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.375|0.179|<0.0001
91775151|NCT00525512|183431215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.325|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.226|0.425||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.425|0.226|<0.0001
91775152|NCT00525512|183431216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.353|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.245|0.461||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.461|0.245|<0.0001
91775153|NCT00525512|183431217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.259|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.365||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.365|0.154|<0.0001
91775154|NCT00525512|183431218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.194|0.406||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.406|0.194|<0.0001
91775155|NCT00525512|183431219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.364||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.364|0.144|<0.0001
91775156|NCT00525512|183431220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.209|0.456||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.456|0.209|<0.0001
91775157|NCT00525512|183431221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.1131||95.0|-0.72|0.08||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.72|0.1131
91775158|NCT00525512|183431222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9071||95.0|-0.38|0.33||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.38|0.9071
91775159|NCT00525512|183431223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.6878||95.0|-0.35|0.53||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.35|0.6878
91775160|NCT00525512|183431224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||||95.0|-2.39|3.11||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.11|-2.39|
91775161|NCT00525512|183431225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||||95.0|-2.66|3.31||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.31|-2.66|
91775162|NCT00525512|183431226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||||95.0|-2.91|3.58||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.58|-2.91|
91775163|NCT00525512|183431227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||||95.0|-2.97|3.43||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.43|-2.97|
91775164|NCT00525512|183431228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||||95.0|-3.02|3.46||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.46|-3.02|
91775165|NCT00525512|183431229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||||95.0|-3.1|3.41||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.41|-3.10|
91775166|NCT00525512|183431230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||||95.0|-3.22|3.55||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.55|-3.22|
91836538|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|67.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.91|80.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||80.12|54.91|<0.001
91836539|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.42||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|18.18||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.18|-7.34|0.410
91646122|NCT01236053|183184666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.17|0.27|0.6216
91775167|NCT00525512|183431231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||||95.0|-2.78|3.52||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.52|-2.78|
91775168|NCT00525512|183431232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||||95.0|-3.05|3.51||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.51|-3.05|
91775169|NCT00525512|183431233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||||95.0|-3.4|3.55||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.55|-3.40|
91775170|NCT00525512|183431234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||||95.0|-3.61|3.92||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.92|-3.61|
91775171|NCT00525512|183431235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||||95.0|-3.53|3.9||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.90|-3.53|
91775172|NCT00525512|183431236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||||95.0|-3.36|3.71||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.71|-3.36|
91775173|NCT00525512|183431237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||||95.0|-3.82|3.96||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.96|-3.82|
91775174|NCT00525512|183431238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03||||0.0072||95.0|-6.97|-1.1||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-6.97|0.0072
91775175|NCT00525512|183431239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.2029||95.0|-5.91|1.26||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-5.91|0.2029
91775176|NCT00525512|183431240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.0313||95.0|-6.84|-0.32||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-6.84|0.0313
91775177|NCT00525512|183431241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.94||||0.0001||95.0|-13.37|-4.52||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.52|-13.37|0.0001
91775178|NCT00525512|183431242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.6541||95.0|0.719|1.23||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Regression, Cox|||||1.230|0.719|0.6541
91775179|NCT00525512|183431243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.06||||0.4443||95.0|0.91|1.25||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.91|0.4443
91775180|NCT00525512|183431244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8644||95.0|-0.05|0.06||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.05|0.8644
91775181|NCT00525512|183431245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4277||95.0|-0.07|0.17||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.07|0.4277
91775182|NCT00525512|183431246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.7071||95.0|-3.81|2.59||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.59|-3.81|0.7071
91775183|NCT00525512|183431247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.6556||95.0|-3.03|4.81||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||4.81|-3.03|0.6556
91775184|NCT00525512|183431248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9896||95.0|-3.44|3.48||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||3.48|-3.44|0.9896
91775185|NCT00525512|183431249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33||||0.0807||95.0|-9.19|0.53||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.53|-9.19|0.0807
91775186|NCT01601535|183431269|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||MYCN Amplified vs. MYCN not Amplified|Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
91775187|NCT01601535|183431269|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Fisher Exact|MYCN Amplified or Myc Positive vs. MYCN Non-amplified and Myc Negative||||||0.21
91775188|NCT01601535|183431269|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Aurora A protein Positive vs. Aurora A protein Negative||||||1.0
91775189|NCT01601535|183431270|OTHER|||||||0.094||||||UGT1A1 6\\6 vs. UGT1A1 6\\7 vs. UGT1A1 7\\7|Fisher Exact|||||||0.094
91775190|NCT01601535|183431270|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||UGT1A1 6\\6 vs. UGT1A1 6\\7 vs. UGT1A1 7\\7|Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
91775191|NCT01601535|183431271|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||AurkA Codon 31 Summary H vs. AurkA Codon 31 Summary V vs. AurkA Codon 31 Summary W|Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
91775192|NCT01601535|183431271|OTHER|||||||1||||||AurkA Codon 57 Summary H vs. AurkA Codon 57 Summary W|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91775193|NCT00534365|183431273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We chose a non-inferiority margin of 12% based on previously published multicenter trial of mid-urethral slings. Assuming subjective cure rate for TVT of 82%, 127 individuals in each group will provide 80% to reject the null hypothesis that the true difference in cure rates between the two procedures is less than or equal to 2% using a two group large sample normal approximation test of proportions with a one sided 0.05 significance level.||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.43
91775194|NCT00534365|183431276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91775195|NCT00534365|183431277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91836540|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|62.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.96|75.29||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||75.29|48.96|<0.001
91836541|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|68.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.11|81.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.16|56.11|<0.001
91836542|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
91836543|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|63.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.32|76.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||76.35|50.32|<0.001
91836544|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
91836545|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
91836546|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
91836547|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
91836548|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
91836549|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
91836550|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
91836551|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
91836552|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
91836553|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
91775196|NCT04576988|183431279|OTHER||Treatment difference|40.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.53|54.14||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon (ARSW)|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported.|||54.14|27.53|<0.001
91775197|NCT04576988|183431282|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.||||||<0.001
91775198|NCT04576988|183431283|OTHER||Treatment difference|-234.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.37|-180.75||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-180.75|-288.37|<0.001
91775199|NCT04576988|183431284|OTHER||Treatment difference|-441.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-573.54|-309.61||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-309.61|-573.54|<.001
91775200|NCT04576988|183431285|OTHER|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using CMH method with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91775201|NCT04576988|183431286|OTHER|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using Log rank test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.347|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazard model was used to generate hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI was reported with treatment group as the covariate stratified by the WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy.|||0.347|0.076|<0.001
91775202|NCT04576988|183431287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.||||||<0.001
91775203|NCT04576988|183431288|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.04||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-0.040|-0.490|0.010
91775204|NCT04576988|183431289|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.13||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|-0.014||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-0.014|-0.256|0.028
91775205|NCT04576988|183431290|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.16||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.084||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||0.084|-0.399|0.156
91775206|NCT02919761|183431306|OTHER||||||=|0.242||||||At Week 4|One-sample binomial test|||||||=0.242
91775207|NCT02919761|183431306|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||At Week 8|One-sample binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91710791|NCT00105989|183313988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91775208|NCT02919761|183431306|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91775209|NCT02919761|183431307|OTHER||||||=|0.313||||||Comparison at Week 12|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.313
91775210|NCT02919761|183431307|OTHER||||||=|0.439||||||Comparison at Week 16|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.439
91775211|NCT02919761|183431307|OTHER||||||=|0.028||||||Comparison at Week 20|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.028
91775212|NCT02919761|183431307|OTHER||||||=|0.019||||||Comparison at Week 24|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.019
91775213|NCT02994108|183431330|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|0.415||||0.601|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.601
91775214|NCT02994108|183431331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.249|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.249
91775215|NCT02994108|183431332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.675
91775216|NCT02994108|183431333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|10.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.08|1.17|.025
91775217|NCT02994108|183431334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|16.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.95|0.08|.923
91775218|NCT02994108|183431335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.174
91775219|NCT02994108|183431336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
91775220|NCT02994108|183431337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.964
91775221|NCT02994108|183431338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.053
91775222|NCT02994108|183431339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.183|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.183
91775223|NCT02994108|183431340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.064
91775224|NCT02994108|183431341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.147
91775225|NCT02994108|183431342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.096
91775226|NCT02994108|183431343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.013
91836554|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
91710792|NCT00105989|183313989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91836555|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
91836556|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
91775227|NCT01295814|183431389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The study had acceptable sensitivity with a statistical power of 0.99 (99%) for the improvement in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.~The study had acceptable sensitivity with a statistical power of 0.92 (92%) for the improvement in the placebo group from baseline to week 12."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|11.8||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in OSPI in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||11.8|4.0|0.75
91775228|NCT01295814|183431390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.3||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in ICSI in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||6.3|1.7|0.99
91775229|NCT01295814|183431391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.8||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in ICPI in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||5.8|2.1|0.76
91775230|NCT01295814|183431392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.0||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in PUF in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||10.0|2.6|0.76
91775231|NCT01295814|183431393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||||0.67
91775232|NCT03414983|183431394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.07||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.07|0.61|0.3022
91775233|NCT03414983|183431394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.23||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.23|0.53|0.3022
91775234|NCT03414983|183431395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.19|0.54|
91775235|NCT03414983|183431410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|1.15||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.15|0.67|0.5041
91775236|NCT03414983|183431410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.32||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.32|0.58|0.5041
91775237|NCT02535481|183431432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366||||||At 6 weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.366
91775238|NCT02535481|183431432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||At 3 months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91775239|NCT02535481|183431433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier analysis of cumulative wound healing followed by a log rank test||||||<0.0001
91775240|NCT02535481|183431434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.12
91775241|NCT02535481|183431435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91775242|NCT02535481|183431436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||At 6 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91775243|NCT02535481|183431436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||At 3 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91775244|NCT00248625|183431486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
91775245|NCT00248625|183431487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
91775246|NCT00248625|183431488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Pepe and Mori test of CIF difference|||||||0.21
91775247|NCT00248625|183431489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.053
91775248|NCT00248625|183431490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend|||||||0.29
91775249|NCT00248625|183431491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend|||||||0.74
91775250|NCT00248625|183431492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage tren|||||||0.54
91775251|NCT00248625|183431493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
91775252|NCT00904943|183431494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|104.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Mean falls within 80-125.|||||
91775253|NCT00904943|183431495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|102.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Least Squares Mean falls within 80-125.|||||
91896064|NCT01037244|183687522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.27|9.63|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled sites as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||9.63|6.27|<0.0001
91896065|NCT01037244|183687523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.72|25.48|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||25.48|11.72|<0.0001
91775254|NCT00904943|183431496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|103.66|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Least Squares Mean falls within 80-125.|||||
91775255|NCT03085095|183431497|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in the cumulative probability of sustained profound castration rate between the 2 treatment groups was calculated with a noninferiority margin of -10%.|Treatment difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|11.8|||||Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|Following statistical analysis of the lower bound of the 95% CI ≥ 90% for the relugolix group, secondary statistical analysis of non-inferiority was conducted.||11.8|4.1|
91775256|NCT03085095|183431497|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was demonstrated, superiority could be claimed if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in the cumulative probability of sustained profound castration rate between the 2 treatment groups also excluded 0%. The p value was calculated post hoc.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error of 0.05.||Following statistical analysis of the lower bound of the 95% CI ≥ 90% for the relugolix group, secondary statistical analysis of superiority was conducted.||||< 0.0001
91775257|NCT03085095|183431498|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
91775258|NCT03085095|183431499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
91775259|NCT03085095|183431500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
91775260|NCT03085095|183431501|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|77.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.98|80.83||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||80.83|73.98|< 0.0001
91775261|NCT03085095|183431502|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
91646123|NCT01236053|183184666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.6893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.96|0.31|0.6893
91775262|NCT03085095|183431506|OTHER||Treatment difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|19.1|||||Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|||19.1|6.9|
91775263|NCT03085095|183431508|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.0|||||Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|||2.0|-7.8|
91775264|NCT03284710|183431524|OTHER|||||||0.358||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgGAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.358
91775265|NCT03284710|183431524|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgGAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 2||||1.000
91775266|NCT03284710|183431524|OTHER|||||||0.361||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgGAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.361
91775267|NCT03284710|183431525|OTHER|||||||0.238||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgGAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.238
91775268|NCT03284710|183431525|OTHER|||||||0.893||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgGAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.893
91775269|NCT03284710|183431525|OTHER|||||||0.411||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgGAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.411
91775270|NCT03284710|183431526|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgAAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||1.000
91775271|NCT03284710|183431526|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgAAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.044
91775272|NCT03284710|183431526|OTHER|||||||0.045||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgAAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.045
91775273|NCT03284710|183431527|OTHER|||||||0.215||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgAAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.215
91775274|NCT03284710|183431527|OTHER|||||||0.683||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgAAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.683
91775275|NCT03284710|183431527|OTHER|||||||0.322||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgAAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.322
91775276|NCT05543265|183431575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|28.8|||Chi-squared|||||28.8|6.4|<0.001
91646124|NCT01236053|183184666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.9273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||4.84|0.24|0.9273
91646125|NCT01236053|183184666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.78|0.47|0.5980
91646126|NCT01236053|183184666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.18|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||3.18|0.38|0.8572
91775277|NCT04090203|183431627|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|75.0||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|40.0|||The test was performed at a one-sided significance level of 0.05.|Exact binomial test|The null hypothesis of the exact binomial test was that the percentage of patients who were successfully desensitized was less than or equal to 20%.|The percentage of successfully desensitized participants is presented with a one-sided 95% CI, obtained from the lower bound of the two-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of patients who were successfully desensitized was less than or equal to 20%, and the alternative hypothesis was that this percentage was greater than 20%. Assuming 80% of study participants would be successfully desensitized, a sample size of 10 patients would provide greater than 90% power to reject the null hypothesis using a one-sided exact binomial test with a significance level of 0.05.|||40.0|0.001
91775278|NCT01488045|183431634|EQUIVALENCE|We compared patient satisfaction for those receiving the 2 sedation regimens using the Schuirmann 2 one-sided t test procedure.15 The groups were declared to be equivalent in terms of patient satisfaction if the 90% CI for the difference in mean satisfaction had outer boundaries indicating \<5% difference on the 100-point VAS. Nonequivalence was declared if the lower 90% CI boundary for the difference was less than -5.0, or if the upper 90% CI boundary for the difference was \>5.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0741|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-9.6||||||To calculate the required sample size for this study, the equivalence limit was set at 5 units difference on the VAS, with an expected mean difference of 0. The common SD of 16.2 was estimated based on the range of expected scores for the VAS from Ulmer et al. Using these inputs, a total sample size of 262 patients was estimated to have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the test and standard were not equivalent and conclude that they were equivalent.||-9.6|-18.5|
91775279|NCT02587221|183431656|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR confirmed due to any strain.~An ILI was defined as presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (e.g. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.45|-5.27|38.91|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||The efficacy of aQIV would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided multiplicity adjusted 95%CI for the vaccine efficacy is \>40%||38.91|-5.27|
91775280|NCT02587221|183431661|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR confirmed due to any strain.~An ILI was defined as the presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|32.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.23|48.67|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||48.67|10.23|
91775281|NCT02587221|183431662|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically matched to the vaccine strains.~An ILI was defined as the presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (eg. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|49.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|79.79|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||The efficacy of aQIV would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided multiplicity adjusted 95%CI for the vaccine efficacy is \>40%||79.79|-24.03|
91775282|NCT02587221|183431663|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically matched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|86.28|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||86.28|-7.98|
91775283|NCT02587221|183431664|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any vaccine strain regardless of antigenic match.~An ILI was defined as the presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (e.g. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|28.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|49.08|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||49.08|0.05|
91775284|NCT02587221|183431665|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza regardless of antigenic match~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|33.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|54.57|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||54.57|2.56|
91775285|NCT02587221|183431666|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically unmatched to the vaccine strains.~An ILI is the presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (e.g. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|23.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|47.05|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||47.05|-9.69|
91646127|NCT01236053|183184666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.77|0.26|0.7807
91775286|NCT02587221|183431667|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically unmatched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|26.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|51.13|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||51.13|-11.71|
91775287|NCT02587221|183431672|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR confirmed due to any strain.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|51.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.21|66.67|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||66.67|28.21|
91775288|NCT02587221|183431673|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically matched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)"|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|74.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.93|94.68|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||94.68|-17.93|
91775289|NCT02587221|183431674|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza regardless of antigenic match.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|60.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.19|76.94|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||76.94|31.19|
91775290|NCT02587221|183431675|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically unmatched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|57.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.73|76.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||76.09|22.73|
91775291|NCT03988400|183431676|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
91775292|NCT03988400|183431677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
91775293|NCT03988400|183431678|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
91775294|NCT03988400|183431679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
91775295|NCT03988400|183431680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91775296|NCT03988400|183431681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91775297|NCT03988400|183431682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91775298|NCT03988400|183431683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
91775299|NCT03988400|183431684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91775300|NCT03988400|183431685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
91775301|NCT04913610|183431687|OTHER||||||=|0.036|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.036
91775302|NCT04913610|183431687|OTHER||||||=|0.53||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.530
91775303|NCT04913610|183431687|OTHER||||||=|0.852||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.852
91646128|NCT01236053|183184666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.32|0.21|0.5579
91775304|NCT04913610|183431687|OTHER||||||=|0.366||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.366
91775305|NCT04913610|183431688|OTHER||||||=|0.869||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.869
91775306|NCT04913610|183431688|OTHER||||||=|0.973||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.973
91775307|NCT04913610|183431688|OTHER||||||=|0.744||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.744
91775308|NCT04913610|183431688|OTHER||||||=|0.794||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.794
91646129|NCT01236053|183184666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.53|0.40|0.9932
91646130|NCT01236053|183184666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.11|0.32|0.6901
91646131|NCT01236053|183184668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.01|0.19|0.4310
91708086|NCT00482170|183309154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.50|0.24|<0.001
91836557|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
91836558|NCT01216163|183553321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
91836559|NCT01216163|183553322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
91646132|NCT01236053|183184668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.79|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.79|0.17|0.3226
91646133|NCT01236053|183184668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.59|0.40|0.6206
91646134|NCT01236053|183184668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||3.84|0.33|0.8557
91775309|NCT04913610|183431689|OTHER||||||=|0.559||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.559
91836560|NCT01216163|183553322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.28||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.28|0.45|0.303
91836561|NCT01216163|183553322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.28||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.28|0.10|<0.001
91836562|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.39|-24.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-24.80|-55.39|<0.001
91836563|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.12||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|4.28||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.28|-4.52|0.958
91836564|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-40.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.51|-24.87||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-24.87|-55.51|<0.001
91646135|NCT01236053|183184668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.62|||Unadjusted Odds Ratio||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.62|0.79|0.1498
91646136|NCT01236053|183184668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||4.07|0.68|0.2645
91775310|NCT04913610|183431689|OTHER||||||=|0.786||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.786
91708087|NCT00482170|183309154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.50|0.24|<0.001
91836565|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-63.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.81|-48.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-48.99|-77.81|<0.001
91836566|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.17||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|1.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.57|-15.91|0.108
91836567|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-56.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.68|-41.09||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-41.09|-71.68|<0.001
91836568|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-71.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.09|-57.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-57.93|-84.09|<0.001
91836569|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-9.82||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|1.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.16|-20.18|0.083
91836570|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.4|-46.87||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.87|-75.40|<0.001
91646137|NCT01236053|183184668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.5728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.79|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.79|0.16|0.5728
91646138|NCT01236053|183184668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.21|0.12|0.3727
91646139|NCT01236053|183184668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.40|0.31|0.7743
91646140|NCT01236053|183184668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.4775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.94|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.94|0.24|0.4775
91646141|NCT01236053|183184669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.33||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|27.56|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||27.56|1.95|0.0032
91646142|NCT01236053|183184669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|16.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||16.17|0.71|0.1251
91646143|NCT01236053|183184669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|9.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||9.01|1.15|0.0261
91646144|NCT01236053|183184669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|7.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.17|0.65|0.2090
91646145|NCT01236053|183184670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
91646146|NCT01236053|183184670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.47||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|258.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||258.8|1.78|0.0158
91646147|NCT01236053|183184670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|15.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||15.14|0.99|0.0524
91646148|NCT01236053|183184670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|22.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||22.51|1.21|0.0269
91646149|NCT01236053|183184670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|55.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||55.14|0.45|0.1888
91646150|NCT01236053|183184670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|32.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||32.21|0.03|0.9990
91775311|NCT04913610|183431689|OTHER||||||=|0.423||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.423
91775312|NCT04913610|183431689|OTHER||||||=|0.92||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.920
91775313|NCT04913610|183431690|OTHER||||||=|0.981||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.981
91775314|NCT04913610|183431690|OTHER||||||=|0.981||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.981
91775315|NCT04913610|183431690|OTHER||||||=|0.96||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.960
91775316|NCT04913610|183431690|OTHER||||||=|0.96||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.960
91775317|NCT04913610|183431691|OTHER||||||=|0.157||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.157
91775318|NCT04913610|183431691|OTHER||||||=|0.15||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.150
91775319|NCT04913610|183431691|OTHER||||||=|0.15||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.150
91836571|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-66.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.08|-52.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-52.66|-80.08|<0.001
91836572|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-11.03||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.37|1.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.21|-23.37|0.079
91775320|NCT04913610|183431691|OTHER||||||=|0.173||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.173
91775321|NCT04913610|183431692|OTHER||||||=|0.619||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.619
91775322|NCT04913610|183431692|OTHER||||||=|0.194||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.194
91775323|NCT04913610|183431692|OTHER||||||=|0.518||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.518
91775324|NCT04913610|183431692|OTHER||||||=|0.652||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.652
91775325|NCT04913610|183431693|OTHER||||||=|0.386||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.386
91836573|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-55.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.12|-40.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-40.85|-70.12|<0.001
91836574|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-57.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|-42.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-42.77|-71.90|<0.001
91836575|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.73||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.08|5.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.63|-21.08|0.263
91836576|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-49.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.74|-35.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-35.12|-64.74|<0.001
91836577|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-52.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.62|-37.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-37.88|-67.62|<0.001
91836578|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.51||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.27|8.25||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.25|-19.27|0.439
91836579|NCT01216163|183553323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-47.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.62|-32.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-32.83|-62.62|<0.001
91836580|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.21||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.17|-3.59|0.294
91836581|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.21||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|3.58||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.58|-1.16|0.458
91896066|NCT01037244|183687523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|29.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.13|35.9|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||35.90|22.13|<0.0001
91710793|NCT00105989|183313990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.028
91836582|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.81||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|12.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.06|1.57|0.073
91836583|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.96||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|8.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.85|-4.94|0.583
91836584|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.81||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.49|0.14|0.137
91836585|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|23.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.81|32.91||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||32.91|14.81|<0.001
91836586|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.45||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|20.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.33|-3.43|0.165
91836587|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|15.46||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.66|23.26||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.26|7.66|0.006
91836588|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|29.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.78|39.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||39.05|19.78|<0.001
91836589|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.61||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|17.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.99|-8.78|0.497
91836590|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|25.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.81|34.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||34.46|15.81|<0.001
91836591|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|31.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.03|43.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||43.53|20.03|<0.001
91836592|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.7||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|20.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.79|-7.38|0.349
91836593|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|25.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.73|36.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.94|13.73|<0.001
91836594|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|37.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.47|49.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||49.81|25.47|<0.001
91896067|NCT01037244|183687523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|31.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.68|38.34|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||38.34|24.68|<0.0001
91836595|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.85||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|23.42||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.42|-5.72|0.233
91836596|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|28.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.17|40.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||40.75|17.17|<0.001
91836597|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|38.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.87|51.6||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||51.60|25.87|<0.001
91836598|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|9.83||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|24.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.45|-4.80|0.189
91896068|NCT01037244|183687524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
91646151|NCT01236053|183184670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|43.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||43.08|0.33|0.2885
91775326|NCT04913610|183431693|OTHER||||||=|0.279||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.279
91775327|NCT04913610|183431693|OTHER||||||=|0.385||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.385
91775328|NCT04913610|183431693|OTHER||||||=|0.755||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.755
91775329|NCT03186209|183431695|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.36||Multiplicity protected by hierarchy testing procedure. First in line hypothesis testing, requiring p-value \<0.05.|Negative binomial|Model with covariates: treatment group, region (China/Non-China), number of exacerbations in previous year, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.36|0.19|<0.0001
91775330|NCT03186209|183431696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.34||Test after significant primary endpoint. Two secondary endpoints (change in FEV1 and total asthma symptom score) using Holm's procedure; smaller p-value to be \<0.025, and larger p-value to be \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.34|0.17|<0.0001
91775331|NCT03186209|183431697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.05||Test after significant primary endpoint. Two secondary endpoints (change in FEV1 and total asthma symptom score) using Holm's procedure; smaller p-value to be \<0.025, and larger p-value to be \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline total asthma symptom score, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-0.05|-0.45|0.0126
91775332|NCT03186209|183431698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.08||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline total asthma rescue medication use, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, treatment\*visit||||0.08|-0.42|0.1835
91775333|NCT03186209|183431699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.24|53.07||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||53.07|24.24|<0.0001
91775334|NCT03186209|183431700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.52|50.18||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||50.18|21.52|<0.0001
91775335|NCT03186209|183431701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.3385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline proportion of nights awakening, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.01|-0.03|0.3385
91775336|NCT03186209|183431702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.28||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-0.28|-0.58|<0.0001
91775337|NCT03186209|183431703|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.43||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Regression, Cox|model including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.43|0.23|<0.0001
91775338|NCT03186209|183431704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.42||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year (2, \>=3), use of OCS||||0.42|0.19|<0.0001
91775339|NCT03186209|183431705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-5.6||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model with covariates: treatment group, baseline SGRQ total score, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-5.60|-12.79|<0.0001
91775340|NCT03186209|183431706|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.46||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.9||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Negative binomial|Model includes Treatment, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, categorical variable of ER/UC or hospitalization exacerbations during previous year||||0.90|0.24|0.0222
91775341|NCT03186209|183431710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-119.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.78|-68.84||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|model includes treatment , baseline eosinophil count, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-68.84|-169.78|<0.0001
91775342|NCT03186209|183431711|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.4519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.35||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Negative binomial|Model with covariates: treatment group, region (China/Non-China), number of exacerbations in previous year, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||1.35|0.51|0.4519
91775343|NCT03186209|183431712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.22|0.02|0.0214
91775344|NCT03186209|183431713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.08||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline total asthma symptom score, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.08|-0.51|0.1589
91775345|NCT00988832|183431787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91775346|NCT00988832|183431788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
91775347|NCT00988832|183431789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0041
91775348|NCT00988832|183431790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0423||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0423
91775349|NCT00988832|183431791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0006
91775350|NCT00988832|183431792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0014
91896069|NCT01037244|183687524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
91775351|NCT00988832|183431794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91710794|NCT00105989|183313991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.008
91775352|NCT01446159|183431798|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.429|||Log Rank|||||1.429|0.689|0.86
91775353|NCT03174184|183431818|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence tests will be conducted to examine whether the EBA0-14CFU of Arm A is different from the EBA0-14CFU of Arm B. A similar comparison will be done comparing Arm C to Arm D, Arm A to Arm C, Arm D to Arm E, Arm D to Arm F, and Arm E to Arm F.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91775354|NCT03980730|183431855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2057|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2057
91775355|NCT03125226|183431899|OTHER|Single group mean and standard deviation||||||||||||||||Coordinates in x/y/z planes were assigned to each hydrogel marker on the planning CT and daily CBCT to calculate interfraction motion.|Single group mean and standard deviation|||
91775356|NCT03125226|183431904|OTHER|The Van Herk (VH) margin equation for the planning target volume margin, as a function of systemic and random errors, was calculated such that the CTV receives at least 95%-prescription dose in 90% of patients.|||||||||||||||||The Van Herk (VH) margin equation for the planning target volume margin, as a function of systemic and random errors, was calculated such that the CTV receives at least 95%-prescription dose in 90% of patients.|||
91775357|NCT02787564|183431905|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable variety between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91775358|NCT02787564|183431906|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable amount between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
91775359|NCT02787564|183431907|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable variety between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
91775360|NCT02787564|183431908|OTHER|||||||0.443||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable amount between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.443
91775361|NCT02787564|183431909|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable variety between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91775362|NCT02787564|183431910|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable amount between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
91775363|NCT03577275|183431920|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"The primary analysis was based on concentration-QTc modeling of the relationship between icosabutate and delta delta QTcF, with the intent to exclude an effect \> 10 msec at clinically relevant icosabutate plasma concentrations.~Assay sensitivity was evaluated by concentration-QTc analysis of the effect on delta delta QTcF of moxifloxacin using a similar model as for the primary analysis."|The primary analysis was based on concentration-QTc modeling of the relationship between icosabutate and delta delta QTcF, with the intent to exclude an effect \> 10 msec at clinically relevant icosabutate plasma concentrations.|||
91775364|NCT02958917|183431925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91775365|NCT02958917|183431926|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.264|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.05
91775366|NCT02958917|183431927|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91775367|NCT02958917|183431928|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91775368|NCT02958917|183431929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.364|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91775369|NCT02958917|183431930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.128|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91775370|NCT02958917|183431931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91775371|NCT02958917|183431932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91775372|NCT02958917|183431933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91775373|NCT02958917|183431934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91775374|NCT02958917|183431935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91896070|NCT01037244|183687524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
91836599|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|29.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.71|41.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||41.66|16.71|<0.001
91836600|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|36.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.22|49.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||49.88|23.22|<0.001
91836601|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|9.83||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|24.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.45|-4.80|0.189
91836602|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|26.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|39.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||39.94|14.00|<0.001
91836603|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|37.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.36|51.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||51.07|24.36|<0.001
91836604|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|10.97||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|25.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||25.61|-3.67|0.144
91836605|NCT01216163|183553324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|26.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|39.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||39.94|14.00|<0.001
91836606|NCT01216163|183553325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.96||P-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.96|0.78|<0.001
91836607|NCT01216163|183553325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45||P-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.45|0.05|0.020
91896071|NCT01037244|183687524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
91896072|NCT01037244|183687525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||ANCOVA|p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.59|0.30|<0.0001
91836608|NCT01216163|183553325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.91||P-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.91|0.63|<0.001
91836609|NCT00532155|183553355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.174|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.||||1.174|0.868|0.8985
91836610|NCT00532155|183553356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Stratified Hazard ratio|0.819||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.937|||Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.|||0.937|0.716|0.0035
91851596|NCT04246762|183586820|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.46|78.92|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of midazolam with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||78.92|59.46|
91775375|NCT02318706|183431987|SUPERIORITY|DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg are tested against placebo at significance level of 0.025, respectively. If both arms are statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm will be tested at level of 0.05. If neither of the arms is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is no longer tested. If either DS-5565 20 mg or DS-5565 30 mg is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is tested at level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.03||||0.8773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 change from baseline||0.30|-0.35|0.8773
91775376|NCT02318706|183431987|SUPERIORITY|DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg are tested against placebo at significance level of 0.025, respectively. If both arms are statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm will be tested at level of 0.05. If neither of the arms is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is no longer tested. If either DS-5565 20 mg or DS-5565 30 mg is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is tested at level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.15||||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 change from baseline||0.17|-0.48|0.3494
91775377|NCT02318706|183431987|SUPERIORITY|DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg are tested against placebo at significance level of 0.025, respectively. If both arms are statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm will be tested at level of 0.05. If neither of the arms is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is no longer tested. If either DS-5565 20 mg or DS-5565 30 mg is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is tested at level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.5||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 change from baseline||-0.17|-0.82|0.0027
91775378|NCT04328077|183431990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|21.5|||ANCOVA|||||21.5|-16.1|0.7755
91775379|NCT04328077|183431990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.369||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|-31.3|0.1798
91775380|NCT04328077|183431990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.807||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|11.6|||ANCOVA|||||11.6|-27.4|0.4229
91775381|NCT04739982|183432017|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.27||An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the change in baseline and follow-up scores of treatment and treatment as usual participants.|t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of freedom=274 Significance level=.05||||.27|-.21|.41
91775382|NCT04739982|183432018|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.39|||t-test, 1 sided|||||.39|-.08|.095
91775383|NCT04739982|183432020|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.47|||t-test, 1 sided|||||.47|-.09|.09
91896073|NCT01037244|183687525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.83|||ANCOVA|p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.83|0.54|<0.0001
91775384|NCT00537394|183432025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin defined as 15 percentage points. If the confidence interval for the difference in regimen failure between omitting versus adding NRTIs was fully below 15 percentage points, then omitting NRTIs would be concluded to be not inferior to adding NRTIs for this outcome.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|12.5|||||Endpoint rates with standard errors calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves for each treatment group and stratum. Differences in week 48 failure proportions by treatment calculated weighted by the inverse of the variance in each stratum.|Null Hypothesis was that omitting NRTIs is inferior to adding NRTIs for the outcome of regimen failure through 48 weeks.||12.5|-6.1|
91775385|NCT01283139|183432040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|1.03|0.057
91775386|NCT01283139|183432040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.54|1.01|0.094
91775387|NCT01283139|183432040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.94|1.16|0.031
91775388|NCT01283139|183432041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.13|0.042
91775389|NCT01283139|183432041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|0.85|0.264
91775390|NCT01283139|183432041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|1.14|0.038
91775391|NCT01283139|183432042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|3.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.81|0.37|0.808
91775392|NCT01283139|183432042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.66|0.45|0.598
91775393|NCT01283139|183432042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.02|0.27|0.884
91775394|NCT01283139|183432043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.01|1.22|0.044
91775395|NCT01283139|183432043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|0.62|0.498
91775396|NCT01283139|183432043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|7.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.68|1.20|0.049
91775397|NCT01283139|183432044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|0.85|0.270
91775398|NCT01283139|183432044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|1.04|0.077
91775399|NCT01283139|183432044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.76|0.453
91775400|NCT04267380|183432055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91775401|NCT04267380|183432056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91775402|NCT04267380|183432057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
91775403|NCT04267380|183432058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
91775404|NCT04267380|183432059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91775405|NCT04267380|183432060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91775406|NCT04267380|183432061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
91775407|NCT04267380|183432062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
91775408|NCT04267380|183432064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91775409|NCT04267380|183432065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91775410|NCT04267380|183432066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
91775411|NCT04267380|183432067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91775412|NCT04267380|183432068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91775413|NCT04267380|183432069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
91775414|NCT04267380|183432070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91775415|NCT04267380|183432071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
91775416|NCT04267380|183432072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
91775417|NCT04267380|183432073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.63
91896074|NCT01037244|183687525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95|||ANCOVA|p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.95|0.66|<0.0001
91710795|NCT00105989|183313992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.046
91775418|NCT04267380|183432074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
91775419|NCT00395746|183432154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.51|1.02||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and HbA1C at baseline as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively. When the test of comparison between 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono was significant, the test of comparison between 0.6 mg+SU and SU mono was performed."||1.02|-1.51|<0.0001
91775420|NCT00395746|183432154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.24|-0.75|||ANOVA|A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and HbA1C at baseline as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively. When the test of comparison between 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono was significant, the test of comparison between 0.6 mg+SU and SU mono was performed."||-0.75|-1.24|<0.0001
91775421|NCT00395746|183432155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.33||||||95.0|-1.62|-1.04|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-1.04|-1.62|
91775422|NCT00395746|183432155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.96||||||95.0|-1.25|-0.67|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-0.67|-1.25|
91775423|NCT00395746|183432156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-32.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.5|-24.2||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%: H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively.||-24.2|-40.5|<0.0001
91775424|NCT00395746|183432156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-26.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-34.5|-18.2||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%: H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively.||-18.2|-34.5|<0.0001
91775425|NCT00395746|183432157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-30.2||||||95.0|-39.6|-20.7|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-20.7|-39.6|
91775426|NCT00395746|183432157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-24.4||||||95.0|-33.8|-14.9|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-14.9|-33.8|
91791311|NCT00492063|183460305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B after one vaccination in the elderly population.||4|-2|
91775427|NCT00395746|183432158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-150.22|||<|0.0001||95.0|-186.32|-114.12||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-114.12|-186.32|<0.0001
91775428|NCT00395746|183432158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-111.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|-147.61|-74.68||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-74.68|-147.61|<0.0001
91775429|NCT00395746|183432159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-127.57||||||95.0|-166.91|-88.24|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-88.24|-166.91|
91775430|NCT00395746|183432159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-68.68||||||95.0|-108.91|-28.45|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-28.45|-108.91|
91775431|NCT00395746|183432160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-44.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|-55.02|-33.89||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-33.89|-55.02|<0.0001
91896075|NCT01037244|183687526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|16.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|22.11|||ANOVA|p-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||22.11|11.23|<0.0001
91775432|NCT00395746|183432160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-34.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.06|-23.54||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-23.54|-45.06|<0.0001
91775433|NCT00395746|183432161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-34.49||||||95.0|-46.77|-22.22|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-22.22|-46.77|
91775434|NCT00395746|183432161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-46.34||||||95.0|-58.49|-34.18|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-34.18|-58.49|
91775435|NCT00395746|183432162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-11.37||||0.0433||95.0|-22.4|-0.34||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-0.34|-22.40|0.0433
91896076|NCT01037244|183687526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|22.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.11|28.03|||ANOVA|p-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||28.03|17.11|<0.0001
91646152|NCT01236053|183184670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|13.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||13.87|0.06|0.9608
91836611|NCT04843930|183553378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 261.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.54
91836612|NCT04843930|183553379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 239.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis."||||0.04
91836613|NCT04843930|183553380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 229.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.79
91836614|NCT04843930|183553381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 269.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.45
91836615|NCT04843930|183553382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 236.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.02
91836616|NCT04843930|183553383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 257.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.96
91836617|NCT04843930|183553384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 262.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.04
91896077|NCT01037244|183687526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|28.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.98|33.79|||ANOVA|p-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||33.79|22.98|<0.0001
91836618|NCT04843930|183553385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 227.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.60
91775436|NCT00395746|183432162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|6.67||||0.2359||95.0|-4.39|17.73||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||17.73|-4.39|0.2359
91775437|NCT00395746|183432163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-13.3||||||95.0|-24.69|-1.9|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-1.90|-24.69|
91775438|NCT00395746|183432163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.11||||||95.0|-18.42|4.21|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||4.21|-18.42|
91775439|NCT00395746|183432164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.75||||0.0071||95.0|0.21|1.3||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||1.30|0.21|0.0071
91775440|NCT00395746|183432164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.63|1.73||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||1.73|0.63|<0.0001
91775441|NCT00395746|183432165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.04||||||95.0|0.42|1.66|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||1.66|0.42|
91775442|NCT00395746|183432165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.13||||||95.0|0.51|1.75|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed||1.75|0.51|
91775443|NCT00395746|183432166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.59||||||95.0|0.86|2.96|||Negative binomial regression|||The relative risk for 'All hypoglycaemic episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||2.96|0.86|
91775444|NCT00395746|183432166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.18||||||95.0|0.56|2.47|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Minor episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||2.47|0.56|
91775445|NCT00395746|183432166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.8||||||95.0|0.92|3.54|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Symptoms only' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||3.54|0.92|
91775446|NCT00395746|183432166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.62||||||95.0|0.85|3.07|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'All hypoglycaemic episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||3.07|0.85|
91775447|NCT00395746|183432166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.48||||||95.0|0.69|3.17|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Minor episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||3.17|0.69|
91896078|NCT01037244|183687527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.61|||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.61|1.17|<0.0001
91646153|NCT01236053|183184670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|24.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||24.07|0.78|0.0944
91775448|NCT00395746|183432166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.45||||||95.0|0.72|2.91|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Symptoms only episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||2.91|0.72|
91775449|NCT00795704|183432215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
91775450|NCT00795704|183432217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91775451|NCT01247324|183432223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.536|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.719|||Negative Binomial Model||Rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab ARR/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC ARR.|Adjusted by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||0.719|0.4|<0.0001
91775452|NCT01247324|183432224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||=|0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||Log Rank|||Time to onset CDP at week 12||0.90|0.37|= 0.0139
91775453|NCT01247324|183432225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.058|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.032|0.104|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1 Gd lesion (present or not), baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.104|0.032|< 0.0001
91775454|NCT01247324|183432226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.229|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.3|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T2 lesion (present or not), baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.300|0.174|< 0.0001
91775455|NCT01247324|183432227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.61|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.33|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) Chi-Squared test Stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and Baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0)||||2.33|1.11|= 0.0106
91775456|NCT01247324|183432228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||=|0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.95|||Log Rank|||Time to onset CDP at week 24||0.95|0.34|= 0.0278
91775457|NCT01247324|183432229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.428|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.328|0.557|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1-hypointense lesion count, baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.557|0.328|< 0.0001
91775458|NCT01247324|183432230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|=|0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.116|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.116|-0.039|= 0.3261
91775459|NCT01247324|183432231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|=|0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.283|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in the rate of brain volume loss: 22.8%. Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.283|0.053|= 0.0042
91775460|NCT01247324|183432232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|=|0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|1.8|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||1.800|-0.414|= 0.2193
91775461|NCT01247324|183432233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.17|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|Analyzed using CMH test, stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. rest-of-world) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||||2.17|1.39|< 0.0001
91775462|NCT03474588|183432262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Presented is the p value for the interaction between time and treatment.|Regression, Linear|Random Effects Regression Models (RERM), time was log transformed to account for expectation of greater change closer to baseline||||||0.30
91775463|NCT03474588|183432263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|3.24||presented is the p value for the interaction of treatment and time in the model.|Regression, Linear|||Random Effects Regression Model (RERM), included in the model were treatment, time and the interaction of time and treatment.||3.24|-0.46|0.14
91775464|NCT03474588|183432264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.097
91775465|NCT03474588|183432265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.802
91775466|NCT01607957|183432266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.81|0.58|<0.0001
91775467|NCT01607957|183432267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.57|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.57|0.41|<0.0001
91775468|NCT03905096|183432278|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|92.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.34|100.53|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||100.53|85.34|
91775469|NCT03905096|183432279|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|98.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.21|104.39|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||104.39|93.21|
91775470|NCT03905096|183432280|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|98.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.74|106.88|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||106.88|90.74|
91775471|NCT03905096|183432281|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|100.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.01|112.68|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||112.68|89.01|
91896079|NCT01037244|183687527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.99|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.99|1.54|<0.0001
91710796|NCT00105989|183313993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||P-value for Change to Endpoint.|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.035
91775472|NCT03905096|183432282|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|94.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.36|101.64|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||101.64|88.36|
91775473|NCT03905096|183432283|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|100.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.56|105.87|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||105.87|94.56|
91775474|NCT02016781|183432287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|Wald test of difference in adjusted OS estimates.||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year OS are the same for both treatments. The results posted are from the interim analysis per protocol study design.||||0.0001
91775475|NCT02016781|183432287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3345||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between response to hypomethylating therapy and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of response to hypomethylating therapy (No Response to Hypomethylation vs. Any Response or Hematologic Improvement to Hypomethylation vs. No Prior Hypomethylation) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.3345
91775476|NCT02016781|183432287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7328||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between patient age and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of patient age (\< vs. \>= 65) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.7328
91775477|NCT02016781|183432287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6261||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between disease duration and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of disease duration (less than vs. 3 months or more) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.6261
91775478|NCT02016781|183432287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4134||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between IPSS score and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS score (Intermediate-2 vs. High) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.4134
91775479|NCT02016781|183432287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3147||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between IPSS-R score and treatment assignment in regression model.||Statistical Analysis 6: This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS-R score (Very Low, Low, or Intermediate vs. High vs. Very High) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.3147
91775480|NCT02016781|183432288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year LFS are the same for both treatments.||||0.0030
91775481|NCT02016781|183432288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9908||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of response to hypomethylating therapy on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.9908
91775482|NCT02016781|183432288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8981||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of patient age (\< or \>= 65) on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.8981
91775483|NCT02016781|183432288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1465||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of disease duration (less than vs. 3 months or more) on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.1465
91710797|NCT00105989|183313994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Change to Endpoint.|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.011
91646154|NCT01236053|183184670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.82|0.10|0.9253
91708088|NCT00482170|183309155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.46|0.24|<0.001
91775484|NCT02016781|183432288|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.||||||0.4991|||||||pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS score (Intermediate-2 vs. High) on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.4991
91775485|NCT02016781|183432288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4953||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS-R score on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.4953
91775486|NCT02016781|183432289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2777||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the FACT-G scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.2777
91775487|NCT02016781|183432289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.2250
91775488|NCT02016781|183432289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1048||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.1048
91775489|NCT02016781|183432289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0888||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.0888
91775490|NCT02016781|183432289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5844||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.5844
91775491|NCT02016781|183432289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.0344
91775492|NCT02016781|183432290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5583||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the MOS SF-36 PCS scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.5583
91775493|NCT02016781|183432290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.6690
91775494|NCT02016781|183432290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2089||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.2089
91775495|NCT02016781|183432290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4343||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.4343
91775496|NCT02016781|183432290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5942||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.5942
91775497|NCT02016781|183432290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.1615
91646155|NCT01236053|183184671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
91646156|NCT01236053|183184671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.47||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|258.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||258.8|1.78|0.0158
91646157|NCT01236053|183184671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|25.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||25.11|1.43|0.0141
91896080|NCT01037244|183687527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.73|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||3.73|2.30|<0.0001
91896081|NCT01037244|183687528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.03|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.03|0.81|<0.0001
91900869|NCT00475033|183696140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.1|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Meningococcal C: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-5.3|
91775498|NCT02016781|183432290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5659||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the MOS SF-36 MCS scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.5659
91775499|NCT02016781|183432290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8555||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.8555
91710798|NCT00105989|183313995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0||||P-value for fasting glucose change from baseline to endpoint|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.744
91775500|NCT02016781|183432290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8995||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.8995
91775501|NCT02016781|183432290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.0105
91775502|NCT02016781|183432290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2596||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.2596
91775503|NCT02016781|183432290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5022||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.5022
91775504|NCT02016781|183432291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1768||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the EQ-5D scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.1768
91775505|NCT02016781|183432291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8318||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.8318
91775506|NCT02016781|183432291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4752||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.4752
91775507|NCT02016781|183432291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5671||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.5671
91775508|NCT02016781|183432291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3009||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.3009
91775509|NCT02016781|183432291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3403||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.3403
91775510|NCT02016781|183432292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year OS are the same for both treatments in treated population.||||< 0.0001
91775511|NCT02016781|183432293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year LFS are the same for both treatments in treated population.||||< 0.0001
91775512|NCT04886154|183432315|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.38|5.97|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) when administered at 0,6-months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||5.97|3.38|
91775513|NCT04886154|183432315|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.65|1.3|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) when administered at 0,2- months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||1.30|-1.65|
91775514|NCT04886154|183432315|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.33|5.89|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) when administered at 0,6- months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||5.89|3.33|
91775515|NCT04886154|183432315|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.6|3.42|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) when administered at 0,2- months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||3.42|0.60|
91775516|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.21|10.17|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||10.17|-4.21|
91775517|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|4.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.71|11.64|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||11.64|-2.71|
91775518|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.71|12.25|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||12.25|-0.71|
91775519|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.7|10.97|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||10.97|-3.70|
91775520|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|35.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|25.22|44.75|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||44.75|25.22|
91775521|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|34.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.76|44.1|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||44.10|23.76|
91896082|NCT01037244|183687528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.26|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.26|1.04|<0.0001
91775522|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.88|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.26|40.19|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||40.19|19.26|
91775523|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|33.54|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.09|43.54|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||43.54|23.09|
91775524|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|30.88|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.61|40.32|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||40.32|21.61|
91775525|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the MenABCWY-2Gen MenACWY vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.35|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.31|39.08|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||39.08|19.31|
91775526|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.42|38.67|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||38.67|19.42|
91775527|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|25.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.2|35.45|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||35.45|14.20|
91791312|NCT00492063|183460306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in adults.||7|-3|
91836619|NCT04843930|183553386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 1, 89.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.06
91836620|NCT04843930|183553387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 1, 73.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.04
91836621|NCT02552238|183553388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||McNemar|||Sensitivity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||0.0067
91836622|NCT02552238|183553388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Specificity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||<0.0001
91836623|NCT01576718|183553392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0604||||||If the Fp MDPI showed a significantly positive trend, then contrasts for pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo were done in the sequence of highest to lowest Fp MDPI dose.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0604
91836624|NCT01576718|183553392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.072||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.149||Significance at the 0.05 level.|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 400 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.149|-0.004|0.0637
91836625|NCT01576718|183553392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.056||||0.1585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.133||Significance at the 0.05 level|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 200 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.133|-0.022|0.1585
91836626|NCT01576718|183553392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.048||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.124||Significance at the 0.05 level|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 100 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.124|-0.029|0.2221
91836627|NCT01576718|183553392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.006|||=|0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.083||Significance at the 0.05 level|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 50 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.083|-0.070|=0.8694
91836628|NCT01576718|183553393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1512||||||If the Fp MDPI showed a significantly positive trend, then contrasts for pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo were done in the sequence of highest to lowest Fp MDPI dose.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.1512
91896083|NCT01037244|183687528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.59|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.59|1.37|<0.0001
91836629|NCT01576718|183553393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.36||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|19.56||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||19.56|-4.83|0.2361
91836630|NCT01576718|183553393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.78||||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|20.15|||Regression, Linear|Significance at the 0.05 level||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||20.15|-4.59|0.2169
91836631|NCT01576718|183553393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.09||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|19.26||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||19.26|-5.07|0.2523
91836632|NCT01576718|183553393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|8.23||||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|20.45||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||20.45|-3.98|0.1858
91900870|NCT00475033|183696141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.48|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Ratio of GMs (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.48|0.96|
91836633|NCT01576718|183553394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2879||||||If the Fp MDPI showed a significantly positive trend, then contrasts for pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo were done in the sequence of highest to lowest Fp MDPI dose.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2879
91836634|NCT01576718|183553394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.56||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|19.56||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||19.56|-4.45|0.2166
91896084|NCT01037244|183687529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.57||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.93|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.93|0.21|0.0019
91775528|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|33.38|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.08|43.26|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||43.26|23.08|
91775529|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|28.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.61|38.86|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||38.86|16.61|
91775530|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|18.67|39.63|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||39.63|18.67|
91775531|NCT04886154|183432316|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|27.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.46|38.02|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||38.02|15.46|
91775532|NCT03919773|183432352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||0.629
91775533|NCT03919773|183432353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison of proportion with positive treatment response (as defined) in IVIG group compared to albumin||||0.718
91775534|NCT04972162|183432377|OTHER|The rm-ANOVA model fitted for the primary analysis was run to confirm if there is a significant interaction for treatment and order. This confirmation of the absence of an interaction effect is needed to validate the pooling of the two periods of Web-App treatment and the two periods of Standard-of-Care treatment, respectively.||||||0.38||||||p\<0.05 would show that there is an interaction effect i.e. results would differ depending on the order in which the participants wore the hearing aids|ANOVA|||"Check for interaction effect for Ease of Communication Subscale (EC)~The statistical analysis method was a repeated-measures ANOVA in which:~* order is a between-subjects effect - i.e., each subject has just one order~* treatment is a within-subjects effect - i.e., each subjects has both treatments because of the cross-over design~* the interaction term treatment x order is a within-subjects effect. The rm-ANOVAs generates a nuisance p-value: that of the interaction effect."||||0.38
91836635|NCT01576718|183553394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.03||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|16.23||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||16.23|-8.17|0.5167
91836636|NCT01576718|183553394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|2.99||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|15.05||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||15.05|-9.06|0.6258
91896085|NCT01037244|183687529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.1|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||1.10|0.38|<0.0001
91896086|NCT01037244|183687529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.21|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||1.21|0.49|<0.0001
91896087|NCT01037244|183687530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.19|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.19|1.13|<0.0001
91896088|NCT01037244|183687530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.29|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.29|1.23|<0.0001
91896089|NCT01037244|183687530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.09|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||3.09|2.03|<0.0001
91896090|NCT01037244|183687531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|12.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|17.4|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||17.40|7.29|<0.0001
91896091|NCT01037244|183687531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.23|24.36|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||24.36|14.23|<0.0001
91896092|NCT01037244|183687531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.14|24.18|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled sites as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||24.18|14.14|<0.0001
91896093|NCT01037244|183687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.43|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||25.43|10.70|<0.0001
91896094|NCT01037244|183687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|23.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.12|30.94|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||30.94|16.12|<0.0001
91646158|NCT01236053|183184671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.56||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|40.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||40.02|1.83|0.0063
91775535|NCT04972162|183432377|OTHER|The rm-ANOVA model fitted for the primary analysis was run to confirm if there is a significant interaction for treatment and order. This confirmation of the absence of an interaction effect is needed to validate the pooling of the two periods of Web-App treatment and the two periods of Standard-of-Care treatment, respectively.||||||0.79||||||p\<0.05 would show that there is an interaction effect i.e. results would differ depending on the order in which the participants wore the hearing aids|ANOVA|||"Check for interaction effect for Background Noise Subscale (BN)~The statistical analysis method was a repeated-measures ANOVA in which:~* order is a between-subjects effect - i.e., each subject has just one order~* treatment is a within-subjects effect - i.e., each subjects has both treatments because of the cross-over design~* the interaction term treatment x order is a within-subjects effect. The rm-ANOVAs generates a nuisance p-value: that of the interaction effect."||||0.79
91775536|NCT04972162|183432377|OTHER|The rm-ANOVA model fitted for the primary analysis was run to confirm if there is a significant interaction for treatment and order. This confirmation of the absence of an interaction effect is needed to validate the pooling of the two periods of Web-App treatment and the two periods of Standard-of-Care treatment, respectively.||||||0.51||||||p\<0.05 would show that there is an interaction effect i.e. results would differ depending on the order in which the participants wore the hearing aids|ANOVA|||"Check for interaction effect for Reverberant Room Subscale (RV)~The statistical analysis method was a repeated-measures ANOVA in which:~* order is a between-subjects effect - i.e., each subject has just one order~* treatment is a within-subjects effect - i.e., each subjects has both treatments because of the cross-over design~* the interaction term treatment x order is a within-subjects effect. The rm-ANOVAs generates a nuisance p-value: that of the interaction effect."||||0.51
91775537|NCT04972162|183432377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority tests compared the subject´s perceived hearing aid benefit when the hearing aid was standard-of-care fitted compared to Web-App fitted by the subject. The non-inferiority margins are the minimum clinically important differences on each of the 3 communication benefit subscales as described by Cox \& Alexander (Ear and Hearing 1995;16;176-186). These literature values are as follows: Ease of Communication (EC): 26, Background Noise (BN): 27, Reverberant Room (RV): 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.2||Threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05. p-value was calculated using the estimated difference of benefits, calculating a new t-statistic by subtracting the applicable non-inf. margin from the difference and dividing by standard error.|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA where factors are order and treatment is device with patient as a random effect. Added interaction term of treatment and order|Difference calculated as benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit)|Results for Ease of Communication Subscale. Null hypothesis: benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit) \< noninferiority margin for all subscales. Each subscale was analyzed using an rm-ANOVA in which the repeated factors are order \& treatment; no between-group factors. Interaction term was order x treatment. ITT population includes 2 subjects who withdrew. It was concluded that their primary endpoint data was missing for cause and their APHAB benefit scores were imputed as 0.||5.2|-4.3|<0.0001
91775538|NCT04972162|183432377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority tests compared the subject´s perceived hearing aid benefit when the hearing aid was standard-of-care fitted compared to Web-App fitted by the subject. The non-inferiority margins are the minimum clinically important differences on each of the 3 communication benefit subscales as described by Cox \& Alexander (Ear and Hearing 1995;16;176-186). These literature values are as follows: Ease of Communication (EC): 26, Background Noise (BN): 27, Reverberant Room (RV): 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|7.2||Threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05. p-value was calculated using the estimated difference of benefits, calculating a new t-statistic by subtracting the applicable non-inf. margin from the difference and dividing by standard error.|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA where factors are order and treatment is device with patient as a random effect. Added interaction term of treatment and order|Difference calculated as benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit)|Results for Background Noise Subscale. Null hypothesis: benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit) \< noninferiority margin for all subscales. Each subscale was analyzed using an rm-ANOVA in which the repeated factors are order \& treatment; no between-group factors. Interaction term was order x treatment. ITT population includes 2 subjects who withdrew. It was concluded that their primary endpoint data was missing for cause and their APHAB benefit scores were imputed as 0.||7.2|-5.3|<0.0001
91775539|NCT04972162|183432377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority tests compared the subject´s perceived hearing aid benefit when the hearing aid was standard-of-care fitted compared to Web-App fitted by the subject. The non-inferiority margins are the minimum clinically important differences on each of the 3 communication benefit subscales as described by Cox \& Alexander (Ear and Hearing 1995;16;176-186). These literature values are as follows: Ease of Communication (EC): 26, Background Noise (BN): 27, Reverberant Room (RV): 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.5||Threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05. p-value was calculated using the estimated difference of benefits, calculating a new t-statistic by subtracting the applicable non-inf. margin from the difference and dividing by standard error.|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA where factors are order and treatment is device with patient as a random effect. Added interaction term of treatment and order|Difference calculated as benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit)|Results for Reverberant Room Subscale. Null hypothesis: benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit) \< noninferiority margin for all subscales. Each subscale was analyzed using an rm-ANOVA in which the repeated factors are order \& treatment; no between-group factors. Interaction term was order x treatment. ITT population includes 2 subjects who withdrew. It was concluded that their primary endpoint data was missing for cause and their APHAB benefit scores were imputed as 0.||6.5|-4.6|<0.0001
91791313|NCT00492063|183460306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in adults.||4|-6|
91710799|NCT00105989|183313995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for non-fasting glucose change from baseline to endpoint.|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.030
91775540|NCT00385671|183432391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Basis of non-inferiority margin (maximum disadvantage for duloxetine compared to pregabalin not considered meaningful): In 3 previous placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine in DPNP, in the subgroup of patients that had been treated with gabapentin prior to entry, the estimated mean change in pain at Week 12 was -2.74 for duloxetine and -1.09 for placebo, an advantage of about 1.65. The non-inferiority margin represents about half of this previous treatment effect in a similar population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week, Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in weekly mean of daily 24 hour average pain score between pregabalin \& duloxetine treatments. Sample size: 125 participants/treatment, 6% increase for 400 planned enrollees. 92% power with 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval; mean change in duloxetine group, -2.7; in pregabalin group, -2.5; standard deviation, 2.3; margin of non-inferiority: -0.8.||1.04|-0.05|0.076
91775541|NCT00385671|183432392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Basis of non-inferiority margin (maximum disadvantage for duloxetine compared to pregabalin not considered meaningful): In 3 previous placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine in DPNP, in the subgroup of patients that had been treated with gabapentin prior to entry, the estimated mean change in pain at Week 12 was -2.74 for duloxetine and -1.09 for placebo, an advantage of about 1.65. The non-inferiority margin represents about half of this previous treatment effect in a similar population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.78||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week, Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in weekly mean of daily 24 hour average pain score between duloxetine \& duloxetine+gabapentin treatments. Sample size: 125 participants/treatment, 6% increase for 400 planned enrollees. 92% power with 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval; mean change in duloxetine group, -2.7; in pregabalin group, -2.5; standard deviation, 2.3; margin of non-inferiority: -0.8.||0.78|-0.32|0.417
91775542|NCT00385671|183432393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||||0.463
91775543|NCT00385671|183432393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||||0.520
91775544|NCT00385671|183432393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||||0.463
91775545|NCT00385671|183432394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in weekly mean of the daily worst pain severity score.||||0.389
91775546|NCT00385671|183432394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in weekly mean of the daily worst pain severity score.||||0.126
91775547|NCT00385671|183432394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in weekly mean of the daily worst pain severity score.||||0.489
91775548|NCT00385671|183432395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests: Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in CGI severity.||0.35|-0.20|0.602
91836637|NCT01576718|183553394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.39||||0.9487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|12.39||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||12.39|-11.60|0.9487
91646159|NCT01236053|183184671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|55.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||55.14|0.45|0.1888
91836638|NCT01576718|183553395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0341||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0341
91836639|NCT01576718|183553395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0340
91836640|NCT01576718|183553395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0058
91836641|NCT01576718|183553395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0018
91836642|NCT01576718|183553395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1006||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.1006
91836643|NCT01576718|183553396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.88116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|12.91||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||12.91|-11.12|0.88116
91896095|NCT01037244|183687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|36.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.92|43.59|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||43.59|28.92|<0.0001
91896096|NCT01037244|183687533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.79|25.6|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||25.60|10.79|<0.0001
91896097|NCT01037244|183687533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|25.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.82|32.69|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||32.69|17.82|<0.0001
91896098|NCT01037244|183687533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|36.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.63|44.36|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||44.36|29.63|<0.0001
91836644|NCT01576718|183553396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.98||||0.05977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|0.68||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||0.68|-22.64|0.05977
91836645|NCT01576718|183553396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.90426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|11.54||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||11.54|-13.02|0.90426
91836646|NCT01576718|183553396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|7.82||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||7.82|-16.57|0.47310
91836647|NCT01576718|183553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.019|||=|0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.096||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.096|-0.057|=0.6161
91836648|NCT01576718|183553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.004||||0.9245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|0.08||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.080|-0.973|0.9245
91836649|NCT01576718|183553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.008||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.068||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.068|-0.083|0.8434
91836650|NCT01576718|183553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.047||||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.029||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.029|-0.122|0.2241
91836651|NCT01576718|183553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.053||||0.1822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.025||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.025|-0.130|0.1822
91836652|NCT01576718|183553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.56||||0.3568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.42|6.29||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.29|-17.42|0.3568
91836653|NCT01576718|183553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.68||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|6.32||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.32|-17.67|0.3531
91896099|NCT01037244|183687534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.69|27.26|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||27.26|12.69|<0.0001
91775549|NCT00385671|183432395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.37||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in CGI severity.||0.37|-0.17|0.469
91896100|NCT01037244|183687534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|27.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.29|34.88|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||34.88|20.29|<0.0001
91896101|NCT01037244|183687534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.57|45.03|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||45.03|30.57|<0.0001
91896102|NCT00690820|183687535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91896103|NCT00690820|183687536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91896104|NCT00690820|183687537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91896105|NCT00690820|183687538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91896106|NCT00690820|183687539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91896107|NCT00690820|183687540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.671
91896108|NCT00690820|183687541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.003
91896109|NCT00690820|183687542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.023
91896110|NCT00968227|183687645|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91896111|NCT02481947|183687668|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 12.6% (pre-specified)||||||0.016||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.016
91896112|NCT02751320|183687681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.7603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|5.94||From ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), subject-level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, subject-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates).|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||5.94|-8.11|0.7603
91896113|NCT02751320|183687681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|3.74||From ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), subject-level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, subject-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates).|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||3.74|-10.34|0.3555
91896114|NCT02751320|183687681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.5335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|9.23||ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), Participant-level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, Participant-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates)|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||9.23|-4.81|0.5335
91896115|NCT02751320|183687681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.02|29.9||From ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), Participant -level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, Participant -level pre-treatment acidchallenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates) .|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Treatment comparison corresponding to qualifying criteria for the analysis||29.90|16.02|<.0001
91775550|NCT00385671|183432395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.3||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in CGI severity.||0.30|-0.24|0.841
91775551|NCT00385671|183432396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.55||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Variance model and t-tests:~Endpoint = InvestigatorGroup + Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in PGI-Improvement at 12 weeks.||0.55|-0.16|0.276
91775552|NCT00385671|183432396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.37||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Variance model and t-tests:~Endpoint = InvestigatorGroup + Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in PGI-Improvement at 12 weeks.||0.37|-0.33|0.929
91775553|NCT00385671|183432396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.17||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Variance model and t-tests:~Endpoint = InvestigatorGroup + Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in PGI-Improvement at 12 weeks.||0.17|-0.53|0.313
91775554|NCT00385671|183432397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: 24-hour average pain.||1.04|-0.06|0.078
91775555|NCT00385671|183432397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: 24-hour average pain.||1.20|0.08|0.025
91775556|NCT00385671|183432397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.7||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: 24-hour average pain.||0.70|-0.41|0.602
91836654|NCT01576718|183553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-6.58||||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.35|5.19||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||5.19|-18.35|0.2724
91836655|NCT01576718|183553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.11|||=|0.3964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|6.72||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.72|-16.95|=0.3964
91836656|NCT01576718|183553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-13.45||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.57|-1.33||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||-1.33|-25.57|0.0296
91836657|NCT01576718|183553405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.69||||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|11.22||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||11.22|-12.59|0.9101
91836658|NCT01576718|183553405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-4.51||||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.57||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||7.57|-16.6|0.4634
91836659|NCT01576718|183553405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.88||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|6.05||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.05|-17.8|0.3333
91836660|NCT01576718|183553405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-8.19||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.06|3.69||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||3.69|-20.06|0.1763
91836661|NCT01576718|183553405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-9.05||||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|3.19||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||3.19|-21.3|0.1469
91836662|NCT01742364|183553416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of all adverse events (both injection site and systemic AEs).||||0.475
91836663|NCT01742364|183553416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of all adverse events (both injection site and systemic AEs).||||0.187
91836664|NCT01742364|183553418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.205
91836665|NCT01742364|183553419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.325
91836666|NCT01742364|183553420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91836667|NCT01742364|183553420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.130
91836668|NCT01742364|183553421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91836669|NCT01742364|183553421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91896116|NCT01886378|183687694|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean|423.594||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.66|1002.85||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||1002.85|-155.66|0.1518
91896117|NCT01886378|183687695|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.011||||0.3964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||0.01|-0.04|0.3964
91896118|NCT01886378|183687696|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|4.671||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|9.86||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||9.86|-0.52|0.0777
91896119|NCT01886378|183687697|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|181.37||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|386.45||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||386.45|-23.70|0.0830
91896120|NCT01886378|183687698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.185||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||-0.02|-0.35|0.0320
91896121|NCT01886378|183687699|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|12.44||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|26.6||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||26.60|-1.72|0.0850
91896122|NCT01886378|183687700|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|2.16||||0.3754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|6.94||The LS Mean, standard error (SE), 95% CI, and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.|GEE model|||||6.94|-2.62|0.3754
91896123|NCT01886378|183687701|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.816||||0.7564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|5.97||The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI, and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.|GEE model|||||5.97|-4.34|0.7564
91896124|NCT01886378|183687702|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|8.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|12.08||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model|||||12.08|5.67|<0.0001
91896125|NCT01886378|183687703|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|9.7||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|17.54||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||17.54|1.87|0.0152
91896126|NCT01270971|183687712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91896127|NCT01270971|183687713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91896128|NCT01270971|183687714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91896129|NCT01270971|183687715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91896130|NCT02411357|183687751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage Chi-square trend test|||||||<.001
91896131|NCT02858349|183687759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.05|0.0042
91896132|NCT04217590|183687771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|15.12|||Fisher Exact||The CI for OR is calculated as an exact CI. An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||15.12|1.90|<0.001
91896133|NCT04217590|183687772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|15.55|||Regression, Logistic|The OR, 95% CI and p-value are obtained from a pooled logistic regression model after multiple imputation (MI) of missing pre-dialysis S-K values.|An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||15.55|2.64|<0.001
91896134|NCT04217590|183687773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|15.12|||Regression, Logistic|The OR, 95% CI and p-value are obtained from a pooled logistic regression model after multiple imputation (MI) of missing pre-dialysis S-K values.|An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||15.12|2.71|<0.001
91896135|NCT04217590|183687774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|7.67|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|The p-value was obtained from a test of equality of odds ratios.|The OR was obtained from GLMM model with random intercept and logit link. Treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline were specified as fixed effects. An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||7.67|2.53|<0.001
91896136|NCT04217590|183687775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.64|||||Endpoint analysed with Generalised linear mixed model. The CI for the mean difference was calculated by bootstrapping. A mean difference \> 0 favours SZC.|||1.64|0.77|
91896137|NCT04217590|183687776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.73|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|The p-value was obtained from a test of equality of odds ratios.|The OR was obtained from GLMM model with random intercept and logit link. Treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline were specified as fixed effects. An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||10.73|3.15|<0.001
91896138|NCT01395888|183687784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.259||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.468|0.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.986|-0.468|0.484
91896139|NCT02641496|183687803|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.027||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||Treatment 1 to Treatment 4 (approximately first 30 days of treatment)||||0.027
91896140|NCT02641496|183687803|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.919||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||Last 30 Days of 1 Year Study||||0.919
91896141|NCT02641496|183687804|OTHER|||||||0.696||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||||||0.696
91896142|NCT02641496|183687805|OTHER|||||||0.593||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; two-tailed|ANOVA|||||||0.593
91896143|NCT02641496|183687806|OTHER|||||||0.925||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||||||0.925
91836670|NCT02821819|183553429|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs SD 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1||0.8|ONE_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs and a standard deviation (SD) of 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60).|"Since the number of collected eggs constitutes the main outcome of the study, the sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs with an standard deviation of 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60).~Statistical analysis was performed using t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters. A P value of \<.05 was considered significant."|||0.8
91836671|NCT02821819|183553429|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs SD 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60). Statistical analysis used t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Chi-squared|||The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs SD 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60). Statistical analysis used t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters.||||0.8
91836672|NCT02821819|183553430|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analysis was performed using t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters. A P value of \<.05 was considered significant.|Median Difference (Final Values)|71.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91836673|NCT02332590|183553431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.077|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.361|-0.793||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline DAS28-ESR score as a continuous covariate. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control overall alpha error rate at 0.05 level and handle multiple endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.793|-1.361|<0.0001
91836674|NCT02332590|183553432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.879|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.536|9.389||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||9.389|2.536|<0.0001
91836675|NCT02332590|183553433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.976||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.289|3.028||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||3.028|1.289|0.0017
91836676|NCT02332590|183553434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.286||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||4.020|1.300|0.0036
91896144|NCT00320541|183687855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required.|Fisher Exact|||Assuming the response rate for the PB arm is 34% and the addition of gemcitabine will improve it to 54%, then a sample size of 170 evaluable participants (85 per arm) will give an 80% statistical power to detect the difference, using a 1-sided test at the significance level of 0.05. Confidence levels are exact binomial 95% Confidence Intervals.||||0.117
91896145|NCT00320541|183687856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.247
91896146|NCT00320541|183687857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.475
91896147|NCT00320541|183687858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.010
91896148|NCT00320541|183687859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.119
91836677|NCT02332590|183553435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|2.773||Threshold for significance 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||2.773|1.168|0.0074
91896149|NCT00320541|183687860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.023
91896150|NCT00320541|183687861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.002
91896151|NCT00320541|183687862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.004
91896152|NCT00320541|183687863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.067
91896153|NCT00320541|183687864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.036
91896154|NCT01097785|183687865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||||||<0.05
91896155|NCT01097785|183687866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||||||<0.05
91900871|NCT00475033|183696142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.7|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PT: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.6|
91646160|NCT01236053|183184671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|32.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||32.21|0.03|0.9990
91646161|NCT01236053|183184671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|43.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||43.08|0.33|0.2885
91646162|NCT01236053|183184671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|13.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||13.87|0.06|0.9608
91646163|NCT01236053|183184671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|24.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||24.07|0.78|0.0944
91775557|NCT00385671|183432398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.94||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: worst pain.||0.94|-0.34|0.353
91646164|NCT01236053|183184671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.9381||95.0|0.11|7.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.97|0.11|0.9381
91646165|NCT01236053|183184673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
91646166|NCT01236053|183184673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.55||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|260.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||260.2|1.78|0.0157
91646167|NCT01236053|183184673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|15.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||15.14|0.99|0.0524
91646168|NCT01236053|183184673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|20.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||20.31|1.13|0.0333
91646169|NCT01236053|183184673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|32.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||32.06|0.35|0.2966
91646170|NCT01236053|183184673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|12.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||12.31|0.03|0.7510
91646171|NCT01236053|183184673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.71||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|113.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||113.4|0.40|0.1868
91646172|NCT01236053|183184673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.7558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|40.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||40.61|0.07|0.7558
91646173|NCT01236053|183184673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|24.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||24.07|0.78|0.0944
91646174|NCT01236053|183184673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.81|0.10|0.9244
91646175|NCT01236053|183184674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.70|0.96|0.0963
91646176|NCT01236053|183184674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.27|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.27|0.69|0.6710
91646177|NCT01236053|183184674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.20|1.54|<0.0001
91646178|NCT01236053|183184674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.81|1.24|<0.0001
91646179|NCT01236053|183184675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.18|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.18|0.92|0.1184
91646180|NCT01236053|183184675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.50|0.59|0.8016
91646181|NCT01236053|183184675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.91|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.91|1.77|<0.0001
91775558|NCT00385671|183432398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.34||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: worst pain.||1.34|0.03|0.039
91775559|NCT00385671|183432398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: Worst Pain.||1.04|-0.27|0.244
91775560|NCT00385671|183432399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.8||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: Least Pain.||0.80|-0.25|0.298
91775561|NCT00385671|183432399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.81||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: Least Pain.||0.81|-0.25|0.304
91775562|NCT00385671|183432399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.54||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: least pain.||0.54|-0.53|0.989
91775563|NCT00385671|183432400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: pain right now.||0.97|-0.14|0.145
91775564|NCT00385671|183432400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.03||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: pain right now.||1.03|-0.11|0.112
91775565|NCT00385671|183432400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.62||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||0.62|-0.52|0.865
91775566|NCT00385671|183432401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.95||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with general activity.||0.95|-0.26|0.263
91775567|NCT00385671|183432401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.49||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with general activity.||1.49|0.24|0.007
91896156|NCT02482870|183687868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square value = 2.424; degrees of freedom = 1||Sample size was calculated according to the first 60 patients. To obtain 90% power with an alpha error of 0.05, a total of 378 patients were required. Considering a possible drop-out rate of 2.5% due to unexpected complications, we aimed for 388 patients.||||0.119
91646182|NCT01236053|183184675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.58|1.51|<0.0001
91646183|NCT01236053|183184675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.08|0.65|0.6105
91708089|NCT00482170|183309155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.46|0.22|<0.001
91896157|NCT02482870|183687869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|4.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.6|3|<0.0001
91646184|NCT01236053|183184675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.09|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.09|0.62|0.6797
91646185|NCT01236053|183184675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.39|1.12|0.0103
91708090|NCT00482170|183309155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.56||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.56|0.26|<0.001
91708091|NCT00482170|183309155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.58||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.58|0.28|<0.001
91708092|NCT00482170|183309156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the first injection: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.26|0.60|0.470
91708093|NCT00482170|183309156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.2||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.20|0.57|0.325
91708094|NCT00482170|183309156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.13||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.13|0.55|0.197
91708095|NCT00482170|183309156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.14|0.56|0.212
91708096|NCT00482170|183309157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Baseline- after the training: Mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an auto-regressive correlation structure was used to calculate 95% CI.||0.46|-0.91|0.515
91708097|NCT00482170|183309157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.6||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Week 4: Mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||0.60|-0.74|0.842
91708098|NCT00482170|183309157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.61||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Week 12: Mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||0.61|-0.67|0.928
91708099|NCT00482170|183309157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.64||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Last observation: ANOVA method was used for the analysis.||0.64|-0.62|0.974
91646186|NCT01236053|183184675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.1629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.00|0.89|0.1629
91646187|NCT01236053|183184675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.97|0.73|0.4713
91646188|NCT01236053|183184675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.38|0.49|0.4505
91646189|NCT01236053|183184675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.01|1.04|0.0284
91708100|NCT00482170|183309158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.030
91896158|NCT02482870|183687870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.4|0.5|<0.0001
91896159|NCT02482870|183687871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.67||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t value = -11.224, degrees of freedom = 773.99||"For each patient, the difference between Cormack-Lehane score and Mallampati class was calculated for each laryngoscope. As an example, the first patient had a Mallampati score 3. Macintosh laryngoscope provided a Cormack-Lehane score of 2, therefore the difference is - 1, calculated as 2 - 3. In the same patient, King Vision video laryngoscope provided a Cormack-Lehane score of 1, therefore the difference is - 2, calculated as 1 - 3. T-test was used to compare the differences."||-0.67|-0.95|<0.0001
91896160|NCT02482870|183687872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared, Corrected|Chi-square test with Yates' continuity correction: chi-square = 0.101; degrees of freedom = 1||||||0.75
91896161|NCT01620255|183687873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.019|0.14||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg versus (vs) placebo, centrally read||0.140|0.019|0.0213
91775568|NCT00385671|183432401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.13||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with general activity.||1.13|-0.10|0.102
91775569|NCT00385671|183432402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.55||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with mood.||0.55|-0.61|0.922
91775570|NCT00385671|183432402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.99||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with mood.||0.99|-0.20|0.195
91775571|NCT00385671|183432402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.02||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with mood.||1.02|-0.17|0.162
91775572|NCT00385671|183432403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.87||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with walking ability.||0.87|-0.46|0.541
91775573|NCT00385671|183432403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.36||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with walking ability.||1.36|-0.00|0.051
91775574|NCT00385671|183432403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.15||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with walking ability.||1.15|-0.21|0.173
91775575|NCT00385671|183432404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly BPI-interference with normal work.||0.90|-0.40|0.451
91775576|NCT00385671|183432404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with normal work.||0.90|-0.43|0.485
91896162|NCT01620255|183687873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.128||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.056|0.199||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.199|0.056|0.0025
91775577|NCT00385671|183432404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.65||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with normal work.||0.65|-0.68|0.969
91836678|NCT02332590|183553436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.182||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.059||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline HAQ-DI score as a continuous covariate.||-0.059|-0.305|0.0037
91836679|NCT02332590|183553437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.65||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.147|4.153||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline SF-36 PCS score as a continuous covariate.||4.153|1.147|0.0006
91836680|NCT02332590|183553438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.768||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|3.674||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline FACIT-F score as a continuous covariate.||3.674|-0.137|0.0689
91836681|NCT00811382|183553500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91836682|NCT03091673|183553546|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was computed using a t-test to determine if change in plasma glucose from baseline to 30 minutes was zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91836683|NCT02714868|183553563|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For goal attainment, we calculated independent t-tests to compare GAS t-scores across groups at outcome. Lowest score is 0, highest score is 100. 100 is highest goal attainment.||||.05
91836684|NCT05056870|183553574|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of was below 0.00 logMAR.|Mean Difference|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|-0.081|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-0.081|-0.113|
91836685|NCT05056870|183553575|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of was above 0.|Mean Difference|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|33.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||33.3|22.6|
91836686|NCT05056870|183553576|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of was below 0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|-0.008|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-0.008|-0.032|
91836687|NCT05056870|183553577|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of was above 1.|Mean Ratio|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|5.11|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||Mean Ratio was calculated as Test over Control|||5.11|1.73|
91836688|NCT01373931|183553619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for ethinyl estradiol.||||1.05|0.907|
91836689|NCT01373931|183553619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.842|0.991|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for norelgestromin.||||0.991|0.842|
91836690|NCT01373931|183553620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|0.51|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Median difference is for ethinyl estradiol.||||0.51|-0.73|
91836691|NCT01373931|183553620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Median difference is for norelgestromin.||||0.50|-0.50|
91836692|NCT01373931|183553621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.07||||||90.0|1.0|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for ethinyl estradiol.||||1.15|1.00|
91836693|NCT01373931|183553621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0||||||90.0|0.944|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for norelgestromin.||||1.07|0.944|
91836694|NCT01175148|183553640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The study used a minimax Simon two-stage design to test the null hypothesis Ho: P \> 0.35 versus the alternative H1: \< 0.15, where P is the probability of grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD at day + 100.||||<0.05
91836695|NCT01010477|183553657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||||||threshold for statistical significance: p\< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Fisher Exact test (2-sided)||||0.632
91836696|NCT01114204|183553658|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the large sample assumption. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin for testing the difference between treatment groups was -15%.|Treatment Difference|2.58||||0.2833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|9.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is the result of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for Baseline hemoglobin level and underlying condition.|The treatment difference (ferumoxytol - iron sucrose) was expressed as a percentage.|"Participants who achieved a ≥2.0 g/dL increase in hemoglobin from Baseline up to Week 5 were analyzed. Statistical comparison was performed for data up to Week 5 only.~Baseline was defined as the Day 1 value (prior to injection of study drug). The screening or most recent value prior to Day 1 was used for any participant with missing Day 1 information."||9.06|-3.89|0.2833
91896163|NCT01620255|183687873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.118||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.048|0.188||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.188|0.048|0.0040
91896164|NCT01620255|183687873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.064||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.064|-0.012|0.1803
91896165|NCT01620255|183687873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.159||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.159|0.002|0.0582
91896166|NCT01620255|183687873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.178||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.083|0.272||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.272|0.083|0.0014
91896167|NCT01620255|183687873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.122||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.036|0.208||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.208|0.036|0.0125
91896168|NCT01620255|183687873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.066||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.142||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.142|-0.009|0.0927
91836697|NCT00991341|183553666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.26|||ANCOVA|The treatment groups were compared with respect to the change in MODS, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline MODS, the difference in the means was -0.17, positive values are in favor of longer storage duration.|||0.26|-0.60|0.44
91836698|NCT00991341|183553667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.43|||Regression, Cox|The treatment groups were compared with respect to all-cause mortality, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage duration arm is the reference category.|||1.43|0.48|0.50
91836699|NCT00991341|183553668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.17|||ANCOVA|The treatment groups were compared with respect to 28-day change in MODS, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline MODS, the difference in the means was -0.32; positive values are in favor of longer storage duration.|||0.17|-0.82|0.20
91836700|NCT00991341|183553669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.018||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.069|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.069|-0.033|0.50
91896169|NCT01620255|183687874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.089||||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.037|0.214||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.214|-0.037|0.1379
91896170|NCT01620255|183687874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.254||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.121|0.388||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.388|0.121|0.0011
91896171|NCT01620255|183687874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.163||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.032|0.293||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.293|0.032|0.0239
91896172|NCT01620255|183687874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.213||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.347||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.347|0.080|0.0052
91896173|NCT01620255|183687874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.056||||0.2617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|0.186||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.186|-0.075|0.2617
91896174|NCT01620255|183687874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.212||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.077|0.347||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.347|0.077|0.0058
91646190|NCT01236053|183184675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.54|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.54|0.77|0.6262
91646191|NCT01236053|183184676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.41|0.95|0.0798
91646192|NCT01236053|183184676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.73|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.73|0.64|0.8357
91836701|NCT00991341|183553670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.027||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.035|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.035|-0.090|0.40
91836702|NCT00991341|183553671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.018||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.023|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.023|-0.059|0.41
91836703|NCT00991341|183553672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||0.37|-0.62|0.75
91836704|NCT00991341|183553673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANCOVA|The treatment arms were compared with respect to the change in creatinine, adjusting for the baseline creatinine value.|The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline creatinine, the difference in the means was -0.02, positive values are in favor of longer storage duration.|||0.05|-0.08|0.62
91836705|NCT00991341|183553674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.93||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|5.98||The treatment arms were compared with respect to the change in troponin-I, adjusting for the baseline troponin-I value.|ANCOVA||The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline troponin-I, the change in troponin-I values was 1.9 ng/mL higher in the shorter storage red blood cell units arm.|Troponin-I values recorded as 'too low to detect' were recoded as 0 since the median value of the minimum quantitative troponin-I value obtained among all participating sites was 0.01.||5.98|-2.11|0.35
91836706|NCT00991341|183553675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.10
91836707|NCT00991341|183553676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.41|||ANCOVA||The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline bilirubin, the change in bilirubin values was 0.65 mg/dL lower in the shorter storage red blood cell units arm.|||-0.41|-0.89|<0.01
91836708|NCT00991341|183553678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.25||The treatment groups were compared with respect to days to first post-operative bowel movement, adjusting for baseline MODS.|Regression, Cox||The longer storage duration arm is reference category.|||1.25|0.98|0.11
91896175|NCT01620255|183687874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.156||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.022|0.29||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.290|0.022|0.0326
91836709|NCT00991341|183553679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.22|||Regression, Cox|The treatment groups were compared with respect to days to first post-operative solid food, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage duration arm is reference category.|||1.22|0.96|0.22
91836710|NCT00991341|183553680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.0|||Kruskal-Wallis||The longer storage duration arm is reference category.|||1.00|-0.59|0.71
91836711|NCT00991341|183553681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.027|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.027|-0.057|0.53
91836712|NCT02799472|183553720|OTHER||Ratio|14.201|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.251|32.262|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 1||32.262|6.251|<0.001
91836713|NCT02799472|183553720|OTHER||Ratio|32.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.828|66.156|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 2||66.156|15.828|<0.001
91836714|NCT02799472|183553720|OTHER||Ratio|55.772|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.646|121.287|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 4||121.287|25.646|<0.001
91836715|NCT02799472|183553720|OTHER||Ratio|48.336|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.341|120.798|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 6||120.798|19.341|<0.001
91836716|NCT02799472|183553720|OTHER||Ratio|34.635|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.69|87.629|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 8||87.629|13.690|<0.001
91836717|NCT02799472|183553720|OTHER||Ratio|23.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.579|63.005|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 12||63.005|8.579|<0.001
91836718|NCT02799472|183553720|OTHER||Ratio|1.233||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|2.048|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, 12-Week FU||2.048|0.742|0.401
91836719|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|0.943||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.032|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 1||1.032|0.861|0.193
91836720|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|1.028||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.362|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 2||1.362|0.776|0.842
91836721|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|0.743||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.093|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 4||1.093|0.505|0.127
91836722|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|0.762||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.095|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 6||1.095|0.531|0.137
91836723|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|0.886||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.259|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 8||1.259|0.623|0.488
91836724|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|0.793||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.29|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 12||1.290|0.488|0.338
91836725|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|0.859||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.502|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, 12-Week FU||1.502|0.491|0.582
91836726|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|0.999||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.427|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 1||1.427|0.699|0.996
91836727|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|0.944||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.346|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 2||1.346|0.662|0.745
91836728|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|1.017||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.593|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 4||1.593|0.649|0.939
91836729|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|0.981||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.617|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 6||1.617|0.595|0.937
91836730|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|1.067||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.727|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 8||1.727|0.659|0.787
91836731|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|1.267||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|2.086|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 12||2.086|0.769|0.342
91836732|NCT02799472|183553721|OTHER||Ratio|1.748||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.076|2.838|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, 12-Week FU||2.838|1.076|0.026
91836733|NCT02799472|183553722|OTHER||Ratio|0.774||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|2.29|||Repeated measures analysis|||Amyloid A, Week 12||2.290|0.261|0.632
91836734|NCT02799472|183553722|OTHER||Ratio|1.176||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|2.663|||Repeated measures analysis|||Amyloid A, 12-Week FU||2.663|0.519|0.685
91836735|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.692||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|1.074|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 1||1.074|0.445|0.097
91836736|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.713||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|1.249|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 2||1.249|0.407|0.229
91836737|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.608||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.012|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 4||1.012|0.365|0.055
91836738|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.755||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|1.309|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 6||1.309|0.435|0.307
91836739|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.557||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.894|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 8||0.894|0.348|0.017
91836740|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.52||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.922|||Repeated measures analysis|||||0.922|0.294|0.026
91836741|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.947||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.636|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, 12-Week FU||1.636|0.548|0.839
91836742|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.764||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 1||1.100|0.530|0.142
91836743|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|1.005||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.39|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 2||1.390|0.726|0.976
91836744|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|1.236||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.778|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 4||1.778|0.859|0.244
91896176|NCT01620255|183687874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.185||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.32||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.320|0.050|0.0145
91896177|NCT01620255|183687875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.081||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.162||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.162|0.000|0.0618
91836745|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|1.237||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.83|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 6||1.830|0.836|0.278
91836746|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|1.118||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.92|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 8||1.920|0.651|0.677
91836747|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|1.165||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|2.369|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 12||2.369|0.573|0.661
91836748|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|1.581||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|3.007|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, 12-Week FU||3.007|0.832|0.154
91836749|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.903||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.729|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 1||1.729|0.471|0.751
91836750|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.72||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|1.413|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 2||1.413|0.367|0.330
91836751|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.822||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|1.512|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 4||1.512|0.447|0.519
91836752|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.659||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.372|1.167|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 6||1.167|0.372|0.147
91836753|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.684||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|1.18|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 8||1.180|0.396|0.166
91836754|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|1.221||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|2.031|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 12||2.031|0.734|0.432
91836755|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|1.602||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.423|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, 12-Week FU||3.423|0.750|0.216
91836756|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.926||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|1.042|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 1||1.042|0.823|0.195
91836757|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.984||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.168|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 2||1.168|0.829|0.851
91836758|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.956||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.158|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 4||1.158|0.790|0.637
91836759|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|1.01||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.225|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 6||1.225|0.833|0.915
91836760|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.857||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.064|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 8||1.064|0.690|0.157
91836761|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|0.849||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|1.059|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 12||1.059|0.681|0.142
91836762|NCT02799472|183553723|OTHER||Ratio|1.013||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.378|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, 12-Week FU||1.378|0.745|0.929
91836763|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|0.887||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.231|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 1||1.231|0.640|0.463
91836764|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|0.953||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.352|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 2||1.352|0.672|0.782
91836765|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|1.132||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.69|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 4||1.690|0.759|0.533
91836766|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|1.149||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.694|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 6||1.694|0.779|0.473
91836767|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|1.112||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.687|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 8||1.687|0.733|0.608
91646193|NCT01236053|183184676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.01|1.75|<0.0001
91775578|NCT00385671|183432405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.76||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly BPI-interference with relations with other people.||0.76|-0.36|0.479
91646194|NCT01236053|183184676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.76|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.76|1.53|<0.0001
91775579|NCT00385671|183432405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.87||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with relations with other people.||0.87|-0.27|0.301
91775580|NCT00385671|183432405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.67||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with relations with other people.||0.67|-0.47|0.731
91775581|NCT00385671|183432406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.87||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with sleep.||0.87|-0.45|0.528
91775582|NCT00385671|183432406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.51||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with sleep.||0.51|-0.84|0.626
91775583|NCT00385671|183432406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.3||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with sleep.||0.30|-1.06|0.270
91775584|NCT00385671|183432407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.13||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with enjoyment of life.||1.13|-0.10|0.098
91775585|NCT00385671|183432407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with enjoyment of life.||0.90|-0.35|0.383
91775586|NCT00385671|183432407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.39||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with enjoyment of life.||0.39|-0.86|0.452
91775587|NCT00385671|183432408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.82||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI mean interference score.||0.82|-0.26|0.309
91836768|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|1.005||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.645|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 12||1.645|0.613|0.985
91836769|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|1.386||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|2.057|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, 12-Week FU||2.057|0.934|0.102
91836770|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|0.915||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.071|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 1||1.071|0.781|0.259
91836771|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|0.959||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.137|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 2||1.137|0.809|0.621
91836772|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|0.914||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.11|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 4||1.110|0.752|0.354
91836773|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|0.8||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|1.444|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 6||1.444|0.443|0.448
91836774|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|1.16||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.653|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 8||1.653|0.813|0.402
91836775|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|0.951||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.301|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 12||1.301|0.695|0.745
91836776|NCT02799472|183553724|OTHER||Ratio|1.226||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.796|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, 12-Week FU||1.796|0.837|0.279
91896178|NCT01620255|183687875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.187||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.091|0.284||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.284|0.091|0.0009
91836777|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.098||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.606|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 1||1.606|0.750|0.621
91836778|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.581||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|2.388|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 2||2.388|1.046|0.031
91836779|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.222||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.827|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 4||1.827|0.817|0.317
91836780|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.302||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.81|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 6||1.810|0.936|0.113
91836781|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.45||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|2.645|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 8||2.645|0.795|0.217
91836782|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.266||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.75|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 12||1.750|0.916|0.147
91836783|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.996||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.499|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, 12-Week FU||1.499|0.662|0.985
91836784|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.892||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.56|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 1||1.560|0.511|0.681
91836785|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.87||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.669|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 2||1.669|0.454|0.668
91896179|NCT01620255|183687875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.159||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.068|0.25||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.250|0.068|0.0027
91836786|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.12||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|2.101|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 4||2.101|0.597|0.717
91836787|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.661||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|1.31|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 6||1.310|0.333|0.227
91836788|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.817||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.437|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 8||1.437|0.464|0.471
91836789|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.816||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|1.597|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 12||1.597|0.417|0.541
91836790|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.822||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.602|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, 12-Week FU||1.602|0.422|0.544
91836791|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.051||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.233|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 1||1.233|0.895|0.537
91836792|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.031||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.173|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 2||1.173|0.906|0.635
91836793|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.012||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.165|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 4||1.165|0.879|0.866
91836794|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.979||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.139|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 6||1.139|0.842|0.780
91836795|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.113||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.32|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 8||1.320|0.938|0.212
91836796|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.102||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 12||1.300|0.934|0.242
91836797|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.05||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.267|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, 12-Week FU||1.267|0.870|0.597
91836798|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.795||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|0.997|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 1||0.997|0.634|0.047
91836799|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.883||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.165|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 2||1.165|0.668|0.367
91836800|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.784||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.102|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 4||1.102|0.558|0.155
91836801|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.638||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|0.855|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 6||0.855|0.477|0.004
91836802|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.799||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.08|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 8||1.080|0.591|0.140
91836803|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.891||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.228|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 12||1.228|0.647|0.470
91836804|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.869||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|1.217|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, 12-Week FU||1.217|0.621|0.401
91836805|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.981||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.296|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 1||1.296|0.742|0.887
91836806|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.97||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.263|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 2||1.263|0.744|0.814
91836807|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.969||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.233|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 4||1.233|0.762|0.794
91836808|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.919||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.213|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 6||1.213|0.696|0.539
91836809|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.937||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.221|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 8||1.221|0.719|0.623
91836810|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.913||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.173|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 12||1.173|0.711|0.467
91836811|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.778||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.061|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, 12-Week FU||1.061|0.570|0.108
91836812|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.01||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.175|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 1||1.175|0.868|0.897
91836813|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.037||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.218|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 2||1.218|0.884|0.644
91836814|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.943||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.139|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 4||1.139|0.780|0.530
91836815|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.882||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.063|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 6||1.063|0.733|0.182
91836816|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|10.0|0.779|1.182|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 8||1.182|0.779|0.691
91836817|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|0.979||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.214|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 12||1.214|0.790|0.843
91836818|NCT02799472|183553725|OTHER||Ratio|1.075||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.351|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, 12-Week FU||1.351|0.855|0.524
91836819|NCT02799472|183553726|OTHER||Ratio|0.953||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.123|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, Week 1||1.123|0.809|0.558
91836820|NCT02799472|183553726|OTHER||Ratio|0.947||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.12|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, Week 4||1.120|0.801|0.515
91836821|NCT02799472|183553726|OTHER||Ratio|1.046||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.222|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, Week 12||1.222|0.895|0.565
91836822|NCT02799472|183553726|OTHER||Ratio|1.013||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.249|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, 12-Week FU||1.249|0.822|0.897
91836823|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|1.037||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.354|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, Week 1||1.354|0.794|0.786
91836824|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|0.818||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.109|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, Week 4||1.109|0.603|0.188
91836825|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|0.763||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.087|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, Week 12||1.087|0.536|0.129
91896180|NCT01620255|183687875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.013|0.151||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.151|-0.013|0.0999
91896181|NCT01620255|183687875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||0.5225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.111|0.114||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.114|-0.111|0.5225
91836826|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|0.709||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|1.006|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, 12-Week FU||1.006|0.499|0.054
91836827|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|1.119||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.45|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, Week 1||1.450|0.863|0.383
91836828|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|0.89||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.271|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, Week 4||1.271|0.623|0.510
91836829|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|0.952||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.262|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, Week 12||1.262|0.718|0.724
91836830|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|0.958||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.443|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, 12-Week FU||1.443|0.635|0.831
91836831|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|1.082||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.328|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, Week 1||1.328|0.882|0.437
91836832|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|0.937||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.234|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, Week 4||1.234|0.711|0.632
91836833|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|1.088||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.336|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, Week 12||1.336|0.885|0.413
91836834|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|1.062||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.316|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, 12-Week FU||1.316|0.858|0.567
91836835|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|1.069||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.338|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, Week 1||1.338|0.855|0.547
91836836|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|0.907||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.223|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, Week 4||1.223|0.673|0.512
91836837|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|1.064||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.328|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, Week 12||1.328|0.853|0.573
91836838|NCT02799472|183553727|OTHER||Ratio|1.031||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, 12-Week FU||1.300|0.818|0.789
91836839|NCT02799472|183553728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.036||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.128|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, Week 1||0.128|-0.056|0.428
91836840|NCT02799472|183553728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.113|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, Week 4||0.113|-0.159|0.733
91836841|NCT02799472|183553728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.115|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, Week 12||0.115|-0.076|0.677
91836842|NCT02799472|183553728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.151|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, 12-Week FU||0.151|-0.084|0.569
91836843|NCT02799472|183553728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.469|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, Week 1||0.469|-0.263|0.569
91836844|NCT02799472|183553728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|0.354|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, Week 4||0.354|-0.668|0.534
91836845|NCT02799472|183553728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.498|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, Week 12||0.498|-0.323|0.668
91836846|NCT02799472|183553728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|0.484|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, 12-Week FU||0.484|-0.526|0.934
91836847|NCT02799472|183553729|OTHER||Ratio|1.112||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.412|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, Week 1||1.412|0.876|0.369
91836848|NCT02799472|183553729|OTHER||Ratio|0.941||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.228|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, Week 4||1.228|0.721|0.641
91775588|NCT00385671|183432408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.93||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI mean interference score.||0.93|-0.17|0.174
91775589|NCT00385671|183432408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.65||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI mean interference score.||0.65|-0.45|0.717
91775590|NCT00385671|183432409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with ≥ 30% reduction in the weekly mean 24 hour average pain score at 12 weeks.||||0.975
91775591|NCT00385671|183432409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with ≥ 30% reduction in the weekly mean 24 hour average pain score at 12 weeks.||||0.448
91775592|NCT00385671|183432409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with ≥ 30% reduction in the weekly mean 24 hour average pain score at 12 weeks.||||0.280
91775593|NCT00385671|183432410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with a reduction of ≥ 50% in Weekly mean of 24 hour average pain score.||||0.548
91775594|NCT00385671|183432410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of patients with a reduction of ≥ 50% in Weekly mean of 24 hour average pain score.||||0.599
91775595|NCT00385671|183432410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference in the number of patients with a reduction of ≥ 50% in Weekly mean of 24 hour average pain score.||||1.00
91775596|NCT00385671|183432411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of Participants with a ≥ 2-points reduction on the weekly average of the daily 24-hour average pain scale at 12 Weeks.||||0.905
91775597|NCT00385671|183432411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of Participants with a ≥ 2-points reduction on the weekly average of the daily 24-hour average pain scale at 12 Weeks.||||0.368
91775598|NCT00385671|183432411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of Participants with a ≥ 2-points reduction on the weekly average of the daily 24-hour average pain scale at 12 Weeks.||||0.200
91836849|NCT02799472|183553729|OTHER||Ratio|1.024||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.303|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, Week 12||1.303|0.804|0.844
91836850|NCT02799472|183553729|OTHER||Ratio|1.082||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.427|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, 12-Week FU||1.427|0.821|0.558
91836851|NCT02799472|183553729|OTHER||Ratio|1.111||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.402|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, Week 1||1.402|0.880|0.363
91836852|NCT02799472|183553729|OTHER||Ratio|0.957||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.265|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, Week 4||1.265|0.724|0.751
91836853|NCT02799472|183553729|OTHER||Ratio|1.076||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.37|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, Week 12||1.370|0.846|0.537
91708101|NCT00482170|183309158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.010
91708102|NCT00482170|183309159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.984
91708103|NCT00482170|183309159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.549
91896182|NCT01620255|183687875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.154||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.278||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.278|0.030|0.0246
91896183|NCT01620255|183687875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.008|0.253||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.253|0.008|0.0464
91896184|NCT01620255|183687875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.066||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.053|0.186||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.186|-0.053|0.2000
91896185|NCT01620255|183687877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.88||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.623|-0.145|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.145|-1.623|0.0494
91896186|NCT01620255|183687877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.254|-0.809|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.809|-2.254|0.0005
91896187|NCT01620255|183687877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.12||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.845|-0.39|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.390|-1.845|0.0117
91896188|NCT01620255|183687877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.27||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.016|-0.533|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.533|-2.016|0.0049
91896189|NCT01620255|183687877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.94||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.737|-0.137|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.137|-1.737|0.0543
91896190|NCT01620255|183687877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.372|-0.819|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.819|-2.372|0.0008
91896191|NCT01620255|183687877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.07||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.858|-0.284|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.284|-1.858|0.0255
91708104|NCT00482170|183309160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.158
91708105|NCT00482170|183309160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.808
91708106|NCT00482170|183309161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-A, satisfied: HAD-A and less satisfied: HAD-A, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.029
91708107|NCT00482170|183309161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-A, satisfied: HAD-A and less satisfied: HAD-A, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.005
91708108|NCT00482170|183309161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-D, satisfied: HAD-D and less satisfied: HAD-D, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.411
91708109|NCT00482170|183309161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-D, satisfied: HAD-D and less satisfied: HAD-D, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.005
91708110|NCT00482170|183309162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.039
91708111|NCT00482170|183309162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.006
91708112|NCT00482170|183309163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.752
91708113|NCT00482170|183309163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.700
91708114|NCT00482170|183309164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.697
91708115|NCT00482170|183309164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.159
91708116|NCT00482170|183309165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.004
91836854|NCT02799472|183553729|OTHER||Ratio|1.032||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.335|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, 12-Week FU||1.335|0.797|0.806
91836855|NCT02799472|183553729|OTHER||Ratio|1.101||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.391|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, Week 1||1.391|0.872|0.405
91708117|NCT00482170|183309165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.024
91836856|NCT02799472|183553729|OTHER||Ratio|0.907||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.232|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, Week 4||1.232|0.668|0.519
91836857|NCT02799472|183553729|OTHER||Ratio|1.036||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.291|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, Week 12||1.291|0.831|0.748
91836858|NCT02799472|183553729|OTHER||Ratio|1.049||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.356|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, 12-Week FU||1.356|0.811|0.704
91836859|NCT02799472|183553730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|26.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, Week 1||26.1|-13.1|0.501
91836860|NCT02799472|183553730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|18.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, Week 4||18.0|-21.6|0.852
91836861|NCT02799472|183553730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|29.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, Week 12||29.0|-16.4|0.572
91836862|NCT02799472|183553730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|34.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, 12-Week FU||34.1|-13.0|0.363
91836863|NCT02799472|183553730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|17.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, Week 1||17.0|-13.0|0.788
91836864|NCT02799472|183553730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|14.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, Week 4||14.4|-18.8|0.786
91836865|NCT02799472|183553730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|11.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, Week 12||11.2|-25.4|0.433
91896192|NCT01620255|183687877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.29||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.082|-0.493|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.493|-2.082|0.0079
91896193|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.511|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed Model (LMM) with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||0.001|-0.511|0.1016
91896194|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.28||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.529|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||-0.030|-0.529|0.0654
91896195|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.22||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.472|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||0.031|-0.472|0.1500
91896196|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.38||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.637|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||-0.129|-0.637|0.0132
91708118|NCT00482170|183309166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.652
91708119|NCT00482170|183309166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.024
91836866|NCT02799472|183553730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, 12-Week FU||18.0|-9.8|0.550
91836867|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.6||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|46.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 1||46.1|-16.9|0.350
91836868|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|52.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 4||52.0|-35.3|0.697
91836869|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.2|36.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 12||36.8|-135.2|0.249
91836870|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.1||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|8.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, 12-Week FU||8.3|-68.6|0.119
91836871|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|22.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 1||22.4|-9.3|0.403
91836872|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|35.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 4||35.2|-39.4|0.910
91836873|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|30.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 12||30.1|-43.1|0.718
91836874|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|23.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, 12-Week FU||23.0|-34.4|0.687
91836875|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.0||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.8|137.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 1||137.7|-249.8|0.559
91836876|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.6||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.9|197.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 4||197.0|-93.9|0.470
91836877|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-141.5||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-829.2|546.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 12||546.3|-829.2|0.675
91836878|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-137.9||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.0|18.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, 12-Week FU||18.2|-294.0|0.080
91836879|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.5|61.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 1||61.3|-60.5|0.989
91836880|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|59.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 4||59.6|-94.3|0.634
91836881|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|59.4||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.2|513.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 12||513.9|-395.2|0.789
91775599|NCT00385671|183432412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0||||P-value is for GTS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ GTS scores.||||0.572
91775600|NCT00385671|183432412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for GTS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in LSEQ GTS scores.||||0.345
91775601|NCT00385671|183432412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0||||P-value is for GTS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ GTS scores.||||0.699
91775602|NCT00385671|183432412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0||||P-value is for QOS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ QOS scores.||||0.954
91775603|NCT00385671|183432412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0||||P-value is for QOS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ QOS scores.||||0.734
91775604|NCT00385671|183432412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693||95.0||||P-value is for QOS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ QOS.||||0.693
91775605|NCT00385671|183432412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||P-value is for AFS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ AFS scores.||||0.720
91775606|NCT00385671|183432412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value is for AFS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ AFS scores.||||0.722
91775607|NCT00385671|183432412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||P-value is for AFS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ AFS scores.||||0.480
91775608|NCT00385671|183432412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value is for BFW. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ BFW scores.||||0.498
91775609|NCT00385671|183432412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||95.0||||P-value is for BFW. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ BFW scores.||||0.865
91775610|NCT00385671|183432412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408||95.0||||P-value is for BFW. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ BFW scores.||||0.408
91836882|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.5|41.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, 12-Week FU||41.0|-135.5|0.249
91836883|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3682.3||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2511.9|9876.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, Week 1||9876.5|-2511.9|0.234
91836884|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-547.6||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7612.6|6517.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, Week 4||6517.3|-7612.6|0.875
91836885|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1106.0||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10706.0|8494.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, Week 12||8494.1|-10706.0|0.815
91836886|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3631.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9738.9|2476.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, 12-Week FU||2476.8|-9738.9|0.230
91836887|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-515.6||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2021.4|990.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, Week 1||990.1|-2021.4|0.489
91836888|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-199.8||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2001.7|1602.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, Week 4||1602.0|-2001.7|0.822
91836889|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-253.5||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2136.7|1629.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, Week 12||1629.7|-2136.7|0.784
91836890|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|225.1||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1633.1|2083.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, 12-Week FU||2083.2|-1633.1|0.804
91836891|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|162.7||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-754.5|1079.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, Week 1||1079.9|-754.5|0.719
91836892|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-183.5||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1317.4|950.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, Week 4||950.3|-1317.4|0.742
91836893|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-268.5||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1507.5|970.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, Week 12||970.5|-1507.5|0.658
91836894|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-197.6||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1499.3|1104.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, 12-Week FU||1104.2|-1499.3|0.755
91836895|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1150.0||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1250.0|3550.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, Week 1||3550.0|-1250.0|0.333
91836896|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-268.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4269.2|3733.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, Week 4||3733.3|-4269.2|0.891
91836897|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1347.4||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7073.1|4378.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, Week 12||4378.3|-7073.1|0.633
91646195|NCT01236053|183184676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.85|0.63|0.7794
91836898|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1688.9||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5864.1|2486.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, 12-Week FU||2486.2|-5864.1|0.410
91646196|NCT01236053|183184676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.66|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.66|0.52|0.8075
91836899|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3276.8||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1786.0|8339.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, Week 1||8339.6|-1786.0|0.196
91836900|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-447.3||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7285.5|6390.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, Week 4||6390.8|-7285.5|0.894
91836901|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1435.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4101.4|6972.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, Week 12||6972.0|-4101.4|0.600
91836902|NCT02799472|183553731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1210.2||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5213.1|2792.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, 12-Week FU||2792.7|-5213.1|0.534
91836903|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2756.3||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2953.7|8466.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, Week 1||8466.3|-2953.7|0.328
91836904|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-487.5||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8003.7|7028.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, Week 4||7028.6|-8003.7|0.895
91836905|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-277.4||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12001.0|11446.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, Week 12||11446.2|-12001.0|0.961
91836906|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-311.6||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11960.5|11337.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, 12-Week FU||11337.4|-11960.5|0.956
91836907|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6866.9||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4230.7|17964.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, Week 1||17964.6|-4230.7|0.212
91836908|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8359.6||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5533.3|22252.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, Week 4||22252.5|-5533.3|0.227
91836909|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22683.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44298.5|-1068.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, Week 12||-1068.8|-44298.5|0.040
91836910|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3757.2||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27146.0|19631.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, 12-Week FU||19631.6|-27146.0|0.741
91836911|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22417.0||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116677.8|71843.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, Week 1||71843.8|-116677.8|0.628
91836912|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27659.7||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28567.8|83887.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, Week 4||83887.1|-28567.8|0.321
91836913|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16182.9||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70377.0|102742.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, Week 12||102742.9|-70377.0|0.704
91836914|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-63419.4||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170364.9|43526.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, 12-Week FU||43526.1|-170364.9|0.232
91836915|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6913.6||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22588.4|8761.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, Week 1||8761.1|-22588.4|0.366
91836916|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2231.6||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10976.8|6513.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, Week 4||6513.6|-10976.8|0.603
91708120|NCT00482170|183309167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.560
91836917|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10179.1||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21827.4|1469.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, Week 12||1469.2|-21827.4|0.084
91836918|NCT02799472|183553732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20744.2||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38771.8|-2716.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, 12-Week FU||-2716.5|-38771.8|0.026
91836919|NCT02799472|183553733|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|178.2||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-448.3|804.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 1||804.6|-448.3|0.564
91836920|NCT02799472|183553733|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|540.4||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.7|1416.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||1416.5|-335.7|0.216
91836921|NCT02799472|183553733|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-252.6||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1326.0|820.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||820.8|-1326.0|0.629
91836922|NCT02799472|183553733|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.6||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-962.2|1045.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||1045.5|-962.2|0.932
91836923|NCT02799472|183553741|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.23|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 4, For Posterior Probability Difference \<0||2.23|-2.32|0.547
91836924|NCT02799472|183553741|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.51|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 12, For Posterior Probability Difference \<0||0.51|-4.77|0.948
91836925|NCT02799472|183553741|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.28||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.45|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||12-Week FU, For Posterior Probability Difference \<0||0.45|-5.02|0.949
91836926|NCT02799472|183553741|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.23|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 4, For Posterior Probability Difference \>0||2.23|-2.32|0.453
91836927|NCT02799472|183553741|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.51|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 12, For Posterior Probability Difference \>0||0.51|-4.77|0.052
91836928|NCT02799472|183553741|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.28||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.45|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||12-Week FU, For Posterior Probability Difference \>0||0.45|-5.02|0.051
91836929|NCT02799472|183553742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||0.3|-0.2|0.940
91896197|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.3||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.555|-0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.046|-0.555|0.0526
91836930|NCT02799472|183553742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||1.6|-3.2|0.521
91836931|NCT02799472|183553742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||1.8|-4.4|0.396
91896198|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.31||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.554|-0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.058|-0.554|0.0422
91708121|NCT00482170|183309167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.474
91708122|NCT00482170|183309168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.023
91836932|NCT02799472|183553743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||1.2|-1.1|0.945
91836933|NCT02799472|183553743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||0.7|-1.5|0.475
91836934|NCT02799472|183553743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||0.1|-2.0|0.086
91836935|NCT02799472|183553744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|211.4||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2589.2|3012.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||3012.0|-2589.2|0.874
91836936|NCT02799472|183553744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-504.8||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3730.4|2720.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||2720.9|-3730.4|0.749
91836937|NCT02799472|183553744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1536.0||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4884.2|1812.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||1812.1|-4884.2|0.352
91836938|NCT02799472|183553745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0128||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0123|0.038|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||0.0380|-0.0123|0.291
91836939|NCT02799472|183553745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0036||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0046|0.0118|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||0.0118|-0.0046|0.375
91836940|NCT02799472|183553745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0028|0.0049|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||0.0049|-0.0028|0.588
91836941|NCT02799472|183553746|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0002||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0033|0.0029|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||0.0029|-0.0033|0.915
91836942|NCT02799472|183553746|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0004||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0028|0.0021|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||0.0021|-0.0028|0.771
91836943|NCT02799472|183553746|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0005||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0048|0.0058|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||0.0058|-0.0048|0.850
91836944|NCT02801669|183553747|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.339||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.188|0.608|||Regression, Cox|The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.||This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of composite event of stroke and SEE between treatment groups.||0.608|0.188|0.0003
91836945|NCT02801669|183553748|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.57|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of stroke between treatment groups.||0.570|0.157|
91836946|NCT02801669|183553748|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|2.011|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of SEE between treatment groups.||2.011|0.126|
91836947|NCT02801669|183553748|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.585|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of ischemic stroke between treatment groups.||0.585|0.160|
91836948|NCT02801669|183553748|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.347|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.624|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of ischemic stroke/SEE between treatment groups.||0.624|0.193|
91775611|NCT00385671|183432413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.33||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS total score.||1.33|-2.18|0.635
91775612|NCT00385671|183432413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.24||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS total score.||0.24|-3.24|0.092
91775613|NCT00385671|183432413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.65||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS total score.||0.65|-2.80|0.221
91775614|NCT00385671|183432413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.85||P-value is for item 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 1 score.||0.85|-0.88|0.974
91775615|NCT00385671|183432413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.13||P-value is for Item 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 1 score.||0.13|-1.63|0.093
91775616|NCT00385671|183432413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.12||P-value is for item 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 1 score.||0.12|-1.59|0.091
91775617|NCT00385671|183432413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.52||P-value is for item 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 2 score.||0.52|-0.75|0.733
91775618|NCT00385671|183432413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.11||P-value is for item 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 2 score.||0.11|-1.15|0.102
91836949|NCT00615264|183553765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2851|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Calculated with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline C-peptide and country with the unstructured option for the matrix||||||0.2851
91836950|NCT00615264|183553766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Calculated with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline C-peptide and country with the unstructured option for the matrix||||||0.7690
91836951|NCT02884414|183553771|OTHER|Paired Student's t-test.||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91646197|NCT01236053|183184676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.52|1.35|0.0001
91646198|NCT01236053|183184676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.12|1.08|0.0161
91646199|NCT01236053|183184676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.00|0.76|0.3972
91836952|NCT01982435|183553772|OTHER|Measures were summarized using means, range and standard error of the means (SEM).|||||<|0.05||||||Two-sided paired t-tests and two-sided unpaired t-tests were respectively conducted to analyze efficacy endpoints between study initiation to end, and between monthly and TAE injection regimens.|t-test, 2 sided|||All analyses were performed with a significance level of 0.05 being assumed for all tests.||||<0.05
91836953|NCT03541044|183553788|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC0-t fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.0|||||GMR= (Prototype mini Lozenge/ Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.00|0.91|
91836954|NCT03541044|183553789|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC(0-inf) fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.00|0.89|
91836955|NCT03541044|183553790|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for Cmax fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|0.98|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||0.98|0.82|
91836956|NCT03315936|183553840|OTHER||geometric mean (gMean) ratio (T/R) %|110.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.73|120.79|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%) = 12.3.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as random effect. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually 12 subjects were analyzed||120.79|100.73|
91836957|NCT03315936|183553841|OTHER||gMean ratio (T/R) %|110.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.2|121.38|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%) = 12.3.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as random effect. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||121.38|101.20|
91836958|NCT03315936|183553842|OTHER||gMean ratio (T/R) %|110.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.74|135.96|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%) = 28.6.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as random effect. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||135.96|89.74|
91836959|NCT00860067|183553850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose A/H1N1 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H1N1 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H1N1 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H1N1) divided by Q/LAIV A/H1N1.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.18|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||A/H1N1: Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of A/H1N1 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H1N1 influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.18|1.01|
91836960|NCT00860067|183553850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose A/H3N2 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H3N2 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H3N2 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H3N2) divided by Q/LAIV A/H3N2.|Ratio of geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.14|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||A/H3N2: Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of A/H3N2 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H3N2 influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.14|0.96|
91836961|NCT00860067|183553850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose B/Yamagata GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Yamagata post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata) divided by (Q/LAIV B/Yamagata).|Ratio of geometric mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.25|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of B/Yamagata GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Yamagata influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.25|0.97|
91836962|NCT00860067|183553850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose B/Victoria GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Victoria post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Victoria) divided by (Q/LAIV B/Victoria).|Ratio of geometric means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals were calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of B/Victoria GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Victoria influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.03|0.82|
91646200|NCT01236053|183184676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.39|0.50|0.4950
91646201|NCT01236053|183184676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.94|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.94|0.99|0.0601
91896199|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.39||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.637|-0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.137|-0.637|0.0110
91708123|NCT00482170|183309168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.089
91775619|NCT00385671|183432413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.21||P-value is for item 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 2 score.||0.21|-1.04|0.193
91775620|NCT00385671|183432413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.43||P-value is for item 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 3 score.||0.43|-0.76|0.584
91775621|NCT00385671|183432413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.06||P-value is for item 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 3 score.||0.06|-1.12|0.077
91775622|NCT00385671|183432413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.22||P-value is for item 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 3 score.||0.22|-0.95|0.221
91775623|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|0.32||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||0.32|-3.96|0.096
91775624|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.13||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||1.13|-3.16|0.353
91775625|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.88||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||2.88|-1.27|0.444
91775626|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|3.48||P-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||3.48|-2.29|0.682
91775627|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.82||P-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||1.82|-4.08|0.450
91775628|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|1.04||P-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||1.04|-4.49|0.218
91836963|NCT00770432|183553898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0595||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for study site (the smallest study sites were pooled according to a pre-specified rule).||||||0.0595
91836964|NCT01453348|183553899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMC anti-HAV + MenACWY-CRM / GMC anti-HAV)|Ratio of GMC|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio|ANCOVA|The Analysis of variance (ANCOVA) model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the lower-limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on the ratio of Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) GMCs (Hep A/B + MenACWY-CRM to Hep A/B) is below or equal to 0.5.||1.32|0.6|
91836965|NCT01453348|183553899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMC anti-HBsAg + MenACWY-CRM / GMC anti-HBsAg)|Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.37||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccines group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the the lower-limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of ELISA GMCs (Hep A/B + MenACWY-CRM to Hep A/B) is below or equal to 0.5.||2.37|0.59|
91836966|NCT01498822|183553920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis of this study aimed to demonstrate that LEV was noninferior to OXC with respect to the treatment failure rate in the Per Protocol Set. The noninferiority margin was 15 %.|Absolut difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-1.2|||Wald methodology||"Absolute difference in treatment failure rates of LEV versus OXC is defined as Treatment Failure Rate LEV minus Treatment Failure Rate OXC."|||-1.2|-20.2|
91836967|NCT03592277|183553924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.344
91836968|NCT03592277|183553925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.526
91836969|NCT03592277|183553926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.123
91836970|NCT03592277|183553927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.660
91836971|NCT03592277|183553928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.745
91836972|NCT03592277|183553929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.236
91836973|NCT02917265|183553947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91775629|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26||P-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.26|-0.36|0.747
91836974|NCT02481375|183553952|OTHER||Marginal means|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Marginal means (95% CI) of ferritin concentrations at 12-weeks using a generalized mixed-effects model with adjustments for baseline values and village clusters||||<0.05
91896200|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.755|-0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.254|-0.755|0.0010
91836975|NCT05436912|183553963|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|168.9||||0.3601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.3|465.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||465.3|61.3|0.3601
91836976|NCT05436912|183553963|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.2||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.0|368.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||368.9|23.0|0.9146
91836977|NCT05436912|183553963|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|119.6||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.4|329.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||329.3|43.4|0.7478
91836978|NCT05436912|183553965|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|126.1||||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8|212.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||212.8|74.8|0.4279
91708124|NCT00482170|183309169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.494
91836979|NCT05436912|183553965|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.4||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.4|183.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||183.9|46.4|0.8341
91836980|NCT05436912|183553965|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|169.1||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|294.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||294.6|97.1|0.1159
91836981|NCT05436912|183553966|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|126.0||||0.4289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8|212.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||212.4|74.8|0.4289
91836982|NCT05436912|183553966|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.3||||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.5|183.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||183.3|46.5|0.8322
91896201|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.22||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.475|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||0.038|-0.475|0.1611
91775630|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.45||P-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.45|-0.18|0.390
91775631|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.49||P-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.49|-0.12|0.228
91646202|NCT01236053|183184676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.45|0.71|0.9286
91646203|NCT01236053|183184677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.39|0.63|0.5394
91646204|NCT01236053|183184677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.58|0.39|0.5070
91775632|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.67||P-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.67|-0.18|0.260
91775633|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.11||P-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.11|-0.76|0.141
91775634|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.16||P-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||-0.16|-0.98|0.007
91775635|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.25||P-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.25|-0.61|0.409
91775636|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.35||P-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.35|-0.51|0.715
91775637|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.52||P-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.52|-0.32|0.641
91646205|NCT01236053|183184677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.83|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.83|0.73|0.5426
91646206|NCT01236053|183184677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.38|0.52|0.5150
91836983|NCT05436912|183553966|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|169.6||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.6|294.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||294.6|97.6|0.1131
91836984|NCT02413463|183554003|SUPERIORITY|Chi-square test||||||0.18||||||This is the calculated p-value for the success rate in the Augmented Group Vs. Faden Group|Chi-squared|||An estimation of sample size was performed considering a study power of 0.8 with an alpha error of 0.05 aiming to detect a difference of 5 Δ in the postoperative angle disparity between the 2 groups, assuming a postoperative standard deviation of 6 Δ. Based on this estimation, a total of 24 eyes were found to be adequate in each group, and considering a 25% dropout during the follow-up, recruitment of 30 study subjects in each group was targeted||||0.18
91836985|NCT02413463|183554004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||This is the calculated p-value for the postoperative angle of deviation with spectacles for distance in Augmented recession vs. Faden group (First row)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91836986|NCT02413463|183554005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||This is the calculated p-value for the postoperative angle of deviation without spectacles for near in Augmented recession vs. Faden group (Second row)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91836987|NCT02413463|183554006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||This is the calculated p-value for the postoperative angle disparity in the Augmented Group Vs. Faden Group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91836988|NCT02413463|183554007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||This is the calculated p-value for the intraoperative time in the Augmented Group Vs. Faden Group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91836989|NCT04203537|183554012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
91836990|NCT04203537|183554013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91836991|NCT04203537|183554013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0026
91836992|NCT01320943|183554014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||Log-rank test statistic was used to compare the time to HBsAg loss between the two treatment arms.|Log Rank|||||||0.022
91708125|NCT00482170|183309169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.782
91775638|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.47||P-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.47|-0.64|0.767
91775639|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.52||P-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.52|-0.61|0.881
91836993|NCT03635489|183554037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.53|||Regression, Cox|||||0.53|0.17|<.0001
91836994|NCT03635489|183554037|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.58|||Regression, Cox|||||0.58|0.20|<.0001
91896202|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.36||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.608|-0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||-0.108|-0.608|0.0186
91896203|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.21||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.465|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||0.039|-0.465|0.1647
91646207|NCT01236053|183184677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.42|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.42|0.53|0.4350
91646208|NCT01236053|183184677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||3.43|0.37|0.8276
91836995|NCT03635489|183554038|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.21||||||||1.21|0.30|
91646209|NCT01236053|183184677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.50|0.69|0.4022
91836996|NCT00361439|183554059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.02
91836997|NCT00361439|183554060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.023||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.023
91836998|NCT00361439|183554061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.002
91836999|NCT00361439|183554062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.010
91837000|NCT01313286|183554073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of test formulation (HCl salt) to reference formulation (free base).||||1.16|1.00|
91837001|NCT01313286|183554074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square means|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of test formulation (HCl salt) to reference formulation (free base).||||1.31|1.07|
91837002|NCT02404389|183554080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.12|||Posterior mean|||||0.12|-0.12|0.515
91837003|NCT02404389|183554080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.517|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.13|||posterior mean|||||0.13|-0.12|0.517
91837004|NCT02439749|183554124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p\<0.05 required for significance|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91837005|NCT02439749|183554128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||p\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
91837006|NCT02439749|183554129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||p\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.052
91837007|NCT02439749|183554130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||p\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.070
91837008|NCT02439749|183554131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p=\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91837009|NCT01806584|183554144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value based on log rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.138
91837010|NCT01806584|183554145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.312
91837011|NCT01806584|183554146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.093
91837012|NCT01806584|183554147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|1.402||||||||1.402|-0.942|
91837013|NCT00552786|183554176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Two-sided|ANOVA|Assessing the bioequivalence on temporary threshold shift at3k,4k,6k Hz between NAC and Placebo was carried out using ANOVA for 2×2 crossover design.||||||<0.05
91837014|NCT00552786|183554177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|Assessing the bioequivalence on temporary threshold shift at 3k,4k,6k Hz between NAC and Placebo was carried out using ANOVA for 2×2 crossover design.||||||<0.05
91837015|NCT03549234|183554189|NON_INFERIORITY|"We tested the noninferiority of ESPB compared to PVB (paravertebral block) using the 95% confidence interval (CI) associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Exact test. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for median average recovery room pain scores was greater than -1.25 (based on PVB minus ESPB), we concluded noninferiority. The noninferiority of ESPBs with regard to opioid consumption was similarly tested with a predefined noninferiority margin of 2 mg intravenous morphine equivalents."||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We hypothesized that 1) analgesia would be noninferior in the recovery room as measured on a Numeric Rating Scale with ESPB (erector spinae plane block), and 2) opioid consumption would be noninferior in the operating and recovery rooms with ESPB. We simulated pain scores from a discrete distribution with median (interquartile range) 2 (0-3). The sample size of 50 per group provided 81% power to detect noninferiority in pain.||||0.0011
91837016|NCT03549234|183554190|NON_INFERIORITY|"We tested the noninferiority of ESPB compared to PVB using the 95% confidence interval (CI) associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Exact test. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for median average recovery room pain scores was greater than -1.25 (based on PVB minus ESPB), we concluded noninferiority. The noninferiority of ESPBs with regard to opioid consumption was similarly tested with a predefined noninferiority margin of 2 mg intravenous morphine equivalents."||||||0.0043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0043
91646210|NCT01236053|183184677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.86|0.48|0.8681
91837017|NCT01265030|183554199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.04|-2.54|0.63
91837018|NCT01265030|183554199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|2.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.19|-6.08|0.31
91837019|NCT01265030|183554200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.063||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.411|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference in pain score at week 1 and before surgery||0.411|-.286|0.68
91837020|NCT01590771|183554216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Robust regression|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.44||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline A1C value.|ANCOVA||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline A1C value.|||-0.44|-0.77|<0.001
91646211|NCT01236053|183184677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.6326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||13.86|0.20|0.6326
91646212|NCT01236053|183184677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|16.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||16.86|0.21|0.5770
91837021|NCT01590771|183554217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-20.4||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline 2-hr PMG value.|ANCOVA|||||-20.4|-45.4|<0.001
91837022|NCT01590771|183554218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate difference|-16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-10.2||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline FPG value.|Robust regression|||||-10.2|-23.3|<0.001
91837023|NCT01590771|183554219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.2||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment and baseline A1C value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-0.63|<0.001
91837024|NCT01590771|183554220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.53||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment and baseline A1C value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-1.07|<0.001
91837025|NCT01590771|183554221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate difference|-27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-13.2||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and baseline 2-hr PMG value.|Robust regression|||||-13.2|-41.2|<0.001
91837026|NCT01590771|183554222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-18.4||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment and baseline 2-hr PMG value.|ANCOVA|||||-18.4|-56.9|<0.001
91837027|NCT01590771|183554223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate Difference|-16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-7.8||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and baseline FPG value.|Robust Regression|||||-7.8|-25.3|<0.001
91837028|NCT01590771|183554224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate Difference|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-7.1||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and baseline FPG value.|Robust Regression|||||-7.1|-26.9|<0.001
91837029|NCT00584701|183554238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dfiference in exon expression|1.5|||<|0.001||||||"Expression difference \>\|1.5\| with p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANCOVA|Between-group gene expression profiles compared between high versus low responders, controlling for age, gender and batch.||||||<.001
91837030|NCT01250119|183554253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for histopathology; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0000
91837031|NCT01250119|183554253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for histopathology; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.1038
91837032|NCT01250119|183554253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for stage of disease; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0588
91837033|NCT01250119|183554253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4802|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for stage of disease; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.4802
91837034|NCT01250119|183554253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for age at consent; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.0147
91837035|NCT01250119|183554253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for age at consent; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.1181
91837036|NCT01250119|183554253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for gender; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0000
91837037|NCT01250119|183554253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for gender; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.0006
91708126|NCT00482170|183309170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.444
91837038|NCT01250119|183554253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for race; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0004
91837039|NCT01250119|183554253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for race; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.3371
91837040|NCT01250119|183554253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for smoking history; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0000
91837041|NCT01250119|183554253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for smoking history; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.0001
91837042|NCT01559454|183554262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.4167||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7519|79.5852|||t-test, 2 sided|||||79.5852|-8.7519|0.097
91837043|NCT01559454|183554263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0713|1.8248|||Fisher Exact|||||1.8248|0.0713|1.00
91837044|NCT01559454|183554264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.55075||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.37051|51.34968|||t-test, 2 sided|||||51.34968|-20.37051|0.348
91896204|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.35||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.607|-0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||-0.097|-0.607|0.0231
91708127|NCT00482170|183309170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.947
91837045|NCT01559454|183554265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|39.5833||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9653|87.132|||t-test, 2 sided|||||87.1320|-7.9653|0.088
91837046|NCT01559454|183554266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1499||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3965|27.0632|||t-test, 2 sided|||||27.0632|-30.3965|0.895
91837047|NCT01559454|183554267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|2.8352|||Fisher Exact|||||2.8352|0.127|0.6999
91837048|NCT00431184|183554268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
91837049|NCT00431184|183554269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
91837050|NCT00462670|183554272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.60|-1.58|<0.0001
91837051|NCT00462670|183554273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.92|-2.54|<0.0001
91837052|NCT00548132|183554274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This was calculated based on the assumption that only 85% of eligible patients will consent to the study.|The standard of care is the numerator and the intervention group is the denominator|The null hypothesis is that the Bloostream infection per 1000 catheter days will be similar in both groups. In 2004, 6122 catheter days occurred in by both ICUs. If 15% of these were excluded, then 5203 catheter days/year will be eligible for analysis. The difference in infection rates will reach statistical significance at 12 months with a P-value of 0.04. At 24 months, the P-value will be more significant at 0.006.||0.90|0.24|0.05
91837053|NCT01187914|183554276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.13||||0.48||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
91837054|NCT02150837|183554304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within group comparison (for each group) using a non-parametric paired Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing repeated measures in a single sample.||||||<0.0001
91837055|NCT02424591|183554436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91837056|NCT02424591|183554437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91837057|NCT02424591|183554438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91837058|NCT00988221|183554461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean - Placebo|-22.3||||||||||The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids. The analysis was also adjusted for the pain visual analog scale score at Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||
91837059|NCT00988221|183554461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean - Tocilizumab|-32.4||||||||||The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids. The analysis was also adjusted for the pain visual analog scale score at Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||
91837060|NCT00988221|183554461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-2.7||The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids. The analysis was also adjusted for the pain visual analog scale score at Baseline.|ANOVA|||||-2.7|-17.6|0.0076
91837061|NCT00988221|183554462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference|18.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|32.0||1.000 is used here as the test was considered as not significant due to the break in the hierarchical testing chain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids.||The analysis used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids.||32|5|1.000
91837062|NCT03885011|183554493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.8445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|2.949|||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis relates to Day 8 up to when pilocarpine HCl 0.2% either in CSF-1-FDC or as pilocarpine alone was administered for one week.||2.949|0.413|0.8445
91837063|NCT03885011|183554493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|3.958|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.958|0.684|0.2660
91837064|NCT03885011|183554494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.664||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.646|8.154|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.154|1.646|0.0015
91837065|NCT03885011|183554494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.745||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.088|10.786|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.786|2.088|0.0002
91837066|NCT03885011|183554495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1145|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1145
91837067|NCT03885011|183554495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0616|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0616
91837068|NCT03885011|183554496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0074
91837069|NCT03885011|183554496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91837070|NCT02255032|183554561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-164.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|173.148||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.7|-72.2||The primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison between the Baseline and Month 2 values for the 4 mg treatment group. No adjustments for multiplicity were necessary.|Paired t-test, two-sided|||"A paired t-test was used to assess the statistical significance of the change between Baseline and Month 2.~A sample size of 16 subjects would have 80% power to detect a difference of 75, assuming a standard deviation of 100, using a paired t-test with a 0.050 two-sided significance level."||-72.2|-256.7|0.0017
91646213|NCT01236053|183184677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.21|0.40|0.8087
91646214|NCT01236053|183184677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.64|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.64|0.31|0.8497
91646215|NCT01236053|183184678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.24|0.88|0.1528
91646216|NCT01236053|183184678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.65|0.62|0.9625
91646217|NCT01236053|183184678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.59|1.48|<0.0001
91646218|NCT01236053|183184678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.29|1.25|0.0006
91646219|NCT01236053|183184678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.16|0.76|0.3515
91646220|NCT01236053|183184678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.82|0.59|0.9069
91646221|NCT01236053|183184678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.21|1.78|<0.0001
91837071|NCT00125593|183554593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.94|0.74|0.0021
91837072|NCT00125593|183554594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.94|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.94|0.77|0.0012
91837073|NCT00125593|183554595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.93|0.75|0.001
91837074|NCT00125593|183554596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||1.11|0.76|0.37
91837075|NCT00125593|183554597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.94|0.60|0.01
91837076|NCT00125593|183554598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.93|0.68|0.0036
91837077|NCT00125593|183554599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.05|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||1.05|0.89|0.41
91837078|NCT04146896|183554600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704
91837079|NCT04146896|183554601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.684
91837080|NCT04146896|183554602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
91837081|NCT04146896|183554603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.483
91837082|NCT04146896|183554604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.199
91837083|NCT04146896|183554605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.273
91837084|NCT04146896|183554606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.668
91837085|NCT03107377|183554607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.81||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|-0.61|||Chi-squared|||||-0.61|-9.02|0.0256
91837086|NCT03107377|183554608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.53||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-0.23|||Chi-squared|||||-0.23|-4.84|0.0316
91837087|NCT03107377|183554612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =0% adherence||||1.0000
91837088|NCT03107377|183554612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>0% adherence||||1.0000
91837089|NCT03107377|183554612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6278|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=20% adherence||||.6278
91837090|NCT03107377|183554612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6404|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=40% adherence||||.6404
91837091|NCT03107377|183554612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5008|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=60% adherence||||.5008
91837092|NCT03107377|183554612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1818|||||||Chi-squared|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=80% adherence||||.1818
91837093|NCT03107377|183554612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =100% adherence||||0.0012
91837094|NCT03107377|183554613|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =0% adherence||||1.0000
91837095|NCT03107377|183554613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>0% adherence||||0.4375
91837096|NCT03107377|183554613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4444|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=20% adherence||||0.4444
91837097|NCT03107377|183554613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1836|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=60% adherence||||0.1836
91837098|NCT03107377|183554613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5006|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=80% adherence||||0.5006
91837099|NCT03107377|183554613|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =100% adherence||||1.000
91896205|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.658|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.260|-0.658|0.0002
91896206|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.322|-0.710|<0.0001
91837100|NCT01597505|183554616|NON_INFERIORITY|Surotomycin minus Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be non-inferior to vancomycin the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups had to be ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.9|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in percentage of participants||1.9|-11.0|
91837101|NCT01597505|183554617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832||||||Log-rank test of equality of survival times, stratified by age group (\< 75, \>= 75 years) and number of CDAD episodes (0, \>= 1). Significance cut-off = 0.05|Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank test p-value||||0.832
91837102|NCT01597505|183554618|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.1|||||The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference, using the MRc stratum weights. Stratified by age group and number of CDAD episodes.|Difference in percentage of participants||7.1|-8.8|
91837103|NCT01597505|183554622|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|8.3|||||The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference, using the MRc stratum weights. Stratified by age group and number of CDAD episodes.|Difference in percentage of participants||8.3|-7.2|
91837104|NCT01597505|183554623|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||||The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference, using the MRc stratum weights. Stratified by age group and number of CDAD episodes.|Difference in percentage of participants||3.0|-10.0|
91837105|NCT01597505|183554624|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin was superior to vancomycin if the p-value was less than 0.05||||||0.431||||||Log-rank test of equality of survival times, stratified by age group (\< 75, \>= 75 years) and number of CDAD episodes (0, \>= 1). Significance cut-off = 0.05|Log Rank|||Stratified Log-Rank p-Value||||0.431
91837106|NCT01597505|183554625|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin was superior to vancomycin if the p-value was less than 0.05||||||0.011||||||Log-rank test of equality of survival times, stratified by age group (\< 75, \>= 75 years) and number of CDAD episodes (0, \>= 1). Significance cut-off = 0.05|Log Rank|||Stratified Log-Rank p-Value||||0.011
91837107|NCT01597505|183554626|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|14.8|||||Treatment group percentages were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥ 1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages.|Difference in percentage of participants||14.8|-10.7|
91896207|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.686|-0.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.295|-0.686|<0.0001
91837108|NCT01597505|183554627|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.0|||||Treatment group proportions were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group proportions.|Difference in percentage of participants||3.0|-7.8|
91837109|NCT01597505|183554628|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|30.7|||||Treatment group percentages were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥ 1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages.|Difference in percentage of participants||30.7|-2.7|
91837110|NCT01597505|183554629|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|12.7|||||Treatment group proportions were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group proportions.|Difference in percentage of participants||12.7|-4.2|
91837111|NCT05652036|183554677|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NPS score pre- and post-procedure||||0.21
91837112|NCT05652036|183554678|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in overactive bladder symptom bother before and after treatment||||.07
91837113|NCT05652036|183554678|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in overactive bladder HRQL mean before and after treatment||||0.16
91837114|NCT05652036|183554679|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||Participant rated procedural satisfaction assessed 30-days post-procedure.||||0.21
91837115|NCT05652036|183554680|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as very much improved after treatment||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
91837116|NCT05652036|183554680|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as much improved after treatment||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
91837117|NCT05652036|183554680|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as minimally improved after treatment||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91837118|NCT05652036|183554680|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as no difference after treatment||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91837119|NCT05652036|183554681|OTHER|Rates of urinary retention observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91837120|NCT05652036|183554681|OTHER|Rates of urinary tract infection observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
91837121|NCT05652036|183554681|OTHER|Rates of bleeding requiring evaluation observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91837122|NCT05652036|183554681|OTHER|Rates of hematuria observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
91837123|NCT05652036|183554681|OTHER|Rates of bladder pain observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91837124|NCT05652036|183554681|OTHER|Rates of ER department evaluations observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91837125|NCT05454410|183554682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA||Placebo adjusted means (MIJ821-Placebo). 90% CIs are nominal and not adjusted for multiplicity.|||-0.7|-9.6|
91837126|NCT05454410|183554682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|2.1|||ANCOVA||Placebo adjusted means (MIJ821-Placebo). 90% CIs are nominal and not adjusted for multiplicity.|||2.1|-7.0|
91837127|NCT05454410|183554682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|5.1|||ANCOVA||Placebo adjusted means (MIJ821-Placebo). 90% CIs are nominal and not adjusted for multiplicity.|||5.1|-4.0|
91837128|NCT05454410|183554688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0242||||||P-value for the selected model best representing the underlying DR (the lowest p-value out of the 6 candidate models), adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Multiple contrast test|||MCP-Mod was used to check if there was a DR relationship between the change from baseline to 24 hours in MADRS total score and the doses received. The Least squares means under the primary estimand were used to test the null hypothesis of a flat DR relationship at a one-sided significance level of 5% against the alternative hypothesis of a non-flat DR curve. Six candidate DR curves were used to derive the optimal model contrasts for the multiple contrast tests. A monotone DR was assumed.||||0.0242
91837129|NCT00895622|183554701|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.87|||Z test|||"The Kappa (κ) coefficient was used to assess the measure of agreement between the reviewers. κ can be interpreted as follows (κ / Agreement):~\< 0 / Less than chance agreement; 0.01-0.20 / Slight agreement; 0.21-0.40 / Fair agreement; 0.41-0.60 / Moderate agreement; 0.61-0.80 / Substantial agreement; 0.81-0.99 / Almost perfect agreement.~The asymptotic test of the null hypothesis: κ=0 will be performed using the Z-statistic to determine the strength of agreement."||0.87|0.71|<0.0001
91837130|NCT01412801|183554717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Ratios (Serotype Ia)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.71|1.3||||||||1.3|0.71|
91837131|NCT01412801|183554717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ia)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.6|1.09||||||||1.09|0.6|
91837132|NCT01412801|183554717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ia)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.63|1.14||||||||1.14|0.63|
91837133|NCT01412801|183554717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ib)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.49|1.29||||||||1.29|0.49|
91837134|NCT01412801|183554717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ib)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.65|1.69||||||||1.69|0.65|
91837135|NCT01412801|183554717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ib)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.85|2.06||||||||2.06|0.85|
91837136|NCT01412801|183554717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype III)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.66|2.07||||||||2.07|0.66|
91837137|NCT01412801|183554717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype III)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.63|1.78||||||||1.78|0.63|
91837138|NCT01412801|183554717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype III)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.52|1.58||||||||1.58|0.52|
91837139|NCT00658138|183554737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation done - pilot study|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis was no difference between adhesives tested at one year. Restorations were scored using USPHS subjective clinical criteria.||||0.05
91837140|NCT00658138|183554737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation done - pilot study|percentage of Alpha values||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is adhesives are not different in clinical performance at one year||||>0.05
91837141|NCT03857230|183554752|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline AUC0-192 were used to assess bioequivalence between Primapur and Gonal-F (bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%)|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.31||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.25|99.79|||ANOVA|||Statistical comparison of the obtained results comprised the calculation of parametric bilateral 90 % CIs for the ratios of the corresponding mean values of the pharmacokinetic parameters of the study and comparator drug. The equivalence of the pharmacokinetics of the drug products will be proven if the limits of the evaluated CIs for the ratios of the mean values are in the range of 80.00-125.00%.||99.79|87.25|0.05
91837142|NCT03857230|183554753|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline Cmax were used to assess bioequivalence between Primapur and Gonal-F (bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%)|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|87.93||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.85|93.33|||ANOVA|||||93.33|82.85|0.05
91837143|NCT01015807|183554774|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||We estimated that 25 subjects per group would allow us to detect a reduction of this area from 7.5 cm2 in our placebo group to 3.5 cm2 in the CloTAP group, with SD = 5 cm2 in both groups, owing to improved overall analgesia and reduced pain sensitization in women allocated to receive a TAP block with clonidine (2-tailed \[alpha\] = 0.05, 80% power). To allow for failed TAP blocks and/or exclusions of cases, we included 30 patients per group (n = 90)||||0.48
91837144|NCT01486758|183554830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6
91837145|NCT01486758|183554834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.048
91837146|NCT03926065|183554838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.1260
91837147|NCT03926065|183554838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||<0.0001
91837148|NCT03926065|183554838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0992|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interaction between Portion Size and Palatability||||0.0992
91837149|NCT03926065|183554839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5502|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.5502
91837150|NCT03926065|183554839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||0.0072
91837151|NCT03926065|183554840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.1030
91837152|NCT03926065|183554840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0178|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||0.0178
91837153|NCT03926065|183554840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interaction between Portion Size and Palatability||||0.2410
91837154|NCT03926065|183554841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.0012
91837155|NCT03926065|183554841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||<0.0001
91837156|NCT02687412|183554870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
91837157|NCT02687412|183554871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4041.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1831.042||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7672.301|-411.065|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-411.065|-7672.301|0.029
91837158|NCT02687412|183554872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.3739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4198||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6414|33.1065|||t-test, 2 sided|||||33.1065|7.6414|0.002
91837159|NCT02687412|183554873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.014
91837160|NCT02687412|183554874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.034
91837161|NCT02687412|183554875|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91837162|NCT02687412|183554876|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91837163|NCT02687412|183554877|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91837164|NCT02687412|183554878|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91837165|NCT02687412|183554879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.10046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1915||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4819|0.2817|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2817|-0.4819|0.601
91837166|NCT02687412|183554880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|164.746|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|317.79||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.0|794.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||794|-465|0.605
91837167|NCT03239873|183554890|NON_INFERIORITY|The conclusion of non-inferiority (similarity) is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease equal to or more than the prespecified criterion of 10.0 percentage points for Varicella zoster virus.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.8|-2.7|<0.001
91837168|NCT03239873|183554890|OTHER|Acceptability|Antibody Response Rate|98.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.9|99.6|||Exact CI method/binomial proportion|||The conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) being \>76%, and implies that the value of the parameter is statistically significantly greater than the prespecified acceptability criterion (76%).||99.6|95.9|<0.001
91837169|NCT03239873|183554891|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority of the GMT corresponds to the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio \[VARIVAX® PE34 process/VARIVAX® 2016 commercial product\] being \>0.67.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.1|0.9|<0.001
91837170|NCT03239873|183554892|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Up to 42 days after Vaccination 1||7.1|-3.1|0.436
91837171|NCT03239873|183554892|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Up to 42 days after Vaccination 2||7.5|-1.6|0.204
91837172|NCT03239873|183554893|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Measles-like rash||0.4|-3.5|0.102
91837173|NCT03239873|183554893|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.3||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Rubella-like rash||1.9|-0.9|0.317
91837174|NCT03239873|183554893|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.241||95.0|-1.0|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Varicella-like rash||4.0|-1.0|0.241
91837175|NCT03239873|183554893|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Zoster-like rash||0.9|-1.9|0.318
91837176|NCT03239873|183554894|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.1||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Measles-like rash||3.4|-0.7|0.170
91837177|NCT03239873|183554894|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Varicella-like rash||1.4|-2.2|0.576
91837178|NCT03239873|183554894|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Zoster-like rash||2.0|-1.0|0.312
91837179|NCT03239873|183554895|OTHER||Difference of Percentage|-1.0||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site erythema||4.0|-5.9|0.696
91837180|NCT03239873|183554895|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.7||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site pain||6.2|-4.7|0.796
91837181|NCT03239873|183554895|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.7||||0.111||95.0|-6.2|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||0.7|-6.2|0.111
91837182|NCT03239873|183554896|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site erythema||6.4|-6.9|0.931
91837183|NCT03239873|183554896|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.6||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site pain||3.4|-6.6|0.523
91837184|NCT03239873|183554896|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||6.9|-2.9|0.415
91837185|NCT03239873|183554897|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||6.7|-3.4|
91837186|NCT03239873|183554898|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||2.6|-2.5|
91837187|NCT03239873|183554899|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||9.8|-6.1|
91837188|NCT03239873|183554900|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|9.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||9.2|-4.7|
91837189|NCT03239873|183554905|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||1.3|-1.3|
91837190|NCT03239873|183554906|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||1.3|-1.3|
91837191|NCT03239873|183554909|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.3|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|||10.3|-4.6|
91837192|NCT01703702|183554913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.38|||Chi-squared|||||2.38|1.22|0.002
91837193|NCT01703702|183554914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.84|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for: Baseline ADAS-Cog score, study arm, Alzheimer's treatment, country, and interaction between study arm and Alzheimer's treatment.||||0.84|-1.54|0.568
91837194|NCT01703702|183554915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|96.12|||Chi-squared|||||96.12|20|<0.001
91837195|NCT01703702|183554916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.95|22.43|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for: Cognitive status (mild impairment/dementia), physician/practice type, country and florbetapir F18 PET scan result (Aß+/Aß-)||Comparison of change in diagnostic confidence at follow-up (3 months)||22.43|18.95|<0.001
91837196|NCT01703702|183554917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.78|||Chi-squared|||||1.78|0.92|0.144
91837197|NCT01703702|183554918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.53|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for: Baseline scale, Cognitive status (mild impairment/dementia), country and florbetapir F18 PET scan result (Aß+/Aß-).||||3.53|-3.20|0.925
91837198|NCT01703702|183554919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Chi-squared|||Major Diagnostic Tests||1.54|0.70|0.857
91837199|NCT01703702|183554919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.81|||Chi-squared|||Alzheimer's/Cognitive Medication||2.81|1.36|<0.001
91837200|NCT01703702|183554919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.64|||Chi-squared|||Neuropsychological Tests||2.64|0.97|0.063
91837201|NCT01703702|183554919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.7|||Chi-squared|||Physician Follow-up for Re-evaluation||1.70|0.69|0.741
91837202|NCT01703702|183554919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.08|||Chi-squared|||Specialist Referral||2.08|1.01|0.046
91837203|NCT02948959|183554941|SUPERIORITY|To control the type-I error rate for the analysis of outcome measure, a hierarchical testing procedure was applied at a 2-sided 5% significant level. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order endpoints were reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.353|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|0.562||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Negative binomial model||Risk ratio, also called relative risk compares the risk (rate) of an event among one group with the risk (rate) among another group.|Risk ratio and p-value was derived using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 visit or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable, with treatment group, age, baseline weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level and number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates and log-transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable.||0.562|0.222|<0.0001
91896208|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.39||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.587|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.192|-0.587|0.0012
91837204|NCT02948959|183554942|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.605||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Negative binomial model||Risk ratio, also called relative risk compares the risk (rate) of an event among one group with the risk (rate) among another group.|Risk ratio and p-value was derived using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 visit or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable, with treatment group, age, baseline weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level and number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates and log-transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable.||0.605|0.274|<0.0001
91837205|NCT02948959|183554943|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|5.32||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|8.88||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 value up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, baseline weight group, region, ethnicity, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline % predicted FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||8.88|1.76|0.0036
91837206|NCT02948959|183554944|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|5.21||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.27||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 value up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, baseline weight group, region, ethnicity, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline % predicted FEV1 value and baseline-by visit interaction as covariates.||8.27|2.14|0.0009
91837207|NCT02948959|183554945|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.26||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in ACQ-7-IA up to Week 52 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-7-IA and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.26|-0.66|<0.0001
91837208|NCT02948959|183554946|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.16||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in ACQ-7-IA up to Week 52 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-7-IA and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.16|-0.50|0.0001
91837209|NCT02948959|183554947|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-20.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-16.59||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in FeNO up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FeNO value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-16.59|-24.60|<0.0001
91837210|NCT02948959|183554948|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-17.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|-14.63||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in FeNO up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FeNO value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-14.63|-21.05|<0.0001
91837211|NCT01480596|183555001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.40|-5.08|0.256
91837212|NCT01480596|183555002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.082||95.0|0.87|19.02|||exact methods|||||19.02|0.87|0.082
91837213|NCT01480596|183555003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.827||95.0|0.05|4.35|||exact methods|||||4.35|0.05|0.827
91837214|NCT01480596|183555004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.10|0.62|0.184
91837215|NCT01480596|183555006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 28. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||0.80|-4.20|0.175
91837216|NCT01480596|183555006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.267||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 32. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.28|-3.89|0.310
91837217|NCT01480596|183555006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.272||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 36. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||0.30|-4.88|0.081
91837218|NCT01480596|183555007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.486||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||3.07|-2.97|0.972
91837219|NCT01480596|183555008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.48|||exact methods|||||5.48|0.26|1.000
91837220|NCT01480596|183555009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.89|||exact methods|||||2.89|0.03|0.530
91837221|NCT01480596|183555010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|11.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.46|0.64|0.175
91837222|NCT01480596|183555012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 28. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.53|-3.56|0.423
91837223|NCT01480596|183555012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.361||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 32. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||2.80|-2.76|0.986
91837224|NCT01480596|183555012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 36. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||2.65|-3.21|0.848
91837225|NCT01480596|183555018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical analysis is presented for Week 12. Standard error of mean is for adjusted mean difference.|||0.93|-1.94|0.483
91837226|NCT01480596|183555018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical analysis is presented for Week 24. Standard error of mean is for adjusted mean difference.|||1.40|-2.03|0.711
91837227|NCT01480596|183555019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 28. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||-0.20|-3.30|0.028
91837228|NCT01480596|183555019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 32. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.55|-2.10|0.756
91837229|NCT01480596|183555019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 36. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.59|-2.12|0.775
91837230|NCT00818363|183555020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.47|||ANCOVA|Includes treatment group and trial site as factors and age as a covariate.||||0.47|-1.74|0.303
91837231|NCT00818363|183555021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.25||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|9.55|||ANCOVA|Includes treatment group and trial site as factors and age as a covariate.||||9.55|-30.04|0.303
91837232|NCT00633919|183555027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect (LME) model|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||0.85
91837233|NCT00633919|183555028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect (LME) model|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||0.52
91775640|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.59||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.59|-0.51|0.885
91837234|NCT00633919|183555029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Proportional odds regression|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||>0.05
91896209|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.28||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.475|-0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.081|-0.475|0.0207
91896210|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.24||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.432|-0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.048|-0.432|0.0402
91837235|NCT00633919|183555030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0486||95.0|||||Proportional odds regression|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||0.0486
91837236|NCT00633919|183555031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Proportional odds regression|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||>0.05
91837237|NCT03338621|183555036|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.96|||Log Rank|||||3.96|2.17|<0.001
91837238|NCT02037438|183555079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.687|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.687
91837239|NCT02037438|183555080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.989|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Heteroscedasticity-Consistent Linear Regression with Fixed Effects for Providers and Baseline Covariate||||||0.989
91837240|NCT02037438|183555081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.417
91837241|NCT02037438|183555082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.468|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.468
91837242|NCT02037438|183555083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.003
91837243|NCT05375955|183555094|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|29.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||29.4|-4.1|0.0711
91837244|NCT05375955|183555094|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|26.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||26.8|-6.1|0.1290
91837245|NCT05375955|183555095|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||24.3|-10.8|0.2712
91837246|NCT05375955|183555095|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.3||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|47.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||47.5|7.7|0.0028
91837247|NCT05375955|183555095|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|56.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||56.4|14.7|0.0003
91837248|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||10.7|-10.2|0.5701
91837249|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
91837250|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||23.7|-2.0|0.0532
91837251|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.1705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|17.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||17.6|-6.1|0.1705
91837252|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|15.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||15.7|-14.4|0.5123
91837253|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
91837254|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|24.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||24.8|-8.9|0.2736
91837255|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|19.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||19.8|-13.0|0.3967
91837256|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|20.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||20.2|-13.6|0.3997
91837257|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|15.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||15.3|-17.7|0.5461
91837258|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|24.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||24.8|-8.9|0.2736
91837259|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||22.1|-11.0|0.2754
91837260|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|30.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||30.3|-4.8|0.0977
91837261|NCT05375955|183555096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|33.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||33.2|-2.8|0.0542
91837262|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-7.8|0.2578
91837263|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|10.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||10.1|-10.6|1.0000
91837264|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
91837265|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
91837266|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||14.9|-7.8|0.2697
91837267|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||32.0|3.2|0.0104
91837268|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||32.0|3.2|0.0104
91837269|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|30.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||30.3|2.6|0.0129
91837270|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|38.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||38.9|8.0|0.0024
91837271|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|38.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||38.9|8.0|0.0024
91837272|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|40.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||40.1|9.5|0.0018
91837273|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|51.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||51.8|17.8|0.0001
91837274|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|32.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||32.5|-0.1|0.0259
91837275|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|40.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||40.4|6.3|0.0038
91837276|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|48.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||48.9|12.2|0.0007
91837277|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.5||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|41.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||41.2|2.1|0.0146
91837278|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|38.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||38.9|1.0|0.0205
91837279|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|39.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|59.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||59.3|17.1|0.0002
91837280|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|32.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||32.6|-7.8|0.1245
91837281|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|31.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||31.5|-9.1|0.1431
91837282|NCT05375955|183555097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.8||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|56.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||56.8|12.2|0.0007
91837283|NCT05375955|183555098|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
91837284|NCT05375955|183555098|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
91837285|NCT05375955|183555098|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.1705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|17.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||17.6|-6.1|0.1705
91837286|NCT05375955|183555098|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|20.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||20.5|-3.9|0.1118
91837287|NCT05375955|183555098|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|20.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||20.5|-9.5|0.2751
91837288|NCT05375955|183555098|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|17.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||17.6|-11.4|0.3857
91646222|NCT01236053|183184678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.81|1.48|<0.0001
91646223|NCT01236053|183184678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.88|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.88|0.70|0.5948
91646224|NCT01236053|183184678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.35|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.35|0.47|0.3984
91646225|NCT01236053|183184678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.1872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.79|0.89|0.1872
91646226|NCT01236053|183184678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.34|0.64|0.6772
91646227|NCT01236053|183184679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.72|0.07|0.4933
91646228|NCT01236053|183184679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.4147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.27|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||3.27|0.06|0.4147
91646229|NCT01236053|183184680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.8257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|10.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||10.38|0.15|0.8257
91646230|NCT01236053|183184680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|9.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||9.02|0.13|0.9467
91646231|NCT01236053|183184680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||0.00|0.00|0.9859
91646232|NCT01236053|183184680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||0.00|0.00|0.9857
91646233|NCT01236053|183184680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||0.00|0.00|0.9860
91646234|NCT01236053|183184680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||0.00|0.00|0.9858
91646235|NCT01236053|183184680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||0.00|0.00|0.9798
91646236|NCT01236053|183184680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||0.00|0.00|0.9796
91646237|NCT01236053|183184681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||14.84|0.20|0.6252
91646238|NCT01236053|183184681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|13.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||13.28|0.17|0.7208
91646239|NCT01236053|183184683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.03|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||9.03|0.14|0.9141
91837289|NCT05375955|183555098|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||22.6|-6.4|0.1429
91646240|NCT01236053|183184683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.9613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|7.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||7.78|0.12|0.9613
91646241|NCT01236053|183184684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.57|1.02|0.0323
91646242|NCT01236053|183184684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.52|0.99|0.0682
91646243|NCT01236053|183184684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.40|1.01|0.0326
91646244|NCT01236053|183184684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.36|0.99|0.0699
91837290|NCT05375955|183555098|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||22.6|-6.4|0.1429
91837291|NCT05375955|183555098|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|25.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||25.3|-4.4|0.1119
91837292|NCT05375955|183555098|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|16.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||16.7|-10.7|0.3755
91837293|NCT05375955|183555098|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||24.3|-8.4|0.2547
91837294|NCT05375955|183555098|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|18.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||18.6|-12.7|0.3928
91837295|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||11.0|-10.6|1.0000
91837296|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|10.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||10.1|-10.6|1.0000
91837297|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-7.8|0.2578
91837298|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
91837299|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||19.2|-5.3|0.1140
91837300|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
91837301|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
91837302|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||33.9|4.9|0.0071
91837303|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||32.0|3.2|0.0104
91837304|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||32.0|3.2|0.0104
91837305|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||33.9|4.9|0.0071
91837306|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|42.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||42.3|10.4|0.0011
91837307|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
91837308|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|46.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||46.3|14.2|0.0003
91837309|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|45.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||45.8|12.9|0.0007
91896211|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.32||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.511|-0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.124|-0.511|0.0071
91896212|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.664|-0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.275|-0.664|<0.0001
91837310|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|26.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||26.4|-6.6|0.1256
91837311|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|44.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||44.8|7.0|0.0038
91837312|NCT05375955|183555099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|52.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||52.6|12.8|0.0007
91837313|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
91837314|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
91837315|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|15.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||15.5|-9.2|0.3585
91837316|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||22.1|-5.3|0.1290
91837317|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
91837318|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||24.3|-8.4|0.2547
91837319|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|20.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||20.5|-9.5|0.2751
91837320|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|28.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||28.8|-3.8|0.0658
91837321|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
91837322|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
91837323|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|20.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||20.2|-13.6|0.3997
91837324|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|20.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||20.2|-13.6|0.3997
91837325|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|25.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||25.7|-9.5|0.2736
91837326|NCT05375955|183555100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|31.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||31.0|-5.6|0.1119
91837327|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||11.0|-10.6|1.0000
91837328|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.9|-7.8|0.2697
91837329|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-7.8|0.2578
91837330|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
91837331|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||19.2|-5.3|0.1140
91775641|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.32||P-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.32|-0.96|0.325
91775642|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.56||P-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.56|-0.73|0.798
91775643|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.87||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.87|-0.39|0.461
91775644|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.66||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.66|-1.02|0.670
91775645|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.35||P-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.35|-1.37|0.243
91775646|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.48||P-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.48|-1.14|0.423
91775647|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.35||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.35|-1.04|0.333
91775648|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.36||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.36|-1.05|0.334
91775649|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.68||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.68|-0.69|0.990
91837332|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
91837333|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
91837334|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||33.9|4.9|0.0071
91837335|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||32.0|3.2|0.0104
91837336|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||32.0|3.2|0.0104
91837337|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||33.9|4.9|0.0071
91837338|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|42.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||42.3|10.4|0.0011
91837339|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
91837340|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|46.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||46.3|14.2|0.0003
91837341|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|45.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||45.8|12.9|0.0007
91837342|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||24.3|-10.8|0.2712
91837343|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|44.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||44.8|5.4|0.0056
91837344|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|50.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||50.5|9.7|0.0017
91837345|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|21.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||21.6|-14.9|0.3929
91837346|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|47.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||47.7|7.0|0.0040
91775650|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.09||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||1.09|-0.70|0.665
91775651|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.74||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.74|-1.10|0.700
91837347|NCT05375955|183555101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|53.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||53.7|10.4|0.0012
91837348|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.3255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-8.5|0.3255
91837349|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.7181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|8.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||8.3|-13.3|0.7181
91837350|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.4||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||34.3|7.0|0.0022
91837351|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|31.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||31.1|3.7|0.0064
91837352|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|31.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||31.5|-3.4|0.0659
91896213|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.449|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.050|-0.449|0.0395
91837353|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|38.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||38.5|0.9|0.0189
91837354|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|22.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||22.3|-14.9|0.3962
91837355|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|29.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||29.1|-10.4|0.2333
91837356|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|22.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||22.3|-14.9|0.3962
91837357|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|32.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||32.7|-7.9|0.1353
91837358|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.2791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|25.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||25.7|-12.8|0.2791
91837359|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|29.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||29.1|-10.4|0.2333
91837360|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|30.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||30.6|-7.3|0.1295
91837361|NCT05375955|183555104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|40.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||40.2|0.1|0.0247
91837362|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.7278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|11.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||11.5|-21.9|0.7278
91837363|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|28.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||28.2|-11.5|0.2548
91837364|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|21.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||21.9|-17.5|0.5162
91837365|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|30.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||30.7|-11.4|0.1663
91837366|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|38.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||38.3|-4.2|0.0605
91837367|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|41.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||41.6|-5.4|0.0592
91837368|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|37.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||37.4|-8.6|0.1246
91837369|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|39.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||39.7|-7.3|0.0789
91837370|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|43.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||43.7|-6.4|0.0889
91837371|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|50.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||50.7|4.2|0.0097
91837372|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|43.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||43.6|-0.8|0.0294
91837373|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|37.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|62.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||62.2|10.9|0.0018
91837374|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|48.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||48.9|-3.8|0.0495
91837375|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|32.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||32.4|-17.3|0.2890
91775652|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.48||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.48|-1.23|0.386
91775653|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.15||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.15|-1.27|0.120
91775654|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.15||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.15|-1.29|0.119
91775655|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.69||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.69|-0.71|0.976
91775656|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.2||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||2.20|0.14|0.026
91837376|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|62.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||62.0|5.1|0.0103
91837377|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0||||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|44.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||44.8|-7.8|0.1088
91837378|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|36.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||36.2|-14.0|0.2719
91837379|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|56.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||56.6|0.4|0.0227
91837380|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|48.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||48.9|-3.8|0.0495
91837381|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.9||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|40.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||40.6|-10.6|0.1246
91896214|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.32||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.511|-0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.123|-0.511|0.0073
91837382|NCT05375955|183555105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|56.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||56.6|0.4|0.0227
91837383|NCT01622010|183555161|EQUIVALENCE|P value 0.05 used||||||0.487|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.487
91837384|NCT01622010|183555163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|a non-inferiority margin calculation was not performed for this study prior to its start.||||||0.628|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: Standard care is better than standard care with video enhancement.||||0.628
91837385|NCT01622010|183555164|EQUIVALENCE|P Value 0.05 used||||||0.647|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.647
91837386|NCT03976466|183555165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.049|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.168|||Chi-squared, Corrected||For the Relative risk the control Study group was the numerator and control group denominator. In the 2X2 contingency table the rows correspond to groups and columns for the presence or abscence of periprosthetic infection.|"H0.- There is no significant difference in the incidence of periprosthetic infection in patients with non-modifiable risk factors and prophylactic application of antibiotic loaded calcium sulfate compared with patients without prophylactic treatment with calcium sulfate.~The presence of periprosthetic infection in both groups was evaluated by chi2 and Lambda tests for dichotomous nominal and qualitative variables with longitudinal direction and relative risk factor test."||0.168|0.015|<0.05
91775657|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.42||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||1.42|-0.69|0.497
91837387|NCT03976466|183555166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The statistical test of t was performed for the variable length of hospital stay, finding a significant difference with a p value \< 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Lenght of stay was the variable that compares both groups and was a continous variable (t-test).||||<0.01
91837388|NCT02247336|183555191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||A priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation models were used with a logit link function and an exchangeable correlation structure to account for clustering of participants within provider. Fay and Graubard small sample bias correction was applied.|Using alpha=0.05, 80% power, and a risk-appropriate screening referral rate for the delayed arm ranging from 60% to 70%, n = 250 participants with a completed a family health history assessment per arm with 40 providers was needed to detect differences between arms in appropriate referral ranging from 12% to 13.2%. Sample size calculations accounted for provider clustering using an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.02 to adjust variance for a Z-test of the difference of two proportions.||1.2|0.4|0.16
91837389|NCT02247336|183555192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.2||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation models were used with a logit link function and an exchangeable correlation structure to account for clustering of participants within provider. Fay and Graubard small sample bias correction was applied.|||1.2|.04|0.23
91775658|NCT00385671|183432415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.19||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.19|-1.80|0.112
91775659|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0||||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.486
91775660|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||95.0||||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.983
91775661|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0||||p-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.411
91775662|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0||||p-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.554
91775663|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||p-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.128
91775664|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||95.0||||p-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.488
91837390|NCT00733499|183555194|OTHER|||||||0.9478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9478
91837391|NCT00733499|183555195|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5490
91837392|NCT00733499|183555196|OTHER|||||||0.5312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5312
91837393|NCT00733499|183555197|OTHER|||||||0.3549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3549
91837394|NCT00733499|183555198|OTHER|||||||0.0513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0513
91837395|NCT00733499|183555199|OTHER|||||||0.0629|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0629
91837396|NCT00733499|183555200|OTHER|||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0327
91837397|NCT00733499|183555201|OTHER|||||||0.0883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0883
91775665|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||p-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.226
91775666|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||p-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.710
91775667|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||p-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.133
91775668|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||p-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.257
91775669|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||95.0||||p-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.412
91775670|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||p-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.030
91775671|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.024
91775672|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.250
91775673|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.489
91775674|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.682
91775675|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.953
91775676|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.803
91646245|NCT01236053|183184685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.2893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.69|0.86|0.2893
91837398|NCT00733499|183555202|OTHER|||||||0.6801|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6801
91837399|NCT00733499|183555203|OTHER|||||||0.4779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4779
91837400|NCT00733499|183555204|OTHER|||||||0.8007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8007
91837401|NCT00733499|183555205|OTHER|||||||0.3317|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3317
91837402|NCT00733499|183555206|OTHER|||||||0.8955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8955
91837403|NCT00733499|183555207|OTHER|||||||0.2116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2116
91837404|NCT00733499|183555208|OTHER|||||||0.4776|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4776
91837405|NCT00733499|183555210|OTHER|||||||0.2935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2935
91837406|NCT00733499|183555211|OTHER|||||||0.0062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0062
91775677|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.694||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.694
91775678|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.835
91837407|NCT00733499|183555212|OTHER|||||||0.6896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6896
91837408|NCT00733499|183555213|OTHER|||||||0.1076|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1076
91837409|NCT00733499|183555214|OTHER|||||||0.9042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9042
91837410|NCT00733499|183555215|OTHER|||||||0.9637|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9637
91837411|NCT00733499|183555216|OTHER|||||||0.0485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0485
91837412|NCT00733499|183555217|OTHER|||||||0.9813|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9813
91837413|NCT00733980|183555221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2479||||0.703||80.0|-0.5887|1.0846|||Mixed-Model Repeated-Measure analysis|||||1.0846|-0.5887|0.703
91837414|NCT00733980|183555222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0169||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5231|0.4893|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 Vs Placebo, Week 1||0.4893|-0.5231|0.966
91837415|NCT00733980|183555222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4299||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2063|1.0661|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 Vs Placebo, Week 2||1.0661|-0.2063|0.386
91837416|NCT00733980|183555222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9413||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2203|1.6624|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 Vs Placebo, Week 4||1.6624|0.2203|0.095
91837417|NCT00733980|183555223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9495||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0185|1.9175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 1||1.9175|-0.0185|0.209
91837418|NCT00733980|183555223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7638||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4243|1.9519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||1.9519|-0.4243|0.409
91837419|NCT00733980|183555223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5363||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.1485|2.9241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||2.9241|0.1485|0.156
91837420|NCT00733980|183555223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6327||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9135|2.1789|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6||2.1789|-0.9135|0.599
91837421|NCT00733980|183555224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9866||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.8876|-0.0856|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 1||-0.0856|-3.8876|0.181
91837422|NCT00733980|183555224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2538||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.5922|2.0846|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||2.0846|-2.5922|0.889
91837423|NCT00733980|183555224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3242||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.8165|2.1681|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 3||2.1681|-2.8165|0.867
91837424|NCT00733980|183555224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8107||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.1036|3.7251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||3.7251|-2.1036|0.721
91837425|NCT00733980|183555224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6273||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.8337|2.5791|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6||2.5791|-3.8337|0.801
91837426|NCT00733980|183555225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.644||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2498|1.5378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 1||1.5378|-0.2498|0.355
91837427|NCT00733980|183555225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0524||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1194|2.2243|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||2.2243|-0.1194|0.249
91837428|NCT00733980|183555225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6473||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3078|2.9868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||2.9868|0.3078|0.116
91837429|NCT00733980|183555225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7283||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8353|2.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6||2.2920|-0.8353|0.550
91837430|NCT00733980|183555229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6359||||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3378|1.1968|||Logistic Model|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||1.1968|0.3378|0.3588
91837431|NCT00733980|183555229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7347||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.4554|1.1853|||Logistic Model|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||1.1853|0.4554|0.4088
91837432|NCT00733980|183555229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Logistic Model|0.9211||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5863|1.4471|||Logistic Model|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6/ Early withdrawal||1.4471|0.5863|0.8156
91837433|NCT00733980|183555230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4466||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.3986|8.2917|||ANCOVA|||||8.2917|-1.3986|0.361
91837434|NCT00733980|183555231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1167||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6387|1.8722|||ANCOVA|||||1.8722|-1.6387|0.932
91837435|NCT01986101|183555247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.0||Hochberg-adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-1.0|-4.9|0.007
91837436|NCT01986101|183555247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.1||Hochberg-adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.1|-4.0|0.057
91837437|NCT01986101|183555248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.15|-0.65|0.002
91837438|NCT01986101|183555248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.05|-0.56|0.019
91837439|NCT01986101|183555249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.1|-3.6|0.037
91837440|NCT01986101|183555249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.7|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.7|-2.9|0.223
91837441|NCT01986101|183555250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.05|-0.98|0.076
91837442|NCT01986101|183555250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.05|-1.01|0.075
91775679|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.435
91775680|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.379
91775681|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.247
91837443|NCT01986101|183555251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.3|-3.1|0.016
91837444|NCT01986101|183555251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.7|-2.1|0.294
91837445|NCT00335257|183555259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test of two exponential survival curves.These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.90; 3) VTE incidence rate of 9/10.000 WY and 4) non-inferiority limit hazard ratio of 2. Furthermore, a study of this size would exclude a threefold risk of ATE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, duration of current use, family history of VTE|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP(24d) vs. Non-DRSP is higher or equal to 2||1.3|0.5|
91837446|NCT03324880|183555261|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom subscale score.|-0.15|-0.90|=0.003
91837447|NCT03324880|183555262|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|15.9||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in FACIT-Fatigue total score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline FACIT-Fatigue total score.|15.9|5.1|<0.001
91837448|NCT03324880|183555263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9219|=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|8.072||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 PCS score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 PCS score.|8.072|0.413|=0.015
91896215|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.24||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.439|-0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.047|-0.439|0.0413
91837449|NCT03324880|183555264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.1||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact subscale score.|-0.10|-0.55|=0.002
91646246|NCT01236053|183184685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.4301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.61|0.82|0.4301
91775682|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.784
91775683|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||p-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.696
91775684|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0||||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.725
91775685|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.899
91775686|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0||||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.782
91775687|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0||||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.307
91775688|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.457
91775689|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712||95.0||||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.712
91775690|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0||||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.403
91775691|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0||||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.713
91775692|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.498
91646247|NCT01236053|183184685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.58|0.97|0.0806
91646248|NCT01236053|183184685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.55|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.55|0.95|0.1226
91775693|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.963
91775694|NCT00385671|183432416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338||95.0||||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.338
91775695|NCT00385671|183432417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Total Score.||||0.645
91775696|NCT00385671|183432417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Total Score.||||0.248
91775697|NCT00385671|183432417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Total Score.||||0.470
91775698|NCT00385671|183432417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Cognitive Toxicity Score.||||0.914
91775699|NCT00385671|183432417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Cognitive Toxicity Score.||||0.505
91775700|NCT00385671|183432417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Cognitive Toxicity Score.||||0.570
91775701|NCT00385671|183432417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Somatomotor Toxicity Score.||||0.430
91775702|NCT00385671|183432417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Somatomotor Toxicity Score.||||0.090
91896216|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.602|-0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.206|-0.602|0.0008
91646249|NCT01236053|183184685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.89|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.89|0.80|0.3502
91837450|NCT03324880|183555265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Impact on Sleep|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.04|-0.53|=0.013
91837451|NCT03324880|183555265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.11||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Ability to Exercise|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.11|-0.61|=0.003
91837452|NCT03324880|183555265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.12||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Ability to Complete Work|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.12|-0.61|=0.002
91896217|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.19||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.421|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||0.046|-0.421|0.1862
91775703|NCT00385671|183432417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Somatomotor Toxicity Score.||||0.341
91775704|NCT00385671|183432418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale total score.||||0.130
91775705|NCT00385671|183432418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale total score.||||0.192
91775706|NCT00385671|183432418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.936||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale total score.||||0.936
91775707|NCT00385671|183432418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale cognitive toxicity score.||||0.480
91775708|NCT00385671|183432418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale cognitive toxicity score.||||0.690
91775709|NCT00385671|183432418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.923||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale cognitive toxicity score.||||0.923
91775710|NCT00385671|183432418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale somatomotor toxicity score.||||0.202
91837453|NCT03324880|183555265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.13||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Impact Family Relationships|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.13|-0.61|=0.002
91896218|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.23||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.455|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||-0.000|-0.455|0.0998
91775711|NCT00385671|183432418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale somatomotor toxicity score.||||0.114
91775712|NCT00385671|183432418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale somatomotor toxicity score.||||0.954
91775713|NCT00385671|183432419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for tests of direct and indirect effects.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.107
91775714|NCT00385671|183432420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BDI-II total score.||||0.968
91775715|NCT00385671|183432420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BDI-II total score.||||0.492
91775716|NCT00385671|183432420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BDI-II total score.||||0.463
91775717|NCT00385671|183432423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 30% reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.103
91775718|NCT00385671|183432423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in time to first ≥ 30% reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.167
91775719|NCT00385671|183432423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.919||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 30% reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.919
91775720|NCT00385671|183432426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 2 points reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.008
91837454|NCT03324880|183555266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.15||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD anxiety item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD anxiety item score.|-0.15|-0.96|=0.004
91896219|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.22||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.453|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||0.006|-0.453|0.1085
91775721|NCT00385671|183432426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in time to first ≥ 2 points reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.033
91775722|NCT00385671|183432426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 2 points reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.688
91896220|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.14||||0.3161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.372|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||0.090|-0.372|0.3161
91708128|NCT00482170|183309171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, very satisfied: tobacco usage- no, satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, satisfied: tobacco usage- no, less satisfied: tobacco usage- yes and less satisfied: tobacco usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.787
91775723|NCT00385671|183432428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week with participant is as a random effect, Kenward-Roger approximation.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in 24 hour average pain severity score when analyzing only treatment-compliant participants.||0.90|-0.33|0.365
91837455|NCT03324880|183555267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.14||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD sadness or depression item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD sadness or depression item score.|-0.14|-0.93|=0.004
91896221|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.1||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.328|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||0.136|-0.328|0.4962
91708129|NCT00482170|183309171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, very satisfied: tobacco usage- no, satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, satisfied: tobacco usage- no, less satisfied: tobacco usage- yes and less satisfied: tobacco usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.379
91708130|NCT00482170|183309171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, very satisfied: alcohol usage- no, satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, satisfied: alcohol usage- no, less satisfied: alcohol usage- yes and less satisfied: alcohol usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.098
91708131|NCT00482170|183309171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, very satisfied: alcohol usage- no, satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, satisfied: alcohol usage- no, less satisfied: alcohol usage- yes and less satisfied: alcohol usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.166
91708132|NCT00482170|183309172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.535
91708133|NCT00592592|183309182|OTHER||Cumulative incidence|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.0||||||||18.0|5.7|
91708134|NCT00592592|183309184|OTHER||% hypothalamus normal tissue spared|88.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.01
91708135|NCT00592592|183309184|OTHER||% pituitary normal tissue spared|73.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.01
91708136|NCT00592592|183309184|OTHER||% lens (contra) normal tissue spared|100.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.01
91708137|NCT00592592|183309184|OTHER||% maxilla normal tissue spared|42.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.02
91708138|NCT00592592|183309185|OTHER||Percent Survival, Local Control|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|87.7||||||||87.7|73.0|
91708139|NCT01134263|183309186|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.178||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.178|-0.067|
91708140|NCT01134263|183309186|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.151||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.151|-0.102|
91708141|NCT01134263|183309186|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.045||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.045|-0.204|
91708142|NCT01134263|183309186|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.34||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.340|0.009|
91708143|NCT01134263|183309186|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.056||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.056|-0.297|
91708144|NCT01134263|183309186|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|0.117||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.117|-0.225|
91708145|NCT01134263|183309186|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.184||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.184|-0.068|
91708146|NCT01134263|183309186|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.082||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.082|-0.167|
91775724|NCT00385671|183432428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.13||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week with participant is as a random effect, Kenward-Roger approximation.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in 24 hour average pain severity score when analyzing only treatment-compliant participants.||1.13|-0.20|0.172
91775725|NCT00385671|183432428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.85||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week with participant is as a random effect, Kenward-Roger approximation.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in 24 hour average pain severity score when analyzing only treatment-compliant participants.||0.85|-0.49|0.594
91775726|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.8||P-value is for de novo, week 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.80|-0.48|0.622
91775727|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.16||P-value is for de novo, week 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.16|-0.18|0.153
91775728|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.0||P-value is for de novo, week 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.00|-0.35|0.344
91775729|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.45||P-value is for de novo, week 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||1.45|-0.02|0.058
91775730|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.59||P-value is for de novo, week 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||1.59|0.07|0.032
91775731|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.9||P-value is for de novo, week 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||0.90|-0.66|0.762
91775732|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.73||P-value is for de novo, week 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.73|0.09|0.029
91837456|NCT03324880|183555268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Muscle Cramps|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.12|-0.99|=0.006
91775733|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.97||P-value is for de nove, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.97|0.27|0.010
91775734|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.06||P-value is for de nove, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.06|-0.63|0.619
91775735|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.69||P-value is for de novo, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||1.69|-0.03|0.058
91775736|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.41||P-value is for de novo, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||2.41|0.61|0.001
91775737|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.58||P-value is for de nove, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.58|-0.23|0.142
91775738|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.76||P-value is for de novo, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||1.76|-0.05|0.065
91775739|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.65||P-value is for de novo, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||2.65|0.75|<0.001
91775740|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.79||P-value is for de novo, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||1.79|-0.10|0.079
91775741|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.71||P-value is for de novo, 6 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||1.71|-0.13|0.093
91775742|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.53||P-value is for de novo, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||2.53|0.59|0.002
91646250|NCT01236053|183184685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.81|0.76|0.4654
91775743|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.74||P-value is for de novo, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||1.74|-0.20|0.119
91775744|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.91||P-value is for de novo, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||1.91|0.06|0.036
91775745|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.61||P-value is for de novo, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||2.61|0.68|<0.001
91775746|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.63||P-value is for de novo, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||1.63|-0.30|0.178
91775747|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.75||P-value is for de novo, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||1.75|-0.14|0.093
91775748|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.51||P-value is for de novo, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||2.51|0.53|0.003
91775749|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.71||P-value is for de novo, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.71|-0.28|0.157
91775750|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.82||P-value is for de novo, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||1.82|-0.05|0.063
91775751|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.66||P-value is for de novo, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||2.66|0.70|<0.001
91791314|NCT00492063|183460306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in adults.||8|0|
91896222|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.29||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.512|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||-0.060|-0.512|0.0371
91646251|NCT01236053|183184685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.3987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.23|0.59|0.3987
91837457|NCT03324880|183555268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.12||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Tingling|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.12|-0.96|=0.007
91837458|NCT03324880|183555268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.02||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.02|-0.94|=0.020
91837459|NCT03324880|183555268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.18||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Muscle Spasms|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.18|-1.05|=0.003
91837460|NCT03324880|183555268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229|=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.07||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Feelings of Heaviness|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|0.07|-0.83|=0.050
91837461|NCT03324880|183555268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.1||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Physical Fatigue|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.10|-1.01|=0.008
91837462|NCT03324880|183555268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.14||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Brain Fog|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.14|-0.87|=0.004
91837463|NCT03324880|183555270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.43||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD most bothersome symptom score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD most bothersome symptom score.|-0.43|-1.37|<0.001
91837464|NCT03324880|183555271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.3||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in FACT-Cog Perceived Cognitive Impairments Subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline FACT-Cog Perceived Cognitive Impairments Subscale score.|4.3|0.0|=0.024
91775752|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.77||P-value is for de novo, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||1.77|-0.19|0.114
91775753|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.46||P-value is for de novo, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||1.46|-0.44|0.295
91775754|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.44||P-value is for de novo, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||2.44|0.45|0.005
91837465|NCT03324880|183555272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.3||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in FACT-Cog QoL Subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline FACT-Cog QoL Subscale score.|4.3|0.0|=0.024
91775755|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.94||P-value is for de novo, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||1.94|-0.06|0.066
91896223|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.21||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.441|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||0.013|-0.441|0.1212
91708147|NCT01134263|183309186|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.113||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.113|-0.144|
91775756|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.58||P-value is for de novo, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||1.58|-0.35|0.208
91775757|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.51||P-value is for de novo, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||2.51|0.49|0.004
91775758|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.89||P-value is for de novo, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||1.89|-0.13|0.086
91775759|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.45||P-value is for de novo, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||1.45|-0.49|0.328
91775760|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.47||P-value is for de novo, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||2.47|0.44|0.005
91775761|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.99||P-value is for de novo, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||1.99|-0.04|0.059
91775762|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.79||P-value is for prior use, 1 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.79|-0.09|0.117
91775763|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.62||P-value is for prior use, 1 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.62|-0.25|0.412
91775764|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.26||P-value is for prior use, 1 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.26|-0.60|0.445
91837466|NCT03324880|183555273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1376|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.951|11.469||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Bodily Pain|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|11.469|2.951|=0.001
91708148|NCT01134263|183309186|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.295||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.295|-0.006|
91837467|NCT03324880|183555273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|5.545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0542|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.452|9.638||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-General Health|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|9.638|1.452|=0.004
91837468|NCT03324880|183555273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2913|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.292|12.423||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Mental Health|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|12.423|3.292|<0.001
91837469|NCT03324880|183555273|SUPERIORITY||MMRM|4.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1123|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|8.763||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Physical Functioning|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|8.763|0.345|=0.017
91837470|NCT03324880|183555273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3186|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|13.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Role-Emotional|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|13.040|3.800|<0.001
91837471|NCT03324880|183555273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2489|=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|8.711||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Role-Physical|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|8.711|-0.251|=0.032
91837472|NCT03324880|183555273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6658|=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.502|9.121||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Social Functioning|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|9.121|-1.502|=0.079
91837473|NCT03324880|183555273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.942|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.353|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.253|12.63||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Vitality|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|12.630|3.253|=0.001
91837474|NCT03324880|183555274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2642|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.788|12.811||1-sided p-value|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 MCS score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 MCS score.|12.811|3.788|<0.001
91837475|NCT03324880|183555275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.578|=|0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.33|22.6||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Work Time Missed Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|22.60|-16.33|=0.627
91837476|NCT03324880|183555275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.52|=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|0.7||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Impairment While Working Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|0.7|-29.9|=0.031
91837477|NCT03324880|183555275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.146|=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.42|-2.39||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|-2.39|-27.42|=0.011
91837478|NCT03324880|183555275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-1.5||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Activity Impairment Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|-1.5|-24.5|=0.014
91837479|NCT03324880|183555276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||1-sided p-value|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in PGI-S score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline PGI-S score.|-0.1|-1.0|=0.010
91837480|NCT03324880|183555278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||ANCOVA|From an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||Detection||0.05|-0.03|=0.516
91837481|NCT03324880|183555278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||=|0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||Identification||0.06|-0.02|=0.275
91837482|NCT03324880|183555278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||One Card Learning||0.07|-0.05|=0.777
91708149|NCT01134263|183309186|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.088||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.088|-0.207|
91837483|NCT03324880|183555278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||One Back (ONB)||0.05|-0.04|=0.831
91775765|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.09||P-value is for prior use, 2 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||1.09|0.07|0.025
91775766|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.79||P-value is for prior use, 2 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||0.79|-0.21|0.257
91775767|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.21||P-value is for prior use, 2 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||0.21|-0.79|0.257
91775768|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.04||P-value is for prior use, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.04|-0.05|0.075
91775769|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.68||P-value is for prior use, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||0.68|-0.42|0.634
91775770|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.19||P-value is for prior use, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||0.19|-0.91|0.193
91775771|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.7||P-value is for prior use, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||0.70|-0.46|0.688
91775772|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.56||P-value is for prior use, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||0.56|-0.60|0.944
91775773|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.45||P-value is for prior use, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||0.45|-0.73|0.640
91837484|NCT03324880|183555278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|9.93|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|20.85|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||Groton Maze Learning (GML)||20.85|-1.00|=0.075
91837485|NCT03324880|183555278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.57|||=|0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.27|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||International Shopping List (ISL)||1.27|-2.41|=0.545
91837486|NCT03324880|183555278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||=|0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.56|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||International Shopping List Test Delayed Recall (ISRL)||1.56|-0.45|=0.283
91837487|NCT03324880|183555279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Detection (DET)|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.04|-0.02|=0.582
91837488|NCT03324880|183555279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Identification (IDN)|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.04|-0.02|=0.492
91837489|NCT03324880|183555279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||One Card Learning (OCL)|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.06|-0.03|=0.506
91837490|NCT03324880|183555279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||One Back Test|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.04|-0.02|=0.438
91837491|NCT03324880|183555280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871|=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.83||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in 24-hour urine calcium excretion as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline 24-Hour urine calcium excretion.|3.83|0.36|=0.991
91837492|NCT03324880|183555281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0395|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|-0.097||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in serum phosphate as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline serum phosphate.|-0.097|-0.254|<0.001
91837493|NCT03324880|183555282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.654|=|0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|13.22||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||From a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in active vitamin D supplement dose as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline active vitamin D supplement dose.|13.22|-5.06|=0.810
91837494|NCT03324880|183555283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-331.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.56|=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-594.6|-67.9||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in elemental calcium supplement dose as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline elemental calcium supplement dose.|-67.9|-594.6|=0.007
91896224|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.18||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||0.045|-0.410|0.1870
91896225|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.23||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.459|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||0.009|-0.459|0.1133
91775774|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.84||P-value is for prior use, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||0.84|-0.37|0.439
91775775|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.84||P-value is for prior use, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||0.84|-0.38|0.461
91775776|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.6||P-value is for prior use, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||0.60|-0.62|0.976
91775777|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.68||P-value is for prior use, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||0.68|-0.55|0.829
91775778|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.74||P-value is for prior use, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||0.74|-0.50|0.713
91775779|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.67||P-value is for prior use, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||0.67|-0.58|0.878
91775780|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.85||P-value is for prior use, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||0.85|-0.38|0.447
91775781|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.83||P-value is for prior use, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||0.83|-0.41|0.511
91775782|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.59||P-value is for prior use, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||0.59|-0.65|0.924
91775783|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.06||P-value is for prior use, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||1.06|-0.20|0.185
91775784|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.91||P-value is for prior use, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||0.91|-0.37|0.403
91775785|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.49||P-value is for prior use, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||0.49|-0.79|0.636
91775786|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.95||P-value is for prior use, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||0.95|-0.30|0.304
91775787|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.97||P-value is for prior use, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||0.97|-0.29|0.295
91837495|NCT03324880|183555286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|22.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.271|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.83|28.84||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|28.84|15.83|<0.001
91896226|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.43||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.653|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||-0.198|-0.653|0.0022
91646252|NCT01236053|183184685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.20|0.58|0.3349
91775788|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.64||P-value is for prior use, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||0.64|-0.62|0.975
91775789|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.93||P-value is for prior use, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||0.93|-0.33|0.349
91775790|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.94||P-value is for prior use, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||0.94|-0.34|0.351
91775791|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.65||P-value is for prior use, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||0.65|-0.64|0.992
91775792|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.77||P-value is for prior use, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||0.77|-0.50|0.681
91775793|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.83||P-value is for prior use, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||0.83|-0.46|0.569
91775794|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||P-value is for prior use, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||0.70|-0.60|0.871
91775795|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.78||P-value is for prior use, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||0.78|-0.50|0.675
91775796|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.72||P-value is for prior use, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||0.72|-0.57|0.823
91896227|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.475|-0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||-0.016|-0.475|0.0788
91646253|NCT01236053|183184685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.98|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.98|0.96|0.0827
91775797|NCT00385671|183432429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.59||P-value is for prior use, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||0.59|-0.72|0.850
91775798|NCT00385671|183432431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.448
91775799|NCT00385671|183432431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.118
91775800|NCT00385671|183432431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.021
91775801|NCT00385671|183432431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in systolic blood pressure.||||0.537
91775802|NCT00385671|183432431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.911||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in systolic blood pressure.||||0.911
91775803|NCT00385671|183432431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in systolic blood pressure.||||0.627
91775804|NCT00385671|183432432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in heart rate.||||0.078
91775805|NCT00385671|183432432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in heart rate.||||0.130
91775806|NCT00385671|183432432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in heart rate.||||0.850
91775807|NCT00385671|183432433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in body weight.||||<0.001
91775808|NCT00385671|183432433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in body weight.||||<0.001
91837496|NCT03324880|183555287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|785.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|559.6|1011.3||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|1011.3|559.6|<0.001
91837497|NCT03324880|183555288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|56.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.091|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.33|68.53||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Osteocalcin|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|68.53|44.33|<0.001
91775809|NCT00385671|183432433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in body weight.||||0.011
91775810|NCT00385671|183432434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated diastolic blood pressure.||||0.830
91775811|NCT00385671|183432434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated diastolic blood pressure.||||1.00
91775812|NCT00385671|183432434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated diastolic blood pressure.||||1.00
91775813|NCT00385671|183432434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated systolic blood pressure.||||0.060
91775814|NCT00385671|183432434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated systolic blood pressure.||||0.502
91775815|NCT00385671|183432434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated systolic blood pressure.||||0.376
91775816|NCT00385671|183432435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated heart rate.||||0.281
91775817|NCT00385671|183432435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated heart rate.||||0.060
91775818|NCT00385671|183432435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated heart rate.||||0.596
91775819|NCT00385671|183432436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||P-value is for high. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent high body weight.||||0.332
91775820|NCT00385671|183432436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||P-value is for high. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent high body weight.||||0.065
91646254|NCT01236053|183184685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.96|0.95|0.0932
91646255|NCT01236053|183184685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.80|1.07|0.0130
91896228|NCT01620255|183687878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.485|-0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||-0.022|-0.485|0.0717
91646256|NCT01236053|183184685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.75|1.04|0.0241
91646257|NCT01236053|183184686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.68|0.77|0.5043
91775821|NCT00385671|183432436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0||||P-value is for high. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent high body weight.||||0.622
91775822|NCT00385671|183432436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||P-value is for low. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent low body weight.||||0.103
91775823|NCT00385671|183432436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-value is for low. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent low body weight.||||0.034
91775824|NCT00385671|183432436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||P-value is for low. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent low body weight.||||0.808
91775825|NCT00385671|183432437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AST.||||0.055
91775826|NCT00385671|183432437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AST.||||0.051
91775827|NCT00385671|183432437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AST.||||0.993
91775828|NCT00385671|183432437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in ALT.||||0.928
91775829|NCT00385671|183432437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in ALT.||||0.609
91775830|NCT00385671|183432437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in ALT.||||0.675
91775831|NCT00385671|183432437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in GGT.||||0.985
91896229|NCT01620255|183687879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.08||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.286|0.131|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo||0.131|-0.286|0.5406
91896230|NCT01620255|183687879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.628|-0.221|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo||-0.221|-0.628|0.0007
91896231|NCT01620255|183687879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.34||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.549|-0.137|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo||-0.137|-0.549|0.0063
91837498|NCT03324880|183555288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|226.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.425|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|160.17|292.98||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Procollagen 1 N-Terminal Propeptide|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|292.98|160.17|<0.001
91837499|NCT05076149|183555353|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin represents a clinically acceptable loss of effectiveness that margin preserve at least 50% of the treatment effect of the active control (ELX/TEZ/IVA) compared to placebo, where the treatment effect is estimated by the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI)|LS Mean difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||0.9|-0.5|< 0.0001
91837500|NCT05076149|183555354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.8|||=|0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.9|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-0.9|-4.7|=0.0034
91837501|NCT05076149|183555355|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.16|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||3.16|1.55|< 0.0001
91775832|NCT00385671|183432437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in GGT.||||0.847
91775833|NCT00385671|183432437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in GGT.||||0.832
91775834|NCT00385671|183432437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AlkPhos.||||0.169
91775835|NCT00385671|183432437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AlkPhos.||||0.910
91775836|NCT00385671|183432437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AlkPhos.||||0.134
91775837|NCT00385671|183432438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 total bilirubin.||||0.285
91837502|NCT05076149|183555356|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.12|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||4.12|2.00|< 0.0001
91837503|NCT02087501|183555357|OTHER||Sample proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.6|||||The CI is calculated based on Clopper-Pearson method|||11.6|0|
91837504|NCT02087501|183555357|OTHER||Sample proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.6||||||||11.6|0|
91837505|NCT02087501|183555358|OTHER||Sample proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|100.0|||||CI is calculated based on Clopper-Pearson method|||100|88.4|
91837506|NCT02087501|183555359|OTHER||Sample proportion|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|92.0||||||||92|61|
91837507|NCT03682705|183555369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|-0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) analysis was conducted, testing the superiority of the combination of upadacitinib 15 mg and elsubrutinib 60 mg compared to placebo at Week 12. Data collected after a participant discontinued study drug was considered as missing. The mixed model included the categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline DAS28 (CRP) measurement.||-0.85|-2.03|<0.001
91837508|NCT00094328|183555391|OTHER|One sample t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy parameter, change in growth rate (cm/year) after 12 months relative to the baseline growth rate was analysed using a one sample t-test. A 95% 2-sided confidence interval was calculated for the mean change in growth rate.||1.48|-4.72|0.278
91837509|NCT00094328|183555392|OTHER|One sample t-test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy parameter, change in growth rate (SD units) after 12 months relative to the baseline growth rate was analysed using a one sample t-test. A 95% 2-sided confidence interval was calculated for the mean change in growth rate.||1.00|-1.15|0.882
91775838|NCT00385671|183432438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in total bilirubin.||||0.505
91775839|NCT00385671|183432438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in total bilirubin.||||0.679
91775840|NCT00385671|183432439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in fasting blood glucose.||||0.047
91775841|NCT00385671|183432439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in fasting blood glucose.||||0.232
91775842|NCT00385671|183432439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.424||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in fasting blood glucose.||||0.424
91775843|NCT00385671|183432440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in hemoglobin A1C.||||0.298
91775844|NCT00385671|183432440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in hemoglobin A1C.||||0.987
91775845|NCT00385671|183432440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in hemoglobin A1C.||||0.297
91775846|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AST values.||||1.00
91775847|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AST values.||||0.749
91775848|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AST values.||||0.750
91775849|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated ALT values.||||0.050
91775850|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated ALT values.||||0.320
91775851|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated ALT values.||||0.440
91775852|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value is for TBili. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated TBili values.||||0.498
91775853|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245||95.0||||P-value is for TBili. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated TBili values.||||0.245
91775854|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated GGT values.||||0.160
91775855|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated GGT values.||||0.280
91775856|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated GGT values.||||1.00
91775857|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value is for FPG. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated FPG values.||||0.023
91775858|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||P-value is for FPG. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated FPG values.||||0.264
91775859|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||P-value is for FPG. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated FPG values.||||0.325
91775860|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1C. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated HbA1C values.||||1.00
91775861|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1C. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated HbA1C values.||||0.121
91775862|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1C. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated HbA1C values.||||0.095
91775863|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AlkPhos values.||||1.00
91775864|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AlkPhos values.||||0.720
91775865|NCT00385671|183432441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AlkPhos values.||||0.722
91775866|NCT01972217|183432454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.969|||Log Rank|||The 1-sided p-value provides a test for rejecting the null hypothesis of no treatment effect versus the superiority alternative that patients on olaparib have a lower risk of progression compared with placebo.||0.969|0.438|0.017
91775867|NCT01972217|183432467|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.813||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|2.261||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.261|0.285|0.309
91837510|NCT01874145|183555422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.743||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using 2-tailed test.|Poisson regression model|Natural log of treatment duration was an offset variable; adjusted for baseline EDSS, treatment group, age, sex, # relapses 2 years prior to screening|GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group / GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group.|Adjusted mean estimates were adjusted estimates of event rates within treatment group. The treatment effect parameter estimate was a risk ratio of the GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group divided by the GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group. The p value tested whether the risk ratio was significantly different from 1.||0.743|0.338|0.0006
91837511|NCT01874145|183555424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.742||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using 2-tailed test.|Poisson regression model|Natural log of treatment duration was an offset variable; adjusted for baseline EDSS, treatment group, age, sex, # relapses 2 years prior to screening|GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group / GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group|Adjusted mean estimates were adjusted estimates of event rates within treatment group. The treatment effect parameter estimate was a risk ratio of the GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group divided by the GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group. The p value tested whether the risk ratio was significantly different from 1.||0.742|0.337|0.0006
91837512|NCT01874145|183555425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.438|0.322||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using 2-tailed test.|ANCOVA|In addition to treatment group, month (categorical), treatment-by-month interaction and score at baseline were used as covariates.|GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group vs. GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group.|"To control for type 1 errors, secondary variables were analyzed only if analysis of the primary variable was statistically significant. Gate-keeping procedures offered further control with this hierarchy:~1. the rate of ISRs~2. change from baseline to month 4 (change - M4) in MSIS-20 physical wellbeing~3. change - M4 in MSIS-20 psychological wellbeing~4. change - M4 in TSQM-9 convenience~5. change - M4 in TSQM-9 overall satisfaction"||0.322|-4.438|0.0897
91837513|NCT00402337|183555437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||0.0337
91837514|NCT00402337|183555437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||0.0010
91837515|NCT00402337|183555437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||<0.0001
91837516|NCT00402337|183555437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||<0.0001
91837517|NCT02707692|183555473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-988.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2996.3|1020.3|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Primary hypothesis: Participants will have a higher absolute difference in levels of CD4+ T cell-associated HIV RNA transcription seven days after receiving either Pneumococcal or Influenza vaccinations, when compared to seven days after receiving placebo.||1020.3|-2996.3|0.32
91896232|NCT01620255|183687879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.23||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.436|-0.018|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo||-0.018|-0.436|0.0748
91775868|NCT01972217|183432468|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.13||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||Olapatib + abiraterone versus placebo + abiraterone: TFST||1.130|0.540|0.095
91775869|NCT01972217|183432468|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.201||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||Olaparib + abiraterone versus placebo + abiraterone: TSST||1.201|0.545|0.147
91775870|NCT01972217|183432469|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.384||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||||1.384|0.600|0.331
91775871|NCT01972217|183432470|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.215||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||||1.215|0.511|0.140
91837518|NCT02707692|183555473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-405.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1199.7|389.7|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Primary hypothesis: Participants will have a higher absolute difference in levels of CD4+ T cell-associated HIV RNA transcription seven days after receiving either Pneumococcal or Influenza vaccinations, when compared to seven days after receiving placebo.||389.7|-1199.7|0.31
91837519|NCT02019563|183555485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.49|||Chi-squared|||Radiographic outcomes were compared using univariate repeated measures logistic regression. A binary logistic generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups.||1.49|.08|.15
91837520|NCT02019563|183555486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.89|||Chi-squared|||Radiographic outcomes were compared using univariate repeated measures logistic regression. A binary logistic generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups.||1.89|.19|.38
91837521|NCT02019563|183555487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||A binary logistic generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups for radiographic and clinical outcomes.||||.51
91837522|NCT02019563|183555488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||A binary logistic generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups for radiographic and clinical outcomes.||||.64
91775872|NCT01456039|183432472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Based on one sample binomial test for dichotomized response proportion against the null hypothesis ( H0 p≤0.1)|Binomial test for dichotomized response|||||||<0.0001
91837523|NCT02019563|183555489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value represents the survival rate from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis from 6 to 36 months.|Log Rank|||||||.11
91896233|NCT01620255|183687880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.9||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-101.0|97.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||97.14|-101.00|0.9744
91837524|NCT00840996|183555500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.23|-0.4||Test for superiority adjusted for 2 primary comparisons (2 outcomes)|Mixed Models Analysis|Llinear mixed-effects accounts for correlation exhibited by the repeated pain measurements on a given patient (spatial power correlation structure).||Postoperative analgesia was characterized using both pain scores and opioid consumption .We considered one of the groups to be better than the other on postoperative pain control with superiority on either outcome, in the presence of noninferiority on both outcomes. Thus, our primary hypothesis was assessed in a joint hypothesis testing framework .||-0.40|-1.23|<0.001
91837525|NCT00840996|183555501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin: ratio of the geometric means not more than 1.3 greater (mean mg IV morphine equivalent not more than 30% greater ) than that of the other group|the ratio of the geometric means|0.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21||Noninferiority hypotheses were evaluated against a one-sided significance criterion of 0.025 \[adjusting for testing in both directions: lidocaine vs. control and vs. control vs. lidocaine \]|Regression, Linear|Log-linear regression model was used; 0.1 mg added before taking the logarithm to accommodate the 2 patients who received 0 mg opioids.||Postoperative analgesia was characterized using both pain scores and opioid consumption .We considered one of the groups to be better than the other on postoperative pain control with superiority on either outcome, in the presence of noninferiority on both outcomes. Thus, our primary hypothesis was assessed in a joint hypothesis testing framework .||1.21|0.65|0.011
91837526|NCT00840996|183555502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.00|0.84|0.049
91837527|NCT00840996|183555503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Nausea - POD 2||1.09|0.77|0.31
91837528|NCT00840996|183555503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Vomiting - POD 2||1.14|0.94|0.44
91837529|NCT00840996|183555504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.4|-2.4|0.15
91837530|NCT00840996|183555505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|10.0|||Regression, Linear|||||10|2.3|0.002
91837531|NCT00840996|183555506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.9|0.3|0.04
91837532|NCT00856934|183555507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91837533|NCT00856934|183555508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91837534|NCT03285295|183555509|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.92|99.99|||Binomial Distribution|Specificity sample size is a minimum of 15,000 donors.||||99.99|99.92|
91837535|NCT03285295|183555510|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.15|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.15|
91837536|NCT03285295|183555511|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.95|100.0|||Binomial Distribution|||||100.00|99.95|
91837537|NCT03285295|183555512|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.48|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.48|
91837538|NCT03285295|183555513|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.86|99.95|||Binomial Distribution|||||99.95|99.86|
91837539|NCT03285295|183555514|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.09|
91837540|NCT03285295|183555515|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.87|99.96|||Binomial Exact|||||99.96|99.87|
91837541|NCT03285295|183555516|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.72|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.72|
91837542|NCT03285295|183555517|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.84|99.94|||Binomial Exact|||||99.94|99.84|
91837543|NCT03285295|183555518|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.09|
91837544|NCT03285295|183555519|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.94|100.0|||Binomial Exact|||||100.00|99.94|
91837545|NCT03285295|183555520|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.85|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|98.85|
91837546|NCT03285295|183555525|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.98|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|95.98|
91837547|NCT03285295|183555527|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.75|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|92.75|
91837548|NCT03285295|183555528|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.87|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|94.87|
91837549|NCT03285295|183555529|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|98.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.2|99.84|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||99.84|95.20|
91837550|NCT04867785|183555543|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.94|0.188
91837551|NCT04867785|183555543|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.85|-1.84|<0.001
91837552|NCT04867785|183555543|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.65|-1.85|<0.001
91837553|NCT04867785|183555543|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-2.44|<0.001
91837554|NCT04867785|183555543|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.24|-2.42|<0.001
91837555|NCT04867785|183555543|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.50|-2.43|<0.001
91837556|NCT04867785|183555544|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|0.52|<0.001
91837557|NCT04867785|183555544|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.01||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.34|0.935
91837558|NCT04867785|183555544|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.11||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-0.39|0.668
91837559|NCT04867785|183555544|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.95|0.002
91837560|NCT04867785|183555544|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.47||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.95|0.056
91837561|NCT04867785|183555544|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.93|<0.001
91837562|NCT04867785|183555545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.85|0.448
91837563|NCT04867785|183555545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-1.60|0.001
91837564|NCT04867785|183555545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.59|-1.80|<0.001
91837565|NCT04867785|183555545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.24|-2.41|<0.001
91837566|NCT04867785|183555545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.99|-2.27|<0.001
91837567|NCT04867785|183555545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.31|-2.39|<0.001
91837568|NCT04867785|183555545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.29|0.35|<0.001
91837569|NCT04867785|183555545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.06||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.41|0.796
91775873|NCT00313014|183432518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.35||P value was 2-sided and performed at the 5% error level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed linear model with treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.35|-0.99|<.001
91837570|NCT04867785|183555545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.14||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.61|0.548
91775874|NCT00313014|183432518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.44||P value was 2-sided and performed at the 5% error level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed linear model with treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effect.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.44|-1.07|<.001
91775875|NCT00313014|183432519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.13||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|ANCOVA||The analysis was based on the number of subjects who took \> 1 tablet of supplemental analgesia.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.13|-0.90|.006
91775876|NCT00313014|183432519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.09||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|ANCOVA||The analysis was based on the number of subjects who took \> 1 tablet of supplemental analgesia.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||0.09|-0.70|.158
91837571|NCT04867785|183555545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-1.19|<0.001
91837572|NCT04867785|183555545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-1.08|0.025
91837573|NCT04867785|183555545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.16|<0.001
91837574|NCT04867785|183555546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.32|-0.04|0.121
91837575|NCT04867785|183555546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.59|0.13|0.002
91837576|NCT04867785|183555546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.68|0.28|<0.001
91837577|NCT04867785|183555546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.87|0.53|<0.001
91837578|NCT04867785|183555546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.82|0.39|<0.001
91837579|NCT04867785|183555546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.85|0.51|<0.001
91837580|NCT04867785|183555546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.02|-0.39|0.030
91837581|NCT04867785|183555546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.24|-0.22|0.938
91837582|NCT04867785|183555546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.33|-0.07|0.209
91837583|NCT04867785|183555546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.53|0.18|<0.001
91837584|NCT04867785|183555546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.48|0.03|0.024
91837585|NCT04867785|183555546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.51|0.16|<0.001
91837586|NCT04867785|183555547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.35|-0.06|0.169
91837587|NCT04867785|183555547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.63|0.15|0.001
91837588|NCT04867785|183555547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.60|0.14|0.002
91837589|NCT04867785|183555547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.79|0.39|<0.001
91837590|NCT04867785|183555547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.78|0.34|<0.001
91837591|NCT04867785|183555547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.76|0.38|<0.001
91837592|NCT04867785|183555547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.02|-0.44|0.029
91775877|NCT00313014|183432520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.11||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||0.11|-3.55|.065
91775878|NCT00313014|183432520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.031||95.0|-3.79|-0.18||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.18|-3.79|.031
91775879|NCT00313014|183432521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.735|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|-2.82||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model: treatment, time as fixed effects, screening, prerandomization sleep disturbance subscale as covariates; subject as a random effect||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-2.82|-9.64|<.001
91775880|NCT00313014|183432521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709||0.121||95.0|-6.01|0.7||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||0.70|-6.01|.121
91775881|NCT03714672|183432522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results.||-3.4|-4.8|<0.0001
91775882|NCT03714672|183432522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-3.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results.||-3.8|-5.2|<0.0001
91775883|NCT03714672|183432522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results. The planned test was a test for non-inferiority.||-2.5|-3.9|<0.0001
91775884|NCT03714672|183432522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results. The planned test was a test for non-inferiority.||-2.1|-3.5|<0.0001
91646258|NCT01236053|183184686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.59|0.73|0.7129
91646259|NCT01236053|183184686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.57|0.91|0.2055
91775885|NCT03081117|183432533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of Enrolled group.||||0.669
91775886|NCT03081117|183432534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3914||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 14||Analysis for Intent-to-Treat group.||||0.0366
91775887|NCT03081117|183432534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5146||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 12||Analysis for Per Protocol group.||||0.0103
91775888|NCT03081117|183432537|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wald test, two-sided|||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
91775889|NCT03081117|183432538|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25|||||||Wald test, two-sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
91775890|NCT03081117|183432539|SUPERIORITY||Unstandardized beta coefficient|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald test, two-sided|||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||0.244
91775891|NCT03081117|183432540|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wald test, two-sided|||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
91775892|NCT03081117|183432541|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25|||||||Wald test, two-sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
91837593|NCT04867785|183555547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.25|-0.22|0.898
91837594|NCT04867785|183555547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.23|-0.24|0.968
91837595|NCT04867785|183555547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.42|0.02|0.033
91837596|NCT04867785|183555547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.41|-0.04|0.099
91837597|NCT04867785|183555547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.39|0.01|0.044
91837598|NCT04867785|183555548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.12||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.73|16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.48|-20.73|0.823
91837599|NCT04867785|183555548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.6||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.29|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.10|-47.29|0.165
91837600|NCT04867785|183555548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-33.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.56|-13.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.04|-53.56|0.001
91837601|NCT04867785|183555548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-55.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.77|-41.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.22|-69.77|<0.001
91837602|NCT04867785|183555548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-29.22||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.84|-5.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.59|-52.84|0.015
91646260|NCT01236053|183184686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.52|0.88|0.3005
91775893|NCT03081117|183432542|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25|||||||Wald test, two-sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
91775894|NCT03081117|183432543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0031351||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 13||Analysis for All Available group (participants who had both Baseline and Week 24 scans).||||0.366
91837603|NCT04867785|183555548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-54.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.63|-39.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-39.59|-69.63|<0.001
91775895|NCT03081117|183432543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0025586||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees fo freedom = 10||Analysis for Per Protocol group.||||0.505
91775896|NCT03081117|183432544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.00000061||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 13||Analysis for All Available group (participants who had both Baseline and Week 24 scans).||||0.98
91837604|NCT04867785|183555548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|33.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.26|48.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.82|18.26|<0.001
91837605|NCT04867785|183555548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|16.07||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.25|42.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||42.39|-10.25|0.231
91646261|NCT01236053|183184686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.77|0.84|0.2849
91775897|NCT03081117|183432544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0000054||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 10||Analysis for Per Protocol group.||||0.86
91775898|NCT02364700|183432550|EQUIVALENCE|Group means from baseline to discharge were compared to determine if 6-week and training on the Hand of Hope device elicited changes in outcome measures.|||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman Test|||||||<.05
91837606|NCT04867785|183555548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.37||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|21.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.01|-16.28|0.804
91837607|NCT04867785|183555548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.01|-8.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.65|-31.01|<0.001
91837608|NCT04867785|183555548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.45||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|29.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.65|-16.75|0.586
91837609|NCT04867785|183555548|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.94||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.93|-6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.96|-30.93|0.002
91837610|NCT04867785|183555549|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.25||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|24.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.07|-24.57|0.984
91837611|NCT04867785|183555549|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.2||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.44|29.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.03|-37.44|0.804
91837612|NCT04867785|183555549|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.47||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.91|8.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.98|-51.91|0.167
91837613|NCT04867785|183555549|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-51.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.09|-27.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.59|-76.09|<0.001
91837614|NCT04867785|183555549|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-23.94||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.94|10.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.06|-57.94|0.168
91837615|NCT04867785|183555549|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-50.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.94|-26.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.22|-74.94|<0.001
91837616|NCT04867785|183555549|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|10.02||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|31.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.60|-11.55|0.362
91837617|NCT04867785|183555549|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.07||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.34|36.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||36.48|-24.34|0.696
91837618|NCT04867785|183555549|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.19||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.38|16.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.99|-39.38|0.436
91837619|NCT04867785|183555549|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-41.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.89|-20.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.25|-62.89|<0.001
91837620|NCT04867785|183555549|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.67||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.75|19.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.42|-46.75|0.418
91837621|NCT04867785|183555549|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-40.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.77|-19.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.85|-60.77|<0.001
91837622|NCT04867785|183555550|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.49||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|-2.07|0.540
91837623|NCT04867785|183555550|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.13|-6.69|<0.001
91837624|NCT04867785|183555550|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-4.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.09|-9.47|<0.001
91775899|NCT01231984|183432564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two one-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in HbA1c between the 4mm PN and the 8mm PN was calculated. Equivalence limits for HbA1C were defined a-priori as +/- 0.4% units.|Effect of 4mm versus 8mm PN on HbA1c|-0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.058|||Two one-sided 95% confidence limits|For equivalence testing, a 95% test is the same as two one-sided 95% confidence limits.||General linear models with baseline as a covariate, needle type, period, and randomization sequence as fixed effects, and subject as random effect were fit to the data.||0.058|-0.209|
91775900|NCT01231984|183432565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two one-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in HbA1c between the 4 mm PN and the longer PNs (pooled) was calculated. Equivalence limits for HbA1c were defined a-priori as +/- 0.4% units.|Effect of 4mm PN vs. longer PN on HbA1c|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.051|||Two one-sided 95% confidence limits|For equivalence testing, a 95% test is the same as two one-sided 95% confidence limits.||General linear models with baseline as a covariate, needle type, period, and randomization sequence as fixed effects, and subject as random effect were fit to the data.||0.051|-0.23|
91775901|NCT01231984|183432566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.36|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.37|||p\< 0.05 was considered statistically significant in this study|t-test, 1 sided|||"Subjects rated the level of pain experienced when using the PN assigned for use during Study Period 2 compared to the PN assigned for use in Study Period 1. By placing a mark on a line, whose midpoint(anchor) was designated as 0, and represented equivalent pain with assigned PNs, ratings on the continuum represented the degree to which the PN used in the second Study Period was less than or greater than the PN used during the first Study Period."|||0.37|<0.05
91775902|NCT01231984|183432567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.83|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|18.54|||p\< 0.05 was considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 1 sided||||||18.54|<0.05
91775903|NCT01231984|183432569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two one-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in HbA1c between the 4mm PN and the 12.7mm PN was calculated. Equivalence limits for HbA1C were defined a-priori as +/- 0.4% units|Effect of 4 mm vs.12.7mm PN on HbA1c|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0|||Two one-sided 95% confidence limit|For equivalence testing, a 95% test is the same as two one-sided 95% confidence limits.||General linear models with baseline as a covariate, needle type, period, and randomization sequence as fixed effects, and subject as random effect were fit to the data.||-0.000|-0.190|
91775904|NCT03486912|183432607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.62|0.30|0.773
91775905|NCT03486912|183432607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.23|0.23|0.544
91775906|NCT03486912|183432607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.62|0.30|0.811
91775907|NCT03486912|183432608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.09|0.40|0.836
91837625|NCT04867785|183555550|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|-8.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.03|-12.24|<0.001
91775908|NCT03486912|183432608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.46|0.30|0.763
91775909|NCT03486912|183432608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.51|0.32|0.821
91775910|NCT03486912|183432609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.25|0.39|0.837
91775911|NCT03486912|183432609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.40|0.54|0.359
91775912|NCT03486912|183432609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.61|0.44|0.627
91775913|NCT03486912|183432610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.16|0.40|0.864
91775914|NCT03486912|183432610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.49|0.29|0.743
91775915|NCT03486912|183432610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.27|0.630
91775916|NCT03486912|183432611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.25|0.48|0.477
91775917|NCT03486912|183432611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.44|0.32|0.814
91775918|NCT03486912|183432611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.93|0.21|0.367
91775919|NCT03486912|183432612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.309
91775920|NCT03486912|183432612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.146
91775921|NCT03486912|183432612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
91775922|NCT03486912|183432613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.91||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|325.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||325.97|0.76|0.054
91775923|NCT03486912|183432613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|549.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||549.08|1.50|0.004
91775924|NCT03486912|183432613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.59||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|271.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||271.11|0.57|0.087
91775925|NCT02491684|183432614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.29||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.85|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||3.85|0.43|0.645
91837626|NCT04867785|183555550|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-9.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.06|-15.06|<0.001
91837627|NCT04867785|183555550|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-8.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.73|-13.24|<0.001
91837628|NCT04867785|183555550|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.19||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-2.75|0.135
91837629|NCT04867785|183555550|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|-2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.86|-7.36|<0.001
91837630|NCT04867785|183555550|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|-4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.77|-10.19|<0.001
91837631|NCT04867785|183555550|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-8.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.77|-12.89|<0.001
91646262|NCT01236053|183184686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.72|0.82|0.3650
91775926|NCT02491684|183432615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.97||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|9.89|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 7|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||9.89|0.39|0.411
91775927|NCT02491684|183432615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.25||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.41|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 30|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||3.41|0.46|0.659
91775928|NCT02491684|183432616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|15.79|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 14|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||15.79|0.08|0.944
91837632|NCT04867785|183555550|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.74|-9.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.77|-15.74|<0.001
91837633|NCT04867785|183555550|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-9.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.47|-13.90|<0.001
91837634|NCT04867785|183555551|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.03||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|-2.18|0.979
91837635|NCT04867785|183555551|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-7.32|0.018
91837636|NCT04867785|183555551|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|-3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.71|-10.46|<0.001
91837637|NCT04867785|183555551|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-9.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.66|-16.74|<0.001
91837638|NCT04867785|183555551|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.18|-16.50|<0.001
91837639|NCT04867785|183555551|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-10.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.71|-17.10|<0.001
91837640|NCT04867785|183555551|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-3.45|0.213
91837641|NCT04867785|183555551|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|-1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.97|-8.66|0.002
91837642|NCT04867785|183555551|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|-5.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.04|-11.76|<0.001
91775929|NCT02491684|183432616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|15.79|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 30|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||15.79|0.08|0.944
91775930|NCT02491684|183432617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.77|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio was calculated adjusting for treatment group and region.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of time to first severe exacerbation within 30 days of treatment start.||3.77|0.45|0.634
91837643|NCT04867785|183555551|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-11.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.01|-18.00|<0.001
91837644|NCT04867785|183555551|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.77|-10.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.54|-17.77|<0.001
91646263|NCT01236053|183184686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.40|0.78|0.7559
91837645|NCT04867785|183555551|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|-12.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.07|-18.36|<0.001
91837646|NCT00981474|183555572|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.121|||Chi-squared|||||1.121|.82|.752
91837647|NCT00981474|183555573|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.93|||Chi-squared|||||.93|.32|.053
91837648|NCT00981474|183555574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.454||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|.18|.149
91837649|NCT00981474|183555575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.13|||Chi-squared|||||1.13|.30|.144
91837650|NCT00981474|183555576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.724||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.41|||Chi-squared|||||1.41|.37|.439
91837651|NCT00981474|183555577|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.872||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|.69|.311
91837652|NCT00981474|183555578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.247||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|1.18|||Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test used due to the small number of events.||||1.18|.005|.103
91837653|NCT00981474|183555579|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.102||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.5|||Chi-squared|||||1.5|.81|.608
91837654|NCT00981474|183555580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.564||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.97|||Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test used due to the small number of events.||||1.97|.16|.541
91837655|NCT00981474|183555581|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.247||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.18|||Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test used due to small number of events.||||1.18|.05|.103
91837656|NCT00981474|183555582|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.409||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.14|||Chi-squared|||||1.14|.15|.129
91837657|NCT02991482|183555590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.76
91896234|NCT01620255|183687880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|74.9||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.77|171.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||171.66|-21.77|0.2023
91896235|NCT01620255|183687880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|32.9||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.09|130.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 4||130.79|-65.09|0.5808
91896236|NCT01620255|183687880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|37.6||||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.12|138.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 4||138.34|-63.12|0.5388
91896237|NCT01620255|183687880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-8.2||||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-106.24|89.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||89.81|-106.24|0.8902
91896238|NCT01620255|183687880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|10.2||||0.8616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-86.14|106.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||106.54|-86.14|0.8616
91896239|NCT01620255|183687880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-34.3||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-133.49|64.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 8||64.79|-133.49|0.5684
91896240|NCT01620255|183687880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|33.8||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.2|131.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 8||131.86|-64.20|0.5700
91775931|NCT02491684|183432618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.78|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio was calculated adjusting for treatment group and region.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of time to first moderate exacerbation within 30 days of treatment start.||16.78|0.07|0.973
91775932|NCT02491684|183432620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.09||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.35|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for change from baseline in total score at Visit 4.|Analysis of change from baseline in total score at Visit 4.||0.35|-0.17|0.495
91775933|NCT02491684|183432620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.38|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in total score at Visit 6.||0.38|-0.26|0.715
91775934|NCT02491684|183432620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in total score at Visit 8.||0.28|-0.42|0.687
91775935|NCT02491684|183432621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.45|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 1-14.||0.45|-0.23|0.516
91775936|NCT02491684|183432621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 1-7.||0.37|-0.16|0.417
91775937|NCT02491684|183432621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.36|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 8-14.||0.36|-0.34|0.954
91775938|NCT02491684|183432621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 15-30.||0.35|-0.35|0.985
91775939|NCT02491684|183432623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.24|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in overall score at Visit 6.||0.24|-0.38|0.660
91775940|NCT02491684|183432623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.09||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.29|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in overall score at Visit 8.||0.29|-0.48|0.624
91775941|NCT02491684|183432624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.59|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||1.59|-0.51|0.309
91775942|NCT02491684|183432625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|16.98||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|34.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||34.60|-0.63|0.059
91775943|NCT02491684|183432625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|19.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|34.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||34.05|4.66|0.010
91775944|NCT02491684|183432625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|14.38||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|34.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||34.20|-5.44|0.153
91775945|NCT02491684|183432625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|19.26||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|41.97|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||41.97|-3.44|0.096
91837658|NCT01213043|183555597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin was: \[0.80, 1.25\]|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.88|||ANOVA|||Dose proportionality was analysed using an ANOVA model for the natural log-transformed AUC0-7days with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. The treatment dose of 60 mg/kg was the reference treatment and 120 mg/kg was the test treatment. PK parameters in individual subjects for each treatment dose were dose normalized to 60mg/kg based on the actual dose administered at Week 8 or Week 18 (i.e., (AUC0-7days/Actual Dose in mg/kg)\*60mg/kg).||0.88|0.83|<0.0001
91896241|NCT01620255|183687880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-30.0||||0.6234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-130.56|70.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||70.57|-130.56|0.6234
91837659|NCT02887989|183555614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.657|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6570
91837660|NCT02887989|183555615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6339
91837661|NCT02002884|183555640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.22|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.04|||MMRM|||LS-Means are from mixed model with treatment group, pooled site and pre-treatment status included as fixed factors and AS at baseline, Gross Motor Function Classification System-Extended and Revised (GMFCS-E\&R) level at screening included as covariates. For MMRM visit\*treatment is interaction term repeated factor.||-0.04|-0.4|= 0.017
91837662|NCT02002884|183555640|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean difference|-0.07|||=|0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15|||MMRM|||LS-Means are from mixed model with treatment group, pooled site and pre-treatment status included as fixed factors and AS at baseline, GMFCS-E\&R level at screening included as covariates. For MMRM visit\*treatment is interaction term repeated factor.||0.15|-0.29|= 0.546
91837663|NCT02002884|183555641|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean difference|0.09|||=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||ANCOVA|||LS-Means are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group, pooled site and pretreatment status included as fixed factors and maximum AS score of the two possible primary target patterns flexed elbow or flexed wrist baseline, GMFCS-E\&R level at screening included as covariates.||0.28|-0.1|= 0.34
91837664|NCT02002884|183555641|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean difference|-0.12|||=|0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11|||ANCOVA|||LS-Means are from ANCOVA with treatment group, pooled site and pre-treatment status included as fixed factors and maximum AS score of the two possible primary target patterns flexed elbow or flexed wrist baseline, GMFCS-E\&R level at screening included as covariates.||0.11|-0.36|= 0.297
91837665|NCT02110732|183555655|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
91837666|NCT02110732|183555656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared||||Categorical variables were analyzed with Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Comparisons between groups were by Levene's test for equality of variances. A P-level \<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed with SPSS v.19 and NCSS.|||< 0.05
91837667|NCT02110732|183555657|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
91646264|NCT01236053|183184686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.37|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.37|0.77|0.8520
91775946|NCT02491684|183432626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||0.17|-0.03|0.161
91837668|NCT01588990|183555741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.101
91837669|NCT01588990|183555753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.052
91837670|NCT01588990|183555754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.797
91646265|NCT01236053|183184686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.06|1.01|0.0459
91775947|NCT02491684|183432626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.08||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||0.17|-0.01|0.087
91775948|NCT02491684|183432626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||0.16|-0.05|0.280
91837671|NCT01588990|183555755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.188
91837672|NCT01588990|183555756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.016
91837673|NCT02367716|183555766|OTHER|The mean change in QRS duration between Baseline and 6 months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91837674|NCT01473381|183555767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.84||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.84|-4.30|0.0073
91837675|NCT01473381|183555767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.06||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-1.06|-4.57|0.0034
91837676|NCT01473381|183555767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-1.0||P-value was provided for assay sensitivity. It was not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-1.00|-4.48|0.0020
91837677|NCT01473381|183555768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.13||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.13|-0.58|0.0073
91837678|NCT01473381|183555768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.1||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.10|-0.55|0.0097
91837679|NCT01473381|183555768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.12||P-value was provided for assay sensitivity. It was not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.12|-0.57|0.0025
91775949|NCT02491684|183432626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||0.24|-0.02|0.086
91775950|NCT02491684|183432627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.69||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|30.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||30.14|-6.76|0.211
91775951|NCT02491684|183432627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.19||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|25.56|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||25.56|-3.18|0.125
91775952|NCT02491684|183432627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.14||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|31.36|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||31.36|-9.08|0.277
91775953|NCT02491684|183432627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|17.13||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|41.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||41.18|-6.92|0.161
91775954|NCT02491684|183432628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||0.16|-0.05|0.287
91775955|NCT02491684|183432628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||0.14|-0.06|0.457
91775956|NCT02491684|183432628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.05||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||0.16|-0.05|0.315
91775957|NCT02491684|183432628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.09||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||0.22|-0.03|0.134
91775958|NCT00468169|183432655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1225||||||Log-rank test comparing PFS between two treatment arms|Log Rank|||||||0.1225
91837680|NCT01473381|183555769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.3563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.9||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.||||10.9|-3.9|0.3563
91837681|NCT01473381|183555769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.6||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.||||14.6|-0.4|0.1611
91775959|NCT03668873|183432670|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares Means|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.81||Threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models with repeated measures with fixed effects for baseline CSI, treatment, week as a categorical variable, and treatment-week interaction.|Treatment difference = SPT minus SPE.|The null hypothesis was that the SPE and SPT groups did not differ on change in CSI score at 10 weeks. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.5 units and an attrition rate of 10%, an enrollment target of 90 participants would provide 90% power to detect a difference of 1.85 points or greater with a type I error rate of 0.05 using a two-tailed two-sample t-test.||-0.81|-2.88|<0.001
91775960|NCT03668873|183432671|SUPERIORITY||Absolute percent difference|24.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|46.0||Threshold for significance was 0.05|Chi-squared||Difference = SPT minus SPE.|The null hypothesis was that the SPE and SPT groups did not differ on the rate of positive response to CGI-I at 10 weeks. Assuming a 25%-40% positive response rate at 10 weeks in the SPE group and 45 patients per group, power was 90% to detect a 32% or greater difference in positive response rate (57%-72% in SPT group, respectively), with a type I error rate of 0.05 using a Chi-square test.||46|2|0.037
91775961|NCT03668873|183432672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||threshold for significant 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
91775962|NCT03668873|183432673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Threshold for significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91775963|NCT03668873|183432674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Threshold for significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91775964|NCT02183675|183432676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.081|126.225|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||126.225|93.081|
91775965|NCT02183675|183432676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|114.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.097|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.216|134.326|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||134.326|98.216|
91775966|NCT02183675|183432677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.43|105.19|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||105.19|90.43|
91837682|NCT01473381|183555769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.2||P-value was provided for assay sensitivity. It was not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.||||12.2|-2.7|0.2672
91837683|NCT03802864|183555796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91837684|NCT03802864|183555797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91896242|NCT01620255|183687880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|36.0||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.44|134.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||134.38|-62.44|0.5474
91837685|NCT03802864|183555798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91837686|NCT03802864|183555799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28
91837687|NCT03802864|183555800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
91837688|NCT03802864|183555801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
91837689|NCT03802864|183555802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91837690|NCT01641926|183555803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|11.6||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (hepatitis B Virus \[HBV\] genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||11.6|-8.4|
91837691|NCT01641926|183555804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|14.3||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||14.3|-20.2|
91837692|NCT01641926|183555805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|12.3||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||12.3|-7.2|
91837693|NCT01641926|183555806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|13.6||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||13.6|-9.5|
91837694|NCT01641926|183555806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|27.1||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||27.1|-7.2|
91646266|NCT01236053|183184686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.04|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.04|0.99|0.0542
91837695|NCT01641926|183555807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|9.2||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||9.2|-7.4|
91837696|NCT00152009|183555815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.0006
91837697|NCT00152009|183555815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.0005
91837698|NCT00152009|183555815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
91837699|NCT00152009|183555816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.025
91837700|NCT00152009|183555816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.035
91646267|NCT01236053|183184686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.74|1.03|0.0312
91837701|NCT00152009|183555816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
91837702|NCT00152009|183555817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
91837703|NCT00152009|183555817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
91837704|NCT00152009|183555817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
91837705|NCT00152009|183555818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91837706|NCT00152009|183555818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0016
91837707|NCT00152009|183555818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
91837708|NCT00152009|183555819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91837709|NCT00152009|183555819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0013
91837710|NCT00152009|183555819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91837711|NCT00152009|183555820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1438||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||Psychosocial category||||0.1438
91837712|NCT00152009|183555820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1426||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||Psychosocial category||||0.1426
91837713|NCT00152009|183555820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0191||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||Psychosocial category||||0.0191
91837714|NCT00098254|183555830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.0027
91896243|NCT01620255|183687880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|78.5||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.48|177.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo,Week 12||177.56|-20.48|0.1918
91896244|NCT01620255|183687880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-3.0||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.88|98.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 12||98.91|-104.88|0.9615
91896245|NCT01620255|183687881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|6.4||||0.9328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-118.6|131.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||131.41|-118.60|0.9328
91646268|NCT01236053|183184686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.70|1.00|0.0508
91646269|NCT01236053|183184687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.42|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.42|0.94|0.0892
91646270|NCT01236053|183184687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.39|0.92|0.1043
91775967|NCT02183675|183432677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.94|107.4|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||107.40|96.94|
91775968|NCT02183675|183432678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|104.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.949|107.734|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||107.734|101.949|
91775969|NCT02183675|183432679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.023|106.964|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||106.964|101.023|
91775970|NCT02183675|183432680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.167|104.867|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||104.867|100.167|
91775971|NCT02183675|183432681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|105.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.23|111.847|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||111.847|99.230|
91775972|NCT02183675|183432682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.73|108.28|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||108.280|98.730|
91775973|NCT00784563|183432689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Because all treatment arms were designed to deliver a similar average aerobic intensity, we planned to pool a priori all completers from the Continuous and Interval Training Arms for analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Sample size was estimated using 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.66 SD in VO2max (estimated improvement=10% /estimated SD of change=15%) within each arm at alpha=0.05 and an attrition rate of 25%.||||<0.001
91837715|NCT00098254|183555832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.33
91837716|NCT00098254|183555833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.042
91837717|NCT00098254|183555834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.028
91896246|NCT01620255|183687881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-9.8||||0.8962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-132.91|113.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||113.39|-132.91|0.8962
91896247|NCT01620255|183687881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|11.5||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-110.83|133.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 4||133.74|-110.83|0.8775
91896248|NCT01620255|183687881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-17.0||||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-142.02|107.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 4||107.94|-142.02|0.8224
91896249|NCT01620255|183687881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-52.7||||0.4831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-176.48|71.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||71.02|-176.48|0.4831
91896250|NCT01620255|183687881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-115.2||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-236.63|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||6.13|-236.63|0.1183
91837718|NCT02118337|183555845|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-23.8||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|31.1|||Fisher Exact|||||31.1|-72.8|0.5494
91837719|NCT02118337|183555845|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-7.1||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|20.0|||Fisher Exact|||||20.0|-33.6|0.5130
91837720|NCT01121172|183555912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non parametric test||||||0.001
91775974|NCT00784563|183432690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91775975|NCT00784563|183432691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.029
91775976|NCT00784563|183432692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.271
91775977|NCT00784563|183432693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted p-value=0.009|Regression, Linear|||||||0.070
91775978|NCT00784563|183432694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91775979|NCT00784563|183432695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
91775980|NCT00784563|183432696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
91775981|NCT00784563|183432697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in total daily equivalent levodopa dose||||||0.003
91775982|NCT00784563|183432698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.146|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.146
91775983|NCT00784563|183432699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.037
91775984|NCT00784563|183432700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.057
91775985|NCT01377584|183432770|OTHER||Effect size|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91837721|NCT01121172|183555913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test of frequency distribution amng obese study group and HapMap-CEU polymorphism distribution||||||0.232
91837722|NCT01003639|183555914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.43|||ANCOVA|||||1.43|0|0.05
91775986|NCT01377584|183432770|OTHER||Effect size|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775987|NCT01377584|183432770|OTHER||Effect size|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775988|NCT01377584|183432770|OTHER||Effect size|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775989|NCT01377584|183432770|OTHER||Effect size|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775990|NCT01377584|183432770|OTHER||Effect size|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775991|NCT01377584|183432771|OTHER||Effect size|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775992|NCT01377584|183432771|OTHER||Effect size|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775993|NCT01377584|183432771|OTHER||Effect size|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775994|NCT01377584|183432771|OTHER||Effect size|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775995|NCT01377584|183432771|OTHER||Effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775996|NCT01377584|183432771|OTHER||Effect size|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775997|NCT01377584|183432772|OTHER||Effect size|-1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775998|NCT01377584|183432772|OTHER||Effect size|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91775999|NCT01377584|183432772|OTHER||Effect size|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91776000|NCT01377584|183432772|OTHER||Effect size|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91776001|NCT01377584|183432772|OTHER||Effect size|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91776002|NCT01377584|183432772|OTHER||Effect size|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91776003|NCT01377584|183432773|OTHER||Effect size|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 week to 1 month|||||
91776004|NCT01377584|183432773|OTHER||Effect size|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 month and 3 months|||||
91776005|NCT01377584|183432773|OTHER||Effect size|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 week to 1 month|||||
91776006|NCT01377584|183432773|OTHER||Effect size|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 month to 3 months|||||
91776007|NCT01377584|183432773|OTHER||Effect size|-0.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 week to 1 month|||||
91776008|NCT01377584|183432773|OTHER||Effect size|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 month to 3 months|||||
91776009|NCT01576341|183432777|OTHER||Incidence rate|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Incidence rate is based on duration of treatment period (years)|||||
91776010|NCT00310765|183432792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The group-by-time interaction result from repeated-measure analysis of variance modeling was used to evaluate whether the two study groups differed regarding the pain score change that occurred across each of the two study phases (weeks 0-7 and weeks 7-10). To conform to the analysis of variance assumption of distributional normality, the pain scores were square root transformed before the analysis.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||The number of patients required per treatment group to achieve a \>80% power with an alpha=0.05 were based on exact rates from reference articles cited in the paper. Patients were randomly assigned to active drug (pregabalin) or look alike placebo.||4.0|0.0|<0.05
91776011|NCT00310765|183432793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The group-by-time interaction result from repeated-measures analysis of variance modeling was used to evaluate whether the two study groups differed regarding the sleep score change that occurred during the two study phases (weeks 0-7 and weeks 7-11. to conform to the analysis of variance assumption of distributional normality the sleep scores were square root transformed before the analysis.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||The number of patients required per treatment group to achieve a \>80% power with an alpha=0.05 were based on the exact rates from the reference articles cited in the paper.||4.0|0.0|<0.05
91776012|NCT03413891|183432812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||=|0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.60|=0.72
91837723|NCT05458024|183555918|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.14||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
91837724|NCT05458024|183555919|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-1.41||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Analyses were adjusted for sex, baseline pain, and baseline vitamin D levels.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91837725|NCT05807919|183555930|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91837726|NCT05807919|183555931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
91837727|NCT05807919|183555932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
91837728|NCT05807919|183555933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91837729|NCT05807919|183555934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
91837730|NCT05807919|183555935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
91837731|NCT03489057|183555944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
91837732|NCT03489057|183555958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
91896251|NCT01620255|183687881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-115.8||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-236.29|4.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 8||4.69|-236.29|0.1139
91896252|NCT01620255|183687881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-96.4||||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-218.17|25.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 8||25.46|-218.17|0.1931
91646271|NCT01236053|183184687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.06|1.10|0.0101
91776013|NCT03413891|183432814|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.37|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.37|0.42|=0.36
91776014|NCT03413891|183432815|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.32|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.89|||negative-binomial regression|||||0.89|0.12|=0.03
91776015|NCT03413891|183432816|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.6|||=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.12|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.12|0.32|=0.11
91776016|NCT03413891|183432817|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.42|||=|0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.38|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.38|0.13|=0.15
91776017|NCT03413891|183432819|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.57|||=|0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.91|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.91|0.17|=0.37
91776018|NCT03413891|183432820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||=|0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.91|||Chi-squared|||||1.91|0.26|=0.66
91776019|NCT03413891|183432821|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.4|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.98|||negative-binomial regression|||||0.98|0.16|=0.04
91776020|NCT03413891|183432822|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.37|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.78|||negative-binomial regression|||||0.78|0.18|<0.01
91776021|NCT00301808|183432859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier product limit|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1423|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.84||||||||0.84|0.48|
91776022|NCT00844844|183432863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|65.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.01|93.36|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||With at least 12 patients enrolled and assuming a null hypothesis of no post-dose change from baseline in mean platelet count, the study had approximately 88% power to detect as statistically significant an effect size (mean change from baseline/standard deviation) of at least 1 when using a one sample t-test with a two-sided α=0.05. All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols:C08-002A (adult) and C08-002B (Adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||93.36|37.01|<0.0001
91776023|NCT00844844|183432864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|96.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||96|57|
91776024|NCT00844844|183432865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
91776025|NCT00844844|183432866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|86.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||86|38|
91776026|NCT00844844|183432867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
91776027|NCT00844844|183432868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|111.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.12|125.13|||ANOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||125.13|98.12|<0.0001
91776028|NCT00844844|183432869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
91776029|NCT00844844|183432870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
91776030|NCT00844844|183432871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
91776031|NCT00844844|183432872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
91837733|NCT02277743|183555965|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.18|35.17||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||35.17|20.18|< 0.0001
91837734|NCT02277743|183555965|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.47|34.44||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||34.44|19.47|< 0.0001
91896253|NCT01620255|183687881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-119.7||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-245.66|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||6.32|-245.66|0.1182
91896254|NCT01620255|183687881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-41.7||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-165.34|81.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||81.87|-165.34|0.5784
91896255|NCT01620255|183687881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-163.6||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-285.84|-41.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo,Week 12||-41.29|-285.84|0.0279
91896256|NCT01620255|183687881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-123.5||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-249.0|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 12||1.93|-249.00|0.1053
91896257|NCT01620255|183687882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.1||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.507|7.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||7.317|-9.507|0.8302
91896258|NCT01620255|183687882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|12.33||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.084|20.567|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||20.567|4.084|0.0141
91896259|NCT01620255|183687882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|11.7||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.564|19.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||19.840|3.564|0.0182
91896260|NCT01620255|183687882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|15.48||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.056|23.907|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||23.907|7.056|0.0026
91896261|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.73||||0.6862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.689|2.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||2.235|-3.689|0.6862
91896262|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.37||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.467|7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||7.280|1.467|0.0135
91896263|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.16||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.293|7.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||7.023|1.293|0.0171
91896264|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|5.2||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.232|8.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||8.172|2.232|0.0041
91896265|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|0.22||||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.897|3.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||3.339|-2.897|0.9072
91896266|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.47||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|7.522|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||7.522|1.420|0.0161
91896267|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.06||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.042|7.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||7.071|1.042|0.0271
91896268|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|5.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.778|9.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||9.026|2.778|0.0020
91708150|NCT01134263|183309186|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.073||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.073|-0.242|
91896269|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.26||||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.756|1.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||1.229|-1.756|0.7711
91896270|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.69||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.223|3.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||3.147|0.223|0.0582
91896271|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.68||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.235|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||3.120|0.235|0.0558
91896272|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.66||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.161|3.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||3.153|0.161|0.0686
91896273|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.33||||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.094|1.429|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||1.429|-2.094|0.7561
91896274|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|2.17||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.447|3.891|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||3.891|0.447|0.0384
91837735|NCT02277743|183555966|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.58|44.63||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||44.63|28.58|< 0.0001
91837736|NCT02277743|183555966|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|45.77||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||45.77|29.70|< 0.0001
91837737|NCT02277743|183555967|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.64|36.52||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||36.52|20.64|< 0.0001
91837738|NCT02277743|183555967|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.94|36.13||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||36.13|19.94|< 0.0001
91837739|NCT02277743|183555968|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.36|37.88||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||37.88|21.36|< 0.0001
91837740|NCT02277743|183555968|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.08|42.84||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||42.84|26.08|< 0.0001
91837741|NCT02277743|183555969|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.26|-17.52||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-17.52|-32.26|< 0.0001
91837742|NCT02277743|183555969|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-15.33||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-15.33|-30.33|< 0.0001
91837743|NCT02277743|183555970|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|9.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|15.71||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||15.71|3.95|0.0012
91837744|NCT02277743|183555970|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.57|23.93||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||23.93|10.57|< 0.0001
91837745|NCT02277743|183555971|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.1||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|10.68||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||10.68|1.49|0.0097
91837746|NCT02277743|183555971|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.2||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|10.86||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||10.86|1.45|0.0094
91837747|NCT02277743|183555972|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.236|-1.26||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-1.260|-2.236|< 0.0001
91837748|NCT02277743|183555972|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.189|-1.186||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-1.186|-2.189|< 0.0001
91837749|NCT02277743|183555973|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.35|-26.88||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-26.88|-42.35|< 0.0001
91837750|NCT02277743|183555973|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.17|-26.56||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-26.56|-42.17|< 0.0001
91837751|NCT02277743|183555974|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.91|52.48||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||52.48|35.91|< 0.0001
91837752|NCT02277743|183555974|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|44.96||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||44.96|27.90|< 0.0001
91837753|NCT02277743|183555975|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.96|35.29||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||35.29|20.96|< 0.0001
91837754|NCT02277743|183555975|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|32.68||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||32.68|18.51|< 0.0001
91837755|NCT02277743|183555976|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.487|-13.353||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-13.353|-22.487|< 0.0001
91837756|NCT02277743|183555976|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.125|-14.65||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-14.650|-23.125|< 0.0001
91837757|NCT02277743|183555977|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.79|-21.54||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-21.54|-35.79|< 0.0001
91837758|NCT02277743|183555977|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.09|-20.87||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-20.87|-35.09|< 0.0001
91837759|NCT02277743|183555978|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-2.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-2.80|-5.16|< 0.0001
91837760|NCT02277743|183555978|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-2.49||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-2.49|-4.87|< 0.0001
91837761|NCT02277743|183555979|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-5.01||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-5.01|-8.02|< 0.0001
91837762|NCT02277743|183555979|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-4.32||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-4.32|-7.44|< 0.0001
91837763|NCT02277743|183555980|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.95||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-0.95|-3.44|0.0006
91837764|NCT02277743|183555980|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-1.03||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-1.03|-3.46|0.0003
91837765|NCT02277743|183555981|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|-18.91||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-18.91|-35.04|< 0.0001
91837766|NCT02277743|183555981|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.06|-18.12||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-18.12|-33.06|< 0.0001
91837767|NCT02277743|183555982|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.08|-11.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-11.90|-21.08|< 0.0001
91837768|NCT02277743|183555982|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|-10.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-10.50|-19.62|< 0.0001
91837769|NCT01557322|183555989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Morning Stiffness \> 1 Hour: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.010
91837770|NCT01557322|183555989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Arthritis or Deformity of 3 or More Joint Areas: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837771|NCT01557322|183555989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Arthritis/Deformity of Hand/Joint: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.363
91837772|NCT01557322|183555989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Symmetry: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837773|NCT01557322|183555989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Nodules: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837774|NCT01557322|183555989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid Factor Positive: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.605
91837775|NCT01557322|183555989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Erosions on Hand or Feet X-Ray: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.038
91837776|NCT01557322|183555990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Sicca Syndrome: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837777|NCT01557322|183555990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Serosal Involvement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.024
91837778|NCT01557322|183555990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Eye Involvement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.257
91776032|NCT02977403|183432880|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for AB reaction time measures. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. AB reaction times were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-1.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.79|16.894||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in AB, change scores were computed (post-pre = delta). Positive scores represent an increase in AB from pre- to post- intervention. Negative ∆reaction time scores represent a decrease in AB from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in AB following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||16.894|-20.790|
91776033|NCT02977403|183432880|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.28|33.377||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||33.377|-35.280|
91776034|NCT02977403|183432881|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficent|0.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.119||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.119|-0.025|
91776035|NCT02977403|183432881|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.019||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.019|-0.288|
91776036|NCT02977403|183432882|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass and height, race and ethnicity.|beta coefficent|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.082||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post-intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.082|-0.085|
91776037|NCT02977403|183432882|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.071||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.071|-0.177|
91790166|NCT02660138|183459516|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025.|LS Mean Difference|-10.83||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|-5.31|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[Botulinum toxin \[BTX\]-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-5.31|-16.36|0.0001
91837779|NCT01557322|183555990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Systemic Vasculitis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.026
91837780|NCT01557322|183555990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Nailfold Vasculitis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.725
91837781|NCT01557322|183555990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pulmonary Fibrosis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.220
91708151|NCT01134263|183309187|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.192||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||0.192|-0.009|
91837782|NCT01557322|183555990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Other: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.620
91837783|NCT01557322|183555991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Knee Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837784|NCT01557322|183555991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Hip Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837785|NCT01557322|183555991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Shoulder Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837786|NCT01557322|183555991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Elbow Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837787|NCT01557322|183555991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Wrist/Hand/Ankle/Foot Surgery: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.001
91646272|NCT01236053|183184687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.00|1.07|0.0186
91790167|NCT02660138|183459516|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025.|LS Mean Difference|-12.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.65|-6.73|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-6.73|-17.65|<0.0001
91837788|NCT01557322|183555991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Neck Surgery: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91646273|NCT01236053|183184687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.43|0.83|0.1458
91837789|NCT01557322|183555992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||P-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837790|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||High Blood Pressure: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.381
91837791|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Angina: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.006
91837792|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Heart Attack: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.215
91837793|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Stroke: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.117
91837794|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Epilepsy: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||1.000
91837795|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.542
91837796|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chronic Bronchitis/Emphysema: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.027
91837797|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Peptic Ulcer: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.566
91837798|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Liver Disease: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.003
91837799|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Renal Disease: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.526
91837800|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Tuberculosis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.802
91837801|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Demyelination: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||1.000
91837802|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.385
91837803|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hyperthyroidism: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.048
91837804|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Depression: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.308
91837805|NCT01557322|183555993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Cancer: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.033
91837806|NCT01557322|183555994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.188
91837807|NCT01557322|183555995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic Blood Pressure: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.016
91837808|NCT01557322|183555995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.369
91837809|NCT01557322|183555996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
91837810|NCT01557322|183555996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change at Month 60: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline DAS28 score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.3746
91837811|NCT01557322|183555997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
91837812|NCT01557322|183555998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
91837813|NCT01557322|183555999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.154
91837814|NCT01557322|183556000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.108
91837815|NCT01557322|183556001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.199
91837816|NCT01557322|183556002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
91837817|NCT01557322|183556003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
91837818|NCT01557322|183556005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Methotrexate: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837819|NCT01557322|183556005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Azathioprine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.313
91837820|NCT01557322|183556005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Cyclophosphamide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||1.000
91837821|NCT01557322|183556005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Cyclosporine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.066
91776038|NCT02977403|183432883|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.182||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.182|-0.022|
91776039|NCT02977403|183432883|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.103||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.103|-0.139|
91776040|NCT02977403|183432884|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.113||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.113|-0.086|
91776041|NCT02977403|183432884|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.109||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.109|-0.179|
91776042|NCT02977403|183432885|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.167||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.167|-0.001|
91776043|NCT02977403|183432885|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.063||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.063|-0.201|
91776044|NCT02977403|183432886|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity|beta coefficient|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.121||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.121|-0.059|
91776045|NCT02977403|183432886|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.152||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.152|-0.157|
91837822|NCT01557322|183556005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Leflunomide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.099
91837823|NCT01557322|183556005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Sulphasalazine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837824|NCT01557322|183556005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Methotrexate: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837825|NCT01557322|183556005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Azathioprine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91646274|NCT01236053|183184687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||3.29|0.79|0.1859
91646275|NCT01236053|183184687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.72|1.13|0.0122
91776046|NCT02977403|183432887|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.065||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.065|-0.149|
91776047|NCT02977403|183432887|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.131||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.131|-0.266|
91790168|NCT02660138|183459517|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|160.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.9|211.9|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||211.9|109.9|<0.0001
91837826|NCT01557322|183556005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Cyclophosphamide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837827|NCT01557322|183556005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Cyclosporine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837828|NCT01557322|183556005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Leflunomide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91837829|NCT01557322|183556006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
91837830|NCT01557322|183556007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline PCS: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
91837831|NCT01557322|183556007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline MCS: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.886
91837832|NCT01557322|183556007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline Vitality Score: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.680
91837833|NCT01557322|183556017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0233
91837834|NCT01557322|183556017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5103
91837835|NCT01557322|183556017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.9990
91837836|NCT01557322|183556017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6495|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.6495
91837837|NCT01557322|183556017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3829
91837838|NCT01557322|183556017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1085
91837839|NCT01557322|183556017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0472
91837840|NCT01557322|183556017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4804
91837841|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0895
91837842|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0774
91837843|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0024
91837844|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5552
91837845|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0793
91837846|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0075
91837847|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0895
91837848|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0024
91837849|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6301|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.6301
91837850|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0793
91837851|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0075
91837852|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7253|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Myeloma, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7253
91837853|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Myeloma, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7336
91837854|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Leukaemia, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0044
91776048|NCT02977403|183432888|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.053||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.053|-0.122|
91776049|NCT02977403|183432888|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.092||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.092|-0.233|
91776050|NCT02977403|183432889|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.126||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.126|-0.041|
91776051|NCT02977403|183432889|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.082||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.082|-0.252|
91776052|NCT02977403|183432890|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.102||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.102|-0.060|
91776053|NCT02977403|183432890|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.119||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.119|-0.260|
91776054|NCT02977403|183432891|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.107|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.185||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.185|0.030|
91837855|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4175
91837856|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3886|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3886
91837857|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5102
91837858|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9855|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.9855
91837859|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4955
91896275|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.86||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.154|3.557|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||3.557|0.154|0.0729
91837860|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5404|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5404
91837861|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3581|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3581
91837862|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4932
91837863|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4818|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4818
91837864|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3224
91776055|NCT02977403|183432891|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|-0.047||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.047|-0.346|
91776056|NCT02977403|183432892|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.175||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.175|0.010|
91776057|NCT02977403|183432892|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.107||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.107|-0.204|
91776058|NCT02977403|183432893|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.123||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.123|-0.032|
91776059|NCT02977403|183432893|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.177||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.177|-0.163|
91776060|NCT02977403|183432894|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.112||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.112|-0.03|
91837865|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5003
91837866|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1134
91837867|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3488|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3488
91837868|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1870
91837869|NCT01557322|183556018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4270
91837870|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5817|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5817
91837871|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2595|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.2595
91837872|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5642|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5642
91837873|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0034
91837874|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7137|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7137
91896276|NCT01620255|183687883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|2.95||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|4.715|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||4.715|1.190|0.0060
91896277|NCT01620255|183687884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.002||||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.145|0.142||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo||0.142|-0.145|0.5201
91776061|NCT02977403|183432894|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.14||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.140|-0.168|
91776062|NCT02977403|183432895|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.052||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.052|-0.125|
91776063|NCT02977403|183432895|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.129||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.129|-0.196|
91776064|NCT02977403|183432896|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.093||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.093|-0.091|
91776065|NCT02977403|183432896|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.001||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.001|-0.286|
91776066|NCT02977403|183432897|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.132||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.132|-0.001|
91776067|NCT02977403|183432897|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.055||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.055|-0.246|
91776068|NCT02977403|183432898|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.101||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.101|-0.055|
91896278|NCT01620255|183687884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.183||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.039|0.328||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo||0.328|0.039|0.0217
91837875|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.9630
91837876|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7353|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7353
91837877|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3829
91837878|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4532|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4532
91837879|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4238
91837880|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1218
91837881|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4124|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4124
91837882|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6356|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.6356
91837883|NCT01557322|183556019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5491|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5491
91837884|NCT01557322|183556020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||P-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline DAS28 score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||<0.0001
91837885|NCT01557322|183556021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||P-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline HAQ-DI score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||<0.0001
91837886|NCT01557322|183556022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||PCS: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline PCS and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.2558
91837887|NCT01557322|183556022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4908|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||MCS: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline MCS and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.4908
91837888|NCT01557322|183556022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Vitality Score: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline vitality score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.8379
91837889|NCT01552954|183556082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||for albuminuria changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||Differences with two-tailed P\<0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.006
91837890|NCT01552954|183556082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||for 24-hour urine albumin excretion between 8 weeks and 16 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91708152|NCT01134263|183309187|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.466||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||0.466|0.202|
91837891|NCT01552954|183556082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||for 24-hour urine albumin excretion between 8 weeks and 16 weeks in intensive education group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91837892|NCT01552954|183556083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|||||for hemoglobin changes from week 0 at week 16 (week 0 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.187
91837893|NCT01552954|183556084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||for changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91837894|NCT01552954|183556085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||for sBP changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91837895|NCT01552954|183556085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|||||for dBP changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
91837896|NCT01395823|183556090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
91837897|NCT00116272|183556091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.35|||||Adjusted oddds ratio for major structural defects in women exposed to etanercept in their 1st trimester versus not exposed computed using logistic regression adjusted for propensity score comprised of asthma and maternal height|||7.35|1.04|
91837898|NCT00116272|183556092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.52|||||Adjusted oddds ratio for major structural defects in women exposed to etanercept in their 1st trimester versus not exposed computed using logistic regression adjusted for propensity score comprised of asthma and maternal height|||5.52|1.02|
91837899|NCT00116272|183556093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.01|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. No adjusted estimate was computed due to no confirmed confounder.|||2.01|0.70|
91837900|NCT00116272|183556095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.12|||||Adjusted HR computed using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for propensity score comprised of referral source (3 categories: OTIS, Pharmaceutical Company/Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other), and maternal height.|||1.12|0.20|
91837901|NCT00116272|183556096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.98|||||Adjusted HR computed using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for preeclampsia|||2.98|0.86|
91837902|NCT00116272|183556097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.26|||||Computed using linear regression, directly adjusted for referral source (not collapsed), vitamin use (not collapsed), preeclampsia, and asthma because propensity score adjustment was not balanced.|||0.26|-0.65|
91837903|NCT00116272|183556098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|21.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.32|126.91|||||Computed using linear regression, directly adjusted for asthma, RA2 severity score at 32 weeks, and disease severity score imputation indicator because propensity score adjustment was not balanced.|||126.91|-83.32|
91837904|NCT00116272|183556099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.63|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of preeclampsia and asthma.|||0.63|-0.44|
91837905|NCT00116272|183556100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.26|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for maternal age (categorical).|||0.26|-0.43|
91837906|NCT00116272|183556101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.05|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, referral source (OTIS, Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other), PsO disease severity score at 32 weeks, \& disease severity imputation indicator|||1.05|0.22|
91837907|NCT00116272|183556102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.68|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to the small number of events.|||1.68|0.31|
91837908|NCT00116272|183556103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.57|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, referral source (OTIS, Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other), PsO disease severity score at 32 weeks, \& disease severity imputation indicator|||1.57|0.40|
91837909|NCT00116272|183556104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|7.99|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, vitamin use, primary disease, RA disease severity score at 32 weeks, PsO disease severity score at intake \& 32 weeks, disease severity imputation indicators|||7.99|-7.59|
91837910|NCT00116272|183556105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|8.81|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, maternal age (categorical), and referral source (3 categories: OTIS, Pharmaceutical Company/Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other).|||8.81|-5.76|
91837911|NCT00116272|183556106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|6.65|||||Computed using linear regression. Directly adjusted for infant sex and other autoimmune diseases because propensity score adjustment was not balanced.|||6.65|-6.12|
91837912|NCT00116272|183556107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.62|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, RA disease severity score at 32 weeks, and disease severity score imputation indicator.|||1.62|0.37|
91837913|NCT00116272|183556108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.14|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of country (U.S., Canada), primary disease, and maternal height.|||3.14|0.43|
91837914|NCT00116272|183556109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.65|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to the small number of events.|||2.65|0.29|
91837915|NCT00116272|183556110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.02|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to no confirmed confounder.|||4.02|0.47|
91837916|NCT00116272|183556112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.69|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to no confirmed confounder.|||1.69|0.65|
91837917|NCT05096208|183556116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.169|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in least-square (LS) means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV A||1.169|0.858|
91896279|NCT01620255|183687884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.096||||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.045|0.237||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo||0.237|-0.045|0.1473
91896280|NCT01620255|183687884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.112||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.038|0.261||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo||0.261|-0.038|0.1231
91896281|NCT03794908|183687887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|10.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|The comparison was done using a mixed model with assessments at 3 time points (pre-treatment, mid-treatment, and end of treatment).||Test of between-arm difference at mid-treatment.||10.64|-3.03|0.28
91896282|NCT03794908|183687887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|The comparison was done using a mixed model with assessments at 3 time points (pre-treatment, mid-treatment, and end of treatment).||Test of between-arm difference at end of treatment.||11.40|-2.44|0.21
91896283|NCT05062759|183687923|OTHER||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.98||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model.||0.98|0.43|
91837918|NCT05096208|183556116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.215|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV A||1.215|0.900|
91837919|NCT05096208|183556116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.232|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV A||1.232|0.886|
91896284|NCT05062759|183687923|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.15||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.15|0.60|
91896285|NCT05062759|183687923|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.37||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.37|0.71|
91896286|NCT05062759|183687924|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.28||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.28|0.42|
91896287|NCT05062759|183687924|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.17||||||Influenza A H3N2 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||2.17|0.72|
91896288|NCT05062759|183687924|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.07||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||2.07|0.73|
91646276|NCT01236053|183184687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.67|1.10|0.0162
91837920|NCT05096208|183556116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.261|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV B||1.261|0.905|
91837921|NCT05096208|183556116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.336|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV B||1.336|0.953|
91837922|NCT05096208|183556116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.262|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV B||1.262|0.884|
91837923|NCT03518658|183556134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.4|37.0||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Generalized estimating equation model|||||37.0|32.4|<0.001
91837924|NCT03518658|183556134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|41.9||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Generalized estimating equation model|||||41.9|34.8|<0.001
91837925|NCT00649389|183556136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
91837926|NCT00649389|183556136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
91837927|NCT00649389|183556136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
91837928|NCT00649389|183556137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each p-value was obtained from individual Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by age group, race group, and diabetic status comparing the triple combination therapy to each dual combination.||||<0.0001
91837929|NCT00649389|183556137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each p-value was obtained from individual Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by age group, race group, and diabetic status comparing the triple combination therapy to each dual combination.||||<0.0001
91896289|NCT05062759|183687924|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.48||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.48|0.54|
91896290|NCT05062759|183687925|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.04||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.04|0.52|
91896291|NCT05062759|183687925|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.29||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.29|0.72|
91646277|NCT01236053|183184687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.36|0.19|0.7573
91896292|NCT05062759|183687925|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.46||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.46|0.73|
91896293|NCT05062759|183687926|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.25||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.25|0.51|
91896294|NCT05062759|183687926|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.28||||||Influenza A H3N2 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.28|0.42|
91896295|NCT05062759|183687926|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.99||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.99|0.49|
91896296|NCT05062759|183687926|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.52||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.52|0.70|
91837930|NCT00649389|183556137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each p-value was obtained from individual Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by age group, race group, and diabetic status comparing the triple combination therapy to each dual combination.||||<0.0001
91896297|NCT04981366|183687933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||We applied the restricted maximum likelihood, compound symmetry covariance structure, and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom approximation. To maintain the significance level at 0.05, the primary endpoints were assessed using Hochberg's procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91896298|NCT04981366|183687934|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||We applied the restricted maximum likelihood, compound symmetry covariance structure, and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom approximation. To maintain the significance level at 0.05, the primary endpoints were assessed using Hochberg's procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91776069|NCT02977403|183432898|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.137||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.137|-0.178|
91776070|NCT02977403|183432899|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.051||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.051|-0.116|
91776071|NCT02977403|183432899|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.223||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.223|-0.104|
91776072|NCT02977403|183432900|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.053||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.053|-0.078|
91776073|NCT02977403|183432900|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.12||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.120|-0.248|
91776074|NCT02977403|183432901|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.174||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.174|0.004|
91776075|NCT02977403|183432901|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.201||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.201|-0.159|
91776076|NCT02977403|183432902|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.081||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.081|-0.113|
91776077|NCT02977403|183432902|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.062||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.062|-0.206|
91896299|NCT04981366|183687935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91837931|NCT00649389|183556138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Diastolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
91837932|NCT00649389|183556138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Diastolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
91776078|NCT02977403|183432903|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.209||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.209|0.049|
91776079|NCT02977403|183432903|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.033||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.033|-0.330|
91776080|NCT02977403|183432904|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.207||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.207|0.045|
91776081|NCT02977403|183432904|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.112||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.112|-0.223|
91776082|NCT02977403|183432905|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.203||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.203|0.027|
91776083|NCT02977403|183432905|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.087||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.087|-0.203|
91776084|NCT02977403|183432906|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.127||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.127|-0.053|
91776085|NCT02977403|183432906|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.069||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.069|-0.240|
91837933|NCT00649389|183556138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Diastolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||0.0001
91837934|NCT00649389|183556138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Systolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
91837935|NCT00649389|183556138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Systolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
91837936|NCT00649389|183556138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Systolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
91837937|NCT00649389|183556139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
91837938|NCT00649389|183556139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
91837939|NCT00649389|183556139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
91837940|NCT02608489|183556152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.221
91837941|NCT02608489|183556152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12 follow-up.||||0.015
91837942|NCT02608489|183556153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.256
91837943|NCT02608489|183556153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at Postoperative week 12 follow-up.||||0.025
91837944|NCT02608489|183556154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.080
91837945|NCT02608489|183556154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12 follow-up.||||0.021
91837946|NCT02608489|183556155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||<0.001
91837947|NCT02608489|183556155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 4||||<0.001
91837948|NCT02608489|183556155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12||||<0.001
91837949|NCT02608489|183556156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.045
91837950|NCT02608489|183556157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.001
91837951|NCT02608489|183556157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 4||||0.002
91837952|NCT02608489|183556157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12||||0.034
91837953|NCT02608489|183556158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.151
91896300|NCT04981366|183687936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||We applied the restricted maximum likelihood, compound symmetry covariance structure, and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom approximation. To maintain the significance level at 0.05, the primary endpoints were assessed using Hochberg's procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91646278|NCT01236053|183184687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||3.21|0.18|0.7088
91646279|NCT01236053|183184687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.64|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.64|0.93|0.0787
91646280|NCT01236053|183184687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||3.58|0.92|0.0873
91896301|NCT04981366|183687937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896302|NCT04981366|183687938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896303|NCT04981366|183687939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91896304|NCT04981366|183687940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896305|NCT04981366|183687941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896306|NCT04981366|183687942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896307|NCT04981366|183687943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896308|NCT04981366|183687944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91896309|NCT04981366|183687945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.033
91896310|NCT04981366|183687946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.944
91896311|NCT04981366|183687947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.203
91896312|NCT04981366|183687948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.027
91896313|NCT04981366|183687949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.145
91896314|NCT04981366|183687950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91896315|NCT04981366|183687951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.551
91896316|NCT04981366|183687952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91896317|NCT04981366|183687953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91896318|NCT04981366|183687954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91896319|NCT04981366|183687955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91646281|NCT01236053|183184688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.70|0.80|0.4233
91896320|NCT04981366|183687956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896321|NCT04981366|183687957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.344
91896322|NCT04981366|183687958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.613
91896323|NCT04981366|183687959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.944
91896324|NCT04981366|183687960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.601
91896325|NCT04981366|183687961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896326|NCT04981366|183687962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896327|NCT04981366|183687963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896328|NCT04981366|183687965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896329|NCT04981366|183687966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896330|NCT04981366|183687967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896331|NCT04981366|183687968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896332|NCT04981366|183687969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
91896333|NCT04981366|183687970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896334|NCT04981366|183687971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.949
91896335|NCT04981366|183687972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.993
91896336|NCT04981366|183687973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.601
91896337|NCT04981366|183687974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.408
91896338|NCT04981366|183687975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.082
91896339|NCT04981366|183687976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.550
91896340|NCT04981366|183687977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.700
91896341|NCT04981366|183687978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.254
91896342|NCT04981366|183687979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.373
91896343|NCT04981366|183687980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.407
91896344|NCT04981366|183687981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.051
91896345|NCT04981366|183687982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
91896346|NCT04981366|183687983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.239
91896347|NCT04981366|183687984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.463
91896348|NCT04981366|183687985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
91896349|NCT04981366|183687986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.469
91896350|NCT04981366|183687987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91896351|NCT04981366|183687988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.064
91896352|NCT04981366|183687989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0314|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0314
91896353|NCT04981366|183687990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0147
91896354|NCT04981366|183687991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91896355|NCT04981366|183687992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91896356|NCT04981366|183687993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91896357|NCT04218084|183688020|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|Difference in LS mean|-7.73||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.03|-2.42|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||Week 24||-2.42|-13.03|0.0043
91896358|NCT01122862|183688041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.03|-0.45|0.0915
91896359|NCT01122862|183688042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.9||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments being compared.||1.90|1.42|<0.0001
91896360|NCT01122862|183688043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04||||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.21|-0.14|0.6682
91896361|NCT01122862|183688043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.92|0.57|<0.0001
91896362|NCT01122862|183688044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.05|-0.44|0.1100
91896363|NCT01122862|183688044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.93||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||1.93|1.44|<0.0001
91896364|NCT01122862|183688045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03||||0.728||95.0|-0.16|0.23||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.23|-0.16|0.7280
91896365|NCT01122862|183688045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||1.08|0.68|<0.0001
91896366|NCT01249274|183688068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.36|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure|Estimated value is the risk ratio estimate for the treatment x time interaction term. Time was treated as a continuous variable and progesterone was the reference group for the treatment variable.|||1.36|1.04|0.010
91896367|NCT01249274|183688069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|30.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|290.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure|Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction for placebo at 3-mo post-trial follow-up. Time treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 \& 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|We calculated that a sample size of 50 women would have 80% power to detect a significant (p\<0.05) difference between groups if the effect size for the primary outcome was large.||290.04|3.18|0.003
91896368|NCT01249274|183688069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|16.65||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|235.52|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction term for placebo at week 12. Time was treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 and 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure||235.52|1.18|0.038
91896369|NCT01249274|183688070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Estimated value is the risk ratio for the treatment x time interaction term. Time was treated as a continuous variable and progesterone was the reference group for treatment.|We calculated that a sample size of 50 women would have 80% power to detect a significant (p\<0.05) difference between groups if the effect size for the primary outcome was large.||1.15|0.87|0.99
91896370|NCT01249274|183688071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|7.88|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction for placebo at 3-mo post-trial follow-up. Time treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 \& 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|We calculated that a sample size of 50 women would have 80% power to detect a significant (p\<0.05) difference between groups if the effect size for the primary outcome was large.||7.88|0.23|0.75
91900872|NCT00475033|183696142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|FHA: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||1.3|-1.3|
91896371|NCT01249274|183688071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.84|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure|Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction for placebo at week 12. Time was treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 \& 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|||5.84|0.24|0.84
91896372|NCT01249274|183688072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1030
91896373|NCT01249274|183688073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Score Statistic For Type 3 GEE Analysis|0.01||||0.9116|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|Gamma distribution, logit link, 1st-order autoregressive covariance structure; p-value is for chi-sq (df=1) for type 3 GEE analysis score statistic|Estimated value is chi-sq (df=1) for type 3 GEE analysis score statistic for week\*treatment interaction term.|||||0.9116
91896374|NCT01249274|183688076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|4.71||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|20.5|||Regression, Cox||Ratio presented is for placebo versus progesterone|||20.50|1.09|0.048
91646282|NCT01236053|183184688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.62|0.76|0.5908
91837954|NCT03587142|183556222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.45||Nominal P value. Power was determined at a level of P=0.05.|ANCOVA|Multiple imputation using regression and 50 datasets to estimate the outcome for the 18/96 (19%) randomized patients without the f4 visit data.||Primary outcome analysis uses a difference of differences analysis between Buspirone compared to the Placebo arm in which the adjusted mean difference of differences, Wald 95% Confidence interval and 2-sided P values are determined from a Wald Chi-Square test. Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Negative change indicates symptom improvement.||0.45|-0.68|0.69
91837955|NCT03587142|183556222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.39||P value is nominal; no adjustments made from multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity analysis of change from a baseline in ES/PPF (Early Satiety/Postprandial Fullness subscore) using all completers: 39 participants in Buspirone arm, 39 participants in placebo arm.||0.39|-0.65|0.62
91896375|NCT01249274|183688077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|13.3|||Regression, Cox||Ratio presented is for placebo versus progesterone|||13.30|0.92|0.06
91896376|NCT01498653|183688078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|36.9|||ANCOVA|||||36.9|20.1|<0.001
91896377|NCT03421431|183688094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|12.46||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|24.891|||ANCOVA|||||24.891|0.029|0.0495
91896378|NCT03421431|183688094|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.257||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.754|18.268|||ANCOVA|||||18.268|-5.754|0.3039
91896379|NCT03421431|183688094|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.203||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.615|16.021|||ANCOVA|||||16.021|-3.615|0.2130
91896380|NCT03421431|183688095|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.717||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.455|||ANCOVA|||||7.455|1.980|0.0009
91837956|NCT03587142|183556222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.38||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity analyses: change in ES/PPF in treatment adherent patients: 23 participants in Buspirone arm, 29 patients in placebo arm.||0.38|-0.89|0.62
91837957|NCT03587142|183556223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.5||Nominal P value reported. Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||The mean difference of differences (DoD) between Buspirone and Placebo, 95% confidence interval and P (2-sided) were derived from an ANCOVA, regressing an indicator for treatment group on fullness severity score, adjusting for the baseline value of fullness severity score.||0.50|-0.69|0.76
91837958|NCT03587142|183556224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.47||Nominal P values; Bonferroni p value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.47|-0.76|0.64
91837959|NCT03587142|183556225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.5||P values are nominal; Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.50|-0.79|0.66
91837960|NCT03587142|183556226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5||Nominal P values; Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (s-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.50|-0.75|0.70
91837961|NCT03587142|183556227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.27||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferrini p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) of change in outcome from baseline and 95% Confidence Intervals were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. P (2-sided) were determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.27|-0.66|0.40
91837962|NCT03587142|183556227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.21||Nominal P value without adjustment for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni threshold for level of significance is \<0.002.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio, 95% C.I. and P (two-sided) from a logistic regression of the binary outcome on treatment group for symptomatic improvement in GCSI.||GCSI symptomatic improvement of 1+ points in total GCSI symptom score defined as change in GCSI total score at week 4 from baseline being a decrease of 1 or more points. This is a binary variable where 1=1+ reduction in change in GCSI total score, 0=change in GCSI total score from baseline at 4-weeks is \< 1.0.||3.21|0.53|0.56
91896381|NCT03421431|183688095|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.934||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.766|3.635|||ANCOVA|||||3.635|-1.766|0.4946
91896382|NCT03421431|183688095|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.783||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.708|5.858|||ANCOVA|||||5.858|1.708|0.0005
91896383|NCT03421431|183688096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.076||||0.2756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.214|||ANCOVA|||||0.214|-0.062|0.2756
91896384|NCT03421431|183688096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.003||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.131|||ANCOVA|||||0.131|-0.136|0.9686
91896385|NCT03421431|183688096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.079||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.184|||ANCOVA|||||0.184|-0.026|0.1406
91896386|NCT03421431|183688097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.125||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.363|||ANCOVA|||||0.363|-0.613|0.6130
91896387|NCT03421431|183688097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.049||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|0.423|||ANCOVA|||||0.423|-0.521|0.8366
91896388|NCT03421431|183688097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.076||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|0.315|||ANCOVA|||||0.315|-0.466|0.7015
91896389|NCT03421431|183688098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.186||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.240|-0.613|0.3875
91646283|NCT01236053|183184688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.67|1.00|0.0540
91896390|NCT03421431|183688098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.248||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|0.162|||ANCOVA|||||0.162|-0.657|0.2331
91896391|NCT03421431|183688098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.061||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.395|||ANCOVA|||||0.395|-0.272|0.7164
91896392|NCT03421431|183688099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.311|||ANCOVA|||||0.311|0.110|<0.0001
91896393|NCT03421431|183688099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.046||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.143|||ANCOVA|||||0.143|-0.051|0.3480
91896394|NCT03421431|183688099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.164|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.243|||ANCOVA|||||0.243|0.085|<0.0001
91896395|NCT03421431|183688100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.299||||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.645|0.047|||ANCOVA|||||0.047|-0.645|0.0897
91646284|NCT01236053|183184688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.62|0.96|0.0939
91896396|NCT03421431|183688100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.251||||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|0.085|||ANCOVA|||||0.085|-0.586|0.1411
91896397|NCT03421431|183688100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.048||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.230|-0.326|0.7330
91896398|NCT03421431|183688101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|51.873||||0.9143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-901.574|1005.32|||ANCOVA|||||1005.320|-901.574|0.9143
91896399|NCT03421431|183688101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|404.168||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.519|1297.854|||ANCOVA|||||1297.854|-489.519|0.3718
91896400|NCT03421431|183688101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-352.295||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1091.308|386.719|||ANCOVA|||||386.719|-1091.308|0.3466
91896401|NCT03421431|183688102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.173||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.264|||ANCOVA|||||0.264|0.081|0.0003
91896402|NCT03421431|183688102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.025||||0.5685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.113|||ANCOVA|||||0.113|-0.062|0.5685
91896403|NCT03421431|183688102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.147|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.219|||ANCOVA|||||0.219|0.075|<0.0001
91896404|NCT03421431|183688103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.133||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|-0.015|||ANCOVA|||||-0.015|-0.252|0.0282
91896405|NCT03421431|183688103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.068||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.046|||ANCOVA|||||0.046|-0.182|0.2412
91896406|NCT03421431|183688103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.066||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.027|||ANCOVA|||||0.027|-0.158|0.1649
91896407|NCT03421431|183688104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.009||||0.4357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.032|||ANCOVA|||||0.032|-0.014|0.4357
91896408|NCT03421431|183688104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.001||||0.8989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.023|||ANCOVA|||||0.023|-0.021|0.8989
91896409|NCT03421431|183688104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.008||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.026|||ANCOVA|||||0.026|-0.011|0.4120
91896410|NCT03421431|183688105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.731||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.095|-0.368|||ANCOVA|||||-0.368|-3.095|0.0134
91896411|NCT03421431|183688105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.327||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.656|1.001|||ANCOVA|||||1.001|-1.656|0.6263
91896412|NCT03421431|183688105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.404||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.487|-0.322|||ANCOVA|||||-0.322|-2.487|0.0115
91896413|NCT03421431|183688106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.723||||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|6.253|||ANCOVA|||||6.253|-13.700|0.4608
91896414|NCT03421431|183688106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.377||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.962|7.207|||ANCOVA|||||7.207|-11.962|0.6238
91896415|NCT03421431|183688106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.346||||0.7367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.268|6.576|||ANCOVA|||||6.576|-9.268|0.7367
91896416|NCT03421431|183688107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.407||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.287|3.474|||ANCOVA|||||3.474|-4.287|0.8302
91896417|NCT03421431|183688107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.28||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.192|2.632|||ANCOVA|||||2.632|-5.192|0.5053
91896418|NCT03421431|183688107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.873||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.366|||ANCOVA|||||3.366|-1.620|0.4760
91896419|NCT03421431|183688108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.91||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.171|0.351|||ANCOVA|||||0.351|-12.171|0.0639
91896420|NCT03421431|183688108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.064||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.971|3.843|||ANCOVA|||||3.843|-7.971|0.4884
91896421|NCT03421431|183688108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.846||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.156|1.464|||ANCOVA|||||1.464|-9.156|0.1532
91896422|NCT03421431|183688109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.978|0.058|||ANCOVA|||||0.058|-0.978|0.0811
91896423|NCT03421431|183688109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.117||||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|0.601|||ANCOVA|||||0.601|-0.367|0.6312
91896424|NCT03421431|183688109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.577||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.011|-0.143|||ANCOVA|||||-0.143|-1.011|0.0099
91896425|NCT03421431|183688122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.356||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|3.034|||ANCOVA|||||3.034|-0.322|0.1120
91896426|NCT03421431|183688122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.647||||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.947|2.24|||ANCOVA|||||2.240|-0.947|0.4229
91896427|NCT03421431|183688122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71||||0.2764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|1.996|||ANCOVA|||||1.996|-0.577|0.2764
91896428|NCT03421431|183688123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.008||||0.5606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.037|||ANCOVA|||||0.037|-0.020|0.5606
91896429|NCT03421431|183688123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.023||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.050|-0.004|0.1002
91896430|NCT03421431|183688123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.014||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.008|||ANCOVA|||||0.008|-0.036|0.2002
91896431|NCT03421431|183688124|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-178.787||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1098.454|740.88|||ANCOVA|||||740.880|-1098.454|0.7014
91896432|NCT03421431|183688124|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|52.307||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-830.934|935.547|||ANCOVA|||||935.547|-830.934|0.9070
91896433|NCT03421431|183688124|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-231.094||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-967.273|505.086|||ANCOVA|||||505.086|-967.273|0.5360
91646285|NCT01236053|183184688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.87|0.87|0.2140
91646286|NCT01236053|183184688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.80|0.84|0.2940
91896434|NCT03421431|183688125|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-753.153||||0.2985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2183.92|677.614|||ANCOVA|||||677.614|-2183.920|0.2985
91896435|NCT03421431|183688125|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|139.107||||0.8413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1236.689|1514.902|||ANCOVA|||||1514.902|-1236.689|0.8413
91896436|NCT03421431|183688125|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-892.26||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2011.705|227.186|||ANCOVA|||||227.186|-2011.705|0.1168
91896437|NCT03421431|183688126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|33.491|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.984|48.998|||ANCOVA|||||48.998|17.984|<0.0001
91896438|NCT03421431|183688126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|30.814|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.802|45.825|||ANCOVA|||||45.825|15.802|<0.0001
91646287|NCT01236053|183184688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.32|0.71|0.8352
91896439|NCT03421431|183688126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.677||||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.946|15.3|||ANCOVA|||||15.300|-9.946|0.6757
91896440|NCT03421431|183688127|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.3||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.533|38.067|||ANCOVA|||||38.067|4.533|0.0134
91896441|NCT03421431|183688127|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.847||||0.4686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.116|21.811|||ANCOVA|||||21.811|-10.116|0.4686
91896442|NCT03421431|183688127|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|15.453||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.699|28.206|||ANCOVA|||||28.206|2.699|0.0181
91896443|NCT03421431|183688128|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.324||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|8.756|||ANCOVA|||||8.756|-0.108|0.0557
91896444|NCT03421431|183688128|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.305||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.955|6.566|||ANCOVA|||||6.566|-1.955|0.2867
91896445|NCT03421431|183688128|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.019||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|5.429|||ANCOVA|||||5.429|-1.390|0.2437
91896446|NCT03421431|183688129|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.019||||0.9913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.491|3.53|||ANCOVA|||||3.530|-3.491|0.9913
91896447|NCT03421431|183688129|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.995||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.323|4.314|||ANCOVA|||||4.314|-2.323|0.5530
91896448|NCT03421431|183688129|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.976||||0.4729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.665|1.713|||ANCOVA|||||1.713|-3.665|0.4729
91896449|NCT04147650|183688139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.62|||Regression, Logistic|||0.05 % VOS versus vehicle||7.62|0.62|0.1352
91896450|NCT04147650|183688139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.45|||Regression, Logistic|||0.10% VOS versus vehicle||6.45|0.49|0.2823
91896451|NCT04147650|183688139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.3|||Regression, Logistic|||0.20% VOS versus vehicle||8.30|0.70|0.0889
91896452|NCT04147650|183688140|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.6||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|||0.05% VOS versus vehicle||4.3|-9.6|0.3604
91896453|NCT04147650|183688140|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.6||||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.4|||ANCOVA|||0.10% VOS versus vehicle||4.4|-9.6|0.3737
91896454|NCT04147650|183688140|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.8||||0.5307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.6|||ANCOVA|||0.20% VOS versus vehicle||8.6|-5.1|0.5307
91896455|NCT01178671|183688154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
91896456|NCT01178671|183688155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91896457|NCT01178671|183688156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
91896458|NCT01178671|183688157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.50
91896459|NCT01178671|183688158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.023
91896460|NCT01178671|183688159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
91896461|NCT01178671|183688160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.9|1.1|0.042
91896462|NCT01178671|183688161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91896463|NCT01178671|183688162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91896464|NCT01178671|183688163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.65
91896465|NCT01078675|183688167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|-42.88|-45.44|-40.32||P-value\<0.001 at Month 24. No adjustment for multiple comparisons is made for individual age group.|ANCOVA|P-value is two-sided and based on ANCOVA using age group as the fixed factor, and study centre and the baseline value as covariates.||||-40.32|-45.44|<0.001
91896466|NCT02513303|183688185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2942|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2942
91896467|NCT01691768|183688186|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that we would need to enrol 700 women after taking into account the anticipated loss-to follow-up in order to provide 90% power to demonstrate whether gel use in women attending family planning (intervention) services is similar to, but no more than 20% lower than, gel use among women attending CAPRISA research clinics (control).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.21||||Univariate Linear Mixed Models were used to analyze primary outcome.|The least square mean from the intervention arm was the minuend and the least square mean from the control arm was the subtrahend.|Intent to treat population (all participants who were randomized, met pre-randomization eligibility criteria and who have post-enrollment follow-up data) was used for this analyses.|The primary endpoint was compared using univariate linear mixed model with compound symmetry structure.|0.21|-1.16|
91896468|NCT01691768|183688186|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that we would need to enrol 700 women after taking into account the anticipated loss-to follow-up in order to provide 90% power to demonstrate whether gel use in women attending family planning (intervention) services is similar to, but no more than 20% lower than, gel use among women attending CAPRISA research clinics (control)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.48||||Univariable Linear Mixed Models was used for the analyses|We calculated the difference in means between the two arms. The mean from the intervention arm was the minuend and the mean from the control arm was the subtrahend.|This is the analyses from the per protocol population (excluding all subsequent data collected from participants who were not dispensed product for more than 120 days).||0.48|-0.98|
91896469|NCT01691768|183688187|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.96||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.35|||z-test|We used z-test to compare incidence rates between the arms. We did not use log-rank test because we did not present survival curves.|We calculated incidence rate ratio, where the HIV incidence rate for the intervention arm represents the numerator and the HIV incidence rate for the control arm represents the denominator.|The power was not calculated for all the secondary outcomes.||2.35|0.40|0.928
91896470|NCT01691768|183688188|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.96||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.04|||z-test|We used z-test to compare pregnancy incidence rates between the arms. We did not use log-rank test because we did not present survival curves.|We calculated incidence rate ratio, where the pregnancy incidence rate for the intervention arm represents the numerator and the pregnancy incidence rate for the control arm represents the denominator.|Power was not calculated for all the secondary outcomes.||2.04|0.45|0.895
91896471|NCT01691768|183688189|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.24|||Regression, Log-binomial|||Power was not calculated for all secondary outcomes.||1.24|0.94|0.304
91896472|NCT01691768|183688190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.455
91896473|NCT01691768|183688192|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.33||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.32|||z-test||We calculated incidence rate ratio, where the HPV incidence rate for the intervention arm represents the numerator and the HPV incidence rate for the control arm represents the denominator.|||1.32|0.06|0.097
91896474|NCT01691768|183688193|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.18|||Regression, Log-binomial|||||1.18|0.70|0.462
91790169|NCT02660138|183459517|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|189.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|140.1|238.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||238.2|140.1|<0.0001
91896475|NCT01809002|183688208|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary endpoint tested non-inferiority as compared to collagen nerve cuff and superior to no treatment. Non-inferiority is defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI about the difference of \> -2 and the upper limit of the 95% CI for s2PD for Avance of \< 13 in ITT table.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.087|1.574|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using a pre-defined standard statistical analysis with a non-response/failure assigned a worst-case scenario value of 16mm.||1.574|-1.087|
91896476|NCT01809002|183688209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.035
91896477|NCT01809002|183688209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.365
91896478|NCT01809002|183688210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915||||||The number and percentage of all treated subjects who recovered s2PD in the target repair at Month 12 (i.e., s2PD of 2 - 15 mm) were summarized by repair type. Differences between the repair types were assessed using a logistic regression analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Responders were defined as subjects achieving s2PD of 2-15 mm on the target nerve repair.||||0.915
91896479|NCT01809002|183688211|SUPERIORITY||LS Means difference|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6316|5.9541||Pre-injury baseline was defined as s2PD in the contralateral digit associated with the target digit.|ANCOVA|This analysis was assessed in the ITT population, at Month 12 using the LS Mean differences from a repeated measures ANCOVA model.||||5.9541|-11.6316|
91896480|NCT01809002|183688212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Kaplan-Meier median and 95% CI|Differences between the repair types were assessed with a KM log-rank test that was appropriate for the handing of interval-censored data.||||||0.792
91896481|NCT01809002|183688213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis was completed to detect a distribution shift of the MRCC score between repairs with PNA and repairs with nerve cuff at Month 12.||||||0.526
91896482|NCT01809002|183688214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"This analysis compares the change in 12 Month Pain VAS scores from Baseline. Missing or incomplete data was extrapolated using a pre-defined repeated measures modeling approach for calculations in this analysis.~This analysis assesses each treatment group for clinically meaningful improvement in VAS from Baseline assuming a Meaningful Clinically Important Difference delta of 20 points (mm)."||||
91896483|NCT01809002|183688216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
91896484|NCT01809002|183688217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis was completed utilizing a one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.||||||0.037
91896485|NCT01809002|183688218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was utilized for this analysis.||||||0.021
91896486|NCT00679627|183688241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91896487|NCT00679627|183688242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.37|0.011
91896488|NCT00679627|183688243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91896489|NCT00679627|183688244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91896490|NCT00679627|183688247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||Baseline|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.269
91896491|NCT00679627|183688247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||||||Month 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.835
91896492|NCT00679627|183688248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||||||Orientation subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.194
91896493|NCT00679627|183688248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353||||||Registration subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.353
91896494|NCT00679627|183688248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Attention and Calculation subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91896495|NCT00679627|183688248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||||||Recall subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.158
91896496|NCT00679627|183688248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||||||Language subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.088
91896497|NCT00679627|183688249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Initiation subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.010
91896498|NCT00679627|183688249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||||||Planning and Organization subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.043
91896499|NCT00679627|183688249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Effective Performance subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
91896500|NCT00679627|183688249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Basic subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91896501|NCT00679627|183688249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||||||Instrumental subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.054
91896502|NCT00679627|183688249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137||||||Leisure subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.137
91896503|NCT03513588|183688267|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.28|-16.7|||ANCOVA|||||-16.70|-31.28|<0.001
91896504|NCT03513588|183688267|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.78|-27.47|||ANCOVA|||||-27.47|-39.78|<0.001
91896505|NCT00704405|183688320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|69.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||69.1|34.5|<0.001
91896506|NCT00704405|183688320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|64.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|78.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||78.3|45.2|<0.001
91896507|NCT00704405|183688320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|59.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.2|73.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||73.4|40.2|<0.001
91896508|NCT00704405|183688323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|47.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.2|63.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||63.2|29.2|<0.001
91896509|NCT00704405|183688324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|82.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|90.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 9.5%) that achieved cEVR and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||90.2|69.5|
91896510|NCT00704405|183688324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.1|86.7|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 9.5%) that achieved cEVR and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||86.7|60.1|
91896511|NCT00704405|183688325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|35.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|53.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO patients (36.6%) with undetectable HCV RNA at Week 48 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||53.4|15.5|
91896512|NCT02112838|183688337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.9||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-910.6|950.5|||ANCOVA|||||950.5|-910.6|0.97
91896513|NCT02112838|183688337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-399.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1320.8|521.3|||ANCOVA|||||521.3|-1320.8|0.40
91896514|NCT01912456|183688387|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
91896515|NCT01912456|183688387|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
91896516|NCT01912456|183688387|OTHER||||||=|0.114|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.114
91896517|NCT01912456|183688388|OTHER||difference in percentages of responder|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|29.7||||||||29.7|-2.8|
91896518|NCT01912456|183688389|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
91896519|NCT01912456|183688389|OTHER||||||=|0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.018
91896520|NCT01912456|183688389|OTHER||||||=|0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.31
91896521|NCT01340196|183688394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|121.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.714|132.999|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||132.999|111.714|
91896522|NCT01340196|183688395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.215|105.29|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||105.290|85.215|
91896523|NCT01340196|183688396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|147.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.6||||90.0|134.482|160.943|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||160.943|134.482|
91896524|NCT01340196|183688397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|77.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.24|85.15|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||85.15|71.24|
91896525|NCT01340196|183688398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|81.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.56|93.34|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||93.34|71.56|
91896526|NCT01340196|183688399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|75.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.71|82.45|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||82.45|68.71|
91900873|NCT00475033|183696142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.2|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PRN: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||4.2|-1.7|
91896527|NCT00440999|183688433|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of the PA group compared to the comparator group with regard to the crude cure rate on Day 14 using the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction) and a 10% non-inferiority margin. Non-inferiority was claimed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in cure rates on Day 14 was \>10%.|Difference in cure rate|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.4|||||Conclusion: non-inferiority between PA \& chloroquine.|"Null hypothesis: The cure rate on Day 14 for the PA group is inferior to the cure rate on Day 14 for the chloroquine group by more than 10%.~Was tested against the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The cure rate on Day 14 for the PA group was not inferior to the cure rate on Day 14 for the chloroquine group by more than 10%."||1.4|-2.6|
91896528|NCT03401229|183688442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.852|-0.289||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate. Both of the co-primary endpoints were tested at 0.01 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||The primary analysis compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in total NPS and/or the change from baseline in NBS are similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: Both of the change from baseline in total NPS and the change from baseline in NBS are different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.289|-0.852|<0.0001
91896529|NCT03401229|183688443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|-0.083||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate. Both of the co-primary endpoints were tested at 0.01 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||The primary analysis compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in total NPS and/or the change from baseline in NBS are similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: Both of the change from baseline in total NPS and the change from baseline in NBS are different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.083|-0.458|0.0048
91896530|NCT03401229|183688444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.212||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.087|0.664||Since both primary endpoints were significant at significant level of 0.01 level, this endpoint was tested at significant level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.664|-11.087|0.0821
91896531|NCT03401229|183688445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.02||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal because test for change from baseline in SNOT-22 at week 40 was not statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|A Cox proportional hazards model including covariates treatment group, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the rate of incidence of first NP surgery and/or SCS use for NP between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Hazard ratio is benralizumab vs placebo and HR less than 1 indicates longer time to event||1.02|0.55|0.0660
91896532|NCT03401229|183688446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.36||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|Regression, Cox|A Cox proportional hazards model including covariates treatment group, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||The endpoint compared the rate of incidence of first NP surgery between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) is benralizumab vs placebo and HR less than 1 indicates longer time to event||1.36|0.53|0.5008
91896533|NCT03401229|183688447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.218||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.074||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline DSS score of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in DSS score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in DSS score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.074|-0.361|0.0029
91896534|NCT03401229|183688448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.475||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.141||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in NPS is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in NPS is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.141|-0.810|0.0054
91896535|NCT03401229|183688449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.287||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|-0.096||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in NBS is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in NBS is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.096|-0.477|0.0032
91896536|NCT03401229|183688450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.492||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.741|-1.243||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-1.243|-13.741|0.0188
91896537|NCT03401229|183688451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.237||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|-0.084||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline DSS score of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in DSS score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in DSS score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.084|-0.389|0.0023
91896538|NCT03401229|183688452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.856||||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.281|0.57||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following WP (WP for NP surgery), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline LMS score of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in LMS score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in LMS score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.570|-2.281|0.2375
91896539|NCT03401229|183688453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.43||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio estimate was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for region (US/non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the proportion of subjects with NP surgery between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The proportion is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The proportion is different between benralizumab and placebo.||1.43|0.51|0.5419
91896540|NCT03401229|183688454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.06||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio estimate was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for region (US/non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the proportion of subjects with SCS\_NP between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The proportion is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The proportion is different between benralizumab and placebo.||1.06|0.44|0.0913
91896541|NCT03401229|183688455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio estimate was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for region (US/non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the proportion of subjects with NP surgery or SCS\_NP between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The proportion is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The proportion is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.97|0.44|0.0362
91896542|NCT03401229|183688456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Regression, Cox|A Cox proportional hazards model including covariates treatment group, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||The endpoint compared the rate of incidence of SCS\_NP use between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) is benralizumab vs placebo and HR less than 1 indicates longer time to event||1.10|0.53|0.1505
91896543|NCT03401229|183688460|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.79||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Negative Bionomial Model|Model included treatment, US/non-US and prior use of SCS\_NP with total number of courses of SCS\_NP as outcome and log of follow-up time as an offset||The endpoint compared the rate of SCS\_NP use between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Rate ratio is benralizumab vs placebo and Rate ratio less than 1 indicates less likely of SCS\_NP use.||1.15|0.54|0.2189
91896544|NCT03401229|183688461|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.854||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.101|-0.608||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.608|-3.101|0.0036
91896545|NCT03401229|183688462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.028||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.028|-0.360|0.0941
91896546|NCT03401229|183688463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.213||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|-0.027||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.027|-0.399|0.0246
91896547|NCT03401229|183688464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.672||||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.074||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||3.074|-1.730|0.5833
91646288|NCT01236053|183184688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.31|0.70|0.7809
91646289|NCT01236053|183184688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.94|0.95|0.0921
91790170|NCT02660138|183459518|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|-24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-16.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-16.4|-32.3|<0.0001
91896548|NCT03401229|183688465|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.684||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|5.502||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||5.502|-0.134|0.0619
91896549|NCT03401229|183688466|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.057||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.129|1.015||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Following WP (WP for NP surgery rescued subjects), model included treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||1.015|-11.129|0.1020
91896550|NCT01776424|183688503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86||Independent DSMB recommended to stop rivaroxaban/aspirin arms on 06FEB2017. At first interim analysis(\~50% events) the log-rank test statistic for one primary comparison had crossed the modified Haybittle-Peto boundary(z=4) consistently over 3 months|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.86|0.66|0.00004
91896551|NCT01776424|183688503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03|||Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.03|0.79|0.11490
91896552|NCT01776424|183688504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.05|||Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||2.05|1.40|<0.00001
91896553|NCT01776424|183688504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.84|||Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.84|1.25|0.00003
91896554|NCT01776424|183688505|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.83||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.83|0.63|0.00001
91896555|NCT01776424|183688505|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.06437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.01||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.01|0.77|0.06437
91896556|NCT01776424|183688506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.85|0.65|0.00001
91896557|NCT01776424|183688506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.03995||95.0|0.77|0.99||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.99|0.77|0.03995
91896558|NCT01776424|183688507|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.01062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.96|0.71|0.01062
91646290|NCT01236053|183184688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.92|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.92|0.94|0.1091
91646291|NCT01236053|183184688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.68|0.99|0.0564
91646292|NCT01236053|183184688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.63|0.96|0.0939
91896559|NCT01776424|183688507|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.66418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.12|0.84|0.66418
91896560|NCT00819390|183688515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No other adjustments||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms/groups with respect to change in percent CD8 HLA-DR+/CD38+ from baseline to week 12.||||0.428
91896561|NCT00819390|183688515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No other adjustments.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms/groups with respect to change in percent CD8 HLA-DR+/CD38+ from baseline to week 12.||||0.247
91896562|NCT02294227|183688544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|5.66|||Chi-squared|||||5.66|1.66|0.0002
91896563|NCT02294227|183688544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.97|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||5.97|1.76|0.0003
91776086|NCT02977403|183432907|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.05||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.050|-0.092|
91776087|NCT02977403|183432907|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.056||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.056|-0.249|
91776088|NCT02977403|183432908|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.069||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.069|-0.095|
91776089|NCT02977403|183432908|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.071||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.071|-0.227|
91776090|NCT02977403|183432909|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.092||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.092|-0.103|
91776091|NCT02977403|183432909|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.11||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.110|-0.173|
91790171|NCT02660138|183459518|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-21.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-21.1|-36.2|<0.0001
91896564|NCT00887432|183688550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.84||Significance level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, df=86||Evaluated the change in PSA under the vitamin D and placebo conditions using the combined data (n=87).||0.84|-0.36|0.431
91896565|NCT00887432|183688551|SUPERIORITY|Comparing the mean PSA slopes between conditions (on vitamin D versus on placebo).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.00019||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00042|0.000045||Significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.000045|-0.00042|0.112
91896566|NCT00899548|183688553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.52|||Gehan|Distributions compared between using the Gehan test, which gives more weight to early differences.||||2.52|1.23|.0002
91896567|NCT00899548|183688554|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio||1.32|1.07|0.001
91896568|NCT00899548|183688557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.45|||Gehan|Distributions compared between using the Gehan test, which gives more weight to early differences.||||2.45|1.18|.001
91896569|NCT01275131|183688570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.95||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.37|20.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||Comparison at Stage 1, Day 2/6||20.54|7.37|0.0009
91896570|NCT01275131|183688570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|18.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.55|24.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||Comparison at Stage 1, Day 4/8||24.72|11.55|<0.0001
91896571|NCT01275131|183688572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.86|20.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day. A compound symmetric covariance matrix was assumed.||Comparison at Stage 3, Day 2/7||20.97|11.86|<0.0001
91646293|NCT01236053|183184689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.3082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|41.71|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||41.71|0.31|0.3082
91790172|NCT02660138|183459519|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|155.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.5|210.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||210.4|100.5|<0.0001
91790173|NCT02660138|183459519|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|181.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.2|234.3|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||234.3|129.2|<0.0001
91896572|NCT01275131|183688572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.55|18.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day. A compound symmetric covariance matrix was assumed.||Comparison at Stage 3, Day 3/8||18.65|9.55|<0.0001
91896573|NCT01275131|183688572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.32||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|9.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day. A compound symmetric covariance matrix was assumed.||Comparison at Stage 3, Day 5/10||9.88|0.77|0.0552
91896574|NCT00953745|183688626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||paired t-test thresholded at cluster level significance of p=0.001; family-wise error multiple comparisons corrected|t-test, 1 sided|||A region of increased relative Fluorodopa (FDOPA) uptake in the right medial caudate was anticipated for the aripiprazole augmentation responders over the 6 weeks of augmentation treatment (Weeks 10-16).||||0.029
91896575|NCT00953745|183688627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91896576|NCT00953745|183688627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.366
91896577|NCT00903682|183688653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The hypothesis is that the proportion of patients with at least 1 treatment-emergent Grade 1-4 neuropsychiatric adverse event, observed between Baseline through Week 12 and judged to be at least possibly drug-related, is significantly lower in the ETR arm than in the EFV arm. Assuming a significance level of 5%, a sample size of 75 subjects per arm would provide over 90% power to detect a 29% difference in treatment-emergent, drug-related Grade 1-4 neuropsychiatric adverse events.||||<0.001
91896578|NCT00903682|183688654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of response|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|15.23|||||Difference in proportion of response ETR minus EFV|||15.23|-12.00|
91896579|NCT03110185|183688668|OTHER|Correlation||||||0.0761||||||Delirium Incidence. There were no multiple comparisons, but includes age as a regressor. a priori threshold was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized logistic regression for delirium incidence and total DMN fc with age as a regressor.||||||0.0761
91896580|NCT00600886|183688669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.942||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.168|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel adjusting for randomization stratification factor||Overall - All patients||3.168|1.190|0.007
91896581|NCT00600886|183688669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.337|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|4.79||||||Post surgery - patients with prior surgery but no previous medical treatment for acromegaly||4.790|1.140|
91896582|NCT00600886|183688669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.654|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|3.234||||||De novo - patients with de novo disease who refused pituitary surgery or for whom pituitary surgery was contraindicated.||3.234|0.846|
91896583|NCT03075410|183688738|OTHER||Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.34|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Variance Components covariance structure is used.|||1.34|0.87|
91896584|NCT03075410|183688739|OTHER||Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.26|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Variance Components covariance structure is use|||1.26|0.71|
91896585|NCT03075410|183688740|OTHER||Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.23|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Variance Components covariance structure is used.|||1.23|0.76|
91896586|NCT03075410|183688741|OTHER||Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.23|||||Fixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter t1/2 Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.23|0.64|
91896587|NCT03075410|183688742|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.5|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimation is used to calculate the 90% confidence interval.|||2.50|-0.50|
91896588|NCT03075410|183688746|OTHER||Slope|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.1|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Steady State. Day is fitted as a Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect Variance Components covariance structure is used.|Repeat GSK3036656 5mg Day 1-14||1.10|1.09|
91896589|NCT03075410|183688746|OTHER||Slope|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.08|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Steady State. Day is fitted as a Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect Variance Components covariance structure is used.|Repeat GSK3036656 15mg Day 1-14||1.08|1.07|
91896590|NCT03075410|183688747|OTHER||Slope|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.1|||||A slope of 1 indicates the pharmacokinetics are dose proportional. A slope greater than 1 indicates the increase in PK is greater than proportional to dose.||Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect and Participant is fitted as Random Effect. An Unstructured covariance structure is used.|1.10|0.82|
91896591|NCT03075410|183688748|OTHER||Slope|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.39|||||Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect and Participant is fitted as Random Effect. An Unstructured covariance structure is used.|||1.39|1.24|
91896592|NCT03075410|183688749|OTHER||Slope|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.11|||||Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect and Participant is fitted as Random Effect. An Unstructured covariance structure is used.|||1.11|0.81|
91837963|NCT03587142|183556228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.48||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Squares test.||0.48|-0.58|0.86
91776092|NCT02977403|183432910|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.109||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.109|-0.069|
91776093|NCT02977403|183432910|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.077||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.077|-0.252|
91776094|NCT02977403|183432911|OTHER|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.08||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.080|-0.099|
91776095|NCT02977403|183432911|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.155|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|-0.017||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.017|-0.294|
91776096|NCT02977403|183432912|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.095||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.095|-0.069|
91776097|NCT02977403|183432912|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.047||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.047|-0.216|
91776098|NCT02977403|183432913|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.041||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.041|-0.123|
91776099|NCT02977403|183432913|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.021||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.021|-0.213|
91837964|NCT03587142|183556229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.53||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald-Chi Square test.||0.53|-0.64|0.85
91776100|NCT02977403|183432914|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.066||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.066|-0.142|
91776101|NCT02977403|183432914|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.097||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.097|-0.290|
91776102|NCT02977403|183432915|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.059||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.059|-0.105|
91776103|NCT02977403|183432915|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.124|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.029||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.029|-0.277|
91776104|NCT02977403|183432916|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.027||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.027|-0.140|
91776105|NCT02977403|183432916|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.161|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|-0.02||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.020|-0.302|
91776106|NCT02977403|183432917|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.0002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.091||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.091|-0.091|
91776107|NCT02977403|183432917|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.149||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.149|-0.157|
91790174|NCT02660138|183459520|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|35.6|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||35.60|2.72|0.0006
91790175|NCT02660138|183459520|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.99||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|39.61|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||39.61|3.05|0.0003
91896593|NCT03075410|183688750|OTHER||Slope|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.33|||||Day 1.Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.33|1.15|
91896594|NCT03075410|183688750|OTHER||Slope|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.22|||||Day 14. Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.22|0.90|
91837965|NCT03587142|183556230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.47||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test||0.47|-0.76|0.65
91776108|NCT02977403|183432918|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.071||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.071|-0.092|
91776109|NCT02977403|183432918|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.183||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.183|-0.126|
91776110|NCT02977403|183432919|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.076||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.076|-0.101|
91776111|NCT02977403|183432919|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.06||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.060|-0.273|
91776112|NCT02977403|183432920|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.043||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.043|-0.110|
91776113|NCT02977403|183432920|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.003||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.003|-0.335|
91790176|NCT02660138|183459521|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|16.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group, and recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO, previous BTX-A usage) and study baseline (prior intradetrusor BTX-A usage for UI) as explanatory variables.||16.24|2.02|0.0010
91790177|NCT02660138|183459521|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|44.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group, and recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO, previous BTX-A usage) and study baseline (prior intradetrusor BTX-A usage for UI) as explanatory variables.||44.43|5.82|<0.0001
91896595|NCT03075410|183688751|OTHER||Slope|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.46|||||Day 1. Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.46|0.92|
91896596|NCT03075410|183688751|OTHER||Slope|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.22|||||Day 14. Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.22|0.89|
91896597|NCT04546789|183688796|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.82||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.82|0.86|
91896598|NCT04546789|183688796|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|2.38||||||Moderate hepatic impairment vs Normal hepatic impairment||2.38|1.60|
91896599|NCT04546789|183688797|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.99||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.99|0.77|
91896600|NCT04546789|183688797|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|2.26||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||2.26|1.51|
91896601|NCT04546789|183688824|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.17||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.17|0.55|
91896602|NCT04546789|183688824|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.63||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||0.63|0.42|
91896603|NCT04546789|183688827|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.25||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||2.25|0.93|
91896604|NCT04546789|183688827|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.98|3.29||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||3.29|1.98|
91896605|NCT04546789|183688828|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.39||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||2.39|0.86|
91896606|NCT04546789|183688828|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.87|3.14||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||3.14|1.87|
91896607|NCT04546789|183688829|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.08||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.08|0.45|
91896608|NCT04546789|183688829|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.5||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||0.50|0.30|
91896609|NCT03430206|183688830|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.206
91896610|NCT03430206|183688831|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.101
91646294|NCT01236053|183184689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|34.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||34.69|0.24|0.3999
91646295|NCT01236053|183184689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.7509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|12.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||12.52|0.16|0.7509
91646296|NCT01236053|183184689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.6303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|17.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||17.07|0.18|0.6303
91896611|NCT03430206|183688832|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.371
91896612|NCT03430206|183688834|OTHER|||||||0.601|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.601
91896613|NCT03430206|183688835|OTHER|||||||0.738|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.738
91896614|NCT04118374|183688887|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-0.5|<0.01
91896615|NCT00557947|183688888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (when subtracting the percentage of DERMABOND PROTAPE successful subjects from the percentage of INTRADERMAL SUTURE successful subjects) does not exceed 12%.|difference proportions of successes (%)|4.8||||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.9|||McNemar||The level of significance for statistical testing was 0.05 for this study.|||10.9|-0.0|0.2188
91896616|NCT00557947|183688889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||0.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91896617|NCT00557947|183688890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3877||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.3877
91896618|NCT00557947|183688891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7539||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
91896619|NCT00557947|183688892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91896620|NCT04737187|183688894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.77||Stratified log-rank test, with a target p-value \< 0.025 for level of significance.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated with stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|Overall Survival Median analysis: The primary estimand was defined to assess the effect of the randomized treatments on the survival duration in all participants regardless of whether or not intercurrent events had occurred (treatment policy strategy).||0.77|0.49|< 0.001
91896621|NCT04737187|183688898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.54||Stratified log-rank test, with a target p-value \< 0.025 for level of significance.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated with stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|PFS Median analysis: A hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle key secondary endpoint analysis. When the primary outcome measure significant testing was then performed sequentially on the key secondary outcome measure. statistically significant at 0.05 level.||0.54|0.36|< 0.001
91896622|NCT05227703|183688907|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.1||Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|||2.1|-7.0|0.2925
91646297|NCT01236053|183184690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
91896623|NCT05227703|183688907|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||6.4|-2.5|0.3914
91896624|NCT05227703|183688908|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.05|-0.48|0.1165
91837966|NCT03587142|183556231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.16||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.16|-0.99|0.16
91837967|NCT03587142|183556232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.08||P values are nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||-0.08|-1.23|0.03
91837968|NCT03587142|183556233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.77||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.77|-0.44|0.59
91837969|NCT03587142|183556234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.88||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.88|-0.39|0.46
91837970|NCT03587142|183556235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.59||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.59|-0.42|0.73
91837971|NCT03587142|183556236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.27||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.27|-0.55|0.50
91837972|NCT03587142|183556237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.79||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.79|-0.15|0.18
91837973|NCT03587142|183556238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.51||P value is nominal: no adjustments made from multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference from differences (DoD) from the baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported; P value (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||2.51|-0.49|0.19
91837974|NCT03587142|183556239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.38||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni P-value threshold for the level of significance is \<=0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the HADS depression score.||3.38|0.33|0.02
91896625|NCT05227703|183688908|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.29|-0.23|0.8265
91896626|NCT05227703|183688909|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.5|-4.0|0.1167
91896627|NCT05227703|183688909|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.3|-2.1|0.9254
91896628|NCT05227703|183688909|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.8792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.8|-3.3|0.8792
91900874|NCT00475033|183696142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.2|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|FIM: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage||1.2|-5.5|
91896629|NCT05227703|183688909|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||4.0|-2.0|0.5094
91896630|NCT05227703|183688909|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.4487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.1|-4.8|0.4487
91896631|NCT05227703|183688909|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||4.6|-2.2|0.4852
91896632|NCT05227703|183688909|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.7593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||3.1|-4.2|0.7593
91896633|NCT05227703|183688909|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||4.3|-2.8|0.6792
91896634|NCT05227703|183688909|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 5-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.4|-5.9|0.3983
91896635|NCT05227703|183688909|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||5.9|-2.3|0.3859
91896636|NCT05227703|183688909|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.1|-7.0|0.2925
91896637|NCT05227703|183688909|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||6.4|-2.5|0.3914
91896638|NCT05227703|183688910|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.02|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.02|-0.27|0.0865
91896639|NCT05227703|183688910|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.9921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.14|-0.14|0.9921
91896640|NCT05227703|183688910|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.18|-0.18|0.9720
91896641|NCT05227703|183688910|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.21|-0.14|0.6621
91837975|NCT03587142|183556240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|2.54||P values are nominal; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the HADS anxiety total score. 95% Wald Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test||2.54|-1.02|0.40
91837976|NCT03587142|183556241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.15||P value is nominal with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni level of significance threshold is \<=0.002.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of PAGI-QOL total score.||0.15|-0.57|0.25
91776114|NCT02977403|183432921|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.091||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.091|-0.069|
91776115|NCT02977403|183432921|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|-0.002||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.002|-0.332|
91776116|NCT02977403|183432922|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.146||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.146|-0.037|
91776117|NCT02977403|183432922|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.09||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.090|-0.127|
91776118|NCT02977403|183432923|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.065||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.065|-0.061|
91776119|NCT02977403|183432923|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.086|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.042||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.042|-0.215|
91790178|NCT02660138|183459522|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|13.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.22|20.37|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (I-QoL summary total score) as fixed variables, and subject as a random effect.||20.37|6.22|0.0003
91790179|NCT02660138|183459522|SUPERIORITY|The secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|17.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|24.15|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (I-QoL summary total score) as fixed variables, and subject as a random effect.||24.15|10.36|<0.0001
91837977|NCT03587142|183556242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) of change in outcome from baseline and 95% Confidence Intervals were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of outcome. P (2-sided) were determined from a Wald-Chi-Square test.||2.24|-6.20|0.36
91837978|NCT03587142|183556243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|0.76||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons Bonferroni p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.76|-4.91|0.15
91837979|NCT03587142|183556244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|10.25||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferrini p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported. P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||10.25|-7.51|0.76
91837980|NCT03587142|183556245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01||Nominal P values; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change in IMD from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and the baseline value of IMD. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.01|-0.12|0.10
91837981|NCT03587142|183556246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.51||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.4|56.4||Nominal P values; no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of teh outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||56.4|-99.4|0.29
91837982|NCT03587142|183556247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.95||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to week 4 on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported: P (2-sided) determined from Wald Chi-Square test.||0.95|-0.78|0.84
91837983|NCT03587142|183556248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.43||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|5.03||P value is nominal|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||5.03|-17.90|0.27
91837984|NCT03587142|183556249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|4.89||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||4.89|-6.93|0.74
91837985|NCT03587142|183556250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||ANCOVA|P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold level of significance \<0.002||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. 95% Wald Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.08|-0.01|0.18
91837986|NCT03587142|183556251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.42|19.64||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. 95% Wald Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||19.64|-20.42|0.97
91837987|NCT03587142|183556252|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.27||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.82||P values are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Exact poisson regression|||Event rates are computed by treatment arm by dividing the total adverse events over 4-weeks by the number of patient-months of follow-up to 4-weeks. Event rates are compared by treatment arm using an exact poisson regression for event rates.||2.82|0.57|0.64
91837988|NCT03587142|183556253|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|0.95||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.62||P values are nominal.|Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's Exact test was used for comparisons of events by treatment by severity grade. One patient in the Buspirone arm had 2 AEs during the trial; for analysis by severity grade the maximum severity grade was used.|An exact poisson regression stratified by severity level was used to compute the incident rate ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals for adverse events by severity level.|2.62|0.35|0.54
91837989|NCT03587142|183556254|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P value is nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91837990|NCT03587142|183556255|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|40.36||P-values are nominal.|Exact poisson regression|||Event rates were computed by dividing the number of hospitalizations over 4-weeks by the number of person-years. An exact poisson regression was used to compare events by treatment group.||40.36|0|1.00
91837991|NCT03587142|183556256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Nominal P value.|Binomial probability test|2-sided test with probability of success=0||||||0.52
91896642|NCT05227703|183688910|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.11|-0.29|0.3617
91896643|NCT05227703|183688910|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.5456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.25|-0.13|0.5456
91837992|NCT01616771|183556270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||To verify the difference in C\&L grades using each blade, the ordinal scales of each blade were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. P values and confidence intervals have been corrected for the 3 comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann method was used to calculate 98.3% CIs of paired differences of 3 comparisons.||An improvement of C\&L grade ordinal scale by 2 was considered a clinically significant change. The mean difference of C\&L grade ordinal scale between DL and GVLw was 1.3, and its standard deviation was 2.0 in our pilot study. The required sample size for the Wilcoxon signed rank test was 21 with an α error of 0.05 and 80% power.||||<0.05
91837993|NCT01616771|183556271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||To verify the difference in C\&L grades using each blade, the ordinal scales of each blade were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. P values and confidence intervals have been corrected for the 3 comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann method was used to calculate 98.3% CIs of paired differences of 3 comparisons.||An improvement of C\&L grade ordinal scale by 2 was considered a clinically significant change. The mean difference of C\&L grade ordinal scale between DL and GVLw was 1.3, and its standard deviation was 2.0 in our pilot study. The required sample size for the Wilcoxon signed rank test was 21 with an α error of 0.05 and 80% power.||||<0.05
91837994|NCT02247804|183556295|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.36|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.36|-1.17|0.2950
91837995|NCT02247804|183556295|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.43|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.43|-1.09|0.3904
91837996|NCT02247804|183556295|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.01|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||-0.01|-1.40|0.0464
91837997|NCT02247804|183556295|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.47|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.47|-0.90|0.5383
91837998|NCT02247804|183556296|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.68|0.0033
91646298|NCT01236053|183184690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|77.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||77.51|0.28|0.2866
91837999|NCT02247804|183556296|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.13|-1.47|0.0187
91838000|NCT02247804|183556297|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0057||95.0|-1.45|-0.25|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.25|-1.45|0.0057
91900875|NCT00475033|183696143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.4|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Meningococcal C: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||1.4|-1.4|
91646299|NCT01236053|183184690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
91896644|NCT05227703|183688910|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.19|-0.24|0.8459
91646300|NCT01236053|183184690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.4||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|839.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||839.0|0.50|0.1118
91776120|NCT02977403|183432924|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.115||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.115|-0.05|
91776121|NCT02977403|183432924|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.058||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.058|-0.248|
91776122|NCT02977403|183432925|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.042||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.042|-0.075|
91776123|NCT02977403|183432925|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.180|-0.130|
91776124|NCT02977403|183432926|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.099||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).||||Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.099|-0.039|
91776125|NCT02977403|183432926|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.049||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.049|-0.335|
91776126|NCT02977403|183432927|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.066||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.066|-0.097|
91776127|NCT02977403|183432927|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|-0.01||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.01|-0.314|
91646301|NCT01236053|183184691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
91646302|NCT01236053|183184691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|77.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||77.51|0.28|0.2866
91776128|NCT02977403|183432928|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.156||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.156|-0.051|
91776129|NCT02977403|183432928|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.111||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.111|-0.251|
91776130|NCT02977403|183432929|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.091||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.091|-0.061|
91776131|NCT02977403|183432929|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.044||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.044|-0.260|
91776132|NCT02977403|183432930|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.119||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.119|-0.047|
91776133|NCT02977403|183432930|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.064||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.064|-0.276|
91776134|NCT02977403|183432931|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.057||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.057|-0.092|
91776135|NCT02977403|183432931|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.153||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.153|-0.150|
91900876|NCT00475033|183696144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.5|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Meningococcal C: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.50|1.08|
91646303|NCT01236053|183184691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
91776136|NCT02977403|183432932|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.159||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.159|-0.019|
91776137|NCT02977403|183432932|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.070|-0.260|
91776138|NCT02977403|183432933|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-0.8707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.256|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimation equations||Reported variable is a condition by time (pre or post-intervention) interaction term. The model included a Poisson distribution, log link function, exchangeable covariance matrix and was adjusted for age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||||0.256
91776139|NCT04966013|183432946|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.9784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.408|||Regression, Cox|||Log Rank Test and Cox PH Regression analyses were performed unstratified||1.408|0.717|0.9784
91776140|NCT04966013|183432947|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.388||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|2.172||Log Rank Test and Cox PH Regression analyses were performed unstratified|Regression, Cox|||||2.172|0.887|0.1512
91776141|NCT00781768|183433004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there will be a higher proportion of complete responders among those subjects receiving the combination therapy.||||<.001
91776142|NCT02458313|183433012|SUPERIORITY|DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared at baseline||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647
91776143|NCT02458313|183433012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared post-intervention||||0.679
91776144|NCT02458313|183433013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared at baseline||||0.951
91776145|NCT02458313|183433013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared post-intervention||||0.884
91776146|NCT01428258|183433057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-147.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.0||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
91776147|NCT01428258|183433057|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.136
91838001|NCT02247804|183556297|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0031||95.0|-1.5|-0.31|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.31|-1.50|0.0031
91900877|NCT00475033|183696149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.27|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|PT: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.27|1.02|
91646304|NCT01236053|183184691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.4||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|839.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||839.0|0.50|0.1118
91646305|NCT01236053|183184693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
91776148|NCT01428258|183433057|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
91776149|NCT01428258|183433058|OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.576
91646306|NCT01236053|183184693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|77.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||77.51|0.28|0.2866
91776150|NCT01428258|183433059|OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.902
91776151|NCT01428258|183433060|OTHER|||||||0.797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.797
91776152|NCT01428258|183433061|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91776153|NCT00674817|183433097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0187|=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.008|0.069|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo' at 1 hour||0.069|0.008|=0.020
91776154|NCT00674817|183433097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0227|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.101|0.176|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.176|0.101|<0.001
91776155|NCT00674817|183433097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.087|0.158|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.158|0.087|<0.001
91776156|NCT00674817|183433097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0185|=|0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.016|0.045|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.045|-0.016|=0.220
91838002|NCT02247804|183556298|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0547||95.0|-1.26|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.01|-1.26|0.0547
91838003|NCT02247804|183556298|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0107||95.0|-1.46|-0.19|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.19|-1.46|0.0107
91838004|NCT02247804|183556299|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.086||95.0|-1.16|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.08|-1.16|0.0860
91838005|NCT02247804|183556299|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0362||95.0|-1.27|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.27|0.0362
91838006|NCT02247804|183556300|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.295||95.0|-1.17|0.36|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.36|-1.17|0.2950
91838007|NCT02247804|183556300|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.43|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.43|-1.09|0.3904
91838008|NCT02247804|183556301|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0464||95.0|-1.4|-0.01|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.01|-1.40|0.0464
91838009|NCT02247804|183556301|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5383||95.0|-0.9|0.47|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.47|-0.90|0.5383
91838010|NCT02247804|183556302|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.34|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.68|0.0033
91838011|NCT02247804|183556302|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.13|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.13|-1.47|0.0187
91900878|NCT00475033|183696149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.25|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|FHA: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.25|1.01|
91776157|NCT00674817|183433097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.087|0.161|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.161|0.087|<0.001
91776158|NCT00674817|183433097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0214|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.105|0.176|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.176|0.105|<0.001
91776159|NCT00674817|183433097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188||0.155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.05|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.050|-0.012|0.155
91776160|NCT00674817|183433097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0229|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.129|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.129|0.053|<0.001
91776161|NCT00674817|183433097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.162|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.162|0.090|<0.001
91776162|NCT00674817|183433097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.048|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.048|-0.015|0.188
91776163|NCT00674817|183433097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.017|0.093|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.093|0.017|=0.009
91776164|NCT00674817|183433097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.086|0.159|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.159|0.086|<0.001
91776165|NCT00674817|183433098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0616|=|0.856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.168|0.036|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.036|-0.168|=0.856
91776166|NCT00674817|183433098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0496|=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.174|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.174|0.010|=0.033
91776167|NCT00674817|183433098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0523|=|0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.019|0.154|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.154|-0.019|=0.099
91776168|NCT00674817|183433098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0612|=|0.862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.168|0.034|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.034|-0.168|=0.862
91776169|NCT00674817|183433098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0493|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.039|0.201|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.201|0.039|=0.008
91776170|NCT00674817|183433098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0516||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.015|0.185|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.185|0.015|0.027
91776171|NCT00674817|183433098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0621|=|0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.155|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.155|-0.050|=0.200
91776172|NCT00674817|183433098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.011|0.177|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus that due to GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.177|0.011|=0.031
91776173|NCT00674817|183433098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.004|0.179|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.179|0.004|=0.043
91776174|NCT00674817|183433098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0625|=|0.637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.125|0.081|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.081|-0.125|=0.637
91776175|NCT00674817|183433098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.218|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.218|0.053|=0.004
91776176|NCT00674817|183433098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0534|=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.012|0.189|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.189|0.012|=0.031
91776177|NCT00674817|183433104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1768|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|8.041||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||8.041|-0.547|
91776178|NCT00674817|183433104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1453|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|5.944||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||5.944|-2.521|
91776179|NCT00674817|183433104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1869|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.559|6.069||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||6.069|-2.559|
91776180|NCT00674817|183433104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.197|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.565|3.103||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||3.103|-5.565|
91776181|NCT00674817|183433105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.781|9.897||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||9.897|-0.781|
91776182|NCT00674817|183433105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6691|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.999|7.532||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||7.532|-2.999|
91776183|NCT00674817|183433105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.717|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.429|6.29||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||6.290|-4.429|
91838012|NCT02247804|183556302|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.25|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.25|-1.45|0.0057
91838013|NCT02247804|183556302|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.31|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.31|-1.50|0.0031
91838014|NCT02247804|183556302|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.01|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.01|-1.26|0.0547
91838015|NCT02247804|183556302|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.19|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.19|-1.46|0.0107
91838016|NCT02247804|183556302|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.08|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.08|-1.16|0.0860
91838017|NCT02247804|183556302|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0362||95.0|-1.27|-0.04|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.27|0.0362
91838018|NCT01187329|183556311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.87|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.48|-2.87|0.11
91838019|NCT01187329|183556312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||-0.01|-0.3|0.007
91838020|NCT01187329|183556313|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-2.6|0.57
91838021|NCT01187329|183556314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.2|0.45
91838022|NCT00909480|183556322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3003||||||95.0|0.1427|0.458|||ANCOVA|Full analysis set, Model adjusted for: HbA1c at baseline, previous oral anti-diabetic treatment and country.||||0.4580|0.1427|
91838023|NCT00393523|183556355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection rate (SPR)|95.0|||<|0.001||95.2|92.1|97.1||"Adequate SPR required the lower bound of the 95.2% CI for the SPR for subjects in both Group 1 and Group 2 to be \> 90% (P-Value \< .024).~Since only one group met the criteria, that group was retested at α=.012."|Hochberg's step up|The primary hypothesis was evaluated using Hochberg's step up approach to control multiplicity.|Seroprotection rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL|The primary purpose of this study was to show that subjects who received a primary series of RECOMBIVAX HB™ in the first year of life were adequately protected by RECOMBIVAX HB™ by measuring the immune response to a single booster dose of either a modified process vaccine or ENGERIX-B™.||97.1|92.1|<0.001
91896645|NCT05227703|183688910|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.30|-0.12|0.3922
91896646|NCT05227703|183688910|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.11|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.11|-0.37|0.2915
91896647|NCT05227703|183688910|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.33|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.33|-0.14|0.4425
91896648|NCT05227703|183688910|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.05|-0.48|0.1165
91896649|NCT05227703|183688910|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.29|-0.23|0.8265
91776184|NCT00674817|183433105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.731|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.539|4.236||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||4.236|-6.539|
91776185|NCT00674817|183433106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6816|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.069|4.566||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||4.566|-2.069|
91776186|NCT00674817|183433106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.687||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||3.687|-2.850|
91776187|NCT00674817|183433106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.705|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.013|2.714||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||2.714|-4.013|
91776188|NCT00674817|183433106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.325|1.427||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||1.427|-5.325|
91776189|NCT00674817|183433107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.258|15.139||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||15.139|5.258|
91776190|NCT00674817|183433107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4738|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.195|7.567||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||7.567|-2.195|
91776191|NCT00674817|183433107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5196|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.883|12.825||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||12.825|2.883|
91776192|NCT00674817|183433107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5244|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.864|4.097||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||4.097|-5.864|
91776193|NCT00674817|183433107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9782|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.352|17.103||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||17.103|5.352|
91646307|NCT01236053|183184693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
91776194|NCT00674817|183433107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9434|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.418|10.197||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||10.197|-1.418|
91776195|NCT00674817|183433107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9958|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|11.886||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||11.886|0.065|
91776196|NCT00674817|183433107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.006|3.84||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||3.840|-8.006|
91776197|NCT00674817|183433108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6941|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.857|8.542||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||8.542|1.857|
91896650|NCT05227703|183688911|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.4597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.33|0.68|0.4597
91776198|NCT00674817|183433108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.294|3.307||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||3.307|-3.294|
91776199|NCT00674817|183433108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|6.345||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||6.345|-0.433|
91776200|NCT00674817|183433108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7199|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.076|1.711||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.711|-5.076|
91776201|NCT00674817|183433109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3932|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.839|9.336||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||9.336|3.839|
91776202|NCT00674817|183433109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3725|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.453|3.962||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||3.962|-1.453|
91776203|NCT00674817|183433109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.231|9.738||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||9.738|4.231|
91838024|NCT00393523|183556355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection rate (SPR)|95.0|||<|0.001||97.6|91.6|97.3||Adequate SPR required the lower bound of the 95.2% CI for the SPR for subjects in both Group 1 and Group 2 to be \> 90% (P-Value \< .024). Since only one group met the criteria, that group was retested at α=.012.|Hochberg's step up|The primary hypothesis was evaluated using Hochberg's step up approach to control multiplicity.|Seroprotection rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL|The primary purpose of this study was to show that subjects who received a primary series of RECOMBIVAX HB™ in the first year of life were adequately protected by RECOMBIVAX HB™ by measuring the immune response to a single booster dose of either a modified process vaccine or ENGERIX-B™.||97.3|91.6|<0.001
91838025|NCT00393523|183556355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection rate (SPR)|91.6||||0.19||95.2|88.0|94.4||"Adequate SPR required the lower bound of the 95.2% CI for the SPR for subjects in both Group 1 and Group 2 to be \> 90% (P-Value \< .024).~Since only one group met the criteria, that group was retested at α=.012."|Hochberg's step up|The primary hypothesis was evaluated using Hochberg's step up approach to control multiplicity.|Seroprotection rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL|The primary purpose of this study was to show that subjects who received a primary series of RECOMBIVAX HB™ in the first year of life were adequately protected by RECOMBIVAX HB™ by measuring the immune response to a single booster dose of either a modified process vaccine or ENGERIX-B™.||94.4|88.0|0.19
91838026|NCT00393523|183556356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection Rate (SPR)|97.3||||||95.0|95.0|98.8|||||"Exact binomial confidence interval~Seroprotection Rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL"|The purpose of the secondary analysis is to demonstrate that there is an adequate SPR in subjects who received a primary vaccination series of ENGERIX-B™ and a booster dose of modified process hepatitis B vaccine. An adequate response requires the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the SPR to exceed 90%.||98.8|95.0|
91838027|NCT02237508|183556392|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|138.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.09|149.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||149.39|129.09|<0.001
91838028|NCT02237508|183556392|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|136.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.13|147.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||147.04|126.13|<0.001
91838029|NCT02237508|183556393|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|119.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.4|131.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||131.03|109.40|0.001
91838030|NCT02237508|183556393|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|129.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.33|143.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||143.20|117.33|<0.001
91838031|NCT02237508|183556394|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|218.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|194.02|245.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||245.24|194.02|<0.001
91838032|NCT02237508|183556394|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|200.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|174.3|231.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||231.01|174.30|<0.001
91896651|NCT05227703|183688911|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.16|0.28|0.1205
91708153|NCT01134263|183309187|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.021||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||0.021|-0.173|
91708154|NCT01134263|183309187|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.103||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||0.103|-0.137|
91708155|NCT02259699|183309209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T1||||0.582
91838033|NCT02237508|183556395|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|126.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.93|137.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||137.32|115.93|<0.001
91838034|NCT02237508|183556395|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|117.08||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.05|128.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||128.05|107.05|0.004
91838035|NCT03300570|183556424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91838036|NCT02296190|183556431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher's exact test to compare the conversion rate between the MSP-2017 groups and the placebo group.||||<0.05
91838037|NCT00717314|183556444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.494
91838038|NCT00717314|183556447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||ANOVA|||Between group comparison at Baseline||||0.374
91838039|NCT00717314|183556447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||0.685
91838040|NCT00717314|183556447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 28||||0.722
91838041|NCT00717314|183556447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 40||||0.432
91838042|NCT00717314|183556448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.342|5.561||||||||5.561|-5.342|
91838043|NCT00717314|183556449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||0.616
91838044|NCT00717314|183556449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 28||||0.334
91838045|NCT00717314|183556449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 40||||0.267
91838046|NCT00717314|183556449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.||Change from Baseline at Week 52||||0.764
91838047|NCT00717314|183556450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
91900879|NCT00475033|183696149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|PRN: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.24|0.89|
91646308|NCT01236053|183184693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.4||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|839.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||839.0|0.5|0.1118
91708156|NCT02259699|183309209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.053
91838048|NCT01483937|183556451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.533
91838049|NCT00682643|183556465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0||||Wald Chi-Square test based on a proportional hazards model adjusting for age and baseline value|Wald Chi-square|||||||0.395
91838050|NCT00682643|183556466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||Wald Chi-Square test based on a proportional hazards model adjusting for age and baseline value|Wald Chi-square|||||||0.342
91838051|NCT03238300|183556483|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.22||P-value \>0.05 for main effect of medication (N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercepts were used||"With 31 participants, the study has 99% power to detect such effects on glutamate levels (calculated based on d =1.13 \[reported in Schmaal et al., 2012\], α = 0.05, two-tailed).~We used linear mixed effects models with random intercepts with medication, visit, and sequence. Baseline metabolite levels and brain tissue composition \[GM:BM = GM/(GM+WM)\], cannabis use (days), and alcohol use disorder status (Yes/No) were included as covariates."||0.22|0.00|>0.05
91838052|NCT03238300|183556484|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||P-value \>0.05 for main effect of medication (N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo) for all ROIs.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercepts were used for all models.||Contrast of interest was alcohol beverages vs. non-alcohol beverages. We used linear mixed effects models with random intercepts with medication, visit, and sequence. Baseline reactivity levels for each ROI, cannabis use (days), and an alcohol use covariate (quantity, frequency, AUD status, or AUD severity - depending on which best fit the model) were included as covariates. ROIs included were (left and right hemisphere): amygdala, caudate, insula, putamen, and nucleus accumbens.||||>0.05
91838053|NCT04064242|183556505|OTHER|A Bayesian model for repeated measurements including data collected at Weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16 was applied to compare FVC between CMK389 and placebo groups.|Posterior estimate treatment difference|-1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.62||0.1804|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.56|0.6|||Bayesian analysis|Posterior probability that treatment is better than placebo.|80% credible intervals are reported on the treatment difference|||0.60|-3.56|0.1804
91838054|NCT04064242|183556511|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.783|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.02|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (CMK389-placebo)|||0.02|-0.09|0.783
91646309|NCT01236053|183184694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.69|0.58|0.9614
91708157|NCT02259699|183309209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.288
91708158|NCT02259699|183309210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.087
91776204|NCT00674817|183433109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4077|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|5.031||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||5.031|-0.522|
91896652|NCT05227703|183688918|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.2|0.0|0.0493
91896653|NCT05227703|183688918|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.2|0.0|0.0226
91896654|NCT05227703|183688918|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.6845
91896655|NCT05227703|183688918|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.8950
91896656|NCT05227703|183688919|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.5073
91896657|NCT05227703|183688919|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.4650
91896658|NCT05227703|183688919|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.1|0.0672
91896659|NCT05227703|183688919|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.8030
91896660|NCT05227703|183688920|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.8259
91896661|NCT05227703|183688920|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.1|0.5936
91896662|NCT05227703|183688920|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|0.0253
91900880|NCT00475033|183696149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|FIM: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.02|0.78|
91838055|NCT04064242|183556512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.664||0.608|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.05|0.68|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (CMK389-placebo)|||0.68|-1.05|0.608
91838056|NCT04064242|183556513|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.126||0.479|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.35|17.76|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (CMK389-placebo)|||17.76|-16.35|0.479
91838057|NCT04512066|183556525|OTHER||treatment effect|0.6||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|5.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.78|-4.58|0.849
91838058|NCT04512066|183556525|OTHER||treatment effect|-2.83||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.96|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.29|-7.96|0.362
91838059|NCT04512066|183556525|OTHER||treatment effect|-10.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.46|-5.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.43|-15.46|0.001
91838060|NCT00971750|183556551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.763
91838061|NCT00971750|183556553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91838062|NCT01657266|183556554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Pearson´s Chi-square test|||||||1.00
91838063|NCT00445679|183556564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority to paroxetine was declared if the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in responders is greater than or equal to -9 percentage points.|Difference|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|6.37||||||||6.37|-12.62|
91838064|NCT00445679|183556564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority to paroxetine was declared if the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in responders is greater than or equal to -9 percentage points.|Difference|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.25||||||||10.25|-8.50|
91838065|NCT00445679|183556564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority to paroxetine was declared if the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in responders is greater than or equal to -9 percentage points.|Difference|-2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|7.33||||||||7.33|-11.68|
91900881|NCT00475033|183696150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.1|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||0.1|-4.4|
91838066|NCT00445679|183556565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.714
91838067|NCT00445679|183556565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.653
91838068|NCT00445679|183556565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.881
91838069|NCT00445679|183556566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.450
91838070|NCT00445679|183556566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.452
91838071|NCT00445679|183556566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.850
91838072|NCT01316770|183556571|SUPERIORITY|The standard deviation (SD) of the change in salivary flow was assumed to be 0.0168 for the placebo and 0.0906 for the dexamethasone parotid. The within-subject correlation between two glands was assumed to be 0.15. A total of 16 patients would be required to have 80% power to detect a one-sided 40% increase in dexamethasone-irrigated parotid glands compared with the saline irrigated parotid glands with respect to change in salivary flow from Day 0 to Day 56.||||||0.236||||||No corrections were made for multiple comparisons because there was only one primary hypothesis.|one-sided Paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis included all time points but it failed to converge. Therefore, an alternative analysis was performed using a paired t-test. Because the Satterthwaite correction \[that was specified in the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the mixed model\] is not available for the paired t-test, it was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates, as these measures were appropriate for the model used.||||0.236
91838073|NCT01316770|183556572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662|||||||one-sided paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis (including all time points: study days 14, 28, 42, 56) failed to converge; thus, an alternative analysis, as stated in the Statistical Analysis Plan, was performed using the paired t-test. The Satterthwaite correction (Statistical Analysis Plan) is not available for the paired t-test and was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates since this statistical model achieved the best fit to the data.||||0.662
91838074|NCT01316770|183556573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||one-sided paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis (including all time points: study days 14, 28, 42, 56) failed to converge; thus, an alternative analysis, as stated in the Statistical Analysis Plan, was performed using the paired t-test. The Satterthwaite correction (Statistical Analysis Plan) is not available for the paired t-test and was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates since this statistical model achieved the best fit to the data.||||0.607
91838075|NCT01316770|183556574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||one-sided paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis (including all time points: study days 14, 28, 42, 56) failed to converge; thus, an alternative analysis, as stated in the Statistical Analysis Plan, was performed using the paired t-test. The Satterthwaite correction (Statistical Analysis Plan) is not available for the paired t-test and was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates since this statistical model achieved the best fit to the data.||||0.586
91838076|NCT01316770|183556588|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||0.500
91838077|NCT01316770|183556588|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
91776205|NCT00674817|183433109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2464|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.662|6.58||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus maximal GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||6.580|1.662|
91776206|NCT00674817|183433109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.142|2.703||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.703|-2.142|
91776207|NCT00674817|183433109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.802|6.729||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||6.729|1.802|
91776208|NCT00674817|183433109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2593|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.863|4.106||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||4.106|-0.863|
91776209|NCT00674817|183433110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.456|5.732||||||GSK961081 400 mcg plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||5.732|2.456|
91776210|NCT00674817|183433110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.967|2.258||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||2.258|-0.967|
91776211|NCT00674817|183433110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8395|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.324|5.636||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||5.636|2.324|
91776212|NCT00674817|183433110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.735|2.603||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||2.603|-0.735|
91776213|NCT00674817|183433111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|1.748||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.748|-5.420|
91776214|NCT00674817|183433111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7809|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.914|4.113||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||4.113|-2.914|
91776215|NCT00674817|183433111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.261|3.909||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||3.909|-3.261|
91776216|NCT00674817|183433111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.781|1.416||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.416|-5.781|
91776217|NCT00674817|183433111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7723|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.762|0.23||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.230|-6.762|
91776218|NCT00674817|183433111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.502|3.348||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||3.348|-3.502|
91776219|NCT00674817|183433111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7743|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.673|5.327||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||5.327|-1.673|
91776220|NCT00674817|183433111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.743|2.279||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.279|-4.743|
91776221|NCT00674817|183433111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3084|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.976|1.187||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||1.187|-3.976|
91776222|NCT00674817|183433111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2819|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.348|3.71||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||3.710|-1.348|
91776223|NCT00674817|183433111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.498|2.71||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||2.710|-2.498|
91776224|NCT00674817|183433111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.713|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3241|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.325|1.899||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||1.899|-3.325|
91776225|NCT00674817|183433112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.997|1.876||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.876|-2.997|
91776226|NCT00674817|183433112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|4.097||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||4.097|-0.687|
91776227|NCT00674817|183433112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2341|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.771|1.098||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.098|-3.771|
91776228|NCT00674817|183433112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2416|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.516|1.382||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.382|-3.516|
91776229|NCT00674817|183433112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0997|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.545|1.794||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.794|-2.545|
91776230|NCT00674817|183433112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0786|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.588|2.668||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.668|-1.588|
91776231|NCT00674817|183433112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0999|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.185|2.154||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.154|-2.185|
91776232|NCT00674817|183433112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1058|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.715|2.648||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.648|-1.715|
91776233|NCT00674817|183433112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.918|0.559||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.559|-2.918|
91838078|NCT01316770|183556588|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||0.500
91896663|NCT05227703|183688920|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|0.2710
91646310|NCT01236053|183184694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.44|0.49|0.5179
91776234|NCT00674817|183433112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8644|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.829|2.582||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||2.582|-0.829|
91776235|NCT00674817|183433112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8882|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.561|0.944||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.944|-2.561|
91776236|NCT00674817|183433112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8929|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.122|1.401||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||1.401|-2.122|
91776237|NCT00674817|183433113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2352|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.994||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.994|0.066|
91776238|NCT00674817|183433113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2318|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.846||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.846|-0.069|
91776239|NCT00674817|183433113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2363|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.775||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.775|-0.157|
91776240|NCT00674817|183433113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.78||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.780|-0.163|
91776241|NCT00674817|183433113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3099|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.485||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.485|0.262|
91776242|NCT00674817|183433113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.656|0.55||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.550|-0.656|
91776243|NCT00674817|183433113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|1.443||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.443|0.215|
91776244|NCT00674817|183433113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3151|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|1.189||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.189|-0.054|
91896664|NCT03373201|183688936|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS means|60.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|76.7|||ANOVA|||||76.7|44.0|<.0001
91646311|NCT01236053|183184694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.48|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.48|0.71|0.8856
91646312|NCT01236053|183184694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.5078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.28|0.61|0.5078
91776245|NCT00674817|183433113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.513||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.513|0.110|
91776246|NCT00674817|183433113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.372||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus maximum GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.372|-0.025|
91776247|NCT00674817|183433113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.414||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.414|0.006|
91776248|NCT00674817|183433113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.311||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.311|-0.103|
91776249|NCT00674817|183433114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0503|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|-0.078||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||-0.078|-0.276|
91776250|NCT00674817|183433114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.097||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.097|-0.096|
91776251|NCT00674817|183433114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0498|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.022||||||SK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.022|-0.174|
91776252|NCT00674817|183433114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.072||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.072|-0.128|
91776253|NCT00674817|183433114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0493|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|-0.069||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||-0.069|-0.263|
91776254|NCT00674817|183433114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.038||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.038|-0.152|
91838079|NCT01316770|183556588|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
91896665|NCT03373201|183688937|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS Means.|85.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.3|106.6|||ANOVA|||||106.6|64.3|<.0001
91896666|NCT03373201|183688938|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS means|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-4.0|||ANOVA|||||-4.0|-26.2|<.0001
91646313|NCT01236053|183184695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.95|0.36|0.6888
91646314|NCT01236053|183184695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.75|0.32|0.5024
91896667|NCT03373201|183688939|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS means|-74.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.8|-54.3|||ANOVA|||||-54.3|-94.8|<.0001
91896668|NCT03373201|183688940|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS Means.|-0.5||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-0.9|0.0083
91896669|NCT03373201|183688941|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS Means.|6.6||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.6|||ANOVA|||||11.6|1.6|0.0099
91896670|NCT03464097|183688942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.55|0.99|0.0539
91896671|NCT03464097|183688943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.65|0.86|0.1503
91896672|NCT03464097|183688944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.92|0.1121
91896673|NCT03464097|183688945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.35|0.91|0.1163
91896674|NCT03464097|183688946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.20|0.98|0.0561
91896675|NCT03464097|183688947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.86|0.60|0.5061
91896676|NCT03464097|183688948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.44|0.82|0.1179
91896677|NCT03464097|183688949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.94|0.0769
91896678|NCT03464097|183688950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.98|0.92|0.0623
91896679|NCT03464097|183688951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.00|0.89|0.1162
91896680|NCT03464097|183688952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.11|0.85|0.2143
91896681|NCT03464097|183688953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.57|0.97|0.0663
91896682|NCT03464097|183688954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|18.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.64|0.78|0.0774
91896683|NCT03464097|183688956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.33|1.06|0.0308
91896684|NCT03464097|183688957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.95|0.57|0.8745
91896685|NCT03464097|183688958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.78|1.04|0.0361
91896686|NCT03035201|183688959|OTHER|two-tailed test of the null hypothesis of no differences between groups.|Mean from linear contrast|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08||Not adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis||Marginal effect of cocoa flavonal versus cocoa placebo based on the mean difference between linear contrasts.|Marginal comparisons from a repeated measures model using a linear contrast to estimate the mean differences between baseline versus average values across follow-up.|Wald test of a linear contrast from the mixed effects analysis....see protocol.|0.08|-0.02|<0.05
91896687|NCT03035201|183688960|EQUIVALENCE|two-tailed test of the null hypothesis of no differences between groups.|Mean difference of linear contrasts|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12||Not adjusted|Wald test||Marginal effects of multivitamin versus multivitamin placebo|Marginal comparisons from a repeated measures model using a linear contrast to estimate the mean differences between baseline versus average values across follow-up.|Wald test of a linear contrast from the mixed effects analysis....see protocol|0.12|0.02|<0.05
91896688|NCT03035201|183688961|EQUIVALENCE|Proportional hazards regression -- unadjusted two-sided test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.11||Not adjusted|Regression, Cox||Comparison group is placebo|||1.11|0.52|0.15
91896689|NCT03035201|183688962|EQUIVALENCE|Unadjusted 2-sided test|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.32||Unadjusted|Regression, Cox||Comparison group is placebo.|||1.32|0.63|0.62
91896690|NCT03035201|183688963|EQUIVALENCE|Cocoa Flavonal minus Placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Wald test comparing linear contrasts|Cocoa Flavonal minus placebo|||0.08|-0.02|0.24
91896691|NCT03035201|183688964|EQUIVALENCE|two-sided|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of linear contrasts: cocoa flavonal minus placebo|Cocoa flavonal minus placebo|Unadjusted 2-tailed test||0.09|-0.04|0.41
91896692|NCT03035201|183688965|EQUIVALENCE|2 sided test, multivitamin minus placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of linear contrasts|Multivitamin minus placebo|2-sided test, unadjusted||0.11|0.01|0.02
91896693|NCT03035201|183688966|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided, unadjusted|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.126||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of linear contrasts|Multivitamin minus placebo|Multivitamin minus placebo||0.126|0.002|0.04
91776255|NCT00674817|183433114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0489|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|-0.075||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||-0.075|-0.267|
91896694|NCT02390050|183688967|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.34||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||||-0.34|-0.76|< 0.0001
91896695|NCT02390050|183688967|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.47||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||||-0.47|-0.89|< 0.0001
91896696|NCT02390050|183688967|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.59||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||||-0.59|-1.01|< 0.0001
91896697|NCT02390050|183688968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, country, baseline HbA1c and prior anti-diabetic treatment status as predictor variables and a dependable variable of 1 (\<7%) or 0 (\>7%).||Odds ratio of having at least 1 post-baseline HbA1c value \<7% in the 5 mg bexagliflozin group was compared to placebo group.||5.3|0.8|0.1308
91896698|NCT02390050|183688968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, country, baseline HbA1c and prior anti-diabetic treatment status as predictor variables and a dependable variable of 1 (\<7%) or 0 (\>7%).||Odds ratio of having at least 1 post-baseline HbA1c value \<7% in the 10 mg bexagliflozin group was compared to placebo group.||5.1|0.8|0.1294
91896699|NCT02390050|183688968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|10.3|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, country, baseline HbA1c and prior anti-diabetic treatment status as predictor variables and a dependable variable of 1 (\<7%) or 0 (\>7%).||Odds ratio of having at least 1 post-baseline HbA1c value \<7% in the 20 mg bexagliflozin group was compared to placebo group.||10.3|1.7|0.0015
91896700|NCT02390050|183688969|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.36||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.36|-1.13|
91896701|NCT02390050|183688969|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.38||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.38|-1.15|
91896702|NCT02390050|183688969|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.61||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.61|-1.38|
91896703|NCT02390050|183688969|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.52||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.52|-1.53|
91896704|NCT02390050|183688969|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.94||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.94|-1.95|
91896705|NCT02390050|183688969|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-1.01||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-1.01|-2.01|
91896706|NCT02390050|183688969|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.76||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline weight as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.76|-2.12|< 0.0001
91896707|NCT02390050|183688969|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.91||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline weight as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.91|-2.26|< 0.0001
91646315|NCT01236053|183184695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.53|0.49|0.6164
91776256|NCT00674817|183433114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0498|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|0.089||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.089|-0.108|
91896708|NCT02390050|183688969|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.08||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline weight as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-1.08|-2.43|< 0.0001
91896709|NCT02390050|183688970|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.06|-0.90|
91896710|NCT02390050|183688970|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.48||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.48|-1.31|
91896711|NCT02390050|183688970|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.62||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.62|-1.45|
91896712|NCT02390050|183688970|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.48||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.48|-1.39|
91896713|NCT02390050|183688970|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.72||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.72|-1.62|
91896714|NCT02390050|183688970|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.65||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.65|-1.55|
91896715|NCT02390050|183688970|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.41||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline FPG as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.41|-1.29|0.0002
91646316|NCT01236053|183184695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.39|0.44|0.4002
91776257|NCT00674817|183433114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0522|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|-0.005||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||-0.005|-0.211|
91896716|NCT02390050|183688970|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.6||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline FPG as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.60|-1.49|< 0.0001
91896717|NCT02390050|183688970|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.63||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline FPG as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.63|-1.52|< 0.0001
91896718|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.51||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||3.51|-3.90|
91896719|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.28||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||1.28|-6.09|
91896720|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-0.58||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.58|-7.93|
91896721|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.13||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||2.13|-2.50|
91896722|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.56||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||0.56|-4.03|
91896723|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|0.14||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||0.14|-4.45|
91896724|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|2.9||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||2.90|-4.57|
91896725|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|0.34||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||0.34|-7.12|
91896726|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|1.2||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||1.20|-6.21|
91896727|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.66||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||2.66|-2.15|
91646317|NCT01236053|183184695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.66|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.66|0.25|0.7329
91708159|NCT02259699|183309210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.910
91708160|NCT02259699|183309211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.807
91776258|NCT00674817|183433114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0509|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.114||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.114|-0.087|
91776259|NCT00674817|183433114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.026||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.026|-0.180|
91776260|NCT00674817|183433114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0529|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.08||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.080|-0.129|
91776261|NCT00834977|183433122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|101.08||||||90.0|97.23|105.09|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.09|97.23|
91776262|NCT00834977|183433123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.38||||||90.0|96.63|102.22|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.22|96.63|
91776263|NCT00834977|183433124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.48||||||90.0|95.8|101.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.23|95.80|
91776264|NCT00834977|183433125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.72||||||90.0|86.95|112.09|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.09|86.95|
91776265|NCT00834977|183433126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|95.69||||||90.0|90.54|101.14|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||101.14|90.54|
91838080|NCT01316770|183556590|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||1.000
91838081|NCT01316770|183556590|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
91838082|NCT01316770|183556591|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||1.000
91838083|NCT01316770|183556591|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
91838084|NCT01316770|183556591|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||1.000
91838085|NCT01316770|183556591|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
91838086|NCT01316770|183556594|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||0.250
91838087|NCT01316770|183556594|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
91838088|NCT01316770|183556594|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||1.000
91838089|NCT01316770|183556594|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
91838090|NCT01316770|183556595|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||1.000
91838091|NCT01316770|183556595|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||0.625
91838092|NCT01316770|183556595|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||0.5000
91838093|NCT01316770|183556595|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
91776266|NCT00834977|183433127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Slope|99.43||||||90.0|96.48|102.46|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||102.46|96.48|
91776267|NCT00834977|183433128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|97.2||||||90.0|92.82|101.78|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.78|92.82|
91776268|NCT00834977|183433129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|96.99||||||90.0|92.52|101.68|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.68|92.52|
91776269|NCT00834977|183433130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.24||||||90.0|96.21|102.35|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||102.35|96.21|
91776270|NCT04723056|183433150|OTHER|||||||0.282||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||0.282
91776271|NCT04723056|183433151|OTHER|||||||0.217||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||0.217
91776272|NCT04723056|183433152|OTHER|||||||0.462||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||0.462
91776273|NCT04723056|183433152|OTHER|||||||0.179||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||0.179
91776274|NCT04723056|183433153|OTHER|||||||0.573||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||.573
91776275|NCT04723056|183433153|OTHER|||||||0.606||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.606
91776276|NCT04723056|183433154|OTHER|||||||0.181||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.181
91838094|NCT00909428|183556624|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|2.803||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change from baseline maximal tolerated cystometric capacity following 30 days of treatment with daily 10mg solifenacin succinate.||||.005
91896728|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|1.38||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||1.38|-3.42|
91896729|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.54||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||1.54|-3.22|
91838095|NCT00116844|183556626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||<0.001
91896730|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.16||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|1.94||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||1.94|-6.26|0.3001
91776277|NCT04723056|183433155|OTHER|||||||0.407||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.407
91776278|NCT04723056|183433156|OTHER|||||||0.643||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.643
91776279|NCT04723056|183433157|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||.625
91776280|NCT04723056|183433157|OTHER|||||||0.707||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.707
91776281|NCT05106894|183433159|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted difference between groups in composite scores calculated using an ordinary least squares linear regression model (with adjustments for sex of child, caregiver educational level, poverty score, birth weight and change in length for age Z score from 0 to 6 months).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.5||||||||5.5|-7.4|
91776282|NCT05106894|183433160|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted difference between groups in composite scores calculated using an ordinary least squares linear regression model (with adjustments for sex of child, caregiver educational level, poverty score, birth weight and change in length for age Z score from 0 to 6 months).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.6||||||||3.6|-8.3|
91776283|NCT05106894|183433161|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted difference between groups in composite scores calculated using an ordinary least squares linear regression model (with adjustments for sex of child, caregiver educational level, poverty score, birth weight and change in length for age Z score from 0 to 6 months).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.1||||||||2.1|-5.6|
91776284|NCT01968447|183433167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91776285|NCT04196777|183433202|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression analysis that measured the effect of the intervention at site 3. The below results show the interaction term between time and the intervention from this model. Time was measured in days divided by 365, giving an annualized figure for the time coefficient estimate and interaction coefficient.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.089||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.445|||Regression, Logistic|||To model the primary outcome for site 3, we used a logistic regression model and a set of three explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, and an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention).||0.445|0.016|0.004
91838096|NCT00116844|183556627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||<0.001
91838097|NCT00116844|183556628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Prescott's method|||||||<0.001
91838098|NCT00116844|183556629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.800
91838099|NCT00116844|183556630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.229
91838100|NCT00116844|183556631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0331||95.0|||||Prescott's method|||||||0.0331
91838101|NCT01933880|183556632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387|||||||Signed Rank Sum Test|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 12 for the OROS-MPH group||||0.0387
91838102|NCT01933880|183556633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 1 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
91838103|NCT01933880|183556634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 2 for the OROS-MPH group||||0.0001
91838104|NCT01933880|183556635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 3 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
91838105|NCT01933880|183556636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 7 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
91838106|NCT01933880|183556637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 12 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
91838107|NCT00069784|183556670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.022||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.114||For the analysis of the two coprimary efficacy outcomes, the overall Type 1 error was partitioned. The first coprimary outcome was tested at 4.4%, whereas the second coprimary outcome was tested at 1% (weighted Hochberg procedure).|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|The total required number of first coprimary outcomes (2200) assumed that a hazard reduction of 14-16% was clinically significant and controlled the overall experiment-wise Type 1 error at 5% with a power of 80% for each outcome. The total number of participants needed to achieve this number of events within the planned enrollment and treatment periods was ultimately estimated to be 12 500 based on the CURE and HOPE study databases.||1.114|0.937|0.6273
91838108|NCT00069784|183556671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.038||||0.2692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.109||The second coprimary outcome was tested at 1% (see above additional information for the first coprimary outcome).|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|See above additional details provided for the analysis of the first coprimary outcome.||1.109|0.972|0.2692
91838109|NCT00069784|183556672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.076|||||Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, with double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event as covariates.|||1.076|0.899|
91838110|NCT00069784|183556673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.047|||||Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, with double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event as covariates.|||1.047|0.900|
91838111|NCT00069784|183556674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||||Odds ratio estimated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test method stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA or placebo) and previous cardiovascular event (yes or no).|||0.91|0.58|
91708161|NCT02259699|183309212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.071
91838112|NCT04466215|183556677|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||One-tail test of directional hypothesis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with directional hypothesis that drug reduces strength of craving (VAS). Principle predictor was drug plasma concentration. Arms were combined for this analysis.||||.065
91838113|NCT00926003|183556679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||Least Square Means from Longitudinal Model, Their Standard Errors by Trial Arm Adjusted for Age, Being on ART at Intake, Socioeconomic Score, Home Score, Recruitment Location, KABC Learning and Delayed Recall Scores at Baseline, and Outcome Score at Baseline||||0.02
91838114|NCT00926003|183556680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||Least Square Means from Longitudinal Model, Their Standard Errors by Trial Arm Adjusted for Age, Being on ARV at Intake, Socioeconomic Score, Home Score, Recruitment Location, KABC Learning and Delayed Recall Scores at Baseline, and Outcome Score at Baseline||||0.18
91838115|NCT03017235|183556780|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI margin for the difference between treatments (NaP/MC Oral Solution minus PREPOPIK) was pre-specified at -8% (absolute). If NI was demonstrated for both the primary efficacy endpoint and the secondary efficacy endpoint for the right colon, and if the lower bound of the CI was above 0%, then superiority was declared for the primary endpoint. Thus, the pre-specified superiority analysis was conducted at a one-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Difference in percentage|6.3||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.9||The above p-value was calculated for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference test, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in the percentage of subjects on NaP/MC or PREPOPIK (NaP/MC - PREPOPIK)|Lower limit of 95% CI \> 0% for the primary efficacy endpoint combined with outcome of secondary efficacy endpoint for the right colon allowed for superiority analysis.|10.9|1.8|0.0067
91851597|NCT04246762|183586820|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|73.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.18|84.27|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of omeprazole with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||84.27|64.18|
91838116|NCT03017235|183556781|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than the margin (-8%), the null hypothesis was rejected and NaP/MC Oral Solution was claimed as non-inferior to PREPOPIK with respect to right colon cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy.|Difference in percentage|4.6||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.0||The p-value was calculated for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference test, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in the percentage of subjects on NaP/MC or PREPOPIK (NaP/MC - PREPOPIK)||8.0|1.1|0.0099
91896731|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-4.41||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-0.33||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.33|-8.49|0.0343
91896732|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-3.83||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|0.28|||ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||0.28|-7.95|0.0679
91896733|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.24||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|0.25||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||0.25|-4.73|0.0776
91896734|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.47||||0.2415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|1.0||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||1.00|-3.95|0.2415
91896735|NCT02390050|183688971|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.04||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|0.46||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||0.46|-4.54|0.1086
91896736|NCT02390050|183688972|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03||||||Week 2: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||0.03|-0.20|
91896737|NCT02390050|183688972|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.02||||||Week 2: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.02|-0.24|
91896738|NCT02390050|183688972|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.02||||||Week 2: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.02|-0.24|
91896739|NCT02390050|183688972|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.28||||||Week 6: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.28|-0.62|
91896740|NCT02390050|183688972|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.32||||||Week 6: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.32|-0.66|
91896741|NCT02390050|183688972|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.36||||||Week 6: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.36|-0.70|
91896742|NCT02390050|183688972|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.34||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.34|-0.76|< 0.0001
91896743|NCT02390050|183688972|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.47||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.47|-0.89|< 0.0001
91896744|NCT02390050|183688972|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.59||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.59|-1.01|< 0.0001
91896745|NCT03727438|183688974|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.4||alpha=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Model parameters included a common intercept (baseline means constrained to be equal), stratification variables, timepoint, and arm by timepoint.||"Analyses were conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. All available data, including observations from participants who dropped out of the study, were used for primary and secondary analyses. Our modeling estimation approach was conducted with full-likelihood methods, providing unbiased treatment effect estimates under a missing-data framework known as missing at random (MAR)."||-2.4|-5.0|<0.01
91896746|NCT03727438|183688975|EQUIVALENCE|alpha= .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-12.5||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.5|-26.7|<0.01
91708162|NCT02259699|183309212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.332
91896747|NCT03727438|183688976|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-12.0||alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.0|-29.1|<0.01
91896748|NCT03727438|183688977|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|alpha = 0.05||||14.3|7.7|<0.01
91776286|NCT04196777|183433202|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression analysis that measured the effect of the intervention at site 1. The below results show the interaction term between time and the intervention from this model. Time was measured in days divided by 365, giving an annualized figure for the time coefficient estimate and interaction coefficient.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.593||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.585|||Regression, Logistic|||To model the primary outcome for site 1, we used a logistic regression model and a set of three explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, and an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention).||3.585|0.710|0.259
91838117|NCT03017235|183556782|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than the margin (-8%), the null hypothesis was rejected and NaP/MC Oral Solution was claimed as non-inferior to PREPOPIK with respect to right colon cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy.|Difference in percentage|1.9||||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.7||The above p-value was tested for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference test, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran Mantel Haenszel weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in percentage of subjects on NaP/MC Oral Solution or PREPOPIK® (NaP/MC - PREPOPIK)||4.7|-0.9|0.1781
91896749|NCT03727438|183688978|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.1||Alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-12.5|> 0.05
91896750|NCT03727438|183688979|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||alpha =.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5|-.4|>0.05
91646318|NCT01236053|183184695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.33|0.22|0.5731
91896751|NCT03727438|183688980|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9||alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|0.2|<0.05
91896752|NCT06729606|183688981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.55||Proportional odds model stratified by disease severity (high flow nasal canula \[HFNC\]/non-invasive ventilation \[NIV\] or invasive mechanical ventiliation \[IMV\]/ECMO) at study entry to determine the odds of being in a better category at day 90.|Proportional odds model||Summary odds ratio for being in a better category, active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.55|0.80|0.54
91896753|NCT06729606|183688982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.41|0.77|0.78
91896754|NCT06729606|183688983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.08|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||2.08|0.94|0.10
91896755|NCT06729606|183688984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.44|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.44|0.95|0.15
91896756|NCT06729606|183688985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.42|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.42|0.79|0.71
91896757|NCT02491632|183688991|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
91896758|NCT02491632|183688991|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
91896759|NCT02491632|183688991|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
91896760|NCT02491632|183688991|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
91896761|NCT02491632|183688992|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||=.003
91896762|NCT02491632|183688992|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
91896763|NCT02491632|183688992|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
91896764|NCT02491632|183688992|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
91896765|NCT02491632|183688993|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
91896766|NCT02491632|183688993|OTHER||||||<|0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.065
91896767|NCT02491632|183688993|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
91896768|NCT02491632|183688993|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
91896769|NCT02491632|183688994|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
91896770|NCT02491632|183688994|OTHER||||||=|0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||=.30
91896771|NCT02491632|183688994|OTHER||||||=|0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||=.19
91896772|NCT02491632|183688994|OTHER||||||=|0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||=.27
91896773|NCT00231153|183689001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Net percentage difference|2.25||||0.082||95.0|-0.3|4.81||The primary null hypothesis was tested using the CMH chi-square test stratified region: North America or Europe. Alpha for this test will be 0.05, tow-tailed. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Adequate power was provided to test the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between treatment groups for LCSI. Overall LCSI rate was assumed to be approx. 7.5%, with reduction of LCSI by 40% with omiganan. LCSI rates in placebo and omiganan groups would be 9.375% and 5.625%. Sample size of 1548 in MITT set would provide 80% power to detect this difference between treatments. Sample size was also increased by 19% to account for deaths, for total of 1850 planned patients.||4.81|-0.30|0.082
91896774|NCT00231153|183689002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Net percentage difference|3.67||||0.002||95.0|1.4|5.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.93|1.40|0.002
91896775|NCT00231153|183689003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Net percentage difference|11.4|||<|0.001||95.0|6.7|16.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.11|6.70|<0.001
91896776|NCT00604279|183689015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predetermined margin for non-inferiority of paliperidone palmitate was 5.5 points|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||||95.0|-5.2|0.63|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||||0.63|-5.20|
91776287|NCT04196777|183433202|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression analysis that measured the effect of the intervention at site 2. The below results show the interaction term between time and the intervention from this model. Time was measured in days divided by 365, giving an annualized figure for the time coefficient estimate and interaction coefficient.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.748||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|4.147|||Regression, Logistic|||To model the primary outcome for site 2, we used a logistic regression model and a set of three explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, and an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention).||4.147|0.135|0.738
91776288|NCT04196777|183433203|OTHER|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test assessed whether the post-procedural antimicrobial duration significantly differed at site 3 between the baseline and intervention periods.|Rank sum test statistic|1280.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median duration of post-procedural antimicrobial prescriptions at site 3 were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.001
91776289|NCT04196777|183433203|OTHER|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test assessed whether the post-procedural antimicrobial duration significantly differed at site 1 between the baseline and intervention periods.|Rank sum test statistic|28662.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median duration of post-procedural antimicrobial prescriptions at site 1 were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.Type of statistical test||||0.013
91776290|NCT04196777|183433203|OTHER|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test assessed whether the post-procedural antimicrobial duration significantly differed at site 2 between the baseline and intervention periods.|Rank sum test statistic|784.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median duration of post-procedural antimicrobial prescriptions at site 2 were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.14
91776291|NCT04196777|183433204|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression model that included patients across all 3 sites.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||To model this secondary outcome, we used a logistic regression model and a set of four explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention), and a binary indicator for the primary outcome. This last variable was included to assess the risk of these secondary outcomes in patients who were not exposed to post-procedural antimicrobials compared to those who were exposed.||0.99|0.58|0.04
91838118|NCT03017235|183556783|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than the margin (-8%), the null hypothesis was rejected and NaP/MC Oral Solution was claimed as non-inferior to PREPOPIK with respect to colon cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy.|Difference in percentage|3.5||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.7||The above p-value was for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in percentage of subjects on NaP/MC Oral Solution or PREPOPIK® (NaP/MC-PREPOPIK®)||6.7|0.2|0.0391
91838119|NCT00708526|183556803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|A Bonferroni correction was used.||We compared times for discharge criteria after general anesthesia with and without the QED.||||>0.05
91838120|NCT00708526|183556804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The effect of the use of hypercapnia and increased ventilation on the time to recovery events was compared using multivariate analysis of variance with the Hotelling's two sample T2.-test and the two-tailed unpaired t-test; individual comparisons were by Bonferroni adjusted two tailed unpaired t-tests. The data was tested for normality before identifying statistical significance.||||0.039
91838121|NCT02966002|183556825|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91646319|NCT01236053|183184695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.63|0.69|0.3762
91838122|NCT02966002|183556826|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91838123|NCT02966002|183556827|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91896777|NCT00604279|183689016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||||95.0|-2.14|3.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||||3.12|-2.14|
91838124|NCT02966002|183556828|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91838125|NCT01350141|183556846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-21.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.385||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.85|-4.77|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, background statin as independent factors and treatment by background statin interaction, baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-4.77|-38.85|0.0137
91838126|NCT01350141|183556846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.62|-29.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment, background statin as independent factors and treatment by background statin interaction, baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-29.22|-63.62|<0.0001
91646320|NCT01236053|183184695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.36|0.62|0.5820
91708163|NCT02259699|183309213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.177
91838127|NCT01350141|183556847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.825||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|169.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||169.74|0.36|0.1900
91838128|NCT01350141|183556847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.518||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|1512.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||1512.10|3.48|0.0057
91838129|NCT01350141|183556847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.75||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|175.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||175.63|3.49|0.0013
91896778|NCT00604279|183689017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||95.0|-0.33|0.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||||0.10|-0.33|
91776292|NCT04196777|183433205|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression model that included patients across all 3 sites.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|||To model this secondary outcome across all sites, we used a logistic regression model and a set of four explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention), and a binary indicator for the primary outcome.||0.87|0.53|<0.01
91776293|NCT00981656|183433209|OTHER|No testing is done, conclusions are made based on the confidence interval.||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis = this treatment will result in 75% of participants free from radical cystectomy at 3 years. A lower confidence bound of 60% will be promising enough to pursue this regimen further. A sample size of 33 analyzable patients provides a one-sided 97.5% lower bound of 60% relative to the hypothesized 75%. In terms of type I error, this design provides a 2.5% chance of observing a 3-year percentage less than 60% if the true rate is 75%.|If the lower confidence interval (CI) limit was above 60% then the regimen would be considered promising enough to warrant further study for this treatment regimen. If the lower limit was below 25% then the treatment would not be considered worthy of further study. If the lower limit fell between 25% and 60%, the investigators would consider the possibility of further investigation.|||
91776294|NCT04026113|183433221|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.689||ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||1.689|0.651|< 0.0001
91776295|NCT04026113|183433221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4323||||||Treatment-by-Age Group Interaction P-value: Interaction P-value base on ANCOVA model with treatment, age group, treatment-by-age group interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4323
91776296|NCT04026113|183433223|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.638||ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.638|0.208|0.0001
91776297|NCT04026113|183433223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4381||||||Treatment-by-Age Group Interaction P-value: Interaction P-value base on ANCOVA model with treatment, age group, treatment-by-age group interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4381
91776298|NCT01709721|183433257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Superiority of intrathecal hydromorphone hydrochloride as compared to a control arm.||||0.147
91708164|NCT02259699|183309213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.745
91776299|NCT01709721|183433258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0342|||||||ANCOVA|||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0342
91776300|NCT01709721|183433259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642|||||||ANCOVA|||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.1642
91776301|NCT01709721|183433260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0160
91776302|NCT01709721|183433261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0007
91776303|NCT01709721|183433262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0088
91776304|NCT01709721|183433263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Log-rank test for Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Rescue (days).|Log Rank|||||||0.011
91776305|NCT01709721|183433264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0335|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test (using equally spaced scores).||||0.0335
91776306|NCT01709721|183433266|SUPERIORITY|Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.01||||||Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
91776307|NCT03402217|183433271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pre and post-score paired comparison.||||.383
91776308|NCT03402217|183433272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Information pre-post paired comparison||||.001
91776309|NCT03402217|183433272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Motivation pre- and post-paired comparison.||||.07
91776310|NCT03402217|183433272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Behavior pre and post paired comparison||||.230
91776311|NCT02135861|183433281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.26||estimates of total lung|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2600|0.0600|0.0029
91776312|NCT02135861|183433281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1825||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0855|0.2795||estimates of left lung|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2795|0.0855|0.0007
91776313|NCT02135861|183433281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1565||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0419|0.2711||estimates of right lung|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2711|0.0419|0.0093
91776314|NCT02135861|183433281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1764||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0823|0.2704||estimates of left lung apical|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2704|0.0823|0.0007
91776315|NCT02135861|183433281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1999||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0894|0.3103||estimates of left lung basal|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.3103|0.0894|0.0010
91776316|NCT02135861|183433281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0276|0.2443||estimates of right lung apical|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2443|0.0276|0.0159
91776317|NCT02135861|183433281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1748||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0535|0.2961||estimates of right lung basal|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2961|0.0535|0.0064
91776318|NCT02135861|183433282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0137||||0.7381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0968|0.0695||estimates of total lung|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0695|-0.0968|0.7381
91776319|NCT02135861|183433282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0136||||0.6992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.0852||estimates of left lung|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0852|-0.0580|0.6992
91776320|NCT02135861|183433282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0258||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1201|0.0684||estimates of right lung|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0684|-0.1201|0.5778
91776321|NCT02135861|183433282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0005||||0.9899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0738|0.0747||estimates of left lung apical|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0747|-0.0738|0.9899
91776322|NCT02135861|183433282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0396||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.1153||estimates of left lung basal|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.1153|-0.0360|0.2912
91776323|NCT02135861|183433282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0362||||0.4592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1355|0.0631||estimates of right lung apical|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0631|-0.1355|0.4592
91896779|NCT00604279|183689018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||||95.0|-0.67|7.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||Statistical Analysis for Quality of sleep||7.50|-0.67|
91776324|NCT02135861|183433282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0118||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1036|0.08||estimates of right lung basal|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0800|-0.1036|0.7936
91776325|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1148||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0236|0.2061||estimates of total lung- Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2061|0.0236|0.0156
91776326|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1366||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0523|0.2209||estimates of left lung- Pre-exercise|ANOVA|estimates of left lung- Pre-exercise|||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2209|0.0523|0.0026
91776327|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1067||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0094|0.204||estimates of right lung- Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2040|0.0094|0.0328
91776328|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1145||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0235|0.2056||estimates of left lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2056|0.0235|0.0158
91896780|NCT00604279|183689018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||||95.0|-5.04|2.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||Statistical Analysis for Daytime drowsiness||2.90|-5.04|
91776329|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1776||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0917|0.2635||estimates of left lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2635|0.0917|0.0002
91776330|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0956||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0067|0.1979||estimates of right lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.1979|-0.0067|0.0658
91776331|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1194||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0251|0.2137||estimates of right lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2137|0.0251|0.0150
91776332|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1428||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0598|0.2259||estimates of total lung-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2259|0.0598|0.0015
91776333|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1776|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1057|0.2496||estimates of left lung-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2496|0.1057|<.0001
91776334|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0308|0.2212||estimates of right lung-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2212|0.0308|0.0114
91776335|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1464||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0774|0.2153||estimates of left lung apical-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2153|0.0774|0.0002
91776336|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1266|0.3008||estimates of left lung basal-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.3008|0.1266|<.0001
91776337|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1111||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0151|0.2071||estimates of right lung apical-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2071|0.0151|0.0250
91776338|NCT02135861|183433283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1458||||0.0052||95.0|0.0475|0.2442||estimates of right lung basal-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2442|0.0475|0.0052
91776339|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0524||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1292|0.0244||estimates of total lung-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0244|-0.1292|0.1730
91776340|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0423||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1196|0.0349||estimates of left lung-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0349|-0.1196|0.2704
91776341|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0515||||0.2072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1334|0.0303||estimates of right lung-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0303|-0.1334|0.2072
91776342|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0603||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1398|0.0191||estimates of left lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0191|-0.1398|0.1307
91896781|NCT00604279|183689019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate of relative risk|0.9||||||95.0|0.81|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.81|
91776343|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0078||||0.8427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0879|0.0722||estimates of left lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0722|-0.0879|0.8427
91776344|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0506||||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1269|0.0257||estimates of right lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0257|-0.1269|0.1848
91776345|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0413||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1286|0.0461||estimates of right lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0461|-0.1286|0.3408
91776346|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0267||||0.3682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0866|0.0332||estimates of total lung-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0332|-0.0866|0.3682
91776347|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0201||||0.4531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0744|0.0342||estimates of left lung-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0342|-0.0744|0.4531
91776348|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0188||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0909|0.0533||estimates of right lung-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0533|-0.0909|0.5970
91838130|NCT01350141|183556847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.326||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|426.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||426.01|5.26|0.0006
91896782|NCT03938545|183689020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4|||=|0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|54.1||p-values were obtained from a Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by smoking status at baseline comparing RVT-1401 680 mg/Week group to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The risk difference was obtained from a weighted average of the difference within each stratum using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||54.1|-11.3|=0.1993
91896783|NCT03938545|183689020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|||=|0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|53.2||p-values were obtained from a Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by smoking status at baseline comparing RVT-1401 340 mg/Week group to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The risk difference was obtained from a weighted average of the difference within each stratum using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||53.2|-4.8|=0.1016
91896784|NCT03938545|183689020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3|||=|0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|7.3||p-values were obtained from a Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by smoking status at baseline comparing RVT-1401 255 mg/Week group to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The risk difference was obtained from a weighted average of the difference within each stratum using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||7.3|-24.0|=0.2963
91896785|NCT03938545|183689022|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-60.085|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.857|-31.313|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||||-31.313|-88.857|<0.001
91896786|NCT03938545|183689022|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-65.143|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.927|-38.358|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||||-38.358|-91.927|<0.001
91896787|NCT03938545|183689022|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-37.323|||=|0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.455|-4.19|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||||-4.190|-70.455|=0.0284
91646321|NCT01236053|183184695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.23|0.58|0.4782
91838131|NCT01350141|183556847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.635||||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|14.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||14.73|0.18|0.6611
91896788|NCT03938545|183689023|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-73.003|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.309|-63.697|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||Week 13||-63.697|-82.309|<0.001
91896789|NCT03938545|183689023|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-59.005|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.821|-50.19|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||Week 13||-50.190|-67.821|<0.001
91646322|NCT01236053|183184695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.52|0.44|0.8998
91838132|NCT01350141|183556847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.486||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|98.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||98.61|1.84|0.0104
91838133|NCT01350141|183556847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.43||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|33.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||33.89|1.22|0.0282
91838134|NCT01350141|183556847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.257||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|98.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||98.42|2.36|0.0042
91838135|NCT01350141|183556847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.967||||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|79.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||79.24|0.11|0.5164
91838136|NCT01350141|183556847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.36||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|422.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||422.94|1.08|0.0445
91838137|NCT01350141|183556847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.157||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|49.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||49.37|1.35|0.0223
91838138|NCT01350141|183556847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.587||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|90.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||90.40|2.04|0.0070
91838139|NCT01350141|183556848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.647||||0.2928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|142.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||142.04|0.22|0.2928
91838140|NCT01350141|183556848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|591.174||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.68|29922.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||29922.99|11.68|0.0014
91838141|NCT01350141|183556848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.468||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|26.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||26.88|0.45|0.2339
91838142|NCT01350141|183556848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.442||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|181.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||181.11|3.03|0.0025
91838143|NCT01350141|183556848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.502||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|192.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||192.32|0.38|0.1786
91896790|NCT03938545|183689023|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-51.836|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.66|-41.012|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||Week 13||-41.012|-62.660|<0.001
91896791|NCT03938545|183689024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-81.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.203|-69.777|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG1||-69.777|-93.203|<0.001
91646323|NCT01236053|183184695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.99|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.99|0.53|0.9308
91776349|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0159||||0.5472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0693|0.0375||estimates of left lung apical-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0375|-0.0693|0.5472
91776350|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0125||||0.6793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0742|0.0491||estimates of left lung basal-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0491|-0.0742|0.6793
91776351|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0249||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0964|0.0466||estimates of right lung apical-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0466|-0.0964|0.4806
91776352|NCT02135861|183433284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0029||||0.9379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0789|0.0731||estimates of right lung basal-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0731|-0.0789|0.9379
91776353|NCT02992288|183433304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2297||||||Linear dose-response shape: The multiple comparison procedures (MCP) approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.2297
91776354|NCT02992288|183433304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4409||||||Sigmoidal Emax 1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.4409
91838144|NCT01350141|183556848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.185||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|1107.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||1107.57|2.37|0.0121
91838145|NCT01454830|183556874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||unit of measurement, hours/night; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Pilot RCT designed to establish effect size and feasibility outcomes; no a priori power calculation; statistical significance with hypotheses testing was not objective of the pilot trial||||0.20
91896792|NCT03938545|183689024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-67.591|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.562|-56.62|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG1||-56.620|-78.562|<0.001
91896793|NCT03938545|183689024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-67.233|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.073|-53.394|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG1||-53.394|-81.073|<0.001
91896794|NCT03938545|183689024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-74.865|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.898|-62.832|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG2||-62.832|-86.898|<0.001
91896795|NCT03938545|183689024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-53.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.799|-41.596|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG2||-41.596|-64.799|<0.001
91646324|NCT01236053|183184695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.56|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.56|0.41|0.5125
91646325|NCT01236053|183184696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.33|0.37|0.8655
91776355|NCT02992288|183433304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2842||||||Sigmoidal Emax 2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.2842
91776356|NCT02992288|183433304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2534||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.2534
91776357|NCT02992288|183433304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3842||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.3842
91776358|NCT02992288|183433305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8966||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.8966
91776359|NCT02992288|183433305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9233||||||Sigmoidal Emax 1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9233
91896796|NCT03938545|183689024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-53.398|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.552|-39.245|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG2||-39.245|-67.552|<0.001
91896797|NCT03938545|183689024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-88.764|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.039|-74.489|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG3||-74.489|-103.039|<0.001
91896798|NCT03938545|183689024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-65.714|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.742|-52.686|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG3||-52.686|-78.742|<0.001
91896799|NCT03938545|183689024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-66.685|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.157|-50.214|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG3||-50.214|-83.157|<0.001
91896800|NCT03938545|183689024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-68.722|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.877|-56.568|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG4||-56.568|-80.877|<0.001
91896801|NCT03938545|183689024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-55.554|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.182|-43.926|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG4||-43.926|-67.182|<0.001
91896802|NCT03938545|183689024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-53.079|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.948|-38.21|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG4||-38.210|-67.948|<0.001
91896803|NCT01060540|183689039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for family history (low/unknown vs. high/moderate) and BMI\>=35 (yes vs no) stratification variables||||0.7|-0.3|0.44
91776360|NCT02992288|183433305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9296||||||Sigmoidal Emax 2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9296
91896804|NCT01060540|183689040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||adjusted for baseline BMI class and family history level stratification variables|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.1|0.19
91896805|NCT01060540|183689041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||adjusted for stratification variables baseline BMI and family history|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|0.38
91896806|NCT01060540|183689042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||adjusted for baseline family history and BMI|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.2|0.05
91896807|NCT01060540|183689043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|0.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||adjusted for baseline family history and BMI|generalized linear model for count data|||||1.2|0.7|0.68
91896808|NCT02647320|183689047|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.211|0.309|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.309|-0.211|.755
91776361|NCT02992288|183433305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7357||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.7357
91896809|NCT02647320|183689047|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.371|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.371|-0.160|.512
91896810|NCT02647320|183689047|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.312|0.151|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.151|-0.312|.566
91896811|NCT02647320|183689047|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.655|-0.197|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-0.197|-0.655|.002
91896812|NCT02647320|183689048|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.76|0.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.58|-9.76|.144
91776362|NCT02992288|183433305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9083||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9083
91776363|NCT02992288|183433306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4596||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.4596
91896813|NCT02647320|183689048|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.14|4.31|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.31|-6.14|.773
91896814|NCT02647320|183689048|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|4.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.48|-4.73|.963
91896815|NCT02647320|183689048|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.64|1.42|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||1.42|-7.64|.258
91896816|NCT02647320|183689049|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.74|2.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||2.43|-15.74|.228
91896817|NCT02647320|183689049|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.36|9.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||9.84|-8.36|.894
91896818|NCT02647320|183689049|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.846|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.97|7.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||7.08|-8.97|.846
91896819|NCT02647320|183689049|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.82|3.93|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.93|-11.82|.409
91896820|NCT02647320|183689050|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.83|5.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||5.73|-2.83|.576
91896821|NCT02647320|183689050|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.53|3.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.12|-5.53|.646
91646326|NCT01236053|183184696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.05|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.05|0.32|0.6482
91776364|NCT02992288|183433306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7859||||||Sigmoidal Emax1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.7859
91896822|NCT02647320|183689050|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.52|4.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.08|-3.52|.902
91896823|NCT02647320|183689050|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.35|2.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||2.13|-5.35|.478
91896824|NCT02647320|183689051|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22||0.072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.57|-0.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-0.64|-14.57|.072
91896825|NCT02647320|183689051|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26||0.794|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.15|5.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||5.92|-8.15|.794
91896826|NCT02647320|183689051|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|5.94|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||5.94|-6.45|.946
91896827|NCT02647320|183689051|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.99|3.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.18|-8.99|.431
91896828|NCT02647320|183689052|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.43|3.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.78|-24.43|.228
91896829|NCT02647320|183689052|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|14.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||14.77|-13.70|.951
91896830|NCT02647320|183689052|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.96|11.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||11.13|-13.96|.852
91896831|NCT02647320|183689052|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.13|8.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||8.48|-16.13|.608
91896832|NCT02647320|183689053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.289||0.728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.932|30.566|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||30.566|-19.932|.728
91896833|NCT02647320|183689053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.853||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.446|22.914|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||22.914|-29.446|.837
91646327|NCT01236053|183184696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.76|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.76|0.53|0.9003
91776365|NCT02992288|183433306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5562||||||Sigmoidal Emax2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.5562
91896834|NCT02647320|183689053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.747||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.352|19.051|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||19.051|-26.352|.791
91896835|NCT02647320|183689053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.472||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.283|-17.787|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-17.787|-62.283|.003
91896836|NCT02647320|183689054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.396||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.312|38.087|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||38.087|-29.312|.830
91896837|NCT02647320|183689054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.335||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.354|57.848|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||57.848|-9.354|.235
91896838|NCT02647320|183689054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.72||0.331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.03|46.529|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||46.529|-12.030|.331
91896839|NCT02647320|183689054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.393||0.091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.254|-0.775|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-0.775|-58.254|.091
91896840|NCT02647320|183689055|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.835|16.815|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||16.815|-13.835|.873
91896841|NCT02647320|183689055|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.505||0.395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.79|7.604|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||7.604|-23.790|.395
91896842|NCT02647320|183689055|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.306||0.761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.247|11.185|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||11.185|-16.247|.761
91896843|NCT02647320|183689055|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.22|-14.236|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-14.236|-41.220|<0.001
91896844|NCT02647320|183689056|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.001||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.441|12.221|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||12.221|-27.441|.527
91896845|NCT02647320|183689056|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.927|12.138|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||12.138|-26.927|.532
91896846|NCT02647320|183689056|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.421||0.672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.635|12.807|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||12.807|-21.635|.672
91896847|NCT02647320|183689056|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.229||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.482|-14.676|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-14.676|-48.482|.002
91896848|NCT02647320|183689057|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|3.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||3.60|-15.90|.298
91896849|NCT02647320|183689057|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.37|-6.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||-6.27|-26.37|.008
91896850|NCT02647320|183689057|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.31|-0.75|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||-0.75|-18.31|.074
91896851|NCT02647320|183689057|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.96|-18.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||-18.38|-35.96|<0.001
91896852|NCT02647320|183689058|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.04|8.63|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||8.63|-11.04|.840
91896853|NCT02647320|183689058|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.94|-1.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-1.91|-21.94|.050
91896854|NCT02647320|183689058|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31||0.227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.21|2.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||2.33|-15.21|.227
91896855|NCT02647320|183689058|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.83|-4.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-4.43|-21.83|0.13
91708165|NCT03230838|183309235|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Percentage Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|17.9|||||Ceftolozane/Tazobactam (C/T) minus Meropenem (Mero)|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||17.9|-19.7|
91708166|NCT03230838|183309236|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Percentage Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.5|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||5.5|-9.5|
91708167|NCT03230838|183309237|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.99|10.05|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||10.05|-17.99|
91708168|NCT03230838|183309238|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|8.88|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||8.88|-14.09|
91708169|NCT03230838|183309239|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|17.4|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||17.40|-17.13|
91708170|NCT03230838|183309240|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with CMH weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|13.41|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||13.41|-12.67|
91708171|NCT00497055|183309241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.41||95.0|0.66|1.16|||Generalized estimating equation|||||1.16|.66|.41
91708172|NCT00497055|183309242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91708173|NCT00497055|183309243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>=|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>=0.99
91708174|NCT02697734|183309246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|343.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||343.19|7.06|<.0001
91708175|NCT02033200|183309343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|0.744|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.744|-0.592|0.8216
91708176|NCT02033200|183309343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.771|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had adequate power to detect a meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.771|-0.258|0.324
91708177|NCT02033200|183309344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.031|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||0.031|-0.024|0.7864
91708178|NCT02033200|183309344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.012|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||0.012|-0.056|0.1953
91708179|NCT02033200|183309345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.039|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||-0.039|-0.280|0.0101
91708180|NCT02033200|183309345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.035|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||0.035|-0.209|0.1583
91708181|NCT02033200|183309346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|0.685|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in Intraocular Pressure between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||0.685|-0.746|0.9324
91708182|NCT02033200|183309346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|1.44|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in intraocular pressure between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||1.44|0.057|0.0343
91896856|NCT02647320|183689059|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.77|13.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||13.88|-7.77|.642
91896857|NCT02647320|183689059|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.52|6.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||6.68|-15.52|.512
91896858|NCT02647320|183689059|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.66|5.54|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||5.54|-13.66|.486
91646328|NCT01236053|183184696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.56|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.56|0.46|0.6000
91776366|NCT02992288|183433306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5338||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.5338
91896859|NCT02647320|183689059|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.31|-7.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||-7.16|-26.31|.004
91896860|NCT02647320|183689060|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.09|4.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.70|-22.09|.285
91896861|NCT02647320|183689060|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.73|-5.49|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-5.49|-31.73|.020
91896862|NCT02647320|183689060|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.6|-1.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-1.35|-24.60|.067
91896863|NCT02647320|183689060|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.76|-6.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-6.03|-28.76|.012
91776367|NCT02992288|183433306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7303||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.7303
91896864|NCT00596427|183689062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Change from baseline between groups were compared.||||<0.01
91896865|NCT00596427|183689063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Change from baseline between groups was compared.||||<0.001
91896866|NCT00596427|183689064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|This model had fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction and a random subject effect.||Comparison of change from baseline between groups (treatment effect)||||<0.1
91896867|NCT00596427|183689065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||<0.01
91896868|NCT00596427|183689066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||<0.05
91776368|NCT02992288|183433307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5703||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.5703
91776369|NCT02992288|183433307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8253||||||Sigmoidal Emax1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.8253
91896869|NCT00596427|183689067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Change from baseline between groups were compared (treatment effect)||||<0.1
91896870|NCT00596427|183689068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||0.05
91896871|NCT00596427|183689069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||0.6
91896872|NCT00596427|183689070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Treatment effect of change from baseline||||0.3
91896873|NCT00596427|183689071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Treatment effect of change from baseline||||<0.0001
91896874|NCT00596427|183689072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Treatment effect of change from baseline||||<0.01
91896875|NCT00596427|183689073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||<0.1
91896876|NCT02401867|183689074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We selected our initial sample size of 150 participants to detect a clinically meaningful % discordance between the two sampling approaches and achieve 90% power at the 0.05 alpha-level using McNemar's test adjusted for analysis of clustered matched-pair data.||||||0.29||||||Statistical significance was determined at an a priori threshold of p \<0.05|McNemar|Degrees of freedom = 1||Comparing the concordance of the HPV DNA-positive results to the cervical provider swab HPV DNA test results (reference) using the McNemar's test, a two-sample test for binomial proportions for matched-pair data. Null hypothesis: The sensitivities between swab 1 (self-vaginal) and swab 2 (provider-cervical) are equal \[ H0 : p1 = p2 \]||||.29
91896877|NCT02401867|183689074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92||A priori threshold: p\<0.05|Kappa||Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.|Concordance of HPV DNA detection between self-swab and provider swab assessed via an unweighted Kappa (K) statistic to determine the percentage agreement beyond that expected by chance.||0.92|0.58|<0.001
91896878|NCT02401867|183689074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|71.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.82|88.72|||||Used exact confidence intervals.|Assessed sensitivity of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).||88.72|47.82|
91896879|NCT02401867|183689074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessed specificity of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).|Specificity|98.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.59|99.78|||||Used exact confidence intervals.|||99.78|93.59|
91896880|NCT02401867|183689074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|88.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.56|98.54|||||Used exact confidence intervals.|Assessed positive predictive value of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).||98.54|63.56|
91896881|NCT02401867|183689074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative predictive value|94.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.9|98.04|||||Used exact confidence intervals|Assessed negative predictive value of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).||98.04|88.90|
91776370|NCT02992288|183433307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6506||||||Sigmoidal Emax2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.6506
91776371|NCT02992288|183433307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6923||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.6923
91776372|NCT02992288|183433307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8036||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.8036
91776373|NCT02992288|183433308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9955||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9955
91776374|NCT02992288|183433308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9946||||||Sigmoidal Emax1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9946
91776375|NCT02992288|183433308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9913||||||Sigmoidal Emax2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9913
91838146|NCT01454830|183556875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||unit of measurement: hours/night; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Pilot RCT designed to establish effect size and feasibility outcomes; no a priori power calculation; statistical significance with hypotheses testing was not objective of the pilot trial||||0.90
91776376|NCT02992288|183433308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9982||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9982
91776377|NCT02992288|183433308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9959||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9959
91896882|NCT00081770|183689077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.567||95.0|0.79|1.14||Holm's method for multiplicity adjustment was to be used to control the overall Type I error rate at α = 0.05. However, since there was no significant difference in the overall SVR rates between the three groups, no Type-1 error adjustment was made.|Regression, Logistic|The p-value is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors (viral load and race).|The odds ratio is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors: viral load (≤600,000 IU/mL vs \>600,000 IU/mL) and race (Black vs non-Black).|||1.14|0.79|0.567
91646329|NCT01236053|183184696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.06|0.27|0.5670
91776378|NCT00656513|183433316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||An effect size of 0.50 was chosen for sample size calculation. On the basis of a 2-sided t test with alpha= 0.05 and 1 interim analysis, 130 patients were required for 80% statistical power. Adjustment by 10% for loss to follow-up and retrospective ineligibility of recruited study participants yielded a sample size of 144 patients. Actual power given only 96 patients was 68.6%||||0.45
91776379|NCT00656513|183433318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Two-sided test of values at 4 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91776380|NCT00656513|183433318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Two-sided test of values at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91776381|NCT00656513|183433318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Two-sided test of values at 15 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
91776382|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||4-month Physical Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
91776383|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||4 months Pain/Discomfort score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91776384|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||4 months Personal/Psychological Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91776385|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||4-month Social Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
91776386|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||6-month Physical Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
91776387|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||6-month Pain/Discomfort score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
91776388|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||6-month Personal/Psychological Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91776389|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||6-month Social Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91776390|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||9-month Physical Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91776391|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||9-month Pain/Discomfort score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91776392|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||9-month Personal/Psychological Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
91776393|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||9-month Social Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91896883|NCT00081770|183689077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.195||95.0|0.9|1.3||Holm's method for multiplicity adjustment was to be used to control the overall Type I error rate at α = 0.05. However, since there was no significant difference in the overall SVR rates between the three groups, no Type-1 error adjustment was made.|Regression, Logistic|The p-value is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors (viral load and race).|The odds ratio is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors: viral load (≤600,000 IU/mL vs \>600,000 IU/mL) and race (Black vs non-Black).|||1.30|0.90|0.195
91896884|NCT00081770|183689079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|39.9||||||95.0|36.9|42.9|||||Percentage of participants with undetectable HCV-RNA at Treatment Week 12|||42.9|36.9|
91896885|NCT00081770|183689079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|36.0||||||95.0|33.1|39.0|||||Percentage of participants with undetectable HCV-RNA at Treatment Week 12|||39.0|33.1|
91646330|NCT01236053|183184696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.85|0.24|0.4353
91708183|NCT02033200|183309347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.051|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.051|-0.017|0.3139
91896886|NCT00081770|183689079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|45.0||||||95.0|42.0|48.1|||||Percentage of participants with undetectable HCV-RNA at Treatment Week 12|||48.1|42.0|
91896887|NCT03435497|183689082|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.017
91896888|NCT03435497|183689083|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical logistic repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.2|.05
91896889|NCT03435497|183689084|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
91708184|NCT02033200|183309347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.042|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.042|-0.045|0.9334
91708185|NCT02033200|183309348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.125|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.125|-0.093|0.7723
91708186|NCT02033200|183309348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.9107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.122|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.122|-0.109|0.9107
91708187|NCT02033200|183309349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.7787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|0.475|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.475|-0.632|0.7787
91708188|NCT02033200|183309349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.865|0.504|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.504|-0.865|0.6013
91708189|NCT02033200|183309350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.705|0.887|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in IOP between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||0.887|-0.705|0.8209
91708190|NCT02033200|183309350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.4931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.884|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in IOP between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||0.884|-0.430|0.4931
91708191|NCT04333225|183309351|OTHER|Other: estimating risk reduction|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0718||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.72|||Chi-squared|||||3.72|1.15|0.0112
91708192|NCT04333225|183309352|OTHER|Other: Estimating hazard ratio|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.17|0.0105
91708193|NCT01124370|183309364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was conducted using a 0.05 level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no change in AHI from baseline.||||<.001
91708194|NCT00822328|183309371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Bacterial colonies were counted for study group and placebo group on week 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Significant differences between both experimental groups at the same time were determined with one-way ANOVA (significance level p = 0.05).||||<0.05
91776394|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||15-month Physical Functioning; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91776395|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||15-month Pain/Discomfort; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
91776396|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||15-month Personal/Psychological Functioning; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91776397|NCT00656513|183433319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||15-month Social Functioning; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91646331|NCT01236053|183184696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.95|0.56|0.8922
91776398|NCT00656513|183433320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||4-month score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91646332|NCT01236053|183184696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.77|0.50|0.8591
91646333|NCT01236053|183184696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.23|0.58|0.4779
91646334|NCT01236053|183184696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.52|0.44|0.8994
91776399|NCT00656513|183433320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91776400|NCT00656513|183433320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||9-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
91776401|NCT00656513|183433320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||15-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91776402|NCT00656513|183433321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||4-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91776403|NCT00656513|183433321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
91776404|NCT00656513|183433321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91776405|NCT00656513|183433321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91776406|NCT00656513|183433322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Two-sided test, significance level 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91776407|NCT00333775|183433343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.63|0.0318
91776408|NCT00333775|183433343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.72||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.57|0.0036
91776409|NCT00333775|183433346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.69|0.1105
91776410|NCT00333775|183433346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.65|0.0241
91776411|NCT00333775|183433347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.37|||Log Rank|||||1.37|0.62|0.6962
91776412|NCT00333775|183433347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.45|0.0765
91776413|NCT03165617|183433348|SUPERIORITY|Success criterion were met as the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI was above 20%.|Absolute Efficacy|54.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|62.12||||||Statistical Analysis title - Absolute Vaccine Efficacy Any Strain. Adjusted aVE for QIVc vs. comparator. Success criteria for the primary efficacy endpoint was met if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the aVE estimate was greater than 20% (primary endpoint) using the protocol definition of ILI for the entire age range (2 to \<18 years of age).||62.12|45.67|
91776414|NCT03165617|183433349|SUPERIORITY|Success criteria was met as the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the VE estimate was greater than 30% (co-primary endpoint)|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|54.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|61.71||||||Statistical analysis title - Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain Adjusted aVE for QIVc vs. comparator. Success criteria for the primary efficacy endpoint was met if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the aVE estimate was greater than 30% (co-primary endpoint) using the protocol definition of ILI for the entire age range (≥ 3 to \<18 years of age).||61.71|44.8|
91776415|NCT03165617|183433350|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|54.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|62.12||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||62.12|45.67|
91776416|NCT03165617|183433350|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|50.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.43|60.22||||||Statistical analysis title: Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||60.22|38.43|
91776417|NCT03165617|183433350|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 4 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|53.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.38|61.54||||||Statistical analysis title: Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 4 to \<18yrs||61.54|43.38|
91776418|NCT03165617|183433350|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|61.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.37|72.34||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||72.34|47.37|
91776419|NCT03165617|183433351|SUPERIORITY|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|54.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|62.12||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||62.12|45.67|
91776420|NCT03165617|183433351|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.01|69.83||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||69.83|49.01|
91776421|NCT03165617|183433351|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 4 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.08|68.05||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 4 to \<18yrs||68.05|49.08|
91646335|NCT01236053|183184696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.12|0.57|0.7800
91896890|NCT03435497|183689085|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.012
91896891|NCT03435497|183689086|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical logistic repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|67.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.7|1.5|0.022
91896892|NCT01072877|183689087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.27|||ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-3.72|=0.0001
91896893|NCT01072877|183689087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.29|||ANCOVA|||||-2.29|-4.80|<0.0001
91896894|NCT01072877|183689087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.48|||ANCOVA|||||-1.48|-3.98|<0.0001
91896895|NCT01072877|183689087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-2.46|||ANCOVA|||||-2.46|-4.84|<0.0001
91896896|NCT01072877|183689088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-1.17|=0.0001
91646336|NCT01236053|183184696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.67|0.44|0.6577
91646337|NCT01236053|183184698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.59|0.48|0.8111
91646338|NCT01236053|183184698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.46|0.45|0.9104
91896897|NCT01072877|183689088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||||-0.86|-1.65|<0.0001
91896898|NCT01072877|183689088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-1.85|<0.0001
91896899|NCT01072877|183689088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.23|||ANCOVA|||||-1.23|-1.98|<0.0001
91776422|NCT03165617|183433351|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.14|73.33||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||73.33|42.14|
91896900|NCT01072877|183689089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.66|=0.0001
91896901|NCT01072877|183689089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.0001
91896902|NCT01072877|183689089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.97|<0.0001
91896903|NCT01072877|183689089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-1.11|<0.0001
91646339|NCT01236053|183184698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.07|0.68|0.5592
91896904|NCT00601419|183689092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.556|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.556
91896905|NCT00601419|183689093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.845|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Male and Female in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.845
91896906|NCT00601419|183689094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With TSH deficiency and Without TSH deficiency in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.038
91896907|NCT00601419|183689095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past history. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With past history and Without past history in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.013
91896908|NCT00601419|183689096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Initial Dose. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between Initial Dose and the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.037
91896909|NCT00601419|183689096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Initial Dose. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the frequency of treatment related adverse events across increasing levels of initial dose."||||=0.063
91896910|NCT00601419|183689098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<65 years of age and \>=65 years of age in the efficacy of somatropin."||||=0.019
91896911|NCT00601419|183689099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between male and female in the efficacy of somatropin."||||=1.000
91896912|NCT00601419|183689100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was ACTH deficiency. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With ACTH deficiency and Without ACTH deficiency in the efficacy of somatropin."||||=0.037
91896913|NCT03719170|183689105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0000684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.000413||||||"Power Calculation:~Assuming approximately the same number of eligible subjects in each VISN (with an average of 10,563 candidates per VISN) and an Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.12, randomizing 17 VISNs will give more than 80% power to detect % days on PPI of 75% vs. 50%, 85% vs. 60%, 80% vs. 55%, or 70% vs. 45%, but to detect a difference between 70% vs. 50%, power is only 61% using 0.05 level 2-sided test."||0.000413|-0.0003|
91896914|NCT04281004|183689106|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91896915|NCT04281004|183689107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.869
91896916|NCT04281004|183689108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.007
91896917|NCT04281004|183689108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.953
91776423|NCT03165617|183433352|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|68.46||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||68.46|51.3|
91776424|NCT03165617|183433352|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.01|69.83||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||69.83|49.01|
91896918|NCT04281004|183689108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.841
91896919|NCT04281004|183689108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.137
91896920|NCT04281004|183689109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.614
91646340|NCT01236053|183184698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.85|0.60|0.8521
91646341|NCT01236053|183184698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.04|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.04|0.26|0.5529
91776425|NCT03165617|183433352|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.08|68.05||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||68.05|49.08|
91646342|NCT01236053|183184698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.68|0.21|0.3275
91646343|NCT01236053|183184698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.72|0.46|0.7300
91776426|NCT03165617|183433352|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.14|73.33||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||73.33|42.14|
91896921|NCT04281004|183689110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.594
91896922|NCT04281004|183689111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.663
91896923|NCT04281004|183689111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.416
91896924|NCT04281004|183689111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 6.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.890
91896925|NCT04281004|183689111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 12.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.192
91896926|NCT04281004|183689112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.057
91896927|NCT04281004|183689112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.528||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.528
91896928|NCT04281004|183689112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.210
91896929|NCT04281004|183689112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.853
91896930|NCT02245672|183689122|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established. For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||MGR001 (Test) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91896931|NCT02245672|183689122|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established.For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Advair Diskus (Reference) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91646344|NCT01236053|183184698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.4831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.53|0.41|0.4831
91646345|NCT01236053|183184698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.92|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.92|0.45|0.7693
91646346|NCT01236053|183184698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.3|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.30|0.35|0.8189
91646347|NCT01236053|183184698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.98|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.98|0.50|0.9800
91646348|NCT01236053|183184698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.58|0.39|0.4944
91896932|NCT02245672|183689123|EQUIVALENCE|A linear analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fitted for the endpoint and least-squares (LS) means were derived for each treatment. To assess equivalence, LS means (one for Test and one for Reference) from the ANCOVA models were used to generate Test/Reference ratios and 90% CIs were calculated by using Fieller's theorem. To demonstrate equivalence, the 90% CIs were each required to be wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).|Ratio (MGR001/Advair Diskus)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.016|1.237|||||Bioequivalence was established between active treatments (MGR001 and Advair Diskus) for the FEV1 AUEC0-12 clinical endpoint|Equivalence of MGR001 and Advair Diskus is established if the ratio of the LS means and 90% confidence interval are wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).||1.237|1.016|
91896933|NCT02245672|183689124|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established. For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||MGR001 (Test) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91896934|NCT02245672|183689124|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established. For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Advair Diskus (Reference) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91896935|NCT02245672|183689125|EQUIVALENCE|A linear analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fitted for the endpoint and least-squares (LS) means were derived for each treatment. To assess equivalence, LS means (one for Test and one for Reference) from the ANCOVA models were used to generate Test/Reference ratios and 90% CIs were calculated by using Fieller's theorem. To demonstrate equivalence, the 90% CIs were each required to be wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).|Ratio (MGR001/Advair Diskus)|1.069|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.22|||||Bioequivalence was established between active treatments (MGR001 and Advair Diskus) for change from baseline in trough FEV1 endpoint on Day 29|Equivalence of MGR001 and Advair Diskus is established if the ratio of the LS means and 90% confidence interval are wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).||1.220|0.938|
91896936|NCT00362453|183689126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-118.8||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.66|-53.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-53.94|-183.66|0.0005
91896937|NCT00362453|183689127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-324.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-513.98|-135.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-135.22|-513.98|0.001
91896938|NCT00362453|183689127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-183.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-372.58|6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||6.18|-372.58|0.06
91896939|NCT00362453|183689127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-105.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.68|84.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 week||84.08|-294.68|0.3
91896940|NCT00362453|183689128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.04|7.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 week||7.24|-53.04|0.1
91896941|NCT00362453|183689128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|15.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 week||15.34|-44.94|0.3
91896942|NCT00362453|183689128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.79|26.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||26.49|-33.79|0.8
91646349|NCT01236053|183184699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
91646350|NCT01236053|183184699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.79||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|147.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||147.0|0.79|0.0743
91646351|NCT01236053|183184700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|10.0||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|159.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||159.9|0.63|0.1035
91646352|NCT01236053|183184700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|95.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||95.82|0.18|0.3799
91646353|NCT01236053|183184701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|159.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||159.9|0.63|0.1035
91646354|NCT01236053|183184701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|95.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||95.82|0.18|0.3799
91646355|NCT01236053|183184703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|159.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||159.9|0.63|0.1035
91776427|NCT03165617|183433353|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|63.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.64|71.48||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||71.48|53.64|
91776428|NCT03165617|183433353|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|63.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.66|72.32||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||72.32|50.66|
91776429|NCT03165617|183433353|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 4 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|61.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.25|70.53||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 4 to \<18yrs||70.53|50.25|
91776430|NCT03165617|183433353|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|64.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.84|77.51||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||77.51|44.84|
91776431|NCT00412984|183433367|SUPERIORITY|With an average 2.1 years follow-up and assuming a stroke rate of 1.20 per hundred patient-years, \~18,000 randomized subjects allocated in a 1:1 ratio to apixaban or warfarin group would be needed to achieve the desired power. These calculations assumed an incidence of 1% loss to follow-up. Non-inferiority for the primary efficacy endpoint will be assessed first. If non-inferiority (using a NI margin of 1.38) is demonstrated then, superiority for the primary efficacy endpoint will be tested|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95||2-sided P-value for superiority test|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment group as a covariate; stratified by investigative site and prior warfarin/vitamin K antagonist status. (experienced, naïve).|apixaban / warfarin|With 448 subjects with confirmed strokes or systemic emboli, study would have at least 90% power to meet both regulatory definitions of non-inferiority described in the following: (1) the non-inferiority (NI) of apixaban relative to warfarin was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for relative risk (RR) was less than 1.38; (2) the NI of apixaban relative to warfarin was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 99% CI for RR was less than 1.44.||.95|.66|0.0114
91776432|NCT00412984|183433369|SUPERIORITY|"4 key objectives were tested using a closed testing procedure. NI for the primary efficacy will be tested 1st. If NI is demonstrated then~1. superiority for the primary efficacy will be tested~2. if superiority for the primary efficacy is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for MB will be tested~3. if superiority for MB is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for all cause death will be tested All tests will be done at 1-sided α = 0.025"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.8|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment group as a covariate; stratified by investigative site and prior warfarin/vitamin K antagonist status.|apixaban / warfarin|||0.80|0.60|<.0001
91776433|NCT00412984|183433371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment group as a covariate; stratified by investigative site and prior warfarin/vitamin K antagonist status.|apixaban / warfarin|"4 key objectives were tested using a closed testing procedure. NI for the primary efficacy will be tested 1st. If NI is demonstrated then~1. superiority for the primary efficacy will be tested~2. if superiority for the primary efficacy is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for MB will be tested~3. if superiority for MB is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for all cause death will be tested All tests will be done at 1-sided α = 0.025"||1.00|0.80|0.0465
91776434|NCT00412984|183433372|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.13||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Ischemic or Unspecified Stroke||1.13|0.74|0.4220
91776435|NCT00412984|183433372|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Hemorrhagic Stroke||0.75|0.35|0.0006
91838147|NCT01454830|183556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||units of measurement: hours/night; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Pilot RCT designed to establish effect size and feasibility outcomes; no a priori power calculation; statistical significance with hypotheses testing was not objective of the pilot trial||||0.89
91776436|NCT00412984|183433372|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Systemic Embolism||1.75|0.44|0.7020
91776437|NCT00412984|183433372|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Myocardial Infarction||1.17|0.66|0.3720
91776438|NCT00412984|183433373|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / Major Bleeding||0.86|0.69|<.0001
91776439|NCT00412984|183433373|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / All-Cause Death||0.98|0.81|0.0192
91776440|NCT00412984|183433373|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.92||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / Major Bleeding / All-Cause Death||0.92|0.78|0.0002
91776441|NCT00412984|183433373|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / MI / All-Cause Death||0.97|0.80|0.0107
91776442|NCT00412984|183433373|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Ischemic or Unspecified Stroke / All-Cause Death||1.00|0.82|0.0432
91896943|NCT00362453|183689129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.95||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.81|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||-2.09|-131.81|0.05
91896944|NCT00362453|183689129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.15||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.01|18.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||18.71|-111.01|0.2
91896945|NCT00362453|183689130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-0.49|-3.82|0.01
91896946|NCT00362453|183689130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||1.02|-2.31|0.4
91896947|NCT00362453|183689130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 weeks||1.70|-1.62|1.0
91896948|NCT00362453|183689131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-0.66|-2.75|0.002
91896949|NCT00362453|183689131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||0.51|-1.58|0.3
91646356|NCT01236053|183184703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|95.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||95.82|0.18|0.3799
91776443|NCT00412984|183433373|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Hemorrhagic Stroke / All-Cause Death||0.98|0.79|0.0167
91776444|NCT00412984|183433373|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Systemic Embolism / All-Cause Death||1.00|0.80|0.0464
91896950|NCT00362453|183689131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||0.02|-2.09|0.06
91896951|NCT00362453|183689132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.88||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|-5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-5.84|-15.91|0.00005
91896952|NCT00362453|183689132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||-0.08|-10.15|0.05
91896953|NCT00362453|183689132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||-0.91|-11.06|0.02
91896954|NCT00362453|183689133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.08||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|110.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||110.50|-10.34|0.1
91896955|NCT00362453|183689133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.71||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.07|102.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||102.50|-15.07|0.1
91896956|NCT00362453|183689133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.61||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.36|78.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||78.59|-49.36|0.7
91646357|NCT01236053|183184704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.32|1.21|0.0066
91776445|NCT00412984|183433373|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Myocardial Infarction / All-Cause Death||0.99|0.80|0.0253
91776446|NCT00412984|183433375|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite Stroke/Systemic Embolism/Major Bleeding in Warfarin/Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA) Naive Participants||0.95|0.67|0.0098
91896957|NCT00362453|183689134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||0.34|-0.54|0.7
91896958|NCT00362453|183689134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||0.52|-0.37|0.7
91896959|NCT00362453|183689134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 weeks||0.34|-0.55|0.6
91896960|NCT00362453|183689135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-1.77|-11.63|0.009
91896961|NCT00362453|183689135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||-0.37|-10.23|0.04
91896962|NCT00362453|183689135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||-3.97|-13.83|0.0006
91896963|NCT00362453|183689136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||1.39|0.03|0.04
91896964|NCT00362453|183689136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||1.53|0.17|0.02
91896965|NCT00362453|183689136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||1.64|0.28|0.007
91896966|NCT00362453|183689137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.43||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||12.36|2.50|0.004
91896967|NCT00362453|183689137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.51||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|9.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||9.45|-0.42|0.08
91896968|NCT00362453|183689137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||11.25|1.38|0.01
91896969|NCT00362453|183689138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||6.57|-6.15|0.9
91896970|NCT00362453|183689138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||6.25|-6.47|1.0
91896971|NCT00362453|183689138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|11.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||11.13|-1.59|0.10
91776447|NCT00412984|183433378|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|||0.75|0.61|<.0001
91896972|NCT02382016|183689228|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.65||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted by treatment, background PAH-specific therapy at baseline and region as factors \& log-transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate||The null hypothesis (change of PVR at Week 12 as a ratio of baseline PVR in subjects treated with placebo or macitentan is the same) is tested on the primary endpoint by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log(e) transformed ratio of PVR at Week 12 to baseline PVR.||0.72|0.59|0.0001
91896973|NCT02382016|183689229|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|9.73||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|33.95||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|mixed-effect model repeated measure||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in 6MWD (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|The main analysis on 6MWD was performed using a mixed-effect model repeated measure (MMRM) adjusted for treatment, visit, region, PAH-specific therapy at baseline, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline 6MWD and WHO functional class (FC) as covariates.||33.95|-14.50|0.4264
91896974|NCT02382016|183689230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.253||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|298.376||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model (exact) adjusted for treatment, PAH-specific therapy at baseline, and region as covariates was used to analyze worsening in WHO FC.||298.376|0.714|0.1278
91896975|NCT02382016|183689231|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.874||||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.196||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA|||||1.196|0.639|0.3951
91896976|NCT02382016|183689232|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.67||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.44||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in mRAP (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||3.44|-0.10|0.0637
91896977|NCT02382016|183689233|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-5.99||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.57||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in mPAP (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||-3.57|-8.40|0.0001
91896978|NCT02382016|183689234|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.52||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.81||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in cardiac index (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||0.81|0.22|0.0009
91896979|NCT02382016|183689235|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-171.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.67|-119.3||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in TPR (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||-119.30|-223.67|0.0001
91896980|NCT02382016|183689236|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.03||||0.9844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|2.91||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in SVO2 (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||2.91|-2.85|0.9844
91896981|NCT01535014|183689237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91896982|NCT01535014|183689237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91896983|NCT01535014|183689237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
91896984|NCT01535014|183689238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91896985|NCT01535014|183689238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91896986|NCT01535014|183689239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91896987|NCT01535014|183689239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91896988|NCT01535014|183689240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||For week 12, 16, 20, 24|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91776448|NCT00412984|183433380|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|||0.75|0.68|<.0001
91776449|NCT00412984|183433381|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.6||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Severe GUSTO bleeding events||0.60|0.35|<.0001
91896989|NCT01535014|183689240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||For week 16, 20, 24|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91896990|NCT01535014|183689241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
91896991|NCT01535014|183689241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
91896992|NCT01535014|183689242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.20
91896993|NCT01535014|183689242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.75
91896994|NCT01535014|183689243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Mental Health Domain||||0.02
91896995|NCT01535014|183689243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Mental Health Domain||||0.63
91896996|NCT01535014|183689243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Physical Health Domain||||0.60
91896997|NCT01535014|183689243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Physical Health Domain||||0.98
91896998|NCT00719563|183689280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0737|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.0737
91896999|NCT02047643|183689293|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test||||||.45
91897000|NCT02047643|183689294|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test||||||.66
91897001|NCT04256603|183689295|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||wilcox two sample test||||0.67
91897002|NCT04363801|183689301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.05|||Log Rank|||||2.05|0.98|0.9676
91776450|NCT00412984|183433381|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.71||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Severe or Moderate GUSTO bleeding events||0.71|0.50|<.0001
91776451|NCT00412984|183433382|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.7||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Major TIMI bleeding event||0.70|0.46|<.0001
91776452|NCT00412984|183433382|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.75|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Major or Minor TIMI bleeding criteria||0.75|0.54|<.0001
91776453|NCT00412984|183433384|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.83||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|||0.83|0.65|<.0001
91776454|NCT02435212|183433409|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.803||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|8.15|||ANCOVA|||||8.15|-2.99|0.3598
91776455|NCT02435212|183433410|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|176.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|153.933||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.0|481.72|||ANCOVA|||||481.72|-129.00|0.2546
91776456|NCT04531176|183433456|NON_INFERIORITY|The results of non-inferiority test results are between pairwise groups. Non-inferiority was tested at the 0.05 level at 1 year and performed pairwise with Bonferroni adjusted significance levels for each paired comparison.||||||0.004||||||The non-inferiority regions were set to be 1% for weight loss change. When both primary endpoints are non-inferior, superiority testing at the 0.025 overall error level with Bonferroni adjustment for each endpoint at 1 year was then performed.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.004
91776457|NCT04531176|183433457|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was tested at the 0.05 level at 1 year and performed pairwise with Bonferroni adjusted significance levels for each paired comparison||||||0.05||||||The non-inferiority regions were set to be 0.5% for A1C. When both primary endpoints are non-inferior, superiority testing at the 0.025 overall error level with Bonferroni adjustment for each endpoint at 1 year was then performed.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91776458|NCT00214045|183433458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sums and Fisher exact tests with Statistical Analysis System (SAS) statistical software version 9.||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
91776459|NCT00214045|183433458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Results were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sums and Fisher exact tests with Statistical Analysis System (SAS) statistical software version 9.||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91776460|NCT01451606|183433466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Note that sample size was well below our target, making this test very low power.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
91776461|NCT01451606|183433467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91776462|NCT03155724|183433480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial, one-sided|||The primary endpoint 1 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the binomial proportion of 'improved' patients to 3.0% with power of 80% and type 1 error (alpha) of 0.0224. A pre-planned interim analysis at 45 patients required a type 1 error (alpha) of 0.0026 to demonstrate significance.||||<0.0001
91838148|NCT01454830|183556877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||units of measurement: % TST; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Exploratory outcome of PAP use defined within the sleep period, TST (total sleep time).||||0.78
91776463|NCT04567628|183433507|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Spearman's Rank Correlation|||||||=0.003
91776464|NCT04567628|183433508|OTHER||||||=|0.25||||||A two-sided p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||=0.25
91776465|NCT04567628|183433511|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A two-sided p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91776466|NCT04567628|183433513|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A two-sided p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91776467|NCT02121535|183433564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-tz were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.94|105.08|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0-tz was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||105.08|98.94|
91776468|NCT02121535|183433565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the Cmax were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|103.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.03|110.99|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||110.99|97.03|
91776469|NCT02121535|183433566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-∞ were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|100.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.8|103.8|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0--∞ was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||103.80|96.80|
91776470|NCT02121535|183433567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-∞ were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|99.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.94|100.93|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0--∞ was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||100.93|97.94|
91776471|NCT02121535|183433568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-tz were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.08|100.94|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0-tz was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||100.94|98.08|
91776472|NCT02121535|183433569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the Cmax were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|100.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.45|101.72|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||101.72|98.45|
91838149|NCT03810313|183556881|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered to be established if the lower limit of the corresponding 95% CI for the estimated between group difference (brolucizumab vs. aflibercept) on change from baseline in BCVA at Week 24 is \> -4 letters.|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.5|||ANOVA|||||-0.5|-5.2|0.173
91776473|NCT02121535|183433570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the Cmax were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|110.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.87|113.54|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||113.54|106.87|
91776474|NCT02121535|183433571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-tz were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|104.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.53|106.1|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0-tz was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||106.10|102.53|
91776475|NCT02121535|183433572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-∞ were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|104.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.68|106.1|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0--∞ was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||106.10|102.68|
91776476|NCT04944992|183433573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squared means|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.1|38.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.7|22.1|<0.0001
91776477|NCT04944992|183433574|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|difference in percentage|16.3||||||95.0|3.5|29.1||||||||29.1|3.5|
91776478|NCT04944992|183433575|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in percentage|5.6||||||95.0|0.4|13.5||||||||13.5|0.4|
91776479|NCT04944992|183433576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squared means|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.6|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.7|4.6|<0.001
91776480|NCT04944992|183433577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-1.4||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-2.7|0.085
91776481|NCT04944992|183433578|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in Least Squared Means|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|-3.1||||||||-3.1|-11.2|
91776482|NCT04944992|183433579|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-5.7||||||90.0|-10.9|-0.6||||||||-0.6|-10.9|
91776483|NCT04944992|183433580|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-11.7||||||90.0|-15.8|-7.7||||||||-7.7|-15.8|
91776484|NCT04944992|183433581|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-6.1||||||90.0|-12.0|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-12.0|
91776485|NCT04944992|183433582|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.3|-0.9||||||||-0.9|-14.3|
91776486|NCT04944992|183433583|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|-0.4||||||||-0.4|-10.4|
91838150|NCT01077362|183556965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91776487|NCT05366738|183433584|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|103.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.64|109.41||||||||109.41|97.64|
91776488|NCT05366738|183433584|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|97.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|103.56||||||||103.56|92.42|
91776489|NCT05366738|183433585|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.25|108.15||||||||108.15|97.25|
91776490|NCT05366738|183433585|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|97.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.55|102.93||||||||102.93|92.55|
91776491|NCT05366738|183433586|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|103.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.49|112.0||||||||112.00|96.49|
91897003|NCT04363801|183689318|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.9|-12.2|0.3799
91776492|NCT05366738|183433586|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|100.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.38|108.39||||||||108.39|93.38|
91776493|NCT02798627|183433592|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.97
91776494|NCT03821402|183433594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7645|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7645
91776495|NCT03821402|183433594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5509|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5509
91776496|NCT03821402|183433594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0488
91776497|NCT03821402|183433595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3698|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3698
91776498|NCT03821402|183433595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1972|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1972
91776499|NCT03821402|183433595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2037|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2037
91776500|NCT03821402|183433600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4324|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4324
91776501|NCT03821402|183433600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3893|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3893
91776502|NCT03821402|183433600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91838151|NCT01077362|183556965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91838152|NCT01077362|183556965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91838153|NCT01077362|183556966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.002
91897004|NCT04363801|183689321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8679|||||||Log Rank|Stratified Log-rank Test||||||0.8679
91646358|NCT01236053|183184704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.82|1.00|0.0494
91646359|NCT01236053|183184704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.82|1.33|0.0006
91838154|NCT01077362|183556966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91838155|NCT01077362|183556966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91897005|NCT04363801|183689321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9676|||||||Log Rank|Stratified Log-rank Test||||||0.9676
91897006|NCT04363801|183689321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.05||||||||3.05|0.74|
91897007|NCT04363801|183689321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.05||||||||2.05|0.98|
91897008|NCT04363801|183689322|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.4||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|33.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Common Risk Difference and 95% CI: estimated by stratified Newcombe method, weighted by minimum risk|||33.6|-18.4|0.2649
91897009|NCT04363801|183689322|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||||16.9|-12.2|0.379
91897010|NCT02113241|183689329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
91897011|NCT02113241|183689329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.089
91897012|NCT02113241|183689330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.003
91897013|NCT02113241|183689330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.248
91897014|NCT02113241|183689331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.161
91897015|NCT02113241|183689331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.079
91897016|NCT02113241|183689332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.067
91646360|NCT01236053|183184704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.41|1.11|0.0138
91646361|NCT01236053|183184705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|6.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.53|1.66|0.0006
91838156|NCT01077362|183556967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91838157|NCT01077362|183556967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91838158|NCT01077362|183556967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91838159|NCT01077362|183556968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.018
91838160|NCT01077362|183556968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91897017|NCT02113241|183689332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.918
91897018|NCT02113241|183689333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.128
91897019|NCT02113241|183689333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.454
91897020|NCT02113241|183689334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.433
91897021|NCT02113241|183689334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.407
91897022|NCT02113241|183689335|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
91897023|NCT02113241|183689335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.826
91897024|NCT02113241|183689336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.791
91897025|NCT02113241|183689336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.413
91897026|NCT02113241|183689337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.075
91897027|NCT02113241|183689337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.432
91897028|NCT02113241|183689338|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
91897029|NCT02113241|183689338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.835
91897030|NCT02113241|183689339|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
91897031|NCT02113241|183689339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.778
91897032|NCT02113241|183689340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.338
91646362|NCT01236053|183184705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.05|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||6.05|1.50|0.0020
91776503|NCT03821402|183433601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0562|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0562
91776504|NCT03821402|183433601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0150
91897033|NCT02113241|183689340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.309
91897034|NCT02113241|183689341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.049
91897035|NCT02113241|183689341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.563
91897036|NCT02113241|183689342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.850
91897037|NCT02113241|183689342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.206
91897038|NCT02113241|183689343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.006
91897039|NCT02113241|183689343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.950
91897040|NCT02113241|183689344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.011
91897041|NCT02113241|183689344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.454
91897042|NCT02113241|183689345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.652
91897043|NCT02113241|183689345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.055
91897044|NCT02113241|183689346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.254
91897045|NCT02113241|183689346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.787
91776505|NCT03821402|183433601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0092
91776506|NCT05024032|183433602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.3|-14.8|<0.001
91776507|NCT05024032|183433602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.8|-20.3|<0.001
91776508|NCT05024032|183433603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|60.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||60.69|8.80|<0.001
91776509|NCT05024032|183433603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.61|73.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||73.24|9.61|<0.001
91776510|NCT05024032|183433604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.5|-8.8|<0.001
91776511|NCT05024032|183433604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.5|-10.9|<0.001
91897046|NCT02113241|183689347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.129
91897047|NCT02113241|183689347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.365
91897048|NCT02113241|183689348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
91897049|NCT02113241|183689348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.175
91897050|NCT02113241|183689349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.392
91897051|NCT02113241|183689349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.123
91897052|NCT02113241|183689350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.176
91897053|NCT02113241|183689350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.268
91897054|NCT02113241|183689351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.064
91897055|NCT02113241|183689351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.462
91897056|NCT02113241|183689352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.346
91897057|NCT02113241|183689352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.002
91897058|NCT02901041|183689353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.03, df=79.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||1.45|-1.41|.98
91897059|NCT02901041|183689354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.52, df=56.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.26|-1.92|.13
91838161|NCT01077362|183556968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.002
91838162|NCT01077362|183556969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.017
91838163|NCT01077362|183556969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91838164|NCT01077362|183556969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91838165|NCT01077362|183556970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||re-randomization|||||||0.171
91838166|NCT01077362|183556970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.060
91838167|NCT01077362|183556970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||re-randomization|||||||0.094
91838168|NCT02294630|183556992|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.399
91838169|NCT02567825|183557011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12|||Generalized linear model|The p-value is adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of occurrence of AOM per child-year during the 2-year follow-up period.||1.12|0.84|0.66
91838170|NCT02567825|183557012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of occurrence of AOM per child-year during the 2 year follow-up among children considered at low risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment..||1.01|0.67|
91838171|NCT02567825|183557012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.33|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of occurrence of AOM per child-year during the 2 year follow-up among children considered at high risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment.||1.33|0.86|
91838172|NCT02567825|183557012|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Generalized linear models|||Null hypothesis: There is no interaction between comparison group (Surgical Management, Non-Surgical Management) and risk group (children considered at low risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment, children considered at high risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment).||||0.08
91838173|NCT02567825|183557013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children completing the study with 0, 1 or 2, 3 or 4, greater than or equal to 5 episodes of AOM.~."||||0.48
91838174|NCT02567825|183557014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children experiencing treatment failure.||0.92|0.58|
91838175|NCT02567825|183557015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the hazard ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the time to the first episode of AOM.||0.90|0.52|
91838176|NCT02567825|183557016|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of episodes categorized as probably severe.||1.09|0.76|
91838177|NCT02567825|183557017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.44||||||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of episodes presenting with tympanic membrane bulging rather than otorrhea|The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|0.44|0.26|
91838178|NCT02567825|183557018|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.82|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean days per year children experience tube otorrhea. The analysis uses a weighted regression model with weights equal to the length of follow-up.||7.82|2.60|
91838179|NCT02567825|183557019|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-6.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|-5.1|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean days per year children experience AOM symptoms with an intact TM. The analysis uses a weighted regression model with weights equal to the length of follow-up.||-5.10|-7.55|
91838180|NCT02567825|183557020|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|-2.18|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean days per year children receive systemic antimicrobials for AOM. The analysis uses a weighted regression model with weights equal to the length of follow-up.||-2.18|-6.82|
91838181|NCT02567825|183557021|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.03|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the hazard ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children for whom PDD was reported.||1.03|0.44|
91897060|NCT02901041|183689355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.03||Equality of variance was not assumed.|t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.33, df=72.65||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.03|-0.17|.19
91646363|NCT01236053|183184705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.34|1.43|0.0013
91708195|NCT00822328|183309373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Bacterial colonies were counted for study group and placebo group on week 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Significant differences between both experimental groups at the same time were determined with one-way ANOVA (significance level p = 0.05).||||<0.05
91708196|NCT05811026|183309389|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.075
91708197|NCT05811026|183309390|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.4727
91708198|NCT05811026|183309391|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.7326|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.7326
91897061|NCT02901041|183689356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.99, df=56.00||||0.00|-0.34|.05
91897062|NCT02901041|183689357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.37,df=79.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.17|-0.11|.71
91897063|NCT02901041|183689358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.59,df=56.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.03|-0.26|.12
91897064|NCT02901041|183689359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|10.18|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.03, df=79.00||||10.18|-9.89|.98
91897065|NCT02901041|183689360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.43|1.83|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.52, df=56.00||||1.83|-13.43|.13
91897066|NCT02901041|183689361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.07||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.06|198.2|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.32,df=61.00||||198.20|-144.06|.75
91897067|NCT02901041|183689362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|99.05||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.11|309.21|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.95, df=46.00||||309.21|-111.11|.35
91897068|NCT02901041|183689363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.67, df=58.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||3.40|-1.69|.51
91897069|NCT02901041|183689364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.61,df=36||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.98|-1.82|.55
91897070|NCT02901041|183689365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|4.45|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.07,df=58.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||4.45|-4.15|.95
91897071|NCT02901041|183689366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|11.62|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.82, df=38.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||11.62|-4.93|.42
91646364|NCT01236053|183184705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.80|1.22|0.0080
91708199|NCT05811026|183309392|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0757
91708200|NCT05811026|183309393|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|37.75||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0376
91708201|NCT05811026|183309394|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.3123|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.3123
91708202|NCT05811026|183309395|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.1009
91708203|NCT05811026|183309396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0088
91708204|NCT05811026|183309397|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.4274|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.4274
91897072|NCT02901041|183689367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.8||Equal variance was not assumed.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.39, df=36.37||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.80|-0.15|.17
91897073|NCT02901041|183689368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97||Equal variances were not assumed when conducting the t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.53, df=24.05||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.97|-0.14|0.14
91897074|NCT02901041|183689369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|7.16||Equal variances were not assumed when conducting the t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.51,df=39.34||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||7.16|-1.03|.14
91897075|NCT02901041|183689370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|10.75||Equality of variance was not assumed.|t-test, 2 sided|t=0.85, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||10.75|-4.39|.40
91708205|NCT05811026|183309398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.6497
91776512|NCT05024032|183433605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|30.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.89|5.63|<0.001
91776513|NCT05024032|183433605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|72.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.71|11.23|<0.001
91776514|NCT05024032|183433606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|98.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.49|6.68|<0.001
91776515|NCT05024032|183433606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.69|275.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||275.37|17.69|<0.001
91776516|NCT05024032|183433607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.9|-11.5|<0.001
91897076|NCT02901041|183689371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.81||Equal variances were not assumed when conducting the t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.97, df=38.37||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.81|-0.01|.06
91897077|NCT02901041|183689372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|t=.06, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||1.05|-1.00|.96
91897078|NCT02901041|183689373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.03||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|9.64|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.53,df=57.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||9.64|-5.58|.60
91897079|NCT02901041|183689374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.27, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.03|-0.15|.21
91897080|NCT02901041|183689375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.74,df=57.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.04|-0.60|.09
91897081|NCT02901041|183689376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.69, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.07|-0.78|.10
91897082|NCT02901041|183689377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.25,df=57.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.19|-0.15|0.80
91897083|NCT02901041|183689378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.61||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|3.34|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.84,df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||3.34|-14.56|.41
91897084|NCT03249714|183689395|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.064|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.232|||negative binominal regression model|||||0.232|0.018|<0.001
91897085|NCT03249714|183689396|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.136||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.513||Statistical significance (2-sided) at the 0.05 level|negative binomial regression|||||0.513|0.036|0.003
91897086|NCT03249714|183689396|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||negative binominal regression|Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) at the 0.05 level.||||0.000|0.000|< 0.001
91897087|NCT03249714|183689397|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.284||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.62|||negative binominal regression|||||0.620|0.130|0.002
91897088|NCT03249714|183689398|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.42||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|1.25|||negative binominal regression|||||1.250|0.141|0.119
91708206|NCT05811026|183309399|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0006
91708207|NCT05811026|183309400|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|34.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0002
91776517|NCT05024032|183433607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.3|-16.0|<0.001
91776518|NCT05024032|183433608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-13.5|<0.001
91776519|NCT05024032|183433608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.4|-18.6|<0.001
91776520|NCT05024032|183433609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.1|-4.8|<0.001
91776521|NCT05024032|183433609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.8|-6.4|<0.001
91776522|NCT05024032|183433610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.46|<0.001
91776523|NCT05024032|183433610|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.48|<0.001
91776524|NCT05024032|183433611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-0.61|<0.001
91776525|NCT05024032|183433611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.69|<0.001
91776526|NCT05024032|183433612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|0.0|0.044
91776527|NCT05024032|183433612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|0.0|0.050
91776528|NCT05024032|183433613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|11.8|||ANCOVA|||||11.8|3.7|<0.001
91897089|NCT03818204|183689407|OTHER||||||>=|0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of angular position was modeled using linear mixed-effects (multiple regression) models. The five angles were randomly mapped for the dependent variable interpalpebral fissure. Because there were repeated measurements on each eye and each participant might respond differently to each angular position, participant and angular position within participant-eye were included as random effects.||||>=0.46
91776529|NCT05024032|183433613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.7|||ANCOVA|||||12.7|4.4|<0.001
91897090|NCT01996813|183689408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.115||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|1.034||The exact p-value was estimated|Regression, Logistic|The method was exact logistic regression||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of a cerebral desaturation event between patients wearing versus not wearing thigh-high compression stockings during shoulder arthroscopy in the beach chair position||1.034|0.002|.0553
91897091|NCT01996813|183689409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.22|60.39|||t-test, 2 sided|A Satterthwaite correction was used to adjust the degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the average length of surgery between patients wearing versus not wearing thigh-high compression stockings during shoulder arthroscopy in the beach chair position||60.39|20.22|<.001
91897092|NCT05754333|183689416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.9|||paired t Test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||1.9|1.2|<0.001
91897093|NCT05754333|183689417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter (left or right) for each participant.|||1.8|1.2|<0.001
91897094|NCT05754333|183689418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||1.7|1.0|<0.001
91897095|NCT05754333|183689420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||||
91897096|NCT05754333|183689421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|||||
91897097|NCT05754333|183689422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||||
91897098|NCT05754333|183689423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||||
91897099|NCT05754333|183689424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|||||
91897100|NCT05754333|183689425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||||||||||Mean Difference is calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||||
91897101|NCT05754333|183689426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||||
91897102|NCT05754333|183689427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|||||
91897103|NCT05754333|183689428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||||
91897104|NCT05754333|183689429|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 1 Point Higher|67.01|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 1 point higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated.|||||
91897105|NCT05754333|183689429|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 2 point higher|40.4|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 2 points higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated.|||||
91776530|NCT05024032|183433614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.7|-6.9|<0.001
91897106|NCT05754333|183689429|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 3 point higher|20.2|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 3 points higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated.|||||
91897107|NCT05754333|183689429|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 4 point higher|2.1|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 4 points higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated|||||
91897108|NCT05754333|183689430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.2|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||2.2|1.6|<0.001
91897109|NCT05754333|183689430|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.431||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 2||0.431|-0.011|
91776531|NCT05024032|183433615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.1|-9.1|<0.001
91776532|NCT05024032|183433616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.11||||||||-0.11|-0.51|
91776533|NCT05024032|183433617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.14||||||||0.14|0.03|
91776534|NCT05024032|183433618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.25|
91776535|NCT05024032|183433619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.16||||||||-0.16|-0.34|
91776536|NCT05024032|183433620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.37||||||||-0.37|-0.79|
91776537|NCT05024032|183433621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-0.12|
91897110|NCT05754333|183689430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||1.5|0.8|<0.001
91897111|NCT05754333|183689430|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.282||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 3||0.282|-0.181|
91897112|NCT05754333|183689430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.6|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||2.6|1.9|<0.001
91897113|NCT05754333|183689430|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.464||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 4||0.464|0.030|
91897114|NCT05754333|183689431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.0|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter (left or right) for each participant.|For reader 2||2.0|1.4|<0.001
91897115|NCT05754333|183689431|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.429||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 2||0.429|-0.013|
91897116|NCT05754333|183689431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter(left or right) for eachparticipant.|For reader 3||1.4|0.8|<0.001
91897117|NCT05754333|183689431|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.272||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 3||0.272|-0.191|
91708208|NCT05811026|183309401|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6231|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.6231
91776538|NCT05024032|183433622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-4.0||||||||-4.0|-8.6|
91897118|NCT05754333|183689431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.5|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter(left or right) for eachparticipant.|For reader 4||2.5|1.8|<0.001
91897119|NCT05754333|183689431|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.451||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 4||0.451|0.014|
91897120|NCT05754333|183689432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||1.8|1.1|<0.001
91897121|NCT05754333|183689432|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.339|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.529||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 2||0.529|0.116|
91897122|NCT05754333|183689432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||1.3|0.6|<0.001
91897123|NCT05754333|183689432|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.186|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.4||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 3||0.400|-0.048|
91897124|NCT05754333|183689432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.3|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||2.3|1.6|<0.001
91897125|NCT05754333|183689432|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.297|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.495||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 4||0.495|0.070|
91897126|NCT05754333|183689433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||||
91897127|NCT05754333|183689433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||||
91708209|NCT05811026|183309402|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3327|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.3327
91708210|NCT05811026|183309403|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.25||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0752
91776539|NCT01054885|183433633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.046||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.098|-0.006|0.085
91897128|NCT05754333|183689433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||||
91897129|NCT05754333|183689434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|Difference from WL in Means, Reader 2||||
91897130|NCT05754333|183689434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|Difference from WL in Means, Reader 3||||
91897131|NCT05754333|183689434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|Difference from WL in Means, Reader 4||||
91776540|NCT01054885|183433633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.041||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.093|-0.011|0.123
91776541|NCT01054885|183433633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.237|0.133|<0.001
91708211|NCT05811026|183309404|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0982
91776542|NCT01054885|183433633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.266||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.266|0.161|<0.001
91776543|NCT01054885|183433633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.209|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.261|0.157|<0.001
91776544|NCT01054885|183433633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.22||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.220|0.116|<0.001
91776545|NCT01054885|183433633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.219|0.117|<0.001
91776546|NCT01054885|183433633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.029||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.081|-0.023|0.274
91776547|NCT01054885|183433633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.024||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.075|-0.027|0.357
91776548|NCT01054885|183433634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.044||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.097|-0.008|0.095
91776549|NCT01054885|183433634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.008||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.060|-0.044|0.756
91776550|NCT01054885|183433634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.151|0.048|<0.001
91897132|NCT05754333|183689435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||||
91897133|NCT05754333|183689435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||||
91776551|NCT01054885|183433634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.197||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.197|0.091|<0.001
91776552|NCT01054885|183433634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.131|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.183|0.080|<0.001
91776553|NCT01054885|183433634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.152||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.152|0.047|<0.001
91776554|NCT01054885|183433634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.174||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.174|0.072|<0.001
91776555|NCT01054885|183433634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.045||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.097|-0.008|0.093
91776556|NCT01054885|183433634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.032||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.083|-0.019|0.224
91708212|NCT05811026|183309405|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8541|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.8541
91708213|NCT05811026|183309406|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0758
91776557|NCT00804908|183433638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.071|||||||Stratified log-rank|||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a log-rank test stratified by baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) status (0 to 1 ULN; \>1 to ≤ 2 ULN) and history of previously treated brain metastases (with, without). Hochberg testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment.||||=0.071
91776558|NCT00804908|183433638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.233|||||||Stratified log-rank|||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a log-rank test stratified by baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) status (0 to 1 ULN; \>1 to ≤ 2 ULN) and history of previously treated brain metastases (with, without). Hochberg testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment.||||=0.233
91776559|NCT01280903|183433646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
91776560|NCT01280903|183433647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||p=0.130 for None to very low|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.130
91897134|NCT05754333|183689435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||||
91776561|NCT01280903|183433647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573||||||p=0.573 for Light|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.573
91708214|NCT05811026|183309407|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|41.75||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.066
91776562|NCT01280903|183433647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||p=0.197 for Moderate-to-vigorous|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.197
91776563|NCT01280903|183433648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.461
91776564|NCT01280903|183433649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.180
91776565|NCT01280903|183433650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.258
91776566|NCT01280903|183433651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.416
91897135|NCT05754333|183689436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||||
91897136|NCT05754333|183689436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||||
91897137|NCT05754333|183689436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||||
91897138|NCT05754333|183689437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-m in WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 2||||
91897139|NCT05754333|183689437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 3||||
91897140|NCT05754333|183689437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 4||||
91897141|NCT05754333|183689438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||||
91897142|NCT05754333|183689438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||||
91897143|NCT05754333|183689438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||||
91897144|NCT05754333|183689439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||||
91897145|NCT05754333|183689439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||||
91776567|NCT01280903|183433652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
91776568|NCT01280903|183433653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272||||||p=0.272 for None to very low|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.272
91776569|NCT01280903|183433653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823||||||p=0.823 for Light|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.823
91897146|NCT05754333|183689439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||||
91897147|NCT05754333|183689440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 2||||
91708215|NCT05811026|183309408|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.6961|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.6961
91708216|NCT05811026|183309409|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0067
91776570|NCT01280903|183433653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||p=0.076 for Moderate-to-vigorous|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.076
91776571|NCT01280903|183433654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.561|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.561
91776572|NCT01280903|183433655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.856
91776573|NCT01280903|183433656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.292
91776574|NCT01280903|183433657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.396
91776575|NCT01280903|183433658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.424
91776576|NCT01280903|183433659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.586
91776577|NCT01280903|183433660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.596
91776578|NCT01280903|183433661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
91776579|NCT01280903|183433662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
91776580|NCT01280903|183433663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322||||||p=0.322 for Short Form-36v2 Mental Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.322
91897148|NCT05754333|183689440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 3||||
91897149|NCT05754333|183689440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 4||||
91776581|NCT01280903|183433663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979||||||p=0.979 for Short Form-36v2 Physical Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.979
91776582|NCT01280903|183433664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||p=0.710 for Exercise Barriers Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.710
91897150|NCT05754333|183689441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||||
91897151|NCT05754333|183689441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||||
91897152|NCT05754333|183689441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||||
91897153|NCT00879762|183689447|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 2.5. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio is less than 2.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.868|||||A survival analysis for interval censored data was performed to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was estimated using bootstrap.|Null hypothesis: Median time to seroconversion among participants receiving one standard dose in Group B is 2.5-fold higher compared to participants receiving one high dose in Group A (hazard ratio = 2.5).||0.868|0.398|
91897154|NCT00879762|183689448|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 2.5. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio is less than 2.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|0.853|||||A survival analysis for interval censored data was performed to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was estimated using bootstrap.|Null hypothesis: Median time to seroconversion among participants receiving one standard dose in Group B is 2.5-fold higher compared to participants receiving one high dose in Group A (hazard ratio = 2.5).||0.853|0.384|
91776583|NCT01280903|183433664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133||||||p=0.133 for Exercise Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
91776584|NCT01280903|183433665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p=0.005 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91776585|NCT01280903|183433665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948||||||p=0.948 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Function|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
91776586|NCT01280903|183433665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663||||||p=0.663 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Other Symptoms|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.663
91776587|NCT01280903|183433666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p=0.001 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Arthritis|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91897155|NCT00879762|183689454|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2.5 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.97|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2.5 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2.5 transformed peak titers between Group A and Group B \>= 1.||0.97|-0.20|
91897156|NCT00879762|183689455|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2.5 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.0|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2.5 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2.5 transformed peak titers between Group A and Group B \>= 1.||1.00|-0.17|
91897157|NCT04016558|183689500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.007
91897158|NCT04016558|183689501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.006
91646365|NCT01236053|183184705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.61|0.20|0.8165
91708217|NCT02870205|183309411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||GSP 301 NS vs GSP 301 placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91776588|NCT01280903|183433666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||p=0.031 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Hypertension|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
91776589|NCT01280903|183433667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.816
91776590|NCT01280903|183433668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.895
91776591|NCT01280903|183433669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.260
91776592|NCT01280903|183433670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.993
91776593|NCT01280903|183433671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.947
91776594|NCT01280903|183433672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406||||||p=0.406 for Short Form-36v2 Mental Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.406
91776595|NCT01280903|183433672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826||||||p=0.826 for Short Form-36v2 Physical Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.826
91776596|NCT01280903|183433673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||p=0.950 for Exercise Barriers Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.950
91776597|NCT01280903|183433673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365||||||p=0.365 for Exercise Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.365
91776598|NCT01280903|183433674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219||||||p=0.219 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.219
91776599|NCT01280903|183433674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||p=0.340 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Function|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.340
91897159|NCT04016558|183689502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.82
91897160|NCT04016558|183689503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
91897161|NCT04016558|183689504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.40
91897162|NCT04016558|183689506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.12
91897163|NCT04016558|183689507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.39
91897164|NCT04016558|183689508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.01
91776600|NCT01280903|183433674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806||||||p=0.806 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Other Symptoms|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.806
91776601|NCT01280903|183433675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p=0.008 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Arthritis|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91897165|NCT03756129|183689516|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.25||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.67|-4.83|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg minus placebo. The MIJ821 treatment arms vs placebo are primary."||-4.83|-11.67|0.0013
91897166|NCT03756129|183689516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.71||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.22|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg minus placebo. The MIJ821 treatment arms vs placebo are primary."||-2.20|-9.22|0.0196
91897167|NCT03756129|183689517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.06||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.06|-3.06|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg minus placebo."||-3.06|-11.06|0.0130
91897168|NCT03756129|183689517|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.37||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.57|-3.18|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg minus placebo."||-3.18|-11.57|0.0133
91708218|NCT02870205|183309411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.028
91897169|NCT03756129|183689518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.09||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.37|0.19|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg weekly minus placebo."||0.19|-10.37|0.1082
91708219|NCT02870205|183309411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
91708220|NCT02870205|183309411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91708221|NCT02870205|183309411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91708222|NCT01156051|183309442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in total sleep time (TST) from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||0.005
91708223|NCT01156051|183309443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in ADHD Rating Scales - IV total scores from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||<0.001
91708224|NCT01156051|183309444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||0.392
91708225|NCT01156051|183309445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in total sleep time (TST) from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||0.059
91708226|NCT02179749|183309465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.51
91708227|NCT02179749|183309465|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth model includes one week on study drug and two weeks after the last dose of study drug. Principal predictors were drug plasma concentration and baseline treatment goal of abstinence or non abstinence. Arms were combined for this analysis.||||0.038
91708228|NCT02179749|183309466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.7||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|411 and 102 degrees of freedom||||||0.50
91708229|NCT02620384|183309467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2439.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|646.2707|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1160.8485|3718.1734|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3718.1734|1160.8485|<0.0001
91708230|NCT02620384|183309468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2249.3294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|608.2782|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3454.4999|-1044.1589|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1044.1589|-3454.4999|<0.0001
91708231|NCT02620384|183309469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.717121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586647|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8637732|-1.54651|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.546510|-3.8637732|<0.0001
91708232|NCT02620384|183309470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2806||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2506|-0.1403||Represents BORG\_48\_hours|t-test, 2 sided||Method of estimation is for 48 hour measure.|||-.1403|-1.2506|.014
91708233|NCT02620384|183309471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6903|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.4074||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1395694.0|147.1545|||t-test, 2 sided|||||147.1545|-1395694|.959
91708234|NCT02620384|183309472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.144
91708235|NCT02620384|183309473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.171
91708236|NCT02620384|183309474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.734||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.346|1.558|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.558|-1.346|.885
91708237|NCT02620384|183309475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.804
91708238|NCT02620384|183309476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.403
91708239|NCT02620384|183309477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.080
91708240|NCT02620384|183309478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.559
91708241|NCT00094536|183309479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||1-sided z-test|1-sided z-test with continuity correction (pooled)||||||.271
91708242|NCT02526160|183309492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) testing for association between achieving mean serum phosphorus levels above lower limit of normal (LLN) and treatment group, adjusting for stratification of Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Average Pain and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.0001
91708243|NCT02526160|183309493|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.08||Prespecified significance level for test after Hochberg adjustment: 0.05|GEE model|||||0.08|-1.00|0.0919
91708244|NCT02526160|183309494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.251||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.68|-1.94||Prespecified significance level for test after Hochberg adjustment: 0.0167|GEE model|||||-1.94|-14.68|0.0106
91708245|NCT02526160|183309495|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.479||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|-0.05||Prespecified significance level for test after Hochberg adjustment: 0.025|GEE model|||||-0.05|-9.76|0.0478
91708246|NCT03252145|183309564|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.096
91708247|NCT03252145|183309565|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
91708248|NCT03252145|183309566|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.096
91708249|NCT03252145|183309567|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
91776602|NCT01280903|183433675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p=0.120 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Hypertension|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.120
91897170|NCT03756129|183689518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.42||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.83|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg weekly minus placebo."||-0.02|-10.83|0.0993
91897171|NCT03756129|183689518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.46||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.78|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg biweekly minus placebo."||-1.15|-11.78|0.0598
91897172|NCT03756129|183689518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.86|2.74|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg biweekly minus placebo."||2.74|-8.86|0.2491
91897173|NCT02186847|183689559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.7563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.73|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.10|Reference level = Chemoradiation|The study was powered to detect an improvement of the 1-year progression-free survival rate from 50% (no metformin) to 65% (metformin) or equivalently a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.622, at one-sided type 1 error of 0.1 and 85% power with at least 102 progression-free survival events.||1.73|0.77|0.7563
91897174|NCT02186847|183689560|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.68|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||1.68|0.64|0.8910
91897175|NCT02186847|183689561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.34|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||2.34|0.71|0.4075
91897176|NCT02186847|183689562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.34|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||2.34|0.71|0.4075
91708250|NCT03252145|183309568|OTHER|||||||0.552|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.552
91776603|NCT03829228|183433676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.01|ANOVA||Treatment Difference= Visit5-Baseline|||2.01|0.62|<0.0001
91776604|NCT03829228|183433677|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.01|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91897177|NCT02186847|183689563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.8|||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||1.80|0.47|0.6266
91897178|NCT00084266|183689677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The final p-value was compared against an O'Brien-Fleming boundary of 0.048.||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-squared test was used to calculate p-value. P-value was calculated for participants with clinical outcome as cure."||||0.042
91897179|NCT00084266|183689689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Statistical comparison of survival analysis was performed.Log rank method was used to calculate p-value.||||0.9344
91897180|NCT00084266|183689690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Statistical comparison of survival analysis was performed.Log rank method was used to calculate p-value.||||0.5985
91776605|NCT03829228|183433678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.01|ANOVA||Treatment difference=Visit5-Baseline|||1.98|0.64|<0.0001
91776606|NCT03829228|183433679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significant was p=0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91897181|NCT00084266|183689691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Statistical comparison of survival analysis was performed.Log rank method was used to calculate p-value.||||0.8590
91897182|NCT01215422|183689692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.15||||Regression, Logistic||||||0.15|>0.05
91897183|NCT01215422|183689693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||The p-value represents the comparison of the two interventions combined and compared against baseline for Grades III and IV summed together.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91897184|NCT01215422|183689696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-squared|0.16|||>|0.05||95.0||||Correlation between years of experience (all anesthesiologists, pooled) and time to intubation (both GS and KS VLSs, pooled)|Correlation|||||||>0.05
91897185|NCT00420017|183689698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.86|||Chi-squared|||||0.86|0.16|0.02
91897186|NCT00420017|183689699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91897187|NCT00420017|183689700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.097
91897188|NCT00420017|183689701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
91897189|NCT06336603|183689711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< .001
91897190|NCT06336603|183689712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< .001
91897191|NCT06336603|183689713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< .001
91897192|NCT00388453|183689720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
91897193|NCT01259726|183689792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<=0.0001
91708251|NCT03252145|183309569|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.498
91776607|NCT02177695|183433680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.36|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of GC COXEN scores to pT0, GC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT0 within the GC treatment group.||8.36|0.82|0.1
91776608|NCT02177695|183433680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of ddMVAC COXEN scores to pT0, ddMVAC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT0 within the ddMVAC treatment group.||2.95|0.42|0.82
91776609|NCT02177695|183433681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.89|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of GC COXEN scores to \<= pT1, GC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT1 or better within the GC treatment group.||4.89|1.11|0.02
91897194|NCT01259726|183689792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91897195|NCT01259726|183689792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91897196|NCT01259726|183689793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.088
91897197|NCT01259726|183689793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.002
91897198|NCT01259726|183689793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.088
91897199|NCT01259726|183689794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.054
91708252|NCT03252145|183309570|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected Arm Only||||0.264
91776610|NCT02177695|183433681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of ddMVAC COXEN scores to \<=pT1, ddMVAC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT1 or better within the ddMVAC treatment group.||1.75|0.46|0.76
91776611|NCT02844569|183433688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91897200|NCT01259726|183689794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.008
91897201|NCT01259726|183689794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.101
91897202|NCT01259726|183689795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.045
91708253|NCT03252145|183309570|OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected arm||||0.224
91708254|NCT03252145|183309571|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected arm||||0.125
91708255|NCT03252145|183309571|OTHER|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected arm||||0.241
91708256|NCT03252145|183309572|OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected Arm||||0.261
91708257|NCT03252145|183309572|OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected Arm||||0.597
91776612|NCT02844569|183433689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91708258|NCT03252145|183309573|OTHER|||||||0.596|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected arm||||0.596
91708259|NCT03252145|183309573|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected arm||||0.219
91708260|NCT03252145|183309574|OTHER|||||||0.842|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.842
91708261|NCT03252145|183309575|OTHER|||||||0.772|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.772
91708262|NCT03252145|183309576|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
91776613|NCT02844569|183433690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91776614|NCT00744497|183433691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.53|0.87|1.13||An interim analysis on survival was performed and the final test was corrected for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Confidence intervals for median overall survival calculated using Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Compared survival in arms by 2-sided, alpha=0.0447 level, log-rank test, stratified by bisphosphonate intake (yes/no) and urinary N-telopeptide category (\<60 vs ≥60 nmol/mmol creatinine) defined at randomization. Null hypothesis was survival equal in both arms. Power calculations were that ≥858 deaths would lead to ≥90% power at 5% level for rejecting null hypothesis, given true hazard ratio of 0.8.||1.13|0.87|0.9009
91776615|NCT00744497|183433692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.271||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The odds ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.271|0.688|
91897203|NCT01259726|183689795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.066
91897204|NCT01259726|183689795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.045
91897205|NCT01211197|183689800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|100.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.75|105.67|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted.||105.67|95.75|
91897206|NCT01211197|183689800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|94.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.85|100.33|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||100.33|89.85|
91897207|NCT01211197|183689801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|99.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.76|107.49|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||107.49|91.76|
91708263|NCT03252145|183309577|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
91897208|NCT01211197|183689801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|64.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.97|73.87|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||73.87|55.97|
91897209|NCT01211197|183689802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|100.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.03|106.11|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||106.11|96.03|
91897210|NCT01211197|183689802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|94.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.22|99.87|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||99.87|89.22|
91897211|NCT01211197|183689803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|103.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.59|111.25|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||111.25|95.59|
91897212|NCT01211197|183689803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|96.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.23|107.78|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||107.78|87.23|
91897213|NCT01211197|183689804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|102.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.87|111.15|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||111.15|93.87|
91897214|NCT01211197|183689804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|100.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.7|110.51|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||110.51|91.70|
91897215|NCT01211197|183689805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|103.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|112.39|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||112.39|95.30|
91897216|NCT01211197|183689805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|75.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.68|88.64|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||88.64|63.68|
91897217|NCT01209780|183689873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV if for all three strains the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion control - Seroconversion investigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 10 percentage points.|Vaccine group difference (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to control TIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain||2|-4|
91897218|NCT01209780|183689873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV if, for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion control - Seroconversion investigational), at 21 days after last vaccination, does not exceed 10 percentage points|Vaccine group difference (%)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|14.0||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to control TIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain||14|6|
91897219|NCT01209780|183689873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV if, for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion control - Seroconversion investigational), at 21 days after last vaccination, does not exceed 10 percentage points|Vaccine group difference (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to the control TIV against B influenza strain||3|-5|
91897220|NCT01209780|183689875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV, if for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of the GMTs (GMTcontrol/GMTinvestigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.56||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to licensed control TIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain||1.56|1.11|
91897221|NCT01209780|183689875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV, if for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of the GMTs (GMTcontrol/GMTinvestigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.64||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to licensed control TIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain||1.64|1.34|
91897222|NCT01209780|183689875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV, if for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of the GMTs (GMTcontrol/GMTinvestigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 1.5|Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to licensed control TIV against B influenza strain||1.07|0.85|
91708264|NCT03252145|183309578|OTHER|||||||0.679|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.679
91708265|NCT03252145|183309579|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.120
91708266|NCT03252145|183309580|OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.138
91708267|NCT03252145|183309581|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.096
91708268|NCT03252145|183309582|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
91708269|NCT03252145|183309584|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
91776616|NCT00744497|183433693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The hazard ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.02|0.64|
91776617|NCT00744497|183433694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.763||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The odds ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.763|0.930|
91776618|NCT00744497|183433695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The hazard ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.05|0.82|
91776619|NCT00744497|183433696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The hazard ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.01|0.79|
91776620|NCT00744497|183433697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.791|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.052||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The odds ratio is presented for of experimental to control group.||1.052|0.594|
91776621|NCT02443688|183433706|OTHER|Single Group Difference from Placebo Mean Change from Baseline with 95% confidence interval (CI)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|4.12|||ANOVA|||||4.12|-1.34|
91776622|NCT02443688|183433706|OTHER|Single Group Difference from Placebo Mean Change from Baseline with 95% CI|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|1.64|||ANOVA|||||1.64|-3.78|
91776623|NCT02443688|183433706|SUPERIORITY|Difference from placebo of pooled arms (100mg CTX-4430 and 50mg CTX-4430) in change from baseline in ppFEV1 at Week 48.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.5||0.1 alpha level (2-sided) prespecified|ANOVA|||||2.50|-2.20|0.45
91776624|NCT02443688|183433707|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.02|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||2.02|1.22|
91838182|NCT02567825|183557022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.22|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children for whom diaper dermatitis was reported.||1.22|0.51|
91838183|NCT02567825|183557023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.48|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children for whom tube otorrhea was reported.||3.48|1.91|
91708270|NCT03252145|183309585|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Function Domain||||0.068
91776625|NCT02443688|183433707|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.89|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.89|1.13|
91776626|NCT02443688|183433707|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||2.01|1.21|
91776627|NCT02443688|183433707|OTHER|Pooled Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.81|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.81|1.26|
91776628|NCT02443688|183433708|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.58|
91776629|NCT02443688|183433708|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.56|
91776630|NCT02443688|183433708|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.61|
91776631|NCT02443688|183433714|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.44|0.49|
91776632|NCT02443688|183433714|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.96|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.96|0.84|
91776633|NCT02443688|183433714|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.42|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||2.42|1.07|
91776634|NCT02443688|183433714|OTHER|Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.46|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.46|0.74|
91776635|NCT02443688|183433715|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.25|
91776636|NCT02443688|183433715|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.30|
91776637|NCT02443688|183433715|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.31|
91776638|NCT00989911|183433732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91776639|NCT00837434|183433733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-value for testing treatment effect uses week 12 CD27+ switched memory as the outcome variable and adjusts for baseline CD27+ switched memory||Null Hypothesis: Mean percentage of CD27+ switched memory cells in the peripheral blood at Week 12 does not differ between individuals treated with etanercept and those treated with adalimumab after adjusting for baseline CD27+ switched memory cells. Alt. hypothesis: Mean percentage of CD27+ switched memory cells in the peripheral blood at Week 12 in individuals treated with etanercept is lower than in those treated with adalimumab after adjusting for baseline CD27+ switched memory cells.||||0.3
91776640|NCT03044106|183433743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.825|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.308759||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058809|6.591192|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference between pre and post KEA in those receiving the active treatment with a history of hamstring strain.||6.591192|1.058809|0.0068
91776641|NCT03044106|183433743|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.431784||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.869044|3.869044|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference in pre /post KEA means after receiving the sham treatment in those with a history of hamstring strains.||3.869044|-1.869044|0.2185
91776642|NCT03044106|183433743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6638904|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.450892||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5037233|1.831504|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference in pre/post KEA means in those receiving the active treatment with no history of hamstring strain.||1.831504|-.5037233|0.1281
91776643|NCT03044106|183433743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.688237|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.241751||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.557137|3.819337|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference in pre/post KEA means in those receiving the sham treatment who have no history of hamstring strain.||3.819337|1.557137|0.00
91776644|NCT03044106|183433743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.825||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4543|6.0581|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the mean difference in effect between active and sham in those with a history of hamstring strain||6.0581|-0.4543|0.090
91776645|NCT03044106|183433743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.024||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4474|-0.3406|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the mean difference of effect between active and sham in those without a history of hamstring strain.||-0.3406|-3.4474|0.018
91838184|NCT02567825|183557024|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.24|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children with no pathogens at enrollment having a penicillin-nonsusceptible nasopharyngeal or throat isolate at some follow-up visit.||1.24|0.74|
91897223|NCT05007808|183689887|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline to Week 4/EOT as the outcome (dependent) variable, treatment as the independent variable, and baseline score as covariate. The p-value was derived from the t-test for the comparison of adjusted LS means between the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.6742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.081|0.701|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.701|-1.081|0.6742
91776646|NCT03199976|183433763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni correction was applied in pairwise analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91776647|NCT03199976|183433764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.595
91776648|NCT03199976|183433765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni correction was applied in pairwise analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91776649|NCT03199976|183433766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91776650|NCT03367793|183433767|OTHER||f statistic|1.1||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 29 participants randomized in a 3x3 within-subject crossover design (repeated measures) achieves at least 89% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was determined by a 2-sided f-test (alpha = 0.05) of the overall treatment effect based on a statistical simulation, simulating the repeated measures design. Assumptions included ICC of 0.3.||||0.341
91776651|NCT03367793|183433767|OTHER||least square means|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.36|||||Additional model based estimates for 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for PFST.|||0.36|0.26|
91776652|NCT03367793|183433767|OTHER||least square means|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.38|||||Additional model based estimates for 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for VSX.|||0.38|0.27|
91776653|NCT03367793|183433767|OTHER||least square means|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.39|||||Additional model based estimates for 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for Clinical Refraction.|||0.39|0.28|
91776654|NCT03367793|183433768|OTHER||f statistic|0.93||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|f test|||It was calculated that 29 participants randomized in a 3x3 within-subject crossover design (repeated measures) achieves at least 89% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was determined by a 2-sided f-test (alpha = 0.05) of the overall treatment effect based on a statistical simulation, simulating the repeated measures design. Assumptions included ICC of 0.3.||||0.410
91776655|NCT03367793|183433768|OTHER||least square means|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41|||||Additional model based estimates for initial visit estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for PFST.|||0.41|0.28|
91776656|NCT03367793|183433768|OTHER||least square means|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.39|||||Additional model based estimates for initial visit estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for VSX.|||0.39|0.26|
91776657|NCT03367793|183433768|OTHER||least square means|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41|||||Additional model based estimates for initial visit estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for Clinical Refraction.|||0.41|0.28|
91776658|NCT03367793|183433769|OTHER||f statistic|1.09||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.05.|f test|||It was calculated that 29 participants randomized in a 3x3 within-subject crossover design (repeated measures) achieves at least 89% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was determined by a 2-sided f-test (alpha = 0.05) of the overall treatment effect based on a statistical simulation, simulating the repeated measures design. Assumptions included ICC of 0.3.||||0.351
91776659|NCT03367793|183433769|OTHER||least square means|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|12.7|||||Additional model based estimates for two-month wear time estimated least square means in spectacle wear-time (Hours) for PFST.|||12.7|9.3|
91776660|NCT03367793|183433769|OTHER||least square means|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|12.6|||||Additional model based estimates for two-month wear time estimated least square means in spectacle wear-time (Hours) for VSX.|||12.6|9.2|
91776661|NCT03367793|183433769|OTHER||least square means|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|12.9|||||Additional model based estimates for two-month wear time estimated least square means in spectacle wear-time (Hours) for Clinical Refraction.|||12.9|9.5|
91776662|NCT03367793|183433770|OTHER||f statistic|0.58||||0.562|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that a sample size of n=28 yields 82% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in proportion of satisfaction (binary outcome of scores of '4' or '5' versus '1 to 3') in comparing two metrics using a two sided McNemar's test (alpha = 0.025 to account for pairwise testing).||||0.562
91776663|NCT03367793|183433770|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 1 for PFST.|||||
91776664|NCT03367793|183433770|OTHER||proportion|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 1 for VSX.|||||
91776665|NCT03367793|183433770|OTHER||proportion|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 1 for Clinical Refraction.|||||
91776666|NCT03367793|183433771|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that a sample size of n=28 yields 82% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in proportion of satisfaction (binary outcome of scores of '4' or '5' versus '1 to 3') in comparing two metrics using a two sided McNemar's test (alpha = 0.025 to account for pairwise testing).||||>0.99
91897224|NCT02318797|183689910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||<0.0001
91838185|NCT02567825|183557024|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children positive only for at least 1 penicillin-susceptible pathogen at enrollment having a penicillin-nonsusceptible nasopharyngeal or throat isolate at some follow-up visit.||1.72|0.83|
91838186|NCT02567825|183557024|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children positive for at least 1 penicillin nonsusceptible pathogen at enrollment having a penicillin-nonsusceptible nasopharyngeal or throat isolate at some follow-up visit.||1.29|0.94|
91897225|NCT02318797|183689910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.0019
91708271|NCT03252145|183309585|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety Domain||||0.808
91838187|NCT02567825|183557025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.55|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of episodes of AOM at which a nonsusceptible pathogen is recovered.||1.55|0.84|
91897226|NCT02318797|183689911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4103|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.4103
91897227|NCT02318797|183689911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (only conducted if treatment by time interaction test non-significant)||||<0.0001
91897228|NCT02318797|183689911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4068|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.4068
91897229|NCT02318797|183689911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2656|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment interaction (only calculated if gender by treatment by time non-significant)||||0.2656
91708272|NCT03252145|183309585|OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression Domain||||0.557
91708273|NCT03252145|183309585|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fatigue Domain||||0.049
91708274|NCT03252145|183309585|OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep Disturbance Domain||||0.279
91708275|NCT03252145|183309585|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Roles/Activity Domain||||0.020
91708276|NCT03252145|183309585|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain Interference Domain||||0.009
91708277|NCT03252145|183309586|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Function Domain||||0.038
91708278|NCT03252145|183309586|OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety Domain||||0.108
91776667|NCT03367793|183433771|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 2 for PFST.|||||
91776668|NCT03367793|183433771|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 2 for VSX.|||||
91776669|NCT03367793|183433771|OTHER||proportion|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 2 for Clinical Refraction.|||||
91776670|NCT03367793|183433772|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that a sample size of n=28 yields 82% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in proportion of satisfaction (binary outcome of scores of '4' or '5' versus '1 to 3') in comparing two metrics using a two sided McNemar's test (alpha = 0.025 to account for pairwise testing).||||>0.99
91776671|NCT03367793|183433772|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 3 for PFST.|||||
91776672|NCT03367793|183433772|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 3 for VSX.|||||
91897230|NCT02318797|183689912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4582|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.4582
91897231|NCT02318797|183689912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (only conducted if treatment by time interaction test non-significant)||||<0.0001
91897232|NCT02318797|183689912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.05
91897233|NCT02318797|183689912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1792|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment interaction (only calculated if gender by treatment by time non-significant)||||0.1792
91897234|NCT02318797|183689913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.2179
91776673|NCT03367793|183433772|OTHER||proportion|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 3 for Clinical Refraction.|||||
91776674|NCT04218240|183433783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||A nonparametric (Kruskal-Wallis) comparison of the two groups (p=0.049)||||.05
91776675|NCT04218240|183433784|OTHER|Chi-square analysis||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||hypothesis: more people in active PGB/LFX will complete withdrawal CI = 95% P = 0.5||||0.27
91776676|NCT00135226|183433803|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.79|0.01
91776677|NCT00135226|183433803|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.87|0.55
91776678|NCT00135226|183433804|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|1.09|0.003
91776679|NCT00135226|183433805|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||||||||0.97|0.80|
91776680|NCT00135226|183433805|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09||||||||1.09|0.91|
91776681|NCT00135226|183433806|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24||||||||1.24|0.80|
91776682|NCT00135226|183433807|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04||||||||1.04|0.85|
91776683|NCT00135226|183433807|OTHER||Risk Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05||||||||1.05|0.86|
91776684|NCT00135226|183433808|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.12||||||||1.12|0.66|
91776685|NCT00135226|183433808|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02||||||||1.02|0.61|
91776686|NCT00135226|183433809|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.77||||||||1.77|0.7|
91838188|NCT02567825|183557026|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.41|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of routine non-illness visits at which a nonsusceptible pathogen is recovered.||1.41|0.84|
91776687|NCT00135226|183433809|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5||||||||1.50|0.59|
91776688|NCT00135226|183433810|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34||||||||1.34|0.68|
91776689|NCT00135226|183433810|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12||||||||1.12|0.57|
91776690|NCT00135226|183433811|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15||||||||1.15|0.84|
91776691|NCT00135226|183433811|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||||||||1.12|0.82|
91776692|NCT00135226|183433812|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63||||||||1.63|0.86|
91776693|NCT00135226|183433812|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||||||||1.28|0.68|
91838189|NCT02567825|183557027|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was ITT. The participants are randomized children with at least one episode of AOM late during the respiratory season at which a nasopharyngeal or throat culture is obtained.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.95|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator.|||1.95|0.69|
91838190|NCT02567825|183557028|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.56|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean parental satisfaction score||0.56|-0.06|
91897235|NCT02318797|183689913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (only conducted if treatment by time interaction test non-significant)||||<0.0001
91897236|NCT02318797|183689913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4797|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.4797
91776694|NCT00135226|183433813|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01||||||||1.01|0.64|
91776695|NCT00135226|183433813|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.59||||||||1.59|1.00|
91776696|NCT00135226|183433814|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.6||||||||1.60|0.46|
91776697|NCT00135226|183433814|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.45||||||||1.45|0.41|
91776698|NCT00135226|183433815|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.3||||||||3.30|0.17|
91776699|NCT00135226|183433815|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.31||||||||3.31|0.17|
91776700|NCT00135226|183433816|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11||||||||1.11|0.92|
91776701|NCT00135226|183433816|OTHER||Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1||||||||1.10|0.91|
91776702|NCT00135226|183433817|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.43||||||||1.43|0.78|
91776703|NCT00135226|183433818|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29||||||||1.29|0.74|
91776704|NCT00135226|183433818|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||||||||1.37|0.79|
91776705|NCT00135226|183433819|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.32||||||||1.32|0.97|
91776706|NCT00135226|183433819|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25||||||||1.25|0.91|
91776707|NCT00135226|183433820|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.38||||||||1.38|0.76|
91776708|NCT00135226|183433820|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.58||||||||1.58|0.87|
91776709|NCT00135226|183433821|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.34||||||||1.34|0.76|
91776710|NCT00135226|183433821|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.52||||||||1.52|0.86|
91776711|NCT00135226|183433822|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23||||||||1.23|0.58|
91776712|NCT00135226|183433822|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.48||||||||1.48|0.70|
91776713|NCT00135226|183433823|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.41||||||||1.41|0.49|
91776714|NCT00135226|183433823|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.22||||||||1.22|0.42|
91776715|NCT00135226|183433824|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.41||||||||1.41|0.50|
91776716|NCT00135226|183433824|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31||||||||1.31|0.46|
91776717|NCT00135226|183433825|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.54||||||||1.54|0.98|
91776718|NCT00135226|183433826|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12||||||||1.12|0.63|
91776719|NCT02893293|183433854|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model including a random effect term accounting for correlation among the measures with a same patient.||||||0.002
91776720|NCT02893293|183433855|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model including a random effect term accounting for correlation among the measures with a same patient.||||||0.02
91776721|NCT03279081|183433870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Combined Remission Rate|2.37|||=|0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|10.55||P-value was based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for interactive web response system (IWRS) randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals (CI) are displayed.|||10.55|-5.82|=0.571
91776722|NCT03279081|183433871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Remission Rate|2.72|||=|0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|10.9||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||10.90|-5.47|=0.515
91776723|NCT03279081|183433872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.32|0.90|=0.374
91776724|NCT03279081|183433873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Combined Remission Rate|1.27|||=|0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|9.31||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||9.31|-6.77|=0.757
91776725|NCT03279081|183433874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Remission Rate|1.6|||=|0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|9.66||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||9.66|-6.46|=0.697
91776726|NCT03279081|183433875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Response Rate|3.23|||=|0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|11.21||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||11.21|-4.76|=0.428
91776727|NCT03279081|183433876|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Response Rate|2.84|||=|0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|11.03||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||11.03|-5.35|=0.497
91776728|NCT03279081|183433877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.32|0.90|=0.363
91776729|NCT03279081|183433878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||=|0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.18|0.82|=0.833
91838191|NCT02567825|183557029|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of parent reports indicating at least one health care encounter since the previous study visit.||1.18|0.98|
91838192|NCT02567825|183557030|SUPERIORITY|Reports for which the parent did not answer the question were excluded from the analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.41|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of parent reports indicating a parent missed work due to child's illness.||1.41|0.88|
91897237|NCT02318797|183689913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment interaction (only calculated if gender by treatment by time non-significant)||||0.0014
91776730|NCT03279081|183433879|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||=|0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.16|0.81|=0.717
91776731|NCT03279081|183433880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Relapse Rate|3.03|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|14.34||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||14.34|-8.28|=0.599
91776732|NCT00771914|183433884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from baseline compared to four hours after placebo.||||0.00
91897238|NCT02318797|183689914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.0058
91897239|NCT02318797|183689915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.0014
91897240|NCT02318797|183689916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0001
91897241|NCT02318797|183689917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5566|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.5566
91897242|NCT02318797|183689917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||<0.0001
91897243|NCT02318797|183689918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.002
91897244|NCT02318797|183689919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0029
91897245|NCT02318797|183689920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0021
91897246|NCT02318797|183689921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1183|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.1183
91708279|NCT03252145|183309586|OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression Domain||||0.467
91897247|NCT02318797|183689921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0569|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||0.0569
91897248|NCT02318797|183689922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0745|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0745
91897249|NCT02318797|183689922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||<0.0001
91897250|NCT02318797|183689923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1653|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.1653
91897251|NCT02318797|183689923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1772|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||0.1772
91897252|NCT02318797|183689924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||<0.0001
91897253|NCT02318797|183689925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0202|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0202
91897254|NCT02318797|183689926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4715|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.4715
91897255|NCT02318797|183689926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9209|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||0.9209
91897256|NCT03581825|183689979|SUPERIORITY|Statistically superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens are greater than 40 points.|Least-Square Mean|56.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|61.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||61.4|51.2|
91897257|NCT03581825|183689980|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control was concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference was above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least-Square Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||7.4|-0.5|
91897258|NCT00585195|183690004|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|131.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.59|179.63||||||||179.63|96.59|
91897259|NCT00585195|183690004|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|239.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|172.14|331.93||||||||331.93|172.14|
91897260|NCT00585195|183690004|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|201.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.33|291.58||||||||291.58|139.33|
91897261|NCT00585195|183690005|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|216.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|161.41|289.56||||||||289.56|161.41|
91646366|NCT01236053|183184705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.12|0.17|0.6624
91897262|NCT00585195|183690005|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|350.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.09|868.23||||||||868.23|141.09|
91897263|NCT00585195|183690005|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|365.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|263.22|507.31||||||||507.31|263.22|
91897264|NCT00585195|183690008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|15.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.89|22.26||||||||22.26|10.89|
91897265|NCT00585195|183690009|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|20.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.59|29.18||||||||29.18|14.59|
91897266|NCT00585195|183690011|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|157.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.89|180.97||||||||180.97|136.89|
91897267|NCT00585195|183690012|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|132.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.1|148.1||||||||148.10|119.10|
91897268|NCT00529958|183690063|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based on 88 ACL-deficient patients with surgical intervention and an ACL-QOL score of 74.5 (SD=20.1) at a mean 39-month follow-up, a minimal clinically important difference of 10 points, power=0.80 and p=0.05.|||||<|0.05||||||A Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was used in the sample size calculation, resulting in 90 patients per group. With a 20% lost-to-follow-up rate, the final sample size was 108 patients per group for a total of 324 patients.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"All patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using a 5% significance level for all analyses. The ACL-QOL scores for each study group were analyzed using adjusted Bonferroni comparisons and repeated-measures analyses, using a mixed-model analysis of variance for treatment group over time of assessment."||||<0.05
91897269|NCT01315353|183690092|SUPERIORITY|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by ART use at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Cumulative rate difference|1.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.9||||||The lower bound of the (lower) one-sided 95% confidence interval was provided.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm B - arm A) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 130 cumulative rate of CIN2+ with 95% one-sided confidence interval.|||-7.9|
91897270|NCT01315353|183690093|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified by ART use at screening.||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to time to CIN2+.||||0.94
91897271|NCT01315353|183690094|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|13.6|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by ART use at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm B - arm A) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 130 cumulative rate of CIN3+ with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||13.6|-4.8|
91897272|NCT01315353|183690095|OTHER|||||||0.445||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to rate of premature study discontinuation.||||0.445
91897273|NCT01315353|183690096|OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value for the week 26 comparison. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 26.||||1.000
91897274|NCT01315353|183690096|OTHER|||||||0.279||||||"P-value for the week 52 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 52.||||0.279
91646367|NCT01236053|183184705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.68|0.45|0.6316
91646368|NCT01236053|183184705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.22|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.22|0.35|0.9060
91646369|NCT01236053|183184705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.74|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.74|0.61|0.3731
91897275|NCT01315353|183690096|OTHER|||||||0.781||||||"P-value for the week 78 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 78.||||0.781
91897276|NCT01315353|183690096|OTHER|||||||0.375||||||"P-value for the week 104 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 104.||||0.375
91897277|NCT01315353|183690096|OTHER|||||||0.444||||||"P-value for the week 130 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 130.||||0.444
91897278|NCT01315353|183690097|OTHER|||||||0.132||||||"P-value for the week 26 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with hr-HPV at week 26.||||0.132
91897279|NCT01315353|183690098|OTHER|||||||0.227||||||"P-value for the week 26 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with hr-HPV at week 26.||||0.227
91897280|NCT01315353|183690099|OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value for the week 26 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with hr-HPV at week 26.||||1.000
91897281|NCT03319849|183690125|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|-0.0082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0082|-0.0890|0.0186
91897282|NCT00112047|183690144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming 70% response rate for each group at Week 48, 500 participants (250 per group) were sufficient to achieve at least 85% power to establish non-inferiority between the 2 study groups with a delta of 13%. The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|11.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|18.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||18.6|4.3|0.002
91897283|NCT00112047|183690145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|9.1||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|16.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||16.6|1.6|0.021
91897284|NCT00112047|183690146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|11.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|18.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||18.6|3.7|0.004
91900882|NCT00475033|183696151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|PRP in Hib: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.12|0.75|
91838193|NCT02567825|183557031|SUPERIORITY|Reports indicating the parent did not answer the question were excluded from the analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of parent reports indicating the need for special childcare arrangements due to child's illness.||1.48|0.89|
91838194|NCT02567825|183557032|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean OM-6 survey score||0.02|-0.13|
91897285|NCT00112047|183690147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|7.9||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||15.6|0.1|0.058
91776733|NCT00771914|183433884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from Aspirin compared to Placebo.||||0.31
91776734|NCT00771914|183433884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from Lovaza compared to Placebo.||||0.49
91776735|NCT00771914|183433884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from both Aspirin and Lovaza compared to Placebo.||||0.03
91776736|NCT00573508|183433885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|9.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.6|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at End of Treatment'.||12.2|6.6|<0.0001
91776737|NCT00573508|183433886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at Week 4', 'Change at Week 8' and 'Change at Week 12'.||||<.0001
91776738|NCT00573508|183433887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value represents change from Baseline to Week 12.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at Week 12'.||||<.0001
91776739|NCT00573508|183433888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
91776740|NCT00573508|183433896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.1|-11.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at EOT'.||-11.6|-22.1|<.0001
91776741|NCT01283555|183434099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0||||The p-value presented here represents a comparison of the total number of non-iatrogenic findings at baseline and after one week of product use.|Fisher Exact|||Fishers exact test was used to compare the frequency of non-iatrogenic colposcopic findings at baseline and follow-up visits (after one week of twice-daily product use).||||0.4870
91897286|NCT00112047|183690148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is equal between the two treatment groups. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is different between the two treatment groups.||||0.003
91776742|NCT01614249|183434114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.6||The p-value was adjusted for baseline variations in the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) regression model. The significance level was set at p-value less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|In ANCOVA, fish oil group was main effect, participant baseline variables were covariates and presence of interaction between covariates was tested.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the magnitude of change in BDI-II scores between HIV-seropositive pregnant women on fish oil omega-3 EPA-rich supplements and the control group on soybean oil soft gels. A sample size of 91 women per arm gave an 85% power to detect as statistically significant at 5% level, a true difference of 4 scores in the mean depressive symptom scores between the two arms assuming a within group standard deviation of nine in depressive symptom scores.||2.60|-0.58|0.21
91776743|NCT03094416|183434129|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.783797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91776744|NCT03094416|183434130|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026128||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1607
91776745|NCT03094416|183434131|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.397559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.174962||0.4204|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4204
91776746|NCT03094416|183434132|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019171||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0062
91776747|NCT03094416|183434133|OTHER|"A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).~Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. No data transformation was done."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.100127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048171||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0438
91776748|NCT03094416|183434134|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093366||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0254
91776749|NCT03094416|183434135|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036679||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7619
91776750|NCT03094416|183434136|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064264||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0655
91776751|NCT03094416|183434137|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053033||0.5542|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5542
91776752|NCT03094416|183434138|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046827||0.682|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6820
91776753|NCT03094416|183434139|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024025||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0468
91776754|NCT03094416|183434140|OTHER|"A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).~Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. No data transformation was done."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088103||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0203
91776755|NCT03094416|183434141|OTHER|"A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).~Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. No data transformation was done."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.030904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038699||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4291
91776756|NCT03094416|183434142|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047802||0.5967|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5967
91776757|NCT00321789|183434147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||8.3|-3.6|0.44
91776758|NCT00321789|183434148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||-0.01|-0.23|0.03
91776759|NCT00321789|183434149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||-0.02|-0.29|0.02
91776760|NCT00321789|183434150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||-0.03|-0.29|0.02
91776761|NCT00321789|183434151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||0.03|-0.30|0.11
91776762|NCT00321789|183434152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||0.20|-0.06|0.26
91708280|NCT03252145|183309586|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fatigue Domain||||0.078
91776763|NCT00321789|183434153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|1.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5|||generalized estimating equations|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||1.5|1.0|0.06
91776764|NCT00321789|183434154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|1.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||generalized estimating equations|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||1.4|0.9|0.37
91776765|NCT00321789|183434155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||-0.09|-4.13|0.04
91776766|NCT00321789|183434156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||0.10|-1.38|0.09
91776767|NCT00321789|183434157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||1.7|0.6|0.87
91776768|NCT02485691|183434173|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.73||P-value from 2-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel vs Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization.||0.73|0.40|<0.0001
91776769|NCT02485691|183434174|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel vs Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization.||0.89|0.46|0.0078
91776770|NCT02485691|183434175|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel vs Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization.||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
91776771|NCT02485691|183434176|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.||||||0.0003||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
91776772|NCT02485691|183434177|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.||||||0.0004||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
91776773|NCT03341299|183434198|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.991||||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.932|0.7734
91646370|NCT01236053|183184705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.87|0.43|0.8266
91838195|NCT02567825|183557032|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean OM-6 survey--children's overall QOL score.||0.24|-0.13|
91776774|NCT03341299|183434199|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-14.5||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.38|65.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||65.38|-94.38|0.7190
91776775|NCT04905134|183434207|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flexible scope compared with the SOC scope||||0.04
91776776|NCT02392806|183434252|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91776777|NCT03518086|183434254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||6e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|3.2|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.1|3.2|0.00006
91646371|NCT01236053|183184705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.13|0.95|0.0712
91708281|NCT03252145|183309586|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep Disturbance Domain||||0.147
91776778|NCT03518086|183434255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|10.8|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.0|10.8|<0.00001
91776779|NCT03518086|183434256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|6.3|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|6.3|<0.00001
91776780|NCT03518086|183434257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.875|11.4|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.6|11.4|<0.001
91776781|NCT03518086|183434258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.6|13.8|<0.001
91776782|NCT03518086|183434259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|18.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.7|8.6|<0.001
91776783|NCT03518086|183434260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.8|13.2|<0.00001
91776784|NCT03518086|183434261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|-1.47|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||The confidence interval of 99.875 % was chosen to match the significance level.|||-0.44|-1.47|<0.00001
91897287|NCT00112047|183690149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is equal between the two treatment groups. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is different between the two treatment groups.||||0.046
91776785|NCT03518086|183434262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|17.15|||ANCOVA|||||17.15|9.28|<0.001
91776786|NCT03518086|183434263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-935.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|218.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1363.64|-507.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-507.55|-1363.64|<0.001
91776787|NCT03563209|183434301|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05/3 (0.0167)|Friedman|||Null hypothesis: no difference between dynamic components of elbow flexor spasticity (spasticity angle) in three different forearm positions. (Comparison groups were Spasticity angle in pronation, Spasticity angle in neutral position and Spasticity angle in supination)||||<0.001
91776788|NCT00303069|183434304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|84.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.2|93.6||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 90 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||93.6|65.2|<0.001
91776789|NCT00303069|183434304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|81.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.6|92.0||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 30 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||92.0|61.6|<0.01
91776790|NCT00303069|183434304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|43.8||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 5 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||43.8|6.7|<0.001
91776791|NCT00303069|183434305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|48.3||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 90 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||48.3|17.2|<0.001
91790180|NCT02660138|183459523|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.86||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||8.86|1.80|0.0007
91900883|NCT00475033|183696152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.4|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PRP: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||3.4|-9.4|
91900884|NCT03645954|183696161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91708282|NCT03252145|183309586|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Roles/Activity Domain||||0.004
91776792|NCT00303069|183434305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|32.1||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 30 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||32.1|1.6|<0.001
91897288|NCT00112047|183690150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 48 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 48 is different between the 2 treatment groups.||||0.026
91897289|NCT00112047|183690151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 48 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 48 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||||0.063
91646372|NCT01236053|183184705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.6|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.60|0.77|0.2674
91776793|NCT00303069|183434305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|16.9||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 5 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||16.9|-8.2|<0.001
91776794|NCT01084655|183434317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square(LS)Means|1.204|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.666||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.666|0.870|
91776795|NCT01084655|183434318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.074|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.793|1.455||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.455|0.793|
91776796|NCT01084655|183434321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.066|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|1.417||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.417|0.802|
91776797|NCT01084655|183434322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.955|1.195||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.195|0.955|
91776798|NCT03027609|183434346|SUPERIORITY|comparison between the treatment and placebo|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.54||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|10.8||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.8|-21.9|0.6154
91776799|NCT03027609|183434347|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.01||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|10.5||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between the treatment and placebo||10.5|-18.5|0.8426
91776800|NCT03027609|183434348|SUPERIORITY|comparison between the treatment and placebo|P value CMH|3.6||||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|20.3||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between the treatment and placebo||20.3|-13.1|0.3562
91776801|NCT03027609|183434349|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between the treatment and placebo|P value CMH|-2.81||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|13.2||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.2|-18.9|0.8472
91776802|NCT03027609|183434350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.3||||0.4616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|60.6||Marginally statistically significant only if p\<0.1|Chi-squared|||Data for Day 14||60.6|-16.2|0.4616
91776803|NCT03027609|183434350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.3||||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|57.8||Data for Day 21|Chi-squared|||Data for Day 21||57.8|-13.3|0.4053
91776804|NCT03027609|183434351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.1||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|90.9||Marginally statistically significant only if p\<0.1|Chi-squared|||Data for Day 14||90.9|-14.8|0.0833
91900885|NCT03645954|183696162|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91900886|NCT03645954|183696163|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91646373|NCT01236053|183184706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|7.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||7.46|1.75|0.0005
91708283|NCT03252145|183309586|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain Interference Domain||||0.032
91776805|NCT03027609|183434351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.8||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.5|78.1||Data for Day 21|Chi-squared|Marginally statistically significant only if p\<0.1 Day 21||Data for Day 21||78.1|-30.5|0.5151
91776806|NCT03182374|183434352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ITT Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91776807|NCT03182374|183434353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PP Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91776808|NCT03182374|183434354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6655||||||PP Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6655
91708284|NCT03252145|183309587|OTHER|||||||0.938|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
91776809|NCT03182374|183434355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PP Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91646374|NCT01236053|183184706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.83|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||6.83|1.55|0.0019
91708285|NCT03252145|183309588|OTHER|||||||0.603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.603
91776810|NCT03182374|183434356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||PP population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91776811|NCT03182374|183434357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91776812|NCT01462370|183434358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority margin is -3.7 units.|Difference in LS Means|0.89||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.76||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.025 (one-sided).|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||With at least 128 participants, the study had a 92% power to establish that etoricoxib is noninferior to ibuprofen (null hypothesis). The power and sample size were based on the following assumptions: 1) an approximately 15% protocol violation rate, 2) a noninferiority margin of -3.7 units (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen), and 3) an intrapatient standard deviation of 8 units.||1.76|0.03|0.043
91776813|NCT01462370|183434359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.57||A nominal threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||1.57|-1.16|0.768
91776814|NCT01462370|183434360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.45||A nominal threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.45|0.07|0.007
91776815|NCT01462370|183434361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.54||A nominal threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.54|0.17|<0.001
91776816|NCT01462370|183434362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.14||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for treatment, period, and baseline pain intensity.||||1.14|0.70|0.371
91776817|NCT01462370|183434363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.20|-0.00|0.051
91776818|NCT01462370|183434364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference in LS Means|0.17||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.32|0.03|0.019
91776819|NCT01462370|183434366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.31||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.31|0.10|<0.001
91776820|NCT01462370|183434367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.45|0.10|0.002
91776821|NCT01462370|183434368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.11||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.20|0.03|0.011
91776822|NCT01462370|183434369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.44||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.44|0.08|0.004
91776823|NCT01462370|183434370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.87||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, period, and baseline pain intensity.||||2.87|0.90|0.112
91776824|NCT01462370|183434371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, period, and baseline pain intensity.||||3.45|1.12|0.019
91776825|NCT03651479|183434372|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91776826|NCT01391546|183434390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was achieved if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was greater than 2/3|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18|||longitudinal regression model|Model adjusted for pre-vaccination titres and age at vaccination in years|GMT ratio = GMT IM route divided by GMT SC route|||1.18|0.93|<0.001
91776827|NCT01391546|183434391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.0|||||GMFR = GMT Post-vaccination/GMT Pre-vaccination|Acceptability was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI was \>1.4||3.0|2.4|
91776828|NCT02392637|183434442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.62
91776829|NCT02392637|183434443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.39
91776830|NCT01761877|183434445|OTHER|Mixed Models Analysis|||||<|0.05||||||A p value was calculated for change in breast density from baseline to 12 months separately for each study arm.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was designed to assess change in breast density using fat/water MRI after 12 months of sulindac intervention in postmenopausal breast cancer patients taking aromatase inhibitors for the treatment of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. A non-randomized observation arm was included with the same eligibility criteria to assess change in breast density over 12 months using the fat/water MRI method of quantifying breast density. Change was examined separately for each arm.||||<0.05
91646375|NCT01236053|183184706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.55|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.55|1.39|0.0024
91708286|NCT03252145|183309589|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837
91708287|NCT03252145|183309590|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.511
91708288|NCT03252145|183309591|OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.326
91776831|NCT01761877|183434446|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||A p value of \<0.05 was selected for change in each arm. The study did not include a direct comparison between the two arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91776832|NCT01761877|183434447|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p value of \<0.05 was selected for change in each arm. The study did not include a direct comparison between the two arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91776833|NCT03697252|183434472|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.07|-7.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures||||Statistics are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model includes the treatment group (KarXT or placebo), visit, and the interaction between the treatment group and visit as fixed factors, and baseline PANSS total score, site, age, and gender as covariates. An unstructured covariance matrix is used to model the correlation among repeated measurements and the denominator degrees of freedom are computed using the Kenward-Roger method.|-7.05|-16.07|<0.0001
91776834|NCT03697252|183434474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of KarXT and Placebo at Week 5||||<0.001
91776835|NCT00106704|183434478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|-0.57|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum (on metformin or not), baseline A1C||||-0.57|-90.0|<0.001
91776836|NCT00106704|183434479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-11.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum (on metformin or not at Visit 3), baseline A1C||||-11.8|-28.4|<0.001
91776837|NCT01780506|183434480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was ≥ 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was \< 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|0.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-3.0|4.0||P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region (US vs ex-US).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||4.0|-3.0|0.78
91776838|NCT01867671|183434511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|205.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|1758.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||1758.51|24.00|<0.0001
91776839|NCT01867671|183434512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.82|||<|0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|252.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||252.33|3.07|<0.0031
91776840|NCT01867671|183434513|OTHER|McNemar's Test|Simple Kappa Coefficient|0.162|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0628|0.2612|||McNemar|||||0.2612|0.0628|<0.0001
91776841|NCT01867671|183434514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1464.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|944.0|1985.0|||Chi-squared|||||1985|944|<0.0001
91776842|NCT04852302|183434516|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported depression was the same, worse, or better at 6-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.81||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|0.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean difference between the paired observations is zero.||0.86|-4.47|0.168
91776843|NCT04852302|183434517|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported depression was the same, worse, or better at 3-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.59||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.69||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||||1.69|-2.29|0.752
91776844|NCT04852302|183434518|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported anxiety via the Death and Dying Distress Scale was the same, worse, or better at 3-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.26||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|4.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||||4.34|-13.67|0.285
91776845|NCT04852302|183434518|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported anxiety via the Death and Dying Distress Scale was the same, worse, or better at 6-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.22||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|7.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||||7.34|-11.74|0.628
91776846|NCT01743469|183434535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1.|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>20%).||||0.142
91776847|NCT01743469|183434535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1.|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>35%).||||1.000
91776848|NCT01743469|183434535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>20%).||||0.800
91776849|NCT01743469|183434535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>15%).||||0.630
91776850|NCT01743469|183434536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1.|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with a prespecified threshold (\>20%).||||0.500
91776851|NCT03253796|183434550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|63.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||63.6|34.1|<0.001
91776852|NCT03253796|183434550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.7|||Meittinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||49.7|17.0|<0.001
91776853|NCT03253796|183434553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|19.4|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||19.4|3.3|
91776854|NCT03253796|183434553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.9|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||10.9|-2.8|
91776855|NCT03253796|183434555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.8|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||5.8|-5.9|
91646376|NCT01236053|183184706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||4.00|1.19|0.0115
91776856|NCT03253796|183434555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.8|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||5.8|-5.9|
91708289|NCT01763827|183309600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.14|-53.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.14|-61.14|<0.001
91708290|NCT01763827|183309600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.46|-51.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-51.10|-58.46|<0.001
91776857|NCT03253796|183434557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|29.0|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||29.0|0.2|
91646377|NCT01236053|183184706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.96|0.17|0.6281
91708291|NCT01763827|183309600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.28|-35.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.31|-43.28|<0.001
91708292|NCT01763827|183309600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.24|-33.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-33.86|-41.24|<0.001
91708293|NCT01763827|183309601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.95|-53.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.04|-59.95|<0.001
91708294|NCT01763827|183309601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.66|-54.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.14|-60.66|<0.001
91708295|NCT01763827|183309601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.87|-35.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.94|-42.87|<0.001
91708296|NCT01763827|183309601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.97|-36.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.42|-42.97|<0.001
91708297|NCT01763827|183309602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.0|-74.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-74.2|-85.0|<0.001
91708298|NCT01763827|183309602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-81.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-76.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-76.9|-87.0|<0.001
91897290|NCT00112047|183690152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.06||The change from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from stratum-weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||0.06|-0.16|0.31
91897291|NCT00112047|183690153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||stratum-weighted difference|31.74||||0.002||95.0|8.96|54.52||The change from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||54.52|8.96|0.002
91897292|NCT00112047|183690154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|12.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|21.1||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||21.1|4.3|0.004
91900887|NCT03645954|183696164|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91776858|NCT03253796|183434557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|29.1|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||29.1|0.2|
91776859|NCT03253796|183434559|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|40.3|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||40.3|8.5|
91776860|NCT03253796|183434559|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|21.3|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||21.3|-9.9|
91776861|NCT03253796|183434561|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|39.0|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||39.0|9.1|
91776862|NCT03253796|183434561|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|37.7|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||37.7|7.3|
91776863|NCT03253796|183434565|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|44.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||44.5|19.2|<0.001
91838196|NCT02567825|183557033|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.47|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean caregiver impact questionnaire score.||1.47|-1.55|
91900888|NCT03645954|183696165|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91900889|NCT03645954|183696166|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91776864|NCT03253796|183434566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.9||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|30.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||30.5|0.9|0.037
91776865|NCT00528112|183434568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||failure rate|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.017||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) at 3 years||0.017|0.005|
91776866|NCT00528112|183434568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||failure rate|0.01||||||95.0|0.005|0.018||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) at 3 years||0.018|0.005|
91776867|NCT00528112|183434590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||failure rate|0.01445|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00823|0.02531||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) at 5 years||0.02531|0.00823|
91776868|NCT02718898|183434606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|92.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||92.23|12.39|<0.001
91776869|NCT02718898|183434607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|102.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.79|461.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||461.43|22.79|<0.001
91776870|NCT02718898|183434608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|46.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||46.40|5.71|<0.001
91776871|NCT02718898|183434609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|40.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.29|4.57|<0.001
91776872|NCT02718898|183434610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|31.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.40|3.08|<0.001
91776873|NCT02718898|183434611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.7|-10.1|<0.001
91776874|NCT02718898|183434612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.8|-24.3|<0.001
91776875|NCT02718898|183434613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|31.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.80|6.12|<0.001
91776876|NCT02718898|183434614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1339|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.264|6.748|||ANCOVA|||||6.748|2.264|<0.001
91776877|NCT02718898|183434615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0367||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|3.847|||ANCOVA|||||3.847|-0.253|0.085
91776878|NCT02718898|183434616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.015|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-22.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||-22.78|-34.72|<0.001
91776879|NCT02718898|183434616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Itch||-3.02|-4.60|<0.001
91776880|NCT02718898|183434616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain||-2.70|-4.30|<0.001
91776881|NCT02718898|183434616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Discomfort||-3.04|-4.66|<0.001
91776882|NCT02718898|183434616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Stinging||-2.42|-4.04|<0.001
91776883|NCT02718898|183434616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Burning||-2.41|-3.99|<0.001
91897293|NCT00112047|183690155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|6.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|15.0||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||15.0|-2.3|0.158
91897294|NCT00112047|183690156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Ther percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.003
91708299|NCT01763827|183309602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-49.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-49.9|-60.7|<0.001
91776884|NCT02718898|183434616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Redness||-3.03|-4.59|<0.001
91776885|NCT02718898|183434616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|-3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scaling||-3.03|-4.53|<0.001
91776886|NCT02718898|183434616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cracking||-2.79|-4.31|<0.001
91776887|NCT02163538|183434618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91776888|NCT02163538|183434619|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
91776889|NCT02163538|183434620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.582
91776890|NCT02163538|183434621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0031
91776891|NCT02163538|183434622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0281|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0281
91776892|NCT02163538|183434623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0821
91776893|NCT01345240|183434624|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in percent seroprotection below 5% between recipients of licensed hepatitis B vaccine (Engerix-B) and recipients of RTS,S/AS01E vaccine.|Difference in percent seroprotection|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|-2.16||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response to the hepatitis B antigen induced by RTS,S/AS01E vaccine versus a licensed hepatitis B vaccine.||-2.16|-7.12|
91776894|NCT01345240|183434627|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for consistency: one month post Dose 3 of RTS,S/AS01E, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.5, 2\].|GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency in terms of anti-HBs immunogenicity between three commercial lots of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine.||1.20|0.69|
91776895|NCT01345240|183434627|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for consistency: one month post Dose 3 of RTS,S/AS01E, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.5, 2\].|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency in terms of anti-HBs immunogenicity between three commercial lots of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine.||1.32|0.76|
91776896|NCT01345240|183434627|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for consistency: one month post Dose 3 of RTS,S/AS01E, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.5, 2\].|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency in terms of anti-HBs immunogenicity between three commercial lots of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine.||1.45|0.84|
91776897|NCT01345240|183434635|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 1 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.39|0.95|
91776898|NCT01345240|183434635|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.48|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 4 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.48|0.97|
91776899|NCT01345240|183434635|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.52|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 5 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.52|1.06|
91776900|NCT01345240|183434635|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 6B responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.65|0.83|
91776901|NCT01345240|183434635|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 7F responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.33|0.94|
91776902|NCT01345240|183434635|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.63|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 9V responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.63|1.08|
91776903|NCT01345240|183434635|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.27|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 14 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.27|0.77|
91776904|NCT01345240|183434635|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.38|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against 18C responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||2.38|1.38|
91776905|NCT01345240|183434635|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 19F responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.65|0.89|
91776906|NCT01345240|183434635|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against 23F responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.55|0.81|
91838197|NCT02567825|183557033|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean caregiver impact questionnaire--caregiver's overall QOL score.||0.20|-0.14|
91838198|NCT01737684|183557040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.67|||ANCOVA|||||1.67|0.96|
91838199|NCT01737684|183557043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.06|||ANCOVA|||||2.06|0.88|
91708300|NCT01763827|183309602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-51.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-51.0|-61.1|<0.001
91708301|NCT01763827|183309603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-80.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.4|-74.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-74.3|-86.4|<0.001
91897295|NCT00112047|183690157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.124
91897296|NCT00112047|183690158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 is different between the 2 treatment groups.||||0.025
91897297|NCT00112047|183690159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.41
91897298|NCT00112047|183690160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||stratum-weighted difference|-0.05||||0.45||95.0|-0.17|0.08||The change from baseline to Week 96 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||0.08|-0.17|0.45
91897299|NCT00112047|183690161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||stratum-weighted difference|32.93||||0.036||95.0|0.87|64.99||The change from baseline to Week 96 in CD4 cell count was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||64.99|0.87|0.036
91897300|NCT00112047|183690162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The change from Week 48 to Week 96 in limb fat was compared between the 2 treatment groups; the P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 48 to Week 96 in limb fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 48 to Week 96 in limb fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are not equal||||<0.001
91897301|NCT00112047|183690163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The change from Week 48 to Week 96 in trunk fat was compared between the 2 treatment groups; the P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.025
91897302|NCT00112047|183690164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The change from Week 48 to Week 96 in trunk fat was compared between the 2 treatment groups; the P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||<0.001
91708302|NCT01763827|183309603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.4|-72.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-72.2|-83.4|<0.001
91897303|NCT00112047|183690165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|12.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|21.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the proportion of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the proportion of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||21.6|4.2|0.004
91776907|NCT01345240|183434641|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-PRN antibody concentrations, is below a limit of 2 for the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the acellular B pertussis antigen, pertussis toxoid, (PT) of the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.20|0.97|
91776908|NCT01345240|183434641|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-PRN antibody concentrations, is below a limit of 2 for the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the acellular B pertussis antigen, filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA), of the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.21|0.97|
91776909|NCT01345240|183434641|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-PRN antibody concentrations, is below a limit of 2 for the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the acellular B pertussis antigen, pertactin (anti-PRN), of the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.22|0.98|
91776910|NCT01345240|183434642|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 2, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMC) ratios of rotavirus antibodies (IgA) concentrations is below 2 for the rotavirus vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.61|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the rotavirus vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen||1.61|0.76|
91897304|NCT00112047|183690166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|8.1||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|17.0||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the proportion of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the proportion of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||17.0|-0.8|0.082
91646378|NCT01236053|183184706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.62|0.14|0.5103
91708303|NCT01763827|183309603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-49.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe was the reference|||-49.0|-61.1|<0.001
91776911|NCT00617734|183434684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0667|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0667
91776912|NCT00617734|183434685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1935|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1935
91776913|NCT00617734|183434687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7455|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7455
91838200|NCT03097861|183557047|OTHER|Treatment p-value is from ANCOVA using SBM count as dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect and baseline count as random effect|||||=|0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0020
91776914|NCT05712460|183434710|OTHER||Ratio|126.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.87|150.1|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||150.10|106.87|
91776915|NCT05712460|183434711|OTHER||Ratio|142.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.2|174.32|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||174.32|117.20|
91838201|NCT03097861|183557047|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Treatment p-value is from ANCOVA using SBM count as dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect and baseline count as random effect||||<0.0001
91776916|NCT05560425|183434725|EQUIVALENCE|"The equivalence margin is a range of the compliance score for which the independent training of skills in each group is close enough to be considered equivalent."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|8.79|||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 12||Null hypothesis: Compliance with independent training of skills is not equivalent between groups.||8.79|-6.22|<0.05
91776917|NCT05737069|183434810|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) (Test/Reference) for AUC(0-t) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9698|1.0327||||||||1.0327|0.9698|
91776918|NCT05737069|183434811|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for AUC (0-inf) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.0346||||||||1.0346|0.9710|
91776919|NCT05737069|183434812|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for Cmax were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9825|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9383|1.0288||||||||1.0288|0.9383|
91838202|NCT03502616|183557096|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|27.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.89|38.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach.||38.28|15.89|<0.0001
91646379|NCT01236053|183184706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.7733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.90|0.45|0.7733
91646380|NCT01236053|183184706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.81|0.43|0.8370
91776920|NCT05737069|183434813|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for AUC(0-t) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9916|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9755|1.0081||||||||1.0081|0.9755|
91776921|NCT05737069|183434814|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for AUC (0-inf) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9776|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9432|1.0133||||||||1.0133|0.9432|
91776922|NCT05737069|183434815|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for Cmax were contained within the interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9431|1.0567||||||||1.0567|0.9431|
91776923|NCT05565742|183434842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.8|-20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.6|-55.8|<0.001
91897305|NCT00112047|183690167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|11.6||||0.009||95.0|3.1|20.1||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||20.1|3.1|0.009
91646381|NCT01236053|183184706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.1|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.10|0.75|0.1980
91776924|NCT05565742|183434842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-75.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.4|-68.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-68.5|-80.4|<0.001
91776925|NCT05565742|183434842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-93.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.1|-92.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-92.5|-95.1|<0.001
91776926|NCT05565742|183434843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.2|-54.9|0.002
91776927|NCT05565742|183434843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-77.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.4|-71.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-71.1|-82.4|<0.001
91776928|NCT05565742|183434843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-95.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.1|-93.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-93.6|-96.1|<0.001
91776929|NCT05565742|183434843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-76.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.9|-70.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-70.2|-81.9|<0.001
91776930|NCT05565742|183434844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|112.03||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|1975.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 60||1975.13|6.35|0.001
91776931|NCT05565742|183434844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2762.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|142.74|53463.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 60||53463.34|142.74|<0.001
91776932|NCT05565742|183434844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|50904.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1700.95|1523398.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 60||1523398.10|1700.95|<0.001
91776933|NCT05565742|183434844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.94||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|527.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 180||527.74|1.48|0.026
91776934|NCT05565742|183434844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|309.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.99|5320.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 180||5320.81|17.99|<0.001
91776935|NCT05565742|183434844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3060.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|166.84|56127.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 180||56127.55|166.84|<0.001
91776936|NCT05565742|183434844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.91||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|635.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 60||635.94|1.70|0.021
91776937|NCT05565742|183434844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|579.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.48|10673.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 60||10673.41|31.48|<0.001
91776938|NCT05565742|183434844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14659.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|646.35|332498.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 60||332498.98|646.35|<0.001
91776939|NCT05565742|183434844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.94||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|321.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 180||321.21|0.79|0.071
91646382|NCT01236053|183184706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.21|0.54|0.5391
91776940|NCT05565742|183434844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|86.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|1468.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 180||1468.36|5.07|0.002
91776941|NCT05565742|183434844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|956.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.75|16422.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 180||16422.76|55.75|<0.001
91776942|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|191.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||191.58|5.36|<0.001
91776943|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|602.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.36|3805.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||3805.22|95.36|<0.001
91776944|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6953.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|527.56|91646.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||91646.24|527.56|<0.001
91776945|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|347.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.46|2104.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||2104.62|57.46|<0.001
91776946|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|54.99||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|1015.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||1015.84|2.98|0.007
91776947|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|363.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.83|6332.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||6332.68|20.83|<0.001
91776948|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2953.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|150.95|57790.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||57790.71|150.95|<0.001
91776949|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|375.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.46|6571.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||6571.66|21.46|<0.001
91776950|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.43||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|331.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||331.69|0.81|0.068
91646383|NCT01236053|183184706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.53|1.10|0.0224
91776951|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.99|1447.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||1447.48|4.99|0.002
91776952|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|594.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.99|10405.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||10405.09|33.99|<0.001
91776953|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|110.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.47|1875.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||1875.77|6.47|0.001
91776954|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|74.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||74.29|1.81|0.010
91776955|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|233.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.92|1362.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||1362.79|39.92|<0.001
91776956|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3087.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|331.26|28778.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||28778.10|331.26|<0.001
91776957|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|144.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|829.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||829.42|25.20|<0.001
91897306|NCT00112047|183690168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|10.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|19.0||The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||19.0|1.8|0.019
91897307|NCT00112047|183690169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The distribution of loss of virological response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.003
91897308|NCT00112047|183690170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.056
91897309|NCT00112047|183690171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 144 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 144 is different between the 2 treatment groups||||0.066
91646384|NCT01236053|183184706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.77|0.82|0.1815
91776958|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.16||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|243.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||243.85|0.51|0.125
91776959|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|148.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|2546.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||2546.89|8.64|<0.001
91776960|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1431.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.76|26349.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||26349.86|77.76|<0.001
91776961|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|147.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|2538.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||2538.95|8.60|<0.001
91776962|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|104.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||104.02|0.04|0.733
91776963|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.28||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|594.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||594.46|1.98|0.015
91776964|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|159.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|2716.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||2716.42|9.40|<0.001
91708304|NCT01763827|183309603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-47.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe was the reference|||-47.3|-58.5|<0.001
91708305|NCT01763827|183309604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.4|80.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||80.2|64.4|<0.001
91708306|NCT01763827|183309604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|71.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|78.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.0|62.2|<0.001
91708307|NCT01763827|183309604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|72.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|78.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.9|62.4|<0.001
91708308|NCT01763827|183309604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|68.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|75.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||75.5|58.3|<0.001
91708309|NCT01763827|183309605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|71.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|78.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.4|61.2|<0.001
91708310|NCT01763827|183309605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|65.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|72.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||72.9|55.6|<0.001
91708311|NCT01763827|183309605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|71.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|78.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.4|61.3|<0.001
91708312|NCT01763827|183309605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|71.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||71.6|53.5|<0.001
91708313|NCT01763827|183309606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.01|-45.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.61|-52.01|<0.001
91708314|NCT01763827|183309606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.23|-50.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.33|-56.23|<0.001
91708315|NCT01763827|183309606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.79|-32.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-32.38|-38.79|<0.001
91708316|NCT01763827|183309606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.44|-32.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-32.53|-38.44|<0.001
91708317|NCT01763827|183309607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.34|-46.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.27|-53.34|<0.001
91708318|NCT01763827|183309607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.49|-47.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.90|-54.49|<0.001
91776965|NCT05565742|183434845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.98||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|659.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||659.75|2.19|0.013
91776966|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-47.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.9|-30.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-30.9|-59.9|<0.001
91776967|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-80.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.7|-76.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-76.1|-84.7|<0.001
91897310|NCT00112047|183690172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) at Week 144 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) at Week 144 is different between the 2 treatment groups||||0.30
91897311|NCT00112047|183690173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08||The change from baseline to Week 144 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from a stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline to Week 144 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline to Week 144 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||0.08|-0.16|0.39
91897312|NCT00112047|183690174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.3||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|78.55||The change from baseline to Week 144 in CD4 cell count was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from a stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline toWeek 144 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline to Week 144 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||78.55|4.05|0.089
91646385|NCT01236053|183184708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.09|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.09|1.12|0.0248
91776968|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-95.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.3|-94.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-94.5|-96.3|<0.001
91646386|NCT01236053|183184708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||4.70|0.99|0.0520
91776969|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-95.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.3|-94.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-94.5|-96.3|<0.001
91776970|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-6.2|-50.6|0.019
91776971|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-66.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.8|-55.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-55.9|-73.8|<0.001
91776972|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-90.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.6|-88.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-88.3|-92.6|<0.001
91776973|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-90.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.6|-88.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-88.3|-92.6|<0.001
91776974|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|-28.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-28.3|-61.3|<0.001
91776975|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-84.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.1|-80.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-80.3|-88.1|<0.001
91776976|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-96.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.4|-95.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-95.9|-97.4|<0.001
91776977|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-84.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.9|-80.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-80.8|-87.9|<0.001
91776978|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.45||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-3.6|-49.4|0.029
91776979|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-67.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.9|-57.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-57.6|-74.9|<0.001
91776980|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-91.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.9|-88.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-88.5|-92.9|<0.001
91776981|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-67.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|-59.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-59.0|-74.8|<0.001
91776982|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.45||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||3.7|-37.8|0.093
91776983|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-33.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-33.2|-56.0|<0.001
91776984|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-74.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.8|-68.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-68.5|-78.8|<0.001
91776985|NCT05565742|183434846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-53.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.7|-43.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-43.3|-61.7|<0.001
91708319|NCT01763827|183309607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.74|-31.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-31.71|-38.74|<0.001
91776986|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-2.6|-17.5|0.010
91776987|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-5.8|-17.7|<0.001
91776988|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-8.8|-19.0|<0.001
91776989|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-8.8|-19.0|<0.001
91776990|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||0.6|-16.2|0.068
91776991|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-3.8|-17.1|0.003
91776992|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-7.9|-19.3|<0.001
91776993|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-7.9|-19.3|<0.001
91776994|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-1.2|-16.7|0.026
91776995|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-9.3|-21.1|<0.001
91776996|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-9.6|-21.0|<0.001
91776997|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-4.4|-16.3|<0.001
91776998|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||1.7|-14.9|0.111
91708320|NCT01763827|183309607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.51|-29.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-29.90|-36.51|<0.001
91897313|NCT00112047|183690175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Limb Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Limb Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.001
91897314|NCT00112047|183690176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.011
91897315|NCT00112047|183690177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||<0.001
91897316|NCT00112047|183690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) limb fat value is equal to zero. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) limb fat value is not equal to zero.||||0.16
91897317|NCT00112047|183690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) trunk fat value is equal to zero. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) trunk fat value is not equal to zero.||||0.049
91897318|NCT00112047|183690189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) total body fat value is equal to zero. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) total body fat value is not equal to zero.||||0.055
91897319|NCT00112047|183690190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||<0.001
91646387|NCT01236053|183184708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.20|1.30|0.0046
91708321|NCT01763827|183309608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.67|-43.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.51|-50.67|<0.001
91776999|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-5.3|-18.1|<0.001
91777000|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-7.8|-20.0|<0.001
91897320|NCT00112047|183690191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.12
91777001|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||400 mg LY3819469, Placebo||-1.9|-14.9|0.013
91777002|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||5.8|-10.7|0.510
91897321|NCT00112047|183690192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.037
91897322|NCT00112047|183690193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.013
91646388|NCT01236053|183184708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.72|1.12|0.0193
91646389|NCT01236053|183184708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.88|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.88|1.10|0.0309
91897323|NCT00112047|183690194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (bothers, does not bother) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.70
91897324|NCT00112047|183690195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Null Hypothesis: There is no change in the PCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a change in the PCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.95
91777003|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||2.1|-11.1|0.173
91777004|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-6.8|-18.6|<0.001
91777005|NCT05565742|183434847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||1.7|-11.2|0.139
91777006|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.71||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||23.3|-44.3|0.353
91777007|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.84||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|34.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||34.7|-28.7|0.902
91777008|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.65||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||27.1|-27.4|0.779
91777009|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.65||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||27.1|-27.4|0.779
91777010|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.41||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|49.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||49.7|-32.8|0.987
91777011|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.96||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||17.2|-38.7|0.316
91777012|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.37||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||40.4|-20.9|0.720
91777013|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.37||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||40.4|-20.9|0.720
91777014|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.66||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||22.6|-36.1|0.461
91777015|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||9.4|-35.6|0.194
91897325|NCT00112047|183690196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Null Hypothesis: There is no change in the MCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a change in the MCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.23
91777016|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.87||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|27.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||27.2|-24.0|0.898
91777017|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.81||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||17.0|-29.9|0.448
91777018|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.05||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|98.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||98.4|-15.4|0.233
91777019|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.04||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|44.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||44.9|-27.6|0.891
91777020|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.18||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|39.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||39.9|-29.0|0.984
91777021|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.52||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|67.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||67.5|-14.8|0.302
91777022|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.49||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|36.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||36.8|-37.9|0.684
91777023|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.19||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|36.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||36.3|-28.6|0.933
91897326|NCT01101477|183690226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The patients with at lease one episode of hypoxemia (SPaO2\<90%) during FB were analyzed by Chi-square test. P value less 0.05 means significance, 2-sided.||||0.05
91777024|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.33||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|38.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||38.6|-26.7|0.962
91777025|NCT05565742|183434848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.52||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||56.9|-17.2|0.422
91777026|NCT00335777|183434910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|2 sided McNemar test||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|2 sided McNemar||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the proportion of subjects who were pain free when treating early, as compared to treating late.||||0.289
91777027|NCT00335777|183434911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|2 sided McNemar test||||||1|||||||McNemar|2 sided McNemar test||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the proportion of subjects who had pain relief when treating early, as compared to treating late.||||1.000
91897327|NCT01605292|183690233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91708322|NCT01763827|183309608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.27|-47.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.59|-54.27|<0.001
91777028|NCT01074814|183434937|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Results for the primary objective - evaluation of GMI - were presented with descriptive statistics as the ration of PFS on current therapy over the PFS on latest therapy. The percentage of patients with GMI greater than 1.3 was displayed along with its corresponding 95% exact confidence interval.|||
91777029|NCT03175367|183434969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-38.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.6|-56.5|< .0001
91777030|NCT03175367|183434969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-52.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7|-35.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.1|-70.7|< .0001
91777031|NCT03175367|183434969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7|-38.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.3|-73.7|< .0001
91777032|NCT03175367|183434969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|=|0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-5.7||P-Value is not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-42.6|= 0.0109
91777033|NCT03175367|183434969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-50.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.4|-32.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.6|-68.4|< .0001
91777034|NCT03175367|183434970|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.4|-40.9|= 0.0003
91777035|NCT03175367|183434970|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-42.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|-27.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.9|-56.1|< 0.0001
91777036|NCT03175367|183434970|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-31.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.5|-59.5|< 0.0001
91777037|NCT03175367|183434970|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|=|0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.5|-29.7|= 0.0132
91777038|NCT03175367|183434970|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.8|-52.0|< 0.0001
91777039|NCT03175367|183434971|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|=|0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.1|-38.4|= 0.0111
91777040|NCT03175367|183434971|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|-24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.0|-56.7|< 0.0001
91777041|NCT03175367|183434972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.3|-54.4|< 0.0001
91777042|NCT03175367|183434972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-53.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-38.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.9|-68.8|< 0.0001
91777043|NCT03175367|183434972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-58.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.4|-43.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-43.7|-73.4|< 0.0001
91777044|NCT03175367|183434972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|=|0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.7|-39.7|= 0.0042
91777045|NCT03175367|183434972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-50.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.4|-35.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.4|-66.4|< 0.0001
91897328|NCT01605292|183690234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91897329|NCT01605292|183690235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91897330|NCT01605292|183690236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
91897331|NCT01605292|183690237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91897332|NCT01605292|183690238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91777046|NCT03175367|183434973|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7|=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.4|-49.8|= 0.0021
91777047|NCT03175367|183434973|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-54.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.4|-35.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.8|-73.4|< 0.0001
91777048|NCT03175367|183434974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|72.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.8|5.1|< 0.0001
91777049|NCT03175367|183434974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|89.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.2|6.4|< 0.0001
91777050|NCT03175367|183434974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|80.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||80.5|6.0|< 0.0001
91777051|NCT03175367|183434974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.5|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|29.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.2|2.5|= 0.0007
91777052|NCT03175367|183434974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|172.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||172.3|10.4|< 0.0001
91777053|NCT03175367|183434975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.6|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|53.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||53.5|1.7|= 0.0100
91897333|NCT01605292|183690239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
91897334|NCT01605292|183690241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91897335|NCT01786174|183690254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|9.96|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||9.96|-7.17|0.746
91897336|NCT01786174|183690255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.03|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||2.03|-1.53|0.780
91897337|NCT01786174|183690256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.99|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||3.99|-5.00|0.823
91897338|NCT01786174|183690258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|12.33|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||12.33|-3.78|0.294
91777054|NCT03175367|183434975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.8|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|129.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||129.9|4.7|= 0.0001
91897339|NCT03442985|183690259|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.109||||0.2556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|7.638||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg versus (vs) Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The annualized rate for number of new OCs was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||7.638|0.583|0.2556
91897340|NCT03442985|183690259|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.04||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|15.373||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new OCs was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||15.373|0.601|0.1788
91897341|NCT03442985|183690259|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.441||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|7.234||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new OCs was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||7.234|0.287|0.6570
91897342|NCT03442985|183690260|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-4412.6||||0.4252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15257.3|6432.1||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Unadjusted estimation equation model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The mean difference in the change from baseline for total OC volume was estimated using an unadjusted estimation equation model with independent working covariance matrix to address potential correlation within the same family members.||6432.1|-15257.3|0.4252
91897343|NCT03442985|183690260|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-4640.9||||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15570.8|6289.0||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Unadjusted estimation equation model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The mean difference in the change from baseline for total OC volume was estimated using an unadjusted estimation equation model with independent working covariance matrix to address potential correlation within the same family members.||6289.0|-15570.8|0.4053
91897344|NCT03442985|183690260|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-228.3||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11265.0|10808.4||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testings due to small sample size.|Unadjusted estimation equation model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The mean difference in the change from baseline for total OC volume was estimated using an unadjusted estimation equation model with independent working covariance matrix to address potential correlation within the same family members.||10808.4|-11265.0|0.9677
91897345|NCT03442985|183690261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.643||||0.5025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|2.335|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was adjusted for the following covariates: baseline age, sex, and Ext1/2 mutation status.||||2.335|0.177|0.5025
91897346|NCT03442985|183690261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.528||||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|2.175|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was adjusted for the following covariates: baseline age, sex, and Ext1/2 mutation status.||||2.175|0.128|0.3763
91897347|NCT03442985|183690261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|3.123|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was adjusted for the following covariates: baseline age, sex, and Ext1/2 mutation status.||||3.123|0.215|0.7714
91777055|NCT03175367|183434975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|194.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||194.7|6.7|< 0.0001
91838203|NCT03502616|183557097|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.26|38.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||38.09|18.26|<0.0001
91897348|NCT03442985|183690262|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.951||||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.451||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = compound symmetry was used.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The annualized rate for number of new or worsening deformities was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||1.451|0.623|0.8155
91897349|NCT03442985|183690262|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.003||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|1.699||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = compound symmetry was used.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new or worsening deformities was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||1.699|0.592|0.9918
91897350|NCT03442985|183690262|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.055||||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.589||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = compound symmetry was used.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new or worsening deformities was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||1.589|0.700|0.7997
91897351|NCT03442985|183690263|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.548||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|3.108||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = independent was used.|Poisson regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The annualized rate for number of MO-related surgeries was estimated using an unadjusted poisson regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||3.108|0.772|0.2186
91897352|NCT03442985|183690263|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.655||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|4.052||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = independent was used.|Poisson regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of MO-related surgeries was estimated using an unadjusted poisson regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||4.052|0.676|0.2700
91777056|NCT03175367|183434975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||=|0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.2|0.5|= 0.3185
91777057|NCT03175367|183434975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|54.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.2|3.9|< 0.0001
91777058|NCT03175367|183434976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||=|0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|26.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.5|0.9|= 0.0718
91897353|NCT03442985|183690263|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.069||||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|2.178||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = independent was used.|Poisson regression model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of MO-related surgeries was estimated using an unadjusted poisson regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||2.178|0.524|0.8546
91897354|NCT02864381|183690304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.1||P-value is derived from Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) stratification factor status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio is derived from CMH test stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status, the Nivolumab alone arm serves as the reference.|||6.1|0.4|0.8
91777059|NCT03175367|183434976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.4|||=|0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|62.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.1|2.1|= 0.0048
91777060|NCT03175367|183434976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.7|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|76.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||76.8|2.8|= 0.0015
91777061|NCT03175367|183434976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||=|0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.4|0.3|= 0.5270
91777062|NCT03175367|183434976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7|||=|0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|31.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.7|1.9|= 0.0047
91777063|NCT03175367|183434977|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5|=|0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.5|-9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.6|-55.5|= 0.0059
91777064|NCT03175367|183434977|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|-32.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.0|-77.0|< 0.0001
91838204|NCT03502616|183557104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.06|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||27.50|9.06|0.0001
91897355|NCT02864381|183690305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|1.189||P-value is derived from log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox model stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status, the Nivolumab alone arm serves as the reference.|||1.189|0.589|0.306
91777065|NCT03175367|183434978|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|-25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-25.8|-48.4|< .0001
91777066|NCT03175367|183434978|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.2|-57.5|< .0001
91777067|NCT03175367|183434978|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-51.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.4|-62.5|< .0001
91777068|NCT03175367|183434978|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.8|-34.6|= 0.0006
91777069|NCT03175367|183434978|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.4|-58.4|< .0001
91777070|NCT03175367|183434979|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.3|-42.6|= 0.0001
91777071|NCT03175367|183434979|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-49.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-35.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.4|-63.2|< .0001
91777072|NCT03175367|183434980|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.8|-34.3|||Regression, Linear|||||-34.3|-57.8|< .0001
91777073|NCT03175367|183434980|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.3|-44.3|||Regression, Linear|||||-44.3|-67.3|< .0001
91777074|NCT03175367|183434980|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.9|-50.0|||Regression, Linear|||||-50.0|-72.9|< .0001
91777075|NCT03175367|183434980|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-12.4|||Regression, Linear|||||-12.4|-38.0|= 0.0001
91777076|NCT03175367|183434980|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-33.5|||Regression, Linear|||||-33.5|-58.4|< .0001
91777077|NCT03175367|183434981|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|=|0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-2.4|||Regression, Linear|||||-2.4|-31.8|= 0.0228
91777078|NCT03175367|183434981|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.6|-31.0|||Regression, Linear|||||-31.0|-59.6|< .0001
91777079|NCT03175367|183434982|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|=|0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.6|-21.8|= 0.0635
91777080|NCT03175367|183434982|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|=|0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-1.1|||Regression, Linear|||||-1.1|-22.8|= 0.0314
91777081|NCT03175367|183434982|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|=|0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||||1.5|-19.9|= 0.0923
91777082|NCT03175367|183434982|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-6.2|||Regression, Linear|||||-6.2|-26.8|= 0.0017
91777083|NCT03175367|183434982|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-6.8|||Regression, Linear|||||-6.8|-26.2|= 0.0009
91777084|NCT03175367|183434983|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-4.7|||Regression, Linear|||||-4.7|-27.4|= 0.0054
91897356|NCT02864381|183690306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.786||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.257||P-value is derived from log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox model stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status, the Nivolumab alone arm serves as the reference.|||1.257|0.491|0.312
91897357|NCT00120406|183690317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|||||<|0.01||95.0||||P-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|z-test, one-sided|||||||<0.01
91897358|NCT00120406|183690318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||P-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||<0.01
91777085|NCT03175367|183434983|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|=|0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-3.7|||Regression, Linear|||||-3.7|-25.4|= 0.0085
91838205|NCT03502616|183557104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.64|42.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||42.06|20.64|<0.0001
91777086|NCT02851615|183434984|SUPERIORITY|Power analyses were calculated on the PAM-13, our primary outcome measure. Analyses were conducted using the internal Monte Carlo simulation capabilities of Mplus (Version 1.20). Based on the effect size obtained from published pilot data, we expected the change in baseline/posttreatment Behavioral Activation for the SCThrive intervention group to be n2 = .14 (large effect). Based on these assumptions, the desired sample size was 54 participants (N = 27 per group) to achieve power of .80.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.14||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|19.22||The threshold for statistical significance was p =.05|ANCOVA|||We conducted separate mixed ANOVA analyses to assess for the effects of group (SCThrive/SCHealthEd), time (baseline/post-treatment), and group x time interaction for the PAM-13.||19.22|-1.27|.09
91777087|NCT02851615|183434985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.66||The threshold for significance was p =.05|ANCOVA|||We conducted separate mixed ANOVA analyses to assess for the effects of group (SCThrive/SCHealthEd), time (baseline/post-treatment), and group x time interaction for the TRAQ-5||.66|-.19|.28
91777088|NCT02851615|183434986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p =.05|t-test, 2 sided|||We conducted a paired-samples t-test to assess for the effects of time (baseline/post-treatment) for participants (n=16) in the SCThrive intervention arm for the UNC TRxANSITION Scale.||.06|-.018|.27
91777089|NCT02345070|183434997|SUPERIORITY|The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.6339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.56||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||SAR156597 200mg qw versus Placebo qw|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Testing was done sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported. Analyzed using Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects of treatment arm, stratification factor (with/without background therapy), time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, stratification factor-by-treatment-by-time point interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of percent predicted FVC baseline.||1.56|-2.56|= 0.6339
91777090|NCT02345070|183434997|SUPERIORITY|The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|LS Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|=|0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||SAR156597 200mg q2w versus Placebo qw|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in the order outcome measures were reported (q2w dose group compared to placebo). Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed categorical effects of treatment arm, stratification factor (with/without background therapy), time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, stratification factor-by-treatment-by-time point interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of percent predicted FVC baseline.||2.6|-1.47|= 0.5874
91777091|NCT02151058|183435000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0999|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8559|-0.4622||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.4622|-0.8559|<0.001
91777092|NCT02151058|183435000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1909|-0.7946||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Hypotheses were tested according to a hierarchical strategy.|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.7946|-1.1909|<0.001
91777093|NCT02151058|183435000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4937|-0.1737||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Hypotheses were tested according to a hierarchical strategy.|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1737|-0.4937|<0.001
91777094|NCT02151058|183435001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0809|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|-0.1263||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1263|-0.4450|<0.001
91777095|NCT02151058|183435001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0811|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4877|-0.1679||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1679|-0.4877|<0.001
91777096|NCT02151058|183435001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0653||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1709|0.0866||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.0866|-0.1709|0.520
91777097|NCT02151058|183435002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0971|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7043|-0.3217||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.3217|-0.7043|<0.001
91897359|NCT01313637|183690347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.198|0.122|<0.001
91897360|NCT01313637|183690347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.162|0.086|<0.001
91897361|NCT01313637|183690347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.276|0.200|<0.001
91897362|NCT01313637|183690347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.079|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.112|0.046|<0.001
91897363|NCT01313637|183690347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.114|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 minus VI 25 µg.|||0.148|0.081|<0.001
91897364|NCT00655863|183690442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-307.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-443.168|-171.29||p-value and confidence interval presented without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis that there was no difference between Alogliptin 25 mg QD and placebo groups was tested at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The ANCOVA model used for the change in postprandial incremental area the curver for total triglycerides includes treatment and statin use as fixed effects and baseline AUC(0-8h) for total triglycerides as a covariate.||-171.290|-443.168|<0.001
91897365|NCT00655863|183690442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-253.711|||<|0.001||95.0|-394.161|-113.262||p-value and confidence interval presented without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis that there was no difference between Alogliptin 25 mg QD + Pioglitazone 30 mg QD and placebo QD groups was tested at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The ANCOVA model used for the change in postprandial incremental area the curve for total triglycerides includes treatment and statin use as fixed effects and baseline AUC(0-8h) for total triglycerides as a covariate.||-113.262|-394.161|<0.001
91897366|NCT01138007|183690460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squared Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7||The p-value was estimated based on the ANCOVA model including Baseline MADRS score and region as covariates. The multiplicity was adjusted by Dunnett's step-down procedure.|ANCOVA||The confidence interval was estimated based on the ANCOVA model including Baseline MADRS score and region as covariates.|||1.7|-2.7|0.853
91897367|NCT01138007|183690460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||||95.0|||||||In the analysis plan, the second comparison of interest was not to be performed if the first comparison failed to show statistical significance.|||||
91897368|NCT00712673|183690484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|-0.312||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: lixisenatide (morning) compared with placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then lixisenatide (evening) compared with placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||To detect 0.5%(or 0.4%) difference between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo(combined), 225 patients in lixisenatide arm, 170 in placebo(combined) would provide a power of 97% (or 87%) assuming common standard deviation=1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance. Statistical testing:2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance(ANCOVA)included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c(\<8.0,\>=8.0%),BMI(\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2),country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.312|-0.657|<0.0001
91897369|NCT00712673|183690484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.193||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: lixisenatide (morning) compared with placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then lixisenatide (evening) compared with placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||To detect 0.5%(or 0.4%) difference between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo(combined), 225 patients in lixisenatide arm, 170 in placebo(combined) would provide a power of 97% (or 87%) assuming common standard deviation=1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance. Statistical testing:2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance(ANCOVA)included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c(\<8.0,\>=8.0%),BMI(\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2),country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.193|-0.540|<0.0001
91777098|NCT02151058|183435002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0975|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|-0.4925||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.4925|-0.8770|<0.001
91777099|NCT02151058|183435002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0786||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3268|-0.0168||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0168|-0.3268|0.030
91838206|NCT03502616|183557104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.32|43.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||43.17|21.32|<0.0001
91897370|NCT02656160|183690539|OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||tonic||||0.85
91897371|NCT02656160|183690539|OTHER|||||||0.322||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phasic activity||||0.322
91897372|NCT02656160|183690540|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91897373|NCT02594826|183690635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|114.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the calculated p-value, which is adjusted for age, marital status, prior screening, health insurance, and having a healthcare provider.||||114.9|11.1|<0.001
91777100|NCT02151058|183435003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0369||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1556|-0.0102||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0102|-0.1556|0.026
91777101|NCT02151058|183435003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0372||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1917|-0.0451||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0451|-0.1917|0.002
91777102|NCT02151058|183435003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0297||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.0231||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.0231|-0.0940|0.234
91777103|NCT02151058|183435004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0568||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2882|-0.0644||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0644|-0.2882|0.002
91777104|NCT02151058|183435004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0573|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4638|-0.2378||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.2378|-0.4638|<0.001
91777105|NCT02151058|183435004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0458|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2648|-0.0841||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0841|-0.2648|<0.001
91777106|NCT02151058|183435005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0631|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3713|-0.1226||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||-0.1226|-0.3713|<0.001
91777107|NCT02151058|183435005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0638|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6236|-0.3722||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.3722|-0.6236|<0.001
91777108|NCT02151058|183435005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0511|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3516|-0.1503||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1503|-0.3516|<0.001
91777109|NCT02151058|183435006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0372||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.0504||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0504|-0.1970|0.001
91777110|NCT02151058|183435006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0373|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2413|-0.0941||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0941|-0.2413|<0.001
91777111|NCT02151058|183435006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0301||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1034|0.0152||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.0152|-0.1034|0.145
91777112|NCT02151058|183435007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0497|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3282|-0.1321||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1321|-0.3282|<0.001
91777113|NCT02151058|183435007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4113|-0.2141||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.2141|-0.4113|<0.001
91777114|NCT02151058|183435007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0404||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1621|-0.0031||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0031|-0.1621|0.042
91777115|NCT02151058|183435008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|-0.1679||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1679|-0.3820|<0.001
91838207|NCT03502616|183557104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.63|45.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||45.58|23.63|<0.0001
91708323|NCT01763827|183309608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.15|-29.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-29.99|-37.15|<0.001
91708324|NCT01763827|183309608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.99|-31.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-31.28|-37.99|<0.001
91708325|NCT01763827|183309609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.56|-44.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-44.05|-51.56|<0.001
91708326|NCT01763827|183309609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.07|-44.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-44.79|-52.07|<0.001
91708327|NCT01763827|183309609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.78|-30.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-30.30|-37.78|<0.001
91708328|NCT01763827|183309609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-28.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-28.92|-36.21|<0.001
91708329|NCT01763827|183309610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-35.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-35.86|-42.00|<0.001
91708330|NCT01763827|183309610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|-42.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-42.27|-49.39|<0.001
91708331|NCT01763827|183309610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.43|-26.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-26.28|-32.43|<0.001
91708332|NCT01763827|183309610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.08|-23.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-23.94|-31.08|<0.001
91708333|NCT01763827|183309611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.97|-36.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.30|-42.97|<0.001
91708334|NCT01763827|183309611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.66|-40.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.68|-48.66|<0.001
91708335|NCT01763827|183309611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.73|-25.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-25.10|-31.73|<0.001
91708336|NCT01763827|183309611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.31|-21.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-21.31|-29.31|<0.001
91708337|NCT01763827|183309612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.12|-45.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.12|-53.12|<0.001
91777116|NCT02151058|183435008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0548|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5724|-0.3565||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.3565|-0.5724|<0.001
91777117|NCT02151058|183435008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0442|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2767|-0.1023||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1023|-0.2767|<0.001
91777118|NCT01181349|183435010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.169|||||||Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test|||Cross tables were performed between TOF ratio and medications administered. Statistical significance was evaluated using Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test. All tests were performed at a significance level of 0.05.||||=0.169
91777119|NCT01181349|183435012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.01|||||||Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test|||Cross tables were performed between TOF ratio and medications administered. Statistical significance was evaluated using Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test. All tests were performed at a significance level of 0.05.||||=0.01
91777120|NCT00321620|183435014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A synthesis method was used for the non-inferiority test for the hypothesis that denosumab preserves as least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid vs. placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0002||95.0|0.71|0.95|||Regression, Cox||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen level, and current chemotherapy)|||0.95|0.71|0.0002
91777121|NCT00321620|183435015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0085||95.0|0.71|0.95|||Regression, Cox|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen level, and current chemotherapy).|||0.95|0.71|0.0085
91777122|NCT00321620|183435016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.82||||0.0085||95.0|0.71|0.94|||Anderson-Gill model|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen level, and current chemotherapy).|||0.94|0.71|0.0085
91777123|NCT02399163|183435097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.061|22.454||From ANOVA: participant (random), treatment (fixed), period (fixed)|ANCOVA||Difference is Placebo dentifrice/Fluoride rinse minus Placebo dentifrice/No rinse such that a positive difference implies a larger response value for the Placebo dentifrice/Fluoride rinse.|||22.454|11.061|<0.0001
91777124|NCT04613362|183435152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.97||adjusted for gender which is included as a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|0.34|0.61
91777125|NCT04613362|183435154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.8028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3895||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5314|3.9257|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||3.9257|-21.5314|0.1724
91777126|NCT04613362|183435154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9929||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5917|7.2851|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||7.2851|-16.5917|0.4399
91777127|NCT04613362|183435155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.7886|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.0826||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2261|54.8032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||54.8032|-17.2261|0.3021
91777128|NCT04613362|183435155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1996|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1338||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3245|28.9254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||28.9254|-39.3245|0.7624
91838208|NCT03502616|183557104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|15.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.22|-7.92|0.5360
91838209|NCT03502616|183557104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|14.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.87|-7.22|0.4971
91838210|NCT03502616|183557104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.7792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|12.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||12.66|-9.49|0.7792
91838211|NCT03502616|183557104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|16.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.58|-6.15|0.3685
91777129|NCT04613362|183435156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3867||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7794|14.7019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||14.7019|-2.7794|0.1783
91777130|NCT04613362|183435156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1565||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4965|8.0675|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||8.0675|-8.4965|0.959
91777131|NCT04613362|183435157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3097||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2243|1.8989|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||1.8989|-27.2243|0.0873
91777132|NCT04613362|183435157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.3578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8559||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0154|6.2999|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||6.2999|-21.0154|0.2866
91777133|NCT04613362|183435159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4313||0.2776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4168|1.2859|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||1.2859|-4.4168|0.2776
91777134|NCT04613362|183435159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6492||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5651|4.0055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||4.0055|-2.5651|0.6636
91777135|NCT04613362|183435160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6911||0.1733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0443|5.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||5.695|-1.0443|0.1733
91777136|NCT04613362|183435160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.7398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7726|2.6911|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||2.6911|-3.7726|0.7398
91777137|NCT04613362|183435161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5551||0.9239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2476|2.9494|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Scale - 3 months||2.9494|-3.2476|0.9239
91777138|NCT04613362|183435161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4735||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2238|2.6481|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Scale - 6 months||2.6481|-3.2238|0.8456
91777139|NCT04613362|183435161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3798||0.9413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9175|4.5661|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Scale - 3 months||4.5661|-4.9175|0.9413
91777140|NCT04613362|183435161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2549||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4526|1.5333|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Scale - 6 months||1.5333|-7.4526|0.1934
91777141|NCT04613362|183435162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1004||0.1442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0852|7.2849|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||7.2849|-1.0852|0.1442
91777142|NCT04613362|183435162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.036||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9892|6.1243|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||6.1243|-1.9892|0.3132
91777143|NCT04225897|183435197|OTHER||Difference|-8.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.78|15.74||||||60 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||15.74|-31.78|
91777144|NCT04225897|183435197|OTHER||Difference|-15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.15|9.7|||Mixed effects analysis of covariance|||156 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||9.70|-40.15|
91777145|NCT04225897|183435198|OTHER||Difference|14.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.68|121.33||||||60 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||121.33|-91.68|
91777146|NCT04225897|183435198|OTHER||Difference|-31.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.96|81.57||||||156 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||81.57|-143.96|
91777147|NCT05172128|183435243|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Paired t-test comparing baseline value to endpoint value revealed a p-value of 0.80.|||>0.05
91777148|NCT05172128|183435244|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91777149|NCT05172128|183435245|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91777150|NCT05172128|183435246|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91777151|NCT05172128|183435249|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91777152|NCT01921205|183435257|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction over Placebo|31.72|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.342|44.277|||ANCOVA|Seizure frequency (log transformed) is analyzed using analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, pooled center and Baseline seizure frequency.|Percent reduction over placebo is estimated as 100 x (1-exp\[LSMLacosamide-LSMPlacebo\]). Where LSM is Least Square Mean.|||44.277|16.342|=0.0003
91777153|NCT03137381|183435278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.177
91777154|NCT03137381|183435278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91777155|NCT03137381|183435278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91777156|NCT01684917|183435280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
91777157|NCT01684917|183435280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
91777158|NCT01684917|183435281|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group"|||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Baseline vs 12 weeks. Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group."||||<0.05
91777159|NCT01684917|183435282|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group"|||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Baseline vs 12 weeks. Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group."||||<0.05
91777160|NCT01684917|183435283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
91897374|NCT02594826|183690636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Linear|Controlling for: marital status, education, language spoken at home, health insurance, regular physician, language of physician, ever had Pap test.||The null hypothesis is that the two conditions would not differ in their knowledge following program participation. The study biostatistician conducted full regression models to examine change in knowledge (from pre- to post-program) within each group and across groups over time. The models controlled for relevant covariates.||||0.005
91777161|NCT01684917|183435283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
91777162|NCT01684917|183435283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
91777163|NCT01684917|183435285|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group"|||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Baseline vs 12 weeks. Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group."||||<0.05
91777164|NCT00459316|183435289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||||||Two-sided p-value \<0.05 was specified as statistically significant a priori. There were no adjustments for multiple outcomes.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between CD4% strata.||||0.03
91777165|NCT00459316|183435290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||||||Two sided-p-value \<0.05 was specified as statistically significant a priori. No adjustment for multiple primary outcomes was made.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between CD4% strata.||||0.01
91777166|NCT00423579|183435326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.5||||0||95.0|-18.9|-10.1|||Student's t test for independent data||Difference in percentage change in mean LDL-C values (change from baseline to week 6) between the two treatment groups. (Ezetimibe \[EZ\]/Simvastatin \[S\] \[10/20mg\] + S \[placebo\] group minus the EZ/S \[10mg/placebo\] + S \[40mg\] group)|||-10.1|-18.9|0.0000
91777167|NCT03873116|183435339|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|-24.6||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|14.0|||negative binomial regression model|||||14.0|-50.1|0.181
91777168|NCT03873116|183435339|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|-49.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|-20.4|||negative binomial regression model|||||-20.4|-67.5|0.003
91777169|NCT03873116|183435342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.018||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.179|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms.||0.179|-0.143|0.814
91777170|NCT03873116|183435342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.122||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.036|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms.||0.036|-0.280|0.120
91777171|NCT03873116|183435343|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|24.5||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|50.3|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed angioedema events during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. Therefore, P-values reported are nominal.||50.3|-14.7|0.188
91777172|NCT03873116|183435343|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|47.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|66.6|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed angioedema events during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. Therefore, P-values reported are nominal.||66.6|17.7|0.005
91777173|NCT03873116|183435344|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|-12.65||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.33|8.03|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of change from baseline in AE-QoL total score at Week 24 for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||8.03|-33.33|0.213
91777174|NCT03873116|183435344|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|-19.0||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|0.99|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of change from baseline in AE-QoL total score at Week 24 for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||0.99|-39.00|0.061
91777175|NCT02559622|183435424|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.17||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.06|||ANCOVA|||||3.06|-0.72|0.2230
91777176|NCT00979940|183435462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
91777177|NCT01668784|183435463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|98.52|0.57|0.93||The boundary for statistical significance required the p-value to be less than 0.0148 at the interim analyses.|Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center risk group, number of prior anti-angiogenic therapies, and the region.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio (HR) was Nivolumab over Everolimus.|||0.93|0.57|0.0018
91777178|NCT01668784|183435467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99|||Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk group, number of prior anti-angiogenic therapies, and the region.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio is nivolumab over everolimus.|||0.99|0.72|0.0340
91777179|NCT01668784|183435473|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox Proportional hazard Model|0.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.63|0.0001
91777180|NCT02761330|183435474|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.016
91897375|NCT00926211|183690646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Initial planned sample size of 26 would provide approximately 90% power if the survival rate in the implanted transected follicles is at least 40%. Sample size used was 36 with 35 participants completing the 9 month study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.023|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.9||t-test comparison to the upper limit of the non-inferiority margin|t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test compared to the non-inferiority margin of 4 follicles.|The number of implanted hairs surviving that were harvested using the computer assisted method was subtracted from the number of implanted hairs surviving that were harvested manually.|The hypothesis to be tested is one of non-inferiority. Tests of non-inferiority are one-sided tests and the significance level will be 0.025.||3.9||0.023
91897376|NCT00926211|183690647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study was powered for the primary efficacy outcome.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.146|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.004||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test.||Paired data with each subject as their own control (treatment was randomly assigned to the left or right side of the scalp). Paired difference was analyzed.|||-.004|<0.001
91897377|NCT01242800|183690651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was used for arm comparison||||||0.32
91897378|NCT00511901|183690669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91897379|NCT00511901|183690670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM at 3 weeks||||1.00
91897380|NCT00511901|183690670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM at 8 weeks||||0.17
91897381|NCT00511901|183690670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM at 12 weeks||||0.59
91897382|NCT00511901|183690671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
91897383|NCT00511901|183690672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.66||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Grip strength at 3 weeks||||0.66
91897384|NCT00511901|183690672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Grip strength at 8 weeks||||1.00
91897385|NCT00511901|183690672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.53||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Grip strength at 12 weeks||||0.53
91897386|NCT00511901|183690673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.96||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SPPB at 3 weeks||||0.96
91897387|NCT00511901|183690673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SPPB at 8 weeks||||1.00
91897388|NCT00511901|183690673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.66||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SPPB at 12 weeks||||0.66
91777181|NCT02761330|183435474|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.012
91777182|NCT02761330|183435474|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||0.031
91897389|NCT00511901|183690674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.64||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACIT at 3 weeks||||0.64
91897390|NCT00511901|183690674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.83||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACIT at 8 weeks||||0.83
91897391|NCT00511901|183690674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.46||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACIT at 12 weeks||||0.46
91897392|NCT00511901|183690675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.57||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Counts at 3 weeks||||0.37
91897393|NCT00511901|183690675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.39||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Counts at 8 weeks||||0.69
91897394|NCT00511901|183690675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.15||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Counts at 12 weeks||||0.36
91897395|NCT00511901|183690676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.97||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POMS at 3 weeks||||0.97
91897396|NCT00511901|183690676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.46||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POMS at 8 weeks||||0.46
91897397|NCT00511901|183690676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.68||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POMS at 12 weeks||||0.68
91897398|NCT06020118|183690681|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.938
91897399|NCT06020118|183690681|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.451||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.451
91897400|NCT06020118|183690681|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.819||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||0.819
91897401|NCT06020118|183690681|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.5||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||0.500
91897402|NCT06020118|183690681|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||<.001
91897403|NCT06020118|183690681|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.001
91897404|NCT06020118|183690681|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||<0.001
91897405|NCT06020118|183690681|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||<0.001
91897406|NCT06020118|183690682|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.894||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.894
91897407|NCT06020118|183690682|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.104||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.104
91897408|NCT06020118|183690682|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.815||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||0.815
91897409|NCT06020118|183690682|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.814||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||0.814
91646390|NCT01236053|183184708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||5.51|0.81|0.1285
91777183|NCT02761330|183435474|OTHER|||||||0.203||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||0.203
91777184|NCT02761330|183435474|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Motor Praxis Task (MP) reaction time.||||0.008
91777185|NCT02761330|183435474|OTHER|||||||0.496||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Motor Praxis Task (MP) reaction time.||||0.496
91777186|NCT02761330|183435474|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.844
91777187|NCT02761330|183435474|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.016
91777188|NCT02761330|183435474|OTHER|||||||0.062||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Abstract Matching task (AM) reaction time.||||0.062
91777189|NCT02761330|183435474|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Abstract Matching task (AM) reaction time.||||0.039
91897410|NCT06020118|183690682|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||<0.001
91897411|NCT06020118|183690682|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||<0.001
91646391|NCT01236053|183184708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.83|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.83|0.85|0.1257
91777190|NCT02761330|183435475|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.016
91777191|NCT02761330|183435475|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.039
91897412|NCT06020118|183690682|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||<0.001
91897413|NCT06020118|183690682|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||<0.001
91897414|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.699||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.699
91897415|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.88||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.880
91897416|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.72||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||0.720
91897417|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.238||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||0.238
91897418|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.28||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||0.280
91897419|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.094||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||0.094
91897420|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.216||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||0.216
91897421|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|P values and confidence intervals for the geometric mean titer ratio were estimated using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression accounting for site clustering.||||||0.436||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||0.436
91897422|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.615||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.615
91897423|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||<0.001
91897424|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.87||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||0.870
91897425|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||<0.001
91897426|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.64||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||0.640
91897427|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||<0.001
91897428|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.444||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||0.444
91777192|NCT02761330|183435475|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||0.031
91897429|NCT06020118|183690683|SUPERIORITY|P values and confidence intervals for the geometric mean titer ratio were estimated using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression accounting for site clustering.|||||<|0.001||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||<0.001
91777193|NCT02761330|183435475|OTHER|||||||1||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||1.0
91777194|NCT02761330|183435475|OTHER|||||||0.195||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Motor Praxis task (MP) reaction time.||||0.195
91777195|NCT02761330|183435475|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Motor Praxis task (MP) reaction time.||||0.570
91897430|NCT06020118|183690684|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.793||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.793
91897431|NCT06020118|183690684|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.326||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.326
91897432|NCT06020118|183690684|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.933||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||0.933
91897433|NCT06020118|183690684|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.424||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||0.424
91897434|NCT06020118|183690684|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||<0.001
91897435|NCT06020118|183690684|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||<0.001
91897436|NCT06020118|183690684|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||<0.001
91897437|NCT06020118|183690684|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||<0.001
91897438|NCT01296347|183690697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
91897439|NCT01296347|183690698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6 weeks||||0.71
91897440|NCT01296347|183690698|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 month||||1.0
91897441|NCT01296347|183690698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6 months||||0.32
91897442|NCT01296347|183690700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
91777196|NCT02761330|183435475|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.031
91777197|NCT02761330|183435475|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.016
91897443|NCT01296347|183690701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91897444|NCT01296347|183690702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91897445|NCT01296347|183690703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91897446|NCT02668185|183690719|SUPERIORITY|Generalised linear mixed model with a Poisson error structure|Mean Difference (Net)|29.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.39|42.87||Intention to treat adjusted means.|generalised linear mixed model with a Po|Adjusted for intention to treat||||42.87|17.39|<0.0001
91897447|NCT02668185|183690720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|50.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91777198|NCT02761330|183435475|OTHER|||||||1||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Abstract Matching (AM) task reaction time.||||1.00
91777199|NCT02761330|183435475|OTHER|||||||0.109||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Abstract Matching (AM) task reaction time.||||0.109
91777200|NCT02761330|183435483|OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the delta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.301
91777201|NCT02761330|183435483|OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the delta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.301
91777202|NCT02761330|183435483|OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the delta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.557
91897448|NCT02668185|183690721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91897449|NCT02668185|183690722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91897450|NCT02668185|183690723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91897451|NCT01013597|183690728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
91897452|NCT02678247|183690731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||2.3|0.8|<0.001
91897453|NCT02678247|183690732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.017|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.04|-0.06|0.664
91897454|NCT02678247|183690733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.05||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.23||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.017|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||-0.23|-3.17|0.026
91897455|NCT02678247|183690734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.58||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.42||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.025|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||2.42|-2|0.847
91897456|NCT02678247|183690735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.34||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.017|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.34|-2.42|<0.017
91897457|NCT02678247|183690736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.58||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.77||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.025|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.77|-0.53|0.7
91897458|NCT02678247|183690737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||7.0|-1.6|0.20
91897459|NCT02678247|183690738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.7||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||3.7|-6.0|0.62
91897460|NCT02678247|183690739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.3||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||5.3|-0.2|0.07
91777203|NCT02761330|183435484|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the theta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
91897461|NCT02678247|183690740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.1||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||1.1|-5.4|0.18
91897462|NCT02678247|183690741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.9|-0.4|0.47
91897463|NCT02678247|183690742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||2.0|-1.4|0.68
91777204|NCT02761330|183435484|OTHER|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the theta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.734
91777205|NCT02761330|183435484|OTHER|||||||0.322|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the theta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.322
91777206|NCT02761330|183435485|OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the alpha band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.164
91777207|NCT02761330|183435485|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the alpha band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.039
91897464|NCT03081052|183690744|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated sample size based on equivalence test of the incidence rates of a binary outcome (e.g. PGD grade 3 (PGD-3)) of two treatment groups as an illustration. Assuming the incidence rate of PGD-3 under iEPO treatment is 0.30 and acceptable margin of the equivalence is ± 0.19, we will need 200 lung transplant patients to have 80% power to detect an actual difference at α=0.05 between two treatment group under this margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.049||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.064|0.162|||two one sided test p-value|||||0.162|-0.064|0.019
91897465|NCT03081052|183690745|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated sample size based on equivalence test of the incidence rates of a binary outcome of two treatment groups as an illustration. Assuming the incidence rate of moderate or severe RV failure under iEPO treatment is 0.113 and acceptable margin of the equivalence is ± 0.15, we will need 224 heart failure patients to have 80% power to detect an actual difference at α=0.05 between two treatment group under this margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.025||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.066|0.116|||two one-sided test p-value|||||0.116|-0.066|0.012
91897466|NCT03081052|183690746|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift|0.0||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Log Rank|||||3|-3|0.747
91897467|NCT03081052|183690746|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift|0.0||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1|-1|0.638
91897468|NCT03081052|183690748|OTHER||mean ratio|1.19||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.87|||log-linear regression|||||1.87|0.76|0.453
91897469|NCT03081052|183690748|OTHER||mean ratio|0.94||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.56|||log-linear regression|||||1.56|0.57|0.816
91897470|NCT03081052|183690749|OTHER||mean ratio|1.03||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||log-linear regression|||||1.41|0.75|0.864
91897471|NCT03081052|183690749|OTHER||mean ratio|0.97||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28|||log-linear regression|||||1.28|0.73|0.825
91897472|NCT03081052|183690750|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.61|||Chi-squared|||||2.61|0.78|0.251
91897473|NCT03081052|183690750|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.5|||Chi-squared|||||2.5|0.58|0.619
91897474|NCT03081052|183690752|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|23.82|||Fisher Exact|||||23.82|0.19|0.614
91897475|NCT03081052|183690752|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.5424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.12|||Fisher Exact|||||2.12|0.17|0.5424
91897476|NCT00720941|183690754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority is defined as excluding a difference of greater than 25% in the hazards. The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval must be \<1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0466|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8982|1.2195|||||The HR is estimated by the Cox regression model using treatment stratification factors as covariates. The HR is adjusted for Karnofsky Performance Scale scores, prior nephrectomy, and Baseline levels of lactate dehydrogenase (\<=1.5xULN, \>1.5xULN).|||1.2195|0.8982|
91897477|NCT00567268|183690796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the age and the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.004
91646392|NCT01236053|183184708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.31|0.70|0.2944
91777208|NCT02761330|183435485|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the alpha band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.375
91777209|NCT02761330|183435486|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the beta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
91777210|NCT02761330|183435486|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the beta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
91777211|NCT02761330|183435486|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the beta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.625
91777212|NCT02761330|183435487|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior functional connectivity (coherence) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.129
91777213|NCT02761330|183435487|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior functional connectivity (coherence) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
91777214|NCT02761330|183435487|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior functional connectivity (coherence) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.625
91777215|NCT02761330|183435488|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior phase-lag (PLI) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||1.000
91777216|NCT02761330|183435488|OTHER|||||||0.496|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior phase-lag (PLI) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.496
91777217|NCT02761330|183435488|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior phase-lag (PLI) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.160
91777218|NCT02761330|183435489|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison of EEG Entropy using Permutation Entropy (PE) measures at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.008
91777219|NCT02761330|183435489|OTHER|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison of EEG Entropy using Permutation Entropy (PE) measures at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.359
91777220|NCT02761330|183435489|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison of EEG Entropy using Permutation Entropy (PE) measures at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.375
91777221|NCT05386329|183435491|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mid-treatment to end-of-treatment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5485|=|0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09883|2.1605||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT midpoint (week 4) CSQ-8 score compared to the end-point (week 8) CSQ-8 score.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in CSQ-8 total scores between midpoint (week 4) and end-of-treatment (week 8).||2.1605|-0.09883|=.0719
91897478|NCT00567268|183690797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||=0.003
91897479|NCT00567268|183690797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.003|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The risk factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||=0.003
91777222|NCT05386329|183435492|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mid-treatment (week 4) to baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8857|=|0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3884|2.2475||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT midpoint (week 4) CEQ credibility score compared to the baseline (week 0) CEQ credibility score.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in treatment credibility total scores between baseline (week 0) and midpoint (week 4).||2.2475|-1.3884|=.6316
91777223|NCT05386329|183435493|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mid-treatment (week 4) to baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9213|=|0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7422|3.0446||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT midpoint (week 4) CEQ expectancy scores compared to the baseline (week 0) CEQ expectancy scores.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in treatment expectancy total scores between baseline (week 0) and midpoint (week 4).||3.0446|-0.7422|=.2225
91777224|NCT05386329|183435495|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of post-treatment (week 8) to mid-treatment (week 4)|Wilcoxon Z|0.2712|||=|0.7873|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in treatment utilization between midpoint (week 4) and end of treatment (week 8).||||=.7873
91646393|NCT01236053|183184708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.21|0.45|0.7032
91838212|NCT03502616|183557105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|12.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||12.37|-0.13|0.0548
91897480|NCT00567268|183690798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
91897481|NCT00567268|183690799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the age and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
91897482|NCT00567268|183690799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of age categories."||||<0.001
91646394|NCT01236053|183184708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.69|0.37|0.9922
91646395|NCT01236053|183184708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.16|0.87|0.1227
91646396|NCT01236053|183184708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.61|0.69|0.3809
91646397|NCT01236053|183184709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.34|0.80|0.1757
91777225|NCT05386329|183435496|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2858|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4944|-5.1903||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified primary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT end of treatment (week 8) HAM-D score compared to the baseline (week 0) HAM-D score.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in HAM-D total scores between baseline (week 0) and end of treatment (week 8).||-5.1903|-10.4944|<.0001
91777226|NCT05386329|183435497|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7329|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5043|-6.3776||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified secondary outcome that addresses complementary aspects of the patient experience. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT end of treatment (week 8) WSAS scores compared to the baseline (week 0) WSAS scores.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in WSAS total scores between baseline (week 0) and end of treatment (week 8).||-6.3776|-13.5043|<.0001
91777227|NCT05386329|183435498|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.5463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.512|28.5806||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary outcome assessing a complementary aspect of the patient experience. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT end of treatment (week 8) Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores compared to the baseline (week 0) Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Q-LES-Q-SF total scores between baseline (week 0) and end of treatment (week 8).||28.5806|14.5120|<.0001
91777228|NCT04973449|183435528|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.32||||||The analyses were derived using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||1.32|1.08|
91777229|NCT04973449|183435529|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group is \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.14|0.90|
91777230|NCT04973449|183435530|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|6.49||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||6.49|-3.11|
91777231|NCT04973449|183435531|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group is \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|3.89||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.89|3.09|
91777232|NCT04973449|183435534|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|3.36||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.36|3.06|
91777233|NCT04973449|183435535|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.56|0.45|
91777234|NCT04973449|183435536|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.35||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.35|0.27|
91777235|NCT04973449|183435537|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.58||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.58|1.25|
91777236|NCT04973449|183435538|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.08||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.08|1.63|
91777237|NCT04973449|183435539|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.99||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.99|0.78|
91777238|NCT04973449|183435540|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.97|0.78|
91777239|NCT04973449|183435541|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.08||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.08|0.83|
91777240|NCT04973449|183435542|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|6.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|7.4||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||7.40|5.82|
91777241|NCT04973449|183435543|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.47||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.47|1.99|
91777242|NCT04973449|183435544|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group is \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|4.9||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||4.90|3.86|
91777243|NCT04973449|183435545|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.39||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.39|1.13|
91777244|NCT04973449|183435546|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|4.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|5.08||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||5.08|3.85|
91777245|NCT04973449|183435547|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|3.84||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.84|-6.62|
91777246|NCT04973449|183435548|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|16.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.18|23.32||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||23.32|10.18|
91777247|NCT04973449|183435549|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-18.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|-12.07||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-12.07|-24.22|
91777248|NCT04973449|183435550|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|7.23||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||7.23|-7.28|
91777249|NCT04973449|183435551|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|31.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.44|37.82||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||37.82|24.44|
91777250|NCT04973449|183435552|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.9||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.90|-9.40|
91777251|NCT04973449|183435553|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|23.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.41|30.23||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||30.23|15.41|
91777252|NCT04973449|183435554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-34.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.77|-27.45||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-27.45|-40.77|
91777253|NCT04973449|183435555|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|15.1||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||15.10|-1.31|
91777254|NCT04973449|183435556|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|29.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.76|35.81||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||35.81|21.76|
91777255|NCT04973449|183435558|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.42||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.42|1.30|
91777256|NCT04973449|183435559|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.81|0.70|
91777257|NCT04973449|183435560|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.39||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||4.39|3.40|
91777258|NCT04973449|183435561|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.7||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.70|0.64|
91777259|NCT04973449|183435562|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.09||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.09|-0.61|
91777260|NCT04973449|183435563|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-35.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.46|-28.44||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-28.44|-41.46|
91897483|NCT00567268|183690800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was severity of partial epileptic seizure . The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the degree of severity of partial epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe) and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.008
91777261|NCT04973449|183435564|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-24.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.06|-18.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-18.56|-31.06|
91777262|NCT04973449|183435565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.56|-1.63|
91777263|NCT04973449|183435566|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-19.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-14.98||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-14.98|-23.80|
91777264|NCT04973449|183435567|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|39.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.68|45.21||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||45.21|32.68|
91777265|NCT04973449|183435568|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.62||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.62|-1.62|
91777266|NCT04973449|183435569|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.59||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.59|0.45|
91777267|NCT04973449|183435570|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.86||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.86|0.68|
91777268|NCT04973449|183435571|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|1.79||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.79|1.43|
91777269|NCT04973449|183435572|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.85|0.67|
91777270|NCT04973449|183435573|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-12.1||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-12.10|-24.13|
91777271|NCT04973449|183435574|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.07|21.71||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||21.71|7.07|
91777272|NCT04973449|183435575|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-12.1||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-12.10|-24.13|
91777273|NCT04973449|183435576|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|16.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.15|23.4||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||23.40|10.15|
91777274|NCT04973449|183435577|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|7.21||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||7.21|-7.21|
91777275|NCT04973449|183435578|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.28||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.28|1.75|
91777276|NCT04973449|183435579|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|3.32||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.32|2.64|
91777277|NCT04973449|183435580|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.69||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.69|1.35|
91777278|NCT04973449|183435581|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.94||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.94|0.78|
91777279|NCT04973449|183435582|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-41.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.57|-34.41||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-34.41|-47.57|
91777280|NCT04973449|183435583|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|6.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|13.77||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||13.77|-1.81|
91777281|NCT04973449|183435584|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-26.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-19.94||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-19.94|-33.10|
91777282|NCT04973449|183435585|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|30.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.94|37.9||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||37.90|22.94|
91897484|NCT00567268|183690800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.002|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was severity of partial epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across the degree of severity of partial epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe)."||||=0.002
91777283|NCT04973449|183435586|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|14.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|22.64||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||22.64|6.36|
91897485|NCT00567268|183690801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was baseline frequency of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the baseline frequency of epileptic seizure and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.018
91897486|NCT00567268|183690802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
91897487|NCT00567268|183690802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||<0.001
91897488|NCT00567268|183690803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.025|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was baseline creatinine clearance. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the baseline creatinine clearance."||||=0.025
91777284|NCT04973449|183435587|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||||||The analyses were derived using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||0.96|0.74|
91897489|NCT00567268|183690804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was non-drug therapy. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the non-drug therapy and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.043
91897490|NCT03548987|183690810|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-14.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-13.5|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-13.50|-16.00|<0.0001
91897491|NCT03548987|183690810|OTHER||Treatment difference|-15.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-14.13|||MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||-14.13|-16.52|<0.0001
91897492|NCT04572841|183690847|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.02||||||Analysis was performed for change from baseline using a mixed model for repeated measures with visit, intervention group (SAR441344 and Placebo), and visit by intervention group interaction as fixed categorical effects, and participant specific baseline ESSDAI as continuous covariate.||2.02|-1.39|
91897493|NCT01468831|183690880|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|26.1|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||26.1|-10.6|
91897494|NCT01468831|183690881|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 12 is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91897495|NCT01468831|183690882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 24 is reported.||||
91646398|NCT01236053|183184709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.75|0.64|0.4405
91646399|NCT01236053|183184709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.16|0.71|0.4420
91646400|NCT01236053|183184709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||1.82|0.59|0.9034
91646401|NCT01236053|183184710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.6|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.60|0.65|0.2395
91646402|NCT01236053|183184710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.93|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.93|0.55|0.3764
91777285|NCT04973449|183435588|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|1.8||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.80|1.62|
91777286|NCT04973449|183435589|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.56|0.44|
91777287|NCT04973449|183435590|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.44||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.44|0.32|
91777288|NCT03137992|183435739|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was declared if the 90% CI was entirely contained within the bioequivalence interval, 0.80 to 1.25.|Least Squared Mean Ratio|0.9369|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.834|1.047|||||Fieller's formula was applied to calculate the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the Lupin Tiotropium and Spiriva Handihaler LS mean ratio.|A blinded interim analysis was performed after 241 subjects had been randomized with measurable AUC data, which estimated 238 patients would be needed to demonstrate BE with 90% power. Therefore, it was planned that approximately 378 patients would be randomized to allow for a potential 30% loss/withdrawal from the PP population.||1.047|0.834|
91777289|NCT03137992|183435740|SUPERIORITY||Least Squared Mean Difference|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9386|3.646||Efficacy of the Test (T) product was demonstrated if the T was shown to be statistically superior to Placebo (p\<0.05 \[two-tailed\]).Outcome variable was Difference in Baseline adjusted FEV1 AUC0-24h.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures analysis consisted of effects of treatment, period, and sequence.||||3.646|2.9386|<0.001
91777290|NCT03137992|183435740|SUPERIORITY||Least Squared Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0718|3.7797||Study sensitivity was demonstrated if the Reference (R) product was shown to be statistically superior to Placebo (P) (p \<0.05 \[two-tailed\]). Outcome variable was Difference in Baseline adjusted FEV1 AUC0-24h.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures analysis consisted of effects of treatment, period, and sequence.||||3.7797|3.0718|<0.001
91777291|NCT05010707|183435783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (month 0, and 1 month)||||0.005
91777292|NCT05010707|183435783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-225.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-421.71|-28.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.79|-421.71|0.02
91777293|NCT05010707|183435783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-250.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-447.1|-54.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-54.19|-447.10|0.009
91777294|NCT05010707|183435784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (month 0 and month 1)||||0.951
91777295|NCT05010707|183435784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|26.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is computed using the model based estimates rather than from the raw data.|||26.4|-29.6|1
91777296|NCT05010707|183435784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is computed using the model based estimates rather than from the raw data.|||20.8|-35.1|1
91777297|NCT05010707|183435785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (month 0 and month 1)||||0.004
91777298|NCT05010707|183435785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-280.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-487.3|-73.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-73.5|-487.3|0.005
91777299|NCT05010707|183435785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-204.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-411.1|0.054
91777300|NCT00906204|183435791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A one-sided alpha = 0.05, 85% power, an event rate of 0.70, equivalence margin of 0.20. Sample size = 75 patients per dose group, a total of 150 patients. Data analyzed will be counts of patients in each group who experience one or more component events of the primary endpoint during postoperative days one through seven. The DSMB requested an interim analysis after 80 patients and recommended ending the trial because the primary endpoint had been robustly reached.||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis compares the rates at which patients in each of the two groups cumulatively exceed the five composite endpoint thresholds. There are five safety outcomes monitored during the first seven post-transplantation days. The rates of observed vs. possible safety outcomes are compared.||||0.64
91777301|NCT00906204|183435792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.35
91777302|NCT00906204|183435793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.47
91777303|NCT00906204|183435794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
91897496|NCT01468831|183690883|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 3 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2.3|-3.9|
91897497|NCT01468831|183690884|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.3|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||0.3|-4.5|
91897498|NCT01468831|183690885|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.5|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2.5|-7.5|
91897499|NCT01468831|183690886|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.4|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2.4|-9.4|
91646403|NCT01236053|183184710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.71|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.71|0.48|0.7599
91646404|NCT01236053|183184710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.46|0.43|0.9502
91646405|NCT01236053|183184710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.75|0.30|0.7164
91646406|NCT01236053|183184710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.73|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.73|0.24|0.9345
91646407|NCT01236053|183184710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.02|0.28|0.8833
91777304|NCT00906204|183435795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
91777305|NCT00906204|183435796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
91777306|NCT00124943|183435827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.396
91777307|NCT00124943|183435828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.783||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the number of patients with any treatment emergent adverse event. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.783
91777308|NCT00124943|183435829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-stent binary restenosis. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.293
91777309|NCT00124943|183435829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-segment binary restenosis. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes||||0.400
91777310|NCT00124943|183435830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||>0.999
91777311|NCT00124943|183435831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.061
91777312|NCT00124943|183435832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-stent late lumen loss. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.709
91777313|NCT00124943|183435832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-segment late lumen loss. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.495
91777314|NCT00124943|183435833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value testing dose group differences based on an analysis of variance with dose effect in the model.||||||0.317
91777315|NCT03181932|183435834|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoint was tested sequentially at Week 4 (end of Cycle 1), Week 12 (end of Cycle 2) and at Week 20 (end of Cycle 3). If a statistically significant difference was observed in favor of vancomycin inhalation powder compared to placebo after Cycle 1, then the mean change in the FEV1 percent predicted during Cycle 2 was to be tested. Similarly, if the effect after Cycle 2 was statistically significant, then the analysis of Baseline to end of Cycle 3 was to be tested.|Least square mean difference|1.4||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on previous experience, a sample size of 45 participants per arm would provide 89% power to detect a statistically significant difference at alpha level of 0.05. To account for potential dropouts and/or smaller effect size in a 3-cycle trial, a sample size of 75 participants per arm was to be enrolled in the primary analysis population, which if all completed would provide 90% power to detect a difference of 3.4% at 20 weeks assuming the same standard deviation of 6.3%.||4.1|-1.4|0.325
91777316|NCT01887327|183435846|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-31.64|||=|2.1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-19.283|||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|||||-19.283|-44.000|=0.0000021
91777317|NCT01887327|183435846|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-27.4|||=|2.6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.657|-15.142|||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|||||-15.142|-39.657|=0.0000260
91777318|NCT00408317|183435863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.74|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-values are from a semi-parametric mixed model on ranked CFA% values including sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects; participant identification (ID) as random effect.||||<0.0001
91777319|NCT00408317|183435864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.68|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-values are from a semi-parametric mixed model on ranked CNA% values including sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects, and participant ID as random effect.||||<0.0001
91777320|NCT02584686|183435887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing the mean PSV before \& after treatment in the study group using the t-test.||||0.0049
91777321|NCT02584686|183435887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing the mean PSV before \& after treatment in the control group using the t-test.||||0.68
91777322|NCT02584686|183435889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01086956|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the Erection hardness score before \& after treatment in the study group.||||0.01086956
91777323|NCT02584686|183435889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6618176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the Erection hardness score before \& after treatment in the control group.||||0.6618176
91897500|NCT01468831|183690887|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.0|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2|-9.5|
91897501|NCT01468831|183690888|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|28.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||28.6|-17.1|
91897502|NCT01468831|183690889|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-51.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.2|127.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||127.6|-231.2|
91897503|NCT01468831|183690890|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-45.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|153.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-522.6|431.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||431.6|-522.6|
91897504|NCT01468831|183690891|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|163.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-513.1|487.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||487.6|-513.1|
91897505|NCT01468831|183690892|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|156.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-487.0|468.0|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||468|-487|
91897506|NCT01468831|183690893|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91897507|NCT01468831|183690894|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91897508|NCT01468831|183690895|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91708338|NCT01763827|183309612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.12|-50.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.78|-59.12|<0.001
91897509|NCT01468831|183690895|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91897510|NCT01468831|183690895|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91897511|NCT01468831|183690896|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91897512|NCT01468831|183690896|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91897513|NCT01468831|183690896|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91897514|NCT01287065|183690913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.293|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference =FF/VI 100/25 µg PM minus Placebo|||0.462|0.293|
91897515|NCT01287065|183690913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.337|0.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference =FF/VI 100/25 µg AM minus Placebo|||0.507|0.337|
91708339|NCT01763827|183309612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.73|-30.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-30.73|-38.73|<0.001
91897516|NCT01287065|183690913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.125|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference =FF/VI 100/25 µg AM minusFF/VI 100/25 µg PM|||0.036|-0.125|
91897517|NCT01326533|183690924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value as covariate||||||<0.01
91897518|NCT01326533|183690925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value as covariate||||||0.013
91897519|NCT04508023|183690962|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.16||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.15|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the time from COVID-19 positive test to randomization.||||2.15|0.63|0.626
91708340|NCT01763827|183309612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.81|-32.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-32.42|-40.81|<0.001
91897520|NCT01668667|183691009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.745||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.52|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity will be made for these analyses.|The change from baseline data is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled site as the main effects and the baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score as a covariate.|The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the change from Baseline to the end of treatment in the IRLS Rating Scale total score. All comparisons will be made at the two-sided 0.05 level of significance.||-0.52|-4.62|0.014
91897521|NCT01668667|183691009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.54|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity will be made for these analyses.|The change from baseline data is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled site as the main effects and the baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score as a covariate.|The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the change from Baseline to the end of treatment in the IRLS Rating Scale total score. All comparisons will be made at the two-sided 0.05 level of significance.||-0.54|-4.68|0.014
91897522|NCT01668667|183691009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.767||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.53|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity will be made for these analyses.|The change from baseline data is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled site as the main effects and the baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score as a covariate|The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the change from Baseline to the end of treatment in the IRLS Rating Scale total score. All comparisons will be made at the two-sided 0.05 level of significance.||0.53|-3.63|0.144
91897523|NCT01668667|183691010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.95|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis method used was logistic regression with terms of pooled site and treatment.|"The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the proportion of subjects who are responders with much improved or very much improved on the investigator-rated CGI-I at the end of treatment."||3.95|1.30|0.004
91897524|NCT01668667|183691010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.77|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis method used was logistic regression with terms of pooled site and treatment.|"The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the proportion of subjects who are responders with much improved or very much improved on the investigator-rated CGI-I at the end of treatment."||3.77|1.23|0.007
91897525|NCT01668667|183691010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.94|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis method used was logistic regression with terms of pooled site and treatment.|"The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the proportion of subjects who are responders with much improved or very much improved on the investigator-rated CGI-I at the end of treatment."||3.94|1.27|0.005
91897526|NCT01668667|183691011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For the mean change from Baseline for IRLS Rating Scale total score at the EOT, the linear contrast test based on an analysis of variance with treatment effect was used to detect linear dose-response trends across increasing levels of GEn dosage.||||0.022
91897527|NCT01668667|183691011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Overall treatment effect||||0.072
91897528|NCT01668667|183691012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||A significant p-value will indicate a nonzero linear effect across increasing levels of GEn dosage.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.012
91897529|NCT02988622|183691013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1205|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5499||0.0492|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0492
91897530|NCT02988622|183691014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.241|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0817||0.0817|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0817
91897531|NCT02988622|183691015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3659|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7951||0.0686|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0686
91897532|NCT02988622|183691016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0843|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5789||0.6278|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6278
91897533|NCT02988622|183691017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3373|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7619||0.0848|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0848
91897534|NCT02988622|183691018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2195|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0788||0.3418|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3418
91897535|NCT02988622|183691019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2375|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5528||0.1752|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1752
91777324|NCT02584686|183435891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00751288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SHIM Score in the study group before \& after treatment.||||0.00751288
91777325|NCT02584686|183435891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6618176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SHIM Score in the control group before \& after treatment.||||0.6618176
91777326|NCT02584686|183435892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027191||||||"Due to the small sample size Fisher exact test was chosen. 7 out of 12 in the treatment group answered yes, while 1 out of 12 in the control group answered yes."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027191
91897536|NCT02988622|183691021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3824|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5685||0.0281|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0281
91897537|NCT01281969|183691035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.15||p-value is unadjusted. a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|ANCOVA|F(1,34)=0.62, p=.44||Analysis of covariance model controlling for baseline scores. A priori power calculations based on the Perlmutter et al. study (IVIG effect size 1.2) suggested that a sample size of 16 per group would be sufficient to detect an effect size of 1.0 with 80% power.||3.15|-7.1|0.44
91897538|NCT01281969|183691036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is not adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mean rank sum in the placebo group = 19.92; mean rank sum in the IVIG group = 15.97. Z = -1.18, p=.12||The Wilcoxon two-sample test was used to compare CGI-Improvement ratings (an ordinal variable) at week 6. Power calculation was based on CYBOCS as primary outcome.||||.12
91897539|NCT01281969|183691037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|X2 = 0.72, p=.40||Chi-squared test was used to compare distribution of responders by randomization group. Power calculation was based on CY-BOCS (primary outcome).||||.40
91897540|NCT02240693|183691052|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.223||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.223|-0.074|0.3236
91897541|NCT02240693|183691052|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.3694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.082||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.082|-0.220|0.3694
91897542|NCT02240693|183691052|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.139||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.139|-0.171|0.8374
91897543|NCT02240693|183691052|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.5484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.199||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.199|-0.106|0.5484
91897544|NCT02240693|183691052|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.121||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (Pooled BI 409306 minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.121|-0.092|0.7905
91897545|NCT02240693|183691053|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.8973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.04||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|2.04|-2.33|0.8973
91897546|NCT02240693|183691053|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|3.63||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|3.63|-0.82|0.2141
91897547|NCT02240693|183691053|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.085||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.67||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|1.67|-2.64|0.6553
91897548|NCT02240693|183691053|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.144||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.69||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|2.69|-1.85|0.7166
91777327|NCT02584686|183435894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109091|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Fisher Exact Test was used to compare the change in the number of in patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 8 (SEP-Q2 Question Before Treatment) to patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 9 (SEP-Q2 Question after Treatment), for both (BTXA) and Saline groups."||||0.109091
91897549|NCT02240693|183691054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.46||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.46|-0.49|0.9491
91897550|NCT02240693|183691054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.84||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.84|-0.15|0.1699
91897551|NCT02240693|183691054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.33|-0.69|0.4948
91897552|NCT02240693|183691054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.7548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.58||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.58|-0.42|0.7548
91897553|NCT02240693|183691055|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.081||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.89||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|1.89|-2.40|0.8137
91897554|NCT02240693|183691055|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.5801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.6||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|1.60|-2.84|0.5801
91897555|NCT02240693|183691055|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.2978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.0||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|1.00|-3.25|0.2978
91897556|NCT02240693|183691055|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|-0.39||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|-0.39|-4.64|0.0209
91777328|NCT02584686|183435896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Fisher Exact Test was used to compare the change in patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 10 (SEP-Q3 Question Before Treatment) to patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 11 (SEP-Q3 Question after Treatment)."||||1
91777329|NCT02703597|183435919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Participants in the GSA-ASPIRE-Network Group will be more likely to decrease in susceptibility to vaping than participants in the ASPIRE group.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||4.20|0.32|0.80
91777330|NCT02703597|183435919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Participants in both arms will decrease in susceptibility to vaping over time.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||0.43|0.06|<0.01
91838213|NCT03502616|183557105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||31.56|15.30|<0.0001
91777331|NCT02703597|183435920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Adolescents who participated in the GSA-ASPIRE-Network group will be more likely to decrease in susceptibility to using conventional tobacco than adolescents who participated in the ASPIRE group.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||3.49|0.16|0.70
91897557|NCT02240693|183691056|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.12||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.120|-0.101|0.8694
91897558|NCT02240693|183691056|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.9512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.109||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.109|-0.116|0.9512
91897559|NCT02240693|183691056|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.115||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.115|-0.105|0.9321
91897560|NCT02240693|183691056|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.025||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.025|-0.199|0.1288
91897561|NCT02240693|183691056|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.061||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (Pooled BI 409306 minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.061|-0.098|0.6492
91897562|NCT00413972|183691065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91897563|NCT00413972|183691065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91897564|NCT00413972|183691065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91897565|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.78||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.78|1.10|
91777332|NCT02703597|183435920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Participants in both arms will decrease in susceptibility of using conventional tobacco over time.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||0.40|0.04|<0.01
91777333|NCT03416985|183435935|OTHER|||||||0.1561||||||p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||Compare groups with respect to plaque level after 30 days||||0.1561
91777334|NCT03416985|183435936|OTHER|||||||0.2161||||||p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||Compare groups with respect to Gingival scores at 30 days||||0.2161
91897566|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.32|0.90|
91897567|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.13||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.13|1.19|
91897568|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.62||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.62|0.93|
91897569|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.63|17.08||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||17.08|8.63|
91897570|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.48||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.48|1.82|
91897571|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.87||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.87|1.98|
91897572|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.08||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||4.08|2.00|
91897573|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.21|0.64|
91897574|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.51||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.51|1.39|
91897575|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.41||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.41|1.56|
91897576|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.28||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.28|0.72|
91897577|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|7.33||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||7.33|3.67|
91897578|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.73||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.73|1.08|
91897579|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.19|0.81|
91897580|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.77||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.77|1.07|
91777335|NCT02006472|183435937|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.42||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-1.39|0.3202
91777336|NCT02006472|183435937|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.7||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|4.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.46|-1.06|0.2266
91777337|NCT02006472|183435937|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.66||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.39|-2.07|0.6348
91777338|NCT02006472|183435937|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.04||||0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.8|-0.71|0.1447
91777339|NCT02006472|183435939|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.87||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|0.29|0.0032
91777340|NCT02006472|183435939|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.11||||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-0.46|0.7042
91777341|NCT02006472|183435939|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.19||||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.75|-0.37|0.5099
91897581|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4||||||95.0|1.01|1.8||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.80|1.01|
91838214|NCT03502616|183557105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.66|37.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||37.47|19.66|<0.0001
91838215|NCT03502616|183557105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.34|41.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||41.02|21.34|<0.0001
91838216|NCT03502616|183557105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.2926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|18.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.01|-5.43|0.2926
91838217|NCT03502616|183557105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|18.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.06|-5.32|0.2856
91838218|NCT03502616|183557105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|19.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach||19.54|-3.87|0.1894
91838219|NCT03502616|183557105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|17.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach||17.43|-6.24|0.3544
91838220|NCT03502616|183557106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.57|-0.85|<0.0001
91838221|NCT03502616|183557106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.74|-1.07|<0.0001
91838222|NCT03502616|183557106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.87|-1.25|<0.0001
91838223|NCT03502616|183557106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.90|-1.28|<0.0001
91838224|NCT03502616|183557106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.79|-1.16|<0.0001
91838225|NCT03502616|183557106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.01|-0.40|0.0623
91838226|NCT03502616|183557106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.02|-0.39|0.0836
91897582|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.15||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||2.15|1.30|
91838227|NCT03502616|183557106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.04|-0.47|0.0205
91838228|NCT03502616|183557106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.01|-0.42|0.0614
91897583|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.12||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||2.12|1.24|
91646408|NCT01236053|183184710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.46|0.22|0.6178
91646409|NCT01236053|183184710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.53|0.46|0.4556
91646410|NCT01236053|183184710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.29|0.35|0.7478
91646411|NCT01236053|183184710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.13|0.71|0.2350
91646412|NCT01236053|183184710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.24|0.54|0.5428
91646413|NCT01236053|183184711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.3123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|6.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.59|0.55|0.3123
91646414|NCT01236053|183184711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||6.15|0.49|0.3951
91646415|NCT01236053|183184711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.75|0.56|0.4388
91646416|NCT01236053|183184711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.47|0.51|0.5535
91777342|NCT02006472|183435939|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.24||||0.4061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.33|0.4061
91777343|NCT02006472|183435940|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.16||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.78|0.54|0.0003
91777344|NCT02006472|183435941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91777345|NCT02006472|183435942|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.0341||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0658|-0.0026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 26||-0.0026|-0.0658|0.0346
91777346|NCT02006472|183435942|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.0444||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0847|-0.0042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 52||-0.0042|-0.0847|0.0305
91777347|NCT05179785|183435948|OTHER|||||||0.2938909|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.29389090
91777348|NCT05179785|183435948|OTHER|||||||0.97863544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.97863544
91777349|NCT05179785|183435948|OTHER|||||||0.60236264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.60236264
91777350|NCT05179785|183435948|OTHER|||||||0.35845126|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.35845126
91777351|NCT05179785|183435948|OTHER|||||||0.91766025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.91766025
91777352|NCT05179785|183435948|OTHER|||||||0.09605169|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delayed discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delayed discounting task"||||0.09605169
91777353|NCT05179785|183435949|OTHER|||||||0.50030946|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.50030946
91777354|NCT05179785|183435949|OTHER|||||||0.3751738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.37517380
91646417|NCT01236053|183184711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.48|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.48|0.40|0.6332
91646418|NCT01236053|183184711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.75|0.32|0.8743
91646419|NCT01236053|183184711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.15|0.27|0.6132
91646420|NCT01236053|183184711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.63||||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||1.78|0.22|0.3821
91897584|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.79||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.79|1.03|
91646421|NCT01236053|183184711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.28|0.51|0.3591
91646422|NCT01236053|183184711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.58|0.37|0.6899
91777355|NCT05179785|183435949|OTHER|||||||0.47876971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.47876971
91777356|NCT05179785|183435949|OTHER|||||||0.21798816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21798816
91777357|NCT05179785|183435949|OTHER|||||||0.47876971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.47876971
91777358|NCT05179785|183435949|OTHER|||||||0.21798816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21798816
91777359|NCT05179785|183435950|OTHER|||||||0.75298499|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.75298499
91777360|NCT05179785|183435950|OTHER|||||||0.16043787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.16043787
91777361|NCT05179785|183435950|OTHER|||||||0.67902693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.67902693
91777362|NCT05179785|183435950|OTHER|||||||0.33832977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.33832977
91777363|NCT05179785|183435950|OTHER|||||||0.67902693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.67902693
91777364|NCT05179785|183435950|OTHER|||||||0.33832977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.33832977
91777365|NCT05179785|183435951|OTHER|||||||0.73357221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.73357221
91777366|NCT05179785|183435951|OTHER|||||||0.43954526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.43954526
91777367|NCT05179785|183435951|OTHER|||||||0.4419898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.44198980
91777368|NCT05179785|183435951|OTHER|||||||0.39565784|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.39565784
91777369|NCT05179785|183435951|OTHER|||||||0.35602382|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.35602382
91777370|NCT05179785|183435951|OTHER|||||||0.30499144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.30499144
91777371|NCT05179785|183435952|OTHER|||||||0.81601415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.81601415
91777372|NCT05179785|183435952|OTHER|||||||0.20563452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.20563452
91777373|NCT05179785|183435952|OTHER|||||||0.21947623|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21947623
91777374|NCT05179785|183435952|OTHER|||||||0.45535329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.45535329
91777375|NCT05179785|183435952|OTHER|||||||0.21947623|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21947623
91777376|NCT05179785|183435952|OTHER|||||||0.45535329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.45535329
91777377|NCT05179785|183435953|OTHER|||||||0.83462055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.83462055
91838229|NCT03502616|183557107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.70|-1.15|<0.0001
91897585|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5||||||95.0|1.11|1.98||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.98|1.11|
91897586|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.12||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||2.12|1.16|
91897587|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.47||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.47|0.86|
91897588|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.69||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.69|1.16|
91897589|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.54||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.54|0.87|
91897590|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.84||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.84|0.94|
91897591|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|2.87||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.87|2.03|
91897592|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||1.13|0.84|
91897593|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.76||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.76|1.92|
91897594|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.42||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.42|1.55|
91897595|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.67||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.67|1.84|
91897596|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|5.93||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||5.93|4.13|
91897597|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|3.49||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||3.49|2.41|
91777378|NCT05179785|183435953|OTHER|||||||0.21582586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.21582586
91777379|NCT05179785|183435953|OTHER|||||||0.59574875|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.59574875
91897598|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|3.52||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||3.52|2.34|
91897599|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|5.93||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||5.93|4.01|
91897600|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.79||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.79|1.91|
91897601|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.66||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.66|2.02|
91897602|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|3.6||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||3.60|2.44|
91897603|NCT00427895|183691074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|5.31||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||5.31|3.31|
91897604|NCT00427895|183691075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|Difference in Percentage|39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|45.1||||||||45.1|33.0|
91897605|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|5.09||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||5.09|2.32|
91897606|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.16||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.16|1.13|
91897607|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.98||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.98|0.88|
91897608|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|4.97||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||4.97|2.04|
91897609|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.0||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||4.00|1.50|
91897610|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|7.99||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||7.99|2.76|
91897611|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.97||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.97|0.93|
91897612|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.39||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.39|0.99|
91777380|NCT05179785|183435953|OTHER|||||||0.75948776|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.75948776
91646423|NCT01236053|183184711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.3|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.30|0.73|0.2031
91646424|NCT01236053|183184711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.37|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.37|0.56|0.4932
91777381|NCT05179785|183435953|OTHER|||||||0.7238414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.72384140
91777382|NCT05179785|183435953|OTHER|||||||0.00477281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.00477281
91897613|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.5||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.50|1.37|
91897614|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.68||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.68|1.78|
91897615|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.01||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||4.01|1.77|
91897616|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.13||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||6.13|1.99|
91897617|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|6.08||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||6.08|2.87|
91897618|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.3||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||4.30|2.26|
91897619|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.8||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.80|1.72|
91897620|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|10.19||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||10.19|4.09|
91897621|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.63||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||4.63|1.83|
91897622|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.03||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||6.03|2.41|
91897623|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|10.82||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||10.82|3.13|
91897624|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.84||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.84|1.30|
91897625|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.78||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||4.78|2.02|
91897626|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.76||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.76|1.87|
91897627|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|6.58||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||6.58|2.97|
91897628|NCT00427895|183691076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|9.41||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||9.41|3.20|
91708341|NCT01763827|183309613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.78|-45.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.36|-53.78|<0.001
91708342|NCT01763827|183309613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.28|-48.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-48.26|-57.28|<0.001
91708343|NCT01763827|183309613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.95|-31.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-31.57|-39.95|<0.001
91897629|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.2||||||Serotype 1: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||11.2|1.9|
91897630|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|8.1||||||Serotype 3: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||8.1|-0.3|
91897631|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.2||||||Serotype 4: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.2|-0.2|
91897632|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.2||||||Serotype 5: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.2|-2.6|
91708344|NCT01763827|183309613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.48|-29.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-29.45|-38.48|<0.001
91708345|NCT01763827|183309614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-18.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.28|-11.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-11.68|-25.28|<0.001
91777383|NCT05179785|183435954|OTHER|||||||0.20047055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.20047055
91897633|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|31.7||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||31.7|21.7|
91897634|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|12.0||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||12.0|3.2|
91897635|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|17.4||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||17.4|7.3|
91897636|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|19.5||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||19.5|8.7|
91897637|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.8||||||Serotype 14: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||3.8|-5.6|
91897638|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.5||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||10.5|2.6|
91897639|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.1||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.1|1.2|
91897640|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|Difference in Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.2||||||Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.||3.2|-5.5|
91897641|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.3||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||29.3|17.0|
91897642|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.5||||||Serotype 1: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.5|-0.2|
91897643|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.1||||||Serotype 3: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||4.1|-3.6|
91897644|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.5||||||Serotype 4: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.5|-0.4|
91897645|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.9||||||Serotype 5: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||3.9|-5.8|
91897646|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.8||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||4.8|-0.4|
91897647|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.2||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.2|0.8|
91897648|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.2||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||8.2|0.6|
91777384|NCT05179785|183435954|OTHER|||||||0.77922802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.77922802
91777385|NCT05179785|183435954|OTHER|||||||0.29196708|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.29196708
91777386|NCT05179785|183435954|OTHER|||||||0.05605962|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.05605962
91777387|NCT05179785|183435954|OTHER|||||||0.57368284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.57368284
91897649|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.9||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.9|-0.3|
91897650|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Perecentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7||||||Serotype 14: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||8.7|-0.1|
91897651|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.5||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||2.5|-3.8|
91646425|NCT01236053|183184713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|7.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||7.96|0.88|0.0843
91646426|NCT01236053|183184713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||8.28|0.88|0.0810
91646427|NCT01236053|183184713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.70|0.55|0.4583
91646428|NCT01236053|183184713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.73|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.73|0.55|0.4622
91646429|NCT01236053|183184713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.95|0.43|0.5512
91897652|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||1.9|-2.1|
91897653|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.2||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||6.2|-2.4|
91897654|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.7||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.7|-4.7|
91897655|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|10.6||||||Serotype 1: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||10.6|4.3|
91897656|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.9||||||Serotype 3: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.9|-0.3|
91897657|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.9||||||Serotype 4: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||6.9|2.1|
91897658|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.1||||||Serotype 5: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||9.1|1.4|
91646430|NCT01236053|183184713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.67|0.31|0.9277
91777388|NCT05179785|183435954|OTHER|||||||0.56397238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.56397238
91777389|NCT05179785|183435955|OTHER|||||||0.86107891|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.86107891
91777390|NCT05179785|183435955|OTHER|||||||0.62228799|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.62228799
91777391|NCT05179785|183435955|OTHER|||||||0.79477883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.79477883
91777392|NCT05179785|183435955|OTHER|||||||0.12634435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.12634435
91897659|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.1||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||6.1|1.7|
91897660|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.3||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||9.3|4.1|
91897661|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|11.6||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||11.6|5.4|
91646431|NCT01236053|183184713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.95|0.51|0.6402
91838230|NCT03502616|183557107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.68|-1.16|<0.0001
91838231|NCT03502616|183557107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.63|-1.40|<0.0001
91897662|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|11.4||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||11.4|4.8|
91897663|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.9||||||Serotype 14: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||14.9|8.0|
91897664|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.7||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.7|0.9|
91897665|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.1||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||3.1|0.3|
91897666|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|12.0||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||12.0|5.4|
91897667|NCT00427895|183691077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|14.7||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||14.7|6.8|
91897668|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.51||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.51|1.52|
91897669|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.99||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.99|0.95|
91897670|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.64||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.64|1.47|
91897671|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.12||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.12|0.92|
91897672|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.16||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.16|1.01|
91646432|NCT01236053|183184713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.32|0.40|0.9256
91897673|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.59||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.59|0.67|
91646433|NCT01236053|183184713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.50|0.24|0.9514
91646434|NCT01236053|183184713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.44|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.44|0.18|0.7543
91838232|NCT03502616|183557107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.74|-1.19|<0.0001
91897674|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.92||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.92|0.94|
91897675|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.23||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.23|0.80|
91897676|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.59|0.68|
91897677|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.66|0.80|
91897678|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.79||||||95.0|1.07|3.0||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.00|1.07|
91646435|NCT01236053|183184713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.07|0.38|0.8781
91777393|NCT05179785|183435955|OTHER|||||||0.79477883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.79477883
91777394|NCT05179785|183435955|OTHER|||||||0.12634435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.12634435
91777395|NCT05179785|183435955|OTHER|||||||0.62461968|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.62461968
91777396|NCT05179785|183435955|OTHER|||||||0.51324793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.51324793
91777397|NCT05179785|183435955|OTHER|||||||0.60543603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.60543603
91777398|NCT05179785|183435955|OTHER|||||||0.75565448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.75565448
91777399|NCT05179785|183435955|OTHER|||||||0.60543603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.60543603
91777400|NCT05179785|183435955|OTHER|||||||0.75565448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.75565448
91777401|NCT05179785|183435956|OTHER|||||||0.09266386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.09266386
91838233|NCT03502616|183557107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.72|-1.20|<0.0001
91838234|NCT03502616|183557107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-0.20|0.4731
91838235|NCT03502616|183557107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.11|-0.26|0.4055
91838236|NCT03502616|183557107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-0.34|0.2648
91838237|NCT03502616|183557107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.14|-0.25|0.5558
91838238|NCT03502616|183557108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-1.01|-3.03|0.0001
91838239|NCT03502616|183557108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.14|-2.38|0.0270
91838240|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.841||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Physical Functioning: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.88|0.56|0.0088
91838241|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Role-Physical: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||4.85|1.15|0.0016
91838242|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|6.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Bodily Pain: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||6.23|2.69|<0.0001
91838243|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.781|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.78|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, General Health: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||4.78|1.70|<0.0001
91838244|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.098||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|3.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Vitality: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.94|-0.38|0.1065
91646436|NCT01236053|183184713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.40|0.29|0.7429
91646437|NCT02304302|183184716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|-0.98|0.61
91838245|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Social Functioning: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||5.05|0.88|0.0055
91838246|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289||0.1084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Role-Emotional: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||4.61|-0.46|0.1084
91838247|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|3.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Mental Health: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.29|-1.13|0.3379
91646438|NCT02304302|183184717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|-1.43|0.57
91646439|NCT02304302|183184718|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-0.74|0.91
91838248|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||5.02|2.09|<0.0001
91838249|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.61|-0.95|0.2529
91646440|NCT02304302|183184719|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.91|-1.91|0.48
91777402|NCT05179785|183435956|OTHER|||||||0.53980185|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.53980185
91777403|NCT05179785|183435956|OTHER|||||||0.30223686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.30223686
91777404|NCT05179785|183435956|OTHER|||||||0.39166649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.39166649
91777405|NCT05179785|183435956|OTHER|||||||0.30223686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.30223686
91777406|NCT05179785|183435956|OTHER|||||||0.39166649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.39166649
91777407|NCT05179785|183435957|OTHER|||||||0.0265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test (post versus pre)||||0.0265
91777408|NCT05179785|183435957|OTHER|||||||0.1053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test (post versus pre)||||0.1053
91777409|NCT05179785|183435957|OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test (post versus pre)||||0.0033
91777410|NCT01710345|183435958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.742|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.742
91777411|NCT01710345|183435958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.003|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91646441|NCT02304302|183184720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.53|-5.14|0.50
91646442|NCT02304302|183184721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.52|0.62
91777412|NCT02105740|183435980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.178||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|5.11|||ANOVA|||The clinical significance was considered with a difference of 3 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for both arms with a statistical power of 95%, significance level of 5%. Statistical analysis first compared the difference of means between hypnosis and control groups during three weeks.||5.110|0.224|0.034
91777413|NCT02105740|183435980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.856||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253|6.08|||ANOVA|||The clinical significance was considered with a difference of 3 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) with a statistical power of 95%, significance level of 5%. Statistical analysis compared the difference in pain average between the first and the second week in the hypnosis group.||6.080|1.253|0.004
91777414|NCT02105740|183435980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.827||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.918|7.582|||ANOVA|||The clinical significance was considered with a difference of 3 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) with a statistical power of 95%, significance level of 5%. Statistical analysis compared the difference in pain average between the first and the third week in the hypnosis group.||7.582|2.918|0.000
91777415|NCT02105740|183435981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Statistical analysis evaluated if the difference of averages of anxiety at the hypnosis and control groups in the third week.||||
91777416|NCT02105740|183435981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Statistical analysis evaluated if the difference of averages of depression at the hypnosis and control groups in the third week.||||
91777417|NCT01075243|183435985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.71||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|5.89|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and Paracetamol 650 mg caplet.||5.89|1.53|0.0009
91777418|NCT01075243|183435985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|11.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|14.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||14.00|8.66|<0.0001
91777419|NCT01075243|183435985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.94|10.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 650 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||10.31|4.94|<0.0001
91777420|NCT00627393|183436000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinary multiple logistic regression including treatment arm, infection strata, underlying disease, zubrod score, respiratory symptoms, and age.|Control group is the reference group. Model adjusted for infection strata, underlying disease, zubrod score, respiratory symptoms, and age.|||3.20|0.44|0.73
91777421|NCT00627393|183436003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log Rank P-Value|0.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Competing risks analysis for time to GVHD for subjects with allogeneic HST. The sample size was very small (n=7 in the granulocyte group, and n=8 in the control group).|Competing Risks|||||||0.43
91777422|NCT00627393|183436008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25885||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|2.147|||Log Rank|Log-rank test to compare survival distributions between the control group and treatment group.|The control group is considered the reference group.|||2.147|0.778|0.35
91777423|NCT00551642|183436013|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.734|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Chi-square|||||||0.7340
91777424|NCT03337308|183436016|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares (LS) means|-38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-29.6|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of Least Squares (LS) Means|||-29.6|-46.5|<0.001
91897679|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.24||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.24|0.95|
91897680|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.12||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.12|1.53|
91897681|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.91||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||1.91|1.06|
91897682|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|3.55||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.55|1.71|
91897683|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.74||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.74|1.45|
91897684|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.76||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.76|1.50|
91897685|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.58||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.58|1.32|
91897686|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.62||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.62|1.46|
91897687|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.91||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.91|1.32|
91897688|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.97||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||1.97|0.94|
91897689|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.03||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.03|1.08|
91897690|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.12||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||5.12|2.19|
91897691|NCT00427895|183691079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.83||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.83|1.41|
91897692|NCT03534284|183691111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6761||||||0.05 threshold for significance; no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: average CBT-I=Trazodone=Placebo at week 7||||0.6761
91777425|NCT03337308|183436016|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-11.9|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-11.9|-26.1|<0.001
91897693|NCT03534284|183691112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8375|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: average CBT-I=Trazodone=Placebo at week 25||||0.8375
91897694|NCT03316300|183691135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.13|<0.0001
91897695|NCT02618642|183691154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3879|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared||||0.3879
91897696|NCT02618642|183691154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5361|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||comparison was conducted of the results obtained with a different filter were compared||||0.5361
91646443|NCT02304302|183184722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.94||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.32|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.20|-25.32|0.84
91777426|NCT03337308|183436016|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-6.5|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-6.5|-19.7|<0.001
91777427|NCT03337308|183436017|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-78.75|-15.78||using alpha = 0.01|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Standard Error of the Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|||-15.78|-78.75|<0.001
91897697|NCT02618642|183691155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) vs the control group (placebo) (n=15) were compared.||||0.4669
91897698|NCT02618642|183691155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4161|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4161
91897699|NCT02618642|183691156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9596|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared.||||0.9596
91897700|NCT02618642|183691156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0907|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0907
91897701|NCT02618642|183691157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared.||||0.0110
91897702|NCT02618642|183691157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||comparison was conducted of the results obtained with a different filter (groups v, x, y,||||0.1165
91897703|NCT02618642|183691158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||he results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared||||0.0200
91897704|NCT02618642|183691158|SUPERIORITY|comparison was conducted of the results obtained with a different filter (groups v, x, y,||||||0.0014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0014
91897705|NCT00822523|183691181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 1 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 1 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 1||||0.61
91897706|NCT00822523|183691181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 2 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 2 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 2||||0.787
91897707|NCT00822523|183691181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 4 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 4 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 4||||0.234
91897708|NCT00822523|183691181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 14 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 14 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 14||||0.256
91897709|NCT00822523|183691181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 21 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 21 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 21||||0.292
91897710|NCT00822523|183691181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and month 4 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and month 4 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and month 4||||0.589
91897711|NCT00822523|183691182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA assessing change in the three baseline force measurements H0: There no significant difference in the three baseline force measurements HA: There is a significant difference in the three baseline force measurements||||0.636
91897712|NCT00822523|183691182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA assessing change in baseline force by treatment arm. H0: There is no difference in mean baseline force by treatment arm HA: There is a difference in mean baseline force by treatment arm||||0.178
91897713|NCT00822523|183691183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA assessing percent change (from baseline) in force for contrast of day 14 and day 21 H0: There is no difference in percent change in force between day 14 and day 21 HA: There is a difference in percent change in force between day 14 and day 21||||0.995
91646444|NCT02304302|183184723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.04||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||QTc interval duration was the independent variable, treatment and time were the categorical factors.||||0.24
91897714|NCT00822523|183691183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2088|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||"Repeated measure ANOVA assessing percent change in force from baseline for day 14 and 21 by treatment arm.~H0: There is no significant different in percent change in force by treatment arm HA: There is a significant different in percent change in force by treatment arm"||||0.2088
91897715|NCT00822523|183691185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
91897716|NCT00822523|183691185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
91897717|NCT00822523|183691185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.8||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.104
91897718|NCT00822523|183691187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
91897719|NCT00822523|183691187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
91897720|NCT00822523|183691187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
91897721|NCT00822523|183691188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
91897722|NCT00822523|183691188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
91897723|NCT00822523|183691188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.188
91646445|NCT02304302|183184724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.39|-1.57|0.28
91646446|NCT02304302|183184725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.61|-0.80|0.51
91897724|NCT00822523|183691189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
91897725|NCT00822523|183691189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
91897726|NCT00822523|183691189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.5||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.391
91897727|NCT00822523|183691190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
91897728|NCT00822523|183691190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
91897729|NCT00822523|183691190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
91897730|NCT00822523|183691191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
91897731|NCT00822523|183691191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
91897732|NCT00822523|183691191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.4||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.505
91646447|NCT02304302|183184726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.94|-3.6|0.63
91897733|NCT00822523|183691192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
91897734|NCT00822523|183691192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
91897735|NCT00822523|183691192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.8||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.104
91897736|NCT00822523|183691193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
91897737|NCT00822523|183691193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
91897738|NCT00822523|183691193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
91897739|NCT00822523|183691194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
91897740|NCT00822523|183691194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
91646448|NCT02304302|183184727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.65||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.61|-8.91|0.17
91646449|NCT03078192|183184753|OTHER|Detecting pre-capillary PH was tested with a cohort of 32 patients. True PH status was based on RHC. A diagnosis of PH was established from mPAP \>20mmHg, while pre-capillary PH required PCWP ≤ 15mmHg and PVR ≥ 3 Woods Units, and post capillary PH required PCWP \> 15mmH and PVR \< 3 Woods Units \[21\]. Patients with both high PVR and PCWP \> 15mmHg were classified as combined pre- and post-capillary PH (CpcPH). Subjects with CpcPH were treated as positive for both pre- and post-capillary PH.|positive predictive value|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Positive predictive value for Precapillary Pulmonary Hypertension: 86%|calculation of PPV|||||||
91708346|NCT01763827|183309614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-19.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-15.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-15.28|-23.20|<0.001
91708347|NCT01763827|183309614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-18.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-12.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-12.35|-24.39|<0.001
91708348|NCT01763827|183309614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-17.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|-11.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-11.08|-23.23|<0.001
91777428|NCT03337308|183436017|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-45.0|-7.15||using alpha = 0.02|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Standard Error of the Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|||-7.15|-45.00|0.002
91777429|NCT03337308|183436017|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.08||0.734|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-21.35|16.25||using alpha = 0.02|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Standard Error of the Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|||16.25|-21.35|0.734
91897741|NCT00822523|183691194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.188
91897742|NCT00822523|183691195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
91897743|NCT00822523|183691195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
91708349|NCT01763827|183309615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.76|-13.06||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-13.06|-27.76|<0.001
91897744|NCT00822523|183691195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.5||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.391
91897745|NCT00822523|183691196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
91897746|NCT00822523|183691196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
91897747|NCT00822523|183691196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
91897748|NCT00822523|183691197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
91897749|NCT00822523|183691197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
91708350|NCT01763827|183309615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-17.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.51|-11.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-11.12|-24.51|<0.001
91777430|NCT03337308|183436018|SUPERIORITY|using alpha = 0.01|Difference in LS mean|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-43.9|-23.4|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-23.4|-43.9|<0.001
91777431|NCT03337308|183436018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-25.1|-10.5||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-10.5|-25.1|<0.001
91777432|NCT03337308|183436018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-19.1|-5.0||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-5.0|-19.1|<0.001
91897750|NCT00822523|183691197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.4||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.505
91897751|NCT03567434|183691198|SUPERIORITY|The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst frequency would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.||||||0.283||||||The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst frequency would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis on Burst Frequency (Burst/Min)||||0.283
91897752|NCT03567434|183691198|SUPERIORITY|The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst incidence would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.||||||0.92||||||The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst frequency would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis on Burst Incidence (Burst/100hb)||||0.920
91897753|NCT03567434|183691200|SUPERIORITY|The original hypothesis was that sympathetic baroreflex sensitivity would be blunted the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.||||||0.888||||||The original hypothesis was that sympathetic baroreflex sensitivity would be blunted the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.888
91897754|NCT02181387|183691212|OTHER|unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
91897755|NCT02181387|183691212|OTHER|unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
91897756|NCT02881957|183691214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided t-test evaluated comparing length of stay in vitamin D3 vs. placebo treated patients utilizing patients as randomized (e.g., intent-to-treat) using a p\<0.05 as significant. Adverse events were monitored until discharge.||||0.2
91897757|NCT02881957|183691215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
91897758|NCT02881957|183691216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
91897759|NCT02881957|183691217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
91897760|NCT02881957|183691218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91897761|NCT02881957|183691219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.99
91897762|NCT02881957|183691220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.6
91897763|NCT02881957|183691221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.7
91897764|NCT02881957|183691222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.4
91897765|NCT02881957|183691223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.1
91897766|NCT05269355|183691253|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||||0.83|0.45|0.0017
91897767|NCT01880528|183691275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
91897768|NCT01880528|183691276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0337|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0337
91897769|NCT01880528|183691277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0427|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0427
91897770|NCT01880528|183691278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0237
91897771|NCT00081497|183691279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change in Slope Mean|-0.029||||0.013||95.0|-0.051|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with a population level (fixed effect) intercept and slope and a subject level (random effect) intercept and slope.||The statistical analysis represents the primary outcome measure results.||-0.007|-0.051|0.0130
91897772|NCT00081497|183691280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-6.787||||0.0027||95.0|-11.123|-2.45|||Mixed Effects Model|||Statistical Analysis 1 represents the post-hoc outcome results for difference in slope mean of eGFR subgroup \>60.||-2.450|-11.123|0.0027
91897773|NCT00081497|183691280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|2.33||||0.1268||95.0|-0.685|5.345|||Mixed Effects Model|||Statistical Analysis 2 represents the post-hoc outcome results for difference in slope mean of eGFR subgroup ≤ 60.||5.345|-0.685|0.1268
91897774|NCT01439360|183691285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (VE)|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|51.8|72.3|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age category and stratified for cohort.|VE was defined as the hazard ratio of cases of influenza A and or B disease in subjects receiving D-QIV vaccine in contrast with subjects receiving non-influenza vaccine control subtracted from 1.|The efficacy of the D-QIV vaccine would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 97.5% CI for vaccine efficacy (VE) is above (\>) 25%.||72.3|51.8|
91897775|NCT01439360|183691286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (VE)|49.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|41.8|56.8|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age category and stratified for cohort|VE was defined as the hazard ratio of cases of influenza A and or B disease in subjects receiving D-QIV vaccine in contrast with subjects receiving non-influenza vaccine control subtracted from 1.|The efficacy of the D-QIV vaccine would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 97.5% CI for VE is above 15%.||56.8|41.8|
91897776|NCT02425644|183691319|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.695||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.536|0.902|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.902|0.536|0.0003
91897777|NCT02425644|183691320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.32|-5.83|0.0019
91897778|NCT02425644|183691321|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|0.542|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.542|0.364|<.0001
91897779|NCT02425644|183691322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.58|0.2939
91897780|NCT02425644|183691323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.57|0.3720
91897781|NCT02525861|183691339|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.398|||<|0.001|||||||Mixed-effects model|||Statistical analysis was collected and assessed based on A1P1 Levels at baseline and On-treatment BAL visit.||||<0.001
91897782|NCT02525861|183691340|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.259|||<|0.001|||||||mixed-effects model|||Statistical analysis was collected and assessed based on functional A1P1 Levels at baseline and On-treatment BAL visit.||||<0.001
91777433|NCT03337308|183436019|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.1|-19.1||using alpha = 0.01|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-19.1|-35.1|<0.001
91897783|NCT01942720|183691348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coeficient|-0.7||||0.631|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman test|||Relationship of total PillCam SB Lewis score with PGA score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||0.631
91897784|NCT01942720|183691348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coeficient|0.022||||0.882|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of total PillCam SB CECDEIS score with PGA score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||0.882
91897785|NCT01942720|183691349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.735|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB TI Lewis scores with TI SES-CD score at baseline visit||||<0.001
91897786|NCT01942720|183691349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.726|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB TI CECDEIS scores with TI SES-CD score at baseline visit||||<0.001
91897787|NCT01942720|183691350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.493||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB Lewis score with TI SES-CD score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||0.002
91897788|NCT01942720|183691350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.531|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB CECDEIS score with TI SES-CD score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||<0.001
91777434|NCT03337308|183436019|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-20.4|-8.1||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-8.1|-20.4|<0.001
91897789|NCT01942720|183691351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam total SB Lewis score change with TI Leis score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||<0.001
91897790|NCT01942720|183691351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam total SB CECDEIS score change with TI Leis score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||<0.001
91897791|NCT00325039|183691382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was an equivalence trial and was designed to have 80% power to show equivalence between the two sling procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. The margin of +/- 12 was chosen on the basis of clinical considerations and a calculation of the number of patients it was feasible to enroll in the trial.|difference in success rate (RMUS-TMUS)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.6||||||With 294 women/arm, the study would have 80% power to show equivalence between the two procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. A planned time-to-event interim analysis of the primary outcome (objective treatment success) was conducted when 33% of the anticipated treatment failures occurred. We adjusted the primary outcome analysis for this interim look by assigning nominal alpha values of 0.049 to the 95% confidence intervals.||9.6|-3.6|
91646450|NCT01311505|183184754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.98|105.2||||||20 participants (10 per sequence) provided at least 98% power that 90% confidence interval (CI) for ratio of test to reference for AUC(0-t) of rifampicin lie within acceptance region of 80%-125%. Intra-participant coefficient of variation (CV) estimate of approximately 13.48% for AUC(0-t) was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUC(0-t) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||105.20|92.98|
91646451|NCT01311505|183184755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.77|109.97||||||20 participants (10 per sequence) provided at least 94% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax of rifampicin lie within acceptance region of 80%-125%. Intra-participant CV estimate of approximately 16.43% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||109.97|87.77|
91646452|NCT01311505|183184757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.44|106.41||||||Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) of rifampicin was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||106.41|94.44|
91646453|NCT00532779|183184774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.67|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.5|-2.85|||ANCOVA|||||-2.85|-4.50|<0.001
91646454|NCT00532779|183184774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-3.99|||ANCOVA|||||-3.99|-5.63|<0.001
91646455|NCT00532779|183184775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001||95.0|2.52|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.63|2.52|<0.001
91646456|NCT00532779|183184775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86|||<|0.001||95.0|3.6|6.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.57|3.60|<0.001
91646457|NCT00532779|183184776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.81|2.14|<0.001
91646458|NCT00532779|183184776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|6.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.23|2.82|<0.001
91646459|NCT00532779|183184777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-1.43|||ANCOVA|||||-1.43|-3.74|<0.001
91646460|NCT00532779|183184777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-2.64|||ANCOVA|||||-2.64|-4.93|<0.001
91646461|NCT00532779|183184778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.66|||ANCOVA|||||4.66|2.17|<0.001
91646462|NCT00532779|183184778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.70|2.26|<0.001
91646463|NCT00532779|183184779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.88|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.046
91646464|NCT00532779|183184779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91646465|NCT00532779|183184780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.54|||ANCOVA|||||4.54|1.72|<0.001
91646466|NCT00532779|183184780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|5.56|||ANCOVA|||||5.56|2.73|<0.001
91646467|NCT00532779|183184781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.36|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.016
91646468|NCT00532779|183184781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.32|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.008
91646469|NCT00532779|183184782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.27|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.063
91646470|NCT00532779|183184782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91646471|NCT00532779|183184783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.42||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.42|-2.60|
91777435|NCT03337308|183436019|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-16.1|-4.6||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-4.6|-16.1|<0.001
91897792|NCT00325039|183691383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.1||||0.14||95.0||||This was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Although the primary aim of the study was designed as an equivalence trial, the secondary aims were considered as superiority tests.||||0.14
91777436|NCT03337308|183436020|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-30.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.9|-20.3||using alpha = 0.01|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-20.3|-39.9|<0.001
91777437|NCT03337308|183436020|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-20.3|-5.3||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-5.3|-20.3|<0.001
91777438|NCT03337308|183436020|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.003|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-16.5|-2.1||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-2.1|-16.5|0.003
91777439|NCT01294553|183436030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|18.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with an adverse event.|||18.1|12.8|
91777440|NCT00795535|183436041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||To avoid overfitting the models, only predictors with p\<0.15 were included in the final models.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare continuous predictors, whereas chi-square tests were used to compare dichotomized predictors between those with and without serious injury. Test characteristics (specificity and positive/negative predictive values) of continuous predictors were reported based on threshold values chosen for a minimum of 80% of sensitivity. Multiple logistic regression models were used to examine the marginal effect of each predictor.||||< 0.15
91777441|NCT01903460|183436044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-40.707||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-191.679|110.265|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day||110.265|-191.679|0.5740
91777442|NCT01903460|183436044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-7.231||||0.9147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.726|134.264|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day||134.264|-148.726|0.9147
91777443|NCT01903460|183436044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-23.969||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.969|104.031|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001||104.031|-151.969|0.6954
91777444|NCT01903460|183436045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|56.7||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|120.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for ALT||120.6|-7.2|0.0783
91777445|NCT01903460|183436045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|7.8||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|67.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for ALT||67.0|-51.4|0.7827
91777446|NCT01903460|183436045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|32.2||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|86.3|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for ALT||86.3|-21.9|0.2235
91777447|NCT01903460|183436045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|24.0||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|65.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for AST||65.5|-17.5|0.2372
91777448|NCT01903460|183436045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-15.8||||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|22.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for AST||22.4|-54.1|0.3914
91777449|NCT01903460|183436045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|4.1||||0.8081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|39.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for AST||39.1|-31.0|0.8081
91777450|NCT01903460|183436045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|51.7||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.3|243.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for ALP||243.7|-140.3|0.5748
91777451|NCT01903460|183436045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|11.9||||0.8835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.4|182.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for ALP||182.2|-158.4|0.8835
91777452|NCT01903460|183436045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|31.8||||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.8|199.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for ALP||199.4|-135.8|0.6917
91777453|NCT01903460|183436046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.348||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.468|1.772|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for Patient ItchRO||1.772|-2.468|0.6907
91777454|NCT01903460|183436046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|0.202||||0.7897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.647|2.052|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for Patient ItchRO||2.052|-1.647|0.7897
91777455|NCT01903460|183436046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.073||||0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.705|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for Patient ItchRO||1.705|-1.850|0.9203
91777456|NCT01903460|183436046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.21||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.038|0.618|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for Observer ItchRO||0.618|-1.038|0.5966
91777457|NCT01903460|183436046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|0.173||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.926|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for Observer ItchRO||0.926|-0.580|0.6320
91777458|NCT01903460|183436046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.019||||0.9547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.673|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for Observer ItchRO||0.673|-0.710|0.9547
91777459|NCT00829426|183436079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls withi 80-125.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.74|106.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls withi 80-125.|||106.52|98.74|
91777460|NCT00829426|183436080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.88||||||90.0|90.34|95.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||95.48|90.34|
91777461|NCT00829426|183436081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|93.92||||||90.0|91.47|96.44|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||96.44|91.47|
91777462|NCT04408989|183436082|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of AUC(0-∞) were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|0.989|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and MB02 DM represents the denominator.|||0.989|0.899|
91897793|NCT00325039|183691384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was an equivalence trial and was designed to have 80% power to show equivalence between the two sling procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. The margin of +/- 12 was chosen on the basis of clinical considerations and a calculation of the number of patients it was feasible to enroll in the trial.|difference in success (RMUS - TMUS)|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|14.3||||||With 294 women/arm, the study would have 80% power to show equivalence between the two procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. A planned time-to-event interim analysis of the primary outcome (objective treatment success) was conducted when 33% of the anticipated treatment failures occurred. We adjusted the primary outcome analysis for this interim look by assigning nominal alpha values of 0.049 to the 95% confidence intervals.||14.3|-1.6|
91897794|NCT00325039|183691385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to quality of life, as measured by the IIQ.||||0.47
91897795|NCT00325039|183691386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The UDI measure was compared using a two-sample t test.||||0.41
91897796|NCT00892723|183691435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.87
91897797|NCT00892723|183691435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.86
91897798|NCT00892723|183691435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.11
91777463|NCT04408989|183436082|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of AUC(0-∞) were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.956|1.05|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.05|0.956|
91777464|NCT04408989|183436082|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of AUC(0-∞) were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.12|||||For the comparison, MB02 DM represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.12|1.01|
91777465|NCT04408989|183436083|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of Cmax were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.887|0.989|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and MB02 DM represents the denominator.|||0.989|0.887|
91777466|NCT04408989|183436083|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of Cmax were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.925|1.05|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.05|0.925|
91777467|NCT04408989|183436083|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of Cmax were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.11|||||For the comparison, MB02 DM represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.11|0.991|
91777468|NCT00311766|183436101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ANCOVA|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary population was the Full Analysis(FA)population. The FA population included all patients who were randomized and received at least one dose of study medication and who had at least one baseline efficacy parameter recorded||||>0.05
91777469|NCT02260934|183436103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Two-sided test|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 0 to Week 24||||0.58
91777470|NCT02260934|183436103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 0 to Week 48||||0.25
91777471|NCT02260934|183436103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 0 to Week 96.||||0.15
91777472|NCT02260934|183436105|SUPERIORITY|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.|||||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Two sided test. P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.||Week 0 to Week 24|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|||
91897799|NCT00892723|183691435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.91
91897800|NCT00892723|183691436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.23
91897801|NCT00892723|183691436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.82
91897802|NCT00892723|183691436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.23
91897803|NCT00892723|183691436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.71
91897804|NCT00892723|183691437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.73
91897805|NCT00892723|183691437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.94
91897806|NCT00892723|183691437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.14
91897807|NCT00892723|183691437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.68
91897808|NCT00892723|183691437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.56
91646472|NCT00532779|183184783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-3.42|=0.010
91838250|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.964||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Physical Functioning: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.76|-1.04|0.3744
91838251|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Role-Physical: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.50|-0.77|0.2091
91838252|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.146||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Bodily Pain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.38|-0.14|0.0654
91838253|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.968||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, General Health: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.12|-0.69|0.2100
91838254|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Vitality: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.01|-1.90|0.6568
91838255|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.152||0.2288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Social Functioning: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.66|-0.88|0.2288
91838256|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Role-Emotional: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.32|-1.61|0.4955
91838257|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Mental Health: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.01|-1.71|0.5888
91838258|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.18|-0.35|0.1150
91838259|NCT03502616|183557109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.00|-1.56|0.5347
91838260|NCT03502616|183557110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.06|-0.48|0.1513
91838261|NCT03502616|183557110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|3.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.56|-0.45|0.1279
91838262|NCT03502616|183557110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.90|1.75|0.0003
91838263|NCT03502616|183557110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.282||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.84|0.79|0.0102
91897809|NCT00892723|183691437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.32
91897810|NCT00892723|183691437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.33
91646473|NCT00532779|183184784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.43|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
91897811|NCT00892723|183691437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.65
91897812|NCT00892723|183691437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.21
91897813|NCT00892723|183691437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.90
91897814|NCT00892723|183691438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.16
91897815|NCT00892723|183691438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.74
91897816|NCT00892723|183691438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.45
91897817|NCT00892723|183691438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.||||||0.079
91897818|NCT00892723|183691438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.||||||0.16
91897819|NCT00892723|183691438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.||||||0.45
91897820|NCT00426153|183691439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Rank-sum test|||P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.048
91897821|NCT00426153|183691440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant|Rank sum|||||||0.045
91897822|NCT00426153|183691441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P Values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant|Rank sum|||||||0.98
91897823|NCT00150969|183691443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91897824|NCT00150969|183691450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91897825|NCT01630434|183691470|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is here taken to be 0.04.|difference of proportion|-0.091||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.01|||Wald Method|||||-0.01||0.004
91646474|NCT00532779|183184784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91777473|NCT02260934|183436105|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.||Week 0 to Week 48|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.|||
91897826|NCT01630434|183691470|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is here taken to be 0.04.|difference of proportion|-0.038||||0.06|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.045|||Wald Method|||||0.045||0.06
91897827|NCT01630434|183691471|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 5%.|Difference of proportions|-0.015||||0.0003|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.016|||Wald Method|||||0.016||0.0003
91897828|NCT01630434|183691471|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 5%.|Difference of proportions|0.006||||0.027|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.044|||Wald Method|||||0.044||0.027
91897829|NCT01630434|183691472|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 7.5%.|Difference of proportions|0.035||||0.118|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.091|||Wald Method|||||0.091||0.118
91897830|NCT01630434|183691472|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 7.5%.|Difference of proportions|0.065||||0.389|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.124|||Wald Method|||||0.124||0.389
91777474|NCT02260934|183436105|SUPERIORITY|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms|||||||||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms||Week 0 to Week 96 The modified intent to treat population includes all randomized participants who received 1 dose of Solumedrol, 1 dose of rituximab, 1 dose of cyclophosphamide, and, if in the Rituximab/Cyclophosphamide/Belimumab (RCB) arm, 1 dose of belimumab.|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms|||
91777475|NCT02260934|183436106|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.66||||||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 24||||0.66
91897831|NCT01630434|183691473|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 4%|Difference of proportions|0.043|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.071||||||||0.071||
91897832|NCT01630434|183691473|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 4%.|Difference of proportions|0.054|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.087||||||||0.087||
91897833|NCT01630434|183691474|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.7.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.047|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.047||<0.0001
91897834|NCT00511472|183691506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.71|69.5|||ANOVA|||For the least square mean difference - baseline in the ANOVA model = glucose value at Titration Day 1 pre-Breakfast for Titration Group 1||69.50|22.71|0.001
91897835|NCT00511472|183691506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.68|72.88|||ANOVA|||For the least square mean difference - baseline in the ANOVA model = glucose value at Titration Day 1 pre-breakfast for Titration Group 2||72.88|27.68|<0.001
91897836|NCT00406653|183691511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4||Due to randomization misspecification, 2:2:2:1 ratio applied instead of planned 2:1:2:2 (placebo, ABA 3mg/kg, \~10mg/kg, 30/\~10mg/kg). Only \~half intended number assigned to ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg arm and \~double intended number assigned to ABA 3 mg/kg arm|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Second primary comparison (conditional on first): power=91%, sample size=134, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 25%, ABA/\~10 mg/kg=45%|All participants who prematurely discontinued for any reason considered not to have achieved clinical response. Normal approximation used if number of responses in treatment group was ≥5. Otherwise an exact method was used.|Conditional on abatacept (ABA) 30/\~10 mg/kg vs placebo (PLA)comparison being statistically significant at 5% significance level, ABA \~10 mg/kg vs PLA to be tested at 5% significance level. Null hypothesis=no treatment difference (relative risk \[RR\] of ABA over placebo=1).First comparison: power=99%,sample size=134,expected PLA response rate=25%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=55%. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata||2.4|0.6|0.611
91897837|NCT00406653|183691514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.44||Due to randomization misspecification, 2:2:2:1 ratio applied instead of planned 2:1:2:2 (placebo, ABA mg/kg, \~10 mg/kg, 30/\~10 mg/kg). Only \~half intended number assigned to ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg arm and \~double intended number assigned to ABA 3 mg/kg arm|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Second primary comparison (conditional on first): power=80%, sample size=134, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 15%, ABA/\~10 mg/kg=30%|All participants who prematurely discontinued for any reason considered not to have achieved clinical response. Normal approximation used if number of responses in treatment group was ≥5. Otherwise an exact method was used.|Conditional on abatacept (ABA) 30/\~10 mg/kg vs placebo (PLA)comparison being statistically significant at 5% significance level, ABA \~10 mg/kg vs PLA to be tested at 5% signficance level. Null hypothesis=no treatment difference (relative risk \[RR\] of ABA over placebo=1).First comparison: power=95%,sample size=134,expected PLA response rate=15%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=35%. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata||3.44|0.4|
91897838|NCT00406653|183691515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%.|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms. Normal approximation was used if the number of responses in a treatment group is at least 5. Otherwise an exact method was used.||||0.436
91897839|NCT00406653|183691522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%.|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms. Normal approximation was used if the number of responses in a treatment group is at least 5. Otherwise an exact method was used.||||0.112
91897840|NCT00446992|183691540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||<0.001
91897841|NCT00446992|183691541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||.043
91897842|NCT00446992|183691542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.690
91897843|NCT00446992|183691543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.691|TWO_SIDED||||||Intervariate|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.691
91897844|NCT00446992|183691544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.877
91897845|NCT00446992|183691545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.003
91897846|NCT00446992|183691546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= .005
91897847|NCT00446992|183691547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.696
91897848|NCT00446992|183691548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.013
91897849|NCT00731120|183691570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.71||Hierarchical testing stopped at 10 mg versus placebo for HAM-A total score at Week 8 in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline HAM-A as a covariate.||P-values were tested at the 5% significance level (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 2.5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.71|-2.45|0.279
91897850|NCT00731120|183691570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.791||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.74||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline HAM-A as a covariate.||||0.74|-2.36|0.306
91897851|NCT01054846|183691582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|2.696|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Differences between Survey 1 and Survey 2||||<0.01
91897852|NCT01054846|183691582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|1.351|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between Survey 1 and Survey 2||||>0.05
91897853|NCT02434939|183691587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|a clinically significant difference in validated pain scores was defined as 1.3. assuming both treatments are on average equal, 240 patients provided 95% power to demonstrate that IV low dose ketamine is non inferior to IV morphine with a 0.05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|13.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.2|-2.2|0.18
91646475|NCT00532779|183184785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-0.94||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-0.94|-6.68|
91897854|NCT02434939|183691590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A clinically meaningful difference in validated pain scores was defined as 1.3.Assuming both treatments are on average equal, a sample size of 240 patients (120 per group) provided 95% power to demonstrate that IV LDK is non-inferior to IV morphine with a 0.05 level of significance.||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91897855|NCT00394953|183691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.79|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The proportion of responders treated with methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta versus the proportion of responders treated with darbepoetin alpha during the evaluation period.||3.79|1.83|<0.0001
91897856|NCT02446886|183691610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Previously published reproducibility of our MWF imaging (FAST-T2) has been established to be +/- 2.0 Our hypothesis for this study was the monthly ACTH would lead to greater remylination in acute MS lesions. However, to reach this goal, improvement must be beyond established reproducibility. Note: Since MWF is a fraction of myelin water to total water, it does not have a unit.||||0.04
91897857|NCT02446886|183691615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects models were implemented to assess the variables of interest (lesion MWF) among patients randomized to once versus the monthly ACTH treatment group. The modeling strategy accounts for multiple lesions per patient, repeated measurements (longitudinal analysis) and the following covariates were always considered: patient age, gender, disease duration, individual T2w lesion volume, time on disease modifying treatments (DMT) prior to enrollment, and DMT during the study.|Linear mixed-effects models were implemented|||0.077
91897858|NCT03021954|183691627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is in the intervention group, we expect a decrease in the area of the levator hiatus at 40 days and 3 months post-partum. Power 90 % confidence interval β = 0.10, α = 0.05||||0.086
91897859|NCT03021954|183691628|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is platelet rich plasma can maintain or increase levator ani muscle contractions post-partum||||0.29
91897860|NCT02120716|183691686|OTHER|Logistic regression analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|51.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.2|0.6|0.13
91897861|NCT02120716|183691687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7|||<|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|33.0|||Regression, Logistic|||The reported percentages were captured at two separate time points (baseline, and at 4-Month Follow-Up).||33.0|4.2|<0.015
91897862|NCT04079803|183691688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0088 and CFB was 13.4. In percent change from baseline with these two subjects removed, P=0.004.|||0.087
91897863|NCT04079803|183691688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0006 and CFB was 16.9. In percent change from baseline with this subject removed, P=0.0004.|||0.01
91897864|NCT04079803|183691689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P\<0.0001 and CFB was -19.8.|||<0.0001
91897865|NCT04079803|183691689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.001 and CFB was -14.9.|||0.0012
91897866|NCT04079803|183691690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.003 and CFB was -3.2.|||0.005
91897867|NCT04079803|183691690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.003 and CFB was -2.5.|||0.002
91897868|NCT04079803|183691691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0002 and CFB was -681.|||0.0002
91897869|NCT04079803|183691691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0005 and CFB was -527.|||0.0005
91897870|NCT04079803|183691692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0002 and CFB was -78.5.|||0.0003
91646476|NCT00532779|183184785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|-2.98|||ANCOVA|||||-2.98|-8.71|<0.001
91777476|NCT02260934|183436106|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.65||||||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 48|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|||0.65
91777477|NCT02260934|183436107|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.64||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 24 Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.64
91777478|NCT02260934|183436107|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.37||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 48||||0.37
91777479|NCT02260934|183436107|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 96||||0.32
91777480|NCT02260934|183436108|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.91||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 96||||0.91
91777481|NCT02260934|183436109|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.73||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 24||||.73
91777482|NCT02260934|183436109|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.26||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 48||||0.26
91777483|NCT02260934|183436109|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.29||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 96||||0.29
91777484|NCT02260934|183436110|SUPERIORITY|2 sided test|||||>|0.99||||||2 sided test|Fisher Exact|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 24||||>0.99
91777485|NCT02260934|183436111|SUPERIORITY|2 sided test||||||0.49||||||2 sided test|Fisher Exact|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 48||||0.49
91777486|NCT02260934|183436113|SUPERIORITY|2 sided test||||||0.89||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.89
91777487|NCT02260934|183436113|SUPERIORITY|Week 48||||||0.47||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.47
91777488|NCT02260934|183436113|SUPERIORITY|Week 96||||||0.94||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.94
91777489|NCT02260934|183436114|SUPERIORITY|Week 24||||||0.08||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.08
91777490|NCT02260934|183436114|SUPERIORITY|Week 48||||||0.11||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.11
91777491|NCT02260934|183436114|SUPERIORITY|Week 96||||||0.05||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.05
91777492|NCT02260934|183436115|SUPERIORITY|Week 24||||||0.2||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||.20
91777493|NCT02260934|183436115|SUPERIORITY|Week 48|||||>|0.99||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||>0.99
91777494|NCT02260934|183436115|SUPERIORITY|Week 96||||||0.63||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.63
91777495|NCT01436526|183436118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using an estimated intra-subject coefficient of variation of less than 20% for AUC and Cmax, and a level of significance of 5%, a sample size of 25 completers was considered sufficient to conclude bioequivalence between 2\*5 mg and 1\*10 mg rivaroxaban with 90% power, if the 2 treatment means differed by 5%.|LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|108.35||||0.0438||90.0|101.59|115.57|||ANOVA|||||115.57|101.59|0.0438
91777496|NCT01436526|183436119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using an estimated intra-subject coefficient of variation of less than 20% for AUC and Cmax, and a level of significance of 5%, a sample size of 25 completers was considered sufficient to conclude bioequivalence between 2\*5 mg and 1\*10 mg rivaroxaban with 90% power, if the 2 treatment means differed by 5%.|LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|108.19||||0.0514||90.0|101.31|115.54|||ANOVA|||||115.54|101.31|0.0514
91777497|NCT01436526|183436120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using an estimated intra-subject coefficient of variation of less than 20% for AUC and Cmax, and a level of significance of 5%, a sample size of 25 completers was considered sufficient to conclude bioequivalence between 2\*5 mg and 1\*10 mg rivaroxaban with 90% power, if the 2 treatment means differed by 5%.|LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|111.64||||0.0685||90.0|101.14|123.23|||ANOVA|||||123.23|101.14|0.0685
91777498|NCT02628873|183436126|EQUIVALENCE|Degree of agreement between the 2 Assessors|Degree of agreement / Kappa|0.48|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kappa|||||||< 0.01
91777499|NCT02628873|183436127|SUPERIORITY|T-test to determine whether one method had greater reported pain|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.925|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.71|<|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-2.69|< 0.30
91777500|NCT02628873|183436128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.431|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76|<|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.56|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (pre-procedure versus post-procedure)||||1.56|-2.40|< 0.67
91777501|NCT00107653|183436149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR for Study Group Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08||P-values are calculated based on the difference in proportion between Latino and Non-Latino White group|Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with SVR. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|SVR for Latino Versus (VS) Non-Latino White||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
91777502|NCT00107653|183436150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 4||-0.00|-0.12|0.0454
91777503|NCT00107653|183436150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the Difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. the 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 12||-0.07|-0.23|0.0003
91777504|NCT00107653|183436150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 24||-0.06|-0.22|0.0004
91777505|NCT00107653|183436150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.09|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 48||-0.09|-0.24|<0.0001
91777506|NCT00107653|183436150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.09|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 60||-0.09|-0.25|<0.0001
91777507|NCT00107653|183436150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 72||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
91777508|NCT00107653|183436151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.01|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the Difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. the 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 4||-0.01|-0.15|0.0353
91777509|NCT00107653|183436152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.04|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 12||-0.04|-0.17|0.0014
91777510|NCT00107653|183436154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 4||-0.06|-0.22|0.0006
91777511|NCT00107653|183436154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 12||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
91777512|NCT00107653|183436154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 24||-0.07|-0.23|0.0003
91838264|NCT03502616|183557110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||7.26|2.20|0.0003
91897871|NCT04079803|183691692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0008 and CFB was -51.0.|||0.0058
91646477|NCT00532779|183184786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.84||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.84|-3.62|
91777513|NCT00107653|183436154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 48||-0.06|-0.22|0.0008
91777514|NCT00107653|183436154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.1|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 60||-0.10|-0.26|<0.0001
91777515|NCT00107653|183436154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.11|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 72||-0.11|-0.27|<0.0001
91708351|NCT01763827|183309615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.13|-12.69||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-12.69|-28.13|<0.001
91897872|NCT04079803|183691693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0001 and CFB was -23.7.|||0.0001
91897873|NCT04079803|183691693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0002 and CFB was -20.9.|||0.0001
91897874|NCT04079803|183691694|OTHER||Effect size|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was identical when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
91897875|NCT04079803|183691694|OTHER||Effect size|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was identical when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
91897876|NCT04079803|183691695|OTHER||Effect size|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was almost identical (0.45) when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
91897877|NCT04079803|183691695|OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was identical when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
91897878|NCT04079803|183691696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for IL-6.||||0.0078
91897879|NCT04079803|183691696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for IL-6.||||0.019
91897880|NCT04079803|183691696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for sTREM2.||||0.0002
91897881|NCT04079803|183691696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for sTREM2.||||0.0007
91777516|NCT00107653|183436155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with ISHAK HAI response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ISHAK HAI Response For Latino VS Non-Latino White||-0.0|-0.2|0.0285
91777517|NCT00107653|183436156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in change from baseline of ISHAK HAI activity (necroinflammatory) scores between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ISHAK HAI activity For Latino VS Non-Latino White||1.3|0.5|<0.0001
91777518|NCT00107653|183436165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.33|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS scores at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||-0.33|-0.96|<0.0001
91897882|NCT04079803|183691696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for HMGB1.||||0.0001
91897883|NCT04079803|183691696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for HMGB1.||||0.0001
91897884|NCT04079803|183691696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for albumin.||||0.0001
91897885|NCT04079803|183691696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for albumin.||||0.046
91708352|NCT01763827|183309615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-15.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-7.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-7.14|-24.39|<0.001
91777519|NCT00107653|183436165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.04|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS scores at week 72 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||0.04|-0.57|0.0921
91838265|NCT03502616|183557110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.02|-2.64|0.8950
91838266|NCT03502616|183557110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.365||0.4732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.71|-3.67|0.4732
91838267|NCT03502616|183557110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.6359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.28|-3.72|0.6359
91838268|NCT03502616|183557110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.495||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.35|-3.54|0.6894
91838269|NCT03502616|183557111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.24|-0.46|0.1410
91838270|NCT03502616|183557111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.95|0.61|0.0122
91838271|NCT03502616|183557111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.252||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.79|0.86|0.0085
91838272|NCT03502616|183557111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.416||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.15|0.57|0.0184
91838273|NCT03502616|183557111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|6.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.91|1.47|0.0026
91838274|NCT03502616|183557111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.495||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|6.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.35|0.46|0.0236
91897886|NCT04079803|183691696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for Immunoglobulin G.||||0.012
91838275|NCT03502616|183557111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.541||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.70|0.63|0.0182
91838276|NCT03502616|183557111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.545||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.90|0.81|0.0133
91838277|NCT03502616|183557111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.541||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|6.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.52|0.45|0.0245
91838278|NCT03502616|183557112|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.32|0.30|0.0018
91897887|NCT04079803|183691696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for Immunoglobulin G.||||0.014
91646478|NCT00532779|183184786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|-4.29|0.484
91646479|NCT00532779|183184787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.3||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||3.30|1.16|
91646480|NCT00532779|183184787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.9||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.90|0.76|
91646481|NCT00532779|183184788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.73||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.73|0.19|
91646482|NCT00532779|183184788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.67||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.67|0.13|
91708353|NCT01763827|183309616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-5.27||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|2.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.73|-13.27|0.72
91897888|NCT04079803|183691697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR was expressed as the ratio of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of alpha7nAChR (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.005
91897889|NCT04079803|183691697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR was expressed as ratios of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of alpha7nAChR (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.009
91897890|NCT04079803|183691697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to TLR4 in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to TLR4 was expressed as the ratio of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of TLR4 (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.01
91646483|NCT00532779|183184789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.28||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.28|0.19|
91646484|NCT00532779|183184789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.0||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.00|-0.09|
91646485|NCT00532779|183184790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.23||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.23|0.14|
91646486|NCT00532779|183184790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.69||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.69|-0.40|
91646487|NCT00532779|183184791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.53||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.53|-0.53|
91646488|NCT00532779|183184791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.27|-0.80|
91646489|NCT00828516|183184846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96|<|0.001||95.0||||This was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||"MYMOP uses a 7-point scale, from 0 to 6, with 0 as good as it can be, and 6 as bad as it can be. Higher values represent a worse outcome."|There will be no improvement in MYMOP profile score after 6 acupuncture treatments.||||<0.001
91646490|NCT00828516|183184847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|<|0.001||95.0||||There will be no improvement in MYMOP profile score after 12 treatments|t-test, 2 sided||"MYMOP uses a 7-point scale, from 0 to 6, with 0 as good as it can be, and 6 as bad as it can be. Higher values represent a worse outcome."|||||<0.001
91646491|NCT00689273|183184848|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.39|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.23|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect. One-sided alpha of 0.1 was used for the analysis.||0.24|-1.23|0.39
91646492|NCT00689273|183184849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.63|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.42|-0.92|0.63
91708354|NCT01763827|183309616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.98|-10.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-10.20|-30.98|<0.001
91897891|NCT04079803|183691697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to TLR4 in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to TLR4 was expressed as the ratio of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of TLR4 (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.01
91897892|NCT04079803|183691698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test.||||||0.01
91897893|NCT04079803|183691698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test.||||||0.02
91897894|NCT04079803|183691698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|This p value is for the main effect of treatment of the ANOVA.||||||0.009
91897895|NCT04079803|183691699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91897896|NCT04079803|183691699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
91897897|NCT04677179|183691724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|11.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.32|0.03|0.750
91897898|NCT04677179|183691724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.21|0.10|0.838
91897899|NCT04677179|183691725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.30|0.10|0.563
91897900|NCT04677179|183691725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.64|0.17|0.759
91897901|NCT04677179|183691726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.93|0.02|0.163
91897902|NCT04677179|183691726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.77|0.11|0.439
91897903|NCT04677179|183691727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|9.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.88|0.17|0.821
91897904|NCT04677179|183691727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.49|0.37|0.572
91897905|NCT04677179|183691728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|10.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.16|0.14|0.886
91897906|NCT04677179|183691728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|4.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.18|0.14|0.784
91897907|NCT04677179|183691729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.43|0.06|0.331
91897908|NCT04677179|183691729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.52|0.10|0.407
91897909|NCT04677179|183691730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.00|0.38|0.564
91897910|NCT04677179|183691730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.51||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|10.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.97|0.21|0.681
91897911|NCT04677179|183691731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.4|-3.3|0.317
91897912|NCT04677179|183691731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.1|-2.3|0.238
91897913|NCT04677179|183691732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.935||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|31.6|||ANCOVA|||||31.60|-12.17|0.378
91897914|NCT04677179|183691732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.406||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.78|19.88|||ANCOVA|||||19.88|-21.78|0.928
91897915|NCT03261700|183691747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of groups on Empowerment via the Personal Progress Scale Revised||||<.05
91897916|NCT03261700|183691748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of groups on self-efficacy via the General Self-Efficacy Scale||||<.05
91897917|NCT01257425|183691768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin defined as 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of AUC values|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|0.88|
91897918|NCT01257425|183691769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of AUC values|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.82|
91897919|NCT01257425|183691770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of AUC values|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.02|||ANCOVA|||||1.02|0.81|
91897920|NCT01257425|183691772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.09|0.85
91897921|NCT01257425|183691773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.98
91897922|NCT01257425|183691774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.84
91897923|NCT04262817|183691777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.01
91897924|NCT04262817|183691777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.34
91897925|NCT04262817|183691778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.38
91897926|NCT04262817|183691778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.85
91897927|NCT04262817|183691779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.39
91897928|NCT04262817|183691779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.77
91897929|NCT04262817|183691780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.43
91897930|NCT04262817|183691780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.05
91897931|NCT04262817|183691781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.05
91897932|NCT04262817|183691781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.04
91897933|NCT04262817|183691782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.01
91897934|NCT04262817|183691782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.38
91897935|NCT04947527|183691783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.2|-4.2|0.279
91897936|NCT04947527|183691784|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages/proportions|-14.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-2.1|||Chi-squared|||||-2.1|-26.7|0.023
91897937|NCT04947527|183691785|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.133
91838279|NCT03502616|183557112|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.65|0.47|0.0005
91838280|NCT03502616|183557112|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.79|0.59|0.0001
91838281|NCT03502616|183557112|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.17|1.09|<0.0001
91838282|NCT03502616|183557112|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.55|1.20|<0.0001
91897938|NCT00826111|183691840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0534||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.0122|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.01220|-0.1390|0.88
91897939|NCT00826111|183691841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.224|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.224|-0.286|0.79
91897940|NCT00826111|183691842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.0136|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.0136|-0.580|0.16
91897941|NCT00826111|183691843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|2.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.77|-1.35|0.29
91897942|NCT00826111|183691844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0077|0.0174|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0174|-0.0077|0.37
91897943|NCT00826111|183691845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0042||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0037|0.1481|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1481|-0.0037|0.21
91897944|NCT00826111|183691846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|16.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.46|-1.76|0.10
91708355|NCT01763827|183309616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-7.71||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|1.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||1.45|-16.86|0.027
91838283|NCT03502616|183557112|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.65|0.26|0.0075
91838284|NCT03502616|183557112|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.38|-0.21|0.1489
91838285|NCT03502616|183557112|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.61|-0.04|0.0609
91897945|NCT00826111|183691847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|10.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.51|-9.31|0.89
91897946|NCT00826111|183691848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|6.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.91|-10.31|0.66
91897947|NCT02072434|183691918|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.43||||||||1.43|0.12|
91897948|NCT02072434|183691919|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.55||||||||3.55|0.64|
91897949|NCT02072434|183691920|OTHER||Difference between percentages|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.15||||||||0.15|-1.59|
91897950|NCT01117454|183691923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank with continuity correction||||||0.008
91897951|NCT00676065|183692108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, hypertension and family history|Tested null hypotheses: the ATE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing LNG is higher or equal to 2.||0.9|0.2|
91897952|NCT00676065|183692108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, hypertension and family history|Tested null hypotheses: the ATE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing other progestogens is higher or equal to 2.||0.9|0.2|
91897953|NCT00676065|183692109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, current duration of use, and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing LNG is higher or equal to 2.||1.7|0.8|
91708356|NCT01763827|183309616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-11.73||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.19|-2.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-2.27|-21.19|0.044
91777520|NCT00107653|183436165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.725||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-3.36|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS VAS scores at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS VAS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||-3.36|-14.07|0.0015
91777521|NCT00107653|183436165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|9.49|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS VAS scores at week 72 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS VAS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||9.49|0.18|0.0421
91777522|NCT00107653|183436166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.864|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.18|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized physical component score at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Physical Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||5.18|1.79|<0.0001
91777523|NCT00107653|183436166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.68|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized physical component score at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Physical Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||1.68|-1.49|0.9047
91777524|NCT00107653|183436166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.914||0.9286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.71|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized mental component score at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Mental Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||1.71|-1.88|0.9286
91777525|NCT00107653|183436166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.51|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized mental component score at week 72 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Mental Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||0.51|-2.98|0.1653
91777526|NCT02234843|183436215|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.41|||Expl. Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.41|0.11|0.1509
91777527|NCT04272242|183436257|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs and associated 90% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the overall effect of 1HP on DTG PK.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.93|||||The numerator represents Day 28 and the denominator represents Entry.|Statistical analysis for Cmax, comparing Day 28 to Day 0.||0.93|0.91|
91777528|NCT04272242|183436258|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs and associated 90% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the overall effect of 1HP on DTG PK.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|0.96|||||The numerator represents Day 28 and the denominator represents Entry.|Statistical analysis for AUC0-24, comparing Day 28 to Day 0.||0.96|0.96|
91777529|NCT04272242|183436259|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs and associated 90% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the overall effect of 1HP on DTG PK.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.0|||||The numerator represents Day 28 and the denominator represents Entry.|Statistical analysis for Cmin, comparing Day 28 to Day 0.||1.00|0.97|
91777530|NCT00091949|183436277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93||P-value adjusted for interim looks.|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for interim looks.|||0.93|0.62|.0067
91777531|NCT00091949|183436278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||P-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; conference interval (CI) adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.1|0.61|0.19
91777532|NCT00091949|183436279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.07||P-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.07|0.52|0.11
91777533|NCT00091949|183436281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17||p-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes)|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.17|0.73|0.52
91777534|NCT00091949|183436282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo.|Changes in modified mini-mental examination (3MS) score from baseline (to annual scores) were analyzed using a longitudinal repeated measures mixed effects model.||0.280|-0.326|0.88
91777535|NCT00091949|183436283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05||P-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.05|0.65|0.11
91777536|NCT05966142|183436293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.5913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-0.42|0.5913
91777537|NCT05966142|183436294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6803
91777538|NCT05966142|183436295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1228|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1228
91777539|NCT05966142|183436296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-1.7|0.5252
91838286|NCT03502616|183557112|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.15|-0.54|0.4822
91838287|NCT03502616|183557113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.63|0.12|0.0047
91838288|NCT03502616|183557113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.77|0.26|0.0001
91897954|NCT00676065|183692109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, current duration of use, and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing other progestogens is higher or equal to 2.||1.0|0.5|
91897955|NCT00676065|183692110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, educational level and age at menarche.|Tested null hypotheses: the breast cancer hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing LNG is higher or equal to 2.||1.4|0.5|
91897956|NCT00676065|183692110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, educational level and age at menarche.|Tested null hypotheses: the breast cancer hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing other progestogens is higher or equal to 2.||1.5|0.6|
91897957|NCT03952806|183692111|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.30|-0.60|0.4656
91897958|NCT02875977|183692152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.794||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|4.119|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of completing half of the recommended PFPT visits between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||4.119|0.782|0.17
91897959|NCT02875977|183692153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.564||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|1.014|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of initiating PFPT between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||1.014|0.314|0.056
91897960|NCT02875977|183692154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.044||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|The statistical test of the hypothesis excludes the three individuals with unknown PFPT discharge status||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of discharge from PFPT between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||2.110|0.517|0.90
91897961|NCT02875977|183692155|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|-1.4262||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Among those who initiated PFPT therapy, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the number of days to initiating PFPT therapy between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||||0.16
91897962|NCT02875977|183692156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5481||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6149|8.7028|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from pre-PFPT to post-PFPT UDI-6 scores between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||8.7028|-17.6149|0.50
91897963|NCT00820027|183692157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.49||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.08|||longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|Estimate from LDA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.||||-0.08|-0.89|0.018
91897964|NCT00820027|183692157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.54||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.14|||LDA|Estimate from LDA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.||||-0.14|-0.95|0.009
91897965|NCT00820027|183692158|SUPERIORITY||Between-Treatment Ratio|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85|||ANOVA|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||0.85|0.56|<0.001
91777540|NCT05966142|183436297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9657
91777541|NCT00894803|183436306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|an exact logistic regression was used due to the number of events|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||1.40|0.01|0.053
91777542|NCT00894803|183436307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.31|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.31|0.70|0.23
91777543|NCT00894803|183436307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS score and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.71|0.51|0.53
91777544|NCT00894803|183436309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||1.40|0.01|0.053
91777545|NCT00894803|183436310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.76||95.0|0.35|8.02|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||8.02|0.35|0.76
91777546|NCT00894803|183436311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to small number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.92|0.24|0.99999
91777547|NCT00894803|183436312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.92|0.24|0.99999
91777548|NCT00894803|183436313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.76|||Regression, Logistic|Exact methods used due t number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.76|0.38|0.78
91777549|NCT00894803|183436314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.18|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.18|0.26|0.99999
91777550|NCT00894803|183436315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.67|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.67|0.63|0.35
91777551|NCT00894803|183436315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.02|0.40|0.85
91777552|NCT00894803|183436316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.88|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.88|0.65|0.30
91777553|NCT00894803|183436316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.24|0.44|0.73
91777554|NCT00894803|183436317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.99|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.99|0.61|0.31
91777555|NCT00894803|183436318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.07|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.07|0.47|0.55
91777556|NCT00894803|183436319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.67|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||2.67|0.46|0.82
91777557|NCT00894803|183436320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.64|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||6.64|0.90|0.07
91777558|NCT00894803|183436320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.88|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.88|0.67|0.22
91777559|NCT00449696|183436322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.91||||0.122||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.122
91777560|NCT00449696|183436323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.42||||0.071||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.071
91777561|NCT00449696|183436324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.64||||0.058||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.058
91777562|NCT00449696|183436325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for strict OMERACT-OARSI response.|Generalized Estimating Equation Model|||||||0.022
91777563|NCT00449696|183436325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.242||95.0||||P-value for OMERACT-OARSI response.|Generalized Estimating Equation Model|||||||0.242
91777564|NCT00449696|183436326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||P-value for physical component scores, physical function subscale, role physical subscale, and bodily pain subscale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91777565|NCT00449696|183436327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.39||||0.037||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.037
91777566|NCT00449696|183436328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.746||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.746
91897966|NCT00820027|183692158|SUPERIORITY||Between-Treatment Ratio|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||ANOVA|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||0.82|0.54|<0.001
91897967|NCT00820027|183692159|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.5|-3.3|0.506
91897968|NCT00820027|183692159|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-3.8|>0.999
91897969|NCT00820027|183692159|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-3.8|>0.999
91897970|NCT00820027|183692159|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.5|-1.3|0.316
91897971|NCT00820027|183692159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-1.7|>0.999
91897972|NCT00820027|183692159|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||3.8|-1.7|>0.999
91897973|NCT00820027|183692159|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.5||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.2|-2.5|0.309
91897974|NCT00820027|183692160|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.2||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.1|-9.2|0.054
91897975|NCT00820027|183692160|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.3||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.2|-8.4|0.209
91777567|NCT00449696|183436329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.166||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.166
91777568|NCT00449696|183436330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.041
91777569|NCT00307801|183436333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||inverting 2 one-sided tests|||||||< 0.0001
91777570|NCT03431259|183436387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0574
91777571|NCT03431259|183436387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.570
91777572|NCT03994081|183436413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.332
91777573|NCT03994081|183436414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.790
91777574|NCT03994081|183436415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.464
91897976|NCT00820027|183692160|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.3||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.3|-8.4|0.227
91897977|NCT00820027|183692160|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.9||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.6|-3.7|0.415
91897978|NCT00820027|183692160|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.1||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.8|-3.0|0.965
91897979|NCT00820027|183692160|OTHER||Difference in Percent|2.3||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||8.4|-1.3|0.227
91897980|NCT00820027|183692160|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.8||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.6|-1.7|0.437
91838289|NCT03502616|183557113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.78|0.19|0.0012
91897981|NCT00820027|183692161|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||4.5|-5.3|0.806
91897982|NCT00820027|183692161|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.8||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.4|-7.4|0.278
91897983|NCT00820027|183692161|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.1||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.9|-5.7|0.971
91897984|NCT00820027|183692161|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||4.2|-3.2|0.786
91897985|NCT00820027|183692161|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.8||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.0|-5.2|0.184
91897986|NCT00820027|183692161|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.1||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||5.7|-3.9|0.971
91897987|NCT00820027|183692161|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.6|-5.8|0.113
91777575|NCT03994081|183436415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.765
91897988|NCT00820027|183692162|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.3||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||6.0|-17.0|0.365
91777576|NCT03994081|183436416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.072
91897989|NCT00820027|183692162|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-7.2||||0.222||95.0|-18.8|4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||4.2|-18.8|0.222
91897990|NCT00820027|183692162|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.5||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|5.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||5.9|-17.2|0.349
91897991|NCT00820027|183692162|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.2||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||9.0|-8.7|0.965
91897992|NCT00820027|183692162|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.6||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||7.3|-10.5|0.718
91777577|NCT03994081|183436416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.811
91777578|NCT02059278|183436450|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 8 am on Day 15|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.781||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|1.366|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 8 am on Day 15|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.366|0.195|0.0091
91777579|NCT02059278|183436450|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 10 am on Day 15|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.664||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|1.167|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 10 am on Day 15|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.167|0.161|0.0098
91777580|NCT02059278|183436450|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 4 pm on Day 15|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.542||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|1.058|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 4 pm on Day 15|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.058|0.025|0.0398
91777581|NCT02059278|183436450|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 8 am on Day 42|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.478||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|1.05|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 8 am on Day 42|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.050|-0.093|0.1008
91897993|NCT00820027|183692162|OTHER||Difference in Percent|5.5||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|17.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||17.2|-5.9|0.349
91897994|NCT00820027|183692162|OTHER||Difference in Percent|1.8||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||10.6|-7.0|0.684
91838290|NCT03502616|183557113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.76|0.20|0.0008
91838291|NCT03502616|183557113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.81|0.24|0.0004
91838292|NCT03502616|183557113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.05|0.0918
91838293|NCT03502616|183557113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.61|-0.10|0.1600
91838294|NCT03502616|183557113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.6776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.30|0.6776
91646493|NCT00689273|183184850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.54|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.18|-0.51|0.54
91646494|NCT00689273|183184850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.21|-0.51|0.60
91646495|NCT00689273|183184851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.44|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.69|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.94|-3.69|0.44
91708357|NCT01763827|183309617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-6.23||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|3.95||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||3.95|-16.41|0.72
91646496|NCT00689273|183184851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.23|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.0|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.16|-5.00|0.23
91708358|NCT01763827|183309617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-17.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|-8.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm|||-8.63|-26.67|<0.001
91646497|NCT00689273|183184852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.48|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.94|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||1.41|-4.94|0.48
91646498|NCT00689273|183184852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.61|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.57|-6.61|0.28
91646499|NCT00689273|183184853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.48|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.81|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.52|-1.81|0.48
91646500|NCT00689273|183184853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.45|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.20|-2.45|0.28
91646501|NCT00689273|183184854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.04|-0.46|0.28
91646502|NCT00689273|183184854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.14|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.78|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.06|-0.78|0.14
91838295|NCT03502616|183557113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.46|-0.25|0.5646
91708359|NCT01763827|183309617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-8.14||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.54|1.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||1.26|-17.54|0.027
91708360|NCT01763827|183309617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-13.23||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.69|-4.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-4.77|-21.69|0.044
91777582|NCT02059278|183436450|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 10 am on Day 42|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.505||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|1.024|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 10 am on Day 42|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.024|-0.013|0.0558
91897995|NCT00820027|183692163|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority reached if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference (Etoricoxib minus Ibuprofen) in LS means is no greater than 1.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27||||||||0.27|-0.36|
91897996|NCT00820027|183692163|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority reached if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference (Etoricoxib minus Ibuprofen) in LS means is no greater than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.42|
91897997|NCT00820027|183692164|OTHER|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|Between-Treatment Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||||A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||1.23|0.89|
91897998|NCT00820027|183692164|OTHER|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|Between-Treatment Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18|||||A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||1.18|0.85|
91897999|NCT00820027|183692164|OTHER|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|Between-Treatment Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||||A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||1.23|0.89|
91898000|NCT02604433|183692166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|14.53||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-value were estimated from the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization.||14.53|2.17|<0.0001
91898001|NCT02604433|183692166|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|23.1|||||Luspatercept - Placebo|||23.1|10.0|
91898002|NCT02604433|183692166|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference|16.5||||||95.0|9.9|23.1|||||Luspatercept - Placebo|||23.1|9.9|
91898003|NCT02604433|183692167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|18.26||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio 95% CIs, and p-value were estimated from the CMH test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization. To control the overall Type 1 error rate for outcomes 2-4, the testing procedure was implemented strictly in order: the test for this outcome was only conducted when there was evidence showing that erythroid response was achieved in the luspatercept group from Week 13 to Week 24 (primary endpoint).||18.26|2.27|<0.0001
91898004|NCT02604433|183692168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|18.79||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value were estimated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization. To control the overall Type 1 error rate, the testing procedure was done strictly in order: the test for this outcome was only conducted when there was evidence showing erythroid response was achieved in the luspatercept group for the primary endpoint, and 33% hematological improvement was achieved in the luspatercept group in outcome 2.||18.79|0.96|0.0402
91898005|NCT02604433|183692169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.92||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|86.29||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value were estimated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization. To control the overall Type 1 error rate, the testing procedure was done strictly in order: the test for this outcome was only conducted when there was evidence showing erythroid response was achieved in the luspatercept group for the primary endpoint, and achievement of objective in the luspatercept group in outcomes 2+3.||86.29|1.65|0.0017
91898006|NCT02604433|183692170|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.93||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates were based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline transfusion burden as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 LSM = least squares mean||-0.93|-1.76|<0.0001
91898007|NCT02604433|183692171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2||||0.7598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.51||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA||luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 P-value ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline LIC as covariates. LS = least square||1.51|-1.10|0.7598
91898008|NCT02604433|183692172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-68.0||||0.2552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-185.8|49.7||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline ICT as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Deferasirox: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||49.7|-185.8|0.2552
91898009|NCT02604433|183692172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-76.4||||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-612.9|460.1||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline ICT as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Deferiprone: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||460.1|-612.9|0.7746
91898010|NCT02604433|183692172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-147.3||||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-673.1|378.5||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline ICT as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Deferoxamine Mesilate / Deferoxamine: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||378.5|-673.1|0.5186
91898011|NCT02604433|183692173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-342.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-498.3|-186.87||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline serum ferritin as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||-186.87|-498.30|<0.0001
91777583|NCT02059278|183436450|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 4 pm on Day 42|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.538||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|1.074|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 4 pm on Day 42|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.074|0.002|0.0491
91646503|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.55|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.19|-0.52|0.55
91646504|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.09|-0.81|0.11
91708361|NCT01763827|183309618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-4.59||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|2.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.12|-11.30|0.072
91777584|NCT02059278|183436450|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 8 am on Day 84|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.808||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.329|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 8 am on Day 84|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.329|0.286|0.0025
91777585|NCT02059278|183436450|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 10 am on Day 84|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.627||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|1.111|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 10 am on Day 84|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.111|0.143|0.0113
91708362|NCT01763827|183309618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.11|-10.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-10.68|-30.11|<0.001
91777586|NCT02059278|183436450|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 4 pm on Day 84|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.456||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.975|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 4 pm on Day 84|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||0.975|-0.063|0.0649
91777587|NCT03955146|183436455|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.2926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.06|0.2926
91777588|NCT04363320|183436463|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.538|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.169||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a prior threshold 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month|Change in new patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.002
91646505|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.00|-0.71|0.20
91777589|NCT04363320|183436463|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Buprenorphine) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.0008
91777590|NCT04363320|183436463|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.207|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.129||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Methadone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.111
91777591|NCT04363320|183436463|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.017|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.014||0.235|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Naltrexone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.235
91777592|NCT04363320|183436464|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.153|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.218||0.485|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month|Change in new patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.485
91646506|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.23|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.69|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.02|-0.69|0.23
91777593|NCT04363320|183436464|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.642|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new Justice Involved Person counts (Buprenorphine) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.0008
91777594|NCT04363320|183436464|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.377|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.154||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Methadone) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.015
91777595|NCT04363320|183436464|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.017||0.241|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Naltrexone) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.241
91777596|NCT04363320|183436465|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.912|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.438||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.00002
91838296|NCT03502616|183557114|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.7291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.37|-0.26|0.7291
91838297|NCT03502616|183557114|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.05|-0.78|0.0257
91777597|NCT04363320|183436465|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.855|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.206||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Buprenorphine) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.00004
91777598|NCT04363320|183436465|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.322|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.206||0.118|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Methadone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.118
91777599|NCT04363320|183436465|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.073|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.031||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Naltrexone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.020
91777600|NCT04363320|183436466|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.617|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.307||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.045
91838298|NCT03502616|183557114|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.42|-1.31|0.0002
91646507|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||0.41|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.58|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.13|-0.58|0.41
91646508|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 6: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.22|-0.49|0.62
91646509|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.49|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.16|-0.55|0.49
91646510|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.10|-0.81|0.10
91646511|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.24|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.69|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.03|-0.69|0.24
91646512|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.01|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.28|-1.01|0.02
91708363|NCT01763827|183309618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-5.71||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.13|2.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.71|-14.13|0.082
91646513|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.93|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.21|-0.93|0.04
91646514|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 12: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.23|-0.95|0.04
91646515|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.24|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 13: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.03|-0.70|0.24
91708364|NCT01763827|183309618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-12.84||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.14|-3.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baselie value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-3.54|-22.14|0.044
91646516|NCT00689273|183184855|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.09|-0.82|0.11
91646517|NCT00689273|183184856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30% Reduction||||0.22
91708365|NCT01763827|183309619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-7.94||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|2.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.92|-18.81|0.72
91708366|NCT01763827|183309619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-16.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.64|-7.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-7.02|-25.64|<0.001
91777601|NCT04363320|183436466|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.103|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.229||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Buprenorphine) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.000002
91777602|NCT04363320|183436466|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.387|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.218||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month|Change in census patient counts (Methadone) for Sustainability Phase (13 to 24 months)||||0.076
91646518|NCT00689273|183184856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% Reduction||||0.38
91646519|NCT00689273|183184857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.45|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.07|-0.27|0.45
91777603|NCT04363320|183436466|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.086|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.036||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Naltrexone) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.019
91646520|NCT00689273|183184857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.05|-0.29|0.37
91838299|NCT03502616|183557114|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.20|-1.05|0.0041
91838300|NCT03502616|183557114|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.17|-1.02|0.0062
91838301|NCT03502616|183557114|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.13|-1.13|0.0140
91838302|NCT03502616|183557114|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.22|-1.11|0.0035
91838303|NCT03502616|183557114|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.03|-0.97|0.0645
91646521|NCT03703297|183184876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.01608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.95|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and CI calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model,adjusting for tumor,node and metastasis(TNM) stage, receipt of prophylactic cranial irradiation(PCI),with treatment as only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|||0.950|0.606|0.01608
91708367|NCT01763827|183309619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-8.58||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|0.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||0.94|-18.10|0.082
91838304|NCT03502616|183557114|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.04|-1.05|0.0341
91838305|NCT03502616|183557115|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.11|-0.33|0.0001
91838306|NCT03502616|183557115|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.20|-0.47|<0.0001
91838307|NCT03502616|183557115|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.31|-0.61|<0.0001
91838308|NCT03502616|183557115|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.32|-0.62|<0.0001
91838309|NCT03502616|183557115|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.37|-0.67|<0.0001
91838310|NCT03502616|183557115|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.12|||LS mean difference|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.12|-0.46|0.0008
91838311|NCT03502616|183557115|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.05|-0.39|0.0116
91838312|NCT03502616|183557115|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.37|0.0416
91838313|NCT03502616|183557115|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.03|-0.34|0.0915
91708368|NCT01763827|183309619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-12.72||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.89|-4.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-4.54|-20.89|0.044
91646522|NCT03703297|183184877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.01042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.928|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and CI were calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for receipt of PCI, with treatment as only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|||0.928|0.569|0.01042
91777604|NCT03605667|183436472|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.9809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, mini-mental state examination (MMSE) randomization stratification, apolipoprotein E (APoE) status (carrier/non carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||1.8|-1.8|0.9809
91646523|NCT03958071|183184901|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.1027||||0.281|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.2810
91646524|NCT03958071|183184901|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.078||||0.1421|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.1421
91646525|NCT03958071|183184901|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.0159||||0.0048|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.0048
91646526|NCT03958071|183184903|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.0214||||0.7681|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.7681
91646527|NCT03958071|183184903|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.371|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||<.0001
91838314|NCT03502616|183557116|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.24|1.46|<0.0001
91838315|NCT03502616|183557116|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.10|2.11|<0.0001
91838316|NCT03502616|183557116|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.902|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||7.20|3.65|<0.0001
91838317|NCT03502616|183557116|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|6.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.86|3.15|<0.0001
91646528|NCT03958071|183184903|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.349|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||<.0001
91708369|NCT01763827|183309620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|5.53||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|8.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.84|2.23|0.007
91838318|NCT03502616|183557116|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.012||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.42|1.44|0.0008
91838319|NCT03502616|183557116|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.68|-0.52|0.1390
91646529|NCT03958071|183184904|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.1257||||0.1659|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.1659
91646530|NCT03958071|183184904|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.1566||||0.0112|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.0112
91646531|NCT03958071|183184904|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.3019|||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||<.0001
91646532|NCT03958071|183184905|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.0209||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.3260
91646533|NCT03958071|183184905|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.2694|||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||<.0001
91708370|NCT01763827|183309620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|8.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.53|11.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||11.43|5.53|<0.001
91646534|NCT03958071|183184905|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.2352|||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||<.0001
91838320|NCT03502616|183557116|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0.5217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.67|-1.36|0.5217
91777605|NCT03605667|183436473|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APoE status (carrier/non carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||0.3|-0.8|0.4474
91708371|NCT01763827|183309620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|4.81||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|8.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.78|0.85|0.013
91708372|NCT01763827|183309620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|3.81||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|8.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline visit|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.39|-0.77|0.044
91708373|NCT01763827|183309621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|5.91||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|10.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||10.16|1.67|0.007
91708374|NCT01763827|183309621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|9.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.32|13.34||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||13.34|5.32|<0.001
91708375|NCT01763827|183309621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|7.56||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|12.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||12.00|3.11|0.013
91838321|NCT03502616|183557116|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.54|-0.51|0.1415
91838322|NCT03502616|183557116|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.128||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.41|-0.03|0.0533
91838323|NCT03502616|183557117|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.94|0.55|0.0005
91838324|NCT03502616|183557117|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.45|0.95|<0.0001
91838325|NCT03502616|183557117|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.02|1.35|<0.0001
91838326|NCT03502616|183557117|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.84|1.11|<0.0001
91838327|NCT03502616|183557117|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.45|0.67|0.0007
91838328|NCT03502616|183557117|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.58|-0.33|0.2018
91838329|NCT03502616|183557117|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.6432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.13|-0.70|0.6432
91838330|NCT03502616|183557117|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.31|-0.54|0.4092
91838331|NCT03502616|183557117|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.81|-0.18|0.1070
91838332|NCT03502616|183557118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.46|0.78|0.0002
91838333|NCT03502616|183557118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.84|1.00|<0.0001
91838334|NCT03502616|183557118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.34|2.18|<0.0001
91838335|NCT03502616|183557118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|4.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.15|1.93|<0.0001
91838336|NCT03502616|183557118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.09|0.65|0.0028
91838337|NCT03502616|183557118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.23|-0.28|0.1289
91838338|NCT03502616|183557118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.66|-0.77|0.4698
91838339|NCT03502616|183557118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.32|-0.06|0.0616
91838340|NCT03502616|183557118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.71|0.03|0.0455
91838341|NCT03502616|183557119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.52|-1.25|<0.0001
91838342|NCT03502616|183557119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.80|-1.65|<0.0001
91838343|NCT03502616|183557119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.26|-2.17|<0.0001
91838344|NCT03502616|183557119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.23|-2.20|<0.0001
91838345|NCT03502616|183557119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.05|-2.07|<0.0001
91838346|NCT03502616|183557119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.00|-1.11|0.0483
91708376|NCT01763827|183309621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|5.53||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|8.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.84|2.22|0.044
91838347|NCT03502616|183557119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.04|-1.17|0.0357
91838348|NCT03502616|183557119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.00|-1.09|0.0508
91838349|NCT03502616|183557119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.03|-1.08|0.0614
91838350|NCT03502616|183557120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.53|-1.26|<0.0001
91708377|NCT04957212|183309678|EQUIVALENCE|We used an equivalence margin of 0.2 for the primary endpoint.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09|||Chi-squared|||||0.09|-0.16|0.54
91708378|NCT04957212|183309679|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||Chi-squared|||||0.06|-0.21|0.26
91708379|NCT04957212|183309680|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91708380|NCT04957212|183309681|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
91838351|NCT03502616|183557120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.92|-1.75|<0.0001
91838352|NCT03502616|183557120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.54|-2.41|<0.0001
91838353|NCT03502616|183557120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.40|-2.37|<0.0001
91838354|NCT03502616|183557120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.14|-2.10|<0.0001
91838355|NCT03502616|183557120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.00|-1.03|0.0492
91838356|NCT03502616|183557120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.22|-0.82|0.2614
91838357|NCT03502616|183557120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.04|-1.03|0.0722
91838358|NCT03502616|183557120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.15|-1.24|0.0121
91838359|NCT03502616|183557121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.51|-1.33|<0.0001
91838360|NCT03502616|183557121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.17|-2.02|<0.0001
91838361|NCT03502616|183557121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.54|-2.50|<0.0001
91838362|NCT03502616|183557121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.50|-2.50|<0.0001
91838363|NCT03502616|183557121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.32|-2.35|<0.0001
91838364|NCT03502616|183557121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.06|-1.02|0.0785
91838365|NCT03502616|183557121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.26|-0.82|0.3047
91838366|NCT03502616|183557121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-1.02|0.1009
91838367|NCT03502616|183557121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.05|-1.08|0.0764
91838368|NCT03502616|183557122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.11|-0.73|0.0089
91838369|NCT03502616|183557122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.42|-1.12|<0.0001
91838370|NCT03502616|183557122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.70|-1.50|<0.0001
91838371|NCT03502616|183557122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.88|-1.71|<0.0001
91646535|NCT03958071|183184906|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.09||||0.2042|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.2042
91646536|NCT03958071|183184906|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.21|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||<.0001
91838372|NCT03502616|183557122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.80|-1.66|<0.0001
91838373|NCT03502616|183557122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.14|-0.81|0.1686
91838374|NCT03502616|183557122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.21|-0.72|0.2800
91838375|NCT03502616|183557122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-0.86|0.1135
91838376|NCT03502616|183557122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.20|-0.77|0.2496
91646537|NCT03958071|183184906|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.11||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.02
91646538|NCT03958071|183184907|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.0241||||0.7395|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.7395
91646539|NCT03958071|183184907|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.1644||||0.0017|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.0017
91646540|NCT03958071|183184907|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.1403||||0.0034|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.0034
91838377|NCT03502616|183557123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.47|-1.22|<0.0001
91708381|NCT03299101|183309711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in grip strength across all 4 time points.||||0.872
91898012|NCT02604433|183692174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0||||0.9201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline BMD measurement as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Total Hip Bone Mineral Density: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||0.01|-0.01|0.9201
91898013|NCT02604433|183692174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline BMD measurement as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Lumbar Spine Bone Mineral Density: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||0.01|-0.02|0.4620
91708382|NCT03299101|183309711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in grip strength between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.423
91898014|NCT02604433|183692175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.22||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|0.04||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates were based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline myocardial T2\* as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least square||0.04|-4.48|0.0543
91898015|NCT02604433|183692176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Health Domain Score - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.666
91898016|NCT02604433|183692176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.384
91898017|NCT02604433|183692177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning Domain - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.918
91898018|NCT02604433|183692177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||General Health Domain - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.857
91898019|NCT02604433|183692177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||PCS - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.839
91898020|NCT02604433|183692180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|32.9||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-value were estimated from the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization.||32.9|1.8|0.0015
91898021|NCT02604433|183692183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.27||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.63|-10.91||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided||luspatercept - placebo|≥ 33% Transfusion Burden Reduction||-10.91|-123.63|0.0195
91898022|NCT02604433|183692183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.24||||0.7473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.87|201.34||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided||luspatercept - placebo|≥ 50% Transfusion Burden Reduction||201.34|-144.87|0.7473
91898023|NCT01128894|183692198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value was from a 1-sided t test testing whether or not the difference of least square means (albiglutide - liraglutide) was less than or equal to the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.34|0.08|0.0846
91898024|NCT01128738|183692205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.1|62.3|||Fisher Exact||Percentage difference was estimated as BTX 50 U minus placebo.|||62.3|38.1|<0.001
91898025|NCT00973362|183692253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (%)|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|88.8||||||||88.8|53.1|
91898026|NCT00973362|183692253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity (%)|62.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.2|65.9||||||||65.9|59.2|
91898027|NCT00973362|183692253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value [PPV] (%)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|5.8||||||||5.8|3.4|
91898028|NCT00973362|183692253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value [NPV] (%)|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.1|99.6||||||||99.6|98.1|
91898029|NCT00973362|183692253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence (%)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91898030|NCT00973362|183692253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.1|||||The relative risk of CIN2+ is defined as the \[ absolute risk of APTIMA HPV (Positive Result) / absolute risk of APTIMA HPV (Negative Result) \] .|||13.1|1.8|
91898031|NCT00973362|183692254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (%)|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|94.5||||||||94.5|62.4|
91898032|NCT00973362|183692254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity (%)|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|52.2||||||||52.2|45.2|
91898033|NCT00973362|183692254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value [PPV] (%)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.4||||||||4.4|2.9|
91898034|NCT00973362|183692254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value [NPV] (%)|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.1|99.8||||||||99.8|98.1|
91898035|NCT00973362|183692254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence (%)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91898036|NCT00973362|183692254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|16.7|||||The relative risk of CIN2+ is defined as the \[ absolute risk of FDA-Approved HPV DNA Assay (Positive Result) / absolute risk of FDA-Approved HPV DNA Assay (Negative Result) \] .|||16.7|1.4|
91898037|NCT00973362|183692255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity(%)|86.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|92.3||||||||92.3|78.4|
91898038|NCT00973362|183692255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificty|62.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.6|66.0||||||||66.0|59.6|
91898039|NCT00973362|183692255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PPV|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|22.0||||||||22.0|18.1|
91898040|NCT00973362|183692255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NPV|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|98.8||||||||98.8|96.5|
91898041|NCT00973362|183692255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence (%)|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91898042|NCT00973362|183692256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (%)|88.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.5|93.8||||||||93.8|80.5|
91898043|NCT00973362|183692256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity(%)|55.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|59.3||||||||59.3|52.3|
91646541|NCT02414854|183184908|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error rate at 0.05 level. The procedure included the 2 primary outcome measures and the first 13 secondary outcome measures reported and considered 2 pair-wise comparisons: Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 200 mg) q2w and Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w. Testing order is specified in analysis description.|Relative risk|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68||Hierarchical testing sequence performed continued only when previous outcome measures was statistically significant at 0.05. Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 1 of testing order.||0.68|0.43|<0.0001
91777606|NCT03605667|183436474|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Model based summary statistics were from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline MMSE total score as covariate.||0.5|-0.6|0.8670
91777607|NCT03605667|183436475|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.9|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APOE status (carrier/non-carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||3.9|-0.8|0.1950
91777608|NCT03605667|183436476|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.1|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APOE status (carrier/non-carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||4.1|-1.1|0.2583
91777609|NCT03605667|183436477|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.4191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APOE status (carrier/non-carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||1.3|-0.6|0.4191
91777610|NCT03605667|183436479|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Model based summary statistics are from an ANCOVA with baseline MMSE total score as covariate.||0.3|-1.2|0.2240
91777611|NCT03605667|183436480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0161
91898044|NCT00973362|183692256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PPV(%)|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|20.4||||||||20.4|17.0|
91777612|NCT00541658|183436483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.812|0.345|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.345|-0.812|
91898045|NCT00973362|183692256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NPV(%)|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.2|98.8||||||||98.8|96.2|
91898046|NCT00973362|183692256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence(%)|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91898047|NCT02683941|183692266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.95|||Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified for interactive web response system (IWRS) tumour subtype (typical versus \[vs\] atypical) using the exact method for ties. P-value of stratified log rank test comparing lanreotide to placebo with strata based on the IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) stratification factor.||1.95|0.48|0.866
91898048|NCT02683941|183692267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.88|||Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and the 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified for IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) using the exact method for ties. P-value of stratified log rank test comparing lanreotide to placebo with strata based on the IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) stratification factor.||1.88|0.48|0.837
91898049|NCT02683941|183692268|OTHER||Percentage difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|37.86||||||The treatment difference compares lanreotide to placebo (central review). The 95% exact unconditional CI was used for ORR difference.||37.86|-10.97|
91898050|NCT02683941|183692268|OTHER||Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|26.53||||||The treatment difference compares lanreotide to placebo (local review). The 95% exact unconditional CI was used for ORR difference.||26.53|-22.69|
91898051|NCT02683941|183692269|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and the 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified for IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) using the exact method for ties. P-value of stratified log rank test comparing lanreotide to placebo with strata based on the IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) stratification factor.||1.50|0.50|0.582
91898052|NCT03552822|183692310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91898053|NCT03552822|183692311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
91898054|NCT03552822|183692312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91898055|NCT03552822|183692313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91898056|NCT03552822|183692314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
91898057|NCT03552822|183692315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.159
91898058|NCT03552822|183692316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91898059|NCT03552822|183692317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
91898060|NCT03552822|183692318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
91898061|NCT02254278|183692344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||binomial|One-sided significance level=0.10||Assuming a binomial distribution, 140 eligible patients per arm were required for 80% power and 1-sided type I error rate of 10% to test the null hypothesis of 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate ≤ 85% against the alternative hypothesis of \> 85% with a binomial test. The arms are not compared to each other; they are each tested separately against the null hypothesis.||||0.04
91898062|NCT02254278|183692344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||bionmial|One-sided significance level = 0.10||Assuming a binomial distribution, 140 eligible patients per arm were required for 80% power and 1-sided type I error rate of 10% to test the null hypothesis of 2-year PFS rate ≤ 85% against the alternative hypothesis of \> 85% with a binomial test. The arms are not compared to each other; they are each tested separately against the null hypothesis.||||0.23
91646542|NCT02414854|183184908|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.523|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|0.662||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 200 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 3 of testing order.||0.662|0.413|<0.0001
91646543|NCT02414854|183184909|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 2 of testing order.||0.18|0.08|<0.0001
91646544|NCT02414854|183184909|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 200 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 4 of testing order.||0.19|0.08|<0.0001
91646545|NCT02414854|183184910|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|9.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.74|13.07||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis performed using MMRM model(n=954 for 300 vs placebo)with percent change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; \& treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value \& baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Hierarchical testing procedure used to control type I error \& handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Here, it is test no. 5 of testing order.||13.07|5.74|<0.0001
91708383|NCT03299101|183309711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.853|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in grip strength between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.853
91838378|NCT03502616|183557123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.07|-1.89|<0.0001
91838379|NCT03502616|183557123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.16|-2.06|<0.0001
91838380|NCT03502616|183557123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.40|-2.34|<0.0001
91898063|NCT02254278|183692345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.9|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT 5 weeks|||0.90|0.17|0.02
91898064|NCT02254278|183692346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.08|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT 5 weeks|||5.08|0.4|0.58
91898065|NCT02254278|183692347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.95||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = IMRT 5 weeks|||2.95|0.31|0.93
91898066|NCT02254278|183692348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||End of RT||||<0.0001
91898067|NCT02254278|183692348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||One month after end of RT||||0.17
91898068|NCT02254278|183692348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-side significance level = 0.05||Six months after end of RT||||0.16
91898069|NCT02254278|183692348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-side significance level = 0.05||One year after end of RT||||0.26
91898070|NCT02254278|183692348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-side significance level = 0.05||Two years after the end of RT||||0.82
91898071|NCT02254278|183692350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||binomial test|One-sided significance level = 0.10||Progression-free survival: The null hypothesis of negative predictive value ≤ 90% was tested against the alternative of \> 90% with a 1-sided binomial test at the 0.10 level.||||0.3
91898072|NCT02254278|183692350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||binomial test|One-sided significance level = 0.10||Local-regional control: The null hypothesis of negative predictive value ≤ 90% was tested against the alternative of \> 90% with a 1-sided binomial test at the 0.10 level.||||0.07
91898073|NCT02254278|183692351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.28
91898074|NCT02254278|183692352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.03
91898075|NCT02254278|183692356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.08
91646546|NCT02414854|183184911|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.402|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.526||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 6 of testing order.||0.526|0.307|<0.0001
91646547|NCT02414854|183184912|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.21||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 7 of testing order.||0.21|0.09|<0.0001
91646548|NCT02414854|183184913|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.326|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.454||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 8 of testing order.||0.454|0.234|<0.0001
91646549|NCT02414854|183184914|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 9 of testing order.||0.32|0.16|<0.0001
91838381|NCT03502616|183557123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.25|-2.18|<0.0001
91838382|NCT03502616|183557123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.03|-0.99|0.0385
91838383|NCT03502616|183557123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.01|-1.00|0.0463
91838384|NCT03502616|183557123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.14|-1.15|0.0126
91898076|NCT02254278|183692357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91898077|NCT06609135|183692358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.045
91898078|NCT06609135|183692359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.045
91898079|NCT06609135|183692360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.49
91898080|NCT06609135|183692361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.49
91898081|NCT06609135|183692362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.56
91898082|NCT06609135|183692363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.56
91898083|NCT06609135|183692364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.09
91708384|NCT03299101|183309711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.552|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in grip strength between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.552
91646550|NCT02414854|183184915|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.834||||0.2599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.144||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 10 of testing order.||1.144|0.608|0.2599
91646551|NCT01355523|183184947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91646552|NCT01355523|183184947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number need to treat|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.703|11.024||||||||11.024|1.703|
91838385|NCT03502616|183557123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.03|-1.09|0.0372
91838386|NCT03502616|183557124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|20.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||20.52|6.68|0.0001
91838387|NCT03502616|183557124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.78|37.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||37.80|19.78|<0.0001
91838388|NCT03502616|183557124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|33.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.84|42.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||42.78|23.84|<0.0001
91646553|NCT01355523|183184947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.797||||||||0.797|0.076|
91646554|NCT01355523|183184948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.125
91646555|NCT01355523|183184949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.460
91646556|NCT01355523|183184950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91646557|NCT01355523|183184951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.264
91646558|NCT01355523|183184952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.351
91646559|NCT01355523|183184953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.446
91646560|NCT01355523|183184954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.122
91646561|NCT01355523|183184955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.907
91838389|NCT03502616|183557124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.67|46.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||46.07|26.67|<0.0001
91898084|NCT06609135|183692365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.09
91898085|NCT06609135|183692366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.44
91898086|NCT06609135|183692367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.44
91898087|NCT06609135|183692368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.59
91898088|NCT06609135|183692369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.59
91898089|NCT06729593|183692370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.11||Proportional odds model stratified by disease severity (high flow nasal canula(HFNC)/non-invasive ventilation(NIV) or invasive mechanical ventiliation(IMV)/ECMO) at study entry to determine the odds of being in a better category at day 90.|Proportional odds model||Summary odds ratio for being in a better category, active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||2.11|0.45|0.96
91898090|NCT06729593|183692371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.42|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.42|0.39|0.37
91898091|NCT06729593|183692372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||2.14|0.37|0.80
91898092|NCT06729593|183692373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.67|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.67|0.64|0.88
91898093|NCT06729593|183692374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.5|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.50|0.43|0.50
91898094|NCT05437510|183692392|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|84.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.493|92.411|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization.||92.411|69.493|<0.0001
91898095|NCT05437510|183692393|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|77.71||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.249|93.432|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization.||93.432|39.249|0.0014
91898096|NCT05437510|183692394|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|90.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.676|98.813||Adjusted p-value is reported.|Exact method using binomial distribution|||Statistical analysis for France: The adjusted 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization. Adjustment based on Bonferroni-Holm procedure.||98.813|63.676|<0.0001
91838390|NCT03502616|183557124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.05|45.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||45.63|27.05|<0.0001
91838391|NCT03502616|183557124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|17.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.35|-6.14|0.3498
91838392|NCT03502616|183557124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|9.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.15|-13.96|0.6835
91838393|NCT03502616|183557124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|9.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.98|-13.47|0.7704
91838394|NCT03502616|183557124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.8492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|10.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||10.53|-12.80|0.8492
91838395|NCT03502616|183557125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|5.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||5.43|-0.95|0.1692
91838396|NCT03502616|183557125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||8.46|0.46|0.0289
91838397|NCT03502616|183557125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|11.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||11.09|0.95|0.0199
91646562|NCT01355523|183184956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.555
91838398|NCT03502616|183557125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|18.81|||Difference in percentage|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.81|5.26|0.0005
91838399|NCT03502616|183557125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.29|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.80|5.29|0.0005
91838400|NCT03502616|183557125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|18.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.83|1.24|0.0253
91646563|NCT01355523|183184957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.930
91646564|NCT01355523|183184958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.386
91646565|NCT01355523|183184959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.241
91646566|NCT01355523|183184960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.339
91646567|NCT01355523|183184961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
91838401|NCT03502616|183557125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|17.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.24|-1.38|0.0950
91838402|NCT03502616|183557125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|16.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.73|-2.31|0.1377
91838403|NCT03502616|183557125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.30|-3.94|0.2472
91838404|NCT03502616|183557126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.41|-1.05|<0.0001
91838405|NCT03502616|183557126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.91|-1.65|<0.0001
91838406|NCT03502616|183557126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.09|-1.92|<0.0001
91838407|NCT03502616|183557126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.24|-2.11|<0.0001
91838408|NCT03502616|183557126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.00|-1.88|<0.0001
91646568|NCT01355523|183184962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91646569|NCT02625207|183185001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|116.73||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.55|138.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||138.26|98.55|0.1318
91838409|NCT03502616|183557126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.06|-0.86|0.0880
91838410|NCT03502616|183557126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.07|-0.88|0.0921
91838411|NCT03502616|183557126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.02|-0.94|0.0597
91838412|NCT03502616|183557126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.00|-0.99|0.0492
91838413|NCT03502616|183557127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|14.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.77|1.86|0.0116
91838414|NCT03502616|183557127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.99|31.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||31.49|13.99|<0.0001
91838415|NCT03502616|183557127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.09|38.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||38.66|19.09|<0.0001
91838416|NCT03502616|183557127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.28|41.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||41.58|22.28|<0.0001
91838417|NCT03502616|183557127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.82|35.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||35.75|14.82|<0.0001
91838418|NCT03502616|183557127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|22.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||22.23|-0.80|0.0683
91646570|NCT02625207|183185001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|85.85||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.48|101.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||101.68|72.48|0.1369
91838419|NCT03502616|183557127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||21.70|-1.59|0.0906
91646571|NCT02625207|183185001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|63.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.51|75.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.07|53.51|< 0.0001
91646572|NCT02625207|183185001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.83||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.57|87.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.13|62.57|0.0036
91646573|NCT02625207|183185001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|73.99||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.7|87.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.31|62.70|0.0038
91646574|NCT02625207|183185002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|82.59||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.33|96.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||96.98|70.33|0.0531
91646575|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|137.07||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.4|167.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||167.15|112.40|0.0106
91838420|NCT03502616|183557127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|24.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||24.66|1.39|0.0282
91838421|NCT03502616|183557127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|22.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||22.49|-0.96|0.0719
91777613|NCT00541658|183436483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|0.277|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.277|-0.869|
91777614|NCT00541658|183436484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.265||||0.2955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|0.232|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant used.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.232|-0.763|0.2955
91646576|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|164.06||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.54|200.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||200.06|134.54|0.0001
91646577|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|198.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.77|242.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||242.05|162.77|< 0.0001
91838422|NCT03502616|183557128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.48|42.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||42.11|23.48|<0.0001
91838423|NCT03502616|183557128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.37|50.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||50.70|30.37|<0.0001
91838424|NCT03502616|183557128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.03|55.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||55.41|35.03|<0.0001
91898097|NCT05437510|183692394|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|83.2||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.589|97.593||Adjusted p-value is reported.|Exact method using binomial distribution|||Statistical analysis for UK: The adjusted 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization. Adjustment based on Bonferroni-Holm procedure.||97.593|33.589|0.0036
91646578|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|120.99||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.65|146.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||146.90|99.65|0.1061
91838425|NCT03502616|183557128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.97|55.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||55.49|34.97|<0.0001
91838426|NCT03502616|183557128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.73|52.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||52.88|31.73|<0.0001
91646579|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|272.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|224.08|330.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||330.33|224.08|<0.0001
91646580|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|110.22||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|129.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||129.18|94.05|0.3081
91646581|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|101.71||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.79|119.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||119.20|86.79|0.8583
91646582|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|108.52||||0.3913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.6|127.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||127.17|92.60|0.3913
91646583|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|106.69||||0.4866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.36|124.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||124.60|91.36|0.4866
91646584|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|119.61||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.42|139.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||139.69|102.42|0.0590
91646585|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|99.7||||0.9816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.47|123.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||123.53|80.47|0.9816
91646586|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|105.12||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.84|130.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||130.24|84.84|0.6974
91646587|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|101.03||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.54|125.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||125.18|81.54|0.9363
91646588|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|96.11||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.94|118.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||118.52|77.94|0.7520
91646589|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|100.73||||0.9536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.69|124.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||124.22|81.69|0.9536
91646590|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|97.6||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.28|117.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||117.18|81.28|0.8241
91646591|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|118.5||||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.69|142.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||142.28|98.69|0.1261
91646592|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|99.6||||0.9708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.95|119.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||119.59|82.95|0.9708
91777615|NCT00541658|183436485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|0.412|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.412|-0.674|
91838427|NCT03502616|183557128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|16.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.42|-6.51|0.3967
91838428|NCT03502616|183557128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67||0.4442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|15.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.46|-6.78|0.4442
91646593|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|84.05||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.29|100.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||100.52|70.29|0.1099
91646594|NCT02625207|183185003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|97.21||||0.7913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.29|116.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||116.25|81.29|0.7913
91646595|NCT02625207|183185004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|116.65||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.47|138.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||138.18|98.47|0.1338
91646596|NCT02625207|183185004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|85.84||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.46|101.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||101.68|72.46|0.1370
91646597|NCT02625207|183185004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|63.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.47|75.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.04|53.47|< 0.0001
91646598|NCT02625207|183185004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|73.79||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.53|87.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.09|62.53|0.0036
91646599|NCT02625207|183185004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.89||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.61|87.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.20|62.61|0.0037
91646600|NCT02625207|183185005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|82.42||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.2|96.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||96.77|70.20|0.0507
91646601|NCT02625207|183185006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|118.19||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.26|146.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||146.63|95.26|0.1997
91646602|NCT02625207|183185006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|87.28||||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.34|108.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||108.28|70.34|0.2947
91646603|NCT02625207|183185006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|61.23||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.35|75.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.97|49.35|0.0004
91646604|NCT02625207|183185006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|70.16||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.81|86.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||86.63|56.81|0.0071
91646605|NCT02625207|183185006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|72.37||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.6|89.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||89.36|58.60|0.0135
91646606|NCT02625207|183185007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|68.32||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.81|93.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||93.71|49.81|0.0505
91646607|NCT02625207|183185008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|94.83||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.7|117.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||117.24|76.70|0.6761
91646608|NCT02625207|183185008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|105.43||||0.6771||90.0|85.28|130.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||130.35|85.28|0.6771
91646609|NCT02625207|183185008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|75.74||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.26|93.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||93.64|61.26|0.0331
91838429|NCT03502616|183557128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|17.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.97|-5.22|0.2810
91646610|NCT02625207|183185008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|71.84||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.38|88.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||88.40|58.38|0.0104
91646611|NCT02625207|183185008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|71.82||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.37|88.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||88.39|58.37|0.0104
91838430|NCT03502616|183557128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.3514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.20|-6.12|0.3514
91838431|NCT03502616|183557129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|14.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.21|3.46|0.0013
91838432|NCT03502616|183557129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|23.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||23.36|9.13|<0.0001
91838433|NCT03502616|183557129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.41|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||28.20|12.41|<0.0001
91838434|NCT03502616|183557129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.46|31.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||31.08|14.46|<0.0001
91838435|NCT03502616|183557129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.47|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||34.10|16.47|<0.0001
91838436|NCT03502616|183557129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|20.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||20.43|-1.61|0.0941
91646612|NCT02625207|183185009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|99.62||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.07|119.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||119.45|83.07|0.9713
91646613|NCT02016755|183185052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall (LOCF)||||0.331
91646614|NCT02016755|183185052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity (LOCF)||||0.362
91646615|NCT02016755|183185052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional (LOCF)||||0.159
91646616|NCT02016755|183185052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain (LOCF)||||0.468
91838437|NCT03502616|183557129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.6727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|14.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.21|-9.17|0.6727
91838438|NCT03502616|183557129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|18.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.98|-4.39|0.2213
91646617|NCT02016755|183185052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social (LOCF)||||0.197
91646618|NCT02016755|183185052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom (LOCF)||||0.448
91646619|NCT02016755|183185053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.939
91646620|NCT02016755|183185053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.508
91646621|NCT02016755|183185053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.474
91777616|NCT00541658|183436485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.156|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.695|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.695|-0.382|
91646622|NCT02016755|183185053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.361
91646623|NCT02016755|183185053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.258
91838439|NCT03502616|183557129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|15.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.98|-6.58|0.4137
91646624|NCT02016755|183185053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 18||||0.059
91646625|NCT02016755|183185053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.023
91646626|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.655
91646627|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.310
91646628|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.348
91646629|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.501
91646630|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.536
91646631|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.140
91838440|NCT03502616|183557130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.5518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||3.24|-1.73|0.5518
91838441|NCT03502616|183557130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|7.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||7.47|-0.04|0.0524
91646632|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.018
91646633|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 3 (Posterior tibial)||||0.716
91646634|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 6 (Posterior tibial)||||0.641
91646635|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 9 (Posterior tibial)||||0.514
91646636|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 12 (Posterior tibial)||||0.808
91646637|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 15 (Posterior tibial)||||0.396
91646638|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 18 (Posterior tibial)||||0.162
91646639|NCT02016755|183185054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at LOCF (Posterior tibial)||||0.259
91708385|NCT03299101|183309712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in max MIP across all 4 time points.||||0.256
91777617|NCT00541658|183436486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.836|0.321|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.321|-0.836|
91777618|NCT00541658|183436486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.322|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.256|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.256|-0.900|
91777619|NCT00541658|183436487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.903|-0.405|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.405|-1.903|
91777620|NCT00541658|183436487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.789|-0.299|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.299|-1.789|
91838442|NCT03502616|183557130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|9.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.73|0.77|0.0216
91838443|NCT03502616|183557130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|16.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.17|4.80|0.0003
91646640|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.671
91646641|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.925
91646642|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.514
91646643|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.302
91646644|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.373
91646645|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18||||0.505
91646646|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.135
91646647|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 3 (Left)||||0.175
91646648|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 6 (Left)||||0.393
91646649|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 9 (Left)||||0.928
91646650|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 12 (Left)||||0.429
91646651|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 15 (Left)||||0.907
91646652|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 18 (Left)||||0.300
91646653|NCT02016755|183185055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at LOCF (Left)||||0.214
91708386|NCT03299101|183309712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.091
91777621|NCT00541658|183436488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|-0.355|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.355|-1.762|
91777622|NCT00541658|183436488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.223|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.223|-1.620|
91777623|NCT00541658|183436489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.08||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.16|||Fisher Exact|||||1.16|1.00|0.0524
91777624|NCT00541658|183436489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.07||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.15|||Fisher Exact|||||1.15|0.99|0.1207
91777625|NCT00541658|183436490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.07||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.15|||Fisher Exact|||||1.15|1.00|0.0729
91777626|NCT00541658|183436490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.06||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.14|||Fisher Exact|||||1.14|0.98|0.1639
91777627|NCT00541658|183436491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.08||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.16|||Fisher Exact|||||1.16|1.00|0.0476
91777628|NCT00541658|183436491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.12||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.2|||ANOVA|||||1.20|1.04|0.0014
91777629|NCT00541658|183436492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.08||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.16|||ANOVA|||||1.16|1.00|0.0547
91838444|NCT03502616|183557130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|11.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||11.33|2.05|0.0047
91777630|NCT00541658|183436492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.1||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.18|||ANOVA|||||1.18|1.03|0.0066
91777631|NCT00541658|183436493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.234|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.234|-0.504|
91646654|NCT02016755|183185056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.655
91646655|NCT02016755|183185056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.226
91777632|NCT00541658|183436493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.294|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.294|-0.437|
91777633|NCT00541658|183436494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.321|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|0.082|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.082|-0.724|
91777634|NCT00541658|183436494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|0.112|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.112|-0.692|
91777635|NCT00541658|183436495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.288|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|0.106|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.106|-0.682|
91777636|NCT00541658|183436495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.681|0.101|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.101|-0.681|
91777637|NCT00541658|183436496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.179|-0.11|||ANOVA|||||-0.110|-1.179|
91777638|NCT00541658|183436496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.116|-0.059|||ANOVA|||||-0.059|-1.116|
91777639|NCT00541658|183436497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.014|||ANOVA|||||-0.014|-1.030|
91777640|NCT00541658|183436497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|0.037|||ANOVA|||||0.037|-0.973|
91646656|NCT02016755|183185056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.380
91646657|NCT02016755|183185056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.187
91646658|NCT02016755|183185056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.203
91646659|NCT02016755|183185056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18||||0.074
91646660|NCT02016755|183185056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.038
91838445|NCT03502616|183557130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|8.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||8.88|-6.74|0.7883
91838446|NCT03502616|183557130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|13.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||13.48|-3.78|0.2708
91838447|NCT03502616|183557130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.9226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|9.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.36|-8.48|0.9226
91838448|NCT03502616|183557130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|10.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||10.13|-6.44|0.6630
91838449|NCT03502616|183557131|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.20|-1.47|0.0099
91838450|NCT03502616|183557131|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.08|-1.40|0.0275
91838451|NCT03502616|183557131|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.03|-1.41|0.0420
91838452|NCT03502616|183557131|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.349||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.16|-1.22|0.1309
91838453|NCT03502616|183557131|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.42|-0.78|0.5566
91838454|NCT03502616|183557131|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.4497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.30|-0.68|0.4497
91838455|NCT03502616|183557131|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.43|0.9272
91838456|NCT03502616|183557131|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.23|-0.85|0.2539
91838457|NCT03502616|183557132|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.33|-0.58|0.4379
91646661|NCT02016755|183185057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.246
91646662|NCT02016755|183185057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.474
91646663|NCT02016755|183185057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.395
91646664|NCT02016755|183185057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.220
91646665|NCT02016755|183185057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.454
91898098|NCT05437510|183692394|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|74.62||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.74|92.595||Adjusted p-value is reported.|Exact method using binomial distribution|||Statistical analysis for Germany: The adjusted 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization. Adjustment based on Bonferroni-Holm procedure.||92.595|29.740|0.0051
91898099|NCT05437510|183692395|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|57.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.36|70.76|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||70.760|40.360|<0.0001
91646666|NCT02016755|183185057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18||||0.167
91646667|NCT02016755|183185057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.015
91646668|NCT04440163|183185089|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was greater than (\>) minus (-)10 percent (%), the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.0|||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||MenA||6.0|-0.2|
91646669|NCT04440163|183185089|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|47.5||||||MenC||47.5|34.4|
91777641|NCT00541658|183436498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|0.201|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.201|-0.731|
91777642|NCT00541658|183436498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.336|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.336|-0.588|
91777643|NCT00541658|183436499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.328|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|0.156|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.156|-0.811|
91777644|NCT00541658|183436499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.045|-0.08|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center, anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.080|-1.045|
91777645|NCT00541658|183436500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|0.138|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.138|-0.793|
91777646|NCT00541658|183436500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.537|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.074|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.074|-1.000|
91777647|NCT00541658|183436501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.578|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|0.032|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.032|-1.189|
91777648|NCT00541658|183436501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.799|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.403|-0.194|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.194|-1.403|
91777649|NCT00541658|183436502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|0.018|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.018|-1.128|
91777650|NCT00541658|183436502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|-0.046|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.046|-1.185|
91777651|NCT00541658|183436503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.249|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.363|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.363|-0.860|
91777652|NCT00541658|183436503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.871|0.342|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.342|-0.871|
91777653|NCT00541658|183436504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|0.071|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.071|-1.185|
91898100|NCT05437510|183692395|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|52.48||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.121|72.36|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||72.360|20.121|0.0039
91898101|NCT05437510|183692395|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|58.62||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.115|78.049|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||78.049|25.115|0.0024
91898102|NCT05437510|183692395|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|70.74||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.567|89.396|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||89.396|29.567|0.0037
91898103|NCT05437510|183692396|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|82.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.271|91.357|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||91.357|67.271|<0.0001
91898104|NCT05437510|183692396|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|86.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.283|96.459|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||96.459|60.283|<0.0001
91838458|NCT03502616|183557132|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.39|-0.73|0.5340
91838459|NCT03502616|183557132|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.9148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.22|-1.10|0.9148
91838460|NCT03502616|183557132|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.5409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.76|-1.43|0.5409
91838461|NCT03502616|183557132|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.607||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.65|-1.78|0.3555
91838462|NCT03502616|183557132|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.436||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.38|-0.36|0.2485
91838463|NCT03502616|183557132|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.63|-0.11|0.0866
91838464|NCT03502616|183557132|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.4101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.01|-0.42|0.4101
91838465|NCT03502616|183557132|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.94|0.07|0.0237
91838466|NCT03502616|183557133|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.52|0.10|0.0043
91838467|NCT03502616|183557133|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.56|0.09|0.0072
91838468|NCT03502616|183557133|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.52|-0.05|0.1101
91838469|NCT03502616|183557133|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.58|0.06|0.0147
91838470|NCT03502616|183557133|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.53|-0.11|0.2032
91777654|NCT00541658|183436504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.149|0.105|||ANOVA||LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.105|-1.149|
91777655|NCT00541658|183436505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.546|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.078|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.078|-1.170|
91777656|NCT00541658|183436505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.579|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|0.042|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.042|-1.199|
91777657|NCT00541658|183436506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.861|-0.329|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.329|-1.861|
91777658|NCT00541658|183436506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.948|-0.432|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.432|-1.948|
91777659|NCT00541658|183436507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.655|-0.184|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.184|-1.655|
91777660|NCT00541658|183436507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.787|-0.326|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.326|-1.787|
91777661|NCT00541658|183436508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.771|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.885|8.427|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||8.427|-0.885|
91790181|NCT02660138|183459523|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|7.86||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||7.86|1.68|0.0012
91838471|NCT03502616|183557133|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.32|-0.34|0.9345
91898105|NCT05437510|183692396|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|85.2||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.084|97.183|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||97.183|50.084|0.0004
91646670|NCT04440163|183185089|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|30.4||||||MenW||30.4|18.8|
91777662|NCT00541658|183436508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.826|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.819|7.471|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||7.471|-1.819|
91777663|NCT00541658|183436509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.171|7.431|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||7.431|-2.171|
91777664|NCT00541658|183436509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|9.386|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.386|-0.152|
91777665|NCT00541658|183436510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|9.989|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.989|0.091|
91898106|NCT05437510|183692396|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|74.36||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.006|92.518|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||92.518|29.006|0.0055
91898107|NCT05437510|183692397|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|75.31||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.012|91.747|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||91.747|38.012|0.0013
91898108|NCT05437510|183692397|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|78.1||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.823|97.697|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||97.697|-5.823|0.0620
91898109|NCT05437510|183692397|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|91.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.156|99.791|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||99.791|38.156|0.0060
91898110|NCT05437510|183692397|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|26.01||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.329|89.162|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||89.162|-337.329|0.9851
91898111|NCT05437510|183692398|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|43.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.677|58.057|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||58.057|24.677|<0.0001
91898112|NCT05437510|183692398|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|34.78||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.148|59.648|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||59.648|-4.148|0.0754
91777666|NCT00541658|183436510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|9.574|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.574|-0.293|
91777667|NCT00541658|183436511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|6.372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.329|11.414|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||11.414|1.329|
91777668|NCT00541658|183436511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|9.425|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.425|-0.619|
91777669|NCT00541658|183436512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|4.739|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|10.271|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.271|-0.793|
91777670|NCT00541658|183436512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|3.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.518|9.515|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.515|-1.518|
91777671|NCT00541658|183436513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|4.817|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.693|10.327|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.327|-0.693|
91777672|NCT00541658|183436513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|3.192|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.295|8.68|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||8.680|-2.295|
91898113|NCT05437510|183692398|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|40.67||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.211|62.156|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||62.156|8.211|0.0177
91898114|NCT05437510|183692398|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|66.38||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.952|86.137|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||86.137|25.952|0.0046
91898115|NCT05437510|183692403|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|82.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.826|91.49|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||91.490|67.826|<0.0001
91898116|NCT05437510|183692403|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|86.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.34|96.464|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||96.464|60.340|<0.0001
91898117|NCT05437510|183692403|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|85.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.85|97.311|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||97.311|52.850|0.0002
91777673|NCT00541658|183436514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|9.16|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.160|-0.260|
91838472|NCT03502616|183557133|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.5968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.27|-0.47|0.5968
91838473|NCT03502616|183557133|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.7047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.39|-0.26|0.7047
91838474|NCT03502616|183557133|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.35|-0.27|0.8070
91838475|NCT03502616|183557134|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Mobility: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-0.06|-0.28|0.0030
91838476|NCT03502616|183557134|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Self-Care: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||0.10|-0.11|0.8970
91646671|NCT04440163|183185089|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|30.1||||||MenY||30.1|18.0|
91838477|NCT03502616|183557134|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||0.03|-0.20|0.1437
91838478|NCT03502616|183557134|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-0.09|-0.27|<0.0001
91838479|NCT03502616|183557134|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.8445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||0.11|-0.13|0.8445
91838480|NCT03502616|183557134|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.07|-0.19|0.3473
91838481|NCT03502616|183557134|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.12|-0.12|0.9834
91838482|NCT03502616|183557134|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.15|-0.11|0.7364
91838483|NCT03502616|183557134|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.10|-0.13|0.8075
91838484|NCT03502616|183557134|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.17|-0.09|0.5461
91838485|NCT03502616|183557135|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.331|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|14.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||14.70|5.52|<0.0001
91838486|NCT03502616|183557135|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.337||0.2608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|7.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||7.24|-1.97|0.2608
91838487|NCT03502616|183557136|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.1784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||2.09|-11.15|0.1784
91838488|NCT03502616|183557136|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.3651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.72|-7.34|0.3651
91838489|NCT03502616|183557137|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.884|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|-7.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-7.19|-18.59|<0.0001
91838490|NCT03502616|183557137|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.318||0.4788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|4.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.21|-8.92|0.4788
91838491|NCT03502616|183557138|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|-7.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-7.52|-20.18|<0.0001
91838492|NCT03502616|183557138|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.613||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.74|-11.56|0.2244
91838493|NCT03502616|183557139|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-8.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-8.50|-18.30|<0.0001
91838494|NCT03502616|183557139|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|-1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.88|-13.32|0.0095
91838495|NCT04503096|183557141|OTHER|To monitor safety, paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment differences in global cognition (i.e., MoCA z-scores).||||||0.725|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.725
91838496|NCT04503096|183557145|OTHER|Paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment changes in depression using HAM-D raw scores.||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.605
91646672|NCT04440163|183185090|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.5||||||MenA||0.5|-6.5|
91646673|NCT04440163|183185090|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.3||||||MenC||3.3|-4.6|
91646674|NCT04440163|183185090|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3||||||MenW||4.3|-2.2|
91646675|NCT04440163|183185090|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.8||||||MenY||3.8|-4.6|
91777674|NCT00541658|183436514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.723|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|8.421|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||8.421|-0.975|
91838497|NCT04503096|183557146|OTHER|Paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment changes in depression using GDS raw scores.||||||0.897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.897
91646676|NCT04440163|183185091|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|15.2||||||||15.2|4.2|
91777675|NCT00541658|183436515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.798|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|9.79|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.790|-0.195|
91646677|NCT04440163|183185092|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.9||||||A22||8.9|-0.7|
91646678|NCT04440163|183185092|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.3||||||A56||4.3|-1.0|
91838498|NCT04503096|183557147|OTHER|Paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment changes in cognition using Fluid Cognition Composite Scores.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< .001
91838499|NCT01872910|183557150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|20.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI.|||20.0|-2.1|
91838500|NCT01872910|183557150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-23.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI.|||-23.2|-45.7|
91838501|NCT01872910|183557150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|54.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI.|||54.9|32.7|
91838502|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||0.2|-2.9|
91838503|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||6.0|2.9|
91838504|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-4.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||-4.3|-7.4|
91838505|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||0.2|-5.2|
91838506|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|9.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||9.8|4.4|
91838507|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-6.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||-6.9|-12.2|
91838508|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-0.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||-0.1|-7.9|
91838509|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|13.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||13.0|5.3|
91838510|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-9.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||-9.3|-16.9|
91838511|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||0.5|-13.2|
91838512|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||19.2|6.6|
91838513|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-13.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||-13.5|-25.9|
91838514|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-2.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||-2.0|-30.8|
91838515|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|37.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||37.2|9.0|
91838516|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|-25.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||-25.3|-53.2|
91838517|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||1.6|-1.5|
91838518|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.4|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||2.4|-2.9|
91838519|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||3.1|-4.7|
91838520|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||4.1|-8.3|
91838521|NCT01872910|183557151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|7.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||7.6|-21.4|
91838522|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|14.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||14.5|-4.2|
91838523|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-22.4|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||-22.4|-41.5|
91838524|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|46.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||46.5|27.8|
91838525|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|17.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||17.6|-2.9|
91838526|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-24.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||-24.6|-45.6|
91838527|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|52.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||52.7|32.1|
91646679|NCT04440163|183185092|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|16.6||||||B24||16.6|5.2|
91646680|NCT04440163|183185092|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|11.9||||||B44||11.9|2.9|
91777676|NCT00541658|183436515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|9.924|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.924|0.020|
91777677|NCT00541658|183436516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|10.065|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.065|-0.514|
91777678|NCT00541658|183436516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.638||||||95.0|0.356|10.92|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.920|0.356|
91838528|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|23.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||23.0|-1.0|
91646681|NCT04440163|183185124|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.3||||||MenA||5.3|-1.0|
91838529|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-20.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||-20.3|-45.1|
91838530|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|55.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||55.5|31.3|
91838531|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|26.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||26.2|-1.6|
91838532|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-16.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||-16.0|-44.0|
91838533|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|56.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||56.5|28.6|
91838534|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|12.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||12.9|-9.7|
91838535|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|16.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||16.8|-9.8|
91838536|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|19.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 8 h.|||19.0|-9.9|
91838537|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|21.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||21.1|-9.2|
91838538|NCT01872910|183557152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||24.2|-8.4|
91838539|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is SPID 0 to 4 h.|||1.9|-0.6|
91838540|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 4 h.|||-1.7|-4.1|
91838541|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 4 h.|||4.8|2.3|
91838542|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||3.2|-0.9|
91838543|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||-2.7|-6.8|
91838544|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|8.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||8.0|3.8|
91838545|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||4.8|-1.0|
91838546|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||-3.3|-9.0|
91838547|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||10.9|5.1|
91838548|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||8.1|-1.3|
91838549|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||-3.5|-12.9|
91838550|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|16.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||16.5|7.0|
91838551|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|18.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||18.3|-2.6|
91838552|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-3.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||-3.6|-24.7|
91838553|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|32.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||32.2|11.5|
91838554|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 4 h.|||1.0|-1.6|
91838555|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||2.1|-2.2|
91838556|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||3.3|-2.9|
91838557|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||5.7|-3.9|
91838558|NCT01872910|183557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|15.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||15.0|-6.8|
91777679|NCT00541658|183436517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|6.552|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.162|11.942|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||11.942|1.162|
91777680|NCT00541658|183436517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.531|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|10.897|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.897|0.164|
91777681|NCT00541658|183436518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.175|14.485|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||14.485|1.175|
91777682|NCT00541658|183436518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|8.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.757|15.01|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||15.010|1.757|
91838559|NCT01872910|183557154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.46|||||Hazard ratio (HR) of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||3.46|0.99|
91838560|NCT01872910|183557154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.72|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.72|0.16|
91838561|NCT01872910|183557154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|11.16|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||11.16|2.69|
91838562|NCT01872910|183557154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.59|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||2.59|0.57|
91838563|NCT01872910|183557155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.47|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||1.47|0.41|
91838564|NCT01872910|183557155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.88|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||3.88|1.19|
91838565|NCT01872910|183557155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.67|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.67|0.19|
91838566|NCT01872910|183557156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.88|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.88|0.12|
91777683|NCT00541658|183436519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|7.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.385|14.22|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||14.220|1.385|
91777684|NCT00541658|183436519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|7.301|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|13.69|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||13.690|0.911|
91777685|NCT00541658|183436520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.145|4.655|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.655|-1.145|
91777686|NCT00541658|183436520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.805|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.087|4.698|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.698|-1.087|
91777687|NCT00541658|183436521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.407|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|5.316|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||5.316|-0.502|
91777688|NCT00541658|183436521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.309|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.576|4.194|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.194|-1.576|
91777689|NCT00541658|183436522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.617|4.727|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.727|-1.617|
91838567|NCT01872910|183557156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|8.47|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||8.47|2.04|
91838568|NCT01872910|183557156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.21|0.03|
91838569|NCT02387216|183557182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.382||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|2.35|||Log Rank|||||2.350|0.813|0.2302
91838570|NCT02387216|183557183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.195||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|2.122|||Log Rank|||||2.122|0.673|0.5436
91838571|NCT02387216|183557184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0455
91838572|NCT02387216|183557185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2726|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2726
91838573|NCT02091739|183557189|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square (LS) means estimates of an mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units versus (v) Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.03|-0.15|= 0.004
91838574|NCT02091739|183557189|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square means estimates of an MMRM model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units v Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.04|-0.08|= 0.542
91646682|NCT04440163|183185124|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.9||||||MenC||17.9|3.0|
91708387|NCT03299101|183309712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.066
91777690|NCT00541658|183436522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.612|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|4.779|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.779|-1.556|
91777691|NCT00541658|183436523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.434|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.652|4.521|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.521|-1.652|
91777692|NCT00541658|183436523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.611|4.535|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.535|-1.611|
91777693|NCT00541658|183436524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|2.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.938|6.436|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||6.436|-0.938|
91777694|NCT00541658|183436524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|3.416|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|7.087|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus daily treatment.|||7.087|-0.255|
91838575|NCT02091739|183557190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.94|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square means estimates of an MMRM model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units v Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.94|0.22|= 0.002
91646683|NCT04440163|183185124|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.1||||||MenW||13.1|-0.1|
91838576|NCT02091739|183557190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.71|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square means estimates of an MMRM model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units v Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.71|-0.01|= 0.055
91646684|NCT04440163|183185124|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|18.2||||||MenY||18.2|5.0|
91838577|NCT00576732|183557219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|-3.52||Type I error is preserved by the step down procedure, no multiple comparison adjustment is needed. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline ABC-I value|Mean difference is change in Risperidone high dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|"A step-down testing procedure was employed with the risperidone high dose versus placebo comparison tested first. If this comparison was significant the risperidone low dose versus placebo comparison would be performed.~A clinically relevant difference in the change from baseline on the ABC Irritability subscale was assumed to be 6 with a standard deviation of 8. To achieve 80% power with Type I error rate of 5%, 93 subjects were required."||-3.52|-12.19|<0.001
91838578|NCT00576732|183557219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|1.27||Type I error is preserved by the step down procedure, no multiple comparison adjustment is needed. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline ABC-I value|Mean difference is change in Risperidone low dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|||1.27|-7.36|0.164
91838579|NCT00576732|183557220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||0.004
91838580|NCT00576732|183557220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||0.817
91838581|NCT00576732|183557221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.33||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline CGI-S value.|Mean difference is change in Risperidone high dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|||-0.33|-1.02|<0.001
91838582|NCT00576732|183557221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.29||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline CGI-S value|Mean difference is change in Risperidone low dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|||0.29|-0.39|0.769
91838583|NCT00576732|183557222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||<0.001
91838584|NCT00576732|183557222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||0.985
91838585|NCT00085202|183557262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.8001
91838586|NCT00085202|183557262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5195||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5195
91838587|NCT00085202|183557262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7696||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7696
91838588|NCT00085202|183557263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0206
91838589|NCT00085202|183557265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6231|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change over time||||0.6231
91838590|NCT00085202|183557265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.5720
91838591|NCT02081950|183557273|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|93.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.56|100.16||||||||100.16|87.56|
91838592|NCT02081950|183557274|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|100.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.74|105.42||||||||105.42|95.74|
91838593|NCT02081950|183557275|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|101.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.32|106.24||||||||106.24|96.32|
91838594|NCT02081950|183557276|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|94.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.49|101.73||||||||101.73|88.49|
91646685|NCT04440163|183185125|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.4||||||MenA||1.4|-5.2|
91777695|NCT00541658|183436525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|2.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.318|5.711|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||5.711|-1.318|
91790182|NCT02660138|183459523|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|18.09||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||18.09|3.56|<0.0001
91838595|NCT02081950|183557277|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|97.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.93|104.91||||||||104.91|89.93|
91790183|NCT02660138|183459523|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|18.47||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||18.47|3.66|<0.0001
91646686|NCT04440163|183185125|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.9||||||MenC||2.9|-4.9|
91777696|NCT00541658|183436525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|2.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|5.751|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||5.751|-1.248|
91777697|NCT00541658|183436526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.05|||Fisher Exact|||||7.05|0.14|1.0000
91777698|NCT00541658|183436526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.9|||Fisher Exact|||||8.90|0.25|1.0000
91777699|NCT00541658|183436527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.29|||Fisher Exact|||||7.29|0.15|1.0000
91838596|NCT02081950|183557278|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|108.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.61|123.91||||||||123.91|95.61|
91646687|NCT04440163|183185125|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.6||||||MenW||4.6|-1.6|
91777700|NCT00541658|183436527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.49||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.87|||Fisher Exact|||||8.87|0.25|1.0000
91777701|NCT00541658|183436528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.42||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||||2.14|0.08|0.4505
91777702|NCT00541658|183436528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.82||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.03|||Fisher Exact|||||3.03|0.22|1.0000
91838597|NCT02081950|183557289|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|102.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.31|109.0||||||||109.0|96.31|
91838598|NCT02081950|183557290|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|geometric least square mean ratio|95.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.11|116.11||||||||116.11|79.11|
91838599|NCT02081950|183557292|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|geometric least square mean ratio|99.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.69|103.54||||||||103.54|95.69|
91838600|NCT02081950|183557296|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|geometric least square mean ratio|98.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.31|101.51||||||||101.51|95.31|
91838601|NCT02081950|183557297|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject|geometric least square mean ratio|111.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.73|124.2||||||||124.2|99.73|
91838602|NCT02081950|183557300|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject|geometric least square mean ratio|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.16|104.57||||||||104.57|93.16|
91838603|NCT02081950|183557301|OTHER||geometric least square mean ratio|103.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|113.2||||||||113.2|94.5|
91838604|NCT02081950|183557302|OTHER||geometric least square mean ratio|92.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.58|107.16||||||||107.16|80.58|
91838605|NCT00110890|183557310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.74|||<|0.001||95.0|5.72|13.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||13.36|5.72|<0.001
91838606|NCT00110890|183557311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.74|||<|0.001||95.0|5.38|14.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||14.19|5.38|<0.001
91838607|NCT00110890|183557312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||<|0.001||95.0|2.0|4.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||4.84|2.00|<0.001
91838608|NCT00110890|183557313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.93|||<|0.001||95.0|4.65|10.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||10.34|4.65|<0.001
91838609|NCT00110890|183557314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.002||95.0|1.26|2.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||2.81|1.26|0.002
91838610|NCT01975220|183557323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.275|102.751|||ANOVA||Adjusted geometric mean (GM) ratio(%) was calculated as GM of 'High dose, fasted:1 FDC tablet' divided by GM of 'High dose, fasted:3 single tablets'.The 'standard deviation' is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV (%)).|||102.751|97.275|<0.0001
91838611|NCT01975220|183557323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.857|100.436|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||100.436|93.857|<0.0001
91838612|NCT01975220|183557323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.28|103.18|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.18|98.28|<0.0001
91838613|NCT01975220|183557324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|94.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.29|108.88|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||108.88|82.29|0.0256
91838614|NCT01975220|183557324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.25|103.26|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.26|96.25|<0.0001
91838615|NCT01975220|183557324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.65|112.27|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||112.27|88.65|0.0020
91838616|NCT01975220|183557325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.555|102.719|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||102.719|97.555|<0.0001
91838617|NCT01975220|183557325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.622|100.531|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||100.531|93.622|<0.0001
91838618|NCT01975220|183557325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.36|103.27|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.27|98.36|<0.0001
91838619|NCT01975220|183557326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|109.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.892|119.1|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||119.100|99.892|0.0072
91708388|NCT03299101|183309712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.552|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.552
91708389|NCT03299101|183309713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in mean MIP across all 4 time points.||||0.003
91838620|NCT01975220|183557326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|92.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.5||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.781|98.428|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||98.428|86.781|0.0004
91838621|NCT01975220|183557326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|105.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.7||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.6|114.942|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||114.942|96.600|0.0014
91838622|NCT01975220|183557327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.8||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.337|112.079|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||112.079|83.337|0.0198
91838623|NCT01975220|183557327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|110.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.809|116.926|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||116.926|103.809|0.0007
91838624|NCT01975220|183557327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.8||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.942|109.734|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||109.734|86.942|0.0037
91838625|NCT01975220|183557328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|95.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.4||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.42|110.44|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||110.44|82.42|0.0254
91838626|NCT01975220|183557328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.21|103.17|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.17|96.21|<0.0001
91777703|NCT00541658|183436529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.41||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.11|||Fisher Exact|||||2.11|0.08|0.4505
91777704|NCT00541658|183436529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.2||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.9|||Fisher Exact|||||3.90|0.37|0.7719
91777705|NCT00541658|183436530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.05|||Fisher Exact|||||7.05|0.14|1.0000
91777706|NCT00541658|183436530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.9|||Fisher Exact|||||8.90|0.25|1.0000
91777707|NCT00541658|183436531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.29|||Fisher Exact|||||7.29|0.15|1.0000
91777708|NCT00541658|183436531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.49||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.87|||Fisher Exact|||||8.87|0.25|1.0000
91777709|NCT00541658|183436532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.42||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||||2.14|0.08|0.4505
91777710|NCT00541658|183436532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.82||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.03|||Fisher Exact|||||3.03|0.22|1.0000
91777711|NCT00541658|183436533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.41||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.11|||Fisher Exact|||||2.11|0.08|0.4505
91777712|NCT00541658|183436533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.2||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.9|||Fisher Exact|||||3.90|0.37|0.7719
91777713|NCT03373240|183436534|OTHER|Examining stop signal reaction time changed across the 4-week training period|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.06|-14.17|.003
91777714|NCT03373240|183436535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.184|||ANOVA|||||.184|-.333|.049
91777715|NCT03373240|183436536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.965|0.136|||ANOVA|||||.136|-3.965|.236
91838627|NCT01975220|183557328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.7|113.86|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||113.86|89.70|0.0029
91777716|NCT03373240|183436537|OTHER|Examining whether percentage of risky choices decreased across the 4-wwek training period.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.08|-3.15|.039
91777717|NCT03373240|183436538|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.13|-3.40|.035
91777718|NCT03373240|183436539|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.39|3.12|<.001
91777719|NCT03373240|183436540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|1.755|||ANOVA|||||1.755|.111|.008
91777720|NCT03373240|183436541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.077|TWO_SIDED|97.0|-0.177|0.214|||ANOVA|||||.214|-.177|.077
91777721|NCT03373240|183436542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.902||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.822|2.895|||ANOVA|||||2.895|-4.822|.547
91777722|NCT03373240|183436543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|0.742|||ANOVA|||||.742|-1.805|.436
91777723|NCT02867436|183436544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|205.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.0|633.0|||Regression, Linear|||||633|-223|<0.05
91777724|NCT02867436|183436545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-1.6|||Regression, Linear|||||-1.6|-14.1|<0.05
91777725|NCT02867436|183436546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||||0.01|-0.31|<0.05
91777726|NCT02867436|183436547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91777727|NCT02867436|183436548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||After Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91777728|NCT05178173|183436693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.59
91838628|NCT03245255|183557389|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91777729|NCT05178173|183436693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.18
91777730|NCT05178173|183436693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.78
91777731|NCT05178173|183436693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.08
91777732|NCT02086175|183436767|SUPERIORITY||percent|48.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.0|66.0|||Fisher Exact|||"Patients will be accrued in a single stage design, with a goal accrual of 25 patients.~Assuming a 30% response rate with rituximab alone, if the true but unknown rate of CR or PR is 50% with the addition of Imprime PGG, the probability of observing 11 or more patients with a response is 0.79 with 0.098 one-sided type-I error.~Therefore a study with 25 patients, in which an observed response rate of 11/25 (44%) would be considered worthy of further consideration."||66|31|0.044
91777733|NCT04314284|183436774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
91777734|NCT04314284|183436775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.35
91777735|NCT04314284|183436776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
91777736|NCT04314284|183436780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
91777737|NCT04314284|183436781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.52
91777738|NCT04314284|183436782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
91777739|NCT04314284|183436785|OTHER|2-sided||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91777740|NCT04314284|183436786|OTHER|2-sided||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91777741|NCT04314284|183436788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.66
91777742|NCT04607005|183436821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.89|0.067
91777743|NCT04607005|183436822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.02||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.92|0.043
91777744|NCT04607005|183436823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.5||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.50|-2.37|0.003
91777745|NCT04607005|183436824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.51||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.35|0.002
91777746|NCT04607005|183436825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.55||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-2.52|0.003
91777747|NCT04607005|183436826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.57||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-2.51|0.002
91777748|NCT04607005|183436827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.37||p-Value was based on a ANCOVA Model.|ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-2.90|0.012
91777749|NCT04607005|183436828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.42||p-Value was based on a ANCOVA Model.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-2.93|0.009
91777750|NCT04607005|183436829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.35||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.35|-1.99|0.005
91777751|NCT04607005|183436830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.4||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-2.02|0.004
91777752|NCT04607005|183436831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.68|-2.57||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.57|-18.68|0.010
91838629|NCT01008475|183557392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.64||||||||1.64|0.78|
91646688|NCT04440163|183185125|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0||||||MenY||5.0|-3.0|
91777753|NCT04607005|183436832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.19|-3.6||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.60|-19.19|0.004
91777754|NCT04607005|183436833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.21||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-1.43|0.009
91777755|NCT04607005|183436834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.28||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-1.49|0.004
91777756|NCT04607005|183436835|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.92||p-Value was based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.92|0.26|0.026
91777757|NCT04607005|183436836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.88||p-Value was based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.88|0.25|0.018
91777758|NCT02711891|183436844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||Paired Sample T-test|||||||0.8
91777759|NCT02711891|183436844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Paired Sample T-test|||||||.003
91777760|NCT02711891|183436844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91646689|NCT00589693|183185131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority will be established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in clinical cure rate (doripenem minus imipenem-cilastatin) is greater than 15%|Difference of 2 binomial proportions|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|3.8|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||Null Hypothesis: The clinical cure rate of doripenem assessed at the EOT visit is more than 15% inferior to that of imipenem-cilastatin||3.8|-26.3|
91646690|NCT00589693|183185132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of 2 binomial proportions|-18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|19.5|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||||19.5|-57.2|
91646691|NCT00589693|183185133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of 2 binomial proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|11.7|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||||11.7|-23.0|
91777761|NCT02711891|183436846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
91646692|NCT00589693|183185134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
91646693|NCT00589693|183185135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of 2 binomial proportions|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|18.5|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||||18.5|-5.0|
91646694|NCT01128153|183185136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.47|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||-0.47|-0.86|<0.0001
91646695|NCT01128153|183185137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.667||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.85|-1.62|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||-1.62|-31.85|0.0301
91646696|NCT01128153|183185138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.09|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||-0.09|-1.77|0.0301
91777762|NCT02711891|183436846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.05|||||Chi-squared|||||||.001
91777763|NCT02711891|183436848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.876||||||Comparison of mean BPM during lance procedure for L1 vs L2 Loperamide.|t-test, 1 sided|||The population BPM lance one = population BPM mean lance two. Loperamide 1= Loperamide 2. Placebo 1=Placebo 2.||||.876
91646697|NCT01128153|183185139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|1.15|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||1.15|-16.96|0.0868
91646698|NCT01128153|183185140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.06|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||0.06|-0.94|0.0868
91838630|NCT01008475|183557392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.61||||||||1.61|0.77|
91646699|NCT01128153|183185141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.006|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.852|21.05|||ANCOVA||Estimated Odds Ratio from the logistic regression model (Saxa/Placebo)|||21.05|3.852|<0.0001
91646700|NCT01954082|183185142|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.83||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of mortality and/or severe ROP is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the development of severe ROP and mortality.||1.83|1.08|0.0095
91646701|NCT01954082|183185143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.6599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of BPD is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of BPD.||1.16|0.91|0.6599
91777764|NCT02711891|183436848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.085||||||Comparison of the mean between HR one and HR two during the procedure for lance one will equal the mean HR lance two following loperamide gel application.|ANOVA|df 16.||Mean HR during the procedure for lance one will equal mean HR lance two following loperamide gel applciation||||.085
91777765|NCT01148979|183436866|OTHER|A Paired sample t-test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in MDAR score change after 4 weeks of treatment with Vyvanse versus placebo.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis represents a within-subject comparison of change under treatment with Vyvanse versus change under treatment with placebo, using paired t-tests with each subject as their own control. All tests reported are two-tailed.||||<0.05
91777766|NCT00565084|183436881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.06||||0.743||90.0|-0.23|0.35|||ANOVA|||Primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by an ANOVA model with terms for treatment, period, sequence, and patients within sequence. Efficacy advantage over placebo was assessed via the treatment difference in the least-squares (LS) means (ibuprofen vs. average of the 2 placebo treatments) from the ANOVA model and the 90% confidence interval (CI; one-sided alpha=0.05) of the LS mean difference will be assessed.||0.35|-0.23|0.743
91777767|NCT02266888|183436895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.673||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.248|1.826|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio estimated for Rituximab vs. Placebo|||1.826|0.248|0.514
91777768|NCT02266888|183436899|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91777769|NCT02266888|183436900|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91777770|NCT02266888|183436901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.188
91777771|NCT02266888|183436904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|-0.6|||Paired t-Test|||This is not a comparison between treatment groups, but rather a comparison between timepoints.The Rituximab and Placebo groups were combined for purposes of testing the hypothesis that there would be no change in SD between pre-enrollment and 180 days post-enrollment into the TVI.||-0.60|-2.64|0.015
91777772|NCT02266888|183436906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.502
91646702|NCT01954082|183185144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.3883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of BPD or on mortality due to BDP.||1.17|0.94|0.3883
91777773|NCT02266888|183436907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.448
91777774|NCT02224560|183436931|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-21.57||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.79|-6.67|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-6.67|-34.79|0.0047
91777775|NCT02224560|183436931|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.19||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.24|-7.69|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-7.69|-31.24|0.0016
91777776|NCT02224560|183436932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|8.47||Calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-11, 12-17 and 18-55 years)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.47|1.75|0.0006
91777777|NCT02224560|183436932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|7.26||Calculated using a CMH test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-11, 12-17 and 18-55 years)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.26|1.47|0.0030
91777778|NCT02224560|183436933|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.76||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-4.43|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-4.43|-31.80|0.0091
91777779|NCT02224560|183436933|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.47||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.37|-7.47|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-7.47|-30.37|0.0015
91777780|NCT02224560|183436934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor|Odds of participant recording a lower score (improvement) on a continuous scale|||3.30|1.02|0.0439
91777781|NCT02224560|183436934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor|Odds of participant recording a lower score (improvement) on a continuous scale|||4.66|1.41|0.0020
91777782|NCT00728689|183436936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4591|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. A parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms.||||0.4591
91838631|NCT01008475|183557393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28||||||||1.28|0.54|
91777783|NCT00728689|183436937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. Firstly, a parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms. Secondly, AUC0-τ was analyzed on a log scale, to assess bioequivalence between Form I and Form V.||||0.0048
91777784|NCT00728689|183436938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0997|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. Firstly, a parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms. Secondly, AUC0-∞ was analyzed on a log scale, to assess bioequivalence between Form I and Form V.||||0.0997
91838632|NCT01008475|183557393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25||||||||1.25|0.52|
91777785|NCT00728689|183436939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0422|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. Firstly, a parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms. Secondly, Cmax was analyzed on a log scale, to assess bioequivalence between Form I and Form V.||||0.0422
91777786|NCT00728689|183436940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8581|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. A parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms.||||0.8581
91777787|NCT01523366|183436941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-167.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.0|-137.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|||-137.4|-197.0|<.001
91777788|NCT01523366|183436942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.3|-98.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus Clopidogrel|Analysis at 0.5 hours after the loading dose||-98.0|-172.3|<.001
91777789|NCT01523366|183436942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-168.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.0|-133.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus Clopidogrel|Analysis at 8 hours after the loading dose||-133.7|-204.0|<.001
91838633|NCT01008475|183557394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||||||||1.65|0.75|
91838634|NCT01008475|183557394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||||||||1.65|0.75|
91777790|NCT01523366|183436943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-150.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.9|-124.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus Clopidogrel|Analysis at 2 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-124.1|-176.9|<.001
91777791|NCT01523366|183436943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-140.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.4|-111.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at 8 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-111.9|-168.4|<.001
91838635|NCT01008475|183557396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34||||||||1.34|0.67|
91838636|NCT01008475|183557396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.48||||||||1.48|0.74|
91838637|NCT01301274|183557397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|beta error 20%, alfa error 5%, diminished 2 mEq/L between groups||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91838638|NCT01301274|183557398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||without adjust|Chi-squared|||||||0.081
91838639|NCT01301274|183557399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.396
91838640|NCT01301274|183557400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.129
91838641|NCT03021668|183557438|EQUIVALENCE|Chi2 test was performed to analyze difference in rates of Surgical Site Infections (SSIs) between the two groups||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91838642|NCT03021668|183557439|EQUIVALENCE|Students' T-test was used to evaluate any difference in length of stay between the two groups.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91838643|NCT01755143|183557444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|97.7|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|exact test of binomial proportions|||Null Hypothesis: MRI-related complication-free rate between the MRI scan and one-month post-MRI \<90%.|||97.7|<0.0001
91838644|NCT01755143|183557445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025. Because there were no failures in either group, a p-value could not be calculated.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||||
91838645|NCT01755143|183557446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||4.1|-5.4|<0.0001
91838646|NCT01755143|183557447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-3.2|<0.0001
91838647|NCT01755143|183557448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.9|||exact test of binomial proportions|A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.||Null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects with sustained ventricular arrhythmias and asystole during MRI scans \>= 10%.||1.9||<0.0001
91838648|NCT01755143|183557449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.0004|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.8||||Farrington-Manning test|A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-4.8|0.0004
91838649|NCT02444988|183557450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.99|0.77|<0.05
91838650|NCT02444988|183557451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.97|0.73|<0.05
91838651|NCT02105636|183557459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.92||Log-rank Test stratified by prior treatment with cetuximab (yes, no) as entered into the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS). For OS the boundary for statistical significance requires the p-value to be less than 0.0227.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) and the corresponding Confidence Interval (CI) were estimated in a stratified Cox proportional hazards model for distribution of OS in each randomized arm.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. HR = Nivolumab over investigator's choice therapy (Cetuximab, Methotrexate, or Docetaxel)||0.92|0.53|0.0101
91838652|NCT02105636|183557460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.1|||||Number of responders (CR +PR) over number of participants|||1.10|0.68|
91838653|NCT02105636|183557461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.6|||||Stratum adjusted difference in response rates (Nivolumab - Investigators Choice) based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method of weighting.|||13.6|1.5|
91838654|NCT02105636|183557461|SUPERIORITY||CMH Estimate of Common Odds Ratio|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|5.82|||||Stratified by Prior Cetuximab (yes, no) as recorded in the IVRS. Stratum adjusted odds ratio (Nivolumab - Investigators Choice) using Mantel-Haenszel Method.|||5.82|1.07|
91838655|NCT02105636|183557462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.85|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice therapy.|||0.85|0.54|
91838656|NCT02341287|183557498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|25.74||Paired t-test of control average sleep latency vs. heated glove average sleep latency as measured by actigraph.|t-test, 2 sided|||||25.74|2.29|.023
91838657|NCT02341287|183557499|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of control average sleep latency vs. heated glove average sleep latency as measured by sleep log.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.91|<|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|23.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||23.73|3.29|<0.014
91838658|NCT02254408|183557500|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.33||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.64|0.040
91838659|NCT02254408|183557501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.18|0.22|0.11
91777792|NCT01523366|183436943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-130.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.0|-103.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at end of dosing interval on Day 8||-103.2|-158.0|<.001
91777793|NCT00929695|183437019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91777794|NCT00929695|183437019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
91777795|NCT00929695|183437027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.33||||||||1.33|0.14|
91777796|NCT00929695|183437028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.74|||Regression, Cox|||||0.74|0.12|0.009
91777797|NCT00929695|183437030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.74|||Regression, Cox|||||1.74|0.6|0.95
91838660|NCT02254408|183557501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
91838661|NCT02254408|183557502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.63|0.28|0.98
91838662|NCT02254408|183557502|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91838663|NCT01993017|183557503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||A 2-step gatekeeping test procedure was used. An omnibus F test using ANOVA comparing the 3 groups was first performed. Pairwise comparisons using a 2-sided t test at 5% nominal significance were planned only if the omnibus F test had a P value \<.05.|ANOVA|||We determined that a sample size per group of 500, assuming 5% loss to follow-up, would yield 80% power for a 2-sided t test at the 5% level. These calculations were based on an assumed SD for QALYs of 0.17, expected prevalence of screening-detected depression of 20%, and assumed net improvement in QALYs of 0.155 over 18 months for individuals with depression who received treatment for depression in the Screen, Notify, and Treat group.||||0.98
91838664|NCT00917267|183557507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority of exenatide once weekly to exenatide twice daily concluded if upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for treatment difference is \<0; noninferiority concluded if upper limit is \<0.4%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects. Power: 306 patients per treatment group provides approximately 98% power to detect a true difference between treatments of 0.4% in change in HbA1c from baseline with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||-0.14|-0.49|<.001
91838665|NCT00917267|183557508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c target \<=7% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which country and background OAD served as the stratification factors.||||0.003
91838666|NCT00917267|183557509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c target \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which country and background OAD served as the stratification factors.||||<.001
91838667|NCT00917267|183557510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-10.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline FSG, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-10.83|-22.50|<.001
91838668|NCT00917267|183557511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline BW, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.25|0.39|<.001
91838669|NCT00917267|183557512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline TC, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||3.71|-6.33|0.609
91708390|NCT03299101|183309713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.003
91838670|NCT00917267|183557513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline HDL, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.38|-0.65|0.476
91838671|NCT00917267|183557514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometic Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TG data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using a MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TG, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.06|0.93|0.807
91838672|NCT00423293|183557529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided p-value comparing to a rate of 78% (the historical rate was updated after the study design).|Chi-squared|||The RT+ 5-FU + Mitomycin-C arm on previous Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) study 9811 \[NCT00003596\] had a 77% rate of \>= grade 2 GI and GU adverse events. The null hypothesis for this study design was a 15% reduction for that rate. Fifty-four evaluable patients provides 80% power to detect a 15% reduction, using a one-sided chi-squared test with a type I error rate of 0.05. (With 52 patients, the power is reduced to 78%.)||||0.50
91838673|NCT00423293|183557531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with GI grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 73%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.5
91838674|NCT00423293|183557531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with GU grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 20%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.18
91708391|NCT03299101|183309713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.005
91708392|NCT03299101|183309713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.290
91708393|NCT03299101|183309714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in maximal inspiratory pressure across all 4 time points.||||0.009
91708394|NCT03299101|183309714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MEP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.006
91708395|NCT03299101|183309714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MEP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.015
91708396|NCT03299101|183309714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.802|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MEP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.802
91777798|NCT01352715|183437094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by randomization stratification factors using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified upper confidence bound for non-inferiority was 10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.5||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm A - arm B) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 95% confidence interval.||1.5|-8.4|
91646703|NCT01954082|183185145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.25||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of mortality prior to ROP endpoint is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on survival to ROP endpoint.||2.25|1.03|0.0306
91646704|NCT01954082|183185146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.7464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of ROP||1.14|0.91|0.7464
91646705|NCT01954082|183185147|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.7598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of Type 2 ROP or more severe ROP is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of Type 2 ROP or more severe ROP.||1.14|0.83|0.7598
91646706|NCT01954082|183185148|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.48||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of severe IVH is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence severe IVH.||1.48|0.74|0.8133
91646707|NCT01682512|183185163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence for the change in DAS28 (ESR) was evaluated based on the two-sided 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment difference with respect to the mean change in the DAS28(ESR) score compared to baseline. Null hypothesis of non-equivalence was to be rejected if the 90% CI is fully contained within the interval of \[-0.5, 0.5\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|-0.03||Model analyzed was: DAS28(ESR) change from Baseline at Week 24 = overall mean + treatment + DAS28(ESR) Baseline score + visit + visit by treatment interaction + baseline-by-visit interaction + random error.|Mixed Models Analysis|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) approach was used.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as: BI 695500 - Rituxan®|||-0.03|-0.83|
91646708|NCT01682512|183185164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|102.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|115.76|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-tz)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o- tz) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||115.76|90.50|
91646709|NCT01682512|183185164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|88.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.24|99.46|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-tz)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o- tz) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||99.46|78.24|
91646710|NCT01682512|183185164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|86.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.449|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|97.09|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-tz)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o- tz) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||97.09|76.50|
91838675|NCT00423293|183557531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with hematologic grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 85%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.032
91838676|NCT00423293|183557531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with skin grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 83%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.10
91838677|NCT00423293|183557531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with any grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 98%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.12
91646711|NCT01682512|183185165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|102.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.939|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.26|116.3|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf pred)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o-inf pred) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||116.30|90.26|
91708397|NCT03299101|183309715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in Mean MEP across all 4 time points.||||0.010
91838678|NCT00423293|183557531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with any grade 3+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 87%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.23
91838679|NCT01200030|183557547|OTHER|The effect size of the intervention was adopted from a mate-analysis . The showed an average effect size of 0.59 in improving the motor control of limbs in people with stroke. A sample size for each group was set at 11 . Presuming that there would be a drop-out rate of 10% during the course of study, an extra 1 subject was recruited in each group. the sample size was 36. The statistical significance was set at 5% (alpha \< 0.05) with power equal to 80%|||||<|0.001||||||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons have been conducted. Please refer to subsequent data analyses.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: No significant differences existed between the percentage of change in Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS) score among the three groups.||||<0.001
91838680|NCT01200030|183557547|OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. A p-value smaller than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Post-Hoc pairwise comparison comparing the effects of electrical stimulation with exercises group and placebo stimulation with exercises group. Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference existed on the changes of the Trunk Impairment Scale score between the two groups.||||1.00
91646712|NCT01682512|183185165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|86.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.404|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.38|96.82|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf pred)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o-inf pred) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||96.82|76.38|
91708398|NCT03299101|183309715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.004
91838681|NCT01200030|183557547|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. A p-value smaller than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Post-Hoc pairwise comparison comparing the effects of electrical stimulation with exercises group and control group.~Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference existed on the changes of the Trunk Impairment Scale score between the two groups."||||0.002
91838682|NCT01200030|183557547|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Post-Hoc pairwise comparison comparing the effects of placebo stimulation with exercises group and control group.~Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference existed on the changes of the Trunk Impairment Scale score between the two groups."||||0.003
91708399|NCT03299101|183309715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.042
91838683|NCT01200030|183557548|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: No significant differences existed between the percentage of change in reaching distance between the three groups.||||0.055
91838684|NCT00872430|183557582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91838685|NCT00872430|183557583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||All data were collected and entered before the opening of the codes of blinding of researchers. We used t test for paired samples and test for repeated measures linear regression for variables with more than two measures.With an improvement of 40% in the tea group and of 20% in the placebo group, with a power (1-ß) of 80% and a alpha error 0.05, it was necessary to include 32 points of comparison, which would be achieved with at least 16 patients, since it's a crossover study.||||<0.001
91838686|NCT03469349|183557596|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|29.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.083||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|49.02|||MMRM|||Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||49.02|9.35|0.0041
91838687|NCT03469349|183557597|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.814||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|31.24|||MMRM|||Week 2: Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||31.24|0.49|0.0431
91708400|NCT03299101|183309715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.221
91898118|NCT05437510|183692403|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|74.39||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.077|92.525|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||92.525|29.077|0.0054
91898119|NCT05437510|183692404|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|41.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.073|56.333|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||56.333|23.073|<0.0001
91898120|NCT05437510|183692404|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|32.19||||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.188|57.545|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||57.545|-7.188|0.1003
91898121|NCT05437510|183692404|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|39.83||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.449|60.911|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||60.911|8.449|0.0164
91898122|NCT05437510|183692404|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|64.06||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.386|84.478|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||84.478|23.386|0.0058
91898123|NCT00147823|183692418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Using baseline (6 wk) and two year post operative predicted effects data, and setting desirable power to detect our effects to 80%||The sample size provided at least 80% power at a 5% alpha level to detect a medium to large effect in patients receiving Vitoss alone compared to combination therapy consisting of Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate. Since a random coefficients model was used to analyze the data, the sample size calculation was estimated under this model assuming a 3% attrition rate between all measurement times.||||<0.01
91898124|NCT00147823|183692419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.01
91898125|NCT02892344|183692438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.182|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.217|0.148|<0.001
91898126|NCT02892344|183692439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.218|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|-0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.143|-0.293|<0.001
91898127|NCT02892344|183692440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.132|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.158|0.105|<0.001
91898128|NCT02892344|183692441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.207|0.145|<0.001
91898129|NCT02892344|183692442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose trough FVC||0.139|0.061|<0.001
91898130|NCT02892344|183692442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.288|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose trough FEF25-75%||0.345|0.231|<0.001
91898131|NCT02892344|183692443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|32.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean Morning PEF||32.4|22.1|<0.001
91898132|NCT02892344|183692443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean Evening PEF||31.2|21.0|<0.001
91898133|NCT02892344|183692446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.204|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|-0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.131|-0.277|<0.001
91898134|NCT02892344|183692447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Night-time number of puffs of rescue medication||-0.05|-0.16|<0.001
91898135|NCT02892344|183692447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Daytime number of puffs of rescue medication||-0.08|-0.22|<0.001
91898136|NCT02892344|183692448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.8|4.3|<0.001
91898137|NCT02892344|183692449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.234|0.064|<0.001
91838688|NCT03469349|183557597|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|35.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.48||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.96|60.05|||MMRM|||Week 24: Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||60.05|10.96|0.0047
91838689|NCT03469349|183557598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||MMRM|||Week 2: p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0227
91838690|NCT03469349|183557598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||MMRM|||Week 12: p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0007
91838691|NCT03469349|183557598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||MMRM|||Week 24: p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0023
91838692|NCT03469349|183557599|NON_INFERIORITY|As the sample size was too small, clinically significant difference in actovegin and placebo could not be defined, the non-inferiority margin was defined as priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.9592||||||p-values were obtained using logistic regression adjusting for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||||0.9592
91777799|NCT00871975|183437129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (percent)|80.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We found an 80.6% sensitivity for detection of detrusor overactivity on Tetra-NIRS as compared to urodynamics.|A contingency table was used to compare presence or absence of an event (eg. detrusor overactivity) on the urodynamic tracing with interpretation of events on the Tetra-NIRS tracings.||||
91898138|NCT02892344|183692452|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.59|||Regression, Cox|||||0.59|0.14|<0.001
91646713|NCT01682512|183185165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|83.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.386|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.57|94.47|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf pred)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o-inf pred) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||94.47|74.57|
91777800|NCT00871975|183437129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity (percent)|28.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We found a 28.1% specificity for detection of detrusor overactivity on Tetra-NIRS as compared to urodynamics.|A contingency table was used to compare presence or absence of an event (eg. detrusor overactivity) on the urodynamic tracing with interpretation of events on the Tetra-NIRS tracings.||||
91777801|NCT01436149|183437130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.0|||Mixed- effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||2.0|-1.7|0.883
91777802|NCT01436149|183437131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.0|||Mixed- effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||1.0|-1.8|0.576
91777803|NCT01409707|183437156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel mixed modeling was employed. The null hypothesis was that there'd be no differences between groups at posttreatment on posttraumatic stress disorder measures or alcohol use measures.||||=.068
91777804|NCT01409707|183437157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.39||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel mixed modeling was employed. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences in alcohol use at posttreatment.||||= 0.39
91777805|NCT00632229|183437158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||To evaluate between-group continuous outcomes of the pilot controlled trial, ANCOVAs were performed, where 8-week outcome scores were predicted by treatment condition while covarying for baseline scores.||||<0.05
91777806|NCT00632229|183437159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||To evaluate between-group continuous outcomes of the pilot controlled trial, ANCOVAs were performed, where 8-week outcome scores were predicted by treatment condition while covarying for baseline scores.||||<0.05
91777807|NCT05810740|183437170|OTHER||LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|96.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.57|100.46||||||||100.46|92.57|
91777808|NCT05810740|183437171|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|97.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.47|101.06||||||||101.06|93.47|
91777809|NCT05810740|183437172|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.25|101.33||||||||101.33|87.25|
91777810|NCT00737672|183437214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.530
91777811|NCT00737672|183437217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.475
91777812|NCT00737672|183437220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-value was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology with 24-month follow-up data.|Log Rank|||||||0.008
91777813|NCT00737672|183437221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One-sided test of non-inferior proportions with delta = 0.15.|||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test|One-sided.||||||<0.001
91777814|NCT00737672|183437222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.035
91777815|NCT00737672|183437225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-tailed.||||||1.000
91777816|NCT00737672|183437226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-tailed.||||||<0.001
91777817|NCT00737672|183437227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-tailed.||||||<0.001
91777818|NCT02735863|183437236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5352|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5352
91777819|NCT05452486|183437237|EQUIVALENCE|The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the mean performance on auditory processing assessments differed depending on whether the tests were administered in Spanish or English.|Slope|-3.89|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dichotic digits comparison||||<0.01
91777820|NCT05452486|183437237|EQUIVALENCE|The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the mean performance on auditory processing assessments differed depending on whether the tests were administered in Spanish or English.|Slope|5.18||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dichotic words comparison||||0.69
91777821|NCT05720897|183437291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399||||||The calculations are based on a Mann Whitney calculation.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study has an 80% power to detect changes in patient's self-reported anxiety as measured by their responses to the psychometrically validated STAI-S \& T instrument of 3.6 within each group (with an effect size of 0.55) and differences of a 5.0 between groups (with an effect size of 0.77).||||.399
91646714|NCT01682512|183185166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|95.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|106.608|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.21|106.62|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-336)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-336) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||106.62|86.21|
91708401|NCT03299101|183309716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in max SMIP across all 4 time points.||||0.814
91646715|NCT01682512|183185166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|89.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|106.775|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.23|99.74|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-336)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-336) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||99.74|80.23|
91777822|NCT00400179|183437297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3952||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3952
91777823|NCT00400179|183437298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.57|0.0808
91777824|NCT00400179|183437299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.86|0.9158
91777825|NCT00400179|183437300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.77|0.0320
91777826|NCT00400179|183437301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.80|0.1983
91838693|NCT03469349|183557599|NON_INFERIORITY|As the sample size was too small, clinically significant difference in actovegin and placebo could not be defined, the non-inferiority margin was defined as priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.5823||||||p-values were obtained using logistic regression adjusting for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||||0.5823
91838694|NCT03469349|183557600|NON_INFERIORITY|As the sample size was too small, clinically significant difference in actovegin and placebo could not be defined, the non-inferiority margin was defined as priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.9424||||||p-values were obtained using logistic regression adjusting for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9424
91838695|NCT03469349|183557601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3758|||||||MMRM|||Physical Health Score: Week 12; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.3758
91838696|NCT03469349|183557601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1412|||||||MMRM|||Physical Health Score: Week 24; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.1412
91838697|NCT03469349|183557601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009|||||||MMRM|||Mental Health Score: Week 12; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.1009
91838698|NCT03469349|183557601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||MMRM|||Mental Health Score: Week 24; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0015
91838699|NCT00868699|183557609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
91838700|NCT00868699|183557609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
91838701|NCT00868699|183557610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
91838702|NCT00868699|183557610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
91838703|NCT00868699|183557611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.003|||||||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||0.003
91838704|NCT00868699|183557611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
91646716|NCT01682512|183185166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|93.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.11|102.29|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-336)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-336) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||102.29|85.11|
91838705|NCT02307513|183557635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-92.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.59|-54.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with AUC W0-12 as the response variables; treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the number of oral ulcers at baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = Apremilast - Placebo|The AUC W0-12 for oral ulcer counts was compared between the placebo treatment group and the apremilast 30 BID treatment group using a 2-tailed parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test at the 0.05 significance level.||-54.60|-130.59|<0.0001
91838706|NCT02307513|183557636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-16.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-16.8|-32.8|<0.0001
91838707|NCT02307513|183557637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-7.67|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-7.67|-16.20|<0.0001
91777827|NCT04780061|183437302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An area under the curve approach was used to analyze the primary outcome, whereby participants' scores for each assessment were summed over the 21-day period. For missing values, we imputed the mean of the most recent and first subsequent measurement or carried the last observation forward if there was no subsequent measurement.||||0.53
91777828|NCT04780061|183437304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91777829|NCT04780061|183437305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.81
91777830|NCT02344108|183437311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91777831|NCT02344108|183437312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91838708|NCT02307513|183557638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.0|-1.0|0.0335
91838709|NCT02307513|183557639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.6|-1.4|<0.0001
91838710|NCT02307513|183557640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
91646717|NCT01682512|183185167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|93.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.995|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.32|103.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(Cmax)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of observed Cmax was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||103.50|85.32|
91777832|NCT02344108|183437313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91777833|NCT02344108|183437314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
91777834|NCT02344108|183437315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
91777835|NCT02344108|183437316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.764
91777836|NCT02344108|183437317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91777837|NCT02344108|183437318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.467
91777838|NCT02344108|183437319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.745
91777839|NCT02344108|183437320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
91777840|NCT02344108|183437321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91777841|NCT02344108|183437322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91777842|NCT02344108|183437323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91777843|NCT04050553|183437324|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.67|-3.64|0.7556
91777844|NCT04050553|183437325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-174.77||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-290.34|-59.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-59.21|-290.34|0.0043
91777845|NCT04050553|183437326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-488.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-621.25|-355.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-355.36|-621.25|<0.0001
91777846|NCT04050553|183437327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.39||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.08|1.69|0.0023
91646718|NCT01682512|183185167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|89.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.657|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.51|97.83|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(Cmax)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of observed Cmax was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||97.83|81.51|
91777847|NCT04050553|183437328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 100 mg/dL.||0.00|-0.13|0.0505
91838711|NCT02307513|183557641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value based on the CMH test adjusting for sex and region.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of combined sex and region factors with the CMH weights.|||34.6|15.5|<0.0001
91777848|NCT04050553|183437328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 63 mg/dL.||-0.05|-0.31|0.0104
91838712|NCT02307513|183557642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.692|3.405|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Treatment comparison is based on the stratified log-rank test, with sex and region as the stratification factors.|The HR is based on the stratified Cox model with baseline number of oral ulcers and sex and region as the stratification factors.|||3.405|1.692|<0.0001
91777849|NCT04050553|183437328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 45 mg/dL.||-0.06|-0.32|0.0068
91777850|NCT04050553|183437328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 72 mg/dL.||0.08|-0.30|0.2302
91777851|NCT04050553|183437329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.8298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For systolic blood pressure.||4.27|-5.28|0.8298
91777852|NCT04050553|183437329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.96||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For diastolic blood pressure.||4.67|-0.76|0.1516
91898139|NCT03938454|183692453|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|45.98||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|65.36||P-value is from one-sided Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test with at least 25% percent reduction from Baseline (adjusted for 26 weeks) as outcome variable.|Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test|||||65.36|23.50|0.0676
91777853|NCT04050553|183437330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89||||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.33|-4.10|0.5776
91777854|NCT00498940|183437335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Differences in cardiac index between groups were assessed by an independent 2-sample t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
91777855|NCT03589859|183437380|OTHER|This was a physiology study, not a treatment trial. The test was for a change in VOR gain.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to compare pre- and post-training VOR gains||||<0.001
91777856|NCT00626106|183437396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.11|0.542
91777857|NCT02201953|183437411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary analyses consisted of non-inferiority test of Group 1 (SOF/VEL 12 weeks) versus Group 2 (SOF+RBV 24 weeks) at the 0.05 significance level. Non-inferiority was assessed using the conventional confidence interval approach and a non-inferiority margin of 10% was applied. The two-sided 95% confidence intervals was constructed using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (i.e cirrhosis status and prior treatment experience)|Difference in proportions|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|19.6|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||19.6|9.2|
91777858|NCT02201953|183437411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by cirrhosis status and prior HCV treatment experience.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If the lower bound of 95% CI on the difference was \> -10%, the p-value tested for the superiority of SOF/VEL for 12 weeks over SOF+RBV for 24 weeks. Superiority was demonstrated if the two-sided p-value is less than 0.05.||||<0.001
91777859|NCT01298648|183437436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test using observed cases at Baseline and Week 4.||||||<0.0001
91777860|NCT01298648|183437438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test using observed values at Baseline and Week 8.||||||<0.0001
91777861|NCT01298648|183437439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test using observed values at Baseline and Week 24.||||||<0.0001
91777862|NCT00918255|183437467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.022
91777863|NCT00918255|183437467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.025
91777864|NCT00918255|183437467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.252
91777865|NCT00918255|183437468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.062
91777866|NCT00918255|183437468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analyzed using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline Hurley Stage (I/II vs III).||||||0.019
91777867|NCT00918255|183437468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analyzed using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline Hurley Stage (I/II vs III).||||||0.286
91777868|NCT00918255|183437469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91777869|NCT00918255|183437469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||1.000
91777870|NCT00918255|183437469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.097
91777871|NCT00918255|183437470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.044
91777872|NCT00918255|183437470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.051
91777873|NCT00918255|183437470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.320
91777874|NCT00918255|183437471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91777875|NCT00918255|183437471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||1.000
91777876|NCT00918255|183437471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.673
91777877|NCT00918255|183437472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
91777878|NCT00918255|183437472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.020
91777879|NCT00918255|183437472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.721
91777880|NCT00918255|183437473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Van Elteren test|||||||0.045
91777881|NCT00918255|183437473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Van Elteren test|Analyzed using Van Elteren test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.014
91777882|NCT00918255|183437473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0|||||Van Elteren test|Analyzed using Van Elteren test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.169
91777883|NCT01116986|183437484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.954||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.045|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.045|.871|.312
91646719|NCT01682512|183185167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|95.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.744|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.62|104.25|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(Cmax)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of observed Cmax was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||104.25|86.62|
91646720|NCT01682512|183185169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|104.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|108.044|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.92|118.78|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf, ppk)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-inf, ppk) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||118.78|91.92|
91646721|NCT01682512|183185169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|91.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.253|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.38|102.64|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf, ppk)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-inf, ppk) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||102.64|81.38|
91646722|NCT01682512|183185169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|87.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.896|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.12|99.21|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf, ppk)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-inf, ppk) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||99.21|77.12|
91646723|NCT00417027|183185174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Bonferroni corrected for 6 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91646724|NCT00417027|183185174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Bonferroni corrected for 6 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91646725|NCT00417027|183185174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||Bonferroni corrected for 6 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91646726|NCT00417027|183185175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.54
91646727|NCT00417027|183185176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.32
91646728|NCT00417027|183185177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.69
91646729|NCT00417027|183185178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||Analysis applies to all rows.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Analysis apply to all rows. Only 1 comparison was made between the groups in distribution of number of bolus doses.||||0.72
91646730|NCT00417027|183185179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.41
91646731|NCT00417027|183185180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.85
91646732|NCT03137082|183185181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.03
91838713|NCT02307513|183557643|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value based on the CMH test adjusting for sex and region.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of combined sex and region factors with the CMH weights.|||43.1|18.1|<0.0001
91646733|NCT03137082|183185182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1
91838714|NCT02307513|183557644|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.4|-4.5|0.0003
91646734|NCT03137082|183185184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91646735|NCT03137082|183185185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91646736|NCT03137082|183185186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
91646737|NCT03137082|183185187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.03
91646738|NCT03137082|183185188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1
91646739|NCT03137082|183185189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.3
91646740|NCT03137082|183185190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91646741|NCT03137082|183185191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
91646742|NCT03137082|183185192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91646743|NCT03137082|183185193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
91646744|NCT02787785|183185194|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.2|||Regression, Cox|||||2.20|0.11|0.354
91646745|NCT02787785|183185196|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.37||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.88|||Regression, Cox|||||5.88|0.02|0.479
91646746|NCT01447628|183185220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6039
91646747|NCT01447628|183185221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0747|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0747
91646748|NCT01447628|183185221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7990
91646749|NCT01447628|183185221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2111|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a combination of the p-values from the separate analyses of each data set.||||0.2111
91646750|NCT01447628|183185222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6583|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6583
91646751|NCT01447628|183185222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9166|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9166
91646752|NCT01447628|183185222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6631|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6631
91646753|NCT01447628|183185223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4039
91646754|NCT01447628|183185223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9144|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9144
91646755|NCT01447628|183185223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9959|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9959
91646756|NCT01447628|183185224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1788|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1788
91646757|NCT01447628|183185224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7795|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7795
91646758|NCT01447628|183185224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.414
91898140|NCT03938454|183692459|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|50.2||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.94|67.36||P-value is from one-sided Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test with at least 25% reduction from Baseline (adjusted for 26 weeks) as outcome variable.|Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test|||||67.36|27.94|0.0259
91898141|NCT05888103|183692490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.35|-42.65|||ANCOVA|||||-42.65|-52.35|<0.0001
91898142|NCT05888103|183692491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-62.86|||ANCOVA|||||-62.86|-76.60|<0.0001
91646759|NCT01447628|183185225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8688|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8688
91646760|NCT01447628|183185225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9999
91646761|NCT01447628|183185225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.991
91646762|NCT01447628|183185226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5465|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5465
91646763|NCT01447628|183185226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4298|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4298
91646764|NCT01447628|183185226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5451|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5451
91646765|NCT01447628|183185227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6241|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Note that Endurance CPET was not done in China, hence only European data provided.||||0.6241
91646766|NCT01447628|183185228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4758|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4758
91777884|NCT01116986|183437484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.074|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.074|.894|.664
91777885|NCT01116986|183437484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.989||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.084|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.084|.903|.814
91646767|NCT01447628|183185229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2050
91646768|NCT01447628|183185229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1993
91646769|NCT01447628|183185229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1993
91838715|NCT02307513|183557645|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|28.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|60.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value based on the CMH test adjusting for sex.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of sex with the CMH weights.|||60.4|-3.6|0.1100
91838716|NCT02307513|183557646|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|17.5||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|30.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value was based on the CMH test, adjusting for sex and region.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of combined sex and region factors with the CMH weights.|||30.7|4.2|0.0204
91646770|NCT01447628|183185230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0610
91646771|NCT01447628|183185230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0641|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0641
91646772|NCT01447628|183185231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
91646773|NCT01447628|183185231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
91646774|NCT01447628|183185231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91646775|NCT01447628|183185232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91646776|NCT01447628|183185233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8093|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8093
91646777|NCT01447628|183185233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6300
91646778|NCT01447628|183185233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8533|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8533
91646779|NCT01447628|183185234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0725|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0725
91646780|NCT01447628|183185234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8572|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8572
91646781|NCT01447628|183185234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2348|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2348
91646782|NCT01447628|183185235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1115|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1115
91646783|NCT01447628|183185236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9790
91646784|NCT01447628|183185237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7702|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7702
91646785|NCT01447628|183185238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2219
91646786|NCT01447628|183185239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1777|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1777
91646787|NCT01447628|183185239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7889
91646788|NCT01447628|183185239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4156
91646789|NCT01447628|183185240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7625|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7625
91898143|NCT05888103|183692492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-77.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.86|-69.8|||ANCOVA|||||-69.80|-85.86|<0.0001
91898144|NCT05888103|183692493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-226.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-244.77|-208.45|||ANCOVA|||||-208.45|-244.77|<0.0001
91898145|NCT05888103|183692494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.91|-28.07|||ANCOVA|||||-28.07|-34.91|<0.0001
91898146|NCT05888103|183692495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-71.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.24|-63.69|||ANCOVA|||||-63.69|-79.24|<0.0001
91898147|NCT05888103|183692496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.94||||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|9.42|||ANCOVA|||||9.42|-3.55|0.3743
91898148|NCT05888103|183692497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.68|||ANCOVA|||||3.68|-1.54|0.4228
91898149|NCT05888103|183692498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.57|-36.57|||ANCOVA|||||-36.57|-44.57|<0.0001
91838717|NCT02307513|183557647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.915|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Treatment comparison is based on the stratified log-rank test, with sex and region as the stratification factors.|The HR is based on the stratified Cox model with baseline number of oral ulcers and sex and region as the stratification factors|||0.915|0.408|0.0112
91838718|NCT02307513|183557648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex and region as factors and the baseline ulcers number as a covariate.||||0.0|-0.9|0.0683
91838719|NCT02307513|183557649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline, with treatment arm, sex and region as factors and the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.3|-0.4|0.5944
91838720|NCT02307513|183557650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-5.5||||0.6182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|16.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline, with treatment arm, sex and region as factors and the baseline score as a covariate.||||16.7|-27.6|0.6182
91838721|NCT01107743|183557680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.812|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between male and female in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.812
91838722|NCT01107743|183557681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91646790|NCT01447628|183185240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2262|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2262
91838723|NCT01107743|183557682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypertension. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hypetension and without Hypertension in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91838724|NCT01107743|183557683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypertension severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among ClassⅠHypertension, ClassⅡ Hypertension, and ClassⅢ Hypertension in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.112
91838725|NCT01107743|183557684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Angina Pectoris. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Angina Pectoris and without Angina Pectoris in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.093
91646791|NCT01447628|183185240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4756|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4756
91646792|NCT01447628|183185241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7711|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7711
91646793|NCT01447628|183185241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7806|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7806
91646794|NCT01447628|183185241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9074|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9074
91646795|NCT01447628|183185242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9504
91646796|NCT01447628|183185242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8666|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8666
91646797|NCT01447628|183185242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8104|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8104
91646798|NCT01447628|183185243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4478|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4478
91646799|NCT01447628|183185244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4590
91646800|NCT01447628|183185245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8086
91838726|NCT01107743|183557685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypercholesterolemia. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hypercholesterolemia and without Hypercholesterolemia in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91838727|NCT01107743|183557686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.839|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypercholesterolemia expression type. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among expression type Ⅰ, expression type Ⅱa, expression type Ⅱb, expression type Ⅲ, expression type, expression type Ⅳ, and expression type Ⅴ in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.839
91838728|NCT01107743|183557687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Familial Hypercholesterolemia. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Familial Hypercholesterolemia and without Familial Hypercholesterolemia in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91646801|NCT01447628|183185246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6944|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6944
91646802|NCT01447628|183185247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.585
91646803|NCT01447628|183185248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4619|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4619
91646804|NCT01447628|183185249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7721|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7721
91777886|NCT01116986|183437484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.925||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.013|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.013|.844|.093
91777887|NCT01116986|183437484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.983||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.077|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.077|.898|.716
91777888|NCT01116986|183437484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.031||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.130|.941|.511
91777889|NCT01116986|183437485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.087||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Pre-Quit Nicotine Patch vs. Pre-Quit Nicotine Patch) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.290|.916|.341
91777890|NCT01116986|183437485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.325|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Pre-Quit Nicotine Gum vs. Pre-Quit Nicotine Gum) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.325|.941|.207
91777891|NCT01116986|183437485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.196||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Counseling Before the Quit Attempt vs. Counseling Before the Quit Attempt) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.420|1.008|.041
91777892|NCT01116986|183437485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.056||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.254|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Minimal In-person Counseling During the Quit Attempt vs. Intensive In-person Counseling During the Quit Attempt) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.254|.889|.536
91646805|NCT01447628|183185250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8332|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8332
91646806|NCT01447628|183185251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2651|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2651
91708402|NCT03299101|183309716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.91||0.734|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum SMIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.734
91777893|NCT01116986|183437485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.246|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Minimal Phone Counseling During the Quit Attempt vs. Intensive Phone Counseling During the Quit Attempt) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.246|.883|.587
91777894|NCT01116986|183437485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.278|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Short Term (8 Weeks) Postquit Nicotine Patch + Nicotine Gum vs. Long Term (26 Weeks) Postquit Nicotine Patch + Nicotine Gum) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.278|.909|.389
91777895|NCT02392624|183437499|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Worsening Rate Difference|-39.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|-22.5|||Chi-squared|||For participants who transitioned to open-label omalizumab, data prior to the date of transitioning was used for analysis.||-22.5|-54.5|<0.0001
91777896|NCT02392624|183437500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||For participants who transitioned to open-label omalizumab, data prior to the date of transitioning was used for analysis.||||<0.0001
91838729|NCT01107743|183557688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hepatic Dysfunction and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91777897|NCT02392624|183437501|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Worsening Rate Difference|-32.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-14.9|||Chi-squared|||For participants who transitioned to open-label omalizumab, data prior to the date of transitioning was used for analysis.||-14.9|-47.9|0.0004
91838730|NCT01107743|183557689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.644|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Renal Dysfunction and without Renal Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.644
91777898|NCT02392624|183437502|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test, 1 sided|The p-value from this test was used to determine the importance of continued treatment in this study. P-value is one-sided with alpha = 0.05.||The null hypothesis for this test was that the mean change from Week 24 to Week 48 in UAS7 score was \>/=5 and the alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Week 24 to Week 48 in UAS7 score was \<5.||||<0.0001
91777899|NCT02392624|183437503|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test, 2 sided|The p-value from this test was used to evaluate the importance of retreatment after experiencing clinical worsening.||The null hypothesis for this test was that the mean change from the time of retreatment to 12 weeks after retreatment in UAS7 was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that this change was non-zero.||||<0.0001
91777900|NCT03841604|183437506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.32|-1.75|0.1695
91777901|NCT03841604|183437507|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.12|-2.1|0.0784
91838731|NCT01107743|183557690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.155|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Complications and without Complications in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.155
91777902|NCT03841604|183437508|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.01|-0.45|0.0744
91838732|NCT01107743|183557691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.305|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Concomitant Drugs and without Concomitant Drugs in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.305
91777903|NCT03841604|183437509|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.49|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.49|-0.70|0.7247
91777904|NCT03841604|183437510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.38|-0.43|0.9052
91777905|NCT03841604|183437511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.88|-0.61|0.7115
91777906|NCT03841604|183437512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.12|-0.04|0.1967
91777907|NCT03841604|183437513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.26|-0.13|0.5122
91777908|NCT03841604|183437515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.7376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|2.16|||ANCOVA|||||2.16|-3.03|0.7376
91838733|NCT01107743|183557692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.234|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participants of responders."||||=0.234
91777909|NCT03841604|183437516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|5.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||5.43|-10.33|0.5349
91777910|NCT01337960|183437517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.01
91777911|NCT01337960|183437518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.02
91777912|NCT01337960|183437519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.17
91777913|NCT01337960|183437520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.35
91777914|NCT03763877|183437552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.926||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.42|15.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||15.66|-15.42|0.9883
91777915|NCT03763877|183437552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.609||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|1.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||1.78|-28.06|0.0842
91777916|NCT03763877|183437552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.636||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.51|1.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||1.43|-28.51|0.0763
91777917|NCT03763877|183437553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.265||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.01|12.85|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||12.85|-16.01|0.8283
91838734|NCT01107743|183557693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.439|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the participants of responders."||||=0.439
91777918|NCT03763877|183437553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.221||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|1.1|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||1.10|-27.60|0.0698
91777919|NCT03763877|183437553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.207||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.63|-2.99|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-2.99|-31.63|0.0184
91838735|NCT01107743|183557694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.761|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypertension severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among ClassⅠHypertension, ClassⅡ Hypertension, and ClassⅢ Hypertension in the participants of responders."||||=0.761
91838736|NCT01107743|183557695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=1.000
91838737|NCT01107743|183557696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.310
91777920|NCT03763877|183437554|SUPERIORITY||Location Shift|-4.22||||0.5537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|8.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.65|-15.64|0.5537
91777921|NCT03763877|183437554|SUPERIORITY||Location Shift|-13.64||||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.19|1.88|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.88|-26.19|0.1005
91777922|NCT03763877|183437554|SUPERIORITY||Location Shift|-18.72||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.95|-1.58|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-1.58|-31.95|0.0387
91777923|NCT03763877|183437555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5733||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|32.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||32.51|-18.00|0.5733
91777924|NCT03763877|183437555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.236||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|13.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||13.38|-34.60|0.3861
91777925|NCT03763877|183437555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.916||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.46|4.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||4.19|-46.46|0.1019
91777926|NCT03763877|183437556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3873||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.961|2.478|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||2.478|-2.961|0.8617
91777927|NCT03763877|183437556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3712||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|0.117|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method|||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|0.117|-5.260|0.0609
91777928|NCT03763877|183437556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3633||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.087|0.258|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.258|-5.087|0.0766
91777929|NCT03763877|183437557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.744||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|11.267|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with multiple imputation||||11.267|0.270|0.5592
91777930|NCT03763877|183437557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.287||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.368|14.208|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with multiple imputation||||14.208|0.368|0.3747
91777931|NCT03763877|183437557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.669||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|32.149|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with multiple imputation||||32.149|1.000|0.0501
91838738|NCT01107743|183557697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.251|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Complications in the participants of responders."||||=0.251
91838739|NCT01107743|183557698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.756|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Concomitant Drugs in the participants of responders."||||=0.756
91838740|NCT01107743|183557699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.706|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participants of responders."||||=0.706
91838741|NCT01107743|183557700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the participants of responders."||||=0.192
91838742|NCT01107743|183557701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Angina Pectoris Severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among Class1, Class2, Class3, and Class4 in the participants of responders."||||=0.005
91838743|NCT01107743|183557702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=1.000
91838744|NCT01107743|183557703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.596|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.596
91838745|NCT01107743|183557704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Complications in the participants of responders."||||=0.252
91838746|NCT01107743|183557705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Concomitant Drugs in the participants of responders."||||=1.000
91838747|NCT01107743|183557706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participants of responders."||||=0.518
91838748|NCT01107743|183557707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the participants of responders."||||=0.645
91838749|NCT01107743|183557708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypercholesterolemia expression type. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among expression type Ⅰ, expression type Ⅱa, expression type Ⅱb, expression type Ⅲ, expression type, expression type Ⅳ, and expression type Ⅴ in the participants of responders."||||=0.130
91838750|NCT01107743|183557709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.185
91838751|NCT01107743|183557710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.714
91838752|NCT01107743|183557711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Complications in the participants of responders."||||=0.835
91838753|NCT01107743|183557712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Concomitant Drugs in the participants of responders."||||=0.252
91898150|NCT05888103|183692499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-72.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.56|-65.13|||ANCOVA|||||-65.13|-79.56|<0.0001
91838754|NCT02224482|183557713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9634|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.9634
91838755|NCT02224482|183557714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5214|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.5214
91838756|NCT02224482|183557715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4875|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.4875
91838757|NCT02224482|183557716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7938|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.7938
91838758|NCT02224482|183557717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6765|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.6765
91838759|NCT02224482|183557718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.7061
91838760|NCT02224482|183557719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7593|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.7593
91838761|NCT00744263|183557720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|45.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.2|21.82|62.49|||Clopper-Pearson method|||Vaccine efficacy against first event expressed as percentage. Vaccine efficacy = 1 - (proportion of participants who received 13vPnC with confirmed VT-CAP relative to those who received placebo). p-value and confidence intervals were derived using Clopper-Pearson method. The null hypothesis was vaccine efficacy = 0.||62.49|21.82|0.0006
91838762|NCT00744263|183557721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|45.0||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.2|14.21|65.31|||Clopper-Pearson method|||Vaccine efficacy against first event expressed as percentage. Vaccine efficacy = 1-(proportion of participants who received 13vPnC with confirmed VT-CAP relative to those who received placebo). p-value and confidence intervals were derived using Clopper-Pearson method. The null hypothesis was vaccine efficacy = 0.||65.31|14.21|0.0067
91898151|NCT05888103|183692500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.72|-32.96|||ANCOVA|||||-32.96|-40.72|<0.0001
91898152|NCT05888103|183692501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.28|-37.47|||ANCOVA|||||-37.47|-46.28|<0.0001
91898153|NCT05888103|183692502|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.05||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|5.93|||ANCOVA|||||5.93|-1.84|0.3011
91898154|NCT05888103|183692503|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.13||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|8.35|||ANCOVA|||||8.35|-2.09|0.2403
91898155|NCT05888103|183692504|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.58|-19.95|||ANCOVA|||||-19.95|-40.58|<0.0001
91898156|NCT05888103|183692505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|0.60|<0.0001
91898157|NCT05888103|183692506|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01||||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|13.91|||ANCOVA|||||13.91|-7.88|0.5877
91838763|NCT00744263|183557722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|75.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.43|90.78|||Clopper-Pearson method|||Vaccine efficacy against first event expressed as percentage. Vaccine efficacy = 1-(proportion of participants who received 13vPnC with confirmed VT-CAP relative to those who received placebo). p-value and confidence intervals were derived using Clopper-Pearson method. The null hypothesis was vaccine efficacy = 0.||90.78|41.43|0.0005
91838764|NCT00744263|183557725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test, 2-sided, was used to calculate the p-value for the difference between vaccine groups in percentages of participants.||||0.979
91838765|NCT00744263|183557726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test, 2-sided, was used to calculate the p-value for the difference between vaccine groups in percentages of participants.||||0.455
91838766|NCT04078035|183557740|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00088||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.86
91838767|NCT04078035|183557741|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00067||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.74
91838768|NCT04078035|183557742|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0019||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.52
91838769|NCT04078035|183557743|SUPERIORITY|Results present the condition (stress/control) by time\^2 interactions.|Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 77.2, p \< .001.||||||<.001
91838770|NCT04078035|183557744|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00027|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 66.4, p \< .001.||Results-interaction between time2 and condition||||<.001
91838771|NCT04078035|183557745|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0002|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 77.2, p \< .001.||Results-interaction between time\^2 and condition||||<.001
91838772|NCT04078035|183557746|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0013||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.005
91838773|NCT04078035|183557747|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.92
91838774|NCT04078035|183557748|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.04
91838775|NCT04078035|183557749|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 15.64, p \< .001.||Results-interaction between time\^2 and condition||||0.002
91838776|NCT04078035|183557750|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0053||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results \_condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.008
91838777|NCT04078035|183557751|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0014||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.83
91838778|NCT04078035|183557752|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.03
91838779|NCT04078035|183557753|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00012||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.51
91838780|NCT04078035|183557754|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0026||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.04
91646807|NCT01029769|183185253|OTHER|"a logistic regression model with remission as the dependent variable and switch of treatment (yes/no) and PANSS-total score at visit 3 as independent variables was used. Multiple imputation (based upon 20 imputations, primary analysis), last observation carried forward and completers only analyses were performed."|||||=|0.01||||||Multiple imputation was performed separately for the switch and non-switch arms and the imputation model included the PANSS total score from all visits from phase II baseline (visit 2) onwards, remission at visit 7 and phase I arm allocation|Regression, Logistic|||Irrespective of the initially assigned antipsychotic treatment in period 1 of the trial (2-week-phase), the patients showing little improvement over the two weeks of treatment in period 1 now switched from the initial treatment in period 2 of the trial (6-week-phase) were grouped together as well as the patients non-switched from their initial treatment.||||=0.01
91777932|NCT03763877|183437558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||6.4|-8.3|0.8013
91777933|NCT03763877|183437558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|7.0|-8.2|0.8694
91777934|NCT03763877|183437558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|0.3|-14.9|0.0581
91777935|NCT03763877|183437559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.6681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.9|-3.8|0.6681
91777936|NCT03763877|183437559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.5|-4.4|0.8224
91777937|NCT03763877|183437559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.7|-9.2|0.0924
91777938|NCT03763877|183437560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.34|-0.68|0.5148
91777939|NCT03763877|183437560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.02|-1.05|0.0434
91777940|NCT03763877|183437560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.00|-1.04|0.0494
91777941|NCT03763877|183437561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.2449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.09|-0.35|0.2449
91777942|NCT03763877|183437561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.00|-0.46|0.0502
91777943|NCT03763877|183437561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.06|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||-0.06|-0.51|0.0123
91777944|NCT03763877|183437562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2172||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.180|-0.682|0.2510
91777945|NCT03763877|183437562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2202||0.8246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.486|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.388|-0.486|0.8246
91777946|NCT03763877|183437562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2216||0.9067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|0.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.414|-0.466|0.9067
91777947|NCT03763877|183437563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0468||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.075|-0.111|0.6951
91777948|NCT03763877|183437563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0472||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.016|-0.171|0.1030
91777949|NCT03763877|183437563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0471||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.102|-0.085|0.8583
91777950|NCT03763877|183437564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1777||0.5576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.457|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.248|-0.457|0.5576
91777951|NCT03763877|183437564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1799||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.501|-0.213|0.4261
91777952|NCT03763877|183437564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1822||0.6571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.443|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.443|-0.281|0.6571
91777953|NCT03763877|183437565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2851||0.5732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.405|-0.727|0.5732
91777954|NCT03763877|183437565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2884||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.712|0.434|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.434|-0.712|0.6312
91777955|NCT03763877|183437565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2865||0.4857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.368|-0.769|0.4857
91708403|NCT03299101|183309716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.12||0.341|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum SMIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.341
91898158|NCT05888103|183692507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.96||||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.17|15.26|||ANCOVA|||||15.26|-31.17|0.5019
91898159|NCT04987307|183692513|SUPERIORITY||Difference percentage (%)|2.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.8||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using nonresponder imputation (NRI).|Logistic regression model|||||12.8|-8.6|0.70
91898160|NCT04987307|183692513|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|2.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.6||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||12.6|-8.6|0.72
91898161|NCT04987307|183692513|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|3.1||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.2||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||14.2|-8.0|0.58
91898162|NCT04987307|183692514|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|-1.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|14.2||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||14.2|-16.3|0.89
91898163|NCT04987307|183692514|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|4.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|20.6||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||20.6|-11.1|0.56
91898164|NCT04987307|183692514|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|4.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|20.7||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||20.7|-11.7|0.59
91898165|NCT04987307|183692515|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|4.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|17.2||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||17.2|-8.7|0.52
91898166|NCT04987307|183692515|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|12.2||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||12.2|-11.8|0.97
91898167|NCT04987307|183692515|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|1.5||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|14.0||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression mode|||||14.0|-11.1|0.82
91898168|NCT04987307|183692516|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|2.6||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|16.7||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||16.7|-11.6|0.72
91898169|NCT04987307|183692516|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|8.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|23.1||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||23.1|-6.6|0.28
91898170|NCT04987307|183692516|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|8.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|23.3||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||23.3|-7.1|0.30
91898171|NCT04987307|183692517|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|8.46||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.9||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||16.9|0.0|0.11
91898172|NCT04987307|183692517|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|2.18||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.7||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||7.7|-3.4|0.46
91898173|NCT04987307|183692517|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|0.14||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.3||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||4.3|-4.0|0.94
91898174|NCT04987307|183692518|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||P-value was obtained from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which includes stratification factors (prior experience with ≥ 1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.3|0.39
91898175|NCT04987307|183692518|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||P-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model which includes stratification factors (prior experience with ≥ 1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.3|0.49
91898176|NCT04987307|183692518|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||P-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model which includes stratification factors (prior experience with ≥ 1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.76
91838781|NCT04078035|183557755|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0027||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.49
91838782|NCT04078035|183557756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0044||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.002
91838783|NCT02100722|183557768|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of FFR-guided PCI to CABG was prespecified as an upper boundary of less than 1.65 for the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Regression, Cox|||A sample of 712 patients per group (1424 for the entire trial) would be required in order to achieve 90% power to claim noninferiority||2.2|1.1|0.35
91777956|NCT03763877|183437566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.19|-0.11|0.5737
91777957|NCT03763877|183437566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.7563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.17|-0.12|0.7563
91777958|NCT03763877|183437566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.11|-0.19|0.5695
91777959|NCT03763877|183437567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.659||0.9552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.27|-1.34|0.9552
91777960|NCT03763877|183437567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.58|-2.10|0.2633
91777961|NCT03763877|183437567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673||0.1962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.46|-2.21|0.1962
91777962|NCT03763877|183437568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.353||||0.8245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|19.554|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.554|0.094|0.8245
91777963|NCT03763877|183437568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.791||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|32.752|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.752|0.238|0.4140
91777964|NCT03763877|183437568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.872||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.226|180.452|||Regression, Logistic|||||180.452|1.226|0.0341
91777965|NCT03763877|183437569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.4626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||7.5|-16.1|0.4626
91777966|NCT03763877|183437569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.9|-17.9|0.3160
91838784|NCT02100722|183557771|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.3||||||||4.3|0.7|
91838785|NCT02100722|183557772|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.5|||||Hazard ratio for overall number of participants experiencing MI.|||2.5|0.9|
91838786|NCT02100722|183557773|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4||||||||2.4|0.3|
91838787|NCT02100722|183557774|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||||Hazard ratio for overall number of participants experiencing repeat revascularization.|||2.3|0.9|
91838788|NCT02100722|183557775|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91838789|NCT02100722|183557776|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.04
91838790|NCT02100722|183557777|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91838791|NCT02100722|183557780|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91838792|NCT03500640|183557793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.196
91838793|NCT03500640|183557794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
91838794|NCT03500640|183557795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.677
91838795|NCT03500640|183557796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.349
91838796|NCT03500640|183557797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891
91838797|NCT03500640|183557798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140
91838798|NCT03500640|183557799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.732
91838799|NCT03500640|183557800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.637
91838800|NCT03500640|183557801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
91838801|NCT03500640|183557802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
91838802|NCT03500640|183557803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.778
91838803|NCT03500640|183557804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.982
91838804|NCT03500640|183557805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.081
91838805|NCT03500640|183557806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.712
91838806|NCT03500640|183557807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.371
91838807|NCT03500640|183557808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.801
91838808|NCT03500640|183557809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
91838809|NCT03500640|183557810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
91838810|NCT03500640|183557811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.197
91838811|NCT03500640|183557812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.594
91838812|NCT03500640|183557813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.328
91646808|NCT03111407|183185258|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.2342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Hip Knee Angle value 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper)~iAssist group: 179.9 +/-2.9 (44) (171, 185.3)~Conventional group: 178.9 +/-3.9 (26) (167, 185)"||||0.2342
91777967|NCT03763877|183437569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-2.4|-27.4|0.0204
91777968|NCT03763877|183437570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.0|-10.8|0.4601
91777969|NCT03763877|183437570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.9782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||7.9|-8.1|0.9782
91777970|NCT03763877|183437570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-1.6|-18.3|0.0205
91777971|NCT03763877|183437571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.9529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.05|-1.12|0.9529
91777972|NCT03763877|183437571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.25|-1.90|0.1285
91777973|NCT03763877|183437571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.05|-2.32|0.0417
91777974|NCT03763877|183437572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.23|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.23|-0.69|0.3141
91777975|NCT03763877|183437572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.03|-0.88|0.0656
91777976|NCT03763877|183437572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||-0.16|-1.12|0.0101
91777977|NCT02930824|183437593|SUPERIORITY|We will test the hypothesis that CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers (1 or 2 gain-of-function alleles) in the genotype-supported arm have better gastroesophageal reflux disease and symptom control than CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers in the conventional treatment group because they will have their dose increased based on their genotype.||||||0.78||||||Analysis was done of adult patients enrolled that have a CYP2C19 Rapid or Ultra-rapid metabolizer result.|t-test, 2 sided|||We will test the hypothesis that CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers (1 or 2 gain-of-function alleles) in the genotype-supported arm have better gastroesophageal reflux disease and symptom control than CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers in the conventional treatment group because they will have their dose increased based on their genotype.||||0.78
91777978|NCT02930824|183437594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||Adjusted for baseline score, race, baseline proton pump inhibitor use, baseline histamine receptor antagonist use. A sensitivity analysis of participants only on omeprazole revealed similar findings.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Adjusted these end points for covariates, including the baseline score, race, and baseline medications using logistic regression||||||0.031
91777979|NCT02930824|183437595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.42||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.3||unadjusted|Log Rank|||||6.3|0.9|0.07
91777980|NCT02930824|183437596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||If a participant did not complete a follow-up questionnaire during their third to fifth week of proton pump inhibitor therapy, their questionnaire results were excluded from the analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a participant did not complete a follow-up questionnaire during their third to fifth week of proton pump inhibitor therapy, their questionnaire results were excluded from the analyses.||||0.97
91777981|NCT02930824|183437597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a participant did not complete a follow-up questionnaire during their third to fifth week of proton pump inhibitor therapy, their questionnaire results were excluded from the analyses.||||0.83
91777982|NCT01524796|183437605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
91777983|NCT01524796|183437606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
91777984|NCT01524796|183437607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
91777985|NCT02121158|183437639|EQUIVALENCE|Unadjusted|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.568|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.568|0.534|0.7457
91777986|NCT02435992|183437640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.586||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.938|6.636|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.636|1.938|0.0001
91777987|NCT02435992|183437641|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.755||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.767|4.294|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.294|1.767|0.0001
91777988|NCT03773978|183437675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.453|||Log Rank|||||0.453|0.128|<0.001
91777989|NCT03773978|183437676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.46|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||7.46|0.99|0.052
91777990|NCT03773978|183437676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.28|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||8.28|1.60|0.002
91777991|NCT03773978|183437676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.41|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||9.41|2.00|<0.001
91777992|NCT03773978|183437676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||7.01|1.62|0.001
91777993|NCT03773978|183437676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.07|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||6.07|1.48|0.002
91777994|NCT03773978|183437676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|6.52|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||6.52|1.62|<0.001
91777995|NCT03773978|183437676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|7.41|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||7.41|1.85|<0.001
91777996|NCT03773978|183437676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|6.5|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||6.50|1.65|<0.001
91777997|NCT03773978|183437677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||2.65|0.59|0.568
91777998|NCT03773978|183437677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.09|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||6.09|1.40|0.004
91777999|NCT03773978|183437677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.15|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||9.15|2.10|<0.001
91778000|NCT03773978|183437677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||6.32|1.51|0.002
91778001|NCT03773978|183437677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|6.11|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||6.11|1.47|0.003
91778002|NCT03773978|183437677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.6|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||5.60|1.44|0.003
91778003|NCT03773978|183437677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.97|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||6.97|1.74|<0.001
91778004|NCT03773978|183437677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.66|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||5.66|1.46|0.002
91778005|NCT03773978|183437678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||1.87|0.52|0.972
91778006|NCT03773978|183437678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||4.81|1.27|0.008
91778007|NCT03773978|183437678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.97|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||4.97|1.33|0.005
91778008|NCT03773978|183437678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.94|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||5.94|1.57|<0.001
91778009|NCT03773978|183437678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||4.71|1.25|0.009
91838813|NCT03500640|183557814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.398
91778010|NCT03773978|183437678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|5.47|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||5.47|1.43|0.003
91778011|NCT03773978|183437678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.83|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||5.83|1.47|0.002
91778012|NCT03773978|183437678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||3.74|0.99|0.052
91778013|NCT03773978|183437679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||2.75|0.66|0.409
91778014|NCT03773978|183437679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||4.23|1.07|0.030
91778015|NCT03773978|183437679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.92|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||4.92|1.13|0.022
91778016|NCT03773978|183437679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.08|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||4.08|1.03|0.040
91778017|NCT03773978|183437679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||4.24|1.07|0.032
91778018|NCT03773978|183437679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.42|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||3.42|0.85|0.132
91778019|NCT03773978|183437679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||4.10|1.00|0.050
91778020|NCT03773978|183437679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||4.71|1.15|0.019
91778021|NCT03773978|183437680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||1.92|0.33|0.620
91778022|NCT03773978|183437680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||2.78|0.61|0.492
91778023|NCT03773978|183437680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||2.75|0.50|0.715
91778024|NCT03773978|183437680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||2.99|0.66|0.384
91778025|NCT03773978|183437680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||3.10|0.70|0.311
91778026|NCT03773978|183437680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||3.34|0.75|0.231
91778027|NCT03773978|183437680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||3.95|0.84|0.129
91778028|NCT03773978|183437680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||4.84|1.02|0.043
91778029|NCT03773978|183437681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||2.98|0.40|0.853
91778030|NCT03773978|183437681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||1.71|0.29|0.432
91778031|NCT03773978|183437681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||2.31|0.41|0.960
91778032|NCT03773978|183437681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||4.01|0.73|0.215
91778033|NCT03773978|183437681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.22|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||4.22|0.77|0.173
91778034|NCT03773978|183437681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||3.33|0.64|0.367
91778035|NCT03773978|183437681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||4.67|0.77|0.162
91778036|NCT03773978|183437681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||4.50|0.85|0.113
91778037|NCT03773978|183437682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||1.55|0.42|0.511
91778038|NCT03773978|183437682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||3.20|0.84|0.145
91838814|NCT03500640|183557815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.288
91838815|NCT03500640|183557816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.592
91778039|NCT03773978|183437682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||2.72|0.70|0.349
91778040|NCT03773978|183437682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||3.25|0.82|0.167
91778041|NCT03773978|183437682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||3.07|0.78|0.212
91838816|NCT03500640|183557817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.805
91778042|NCT03773978|183437682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||2.39|0.62|0.577
91778043|NCT03773978|183437682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||2.95|0.78|0.225
91646809|NCT03111407|183185259|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.4427|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Knee Society Score Assessment 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper)~iAssist group: 74.7 +/- 12.5 \[44\] (30.2, 78.0, 89.5), 95% C.I. (70.9, 78.5)~Conventional group: 72.4 +/- 11.6 \[26\] (45.0, 75.2, 90.1), 95% C.I. (67.7, 77.1)"||||0.4427
91778044|NCT03773978|183437682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||3.90|0.98|0.055
91778045|NCT03773978|183437684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.70|-6.95|0.001
91778046|NCT03773978|183437685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.262||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.39|-4.55|||ANCOVA|||||-4.55|-21.39|0.003
91778047|NCT03773978|183437686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.91|||ANCOVA|||||1.91|-2.62|0.574
91778048|NCT03773978|183437687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.15|||ANCOVA|||||1.15|-0.26|0.208
91778049|NCT03773978|183437688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.98|0.019
91778050|NCT00198822|183437725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.99||We set an a priori level of statistical significance of p equal to 0.05.|generalized estimating equations|RR with 95% CIs were estimated by GEE binomial regression, with a log link function and exchangeable correlation appropriate for binary data.|The vitamin A group and the Beta-carotene group were compared to the placebo group.|Sample size was based on an expected placebo group MR of 600/100,000 pregnancies, requiring 18,000 pregnancies to detect a 35% reduction in all-cause mortality, with a 5% type I error, 80% power, 1.21 design effect, 15% early pregnancy loss and 10% loss to follow-up. A mid-study DSMB analysis suggested a lower MR, leading the SS to be increased to 67,740. However, with no mortality difference evident at a DSMB meeting in Dec 2006, the trial was halted leaving 59,721 in the trial cohort.||0.99||0.05
91778051|NCT02667119|183437757|SUPERIORITY||F|4.75||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for baseline scores on the National Stressful Events PTSD Scale||Compared the two groups at 3 months post-baseline||||.041
91778052|NCT02667119|183437758|SUPERIORITY||F|6.89||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for baseline score on the National Stressful Events PTSD Scale||||||.016
91838817|NCT03500640|183557818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||The a priori threshold for significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The p value provided here is for the physical component summary score (PCS) only||||0.421
91838818|NCT03500640|183557819|SUPERIORITY|The p value provided here is for the physical component summary score (PCS) only||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.160
91778053|NCT02667119|183437759|SUPERIORITY||t|-2.19||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
91778054|NCT02667119|183437760|SUPERIORITY||F|2.25||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|||||Controlling for baseline score on the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depressed Mood scale|ANCOVA|||||||.148
91778055|NCT02667119|183437761|SUPERIORITY||F|4.64||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline score on the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depressed Mood scale||||||.043
91778056|NCT02667119|183437762|SUPERIORITY||F|1.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Controlling for baseline score on the Quality of Life Scale|ANCOVA|||||||.250
91778057|NCT02667119|183437763|SUPERIORITY||F|0.45||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline score on the Quality of Life Scale||||||.508
91778058|NCT03818256|183437774|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.8511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.03|0.8511
91778059|NCT03818256|183437778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.474|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.474|0.150|0.8169
91778060|NCT03818256|183437779|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.175||||0.9285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|2.78|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||2.780|-2.860|0.9285
91778061|NCT03818256|183437780|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.007||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.033|-0.018|0.5669
91838819|NCT03500640|183557820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||The a priori threshold for significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.196
91838820|NCT03500640|183557821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.532
91838821|NCT01087996|183557831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91838822|NCT01087996|183557832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
91838823|NCT01087996|183557833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91838824|NCT01087996|183557834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91778062|NCT00911170|183437786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is adjusted for the randomization stratification factors (chemotherapy regimen, geographic region, disease stage).|Odds ratio adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|The primary hypothesis was that the percentage of participants treated with study chemotherapy and bevacizumab who experience grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia (FN) would be lower in participants randomized to the pegfilgrastim arm compared to placebo arm. The study was designed to have at least 90% power at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level to detect a 6% difference in incidence of grade 3/4 FN from 9% to 3%, which is approximately a 66.7% relative reduction.||0.86|0.19|0.014
91838825|NCT01087996|183557835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91838826|NCT01087996|183557836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91838827|NCT01087996|183557837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.87
91838828|NCT01087996|183557838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.84
91838829|NCT01087996|183557839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
91838830|NCT01807650|183557850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0232||||||2-sided, significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||"All participants received both treatments and treatments were intra-individually compared.~Hypotheses tested: H0: δ = 0 and H1: δ ≠ 0 with δ being the difference in time to wound closure between treatments."||||=0.0232
91838831|NCT01807650|183557854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.8|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|9.4||Day 7|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.4|2.7|=0.0005
91838832|NCT01807650|183557854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.9|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|9.4||Day 10|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.4|3.0|=0.0002
91838833|NCT01807650|183557854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.3|=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.3||Day 14|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.3|2.0|=0.0028
91838834|NCT01807650|183557854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|9.3||Day 18|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.3|2.5|=0.0009
91838835|NCT01807650|183557854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.6||Day 21|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||8.6|2.6|=0.0003
91646810|NCT03111407|183185260|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.6154|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Knee Soceity Score Function 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper) iAssist group: 80.5 +/- 13.8 \[44\] (55.0, 80.0, 100.0), 95% C.I. (76.2, 84.7) Conventional group: 78.5 +/- 19.1 \[26\] (40.0, 80.0, 100.0),95% C.I. (70.8, 86.2)||||0.6154
91646811|NCT03111407|183185261|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.4549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||EQ-5D score 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper) iAssist group: 0.8 +/- 0.2 \[29\] (0.0, 1.0, 1.0), 95% C.I. (0.7, 0.9) Conventional group: 0.8 +/- 0.3 \[20\] (0.1, 0.8, 1.0), 95% C.I. (0.7, 0.9)||||0.4549
91838836|NCT01807650|183557854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.1|=|0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.4||Day 28|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||6.4|0.7|=0.0145
91838837|NCT03573908|183557874|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.715|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.998|-0.433|||MMRM||Least squares (LS) mean difference (linaclotide - placebo)|The overall family-wise Type I error rate for the primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.433|-0.998|< 0.0001
91838838|NCT03573908|183557875|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman Estimated Median Threshold|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.35|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value comparing change from baseline distributions by treatment using the Wilcoxon rank sum test 2-sided.|95% confidence interval (CI) for Hodges-Lehmann estimated median threshold was generated by Moses confidence limits method.|The overall family-wise Type I error rate for the primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.35|-0.88|< 0.0001
91838839|NCT03573908|183557876|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|24.4|||||95% confidence intervals for difference in responder rate are obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.4|9.9|
91838840|NCT03573908|183557876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.12||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The overall family-wise Type I error rate for the primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||3.12|1.55|< 0.0001
91851598|NCT04246762|183586820|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|97.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.36|105.09|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of baseline-adjusted PK parameters of caffeine with a with fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||105.09|91.36|
91646812|NCT03496207|183185266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-151.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.53||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.59|-52.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare change from baseline values with randomization stratification factor (WHO functional class) and baseline PVR as covariate.||Analysis based on calculated LS means.||-52.63|-249.59|0.0030
91646813|NCT03496207|183185266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-269.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-365.81|-173.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare change from baseline values with randomization stratification factor (WHO functional class) and baseline PVR as covariate.||Analysis based on calculated LS means.||-173.03|-365.81|<.0001
91646814|NCT03496207|183185267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.95||0.7851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.85|86.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare change from baseline values with randomization stratification factor (WHO functional class) and baseline PVR as covariate.||Analysis based on calculated LS means.||86.06|-113.85|0.7851
91838841|NCT03573908|183557877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.867|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.219|-0.515||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.515|-1.219|< 0.0001
91646815|NCT03496207|183185268|SUPERIORITY||Multiple Imputation Mean Difference|-223.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.83|-110.49||Comparison of baseline and final value|ANCOVA||Standard multiple imputations are done with imputed values that are within the range of the minimum and maximum observed values using linear regression including baseline measurements.|||-110.49|-335.83|<.0001
91646816|NCT02756078|183185289|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Posterior Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.796|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|1.3|8.73|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 98% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as Test (senofilcon A) minus Control (samfilcon A)|||8.73|1.30|
91646817|NCT02756078|183185290|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Posterior Mean Difference|13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.701|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.34|17.05|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as Test (senofilcon A) minus Control (samfilcon A)|||17.05|10.34|
91646818|NCT02756078|183185291|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.25|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|||Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A.|0.25|-1.00|
91646819|NCT02756078|183185292|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.16|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A|||0.16|-0.27|
91646820|NCT02756078|183185293|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.57|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A|||0.57|-0.47|
91708404|NCT03299101|183309716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.61||0.448|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum SMIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.448
91708405|NCT03299101|183309717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in mean SMIP across all 4 time points.||||0.419
91708406|NCT03299101|183309717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.03||0.439|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean SMIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.439
91778063|NCT00911170|183437787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.36|||Log Rank|P-values based on the log-rank test statistic from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis stratified by the 3 randomization factors.|Based on Cox proportional Hazard model stratified by chemotherapy regimen, region and disease status. A HR\< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.36|0.81|0.704
91778064|NCT00911170|183437788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Log Rank|P-values are based on the log-rank test statistic from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis stratified by the 3 randomization factors.|Based on Cox proportional Hazard model stratified by chemotherapy regimen, region and disease status. A HR\< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.26|0.88|0.552
91778065|NCT00911170|183437789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.29|||Log Rank|P-values are based on the log-rank test statistic from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis stratified by the 3 randomization factors.|Based on Cox proportional Hazard model stratified by chemotherapy regimen, region and disease status. A HR\< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.29|0.88|0.502
91778066|NCT00911170|183437790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \> 1.0 indicates a higher event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.39|0.81|0.683
91708407|NCT03299101|183309717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|47.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.19||0.069|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean SMIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.069
91708408|NCT03299101|183309717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.96||0.328|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean SMIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.328
91898180|NCT03226392|183692603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.018|||ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.080|0.214
91898181|NCT03226392|183692604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|0.035|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.19|0.035
91898182|NCT03226392|183692605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.093||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.20|0.893
91898183|NCT03226392|183692606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.07|0.448
91898184|NCT00402363|183692615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.46|||Regression, Cox|||||1.46|0.90|0.263
91898185|NCT00402363|183692616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.92|||Log Rank|||||2.92|0.92|0.089
91898186|NCT00402363|183692616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||||1.52|0.98|0.081
91898187|NCT00402363|183692617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.49|||Regression, Cox|||||1.49|0.91|0.213
91898188|NCT00402363|183692617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.69|||Log Rank|||||2.69|0.83|0.171
91898189|NCT00402363|183692618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.53|||Regression, Cox|||||1.53|0.98|0.082
91898190|NCT00402363|183692619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.89|0.331
91898191|NCT00402363|183692619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.11|||Log Rank|||||2.11|0.79|0.297
91898192|NCT00402363|183692620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.94|0.168
91898193|NCT00402363|183692621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.90|0.270
91898194|NCT00402363|183692621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.95|||Log Rank|||||1.95|0.73|0.486
91898195|NCT00402363|183692622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.94|0.167
91898196|NCT00402363|183692623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.81|0.565
91898197|NCT00402363|183692623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.15|||Log Rank|||||3.15|0.89|0.103
91898198|NCT00402363|183692624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.56|||Regression, Cox|||||1.56|0.92|0.185
91898199|NCT00402363|183692625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.83|0.461
91898200|NCT00402363|183692625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.86|||Log Rank|||||2.86|0.79|0.206
91898201|NCT00402363|183692626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.57|||Regression, Cox|||||1.57|0.92|0.188
91778067|NCT00911170|183437791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.312||95.0|0.29|1.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.49|0.29|0.312
91838842|NCT03573908|183557877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.719|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.062|-0.376||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 10. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.376|-1.062|< 0.0001
91778068|NCT00911170|183437792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|0.1|0.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||0.32|0.10|<.001
91778069|NCT00911170|183437793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||0.56|0.13|<.001
91778070|NCT02677493|183437799|EQUIVALENCE|"All statistical significance testing was performed at a two-sided significance level (α) of 5%.~Exceptionally, non-inferiority was tested at a one-sided CI of 97.5%."||||||0.09135|||||||ANCOVA|||To evaluate if the seroconversion (SCR) and seroprotection (SPR) rates on Day 28 after vaccination of IL-YANG Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Inj. meet the following criteria in all age groups of healthy male and female adults at the age of 19 or older.||||0.09135
91778071|NCT03591406|183437837|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -15%|Difference in proportions|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|4.71|||||2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was computed using the Wilson score method with continuity correction described by Newcombe.|||4.71|-2.15|
91778072|NCT01389596|183437850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.2577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Linear Model With Log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and geographic regions, treatment groups and weight as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.29|0.2577
91778073|NCT01389596|183437850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Linear Model With Log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and geographic regions, treatment groups and weight as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.41|0.0185
91778074|NCT01389596|183437851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.036||||0.8024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for treatment, weight group, and geographical region.||2.030|0.528|0.8024
91778075|NCT01389596|183437851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.636||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|3.147|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for treatment, weight group, and geographical region.||3.147|0.851|0.0092
91778076|NCT00904033|183437919|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|Main Effects Results only for No Exercise vs Exercise||||||0.86
91778077|NCT00904033|183437920|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.19
91778078|NCT00904033|183437921|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
91898202|NCT00402363|183692627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.07||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.08|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.08|-0.09|0.290
91778079|NCT00904033|183437922|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91778080|NCT00904033|183437923|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91778081|NCT00904033|183437924|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91778082|NCT00904033|183437925|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91778083|NCT00904033|183437926|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91778084|NCT01357850|183437927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0119||||0.7873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0768|0.1005|||ANOVA|||||0.1005|-0.0768|0.7873
91778085|NCT01357850|183437927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0678||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1356|||ANOVA|||||0.1356|0.0000|0.0499
91778086|NCT01357850|183437927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0467||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0204|0.1137|||ANOVA|||||0.1137|-0.0204|0.1666
91778087|NCT01357850|183437928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|134.89||||0.9343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3172.05|3441.83|||ANOVA|||||3441.83|-3172.05|0.9343
91778088|NCT01357850|183437928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1278.77||||0.3375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1398.13|3955.68|||ANOVA|||||3955.68|-1398.13|0.3375
91778089|NCT01357850|183437928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|772.7||||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1887.77|3433.17|||ANOVA|||||3433.17|-1887.77|0.5582
91778090|NCT01357850|183437929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.06||||0.2256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.30|-5.43|0.2256
91778091|NCT01357850|183437929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|2.32|||ANOVA|||||2.32|-4.22|0.5647
91778092|NCT01357850|183437929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.79|||ANOVA|||||2.79|-2.44|0.8942
91778093|NCT03077412|183437962|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|50.0|||||The 90% exact confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||50.0|-9.9|
91778094|NCT03077412|183437962|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.5|34.3|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||34.3|-26.5|
91778095|NCT03077412|183437963|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|30.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|57.3|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||57.3|-1.3|
91778096|NCT03077412|183437963|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.5|38.1|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||38.1|-22.5|
91838843|NCT03573908|183557877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.665||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.007|-0.322||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.322|-1.007|0.0002
91838844|NCT03573908|183557877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.831|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.151|-0.511||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 6. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.511|-1.151|< 0.0001
91838845|NCT03573908|183557877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.683|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|-0.383||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.383|-0.982|< 0.0001
91838846|NCT03573908|183557877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.888|-0.368||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 2. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.368|-0.888|< 0.0001
91838847|NCT03573908|183557877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.435|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|-0.228||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 1. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.228|-0.641|< 0.0001
91708409|NCT03299101|183309718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in serum prealbumin across all 4 time points.||||0.196
91838848|NCT03573908|183557877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.683|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|-0.398||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 3. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.398|-0.969|< 0.0001
91838849|NCT03573908|183557877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.768|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.076|-0.46||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 5. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.460|-1.076|< 0.0001
91898203|NCT00402363|183692627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.063||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.02|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.02|-0.08|0.479
91708410|NCT03299101|183309718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.562|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in serum prealbumin between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.562
91898204|NCT00402363|183692627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.039||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.49|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||1.49|-0.06|0.218
91898205|NCT00402363|183692628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.321||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.21|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.21|-0.18|0.218
91898206|NCT00402363|183692628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.216||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|3.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.14|-0.14|0.188
91898207|NCT00402363|183692628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.181||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.1|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.10|-0.10|0.097
91898208|NCT00402363|183692629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.242||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.17|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.17|-0.19|0.239
91898209|NCT00402363|183692629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.249||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|4.31|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.31|-0.09|0.152
91898210|NCT00402363|183692629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.2||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.11|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.11|-0.08|0.094
91898211|NCT00568321|183692656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.92|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Least square (LS) mean difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.92|-0.50|0.687
91646821|NCT02756078|183185294|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A.|||0.26|-0.36|
91778097|NCT03077412|183437964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|2.49|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||2.49|0.64|
91778098|NCT03077412|183437964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.75|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||1.75|0.47|
91778099|NCT03077412|183437965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|4.01|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||4.01|0.87|
91778100|NCT03077412|183437965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.92|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||2.92|0.65|
91778101|NCT03077412|183437966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|-18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.6|21.3|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||21.3|-55.6|
91778102|NCT03077412|183437966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.0|24.1|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||24.1|-51.0|
91778103|NCT03762993|183438000|OTHER|Changes in phonation threshold pressure were analyzed using a linear mixed effect model. Fixed factors included in the statistical model included time, group, and restoration strategy (controlled phonation or vocal rest). In addition, appropriate interactions were included and participant was added as a random factor in order to control for individual variation.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for the effect of time. A priori significance level set at .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91838850|NCT03573908|183557877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.758|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.086|-0.431||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 7. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.431|-1.086|< 0.0001
91778104|NCT03762993|183438001|OTHER|Changes in lung volumes were analyzed using a linear mixed effect model. Fixed factors included in the statistical model included time, group, and restoration strategy (controlled phonation or vocal rest). In addition, appropriate interactions were included and participant was added as a random factor in order to control for individual variation.|||||<|0.01||||||P-value represents effect of group. A priori threshold for significance set at .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91778105|NCT03038100|183438004|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.79|0.2785
91778106|NCT03038100|183438005|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.65|0.0376
91898212|NCT00568321|183692656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.19|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||LS mean difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.19|-1.25|0.111
91898213|NCT00568321|183692657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.58|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.58|-0.79|0.399
91898214|NCT00568321|183692657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.32|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.32|-1.06|0.189
91898215|NCT00568321|183692657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-0.33|0.802
91898216|NCT00568321|183692657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.78|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.78|-0.61|0.582
91898217|NCT00568321|183692657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-0.36|0.789
91898218|NCT00568321|183692657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.29|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-0.94|0.290
91898219|NCT00568321|183692657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.81|-0.65|0.568
91898220|NCT00568321|183692657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.2|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.20|-1.27|0.116
91898221|NCT00568321|183692657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.4|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.40|-1.11|0.218
91898222|NCT00568321|183692657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-1.06|0.261
91898223|NCT00568321|183692657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-1.11|0.252
91898224|NCT00568321|183692657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|0.36|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.36|-1.26|0.182
91898225|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.84|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.84|-0.46|0.683
91898226|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.46|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.46|-0.85|0.310
91898227|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.78|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.78|-0.46|0.668
91838851|NCT03573908|183557877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.043|-0.363||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 9. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.363|-1.043|< 0.0001
91778107|NCT03038100|183438006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09|||Log Rank|||Stratified by: stage and/or surgical status (Stage III vs. Stage IV), ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1 or 2), tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs. IC1/2/3), and treatment strategy (adjuvant vs. neoadjuvant).||1.09|0.78|0.3432
91778108|NCT03038100|183438007|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||Log Rank|||Stratified by: stage and/or surgical status (Stage III vs. Stage IV), ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1 or 2) and treatment strategy (adjuvant vs. neoadjuvant).||1.06|0.66|0.1316
91778109|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.62|0.58|0.9096
91778110|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||2.01|0.73|0.4662
91778111|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.40|0.51|0.5237
91778112|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||2.07|0.76|0.3826
91778113|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.76|0.56|0.9893
91778114|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.61|0.49|0.6892
91778115|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.17|0.30|0.1324
91778116|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||1.70|0.62|0.9176
91778117|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.68|0.50|0.7861
91838852|NCT03573908|183557877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.844|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|-0.498||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 11. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.498|-1.189|< 0.0001
91778118|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.4539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.65|0.65|0.4539
91778119|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.86|0.27|0.4849
91778120|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||3.34|0.19|0.7470
91778121|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|33.33||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.86|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||100.00|-44.86|0.0896
91778122|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
91778123|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.50|0.56|0.7347
91778124|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||1.00|0.32|0.0479
91778125|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.05|0.36|0.0712
91778126|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.58|0.56|0.8168
91778127|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.52|0.50|0.6417
91778128|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.72|0.53|0.8821
91778129|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.30|0.32|0.2158
91838853|NCT04006925|183557878|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-23.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-2.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||-2.0|-41.0|0.03
91838854|NCT04006925|183557878|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||0.0|-21.5|0.11
91838855|NCT04006925|183557878|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-14.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|11.3||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||11.3|-32.0|0.27
91898228|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.26|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.26|-0.99|0.165
91778130|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||1.37|0.51|0.4762
91778131|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.96|0.61|0.7585
91778132|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.93|0.52|0.9985
91778133|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||5.06|0.85|0.1067
91778134|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||5.61|0.36|0.6171
91778135|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|23.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||23.57|0.08|0.8084
91778136|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-50.0||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||94.30|-100.00|0.3173
91778137|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Presurgical/Surgery||1.77|0.69|0.6802
91778138|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 4 Day 1||1.29|0.48|0.3470
91838856|NCT04006925|183557879|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||0.0|-3.0|0.02
91838857|NCT04006925|183557879|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||1.0|-1.0|0.83
91838858|NCT04006925|183557879|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||0.0|-3.5|0.09
91838859|NCT04006925|183557880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||||0.08
91838860|NCT04006925|183557881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||||0.18
91898229|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.64|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-0.55|0.546
91778139|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.41|0.53|0.5564
91778140|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.99|0.72|0.5000
91778141|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.78|0.57|0.9778
91778142|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||2.12|0.65|0.6005
91778143|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||2.00|0.50|0.9900
91778144|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||2.15|0.81|0.2634
91778145|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.74|0.56|0.9640
91778146|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.46|0.40|0.4117
91778147|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.62|0.63|0.3505
91838861|NCT04006925|183557882|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||2.0|-7.0|0.26
91778148|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|9.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||9.45|0.55|0.2439
91778149|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|33.33||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.86|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||100.00|-44.86|0.1573
91778150|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
91778151|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role Functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.16|0.45|0.1820
91778152|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||0.80|0.28|0.0046
91778153|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||0.97|0.36|0.0361
91778154|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.06|0.39|0.0848
91778155|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.13|0.37|0.1224
91778156|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.33|0.41|0.3127
91778157|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.65|0.42|0.6065
91708411|NCT03299101|183309718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.087|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in serum prealbumin between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.087
91708412|NCT03299101|183309718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in serum prealbumin between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.226
91708413|NCT03299101|183309719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in gait speed across all 4 time points.||||0.001
91708414|NCT03299101|183309719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in gait speed between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.001
91708415|NCT03299101|183309719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in gait speed between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.001
91708416|NCT03299101|183309719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.874|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in gait speed between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.874
91708417|NCT03299101|183309720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in SPPB across all 4 time points.||||0.854
91778158|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.20|0.45|0.2173
91778159|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.15|0.35|0.1316
91778160|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.76|0.46|0.7678
91778161|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.14|0.34|0.7331
91778162|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||10.92|0.73|0.1235
91778163|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.09|84.09||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||84.09|-84.09|
91708418|NCT03299101|183309720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.298|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SPPB between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.298
91898230|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.28|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.28|-0.92|0.190
91708419|NCT03299101|183309720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.684|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SPPB between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.684
91708420|NCT03299101|183309720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.485|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SPPB between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.485
91708421|NCT03299101|183309721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in RAI across all 4 time points.||||0.067
91708422|NCT03299101|183309721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.089|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in RAI between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.089
91708423|NCT03299101|183309721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in RAI between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.006
91708424|NCT03299101|183309721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in RAI between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.221
91708425|NCT03299101|183309722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in SGA across all 4 time points.||||0.860
91778164|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
91778165|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.78|0.65|0.7869
91778166|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.2502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||1.25|0.43|0.2502
91778167|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.41|0.50|0.5066
91778168|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.59|0.56|0.8124
91778169|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||2.17|0.70|0.4656
91778170|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||2.12|0.62|0.6725
91778171|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.64|0.41|0.5780
91778172|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||1.76|0.66|0.7611
91778173|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.94|0.62|0.7588
91778174|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.19|0.30|0.1428
91778175|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.39|0.41|0.9802
91778176|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||8.70|0.63|0.1967
91778177|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Respnders|8.33||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.28|85.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||85.94|-69.28|0.4795
91778178|NCT03038100|183438013|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
91778179|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.25|0.70|0.6651
91778180|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.34|0.75|0.9927
91778181|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.39|0.77|0.8209
91646822|NCT02756078|183185295|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.67 was used.|Posterior odds ratio|1.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.203|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.79|||Bayesian multinomial model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior odds ratio was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Odds ratio was calculated as senofilcon A over samfilcon A.|||1.79|0.99|
91646823|NCT00810615|183185297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|A repeated measures model was designed so as to incorporate the adjust for the repeated (dependent) measures within individuals over time.||ANCOVA, baseline measurement was considered as a covariate and group (sham or 2.4 ATA), treatment (15 treatments, 30 treatments, and 6 weeks) as well as the interaction between group and treatment were considered as the independent variables.||||0.05
91646824|NCT00810615|183185309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5455||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with one significant event (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
91646825|NCT00810615|183185310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with two significant events (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
91646826|NCT00810615|183185311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1111||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with three significant events (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
91646827|NCT00810615|183185312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with four or more significant events (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
91646828|NCT02618772|183185318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
91646829|NCT02618772|183185319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
91646830|NCT02618772|183185320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||||||This is in reference to the baseline measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.151
91778182|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.45|0.79|0.6507
91646831|NCT02618772|183185320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This is in reference to the intervention measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91646832|NCT02618772|183185320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||||||This is in reference to the lidocaine measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.198
91646833|NCT02618772|183185320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||This is in reference to the difference between the suturing and baseline measures.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91646834|NCT02618772|183185321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||||||This is in reference to the baseline measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.185
91646835|NCT02618772|183185321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||This is in reference to the intervention measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91646836|NCT02618772|183185321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||||||This is in reference to the lidocaine measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
91646837|NCT02618772|183185321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||This is in reference to the difference between the suturing and baseline measures.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91646838|NCT02618772|183185322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||This p value is a t-test of the Post STAI minus Pre STAI variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91646839|NCT02618772|183185323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||This p value is in reference to the t-test performed for STAI Post Minus STAI Pre.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91646840|NCT02618772|183185324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
91646841|NCT02618772|183185325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.086
91646842|NCT02618772|183185326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91646843|NCT02618772|183185327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91778183|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.67|0.87|0.2596
91778184|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.58|0.75|0.6532
91778185|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Completion Of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.45|0.76|0.7592
91778186|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.40|0.62|0.7424
91778187|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.1912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.19|0.85|0.1912
91778188|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.53|0.45|0.5526
91778189|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.52|0.32|0.3609
91838862|NCT04006925|183557882|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||2.0|-3.5|0.43
91838863|NCT04006925|183557882|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||3.0|-4.0|0.65
91838864|NCT04006925|183557883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|1.7||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Unpaired T-test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||1.7|-15.2|0.23
91646844|NCT02058368|183185332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.65||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means.|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 3.|||1.65|-0.06|0.069
91646845|NCT02058368|183185332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.29||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means.|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 6.|||1.29|-0.55|0.43
91646846|NCT02058368|183185332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.77||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means.|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 9.|||0.77|-1.05|0.76
91646847|NCT02058368|183185332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.53||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 12.|||0.53|-1.27|0.41
91646848|NCT02058368|183185332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.05||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 15.|||-0.05|-1.85|0.039
91646849|NCT02058368|183185332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.26||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 18.|||0.26|-1.65|0.15
91646850|NCT02058368|183185332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.25||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 21.|||0.25|-1.68|0.15
91646851|NCT02058368|183185332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.46||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 24.|||-0.46|-2.40|0.004
91838865|NCT04006925|183557883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.5||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Unpaired T-test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||4.5|-4.6|0.95
91838866|NCT04006925|183557883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|3.1||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Paired T-test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||3.1|-16.2|0.22
91646852|NCT02058368|183185333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-20.1||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Log(Post-Baseline Prostate Volume / Baseline Prostate Volume) = Log(Baseline Prostate Volume) + Treatment + Country. P-values are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean estimates, adjusted mean differences, and confidence intervals are expressed in terms of percentage change from Baseline for Month 12.|||-20.1|-25.9|<.001
91646853|NCT02058368|183185333|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Log(Post-Baseline Prostate Volume / Baseline Prostate Volume) = Log(Baseline Prostate Volume) + Treatment + Country. P-values are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-25.2|||General linear model||The adjusted mean estimates, adjusted mean differences, and confidence intervals are expressed in terms of percentage change from Baseline for Month 24|||-25.2|-31.7|<.001
91838867|NCT02906683|183557892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|6.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||6.7|-20.1|0.329
91838868|NCT02906683|183557892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|6.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||6.2|-20.9|0.285
91838869|NCT02906683|183557894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||1.5|-24.1|0.082
91646854|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 3|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.91
91646855|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 3|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.31
91646856|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 3|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.42
91646857|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.92
91646858|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.89
91646859|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.81
91646860|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 9|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.080
91838870|NCT02906683|183557894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||0.4|-24.7|0.057
91838871|NCT02906683|183557896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||-3.0|-32.2|0.019
91838872|NCT02906683|183557896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|-2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||-2.3|-31.5|0.023
91838873|NCT02906683|183557898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||3.2|-25.9|0.125
91838874|NCT02906683|183557898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||5.9|-25.1|0.221
91838875|NCT01158378|183557906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 10%||||||0.0049|||||||one-sided z-test|||||||0.0049
91838876|NCT01158378|183557907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 10%|||||<|0.0001|||||||one-sided z-test|||||||<0.0001
91838877|NCT01158378|183557907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0297|||||||one-sided z-test|||Superiority Test||||0.0297
91838878|NCT01158378|183557908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 10%|||||<|0.0001|||||||one-sided z-test|||||||<0.0001
91838879|NCT01158378|183557908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0561|||||||one-sided z-test|||Superiority Test||||0.0561
91838880|NCT03661996|183557950|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.019|1.108|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||1.108|1.019|
91838881|NCT03661996|183557950|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|1.001|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||1.001|0.919|
91646861|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 9|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.42
91708426|NCT03299101|183309722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SGA between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.410
91646862|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 9|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.060
91646863|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.14
91646864|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.26
91778190|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||3.23|0.20|0.7527
91646865|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.048
91646866|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 15|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.17
91646867|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 15|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.11
91646868|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 15|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.022
91646869|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.18
91778191|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|75.44||||||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||75.44|-100.00|
91778192|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.3177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.17|0.62|0.3177
91778193|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.21|0.63|0.4184
91838882|NCT03661996|183557950|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.057|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||1.057|0.970|
91708427|NCT03299101|183309722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.622|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SGA between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.622
91646870|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.19
91898231|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.55|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.55|-0.60|0.467
91646871|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.28
91646872|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 21|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.39
91646873|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 21|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.42
91646874|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 21|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.084
91646875|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.016
91898232|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.22|-0.94|0.153
91898233|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.81|-0.54|0.632
91898234|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.14|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.14|-1.22|0.094
91898235|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.61|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.61|-0.68|0.468
91898236|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.27|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.27|-1.03|0.167
91898237|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.52|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.52|-0.72|0.394
91898238|NCT00568321|183692658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|0.21|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.21|-1.04|0.138
91898239|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.30|-0.51|0.764
91898240|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.28|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.28|-0.54|0.750
91898241|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|1.03|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.03|-0.46|0.734
91898242|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|0.77|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.77|-0.73|0.514
91898243|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|4.5|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||4.50|-1.76|0.765
91646876|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.047
91646877|NCT02058368|183185334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.007
91646878|NCT02058368|183185335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.56||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 6|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||1.56|0.26|0.006
91646879|NCT02058368|183185335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.69||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||1.69|0.30|0.005
91646880|NCT02058368|183185335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.29||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 18|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||2.29|0.63|<.001
91646881|NCT02058368|183185335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.15||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||2.15|0.54|0.001
91646882|NCT02058368|183185336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.13
91646883|NCT02058368|183185336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.15
91646884|NCT02058368|183185336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<.001
91646885|NCT02058368|183185336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.003
91778194|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.24|0.67|0.5710
91778195|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.19|0.65|0.3973
91778196|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.5163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.55|0.80|0.5163
91646886|NCT02058368|183185336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.002
91646887|NCT02058368|183185336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.009
91708428|NCT03299101|183309722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.757|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SGA between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.757
91898244|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.43|3.86|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.86|-2.43|0.646
91646888|NCT02058368|183185336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<.001
91646889|NCT02058368|183185336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<.001
91646890|NCT02058368|183185337|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.27||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.81||Relative Risk (hazard ratio) for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on the Cox Proportional Hazards Model with stratification by country.|Log Rank|||||0.81|0.09|0.012
91646891|NCT02058368|183185338|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.15||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.68||Relative Risk (hazard ratio) for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on the Cox Proportional Hazards Model with stratification by country.|Log Rank|||||0.68|0.03|0.005
91646892|NCT02058368|183185339|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.11||Relative Risk (hazard ratio) for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on the Cox Proportional Hazards Model with stratification by country.|Log Rank|||||4.11|0.11|0.68
91646893|NCT02058368|183185340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 3|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.21|-0.17|0.83
91708429|NCT03299101|183309723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test across all 4 time points.||||0.362
91778197|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.35|0.64|0.6897
91778198|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.5735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Completion Of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.25|0.67|0.5735
91778199|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.1414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.10|0.50|0.1414
91778200|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.55|0.59|0.8655
91778201|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.35|0.38|0.3017
91778202|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.2325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.39|0.26|0.2325
91778203|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||1.69|0.06|0.1717
91778204|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analsyis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82||||||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|
91778205|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.46|0.84|0.4745
91778206|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.5499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.22|0.69|0.5499
91778207|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.29|0.73|0.8436
91778208|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.46|0.81|0.5798
91778209|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.39|0.74|0.9094
91778210|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.67|0.81|0.4006
91778211|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.19|0.65|0.4024
91778212|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.41|0.67|0.8796
91778213|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.32|0.53|0.4350
91778214|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.56|0.47|0.6225
91778215|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.77|0.36|0.5775
91778216|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.2343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||1.94|0.07|0.2343
91778217|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-66.67||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|4.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||4.39|-100.00|0.0833
91838883|NCT03661996|183557950|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|0.972|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||0.972|0.892|
91778218|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Superiority|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.21|0.71|0.6012
91838884|NCT03661996|183557951|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|17.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||19.90|14.40|<0.0001
91838885|NCT03661996|183557951|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.692|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.79|28.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||28.03|12.79|<0.0001
91838886|NCT03661996|183557951|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|20.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.819|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.44|21.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||21.66|18.44|<0.0001
91778219|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.11|0.65|0.2291
91778220|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.24|0.71|0.6574
91838887|NCT03661996|183557951|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.41|20.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||20.38|16.41|<0.0001
91778221|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.35|0.76|0.9217
91778222|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.30|0.70|0.7693
91778223|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.31|0.64|0.6470
91778224|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion Of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.25|0.70|0.6391
91778225|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.05|0.51|0.0892
91646894|NCT02058368|183185340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.36||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 6|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.36|-0.04|0.11
91646895|NCT02058368|183185340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.34||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 9|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.34|-0.07|0.21
91646896|NCT02058368|183185340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.18|-0.23|0.80
91646897|NCT02058368|183185340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.11||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 15|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.11|-0.30|0.37
91708430|NCT03299101|183309723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.06||0.203|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test between baseline and day of surgery.||||.203
91708431|NCT03299101|183309723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.77||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.357
91646898|NCT02058368|183185340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 18|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.13|-0.30|0.44
91708432|NCT03299101|183309723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4||0.163|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.163
91708433|NCT03299101|183309724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change across all 4 time points.||||0.068
91778226|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.01|0.41|0.0550
91708434|NCT03299101|183309724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.043
91708435|NCT03299101|183309724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.092
91778227|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||0.88|0.27|0.0168
91778228|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||0.65|0.13|0.0021
91778229|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||3.80|0.17|0.7817
91778230|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|75.44||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||75.44|-100.00|
91778231|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.41|0.80|0.6646
91778232|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.30|0.73|0.8677
91778233|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.38|0.79|0.7670
91778234|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.28|0.71|0.7487
91778235|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.68|0.90|0.1882
91898245|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|1.6|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.60|-0.22|0.895
91778236|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.72|0.84|0.3015
91778237|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.32|0.73|0.9059
91778238|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.35|0.65|0.7125
91778239|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.07|0.43|0.0947
91778240|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.05|0.32|0.0686
91778241|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||0.86|0.17|0.0175
91778242|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||2.30|0.09|0.3376
91778243|NCT03038100|183438014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-50.0||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|23.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||23.34|-100.00|0.5637
91898246|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.34|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.34|-0.50|0.776
91898247|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.944|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|1.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.47|-0.03|0.944
91898248|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|1.21|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.21|-0.31|0.835
91898249|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.955|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|6.37|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||6.37|0.09|0.955
91898250|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.884|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|5.49|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.49|-0.88|0.884
91646899|NCT02058368|183185340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 21|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.28|-0.16|0.60
91646900|NCT02058368|183185340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.06||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.06|-0.37|0.16
91646901|NCT02058368|183185341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.62||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 3|||0.62|-0.11|0.17
91646902|NCT02058368|183185341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.59||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 6|||0.59|-0.20|0.33
91646903|NCT02058368|183185341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.68||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 9|||0.68|-0.10|0.15
91646904|NCT02058368|183185341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.55||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 12|||0.55|-0.25|0.46
91778244|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.30|0.76|0.9770
91838888|NCT03661996|183557952|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.478|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.54|25.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||25.37|19.54|<0.0001
91646905|NCT02058368|183185341|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 15|||0.29|-0.51|0.59
91646906|NCT02058368|183185341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.28||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 18|||0.28|-0.52|0.56
91646907|NCT02058368|183185341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 21|||0.28|-0.56|0.51
91646908|NCT02058368|183185341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 24|||-0.03|-0.88|0.034
91778245|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.37|0.80|0.7317
91778246|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.6937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.39|0.80|0.6937
91778247|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.18|0.66|0.3916
91708436|NCT03299101|183309724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.292|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.292
91708437|NCT03299101|183309725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change across both time points.||||0.625
91708438|NCT01424241|183309739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|300.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||None available.||||<0.05
91708439|NCT01424241|183309739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91708440|NCT00519584|183309743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.39|||Log Rank||Ropivacaine/dex vs. Ropivacaine/saline|||0.39|0.08|<0.001
91708441|NCT00519584|183309743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.83|||Log Rank||bupivacaine/dex vs. bupivacaine/Saline|||0.83|0.23|<0.001
91708442|NCT00519584|183309744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91708443|NCT00519584|183309744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91708444|NCT00519584|183309745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||adjusted significance level is 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91708445|NCT00519584|183309745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91708446|NCT00519584|183309746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||adjusted significance level = 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91708447|NCT00519584|183309746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||adjusted significance level = 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91708448|NCT05259917|183309747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 300 mg vs Placebo"||||<0.0001
91708449|NCT05259917|183309747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 600 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0013
91708450|NCT05259917|183309748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 300 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0036
91708451|NCT05259917|183309748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 600 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0032
91708452|NCT05259917|183309749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 300 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0022
91708453|NCT05259917|183309749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 600 mg vs Placebo"||||<0.0001
91708454|NCT03585712|183309780|OTHER|Is the overall mean change from baseline different from zero? Or did the infringement of schedule regardless the type of infringement lead to a change in mucus score?||||||0.26||||||P value from model testing intercept (does infringement change mucus score?) P-value from a repeated measures mixed model with the period, intervention, sequence and time (visit) as covariates. P-values ≤0.050 are considered significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed model for repeated measures using as response delta to Day41, delta to Day42, delta to Day70 and delta to Day71.~Covariates: period, intervention (missed pill or delayed pill), sequence of intervention (missed pill then delayed pill and vice versa), time and subject.~Subject as random effect + time repeated effect within each combination subject\* period"||||0.26
91708455|NCT03585712|183309781|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||p values \> 0.050 (Not Statistically significant)|McNemar|McNemar test comparing agreement in the missed and delayed periods||Absence of risk increase||||>0.999
91708456|NCT03585712|183309781|OTHER|||||||0.655||||||p values \> 0.050 (Not Statistically significant)|McNemar|McNemar test comparing agreement in the missed and delayed periods||Transient risk increase||||0.655
91708457|NCT03585712|183309781|OTHER|||||||0.317||||||p values \> 0.050 (Not Statistically significant)|McNemar|McNemar test comparing agreement in the missed and delayed periods||Prolonged risk increase||||0.317
91708458|NCT03585712|183309782|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Indicates significance at the 0.05 level (p-value ≤ 0.05)|McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of ovarian status vs the reported perfect use period||A stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) was used to compare the distribution of ovarian activity classification in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use). The worst (meaning most risk of ovulation) ovarian activity category in the period was used for the analyses.||||<0.001
91708459|NCT03585712|183309782|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Indicates significance at the 0.05 level (p-value ≤ 0.05)|McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of ovarian status vs the reported perfect use period.||A stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) was used to compare the distribution of ovarian activity classification in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use). The worst (meaning most risk of ovulation) ovarian activity category in the period was used for the analyses.||||<0.001
91708460|NCT03585712|183309783|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of cervical mucus score classification vs the reported perfect use period||Stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) to compare the distribution of cervical mucus scores in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use).||||0.127
91778248|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.3363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.17|0.63|0.3363
91778249|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.55|0.75|0.6761
91778250|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.26|0.71|0.6997
91778251|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.72|0.82|0.3592
91778252|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.51|0.62|0.8798
91778253|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.39|0.43|0.3857
91646909|NCT02058368|183185342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.5||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value.P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-0.50|-1.54|<.001
91778254|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.85|0.39|0.6854
91778255|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||2.70|0.11|0.4533
91778256|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-33.33||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|75.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||75.44|-100.00|0.3173
91778257|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.47|0.87|0.3658
91778258|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.36|0.80|0.7619
91778259|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.40|0.81|0.6580
91778260|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.57|0.88|0.2726
91778261|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.29|0.69|0.6973
91778262|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.64|0.80|0.4470
91778263|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.21|0.68|0.5150
91778264|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.82|0.88|0.2103
91778265|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.66|0.68|0.7969
91778266|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.91|0.60|0.8300
91708461|NCT03585712|183309783|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||\* Indicates significance at the 0.05 level (p-value ≤ 0.05).|McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of cervical mucus score classification vs the reported perfect use period.||Stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) to compare the distribution of cervical mucus scores in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use).||||0.018
91778267|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||2.55|0.53|0.6987
91778268|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|17.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||17.77|0.62|0.1441
91898251|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.737|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|1.28|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.28|-0.57|0.737
91708462|NCT03517449|183309786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.66|||Log Rank||Regression, Cox method|||0.66|0.47|<0.0001
91708463|NCT03517449|183309787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75|||Log Rank||Regression, Cox method|||0.75|0.51|<0.0001
91778269|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in proportion of Responders|-66.67||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|4.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||4.39|-100.00|0.3173
91778270|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.25|0.74|0.7591
91898252|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|1.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-0.74|0.628
91898253|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|1.43|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.43|-0.10|0.925
91898254|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.79|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.79|-0.75|0.518
91898255|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|4.88|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||4.88|-1.49|0.810
91898256|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|3.7|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.70|-2.72|0.600
91898257|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.18|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.18|-0.73|0.651
91898258|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.73|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.73|-1.21|0.342
91898259|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|1.14|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.14|-0.44|0.768
91898260|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|0.41|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.41|-1.19|0.211
91898261|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.73|3.85|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.85|-2.73|0.610
91838889|NCT03661996|183557952|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.613|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.38|33.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||33.42|14.38|<0.0001
91838890|NCT03661996|183557952|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.92|27.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.32|23.92|<0.0001
91838891|NCT03661996|183557952|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.03|24.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||24.17|20.03|<0.0001
91838892|NCT03661996|183557953|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|24.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||24.5|17.6|<0.0001
91838893|NCT03661996|183557953|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|37.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||37.8|12.7|0.0003
91838894|NCT03661996|183557953|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.82|27.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||27.88|23.82|<0.0001
91838895|NCT03661996|183557953|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|23.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.91|25.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||25.78|20.91|<0.0001
91838896|NCT03661996|183557954|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|20.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.94|23.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||23.78|17.94|<0.0001
91838897|NCT03661996|183557954|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.568|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.24|35.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||35.09|16.24|<0.0001
91898262|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|1.91|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.91|-4.76|0.241
91898263|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.45|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.45|-0.50|0.789
91708464|NCT03517449|183309788|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|22.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||22.9|11.5|<0.0001
91708465|NCT00856843|183309803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in success rates|8.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|16.8|||Chi-squared|||||16.8|0.9|0.038
91708466|NCT00856843|183309804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
91708467|NCT00856843|183309805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.020
91778271|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.42|0.83|0.5403
91708468|NCT00856843|183309806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.644
91708469|NCT00856843|183309807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.763
91708470|NCT00856843|183309808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.173
91708471|NCT00856843|183309809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91708472|NCT00856843|183309810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91778272|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.55|0.89|0.2654
91778273|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.48|0.82|0.5138
91778274|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.2138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.67|0.89|0.2138
91778275|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.82|0.88|0.2114
91778276|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.53|0.85|0.3938
91778277|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.38|0.65|0.7793
91778278|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.39|0.69|0.7370
91778279|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.79|0.55|0.9658
91778280|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.46|0.29|0.3015
91778281|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.7534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||3.94|0.15|0.7534
91778282|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|0.5637
91778283|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.06|0.61|0.1177
91778284|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.56|0.88|0.2730
91646910|NCT02058368|183185342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.18||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-0.18|-1.23|0.009
91646911|NCT02058368|183185347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.6||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Baseline Value for Month 6|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-1.6|-2.1|<.001
91646912|NCT02058368|183185347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.9||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Baseline Value for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-1.9|-2.3|<.001
91646913|NCT02058368|183185347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.2||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Baseline Value for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-2.2|-3.1|<.001
91646914|NCT02058368|183185349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 6|Van Elteren test|||||||0.77
91646915|NCT02058368|183185349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 12|Van Elteren test|||||||0.84
91778285|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.33|0.73|0.9306
91646916|NCT02058368|183185349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 18|Van Elteren test|||||||0.98
91646917|NCT02058368|183185349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 24|Van Elteren test|||||||0.28
91646918|NCT02441179|183185369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
91646919|NCT02441179|183185370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.012
91646920|NCT02441179|183185371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.16
91646921|NCT02441179|183185372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
91646922|NCT02441179|183185373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91708473|NCT00856843|183309811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91708474|NCT00856843|183309812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.013
91708475|NCT00856843|183309813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.283
91708476|NCT01900431|183309824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|5.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using combined estimate for odds ratio obtained by combining the log-transformation of odds ratio from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analyses of the different imputed datasets, using Rubin's formulae, and then by back-transforming the combined estimate. The CMH analyses were adjusted for randomization stratification factor VH level (VH \>= 4 versus VH \<4).||5.6|0.8|0.2354
91708477|NCT01900431|183309825|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.223|-0.262||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline adjudicated VH.||-0.262|-1.223|0.0127
91708478|NCT01900431|183309826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|6.093||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using common odds ratio which came from CMH analysis adjusted for randomization stratification factor VH level (VH \>=4 versus VH \<4).||6.093|0.11|1
91708479|NCT01900431|183309827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|9.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of VH level (\<4, \>=4), visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline BCVA.||9.67|1.99|0.0153
91708480|NCT01900431|183309828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.2||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.41|-2.68||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of VH level (\<4, \>=4), visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline CRT (Automatic measurement from SD-OCT).||-2.68|-50.41|0.0683
91708481|NCT01900431|183309829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.374|-0.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of VH level (\<4, \>=4), visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline CRT (Automatic measurement from SD-OCT).||-0.35|-12.374|0.0825
91708482|NCT01900431|183309832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.306|3.845||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using common odds ratio which came from CMH analysis adjusted for randomization stratification factor VH level (VH \>=4 versus VH \<4).||3.845|0.306|1
91778286|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.32|0.72|0.8631
91646923|NCT02441179|183185374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91646924|NCT02441179|183185375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91838898|NCT03661996|183557954|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.88|27.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.26|23.88|<0.0001
91708483|NCT00603382|183309859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.221|||ANCOVA|||||0.221|-0.018|0.095
91708484|NCT00603382|183309859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.247|||ANCOVA|||||0.247|0.011|0.033
91708485|NCT00603382|183309859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.319|||ANCOVA|||||0.319|0.089|<0.001
91708486|NCT00603382|183309859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.349|||ANCOVA|||||0.349|0.111|<0.001
91778287|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.86|0.95|0.0977
91778288|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||2.10|0.97|0.0726
91708487|NCT00603382|183309859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.223|||ANCOVA|||||0.223|-0.010|0.074
91778289|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.38|0.73|0.9974
91708488|NCT01078298|183309912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||5.21|2.16|<0.0001
91778290|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.63|0.72|0.7069
91778291|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.16|0.78|0.3068
91778292|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.16|0.85|0.1375
91778293|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||2.29|0.46|0.9540
91838899|NCT03661996|183557954|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.853|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.02|27.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.37|24.02|<0.0001
91708489|NCT01078298|183309913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 9 through 24, odds ratio and p-value were calculated from logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||4.10|1.56|0.0001
91708490|NCT01078298|183309913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 9 through 52, odds ratio and p-value were calculated from logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.98|1.40|0.0011
91708491|NCT01078298|183309914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 12, odds ratio and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||5.78|2.53|<0.0001
91838900|NCT03661996|183557955|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.74|29.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||29.60|20.74|<0.0001
91838901|NCT03661996|183557955|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|33.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.795|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.15|45.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||45.07|21.15|<0.0001
91838902|NCT03661996|183557955|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.38|30.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||30.23|25.38|<0.0001
91838903|NCT03661996|183557955|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.66|27.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.94|21.66|<0.0001
91838904|NCT03661996|183557956|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.898|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.37|25.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||25.84|18.37|<0.0001
91838905|NCT03661996|183557956|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|29.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||29.66|3.84|<0.0001
91838906|NCT03661996|183557956|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|21.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.43|23.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||23.60|19.43|<0.0001
91708492|NCT01078298|183309914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 24, odds ratio and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.33|1.40|0.0004
91778294|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.4283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||2.64|0.10|0.4283
91778295|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.56|100.0||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-95.56|
91778296|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.2153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.10|0.64|0.2153
91778297|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.27|0.73|0.7878
91778298|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.08|0.61|0.1544
91778299|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.40|0.77|0.8017
91778300|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.21|0.63|0.4295
91778301|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio, log|0.99||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.44|0.68|0.9540
91778302|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.30|0.69|0.7494
91778303|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.62|0.74|0.6412
91778304|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.67|0.65|0.8652
91778305|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.18|0.60|0.6912
91778306|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.86|0.33|0.5834
91646925|NCT01488071|183185376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), using all available data, with a freely varying mean and covariance structures and with treatment, week, and site group as fixed factors and the baseline score as a covariate. The model also included interaction between week and baseline score, as well as interaction between week and treatment.~Non-inferiority, upper limit of Confidence Interval should not exceed 2."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-0.81||Under established non-inferiority the p-value is not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM||||-0.81|-3.51|0.0018
91646926|NCT01488071|183185377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-0.6||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.60|-3.45|0.0054
91646927|NCT01488071|183185378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.8||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.80|-2.98|0.0008
91646928|NCT01488071|183185379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-0.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.81|-3.04|0.0007
91646929|NCT01488071|183185380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.11||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.11|-0.48|0.0023
91646930|NCT01488071|183185381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.07|-0.47|0.0075
91646931|NCT01488071|183185382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.08|-0.42|0.0048
91646932|NCT01488071|183185383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.07|-0.42|0.0055
91646933|NCT01488071|183185384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.6||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.60|1.26|0.0012
91646934|NCT01488071|183185385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.65||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.65|1.26|0.0014
91646935|NCT01488071|183185386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.52||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|1.17|0.0054
91646936|NCT01488071|183185387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.9||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|1.39|0.0002
91646937|NCT01488071|183185388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.81|-3.63|0.0021
91646938|NCT01488071|183185389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-0.27||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.27|-3.23|0.0209
91646939|NCT02139306|183185390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957||0.5336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2881|2.4813|||Mixed-model, repeated-measures|||||2.4813|-1.2881|0.5336
91708493|NCT01078298|183309914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 52, odds ratio and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.08|1.28|0.0020
91838907|NCT03661996|183557956|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.365|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.72|22.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||22.09|16.72|<0.0001
91646940|NCT02139306|183185391|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.8567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1577||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5973|1.2288|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.2288|0.5973|0.4008
91646941|NCT02139306|183185392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5292|4.0731|||Mixed-model, repeated measures|||||4.0731|-3.5292|0.8881
91646942|NCT02139306|183185393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1312||0.6208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3233|0.1934|||Mixed-model, repeated measures|||||0.1934|-0.3233|0.6208
91646943|NCT02278952|183185411|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.33|||||||GEE-adjusted models|||||||0.33
91646944|NCT02278952|183185412|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear model|||||<|0.0001|||||||GEE-adjusted linear model|||||||< 0.0001
91708494|NCT01078298|183309915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.08|1.26|0.0027
91646945|NCT02278952|183185413|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.049|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||||||0.049
91646946|NCT02278952|183185414|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.114|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||||||0.114
91646947|NCT02278952|183185415|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.47|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||P-value of tacrolimus dose||||0.470
91646948|NCT02278952|183185415|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.037|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||P-value of Prednisone dose||||0.037
91646949|NCT02278952|183185415|OTHER|Generalized-estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.456|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||P-value of mycophenolate mofetil dose||||0.456
91708495|NCT02798354|183309926|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||5.3|2.4|<0.0001
91646950|NCT02787746|183185450|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.988||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|2.095|||Regression, Logistic|||Age (\>75y vs ≤75y）||2.095|0.466|0.9744
91646951|NCT02787746|183185450|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|40.354|||Regression, Logistic|||APOE ɛ4 (carrier vs non-carrier)||40.354|0.290|0.3288
91646952|NCT02787746|183185450|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.107||||0.5732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|28.171|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Gastrointestinal drugs||28.171|0.158|0.5732
91646953|NCT02787746|183185450|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.976||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|3.387|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Hypoglycemic drugs||3.387|0.281|0.9694
91646954|NCT02787746|183185450|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.221||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|4.748|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular drugs||4.748|1.039|0.0396
91646955|NCT02787746|183185450|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.056||||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|28.074|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Hepatology drugs||28.074|0.151|0.5889
91646956|NCT02787746|183185450|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.004||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.008|||Regression, Logistic|||Duration of previous donepezil 5mg/d therapy (day)||1.008|0.999|0.1181
91646957|NCT01142466|183185460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1384|||||||Log Rank|||Two-sided log rank test with alpha equal to 0.05 was used as the appropriate nonparametric method to compare the two groups.||||0.1384
91778307|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|16.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||16.05|0.05|0.9578
91778308|NCT03038100|183438015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|0.5637
91778309|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.63|0.75|0.6063
91778310|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.29|0.63|0.5739
91778311|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.25|0.56|0.3792
91778312|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.73|0.73|0.6022
91778313|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.49|0.59|0.7893
91778314|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.22|0.42|0.2125
91778315|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.46|0.70|0.9661
91778316|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.32|0.52|0.4299
91778317|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.18|0.36|0.1542
91646958|NCT01142466|183185461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2635||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2635
91646959|NCT04084028|183185467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91646960|NCT04084028|183185468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91778318|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||6.76|1.04|0.0363
91778319|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|8.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||8.93|0.85|0.0814
91778320|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03||||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||38.00|0.43|0.1915
91778321|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|66.67||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-4.39|0.3173
91778322|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.35|0.73|0.9818
91778323|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.45|0.80|0.6263
91778324|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.40|0.73|0.9407
91778325|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.39|0.64|0.7700
91778326|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.45|0.63|0.8458
91778327|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.46|0.57|0.7028
91778328|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.83|0.92|0.1391
91778329|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.62|0.69|0.8002
91778330|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.68|0.60|0.9751
91778331|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.78|0.68|0.3811
91778332|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||3.90|0.58|0.3950
91646961|NCT04084028|183185469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91646962|NCT04084028|183185470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.19
91646963|NCT04084028|183185471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.77
91646964|NCT04084028|183185472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.06
91646965|NCT01160198|183185498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Baseline Hb vs. Hb at Week 8 for Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily||||<0.0001
91646966|NCT01160198|183185498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Baseline Hb vs. Hb at Week 8 for Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily||||<0.0001
91646967|NCT01160198|183185500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788|||||||Chi-squared|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily||||0.788
91708496|NCT02798354|183309927|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||20|12.3|<0.0001
91646968|NCT01160198|183185500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.911|||||||Chi-squared|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily||||0.911
91646969|NCT01160198|183185500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily||||0.700
91646970|NCT01160198|183185501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.17|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 2||0.17|-0.29|1
91646971|NCT01160198|183185501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1||95.0|-0.57|0.31|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 4||0.31|-0.57|1
91646972|NCT01160198|183185501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.46|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 6||0.46|-0.75|1
91646973|NCT01160198|183185501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.53|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 8||0.53|-1.05|1
91646974|NCT01160198|183185501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily at Week 2||0.09|-0.35|0.490
91646975|NCT01160198|183185501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.29|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 4||0.29|-0.58|1
91646976|NCT01160198|183185501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.51|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 6||0.51|-0.68|1
91646977|NCT01160198|183185501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.72|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 8||0.72|-0.84|1
91646978|NCT01160198|183185501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily at Week 2||0.15|-0.29|1
91646979|NCT01160198|183185501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.42|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 4||0.42|-0.45|1
91708497|NCT02798354|183309928|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, lab test sent, and wave|||3.1|-1.0|0.302
91708498|NCT02798354|183309929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|30.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||30.7|22.4|<0.0001
91778333|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|5.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||5.12|0.16|0.8993
91778334|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.34|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-23.34|0.3173
91778335|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.5988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.25|0.68|0.5988
91778336|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.34|0.72|0.8859
91778337|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.16|0.58|0.2531
91778338|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.04|0.46|0.0785
91778339|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.03|0.43|0.0641
91778340|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||0.80|0.29|0.0046
91778341|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.37|0.70|0.8928
91778342|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.74|0.72|0.6106
91778343|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.95|0.67|0.6159
91778344|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.5372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.49|0.62|0.5372
91778345|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||5.58|0.89|0.0845
91778346|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|21.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||21.56|0.62|0.1344
91778347|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.34|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-23.34|0.3173
91778348|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.92|1.04|0.0260
91778349|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.37|0.75|0.9179
91778350|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.53|0.79|0.5820
91838908|NCT03661996|183557957|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-3.10|-3.86|<0.0001
91838909|NCT03661996|183557957|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-2.67|-4.38|<0.0001
91838910|NCT03661996|183557957|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-3.79|-4.25|<0.0001
91838911|NCT03661996|183557957|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-3.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-3.48|-3.96|<0.0001
91838912|NCT01161472|183557959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.0285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0647|0.0077|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0077|-0.0647|0.1198
91838913|NCT01161472|183557959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0173||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0551|0.0145|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0145|-0.0551|0.2459
91838914|NCT01161472|183557961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0115||0.7502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0268|0.0194|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0194|-0.0268|0.7502
91838915|NCT01161472|183557961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0119||0.4785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0325|0.0154|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0154|-0.0325|0.4785
91838916|NCT01161472|183557963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0265||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0569|0.0498|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0498|-0.0569|0.8944
91646980|NCT01160198|183185501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.65|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 6||0.65|-0.53|1
91838917|NCT01161472|183557963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0263||0.4308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.0738|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0738|-0.0320|0.4308
91838918|NCT01161472|183557965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.4945||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4729|28.7987|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||28.7987|-21.4729|0.7707
91646981|NCT01160198|183185501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.98|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 8||0.98|-0.58|1
91646982|NCT00802529|183185503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||P-value for Drug x Time interaction.|ANOVA|Time: 2 degrees of freedom (Baseline vs 18-24 months) Drug: 2 degrees of freedom (Gentamicin vs steroid)||||||0.271
91646983|NCT00802529|183185504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||||||P-value for Drug x Time interaction.|ANOVA|Time: 6 degrees of freedom (Baseline, 1, 2, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) Drug: 2 degrees of freedom (Gentamicin vs steroid)||||||0.964
91646984|NCT00802529|183185505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||||||P-value for Drug x Time interaction.|ANOVA|Time: 5 degrees of freedom (Baseline, 1, 2, 6, 12 and 24 months) Drug: 2 degrees of freedom (Gentamicin vs steroid)||||||0.128
91646985|NCT02413879|183185506|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91646986|NCT02413879|183185508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91646987|NCT00337129|183185547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response probability|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.17|||two-stage binomial|||Null hypothesis: response probability \< 5%; alternative hypothesis: response probability \> 20%. A two-stage design was used. If no responses among the first 20 patients, the study would be terminated with the conclusion that E7389 is inactive. However, if at least one response was seen then an additional 20 patients would be accrued. Five or more responses out of 40 would be considered evidence that E7389 warranted further study. This design had a significance level of 5% and a power of 92%.||0.17|0.01|
91646988|NCT02580318|183185603|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (poor effort)|t-test, 2 sided|||this p value is calculated for poor effort||||<0.0001
91778351|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.47|0.67|0.9772
91778352|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.10|0.49|0.1300
91778353|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.08|0.40|0.0990
91778354|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.50|0.76|0.7133
91778355|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||2.11|0.90|0.1384
91778356|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.26|0.78|0.2895
91778357|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.14|0.77|0.2221
91778358|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.37||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||26.10|2.08|0.0005
91778359|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72||||0.2171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|34.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||34.56|0.40|0.2171
91778360|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|
91838919|NCT01161472|183557965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.4482||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9634|5.1215|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||5.1215|-44.9634|0.1162
91646989|NCT02580318|183185603|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (hyperventilation - immediate)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for hyperventilation (immediate)||||<0.0001
91646990|NCT02580318|183185603|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (5 minutes after hyperventilation)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for hyperventilation (after 5 minutes)||||<0.0001
91646991|NCT02580318|183185603|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (10 minutes after hyperventilation)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for hyperventilation (after 10 minutes)||||<0.0001
91708499|NCT02798354|183309930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||24.1|16.2|<0.0001
91838920|NCT01161472|183557967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8707||0.9989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8297|9.8433|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||9.8433|-9.8297|0.9989
91708500|NCT02798354|183309931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|17.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||17.7|10.3|<0.0001
91708501|NCT02798354|183309932|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, lab test sent, and wave|||1.9|-1.8|0.922
91708502|NCT00350779|183309955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|<|0.001||95.0|-0.95|-0.49|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-0.49|-0.95|<0.001
91708503|NCT00350779|183309956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.3|<|0.001||95.0|-27.2|-10.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-10.9|-27.2|<0.001
91708504|NCT00350779|183309957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.7|<|0.001||95.0|-50.2|-25.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-25.5|-50.2|<0.001
91708505|NCT00350779|183309958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04|<|0.001||95.0|-1.04|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-0.50|-1.04|<0.001
91708506|NCT00350779|183309959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.6|<|0.001||95.0|-26.4|-8.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-8.4|-26.4|<0.001
91708507|NCT00350779|183309960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0|<|0.001||95.0|-48.4|-19.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-19.9|-48.4|<0.001
91708508|NCT00528372|183309961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1522||0.0207||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0207
91708509|NCT00528372|183309961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1541||0.0005||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0005
91708510|NCT00528372|183309961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1518|<|0.0001||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91708511|NCT00528372|183309961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1536|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.3||||||||-0.30|-0.91|
91708512|NCT00528372|183309961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.26||||||||-0.26|-0.86|
91708513|NCT00528372|183309961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.27||||||||-0.27|-0.85|
91708514|NCT00528372|183309962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.734||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|||Week 24|||||
91708515|NCT00528372|183309962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.806||0.0007||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05)|ANCOVA||Week 24|||||0.0007
91708516|NCT00528372|183309962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05)|ANCOVA||Week 24|||||<0.0001
91708517|NCT00528372|183309962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.686|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-10.3||||||||-10.3|-32.6|
91708518|NCT00528372|183309962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.711|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-12.0||||||||-12.0|-34.4|
91708519|NCT00528372|183309962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.567|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-14.5||||||||-14.5|-36.4|
91708520|NCT00528372|183309964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6307||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.||||||||
91708521|NCT00528372|183309964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6388||0.3101||||||Tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3101
91708522|NCT00528372|183309964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6223||0.1189||||||Tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1189
91708523|NCT00528372|183309964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.41||||||||-0.41|-2.86|
91708524|NCT00528372|183309964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.13||||||||-0.13|-2.60|
91708525|NCT00528372|183309964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.33||||||||0.33|-2.06|
91708526|NCT00528372|183309966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.324||||||||||||||||
91646992|NCT02580318|183185603|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (immediately after drinking water)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for drinking water (immediate)||||<0.0001
91646993|NCT02580318|183185603|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (5 minutes after drinking water)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for drinking water (5 minutes)||||<0.0001
91646994|NCT03870737|183185628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 24.81, df = 1/40.||Outcomes fitted via a mixed effects model with time as predictor.||||<.0001
91646995|NCT03870737|183185630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 5.78, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.02
91646996|NCT03870737|183185631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 14.28, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.0005
91646997|NCT03870737|183185632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .19, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.67
91646998|NCT03870737|183185633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .08, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.76
91646999|NCT03870737|183185634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .06, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.80
91647000|NCT02613416|183185645|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||The p value was calculated.|Blyth-Still Casella Confidence Interval|||The primary hypothesis for this early phase study was that at least 30% of women would experience a \>5% relative decrease in their breast density after 6 months of treatment with denosumab 120 mg subcutaneous dose once a month.||||0.026
91898264|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.57|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.88|0.570
91647001|NCT00390949|183185649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjustments for community pair, age-group and value of variable at baseline||||||<0.05
91708527|NCT00528372|183309966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.342||||||||||||||||
91708528|NCT00528372|183309966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.176||||||||||||||||
91708529|NCT00528372|183309966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.223|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-3.7||||||||-3.7|-20.3|
91708530|NCT00528372|183309966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-7.7||||||||-7.7|-24.7|
91898265|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.782|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|1.19|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.19|-0.43|0.782
91898266|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.55|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.55|-1.08|0.295
91898267|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|5.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.11|-1.62|0.804
91898268|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.58|4.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||4.22|-2.58|0.655
91898269|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.86|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.86|-1.13|0.409
91898270|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.97|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.97|-1.03|0.482
91898271|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.94|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.94|-0.71|0.592
91898272|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.66|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.66|-1.00|0.368
91647002|NCT00390949|183185650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair, age-group and value of variable at baseline||||||<0.05
91647003|NCT00390949|183185651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91647004|NCT00390949|183185652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair, age-group and value at baseline||||||<0.05
91708531|NCT00528372|183309966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-9.5||||||||-9.5|-26.2|
91708532|NCT00528372|183309968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|9.7||||||||||||||||||
91708533|NCT00528372|183309968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|12.6||||||||||||||||||
91708534|NCT00528372|183309968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|19.2||||||||||||||||||
91708535|NCT00528372|183309968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|34.7||||||||34.7|4.9|
91708536|NCT00528372|183309968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|27.3||||||||27.3|-2.5|
91708537|NCT00528372|183309968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|34.5||||||||34.5|5.3|
91708538|NCT00528372|183309969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6979||||||||||||||||
91708539|NCT00528372|183309969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6828||||||||||||||||
91708540|NCT00528372|183309969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6404||||||||||||||||
91708541|NCT00528372|183309969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.42||||||||-0.42|-3.33|
91708542|NCT00528372|183309969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.16||||||||0.16|-2.69|
91708543|NCT00528372|183309969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.33||||||||0.33|-2.06|
91708544|NCT00528372|183309970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||||||||||||||||
91708545|NCT00528372|183309970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||||||||||||||||
91708546|NCT00528372|183309970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1708||||||||||||||||
91708547|NCT00528372|183309970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1798|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-0.95|
91708548|NCT00528372|183309970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1741|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-0.89|
91708549|NCT00528372|183309970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1704|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-0.92|
91708550|NCT00528372|183309971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.526||||||||||||||||
91708551|NCT00528372|183309971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.761||||||||||||||||
91708552|NCT00528372|183309971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.334||||||||||||||||
91708553|NCT00528372|183309971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|32.1||||||||32.1|5.5|
91708554|NCT00528372|183309971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|24.4||||||||24.4|-1.8|
91708555|NCT00528372|183309971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|23.9||||||||23.9|-1.0|
91708556|NCT00528372|183309972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||||||||||||||||
91708557|NCT00528372|183309972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7371||||||||||||||||
91838921|NCT01161472|183557967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0346||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7926|8.5425|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||8.5425|-11.7926|0.7485
91838922|NCT01161472|183557969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2684|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8243||0.7458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3788|1.9157|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||1.9157|-1.3788|0.7458
91838923|NCT01161472|183557969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8277||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7202|1.588|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||1.5880|-1.7202|0.9366
91838924|NCT03980184|183557971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91838925|NCT03980184|183557972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
91838926|NCT03980184|183557973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.703
91838927|NCT03980184|183557975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91838928|NCT03980184|183557976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.647
91647005|NCT00390949|183185653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair and age-group||||||<0.05
91647006|NCT00390949|183185654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair, age-group and value at baseline||||||<0.05
91647007|NCT00763269|183185663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91708558|NCT00528372|183309972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7078||||||||||||||||
91838929|NCT03980184|183557977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.887
91838930|NCT02265224|183557986|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.|Geometric means ratio|89.81||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|94.12|82.82|97.4||p value for treatment effect|ANOVA|||||97.40|82.82|0.0136
91838931|NCT02265224|183557987|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.|Geometric means ratio|90.79||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|94.12|85.25|96.69|||ANOVA|p value for treatment effect||||96.69|85.25|0.0047
91838932|NCT02265224|183557988|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.|Geometric means ratio|91.86||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|94.12|86.45|97.61||p value for treatment effect|ANOVA|||||97.61|86.45|0.0095
91838933|NCT02265224|183557989|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.||||||0.505|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.5050
91838934|NCT00136812|183557997|OTHER|We used all available observations in a GEE analysis and did not impute missing data or drop observations.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.14||P-value of \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|generalized estimating equation model|||To test the primary hypothesis, we ran a generalized estimating equation model with logit link function (PROC GENMOD in SAS version 9.2), to examine abstinence versus smoking status at the 3- through 18-month follow-ups by condition.||8.14|1.22|0.018
91647008|NCT00763269|183185664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91838935|NCT00791921|183557998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||For ACR20 responder rate at Week 12, comparison between the CDP870 200 mg group and the placebo group was performed.||||<0.05
91838936|NCT00791921|183557999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91838937|NCT01965158|183558000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|21.3||To control the overall type I error rate to be ≤ 0.05 for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, a fixed-sequence (hierarchical) testing approach was applied.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by the opioid dose strata.||||21.3|4.8|0.0020
91838938|NCT01965158|183558001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.83|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.83|0.77|<0.0001
91647009|NCT00763269|183185665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91708559|NCT00528372|183309972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.42||||||||-0.42|-3.33|
91838939|NCT01965158|183558002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.63|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||2.63|1.60|<0.0001
91838940|NCT01965158|183558003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.48|0.54|<0.0001
91838941|NCT01965158|183558004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.12|0.34|0.0003
91838942|NCT03349268|183558022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.23
91838943|NCT00985543|183558027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Results are considered statistically significant at p\<0.05 or when 90% confidence intervals do not cross the value 1. No adjustments are made for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||maximum likelihood regression|||Dosing regimens lopinavir/ritonavir 200/150mg BID (Phase 2) and lopinavir/ritonavir 200/50mg BID (Phase 3) will be considered equivalent to lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100mg BID (Phase 1) if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean AUC0-12h ratio and maximum concentration (Cmax) ratio lie between 0.80 and 1.25.||||<0.05
91838944|NCT00308737|183558071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of TI + Usual Care to Usual Care only|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site and treatment and baseline FEV1 as a covariate||0.060|0.014|
91838945|NCT00308737|183558072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis tested was that the FEV1 change from Baseline for the TI group is no greater than 50 mL/year above the change in the usual care treatment group. Assuming SD of 100 mL/y, 80% power, and 5% (1-tailed) significance level, it was determined that 50 subjects were required for each of the diabetes treatment groups. Final sample size was selected for the incidence of a \>= 15% decrease in FEV1 end point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.057|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment site, diabetes type, and baseline FEV1||0.057|0.016|
91838946|NCT00308737|183558073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site and treatment and baseline FVC as a covariate||0.061|0.008|
91838947|NCT00308737|183558074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site, and treatment and baseline TLC as a covariate||0.031|-0.042|
91838948|NCT00308737|183558075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.269|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.574|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site, and treatment and baseline TLC as a covariate||0.574|-0.037|
91708560|NCT00528372|183309972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.16||||||||0.16|-2.69|
91838949|NCT00308737|183558076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3432|1.2219|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||1.2219|0.3432|
91838950|NCT00308737|183558077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|2.2431|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||2.2431|0.2510|
91838951|NCT00308737|183558078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6703|1.1958|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||1.1958|0.6703|
91838952|NCT00308737|183558079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.8509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6722|1.077|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||1.0770|0.6722|
91838953|NCT00308737|183558081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test||||0.112
91838954|NCT00308737|183558082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis tested was that the difference in incidence of a decrease of ≥ 15% in FEV1 between the treatment groups not be greater than 5% for TI when compared with the usual care treatment group. Assuming an incidence rate of 15% for FEV1 and a noninferiority criterion of a 5% difference in incidence between the treatment groups, approximately 625 subjects per group were required for 80% power and an alpha of 5% (1 tailed).|Odds Ratio (OR)|-2.4767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5578|-0.3956|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||-0.3956|-4.5578|
91708561|NCT00528372|183309972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7135||||95.0|-2.37|0.44||||||||0.44|-2.37|
91708562|NCT01289574|183309983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1919|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean score statistics, adjusting for investigational site||||||0.1919
91708563|NCT01289574|183309984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0610
91838955|NCT01225822|183558084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.375|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.244|0.577||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.577|0.244|<0.0001
91838956|NCT01225822|183558084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.518||||0.0015||95.0|0.344|0.778||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.778|0.344|0.0015
91838957|NCT01225822|183558084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7856||95.0|0.599|1.473|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 300 mg qd vs. BIBR 1048 150 mg bid comparison. Secondary analysis to compare once daily dosing vs. twice daily dosing. . The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.473|0.599|0.7856
91838958|NCT01225822|183558084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.469||||0.0007||95.0|0.302|0.727|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.727|0.302|0.0007
91647010|NCT00763269|183185666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91647011|NCT01398982|183185674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on our published prospective, nonrandomized study using TAP block in abdominally-based autologous tissue breast reconstruction, 40 patients per group would achieve 85% power to detect a 65% reduction in mean total opioid consumption between the control and study groups (significance level alpha = 0.05; using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test).||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91647012|NCT02229487|183185688|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.209
91647013|NCT04936334|183185693|SUPERIORITY||McNemar|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||<0.05
91647014|NCT01347879|183185696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-7.35||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-2.2|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariates||||-2.2|-12.5|0.006
91708564|NCT01289574|183309985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0857|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0857
91647015|NCT01347879|183185697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.6||||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.5|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariates||||5.5|-6.6|0.8527
91647016|NCT01347879|183185698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-20.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-6.8|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariates||||-6.8|-33.2|0.0032
91647017|NCT01347879|183185699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0125
91647018|NCT01347879|183185704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-2.56||||0.7161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|11.3|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariate||||11.3|-16.5|0.7161
91647019|NCT03747939|183185710|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|18.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) data, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||28.1|8.9|0.0008
91647020|NCT03747939|183185711|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|18.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||30.2|7.0|0.0017
91708565|NCT02379273|183309986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the unilateral CNC data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.||||<0.001
91708566|NCT02379273|183309986|SUPERIORITY|A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the bilateral CNC data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91708567|NCT02379273|183309987|SUPERIORITY|A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the unilateral AzBio data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91838959|NCT01225822|183558084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.647||||0.0401||95.0|0.427|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.98|0.427|0.0401
91838960|NCT01225822|183558084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.2446||95.0|0.859|1.817|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.817|0.859|0.2446
91708568|NCT02379273|183309987|SUPERIORITY|A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the bilateral AzBio data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91647021|NCT03747939|183185712|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|5.1||||0.3539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||16.0|-5.8|0.3539
91708569|NCT02379273|183309988|SUPERIORITY|A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was applied to the data, with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Holm-Sidak method.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91838961|NCT01225822|183558085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.375|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.244|0.577||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.577|0.244|<0.0001
91838962|NCT01225822|183558085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.518||||0.0015||95.0|0.344|0.778||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.778|0.344|0.0015
91708570|NCT02379273|183309989|SUPERIORITY|A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was applied to the data, with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Holm-Sidak method.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||||||<0.001
91708571|NCT02379273|183309990|SUPERIORITY|Pre- and postoperative mean scores were compared based on Friedman repeated-measures analysis of variance with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91778361|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.48|0.84|0.4647
91778362|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.40|0.78|0.7676
91778363|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.71|0.89|0.1983
91778364|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.44|0.69|0.9874
91778365|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.4716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.29|0.58|0.4716
91778366|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.18|0.46|0.2041
91778367|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.45|0.76|0.7771
91778368|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.45|0.64|0.8542
91778369|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.50|0.90|0.1230
91778370|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.34|0.88|0.1089
91778371|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||18.30|1.85|0.0011
91778372|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|14.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||14.74|0.43|0.2950
91778373|NCT03038100|183438016|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.72|100.0||||||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-37.72|
91898273|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.98|2.88|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.88|-3.98|0.396
91647022|NCT03747939|183185713|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|22.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|33.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||33.7|10.4|0.0003
91708572|NCT02432144|183309992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-62.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.946|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.98|-52.59||P-values are from generalized estimating equation (GEE) model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 0||-52.59|-71.98|< 0.0001
91708573|NCT02432144|183309992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-67.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.49|-60.86||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 12||-60.86|-73.49|< 0.0001
91708574|NCT02432144|183309992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-64.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.99|-56.24||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 24||-56.24|-71.99|< 0.0001
91778374|NCT01774721|183438033|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.589|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.739|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|||0.739|0.469|<0.0001
91708575|NCT02432144|183309992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-60.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.992|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.54|-49.06||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 36||-49.06|-72.54|< 0.0001
91708576|NCT02432144|183309992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-57.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.87|-43.82||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 48||-43.82|-71.87|< 0.0001
91708577|NCT02371668|183310041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91708578|NCT02371668|183310042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.114
91708579|NCT02371668|183310043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4989|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4989
91708580|NCT02371668|183310044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1412
91708581|NCT02371668|183310045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.137
91708582|NCT02371668|183310046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2445
91708583|NCT02371668|183310047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.045
91708584|NCT02371668|183310048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.230
91778375|NCT01774721|183438034|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.748||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.947|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox Regression model|||0.947|0.591|0.0077
91898274|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|3.69|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.69|-3.21|0.545
91898275|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|1.0|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.00|-1.04|0.486
91898276|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.75|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.75|-1.33|0.324
91898277|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.92|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.92|-0.76|0.563
91898278|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.56|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.56|-1.16|0.282
91898279|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|3.01||P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.|Repeated Measures Model|||Week 16 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.01|-3.99|0.409
91898280|NCT00568321|183692659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|2.39||P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.|Repeated Measures Model|||Week 16 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.39|-4.76|0.293
91708585|NCT02371668|183310049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.646
91708586|NCT00398216|183310050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91708587|NCT00398216|183310050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91708588|NCT00398216|183310050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91708589|NCT00398216|183310050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91708590|NCT00398216|183310053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.250
91708591|NCT00398216|183310053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.122
91647023|NCT03747939|183185714|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|11.8||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||22.0|1.7|0.0286
91647024|NCT03747939|183185715|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|16.3||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||25.8|6.9|0.0022
91647025|NCT03747939|183185716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.59|||MMRM||Apremilast - Placebo|Difference in LS means is based MMRM of the change from baseline.||-0.59|-1.48|<0.0001
91647026|NCT03747939|183185717|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|17.7||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|29.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||29.7|5.7|0.0043
91647027|NCT01289990|183185755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.64||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.64|-0.94|<0.0001
91647028|NCT01289990|183185755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.76||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.76|-1.06|<0.0001
91647029|NCT01289990|183185755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.52||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.52|-0.82|<0.0001
91647030|NCT01289990|183185755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.03||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||0.03|-0.27|0.1245
91647031|NCT01289990|183185755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.09||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.09|-0.39|0.0022
91647032|NCT01289990|183185755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.41||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-0.79|<0.0001
91647033|NCT01289990|183185755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.49||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-0.87|<0.0001
91647034|NCT01289990|183185755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.48||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.75|<0.0001
91647035|NCT01289990|183185755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.55||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.55|-0.83|<0.0001
91647036|NCT01289990|183185755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.59||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-0.89|<0.0001
91647037|NCT01289990|183185755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.55||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.55|-0.85|<0.0001
91647038|NCT01289990|183185756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.61||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.04|<0.0001
91647039|NCT01289990|183185756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.69||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.11|<0.0001
91647040|NCT01289990|183185756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.41|0.0322
91647041|NCT01289990|183185756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.09||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.48|0.0038
91647042|NCT01289990|183185756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.4||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.83|<0.0001
91778376|NCT01774721|183438036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|0.779|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|||0.779|0.497|<0.0001
91647043|NCT01289990|183185756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.90|<0.0001
91647044|NCT01289990|183185756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.44||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.00|<0.0001
91708592|NCT00398216|183310053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.124
91778377|NCT01774721|183438039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.403|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.529|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|Comparison of dacomitinib vs gefitinib based on IRC review||0.529|0.307|<0.0001
91647045|NCT01289990|183185756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.47||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.47|-0.87|<0.0001
91647046|NCT01289990|183185756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.63||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.63|-1.04|<0.0001
91708593|NCT00398216|183310053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.123
91647047|NCT01289990|183185756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.57||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.04|<0.0001
91708594|NCT01048944|183310054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are adjusted for multiple comparisons except for specific a priori directional predictions.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-model repeated measures multivariate analyses of variance assessed Treatment x Day of abstinence (days 3, 24, 45, and 66) based on changes from pre-quit baseline to values of the four post-quit time points (days 3, 24, 45, and 66).||||<0.05
91708595|NCT01133704|183310062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.7|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as the independent variable, stratified by bisphosphonate use (placebo/sipuleucel-T)|||1.70|0.69|0.719
91647048|NCT01289990|183185756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.56||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.56|-1.04|<0.0001
91647049|NCT01289990|183185757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-6.8|<0.0001
91647050|NCT01289990|183185757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.1||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-6.4|0.0001
91647051|NCT01289990|183185757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.2107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.8||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.8|-3.5|0.2107
91647052|NCT01289990|183185757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.1||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-5.4|0.0033
91647053|NCT01289990|183185757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.7||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-5.0|0.0105
91647054|NCT01289990|183185757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.0||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-4.9|0.0543
91647055|NCT01289990|183185757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-1.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-6.4|0.0019
91647056|NCT01289990|183185757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.9||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-5.0|0.0045
91647057|NCT01289990|183185757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-6.6|<0.0001
91647058|NCT01289990|183185757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.0||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-4.8|0.0031
91647059|NCT01289990|183185757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-4.4|0.0096
91647060|NCT01289990|183185758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.63||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-0.94|<0.0001
91647061|NCT01289990|183185758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.73||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.73|-1.04|<0.0001
91647062|NCT01289990|183185758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.51||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-0.82|<0.0001
91647063|NCT01289990|183185758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.28|0.1310
91838963|NCT01225822|183558085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7856||95.0|0.599|1.473|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 300 mg qd vs. BIBR 1048 150 mg bid comparison. Secondary analysis to compare once daily dosing vs. twice daily dosing. . The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.473|0.599|0.7856
91647064|NCT01289990|183185758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.38|0.0050
91647065|NCT01289990|183185758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.4||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-0.79|<0.0001
91647066|NCT01289990|183185758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.5||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-0.88|<0.0001
91647067|NCT01289990|183185758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.46||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-0.75|<0.0001
91647068|NCT01289990|183185758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.58||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-0.88|<0.0001
91838964|NCT01225822|183558085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.469||||0.0007||95.0|0.302|0.727|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.727|0.302|0.0007
91838965|NCT01225822|183558085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.647||||0.0401||95.0|0.427|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.98|0.427|0.0401
91647069|NCT01289990|183185758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-0.87|<0.0001
91647070|NCT01289990|183185758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.53||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.85|<0.0001
91647071|NCT01289990|183185759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.2||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-5.5|0.0025
91647072|NCT01289990|183185759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.2||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-5.6|0.0021
91647073|NCT01289990|183185759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.7241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||2.6|-1.8|0.7241
91838966|NCT01225822|183558085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.2446||95.0|0.859|1.817|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.817|0.859|0.2446
91647074|NCT01289990|183185759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-5.9|0.0008
91647075|NCT01289990|183185759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-6.0|0.0007
91647076|NCT01289990|183185759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-4.5|0.0987
91647077|NCT01289990|183185759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.3||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-6.1|0.0028
91647078|NCT01289990|183185759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.3||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-6.6|<0.0001
91647079|NCT01289990|183185759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-5.9|0.0008
91647080|NCT01289990|183185759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.3||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-4.1|0.0213
91838967|NCT01225822|183558086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.334||||0.0373||95.0|0.199|0.938|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.938|0.199|0.0373
91647081|NCT01289990|183185759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.2||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-4.1|0.0288
91838968|NCT01225822|183558086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.837||||0.6659||95.0|0.374|1.875|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.875|0.374|0.6659
91838969|NCT01225822|183558086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.505||||0.1882||95.0|0.183|1.397|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 300 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.397|0.183|0.1882
91647082|NCT01289990|183185760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-2.4|0.1058
91647083|NCT01289990|183185760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-3.1|0.0109
91838970|NCT01225822|183558086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.5566||95.0|0.39|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.66|0.39|0.5566
91838971|NCT01225822|183558086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674||||0.3253||95.0|0.307|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.48|0.307|0.3253
91838972|NCT01225822|183558086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.269||||0.0114||95.0|0.097|0.744|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.744|0.097|0.0114
91838973|NCT01225822|183558087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.332||||0.036||95.0|0.118|0.931|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.931|0.118|0.036
91647084|NCT01289990|183185760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.5|0.8259
91838974|NCT01225822|183558087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.687||||0.3884||95.0|0.293|1.611|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.611|0.293|0.3884
91838975|NCT01225822|183558087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.616||||0.3674||95.0|0.215|1.766|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 300 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.766|0.215|0.3674
91838976|NCT01225822|183558087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.809||||0.5663||95.0|0.393|1.668|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.668|0.393|0.5663
91838977|NCT01225822|183558087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.556||||0.1678||95.0|0.242|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.28|0.242|0.1678
91838978|NCT01225822|183558087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.269||||0.0113||95.0|0.097|0.743|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.743|0.097|0.0113
91838979|NCT01225822|183558088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.818||||0.0077||95.0|2.077|120.474|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as for primary endpoint||120.474|2.077|0.0077
91838980|NCT01225822|183558088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.907||||0.0062||95.0|2.229|128.238|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as for primary endpoint||128.238|2.229|0.0062
91838981|NCT01225822|183558088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.136||||0.7192||95.0|0.567|2.276|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 300 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||2.276|0.567|0.7192
91838982|NCT01225822|183558088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.121||||0.0472||95.0|0.015|0.974|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||0.974|0.015|0.0472
91838983|NCT01225822|183558088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.049||||0.1043||95.0|0.862|4.868|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||4.868|0.862|0.1043
91838984|NCT01225822|183558088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.917||||0.1448||95.0|0.799|4.597|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||4.597|0.799|0.1448
91838985|NCT01225822|183558090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.871||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.221|128.142|||Regression, Logistic|||||128.142|2.221|0.0063
91838986|NCT01225822|183558090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.338||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.983|167.268|||Regression, Logistic|||||167.268|2.983|0.0025
91838987|NCT01225822|183558090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.919||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.750|0.483|0.7973
91838988|NCT01225822|183558090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.068||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.522|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.522|0.009|0.0097
91838989|NCT01225822|183558090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.522||||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|3.058|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.058|0.758|0.2375
91838990|NCT01225822|183558090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.403|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.403|0.550|0.7104
91838991|NCT01535274|183558101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||P-values represent comparison of successive set points within anesthetic type (i.e.: Set Point 1 compared to Set Point 2, Set Point 2 compared to Set Point 3, etc.). This P-value was determined for each of set points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.||||<0.001
91838992|NCT01905046|183558165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.62|||Chi-squared|||||2.62|0.36|0.951
91838993|NCT00405639|183558225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91838994|NCT00405639|183558226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91838995|NCT00405639|183558227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91838996|NCT00405639|183558228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91838997|NCT00612534|183558234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.194||95.0|-5.32|25.83|||ANCOVA|||||25.83|-5.32|0.194
91838998|NCT00612534|183558234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|24.11|||ANCOVA|||||24.11|-6.78|0.268
91838999|NCT00612534|183558234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|36.56|||ANCOVA|||||36.56|3.54|0.018
91839000|NCT01508013|183558245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.633
91839001|NCT01508013|183558246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
91839002|NCT01508013|183558247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.018
91839003|NCT01279343|183558285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-5.9|0.03
91839004|NCT01279343|183558286|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.23|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of vaginal delivery between groups.||1.23|.80|0.96
91839005|NCT01279343|183558286|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.9|||Chi-squared|||Cesarean deliveries were compared between the groups.||1.90|0.57|0.90
91839006|NCT03287414|183558295|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1379||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.115|0.241||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||0.241|-0.115|0.3248
91839007|NCT03287414|183558296|OTHER|||||||0.868|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.868
91839008|NCT03287414|183558298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.1|6.3|||Log Rank|||PFS1||6.3|1.1|0.921
91839009|NCT03287414|183558298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|5.6|||Log Rank|||PFS2||5.6|0.9|0.863
91647085|NCT01289990|183185760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-2.3|0.1660
91647086|NCT01289990|183185760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.9|0.0212
91647087|NCT01289990|183185760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.5||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-3.4|0.0076
91647088|NCT01289990|183185760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-4.1|0.0003
91708596|NCT01133704|183310063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.07|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the independent variable, and stratified by bisphosphonate use (placebo/sipuleucel-T).|||2.07|0.78|0.331
91647089|NCT01289990|183185760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-3.2|0.0170
91708597|NCT02207400|183310064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.612|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.191|-10.033|||ANCOVA||Difference is Sodium Bicarbonate and Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice minus Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-10.033|-13.191|<0.0001
91647090|NCT01289990|183185760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-3.1|0.0236
91647091|NCT01289990|183185760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-2.0|0.2523
91647092|NCT01289990|183185760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-1.9|0.3494
91647093|NCT01289990|183185761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-2.3|0.1568
91647094|NCT01289990|183185761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-2.4|0.1323
91647095|NCT01289990|183185761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-0.8|0.4327
91647096|NCT01289990|183185761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.8|0.0289
91778378|NCT01774721|183438039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.545|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.711|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|Comparison of dacomitinib vs gefitinib based on Investigator assessment||0.711|0.418|<0.0001
91647097|NCT01289990|183185761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.9|0.0231
91778379|NCT01774721|183438040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1942|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1942
91778380|NCT01774721|183438041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0924|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0924
91778381|NCT01774721|183438048|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.173||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.483|||Unstratified Log-rank Test|||||1.483|0.928|0.1641
91839010|NCT03287414|183558299|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|5.6|||Log Rank|||FVC||5.6|0.9|0.863
91647098|NCT01289990|183185761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.0|0.0513
91647099|NCT01289990|183185761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.7||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.7|0.0038
91839011|NCT03287414|183558299|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.4|2.0|||Log Rank|||DLCO||2.0|0.4|0.457
91839012|NCT03287414|183558299|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.1|0.6|||Log Rank|||6MWD||0.6|0.1|0.019
91839013|NCT03287414|183558300|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|2.0|||Log Rank|||Composite Endpoint 1||2.0|0.6|0.611
91647100|NCT01289990|183185761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.5||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-3.4|0.0084
91647101|NCT01289990|183185761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.1||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-2.8|0.0677
91647102|NCT01289990|183185761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-2.4|0.0814
91647103|NCT01289990|183185761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-2.2|0.1785
91647104|NCT01289990|183185762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.69||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.69|-2.75|<0.0001
91647105|NCT01289990|183185762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.61||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-2.66|<0.0001
91647106|NCT01289990|183185762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.14||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.14|0.09|0.0223
91839014|NCT03287414|183558300|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.9|||Log Rank|||Composite Endpoint 2||1.9|0.6|0.549
91647107|NCT01289990|183185762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-2.31||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.31|-3.37|<0.0001
91647108|NCT01289990|183185762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-2.22|||ANCOVA|||||-2.22|-3.28|<0.0001
91647109|NCT01289990|183185762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-1.41||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.41|-2.76|<0.0001
91647110|NCT01289990|183185762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.32||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.32|-2.66|<0.0001
91647111|NCT01289990|183185762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.19||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.19|-2.27|<0.0001
91647112|NCT01289990|183185762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-1.76||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.76|-2.85|<0.0001
91647113|NCT01289990|183185762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.47||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.47|-2.48|<0.0001
91647114|NCT01289990|183185762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.5||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.50|-2.52|<0.0001
91647115|NCT01289990|183185763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.26||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.26|-2.35|<0.0001
91647116|NCT01289990|183185763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-1.48||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.48|-2.56|<0.0001
91647117|NCT01289990|183185763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.08||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.08|-0.01|0.0546
91647118|NCT01289990|183185763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.8||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.80|-2.89|<0.0001
91647119|NCT01289990|183185763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.01||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.01|-3.10|<0.0001
91647120|NCT01289990|183185763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-1.24||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.24|-2.69|<0.0001
91647121|NCT01289990|183185763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.99||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.99|-2.43|<0.0001
91839015|NCT03287414|183558301|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the Mean|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3109||0.7576|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.615|0.774||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||0.774|-2.615|0.7576
91839016|NCT03287414|183558302|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the Mean|32.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.8632||0.3018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.572|112.015||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||112.015|-47.572|0.3018
91839017|NCT03287414|183558303|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the Mean|29.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.0143||0.314|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.22|106.553||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||106.553|-48.220|0.3140
91839018|NCT03287414|183558304|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the mean|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5422||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.219|3.759||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||3.759|-0.219|0.1269
91647122|NCT01289990|183185763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.34||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.34|-2.52|<0.0001
91647123|NCT01289990|183185763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.6||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-2.79|<0.0001
91647124|NCT01289990|183185763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-1.27||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-2.34|<0.0001
91839019|NCT01353222|183558320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.141||||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.918|||From a stratified log-rank test, stratif||Cox regression model with treatment as the independent variable, stratified by randomization strata. Hazard ratio with control as reference.|||1.918|0.679|0.6188
91647125|NCT01289990|183185763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.11||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-2.18|<0.0001
91647126|NCT01289990|183185764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-3.1|0.0001
91647127|NCT01289990|183185764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.7||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-2.8|0.0015
91647128|NCT01289990|183185764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.7|0.5052
91647129|NCT01289990|183185764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.4|-3.5|<0.0001
91647130|NCT01289990|183185764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-3.1|0.0001
91778382|NCT00248040|183438069|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|-0.275||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.45|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 1-3 hours time point||4.45|-5.00|0.9076
91778383|NCT00248040|183438069|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|2.444||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|7.21|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 1-3 hours timepoint.||7.21|-2.32|0.3084
91778384|NCT00248040|183438069|OTHER||Difference between means|-2.719||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|2.03|||Other|||||2.03|-7.47|0.2565
91778385|NCT00248040|183438069|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|-0.063||||0.9855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|6.79|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 10-12 hours time point.||6.79|-6.91|0.9855
91778386|NCT00248040|183438069|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|4.519||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|11.39|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 10-12 hours timepoint.||11.39|-2.36|0.1934
91778387|NCT00248040|183438069|OTHER|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|-4.582||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|2.17|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 10-12 hours time point.||2.17|-11.3|0.1797
91778388|NCT00118417|183438084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||Paired t-test between endpoint and baseline PDSS|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 38||||||0.0000
91778389|NCT00118417|183438085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||T-test of PDSS change score|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 22||||||0.97
91778390|NCT00118417|183438086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||T-test of PDSS change between baseline and endpoint of Phase 3|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 17||||||0.061
91647131|NCT01289990|183185764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.6|0.0064
91647132|NCT01289990|183185764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-2.1|0.0642
91647133|NCT01289990|183185764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.8|0.0053
91647134|NCT01289990|183185764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
91647135|NCT01289990|183185764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.1|0.0010
91647136|NCT01289990|183185764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.1|0.0015
91647137|NCT01289990|183185765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.7|0.0028
91647138|NCT01289990|183185765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.6||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.8|0.0019
91647139|NCT01289990|183185765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.5|-0.7|0.5044
91647140|NCT01289990|183185765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.9||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-3.1|0.0003
91647141|NCT01289990|183185765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.0||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-3.2|0.0002
91778391|NCT02978781|183438088|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.9143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14 (predose)|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.49|-0.44|0.9143
91778392|NCT02978781|183438089|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.03|-3.50|0.0529
91778393|NCT02978781|183438095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.7795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|2.70|-3.47|0.7795
91647142|NCT01289990|183185765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.5|0.0109
91898281|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.62|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.62|-1.03|0.343
91647143|NCT01289990|183185765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.9|0.1238
91647144|NCT01289990|183185765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-2.4|<0.0001
91647145|NCT01289990|183185765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.9|0.0076
91647146|NCT01289990|183185765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.1|0.0049
91647147|NCT01289990|183185765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.9|0.0178
91839020|NCT02395133|183558346|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change Difference|-14.83|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|-7.33|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the co-primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method.||-7.33|-22.34|= 0.0001
91647148|NCT01289990|183185766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-32.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-26.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-26.7|-37.8|<0.0001
91647149|NCT01289990|183185766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-31.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-31.7|-42.8|<0.0001
91647150|NCT01289990|183185766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-11.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-11.7|-22.9|<0.0001
91647151|NCT01289990|183185766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-9.4||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-9.4|-20.6|<0.0001
91839021|NCT02395133|183558346|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change Difference|-17.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.33|-10.34|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the co-primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method.||-10.34|-25.33|< 0.0001
91839022|NCT02395133|183558346|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change Difference|-21.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.36|-14.87|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the co-primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method.||-14.87|-28.36|<0.0001
91839023|NCT02395133|183558347|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|24.5|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|39.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||39.29|9.70|= 0.0040
91839024|NCT02395133|183558347|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|28.0|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.32|42.58||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||42.58|13.32|= 0.0004
91839025|NCT02395133|183558347|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.93|53.52||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||53.52|28.93|<0.0001
91839026|NCT02395133|183558348|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.4|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|38.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||38.00|4.86|= 0.0130
91898282|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.94|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.94|-0.75|0.576
91647152|NCT01289990|183185766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-14.4||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-14.4|-25.5|<0.0001
91647153|NCT01289990|183185766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-19.2||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-19.2|-35.0|<0.0001
91708598|NCT02207400|183310065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.652|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.738|-0.566|||ANCOVA||Difference is Sodium Bicarbonate and Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice minus Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.566|-0.738|<0.0001
91647154|NCT01289990|183185766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-23.2||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-23.2|-38.9|<0.0001
91708599|NCT02849704|183310071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91708600|NCT02849704|183310072|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91708601|NCT02849704|183310073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91839027|NCT02395133|183558348|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|33.5|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|49.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||49.72|17.38|= 0.0003
91839028|NCT02395133|183558348|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.36|55.76||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||55.76|28.36|<0.0001
91839029|NCT02395133|183558349|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|18.5|||=|0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|32.91||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||32.91|4.14|= 0.0209
91839030|NCT02395133|183558349|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|29.7|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.89|44.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||44.42|14.89|= 0.0007
91839031|NCT02395133|183558349|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.42|51.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||51.95|27.42|<0.0001
91839032|NCT02395133|183558350|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-14.4||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.21|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||0.32|-29.21|0.1048
91839033|NCT02395133|183558350|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-20.6|||=|0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|-5.89||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||-5.89|-35.32|= 0.0107
91839034|NCT02395133|183558350|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|-23.74||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||-23.74|-48.40|<0.0001
91647155|NCT01289990|183185766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-24.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-18.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-18.9|-29.7|<0.0001
91839035|NCT00045435|183558367|OTHER||Percent|47.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||69.0|||||The criterion for stopping was not met.|The study was to be stopped after 20 patients if the upper bound of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval for relapse-free survival was \<35%.||69||
91839036|NCT00045435|183558368|OTHER||percent|6.0|||||ONE_SIDED|80.0|1.0||||||The stopping criterion was not met.|The study was to be stopped if the lower bound of a 1-sided 80% confidence interval for NRM was greater than 15%|||1|
91839037|NCT03621202|183558376|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The EBBMS sensitivity was 100%.|||
91647156|NCT01289990|183185766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-21.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-21.9|-32.7|<0.0001
91839038|NCT03621202|183558377|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The EBBMS specificity was 75%.|||
91647157|NCT01289990|183185766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-22.0||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-22.0|-33.6|<0.0001
91839039|NCT00663117|183558388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The percentage of subjects achieving a 70-point drop in CDAI score in naltrexone treated subjects was the percentage acheiving the same drop in the placebo controls|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of those achieving a response with a 70-point decline in CDAI score was compared between naltrexone and placebo treated subjects using the Fisher's exact test. Analysis was performed with the intent-to-treat criteria. Clinical significance was accepted if the difference met 95% confidence (p\<0.05).||||0.009
91839040|NCT00663117|183558390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of patients having a 5-point decline in the endoscopic inflammation score||||0.008
91839041|NCT00663117|183558391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.048
91839042|NCT00437125|183558426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|8.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||13.3||||||||13.3||
91839043|NCT00437125|183558427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5553||95.0||||p-value is for total UDPRS score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total UDPRS score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.5553
91839044|NCT00437125|183558428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for psychic subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total psychic subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
91708602|NCT02849704|183310074|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91839045|NCT00437125|183558428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for neurological subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total neurological subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
91839046|NCT00437125|183558428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0||||p-value is for autonomic subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total autonomic subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.0014
91839047|NCT00437125|183558428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5586||95.0||||p-value is for other subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total other subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.5586
91839048|NCT00437125|183558428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0848||95.0||||p-value is for global assessment by paticipant. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the global assessment by paticipant subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.0848
91839049|NCT00437125|183558428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0263||95.0||||p-value is for global assessment by doctor. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the global assessment by doctor subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.0263
91839050|NCT00437125|183558429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for 4 weeks change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index from baseline to 4-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
91839051|NCT00437125|183558429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for 8 weeks change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index from baseline to 8-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
91647158|NCT01289990|183185766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-22.8||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-22.8|-34.5|<0.0001
91708603|NCT02849704|183310075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91839052|NCT00437125|183558429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for 12 weeks change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
91898283|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.98|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.98|-1.10|0.460
91898284|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.94|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.94|-1.15|0.435
91898285|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|0.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.22|-1.62|0.104
91898286|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-1.42|0.204
91898287|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|1.58|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.58|-0.08|0.931
91708604|NCT02849704|183310076|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91839053|NCT00437125|183558430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for the HAMD-17 total score. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the HAMD-17 total score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
91839054|NCT00437125|183558431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale score from baseline to end of week 12 of treatment.||||<0.0001
91839055|NCT00437125|183558433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for BDI score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between baseline and post-baseline in BDI scores||||<0.0001
91839056|NCT00437125|183558434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||p-value is for VAS overall pain score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS overall pain scores.||||0.0027
91839057|NCT00437125|183558434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||p-value is for VAS Headaches score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS headaches scores.||||0.0002
91839058|NCT00437125|183558434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS back ache score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS back ache scores.||||<0.0001
91839059|NCT00437125|183558434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS shoulder pain score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS shoulder pain score.||||<0.0001
91839060|NCT00437125|183558434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS interference score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS interference score.||||<0.0001
91839061|NCT00437125|183558434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS pain while awake score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS pain while awake score.||||<0.0001
91647159|NCT01289990|183185767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-25.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-25.9|-37.4|<0.0001
91839062|NCT00437125|183558435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for PDQ-39 total score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in PDQ-39 total score.||||<0.0001
91839063|NCT02248961|183558444|OTHER|It was calculated that at least 140 patients (70 patients per group) must be enrolled into the study to achieve 80% power. With regard to 20% of patients withdrawn prematurely or data not suitable for analysis, it was necessary to include at least 176 patients (88 per group) into the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|=|0.39|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is a decrease in SBP on the background treatment with Kanarb (fimasartan), that is at least 5.5 mmHg lower compared to Cozaar® (losartan).~Test of the hypotheses was performed using mixed linear models, where the site effect was considered a random effect, and the treatment group effect was considered a fixed effect. Baseline SBP on the study arm was included into the model as a covariate (a fixed effect) in all cases."||1.47||=0.390
91839064|NCT02248961|183558445|OTHER||||||=|0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.018
91647160|NCT01289990|183185767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-34.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-29.1||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-29.1|-40.7|<0.0001
91647161|NCT01289990|183185767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-10.5||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-10.5|-22.1|<0.0001
91839065|NCT02248961|183558446|OTHER||||||=|0.579|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.579
91647162|NCT01289990|183185767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.6||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-9.6|-21.2|<0.0001
91839066|NCT02248961|183558447|OTHER||||||=|0.466|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.466
91839067|NCT02248961|183558448|OTHER||||||=|0.118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.118
91839068|NCT02248961|183558449|OTHER||||||=|0.662|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.662
91839069|NCT02248961|183558450|OTHER||||||=|0.143|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||=0.143
91647163|NCT01289990|183185767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-12.8||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-12.8|-24.5|<0.0001
91839070|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the past 3 months as a risk factor for used (injected/snorted/smoked) heroin in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||2.44|0.80|0.05
91839071|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the past 3 months as a risk factor for having Used (injected/snorted/smoked) powder cocaine in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||2.76|1.12|0.01
91839072|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Used (injected and/or snorted) crack cocaine in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||2.44|1.00|0.05
91839073|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Used (injected/snorted/smoked) methamphetamine in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||0.98|0.35|0.03
91839074|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for poly-substance use in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||3.59|1.11|<0.01
91647164|NCT01289990|183185767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-15.3||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-15.3|-31.4|<0.0001
91647165|NCT01289990|183185767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-19.4||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-19.4|-35.4|<0.0001
91708605|NCT02771860|183310096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.9|||GEE|||Comparison between groups was done by Generalized Estimation Equations at joint level, accounting for within-patient clustering and adjusted for baseline unbalances. Missing values were imputed according to a predefined imputation model, including randomization group, baseline value and values at other time points available, presence of baseline inflammation, baseline number of affected joints.||16.9|1.0|0.024
91647166|NCT01289990|183185767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-19.6||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-19.6|-30.5|<0.0001
91647167|NCT01289990|183185767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-25.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-25.9|-36.9|<0.0001
91839075|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.87|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|12.28|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Heavy drinking (\>14 and \>21 drinks/week for women and men respectively) in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||12.28|3.84|<0.01
91839076|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.5|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Drank until blacked out in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||6.50|2.02|<0.01
91647168|NCT01289990|183185767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-24.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-24.9|-37.0|<0.0001
91647169|NCT01289990|183185767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-25.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-25.7|-37.9|<0.0001
91708606|NCT02771860|183310097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.50|0.11|<0.001
91708607|NCT02771860|183310098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|24.0|||GEE|||Comparison between groups was done by Generalized Estimation Equations at joint level, accounting for within-patient clustering and adjusted for baseline unbalances. Missing values were imputed according to a predefined imputation model, including randomization group, baseline value and values at other time points available, presence of baseline inflammation, baseline number of affected joints.||24.0|4.6|0.003
91647170|NCT00363129|183185771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.43
91647171|NCT00363129|183185772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
91647172|NCT00363129|183185773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91647173|NCT01345058|183185842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.65|||Chi-squared||Hazard ratio for seizure occurrence for polytherapy relative to monotherapy.|||1.65|0.35|0.49
91647174|NCT01892020|183185853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001||95.0|-1.66|-0.58||The 2-h PPG increment was analyzed using a normal linear mixed model with period and treatment as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Let D be the treatment difference (BIAsp 50 BID + metformin minus BHI 50 BID + metformin) of 2-h PPG increment after a 4-week treatment. The null hypothesis was D = 0 mmol/L. The alternative hypothesis was D ≠ 0 mmol/L. Sample size was determined using a two-sided one sample t-test at a = 0.05 under the assumption of 0.8 mmol/L mean treatment different and 80% power.||-0.58|-1.66|< 0.001
91647175|NCT03162354|183185865|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|We powered this hypothesis to detect a 17% increase (from 73% to 90%) in higher risk patients evaluated thoroughly for abuse at intervention sites, compared to baseline in prior PediBIRN studies. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were adopted to analyze 1,000 Monte Carlo datasets from simulation. For the target sample size of 304 higher risk patients (152 in each arm), the proportion of simulated datasets that yielded a statistically significant result for the primary hypothesis was 95.7%.||1.11|0.37|0.11
91647176|NCT03162354|183185866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||1.98|0.24|0.49
91647177|NCT03162354|183185867|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||5.13|0.69|0.22
91647178|NCT03162354|183185868|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||0.85|0.27|0.01
91647179|NCT03162354|183185869|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||2.60|0.46|0.84
91839077|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Injected daily, past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||0.93|0.33|0.04
91647180|NCT03162354|183185870|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.38||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||3.38|1.00|0.05
91647181|NCT03162354|183185871|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.49||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||3.49|0.43|0.71
91647182|NCT03162354|183185872|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.53||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||1.53|0.70|0.86
91647183|NCT03162354|183185873|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from baseline prior studies to the cluster randomized trial|||3.52|1.16|0.01
91647184|NCT03162354|183185874|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.67||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from baseline in prior studies to the cluster randomized trial.|||0.67|0.26|<.001
91898288|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|1.67|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.67|-0.04|0.941
91647185|NCT03162354|183185875|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.31||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from baseline in prior PediBIRN studies to the clinical trial.|||1.31|0.16|0.14
91647186|NCT03162354|183185877|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||2.05|0.27|0.57
91647187|NCT03162354|183185878|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||0.99|0.40|0.04
91647188|NCT02149199|183185885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Repeated measures logistic regression, with treatment, pre-study treatment, region and study week as fixed effects.|An odds ratio greater than 1 favours Symbicort 'as needed'|||1.30|1.00|0.046
91647189|NCT02149199|183185885|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analysis based on CI instead of p-value, hence no p-value calculated for this analysis. Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI \>=0.8 indicates Symbicort 'as needed' is non-inferior to Pulmicort bid.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|Repeated measures logistic regression with treatment, pre-study treatment, region and study week as fixed effects.||||0.73|0.57|
91708608|NCT04304508|183310105|OTHER|Dose-response test by using multiple comparison procedures (MCP) Mod.||||||0.7976|||||||MCP Mod|||Dose-response test||||0.7976
91708609|NCT04304508|183310105|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8105|1.3478||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 10 mg group versus Placebo group.||1.3478|0.8105|
91839078|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Median number of injected partners \>= 5 in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||3.40|1.37|<0.01
91839079|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Lent a needle/syringe in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence interval for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Lent a needle/syringe in the past 30 days||1.97|0.81|0.19
91839080|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Injected with someone else's used needle/syringe in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds ratio with 95 % confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having injected with someone else's used needle/syringe in the past 30 days||2.55|1.01|<0.01
91839081|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.27|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Pooled money to buy drugs in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence interval for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Pooled money to buy drugs in the past 30 days||5.27|1.79|<0.01
91839082|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Shared cooker/spook to prepare drugs in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as risk factor for risk behaviors||3.32|1.34|<0.01
91839083|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having used Backloaded Syringe in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95 % confidence interval for travel as a risk factor for risk behaviors||2.95|1.19|<0.01
91708610|NCT04304508|183310105|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|1.1963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9281|1.5428||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group.||1.5428|0.9281|
91647190|NCT02149199|183185886|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.577|||Regression, Cox|Cox-regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0, \>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first severe exacerbation.|||0.577|0.328|<0.001
91708611|NCT04304508|183310105|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|1.0485|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8082|1.3619||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group.||1.3619|0.8082|
91708612|NCT04304508|183310113|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.724|||=|0.1507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.924|3.215|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 10 mg group versus Placebo group||3.215|0.924|= 0.1507
91778394|NCT02978781|183438096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.33|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.33|-0.65|0.4846
91839084|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|"Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having done Someone's rinse in the past 30 days"|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for risk behavior in past 30 days||2.10|0.83|0.13
91708613|NCT04304508|183310113|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.285|||=|0.5339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.662|2.494|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||2.494|0.662|= 0.5339
91708614|NCT04304508|183310113|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.749|||=|0.1401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|3.262|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||3.262|0.938|= 0.1401
91708615|NCT04304508|183310113|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.585|||=|0.1653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|2.736|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Total Asundexian group versus Placebo group||2.736|0.918|= 0.1653
91708616|NCT00885378|183310122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.162||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|2.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: post - pre = pretreatment.|Estimate = adjusted mean change for Saxagliptin - adjusted mean change for Placebo.|||2.66|-21.68|0.1248
91708617|NCT00885378|183310123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.4|||||Adjusted for baseline.|||25.4|1.1|
91708618|NCT00885378|183310124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|24.7|||||Adjusted for baseline.|||24.7|3.0|
91708619|NCT00885378|183310131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standard Error of the Mean|-0.34||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo at Week 12(LOCF) was adjusted for baseline.|difference between week t value - baseline value = baseline value + treatment.|||-0.10|-0.58|0.0063
91708620|NCT01393522|183310137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1
91708621|NCT01393522|183310137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91708622|NCT01393522|183310138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91708623|NCT01393522|183310139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.75
91708624|NCT01393522|183310139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91708625|NCT01393522|183310140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91708626|NCT01393522|183310141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91708627|NCT01393522|183310142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91708628|NCT01393522|183310143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91708629|NCT03746405|183310144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Give the limited sample size, this p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significant was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis: Active rTMS applied over the node in the medial prefrontal cortex the most strongly negatively connected to the right amygdala will decrease amygdala BOLD activation compared to sham rTMS||||= 0.03
91708630|NCT03479008|183310145|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \<0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||This presents the p value for the thigh comparison baseline to during stimulation||||<0.0001
91708631|NCT03479008|183310145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||This presents the p value for the calf comparisons between baseline and during stimulation.||||<0.0001
91708632|NCT03479008|183310145|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||This statistical analysis presents the data for the biceps comparisons between baseline and during stimulation.||||<0.001
91708633|NCT03479008|183310146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||The P value below applies to the VO2||||<0.0001
91708634|NCT03479008|183310146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||This p value applies to the VCO2||||<0.001
91708635|NCT03479008|183310147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||||||<0.0001
91708636|NCT03479008|183310148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||||||<0.0001
91708637|NCT03479008|183310149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||||||0.094
91708638|NCT03479008|183310150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \<0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for Muscle bellies of Soleus (SO)||||0.011
91708639|NCT03479008|183310150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for tibialis anterior (TA)||||0.012
91708640|NCT03479008|183310150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for gastrocnemius lateralis (GL)||||0.003
91708641|NCT03479008|183310150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for vastus medialis (VM)||||<0.001
91839085|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for Median number of sexual partners \>=2 in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for risk behaviors in past 30 days||3.49|1.40|<0.01
91647191|NCT02149199|183185886|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.901||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.242|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first severe exacerbation.|||1.242|0.653|0.524
91647192|NCT02149199|183185887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.429|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.528|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first moderate or severe exacerbation.|||0.528|0.348|<0.001
91839086|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Traded sex for money or drugs in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds and 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for risk behaviors in past 30 days||1.85|0.45|0.86
91708642|NCT03479008|183310150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for vastus lateralis (VL)||||<0.0001
91708643|NCT03479008|183310150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \<0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for rectus femoris (RF)||||0.59
91708644|NCT03479008|183310150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for semitendinosus (ST)||||0.86
91708645|NCT03479008|183310150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for deltoideus medius||||0.006
91708646|NCT00412932|183310151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||The sample size of this study was not based on the statistical power consideration and was considered as sufficient for the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the proposed olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment regimen.||||<0.0001
91708647|NCT00412932|183310152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91708648|NCT00412932|183310153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments. This P-Value applies to both the daytime and nighttime periods.|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91708649|NCT00412932|183310154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments. The P-Value of \<0.0001 applies to both daytime and nighttime periods.|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91708650|NCT00929994|183310164|OTHER||||||=|0.06||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post hoc contrasts. Assumption of sphericity was met for all analyses determined by the Mauchley test of sphericity (all \>.05).|ANOVA|||With 1 group and 3 test times, a repeated measures analysis of variance of 6MWD, was utilized between the 3 test times 0, 3, and 6 months). A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post hoc contrasts.||||=0.06
91708651|NCT00929994|183310164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91708652|NCT00929994|183310165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91708653|NCT00929994|183310166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post-hoc contrasts.|ANOVA|||With 1 group and 3 test times, a repeated measures analysis of variance with pairwise comparisons of CES-D was utilized between the 3 test times baseline, 3 and 6 months.||||0.04
91708654|NCT00929994|183310167|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post-hoc contrasts|ANOVA|||With 1 group and 3 test times, a repeated measures analysis of variance with pairwise comparisons of MoCA was utilized between the 3 test times (-3, 0 and 6 months). A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post-hoc contrasts.||||>0.05
91708655|NCT03258645|183310169|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Univariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at index date was applied.||||< 0.001
91708656|NCT03258645|183310170|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Univariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at index date was applied.||||0.01
91708657|NCT03258645|183310171|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.25|||Regression, Linear|Relation between age and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.25|1.02|0.016
91708658|NCT03258645|183310172|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.21|||Regression, Linear|Relation between Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.21|1.04|0.002
91708659|NCT03258645|183310173|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.21|||Regression, Linear|Relation between CHA2DS2-VASc and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.21|1.00|0.04
91708660|NCT03258645|183310174|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.0|||Regression, Linear|Relation between HAS-BLED and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.00|0.45|0.051
91710800|NCT02258217|183314012|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in ADL score variable. This was calculated as follows:~ADL score (new relapse) - ADL score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.66|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||"We compared the two ADL scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new \& after treatment).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0~We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post ADL scores."||-0.66|-2.9|0.003
91839087|NCT00244374|183558486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for condom use \>90% (if sexually active)|Adjusted odds and 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for engaging in risk behavior during the past 30 days||2.02|0.59|0.73
91839088|NCT01411501|183558494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.352
91839089|NCT01411501|183558495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.968
91839090|NCT01411501|183558496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.841
91839091|NCT01411501|183558497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91647193|NCT02149199|183185887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.153|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first moderate or severe exacerbation.|||1.153|0.718|0.436
91839092|NCT01411501|183558498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.198
91647194|NCT02149199|183185888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|53.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|78.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline FEV1 as continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'. This is the estimate across all treatment visits.|||78.5|29.1|<0.001
91708661|NCT03258645|183310175|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.93|||Regression, Linear|Relation between History/Predisposition To Bleeding and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||0.93|0.9|0.026
91839093|NCT01411501|183558499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.035
91839094|NCT00708721|183558500|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Based on cytopenias observed at day 10 (Phase 1 trial only), and the Phase II dose was determined to be 1 mg per day for 7 consecutive days given on a 28 day cycle.|||||
91839095|NCT04105972|183558507|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|20.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||20.1|11.7|< 0.0001
91839096|NCT04105972|183558508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|12.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||12.1|8.2|<0.0001
91839097|NCT04105972|183558509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-39.3||||||||-39.3|-46.2|
91839098|NCT01966796|183558512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The incidence of MDR pathogens (6.7%, 25.5%, 36.9% and 44.6% in PSI II, III, IV, and V, respectively, p=0.002) and mortality rate (0, 5.9%, 12.3%, and 23.8%, respectively, p\<0.001) increased with increasing PSI||||0.002
91839099|NCT03029247|183558570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.47||p-value for the difference between treatment groups were presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented.|||8.47|-8.80|0.9694
91839100|NCT03029247|183558571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32||||0.7745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|7.83||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of SBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||7.83|-10.46|0.7745
91647195|NCT02149199|183185888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.8|-29.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline FEV1 as continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'. This is the estimate across all treatment visits.|||-29.8|-78.8|<0.001
91839101|NCT03029247|183558571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|1.71||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||1.71|-5.62|0.2910
91839102|NCT03029247|183558571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|4.07||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||4.07|-8.88|0.4611
91839103|NCT03029247|183558572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.95||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|1.24||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||1.24|-7.14|0.1648
91839104|NCT03029247|183558573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.42||||0.9142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-261.75|234.92||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of SBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||234.92|-261.75|0.9142
91839105|NCT03029247|183558573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-71.7||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.21|45.8||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||45.80|-189.21|0.2266
91839106|NCT03029247|183558573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-54.24||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.99|115.51||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||115.51|-223.99|0.5246
91839107|NCT03029247|183558574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-74.4||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.15|29.34||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of HR and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||29.34|-178.15|0.1563
91647196|NCT02149199|183185889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|16.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||16.00|7.89|<0.001
91839108|NCT03029247|183558575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|2.1||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||2.10|-6.23|0.3247
91839109|NCT03029247|183558575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51||||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.74||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||3.74|-8.76|0.4235
91839110|NCT03029247|183558576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.9353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|3.14||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||3.14|-3.41|0.9353
91839111|NCT03029247|183558577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-144.97||||0.2573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-399.71|109.76||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of SBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||109.76|-399.71|0.2573
91839112|NCT03029247|183558577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-117.49||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.26|-2.72||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||-2.72|-232.26|0.0450
91839113|NCT03029247|183558577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-131.94||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-306.24|42.36||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||42.36|-306.24|0.1341
91839114|NCT03029247|183558578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-97.67||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-219.05|23.71||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of HR and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||23.71|-219.05|0.1119
91839115|NCT00252590|183558659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
91839116|NCT02912468|183558661|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the worst-observation carried forward (WOCF) and multiple imputation (MI). The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.71|-1.07|<0.0001
91839117|NCT02912468|183558662|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.69|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-1.69|-2.43|<0.0001
91839118|NCT02912468|183558663|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. For regions outside of Japan, this first secondary endpoint was not tested unless both co-primary endpoints were significant at the 0.05 level. Hierarchical testing continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant. For Japan submission, LMK was instead a co-primary endpoint which also had to be met before secondary endpoints were tested in the hierarchy. Last endpoint in hierarchy is Week 24 SNOT-22.|LS mean difference|-7.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-6.53||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-6.53|-8.35|<.0001
91839119|NCT02912468|183558664|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-2.17||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-2.17|-3.04|<.0001
91839120|NCT02912468|183558665|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|10.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|12.34||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||12.34|8.79|<.0001
91839121|NCT02912468|183558666|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.93|-1.31|<.0001
91898289|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|2.01|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.01|-0.08|0.936
91898290|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|2.23|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.23|0.11|0.965
91647197|NCT02149199|183185889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-5.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-5.93|-14.03|<0.001
91839122|NCT02912468|183558667|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-21.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|-17.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-17.06|-25.17|<.0001
91839123|NCT01515189|183558698|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||Analysis stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), prior treatment for metastatic melanoma (yes vs. no) and M-stage (M0/M1a/M1b vs. M1c without brain metastases vs. M1c with brain metastases).|Log Rank||Hazard of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab over hazard of 3 mg/kg, with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on a Cox proportional hazards model|||0.99|0.70|0.0400
91839124|NCT01515189|183558699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04||Analysis stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), prior treatment for metastatic melanoma (yes vs. no) and M-stage (M0/M1a/M1b vs. M1c without brain metastases vs. M1c with brain metastases).|Log Rank||Hazard of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab over hazard of 3 mg/kg, with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on a Cox proportional hazards model|||1.04|0.76|0.1548
91839125|NCT01515189|183558705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04|||||Hazard of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab over hazard of 3 mg/kg. Based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model for subset of participants with brain metastases.|||1.04|0.49|
91839126|NCT02541383|183558716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.12|1.21|0.0010
91839127|NCT02541383|183558717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.68|||Log Rank|||||0.68|0.42|<0.0001
91839128|NCT02541383|183558718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.52|<0.0001
91647198|NCT02149199|183185890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.99|14.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||14.90|6.99|<0.001
91839129|NCT01960530|183558769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To investigate the absolute and relative bioavailability of cortisol from oral Infacort®, a 20 mg dose of oral Infacort® was compared to a 20 mg dose of i.v. hydrocortisone and hydrocortisone tablets, respectively (Study Periods 3-5). These investigations were conducted in dexamethasone suppressed healthy subjects. Standard bioavailability limits of 80% to 125% were used.|Geometric LSmean ratio|60.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.69|66.1||||||Evaluation of Cmax||66.10|54.69|
91839130|NCT01960530|183558769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To investigate the absolute and relative bioavailability of cortisol from oral Infacort®, a 20 mg dose of oral Infacort® was compared to a 20 mg dose of i.v. hydrocortisone and hydrocortisone tablets, respectively (Study Periods 3-5). These investigations were conducted in dexamethasone suppressed healthy subjects. Standard bioavailability limits of 80% to 125% were used.|Geometric LSmean ratio|106.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.92|117.76||||||||117.76|96.92|
91647199|NCT02149199|183185890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-2.29|-10.18|0.002
91647200|NCT02149199|183185892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline asthma symptom score as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.06|-0.18|<0.001
91708662|NCT02384538|183310258|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.52||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.944|4.99||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||4.990|-1.944|0.386
91839131|NCT01960530|183558774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.23|95.52||||||||95.52|79.23|
91839132|NCT01960530|183558774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|89.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.72|99.04||||||||99.04|81.72|
91839133|NCT01022073|183558784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This analysis is based on the completers. We are working on the imputation methods to account for the missing data and will revise results later.||||||0.808
91839134|NCT00510458|183558801|OTHER|It is expected that the mean linear wear rate is not more than 0.08 mm per year or 0.05 mm per year superior to the reference control, which was 0.13 mm per year. The reference control was determined from the control group within the Post-approval Study of the ABC and Trident® Systems (NCT00960206).|mean linear wear rate at 5 yrs|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0107|0.0267||||||||.0267|-0.0107|
91839135|NCT00510458|183558802|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative HHS compared to the post-operative HHS at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91839136|NCT00510458|183558803|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative HHS pain score compared to the post-operative HHS pain score at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91839137|NCT00510458|183558804|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative HHS ROM compared to the post-operative HHS ROM at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91839138|NCT00510458|183558805|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Physical component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Physical component score at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91839139|NCT00510458|183558805|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Mental component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Mental component score at 1 year is statistically significant.||||||0.0394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0394
91839140|NCT00510458|183558805|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Mental component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Mental component score at 3 years is statistically significant.||||||0.4974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4974
91839141|NCT00510458|183558805|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Mental component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Mental component score at 5 years is statistically significant.||||||0.677|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6770
91839142|NCT00510458|183558806|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative LEAS compared to the post-operative LEAS at 1 year and 3 years is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91839143|NCT00510458|183558806|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative LEAS compared to the post-operative LEAS at 5 years is statistically significant.||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0006
91839144|NCT03535337|183558901|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.59|0.28|0.03
91839145|NCT03535337|183558902|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.66|-1.32|0.82
91647201|NCT02149199|183185892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline asthma symptom score as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.15|0.03|0.004
91647202|NCT02149199|183185899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.413|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.497|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first additional steroids.|||0.497|0.343|<0.001
91839146|NCT05879198|183558904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.473
91839147|NCT05879198|183558905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.469
91839148|NCT05879198|183558906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.155
91839149|NCT05879198|183558907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.346
91839150|NCT05879198|183558909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in AEQ-positive scale scores.||||.075
91839151|NCT05879198|183558909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in AEQ-negative scale scores.||||.320
91839152|NCT05879198|183558909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in MEEQ-positive scale scores.||||.049
91839153|NCT05879198|183558909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in MEEQ-negative scale scores.||||.089
91839154|NCT01598298|183558910|OTHER|Two-sided test at the alpha=0.05 level|Coefficient for treatment term|-0.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.4||Two-sided p-value; alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for the protocol-specified stratification factors (baseline average pain and prior taxane use)|The estimation parameter is the model-based coefficient for the treatment term, with placebo as the reference level.|The primary analysis will rely on longitudinal measures of BPI at Weeks 2, 6, and 12 for improved power. Assessment windows of +/- 7 days, +/- 14 days, and +/- 14 days will be allowed for the 2, 6, and 12 week timepoints. The analysis will be performed using mixed models, adjusted for the stratification factors.||-0.40|-1.24|0.0002
91839155|NCT01598298|183558911|OTHER|Two-sided test at the alpha=0.05 level|Coefficient for treatment term|-1.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.55||Two-sided p-value; alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline worst pain score and the protocol-specified stratification factors (baseline average pain and prior taxane use).|The estimation parameter is the model-based coefficient for the treatment term, with placebo as the reference level.|The primary analysis will rely on longitudinal measures of BPI at Weeks 2, 6, and 12 for improved power. Assessment windows of +/- 7 days, +/- 14 days, and +/- 14 days will be allowed for the 2, 6, and 12 week timepoints. The analysis will be performed using mixed models, adjusted for baseline worst pain score and the stratification factors.||-0.55|-1.57|<0.0001
91839156|NCT01598298|183558912|OTHER|Two-sided test at the alpha=0.05 level|Coefficient fro treatment term|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.55||Two-sided p-value; alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline pain interference score and the protocol-specified stratification factors (baseline average pain and prior taxane use).|The estimation parameter is the model-based coefficient for the treatment term, with placebo as the reference level.|The primary analysis will rely on longitudinal measures of pain interference scores at Weeks 2, 6, and 12 for improved power. Assessment windows of +/- 7 days, +/- 14 days, and +/- 14 days will be allowed for the 2, 6, and 12 week timepoints. The analysis will be performed using mixed models, adjusted for baseline pain interference score and the stratification factors.||-0.55|-1.35|<0.0001
91647203|NCT02149199|183185899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.865||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.067|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first additional steroids.|||1.067|0.701|0.175
91647204|NCT02149199|183185900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|-0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline ACQ-5 as continuous covariate|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.105|-0.203|<0.001
91778395|NCT02978781|183438096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.36|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|"Change from Randomization in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 14"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.36|-2.70|0.4567
91778396|NCT02978781|183438097|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.96|-2.48|0.3771
91778397|NCT02978781|183438098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.7302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.69|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.69|-0.97|0.7302
91778398|NCT02978781|183438098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.7916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.85|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|"Change from Randomization in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 14"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.85|-1.10|0.7916
91778399|NCT02978781|183438099|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.23|-1.17|0.1807
91778400|NCT02978781|183438100|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.8709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline(SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Baseline in Archimedes Spirals (AS) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.9|-1.7|0.8709
91778401|NCT02978781|183438100|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Baseline in Handwriting at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.4|-1.8|0.7843
91778402|NCT02978781|183438100|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.984||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|2.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217 - placebo|Change from Baseline in Dot approximation task (DAT) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|2.10|-2.72|0.7604
91778403|NCT02978781|183438101|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.17|-1.13|0.1333
91839157|NCT00474929|183558925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) Level|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Dose Level 1 was chosen as the MTD due to PI concerns about adverse events and frequent dose reductions seen on later cycles at dose level 2. For the best interest of the patients, dose level 1 was chosen as the MTD and the dose level for Phase II.|The Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) is defined as the dose level below the lowest dose that induces dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in at least one-third of patients (at least 2 of a maximum of 6 new patients).||||
91647205|NCT02149199|183185900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline ACQ-5 as continuous covariate|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.198|0.101|<0.001
91647206|NCT02149199|183185901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and treatment x visit as fixed, patient as random and baseline AQLQ(S) as continuous covariate|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.181|0.074|<0.001
91839158|NCT00798174|183558933|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the azygos coil does not reduce the DFT. (A reduced DFT is superiority).||||||0.103||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the DFT using the azygos coil vs. the standard configuration.~Paired t-test (two-tailed), used due to construction of study with DFT determined in both configurations in each patient, yields p=0.103"||||0.103
91839159|NCT00999661|183558941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.12|<|0.0001||95.0|36.6|43.1||One-sample t-test for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||43.1|36.6|<0.0001
91647207|NCT02149199|183185901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.102|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|-0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and treatment x visit as fixed, patient as random and baseline AQLQ(S) as continuous covariate|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.049|-0.155|<0.001
91839160|NCT00999661|183558942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.79|<|0.0001||95.0|34.0|39.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.2|34.0|<0.0001
91839161|NCT00999661|183558943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.233|<|0.0001||95.0|-8.65|-7.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-7.29|-8.65|<0.0001
91839162|NCT00312858|183558957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity (non-inferiority) based on lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference of seroresponse rates excluding a decrease of 10 percentage points or more (lower bound \>-10.0).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|3.8||Similarity (non-inferiority) indicated that the risk difference was statistically significantly greater than the pre-specified clinically relevant difference of -10 percentage points at the 1-sided α=0.025 level.|Miettinen and Nurminen|For testing the non-inferiority of 2 proportions. Stratified by investigator.|Difference in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2.|Comparison of the difference (percentage points) in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2.||3.8|-1.4|<0.001
91839163|NCT00312858|183558958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity (non-inferiority) based on lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference seroresponse rates excluding a decrease of 10 percentage points or more (lower bound \>-10.0).|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.1||||0.013||95.0|-9.3|-1.4||Similarity (non-inferiority) indicated that the risk difference was statistically significantly greater than the pre-specified clinically relevant difference of -10 percentage points at the 1-sided multiplicity-adjusted α=0.025 level.|Miettinen and Nurminen|For testing the non-inferiority of 2 proportions. Stratified by investigator.|Difference in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2.|Comparison of the difference (percentage points) in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2 for participants with initial serostatus \<1.25 gpELISA units/mL||-1.4|-9.3|0.013
91839164|NCT00312858|183558959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 4||1.3|0.9|<0.001
91839165|NCT00312858|183558959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 6B||1.2|0.8|<0.001
91839166|NCT00312858|183558959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 9V||1.0|0.8|<0.001
91839167|NCT00312858|183558959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 14||1.2|0.9|<0.001
91839168|NCT00312858|183558959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 18C||1.3|0.9|<0.001
91708663|NCT02384538|183310260|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.55||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.214|8.308||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||8.308|-3.214|0.383
91647208|NCT02149199|183185903|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.49|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||0.49|0.27|<0.001
91839169|NCT00312858|183558959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 19F||1.2|0.9|<0.001
91839170|NCT00312858|183558959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 23F||1.3|1.0|<0.001
91839171|NCT02318719|183558993|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square mean|-0.41||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.07||DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg vs placebo were tested at level of 0.025. If both were significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.05. If neither were significant, 15 mg was no longer tested. If either 20 mg or 30 mg was significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg/day at Week 14||-0.07|-0.74|0.0170
91647209|NCT02149199|183185903|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.83||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.16|0.59|0.279
91839172|NCT02318719|183558993|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.47||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.14||DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg vs placebo were tested at level of 0.025. If both were significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.05. If neither were significant, 15 mg was no longer tested. If either 20 mg or 30 mg was significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo vs DS-5565 20 mg/day at Week 14||-0.14|-0.81|0.0058
91839173|NCT02318719|183558993|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.44||DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg vs placebo were tested at level of 0.025. If both were significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.05. If neither were significant, 15 mg was no longer tested. If either 20 mg or 30 mg was significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo vs DS-5565 30 mg/day at Week 14||-0.44|-1.10|<0.0001
91839174|NCT01355419|183559038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A power analysis conducted prior to the study predicted that a sample of 144 patients would provide an 80% power to detect a mean difference in sleep time of 40 minutes, assuming a standard deviation of 85 minutes and using a two-sided significance level of 5%.||||<0.05
91839175|NCT01355419|183559039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiple regression modelling was used to determine whether actigraphic or polysomnographic data were predictors for physical activity, independently from age and BMI, stepwise forward selection of variables was performed.|Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression modelling was used to determine whether actigraphic or polysomnographic data were predictors for physical activity, independently from age and BMI, stepwise forward selection of variables was performed.||||<0.05
91839176|NCT02951351|183559040|NON_INFERIORITY|By non-inferiority analysis, proparacaine was inferior to povidone iodine with a 5% margin for non-inferiority. To detect non-inferiority with one positive culture in the proparacaine group, 45 patients would be required in the proparacaine group with a 5% margin.||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
91839177|NCT02951351|183559041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91839178|NCT02951351|183559042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91647210|NCT02149199|183185904|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.49|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||0.49|0.32|<0.001
91839179|NCT02951351|183559043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91839180|NCT02951351|183559044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91839181|NCT02951351|183559045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91839182|NCT02951351|183559046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91839183|NCT02951351|183559047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
91839184|NCT00474175|183559057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|16.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|25.7||Alternative hypotheses tested in the study was that benzocaine 20% was significantly (p less than or equal to \[=\<\] 0.05) more effective than placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test which was adjusted for site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and its associated confidence interval (C.I.) was calculated based on CMH weighted percentages and the corresponding standard error.||25.7|7.2|<0.001
91839185|NCT00474175|183559057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|9.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|19.3||Alternative hypotheses tested in the study was that benzocaine 10% was significantly (p=\<0.05) more effective than placebo provided that benzocaine 20% was more effective than placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and its associated C.I. was calculated based on CMH weighted percentages and the corresponding standard error.||19.3|0.3|0.038
91839186|NCT00474175|183559057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|6.72||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Dose response was considered established if the percentage of responders between the 20% and 10% was greater than or equal to 5%.||P-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and its associated C.I. was calculated based on CMH weighted percentages and the corresponding standard error.||13.3|0.2|0.047
91778404|NCT02978781|183438101|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|"Change from Baseline in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 15"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.03|-1.64|0.0572
91778405|NCT02978781|183438101|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Kinetic tremor (KT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.05|-1.05|0.0707
91778406|NCT02978781|183438102|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.19|-2.87|0.0278
91778407|NCT02978781|183438103|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.9579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.54|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.54|-0.57|0.9579
91778408|NCT02978781|183438103|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|"Change from Baseline in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 15"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.30|-1.31|0.0039
91778409|NCT02978781|183438103|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Kinetic tremor (KT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.19|-1.14|0.0099
91778410|NCT02978781|183438104|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Archimedes spirals (AS) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.3|-1.5|0.1595
91778411|NCT02978781|183438104|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Handwriting at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.1|-0.9|0.0126
91778412|NCT02978781|183438104|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Dot approximation task (DAT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.10|-0.55|0.1536
91778413|NCT01383356|183438113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) in percent|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.0|125.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg versus (vs.) Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent if the geometric mean ratio is contained within the 80 to 125 percent range both on measured data (statistical analysis 1) and on potency corrected data (percent potency of label claim) (statistical analysis 2). ANOVA was applied to log-transformed Cmax and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction.||125|111|
91839187|NCT00474175|183559058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.64||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Hazard Ratio (HR) of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.64|1.55|<0.001
91647211|NCT02149199|183185904|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.95||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.21|0.74|0.663
91647212|NCT01083901|183185998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|Changes from baseline to 16 weeks were regressed on the baseline measurement.||The null hypothesis was that the changes in total body fat-free mass in response to resistance exercise training would not be different among the groups. The expected difference in fat-free mass between the Acetaminophen and Placebo groups was 1.8 +/- 1.0% with a 3.6 +/1 1.0% increase in fat-free mass in the Placebo group. The study was designed to achieve 96% power at the 0.05 level with 10 men in the acetaminophen and placebo groups.||||0.38
91647213|NCT01083901|183185999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|The change in fat mass was regressed on the baseline measure.||||||0.23
91647214|NCT01083901|183186000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|Change in strength was regressed on baseline measures.||||||0.30
91647215|NCT01083901|183186001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in strength were regressed on the baseline measure.||||||0.37
91647216|NCT00563524|183186037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5237|||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.5237
91778414|NCT01383356|183438113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|GMR, potency corrected (percent)|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|130.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed Cmax and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction. Results were potency corrected (GMR multiplied by the quotient of drug potency (DP) of Met in single tablet and DP of Met in combination tablet).||130|114|
91839188|NCT00474175|183559058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.12||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 10% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.12|1.26|<0.001
91839189|NCT00474175|183559058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.51||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Benzocaine 10% was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||1.51|1.02|0.030
91839190|NCT00474175|183559059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.66||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.66|1.57|<0.001
91839191|NCT00474175|183559059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.25||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 10% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.25|1.34|<0.001
91839192|NCT00474175|183559059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Benzocaine 10% was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||1.43|0.97|0.100
91647217|NCT00563524|183186037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8463|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.8463
91647218|NCT00563524|183186037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4596|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4596
91647219|NCT00563524|183186037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6345|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 42: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.6345
91647220|NCT00563524|183186037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6235|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.6235
91839193|NCT00474175|183559061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.95||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 60: P-value was calculated using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.95|0.03|0.035
91839194|NCT00474175|183559061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.32||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.78||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 60: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.78|-0.14|0.173
91647221|NCT00563524|183186038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3833|||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.3833
91647222|NCT00563524|183186038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4909|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4909
91647223|NCT00563524|183186038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.2200
91647224|NCT00563524|183186038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4183|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 42: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4183
91647225|NCT00563524|183186038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.465|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4650
91647226|NCT00563524|183186039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7051|||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.7051
91647227|NCT00563524|183186039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1072|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.1072
91778415|NCT01383356|183438114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|Geometric mean ratio (percent)|105.0||||||90.0|101.0|108.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent if the 90 percent confidence interval of geometric mean ratio is entirely contained within the 80 to125 percent range both on measured data (statistical analysis 1) and potency corrected data (percent potency of label claim) (statistical analysis 2). ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-t and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction.||108|101|
91778416|NCT01383356|183438114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|GMR, potency corrected (percent)|108.0||||||90.0|105.0|112.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs.Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-t and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction. Results were potency corrected (GMR multiplied by the quotient of DP of Met in single tablet and DP of Met in combination tablet).||112|105|
91778417|NCT01383356|183438115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE), AUC0-inf was no BE criteria|Geometric mean ratio (percent)|105.0||||||90.0|101.0|108.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-inf and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction.||108|101|
91778418|NCT01383356|183438115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE, AUC0-inf was no BE criteria|GMR, potency corrected (percent)|108.0||||||90.0|105.0|112.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-inf and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction. Results were potency corrected (GMR multiplied by the quotient of DP of Met in single tablet and DP of Met in combination tablet).||112|105|
91778419|NCT02054104|183438121|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.36
91778420|NCT00084136|183438135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.04||Not adjusted for multiple interim analyses. Peto-Haybittle spending function was used as a basis for calculating the repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified by country and screening RNA (\< 100,000 c/mL vs \>= 100,000 copies/mL).|The HR is for ddI+FTC+ATV vs. ZDV/3TC+EFV.|||2.04|1.12|<0.01
91778421|NCT00084136|183438136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.27|||Other||The HR is for TDF/FTC+EFV vs. ZDV/3TC+EFV.|While original study design specified a non-inferiority test, study follow-up stopped early, not due to treatment effect size or futility, but due to slowing accumulation of primary outcome events. Therefore, 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals about the estimated treatment effect (relative effect estimated by a hazard ratio) are provided.||1.27|0.72|
91778422|NCT02633306|183438162|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
91647228|NCT00563524|183186039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.0020
91647229|NCT00563524|183186039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0079|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 42: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.0079
91647230|NCT00563524|183186039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0308|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.0308
91778423|NCT02633306|183438163|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
91839195|NCT00474175|183559061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.18||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.55||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 60: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.55|-0.20|0.358
91839196|NCT00474175|183559061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.75||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.72||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 120: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.72|-0.23|0.135
91839197|NCT00474175|183559061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.48||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.46||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 120: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.46|-0.49|0.332
91839198|NCT00474175|183559061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.26||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.06||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 120: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.06|-0.53|0.517
91839199|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.35||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||5 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.35|0.50|<0.001
91839200|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.55||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.97||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||5 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.97|0.13|0.011
91839201|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.38||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.72||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||5 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.72|0.03|0.031
91839202|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.23||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||10 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.23|0.33|<0.001
91839203|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.94||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||10 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.94|0.04|0.031
91647231|NCT01467570|183186047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The differences between study groups were considered significant when the p value was \<0.05 or when the 95% CI for RD or MD did not include 0 (equivalent to p \< 0.05).||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.28
91839204|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.29||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.66||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||10 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.66|-0.07|0.119
91839205|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.25||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||15 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.25|0.28|0.002
91839206|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.46||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||15 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.95|-0.02|0.061
91647232|NCT03712137|183186057|SUPERIORITY||Responder Rate Difference|30.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.33|46.54|||Multiple Imputation|The procedure used to perform Multiple Imputation is PROC MIANALYZE in SAS with normal approximation||||46.54|15.33|0.0001
91647233|NCT03712137|183186060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.45|51.28|||Paired T-test|||||51.28|40.45|<0.0001
91839207|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.7||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||15 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.70|-0.09|0.131
91839208|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.52||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.03||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||20 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.03|0.01|0.044
91839209|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.43||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.93||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||20 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.93|-0.08|0.099
91839210|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.1||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.51||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||20 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.51|-0.32|0.647
91839211|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.6||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.11||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||25 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.11|0.08|0.023
91839212|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.47||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.98||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||25 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.98|-0.04|0.072
91839213|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.13||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.55||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||25 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.55|-0.29|0.551
91839214|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.54||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||30 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.08|0.01|0.047
91898291|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.51|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.51|-0.33|0.855
91647234|NCT01222715|183186066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event free survival distributions of patients in Regimen A and Regimen B were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.0124
91839215|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.27||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.81||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||30 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.81|-0.26|0.316
91839216|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.27||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.71||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||30 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.71|-0.17|0.224
91898292|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.38|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.38|-0.54|0.765
91898293|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.85|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.85|-0.84|0.504
91898294|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|1.06|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.06|-0.67|0.643
91647235|NCT03964220|183186189|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||The time to first exacerbation was analysis using Cox Proportional Hazards model with group status as the only independent variable assessing the risk of exacerbation across Tio and NonTio groups.||0.990|0.427|0.044
91647236|NCT03964220|183186190|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative binomial regression|||Analysis for the rate of exacerbation between Tio and NonTio groups within 6 months of follow-up.||||< 0.0001
91647237|NCT03964220|183186190|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative binomial regression|||Analysis for the rate of exacerbation between Tio and NonTio groups within 1 year of follow-up.||||< 0.0001
91647238|NCT00467818|183186243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
91647239|NCT00467818|183186244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91647240|NCT00467818|183186246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.5
91647241|NCT00467818|183186247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
91778424|NCT02633306|183438164|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
91778425|NCT02633306|183438165|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
91778426|NCT02633306|183438166|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
91778427|NCT02633306|183438167|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
91778428|NCT02633306|183438168|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
91778429|NCT00089752|183438174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was designed to achieve at least 80% power, using n 1⁄4 123 per group with an effect size of at least 0.36|Adjusted difference in mean change|-1.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.3||a priori threshold was p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||Intent to Treat analysis with Last Observation Carried Forward.||0.3|-3.8|0.09
91778430|NCT03879772|183438192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.95
91778431|NCT03879772|183438192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.78
91778432|NCT03879772|183438192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.98
91778433|NCT03879772|183438192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
91778434|NCT03879772|183438192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.82
91778435|NCT03879772|183438192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.98
91778436|NCT03879772|183438192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
91778437|NCT03879772|183438192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.8
91778438|NCT03879772|183438192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.02
91778439|NCT03879772|183438192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
91778440|NCT03879772|183438193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.56
91778441|NCT03879772|183438193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.74
91778442|NCT03879772|183438193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.68
91778443|NCT03879772|183438193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
91778444|NCT03879772|183438193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.81
91778445|NCT03879772|183438193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.33
91778446|NCT03879772|183438193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
91778447|NCT03879772|183438193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.46
91778448|NCT03879772|183438193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
91778449|NCT03879772|183438193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
91778450|NCT03879772|183438194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.8
91778451|NCT03879772|183438194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.45
91778452|NCT03879772|183438194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.12
91778453|NCT03879772|183438194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.36
91778454|NCT03879772|183438194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.6
91647242|NCT02216214|183186262|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.33||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.33|-1.05|<0.001
91778455|NCT03879772|183438194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.17
91647243|NCT02216214|183186263|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.27||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.27|-0.82|<0.001
91647244|NCT02216214|183186264|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|13.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.95|22.42||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the stratified rank ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||22.42|4.95|0.002
91647245|NCT02216214|183186265|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|-2.46||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.46|-7.84|<0.001
91647246|NCT02216214|183186266|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.83||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.83|0.62|0.011
91778456|NCT03879772|183438194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.23
91778457|NCT03879772|183438194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.42
91778458|NCT03879772|183438194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.09
91778459|NCT03879772|183438194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
91778460|NCT03879772|183438195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.03
91778461|NCT03879772|183438195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.04
91778462|NCT03879772|183438195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.08
91778463|NCT03879772|183438195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.49
91778464|NCT03879772|183438195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.93
91778465|NCT03879772|183438195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.75
91778466|NCT03879772|183438195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
91778467|NCT03879772|183438195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.71
91778468|NCT03879772|183438195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
91778469|NCT03879772|183438195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
91778470|NCT03879772|183438196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.16
91778471|NCT03879772|183438196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.22
91778472|NCT03879772|183438196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.14
91778473|NCT03879772|183438196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.14
91778474|NCT03879772|183438196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.85
91778475|NCT03879772|183438196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.96
91778476|NCT03879772|183438196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
91778477|NCT03879772|183438196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.81
91778478|NCT03879772|183438196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
91778479|NCT03879772|183438196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
91778480|NCT03879772|183438197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.05
91778481|NCT03879772|183438197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.07
91778482|NCT03879772|183438197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.11
91778483|NCT03879772|183438197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.31
91839217|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.46||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.01||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||40 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.01|-0.09|0.099
91839218|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.37||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.92||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||40 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.92|-0.18|0.186
91839219|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.09||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.54||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||40 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.54|-0.35|0.684
91839220|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.21||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.76||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||50 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.76|-0.34|0.452
91839221|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.2||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.75||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||50 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.75|-0.35|0.479
91839222|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.46||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||50 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.46|-0.44|0.955
91778484|NCT03879772|183438197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.94
91778485|NCT03879772|183438197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.73
91778486|NCT03879772|183438197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
91778487|NCT03879772|183438197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.79
91778488|NCT03879772|183438197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
91778489|NCT03879772|183438197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
91778490|NCT04916587|183438332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|12.6||||||||12.6|10.6|
91839223|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.21||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.79||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||60 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.79|-0.36|0.465
91898295|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-1.09|0.486
91898296|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|1.24|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.24|-0.91|0.600
91898297|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.82|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.82|-1.05|0.418
91778491|NCT04916587|183438333|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|8.3||||||||8.3|6.6|
91778492|NCT04916587|183438334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|0.14|0.03
91790184|NCT02660138|183459523|OTHER|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.59|24.95||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||24.95|4.59|<0.0001
91708664|NCT02384538|183310261|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|0.979||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||0.979|-0.677|0.719
91778493|NCT04672239|183438367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3341||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0734|13.5948||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation of all available longitudinal data to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for end-of-treatment group differences.|Mixed Models Analysis||Model-estimated difference for the pairwise group difference at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This proof-of-concept RCT was powered to detect an effect size of d=0.50 between SiS3 and either of the two control groups. Using SAS PROC POWER, it was determined that a sample size of n=64 per group would be needed to detect this effect in a 2-sided t-test with p=.05. Assuming a retention rate of 85%, it was determined that one needed to enroll n=75 per group in order to retain n=64 by end of treatment.||13.5948|1.0734|0.0219
91778494|NCT04672239|183438367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7775||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.407|15.148||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation of all available longitudinal data to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for end-of-treatment group differences.|Mixed Models Analysis||Model-estimated difference for the pairwise group difference at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This proof-of-concept RCT was powered to detect an effect size of d=0.50 between SiS3 and either of the two control groups. Using SAS PROC POWER, it was determined that a sample size of n=64 per group would be needed to detect this effect in a 2-sided t-test with p=.05. Assuming a retention rate of 85%, it was determined that one needed to enroll n=75 per group in order to retain n=64 by end of treatment.||15.1480|2.4070|0.0072
91778495|NCT04672239|183438368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5072||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7759|2.9281|||Generalized Linear Model|We used a Generalized Linear Model with binomial distribution (abstinent vs. smoking) and logit link with repeated measures over time.|The odds ratio compares the SiS app treatment to the QG app treatment at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This was an exploratory aim, so no power analysis was conducted. We hypothesized, that the 30-day point prevalence smoking cessation prevalence would be higher in the SiS app treatment compared to the QuitGuide app treatment. Participants with missing data were assumed to be smoking. We modeled all available data over time and present the cross-sectional group difference test at week 6 post quit (i.e., end-of-treatment).||2.9281|0.7759|0.2259
91778496|NCT04672239|183438368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.963||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9776|3.9415|||Generalized Linear Model|We used a Generalized Linear Model with binomial distribution (abstinent vs. smoking) and logit link with repeated measures over time.|The odds ratio compares the SiS app treatment to the CtA pamphlet at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This was an exploratory aim, so no power analysis was conducted. We hypothesized, that the 30-day point prevalence smoking cessation prevalence would be higher in the SiS app treatment compared to the Clearing the Air pamphlet treatment. Participants with missing data were assumed to be smoking. We modeled all available data over time and present the cross-sectional group difference test at week 6 post quit (i.e., post-treatment).||3.9415|0.9776|0.0579
91778497|NCT04672239|183438369|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|0.401||||0.9152|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|SiS app treatment vs. QuitGuide app treatment at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment)|||||0.9152
91778498|NCT04672239|183438369|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.372||||0.3557|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|Pairwise comparison, SiS app treatment vs. CTA pamphlet at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment)|||||0.3557
91778499|NCT04672239|183438370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2936||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4983|2.0856||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of SiS app treatment to the QuitGuide treatment as control (Contrast coding SiS 1, QG -1)|||2.0856|-1.4983|0.7469
91778500|NCT04672239|183438370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2569||||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5628|3.0766||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of SiS app treatment to the Clearing the Air pamphlet treatment as control (Contrast coding SiS 1, CtA -1)|||3.0766|-0.5628|0.1747
91778501|NCT04672239|183438371|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.9255||||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method||||||0.1315
91778502|NCT04672239|183438371|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.401||||0.3403|TWO_SIDED|||||the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|SiS app vs. Clearing the Air pamphlet|||||0.3403
91778503|NCT04672239|183438372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2289||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007364|0.4505||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. QuitGuide app|0.4505|0.007364|0.0429
91839224|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.58||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||60 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.58|-0.57|0.992
91778504|NCT04672239|183438372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1609||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06415|0.386||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. CtA pamphlet|0.3860|-0.06415|0.1600
91778505|NCT04672239|183438373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08092|0.3848||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. QG app|0.3848|-0.08092|0.1996
91778506|NCT04672239|183438373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05636|0.5276||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. CtA pamphlet (control)|0.5276|0.05636|0.0154
91778507|NCT04672239|183438374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6255||||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3458|7.5968||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. QuitGuide app (control)|7.5968|-2.3458|0.2988
91778508|NCT04672239|183438374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9277||||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1015|8.9569||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. CtA pamphlet (control)|8.9569|-1.1015|0.1251
91778509|NCT04672239|183438375|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|-0.8096||||0.4182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4182
91778510|NCT04672239|183438376|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.909||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0563
91778511|NCT04672239|183438377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1106||||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2143|0.4354|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4354|-0.2143|0.5018
91778512|NCT04672239|183438378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1406||||0.4246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2068|0.488|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4880|-0.2068|0.4246
91778513|NCT04672239|183438379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4296||||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3597|8.2188|||t-test, 2 sided||SiS app vs. QG (control)|||8.2188|-3.3597|0.4078
91778514|NCT04825678|183438399|OTHER||Least squares mean (LSM)|40.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.05|45.39||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline monthly migraine days (MMD), and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||45.39|36.05|< 0.001
91839225|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.21||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.68||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||60 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.68|-0.26|0.376
91647247|NCT02216214|183186267|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.16||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.46|<0.001
91778515|NCT04825678|183438399|OTHER||LSM|30.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.53||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|62.98||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||62.98|-1.30|0.058
91778516|NCT04825678|183438400|OTHER||LSM|37.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.62|47.12||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||47.12|28.62|< 0.001
91778517|NCT04825678|183438400|OTHER||LSM|43.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.06|48.44||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||48.44|38.06|< 0.001
91778518|NCT04825678|183438409|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-44.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|-40.41||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Physical Function Domain||-40.41|-49.39|< 0.001
91839226|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.36||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.93||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||70 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.93|-0.22|0.229
91839227|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.74||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||70 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.74|-0.41|0.581
91839228|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.19||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.66||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||70 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.66|-0.28|0.422
91839229|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.33||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.91||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||80 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.91|-0.26|0.271
91898298|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.99|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.99|-0.95|0.515
91647248|NCT02216214|183186268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91647249|NCT02216214|183186269|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.68|||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||The rate ratio for the number of urgency incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron total group vs placebo group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||||<0.001
91647250|NCT02216214|183186270|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.84||||0.432||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||The rate ratio for the number of nocturia episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron total group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||||0.432
91647251|NCT02216214|183186271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.317
91778519|NCT04825678|183438409|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-54.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.43|-34.86||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Physical Function Domain||-34.86|-73.43|< 0.001
91778520|NCT04825678|183438409|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed baseline MMD, and selected baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-44.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.26|-40.44||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Usual Activities Domain||-40.44|-48.26|< 0.001
91778521|NCT04825678|183438409|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-43.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.51|-34.08||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Usual Activities Domain||-34.08|-53.51|< 0.001
91778522|NCT04825678|183438409|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-44.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.65|-40.14||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Social Function Domain||-40.14|-48.65|< 0.001
91898299|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.81|-0.93|0.456
91898300|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|0.97|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.97|-0.82|0.556
91778523|NCT04825678|183438409|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-45.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.28|-29.79||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Social Function Domain||-29.79|-60.28|< 0.001
91778524|NCT04825678|183438409|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.29|-40.7||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Emotional Function Domain||-40.70|-50.29|< 0.001
91778525|NCT04825678|183438409|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-60.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.16|-34.96||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Emotional Function Domain||-34.96|-85.16|< 0.001
91778526|NCT04825678|183438410|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-34.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.72|-27.03||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Physical Function Domain||-27.03|-41.72|< 0.001
91778527|NCT04825678|183438410|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-49.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|-44.69||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Physical Function Domain||-44.69|-54.44|< 0.001
91778528|NCT04825678|183438410|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed baseline MMD, and selected baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-35.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.47|-30.06||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Usual Activities Domain||-30.06|-41.47|< 0.001
91778529|NCT04825678|183438410|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-46.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-42.29||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Usual Activities Domain||-42.29|-51.10|< 0.001
91778530|NCT04825678|183438410|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-36.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.89|-29.96||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Social Function Domain||-29.96|-42.89|< 0.001
91778531|NCT04825678|183438410|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-46.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.49|-41.98||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Social Function Domain||-41.98|-51.49|< 0.001
91778532|NCT04825678|183438410|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-41.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.47|-33.4||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Emotional Function Domain||-33.40|-49.47|< 0.001
91898301|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|1.02|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.02|-1.19|0.448
91778533|NCT04825678|183438410|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-47.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.95|-42.39||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Emotional Function Domain||-42.39|-52.95|< 0.001
91778534|NCT01342211|183438411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.759||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.09|13.83|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||13.83|-25.09|0.5661
91778535|NCT01342211|183438411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.422||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.08|16.49|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||16.49|-21.08|0.8080
91778536|NCT01342211|183438411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.404||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.47|-18.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||-18.97|-56.47|0.0001
91839230|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.15||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.73||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||80 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.73|-0.43|0.612
91839231|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.18||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.65||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||80 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.65|-0.30|0.465
91839232|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.32||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.91||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||90 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.91|-0.27|0.290
91839233|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.25||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.83||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||90 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.83|-0.34|0.412
91839234|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.07||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.55||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||90 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.55|-0.41|0.769
91647252|NCT02216214|183186272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.165
91647253|NCT02216214|183186273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91839235|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.15||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.74||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||100 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.74|-0.43|0.610
91898302|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.30|-0.95|0.600
91898303|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.52|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.52|-1.41|0.225
91898304|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.387|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|0.83|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.83|-1.18|0.387
91647254|NCT02216214|183186274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Coping Subscale Score||||0.019
91898305|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.657|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|1.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-0.67|0.657
91898306|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|1.4|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.40|-0.43|0.808
91898307|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|1.57|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.57|-0.68|0.742
91898308|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|2.14|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.14|-0.16|0.923
91898309|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.98|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.98|-1.01|0.490
91839236|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.2||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.78||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||100 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.78|-0.39|0.511
91839237|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.43||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||100 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.43|-0.52|0.859
91839238|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.26||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.84||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||110 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.84|-0.33|0.386
91839239|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.76||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||110 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.76|-0.41|0.563
91839240|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.09||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.56||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||110 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.56|-0.39|0.721
91839241|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.1||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.69||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||120 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.69|-0.48|0.725
91839242|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.06||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.64||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||120 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.64|-0.52|0.839
91839243|NCT00474175|183559063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.52||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||120 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.52|-0.43|0.855
91839244|NCT00474175|183559064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.33||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for site baseline pain intensity. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% versus Placebo) and the associated confidence interval were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.33|0.01|0.035
91839245|NCT00474175|183559064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.33||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for site baseline pain intensity. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% versus Placebo) and the associated confidence interval were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.33|-0.00|0.039
91898310|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.609|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|1.2|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.20|-0.86|0.609
91898311|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.71|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.71|-1.10|0.362
91898312|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.77|0.610
91898313|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.93|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.93|-1.37|0.376
91647255|NCT02216214|183186274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Concern Subscale Score||||0.010
91839246|NCT00474175|183559064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for site baseline pain intensity. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% versus Benzocaine 10%) and the associated confidence interval were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.13|-0.15|0.944
91839247|NCT00058019|183559121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
91839248|NCT00058019|183559122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91839249|NCT00058019|183559124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.695
91839250|NCT00058019|183559125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.55
91839251|NCT00007475|183559131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with reduced proteinuria|0.6363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0698|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3079|0.8907||Exact binomial test of proportion of participants exhibiting reduction in proteinuria (see definition below), under null hypothesis that the overall proportion is zero.|Exact binomial test|Tested under null hypothesis that the overall proportion is zero.|Proportion event definition: exhibiting reduction in proteinuria post-cyclophosphamide (complete- \[urine protein {UP} \<0.3\] or or partial-remission \[between 0.3 \& 2.0, inclusive\], limited response \[UP between 2.0 \& 3.5\] yet no relapse \[UP 3.5+\]).|No groups compared, yet null hypothesis: pooled proportion = 0, tested using counts pooled across baseline FPF assay-availability groups (7 across 3 arms) excluding 4 non-completers (yielding 7/11 with event below). Given the modest group-specific sample sizes and tendency for zero outcomes to be observed in a group, we employ exact binomial 95% confidence intervals using the method of Clopper and Pearson (1934; calculated along with corresponding tests using Michael Fay's exactci package in R).||0.8907|0.3079|<0.0001
91839252|NCT00737061|183559142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.9||||||95.0|97.9|100.0||||||1-sided confidence interval. No statistical hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 1-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE Trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment).||100|97.9|
91839253|NCT00737061|183559142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.9||||||95.0|97.6|99.5||||||2-sided confidence interval. No statistical hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 2-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE Trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment).||99.5|97.6|
91839254|NCT00737061|183559152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.4||||||95.0|97.2|100.0||||No statistical hypothesis testing was performed.||"1-sided Confidence Interval.~No hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 1-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment)."||100|97.2|
91839255|NCT00737061|183559152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.4||||||95.0|96.9|99.1||||No statistical hypothesis testing was performed.||"2-sided Confidence Interval~No hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 2-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment)."||99.1|96.9|
91647256|NCT02216214|183186274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Sleep Subscale Score||||0.006
91647257|NCT02216214|183186274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Social Subscale Score||||0.614
91647258|NCT02216214|183186275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91647259|NCT02216214|183186276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.755
91708665|NCT02384538|183310262|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.25||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.448|13.945||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||13.945|-5.448|0.387
91839256|NCT00692406|183559175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0023|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
91839257|NCT00692406|183559176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1167|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
91839258|NCT00692406|183559177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0253|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
91839259|NCT00692406|183559178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1432|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
91839260|NCT00692406|183559179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0489|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
91778537|NCT01342211|183438411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.514|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.08|-30.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||-30.14|-68.08|<0.0001
91778538|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.172||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||13.92|0.10|0.8998
91778539|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.063||||0.5273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|19.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||19.48|0.22|0.5273
91778540|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.924||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.93|490.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||490.67|5.93|0.0004
91778541|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|280.366|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.65|4214.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4214.35|18.65|<0.0001
91778542|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.262||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||1.21|0.06|0.0860
91778543|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579||||0.4308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||2.25|0.15|0.4308
91778544|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.272||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|43.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||43.56|1.57|0.0127
91778545|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.528||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|97.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||97.00|1.89|0.0096
91778546|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.131||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|61.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||61.54|0.02|0.9519
91778547|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.069||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|58.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||58.00|0.02|0.9740
91778548|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.286||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|549.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||549.78|1.46|0.0273
91778549|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|114.508||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|2384.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||2384.03|5.50|0.0022
91778550|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.216||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||1.12|0.04|0.0684
91778551|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.081||||0.9068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||3.99|0.29|0.9068
91839261|NCT00692406|183559180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0096|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
91778552|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.251||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||8.31|0.61|0.2235
91778553|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.25||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|42.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||42.82|1.59|0.0120
91778554|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.359||||0.5449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|9.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||9.92|0.01|0.5449
91778555|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.914||||0.5585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|16.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||16.85|0.22|0.5585
91778556|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.059||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|147.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||147.65|3.00|0.0022
91778557|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.851||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|165.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||165.99|3.15|0.0020
91778558|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||7.12|0.48|0.3750
91778559|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4.23|0.28|0.9140
91778560|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.548||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|43.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||43.57|2.09|0.0036
91778561|NCT01342211|183438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.093||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|26.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||26.10|1.42|0.0149
91778562|NCT01342211|183438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.674||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|8.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||8.83|0.32|0.5436
91839262|NCT00692406|183559181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0372|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
91708666|NCT02384538|183310263|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|1.272||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||1.272|-0.373|0.281
91708667|NCT02384538|183310264|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.336||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||1.336|-0.300|0.212
91708668|NCT02872909|183310265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.54||calculated as \<0.05 for 85% power|t-test, 2 sided|Analysed on log transformed data||Sample size requirement estimation - Preliminary data showed pain scores of 1.25 with ambulatory PDT (n=12) and 5.26 (SD 2.38) for conventional PDT (n=50). Estimated that for 85% power to detect as significant at 5% level a difference in mean pain score in one group of 2cm compared with 4 cm in the other group, assuming two-sided testing, a minimum of 45 subjects needed. We aimed for 50 subjects, with an allocation ratio of 2 (twice as many randomised to ambulatory PDT as conventional PDT)||2.54|0.71|<0.05
91778563|NCT01342211|183438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.734||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4.63|0.12|0.7420
91708669|NCT02872909|183310268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91708670|NCT02187861|183310289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|21.23||||||||21.23|-13.38|
91708671|NCT02187861|183310290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|19.81||||||||19.81|-15.89|
91708672|NCT02187861|183310291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|20.99||||||||20.99|-17.07|
91708673|NCT02187861|183310292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.01|11.32||||||||11.32|-27.01|
91708674|NCT02187861|183310293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|13.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|31.69||||||At 6-8 weeks after Cycle 6 Day 1||31.69|-4.24|
91708675|NCT02187861|183310293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|20.82||||||At Year 1||20.82|-12.98|
91708676|NCT02187861|183310294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-15.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.87|0.49||||||At 4-10 weeks after Cycle 6 Day 1||0.49|-31.87|
91708677|NCT02187861|183310294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.56|6.87||||||At Year 1||6.87|-22.56|
91708678|NCT02187861|183310300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.27|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and DOR of prior cancer therapy.||1.27|0.38|
91708679|NCT02187861|183310300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.4|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||1.40|0.43|
91708680|NCT02187861|183310302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.24|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and PFS of prior cancer therapy.||1.24|0.38|
91708681|NCT02187861|183310302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.36|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||1.36|0.43|
91708682|NCT02187861|183310304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.24|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and EFS of prior cancer therapy.||1.24|0.38|
91708683|NCT02187861|183310304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.36|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||1.36|0.43|
91778564|NCT01342211|183438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.151||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|167.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||167.62|4.73|0.0002
91778565|NCT01342211|183438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.214||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|643.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||643.42|7.88|0.0001
91778566|NCT01342211|183438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.203||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4.74|0.01|0.3210
91778567|NCT01342211|183438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.175||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|12.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||12.27|0.39|0.3786
91778568|NCT01342211|183438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.576||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|38.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||38.38|1.50|0.0144
91778569|NCT01342211|183438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.465||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|116.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||116.60|3.59|0.0007
91778570|NCT01342211|183438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.161||||0.8626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||6.30|0.21|0.8626
91778571|NCT01342211|183438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.497||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||7.51|0.30|0.6237
91778572|NCT01342211|183438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.029||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|36.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||36.65|1.76|0.0072
91778573|NCT01342211|183438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.557||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|113.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||113.20|3.73|0.0005
91778574|NCT03593044|183438466|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Photopic pupil size||||0.002
91778575|NCT03593044|183438466|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mesopic pupil size||||0.66
91778576|NCT03593044|183438467|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High contrast distance visual acuity||||0.96
91778577|NCT03593044|183438467|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High contrast near visual acuity||||0.77
91778578|NCT03593044|183438467|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Low contrast distance visual acuity||||0.82
91778579|NCT03593044|183438468|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Accommodative amplitude||||0.10
91778580|NCT03593044|183438468|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Accommodative lag||||0.66
91778581|NCT03593044|183438468|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Accommodative facility||||0.24
91778582|NCT03593044|183438469|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glare||||0.3
91778583|NCT03593044|183438469|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ghost images||||0.5
91708684|NCT02187861|183310306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.37|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and OS of prior cancer therapy.||5.37|0.04|
91778584|NCT03593044|183438469|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Strain/tiredness||||0.9
91778585|NCT03593044|183438469|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changing vision||||0.9
91778586|NCT03593044|183438469|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Headache frequency||||0.3
91778587|NCT03593044|183438469|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Distance clarity||||0.7
91778588|NCT03593044|183438469|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Computer clarity||||0.3
91778589|NCT03593044|183438469|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Small print clarity||||0.1
91778590|NCT03593044|183438469|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Vision during sports/hobbies||||1.0
91778591|NCT03593044|183438469|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall vision||||0.2
91778592|NCT03593044|183438469|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Light sensitivity||||0.7
91778593|NCT03593044|183438469|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Discomfort during bright light||||0.002
91778594|NCT03593044|183438470|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right eye intraocular pressure||||0.001
91778595|NCT03593044|183438470|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left eye intraocular pressure||||0.05
91778596|NCT00554216|183438472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.43|10.3||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||10.30|8.43|<0.0001
91778597|NCT00554216|183438472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|4.71||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.71|2.38|<0.0001
91778598|NCT00554216|183438472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|6.99||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||6.99|4.65|<0.0001
91839263|NCT00692406|183559182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
91778599|NCT00554216|183438473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|12.95||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||12.95|7.13|<0.0001
91778600|NCT00554216|183438473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.63||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||5.63|2.80|<0.0001
91778601|NCT00554216|183438473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.33||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.33|1.76|<0.0001
91778602|NCT01347112|183438508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||1 tailed fisher's exact test|Fisher Exact|1 tailed||||||0.034
91778603|NCT01347112|183438509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||1 tailed fisher's exact|Fisher Exact|1 tailed||||||0.044
91778604|NCT01347112|183438510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.1|||||data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with treatment as the independent variable and the baseline value included as the co-variate|||2.1|-4.7|
91778605|NCT05462756|183438512|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size provided \>99% statistical power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM), in insulin efsitora doses compared to insulin glargine, in a 1:1 randomization, a standard deviation (SD) of 1.1%, and a dropout rate of 15%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.116||||||Least Squares (LS) Mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed.||0.116|-0.140|
91839264|NCT01407354|183559199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.05
91778606|NCT05462756|183438513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.012||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.116|||ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) Mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed.||0.116|-0.140|0.855
91778607|NCT05462756|183438514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.52|||Chi-squared|||||1.52|0.81|0.504
91778608|NCT05462756|183438515|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.67||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.01|||Negative binomial model||Relative rate is the ratio of the group means (Insulin Efsitora vs Insulin Glargine).|Group mean is determined by Negative Binomial Model using Number of episodes = Baseline hypoglycemia rate + Hemoglobin A1c at Baseline (%) + Treatment, with log (exposure in days/365.25) as an offset variable.||1.01|0.44|0.058
91778609|NCT05462756|183438516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.29||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.461|0.886|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined using ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||0.886|-9.461|0.104
91778610|NCT05462756|183438517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.35||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.404|4.101|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined using ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 22-Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||4.101|-1.404|0.337
91778611|NCT05462756|183438518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.59||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|3.508|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined by ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 22-Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||3.508|-0.327|0.104
91778612|NCT05462756|183438519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.358|1.36|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined by ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares). Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 22-Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||1.360|-4.358|0.304
91839265|NCT01407354|183559199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|threshold p value for statistical significance=0.05||||||0.024
91839266|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.0||||0.4788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.8|134.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 1||134.9|-284.8|0.4788
91839267|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|124.1||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.6|328.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 1||328.9|-80.6|0.2309
91708685|NCT02187861|183310306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.63|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||5.63|0.05|
91708686|NCT01301079|183310324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney|||||||0.113
91708687|NCT01301079|183310325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.946|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.946
91778613|NCT05462756|183438520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model with BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||0.95|-0.48|0.523
91778614|NCT05462756|183438521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.57|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||-14.50|-55.57|<0.001
91778615|NCT05462756|183438522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||-4.30|-10.79|<0.001
91778616|NCT05462756|183438523|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-73.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.81|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||-39.20|-107.81|<0.001
91778617|NCT05462756|183438524|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||5.58|1.49|<0.001
91778618|NCT05462756|183438525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44|||Negative binomial model|||Group mean was reported and determined by Negative binomial method using Baseline hypoglycemia rate + Hemoglobin A1c at Baseline (%) + Treatment, with log (exposure in days/365.25) as variables.||1.44|0.85|0.442
91778619|NCT05462756|183438526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.60|-0.32|0.543
91778620|NCT05462756|183438527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.0|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined by ANCOVA model using Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||4.0|-0.3|0.099
91778621|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||MI at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
91778622|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4889|||||||Fisher Exact|||MI at 0-12 Months||||0.4889
91778623|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4889|||||||Fisher Exact|||MI at 0-18 Months||||0.4889
91778624|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
91778625|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke at 0-12 Months||||>0.999
91778626|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke at 0-18 Months||||>0.999
91778627|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7381|||||||Fisher Exact|||Major amputation at 0-6 Months||||0.7381
91778628|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Major amputation at 0-12 Months||||>0.999
91778629|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Major amputation at 0-18 Months||||>0.999
91778630|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Revascularization at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
91778631|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4591|||||||Fisher Exact|||Revascularization at 0-12 Months||||0.4591
91778632|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4591|||||||Fisher Exact|||Revascularization at 0-18 Months||||0.4591
91778633|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||All-cause death at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
91778634|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||All-cause death at 0-12 Months||||>0.999
91778635|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||All-cause death at 0-18 Months||||>0.999
91778636|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5136|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-6 Months (Major Amputation or Death)||||0.5136
91778637|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7575|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-12 Months (Major Amputation or Death)||||0.7575
91708688|NCT01301079|183310326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999
91778638|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-18 Months (Major Amputation or Death)||||>0.999
91778639|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7575|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-6 Months (Major Amputation or Revascularization)||||0.7575
91778640|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-12 Months (Major Amputation or Revascularization)||||>0.999
91778641|NCT02144610|183438531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-18 Months (Major Amputation or Revascularization)||||>0.999
91778642|NCT02144610|183438532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.514
91778643|NCT02144610|183438532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.445
91778644|NCT02144610|183438532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.863
91778645|NCT02144610|183438532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.111
91778646|NCT02144610|183438532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.153
91778647|NCT02144610|183438532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at last observation carried forward (LOCF)||||0.002
91778648|NCT02144610|183438535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 3 (right brachial)||||0.733
91778649|NCT02144610|183438535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 6 (right brachial)||||0.808
91778650|NCT02144610|183438535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 9 (right brachial)||||0.487
91778651|NCT02144610|183438535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 12 (right brachial)||||0.216
91778652|NCT02144610|183438535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 15 (right brachial)||||0.896
91778653|NCT02144610|183438535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at last observation carried forward (LOCF) (right brachial)||||0.167
91778654|NCT02144610|183438535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 3 (left brachial)||||0.378
91778655|NCT02144610|183438535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 6 (left brachial)||||0.390
91778656|NCT02144610|183438535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 9 (left brachial)||||0.521
91778657|NCT02144610|183438535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 12 (left brachial)||||0.044
91778658|NCT02144610|183438535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 15 (left brachial)||||0.423
91778659|NCT02144610|183438535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.989|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at LOCF (left brachial)||||0.989
91778660|NCT02144610|183438536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.803
91708689|NCT01301079|183310327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
91708690|NCT01301079|183310328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
91778661|NCT02144610|183438536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.668
91778662|NCT02144610|183438536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.789
91778663|NCT02144610|183438536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.280
91778664|NCT02144610|183438536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.324
91778665|NCT02144610|183438536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.759
91778666|NCT02144610|183438536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.414
91778667|NCT02144610|183438536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.886
91778668|NCT02144610|183438536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.114
91778669|NCT02144610|183438536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF (Posterior Tibial)||||0.051
91778670|NCT02144610|183438537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.211
91778671|NCT02144610|183438537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.036
91778672|NCT02144610|183438537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.725
91778673|NCT02144610|183438537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.468
91778674|NCT02144610|183438537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.854
91778675|NCT02144610|183438537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.233
91778676|NCT02144610|183438538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.268
91778677|NCT02144610|183438538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.320
91778678|NCT02144610|183438538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.315
91778679|NCT02144610|183438538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.327
91778680|NCT02144610|183438538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.643
91778681|NCT02144610|183438538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.740
91778682|NCT02144610|183438539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.147
91778683|NCT02144610|183438539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.032
91778684|NCT02144610|183438539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.709
91778685|NCT02144610|183438539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.771
91778686|NCT02144610|183438539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.830
91778687|NCT02144610|183438539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.033
91778688|NCT02144610|183438540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||ANCOVA|||Pain (LOCF)||||0.105
91778689|NCT02144610|183438540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||ANCOVA|||Symptom (LOCF)||||0.557
91778690|NCT02144610|183438540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||Activities (LOCF)||||0.940
91778691|NCT02144610|183438540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|||||||ANCOVA|||Social (LOCF)||||0.905
91778692|NCT02144610|183438540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782|||||||ANCOVA|||Emotional Functioning (LOCF)||||0.782
91778693|NCT02144610|183438540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||ANCOVA|||Composite Overall (LOCF)||||0.802
91778694|NCT02144610|183438541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.941|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.941
91778695|NCT02144610|183438541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.584
91778696|NCT02144610|183438541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.100
91898314|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.6|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.60|-0.73|0.733
91778697|NCT02144610|183438541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.916|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.916
91778698|NCT02144610|183438541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.486
91778699|NCT02144610|183438541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.835
91778700|NCT01432730|183438568|SUPERIORITY||Log mean difference (Active - Placebo)|-0.6027||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9049|-0.3005|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model included terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment \& period. Average \& period baseline covariates included.||||-0.3005|-0.9049|0.0003
91778701|NCT01432730|183438569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.57||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.53|-9.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-9.62|-41.53|0.003
91778702|NCT01432730|183438570|SUPERIORITY||Log mean difference (Active - Placebo)|-0.4212||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8568|0.01438|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model included terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment \& period. Average \& period baseline covariates included.||||0.01438|-0.8568|0.057
91778703|NCT01432730|183438571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.53||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||3.87|-20.93|0.172
91778704|NCT01432730|183438572|SUPERIORITY||Log mean difference (Active - Placebo)|-0.582||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8934|-0.2707|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model included terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment \& period. Average \& period baseline covariates included.||||-0.2707|-0.8934|0.001
91778705|NCT01432730|183438573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.538||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.849|-0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-0.227|-4.849|0.033
91778706|NCT01432730|183438574|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.267||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.523|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-0.010|-4.523|0.049
91778707|NCT01432730|183438575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.237||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.759|-1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-1.716|-16.759|0.018
91778708|NCT01432730|183438576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.25||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.96|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-1.54|-40.96|0.035
91778709|NCT03881852|183438584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value calculated from LSMean|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91778710|NCT01421719|183438604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t test comparison of baseline number of urinary leaks per day versus number of leaks per day at 6 month evaluation after treatment.||||0.0087
91778711|NCT02653417|183438613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Regimen 1 = 5 mg vs Regimen 4 = placebo||||
91778712|NCT02653417|183438613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Regimen 2 = 10 mg vs Regimen 4 = placebo||||
91778713|NCT02653417|183438613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Regimen 3 = 20 mg vs Regimen 4 = placebo||||
91778714|NCT02494323|183438637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value is adjusted for the comparison of subjects who benefited, were satisfied and willing to continue using the Segmented Electrodes versus subjects who didn't benefit, wern't satisfied ans were not willing to continue using the Segmented Eletrode|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
91898315|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.69|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.69|-1.33|0.303
91898316|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|1.12|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.12|-0.97|0.548
91778715|NCT03847896|183438638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|113.4|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||113.4|7.7|0.025
91778716|NCT03847896|183438638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|161.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.4|214.5|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||214.5|109.4|<0.001
91778717|NCT03847896|183438638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|132.9|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||132.9|28.4|0.003
91778718|NCT03847896|183438639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|142.2|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||142.2|4.4|0.037
91778719|NCT03847896|183438639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|168.8|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||168.8|30.9|0.005
91778720|NCT03847896|183438639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|132.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.6|201.9|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||201.9|63.6|<0.001
91778721|NCT03847896|183438639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.9||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|156.9|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||156.9|18.8|0.013
91778722|NCT03847896|183438639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|190.1|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||190.1|51.5|<0.001
91778723|NCT03847896|183438640|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||1|-6|
91778724|NCT03847896|183438640|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||9|-3|
91778725|NCT03847896|183438640|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-9|
91778726|NCT03847896|183438640|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-9|
91778727|NCT03847896|183438640|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-3|
91778728|NCT03847896|183438640|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-2|
91778729|NCT03847896|183438640|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-2|-11|
91778730|NCT03847896|183438640|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-2|-11|
91708691|NCT01301079|183310329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.221
91778731|NCT03847896|183438640|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||1|-1|
91778732|NCT03847896|183438642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.699||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|1.096|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.096|0.445|0.118
91778733|NCT03847896|183438642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.386||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|2.187|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||2.187|0.878|0.161
91778734|NCT03847896|183438642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.605||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|2.541|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||2.541|1.013|0.044
91778735|NCT03847896|183438642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.626||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|2.584|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||2.584|1.024|0.039
91778736|NCT03847896|183438642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.297|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.456|3.626|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||3.626|1.456|<0.001
91778737|NCT03847896|183438642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.328|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.471|3.687|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||3.687|1.471|<0.001
91778738|NCT03847896|183438642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.158||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.835|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.835|0.731|0.532
91778739|NCT03847896|183438642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.174||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.868|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.868|0.737|0.499
91778740|NCT03847896|183438642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.618|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.618|0.635|0.955
91778741|NCT03847896|183438643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.1||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.9|17.8|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||17.8|-101.9|0.169
91778742|NCT03847896|183438643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.1||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|111.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||111.5|-7.4|0.086
91839268|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-185.1||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.8|19.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 1||19.7|-389.8|0.0758
91778743|NCT03847896|183438643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.7||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|90.1|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||90.1|-28.6|0.31
91778744|NCT03847896|183438643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|125.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||125.4|6.3|0.03
91778745|NCT03847896|183438643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|132.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||132.5|13.1|0.017
91778746|NCT03847896|183438643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.1|167.8|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||167.8|48.1|<0.001
91778747|NCT03847896|183438643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.5|37.9|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||37.9|-80.5|0.48
91778748|NCT03847896|183438643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|73.2|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||73.2|-45.6|0.648
91778749|NCT03847896|183438643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.1||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|94.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||94.5|-24.2|0.246
91778750|NCT03038880|183438676|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.8|2.6|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|||2.6|-6.8|
91778751|NCT03038880|183438676|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.4|5.5|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|||5.5|-3.4|
91778752|NCT03038880|183438677|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.75|2.56|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||2.56|-6.75|
91778753|NCT03038880|183438677|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.4|5.49|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||5.49|-3.40|
91839269|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|130.4||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|335.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 1||335.1|-74.4|0.2084
91647260|NCT02216214|183186277|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.96||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Week 4: Rate ratio for the number of incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.96|0.67|0.014
91708692|NCT01301079|183310330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.325
91708693|NCT01301079|183310331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.386
91708694|NCT01301079|183310332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.499
91708695|NCT01301079|183310333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.909
91708696|NCT01301079|183310334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.737
91708697|NCT01301079|183310335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.872
91708698|NCT01301079|183310336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.598|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.598
91708699|NCT01301079|183310337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.485
91708700|NCT01301079|183310338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.744
91708701|NCT01301079|183310339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.540
91708702|NCT01301079|183310340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.673
91708703|NCT01301079|183310341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.586|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.586
91708704|NCT01301079|183310342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
91708705|NCT01301079|183310343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.677
91708706|NCT01301079|183310344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.545
91708707|NCT01301079|183310345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.650
91708708|NCT01301079|183310346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.593
91708709|NCT01301079|183310347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
91708710|NCT01301079|183310348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
91708711|NCT01301079|183310349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
91708712|NCT01301079|183310350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.611
91708713|NCT01301079|183310351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.312
91708714|NCT01301079|183310352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
91708715|NCT01301079|183310353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
91708716|NCT01301079|183310354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385
91708717|NCT01301079|183310355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.422
91708718|NCT01301079|183310356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.500
91708719|NCT01301079|183310357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.435
91708720|NCT01301079|183310358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.745
91708721|NCT01301079|183310359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.557
91708722|NCT00264290|183310362|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91708723|NCT04472494|183310367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.9297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test|||||4.49|0.26|0.9297
91708724|NCT04472494|183310368|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference from Placebo|0.64||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.82|-0.55|0.7400
91708725|NCT04472494|183310369|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.1||||0.9684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|20.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test||Estimate of Difference is based on minimum risk weights|||20.34|-20.55|0.9684
91708726|NCT04472494|183310370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.97|0.18|0.8504
91708727|NCT04472494|183310371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|9.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.82|0.53|0.2724
91708728|NCT04472494|183310371|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|36.17|||||||Estimate of difference is based on minimum risk weights|36.17|-10.61|
91708729|NCT04472494|183310372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|12.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.64|0.33|0.4734
91839270|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|132.6||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.4|322.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH 1||322.6|-57.4|0.1684
91839271|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-90.4||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-364.7|184.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 2||184.0|-364.7|0.5122
91839272|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.5||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-321.7|170.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 2||170.7|-321.7|0.5417
91839273|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.4||||0.6511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.2|185.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 2||185.3|-294.2|0.6511
91839274|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|64.7||||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.1|318.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 2||318.5|-189.1|0.6117
91839275|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-99.7||||0.3882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-329.3|129.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH 2||129.9|-329.3|0.3882
91839276|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-125.5||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-477.5|226.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH effect||226.5|-477.5|0.4781
91839277|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-277.9||||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-593.7|37.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH effect||37.9|-593.7|0.0834
91839278|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|121.7||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-185.8|429.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH effect||429.3|-185.8|0.4313
91839279|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-73.5||||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-399.1|252.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH effect||252.0|-399.1|0.6528
91839280|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-248.5||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-542.9|46.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH effect||46.0|-542.9|0.0966
91839281|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.2||||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.6|252.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH morning||252.0|-187.6|0.7704
91839282|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|165.3||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|362.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH morning||362.5|-32.0|0.0988
91839283|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-153.4||||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.5|38.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH morning||38.7|-345.5|0.1153
91839284|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.7|208.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH morning||208.0|-198.7|0.9636
91839285|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|119.8||||0.1972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1|303.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH morning||303.8|-64.1|0.1972
91839286|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-207.6||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-414.6|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 1||-0.5|-414.6|0.0495
91839287|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.5||||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.4|193.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 1||193.4|-210.4|0.9333
91839288|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-317.7||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-519.6|-115.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 1||-115.8|-519.6|0.0025
91839289|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.9823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.1|199.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 1||199.6|-204.1|0.9823
91839290|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-265.0|283.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 2||283.7|-265.0|0.9460
91839291|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.2||||0.8445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.0|270.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 2||270.4|-222.0|0.8445
91839292|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.3||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.5|285.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 2||285.0|-194.5|0.7069
91839293|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|164.4||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|418.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 2||418.2|-89.4|0.1998
91839294|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|123.0||||0.4871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.0|474.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH effect||474.9|-229.0|0.4871
91839295|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.4||||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.2|286.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH effect||286.4|-345.2|0.8527
91839296|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|370.2||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.6|677.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH effect||677.8|62.6|0.0192
91839297|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|174.9||||0.2865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.6|500.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH effect||500.5|-150.6|0.2865
91839298|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.6||||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.5|132.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH morning||132.2|-307.5|0.4279
91708730|NCT04472494|183310372|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.71|27.57|||||Estimate of difference is based on minimum risk weights|||27.57|-16.71|
91708731|NCT02144077|183310428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin of -15%|Difference in Percentage|1.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.5||||Farrington and Manning Test|Difference of proportions|||||-6.5|<0.0001
91708732|NCT00368459|183310454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||For this pilot trial, we did not anticipate power to detect significant, clinically-meaningful between-group differences of the magnitude provided by FDA-approved AD therapies over a 12 month treatment period, but we specified that we would report trends (alpha \<0.1) as a guide to future effectiveness studies.||||>0.1
91708733|NCT00368459|183310455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91708734|NCT00368459|183310456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91708735|NCT00368459|183310457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91708736|NCT00368459|183310458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91708737|NCT00368459|183310459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91708738|NCT00368459|183310460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91708739|NCT00368459|183310461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Favoring placebo, unadjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91708740|NCT00368459|183310462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91708741|NCT00368459|183310463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91708742|NCT02620683|183310464|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-5.86|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||for a cross over design difference in blood level was calculate buffered lidocaine minus non-buffered lidocaine|The difference between injection type- 95% confidence intervals for the difference between injection types was calculated. For the outcome variable, an assessment of treatment difference by subject, calculated as 1% Buffered minus 2% Non-Buffered, was performed using Wilcoxon signed rank tests (SAS v 9.3). Statistical significance was set as P \< 0.05 for all outcomes.||-5.86|-34.6|0.006
91708743|NCT02620683|183310465|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference between injection type- 95% confidence intervals for the difference between injection types was calculated. For the outcome variable, an assessment of treatment difference by subject, calculated as 1% Buffered minus 2% Non-Buffered, was performed using ProcTTEST (SAS v 9.3). Statistical significance was set as P \< 0.05 for all outcomes.||0.13|-1.46|0.096
91708744|NCT02620683|183310466|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between injection type- 95% confidence intervals for the difference between injection types was calculated. For the outcome variable, an assessment of treatment difference by subject, calculated as 1% Buffered minus 2% Non-Buffered, was performed using Wilcoxon signed rank tests (SAS v 9.3). Statistical significance was set as P \< 0.05 for all outcomes.||1|-4|0.23
91708745|NCT02087943|183310482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-15.01||||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.52|4.5||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from baseline as the response variable and the treatment group and Baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors.|ANCOVA|||||4.50|-34.52|0.1308
91708746|NCT02087943|183310482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-1.5||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from Baseline as the response variable and the treatment group and Baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors.|ANCOVA|||||-1.50|-39.70|0.0347
91708747|NCT02087943|183310483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|-2.7||||0.4938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.8||Adjusted treatment differences in proportions using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||4.8|-10.2|0.4938
91708748|NCT02087943|183310483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|8.0||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|18.2||Adjusted treatment differences in proportions using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with, CMH weights.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.2|-2.3|0.1368
91708749|NCT02087943|183310484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|-1.5||||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted differences in proportions was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with the CMH weights.|||14.9|-18.0|0.8589
91708750|NCT02087943|183310484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|9.9||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted differences in proportions was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with the CMH weights.|||26.6|-6.7|0.2476
91708751|NCT02087943|183310485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.17||||0.5286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.34|10.99|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group and baseline EASI stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors, and the baseline average weekly pruritus NRS score as a covariate.|||10.99|-21.34|0.5286
91708752|NCT02087943|183310485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.17||||0.6092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|11.88|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group and baseline EASI stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors, and the baseline average weekly pruritus NRS score as a covariate.|||11.88|-20.22|0.6092
91708753|NCT01690299|183310488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|40.1||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||40.1|14.9|< 0.0001
91708754|NCT01690299|183310489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|35.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|48.5||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||48.5|23.3|<0.0001
91708755|NCT01690299|183310490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|27.7||The p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI (Body Mass Index) at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|The Confidence Interval (CI) was weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||27.7|8.4|0.0005
91708756|NCT01690299|183310490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|35.5||The p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI (Body Mass Index) at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Confidence Interval (CI) was weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.||||35.5|14.8|<0.0001
91708757|NCT01690299|183310491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.33|-19.46|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-19.46|-43.33|<0.0001
91708758|NCT01690299|183310491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-39.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.78|-27.92|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-27.92|-51.78|<0.0001
91708759|NCT01690299|183310492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|29.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|43.9||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||43.9|14.9|0.0002
91708760|NCT01690299|183310492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|62.7||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||62.7|36.9|<0.0001
91708761|NCT01690299|183310493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|-2.14|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.14|-6.82|<0.0001
91708762|NCT01690299|183310493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.94||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|-1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.60|-6.27|0.0004
91708763|NCT01690299|183310494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|0.93||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.9|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.90|-2.05|0.7112
91708764|NCT01690299|183310494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|2.22||||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|5.19|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||5.19|-0.75|0.1719
91708765|NCT01690299|183310495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.1||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|28.6||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||28.6|7.6|0.0011
91708766|NCT01690299|183310495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.7||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.9||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||26.9|6.5|0.0021
91778754|NCT03038880|183438677|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.26|5.25|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||5.25|-4.26|
91778755|NCT03038880|183438677|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.71|6.37|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||6.37|-2.71|
91778756|NCT03038880|183438679|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.92|25.44|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||25.44|-15.92|
91778757|NCT03038880|183438679|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.62|25.53|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||25.53|-13.62|
91778758|NCT03038880|183438679|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.52|16.19|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||16.19|-24.52|
91778759|NCT03038880|183438679|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.73|28.59|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||28.59|-10.73|
91778760|NCT03038880|183438681|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.72|1.19|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||1.19|-10.72|
91778761|NCT03038880|183438681|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.07|0.92|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||0.92|-8.07|
91778762|NCT03038880|183438681|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.0|||||||||||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||||
91778763|NCT03038880|183438681|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.07|0.92|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||0.92|-8.07|
91778764|NCT03038880|183438682|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|43.05|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||43.05|0.76|
91778765|NCT03038880|183438682|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|38.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|19.56|57.59|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||57.59|19.56|
91778766|NCT03038880|183438682|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|19.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.14|40.43|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||40.43|-1.14|
91778767|NCT03038880|183438682|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|33.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.95|52.91|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||52.91|14.95|
91778768|NCT03038880|183438683|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.0|||||||||||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||||
91778769|NCT03038880|183438683|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|8.07|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||8.07|-0.92|
91708767|NCT01882803|183310529|OTHER||||||<=|0.0001||||||'\<=' represents '≤'|Exact Binomial Test|The p-value was calculated by 1-sided exact binomial test with the null hypothesis that ORR ≤30%.||ORR was tested against the null (≤30%) by 1-sided exact binomial test at 0.025 level.||||<=0.0001
91778770|NCT03038880|183438683|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|10.72|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||10.72|-1.19|
91778771|NCT03038880|183438683|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|8.07|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||8.07|-0.92|
91778772|NCT03038880|183438684|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.81|30.71|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||30.71|-29.81|
91778773|NCT03038880|183438684|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|14.68|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.29|43.65|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||43.65|-14.29|
91778774|NCT03038880|183438684|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.85|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.57|20.87|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||20.87|-30.57|
91778775|NCT03038880|183438684|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.57|25.8|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||25.80|-23.57|
91647261|NCT02216214|183186277|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.81||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Week 8: Rate ratio for the number of incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.99|0.66|0.043
91778776|NCT03038880|183438685|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.23|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.6|12.15|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||12.15|-36.60|
91778777|NCT03038880|183438685|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.5|28.45|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||28.45|-18.50|
91778778|NCT03038880|183438685|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.42|13.14|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||13.14|-30.42|
91778779|NCT03038880|183438685|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.65|28.37|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||28.37|-13.65|
91778780|NCT03926611|183438703|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-13.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.51|-9.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-9.81|-17.51|<0.0001
91778781|NCT03926611|183438703|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 35 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.336|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.49|-9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-9.78|-17.49|<0.0001
91778782|NCT03926611|183438703|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-9.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.97|-5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.45|-12.97|<0.0001
91778783|NCT03926611|183438703|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.319|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.38|-6.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-6.72|-14.38|<0.0001
91778784|NCT03926611|183438703|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-14.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.43|-10.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-10.73|-18.43|<0.0001
91778785|NCT03926611|183438703|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.327|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.45|-8.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-8.78|-16.45|<0.0001
91778786|NCT03926611|183438704|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-10.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.72|-5.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.77|-14.72|<0.0001
91778787|NCT03926611|183438704|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 35 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-10.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.711||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.58|-5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.63|-14.58|0.0001
91778788|NCT03926611|183438704|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.635||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.75|-3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-3.05|-11.75|0.0027
91778789|NCT03926611|183438704|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.696||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.25|-5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.35|-14.25|0.0002
91778790|NCT03926611|183438704|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-12.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.714|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.82|-7.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-7.87|-16.82|<0.0001
91778791|NCT03926611|183438704|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.733||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.03|-5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.01|-14.03|0.0003
91790185|NCT02660138|183459523|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|29.56||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo.||29.56|5.40|<0.0001
91839299|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.4||||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.8|242.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH morning||242.7|-151.8|0.6464
91839300|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-273.3||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.4|-81.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH morning||-81.2|-465.4|0.0061
91839301|NCT01036022|183559206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-115.2||||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-318.5|88.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH morning||88.1|-318.5|0.2614
91839302|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||1.5|-2.0|0.7559
91839303|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||3.2|-0.4|0.1238
91839304|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.2|-1.3|0.6302
91839305|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.8|||Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.8|-0.8|0.2777
91839306|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 1 SCCAI score||1.8|-1.4|0.8069
91839307|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.2|-1.6|0.7699
91839308|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.8||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.8|-1.1|0.3869
91839309|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||1.5|-2.4|0.6695
91839310|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.7|-1.4|0.5152
91839311|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 2 SCCAI score||1.1|-2.4|0.4507
91839312|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.3|-1.9|0.8707
91839313|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||3.1|-0.9|0.2915
91839314|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||1.7|-2.4|0.7251
91647262|NCT02216214|183186277|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||EOT: Rate ratio for the number of incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.87|0.54|0.002
91647263|NCT02216214|183186279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.005||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.005
91647264|NCT02216214|183186280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.775|||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.001
91839315|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.9|-1.3|0.4556
91839316|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 3 SCCAI score||1.4|-2.3|0.6620
91839317|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.1|0.2844
91839318|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.0|0.2799
91839319|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.6||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||2.6|-1.9|0.7655
91839320|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.2|0.3332
91839321|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.6985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 4 SCCAI score||2.4|-1.6|0.6985
91647265|NCT02216214|183186281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.501||||0.012||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.012
91839322|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.3256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.7|-1.3|0.3256
91839323|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.0|-1.9|0.6500
91898317|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.609|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.08|-0.77|0.609
91647266|NCT02216214|183186282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.034||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Coping. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.034
91647267|NCT02216214|183186282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.327||||0.07||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Concern. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.070
91647268|NCT02216214|183186282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.452||||0.012||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Sleep. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.012
91839324|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||2.7|-2.3|0.8758
91839325|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.7298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.0|-2.1|0.7298
91839326|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.5963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.6||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 5 SCCAI score||1.6|-2.8|0.5963
91647269|NCT02216214|183186282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.116||||0.602||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Social. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.602
91647270|NCT02216214|183186283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.634||||0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.001
91898318|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.1|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.10|-0.83|0.590
91647271|NCT02216214|183186284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.597||||0.003||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.003
91647272|NCT02216214|183186286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.471
91778792|NCT00836693|183438712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.5||p-value is for Week 12 Change. The null hypothesis concerning tadalafil versus placebo was to be rejected if, and only if, the three primary hypotheses (H01, H02, and H03) were all rejected therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||5.5|2.2|<0.001
91778793|NCT00836693|183438713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|18.3||p-value is for Week 12 Change. The null hypothesis concerning tadalafil versus placebo was to be rejected if, and only if, the three primary hypotheses (H01, H02, and H03) were all rejected therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||18.3|5.1|<0.001
91778794|NCT00836693|183438714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|27.0||p-value is for Week 12 Change. The null hypothesis concerning tadalafil versus placebo was to be rejected if, and only if, the three primary hypotheses (H01, H02, and H03) were all rejected therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||27.0|8.9|<0.001
91778795|NCT00836693|183438718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|22.8||P-value is for Week 12 change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The change from baseline to endpoint in morning erection percentages was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for baseline value, treatment group, country, age and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||22.8|9.5|<0.001
91778796|NCT00836693|183438719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|>|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|26.1||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANOVA|||The models included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable,treatment group,country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction.In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||26.1|13.9|>0.001
91778797|NCT00836693|183438720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|18.0||p-value is for Total (Change). For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||18.0|5.5|<0.001
91778798|NCT00836693|183438720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.8||p-value is for Sexual Relationship Domain(Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||19.8|6.6|<0.001
91778799|NCT00836693|183438720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|16.5||p-value is for Confidence Domain (Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||16.5|3.3|0.0034
91839327|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.1|-2.0|0.6498
91839328|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.7061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.0|-2.0|0.7061
91839329|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||2.3|-2.7|0.8549
91839330|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.1|-2.0|0.6533
91839331|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 6 SCCAI score||1.4|-3.1|0.4378
91839332|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||1.3|-2.2|0.5917
91839333|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.9|-0.5|0.1764
91839334|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.0|-1.5|0.7914
91839335|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.5|-0.9|0.3578
91839336|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.9|-1.0|0.3247
91839337|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||3.4|-0.4|0.1153
91839338|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.2|-1.7|0.7995
91839339|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||3.3|-0.6|0.1786
91839340|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.7|-1.5|0.5824
91839341|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||3.5|-0.5|0.1392
91839342|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.1|-2.0|0.9665
91778800|NCT00836693|183438720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|17.9||p-value is for Self-Esteem Domain (Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||17.9|4.1|0.0020
91778801|NCT00836693|183438720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|15.6||p-value is for Overall Relationship Domain(Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||15.6|-0.5|0.0653
91778802|NCT00836693|183438721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9||p-value is for Week 12 Change.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.9|0.7|<0.001
91778803|NCT00836693|183438722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.1|0.2|0.0089
91778804|NCT00836693|183438723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.5|0.0|0.0461
91778805|NCT00836693|183438724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.9|0.7|<0.001
91778806|NCT00836693|183438725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.7||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Baseline = Visit 2; Endpoint = the last non-missing post-baseline value until Visit 5; Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (that is, if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on the type 3 sums of squares.||10.7|2.0|0.0047
91778807|NCT00836693|183438726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|34.3||p-value is for Week 12 Change.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Baseline = Visit 2; Endpoint = the last non-missing post-baseline value until Visit 5; Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (that is, if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on the type 3 sums of squares.||34.3|14.6|<0.001
91708768|NCT03066778|183310542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.00069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.88|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|||0.88|0.60|0.00069
91839343|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||3.3|-0.9|0.2455
91839344|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.1|-1.4|0.4644
91839345|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.0|-1.4|0.4567
91839346|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||2.2|-2.3|0.9594
91839347|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.0|-1.5|0.5122
91839348|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||4.3|-0.7|0.1493
91839349|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.6||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.6|-1.3|0.3478
91839350|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.2|-1.7|0.5238
91839351|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.4|0.4091
91839352|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.2604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||4.0|-1.1|0.2604
91839353|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.8||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.8|-1.1|0.2809
91647273|NCT05354206|183186292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.405|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.285|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||Difference of RST from 1 for hip range of motion task without stimulation.|"Reticulospinal tract (RST) contribution computed as RST = (visual - startle)/(visual - auditory) reaction times, where a RST value greater than 1 would indicate a significant contribution of the reticulospinal tract for a given task.~A one sample t-test (or Wilcoxon signed-rank test for non-normally distributed data) was used to test the hypothesis that the RST contribution for a given movement was significantly greater than 1."||||<0.05
91839354|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.6038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.1|-1.8|0.6038
91839355|NCT01036022|183559208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.9|-1.1|0.2511
91839356|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.39||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||2.39|0.24|
91839357|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.92||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||1.92|0.21|
91839358|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.48||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||2.48|0.26|
91839359|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.68||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||2.68|0.27|
91839360|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.81||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||1.81|0.23|
91839361|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.73||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||2.73|0.26|
91839362|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.68||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||1.68|0.18|
91778808|NCT00836693|183438727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|33.2||p-value is for Week 12 Change.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Baseline = Visit 2; Endpoint = the last non-missing post-baseline value until Visit 5; Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (that is, if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on the type 3 sums of squares.||33.2|13.7|<0.001
91778809|NCT00836693|183438728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for Global Assessment Questions GAQ1. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon's rank sum test was used to compare responses to GAQs between treatment groups.||||<0.0001
91778810|NCT00836693|183438729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for Global Assessment Question GAQ2.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon's rank sum test was used to compare responses to GAQs between treatment groups.||||<0.0001
91778811|NCT01122238|183438745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.665
91778812|NCT01122238|183438745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.562
91778813|NCT01122238|183438745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.536
91778814|NCT01122238|183438745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.206
91778815|NCT01122238|183438746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.98
91778816|NCT01122238|183438746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|-0.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.40
91778817|NCT01122238|183438746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.99
91778818|NCT01122238|183438746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|-0.04||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.33
91778819|NCT00129402|183438747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91708769|NCT03066778|183310543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.01643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|||0.98|0.64|0.01643
91778820|NCT00129402|183438748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91778821|NCT00129402|183438749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91778822|NCT00129402|183438750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0|||||non-parametric model|||||||.48
91778823|NCT00129402|183438751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91778824|NCT00129402|183438752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.95
91778825|NCT02900378|183438772|OTHER||Differences of least square means|5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.2464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|15.29||The comparison of treatment groups were out using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for treatment and baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the 6MWT baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS)||15.29|-3.93|0.2464
91778826|NCT02900378|183438772|OTHER||Differences of least square means|8.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.31|19.27||The comparison of treatment groups were out using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for treatment and baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the 6MWT baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS without AE/SAE)||19.27|-1.31|0.0503
91778827|NCT02900378|183438773|OTHER||Differences of least square means|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-25.7|13.41||The comparison of treatment groups were carried out using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the daily non-sedentary daytime activity baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS with MI)||13.41|-25.70|0.4769
91778828|NCT02900378|183438773|OTHER||Differences of least square means|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|6.14||The comparison of treatment groups were carried out using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the daily non-sedentary daytime activity baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS with LOCF)||6.14|-17.48|0.3463
91778829|NCT02900378|183438773|OTHER||Differences of least square means|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69||0.3513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|6.91||The comparison of treatment groups were carried out using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the daily non-sedentary daytime activity baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS without MI/LOCF)||6.91|-19.39|0.3513
91778830|NCT02900378|183438774|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.228|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.708||||||FAS population||1.708|0.882|
91839363|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.18||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||2.18|0.21|
91778831|NCT02900378|183438775|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.748||||||FAS subset without AE/SAE||1.748|0.895|
91778832|NCT02900378|183438776|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|2.464||||||FAS population||2.464|0.634|
91778833|NCT02900378|183438777|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|2.544||||||FAS subset without AE/SAE||2.544|0.644|
91778834|NCT02900378|183438778|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.811||||||FAS population||1.811|0.863|
91778835|NCT02900378|183438779|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.834||||||FAS subset without AE/SAE||1.834|0.865|
91778836|NCT02900378|183438780|OTHER|||||||0.1814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4 (FAS)||||0.1814
91778837|NCT02900378|183438780|OTHER|||||||0.3315|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4 (FAS without AE/SAE)||||0.3315
91778838|NCT02900378|183438780|OTHER|||||||0.2414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8 (FAS)||||0.2414
91778839|NCT02900378|183438780|OTHER|||||||0.1793|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8 (FAS without AE/SAE)||||0.1793
91778840|NCT02900378|183438781|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|1.457||||||Increased levels (\>= 10% increase) of non sedentary daytime physical activity at Week 12||1.457|0.462|
91778841|NCT02900378|183438782|OTHER|||||||0.0516|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.0516
91778842|NCT02900378|183438782|OTHER|||||||0.9025|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.9025
91778843|NCT02900378|183438782|OTHER|||||||0.6713|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.6713
91778844|NCT02900378|183438783|OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.0029
91778845|NCT02900378|183438783|OTHER|||||||0.7754|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.7754
91778846|NCT02900378|183438783|OTHER|||||||0.2172|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.2172
91778847|NCT02900378|183438784|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0008
91778848|NCT02900378|183438784|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0008
91778849|NCT02900378|183438784|OTHER|||||||0.0297|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.0297
91778850|NCT02900378|183438784|OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0069
91778851|NCT02900378|183438784|OTHER|||||||0.2275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.2275
91778852|NCT02900378|183438784|OTHER|||||||0.3486|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.3486
91778853|NCT02900378|183438784|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.6800
91778854|NCT02900378|183438784|OTHER|||||||0.7184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.7184
91839364|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.03||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||2.03|0.19|
91839365|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.9||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||1.90|0.22|
91778855|NCT02900378|183438784|OTHER|||||||0.5301|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5301
91778856|NCT02900378|183438784|OTHER|||||||0.6019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.6019
91778857|NCT02900378|183438784|OTHER|||||||0.8229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.8229
91778858|NCT02900378|183438784|OTHER|||||||0.8229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.8229
91778859|NCT02900378|183438785|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0001
91778860|NCT02900378|183438785|OTHER|||||||0.0123|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0123
91778861|NCT02900378|183438785|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.2560
91778862|NCT02900378|183438785|OTHER|||||||0.5865|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.5865
91778863|NCT02900378|183438785|OTHER|||||||0.5463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.5463
91778864|NCT02900378|183438785|OTHER|||||||0.3212|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.3212
91778865|NCT02900378|183438786|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0004
91778866|NCT02900378|183438786|OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0009
91778867|NCT02900378|183438786|OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.0094
91778868|NCT02900378|183438786|OTHER|||||||0.0301|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0301
91778869|NCT02900378|183438786|OTHER|||||||0.1557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.1557
91778870|NCT02900378|183438786|OTHER|||||||0.6461|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.6461
91778871|NCT02900378|183438786|OTHER|||||||0.9759|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.9759
91778872|NCT02900378|183438786|OTHER|||||||0.3941|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.3941
91778873|NCT02900378|183438786|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.7209
91778874|NCT02900378|183438786|OTHER|||||||0.4444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.4444
91778875|NCT02900378|183438786|OTHER|||||||0.7247|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.7247
91778876|NCT02900378|183438786|OTHER|||||||0.2933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.2933
91778877|NCT02900378|183438787|OTHER|||||||0.0854|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0854
91778878|NCT02900378|183438787|OTHER|||||||0.0528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0528
91778879|NCT02900378|183438787|OTHER|||||||0.4137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.4137
91778880|NCT02900378|183438787|OTHER|||||||0.0082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0082
91778881|NCT02900378|183438787|OTHER|||||||0.7908|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.7908
91778882|NCT02900378|183438787|OTHER|||||||0.6499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.6499
91778883|NCT02900378|183438787|OTHER|||||||0.5547|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.5547
91778884|NCT02900378|183438787|OTHER|||||||0.6961|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.6961
91778885|NCT02900378|183438787|OTHER|||||||0.5946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5946
91778886|NCT02900378|183438787|OTHER|||||||0.8957|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.8957
91778887|NCT02900378|183438787|OTHER|||||||0.8468|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.8468
91778888|NCT02900378|183438787|OTHER|||||||0.1711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.1711
91778889|NCT02900378|183438788|OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0065
91778890|NCT02900378|183438788|OTHER|||||||0.0316|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0316
91778891|NCT02900378|183438788|OTHER|||||||0.1342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.1342
91778892|NCT02900378|183438788|OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0252
91778893|NCT02900378|183438788|OTHER|||||||0.9024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.9024
91778894|NCT02900378|183438788|OTHER|||||||0.9052|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.9052
91778895|NCT02900378|183438788|OTHER|||||||0.287|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.2870
91778896|NCT02900378|183438788|OTHER|||||||0.3174|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.3174
91778897|NCT02900378|183438788|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5020
91778898|NCT02900378|183438788|OTHER|||||||0.4037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.4037
91778899|NCT02900378|183438788|OTHER|||||||0.4823|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.4823
91778900|NCT02900378|183438788|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.1090
91778901|NCT02900378|183438789|OTHER|||||||0.0061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0061
91778902|NCT02900378|183438789|OTHER|||||||0.0143|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0143
91778903|NCT02900378|183438789|OTHER|||||||0.0708|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.0708
91778904|NCT02900378|183438789|OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0750
91778905|NCT02900378|183438789|OTHER|||||||0.8017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.8017
91778906|NCT02900378|183438789|OTHER|||||||0.7956|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.7956
91778907|NCT02900378|183438789|OTHER|||||||0.3499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.3499
91778908|NCT02900378|183438789|OTHER|||||||0.1192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.1192
91778909|NCT02900378|183438789|OTHER|||||||0.5237|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5237
91778910|NCT02900378|183438789|OTHER|||||||0.3902|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.3902
91778911|NCT02900378|183438789|OTHER|||||||0.4228|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.4228
91778912|NCT02900378|183438789|OTHER|||||||0.1571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.1571
91778913|NCT02900378|183438790|OTHER|||||||0.3231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.3231
91778914|NCT02900378|183438790|OTHER|||||||0.3519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.3519
91778915|NCT02900378|183438790|OTHER|||||||0.8335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.8335
91778916|NCT02900378|183438790|OTHER|||||||0.0465|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0465
91778917|NCT02900378|183438790|OTHER|||||||0.5016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.5016
91778918|NCT02900378|183438790|OTHER|||||||0.5941|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.5941
91778919|NCT02900378|183438790|OTHER|||||||0.2019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.2019
91778920|NCT02900378|183438790|OTHER|||||||0.4125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.4125
91778921|NCT02900378|183438790|OTHER|||||||0.5702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5702
91778922|NCT02900378|183438790|OTHER|||||||0.4752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.4752
91778923|NCT02900378|183438790|OTHER|||||||0.5343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.5343
91778924|NCT02900378|183438790|OTHER|||||||0.0985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.0985
91778925|NCT02900378|183438791|OTHER|||||||0.4525|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.4525
91778926|NCT02900378|183438791|OTHER|||||||0.0445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0445
91778927|NCT02900378|183438791|OTHER|||||||0.1158|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.1158
91778928|NCT02900378|183438791|OTHER|||||||0.3901|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.3901
91778929|NCT02900378|183438791|OTHER|||||||0.7725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.7725
91778930|NCT01134055|183438793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1974||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.1974
91778931|NCT01134055|183438793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.8263
91778932|NCT01134055|183438793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.8263
91778933|NCT01134055|183438793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.8263
91778934|NCT01134055|183438793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7418||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.7418
91778935|NCT01134055|183438793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2429||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.2429
91778936|NCT01134055|183438793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.9700
91778937|NCT01134055|183438793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.9700
91778938|NCT01134055|183438793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.9700
91778939|NCT01134055|183438793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7673||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.7673
91778940|NCT00001959|183438819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: GFR Decrease during baseline period and treatment period are same||||<0.01
91778941|NCT00001959|183438820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0: Proteinuria during baseline and treatment periods are same||||0.16
91778942|NCT03592186|183438831|SUPERIORITY|In zero-inflated distributions, two outcomes can be specified: 1) probability of being an excess zero (falling outside expected negative binomial distribution), and 2) count value, if not an excess zero. Our focal effect of interest was Time\*Condition in the count distribution, i.e. effect of condition over time on predicting the percent of days used greater than zero.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models with zero-inflated distributions evaluated whether there was a Time\*Condition interaction, using data from the baseline, 12-week, and 24-week assessments. Full maximum likelihood estimation was used. We tested the primary outcome (percent of days of use over the past 90 days, adjusted for time in a controlled environment) for overall number of days of use.||1.36|.97|.12
91778943|NCT03592186|183438832|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models using a linear distribution evaluated whether change in substance-related problems differed by condition. The focal effect was a Time\*Condition interaction, using data from the baseline, 12-week, and 24-week assessments. Full maximum likelihood estimation was used.||.07|-.34|.19
91778944|NCT03592186|183438833|SUPERIORITY||Chi-square value|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the count of positive urine screens by condition at 12 weeks||||.92
91778945|NCT03755934|183438834|SUPERIORITY||LS mean estimate|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.961||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-0.06||ANCOVA by dose using NRS baseline value and co-medication as covariates, with CFB to Week 12 (LOCF) as dependent variable was used to derive p-value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-3.87|0.0437
91778946|NCT03755934|183438834|SUPERIORITY||LS mean estimate|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.79||ANCOVA by dose using NRS baseline value and co-medication as covariates, with CFB to Week 12 (LOCF) as dependent variable was used to derive p-value.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-0.36|0.1878
91778947|NCT03755934|183438834|SUPERIORITY||LS mean estimate|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.58||ANCOVA by dose using NRS baseline value and co-medication as covariates, with CFB to Week 12 (LOCF) as dependent variable was used to derive p-value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-2.19|0.0009
91778948|NCT04266717|183438863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
91778949|NCT05523089|183438900|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.0||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-5.7|0.0390
91778950|NCT05523089|183438902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.0|-2.9|0.0185
91778951|NCT05523089|183438904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||||||0.0613
91778952|NCT05523089|183438905|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-2.4|0.1587
91778953|NCT05523089|183438907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.1|-2.0|0.0236
91778954|NCT05523089|183438909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1282||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||||||0.1282
91778955|NCT05523089|183438910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.2877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.3||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.3|-11.2|0.2877
91778956|NCT05523089|183438912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.6||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.6|-4.1|0.2517
91839366|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.09||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||4.09|0.28|
91839367|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.43||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||2.43|0.23|
91839368|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.08||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||2.08|0.18|
91839369|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.08||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||2.08|0.17|
91839370|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.32||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||1.32|0.15|
91708770|NCT03066778|183310544|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|8.9||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|17.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percent = 0 versus H1: difference in percent \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH. Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH ≤ULN and Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH \>ULN were combined into one stratum because of small sample size|||17.4|0.2|0.02270
91778957|NCT05523089|183438916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9024||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||||||0.9024
91778958|NCT05523089|183438917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0248
91778959|NCT05523089|183438919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1224||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1224
91778960|NCT05523089|183438921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1023||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1023
91778961|NCT05523089|183438923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1477||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1477
91778962|NCT05523089|183438925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1645||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1645
91778963|NCT02230995|183438966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|98.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|100.39|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||100.39|96.11|<0.00001
91778964|NCT02230995|183438967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|102.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.9|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.65|105.76|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||105.76|98.65|<0.00001
91778965|NCT02230995|183438968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|98.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.51|104.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||104.17|93.51|<0.00001
91839371|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.04||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||5.04|0.33|
91839372|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.02||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||2.02|0.20|
91839373|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.23||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||3.23|0.29|
91839374|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.72||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||4.72|0.39|
91839375|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.42||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||2.42|0.28|
91839376|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.66||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||2.66|0.14|
91839377|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.38||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||4.38|0.35|
91839378|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.47||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||2.47|0.20|
91839379|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.46||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||1.46|0.11|
91839380|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.48||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||1.48|0.15|
91708771|NCT03066778|183310549|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|4.43||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|8.66|||Log Rank|||||8.66|0.21|0.040
91778966|NCT02230995|183438969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|105.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.9|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.78|110.84|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||110.84|100.78|<0.00001
91778967|NCT02230995|183438970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|98.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.16|100.53|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by ratios of adjusted geometric means (gMean) of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||100.53|96.16|
91778968|NCT02230995|183438971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|104.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.36|108.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean) of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||108.07|101.36|
91778969|NCT04040933|183438972|OTHER|Change from Baseline in TEWL measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each baseline score within each treatment using paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.860
91778970|NCT04040933|183438972|OTHER|Change from Baseline in TEWL measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each baseline score within each treatment using paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.051
91778971|NCT04040933|183438973|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Erythema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.259|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.259
91778972|NCT04040933|183438973|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Erythema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.451|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.451
91778973|NCT04040933|183438974|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Edema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.999
91778974|NCT04040933|183438974|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Edema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.739|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.739
91778975|NCT04040933|183438975|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Composite Scar Score Measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91839381|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.39||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||3.39|0.13|
91839382|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.84||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||1.84|0.11|
91839383|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.48||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||1.48|0.09|
91839384|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.99||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||2.99|0.19|
91839385|NCT01036022|183559211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.49||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||2.49|0.21|
91839386|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.38||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.38|0.42|
91839387|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.65||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.65|0.50|
91839388|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.47||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.47|0.45|
91839389|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.59||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.59|0.44|
91839390|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.28||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.28|0.50|
91839391|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.19||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.19|0.26|
91839392|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.63||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.63|0.22|
91839393|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.0||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.00|0.12|
91839394|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.77||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.77|0.31|
91839395|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.87||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.87|0.26|
91839396|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.84||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.84|0.15|
91839397|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.87||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.87|0.32|
91839398|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.56||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.56|0.17|
91839399|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.46||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||4.46|0.45|
91839400|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.01||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.01|0.14|
91839401|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.15||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.15|0.10|
91839402|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.03||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.03|0.23|
91839403|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.68||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.68|0.19|
91839404|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.7||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.70|0.38|
91839405|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.89||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.89|0.26|
91778976|NCT04040933|183438975|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Composite Scar Score Measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.053|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.053
91778977|NCT04040933|183438976|OTHER|Change in Baseline in Painful Score with Arm Resting by Side was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.666
91778978|NCT04040933|183438976|OTHER|Change in Baseline in Painful Score with Arm Resting by Side was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.473|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.473
91778979|NCT04040933|183438977|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Painful Score with Arm in Normal Motion was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.761|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.761
91778980|NCT04040933|183438977|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Painful Score with Arm in Normal Motion was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.456|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.456
91778981|NCT04040933|183438978|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Itchy Score was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
91778982|NCT04040933|183438978|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Itchy Score was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.325|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.325
91778983|NCT04040933|183438979|OTHER|Time to complete healing was analyzed using a survival analysis method. The survival function (cumulative percentage of wounds healed at each time point) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method for each treatment separately. The median time to complete healing was derived from the estimated survival functions and be compared using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustments|Boot-strap sampling method|||All hypothesis tests was conducted at 0.05 level without adjustment of multiple comparisons||||<0.001
91778984|NCT04040933|183438979|OTHER|Time to complete healing was analyzed using a survival analysis method. The survival function (cumulative percentage of wounds healed at each time point) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method for each treatment separately. The median time to complete healing was derived from the estimated survival functions and be compared using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|||||<|0.001||||||no adjustments|Boot-strap sampling method|||||||<0.001
91778985|NCT02066181|183438982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.7||||Log Rank||||||5.7|<0.001
91778986|NCT05764785|183439006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.182
91778987|NCT05764785|183439007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.461
91778988|NCT05764785|183439008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.228
91778989|NCT05764785|183439009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.295
91778990|NCT05764785|183439010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.915
91778991|NCT05764785|183439011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.226
91778992|NCT02141295|183439021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||=|0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.39||log-rank|Regression, Cox|||Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate median PFS for each treatment arm and the 95% CIs for median PFS were computed using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. The stratified Cox proportional hazard was used to estimate the hazard ratio (i.e., the magnitude of the treatment effect) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval. The stratification factors are number of metastatic sites (1 vs. \>1) and country/region (USA vs rest of the world).||1.39|0.60|= 0.6753
91839406|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.07||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||4.07|0.27|
91839407|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.73||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||4.73|0.46|
91839408|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.02||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.02|0.11|
91839409|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.73||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.73|0.36|
91839410|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.33||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.33|0.29|
91839411|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|6.59||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||6.59|0.31|
91839412|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|9.04||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||9.04|0.54|
91839413|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.48||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.48|0.11|
91839414|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.91||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||5.91|0.46|
91839415|NCT01036022|183559212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.62||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.62|0.27|
91839416|NCT01555164|183559228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.11||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.1||P-value from a mixed-effect model including terms for baseline HbA1c value, treatment group, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis||The estimation (LSM) is of the placebo-corrected change from baseline.|Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%, an effective sample size of 400 would provide at least 90% power to detect a statistically significant treatment difference of -0.4% (ranolazine vs. placebo) for the reduction of HbA1c from baseline at Week 24 based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 and 1:1 randomization.||0.10|-0.31|0.306
91839417|NCT00697190|183559231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.29|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senoflicon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival hyperemia.||0.04|-0.29|
91839418|NCT00697190|183559232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival hyperemia.||0.06|-0.10|
91839419|NCT00697190|183559233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival hyperemia.||0.10|-0.23|
91839420|NCT00697190|183559234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in limbal hyperemia.||0.04|-0.25|
91778993|NCT02141295|183439024|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.49|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate median OS for each treatment arm and the 95% CIs for median OS were computed using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. The stratified Cox proportional hazard was used to estimate the hazard ratio (i.e., the magnitude of the treatment effect) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval. The stratification factors are number of metastatic sites (1 vs. \>1) and country/region (USA vs rest of the world).||1.49|0.49|= 0.5740
91778994|NCT00071890|183439046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91778995|NCT00071890|183439047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Biphasic decline of CD4 after week 24 : first slope before W32 and weaker decline until W168.Slopes significantly different (all p values ≤0.0001) between the 2 groups, more pronounced in the IL-2 groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.069
91778996|NCT02904954|183439068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|66.6||Testing at alpha = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test performed to compare the MPR proportion between the two treatment arms. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the MPR proportion between the two arms.||66.6|26.7|0.0001
91778997|NCT02904954|183439069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comparing the two arms.||||0.89
91778998|NCT02904954|183439070|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|62.3||Testing at alpha = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test performed to compare the objective clinical response proportion between the two treatment arms. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the objective clinical response proportion between the two arms. Objective clinical response proportion is defined as the proportion of patients in each arm who have complete response or partial response.||62.3|24.4|0.0001
91839421|NCT00697190|183559235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in limbal hyperemia.||0.07|-0.16|
91778999|NCT00753506|183439086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|1.59|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analaysis of variance||||>0.10
91779000|NCT03819114|183439088|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence Interval (CI) on Geometric Mean Ratio compared to reference interval (0.7, 1.43).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.2|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.20|0.81|
91779001|NCT03819114|183439088|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence Interval on Geometric Mean Ratio compared to reference interval (0.7, 1.43).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.6|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.60|1.12|
91779002|NCT03819114|183439088|SUPERIORITY|Confidence Interval on Geometric Mean Ratio excluding 1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|2.18|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.18|1.27|
91779003|NCT03819114|183439088|SUPERIORITY|Confidence Interval on Geometric Mean Ratio excluding 1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.78|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.78|0.45|
91779004|NCT03819114|183439089|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91779005|NCT03819114|183439090|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.41|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.41|0.96|
91839422|NCT00697190|183559236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in limbal hyperemia.||0.14|-0.25|
91839423|NCT00697190|183559237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.04|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in corneal staining.||0.32|0.04|
91839424|NCT00697190|183559238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.26|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in corneal staining.||0.08|-0.26|
91839425|NCT00697190|183559239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||||97.5|0.02|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in corneal staining.||0.33|0.02|
91839426|NCT00697190|183559240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.27|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival staining.||0.26|-0.27|
91839427|NCT00697190|183559241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.34|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival staining.||-0.08|-0.34|
91708772|NCT03066778|183310552|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by platinum chemotherapy ECOG, and LDH. Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH ≤ULN and Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH \>ULN were combined into one stratum because of small sample size|||1.14|0.56|0.208
91839428|NCT00697190|183559242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.54|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival staining.||-0.15|-0.54|
91839429|NCT00697190|183559243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.12|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in papillary conjunctivitis.||0.14|-0.12|
91839430|NCT00697190|183559244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in papillary conjunctivitis.||0.05|-0.23|
91839431|NCT00697190|183559245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in papillary conjunctivitis.||0.02|-0.20|
91839432|NCT01871558|183559261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.139
91839433|NCT01709305|183559268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion are met when the upper limit of the two-sided 98.34% CI for the difference in LS means is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Difference in LS Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|98.34|0.02|0.36||||||Pairwise Comparison||0.36|0.02|
91839434|NCT01709305|183559268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion are met when the upper limit of the two-sided 98.34% CI for the difference in LS means is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Difference in LS Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|98.34|-0.15|0.21||||||Pairwise Comparison||0.21|-0.15|
91839435|NCT01709305|183559268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion are met when the upper limit of the two-sided 98.34% CI for the difference in LS means is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Difference in LS Means|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|98.34|-0.23|0.14||||||Pairwise Comparison||0.14|-0.23|
91839436|NCT01709305|183559270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-6.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||-6.1|-11.1|<0.001
91839437|NCT01709305|183559270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-2.9||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.3|-6.1|0.072
91839438|NCT01709305|183559270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||-2.5|-8.3|<0.001
91839439|NCT01709305|183559271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.3|-0.3|0.158
91839440|NCT01709305|183559271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.7|-0.7|>0.999
91839441|NCT01709305|183559271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.2||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.0|-0.5|0.318
91708773|NCT00551525|183310554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test|binomial proportion|||||||<0.001
91839442|NCT01709305|183559272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.9|-0.9|0.998
91839443|NCT01709305|183559272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-0.2||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.5|-1.0|0.319
91839444|NCT01709305|183559272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.9|-0.9|0.999
91839445|NCT01709305|183559273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-0.2||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.8|-1.3|0.651
91839446|NCT01709305|183559273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-0.2||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.8|-1.3|0.660
91839447|NCT01709305|183559273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.6|-0.8|0.480
91839448|NCT01709305|183559274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.3|-0.3|0.158
91839449|NCT01709305|183559274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.7|-0.7|>0.999
91839450|NCT01709305|183559274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.2||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.0|-0.5|0.318
91839451|NCT01672853|183559285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6||||||A mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in least squares mean (LSMean) change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from the 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.6|-2.3|
91898319|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|1.27|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.27|-1.07|0.556
91898320|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|1.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-1.32|0.443
91898321|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|1.07|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.07|-0.99|0.527
91839452|NCT01672853|183559285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0||||||A MMRM with an unstructured variancecovariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% CI for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in LSMean change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from the 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||3.0|-1.0|
91839453|NCT02969525|183559289|OTHER||Correlation statistic|4.6|||=|0.031|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Statistic and p-value were calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (test for non-zero correlation statistic) based on modified ridit scores and including geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure as stratification factors.~The 160 loading dose arm was not considered in the dose-response because this is a mixed dose and the test is examining linear dose response."||||=0.031
91839454|NCT02969525|183559289|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|15.23||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||15.23|1.13|=0.032
91839455|NCT02969525|183559289|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.1|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|28.74||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||28.74|2.28|=0.001
91898322|NCT00568321|183692666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|1.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.22|-0.95|0.583
91898323|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|0.27|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.27|-1.81|0.111
91898324|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-1.02|0.523
91898325|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|1.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.81|-0.28|0.887
91898326|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|1.92|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.92|-0.23|0.903
91898327|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.02|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.02|-1.11|0.472
91898328|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.30|-0.87|0.628
91898329|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|0.64|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-1.58|0.243
91898330|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.87|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.87|-1.42|0.346
91898331|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.08|-1.19|0.467
91839456|NCT02969525|183559289|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|34.26||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||34.26|2.73|<0.001
91839457|NCT02969525|183559289|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.68||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||13.68|1.00|=0.051
91839458|NCT02969525|183559290|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|12.39||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||12.39|1.73|=0.002
91839459|NCT02969525|183559290|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|30.95||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||30.95|3.91|<0.001
91839460|NCT02969525|183559290|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|16.84||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||16.84|2.31|<0.001
91839461|NCT02969525|183559290|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|11.35||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||11.35|1.59|=0.004
91839462|NCT02969525|183559291|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||=|0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.31||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||11.31|0.50|=0.279
91839463|NCT02969525|183559291|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|17.88||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||17.88|0.92|=0.065
91647274|NCT00713830|183186295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|-0.621||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), metformin use (yes, no), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 570 patients in lixisenatide arm and 285 in placebo arm would provide a power of 99% (or 98%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.621|-0.867|<0.0001
91647275|NCT02209272|183186311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91647276|NCT02209272|183186312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91839464|NCT02969525|183559291|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.5|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|31.28||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||31.28|1.77|=0.006
91647277|NCT02209272|183186313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91839465|NCT02969525|183559291|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||=|0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|13.39||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||13.39|0.63|=0.172
91839466|NCT03445065|183559316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included arm, centre, and type of diabetes as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference in HbA1c (%) at Day 180 was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.1|-0.4|0.341
91898332|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|1.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.47|-0.85|0.670
91839467|NCT03445065|183559317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.03892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-0.1|-3.1|0.03892
91839468|NCT03445065|183559321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|10.9||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||10.9|-0.1|0.056
91647278|NCT01676311|183186321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||For each permutation of the data, relevant result was saved and the corresponding p-value represents the proportion of results at least as extreme as observed in the original data.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis was run incorporating group, CVLT-II-total learning score at baseline and week 12, and covariates (Beck Depression Index \[BDI\], time post-injury, British Columbia Postconcussion Symptom Inventory \[BC-PSI\]). Regression analyses were repeated, permuting data observations for each outcome. The BDI and BC-PSI are covariates in the regression model and not pre-specified Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures.||||0.38
91898333|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.76|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.76|-1.55|0.286
91898334|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.35|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.35|-1.00|0.598
91898335|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-1.26|0.453
91898336|NCT00568321|183692669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|1.17|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.17|-1.28|0.472
91898337|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|1.56|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.56|-1.81|0.548
91898338|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|2.96|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.96|-0.48|0.117
91898339|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|0.98|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.98|-2.69|0.779
91898340|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|2.25|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.25|-1.52|0.375
91839469|NCT03445065|183559321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7||||0.01255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||8.4|1.0|0.01255
91839470|NCT03445065|183559322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia \>250mg/dL Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-1.1|-9.9|0.015
91839471|NCT03445065|183559322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.50266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>250mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||2.0|-4.0|0.50266
91839472|NCT03445065|183559323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.6||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia \>180mg/dL Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.6|-10.9|0.080
91839473|NCT03445065|183559323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.10637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>180mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.7|-7.3|0.10637
91708774|NCT00551525|183310557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.063||||||Modeling the association of age with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]), baseline PSA, and Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]).||1.063|0.910|
91839474|NCT03445065|183559324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.7|-1.2|0.671
91839475|NCT03445065|183559324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.12935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.5|-4.1|0.12935
91839476|NCT03445065|183559325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.4|-0.6|0.693
91839477|NCT03445065|183559326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|4.9||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||4.9|-6.7|0.753
91779006|NCT03819114|183439090|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|1.69|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.69|1.21|
91779007|NCT03819114|183439090|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.96|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.96|1.17|
91779008|NCT03819114|183439090|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.0|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.00|0.60|
91779009|NCT03819114|183439091|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.61|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.61|0.22|
91779010|NCT03819114|183439091|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.44|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.44|0.15|
91779011|NCT03819114|183439091|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|3.7|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||3.70|1.20|
91779012|NCT03819114|183439091|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.32|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.32|0.09|
91779013|NCT03819114|183439092|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.17|5.12|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||5.12|3.17|
91779014|NCT03819114|183439092|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.33|3.65|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||3.65|2.33|
91779015|NCT03819114|183439092|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.52|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.52|0.82|
91779016|NCT03819114|183439092|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.65|4.93|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||4.93|2.65|
91779017|NCT03819114|183439093|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.66|2.65|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.65|1.66|
91779018|NCT03819114|183439093|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.39|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.39|0.89|
91779019|NCT03819114|183439093|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.66|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.66|0.87|
91779020|NCT03819114|183439093|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|2.45|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.45|1.24|
91839478|NCT03445065|183559326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.84307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effect, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.8|-4.6|0.84307
91839479|NCT03445065|183559327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.0||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>250mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.0|-4.8|0.653
91839480|NCT03445065|183559327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.07261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>250mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||4.8|-0.2|0.07261
91839481|NCT03445065|183559328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>180mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||7.4|-4.9|0.685
91839482|NCT03445065|183559328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.19785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>180mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||7.8|-1.6|0.19785
91708775|NCT00551525|183310557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.169||||||Modeling the association of baseline PSA with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]), Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]), and age.||1.169|0.890|
91779021|NCT03819114|183439094|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.59|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.59|0.46|
91779022|NCT03819114|183439094|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.43|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.43|0.34|
91779023|NCT03819114|183439094|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.25|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.25|0.93|
91779024|NCT03819114|183439094|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.56|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.56|0.41|
91779025|NCT03819114|183439096|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.93|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.93|0.60|
91779026|NCT03819114|183439096|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.36|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.36|0.90|
91779027|NCT03819114|183439096|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.33|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.33|1.29|
91779028|NCT03819114|183439096|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.58|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.58|0.32|
91779029|NCT03819114|183439097|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.78|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.78|0.49|
91779030|NCT03819114|183439097|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.1|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.10|0.71|
91779031|NCT03819114|183439097|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|2.4|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.40|1.31|
91779032|NCT03819114|183439097|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.47|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.47|0.26|
91779033|NCT03819114|183439098|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.63|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.63|0.39|
91779034|NCT03819114|183439098|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.86|0.55|
91779035|NCT03819114|183439098|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|2.45|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.45|1.32|
91779036|NCT03819114|183439098|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.38|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.38|0.20|
91779037|NCT04226742|183439099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|4.88||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.88|-3.71|0.79
91779038|NCT04226742|183439100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|4.32||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.32|-2.52|.61
91779039|NCT04226742|183439101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.68||Significance threshold of alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-0.05|0.088
91779040|NCT04226742|183439102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.68||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|31.99||Threshold for statistical significance of alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.99|-4.62|0.142
91779041|NCT04226742|183439103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.87||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|1.54||Threshold for statistical significance of alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-15.28|0.109
91779042|NCT04226742|183439104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|4.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.89|-6.92|0.736
91779043|NCT02492763|183439111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.39||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.11|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.11|-0.88|0.126
91779044|NCT02492763|183439111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.6||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.08|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.08|0.11|0.017
91779045|NCT02492763|183439111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.61||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.10|-1.12|0.018
91779046|NCT02492763|183439111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.37||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.87|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.87|-0.13|0.146
91779047|NCT02492763|183439111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.48||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.48|-1.49|<0.001
91779048|NCT02492763|183439114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-2.3||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||5.6|-12.1|0.301
91779049|NCT02492763|183439114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|2.2||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.2|-8.1|0.573
91779050|NCT02492763|183439114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Liraglutide|-2.4||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||5.5|-12.4|0.295
91779051|NCT02492763|183439114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Liraglutide|2.2||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|13.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.2|-8.4|0.587
91779052|NCT02492763|183439115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|10.37|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|10.37|3.42|
91708776|NCT00551525|183310557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.307|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|4.697||||||Modeling the association of clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]) with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for baseline PSA, Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]), and age.||4.697|0.364|
91779053|NCT02492763|183439115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means vs. Liraglutide|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|7.33|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|7.33|0.35|
91779054|NCT02492763|183439115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|11.23|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|11.23|4.17|
91779055|NCT02492763|183439115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means vs. Liraglutide|4.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|8.19|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|8.19|1.11|
91779056|NCT02492763|183439116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.6|-2.0|0.285
91779057|NCT02492763|183439116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.9||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.2|-0.4|0.183
91779058|NCT02492763|183439116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.4|-3.1|0.010
91779059|NCT02492763|183439116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.2|-1.5|0.811
91779060|NCT02492763|183439116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.6||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.3|-2.9|0.018
91779061|NCT02492763|183439117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.6||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|10.9|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||10.9|-28.2|0.385
91779062|NCT02492763|183439117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|29.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|48.6|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||48.6|9.7|0.004
91779063|NCT02492763|183439117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-9.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||-9.4|-49.6|0.004
91779064|NCT02492763|183439117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.3||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|28.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||28.2|-11.7|0.416
91779065|NCT02492763|183439117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-37.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-18.0||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||-18.0|-57.5|<0.001
91779066|NCT02492763|183439121|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.7||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|1.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.4|-8.8|0.151
91839483|NCT03445065|183559329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.8|-1.5|0.549
91839484|NCT03445065|183559329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.3||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-0.3|-6.3|0.03180
91839485|NCT03445065|183559330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.7|-0.6|0.859
91708777|NCT00551525|183310557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.659|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|2.006||||||Modeling the association of Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]) with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]), baseline PSA, and age.||2.006|0.217|
91708778|NCT00073008|183310599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|34.5||||||95.0|13.7|55.4|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||55.4|13.7|
91708779|NCT00073008|183310599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|19.7||||||95.0|2.9|36.4|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||36.4|2.9|
91779067|NCT02492763|183439121|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.1||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.1|-6.2|0.682
91779068|NCT02492763|183439121|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.5||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.7|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.7|-7.7|0.344
91779069|NCT02492763|183439121|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.2||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||5.4|-5.0|0.948
91779070|NCT02492763|183439121|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.7||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.5||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||2.5|-7.8|0.306
91779071|NCT02492763|183439122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.5||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.8|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.8|-1.7|0.347
91779072|NCT02492763|183439122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||3.2|-3.3|0.963
91779073|NCT02492763|183439122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.4||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.7|-1.9|0.394
91779074|NCT02492763|183439122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.2||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||3.1|-3.5|0.905
91779075|NCT02492763|183439122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.6||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.9|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.9|-1.6|0.325
91779076|NCT01193244|183439123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.707|||<|1e-05||95.0|0.626|0.799|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors of region and radiographic disease progression at baseline with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated better prevention of death in the orteronel group compared to the placebo group. From log-rank test stratified by region and radiographic disease progression at Baseline.||0.799|0.626|<0.00001
91708780|NCT00073008|183310600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|27.1||||||95.0|11.9|42.3|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||42.3|11.9|
91779077|NCT01193244|183439124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.59755||95.0|0.838|1.107|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors of region and radiographic disease progression at baseline with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio \<1 indicated better prevention of death in the orteronel group compared to the placebo group. From log-rank test stratified by region and radiographic disease progression at baseline.||1.107|0.838|0.59755
91839486|NCT03445065|183559330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.01124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.6||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-0.6|-4.5|0.01124
91647279|NCT01676311|183186321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||For each permutation of the data, relevant result was saved and the corresponding p-value represents the proportion of results at least as extreme as observed in the original data.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis was run incorporating group (Huperzine A, placebo), baseline CVLT-II-short delay free recall (SDFR) score, outcome (CVLT-II-SDFR at week 12) and covariates (Beck Depression Index, time post-injury, British Columbia Postconcussion Symptom Inventory). Regression analyses were repeated, permuting data observations for each outcome i.e. we permuted the labels (Huperzine A or placebo) among the data observations and re-ran the regression.||||0.38
91779078|NCT01193244|183439125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.166|||<|0.001||95.0|1.724|2.721|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with prognostic factors: region; radiographic disease progression at baseline; age; race; baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score; Gleason score at initial diagnosis; baseline PSA, natural log scale; presence of visceral disease; alkaline phosphatase; lactate dehydrogenase; and hemoglobin. Odds ratio greater than (\>)1 favored orteronel. P-values tested for odds ratio equal to 1.||2.721|1.724|<0.001
91779079|NCT01193244|183439126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.712||||0.001||95.0|1.235|2.373|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with prognostic factors: region; radiographic disease progression at baseline; age; race; baseline ECOG score; Gleason score at initial diagnosis; baseline PSA, natural log scale; presence of visceral disease; alkaline phosphatase; lactate dehydrogenase; and hemoglobin. Odds ratio \> 1 favored orteronel. P-values tested for odds ratio equal to 1.||2.373|1.235|0.001
91779080|NCT01193244|183439127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.885||||0.33906||95.0|0.688|1.138|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors of region and radiographic disease progression at baseline with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated better prevention of death in the orteronel group compared to the placebo group. From log-rank test stratified by region and radiographic disease progression at baseline.||1.138|0.688|0.33906
91779081|NCT00865566|183439153|OTHER|Score test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.84|||Regression, Cox||HR is vaccine / placebo|Cox proportional hazards model to assess the association between treatment assignment and dropout||0.84|0.63|<0.001
91779082|NCT00865566|183439154|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0||Score test|Regression, Cox||HR is vaccine / placebo|Cox PH model to assess the association between treatment assignment and dropout||1|0.59|0.05
91779083|NCT00865566|183439155|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84||Score test|Regression, Cox||HR is vaccine / placebo|Assess the association between treatment assignment and dropout||0.84|0.60|<0.001
91779084|NCT00865566|183439156|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42||Score test|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age, behavioral risk score, square of behavioral risk score, race, and BMI|HR is vaccine / placebo|||1.42|0.73|0.903
91779085|NCT00865566|183439157|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.58||Adjusted for ave, behavioral risk score, square of behavioral risk score, and BMI|Regression, Cox|Score test|HR is vaccine / placebo|||1.58|0.71|0.783
91779086|NCT01039376|183439161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.7|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||0.70|0.43|<0.0001
91779087|NCT01039376|183439162|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.68|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||0.68|0.42|<0.0001
91779088|NCT01039376|183439163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.25|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||1.25|0.69|0.6046
91779089|NCT01039376|183439165|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||0.96|0.62|0.0178
91779090|NCT01039376|183439166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.32|||log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||1.32|0.42|0.3136
91779091|NCT01039376|183439167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.19|||log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||1.19|0.29|0.1603
91779092|NCT01039376|183439168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.35||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Disease Effects Scale|||-0.35|-4.04|0.0199
91779093|NCT01039376|183439168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-0.97||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Fatigue Scale|||-0.97|-6.61|0.0085
91779094|NCT01039376|183439168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|0.21||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Future Health Scale|||0.21|-7.37|0.0642
91779095|NCT01039376|183439168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.6398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.72||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Infection Scale|||2.72|-1.67|0.6398
91779096|NCT01039376|183439168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.32||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|-1.28||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Social Problems Scale|||-1.28|-7.37|0.0055
91779097|NCT01039376|183439168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.71||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Side Effects Scale|||-0.71|-4.27|0.0063
91779098|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.69||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Appetite Loss|||0.69|-3.64|0.1816
91779099|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|3.97||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Cognitive Functioning|||3.97|-1.18|0.2863
91779100|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.33||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Constipation|||0.33|-4.28|0.0932
91779101|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.66||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Diarrhoea|||2.66|-1.67|0.6533
91779102|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|0.42||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Dyspnoea|||0.42|-5.06|0.0963
91779103|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.51||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Emotional Functioning|||6.51|1.27|0.0037
91779104|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.63||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-1.82||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Fatigue|||-1.82|-7.45|0.0013
91779105|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.2902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|1.51||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Financial Difficulties|||1.51|-5.02|0.2902
91779106|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.05||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Nausea and Vomiting|||0.05|-2.49|0.0606
91779107|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-0.15||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Pain|||-0.15|-5.93|0.0393
91779108|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.96||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Physical Functioning|||3.96|-0.33|0.0968
91647280|NCT01676311|183186321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||For each permutation of the data, relevant result was saved and the corresponding p-value represents the proportion of results at least as extreme as observed in the original data.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis was run incorporating group (Huperzine A, placebo), baseline CVLT-II-long delay free recall (LDFR) score, outcome (CVLT-II-LDFR at week 12) and covariates (Beck Depression Index, time post-injury, British Columbia Postconcussion Symptom Inventory). Regression analyses were repeated, permuting data observations for each outcome i.e. we permuted the labels (Huperzine A or placebo) among the data observations and re-ran the regression.||||0.42
91647281|NCT01676311|183186324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||A chi-square test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of seizure (yes, no) was performed. A permutation test was the used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the prevalence of seizures.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||||||0.48
91647282|NCT01676311|183186325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of behavioral side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of behavioral side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Behavioral side effects statistical analysis||||0.44
91779109|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.17||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Global Health Status/QOL|||4.17|-0.61|0.1449
91779110|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.7||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Role Functioning|||6.70|0.43|0.0259
91779111|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.65||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Social Functioning|||6.65|0.64|0.0175
91779112|NCT01039376|183439169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|1.75||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Insomnia|||1.75|-5.33|0.3209
91839487|NCT03445065|183559331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1585|-0.018||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time and centre as fixed classification effects and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled (D150-180) group minus the Enabled (D90-120) group.|||-0.018|-1.1585|0.045
91647283|NCT01676311|183186325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of cardiac-respiratory side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Cardiac-respiratory side effects statistical analysis||||0.81
91779113|NCT01039376|183439170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.06||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Utility Score|||0.06|0.01|0.0110
91779114|NCT01039376|183439170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38||||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.49||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Thermometer Score|||3.49|-0.73|0.1999
91779115|NCT01039376|183439182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.547|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.051|2.276|||||HR estimated for Cytogenetics Group (based on \>=20% cut-off) with 6q-, or +12q or 13q-/no abberation|||2.276|1.051|
91779116|NCT01039376|183439182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.303|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.934|17.54|||||HR estimated for Cytogenetics Group (based on \>=20% cut-off) with 17p-/no abberation|||17.540|4.934|
91779117|NCT01039376|183439182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.468|7.21|||||HR estimated for Cytogenetics Group (based on \>=20% cut-off) with 11q-/no abberation|||7.210|2.468|
91779118|NCT01039376|183439182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|2.339|||||HR estimated for B2 Microglobulin Group 2 with 3500 as cut off: \>3500 ug/L/\<=3500 ug/L|||2.339|1.434|
91779119|NCT01039376|183439182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.76|||||HR estimated for IgVH Mutational Status 1 Mutated/Unmutated|||0.760|0.432|
91779120|NCT01039376|183439182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.301|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|2.448|||||HR estimated for VH3-21 Usage Flag Yes/No.|||2.448|0.692|
91779121|NCT00785785|183439188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.466||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.945|||Hazard Ratio|||||1.945|1.104|0.0081
91779122|NCT01244893|183439194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study uses -0.05 LogMAR as the non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00092|0.01045|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as the test lens - control lens.|"Ho: after time period (6-8 days of lens wear), the test lens - control lens will be greater than or equal to the non-inferiority margin specified .~Ha: after time period, test-control will be less than the margin specified concluding that the test lens will be inferior to control lens in terms of LogMAR scale"||0.01045|-0.00092|
91779123|NCT00357552|183439198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Success of the strategy is assessed according to whether the lower bound of the exact 90% confidence interval of this proportion is greater than 65%.|proportion|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.0|92.0|||confidence interval|Success was determined by whether the lower bound of the 90% exact confidence interval was greater than 65%.|exact confidence interval|The null hypothesis was that LPV/r monotherapy provides at least a 65% short-term virologic response. The target sample size was 120 subjects. Assuming an underlying true 24 week success rate of 76%, this sample size was chosen in order to provide at least 90% power to show that the true 24 week virologic success rate of LPV/r monotherapy in this population is greater than 65%.||92|81|
91779124|NCT04555616|183439221|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome analyzed via success rates among groups.||||0.12
91779125|NCT03089281|183439224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
91779126|NCT03089281|183439225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91779127|NCT03089281|183439226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91779128|NCT03089281|183439228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
91779129|NCT03089281|183439229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.49
91779130|NCT03089281|183439230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91779131|NCT03089281|183439231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91779132|NCT03089281|183439232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
91779133|NCT03089281|183439233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
91779134|NCT03089281|183439234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91779135|NCT03089281|183439235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
91779136|NCT03089281|183439236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91779137|NCT02282605|183439244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.792
91779138|NCT02282605|183439244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.887
91779139|NCT02282605|183439245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||For timepoint Day 3 (12 hours after last dose)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0058
91779140|NCT02282605|183439247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||The adjusted means were compared for the two-day treatment period.|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
91779141|NCT02282605|183439247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The adjusted means were compared for the two-day treatment period to discharge.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91779142|NCT02282605|183439247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The adjusted means were compared for the two-day treatment period through to discharge|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91779143|NCT01744977|183439292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With an assumed adherence proportion in the Control arm of 0.50, there is 80% power to detect a difference between Control and the intervention arms of 17% or more with 125 patients in each arm.||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.300
91779144|NCT01744977|183439293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With an assumed adherence proportion in the Control arm of 0.50, there is 80% power to detect a difference between Control and the intervention arms of 17% or more with 125 patients in each arm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.5||As measured at 12m|Mixed Models Analysis||This value summarizes the full 12 month period so Mean Difference (Final Values) is appropriate.|||6.5|-8.0|0.839
91779145|NCT01750229|183439300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Variables included in the Mixed Model were: baseline VAS back pain score, treatment group, and period.||||||0.002
91779146|NCT01746901|183439305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|36.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.6|24.4|<0.0001
91779147|NCT01746901|183439305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.7||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.7|1.6|0.0132
91779148|NCT01746901|183439305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.4|9.3|<0.0001
91779149|NCT01746901|183439305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|28.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.9|16.8|<0.0001
91779150|NCT01746901|183439305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.4|9.3|<0.0001
91839488|NCT03445065|183559332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.741|3.682||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|The model included time and centre as fixed classification effects and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Switch to Enabled (D150-180) group minus the Control (D90-120) group.|||3.682|-2.741|0.763
91839489|NCT03445065|183559333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.0||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.0|-0.4|0.140
91839490|NCT03445065|183559333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.6411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.6||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||1.6|-2.6|0.64110
91839491|NCT03445065|183559334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.1|-1.1|0.339
91839492|NCT03445065|183559334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.57677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||1.7|-3.0|0.57677
91839493|NCT03445065|183559335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.2|-0.3|0.558
91839494|NCT03445065|183559335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.1|-0.3|0.408
91839495|NCT03445065|183559336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference in HbA1c (%) at Day 180 was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.4|-0.2|0.616
91839496|NCT02172625|183559358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||week-to-week coefficient of variation %|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This was the week-to-week coefficient of variation (CV) obtained at baseline over two different weeks in a fasted state measured at rest.|||||
91839497|NCT02172625|183559359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||week-to-week coefficient of variation %|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This was the week-to-week coefficient of variation (CV) obtained at baseline over two different weeks in a fasted state measured at rest.|||||
91839498|NCT02172625|183559363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||week-to-week coefficient of variation %|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This was the week-to-week coefficient of variation (CV) obtained at baseline over two different weeks in a fasted state measured at rest.|||||
91839499|NCT03315130|183559364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|=|0.0941|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.5|-0.1||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.1|-4.5|=0.0941
91898341|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.26|0.54|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.54|-3.26|0.881
91839500|NCT03315130|183559364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|=|0.0538|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.1|-0.6||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.6|-5.1|=0.0538
91839501|NCT03315130|183559365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.9|-0.5||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.5|-3.9|=0.0470
91839502|NCT03315130|183559365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|-0.6||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.6|-4.0|=0.0392
91898342|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|1.52|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.52|-2.33|0.636
91898343|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.905|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.46|0.39|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.39|-3.46|0.905
91839503|NCT03315130|183559366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.4|-2.1||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-2.1|-8.4|=0.0170
91839504|NCT03315130|183559366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|=|0.0624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|-0.6||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.6|-6.9|=0.0624
91839505|NCT03315130|183559367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|=|0.1866|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.9|0.9||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||0.9|-4.9|=0.1866
91839506|NCT03315130|183559367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|=|0.0391|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.0|-1.1||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-1.1|-7.0|=0.0391
91839507|NCT03315130|183559371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-82.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.563|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.249|-77.946||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-77.946|-87.249|<0.0001
91839508|NCT03315130|183559371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-95.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-100.794|-90.585||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-90.585|-100.794|<0.0001
91839509|NCT03315130|183559372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|60.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.394|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|47.839|72.408||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||72.408|47.839|<0.0001
91839510|NCT03315130|183559372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|57.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.269|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|44.955|69.197||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||69.197|44.955|<0.0001
91839511|NCT00524030|183559377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||Null hypothesis (H0): Exit rate greater than or equal to (≥)74%||||<0.001
91839512|NCT00524030|183559377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||H0: Exite rate ≥68%||||<0.001
91839513|NCT00524030|183559378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||H0: Exit rate ≥74%||||<0.001
91839514|NCT00524030|183559378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||H0: Exit rate ≥68%||||0.001
91839515|NCT05473000|183559423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092
91839516|NCT02714205|183559424|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean|-0.54||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.58|-1.66|0.34
91839517|NCT02714205|183559425|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean|0.51||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|7.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix.|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||7.18|-6.15|0.88
91779151|NCT01746901|183439305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.5||||18.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.6|12.5|18.5
91779152|NCT01746901|183439306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.2|59.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.5|39.2|<0.0001
91779153|NCT01746901|183439306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.1|-10.1|0.9994
91779154|NCT01746901|183439306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|32.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.4|12.1|<0.0001
91779155|NCT01746901|183439306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|37.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.3|17.0|<0.0001
91779156|NCT01746901|183439306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|33.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||33.1|12.8|<0.0001
91779157|NCT01746901|183439306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|28.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.4|8.1|0.0005
91779158|NCT01746901|183439307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|63.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|74.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||74.9|51.5|<0.0001
91779159|NCT01746901|183439307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.1|0.6|0.0402
91779160|NCT01746901|183439307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|44.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||44.7|21.1|<0.0001
91779161|NCT01746901|183439307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|42.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|54.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||54.4|30.9|<0.0001
91779162|NCT01746901|183439307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|43.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||43.9|20.3|<0.0001
91779163|NCT01746901|183439307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|48.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.1|24.6|<0.0001
91779164|NCT01746901|183439308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|108.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|124.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||124.5|91.6|<0.0001
91779165|NCT01746901|183439308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.4125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.3|-9.6|0.4125
91779166|NCT01746901|183439308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|62.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||62.5|29.6|<0.0001
91779167|NCT01746901|183439308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.4|85.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||85.2|52.4|<0.0001
91779168|NCT01746901|183439308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|73.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||73.2|40.3|<0.0001
91779169|NCT01746901|183439308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|69.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||69.0|36.2|<0.0001
91779170|NCT01746901|183439309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|43.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||43.7|21.8|<0.0001
91779171|NCT01746901|183439309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.5|-8.4|0.6434
91779172|NCT01746901|183439309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.0||||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.0|-2.0|0.1072
91779173|NCT01746901|183439309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|37.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.3|15.4|<0.0001
91839518|NCT02714205|183559426|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean|-0.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.48|-0.88|0.57
91839519|NCT02714205|183559427|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|-0.09||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.63|-0.8|0.81
91839520|NCT02714205|183559428|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|0.43||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||1.23|-0.38|0.3
91839521|NCT02714205|183559429|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|0.4||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||2.32|-1.52|0.68
91779174|NCT01746901|183439309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|36.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.6|14.7|<0.0001
91779175|NCT01746901|183439309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.9||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|22.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.9|0.9|0.0335
91779176|NCT01746901|183439310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|46.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.0|24.0|<0.0001
91779177|NCT01746901|183439310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.9811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.8|-11.1|0.9811
91779178|NCT01746901|183439310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.0||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||19.9|-2.0|0.1083
91779179|NCT01746901|183439310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|36.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.9|14.9|<0.0001
91779180|NCT01746901|183439310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.2|12.3|<0.0001
91779181|NCT01746901|183439310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|22.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.4|0.5|0.0408
91779182|NCT01746901|183439311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|48.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.7|25.2|<0.0001
91779183|NCT01746901|183439311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.5968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.6|-14.9|0.5968
91779184|NCT01746901|183439311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.4|-3.1|0.1471
91779185|NCT01746901|183439311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|21.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.3|-2.3|0.1136
91779186|NCT01746901|183439311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.2|10.6|0.0002
91779187|NCT01746901|183439311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|21.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.3|-2.3|0.1136
91779188|NCT01746901|183439313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|37.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.4|19.6|<0.0001
91839522|NCT02714205|183559430|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|-0.83||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.23|-1.89|0.12
91839523|NCT02714205|183559431|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|-1.41||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.99|-3.81|0.25
91779189|NCT01746901|183439313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.1|-6.7|0.6209
91779190|NCT01746901|183439313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.5||||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.3|-1.4|0.0997
91779191|NCT01746901|183439313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|32.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.1|14.4|<0.0001
91779192|NCT01746901|183439313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.5|7.7|0.0003
91779193|NCT01746901|183439313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.3||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.2|4.4|0.0036
91779194|NCT01746901|183439314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|38.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.8|21.1|<0.0001
91779195|NCT01746901|183439314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.4|-11.2|0.5951
91779196|NCT01746901|183439314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.6|-1.1|0.0841
91779197|NCT01746901|183439314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|28.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.6|11.0|<0.0001
91779198|NCT01746901|183439314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.4|5.7|0.0014
91779199|NCT01746901|183439314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.8||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||19.6|1.9|0.0172
91779200|NCT01746901|183439315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|39.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.9|21.0|<0.0001
91779201|NCT01746901|183439315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.9||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.5|-15.4|0.2166
91839524|NCT00186498|183559438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||||||Test of within subjects contrast: CVLT Long Delay Free Recall Time 1 (baseline) vs Time 2 (30 days): Placebo (F 4.093) p= 0.071; Memantine (F 35.042) p=0.006|Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
91839525|NCT01693692|183559448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1683|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2||0.1683
91839526|NCT01693692|183559448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0277|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1||0.0277
91839527|NCT01693692|183559449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.2637|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5||0.2637
91839528|NCT01693692|183559449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.0097|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7||0.0097
91839529|NCT01693692|183559450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0639|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0||0.0639
91839530|NCT01693692|183559450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1||0.0070
91839531|NCT04424290|183559476|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0558|0.0089|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.0089|-0.0558|
91839532|NCT04424290|183559477|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.11|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.1100|-0.0670|
91839533|NCT04424290|183559478|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0412|0.0195|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.0195|-0.0412|
91839534|NCT04424290|183559479|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1477|0.1021|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.1021|-0.1477|
91839535|NCT04424290|183559480|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.5|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.5|-8.1|
91839536|NCT04424290|183559481|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|16.2|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||16.2|-7.3|
91839537|NCT04424290|183559482|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.0|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||3.0|-9.6|
91779202|NCT01746901|183439315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.5||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.0|-1.0|0.0777
91779203|NCT01746901|183439315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.4|6.5|0.0011
91779204|NCT01746901|183439315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.7||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.2|3.3|0.0086
91779205|NCT01746901|183439315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.5||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.0|-0.9|0.0775
91779206|NCT01746901|183439317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.8|73.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||73.6|48.8|<0.0001
91779207|NCT01746901|183439317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.8||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||31.2|6.4|0.0032
91779208|NCT01746901|183439317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|45.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.3|20.5|<0.0001
91779209|NCT01746901|183439317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|47.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|59.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.6|34.8|<0.0001
91779210|NCT01746901|183439317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|73.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.1|86.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||86.0|61.1|<0.0001
91779211|NCT01746901|183439317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|50.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||50.8|26.0|<0.0001
91779212|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|51.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||51.8|36.0|<0.0001
91779213|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.2|-4.6|0.4154
91779214|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||29.7|13.9|<0.0001
91779215|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|33.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||33.3|17.5|<0.0001
91779216|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.1|12.3|<0.0001
91779217|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||26.8|11.0|<0.0001
91779218|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|114.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|131.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||131.3|97.1|<0.0001
91779219|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|24.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.4|-9.8|0.3985
91779220|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|72.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||72.8|38.5|<0.0001
91779221|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|65.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.8|83.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.0|48.8|<0.0001
91779222|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|72.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||72.7|38.5|<0.0001
91779223|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|71.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.2|37.0|<0.0001
91779224|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|302.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|248.8|356.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||356.8|248.8|<0.0001
91779225|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|47.8||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|101.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||101.7|-6.2|0.0824
91779226|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|188.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|134.6|242.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||242.5|134.6|<0.0001
91779227|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|162.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.0|216.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||216.0|108.0|<0.0001
91779228|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|141.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.9|195.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||195.8|87.9|<0.0001
91779229|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|189.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||189.6|81.7|<0.0001
91779230|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|287.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|219.1|356.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||356.1|219.1|<0.0001
91779231|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|101.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.9|169.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||169.8|32.9|0.0040
91779232|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|218.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|150.0|287.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||287.0|150.0|<0.0001
91779233|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|170.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.0|239.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||239.0|102.0|<0.0001
91779234|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|158.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.1|227.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||227.1|90.1|<0.0001
91779235|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|152.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|220.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||220.7|83.7|<0.0001
91779236|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.1|281.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||281.8|90.1|0.0002
91779237|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|205.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.2|300.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||300.8|109.2|<0.0001
91779238|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|221.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|125.2|316.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||316.7|125.2|<0.0001
91779239|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|170.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.1|265.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||265.8|74.1|0.0006
91779240|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|281.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||281.5|89.9|0.0002
91779241|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|144.9||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|240.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||240.8|49.1|0.0033
91779242|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|170.0||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.2|274.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||274.9|65.2|0.0017
91839538|NCT04424290|183559483|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.1|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.1|-7.3|
91839539|NCT04424290|183559484|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.1|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||3.1|-8.7|
91839540|NCT04424290|183559485|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.4|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.4|-4.9|
91839541|NCT04424290|183559486|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.9|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||7.9|-2.7|
91839542|NCT04424290|183559487|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|16.5|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||16.5|-1.2|
91839543|NCT04424290|183559488|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|29.8|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||29.8|-2.3|
91839544|NCT04424290|183559489|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|14.5|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||14.5|-0.9|
91839545|NCT02914184|183559493|OTHER|The two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of anti RV IgA antibody GMCs should be within the \[0.5; 2\] clinical limit interval.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.44|||ANOVA|||GMC Ratio of Anti-RV IgA antibody for Liq\_A and Liq\_B groups was calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects.||1.44|0.79|
91839546|NCT02914184|183559493|OTHER|The two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of anti RV IgA antibody GMCs should be within the \[0.5; 2\] clinical limit interval.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||ANOVA|||GMC Ratio of Anti-RV IgA antibody for Liq\_A and Liq\_C groups was calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects.||1.19|0.65|
91779243|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|211.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.6|316.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||316.2|106.6|0.0001
91779244|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|219.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.5|324.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||324.0|114.5|<0.0001
91779245|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|162.2||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.3|267.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||267.0|57.3|0.0027
91839547|NCT02914184|183559493|OTHER|The two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of anti RV IgA antibody GMCs should be within the \[0.5; 2\] clinical limit interval.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||ANOVA|||GMC Ratio of Anti-RV IgA antibody for Liq\_B and Liq\_C groups was calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects.||1.11|0.61|
91708781|NCT00073008|183310600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|18.3||||||95.0|3.9|32.6|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||32.6|3.9|
91779246|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.1|290.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||290.7|81.1|0.0006
91779247|NCT01746901|183439318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.5||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|240.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||240.4|30.7|0.0116
91779248|NCT01746901|183439319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.5|-4.3|<0.0001
91779249|NCT01746901|183439319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.2|1.4|0.0001
91779250|NCT01746901|183439319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.1|-1.7|0.7005
91779251|NCT01746901|183439319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-1.3|0.8440
91779252|NCT01746901|183439319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.1|-1.6|0.7295
91779253|NCT01746901|183439319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-1.3|0.8757
91779254|NCT01746901|183439320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|72.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||72.9|47.4|<0.0001
91779255|NCT01746901|183439320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.6||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.4|-0.1|0.0514
91779256|NCT01746901|183439320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|42.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||42.4|17.0|<0.0001
91779257|NCT01746901|183439320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|55.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||55.8|30.3|<0.0001
91779258|NCT01746901|183439320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|46.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.4|21.0|<0.0001
91779259|NCT01746901|183439320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|49.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||49.1|23.7|<0.0001
91839548|NCT02914184|183559494|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in SCR for antibodies to rota virus at month 2-4 between the Liq\_Pool group and Lyo Control group should be ≥ -10%.|SCR difference at Month 2-4|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|2.63||||||Non-inferiority of Liq\_Pool group compared to Lyo Control group in terms of difference in % of subjects with anti-RV IgA titer ≥ specified cut off with its 2-sided 95% CI in initially seronegative subjects||2.63|-7.15|
91779260|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|47.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||47.2|31.8|<0.0001
91779261|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.2739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.0|-3.4|0.2739
91779262|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.1|8.7|<0.0001
91779263|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|35.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||35.0|19.7|<0.0001
91779264|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.2|12.8|<0.0001
91779265|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|27.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.4|12.0|<0.0001
91779266|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|104.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|121.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||121.8|87.7|<0.0001
91779267|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.4003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.3|-9.8|0.4003
91839549|NCT02914184|183559496|NON_INFERIORITY|LL of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of anti-RV IgA antibody GMCs between the Liq\_Pool Group and Control group should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of Liq\_Pool Group as compared to Lyo Control group in terms of the GMC ratio calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects||1.33|0.82|
91839550|NCT00806624|183559508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|9.4||||||||9.4|-16.2|
91839551|NCT00806624|183559508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|4.5||||||||4.5|-22.4|
91839552|NCT00806624|183559508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|8.2||||||||8.2|-19.3|
91839553|NCT01863043|183559555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
91647284|NCT01676311|183186325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of dermatological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of dermatological side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Dermatological side effects statistical analysis||||0.81
91839554|NCT01863043|183559556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91839555|NCT01863043|183559557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
91839556|NCT01863043|183559558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
91839557|NCT01863043|183559559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91839558|NCT01863043|183559560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91647285|NCT01676311|183186325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of gastrointestinal side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Gastrointestinal side effects statistical analysis||||0.73
91708782|NCT00808470|183310616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||15 minutes after exposure||||0.58
91839559|NCT01863043|183559561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.59
91839560|NCT01863043|183559562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.64
91839561|NCT01863043|183559563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.95
91839562|NCT01863043|183559564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91839563|NCT01863043|183559565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.23
91839564|NCT01863043|183559566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
91839565|NCT01863043|183559567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.01
91839566|NCT01863043|183559568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91839567|NCT01863043|183559569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91839568|NCT01863043|183559571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91839569|NCT01863043|183559572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
91839570|NCT01863043|183559573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
91839571|NCT01863043|183559574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
91839572|NCT01863043|183559575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.694
91839573|NCT01863043|183559576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.97
91839574|NCT01863043|183559577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
91839575|NCT01863043|183559578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91839576|NCT01863043|183559579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91839577|NCT01863043|183559580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91839578|NCT01863043|183559581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91839579|NCT01863043|183559582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
91839580|NCT01863043|183559583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91839581|NCT01863043|183559584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.888
91839582|NCT01863043|183559585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.694
91839583|NCT01863043|183559586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||general linear mixed model|||||||0.248
91839584|NCT01863043|183559587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||general linear mixed model|||||||0.694
91839585|NCT01863043|183559588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.195
91839586|NCT01987596|183559594|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.00
91839587|NCT01987596|183559595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||two-period crossover design analysis||||<0.0001
91839588|NCT01987596|183559596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||2 treatment, 2 periiod cross-over analysis||||<0.0001
91839589|NCT02632786|183559599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.21|0.55|0.3190
91839590|NCT02632786|183559600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.81|-3.37|0.5563
91839591|NCT02632786|183559601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.8992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|23.0|||ANCOVA|||||23.00|-11.50|0.8992
91839592|NCT02632786|183559602|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.54||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.94|0.60|0.3529
91839593|NCT02632786|183559603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-4.2|0.7570
91839594|NCT02632786|183559604|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-71.97||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.72|6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.79|-150.72|0.0729
91839595|NCT02632786|183559605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4142
91839596|NCT02674490|183559621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Threshold for significance is two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Regression, Linear|The primary analysis was adjusted for aphasia type (Anomia, Broca, or other type), baseline aphasia severity (AQ), and age.||Sample Size Determination If sample size in each group is 20, we will have 89% power to detect a difference in means of 23 (the difference between A-tDCS mean change in accuracy of 33 and a sham mean change in accuracy of 10) assuming that the SD of change for both groups is 22.2 using a two group t-test with a two-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.54
91839597|NCT03154359|183559635|OTHER|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 6-week responders and 6-week non-responders||||0.197
91839598|NCT03154359|183559635|OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 18-week responders and 18-week non-responders||||0.562
91898344|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|2.0|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.00|-2.00|0.499
91708783|NCT00808470|183310616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 hour and 15 minutes after exposure||||0.39
91839599|NCT03154359|183559636|OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.558
91839600|NCT03154359|183559637|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.147
91898345|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.56|0.297
91898346|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.74|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.74|0.09|0.035
91708784|NCT00808470|183310616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Hours 15 minutes after exposure||||.51
91839601|NCT03154359|183559638|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 6-week responders and 6-week non-responders||||0.495
91839602|NCT03154359|183559638|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 18-week responders and 18-week non-responders||||0.955
91839603|NCT03154359|183559639|OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.991
91839604|NCT03154359|183559640|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.759
91839605|NCT03154359|183559641|OTHER|||||||0.456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 6-week responders and 6-week non-responders||||0.456
91839606|NCT03154359|183559641|OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 18-week responders and 18-week non-responders||||0.822
91839607|NCT03154359|183559642|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
91839608|NCT03154359|183559643|OTHER|||||||0.539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.539
91839609|NCT03154359|183559644|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.130
91839610|NCT03154359|183559645|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
91839611|NCT00569803|183559654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.08|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 50mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.08|0.68|
91839612|NCT00569803|183559654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.77|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 100mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.77|0.48|
91839613|NCT00569803|183559654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.99|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 125mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.99|0.62|
91839614|NCT00569803|183559654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.13|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 150mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.13|0.71|
91839615|NCT00569803|183559654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.11|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 200mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.11|0.69|
91839616|NCT00569803|183559654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.92|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 250mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.92|0.57|
91839617|NCT00569803|183559655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.1|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 50mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.10|0.69|
91839618|NCT00569803|183559655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.77|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 100mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.77|0.48|
91839619|NCT00569803|183559655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.0|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 125mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.00|0.62|
91839620|NCT00569803|183559655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.14|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 150mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.14|0.71|
91839621|NCT00569803|183559655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.12|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 200mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.12|0.69|
91839622|NCT00569803|183559655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.92|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 250mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.92|0.57|
91839623|NCT00569803|183559661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.07|||||AUC(0-T) Ratio of Geometric Means: 1 injection site over 2 injection sites|||1.07|0.75|
91779268|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|60.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||60.7|26.6|<0.0001
91779269|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|85.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||85.4|51.3|<0.0001
91779270|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|71.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.4|37.3|<0.0001
91779271|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|70.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||70.1|36.0|<0.0001
91779272|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|292.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|240.0|345.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||345.1|240.0|<0.0001
91779273|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.2||||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|84.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||84.7|-20.3|0.2277
91779274|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|173.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.5|225.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||225.6|120.5|<0.0001
91779275|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|151.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.1|204.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||204.2|99.1|<0.0001
91779276|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|129.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|182.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||182.3|77.2|<0.0001
91779277|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|122.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|175.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||175.1|70.0|<0.0001
91779278|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|295.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|228.3|362.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||362.2|228.3|<0.0001
91779279|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.6||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|136.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||136.5|2.7|0.0416
91779280|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|204.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|137.5|271.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||271.3|137.5|<0.0001
91779281|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|160.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.5|227.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||227.4|93.5|<0.0001
91779282|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|133.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|199.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||199.9|66.1|0.0001
91779283|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|140.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.1|207.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||207.0|73.1|<0.0001
91779284|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|219.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.6|311.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||311.3|127.6|<0.0001
91779285|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|145.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.2|236.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||236.8|53.2|0.0022
91779286|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|200.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.4|292.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||292.0|108.4|<0.0001
91779287|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|164.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.4|256.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||256.1|72.4|0.0005
91779288|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|146.6||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|238.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||238.4|54.8|0.0019
91839624|NCT00569803|183559661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.07|||||AUC(INF) Ratio of Geometric Means: 1 injection site over 2 injection sites|||1.07|0.75|
91839625|NCT02006420|183559673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variance assumption||This is the p value for the mean skin thickness of the forearm.||||0.005
91839626|NCT02006420|183559673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variance assumption||This is the p value for the mean skin stiffness of the thigh||||0.71
91839627|NCT02006420|183559674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the forearm||||0.002
91839628|NCT02006420|183559674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the thigh||||0.007
91839629|NCT02006420|183559675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p value for the forearm.||||0.002
91839630|NCT02006420|183559675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p value for the thigh||||0.007
91839631|NCT02006420|183559677|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the forearm||||<.0001
91839632|NCT02006420|183559677|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the thigh||||<0.0001
91839633|NCT02006420|183559679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the forearm||||0.01
91839634|NCT02006420|183559679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the thigh||||0.10
91839635|NCT00453479|183559696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|10.75|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||10.75|-12.68|
91839636|NCT00453479|183559696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|4.72|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||4.72|-12.92|
91839637|NCT00453479|183559696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|18.19|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||18.19|-5.78|
91839638|NCT00453479|183559696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.314|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.79|4.27|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||4.27|-13.79|
91898347|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|1.31|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.31|-0.48|0.222
91647286|NCT01676311|183186325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of genitourinary/neurological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Genitourinary/neurological side effects statistical analysis||||0.54
91839639|NCT00453479|183559696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|5.06|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||5.06|-3.89|
91839640|NCT00453479|183559696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|-1.65|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||-1.65|-11.62|
91839641|NCT00453479|183559696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|5.68|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||5.68|-3.73|
91839642|NCT00453479|183559696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.05|-5.57|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||-5.57|-16.05|
91839643|NCT00453479|183559697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.745|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|10.1|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||10.10|-5.58|
91839644|NCT00453479|183559697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.785|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|10.54|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||10.54|-5.30|
91839645|NCT00453479|183559697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.979|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|8.48|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||8.48|-8.17|
91839646|NCT00453479|183559697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|2.97|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||2.97|-13.86|
91839647|NCT00453479|183559698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|6.87|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||6.87|-12.43|
91839648|NCT00453479|183559698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.913|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|6.31|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||6.31|-10.07|
91839649|NCT00453479|183559698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.718|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|12.88|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||12.88|-6.87|
91839650|NCT00453479|183559698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|4.89|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||4.89|-11.88|
91839651|NCT00453479|183559698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.822|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|3.54|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||3.54|-4.09|
91839652|NCT00453479|183559698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|0.54|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||0.54|-8.32|
91839653|NCT00453479|183559698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|2.26|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||2.26|-5.76|
91839654|NCT00453479|183559698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|-4.73|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||-4.73|-14.04|
91839655|NCT00453479|183559699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|5.79|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||5.79|-5.52|
91839656|NCT00453479|183559699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.28|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||8.28|-3.50|
91839657|NCT00453479|183559699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.869|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|3.34|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||3.34|-8.67|
91839658|NCT00453479|183559699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.989|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.41|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||2.41|-10.10|
91839659|NCT00453479|183559701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|21.49|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||21.49|-12.66|
91839660|NCT00453479|183559701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|23.17|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||23.17|-5.13|
91839661|NCT00453479|183559701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|28.38|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||28.38|-7.24|
91779289|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|132.7||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|224.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||224.5|40.8|0.0049
91779290|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|209.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.3|310.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||310.3|108.3|<0.0001
91779291|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|145.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|246.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||246.6|44.7|0.0050
91779292|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|200.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.7|301.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||301.6|99.7|0.0001
91779293|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|154.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|255.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||255.3|53.3|0.0030
91779294|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|146.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|247.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||247.8|45.9|0.0046
91779295|NCT01746901|183439321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|123.3||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|224.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||224.3|22.3|0.0171
91779296|NCT01746901|183439322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.9|-3.7|0.0016
91779297|NCT01746901|183439322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|0.4|0.0105
91779298|NCT01746901|183439322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-1.7|0.7259
91779299|NCT01746901|183439322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.7813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-1.6|0.7813
91779300|NCT01746901|183439322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.0|-1.9|0.5235
91779301|NCT01746901|183439322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.3|-1.6|0.8512
91779302|NCT01746901|183439323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.9|-1.7|0.0883
91779303|NCT01746901|183439323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|27.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.6|2.0|0.0241
91779304|NCT01746901|183439323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|27.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.6|2.0|0.0235
91779305|NCT01746901|183439323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.9|-1.7|0.0901
91779306|NCT01746901|183439323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.8||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.6|-3.0|0.1313
91779307|NCT01746901|183439323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.8||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.6|-2.0|0.0982
91779308|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.3|0.2|0.0351
91779309|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.8751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.8|-3.3|0.8751
91779310|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.8|-0.3|0.0795
91779311|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.4|-2.7|0.8382
91839662|NCT00453479|183559701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|31.26|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||31.26|1.74|
91839663|NCT00453479|183559701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.908|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|20.78|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||20.78|-16.51|
91839664|NCT00453479|183559701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.298|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|23.38|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||23.38|1.20|
91839665|NCT00453479|183559701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|36.85|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||36.85|-1.53|
91839666|NCT00453479|183559701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|33.73|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||33.73|10.90|
91839667|NCT00453479|183559702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.262|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|20.57|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||20.57|-1.46|
91839668|NCT00453479|183559702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.902|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|20.74|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||20.74|-3.97|
91839669|NCT00453479|183559702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|22.96|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||22.96|-0.02|
91839670|NCT00453479|183559702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|28.17|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||28.17|2.39|
91839671|NCT00453479|183559702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|18.0|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||18.00|-1.35|
91839672|NCT00453479|183559702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|19.72|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||19.72|-2.21|
91839673|NCT00453479|183559702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.759|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.87|26.79|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||26.79|6.87|
91839674|NCT00453479|183559702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|31.75|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||31.75|9.17|
91839675|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0921|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.328|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.328|-0.035|
91839676|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0944|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.357|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.357|-0.015|
91839677|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.228|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.228|-0.107|
91839678|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1195|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.386|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.386|-0.085|
91839679|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.343|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.343|-0.094|
91839680|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.404|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.404|-0.077|
91839681|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1057|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.444|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, Baseline|||0.444|0.027|
91839682|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.483|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 1 hour|||0.483|-0.026|
91839683|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1309|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.353|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 2 hour|||0.353|-0.163|
91839684|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.418|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.418|-0.072|
91839685|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1499|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.501|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.501|-0.090|
91839686|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.502|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.502|-0.062|
91839687|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.506|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.506|-0.093|
91839688|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.397|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.397|0.015|
91839689|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0994|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.525|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.525|0.133|
91839690|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0895|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.443|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.443|0.090|
91839691|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1258|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.568|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.568|0.072|
91839692|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1165|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.402|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.402|-0.058|
91647287|NCT01676311|183186325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of hematological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Hematological side effects statistical analysis||||0.27
91647288|NCT01676311|183186325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of musculoskeletal side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Musculoskeletal side effects statistical analysis||||0.41
91647289|NCT01676311|183186325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of neurological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Neurological side effects statistical analysis||||1.00
91839693|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.407|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.407|-0.099|
91839694|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1113|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.475|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, Baseline|||0.475|0.036|
91839695|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.564|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 1 hour|||0.564|0.027|
91839696|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1378|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.474|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 2 hour|||0.474|-0.069|
91839697|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1309|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.465|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.465|-0.051|
91839698|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1579|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.591|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.591|-0.032|
91839699|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1506|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.49|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.490|-0.104|
91839700|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.495|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.495|-0.136|
91839701|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.537|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.537|-0.263|
91839702|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.518|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.518|-0.257|
91839703|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1908|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.338|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.338|-0.414|
91839704|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2013|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.457|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.457|-0.337|
91839705|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2322|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.572|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.572|-0.343|
91647290|NCT03398928|183186350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91647291|NCT03398928|183186351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91839706|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1988|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.507|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.507|-0.277|
91839707|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.914|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, Baseline|||0.914|-0.190|
91839708|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2696|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.8|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 1 hour|||0.800|-0.263|
91839709|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2648|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.501|0.543|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 2 hour|||0.543|-0.501|
91839710|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2606|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.691|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.691|-0.337|
91839711|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2684|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.795|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.795|-0.263|
91839712|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2923|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.943|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.943|-0.209|
91839713|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2665|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.768|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.768|-0.283|
91839714|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.567|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.567|-0.263|
91839715|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.723|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.723|-0.081|
91839716|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1981|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.701|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.701|-0.079|
91839717|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.76|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.760|-0.064|
91839718|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.72|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.720|-0.230|
91839719|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.569|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.569|-0.245|
91839720|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|1.108|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, Baseline|||1.108|-0.038|
91839721|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2798|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|1.175|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 1 hour|||1.175|0.072|
91839722|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2748|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|1.0|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 2 hour|||1.000|-0.083|
91839723|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2705|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.997|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.997|-0.069|
91839724|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2786|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.994|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.994|-0.104|
91839725|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.882|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.882|-0.314|
91839726|NCT00453479|183559703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2766|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.929|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.929|-0.162|
91839727|NCT00453479|183559708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3333|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.743|9.21|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 1.|||9.210|-4.743|
91839728|NCT00453479|183559708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|22.664|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 7.|||22.664|-11.200|
91839729|NCT00453479|183559708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.051|5.507|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 1.|||5.507|-8.051|
91839730|NCT00453479|183559708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8616|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|17.443|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 7.|||17.443|-15.470|
91647292|NCT03398928|183186354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The statistical analysis applies to all the rows|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91647293|NCT03398928|183186355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.253
91647294|NCT04529499|183186361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
91839731|NCT00453479|183559708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.468|9.936|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 1.|||9.936|-4.468|
91839732|NCT00453479|183559708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.783|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.372|10.938|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 7.|||10.938|-1.372|
91839733|NCT00453479|183559708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.003|5.854|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 1.|||5.854|-8.003|
91839734|NCT00453479|183559708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.353|7.49|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 7.|||7.490|-4.353|
91839735|NCT00453479|183559712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1939|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.811|1.601|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.601|0.811|
91839736|NCT00453479|183559712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2057|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.739|1.52|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.520|0.739|
91779312|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.4|0.4|0.0289
91779313|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.5|-2.6|0.7878
91779314|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.0|5.6|0.0019
91779315|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.3|-8.1|0.821
91779316|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|21.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.5|3.1|0.0094
91779317|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.8|-5.6|0.4454
91779318|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.9||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|17.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.1|-1.3|0.0934
91779319|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.2|-2.2|0.1358
91779320|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|59.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|92.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||92.7|27.0|0.0004
91779321|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.7||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|52.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||52.6|-13.1|0.2365
91779322|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.9||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|76.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||76.7|11.1|0.0091
91779323|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.7||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|68.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||68.5|2.8|0.0335
91779324|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.8||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|63.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||63.6|-2.1|0.0661
91779325|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.9||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|59.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.8|-5.9|0.1074
91779326|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.3||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|94.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||94.9|15.8|0.0064
91779327|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.8||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|78.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||78.3|-0.7|0.0543
91779328|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.2||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|89.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||89.7|10.7|0.0131
91779329|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.9||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|83.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.5|4.4|0.0297
91779330|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.3||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|80.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||80.8|1.8|0.0407
91839737|NCT00453479|183559713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.934|2.122|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax AM dose for GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||2.122|0.934|
91839738|NCT00453479|183559713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2482|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.838|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax AM dose for GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.838|0.770|
91839739|NCT00453479|183559713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2269|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|1.457|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax PM dose for GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.457|0.658|
91839740|NCT00453479|183559713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2407|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.674|1.568|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax PM dose for GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.568|0.674|
91839741|NCT00453479|183559715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.033|3.213|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Ae AM dose for GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||3.213|2.033|
91839742|NCT00453479|183559715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.095|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Ae AM dose for GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||2.095|1.290|
91647295|NCT04529499|183186361|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.28|||||Favipiravir + supportive care in numerator and Placebo+ Supportive care in denominator for CPH ratio analysis|||1.280|0.767|
91647296|NCT04529499|183186362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91839743|NCT03029780|183559718|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|12.3||||||||12.3|-12.3|
91839744|NCT03029780|183559718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.30|
91839745|NCT03029780|183559719|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
91839746|NCT03029780|183559720|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|24.8||||||||24.8|-13.3|
91839747|NCT03029780|183559720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.78|0.58|
91839748|NCT03029780|183559721|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|25.5||||||||25.5|-10.1|
91839749|NCT03029780|183559721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.24|0.62|
91839750|NCT01763788|183559732|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.656||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.926|||Stratified Log Rank|||||0.926|0.465|0.0161
91839751|NCT02006121|183559750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0047
91708785|NCT00808470|183310616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 hours, 15 minutes after exposure||||.36
91708786|NCT00808470|183310616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 day after exposure||||.86
91839752|NCT02006121|183559751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0022
91647297|NCT01494649|183186380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a fixed factor and basline Schiff score as a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favoured stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||0.06|-0.26|0.2294
91647298|NCT01494649|183186381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.12||||0.1792||95.0|-0.3|0.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline Schiff Sensitivity Score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||0.06|-0.30|0.1792
91708787|NCT00808470|183310616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 week after exposure||||.24
91839753|NCT02006121|183559752|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91839754|NCT02006121|183559753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91839755|NCT02006121|183559754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91839756|NCT02354859|183559755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|5.9||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is adjusted for baseline FEV1 % predicted strata (\<50% of predicted, between 50% and 70% of predicted, and \>70% of predicted).|||22.4|-11.2|0.811
91708788|NCT01778751|183310624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 3 months||-0.2|-1.7|0.012
91839757|NCT02354859|183559756|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions-SAE inicidence|3.1||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.6|||Fisher Exact||95% confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||16.6|-10.6|0.807
91839758|NCT02354859|183559757|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the IV Gallium group was 486.86 and in the Placebo group was 473.57.||0.93|0.71|0.002
91839759|NCT02354859|183559757|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.03|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the IV Gallium group was 486.86 and in the Placebo group was 473.57.||2.03|0.39|0.783
91839760|NCT02354859|183559758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|7.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis includes all data for relative change from baseline at Day 6, Day 14, Day 28, and Day 56. Mixed-effects repeated measures model includes terms for the baseline FEV1 (liters), treatment, visit and a visit-by-visit interaction.|||7.77|-3.66|0.479
91839761|NCT02354859|183559759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis includes all data for relative change from baseline at Day 28 and Day 56. Mixed-effects repeated measures model includes terms for the baseline Pa density (log10 (CFU)), treatment, visit and a visit-by-visit interaction.|||0.01|-1.49|0.054
91839762|NCT02354859|183559760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|8.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis includes all data for relative change from baseline at Day 6, Day 14, Day 28, and Day 56. Mixed-effects repeated measures model includes terms for the baseline CFRSD-CRISS score, treatment, visit and a visit-by-visit interaction.|||8.53|-0.06|0.053
91839763|NCT01003184|183559795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|13.73|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c and baseline weight as main factors.||"Primary objective: to test hypothesis that the percentage of patients with HbA1c ≤7.0% with weight loss (≥1.0 kg) after exenatide QW is superior to insulin detemir.~Sample size estimation: based on the test for difference in percentage between Exenatide QW and insulin detemir. Assuming: common drop-out rate 20%, response rate at endpoint 50% in the exenatide QW group and 25% in the insulin detemir group; 5% significance. 214 patients will provide 90% power to detect a difference."||13.73|3.17|<.0001
91708789|NCT01778751|183310624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 6 months||-0.0|-2.0|0.050
91839764|NCT01003184|183559796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|13.7|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes the independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c and baseline weight.||||13.70|3.64|<.0001
91839765|NCT01003184|183559797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||-0.20|-0.62|0.0001
91839766|NCT01003184|183559798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c stratum, week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||-2.71|-4.63|<.0001
91708790|NCT01778751|183310625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 3 months, Scale is 0-100 where a higher score is a better outcome.||8.4|-2.7|0.303
91839767|NCT01003184|183559799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model includes independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), and baseline HbA1c.||3.18|1.00|0.0497
91708791|NCT01778751|183310625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 6 months, Scale is 0-100 where a higher score is a better outcome.||14.4|0.9|0.027
91839768|NCT01003184|183559800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model includes independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), and baseline HbA1c.||3.96|1.24|0.0074
91839769|NCT01003184|183559801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.89||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model includes independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), and baseline HbA1c.||11.35|2.10|0.0002
91839770|NCT01003184|183559802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.6993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.61|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.61|-0.41|0.6993
91839771|NCT01003184|183559803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c stratum, week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||-1.07|-8.37|0.0116
91708792|NCT01778751|183310626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.34|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||2.34|0.35|0.830
91839772|NCT01003184|183559804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.179||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c stratum, week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||1.88|-2.77|0.7034
91779331|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|67.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||67.1|-12.0|0.1710
91779332|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0||||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.7|36.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.7|-106.7|0.3362
91779333|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|126.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|198.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||198.5|55.2|0.0006
91779334|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.2||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|124.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||124.8|-18.5|0.1449
91779335|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.7||||0.2882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|110.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||110.4|-33.0|0.2882
91779336|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.0||||0.1314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|126.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||126.7|-16.6|0.1314
91779337|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.1||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|91.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||91.8|-51.6|0.5808
91779338|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-66.2||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.6|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.3|-154.6|0.1415
91779339|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|149.1||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.7|237.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||237.5|60.7|0.0011
91779340|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|52.5||||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|140.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||140.9|-35.9|0.2423
91708793|NCT01778751|183310626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.19|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||Comparison at 6 months||3.19|0.33|0.970
91779341|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.4||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|118.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||118.8|-58.0|0.4980
91779342|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.5||||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|142.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||142.9|-33.9|0.2253
91779343|NCT01746901|183439324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.7||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.8|100.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||100.1|-76.8|0.7945
91779344|NCT01746901|183439325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.6|-5.1|0.0129
91779345|NCT01746901|183439325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.5|2.0|0.0003
91779346|NCT01746901|183439325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.5483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.9|-1.6|0.5483
91779347|NCT01746901|183439325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.9|-1.5|0.5284
91779348|NCT01746901|183439325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.9|-0.5|0.1331
91779349|NCT01746901|183439325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.4|-2.1|0.8732
91839773|NCT01003184|183559805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.03|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.03|-0.32|0.1061
91779350|NCT01746901|183439326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.4555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.2|-5.9|0.4555
91779351|NCT01746901|183439326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.4|-2.5|0.1495
91779352|NCT01746901|183439326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.9|1.8|0.0200
91779353|NCT01746901|183439326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.8668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.7|-10.3|0.8668
91779354|NCT01746901|183439326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.6|-5.3|0.3904
91779355|NCT01746901|183439326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.6|-7.3|0.6524
91779356|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.1|-0.4|0.1771
91779357|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.7|-1.7|0.3944
91779358|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.1|-0.4|0.1778
91779359|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.7|-1.7|0.3960
91779360|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.6125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-0.9|0.6125
91779361|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.3|-1.1|0.9059
91779362|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.3|-2.9|0.4585
91779363|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.8|-4.2|0.8986
91779364|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.7|-2.5|0.3641
91779365|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.9674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.4|-4.6|0.9674
91839774|NCT01003184|183559806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.02|-0.05|0.4638
91839775|NCT01003184|183559807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.28|-0.14|0.4967
91839776|NCT01003184|183559808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.72|||Poisson regression|||The number of episodes by patient were compared between treatment groups using a poisson model with effects for treatment and baseline HbA1c and the logarithm of the days of exposure as the offset variable.||1.72|0.19|0.3247
91839777|NCT05266963|183559850|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis will be performed using a paired samples Wilcoxon test to compare differences between the two groups.||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon matched-pairs||||||0.43
91839778|NCT05266963|183559851|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis will be performed using a standard two-tailed t test to compare differences between the two groups.||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91839779|NCT00152971|183559852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2% on the absolute risk difference scale|Risk Difference (Percentage)|5.8||||0.0234||95.0|0.8|10.8||Hierarchical testing procedure: first non-inferiority, second superiority|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||10.8|0.8|0.0234
91898348|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.7|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.70|-0.09|0.069
91779366|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.8|-3.2|0.5744
91779367|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.7|-2.4|0.3457
91779368|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.8|-13.3|0.6664
91779369|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.1949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|28.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.0|-5.8|0.1949
91779370|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.1|-6.0|0.2009
91779371|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.8||||0.6595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|20.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.7|-13.1|0.6595
91708794|NCT01778751|183310627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 3 months. Scale is 0-27 where a lower score is a better outcome, values were dichotomized to indicate whether or not the patient was depressed.||1.4|-3.3|0.428
91779372|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.6||||0.3176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.5|-8.3|0.3176
91779373|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0||||0.6423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.9|-12.9|0.6423
91779374|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|24.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.2|-10.5|0.4358
91779375|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.7||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|28.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.9|-5.4|0.1789
91839780|NCT00152971|183559852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2% on the absolute risk difference scale|Risk Difference (Percentage)|8.4||||0.0009||95.0|3.4|13.3||Hierarchical testing procedure: first non-inferiority, second superiority|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||13.3|3.4|0.0009
91839781|NCT00152971|183559853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.2||||0.2139||95.0|-0.7|3.0|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||3.0|-0.7|0.2139
91839782|NCT00152971|183559853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.8||||0.3628||95.0|-0.9|2.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.5|-0.9|0.3628
91839783|NCT00152971|183559854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.9||||0.2309||95.0|-0.6|2.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.5|-0.6|0.2309
91839784|NCT00152971|183559854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.5||||0.0602||95.0|-0.1|3.2|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||3.2|-0.1|0.0602
91647299|NCT01494649|183186382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline Schiff Sensitivity Score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||-0.30|-0.74|<0.0001
91647300|NCT01494649|183186383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean adjusted difference|-0.08||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|2.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline Tactile Threshold score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2.32|-2.49|0.9445
91708795|NCT01778751|183310627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 6 months. Scale is 0-27 where a lower score is a better outcome, values were dichotomized to indicate whether or not the patient was depressed.||3.6|-1.4|0.397
91708796|NCT01945294|183310652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SVR12 percentage|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|0.4||||||||0.4|-23.2|
91708797|NCT03403621|183310718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.42
91708798|NCT03403621|183310718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.72
91839785|NCT00152971|183559855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|5.9||||0.0194||95.0|1.0|10.9|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||10.9|1.0|0.0194
91839786|NCT00152971|183559855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|8.9||||0.0004||95.0|4.0|13.9|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||13.9|4.0|0.0004
91839787|NCT00152971|183559856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5774||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.5774
91708799|NCT03403621|183310718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.51
91708800|NCT03403621|183310718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.58
91708801|NCT03403621|183310719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.03
91839788|NCT00152971|183559856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
91839789|NCT00152971|183559857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7724||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.7724
91839790|NCT00152971|183559857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0308
91839791|NCT00152971|183559858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4968||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.4968
91839792|NCT00152971|183559858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
91839793|NCT00152971|183559860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1416||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.1416
91839794|NCT00152971|183559860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0942||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0942
91839795|NCT04091360|183559865|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.221|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.163|1.281|||ANCOVA|||||1.281|1.163|<0.0001
91839796|NCT04091360|183559865|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.203|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|1.263|||ANCOVA|||||1.263|1.146|<0.0001
91839797|NCT04091360|183559865|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|1.195|||ANCOVA|||||1.195|1.085|<0.0001
91839798|NCT04091360|183559866|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.253|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.151|1.363|||ANCOVA|||||1.363|1.151|<0.0001
91708802|NCT03403621|183310719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.08
91839799|NCT04091360|183559866|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.146||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.246|||ANCOVA|||||1.246|1.054|0.0022
91839800|NCT04091360|183559866|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.102||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.202|||ANCOVA|||||1.202|1.010|0.0295
91839801|NCT04091360|183559866|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.129||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.235|||ANCOVA|||||1.235|1.032|0.0098
91839802|NCT04091360|183559866|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.028||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|1.125|||ANCOVA|||||1.125|0.939|0.54
91708803|NCT03403621|183310719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.02
91708804|NCT03403621|183310719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.007
91708805|NCT03403621|183310720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.21
91708806|NCT03403621|183310720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.18
91708807|NCT03403621|183310720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.33
91708808|NCT03403621|183310720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.5
91839803|NCT04091360|183559867|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.142|1.319|||ANCOVA|||||1.319|1.142|<0.0001
91839804|NCT04091360|183559867|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.155||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.075|1.24|||ANCOVA|||||1.240|1.075|0.0002
91839805|NCT04091360|183559867|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.1||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.184|||ANCOVA|||||1.184|1.022|0.0129
91839806|NCT04091360|183559867|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.112||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.201|||ANCOVA|||||1.201|1.030|0.0079
91839807|NCT04091360|183559867|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.033||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.116|||ANCOVA|||||1.116|0.957|0.39
91839808|NCT04091360|183559868|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.073|1.204|||ANCOVA|||||1.204|1.073|<0.0001
91839809|NCT04091360|183559868|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.091||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.155|||ANCOVA|||||1.155|1.030|0.0041
91839810|NCT04091360|183559868|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.019||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.081|||ANCOVA|||||1.081|0.960|0.53
91839811|NCT04091360|183559876|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|1.27|||ANCOVA|||||1.270|1.153|<0.0001
91839812|NCT04091360|183559876|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.193|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.136|1.252|||ANCOVA|||||1.252|1.136|<0.0001
91839813|NCT04091360|183559876|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|1.179|||ANCOVA|||||1.179|1.071|<0.0001
91839814|NCT04091360|183559877|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|1.194|||ANCOVA|||||1.194|1.087|<0.0001
91839815|NCT04091360|183559877|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.142|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|1.197|||ANCOVA|||||1.197|1.089|<0.0001
91839816|NCT04091360|183559877|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.08||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|1.132|||ANCOVA|||||1.132|1.031|0.0018
91839817|NCT04091360|183559878|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.08||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.140|1.022|0.0066
91839818|NCT04091360|183559878|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.074||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.134|||ANCOVA|||||1.134|1.017|0.0115
91839819|NCT04091360|183559878|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.037||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.096|||ANCOVA|||||1.096|0.982|0.18
91839820|NCT04091360|183559879|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.162|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.122|1.203|||ANCOVA|||||1.203|1.122|<0.0001
91839821|NCT04091360|183559879|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.190|1.111|<0.0001
91839822|NCT04091360|183559879|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.074|1.152|||ANCOVA|||||1.152|1.074|<0.0001
91839823|NCT04091360|183559880|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.157|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|1.196|||ANCOVA|||||1.196|1.119|<0.0001
91839824|NCT04091360|183559880|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.147|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.186|||ANCOVA|||||1.186|1.110|<0.0001
91839825|NCT04091360|183559880|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.142|||ANCOVA|||||1.142|1.068|<0.0001
91898349|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|1.15|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.15|-0.68|0.338
91839826|NCT04091360|183559881|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.137|||ANCOVA|||||1.137|1.059|<0.0001
91839827|NCT04091360|183559881|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.111|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|1.15|||ANCOVA|||||1.150|1.072|<0.0001
91839828|NCT04091360|183559881|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.07||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|5.0|1.033|1.109|||ANCOVA|||||1.109|1.033|0.0003
91839829|NCT04091360|183559882|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann|||||||0.47
91839830|NCT04091360|183559882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann|||||||0.0059
91839831|NCT02597933|183559890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.38||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|79.01|||random coefficient regression||The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.|The primary analysis is a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a random slope \& intercept model. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, ATA status \& gender, fixed continuous effects of time \& baseline FVC (mL), age and height as well as the treatment-by time \& baseline-by-time interactions. Random effects was included for patient response for both time \& intercept.Within-patient errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix||79.01|2.88|0.0350
91839832|NCT02597933|183559890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.13||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|83.83|||random coefficient regression|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||"This is a sensitivity analysis (SA) on primary endpoint including only on-trt measurements of FVC \[mL\]. The random coefficient model was used. The analysis included fixed, categorical effects of trt, ATA status \& gender, fixed continuous effects of time \& bl. FVC (mL), age, height, trt -by time \& bl.-by-time interactions. Random effects included for patient response for both time \& intercept.~Within-patient errors were modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix."||83.83|2.44|0.0378
91839833|NCT02597933|183559890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|66.22|||random coefficient regression|||In multiple imputation SA 1, missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who were alive at wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pts from corresponding trt group who prematurely disc. trial drug but had wk 52 FVC value. Missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who died before wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pl. pts with wk 52 FVC value who prematurely disc. trial drug with most severe declines.The imputation model was similar to statistical model of PA.||66.22|-6.22|0.1046
91839834|NCT02597933|183559890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.93||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|69.06|||random coefficient regression|||In multiple imputation SA 2, missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who were alive at wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pts from pl. group who prematurely disc. trial drug but had a wk 52 FVC value. Missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who died before wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pl. pts with a wk 52 FVC value who prematurely disc. trial drug with most severe declines. The imputation model was similar to the statistical model of the PA||69.06|-3.19|0.0740
91898350|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.381|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.75|0.381
91647301|NCT01494649|183186384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-2.07||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|1.25||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||1.25|-5.38|0.220
91898351|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|1.21|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.21|-0.64|0.306
91647302|NCT01494649|183186385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean adjusted difference|8.69||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|13.43||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||13.43|3.96|0.0004
91647303|NCT02508649|183186453|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.55||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.43|||van Elteren test|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a van Elteren test. The analysis included a test of superiority using a two-sided 5% significance level.||2.43|-1.34|0.3015
91839835|NCT02597933|183559890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.86||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|69.75|||random coefficient regression|||In multiple imputation SA 3, missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who were alive at wk 52 were imputed assuming a similar rate of FVC decline as in all pts in the pl. group who were included in the PA. Missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who died before wk 52 were imputed assuming a similar rate of FVC decline as in all placebo patients included in the primary analysis with the most severe declines. The imputation model was similar to the statistical model of the PA.||69.75|-2.03|0.0644
91647304|NCT02508649|183186454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049||||0.7694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.445|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 in proportion of subjects dying indicates lower mortality in the selepressin group.|Mortality was analyzed using a logistic regression model with the individual sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores and age as covariates and treatment arm as factor.||1.445|0.762|0.7694
91708809|NCT01738191|183310750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||two sided|Global Statistical Test|df=28||The primary comparison between ATM and placebo used O'Brien's Global Statistical Test (GST) to analyze change from baseline to 10 weeks for the set of neuropsychological measures included in the primary efficacy outcome.||||0.25
91647305|NCT02508649|183186455|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.29||||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.65|||van Elteren test|||This endpoint was analyzed using a van Elteren test. The analysis was a test of superiority using a two-sided 5% significance level.||2.65|-2.07|0.8458
91647306|NCT02508649|183186456|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.4124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.19|||van Elteren test|||This endpoint was analyzed using a van Elteren test. The analysis was a test of superiority using a two-sided 5% significance level.||2.19|-1.22|0.4124
91647307|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.51||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Overall score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.27|-1.30|0.2009
91708810|NCT01451554|183310762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||2 tailed t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Data were compared between groups using the 2 sample T-test.||||0.06
91839836|NCT02597933|183559890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.95||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|79.01|||random coefficient regression|||This is sensitivity analysis using the model similar to the primary analysis but including a different set of covariates: the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, ATA status, the fixed continuous effects of time, baseline FVC (mL), and the treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions.Random effects was included for patient response for both time and intercept.||79.01|2.88|0.0351
91839837|NCT02597933|183559890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.98||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|79.04|||random coefficient regression|||This is sensitivity analysis using the model similar to the primary analysis but including a different set of covariates: the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, ATA status (Positive / Negative), gender and mycophenolate mofetil /sodium background therapy use (Yes / No), fixed continuous effects of time, age , height and baseline FVC (mL), the treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions. Random effects was included for patient response for both time and intercept||79.04|2.92|0.0349
91839838|NCT02597933|183559891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.53|||MMRM|||The mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used. The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||0.53|-0.94|0.5785
91839839|NCT02597933|183559892|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|4.12|||MMRM|The MMRM model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||4.12|-0.73|0.1711
91839840|NCT02597933|183559893|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|1.15|0.09|2.21|||MMRM|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||"Based on a random coefficient regression with fixed categorical effects of treatment, ATA status, fixed continuous effects of time, baseline FVC \[% pred\], \& including treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions. Random effect was included for patient specific intercept \& time.~Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix.~Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-Components variance-covariance matrix."||2.21|0.09|0.0331
91839841|NCT02597933|183559894|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.51||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.09|84.73|||MMRM|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||84.73|8.09|0.0177
91839842|NCT02597933|183559895|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.39||0.4547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|10.21|||MMRM|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||10.21|-22.77|0.4547
91839843|NCT02597933|183559896|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.7535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.84|||Regression, Cox|Based on Cox's regression model (Wald test), stratified by ATA status.||||2.84|0.47|0.7535
91839844|NCT02597933|183559897|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The comparison between both treatment groups was performed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. CRISS score at Week 52 was transformed into 100 binary responder endpoints using multiple imputation. These were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by ATA status OR and the 95% confidence interval (CI) as obtained from all 100 imputations were combined using Rubin´s rule.|Missing values were imputed using worst case, i.e. considered having disease progression.|1.88|0.57|0.9115
91839845|NCT02597933|183559898|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.5668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.06|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||1.06|-1.94|0.5668
91839846|NCT02597933|183559899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.09|-0.16|0.5914
91839847|NCT02597933|183559900|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.3447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.099|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.099|-0.035|0.3447
91839848|NCT02597933|183559901|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.79|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||1.79|-0.51|0.2727
91839849|NCT01097915|183559906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91839850|NCT01097915|183559907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.004
91708811|NCT01451554|183310763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data were compared between groups using a 2 sample T-test.||||0.31
91839851|NCT01097915|183559908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.048|||||||ANCOVA|the three factors of the Stunkard and Messick Questionnaire were considered as covariates.||||||<0.048
91839852|NCT01097915|183559909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
91839853|NCT01097915|183559910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
91839854|NCT01097915|183559911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.00001
91839855|NCT04534114|183560052|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.94||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.68|||Log Rank|||||4.68|0.19|0.944
91839856|NCT04534114|183560052|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.95||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.72|||Log Rank|||||4.72|0.19|0.953
91839857|NCT04534114|183560052|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.63||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.75|||Log Rank|||||3.75|0.10|0.605
91839858|NCT04534114|183560053|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|1.45||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.08|||Log Rank|||||6.08|0.34|0.612
91839859|NCT04534114|183560053|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|1.27||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.66|||Log Rank|||||5.66|0.28|0.757
91839860|NCT04534114|183560053|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.91||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|4.52|||Log Rank|||||4.52|0.18|0.909
91839861|NCT04765735|183560069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"It is hypothesized that the proportion of subjects with a reduction in overstimulation sensation during CL compared to OL period exceeds a performance goal of 50%.~H0: p ≤ 50% HA: p \> 50%"|Binomial Exact Test|||||||<0.001
91839862|NCT01065350|183560075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|26.15||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||26.15|2.07|<0.001
91839863|NCT01065350|183560075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.75||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||8.75|1.21|<0.01
91839864|NCT01065350|183560075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.55||A p value of \< 0.005 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) from baseline to 30 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups||4.55|0.52|0.39
91839865|NCT01065350|183560076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.64|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|14.92||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||14.92|1.54|<0.01
91839866|NCT01065350|183560076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.29||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||6.29|0.91|0.05
91839867|NCT01065350|183560076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|13.19||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) from baseline to 30 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||13.19|0.68|0.11
91839868|NCT01065350|183560077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|31.64||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||31.64|1.98|<0.001
91839869|NCT01065350|183560077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.65||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||7.65|1.07|0.02
91839870|NCT01065350|183560077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.97||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 30 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||5.97|0.51|0.33
91839871|NCT01065350|183560078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Output (CO) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.5|-0.1|0.19
91839872|NCT01065350|183560078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Output (CO) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.5|-0.3|0.6
91708812|NCT02576977|183310776|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.99324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.08|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by disease status (refractory vs. sensitive to Lenalidomide) and Lines of previous treatments (two vs. three or more).|||2.08|1.08|0.99324
91839873|NCT01065350|183560079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Index (CI) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.3|-0.1|0.26
91898352|NCT00568321|183692683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-0.87|0.440
91839874|NCT01065350|183560079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Index (CI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.3|-0.2|0.71
91839875|NCT01065350|183560080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average heart rate from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||1.7|-2.9|0.61
91839876|NCT01065350|183560080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average heart rate from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||1.1|-4.8|0.22
91647308|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.11||||0.7894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Overall score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.90|-0.68|0.7894
91708813|NCT02576977|183310777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84||||0.99989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.55|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test.|||The Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence intervals were based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by disease status (refractory vs. sensitive to Lenalidomide) and Lines of previous treatments (two vs. three or more).|2.55|1.32|0.99989
91839877|NCT01065350|183560081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|20.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||20.0|7.5|<0.001
91839878|NCT01065350|183560081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||9.5|0.2|0.017
91839879|NCT01065350|183560082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|11.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||11.5|2.7|<0.01
91839880|NCT01065350|183560082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||9.5|0.2|0.042
91839881|NCT01065350|183560083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|13.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||13.9|4.8|<0.001
91839882|NCT01065350|183560083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Mean Arterial Pressure from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||11.3|1.4|0.013
91839883|NCT01065350|183560084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|199.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance (TPR) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||199.1|28.1|<0.01
91839884|NCT01065350|183560084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|195.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance (TPR) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||195.3|-21.7|0.12
91839885|NCT01065350|183560085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|182.6||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|331.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance Index (TPRI) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||331.3|33.8|0.017
91647309|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.55||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Overall score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||1.37|-0.27|0.1888
91647310|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.08||||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (respiratory) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.07|-0.24|0.2997
91647311|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.03||||0.6796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (respiratory) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.12|-0.19|0.6796
91839886|NCT01065350|183560085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|128.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|315.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance Index (TPRI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||315.5|-58.1|0.17
91839887|NCT01065350|183560086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume (SV) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||8.4|0.5|0.029
91839888|NCT01065350|183560086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Index (CI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||9.7|-0.0|0.051
91839889|NCT01065350|183560087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Index (SVI) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||4.7|0.3|0.027
91647312|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.03||||0.7467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (respiratory) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.19|-0.14|0.7467
91647313|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (cardiovascular) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||-0.19|-0.65|0.0003
91779376|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.0||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|31.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||31.3|-3.3|0.1131
91647314|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.25||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (cardiovascular) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||-0.02|-0.49|0.0349
91647315|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.14||||0.2787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (cardiovascular) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.11|-0.39|0.2787
91647316|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.6476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (renal) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.16|-0.26|0.6476
91647317|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.08||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (renal) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.29|-0.13|0.4313
91647318|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (renal) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.39|-0.05|0.1334
91647319|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.12||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (coagulation) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.30|-0.07|0.2126
91779377|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.5965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|21.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.8|-12.6|0.5965
91647320|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.23||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (coagulation) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.41|0.04|0.0174
91647321|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.23||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (coagulation) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.43|0.04|0.0194
91647322|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (liver) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.04|-0.35|0.1284
91779378|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|25.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.9|-8.5|0.3175
91779379|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|21.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.0|-13.3|0.6551
91779380|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.3||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.5|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-3.1|-87.5|0.0354
91779381|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|97.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||97.0|13.4|0.0100
91839890|NCT01065350|183560087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Index (SVI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||5.2|-0.0|0.052
91708814|NCT02576977|183310778|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. SOC|-5.2||||0.79921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|6.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by disease status (refractory vs. sensitive to Lenalidomide) and Lines of previous treatments (two vs. three or more); If there were no participants in one of the treatment groups involved in a comparison for a particular stratum, then that stratum was excluded from the treatment comparison.|6.9|-17.1|0.79921
91839891|NCT01065350|183560088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Variation (SVV) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.6|-1.4|0.44
91839892|NCT01065350|183560088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Variation (SVV) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.6|-1.6|0.37
91839893|NCT02875834|183560089|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.904|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results derived from a mixed effects model of log-transformed S-K levels. Fixed effects are: treatment group; visit; treatment-by-visit interaction; baseline S-K values (OLP and RTP); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses. Patient is a random effect. p-values given are for differences of LSMEANS. The back-transformation is to the original scale of the S-K measurement.||0.933|0.876|<0.001
91839894|NCT02875834|183560089|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.823|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.850|0.797|<0.001
91839895|NCT02875834|183560094|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3436|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6866|14.9782|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group comparisons were made using a logistic regression model containing the following covariates: treatment group; both baseline S-K values (48-hours open-label initial phase and double-blind randomized phase); baseline eGFR (during 48-hour open-label initial phase); age category (\<55, 55-64, \>=65 years); country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||14.9782|2.6866|<0.001
91839896|NCT02875834|183560094|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.1876|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1591|46.2054|||Regression, Logistic|||||46.2054|7.1591|<0.001
91839897|NCT02875834|183560096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.266|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.318|10.214|||Regression, Linear|||Results derived from a linear regression model with the following covariates: treatment group; baseline S-K values (Open-label phase and Randomized treatment phase); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||10.214|4.318|<0.001
91839898|NCT02875834|183560096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.079|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.118|15.04|||Regression, Linear|||||15.040|9.118|<0.001
91839899|NCT02875834|183560099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2954|0.6631|||Regression, Cox|||Results derived from a Cox Proportional Hazards model with the following covariates: treatment group, both baseline S-K values (48-hours open-label initial phase and double-blind randomized phase), baseline eGFR, age category (\<55, 55-64, \>=65 years), country, baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney, disease heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||0.6631|0.2954|<0.001
91839900|NCT02875834|183560099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0992|0.2508|||Regression, Cox|||||0.2508|0.0992|<0.001
91839901|NCT01302938|183560102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.6||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.6|-3.9|
91839902|NCT01302938|183560103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|106.6||||||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||106.6|-47.8|
91839903|NCT01302938|183560103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.4|111.4||||||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||111.4|-55.4|
91839904|NCT01302938|183560103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|110.3||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||110.3|-24.2|
91839905|NCT01302938|183560104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.67||||||Change at Week 1: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI).||1.67|-0.67|
91839906|NCT01302938|183560104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.83||||||Change at Week 4: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95% CI.||1.83|-1.00|
91839907|NCT01302938|183560104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||||||Change at Week 12: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95% CI.||1.00|-3.00|
91839908|NCT01302938|183560105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.8||||||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||1.8|-1.3|
91839909|NCT01302938|183560105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.9||||||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.9|-2.2|
91839910|NCT01302938|183560108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9||||||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||1.9|-0.8|
91839911|NCT01302938|183560108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8||||||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-3.7|
91647323|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (liver) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.15|-0.25|0.6542
91839912|NCT01302938|183560108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.4|-6.3|
91839913|NCT01302938|183560111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|13.2||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||13.2|-33.2|
91839914|NCT01302938|183560112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|30.3||||||Change at Week 12; Coping Subscale: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||30.3|-6.9|
91839915|NCT01302938|183560112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|32.7||||||Change at Week 12; Concern Subscale: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||32.7|-16.7|
91839916|NCT01302938|183560112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|33.8||||||Change at Week 12; Sleep Subscale: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||33.8|-13.3|
91839917|NCT01302938|183560112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|29.0||||||Change at Week 12; Total HRQL Score: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||29.0|-11.0|
91839918|NCT01302938|183560113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|20.0||||||Change at Week 12; Social Subscale: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95% CI.||20.00|-20.00|
91839919|NCT01811563|183560150|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant independent of time||||||0.661|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.661
91839920|NCT01811563|183560150|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for time independent of implant|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91647324|NCT02508649|183186463|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (liver) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.38|-0.04|0.1079
91839921|NCT01811563|183560150|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction between implant and time||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.270
91839922|NCT01811563|183560151|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant independent of time||||||0.856|||||||ANOVA|Main effect for implant, LQ-YBT Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.856
91839923|NCT01811563|183560151|EQUIVALENCE|Time independent of implant, Baseline to 52 Weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91839924|NCT01811563|183560151|EQUIVALENCE|Implant by Time interaction, Baseline to 52 Weeks between Zimmer and Stryker||||||0.822|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.822
91839925|NCT01811563|183560152|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant, Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.158|||||||ANOVA|||||||.158
91839926|NCT01811563|183560152|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for time, Baseline to 52 weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91839927|NCT01811563|183560152|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction of time by implant, Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.365|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.365
91839928|NCT01811563|183560154|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant, baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.416|||||||ANOVA|||||||.416
91839929|NCT01811563|183560154|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for time, Baseline to 52 weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91839930|NCT01811563|183560154|EQUIVALENCE|Implant by time interaction, baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.917|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.917
91839931|NCT01811563|183560156|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect by implant, Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.830
91839932|NCT01811563|183560156|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect by time, baseline to 52 weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91839933|NCT01811563|183560156|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction between implant and time, baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.728|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.728
91779382|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.2||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|55.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||55.4|-29.0|0.5379
91779383|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.8768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|38.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.5|-45.1|0.8768
91779384|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|49.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||49.9|-33.8|0.7031
91779385|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.8507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|37.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.8|-45.8|0.8507
91779386|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.3||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.2|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-3.5|-121.2|0.0381
91779387|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.0||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|122.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||122.3|5.7|0.0318
91779388|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.2||||0.6095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|74.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||74.1|-43.6|0.6095
91779389|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.6||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|44.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||44.8|-71.9|0.6470
91779390|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.8136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|65.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||65.4|-51.4|0.8136
91779391|NCT01746901|183439327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.6||||0.6699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|45.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.7|-71.0|0.6699
91779392|NCT01746901|183439328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.1728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.7|-3.9|0.1728
91779393|NCT01746901|183439328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.6|-1.0|0.2616
91779394|NCT01746901|183439328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.7|-1.9|0.7307
91779395|NCT01746901|183439328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.5473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.6|-3.0|0.5473
91779396|NCT01746901|183439328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.4999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-3.1|0.4999
91779397|NCT01746901|183439328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.6|-3.0|0.5592
91779398|NCT01746901|183439329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.3||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.6|2.0|0.0217
91839934|NCT01811563|183560157|EQUIVALENCE|Between implants at 6 weeks||||||0.319|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.319
91839935|NCT04249336|183560173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = BioMin F- Colgate Total|It was calculated that 140 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion between the four arms would have at least 80 % power to detect a difference of 0.20 mean scores between four treatments from baseline to week 4. Sample size was determined using PAS V.11, two independent sample t-test with 95% confidence interval.||||<0.05
91839936|NCT04249336|183560173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold P\<0.05|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Colgate Sensitive Pro relief - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
91839937|NCT04249336|183560173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Sensodyne Rapid Action - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
91839938|NCT04249336|183560174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Treatment difference in percent = BioMin F- Colgate Total|It was calculated that 140 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion between the four arms would have at least 80 % power to detect a difference of 0.20 mean scores between four treatments from baseline to week 4. Sample size was determined using PAS V.11, two independent sample t-test with 95% confidence interval.||||<0.05
91647325|NCT02508649|183186464|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.0|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ dysfunction up to Day 7||2.00|0.98|0.0630
91839939|NCT04249336|183560174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|39.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Colgate Sensitive Pro relief - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
91839940|NCT04249336|183560174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Sensodyne Rapid Action - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
91839941|NCT04249336|183560175|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|36.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Treatment difference in percent = BioMin F- Colgate Total|It was calculated that 140 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion between the four arms would have at least 80 % power to detect a difference of 0.20 mean scores between four treatments from baseline to week 4. Sample size was determined using PAS V.11, two independent sample t-test with 95% confidence interval.||||<0.05
91839942|NCT04249336|183560175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Colgate Sensitive Pro relief - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
91839943|NCT04249336|183560175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Sensodyne Rapid Action - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
91839944|NCT01189890|183560177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|Difference in LS Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||ANCOVA|Controlled for treatment, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) stratum, age stratum, and baseline HbA1C.||||0.34|0.03|
91647326|NCT02508649|183186464|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.86|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ dysfunction up to Day 30||1.86|0.89|0.1875
91710801|NCT02258217|183314013|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in ADL score variable. This was calculated as follows:~ADL score (new relapse) - ADL score (after treatment of current relapse) This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.22|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||"We compared the two RSH scores measured in the same arm at different time points (new \& after treatment).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0 We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post RSH scores."||1.22|-1.22|0.99
91839945|NCT01189890|183560178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent Incidence|-3.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) stratum and age stratum.||||-1.2|-7.5|0.009
91839946|NCT01189890|183560181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|12.7|||ANCOVA|Controlled for treatment, eGFR stratum, age stratum, and baseline FPG.||||12.7|0.7|
91839947|NCT01189890|183560182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratified by eGFR stratum and age stratum.||||0.9|0.6|
91839948|NCT01189890|183560183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratified by eGFR stratum and age stratum.||||0.7|0.3|
91839949|NCT01189890|183560184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Controlled for treatment, eGFR stratum, age stratum, and baseline body weight.||||-0.2|-1.3|0.011
91647327|NCT02508649|183186464|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ failure up to Day 7||1.58|0.82|0.4382
91647328|NCT02508649|183186464|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ failure up to Day 30||1.39|0.73|0.9529
91647329|NCT00446134|183186473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus ribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Other|12.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|29.15|||Fisher Exact|||||29.15|-3.65|0.167
91839950|NCT00077636|183560185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|These results indicated that sustained virological response achieved with 16 weeks of treatment was not equivalent to that achieved with 24 week of treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by country and HCV genotype.||||0.76|0.46|<.0001
91839951|NCT00077636|183560186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the analysis based on the standard population, end of treatment virological response was equivalent in the two treatment arms (94% in the 16-week arm and 92% in the 24-week arm).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by country.||||2.03|0.86|0.1941
91839952|NCT00077636|183560187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|These results indicated that sustained virological response achieved with 16 weeks of treatment was not equivalent to that achieved with 24 week of treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by country and HCV genotype.||||0.82|0.52|0.0003
91839953|NCT01976364|183560202|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0513|0.1022||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1022|-0.0513|
91839954|NCT01976364|183560203|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.313||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.313|-0.131|
91839955|NCT01976364|183560237|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0192|0.1163||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1163|-0.0192|
91839956|NCT01976364|183560237|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0372|0.1021||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1021|-0.0372|
91839957|NCT01976364|183560237|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0941|0.0825||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0825|-0.0941|
91898353|NCT04266301|183692696|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|1.07||P Value is 1-sided|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor (Intermediate risk MDS, High risk MDS, Very high risk MDS, CMML-2) as per IRT||||1.070|0.671|0.0825
91898354|NCT04266301|183692697|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.076||||||||1.076|0.693|
91898355|NCT04266301|183692698|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13||P Value is 1-sided|Log Rank|log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor (Intermediate risk MDS, High risk MDS, Very High risk MDS, CMML-2) as per IRT||||1.130|0.750|0.2132
91779399|NCT01746901|183439329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.6|-7.8|0.5513
91779400|NCT01746901|183439329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.8|0.2|0.0469
91779401|NCT01746901|183439329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.4|-6.0|0.3604
91779402|NCT01746901|183439329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.2||||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.4|-5.0|0.2725
91779403|NCT01746901|183439329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.4||||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.6|-5.8|0.3461
91779404|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.1828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.8|-1.1|0.1828
91779405|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.3908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.9|-5.0|0.3908
91779406|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.5|-1.5|0.2513
91779407|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.3|-4.6|0.5035
91779408|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.0|-0.9|0.1452
91779409|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.9303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|-3.6|0.9303
91779410|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.8||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.7|0.9|0.0283
91839958|NCT01976364|183560237|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0734|0.0927||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0927|-0.0734|
91898356|NCT04266301|183692699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4692||||||P Value is 1-sided|negative binomial regression model|negative binomial regression model with log link stratified by randomization stratification factor as per IRT and baseline transfusion status||||||0.4692
91898357|NCT04266301|183692700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||P Value is 1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|exact CMH Chi-square statistic, adjusting for randomization stratification factor as per IRT.||||1.4|0.7|0.4865
91898358|NCT04266301|183692701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.2||P Value is 1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|exact CMH Chi-square statistic, adjusting for randomization stratification factor as per IRT.||||2.2|1|0.5743
91898359|NCT04266301|183692702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||P Value is 1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|exact CMH Chi-square statistic, adjusting for randomization stratification factor as per IRT.||||1.7|0.8|0.2126
91898360|NCT04266301|183692705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|0.875||||||||0.875|0.576|
91898361|NCT04266301|183692706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.038||||||||1.038|0.640|
91898362|NCT03215758|183692716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0238||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.088|||ANCOVA|||||0.088|-0.006|0.088
91898363|NCT03215758|183692717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.16|0.278
91898364|NCT03215758|183692718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.30|0.429
91898365|NCT03215758|183692719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.12|0.777
91898366|NCT02175004|183692736|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|-9.56||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS+7 Composite Score at Week 78||-9.56|-26.12|<0.001
91898367|NCT02175004|183692736|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.27|-8.95||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS+7 Composite Score at Week 156||-8.95|-31.27|<0.001
91898368|NCT02175004|183692737|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2||P-value=MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heart Rate to Deep Breathing Score at Week 78||0.20|-0.32|0.638
91898369|NCT02175004|183692737|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.29||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heart Rate to Deep Breathing Score at Week 156||0.29|-0.30|0.965
91898370|NCT02175004|183692738|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.5||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Nerve Conduction Score at Week 78||-0.50|-1.68|<0.001
91898371|NCT02175004|183692738|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.66||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.05||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Nerve Conduction Score at Week 156||0.05|-1.38|0.067
91898372|NCT02175004|183692739|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|3.36||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heat-Pain Sensory Score at Week 78||3.36|-2.67|0.821
91898373|NCT02175004|183692739|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.16||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|1.9||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heat-Pain Sensory Score at Week 156||1.90|-6.21|0.293
91898374|NCT02175004|183692740|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.78||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-0.03||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Touch-Pressure Sensory Score at Week 78||-0.03|-5.53|0.047
91898375|NCT02175004|183692740|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.07||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.13||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Touch-Pressure Sensory Score at Week 156||-0.13|-6.00|0.041
91839959|NCT01976364|183560238|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.227||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.227|-0.163|
91779411|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.0|-10.5|0.4861
91779412|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.3||||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.2|-2.5|0.1809
91779413|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.5|-7.1|0.8560
91779414|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7||||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.4|-3.1|0.2385
91779415|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.5|-4.1|0.3479
91779416|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.7||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|50.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||50.6|4.7|0.0185
91779417|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||29.7|-15.8|0.5471
91779418|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|47.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||47.4|1.5|0.0367
91779419|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.1||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|32.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.9|-12.6|0.3797
91779420|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.4||||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|39.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.1|-6.3|0.1557
91779421|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.2||||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|34.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.9|-10.5|0.2904
91779422|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.0||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|51.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||51.6|0.4|0.0467
91779423|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.7||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|36.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.0|-14.6|0.4056
91779424|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.3||||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|48.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.9|-2.3|0.0738
91779425|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.4||||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|38.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.7|-12.0|0.2987
91779426|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|48.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.2|-2.4|0.0763
91779427|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|37.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.6|-13.1|0.3396
91779428|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.2||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.1|22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.7|-89.1|0.2425
91779429|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|62.1||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|117.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||117.5|6.8|0.0281
91779430|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|78.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||78.8|-33.0|0.4189
91779431|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.0||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|61.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||61.4|-49.4|0.8310
91779432|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.8||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|90.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||90.1|-20.6|0.2161
91779433|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5|59.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.2|-51.5|0.8905
91839960|NCT01976364|183560238|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.219||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.219|-0.266|
91710802|NCT02258217|183314015|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in PCS score variable. This was calculated as follows:~PCS score (new relapse) - PCS score (after treatment of current relapse). This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.42||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.18|||Paired t-test, two sided|||"We compared the two PCS scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new \& after treatment).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0 We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post PCS scores."||-0.18|-3.67|0.03
91839961|NCT01976364|183560238|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.213|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.47||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.470|-0.045|
91839962|NCT01976364|183560238|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.188||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.188|-0.309|
91839963|NCT01976364|183560239|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|9.48||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||9.48|-9.76|
91839964|NCT01976364|183560239|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|3.77||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||3.77|-12.91|
91839965|NCT01976364|183560239|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|2.87||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||2.87|-14.26|
91839966|NCT01976364|183560239|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.59|6.87||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||6.87|-11.59|
91839967|NCT01976364|183560239|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-10.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.16|-2.14||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||-2.14|-18.16|
91839968|NCT01976364|183560240|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.1|
91839969|NCT01976364|183560240|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-0.1|
91839970|NCT01976364|183560240|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|0.0|
91839971|NCT01976364|183560240|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|0.1|
91839972|NCT01976364|183560240|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7|-0.1|
91839973|NCT01976364|183560241|OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.06|19.21||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||19.21|-58.06|
91839974|NCT01976364|183560241|OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.58|23.37||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||23.37|-83.58|
91839975|NCT01976364|183560241|OTHER||LS mean difference|-24.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.35|34.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||34.69|-83.35|
91839976|NCT01976364|183560241|OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.87|37.58||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||37.58|-60.87|
91839977|NCT01976364|183560241|OTHER||LS mean difference|7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.73|63.77||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||63.77|-49.73|
91839978|NCT01976364|183560243|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
91839979|NCT01976364|183560243|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
91839980|NCT01976364|183560243|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
91839981|NCT01976364|183560243|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
91898376|NCT02175004|183692741|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.92|-8.03||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the NIS Composite Score at Week 52 of Year 4||-8.03|-26.92|<0.001
91839982|NCT01976364|183560243|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
91839983|NCT01976364|183560244|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.9|
91839984|NCT01976364|183560244|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.9|
91839985|NCT01976364|183560244|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-1.1|
91839986|NCT01976364|183560244|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.1|-0.6|
91779434|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.8||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.2|20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.6|-124.2|0.1597
91708815|NCT02362425|183310793|SUPERIORITY|An a priori power calculation, with power at 80% and a two-sided α of 0·05, determined that n=76 participants (n=38 per group) would be required to detect a statistically significant post-intervention difference in plasma glutathione (GSH) concentration between NAC and placebo groups. After the primary endpoint was changed, re-evaluation of the sample size determined that a larger sample (total n=182) would be required. As per protocol, the study was completed at this time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||Regression, Linear|Model comparing 12 m corrected 15-F2t-isoprostane conc. controlling for pre-intervention value. Investigated covariates: smoking and drinking status.||Null Hypothesis: In RYR1-RM myopathy patients, there will be no statistically significant difference in corrected 15-F2t-isoprostane concentration and/or corrected 15=f2t-Isop:PGR2alpha ratio between NAC and placebo groups at month 12, after controlling for established a priori confounders.||1.6|-1.4|0.88
91779435|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|70.9||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|142.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||142.6|-0.8|0.0525
91779436|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.1||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.3|95.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||95.4|-49.3|0.5294
91708816|NCT02362425|183310794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|53.4||Model controlled for six-month(pre-intervention) distance and treatment group. Investigated covariates: height|Regression, Linear|||In RYR1-RM myopathy patients, there will be no statistically significant difference in 6MWT (six minute walk test) total distance between NAC and placebo groups at month 12, after controlling for established a priori confounders.||53.4|-5.5|.11
91708817|NCT02362425|183310795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||||0.7|-3.6|0.14
91839987|NCT01976364|183560244|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.0|-0.6|
91647330|NCT00446134|183186473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus ribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|5.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|22.19|||Fisher Exact|||||22.19|-10.76|0.611
91708818|NCT02362425|183310796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.5|0.62
91708819|NCT02362425|183310797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-1.1|0.05
91647331|NCT00446134|183186473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus ribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|19.63|||Fisher Exact|||||19.63|-13.67|0.736
91647332|NCT00446134|183186473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus taribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|7.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|23.35|||Fisher Exact|||||23.35|-9.28|0.485
91708820|NCT02362425|183310798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-2.1|0.25
91708821|NCT02362425|183310799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-2.1|0.05
91708822|NCT02362425|183310800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.3|-0.6|0.09
91708823|NCT02362425|183310801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.0|-1.3|0.69
91708824|NCT02362425|183310802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-3.5|0.31
91708825|NCT02362425|183310803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.0|-0.8|0.22
91779437|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.7|67.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||67.7|-75.7|0.9126
91779438|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.6||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|106.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||106.3|-37.1|0.3418
91779439|NCT01746901|183439330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|66.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||66.4|-77.0|0.8833
91779440|NCT01746901|183439331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.2|-6.1|0.0041
91779441|NCT01746901|183439331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.8|1.9|0.0006
91779442|NCT01746901|183439331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.3|-2.7|0.8765
91779443|NCT01746901|183439331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|-1.6|0.4746
91779444|NCT01746901|183439331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-3.3|0.4607
91779445|NCT01746901|183439331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.9|-1.0|0.2316
91779446|NCT01746901|183439332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|51.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||51.3|26.4|<0.0001
91779447|NCT01746901|183439332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.8||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|28.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.3|3.3|0.0136
91647333|NCT00446134|183186473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus taribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|9.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|26.26|||Fisher Exact|||||26.26|-6.72|0.295
91647334|NCT00446134|183186473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus taribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|19.3|||Fisher Exact|||||19.3|-13.84|0.864
91647335|NCT00446134|183186474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|30.57|||Chi-squared|||||30.57|2.31|0.0304
91647336|NCT00446134|183186474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|31.06|||Chi-squared|||||31.06|3.22|0.0293
91647337|NCT00446134|183186474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|20.24|||Chi-squared|||||20.24|-10.41|0.5816
91647338|NCT00446134|183186475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|16.22|||Fisher Exact|||||16.22|-13.78|0.9999
91708826|NCT02362425|183310804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-2.6|0.93
91708827|NCT02362425|183310805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-1.3|0.66
91647339|NCT00446134|183186475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.73|14.73|||Fisher Exact|||||14.73|-14.73|0.9999
91647340|NCT00446134|183186475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|15.71|||Fisher Exact|||||15.71|-14.11|0.9999
91647341|NCT00446134|183186475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|16.22|||Fisher Exact|||||16.22|-13.78|0.9999
91647342|NCT00446134|183186475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|15.59|||Fisher Exact|||||15.59|-14.76|0.9999
91647343|NCT00446134|183186475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|14.11|||Fisher Exact|||||14.11|-15.71|0.9999
91647344|NCT02524665|183186489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.97||0.0769||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.0769
91647345|NCT02524665|183186489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.73||0.6698||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.6698
91647346|NCT02524665|183186489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.59||0.6854||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.6854
91647347|NCT02524665|183186490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.55||0.5031||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5031
91647348|NCT02524665|183186490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|99.76||0.2464||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.2464
91708828|NCT02362425|183310806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.6|-0.4|0.09
91708829|NCT02362425|183310807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.0|-0.7|0.09
91647349|NCT02524665|183186490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.22||0.8894||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.8894
91647350|NCT02524665|183186490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.04||0.6722||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.6722
91647351|NCT02524665|183186490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.59||0.3352||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.3352
91647352|NCT02524665|183186490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.46||0.9323||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.9323
91647353|NCT02524665|183186490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.05||0.3513||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.3513
91647354|NCT02524665|183186490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.97||0.8199||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.8199
91647355|NCT02524665|183186490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.83||0.9616||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.9616
91839988|NCT01976364|183560246|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|11.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.65|38.98||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||38.98|-15.65|
91647356|NCT02524665|183186491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1|||||1.0000
91708830|NCT02362425|183310808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-13.4|0.15
91708831|NCT02362425|183310809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-13.7|0.08
91839989|NCT01976364|183560246|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|30.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|60.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||60.20|0.64|
91647357|NCT02524665|183186491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.7500
91647358|NCT02524665|183186491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.7539||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.7539
91647359|NCT02524665|183186491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.3071||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8|||||0.3071
91647360|NCT02524665|183186492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5000
91647361|NCT02524665|183186492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||1.0000
91647362|NCT02524665|183186492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||1.0000
91647363|NCT02524665|183186492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0
91647364|NCT02524665|183186492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||1.0000
91647365|NCT02524665|183186492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0
91647366|NCT02524665|183186492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0
91647367|NCT02524665|183186492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
91708832|NCT02362425|183310810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.27||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.1|47.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||47.5|-80.1|0.39
91708833|NCT02362425|183310811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|39.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.5|-59.5|0.57
91708834|NCT02362425|183310812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-5.0|0.12
91708835|NCT02362425|183310813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.7|-3.6|0.76
91708836|NCT02362425|183310814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5|-2.5|0.72
91708837|NCT02362425|183310815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.7|-1.8|0.70
91708838|NCT02362425|183310816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.3|-2.8|0.88
91647368|NCT02524665|183186492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||1.0000
91839990|NCT01976364|183560246|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|29.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|62.62||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||62.62|-3.46|
91839991|NCT01976364|183560246|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|24.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|53.47||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||53.47|-5.14|
91839992|NCT01976364|183560246|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|17.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.96|50.12||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||50.12|-15.96|
91647369|NCT02524665|183186492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0
91647370|NCT02524665|183186492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0
91647371|NCT02524665|183186492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
91647372|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5000
91647373|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.5000
91647374|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||1.0000
91647375|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
91839993|NCT01976364|183560247|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|19.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||19.60|-9.61|
91647376|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.8125||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.8125
91647377|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94||0.5742||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.5742
91647378|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.5000
91647379|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.2500
91647380|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||1.0000
91647381|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.7500
91647382|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.7500
91647383|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.2500
91647384|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.2500
91647385|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.7500
91708839|NCT02362425|183310817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|15.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.2|-10.3|0.61
91839994|NCT01976364|183560247|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|18.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.50|-10.74|
91839995|NCT01976364|183560247|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|17.45||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.45|-11.80|
91708840|NCT02362425|183310818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.5|-7.4|0.87
91839996|NCT01976364|183560247|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|18.52||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.52|-10.58|
91839997|NCT01976364|183560247|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|17.37||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.37|-11.63|
91647386|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.2500
91708841|NCT02362425|183310819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|13.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.9|-38.9|0.28
91708842|NCT02688764|183310862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1465||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects.||||0.1465
91708843|NCT02688764|183310865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects||||0.0872
91708844|NCT02688764|183310866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6207||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 2 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects.||||0.6207
91708845|NCT02688764|183310866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3226||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 2 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects.||||0.3226
91708846|NCT02688764|183310884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5682||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Age group of \>=2 years to \<6 years~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.5682
91708847|NCT02688764|183310884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2271||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Age group of \>=6 years to \<12 years~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.2271
91708848|NCT02688764|183310884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Age group of \>=12 years to \<=18 years~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.0220
91708849|NCT02688764|183310885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Group of SP at baseline above Age Related Normal Range~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.0058
91708850|NCT02688764|183310885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5801||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Group of SP at baseline below or within Age Related Normal Range~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.5801
91708851|NCT02579382|183310886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.107||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.282||MMRM model included treatment, baseline ALT level, HBeAg baseline status, baseline HBsAg, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and visit as repeated measurement.|MMRM|||||0.282|-0.067|0.227
91839998|NCT01976364|183560248|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-1.5|
91647387|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.2500
91647388|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5000
91647389|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0
91647390|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.5000
91839999|NCT01976364|183560248|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|-1.6|
91840000|NCT01976364|183560248|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.0|-1.0|
91840001|NCT01976364|183560248|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.9|-0.9|
91840002|NCT01976364|183560248|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.1|-0.7|
91840003|NCT01976364|183560249|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.3|
91840004|NCT01976364|183560249|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-0.6|
91840005|NCT01976364|183560249|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.4|
91840006|NCT01976364|183560249|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7|-0.3|
91840007|NCT01976364|183560249|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.3|-0.5|
91840008|NCT01976364|183560250|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|3.02||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.02|-2.51|
91840009|NCT01976364|183560250|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|4.18||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.18|-2.64|
91898377|NCT02175004|183692742|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.17||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Cranial Nerves Score Score at Week 52 of Year 4||0.17|-0.19|0.941
91840010|NCT01976364|183560250|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|3.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.20|-2.26|
91840011|NCT01976364|183560250|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|5.81||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.81|-1.46|
91840012|NCT01976364|183560250|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|3.01||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.01|-3.25|
91647391|NCT02524665|183186493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
91647392|NCT02524665|183186494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|McNemar|||||||1.0000
91647393|NCT02524665|183186494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated. Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|McNemar|||||||0
91647394|NCT02524665|183186494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5637||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|McNemar|||||||0.5637
91647395|NCT02524665|183186494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|McNemar|||||||1.0000
91647396|NCT02524665|183186494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|McNemar|||||||0.4795
91647397|NCT02524665|183186494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|McNemar|||||||1.0000
91647398|NCT02524665|183186494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|McNemar|||||||0.3173
91647399|NCT02524665|183186494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573||95.0||||Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|McNemar|||||||0.1573
91647400|NCT02989610|183186495|SUPERIORITY|Superiority hypothesis was that 95% lower confidence bound on proportion exceeded a threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Proportion with wider therapeutic window using directional stimulation was compared to a performance goal of 60%.||||<0.0001
91647401|NCT02989610|183186496|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority hypothesis was that 95% lower confidence bound on proportion exceeded a threshold of 40%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Proportion with wider therapeutic window using directional stimulation was compared to a performance goal of 60%.||||<0.0001
91898378|NCT02175004|183692743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.56||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.97|-2.16||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Muscle Weakness Score at Week 52 of Years 4||-2.16|-16.97|0.011
91647402|NCT02989610|183186497|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test.||"Comparison of UPDRS part III on medication from 3 months using omnidirectional stimulation to 6 months using directional stimulation.~The p-value presented is calculated and does not represent the threshold. The statistical test used for this endpoint is single sided, and the observed difference was in the opposite direction of the tested difference, leading to a p-value that is equivalent to 1 within the significance of the statistical software used."||||1.0000
91647403|NCT04179474|183186498|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with erenumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with erenumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|105.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.21|115.79|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Erenumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||115.79|96.21|
91647404|NCT04179474|183186499|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with galcanezumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with galcanezumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|105.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.55|123.19|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Galcanezumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||123.19|89.55|
91647405|NCT04179474|183186500|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with erenumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with erenumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|105.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.19|115.45|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Erenumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||115.45|96.19|
91647406|NCT04179474|183186501|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with galcanezumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with galcanezumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|104.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.68|122.38|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Galcanezumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||122.38|89.68|
91840013|NCT01976364|183560251|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|1.52||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.52|-5.58|
91840014|NCT01976364|183560251|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|3.84||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.84|-4.69|
91840015|NCT01976364|183560251|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|6.06||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.06|-3.48|
91840016|NCT01976364|183560251|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.32||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.32|-4.03|
91840017|NCT01976364|183560251|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|4.38||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.38|-4.64|
91840018|NCT01976364|183560252|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.74||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.74|-4.96|
91840019|NCT01976364|183560252|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|2.65||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.65|-5.11|
91708852|NCT02579382|183310886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.018||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.191||MMRM model included treatment, baseline ALT level, HBeAg baseline status, baseline HBsAg, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and visit as repeated measurement.|MMRM|||||0.191|-0.156|0.840
91840020|NCT01976364|183560252|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|5.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.69|-3.78|
91840021|NCT01976364|183560252|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|6.93||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.93|-2.92|
91840022|NCT01976364|183560252|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.35||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.35|-4.03|
91840023|NCT01976364|183560253|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1444|1.8374||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.8374|-2.1444|
91840024|NCT01976364|183560253|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9054|0.7735||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7735|-1.9054|
91840025|NCT01976364|183560253|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0053|1.4071||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.4071|-3.0053|
91840026|NCT01976364|183560253|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0626|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5767|1.7018||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.7018|-1.5767|
91840027|NCT01976364|183560253|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3672|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8107|2.545||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.5450|-1.8107|
91840028|NCT01976364|183560254|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.51||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.51|-0.85|
91647407|NCT04179474|183186502|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with erenumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with erenumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|103.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.01|115.98|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Erenumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means||115.98|93.01|
91647408|NCT04179474|183186503|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with galcanezumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with galcanezumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|99.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.27|120.45|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Galcanezumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||120.45|82.27|
91708853|NCT02579382|183310886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.127||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.301||MMRM model included treatment, baseline ALT level, HBeAg baseline status, baseline HBsAg, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and visit as repeated measurement.|MMRM|||||0.301|-0.047|0.151
91708854|NCT03026283|183310909|OTHER|||||||1||||||In order to evaluate the significance of sensitivity and specificity findings, we implement McNemar's test comparing sensitivity and specificity for CCTA alone and FFR-CT, assuming conditional dependence.|Chi-squared|||Reference test is positive (test of sensitivity).||||1.00
91779448|NCT01746901|183439332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.5||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|31.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||31.0|6.1|0.0039
91779449|NCT01746901|183439332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|48.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.5|23.6|<0.0001
91779450|NCT01746901|183439332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.4||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.8|2.9|0.0157
91779451|NCT01746901|183439332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|45.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.3|20.5|<0.0001
91779452|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.6|6.4|<0.0001
91779453|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||9.6|-2.6|0.2550
91779454|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.4|4.3|0.0010
91779455|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.7||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.8|-0.4|0.0667
91779456|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.3||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.4|2.3|0.0075
91779457|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.7|-1.5|0.1354
91779458|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|67.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||67.5|34.2|<0.0001
91779459|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.3905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.0|-9.4|0.3905
91779460|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|45.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.3|11.9|0.0009
91779461|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|46.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.3|12.9|0.0006
91779462|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|39.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.5|6.3|0.0072
91779463|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.0||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|41.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||41.6|8.4|0.0035
91779464|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|248.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|188.6|308.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||308.3|188.6|<0.0001
91779465|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.2||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|128.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||128.2|8.2|0.0263
91779466|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|151.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.3|211.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||211.1|91.3|<0.0001
91840029|NCT01976364|183560254|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.69|-1.04|
91840030|NCT01976364|183560254|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.55||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.55|-2.09|
91840031|NCT01976364|183560254|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.91||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.91|-2.44|
91840032|NCT01976364|183560254|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|2.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.00|-0.96|
91840033|NCT01976364|183560255|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.29||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.29|-2.22|
91840034|NCT01976364|183560255|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.92||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.92|-2.65|
91840035|NCT01976364|183560255|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.36||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.36|-2.68|
91840036|NCT01976364|183560255|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.83||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.83|-1.31|
91840037|NCT01976364|183560255|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.84||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.84|-2.01|
91840038|NCT01976364|183560256|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.53||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.53|-1.09|
91840039|NCT01976364|183560256|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.73||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.73|-1.39|
91840040|NCT01976364|183560256|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.08|-2.15|
91840041|NCT01976364|183560256|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.13||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.13|-1.49|
91840042|NCT01976364|183560256|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.86||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.86|-1.89|
91647409|NCT04508621|183186534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||0.1|-0.6|0.115
91840043|NCT01976364|183560257|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.05||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.05|-1.08|
91840044|NCT01976364|183560257|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.99||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.99|-0.49|
91840045|NCT01976364|183560257|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.31||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.31|-0.91|
91840046|NCT01976364|183560257|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.96||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.96|-1.57|
91779467|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|165.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.6|225.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||225.3|105.6|<0.0001
91779468|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|97.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.3|157.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||157.6|38.3|0.0015
91779469|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|138.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|198.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||198.2|78.7|<0.0001
91779470|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|241.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.8|319.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||319.9|162.8|<0.0001
91779471|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|121.1||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|199.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||199.9|42.4|0.0028
91779472|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|164.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.8|243.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||243.1|85.8|<0.0001
91779473|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|198.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.4|276.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||276.6|119.4|<0.0001
91779474|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|111.1||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|189.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||189.4|32.8|0.0057
91779475|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|168.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.7|246.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||246.6|89.7|<0.0001
91779476|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|128.4||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|248.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||248.3|8.5|0.0360
91779477|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|221.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.2|341.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||341.7|101.2|0.0004
91779478|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|126.7||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|246.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||246.8|6.6|0.0388
91779479|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|223.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.2|343.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||343.2|103.2|0.0003
91779480|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|107.2||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|226.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||226.8|-12.4|0.0787
91779481|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|181.3||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.5|301.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||301.0|61.5|0.0033
91779482|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|96.1||||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|233.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||233.3|-41.2|0.1688
91779483|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|220.3||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.6|358.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||358.0|82.6|0.0019
91779484|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|106.0||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|243.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||243.5|-31.5|0.1298
91779485|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|210.4||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|347.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||347.8|73.0|0.0029
91779486|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|108.7||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|245.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||245.7|-28.3|0.1189
91708855|NCT03026283|183310909|OTHER||||||<|0.0047||||||In order to evaluate the significance of sensitivity and specificity findings, we implement Mcnemar's test comparing sensitive and pscificity for CCTA and FFR-CT assuming dependence.|Chi-squared|McNemar's chi-squared = 8.00||Reference test is Negative||||<0.0047
91779487|NCT01746901|183439333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|153.6||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|290.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||290.8|16.4|0.0284
91779488|NCT01746901|183439334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.1|-3.4|0.0327
91779489|NCT01746901|183439334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.2|1.0|0.0019
91779490|NCT01746901|183439334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-1.9|0.7508
91779491|NCT01746901|183439334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.7|-0.5|0.1868
91779492|NCT01746901|183439334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.6|-1.6|0.9944
91779493|NCT01746901|183439334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.6|-0.6|0.2322
91779494|NCT01746901|183439335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|39.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.6|16.8|<0.0001
91779495|NCT01746901|183439335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.4||||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||19.6|-2.8|0.1421
91779496|NCT01746901|183439335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.2|9.5|0.0004
91779497|NCT01746901|183439335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.8||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.0|4.5|0.0064
91779498|NCT01746901|183439335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.4||||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.6|-3.9|0.1974
91779499|NCT01746901|183439335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||30.8|8.3|0.0008
91779500|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.4|7.1|<0.0001
91779501|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.6868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.2|-4.1|0.6868
91779502|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.5|2.2|0.0058
91779503|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.1|0.8|0.0229
91779504|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.2||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.3|-1.9|0.2168
91779505|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.9|1.7|0.0096
91779506|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|45.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.9|20.0|<0.0001
91779507|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.4|-11.2|0.8009
91779508|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.4||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|30.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||30.3|4.5|0.0086
91779509|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.2||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|30.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||30.0|4.4|0.0089
91840047|NCT01976364|183560257|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|3.52||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.52|-0.06|
91840048|NCT01976364|183560258|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.42||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.42|-1.01|
91840049|NCT01976364|183560258|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.18||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.18|-1.49|
91840050|NCT01976364|183560258|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.09||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.09|-3.70|
91840051|NCT01976364|183560258|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|0.48||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.48|-3.99|
91840052|NCT01976364|183560258|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.69|-2.30|
91840053|NCT01976364|183560259|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.69|-2.05|
91840054|NCT01976364|183560259|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.31||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.31|-2.57|
91840055|NCT01976364|183560259|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.56||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-2.17|
91840056|NCT01976364|183560259|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.57||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.57|-1.54|
91840057|NCT01976364|183560259|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.53||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.53|-1.46|
91779510|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.0|-7.6|0.4224
91779511|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|35.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||35.5|9.8|0.0006
91779512|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|96.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.9|134.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||134.2|57.9|<0.0001
91779513|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.9||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|59.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.7|-15.8|0.2530
91779514|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|78.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|116.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||116.8|40.5|<0.0001
91779515|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.3||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|77.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||77.1|1.6|0.0414
91779516|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.9||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|66.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||66.6|-8.9|0.1329
91779517|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|45.5||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|83.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.2|7.7|0.0187
91779518|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|76.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|121.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||121.9|31.9|0.0009
91779519|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|45.4||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|89.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||89.9|0.9|0.0456
91779520|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|82.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|127.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||127.7|37.8|0.0004
91779521|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.6||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|84.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||84.1|-5.0|0.0812
91840058|NCT01976364|183560260|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.35||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.35|-2.06|
91779522|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.5||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|80.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||80.0|-9.0|0.1174
91779523|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.1||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|90.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||90.6|1.5|0.0427
91779524|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.9|73.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||73.0|-66.9|0.9318
91840059|NCT01976364|183560260|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.79||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.79|-2.51|
91840060|NCT01976364|183560260|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|0.23||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.23|-3.66|
91840061|NCT01976364|183560260|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.32||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.32|-2.25|
91840062|NCT01976364|183560260|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|2.73||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.73|-0.82|
91840063|NCT01976364|183560261|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.82||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.82|-1.27|
91840064|NCT01976364|183560261|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.71||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.71|-2.46|
91840065|NCT01976364|183560261|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.57||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.57|-2.72|
91840066|NCT01976364|183560261|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|2.36||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.36|-1.81|
91840067|NCT01976364|183560261|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.63||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.63|-1.58|
91708856|NCT04560868|183310924|EQUIVALENCE|The point null hypothesis was a difference in expected number of log ins of exactly 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|19.05|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|Based on a priori power calculations we had 80% power to detect an average increase of 3.8 log ins in the experimental relative to the control arm.||19.05|6.41|<0.01
91840068|NCT01976364|183560262|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.32||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.32|-3.67|
91840069|NCT01976364|183560262|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.63||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.63|-2.86|
91840070|NCT01976364|183560262|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|2.09||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.09|-2.27|
91840071|NCT01976364|183560262|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.95||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.95|-1.49|
91708857|NCT04560868|183310925|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of relative risk equal to exactly 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.85|||Regression, Poisson||relative risk=experimental/control|Based on a priori power calculations, we had 80% power to detect a 33% - 35% increase in the proportion of experimental participants who successfully quit smoking for at least 24 hours relative to controls.||1.85|0.55|0.98
91708858|NCT04560868|183310926|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 risk difference between arms.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.24|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference = experimental - control.|Based on a priori power calculations, we had 80% power to detect a 28% - 33% increase in 7-day smoking abstinence in the experimental arm relative to the control arm at 3 months.||0.24|-0.08|0.35
91840072|NCT01976364|183560262|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.53||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.53|-3.10|
91840073|NCT01976364|183560263|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|2.81||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.81|-0.95|
91708859|NCT04560868|183310927|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.87|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||0.87|-0.35|0.40
91708860|NCT04560868|183310928|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.6|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||0.60|-0.68|0.90
91708861|NCT04560868|183310929|EQUIVALENCE|The tested hypothesis was a point null of 0 difference in expected average helpfulness score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.4|-0.5|0.39
91708862|NCT04560868|183310930|EQUIVALENCE|The tested hypothesis was for a point null of 0 difference in expected average helpfulness score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.3|-0.1|0.11
91708863|NCT04560868|183310932|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected number of badges earned in each arm by 3 months post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|6.65|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||6.65|1.72|<0.01
91708864|NCT04560868|183310933|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.18|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.18|-1.02|0.96
91708865|NCT04560868|183310934|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null hypothesis of exactly 0 difference in expected score between the arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.66|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||0.66|-1.55|0.31
91708866|NCT04560868|183310938|EQUIVALENCE|The point null hypothesis was of the exact same proportion of control and experimental subjects requesting NRT.|Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|16.9|||Regression, Poisson||RR=experimental/control|||16.9|0.9|0.06
91779525|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|110.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|179.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||179.6|41.2|0.0020
91779526|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.5||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|151.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||151.4|11.6|0.0226
91779527|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.0||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|101.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||101.2|-37.3|0.3629
91779528|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.9||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|105.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||105.1|-33.4|0.3077
91779529|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.1||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|108.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||108.4|-30.1|0.2662
91779530|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.7|71.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.9|-94.7|0.7875
91779531|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|115.0||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|197.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||197.4|32.6|0.0066
91779532|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.7||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|164.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||164.9|-1.4|0.0540
91779533|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.8||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|104.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||104.3|-60.6|0.6014
91779534|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.1||||0.3885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|118.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||118.5|-46.3|0.3885
91779535|NCT01746901|183439336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.5||||0.4801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|112.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||112.0|-52.9|0.4801
91779536|NCT01746901|183439337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-2.5|0.5494
91779537|NCT01746901|183439337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.8|-0.1|0.0626
91779538|NCT01746901|183439337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.3|-1.6|0.7216
91779539|NCT01746901|183439337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.3647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.8|-1.0|0.3647
91708867|NCT04560868|183310939|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in probability of the outcome between arms.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.65|||Regression, Poisson||risk ratio=experimental/control|||2.65|0.38|0.99
91840074|NCT01976364|183560263|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.95||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.95|-1.72|
91840075|NCT01976364|183560263|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.90|-2.40|
91840076|NCT01976364|183560263|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|3.07||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.07|-0.93|
91840077|NCT01976364|183560263|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.38||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.38|-1.62|
91840078|NCT01976364|183560264|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.5|-0.9|
91840079|NCT01976364|183560264|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.2|-1.1|
91840080|NCT01976364|183560264|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.0|-2.4|
91840081|NCT01976364|183560264|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.9|-0.8|
91840082|NCT01976364|183560264|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.6|-1.1|
91840083|NCT01976364|183560265|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.2|-0.4|
91840084|NCT01976364|183560265|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7|-1.0|
91840085|NCT01976364|183560265|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-1.6|
91840086|NCT01976364|183560265|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|-0.9|
91840087|NCT01976364|183560265|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|-0.9|
91840088|NCT01976364|183560266|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.6|-0.6|
91840089|NCT01976364|183560266|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.7|-0.3|
91840090|NCT01976364|183560266|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.2|-1.0|
91840091|NCT01976364|183560266|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.3|0.0|
91840092|NCT01976364|183560266|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.9|-0.3|
91840093|NCT01976364|183560267|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
91840094|NCT01976364|183560267|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
91840095|NCT01976364|183560267|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
91840096|NCT01976364|183560267|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
91840097|NCT01976364|183560267|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
91840098|NCT01976364|183560268|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|0.0|
91840099|NCT01976364|183560268|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
91647410|NCT04508621|183186535|SUPERIORITY|Patients with missing data considered non-responders.|Difference in Proportions|8.0||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.5|||Pearson Chi-Squared|||||15.5|0.5|0.038
91840100|NCT01976364|183560268|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
91898379|NCT02175004|183692744|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.05||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|1.18||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Reflexes Score at Week 52 of Years 4||1.18|-3.28|0.356
91647411|NCT04508621|183186536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||-0.3|-6.4|0.030
91840101|NCT01976364|183560268|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
91840102|NCT01976364|183560268|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
91840103|NCT01976364|183560269|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
91840104|NCT01976364|183560269|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
91840105|NCT01976364|183560269|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
91840106|NCT01976364|183560269|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
91840107|NCT01976364|183560269|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
91708868|NCT04560868|183310940|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected change from baseline in number of cigarettes smoked per day between arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.99|||Regression, Linear||treatment difference=experimental-control, where the outcome for each individual is (one month)-baseline.|||3.99|-1.21|0.30
91840108|NCT01976364|183560270|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
91840109|NCT01976364|183560270|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
91840110|NCT01976364|183560270|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
91840111|NCT01976364|183560270|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
91898380|NCT02175004|183692745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-2.19||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Sensory Score at Week 52 of Years 4||-2.19|-8.58|<0.001
91708869|NCT04560868|183310941|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected change in daily cigarette usage between arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|5.5|||Regression, Linear||treatment effect=experimental-control, where the outcome for each individual is (three month)-baseline.|||5.5|-2.51|0.47
91708870|NCT04560868|183310942|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was risk difference of exactly 0.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.11|||Regression, Linear||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.11|-0.03|0.30
91708871|NCT01649362|183310943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
91779540|NCT01746901|183439337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-2.7|0.4456
91779541|NCT01746901|183439337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.9|0.0|0.0500
91779542|NCT01746901|183439338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.34|-0.69|<0.0001
91779543|NCT01746901|183439338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.52|-1.86|<0.0001
91779544|NCT01746901|183439338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.63|-0.97|<0.0001
91779545|NCT01746901|183439338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.23|-1.58|<0.0001
91779546|NCT01746901|183439338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.56|-0.91|<0.0001
91779547|NCT01746901|183439338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.11|-1.46|<0.0001
91779548|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.42|-1.75|<0.0001
91779549|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.3309
91779550|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.42|-0.74|<0.0001
91779551|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.92|-1.25|<0.0001
91779552|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.59|<0.0001
91779553|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.88|-1.21|<0.0001
91779554|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-3.69|-4.37|<0.0001
91708872|NCT01649362|183310944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91708873|NCT01649362|183310945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91779555|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.2475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.14|-0.54|0.2475
91779556|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.27|-1.96|<0.0001
91779557|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.27|-2.96|<0.0001
91840112|NCT01976364|183560270|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
91840113|NCT01976364|183560271|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.2|
91840114|NCT01976364|183560271|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.2|
91840115|NCT01976364|183560271|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.2|
91898381|NCT02175004|183692746|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.31||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-1.14||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 78||-1.14|-17.48|0.026
91710803|NCT02258217|183314016|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in MSIS physical score variable. This was calculated as follows:~MSIS physical score (new relapse) - MSIS physical score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||"We compared the two MSIS physical scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in medians is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in medians is not = 0~We used the Wilcoxon Signed rank test to compare the pre - post MSIS physical scores."||||0.19
91779558|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.00|-1.68|<0.0001
91779559|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.08|-2.76|<0.0001
91779560|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|-10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-10.60|-13.21|<0.0001
91779561|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-5.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-5.93|-8.54|<0.0001
91779562|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-6.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-6.59|-9.20|<0.0001
91840116|NCT01976364|183560271|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0|-0.3|
91840117|NCT01976364|183560271|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0|-0.2|
91647412|NCT04508621|183186537|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||2.5|-3.2|0.797
91710804|NCT02258217|183314017|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in MSIS psychological score variable. This was calculated as follows:~MSIS psychological score (new relapse) - MSIS psychological score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.45|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||"We compared the two MSIS psychological scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0~We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post MSIS psychological scores."||5.45|0.74|0.01
91779563|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.55|-9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.94|-12.55|<0.0001
91779564|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|-5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-5.05|-7.65|<0.0001
91779565|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|-9.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.05|-11.67|<0.0001
91779566|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-9.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.58|-13.16|<0.0001
91779567|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-14.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-14.28|-17.86|<0.0001
91779568|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|-9.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.93|-13.53|<0.0001
91779569|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|-13.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-13.91|-17.51|<0.0001
91779570|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|-7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-7.09|-10.67|<0.0001
91779571|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-12.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-12.39|-15.99|<0.0001
91779572|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.8784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.11|-3.63|0.8784
91779573|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.02|-38.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-38.29|-45.02|<0.0001
91779574|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|-16.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-16.25|-23.01|<0.0001
91779575|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.67|-18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-18.90|-25.67|<0.0001
91779576|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.86|-9.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.14|-15.86|<0.0001
91779577|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.98|-17.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-17.21|-23.98|<0.0001
91779578|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|15.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||15.54|5.75|<0.0001
91779579|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.63|-52.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-52.85|-62.63|<0.0001
91779580|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|-17.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-17.27|-27.09|<0.0001
91898382|NCT02175004|183692746|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.4||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|1.62||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 156||1.62|-16.41|0.107
91708874|NCT01704755|183311025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 12-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 43% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|87.6|96.1||||||The study planned to enroll 380 subjects to a 12- or 24-week treatment arm. The primary efficacy endpoint (SVR12) was assessed for each arm. With a total sample size of 380 and assuming that 68% of the subjects in each arm would achieve SVR12, the study had greater than 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority and superiority with a 2-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound greater than 43% and 54%, respectively, based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion.||96.1|87.6|
91708875|NCT01704755|183311025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 12-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 54% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|87.6|96.1||||||The primary efficacy endpoints were the SVR12 rates in each arm. The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between the arms using a Bonferroni correction of 0.025. A 2-sided 97.5% CI of the SVR12 rate per arm was computed using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. A gatekeeping testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, and the primary endpoints for Arm A were tested separately from Arm B in a pre-specified order.||96.1|87.6|
91708876|NCT01704755|183311025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 24-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 43% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|93.4|99.7||||||||99.7|93.4|
91779581|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-20.00|-29.83|<0.0001
91647413|NCT04508621|183186538|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||-0.7|-3.8|0.004
91779582|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|-8.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-8.64|-18.41|<0.0001
91898383|NCT02175004|183692746|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.72||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|9.77||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 52 of Year 4||9.77|-15.22|0.669
91647414|NCT04508621|183186539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||0.2|-2.7|0.101
91647415|NCT04508621|183186540|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||0.0|-0.6|0.094
91708877|NCT01704755|183311025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 24-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 54% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|93.4|99.7||||||||99.7|93.4|
91708878|NCT01704755|183311026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||To test the hypothesis that the percentages of participants who achieved sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment was different between the two treatment groups, the percentages were compared using a logistic regression model with treatment group, baseline log(subscript)10(subscript) HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a, non-1a), IL28B genotype (CC, non CC), and peginterferon-ribavirin treatment history (treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced) as predictors.||||0.051
91708879|NCT01400906|183311029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.38|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.380|-0.037|
91708880|NCT01400906|183311029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.37|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.370|-0.047|
91708881|NCT01400906|183311034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.836|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.836|0.440|
91708882|NCT01400906|183311034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|0.859|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.859|0.463|
91708883|NCT01400906|183311035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.333|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.333|0.018|
91708884|NCT01400906|183311035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.323|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.323|0.008|
91840118|NCT01976364|183560272|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.4||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.4|-6.2|
91840119|NCT01976364|183560272|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.7|-5.8|
91840120|NCT01976364|183560272|OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.4||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.4|-10.2|
91840121|NCT01976364|183560272|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.6|-7.3|
91840122|NCT01976364|183560272|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-9.9|
91840123|NCT04250337|183560306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|31.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.5|5.1|0.011
91840124|NCT04250337|183560307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|40.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.8|12.1|<.001
91840125|NCT04250337|183560308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.7|6.1|0.008
91840126|NCT04250337|183560309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.373||0.017263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||||-2.7|-27.7|0.017263
91840127|NCT04250337|183560310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.1|4.3|0.017
91840128|NCT04250337|183560311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|36.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.1|7.1|0.007
91840129|NCT04250337|183560312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.074||3e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-13.7|||ANCOVA|||||-13.7|-33.6|0.000003
91840130|NCT04250337|183560313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.428|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|-7.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.49|-17.07|<0.001
91840131|NCT04250337|183560314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.8|-4.9|0.454
91840132|NCT04250337|183560315|SUPERIORITY||Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)|-20.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.81||0.117607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-45.4|0.117607
91840133|NCT04250337|183560316|SUPERIORITY||Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.025293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.6|0.025293
91840134|NCT04250337|183560317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.7|3.8|0.022
91840135|NCT04250337|183560318|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.7|-7.3|0.764
91840136|NCT04250337|183560319|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.7|-2.9|0.498
91840137|NCT04250337|183560320|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.9|5.3|0.014
91840138|NCT04250337|183560321|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|-8.0|0.818
91840139|NCT04250337|183560322|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.1|-3.1|0.499
91779583|NCT01746901|183439339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.62|-18.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-18.78|-28.62|<0.0001
91779584|NCT01746901|183439340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-7.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-7.57|-11.90|<0.0001
91779585|NCT01746901|183439340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|7.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||7.32|2.99|<0.0001
91779586|NCT01746901|183439340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.20|-2.13|0.9766
91779587|NCT01746901|183439340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.44|-6.78|<0.0001
91779588|NCT01746901|183439340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.7242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.78|-2.55|0.7242
91779589|NCT01746901|183439340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.28|-6.62|<0.0001
91779590|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|23.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.5|14.6|<0.0001
91779591|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.8048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.0|-3.9|0.8048
91779592|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.1|4.2|0.0002
91779593|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||15.4|6.5|<0.0001
91779594|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.6|2.7|0.0019
91779595|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.1|3.2|0.0010
91779596|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|127.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.6|161.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||161.2|93.6|<0.0001
91779597|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7||||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|38.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.5|-29.1|0.7837
91779598|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|65.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|99.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||99.6|32.0|0.0002
91779599|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|66.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|100.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||100.1|32.5|0.0002
91779600|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|94.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||94.1|26.5|0.0006
91779601|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||65.7|-1.9|0.0640
91647416|NCT00752895|183186554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||||||0.295
91779602|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|142.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.5|190.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||190.7|94.5|<0.0001
91779603|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.8||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|63.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||63.9|-32.3|0.5169
91779604|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|129.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||129.3|33.2|0.0011
91779605|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|77.1||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|125.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||125.2|29.1|0.0018
91840140|NCT04250337|183560323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.104||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|17.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.36|-2.78|0.155
91840141|NCT04250337|183560325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.37|-9.01|||ANCOVA|||||-9.01|-26.37|<0.001
91840142|NCT04250337|183560326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.001031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-5.3|0.001031
91840143|NCT04250337|183560327|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|34.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|0.1|0.036
91840144|NCT04250337|183560328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Health State Index UK||0.16|0.06|<0.001
91840145|NCT04250337|183560328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Health State Index US||0.11|0.04|<0.001
91840146|NCT04250337|183560329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.386||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|8.32|||ANCOVA|||||8.32|-1.08|0.131
91840147|NCT04250337|183560330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|-1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.74|-6.26|<0.001
91840148|NCT04250337|183560331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.407||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|1.98|||ANCOVA|||||1.98|-3.58|0.571
91840149|NCT04250337|183560332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.127||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.06|||ANCOVA|||||2.06|-2.40|0.882
91647417|NCT00752895|183186555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||||||0.820
91708885|NCT01400906|183311036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.476|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|0.627|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.627|0.326|
91840150|NCT04250337|183560333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|8.48|||ANCOVA|||||8.48|-1.56|0.171
91840151|NCT04250337|183560334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.697||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|9.89|||ANCOVA|||||9.89|-1.03|0.109
91840152|NCT04250337|183560335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.22|0.922
91840153|NCT04250337|183560336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.271||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.03|-7.22|0.001
91840154|NCT03560258|183560358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in additional number of CEs with a CD4 or CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.137
91840155|NCT03560258|183560358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 or CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.014
91840156|NCT03560258|183560358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 or CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.100
91840157|NCT03560258|183560360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in additional number of CEs with a CD4 T cell response at week 26 from baseline.||||0.222
91840158|NCT03560258|183560360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 T cell response at week 26 from baseline.||||0.222
91840159|NCT03560258|183560360|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 T cell response at week 26 from baseline.||||1.00
91708886|NCT01400906|183311036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.68|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.680|0.380|
91708887|NCT02821416|183311038|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.81||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, time post-allergen challenge , treatment\*time post-allergen challenge, allergen induced at screening||||-0.94|-10.69|0.0208
91708888|NCT02821416|183311039|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.535||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.045|8.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, maximum percent decrease in FEV1 late asthma response||||8.116|-3.045|0.3630
91708889|NCT01763203|183311041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
91708890|NCT01763203|183311042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91708891|NCT01763203|183311044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91708892|NCT01763203|183311045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
91708893|NCT01763203|183311046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91708894|NCT01763203|183311047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
91708895|NCT01763203|183311048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
91708896|NCT01763203|183311049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
91708897|NCT01763203|183311050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
91708898|NCT01763203|183311051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
91708899|NCT01763203|183311052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0021
91708900|NCT01763203|183311053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91708901|NCT01763203|183311054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
91708902|NCT01763203|183311055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.77
91708903|NCT01763203|183311056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91708904|NCT01763203|183311057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91708905|NCT01763203|183311058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91708906|NCT01763203|183311059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
91708907|NCT01763203|183311060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91708908|NCT02256917|183311061|OTHER|Confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test.|ABR|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|5.79||A respective confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test was used to demonstrate if the mean ABR in patients with individually tailored prophylaxis is at least 50% below the mean ABR rate in the GENA-01 trial.|one-sided one-sample Poisson-test||A confidence interval of 97.5% for confirmative analysis was also used - the respective upper and lower limit CIs were 3.96-5.93|||5.79|4.06|
91708909|NCT02256917|183311061|OTHER|Reduction of the annualized total bleeding rate (ABR) observed in the GENA-01 study vs. GENA-21B analyzed with a Negative Binomial regression model including a correction for overdispersion.|Rate ratio|11.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|18.86|||Negative binomial regression model|||||18.86|7.50|<0.0001
91708910|NCT02256917|183311061|OTHER|Reduction of the annualized total bleeding rate (ABR) observed in the GENA-01 study vs. GENA-21B analyzed with a Poisson regression model including a correction for overdispersion.|Rate ratio|10.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|16.8|||Poisson regression model|||||16.80|6.12|<0.0001
91708911|NCT02256917|183311062|OTHER|A respective confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test was used to demonstrate if the mean spontaneous ABR in patients with individually tailored prophylaxis is at least 50% below the mean ABR rate in the GENA-01 trial.|ABR|3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|3.87|||One-sided one-sample Poisso|||||3.87|2.48|
91708912|NCT02256917|183311063|OTHER|A respective confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test was used to demonstrate if the mean ABR in patients with 2x/week prophylaxis or less with individually tailored prophylaxis is at least 50% below the mean ABR rate in the GENA-01 trial.|ABR|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|6.39|||One-sided one-sample Poisson-test||A confidence interval of 97.5% for confirmative analysis was also used - the respective upper and lower limit CIs were 3.76-6.60|||6.39|3.90|
91779606|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|63.6||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|111.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||111.7|15.6|0.0098
91779607|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.4||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|87.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||87.4|-8.7|0.1078
91708913|NCT01639703|183311082|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 5 units for Blood Volume|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.21|0.47|0.2476
91708914|NCT01639703|183311083|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 5 units for Blood Volume|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.66|0.77|0.5354
91708915|NCT01639703|183311084|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.3487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Blood Flow|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.13|0.71|0.3487
91779608|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|196.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|116.9|275.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||275.1|116.9|<0.0001
91779609|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.7|80.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||80.5|-77.7|0.9726
91779610|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|114.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|193.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||193.2|35.0|0.0050
91779611|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|83.3||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|162.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||162.4|4.2|0.0392
91779612|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.7||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|147.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||147.8|-10.4|0.0883
91779613|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|143.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||143.5|-14.7|0.1100
91840160|NCT03560258|183560361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in additional number of CEs with a CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.678
91840161|NCT03560258|183560361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.037
91708916|NCT01639703|183311085|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Blood Flow|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.29|0.90|0.4195
91708917|NCT01639703|183311086|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.54|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Permeability Surface|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.54|0.53|0.7127
91708918|NCT01639703|183311087|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.31|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Permeability Surface|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||2.31|0.86|0.1753
91708919|NCT01753115|183311108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margin is 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of AUC|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|0.948||||||Analysis of Ciprofloxacin Area Under the Curve at Day 5 and Day 44.||0.948|0.831|
91708920|NCT01753115|183311108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margin is 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Cmax|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.852|1.046||||||Analysis of Cmax at Day 5 and Day 44||1.046|0.852|
91708921|NCT01753115|183311109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.67.|Ratio of GMT|1.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.787||||||||1.787|0.898|
91708922|NCT02081001|183311169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.75|0.74|0.23
91708923|NCT02081001|183311169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.28|0.69|0.52
91708924|NCT02081001|183311169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.25|0.59|0.49
91708925|NCT02081001|183311170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|0.88|0.23
91779614|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|242.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.6|347.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||347.2|138.6|<0.0001
91840162|NCT03560258|183560361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.100
91840163|NCT03560258|183560362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in change in the magnitude of CD4 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.303
91840164|NCT03560258|183560362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in change in the magnitude of CD4 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.457
91840165|NCT03560258|183560362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in change in the magnitude of CD4 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.678
91840166|NCT03560258|183560363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in change in the magnitude of CD8 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.755
91840167|NCT03560258|183560363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.867
91840168|NCT03560258|183560363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
91840169|NCT01460160|183560364|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|16.86||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|29.8||Superiority test versus AIEOP-BFM 2000|Chi-squared||Treatment difference (CA180372 - AIEOP-BFM 2000)|Difference in 3-year binomial EFS rate in all treated participants (dasatinib plus chemotherapy) vs. chemotherapy alone in AIEOP-BFM 2000 historical control||29.8|3.9|0.032
91840170|NCT01460160|183560364|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 5%. One-sided type I error rate of 0.05|Estimate of difference|6.91||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|17.2||Superiority test versus EsPhALL|Chi-squared||Treatment difference (CA180372 - EsPhALL) Test if lower confidence limit is above -5%|Difference in 3-year binomial EFS rate for all treated participants (dasatinib plus chemotherapy) vs. continuous imatinib plus chemotherapy in the Amended EsPhALL Trial Historical Control||17.2|-3.3|0.271
91840171|NCT01460160|183560364|SUPERIORITY|Difference in 3-year binomial EFS rate in all treated participants (dasatinib plus chemotherapy) vs. chemotherapy alone in COG AALL0031 historical control|Estimate of difference|-10.75||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.7|1.2|||Chi-squared||Treatment difference (CA180372 - COG AALL0031)|||1.2|-22.7|0.157
91840172|NCT01678820|183560393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.19||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.52|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.52|-0.14|0.267
91840173|NCT01678820|183560394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|9.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||9.3|-10.2|
91840174|NCT01678820|183560394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||5.8|-14.7|
91840175|NCT01678820|183560396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.28|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.28|-0.95|<0.001
91840176|NCT01678820|183560397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.7||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|20.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||20.6|-17.1|0.856
91840177|NCT01678820|183560397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-29.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-10.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-10.6|-47.9|0.002
91708926|NCT02081001|183311170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.65|1.01|0.09
91779615|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.0||||0.6906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.3|83.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.2|-125.3|0.6906
91647418|NCT01966107|183186580|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89|||Negative Binomial Regression model||||A rate ratio \<1 represents a favorable outcome for aclidinium bromide 400 μg.|0.89|0.48|0.006
91779616|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|118.7||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|223.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||223.0|14.5|0.0259
91779617|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.2||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|207.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||207.5|-1.1|0.0525
91779618|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.2||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|164.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||164.4|-44.1|0.2558
91779619|NCT01746901|183439341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|88.6||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|192.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||192.9|-15.7|0.0952
91779620|NCT01746901|183439342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.2|-3.3|0.0298
91779621|NCT01746901|183439342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.3|1.1|0.0008
91779622|NCT01746901|183439342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-2.0|0.6450
91779623|NCT01746901|183439342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.9|-0.2|0.0962
91779624|NCT01746901|183439342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.5|-2.6|0.1930
91840178|NCT01678820|183560398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-15.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-15.6|-35.6|<0.001
91840179|NCT01678820|183560398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|5.3||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|15.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||15.2|-4.5|0.286
91840180|NCT01678820|183560399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-12.0|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-12.0|-24.2|<0.001
91708927|NCT02081001|183311170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|1.11|0.02
91708928|NCT02081001|183311171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.97|0.15
91708929|NCT02081001|183311171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.90|0.24
91708930|NCT02081001|183311171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.60|0.31
91708931|NCT02081001|183311172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.39|1.01|0.09
91708932|NCT02081001|183311172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.29|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|0.93|0.29
91708933|NCT02081001|183311172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|0.96|0.24
91708934|NCT02081001|183311173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.38|0.60|0.70
91708935|NCT02081001|183311173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.68|0.94|0.19
91708936|NCT02081001|183311173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estmate ratio|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.98|1.07|0.052
91708937|NCT02081001|183311174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|4.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.66|0.87|0.16
91708938|NCT02081001|183311174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.48|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.54|0.68|0.48
91708939|NCT02081001|183311174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.57|0.28
91708940|NCT02081001|183311175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.30|0.87|0.61
91708941|NCT02081001|183311175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|0.94|0.22
91708942|NCT02081001|183311175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|0.66|0.26
91708943|NCT02081001|183311176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.46|0.96|0.19
91708944|NCT02081001|183311176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.95|0.21
91708945|NCT02081001|183311176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|0.97|0.19
91708946|NCT02081001|183311177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|-17.1|0.24
91779625|NCT01746901|183439342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|0.2|0.0310
91779626|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|49.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||49.0|33.9|<0.0001
91779627|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.9|-4.2|0.3763
91779628|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.8|10.7|<0.0001
91779629|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.1|19.1|<0.0001
91840181|NCT01678820|183560399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||6.0|-6.0|0.990
91840182|NCT01678820|183560400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-12.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-12.2|-28.3|<0.001
91840183|NCT01678820|183560400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|2.9||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|10.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||10.7|-5.0|0.469
91840184|NCT01678820|183560401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-16.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-16.3|-32.6|<0.001
91779630|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.2|13.1|<0.0001
91779631|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||26.8|11.8|<0.0001
91779632|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|284.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|232.9|335.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||335.8|232.9|<0.0001
91840185|NCT01678820|183560401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.3||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||8.3|-7.7|0.937
91840186|NCT01678820|183560402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated means|-15.5||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|1.2|||Robust regression|Using M-estimation with treatment, region, and a covariate for baseline triglycerides (mg/dL). Missing data were imputed by multiple imputations.||||1.2|-32.2|0.068
91898384|NCT02175004|183692747|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|1.15||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Change From CS2 Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 78||1.15|-13.75|0.097
91779633|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.2||||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|82.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||82.8|-20.4|0.2336
91779634|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|167.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.7|218.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||218.9|115.7|<0.0001
91840187|NCT01678820|183560402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated means|-10.3||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|13.0|||Robust regression|Using M-estimation with treatment, region, and a covariate for baseline triglycerides (mg/dL). Missing data were imputed by multiple imputations.||||13.0|-33.6|0.365
91840188|NCT01678820|183560403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.5||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||5.8|-4.8|0.857
91708947|NCT02081001|183311177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.7|-30.1|0.0005
91779635|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|148.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.8|199.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||199.7|96.8|<0.0001
91779636|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.0|187.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||187.2|84.0|<0.0001
91779637|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|113.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|165.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||165.0|62.1|<0.0001
91779638|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|278.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.2|343.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||343.3|213.2|<0.0001
91779639|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|71.3||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|136.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||136.5|6.1|0.0322
91779640|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|195.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.2|260.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||260.5|130.2|<0.0001
91779641|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|154.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|219.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||219.3|89.2|<0.0001
91779642|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|143.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|208.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||208.4|78.0|<0.0001
91779643|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|126.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.7|191.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||191.8|61.7|0.0002
91779644|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|202.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|118.4|286.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||286.4|118.4|<0.0001
91779645|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|137.6||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|221.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||221.8|53.3|0.0015
91779646|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|192.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.7|277.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||277.2|108.7|<0.0001
91779647|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|147.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|231.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||231.1|63.0|0.0007
91779648|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|148.1||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.9|232.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||232.4|63.9|0.0007
91779649|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|109.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|193.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||193.6|25.5|0.0110
91779650|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|196.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.4|284.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||284.6|107.4|<0.0001
91779651|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|133.9||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|222.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||222.8|45.0|0.0034
91779652|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|190.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.1|279.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||279.8|102.1|<0.0001
91898385|NCT02175004|183692747|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.89||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.88|1.11||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the Norfolk QoL-DN Physical Functioning/Large Fiber Neuropathy Domain Score at Week 156||1.11|-18.88|0.081
91779653|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|138.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|227.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||227.6|50.3|0.0023
91779654|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|147.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|236.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||236.7|59.0|0.0013
91779655|NCT01746901|183439343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|100.0||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|188.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||188.6|11.3|0.0273
91779656|NCT01746901|183439344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.8|-5.0|<0.0001
91708948|NCT02081001|183311177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.6|-34.0|<0.0001
91708949|NCT02081001|183311178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-5.1|0.22
91708950|NCT02081001|183311178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-4.0|0.58
91708951|NCT02081001|183311178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-6.7|0.03
91708952|NCT02937636|183311179|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.07|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment, gender, smoking status and baseline MGI stratification as factors and baseline as covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.07|-0.12|<.0001
91708953|NCT04208412|183311185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||||||0.0010
91708954|NCT04208412|183311186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Prescott's Test|||||||0.0045
91708955|NCT04208412|183311187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||"Gehan's Generalized Wilcoxon Test:~600 mg KVD900 vs Placebo"||||<0.0001
91708956|NCT04208412|183311188|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||||||<0.0001
91708957|NCT04208412|183311189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||||||<0.0001
91708958|NCT00795769|183311209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||18% n=9 of the patients vomited compared to the FHCRC historic rate of 28%. p=0.03. PMID: 21372706 reference for historical data at FHCRC.||||0.03
91647419|NCT01966107|183186582|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimate of the hazard ratio and its 95% CI for comparing aclidinium bromide 400 μg versus placebo were derived using the Cox proportional hazard model. A hazard ratio \<1 represents a favorable outcome for aclidinium bromide 400 μg.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.23||||||Composite MACE||1.23|0.64|
91647420|NCT02200614|183186583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.413|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.5|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.500|0.341|<0.000001
91647421|NCT02200614|183186584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.706||||0.04521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|0.994|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.994|0.501|0.045210
91647422|NCT02200614|183186585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.785|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.785|0.533|0.000008
91647423|NCT02200614|183186586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.433|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.595|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.595|0.314|<0.000001
91647424|NCT02200614|183186587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.428||||0.011262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.842|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.842|0.218|0.011262
91647425|NCT02200614|183186588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.685||||0.003048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.881|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.881|0.533|0.003048
91647426|NCT02200614|183186589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.785|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.785|0.533|0.000008
91708959|NCT00795769|183311209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Twelve patients (24%) had a greater than two-point increase in MAT score for nausea from baseline by the end of their infusion. That rate compares to the FHCRC historic rate of 58% (p \<0.0001). PMID: 21372706 reference for historical data at FHCRC||||<0.0001
91647427|NCT02200614|183186590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.579||||4.4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.755|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.755|0.444|0.000044
91779657|NCT01746901|183439344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.4|1.3|0.0004
91779658|NCT01746901|183439344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.8478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-1.7|0.8478
91647428|NCT02200614|183186591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484||||0.005294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|0.815|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.815|0.287|0.005294
91647429|NCT00759759|183186638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|90.46||||||90.0|82.9|98.7|||ANOVA|||ANOVA of ln-transformed plasma morphine Cmax||98.7|82.9|
91708960|NCT00435188|183311211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus p value for group difference between groups at the end of the study and group by time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91708961|NCT00435188|183311214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value reporting overall differences between groups for group and group by time interaction with two degrees of freedom||||0.47
91708962|NCT00435188|183311217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value for overall difference between groups at the end of the study and group by time interaction on two degrees of freedom||||0.04
91708963|NCT00435188|183311218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value provides the overall differences between groups at the end of the study||||<0.001
91779659|NCT01746901|183439344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-1.9|0.6192
91779660|NCT01746901|183439344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-1.7|0.8857
91779661|NCT01746901|183439344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.0|-2.1|0.5092
91779662|NCT03594110|183439357|SUPERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.~Two-sided significance level of \<0.0017 required at interim analysis."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.83|0.59|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression or CV death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.89|0.59|<0.0001
91779663|NCT03594110|183439358|SUPERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.~Two-sided significance level of \<0.0145 required at interim analysis."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|98.55|0.63|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||1.12|0.63|0.1363
91779664|NCT03594110|183439359|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin. Two-sided significance level of \<0.0097 required at interim analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|99.03|0.76|0.98|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to occurrences of all-cause hospitalizations (first and recurrent combined). HR based on an analysis of recurrent events accounting for terminal events using a joint frailty model with terms for age, log(local screening UACR), local screening Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), treatment, sex, screening diabetes status, region.||0.98|0.76|0.0022
91779665|NCT03594110|183439360|SUPERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.~Two-sided significance level of \<0.0290 required at interim analysis."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2122|TWO_SIDED|97.1|0.68|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to death from any cause. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||1.11|0.68|0.2122
91779666|NCT03594110|183439361|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.81|0.62|<0.0001
91779667|NCT03594110|183439362|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to cardiovascular death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||1.17|0.59|0.2932
91779668|NCT03594110|183439363|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence cardiovascular death or end stage kidney disease (ESKD). HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.89|0.59|0.0017
91779669|NCT03594110|183439364|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression or CV death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.87|0.72|
91779670|NCT03594110|183439365|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.87|0.72|
91779671|NCT03594110|183439366|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of death from any cause or ESKD. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.90|0.72|
91840189|NCT01678820|183560403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.4||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||5.6|-4.8|0.879
91840190|NCT01678820|183560404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-30.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-9.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-9.7|-51.0|0.004
91779672|NCT03594110|183439367|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.87|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of ESKD. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.87|0.64|
91779673|NCT03594110|183439368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||\[Comparator\] - \[Placebo\]|A mixed model of repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening eGFR, local screening UACR, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.11|-0.38|< 0.001
91779674|NCT03594110|183439369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|17.0|||Regression, Linear||\[Comparator\]-\[Placebo\]|Differences in MRI measurements between treatment groups were assessed using a linear regression with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening eGFR, local screening UACR was used in the analysis.||17|-42|0.41
91779675|NCT02177032|183439377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at day 50 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0|||Fisher Exact|||||0|-2.4|
91779676|NCT02177032|183439378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667."|Vaccine Group Ratios|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.58|||ANOVA|||||0.58|0.37|
91779677|NCT02177032|183439379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 8)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||ANOVA|||||1.29|0.84|
91779678|NCT02177032|183439379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 15)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.1|||ANOVA|||||2.1|1.35|
91779679|NCT02177032|183439379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 91)."|Vaccine Group Ratios|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.85|||ANOVA|||||0.85|0.54|
91779680|NCT02177032|183439379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 181)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.59|||ANOVA|||||1.59|0.94|
91779681|NCT02177032|183439379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 366)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.19|||ANOVA|||||2.19|1.27|
91779682|NCT02177032|183439380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 8 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|13.9|||Fisher Exact|||||13.9|3.8|
91779683|NCT02177032|183439380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 15 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.6|-1|
91779684|NCT02177032|183439380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 91 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.4|||Fisher Exact|||||-1.4|-6|
91779685|NCT02177032|183439380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 181 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.2|||Fisher Exact|||||3.2|-4.5|
91840191|NCT01678820|183560404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-15.3||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|5.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||5.1|-35.8|0.141
91840192|NCT01678820|183560405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|12.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. Missing data were imputed by multiple impuattions.|||12.9|-12.2|
91840193|NCT01678820|183560405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|24.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. Missing data were imputed by multiple imputations.|||24.0|0.7|
91840194|NCT02761629|183560432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|12.7||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|26.6|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% confidence interval was from the binomial distribution for response rate.|||26.6|-0.01|0.0536
91840195|NCT02761629|183560435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0175|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0175
91779686|NCT02177032|183439380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 366 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.5|||Fisher Exact|||||11.5|1.3|
91779687|NCT02177032|183439381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 8 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-1.0|||Fisher Exact|||||-1|-19.6|
91647430|NCT00759759|183186640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA performed on the ratio of geometric means|mean ratio|101.1||||||90.0|96.9|105.4|||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of ln-transformed plasma morphine AUClast||105.4|96.9|
91708964|NCT00435188|183311221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value provides the overall difference between groups at the end of the study||||0.29
91708965|NCT00435188|183311224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P value provides overall differences between groups at the end of the study||||0.35
91708966|NCT00435188|183311227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P value provides the overall differences between groups at the end of the study||||0.08
91708967|NCT01420016|183311234|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis used a time-by-condition mixed model to estimate the annual rate of change in post-index CV risk values by treatment group. The models included fixed effects for study arm (CDS vs. UC), time (years since index), and study-arm-by-time comparing the rate of change in CDS versus UC and a random clinic intercept. The intervention effect was the difference in rate of change in CDS versus UC clinics, with the study-arm-by-time interaction assessing statistical significance (P\<0.05).|Slope Difference (Net)|-2.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.04||A priori power analysis (power=.80, α2=.05) estimated detectable group difference in CVR at 1 year of \~2-3%, assuming 18 clinics, 1000 patients per clinic (actual 400), 3 CVR per patient (actual 2.3), and ICC=.01-03 (actual .019). p-value calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis||The intervention effect was the difference in annualized rates of change (slope) in CV risk in CDS versus UC clinics, with the study-arm-by-time interaction assessing statistical significance (P\<0.05).|||-1.04|-3.45|<0.05
91708968|NCT01454414|183311235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Protective effectiveness= 1 - rate ratio|0.646||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.824|||Poisson regression|||Protective effectiveness (1 - the incidence rate ratio) and 95% CIs for comparing reported tick bites between the treatment and control groups were calculated using a GEE model with a Poisson distribution and log link, and included terms for treatment, year of follow-up, and the interaction of treatment and year of follow-up, with an offset variable for log outdoor work hours.||0.824|0.288|0.004
91708969|NCT02774005|183311237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.286||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.352|3.884|||Wald Chi-square|||||3.884|1.352|0.0021
91708970|NCT02774005|183311238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|2.918|||Waldi-Chi-Square|||||2.918|0.929|0.0873
91708971|NCT02774005|183311239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.323||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.339|25.912|||Waldi-Chi-Square|||||25.912|2.339|0.0005
91708972|NCT03275389|183311282|EQUIVALENCE|The use of the adjuvant (AS03) is to be considered justified if the lower limit of the 94.46% CI of the GMC ratio (adjuvanted vs non-adjuvanted) is \> 1.50|GMC ratio|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|94.46|2.06|2.95|||Dunnett's t test|Comparison performed using a 2-sided alpha=0.1 and Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons,||To evaluate the adjuvant effect of AS03 (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 1, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 2 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 3) on the humoral immune response for anti-H1 stalk antibody by ELISA at Day 29 and Day 85 (i.e. 28 days post-vaccination) when compared to the non-adjuvanted formulations (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 1, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 2 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 3).||2.95|2.06|
91708973|NCT03275389|183311282|EQUIVALENCE|The use of the adjuvant (AS01) is to be considered justified if the lower limit of the 94.46% CI of the GMC ratio (adjuvanted vs non-adjuvanted) is \> 1.50|GMC ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|94.46|1.46|2.1|||Dunnett's t test|Comparison performed using a 2-sided alpha=0.1 and Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons,||To evaluate the adjuvant effect of AS01 (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 4, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 5 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 6) on the humoral immune response for anti-H1 stalk antibody by ELISA at Day 29 and Day 85 (i.e. 28 days post-vaccination) when compared to the non-adjuvanted formulations (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 1, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 2 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 3).||2.1|1.46|
91708974|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.6797||95.0|-0.83|1.22|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 0.5 hours post-dose.||1.22|-0.83|0.6797
91708975|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.4811||95.0|-1.54|0.77|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 1 hour post-dose.||0.77|-1.54|0.4811
91708976|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.1693||95.0|-1.67|0.33|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 2 hours post-dose.||0.33|-1.67|0.1693
91708977|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.4034||95.0|-1.78|0.87|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline) , Day 1: 3 hours post-dose.||0.87|-1.78|0.4034
91708978|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||0.1935||95.0|-2.36|0.5|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 4 hours post-dose.||0.50|-2.36|0.1935
91779688|NCT02177032|183439381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 15 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.6|||Fisher Exact|||||2.6|-5.6|
91779689|NCT02177032|183439381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 91 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-7.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-7.1|-26|
91779690|NCT02177032|183439381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 181 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-7.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-7.1|-29|
91898386|NCT02175004|183692747|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.87||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|5.16||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Physical Functioning/Large Fiber Neuropathy Domain Score at Week 52 of Year 4||5.16|-28.89|0.171
91898387|NCT02977988|183692770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||150 day period was selected for this outcome for a conceptual reason; that being, residential treatment average length of stay||||<0.05
91898388|NCT02977988|183692771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Negative Binomial Hurdle Model|||||||<0.05
91779691|NCT02177032|183439381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 366 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-13.2|||Fisher Exact|||||-13.2|-37.8|
91647431|NCT00759759|183186641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.3||||||90.0|96.2|106.7|||ANOVA|||||106.7|96.2|
91779692|NCT01598532|183439391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for the effect of LED treatments||||<0.004
91779693|NCT01598532|183439392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for the effect of LED treatments||||<0.003
91779694|NCT01598532|183439393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for effect of LED treatments||||<0.003
91779695|NCT01598532|183439394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for the effects of LED treatments||||<0.006
91779696|NCT00912808|183439397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Means and standard deviations were calculated to describe the subject baseline characteristics. Paired t-tests evaluated the difference between baseline and end of treatment frequency of falls. Changes post-treatment from baseline in secondary measures were also compared between the donepezil and placebo phases with paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests when data was nonparametric. SPSS was used for the analysis.||||0.049
91779697|NCT00912808|183439398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Means and standard deviations were calculated to describe the subject baseline characteristics. Paired t-tests evaluated the difference between baseline and end of treatment frequency of falls. Changes post-treatment from baseline in secondary measures were also compared between the donepezil and placebo phases with paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests when data was nonparametric. SPSS was used for the analysis.||||0.27
91647432|NCT01556165|183186654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|75.0|-4.53|-1.47||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|||This study was designed to show a trend, that is, to show a clinical difference in the primary efficacy analysis, at a two-sided significance level of 0.25. Assuming a difference between rasagiline and placebo of a 3-point change in the UPDRS total score and a standard deviation on the change from baseline of 7 points, a sample size of 60 patients per treatment group gave an 88% probability of showing a trend. LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||-1.47|-4.53|0.0254
91779698|NCT01967940|183439449|SUPERIORITY|Enrollment into this study was stopped early due to the challenge of recruiting a sufficient number of participants who met the eligibility criteria. The actual number of enrolled is 55, among them 43 enrolled in the Randomized Cohort. Based on the actual enrollment numbers, the power to detect a 35% difference drops to 51%, under the same assumptions in the original sample size calculations.|Difference in proportions|60.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.6|78.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval was estimated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic.|A sample size of 90 participants, randomized in a 2:1 ratio, achieves 89% power to detect a 35% difference in the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA decreases from baseline exceeding 0.5 log10 between the TAF and placebo arms at Day 10. Sample size and power computation was based on the assumption that 50% of participants in the TAF arm and 15% of participants in the placebo arm achieved a reduction exceeding 0.5 log10 HIV-1 RNA.||78.8|42.6|<0.001
91898389|NCT02977988|183692772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91898390|NCT05630001|183692810|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority and primary objective was considered met if the lower bound of the estimated two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -1 g/dL.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91779699|NCT05567783|183439475|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|15.85||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.27|52.56||two-sided, alpha=0.05|Poisson regression|Estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model|RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group was the only factor in the model|||52.56|-49.27|0.5552
91779700|NCT05567783|183439475|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|3.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.23|44.63|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95% CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||44.63|-67.23|
91779701|NCT05567783|183439483|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|57.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|82.15|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95%CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||82.15|-2.51|
91779702|NCT05567783|183439483|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|11.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.25|55.51|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95% CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||55.51|-76.25|
91779703|NCT05567783|183439484|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|44.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.49|79.26|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95%CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||79.26|-50.49|
91779704|NCT05567783|183439484|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-147.41|51.27|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95% CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||51.27|-147.41|
91779705|NCT00940771|183439493|OTHER|Friedman's Test|Chi Square|12.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman's Test|3 degrees of freedom.||||||.006
91779706|NCT00940771|183439493|OTHER|Post Hoc testing Post hoc Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|Z=-2.701||Nul lHypothesis that there is no difference between specific time points.||||.007
91779707|NCT00940771|183439494|OTHER|Friedman's test with 3 df||||||0.356|||||||Friedman's Test|3 degrees of freedom||||||.356
91779708|NCT00940771|183439495|OTHER||Chi-square|1.0||||0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman's test|3 degrees of freedom|1.0 is the actual calculated Chi-X value, not the p value.|The null hypothesis was that there was a difference. We were looking for no difference between before and after switch.||||.801
91898391|NCT05630001|183692811|SUPERIORITY|Superiority and the key secondary objective was considered met if the lower bound of the estimated two-sided 95% CI was \> 0 g/dL.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91779709|NCT00940771|183439496|OTHER|Friedman's test||||||0.075||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05|Friedman's test|3 degrees of freedom||||||.075
91779710|NCT02593006|183439498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|23.8|||Propensity weighted regression model|||||23.8|-3.2|>0.05
91779711|NCT02593006|183439499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Global test of interaction between time and treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91779712|NCT02072668|183439521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6281|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.6281
91779713|NCT02072668|183439522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7973|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.7973
91779714|NCT02072668|183439523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4442|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.4442
91779715|NCT02072668|183439524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2545|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.2545
91779716|NCT02072668|183439530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4374|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.4374
91779717|NCT02072668|183439531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.3470
91779718|NCT02072668|183439532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0755|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.0755
91779719|NCT02072668|183439534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0708|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.0708
91779720|NCT02072668|183439535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4501|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.4501
91779721|NCT02072668|183439536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0767|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.0767
91779722|NCT02072668|183439537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.725|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.7250
91779723|NCT01353898|183439539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62|||||||||||||Geometric mean ratio of HIV-1/Healthy. Analyzed using a linear mixed model with fixed factors: dose, health-status and the interaction between dose and health-status.|Compared to historical data for AUC0-24hrs measured on Day 7 for healthy participants treated with 200 mg MK-1972 once daily||||
91779724|NCT01353898|183439539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||||||||||Geometric mean ratio of HIV-1/Healthy. Analyzed using a linear mixed model with fixed factors: dose, health-status and the interaction between dose and health-status.|Compared to historical data for AUC0-24hrs measured on Day 7 for healthy participants treated with 800 mg MK-1972 once daily||||
91779725|NCT01353898|183439540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||||||||||||||||
91779726|NCT01353898|183439540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||||||||||||||||
91779727|NCT01353898|183439540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||||||||||||||||
91779728|NCT01353898|183439540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||||||||||||||||
91779729|NCT01353898|183439540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||||||||||||||||
91898392|NCT03946670|183692829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by the randomization stratification factor IPSS-R category||||||0.769
91779730|NCT04322526|183439555|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in BOLD signal in the rACC during the processing of contextual cues (pleasant \> unpleasant).||||0.01
91779731|NCT04322526|183439556|OTHER|Mechanistic hypothesis: naltrexone will block contextual processing.||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in BOLD fMRI signal from the Placebo vs. the Naltrexone session.||||0.0002
91779732|NCT02453321|183439616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.355
91779733|NCT02453321|183439617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.065
91779734|NCT02230670|183439622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0817||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.023|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value.||0.023|-0.302|0.091
91779735|NCT02230670|183439622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.01|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value, baseline MELD score, and etiology. The significance was assessed using Type II Sums of Squares from this ANCOVA model.||0.01|-0.41|0.041
91779736|NCT02230670|183439623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value.||0.42|-0.91|0.466
91647433|NCT01556165|183186655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.21|||ANCOVA|The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||-0.21|-1.03|0.0032
91647434|NCT01556165|183186656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.35|||ANCOVA|The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||0.35|-1.70|0.1963
91647435|NCT01556165|183186657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.1|||ANCOVA|The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||0.10|-3.52|0.0641
91779737|NCT02230670|183439623|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.77|||ANCOVA|calculated from the estimated least square means for the treatment by BL MELD category interaction term.||BL MELD \>= 15 subgroup results (N=19), as analyzed from the adjusted analysis ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value, baseline MELD score, and etiology.||-0.77|-3.61|0.003
91779738|NCT02230670|183439623|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.17|||ANCOVA|calculated from the estimated least square means for the treatment by etiology interaction term.||NASH Etiology subgroup results (N=20), as analyzed from the adjusted analysis ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value, baseline MELD score, and etiology.||-0.17|-3.09|0.029
91779739|NCT01907854|183439629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Superiority of liraglutide over sitagliptin was concluded if the 95% Confidence Interval for the treatment difference was entirely below 0%.||Changes in HbA1c from baseline to the 26 weeks measurements were analysed using MMRM, with treatment, baseline HbA1c level (≤8.5% and \>8.5%), metformin dose (\<1500 mg/day and ≥1500 mg/day), the interaction between baseline HbA1c level and metformin dose, and country as factors and the HbA1c value at baseline as a covariate, all variables nested within week as a factor.||-0.40|-0.82|<0.0001
91779740|NCT01907854|183439630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Superiority of liraglutide over sitagliptin was concluded if the 95% Confidence Interval for the treatment difference was entirely below 0%.||Change in body weight from baseline to the 26 weeks measurements was analysed using MMRM, with treatment, baseline HbA1c level (≤8.5% and \>8.5%), metformin dose (\<1500 mg/day and ≥1500 mg/day), the interaction between baseline HbA1c level and metformin dose, and country as factors and the body weight at baseline as a covariate and all variables nested within week as a factor.||-0.99|-2.34|<0.0001
91779741|NCT02106390|183439636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.1|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||"H44/76- The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the H44/76 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination."||1.10|0.71|
91779742|NCT02106390|183439636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.45|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||5/99-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the 5/99 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.45|0.74|
91840196|NCT06173570|183560464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.61|-26.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-26.93|-43.61|< 0.001
91898393|NCT03946670|183692830|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.749||||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.479|1.173|||Log Rank|stratified by the randomization stratification factor IPSS-R category||||1.173|0.479|0.1022
91779743|NCT02106390|183439636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||NZ98/254-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the NZ98/254 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.25|0.82|
91779744|NCT02106390|183439636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||M10713-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the M10713 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.40|0.77|
91779745|NCT02106390|183439637|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|3.11|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup A-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for serogroup A at one month after the fourth vaccination.||3.11|1.97|
91779746|NCT02106390|183439637|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.38|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup C-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for the serogroup C at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.38|0.83|
91779747|NCT02106390|183439637|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.74|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup W-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for the serogroup W-135 at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.74|1.04|
91779748|NCT02106390|183439637|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup Y-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for the serogroup Y at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.35|0.82|
91779749|NCT02504151|183439687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models was used with treatment, time and time\*treatment interaction in the model.|This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||1.71|-2.28|0.08
91779750|NCT02504151|183439688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||0.07|-0.12|0.48
91779751|NCT02504151|183439689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||-0.06|-9.87|0.485
91708979|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.0694||95.0|-2.83|0.12|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 5 hours post-dose.||0.12|-2.83|0.0694
91708980|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.713||0.0396||95.0|-3.02|-0.08|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 6 hours post-dose.||-0.08|-3.02|0.0396
91779752|NCT02504151|183439690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||8.19|0.07|0.994
91898394|NCT03946670|183692831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.212|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.212|0.521|
91898395|NCT03946670|183692832|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.205|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per Interactive Response Technology (IRT)|||1.205|0.542|
91708981|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.1531||95.0|-1.25|0.24|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 8 hours post-dose.||0.24|-1.25|0.1531
91779753|NCT00538902|183439691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.026||95.0|1.09|4.39||Each comparison was tested at the 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Subjects with missing data were imputed to be non-responders. The overall type I error rate was preserved by a hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A sample size of 42 subjects in the placebo group and 84 subjects in each of the adalimumab groups was needed to achieve 98% power to detect that the ACR20 response rate in the 80 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo and to achieve 84% power to detect that the 40 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo.||4.39|1.09|0.026
91840197|NCT06173570|183560464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.31|-29.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-29.51|-46.31|< 0.001
91840198|NCT06173570|183560464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.47|-36.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-36.86|-53.47|< 0.001
91840199|NCT06173570|183560464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.03|-42.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-42.37|-59.03|< 0.001
91840200|NCT06173570|183560465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.34|-25.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-25.37|-42.34|< 0.001
91898396|NCT03946670|183692833|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|1.343|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.343|0.589|
91779754|NCT00538902|183439691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.004||95.0|1.35|5.3||Each comparison was tested at the 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Subjects with missing data were imputed to be non-responders. The overall type I error rate was preserved by a hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A sample size of 42 subjects in the placebo group and 84 subjects in each of the adalimumab groups was needed to achieve 98% power to detect that the ACR20 response rate in the 80 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo and to achieve 84% power to detect that the 40 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo.||5.30|1.35|0.004
91779755|NCT00538902|183439692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The between-treatment comparison between each adalimumab group vs. placebo was performed at the 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level, without using a stepwise testing procedure or alpha adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Percentage ACR responders at Week 12 were compared between adalimumab and placebo groups, where missing ACR responses were imputed as non-responder.||||||0.009
91840201|NCT06173570|183560465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-28.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-28.17|-45.30|< 0.001
91840202|NCT06173570|183560465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-43.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.31|-35.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-35.41|-52.31|< 0.001
91840203|NCT06173570|183560465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.35|-41.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-41.25|-58.35|< 0.001
91840204|NCT06173570|183560466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|-16.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-16.18|-26.27|< 0.001
91840205|NCT06173570|183560466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.48|-17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-17.30|-27.48|< 0.001
91840206|NCT06173570|183560466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.16|-22.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-22.11|-32.16|< 0.001
91840207|NCT06173570|183560466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-24.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-24.31|-34.40|< 0.001
91708982|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637||0.0951||95.0|-2.79|0.29|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 10 hours post-dose.||0.29|-2.79|0.0951
91708983|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615||0.0614||95.0|-2.84|0.09|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 12 hours post-dose.||0.09|-2.84|0.0614
91779756|NCT00538902|183439692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.121
91779757|NCT02148874|183439714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H1N1.||1.73|0.64|0.84
91840208|NCT06173570|183560467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.53||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||0.81|-7.87|0.111
91840209|NCT06173570|183560467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.74|-3.98|0.864
91898397|NCT03946670|183692834|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.440|0.570|
91898398|NCT03946670|183692836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.838|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.838|0.240|
91898399|NCT03946670|183692837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|2.601|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||2.601|0.588|
91647436|NCT02395536|183186719|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 5% was chosen since the inability to rule out a 5% increase in untoward event rate associated with moving the Reveal LINQ procedure in-office may suggest that in-office procedures would too high of a complication rate compared procedures performed in the traditional office setting.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.029||P-value for non-inferiority versus a 5% non-inferiority margin.|Farrington-Manning test||The estimated value and its associated confidence interval are for the in-office minus traditional hospital setting difference in the untoward event rates. The point estimate is negative since the in-office rate was lower than the hospital rate.|The null hypothesis was that Reveal LINQ insertions performed in-office would have a higher untoward event rate than insertions performed in the traditional hospital setting. A sample size of 476 subjects was estimated to provide at least 90% power at a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5% and 5% non-inferiority margin. For the sample size calculation, an event rate of 2.0% was assumed in both arms. The Farrington-Manning test of two indepent proportions was used to compare study arms.||0.029|-0.030|<0.001
91708984|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.619||0.1946||95.0|-2.29|0.54|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: pre-dose.||0.54|-2.29|0.1946
91779758|NCT02148874|183439714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H3N2||1.75|0.65|0.79
91779759|NCT02148874|183439714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/ N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Massachusetts||2.24|0.71|0.43
91779760|NCT02148874|183439714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.87|||Regression, Logistic||Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/ N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Brisbane||1.87|0.63|0.77
91779761|NCT02148874|183439715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H1N1||2.32|0.84|0.20
91779762|NCT02148874|183439715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H3N2||1.80|0.66|0.74
91779763|NCT02148874|183439715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.44|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Massachusetts||3.44|1.04|0.04
91779764|NCT02148874|183439715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Brisbane||3.04|0.87|0.13
91779765|NCT02148874|183439716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H1N1||1.48|0.53|0.64
91779766|NCT02148874|183439716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H3N2||1.50|0.53|0.67
91779767|NCT02148874|183439716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Massachusetts||2.46|0.88|0.14
91779768|NCT02148874|183439716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Brisbane||1.24|0.44|0.25
91779769|NCT01782378|183439717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.01
91779770|NCT01782378|183439718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||0.88
91779771|NCT01782378|183439719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||0.81
91647437|NCT04876482|183186745|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"We hypothesized that the improvements in the AHI would be higher in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).~."||||<0.05
91647438|NCT04876482|183186746|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the upper airway volume would be higher in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91647439|NCT04876482|183186747|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the minimal area on the tip of epiglottis would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls)||||<0.05
91647440|NCT04876482|183186748|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the anteror to posterior distance on the tip of epiglottis would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91647441|NCT04876482|183186749|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the lateral distance on the tip of epiglottis would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91647442|NCT04876482|183186750|OTHER|Baseline characteristics among the study groups were compared using Fisher exact test for categorical variables. McNemar chi-square test used for within-group analysis.|Number and percentage|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that TORS followed by OPR would improve upper airway obstruction more compared with TORS alone and conservative treatment (control).||||<0.05
91708985|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553||0.2843||95.0|-2.2|0.84|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 0.5 hours post-dose.||0.84|-2.20|0.2843
91708986|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.215||95.0|-2.75|0.65|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 1 hour post-dose.||0.65|-2.75|0.2150
91779772|NCT01782378|183439720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||0.23
91779773|NCT01782378|183439721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.12
91779774|NCT01782378|183439722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.52
91779775|NCT01782378|183439723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51|<|0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.27
91779776|NCT01782378|183439724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.37
91779777|NCT01782378|183439725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.36
91779778|NCT01782378|183439726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.46
91898400|NCT02604199|183692902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.011||Mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit.|MMRM|Within-subject covariance is unstructured.||||0.011|-0.183|0.0810
91779779|NCT01782378|183439727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.84
91779780|NCT01782378|183439728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.93
91779781|NCT01782378|183439729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.85
91779782|NCT01782378|183439730|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.54|<|0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results that were considered credible.||||||<0.26
91779783|NCT01782378|183439731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.45
91779784|NCT01782378|183439732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.46
91779785|NCT01782378|183439733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.64
91779786|NCT01782378|183439734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.82
91779787|NCT01782378|183439735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.43
91779788|NCT01782378|183439736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.15
91779789|NCT01782378|183439737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||.08
91779790|NCT01782378|183439738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.7
91779791|NCT01782378|183439739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.48
91779792|NCT01782378|183439740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.02
91779793|NCT01782378|183439741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.36
91779794|NCT01782378|183439742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.82
91779795|NCT01782378|183439743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.2
91779796|NCT01782378|183439744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.71
91779797|NCT01782378|183439745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.85
91779798|NCT01782378|183439746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.44
91840210|NCT06173570|183560467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||2.63|-5.99|0.445
91779799|NCT00705016|183439747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.59||The Type I error was not taken into account, since the sample size calculation is based on selection theory.|Cox proportional hazards model|Stratification factor: Karnofsky performance status (KPS) \<80/\>=80||Sample size of 177 subjects was estimated such that the treatment group with the best PFS result had a 90% probability of emerging as the one with the smaller observed log Hazard ratio (HR), if there was an underlying difference of 2.2 months between the arms in the median PFS (7.8 months in the best group and 5.6 months in the other 2 groups). It was assumed that the accrual and follow-up time would take 1 year each, and that the drop-out rate was 8%.||1.59|0.67|0.885
91779800|NCT00705016|183439747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.43||The Type I error was not taken into account, since the sample size calculation is based on selection theory.|Cox proportional hazards model|Stratification factor: Karnofsky performance status (KPS) \<80/\>=80||Sample size of 177 subjects was estimated such that the treatment group with the best PFS result had a 90% probability of emerging as the one with the smaller observed log HR, if there was an underlying difference of 2.2 months between the arms in the median PFS (7.8 months in the best group and 5.6 months in the other 2 groups). It was assumed that the accrual and follow-up time would take 1 year each, and that the drop-out rate was 8%.||2.43|0.99|0.054
91779801|NCT00705016|183439748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.47||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.47|0.61|0.800
91779802|NCT00705016|183439748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.63|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.63|0.66|0.878
91779803|NCT00705016|183439749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.595||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|3.276||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.276|0.776|0.205
91779804|NCT00705016|183439749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.671||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|1.465||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.465|0.307|0.317
91779805|NCT00705016|183439750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.396||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|3.539||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.539|0.551|0.476
91779806|NCT00705016|183439750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.668||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|1.555||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.555|0.287|0.347
91779807|NCT00705016|183439751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.81||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.81|0.84|0.294
91779808|NCT00705016|183439751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.57||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.57|1.16|0.007
91779809|NCT00705016|183439752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.39||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.39|0.71|0.391
91779810|NCT00705016|183439752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.21||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||5.21|1.30|0.007
91779811|NCT02233517|183439754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.84
91779812|NCT02233517|183439754|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||<0.44
91779813|NCT02233517|183439754|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.33
91779814|NCT02233517|183439755|SUPERIORITY|Estimation parameter is interaction of session by therapy, or estimate of difference in mean between CBT and PCT per time point. Positive value is less decrease over time in CBT arm (greater decrease in anger over time in PCT).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel model of therapy type (1=CBT, 2=PCT), gender, and time on DAR scores, using data from baseline, 12 sessions, post-treatment, 3-month and 6-month follow up.||||0.26
91779815|NCT02233517|183439756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.90
91779816|NCT02233517|183439756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.85
91779817|NCT02233517|183439756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.79
91779818|NCT02233517|183439757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.002|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the comparison of change in means for cognitive-behavioral vs. present-centered therapy from baseline to post-treatment for the Extent of Participation scale.||-.002|-4.5|0.05
91779819|NCT02233517|183439757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the comparison of change in means for cognitive-behavioral vs. present-centered therapy from baseline to post-treatment for the Perceived Limitations scale.||1.08|-2.03|0.53
91647443|NCT04876482|183186751|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the jaw opening muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91647444|NCT04876482|183186752|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue protrusion muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91647445|NCT04876482|183186753|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue elevation muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91647446|NCT04876482|183186754|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue depression muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91647447|NCT04876482|183186755|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue lateralization muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91779820|NCT02233517|183439757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the comparison of change in means for cognitive-behavioral vs. present-centered therapy from baseline to post-treatment for the Satisfaction scale.||1.14|-2.30|0.50
91779821|NCT02233517|183439758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation parameter of 0.28 indicates that at each of the 16 time points, participants in the CBT arm had 0.28 point less of a decrease in disability than those in PCT arm.|Estimation parameter is interaction of session by therapy, or estimate of difference in mean between CBT and PCT per time point. Positive value is less decrease over time in CBT arm (greater decrease in anger over time in PCT).||||<0.0001
91779822|NCT02233517|183439759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.59
91647448|NCT02464059|183186764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|207.8||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.4|41.3||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||41.3|-172.4|0.21
91647449|NCT02464059|183186765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|5.91||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.91|-7.02|0.86
91779823|NCT02233517|183439759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.61
91779824|NCT02233517|183439759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.74
91779825|NCT02233517|183439760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.25
91779826|NCT02233517|183439760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.97
91779827|NCT02233517|183439760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.69
91779828|NCT02233517|183439761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.29
91779829|NCT02233517|183439761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.44
91779830|NCT02233517|183439761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.11
91779831|NCT02233517|183439762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is interaction of session by therapy, or estimate of difference in mean between CBT and PCT per time point. Positive value is less decrease over time in CBT arm (greater decrease in PTSD in PCT).|Multilevel model of therapy type (1=CBT, 2=PCT), gender, and time on PCL Total scores, using data from baseline, 12 sessions, post-treatment, 3-month and 6-month follow up.||||0.16
91779832|NCT02233517|183439763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.45
91779833|NCT02233517|183439763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.55
91779834|NCT02233517|183439763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.87
91779835|NCT02233517|183439764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment.|||||0.49
91779836|NCT02233517|183439764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.70
91779837|NCT02233517|183439764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.45
91779838|NCT00942604|183439765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91779839|NCT00942604|183439766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91779840|NCT04109547|183439774|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM|||||-1.3|-1.8|<0.0001
91779841|NCT04109547|183439774|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM|||||-1.2|-1.6|<0.0001
91779842|NCT04109547|183439774|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM|||||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
91779843|NCT00817843|183439856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.766||95.0|||||ANOVA|||"Between treatment difference in the change in FMD from the fasting to the post-fat load state.~Null hypothesis was that combination therapy (simvastatin/ezetimibe) would protect the FMD in the post-fat load phase and would therefore be associated with a smaller drop in FMD~Power calculation was based on the results from a pilot study. To detect a 1.0% difference between treatments with a SD of 2.7% and a power of 90% (alfa 0.05, two tailed) 80 evaluable patients were needed."||||0.766
91779844|NCT01499355|183439860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||||||P-Value from Cox proportional hazard model, including the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, rest of world \[ROW\]) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cox proportional hazard|||||||0.367
91779845|NCT01499355|183439860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||||||P-Value from Cox proportional hazard model, including the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cox proportional hazard|||||||0.283
91779846|NCT01499355|183439861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0486||||||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0486
91779847|NCT01499355|183439861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0668||||||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0668
91779848|NCT01499355|183439862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0628||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0081|0.4843||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4843|0.0081|0.0456
91779849|NCT01499355|183439862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4344||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0996|1.8941||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Regression, Logistic|||||1.8941|0.0996|0.5455
91779850|NCT01499355|183439862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0252
91779851|NCT01499355|183439862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2876|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2876
91779852|NCT01499355|183439865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.863
91779853|NCT01499355|183439865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.769
91779854|NCT01499355|183439865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.907
91779855|NCT01499355|183439865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.996
91779856|NCT02668653|183439866|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.979|||Log Rank|Stratification factors include region, age, and WBC count at the time of diagnosis of AML.||||0.979|0.615|0.0324
91779857|NCT00999102|183439893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.86|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Global Fatigue Score for Nebivolol 5 mg minus Mean Global Fatigue Score for Metoprolol 50 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the Global Fatigue Score after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 5 mg (lower dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 50 mg (lower dose).||2.86|-1.86|0.67
91779858|NCT00999102|183439893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|4.55|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Global Fatigue Score for Nebivolol 10 mg minus Mean Global Fatigue Score for Metoprolol 100 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the Global Fatigue Score after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 10 mg (higher dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 100 mg (higher dose).||4.55|-3.17|0.72
91779859|NCT00999102|183439894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.99|94.92|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Nebivolol 5 mg minus Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Metoprolol 50 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Treadmill Exercise Time after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 5 mg (lower dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 50 mg (lower dose).||94.92|-108.99|0.89
91840211|NCT06173570|183560467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||5.34|-3.32|0.648
91840212|NCT06173570|183560468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.97|4.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.96|-17.97|0.266
91779860|NCT00999102|183439894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.55|39.75|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Nebivolol 10 mg minus Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Metoprolol 100 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Treadmill Exercise Time after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 10 mg (higher dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 100 mg (higher dose).||39.75|-91.55|0.43
91779861|NCT01929317|183439907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from Baseline|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-3.2|-6.3|<0.001
91779862|NCT01929317|183439908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 2.|||2.0|-2.4|
91779863|NCT01929317|183439908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 4.|||3.1|-1.9|
91779864|NCT01929317|183439908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 6.|||3.0|-2.3|
91779865|NCT01929317|183439908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 8.|||2.0|-3.4|
91779866|NCT01929317|183439908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.9|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 12.|||3.9|-2.0|
91840213|NCT06173570|183560468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.67||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.84|-18.17|0.256
91840214|NCT06173570|183560468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.63||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||3.69|-18.95|0.186
91840215|NCT06173570|183560468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.44|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||1.43|-21.44|0.086
91840216|NCT06173570|183560469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.63|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-22.12|-38.63|< 0.001
91647450|NCT02499406|183186773|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=14||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 3-month assessment.||||>0.016
91840217|NCT06173570|183560469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.71|-25.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-25.08|-41.71|< 0.001
91779867|NCT01929317|183439910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 2.|||0.3|-0.2|
91779868|NCT01929317|183439910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 4.|||0.4|-0.2|
91779869|NCT01929317|183439910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 6.|||0.3|-0.4|
91779870|NCT01929317|183439910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 8.|||0.3|-0.3|
91779871|NCT01929317|183439910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 12.|||0.6|-0.2|
91779872|NCT01929317|183439911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 2, On status.|||0.1|-1.8|
91779873|NCT01929317|183439911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 4, On status.|||0.1|-2.4|
91779874|NCT01929317|183439911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 6, On status.|||0.3|-2.6|
91840218|NCT06173570|183560469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-30.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-30.43|-46.90|< 0.001
91647451|NCT02499406|183186774|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||p value was calculated and found to be below the a priori threshold for significance, which was adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=11||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 6-month assessment.||||<0.016
91647452|NCT02499406|183186775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=11||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 9-month assessment.||||<0.016
91779875|NCT01929317|183439911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 8, On status.|||0.3|-2.8|
91779876|NCT01929317|183439911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.7|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 12, On status.|||0.7|-2.7|
91779877|NCT01929317|183439911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 2, Off status.|||0.5|-1.8|
91779878|NCT01929317|183439911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.8|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 4, Off status.|||0.8|-2.6|
91779879|NCT01929317|183439911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 6, Off status.|||1.0|-2.8|
91779880|NCT01929317|183439911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 8, Off status.|||1.8|-2.1|
91647453|NCT02499406|183186776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired samples t test|df=14||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in paired samples between baseline and 3-month assessment||||<0.016
91647454|NCT02499406|183186777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired samples t test|df=10||Null hypothesis is no difference between baseline and this 6-month assessment.||||<0.016
91647455|NCT02499406|183186778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired samples t test|df=11||Null hypothesis is no difference between baseline and this 9-month assessment.||||<0.016
91647456|NCT02499406|183186779|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t test|df=14||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 3-month assessment.||||> 0.016
91647457|NCT02499406|183186780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=10||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 6-month assessment.||||=.016
91708987|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.9601||95.0|-0.44|0.42|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 2 hours post-dose.||0.42|-0.44|0.9601
91708988|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.867||95.0|-0.64|0.74|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline), Day 8: 3 hours post-dose.||0.74|-0.64|0.8670
91840219|NCT06173570|183560469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.43|-36.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-36.94|-53.43|< 0.001
91840220|NCT06173570|183560470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.06||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.84|-16.96|0.276
91840221|NCT06173570|183560470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.08|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||7.73|-14.08|0.568
91840222|NCT06173570|183560470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.98||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||5.75|-15.71|0.363
91840223|NCT06173570|183560470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.73||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.57|4.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.11|-17.57|0.223
91840224|NCT06173570|183560471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.79||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||0.98|-6.56|0.146
91840225|NCT06173570|183560471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||2.56|-4.98|0.530
91840226|NCT06173570|183560471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||2.87|-4.56|0.654
91840227|NCT06173570|183560471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||5.00|-2.48|0.509
91840228|NCT06173570|183560472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.08|-20.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-20.93|-33.08|< 0.001
91840229|NCT06173570|183560472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.42|-22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-22.20|-34.42|< 0.001
91708989|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.9024||95.0|-0.94|0.84|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline), Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||0.84|-0.94|0.9024
91840230|NCT06173570|183560472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.27|-31.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-31.23|-43.27|< 0.001
91840231|NCT06173570|183560472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.92|-33.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-33.83|-45.92|< 0.001
91779881|NCT01929317|183439911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 12, Off status.|||2.1|-2.2|
91779882|NCT01929317|183439912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 2.|||0.4|-0.7|
91779883|NCT01929317|183439912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 4.|||0.6|-0.7|
91779884|NCT01929317|183439912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 6.|||0.8|-0.7|
91779885|NCT01929317|183439912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 8.|||0.7|-0.7|
91779886|NCT01929317|183439912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 12.|||0.5|-0.9|
91779887|NCT01929317|183439925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.04|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 2."|||1.04|-1.65|
91779888|NCT01929317|183439925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.45|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 4."|||1.45|-1.34|
91779889|NCT01929317|183439925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.24|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 6."|||1.24|-1.95|
91779890|NCT01929317|183439925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.75|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 8."|||0.75|-2.44|
91779891|NCT01929317|183439925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.58|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 12."|||0.58|-2.73|
91779892|NCT01929317|183439926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|6.71|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 2."|||6.71|-8.77|
91779893|NCT01929317|183439926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|8.22|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 4."|||8.22|-7.94|
91779894|NCT01929317|183439926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|6.49|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 6."|||6.49|-12.06|
91779895|NCT01929317|183439926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.06|5.14|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 8."|||5.14|-14.06|
91779896|NCT01929317|183439926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|3.96|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 12."|||3.96|-15.92|
91779897|NCT01929317|183439927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.21|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 2."|||1.21|-1.07|
91779898|NCT01929317|183439927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.7|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 4."|||1.70|-0.75|
91779899|NCT01929317|183439927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.86|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 6."|||1.86|-0.65|
91779900|NCT01929317|183439927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.22|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 8."|||2.22|-0.52|
91779901|NCT01929317|183439927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|2.26|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 12."|||2.26|-0.55|
91779902|NCT01929317|183439928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.36|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 2."|||1.36|-0.98|
91779903|NCT01929317|183439928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.78|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 4."|||1.78|-0.64|
91708990|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.9708||95.0|-0.67|0.65|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 5 hours post-dose.||0.65|-0.67|0.9708
91898401|NCT02604199|183692902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|-0.212||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||||-0.212|-0.406|<.0001
91708991|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1078||95.0|-1.62|0.19|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 6 hours post-dose.||0.19|-1.62|0.1078
91708992|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.419||0.446||95.0|-1.28|0.61|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 8 hours post-dose.||0.61|-1.28|0.4460
91708993|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.5266||95.0|-1.13|0.62|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 10 hours post-dose.||0.62|-1.13|0.5266
91708994|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.029||95.0|-1.29|-0.08|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 12 hours post-dose.||-0.08|-1.29|0.0290
91647458|NCT02499406|183186781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=11||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 9-month assessment.||||<0.016
91647459|NCT00948025|183186846|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test was used to derive p-values.||||||0.0433||||||"1. a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05.~2. the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"1. P-value comparing static 2-point discrimination per visit derived from mixed linear modeling of longitudinal data.~2. P-Value is based on Mann-Whitney U test."||||0.0433
91647460|NCT02292433|183186890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.841||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.93|-10.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-10.98|-28.93|0.0032
91647461|NCT02292433|183186890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.172|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.77|-35.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-35.35|-46.77|<0.0001
91647462|NCT02292433|183186891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.16|-7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-7.21|-17.16|0.0006
91647463|NCT02292433|183186891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.821|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.73|-20.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-20.88|-30.73|<0.0001
91647464|NCT02292433|183186892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7237||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.752|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.290|-2.752|0.0447
91647465|NCT02292433|183186892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7249||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.183|-0.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.716|-3.183|0.0119
91647466|NCT02292433|183186892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.967|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3324||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.195|3.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||3.261|-5.195|0.6873
91647467|NCT02292433|183186892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9533||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.502|-0.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.377|-4.502|0.0659
91647468|NCT02292433|183186892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5994||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.079|1.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||1.363|-4.079|0.4031
91647469|NCT02292433|183186892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5951||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.479|-1.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-1.052|-6.479|0.0254
91647470|NCT02292433|183186893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.33|0.0067
91779904|NCT01929317|183439928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.84|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 6."|||1.84|-0.71|
91779905|NCT01929317|183439928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.39|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 8."|||2.39|-0.47|
91779906|NCT01929317|183439928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.33|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 12."|||2.33|-0.63|
91779907|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8084||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 1 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.8084
91647471|NCT02292433|183186893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.29|0.0282
91779908|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 2 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
91779909|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 3 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0036
91779910|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 4 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0033
91779911|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 5 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
91779912|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 6 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
91840232|NCT06173570|183560473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.09|-14.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-14.84|-25.09|< 0.001
91779913|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 7 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
91840233|NCT06173570|183560473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-16.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-16.35|-26.73|< 0.001
91840234|NCT06173570|183560473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.37|-21.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-21.18|-31.37|< 0.001
91840235|NCT06173570|183560473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-23.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-23.48|-33.80|< 0.001
91840236|NCT06173570|183560474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.31||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||1.99|-6.62|0.292
91840237|NCT06173570|183560474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|4.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.86|-3.76|0.802
91840238|NCT06173570|183560474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||3.32|-5.21|0.664
91708995|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.531||0.183||95.0|-2.01|0.45|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 24 hours post-dose.||0.45|-2.01|0.1830
91708996|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.9884||95.0|-0.9|0.91|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 36 hours post-dose.||0.91|-0.90|0.9884
91708997|NCT00978341|183311315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.8082||95.0|-0.87|0.69|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 48 hours post-dose.||0.69|-0.87|0.8082
91708998|NCT00978341|183311316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.714||0.2101||95.0|-2.39|0.55|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 2. Combined analysis: values for the two patient groups were analyzed together using ANOVA and/or mixed models.||0.55|-2.39|0.2101
91708999|NCT00978341|183311316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.1065||95.0|-2.33|0.24|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 3.||0.24|-2.33|0.1065
91709000|NCT00978341|183311316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0697||95.0|-1.11|0.05|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 4.||0.05|-1.11|0.0697
91709001|NCT00978341|183311316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4589||95.0|-1.83|0.85|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 5.||0.85|-1.83|0.4589
91709002|NCT00978341|183311316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.742||0.1326||95.0|-2.69|0.38|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 6.||0.38|-2.69|0.1326
91709003|NCT00978341|183311316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.282||95.0|-2.45|0.9|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 7.||0.90|-2.45|0.2820
91709004|NCT00978341|183311316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.0108||95.0|-2.21|-0.44|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 8.||-0.44|-2.21|0.0108
91709005|NCT00978341|183311317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.06||0.9068||95.0|-41.78|37.27|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 1: 4 hours post-dose (including Baseline).||37.27|-41.78|0.9068
91709006|NCT00978341|183311317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.813||0.7807||95.0|-30.53|39.57|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 8: pre-dose (including Baseline).||39.57|-30.53|0.7807
91709007|NCT00978341|183311317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.526||0.2293||95.0|-61.79|16.78|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 8: 4 hours post-dose (including Baseline).||16.78|-61.79|0.2293
91709008|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.3774||95.0|-0.54|1.27|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 0.5 hours post-dose.||1.27|-0.54|0.3774
91840239|NCT06173570|183560474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|5.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.82|-2.74|0.481
91840240|NCT06173570|183560475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.23||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.03|-17.50|0.278
91647472|NCT02292433|183186893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.7877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.25|-0.18|0.7877
91647473|NCT02292433|183186893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.5064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.39|-0.17|0.5064
91647474|NCT02292433|183186893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.4072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.25|-0.75|0.4072
91840241|NCT06173570|183560475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.87||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.45|-18.19|0.234
91779914|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 8 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
91647475|NCT02292433|183186893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.06|-0.95|0.1422
91647476|NCT03555890|183186901|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.003||||||||1.003|0.948|
91647477|NCT03555890|183186902|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|0.998||||||||0.998|0.958|
91647478|NCT03555890|183186903|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.875|0.998||||||||0.998|0.875|
91647479|NCT03555890|183186904|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|0.902||||||||0.902|0.815|
91647480|NCT03372369|183186965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the contraceptive knowledge score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.0001
91647481|NCT03372369|183186965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the contraceptive knowledge score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.0001
91647482|NCT03372369|183186965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the contraceptive knowledge score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||<0.0001
91647483|NCT03372369|183186966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the effective contraception preference score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.001
91647484|NCT03372369|183186966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the effective contraception preference score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.01
91840242|NCT06173570|183560475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.32||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||3.78|-18.41|0.196
91840243|NCT06173570|183560475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.87||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||1.41|-21.14|0.086
91840244|NCT06173570|183560476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.16|-20.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-20.81|-37.16|<0.001
91840245|NCT06173570|183560476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.54|-24.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-24.02|-40.54|<0.001
91840246|NCT06173570|183560476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.82|-29.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-29.44|-45.82|<0.001
91840247|NCT06173570|183560476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.47|-35.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-35.94|-52.47|<0.001
91647485|NCT03372369|183186966|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the effective contraception preference score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||>0.01
91898402|NCT02604199|183692902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|-0.124||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||||-0.124|-0.322|<.0001
91647486|NCT03372369|183186967|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the perceived pregnancy risk score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
91779915|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 9 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
91840248|NCT06173570|183560477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.93||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|4.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.71|-16.57|0.275
91709009|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.4153||95.0|-0.33|0.7|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 1 hour post-dose.||0.70|-0.33|0.4153
91779916|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 10 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
91779917|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 11 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
91779918|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 12 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0124
91779919|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 13 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
91840249|NCT06173570|183560477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.06||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|6.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||6.51|-14.63|0.451
91647487|NCT03372369|183186967|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the perceived pregnancy risk score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
91840250|NCT06173570|183560477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.97||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|5.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.47|-15.41|0.351
91840251|NCT06173570|183560477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.29|-16.92|0.243
91779920|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 14 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0588
91779921|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0143||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 15 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0143
91779922|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1025||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 16 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.1025
91779923|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 17 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0001
91779924|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1138||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 18 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.1138
91779925|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 19 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0011
91779926|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 20 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
91779927|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0522||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 21 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0522
91779928|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8185||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 22 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.8185
91779929|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 24 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0005
91779930|NCT02205736|183439986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Subjects recorded True/False answers to Q25 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The contingency table of 329 responses to Q25 displayed the following: N=260 Correct at Baseline and Correct at Post-Intervention (79.0%), N=7 Correct at Baseline and Incorrect at Post-Intervention (2.1%), N=49 Incorrect at Baseline and Correct at Post-Intervention (14.9%), N=13 Incorrect at Baseline and Incorrect at Post-Intervention (4.0%).||||<.0001
91840252|NCT06173570|183560478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||2.48|-5.08|0.501
91779931|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2482||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 1 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.2482
91840253|NCT06173570|183560478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||2.89|-4.74|0.634
91840254|NCT06173570|183560478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||3.70|-3.74|0.990
91840255|NCT06173570|183560478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.50|-2.03|0.366
91840256|NCT06173570|183560479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.08|-19.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-19.51|-32.08|<0.001
91840257|NCT06173570|183560479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.33|-20.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-20.62|-33.33|<0.001
91779932|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 2 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
91779933|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 3 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0050
91779934|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0423||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 4 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0423
91779935|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 5 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
91779936|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 6 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
91779937|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 7 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
91779938|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 8 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0002
91779939|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7456||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 9 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.7456
91840258|NCT06173570|183560479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.5|-30.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-30.08|-42.50|<0.001
91840259|NCT06173570|183560479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|-32.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-32.99|-45.61|<0.001
91840260|NCT03820323|183560484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.03|||Modified Poisson regression|||||1.03|0.94|0.55
91840261|NCT03820323|183560485|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Modified Poission regression|||||1.13|0.66|0.28
91709010|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.147||95.0|-0.23|1.2|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 2 hours post-dose.||1.20|-0.23|0.1470
91779940|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 10 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
91840262|NCT00366301|183560509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Change in Log CRP|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted models included terms for baseline HbA1c and weight and change in weight at each time point.||As hsCRP was measured at both 6 and 14 weeks, linear mixed models conditioning on baseline hsCRP and adjusting for treatment stratum were constructed with the dependent variable being change in lnCRP. The means at each time point were estimated from a repeated-measures model incorporating all 3 time points. The interventions were assessed by fitting terms corresponding to study drug and treatment arm assignment.||||<0.05
91840263|NCT05952297|183560593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||mixed model|linear mixed model, time x condition effect||||||.88
91709011|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1862||95.0|-1.18|0.29|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 3 hours post-dose.||0.29|-1.18|0.1862
91779941|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 11 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0028
91779942|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0707||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 12 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0707
91709012|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8321||95.0|-0.45|0.55|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 4 hours post-dose.||0.55|-0.45|0.8321
91709013|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.4251||95.0|-0.42|0.88|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 5 hours post-dose.||0.88|-0.42|0.4251
91709014|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.6394||95.0|-0.53|0.8|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 6 hours post-dose.||0.80|-0.53|0.6394
91709015|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.9964||95.0|-0.68|0.68|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: pre-dose.||0.68|-0.68|0.9964
91779943|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 13 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0026
91779944|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 14 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.1797
91840264|NCT03959592|183560608|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.14
91840265|NCT03959592|183560609|OTHER|||||||0.423|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.423
91840266|NCT03959592|183560612|OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.985
91840267|NCT03959592|183560613|OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.545
91840268|NCT04362137|183560615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.73|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.73|0.48|0.769
91779945|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6547||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 15 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.6547
91840269|NCT04362137|183560617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.46|0.55|0.647
91840270|NCT04362137|183560617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.92|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||1.92|0.52|0.997
91840271|NCT04362137|183560618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.87|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.87|0.51|0.946
91840272|NCT04362137|183560618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.79|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||1.79|0.35|0.573
91840273|NCT04362137|183560619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.83|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.83|0.31|0.532
91709016|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.3638||95.0|-0.47|1.11|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 0.5 hours post-dose.||1.11|-0.47|0.3638
91840274|NCT04362137|183560619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.49|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||3.49|0.40|0.764
91840275|NCT04362137|183560620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Proportional hazards model||Between group comparison using competing risk framework. A hazard ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.37|0.90|0.330
91840276|NCT04362137|183560621|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 15||0.25|-0.31|0.831
91840277|NCT04362137|183560621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 29||0.38|-0.23|0.624
91840278|NCT04362137|183560622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.57|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||5.57|0.20|0.944
91840279|NCT04362137|183560622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.11|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||5.11|0.35|0.775
91840280|NCT04362137|183560623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.21|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||2.21|0.45|0.987
91840281|NCT04362137|183560624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||Proportional hazards model||Between group comparison using competing risk framework. A hazard ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.28|0.84|0.738
91840282|NCT04362137|183560625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.23|||Proportional hazards model||Between group comparison using competing risk framework. A hazard ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.23|0.84|0.869
91840283|NCT04362137|183560628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.63|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.63|0.23|0.325
91840284|NCT04362137|183560628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|5.4||P-value was not estimable because \>97% patients fall into one category (responders) in both groups, and very few patients fall into the other one (non-responders), which made the logistic regression model fail to converge even with Firth's correction|Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||5.40|0.25|
91840285|NCT03556358|183560646|EQUIVALENCE|"Two one-sided hypothesis tests were performed for pCR in order to show that TX05 is equivalent to Herceptin:~* TEST 1: H0a: θ1 / θ2 \> 1.325 vs. H1a: θ1 / θ2 \< 1.325~* TEST 2: H0b: θ1 / θ2 \< 0.755 vs. H1b: θ1 / θ2 \> 0.755~Where θ1 is the proportion of pCR for subjects randomized to TX05 group, θ2 is the proportion of pCR for subjects randomized to Herceptin. Equivalence was concluded if the 95% CI of the risk ratio is completely contained within the pre-defined interval \[0.755, 1.325\]."|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9185|1.2659||||||||1.2659|0.9185|
91840286|NCT05067933|183560660|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.953
91840287|NCT05067933|183560661|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.500
91898403|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.003||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.003|-0.181|0.0583
91840288|NCT05067933|183560662|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.912|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.912
91840289|NCT05067933|183560663|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.678
91840290|NCT05067933|183560664|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.257
91840291|NCT05067933|183560665|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.748
91840292|NCT05067933|183560666|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.946
91840293|NCT05067933|183560669|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.356|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.356
91840294|NCT05067933|183560670|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.267|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.267
91840295|NCT01373450|183560671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.87||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.98|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.98|0.77|0.024
91779946|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 16 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.1797
91779947|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 17 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.2850
91779948|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0606||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 18 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0606
91779949|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 19 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0045
91779950|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9068||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 20 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.9068
91779951|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 21 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.4142
91779952|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5637||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 22 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.5637
91840296|NCT01373450|183560672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.90|0.66|0.004
91840297|NCT01373450|183560673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.014|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.008|0.019|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.019|0.008|<0.001
91840298|NCT01373450|183560674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.98||||||||0.98|0.72|
91840299|NCT01373450|183560675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.90|0.66|0.003
91840300|NCT01373450|183560675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.74|0.45|<0.001
91840301|NCT01373450|183560675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.16|0.85|0.473
91840302|NCT01373450|183560675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.00|0.56|0.049
91840303|NCT01373450|183560676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.021|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.015|0.026|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.026|0.015|<0.001
91779953|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 23 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0002
91840304|NCT01373450|183560676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.021|0.038|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.038|0.021|<0.001
91840305|NCT01373450|183560676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.007||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.012|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.012|0.002|0.0163
91840306|NCT01373450|183560676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.016||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.006|0.026|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.026|0.006|0.0056
91840307|NCT00550550|183560678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.66|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.66|-2.60|=0.001
91840308|NCT00550550|183560679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.45|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.45|-1.95|=0.005
91840309|NCT00550550|183560680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||=|0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||0.03|-0.88|=0.066
91840310|NCT00550550|183560681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||=|0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.03|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.03|-0.60|=0.042
91840311|NCT02459093|183560685|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.99|||Chi-squared|||||0.99|0.37|0.04
91840312|NCT02459093|183560686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.36|0.05
91840313|NCT01103960|183560703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.007||95.0|0.6082|3.7681||This was the first step in the closed testing procedure of multiple endpoints. The p-value was \<0.05 so this test was considered confirmatory. Proceeding to the next step was allowed, testing the same endpoint in the subgroup of Chinese patients.|ANCOVA|||A5 minus T80/A5||3.7681|0.6082|0.007
91840314|NCT01103960|183560704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9015||0.034||95.0|0.1443|3.6947||This was the second step in the closed testing procedure of multiple endpoints. The p-value was again \<0.05 so this test was also considered confirmatory.|ANCOVA|||A5 minus T80/A5||3.6947|0.1443|0.034
91840315|NCT01103960|183560705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1217|<|0.001||95.0|2.2807|6.695|||ANCOVA|||A5 minus T80/A5||6.6950|2.2807|<0.001
91840316|NCT04921969|183560713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.951|13.315||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||13.315|1.951|0.0001
91840317|NCT04921969|183560713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.429|30.042||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||30.042|4.429|<0.0001
91840318|NCT04921969|183560714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.268||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.268|0.610|0.4198
91840319|NCT04921969|183560714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|4.174||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||4.174|0.779|0.1685
91840320|NCT02791490|183560733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.23|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.23|-0.59|<0.001
91840321|NCT02791490|183560734|OTHER|95% CI|Difference in % vs Placebo|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|7.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||7.4|-10.8|
91840322|NCT02791490|183560736|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||2.5|1.2|0.002
91840323|NCT02791490|183560737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-4.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-4.6|-20.2|0.002
91840324|NCT02960763|183560740|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||||0.01||||||Equivalence of group|ANOVA|||||||0.010
91840325|NCT02960763|183560740|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||||0.004||||||augment with aripiprazole vs switch to bupropion|ANOVA|||||||0.004
91840326|NCT02960763|183560740|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||||0.017||||||augment with bupropion vs switch to bupropion|ANOVA|||||||0.017
91840327|NCT02960763|183560740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||0.650
91647488|NCT03372369|183186967|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the perceived pregnancy risk score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||>0.01
91647489|NCT03372369|183186968|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the accuracy of perceived pregnancy risk score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
91647490|NCT03372369|183186968|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the accuracy of perceived pregnancy risk score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
91647491|NCT03372369|183186968|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the accuracy of perceived pregnancy risk score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||>0.01
91647492|NCT01791127|183186971|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint 1 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (AEFR at 12 months) to 94.0%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||||||<0.0001
91840328|NCT02960763|183560740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||augmentation versus switch|ANOVA|||Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||0.003
91840329|NCT02960763|183560740|SUPERIORITY|For those who proceed to Step 2, analogous repeated measures 2\*2\*2 ANOVA will be used with a significance level of .05 for the time\*treatment group comparison.||||||0.385|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.385
91647493|NCT01791127|183186972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||The primary endpoint 2 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (AEFR at 12 months) to 94.0%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.||||<0.0001
91647494|NCT01791127|183186973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||The primary endpoint 3 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (successful sensing and pacing rate at 12 months) to 97.0%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.||||<0.0001
91709017|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.1202||95.0|-0.15|0.99|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 1 hour post-dose.||0.99|-0.15|0.1202
91840330|NCT02960763|183560741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Group effect|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.038
91840331|NCT02960763|183560741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||augmentation with aripiprazole vs switch to bupropion|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.021
91840332|NCT02960763|183560741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||augmentation with bupropion vs switch to bupropion|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.027
91647495|NCT01791127|183186974|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||The primary endpoint 4 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (AEFR at 5 years) to 92.5%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.|On April 15, 2019, BIOTRONIK received FDA approval to transition the ongoing SIELLO Post Approval Registry to a new EP PASSION real-world data methodology. As of study closure, the number of subjects with complete data required to perform the hypothesis test was not met. Therefore, this outcome measure was not analyzed.|||
91647496|NCT01017029|183187022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.482||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.922|2.383|||Regression, Cox|||||2.383|0.922|0.1043
91647497|NCT01017029|183187024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.847||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|3.315|||Regression, Cox|||||3.315|1.029|0.0398
91647498|NCT01017029|183187026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234|||||||Fisher Exact|||CMV infections||||0.0234
91647499|NCT01017029|183187027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.403||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|2.347|||Regression, Cox|||||2.347|0.839|0.1966
91709018|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.1204||95.0|-0.19|1.39|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 2 hours post-dose.||1.39|-0.19|0.1204
91840333|NCT02960763|183560741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934||||||Augmentation with aripiprazole v augmentation with bupropion|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.934
91840334|NCT02960763|183560741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||augmentation versus switch|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.011
91840335|NCT02960763|183560741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.500
91840336|NCT02960763|183560742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164||||||Cox models time to event comparing treatment arms.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.164
91840337|NCT02960763|183560742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.103
91840338|NCT02960763|183560742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.127
91840339|NCT02960763|183560742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524||||||Cox models to examine time to event comparing treatment arms.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.524
91840340|NCT01017120|183560743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for ILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91840341|NCT01017120|183560743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for NILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91840342|NCT01017120|183560743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for TLs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91840343|NCT01017120|183560744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|36.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||36.9|27.4|<0.001
91840344|NCT01017120|183560744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|22.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||22.1|14.2|
91840345|NCT01017120|183560745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||32.2|23.1|<0.001
91840346|NCT01017120|183560745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|16.7|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||16.7|9.8|
91840347|NCT01928225|183560802|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.6||\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||1.6|.87|.29
91840348|NCT01928225|183560803|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95|||Chi-squared|||||1.95|.85|.22
91840349|NCT00574990|183560809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|12.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between roles and communication event content were assessed by Chi squared|Chi-squared|||Descriptive counts and chi squared were done on the observation data.||||0.01
91840350|NCT01381874|183560825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.143||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.603|||stratified log-rank test|||||1.603|0.816|0.437
91840351|NCT01381874|183560825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.32|||stratified log-rank test|||||1.320|0.695|0.794
91840352|NCT01381874|183560826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.074||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.896|||stratified log-rank test|||||1.896|0.608|0.807
91840353|NCT01381874|183560826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|2.036|||stratified log-rank test|||||2.036|0.688|0.542
91840354|NCT01381874|183560827|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.909||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|3.878|||Fisher Exact|||||3.878|0.213|1.000
91840355|NCT01381874|183560827|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.909||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|6.026|||Fisher Exact|||||6.026|0.605|0.366
91840356|NCT01381874|183560828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.757||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|2.175|||Chi-squared|||||2.175|0.264|0.603
91840357|NCT01381874|183560828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|3.926|||Chi-squared|||||3.926|0.816|0.137
91840358|NCT00114634|183560850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
91840359|NCT02223065|183560856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|0.975||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.038|||ANOVA|||||1.038|0.915|0.4950
91840360|NCT02223065|183560857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|0.993||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.932|1.06|||ANOVA|||||1.060|0.932|0.8650
91840361|NCT02223065|183560858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.022||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.054|||ANOVA|||||1.054|0.991|0.2344
91840362|NCT02223065|183560859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.016||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.038|||ANOVA|||||1.038|0.993|0.2458
91840363|NCT02223065|183560860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.024||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.056|||ANOVA|||||1.056|0.993|0.1947
91840364|NCT02223065|183560861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.013||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.034|||ANOVA|||||1.034|0.992|0.3191
91840365|NCT03662997|183560874|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.046||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular arm, Weeks 1 \& 3|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.046
91840366|NCT03662997|183560874|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.56||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular arm; Weeks 2 \& 4|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.56
91779954|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 24 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0196
91779955|NCT02205736|183439987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This outcome measure for Q25 was tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5% in the analyses of 25 questions.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 25 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
91779956|NCT01198977|183440002|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.013||||||Baseline and 3-month follow-up for arm 1 and arm 2.|ANOVA|||||||.013
91779957|NCT01198977|183440002|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.005||||||Comparing baseline to 6-month follow-up.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
91779958|NCT01198977|183440002|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.01||||||The interaction effect between the two conditions across time. Baseline, 3-month, 6-month.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
91779959|NCT01198977|183440003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.009||||||Comparing depression scores for the telephone counseling and education counseling groups at 6 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.009
91779960|NCT01198977|183440003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group X Time interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.032||||||Interaction effects between the telephone counseling and education counseling groups over time (baseline, 3 months, 6 months).|ANOVA|||||||.032
91840367|NCT03662997|183560874|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.01||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer arm; Weeks 1 \& 3|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.010
91898404|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|-0.085||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 15||-0.085|-0.267|0.003
91898405|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.006||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.006|-0.181|0.0670
91647500|NCT00663039|183187061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Affect Scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.758
91647501|NCT00663039|183187061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Social Skill scores between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.779
91647502|NCT00663039|183187062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HVLT Trial 1 scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.578
91647503|NCT00663039|183187062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HVLT Trial 2 scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.28
91647504|NCT00663039|183187062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.707|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HVLT Trial 3 scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.707
91647505|NCT00663039|183187063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the total amount of money offered during the trust game between the Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.391
91779961|NCT01198977|183440004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.049||||||Physical Activity Interaction effect between the Telephone Counseling and Education Counseling Group over time (baseline, 3 months, 6 months).|ANOVA|||||||0.049
91779962|NCT01198977|183440004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.014||||||Comparing physical activity scores for the telephone counseling and education counseling groups at 6 months.|ANOVA|||||||.014
91779963|NCT00664443|183440005|OTHER||Sensitivity|65.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|68.2||||||||68.2|63.5|
91779964|NCT00664443|183440006|OTHER||Specificity|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|35.9||||||||35.9|29.0|
91779965|NCT02153632|183440036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-10.5|0.031
91779966|NCT02153632|183440036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-11.5|0.011
91898406|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.011||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 29||0.011|-0.151|0.0875
91647506|NCT00663039|183187064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.559
91647507|NCT00663039|183187064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.858
91647508|NCT00663039|183187064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarms Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.514
91647509|NCT00663039|183187064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean False Alarms Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.088
91647510|NCT00663039|183187065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.296
91647511|NCT00663039|183187065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.136
91647512|NCT00663039|183187065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarms between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.47
91647513|NCT00663039|183187065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.702
91647514|NCT00663039|183187066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Brief Assessments of Cognition for Schizophrenia scores between the Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.451
91647515|NCT00663039|183187067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9
91647516|NCT00663039|183187068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Reading the Mind in the Eyes total scores between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.946
91647517|NCT00663039|183187069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison the Facial Affect Recognition Total scores between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.016
91840368|NCT03662997|183560874|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.25||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer arm; Weeks 2 \& 4|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.25
91647518|NCT00663039|183187069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison the Facial Affect Recognition Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.185
91647519|NCT00663039|183187069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison the Facial Affect Recognition False Alarms between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.404
91647520|NCT00323271|183187071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.106|1.888|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.888|-2.106|.911
91647521|NCT00323271|183187072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.644||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.058|2.345||Multiple imputation used to account for missing variables; pre-treatment rating and years of MS pain were covariates|ANCOVA|||||2.345|-1.058|0.320
91647522|NCT04333199|183187073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9903891|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2805876|3.9211066||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.9211066|2.2805876|<0.001
91647523|NCT04333199|183187074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1781659||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9404654|1.4759445||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.4759445|0.9404654|0.154
91647524|NCT04333199|183187075|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9575636||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8242111|1.1124918||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.1124918|0.8242111|0.571
91647525|NCT04333199|183187076|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8562672|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5692523|2.1957769||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.1957769|1.5692523|<0.001
91647526|NCT04333199|183187078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8542767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5220654|2.2589975||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.2589975|1.5220654|<0.001
91647527|NCT02981602|183187109|OTHER|||||||0.116||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.116
91647528|NCT02981602|183187109|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91647529|NCT02981602|183187109|OTHER|||||||0.573||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.573
91647530|NCT02981602|183187110|OTHER|||||||0.609||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.609
91647531|NCT02981602|183187110|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.141
91647532|NCT02981602|183187111|OTHER|Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group||||||0.245|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.245
91647533|NCT02981602|183187111|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91779967|NCT04586205|183440059|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||The baseline measurement for this analysis is the Sternberg Sorting Task (SST) at Baseline. This task is designed to assess how individuals store and retrieve random information from short-term memory. This task was administered to all participants before they were randomized into one of two groups (active TMS first then sham TMS or sham TMS first then active TMS).||||0.024
91840369|NCT03662997|183560875|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.046||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular; End of Weeks 1 and 3.|Chi-squared, Corrected||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.046
91779968|NCT04586205|183440060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference in means between High-Load IAPS (.69) and Low-Load IAPS (.67) in the group that received active then sham TMS.|The baseline measurement for this analysis is the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) at baseline. This is an emotional task using IAPS picture that will also compare low load and high load conditions. The number of images will vary by condition load, but for both the high-load \& low-load conditions, participants will look at IAPS pictures and answer questions about the images. We compare mean High-Load IAPS and Low-Load IAPS scores in the group that received active then sham TMS.||||0.18
91779969|NCT04586205|183440061|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||The outcome measure for this analysis was the International Affective Picture System (IAPS).||||0.19
91779970|NCT04586205|183440062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91779971|NCT04684836|183440064|SUPERIORITY|The analysis leveraged a difference-in-differences research design in an intent-to-treat framework, comparing outcomes for patients receiving care at high-telehealth practices with patients at comparable low-telehealth practices, before relative to after the onset of the pandemic (when telehealth use increased significantly).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0255||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All models included practice and year-quarter fixed effects, and clustered standard errors at the practice level.|This is the Unadjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction.|||||0.0793
91779972|NCT04684836|183440064|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences model|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0786||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.5739
91779973|NCT04684836|183440065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0014||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an adjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences model||||0.3261
91779974|NCT04684836|183440065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0806|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences model||||<0.01
91779975|NCT04684836|183440066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0217||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an adjusted unadjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.1101
91779976|NCT04684836|183440066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5551||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.4618
91779977|NCT04684836|183440068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0012||||0.8577|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an unadjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.8577
91647534|NCT02981602|183187111|OTHER|||||||0.762||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.762
91647535|NCT02981602|183187112|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.141
91647536|NCT02981602|183187112|OTHER|||||||0.081||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.081
91647537|NCT02981602|183187112|OTHER|||||||0.616||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.616
91647538|NCT02981602|183187115|OTHER|||||||0.763||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.763
91779978|NCT04684836|183440068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2014||||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.5954
91840370|NCT03662997|183560875|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.01||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer; End of Weeks 1 \& 3|Chi-squared, Corrected||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups|||0.010
91779979|NCT02085161|183440131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.196|1.777||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|This treatment comparison is the first one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.777|1.196|0.0002
91779980|NCT02085161|183440131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.573||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|This treatment comparison is the second one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.573|1.061|0.0109
91779981|NCT02085161|183440131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.272||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|This treatment comparison is the third one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain. Since the p-value for this treatment comparison is \>0.05, the hierarchical testing chain is broken and all of the following hypothesis tests in this hierarchical chain are considered as descriptive only.||1.272|0.853|0.6895
91779982|NCT02085161|183440131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.368||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM.|||1.368|0.931|0.2188
91779983|NCT02085161|183440131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.021|1.507||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM.|||1.507|1.021|0.0303
91779984|NCT02085161|183440132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-331.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|296.375||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-916.015|252.064||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||252.064|-916.015|0.2639
91779985|NCT02085161|183440132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|161.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|293.506||0.5837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-417.314|739.459||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||739.459|-417.314|0.5837
91779986|NCT02085161|183440132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-524.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|296.802||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1109.806|59.954||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||59.954|-1109.806|0.0783
91840371|NCT03662997|183560883|SUPERIORITY|This secondary outcome measure was not planned for at the initiation of the study. Compliance rates were calculated by combining the number incidences that dressings were worn for the full 7 days and when the dressings do not have strike-through during first the week of treatment.|||||<|0.05||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular arm, first week of treatment|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||<0.05
91779987|NCT02085161|183440132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-493.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|289.566||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1063.67|77.575||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||77.575|-1063.670|0.0900
91647539|NCT02981602|183187115|OTHER|||||||0.804||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.804
91779988|NCT02085161|183440132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|685.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|289.435||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.635|1256.362||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||1256.362|115.635|0.0186
91779989|NCT02085161|183440133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.005||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.005|-0.010|0.5186
91840372|NCT03662997|183560883|SUPERIORITY|This secondary outcome measure was not planned for at the initiation of the study. Compliance rates were calculated by combining the number incidences that dressings were worn for the full 7 days and when the dressings do not have strike-through during the first week of treatment.|||||<|0.05||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer, first week of treatment.|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||<0.05
91840373|NCT00936221|183560894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3873|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|1.28||1-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox model adjusting for treatment, WHO performance status, LDH, M status and tumour sub-type.||If the true hazard ratio (HR) is 0.57, 58 deaths provides at least 80% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference for OS, assuming a 1-sided 10% significance level.||1.28|0.67|0.3873
91840374|NCT01844115|183560899|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-0.68|||MMRM|||||-0.68|-3.72|0.0048
91840375|NCT01844115|183560900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.89||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.26|||MMRM|||||-0.26|-3.52|0.0236
91840376|NCT00545363|183560902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.8989|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was done to compare the participant satisfaction between the Biofeedback and No-feedback arms.||||=0.8989
91840377|NCT00545363|183560903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.453|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was done to compare the participant perception between the Biofeedback and No-feedback arms.||||=0.453
91840378|NCT00545363|183560904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.4917|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was done to compare the effect of adherence (Yes/No) on percent change from baseline in CTX between the Biofeedback and No-feedback arms.||||=0.4917
91840379|NCT03125941|183560909|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.05|||Chi-squared|||||2.05|0.49|1
91779990|NCT02085161|183440133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.6436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.009||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.009|-0.006|0.6436
91779991|NCT02085161|183440133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.001||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.001|-0.014|0.1081
91779992|NCT02085161|183440133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.2612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.003||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.003|-0.011|0.2612
91779993|NCT02085161|183440133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.015||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.015|0.001|0.0361
91779994|NCT02085161|183440134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.187||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.187|-0.034|0.1727
91779995|NCT02085161|183440134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.252||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.252|0.035|0.0097
91779996|NCT02085161|183440134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.126||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.126|-0.095|0.7815
91779997|NCT02085161|183440134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.2183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.04||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.040|-0.174|0.2183
91779998|NCT02085161|183440134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.236||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.236|0.020|0.0203
91779999|NCT02085161|183440135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.645||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|||1.645|1.080|0.0077
91780000|NCT02085161|183440135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|1.53||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|||1.530|1.011|0.0390
91780001|NCT02085161|183440135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.299||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|||1.299|0.850|0.6452
91840380|NCT03125941|183560910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.114
91840381|NCT03125941|183560911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.294
91840382|NCT03125941|183560914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.350
91840383|NCT03125941|183560915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
91840384|NCT03125941|183560917|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.193||||||a priori threshold, bonferroni corrected 0.0125|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.193
91840385|NCT03125941|183560918|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91840386|NCT03125941|183560919|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.136|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.136
91840387|NCT03125941|183560920|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.003||||||A priori threshold for statistical significans was 0.00125 due to multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||>0.003
91647540|NCT02981602|183187116|OTHER|||||||0.372||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.372
91840388|NCT03125941|183560921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|11.6|||Chi-squared|||||11.6|1.07|0.030
91898407|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|-0.1||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 29||-0.100|-0.259|<.0001
91647541|NCT02981602|183187116|OTHER|||||||0.954||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.954
91647542|NCT00666718|183187118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Assuming a drop-out rate after randomization of approximately 15%, the remaining 160 patients in each treatment group should allow confirmation of noninferiority with no true treatment difference and a noninferiority limit of 0.4% using the upper limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (insulin lispro protamine suspension + insulin lispro minus insulin glargine+insulin lispro) at a significance level of 0.025 with 90% power."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.11|
91840389|NCT00406419|183560932|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.9|11|< 0.0001
91840390|NCT00406419|183560932|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|21.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|28.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.8|14.1|< 0.0001
91840391|NCT00406419|183560933|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|37.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.9|23.7|< 0.0001
91840392|NCT00406419|183560933|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|41.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.5|27.4|< 0.0001
91840393|NCT01461993|183560958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.72|0.94||||||HPV-6||0.94|0.72|
91840394|NCT01461993|183560958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.91||||||HPV-11||0.91|0.74|
91840395|NCT01461993|183560958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88||||||HPV-16||0.88|0.68|
91840396|NCT01461993|183560958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81||||||HPV-18||0.81|0.62|
91840397|NCT01461993|183560959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0||||||PMB80 \[A22\]||1.00|0.85|
91840398|NCT01461993|183560959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]||1.01|0.84|
91840399|NCT01121484|183560977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment groups||||0.004
91840400|NCT01121484|183560978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CGI-I analyzed as a categorical variable by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row-mean-score-difference test using ridit scores, controlling for the effect of region; p-value obtained from the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Score Differences.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91840401|NCT01121484|183560979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91840402|NCT01121484|183560980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91840403|NCT01121484|183560981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.158
91840404|NCT01121484|183560982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91840405|NCT05408468|183561020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.731||0.387|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 1.731 One week 1.894|||||0.387
91840406|NCT05408468|183561020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.048||0.387|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 2.048 One week 2.122|||||0.387
91840407|NCT05408468|183561021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.693||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 1.693 One week 1.840|||||0.062
91840408|NCT05408468|183561021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.003||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 2.003 One week 2.069|||||0.062
91840409|NCT05408468|183561023|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.369
91840410|NCT05408468|183561024|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.498
91840411|NCT01396395|183561058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.503|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|0.581|||poisson regression: Non-calibration mode|||||0.581|0.435|<0.0001
91840412|NCT01396395|183561058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.503|||=|0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.84|||Poisson regression: Calibration model|||||0.840|0.301|=0.0086
91840413|NCT02120664|183561075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R squared|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||
91840414|NCT02120664|183561076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Variation|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91840415|NCT02120664|183561076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Variation|6.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91840416|NCT01351025|183561108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in log10 IL-6||||0.94
91840417|NCT01351025|183561109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon rank sun test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in CD4+ T-cell activation percent (% CD38+/DR+ of CD4)||||0.495
91780002|NCT02085161|183440135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.313||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM.|||1.313|0.874|0.5048
91647543|NCT00666718|183187119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||95.0||||p-value is for Week 12 Change.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline=Treatment+country+baseline HbA1c+week+treatment\*country+treatment\*week+baseline HbA1c\*treatment (unstructured covariance used).||||||0.4580
91647544|NCT00666718|183187119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||p-value is for Week 24 Change.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline=Treatment+country+baseline HbA1c+week+treatment\*country+treatment\*week+baseline HbA1c\*treatment (unstructured covariance used).||||||0.1070
91647545|NCT00666718|183187120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1333||95.0||||p-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1333
91840418|NCT01351025|183561110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in log10 D-dimer||||0.704
91647546|NCT00666718|183187120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1213||95.0||||p-value is for HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1213
91647547|NCT00666718|183187121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Morning Pre-Meal measurement = Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used)||||1.17|-0.43|
91647548|NCT00666718|183187121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Morning Postprandial measurement = Treatment +country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used)||||1.19|-0.66|
91647549|NCT00666718|183187121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Midday Pre-Meal measurement = Treatment +country + week +treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||0.57|-1.15|
91780003|NCT02085161|183440135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.453||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM.|||1.453|0.964|0.1066
91780004|NCT02085161|183440136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.403||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.403|0.255|<0.0001
91780005|NCT02085161|183440136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.429||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.429|0.282|<0.0001
91780006|NCT02085161|183440136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.249||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.249|0.099|<0.0001
91780007|NCT02085161|183440136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.045||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.045|-0.099|0.4677
91780008|NCT02085161|183440136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.255||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.255|0.109|<0.0001
91780009|NCT02085161|183440137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.606||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.606|0.350|<0.0001
91780010|NCT02085161|183440137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.657||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.657|0.403|<0.0001
91780011|NCT02085161|183440137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.415||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.415|0.157|<0.0001
91780012|NCT02085161|183440137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.072||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.072|-0.176|0.4107
91780013|NCT02085161|183440137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.37||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.370|0.119|0.0002
91780014|NCT02085161|183440138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.457||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.457|0.179|<0.0001
91780015|NCT02085161|183440138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.439||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.439|0.165|<0.0001
91780016|NCT02085161|183440138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.314||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.314|0.035|0.0145
91780017|NCT02085161|183440138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.151||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.151|-0.118|0.8150
91840419|NCT01351025|183561111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in CD8+ T-cell activation percent (% CD38+/DR+ of CD8+)||||0.508
91840420|NCT02066896|183561120|OTHER|ANOVA repeated measures||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA repeated measures||||||0.05
91780018|NCT02085161|183440138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.263||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.263|-0.008|0.0642
91780019|NCT03537404|183440144|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.103|0.142|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.142|-0.103|
91780020|NCT03537404|183440144|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.175|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.175|-0.220|
91780021|NCT03537404|183440145|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|0.157|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed.|||0.157|-0.075|
91780022|NCT03537404|183440145|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.201|0.064|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.064|-0.201|
91780023|NCT03537404|183440146|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.271|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.159|0.383|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.383|0.159|
91898408|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|-0.027||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 29||-0.027|-0.191|0.0099
91780024|NCT03537404|183440147|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.074|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.016|0.132|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.132|0.016|
91780025|NCT03537404|183440148|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.153|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.153|-0.450|
91780026|NCT03537404|183440149|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.354|0.168|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.168|-0.354|
91780027|NCT00068692|183440154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||One-sided p value was reported|Log Rank|stratified on ECOG performance status, clinical stage, timing of chemoradiotherapy, and regimen administration||||||0.35
91780028|NCT00068692|183440154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||one-sided p value was reported|Log Rank|stratified on ECOG performance status, clinical stage, timing of chemoradiaotherapy, regimen administration||||||0.69
91780029|NCT00123422|183440188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and a p value of \< 0.05 was the criterion for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|The baseline value was the co-variate in this analysis.||||||0.015
91780030|NCT00123422|183440189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The baseline value was the co-variate in this analysis.||||||<0.05
91898409|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.057||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 43||-0.057|-0.229|0.0017
91647550|NCT00666718|183187121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Midday Postprandial measurement = Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||1.40|-0.46|
91647551|NCT00666718|183187121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Evening Pre-Meal measurement = Treatment +country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||0.83|-0.93|
91709019|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.4213||95.0|-0.44|0.93|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 3 hours post-dose.||0.93|-0.44|0.4213
91647552|NCT00666718|183187121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Evening Postprandial measurement = Treatment+country+week +treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||1.34|-0.41|
91647553|NCT00666718|183187121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|0300 Hours measurement = Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country+treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||0.96|-0.67|
91647554|NCT00666718|183187122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5568||95.0||||p-value is for Fasting.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.5568
91647555|NCT00666718|183187122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7523||95.0||||p-value is for Post-breakfast.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.7523
91647556|NCT00666718|183187122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6448||95.0||||p-value is for Post-lunch.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.6448
91647557|NCT00666718|183187122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9122||95.0||||p-value is for Post-dinner.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+ treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.9122
91780031|NCT02446899|183440217|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|26.3||Nominal p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.3|6.3|0.0013
91780032|NCT02446899|183440218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|28.2||Adjusted p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||28.2|6.5|0.0022
91780033|NCT02446899|183440219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.2||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|35.7||Adjusted p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||35.7|6.8|0.0135
91780034|NCT02446899|183440220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|43.6||Adjusted p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||43.6|4.3|0.0392
91780035|NCT02446899|183440221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|20.0||Adjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||20.0|-10.6|0.5469
91840421|NCT00405353|183561145|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regressions were used to determine slopes of brain volume changes. Statistical software package SAS was used to perform the analysis.||Percent change in brain volume against time scatter plot with a Loess regression curve was produced and a first-degree spline model was developed. This model fitted line pieces for pre-treatment and early treatment periods (month -6 to month 3) and treatment response period (months 3-12), and these pieces were joined together to achieve continuity. Slopes of these lines were estimated and compared. A random intercept was set in the model to allow the difference among subjects.||||<0.05
91840422|NCT03469284|183561146|OTHER|||||||0.0034|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0034
91840423|NCT03469284|183561147|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0008
91647558|NCT00666718|183187123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.12|-1.19|
91647559|NCT00666718|183187123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.11|-0.20|
91647560|NCT00666718|183187123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.16|-1.06|
91780036|NCT02446899|183440222|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.67||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94||Adjusted p-value.|Negative binomial regression|||Analysed using a negative binomial regression model. The response variable in the model is the number of flares over the 52-week treatment period. The model includes covariates of treatment group, and the stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>=10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]). The logarithm of the follow-up time is used as an offset variable.||0.94|0.48|0.0809
91780037|NCT01002339|183440227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91898410|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|-0.18||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 43||-0.180|-0.349|<.0001
91647561|NCT00666718|183187123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.06|-0.86|
91780038|NCT01002339|183440228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91780039|NCT01002339|183440229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9
91780040|NCT01002339|183440230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91780041|NCT01002339|183440231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2
91647562|NCT00666718|183187123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days=Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.12|-0.14|
91780042|NCT01002339|183440232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
91780043|NCT01002339|183440233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
91780044|NCT01002339|183440234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.56
91780045|NCT01002339|183440235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8
91780046|NCT01002339|183440236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
91780047|NCT01002339|183440237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
91780048|NCT01002339|183440238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.45
91780049|NCT01002339|183440239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
91780050|NCT01002339|183440240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
91840424|NCT03469284|183561149|OTHER|||||||0.9182|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9182
91780051|NCT01002339|183440241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
91780052|NCT01002339|183440242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9
91780053|NCT02215252|183440243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.355|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.17||||||Statistical analysis is only for week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4 ,incorporating Bayesian priors separately on the placebo response and pregabalin effect.||0.17|-1.00|
91780054|NCT02215252|183440243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|-0.2||||||Statistical analysis is only for week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4 ,incorporating Bayesian priors separately on the placebo response and pregabalin effect.||-0.20|-0.91|
91840425|NCT03469284|183561150|OTHER|||||||0.1046|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1046
91647563|NCT00666718|183187124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1701||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1701
91780055|NCT02215252|183440244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|4.69||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||4.69|0.78|
91780056|NCT02215252|183440244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|6.56||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||6.56|1.06|
91780057|NCT02215252|183440245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|4.74||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||4.74|0.33|
91780058|NCT02215252|183440245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|15.81||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||15.81|1.43|
91780059|NCT02215252|183440246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.32||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.32|-1.75|
91780060|NCT02215252|183440246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|0.04||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4||0.04|-1.43|
91647564|NCT00666718|183187124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1727||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 nocturnal hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1727
91780061|NCT02215252|183440247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.43||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4||0.43|-0.86|
91780062|NCT02215252|183440247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.0||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4||0.00|-1.33|
91780063|NCT02215252|183440248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.67||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.67|-0.87|
91780064|NCT02215252|183440248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.2||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.20|-1.36|
91780065|NCT02215252|183440249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|0.67||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.67|-0.49|
91780066|NCT02215252|183440249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.13||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.13|-1.05|
91780067|NCT02215252|183440250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|0.39||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.39|-1.09|
91780068|NCT02215252|183440250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.51||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.51|-1.00|
91780069|NCT02215252|183440251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.12|4.57||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||4.57|-5.12|
91780070|NCT02215252|183440251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.57|-0.66||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.66|-10.57|
91780071|NCT02215252|183440252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.45||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Proportional Odds Logistic Regression including all data up to week 4.||1.45|0.34|
91780072|NCT02215252|183440252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.07||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Proportional Odds Logistic Regression including all data up to week 4.||1.07|0.24|
91780073|NCT02215252|183440253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|-0.02||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.02|-1.16|
91780074|NCT02215252|183440253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|-0.43||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.43|-1.57|
91780075|NCT02215252|183440254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|192.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|816.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1161.0|1544.0||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||1544|-1161|
91780076|NCT02215252|183440254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|611.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|812.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-735.0|1956.0||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||1956|-735|
91780077|NCT02215252|183440258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.98|13.01||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||13.01|2.98|
91780078|NCT02215252|183440258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.46|5.95||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||5.95|-4.46|
91840426|NCT01242176|183561151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|105.37|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa final formulation divided by empa trial formulation 2||105.37|98.10|
91840427|NCT01242176|183561152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|99.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|109.68|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV.|Ratio calculated as empa final formulation divided by empa trial formulation 2||109.68|90.18|
91647565|NCT00666718|183187124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2094||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 non-nocturnal hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2094
91898411|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|-0.035||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 43||-0.035|-0.209|0.0072
91647566|NCT00666718|183187124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 severe hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6230
91647567|NCT00666718|183187126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.55|||ANCOVA|weight change from baseline = Treatment + country + baseline Hb1Ac + baseline weight + treatment\*HbA1c baseline value||||0.55|-0.86|
91780079|NCT02215252|183440259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|20.17||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||20.17|2.94|
91780080|NCT02215252|183440259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.38|6.54||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||6.54|-11.38|
91780081|NCT01106690|183440297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|-0.437|||ANCOVA|||||-0.437|-0.811|<0.001
91840428|NCT01242176|183561153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.26|105.48|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV.|Ratio calculated as empa final formulation divided by empa trial formulation 2||105.48|98.26|
91840429|NCT00358215|183561154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||Stratification factors are: region and type of device (cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with or without implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), ICD without CRT, or none)|Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are from the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by the stratification factors.|||1.13|0.90|0.871
91840430|NCT00358215|183561155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||Stratification factors are: region and type of device (cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with or without implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), ICD without CRT, or none).|Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are from the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by the stratification factors.|||1.19|0.92|0.512
91840431|NCT00358215|183561156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||Stratification factors are: region and type of device (cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with or without implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), ICD without CRT, or none).|Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are from the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by the stratification factors.|||1.14|0.89|0.922
91840432|NCT00358215|183561157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model estimating treatment effect adjusted for region, type of device, and Baseline KCCQ score.||||3.75|0.65|0.005
91840433|NCT00358215|183561158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model estimating treatment effect adjusted for region, type of device, and Baseline KCCQ score.||||4.05|0.53|0.011
91840434|NCT00871351|183561159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.8|||Hochberg's method|||||-5.8|-15.4|<0.0001
91840435|NCT00871351|183561159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-21.2|||Hochberg's method|||||-21.2|-31.8|<0.0001
91840436|NCT00871351|183561160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Hochberg's method|||||||0.0003
91840437|NCT00871351|183561160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Hochberg's method|||||||<0.0001
91647568|NCT00666718|183187127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|12.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Total daily insulin dose=Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country+ treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||12.68|-8.33|
91647569|NCT01032330|183187129|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.054||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.02||||One-sided Barnard's Test||||||0.020|0.004
91840438|NCT02291289|183561193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.82|||Log Rank|||||1.82|0.50|= 0.872
91840439|NCT02291289|183561193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.77|= 0.666
91840440|NCT02291289|183561193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.29|||Log Rank|||||2.29|0.90|= 0.128
91840441|NCT02291289|183561194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||=|0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.32|||Log Rank|||||1.32|0.39|= 0.276
91840442|NCT02291289|183561194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||=|0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.64|= 0.076
91840443|NCT02291289|183561194|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.157|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.157
91840444|NCT02291289|183561194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.14|0.73|= 0.415
91840445|NCT02291289|183561196|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.064|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.064
91840446|NCT02291289|183561196|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.658|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.658
91840447|NCT02291289|183561196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.093
91840448|NCT02291289|183561197|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.125|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.125
91840449|NCT02291289|183561197|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.739|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.739
91840450|NCT02291289|183561197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.362
91840451|NCT02291289|183561199|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.421|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.421
91840452|NCT02291289|183561199|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.495|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.495
91840453|NCT02291289|183561199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.357
91840454|NCT01118455|183561201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.507
91840455|NCT01118455|183561201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.220
91840456|NCT01118455|183561201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.168
91840457|NCT01118455|183561201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.620
91840458|NCT01118455|183561202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.727
91840459|NCT01118455|183561202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
91840460|NCT01118455|183561202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
91647570|NCT01032330|183187130|OTHER||cumulative probability|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.22|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of cumulative probability of deterioration by 3 years|||.22|.10|
91840461|NCT01118455|183561202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
91647571|NCT01032330|183187131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.094|||One-sided Barnard's Test|||||0.094|-0.038|0.27
91647572|NCT01032330|183187133|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 years. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||<.001
91647573|NCT01032330|183187134|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome; P values for comparisons of binary outcomes are from logistic regression models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.38
91647574|NCT01032330|183187135|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 years. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||<.001
91840462|NCT01118455|183561203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.448
91840463|NCT01118455|183561203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
91840464|NCT01118455|183561203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.799
91840465|NCT01118455|183561203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.142
91840466|NCT01118455|183561204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.714
91780082|NCT01106690|183440297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|-0.575|||ANCOVA|||||-0.575|-0.951|<0.001
91780083|NCT01106690|183440298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.007||95.0|1.26|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.57|1.26|0.007
91780084|NCT01106690|183440298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.60|2.73|<0.001
91780085|NCT01106690|183440299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.857|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.96|-21.78|||ANCOVA|||||-21.78|-36.96|<0.001
91780086|NCT01106690|183440299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.861|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-28.11|||ANCOVA|||||-28.11|-43.30|<0.001
91780087|NCT01106690|183440300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|14.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.521|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.315|19.236|||ANCOVA|||||19.236|9.315|<0.001
91780088|NCT01106690|183440300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|17.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.509|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.293|22.166|||ANCOVA|||||22.166|12.293|<0.001
91780089|NCT01106690|183440301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-3.6|<0.001
91780090|NCT01106690|183440301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||||-2.8|-4.6|<0.001
91780091|NCT01106690|183440302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.879|-1.251|||ANCOVA|||||-1.251|-6.879|0.005
91780092|NCT01106690|183440302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.433||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.281|-0.643|||ANCOVA|||||-0.643|-6.281|0.016
91780093|NCT01106690|183440303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-12.1|0.034
91780094|NCT01106690|183440303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-5.8|||ANCOVA|||||-5.8|-28.1|0.003
91780095|NCT01106690|183440304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|1.2|0.010
91780096|NCT01106690|183440304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.2|||ANCOVA|||||10.2|2.8|<0.001
91840467|NCT01118455|183561204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.426
91840468|NCT01118455|183561204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.467
91840469|NCT01118455|183561204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.654
91840470|NCT01118455|183561205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.691
91840471|NCT01118455|183561205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.494
91780097|NCT02683577|183440316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least square (LS) mean ratio|1.695|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.904|3.176|||||A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for Cmax values for telotristat ethyl.||3.176|0.904|
91780098|NCT02683577|183440316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.462|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.579|3.837|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for Cmax values for telotristat ethyl.||3.837|1.579|
91780099|NCT02683577|183440317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median difference between the mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||0.000|0.000|=1.0000
91780100|NCT02683577|183440317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median difference between the moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||0.000|0.000|=1.0000
91780101|NCT02683577|183440318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.294|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.144|4.598|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for AUC(0-tlast) values for telotristat ethyl.||4.598|1.144|
91780102|NCT02683577|183440318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|3.168|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.715|5.852|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-tlast) values for telotristat ethyl.||5.852|1.715|
91780103|NCT02683577|183440320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.65|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for Cmax values for LP-778902.||2.65|1.11|
91780104|NCT02683577|183440320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|2.66|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on Cmax values for LP-778902.||2.66|1.51|
91780105|NCT02683577|183440321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|0.316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median differences between the hepatic impaired group (Test) versus the healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||1.000|0.000|=0.3160
91780106|NCT02683577|183440321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|0.4671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median differences between the hepatic impaired group (Test) versus the healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||1.000|0.000|=0.4671
91647575|NCT01032330|183187136|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.09
91647576|NCT01032330|183187136|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.02
91780107|NCT02683577|183440322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.45|3.94|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-tlast) values for LP-778902.||3.94|1.45|
91647577|NCT01032330|183187137|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||<.001
91780108|NCT02683577|183440322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.45|5.03|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-tlast) values for LP-778902.||5.03|2.45|
91780109|NCT02683577|183440323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.82|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on ln transformed AUC(0-inf) values for LP-778902.||3.82|1.33|
91780110|NCT02683577|183440323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|4.8|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-inf) values for LP-778902.||4.80|2.30|
91780111|NCT03219528|183440326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline||||0.78
91780112|NCT03219528|183440326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5||||0.88
91780113|NCT03219528|183440335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline||||0.77
91780114|NCT03219528|183440335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5||||0.58
91780115|NCT00790842|183440343|OTHER|Recommended Phase 2 dose for Group A|Dose in milligrams per day|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Because no dose limiting toxicities were noted, the recommended phase 2 dose for patients with creatinine clearance of 30 to 60 mL/min is 25 mg/day|Recommended Phase 2 dose for Group A||||
91780116|NCT00790842|183440343|OTHER|Recommended phase 2 dose for patients in Group B|Dose in milligrams/day|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Because no dose limiting toxicities were noted, the recommended phase 2 dose of lenalidomide is 25 mg/day for patients with creatinine clearance \< 30 mL/minute who are not on dialysis|Recommended phase 2 dose for patients in Group B||||
91780117|NCT00790842|183440343|OTHER|Recommended phase 2 dose for Group C|Lenalidomide dose in mg/day|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Because no dose limiting toxicities were observed, the recommended phase 2 dose of lenalidomide is 25 mg/day for patients with creatinine clearance \< 30 mL/min who are receiving dialysis|Recommended phase 2 dose for Group C||||
91780118|NCT05571605|183440362|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91780119|NCT01285323|183440451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.4063|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2819|0.5855||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.5855|0.2819|<0.0001
91780120|NCT01285323|183440452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0397||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.179||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.179|0.023|0.0109
91780121|NCT01285323|183440453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0317||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.155||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active-placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.155|0.030|0.0037
91780122|NCT01285323|183440454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.937||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.393||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.393|0.025|0.0259
91780123|NCT01285323|183440455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0664||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|-0.066||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||-0.066|-0.327|0.0032
91780124|NCT01285323|183440456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|0.67|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline usage of oral corticosteroid (yes or no) and geographical region (US or other).|Reslizumab vs placebo|Kaplan-Meier estimate of probability (5) of not experiencing a CAE by week 52. The first CAEs for each patient occurring after randomization and up to 2 weeks after the end of treatment period were analyzed. Patients without a CAE within this time frame were censored at two weeks after the treatment completion date or study discontinuation, whichever came first.||0.670|0.353|<0.0001
91840472|NCT01118455|183561205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.343
91840473|NCT01118455|183561205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.295
91840474|NCT01622543|183561221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.53|||Log Rank|||||2.53|1.00|0.046
91840475|NCT01622543|183561222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91647578|NCT01032330|183187137|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.33
91647579|NCT01032330|183187138|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.013
91840476|NCT01622543|183561223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|4.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.55|0.96|0.06
91840477|NCT01622543|183561224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.98|||Log Rank|||||1.98|0.78|0.36
91647580|NCT01032330|183187138|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.26
91647581|NCT01032330|183187139|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.42
91780125|NCT01285323|183440457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.059||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.059|0.011|0.0037
91840478|NCT01421589|183561253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||Univariate regression analyses was performed to assess the relationship between change in skeletal muscle IGF-1 mRNA expression after 12 weeks treatment with rhGH and change in ViPCr.||||0.02
91780126|NCT01285323|183440458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1775||0.7263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.287||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.287|-0.411|0.7263
91780127|NCT01285323|183440461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.3893|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2621|0.5782||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Requiring Systemic Corticosteroids The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.5782|0.2621|<0.0001
91780128|NCT01285323|183440461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio|0.6686||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2878|1.6479||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Hospitalization or ER visit The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||1.6479|0.2878|0.4020
91780129|NCT02606643|183440465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Chi-squared|||an alpha level of .05, and a level of power of 80%. These parameters required a sample size of 63 patients per group||||0.814
91780130|NCT02158546|183440470|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.1|0.782
91780131|NCT03418714|183440485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T test on the change in network activity across all networks, from before to after salvinorin A administration.||||.006
91780132|NCT03418714|183440486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T test on the change in within- and between-network connectivity across all values, from before to after salvinorin A administration.||||.001
91780133|NCT01208207|183440491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The etoricoxib dose (90 mg) will be considered non-inferior to naproxen 1000 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in the least squares (LS) mean (etoricoxib minus naproxen 1000 mg) is no larger than 8 mm VAS (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|4.19|||ANCOVA|||||4.19|-5.47|
91780134|NCT01208207|183440492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The etoricoxib dose (60 mg) will be considered non-inferior to naproxen 1000 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in the LS mean (etoricoxib minus naproxen 1000 mg) is no larger than 8 mm VAS (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in Least Squares Mean|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|5.37|||ANCOVA|||||5.37|-2.19|
91780135|NCT01208207|183440493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.58||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.96|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-3.96|0.396
91780136|NCT01208207|183440494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.7||||0.112||80.0|-4.88|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-4.88|0.112
91780137|NCT03060096|183440509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
91780138|NCT03060096|183440510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
91780139|NCT03060096|183440511|OTHER||Rate|0.764|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.6783||||||||||0.6783|
91780140|NCT01055197|183440523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.53|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis (H0) was that PCI + RT is not effective versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that PCI + RT is effective. Assumptions were that PCI alone would have hazard rate λc of 1.204 and PCI + RT a hazard rate λc of 0.799 (hazard ratio λt/λc = 0.663). At each planned analysis, the p-value from the log-rank test statistic assessing overall survival was compared to the nominal significance level. The final targeted accrual was 154.||2.53|0.82|0.2103
91780141|NCT01055197|183440524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided significance level of 0.05||||||0.24
91780142|NCT01055197|183440526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|||||||Log Rank|2-sided significance level of 0.05||||||0.0102
91780143|NCT01721044|183440543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
91780144|NCT01721044|183440544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91780145|NCT01721044|183440545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91780146|NCT01721044|183440546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.140
91780147|NCT01721044|183440547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
91780148|NCT01721044|183440548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91780149|NCT01721044|183440549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91780150|NCT01721044|183440550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.723|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.723
91780151|NCT01721044|183440551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
91780152|NCT01721044|183440551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
91780153|NCT01721044|183440552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.001
91840479|NCT01421589|183561254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91840480|NCT01421589|183561255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91840481|NCT01421589|183561256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91780154|NCT01721044|183440552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.002
91780155|NCT01721044|183440552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.001
91780156|NCT01721044|183440552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.015
91780157|NCT01721044|183440553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.002
91780158|NCT01721044|183440553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.001
91780159|NCT01721044|183440553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.001
91780160|NCT01721044|183440553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.001
91780161|NCT01721044|183440554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91780162|NCT01721044|183440554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91780163|NCT01721044|183440555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91780164|NCT01721044|183440555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91780165|NCT01721044|183440556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91780166|NCT01721044|183440556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91780167|NCT01721044|183440557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.012
91780168|NCT01721044|183440557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.104
91780169|NCT01721044|183440558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91780170|NCT01721044|183440558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91780171|NCT01721044|183440559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91780172|NCT01721044|183440559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
91780173|NCT01721044|183440560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91780174|NCT01721044|183440560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91780175|NCT01721044|183440561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.005
91780176|NCT01721044|183440561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.004
91780177|NCT01721044|183440561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.002
91780178|NCT01721044|183440561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.026
91780179|NCT01721044|183440562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 12||||0.448
91780180|NCT01721044|183440562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 12||||0.058
91780181|NCT01721044|183440562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 24||||0.446
91780182|NCT01721044|183440562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 24||||0.401
91780183|NCT01721044|183440562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 12||||0.001
91780184|NCT01721044|183440562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 12||||0.001
91780185|NCT01721044|183440562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 24||||0.001
91780186|NCT01721044|183440562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 24||||0.001
91780187|NCT01721044|183440563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, US Algorithm||||0.001
91840482|NCT01421589|183561257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91840483|NCT01421589|183561258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91840484|NCT01421589|183561259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91840485|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.4
91780188|NCT01721044|183440563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, US Algorithm||||0.001
91780189|NCT01721044|183440563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, US Algorithm||||0.001
91780190|NCT01721044|183440563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, US Algorithm||||0.003
91780191|NCT01721044|183440563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, UK Algorithm||||0.001
91780192|NCT01721044|183440563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, UK Algorithm||||0.001
91780193|NCT01721044|183440563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, UK Algorithm||||0.001
91780194|NCT01721044|183440563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, UK Algorithm||||0.002
91780195|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 12||||0.362
91780196|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 12||||0.170
91780197|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 24||||0.753
91780198|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 24||||0.715
91780199|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 12||||0.077
91780200|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 12||||0.058
91780201|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.232|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 24||||0.232
91780202|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 24||||0.534
91780203|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 12||||0.079
91780204|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 12||||0.070
91780205|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.327|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 24||||0.327
91780206|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.479|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 24||||0.479
91780207|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 12||||0.001
91780208|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 12||||0.005
91780209|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 24||||0.001
91780210|NCT01721044|183440564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 24||||0.030
91780211|NCT02048670|183440579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 1 - eyes open, visual surround locked, platform locked||||0.005
91780212|NCT02048670|183440579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 2 - eyes closed, visual surround locked, platform locked||||0.006
91780213|NCT02048670|183440579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 3 - eyes open, visual surround unlocked, platform locked||||0.051
91780214|NCT02048670|183440579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 4 - eyes open, visual surround locked, platform unlocked||||0.173
91780215|NCT02048670|183440579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 5 - eyes closed, visual surround locked, platform unlocked||||0.985
91780216|NCT02048670|183440579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 6 - eyes open, visual surround unlocked, platform unlocked||||0.003
91780217|NCT02420821|183440587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||0.95|0.57|0.0205
91780218|NCT02420821|183440589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.08|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.08|0.76|0.2675
91780219|NCT02420821|183440591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.13|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.13|0.64|0.263
91780220|NCT02420821|183440593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.04|0.74|0.1218
91780221|NCT02420821|183440595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.21|0.72|0.6138
91840486|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|two-tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.109
91840487|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.779
91780222|NCT02420821|183440596|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.3||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Wald method.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||9.70|-3.09|0.2733
91780223|NCT02420821|183440598|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.96||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|8.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Wald method.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||8.24|-4.32|0.5121
91780224|NCT02420821|183440601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.01|0.71|0.0606
91780225|NCT02420821|183440602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.09||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Wald method.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||11.58|-1.40|0.1011
91780226|NCT02420821|183440605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||0.98|0.70|0.0254
91780227|NCT02420821|183440607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.79|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||0.79|0.34|0.0020
91780228|NCT02420821|183440609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.0|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.00|0.43|0.0497
91780229|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.43|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 1 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.43|-1.06|<0.0001
91780230|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.11|-0.51|0.2085
91780231|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.71|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.71|-1.33|<0.0001
91780232|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.2|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.20|-0.82|0.0013
91840488|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.262
91840489|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.150
91780233|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.7|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.70|-1.34|<0.0001
91780234|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.10|-0.76|0.0098
91780235|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.65|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.65|-1.32|<0.0001
91780236|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.12|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.12|-0.80|0.0080
91780237|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.44|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.44|-1.13|<0.0001
91780238|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.15|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.15|-0.56|0.2512
91780239|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.28|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.28|-1.01|0.0005
91780240|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.05|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.05|-0.80|0.0247
91840490|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.726
91840491|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.055
91840492|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.945|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.945
91780241|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.39|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.39|-1.15|<0.0001
91780242|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.1|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.10|-0.68|0.1411
91780243|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.25|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.25|-1.05|0.0014
91780244|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.03|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.03|-0.78|0.0728
91780245|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.49|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.49|-1.32|<0.0001
91647582|NCT01032330|183187139|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.61
91647583|NCT01032330|183187140|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.012
91780246|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.2|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.20|-1.05|0.0041
91647584|NCT01032330|183187140|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.02
91709020|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.6028||95.0|-0.34|0.56|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||0.56|-0.34|0.6028
91780247|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.55|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.55|-1.46|<0.0001
91780248|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.03|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.03|-0.96|0.0353
91780249|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.34|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.34|-1.35|0.0011
91780250|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.02|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.02|-1.01|0.0582
91780251|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.19|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.19|-1.32|0.0089
91780252|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.9575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.61|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.61|-0.57|0.9575
91780253|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.29|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.29|-1.01|0.2745
91780254|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.55|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.55|-0.81|0.7088
91780255|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.36|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.36|-1.13|0.3077
91780256|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.63|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.63|-0.93|0.7112
91780257|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.11|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.11|-1.69|0.0837
91780258|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.04|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.04|-0.88|0.8655
91780259|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.11|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.11|-1.07|0.9725
91780260|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.5285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.55|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.55|-0.80|0.5285
91780261|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.4|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.40|-1.34|0.9663
91780262|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.63|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.63|-1.61|0.9914
91780263|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.8345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.3|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||2.30|-1.85|0.8345
91780264|NCT02420821|183440610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.91|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 19 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||3.91|-2.90|0.7725
91780265|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Pain: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.20|-0.77|0.0010
91647585|NCT01032330|183187141|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||.002
91647586|NCT01032330|183187141|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.01
91647587|NCT01032330|183187142|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.11
91647588|NCT01032330|183187142|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.10
91647589|NCT01032330|183187143|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.60
91647590|NCT01032330|183187143|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.09
91647591|NCT02567266|183187151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Post-Treatment||.20|-.58|.338
91780266|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Fatigue: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.34|-0.91|<0.0001
91780267|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Nausea: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.69|-1.13|<0.0001
91780268|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Disturbed sleep: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.25|-0.79|0.0002
91780269|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Feelings of being distressed: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.29|-0.84|<0.0001
91840493|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = 0.05||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.844
91647592|NCT02567266|183187151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.57||Threshold: p \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Post Treatment||0.57|-0.24|0.425
91647593|NCT02567266|183187151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.06||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Post||0.06|-0.77|0.09
91647594|NCT02567266|183187151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.09||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Follow-Up||0.09|-0.72|0.126
91647595|NCT02567266|183187151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Follow-Up||0.19|-0.65|0.28
91647596|NCT02567266|183187151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.34||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Follow-Up||0.34|-0.51|0.697
91647597|NCT02567266|183187152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.45||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Follow-Up||0.45|-0.6|0.779
91647598|NCT02567266|183187152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.67||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Follow-Up||0.67|-0.42|0.66
91780270|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Shortness of breath: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.32|-0.81|<0.0001
91780271|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Remembering things: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.11|-0.56|0.0036
91780272|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Lack of appetite: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.91|-1.46|<0.0001
91780273|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Drowsy: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.27|-0.81|0.0001
91780274|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Dry mouth: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.71|-1.28|<0.0001
91780275|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Feeling sad: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.33|-0.87|<0.0001
91780276|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Vomiting: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.41|-0.75|<0.0001
91780277|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Numbness or tingling: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.10|-0.58|0.0051
91780278|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Rash/Skin Changes: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.83|-1.33|<0.0001
91780279|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Headache: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||0.16|-0.26|0.6541
91780280|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Mouth/Throat Sores: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.76|-1.28|<0.0001
91780281|NCT02420821|183440611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Diarrhea: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.88|-1.27|<0.0001
91780282|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 1 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.87|0.58|<0.0001
91780283|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.57|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.57|0.28|<0.0001
91780284|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.84|0.55|<0.0001
91840494|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.945||||||df=7|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.945
91709021|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.3624||95.0|-0.68|1.64|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 5 hours post-dose.||1.64|-0.68|0.3624
91647599|NCT02567266|183187152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.31||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Post||0.31|-0.51|0.629
91647600|NCT02567266|183187152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.38||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Post||0.38|-0.41|0.938
91647601|NCT02567266|183187152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.49||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Post||0.49|-0.32|0.68
91840495|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.383||||||Alpha = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.383
91647602|NCT02567266|183187152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.35||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Follow-Up||0.35|-0.75|0.479
91647603|NCT02567266|183187153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.45||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Post||3.45|-2.85|0.852
91647604|NCT02567266|183187153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|3.07||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Post||3.07|-3.41|0.917
91709022|NCT00978341|183311318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.3163||95.0|-0.52|1.49|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 6 hours post-dose.||1.49|-0.52|0.3163
91780285|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.73|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.73|0.44|<0.0001
91647605|NCT02567266|183187153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|3.74||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Post||3.74|-2.81|0.778
91780286|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.92|0.62|<0.0001
91647606|NCT02567266|183187153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.19||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Follow-Up||5.19|-3.3|0.66
91780287|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.78|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.78|0.46|<0.0001
91780288|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.97|0.66|<0.0001
91780289|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.81|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.81|0.49|<0.0001
91780290|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.99|0.66|<0.0001
91780291|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.8|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.80|0.46|<0.0001
91840496|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Mean change in osmolarity from baseline. H0: No change (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant change (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.383
91647607|NCT02567266|183187153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|4.19||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Follow-Up||4.19|-4.55|0.935
91840497|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.672
91840498|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.107
91840499|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.64
91840500|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=14||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.040
91840501|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.20
91840502|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df-=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.150
91840503|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.730
91898412|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.039||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 57||-0.039|-0.197|0.0043
91647608|NCT02567266|183187153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|5.55||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Follow-Up||5.55|-3.29|0.615
91840504|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.89
91840505|NCT01614847|183561277|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.89
91840506|NCT00249496|183561280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.69|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||8.69|1.60|.004
91840507|NCT00249496|183561282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.43|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.43|0.26|=0.57
91840508|NCT00249496|183561284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)||The Odds Ratio and Confidence Intervals could not be calculated because one of the groups was at 0.|||0|0|0.046
91840509|NCT02524054|183561287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a paired t-test comparing the treatment effect of furosemide to the treatment effect of saline in each individual.||||0.35
91840510|NCT02524054|183561288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91840511|NCT02693834|183561289|OTHER|Paired t test||||||0.293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||In order to test the difference in gait endurance,between the two AFO conditions at baseline, a paired t-test was analyzed||||.293
91840512|NCT02693834|183561290|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.077||||||The above value was the interaction between the type of AFO and practice time.|repeated measures ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA was calculated to find the differences in gait endurance between the type of AFO and practice time.||||0.077
91840513|NCT02693834|183561290|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.046||||||main effect of the type of AFO: F(1, 19) = 4.58, ηp2= .194|repeated measures ANOVA|||The main effect of type of AFO||||.046
91840514|NCT02693834|183561290|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA|||||<|0.001||||||main effect of practice: F(1, 19) = 43.94, ηp2 = .698|repeated measures ANOVA|||Main effect of practice||||<.001
91840515|NCT02693834|183561291|OTHER|paired t test||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry, between the two AFO conditions at baseline were analyzed using a paired t test for self selected velocity||||.688
91840516|NCT02693834|183561291|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.397||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between type of AFO and practice time for gait symmetry at the self selected velocity F(1, 19)= 0.75, ηp2 = .038|repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry at self select velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA.||||.397
91840517|NCT02693834|183561291|OTHER|A repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.95||||||Main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at SSV: F(1, 19) = 0.004, ηp2 =.00|Repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of AFO on gait symmetry was analyzed at self selected velocity||||.950
91709023|NCT00978341|183311319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.738||0.5919||95.0|-16.26|27.04|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1.||27.04|-16.26|0.5919
91780292|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.89|0.54|<0.0001
91709024|NCT00978341|183311319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.603||0.3981||95.0|-17.7|42.87|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: pre-dose.||42.87|-17.70|0.3981
91709025|NCT00978341|183311319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.123||0.8314||95.0|-24.0|29.28|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||29.28|-24.00|0.8314
91709026|NCT00978341|183311320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7569||95.0|-0.14|0.1|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 2 hours post-dose.||0.10|-0.14|0.7569
91780293|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.65|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.65|0.30|<0.0001
91780294|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.86|0.49|<0.0001
91709027|NCT00978341|183311320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4814||95.0|-0.26|0.13|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 4 hours post-dose.||0.13|-0.26|0.4814
91709028|NCT00978341|183311320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.6222||95.0|-0.37|0.23|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 6 hours post-dose.||0.23|-0.37|0.6222
91780295|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.66|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.66|0.29|<0.0001
91780296|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.79|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.79|0.41|<0.0001
91840518|NCT02693834|183561291|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.111||||||The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at self selected velocity F(1, 19) = 2.79, ηp2 = .128|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of practice on gait symmetry at Self selected velocity||||.111
91840519|NCT02693834|183561291|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry, between the two AFO conditions at baseline were analyzed using a paired t test for fast paced velocity||||.260
91709029|NCT00978341|183311320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.3035||95.0|-0.35|0.12|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: pre-dose.||0.12|-0.35|0.3035
91780297|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.68|0.29|<0.0001
91780298|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.91|0.52|<0.0001
91780299|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.73|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.73|0.33|<0.0001
91898413|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.221||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 57||-0.221|-0.376|< 0.0001
91898414|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.1||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 57||-0.100|-0.261|<.0001
91780300|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.96|0.51|<0.0001
91780301|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.86|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.86|0.41|<0.0001
91709030|NCT00978341|183311320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.1881||95.0|-0.42|0.09|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 2 hours post-dose.||0.09|-0.42|0.1881
91709031|NCT00978341|183311320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.3159||95.0|-0.09|0.24|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||0.24|-0.09|0.3159
91709032|NCT00978341|183311320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.8203||95.0|-0.22|0.27|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 6 hours post-dose.||0.27|-0.22|0.8203
91780302|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.99|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.99|0.49|<0.0001
91780303|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.68|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.68|0.17|0.0010
91780304|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.89|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.89|0.32|<0.0001
91780305|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.82|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.82|0.23|0.0005
91780306|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.88|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.88|0.23|0.0008
91780307|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.33||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.67|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.67|-0.01|0.0591
91780308|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.05|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.05|0.29|0.0005
91780309|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.1378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.68|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.68|-0.09|0.1378
91780310|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.89|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.89|-0.03|0.0650
91780311|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.96|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.96|-0.01|0.0531
91780312|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.93||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.49|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.49|0.37|0.0011
91780313|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.55||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.14|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.14|-0.05|0.0708
91780314|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.29|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.29|-0.13|0.1078
91780315|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62||||0.1487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.47|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.47|-0.22|0.1487
91780316|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.33||||0.5537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.43|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.43|-0.77|0.5537
91780317|NCT02420821|183440614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.33|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 19 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||2.33|-1.29|0.5743
91780318|NCT02855125|183440690|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.88|||Log Rank|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Based on stratified Cox regression model .|||1.88|0.71|0.2744
91780319|NCT02855125|183440691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.14|||Log Rank|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Based on stratified Cox regression model.|||2.14|0.80|0.1431
91780320|NCT04467905|183440696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-19.3|||ANCOVA||The mean difference is the difference in adjusted means for the change between baseline value and nadir in the placebo group and the change between baseline and nadir in the etripamil group.|||-19.3|-40.3|<0.0001
91780321|NCT04953728|183440739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77306724|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.77306724
91780322|NCT04953728|183440739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.24
91780323|NCT04953728|183440739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.45
91780324|NCT04953728|183440739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.13
91780325|NCT04953728|183440739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during Sham when compared to baseline||||0.14
91780326|NCT04953728|183440740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81019363|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to ST36 25Hz||||0.81019363
91780327|NCT04953728|183440740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.18
91780328|NCT04953728|183440740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.21
91780329|NCT04953728|183440740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to Sham||||0.58
91780330|NCT04953728|183440740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 25Hz when compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.18
91780331|NCT04953728|183440740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 25Hz when compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.18
91780332|NCT04953728|183440740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 25Hz when compared to sham||||0.78
91780333|NCT04953728|183440740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of PC6 100Hz when compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.89
91780334|NCT04953728|183440740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of PC6 100Hz when compared to sham||||0.05
91840520|NCT02693834|183561291|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.113||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between type of AFO and practice time for gait symmetry at fast paced velocity FPV F(1, 19) = 2.76,, ηp2 = .127|repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry at fast paced velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA||||.113
91780335|NCT04953728|183440740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of PC6 25Hz when compared to sham||||0.07
91780336|NCT04953728|183440741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00046998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ST36 100Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.00046998
91780337|NCT04953728|183440741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74369428|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ST36 25Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.74369428
91780338|NCT04953728|183440741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09854383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PC6 100Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.09854383
91780339|NCT04953728|183440741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24872746|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PC6 25Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.24872746
91780340|NCT04953728|183440741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04828889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sham: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.04828889
91780341|NCT04953728|183440742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to ST36 25Hz||||0.02
91780342|NCT04953728|183440742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.11
91780343|NCT04953728|183440742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.01
91780344|NCT04953728|183440742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to Sham||||0.04
91780345|NCT04953728|183440742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 25Hz compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.11
91780346|NCT04953728|183440742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 25Hz compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.23
91780347|NCT04953728|183440742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 25Hz compared to Sham||||0.17
91780348|NCT04953728|183440742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||PC6 100Hz compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.15
91780349|NCT04953728|183440742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||PC6 100Hz compared to Sham||||0.43
91780350|NCT04953728|183440742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||PC6 25Hz compared to Sham||||0.19
91780351|NCT04953728|183440743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during ST36 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.87
91780352|NCT04953728|183440743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during ST36 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.13
91780353|NCT04953728|183440743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during PC6 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.17
91780354|NCT04953728|183440743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during PC6 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.88
91780355|NCT04953728|183440743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during sham when compared to baseline||||0.14
91780356|NCT04953728|183440744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.007
91780357|NCT04953728|183440744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.83
91780358|NCT04953728|183440744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.87
91780359|NCT04953728|183440744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.004
91780360|NCT04953728|183440744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during sham when compared to baseline||||0.056
91780361|NCT01646125|183440745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.63||||||||1.63|0.35|
91780362|NCT02540629|183440764|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91780363|NCT03584789|183440862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.80|.93|.08
91780364|NCT03584789|183440862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|.86|.18
91780365|NCT03584789|183440863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.2|9.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.44|.20|.71
91780366|NCT03584789|183440863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.21|11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.00|.21|.62
91780367|NCT03584789|183440864|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.12|-0.26|.38
91840521|NCT02693834|183561291|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.918||||||The main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 0.01, ηp2 = 0.001|repeated measures MANOVA|||The main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity walk was assessed with repeated measures MANOVA||||.918
91840522|NCT02693834|183561291|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.077||||||The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 3.50, ηp2 = .155|repeated measures MANOVA|||The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity walk was assessed with repeated measures MANOVA||||.077
91780368|NCT03584789|183440864|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.17|-0.24|.70
91780369|NCT03584789|183440865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.50|-0.79|.65
91780370|NCT03584789|183440865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.41|-0.99|.41
91780371|NCT00602472|183440889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.73|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.50|-0.73|<0.0001
91780372|NCT00602472|183440890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.56|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.41|-0.56|<0.0001
91780373|NCT00602472|183440891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.78|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.58|-0.78|<0.0001
91780374|NCT00602472|183440892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.59|-0.80|<0.0001
91780375|NCT00602472|183440893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-18.1|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.3|-18.1|<0.0001
91780376|NCT00602472|183440894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.4|-13.2|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-13.2|-22.4|<0.0001
91780377|NCT00602472|183440895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-20.3|-11.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-11.1|-20.3|<0.0001
91780378|NCT00602472|183440896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-17.2|-7.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.1|-17.2|<0.0001
91780379|NCT00602472|183440897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.332|9.111|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||9.111|3.332|<0.0001
91780380|NCT00602472|183440899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.818|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.989|7.327|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||7.327|1.989|<0.0001
91780381|NCT00602472|183440901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.474|4.562|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||4.562|2.474|<0.0001
91780382|NCT04730271|183440909|NON_INFERIORITY|Test of non-inferiority: Absolute value deviation from plan with ROBOTIC is less than it is with manual instruments (not using ROBOTIC) under a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 degrees|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91780383|NCT04730271|183440910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
91780384|NCT04730271|183440911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
91780385|NCT04730271|183440912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
91780386|NCT04730271|183440913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91780387|NCT04730271|183440914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a local adverse event within 1 year of the procedure.||||0.6330
91780388|NCT04730271|183440914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a serious local adverse event within 1 year of the procedure.||||0.0400
91780389|NCT04730271|183440914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4079|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a local adverse event within 90 days of the procedure.||||0.4079
91780390|NCT04730271|183440914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1262|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a local serious adverse event within 90 days of the procedure.||||0.1262
91780391|NCT04730271|183440916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6662|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.6662
91780392|NCT04730271|183440916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8154|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.8154
91780393|NCT04730271|183440917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of FJS at 12 weeks||||0.0165
91780394|NCT04730271|183440917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of FJS at 1 year||||0.1331
91780395|NCT04730271|183440918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1596|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.1596
91780396|NCT04730271|183440918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6834|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.6834
91780397|NCT04730271|183440919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5675|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.5675
91780398|NCT04730271|183440919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.9240
91780399|NCT04730271|183440920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.4586
91780400|NCT04730271|183440920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.6951
91780401|NCT04730271|183440921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.8000
91780402|NCT04730271|183440921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.9730
91780403|NCT04730271|183440922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.4636
91780404|NCT04730271|183440922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.8088
91780405|NCT04730271|183440923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4851|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.4851
91780406|NCT04730271|183440923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.6486
91780407|NCT04730271|183440924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8887|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline for Pain at rest between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.8887
91780408|NCT04730271|183440924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline for pain at rest between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.4007
91780409|NCT04730271|183440924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for pain at rest at 12 weeks||||0.0074
91780410|NCT04730271|183440924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain at rest at 1 year||||0.0663
91780411|NCT04730271|183440924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain with Activity at 1 year||||0.7096
91780412|NCT04730271|183440924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for pain with activity at 12 weeks||||0.5321
91780413|NCT04730271|183440924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain with activity at 12 weeks||||0.0709
91780414|NCT04730271|183440924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain with activity at 1 year||||0.1274
91780415|NCT04730271|183440925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the accuracy achieved in the first 10 cases compared to the subsequent cases||||0.6745
91780416|NCT02350296|183440942|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|geometric means ratio|108.12||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|94.12|97.57|119.81||"treatment P value reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||119.81|97.57|0.1455
91780417|NCT02350296|183440943|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|geometric means ratio|110.62||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|94.12|104.26|117.38||"Treatment P value is reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||117.38|104.26|0.0023
91780418|NCT02350296|183440944|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|geometric means ratio|110.69||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|94.12|104.35|117.41||"treatment P value is reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||117.41|104.35|0.0021
91780419|NCT02350296|183440945|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.||||||0.0201|||||||Friedman|||||||0.0201
91780420|NCT01544335|183440956|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Correlation coefficient|The correlation between RVC and ΔL-Dex values was plotted, and the correlation strength was assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient, r.||||||<0.001
91780421|NCT01532986|183440973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.222|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.222|0.157|>0.05
91780422|NCT01532986|183440974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.04|>0.05
91780423|NCT01532986|183440975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.52|>0.05
91780424|NCT01532986|183440976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10|-0.34|>0.05
91780425|NCT01532986|183440977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-2.04|>0.05
91780426|NCT01532986|183440978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|10.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.46|-8.02|>0.05
91780427|NCT01532986|183440979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|0.00|>0.05
91780428|NCT01532986|183440980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-1.45|>0.05
91780429|NCT01532986|183440981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.42|-2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.62|-20.42|<0.05
91709033|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.454
91780430|NCT01532986|183440982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.24|-4.20|>0.05
91780431|NCT03408392|183440983|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing cefixime test and reference product has been presented.|Percentage ratio|105.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|115.54||||||||115.54|96.11|
91780432|NCT03408392|183440984|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing cefixime test and reference product has been presented.|Percentage ratio|101.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.37|109.55||||||||109.55|93.37|
91780433|NCT03408392|183440985|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing cefixime test and reference product has been presented.|Percentage ratio|105.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.31|114.78||||||||114.78|96.31|
91780434|NCT00885170|183441014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.17|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|The primary hypothesis of the study was met if; in postmenopausal women previously treated with alendronate with low BMD, two years of treatment with odanacatib 50 mg significantly increased BMD at the femoral neck site compared to placebo (p-value \< 0.001).||4.17|1.17|<0.001
91780435|NCT00885170|183441015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|6.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.0|-16.9|
91780436|NCT00885170|183441016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Percentage vs. Placebo|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|12.6|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||12.6|-0.4|
91780437|NCT00885170|183441017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least Squares Means|0.88||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.14|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||2.14|-0.37|0.166
91780438|NCT00885170|183441018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|3.18||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|5.17|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||5.17|1.19|0.002
91780439|NCT00885170|183441019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.35|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||2.35|-0.34|0.142
91780440|NCT00885170|183441020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.0|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||4.00|1.41|<0.001
91780441|NCT00885170|183441021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.06||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.98|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.98|0.15|0.023
91780442|NCT00885170|183441022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.89|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||3.89|1.26|<0.001
91780443|NCT00885170|183441023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.8||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.77|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.77|-0.16|0.103
91780444|NCT00885170|183441024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.22||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.67|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.67|-1.23|0.763
91780445|NCT00885170|183441025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.38||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.72|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.72|-0.96|0.578
91780446|NCT00885170|183441026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|10.16||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|39.72|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||39.72|-19.39|0.500
91780447|NCT00885170|183441027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-5.82||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.29|24.65|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||24.65|-36.29|0.709
91780448|NCT00885170|183441028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-47.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-31.67|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||-31.67|-62.40|<0.001
91780449|NCT00885170|183441029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-46.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.43|-31.15|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||-31.15|-61.43|<0.001
91780450|NCT00885170|183441030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|10.96||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|27.22|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||27.22|-5.29|0.186
91780451|NCT00885170|183441031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|12.82||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|23.1|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||23.10|2.54|0.015
91780452|NCT00885170|183441032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|31.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|55.21|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||55.21|7.13|0.011
91780453|NCT00885170|183441033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|24.01||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|48.94|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||48.94|-0.93|0.059
91780454|NCT00885170|183441034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.11||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.16|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||1.16|-0.95|0.846
91709034|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.402
91709035|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.901|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.901
91709036|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.540
91709037|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.523
91780455|NCT00885170|183441035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.38||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|4.67|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||4.67|-1.91|0.413
91780456|NCT00885170|183441036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-5.91||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.66|5.85|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||5.85|-17.66|0.326
91780457|NCT00885170|183441037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.47||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|15.32|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||15.32|-12.37|0.835
91780458|NCT00885170|183441038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-3.13||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|3.78|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||3.78|-10.04|0.376
91780459|NCT03771664|183441039|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.7||Average change from baseline in SE was analyzed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with explanatory (treatment, baseline antidepressant use, baseline SE) and response variables \[change from baseline in sleep efficiency at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||||7.7|-1.2|0.1537
91780460|NCT03771664|183441040|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|3.1||Change from BL in overall WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (BL) in overall WASO||3.1|-29.0|0.1126
91709038|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.260
91780461|NCT03771664|183441040|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 1||3.2|-3.3|0.9819
91780462|NCT03771664|183441040|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|2.1||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 2||2.1|-10.6|0.1838
91780463|NCT03771664|183441040|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|0.9||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, baseline PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 3||0.9|-15.0|0.0797
91780464|NCT03771664|183441040|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|2.4||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, baseline PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 4||2.4|-14.5|0.1559
91780465|NCT03771664|183441041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|37.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in overall TST||37.0|-5.5|0.1441
91780466|NCT03771664|183441041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|15.6||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 1||15.6|-6.2|0.3951
91780467|NCT03771664|183441041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BLPSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 2||12.0|-4.5|0.3705
91780468|NCT03771664|183441041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 3||14.0|-2.0|0.1412
91780469|NCT03771664|183441041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 4||15.0|-2.0|0.1298
91780470|NCT03771664|183441042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|13.2||Change from BL in LPS was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||||13.2|-18.2|0.7526
91780471|NCT03771664|183441043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.6769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.3||Change from BL in NAW was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.0|0.6769
91780472|NCT03771664|183441044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.4||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in mean duration of awakenings (MDA) in total||0.4|-6.4|0.0824
91780473|NCT03771664|183441044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.3||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 1||1.3|-3.0|0.4269
91780474|NCT03771664|183441044|SUPERIORITY|Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.5|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 2||2.5|-9.5|0.2482
91780475|NCT03771664|183441044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.2||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 3||3.2|-10.1|0.3076
91780476|NCT03771664|183441044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 4||0.8|-1.9|0.4491
91780477|NCT03771664|183441045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.8724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.3||Change from BL in DS N1 sleep was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in duration of stage (DS) N1 sleep||5.3|-4.5|0.8724
91780478|NCT03771664|183441045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.08||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|34.7||Change from BL in DS N2 sleep was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in DS N2 sleep||34.7|2.5|0.0238
91780479|NCT03771664|183441045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|16.1||Change from BL in DS N3 sleep was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in DS N3 sleep||16.1|-6.3|0.3863
91780480|NCT03771664|183441045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-0.9||Change from BL in REM sleep duration was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14(EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in duration of REM sleep||-0.9|-19.6|0.0320
91780481|NCT03771664|183441046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6||Change from BL in PS N1 sleep time was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score;Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in percentage of stage (PS) N1 sleep time||1.6|-1.7|0.9524
91780482|NCT03771664|183441046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.7||Change from BL in PS N2 sleep time was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in PS N2 sleep time||5.7|-0.5|0.0930
91780483|NCT03771664|183441046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.2||Change from BL in PS N3 sleep time was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in PS N3 sleep time||4.2|-1.9|0.4427
91780484|NCT03771664|183441046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.7||Change from BL in % of REM sleep duration was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in percentage (%) of REM sleep time||-1.7|-5.9|0.0006
91780485|NCT03771664|183441047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.42||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|58.4||Change from BL in latency to first REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the first REM period||58.4|8.9|0.0083
91780486|NCT03771664|183441047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|43.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|65.0||Change from BL in latency to second REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the second REM period||65.0|21.3|0.0002
91780487|NCT03771664|183441047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|60.2||Change from BL in latency to third REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the third REM period||60.2|16.2|0.0009
91780488|NCT03771664|183441047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.84||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|56.3||Change from BL in latency to fourth REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the fourth REM period||56.3|-4.3|0.0899
91780489|NCT03771664|183441048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-171.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.06||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.9|-79.4||Change from BL in REM density was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||||-79.4|-262.9|0.0004
91780490|NCT03771664|183441049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-288.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-425.1|-151.0||Change from BL in REMA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, baseline PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||||-151.0|-425.1|<0.0001
91780491|NCT03771664|183441051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.65||0.4814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|39.5||Change from BL in sTST was analyzed by Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment baseline antidepressant use, baseline CSD-C value, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||Change from BL in sTST||39.5|-18.8|0.4814
91780492|NCT03771664|183441051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|2.0||Change from BL in sWASO was analyzed by MMRM with treatment baseline antidepressant use, baseline CSD-C value, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||Change from BL in sWASO||2.0|-23.7|0.0964
91780493|NCT03771664|183441051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|21.2||Change from BL in sSL was analyzed by MMRM with treatment baseline antidepressant use, baseline CSD-C value, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||Change from BL in sSL||21.2|-7.9|0.3672
91780494|NCT02120898|183441063|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI interval was -0.20 to +0.20 for therapeutic equivalence.|Percentage difference|-1.16||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.93|5.62|||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using 90% Wald's confidence interval (CI) with a continuity correction or the difference (generic imiquimod - Zyclara) in complete clearance rates.||5.62|-7.93|0.0702
91780495|NCT02120898|183441064|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|0.14||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.08|6.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using 90% Wald's CI with a continuity correction or the difference (generic imiquimod - Zyclara) in complete clearance rates.||6.35|-6.08|0.0318
91780496|NCT00561925|183441068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of nevirapine XR to nevirapine IR was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than -10%|Cochran's statistic|4.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.1|10.0|||Cochran's statistic||Weighted treatment difference and corresponding variance were calculated based on Cochran's statistic.|||10.0|-0.1|<0.0001
91780497|NCT00561925|183441070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of nevirapine XR to nevirapine IR was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than -2%|Cochran's statistic|4.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.11|10.79|||Cochran's statistic||Weighted treatment difference and corresponding variance were calculated based on Cochran's statistic.|||10.79|-1.11|<0.0001
91780498|NCT00561925|183441072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7719||95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|Means adjusted for baseline HIV-1 viral load stratum||||0.06|-0.08|0.7719
91780499|NCT00561925|183441073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.87||||0.0078||95.0|8.67|57.06|||ANCOVA|Means adjusted for baseline HIV-1 viral load stratum||||57.06|8.67|0.0078
91780500|NCT00561925|183441081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence test with 80% -125% boundaries|adjusted gMean|79.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.5542||90.0|74.62|84.86||p-value for ratio outside the interval 80%-125%|ANOVA||Inter-individual gCV = 49.9|adjusted geometric mean ratio NVP XR : NVP IR||84.86|74.62|0.5542
91780501|NCT00684021|183441085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Stem cell treatment arm combined (Day 3 and Day7); placebo group also combined.||||3.9|-4.1|0.959
91780502|NCT00684021|183441086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.23|||Fisher Exact|||Clinical and Safety Outcomes including death, reinfarction, repeat revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure and ICD placement. The relative incidences of events are compared between the active and placebo groups.However the paucity of events precluded a reliable time to event analysis.||2.23|0.42|0.93
91780503|NCT00684021|183441087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|6.9|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||6.9|-12.2|0.585
91780504|NCT00684021|183441088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.2|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||8.2|-6.6|0.831
91780505|NCT00684021|183441089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.0|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||7.0|-5.5|0.817
91780506|NCT00684021|183441090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|3.67|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||3.67|-13.7|0.272
91780507|NCT00684021|183441091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Stem cell treatment arm combined (Day 3 and Day7); placebo group also combined.||||1.2|-3.0|0.409
91780508|NCT00684021|183441091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|100.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|1000.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1000|15|0.02
91780509|NCT00684021|183441092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Stem cell treatment arm combined (Day 3 and Day7); placebo group also combined.||||2.9|-3.9|0.777
91780510|NCT00926237|183441176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -1.40|Mixed Models Analysis||1Hz active rTMS - Sham rTMS|||||.04
91780511|NCT00926237|183441176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.77||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -2.03|Mixed Models Analysis||10 Hz active rTMS - Sham rTMS|||||.02
91780512|NCT00926237|183441176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.73||||0.2|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -1..28|Mixed Models Analysis||10 Hz washout - sham washout period|||||.20
91780513|NCT00926237|183441176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19||||0.19|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -1.29|Mixed Models Analysis||1Hz washout - sham washout|||||.19
91780514|NCT01732718|183441209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.51
91780515|NCT01732718|183441210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91780516|NCT01732718|183441212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91780517|NCT01732718|183441214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||see comments for explanation|albuminuria examined as continuous variable (linear mixed model to analyze effect) and categorical generalized variable (estimating equation approach)||||||0.57
91780518|NCT01732718|183441218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91780519|NCT01732718|183441219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1469|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the change in AMC||||0.1469
91780520|NCT01732718|183441219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2382|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the change in ALC||||0.2382
91780521|NCT01732718|183441219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5833|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the change in ANC||||0.5833
91709039|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.139
91780522|NCT01732718|183441222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5184
91780523|NCT04050202|183441224|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.45|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The post-intervention score is subtracted from the baseline score.|||||<0.01
91780524|NCT04050202|183441225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The post-intervention score is subtracted from the baseline score|||||<0.01
91780525|NCT01411891|183441243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.4||||||||8.4|0.3|
91780526|NCT01411891|183441244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.4|0.65
91780527|NCT01075685|183441245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279||95.0|||||Type 3 tests of fixed effects|||||||0.0279
91780528|NCT01075685|183441246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0189||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0189
91780529|NCT01075685|183441247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91780530|NCT01075685|183441248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.082
91780531|NCT00643162|183441299|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.68
91780532|NCT00847210|183441319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||There was no statistical significant difference (p-value \>0.05) in Tmax between the 30 mg and 60 mg dose group. Both age group and site did not have statistically significant effects on Tmax.|ANOVA|||This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For Tmax, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group, regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. The site effect was also tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if it was not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||||0.095
91780533|NCT00847210|183441320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the central values for Cmax|1.21||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.63|||ANOVA||Ninety percent confidence intervals for assessing the dose proportionality of dexlansoprazole pharmacokinetics between regimens were computed based on the frame work of ANOVA.|This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For natural logarithm of dose-normalized Cmax, an ANOVA model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group, regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. Site effect was tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.630|0.897|0.289
91780534|NCT00847210|183441321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the dose-normalized AUC(0-tlqc)|1.158||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.551|||ANOVA||Ninety percent confidence intervals for assessing the dose proportionality of dexlansoprazole AUC(0-tlqc) between regimens were computed based on the frame work of ANOVA.|This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For Tmax, an ANOVA model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group (12-14 years and 15 17 years), regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. The site effect was also tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if it was not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.551|0.864|0.402
91780535|NCT00847210|183441322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the central values for dose-nor|1.168||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.579|||ANOVA||Ninety percent confidence intervals for assessing the dose proportionality of dexlansoprazole AUC(0-24) between regimens were computed based on the frame work of ANOVA.|This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For Tmax, an ANOVA model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group (12-14 years and 15 17 years), regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. The site effect was also tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if it was not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.579|0.864|0.388
91780536|NCT01656408|183441342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||6.6|-6.4|0.978
91780537|NCT01656408|183441342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.4|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-4.5|-15.4|0.005
91780538|NCT01656408|183441342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.8|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-8.4|-19.8|0.000
91780539|NCT01656408|183441342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-1.9|-13.0|0.030
91780540|NCT01656408|183441342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||11.9|-4.9|0.484
91780541|NCT01656408|183441342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||0.9|-9.3|0.169
91840523|NCT02693834|183561292|OTHER|A repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.209||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between the type of AFO and practice time at self selected velocity: F(1, 19) = 1.69, ηp2 = .082|Repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait velocity at self select velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA.||||.209
91840524|NCT02693834|183561292|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.32||||||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity at self selected velocity: F(1, 19) = 1.05, ηp2 = .05|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity was analyzed at self selected velocity||||.32
91780542|NCT01656408|183441342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-2.6|-14.9|0.023
91780543|NCT01656408|183441342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||5.5|-10.4|0.605
91780544|NCT01656408|183441343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||8.7|-4.9|0.635
91780545|NCT01656408|183441343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-0.4|-10.1|0.077
91780546|NCT01656408|183441343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-5.7|-15.0|0.001
91780547|NCT01656408|183441343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.9|-8.0|0.556
91780548|NCT01656408|183441343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||2.5|-5.5|0.527
91780549|NCT01656408|183441343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||1.4|-8.1|0.234
91780550|NCT01656408|183441343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-4.1|-12.7|0.002
91780551|NCT01656408|183441343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||6.5|-4.2|0.726
91840525|NCT02693834|183561292|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.001||||||Main effect of practice on gait velocity at self selected velocity:F(1, 19) = 14.38, ηp2 = .431|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of Practice on gait velocity was analyzed at self selected velocity||||.001
91840526|NCT02693834|183561292|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.28||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between the type of AFO and practice time at fast paced velocity: F( 1, 19) = 1.24, ηp2 = .61|repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait velocity at fast paced velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA.||||.280
91840527|NCT02693834|183561292|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.072||||||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity was analyzed at self selected velocity:FPV F(1, 19) = 3.63, ηp2 =.16|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity was analyzed for self selected velocity||||.072
91840528|NCT02693834|183561292|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA|||||<|0.001||||||Main effect of Practice on gait velocity for fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 23.73, ηp2 = .555|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of Practice on gait velocity was analyzed for fast paced velocity||||<.001
91840529|NCT00759772|183561297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.01
91840530|NCT04548531|183561337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|0.41|<.001
91840531|NCT04548531|183561338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|35.0|||Chi-squared|||||35|7|0.003
91780552|NCT01656408|183441344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||7.3|-9.0|0.855
91780553|NCT01656408|183441344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||18.1|-10.8|0.658
91780554|NCT01656408|183441344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||18.9|-6.3|0.392
91780555|NCT01656408|183441345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.0|-6.0|0.563
91780556|NCT01656408|183441345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.381|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||2.5|-0.8|0.381
91780557|NCT01656408|183441345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.387|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||5.2|-1.7|0.387
91840532|NCT04548531|183561339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|16.0|||Chi-squared|||We tested for a clear preference for screening, if a patient chose a colonoscopy or a stool-based test vs. the other response options.||16|-10|.75
91840533|NCT04548531|183561340|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|26.0|||Chi-squared|||We categorized for likelihood to follow through with screening. We reported on results from patients who indicated 'Very Likely' on their response option vs. the other options (likely, unsure, unlikely, very unlikely)||26|-3|0.14
91840534|NCT04548531|183561341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|18.0|||Chi-squared|||Assessed how many patients completed any colorectal cancer screening test within 6-months after randomization.||18|6|<.001
91840535|NCT01108510|183561379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; alternative hypothesis: ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group. ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF was noninferior if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.2% confidence interval (CI) (COBI group - RTV group) was \> -12%.|Difference in percentages|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-7.4|3.0|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95.2% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|700 planned subjects had 95% power to evaluate noninferiority assuming a response rate of 79.5% for both arms and a noninferiority margin of 12%.||3.0|-7.4|
91647609|NCT02020785|183187181|SUPERIORITY|Main analyses were intention-to-treat using mixed effects models allowing intercepts to vary for each individual. Carryover effects were examined by using treatment by assignment-order interaction terms. Pre-specified sensitivity analyses were conducted excluding patients who were non-compliant, prior to data analysis: 1st, noncompliance based on missing product pickups and follow-up visits; 2nd, suspected poor compliance (\< 250 mg difference between the higher and lower period).\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.34||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate (14.3%, 95% CI: -2.5%, 34.0%) is the estimated difference between end of higher phosphorus period and end of lower phosphorus period from mixed effects analyses for log-transformed 24-hour urine albumin excretion|Sample size for this study was calculated using the xsampsi module in STATA, based on a previous study with repeat 24-hour urine collections (standard deviation, 1.04). At an α level of 0.05, we anticipated that a sample size of 30 participants with mean albuminuria of 100 mg/d would result in \>80% power to detect a 13% difference in log- transformed albuminuria between the higher and lower phosphorus additive periods.||0.34|-0.025|0.05
91647610|NCT02020785|183187182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.136||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate (3.4%, 95% CI: -5.9%, 13.6%) is the estimated difference between end of higher phosphorus period and end of lower phosphorus period from mixed effects analyses for log-transformed fibroblast growth factor 23|||0.136|-0.059|0.05
91647611|NCT02020785|183187183|SUPERIORITY||mean difference (during each period)|-1.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.9||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-4.1|0.05
91780558|NCT01656408|183441346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.357|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||12.8|-3.9|0.357
91780559|NCT01656408|183441346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||15.9|-1.2|0.150
91780560|NCT01656408|183441346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||12.3|-6.3|0.578
91780561|NCT01656408|183441347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||5.5|-5.1|0.942
91780562|NCT01656408|183441347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.627|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||8.5|-4.8|0.627
91780563|NCT01656408|183441347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.6|0.9|0.046
91780564|NCT01656408|183441348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.0|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-3.6|-18.0|0.025
91780565|NCT01656408|183441348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||-1.1|-11.0|0.055
91780566|NCT01656408|183441349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.4|-4.4|0.999
91780567|NCT01656408|183441349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.934|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 8||5.2|-5.7|0.934
91780568|NCT01656408|183441349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.9|-3.7|0.547
91780569|NCT01656408|183441349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 22||4.5|-5.2|0.906
91780570|NCT01656408|183441349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||6.6|-4.0|0.682
91780571|NCT01656408|183441350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||0.0|-11.1|0.099
91780572|NCT01656408|183441350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-1.7|-10.1|0.034
91780573|NCT01656408|183441351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||1.6|-6.5|0.281
91780574|NCT01656408|183441351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.333|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||4.0|-1.2|0.333
91647612|NCT02020785|183187184|SUPERIORITY||mean difference (during each period)|-0.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.0||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-2.7|0.05
91780575|NCT01656408|183441352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||2.1|-9.7|0.279
91780576|NCT01656408|183441352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||5.2|-6.9|0.817
91780577|NCT01656408|183441353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.756|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.7|-3.2|0.756
91780578|NCT01656408|183441353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 8||8.6|-0.7|0.158
91647613|NCT02164539|183187185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
91647614|NCT02164539|183187185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
91647615|NCT02164539|183187185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
91647616|NCT02164539|183187185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
91780579|NCT01656408|183441353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.404|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.1|-2.4|0.404
91780580|NCT01656408|183441353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 22||7.1|-1.0|0.214
91780581|NCT01656408|183441353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||10.0|0.2|0.086
91780582|NCT01656408|183441354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-5.9|-16.8|0.003
91647617|NCT02164539|183187185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.172|||Final dose response model|||||0.172|-0.027|0.152
91647618|NCT02164539|183187186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.7|0.010
91780583|NCT01656408|183441354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||0.1|-12.3|0.105
91780584|NCT01656408|183441355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.6|-7.5|0.691
91780585|NCT01656408|183441355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.57|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 8||8.8|-4.3|0.570
91780586|NCT01656408|183441355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.666|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.1|-4.2|0.666
91780587|NCT01656408|183441355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 22||4.9|-10.9|0.534
91647619|NCT02164539|183187186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||-0.4|-1.9|0.004
91647620|NCT02164539|183187186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||0.1|-1.4|0.083
91647621|NCT02164539|183187186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||-0.2|-1.5|0.014
91647622|NCT02164539|183187186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||-0.1|-1.4|0.031
91647623|NCT02164539|183187187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-4.6|<0.001
91647624|NCT02164539|183187187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-4.5|<0.001
91647625|NCT02164539|183187187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-3.4|0.007
91647626|NCT02164539|183187187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.2|0.002
91780588|NCT01656408|183441355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||9.2|-4.1|0.528
91780589|NCT01656408|183441380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.0|-3.8|0.848
91780590|NCT01656408|183441380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-4.0|-8.0|<0.0001
91780591|NCT01656408|183441380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-2.4|-14.4|0.025
91780592|NCT01656408|183441380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-0.8|-7.0|0.044
91780593|NCT01656408|183441380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||6.6|-0.4|0.139
91780594|NCT01656408|183441380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.9|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-0.2|-8.9|0.088
91647627|NCT02164539|183187187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.9|0.009
91647628|NCT02164539|183187188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.1||||0.004||95.0|5.9|30.3|||ANCOVA|||||30.3|5.9|0.004
91647629|NCT02164539|183187188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|34.1|||ANCOVA|||||34.1|9.4|<0.001
91647630|NCT02164539|183187188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|31.7|||ANCOVA|||||31.7|7.7|0.001
91647631|NCT02164539|183187188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|35.4|||ANCOVA|||||35.4|14.1|<0.001
91647632|NCT02164539|183187188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|29.1|||ANCOVA|||||29.1|8.0|<0.001
91647633|NCT02164539|183187189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.125|||ANCOVA|||||0.125|-0.034|0.264
91647634|NCT02164539|183187189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.121|||ANCOVA|||||0.121|-0.041|0.328
91647635|NCT02164539|183187189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.103|||ANCOVA|||||0.103|-0.054|0.534
91647636|NCT02164539|183187189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.075|||ANCOVA|||||0.075|-0.065|0.895
91647637|NCT02164539|183187189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.076||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.146|||ANCOVA|||||0.146|0.007|0.031
91647638|NCT02164539|183187190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.088||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|-0.014|||ANCOVA|||||-0.014|-0.162|0.019
91647639|NCT02164539|183187190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.091||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||||-0.016|-0.165|0.017
91647640|NCT02164539|183187190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||||-0.016|-0.162|0.017
91647641|NCT02164539|183187190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.004|||ANCOVA|||||0.004|-0.124|0.066
91647642|NCT02164539|183187190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|-0.099|||ANCOVA|||||-0.099|-0.227|<0.001
91647643|NCT01255722|183187191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinical non-inferiority margin was set to -10% maximum difference with the best comparator (i.e. iopromide).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.021|||Chi-squared|||Iobitridol was compared to the best of the two comparators. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between both proportions (Iobitridol - Comparator) was computed and the lower limit of the CI compared to the clinical non-inferiority limit in the study. The non-inferiority of iobitridol over the best comparator was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was equal to or higher than the clinical non-inferiority limit.||0.021|-0.088|0.05
91647644|NCT01255722|183187192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.750
91647645|NCT01255722|183187194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91780595|NCT01656408|183441380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-1.6|-9.3|0.023
91647646|NCT01255722|183187195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.109
91647647|NCT01255722|183187196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
91647648|NCT00701935|183187197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.432||0.8252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|7.95||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline abdominal visceral fat.||"The power calculation is based on a two-sided t-test and significance level of 0.05.~Hypotheses for sample size:~Power: 80% Drop-out rate: 20% Difference in the percentage change in abdominal visceral fat from baseline to 6 months between exenatide and placebo: 10% Common standard deviation: 15%~94 patients are needed to attain the 37 patients randomized and analyzed in each group."||7.95|-9.92|0.8252
91647649|NCT00701935|183187198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.193||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|4.39||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline total abdominal fat.||||4.39|-8.53|0.5207
91647650|NCT00701935|183187199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.687||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|1.73||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline subcutaneous abdominal fat.||||1.73|-9.15|0.1755
91647651|NCT00701935|183187200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.57||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis included the following factors: treatment, gender, investigator and baseline HbA1c||||-0.57|-1.19|<0.0001
91647652|NCT00701935|183187202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.4||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline fasting plasma glucose.||||-0.40|-2.38|0.0073
91647653|NCT00701935|183187203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|-0.76||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline body weight.||||-0.76|-3.66|0.0035
91647654|NCT00701935|183187206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.4145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.3||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline total cholesterol||||0.30|-0.71|0.4145
91647655|NCT00701935|183187207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.33||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline triglycerides||||0.33|-0.80|0.4007
91780596|NCT01656408|183441380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||3.8|-4.5|0.878
91780597|NCT01656408|183441381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.7|-3.4|0.512
91647656|NCT00701935|183187208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.7915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.11||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline HDL cholesterol||||0.11|-0.08|0.7915
91780598|NCT01656408|183441381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.429|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.7|-7.5|0.429
91780599|NCT01656408|183441381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.8|-9.3|0.166
91780600|NCT01656408|183441381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.5|-8.6|0.591
91780601|NCT01656408|183441382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||13.5|-2.5|0.248
91780602|NCT01656408|183441382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.4|-5.6|0.836
91780603|NCT01656408|183441382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.1|-10.7|0.109
91780604|NCT01656408|183441382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.5|-5.4|0.785
91780605|NCT01656408|183441383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.3|-2.5|0.365
91780606|NCT01656408|183441383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.6|-7.4|0.424
91780607|NCT01656408|183441383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.2|-13.3|0.025
91780608|NCT01656408|183441383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.475|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.0|-7.5|0.475
91780609|NCT01656408|183441384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.715|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.8|-7.4|0.715
91780610|NCT01656408|183441384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||3.4|-11.9|0.338
91780611|NCT01656408|183441384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||2.3|-10.0|0.281
91780612|NCT01656408|183441385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.9|-2.1|0.317
91780613|NCT01656408|183441386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||13.2|0.2|0.090
91780614|NCT01656408|183441387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.8|-0.3|0.128
91780615|NCT01656408|183441388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.3|-7.9|0.477
91780616|NCT01656408|183441388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||-0.2|-11.0|0.090
91780617|NCT01656408|183441388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||-2.2|-13.0|0.028
91780618|NCT01656408|183441389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.1|-4.9|0.877
91780619|NCT01656408|183441390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.2|-9.3|0.827
91780620|NCT01656408|183441391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.0|-11.4|0.161
91780621|NCT01656408|183441392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.8|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-2.3|-18.8|0.046
91780622|NCT01656408|183441392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||-8.6|-17.2|0.001
91780623|NCT01656408|183441393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||5.2|-4.6|0.910
91780624|NCT01656408|183441394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||5.7|-6.6|0.906
91780625|NCT01656408|183441395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.87|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.7|-4.4|0.870
91780626|NCT01656408|183441396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-3.7|-5.0|<0.0001
91780627|NCT01656408|183441396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-5.7|-10.7|0.001
91780628|NCT01656408|183441397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.8|-4.9|0.038
91840536|NCT01108510|183561380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.7|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||4.7|-7.6|
91840537|NCT01108510|183561381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.5|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||4.5|-8.7|
91840538|NCT01108510|183561382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|6.3|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||6.3|-22.2|
91840539|NCT01108510|183561383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-5.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|18.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||18|-28|0.67
91780629|NCT01656408|183441398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.2|-6.0|0.238
91780630|NCT01656408|183441399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.6|-4.7|0.048
91840540|NCT01108510|183561384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-10.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|19.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||19|-38|0.51
91780631|NCT01656408|183441400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||2.5|-3.2|0.830
91840541|NCT01108510|183561385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-22.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|10.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||10|-54|0.18
91780632|NCT01656408|183441400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||-0.7|-10.8|0.063
91840542|NCT01108510|183561386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|6.0||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|67.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||67|-55|0.84
91780633|NCT01656408|183441401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.1|-7.1|0.892
91780634|NCT01656408|183441402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.9|-3.4|0.571
91780635|NCT01656408|183441403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.0|-5.4|0.816
91780636|NCT01656408|183441404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-0.6|-8.4|0.061
91780637|NCT01656408|183441404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||0.7|-8.3|0.161
91780638|NCT01656408|183441405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.786|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.9|-4.0|0.786
91840543|NCT01544491|183561420|NON_INFERIORITY|Kaplan-Meier estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.6|6.8|||Log Rank|||at 12 months||6.8|-6.6|0.9712
91840544|NCT01544491|183561420|NON_INFERIORITY|Kaplan-Meier estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.9634|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.3|7.7|||Log Rank|||36 months||7.7|-7.3|0.9634
91780639|NCT01656408|183441406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.263|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.8|-9.3|0.263
91647657|NCT00701935|183187209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|15.77||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model was used with the assumption of an underlying Poisson distribution and the logarithm of exposure (years) as offset variable.||Event rate per subject year was calculated for each subject : (number of events observed from a subject/exposure from a subject)\*365.25 where exposure = last post-baseline visit date - baseline visit date.||15.77|0.68|0.1388
91780640|NCT01656408|183441407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.1|-4.4|0.565
91780641|NCT00363480|183441408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage diffrence|-30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.89|-23.29|||McNemar|||Comparison between GOAL and ACT response||-23.29|-37.89|<0.0001
91780642|NCT00363480|183441409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-Distribution|50.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.15|57.32||||||||57.32|43.15|
91780643|NCT05465317|183441425|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.86|0.65|<0.001
91647658|NCT00947518|183187219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
91780644|NCT05465317|183441425|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.86|0.52|0.001
91780645|NCT05465317|183441425|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.94|0.67|0.008
91780646|NCT05465317|183441426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.91|0.60|0.005
91780647|NCT05465317|183441426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.91|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.91|0.41|0.02
91780648|NCT05465317|183441426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.03|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.03|0.63|0.08
91780649|NCT05465317|183441427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.0|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.00|0.46|0.05
91780650|NCT05465317|183441427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.09|0.35|0.09
91647659|NCT00947518|183187220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
91647660|NCT00947518|183187221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91647661|NCT00947518|183187222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared||||For comparison of categorical variables among the three groups, Chi2 test followed by Bonferroni's correction was used.|||<0.05
91780651|NCT05465317|183441427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.29|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.29|0.43|0.30
91647662|NCT02065791|183187223|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.82|||Cox Proportional Hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.82|0.59|< 0.0001
91780652|NCT05465317|183441428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.08|0.49|0.11
91780653|NCT05465317|183441428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.12|0.35|0.12
91780654|NCT05465317|183441428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.42|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.42|0.50|0.52
91780655|NCT05465317|183441430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.97|0.72|0.02
91780656|NCT05465317|183441430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.05|0.65|0.12
91780657|NCT05465317|183441430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.03|0.70|0.10
91780658|NCT05465317|183441431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.11|0.72|0.32
91780659|NCT05465317|183441431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.24|0.65|0.50
91780660|NCT05465317|183441431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.20|0.68|0.50
91780661|NCT05465317|183441432|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.92|0.62|0.005
91780662|NCT05465317|183441432|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.96|0.49|0.03
91780663|NCT05465317|183441432|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.02|0.63|0.074
91780664|NCT05465317|183441433|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.12|0.95|0.46
91780665|NCT05465317|183441433|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.20|0.90|0.63
91647663|NCT02065791|183187224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.83|||Cox proportional hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.83|0.57|=0.0001
91647664|NCT02065791|183187225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95|||Cox proportional hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.95|0.67|=0.0121
91780666|NCT05465317|183441433|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.14|0.94|0.52
91780667|NCT05465317|183441434|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.94|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.94|0.70|0.007
91780668|NCT05465317|183441434|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.97|0.57|0.03
91780669|NCT05465317|183441434|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.03|0.71|0.10
91780670|NCT05465317|183441435|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.1|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.10|0.89|0.15
91780671|NCT05465317|183441435|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.72|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.72|0.40|0.93
91780672|NCT05465317|183441435|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.38|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.38|0.91|0.113
91780673|NCT05465317|183441436|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.16|0.71|0.43
91780674|NCT05465317|183441436|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.24|0.51|0.32
91780675|NCT05465317|183441436|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.30|0.71|0.81
91780676|NCT05465317|183441437|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.33|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.33|0.65|0.69
91780677|NCT05465317|183441437|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.7|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.70|0.51|0.82
91780678|NCT05465317|183441437|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.45|0.60|0.76
91780679|NCT05465317|183441438|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.62|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.62|0.29|0.39
91780680|NCT05465317|183441438|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.27|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.27|0.09|0.34
91780681|NCT05465317|183441438|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.33|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.33|0.29|0.72
91647665|NCT02065791|183187226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.80|0.47|=0.0003
91647666|NCT02065791|183187227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.81|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.81|0.53|<0.0001
91647667|NCT02065791|183187228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.00|0.61|=0.0502
91780682|NCT05465317|183441439|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.66|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.66|0.43|0.62
91780683|NCT05465317|183441439|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.64|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.64|0.21|0.31
91780684|NCT05465317|183441439|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.92|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.92|0.46|0.76
91780685|NCT05465317|183441440|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|1.88|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.88|1.58|<0.001
91780686|NCT05465317|183441440|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.3|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.30|1.48|<0.001
91647668|NCT02065791|183187229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.02|||Cox proportional hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.02|0.68|= 0.0727
91780687|NCT05465317|183441440|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|1.87|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.87|1.54|<0.001
91780688|NCT04634253|183441441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-1.60|0.017
91647669|NCT02065791|183187230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.86|0.63|0.0001
91647670|NCT04529096|183187231|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.14|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.14|-0.10|
91647671|NCT04529096|183187232|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.56|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||2.56|-0.46|
91647672|NCT04529096|183187233|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.58|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.58|-0.25|
91647673|NCT04529096|183187234|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.17|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.17|-0.19|
91647674|NCT04529096|183187235|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|4.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|12.59|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||12.59|-3.51|
91780689|NCT04634253|183441441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.73|<0.001
91780690|NCT04634253|183441442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.44|0.29|0.997
91780691|NCT04634253|183441442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|10.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.40|1.11|0.032
91780692|NCT04634253|183441443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|0.04|0.235
91780693|NCT04634253|183441443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.61|0.33|0.661
91780694|NCT04634253|183441444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.28|0.22|0.965
91780695|NCT04634253|183441444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|10.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.33|0.82|0.098
91780696|NCT04634253|183441445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.65|-3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.87|-18.65|0.003
91780697|NCT04634253|183441445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.265|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|-6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.60|-19.61|<0.001
91780698|NCT04634253|183441446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.782||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.83|-2.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.77|-17.83|0.008
91780699|NCT04634253|183441446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.282|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.29|-5.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.22|-18.29|<0.001
91780700|NCT04634253|183441447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.365||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score (MCS)||1.77|-7.63|0.218
91780701|NCT04634253|183441447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.065||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|5.26|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score (MCS)||5.26|-2.95|0.578
91780702|NCT04634253|183441447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.368||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|6.73|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score (PCS)||6.73|-2.69|0.396
91780703|NCT04634253|183441447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.057||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|5.5|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score (PCS)||5.50|-2.67|0.493
91780704|NCT03486834|183441457|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% confidence interval (CI).|Incidence Rate Estimate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.9||||||||4.9|1.6|
91780705|NCT03486834|183441457|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% CI.|Incidence Rate Estimate|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.6||||||||7.6|3.3|
91780706|NCT03486834|183441457|OTHER|The statistical criterion for success requires the lower limit of the 95% CI of vaccine efficacy (VE) to be greater than 0%.|Vaccine Efficacy|42.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|71.1||||||||71.1|-13.5|
91780707|NCT03486834|183441458|OTHER||Difference in Percent|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.8|63.5||||||||63.5|55.8|
91780708|NCT03486834|183441458|OTHER||Difference in Percent|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|61.5||||||||61.5|53.5|
91780709|NCT03486834|183441459|OTHER||Difference in Percent|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|20.1||||||||20.1|11.7|
91780710|NCT03486834|183441459|OTHER||Difference in Percent|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|21.6||||||||21.6|13.3|
91780711|NCT03486834|183441460|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.5|
91780712|NCT03486834|183441460|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.5|
91780713|NCT03486834|183441461|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% CI.|Incidence Rate Estimate|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.5||||||||9.5|4.6|
91780714|NCT03486834|183441461|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% CI.|Incidence Rate Estimate|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.6||||||||7.6|3.3|
91780715|NCT03486834|183441461|OTHER|The statistical criterion for success requires the lower limit of the 95% CI of vaccine efficacy (VE) to be greater than 0%.|Vaccine Efficacy|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.0|25.0||||||||25.0|-135.0|
91780716|NCT00888940|183441462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91780717|NCT02379091|183441469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.09||MMRM model with main effects for study site, treatment, visit, and previously failed medication with interactions between visit and treatment, visit and previously failed medication, and visit and baseline value.|ANOVA|Baseline values were used as a covariate and participant as a random effect with an unstructured covariance structure.|Namilumab - Placebo|||0.09|-1.31|0.086
91780718|NCT02379091|183441469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.13||MMRM model with main effects for study site, treatment, visit, and previously failed medication with interactions between visit and treatment, visit and previously failed medication, and visit and baseline value.|ANOVA|Baseline values were used as a covariate and subject as a random effect with an unstructured covariance structure.|Namilumab - Placebo|||0.13|-1.32|0.107
91780719|NCT02379091|183441469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.23||MMRM model with main effects for study site, treatment, visit, and previously failed medication with interactions between visit and treatment, visit and previously failed medication, and visit and baseline value.|ANOVA|Baseline values were used as a covariate and subject as a random effect with an unstructured covariance structure.|Namilumab - Placebo|||-0.23|-1.61|0.010
91780720|NCT03326713|183441484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Model Results for Intervention Effects on CGRA Within 6 Months (TP vs TCN)||15.2|2.5|<.0001
91780721|NCT03326713|183441484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|19.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Model Results for Intervention Effects on CGRA Within 6 Months (UC vs TCN)||19.4|2.8|<.0001
91647675|NCT04529096|183187236|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.51|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.51|-0.40|
91780722|NCT03326713|183441484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||1.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Model Results for Intervention Effects on CGRA Within 6 Months (UC vs TP)||4.0|0.4|1.2
91780723|NCT00935584|183441546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||>0.05
91780724|NCT00935584|183441546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||>0.05
91780725|NCT00935584|183441547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
91780726|NCT00935584|183441547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wicoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
91780727|NCT00935584|183441548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in patient engagement from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
91780728|NCT00935584|183441548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in patient engagement from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
91780729|NCT00935584|183441549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
91780730|NCT00935584|183441549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
91780731|NCT00935584|183441550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||<0.05
91780732|NCT00935584|183441550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||<0.05
91780733|NCT00935584|183441551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
91780734|NCT00935584|183441551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
91780735|NCT02129699|183441579|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model for treatment effect, analysis adjusted for stratification factors||||1.19|0.78|0.355
91780736|NCT02129699|183441580|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.82|0.459
91780737|NCT06482125|183441614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.955||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.098|118.972|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||118.972|14.098|0.001
91780738|NCT06482125|183441615|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.345
91780739|NCT06482125|183441616|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.450
91780740|NCT06482125|183441617|EQUIVALENCE|Reject H0 = the means are equivalent|Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.356|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.356
91898415|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|-0.035||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 71||-0.035|-0.228|0.0084
91780741|NCT06482125|183441618|EQUIVALENCE|Reject H0 = the means are equivalent|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.202||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|14.095|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.095|2.310|0.07
91780742|NCT04701762|183441639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.32|0.14|0.29|||GLM cumulative logit GEE model|||||0.29|0.14|<0.001
91780743|NCT04701762|183441640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.32|0.03|0.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.14|0.03|<0.001
91780744|NCT04701762|183441641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.32|0.48|1.58|||GLM log-binomial model (log link)|||||1.58|0.48|0.53
91780745|NCT04701762|183441642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|0.92|<0.001
91647676|NCT04529096|183187237|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-15.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.43|175.8|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||175.80|-206.43|
91647677|NCT04529096|183187238|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.01|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.01|-0.11|
91647678|NCT03467971|183187239|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|175.6652|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|153.779|200.6664||||||Statistical Analysis for Metformin||200.6664|153.7790|
91780746|NCT04701762|183441643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-0.34|0.27
91780747|NCT05786651|183441644|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of conditions|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91780748|NCT05786651|183441645|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons of mean values of conditions|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91780749|NCT03397966|183441668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||The investigators tested the effect of treatment (BNP vs. control) on the primary endpoint using mixed effects modeling, adjusting for treatment sequence, to assess the effect of treatment on each endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary endpoint is change in resting energy expenditure, calculated as final resting energy expenditure adjusted for baseline level, using linear regression. The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant effect of treatment on each endpoint. The investigators adhered to intention-to-treat principles. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.063
91780750|NCT03397966|183441669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Paired t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant effect of BNP on adipose gene expression of UCP1 compared with placebo. The alternative hypothesis is that UCP1 expression would be significantly higher after BNP treatment compared with placebo.||||0.07
91780751|NCT02873702|183441707|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority to lansoprazole if the lower bound of confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|21.3||||||Healing Period: Dexlansoprazole 60 mg versus Healing Period: Lansoprazole 30 mg||21.30|-26.59|
91780752|NCT03085797|183441735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.34||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment,region,Baseline score,Baseline eosinophilcount(BEC). Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wk52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed score prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal|||-0.34|-1.11|<0.001
91647679|NCT03467971|183187239|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|104.457|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.766|111.606||||||Statistical Analysis for Gliclazide||111.6060|97.7660|
91647680|NCT03467971|183187240|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|180.7734|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.0135|208.1287||||||Statistical Analysis for Metformin||208.1287|157.0135|
91780753|NCT03085797|183441736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-3.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-2.18||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-2.18|-4.09|<0.001
91780754|NCT03085797|183441737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.76||p-Value was based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, Baseline total endoscopic score (centrally read), Baseline nasal obstruction VAS, Baseline BEC, number of previous surgeries (1, 2, \>2 as ordinal).|||0.76|0.25|0.003
91780755|NCT03085797|183441738|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-3.18||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.26||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-2.26|-4.10|0.003
91780756|NCT03085797|183441739|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-16.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|-9.42||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wk 52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed score prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-9.42|-23.57|0.003
91780757|NCT03085797|183441740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.92||p-Value was based on logistic regression model and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic||Covariates: treatment group, geographic region, number of oral corticosteroids courses for NP in last 12 months(0,1,\>1 as ordinal), Baseline total endoscopic score(centrally read),Baseline nasal obstruction VAS score,log(e) Baseline eosinophil count.|||0.92|0.36|0.020
91780758|NCT03085797|183441741|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-2.68||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-1.91||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-1.91|-3.44|0.020
91647681|NCT03467971|183187240|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|105.0818|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.0047|112.6699||||||Statistical Analysis for Gliclazide||112.6699|98.0047|
91647682|NCT03467971|183187241|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|127.7779|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.2732|148.0612||||||Statistical Analysis for Metformin||148.0612|110.2732|
91647683|NCT03467971|183187241|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|105.4183|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5723|117.5081||||||Statistical Analysis for Gliclazide||117.5081|94.5723|
91709040|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91780759|NCT03085797|183441742|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-0.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.08||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-0.08|-0.65|0.020
91780760|NCT01554241|183441745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Results presented were Bonferonni-corrected for a mid-point safety analysis||Comparisons of concentrations in D3 dosing groups at study end were made by ANOVA. Adherence of 80% was pre-specified for inclusion in analyses. .||||<.0001
91780761|NCT01554241|183441745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||=.56
91780762|NCT01554241|183441745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0009
91780763|NCT01554241|183441745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
91780764|NCT01554241|183441745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.006
91780765|NCT01554241|183441745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
91780766|NCT01554241|183441745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
91780767|NCT01554241|183441746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni)|ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91780768|NCT01554241|183441746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||=0.47
91780769|NCT01554241|183441746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.002
91780770|NCT01554241|183441746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
91780771|NCT01554241|183441746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.02
91780772|NCT01554241|183441746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
91780773|NCT01554241|183441746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0003
91709041|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91780774|NCT03198507|183441749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Statistical testing was 2 sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91780775|NCT03198507|183441752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91780776|NCT04614974|183441754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91780777|NCT04614974|183441755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91780778|NCT04614974|183441756|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Noisy breathing pre/post||||0.5
91780779|NCT04614974|183441756|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||McNemar|||Noisy breathing pre/post||||0.01
91780780|NCT04614974|183441756|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||McNemar|||Stridor pre/post||||0.2
91780781|NCT04614974|183441756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Stridor pre/post||||0.02
91780782|NCT04614974|183441756|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Chest wall retractions pre/post||||0.5
91780783|NCT04614974|183441756|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Chest wall retractions pre/post||||1.0
91780784|NCT04614974|183441756|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Apnea pre/post||||1.0
91780785|NCT04614974|183441757|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Emesis pre/post||||0.5
91780786|NCT04614974|183441757|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||McNemar|||Emesis pre/post||||0.07
91780787|NCT04614974|183441757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||McNemar|||Choking pre/post||||0.06
91780788|NCT04614974|183441757|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Choking pre/post||||1.0
91780789|NCT04614974|183441757|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Coughing pre/post||||0.02
91780790|NCT04614974|183441757|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Coughing pre/post||||1.0
91780791|NCT04614974|183441757|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Gagging pre/post||||1.0
91780792|NCT04614974|183441758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91780793|NCT04614974|183441759|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91780794|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.12|6.5|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA. Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||6.50|-2.12|0.6694
91780795|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.26||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.44|15.98|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||15.98|5.44|0.0873
91780796|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.4912|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.87|8.74|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||8.74|-0.87|0.4912
91780797|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|11.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.5|16.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||16.62|5.50|0.0942
91780798|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.96|12.66|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||12.66|1.96|0.2499
91780799|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|13.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.058|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.49|19.45|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||19.45|7.49|0.0580
91780800|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.075|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.66|18.59|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||18.59|6.66|0.0750
91780801|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|16.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.14|23.19|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||23.19|10.14|0.0316
91780802|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.9|19.53|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||19.53|6.90|0.0783
91780803|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|20.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.58|27.96|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||27.96|12.58|0.0266
91780804|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.9|19.53|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||19.53|6.90|0.0783
91780805|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|20.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.58|27.96|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||27.96|12.58|0.0266
91780806|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|11.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.51|17.54|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||17.54|4.51|0.1545
91709042|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.464|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.464
91709043|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.007
91780807|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|18.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.22|25.94|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||25.94|10.22|0.0528
91780808|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|14.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.92|21.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||21.14|6.92|0.0968
91780809|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|15.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.81|23.85|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||23.85|7.81|0.0966
91780810|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.72|24.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||24.42|9.72|0.0507
91780811|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|15.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.81|23.85|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||23.85|7.81|0.0966
91780812|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.72|24.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||24.42|9.72|0.0507
91780813|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|15.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.81|23.85|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||23.85|7.81|0.0966
91780814|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|18.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.12|26.22|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||26.22|10.12|0.0574
91780815|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|21.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.84||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.12|31.04|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||31.04|11.12|0.0749
91780816|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.09|7.38|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||7.38|-0.09|0.4116
91780817|NCT00658359|183441764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.09|2.12|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||2.12|-4.09|0.7895
91780818|NCT00658359|183441765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|13.9|||Chi-squared||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|||13.9|-9.1|0.683
91780819|NCT00658359|183441765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.1|||Chi-squared||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|||16.1|-8.3|0.529
91780820|NCT00658359|183441766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.97|13.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA|||13.49|4.97|0.0699
91780821|NCT00658359|183441766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.89|13.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA|||13.58|2.89|0.1958
91780822|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.12|6.5|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||6.50|-2.12|0.6694
91780823|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.934|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.52|3.71|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||3.71|-4.52|0.9340
91780824|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.88|5.08|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||5.08|-3.88|0.9106
91780825|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.29|2.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||2.30|-6.29|0.6960
91780826|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.88|5.08|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||5.08|-3.88|0.9106
91780827|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.29|2.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||2.30|-6.29|0.6960
91780828|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.88|5.08|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||5.08|-3.88|0.9106
91780829|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.29|2.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||2.30|-6.29|0.6960
91780830|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.86|3.5|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||3.50|-5.86|0.8322
91898416|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|-0.243||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 71||-0.243|-0.433|<.0001
91780831|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.27|0.73|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||0.73|-8.27|0.4809
91898417|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|-0.108||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 71||-0.108|-0.304|0.0001
91898418|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.004||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 85||0.004|-0.195|0.0589
91780832|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
91780833|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
91780834|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
91898419|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|-0.236||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 85||-0.236|-0.433|<.0001
91898420|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.137||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 85||-0.137|-0.340|<.0001
91898421|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.028||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 99||-0.028|-0.236|0.0138
91780835|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
91780836|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
91780837|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
91780838|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
91898422|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|-0.252||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 99||-0.252|-0.458|<.0001
91898423|NCT02604199|183692903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.117||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 99||-0.117|-0.329|0.0001
91898424|NCT02604212|183692913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.159|||MMRM|||||0.159|-0.243|0.6815
91898425|NCT02604212|183692913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.237|||MMRM|||||-0.237|-0.638|<.0001
91898426|NCT02604212|183692913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|-0.223|||MMRM|||||-0.223|-0.569|<.0001
91898427|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|-0.044|||MMRM|||Day 15||-0.044|-0.372|0.0131
91898428|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|-0.082|||MMRM|||Day 15||-0.082|-0.412|0.0036
91780839|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
91780840|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
91780841|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
91780842|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
91780843|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
91780844|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.4455|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.39|7.89|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||7.89|-0.39|0.4455
91780845|NCT00658359|183441768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.873|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.35|2.96|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||2.96|-4.35|0.8730
91780846|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-10.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.33|-5.71|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-5.71|-15.33|0.0654
91780847|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.3398|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.43|-0.72|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-0.72|-11.43|0.3398
91780848|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23||0.1601|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.99|-3.51|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||-3.51|-13.99|0.1601
91780849|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.239|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.1|-2.18|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||-2.18|-13.10|0.2390
91780850|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.47|-1.7|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-1.70|-12.47|0.2685
91780851|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.239|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.1|-2.18|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-2.18|-13.10|0.2390
91780852|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.32|-3.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-3.30|-14.32|0.1785
91780853|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.158|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.95|-3.78|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-3.78|-14.95|0.1580
91780854|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.0|-6.53|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-6.53|-18.00|0.0718
91780855|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.63|-7.02|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-7.02|-18.63|0.0629
91780856|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate differences|-15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-21.84|-9.94|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-9.94|-21.84|0.0246
91780857|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.46|-10.43|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-10.43|-22.46|0.0214
91780858|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-21.84|-9.94|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-9.94|-21.84|0.0246
91780859|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.46|-10.43|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-10.43|-22.46|0.0214
91780860|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
91840545|NCT01544491|183561421|NON_INFERIORITY|KM estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.8|11.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||at 12 months||11.8|-1.8|0.3455
91898429|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.6136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.113|||MMRM|||Day 15||0.113|-0.192|0.6136
91840546|NCT01544491|183561421|NON_INFERIORITY|KM estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.5|7.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||36 months||7.2|-5.5|0.8642
91780861|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
91647684|NCT00883129|183187287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the FVC %-predicted. Covariates were %-predicted FVC, HRCT-defined extent of lung fibrosis in the lobe of maximum involvement, and terms for time-trend, treatment and treatment-time trend interactions.||||0.24
91780862|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
91840547|NCT01234649|183561433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures design||||<0.04
91840548|NCT01234649|183561434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<.005
91840549|NCT01234649|183561435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.011|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.011
91840550|NCT01234649|183561436|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Nested repeated measures design||||>0.05
91840551|NCT01234649|183561437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.03
91840552|NCT01234649|183561438|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
91840553|NCT01234649|183561439|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.048|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.048
91840554|NCT01234649|183561440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
91840555|NCT01234649|183561441|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.047
91840556|NCT01234649|183561442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.023
91780863|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
91780864|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
91840557|NCT01234649|183561443|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
91898430|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.3104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.08|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.080|-0.249|0.3104
91780865|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
91840558|NCT01234649|183561444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||0.042
91840559|NCT01234649|183561445|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
91840560|NCT01234649|183561446|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
91840561|NCT01234649|183561447|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
91840562|NCT01234649|183561448|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.046|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.046
91840563|NCT01234649|183561449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.049|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.049
91840564|NCT01234649|183561450|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
91840565|NCT01234649|183561451|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
91840566|NCT01234649|183561452|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
91840567|NCT01234649|183561453|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
91840568|NCT01234649|183561454|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
91840569|NCT00680056|183561462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.0||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference= Formoterol plus Tiotropium minus Formoterol plus Placebo(Tiotropium)|It was calculated a total sample size of a 2x2 cross-over design as 24 for a two-sided t-test achieves 85% power to infer that the mean difference is not zero, the actual mean difference is 20, the standard deviation of the differences is 15, and the significance level is 0.05||||0.038
91840570|NCT00680056|183561463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39||0.054||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference=Arm 2 minus Arm 1|||||0.054
91840571|NCT03688711|183561464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were evaluated using a Kaplan Meier (KM) approach, with treatment group as a stratification factor. Differences between the KM curves (dasiglucagon versus placebo) were evaluated inferentially using pairwise two-sided log-rank tests stratified by injection site.||||<0.0001
91840572|NCT03688711|183561465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 30 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||0.0012
91840573|NCT03688711|183561465|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 20 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91898431|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.008|||MMRM|||Day 29||-0.008|-0.340|0.0401
91780866|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
91780867|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
91780868|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.95|-2.84|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||-2.84|-11.95|0.1715
91780869|NCT00658359|183441769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.74|0.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||0.14|-9.74|0.4131
91780870|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.12|6.5|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||6.50|-2.12|0.6694
91780871|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.91|5.8|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||5.80|-2.91|0.7799
91780872|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.8572|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.63|3.65|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||3.65|-5.63|0.8572
91780873|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.7555|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.41|2.95|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||2.95|-6.41|0.7555
91780874|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.8572|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.63|3.65|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||3.65|-5.63|0.8572
91780875|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22||0.539|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.41|9.06|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||9.06|-1.41|0.5390
91780876|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.6432|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.44|2.16|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||2.16|-7.44|0.6432
91780877|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.2|7.55|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||7.55|-3.20|0.7336
91780878|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.9099|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.28|4.79|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||4.79|-6.28|0.9099
91780879|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.01|6.56|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||6.56|-5.01|0.9106
91780880|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.5244|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.22|1.42|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||1.42|-10.22|0.5244
91780881|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.11|5.31|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.31|-7.11|0.9029
91780882|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.7267|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.78|3.63|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||3.63|-8.78|0.7267
91780883|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.52||0.7168|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.06|3.6|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||3.60|-9.06|0.7168
91780884|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.5574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.72|1.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.91|-10.72|0.5574
91780885|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.5515|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.99|1.88|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.88|-10.99|0.5515
91780886|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.5574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.72|1.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||1.91|-10.72|0.5574
91780887|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.92|4.33|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||4.33|-8.92|0.7704
91780888|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.5574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.72|1.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||1.91|-10.72|0.5574
91840574|NCT03688711|183561465|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 15 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91840575|NCT03688711|183561465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 10 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||0.0006
91840576|NCT03688711|183561466|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 30 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91840577|NCT03688711|183561466|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 20 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91840578|NCT03688711|183561466|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 15 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91840579|NCT03688711|183561466|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 10 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91780889|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.92|4.33|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||4.33|-8.92|0.7704
91780890|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.03|6.15|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||6.15|-7.03|0.9551
91840580|NCT03688711|183561467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Evaluated using a Kaplan Meier (KM) approach, with treatment group as a stratification factor, analogous to that used for the primary endpoint analysis. Differences between the KM curves (dasiglucagon versus placebo) were evaluated inferentially using pairwise two-sided log-rank tests. Subjects whose time to first plasma glucose concentration ≥70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) was not met within 45 minutes post-dosing were censored, at the time of the last valid plasma glucose measurement up to 45 minutes.||||<0.0001
91840581|NCT03688711|183561468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|6.05|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as factor and the baseline of the dependent variable plasma glucose as a covariate.||6.05|2.71|<0.0001
91840582|NCT01370005|183561497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.52||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as lin. covariate and treatment, baseline renal function, region and baseline N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.52|-0.72|<0.0001
91840583|NCT01370005|183561497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.55||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as lin. covariate and treatment, baseline renal function, region and baseline N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.55|-0.75|<0.0001
91780891|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.92|4.33|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||4.33|-8.92|0.7704
91780892|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.4455|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.39|7.89|||Wald Test|||Month 12||7.89|-0.39|0.4455
91898432|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.063|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.063|-0.242|0.2494
91898433|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.042|||MMRM|||Day 43||-0.042|-0.380|0.0149
91898434|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|-0.149|||MMRM|||Day 43||-0.149|-0.489|0.0003
91780893|NCT00658359|183441770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.873|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.35|2.96|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||2.96|-4.35|0.8730
91780894|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.2957|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.6|-1.36|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-1.36|-12.60|0.2957
91780895|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.66|2.37|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||2.37|-9.66|0.6097
91780896|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.28|-2.86|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||-2.86|-14.28|0.2064
91851599|NCT04246762|183586820|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|102.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|110.39|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of S-warfarin with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (S-warfarin (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to initial S-warfarin administrated alone (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail)) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimate of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI. The sample size computation was based on results reported for sirukumab.||110.39|94.80|
91647685|NCT00883129|183187287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for the FVC %-predicted for each treatment arm independently.||||<0.05
91780897|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.25||0.4696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.34|0.86|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||0.86|-11.34|0.4696
91780898|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.5|-2.64|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-2.64|-14.50|0.2238
91780899|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.52||0.5093|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.29|1.37|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||1.37|-11.29|0.5093
91840584|NCT01370005|183561498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-2.09||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h SBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-2.09|-4.78|<0.0001
91840585|NCT01370005|183561498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.83||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h SBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-2.83|-5.50|<0.0001
91840586|NCT01370005|183561499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.56||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h DBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.56|-2.15|0.0008
91840587|NCT01370005|183561499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.93||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h DBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.93|-2.51|<0.0001
91840588|NCT01370005|183561500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|11.18|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||11.18|3.51|<0.0001
91840589|NCT01370005|183561500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|11.75|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||11.75|3.70|<0.0001
91840590|NCT01370005|183561501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.91|-18.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-18.60|-28.91|<0.0001
91840591|NCT01370005|183561501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|-25.08|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-25.08|-35.32|<0.0001
91840592|NCT01370005|183561502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.13|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline number of antihypertensive med., baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-1.13|-1.85|<0.0001
91840593|NCT01370005|183561502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.62|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline number of antihypertensive med., baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-1.62|-2.33|<0.0001
91840594|NCT01370005|183561503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|-2.52|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, N of antihypertensive medications, baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime SBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-2.52|-5.37|<0.0001
91898435|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.045|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.045|-0.262|0.1655
91709044|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91780900|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.5|-2.64|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-2.64|-14.50|0.2238
91780901|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.7846|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.8|4.48|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||4.48|-8.80|0.7846
91780902|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.33|-4.28|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-4.28|-16.33|0.1501
91780903|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.62|2.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||2.84|-10.62|0.6263
91780904|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
91840595|NCT01370005|183561503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-3.36|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime SBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-3.36|-6.20|<0.0001
91840596|NCT01370005|183561504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.69|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime DBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-0.69|-2.42|0.0004
91840597|NCT01370005|183561504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.12|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime DBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-1.12|-2.84|<0.0001
91840598|NCT01370005|183561505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-0.91|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time SBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-0.91|-4.09|0.0021
91840599|NCT01370005|183561505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-1.32|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time SBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-1.32|-4.48|0.0003
91780905|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
91780906|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
91780907|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
91780908|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
91780909|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
91780910|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
91840600|NCT01370005|183561506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.03|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time DBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||0.03|-1.93|0.0566
91840601|NCT01370005|183561506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.18|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time DBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-0.18|-2.12|0.0208
91840602|NCT01370005|183561507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.98|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated SBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-1.98|-5.86|<0.0001
91840603|NCT01370005|183561507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|-2.87|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated SBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-2.87|-6.73|<0.0001
91840604|NCT01370005|183561508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.84|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated DBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-0.84|-3.01|0.0005
91898436|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.023|||MMRM|||Day 57||0.023|-0.324|0.0889
91780911|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
91780912|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
91780913|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
91780914|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
91780915|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
91780916|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.61|3.02|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||3.02|-7.61|0.7166
91780917|NCT00658359|183441771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.24||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.76|0.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||0.73|-9.76|0.4692
91780918|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.28|3.11|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||3.11|0.28|0.3132
91780919|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.28|3.11|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||3.11|0.28|0.3132
91780920|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||5.57|1.46|0.1503
91780921|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||5.57|1.46|0.1503
91780922|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.57|1.46|0.1503
91840605|NCT01370005|183561508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.82|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated DBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-0.82|-2.97|0.0006
91780923|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.57|1.46|0.1503
91780924|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||5.57|1.46|0.1503
91780925|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||5.57|1.46|0.1503
91780926|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||5.57|1.46|0.1503
91780927|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||5.57|1.46|0.1503
91780928|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||5.57|1.46|0.1503
91780929|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||5.57|1.46|0.1503
91780930|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||5.57|1.46|0.1503
91780931|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||5.57|1.46|0.1503
91780932|NCT00658359|183441772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||5.57|1.46|0.1503
91840606|NCT01370005|183561509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.45|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||4.45|1.39|0.0021
91647686|NCT00883129|183187287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Based on the absolute difference between the value of FVC %-predicted at baseline and at 24 months for each subject who returned for a 24-month assessment, a frequency distributions was prepared, stratified by treatment arm, to assess the relative distribution of subjects who either had improvements or worsening in the FVC %-predicted.||||0.55
91780933|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.4|-0.31|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-0.31|-3.40|0.3128
91780934|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||2.91|0.26|0.3134
91780935|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.9129|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.3|1.77|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||1.77|-2.30|0.9129
91780936|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||2.91|0.26|0.3134
91780937|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.23|-1.16|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-1.16|-7.23|0.2447
91780938|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||2.91|0.26|0.3134
91780939|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.23|-1.16|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-1.16|-7.23|0.2447
91780940|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||2.91|0.26|0.3134
91780941|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.43|-3.45|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-3.45|-11.43|0.1164
91780942|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.52|5.93|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.93|1.52|0.1545
91780943|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.66|-0.94|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-0.94|-9.66|0.3061
91780944|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.52|5.93|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||5.93|1.52|0.1545
91780945|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.66|-0.94|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-0.94|-9.66|0.3061
91780946|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||8.73|3.10|0.0774
91780947|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
91780948|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||8.73|3.10|0.0774
91780949|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
91780950|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||8.73|3.10|0.0774
91780951|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
91780952|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||8.73|3.10|0.0774
91780953|NCT00658359|183441773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
91780954|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.49|21.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||21.22|7.49|0.0786
91780955|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.736|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.03|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||4.29|-10.03|0.7360
91780956|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.19||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.27|19.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||19.05|5.27|0.1377
91780957|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.21|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||0.20|-14.21|0.4131
91780958|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.49|20.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||20.55|6.49|0.1057
91780959|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-20.75|-5.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-5.68|-20.75|0.1402
91840607|NCT01370005|183561509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||3.96|1.22|0.0088
91840608|NCT03691948|183561517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||ANOVA|||||||.531
91840609|NCT03691948|183561518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.076
91780960|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.91|25.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||25.29|9.91|0.0542
91780961|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.09||0.3866|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.24|17.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||17.24|0.24|0.3866
91780962|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.72||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.33|20.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||20.71|4.33|0.1981
91780963|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.07||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.81|4.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||4.51|-15.81|0.6397
91780964|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.19||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.35|28.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||28.51|11.35|0.0508
91780965|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9||0.5143|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.45|19.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||19.28|-2.45|0.5143
91780966|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.45||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|60.0|23.46|41.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||41.06|23.46|0.0021
91780967|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.47||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-19.07|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||3.61|-19.07|0.5661
91780968|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|60.0|20.33|38.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||38.08|20.33|0.0057
91780969|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.89||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.18|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||1.21|-22.18|0.4504
91780970|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.39||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|60.0|20.78|39.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||39.96|20.78|0.0078
91780971|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.44||0.6802|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.11|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||6.20|-18.11|0.6802
91840610|NCT04524598|183561561|SUPERIORITY||t|-1.911||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) analysis was implemented on an averaged imputed dataset to evaluate main effects of Group (Spark, Control) and Week (0-5), and the Group x Week interaction. Group and Week were entered as fixed factors. Spark version, and assessment completion days since baseline were included as fixed factors to control for effects of app version and differences in time between completion of successive weekly assessments.||||0.06
91840611|NCT04524598|183561561|SUPERIORITY||t|-2.546||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a Per Protocol approach that included participants who completed the PHQ at baseline and each week. A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) analysis was implemented on an averaged imputed dataset to evaluate main effects of Group (Spark, Control) and Week (0-5), and the Group x Week interaction.||||0.01
91840612|NCT04524598|183561564|SUPERIORITY||F|1.46||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Group x Time) on GAD-7 scores to compare the change in anxiety symptoms from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is presented.||||0.23
91840613|NCT04524598|183561564|SUPERIORITY||F|2.59||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Group x Time) on the PROMIS - General Health Score to compare the change in general health from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is reported.||||0.11
91840614|NCT04524598|183561565|SUPERIORITY||F|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Time x Group) on the MFQ to compare the change in parent report of depressive symptoms from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is presented.||||0.33
91840615|NCT04524598|183561565|SUPERIORITY||F|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Group x Time) on the PROMIS Parent Proxy - General Health Score to compare the change in parent reported general health from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is reported.||||0.90
91840616|NCT02306122|183561569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is control arm|||||<0.01
91840617|NCT02306122|183561569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is control arm|||||<0.01
91840618|NCT02306122|183561569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is control arm|||||<0.01
91840619|NCT02306122|183561570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.523|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Comparator is the control arm|||||<0.01
91840620|NCT02306122|183561570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.997|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Comparator is the control arm|||||<0.01
91840621|NCT02306122|183561570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Comparator is the control arm|||||<0.01
91840622|NCT02306122|183561571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is the information arm|||||<0.01
91780972|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.08||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|60.0|17.61|37.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||37.95|17.61|0.0216
91780973|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.58|10.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.88|-14.58|0.9026
91780974|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.91||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.51|31.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||31.24|9.51|0.1146
91780975|NCT00658359|183441775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.48||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-19.18|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||6.90|-19.18|0.6918
91780976|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.09|12.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||12.14|1.09|0.3139
91780977|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.06|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||1.31|-10.06|0.5176
91780978|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.02|12.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||12.06|1.02|0.3191
91840623|NCT02306122|183561571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is the information arm|||||<0.01
91840624|NCT02306122|183561572|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is the choice arm|||||<0.01
91840625|NCT00180713|183561573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
91840626|NCT00180713|183561574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed by intention to treat at 6 months and per protocol at 12 months. Missing variables were replaced with medians or means (for variables missing at baseline) or with expected variables calculated on the percentage change between baseline and 24 weeks observed for the group (placebo or statin) as a whole (a technique called imputation). Missing variables accounted for less than 5% of the data and there were no missing CMR data at baseline.||||0.86
91840627|NCT00180713|183561575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed by intention to treat at 6 months and per protocol at 12 months. Missing variables were replaced with medians or means (for variables missing at baseline) or with expected variables calculated on the percentage change between baseline and 24 weeks observed for the group (placebo or statin) as a whole (a technique called imputation). Missing variables accounted for less than 5% of the data and there were no missing CMR data at baseline.||||0.4
91840628|NCT00180713|183561576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.041
91840629|NCT00180713|183561577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
91840630|NCT05295732|183561578|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-1.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|-18.4|0.39
91840631|NCT02322814|183561609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.247||95.0|0.43|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.43|0.2470
91840632|NCT02322814|183561611|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5912||95.0|0.65|2.13|||Log Rank|||||2.13|0.65|0.5912
91840633|NCT01744860|183561644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa coefficient|0.8611|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8125|0.9097||||||"Kappa coefficient was used to compare the concordance between INCa Molecular Genetics Laboratory in-house methods and Cobas 4800 Mutation Test."||0.9097|0.8125|
91840634|NCT05200936|183561687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7145||||||p-value is 1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7145
91840635|NCT05200936|183561688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9613|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9613
91840636|NCT01288781|183561705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
91898437|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.497|-0.147|||MMRM|||Day 57||-0.147|-0.497|0.0004
91780979|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.6608|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.62|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||2.71|-8.62|0.6608
91780980|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.37|13.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||13.66|2.37|0.2319
91840637|NCT01288781|183561706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.63
91840638|NCT01288781|183561707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.20
91840639|NCT01288781|183561708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||<0.01
91780981|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.3554|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.43|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-0.58|-12.43|0.3554
91780982|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.33|24.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||24.57|12.33|0.0113
91780983|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.479|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.07|12.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||12.39|-1.07|0.4790
91780984|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.93|16.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||16.99|3.93|0.1776
91840640|NCT01288781|183561708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Step down Holm Bonferroni correction was applied|t-test, 2 sided|||Post hoc follow up test. T test between acetazolamide and placebo on data at 24 hr time point.||||<0.01
91840641|NCT01288781|183561709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
91840642|NCT01288781|183561710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
91840643|NCT01288781|183561711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
91840644|NCT01946243|183561712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to test whether the change is equal to zero or not.||||0.0029
91898438|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|-0.017|||MMRM|||Day 57||-0.017|-0.326|0.0298
91840645|NCT01946243|183561713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval is greater than -3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|2.7||||||Units: Percent Accuracy||||2.7|
91647687|NCT00883129|183187288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the TLC %-predicted.||||>0.05
91780985|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.27|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||4.73|-11.27|0.7307
91647688|NCT00883129|183187289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the DLCO %-predicted.||||<0.001
91780986|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.59|18.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||18.48|4.59|0.1625
91780987|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.12||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.25|19.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||19.29|2.25|0.2876
91780988|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.41||0.027|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.54|25.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||25.70|11.54|0.0270
91780989|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.7444|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.31|5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||5.44|-12.31|0.7444
91780990|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|60.0|14.08|28.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||28.29|14.08|0.0122
91780991|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-19.75|-1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||-1.47|-19.75|0.3288
91780992|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.63|26.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||26.05|10.63|0.0453
91780993|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.28||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-17.09|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||1.91|-17.09|0.5016
91780994|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.27|27.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||27.59|11.27|0.0453
91780995|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.84||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.83|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||8.10|-11.83|0.8747
91780996|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.72|15.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||15.69|-1.72|0.4997
91780997|NCT00658359|183441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-23.26|-2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||-2.88|-23.26|0.2804
91780998|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.68|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||11.90|7.68|<0.0001
91840646|NCT01946243|183561714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lower bound of two-sided 95% CI|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.112||||||Superiority demonstrated if lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) greater than 0, for the change in kappa statistic.||0.112|0.018|
91647689|NCT00883129|183187289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for the DLCO %-predicted for each treatment arm independently.||||>0.05
91647690|NCT00883129|183187290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the Quantitative Lung Fibrosis Score for the whole lung (QLF-WL).||||>0.05
91647691|NCT00883129|183187291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in dyspnea as measured by the Transitional Dyspnea Index Score.||||>0.05
91647692|NCT00883129|183187291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for dyspnea using the Transitional Dyspnea Index Score for each treatment arm independently.||||<0.05
91647693|NCT00883129|183187293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS).||||>0.05
91840647|NCT01946243|183561715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval is greater than -3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.8||||||Units: Percent Accuracy||||0.8|
91647694|NCT00883129|183187293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for the modified Rodnan Skin Score for each treatment arm independently.||||<0.05
91647695|NCT00883129|183187293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Based on the absolute difference between the value of the mRSS at baseline and at 24 months for each subject who returned for a 24-month assessment, a frequency distributions was prepared, stratified by treatment arm, to assess the relative distribution of subjects who either had improvements or worsening in the mRSS.||||>0.05
91647696|NCT00883129|183187294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance was met only for the frequency of leukopenia and thrombocytopenia, but not for total SAE or death.||Fisher's Exact Test was utilized to compare the number of participants with a protocol-defined adverse event of interest, SAE or death between the MMF and CYC treatment arms.||||<0.05
91647697|NCT00883129|183187295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Log Rank|||A log-rank test was utilized to assess differences between the MMF and CYC treatment arms with respect to the time to withdrawal from study drug or meeting protocol-defined criteria for treatment failure.||||0.019
91647698|NCT03273257|183187296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the treatment groups in percent change from baseline in PVR immediately before PEA.||||0.139
91647699|NCT02450760|183187325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91647700|NCT02450760|183187326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91647701|NCT02450760|183187330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91647702|NCT02450760|183187331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
91647703|NCT02450760|183187332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
91647704|NCT01246973|183187335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6555|TWO_SIDED||||||F-test|||||||0.6555
91898439|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.007|||MMRM|||Day 71||-0.007|-0.361|0.0415
91780999|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.12|7.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||7.52|3.12|0.0418
91781000|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.28|11.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||11.51|7.28|0.0002
91781001|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.09|7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||7.51|3.09|0.0437
91781002|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.21|10.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||10.53|6.21|0.0011
91781003|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.27|4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||4.36|-0.27|0.4565
91781004|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.54|13.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||13.26|8.54|0.0001
91781005|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.69|6.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||6.89|1.69|0.1654
91781006|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.95|11.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||11.96|6.95|0.0015
91781007|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.02|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||7.23|1.02|0.2636
91781008|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.052|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.45|8.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||8.71|3.45|0.0520
91781009|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.176|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.02|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||8.67|2.02|0.1760
91840648|NCT01946243|183561716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lower bound of two-sided 95% CI|0.07||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.125|||Monte Carlo test|||Superiority demonstrated if lower bound of two-sided 95% CI greater than 0, for the change in kappa statistic.||0.125|0.007|0.0280
91898440|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.261|||MMRM|||Day 71||-0.261|-0.620|<.0001
91781010|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.38|9.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||9.77|4.38|0.0274
91781011|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.51|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||2.44|-4.51|0.8018
91781012|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.91|8.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||8.35|2.91|0.0819
91647705|NCT01246973|183187336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3504
91781013|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.75|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||1.41|-5.75|0.6103
91647706|NCT02239601|183187364|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.17|0.053
91647707|NCT04682639|183187371|OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.54||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-4.49|||ANCOVA||Estimates were from ANCOVA model for rank score of percent change from baseline in esophageal PEC.|||-4.49|-32.60|0.0103
91647708|NCT04682639|183187371|OTHER||LS mean difference|-7.53||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.48|6.42|||ANCOVA||Estimates were from ANCOVA model for rank score of percent change from baseline in esophageal PEC.|||6.42|-21.48|0.2861
91647709|NCT04682639|183187372|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38||||0.4894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|9.19|||Linear mixed effects model|||||9.19|-4.43|0.4894
91781014|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.54|8.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||8.41|2.54|0.1168
91781015|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.3357|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.54|7.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||7.99|0.54|0.3357
91781016|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.31|10.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.54|4.31|0.0448
91781017|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.51|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||5.29|-2.51|0.7642
91781018|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.67|9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||9.32|2.67|0.1295
91781019|NCT00658359|183441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.654|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.87|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||6.13|-1.87|0.6540
91781020|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.53||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.55|10.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||10.33|-22.55|0.7543
91781021|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.33||0.6249|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-27.07|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||7.17|-27.07|0.6249
91840649|NCT01946243|183561717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to test whether the change is equal to zero or not.||||0.0025
91840650|NCT03377790|183561803|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91840651|NCT03377790|183561804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0067
91840652|NCT03377790|183561805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0152
91840653|NCT03377790|183561806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0302
91840654|NCT03377790|183561807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5921|||||||ANCOVA|Differences between Tx arms are compared using an ANCOVA with treatment as the independent factor and baseline CDLQI composite score as the covariate.||||||0.5921
91898441|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|-0.1|||MMRM|||Day 71||-0.100|-0.413|0.0015
91898442|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.096|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.096|-0.268|0.3510
91781022|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.61||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-35.17|-2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-2.15|-35.17|0.3415
91781023|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.47||0.072|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-54.1|-19.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-19.63|-54.10|0.0720
91840655|NCT03377790|183561808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Differences between treatment arms are compared using an ANCOVA, with treatment as the independent factor and baseline lesion count as the covariate.||||||<0.0001
91840656|NCT03377790|183561809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Differences between treatment arms are compared using an ANCOVA, with treatment as the independent factor and baseline lesion count as the covariate.||||||<0.0001
91840657|NCT03377790|183561810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||<0.0001
91840658|NCT03377790|183561811|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||<0.0001
91840659|NCT03377790|183561812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0520
91840660|NCT02564055|183561844|OTHER||Difference in percentages|22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|45.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 percent BID and Vehicle BID has been presented.|||45.5|-2.4|
91898443|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.219|||MMRM|||Day 85||-0.219|-0.590|<.0001
91647710|NCT04682639|183187372|OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7||||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.41|||Linear mixed effects model|||||11.41|-2.00|0.1671
91647711|NCT04682639|183187373|OTHER||LS mean difference|-54.53||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.59|1.54|||ANCOVA|||||1.54|-110.59|0.0565
91647712|NCT04682639|183187373|OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.95||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.61|41.71|||ANCOVA|||||41.71|-69.61|0.6193
91781024|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.99||0.2937|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-37.83|-4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-4.17|-37.83|0.2937
91781025|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.38||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-59.72|-23.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-23.73|-59.72|0.0512
91781026|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.76||0.037|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-63.75|-27.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||-27.11|-63.75|0.0370
91781027|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.0||0.8701|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.13|16.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||16.28|-24.13|0.8701
91781028|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.15||0.2146|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-48.24|-9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||-9.25|-48.24|0.2146
91840661|NCT02564055|183561844|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|32.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 percent QD and Vehicle QD has been presented.|||32.0|-18.3|
91840662|NCT02564055|183561844|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|38.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 percent BID and Vehicle BID has been presented.|||38.7|-11.2|
91840663|NCT02564055|183561844|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|21.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 percent QD and Vehicle QD has been presented.|||21.6|-29.3|
91840664|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|43.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||43.1|-2.7|
91840665|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|47.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||47.5|3.3|
91840666|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|24.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||24.5|-19.5|
91840667|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|32.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||32.0|-14.5|
91840668|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|44.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||44.6|-0.3|
91840669|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|37.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|57.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||57.6|14.7|
91840670|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|27.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||27.8|-18.0|
91840671|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|39.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||39.0|-6.4|
91840672|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|39.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|60.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||60.0|16.0|
91840673|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|52.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||52.1|7.8|
91840674|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|48.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||48.4|2.3|
91840675|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|40.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||40.5|-5.3|
91840676|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|44.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||44.7|-2.3|
91840677|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|36.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|57.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||57.6|12.1|
91840678|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|49.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||49.0|1.7|
91840679|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|46.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||46.1|-1.5|
91898444|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|-0.156|||MMRM|||Day 85||-0.156|-0.481|0.0002
91781029|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.58||0.462|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-45.09|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||3.03|-45.09|0.4620
91781030|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.28||0.8639|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.28|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||24.60|-16.28|0.8639
91781031|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.65||0.323|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-56.11|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||-4.50|-56.11|0.3230
91781032|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.92||0.2214|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.51|51.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||51.47|9.51|0.2214
91781033|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.08||0.7492|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-37.26|16.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||16.75|-37.26|0.7492
91781034|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.15||0.8236|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.57|26.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||26.79|-15.57|0.8236
91781035|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.1||0.6578|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.2|42.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||42.54|-13.20|0.6578
91781036|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.12||0.5326|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.9|39.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||39.76|-5.90|0.5326
91781037|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.44||0.6845|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-42.99|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||15.00|-42.99|0.6845
91840680|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|42.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||42.3|-6.0|
91840681|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|25.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||25.0|-25.0|
91781038|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.73||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.83|32.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||32.54|-15.83|0.7713
91781039|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.06||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-37.47|23.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||23.26|-37.47|0.8438
91781040|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.7||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.78|47.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||47.91|-3.78|0.4724
91781041|NCT00658359|183441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.98||0.6218|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.89|49.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||49.38|-12.89|0.6218
91781042|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.01|4.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||4.35|-9.01|0.7693
91781043|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.7396|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.22|9.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||9.73|-4.22|0.7396
91781044|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.51|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-0.17|-13.51|0.3881
91898445|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.04|||MMRM|||Day 99||0.040|-0.341|0.1198
91781045|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.5114|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.42|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||1.53|-12.42|0.5114
91781046|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.5829|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.21|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||2.36|-11.21|0.5829
91781047|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.99|-2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-2.53|-16.99|0.2559
91781048|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.7548|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.65|10.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||10.14|-4.65|0.7548
91781049|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57||0.7998|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.63|10.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Match 30||10.49|-5.63|0.7998
91781050|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.08||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.74|18.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||18.03|2.74|0.2531
91781051|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2||0.365|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.72|19.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||19.57|0.72|0.3650
91781052|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.53|15.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||15.19|-0.53|0.4328
91781053|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.35||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.5|-3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||-3.38|-22.50|0.2547
91781054|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.75|16.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||16.69|0.75|0.3572
91781055|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.64||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.86|12.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||12.74|-6.86|0.8009
91840682|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|32.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|55.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||55.0|6.9|
91840683|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|16.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||16.1|-34.6|
91840684|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|45.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||45.3|-3.1|
91840685|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|31.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||31.5|-19.5|
91898446|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.325|||MMRM|||Day 99||-0.325|-0.708|<.0001
91781056|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44||0.6814|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.82|4.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||4.07|-11.82|0.6814
91781057|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.93||0.2803|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.84|22.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||22.93|2.84|0.2803
91781058|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.7613|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.72|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||5.50|-11.72|0.7613
91781059|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.35||0.8554|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.65|8.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||8.15|-12.65|0.8554
91647713|NCT04682639|183187374|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|21.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.23|34.57|||Mantel Haenszel|||||34.57|9.23|0.0007
91647714|NCT04682639|183187374|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|13.85||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|24.66|||Mantel Haenszel|||||24.66|3.03|0.0121
91781060|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.9132|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.18|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||7.84|-10.18|0.9132
91781061|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.79||0.7465|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.63|14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||14.90|-6.63|0.7465
91781062|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.34||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.34|7.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||7.76|-11.34|0.8747
91647715|NCT04682639|183187375|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|12.15||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|22.16|||Mantel Haenszel|||||22.16|2.15|0.0173
91647716|NCT04682639|183187375|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|8.37||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|17.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||||17.07|-0.32|0.0590
91709045|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.411
91781063|NCT00658359|183441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.96||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.1|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||3.72|-18.10|0.5793
91781064|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.4|15.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||15.11|10.40|<0.0001
91781065|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.96|15.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||15.82|10.96|<0.0001
91781066|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.95|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||14.00|8.95|0.0002
91781067|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.37|14.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||14.59|9.37|0.0002
91781068|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.32|15.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||15.39|10.32|<0.0001
91781069|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.08|16.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||16.35|11.08|<0.0001
91781070|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|13.03|18.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||18.69|13.03|<0.0001
91781071|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.61|16.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||16.61|10.61|0.0002
91781072|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.12|15.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||15.21|9.12|0.0010
91781073|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.2|15.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||15.92|9.20|0.0019
91781074|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.56|15.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||15.27|9.56|0.0004
91781075|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.81|12.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||12.16|5.81|0.0182
91781076|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.22|15.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||15.58|9.22|0.0013
91781077|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.99|11.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||11.22|3.99|0.0782
91781078|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.64|17.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||17.43|10.64|0.0007
91781079|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.24|14.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||14.22|6.24|0.0322
91898447|NCT02604212|183692914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.366|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|-0.197|||MMRM|||Day 99||-0.197|-0.535|<.0001
91781080|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.59|10.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||10.86|4.59|0.0399
91781081|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.49|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||7.73|0.49|0.3391
91781082|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.17|11.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||11.33|4.17|0.0702
91781083|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.221|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.89|10.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.15|1.89|0.2210
91781084|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.015|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.59|17.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||17.46|8.59|0.0150
91781085|NCT00658359|183441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.4875|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.91|9.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||9.45|-0.91|0.4875
91781086|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.83|18.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||18.13|10.83|0.0010
91781087|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.16|18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||18.70|11.16|0.0010
91781088|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.16|17.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||17.76|10.16|0.0023
91781089|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.65|17.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||17.48|9.65|0.0039
91781090|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.04|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||19.00|11.04|0.0017
91781091|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.81|19.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||19.04|10.81|0.0026
91781092|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|60.0|14.27|22.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||22.81|14.27|0.0003
91781093|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.99|20.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||20.91|11.99|0.0022
91781094|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.55|19.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||19.84|10.55|0.0065
91781095|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.87|19.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||19.99|9.87|0.0137
91781096|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.99|20.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||20.64|11.99|0.0018
91781097|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.47|17.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||17.01|7.47|0.0316
91781098|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.57|21.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||21.09|11.57|0.0043
91898448|NCT02604212|183692915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0867|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0867
91898449|NCT02604212|183692915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6285|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6285
91840686|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|41.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||41.9|-8.4|
91840687|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|33.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||33.1|-17.8|
91781099|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.47|15.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||15.12|4.47|0.1226
91781100|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.17|21.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||21.78|12.17|0.0034
91781101|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.29|17.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||17.29|6.29|0.0724
91781102|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.02|13.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||13.03|3.02|0.1782
91781103|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.14|9.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||9.46|-2.14|0.5947
91781104|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.081|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.2|14.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||14.79|5.20|0.0810
91781105|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.38||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.04|10.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.81|0.04|0.3965
91781106|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.44|22.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||22.88|11.44|0.0128
91781107|NCT00658359|183441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.91|11.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||11.33|-1.91|0.5487
91781108|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|13.46|18.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||18.29|13.46|<0.0001
91781109|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.49|16.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||16.46|11.49|<0.0001
91781110|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.71|16.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||16.34|10.71|<0.0001
91781111|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.67|14.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||14.45|8.67|0.0009
91781112|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.72|18.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||18.53|12.72|<0.0001
91781113|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.91|14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||14.88|8.91|0.0010
91781114|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|16.03|22.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||22.55|16.03|<0.0001
91781115|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.27|13.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||13.98|7.27|0.0082
91781116|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.09|18.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||18.36|11.09|0.0008
91781117|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.16|12.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||12.64|5.16|0.0462
91781118|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.11|18.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||18.28|11.11|0.0007
91781119|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.87|12.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||12.24|4.87|0.0519
91781120|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.66|17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||17.50|9.66|0.0039
91781121|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.058|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.09|13.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||13.15|5.09|0.0580
91781122|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.62|20.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||20.61|12.62|0.0006
91781123|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.04|16.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||16.26|8.04|0.0136
91781124|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.39|17.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||17.39|9.39|0.0053
91781125|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.66|12.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||12.88|4.66|0.0736
91781126|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.005|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.58|17.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||17.67|9.58|0.0050
91781127|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.61|13.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||13.93|5.61|0.0491
91840688|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|33.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||33.9|-15.5|
91840689|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|30.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||30.5|-19.7|
91840690|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|41.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||41.4|-9.0|
91898450|NCT02604212|183692915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7214|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7214
91898451|NCT02604212|183692916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0325|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0325
91840691|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|25.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||25.0|-26.0|
91647717|NCT00331773|183187404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This trial was designed to establish with 90% power and a two-sided significance level of 0.05 that Arm 2 (Hypofractionated 3D-CRT) results in a 5-year DFS that is not lower than Arm 1 by more than 7.65% (hazard ratio \[HR\] , 1.52). Patients analyzed according to assignment, with time-to event duration originating at random assignment. DFS distributions calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment efficacy for DFS was tested by comparing cause-specific hazards with the log-rank statistic.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.14|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|||1.14|0.64|<0.001
91781128|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.4|18.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||18.91|10.40|0.0041
91781129|NCT00658359|183441786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19||0.066|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.22|13.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||13.97|5.22|0.0660
91781130|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Functioning||1.36|-5.45|0.2393
91781131|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Functioning||0.14|-7.29|0.0595
91781132|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|5.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Physical||5.49|-2.77|0.5182
91781133|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Physical||2.56|-6.49|0.3938
91781134|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|4.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Bodily Pain||4.46|-3.89|0.8932
91781135|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Bodily Pain||4.67|-4.48|0.9673
91781136|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|5.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: General Health||5.23|-1.76|0.3290
91781137|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: General Health||4.92|-2.75|0.5780
91781138|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.9799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Vitality||3.62|-3.72|0.9799
91781139|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|5.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Vitality||5.83|-2.31|0.3960
91781140|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Social Functioning||3.75|-4.05|0.9400
91781141|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Social Functioning||4.72|-3.94|0.8583
91781142|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|8.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Emotional||8.37|-0.73|0.0997
91781143|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|4.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Emotional||4.52|-5.47|0.8520
91781144|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Health||2.27|-5.64|0.4023
91781145|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|7.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Health||7.92|-0.80|0.1092
91781146|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: TR Scale Score||0.52|-0.10|0.1754
91781147|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: TR Scale Score||0.57|-0.11|0.1802
91781148|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Component Summary||3.29|-3.31|0.9966
91781149|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Component Summary||1.19|-6.04|0.1880
91781150|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Component Summary||4.73|-2.81|0.6154
91781151|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Component Summary||7.43|-0.91|0.1248
91781152|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Functioning||2.34|-5.63|0.4174
91781153|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Functioning||2.66|-7.54|0.3486
91840692|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|90.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||90.6|-31.9|
91840693|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|47.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||47.8|-62.4|
91898452|NCT02604212|183692916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1409
91781154|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|5.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Physical||5.37|-4.33|0.8335
91781155|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.5291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Physical||4.24|-8.24|0.5291
91781156|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.4033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Bodily Pain||7.00|-2.82|0.4033
91781157|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|5.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Bodily Pain||5.99|-6.74|0.9078
91647718|NCT00331773|183187407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Patients who died without biochemical failure were considered as competing risk at the time of death. Patients alive without biochemical failure at last follow-up were censored at that date. Estimates were calculated using cumulative risk and non-inferiority was assessed against a HR of 1.67. The log-rank test was used with a two-sided p-value of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|||1.17|0.51|< 0.001
91647719|NCT00331773|183187408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was assessed against a HR of 1.54, translated from a 5% difference in overall survival with 90% overall survival in the Conventional 3D-CRT arm. The log-rank test was used with a two-sided p-value of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.41|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|||1.41|0.64|0.008
91647720|NCT00331773|183187409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.46||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed.||1.46|0.73|0.85
91647721|NCT00331773|183187409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.81||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||5.81|0.29|0.72
91781158|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|5.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: General Health||5.86|-2.31|0.3947
91840694|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|71.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||71.0|-19.2|
91647722|NCT00331773|183187409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference Arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||1.21|0.82|0.95
91647723|NCT00331773|183187409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.74||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||2.74|0.67|0.39
91647724|NCT00331773|183187409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.06||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||2.06|1.22|0.005
91781159|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.7165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: General Health||6.20|-4.26|0.7165
91781160|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Vitality||5.75|-2.87|0.5112
91781161|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.1218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|10.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Vitality||10.04|-1.18|0.1218
91840695|NCT02564055|183561852|OTHER||Difference in percentages|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|80.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||80.9|-40.3|
91898453|NCT02604212|183692916|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91840696|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|28.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||28.4|-18.3|
91840697|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|28.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||28.4|-17.1|
91840698|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|22.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||22.7|-24.0|
91840699|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|33.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||33.9|-12.0|
91840700|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|51.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||51.0|6.8|
91840701|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|26.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||26.6|-19.4|
91647725|NCT00331773|183187409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.55||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.99||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||2.99|0.80|0.19
91647726|NCT00331773|183187409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.61||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||1.61|1.07|0.009
91781162|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|7.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Social Functioning||7.05|-2.11|0.2895
91781163|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.8349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Social Functioning||5.32|-6.58|0.8349
91781164|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Emotional||10.97|0.28|0.0393
91781165|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.7266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|8.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Emotional||8.16|-5.69|0.7266
91781166|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.4916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|6.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Health||6.27|-3.02|0.4916
91840702|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|39.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||39.5|-6.0|
91840703|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|39.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||39.4|-7.1|
91840704|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|41.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|61.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||61.2|19.2|
91840705|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|32.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||32.0|-14.9|
91840706|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|38.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||38.3|-7.3|
91840707|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|36.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||36.5|-11.3|
91840708|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|52.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||52.8|6.1|
91840709|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|44.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||44.9|-3.0|
91840710|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|34.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||34.7|-13.5|
91840711|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|49.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||49.9|2.5|
91840712|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|40.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||40.7|-9.0|
91898454|NCT02604212|183692917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0824|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0824
91781167|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|6.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Health||6.38|-5.62|0.9008
91781168|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: TR Scale Score||0.55|-0.17|0.2965
91781169|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: TR Scale Score||0.84|-0.09|0.1147
91781170|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.7786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Component Summary||3.31|-4.42|0.7786
91781171|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Component Summary||3.49|-6.45|0.5582
91781172|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Component Summary||8.47|-0.37|0.0727
91781173|NCT00658359|183441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|8.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Component Summary||8.59|-2.86|0.3264
91781174|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Physical Capacity||0.33|-0.10|0.3093
91781175|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Physical Capacity||0.36|-0.12|0.3223
91781176|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.30|-0.14|0.4858
91840713|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|29.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|52.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||52.3|3.7|
91781177|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.36|-0.13|0.3679
91781178|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.17|-0.27|0.6416
91781179|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.14|-0.34|0.4241
91781180|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.39|-0.09|0.2133
91781181|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.44|-0.09|0.1918
91781182|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||-0.14|-0.55|0.0010
91781183|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||-0.13|-0.59|0.0020
91781184|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.40|-0.08|0.2012
91781185|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.29|-0.25|0.8986
91781186|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Global Score||0.20|-0.13|0.6724
91781187|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Global Score||0.19|-0.18|0.9297
91781188|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Physical Capacity||0.23|-0.28|0.8682
91781189|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Physical Capacity||0.53|-0.18|0.3392
91781190|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.32|-0.20|0.6545
91781191|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.55|-0.18|0.3253
91781192|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.25|-0.26|0.9698
91781193|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.54|-0.17|0.3065
91781194|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.23|-0.33|0.7147
91781195|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.53|-0.25|0.4852
91840714|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|30.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||30.9|-20.1|
91898455|NCT02604212|183692917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2217|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2217
91781196|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||0.03|-0.46|0.0888
91781197|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||0.03|-0.65|0.0719
91781198|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.33|-0.24|0.7531
91781199|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.30|-0.49|0.6412
91781200|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Global Score||0.18|-0.20|0.9186
91781201|NCT00658359|183441788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Global Score||0.33|-0.21|0.6629
91781202|NCT00658359|183441789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.2826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||1.53|-5.22|0.2826
91781203|NCT00658359|183441789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.5371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||5.09|-2.65|0.5371
91781204|NCT00658359|183441789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.7503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Non-Pain Symptoms Converted Score||1.02|-1.41|0.7503
91781205|NCT00658359|183441789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Non-Pain Symptoms Converted Score||2.21|-0.60|0.2610
91781206|NCT00658359|183441789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.3656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Satisfaction Converted Score||2.82|-1.04|0.3656
91781207|NCT00658359|183441789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Satisfaction Converted Score||1.37|-3.16|0.4405
91781208|NCT00658359|183441789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.4135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||2.25|-5.45|0.4135
91781209|NCT00658359|183441789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|6.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||6.37|-4.45|0.7272
91781210|NCT00658359|183441789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Non-Pain symptoms Converted Score||1.22|-1.56|0.8111
91781211|NCT00658359|183441789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Non-Pain Symptoms Converted Score||3.13|-0.86|0.2636
91781212|NCT00658359|183441789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Satisfaction Converted Score||2.67|-1.77|0.6890
91781213|NCT00658359|183441789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.4853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Satisfaction Converted Score||2.05|-4.31|0.4853
91781214|NCT02858362|183441824|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 23 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.048||||||Week 24 Change from Baseline||0.048|-0.002|
91781215|NCT02858362|183441824|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 16 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.042||||||Week 48 Change from Baseline||0.042|-0.03|
91781216|NCT02858362|183441825|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 24 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.611|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.324|-0.898||||||Week 24 Change from Baseline||-0.898|-4.324|
91781217|NCT02858362|183441825|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 16 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|3.435||||||Week 48 Change from Baseline||3.435|-1.103|
91781218|NCT02858362|183441826|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 24 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.989|0.315||||||Week 24 Change from Baseline||0.315|-3.989|
91781219|NCT02858362|183441826|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 16 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|4.324||||||Week 48 Change from Baseline||4.324|0.096|
91781220|NCT01821118|183441856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.184|||||SE of mean is presented in log e scale.|ROI1: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.184|0.820|
91781221|NCT01821118|183441856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.056|||||SE of mean is presented in log e scale.|ROI2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.056|0.825|
91840715|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|33.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||33.8|-16.2|
91840716|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||37.3|-13.4|
91840717|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|50.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||50.5|0.7|
91781222|NCT01821118|183441857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.735|0.989|||||SE of mean is presented on log e scale.|ROI1: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.989|0.735|
91781223|NCT01821118|183441857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.788|1.031|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.031|0.788|
91781224|NCT01821118|183441858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.933|1.086|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI1, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.086|0.933|
91781225|NCT01821118|183441858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.114|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI1, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.114|0.990|
91781226|NCT01821118|183441858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.052|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI2, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.052|0.947|
91781227|NCT01821118|183441858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.063|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI2, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.063|0.960|
91781228|NCT01821118|183441859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1281|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1576|0.2781||||||ROI1, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.2781|-0.1576|
91781229|NCT01821118|183441859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|-0.0859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1165|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2843|0.1124||||||ROI1, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1124|-0.2843|
91781230|NCT01821118|183441859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|-0.0488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0902|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2018|0.1042||||||ROI2, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1042|-0.2018|
91781231|NCT01821118|183441859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|-0.0888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1061|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2689|0.0914||||||ROI2, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.0914|-0.2689|
91781232|NCT01821118|183441860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0395|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0207|0.1136||||||ROI1, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1136|-0.0207|
91781233|NCT01821118|183441860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0737|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0383|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0084|0.139||||||ROI1, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1390|0.0084|
91781234|NCT01821118|183441860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0337|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0352|0.079||||||ROI2, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.0790|-0.0352|
91781235|NCT01821118|183441860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.0694||||||ROI2, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.0694|-0.0460|
91781236|NCT05038982|183441879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|78.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.09|118.48||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANOVA||Percent PP-NRS reduction comparing subject's values at Week 0 to values at Week 12|||118.48|38.09|<0.001
91781237|NCT05038982|183441879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|53.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.12||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.55|98.76||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANOVA||Percent PP-NRS reduction comparing subject's values at Week 0 to values at Week 12|||98.76|8.55|0.0142
91781238|NCT05038982|183441881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|12.5||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||12.5|6.3|0.002
91781239|NCT05038982|183441881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.6||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||10.6|1.6|0.0215
91781240|NCT05038982|183441882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|14.3||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||14.3|5.9|0.002
91898456|NCT02604212|183692917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1409
91647727|NCT00331773|183187409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.18||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||3.18|0.76|0.22
91647728|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 6 months||||0.72
91647729|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 6 months||||0.056
91647730|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 6 months||||0.99
91647731|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 6 months||||0.49
91647732|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 12 months||||0.0037
91647733|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 12 months||||0.062
91647734|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 12 months||||0.94
91647735|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 12 months||||0.93
91647736|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 24 months||||0.12
91781241|NCT05038982|183441882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.6||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||8.6|0.77|0.02
91781242|NCT05038982|183441883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|8.18||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||8.18|2.70|0.0078
91647737|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 24 months||||0.81
91647738|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 24 months||||0.69
91647739|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 24 months||||0.68
91647740|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 60 months||||0.071
91647741|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 60 months||||0.047
91647742|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 60 months||||0.4
91647743|NCT00331773|183187410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 60 months||||0.91
91647744|NCT00331773|183187412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 6 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.55
91647745|NCT00331773|183187412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 12 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.29
91647746|NCT00331773|183187412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 24 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.23
91647747|NCT00331773|183187412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 60 months (5 years) was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.028
91647748|NCT00331773|183187413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||Baseline VAS score||||0.037
91647749|NCT00331773|183187413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline index score||||0.12
91647750|NCT00331773|183187413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6-month VAS score||||0.70
91647751|NCT00331773|183187413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6-month index score||||0.20
91647752|NCT00331773|183187413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12-month VAS score||||0.31
91647753|NCT00331773|183187413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12-month index score||||0.19
91647754|NCT00331773|183187413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24-month VAS score||||0.86
91647755|NCT00331773|183187413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24-month index score||||0.45
91647756|NCT00331773|183187413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||60-month VAS score||||0.39
91647757|NCT00331773|183187413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||60-month index score||||0.56
91647758|NCT01430182|183187463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 1 sided|unpaired||||||0.37
91781243|NCT05038982|183441884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|19.89||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||19.89|5.57|0.0098
91840718|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|25.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||25.6|-25.6|
91647759|NCT00775983|183187505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: We assumed a standard deviation of five minutes based on historical clinic data for surgical abortions during this gestational duration range, a non-inferiority margin of five minutes, and a 10% potential attrition rate to power the study for a non-inferiority hypothesis. Thirty participants in each arm gave us 95% power to conclude non-inferiority of same day Dilapan-S compared to overnight laminaria with respect to procedure time of surgical abortions between 14-18 weeks gestation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|4.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: A surgical abortion performed between 14-18 weeks gestation performed after the cervix has been prepared with same-day Dilapan-S is inferior with respect to procedure time, which is specifically outside a five minute margin of non-inferiority, when compared to procedures during the same gestational duration range performed after the cervix has been prepared overnight with laminaria.||4.5|-0.3|
91647760|NCT02143947|183187544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||> .10
91781244|NCT05038982|183441884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.66||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||16.66|3.10|0.0117
91781245|NCT05038982|183441885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|15.94||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||15.94|4.46|0.002
91781246|NCT05038982|183441886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.63||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||1.63|0.57|0.0078
91647761|NCT02143947|183187545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= .036
91647762|NCT02143947|183187546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||> .10
91647763|NCT02143947|183187547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .05
91781247|NCT05038982|183441887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.27||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||0.27|0.025|0.0391
91781248|NCT05038982|183441887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.31||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||0.31|-.080|0.28
91898457|NCT02604212|183692918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0625
91840719|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|27.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||27.6|-22.6|
91840720|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|31.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||31.7|-18.7|
91840721|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|41.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||41.4|-9.5|
91840722|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|35.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||35.8|-14.9|
91840723|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|90.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||90.6|-31.9|
91647764|NCT02660385|183187551|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM)|GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.||||||0.0002
91647765|NCT02660385|183187552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0723||||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0723
91840724|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|47.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||47.8|-62.4|
91840725|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|57.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||57.9|-32.2|
91840726|NCT02564055|183561853|OTHER||Difference in percentages|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|80.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||80.9|-40.3|
91647766|NCT02660385|183187553|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.42||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||GLMM|GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.||||||0.0110
91647767|NCT02660385|183187554|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||<0.0001
91647768|NCT02660385|183187555|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.12||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.4356
91647769|NCT02660385|183187556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0148
91647770|NCT02660385|183187557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
91840727|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|32.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||32.5|-45.8|
91840728|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|52.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||52.6|-25.7|
91840729|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|32.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||32.6|-46.0|
91840730|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|48.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||48.8|-32.2|
91840731|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|14.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||14.8|-60.8|
91840732|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|28.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|63.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||63.0|-13.7|
91840733|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|6.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||6.1|-67.4|
91647771|NCT02660385|183187558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
91647772|NCT02660385|183187559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
91647773|NCT02660385|183187560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6358||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6358
91647774|NCT02660385|183187561|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.35||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0318
91898458|NCT02604212|183692918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0684|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0684
91840734|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|40.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||40.7|-40.7|
91840735|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|23.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||23.5|-53.8|
91840736|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|43.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|74.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||74.6|2.7|
91840737|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|23.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||23.5|-53.8|
91840738|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|51.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||51.2|-35.6|
91840739|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|57.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||57.1|-25.1|
91840740|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|78.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||78.7|4.8|
91840741|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|30.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||30.2|-51.3|
91840742|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|51.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||51.2|-35.6|
91647775|NCT02660385|183187562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2722||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2722
91647776|NCT02660385|183187563|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.27||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0954
91647777|NCT02660385|183187564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4222||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4222
91647778|NCT02660385|183187565|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.09||||0.5781|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.5781
91647779|NCT02660385|183187566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1238||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1238
91840743|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|48.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||48.5|-35.4|
91840744|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|47.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||47.1|-35.8|
91840745|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|31.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||31.2|-54.0|
91840746|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.3|22.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||22.4|-65.3|
91840747|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|42.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||42.7|-44.5|
91840748|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|47.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||47.3|-37.8|
91840749|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|37.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||37.6|-47.9|
91840750|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|41.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||41.5|-48.3|
91840751|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|42.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||42.7|-44.5|
91840752|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|49.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||49.2|-35.0|
91840753|NCT02564055|183561860|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|42.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||42.3|-46.0|
91840754|NCT04542226|183561884|OTHER||||||<|1e-07||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test for repeated measures was used to compare with baseline.||||||<0.0000001
91840755|NCT00919893|183561895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Cernilton compared to placebo induces a better or the same outcome of symptomatic improvement in the pain domain of symptomatic Pelvic Pain Syndrome verified by the National Institutes of Health-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI).~Power calculation: A power of 1-beta=0.8 was calculated."||||<0.05
91840756|NCT01580098|183561902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
91840757|NCT01580098|183561903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Blood pressure: diastolic||||0.182
91840758|NCT00345384|183561910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Precentage Difference|41.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The percentage in opioid use by the dexmedetomidine group in comparison to the placebo for the period of time on study drug is calculated as follows: numerator = 29, denominator = 49.|||||0.03
91840759|NCT00345384|183561910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|35.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||A measure of opioid use, weighted for total time on study drug. This is examined by a comparison of the dexmedetomidine group to the placebo group: numerator = 35, denominator = 54.|||||0.04
91898459|NCT02604212|183692918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2105|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2105
91781249|NCT05038982|183441888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.607||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|7.235||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||7.235|0.035|0.0684
91647780|NCT02660385|183187567|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.3||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0558
91781250|NCT05038982|183441888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.656|1.456||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||||1.456|-3.656|0.375
91647781|NCT02660385|183187568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0230
91647782|NCT02660385|183187569|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.06||||0.4597|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.4597
91647783|NCT02660385|183187570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1943||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1943
91781251|NCT05038982|183441889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.212||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|2.04||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||2.04|-3.44|0.207
91840760|NCT00345384|183561911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value reported in this table corresponds with the 6 to 16 hour time frame.||||0.02
91781252|NCT05038982|183441889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.498||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.389|3.389||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||3.389|-3.389|0.8125
91781253|NCT05038982|183441890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|7.08||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||7.08|2.52|0.0039
91781254|NCT05038982|183441890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.033||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0376|4.638||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||4.638|-0.0376|0.0547
91781255|NCT05038982|183441891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|11.07||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||11.07|6.93|0.0003
91781256|NCT05038982|183441892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.429|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.011|8.846||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.846|4.011|<0.0001
91781257|NCT05038982|183441894|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.33||Threshold of significance set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th1 GSVA from RNA sequencing (RNASeq) performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||-0.33|-0.83|<0.0001
91781258|NCT05038982|183441894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th2 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||-0.18|-0.56|0.0003
91647784|NCT02660385|183187571|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.23||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0027
91647785|NCT02660385|183187572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0792||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0792
91647786|NCT02660385|183187573|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.13||||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0656
91647787|NCT02660385|183187574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2174||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2174
91781259|NCT05038982|183441894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.039||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th17 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||0.039|-0.47|0.0952
91781260|NCT05038982|183441894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.13||Threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th22 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||-0.13|-0.64|0.004
91781261|NCT05038982|183441894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.053||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th1 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at week 0.||-0.053|-0.81|0.0277
91781262|NCT05038982|183441894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.049||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th1 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at week 12.||0.049|-0.85|0.077
91781263|NCT05038982|183441894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.024||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th2 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 0.||-0.024|-0.64|0.0363
91781264|NCT05038982|183441894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.062||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th2 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 12.||0.062|-0.63|0.10
91781265|NCT05038982|183441894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.27||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th17 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 0.||-0.27|-0.89|0.0009
91781266|NCT05038982|183441894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.2||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th17 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 12.||0.20|-0.77|0.2326
91840761|NCT00365378|183561912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|94.3||||||95.0|87.8|97.7|||||"Vaccine Efficacy (% relative risk reduction)~Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter."|||97.7|87.8|
91840762|NCT00365378|183561913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||||95.0|84.0|100.0|||||"Vaccine Efficacy (% relative risk reduction)~Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter."|||100.0|84.0|
91840763|NCT00708305|183561970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9762||95.0|-0.21|0.2||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments in comparison. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance levels.||0.20|-0.21|0.9762
91647788|NCT02660385|183187575|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.07||||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.7028
91647789|NCT02660385|183187576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0509||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0509
91647790|NCT02660385|183187577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|275.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1525.0||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3288.0|2739.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2739|-3288|0.955
91781267|NCT05038982|183441894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.18||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th22 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 0.||-0.18|-0.85|0.0047
91781268|NCT05038982|183441894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.0076||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th22 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 12.||0.0076|-0.83|0.0539
91781269|NCT00472576|183441896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|3.671|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean differences reflect groups differences at end point.|A linear mixed model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used to examine the effects of treatment (MK-0657 and placebo) over time (treatment day) with the baseline of each phase as a covariate. A main effect for phase of study was also included. Schwarz's Bayesian criteria was used to determine the best fitting variance-covariance structure which was an autoregressive moving average model. Bonferroni adjusted simple effects tests were used to evaluate significant effects.||3.671|0.911|.001
91781270|NCT00472576|183441897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.479||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.981|2.901||This test is a comparison of the MK-0657 condition to the placebo condition.|Mixed Models Analysis||The primary outcome of interest is whether the groups differ at the end of the study, so the means represent values at that point in time.|A linear mixed model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used to examine the effects of treatment (MK-0657 and placebo) over time (treatment day) with the baseline of each phase as a covariate. A main effect for phase of study was also included. Schwarz's Bayesian criteria was used to determine the best fitting variance-covariance structure which was an autoregressive moving average model. Bonferroni adjusted simple effects tests were used to evaluate significant effects.||2.901|-6.981|.272
91781271|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
91781272|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|24.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||24.7|16.1|
91781273|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|20.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||20.4|11.9|
91781274|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||14.5|8.7|
91781275|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
91781276|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|31.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||31.7|18.5|
91781277|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|26.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||26.6|15.7|
91851600|NCT03615924|183586831|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.06||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.50|0.75|0.7597
91898460|NCT02604212|183692919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1750
91647791|NCT02660385|183187578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
91647792|NCT02660385|183187579|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.05||||0.7496|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.7496
91647793|NCT02660385|183187580|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.06||||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.3821
91647794|NCT02660385|183187581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7204||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7204
91647795|NCT05180630|183187678|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to 0.01666667 (.05/3). Comparisons were total mean scores for Open dome condition, Vented dome condition, and Custom earmolds with dynamic venting|ANOVA|||Treatment order was not analyzed. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of the coupling conditions on sound quality ratings for streamed music, but there was no analysis between groups.||||0.012
91647796|NCT05180630|183187679|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to 0.01666667 (.05/3).|ANOVA|||Treatment order was not analyzed. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of the coupling conditions on sound quality ratings for own voice, but there was no analysis between groups.||||0.154
91647797|NCT00709735|183187681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|4.0|||||Non-Reactivation Propranolol (NRP) - Reactivation Propranolol (RP)|||4.0|-30.0|
91647798|NCT00709735|183187682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|1.9|||||Non-Reactivation Propranolol (NRP) - Reactivation Propranolol (RP)|||1.9|-27.4|
91647799|NCT00190684|183187837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for systolic BP|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Change = endpoint-baseline||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91647800|NCT00190684|183187837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for diastolic BP|Wilcoxon sign-rank test|Change = endpoint-baseline||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91647801|NCT00190684|183187838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for pulse|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91647802|NCT00190684|183187839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91647803|NCT00190684|183187840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91647804|NCT00190684|183187841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight 0 to 25th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91781278|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||18.4|10.1|
91898461|NCT02604212|183692919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0229
91647805|NCT00190684|183187841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight 25th to 50th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91647806|NCT00190684|183187841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644||95.0||||p-value is for weight 50th to 75th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.644
91647807|NCT00190684|183187841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight 75th to 100th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91647808|NCT00190684|183187841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height 0 to 25th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91647809|NCT00190684|183187841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height 25th to 50th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.001
91647810|NCT00190684|183187841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||p-value is for height 50th to 75th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.044
91647811|NCT00190684|183187841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height 75th to 100th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91898462|NCT02604212|183692919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0294
91781279|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
91781280|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|25.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||25.7|15.3|
91781281|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|25.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||25.1|15.9|
91647812|NCT00190684|183187841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 0 to 25th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91898463|NCT02604212|183692920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4615|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4615
91647813|NCT00190684|183187841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 25th to 50th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.032
91647814|NCT00190684|183187841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 50th to 75th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.351
91781282|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|18.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||18.9|11.9|
91781283|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.8|
91781284|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|30.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||30.1|16.9|
91781285|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|28.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||28.7|17.6|
91781286|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|22.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||22.3|12.7|
91781287|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.2|0.8|
91840764|NCT00708305|183561971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.7||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||0.70|0.28|<0.0001
91647815|NCT00190684|183187841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 75th to 100th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91840765|NCT00708305|183561971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.44|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.23|1.65||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||1.65|1.23|<0.0001
91840766|NCT00708305|183561971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.28|0.7||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||0.70|0.28|<0.0001
91647816|NCT00190684|183187842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for RR interval|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91647817|NCT00190684|183187842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for QRS Interval|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91781288|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|26.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||26.5|16.6|
91781289|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|20.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||20.1|11.6|
91781290|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|14.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||14.0|8.1|
91781291|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.8|
91898464|NCT02604212|183692920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0508|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0508
91898465|NCT02604212|183692920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0769|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0769
91781292|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|34.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||34.6|20.5|
91781293|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|24.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||24.1|13.5|
91781294|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||18.0|10.1|
91781295|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
91781296|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|31.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||31.3|19.9|
91781297|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|22.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||22.8|14.5|
91781298|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|17.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||17.5|10.8|
91781299|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.4|0.9|
91781300|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|34.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|44.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||44.4|27.0|
91781301|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|29.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||29.6|18.2|
91840767|NCT00708305|183561971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.65||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because the comparison was predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||1.65|1.23|<0.0001
91840768|NCT00708305|183561971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||1.16|0.74|<0.0001
91840769|NCT00708305|183561972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.72||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.72|0.12|0.0151
91840770|NCT00708305|183561972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.36||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||2.36|0.69|<0.0001
91840771|NCT00708305|183561972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.05||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||4.05|2.06|<0.0001
91840772|NCT00708305|183561972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.27||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.27|0.41|<0.0001
91840773|NCT00708305|183561972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.74||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||2.74|1.50|<0.0001
91840774|NCT00708305|183561972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.35||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.35|0.73|<0.0001
91840775|NCT00708305|183561973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.5545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.47|-0.22|0.5545
91647818|NCT00190684|183187842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for QT Bazett Correction|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91647819|NCT00190684|183187842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||p-value is for QT Data Correction|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.310
91840776|NCT00708305|183561973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.71||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.71|0.15|0.0003
91840777|NCT00708305|183561973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.56||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.56|0.58|<0.0001
91898466|NCT02604212|183692921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0699|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0699
91840778|NCT00708305|183561973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.68||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signal Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.68|0.15|<0.0001
91898467|NCT02604212|183692921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0179|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0179
91840779|NCT00708305|183561973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.35||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.35|0.58|<0.0001
91647820|NCT00190684|183187842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0||||p-value is for QT Fridericia Correction|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.632
91647821|NCT00190684|183187843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for HR.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91647822|NCT00190684|183187845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0||||p-value is for Total Score|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||p<0.001
91647823|NCT00190684|183187845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Inattentive Subscale Score|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91781302|NCT04032093|183441937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||21.7|12.0|
91781303|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|14.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||14.1|8.1|
91781304|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||14.5|5.5|
91781305|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|23.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||23.4|10.7|
91781306|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||9.0|3.5|
91781307|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|9.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||9.6|4.5|
91781308|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|19.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||19.9|11.1|
91781309|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|18.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||18.6|6.5|
91781310|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|28.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||28.0|13.1|
91781311|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||11.4|4.2|
91898468|NCT02604212|183692921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0430
91840780|NCT00708305|183561973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.56||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.56|0.26|<0.0001
91781312|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|11.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||11.8|4.5|
91781313|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|14.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||14.2|8.3|
91781314|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||14.5|6.5|
91781315|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|15.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||15.9|7.1|
91781316|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|12.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||12.9|5.2|
91781317|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||7.5|3.1|
91781318|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|18.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||18.7|10.5|
91781319|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||18.7|7.4|
91781320|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||18.3|7.7|
91781321|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||14.5|5.5|
91781322|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||8.8|3.3|
91781323|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||12.3|7.4|
91781324|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|12.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||12.4|5.7|
91781325|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|15.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||15.4|6.4|
91781326|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||6.8|2.9|
91781327|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||6.3|2.5|
91781328|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|16.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||16.6|9.2|
91781329|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||17.9|7.1|
91781330|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|15.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||15.2|7.0|
91781331|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|9.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||9.0|3.7|
91781332|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||7.0|2.7|
91781333|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|14.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||14.9|8.6|
91781334|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||14.0|7.4|
91647824|NCT00190684|183187845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0||||p-value is for Hyperactive Subscale Score|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||p<0.001
91647825|NCT00190684|183187846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for CGI ADHD Severity within group|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||||||<0.001
91709046|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91781335|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|22.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||22.1|10.2|
91781336|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|9.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||9.6|3.9|
91898469|NCT02604212|183692922|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91781337|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||6.9|2.9|
91781338|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|21.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||21.2|12.5|
91781339|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|19.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||19.1|8.6|
91781340|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|26.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||26.2|11.9|
91781341|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|14.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||14.4|5.7|
91781342|NCT04032093|183441939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|9.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||9.9|3.9|
91781343|NCT01356277|183441940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted, ordinal logistic regression|An odds ratio greater than 1.0 indicates higher adherence in Intervention participants compared with controls.|We estimated a sample size of 75 participants per group to have 85% power to detect a 20% difference in taking adherence between groups, using 2-sided tests and setting alpha at 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 40%. Targeted enrollment of 176 participants accounted for 15% drop-out. Only participants with electronic pillbox data could be included. For participants who withdrew or stopped using the pillbox, all available pillbox data were included.||2.39|1.15|0.006
91781344|NCT01356277|183441941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted ordinal logistic regression|An odds ratio greater than 1.0 indicates higher adherence in Intervention participants compared with controls.|||2.50|1.21|0.003
91781345|NCT01356277|183441942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon ranksum|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the SD of tacrolimus trough levels between intervention and control.||||0.49
91781346|NCT01356277|183441943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91781347|NCT01356277|183441944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91781348|NCT01356277|183441945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates were compared between intervention and control groups using Chi square||||0.26
91781349|NCT01356277|183441946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
91840781|NCT00708305|183561974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.08|-0.13|0.6865
91781350|NCT02141204|183441994|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of anti-RV IgA antibody GMCs between HRV Liq Group over the HRV Lyo Group should be greater than or equal to (≥) 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.34|||ANCOVA|95% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio and the logarithm of baseline concentration were used as fixed effects in this ANCOVA model.||Anti-RV IgA GMCs (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between GSK Biologicals' HRV liquid vaccine (HRV Liq Group) and GSK Biologicals' HRV lyophilized vaccine (HRV Lyo Group) in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-RV antibodies, one month after the administration of the second dose of study vaccine.||1.34|0.65|
91781351|NCT01209325|183442005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||Two-sided p-value|Exact poisson test|||||||0.112
91781352|NCT01209325|183442005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||One-sided test|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 6 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 6 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 3.4 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.447
91781353|NCT01209325|183442006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact poisson test|||||||0.224
91647826|NCT00190684|183187847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS ADHD Index Subscale within group|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91647827|NCT00190684|183187847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS Cognitive Subscale|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||p<0.001
91781354|NCT01209325|183442006|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value.||||||0.361|||||||Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 11 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 11 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 2.0 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.361
91647828|NCT00190684|183187847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS Hyperactive Subscale|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.026
91781355|NCT01209325|183442007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact poisson test|||||||0.079
91781356|NCT01209325|183442007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 16 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 16 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 1.8 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.350
91781357|NCT01209325|183442008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Exact poisson test|||||||0.162
91781358|NCT01209325|183442008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||One-sided p-value|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 18 group was compared to the Merck 020 per-protocol historical placebo group naive to HPV 18 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 1.0 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.490
91781359|NCT01209325|183442009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Two-sided p-value is comparing naive and prior exposure groups for HPV 6.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.671
91781360|NCT01209325|183442009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 6 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 6 (NCT00090285), 1.8 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 4.5 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.312
91781361|NCT01209325|183442010|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||>0.999
91781362|NCT01209325|183442010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.209||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 11 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 11 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 1.7 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.209
91781363|NCT01209325|183442011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.386
91781364|NCT01209325|183442011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305||||||One-sided test|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 16 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 16 (NCT00090285), 2.9 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 4.9 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.305
91781365|NCT01209325|183442012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.622
91898470|NCT02604212|183692922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0849
91647829|NCT00190684|183187847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS Oppositional Subscale|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91781366|NCT01209325|183442012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 18 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 18 (NCT00090285), 0.7 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 2.7 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.150
91781367|NCT01209325|183442013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.064
91781368|NCT01209325|183442014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745||||||Two-sided test.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.745
91781369|NCT01209325|183442015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.014
91781370|NCT01209325|183442016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.166
91781371|NCT01209325|183442017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.789
91781372|NCT01209325|183442018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Two-sided p-value.|0.809|||||||0.809
91781373|NCT01209325|183442019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.422
91781374|NCT01209325|183442020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.423
91781375|NCT01285557|183442060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.28|||Unstratified Log-rank|||S-1+Cisplatin and 5FU+Cisplatin were compared using the unstratified log-rank test. The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox's regression approach and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates along with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimates.||1.28|0.76|0.9312
91781376|NCT01285557|183442061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.14|||Log Rank|||S-1+Cisplatin and 5FU+Cisplatin were compared using the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox's regression approach and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates along with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimates.||1.14|0.65|0.3039
91781377|NCT01285557|183442062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||Log Rank|||S-1+Cisplatin and 5FU+Cisplatin were compared using the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox's regression approach and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates along with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimates.||1.08|0.66|0.1683
91781378|NCT02000115|183442081|NON_INFERIORITY|8.0% non-inferiority margin|Difference in percentages between groups|1.5||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.7||p for non-inferiority|Kaplan-Meier estimates|Kaplan-Meier was used as the method for calculating the endpoint rate|Non-inferiority of the Portico valve to commercially available valves was shown if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference in event rates between groups was less than the non-inferiority margin (8·0%)|We analysed the primary effectiveness endpoint in the intention-to- treat (ITT) population using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate event rates, the Greenwood method to calculate the standard error of the Kaplan-Meier estimates, and assuming an asymptotic normal distribution for event rate estimates.||5.7||0.006
91781379|NCT02000115|183442082|NON_INFERIORITY|8.5% non-inferiority margin|Difference in percentages between groups|4.2||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.1||p for non-inferiority|Kaplan-Meier estimates|Kaplan-Meier was used as the method for calculating the endpoint rate|Non-inferiority of the Portico valve to commercially available valves was shown if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference in event rates between groups was less than the non-inferiority margin (8·5%)|We analysed the primary safety endpoint in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate event rates, the Greenwood method to calculate the standard error of the Kaplan-Meier estimates, and assuming an asymptotic normal distribution for event rate estimates.||8.1||0.03
91781380|NCT02000115|183442084|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 4%|Difference in percentages between groups|0.4||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.3||p for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning test|The test statistic is based on the Farrington-Manning method of testing non-inferiority of proportions.|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of proportions (Portico - CAV) is \< 4%, then non inferiority is demonstrated.|||2.3||0.001
91647830|NCT02354976|183187869|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.92||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|0.76|0.407
91781381|NCT02000115|183442085|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 10 points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|||p for non-inferiority|two-sample t-test|The test statistic is based on two sample t-test|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of (Portico - CAV) is \> -10, then non inferiority is demonstrated.||||-3.5|<0.0001
91781382|NCT02000115|183442086|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 6%|Difference in percentages between groups|5.6||||0.4|ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.5||p for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning test|The test statistic is based on the Farrington-Manning method of testing non-inferiority of proportions|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of proportions (Portico - CAV) is \< 6%, then non inferiority is demonstrated.|||8.5||0.40
91781383|NCT02000115|183442087|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin on -36 meters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0003|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|||p for non-inferiority|two sample t-test|The test statistic is based on a two-sample t-test|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of (Portico - CAV) is \> -36, then non inferiority is demonstrated.||||-15.4|0.0003
91851601|NCT03615924|183586832|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.02||||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.45|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.45|0.72|0.9037
91781384|NCT04922216|183442098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Standard dietary monitoring coded as 0 (reference) and simplified dietary monitoring coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard dietary monitoring to simplified dietary monitoring on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||1.20|-0.61|0.52
91781385|NCT04922216|183442098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Weekly adaptive goals coded as 0 (reference) and daily adaptive goals coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (adaptive activity goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||0.63|-1.19|0.54
91781386|NCT04922216|183442098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Fixed message decision points coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive message decision points coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (message decision points) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||1.31|-0.50|0.39
91781387|NCT04922216|183442098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Standard decision rules coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision rules coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (message decision rules) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard decision rules to adaptive decision rules on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||1.30|-0.52|0.70
91781388|NCT04922216|183442098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|No choice points coded as 0 (reference) and Choice coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 5 (participant choice) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of no participant message choice versus participant message choice on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||0.36|-1.45|0.47
91781389|NCT04922216|183442099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Standard dietary monitoring coded as 0 (reference) and simplified dietary monitoring coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard dietary monitoring to simplified dietary monitoring on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.84|-0.36|0.43
91781390|NCT04922216|183442099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Weekly adaptive goals coded as 0 (reference) and daily adaptive goals coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (adaptive activity goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.18|-1.01|0.17
91781391|NCT04922216|183442099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Fixed message decision points coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive message decision points coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (message decision points) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||1.13|-0.06|0.08
91781392|NCT04922216|183442099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Standard decision rules coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision rules coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (message decision rules) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard decision rules to adaptive decision rules on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.91|-0.28|0.58
91647831|NCT02354976|183187870|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.84||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.70|0.077
91647832|NCT00068445|183187873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91647833|NCT00068445|183187874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91647834|NCT00068445|183187875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91781393|NCT04922216|183442099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|No choice points coded as 0 (reference) and Choice coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 5 (participant choice) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of no participant message choice versus participant message choice on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.28|-0.91|0.55
91898471|NCT02604212|183692922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0849
91647835|NCT00068445|183187876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91647836|NCT00068445|183187877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91647837|NCT00068445|183187878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91647838|NCT00068445|183187879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
91647839|NCT00068445|183187880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91647840|NCT00068445|183187881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
91647841|NCT00068445|183187882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91647842|NCT01155284|183187883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value between treatment groups of C-peptide log (AUC+1) with covariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, baseline C-peptide concentration and duration of diabetes.|ANCOVA|||||||0.81
91647843|NCT01155284|183187884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.869
91898472|NCT04659863|183692932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.17|-7.34||||||||-7.34|-59.17|
91781394|NCT04922216|183442100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.39|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Standard dietary monitoring coded as 0 (reference) and simplified dietary monitoring coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between standard dietary monitoring and simplified dietary monitoring (factor 1).||1.39|0.70|0.95
91781395|NCT04922216|183442100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Weekly adaptive activity goals coded as 0 (reference) and daily adaptive activity goals coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between weekly adaptive activity goals and daily adaptive activity goals (factor 2).||2.05|1.03|0.03
91781396|NCT04922216|183442100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Fixed decision points coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision points coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between fixed message decision points and adaptive message decision points (factor 3).||1.20|0.60|0.36
91781397|NCT04922216|183442100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Standard decision rules coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision rules coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between standard message decision rules and adaptive message decision rules (factor 4).||1.42|0.72|0.95
91781398|NCT04922216|183442100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.69|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|No message choice coded as 0 (reference) and message choice coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between no message choice and message choice (factor 5).||1.69|0.85|0.29
91781399|NCT01136980|183442122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.028
91781400|NCT02605122|183442137|OTHER||Proportion experiencing TEAE or TESAE|34.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|47.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson analysis was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||47|23|
91781401|NCT02605122|183442138|OTHER||Achievement of ECR|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|74.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson analysis was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||74|49|
91781402|NCT02605122|183442139|OTHER||Achievement of Clinical Improvement|68.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|78.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson analysis was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||78|58|
91781403|NCT02605122|183442140|OTHER||Achievement of Clinical Cure|62.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|73.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||73|50|
91781404|NCT00990704|183442141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between arms in percentage|13.6||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.36|49.63|||Fisher Exact|||||49.63|-22.36|0.518
91781405|NCT01399372|183442155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.95||One-sided significance level = 0.15|Log Rank||Reference arm = Chemotherapy|Sample size of 89 provided 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.63 at a one-sided alpha level of 0.15.||0.95|0.27|0.015
91781406|NCT01399372|183442156|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.58||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference arm = Chemotherapy|||1.58|0.38|0.48
91781407|NCT01399372|183442158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model of EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS was run with independent variables treatment arm, time, baseline Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, and baseline neurologic symptoms (none/minor vs. moderate/severe), including the interaction of treatment and time, representing difference in the longitudinal trajectory of the scores between the treatment arms. Prospectively, the interaction effect was of most interest and is reported here,||||0.005
91781408|NCT01399372|183442159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.31|||Gray's test||Reference arm = Chemotherapy arm|||1.31|0.21|0.18
91781409|NCT03284307|183442188|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Dexmedetomidine, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.012
91781410|NCT03284307|183442188|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.236|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Ketamine, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.236
91781411|NCT03284307|183442188|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.174|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Propofol, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.174
91781412|NCT03284307|183442188|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Sleep, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.640
91781413|NCT03284307|183442190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|3 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Card Sorting Score||||0.134
91781414|NCT03284307|183442190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|6 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Card Sorting Score||||0.012
91709047|NCT03035916|183311323|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91709048|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.412
91781415|NCT03284307|183442190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|1 degree of freedom||NIH Toolbox Card Sorting Score||||0.487
91781416|NCT03284307|183442190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|3 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Flanker Score||||0.046
91781417|NCT03284307|183442190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|6 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Flanker Score||||0.010
91781418|NCT03284307|183442190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||NIH Toolbox Flanker Score||||0.356
91781419|NCT03284307|183442191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|17 degrees of freedom||Predictive Coding Task Accuracy||||<0.001
91781420|NCT03284307|183442191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|14 degrees of freedom||Predictive Coding Task Accuracy||||<0.001
91781421|NCT03284307|183442191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|4 degrees of freedom||Predictive Coding Task Accuracy||||0.067
91781422|NCT03284307|183442192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|17 degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis is a 50% recall rate.||||0.5
91647844|NCT00123487|183187893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was claimed if the lower bound of the 95% CI for difference (QD - BD) was ≥ -12%.|Percent Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.1||||||Primary endpoint was to be assessed at 6-Months: Assuming a 45% MaHR rate in the 70 mg BID participants, the primary efficacy analysis required a total of 540 participants, approximately 270 in each dosing schedule, giving at least 80% power to deduce non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in MaHR rates (MaHRRQD - MaHRRBID) is greater than -12%.||8.1|-7.8|
91647845|NCT05788237|183187945|OTHER||GMR|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.062||||||GMR for RSV A: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.062|0.662|
91781423|NCT03284307|183442192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|11 degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis is a 50% recall rate.||||0.37
91781424|NCT03284307|183442192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|4 degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis is a 50% recall rate.||||0.12
91647846|NCT05788237|183187945|OTHER||GMR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.013||||||GMR for RSV B: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.013|0.614|
91647847|NCT05788237|183187946|OTHER||GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.044||||||GMR for HAI: H1N1 A/Wisconsin: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.044|0.632|
91781425|NCT03249116|183442200|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.33||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: self-reported anxiety between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety within-subjects factor: time||||||.723
91647848|NCT05788237|183187946|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.957||||||GMR for HAI: H3N2 A/Darwin: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||0.957|0.567|
91647849|NCT05788237|183187946|OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.181||||||GMR for HAI: B/Austria: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.181|0.741|
91647850|NCT05788237|183187946|OTHER||GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.174||||||GMR for HAI: B/Phuket: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.174|0.707|
91647851|NCT05788237|183187947|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.339||||||GMR for RSV A: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) combination to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.339|0.820|
91647852|NCT05788237|183187947|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.352||||||GMR for RSV B: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.352|0.833|
91647853|NCT05788237|183187948|OTHER||GMR|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.614||||||GMR for HAI: H1N1 A/Sydney: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.614|0.875|
91781426|NCT03249116|183442201|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.34||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: electrodermal activity between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety within-subjects factor: time||||||.271
91781427|NCT03249116|183442202|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.45||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: heart rate between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety within-subjects factor: time||||||.638
91781428|NCT03249116|183442203|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.14||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: number of errors between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety||||||.868
91781429|NCT03249116|183442204|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.21||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: lowest number reached/highest number of correct responses between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety||||||.809
91781430|NCT00221117|183442211|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.015
91647854|NCT05788237|183187948|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.473||||||GMR for HAI: H3N2 A/Darwin: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.473|0.867|
91647855|NCT05788237|183187948|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.383||||||GMR for HAI: B/Austria: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.383|0.849|
91647856|NCT05788237|183187948|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.392||||||GMR for HAI: B/Phuket: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.392|0.866|
91647857|NCT00581386|183187999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.125||||0.013||95.0|1.27|7.67|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression Number of obs = 217, LR chi2(2)=10.89, Prob\>chi2=0.0043,Log likelihood = -112.87788, Pseudo R2=0.0460|this is a simple odds ratio|||7.67|1.27|0.013
91709049|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.592|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.592
91709050|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.796|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.796
91709051|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.576
91709052|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.427
91709053|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.201
91709054|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.872|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.872
91709055|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91709056|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91781431|NCT00221117|183442212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The subject's impairment and demographic characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics for parametric and nonparametric data. The baseline outcome data of the intervention and control groups were compared using Fisher exact test (for categorical variables) and Mann-Whitney U test (for continuous variables). Comparisons between the intervention and control groups were carried out using linear regression analysis adjusted for the baseline degree of disability (baseline AIS).||||0.05
91781432|NCT00499616|183442216|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|0.9841||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients between 12-18 months of age with Stage 4 neuroblastoma and favorable biological features on ANBL0531 and patients less than 12 months of age with Stage 4 neuroblastoma on A3961 were compared using the log-rank test.||||.3212
91781433|NCT00499616|183442220|OTHER||Log-Rank Test Statistic|5.0049||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients with complete surgical resection and patients without complete surgical resection were compared using the log-rank test.||||.0253
91781434|NCT00499616|183442221|OTHER|The overall survival distributions of patients with complete surgical resection and patients without complete surgical resection were compared using the log-rank test.|Log Rank Test Statistic|2.6709||||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.1022
91781435|NCT00499616|183442222|OTHER||Chi-Square Test Statistic|9.9111||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The association between extent of surgical resection with occurrence of complications was determined using the chi-square test.||||.0016
91709057|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.165
91781436|NCT02223858|183442279|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 360 patients (180 non-Hispanic white and 180 non-Hispanic African American) was chosen based on a priori power calculations to detect a 3-way interaction between treatment group, race, and time, assuming a 20% change in baseline, the WOMAC pain subscales, and a 80% power.||||||0.791|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for site.||||||0.791
91781437|NCT02223858|183442280|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 360 (180 non-Hispanic white and 180 non-Hispanic African American) was chosen based on a priori power calculations to detect a 3-way interaction between treatment group, race, and time, assuming a 20% change in baseline, the WOMAC pain subscales, and a 80% power.||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for site.||||||0.880
91781438|NCT02223858|183442281|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 360 (180 non-Hispanic white and 180 non-Hispanic African American) was chosen based on a priori power calculations to detect a 3-way interaction between treatment group, race, and time, assuming a 20% change in baseline, the WOMAC pain subscale, and a 80% power.||||||0.901|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for site.||||||0.901
91781439|NCT00241839|183442288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|8.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction for possibly unequal variance was made|A positive value of the estimated value would favor the allopurinol arm. The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable.|We compared the drop in baseline of diastolic BP for the two treatment groups Allopurinol vs. Placebo by a Satterthwaite corrected t-test.||8.7|-0.17|0.059
91781440|NCT00241839|183442289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.3||Positive numbers indicate a drop. We compared baseline minus value at treatment end for the two treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction was used for potentially unequal variances.|The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable.|||4.3|-2.0|0.47
91781441|NCT00241839|183442290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Sattherthwaite correction was used|The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable. The 24 hour was in the opposite direction of the cuff.|||-2.6|-11.0|0.0020
91781442|NCT00241839|183442291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.59|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction was used.|Allopurinol was associated with a significant decrease in uric acid over the treatment period as compared to placebo. The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable.|We expected allopurinol to be associated with a decrease in uric acid.||2.59|1.72|<0.001
91781443|NCT04954833|183442292|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR. A value of 0.05 logMAR is approximately 2.5 letters on the ETDRS chart.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.02|-0.01|
91781444|NCT04954833|183442293|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used. A 10% of difference in the rate of lens fit acceptance is considered clinically significant.|Posterior mean difference of proportions|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.01|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference between the Test and Control (Test - Control) was used to evaluate non-inferiority.|Interval presented is a 95% Credible interval|||0.010|-0.009|
91781445|NCT05021978|183442326|OTHER|||||||0.1048||||||Change from baseline to Day 7 in TETRAS Upper Limb Score|Mixed Models Analysis|Includes timepoint as fixed effect and baseline TETRAS score as a covariate. Within subject variability modeled using unstructured covariance pattern.||Sample size is a convenience sample determined according to feasibility to provide sufficient and safety data to inform the development of future controlled studies with PRAX-944. In the open-label phase of the trial (Part A ), at least 10 participants would provide an 80% probability of observing at least 1 AE with an underlying incidence of 15% or greater and provide approximately 80% power to detect an effect size of 1.0 on the primary endpoint change from baseline in TETRAS Upper Limb score.||||0.1048
91647858|NCT00581386|183187999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.003||95.0|1.57|9.29|||Odds ratio|||||9.29|1.57|0.003
91840782|NCT00708305|183561974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.12|-0.02|0.1756
91840783|NCT00708305|183561974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.38||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.38|0.16|<0.0001
91647859|NCT00581386|183188000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.006||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91647860|NCT00581386|183188001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.088||||0.003||95.0|1.728|14.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.99|1.728|0.003
91781446|NCT05021978|183442326|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Change from baseline to Day 14 in TETRAS UL score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0028
91781447|NCT05021978|183442330|OTHER|||||||0.4025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline to Day 7||||||0.4025
91781448|NCT05021978|183442330|OTHER|||||||0.0766||||||Change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0766
91647861|NCT00581386|183188001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22||||0.0004||95.0|2.419|21.527|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.527|2.419|0.0004
91647862|NCT00681824|183188003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7159||95.0|||||likelihood ratio of chi squared test|||||||0.7159
91709058|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91647863|NCT03101293|183188052|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the food effect and 90% confidence intervals (CIs).|LS Mean Ratio|1.343||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.146|1.574|||ANOVA|||||1.574|1.146|0.0058
91647864|NCT03101293|183188053|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the food effect and 90% CIs.|LS Mean Ratio|1.121||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.298|||ANOVA|||||1.298|0.969|0.1763
91647865|NCT03101293|183188054|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the food effect and 90% CIs.|LS Mean Ratio|1.154||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.433|||ANOVA|||||1.433|0.929|0.2745
91647866|NCT03182920|183188078|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.52||||||||1.52|0.962|
91647867|NCT03182920|183188079|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.55||||||||1.55|1.03|
91647868|NCT00361257|183188081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.386||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline NPZ-8 score.|The total number used for the statistical analysis was 107 (52 in the minocycline arm and 55 in the placebo arm).|The null hypothesis was that the 24-week change of NPZ-8 in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.386|-0.258|0.651
91709059|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91781449|NCT05021978|183442331|OTHER|||||||0.2501||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2501
91781450|NCT05021978|183442331|OTHER|||||||0.1874||||||Chnage from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1874
91840784|NCT00708305|183561974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.22||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.22|0.04|0.0023
91647869|NCT00361257|183188082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.323||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline GDS score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24-week changes in Global Deficit Score (GDS) between the minocycline and placebo groups are the same.||0.323|-0.140|0.434
91647870|NCT00361257|183188083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.569|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.469||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|3.936||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cumulative Logistic|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables and the CNS penetration score.||The null hypothesis is that the 24 week changes of participants' clinical status in the minocycline group were the same as the ones in the placebo group based on ICGIS.||3.936|0.625|0.337
91647871|NCT00361257|183188084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|1.354||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline cognitive gross motor function domain score.||The null hypothesis is that the 24 week change in the cognitive gross motor function domain score in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||1.354|-0.349|0.243
91781451|NCT05021978|183442332|OTHER|||||||0.4722||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4722
91781452|NCT05021978|183442332|OTHER|||||||0.6215||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6215
91781453|NCT05021978|183442332|OTHER|||||||0.9648||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9648
91781454|NCT05021978|183442332|OTHER|||||||0.2855||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2855
91781455|NCT05021978|183442332|OTHER|||||||0.205||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2050
91781456|NCT05021978|183442332|OTHER|||||||0.2364||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2364
91781457|NCT05021978|183442336|OTHER|||||||0.0216|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0216
91781458|NCT05021978|183442337|OTHER|||||||0.1042||||||Change from baseline Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1042
91781459|NCT05021978|183442337|OTHER|||||||0.0257||||||Change from baseline Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0257
91781460|NCT05021978|183442338|OTHER|||||||0.2971||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2971
91781461|NCT05021978|183442338|OTHER|||||||0.2034||||||Change from baseline Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2034
91781462|NCT05021978|183442338|OTHER|||||||0.1105||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1105
91781463|NCT05021978|183442339|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0050
91709060|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.305
91781464|NCT05021978|183442339|OTHER|||||||0.0018||||||Change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0018
91781465|NCT05021978|183442339|OTHER|||||||0.0061||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0061
91781466|NCT05021978|183442340|OTHER|||||||0.9776||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9776
91781467|NCT05021978|183442340|OTHER|||||||0.1962||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1962
91781468|NCT05021978|183442340|OTHER|||||||0.9419||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9419
91781469|NCT05021978|183442340|OTHER|||||||0.0668||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0668
91781470|NCT05021978|183442340|OTHER|||||||0.9191||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9191
91781471|NCT05021978|183442340|OTHER|||||||0.6075||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6075
91781472|NCT05021978|183442340|OTHER|||||||0.246||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2460
91781473|NCT05021978|183442340|OTHER|||||||0.6736||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6736
91781474|NCT05021978|183442340|OTHER|||||||0.8511||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8511
91781475|NCT05021978|183442341|OTHER|||||||0.1505||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1505
91781476|NCT05021978|183442341|OTHER|||||||0.0543||||||Change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0543
91781477|NCT05021978|183442341|OTHER|||||||0.0015||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0015
91781478|NCT05021978|183442342|OTHER|||||||0.8638||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8638
91781479|NCT05021978|183442342|OTHER|||||||0.0605||||||Change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0605
91781480|NCT05021978|183442342|OTHER|||||||0.0871||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0871
91781481|NCT00043979|183442359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||7 participants who did not receive a transplant compared with 21 participants transplanted.|Kaplan-Meier|||||||.0003
91781482|NCT03096288|183442373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|52.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||52|-9|0.169
91781483|NCT03096288|183442373|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|45.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||45|-11|0.236
91781484|NCT00414596|183442380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The primary pain end-point was assessed by a mixed effect model with time (visit) and as fixed effects and subject as random effect.||"Hypothesis: Patients with chronic low back pain who undergo spinal decompression with a standardized 6-week regimen consisting of 20 treatments with the spinal decompression system would experience \>50% reduction in their verbal score of pain intensity.~Power Analysis: Mean pain scores at time of enrollment were assumed to equal 6 with potential reduction in pain of 50%. To obtain 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05, sample size was estimated as 20 patients."||||.0001
91781485|NCT02754440|183442456|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for the single platelet product group. The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
91781486|NCT02754440|183442456|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 8.0 × 10\^6 for the double platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
91840785|NCT00708305|183561974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.51||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.51|0.22|<0.0001
91781487|NCT02754440|183442456|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 12.0 × 10\^6 for the triple platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
91647872|NCT00361257|183188085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.596||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline fine motor function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in fine motor function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.596|-0.011|0.059
91781488|NCT02754440|183442457|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 3.0 × 10\^11 for the single platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|0.957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.904|||||||Up to 450 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.904|
91781489|NCT02754440|183442457|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 6.2 × 10\^11 for the double platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
91781490|NCT02754440|183442457|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 9.3 × 10\^11 for the triple platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
91781491|NCT01189032|183442459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||It's the p-value of linear trend. It's adjusted for multiplicity.|maximum contrast method|To confirm dose-response relation, two contrasts were provided; linear trend (-1, 0, 1), and saturated at 1% DE-089 ophthalmic solution (-2, 1, 1).||||||0.004
91781492|NCT01189032|183442459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||It's the p-value of Saturated at 1% DE-089. It's adjusted for multiplicity.|maximum contrast method|To confirm dose-response relation, two contrasts were provided; linear trend (-1, 0, 1), and saturated at 1% DE-089 ophthalmic solution (-2, 1, 1).||||||0.006
91781493|NCT01995838|183442462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.06|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||1.06|-0.03|0.0651
91781494|NCT01995838|183442462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.7|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.70|-0.44|0.6490
91781495|NCT01995838|183442462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.94|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.94|-0.09|0.1059
91781496|NCT01995838|183442462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9818|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.55|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.55|-0. 54|0. 9818
91781497|NCT01995838|183442462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.85|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.85|-0.08|0. 1071
91781498|NCT01995838|183442462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.17|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||1.17|0.19|0.0063
91781499|NCT01995838|183442463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.57||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.94|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||7.94|1.19|0.0083
91781500|NCT01995838|183442463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.44||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.01|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||8.01|0.86|0.0151
91781501|NCT01995838|183442463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|8.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||8.93|2.54|0.0005
91781502|NCT01995838|183442463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|11.45|||ANCOVA|||Days 1-2||11.45|4.73|<0.0001
91781503|NCT01995838|183442463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|12.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||12.93|7.20|<0.0001
91647873|NCT00361257|183188086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|0.209||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratified variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline psychomotor function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 change of psychomotor function domain score in the minocycline group is the same as in the placebo group.||0.209|-0.375|0.572
91647874|NCT00361257|183188087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.449|0.276||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline fine motor/nonverbal function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of fine motor/nonverbal function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as in the placebo group.||0.276|-0.449|0.637
91647875|NCT00361257|183188088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.544|0.396||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline information processing function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of information processing function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.396|-0.544|0.754
91781504|NCT01995838|183442463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.18|13.08|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||13.08|7.18|<0.0001
91781505|NCT01995838|183442463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|3.9|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||3.90|-3.22|0.8505
91781506|NCT01995838|183442463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.94||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|7.66|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||7.66|0.22|0.0380
91781507|NCT01995838|183442463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.76||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.12|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||9.12|2.40|0.0008
91781508|NCT01995838|183442463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|11.32|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||11.32|4.24|<0.0001
91647876|NCT00361257|183188089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.558||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline verbal memory domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of verbal memory domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.558|-0.266|0.484
91781509|NCT01995838|183442463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|10.92|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||10.92|4.86|<0.0001
91781510|NCT01995838|183442463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|12.02|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||12.02|5.72|<0.0001
91781511|NCT01995838|183442464|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.09|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||1.09|0.54|0.1407
91781512|NCT01995838|183442464|SUPERIORITY|Days 1-2|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.55||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.8|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.80|0.38|0.0018
91781513|NCT01995838|183442464|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||0.83|0.43|0.0025
91781514|NCT01995838|183442464|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||0.76|0.38|0.0006
91781515|NCT01995838|183442464|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.7|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||0.70|0.38|<0.0001
91709061|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91709062|NCT03035916|183311324|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91709063|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.673|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.673
91709064|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.824
91781516|NCT01995838|183442464|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.54|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2:||0.54|0.29|<0.0001
91647877|NCT00361257|183188090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.467|0.216||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline frontal systems function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of frontal systems function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.216|-0.467|0.467
91781517|NCT01995838|183442464|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.08|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||1.08|0.49|0.1158
91781518|NCT01995838|183442464|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.75|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.75|0.33|0.0010
91781519|NCT01995838|183442464|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.69|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.69|0.32|<0.0001
91781520|NCT01995838|183442464|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.47|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.47|0.21|<0.0001
91781521|NCT01995838|183442464|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.57|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.57|0.29|<0.0001
91781522|NCT01995838|183442464|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.48|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.48|0.24|<0.0001
91781523|NCT01995838|183442465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.08||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.48|2.33|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||2.33|-24.48|0.1050
91781524|NCT01995838|183442465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.29||||0.7501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.46|11.87|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||11.87|-16.46|0.7501
91781525|NCT01995838|183442465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.26||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.94|1.43|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||1.43|-23.94|0.0818
91781526|NCT01995838|183442465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.81||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.18|-6.43|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||-6.43|-33.18|0.0038
91840786|NCT00708305|183561974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.25||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.25|0.12|<0.0001
91840787|NCT00708305|183561975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.00|-0.08|0.0783
91840788|NCT00708305|183561975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.07|0.00|0.0531
91840789|NCT00708305|183561975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.14||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.14|0.07|<0.0001
91840790|NCT00708305|183561975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.15|0.03|0.0005
91840791|NCT00708305|183561975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
91840792|NCT00708305|183561975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.10|0.04|<0.0001
91840793|NCT00708305|183561976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.4309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.01|-0.03|0.4309
91840794|NCT00708305|183561976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.04|0.00|0.0726
91647878|NCT00361257|183188091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.476|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.048||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|10.668||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the CNS penetration score. The stratification variables could not be included in the model since the model fit was poor.||"The null hypothesis was that the proportion of being better at 24 weeks in minocycline group was the same as in the placebo group."||10.668|0.575|0.234
91840795|NCT00708305|183561976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.06|0.03|<0.0001
91851602|NCT03615924|183586833|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.76||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.3|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||3.30|0.17|0.7136
91851603|NCT03615924|183586834|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.84||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.40|0.50|0.4970
91647879|NCT00361257|183188092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|19.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.75||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.26|86.44||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, the baseline CNS score, and the baseline CD4 cell count.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in CD4 cell counts in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||86.44|-48.26|0.574
91898473|NCT00343252|183692956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of worst back pain from baseline to the 6-month endpoint.||||0.642
91781527|NCT01995838|183442465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.75|17.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||17.93|-40.75|<0.0001
91781528|NCT01995838|183442465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.59|-14.09|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||-14.09|-37.59|<0.0001
91781529|NCT01995838|183442465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4642||||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|20.98|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||20.98|-9.60|0.4642
91781530|NCT01995838|183442465|SUPERIORITY|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.|LS Mean Difference|-2.31||||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|13.64|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||13.64|-18.27|0.7754
91781531|NCT01995838|183442465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.69||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.14|3.75|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||3.75|-25.14|0.1461
91781532|NCT01995838|183442465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.73||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.97|0.51|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.51|-29.97|0.0581
91781533|NCT01995838|183442465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|-7.74|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||-7.74|-33.86|0.0019
91781534|NCT01995838|183442465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.12|-7.91|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||-7.91|-35.12|0.0020
91781535|NCT01995838|183442469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.05||||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.09|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||1.09|-7.20|0.1483
91781536|NCT01995838|183442469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.69|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||3.69|-4.96|0.7720
91781537|NCT01995838|183442469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|5.44|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||5.44|-2.44|0.4548
91781538|NCT01995838|183442469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.39||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|1.72|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||1.72|-6.51|0.2530
91781539|NCT01995838|183442469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.41||||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|5.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||5.93|-1.11|0.1794
91781540|NCT01995838|183442469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.94||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|4.63|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||4.63|-2.74|0.6148
91781541|NCT00346697|183442509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91781542|NCT00346697|183442510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.80
91781543|NCT00346697|183442511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91781544|NCT00346697|183442512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91781545|NCT00346697|183442513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91781546|NCT00346697|183442514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
91781547|NCT00346697|183442515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
91781548|NCT00346697|183442516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91781549|NCT00346697|183442517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91781550|NCT00346697|183442518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91781551|NCT00346697|183442519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91781552|NCT00346697|183442520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91781553|NCT00346697|183442521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91781554|NCT00346697|183442522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91781555|NCT00346697|183442523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
91781556|NCT02691507|183442560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781557|NCT02691507|183442560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.002
91781558|NCT02691507|183442560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.795||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.196|1.998||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.998|-1.196|0.616
91781559|NCT02691507|183442561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781560|NCT02691507|183442561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91647880|NCT00361257|183188093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|40.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.91||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.12|159.97||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline CD8 cell counts.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in CD8 cell count in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||159.97|-79.12|0.502
91647881|NCT00361257|183188094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was that the time to Grade 2 or higher toxicity and/or signs and symptoms in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.967
91647882|NCT00361257|183188096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|2.837||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables and the baseline CNS penetration score.||The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants who got better at week 24 compared to baseline in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||2.837|0.405|0.890
91647883|NCT00361257|183188097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.405|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|0.373||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline medication management score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 change of medication management test score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.373|-1.182|0.304
91840796|NCT00708305|183561976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.06|0.01|0.0107
91647884|NCT00361257|183188102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.193||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline alternate psychomotor function score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in alternate psychomotor function score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.193|-0.388|0.506
91709065|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.547
91647885|NCT00361257|183188103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.558||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline alternate verbal memory score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in the alternate verbal memory score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.558|-0.266|0.484
91647886|NCT00361257|183188104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.327||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline alternate frontal systems score.||The null hypothesis was the 24 week change of alternate frontal systems score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.327|-0.217|0.690
91647887|NCT03471182|183188115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Primary hypothesis of a group difference (i.e., CUD vs HHC-PET participants) in mGluR5 availability was assessed as the significance level of the fixed-effect of group at a threshold of p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Measure Data were tested using a single linear mixed effects model. The 9 regions of interest (i.e., all 9 Rows of the Outcome Measure Data) were included in the model as a within-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of region. Group (i.e., CUD, HHC-PET) was included in the model as a between-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of group. The model also included the region-by-group interaction term and a factor to model the random-effect of participant.||||0.035
91709066|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.303
91709067|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.026
91781561|NCT02691507|183442561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|2.46||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.460|-0.767|0.297
91781562|NCT02691507|183442562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781563|NCT02691507|183442562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91840797|NCT00708305|183561976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.07|0.03|<0.0001
91709068|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.002
91709069|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.057
91709070|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91709071|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91851604|NCT03615924|183586835|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.43||||0.1636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.36|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||2.36|0.87|0.1636
91781564|NCT02691507|183442562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|2.426||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.426|-0.973|0.394
91840798|NCT00708305|183561976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.04|0.01|0.0012
91781565|NCT02691507|183442563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781566|NCT02691507|183442563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781567|NCT02691507|183442563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.709||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.709|-1.140|0.690
91781568|NCT02691507|183442564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91647888|NCT03471182|183188116|SUPERIORITY|Outcome Measure Data were tested using a single linear mixed effects model. The 4 brain networks of interest (i.e., all 4 Rows of the Outcome Measure Data) were included in the model as a within-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of network. Group (i.e., CUD, HC-MRI) was included in the model as a between-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of group. The model also included the network-by-group interaction term and a factor to model the random-effect of participant.||||||0.024||||||Primary hypothesis of group differences (i.e., CUD vs HC-MRI participants) in functional brain network engagement was assessed as the significance level of the fixed-effect of group at a threshold of p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
91647889|NCT03471182|183188117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Primary hypothesis of group differences (i.e., CUD vs HC-MRI participants) in fALFF was assessed as the significance level of the fixed-effect of group at a threshold of p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Measure Data were tested using a single linear mixed effects model. The 5 brain networks of interest (i.e., all 5 Rows of the Outcome Measure Data) were included in the model as a within-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of network. Group (i.e., CUD, HC-MRI) was included in the model as a between-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of group. The model also included the network-by-group interaction term and a factor to model the random-effect of participant.||||0.870
91647890|NCT00289731|183188132|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, being - 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|1.48||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against hepatitis A virus (HAV) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines Engerix-B at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Havrix at Months 0 and 6 (Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of anti-HAV seropositivity rates, at Month 7.||1.48|-5.34|
91647891|NCT00289731|183188132|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, being - 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|1.6||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against hepatitis A virus (HAV) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines HB VAX PRO at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Vaqta at Months 0 and 6 (HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of anti-HAV seropositivity rates, at Month 7.||1.60|-5.31|
91647892|NCT00289731|183188133|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-HBs antibody, being - 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|12.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.97|19.35||||||Difference in seroprotection rates against hepatitis B surface (HBs) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines Engerix-B at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Havrix at Months 0 and 6 (Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of anti-HBs seroprotection rates, at Month 7.||19.35|4.97|
91781569|NCT02691507|183442564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781570|NCT02691507|183442564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.735||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|1.397||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.397|-1.556|0.914
91781571|NCT02691507|183442565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781572|NCT02691507|183442565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91840799|NCT04711460|183561977|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.59||0.003|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||||0.003
91709072|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.069
91709073|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91647893|NCT00289731|183188133|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-HBs antibody, being - 15%.|Difference in seroprotection rates|20.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.92|28.62||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against hepatitis B surface (HBs) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines HB VAX PRO at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Vaqta at Months 0 and 6 (HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of anti-HBs seroprotection rates, at Month 7.||28.62|12.92|
91647894|NCT02314520|183188161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||0.05 is the threshold for significance for this primary outcome.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.271
91647895|NCT00661674|183188165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||p-value represents comparison between OOWS scores at T=180 and the baseline measurements at T=-30.|Friedman Test|||"Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in OOWS scores when comparing treatment groups (Palonosetron \& Palonosetron + Hydroxyzine) with placebo.~Analysis of the data obtained in our prior study indicated that analysis of 10 individuals would provide 90% power to detect a treatment effect. Therefore, we examined the effect of three different pretreatments on naloxone-induced opiate withdrawal signs in 10 healthy individuals."||||0.0001
91647896|NCT00661674|183188166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2244||||||p-value represents comparison between SOWS scores at T=180 and the baseline measurements at T=-30.|Friedman Test|||"Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in SOWS scores when comparing the 2 treatment groups (Palonosetron \& Palonosetron + Hydroxyzine) with placebo.~Analysis of the data obtained in our prior study indicated that analysis of 10 individuals would provide 90% power to detect a treatment effect. Therefore, we examined the effect of three different pretreatments on naloxone-induced opiate withdrawal signs in 10 healthy individuals."||||0.2244
91840800|NCT04711460|183561977|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05. No power analysis was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.59||0.009|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|||||0.009
91840801|NCT04711460|183561977|SUPERIORITY|The Tukey Kramer Post Hoc Test q value = 0.05 threshold|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Tukey Kramer Post-Hoc|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|||||<0.05
91647897|NCT00660790|183188167|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The paired student's t-test or the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the measurements before and after multifactorial treatment, as appropriate, depending on the distribution of the data.||||0.021
91647898|NCT00423488|183188280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least-squares means|-11.5||||0.005||95.0|-19.4|-3.5|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included term of treatment effect. If more than one basal value was available, the latest was used.||||-3.5|-19.4|0.005
91647899|NCT03118765|183188281|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|29.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.14|41.0|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on CmaxSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on CmaxSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||41.00|21.14|
91647900|NCT03118765|183188281|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.37|78.46|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on CmaxSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on CmaxSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||78.46|41.37|
91647901|NCT03118765|183188281|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|155.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.88|216.99|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on CmaxSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on CmaxSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||216.99|111.88|
91647902|NCT03118765|183188282|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.79|52.87|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on AUC0-tauSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on AUC0-tauSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||52.87|29.79|
91647903|NCT03118765|183188282|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.43|112.64|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on AUC0-tauSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on AUC0-tauSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||112.64|64.43|
91647904|NCT03118765|183188282|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|211.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.8|281.8|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on AUC0-tauSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on AUC0-tauSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||281.80|158.80|
91647905|NCT03118765|183188283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||MMRM|||GSP 304 vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.17|-0.04|0.228
91851605|NCT03615924|183586836|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.68||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.75|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||3.75|0.76|0.2011
91840802|NCT04711460|183561977|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13||0.003|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.003
91840803|NCT04711460|183561977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.07||0.454|ONE_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.454
91840804|NCT04711460|183561978|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.194||0.002|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|||||0.002
91840805|NCT04711460|183561978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.09||0.054|ONE_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.054
91851606|NCT03615924|183586838|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Upper limit of confidence interval was not calculable due to 0 events in Ticagrelor 15/30/45 mg bd reporting group.||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.|||0.00|0.9940
91647906|NCT03118765|183188283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||GSP 304 vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.13|-0.08|0.655
91781573|NCT02691507|183442565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.774||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.796|1.314||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.314|-1.796|0.757
91781574|NCT02691507|183442566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781575|NCT02691507|183442566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781576|NCT02691507|183442566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.075|1.129||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.129|-2.075|0.556
91647907|NCT03118765|183188283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||MMRM|||GSP 304 vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.11|-0.10|0.894
91781577|NCT02691507|183442567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781578|NCT02691507|183442567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781579|NCT02691507|183442567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.772||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.824|0.278||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.278|-2.824|0.106
91781580|NCT02691507|183442568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781581|NCT02691507|183442568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91851607|NCT03615924|183586839|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.77||||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.58|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.58|0.38|0.4822
91851608|NCT02954848|183586853|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.6|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The point estimate of the median difference between the treatment groups was calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||10.600|0.000|0.0643
91851609|NCT02954848|183586854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0003
91647908|NCT03118765|183188283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16|||MMRM|||SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.16|-0.04|0.260
91781582|NCT02691507|183442568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.681|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.407|40.247||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||40.247|13.407|<0.001
91781583|NCT02691507|183442569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781584|NCT02691507|183442569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.004
91781585|NCT02691507|183442569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.996|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.301|27.352||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||27.352|11.301|<0.001
91781586|NCT02691507|183442570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781587|NCT02691507|183442570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.009
91781588|NCT02691507|183442570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.829|24.187||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||24.187|7.829|<0.001
91781589|NCT02691507|183442571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781590|NCT02691507|183442571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.003
91781591|NCT02691507|183442571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.764|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.684|20.82||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||20.820|5.684|<0.001
91647909|NCT03118765|183188284|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 1 for GSP304 10 μg was (Geo mean: 108200 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 120300 pg).|||
91781592|NCT02691507|183442572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781593|NCT02691507|183442572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.049
91781594|NCT02691507|183442572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.138||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.766|22.387||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||22.387|5.766|0.001
91781595|NCT02691507|183442573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781596|NCT02691507|183442573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.024
91781597|NCT02691507|183442573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.679||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.862|23.66||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||23.660|4.862|0.004
91781598|NCT02691507|183442574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781599|NCT02691507|183442574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.015
91851610|NCT02954848|183586855|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||0.0100|-0.2400|0.0826
91851611|NCT02954848|183586856|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, improved response||5.300|0.000|0.0478
91781600|NCT02691507|183442574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.222||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.291|21.252||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||21.252|4.291|0.004
91781601|NCT02691507|183442575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91781602|NCT02691507|183442575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.034
91647910|NCT03118765|183188284|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 1 for GSP304 20 μg was (Geo mean: 263100 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 120300 pg).|||
91709074|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91647911|NCT03118765|183188284|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 1 for GSP304 40 μg was (Geo mean: 438300 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 120300 pg).|||
91781603|NCT02691507|183442575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.925||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|24.621||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||24.621|0.805|0.037
91709075|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.561|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.561
91647912|NCT03118765|183188285|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 21 for GSP304 10 μg was (Geo mean: 293700 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 620200 pg).|||
91647913|NCT03118765|183188285|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 21 for GSP304 20 μg was (Geo mean: 436500 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 620200 pg).|||
91647914|NCT03118765|183188285|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 21 for GSP304 40 μg was (Geo mean: 1249000 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 620200 pg).|||
91647915|NCT03118765|183188286|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 1.082% on Day 1 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.407% on Day 1|||
91709076|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91647916|NCT03118765|183188286|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 1.316% on Day 1 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.407% on Day 1|||
91647917|NCT03118765|183188286|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 1.096% on Day 1 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.407% on Day 1|||
91647918|NCT03118765|183188287|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.937% on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 12.4% on Day 21|||
91647919|NCT03118765|183188287|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.183% on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 12.4% on Day 21|||
91781604|NCT03739203|183442623|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.6798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.37||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG),ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||1.37|-2.10|0.6798
91781605|NCT03739203|183442623|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.38||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG), ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||0.38|-3.11|0.1245
91647920|NCT03118765|183188287|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 3.123% on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 12.4% on Day 21|||
91781606|NCT03739203|183442624|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.5152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG),ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||0.15|-0.29|0.5152
91781607|NCT03739203|183442624|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.01||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG), ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||0.01|-0.43|0.0573
91781608|NCT02592798|183442625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|33.3|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Double-Blind Period Day 113|||33.3|-46.8|
91840806|NCT04711460|183561978|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.93||0.019|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.019
91781609|NCT02592798|183442625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|24.3|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||24.3|-63.3|
91781610|NCT02592798|183442626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6495|2.3855|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Double-Blind Period Day 113|||2.3855|-1.6495|
91781611|NCT02592798|183442626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7933|5.6954|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||5.6954|-1.7933|
91781612|NCT02592798|183442627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1483|0.4119|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Double-Blind Period Day 113|||0.4119|-0.1483|
91781613|NCT02592798|183442627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5107|0.7551|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||0.7551|-0.5107|
91781614|NCT02592798|183442628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|44.7|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||44.7|-44.7|
91781615|NCT02592798|183442629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1395|6.7645|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Fatigue|||6.7645|-8.1395|
91840807|NCT04711460|183561978|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.04||0.101|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.101
91647921|NCT03118765|183188288|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 2.191 pg/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 7.327 pg/mL on Day 1.|||
91840808|NCT00192023|183561981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change to Week 8 Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to Week 8=score at Week 8+treatment+site+treatment-by-site interaction. If treatment-by-site interaction isn't significant it will be removed from model.|ANCOVA|||Using an estimate of the common standard deviation of 13 points, the planned sample size will give about 80% power to detect a difference between the groups of 8 points on the SNAP-IV. The sample size was determined using a two-sided test with p=0.05, and assumes that up to 10% of patients will discontinue the study without providing post-baseline efficacy data in Study Period III.||||<0.001
91647922|NCT03118765|183188288|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 4.796 pg/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 7.327 pg/mL on Day 1.|||
91647923|NCT03118765|183188288|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 10.2 pg/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 7.327 pg/mL on Day 1.|||
91647924|NCT03118765|183188289|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 8.597 pg\*h/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 19.59 pg\*h/mL on Day 1.|||
91647925|NCT03118765|183188289|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 18.00 pg\*h/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 19.59 pg\*h/mL on Day 1.|||
91647926|NCT03118765|183188289|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 42.69 pg\*h/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 19.59 pg\*h/mL on Day 1.|||
91647927|NCT03118765|183188292|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, the geometric mean CavSS was 0.9536 pg/mL on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the CavSS was 2.403 pg/mL on Day 21|||
91647928|NCT03118765|183188292|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, the geometric mean CavSS was 1.998 pg/mL on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the CavSS was 2.403 pg/mL on Day 21|||
91647929|NCT03118765|183188292|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, the geometric mean CavSS was 5.083 pg/mL on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the CavSS was 2.403 pg/mL on Day 21|||
91647930|NCT03118765|183188293|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on AUC of 2.617 for GSP304 10 μg and 2.815 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
91840809|NCT00192023|183561982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91840810|NCT00192023|183561983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91840811|NCT00192023|183561984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.836
91840812|NCT00192023|183561985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.870
91840813|NCT00192023|183561986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Oppositional Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91840814|NCT00192023|183561986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Cognitive Problems Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91840815|NCT00192023|183561986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.022
91840816|NCT00192023|183561986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Index Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91840817|NCT00192023|183561987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.071
91840818|NCT00192023|183561988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Oppositional Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91840819|NCT00192023|183561988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||P-value for Cognitive Problems Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.113
91840820|NCT00192023|183561988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.051
91840821|NCT00192023|183561988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Index Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.061
91840822|NCT02572817|183561995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.65|0.54
91840823|NCT02572817|183561996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.45|0.66
91840824|NCT02572817|183561997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|0.5|0.87
91840825|NCT02572817|183561998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.65|0.49
91840826|NCT02572817|183561999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|0.55|0.83
91840827|NCT02572817|183562000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.56|0.65|0.47
91840828|NCT02572817|183562001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91647931|NCT03118765|183188293|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on AUC of 2.522 for GSP304 20 μg and 2.815 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
91647932|NCT03118765|183188293|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on AUC of 2.926 for GSP304 40 μg and 2.815 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
91647933|NCT03118765|183188294|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on Cmax of 1.944 for GSP304 10 μg and 1.929 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
91647934|NCT03118765|183188294|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on Cmax of 1.808 for GSP304 20 μg and 1.929 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
91647935|NCT03118765|183188294|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on Cmax of 2.125 for GSP304 40 μg and 1.929 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
91647936|NCT03118765|183188295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.04|0.004
91647937|NCT03118765|183188295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|0.08|<0.001
91647938|NCT03118765|183188295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.03|0.007
91647939|NCT03118765|183188295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|0.08|<0.001
91840829|NCT02572817|183562002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.64|||Log Rank|||||2.64|0.21|0.64
91840830|NCT02572817|183562003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
91647940|NCT03118765|183188296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|0.08|0.001
91647941|NCT03118765|183188296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|0.05|0.005
91840831|NCT02572817|183562004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite mortality and hospitalization, Day 7||2.71|0.65|0.43
91647942|NCT03118765|183188296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.01|0.032
91647943|NCT03118765|183188296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|0.07|0.001
91647944|NCT03118765|183188297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.04|0.166
91647945|NCT03118765|183188297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.04|0.182
91647946|NCT03118765|183188297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.07|0.401
91647947|NCT03118765|183188297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.09|0.574
91647948|NCT03118765|183188298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.10|0.493
91647949|NCT03118765|183188298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.17|0.864
91647950|NCT03118765|183188298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.16|0.978
91647951|NCT03118765|183188298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.10|0.500
91840832|NCT02572817|183562004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite mortality and hospitalization, Day 14||2.48|0.5|0.79
91840833|NCT02572817|183562004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite mortality and hospitalization, Day 28||4.12|0.66|0.29
91840834|NCT02572817|183562005|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-1.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in NEW from baseline to Day 3||0|-2|0.2
91840835|NCT02572817|183562005|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|0.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in NEW from baseline to Day 3||1|-1|0.66
91840836|NCT02572817|183562006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PEW from baseline to Day 3||||0.18
91840837|NCT02572817|183562006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PEW from baseline to Day 7||||0.61
91840838|NCT02572817|183562007|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-2|0.68
91840839|NCT02572817|183562008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|11.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.01|0.23|0.98
91840840|NCT02572817|183562009|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-1.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-6|0.37
91840841|NCT02572817|183562010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
91647952|NCT03118765|183188299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|0.04|0.003
91781616|NCT02592798|183442629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9402|6.5402|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Pain interference|||6.5402|-13.9402|
91647953|NCT03118765|183188299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|0.06|0.001
91781617|NCT02592798|183442629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5736|4.5736|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Physical function|||4.5736|-6.5736|
91781618|NCT02592798|183442630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.595|29.485|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Fatigue|||29.4850|-4.5950|
91781619|NCT02592798|183442630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5917|16.8717|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Pain interference|||16.8717|-2.5917|
91781620|NCT02592798|183442630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1068|10.3468|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Mobility|||10.3468|-12.1068|
91781621|NCT01216189|183442639|SUPERIORITY||Mean change|-0.138||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|-0.044||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for menopausal status.||The change in serum testosterone levels between baseline and 1 year was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE).||-0.044|-0.232|0.004
91781622|NCT01216189|183442639|SUPERIORITY||Mean change|-0.011||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.075||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for menopausal status.||The change in serum testosterone levels between baseline and 1 year was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE).||0.075|-0.097|0.805
91781623|NCT01216189|183442640|SUPERIORITY||Mean change in FSFI scores|-9.33||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-1.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for Age, Psychological General Well-being total score and relationship with partner.||"The association between mean change in total FSFI score and preoperative RT was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE), using no preoperative radiotherapy as the reference group."||-1.99|-16.66|0.013
91647954|NCT03118765|183188299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.06|0.001
91647955|NCT03118765|183188299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|0.08|<0.001
91647956|NCT03118765|183188300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.06|0.002
91647957|NCT03118765|183188300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.00|0.061
91647958|NCT03118765|183188300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.02|0.140
91647959|NCT03118765|183188300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.06|0.002
91709077|NCT03035916|183311325|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91781624|NCT03751657|183442668|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.18||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and treatment, region, use of DPP-4 inhibitor and visit as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Furthermore, the model includes the interaction between visit and all explanatory variables.||0.02|-0.38|0.0818
91781625|NCT03751657|183442682|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.97||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using a linear MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and treatment, region, use of DPP-4 inhibitor and visit as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.Furthermore, the model includes the interaction between visit and all explanatory variables.||0.25|-4.19|0.0818
91781626|NCT04603027|183442684|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-5.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|7.12||||||||7.12|-20.28|
91781627|NCT04603027|183442684|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-8.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.07|5.04||||||||5.04|-22.07|
91781628|NCT04603027|183442684|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.22|4.65||||||||4.65|-23.22|
91781629|NCT04603027|183442685|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.91|9.9||||||||9.90|-13.91|
91781630|NCT04603027|183442685|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|8.52||||||||8.52|-15.21|
91781631|NCT04603027|183442685|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|11.53||||||||11.53|-12.33|
91781632|NCT04603027|183442686|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.46||||||||0.46|-1.88|
91781633|NCT04603027|183442686|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.45||||||||0.45|-1.82|
91781634|NCT04603027|183442686|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.33||||||||0.33|-2.05|
91781635|NCT04603027|183442687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.94||||||||6.94|1.01|
91781636|NCT04603027|183442687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|7.37||||||||7.37|1.17|
91781637|NCT04603027|183442687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.7||||||||4.70|0.63|
91781638|NCT04603027|183442688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||nonparametric survival analysis|Method used was a nonparametric survival analysis for interval censored data||||||0.100
91647960|NCT02643966|183188301|OTHER|We compared DBT cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer for Year/Screen 1.|simple proportions|1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added cancer detection rate (CDR) from US of 1.1/1,000. Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||2.1|0.3|0.005
91781639|NCT04603027|183442688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||nonparametric survival analysis|Method used was a nonparametric survival analysis for interval censored data||||||0.034
91781640|NCT04603027|183442688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||nonparametric survival analysis|Method used was a nonparametric survival analysis for interval censored data||||||0.094
91781641|NCT04603027|183442692|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Odds Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|10.96||||||||10.96|0.45|
91781642|NCT04603027|183442692|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Odds Ratio|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|8.78||||||||8.78|0.42|
91781643|NCT04603027|183442692|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Odds Ratio|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|9.51||||||||9.51|0.46|
91781644|NCT04603027|183442693|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||There were not enough responders to model using GLMM or a Bayesian logistic model, and no treatment difference analysis was conducted.|||
91781645|NCT04603027|183442693|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||There were not enough responders to model using GLMM or a Bayesian logistic model, and no treatment difference analysis was conducted.|||
91781646|NCT04603027|183442693|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||There were not enough responders to model using GLMM or a Bayesian logistic model, and no treatment difference analysis was conducted.|||
91781647|NCT04603027|183442694|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.22|12.4||||||||12.40|-30.22|
91647961|NCT02643966|183188301|OTHER|We compared DBT cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer for Years/Screens 2 \& 3.|simple proportions|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added cancer detection rate (CDR) from US of 1.1/1,000. Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||1.5|0.4|<0.001
91647962|NCT02643966|183188302|OTHER|We compared DBT true positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS true positive findings for first observer for Year/Screen 1.|simple proportions|17.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|31.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added cancer detection rate (CDR) from US of 1.1/1,000. Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||31.1|4.4|0.005
91840842|NCT02572817|183562011|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-3.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-14|0.22
91709078|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.249
91840843|NCT02572817|183562012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|9.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.29|0.08|1
91840844|NCT02572817|183562014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.05|0.24
91840845|NCT02572817|183562016|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91781648|NCT04603027|183442694|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.41|18.15||||||||18.15|-23.41|
91781649|NCT04603027|183442694|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.29|3.25||||||||3.25|-38.29|
91781650|NCT04603027|183442695|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|1.52||||||||1.52|-6.79|
91781651|NCT04603027|183442695|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.16||||||||3.16|-4.70|
91781652|NCT04603027|183442695|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|0.63||||||||0.63|-7.49|
91781653|NCT04603027|183442696|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.22|12.4||||||||12.40|-30.22|
91781654|NCT04603027|183442696|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.41|18.15||||||||18.15|-23.41|
91781655|NCT04603027|183442696|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.29|3.25||||||||3.25|-38.29|
91781656|NCT04603027|183442697|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|1.52||||||||1.52|-6.79|
91781657|NCT04603027|183442697|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.16||||||||3.16|-4.70|
91781658|NCT04603027|183442697|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|0.63||||||||0.63|-7.49|
91781659|NCT04603027|183442698|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.99|28.84||||||||28.84|-19.99|
91781660|NCT04603027|183442698|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.47|21.55||||||||21.55|-26.47|
91781661|NCT04603027|183442698|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|13.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|36.92||||||||36.92|-12.03|
91781662|NCT04603027|183442699|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3||||||||2.30|-1.10|
91781663|NCT04603027|183442699|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.37||||||||1.37|-1.96|
91781664|NCT04603027|183442699|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.75||||||||1.75|-1.73|
91781665|NCT04603027|183442700|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|13.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.62|73.35||||||||73.35|-50.62|
91781666|NCT04603027|183442700|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|73.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.69|126.92||||||||126.92|21.69|
91781667|NCT04603027|183442700|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|8.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.58|56.81||||||||56.81|-44.58|
91781668|NCT04603027|183442701|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3||||||||2.30|-1.10|
91781669|NCT04603027|183442701|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.37||||||||1.37|-1.96|
91781670|NCT04603027|183442701|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.75||||||||1.75|-1.73|
91781671|NCT03894813|183442705|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91781672|NCT03894813|183442706|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91781673|NCT03894813|183442707|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91781674|NCT03894813|183442708|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91840846|NCT02572817|183562017|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|0.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in SOFA from baseline to Day 3||0|-1|0.06
91840847|NCT02572817|183562017|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-1.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in SOFA from baseline to Day 7||0|-1|0.13
91840848|NCT02572817|183562018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PELOD from baseline to Day 3||||0.36
91840849|NCT02572817|183562018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PELOD from baseline to Day 7||||0.15
91840850|NCT02572817|183562019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.44|0.87|0.12
91840851|NCT02572817|183562020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.43|0.13|0.23
91840852|NCT02340520|183562073|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91840853|NCT02340520|183562074|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.1
91709079|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.091
91709080|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.493
91840854|NCT01586338|183562076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91840855|NCT01586338|183562076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91840856|NCT00930943|183562142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||repeated-measure ANOVA tested time-post-dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): sensitivity (A')|ANOVA|||The a priori sample-size estimation for a power of 80% with alpha = 0.05 was based on the primary-outcome measure, the rapid visual information processing (RVP) sensitivity (A') score. Using a repeated-measure ANOVA for the food effect (fed versus fasting) and assuming an effect size of f =0.26 generated a required sample size of 32 participants. However, only 30 subjects completed both testing visits, generating a power of 78.2%.|(F\[1,28\] = 22.71; η2 = 0.45)|||<0.001
91840857|NCT00930943|183562142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||repeated-measure ANOVA tested food x time-post-dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): sensitivity (A')|ANOVA||||F\[1,28\]=6.88; η2=0.20|||0.01
91840858|NCT00930943|183562142|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||repeated-measure ANOVA testing food effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): sensitivity (A')|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91840859|NCT00930943|183562143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated-measure ANOVA testing time-post-dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): response latency|ANOVA||||(F\[1,28\] = 14.05; η2 = 0.33)|||<0.001
91840860|NCT00930943|183562143|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food and food x time post dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): response latency"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91840861|NCT00930943|183562144|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food, time-post-dose, and food x time-post-dose effect for SRM percentage of correct hits"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91840862|NCT00930943|183562145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated-measure ANOVA testing time-post-dose effect for Spatial Recognition Memory (SRM) response latency|ANOVA||||(F\[1,28\] = 31.26; η2 = 0.53)|||<0.001
91840863|NCT00930943|183562145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food and food x time-post-dose effect for SRM response latency"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91840864|NCT00930943|183562146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food, time-post-dose, and food x time-post-dose effect for SWM total errors"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91840865|NCT00930943|183562147|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food, time-post-dose, and food x time-post-dose effect for SWM strategy score"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91840866|NCT00856661|183562148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|If no assessment was available for last observation carried forward after baseline, the mRS score was set to 5 if alive, or 6, if otherwise = death||All patients who were treated and had at least one valid post-baseline assessment of the mRS. As death is a valid outcome on the mRS, patients who died within 90 days after IMP administration were included.||2.64|0.79|0.2290
91840867|NCT00856661|183562149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.59|0.9401
91840868|NCT00856661|183562150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||All patients treated, who had at least one valid post-baseline assessment of the mRS and with a baseline NIHSS score of 8 to 24. If no assessment was available for last observation carried forward after baseline, the mRS score was set to 5 if the patient was known to be alive, or 6, if otherwise = dead.||2.18|0.68|0.5076
91851612|NCT02954848|183586856|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, not improved response||6.000|-6.100|0.8963
91851613|NCT02954848|183586856|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, improved response||10.700|0.000|0.0120
91840869|NCT00856661|183562151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||all patients treated, who had at least one valid post-baseline assessment of the mRS. As death is a valid outcome on the mRS, patients who died within 90 days after IMP administration were included||1.75|0.72|0.6146
91840870|NCT02301156|183562162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0463|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was estimated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.||||||0.0463
91840871|NCT02301156|183562163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was estimated by CMH test stratified by the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.||||||0.0159
91840872|NCT02301156|183562164|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|35.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.39|49.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was estimated using CMH test stratified by the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|95% Confidence Interval (CI) was estimated using Clopper-Pearson method based on the binomial distribution.|||49.88|21.39|<0.0001
91840873|NCT02301156|183562165|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.113|||Log Rank|P-value was estimated by stratified log rank test and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|Stratified Hazard Ratio and 95% CI were estimated using Cox proportion hazard model and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|||1.113|0.295|0.0961
91647963|NCT02643966|183188302|OTHER|We compared DBT true positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS true positive findings for first observer for Years/Screens 2 and 3.|simple proportions|13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|22.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added CDR from US of 1.1/1,000.Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||22.3|4.9|< 0.001
91647964|NCT02643966|183188304|OTHER|We compared DBT false positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS false positive findings for first observer for Year/Screen 1.|Slope|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|5.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||||5.1|3.8|< 0.001
91840874|NCT02301156|183562166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|1.234|||Log Rank|P-value was estimated by stratified log rank test and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|Stratified Hazard Ratio and 95% CI were estimated using Cox proportion hazard model and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|||1.234|0.263|0.1486
91840875|NCT02301156|183562167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.163||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.399|3.344|||Log Rank|P-value was estimated by stratified log rank test and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|Stratified Hazard Ratio and 95% CI were estimated using Cox proportion hazard model and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|||3.344|1.399|0.0004
91840876|NCT04195880|183562169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||negative-binomial regression coefficient|||We assumed the average monthly pre-intervention hospitalization rates of intervention and control CLCs were equal, so only average monthly post-intervention hospitalization rates might diverge. Each CLC had its own start month and contributed 18 months pre-intervention and 18 months post-intervention. Hospitalizations rates were modeled using a multilevel negative-binomial regression because it allows for over-dispersion, which is commonly observed with medical events such as a count.||||<.05
91709081|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.067
91840877|NCT03012061|183562213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0426|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.2595|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||UMEC 31.25 mcg versus placebo|||0.2595|0.0920|<0.001
91840878|NCT03012061|183562213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0424|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1008|0.2675|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo|||0.2675|0.1008|<0.001
91840879|NCT03012061|183562214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0455|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2789||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|ANCOVA||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo|||0.2789|0.1000|<0.001
91840880|NCT03012061|183562214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1976|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0453|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1086|0.2866|||ANCOVA||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo|||0.2866|0.1086|<0.001
91840881|NCT03012061|183562217|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.7|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 4|||3.7|-0.2|0.083
91840882|NCT03012061|183562217|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 12|||1.7|-2.7|0.636
91840883|NCT03012061|183562217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 24|||3.9|-0.4|0.115
91840884|NCT03012061|183562217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 4|||2.9|-1.0|0.336
91840885|NCT03012061|183562217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.5|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 12|||2.5|-1.9|0.787
91840886|NCT03012061|183562217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 24|||2.7|-1.6|0.625
91840887|NCT03012061|183562217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.3|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, DBP, Week 4|||2.3|-0.7|0.309
91898474|NCT00343252|183692957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of worst back pain from baseline at the 12-month endpoint.||||0.683
91840888|NCT03012061|183562217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.1|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, DBP, Week 12|||1.1|-2.1|0.521
91898475|NCT00343252|183692958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of average back pain from baseline to the 6-month endpoint.||||0.809
91898476|NCT00343252|183692959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of average back pain from baseline to the 12-month endpoint.||||0.986
91898477|NCT00343252|183692960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction in worst back pain at the 6-month endpoint.||1.26|0.85|0.746
91898478|NCT00343252|183692961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction in worst back pain at the 12-month endpoint.||1.25|0.86|0.719
91898479|NCT00343252|183692962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction for average back pain at the 6-month endpoint.||1.26|0.86|0.681
91898480|NCT00343252|183692963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction in average back pain at the 12-month endpoint.||1.23|0.86|0.789
91898481|NCT00343252|183692964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of participants with a reduction in disability at the 3-month endpoint.||||0.968
91898482|NCT00343252|183692965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with a reduction in disability at the 6-month endpoint.||||0.568
91840889|NCT03012061|183562217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.2|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, DBP, Week 24|||3.2|0.0|0.047
91840890|NCT03012061|183562217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.8|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo, DBP, Week 4|||1.8|-1.3|0.779
91840891|NCT03012061|183562217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo, DBP, Week 12|||2.6|-0.6|0.204
91840892|NCT03012061|183562217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.1|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo, DBP, Week 24|||3.1|-0.1|0.066
91840893|NCT03012061|183562218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, Week 4|||3.2|-0.7|0.195
91840894|NCT03012061|183562218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg versus Placebo, Week 12|||2.3|-1.0|0.457
91840895|NCT03012061|183562218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.2|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg versus Placebo, Week 24|||3.2|-1.0|0.300
91781675|NCT03894813|183442709|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91840896|NCT03012061|183562218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.3|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus Placebo, Week 4|||3.3|-0.5|0.140
91781676|NCT02948634|183442756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
91840897|NCT03012061|183562218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.3|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus Placebo, Week 12|||3.3|0.0|0.045
91840898|NCT03012061|183562218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.5|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus Placebo, Week 24|||5.5|1.3|0.002
91709082|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
91781677|NCT02948634|183442757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
91781678|NCT02948634|183442758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91840899|NCT00309608|183562232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.95|-0.39||There was no adjustment for multiple testing, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the 10mg was not successful, any analysis of the 5mg will be descriptive, and similarly for the next step for the 1mg.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 10 mg vs. Placebo~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)"||-0.39|-0.95|<0.0001
91840900|NCT00309608|183562232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.01|-0.44||There was no adjustment for multiple testing, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the 10mg was not successful, any analysis of the 5mg will be descriptive, and similarly for the next step for the 1mg.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Placebo~missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)"||-0.44|-1.01|<0.0001
91840901|NCT00309608|183562232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0055||95.0|-0.68|-0.12||There was no adjustment for multiple testing, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the 10mg was not successful, any analysis of the 5mg will be descriptive, and similarly for the next step for the 1mg.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)"||-0.12|-0.68|0.0055
91840902|NCT00309608|183562232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.46|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Placebo vs. Linagliptin 10 mg~Analysis additionally adjusted for previous anti-diabetic medication.~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)."||-0.46|-0.99|<0.0001
91840903|NCT00309608|183562232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.48|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Placebo~Analysis additionally adjusted for previous anti-diabetic medication.~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using last observation carried forward (LOCF)."||-0.48|-1.02|<0.0001
91647965|NCT02643966|183188304|OTHER|We compared DBT false positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS false positive findings for first observer for Years/Screens 2 \& 3.|simple proportions|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|4.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||||4.1|3.3|< 0.001
91840904|NCT00309608|183562232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0049||95.0|-0.66|-0.12|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo~Analysis additionally adjusted for previous anti-diabetic medication.~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using last observation carried forward (LOCF)."||-0.12|-0.66|0.0049
91840905|NCT00309608|183562233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.575||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.367|145.781|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 10 mg vs. Placebo||145.781|2.367|0.0054
91647966|NCT01493531|183188305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.41|0.23|<0.0001
91840906|NCT00309608|183562233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.715||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.439|95.351|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Placebo||95.351|1.439|0.0214
91840907|NCT00309608|183562233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.776||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.586|102.895|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo||102.895|1.586|0.0167
91840908|NCT00309608|183562233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.063|242.028|||Regression, Logistic|||Glimepiride vs. Placebo||242.028|4.063|0.0010
91840909|NCT00309608|183562234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-41.4|-17.5|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 10mg vs. Placebo||-17.5|-41.4|<0.0001
91840910|NCT00309608|183562234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-47.0|-22.8|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Placebo||-22.8|-47.0|<0.0001
91840911|NCT00309608|183562234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.0022||95.0|-31.0|-6.87|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo||-6.87|-31.0|0.0022
91840912|NCT02441946|183562389|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.28|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.28|0.13|<0.001
91840913|NCT02441946|183562389|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.38|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.38|0.17|<0.001
91840914|NCT00600743|183562396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|128.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.4||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||t test following ANOVA for difference between drug and placebo - There were 3 doses, and the value reported is for the highest and only effective dose|t-test, 2 sided|The overall error term was used to compare differences between placebo and drug||Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.007
91647967|NCT01493531|183188305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.52|0.34|<0.0001
91647968|NCT01493531|183188306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.37|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.37|0.57|0.5716
91647969|NCT01493531|183188306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.45|0.60|0.7454
91647970|NCT01493531|183188307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.8466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.2|-0.24|0.8466
91647971|NCT01493531|183188307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.6301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|-0.29|0.6301
91647972|NCT03070431|183188327|SUPERIORITY|It was assumed that radiotherapy with 5x4 Gy results in 6-month LPFS of 67% and an increase by 20% is clinically relevant when using 5x5 Gy. For comparison of 5x5 Gy and a historical control (5x4 Gy), it was assumed that it can be performed with a simple Pearson-Chi-Square test (2-sided significance level of 5%, power of 79%) if 40 patients treated with 5x5 Gy and 400 patients of the control group qualified for Propensity-Score adjusted comparison, assuming 6-month LPFS rates of 87% and 67%.|Risk Difference (RD)|20.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||historical control group treated with 5 x 4 Gy|"In a prospective study, 6-month LPFS rates were 86% after longer-course (mainly 3Gyx10) and 67% after short-course radiotherapy (mainly 4Gyx5) \[Rades D, et al., Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73:228-34.\]. For sample size calculations, it was assumed that conventional radiotherapy with 4Gyx5 results in 6-month LPFS of 67% and that an increase by 20% is clinically relevant and realistic with 5Gyx5. A sample size of 40 eligible patients was required for the phase 2 trial assuming that that 6-month LPFS would be 87% and estimated with a precision of +/-20% expressed as the half length of the associated two-sided confidence interval (95%), and power of \>=80%.~For comparison of phase 2 cohort and historical control group, it was assumed that this could be performed with a simple Pearson-Chi-Square test using a two-sided significance level of 5% (10%) and a power of 79% (86%) if 40 patients received 5Gyx5 and N=400 of the control group qualified for Propensity-Score adjusted comparison."|||<0.05
91647973|NCT00370396|183188337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix-Synflorix minus Prevenar-Prevenar\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C was computed.|Difference in percentage|-4.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|-0.21||||||Analysis aimed at demonstrating the non-inferiority of Synflorix™ vs Prevenar™ vaccine, both co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ vaccine, in terms of post-immunization febrile reactions with rectal fever \> 39.0°C.||-0.21|-11.85|
91647974|NCT02340078|183188372|SUPERIORITY||Subjects % with difference in VAS ≥ 10mm|0.9516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99||||||||0.99|0.87|
91851614|NCT02954848|183586856|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|0.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, not improved response||0.000|-17.400|0.0871
91851615|NCT02954848|183586857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0025
91851616|NCT02954848|183586858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1059|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1059
91851617|NCT02954848|183586859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
91781679|NCT01255436|183442797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.0||p-value\<0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.0|-9.4|0.06
91781680|NCT01255436|183442798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.3||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.3|-4.1|0.14
91781681|NCT01255436|183442799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Fisher Exact||Numerator is Treatment Group (SMS reminders) and Denominator is Control Group (No SMS reminders)|||1.6|1.0|0.045
91781682|NCT01255436|183442800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.53|||Fisher Exact|||||1.53|1.04|0.014
91781683|NCT04816669|183442801|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.77|||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the concentrations BNT162b2 lyophilized SDV - BNT162b2 frozen-liquid MDV and the corresponding CI (based on the Student t distribution).|||0.77|0.60|
91851618|NCT02954848|183586860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5393|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5393
91851619|NCT02954848|183586861|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, improved response||0.0000|-0.2100|0.0505
91647975|NCT00204932|183188373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was based on test-retest variance of body fat mass measure by DEXA|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance to test CLA not equal to placebo||||<0.05
91647976|NCT00204932|183188373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pre- post treatment comparison o fat oxidation found that fat oxidation increased in CLA (4 +/- 8 g) and decreased in placebo (-7 +/- 11 g) groups during sleep. after 6 mo of supplementation.||||<0.05
91781684|NCT04816669|183442809|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67|Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.68|||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the concentrations BNT162b2 frozen-liquid LNP - BNT162b2 frozen-liquid RTU and the corresponding CI (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.68|0.77|
91851620|NCT02954848|183586861|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, not improved response||0.1500|-0.1200|0.8138
91647977|NCT02731833|183188376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response, treatment as factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|Statistical analyses was conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.||-0.300|-0.505|<0.0001
91851621|NCT02954848|183586861|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.03|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, improved response||-0.0300|-0.2800|0.0129
91851622|NCT02954848|183586861|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.36|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, not improved response||0.3600|-0.0100|0.0765
91647978|NCT01170364|183188384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.004|||||||paired sample t-test, two tailed|||||||<0.004
91709083|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
91647979|NCT00368537|183188387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-8.7|8.6|||||Confidence interval calculated using asymptotic method corrected for continuity. Difference= Tigecycline minus Ampicillin-Sulbactam or Amoxicillin-Clavulanate.|||8.6|-8.7|
91647980|NCT00368537|183188388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||||95.0|-9.6|14.0|||||Confidence interval calculated using asymptotic method corrected for continuity. Difference= Tigecycline minus Ampicillin-Sulbactam or Amoxicillin-Clavulanate.|||14.0|-9.6|
91647981|NCT00368537|183188389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||||95.0|-9.6|14.4|||||Confidence interval calculated using asymptotic method corrected for continuity. Difference= Tigecycline minus Ampicillin-Sulbactam or Amoxicillin-Clavulanate.|Group comparison of eradication + presumed eradication||14.4|-9.6|
91647982|NCT00368537|183188391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.444||95.0|-4.4|2.0|||Fisher Exact|2-sided||Intensive care unit||2.0|-4.4|0.444
91647983|NCT01368276|183188396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-42.9||||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive|Fisher Exact||Talimogene laherparepvec - GM-CSF|||||0.2645
91647984|NCT01368276|183188397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|54.9||Descriptive|Fisher Exact||Talimogene laherparepvec - GM-CSF|||54.9|-57.3|1.0000
91647985|NCT01427920|183188406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for subject-driven vs. investigator driven titration would be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.25||||||95.0|0.04|0.46|||Regression, Linear|Model includes treatment, strata and region as factors and relevant baseline HbA1c as covariate.||FAS||0.46|0.04|
91647986|NCT01427920|183188407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for subject-driven vs. investigator driven titration would be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.26||||||95.0|0.05|0.48|||Regression, Linear|Model includes treatment, strata and region as factors and relevant baseline HbA1c as covariate.||PP||0.48|0.05|
91647987|NCT01427920|183188408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.13||||0.659||95.0|-0.44|0.69|||Regression, Linear|Model includes treatment, strata and region as factors and relevant baseline FPG as covariate.||H0: D = 0.0% against HA: D ≠ 0.0%, where D is the mean treatment difference (subject-driven titration minus investigator-driven titration).||0.69|-0.44|0.659
91647988|NCT03341273|183188413|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 12.5%. Non-inferiority of placebo is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement is greater than -12.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.0||The null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority test and non-inferiority of placebo was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement was greater than -12.5%.|||Multiple imputation with a linear model to impute missing clinical values of improvement. The study day that D5V occurred on was included as a covariate in the final model and the estimates for risk difference assume that study day of D5V is 5.|Null Hypothesis: Proportion in placebo - Proportion in azithromycin = -12.5%||2|-15|
91851623|NCT02954848|183586862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|15.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade N of endoscopic findings||15.300|-1.900|0.1490
91709084|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.079
91840915|NCT00600743|183562397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.8||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||t-test after ANOVA with repeated measures on placebo minus drug (within groups) between binge and normal instructions (between groups)|t-test, 2 sided|This was part of an overall ANOVA (SAS proc mixed) with all four groups (3 doses eat normally. 4 ng dose, binge eat) and the error term had 76 df.||Each group was compared separately in an overall ANOVA with all dose groups included. The results are presented for the groups which received 4 mg dose and instructions to eat normally (normal group) or to binge eat (binge group). The test is the interaction between drug and group i.e. drug effect difference (placebo minus drug) in fullness between the group instructed to binge and the group instructed to eat normally.||||.033
91709085|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91840916|NCT00600743|183562398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.4286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.134|<|0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is based on ANOVA with all groups and conditions and is a planned comparison|ANOVA||df = 53. 26 Used proc GLMMIX in SAS 9.4.|Tests the difference between drug and placebo for group = binge instructions||||<.014
91840917|NCT00579982|183562399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91840918|NCT00988351|183562417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin -0.55 (mean hours of APAP arm no lower than 0.55 hours below CPAP arm)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|=|0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.26||level of significance \<0.05, Power = 0.80|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.26|-.35|= 0.27
91781685|NCT01229267|183442817|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.746|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is \>0.25.||0.746|0.484|
91647989|NCT03341273|183188414|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 12.5%. Non-inferiority of placebo is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement is greater than -12.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.0||The null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority test and non-inferiority of placebo was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement was greater than -12.5%.|||Multiple imputation with a linear model to impute missing clinical values of improvement. The study day that D11V occurred on was included as a covariate in the final model and the estimates for risk difference assume that study day of D11V is 11.|Null Hypothesis: Proportion in placebo - Proportion in azithromycin = -12.5%||3|-12|
91781686|NCT01229267|183442818|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.818|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI is \>0.25.||0.818|0.490|
91781687|NCT01229267|183442819|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.86|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI is \>0.25.||0.860|0.498|
91781688|NCT01229267|183442820|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|0.952|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI is \>0.25.||0.952|0.446|
91781689|NCT01229267|183442821|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.5|||Normal approximation||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.5|-5.1|0.942
91781690|NCT01837823|183442835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.231||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.054
91840919|NCT00988351|183562418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patients using PAP (average of \>=1/2 hour per night) at 6 weeks clinic visit||2.1|-1.3|= 0.65
91851624|NCT02954848|183586862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.2146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade M of endoscopic findings||10.700|-1.400|0.2146
91647990|NCT03341273|183188415|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 12.5%. Non-inferiority of placebo is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement is greater than -12.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.0||The null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority test and non-inferiority of placebo was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement was greater than -12.5%.|||Multiple imputation with a linear model to impute missing clinical values of improvement. The study day that D11V occurred on was included as a covariate in the final model and the estimates for risk difference assume that study day of D28V is 28.|Null Hypothesis: Proportion in placebo - Proportion in azithromycin = -12.5%||0|-13|
91647991|NCT03341273|183188416|SUPERIORITY|DOOR is a composite endpoint created using clinical outcomes from Day 1 through Day 5 Visit. It is based on adequate clinical improvement at Day 5 Visit and solicited events from Day 1 through Day 5 Visit.|Pr(Higher DOOR in Placebo at Day 5 Visit|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.68||Missing DOOR values at Day 5 Visit were first imputed using linear regression using baseline covariates and available DOOR components as covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was run on the multiple imputed datasets to generate estimates of DOOR probability and p-value||Null: The sum of the probability that a participant assigned to placebo will have a higher DOOR at Day 5 visit than if assigned to the Azithromycin plus one-half the probability of equal DOORs at Day 5 Visit is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR at Day 5 Visit).||0.68|0.57|<0.001
91647992|NCT01717456|183188438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.72||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
91647993|NCT04991311|183188500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|398.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|581.6|=|0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|814.4|||Paired t-test (2-sided, alpha=0.05)|||The participants in both comparison groups are the same.||814.4|-17.6|= 0.0585
91647994|NCT00054275|183188528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of pts with partial response|0.39||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.58|||confidence interval for partial response|Confidence interval for partial response rate using Wilson's Method||||0.58|0.23|0.95
91647995|NCT03944707|183188552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0698||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.06|0.119||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|||0.119|-0.060|0.6643
91647996|NCT03944707|183188556|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.6609|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|0.18||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|||0.18|-0.35|0.6609
91647997|NCT03944707|183188557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.13||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.0|9.1||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in mean morning PEF||9.1|-9.0|0.5107
91647998|NCT03944707|183188557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.15||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.2|8.1||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in mean evening PEF||8.1|-15.2|0.3611
91647999|NCT03944707|183188558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.133|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1588||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.336|0.071||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|||0.071|-0.336|0.8022
91648000|NCT03944707|183188559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1573||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.251|0.149||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in daytime asthma symptom score||0.149|-0.251|0.6312
91648001|NCT03944707|183188559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0819||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.028|0.18||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in nighttime asthma symptom score||0.180|-0.028|0.1752
91648002|NCT02444182|183188567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis was no difference in Gingival index between probiotics and control groups||||0.015
91781691|NCT01837823|183442836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.074||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation coefficient|||for minimum lumen area site||||0.50
91781692|NCT06170242|183442872|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in least square (LS) means|-540.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-680.8|-400.33|||ANCOVA|||High Dose versus (vs) Placebo||-400.33|-680.80|<0.0001
91851625|NCT02954848|183586863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0059
91851626|NCT02954848|183586864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0153|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0153
91781693|NCT06170242|183442872|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-523.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-674.46|-371.78|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-371.78|-674.46|<0.0001
91781694|NCT06170242|183442872|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS means|-536.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-641.71|-430.89|||ANCOVA|||Pooled EDP-323 vs Placebo||-430.89|-641.71|<0.0001
91648003|NCT02444182|183188568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis was no difference in plaque index between probiotics and control groups||||0.909
91648004|NCT01453374|183188572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91648005|NCT01453374|183188573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91648006|NCT01453374|183188574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91781695|NCT06170242|183442873|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.81|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-2.81|-4.85|<0.0001
91648007|NCT01453374|183188580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.10
91648008|NCT00996918|183188593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.68|-4.29|0.390
91709086|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91781696|NCT06170242|183442873|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-4.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-2.89|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-2.89|-5.44|<0.0001
91781697|NCT06170242|183442874|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.29||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.92|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||0.92|-1.50|0.6330
91781698|NCT06170242|183442874|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.14||||0.8309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Lose Dose vs Placebo||1.17|-1.46|0.8309
91840920|NCT00988351|183562419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|2.1||\< 0.05 criteria for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Patients using PAP (average \>=1/2 hour per nightly use) at 6 weeks clinic visit||2.1|-0.73|=0.33
91781699|NCT06170242|183442876|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.57||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo.||-0.61|-2.53|0.0021
91781700|NCT06170242|183442876|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.09||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Lose Dose vs Placebo||0.18|-2.35|0.0905
91840921|NCT00988351|183562420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||=|0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patients using PAP (average \>= 1/2 hour of nightly use) at 6 weeks clinic visit||2.29|-1.12|=0.49
91840922|NCT00988351|183562421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|=|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.09||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||participants using PAP (average \>=1/2 hour of use) at 6 weeks clinic visit||0.09|-1.92|=0.07
91840923|NCT01304082|183562515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7535||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||0.7535
91648009|NCT00996918|183188593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.97|-1.37|0.264
91648010|NCT00996918|183188593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.72|-4.74|0.357
91781701|NCT06170242|183442879|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-203.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.18|-135.07|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-135.07|-272.18|<0.0001
91781702|NCT06170242|183442879|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-215.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.84|-141.22|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-141.22|-288.84|<0.0001
91648011|NCT00996918|183188593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.42|-3.50|0.981
91648012|NCT00996918|183188593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.47|-4.37|0.584
91648013|NCT00996918|183188593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.20|-2.05|0.392
91648014|NCT00996918|183188593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.24|-6.34|0.345
91840924|NCT01304082|183562516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||<0.0001
91840925|NCT01304082|183562517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||<0.0001
91648015|NCT00996918|183188593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|4.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.28|-4.73|0.922
91840926|NCT01304082|183562518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||<0.0001
91840927|NCT03912220|183562519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
91840928|NCT03912220|183562520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91840929|NCT04654468|183562534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired McNemar|||Percentage of participants who achieved TA from baseline through Week 25 were compared with the percentage of participants who reported TA within 24 weeks prior to screening.||||<.0001
91840930|NCT05064735|183562574|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|-10.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.34|-8.63|||ANCOVA|||The responses at week 68 were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.||-8.63|-12.34|<0.0001
91840931|NCT05064735|183562575|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|-14.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|-8.3|||ANCOVA|||The responses at week 68 were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline WOMAC pain score as covariate.||-8.30|-19.98|<0.0001
91840932|NCT03757234|183562625|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|6.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||6.9|-12.4|
91840933|NCT03757234|183562625|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|5.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||5.3|-34.8|
91840934|NCT03757234|183562625|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|8.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||8.2|-30.6|
91840935|NCT03757234|183562625|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|11.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||11.8|-22.4|
91840936|NCT03757234|183562626|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|12.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.7|-23.6|
91840937|NCT03757234|183562626|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.3|-6.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-6.0|-71.3|
91840938|NCT03757234|183562626|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|15.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||15.1|-40.8|
91840939|NCT03757234|183562626|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-36.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-1.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-1.1|-62.6|
91840940|NCT01152294|183562633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested for a difference in the mean total knowledge score between the decision aid and control groups using independent t-test (2 sided). With 100 patients in each arm, the study had more than 90% power to detect a 10% difference in knowledge assuming a common standard deviation of 18%.||7.96|1.02|0.01
91840941|NCT00610701|183562647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
91840942|NCT02736968|183562651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Adjusted Wald Intervals|The null hypothesis is that the probability of resolution of diarrhea by Day 5 for participants receiving auranofin is equal to that for those receiving placebo.||0.12|-0.12|>0.999
91840943|NCT02736968|183562652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.34||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Adjusted Wald Intervals|The null hypothesis is that the probability of parasitological response by Day 5 for participants receiving auranofin is equal to that for those receiving placebo.||0.34|-0.34|>0.999
91840944|NCT02736968|183562657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time to resolution of diarrhea between treatment arms, with a two-sided alternative.||||0.142
91840945|NCT02294474|183562663|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated if upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog was \<0.3%.Inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested using hierarchical step-down testing procedure: if non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated,then inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested and demonstrated if lower bound of 2-sided 95% CI of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog\>-0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.067|||||SAR342434 vs. Humalog|Analysis was performed using a MMRM approach with treatment groups, randomization strata, visit (Week 12, Week 26) and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed categorical effects and baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates. An unstructured correlation matrix was used to model within-participant errors.||0.067|-0.215|
91898483|NCT00343252|183692966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with a reduction in disability at the 12-month endpoint.||||0.932
91898484|NCT00343252|183692967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with an improvement in quality of life at the 6-month endpoint.||||0.814
91898485|NCT00343252|183692968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with an improvement in quality of life at the 12-month endpoint.||||0.572
91898486|NCT00343252|183692971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-value is for responder versus non-responder.|Chi-squared|||||||0.600
91898487|NCT00343252|183692972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0||||P-value is for responder versus non-responder.|Chi-squared|||||||0.399
91898488|NCT00343252|183692973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.89|0.453
91898489|NCT00343252|183692974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.91|0.353
91898490|NCT00343252|183692975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.943||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.943
91898491|NCT00343252|183692976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.553
91898492|NCT01592864|183692980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.2|-0.6|<0.0001
91898493|NCT01592864|183692981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.3|-0.6|<0.0001
91898494|NCT01592864|183692982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|22.8||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||22.8|11.1|<0.0001
91898495|NCT01592864|183692983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|13.9||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favors first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||13.9|5.4|<0.0001
91898496|NCT01519466|183692997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.32||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.12|-1.55|0.0926
91898497|NCT01519466|183692997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97||||||||||||||||
91898498|NCT01519466|183692998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.3251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.27|0.3251
91898499|NCT01519466|183692998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51||||||||||||||||
91898500|NCT01519466|183692999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hyperglycaemia, glucose above 10mmol/l (180mg/dL)||0.58|-0.33|0.5798
91898501|NCT01519466|183692999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypoglycaemia, glucose below 3.9mmol/l (70mg/dL)||0.06|-0.68|0.0960
91898502|NCT01519466|183692999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.53||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment Satisfaction||6.71|2.01|0.0007
91898503|NCT00307125|183693002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis by Fisher's exact test counting participants with 50% decrease in anti-HLA antibodies at any time within 12 months post treatment initiation||||>0.999
91898504|NCT00307125|183693007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91898505|NCT00307125|183693008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91898506|NCT00561951|183693026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.002||95.0|-0.56|-0.13||The closed testing procedure was used in order to control the probability of a type 1 error.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.13|-0.56|0.002
91709087|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.314||||||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."|t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.314
91781703|NCT06170242|183442880|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-2.40|-4.05|<0.0001
91781704|NCT06170242|183442880|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-2.34|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-2.34|-4.11|<0.0001
91840946|NCT02041923|183562692|EQUIVALENCE|A t-test was conducted to evaluate equivalency.|Mean Difference (Net)|46.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91840947|NCT02023879|183562714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-56.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.9|-49.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/up to 150 mg Q2W was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-49.9|-62.9|<0.0001
91840948|NCT02023879|183562715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|-53.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-53.8|-65.6|<0.0001
91840949|NCT02023879|183562716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-38.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-38.1|-51.8|<0.0001
91840950|NCT02023879|183562717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-41.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.9|-54.8|<0.0001
91840951|NCT02023879|183562718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-49.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-49.8|-61.1|<0.0001
91840952|NCT02023879|183562719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|-53.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.4|-63.8|<0.0001
91840953|NCT02023879|183562720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|-40.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-40.4|-52.4|<0.0001
91840954|NCT02023879|183562721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.3|-42.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-42.8|-54.3|<0.0001
91840955|NCT02023879|183562722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-43.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.2|-54.9|<0.0001
91840956|NCT02023879|183562723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|-46.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-46.4|-57.1|<0.0001
91840957|NCT02023879|183562724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-30.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.8|-39.8|<0.0001
91840958|NCT02023879|183562725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-32.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.1|-44.3|<0.0001
91840959|NCT02023879|183562726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-31.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-31.8|-43.9|<0.0001
91851627|NCT02954848|183586865|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.02|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade N of endoscopic findings||0.0200|-0.4300|0.0757
91648016|NCT00996918|183188593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.10|-7.97|0.384
91898507|NCT00561951|183693026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.6|-0.17||The closed testing procedure was used in order to control the probability of a type 1 error.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.17|-0.60|<0.001
91898508|NCT00561951|183693028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.002||95.0|-0.91|-0.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.22|-0.91|0.002
91898509|NCT00561951|183693028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.01|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.32|-1.01|<0.001
91898510|NCT00561951|183693030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.003||95.0|-1.07|-0.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.22|-1.07|0.003
91898511|NCT00561951|183693030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.002||95.0|-1.09|-0.23|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.23|-1.09|0.002
91898512|NCT00561951|183693032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.002||95.0|-0.63|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.14|-0.63|0.002
91898513|NCT00561951|183693032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.03||95.0|-0.52|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.03|-0.52|0.030
91898514|NCT00561951|183693034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.624||95.0|-0.18|0.11|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||0.11|-0.18|0.624
91898515|NCT00561951|183693034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.129||95.0|-0.26|0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||0.03|-0.26|0.129
91898516|NCT01992393|183693069|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||GEE|||||||0.036
91898517|NCT01992393|183693070|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.042
91898518|NCT01992393|183693070|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU||||0.204
91898519|NCT01992393|183693071|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.129
91898520|NCT01992393|183693071|OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.978
91898521|NCT01992393|183693072|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.128
91898522|NCT01992393|183693072|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.015
91898523|NCT01992393|183693073|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.759
91898524|NCT01992393|183693073|OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.471
91898525|NCT01992393|183693074|OTHER|||||||0.775|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.775
91898526|NCT01992393|183693074|OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.433
91898527|NCT01992393|183693075|OTHER|||||||0.936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.936
91898528|NCT01992393|183693075|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.600
91898529|NCT01992393|183693076|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.560
91898530|NCT01992393|183693076|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.305
91898531|NCT02739412|183693082|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations were not performed in this study.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This is an open label feasibility study to assess the efficacy and safety of a 4 week course of daily subcutaneous IL-2 injections to increase peripheral blood CD4 Tregs. Results are expressed as median, IQR and comparison were performed using one way or two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's multiple comparison test. For all comparisons, a p\< 0.05 was considered significant.||||< 0.01
91898532|NCT05497284|183693127|OTHER|Probability (LTP001 is better than placebo)|Slope|-2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|1.3||Probability that LTP001 is better than placebo is 10.3%|Baysesian random slope model|Bayesian random slope model to assess the difference in reduction rate (slope) in years between the treatment group and placebo group.||||1.3|-6.9|
91898533|NCT04652726|183693143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-28.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|-21.27|||ANCOVA|||||-21.27|-35.81|<.0001
91898534|NCT04652726|183693144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.24|-22.36|||MMRM|||||-22.36|-36.24|<.0001
91781705|NCT06170242|183442881|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|1.44||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.68|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||2.68|0.20|0.0238
91781706|NCT06170242|183442881|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|1.68||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.99|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||2.99|0.36|0.0134
91781707|NCT06170242|183442883|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-2.18||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-0.12|-4.23|0.0389
91781708|NCT06170242|183442883|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.31||||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||1.10|-3.73|0.2713
91781709|NCT06170242|183442885|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-280.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-404.44|-156.77|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-156.77|-404.44|<0.0001
91781710|NCT06170242|183442885|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-301.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-428.53|-173.76|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-173.76|-428.53|<0.0001
91781711|NCT06170242|183442886|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.02|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-2.02|-5.26|<0.0001
91781712|NCT06170242|183442886|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-2.05|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-2.05|-5.35|<0.0001
91781713|NCT06170242|183442887|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.08||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.03|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||0.03|-2.19|0.0552
91781714|NCT06170242|183442887|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.38||||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||0.92|-1.69|0.5599
91781715|NCT06170242|183442888|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.04||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-0.10|-1.97|0.0307
91781716|NCT06170242|183442888|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.53||||0.4119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-1.81|0.4119
91781717|NCT06170242|183442889|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-13.37||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|-4.4|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-4.40|-22.34|0.0042
91781718|NCT06170242|183442889|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-13.19||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.38|-4.0|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-4.00|-22.38|0.0058
91781719|NCT06170242|183442890|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-18.72||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.61|-6.84|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-6.84|-30.61|0.0026
91781720|NCT06170242|183442890|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-19.28||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|-7.26|||ANCOVA|||||-7.26|-31.30|0.0022
91840960|NCT02023879|183562727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-21.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.7|-30.9|<0.0001
91898535|NCT04652726|183693145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-49.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.18|-36.81|||ANCOVA|||||-36.81|-63.18|<.0001
91709088|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91781721|NCT02558296|183442902|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.39||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.39|-0.56|<0.0001
91781722|NCT02558296|183442903|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.4||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories, history of heart failure, treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the secondary endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.40|-0.65|<0.0001
91781723|NCT02558296|183442904|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in body weight from baseline to Week 48 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-2.24||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline HbA1c and eGFR, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline body weight as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the secondary endpoint was that the mean change in body weight from baseline to Week 48 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-2.24|-3.07|<0.0001
91781724|NCT02558296|183442905|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to Week 24 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.96||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-0.42||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline HbA1c, GFR categories, BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline SBP as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the secondary endpoint was that the mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.42|-5.51|0.0112
91781725|NCT02558296|183442906|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 6 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.39||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 6 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.39|-0.50|<0.0001
91781726|NCT02558296|183442906|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 12 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.49||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 12 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.49|-0.63|<0.0001
91781727|NCT02558296|183442906|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.38||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.38|-0.56|<0.0001
91851628|NCT02954848|183586865|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade M of endoscopic findings||0.0900|-0.2200|0.3837
91898536|NCT04652726|183693146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-19.73|||ANCOVA|||||-19.73|-31.68|<.0001
91781728|NCT02558296|183442906|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 36 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.38||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 36 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.38|-0.56|<0.0001
91851629|NCT02954848|183586866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.5|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and improved response||3.500|-5.000|0.6631
91709089|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91840961|NCT02023879|183562728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|279.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|2690.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||2690.1|29.1|<0.0001
91840962|NCT02023879|183562729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|354.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|3479.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||3479.5|36.2|<0.0001
91840963|NCT02023879|183562730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|126.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|9999.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|LOCF approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo (Confidence interval should be read as 20.0 to \>9999)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9999|20.0|<0.0001
91840964|NCT02023879|183562731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|141.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|9999.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|LOCF approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo (Confidence interval should be read as 20.0 to \>9999)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9999|22.2|<0.0001
91840965|NCT02023879|183562732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-9.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-9.4|-29.8|0.0002
91840966|NCT02023879|183562733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.9||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|1.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.2|-17.1|0.0892
91840967|NCT00874432|183562741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for CBPWV between CKD and Control groups||||0.685
91840968|NCT00874432|183562741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for CRPWV between CKD and Control groups||||0.739
91840969|NCT00874432|183562741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for CFPWV between CKD and Control groups||||0.471
91840970|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the baseline CBPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.685
91840971|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the 12 month CBPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.869
91840972|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the baseline CRPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.709
91840973|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the 12 month CBPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.340
91840974|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the baseline CFPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.730
91840975|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the 12 month CFPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.204
91840976|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure of ACE-I CKD and Control groups||||0.963
91648017|NCT00996918|183188593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|5.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.78|-6.08|0.961
91781729|NCT02558296|183442906|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 48 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.37||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 48 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.37|-0.56|<0.0001
91781730|NCT02558296|183442906|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 72 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.31||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 72 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.31|-0.54|<0.0001
91781731|NCT02558296|183442906|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 96 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.27||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 96 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.27|-0.51|<0.0001
91781732|NCT02558296|183442906|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 120 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.3||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 120 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.30|-0.56|<0.0001
91840977|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure of ACE-I CKD and Control groups||||0.991
91840978|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure of ACE-I CKD and Control groups||||0.176
91781733|NCT02558296|183442906|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 144 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.23||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 144 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.23|-0.54|<0.0001
91781734|NCT02558296|183442906|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 168 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 168 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.07|-0.47|0.0045
91781735|NCT02558296|183442907|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 6 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-1.15||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 6 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-1.15|-1.55|<0.0001
91781736|NCT02558296|183442907|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 12 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.18||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 12 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-1.18|-1.61|<0.0001
91781737|NCT02558296|183442907|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 24 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.16||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-1.16|-1.61|<0.0001
91781738|NCT02558296|183442907|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 36 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.89||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 36 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.89|-1.41|<0.0001
91781739|NCT02558296|183442907|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 48 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.98||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 48 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.98|-1.48|<0.0001
91781740|NCT02558296|183442907|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 72 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.72||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 72 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.72|-1.27|<0.0001
91648018|NCT00996918|183188594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.35|-1.91|0.837
91648019|NCT00996918|183188594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.41|-0.13|0.064
91648020|NCT00996918|183188594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.35|-2.32|0.990
91648021|NCT00996918|183188594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.82|-2.22|0.817
91648022|NCT00996918|183188594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.05|-2.04|0.697
91781741|NCT02558296|183442907|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 96 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 96 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.90|-1.50|<0.0001
91840979|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CBPWV measure of the ACE-I CKD||||0.402
91840980|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CRPWV measure of the ACE-I CKD||||0.586
91840981|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CFPWV measure of the ACE-I CKD||||0.455
91648023|NCT00996918|183188594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.63|-0.76|0.158
91648024|NCT00996918|183188594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.26|-4.06|0.829
91840982|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CBPWV measure of the ACE-I Control Group||||0.418
91840983|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CRPWV measure of the ACE-I Control Group||||0.091
91840984|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CFPWV measure of the ACE-I Control Group||||0.034
91648025|NCT00996918|183188594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.93|-3.69|0.950
91648026|NCT00996918|183188594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.23|-5.35|0.816
91648027|NCT00996918|183188594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|5.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.96|-4.32|0.751
91648028|NCT00996918|183188595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|7.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||7.53|-7.22|0.967
91648029|NCT00996918|183188595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|9.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.98|-5.72|0.593
91648030|NCT00996918|183188595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|7.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||7.62|-7.32|0.968
91648031|NCT00996918|183188595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.08|-10.92|0.473
91648032|NCT00996918|183188595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|6.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||6.02|-9.91|0.630
91648033|NCT00996918|183188595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|3.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.95|-13.02|0.293
91648034|NCT00996918|183188595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|10.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||10.33|-7.28|0.733
91648035|NCT00996918|183188595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||6.45|-12.06|0.550
91648036|NCT00996918|183188595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||12.50|-11.04|0.902
91648037|NCT00996918|183188595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.75|7.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||7.61|-17.75|0.430
91709090|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.087
91648038|NCT00996918|183188596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|3.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.95|-6.01|0.683
91648039|NCT00996918|183188596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|9.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.06|-1.68|0.177
91781742|NCT02558296|183442907|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 120 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.82||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 120 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.82|-1.49|<0.0001
91840985|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure of the CKD and Control groups||||0.921
91840986|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure of the CKD and Control groups||||0.887
91840987|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure of the CKD and Control groups||||0.759
91840988|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CBPWV measure of the Control groups||||0.851
91648040|NCT00996918|183188596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.25|-6.03|0.734
91648041|NCT00996918|183188596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.05|-7.06|0.595
91781743|NCT02558296|183442907|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 144 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.24||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 144 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.24|-1.01|0.0008
91840989|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CRPWV measure of the Control groups||||0.733
91648042|NCT00996918|183188596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.24|-7.95|0.409
91648043|NCT00996918|183188596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.24|-8.73|0.368
91648044|NCT00996918|183188596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|8.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||8.89|-4.01|0.458
91840990|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CFPWV measure of the Control groups||||0.902
91840991|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure between the CKD ACE-I and CKD Control groups.||||0.414
91648045|NCT00996918|183188596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|5.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.68|-7.77|0.760
91648046|NCT00996918|183188596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|9.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.86|-5.67|0.597
91709091|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.023
91840992|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure between the CKD ACE-I and CKD Control groups.||||0.942
91840993|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure between the CKD ACE-I and CKD Control groups.||||0.990
91840994|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure between the ACE-I Control and CKD Control groups.||||0.273
91840995|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure between the ACE-I Control and CKD Control groups.||||0.516
91840996|NCT00874432|183562742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure between the ACE-I Control and CKD Control groups.||||0.102
91840997|NCT01518946|183562774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|521.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|124.2|917.7|||ANOVA|||||917.7|124.2|0.0131
91840998|NCT00381641|183562775|SUPERIORITY|"Null (historical) response rate for iodine refractory subgroup is 10%. Power=90% for 30% alternative.~Null (historical) response rate for metastatic medullary subgroup is 5%. Power=88% for 25% alternative."|||||<|0.1||||||"For iodine refractory subgroup, null hypothesis could be rejected if 6 or more responses were observed.~For metastatic medullary subgroup, null hypothesis could be rejected if 3 or more responses were observed."|Simon, two-stage design|||Note. The objective was not to compare the two arms (subgroups), but to compare each with historical data.||||<0.10
91840999|NCT00802737|183562780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of responders|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.5|||||Two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution. The estimated value was calculated using the number of responders (CR+nPR+PR) as the numerator and the total number of par. in the group as the denominator.|||0.50|0.07|
91841000|NCT00802737|183562780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of responders|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.52|||||Two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution. The estimated value was calculated using the number of responders (CR+nPR+PR) as the numerator and the total number of par. in the group as the denominator.|||0.52|0.02|
91841001|NCT00802737|183562780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of responders|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.0|||||Two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution. The estimated value was calculated using the number of responders (CR+nPR+PR) as the numerator and the total number of par. in the group as the denominator.|||1.00|0.03|
91841002|NCT00445601|183562796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.48|0.01
91841003|NCT00445601|183562797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.49|||Log Rank|||||1.49|0.18|0.23
91841004|NCT00619476|183562800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference versus placebo|-0.81||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.23||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a step-down procedure that uses Dunnett's test within a closed testing scheme for multiple comparisons with a common control in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.23|-1.40|0.013
91841005|NCT00619476|183562800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference versus placebo|-0.7||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.07||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a step-down procedure that uses Dunnett's test within a closed testing scheme for multiple comparisons with a common control in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.07|-1.33|0.029
91841006|NCT00619476|183562800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference versus placebo|-1.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.45||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a step-down procedure that uses Dunnett's test within a closed testing scheme for multiple comparisons with a common control in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.45|-1.68|0.002
91841007|NCT00214903|183562846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test to exclude a two-fold risk of cardiovascular events in users of DRSP/E2 compared to other oral continuous combined HRT. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α 0.05; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) Estimated incidence of cardiovascular events, ATE and VTE would be at least 1.0, 0.3 and 0.2 event/100 woman-years and 4) non-inferiority limit hazard ratio of 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, duration of current use, family history of VTE, region, and HRT user status.|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. ooccHRT is higher or equal to 2.||1.3|0.5|
91851630|NCT02954848|183586866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|13.9|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and not improved response||13.900|-7.100|0.5627
91851631|NCT02954848|183586866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and improved response||8.000|0.000|0.0042
91898537|NCT04652726|183693147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.18||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|5.12|||ANCOVA|||||5.12|-17.48|0.1419
91781744|NCT02558296|183442907|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 168 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.08||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 168 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||0.08|-1.09|0.0462
91648047|NCT00996918|183188596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.50|-11.24|0.501
91648048|NCT00996918|183188597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.71|-8.91|0.183
91781745|NCT02558296|183442908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.41||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||0.41|0.22|<0.0001
91781746|NCT02558296|183442909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.49||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for time to first event in the bexagliflozin arm vs. placebo arm during entire study.|||0.49|0.35|<0.0001
91781747|NCT02558296|183442910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.11||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||3.11|1.33|0.0005
91851632|NCT02954848|183586866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.4|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and not improved response||6.400|-9.400|0.6452
91851633|NCT02954848|183586866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.8|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and improved response||17.800|0.000|0.0376
91781748|NCT02558296|183442911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.38||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for time to first event in the bexagliflozin arm vs. placebo arm during the entire study.|||2.38|1.40|<0.0001
91781749|NCT02558296|183442912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.2||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||1.20|0.33|0.0803
91781750|NCT02558296|183442912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.01||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||1.01|0.22|0.0272
91781751|NCT02558296|183442912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.18||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for treatment comparison vs. placebo.|||1.18|0.34|0.0757
91851634|NCT02954848|183586866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|3.6|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and not improved response||3.600|-35.700|0.1600
91709092|NCT03035916|183311326|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91648049|NCT00996918|183188597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.35|-5.92|0.920
91648050|NCT00996918|183188597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.53|-11.52|0.133
91648051|NCT00996918|183188597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.22|-4.55|0.505
91648052|NCT00996918|183188597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.86||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.46|-4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||-4.25|-21.46|0.003
91648053|NCT00996918|183188597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|10.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||10.88|-7.95|0.760
91648054|NCT00996918|183188598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.52|-6.68|0.373
91648055|NCT00996918|183188598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.86|-5.92|0.677
91648056|NCT00996918|183188598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.80|-9.61|0.280
91898538|NCT04652726|183693148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.63|-19.97|||ANCOVA|||||-19.97|-33.63|<.0001
91898539|NCT04652726|183693149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-19.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|-13.75|||ANCOVA|||||-13.75|-24.65|<.0001
91841008|NCT00214903|183562847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test to exclude a two-fold risk of cardiovascular events in users of DRSP/E2 compared to other oral continuous combined HRT. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α 0.05; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) Estimated incidence of cardiovascular events, ATE and VTE would be at least 1.0, 0.3 and 0.2 event/100 woman-years and 4) non-inferiority limit hazard ratio of 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.8|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, hypertension, diabetes, family history of fatal ATE, region, and smoking.|Tested null hypotheses: the ATE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. ooccHRT is higher or equal to 2.||0.8|0.3|
91841009|NCT01625910|183562848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21||||||Baseline data by group assignment status (intervention or control) using means of the calculated BMI z-scores (U.S. CDC-2000 growth charts) implemented by applying the published LMS (shape, median, and scale) age- and sex/gender-specific parameters. Because of random assignment of a reasonably large number of children, an unadjusted analysis of change in outcomes between intervention and control groups is presented as well as the covariate-adjusted analysis of differences in changes.||0.21|-0.10|
91841010|NCT01625910|183562849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.4||||||unadjusted net difference between groups||0.40|-0.74|
91841011|NCT03918239|183562894|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.181|||ANOVA|||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect variable.||1.181|0.986|
91841012|NCT03918239|183562895|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.987|1.179||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect variable.||1.179|0.987|
91841013|NCT03918239|183562896|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.044|1.281||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect variable.||1.281|1.044|
91841014|NCT01984424|183562905|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.31|-33.28|||Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 24 of part B or in the mean percent change from baseline at weeks 22 and 24 of part B in LDL-C between evolocumab 420 mg and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-33.28|-42.31|<0.0001
91841015|NCT01984424|183562906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.07|-31.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 24 of part B or in the mean percent change from baseline at weeks 22 and 24 of part B in LDL-C between evolocumab 420 mg and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-31.08|-41.07|<0.0001
91841016|NCT01984424|183562907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.7|-67.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.0|-84.7|<0.0001
91841017|NCT01984424|183562908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.3|-62.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-62.2|-81.3|<0.0001
91841018|NCT01984424|183562909|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|36.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C).||||36.7|19.1|<0.0001
91841019|NCT01984424|183562910|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|36.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C).||||36.1|17.7|<0.0001
91841020|NCT01984424|183562911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.95|-23.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.27|-29.95|<0.0001
91781752|NCT02558296|183442912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.01||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for treatment comparison vs. placebo.|||1.01|0.23|0.0273
91898540|NCT03780725|183693170|OTHER||Mean relative change from baseline|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.7|||||||||||Mean relative change from baseline (Cycle 1) to on treatment (Cycle 2) is reported.|"The mean relative change is calculated as first deriving the relative change from baseline for each selected lesion at each time point (96hours, 144hours):~100 \* (SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle2 - SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle1) / SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle1 Then, we calculate the mean over all evaluable lesions (at each time point) At last, the mean relative change is the lower mean value across time points."||||
91898541|NCT03780725|183693171|OTHER||Mean relative change from baseline|-5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.2|||||||||||Mean relative change from baseline (Cycle 1) to on treatment (Cycle 2) is reported.|"The mean relative change is calculated as first deriving the relative change from baseline for each selected lesion at each time point (96hours, 144hours):~100 \* (SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle2 - SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle1) / SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle1 Then, we calculate the mean over all evaluable lesions (at each time point) At last, the mean relative change is the lower mean value across time points."||||
91898542|NCT05192382|183693175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.806|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.444|455.821|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine irrespective of dose levels with Placebo has been presented.||455.821|8.444|<0.0001
91898543|NCT05192382|183693176|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.106|-0.706|||ANCOVA|||||-0.706|-1.106|<0.0001
91898544|NCT05192382|183693177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.319|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.637|79.156|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine irrespective of dose levels with Placebo has been presented.||79.156|5.637|<0.0001
91898545|NCT05192382|183693178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.776|23.483|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine irrespective of dose levels with Placebo has been presented.||23.483|2.776|<0.0001
91898546|NCT05192382|183693179|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-5.423||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-1.776|||ANCOVA|||||-1.776|-9.070|0.0039
91898547|NCT02076178|183693199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Any Grade 2 or higher event, any Grade 2 or higher event Vs Cabotegravir||||<0.01
91898548|NCT05358717|183693233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.59|-8.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.34|-23.59|< 0.0001
91898549|NCT05358717|183693233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.45|-20.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.10|-34.45|< 0.0001
91898550|NCT02640157|183693238|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.1||||||Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A - Arm B).||3.1|-5.6|
91898551|NCT02640157|183693238|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was below 92%.|percentage of participants|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|92.2|98.4||||||||98.4|92.2|
91648057|NCT00996918|183188598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|6.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||6.76|-6.34|0.950
91781753|NCT02919995|183442922|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.038||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|1.007|0.0196
91781754|NCT02919995|183442922|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.024||||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.052|||ANCOVA|||||1.052|0.997|0.0802
91781755|NCT02919995|183442922|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.986||||0.3487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.017|||ANCOVA|||||1.017|0.957|0.3487
91781756|NCT02919995|183442923|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.072||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|1.026|0.0043
91648058|NCT00996918|183188598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.06||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.16|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.05|-23.16|0.130
91648059|NCT00996918|183188598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|16.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||16.94|-11.97|0.732
91709093|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.384
91781757|NCT02919995|183442923|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.055||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.096|||ANCOVA|||||1.096|1.014|0.0109
91648060|NCT00996918|183188599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.21|-1.12|0.938
91709094|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.530
91781758|NCT02919995|183442923|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.984||||0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.027|||ANCOVA|||||1.027|0.942|0.4306
91781759|NCT02919995|183442924|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.065||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.021|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|1.021|0.0064
91781760|NCT02919995|183442924|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.049||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|1.089|||ANCOVA|||||1.089|1.011|0.0149
91781761|NCT02919995|183442924|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.945||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.027|||ANCOVA|||||1.027|0.945|0.466
91781762|NCT02919995|183442925|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.061||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.107|||ANCOVA|||||1.107|1.017|0.0093
91781763|NCT02919995|183442925|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.042||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.082|||ANCOVA|||||1.082|1.004|0.0333
91781764|NCT02919995|183442925|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.982||||0.3693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.024|||ANCOVA|||||1.024|0.941|0.3693
91781765|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|8.49||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||8.49|-3.96|
91781766|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|3.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.59|-3.19|
91781767|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|5.35||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.35|-2.25|
91781768|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|26.2||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||26.2|13.7|
91781769|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|9.58||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||9.58|2.80|
91648061|NCT00996918|183188599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.04|-1.43|0.753
91841021|NCT01984424|183562912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.67|-21.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.48|-28.67|<0.0001
91648062|NCT00996918|183188599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.33|-1.04|0.809
91709095|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.819
91841022|NCT01984424|183562913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-28.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.99|-37.12|<0.0001
91851635|NCT02954848|183586866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and improved response||10.700|0.000|0.1032
91648063|NCT00996918|183188599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||0.75|-1.80|0.421
91841023|NCT01984424|183562914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.44|-16.76||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.76|-35.44|<0.0001
91648064|NCT00996918|183188599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.63|-0.85|0.535
91709096|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.108
91841024|NCT01984424|183562915|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.15|-29.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.58|-38.15|<0.0001
91851636|NCT02954848|183586866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and not improved response||0.200|-14.300|0.2613
91781770|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.87|15.5||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||15.5|7.87|
91709097|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.667
91781771|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-8.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-8.80|-18.9|
91781772|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|-1.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-1.56|-7.67|
91781773|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-5.33||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-5.33|-11.5|
91781774|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|12.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||12.9|2.72|
91781775|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.46||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||7.46|1.30|
91781776|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|8.18||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.18|1.93|
91781777|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|7.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||7.30|-5.49|
91648065|NCT00996918|183188599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.86|-0.82|0.445
91648066|NCT00996918|183188599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.12|-0.67|0.309
91851637|NCT02954848|183586867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9970
91851638|NCT02954848|183586868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0125|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0125
91841025|NCT01984424|183562916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.35|-27.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.16|-36.35|<0.0001
91841026|NCT01984424|183562917|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.06|-25.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.77|-34.06|<0.0001
91841027|NCT01984424|183562918|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.58|-22.82||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.82|-31.58|<0.0001
91841028|NCT01984424|183562919|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.59|-29.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.67|-38.59|<0.0001
91841029|NCT01984424|183562920|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.64|-27.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.32|-36.64|<0.0001
91841030|NCT01984424|183562921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.65|-14.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.51|-27.65|<0.0001
91841031|NCT01984424|183562922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|-14.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.05|-28.42|<0.0001
91841032|NCT01984424|183562923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|4.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||4.87|-13.74|0.37
91841033|NCT01984424|183562924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|10.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.01|-13.64|0.37
91841034|NCT01984424|183562925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|10.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.22|2.15|0.0083
91841035|NCT01984424|183562926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|8.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.98|0.02|0.0083
91841036|NCT01984424|183562927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|2.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||2.94|-12.25|0.37
91841037|NCT01984424|183562928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|7.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.98|-10.45|0.37
91851639|NCT02954848|183586869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
91648067|NCT00996918|183188599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.57|-1.34|0.872
91648068|NCT00996918|183188599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.26|0.79|0.004
91648069|NCT00996918|183188599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.93|0.25|0.026
91648070|NCT00996918|183188600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.57|-0.77|0.504
91648071|NCT00996918|183188600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||0.90|-1.58|0.592
91648072|NCT00996918|183188600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.65|-0.72|0.441
91648073|NCT00996918|183188600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||0.59|-1.97|0.288
91648074|NCT00996918|183188600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.90|-0.59|0.303
91648075|NCT00996918|183188600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.60|-1.09|0.713
91648076|NCT00996918|183188600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.34|-0.49|0.198
91648077|NCT00996918|183188600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.24|-1.70|0.756
91851640|NCT02954848|183586870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7999|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7999
91851641|NCT02954848|183586871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0059
91851642|NCT02954848|183586872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5520
91851643|NCT02954848|183586873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0175
91851644|NCT02954848|183586874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7505|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7505
91851645|NCT02954848|183586875|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.7845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and improved response||0.1600|-0.2300|0.7845
91841038|NCT01807221|183562932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.8771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|2.3|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||2.3|-14.9|0.8771
91841039|NCT01807221|183562932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.4|4.0|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||4|-13.4|0.7945
91841040|NCT01807221|183562932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|8.8|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearsonconfidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||8.8|-8.5|0.5
91841041|NCT01807221|183562932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.4225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|10.2|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearsonconfidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||10.2|-7.1|0.4225
91841042|NCT01807221|183562932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|5.7|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||5.7|-11.7|0.6865
91841043|NCT01087723|183562945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.82|||Chi-squared|||||0.82|0.43|0.0014
91841044|NCT01649596|183562967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent|10.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
91841045|NCT01649596|183562968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent|48.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A t-test for percents was used to compare the number of participants (%) from each group reporting satisfaction (somewhat and highly satisfied).||||||<0.05
91851646|NCT02954848|183586875|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|-0.11||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.17|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and not improved response||0.1700|-0.3300|0.4456
91851647|NCT02954848|183586875|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and improved response||-0.0200|-0.2900|0.0200
91851648|NCT02954848|183586875|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and not improved response||0.2200|-0.1000|0.4673
91851649|NCT02954848|183586875|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and improved response||-0.0700|-0.5300|0.0095
91851650|NCT02954848|183586875|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.71|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and not improved response||0.7100|-0.1600|0.1650
91851651|NCT02954848|183586875|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.2475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and improved response||0.0700|-0.2400|0.2475
91851652|NCT02954848|183586875|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.32|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and not improved||0.3200|-0.0900|0.2367
91851653|NCT02954848|183586876|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.1885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for improved response||14.300|-2.700|0.1885
91851654|NCT02954848|183586876|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|25.6||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|75.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for not improved response||75.000|-19.200|0.2337
91851655|NCT02954848|183586877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0811|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0811
91851656|NCT02954848|183586878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0288|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0288
91851657|NCT02954848|183586879|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for improved response||0.0400|-0.4200|0.1488
91851658|NCT02954848|183586879|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|-0.44||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.69|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for not improved response||0.6900|-1.5700|0.3778
91851659|NCT03299816|183586894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) was not normally distributed and was natural log transformed for analyses||||||0.17
91851660|NCT03299816|183586895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|||||||0.36
91851661|NCT03299816|183586896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|||||||0.33
91851662|NCT03299816|183586897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) was not normally distributed and was natural log transformed for analyses||||||0.61
91841046|NCT01757665|183562972|SUPERIORITY||percent of patients|0.1|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.7|||||Upper 95% CI was calculated by the method of Clopper and Pearson, using the Beta distribution with parameters x + 1 and n - x where x is the number of SVD events by POD 390 and n is the number of subjects followed at the 1 year assessment.|The null hypothesis is that the rate of structural valve deterioration at one year is greater than 1%. The alternative hypothesis is that this rate is less than 1%.||0.7||
91841047|NCT00183456|183563005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.63|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.63|0.13|<0.01
91841048|NCT00183456|183563006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.89|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||5.89|1.22|0.05
91841049|NCT00183456|183563007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.84|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.84|0.16|0.05
91841050|NCT00183456|183563008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.64|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||5.64|1.41|0.01
91841051|NCT00183456|183563009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.68|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.68|0.09|0.01
91841052|NCT00183456|183563010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.87|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.87|0.25|0.05
91841053|NCT00183456|183563011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.77|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.77|0.21|0.01
91841054|NCT00183456|183563012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.79|0.14|0.05
91841055|NCT00183456|183563013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.64|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.64|0.14|0.01
91841056|NCT00183456|183563014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.65|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||4.65|1.25|0.01
91841057|NCT00981825|183563032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91841058|NCT01263106|183563166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|1.05|
91841059|NCT01263106|183563167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.92|
91841060|NCT01263106|183563168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.00|-3.00|0.8008
91841061|NCT05027074|183563190|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26||From log-rank test stratified by region (US, Non-US), previous thrombosis of active AVG (yes, no) and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline (yes, no).|Log Rank||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||1.26|0.60|0.470
91841062|NCT05027074|183563190|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.19|||||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||1.19|0.57|
91841063|NCT05027074|183563191|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||||HR based on Andersen-Gill model with stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG, and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline as fixed effect.|||1.21|0.68|
91841064|NCT05027074|183563191|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23|||||HR based on Andersen-Gill model with stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG, and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline as fixed effect.|||1.23|0.70|
91841065|NCT05027074|183563193|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.62||From log-rank test stratified by region (US, Non-US), previous thrombosis of active AVG (yes, no) and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline (yes, no).|Log Rank||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||2.62|1.07|0.022
91841066|NCT05027074|183563193|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||From log-rank test stratified by region (US, Non-US), previous thrombosis of active AVG (yes, no) and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline (yes, no).|Log Rank||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||2.00|0.800|0.311
91841067|NCT03169881|183563195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.64||The mean difference in Bayley-III cognitive scores between treatment groups was adjusted for center, gestational age group, and familial clustering.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference in cognitive score for the Darbepoetin minus Placebo treatment groups.|Null hypothesis: Weekly administration of Darbepoetin during the neonatal period will not impact neurocognitive outcomes at 22-26 months compared to Placebo in premature infants 23 to 28 weeks gestation.||2.64|-3.09|0.88
91841068|NCT02090634|183563232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Cliff's d = 0.01; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall adherence to ARV medications.||||0.95
91841069|NCT02090634|183563232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Cliff's d = -0.13; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall adherence to PSY medications.||||0.43
91841070|NCT02090634|183563233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Cliff's d = 0.37; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall dose timing windows for ARV medications.||||0.02
91648078|NCT00996918|183188600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.22|0.69|0.006
91648079|NCT00996918|183188600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.62|-0.12|0.066
91648080|NCT01965535|183188602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.6|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in SVR12 rates between the 2 treatment groups was constructed based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions.|A sample size of 75 subjects in each treatment group would provide 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in SVR12 rates (80% vs 95%) between the 2 treatment groups.||8.6|-5.9|
91781778|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|1.54||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||1.54|-6.96|
91781779|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|6.16||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||6.16|-2.85|
91781780|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|23.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||23.8|11.2|
91781781|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|10.7||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||10.7|2.32|
91781782|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|18.7||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||18.7|9.75|
91781783|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-5.34||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-5.34|-14.6|
91781784|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|0.297||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.297|-7.22|
91781785|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.71||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-4.71|-11.6|
91781786|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|16.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||16.8|7.39|
91781787|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|10.5||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.5|2.91|
91781788|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.88|13.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||13.8|6.88|
91648081|NCT01946282|183188632|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a FIT return rate of 29% for the outreach only group at an a=0.05, we estimated more than 90% power to detect an absolute difference greater than 5% when using a chi-square test of proportions to compare patients who received any incentive ($5 or $10) compared with patients who received outreach only.||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
91648082|NCT01946282|183188632|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a FIT return rate of 29% for the outreach only group at an a=0.05, we estimated more than 90% power to detect an absolute difference greater than 5% when using a chi-square test of proportions to compare patients who received any incentive ($5 or $10) compared with patients who received outreach only.||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.75
91648083|NCT01946282|183188632|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a FIT return rate of 29% for the outreach only group at an a=0.05, we estimated more than 90% power to detect an absolute difference greater than 5% when using a chi-square test of proportions to compare patients who received any incentive ($5 or $10) compared with patients who received outreach only.||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.080
91648084|NCT01946282|183188633|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.070
91648085|NCT01946282|183188633|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.80
91648086|NCT01946282|183188633|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
91648087|NCT01946282|183188633|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91648088|NCT01946282|183188633|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.82
91648089|NCT01946282|183188633|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
91648090|NCT01946282|183188633|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated needing 545 observations per incentive group to achieve power necessary to detect at least a 10% absolute difference in FIT return rate between patients who received the $5 incentive versus patients who received the $10 incentive, with assumed rates of 45% in the $5 incentive group and 53% in the $10 incentive group, a=0.05, and power=90%.||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
91648091|NCT01946282|183188633|EQUIVALENCE||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91781789|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|5.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.30|-7.41|
91781790|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|6.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||6.56|-2.15|
91648092|NCT01946282|183188633|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.184|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.184
91648093|NCT00078819|183188638|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
91648094|NCT00078819|183188639|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
91709098|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.046
91781791|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|5.47||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.47|-3.23|
91781792|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|25.6||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||25.6|13.2|
91781793|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|13.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||13.3|4.78|
91781794|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|18.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||18.9|10.4|
91648095|NCT00078819|183188640|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
91648096|NCT00078819|183188641|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren test|Two-sided van Elteren's test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
91648097|NCT00078819|183188642|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
91648098|NCT01749033|183188706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||We planned a sample size of 429 to achieve a 80% power to detect an effect size difference of w=0.15 using 2 degrees of freedom chi-square test with a significance level (alpha) of .05.||||.76
91648099|NCT01749033|183188708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||The reported p value was calculated.|We planned a sample size of 429 to achieve a 80% power to detect an effect size difference of w=0.15 using 2 degrees of freedom chi-square test with a significance level (alpha) of .05.||||.05
91648100|NCT01039584|183188742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of subjects with therapeutic cure at Visit 3/Test-of-Cure. Therapeutic cure was defined as having both a mycological cure and a clinical cure.|Yates continuity correction|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|12.3|||Wald's method|||||12.3|-9.1|
91781795|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-5.52|-15.6|
91648101|NCT01039584|183188743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The efficacy measure was the proportion of subjects with clinicl cure at Visit 3/Test-of-Cure.|Yates continuity correction|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|12.8|||Wald's method|||||12.8|-7.3|
91648102|NCT01039584|183188744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The efficacy measure was the proportion of subjects with mycological cure at Visit 3/Test-of-Cure|Yates continuity correction|1.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|9.4|||Wald's method|||||9.4|-11.7|0.05
91781796|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|0.764||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.764|-9.26|
91781797|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-4.87||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-4.87|-12.6|
91851663|NCT03299816|183586898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) was not normally distributed and was natural log transformed for analyses||||||0.73
91781798|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.17|17.4||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||17.4|7.17|
91781799|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|11.0||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||11.0|0.917|
91851664|NCT03299816|183586899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|||||||0.75
91709099|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.006
91648103|NCT03550794|183188755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.04||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in creatinine between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.~Missing creatinine imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) as described in SAP."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 72 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||0.04|-1.18|0.07
91648104|NCT03550794|183188756|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.74||P-value from odds ratio from logistic regression model controlling for site, with outcome of receiving renal replacement therapy.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.18|0.34
91898552|NCT02640157|183693238|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.2|3.7||||||Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A - Arm B).||3.7|-6.2|
91648105|NCT03550794|183188757|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|36.6||P-value from quantile regression model controlling for site.|Quantile regression|||||36.6|7.4|0.002
91648106|NCT03550794|183188758|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.18||P-value from Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for site.|Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.32|0.14
91781800|NCT01263197|183442972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|13.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||13.8|5.98|
91898553|NCT02640157|183693239|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.0||||||Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm C - Arm A)||4.0|-4.8|
91898554|NCT02640157|183693239|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was below 92%.|Percentage of participants|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|91.0|98.8||||||||98.8|91.0|
91898555|NCT02640157|183693239|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.4|4.6||||||||4.6|-5.4|
91898556|NCT00710021|183693243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
91898557|NCT00710021|183693244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
91898558|NCT00710021|183693245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
91898559|NCT00710021|183693246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91898560|NCT00710021|183693247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifit1 expression.||||||0.31
91898561|NCT00710021|183693248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifit1 expression.||||||0.019
91898562|NCT00710021|183693249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifi44 expression.||||||0.28
91781801|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.06||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.06|-1.81|
91781802|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.85||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||6.85|-1.38|
91898563|NCT00710021|183693250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifi44 expression.||||||0.050
91898564|NCT00710021|183693251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Mx1 expression.||||||0.29
91898565|NCT00710021|183693252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Mx1 expression.||||||0.014
91781803|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|5.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.56|-0.209|
91648107|NCT03550794|183188759|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.06||P-value from logistic regression model controlling for site|Regression, Logistic|||||1.06|0.17|0.07
91648108|NCT03550794|183188760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in lactate between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.~Missing lactate imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) as described in SAP."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 72 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||1.30|0.71|0.79
91648109|NCT03550794|183188762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.58||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in SOFA scores between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.~Missing SOFA imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) as described in SAP."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 72 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||0.58|-3.63|0.16
91781804|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.541|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|4.02||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.02|-2.94|
91781805|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|9.43||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||9.43|1.09|
91781806|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.52|-0.322|
91781807|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.41||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-1.41|-11.5|
91841071|NCT02090634|183563233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Cliff's d = 0.14; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall dose timing windows for PSY medications.||||0.42
91841072|NCT01861457|183563252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91841073|NCT01861457|183563253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91851665|NCT01184508|183586900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|-0.05||The comparison between LY2300559 and placebo for the LS mean change from baseline to Month 3 in the number of migraine attacks was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment (tx) group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||-0.05|-2.02|0.085
91781808|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.171|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|5.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||5.56|-5.21|
91781809|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|0.557||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.557|-6.73|
91851666|NCT01184508|183586902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.75||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.27|11.76||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Month 3 in average duration of photophobia.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment (tx) group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||11.76|-8.27|0.770
91781810|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|6.53||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||6.53|-3.61|
91781811|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|16.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||16.8|5.99|
91781812|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|10.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.8|3.49|
91898566|NCT00710021|183693253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C3 level.||||||0.96
91781813|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0309|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|5.34||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.34|-5.28|
91781814|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|3.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.59|-5.93|
91781815|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|3.68||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.68|-4.35|
91898567|NCT00710021|183693254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C3 level.||||||0.67
91781816|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|3.2||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||3.20|-7.42|
91781817|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|9.12||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||9.12|-0.404|
91898568|NCT00710021|183693255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C4 level.||||||0.59
91648110|NCT01864525|183188764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic amplitude tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test did not use the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0216
91648111|NCT01864525|183188764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0499||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic amplitude tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test used the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0499
91781818|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.119|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||3.90|-4.14|
91781819|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|1.37||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||1.37|-9.69|
91781820|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.718||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.718|-10.2|
91851667|NCT01184508|183586902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.3||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.91|18.52||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Month 3 in average duration of phonophobia.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, tx group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||18.52|-3.91|0.276
91781821|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|0.32||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.320|-8.71|
91709100|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.406
91781822|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|8.74||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.74|-2.34|
91781823|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|9.43||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.43|-1.54|
91781824|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|9.37||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.37|0.319|
91781825|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|8.12||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||8.12|-3.44|
91898569|NCT00710021|183693256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C4 level.||||||0.65
91781826|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|7.0||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||7.00|-3.22|
91781827|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.52|-1.85|
91781828|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|6.1||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||6.10|-5.45|
91781829|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|8.29||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||8.29|-1.93|
91781830|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.81||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.81|-1.56|
91781831|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|3.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||3.59|-6.79|
91781832|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.68||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||4.68|-5.00|
91898570|NCT00710021|183693257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.86
91841074|NCT01567865|183563259|EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots of new GMP facility LJEVac would be considered equivalent (i.e., the SP does not differ between lots by ≥10%) if all 3 null hypotheses are rejected, and the alternate hypotheses are accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|9.66||||||"Null hypotheses: each new lot does not differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. With a total study population of only 772 subjects, the power of the study to test lot-to-lot consistency declined from 90% to 85%."||9.66|-5.97|
91841075|NCT01567865|183563259|EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots of new GMP facility LJEVac would be considered equivalent (i.e., the SP does not differ between lots by ≥10%) if all 3 null hypotheses are rejected, and the alternate hypotheses are accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|4.98|||t-test, 2 sided|The 95% CI for the difference in rates is calculated based on the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.||"Null hypotheses: each new lot does not differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. With a total study population of only 772 subjects, the power of the study to test lot-to-lot consistency declined from 90% to 85%."||4.98|-9.92|<0.05
91841076|NCT01567865|183563259|EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots of new GMP facility LJEVac would be considered equivalent (i.e., the SP does not differ between lots by ≥10%) if all 3 null hypotheses are rejected, and the alternate hypotheses are accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.94|3.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypotheses: each new lot does not differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. With a total study population of only 772 subjects, the power of the study to test lot-to-lot consistency declined from 90% to 85%."||3.31|-11.94|<0.05
91841077|NCT01567865|183563259|NON_INFERIORITY|The new GMP facility lots will be considered non-inferior (i.e., equivalent) to the existing facility lot if the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|The 95% CI for the difference in rates is calculated based on the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.||"Null hypothesis: reference lot vs. Lot 1, 2, and 3 combined do differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. The power of the study to test non-inferiority of the combined new lots compared to the reference lot dropped from 99% to 87%."||3.1|-9.74|<0.05
91841078|NCT05569954|183563311|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Injection site erythema: estimated difference in percent||0.7|-4.0|
91841079|NCT05569954|183563311|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Injection site pain: estimated difference in percent||8.7|-1.2|
91841080|NCT05569954|183563311|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Injection site swelling: estimated difference in percent||2.7|-1.6|
91841081|NCT05569954|183563312|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.6|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Fatigue: estimated difference in percent||4.6|-2.9|
91841082|NCT05569954|183563312|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|1.7||||||95.0|-1.8|5.1|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Headache: estimated difference in percent||5.1|-1.8|
91841083|NCT05569954|183563312|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-0.7||||||95.0|-3.1|1.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Myalgia: estimated difference in percent||1.7|-3.1|
91841084|NCT05569954|183563312|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-0.3||||||95.0|-1.5|0.9|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Pyrexia: estimated difference in percent||0.9|-1.5|
91841085|NCT05569954|183563313|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|0.0||||||95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Vaccine-Related Serious Adverse Events||0.5|-0.5|
91841086|NCT05569954|183563314|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.23||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 3: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.23|0.96|<0.001
91898571|NCT00710021|183693258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91781833|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.54||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||3.54|-5.20|
91781834|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|7.17||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||7.17|-3.27|
91781835|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|8.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.59|-1.17|
91781836|NCT01263197|183442973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|8.67||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.67|-0.103|
91781837|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.44||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||1.44|-3.90|
91781838|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|4.02||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||4.02|-1.91|
91648112|NCT01864525|183188764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0339||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic frequency tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test did not use the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0339
91709101|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.042
91709102|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.655
91709103|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.262
91648113|NCT01864525|183188764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic frequency tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test used the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0450
91709104|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.143
91709105|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.494
91709106|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
91709107|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
91841087|NCT05569954|183563314|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.68||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.68|1.29|<0.001
91841088|NCT05569954|183563314|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.32||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 8: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.32|1.04|<0.001
91841089|NCT05569954|183563314|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001||95.0|1.0|1.26||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.26|1.00|<0.001
91841090|NCT05569954|183563314|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.77|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.77|1.37|<0.001
91841091|NCT05569954|183563314|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.05|||<|0.001||95.0|1.82|2.31|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||2.31|1.82|<0.001
91841092|NCT05569954|183563314|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.9|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.90|1.40|<0.001
91841093|NCT05569954|183563314|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.31|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: V116/PPSV23GMT Ratio||2.31|1.77|<0.001
91841094|NCT05569954|183563314|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.6|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 19A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.60|1.26|<0.001
91781839|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.18||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.18|-2.58|
91781840|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|4.07||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.07|-1.34|
91781841|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|6.69||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||6.69|0.674|
91781842|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0178|4.81||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.81|-0.0178|
91841095|NCT05569954|183563314|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|1.88|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.88|1.46|<0.001
91781843|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|-0.619||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-0.619|-7.83|
91781844|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|5.12||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||5.12|-4.45|
91709108|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.555
91709109|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.411
91841096|NCT05569954|183563314|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.75|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.75|1.34|<0.001
91898572|NCT00710021|183693259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline SELENA-SLEDAI score.||||||0.62
91781845|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|0.969||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.969|-4.81|
91781846|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|6.1||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||6.10|-1.15|
91841097|NCT05569954|183563314|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 33F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.04|0.76|<0.001
91781847|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|13.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||13.9|4.30|
91781848|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|8.94||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.94|3.12|
91781849|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|2.82||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.82|-4.65|
91781850|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|3.44||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.44|-4.33|
91898573|NCT00710021|183693260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91841098|NCT05569954|183563314|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|3.87||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||3.87|2.84|<0.001
91648114|NCT01864525|183188765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7172||||||A priori significance was set at P\<0.05 for this hypothesis-driven auditory-perceptual variable. Main effect for drug is given above. For the main task effect, P=0.9602. For the interaction effect of drug\*task, P=0.1699.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical modeling tested for main effects of auditory-perceptual ratings for drug and task (sustained vowel and sentence-level ratings), and interaction effects of these variables. The summed scores, averaged across all participants, are provided separately for the sustained vowel and sentence-level ratings. Values range from 0 (no difference between baseline and post-test) to 3 (all three raters indicated that post-test sample was better (less tremor severity).||||0.7172
91648115|NCT01890785|183188766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.655|0.766||||||||0.766|0.655|
91898574|NCT00710021|183693261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91781851|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.378|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.95||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.95|-2.20|
91781852|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|4.62||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.62|-2.86|
91781853|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|6.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||6.80|-0.966|
91648116|NCT01890785|183188766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|0.992||||||||0.992|0.849|
91648117|NCT01890785|183188767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.641|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.582|0.707||||||||0.707|0.582|
91648118|NCT01890785|183188767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.752|0.912||||||||0.912|0.752|
91898575|NCT00710021|183693262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91781854|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.52|0.366|
91781855|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|1.07||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||1.07|-6.84|
91781856|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|3.44||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||3.44|-5.39|
91781857|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.66||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||1.66|-5.30|
91781858|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|9.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.56|1.63|
91781859|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|12.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||12.3|3.39|
91781860|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|10.1||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.1|3.11|
91781861|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|4.92||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||4.92|-3.23|
91781862|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|1.21||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||1.21|-8.17|
91781863|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|2.14||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.14|-2.88|
91781864|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|5.98||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.98|-2.17|
91781865|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|5.76||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.76|-3.62|
91781866|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|5.55||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.55|0.522|
91781867|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.38||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||5.38|-3.90|
91781868|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.47||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||2.47|-6.36|
91781869|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|2.45||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||2.45|-4.79|
91781870|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|11.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||11.9|2.59|
91781871|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|10.0||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.0|1.13|
91781872|NCT01263197|183442974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|9.16||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.16|1.89|
91841099|NCT05569954|183563314|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|5.33||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||5.33|3.99|<0.001
91841100|NCT05569954|183563314|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.92|||<|0.001||95.0|2.5|3.42||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||3.42|2.50|<0.001
91781873|NCT02557139|183443011|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of fed vs. fasted is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect of food on belumosudil tablets.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax null hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability: 48.00%|125.00|80.00|< 0.001
91781874|NCT02557139|183443011|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of belumosudil tablet (test drug) vs. the belumosudil capsule (reference drug) is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect on the use of belumosudi tablet compared to belumosudil capsule.|Ratio of Geometric Means (%)|100.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax null hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability: 48.00%|125.00|80.00|0.23
91781875|NCT02557139|183443012|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of fed vs. fasted is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect of food on belumosudil tablets.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||AUC(0-inf) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability: 34.25%|125.00|80.00|<0.001
91781876|NCT02557139|183443012|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of belumosudil tablet (test drug) vs. the belumosudil capsule (reference drug) is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect on the use of belumosudi tablet compared to belumosudil capsule.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||AUC(0-inf) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability;|125.00|80.00|0.16
91841101|NCT05569954|183563314|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|5.09||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 16F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||5.09|3.99|<0.001
91648119|NCT01890785|183188768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.004||||||||1.004|0.937|
91648120|NCT01890785|183188768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|0.977||||||||0.977|0.912|
91648121|NCT01890785|183188769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|0.998||||||||0.998|0.945|
91841102|NCT05569954|183563314|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|5.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|6.85||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||6.85|4.81|<0.001
91898576|NCT00710021|183693263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91648122|NCT01890785|183188769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|0.997||||||||0.997|0.944|
91648123|NCT03001011|183188780|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (Renvela - Placebo)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Renvela Vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error \& handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order outcome measures (OM) are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous OM was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||||<0.0001
91648124|NCT02392559|183188801|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.54|-31.06|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-31.06|-45.54|< 0.0001
91841103|NCT05569954|183563314|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|16.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.46|20.03||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||20.03|13.46|<0.001
91898577|NCT00710021|183693264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91898578|NCT00710021|183693265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91781877|NCT02557139|183443012|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of fed vs. fasted is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect of food on belumosudil tablets.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||AUC(0-last) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability = 38.16%|125.00|80.00|< 0.001
91781878|NCT02557139|183443012|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of belumosudil tablet (test drug) vs. the belumosudil capsule (reference drug) is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect on the use of belumosudi tablet compared to belumosudil capsule.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Intra-subject variability = 38.16%|AUC(0-last) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability = 38.16%|125.00|80.00|0.18
91781879|NCT02284243|183443019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0180
91781880|NCT02284243|183443020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SPID 0-6, SPID 0-12, and SPID 0-24|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91648125|NCT02392559|183188801|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91648126|NCT02392559|183188802|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-42.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.34|-35.83|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-35.83|-48.34|< 0.0001
91648127|NCT02392559|183188802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91781881|NCT02284243|183443021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to perceptible and meaningful pain relief|Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91781882|NCT02284243|183443022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to ≥30% and ≥50% reduction in pain|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test for general association stratified by site||||||<0.05
91781883|NCT02284243|183443024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0009
91781884|NCT02284243|183443025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7718|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7718
91781885|NCT01094119|183443154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0069|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0069
91781886|NCT00357903|183443180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized incidence rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|53.87||||||||53.87|0.00|
91781887|NCT00357903|183443180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized incidence rate|1.3||||||95.0|0.97|1.71||||||||1.71|0.97|
91781888|NCT05006573|183443254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.82|||negative binomial model|marginal standardization method|The rate ratio (Benralizumab/Placebo) and its 95% CI are estimated using a negative binomial model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline blood eosinophil category, and number of exacerbations from previous year.|||1.82|0.71|0.5911
91781889|NCT05006573|183443255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.6677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.91|||Regression, Cox||The analysis is performed using cox proportional hazards model with covariates of treatment group, number of exacerbations in previous year and baseline eosinophil category.|||1.91|0.67|0.6677
91781890|NCT02864394|183443284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14|||Log Rank|||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio, HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate. One-sided p-value was based on log-rank test.||1.14|0.61|0.1276
91781891|NCT02864394|183443285|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.95|||Log Rank|||OS was not formally tested. Treatment comparison (HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%). A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%).||0.95|0.60|0.0076
91781892|NCT02864394|183443286|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.07|||Log Rank|||PFS was not formally tested. Treatment comparison (HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate. A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was based on log-rank test.||1.07|0.54|0.0534
91781893|NCT02864394|183443287|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||Log Rank|||PFS was not formally tested. Treatment comparison (HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%). A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%).||1.08|0.66|0.0847
91898579|NCT00710021|183693266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91781894|NCT02864394|183443288|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|30.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||ORR was not formally tested. Treatment comparison was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method. A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was calculated.||30.7|11.5|<0.0001
91781895|NCT02864394|183443289|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|21.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||ORR was not formally tested. Treatment comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS\>=50% vs. TPS 1-49%). If no participants were in one of the treatment arms involved in a comparison for a particular stratum, then that stratum was excluded from the treatment comparison. A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was calculated.||21.6|8.8|<0.0001
91781896|NCT02656693|183443304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.00017
91781897|NCT02656693|183443306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
91781898|NCT02656693|183443308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
91781899|NCT02656693|183443309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91648128|NCT02392559|183188803|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-68.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.1|-54.0||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|repeated measures model|||||-54.0|-83.1|< 0.0001
91781900|NCT02656693|183443311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91781901|NCT02656693|183443312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91781902|NCT02656693|183443313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
91781903|NCT02656693|183443314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
91781904|NCT02656693|183443315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
91781905|NCT02656693|183443316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91781906|NCT02656693|183443317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
91781907|NCT02656693|183443318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
91781908|NCT02656693|183443319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
91781909|NCT02656693|183443320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
91781910|NCT02656693|183443321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
91898580|NCT00710021|183693267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91781911|NCT02656693|183443322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
91781912|NCT02656693|183443323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
91781913|NCT02656693|183443324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
91781914|NCT02656693|183443325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
91781915|NCT02656693|183443326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91781916|NCT02656693|183443327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
91781917|NCT02656693|183443328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
91781918|NCT02656693|183443329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91781919|NCT02223702|183443382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Friedman Test|All rows were compared to eachother||||||<0.01
91781920|NCT02223702|183443383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|All rows were compared to eachother||||||<0.01
91781921|NCT00880919|183443388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||Mean changes were calculated using each groups linear and quadratic effects||||.015
91790186|NCT02660138|183459524|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|84.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.73|125.89|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||125.89|43.73|<0.0001
91898581|NCT00710021|183693268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91841104|NCT05569954|183563314|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.39|||<|0.001||95.0|2.97|3.87||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||3.87|2.97|<0.001
91709110|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.167
91709111|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.445
91709112|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.489
91841105|NCT05569954|183563314|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|11.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.16|13.91||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 31: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||13.91|10.16|<0.001
91781922|NCT02863419|183443407|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.4% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|-0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin. The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.0|-0.3|<0.0001
91781923|NCT02863419|183443407|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.1||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.0|-0.3|0.0645
91781924|NCT02863419|183443407|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.9|-1.2|<0.0001
91781925|NCT02863419|183443407|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
91781926|NCT02863419|183443407|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.3|0.0056
91841106|NCT05569954|183563314|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|6.87||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||6.87|5.54|<0.001
91648129|NCT02392559|183188803|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91648130|NCT02392559|183188804|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-35.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.79|-28.3|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-28.30|-41.79|< 0.0001
91648131|NCT02392559|183188804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91648132|NCT02392559|183188805|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-32.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.82|-26.13|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-26.13|-38.82|< 0.0001
91648133|NCT02392559|183188805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91648134|NCT02392559|183188806|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-24.21|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-24.21|-36.40|< 0.0001
91648135|NCT02392559|183188806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91648136|NCT02392559|183188807|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-36.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.97|-29.8|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-29.80|-42.97|< 0.0001
91648137|NCT02392559|183188807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91781927|NCT02863419|183443407|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.0|-1.4|0.0001
91648138|NCT03125915|183188820|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-3.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-0.46||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with a intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-leve latent growth curve||For 1-Month Follow-Up, substance use module (SUM) among those who did not view CT Video|||-0.46|-6.78|.03
91648139|NCT03125915|183188820|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-1.67||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.76||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who did view the CT video.|||0.76|-4.10|.18
91648140|NCT03125915|183188820|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.8||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow up, effect of CT video among those who completed the SUM.|||1.80|-2.50|0.75
91648141|NCT03125915|183188820|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|0.77||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-Month follow up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.77|-5.37|0.14
91841107|NCT05569954|183563315|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|31.0||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 6A: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||31.0|20.9|<0.001
91709113|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.159
91648142|NCT03125915|183188820|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.79||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.58||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-Month follow up, effect of SUM among those who viewed the CT video.|||-0.58|-5.00|0.013
91648143|NCT03125915|183188820|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.09||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.38||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-Month follow up, effect of SUM among those who did not view CT video|||0.38|-4.56|0.10
91841108|NCT05569954|183563315|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|44.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 15A: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||44.8|33.6|<0.001
91781928|NCT02863419|183443408|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.6|-1.9|0.0003
91781929|NCT02863419|183443408|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-3.0|-4.7|<0.0001
91841109|NCT05569954|183563315|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|11.7||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|15.9||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 15C: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||15.9|7.5|0.214
91841110|NCT05569954|183563315|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|42.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|47.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 16F: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||47.8|37.8|<0.001
91841111|NCT05569954|183563315|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|35.9|||<|0.001||95.0|29.6|41.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V16 minus PPSV23|Serotype 23A: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||41.8|29.6|<0.001
91851668|NCT01184508|183586902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.7||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.51|6.1||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Month 3 in average duration of nausea.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, tx group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||6.10|-11.51|0.606
91781930|NCT02863419|183443408|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.2|<0.0001
91781931|NCT02863419|183443408|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral sema 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-3.2|-4.8|<0.0001
91781932|NCT02863419|183443429|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 1.8 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.80|0.75|0.4915
91781933|NCT02863419|183443429|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.48||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.48|0.21|<0.0001
91781934|NCT02863419|183443430|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.22||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 1.8 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||2.22|0.62|0.6252
91781935|NCT02863419|183443430|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.26||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.26|0.09|<0.0001
91781936|NCT00297258|183443454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|46.0||||0.653||90.0|11.0|47.6|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||47.6|11.0|0.653
91781937|NCT00297258|183443454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0||||0.003||90.0|28.4|55.5|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||55.5|28.4|0.003
91781938|NCT00297258|183443454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|49.0|||<|0.001||90.0|34.3|63.2|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||63.2|34.3|<0.001
91841112|NCT05569954|183563315|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|42.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|47.0||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 23B: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||47.0|37.6|<0.001
91841113|NCT05569954|183563315|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|35.9|||<|0.001||95.0|30.6|41.0||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 24F: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||41.0|30.6|<0.001
91898582|NCT00710021|183693269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Note that none of the Grade 3 or above events were considered by the investigators to be related to study treatment.||||||0.10
91709114|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.720
91781939|NCT00297258|183443454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0||||0.003||90.0|28.4|55.5|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||55.5|28.4|0.003
91781940|NCT02839200|183443467|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Model|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all ACT-541468 doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrasts Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cranrprojects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
91781941|NCT02839200|183443467|OTHER||LS mean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|4.7|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||4.7|-18.7|0.241
91781942|NCT02839200|183443467|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|1.0|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||1|-22.6|0.072
91781943|NCT02839200|183443467|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-4.5|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||-4.5|-27.9|0.007
91841114|NCT05569954|183563315|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|56.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|60.5||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 31: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||60.5|51.5|<0.001
91841115|NCT05569954|183563315|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|58.7|||<|0.001||95.0|54.6|62.7||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 35B: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||62.7|54.6|<0.001
91841116|NCT05569954|183563316|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4 fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>50 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025)."||||||0.093||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method|||Serotype 6C||||0.093
91841117|NCT05569954|183563316|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4 fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>50 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025)."|||||<|0.001||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method|||Serotype 15B||||<0.001
91841118|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.25|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 3: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.25|1.04|
91781944|NCT02839200|183443467|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-13.9|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||-13.9|-37.3|< 0.001
91781945|NCT02839200|183443467|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|3.3|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||3.3|-20.4|0.155
91781946|NCT02453711|183443481|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|=|0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-0.85|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.05 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-0.85|-6.55|=0.0055
91781947|NCT02453711|183443481|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-3.49|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.1 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-3.49|-9.16|<0.0001
91841119|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.1|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.10|1.65|
91841120|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.31|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 8: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.31|1.04|
91841121|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.76|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.76|1.37|
91841122|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.31|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.31|1.79|
91841123|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|2.46|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.46|1.97|
91841124|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.3|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.30|1.72|
91841125|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|2.7|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.70|2.12|
91841126|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.67||||||Serotype 19A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio|V116/PPSV23|1.67|1.32|
91709115|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.026
91781948|NCT02453711|183443481|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-9.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-6.46|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.2 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-6.46|-12.15|<0.0001
91841127|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.1|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.10|1.65|
91841128|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.02|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.02|1.55|
91841129|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.37|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 33F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.37|1.08|
91841130|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|4.35|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||4.35|3.29|
91841131|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|10.09|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||10.09|7.89|
91841132|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|3.92|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||3.92|3.01|
91841133|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|9.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.83|10.97|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 16F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||10.97|8.83|
91841134|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|7.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|8.61|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||8.61|6.68|
91841135|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|4.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|5.38|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||5.38|4.26|
91841136|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|21.19||||||95.0|18.98|23.65|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||23.65|18.98|
91648144|NCT03125915|183188820|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.4||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|3.16||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of CT Video among those who completed the SUM|A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.||3.16|-2.35|0.78
91648145|NCT03125915|183188820|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.3||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.53||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||1.53|-2.12|0.75
91841137|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.82|9.65|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 31: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||9.65|7.82|
91709116|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.011
91781949|NCT02453711|183443481|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-8.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|-6.03|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.3 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-6.03|-11.72|<0.0001
91841138|NCT05569954|183563318|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|15.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|17.07|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||17.07|14.13|
91841139|NCT02708433|183563322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.0||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.57|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.57|-0.49|0.74
91841140|NCT02708433|183563323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.0||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.52|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.52|-0.89|0.5
91841141|NCT00384059|183563326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.8|3.9||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 titer was calculated||3.9|-3.8|
91841142|NCT00384059|183563326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.1|3.7||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||3.7|-7.1|
91841143|NCT00384059|183563326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.1||||||95.0|-13.4|5.1||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||5.1|-13.4|
91841144|NCT00384059|183563326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.3||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.3|-3.2|
91841145|NCT00384059|183563326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.1||||||95.0|-4.5|7.1||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 17 EU/mL threshold was calculated||7.1|-4.5|
91841146|NCT00384059|183563326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-3.2|
91841147|NCT00384059|183563326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-3.2|
91648146|NCT03125915|183188820|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-3.93||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-0.81||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effects of SUM among those who viewed the CT video.|||-0.81|-7.06|0.014
91709117|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.763
91841148|NCT00384059|183563326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.9|4.8||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 20 EU/mL threshold was calculated||4.8|-7.9|
91841149|NCT00384059|183563326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||For Pertussis PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-3.2|
91841150|NCT00384059|183563326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-3.1||||||95.0|-10.0|3.4||||||For Pertussis PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 15 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.4|-10.0|
91841151|NCT00384059|183563326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.7||||||95.0|-0.5|7.6||||||For Pertussis FIM the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 2.2 EU/mL threshold was calculated||7.6|-0.5|
91781950|NCT02453711|183443481|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-11.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|-8.72|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.4 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-8.72|-14.38|<0.0001
91648147|NCT03125915|183188820|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.57||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.03||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow up, effect of SUM among those who did not view CT video.|||2.03|-3.16|0.67
91781951|NCT01587924|183443518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline Hgb \<10.80 versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline Hgb \>= 10.80||||0.0135
91781952|NCT01587924|183443518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5082||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline weight \<= 80.5 Kg versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline weight \> 80.5||||0.5082
91781953|NCT01587924|183443518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with ethnicity non-Hispanic or Latino versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with ethnicity non-Hispanic or Latino||||0.9770
91781954|NCT01587924|183443518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0618||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline geographic ancestry as African American versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with no geographic ancestry as African American||||0.0618
91781955|NCT01587924|183443518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7495||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline gender as male versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline gender female||||0.7495
91781956|NCT01587924|183443518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7865||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline age \<65 years versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline age \>=65 years||||0.7865
91781957|NCT01587924|183443518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0622||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline co-ad with food versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline co-ad without food||||0.0622
91781958|NCT01587924|183443518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2044||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline diabetes presence versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with no Baseline diabetes||||0.2044
91781959|NCT01587924|183443518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8537||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline region as the US and Canada versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline region as not the US and Canada||||0.8537
91781960|NCT00606593|183443549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-10.4||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-3.9|||Linear model|||||-3.9|-17.0|0.0018
91781961|NCT00606593|183443549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-19.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-12.6|||Linear model|||||-12.6|-25.7|<0.0001
91781962|NCT00606593|183443549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-24.9|||Linear model|||||-24.9|-38.0|<0.0001
91781963|NCT00606593|183443549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-46.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-39.9|||Linear model|||||-39.9|-53.3|<0.0001
91781964|NCT00606593|183443550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|21.2|||Linear model|||||21.2|7.4|<0.0001
91781965|NCT00606593|183443550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|28.4|||Linear model|||||28.4|14.6|<0.0001
91781966|NCT00606593|183443550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|41.6|||Linear model|||||41.6|27.8|<0.0001
91781967|NCT00606593|183443550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|55.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|62.0|||Linear model|||||62.0|48.2|<0.0001
91781968|NCT00607373|183443552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C is approximately 22%. With 15 patients in the control group and 30 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 80% power to detect a 20 percentage point difference between the 2 treatment groups. Fifty-one patients were enrolled to allow for patient withdrawals and potential exclusions from analysis sets.||||<0.001
91781969|NCT00607373|183443553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91781970|NCT00607373|183443555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in Apo B at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91781971|NCT00607373|183443558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in total cholesterol at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91781972|NCT00607373|183443560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.013
91781973|NCT00607373|183443562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91648148|NCT03125915|183188820|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.24||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.91||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow up, effect of CT video among those who completed the SUM.|||1.91|-2.39|0.83
91648149|NCT03125915|183188820|SUPERIORITY||Beta|3.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|6.25||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||6.25|-0.004|0.05
91781974|NCT00607373|183443564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.009
91781975|NCT00607373|183443566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91709118|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.187
91781976|NCT00607373|183443568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.328
91898583|NCT05741372|183693270|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|127.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|189.6|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 23.6%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||189.6|85.4|
91898584|NCT05741372|183693270|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|745.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|464.9|1196.0|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 28.1%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||1196|464.9|
91898585|NCT05741372|183693271|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|183.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.3|287.5|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 26.6%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||287.5|117.3|
91898586|NCT05741372|183693271|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1712.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1006.7|2912.2|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 31.7%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||2912.2|1006.7|
91898587|NCT05741372|183693272|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.0|115.3|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 10.3%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||115.3|81.0|
91898588|NCT05741372|183693272|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|115.3|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 12.2%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||115.3|75.9|
91898589|NCT05741372|183693273|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.8|97.5|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 12.5%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||97.5|63.8|
91898590|NCT05741372|183693273|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|83.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.0|107.5|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 14.8%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||107.5|65.0|
91898591|NCT05741372|183693274|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.2|114.0|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 9.2%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||114|83.2|
91898592|NCT05741372|183693274|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|94.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.2|113.5|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 10.9%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||113.5|78.2|
91898593|NCT05741372|183693275|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|87.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.0|102.9|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 9.7%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||102.9|74.0|
91898594|NCT05741372|183693275|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|83.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.8|101.7|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 11.5%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||101.7|68.8|
91898595|NCT05741372|183693276|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|88.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.6|108.8|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 12.2%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||108.8|71.6|
91898596|NCT05741372|183693276|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|115.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|148.0|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 14.5%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||148.0|90.2|
91898597|NCT05741372|183693277|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.1|96.6|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 13.4%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||96.6|61.1|
91898598|NCT05741372|183693277|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.4|126.1|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 15.9%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||126.1|73.4|
91898599|NCT04837040|183693278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|126.526|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.733|999.999|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine versus placebo has been presented.||999.999|13.733|<0.0001
91898600|NCT04837040|183693279|SUPERIORITY||least squares means difference|-0.791|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.057|-0.525|||ANCOVA|||||-0.525|-1.057|<0.0001
91781977|NCT00607373|183443570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.035
91781978|NCT04546672|183443591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|55.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||55.4|-31.1|0.58
91781979|NCT04546672|183443592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.4|9.2|<0.001
91781980|NCT04546672|183443593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.2|||Fisher Exact|||||6.2|0.9|0.087
91781981|NCT04546672|183443594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|12.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.6|-26.4|0.48
91781982|NCT04546672|183443595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|31.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||31.1|2.3|0.02
91781983|NCT04546672|183443596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.3|-2.2|0.27
91781984|NCT01397968|183443598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||<0.0001
91781985|NCT01397968|183443599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91781986|NCT02908672|183443600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||Log Rank||Stratified Hazard Ratio|||0.97|0.64|0.0224
91781987|NCT02908672|183443601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||Log Rank||Stratified Hazard Ratio|||1.07|0.67|0.1607
91781988|NCT02908672|183443602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|1.63||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.15|-6.90|0.6997
91781989|NCT02908672|183443604|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.67|0.1191
91781990|NCT02908672|183443605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.2||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|17.04|||Z-test|||||17.04|-0.65|0.0693
91898601|NCT04837040|183693280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.609||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.864|181.355|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine versus placebo has been presented.||181.355|2.864|0.0003
91898602|NCT04837040|183693281|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-5.164||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.536|-0.792|||ANCOVA|||||-0.792|-9.536|0.0216
91781991|NCT01424072|183443614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|||The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||||0.023
91781992|NCT01424072|183443615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||,|0||95.0||||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|This result was only to the domain Social Support.||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups in the 3rd assessment (after 60 days) and at the follow up (after 75 days). The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||||0,022
91841152|NCT00384059|183563326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.0||||||95.0|-4.1|6.5||||||For Pertussis FIM the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||6.5|-4.1|
91781993|NCT01424072|183443616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the follow up (after 75 days). The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||||0.039
91841153|NCT00384059|183563327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-5.3||||||95.0|-19.7|8.8||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 titer was calculated||8.8|-19.7|
91841154|NCT00384059|183563327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-8.0|8.1||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 titer was calculated||8.1|-8.0|
91841155|NCT00384059|183563328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.5|3.8||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||3.8|-3.5|
91841156|NCT00384059|183563328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.3|2.8||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||2.8|-5.3|
91841157|NCT00384059|183563329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.89||||||95.0|0.68|1.16||||||For Meningococcal C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.16|0.68|
91841158|NCT00384059|183563330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.54|1.08||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.54|
91781994|NCT01424072|183443616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||ANOVA|It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the follow up and then it was used the post hoc test.||Coping Strategy: Confrontation domain||||0.029
91781995|NCT02876601|183443618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.408
91781996|NCT02876601|183443619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.148
91841159|NCT00384059|183563331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.82|1.16||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.16|0.82|
91841160|NCT00384059|183563331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.99||||||95.0|0.83|1.17||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.17|0.83|
91781997|NCT02876601|183443620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91781998|NCT02876601|183443621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.642|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.642
91781999|NCT02876601|183443622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
91782000|NCT02876601|183443623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.326
91841161|NCT00384059|183563331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.26||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.26|0.80|
91841162|NCT00384059|183563331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.81|1.23||||||For Pertussis FIM the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.23|0.81|
91841163|NCT00384059|183563332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.13||||||95.0|0.83|1.53||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.53|0.83|
91841164|NCT00384059|183563337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ration|0.85||||||95.0|0.48|1.49||||||For Meningococcal C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.49|0.48|
91841165|NCT02959138|183563377|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio (geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio) and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|111.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|143.47||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% confidence interval of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||143.47|86.94|
91841166|NCT02959138|183563377|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|107.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.47|146.02||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||146.02|78.47|
91841167|NCT02959138|183563378|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|111.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.92|144.12||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||144.12|86.92|
91841168|NCT02959138|183563378|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|107.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.63|145.65||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||145.65|79.63|
91851669|NCT01184508|183586903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.57||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.48|0.34||The p-value is for the mean change from baseline to Month 3 in the number of migraine days.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment (tx) group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||0.34|-3.48|0.174
91648150|NCT03125915|183188821|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.41||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effect of SUM on the latent intercept factor among those who did not view CT videos|||2.41|-2.30|0.90
91782001|NCT02876601|183443624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.796
91782002|NCT02876601|183443625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.918
91782003|NCT02876601|183443626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.877
91782004|NCT02876601|183443627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.423
91841169|NCT02959138|183563379|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.42|127.79||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||127.79|81.42|
91841170|NCT02959138|183563379|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.14|113.13||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||113.13|68.14|
91841171|NCT01327547|183563440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.002||||0.4598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0417|0.0376|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by hepatitis B virus (HBV) status and usage of protease inhibitor (PI) regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||0.0376|-0.0417|0.4598
91648151|NCT03125915|183188821|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.26||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.75||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of CT video on the latent intercept factor among those who did not view SUM.|||2.75|-2.23|0.78
91841172|NCT01327547|183563441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0653|0.0319|||||CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regiment strata, is used to calculate the statistics. The point estimate and 95% CI are difference in proportions between MVC and placebo for the participants meeting secondary endpoint.|||0.0319|-0.0653|
91709119|NCT03035916|183311327|OTHER|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.112
91841173|NCT01327547|183563441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0805|0.0452|||||CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regiment strata, is used to calculate the statistics. The point estimate and 95% CI are difference in proportions between maraviroc and placebo for the participants meeting secondary endpoint.|||0.0452|-0.0805|
91851670|NCT01184508|183586906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.27||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.76|9.23||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MSQ restrictive function score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: investigator (pooled site), treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit, baseline and baseline\*visit.||||9.23|-9.76|0.963
91648152|NCT03125915|183188821|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-1.18||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.51||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of the interaction between SUM and CT video on the latent intercept.|||2.51|-4.86|0.53
91648153|NCT03125915|183188821|SUPERIORITY||Beta|1.83||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|4.29||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effect of SUM on the latent slope factor among those who did not view CT Videos.|||4.29|-0.62|0.14
91782005|NCT02876601|183443628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.938
91782006|NCT00354432|183443633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects repeated measures analysis of variance was used with the baseline means constrained to be equal in the four groups.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the hot flash severity score at 12 weeks.||||.3455
91782007|NCT00354432|183443634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in quality of life between the four groups at 12 weeks.||||0.2081
91782008|NCT03863080|183443643|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-56.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of Total IgG levels has been presented.|||||<0.0001
91782009|NCT03863080|183443643|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-74.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of Total IgG levels has been presented.|||||<0.0001
91782010|NCT03863080|183443644|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-62.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 1 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
91782011|NCT03863080|183443644|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 1 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
91782012|NCT03863080|183443644|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 2 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
91782013|NCT03863080|183443644|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-61.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 2 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
91782014|NCT03863080|183443644|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-66.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 3 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
91782015|NCT03863080|183443644|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-80.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 3 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
91782016|NCT03863080|183443644|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 4 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
91709120|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.645
91782017|NCT03863080|183443644|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-61.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 4 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
91841174|NCT01327547|183563446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1484|0.1185|||||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The CMH approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed. Week 48 data presented here.||0.1185|-0.1484|
91841175|NCT01327547|183563446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1784|0.1274|||||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The CMH approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed. Week 96 data presented here.||0.1274|-0.1784|
91841176|NCT01327547|183563446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2421|0.0761|||||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The CMH approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed. Week 144 data presented here.||0.0761|-0.2421|
91841177|NCT01327547|183563447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-41.12||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.72|10.49|||ANCOVA||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|The above analysis is for CD4+ cells at week 48. Results are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||10.49|-92.72|0.1174
91841178|NCT01327547|183563447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-21.96||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.05|59.12|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for CD8+ cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||59.12|-103.05|0.5930
91841179|NCT01327547|183563447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-48.26||||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.93|3.41|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD4+ cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||3.41|-99.93|0.0669
91841180|NCT01327547|183563447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-65.28||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.07|30.5|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD8+ cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||30.50|-161.07|0.1799
91841181|NCT01327547|183563447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-27.71||||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.71|35.29|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD4+ cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||35.29|-90.71|0.3859
91648154|NCT03125915|183188821|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.35||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.72||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of CT Video on latent slope factor among those who did not complete the SUM.|||2.72|-2.02|0.76
91648155|NCT03125915|183188821|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-1.28||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|2.06||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of the interaction between SUM and CT videos in the prediction of the latent slope factor.|||2.06|-4.62|0.45
91782018|NCT03863080|183443645|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-62.58||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of Anti-AChR-IgG has been presented.|||||0.0009
91782019|NCT03863080|183443645|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-101.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of Anti-AChR-IgG has been presented.|||||<0.0001
91782020|NCT05307692|183443677|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.41|0.39|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.39|-3.41|0.308
91841182|NCT01327547|183563447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-31.86||||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.93|75.21|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD8+ cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||75.21|-138.93|0.5571
91841183|NCT01327547|183563448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-56.06||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.2|-10.92|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for CD38 expression on CD4 and CD8 cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||-10.92|-101.20|0.0153
91841184|NCT01327547|183563448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-44.93||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.72|7.87|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD38 expression on CD4 and CD8 cells for Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||7.87|-97.72|0.0947
91851671|NCT01184508|183586906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.17||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.85|4.5||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MSQ preventive function score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: investigator (pooled site), treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit, baseline and baseline\*visit.||||4.50|-8.85|0.591
91841185|NCT01327547|183563448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-29.75||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.74|34.24|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD38 expression on CD4 and CD8 cells for Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||34.24|-93.74|0.3595
91841186|NCT01327547|183563449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.53||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|4.05|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for C-reactive protein cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||4.05|-9.11|0.4476
91841187|NCT01327547|183563449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.67||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.96|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for C-reactive protein cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1.96|-0.61|0.3012
91841188|NCT01327547|183563449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.92||||0.4196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|3.17|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for C-reactive protein cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||3.17|-1.33|0.4196
91841189|NCT01327547|183563450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.3||||0.9904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.66|49.26||Not specifed.|ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for D-Dimer cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||49.26|-48.66|0.9904
91841190|NCT01327547|183563450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|10.87||||0.7697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.44|84.18|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for D-Dimer cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||84.18|-62.44|0.7697
91841191|NCT01327547|183563450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-24.49||||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.21|63.23|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for D-Dimer cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||63.23|-112.21|0.5816
91841192|NCT01327547|183563451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|498.04||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-617.33|1613.41|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for TGF-beta cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1613.41|-617.33|0.3786
91841193|NCT01327547|183563451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|348.7||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-539.61|1237.01|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for TGF-beta cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1237.01|-539.61|0.4388
91841194|NCT01327547|183563451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-173.57||||0.8559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2060.81|1713.68|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for TGF-beta cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1713.68|-2060.81|0.8559
91709121|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.645
91709122|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.314
91709123|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.003
91841195|NCT01327547|183563452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.03||||0.8024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.28|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is change for baseline in Log10 plasma HCV RNA at 48 Weeks. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.28|-0.22|0.8024
91841196|NCT01327547|183563452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is change for baseline in Log10 plasma HCV RNA at 96 Weeks. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.43|-0.12|0.2660
91841197|NCT01327547|183563452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.15||||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.41|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS mean|The above analysis is change for baseline in Log10 plasma HCV RNA at 144 Weeks. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.41|-0.12|0.2855
91841198|NCT01327547|183563453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.23|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1.23|-0.93|0.7778
91841199|NCT01327547|183563453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.0||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 96 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.10|-0.10|0.9991
91841200|NCT01327547|183563453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.02||||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 144 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.11|-0.16|0.7275
91841201|NCT01327547|183563454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07||||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.3|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.30|-0.15|0.5201
91841202|NCT01327547|183563454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08||||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 96 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.13|-0.28|0.4657
91782021|NCT05307692|183443678|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.282|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.33|0.29|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.29|-3.33|0.282
91782022|NCT05232682|183443710|OTHER||F-test|2.41||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1183
91782023|NCT05232682|183443711|OTHER||F-test|0.07||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9308
91782024|NCT05232682|183443712|OTHER||F-test|2.1||||0.1517|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1517
91782025|NCT05232682|183443713|OTHER||F-test|0.14||||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8747
91782026|NCT05232682|183443714|OTHER||F-test|1.19||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3269
91782027|NCT05232682|183443715|OTHER||F-test|1.14||||0.3411|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3411
91782028|NCT00905164|183443716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS mean (test/ref x 100)|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.27|105.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125|||105.03|94.27|
91782029|NCT00905164|183443717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS mean (test/ref x 100)|100.13||||||90.0|97.6|102.72|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.72|97.60|
91782030|NCT00905164|183443718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|101.53||||||90.0|99.01|104.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.12|99.01|
91782031|NCT01077050|183443727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity to Melanoma|96.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.2|||The point estimate of the observed sensitivity that is based on generalized linear mixed model is equal to that calculated in the usual manner.|Clopper-Pearson 1-sided||||||94.2|
91782032|NCT01077050|183443727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity to Basal Cell Carcinoma|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.6|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson 2-sided|Point estimate of the observed sensitivity for Basal Cell Carcinoma||||100|92.6|
91782033|NCT01077050|183443727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Observed sensitivity for squamous cell c|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|99.8|||Clopper-Pearson 2-sided|Point estimate of the observed sensitivity for squamous cell carcinoma||||99.8|68.1|
91782034|NCT01077050|183443727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Note that calculating odds ratio adjusting for subjects having multiple lesions, yields similar result.||||25.5|6.6|<0.0001
91782035|NCT00684060|183443729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|0.95||Threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|No adjustment for multiple comparisons||Comparison of change in global LVEF in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group. 80 percent power based on BOOST results||.95|-7.05|<0.05
91782036|NCT00684060|183443730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.05||95.0|0.08|1.17|||Fisher Exact|||comparison of the proportion of events in patients in the active group to those in patients in the control group||1.17|0.08|<0.05
91782037|NCT00684060|183443731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group.||6.8|-9.3|<0.05
91782038|NCT00684060|183443732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group.||10.9|-9.5|<0.05
91782039|NCT00684060|183443733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in the control group.||9.2|-4.1|<0.05
91782040|NCT00684060|183443734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7|<|0.05||95.0|-9.9|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in the control group.||6.9|-9.9|<0.05
91782041|NCT00684060|183443735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in infarct zone wall motion in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group. 80 percent power based on BOOST results||1.3|-2.8|<0.05
91782042|NCT00684060|183443736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|<|0.05||95.0|-6.0|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in border zone wall motion in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group. 80 percent power based on BOOST results||0.8|-6.0|<0.05
91782043|NCT02641561|183443756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
91782044|NCT00702715|183443757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the estimated median treatment difference in recovery time must have fallen entirely within the pre-specified interval between -60 sec to +60 sec in order to claim equivalence|Median Difference (Final Values)|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|143.0|||Hodges-Lehmann and Moses||Estimated median treatment difference (severe renal impairment minus normal renal function) in recovery time (seconds)|||143.0|36.0|
91782045|NCT00702715|183443758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the secondary endpoint no equivalence margin was specified (i.e., no formal null-hypothesis was specified); the median difference and associated 95% CI were to further characterize the efficacy of severe renal impaired subjects and controls.|Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|120.0|||Hodges-Lehmann and Moses||Estimated median treatment difference (severe renal impairment minus normal renal function) in recovery time (seconds)|||120.0|36.0|
91841203|NCT01327547|183563454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03||||0.8087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 144 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.20|-0.25|0.8087
91841204|NCT01327547|183563455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.84||||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.63|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.63|-4.31|0.1417
91841205|NCT01327547|183563455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.44||||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.14|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 96 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1.14|-4.01|0.2679
91841206|NCT01327547|183563455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.48||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|0.49|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 144 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.49|-3.45|0.1366
91841207|NCT03390036|183563462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8106|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8106
91841208|NCT03390036|183563463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3007
91841209|NCT03390036|183563464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6354|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6354
91841210|NCT03390036|183563465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5754|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5754
91841211|NCT03390036|183563466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4759|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4759
91841212|NCT03390036|183563467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5596|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5596
91841213|NCT03390036|183563468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4551|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4551
91841214|NCT03390036|183563469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7931|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7931
91841215|NCT00900627|183563493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|40.0|||||||||||||Dosing started at 160mg. Based on the data seen, 240mg with 33% patients with DLTs, 120mg with 50% patients with DLTs, 80mg with 33% of patients with DLTs and 40mg with 0% patients with DLTs, 40mg was deemed the maximum tolerated dose.|A tolerated dose was defined as one where ≤25% of the patients experienced a DLT. If a dose was tolerated, an increased dose was to be investigated in another group of 3-6 evaluable patients. A non-tolerated dose was defined as one where \>25% of the patients experience a DLT. If a dose was non tolerated, a decreased/intermediate dose could be investigated in another group of 3-6 evaluable patients. The maximum tolerated dose was determined as the maximum dose level that was defined as tolerated.||||
91841216|NCT00900627|183563494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 5%|Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox PH test with terms for treatment , prior taxane, hormone receptor status, prior chemotherapy for breast cancer and AZD8931 diagnostic test|The Hazard Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel / Placebo + paclitaxel, ie a hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel|Originally, 166 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 133 progression events, based on HR=0.67, 80% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 6 months for the placebo arm. After 190 patients were randomised, the analysis was agreed to be performed at an similar level of maturity (70%) as originally planned (72%), after approximately 133 events.||1.52|0.76|0.679
91841217|NCT00900627|183563495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.75||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 5%|Logistic Regression|Logistic reg. model with terms for treatment, prior taxane, hormone receptor status, prior chemotherapy for breast cancer and AZD8931 diagnostic test|The odds Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel / Placebo + paclitaxel, ie a odds ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel|Originally, 166 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 133 progression events, based on HR=0.67, 80% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 6 months for the placebo arm. After 190 patients were randomised, the analysis was agreed to be performed at an similar level of maturity (70%) as originally planned (72%), after approximately 133 events.||3.75|1.09|0.026
91841218|NCT00900627|183563496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.01||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 5%|Cox proportional hazard model|Cox PH test with terms for treatment , prior taxane, hormone receptor status, prior chemotherapy for breast cancer|The Hazard Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel / Placebo + paclitaxel, ie a hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel|Originally, 166 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 133 progression events, based on HR=0.67, 80% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 6 months for the placebo arm. After 190 patients were randomised, the analysis was agreed to be performed at an similar level of maturity (70%) as originally planned (72%), after approximately 133 events.||2.01|0.67|0.607
91841219|NCT01474512|183563512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91841220|NCT01474512|183563512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91648156|NCT03125915|183188822|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.11||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who viewed CT videos.|||-0.11|-1.39|0.02
91648157|NCT03125915|183188822|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.49||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.09||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who did not view CT videos.|||0.09|-1.07|0.10
91709124|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.367
91782046|NCT00702715|183443759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the secondary endpoint no equivalence margin was specified (i.e., no formal null-hypothesis was specified); the median difference and associated 95% CI were to further characterize the efficacy of severe renal impaired subjects and controls.|Median Difference (Final Values)|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|103.0|||Hodges-Lehmann and Moses||Estimated median treatment difference (severe renal impairment minus normal renal function) in recovery time (seconds)|||103.0|31.0|
91782047|NCT00689260|183443760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-Value based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test for difference in medians between log aware and log unaware||||0.908
91782048|NCT02563067|183443788|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.69||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.96|0.50|0.059
91782049|NCT02563067|183443788|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||1.01|0.52|0.114
91841221|NCT01474512|183563513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91709125|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.031
91709126|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.009
91782050|NCT02563067|183443789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.32|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.32|-0.02|0.369
91841222|NCT01474512|183563513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91841223|NCT01474512|183563514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable, therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
91841224|NCT01474512|183563514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable, therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
91841225|NCT01474512|183563515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI90.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91841226|NCT01474512|183563515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI90.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91782051|NCT02563067|183443789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.30|-0.04|0.824
91782052|NCT02563067|183443790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.01|-0.36|0.369
91782053|NCT02563067|183443790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.1|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.10|-0.28|0.824
91841227|NCT01474512|183563515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI100.|Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable; therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
91841228|NCT01474512|183563515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI100.|Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable; therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
91841229|NCT01474512|183563516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91841230|NCT01474512|183563516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91841231|NCT01474512|183563517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91841232|NCT01474512|183563517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91898603|NCT02961218|183693282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.85||probability reduction of average pain score in ACZ885 \> Placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Lower limit and upper limit represents the credibility interval from the Bayesian analysis.|||0.85|-1.03|0.55
91898604|NCT02961218|183693284|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.408||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.253|0.658|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.658|0.253|0.002
91782054|NCT02563067|183443791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.068||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.154|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.154|-0.018|0.369
91782055|NCT02563067|183443791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.038||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.124|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.124|-0.048|0.824
91782056|NCT02563067|183443792|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||1.07|0.62|0.369
91782057|NCT02563067|183443792|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||1.00|0.58|0.348
91782058|NCT02563067|183443793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.21|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.21|-0.07|0.824
91782059|NCT02563067|183443793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.26|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.26|-0.02|0.824
91782060|NCT02563067|183443794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.03|-0.28|0.824
91782061|NCT02563067|183443794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.08|-0.23|0.824
91782062|NCT02563067|183443795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.119|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.119|-0.019|0.369
91782063|NCT02563067|183443795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.13|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.130|-0.008|0.595
91782064|NCT00826462|183443820|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||linear generalized estimating equations||||A linear GEE regression model adjusted for the significant covariates at p \< 0.05 from the univariate GEE logistic regression models calculated for success|||<0.01
91782065|NCT00826462|183443820|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||linear generalized estimating equations|||||||<0.01
91782066|NCT00826462|183443824|OTHER||||||||||||||||||linear generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression model adjusted for significant covariates; between groups estimated odds ratio (OR) for no pain on two isometric movements using logistic GEE regression model adjusted for significant covariates; 99 % confidence intervals|||
91790187|NCT02660138|183459524|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|110.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.17|150.98|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||150.98|70.17|<0.0001
91841233|NCT01474512|183563518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91841234|NCT01474512|183563518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91841235|NCT01474512|183563519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91841236|NCT01474512|183563519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91841237|NCT01474512|183563520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91709127|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.873
91709128|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.026
91709129|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.411
91841238|NCT01474512|183563520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91841239|NCT01474512|183563521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91841240|NCT01474512|183563521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91841241|NCT01474512|183563522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for Absenteeism.||||||<0.001
91841242|NCT01474512|183563522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for absenteeism.||||||0.003
91841243|NCT01474512|183563522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for activity impairment.||||||<0.001
91841244|NCT01474512|183563522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for activity impairment.||||||<0.001
91841245|NCT01474512|183563522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for presenteeism.||||||<0.001
91841246|NCT01474512|183563522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for presenteeism.||||||<0.001
91841247|NCT01474512|183563522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for work productively loss.||||||<0.001
91841248|NCT01474512|183563522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for work productively loss.||||||<0.001
91841249|NCT01474512|183563523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model that included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline QIDS value in the model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91841250|NCT01474512|183563523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model that included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline QIDS value in the model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91841251|NCT01474512|183563524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for PCS.||||||<0.001
91841252|NCT01474512|183563524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for PCS.||||||<0.001
91841253|NCT01474512|183563524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for MCS.||||||<0.001
91841254|NCT01474512|183563524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for MCS.||||||<0.001
91841255|NCT01474512|183563525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91648158|NCT03125915|183188822|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.15||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.47||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who completed SUM.|||0.47|-0.77|0.63
91841256|NCT01474512|183563525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91841257|NCT01474512|183563526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI50.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91841258|NCT01474512|183563526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI50.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91841259|NCT01474512|183563526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI75|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91841260|NCT01474512|183563526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI75|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91841261|NCT01474512|183563526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI100|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91841262|NCT01474512|183563526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value if for PPASI100.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91648159|NCT03125915|183188822|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.41||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.2||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.20|-1.01|0.19
91841263|NCT01089556|183563541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences (Final Values)|-0.192||||0.37||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.370
91841264|NCT01089556|183563542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences (Final Values)|-0.614|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91841265|NCT01089556|183563543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.991||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.991
91841266|NCT01089556|183563544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.431|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.233|1.662|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.662|1.233|<0.001
91841267|NCT01089556|183563545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.052||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.253|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.253|0.884|0.565
91841268|NCT01089556|183563546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.467|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.214|1.771|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.771|1.214|<0.001
91841269|NCT01089556|183563547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.233||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.550|0.980|0.068
91841270|NCT01089556|183563548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.125|1.456|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.456|1.125|<0.001
91841271|NCT01089556|183563549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.985||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.151|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.151|0.842|0.843
91841272|NCT01089556|183563550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.341|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91841273|NCT01089556|183563551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073||||0.475||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.475
91841274|NCT01089556|183563552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.758|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91841275|NCT01089556|183563553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.933||||0.289||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.289
91841276|NCT01089556|183563554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.071||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.071
91841277|NCT01089556|183563555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193||||0.78||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.780
91841278|NCT01089556|183563556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558||||0.008||95.0||||P-value is for anxiety subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91841279|NCT01089556|183563556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.423||||0.031||95.0||||p-value is for depression subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
91841280|NCT01089556|183563557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.615||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is for anxiety subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.049
91841281|NCT01089556|183563557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378||||0.198||95.0||||P-value is for depression subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
91841282|NCT01089556|183563562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.343|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91841283|NCT01089556|183563563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.095||||0.385||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
91841284|NCT01089556|183563564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for systolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.064
91841285|NCT01089556|183563564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135||||0.843||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.843
91841286|NCT01089556|183563565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.329||||0.354||95.0||||P-value is for systolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.354
91648160|NCT03125915|183188822|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.15||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who completed the CT video.|||-0.15|-1.13|0.01
91841287|NCT01089556|183563565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.997||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.997
91841288|NCT01089556|183563566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.317|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91841289|NCT01089556|183563567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.942||||0.332||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.332
91841290|NCT01089556|183563568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.618
91841291|NCT01089556|183563569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.571
91841292|NCT01089556|183563570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.744
91841293|NCT01089556|183563571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91841294|NCT01027364|183563628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.24||A hierarchical approach was applied to the comparison of the annualized bleeding rates between the prophylaxis arms and the episodic arm.|negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is no difference between any prevention regimen and the on-demand regimen. The sample size of this study was mainly based on clinical rather than statistical considerations. However it was projected to have \> 95% power at the 2-sided 0.05 level of significance, based upon this hypothesis test.||0.24|0.11|<0.001
91841295|NCT01027364|183563628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||A hierarchical approach was applied to the comparison of the annualized bleeding rates between the prophylaxis arms and the episodic arm.|negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is no difference between any prevention regimen and the on-demand regimen. The sample size of this study was mainly based on clinical rather than statistical considerations.||0.20|0.08|<0.001
91841296|NCT02500979|183563643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-5.2|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||-5.2|-37.8|0.0118
91841297|NCT02500979|183563644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (pramlintide-placebo)|-7.897||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.356|-3.438|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-3.438|-12.356|0.0013
91841298|NCT02500979|183563645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (pramlintide-placebo)|-5.277||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.175|-1.378|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-1.378|-9.175|0.0091
91841299|NCT02500979|183563646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (pramlintide-placebo)|-4.435||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.445|-1.424|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-1.424|-7.445|0.0057
91841300|NCT02500979|183563647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-28733.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4163.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37326.0|-20139.0|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||-20139|-37326|<0.0001
91841301|NCT02500979|183563648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-28.418||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.099|-3.737|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||-3.737|-53.099|0.0258
91841302|NCT02500979|183563650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio (Pramlintide/Placebo)|1.31||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.7|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.70|1.01|0.0456
91841303|NCT02500979|183563651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio (pramlintide/placebo)|0.951||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.011|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.011|0.896|0.1015
91841304|NCT02500979|183563653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio (pramlintide/placebo)|1.085||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.307|||Linear mixed effects model|||||1.307|0.901|0.3730
91841305|NCT00267111|183563658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v12, USA). Pain scores were compared between groups by means of the Student t-test. A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that topical amethocaine gel 4% would reduce the pain from IM injection. The sample size was based on the pain scores obtained from a previous study that compared pain response during IM injection. To achieve a clinically significant reduction in pain scores by 20% between groups with 80% power and an alpha value of \< 0.05, we estimated sample size of 49 neonates in each group. A total of 110 neonates were enrolled to account for possible dropouts and missing data.||||< 0.05
91841306|NCT00267111|183563659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v12, USA). Pain scores were compared between groups by means of the Student t-test. A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that parents and nurses will report lower pain scores as assessed by visual analogue scale in topical amethocaine gel 4% compared to placebo group. This was a secondary outcome and no power calculation was performed.||||<0.05
91841307|NCT01613027|183563671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in change at Month 6||||<0.001
91841308|NCT01613027|183563671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in change at Month 12||||<0.001
91841309|NCT02354963|183563687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.302
91841310|NCT02354963|183563688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.449
91841311|NCT02354963|183563689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91841312|NCT02354963|183563690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.427
91841313|NCT02354963|183563691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.496
91841314|NCT02354963|183563692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.68|||Chi-squared|||||3.68|0.13|0.684
91841315|NCT02354963|183563693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.480
91841316|NCT02354963|183563694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.236
91841317|NCT02354963|183563695|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.68|||Chi-squared|||||3.68|0.13|0.684
91841318|NCT02354963|183563696|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.36||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.05|||Chi-squared|||||3.05|0.04|0.512
91841319|NCT04267614|183563697|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91841320|NCT04267614|183563698|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91841321|NCT04267614|183563699|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91841322|NCT04267614|183563700|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91841323|NCT00119262|183563713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91841324|NCT00119262|183563714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.32
91841325|NCT00305864|183563753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Log Rank|One-sided||A one-sided one-sample log-rank test at significance level of 0.10 was predicted to have 85% power to detect a survival difference against the historical control (13.7 vs. 18.5 months) with 60 deaths.||||0.27
91841326|NCT03881059|183563755|SUPERIORITY||Slope Coefficient of Dose|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.17|0.05|<0.001
91841327|NCT02743793|183563791|OTHER|No test was performed.|Kaplan-Meier survival estimate|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|87.9|||||Percent of participants that remained tolerant during study participation.|||87.9|21.3|
91841328|NCT02065570|183563795|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|0.3||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.8||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||8.8|-8.1|0.939
91841329|NCT02065570|183563796|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.2||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.7||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.7|-5.3|0.462
91841330|NCT02065570|183563798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.6||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.8||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||12.8|-3.6|0.269
91841331|NCT02065570|183563799|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.7||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||8.7|-5.1|0.610
91841332|NCT02065570|183563800|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|11.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|19.6||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||19.6|2.9|0.008
91841333|NCT02065570|183563801|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|6.0||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|18.2||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||18.2|-6.2|0.336
91841334|NCT02065570|183563802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.5||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.1||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||9.1|-6.1|0.694
91841335|NCT02065570|183563803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.8||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.3|205.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||205.9|-192.3|0.946
91841336|NCT02065570|183563804|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.0||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.5||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.5|-3.5|0.293
91841337|NCT02065570|183563805|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.0||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||8.6|-2.7|0.304
91841338|NCT02065570|183563806|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|9.1||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||9.1|-0.7|0.092
91841339|NCT02065570|183563807|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.6||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|10.2||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||10.2|-2.9|0.278
91841340|NCT02065570|183563808|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.7||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.5||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.5|-4.1|0.353
91841341|NCT02065570|183563809|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|16.0||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||16.0|1.8|0.015
91841342|NCT02065570|183563810|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.4||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|11.1||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.1|-4.4|0.394
91841343|NCT02065570|183563811|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.6||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.2||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose)|||11.2|-4.0|0.349
91841344|NCT02065570|183563812|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|15.3||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose)|||15.3|-0.1|0.054
91841345|NCT02733042|183563824|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The safety review committee identified a preliminary recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) for each dose finding cohort based on an integrated assessment of the safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and preliminary efficacy (as available).|For Arm B, ibrutinib 420 mg was confirmed as the RP2D for CLL/SLL participants and ibrutinib 560 mg was confirmed as the RP2D for MCL participants.|||
91648161|NCT03125915|183188822|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.49||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.12||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effects of SUM among those who did not complete CT video.|||0.12|-1.11|0.12
91841346|NCT02733042|183563824|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The safety review committee identified a preliminary recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) for each dose finding cohort based on an integrated assessment of the safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and preliminary efficacy (as available).|For Arm C the RP2D was confirmed as rituximab 375 mg/m² + bendamustine 70 mg/m².|||
91841347|NCT01088529|183563852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.432||||0.2148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.859|2.386|||Chi-squared|||||2.386|0.859|0.2148
91841348|NCT01088529|183563853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.477||||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.205|1.109|||Fisher Exact|||||1.109|0.205|0.1796
91841349|NCT01088529|183563854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|6.523|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.701|15.753|||Chi-squared|||||15.753|2.701|<0.0001
91841350|NCT00337662|183563894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Between-group p-values for each baseline to post-baseline visit were the same, p\<0.001.|Mixed Effects Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91648162|NCT03125915|183188822|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.34||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.21||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who completed SUM.|||0.21|-0.89|0.23
91648163|NCT03125915|183188822|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.19||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.38||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.38|-0.76|0.51
91648164|NCT03125915|183188822|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.79||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.27||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effects of SUM among those who viewed CT videos.|||-0.27|-1.32|0.003
91841351|NCT00337662|183563895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 3 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.266
91841352|NCT00337662|183563895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 4 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.884
91841353|NCT00337662|183563895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 6 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.151
91841354|NCT00337662|183563895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 8 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.216
91841355|NCT00337662|183563895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 12 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.020
91841356|NCT00337662|183563896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91841357|NCT00337662|183563897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.604
91841358|NCT00337662|183563898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91841359|NCT00337662|183563899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.745
91841360|NCT00337662|183563900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.474
91898605|NCT02961218|183693285|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.657|0.862|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.862|0.657|<.001
91841361|NCT00337662|183563901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
91841362|NCT00337662|183563901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.125
91898606|NCT02961218|183693286|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.682||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.547|0.849|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.849|0.547|0.004
91648165|NCT03125915|183188822|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.25||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.46||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who did not view the CT video.|||0.46|-0.96|0.49
91648166|NCT03125915|183188822|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.53||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.11||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who completed SUM.|||0.11|-1.16|0.10
91648167|NCT03125915|183188822|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.64||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.64|-0.60|0.96
91841363|NCT00337662|183563902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||All comparisons between EO-RIS and NEO-RIS and between NEO-RIS and NEO-OLZ had p-values greater than 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91709130|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.787
91841364|NCT00337662|183563903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||95.0|||||ANOVA|p-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.355
91841365|NCT00337662|183563903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||95.0|||||ANOVA|p-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.244
91841366|NCT00337662|183563904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.998
91841367|NCT00337662|183563904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.505
91841368|NCT00337662|183563905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.266
91841369|NCT00337662|183563905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.015
91898607|NCT02961218|183693287|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.718||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.556|0.925|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.925|0.556|0.032
91648168|NCT02176642|183188838|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that women in the placebo group would have mean reduction of 3 UUI episodes per day. Assuming 50% improvement in UUI episodes per day is a clinically significant improvement, we estimated the experimental group would have a mean reduction of 4.5 UUI episodes per day with a SD of 1.5 UUI episodes per day. To detect such a difference with 80% power and alpha 0.05, we would need 88 participants for our analysis. To allow for a 12% dropout rate, our goal was to enroll 100 women.||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91648169|NCT02176642|183188839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
91841370|NCT00337662|183563906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.140
91841371|NCT00337662|183563906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.181
91841372|NCT00337662|183563907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.254
91841373|NCT00337662|183563907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.||||||0.299
91841374|NCT00337662|183563908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.291
91841375|NCT00337662|183563908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.259
91841376|NCT00337662|183563909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.209
91648170|NCT02176642|183188840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91841377|NCT00337662|183563909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.411
91841378|NCT00337662|183563910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.544
91648171|NCT02176642|183188841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91648172|NCT02176642|183188842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91648173|NCT02176642|183188843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91648174|NCT02176642|183188844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91841379|NCT00337662|183563910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.386
91841380|NCT00337662|183563911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.026
91841381|NCT00337662|183563911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.143
91841382|NCT00882921|183563912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.873||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|11.296|||Negative Binomial Model|||The groups compared are Ab+ vs Ab-||11.296|0.731|0.1309
91841383|NCT00882921|183563912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.082||||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|7.706|||Negative Binomial Model|||The groups compared are Ab+ (age adjusted) vs Ab- (age adjusted)||7.706|0.563|0.2718
91841384|NCT03662360|183563914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Mann-Whitney test has been used to evaluate the statistical significance of the difference between the variations in scores (T3 - T1) regarding the two interest groups of patients (control and treated).||||<0.001
91841385|NCT03662360|183563915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Mann-Whitney test has been used to evaluate the statistical significance of the difference between the variations scores in T3 and T1, concerning the distress of the professional caregivers in the two intereste groups of patients||||<0.01
91841386|NCT03677128|183563931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91841387|NCT03677128|183563931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91841388|NCT04834362|183563946|OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.677
91841389|NCT04834362|183563947|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
91841390|NCT04834362|183563948|OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
91841391|NCT04834362|183563949|OTHER|||||||0.729|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.729
91841392|NCT06017999|183563956|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) difference|-153.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.8|-132.91|||ANCOVA|||||-132.91|-173.80|<0.0001
91841393|NCT06017999|183563957|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) difference|-131.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.13|-110.16|||ANCOVA|||||-110.16|-153.13|<0.0001
91851672|NCT01184508|183586906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.89||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|10.58||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MSQ emotional function score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: investigator (pooled site), treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit, baseline and baseline\*visit.||||10.58|-6.81|0.720
91648175|NCT02176642|183188845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91648176|NCT02176642|183188846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
91648177|NCT00295620|183188851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.11|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of a DFS event||1.11|0.79|0.425
91648178|NCT00295620|183188852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of a death event||1.25|0.83|0.867
91648179|NCT00295620|183188853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.84|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of a fracture||1.84|1.00|0.052
91648180|NCT00295620|183188854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of the occurrence of secondary carcinoma||1.38|0.81|0.678
91648181|NCT00295620|183188855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.77|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 years Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of the occurrence of contralateral mammacarcinoma||1.77|0.75|0.531
91648182|NCT01625286|183188874|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD5363|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.06||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox PH model including treatment and PIK3CA status as factors/covariates||||1.06|0.60|0.308
91782067|NCT00337675|183443847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate reduction|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.51||95.0|-11.4|19.6||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens was addressed through step-down testing. Daily montelukast versus placebo was tested first; if this comparison was significant, intermittent montelukast versus placebo was tested. The significance level was 5%.|Regression, Poisson|A Poisson regression model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographic region, and an offset for number of days in study was used.|Rate reduction = (1 - montelukast-adjusted annual rate/placebo-adjusted annual rate) x 100%|The primary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in a decrease in the number of asthma episodes culminating in asthma attack in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year. A sample size of 450 evaluable patients per arm allowed the detection of a difference in rate of 23% with 90% power.||19.6|-11.4|0.510
91851673|NCT01184508|183586907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.25||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.8||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MIBS-4 overall weighted score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment group, and baseline.||||0.80|-1.30|0.688
91648183|NCT01625286|183188875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.1|-0.8||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-17.1|0.081
91648184|NCT01625286|183188881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.93|2.54||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|including treatment and PIK3CA status as factors/covariates||||2.54|0.93|0.139
91648185|NCT01625286|183188882|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD5363|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|1.24||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Cox PH model including treatment and PIK3CA status as factors/covariates||||1.24|0.48|0.482
91648186|NCT04523831|183188885|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.53|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.96|||Regression, Linear|||||0.96|0.30|<0.03
91648187|NCT04523831|183188886|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.51|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.80|0.32|<0.004
91648188|NCT04523831|183188887|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.45|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.85|0.23|<0.013
91648189|NCT04523831|183188888|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.81|0.44|<0.001
91648190|NCT01963676|183188902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment because we just performed one comparison|t-test, 2 sided|Difference from Day 5 to Baseline was compared between the sham and the tDCS group using an unpaired t-test. Degrees of freedom: df = 24||"The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the AHRS score from baseline to 5 days between the groups:~H0: μ1 = μ2 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=13) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=13)"||||0.48
91851674|NCT01184508|183586909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants using breakthrough medication at Month 3.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.607
91648191|NCT01963676|183188903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment because we just performed one comparison|t-test, 2 sided|Difference from 1 Month to Baseline was compared between the sham and the tDCS group using an unpaired t-test. Degrees of freedom: df = 24||"The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the AHRS score changes from baseline to 1month between the groups:~H0: μ1 = μ2 μ1: mean(difference 1 month-baseline) for tDCS group (n=13) μ2: mean(difference 1 month-baseline) for sham group (n=13)"||||0.86
91648192|NCT00409188|183188939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.893||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.044|||Regression, Cox|||||1.044|0.763|0.1566
91648193|NCT00409188|183188940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.977|||Regression, Cox|||||0.977|0.732|0.0226
91648194|NCT00409188|183188941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.002|||Regression, Cox|||||1.002|0.752|0.0528
91648195|NCT01681771|183188994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis comparing PHQ-9 mean values at 9 weeks follow-up between the I-CBT and discussion group and adjusting for PHQ-9 values baseline||||||0.21
91709131|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.306
91709132|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.921
91898608|NCT02961218|183693294|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|3.4|||Generalized Linear Model (GLM)|||||3.40|0.58|0.455
91898609|NCT00602667|183693304|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|21.23||||||The historical control included 10 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as intermediate risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||21.23|1.17|
91898610|NCT00602667|183693304|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.84||||||The historical control included 14 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as high risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||1.84|0.40|
91709133|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
91782068|NCT00337675|183443847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate reduction|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.884||95.0|-19.2|14.0||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens was addressed through step-down testing. Daily montelukast versus placebo was tested first; if this comparison was significant, intermittent montelukast versus placebo was tested. The significance level was 5%.|Regression, Poisson|A Poisson regression model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographic region, and an offset for number of days in study was used.|Rate reduction = (1 - montelukast-adjusted annual rate/placebo-adjusted annual rate) x 100%|The primary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in a decrease in the number of asthma episodes culminating in asthma attack in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year. A sample size of 450 evaluable patients per arm allowed the detection of a difference in rate of 23% with 90% power.||14.0|-19.2|0.884
91782069|NCT00337675|183443848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.176||95.0|-0.46|0.09||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the 2 endpoints assessing severity, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.09|-0.46|0.176
91782070|NCT00337675|183443848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.202||95.0|-0.44|0.09||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the 2 endpoints assessing severity, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.09|-0.44|0.202
91782071|NCT00337675|183443849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.045||95.0|-0.24|0.0||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the family of secondary endpoints, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.00|-0.24|0.045
91782072|NCT00337675|183443849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.061||95.0|-0.23|0.0||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the family of secondary endpoints, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.00|-0.23|0.061
91782073|NCT02015637|183443850|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Wald test was constructed for comparisons between delafloxacin and ceftriaxone. A hierarchical approach was implemented for the primary and secondary analyses to control for the overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 due to multiple comparisons.|Difference in cure rate|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|1.36||||||||1.36|-13.18|
91782074|NCT02015637|183443851|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Wald test was constructed for comparisons between delafloxacin and ceftriaxone. A hierarchical approach was implemented for the primary and secondary analyses to control for the overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 due to multiple comparisons.|Difference in cure rates|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|-3.87||||||||-3.87|-16.03|
91782075|NCT01317277|183443857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||In between-group analyses, overall MEMS adherence was defined as % of doses taken.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric methods.||Randomization strategy for target 75 participants of 2:1 \[iTAB(n=50):CTRL(n=25)\], resulting in 80% power to detect effect size of .71 for difference of adherence rates between groups (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney critical t=1.99, df=69.6). Final # analyzed: iTAB (n=43) \& CTRL (n=23).||||0.68
91898611|NCT00602667|183693305|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|8.22||||||The historical control included 10 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as intermediate risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||8.22|0.42|
91898612|NCT00602667|183693305|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.79||||||The historical control included 14 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as high risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||1.79|0.31|
91709134|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
91841394|NCT01702428|183563988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.58|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration ≥200 mIU/mL.||0.58|-1.69|
91648196|NCT00265083|183188995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant (p-value \<0.05), and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant (p-value \<0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ASAS 20 response comparing Groups I vs II and Groups I vs III. The sample size of 75 patients (pts) in placebo and 135 pts per active group will provide \>=99% power to detect a difference in ASAS 20 response between treatment groups at alpha=0.05, assuming 50% of pts with screening CRP\<1.5mg/dL, and the difference in ASAS 20 response of 10-27.5% in pts with screening CRP\<1.5mg/dL and 32.5-45% in pts with screening CRP\>=1.5mg/dL, between Groups I vs II or III.||||<0.001
91648197|NCT00265083|183188995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||||||<0.001
91648198|NCT00265083|183188995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||||||<0.001
91648199|NCT00265083|183188996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant (p-value \<0.05), and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant (p-value \<0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ASAS 20 response comparing Groups I vs. II and Groups I vs. III.||||<0.001
91648200|NCT00265083|183188996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: no difference in ASAS 20 response between Group II and Group I.||||<0.001
91648201|NCT00265083|183188996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: no difference in ASAS 20 response between Group III and Group I.||||<0.001
91648202|NCT00265083|183188997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant (p-value \<0.05), and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant (p-value \<0.05).|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in BASFI comparing Groups I vs. II and Groups I vs. III.||||<0.001
91648203|NCT00265083|183188997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASFI between Group II and Group I.||||<0.001
91898613|NCT04647526|183693416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.55|0.0088
91648204|NCT00265083|183188997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASFI between Group III and Group I.||||<0.001
91648205|NCT00265083|183188998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||95.0||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant at the 0.05, and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant at the 0.05.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in BASMI comparing Groups I vs. II and Groups I vs. III.||||0.288
91648206|NCT00265083|183188998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASMI between Group II and Group I.||||0.444
91782076|NCT01317277|183443858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||MEMS adherence based on dose timing was examined for between-group differences.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric methods||Randomization strategy for target 75 participants of 2:1 \[iTAB(n=50):CTRL(n=25)\], resulting in 80% power to detect effect size of .71 for difference of adherence rates between groups (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney critical t=1.99, df=69.6). Final # analyzed: iTAB (n=43) \& CTRL (n=23).||||0.95
91782077|NCT01317277|183443859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Z = -1.97|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric methods; P-Value is calculated.||Text-reported METH use days||||0.05
91782078|NCT02688777|183443860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91648207|NCT00265083|183188998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASMI between Group III and Group I.||||0.247
91782079|NCT02688777|183443861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91782080|NCT02688777|183443862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold set for p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91782081|NCT02688777|183443863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold p \< 0.05 for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91782082|NCT02688777|183443864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91782083|NCT02688777|183443865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold set at p \< 0.05 for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91782084|NCT02688777|183443866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||A prior threshold for significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91648208|NCT03154333|183189009|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Log transformation normalized the Risk Ratio (RR) estimates; the Standard Error (SE) of the estimate was obtained from confidence limits for the RR.||||1.62|0.63|0.9666
91782085|NCT02688777|183443867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91648209|NCT03154333|183189010|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Log transformation normalized the Risk Ratio (RR) estimates; the Standard Error (SE) of the estimate was obtained from confidence limits for the RR.||||3.28|0.41|0.2861
91648210|NCT01872689|183189058|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.98111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31064||0.4555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||3.57|-1.61|0.4555
91782086|NCT02688777|183443868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91782087|NCT02688777|183443869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91782088|NCT02688777|183443870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91782089|NCT02688777|183443871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91782090|NCT02688777|183443872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91648211|NCT01872689|183189058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84946||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.17|-1.17|0.5566
91648212|NCT01872689|183189059|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|21.93023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.62248||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|64.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||64.83|-20.97|0.3129
91898614|NCT03816891|183693422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.82|-1.6||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-40.82|0.0347
91648213|NCT01872689|183189059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.8016||0.2036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|11.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||11.67|-54.50|0.2036
91782091|NCT02549365|183443873|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.9|||||Incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza is compared between those vaccinated and household controls. VE will be calculated as 1 - RR with 95% confidence intervals using Poisson regression.|||13.9|0.6|
91648214|NCT01872689|183189061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.41|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.41|0.44|0.4299
91782092|NCT00912795|183443876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.3||||||||6.3|0.62|
91782093|NCT00912795|183443877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.2||||||||3.2|0.50|
91782094|NCT00912795|183443878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.5||||||||7.5|0.81|
91782095|NCT00912795|183443879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.3||||||||6.3|.62|
91782096|NCT00473382|183443886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|30.2||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||30.2|11.4|<0.0001
91782097|NCT00473382|183443886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|42.8||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||42.8|23.8|<0.0001
91648215|NCT01872689|183189061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.24|0.56|0.3751
91782098|NCT00473382|183443887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|11.5||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||11.5|5.4|<0.0001
91898615|NCT03816891|183693422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-28.5||Estimated from ANCOVA model with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-28.5|-54.9|<0.0001
91648216|NCT01872689|183189062|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.54171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05201||0.6075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.62|-1.54|0.6075
91709135|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.555
91648217|NCT01872689|183189062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65206||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||1.47|-1.10|0.7803
91648218|NCT01872689|183189064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.09|0.39|0.0972
91782099|NCT00473382|183443887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|13.3||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||13.3|6.4|<0.0001
91648219|NCT01872689|183189064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.42|0.72|0.9344
91648220|NCT01872689|183189065|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|28.12302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.47253||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.8|126.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = Lebrikizumab - Placebo|Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||126.04|-69.80|0.5707
91709136|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.058
91648221|NCT01872689|183189065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.72972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.68767||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.65|84.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = Lebrikizumab - Placebo|Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||84.11|-40.65|0.4934
91898616|NCT03816891|183693422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|23.3||Estimated from ANCOVA model with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||23.3|-49.6|<0.0001
91841395|NCT01702428|183563988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.98|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration ≥200 mIU/mL.||1.98|-0.35|
91841396|NCT01702428|183563988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.5|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration ≥200 mIU/mL.||1.50|-0.98|
91898617|NCT03816891|183693422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA model with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-5.3|-31.6|0.0061
91898618|NCT03816891|183693423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.44||Calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.44|0.81|0.1093
91898619|NCT03816891|183693424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-1.9||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||||-1.90|-41.62|0.0325
91898620|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.85|0.75||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.75|-22.85|0.0657
91898621|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.48|0.56||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.56|-27.48|0.0595
91898622|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.55|-0.33||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.33|-30.55|0.0455
91898623|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.11|-1.93||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-1.93|-37.11|0.0305
91898624|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.69|-0.38||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.38|-36.69|0.0456
91898625|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.06|-2.88||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-2.88|-38.06|0.0236
91898626|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.45|-1.15||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-1.15|-40.45|0.0385
91898627|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.82|-1.6||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-1.60|-40.82|0.0347
91898628|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.06|1.44||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||1.44|-36.06|0.0694
91898629|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.93||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.08|0.9||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||0.90|-35.08|0.0621
91898630|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|8.37||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||8.37|-30.0|0.2619
91898631|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|4.5||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.50|-32.48|0.1344
91898632|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.71|0.27||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||0.27|-36.71|0.0533
91898633|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.82|-1.74||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-1.74|-40.82|0.0335
91898634|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.58|0.31||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||0.31|-38.58|0.0536
91898635|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.11|-1.03||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-1.03|-37.11|0.0388
91648222|NCT01872689|183189066|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.10204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41325||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.68|-6.88|0.3854
91648223|NCT01872689|183189066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37698||0.9057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.55|-2.87|0.9057
91648224|NCT01872689|183189068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.31|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.31|0.54|0.4433
91790188|NCT00308581|183459527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.696||95.0|0.7|1.7||Logistic regression model including terms for treatment arm and geographical region (North America versus Europe).|Regression, Logistic||Direction of comparison is Q4W regimen (active 1) versus Q2W regimen (active 2).|With a sample size of 165 patients per treatment arm, assuming a percentage of responders of 45% with the Q4W regimen, the study had 80% power to show a statistically significant difference in percentage of responders at Week 26 between the two treatment groups, when there is a true difference of 16% in percentage of responders in favor of the Q2W regimen, and using a 2-sided chi-square at the 5% significance level.||1.7|0.7|0.696
91648225|NCT01872689|183189070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.3|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||5.30|0.21|0.9366
91841397|NCT01702428|183563989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.06|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.06|0.91|
91648226|NCT01872689|183189070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.31|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.31|0.16|0.1346
91648227|NCT01872689|183189072|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.54|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.54|0.52|0.6815
91648228|NCT01872689|183189074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.5685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.26|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||2.26|0.23|0.5685
91648229|NCT01872689|183189074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.23|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.23|0.37|0.1976
91709137|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.166
91648230|NCT01042977|183189106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0489|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate for each endpoint|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.30|-0.50|<0.0001
91648231|NCT01042977|183189107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|9.8||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|with age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event as stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||9.8|4.3|<0.0001
91648232|NCT01042977|183189108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1957|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.54||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.54|-2.31|<0.0001
91648233|NCT01042977|183189109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.149|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|17.8||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline total body weight and age stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||17.8|9.4|<0.0001
91648234|NCT01042977|183189110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7977||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-1.15||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.15|-4.28|0.0007
91648235|NCT01042977|183189111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7983||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.46||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.46|-4.59|0.0002
91648236|NCT01042977|183189112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9746||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-1.53||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.53|-5.35|0.0004
91648237|NCT02499354|183189113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2742|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2742
91648238|NCT02499354|183189114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
91648239|NCT01677910|183189120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.283|-0.337|||Wilcoxon rank sum||Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo|Primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the urinary 5-HIAA stratification at randomization.||-0.337|-1.283|< 0.001
91790189|NCT00899353|183459592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||11.2|-5.0|0.78
91648240|NCT01677910|183189120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.833|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.292|-0.374|||Wilcoxon rank sum||Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo|Primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the urinary 5-HIAA stratification at randomization.||-0.374|-1.292|< 0.001
91648241|NCT04132232|183189140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91648242|NCT00755937|183189141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|66.3||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
91648243|NCT00755937|183189142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage (no inferential test)|72.5||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
91648244|NCT00755937|183189143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|72.1||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
91648245|NCT00755937|183189144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|60.3||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
91648246|NCT00755937|183189145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|64.8||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
91648247|NCT00755937|183189146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|72.1||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
91648248|NCT03547531|183189154|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test||Null hypothesis: the mean of plaque index between groups are not different|the statistical analysis used in this study is independent t-test|||>0.05
91648249|NCT03547531|183189155|OTHER|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypotesis: there is no difference of mean of gingival index between groups|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||>0.05
91648250|NCT03547531|183189156|OTHER|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypotesis: there is no difference of mean of plaque index between groups|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||<0.05
91648251|NCT03547531|183189157|OTHER|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypotesis: there is no difference of mean of gingival index between groups|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||<0.05
91648252|NCT02117479|183189165|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.256||||||||1.256|0.747|
91648253|NCT02117479|183189166|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.348||||||||1.348|0.827|
91709138|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.288
91648254|NCT01223196|183189200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in M/I. Statistical Analysis applies to (M/I) between Pioglitazone and Placebo after 6 months.||Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in whole body insulin sensitivity (M/I) between groups. Treatment-induced changes were examined by Wilcoxon's rank test. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences 20), Chicago, IL, USA).||||0.04
91648255|NCT01223196|183189200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in whole body insulin sensitivity (M/I) between groups.||||||0.05
91782100|NCT00473382|183443888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|21.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|31.9||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||31.9|10.8|0.0002
91790190|NCT00899353|183459592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.7|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||10.7|-4.6|0.75
91790191|NCT00899353|183459592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.7|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||13.7|-0.6|0.08
91648256|NCT01223196|183189201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in TACE activity in skeletal muscle between groups.||Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in TACE activity in skeletal muscle between groups. Treatment-induced changes were examined by Wilcoxon's rank test. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA).||||<0.05
91709139|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.299
91648257|NCT01223196|183189201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical Analysis applies toTNF (Tumor Necrosis Factor) alpha converting enzyme (TACE) activity between Pioglitazone and Placebo after 6 months.||Statistical analysis 2 also used 2-sided t-test similar to Statistical analysis -1||||<0.05
91782101|NCT00473382|183443888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|37.9||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||37.9|16.4|<0.0001
91790192|NCT00899353|183459592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||13.2|-1.6|0.17
91709140|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.051
91782102|NCT00473382|183443889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|7.1||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||12.6|1.7|0.0119
91782103|NCT00473382|183443889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|4.5||||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||10.1|-1.2|0.1384
91709141|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.186
91648258|NCT01223196|183189202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in Heamoglobin A1c between groups.||Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences Haemoglobin A1C between groups. Treatment-induced changes were examined by Wilcoxon's rank test. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA).||||<0.05
91648259|NCT02629133|183189203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.560
91782104|NCT00473382|183443890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||14.6|2.0|0.0102
91782105|NCT00473382|183443890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|17.3||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||17.3|5.1|0.0005
91648260|NCT02629133|183189203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Differences between conditions in the change in % heavy drinking/using days from baseline to 6 months||||0.760
91648261|NCT02629133|183189204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
91648262|NCT02629133|183189204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Distributions were badly skewed, and the sample was too small for ZINB or other analyses. Therefore, we analyzed differences between conditions in changes in services/day over time (i.e., from baseline to 6 month post-shelter follow-up) using the Mann-Whitney U.||||0.029
91648263|NCT02629133|183189205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|13.5||We used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to predict 3-mo and 6-mo post-shelter scores from treatment condition, using baseline score as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.5|-4.5|0.325
91648264|NCT02629133|183189206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.98||We used HLM to predict Cyber-Stalking Scores across 3 and 6 month post shelter follow-up points from treatment condition, using baseline score as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Higher scores represent more cyber-stalking over follow-up.|||2.98|-0.61|0.192
91648265|NCT02629133|183189207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.38||We conducted HLM predicting SBC Total scores at 3 and 6 months post-shelter release from treatment condition, using baseline SBC score as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Higher is better (reflecting more safety behaviors used).|||0.38|-3.24|0.119
91648266|NCT02572427|183189214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91648267|NCT02572427|183189215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91648268|NCT00386100|183189234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|-0.305||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, gender, and baseline value with LOCF from Week 32 for withdrawn participants or missing values|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.305|-0.669|<0.0001
91648269|NCT00386100|183189235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with terms for baseline, region, treatment, gender, time, and treatment by time interaction|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on repeated measures analysis model|||-0.30|-0.69|<0.0001
91648270|NCT00386100|183189236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.46||Hb1AC \<= 6.5%|Regression, Logistic|Logistic reggression with terms for treatment, region, gender, and baseline Hb1AC with LOCF from Week 32.|Odds of having an HbA1c \<= 6.5% at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin.|||2.46|1.18|0.0046
91648271|NCT00386100|183189236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.81||Hb1AC \< 7%|Regression, Logistic|Logistic reggression with terms for treatment, region, gender, and baseline Hb1AC with LOCF from Week 32|Odds of having an HbA1c \<7% at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin|||3.81|1.75|<0.0001
91841398|NCT01702428|183563989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.05|0.90|
91648272|NCT00386100|183189237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.54|-0.77|||Repeated measures analysis|Terms for baseline, region, treatment, pre-screening Hb1Ac strata, gender, time, and treatment by time interaction|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on repeated measures analysis model|||-0.77|-1.54|<0.0001
91648273|NCT00386100|183189238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.425|-0.71||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening Hb1Ac strata, and baseline with LOCF from Week 32 for withdrawn participants or missing values|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.710|-1.425|<0.001
91648274|NCT00386100|183189239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|6.81||FPG \<=6.1 mmol/l|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening Hb1Ac strata, and baseline with LOCF from Week 32.|Odds of having an FPG \<=6.1 mmol/l at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin|||6.81|2.94|<0.0001
91648275|NCT00386100|183189239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.92||FPG \<=7 mmol/l|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening Hb1Ac, and baseline with LOCF from Week 32.|Odds of having an FPG \<=7 mmol/l at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin|||4.92|2.25|<0.0001
91648276|NCT00386100|183189240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.74|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard regression with terms for treatment, region, baseline Hb1Ac strata, and gender||||0.74|0.45|<0.0001
91648277|NCT00386100|183189241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|5.97||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.522|9.526||Total cholesterol. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||9.526|2.522|0.0006
91648278|NCT00386100|183189241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|8.71||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.486|15.304||LDL cholesterol. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||15.304|2.486|0.056
91648279|NCT00386100|183189241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|2.58||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|5.47||HDL cholesterol. No adjustment for multiple comparison. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||5.470|-0.232|0.072
91648280|NCT00386100|183189241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.743||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.056|8.035||Triglycerides. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||8.035|-6.056|0.835
91709142|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.555
91841399|NCT01702428|183563989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.09|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.09|0.94|
91648281|NCT00386100|183189242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|102.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.23|128.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||128.19|79.23|<0.0001
91782106|NCT00473382|183443891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-111.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.6|-72.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-72.0|-151.6|<0.0001
91782107|NCT00473382|183443891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-132.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.7|-94.8||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-94.8|-169.7|<0.0001
91782108|NCT00473382|183443892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-4.3||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|0.8||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||0.8|-9.3|0.0853
91790193|NCT00899353|183459592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|17.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||17.2|-6.5|0.61
91709143|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.065
91898636|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.92||0.5181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.94|22.95||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||22.95|-43.94|0.5181
91782109|NCT00473382|183443892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-5.8||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-1.7|-9.8|0.0073
91790194|NCT00899353|183459592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|16.8|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||16.8|-4.1|0.32
91648282|NCT00386100|183189243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-8.2||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|2.82||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||2.82|-18.04|0.1380
91648283|NCT00386100|183189244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-11.308||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.617|-0.899||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||-0.899|-20.617|0.0342
91648284|NCT00386100|183189245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.7||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.666|-0.99||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and baseline.|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.99|-56.666|0.0042
91648285|NCT00386100|183189246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.229||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|-0.099||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and baseline|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.099|-0.359|0.0006
91648286|NCT00386100|183189247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|2.4||||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|16.34||HOMA-B. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||16.34|-9.87|0.7148
91648287|NCT00386100|183189247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from metformin|31.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.82|49.78||HOMA-S. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||49.78|14.82|<0.001
91648288|NCT00386100|183189248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|80.85||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.035|240.744|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with terms for baseline, region, treatment, gender, pre-screening Hb1AC, time, and treatment by time interaction||||240.744|-79.035|0.319
91790195|NCT00899353|183459592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|22.3|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||22.3|1.6|0.03
91648289|NCT00386100|183189250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.9||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.9|-3.5|0.0012
91709144|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.168
91648290|NCT00386100|183189250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||Overall population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.6|-2.7|0.0031
91648291|NCT00386100|183189250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||Overall population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.1|-2.0|0.0308
91782110|NCT00473382|183443893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|14.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|21.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||21.1|6.8|0.0002
91648292|NCT00386100|183189250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.3||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.3|-3.7|0.0954
91709145|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.739
91898637|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.3||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.08|19.47||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||19.47|-45.08|0.4142
91709146|NCT03035916|183311328|OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.079
91709147|NCT03035916|183311329|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
91648293|NCT00386100|183189250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.2||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-1.2|-4.7|0.0015
91790196|NCT00899353|183459592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|21.8|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||21.8|0.5|0.04
91709148|NCT03035916|183311329|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91709149|NCT03035916|183311329|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91648294|NCT00386100|183189250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.7||Female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.7|-3.9|0.0045
91790197|NCT00899353|183459592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||1.2|-1.5|1.00
91898638|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.85||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|19.72||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||19.72|-42.94|0.4450
91648295|NCT00386100|183189250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.0||Female population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-1.0|-3.3|0.0005
91709150|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.056||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.056
91841400|NCT01702428|183563989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.06|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.06|0.91|
91648296|NCT00386100|183189250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.2||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.2|-4.6|0.2363
91841401|NCT01702428|183563989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.95|
91648297|NCT00386100|183189250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.6||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.6|-5.9|0.0161
91648298|NCT00386100|183189250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.2||Postmenopausal female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-4.9|0.0338
91648299|NCT00386100|183189250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.0||Postmenopausal female population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-1.0|-4.1|0.0020
91648300|NCT00386100|183189251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.7||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.7|-2.3|0.0005
91782111|NCT00473382|183443893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|36.4||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||36.4|20.2|<0.0001
91648301|NCT00386100|183189251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2||Overall population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-1.7|0.0110
91782112|NCT00473382|183443894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
91782113|NCT00473382|183443894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
91648302|NCT00386100|183189251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||Overall population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-1.1|0.0618
91648303|NCT00386100|183189251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.3|-2.3|0.0110
91709151|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.009
91648304|NCT00386100|183189251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1||Male population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.1|-1.9|0.0272
91648305|NCT00386100|183189251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1||Male population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.1|-1.6|0.0337
91648306|NCT00386100|183189251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.3|-3.1|0.0152
91648307|NCT00386100|183189251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||Female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-2.4|0.0570
91648308|NCT00386100|183189251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.2||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-4.3|0.0296
91782114|NCT01166282|183443924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.17|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.69|-2.66|||ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-99.69|=0.039
91782115|NCT01166282|183443925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|||=|0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.08|||1-way ANOVA|||||2.08|-5.32|=0.382
91709152|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
91782116|NCT01166282|183443926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||=|0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|1.97|||1-way ANOVA|||||1.97|-8.78|=0.209
91782117|NCT01166282|183443927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||=|0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|2.26|||1-way ANOVA|||||2.26|-4.49|=0.509
91648309|NCT00386100|183189251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.5||Premenopausal female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.5|-4.4|0.0155
91648310|NCT00386100|183189251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.0||Premenopausal female population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-1.7|0.5870
91648311|NCT00386100|183189251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.7||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.7|-3.6|0.1854
91709153|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.198
91782118|NCT01166282|183443928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||=|0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|40.5|||Fisher Exact|||||40.5|-18.5|=0.514
91709154|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.047
91782119|NCT01166282|183443929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.7|||=|0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|57.5|||Fisher Exact|||||57.5|-2.0|=0.111
91782120|NCT01166282|183443930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.8|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|61.6|||Fisher Exact|||||61.6|8.1|=0.031
91648312|NCT00386100|183189252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.6||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.6|-3.2|0.0038
91648313|NCT00386100|183189252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Overall population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.3|-2.7|0.0134
91782121|NCT00531661|183443932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Negative Binomial Regression|||||||0.0002
91841402|NCT01702428|183563989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.09|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.09|0.94|
91648314|NCT00386100|183189252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1||Overall population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.1|-1.5|0.0967
91782122|NCT00531661|183443933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implantation cases free from DSRC to OPC of 0.80.||"Analysis of DSRC was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from DSRC rate for all implantation cases was at least 80%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 80%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 80%"||||<0.0001
91898639|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.2||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.23|25.89||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||25.89|-38.23|0.6897
91782123|NCT00531661|183443934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implanted patients free from pressure sensor failure to OPC of 0.90.||"Analysis of sensor failures was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from pressure sensor failure rate for all patients implanted was at least 90%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 90%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 90%"||||<0.0001
91841403|NCT01702428|183563990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.09|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥10 EU/mL.||1.09|-1.05|
91648315|NCT00386100|183189252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-3.0|0.0512
91782124|NCT00531661|183443935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0077
91782125|NCT00531661|183443936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0292||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0292
91709155|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.002
91782126|NCT00531661|183443937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0280
91782127|NCT00531661|183443938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0236||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0236
91782128|NCT00531661|183443939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Negative Binomial Regression|||||||<0.0001
91648316|NCT00386100|183189252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.2||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-4.6|0.0330
91648317|NCT00386100|183189252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.0||Female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-3.7|0.0547
91841404|NCT01702428|183563990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.81|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥10 EU/mL.||1.81|-0.50|
91841405|NCT01702428|183563990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.79|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥10 EU/mL.||1.79|-0.53|
91648318|NCT00386100|183189252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.2||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.2|-6.3|0.0613
91898640|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.66||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.25|23.81||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||23.81|-42.25|0.5636
91782129|NCT00531661|183443940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implanted patients free from DSRC to OPC of 0.80.||"Analysis of DSRC was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from DSRC rate for all implanted patients was at least 80%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 80%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 80%"||||<0.0001
91898641|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.85||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.64|19.04||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||19.04|-43.64|0.4190
91709156|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.102
91790198|NCT00899353|183459592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.3|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||2.3|-3.5|0.88
91790199|NCT00899353|183459592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||1.0|-0.8|0.98
91898642|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.88||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.76|19.24||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||19.24|-47.76|0.3818
91648319|NCT00386100|183189252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.7||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.7|-3.9|0.1369
91648320|NCT00386100|183189253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.2|-1.7|0.1260
91709157|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.005
91648321|NCT00386100|183189253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.7|-2.2|0.3117
91648322|NCT00386100|183189253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.4|-2.2|0.1776
91898643|NCT03816891|183693426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.61||0.2957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.97|17.13||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||17.13|-52.97|0.2957
91709158|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91709159|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91841406|NCT01702428|183563991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.0|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.00|0.87|
91648323|NCT00386100|183189253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.8||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.8|-3.2|0.2259
91648324|NCT00386100|183189253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1||postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.1|-2.8|0.3840
91648325|NCT00386100|183189254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.1|-1.9|0.6102
91709160|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.023
91709161|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91709162|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.425
91709163|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.124
91841407|NCT01702428|183563991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.97|
91898644|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.98|12.83||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||12.83|-17.98|0.7379
91709164|NCT03035916|183311330|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.052
91782130|NCT00531661|183443941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implanted patients free from pressure sensor failure to OPC of 0.90.||"Analysis of sensor failures was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from pressure sensor failure rate for all implanted patients was at least 90%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 90%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 90%"||||<0.0001
91648326|NCT00386100|183189254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.0||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-2.9|0.3445
91648327|NCT00386100|183189254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||2.3|-2.4|0.9735
91648328|NCT00386100|183189254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.9||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||2.9|-5.8|0.4861
91648329|NCT00386100|183189254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.0||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||4.0|-3.5|0.8770
91648330|NCT00386100|183189255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-1.5|0.7015
91648331|NCT00386100|183189255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.6767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-0.7|0.6767
91648332|NCT00386100|183189255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.4199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.5|-3.4|0.4199
91648333|NCT00386100|183189255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.2526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|5.4||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||5.4|-16.4|0.2526
91782131|NCT01262989|183443948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|102.95||||||90.0|97.17|109.07|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||109.07|97.17|
91898645|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.45||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|9.17||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||9.17|-28.90|0.3022
91648334|NCT00386100|183189255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8||postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.8|-1.8|0.4153
91648335|NCT00386100|183189256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.168||||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.066|1.417||Overall population, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||1.417|-1.066|0.7895
91648336|NCT00386100|183189256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.745||||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.064|2.587||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||2.587|-1.064|0.4155
91648337|NCT00386100|183189256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.452||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.253|1.382||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||1.382|-2.253|0.6223
91648338|NCT00386100|183189256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.638||||0.5908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.043|1.826||Premenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||1.826|-3.043|0.5908
91648339|NCT00386100|183189256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.155||||0.9154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.037|2.814||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||2.814|-3.037|0.9154
91648340|NCT00386100|183189257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.467||||0.8682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.785|20.818||Overall population, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||20.818|-14.785|0.8682
91648341|NCT00386100|183189257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.328||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.308|23.214||Males, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||23.214|-18.308|0.9740
91648342|NCT00386100|183189257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|2.986||||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.997|37.735||Females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||37.735|-22.997|0.8378
91898646|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.07|0.82||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.82|-36.07|0.0606
91648343|NCT00386100|183189257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|8.19||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.839|108.422||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||108.422|-43.839|0.7889
91648344|NCT00386100|183189257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|3.344||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.853|63.935||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||63.935|-34.853|0.8800
91648345|NCT00386100|183189258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.2168||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6057|24.3392||Overall population, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||24.3392|-17.6057|0.9069
91648346|NCT00386100|183189258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-10.1648||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6298|25.3742||Males, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||25.3742|-35.6298|0.5118
91648347|NCT00386100|183189258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|8.8777||||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2636|48.6692||Females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||48.6692|-20.2636|0.5816
91648348|NCT00386100|183189258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-1.0031||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.928|52.959||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||52.9590|-35.9280|0.9587
91648349|NCT00386100|183189258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|4.7614||||0.8337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4741|67.4901||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||67.4901|-34.4741|0.8337
91648350|NCT00386100|183189259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|7.527||||0.7041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.773|57.892||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||57.892|-26.773|0.7041
91648351|NCT00386100|183189259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|30.211||||0.6403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.586|341.371||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||341.371|-61.586|0.6403
91648352|NCT00386100|183189259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.929||||0.8474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.015|25.198||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||25.198|-17.015|0.8474
91898647|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.65||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.28|5.66||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||5.66|-37.28|0.1448
91648353|NCT00386100|183189260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|5.7||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|23.6||Overall, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||23.6|-9.6|0.4860
91648354|NCT00386100|183189260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|12.3||||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|46.1||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||46.1|-13.7|0.3791
91648355|NCT00386100|183189260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|4.0||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|27.6||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||27.6|-15.3|0.7065
91648356|NCT00386100|183189260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|32.1||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|92.7||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||92.7|-9.5|0.1381
91648357|NCT00386100|183189260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-4.3||||0.7195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|22.7||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||22.7|-25.4|0.7195
91648358|NCT00386100|183189261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-3.0||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|7.4||Overall, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||7.4|-12.3|0.5595
91648359|NCT00386100|183189261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.0||||0.9125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|20.4||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||20.4|-15.3|0.9125
91648360|NCT00386100|183189261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.8||||0.9122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|14.5||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||14.5|-14.0|0.9122
91648361|NCT00386100|183189261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|4.6||||0.7435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|38.7||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||38.7|-21.2|0.7435
91648362|NCT00386100|183189261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-7.5||||0.3897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|11.0||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||11.0|-23.0|0.3897
91709165|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.176
91709166|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
91841408|NCT01702428|183563991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.15|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.15|1.00|
91709167|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.228
91782132|NCT01262989|183443949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|102.79||||||90.0|96.99|108.93|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||108.93|96.99|
91782133|NCT01262989|183443950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|94.47||||||90.0|87.59|101.9|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||101.90|87.59|
91782134|NCT03599089|183443951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
91841409|NCT01702428|183563991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.19|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.19|1.04|
91782135|NCT03599089|183443952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0245|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0245
91782136|NCT03599089|183443953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0019
91898648|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|-0.18||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.18|-39.06|0.0480
91841410|NCT01702428|183563991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.03|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.03|0.90|
91841411|NCT01702428|183563991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.96|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||0.96|0.84|
91841412|NCT01702428|183563992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.58|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥10 IU/mL.||1.58|-1.3|
91841413|NCT01702428|183563992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.86|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥10 IU/mL.||0.86|-1.86|
91898649|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|3.85||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||3.85|-40.30|0.1032
91898650|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.39||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.66|0.22||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.22|-41.66|0.0523
91782137|NCT03511937|183443981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|-5.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Two-part regression model with robust SE|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||-5.0|-57.9|0.02
91782138|NCT03511937|183443982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.5|156.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||156.6|-295.5|0.55
91782139|NCT03511937|183443983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-4.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Analyses controlled for overweight/obesity status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between treatment arms.|Analyses used logistic regression to calculate mean difference in predicted probability of purchasing a sugar-sweetened beverage.|||-4|-23|0.006
91782140|NCT03511937|183443984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|Analyses controlled for overweight/obesity status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||-0.1|-0.4|0.010
91782141|NCT03511937|183443985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for obesity status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust standard errors.||||0.5|-0.2|0.403
91898651|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-1.9||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-1.90|-41.62|0.0325
91841414|NCT01702428|183563992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.74|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥10 IU/mL.||0.74|-2.02|
91648363|NCT00386100|183189262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-2.83||||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|6.06||Overall, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||6.06|-10.97|0.5176
91648364|NCT00386100|183189262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-6.26||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.62|7.97||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||7.97|-18.62|0.3620
91648365|NCT00386100|183189262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.72||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|14.48||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||14.48|-11.39|0.9115
91648366|NCT00386100|183189262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-13.51||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.35|8.31||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||8.31|-30.35|0.1956
91648367|NCT00386100|183189262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|3.75||||0.6749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|23.85||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||23.85|-13.09|0.6749
91782142|NCT03511937|183443986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.8|0.1|0.005
91648368|NCT02328807|183189263|OTHER||Negative biopsy rate at 6 months after R|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|0.957|||||Two-sided exact confidence interval was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method.|This trail is a single cohort study and no statistical hypothesis test for the primary outcome was planned.||0.957|0.223|
91648369|NCT03672396|183189268|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.2|0.378
91648370|NCT03672396|183189269|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.0|0.586
91648371|NCT03672396|183189270|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.7|0.252
91648372|NCT03672396|183189271|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|4.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Mean difference calculated as Post - Pre.||||4.3|-36.9|0.111
91648373|NCT03672396|183189272|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.2|-4.3|0.579
91709168|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91782143|NCT03511937|183443987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|43.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between treatment arms.|Analyses used logistic regression to calculate mean difference in predicted probability of purchasing a sugar-sweetened beverage.|||43|32|<0.001
91782144|NCT03511937|183443988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||1.9|1.4|<0.001
91782145|NCT03511937|183443989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.5|0.3|<0.001
91782146|NCT03511937|183443990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||1.3|0.9|<0.001
91782147|NCT03511937|183443991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||1.1|0.7|<0.001
91782148|NCT03511937|183443992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.13||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.13|-0.001|0.055
91648374|NCT03672396|183189273|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.7|-3.9|0.948
91782149|NCT03511937|183443993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.07|-0.27|0.258
91782150|NCT03511937|183443994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.13|-0.30|0.416
91648375|NCT03672396|183189274|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-1.1|0.594
91841415|NCT01702428|183563993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||"Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.~."||1.15|1.01|
91709169|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91782151|NCT03511937|183443995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.24||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.24|-0.14|0.609
91782152|NCT03511937|183443996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.5|0.1|0.002
91782153|NCT03511937|183443997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||2.3|1.8|<0.001
91782154|NCT03511937|183443998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.07|-0.23|0.311
91782155|NCT03511937|183443999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.08|-0.30|0.253
91782156|NCT03511937|183444000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.14|-0.22|0.658
91782157|NCT03511937|183444001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.5||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.3|172.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||172.3|-271.3|0.661
91782158|NCT03511937|183444002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|26.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Two-part regression model with robust SE|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||26.6|-1.6|0.082
91782159|NCT02983552|183444003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance: 2-sided type I error rate of 5%|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity.|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 4 week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the effectiveness of two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 4 weeks. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference at 4 weeks. There was no imputation for missing data.||1.7|-2.2|0.71
91648376|NCT03672396|183189275|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-2.3|0.274
91782160|NCT02983552|183444005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.4|2.1|||||A 2-sided 98.3% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 8-week visit.|||2.1|-2.4|
91782161|NCT02983552|183444011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-13.0|9.0||||||Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 4-week visit, adjusted for visual acuity at randomization.||9|-13|
91790200|NCT00899353|183459592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.3|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||5.3|-6.6|0.98
91709170|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.057
91782162|NCT02983552|183444012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-15.0|12.0||||||Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 8-week visit, adjusted for visual acuity at randomization.|For secondary visual acuity outcomes, which included the 8-week treatment group comparison, a Bonferroni adjustment was used to control for multiple testing (3 outcomes tested) to preserve the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided alpha=0.017 per test).|12|-15|
91782163|NCT02983552|183444014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91782164|NCT02983552|183444016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91782165|NCT02983552|183444018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group for participants without strabismus.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91782166|NCT02983552|183444020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group for participants without strabismus.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91782167|NCT02983552|183444025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.5|0.4|||||Statistical significance of the treatment group comparison was based on a 2-sided alpha=0.01.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compute the treatment group difference in the mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity (letters) from baseline to 4 weeks, adjusting for fellow-eye visual acuity at randomization. A 2-sided 99% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference.||0.4|-2.5|
91790201|NCT01247298|183459600|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Estimate|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Kaplan Meier Estimates of Progression Free Survival (PFS)|||||
91648377|NCT03672396|183189276|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.29|0.48|0.013
91648378|NCT03672396|183189277|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|13.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.85|-5.54|0.369
91648379|NCT03672396|183189278|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.7|-13.5|0.945
91648380|NCT03672396|183189279|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.6|-2.0|0.420
91648381|NCT03672396|183189280|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|15.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.8|-16.9|0.941
91648382|NCT03672396|183189281|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.9|-1.4|0.203
91648383|NCT03672396|183189282|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-0.04|0.057
91648384|NCT03672396|183189283|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-1.0|0.809
91648385|NCT03672396|183189284|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-0.3|0.191
91841416|NCT01702428|183563993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.07|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||1.07|0.94|
91648386|NCT03672396|183189285|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-0.3|0.237
91648387|NCT00065065|183189319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.005||95.0|1.5|10.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.5|1.5|.005
91648388|NCT04542330|183189378|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Andersen-Gill Cox|||Acute infection was analysed as recurrent events using an Andersen-Gill Cox proportional hazards regression model with time since inclusion as underlying time scale. The analysis was done for the composite outcome and for all subcomponents separately, presenting Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for each. For all recurrent outcomes, a wash-out period of 14 days was used to define new events.||||< 0.05
91648389|NCT04542330|183189379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||Verified SARS-CoV-2 infection (first event) and all-cause hospitalisation (first event) was analysed using standard Cox proportional hazards models, but otherwise as described for primary outcome.||||< 0.05
91648390|NCT04542330|183189380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Andersen-Gill Cox|||The secondary outcome, self-reported respiratory symptoms, was analysed the same way as the primary outcome (recurrent events).||||< 0.05
91841417|NCT01702428|183563993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.99|0.87|
91898652|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.13||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|32.12||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||32.12|-22.83|0.7274
91648391|NCT04542330|183189381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||Verified SARS-CoV-2 infection (first event) and all-cause hospitalisation (first event) was analysed using standard Cox proportional hazards models, but otherwise as described for the primary outcome.||||< 0.05
91648392|NCT02556632|183189382|OTHER|||||||0.9306|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9306
91648393|NCT02556632|183189383|OTHER|||||||0.8048|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8048
91648394|NCT02556632|183189384|OTHER|||||||0.8591|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8591
91648395|NCT04355767|183189417|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Analysis is of patients with a disease-progression event. The trial required a sample size of 900 patients to detect an absolute between-group difference of 10 percentage points (the minimum difference that we considered to be clinically important) with a power of 85%.|A Bayesian framework was used to calculate a risk difference of 1.9 percentage points (placebo group minus convalescent-plasma group) with a 95% credible interval of -6.0 to 9.8. The posterior probability of superiority was calculated to be 0.68. Efficacy was defined as a posterior probability of 0.975 or more that the proportion of patients with outcome events was higher in the placebo group.|||
91648396|NCT04355767|183189417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.4|||||Risk difference after adjustment for age, sex, symptom duration.|Analysis is of patients with a disease-progression event.||10.4|-5.9|
91648397|NCT04355767|183189418|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Analysis is of patients with a disease-progression event.|A Bayesian framework was used to calculate a risk difference of 3.0 percentage points (placebo group minus convalescent-plasma group) with a 95% credible interval of -4.9 to 10.8. The posterior probability of superiority was calculated to be 0.76. Efficacy was defined as a posterior probability of 0.975 or more that the proportion of patients with outcome events was higher in the placebo group.|||
91648398|NCT04355767|183189420|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||||1.17|0.69|
91841418|NCT01702428|183563993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.99|0.87|
91841419|NCT01702428|183563993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.07|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||1.07|0.93|
91841420|NCT01702428|183563993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||1.15|1.01|
91898653|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.63||0.1523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.47|5.39||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||5.39|-33.47|0.1523
91898654|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.61||0.9649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.93|31.24||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||31.24|-29.93|0.9649
91898655|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.48|4.25||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.25|-30.48|0.1351
91898656|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.01||0.7258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.75|26.07||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||26.07|-36.75|0.7258
91898657|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.14||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|23.36||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||23.36|-35.81|0.6646
91898658|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.71||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|32.38||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||32.38|-29.20|0.9151
91898659|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.66|-2.07||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-2.07|-39.66|0.0304
91898660|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.62||0.5209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.96|24.17||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||24.17|-45.96|0.5209
91898661|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.93||0.5254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.46|26.2||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||26.20|-49.46|0.5254
91898662|NCT03816891|183693428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.16|23.53||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||23.53|-51.16|0.4458
91898663|NCT03816891|183693430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|-2.76||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-2.76|-24.22|0.0149
91898664|NCT03816891|183693430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.67|3.44||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||3.44|-23.67|0.1399
91898665|NCT03816891|183693430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.68|2.42||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||2.42|-23.68|0.1078
91648399|NCT04355767|183189421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||||||||1.1|-0.4|
91898666|NCT03816891|183693430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.72|1.56||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||1.56|-26.72|0.0798
91898667|NCT03816891|183693430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|3.34||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||3.34|-22.83|0.1405
91898668|NCT03816891|183693430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|4.9||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.90|-22.43|0.2026
91898669|NCT03816891|183693430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77||0.3646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.52|11.37||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||11.37|-29.52|0.3646
91898670|NCT03816891|183693430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|2.5||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||2.50|-23.52|0.1106
91898671|NCT03816891|183693430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.2623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.11|10.2||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||10.20|-35.11|0.2623
91782168|NCT02983552|183444026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.3|0.3|||||Statistical significance of the treatment group comparison was based on a 2-sided alpha=0.01.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compute the treatment group difference in the mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity (letters) from baseline to 8 weeks, adjusting for fellow-eye visual acuity at randomization. A 2-sided 99% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference.||0.3|-2.3|
91782169|NCT02983552|183444027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 4-week visit.||||0.37
91782170|NCT02983552|183444028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 8-week visit.||||0.99
91782171|NCT02983552|183444029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.20
91782172|NCT02983552|183444030|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
91782173|NCT02983552|183444031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.||||0.44
91841421|NCT01702428|183563994|NON_INFERIORITY|The Lower Limit (LL) of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-5% for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.25|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration at Day 42.||1.25|-0.68|
91782174|NCT02983552|183444032|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
91782175|NCT02983552|183444033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.12
91648400|NCT00301873|183189438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0855||0.2212||95.0||||The p-value is a test of whether the slope of the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between baseline baseline steroid use and BMD change at 6 months (outcome).||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 27 patients with follow-up at 6 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline steroid use and bone mass density at 6 months using linear regression.||||.2212
91782176|NCT02983552|183444034|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
91782177|NCT02983552|183444035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.||||0.12
91841422|NCT01702428|183563995|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to measles virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.05|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.05|0.93|
91709171|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91782178|NCT02983552|183444036|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
91782179|NCT02983552|183444039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For each Symptom Survey item, the exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in symptom frequency level from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.||||0.07
91782180|NCT02983552|183444040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For each Symptom Survey item, the exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in symptom frequency level from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group. This was utilized for each item in the survey.||||0.06
91782181|NCT02983552|183444043|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||Statistical significance of the interaction term was based on a 2-sided alpha=0.01.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to test the 2-way interaction between treatment group with each factor (baseline age and visual acuity were treated as continuous factors), adjusting for baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity and the nested terms from the interaction term. Formal subgroup analyses were only performed if there was a minimum of 20 participants in every subgroup category across both treatment groups for factors treated as categorical variables in the model.||||>0.01
91709172|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91709173|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.004
91709174|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.005
91782182|NCT02023697|183444073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.7047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.878|1.272|||Log Rank||Arm B / Arm (A+C)|||1.272|0.878|0.7047
91782183|NCT02023697|183444075|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.939|1.69|||Log Rank||Arm C /Arm A|||1.690|0.939|0.3134
91782184|NCT02023697|183444079|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.892|1.297|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.297|0.892|0.6205
91841423|NCT01702428|183563996|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-5% for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.96|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration at Day 42.||1.96|-0.1|
91841424|NCT01702428|183563997|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.99|
91841425|NCT01702428|183563998|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-5% for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.15|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration at Day 42.||-0.15|-2.00|
91841426|NCT01702428|183563999|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to measles virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.92|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.92|0.83|
91841427|NCT01702428|183564000|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (pooled INV\_MMR Group minus pooled COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-10% for antibodies to VZV.|Difference in seroresponse rate|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|4.29|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|In US sub-cohort: Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-VZV antibody concentration at Day 42.||4.29|-1.31|
91648401|NCT00301873|183189438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.2357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1091||0.0413||95.0||||this p-value is at test of whether the slope of the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between anticonvulsant use and BMD change at 6 months (outcome).||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 27 patients with follow-up at 6 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline anticonvulsant use and bone mass density at 6 months using linear regression||||.0413
91648402|NCT00301873|183189438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1029||0.0418||95.0||||this p-value is at test of whether the slope of the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between baseline steroid use and BMD change at 12 months (outcome).||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 19 patients with follow-up at 12 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline steroid use and bone mass density at 12 months using linear regression||||.0418
91782185|NCT02023697|183444081|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.999||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.744|1.341|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.341|0.744|0.9958
91782186|NCT02023697|183444085|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.823|1.385|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.385|0.823|0.7461
91782187|NCT02023697|183444087|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.549||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.041|2.306|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||2.306|1.041|0.1550
91709175|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91709176|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.002
91782188|NCT02023697|183444091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.805|1.167|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.167|0.805|0.8284
91782189|NCT02023697|183444093|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.059||||0.7896|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.804|1.396|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.396|0.804|0.7896
91782190|NCT02023697|183444097|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.803|1.21|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.210|0.803|0.9274
91782191|NCT02023697|183444099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.5754|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.514|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.514|0.850|0.5754
91782192|NCT02023697|183444105|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.678|1.188|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.188|0.678|0.6214
91782193|NCT02023697|183444107|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.505|1.475|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.475|0.505|0.7214
91782194|NCT00541385|183444112|OTHER|"Analysis of the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group. Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is ≤90%.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is \>90%."|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for significance was ≤0.025.|Exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91790202|NCT00095147|183459630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was the comparison of abatacept versus placebo for changes from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) in the DAS28. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.67|-1.42|<0.001
91790203|NCT00095147|183459631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Infliximab versus placebo were compared for changes from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) in the DAS28. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.39|-1.14|<0.001
91841428|NCT01702428|183564001|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to VZV.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to VZV virus at Day 42.||1.08|0.95|
91648403|NCT00301873|183189438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.2123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1209||0.1026||95.0||||the p-value is a test of whether the slope ofl the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between anticonvulsant use and BMD change at 12 months.||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 19 patients with follow-up at 12 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline anti-convulsant use and bone mass density at 12 months using linear regression||||.1026
91898672|NCT03816891|183693430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.21||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.27|9.03||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||9.03|-38.27|0.2095
91898673|NCT03816891|183693430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|10.13||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||10.13|-42.30|0.2127
91898674|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|20.56||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||20.56|0.43|0.2474
91898675|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|24.27||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||24.27|0.83|0.0687
91898676|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.89||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|34.48||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||34.48|1.38|0.0145
91898677|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|18.89||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.89|1.24|0.0235
91898678|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|13.26||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||13.26|1.09|0.0334
91898679|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|11.32||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||11.32|0.95|0.0618
91898680|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.15||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||8.15|0.70|0.1748
91898681|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.44||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||9.44|0.81|0.1093
91898682|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.44||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||9.44|0.81|0.1093
91898683|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.8||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||6.80|0.60|0.2610
91898684|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.71||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||5.71|0.59|0.2867
91898685|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.01||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||6.01|0.59|0.2874
91898686|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|10.05||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||10.05|0.94|0.0527
91648404|NCT04583592|183189450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787||||||\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.787
91648405|NCT02517099|183189466|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.591|8.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.80|1.591|0.05
91898687|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.73||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||8.73|0.82|0.0936
91898688|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.21||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||10.21|0.84|0.0830
91898689|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.33||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||5.33|0.53|0.3786
91898690|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.99||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||3.99|0.12|0.6949
91898691|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|10.66||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||10.66|0.31|0.5288
91898692|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|23.37||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||23.37|0.43|0.2613
91898693|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|14.81||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||14.81|0.34|0.4208
91898694|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.7884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.76||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||8.76|0.20|0.7884
91709177|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.002
91709178|NCT03035916|183311331|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91841429|NCT01702428|183564003|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) was ≥0.5 for antibodies to HAV virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to HAV virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.86|
91841430|NCT01702428|183564004|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 1 antibody at Day 42.||1.05|0.85|
91841431|NCT01702428|183564004|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 3 antibody at Day 42.||1.08|0.91|
91790204|NCT00095147|183459633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of difference from placebo|20.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|33.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparisons were made between ABA and PLA at Day 197 using a continuity corrected Chi-square test. All tests and confidence intervals for treatment comparison were two-sided.||33.6|7.7|0.001
91841432|NCT01702428|183564004|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.79|0.98|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 4 antibody at Day 42.||0.98|0.79|
91790205|NCT00095147|183459633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of difference from placebo|17.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|30.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparisons were made between INF and PLA at Day 197 using a continuity corrected Chi-square test. All tests and confidence intervals for treatment comparison were two-sided.||30.7|5.1|0.005
91898695|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|16.04||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||16.04|0.45|0.2982
91841433|NCT01702428|183564004|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 5 antibody at Day 42.||1.01|0.83|
91898696|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|23.37||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||23.37|0.43|0.2613
91709179|NCT03035916|183311332|OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
91841434|NCT01702428|183564004|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 6A antibody at Day 42.||1.11|0.92|
91841435|NCT01702428|183564004|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 6B antibody at Day 42.||1.09|0.89|
91841436|NCT01702428|183564004|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 7F antibody at Day 42.||1.03|0.86|
91648406|NCT00766506|183189470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.91|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.|Least square mean difference = Least square mean value for Fentanyl IONSYS group minus Least square mean value for Morphine IV PCA group|||-1.91|-2.55|<0.001
91790206|NCT00095147|183459635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in HAQ-DI from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between ABA and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.23|-0.53|<0.001
91841437|NCT01702428|183564004|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 9V antibody at Day 42.||1.08|0.90|
91841438|NCT01702428|183564004|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 14 antibody at Day 42.||1.02|0.81|
91841439|NCT01702428|183564004|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 18C antibody at Day 42.||1.02|0.84|
91841440|NCT01702428|183564004|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 19A antibody at Day 42.||1.07|0.87|
91841441|NCT01702428|183564004|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 19F antibody at Day 42.||1.06|0.87|
91841442|NCT01702428|183564004|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 23F antibody at Day 42.||1.06|0.85|
91841443|NCT02771210|183564024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.08|0.87|0.136
91841444|NCT04397523|183564036|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||p=0.00000|ANOVA|df 2||||||0.05
91841445|NCT04397523|183564041|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Chi- square = 24.98174, p = 0.00000|Chi-squared|df = 2||Overall survival between the three WHO score groups 3, 4 and 5||||0.05
91841446|NCT04397523|183564041|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||p=0.000|Chi-squared|df = 2||Correlation of mortality versus WHO disease progression score of patients||||0.05
91841447|NCT04397523|183564041|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||p = 0.000|Chi-squared|df = 1||Correlation of mortality versus stay in the intensive care unit (ICU)||||0.05
91841448|NCT01275196|183564042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This trial was powered to detect an odds ratio of at least 2.333 which corresponds, for example, to increases of 18% (from 22% to 40%) and increases of 20% (from 30% to 50%).||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
91841449|NCT01744496|183564062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||0.34|-1.87|0.172
91898697|NCT03816891|183693431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|14.81||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||14.81|0.34|0.4208
91782195|NCT00541385|183444112|NON_INFERIORITY|The secondary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of PA compared to the AL group with regard to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 using a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (Newcombe Wilson score method without continuity correction) and a 10% non-inferiority margin for the EE population. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in 28-day PCR-corrected ACPR was not lower than 10%.|ACPR percent difference|-1.2||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1||If non-inferiority of PA was demonstrated, the p-value associated with a superiority test was calculated based on a 2-sided Chi-Square test. If the calculated p-value was \<0.05, then the superiority of PA over AL was statistically demonstrated.|Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate for the AL group.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is not inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate for the AL group."||2.1|-3.6|0.3728
91898698|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.65||0.5172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.42|18.6||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||18.60|-36.42|0.5172
91782196|NCT01469377|183444120|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.9||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||0.6|-2.4|0.2404
91841450|NCT01744496|183564064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-8.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|-0.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.46|-15.56|0.038
91782197|NCT01469377|183444120|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.2||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||-0.6|-3.7|0.0114
91841451|NCT01744496|183564065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||0.73|-2.76|0.247
91648407|NCT00766506|183189471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.||At Hour 24||||0.219
91709180|NCT03035916|183311332|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
91841452|NCT01744496|183564066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||0.70|-1.85|0.371
91782198|NCT01469377|183444121|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.1||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||0.3|-2.5|0.2404
91782199|NCT01469377|183444121|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.0||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||0.0|-2.8|0.1140
91841453|NCT01744496|183564067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||3.13|-8.76|0.346
91648408|NCT00766506|183189471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.||At Hour 48||||0.299
91782200|NCT01526733|183444131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.71|2.71||Comparison of Day 1 Insulin (Aspart or Lispro)-rHuPH20 versus Day 1 Insulin-sham.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||||2.71|1.71|<0.0001
91782201|NCT01526733|183444131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.08|3.29||Comparison of Day 4 Insulin (Aspart or Lispro)-rHuPH20 versus Day 1 Insulin-sham.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||||3.29|2.08|<0.0001
91782202|NCT02952820|183444144|SUPERIORITY||least squares geometric mean (LSGM)ratio|0.732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|0.843|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on mixed effect model repeated measurement analysis (MMRM) model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (missing not at random/complete case missing value \[MNAR/CCMV\]).||0.843|0.636|<.0001
91782203|NCT02952820|183444144|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.701|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.810|0.607|<.0001
91782204|NCT02952820|183444145|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.781|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|0.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights after the first dose (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.842|0.725|<.0001
91782205|NCT02952820|183444145|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.752|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|0.811|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights after the first dose (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.811|0.698|<.0001
91841454|NCT01284140|183564069|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Extra sum-of-squares F test|The null hypothesis that model parameters of amplitude and phase were the same on Day 1 and Day 3 was not rejected for the Usual Care group.||Nonlinear regression using the least-squares approach was used to fit a single 24-hour cosine curve to all normalized data in each group on each day of 24-hour urine collection. Model parameters of acrophase and amplitude and their standard errors were derived from these curves. Using the extra sum-of-squares F test, the null hypothesis that model parameters of amplitude and phase were the same on Day 1 and Day 3 was tested for the Usual Care group.||||0.37
91648409|NCT00766506|183189471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.||At study discontinuation or withdrawal||||0.136
91648410|NCT00766506|183189472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.|Least square mean difference = Least square mean value for Fentanyl IONSYS group minus Least square mean value for Morphine IV PCA group|||-0.30|-0.74|<0.001
91841455|NCT01284140|183564069|OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Extra sum-of-squares F test|This result suggests that the best-fit values for amplitude and phase are different between Day 1 and Day 3 in the Sleep Promotion group.||Nonlinear regression using the least-squares approach was used to fit a single 24-hour cosine curve to all normalized data in each group on each day of 24-hour urine collection. Model parameters of acrophase and amplitude and their standard errors were derived from these curves. Using the extra sum-of-squares F test, the null hypothesis that model parameters of amplitude and phase were the same on Day 1 and Day 3 was tested for the Sleep promotion group.||||0.0074
91841456|NCT01284140|183564070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
91841457|NCT01284140|183564071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nonlinear regression using the least-squares approach was used to fit a single 24-hour cosine curve to all normalized data in each group on each day of 24-hour urine collection. This resulted in 4 separate best-fit curves. The model parameter of amplitude was derived from the best-fit curves.||||0.03
91841458|NCT05033080|183564155|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin represents a clinically acceptable loss of effectiveness that margin preserve at least 50% of the treatment effect of the active control (ELX/TEZ/IVA) compared to placebo, where the treatment effect is estimated by the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI).|LS Mean difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||1.1|-0.7|< 0.0001
91841459|NCT05033080|183564156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-6.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-6.3|-10.5|< 0.0001
91841460|NCT05033080|183564157|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.15|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||3.15|1.55|< 0.0001
91841461|NCT05033080|183564158|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.12|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||4.12|2.00|< 0.0001
91841462|NCT04159415|183564187|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||||Confidence interval (CI) based on treatment group difference (R4461 Low dose vs. placebo) of the LS means using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model|||2.3|-1.9|
91841463|NCT04159415|183564188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|97.5|||||Confidence interval (CI) based on treatment group difference (R4461 Low dose vs. placebo) of the LS means using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model|||97.5|-21.3|
91841464|NCT04159415|183564189|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|56.9|||||Combined estimate for adjusted mean difference (SE) vs Placebo obtained by combining adjusted means and SE from ANCOVA model analyses of the different imputed data sets.|||56.9|-56.9|
91841465|NCT04159415|183564190|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|103.2|||||Combined estimate for adjusted mean difference (SE) vs Placebo obtained by combining adjusted means and SE from robust regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets.|||103.2|-67.6|
91841466|NCT03560245|183564192|EQUIVALENCE|"The change from baseline to Week 13 in the SIB total score was summarized descriptively and compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline SIB total score.~If the normality assumption was not met, a non-parametric method or a rank-ANCOVA analysis (i.e., an ANCOVA analysis on rank-transformed data) was to be used."||||||0.373|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3730
91841467|NCT02058290|183564232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91841468|NCT02058290|183564233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2612|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2612
91841469|NCT02058290|183564234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0019
91841470|NCT02262260|183564265|NON_INFERIORITY|"In order to demonstrate that the wait and extend regimen of ranibizumab is non-inferior to the posology described in the prescribing information, mean change in BCVA at month 12 from the baseline visit were determined for both treatment groups, and a comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test."||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91709181|NCT03035916|183311332|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91841471|NCT02262260|183564266|NON_INFERIORITY|"In order to demonstrate that the wait and extend regimen of ranibizumab is non-inferior to the posology described in the prescribing information, mean change in Central Retinal Thickness determined with Optical Coherence Tomography for both eyes were calculated for both groups and were compared using the Mann Whitney u test."||||||0.082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.082
91841472|NCT02262260|183564269|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test.||||||0.095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.095
91709182|NCT03035916|183311333|OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.644
91709183|NCT03035916|183311333|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
91841473|NCT02262260|183564270|NON_INFERIORITY|comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test.||||||0.072|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.072
91841474|NCT02262260|183564271|NON_INFERIORITY|comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test||||||0.466|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.466
91841475|NCT01794117|183564278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.033
91841476|NCT01233609|183564409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-150.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.37||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 830|Right eye and Left Eye within each of the 2 treatment groups (Placebo and Valproic Acid) were combined to estimate the difference|||||0.035
91841477|NCT01233609|183564410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.581
91841478|NCT01233609|183564411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
91841479|NCT01233609|183564412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.229
91841480|NCT02802020|183564462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"We hypothesized that pain reduction (as defined in Study endpoints above) would be achieved in a performance goal of at least 53% of patients receiving the study SEMS. Assuming an observed pain reduction rate of 75% and using an exact test with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, 43 patients were required to obtain power of at least 80%."||||0.999
91841481|NCT02802020|183564463|SUPERIORITY|we hypothesized that the proportion of patients reporting one or more related SAE(s) would be below a performance goal of 32%. Assuming an observed SAE rate of 15% and using an exact test with one-sided alpha of 0.025, 57 patients were required to obtain power of at least 80%.||||||0.513|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.513
91841482|NCT00883103|183564514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91841483|NCT03954158|183564557|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.7|0.0071
91841484|NCT03954158|183564557|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.8|-3.3|0.0029
91841485|NCT03954158|183564557|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.7|0.0250
91841486|NCT03954158|183564557|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.9|-3.3|0.0014
91841487|NCT03954158|183564558|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4295|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9||||||Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.9|-2.0|
91841488|NCT03954158|183564558|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4||||||Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-2.1|
91709184|NCT03035916|183311333|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91709185|NCT03035916|183311334|OTHER|||||||0.421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
91841489|NCT03954158|183564559|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.7||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-3.1|
91841490|NCT03954158|183564559|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.7|
91841491|NCT03954158|183564559|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.2|
91841492|NCT03954158|183564559|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.8|
91898699|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.77||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.02|6.53||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||6.53|-53.02|0.1228
91782206|NCT02952820|183444145|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|0.893|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.893|0.735|<.0001
91782207|NCT02952820|183444145|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|0.848|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.848|0.698|<.0001
91782208|NCT02952820|183444145|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.778|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.878|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.878|0.690|<.0001
91782209|NCT02952820|183444145|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|0.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.869|0.681|<.0001
91782210|NCT02952820|183444146|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.638|5.961|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||5.961|2.638|<.0001
91782211|NCT02952820|183444146|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.793|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.133|7.452|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||7.452|4.133|<.0001
91782212|NCT02952820|183444146|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.979||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|4.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||4.146|0.307|0.0230
91782213|NCT02952820|183444146|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.635|5.595|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||5.595|1.635|0.0003
91782214|NCT02952820|183444146|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.099||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.068|6.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.377|2.068|0.0001
91782215|NCT02952820|183444146|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|6.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.501|2.220|<.0001
91898700|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.99||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.95|26.84||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||26.84|-81.95|0.3129
91782216|NCT02952820|183444146|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.179||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.236|6.861|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.861|2.236|0.0001
91782217|NCT02952820|183444146|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.373|6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.960|2.373|<.0001
91782218|NCT02952820|183444147|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) Difference|-14.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.614|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.411|-7.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-7.245|-21.411|<.0001
91782219|NCT02952820|183444147|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-16.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.619|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.813|-9.626|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-9.626|-23.813|<.0001
91709186|NCT03035916|183311334|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91841493|NCT03954158|183564559|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.3|-1.5|
91841494|NCT03954158|183564559|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-1.2|
91841495|NCT03954158|183564560|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-0.9|
91898701|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.36||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.11|5.72||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||5.72|-44.11|0.1277
91898702|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.36||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.76|-0.92||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.92|-50.76|0.0424
91898703|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.06||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.08|11.85||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||11.85|-77.08|0.1465
91898704|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.68||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.71|-2.59||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-2.59|-53.71|0.0316
91841496|NCT03954158|183564560|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-0.9|
91898705|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.59||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.63|-4.95||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-4.95|-47.63|0.0169
91898706|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1||0.6641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|26.59||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||26.59|-40.80|0.6641
91841497|NCT03954158|183564560|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-0.8|
91841498|NCT03954158|183564560|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-0.8|
91841499|NCT03954158|183564560|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-0.4|
91841500|NCT03954158|183564560|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-0.3|
91841501|NCT03954158|183564560|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.4|-1.4|
91841502|NCT03954158|183564560|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-1.2|
91782220|NCT02952820|183444147|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.109||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.568|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||2.540|-13.568|0.1796
91782221|NCT02952820|183444147|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.129||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.098|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||1.088|-15.098|0.0898
91841503|NCT03954158|183564560|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-1.2|
91841504|NCT03954158|183564560|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.6|-1.4|
91841505|NCT03954158|183564560|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-0.5|
91841506|NCT03954158|183564560|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.7|
91648411|NCT00766506|183189473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.92|||Mantel Haenszel|P-value was calculated from a Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Squared test.||||3.92|0.84|0.131
91841507|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-1.0|
91841508|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.7|
91841509|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||||||Change at Day 2, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.7|-0.5|
91841510|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.3|
91841511|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-0.9|
91841512|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.3||||||Change at Day 3, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.3|-0.9|
91841513|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.1|
91782222|NCT02952820|183444147|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-13.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.486||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.218|-4.631|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-4.631|-22.218|0.0028
91782223|NCT02952820|183444147|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.578||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.053|-1.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-1.104|-19.053|0.0277
91782224|NCT02952820|183444147|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-17.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.014||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.306|-7.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-7.643|-27.306|0.0005
91782225|NCT02952820|183444147|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.951||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.378|-2.964|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-2.964|-22.378|0.0105
91648412|NCT00766506|183189474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Log Rank|P-value was calculated from a log-rank test stratified for surgery type.||||||0.342
91648413|NCT00766506|183189475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836|||||||Log Rank|P-value was calculated from a log-rank test stratified for surgery type.||||||0.836
91648414|NCT00766506|183189476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|24.03|||Chi-squared|||||24.03|1.04|0.029
91709187|NCT03035916|183311334|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91841514|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-1.5|
91709188|NCT03035916|183311335|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.910
91782226|NCT02952820|183444148|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|22.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.488|30.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 Nights After the First Dose (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||30.579|13.488|<.0001
91782227|NCT02952820|183444148|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|31.796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.258|40.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights after the first dose (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||40.334|23.258|<.0001
91782228|NCT02952820|183444148|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|11.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.269||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.418|22.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||22.102|1.418|0.0259
91841515|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4||||||Change at Day 4, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.4|-0.6|
91709189|NCT03035916|183311335|OTHER|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.864
91709190|NCT03035916|183311335|OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.785
91709191|NCT03035916|183311336|OTHER|||||||0.972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.972
91709192|NCT03035916|183311336|OTHER|||||||0.987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987
91709193|NCT03035916|183311336|OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.518
91841516|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-1.9|
91841517|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-1.5|
91898707|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.26||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.94|-4.53||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-4.53|-49.94|0.0199
91898708|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.96||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.67|30.51||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||30.51|-44.67|0.6980
91898709|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.05|7.13||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||7.13|-36.05|0.1838
91898710|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.99||0.2078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|14.98||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||14.98|-64.50|0.2078
91898711|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.95||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.72|22.41||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||22.41|-52.72|0.4090
91898712|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.54||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.92|32.23||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||32.23|-57.92|0.5580
91898713|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|-0.16||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-0.16|-50.30|0.0486
91898714|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.73||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.06|20.78||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||20.78|-54.06|0.3613
91898715|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.93||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.24|36.08||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||36.08|-52.24|0.7042
91898716|NCT03816891|183693433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.27||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.17|31.89||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||31.89|-83.17|0.3602
91898717|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97||0.5896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.83|10.26||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||10.26|-17.83|0.5896
91898718|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|13.93||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||13.93|-17.29|0.8292
91898719|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.23||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.39|10.8||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||10.80|-22.39|0.4852
91898720|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|10.42||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||10.42|-27.24|0.3731
91898721|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.44|12.48||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||12.48|-28.44|0.4360
91648415|NCT00766506|183189478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.53|||Chi-squared|||Paracetamol: P-value was calculated using Chi-squared test.||3.53|0.74|0.230
91898722|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.36|15.15||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||15.15|-27.36|0.5655
91898723|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|16.49||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||16.49|-26.93|0.6302
91898724|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.89||0.5671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.23|15.67||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||15.67|-28.23|0.5671
91898725|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.93|29.83||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||29.83|-22.93|0.935
91898726|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.08||0.9982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|20.34||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||20.34|-20.30|0.9982
91898727|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.42||0.8102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.48|23.51||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||23.51|-18.48|0.8102
91898728|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|19.97||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||19.97|-21.70|0.9334
91841518|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0||||||Change at Day 5, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-1.1|
91782229|NCT02952820|183444148|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|22.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.286|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.757|32.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||32.505|11.757|<.0001
91782230|NCT02952820|183444148|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|17.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.906||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.781|28.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||28.968|5.781|0.0034
91782231|NCT02952820|183444148|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|21.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.946||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.014|33.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||33.359|10.014|0.0003
91841519|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.4|-2.1|
91841520|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-1.1|
91841521|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||||||Change at Day 6, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.5|-0.6|
91648416|NCT00766506|183189478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7|||Chi-squared|||NSAID's: P-value was calculated using Chi-squared test.||3.70|0.80|0.163
91648417|NCT03053622|183189480|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|1.23||||||||1.23|0.807|
91841522|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.3|
91782232|NCT02952820|183444148|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|18.555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.324||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.14|30.969|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be missing at random (MAR).||30.969|6.140|0.0034
91841523|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.2|-1.0|
91841524|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3||||||Change at Day 7, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.3|-0.6|
91898729|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|14.29||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||14.29|-24.92|0.5873
91898730|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.82||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.61|10.96||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||10.96|-28.61|0.3737
91898731|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78||0.3631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|10.72||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||10.72|-28.70|0.3631
91898732|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.06||0.5585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|14.34||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.34|-26.20|0.5585
91782233|NCT02952820|183444148|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|22.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.392||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.137|35.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||35.234|10.137|0.0004
91898733|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.65||0.8889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.58|34.58||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||34.58|-39.58|0.8889
91898734|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.15||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.67|29.7||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||29.70|-42.67|0.7099
91898735|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.2||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|30.19||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||30.19|-42.40|0.7270
91898736|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.45||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.47|33.16||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||33.16|-40.47|0.8366
91898737|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.17||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.99|33.69||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||33.69|-42.99|0.8013
91898738|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.23||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.56|29.15||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||29.15|-43.56|0.6810
91782234|NCT02952820|183444149|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|13.67||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep onset responders: Statistical analysis 1||21.10|6.24|0.0004
91782235|NCT02952820|183444149|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|12.53||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Onset Responders: Statistical analysis 2||19.86|5.20|0.0009
91782236|NCT02952820|183444149|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|14.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|22.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Maintenance Responders: Statistical analysis 3||22.33|6.97|0.0002
91782237|NCT02952820|183444149|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|9.82||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|17.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Maintenance Responders: Statistical analysis 4||17.35|2.29|0.0110
91782238|NCT02952820|183444151|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.15|-1.27|0.0137
91782239|NCT02952820|183444151|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.38|-1.51|0.0011
91782240|NCT02952820|183444151|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.57|-1.75|0.0001
91898739|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.69||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.08|33.58||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||33.58|-41.08|0.8347
91841525|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.3||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-2.0|
91841526|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.3|
91841527|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.6|
91841528|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.9|-2.4|
91841529|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.5|
91841530|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6||||||Change at Day 9, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.6|-0.7|
91841531|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.9|-2.3|
91841532|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.1|
91841533|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||||||Change at Day 10, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.8|
91898740|NCT03816891|183693435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.42||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.18|35.33||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||35.33|-38.18|0.9358
91898741|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.08||0.8948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|17.35||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week. Program:|ANCOVA|||Week 1||17.35|-15.20|0.8948
91898742|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|13.86||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||13.86|-16.58|0.8581
91841534|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-1.7|
91841535|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.7||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: MMRM included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-2.3|
91841536|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||||||Change at Day 11, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-0.7|
91841537|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.0|
91898743|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.93|7.38||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||7.38|-24.93|0.2797
91898744|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|11.64||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||11.64|-26.67|0.4333
91898745|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.44|8.95||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||8.95|-30.44|0.2774
91648418|NCT03053622|183189480|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.729|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.591|0.898||||||||0.898|0.591|
91648419|NCT03053622|183189480|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.343|0.518||||||||0.518|0.343|
91841538|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.0|
91782241|NCT02952820|183444151|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.76|-1.96|<.0001
91782242|NCT02952820|183444151|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.71|-1.90|<.0001
91782243|NCT02952820|183444151|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.71|-1.92|<.0001
91841539|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||||||Change at Day 12, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.9|
91841540|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-1.8|
91782244|NCT02952820|183444152|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.905||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.12|-3.44|0.0670
91841541|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.0|
91841542|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||||||Change at Day 13, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.9|-1.3|
91841543|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-1.9|
91782245|NCT02952820|183444152|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.913||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.25|-3.83|0.0257
91782246|NCT02952820|183444152|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.34|-4.02|0.0206
91782247|NCT02952820|183444152|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-1.18|-4.91|0.0014
91648420|NCT03053622|183189480|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.307|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.249|0.379||||||||0.379|0.249|
91648421|NCT03053622|183189481|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.2||||||||1.20|0.810|
91782248|NCT02952820|183444152|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.52|-4.48|0.0134
91782249|NCT02952820|183444152|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.54|-4.57|0.0128
91782250|NCT02952820|183444153|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.353|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.353|0.057|0.0067
91782251|NCT02952820|183444153|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.320|0.023|0.0237
91782252|NCT02952820|183444153|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.261|-0.107|0.4120
91782253|NCT02952820|183444153|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.4347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.258|-0.111|0.4347
91782254|NCT02952820|183444153|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.4992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.289|-0.141|0.4992
91709194|NCT01402986|183311343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.31|||Poisson regression|||The 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 versus \[vs\] more than \[\>\] 2 but less than or equal to \[=\<\] 6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic oral corticosteroid (OCS) use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.31|0.67|0.709
91782255|NCT02952820|183444153|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.471|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.471|0.039|0.0208
91782256|NCT02952820|183444153|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.378|-0.089|0.2248
91782257|NCT02952820|183444153|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.497|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.497|0.026|0.0298
91782258|NCT03070964|183444171|SUPERIORITY||Exact binomial estimator|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|48.4||||||||48.4|2.1|
91782259|NCT01600170|183444174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.39
91782260|NCT01600170|183444175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.45||||||Threshold of statistical significance was p=0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.45
91790207|NCT00095147|183459635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in HAQ-DI from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between INF and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.15|-0.45|<0.001
91790208|NCT00095147|183459637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (PCS)|4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|6.12|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 physical component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between ABA and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||6.12|1.92|<0.001
91790209|NCT00095147|183459637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (MCS)|3.51||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.91|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 mental component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between ABA and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||5.91|1.10|0.004
91790210|NCT00095147|183459637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (PCS)|3.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.4|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 physical component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between INF and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||5.40|1.25|0.002
91782261|NCT01600170|183444176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.80
91790211|NCT00095147|183459637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (MCS)|2.68||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.05|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 mental component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between INF and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||5.05|0.31|0.027
91648422|NCT03053622|183189481|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.753|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.619|0.916||||||||0.916|0.619|
91841544|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-1.8|
91782262|NCT01600170|183444177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p=0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.04
91841545|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||||||Change at Day 14, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.5|
91841546|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.8||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.8|-2.2|
91841547|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-1.5|
91841548|NCT03954158|183564561|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-1.4|
91841549|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.2|-1.0|
91841550|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.1|
91841551|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||||||Change at Day 2, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-0.5|
91841552|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-0.6|
91782263|NCT01600170|183444178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p=0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.15
91782264|NCT01600170|183444179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.63
91790212|NCT00534313|183459750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|22.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|41.8||The p-value (two-sided) was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method (CMH) with stratification of baseline body surface area (BSA) affected by psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||41.8|4.0|0.022
91648423|NCT03053622|183189482|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|48.4||||||||48.40|-0.10|
91841553|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.5|
91841554|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Change at Day 3, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.0|
91841555|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-1.1|
91841556|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.8|-0.8|
91841557|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||||||Change at Day 4, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-0.9|
91841558|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-1.2|
91841559|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.4|-1.2|
91898746|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77||0.2308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.55|7.82||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||7.82|-31.55|0.2308
91898747|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.34|5.91||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||5.91|-34.34|0.1617
91898748|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.16||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.05|7.89||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||7.89|-33.05|0.2220
91898749|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.54|15.38||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||15.38|-25.54|0.6195
91898750|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.86|13.27||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||13.27|-26.86|0.4984
91898751|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.8147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.75|17.99||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||17.99|-22.75|0.8147
91898752|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.94||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|16.07||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||16.07|-24.01|0.6917
91898753|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|17.43||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||17.43|-24.24|0.7437
91841560|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||||||Change at Day 5, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-0.8|
91841561|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.2|
91841562|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.7|-0.9|
91841563|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||||||Change at Day 6, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-0.5|
91841564|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.9|-1.0|
91841565|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.7|-1.0|
91841566|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 7, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.2|
91841567|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.3|
91841568|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.4|
91898754|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.34||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.26|19.47||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||19.47|-26.26|0.7663
91782265|NCT01600170|183444180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.035
91782266|NCT01600170|183444181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.62
91790213|NCT00534313|183459750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|28.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|48.0||p-value (two-sided) was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||48.0|9.4|0.006
91790214|NCT00534313|183459750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|14.6||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|32.6||p-value (2-sided) was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||32.6|-3.5|0.121
91790215|NCT00534313|183459757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI) was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||11.0|-23.0|
91790216|NCT00534313|183459757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||17.1|-18.0|
91790217|NCT00534313|183459757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|28.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||28.5|-7.6|
91790218|NCT00534313|183459758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|44.56|||ANCOVA|||||44.56|-7.02|
91790219|NCT00534313|183459758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|48.6|||ANCOVA|||||48.60|-3.93|
91790220|NCT00534313|183459758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|56.15|||ANCOVA|||||56.15|4.82|
91782267|NCT01600170|183444182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.99
91782268|NCT02970162|183444192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||LS means|Least square means|Fixed effects treatment and QMG at Baseline. Between-treatment difference in LS means (95% CI) -6.54 (-9.78, -3.29).||||||0.0004
91782269|NCT02970162|183444193|SUPERIORITY||LS means|2.95||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|4.38||CFB for SGI score was modeled as the response, with fixed effects terms for treatment and SGI at Baseline|Fixed effects linear model|This statistical test applies to the change from baseline SGI scores to Day 4 values row.||||4.38|1.53|0.0003
91782270|NCT02970162|183444194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0020
91782271|NCT02970162|183444195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0112
91782272|NCT00750438|183444210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.972
91782273|NCT00750438|183444211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and 24 weeks||||0.559
91782274|NCT00750438|183444211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 24 weeks||||0.062
91782275|NCT00750438|183444211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.099
91782276|NCT00750438|183444212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.036
91782277|NCT00750438|183444213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 24 weeks||||0.001
91782278|NCT00750438|183444213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 24 weeks||||0.723
91782279|NCT00750438|183444213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.027
91782280|NCT00750438|183444214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
91782281|NCT00750438|183444214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.644|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.644
91782282|NCT00750438|183444214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.549
91782283|NCT03848728|183444215|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.16|||TMLE|||||1.16|1.03|0.0019
91782284|NCT05475483|183444236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-2.51|= 0.045
91782285|NCT05475483|183444237|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.37|0.91|= 0.078
91782286|NCT05475483|183444238|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.76|0.80|0.143
91782287|NCT05475483|183444239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-3.40|= 0.032
91782288|NCT01499277|183444259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measures (clinical cure rates) between ceftaroline group and vancomycin plus aztreonam group were calculated in both MITT and CE Populations at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% in both MITT and CE Populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|5.41||||RD is the difference in clinical cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam). CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared vancomycin plus azreonam group at TOC in both MITT and CE populations.||5.41|-6.9|
91790221|NCT00534313|183459760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.08||||||95.0|-4.79|8.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||8.96|-4.79|
91790222|NCT00534313|183459760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|8.95|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||8.95|-4.94|
91790223|NCT00534313|183459760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|7.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||7.58|-6.08|
91841569|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-0.5|
91841570|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.2|
91782289|NCT01499277|183444260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measures (clinical cure rates) between ceftaroline group and vancomycin plus aztreonam group were calculated in both MITT and CE Populations at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% in both MITT and CE Populations. If non-inferioirity was achieved then a test of superioirty was conducted if lower limit of 95% CI for the difference was \>0%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|7.48||||RD is the difference in clinical cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared vancomycin plus azreonam group at TOC in both MITT and CE populations.||7.48|-4.32|
91782290|NCT01499277|183444261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|10.39||||RD is the difference in favorable rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||10.39|-6.21|
91782291|NCT01499277|183444262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|12.86||||RD is the difference in favorable rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||12.86|-2.11|
91782292|NCT01499277|183444263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|7.06||||RD is the difference in cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||7.06|-4.05|
91782293|NCT01499277|183444264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|8.73||||RD is the difference in cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||8.73|-2.19|
91782294|NCT01499277|183444265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.18||||RD is the difference in relapse rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||1.18|-3.98|
91782295|NCT01499277|183444266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|3.15||||RD is the difference in success rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||3.15|-6.34|
91782296|NCT02974543|183444277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91782297|NCT02974543|183444278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91782298|NCT00220636|183444281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t statistic|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=13||Null hypothesis would be no change in the HDRS score pre- to post- treatment with aripiprazole.||||<.001
91782299|NCT00220636|183444283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t statistic|-3.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=13||Null hypothesis would be no change in the GAFS score pre- to post- treatment with aripiprazole.||||.009
91782300|NCT00220636|183444284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t statistic|3.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=13||Null hypothesis would be no change in the BDI score pre- to post- treatment with aripiprazole.||||.008
91782301|NCT02910986|183444303|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||The percentage with improved knowledge (defined as having an incorrect response at T0 and a correct response at T1) was compared between study groups with chi-square tests.||||> 0.05
91782302|NCT02910986|183444304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.56
91782303|NCT02910986|183444305|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
91782304|NCT02910986|183444305|OTHER||difference between EC and UC|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-6.0|11.2||||||||11.2|-6.0|
91782305|NCT02910986|183444305|OTHER||difference between INT and UC|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-4.3|14.3||||||||14.3|-4.3|
91782306|NCT02910986|183444305|OTHER||difference between INT and ENH|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-7.0|11.9||||||||11.9|-7.0|
91782307|NCT03682770|183444326|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.23||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.266|39.189||The p-value was derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level and baseline body weight.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method|||39.189|1.266|0.0420
91782308|NCT03682770|183444327|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.67||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|1.305||P-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab + AR101 vs placebo + AR101) of the LS mean change using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|ANCOVA|||||1.305|0.031|0.0400
91841571|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.4|-1.2|
91841572|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||||||Change at Day 9, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.2|
91841573|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.3|
91841574|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.6|-1.0|
91782309|NCT03682770|183444328|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.91||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.612|27.44||P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level (\<=100 kilo allergy unit per liter \[kUA/L\] vs \>100 kUA/L) and body weight (\<30 kg, \>=30 and \<60 kg, or \>=60 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by MH method|||27.440|-3.612|0.0806
91782310|NCT03682770|183444330|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.668|32.474||P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level (\<=100 kUA/L vs \>100 kUA/L) and baseline body weight (\<30 kg, \>=30 kg and \<60 kg, or \>=60 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by MH method|||32.474|-11.668|0.3530
91782311|NCT03682770|183444331|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.37||||0.2628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|1.029||P-value is based on treatment difference of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline tolerated cumulative amount of peanut protein DBPCFC (log transformed) as covariate and the treatment screening peanut-specific IgE level and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.029|-0.281|0.2628
91782312|NCT03682770|183444332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.36||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.004|20.282||P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level (\<=100 kUA/L vs \>100 kUA/L) and baseline body weight (\<30 kg, \>=30 kg and \<60 kg, or \>=60 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by MH method|||20.282|-25.004|0.8140
91782313|NCT03682770|183444333|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|0.599||P-value is based on treatment difference of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline tolerated cumulative amount of peanut protein DBPCFC (log transformed) as covariate and the treatment screening peanut-specific IgE level and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.599|-0.699|0.8805
91782314|NCT03682770|183444335|SUPERIORITY||Difference percentage|-85.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.47|-73.91||P-value was based on treatment difference (vs. Continuously on Placebo + AR101) in percent change from baseline using rank-based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate,- and stratification factors and the treatment as fixed factors.|ANCOVA||Median difference and its 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-73.91|-99.47|<0.0001
91782315|NCT03682770|183444336|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-68.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.71|-56.4||P-value was based on treatment difference (vs. Continuously on Placebo + AR101) in percent change from baseline using rank-based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate, and stratification factors and the treatment as fixed factors.|ANCOVA||Median difference and its 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-56.40|-86.71|<0.0001
91782316|NCT02304367|183444352|OTHER|||||||0.0428|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in osteoid thickness is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.0428
91841575|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||||||Change at Day 10, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.8|
91782317|NCT02304367|183444353|OTHER|||||||0.977|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in OS/BS is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.9770
91782318|NCT02304367|183444354|OTHER|||||||0.0858|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in OV/BV is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.0858
91782319|NCT02304367|183444355|OTHER|||||||0.4077|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in Mlt is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.4077
91782320|NCT02304367|183444362|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 24||||0.016
91782321|NCT02304367|183444362|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 48||||0.030
91782322|NCT02304367|183444362|OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 96||||0.259
91782323|NCT02304367|183444362|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 144||||0.346
91782324|NCT02304367|183444362|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 168||||0.213
91782325|NCT02304367|183444362|OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 192||||0.873
91782326|NCT02304367|183444362|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 216||||0.001
91782327|NCT02304367|183444362|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 240||||0.040
91841576|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-1.6|
91841577|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||||||Change at Day 11, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-0.4|
91841578|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.2|
91841579|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-1.9|
91782328|NCT02304367|183444363|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 24||||<0.0001
91782329|NCT02304367|183444363|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 48||||<0.0001
91841580|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.5|
91782330|NCT02304367|183444363|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 96||||0.001
91782331|NCT02304367|183444363|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 144||||0.007
91782332|NCT02304367|183444363|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 168||||0.005
91782333|NCT02304367|183444363|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 192||||0.004
91782334|NCT02304367|183444363|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 216||||0.002
91841581|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Change at Day 12, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.0|
91841582|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-1.5|
91841583|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.5|
91841584|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||||||Change at Day 13, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-1.1|
91841585|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-1.4|
91841586|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.1|
91841587|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||||||Change at Day 14, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.0|
91841588|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.9|
91782335|NCT02304367|183444363|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 240||||0.006
91782336|NCT02304367|183444364|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 24||||< 0.001
91782337|NCT02304367|183444364|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 48||||< 0.001
91782338|NCT02304367|183444364|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 96||||<0.001
91782339|NCT02304367|183444364|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 144||||< 0.001
91782340|NCT02304367|183444364|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 168||||< 0.001
91841589|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.2|
91841590|NCT03954158|183564562|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.0|
91841591|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-0.9|
91841592|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-0.6|
91841593|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||||||Change at Day 2, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.8|
91841594|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.9|
91841595|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-1.5|
91841596|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||||||Change at Day 3, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.6|
91841597|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-1.1|
91841598|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-1.5|
91841599|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6||||||Change at Day 4, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-2.4|
91841600|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.2|
91782341|NCT02304367|183444364|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 192||||< 0.001
91782342|NCT02304367|183444364|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 216||||< 0.001
91782343|NCT02304367|183444364|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 240||||< 0.001
91782344|NCT02304367|183444365|OTHER|||||||0.659|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 24||||0.659
91782345|NCT02304367|183444365|OTHER|||||||0.752|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 48||||0.752
91782346|NCT02304367|183444365|OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 96||||0.594
91841601|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.5|-1.3|
91841602|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2||||||Change at Day 5, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-1.7|
91841603|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.0|
91841604|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.4|
91841605|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||||||Change at Day 6, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-1.7|
91841606|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.2||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.0|
91841607|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.1|
91841608|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||||||Change at Day 7, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.9|
91841609|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.0|
91898755|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.71||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.61|14.75||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||14.75|-28.61|0.5157
91841610|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.4|
91841611|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.9|
91841612|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.3|
91841613|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.9|
91841614|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2||||||Change at Day 9, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.2|-2.4|
91841615|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.4|
91841616|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.7||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-2.5|
91841617|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||||||Change at Day 10, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.6|
91841618|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.4|
91841619|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.2|
91841620|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 11, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-2.2|
91841621|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.9|
91841622|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-2.4|
91841623|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3||||||Change at Day 12, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-2.9|
91841624|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-2.5|
91841625|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.6|-2.4|
91841626|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.5||||||Change at Day 13, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-3.0|
91841627|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.6|-2.5|
91841628|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.4||||||Change at Day 14, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.4|-2.8|
91841629|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-2.5|
91782347|NCT02304367|183444365|OTHER|||||||0.614|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 144||||0.614
91782348|NCT02304367|183444365|OTHER|||||||0.542|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 168||||0.542
91782349|NCT02304367|183444365|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 192||||0.067
91782350|NCT02304367|183444365|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 216||||0.330
91782351|NCT02304367|183444365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 240||||0.161
91782352|NCT02304367|183444366|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 24||||< 0.001
91782353|NCT02304367|183444366|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 48||||< 0.001
91782354|NCT02304367|183444366|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 96||||0.001
91782355|NCT02304367|183444366|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
91782356|NCT02304367|183444366|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
91782357|NCT02304367|183444366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
91782358|NCT02304367|183444366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 216||||< 0.001
91782359|NCT02304367|183444366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
91782360|NCT02304367|183444367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 24||||< 0.001
91782361|NCT02304367|183444367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 48||||< 0.001
91782362|NCT02304367|183444367|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 96||||0.002
91782363|NCT02304367|183444367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 144||||< 0.001
91782364|NCT02304367|183444367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 168||||< 0.001
91782365|NCT02304367|183444367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 192||||< 0.001
91782366|NCT02304367|183444367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 216||||< 0.001
91782367|NCT02304367|183444367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 240||||< 0.001
91782368|NCT02304367|183444368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 24||||< 0.001
91782369|NCT02304367|183444368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 48||||< 0.001
91782370|NCT02304367|183444368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 96||||< 0.001
91782371|NCT02304367|183444368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
91782372|NCT02304367|183444368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
91782373|NCT02304367|183444368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
91782374|NCT02304367|183444368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 216||||< 0.001
91782375|NCT02304367|183444368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
91782376|NCT02304367|183444369|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 24||||0.878
91782377|NCT02304367|183444369|OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 48||||0.081
91782378|NCT02304367|183444369|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 96||||0.001
91782379|NCT02304367|183444369|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
91782380|NCT02304367|183444369|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
91782381|NCT02304367|183444369|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
91782382|NCT02304367|183444369|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 216||||0.055
91782383|NCT02304367|183444369|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 240||||0.041
91782384|NCT02304367|183444370|OTHER|||||||0.817|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 24||||0.817
91782385|NCT02304367|183444370|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 48||||0.042
91782386|NCT02304367|183444370|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 96||||< 0.001
91782387|NCT02304367|183444370|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
91898756|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.86|14.09||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.09|-27.86|0.5115
91782388|NCT02304367|183444370|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
91782389|NCT02304367|183444370|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
91782390|NCT02304367|183444370|OTHER|||||||0.174|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 216||||0.174
91782391|NCT02304367|183444370|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
91782392|NCT02304367|183444371|OTHER|||||||0.694|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 24||||0.694
91782393|NCT02304367|183444371|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 48||||0.047
91782394|NCT02304367|183444371|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 96||||< 0.001
91782395|NCT02304367|183444371|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
91782396|NCT02304367|183444371|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
91782397|NCT02304367|183444371|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
91782398|NCT02304367|183444371|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 216||||0.170
91782399|NCT02304367|183444371|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
91782400|NCT02304367|183444372|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 24||||0.090
91782401|NCT02304367|183444372|OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 48||||0.226
91782402|NCT02304367|183444372|OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 96||||0.918
91782403|NCT02304367|183444372|OTHER|||||||0.616|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 144||||0.616
91782404|NCT02304367|183444372|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 168||||0.041
91841630|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.4|
91841631|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-2.2|
91782405|NCT02304367|183444372|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 192||||0.002
91782406|NCT02304367|183444372|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 216||||0.137
91782407|NCT02304367|183444372|OTHER|||||||0.368|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 240||||0.368
91782408|NCT02304367|183444373|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 24||||0.018
91782409|NCT02304367|183444373|OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 48||||0.133
91841632|NCT03954158|183564563|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.1||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.8|
91841633|NCT04076020|183564585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Results presented from Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test with PDC as the dependent variable.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Proportion of days covered (PDC) at 12 months. A sample size of 119 in each study arm enabled us to detect a minimum difference in PDC of 11.7% with 85% power (assuming a standard deviation=30%). Our power calculations assume use of 2-sided tests with 0.05 significance level.||||0.99
91841634|NCT04076020|183564585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of days covered (PDC) analyzed as a binary variable with optimal adherence determined as ≥0.80) variables using logistic regression and adjustment for trial stratification factors. Our power calculations assume use of 2-sided tests with 0.05 significance level.||||<0.05
91841635|NCT04076020|183564586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Difference in self-reported adherence reported across baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-month visits using generalized estimating equations and adjusted for trial stratification factors.||||<0.05
91782410|NCT02304367|183444373|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 96||||0.321
91782411|NCT02304367|183444373|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 144||||0.218
91782412|NCT02304367|183444373|OTHER|||||||0.788|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 168||||0.788
91782413|NCT02304367|183444373|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 192||||0.156
91782414|NCT02304367|183444373|OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 216||||0.155
91782415|NCT02304367|183444373|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 240||||0.580
91782416|NCT02304367|183444374|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 24||||0.002
91782417|NCT02304367|183444374|OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 48||||0.273
91782418|NCT02304367|183444374|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 96||||0.469
91782419|NCT02304367|183444374|OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 144||||0.828
91782420|NCT02304367|183444374|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
91782421|NCT02304367|183444374|OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 192||||0.141
91782422|NCT02304367|183444374|OTHER|||||||0.606|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 216||||0.606
91782423|NCT02304367|183444374|OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 240||||0.907
91782424|NCT02304367|183444375|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 24||||0.001
91782425|NCT02304367|183444375|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 48||||0.149
91782426|NCT02304367|183444375|OTHER|||||||0.372|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 96||||0.372
91782427|NCT02304367|183444375|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 144||||0.116
91782428|NCT02304367|183444375|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 168||||0.013
91782429|NCT02304367|183444375|OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 192||||0.962
91782430|NCT02304367|183444375|OTHER|||||||0.664|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 216||||0.664
91782431|NCT02304367|183444375|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 240||||0.790
91782432|NCT02304367|183444376|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 24||||0.050
91782433|NCT02304367|183444376|OTHER|||||||0.526|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 48||||0.526
91841636|NCT03230864|183564593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||The mean changes from randomization in PANNS total score was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model will include the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, fixed covariates of baseline scores and baseline scores-by-visit interaction. An unstructured (co)variance structure will be used to model the within-patient errors. The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||11.65|-0.70|0.0809
91841637|NCT05462652|183564599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.59|-3.68|<0.001
91841638|NCT05462652|183564600|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion z-test|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.0|||Chi-squared|||"Missing values imputed with multiple imputation.~P-values are obtained from a Pearson Chi-Squared test; differences and 95% CIs are obtained from a difference in proportions Z- test."||31.0|9.1|<0.001
91841639|NCT05462652|183564601|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions z-test|15.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|25.6|||Chi-squared|||P-values are obtained from a Pearson Chi-Squared test; differences and 95% CIs are obtained from a difference in proportions Z- test.||25.6|5.3|0.003
91841640|NCT05462652|183564602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion z-test|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|36.4|||Chi-squared|||Missing values imputed with multiple imputation. P-values are obtained from a Pearson Chi-Squared test; differences and 95% CIs are obtained from a difference in proportions Z- test.||36.4|13.0|<0.001
91841641|NCT00479037|183564620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|360.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|256.5|494.3||P-values corresponding to the tests of treatment effect for the primary endpoints were adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|||The bone marker values were log-transformed for the primary analysis as they were heavily skewed. Changes in log-transformed bone marker values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as fixed effects and the baseline bone marker value as a covariate. An F-test was used to test the effect of treatment and the least square means were computed to assess the clinical difference between treatment groups.||494.3|256.5|<0.0001
91841642|NCT00479037|183564621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|92.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.8|127.1||P-values corresponding to the tests of treatment effect for the primary endpoints were adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|||The bone marker values were log-transformed for the primary analysis as they were heavily skewed. Changes in log-transformed bone marker values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as fixed effects and the baseline bone marker value as a covariate. An F-test was used to test the effect of treatment and the least square means were computed to assess the clinical difference between treatment groups.||127.1|63.8|<0.0001
91841643|NCT00479037|183564622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|138.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|191.8||P-value corresponding to the tests of treatment effect was adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|||The bone marker values were log-transformed for the primary analysis as they were heavily skewed. Changes in log-transformed bone marker values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as fixed effects and the baseline bone marker value as a covariate. An F-test was used to test the effect of treatment and the least square means were computed to assess the clinical difference between treatment groups.||191.8|94.8|<0.0001
91851675|NCT05382104|183586941|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to natural log (ln)-transformed Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) was constructed for the differences between Treatment B versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|76.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.78|81.78|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment B / Treatment A).|||81.78|71.78|
91782434|NCT02304367|183444376|OTHER|||||||0.845|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 96||||0.845
91782435|NCT02304367|183444376|OTHER|||||||0.782|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 144||||0.782
91782436|NCT02304367|183444376|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 168||||0.020
91782437|NCT02304367|183444376|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 192||||0.005
91782438|NCT02304367|183444376|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 216||||0.136
91898757|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.3||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.68|39.0||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||39.00|-33.68|0.8795
91851676|NCT05382104|183586941|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for differences between Treatment C versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|71.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.14|76.37|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment C / Treatment A).|||76.37|67.14|
91898758|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.73|34.48||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||34.48|-37.73|0.9254
91841644|NCT02368002|183564650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||2 df re-random\*time interaction tested if baseline to 6M or 18M PCM and ABT weight changes differed; primary hypothesis tests were 2 planned contrasts estimating baseline to 6M (H1a, expected neg) and 18M (H1b, expected pos) PCM vs. ABT weight change|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included a random participant intercept. Fixed covariates were baseline weight, TRA timing, sex, weight loss rate.||H1 predicted that suboptimal responders re-randomized to PCM would lose more weight at 6m (H1a) while those re-randomized to ABT would lose more weight at 18m (H1b). A mixed linear model predicted weight change from fixed re-randomization, measurement time, the re-randomization by measurement time interaction and covariate parameters.|The primary hypothesis tests were two planned contrasts that estimated weight change from baseline to 6M and 18M relative to baseline in PCM relative to ABT. A mixed linear model predicted weight changes between baseline and post-baseline for suboptimal responders, and this model included two a priori simple effects tests resulting in two mean differences, confidence intervals, and p-values. H1a: -2.7 lbs; 95% CI: -5.8, 0.5; p=0.09. H1b: -1.0 lbs; 95% CI: -4.2, 2.2; p=0.53|||0.25
91782439|NCT02304367|183444376|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 240||||0.101
91782440|NCT02304367|183444377|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 24||||< 0.001
91782441|NCT02304367|183444377|OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 48||||0.238
91782442|NCT02304367|183444377|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 96||||0.286
91841645|NCT02368002|183564651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included a random participant intercept. Fixed covariates were baseline weight, sex, TRA result (PCM, ABT, responder, pre-TRA quit).||Hypothesis 2 predicted that among all participants, those randomized to Early TRA would lose more weight at 6 and 18 months than those randomized to Late TRA. A mixed linear model predicted weight change from fixed treatment response assessment timing and covariate parameters.||2.3|-2.4|0.96
91841646|NCT02001974|183564663|OTHER|||||||0.0341|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day -3||||0.0341
91841647|NCT02001974|183564663|OTHER|||||||0.0636|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day -3||||0.0636
91841648|NCT02001974|183564663|OTHER|||||||0.0487|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 1||||0.0487
91898759|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.34||0.7718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.68|31.47||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||31.47|-41.68|0.7718
91841649|NCT02001974|183564663|OTHER|||||||0.3498|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 1||||0.3498
91841650|NCT02001974|183564663|OTHER|||||||0.0096|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 8||||0.0096
91841651|NCT02001974|183564663|OTHER|||||||0.1374|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 8||||0.1374
91841652|NCT02001974|183564663|OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 21||||0.0065
91841653|NCT02001974|183564663|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 21||||0.1470
91841654|NCT02001974|183564664|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day -3||||0.0015
91841655|NCT02001974|183564664|OTHER|||||||0.0176|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day -3||||0.0176
91841656|NCT02001974|183564664|OTHER|||||||0.0048|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 1||||0.0048
91841657|NCT02001974|183564664|OTHER|||||||0.2083|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 1||||0.2083
91841658|NCT02001974|183564664|OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 8||||0.0111
91841659|NCT02001974|183564664|OTHER|||||||0.1441|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 8||||0.1441
91841660|NCT02001974|183564664|OTHER|||||||0.0283|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 21||||0.0283
91841661|NCT02001974|183564664|OTHER|||||||0.1331|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 21||||0.1331
91841662|NCT02001974|183564665|OTHER|||||||0.0097|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day -3||||0.0097
91841663|NCT02001974|183564665|OTHER|||||||0.0354|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day -3||||0.0354
91841664|NCT02001974|183564665|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 1||||0.0200
91841665|NCT02001974|183564665|OTHER|||||||0.2134|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 1||||0.2134
91841666|NCT02001974|183564665|OTHER|||||||0.0235|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 8||||0.0235
91841667|NCT02001974|183564665|OTHER|||||||0.0964|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 8||||0.0964
91841668|NCT02001974|183564665|OTHER|||||||0.0314|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 21||||0.0314
91841669|NCT02001974|183564665|OTHER|||||||0.0773|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 21||||0.0773
91841670|NCT02001974|183564666|OTHER|||||||0.1016|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day -3||||0.1016
91841671|NCT02001974|183564666|OTHER|||||||0.2001|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day -3||||0.2001
91841672|NCT02001974|183564666|OTHER|||||||0.0802|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 1||||0.0802
91841673|NCT02001974|183564666|OTHER|||||||0.4728|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 1||||0.4728
91841674|NCT02001974|183564666|OTHER|||||||0.0355|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.0355
91841675|NCT02001974|183564666|OTHER|||||||0.1709|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.1709
91898760|NCT03816891|183693437|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.38||0.9855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.34|36.98||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||36.98|-36.34|0.9855
91898761|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.21||0.7508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.29|32.54||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||32.54|-44.29|0.7508
91898762|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.26||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.26|32.55||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||32.55|-40.26|0.8260
91841676|NCT02001974|183564666|OTHER|||||||0.0685|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 21||||0.0685
91841677|NCT02001974|183564666|OTHER|||||||0.3189|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 21||||0.3189
91841678|NCT02001974|183564667|OTHER|||||||0.2375|||||||ANOVA|||Paclitaxel, Cmax, Day 1||||0.2375
91841679|NCT02001974|183564667|OTHER|||||||0.3608|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 1||||0.3608
91841680|NCT02001974|183564667|OTHER|||||||0.0442|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.0442
91841681|NCT02001974|183564667|OTHER|||||||0.1067|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.1067
91841682|NCT02001974|183564673|OTHER|||||||0.0134|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.0134
91841683|NCT02001974|183564673|OTHER|||||||0.0799|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.0799
91841684|NCT02001974|183564673|OTHER|||||||0.0241|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.0241
91841685|NCT02001974|183564673|OTHER|||||||0.01384|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.01384
91841686|NCT02001974|183564673|OTHER|||||||0.0091|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.0091
91841687|NCT02001974|183564673|OTHER|||||||0.5687|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.5687
91841688|NCT02001974|183564673|OTHER|||||||0.0058|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 21||||0.0058
91841689|NCT02001974|183564673|OTHER|||||||0.3667|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 21||||0.3667
91841690|NCT02001974|183564674|OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day -3||||0.0029
91841691|NCT02001974|183564674|OTHER|||||||0.0349|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day -3||||0.0349
91841692|NCT02001974|183564674|OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 1||||0.0119
91841693|NCT02001974|183564674|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 1||||0.2100
91841694|NCT02001974|183564674|OTHER|||||||0.0165|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 8||||0.0165
91841695|NCT02001974|183564674|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 8||||0.1496
91841696|NCT02001974|183564674|OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 21||||0.0321
91841697|NCT02001974|183564674|OTHER|||||||0.1404|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 21||||0.1404
91841698|NCT02001974|183564675|OTHER|||||||0.0081|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day -3||||0.0081
91841699|NCT02001974|183564675|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day -3||||0.0640
91841700|NCT02001974|183564675|OTHER|||||||0.0397|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 1||||0.0397
91841701|NCT02001974|183564675|OTHER|||||||0.1898|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 1||||0.1898
91841702|NCT02001974|183564675|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 8||||0.0250
91841703|NCT02001974|183564675|OTHER|||||||0.1605|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 8||||0.1605
91841704|NCT02001974|183564675|OTHER|||||||0.0786|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 21||||0.0786
91841705|NCT02001974|183564675|OTHER|||||||0.2652|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 21||||0.2652
91841706|NCT02001974|183564676|OTHER|||||||0.1335|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.1335
91841707|NCT02001974|183564676|OTHER|||||||0.2658|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.2658
91841708|NCT02001974|183564676|OTHER|||||||0.1063|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.1063
91841709|NCT02001974|183564676|OTHER|||||||0.4959|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.4959
91841710|NCT02001974|183564676|OTHER|||||||0.0452|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.0452
91841711|NCT02001974|183564676|OTHER|||||||0.2223|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.2223
91841712|NCT02001974|183564676|OTHER|||||||0.0737|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 21||||0.0737
91841713|NCT02001974|183564676|OTHER|||||||0.2804|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day21||||0.2804
91841714|NCT02001974|183564677|OTHER|||||||0.1449|||||||ANOVA|||Paclitaxel, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.1449
91841715|NCT02001974|183564677|OTHER|||||||0.1338|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.1338
91841716|NCT02001974|183564677|OTHER|||||||0.0633|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.0633
91841717|NCT02001974|183564677|OTHER|||||||0.6939|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.6939
91841718|NCT01380990|183564695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
91898763|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.23||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|31.96||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||31.96|-44.95|0.7259
91782443|NCT02304367|183444377|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 144||||0.093
91782444|NCT02304367|183444377|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 168||||0.890
91898764|NCT03816891|183693437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.66||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.61|29.92||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||29.92|-44.61|0.6826
91898765|NCT03816891|183693439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.96|-10.97||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-10.97|-44.96|0.0018
91898766|NCT03816891|183693439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.83|-4.77||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-4.77|-37.83|0.0127
91898767|NCT03816891|183693439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.54|4.84||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||4.84|-29.54|0.1547
91782445|NCT02304367|183444377|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 192||||0.059
91782446|NCT02304367|183444377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623||||||Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.|GEE model|||Week 216||||0.623
91782447|NCT02304367|183444377|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 240||||0.411
91782448|NCT02304367|183444378|OTHER|||||||0.8209|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.8209
91898768|NCT03816891|183693439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.78|7.01||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||7.01|-31.78|0.2048
91782449|NCT02304367|183444378|OTHER|||||||0.2851|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.2851
91782450|NCT02304367|183444378|OTHER|||||||0.6689|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.6689
91782451|NCT02304367|183444378|OTHER|||||||0.1612|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.1612
91782452|NCT02304367|183444379|OTHER|||||||0.4093|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.4093
91782453|NCT02304367|183444379|OTHER|||||||0.572|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.5720
91782454|NCT02304367|183444379|OTHER|||||||0.3501|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.3501
91782455|NCT02304367|183444379|OTHER|||||||0.5172|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.5172
91782456|NCT02304367|183444380|OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline STS measurement.||Week 24||||0.0046
91782457|NCT02304367|183444380|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline STS measurement.||Week 48||||0.0012
91782458|NCT02304367|183444381|OTHER|||||||0.6475|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.6475
91782459|NCT02304367|183444381|OTHER|||||||0.5319|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.5319
91782460|NCT02304367|183444381|OTHER|||||||0.9206|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.9206
91782461|NCT02304367|183444381|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.1530
91782462|NCT02304367|183444382|OTHER|||||||0.2125|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.2125
91782463|NCT02304367|183444382|OTHER|||||||0.1241|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.1241
91782464|NCT02304367|183444383|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.410
91782465|NCT02304367|183444383|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.210
91782466|NCT02304367|183444383|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.060
91782467|NCT02304367|183444383|OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.076
91782468|NCT02304367|183444383|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.171
91782469|NCT02304367|183444383|OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.141
91782470|NCT02304367|183444383|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.263
91782471|NCT02304367|183444383|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.320
91782472|NCT02304367|183444384|OTHER|||||||0.407|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.407
91782473|NCT02304367|183444384|OTHER|||||||0.192|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.192
91782474|NCT02304367|183444384|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.106
91782475|NCT02304367|183444384|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.020
91782476|NCT02304367|183444384|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.002
91782477|NCT02304367|183444384|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.220
91782478|NCT02304367|183444384|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.230
91782479|NCT02304367|183444384|OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.232
91782480|NCT02304367|183444385|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.082
91782481|NCT02304367|183444385|OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.176
91782482|NCT02304367|183444385|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.047
91782483|NCT02304367|183444385|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.017
91841719|NCT01380990|183564695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
91782484|NCT02304367|183444385|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.000
91782485|NCT02304367|183444385|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.057
91782486|NCT02304367|183444385|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.071
91782487|NCT02304367|183444385|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.070
91782488|NCT02304367|183444386|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.014
91841720|NCT01380990|183564695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
91782489|NCT02304367|183444386|OTHER|||||||0.309|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.309
91782490|NCT02304367|183444386|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.036
91782491|NCT02304367|183444386|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.096
91782492|NCT02304367|183444386|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.005
91782493|NCT02304367|183444386|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.022
91782494|NCT02304367|183444386|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.022
91782495|NCT02304367|183444386|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.004
91782496|NCT02304367|183444387|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.005
91782497|NCT02304367|183444387|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.019
91782498|NCT02304367|183444387|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||< 0.001
91782499|NCT02304367|183444387|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.006
91782500|NCT02304367|183444387|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||< 0.001
91782501|NCT02304367|183444387|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||< 0.001
91782502|NCT02304367|183444387|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.002
91782503|NCT02304367|183444387|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.002
91782504|NCT02304367|183444388|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.016
91782505|NCT02304367|183444388|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.004
91841721|NCT01380990|183564695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
91782506|NCT02304367|183444388|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||< 0.001
91782507|NCT02304367|183444388|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
91782508|NCT02304367|183444388|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||< 0.001
91782509|NCT02304367|183444388|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.036
91782510|NCT02304367|183444388|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.008
91782511|NCT02304367|183444388|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.008
91782512|NCT02304367|183444389|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.006
91782513|NCT02304367|183444389|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.003
91782514|NCT02304367|183444389|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||<0.001
91782515|NCT02304367|183444389|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
91782516|NCT02304367|183444389|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||< 0.001
91782517|NCT02304367|183444389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.007
91782518|NCT02304367|183444389|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.005
91841722|NCT01380990|183564695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
91841723|NCT01380990|183564695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
91841724|NCT01380990|183564696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
91841725|NCT01380990|183564696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
91841726|NCT01380990|183564696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
91841727|NCT01380990|183564696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
91841728|NCT01380990|183564696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
91841729|NCT01380990|183564696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
91841730|NCT01380990|183564701|OTHER|Model includes fixed effects for visit and Baseline, subject as random effect, with compound symmetry covariance structure. Observations with a value of 0 were imputed as 0.01. Model analyses log transformed data, so the adjusted mean refers to the geometric mean ratio between Month 12 and Baseline.|||||=|0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) Analysis of Change from Baseline to Month 12 in Log-Transformed CD3+ T Cell count (OTL-101\*) for OTL-101\* on-study subjects group."||||= 0.002
91841731|NCT01380990|183564701|OTHER|Model includes fixed effects for visit and Baseline, subject as random effect, with compound symmetry covariance structure. Observations with a value of 0 were imputed as 0.01. Model analyses log transformed data, so the adjusted mean refers to the geometric mean ratio between Month 12 and Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MMRM Analysis of Change from Baseline to Month 12 in Log-Transformed CD3+ T Cell count (OTL-101\*) for OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects group."||||< 0.001
91841732|NCT01380990|183564706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
91841733|NCT01380990|183564706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.41|48.25||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||48.25|-22.41|
91841734|NCT01380990|183564706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|34.23||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||34.23|-28.10|
91898769|NCT03816891|183693439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.58||0.9508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|27.58||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||27.58|-29.28|0.9508
91841735|NCT01380990|183564706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
91841736|NCT01380990|183564706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.01|48.25||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||48.25|-10.01|
91841737|NCT01380990|183564706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|33.87||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||33.87|-12.91|
91841738|NCT01380990|183564707|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.645|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.645
91841739|NCT01380990|183564707|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.299|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.299
91782519|NCT02304367|183444389|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.006
91782520|NCT02304367|183444390|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.009
91782521|NCT02304367|183444390|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.020
91782522|NCT02304367|183444390|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.044
91782523|NCT02304367|183444390|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
91782524|NCT02304367|183444390|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.015
91782525|NCT02304367|183444390|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.125
91782526|NCT02304367|183444390|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.004
91782527|NCT02304367|183444390|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.018
91782528|NCT02304367|183444391|OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.148
91782529|NCT02304367|183444391|OTHER|||||||0.295|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.295
91782530|NCT02304367|183444391|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.005
91782531|NCT02304367|183444391|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
91782532|NCT02304367|183444391|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.014
91782533|NCT02304367|183444391|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.140
91782534|NCT02304367|183444391|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||< 0.001
91782535|NCT02304367|183444391|OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.142
91782536|NCT02304367|183444392|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.005
91782537|NCT02304367|183444392|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.077
91782538|NCT02304367|183444392|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.046
91782539|NCT02304367|183444392|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.049
91782540|NCT02304367|183444392|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.003
91782541|NCT02304367|183444392|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.073
91841740|NCT01380990|183564707|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.2
91841741|NCT01380990|183564707|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.028|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.028
91841742|NCT01380990|183564707|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.259|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.259
91841743|NCT01380990|183564707|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.044|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.044
91782542|NCT02304367|183444392|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.109
91782543|NCT02304367|183444392|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.006
91782544|NCT02304367|183444393|OTHER|||||||0.328|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.328
91782545|NCT02304367|183444393|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.015
91782546|NCT02304367|183444393|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.020
91782547|NCT02304367|183444393|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.004
91782548|NCT02304367|183444393|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.021
91782549|NCT02304367|183444393|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.080
91782550|NCT02304367|183444393|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||< 0.001
91841744|NCT01380990|183564707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.05|61.97||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||61.97|-32.05|
91782551|NCT02304367|183444393|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.003
91782552|NCT02304367|183444394|OTHER|||||||0.207|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.207
91782553|NCT02304367|183444394|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.008
91782554|NCT02304367|183444394|OTHER|||||||0.598|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.598
91782555|NCT02304367|183444394|OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.237
91841745|NCT01380990|183564707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|65.87||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||65.87|-10.72|
91841746|NCT01380990|183564707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|23.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|54.59||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||54.59|-15.24|
91841747|NCT01380990|183564707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|63.54||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||63.54|-13.70|
91898770|NCT03816891|183693439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.07|13.19||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||13.19|-22.07|0.6140
91841748|NCT01380990|183564707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|68.45||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||68.45|2.29|
91841749|NCT01380990|183564707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|28.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|56.36||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||56.36|2.04|
91898771|NCT03816891|183693439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.12||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|27.66||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||27.66|-44.94|0.6207
91841750|NCT03192215|183564739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.55|||Log Rank|||||1.55|0.64|0.99
91841751|NCT03192215|183564740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.59|0.72
91841752|NCT03192215|183564741|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.76|0.67
91841753|NCT03192215|183564742|SUPERIORITY||Difference of annual rate.|-0.011||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|-0.003|||Exact Binomial Test|||||-0.003|-0.018|.02
91841754|NCT03192215|183564743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.52|||Log Rank|||||3.52|0.29|0.98
91841755|NCT03192215|183564744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.75|||Log Rank|||||3.75|0.63|0.35
91841756|NCT04844918|183564745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.5|-18.7|<0.001
91841757|NCT04844918|183564745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.5|-23.6|<0.001
91841758|NCT04844918|183564746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|119.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.06|492.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||492.67|29.06|<0.001
91841759|NCT04844918|183564746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|153.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.03|654.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||654.53|36.03|<0.001
91841760|NCT04844918|183564747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.62|68.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||68.28|8.62|<0.001
91841761|NCT04844918|183564747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.21|110.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||110.89|13.21|<0.001
91841762|NCT04844918|183564748|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.91|-11.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.09|-18.91|<0.001
91841763|NCT04844918|183564748|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|-9.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.05|-16.56|<0.001
91841764|NCT04844918|183564749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.74|-41.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.77|-69.74|<0.001
91841765|NCT04844918|183564749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-64.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.2|-51.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-51.43|-78.20|<0.001
91841766|NCT04844918|183564750|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-29.7|-50.0|<0.001
91841767|NCT04844918|183564750|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-34.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.9|-52.7|<0.001
91782556|NCT02304367|183444394|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.899
91782557|NCT02304367|183444394|OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.585
91782558|NCT02304367|183444394|OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.461
91782559|NCT02304367|183444394|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.583
91841768|NCT04844918|183564751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-35.7|||ANCOVA|||||-35.7|-53.0|<0.001
91841769|NCT04844918|183564751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|-41.9|||ANCOVA|||||-41.9|-58.8|<0.001
91841770|NCT04844918|183564752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.25|89.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.14|7.25|<0.001
91841771|NCT04844918|183564752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|70.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.73|392.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||392.24|12.73|<0.001
91841772|NCT04844918|183564753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|30.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.20|2.86|<0.001
91841773|NCT04844918|183564753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|51.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.37|4.78|<0.001
91841774|NCT04844918|183564754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|80.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||80.88|9.35|<0.001
91841775|NCT04844918|183564754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|120.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||120.57|13.27|<0.001
91841776|NCT04844918|183564755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|185.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.39|745.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||745.16|46.39|<0.001
91841777|NCT04844918|183564755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|318.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.49|1357.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1357.79|74.49|<0.001
91841778|NCT04844918|183564756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.64|538.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||538.74|18.64|<0.001
91841779|NCT04844918|183564756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|286.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.68|1622.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||1622.06|50.68|<0.001
91841780|NCT04844918|183564757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.2|-16.8|<0.001
91841781|NCT04844918|183564757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.0|-21.6|<0.001
91841782|NCT04844918|183564758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.4|-6.1|<0.001
91841783|NCT04844918|183564758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.3|-8.0|<0.001
91841784|NCT04844918|183564759|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-29.3|-42.9|<0.001
91841785|NCT04844918|183564759|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.4|-47.8|<0.001
91841786|NCT04844918|183564760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.9|-32.6|<0.001
91841787|NCT04844918|183564760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-26.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.2|-36.7|<0.001
91898772|NCT03816891|183693441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-2.71||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-2.71|-16.89|0.0079
91648424|NCT03053622|183189482|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|23.97|||||"In this outcome, the median difference is not calculated by subtracting two observations, it is derived by Hodges-Lehmann approach to estimating location shift. This method will give the value of 0.25."|||23.97|-0.25|
91648425|NCT01406873|183189531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91648426|NCT03990389|183189535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0618||||||Three degrees of freedom for the interaction test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0618
91648427|NCT03990389|183189535|SUPERIORITY||estimated treatment effect at month 1|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction for 3 times points|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.63
91648428|NCT03990389|183189535|SUPERIORITY||estimated treatment effect at month 2|-5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction for 3 times points|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91648429|NCT03990389|183189535|SUPERIORITY||estimated treatment effect at month 3|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.234|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction for 3 times points|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.234
91648430|NCT03990389|183189536|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.116
91782560|NCT02304367|183444395|OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.654
91782561|NCT02304367|183444395|OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.579
91782562|NCT02304367|183444395|OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.123
91782563|NCT02304367|183444395|OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.712
91782564|NCT02304367|183444395|OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.258
91782565|NCT02304367|183444395|OTHER|||||||0.851|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.851
91782566|NCT02304367|183444395|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.849
91782567|NCT02304367|183444395|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.153
91782568|NCT02304367|183444396|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.002
91782569|NCT02304367|183444396|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.030
91782570|NCT02304367|183444396|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.011
91782571|NCT02304367|183444396|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.186
91782572|NCT02304367|183444396|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.027
91782573|NCT02304367|183444396|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.330
91782574|NCT02304367|183444396|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.072
91782575|NCT02304367|183444396|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.045
91782576|NCT02304367|183444397|OTHER|||||||0.369|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.369
91782577|NCT02304367|183444397|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.026
91782578|NCT02304367|183444397|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||< 0.001
91782579|NCT02304367|183444397|OTHER|||||||0.235|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.235
91782580|NCT02304367|183444397|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.009
91782581|NCT02304367|183444397|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.278
91782582|NCT02304367|183444397|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.046
91841788|NCT04844918|183564761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.16|0.004
91648431|NCT00207714|183189541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between combined golimumab and placebo groups and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Week 16 between combined golimumab groups and Placebo +MTX group. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25 % response in Placebo +MTX.||||0.010
91841789|NCT04844918|183564761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.15|0.006
91841790|NCT04844918|183564762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|188.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||188.55|4.31|<0.001
91841791|NCT04844918|183564762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|57.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|383.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||383.88|8.68|<0.001
91841792|NCT04844918|183564763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.0|-13.8|<0.001
91841793|NCT04844918|183564763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.0|-17.7|<0.001
91841794|NCT04844918|183564764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-0.77|<0.001
91841795|NCT04844918|183564764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-0.77|<0.001
91648432|NCT00207714|183189541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||0.056
91841796|NCT04844918|183564765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|-2.08||||||||-2.08|-5.74|
91841797|NCT04844918|183564765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-2.81||||||||-2.81|-6.29|
91841798|NCT04844918|183564766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.3|-17.0|<0.001
91841799|NCT04844918|183564766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.1|-17.7|<0.001
91841800|NCT04844918|183564767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.4|-9.3|<0.001
91841801|NCT04844918|183564767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-9.7|<0.001
91841802|NCT04844918|183564768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|0.2|0.022
91841803|NCT04844918|183564768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|1.1|<0.001
91898773|NCT03816891|183693441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|-3.06||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-3.06|-23.69|0.0122
91898774|NCT03816891|183693441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-1.02||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-1.02|-22.80|0.0328
91898775|NCT03816891|183693441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|-2.15||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.15|-25.36|0.0212
91898776|NCT03816891|183693441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.95|8.72||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||8.72|-25.95|0.3112
91898777|NCT03816891|183693441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.74||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.75|-3.61||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-3.61|-26.75|0.0113
91898778|NCT03816891|183693441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|13.68||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||13.68|-29.20|0.4540
91898779|NCT03816891|183693445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.8436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.64||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||9.64|0.16|0.8436
91898780|NCT03816891|183693445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.4922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|13.75||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||13.75|0.29|0.4922
91898781|NCT03816891|183693445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|36.91||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||36.91|1.61|0.0064
91898782|NCT03816891|183693445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|20.91||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||20.91|1.26|0.0201
91898783|NCT03816891|183693445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|10.55||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||10.55|0.82|0.0841
91898784|NCT03816891|183693445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|15.22||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||15.22|1.12|0.0292
91898785|NCT03816891|183693445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|15.0||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||15.00|0.51|0.2259
91898786|NCT03816891|183693445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|20.95||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||20.95|1.41|0.0104
91898787|NCT03816891|183693445|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.8||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|214.44||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||214.44|0.89|0.0434
91898788|NCT03816891|183693445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||0.0093
91898789|NCT03816891|183693445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|189.25||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||189.25|1.10|0.0290
91898790|NCT03816891|183693446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|948.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||948.31|5.35|<0.0001
91898791|NCT03816891|183693446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|83.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.47|1.62|0.0019
91898792|NCT03816891|183693446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.84||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|68.26||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||68.26|1.14|0.0117
91898793|NCT03816891|183693447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|22.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.14|3.34|<0.0001
91898794|NCT03816891|183693447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|19.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.79|2.91|<0.0001
91898795|NCT03816891|183693447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.75|0.80|0.1252
91898796|NCT03816891|183693448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|17.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.47|1.83|0.0017
91898797|NCT03816891|183693448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.99|1.19|0.0196
91841804|NCT04844918|183564769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.7|||ANCOVA|||||18.7|7.4|<0.001
91898798|NCT03816891|183693448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.6213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|0.40|0.6213
91898799|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||-0.7|-1.8|<0.0001
91898800|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||-0.1|-1.2|0.0287
91898801|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.1|-1.0|0.1123
91898802|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-1.3|-3.0|<0.0001
91898803|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.4|-2.0|0.0044
91898804|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.4|-2.0|0.0046
91898805|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-1.8|-3.6|<0.0001
91898806|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.6|-2.3|0.0011
91898807|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.2|-1.9|0.0171
91898808|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.1|-4.0|<0.0001
91898809|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.8|-2.6|0.0002
91898810|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.2|-1.6|0.1146
91898811|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-2.3|-4.2|<0.0001
91898812|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-1.2|-3.0|<0.0001
91841805|NCT04844918|183564769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|16.3|||ANCOVA|||||16.3|5.4|<0.001
91841806|NCT04844918|183564770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|0.00|0.099
91841807|NCT04844918|183564770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.01|0.236
91841808|NCT02855164|183564798|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS mean change|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.76||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||-0.6|-31.2|0.362
91841809|NCT02855164|183564798|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS mean change|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|3.3|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||3.3|-24.8|0.729
91841810|NCT02855164|183564798|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|Least Square Mean Change|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-7.1|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B)||-7.1|-25.8|0.173
91841811|NCT02855164|183564798|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|Least Square Mean Change|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.5|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B)||-8.5|-21.3|0.185
91841812|NCT02855164|183564798|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean Change|-31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-16.3|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs placebo||-16.3|-46.9|0.020
91841813|NCT02855164|183564798|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean Change|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-14.5|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part C)||-14.5|-50.6|0.030
91841814|NCT02855164|183564798|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-0.4|-26.3|0.456
91898813|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.3|-2.1|0.0087
91841815|NCT02855164|183564798|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|4.4|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||4.4|-19.5|0.966
91841816|NCT02855164|183564798|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-5.2|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-5.2|-21.4|0.275
91841817|NCT02855164|183564798|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-5.9|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-5.9|-17.6|0.304
91648433|NCT00207714|183189541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between Golimumab 50 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||0.281
91648434|NCT00207714|183189541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between Golimumab 100 mg every 4 weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||0.119
91841818|NCT02855164|183564798|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) FAS|LS Mean change|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-9.8|-24.5|0.057
91841819|NCT02855164|183564798|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B + C) FAS|LS Mean change|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-15.6|-30.5|0.003
91841820|NCT02855164|183564799|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|3.0|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||3.0|-22.9|0.722
91841821|NCT02855164|183564799|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.5|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||9.5|-14.0|0.468
91648435|NCT00207714|183189541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between Golimumab 100 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||<0.001
91841822|NCT02855164|183564799|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B)||-1.0|-16.7|0.774
91841823|NCT02855164|183564799|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.9|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B)||4.9|-6.0|0.136
91841824|NCT02855164|183564799|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-8.2|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part C)||-8.2|-23.9|0.145
91841825|NCT02855164|183564799|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part C)||-6.4|-24.2|0.236
91841826|NCT02855164|183564799|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|4.4|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||4.4|-18.7|0.788
91841827|NCT02855164|183564799|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|11.0|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||11.0|-10.2|0.413
91648436|NCT00207714|183189542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX and combined golimumab groups.||||0.001
91648437|NCT00207714|183189542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX and Golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks||||0.006
91648438|NCT00207714|183189542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX and Golimumab 50 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks||||0.095
91648439|NCT00207714|183189542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX Golibumab 100 mg every 4 weeks||||0.010
91648440|NCT00207714|183189542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX Golimumab 100 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks||||<0.001
91648441|NCT02595528|183189543|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|-2.5543||||0.0029|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-190584 Quadratic||||0.0029
91648442|NCT02595528|183189543|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|6.6961|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-190584 Linear||||<0.0001
91648443|NCT02595528|183189543|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|-69.89||||0.4126|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-199201 Quadratic||||0.4126
91648444|NCT02595528|183189543|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|10.5017||||0.3752|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-199201 Linear||||0.3752
91648445|NCT03202511|183189544|EQUIVALENCE|0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin was used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|1.77||||||||1.77|1.47|
91648446|NCT03202511|183189545|EQUIVALENCE|80 to 125% equivalence margin was used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|77.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.4|97.6||||||||97.6|61.4|
91648447|NCT02082912|183189564|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.216||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Values represent the time x treatment group interaction.||||0.651
91648448|NCT02082912|183189565|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.633||||0.447|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Values represent the time x treatment group interaction.||||0.447
91648449|NCT02082912|183189566|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.557||||0.471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Values represent the time x treatment group interaction.||||0.471
91782583|NCT02304367|183444397|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.035
91782584|NCT02304367|183444398|OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.442
91782585|NCT02304367|183444398|OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.677
91782586|NCT02304367|183444398|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.027
91782587|NCT02304367|183444398|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.420
91782588|NCT02304367|183444398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.027
91782589|NCT02304367|183444398|OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.312
91782590|NCT02304367|183444398|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.249
91782591|NCT02304367|183444398|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.102
91782592|NCT02304367|183444399|OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.856
91782593|NCT02304367|183444399|OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.898
91782594|NCT02304367|183444399|OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.785
91782595|NCT02304367|183444399|OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.932
91782596|NCT02304367|183444399|OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.545
91782597|NCT02304367|183444399|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.580
91782598|NCT02304367|183444399|OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.462
91648450|NCT00782275|183189571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||exact binomial test|||The regimen was evaluated against an historical control with null and alternative 4-month PFS rates of 50% and 70%, respectively. With the final sample size of 40 eligible patients and using the same operating characteristics (alpha and beta 10%), the decision rule changes such that if 25 or more patients of 40 are alive and progression-free at 4 months then this regimen is considered promising.||||0.081
91648451|NCT04378010|183189575|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.788||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.479|7.239|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||7.239|-3.479|0.454
91648452|NCT04378010|183189575|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.553||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.458|4.579|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||4.579|-5.458|0.848
91648453|NCT04378010|183189586|OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.342|2.906|||ANCOVA|||||2.906|-26.342|0.114
91648454|NCT04378010|183189586|OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.879||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.723|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.200|-24.723|0.099
91648455|NCT04378010|183189587|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.736|||ANCOVA|||||1.736|0.365|0.003
91648456|NCT04378010|183189587|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|1.216|||ANCOVA|||||1.216|-0.035|0.064
91648457|NCT04378010|183189591|OTHER||LS mean difference|12.986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.472||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|25.363|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||25.363|0.608|0.040
91841828|NCT02855164|183564799|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||1.0|-13.4|0.833
91648458|NCT04378010|183189591|OTHER||LS mean difference|7.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.724||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.997|19.418|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||19.418|-4.997|0.242
91648459|NCT00747747|183189625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Frequency|0.0|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: no difference among groups.||||<0.05
91648460|NCT00747747|183189630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Frequency|0.0|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypotheis: no difference among the groups.||||<0.05
91648461|NCT02919475|183189639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.842
91648462|NCT02919475|183189639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.841
91648463|NCT02919475|183189639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.842
91648464|NCT02919475|183189639|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91648465|NCT02919475|183189640|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91648466|NCT02919475|183189640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.832
91648467|NCT02919475|183189640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.682
91648468|NCT02919475|183189640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.665
91648469|NCT02919475|183189641|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91648470|NCT02919475|183189641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.627|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.627
91648471|NCT02919475|183189641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.794
91648472|NCT02919475|183189641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.453
91648473|NCT02919475|183189642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.113
91648474|NCT02919475|183189642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
91648475|NCT02919475|183189642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.056
91648476|NCT02919475|183189642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.035
91648477|NCT01928446|183189649|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.55|||Log Rank|||Model1 - Treatment only: unadjusted for other covariates||1.55|0.77|0.61
91648478|NCT01928446|183189649|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.53|||Log Rank|||Model2 - Treatment only: unadjusted with Site as random Effect||1.53|0.76|0.67
91648479|NCT01928446|183189650|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.49||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.64|||Log Rank|||||3.64|0.61|0.37
91648480|NCT01928446|183189651|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.69|||Log Rank|||Model 5: Non-fatal self-directed violence subgroup||2.69|0.48|0.77
91648481|NCT01928446|183189651|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.61||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.43|||Log Rank|||Model 6: Interrupted self-directed violence subgroup||3.43|0.75|0.22
91648482|NCT01928446|183189651|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.45|||Log Rank|||Model 7: Hospitalization to prevent suicide||1.45|0.58|0.71
91648483|NCT04356573|183189693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91648484|NCT01577537|183189694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91648485|NCT01244815|183189699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-3.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.8||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.8|-5.6|0.008
91648486|NCT01244815|183189699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-2.9||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-2.9|-7.7|<0.001
91841829|NCT02855164|183564799|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.3|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||7.3|-3.2|0.068
91841830|NCT02855164|183564799|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.5|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||6.5|-6.6|0.269
91782599|NCT02304367|183444399|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.260
91709195|NCT01402986|183311343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.46|||Poisson regression|||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \> 2 but =\< 6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic OCS use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.46|0.71|0.904
91841831|NCT02855164|183564799|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.9|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||2.9|-10.5|0.777
91841832|NCT02855164|183564800|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.174||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.66|4.7|||ANCOVA|||10 microgramsof Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part A||4.70|-19.66|0.853
91841833|NCT02855164|183564800|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-14.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.661||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.24|-2.91|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part A||-2.91|-25.24|0.232
91841834|NCT02855164|183564800|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-15.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.45|-7.64|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B||-7.64|-22.45|0.077
91841835|NCT02855164|183564800|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline|LS Mean change|-12.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.482||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.23|-7.44|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B||-7.44|-17.23|0.141
91648487|NCT01244815|183189699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-3.8||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-3.8|-8.6|<0.001
91648488|NCT01244815|183189699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-4.92|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 1 (Placebo\<2.5 mg=5.0 mg=10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 1. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
91782600|NCT00573144|183444402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91648489|NCT01244815|183189699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-4.87|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 2 (Placebo=2.5 mg\<5.0 mg=10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 2. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
91782601|NCT00573144|183444403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91782602|NCT00573144|183444404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91841836|NCT02855164|183564800|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-31.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.58|-20.92|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part C||-20.92|-41.58|<0.001
91709196|NCT01402986|183311360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.62||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.51|||Poisson regression|||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic OCS use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.51|0.26|0.293
91841837|NCT02855164|183564800|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-39.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.968|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.37|-29.71|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part C||-29.71|-49.37|<0.001
91841838|NCT02855164|183564800|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|2.88|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||2.88|-19.06|0.872
91709197|NCT01402986|183311360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.44|||Poisson regression|||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic OCS use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.44|0.27|0.270
91709198|NCT01402986|183311361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.57|0.257
91841839|NCT02855164|183564800|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-14.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.198||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.36|-3.91|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-3.91|-24.36|0.465
91841840|NCT02855164|183564800|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-15.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.078||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|-8.29|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-8.29|-21.75|0.228
91841841|NCT02855164|183564800|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.717||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|-8.08|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-8.08|-17.04|0.370
91841842|NCT02855164|183564800|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-18.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.517||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.51|-12.91|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-12.91|-24.51|0.029
91841843|NCT02855164|183564800|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-34.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.482|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.13|-28.64|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-28.64|-40.13|<0.001
91841844|NCT02855164|183564801|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.59|-2.99|0.010
91841845|NCT02855164|183564801|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.34|-1.90|0.237
91841846|NCT02855164|183564801|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.31|-1.80|0.037
91841847|NCT02855164|183564801|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.65|-1.65|0.007
91648490|NCT01244815|183189699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-3.4||||0.0021||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 3 (Placebo=2.5 mg=5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 3. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||0.0021
91709199|NCT01402986|183311361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.56|0.225
91709200|NCT01402986|183311362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.68|||Regression, Cox|||||1.68|0.37|0.538
91709201|NCT01402986|183311362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.71|||Regression, Cox|||||1.71|0.37|0.561
91841848|NCT02855164|183564801|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.988||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-3.14|-7.05|0.053
91841849|NCT02855164|183564801|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.002||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-3.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-3.91|-7.87|0.013
91841850|NCT02855164|183564802|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.23|-1.05|0.006
91841851|NCT02855164|183564802|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.09|-0.67|0.177
91648491|NCT01244815|183189699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-5.28|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 4 (Placebo\<2.5 mg\<5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 4. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
91648492|NCT01244815|183189699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-4.64|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 5 (Placebo=2.5 mg\<5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 5. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
91648493|NCT01244815|183189699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-5.07|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 6 (Placebo\<2.5 mg=5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 6. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
91648494|NCT01244815|183189699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-5.49|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 7 (Placebo\<2.5 mg\<5.0 mg=10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 7. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
91648495|NCT01244815|183189700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
91648496|NCT01244815|183189700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
91648497|NCT01244815|183189700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.4|-1.0|<0.001
91841852|NCT02855164|183564802|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.10|-0.61|0.032
91841853|NCT02855164|183564802|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.25|-0.59|0.003
91841854|NCT02855164|183564802|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-1.24|-2.51|0.015
91841855|NCT02855164|183564802|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-1.46|-2.75|0.004
91841856|NCT02855164|183564803|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.01|-0.03|0.530
91841857|NCT02855164|183564803|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.01|-0.02|0.857
91841858|NCT02855164|183564803|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.00|-0.02|0.262
91841859|NCT02855164|183564803|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.01|0.00|0.323
91841860|NCT02855164|183564803|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||0.01|-0.02|0.100
91790224|NCT00534313|183459764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|12.33|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||12.33|1.97|
91790225|NCT00534313|183459764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|14.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis||||14.41|3.83|
91790226|NCT00534313|183459764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|11.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||11.32|1.01|
91841861|NCT02855164|183564803|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||0.00|-0.03|0.693
91841862|NCT02855164|183564815|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (total score)||0.223|-0.214|1.0000
91841863|NCT02855164|183564815|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.029||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (total score)||0.251|-0.196|0.8074
91841864|NCT02855164|183564816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (FDA)||0.246|-0.191|0.8070
91841865|NCT02855164|183564816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.052||||0.6233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (FDA)||0.273|-0.173|0.6233
91841866|NCT02855164|183564817|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (EMA)||0.233|-0.214|1.0000
91841867|NCT02855164|183564817|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.029||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (EMA)||0.251|-0.196|0.8074
91841868|NCT02855164|183564818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.034||||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Resolution of steatohepatitis (diagnostic category) without worsening of fibrosis (NASH CRN staging)||0.252|-0.184|0.7028
91841869|NCT02855164|183564818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.129||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Resolution of steatohepatitis (diagnostic category) without worsening of fibrosis (NASH CRN staging)||0.345|-0.098|0.1713
91841870|NCT02855164|183564819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Resolution of steatohepatitis (FDA, EMA) without worsening of fibrosis (NASH CRN staging)||0.278|-0.168|0.2033
91841871|NCT00383240|183564820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841872|NCT00383240|183564820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841873|NCT00383240|183564820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841874|NCT00383240|183564820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.491||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.491
91841875|NCT00383240|183564820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.055
91841876|NCT00383240|183564820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
91841877|NCT00383240|183564821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.174
91841878|NCT00383240|183564821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841879|NCT00383240|183564821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841880|NCT00383240|183564821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841881|NCT00383240|183564821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841882|NCT00383240|183564821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.521||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.521
91841883|NCT00383240|183564823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
91841884|NCT00383240|183564823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841885|NCT00383240|183564823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841886|NCT00383240|183564823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841887|NCT00383240|183564823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841888|NCT00383240|183564823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.738||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.738
91841889|NCT00383240|183564824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063||95.0||||P-Value for endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.063
91841890|NCT00383240|183564824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841891|NCT00383240|183564824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841892|NCT00383240|183564824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91841893|NCT00383240|183564824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91841894|NCT00383240|183564824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.601||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.601
91841895|NCT02049710|183564826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0||||||Summation scores are reported across 3 items measured on a 5-point scale from 1(not at all sure)to5(very sure), which loaded together on a principal components analysis of the baseline data.The summation score thus represents a theoretical range from 3 to 15.The 3 items were as follows:Indicate How Sure You are that You Would be Able to Perform Each of the Following:a)Get the money needed to buy condoms b)Walk into a store\&buy condoms c)Find a place to get condoms for free(Cronbach alpha-0.72)||15|3|
91841896|NCT01216293|183564831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|30.2|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||30.2|7.0|
91841897|NCT01216293|183564831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|30.4|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||30.4|6.7|
91841898|NCT01216293|183564832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|27.366|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.749|42.957|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||42.957|12.749|
91841899|NCT01216293|183564832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|22.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.357|35.714|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||35.714|8.357|
91841900|NCT01216293|183564833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|34.4|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||34.4|4.0|
91841901|NCT01216293|183564833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|28.3|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||28.3|-2.7|
91841902|NCT01216293|183564834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|6.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|12.78|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||12.78|0.40|
91841903|NCT01216293|183564834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.86|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||12.86|0.59|
91841904|NCT00654940|183564880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||||80.0|-1.21|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison of pregabalin - placebo: mixed effects analysis of covariance model fitted on the full analysis set population, accounting for period and treatment effects. Subject was fitted as a random effect, and baseline was fitted as two covariates.||-0.41|-1.21|
91841905|NCT00654940|183564881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.493||||80.0|-3.82|2.78|||ANCOVA|||Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory treatment comparison: Pregabalin - Placebo. Total score was analyzed using a mixed effect analysis of covariance model based on the full analysis set (FAS), accounting for period and treatment effects. Subject was fitted as a random effect and baseline was fitted as two covariates.||2.78|-3.82|
91841906|NCT00654940|183564882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29000.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17000.0||||80.0|6100.0|51000.0|||ANCOVA|||Difference in least squares means Pregabalin-Placebo. Model of day (8 am to 8 pm) total activity score at end of treatment. Mixed effects analysis of covariance model was fitted on the full analysis set population, accounting for period and treatment effects. Subject was fitted as a random effect and baseline was fitted as two covariates.||51000|6100|
91841907|NCT01682538|183564902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|Ratio of geometric means|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.91|||ANOVA|||||0.91|0.81|
91841908|NCT01682538|183564903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|Ratio of geometric means|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|0.85|
91841909|NCT01682538|183564904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence (no food effect) was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80 - 1.25).|Ratio of geometric means|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|0.96|
91841910|NCT01682538|183564905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence (no food effect) was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80 - 1.25)|Ratio of geometric means|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.90|0.71|
91841911|NCT00777803|183564923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Newcombe confidence interval for proportions (paired data) was applied. The lower bound of the Newcombe-Wilson confidence interval of the difference in response rates between groups was compared to the non-inferiority margin of -15%.|difference of response rates|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.1|||||Difference of response rates = response rate in IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®/Bocouture®) - response rate in OnabotulinumtoxinA (Vistabel®)|Null Hypothesis: Response rate of IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®/Bocouture®) minus the response rate of OnabotulinumtoxinA (Vistabel®) is lower or equal -15% (non-inferiority margin).||7.1|-3.2|
91841912|NCT01755689|183564937|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenA titers.||1.43|0.99|
91841913|NCT01755689|183564937|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenA titers.||1.21|0.84|
91841914|NCT01755689|183564937|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenC titers.||1.51|0.93|
91841915|NCT01755689|183564937|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenC titers.||1.06|0.66|
91841916|NCT01755689|183564937|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenW-135 titers.||1.64|0.97|
91841917|NCT01755689|183564937|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenW-135 titers.||1.07|0.63|
91841918|NCT01755689|183564937|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenY titers.||1.24|0.89|
91841919|NCT01755689|183564937|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenY titers.||1.12|0.80|
91841920|NCT01755689|183564938|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-16, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix (0,1,6-Month) Group in terms of HPV-16 titers.||1.15|0.81|
91841921|NCT01755689|183564938|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-18, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix (0,1,6-Month) Group in terms of HPV-18 titers.||1.29|0.92|
91841922|NCT01755689|183564938|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-16, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Boostrix+Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of HPV-16 titers.||1.43|1.01|
91841923|NCT01755689|183564938|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-18, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Boostrix+Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of HPV-18 titers.||1.41|1.00|
91841924|NCT01755689|183564939|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-D the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix +Cervarix Group) had to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference between groups|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.81||||||The group difference of the Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group and Boostrix+Cervarix Group in terms of Anti-D titers.||0.81|-6.90|
91841925|NCT01755689|183564939|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-T the LL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix +Cervarix Group) had to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference between groups|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.08||||||The group difference of the Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group and Boostrix+Cervarix Group in terms of Anti-T titers.||1.08|-2.23|
91841926|NCT01755689|183564940|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-PRN the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the adjusted group ratio of GMCs (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group/Boostrix+Cervarix Group) had to be less than or equal to the pre-defined limit of 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.87|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group versus Boostrix+ Cervarix Group in terms of anti-PRN titers.||1.87|1.25|
91841927|NCT01755689|183564940|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-FHA the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the adjusted group ratio of GMCs (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group/Boostrix+Cervarix Group) had to be less than or equal to the pre-defined limit of 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.93|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix+Cervarix Group versus Boostrix+ Cervarix Group in terms of anti-FHA titers.||1.93|1.42|
91841928|NCT01755689|183564940|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-PT the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the adjusted group ratio of GMCs (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group/Boostrix+Cervarix Group) had to be less than or equal to the pre-defined limit of 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.61|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix+Cervarix Group versus Boostrix+ Cervarix Group in terms of anti-PT titers.||1.61|1.20|
91782603|NCT02637037|183444410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||0.99|0.93|
91782604|NCT02637037|183444410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.01||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.01|0.96|
91790227|NCT00534313|183459765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|34.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||34.5|-2.5|
91790228|NCT00534313|183459765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.1||||||95.0|6.8|45.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||45.5|6.8|
91790229|NCT00534313|183459765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|16.6||||||95.0|-1.8|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||34.9|-1.8|
91841929|NCT02609659|183564973|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the 3-DAA + RBV 600 mg treatment group as compared with the historical rate for 3-DAA + weight-based RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 92% to achieve noninferiority.|percentage of participants|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|95.4||||||||95.4|83.7|
91841930|NCT00377741|183565011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean exposure ratio for AUC(0-tau)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.55||||||||1.55|0.98|
91841931|NCT00377741|183565012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean exposure ratio for Cmax|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.42||||||||1.42|0.88|
91841932|NCT01115998|183565025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The a priori alpha level was \< 0.10 and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Mobility functional skills~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.02
91790230|NCT00402233|183459766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.53|-2.26|||ANCOVA|||||-2.26|-6.53|<0.0001
91790231|NCT00402233|183459766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.54|-2.28|||ANCOVA|||||-2.28|-6.54|<0.0001
91790232|NCT00402233|183459766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.91|-2.52|||ANCOVA|||||-2.52|-6.91|<0.0001
91790233|NCT00402233|183459767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893||||||95.0|0.431|1.849|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.849|0.431|
91790234|NCT00402233|183459767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.885||||||95.0|0.424|1.845|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.845|0.424|
91790235|NCT00402233|183459767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.687||||||95.0|0.317|1.492|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.492|0.317|
91790236|NCT00402233|183459768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.014||95.0|0.23|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|0.23|0.014
91790237|NCT00402233|183459768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.03||95.0|0.094|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|0.094|0.03
91790238|NCT00402233|183459768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49||||0.0019||95.0|0.56|2.43|||ANCOVA|||||2.43|0.56|0.0019
91790239|NCT00402233|183459769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.39||95.0|-1.82|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|-1.82|0.39
91790240|NCT00402233|183459769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.37||95.0|-1.84|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-1.84|0.37
91790241|NCT00402233|183459769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.48||95.0|-1.78|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|-1.78|0.48
91790242|NCT00827931|183459801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-99.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|131.99||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-371.4|171.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||171.5|-371.4|0.460
91790243|NCT00827931|183459802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|147.61||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-386.5|219.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||219.3|-386.5|0.579
91782605|NCT02637037|183444410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.0||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.00|0.94|
91782606|NCT02637037|183444410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.0||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.00|0.95|
91782607|NCT02637037|183444410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.06||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.06|0.96|
91782608|NCT02637037|183444410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.07||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.07|0.93|
91790244|NCT00827931|183459803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-183.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|239.19||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-672.6|305.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||305.5|-672.6|0.452
91790245|NCT00827931|183459804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-417.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|152.51||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-729.4|-106.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||-106.1|-729.4|0.010
91790246|NCT00827931|183459805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used at 5% level of significance.||||0.701
91790247|NCT04157673|183459845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||This is the overall treatment effect from the mixed model. p-value threshold set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to support visual inspection of the multiple-baseline graphs included the phase changes from baseline to Episodic future thinking treatment. Phase changes were assessed using mixed model with fixed effects of level and trend for baseline phase and random effects for level and trend for treatment phase.||||0.0002
91790248|NCT04157673|183459846|OTHER|Effect size of mean differences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size = 0.73|Statistical analysis to support visual inspection of the multiple-baseline graphs included the phase changes from baseline to Episodic future thinking treatment. Phase changes were assessed using mixed model with fixed effects of level and trend for baseline phase and random effects for level and trend for treatment phase.||||
91790249|NCT04157673|183459847|OTHER|Effect size of mean pre-post differences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.355|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.295|||TWO_SIDED||||||||cohen's d effect size for mean differences pre to post-treatment = 1.20|||||
91790250|NCT02282293|183459868|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.96||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.61||Calculated p-value|Chi-squared|||||7.61|0.50|0.50
91790251|NCT02282293|183459870|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.96||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.61|||Chi-squared|||||7.61|0.50|0.50
91790252|NCT02282293|183459872|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.48||Calculated p-value|GEE|||||1.48|0.13|0.19
91790253|NCT02282293|183459873|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.45|||Chi-squared|||||2.45|0.72|0.35
91790254|NCT01894568|183459890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|0.4% is the margin of Non-inferiority|LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.41|0.005
91782609|NCT02637037|183444410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.11||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.11|0.99|
91782610|NCT02637037|183444410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.1||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.10|0.96|
91782611|NCT02637037|183444411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|0.99||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||0.99|0.94|
91790255|NCT04545944|183459909|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|192.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|152.8|242.4||||||A linear mixed model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed values to assess the effect of vonoprazan on the PK of midazolam.||242.4|152.8|
91790256|NCT04545944|183459910|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|188.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.6|236.9||||||A linear mixed model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed values to assess the effect of vonoprazan on the PK of midazolam.||236.9|150.6|
91841933|NCT01115998|183565025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Self-care functional skills~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.52
91841934|NCT01115998|183565025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori alpha level was 0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Social function functional skills~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.38
91841935|NCT01115998|183565025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori alpha level was 0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Mobility care giver assistance.~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.03
91841936|NCT01115998|183565025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|The a priori alpha level was 0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||"Self-care caregiver assistance~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||.006
91841937|NCT01115998|183565025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Social function caregiver assistance~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.45
91790257|NCT04545944|183459911|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|193.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.5|233.1||||||A linear mixed model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed values to assess the effect of vonoprazan on the PK of midazolam.||233.1|160.5|
91790258|NCT01514370|183459917|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.271
91790259|NCT03207035|183460014|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91790260|NCT03207035|183460015|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91790261|NCT03207035|183460016|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91790262|NCT03207035|183460017|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91790263|NCT03207035|183460018|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91790264|NCT03207035|183460019|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91790265|NCT03207035|183460020|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.53
91790266|NCT03207035|183460021|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91790267|NCT03645434|183460023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.253|0.151|<0.0001
91790268|NCT03645434|183460028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2||0.146|0.051|<0.0001
91790269|NCT03645434|183460028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8||0.242|0.148|<0.0001
91790270|NCT03645434|183460029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||0.346|0.266|<0.0001
91841938|NCT01115998|183565026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Adaptive total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.92
91841939|NCT01115998|183565026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Cognitive total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.38
91790271|NCT03645434|183460029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.374|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.425|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8||0.425|0.324|<0.0001
91790272|NCT03645434|183460029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.388|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.447|0.329|<0.0001
91790273|NCT03645434|183460030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.551||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.876|-0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||-0.226|-0.876|0.0010
91790274|NCT03645434|183460030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.867|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|-0.486|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9 to Day 14||-0.486|-1.248|<0.0001
91790275|NCT03645434|183460030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.722|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.047|-0.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 14||-0.397|-1.047|<0.0001
91790276|NCT03645434|183460031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.571||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.563|-0.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||-0.579|-2.563|0.0022
91790277|NCT03645434|183460031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.386|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.541|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9 to Day 14||-1.230|-3.541|<0.0001
91790278|NCT03645434|183460031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.912||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.923|-0.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 14||-0.901|-2.923|0.0003
91790279|NCT03645434|183460042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.741|-0.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||-0.794|-1.741|<0.0001
91790280|NCT03645434|183460042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.302|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.804|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9 to Day 14||-0.800|-1.804|<0.0001
91790281|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.409||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.409|-0.291|0.740
91790282|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790283|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.187||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.187|-0.504|0.367
91790284|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790285|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|0.389||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.389|-0.318|0.843
91790286|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.37|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91841940|NCT01115998|183565026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||90.0||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Communication total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.42
91841941|NCT01115998|183565026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Motor total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.57
91898814|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-2.4|-4.3|<0.0001
91898815|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-1.4|-3.3|<0.0001
91790287|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.52||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.520|-0.351|0.703
91790288|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790289|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.413||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.413|-0.442|0.947
91790290|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790291|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.361||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.361|-0.514|0.732
91790292|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790293|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.623|0.576||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.576|-0.623|0.939
91790294|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790295|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|0.54||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.540|-0.637|0.872
91790296|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790297|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.688|0.512||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.512|-0.688|0.773
91790298|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790299|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|0.686||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.686|-0.834|0.848
91790300|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790301|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.684||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.684|-0.810|0.869
91790302|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790303|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|0.925||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.925|-0.603|0.679
91790304|NCT02880956|183460050|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790305|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.764|0.96||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.960|-1.764|0.562
91790306|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91841942|NCT01115998|183565026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Personal-social total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.69
91841943|NCT01115998|183565026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"BID total score~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.28
91841944|NCT01115998|183565027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Reactive scale~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||>0.10
91841945|NCT01115998|183565027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Self Initiated Scale~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||>0.10
91782612|NCT02637037|183444411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.02|0.97|
91782613|NCT02637037|183444411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.98||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||0.98|0.93|
91782614|NCT02637037|183444411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.0||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.00|0.95|
91782615|NCT02637037|183444411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.08|0.97|
91782616|NCT02637037|183444411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.06||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.06|0.95|
91782617|NCT02637037|183444411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of geometric means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.09||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.09|0.97|
91782618|NCT02637037|183444411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.07||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.07|0.95|
91782619|NCT02637037|183444412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.03|0.93|
91782620|NCT02637037|183444412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.06||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.06|0.90|
91782621|NCT02637037|183444412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.05||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.05|0.89|
91782622|NCT02637037|183444412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.03||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.03|0.87|
91782623|NCT02637037|183444412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.07||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.07|0.96|
91782624|NCT02637037|183444412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.04||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.04|0.92|
91782625|NCT02637037|183444412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of geometric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.06||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.06|0.95|
91841946|NCT03268590|183565105|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91841947|NCT03268590|183565106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91841948|NCT03268590|183565107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91841949|NCT03537261|183565131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.1|||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression controlling for score at screening visit|(P-CPI training change) - (waitlist change)|||13.1|-1.4|0.11
91841950|NCT03537261|183565132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.0|||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression controlling for score at screening visit|(P-CPI training change) - (waitlist change)|||3.0|-7.4|0.40
91841951|NCT03537261|183565133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.2|||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression controlling for score at screening visit|(P-CPI training change) - (waitlist change)|||4.2|-2.9|0.72
91841952|NCT00672958|183565275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|1.01||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value for change from baseline in HAMD-24 at Week 6 \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline HAM-D24 as a covariate.||Change from Baseline in HAM-D24 total score at Week 6 was tested at significance level 0.05. To control for multiplicity, subsequent endpoints were to be tested in a sequential testing procedure at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint in a sequence was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints in that sequence.||1.01|-2.48|0.407
91841953|NCT00672958|183565276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 1.||1.10|-0.97|0.901
91841954|NCT00672958|183565276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.59|-1.07|0.701
91898816|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.6|-2.5|0.0013
91898817|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-2.4|-4.4|<0.0001
91841955|NCT00672958|183565276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.68||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 3||0.76|-2.11|0.356
91841956|NCT00672958|183565276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 4||1.19|-1.85|0.670
91841957|NCT00672958|183565276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 5||0.79|-2.52|0.304
91898818|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-1.6|-3.6|<0.0001
91841958|NCT02593032|183565290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the calculated p-value, not a threshold.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91782626|NCT02637037|183444412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.1||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.10|0.94|
91782627|NCT00638014|183444441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91782628|NCT01869764|183444482|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
91841959|NCT01009047|183565291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.76||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||3.76|-3.46|0.935
91782629|NCT01869764|183444483|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
91782630|NCT04717336|183444509|SUPERIORITY||Mean of Paired Differences|0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.23|||Paired T-Test|A paired t-test was applied across both periods because this is a cross-over study where each participant serves at their own control.||The aim of this analysis is to test whether there is a statistically significant difference in Pulse Wave Velocity when participants are on sodium chloride vs. placebo, regardless of period.||0.23|-0.22|0.98
91841960|NCT01009047|183565292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|4.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||4.00|-4.68|0.877
91841961|NCT01009047|183565293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.59||Day 56: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||1.59|-0.55|0.341
91841962|NCT01009047|183565293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.53||Day 182: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||1.53|-1.06|0.723
91841963|NCT01009047|183565294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||||||Change at Day 56: Positive Symptoms - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.351
91841964|NCT01009047|183565294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||||||Change at Day 182:Positive Symptoms - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.691
91841965|NCT01009047|183565294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.965||||||Change at Day 56: Disorganized thoughts - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.965
91841966|NCT01009047|183565294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||||||Change at Day 182: Disorganized thoughts - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.766
91841967|NCT01009047|183565294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984||||||Change at Day 56: Uncontrolled hostility/ excitement - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.984
91841968|NCT01009047|183565294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||||||Change at Day 182: Uncontrolled Hositility/ Excitement - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.985
91841969|NCT01009047|183565294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803||||||Change at Day 56: Anxiety/ depression - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.803
91841970|NCT01009047|183565294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||||||Change at Day 182: Anxiety/ depression - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.745
91841971|NCT01009047|183565296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||||||Generalized Cochran- Mantel- Haenszel test for row mean score differences controlling for country was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.296
91841972|NCT01009047|183565297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||||||Change at Day 56: ANCOVA model on ranks with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value (unranked) as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.843
91782631|NCT02039843|183444510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||Two-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in WHO-DAS score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time \& timeXgroup interaction||||||0.052
91782632|NCT02039843|183444511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PCS score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.421
91782633|NCT02039843|183444512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in MCS score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.606
91782634|NCT02039843|183444513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PSQI score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.210
91782635|NCT02039843|183444514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PCL-5 score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.036
91782636|NCT02039843|183444515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PHQ-9 score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.079
91782637|NCT02039843|183444516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in DAR score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.155
91841973|NCT01009047|183565297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||||||Change at Day 182: ANCOVA model on ranks with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value (unranked) as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.914
91841974|NCT01009047|183565298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.67||Change at Day 56: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups(paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||2.67|-2.34|0.895
91782638|NCT02039843|183444517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in SBI adjusted for gender, site, baseline SBI, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.157
91841975|NCT01009047|183565298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.89||Change at Day 182: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||3.89|-2.64|0.705
91841976|NCT01009047|183565299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||||||Day 56: Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean score differences was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.119
91841977|NCT01009047|183565299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||||||Day 182: Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean score differences was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.444
91782639|NCT02039843|183444518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.430
91782640|NCT02039843|183444519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.358
91782641|NCT02039843|183444520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.39
91782642|NCT02039843|183444530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.383
91782643|NCT02039843|183444531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.932
91782644|NCT01958164|183444536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|89.3|||||Difference calculated as actilyse minus saline solution|||89.3|23.3|
91782645|NCT01958164|183444537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|90.3|||||Difference calculated as actilyse minus saline solution|||90.3|20.7|
91782646|NCT00740857|183444541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
91782647|NCT00740857|183444541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||0.001
91841978|NCT02731313|183565300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis (H0): kappa coefficient = 0.90||||||0.7436|||||||Kappa-test p-value, 2 sided|||Rationale for the determination of the number of samples:The following hypotheses were considered: two-sided risk alpha = 5%, power (1 - beta) = 90%, a success rate (rate of positive HER-2 status) = 17%, null hypothesis (H0): kappa coefficient = 0.90. 359 samples would allow determining a first estimate of the 0.90 coefficient of correlation kappa. The total number of samples, which had to be included in this study was 395, considering a 10% rate of non-evaluable samples.||||0.7436
91782648|NCT00740857|183444541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
91782649|NCT00740857|183444542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||15 minutes||||0.118
91782650|NCT00740857|183444542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||The 30, 45, 60....||||<0.001
91782651|NCT00740857|183444543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||15 minutes||||0.041
91782652|NCT00740857|183444543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||The 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300 and 360 minute individual time points all have the same P-value score.||||<0.001
91898819|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.4|-2.4|0.0048
91648498|NCT01244815|183189701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 4 (LOCF)||7.6|1.2|0.018
91648499|NCT01244815|183189701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 4 (LOCF)||8.6|1.4|0.008
91648500|NCT01244815|183189701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 4 (LOCF)||5.6|0.8|0.129
91648501|NCT01244815|183189701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.9||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 7 (LOCF)||5.9|1.4|0.003
91648502|NCT01244815|183189701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 7 (LOCF)||5.6|1.4|0.005
91648503|NCT01244815|183189701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.3||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 7 (LOCF)||7.3|1.8|<0.001
91648504|NCT01244815|183189701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.1||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 14 (LOCF)||4.1|1.1|0.018
91648505|NCT01244815|183189701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 14 (LOCF)||7.6|2.2|<0.001
91782653|NCT00740857|183444544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
91782654|NCT00740857|183444545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||15 minutes||||0.056
91782655|NCT00740857|183444545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||The 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300 and 360 minute individual time points all have the same P-value score.||||<0.001
91782656|NCT00740857|183444546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
91782657|NCT00740857|183444547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
91782658|NCT00740857|183444548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
91782659|NCT02963506|183444549|OTHER||Correlation statistic|17.9|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistic and p-value were calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (test for non-zero correlation statistic) based on modified ridit scores and including geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure as stratification factors.||||<0.001
91782660|NCT02963506|183444549|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.48||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||6.48|1.04|=0.040
91782661|NCT02963506|183444549|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|10.86||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||10.86|1.83|=0.001
91841979|NCT01558674|183565322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.0|-59.1|||Linear mixed effect model||8-mg MK-7145 LS Mean minus Furosemide LS Mean|||-59.1|-138.0|
91841980|NCT01558674|183565324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.22|||Mixed Linear Effects Model||GMR = Geometric mean (GM) MK-7145 8 mg divided by GM Furosemide|||1.22|0.99|
91841981|NCT02204293|183565347|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.||||||0.1811|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1811
91841982|NCT02204293|183565362|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|19.9||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|51.3|||Fisher Exact|||||51.3|-15.0|0.3175
91841983|NCT02204293|183565363|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|31.7||||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|61.8|||Fisher Exact|||||61.8|-2.9|0.0922
91841984|NCT02204293|183565364|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|32.0||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|61.1|||Fisher Exact|||||61.1|-1.5|0.0858
91841985|NCT02204293|183565365|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|32.4||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|60.5|||Fisher Exact|||||60.5|-0.7|0.075
91841986|NCT02204293|183565366|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|16.0||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|43.4|||Fisher Exact|||||43.4|-12.6|0.4018
91841987|NCT02204293|183565367|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|5.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|29.2|||Fisher Exact|||||29.2|-18.8|1
91841988|NCT02204293|183565368|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|24.8||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|54.2|||Fisher Exact|||EULAR DAS28-ESR Response||54.2|-8.0|0.1642
91841989|NCT02204293|183565368|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|25.2||||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|55.1|||Fisher Exact|||EULAR DAS28-CRP Response||55.1|-9.1|0.1756
91648506|NCT01244815|183189701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.6|||Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 14 (LOCF)||7.6|2.2|<0.001
91648507|NCT01244815|183189701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 21 (LOCF)||3.4|1.0|0.042
91782662|NCT02963506|183444549|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|13.48||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||13.48|2.27|<0.001
91782663|NCT02963506|183444549|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|12.92||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||12.92|2.19|<0.001
91782664|NCT02963506|183444550|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.24|-0.86|<0.001
91841990|NCT02204293|183565369|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|35.0|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (ESR) LDA||35.0|-27.7|1
91841991|NCT02204293|183565369|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|26.5||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|56.0|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (CRP) LDA||56.0|-6.6|0.1642
91841992|NCT02204293|183565370|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|21.6||||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|49.9|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (ESR) remission||49.9|-8.1|0.2285
91841993|NCT02204293|183565370|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|27.1||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|54.6|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (CRP) Remission||54.6|-4.6|0.1212
91841994|NCT02204293|183565370|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|16.0||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|43.4|||Fisher Exact|||Extended Remission||43.4|-12.6|0.4018
91841995|NCT00614198|183565381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||A priori p threshold set for stage 1 (baseline - 8m; p\<0.01) or (baseline - 12 months, p\<0.05) in order to progress to stage 2 (8 or 12 months - 20 or 24 months).|Mixed Models Analysis|||1st stage analysis (baseline-8m or 12m) used a repeated measures model for all assessment measures. Model included baseline, age, time and time\*treatment interaction. Results informed 2nd stage (8 or 12 months - 20 or 24 months). 2nd stage analysis based on various statistical scenarios (baseline vs 12 months on intervention, 12 months of no intervention vs 12 on intervention, baseline vs 24 months on intervention). No ADOS assessments were used at 12 months because of risk of practice effects.||||<0.01
91841996|NCT01225835|183565383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91782665|NCT02963506|183444550|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.83|-1.47|<0.001
91782666|NCT02963506|183444550|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.72|-1.35|<0.001
91782667|NCT02963506|183444550|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.82|-1.45|<0.001
91782668|NCT02963506|183444551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.67||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||3.67|0.80|=0.163
91782669|NCT02963506|183444551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|8.48||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||8.48|1.84|<0.001
91782670|NCT02963506|183444551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|7.61||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||7.61|1.66|=0.001
91782671|NCT02963506|183444551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|14.28||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||14.28|2.92|<0.001
91782672|NCT02963506|183444552|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|15.96||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||15.96|1.74|=0.003
91782673|NCT02963506|183444552|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|35.38||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||35.38|4.03|<0.001
91782674|NCT02963506|183444552|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|42.46||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||42.46|4.81|<0.001
91782675|NCT02963506|183444552|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|44.27||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||44.27|5.02|<0.001
91782676|NCT02963506|183444553|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||0.10|-1.31|=0.094
91782677|NCT02963506|183444553|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.91|-2.34|<0.001
91782678|NCT02963506|183444553|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.91|-2.35|<0.001
91782679|NCT02963506|183444553|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-1.18|-2.60|<0.001
91782680|NCT02963506|183444554|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.07|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||0.07|-1.35|=0.075
91841997|NCT01225835|183565383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Age \< 39 years||||0.015
91648508|NCT01244815|183189701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.8||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 21 (LOCF)||5.8|1.7|<0.001
91648509|NCT01244815|183189701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.001||95.0|1.6|5.3||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 21 (LOCF)||5.3|1.6|<0.001
91709202|NCT01402986|183311363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.73||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.17|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= median||1.17|0.46|0.190
91841998|NCT01225835|183565383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Age \>= 39 years||||0.027
91841999|NCT01225835|183565385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91709203|NCT01402986|183311363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.61|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= median||1.61|0.56|0.856
91842000|NCT01225835|183565386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91842001|NCT01225835|183565387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.121
91842002|NCT01225835|183565388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Level of significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91842003|NCT01225835|183565389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91842004|NCT01225835|183565391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.482
91842005|NCT01225835|183565392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.871
91842006|NCT01225835|183565393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91842007|NCT01225835|183565394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.620
91842008|NCT01225835|183565395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
91842009|NCT01225835|183565396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
91842010|NCT01225835|183565397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.295
91842011|NCT01225835|183565398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.405||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.405
91842012|NCT01225835|183565399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91842013|NCT02559609|183565451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group A/C (contrast -1) compared to Group B/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 1||||.028
91842014|NCT02559609|183565452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group A/C (contrast -1) compared to Group B/D (contrast 1)||||.027
91842015|NCT02559609|183565453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|df = 1||Group A/B (contrast -1) was compared to Group C/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 2.||||.66
91648510|NCT01244815|183189702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.05|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.05|-0.45|0.014
91842016|NCT02559609|183565454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Cox|||Group A/B (contrast -1) compared to Group C/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 2.||||.89
91842017|NCT02559609|183565455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|df = 1||Group A/B (contrast -1) compared to Group C/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 2.||||.58
91842018|NCT02559609|183565456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group A/C (contrast -1) compared to Group B/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 1.||||.024
91842019|NCT02555371|183565510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||0.86|0.45|0.004
91842020|NCT02555371|183565511|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 12 has been presented.|||0.24|0.15|<0.001
91842021|NCT02555371|183565511|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 24 has been presented.|||0.20|0.12|<0.001
91842022|NCT02555371|183565511|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 36 has been presented.|||0.24|0.15|<0.001
91842023|NCT02555371|183565511|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 52 has been presented.|||0.20|0.13|<0.001
91842024|NCT02555371|183565512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.88|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||0.88|0.49|0.005
91842025|NCT02555371|183565513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.51|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||3.51|0.50|0.570
91842026|NCT03615482|183565551|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-0.9||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Injection-Site Erythema||2.7|-4.5|0.617
91842027|NCT03615482|183565551|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Injection-Site Pain||2.6|-7.8|0.320
91842028|NCT03615482|183565551|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Injection-Site Swelling||2.0|-6.2|0.310
91842029|NCT03615482|183565552|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.2||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Arthralgia||1.2|-5.8|0.205
91842030|NCT03615482|183565552|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.9||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Fatigue||2.3|-8.0|0.273
91898820|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.4|-4.5|<0.0001
91842031|NCT03615482|183565552|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.2||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Headache||2.6|-6.9|0.372
91842032|NCT03615482|183565552|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|2.4||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Myalgia||7.1|-2.4|0.329
91842033|NCT03615482|183565553|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||||||||0.6|-0.6|
91842034|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.66||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including all vaccinated participants.||Serotype 1||0.82|0.54|0.004
91842035|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 3||1.09|0.81|<0.001
91842036|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 4||1.01|0.69|<0.001
91842037|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 5||0.98|0.64|<0.001
91648511|NCT01244815|183189702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.17||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.04|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.04|-0.37|0.107
91648512|NCT01244815|183189702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.01|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.01|-0.42|0.039
91782681|NCT02963506|183444554|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.37|-1.79|=0.003
91782682|NCT02963506|183444554|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.42|-1.84|=0.002
91782683|NCT02963506|183444554|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.81|-2.22|<0.001
91782684|NCT01724346|183444558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.155|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.22||P-value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||0.220|0.110|< 0.0001
91782685|NCT01724346|183444561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.087|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.141||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||0.141|0.054|< 0.0001
91782686|NCT01724346|183444562|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|2.496|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|3.131||Rate ratio and p-value are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG; 0-1 vs 2) and Rai stage (0/I/II vs III/IV) at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.131|1.990|< 0.0001
91898821|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-1.6|-3.6|<0.0001
91898822|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.3|-2.3|0.0124
91898823|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-2.5|-4.5|<0.0001
91898824|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-1.7|-3.8|<0.0001
91898825|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-0.6|-2.7|0.0021
91898826|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-2.4|-4.6|<0.0001
91898827|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-1.9|-4.0|<0.0001
91898828|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-0.9|-3.0|0.0005
91898829|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-2.4|-4.6|<0.0001
91898830|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-1.8|-4.1|<0.0001
91898831|NCT03816891|183693449|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-0.5|-2.7|0.0044
91898832|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-2.4|-4.7|<0.0001
91842038|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6A||1.00|0.71|<0.001
91842039|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6B||1.04|0.74|<0.001
91842040|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 7F||0.99|0.75|<0.001
91842041|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 9V||1.15|0.86|<0.001
91842042|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 14||1.08|0.77|<0.001
91842043|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.92|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 18C||0.92|0.68|<0.001
91842044|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19A||0.95|0.73|<0.001
91842045|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19F||1.17|0.89|<0.001
91898833|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-1.6|-3.8|<0.0001
91898834|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.2|-2.4|0.0231
91898835|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-2.2|-4.5|<0.0001
91898836|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-1.7|-4.0|<0.0001
91898837|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-0.4|-2.7|0.0074
91898838|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-2.5|-4.8|<0.0001
91842046|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 22F||0.91|0.64|<0.001
91842047|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 23F||1.03|0.70|<0.001
91842048|NCT03615482|183565554|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 33F||0.96|0.72|<0.001
91842049|NCT03615482|183565555|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||H1N1||1.25|0.94|<0.001
91842050|NCT03615482|183565555|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||H3N2||1.17|0.90|<0.001
91842051|NCT03615482|183565555|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||B-Victoria||1.08|0.86|<0.001
91842052|NCT03615482|183565555|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||B-Yamagata||1.13|0.90|<0.001
91842053|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89||||||Serotype 1||0.89|0.67|
91842054|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.99||||||Serotype 3||0.99|0.76|
91842055|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.91||||||Serotype 4||0.91|0.68|
91842056|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||Serotype 5||1.02|0.77|
91898839|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-2.1|-4.3|<0.0001
91898840|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-0.7|-3.0|0.0013
91898841|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-2.6|-4.8|<0.0001
91898842|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-2.1|-4.3|<0.0001
91898843|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-0.8|-3.0|0.0010
91898844|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-2.5|-4.8|<0.0001
91898845|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-2.0|-4.2|<0.0001
91898846|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-0.5|-2.8|0.0040
91898847|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-1.9|-4.2|<0.0001
91898848|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-1.6|-3.9|<0.0001
91898849|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-0.4|-2.7|0.0087
91898850|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-1.4|-3.8|<0.0001
91842057|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.87||||||Serotype 6A||0.87|0.61|
91842058|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91||||||Serotype 6B||0.91|0.64|
91842059|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01||||||Serotype 7F||1.01|0.76|
91842060|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||||||Serotype 9V||1.03|0.79|
91842061|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||||||Serotype 14||0.99|0.73|
91898851|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-1.0|-3.4|0.0003
91782687|NCT00298558|183444593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.06||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.14|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.27|-0.14|0.43
91782688|NCT00298558|183444593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.11||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.31|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.10|-0.31|0.17
91782689|NCT00298558|183444593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.25|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.15|-0.25|0.52
91782690|NCT00298558|183444596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.17|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.12|-0.17|0.69
91782691|NCT00298558|183444596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.23|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.09|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.38|0.09|<0.01
91782692|NCT00298558|183444596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.06||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.2|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.08|-0.20|0.27
91782693|NCT00298558|183444598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.07||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.29|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.16|-0.29|0.45
91782694|NCT00298558|183444598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.005||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.22|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.23|-0.22|0.95
91782695|NCT00298558|183444598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.66|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.43|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.88|0.43|<0.01
91782696|NCT00298558|183444599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.48|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.12|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.84|0.12|<0.01
91782697|NCT00298558|183444599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.02|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.74|0.02|<0.01
91898852|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.1|-2.4|0.359
91898853|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||-0.9|-3.3|0.0005
91898854|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||-0.6|-3.1|0.0027
91782698|NCT00298558|183444599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.36|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.01|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.72|0.01|<0.01
91782699|NCT00298558|183444600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.004||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.23|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.24|-0.23|0.97
91898855|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||0.1|-2.3|0.0657
91898856|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-0.7|-3.1|0.0021
91898857|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-0.3|-2.7|0.0172
91898858|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-0.3|-2.1|0.1344
91842062|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.91||||||Serotype 18C||0.91|0.68|
91842063|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02||||||Serotype 19A||1.02|0.78|
91842064|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03||||||Serotype 19F||1.03|0.77|
91842065|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||Serotype 22F||0.89|0.65|
91842066|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 23F||0.98|0.70|
91842067|NCT03615482|183565556|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99||||||Serotype 33F||0.99|0.75|
91842068|NCT04212169|183565568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.981||0.888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.67|16.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences less than 0 favours MEDI3506|||16.22|-13.67|0.888
91842069|NCT04212169|183565568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.756||0.549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.36|22.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences less than 0 favours MEDI3506|||22.10|-10.36|0.549
91842070|NCT04212169|183565568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.014||0.807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.38|9.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences less than 0 favours MEDI3506|||9.95|-13.38|0.807
91842071|NCT04212169|183565570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.6396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|9.94|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||9.94|0.19|0.6396
91842072|NCT04212169|183565570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|6.38|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||6.38|0.03|0.9999
91842073|NCT04212169|183565570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|10.49|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||10.49|0.91|0.0935
91842074|NCT04212169|183565572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|119.65|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than one favour MEDI3506|||119.65|0.08|0.4450
91842075|NCT04212169|183565572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|28.0|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||28.0|0.0|0.9999
91842076|NCT04212169|183565572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|130.35|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||130.35|0.75|0.1132
91898859|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||-0.3|-2.7|0.0134
91842077|NCT01646320|183565659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0964|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.53||Tested at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.53|-0.91|<0.0001
91842078|NCT01646320|183565660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-19.6||Secondary end points are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-19.6|-35.4|<0.0001
91842079|NCT01646320|183565661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.493|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-24.7||Secondary end points are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-24.7|-46.3|<0.0001
91842080|NCT01646320|183565662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3126|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.89||Secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.89|-2.12|<0.0001
91842081|NCT01646320|183565663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|34.4||Secondary end points are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||34.4|16.7|<0.0001
91842082|NCT02451930|183565676|OTHER|||||||0.4491|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4491
91842083|NCT00962585|183565684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Model (Analysis of covariance): Week 4 = Baseline (MSVS) + Treatment + Site~Difference Between Means: S-equol treatment group - Placebo"||"\# of MSVS per week at each protocol visits = (# of Moderate+Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7.~The ANCOVA procedure was used to test the following hypotheses:~H0: μ1 = μp versus HA: μ1 ≠ μp where μ1 and μp denote the mean frequency of MSVS (at Week 4 in case of primary efficacy endpoint), adjusted for Baseline MSVS values, in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively."||||0.5730
91842084|NCT00962585|183565684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|1.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|12.32|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||12.32|-10.06|>0.05
91842085|NCT00962585|183565684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|6.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|17.84|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||17.84|-3.87|>0.05
91842086|NCT00962585|183565684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.94|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|12.04|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||12.04|-10.16|>0.05
91842087|NCT00962585|183565685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7364||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Model: Week 4 = Baseline (MSVS) + Treatment + Site~Difference Between Means: S-equol treatment group - Placebo"||"\# of MSVS per week at each protocol visits = (# of Moderate+Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7~1-week period = remaining days of the period since the last visit (i.e. period following first 7 days, as per CRF)"||||0.7364
91842088|NCT00962585|183565685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.19|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|12.01|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||12.01|-12.38|>0.05
91842089|NCT00962585|183565685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|4.77|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|16.48|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||16.48|-6.94|>0.05
91842090|NCT00962585|183565685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.63|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.41|10.15|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||10.15|-13.41|>0.05
91842091|NCT00962585|183565686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1217||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 1 and 2.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|"Mixed Model: MSVS = Baseline (MSVS) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks~Difference Between Means: S-equol treatment group - Placebo"||\# of MSVS per week at each protocol visits = (# of Moderate+Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7.||||0.1217
91842092|NCT00962585|183565686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-3.77|||>|0.05||95.0|-12.69|5.16|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||5.16|-12.69|>0.05
91842093|NCT00962585|183565686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|9.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|18.6|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||18.60|0.79|<0.05
91842094|NCT00962585|183565686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|1.31|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|10.36|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||10.36|-7.73|>0.05
91782700|NCT00298558|183444600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.25|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.22|-0.25|0.86
91842095|NCT00962585|183565686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-6.7|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|4.96|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||4.96|-18.36|>0.05
91842096|NCT00962585|183565686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|3.56|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|15.14|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||15.14|-8.01|>0.05
91842097|NCT00962585|183565686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.91|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|12.58|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||12.58|-10.77|>0.05
91842098|NCT00962585|183565687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1609||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 1, 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: Severity of VMS = Baseline (severity of VMS) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||Severity of VMS per week at each protocol visits = (Sum of scores of Mild, Moderate, Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7, where severity of vasomotor symptoms are scored as: 1 = mild, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe.||||0.1609
91842099|NCT00962585|183565687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-6.34|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.41|13.73|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||13.73|-26.41|>0.05
91842100|NCT00962585|183565687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|25.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|45.69|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||45.69|5.64|<0.05
91842101|NCT00962585|183565687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|2.09|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.21|22.39|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||22.39|-18.21|>0.05
91842102|NCT00962585|183565687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-16.14|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.29|11.01|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||11.01|-43.29|>0.05
91842103|NCT00962585|183565687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|8.73|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|35.65|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||35.65|-18.19|>0.05
91842104|NCT00962585|183565687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.65|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|26.5|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||26.50|-27.80|>0.05
91842105|NCT00962585|183565687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.69|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.68|25.3|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||25.30|-28.68|>0.05
91842106|NCT00962585|183565687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|16.15|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|42.71|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||42.71|-10.40|>0.05
91842107|NCT00962585|183565687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.29|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|25.6|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||25.60|-28.18|>0.05
91842108|NCT00962585|183565688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2211||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: (Vaginal pH) = Baseline (Vaginal pH) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||||||0.2211
91842109|NCT00962585|183565688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.21|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.12|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||0.12|-0.53|>0.05
91842110|NCT00962585|183565688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.23|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||0.09|-0.55|>0.05
91842111|NCT00962585|183565688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||0.35|-0.28|>0.05
91842112|NCT00962585|183565688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.26|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.02|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.02|-0.54|>0.05
91842113|NCT00962585|183565688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.14|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.14|-0.40|>0.05
91842114|NCT00962585|183565688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.24|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.03|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.03|-0.51|>0.05
91842115|NCT00962585|183565689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6375||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: (Vaginal Maturation Index) = Baseline (Vaginal Maturation Index) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||Vaginal maturation index = 0.2 x (% parabasal cells) + 0.6 x(% intermediate cells) + 1.0 x (% superficial cells)||||0.6375
91842116|NCT00962585|183565689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.58|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|6.42|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||6.42|-9.57|>0.05
91842117|NCT00962585|183565689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.58|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|6.46|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||6.46|-9.63|>0.05
91842118|NCT00962585|183565689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.59|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|6.47|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||6.47|-9.66|>0.05
91842119|NCT00962585|183565689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.31|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|6.11|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||6.11|-6.73|>0.05
91842120|NCT00962585|183565689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-6.14|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.36|0.07|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.07|-12.36|>0.05
91842121|NCT00962585|183565689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-2.88|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|3.28|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||3.28|-9.05|>0.05
91842122|NCT00962585|183565690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0681||||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: (Estradiol) = Baseline (Estradiol) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||||||0.0681
91842123|NCT00962585|183565690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|35.32|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|68.9|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||68.90|1.75|>0.05
91842124|NCT00962585|183565690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|3.61|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|36.34|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||36.34|-29.12|>0.05
91842125|NCT00962585|183565690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-4.58|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.39|28.23|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||28.23|-37.39|>0.05
91842126|NCT00962585|183565690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|22.12|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.56|67.8|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||67.80|-23.56|>0.05
91842127|NCT00962585|183565690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|7.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|52.29|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||52.29|-36.70|>0.05
91842128|NCT00962585|183565690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-22.74|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.44|21.96|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||21.96|-67.44|>0.05
91842129|NCT00962585|183565694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0475||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0475
91842130|NCT00962585|183565694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0258||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0258
91898860|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||-0.2|-2.6|0.0260
91842131|NCT00962585|183565694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0281
91842132|NCT00962585|183565694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All three S-equol treatment arms were aggregated and compared to placebo.||||0.0645
91842133|NCT00962585|183565695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097||||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol groups combined versus Placebo: Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0097
91842134|NCT00962585|183565696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4352||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.4352
91782701|NCT00298558|183444600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.008||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.23|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.24|-0.23|0.93
91782702|NCT00298558|183444601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.19|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.23|-0.19|0.78
91782703|NCT00298558|183444601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.004||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.21|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.21|-0.21|0.96
91790307|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.682||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.602|0.081||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.081|-2.602|0.066
91790308|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790309|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.343|1.41||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.410|-1.343|0.962
91790310|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790311|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.734|0.755||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.755|-2.734|0.265
91790312|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790313|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.775|0.618||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.618|-2.775|0.212
91790314|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.29|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790315|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.223|1.29||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.290|-2.223|0.602
91842135|NCT00962585|183565696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.2600
91842136|NCT00962585|183565696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7037||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.7037
91842137|NCT00962585|183565696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7155|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All three S-equol treatment arms were aggregated and compared to placebo.||||0.7155
91842138|NCT00962585|183565697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0381||||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol groups combined versus Placebo: Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0381
91842139|NCT05454449|183565702|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91842140|NCT05454449|183565703|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91842141|NCT05454449|183565704|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
91842142|NCT05454449|183565705|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
91842143|NCT05454449|183565706|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91898861|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||0.4|-1.9|0.2150
91842144|NCT05454449|183565707|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91842145|NCT05454449|183565708|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91842146|NCT01950273|183565747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) mean ratio|89.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.42|106.29|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||106.29|75.42|
91842147|NCT01950273|183565748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) means ratio|94.6||||||90.0|85.04|105.23|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||105.23|85.04|
91842148|NCT01950273|183565749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) means ratio|89.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.62|104.23|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||104.23|77.62|
91842149|NCT01950273|183565750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) means ratio|97.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.45|105.42|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||105.42|90.45|
91842150|NCT01950273|183565751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|249.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-210.6|709.0|||||Mean difference calculated as BI 695500-Rituximab (MabThera®).|||709|-210.6|
91842151|NCT01950273|183565753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|11.1|||||Difference in ORR calculated as ORR (BI695500) - ORR (MabThera®). The confidence interval represented is 95% difference in proportions.|||11.1|-29.4|
91842152|NCT01950273|183565754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|22.1|||||Difference in TEAE incidence calculated as BI695500 - TEAE incidence (MabThera®). The confidence interval represented is 95% difference in proportions.|||22.1|-18.0|
91842153|NCT00179010|183565771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.854
91842154|NCT03748979|183565780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||<0.0001
91842155|NCT03748979|183565780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
91842156|NCT03748979|183565780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||0.0002
91842157|NCT03748979|183565780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
91842158|NCT03748979|183565780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
91842159|NCT03748979|183565780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
91842160|NCT03748979|183565780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
91842161|NCT03748979|183565780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
91842162|NCT03249376|183565781|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-2.83|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.83|-6.34|<0.0001
91842163|NCT03249376|183565782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.51|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.51|-1.37|<0.0001
91842164|NCT03249376|183565783|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|7.69|||ANCOVA|||||7.69|1.42|0.005
91842165|NCT02694640|183565797|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered to detect significant between-group differences in mean min/week MVPA at follow-up.|effect size|0.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made|Regression, Linear||Effect size refers to between-group difference at follow-up.|A series of longitudinal mixed effects models with subject-specific intercepts were used to examine between-group differences in mean min/week of self reported moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA).||||<.05
91842166|NCT02694640|183565798|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
91842167|NCT00432679|183565808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.61||Change from Baseline in HbA1c = Treatment+ Baseline HbA1c+ Gender+ body mass index (BMI)|ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-1.01|<0.001
91842168|NCT00432679|183565809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.1|||Unpaired t-test|||||-12.1|-32.1|<0.001
91842169|NCT00432679|183565810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8102||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.883|2.319|||Unpaired t-test|||||2.319|-0.883|0.377
91842170|NCT00432679|183565811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.094||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|2.09|||Unpaired t-test|||||2.09|-6.18|0.330
91842171|NCT00432679|183565812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|0.925|||Unpaired t-test|||||0.925|-0.945|0.983
91842172|NCT00432679|183565813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.556||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.191|15.248|||Unpaired t-test|||||15.248|1.191|0.022
91842173|NCT00432679|183565814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|9.91|||Unpaired t-test|||||9.91|6.52|<0.001
91842174|NCT00432679|183565815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.35|||Unpaired t-test||Comparison of leptin.|||1.35|-0.05|0.069
91842175|NCT00432679|183565815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-888.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|803.96||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2477.7|700.1|||Unpaired t-test||Comparison of hs-CRP|||700.1|-2477.7|0.271
91842176|NCT00432679|183565816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|54.1|||||Comparison of HbA1c, decrease by 0.7%|||54.1|27.1|
91842177|NCT00432679|183565816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|13.8|||||Comparison of HbA1c, fell below 6.5%|||13.8|-0.3|
91842178|NCT00432679|183565816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|54.1|||||Comparison of HbA1c, satisfied either 1 or 2|||54.1|27.1|
91842179|NCT00432679|183565816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|36.6|||||Comparison of FPG, decrease of 30 milligrams per decilliter|||36.6|9.5|
91842180|NCT00432679|183565816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|18.9|||||Comparison of FPG, fell below 126 milligrams per deciliter|||18.9|-5.1|
91842181|NCT00432679|183565816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|35.3|||||Comparison of FPG, satisfied either 1 or 2|||35.3|5.6|
91842182|NCT00906503|183565817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|31.1||||||||31.1|0.06|
91842183|NCT03405662|183565818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.07
91842184|NCT03405662|183565819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.29
91842185|NCT03405662|183565820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.07
91842186|NCT03405662|183565821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.23
91842187|NCT03405662|183565822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.68
91842188|NCT03405662|183565823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.13
91842189|NCT03405662|183565824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.32
91842190|NCT03405662|183565825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.68
91842191|NCT03405662|183565826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.86
91842192|NCT03405662|183565827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.32
91842193|NCT01177813|183565832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|-0.57||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-0.57|-0.90|<0.0001
91842194|NCT01177813|183565832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.01|-0.69||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-0.69|-1.01|<0.0001
91842195|NCT01177813|183565833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.48|-1.38||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region,and renal function at baseline as fixed effects,baseline body weight and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-1.38|-2.48|<0.0001
91842196|NCT01177813|183565833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.6||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region,and renal function at baseline as fixed effects,baseline body weight and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-1.60|-2.70|<0.0001
91842197|NCT01177813|183565834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.2|0.0||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for Systolic Blood Pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline SBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||0.0|-5.2|0.0231
91842198|NCT01177813|183565834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.0|-0.9||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for Systolic blood pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline SBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||-0.9|-6.0|0.0028
91790316|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790317|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.489|1.519||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.519|-2.489|0.635
91790318|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.31|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790319|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.233|1.712||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.712|-2.233|0.795
91790320|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790321|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|3.128||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||3.128|-0.910|0.281
91790322|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91842199|NCT01177813|183565834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.3987|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|0.9||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for diastolic blood pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline DBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||0.9|-2.1|0.3987
91842200|NCT01177813|183565834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.0|0.0||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for diastolic blood pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline DBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||0.0|-3.0|0.0296
91842201|NCT00581256|183565836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Perfusion Defect (PD) increase of greater than 5% for a 2.5 SD threshold was considered significant.||||0.6
91842202|NCT00581256|183565836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||A PD increase of greater than 10% for a 1.5 SD threshold was considered significant.||||0.46
91842203|NCT03220737|183565874|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was based on the lower confidence limit and did not entail a comparative group. The requirement was for the lower limit of the 98.3% CI be at least 70%. Multiplicity adjustment due to co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.017 to this endpoint resulting in a 98.3% confidence interval|Proportion|0.985|||||ONE_SIDED|98.3|0.7||||||||||0.7|
91842204|NCT03220737|183565875|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was based on the lower confidence limit and did not entail a comparative group. The requirement was for the lower limit of the 98.3% CI be at least 70%. Multiplicity adjustment due to coprimary endpoints allotted alpha=0.017 to this endpoint resulting in a 98.3% confidence interval.|Proportion|0.985|||||ONE_SIDED|98.3|0.7||||||||||0.7|
91898862|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||-0.2|-2.6|0.0271
91898863|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||0.0|-2.5|0.0502
91898864|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||0.7|-1.7|0.4138
91898865|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||0.1|-2.4|0.0738
91898866|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||0.3|-2.2|0.1247
91898867|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||0.8|-1.7|0.4572
91898868|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.1|-2.4|0.0617
91898869|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.1|-2.4|0.677
91898870|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.8|-1.7|0.4688
91648513|NCT01244815|183189703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.10|-0.56|0.006
91648514|NCT01244815|183189703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.12|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.12|-0.59|0.003
91648515|NCT01244815|183189703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.21|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.21|-0.67|<0.001
91842205|NCT03220737|183565876|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was based on the lower confidence limit and did not entail a comparative group. The requirement was for the lower limit of the 98.3% CI be at least 70%. Multiplicity adjustment due to coprimary endpoints allotted alpha=0.017 to this endpoint resulting in a 98.3% confidence interval.|Proportion|0.985|||||ONE_SIDED|98.3|0.7||||||||||0.7|
91842206|NCT03220737|183565877|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined using the Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions. Multiple comparison adjustment for co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.033 to this comparison. The lower limit of the 96.7% CI needed to be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|96.7|2.4|7.1|||||Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions|||7.1|2.4|
91842207|NCT03220737|183565878|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined using the Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions. Multiple comparison adjustment for co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.033 to this comparison. The lower limit of the 96.7% CI needed to be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.7|-0.3|6.2||||||||6.2|-0.3|
91842208|NCT03220737|183565879|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined using the Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions. Multiple comparison adjustment for co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.033 to this comparison. The lower limit of the 96.7% CI needed to be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|96.7|-1.1|6.4||||||||6.4|-1.1|
91842209|NCT03220737|183565880|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91842210|NCT03220737|183565881|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91842211|NCT03220737|183565882|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91648516|NCT01244815|183189704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.08|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.08|-0.61|0.011
91648517|NCT01244815|183189704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.36|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.36|-0.89|<0.001
91648518|NCT01244815|183189704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.35|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.35|-0.88|<0.001
91648519|NCT01244815|183189705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.32|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.32|-0.90|<0.001
91648520|NCT01244815|183189705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.46|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.46|-1.04|<0.001
91842212|NCT03220737|183565886|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91842213|NCT03220737|183565887|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91842214|NCT00684983|183565898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.89|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis of the primary endpoint, PFS, will be performed using Cox regression with treatment group as a single covariate.||1.89|0.58|.89
91842215|NCT00684983|183565899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0|||Log Rank|||||3|0.5|0.93
91648521|NCT01244815|183189705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.45|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.45|-1.03|<0.001
91648522|NCT01244815|183189706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.07||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.15|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.15|-0.28|0.536
91648523|NCT01244815|183189706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.19|-0.24|0.811
91648524|NCT01244815|183189706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.07||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.28|-0.15|0.556
91648525|NCT01244815|183189707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.21||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.0|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.00|-0.42|0.053
91648526|NCT01244815|183189707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.18||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.03|-0.40|0.094
91709204|NCT01402986|183311363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.13||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.81|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< median||1.81|0.71|0.602
91842216|NCT00684983|183565900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.92|||Log Rank|||||1.92|.53|.66
91842217|NCT00684983|183565902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|.09|.26
91842218|NCT01751113|183565948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|1.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.219|1.100|<0.001
91648527|NCT01244815|183189707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.07|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.07|-0.36|0.178
91842219|NCT01751113|183565948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|1.288|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.224|1.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.355|1.224|<0.001
91648528|NCT01244815|183189708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.16|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.16|-0.33|0.506
91648529|NCT01244815|183189708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.19||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.06|-0.43|0.131
91648530|NCT01244815|183189708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.09|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.09|-0.40|0.211
91648531|NCT01244815|183189709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.23||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.03|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.03|-0.49|0.079
91648532|NCT01244815|183189709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.08|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.08|-0.60|0.010
91709205|NCT01402986|183311363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.5|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< median||1.50|0.55|0.703
91842220|NCT01751113|183565949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|0.856|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|0.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.902|0.812|<0.001
91842221|NCT01751113|183565949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|0.774|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|0.816|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.816|0.735|<0.001
91898871|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||0.2|-2.2|0.1093
91898872|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||0.3|-2.2|0.1196
91898873|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||0.9|-1.5|0.5763
91898874|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.1|-2.4|0.0661
91898875|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.1|-2.4|0.0622
91898876|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.8|-1.6|0.4677
91898877|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||0.1|-2.2|0.0854
91898878|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||0.1|-2.3|0.0768
91898879|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||0.5|-1.9|0.2560
91898880|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||-0.1|-2.5|0.0337
91898881|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||0.1|-2.3|0.0778
91898882|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||0.6|-1.8|0.3218
91898883|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||0.0|-2.3|0.0549
91898884|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||0.0|-2.4|0.0543
91898885|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||0.6|-1.7|0.3759
91898886|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||-0.1|-2.5|0.0286
91898887|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||0.0|-2.4|0.0477
91790323|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.918|2.043||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.043|-2.918|0.729
91790324|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790325|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.047|1.863||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.863|-3.047|0.636
91648533|NCT01244815|183189709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.06|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.06|-0.46|0.139
91648534|NCT01244815|183189710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-0.83|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.83|-4.38|0.004
91648535|NCT01244815|183189710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.17||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.39|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.39|-3.95|0.017
91648536|NCT01244815|183189710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.16||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.38|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.38|-3.93|0.017
91648537|NCT01244815|183189711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.79||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.04|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||1.04|-2.62|0.395
91648538|NCT01244815|183189711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.44||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.63|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.63|-4.26|0.009
91648539|NCT01244815|183189711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|0.38|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.38|-3.27|0.121
91648540|NCT01244815|183189712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.45|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.45|-3.33|0.135
91648541|NCT01244815|183189712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.19||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.30|-4.08|0.023
91648542|NCT01244815|183189712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.63|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.63|-3.20|0.189
91648543|NCT01244815|183189713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|4.29||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|7.02|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||7.02|1.56|0.002
91648544|NCT01244815|183189713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|6.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|9.68|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||9.68|4.22|<0.001
91648545|NCT01244815|183189713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|5.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|7.91|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||7.91|2.31|<0.001
91648546|NCT01244815|183189714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.24||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.48|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||4.48|-0.00|0.050
91648547|NCT01244815|183189714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.35||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.59|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||3.59|-0.90|0.239
91842222|NCT01751113|183565950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.181|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.263|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||1.263|1.104|<0.001
91648548|NCT01244815|183189714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.78||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.08|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||5.08|0.48|0.018
91842223|NCT01751113|183565950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.303|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.219|1.393|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||1.393|1.219|<0.001
91648549|NCT01244815|183189715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.39||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.62|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.62|0.15|0.001
91648550|NCT01244815|183189715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.18||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.41|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.41|-0.06|0.135
91648551|NCT01244815|183189715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.25||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.49|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.49|0.01|0.044
91648552|NCT00919802|183189784|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Response Assessment (GRA) scores were obtained 6 and 24 hours post oxytocin or saline administration.||||0.688
91648553|NCT00919802|183189785|OTHER|paired t-test comparison of change in VAR from baseline 6 hours after drug; a change in VAR score was calculated for each subject for each arm and compared using a paired t-test||||||0.7252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7252
91648554|NCT02059187|183189812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MK-1293 was to be considered non-inferior to Lantus in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-treatment difference (MK-1293 minus Lantus) in least-squares (LS) means was below 0.4% based on a cLDA model.|Difference in least squares means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18||||||||0.18|-0.12|
91648555|NCT02059187|183189813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|13.7||||||||13.7|-2.3|
91648556|NCT02059187|183189815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|8.5||||||||8.5|-8.5|
91842224|NCT01751113|183565950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.175|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.099|1.257|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||1.257|1.099|<0.001
91842225|NCT01751113|183565950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253|1.432|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||1.432|1.253|<0.001
91648557|NCT02059187|183189816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|14.2||||||||14.2|-0.6|
91648558|NCT02059187|183189817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.9||||||||4.9|-2.2|
91842226|NCT01751113|183565950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.076|1.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||1.231|1.076|<0.001
91648559|NCT02059187|183189818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dofference in LS means|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.02|
91648560|NCT02059187|183189819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.7||||||||10.7|-3.7|
91648561|NCT02059187|183189820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.4||||||||4.4|-11.3|
91648562|NCT02059187|183189821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.6|||||Calculated via Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by prior insulin status.|||11.6|-6.1|
91648563|NCT02059187|183189822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.5|||||Calculated via Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by prior insulin status.|||6.5|-8.3|
91648564|NCT03751020|183189823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.34|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.03|-1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||-1.64|-11.03|<0.01
91648565|NCT03751020|183189824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||-0.03|-0.62|0.03
91648566|NCT03751020|183189825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.03||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||0.47|-8.55|0.07
91648567|NCT03751020|183189826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|8.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||8.77|-6.48|0.73
91648568|NCT03751020|183189827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||0.24|-2.80|0.10
91648569|NCT03751020|183189828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||1.57|-1.19|0.76
91648570|NCT00528879|183189853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1014||0.0002||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91648571|NCT00528879|183189853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1016|<|0.0001||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91648572|NCT00528879|183189853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1021|<|0.0001||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91648573|NCT00528879|183189854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.774|<|0.0019||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0019
91648574|NCT00528879|183189854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.781|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91648575|NCT00528879|183189854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.819|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91648576|NCT00528879|183189855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3344|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91648577|NCT00528879|183189855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3344|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91648578|NCT00528879|183189855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3365|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91842227|NCT01751113|183565950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.301|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.217|1.391|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||1.391|1.217|<0.001
91842228|NCT01751113|183565950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.141|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.067|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||1.220|1.067|<0.001
91842229|NCT01751113|183565950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.239|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.159|1.325|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||1.325|1.159|<0.001
91842230|NCT01751113|183565951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.846|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|0.905|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||0.905|0.792|<0.001
91842231|NCT01751113|183565951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|0.819|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||0.819|0.717|<0.001
91648579|NCT00528879|183189856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.1775||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.1775
91648580|NCT00528879|183189856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.0275||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.0275
91709206|NCT01402986|183311363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.28|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th Percentile||1.28|0.58|0.455
91842232|NCT01751113|183565951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|0.909|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||0.909|0.795|<0.001
91648581|NCT00528879|183189856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7||||0.0062||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.0062
91842233|NCT01751113|183565951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.746|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|0.798|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||0.798|0.698|<0.001
91842234|NCT01751113|183565951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.868|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|0.928|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||0.928|0.812|<0.001
91842235|NCT01751113|183565951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.769|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.822|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||0.822|0.719|<0.001
91842236|NCT01751113|183565951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.877|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.938|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||0.938|0.820|<0.001
91842237|NCT01751113|183565951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.809|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||0.865|0.757|<0.001
91842238|NCT01751113|183565952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.198|0.116|<0.001
91842239|NCT01751113|183565952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.118|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.159|0.077|<0.001
91648582|NCT00528879|183189857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3515||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
91709207|NCT01402986|183311363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.57|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th Percentile||1.57|0.66|0.929
91842240|NCT01751113|183565952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.082||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.133|0.031|0.002
91842241|NCT01751113|183565952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.186|0.084|<0.001
91842242|NCT01751113|183565952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|0.054||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.104|0.004|0.035
91842243|NCT01751113|183565952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|0.064||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.114|0.015|0.011
91842244|NCT01751113|183565952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.107||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|-0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.028|-0.187|0.009
91842245|NCT01751113|183565952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.102||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.023|-0.180|0.012
91842246|NCT01751113|183565952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.013||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||0.040|-0.066|0.632
91842247|NCT01751113|183565952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.014||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||0.038|-0.067|0.596
91842248|NCT01751113|183565952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.065||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||-0.007|-0.123|0.028
91842249|NCT01751113|183565952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.075||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||-0.018|-0.133|0.010
91842250|NCT01751113|183565953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.032|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.041|0.023|<0.001
91842251|NCT01751113|183565953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.017|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.026|0.008|<0.001
91842252|NCT01751113|183565954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.835|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.905|0.770|<0.001
91842253|NCT01751113|183565954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.803|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|0.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.869|0.741|<0.001
91842254|NCT01751113|183565955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|1.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.301|1.108|<0.001
91648583|NCT00528879|183189857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3022||0.0068||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||0.0068
91842255|NCT01751113|183565955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|1.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.352|1.153|<0.001
91648584|NCT00528879|183189857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3535||0.029||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||0.0290
91648585|NCT00528879|183189858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3681||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
91842256|NCT01751113|183565956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.161|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.236|0.086|<0.001
91842257|NCT01751113|183565956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.103||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.178|0.028|0.008
91842258|NCT01751113|183565956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.104||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.209|0.000|0.051
91842259|NCT01751113|183565956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.148||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.253|0.043|0.006
91842260|NCT01751113|183565956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|-0.008||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.104|-0.120|0.890
91842261|NCT01751113|183565956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|-0.008||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.103|-0.118|0.890
91842262|NCT01751113|183565956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|-0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.103|-0.355|<0.001
91842263|NCT01751113|183565956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.189||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|-0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.064|-0.314|0.003
91842264|NCT01751113|183565956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.101||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||0.002|-0.204|0.055
91842265|NCT01751113|183565956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.105||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||-0.003|-0.206|0.044
91842266|NCT01751113|183565956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.092||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||0.013|-0.197|0.085
91842267|NCT01751113|183565956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.091||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||0.012|-0.195|0.083
91842268|NCT01751113|183565957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.027|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.041|0.014|<0.001
91842269|NCT01751113|183565957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.008||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.021|-0.005|0.223
91842270|NCT04147260|183565963|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.2|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.20|-0.03|
91842271|NCT04147260|183565963|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.16|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.16|-0.07|
91842272|NCT04147260|183565963|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.08||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.08|-0.14|0.572
91842273|NCT04147260|183565963|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.23||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.23|-0.07|0.315
91842274|NCT04147260|183565963|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.05||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.05|-0.18|0.286
91842275|NCT04147260|183565963|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.31||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.31|0.00|0.057
91842276|NCT04147260|183565964|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.49|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.49|-0.02|
91842277|NCT04147260|183565964|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.22|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.22|-0.20|
91842278|NCT04147260|183565964|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|-0.31||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-0.31|-0.72|<0.001
91842279|NCT04147260|183565964|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|0.8||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.80|0.24|<0.001
91842280|NCT04147260|183565964|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.09||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-0.09|-0.62|0.010
91842281|NCT04147260|183565964|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|0.93||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.93|0.24|0.001
91842282|NCT04147260|183565965|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.1|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.10|-0.05|
91842283|NCT04147260|183565965|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.08||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.08|-0.08|0.998
91842284|NCT04147260|183565965|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.13||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.13|-0.08|0.618
91648586|NCT00528879|183189858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3745|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91842285|NCT04147260|183565965|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.23|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.23|-0.10|
91648587|NCT00528879|183189858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3791|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91648588|NCT00528879|183189865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1109||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
91782704|NCT00298558|183444601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.26|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.16|-0.26|0.56
91782705|NCT02581410|183444602|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the adjusted geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (No prev- Zvax over Prev-Zvax) 1 month post-dose 2 is below 1.5 in terms of anti-gE antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.17|||ANCOVA|||To compare humoral immune responses at 1 month after dose 2 of GSK1437173A (Month 3) in subjects ≥ 65 years of age who received Zostavax ≥ 5 years earlier (Prev-Zvax) as compared to subjects who have never received Zostavax (No prev-Zvax).||1.17|0.92|
91782706|NCT01322945|183444650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91648589|NCT00528879|183189865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1129||0.0004||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
91842286|NCT04147260|183565965|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.23||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.23|-0.10|0.451
91648590|NCT00528879|183189865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1146|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91782707|NCT02819011|183444707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare changes in two groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.040
91782708|NCT02819011|183444708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes in both groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.005
91782709|NCT02819011|183444709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes in both groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.019
91782710|NCT02819011|183444711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572||||||priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Repeated measures to compare the changes of both groups from pre-intervention to post-intervention year.||||0.572
91782711|NCT02819011|183444712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.650
91782712|NCT02819011|183444713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.756
91842287|NCT04147260|183565965|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.22||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.22|-0.22|1.000
91842288|NCT04147260|183565966|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.36|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.36|-0.15|
91842289|NCT04147260|183565966|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.36||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.36|-0.16|0.446
91842290|NCT04147260|183565966|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.35||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.35|-0.34|0.972
91842291|NCT04147260|183565966|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.6|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.60|-0.02|
91842292|NCT04147260|183565966|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.56||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.56|-0.04|0.091
91842293|NCT04147260|183565966|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.44||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.44|-0.38|0.880
91842294|NCT04147260|183565967|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|-0.01|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||-0.01|-0.15|
91842295|NCT04147260|183565967|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.06||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.06|-0.09|0.757
91842296|NCT04147260|183565967|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.03||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.03|-0.17|0.158
91842297|NCT04147260|183565967|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.22|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.22|-0.12|
91842298|NCT04147260|183565967|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.25|-0.09|0.330
91648591|NCT00528879|183189866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.769||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
91782713|NCT02819011|183444716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.769
91782714|NCT02819011|183444717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.857
91782715|NCT02819011|183444718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.829
91782716|NCT02260180|183444787|SUPERIORITY|2-tail alpha was set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91782717|NCT02260180|183444787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|2-tail alpha was set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||<0.0001
91782718|NCT02260180|183444788|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Baseline PLA was the covariate. Comparisons were performed within the model using least-squares means and the common error term.||||||<0.0001
91782719|NCT02260180|183444788|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANCOVA|Baseline PLA was the covariate. Comparisons were performed within the model using least-squares means and the common error term.||The primary efficacy analysis of mean change from baseline to Visit 8 PLA was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline PLA as the covariate. Comparisons between vehicle and each A-101 group were performed within the model using least-squares means and the common error term.||||<0.0001
91898888|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||0.5|-1.8|0.2699
91782720|NCT00943072|183444791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|44.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|56.6||P-value for the primary endpoint was calculated using 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by regions (North America vs. Rest of World) and baseline BCVA (BCVA \> 20/200 and BCVA ≤ 20/200)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted difference|The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||56.6|33.0|< 0.0001
91782721|NCT00943072|183444792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.36|26.04|||ANCOVA||RD is the IAI group minus sham group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||26.04|17.36|< 0.0001
91782722|NCT00943072|183444792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|16.36|||||||||||ANCOVA||LS Mean indicates is the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||||
91782723|NCT00943072|183444793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-311.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.4|-234.4|||ANCOVA||The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||-234.4|-389.4|< 0.0001
91782724|NCT00943072|183444793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-487.1|||||||||||ANCOVA||The Least Square Mean indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||||
91782725|NCT00943072|183444794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.6||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted difference|The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||-1.1|-12.2|0.0059
91782726|NCT00943072|183444795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|9.91|||ANCOVA||The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||9.91|2.61|0.0009
91782727|NCT00943072|183444795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|8.8|||||||||||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||||
91782728|NCT01193257|183444796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.12085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.036|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region (North America, Europe and Rest of World) and brief pain inventory-short form (BPI-SF) worst pain score at screening (\[less than or equal to\] \<=4, greater than \[\>\] 4) with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than 1 for the treatment indicates better prevention of the death in the Orteronel arm as compared to placebo arm.||1.036|0.739|0.12085
91648592|NCT00528879|183189866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.762|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91648593|NCT00528879|183189866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.808|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91648594|NCT00528879|183189867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|Modified logistic regression|||||||
91648595|NCT00528879|183189867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.8627|||||||Modified logistic regression|||||||0.8627
91648596|NCT00528879|183189867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.0149||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.0149
91648597|NCT02555618|183189870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.983|11.415|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||11.415|-7.983|
91648598|NCT02555618|183189870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.974|4.403|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||4.403|-13.974|
91648599|NCT02555618|183189870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.082|11.32|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||11.320|-6.082|
91648600|NCT02555618|183189871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7984|1.2253|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.2253|0.7984|
91648601|NCT02555618|183189871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5544|1.05|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||1.0500|0.5544|
91782729|NCT01193257|183444797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.00038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|0.885|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region (North America, Europe and Rest of World) and brief pain inventory-short form (BPI-SF) worst pain score at screening (\<=4, \>4) with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than 1 for the treatment indicates better prevention of the death in the Orteronel arm as compared to placebo arm.||0.885|0.653|0.00038
91648602|NCT02555618|183189871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8134|1.3931|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.3931|0.8134|
91648603|NCT02555618|183189874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|16.348||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||16.348|-3.020|
91648604|NCT02555618|183189874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.282|0.901||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||0.901|-18.282|
91648605|NCT02555618|183189874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.461|6.835||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||6.835|-11.461|
91648606|NCT02555618|183189875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9559|1.1473|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.1473|0.9559|
91648607|NCT02555618|183189875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7862|1.0241|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||1.0241|0.7862|
91648608|NCT02555618|183189875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9273|1.0364|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.0364|0.9273|
91648609|NCT02555618|183189878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.489|23.577||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||23.577|5.489|
91648610|NCT02555618|183189878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.614|6.928||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||6.928|-10.614|
91648611|NCT02555618|183189878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.346|5.579||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B-Strain.||5.579|-10.346|
91648612|NCT02555618|183189879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1221|1.9623|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.9623|1.1221|
91648613|NCT02555618|183189879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7806|1.4564|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||1.4564|0.7806|
91782730|NCT01193257|183444798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P-values test for odds ratio equal to 1.||||< 0.0001
91782731|NCT01193257|183444799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12778|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P-values test for odds ratio equal to 1.||||0.12778
91842299|NCT04147260|183565967|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.19||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.19|-0.26|0.754
91842300|NCT04147260|183565968|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.52|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.52|0.09|
91842301|NCT04147260|183565968|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.38||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.38|-0.06|0.151
91842302|NCT04147260|183565968|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.44||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.44|-0.15|0.319
91842303|NCT04147260|183565968|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.42|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.42|-0.04|
91842304|NCT04147260|183565968|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.36||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.36|-0.09|0.246
91842305|NCT04147260|183565968|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.36||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.36|-0.25|0.704
91842306|NCT04147260|183565969|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.929||0.692|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.92|7.99||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||7.99|-11.92|0.692
91842307|NCT04147260|183565969|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.048||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.14|6.21||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||6.21|-10.14|0.630
91842308|NCT04147260|183565969|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.482||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.07|11.07||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||11.07|-11.07|1.000
91898889|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||-0.1|-2.5|0.0294
91648614|NCT02555618|183189879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8166|1.3934|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.3934|0.8166|
91648615|NCT02555618|183189882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.195|9.423|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||9.423|-7.195|
91648616|NCT02555618|183189882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.369|8.803|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||8.803|-10.369|
91709208|NCT01402986|183311363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.51|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 25th Percentile||2.51|0.63|0.507
91898890|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||0.1|-2.3|0.0702
91782732|NCT00839319|183444821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|Correlations between serum hormone levels and IT hormones, and between IT hormones were performed on 23 subjects in 4 groups using Spearmen technique.||||||<0.05
91782733|NCT00373113|183444899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.156|1.869||2-sided log-rank test with the same set of stratification factors. The set of stratification factors included those used in the randomization except study sites.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated by the stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Null hypothesis is that PFS (median=4.2 months) for sunitinib arm equals PFS for capecitabine arm. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect statistical difference in PFS between two treatment groups assuming the hazard ratio (sunitinib/capecitabine) is 0.75 and both arms follow exponential distribution.||1.869|1.156|0.002
91782734|NCT00373113|183444900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.516|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.188|1.933||2-sided log-rank test with the same set of stratification factors that was used in the randomization except study sites.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated by the stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.933|1.188|<0.001
91782735|NCT00373113|183444901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|16.1||||||||16.1|7.6|
91782736|NCT00373113|183444901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.6||||||||21.6|12.0|
91782737|NCT00373113|183444901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.049||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.1|||Pearson Chi-Square Test|||||1.1|-11.2|0.109
91782738|NCT00373113|183444902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.788||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|7.459|||Log Rank|||||7.459|1.042|0.037
91782739|NCT00373113|183444904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.611||2-sided log-rank test with the same set of stratification factors that were used in the randomization except study sites.|Log Rank|||||1.611|0.896|0.219
91782740|NCT00539942|183444920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Unable to analyze data||||<.05
91782741|NCT02362282|183444974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91782742|NCT02004093|183444976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3967|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3967
91782743|NCT02004093|183444976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4552|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4552
91782744|NCT02004093|183444976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|1.49||p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio equals (=) 1|Wald test|||||1.49|0.92|0.3972
91782745|NCT02004093|183444977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|6.32||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.9|16.6|||Chi-squared|||||16.6|-3.9|0.3943
91782746|NCT02004093|183444977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|2.17|||||approximate 80% confidence interval (CI) for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||2.17|0.86|
91782747|NCT02004093|183444978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3655|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3655
91782748|NCT02004093|183444978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1319
91782749|NCT02004093|183444978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|1.61|||Wald test|p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1||||1.61|0.92|0.3679
91782750|NCT02004093|183444981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8129|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8129
91782751|NCT02004093|183444981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6920
91782752|NCT02004093|183444981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.82|1.32|||Wald test|p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1||||1.32|0.82|0.8137
91782753|NCT02004093|183444984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5726|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5726
91782754|NCT02004093|183444984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3903|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3903
91782755|NCT02004093|183444984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.43|||Wald test|p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1||||1.43|0.87|0.5870
91782756|NCT02004093|183444986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9261|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9261
91782757|NCT02004093|183444986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8591|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8591
91782758|NCT02004093|183444986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9262|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.41||p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1|Wald test|||||1.41|0.74|0.9262
91782759|NCT00439517|183444990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|0.889|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||0.889|0.515|0.0048
91842309|NCT04147260|183565969|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.518||0.751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.55|7.66||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||7.66|-10.55|0.751
91842310|NCT04147260|183565969|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.894||0.669|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.17|9.52||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.52|-6.17|0.669
91842311|NCT04147260|183565969|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.123||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.44|7.21||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||7.21|-13.44|0.546
91842312|NCT04147260|183565970|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.385||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.44|10.54||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||10.54|-35.44|0.281
91842313|NCT04147260|183565970|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.02|2.74||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||2.74|-35.02|0.092
91842314|NCT04147260|183565970|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.662||0.772|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.88|29.27||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||29.27|-21.88|0.772
91842315|NCT04147260|183565970|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.255||0.539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.93|18.5||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||18.50|-34.93|0.539
91842316|NCT04147260|183565970|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.424||0.682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.74|18.31||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||18.31|-27.74|0.682
91842317|NCT04147260|183565970|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.03||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.79|26.79||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||26.79|-33.79|0.817
91842318|NCT04147260|183565971|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.327||0.891|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.49|10.02||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||10.02|-11.49|0.891
91648617|NCT02555618|183189882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.406|12.757|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||12.757|-6.406|
91842319|NCT04147260|183565971|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.375||0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.42|5.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||5.25|-12.42|0.417
91898891|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||0.6|-1.7|0.3636
91842320|NCT04147260|183565971|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.925||0.633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.11|14.82||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||14.82|-9.11|0.633
91842321|NCT04147260|183565971|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.384||0.129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.05|15.62||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||15.62|-2.05|0.129
91842322|NCT04147260|183565971|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.778||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.33|9.9||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.90|-5.33|0.548
91648618|NCT02555618|183189883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9106|1.2484|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.2484|0.9106|
91648619|NCT02555618|183189883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8686|1.0969|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2-Day 22.||1.0969|0.8686|
91648620|NCT02555618|183189883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9622|1.1427|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.1427|0.9622|
91648621|NCT00845026|183189891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.184||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiplicity. All treatment comparisons were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.184
91648622|NCT02522949|183189962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7146|||||||ANCOVA|||Oropharyngeal||||0.7146
91648623|NCT02522949|183189962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3543|||||||ANCOVA|||Nasal||||0.3543
91842323|NCT04147260|183565971|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.51|14.52||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||14.52|-5.51|0.370
91648624|NCT02522949|183189970|OTHER|||||||0.0232|||||||Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0232
91648625|NCT00725725|183189982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5299||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0781|5.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1380|-2.0781|0.3934
91648626|NCT00725725|183189982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2667||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4665|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.0000|-1.4665|0.3515
91648627|NCT00725725|183189983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8246||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8307|2.1815|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1815|-5.8307|0.3597
91648628|NCT00725725|183189983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4414||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5952|2.7124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7124|-3.5952|0.7770
91648629|NCT00725725|183189984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3356||||0.2683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8933|6.5644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.5644|-1.8933|0.2683
91648630|NCT00725725|183189984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1317||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4518|6.7152|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7152|-0.4518|0.0844
91648631|NCT00725725|183189988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3456||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6211|5.3124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.3124|-4.6211|0.8894
91648632|NCT00725725|183189988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0417||||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5526|6.636|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6360|-2.5526|0.3765
91648633|NCT00725725|183189989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2502||||0.8073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4963|8.9958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.9958|-11.4963|0.8073
91842324|NCT04147260|183565972|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.379||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.26|11.66||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||11.66|-30.26|0.375
91842325|NCT04147260|183565972|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.524||0.185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.7|5.73||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||5.73|-28.70|0.185
91648634|NCT00725725|183189989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0291||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2132|11.2714|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.2714|-7.2132|0.6610
91648635|NCT00725725|183189990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7296||||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7291|6.1883|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.1883|-4.7291|0.7895
91648636|NCT00725725|183189990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.526||||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5495|6.6015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6015|-3.5495|0.5488
91648637|NCT00725725|183189991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2766||||0.6516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9269|4.3738|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3738|-6.9269|0.6516
91648638|NCT00725725|183189991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1867||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5864|-0.7869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7869|-11.5864|0.0256
91648639|NCT04288115|183190005|NON_INFERIORITY|An one-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance of the non-inferiority test.|Difference in Group Means|-5.3||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|5.4||Group differences.|Welch's two-sample t-test|A one-sided p-value \< 0.05 indicates the discontinuation mean falls within the non-inferiority limit.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean.|A one-sided t-test will be used to determine whether the mean Hypothyroid Symptoms score for the real discontinuation group is no more than 14 points worse than the score of the sham discontinuation group at 6 months.||5.4|-16.1|0.0913
91648640|NCT04288115|183190005|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical difference.|Difference in Group Means|0.8||||0.8793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates the real discontinuation mean and the sham discontinuation mean are different. Adjusted for gender and baseline HSSs.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline hypothyroid symptom scores.|Analysis of 6-week outcome||10.9|-9.4|0.8793
91842326|NCT04147260|183565972|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.544||0.851|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.12|25.5||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||25.50|-21.12|0.851
91842327|NCT04147260|183565972|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.405||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.59|-7.69||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-7.69|-45.59|0.007
91842328|NCT04147260|183565972|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.106||0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.34|1.33||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||1.33|-31.34|0.071
91842329|NCT04147260|183565972|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.664||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.13|9.86||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.86|-33.13|0.281
91842330|NCT04147260|183565973|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.69|8.0||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||8.00|-13.69|0.599
91842331|NCT04147260|183565973|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.92|9.9||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.90|-7.92|0.824
91648641|NCT04288115|183190005|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-2.3||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.3||Group differences.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline HSS.|Differences are reported as sham discontinuation mean minus real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline hypothyroid symptom scores.|Analysis of 6-month outcome||9.3|-14.0|0.6860
91648642|NCT04288115|183190006|NON_INFERIORITY|A one-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance of the non-inferiority test.|Difference in Group Means|5.2||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|16.6||Group differences.|Welch's two-sample t-test|A one-sided p-value \< 0.05 indicates the discontinuation mean falls within the non-inferiority limit.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean.|A one-sided t-test will be used to determine whether the mean Tiredness score for the real discontinuation group is no more than 14 points worse than the score of the sham discontinuation group at 6 months.||16.6|-6.2|0.0036
91709209|NCT01402986|183311363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.89|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 25th Percentile||1.89|0.44|0.805
91842332|NCT04147260|183565973|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.973||0.525|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|8.23||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||8.23|-15.90|0.525
91842333|NCT04147260|183565973|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.867||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.84|5.84||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||5.84|-21.84|0.250
91842334|NCT04147260|183565973|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.919||0.386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.74|17.12||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||17.12|-6.74|0.386
91842335|NCT04147260|183565973|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.787||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.88|2.51||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||2.51|-28.88|0.097
91648643|NCT04288115|183190006|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|2.3||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|14.7||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These mean differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline tiredness score.|Analysis of 6-week outcome||14.7|-10.1|0.7104
91648644|NCT04288115|183190006|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|5.4||||0.3381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|16.7||Group differences.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as sham discontinuation mean minus real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline tiredness scores.|Analysis of 6-month outcome||16.7|-5.9|0.3381
91842336|NCT04147260|183565974|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.842||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.83|14.81||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||14.81|-12.83|0.885
91842337|NCT04147260|183565974|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.619|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.55|40.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||40.25|17.55|<0.001
91898892|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||-0.1|-2.5|0.0273
91648645|NCT04288115|183190007|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-0.02||||0.4684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.036||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D Descriptive scores.|Analysis of 6-week EQ-5D Descriptive score outcome.||0.036|-0.076|0.4684
91648646|NCT04288115|183190007|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|0.003||||0.9585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.107||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D Descriptive scores.|Analysis of 6-month EQ-5D Descriptive score outcome.||0.107|-0.102|0.9585
91648647|NCT04288115|183190007|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|7.0||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.4||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D VAS scores.|Analysis of 6-week EQ-5D VAS score outcome.||14.4|-0.4|0.0643
91782760|NCT00439517|183444991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.756||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.777|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||||2.777|1.110|0.016
91782761|NCT00439517|183444992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.213|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.213|0.603|0.3797
91782762|NCT00439517|183444993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977||||0.8575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.263|||Stratified log rank||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.|||1.263|0.755|0.8575
91782763|NCT02289157|183445019|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Ho: There is no difference between number of patients with wound complications between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||1.4|0.5|0.54
91782764|NCT02289157|183445020|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-squared, df (3)||Ho: There is no difference between the types wound morbidity in the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.31
91782765|NCT02289157|183445021|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Ho: There is no difference between initial length of stay between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91782766|NCT02289157|183445022|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference in length of stay after readmission for wound morbidity between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.41
91782767|NCT02289157|183445023|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Ho: There is no difference between the number of ER visits made per person between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.38
91782768|NCT02289157|183445024|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Ho: There is no difference between the number of visits made to the clinic for wound morbidity per patient between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91782769|NCT02289157|183445025|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference between number of readmissions between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.52
91782770|NCT02289157|183445025|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference in the use of post operative antimicrobials between the the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.45
91782771|NCT02289157|183445025|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference in the number of patients with Incision and Drainage and/or Extirpation between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.44
91782772|NCT02289157|183445026|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between different risk factors: scheduled vs unscheduled cesarean section and icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.68||||||Ho: There is no difference between patients with wound morbidity that is significantly affected by the use of icNPT and whether or not the cesarean is scheduled or unscheduled.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.68
91842338|NCT04147260|183565974|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.28|-12.54||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-12.54|-43.28|<0.001
91782773|NCT02289157|183445027|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between different risk factors: pfannenstiel vs midline abdominal incision and icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.27|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.27
91782774|NCT02289157|183445028|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between different risk factors: ruptured vs unruptured membranes and icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.55|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.55
91782775|NCT02289157|183445029|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between labor vs no labor stratified by icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.49|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.49
91782776|NCT02289157|183445030|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel measure used to estimate interaction between patients with hypertension versus no hypertension stratified by icNPT versus standard dressing in wound morbidity||||||0.92|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.92
91782777|NCT02289157|183445031|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel measure used to estimate interaction in icNPT and Standard wound dressings stratified by women with insulin requiring diabetes and no insulin requiring Diabetes.||||||0.22|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.22
91782778|NCT02289157|183445032|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel measure used to estimate interaction between chorioamnionitis and no chorioamnionitis stratified by icNPT and standard dressing, for wound morbidity||||||0.74|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.74
91782779|NCT01388335|183445034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.691|0.95|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for S-warfarin.|||0.950|0.691|
91782780|NCT01388335|183445034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.02|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for R-warfarin.|||1.02|0.815|
91782781|NCT01388335|183445035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|3.5|||||Median Difference (Final Values) is for S-warfarin.|||3.50|0.76|
91782782|NCT01388335|183445035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|6.84|||||Median Difference (Final Values) is for R-warfarin.|||6.84|-1.00|
91782783|NCT01388335|183445036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.44|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for S-warfarin.|||1.44|1.14|
91782784|NCT01388335|183445036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.47|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for R-warfarin.|||1.47|1.08|
91782785|NCT01388335|183445041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.0|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean.|||1.00|0.86|
91782786|NCT01388335|183445042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.02|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean.|||1.02|0.95|
91782787|NCT01388335|183445045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.03||||||90.0|0.99|1.08|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean for Period 2, Day 14, 0 hours.|||1.08|0.99|
91842339|NCT04147260|183565974|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.041||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.33|-3.92||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-3.92|-36.33|0.016
91842340|NCT04147260|183565974|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.931||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.53|32.46||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||32.46|4.53|0.011
91842341|NCT04147260|183565974|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.0|-20.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-20.25|-57.00|<0.001
91842342|NCT02471404|183565995|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin was determined to be 0.30% (in absolute terms). A difference of ≤0.30%, in HbA1c change from b/l to wk 52 between the treatment groups was considered clinically equivalent. NI was assessed using the 2-sided 95% CI of adjusted mean difference between dapagliflozin or dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin and glimepiride.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0294|0.2986|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2986|0.0294|
91898893|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.1|-2.2|0.0785
91782788|NCT01388335|183445045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.06|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean for Period 2, Day 14, 4 hours.|||1.06|0.98|
91782789|NCT00976560|183445051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.35|||BMMRM|Bayesian Mixed Effects Model Repeated Measures (BMMRM)|Prior distribution of N(-4.1, 6.4009) incorporated into the posterior for the treatment difference at Week 6. The presented Confidence Interval is Highest Probability Density (HPD).||Posterior probability of the treatment difference being greater than 1.6 points in favor of GW856553 7.5mg BID as compared to placebo at Week 6 is 15.46 and for 0 is 72.98 and for 2 is 7.87.|1.35|-2.54|
91782790|NCT00125164|183445074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001||95.0|1.19|2.39||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||2.39|1.19|<0.0001
91782791|NCT00125164|183445074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001||95.0|1.99|3.16||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||3.16|1.99|< 0.0001
91782792|NCT00125164|183445074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0032||95.0|0.27|1.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||1.31|0.27|0.0032
91842343|NCT02471404|183565995|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin was determined to be 0.30% (in absolute terms). A difference of ≤0.30%, in HbA1c change from b/l to wk 52 between the treatment groups was considered clinically equivalent. NI was assessed using the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval of adjusted mean difference between dapagliflozin or dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin and glimepiride.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3443|-0.0825||(superiority)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0825|-0.3443|0.001
91842344|NCT02471404|183565996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||-1.97|-6.45|<0.001
91842345|NCT02471404|183565996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-1.56|||Fisher Exact|||||-1.56|-6.21|<0.001
91842346|NCT02471404|183565997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.67|-5.93|<0.001
91842347|NCT02471404|183565997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.29|-5.52|<0.001
91842348|NCT02471404|183565998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.43|0.374
91842349|NCT02471404|183565998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.88|<0.001
91842350|NCT02471404|183565999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||||1.35|0.67|0.777
91842351|NCT02471404|183565999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.57|||Regression, Cox|||||0.57|0.23|<0.001
91842352|NCT04779242|183566007|OTHER|Difference was observed difference in early clinical success rate between the omadacycline and moxifloxacin groups|Percentage difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.8|||||95% CI is constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||6.8|-3.0|
91842353|NCT04779242|183566008|OTHER|Difference was observed difference in overall clinical success rate at PTE between the omadacycline and moxifloxacin groups.|Percentage difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.4|||||95% CI is constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|||3.4|-6.9|
91842354|NCT04779242|183566009|OTHER|Difference was observed difference in overall clinical success rate at PTE between the omadacycline and moxifloxacin groups|Percentage difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.0|||||95% CI is constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|||2.0|-5.7|
91709210|NCT01402986|183311363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.75|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th Percentile||1.75|0.44|0.716
91782793|NCT00125164|183445075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.24|0.5||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.50|0.24|< 0.0001
91782794|NCT00125164|183445075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.34|0.6||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.60|0.34|< 0.0001
91790326|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.46|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91898894|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.7|-1.6|0.4111
91898895|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||0.0|-2.4|0.0471
91898896|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||0.2|-2.2|0.0891
91898897|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||0.7|-1.6|0.4820
91898898|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||-0.2|-2.6|0.0222
91898899|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||0.1|-2.3|0.0682
91898900|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||0.7|-1.7|0.4112
91898901|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||-0.1|-2.5|0.0307
91898902|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||0.3|-2.0|0.1538
91898903|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||0.7|-1.7|0.4047
91898904|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||-0.2|-2.5|0.0260
91898905|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||0.3|-2.1|0.1223
91898906|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||0.6|-1.7|0.3641
91898907|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||-0.1|-2.6|0.0284
91898908|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||0.3|-2.1|0.1534
91898909|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||0.7|-1.7|0.3914
91898910|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||-0.2|-2.6|0.0265
91898911|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||0.4|-2.0|0.1682
91648648|NCT04288115|183190007|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-6.2||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|2.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline scores.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D VAS scores.|Analysis of 6-month EQ-5D VAS score outcome.||2.9|-15.3|0.1742
91898912|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||0.7|-1.6|0.4699
91898913|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||-0.2|-2.5|0.0241
91648649|NCT04288115|183190008|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-12.0||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|5.3||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline total cholesterol value.|Analysis of 6-month total cholesterol outcome.||5.3|-29.3|0.1695
91648650|NCT04288115|183190008|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-6.8||||0.3805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|8.6||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline LDL values.|Analysis of 6-month LDL outcome.||8.6|-22.2|0.3805
91782795|NCT00125164|183445075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0495||95.0|0.0|0.22|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.22|0.00|0.0495
91782796|NCT00125164|183445083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001||95.0|1.26|2.4||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||2.40|1.26|<0.0001
91782797|NCT00125164|183445083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001||95.0|2.26|3.39||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||3.39|2.26|<0.0001
91782798|NCT00125164|183445083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0002||95.0|0.5|1.51|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||1.51|0.50|0.0002
91782799|NCT00125164|183445084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.25|0.5||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.50|0.25|<0.0001
91898914|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1064||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||0.2|-2.1|0.1064
91790327|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.294||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.515|3.575||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||3.575|-1.515|0.427
91898915|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||0.5|-1.7|0.2948
91898916|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.1|-2.5|0.0282
91842355|NCT01757067|183566010|OTHER|The previously stated primary and secondary endpoints cannot be calculated as the study was halted prematurely due to lack of enrollment. Only the reported EF data was collected. This makes further statistical analyses impossible.|||||||||||||||||The previously stated primary and secondary endpoints cannot be calculated as the study was halted prematurely due to lack of enrollment. Only the reported EF data was collected. This makes further statistical analyses impossible.|||
91842356|NCT00507026|183566070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91842357|NCT00507026|183566070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91842358|NCT00507026|183566071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91842359|NCT00507026|183566071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91842360|NCT00507026|183566072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91842361|NCT00507026|183566072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91842362|NCT00507026|183566073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91842363|NCT00507026|183566073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91842364|NCT00507026|183566074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91709211|NCT01402986|183311363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.51||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.43|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th Percentile||3.43|0.66|0.328
91842365|NCT00507026|183566074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91842366|NCT04230980|183566085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of mean difference is Gabapentin arm minus placebo arm.|Mean NRS-11 score at post-operative day 7 (compared between the two arms).||-0.24|-2.02|0.01
91842367|NCT04230980|183566086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of mean difference is Gabapentin arm minus placebo arm.|Mean number of opioid tablets taken at post-operative day 7 (compared between the two arms).||0.03|-0.13|0.19
91842368|NCT04285229|183566089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|21.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.76|2.68|<0.001
91842369|NCT04285229|183566090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|16.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.90|2.42|<0.001
91842370|NCT04285229|183566091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.09|1.31|0.006
91842371|NCT04285229|183566092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.38|<0.001
91842372|NCT04285229|183566093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-2.04|<0.001
91842373|NCT04285229|183566094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-1.43|0.002
91842374|NCT04285229|183566095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||||-4.60|-10.85|<0.001
91842375|NCT04285229|183566096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.785||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.17|1.07|0.001
91842376|NCT04285229|183566097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.152||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.79|-1.77|0.660
91842377|NCT04285229|183566098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.594|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|-9.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.59|-15.91|<0.001
91842378|NCT04285229|183566099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.57|<0.001
91842379|NCT04285229|183566100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-1.54|0.086
91842380|NCT04285229|183566101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|-3.62|||ANCOVA|||||-3.62|-7.71|<0.001
91842381|NCT00322868|183566121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum white cell count||||||0.2772
91842382|NCT00322868|183566122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2467|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum neutrophil count||||||0.2467
91842383|NCT00322868|183566123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in sputum percent neutrophils||||||0.0288
91842384|NCT00322868|183566124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum active elastase||||||0.50
91842385|NCT00322868|183566125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum TNFα||||||0.62
91842386|NCT00322868|183566126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum IL-1ß||||||0.50
91842387|NCT00322868|183566127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum IL-6||||||0.55
91842388|NCT00322868|183566128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum IL-8||||||0.75
91842389|NCT01852162|183566129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with a general linear model, using the corresponding baseline PD value as a covariate, was used to evaluate the comparisons between dabigatran and placebo at 7 days.|ANCOVA|||Assuming a 20% relative difference in TRAP induced MPA between dabigatran and placebo with a common standard deviation of 10%, 13 patients with available data needed to be randomized to obtain a 95% power and 2-sided alpha=0.05.||||<0.05
91782800|NCT00125164|183445084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.39|0.64||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.64|0.39|<0.0001
91782801|NCT00125164|183445084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0071||95.0|0.04|0.26|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.26|0.04|0.0071
91782802|NCT01243580|183445124|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing Ortho-Cyclen to Ag200-15|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91782803|NCT01243580|183445125|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of AG200-15 and Ortho-Cyclen|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91782804|NCT01243580|183445126|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of AG200-15 and Ortho-Cyclen||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91782805|NCT01243580|183445127|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cylen and AG200-15||||||0.0532|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0532
91782806|NCT01243580|183445128|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0009
91782807|NCT01243580|183445129|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0167|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0167
91782808|NCT01243580|183445130|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0007
91782809|NCT01243580|183445131|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0175|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0175
91782810|NCT01243580|183445132|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91782811|NCT01243580|183445133|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0532|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0532
91782812|NCT01301027|183445137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91782813|NCT01301027|183445138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
91782814|NCT01301027|183445139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.508
91782815|NCT01301027|183445140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.984
91782816|NCT04308291|183445146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.0001
91782817|NCT01931566|183445170|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.023
91782818|NCT01931566|183445171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.307
91782819|NCT04625101|183445178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4326|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4326
91782820|NCT02469870|183445220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||ANCOVA|||To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.598
91782821|NCT02469870|183445221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.81
91782822|NCT02469870|183445222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.404
91782823|NCT02469870|183445223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.246
91782824|NCT02469870|183445224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.007
91782825|NCT02469870|183445225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t-test||||.045
91782826|NCT00092443|183445235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy = 1-Relative Risk|72.5|||<|0.001||95.0|50.6|85.6|||Exact Binomial Test||Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|||85.6|50.6|<0.001
91782827|NCT00092443|183445236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|56.7||||||95.0|44.0|66.8||||||||66.8|44.0|
91782828|NCT00092443|183445236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|2.7||||||95.0|0.3|9.5||||||||9.5|0.3|
91782829|NCT00092443|183445236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|14.5||||||95.0|6.9|25.8||||||||25.8|6.9|
91782830|NCT00092443|183445236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|5.1||||||||5.1|0.0|
91782831|NCT00092443|183445236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|9.0||||||95.0|3.4|18.5||||||||18.5|3.4|
91782832|NCT00092443|183445236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|4.8||||||||4.8|0.0|
91782833|NCT00092443|183445236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|39.7||||||95.0|27.6|52.8||||||||52.8|27.6|
91782834|NCT00092443|183445236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|1.4||||||95.0|0.0|7.7||||||||7.7|0.0|
91782835|NCT00092443|183445236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|24.6||||||95.0|14.5|37.3||||||||37.3|14.5|
91782836|NCT00092443|183445236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|2.9||||||95.0|0.4|10.1||||||||10.1|0.4|
91782837|NCT02685267|183445237|OTHER|The study was terminated after only 9 patients enrolled, 5 to the standard of care docetaxel/prednisone arm and 4 to experimental docetaxel/prednisone/enzalutamide arm.|log-rank test|0.6761||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The study was terminated after only 9 patients enrolled, 5 to the standard of care docetaxel/prednisone arm and 4 to experimental docetaxel/prednisone/enzalutamide arm.||||0.6761
91782838|NCT01027806|183445247|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91648651|NCT04288115|183190008|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|1.7||||0.5724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|7.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline HDL values.|Analysis of 6-month HDL outcome.||7.9|-4.44|0.5724
91648652|NCT04288115|183190008|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-17.8||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|23.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline triglyceride values.|Analysis of 6-month triglyceride outcome.||23.9|-59.4|0.3939
91648653|NCT00382291|183190020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2106||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Data were analyzed using two-sided Kruskal-Wallis test with level of significance = .05. Null hypothesis was that there were no group differences. The maximum CGI-SA obtained over course of study was the outcome measure.||||.2106
91648654|NCT00382291|183190021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using ANCOVA modeling with two-sided testing and level of significance = .05. The dependent variable was last measured CY-BOCS score, the independent variable was randomized group assignment and the covariate was the CY-BOCS score at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there were no group differences.||||.8831
91898917|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.2|-2.1|0.1074
91782839|NCT02923921|183445269|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045||||0.6565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.265|||Log Rank|||The primary test to compare overall survival between treatment arms was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by region and prior therapy. The estimate of the hazard ration (HR) - (Pegilodecakin + FOLFOX Arm / FOLFOX Arm) and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in interactive voice response system (IVRS).||1.265|0.863|0.6565
91898918|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.5|-1.7|0.3061
91898919|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||0.1|-2.2|0.0705
91898920|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.2405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||0.5|-1.9|0.2405
91898921|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||0.6|-1.7|0.3726
91898922|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||0.0|-2.3|0.0554
91898923|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||0.5|-1.8|0.2386
91898924|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.5147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||0.8|-1.5|0.5147
91898925|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||0.2|-2.1|0.1116
91898926|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||0.3|-2.0|0.1266
91898927|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||0.6|-1.6|0.3822
91898928|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||0.1|-2.2|0.0720
91898929|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||0.6|-1.7|0.3434
91898930|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||0.8|-1.5|0.5061
91898931|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||-0.1|-2.3|0.0366
91898932|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||0.2|-2.0|0.1181
91898933|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||0.9|-1.3|0.7078
91898934|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||0.1|-2.1|0.0868
91648655|NCT02270983|183190053|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|2.211|||ANCOVA|||||2.211|0.439|0.0035
91648656|NCT02270983|183190053|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.021|2.796|||ANCOVA|||||2.796|1.021|<0.0001
91648657|NCT02270983|183190054|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.28||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.77|||Log Rank|||||1.77|0.92|0.1429
91782840|NCT02923921|183445270|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.8144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.19|||Log Rank|||The estimate of hazard ratio (HR) was stratified by region and prior therapy.||1.190|0.808|0.8144
91648658|NCT02270983|183190054|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|1.04|0.0287
91648659|NCT02270983|183190055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for geographic region.||||2.58|0.73|0.3332
91648660|NCT02270983|183190055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for geographic region.||||3.68|1.00|0.0506
91648661|NCT02270983|183190056|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|1.178|||ANCOVA|||||1.178|0.324|0.0007
91648662|NCT02270983|183190056|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.416|||ANCOVA|||||1.416|0.558|<0.0001
91648663|NCT02270983|183190057|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|-0.174|||ANCOVA|||||-0.174|-0.746|0.0017
91648664|NCT02270983|183190057|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.669|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.957|-0.382|||ANCOVA|||||-0.382|-0.957|<0.0001
91648665|NCT02270983|183190058|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.437|||ANCOVA|||||0.437|-0.371|0.8720
91648666|NCT02270983|183190058|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.011|-0.203|||ANCOVA|||||-0.203|-1.011|0.0034
91648667|NCT03840811|183190087|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Sign test|||To assess whether the fitness of a given mutant is different than that of wild-type, the ratio of colony-forming units of the mutant strain was compared to those of the WT strain at the time of treatment and in the inoculum using a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test with a significance level of 0.025. CIs of participants in Mixed FA1090 + FA7537 group were compared to mean = 1.||||0.230
91782841|NCT02923921|183445271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value is calculated by Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata Prior Therapy - interactive voice response system (IVRS), Geographic Region - IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.7|0.4|0.7044
91898935|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||0.3|-1.9|0.1683
91898936|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||1.1|-1.2|0.8909
91898937|NCT03816891|183693449|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||0.1|-2.3|0.0671
91898938|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||0.6|-1.7|0.3325
91898939|NCT03816891|183693449|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.8912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||1.1|-1.2|0.8912
91898940|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.1|-2.2|0.0612
91898941|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-1.9|0.1879
91898942|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||1.0|-1.3|0.7696
91898943|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||0.2|-2.1|0.1211
91898944|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||0.7|-1.7|0.3908
91898945|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||1.4|-1.1|0.8036
91898946|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||0.2|-2.3|0.0928
91898947|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.4439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||0.8|-1.7|0.4439
91898948|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||1.1|-1.4|0.7769
91898949|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||0.1|-2.3|0.0742
91898950|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||0.3|-2.2|0.1496
91898951|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||0.8|-1.6|0.4901
91898952|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.2|-2.3|0.0895
91898953|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.8|-1.8|0.4572
91898954|NCT03816891|183693449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.8157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||1.4|-1.1|0.8157
91648668|NCT03840811|183190088|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.34||One-sided Fisher's Exact Test with alpha=0.025|Fisher Exact|||||0.34|-0.58|0.54
91648669|NCT02186808|183190096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91898955|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-7.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||-7.5|-21.6|<0.0001
91782842|NCT02923921|183445272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8||P-value is calculated by Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata Prior Therapy - interactive voice response system (IVRS), Geographic Region - IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.8|0.9|0.1463
91648670|NCT00472446|183190115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing of treatment)||||.028
91648671|NCT00472446|183190116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing of treatment)||||0.016
91648672|NCT00472446|183190116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure pre-operative versus post-operative application||||0.723
91782843|NCT02923921|183445273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.741|||Log Rank|||The estimate of hazard ratio (HR) was stratified by region and prior therapy.||2.741|0.370|0.9952
91898956|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||-0.5|-14.5|0.0368
91898957|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|2.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||2.1|-12.0|0.1700
91782844|NCT02923921|183445274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|2.8|||Log Rank|||||2.8|-11.6|0.2298
91782845|NCT04661579|183445302|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|35.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|54.2|||Wald test||Vaccine efficacy (VE) is defined as the percent reduction in the hazard, i.e. one minus the hazard ratio (HR, RTS,S/AS01E Vaccine vs. Rabies vaccine).|Vaccine efficacy against the first PCR-positive P. falciparum infection among adults who were P. falciparum positive at baseline was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression model with a covariate for group assignment to compare Groups 1 and 4. HIV status, Age (tertiles), and sleep under a bednet were included as covariates.||54.2|10.3|0.009
91648673|NCT00472446|183190118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|mid p value of the two-sided Fisher test||"null hypothesis: outcome measure (Proportion of patients taking analgetics) is equal between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing)~Proportion taking Paracetamol:"||||0.94
91648674|NCT00472446|183190118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|mid p value of two-sided Fisher test||"null hypothesis: outcome measure (Proportion of patients taking analgetics) is equal between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing)~Proportion taking Metamizole:"||||0.58
91648675|NCT00472446|183190119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in pooled dose of analgetics, superficial block versus Placebo~outcome: paracetamol"||||0.328
91648676|NCT00472446|183190119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in pooled dose of analgetics, superficial block versus Placebo~outcome: metamizole"||||0.81
91648677|NCT00472446|183190119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure pre-operative and post-operative application~outcome measure: pooled paracetamol dose"||||0.331
91648678|NCT00472446|183190119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure pre-operative and post-operative application~outcome measure: pooled metamizole dose"||||0.440
91648679|NCT00472446|183190120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects, full model||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure for superficial cervical block versus placebo treatment||||0.925
91648680|NCT03211156|183190121|OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.757
91790328|NCT02880956|183460059|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.9|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91648681|NCT03211156|183190122|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
91648682|NCT01202994|183190133|OTHER||correlation coefficient|-0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a calculated p-value.|correlation|||The primary analysis is to examine the correlation between the practice effect z-score (presented in the Secondary Outcome section) and the standardized uptake value of flutemetamol (presented in the Outcome module).||||<0.05
91648683|NCT04126733|183190144|EQUIVALENCE|H0: ORR ≤ 5% versus H1: ORR \>5% The hypothesis was tested by a one-sided exact binomial test, assuming a background response rate for the combination to be at most 5%.|Rate|7.1||||0.2721||95.0|2.4|15.9||The target response rate for the combination treatment was 17%. Using a one-sided exact binomial test at a type-I error of at most 2.5% at least 8 responders out of the 70 patients were needed to achieve significance.|Exact Binomial Test|||||15.9|2.4|0.2721
91648684|NCT00837577|183190151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.75||Adjusted for other prior antihyperglycemic medications (absence, presence).|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA model included both baseline and post-baseline measurements as response variables. P-value calculated using least squares mean.||||-0.75|-1.09|<.001
91648685|NCT00837577|183190152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-51.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-40.2||Adjusted for other prior antihyperglycemic medications (absence, presence).|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA model included both baseline and post-baseline measurements as response variables. P-value calculated using least squares mean.||||-40.2|-62.3|<.001
91648686|NCT00837577|183190153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-15.0||Adjusted for other prior antihyperglycemic medications (absence, presence).|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA model included both baseline and post-baseline measurements as response variables. P-value calculated using least squares mean.||||-15.0|-30.0|<.001
91648687|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|8.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|20.96|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an Analysis of Co-variance (ANCOVA) model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||20.96|-4.21|0.185
91648688|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|11.59|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.59|-11.16|0.970
91648689|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|11.57|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.57|-11.66|0.994
91648690|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|12.64|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||12.64|-10.62|0.861
91648691|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|15.99|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||15.99|-3.79|0.221
91648692|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|9.73|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||9.73|-8.37|0.880
91790329|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.126||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.126|-0.083|0.690
91842390|NCT01500226|183566144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. For the CR delayed the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05; no further adjustment for multiplicity were required for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.0|1.2|<0.001
91842391|NCT01500226|183566145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR-acute was tested only if the result for the primary endpoint, CR delayed, was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||1.6|0.9|0.143
91842392|NCT01500226|183566146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.0||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR overall was tested only if both CR delayed and CR acute were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.0|1.3|<0.001
91842393|NCT02254421|183566180|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.57||P-value was calculated from the ANCOVA model including baseline values and stratification factors.|ANCOVA|||||0.57|-0.62|0.94
91842394|NCT02254421|183566181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P-value was calculated from the negative binomial model with stratification factors as covariates.|Negative binomial|||||||0.84
91842395|NCT02254421|183566182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.98
91898958|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-15.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-15.3|-35.1|<0.0001
91842396|NCT02254421|183566183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||P-value was calculated from the CMH test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.19
91898959|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-4.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-4.1|-23.7|0.0056
91898960|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-3.6|-23.3|0.0076
91898961|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.5|-21.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-21.5|-42.5|<0.0001
91898962|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-6.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-6.7|-27.7|0.0014
91898963|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-1.2|-22.3|0.0296
91898964|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-25.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-25.0|-46.9|<0.0001
91898965|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-9.7|-31.4|0.0002
91842397|NCT01154036|183566200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-8.7||The primary hypotheses were tested at 0.045, applying Hochberg's procedure.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-8.7|-16.6|<0.001
91842398|NCT01154036|183566200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimate|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-5.4||The primary hypotheses were tested at 0.045, applying Hochberg's procedure.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-5.4|-12.9|<0.001
91842399|NCT01154036|183566201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-5.1||The secondary hypotheses were tested at an adaptive alpha level depending on the hypotheses testing result of the primary hypotheses.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-5.1|-15.9|<0.001
91898966|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|3.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||3.2|-18.6|0.1652
91898967|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|-27.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-27.3|-49.1|<0.0001
91782846|NCT04661579|183445303|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|-24.0||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|22.2|||Wald test||Vaccine efficacy (VE) is defined as the percent reduction in the hazard, i.e. one minus the hazard ratio (HR, RTS,S/AS01E Vaccine vs. Rabies vaccine).|Vaccine efficacy against the first PCR-positive P. falciparum infection among adults who were P. falciparum positive at baseline was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression model with a covariate for group assignment to compare Groups 2 and 5. HIV status, Age (tertiles), and sleep under a bednet were included as covariates.||22.2|-97|0.369
91782847|NCT04335136|183445320|OTHER|||||||0.5207||||||The level of significance was 5% (2-sided).|Chi-squared|||"Hypothesis tested: H0: pAPN01 = pPlacebo; H1: pAPN01 ≠ pPlacebo (with p=proportion of patients with event).~A total of 186 patients (93 per group) was estimated to yield 80% power to detect a 20% absolute risk reduction in the primary, from 50% in the placebo group to 30% in the APN01 group, at a 2-sided alpha of 0.05. To consider patients who would be randomized but not treated, a total of 200 patients (100 per group) were planned to be enrolled."||||0.5207
91782848|NCT04335136|183445320|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom: 1||||1.70|0.23|0.3588
91648693|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|8.63|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||8.63|-9.78|0.900
91782849|NCT01396447|183445337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.5||The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 0.75 mg vs Placebo|||0.5|-4.3|0.1292
91898968|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-13.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-13.7|-35.3|<0.0001
91782850|NCT01396447|183445337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.6||The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 1.5 mg vs Placebo|||-1.6|-6.3|0.0010
91782851|NCT01396447|183445337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1||The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 3.0 mg vs Placebo|||-0.1|-4.9|0.0374
91898969|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-2.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-2.7|-24.5|0.0146
91782852|NCT01396447|183445338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 0.75 mg vs Placebo|The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.1|-0.4|0.3025
91782853|NCT01396447|183445338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 1.5 mg vs Placebo|The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.2|-0.6|0.0044
91782854|NCT01396447|183445338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 3.0 mg vs Placebo|The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.0|-0.5|0.0489
91842400|NCT01154036|183566201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.5||The secondary hypotheses were tested at an adaptive alpha level depending on the hypotheses testing result of the primary hypotheses.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-5.5|-13.6|<0.001
91842401|NCT01154036|183566202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.89|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||3.89|1.62|<0.001
91842402|NCT01154036|183566202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.67|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||2.67|1.17|0.007
91842403|NCT01154036|183566203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.73|||Logistic regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||4.73|1.55|<0.001
91842404|NCT01154036|183566203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.63|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||3.63|1.56|<0.001
91842405|NCT01154036|183566204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.56|19.62|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||19.62|4.56|<0.001
91842406|NCT01154036|183566204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|6.82|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||6.82|2.23|<0.001
91648694|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|3.5|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||3.50|-14.91|0.218
91842407|NCT01154036|183566205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|211.83|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||211.83|3.64|0.001
91842408|NCT01154036|183566205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|17.56|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||17.56|2.85|<0.001
91842409|NCT01154036|183566206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-4.4|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.4|-9.7|<0.001
91842410|NCT01154036|183566206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-3.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.3|-8.3|<0.001
91842411|NCT01154036|183566207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.0|-10.7|<0.001
91842412|NCT01154036|183566207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-4.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.5|-10.2|<0.001
91842413|NCT01154036|183566208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-2.1||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||3.5|-7.8|0.466
91842414|NCT01154036|183566208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-4.9||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||0.5|-10.3|0.081
91842415|NCT01154036|183566209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-2.8||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||4.7|-10.2|0.466
91842416|NCT01154036|183566209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squarres Means|-7.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||-1.6|-12.6|0.011
91842417|NCT01154036|183566210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M--estimates|1.7||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||4.0|-0.5|0.133
91842418|NCT01154036|183566210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.6|-2.7|0.610
91842419|NCT01154036|183566211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-1.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.1|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||2.1|-4.2|0.520
91898970|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|-27.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-27.8|-50.2|<0.0001
91842420|NCT01154036|183566211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-0.7||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.7|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.7|-3.1|0.567
91842421|NCT01154036|183566212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-5.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-1.8|-8.8|0.003
91842422|NCT01154036|183566212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-4.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-1.0|-7.7|0.011
91842423|NCT01154036|183566213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-4.3||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||0.5|-9.2|0.079
91782855|NCT04693234|183445347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Binomial Exact Test|The p-value was calculated from the binomial exact test of tislelizumab combined with ociperlimab versus historical rate of 0.15.||||||0.0054
91782856|NCT04693234|183445348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||Binomial Exact Test|The p-value was calculated from the binomial exact test of tislelizumab combined with ociperlimab versus historical rate of 0.15.||||||0.0127
91782857|NCT05814367|183445367|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.014|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|The sample size of 38 was calculated to provide at least 90% statistical power to test Non-inferiority of the Test lens compared to the Control lens using a paired t-test with a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||0.014|-0.025|
91782858|NCT00408200|183445417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91782859|NCT00670306|183445430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91782860|NCT04939415|183445498|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||1.000
91782861|NCT04939415|183445499|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.023||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||1.000
91782862|NCT04939415|183445501|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.073||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.488
91782863|NCT04939415|183445502|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|2.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.488
91782864|NCT04939415|183445504|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|3.243||||0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.231
91782865|NCT04939415|183445505|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.034||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.||||||1.000
91782866|NCT04939415|183445506|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.083||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.||||||1.000
91782867|NCT04939415|183445508|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.213||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.462
91782868|NCT04939415|183445509|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.153||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||1.000
91782869|NCT04939415|183445510|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.185||||0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group by Day interaction||||||0.668
91782870|NCT04939415|183445511|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.032||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||0.860
91782871|NCT04939415|183445512|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.035||||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||0.853
91782872|NCT04939415|183445513|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.995
91782873|NCT04939415|183445514|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.27||||0.266|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
91782874|NCT04939415|183445515|SUPERIORITY||F value|4.533||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction is reported.|||||0.039
91782875|NCT04939415|183445515|SUPERIORITY||F Ratio|13.897|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 1,23||day 0 to day 14 for the mQFPD group were examined.||||<0.001
91782876|NCT04939415|183445515|SUPERIORITY||F ratio|0.41||||0.529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 1,20||day 0 to day 14 for the Placebo Group were examined.||||0.529
91842424|NCT01154036|183566213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-4.1|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.1|-11.4|<0.001
91842425|NCT01154036|183566214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|1.6||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||3.8|-0.6|0.156
91842426|NCT01154036|183566214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-0.9||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.2|-2.9|0.425
91842427|NCT01154036|183566215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|0.5||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||3.6|-2.5|0.739
91842428|NCT01154036|183566215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-1.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.3|-3.3|0.410
91842429|NCT01154036|183566216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-6.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-6.6|-13.6|<0.001
91842430|NCT01154036|183566216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-4.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.3|-10.9|<0.001
91842431|NCT01154036|183566217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.5|-14.0|<0.001
91842432|NCT01154036|183566217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-6.2|-13.5|0.001
91842433|NCT01154036|183566218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-4.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.9|-11.2|<0.001
91842434|NCT01154036|183566218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-4.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-1.9|-7.8|0.001
91842435|NCT01154036|183566219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.8|-11.0|<0.001
91842436|NCT01154036|183566219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-3.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.3|-9.4|<0.001
91842437|NCT01154036|183566220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-9.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-9.3|-18.1|<0.001
91842438|NCT01154036|183566220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.6|-11.9|<0.001
91842439|NCT01154036|183566221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-4.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.9|-15.8|<0.001
91842440|NCT01154036|183566221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-4.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.2|-12.5|<0.001
91842441|NCT01154036|183566222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.5|-10.0|<0.001
91842442|NCT01154036|183566222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-3.5||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||0.0|-7.1|0.052
91842443|NCT01154036|183566223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-5.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-0.8|-10.8|0.024
91842444|NCT01154036|183566223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-2.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.3|-9.9|0.002
91842445|NCT01154036|183566224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-6.4|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-6.4|-14.9|<0.001
91842446|NCT01154036|183566224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.2|-10.2|0.002
91842447|NCT01154036|183566225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-3.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.9|-14.8|<0.001
91842448|NCT01154036|183566225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-4.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.2|-12.6|<0.001
91842449|NCT01154036|183566226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-3.9||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|11.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||11.1|-18.9|0.613
91842450|NCT01154036|183566226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-1.5||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|12.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||12.6|-15.7|0.831
91842451|NCT01154036|183566227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-13.1||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|6.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||6.4|-32.6|0.187
91842452|NCT01154036|183566227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-11.6||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|4.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||4.4|-27.7|0.153
91842453|NCT00390455|183566228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis then is that the hazard ratio of the two treatment arms is 1.0; the alternative hypothesis is that the hazard ratio of the control to the experimental regimen is 1.5 (0.67). The test of these hypotheses is one-sided (alpha = 0.025), and interim analyses will be used to stop for futility and superiority. Under these assumptions, there is at least 90% power to detect the stated difference in median PFS between the two treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33||Tests were stratified by prior tamoxifen therapy (yes/no) and bone disease only (yes/no).|Log Rank|||||1.33|0.82|0.37
91842454|NCT01183650|183566278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.32|||||Day 1 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.32|0.84|
91842455|NCT01183650|183566278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.0|||||Day 10 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.00|0.64|
91842456|NCT01183650|183566278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.64|||||Day 1 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.64|1.05|
91842457|NCT01183650|183566278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.24|||||Day 10 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.24|0.79|
91842458|NCT01183650|183566279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.18|||||Day 1 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means(Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.18|0.81|
91842459|NCT01183650|183566279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.97|||||Day 10 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||0.97|0.67|
91842460|NCT01183650|183566279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.67|||||Day 1 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.67|1.07|
91842461|NCT01183650|183566279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.29|||||Day 10 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.29|0.83|
91842462|NCT01183650|183566280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Tadalafil Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Japanese Participants||||||
91842463|NCT01183650|183566280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Tadalafil Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Caucasian Participants||||||
91842464|NCT01183650|183566280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|19.83||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Metabolite IC710 Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Japanese participants||||||
91842465|NCT01183650|183566280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.02||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Metabolite IC710 Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Caucasian participants||||||
91842466|NCT04827134|183566281|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8344|0.9282|||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9282|0.8344|
91842467|NCT04827134|183566281|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8578|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8168|0.9007|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte ABC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9007|0.8168|
91842468|NCT04827134|183566281|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8919|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8316|0.9566|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9566|0.8316|
91842469|NCT04827134|183566282|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8744|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8293|0.9219|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9219|0.8293|
91782877|NCT04939415|183445516|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.14||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.710
91782878|NCT04939415|183445517|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.855||||0.099|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.099
91782879|NCT04939415|183445518|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.497||||0.228|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.228
91782880|NCT04939415|183445519|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.537||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.119
91782881|NCT04939415|183445520|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.219||||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.643
91782882|NCT04939415|183445521|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.054||||0.817|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.817
91782883|NCT04939415|183445522|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.315||||0.578|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.578
91782884|NCT04939415|183445523|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.215||||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||.643
91782885|NCT04939415|183445524|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.987||||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||.159
91782886|NCT00478023|183445538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|18.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|10.9|25.3||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 24 hours (SPID24). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID24.||25.3|10.9|<0.0001
91782887|NCT00478023|183445538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|20.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|13.7|28.0||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 24 hours (SPID24). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID24.||28.0|13.7|<0.0001
91782888|NCT00478023|183445538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|23.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.3|30.4||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 24 hours (SPID24). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID24.||30.4|16.3|<0.0001
91842470|NCT04827134|183566282|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8567|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8159|0.8995|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte ABC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.8995|0.8159|
91842471|NCT04827134|183566282|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8202|0.9438|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9438|0.8202|
91648695|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|11.08|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.08|0.17|0.044
91842472|NCT04827134|183566283|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.7102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6598|0.7643|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.7643|0.6598|
91782889|NCT00478023|183445538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|20.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|13.4|27.8||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||27.8|13.4|<0.0001
91782890|NCT00478023|183445539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|37.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|21.6|52.6||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 48 hours (SPID48). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID48.||52.6|21.6|<0.0001
91842473|NCT04827134|183566283|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.4503|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3976|0.51|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte ABC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.5100|0.3976|
91842474|NCT04827134|183566283|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.6373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5594|0.726|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.7260|0.5594|
91842475|NCT04827134|183566284|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.9148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8834|0.9472|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9472|0.8834|
91842476|NCT04827134|183566284|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8847|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8303|0.9426|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9426|0.8303|
91842477|NCT04827134|183566285|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.9163|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8862|0.9475|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9475|0.8862|
91842478|NCT04827134|183566285|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8251|0.9398|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9398|0.8251|
91842479|NCT04827134|183566286|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.7284|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6576|0.8068|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.8068|0.6576|
91842480|NCT04827134|183566286|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.5191|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4535|0.5943|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.5943|0.4535|
91842481|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|2.69||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 5 min||2.69|-1.23|
91842482|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|2.29||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 10 min||2.29|-1.32|
91842483|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|2.08||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 20 min||2.08|-1.76|
91842484|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|2.35||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 30 min||2.35|-1.09|
91842485|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|2.25||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1 hour||2.25|-1.88|
91842486|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|2.37||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1.5 hours||2.37|-1.47|
91842487|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|1.92||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 2 hours||1.92|-1.99|
91842488|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|4.43||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 3 hours||4.43|0.35|
91842489|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|2.12||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 4 hours||2.12|-1.57|
91898971|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-16.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-16.7|-38.8|<0.0001
91898972|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-6.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-6.4|-28.5|0.0022
91898973|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-27.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-27.4|-50.8|<0.0001
91898974|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|-18.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-18.8|-41.8|<0.0001
91898975|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-4.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-4.5|-27.7|0.0069
91898976|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.1|-28.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-28.0|-52.1|<0.0001
91898977|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-18.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-18.5|-42.3|<0.0001
91898978|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-2.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.3|-26.2|0.0194
91898979|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|-28.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-28.1|-53.2|<0.0001
91898980|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-20.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-20.1|-44.9|<0.0001
91898981|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-5.3|-30.2|0.0054
91898982|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-27.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-27.9|-53.4|<0.0001
91842490|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|3.37||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 8 hours||3.37|-1.15|
91842491|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|2.14||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 24 hours||2.14|-1.52|
91842492|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.84|6.78||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 5 min||6.78|2.84|
91648696|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||6.33|-3.47|0.557
91648697|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|11.45|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.45|1.28|0.016
91648698|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||6.07|-4.09|0.695
91648699|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|9.95|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||9.95|-0.36|0.067
91648700|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|5.55|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||5.55|-3.96|0.737
91648701|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|10.47|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||10.47|0.80|0.023
91648702|NCT00272961|183190165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.5|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||6.50|-3.20|0.495
91648703|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|232.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|201.83||0.2577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.5|643.7|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||643.7|-178.5|0.2577
91648704|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|173.86||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.5|457.8|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||457.8|-250.5|0.5552
91648705|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|177.26||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-319.8|402.3|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||402.3|-319.8|0.8174
91648706|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|166.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|177.55||0.3557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.3|528.1|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||528.1|-195.3|0.3557
91648707|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|163.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|130.15||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.6|425.7|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||425.7|-99.6|0.2172
91648708|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|115.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|116.03||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.8|349.5|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||349.5|-118.8|0.3258
91648709|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|117.88||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.2|262.6|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||262.6|-213.2|0.8352
91648710|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|117.93||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.4|288.6|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||288.6|-187.4|0.6701
91842493|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|3.73||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 10 min||3.73|0.12|
91648711|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|225.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|108.95||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|447.5|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||447.5|3.6|0.0466
91648712|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|114.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.2637||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.2|304.8|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||304.8|-75.2|0.2274
91648713|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|224.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.9259||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.5|422.3|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||422.3|27.5|0.0269
91842494|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|2.12||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 20 min||2.12|-1.71|
91648714|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|133.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.7383||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|330.3|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||330.3|-63.8|0.1780
91648715|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|240.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|114.32||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|471.4|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||471.4|9.9|0.0413
91842495|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|2.15||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 30 min||2.15|-1.29|
91842496|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.53||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1 hour||2.53|-1.60|
91842497|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|0.81||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1.5 hours||0.81|-3.03|
91842498|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|0.78||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 2 hours||0.78|-3.13|
91842499|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.36|0.71||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 3 hours||0.71|-3.36|
91842500|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|1.0||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 4 hours||1.00|-2.69|
91648716|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|157.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.21||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|364.3|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||364.3|-48.3|0.1297
91648717|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|254.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.0||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|464.8|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||464.8|45.0|0.0185
91842501|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.19|0.32||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 8 hours||0.32|-4.19|
91898983|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-22.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-22.5|-47.8|<0.0001
91898984|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-9.1|-34.4|0.0009
91898985|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|-27.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-27.8|-54.1|<0.0001
91648718|NCT00272961|183190166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|157.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.33||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|368.2|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||368.2|-52.9|0.1382
91898986|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|-22.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-22.1|-48.3|<0.0001
91898987|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-5.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-5.1|-31.2|0.0067
91898988|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|-28.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-28.2|-54.5|<0.0001
91898989|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-19.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-19.1|-45.3|<0.0001
91898990|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-1.6|-27.6|0.0279
91898991|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-25.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-25.4|-51.9|<0.0001
91898992|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-20.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-20.5|-46.7|<0.0001
91842502|NCT03657264|183566360|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|2.04||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 24 hours||2.04|-1.62|
91842503|NCT03657264|183566361|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.58|6.66||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 1 hour||6.66|2.58|
91898993|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-4.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-4.6|-30.8|0.0085
91842504|NCT03657264|183566361|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.14|11.66||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 1.5 hours||11.66|7.14|
91842505|NCT03657264|183566361|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.92|13.17||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 2 hours||13.17|7.92|
91842506|NCT03657264|183566361|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|10.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.7|12.95||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 3 hours||12.95|7.70|
91898994|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.4|-28.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-28.4|-55.4|<0.0001
91898995|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-24.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-24.1|-51.1|<0.0001
91898996|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-8.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-8.0|-34.8|0.0020
91898997|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-29.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-29.4|-55.9|<0.0001
91898998|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.4|-24.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-24.0|-50.4|< 0.0001
91898999|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-8.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-8.2|-34.5|0.0016
91899000|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|-28.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-28.3|-55.0|<0.0001
91899001|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-23.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-23.1|-49.7|<0.0001
91899002|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-5.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-5.2|-31.7|0.0067
91899003|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-21.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-21.4|-49.0|<0.0001
91899004|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-18.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-18.1|-46.0|<0.0001
91899005|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-4.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-4.1|-31.7|0.0111
91899006|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|-16.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-16.1|-43.8|<0.0001
91899007|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-12.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-12.5|-40.6|0.0003
91899008|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.4|-27.8|0.0445
91899009|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-10.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||-10.2|-38.1|0.0008
91842507|NCT03657264|183566361|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|10.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.05|13.25||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 4 hours||13.25|8.05|
91842508|NCT00924469|183566363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.61||||0.0216||90.0|0.429|0.865||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for testosterone concentration at Week 12||0.865|0.429|0.0216
91842509|NCT00924469|183566364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.43||||0.1423||90.0|0.956|2.145||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for testosterone concentration at Week 24||2.145|0.956|0.1423
91842510|NCT00924469|183566364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.82||||0.6639||90.0|0.386|1.746||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for DHT concentration at Week 24||1.746|0.386|0.6639
91842511|NCT00924469|183566365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.239|0.418||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for androstenedione concentration at Week 12||0.418|0.239|<0.0001
91842512|NCT00924469|183566365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.13||||0.5061||90.0|0.828|1.554||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for androstenedione concentration at Week 24||1.554|0.828|0.5061
91842513|NCT00924469|183566365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.017|0.05||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 3 for DHEA concentration at Week 12||0.050|0.017|<0.0001
91842514|NCT00924469|183566365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.79||||0.5767||90.0|0.398|1.581||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 4 for DHEA concentration at Week 24||1.581|0.398|0.5767
91842515|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.14|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.097|0.207||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for serum testosterone concentration at Week 12||0.207|0.097|<0.0001
91782891|NCT00478023|183445539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|44.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|28.6|59.5||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariates.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 48 hours (SPID48). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID48.||59.5|28.6|<0.0001
91648719|NCT00272961|183190171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|7.03|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.03|-5.31|0.7758
91782892|NCT00478023|183445539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|51.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|36.1|66.7||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA||Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 48 hours (SPID48). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID48.||66.7|36.1|<0.0001
91790330|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91842516|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.84||||0.4364||90.0|0.571|1.225||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for serum testosterone concentration at Week 24||1.225|0.571|0.4364
91842517|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.75||||0.1515||90.0|0.54|1.044||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 3 for serum DHT concentration at Week 12||1.044|0.540|0.1515
91842518|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.84||||0.3965||90.0|0.589|1.188||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 4 for serum DHT concentration at Week 24||1.188|0.589|0.3965
91842519|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.42||||0.0003||90.0|0.29|0.615||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 5 for serum Androsterone concentration at Week 12||0.615|0.290|0.0003
91842520|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.22||||0.2494||90.0|0.916|1.625||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 6 for serum androsterone concentration at Week 24||1.625|0.916|0.2494
91842521|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.023|0.073||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 7 for serum DHEA concentration at Week 12||0.073|0.023|<0.0001
91842522|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.24||||0.5144||90.0|0.717|2.137||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 8 for serum DHEA concentration at Week 24||2.137|0.717|0.5144
91709212|NCT01402986|183311363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.41|||Poission regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 75th Percentile||1.41|0.64|0.804
91842523|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.055|0.189||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 9 for serum DHEA-glucuronide concentration at Week 12||0.189|0.055|<0.0001
91709213|NCT01402986|183311363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.7||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 75th Percentile||1.05|0.47|0.088
91899010|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-7.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||-7.7|-36.0|0.0027
91782893|NCT00478023|183445539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|46.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|31.4|62.4||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as a covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||62.4|31.4|<0.0001
91790331|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.131||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.131|-0.075|0.595
91790332|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790333|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.175||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.175|0.037|0.201
91790334|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790335|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.184||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.184|-0.067|0.361
91790336|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790337|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.162||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|Week 48||0.162|-0.082|0.522
91790338|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790339|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.219||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.219|-0.033|0.147
91790340|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790341|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.117||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.117|-0.243|0.492
91790342|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790343|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.141||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.141|-0.213|0.691
91790344|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790345|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.317||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.317|-0.043|0.135
91790346|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790347|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.187||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.187|-0.273|0.713
91790348|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790349|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.111||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.111|-0.341|0.318
91782894|NCT00611026|183445571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine versus (vs) placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the fifth (5th) and ninety-fifth (95th) percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||<0.0001
91782895|NCT00611026|183445571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0228
91782896|NCT00611026|183445571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0072
91782897|NCT00611026|183445572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||0.0020
91782898|NCT00611026|183445572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0519
91782899|NCT00611026|183445572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.1503
91782900|NCT00611026|183445572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
91842524|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.55||||0.1329||90.0|0.286|1.06||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 10 for serum DHEA-glucuronide concentration at Week 24||1.060|0.286|0.1329
91842525|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.01|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.008|0.028||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 11 for serum DHEA-sulfate concentration at Week 12||0.028|0.008|<0.0001
91842526|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.2||||0.7061||90.0|0.53|2.73|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 12 for serum DHEA-sulfate concentration at Week 24||2.730|0.530|0.7061
91842527|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.42|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.29|0.615||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 13 for serum delta-4-androstenedione concentration at Week 12||0.615|0.290|<0.0001
91842528|NCT00924469|183566366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.22||||0.2673||90.0|0.916|1.625||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 14 for serum delta-4-androstenedione concentration at Week 24||1.625|0.916|0.2673
91842529|NCT00924469|183566367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|25.533|||<|0.0001||90.0|4.989|130.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis 1 for PSA response at Week 12||130.680|4.989|<0.0001
91842530|NCT00924469|183566367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.131||||0.2319||90.0|0.956|1.337|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis 2 for PSA response at Week 24||1.337|0.956|0.2319
91842531|NCT00924469|183566368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|2.744||||0.3427||90.0|1.018|5.015|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis 1 for CR at Week 24||5.015|1.018|0.3427
91842532|NCT00924469|183566371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.17|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.098|0.289||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for DHT concentration at Week 12||0.289|0.098|<0.0001
91842533|NCT01651936|183566375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|-0.52||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.50|-1.54|0.308
91842534|NCT01651936|183566376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|-0.26||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|23.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.01|-23.52|0.91
91842535|NCT01651936|183566378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|8.46||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|27.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.32|-10.40|0.468
91842536|NCT01651936|183566380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|-0.41||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.79|0.038
91842537|NCT03875911|183566428|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was used to analyze equivalence between arms||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.52
91842538|NCT03875911|183566429|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence calculated using ANOVA||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91842539|NCT03875911|183566430|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was assessed using ANOVA||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
91842540|NCT03875911|183566431|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence determined by ANOVA||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
91842541|NCT03875911|183566432|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence determined by ANOVA||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
91842542|NCT03875911|183566433|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined using ANOVA||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
91842543|NCT02293837|183566477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52; Primary imputation method used for missing Week 52 mAUC.||||0.277
91842544|NCT02293837|183566478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.499
91842545|NCT02293837|183566478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.267
91842546|NCT02293837|183566478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.226
91842547|NCT02293837|183566478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.758
91842548|NCT02293837|183566478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.341
91842549|NCT02293837|183566478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.969
91842550|NCT02293837|183566478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.689||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.689
91842551|NCT02293837|183566478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.400
91842552|NCT02293837|183566478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.969
91842553|NCT02293837|183566479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was 2-hour C-peptide mAUC and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.679
91842554|NCT02293837|183566479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was 2-hour C-peptide mAUC and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.373
91842555|NCT02293837|183566479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was 2-hour C-peptide mAUC and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.395
91842556|NCT02293837|183566480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.176
91899011|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||1.2|-26.7|0.0724
91648720|NCT00272961|183190171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.71|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||4.71|-5.40|0.8880
91842557|NCT02293837|183566480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.285
91842558|NCT02293837|183566480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.435
91842559|NCT02293837|183566480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.931
91842560|NCT02293837|183566480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.280
91842561|NCT02293837|183566480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.985
91842562|NCT02293837|183566481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.762
91842563|NCT02293837|183566481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.640
91842564|NCT02293837|183566481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in avg insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.145
91842565|NCT02293837|183566481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.033
91842566|NCT02293837|183566481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in avg insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline avg insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.591
91842567|NCT02293837|183566481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.810
91842568|NCT02293837|183566481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.178
91842569|NCT02293837|183566481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.430
91648721|NCT00272961|183190171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.4573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|6.93|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.93|-3.21|0.4573
91648722|NCT00272961|183190171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.4424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|7.91|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.91|-3.56|0.4424
91782901|NCT00611026|183445572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0002
91782902|NCT00611026|183445572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0130
91782903|NCT00611026|183445572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
91782904|NCT00611026|183445572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0021
91782905|NCT00611026|183445572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0525
91782906|NCT00611026|183445573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||-0.1|-0.5|0.0161
91782907|NCT00611026|183445573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.0|-0.4|0.0944
91648723|NCT00272961|183190171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|10.01|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||10.01|-3.65|0.3470
91648724|NCT00272961|183190171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.6249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|6.94|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.94|-4.25|0.6249
91648725|NCT00272961|183190171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|9.54|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||9.54|-1.69|0.1625
91842570|NCT02293837|183566481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.149
91842571|NCT02293837|183566482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was average insulin use per kg and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.103
91842572|NCT02293837|183566482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was average insulin use per kg and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.452
91648726|NCT00272961|183190171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|7.31|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.31|-5.38|0.7556
91842573|NCT02293837|183566482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was average insulin use per kg and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.091
91842574|NCT02293837|183566483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.154
91842575|NCT02293837|183566483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.193
91842576|NCT02293837|183566483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.397
91842577|NCT02293837|183566483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.125
91842578|NCT02293837|183566483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.705||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.705
91842579|NCT02293837|183566483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.378
91790350|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790351|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.222||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.222|-0.244|0.927
91899012|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-7.6|-35.7|0.0028
91899013|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-3.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-3.3|-31.9|0.0158
91899014|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||3.6|-24.2|0.1468
91782908|NCT00611026|183445573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||0.1|-0.3|0.3613
91782909|NCT00611026|183445573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
91782910|NCT00611026|183445573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0043
91782911|NCT00611026|183445573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.5|0.0186
91790352|NCT02880956|183460060|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91782912|NCT00611026|183445573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
91782913|NCT00611026|183445573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.0|-0.6|0.0407
91782914|NCT00611026|183445573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0016
91782915|NCT00611026|183445574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0217
91842580|NCT02293837|183566483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.035
91842581|NCT02293837|183566483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.262
91842582|NCT02293837|183566483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.338
91842583|NCT02293837|183566484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was HbA1c and covariates were treatment, study week, spline week (at week 4), age, treatment\*spline week, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept, study week, and spline week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.493
91842584|NCT02293837|183566484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was HbA1c and covariates were treatment, study week, spline week (at week 4), age, treatment\*spline week, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept, study week, and spline week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.659
91842585|NCT02293837|183566484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was HbA1c and covariates were treatment, study week, spline week (at week 4), age, treatment\*spline week, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept, study week, and spline week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.407
91842586|NCT02293837|183566485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 52||||0.634
91842587|NCT02293837|183566485|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 104/End of Study||||1.000
91842588|NCT02293837|183566485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 52||||0.329
91842589|NCT02293837|183566485|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 104/End of Study||||1.000
91842590|NCT02293837|183566485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 52||||0.847
91648727|NCT00272961|183190172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||0.28|-6.25|0.0714
91842591|NCT02293837|183566485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 104/End of Study||||0.858
91842592|NCT02293837|183566486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.296
91842593|NCT02293837|183566486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.145
91842594|NCT02293837|183566486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.027
91842595|NCT02293837|183566487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.547
91842596|NCT02293837|183566487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.551
91899015|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-3.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||-3.2|-31.7|0.0167
91899016|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||-2.2|-31.0|0.0242
91899017|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||5.3|-22.6|0.2240
91648728|NCT00272961|183190172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.7269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|3.24|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||3.24|-2.29|0.7269
91782916|NCT00611026|183445574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91782917|NCT00611026|183445574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0020
91782918|NCT00611026|183445574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.0217
91782919|NCT00611026|183445574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91782920|NCT00611026|183445574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0421
91782921|NCT00611026|183445574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0023
91782922|NCT00611026|183445575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||0.1|-0.1|0.3823
91782923|NCT00611026|183445575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.1|-0.1|0.4802
91782924|NCT00611026|183445575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||0.1|-0.1|0.8355
91782925|NCT00611026|183445575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.12|0.0286
91899018|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-1.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||-1.5|-30.3|0.0310
91899019|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||-0.4|-29.4|0.0437
91842597|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.27||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.04||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||0.04|-0.58|0.087
91842598|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.52||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.52|-1.15|<0.001
91842599|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.39||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. metformin 500 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.08|-0.69|0.014
91899020|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|8.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||8.2|-19.9|0.4123
91899021|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||1.6|-27.8|0.0808
91899022|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||2.6|-26.8|0.1064
91899023|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.4366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|8.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||8.6|-19.9|0.4366
91899024|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.8|-28.3|0.0644
91899025|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.41||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.8|-28.5|0.0633
91899026|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.4775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||9.1|-19.4|0.4775
91899027|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|2.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||2.7|-26.2|0.1106
91899028|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||2.5|-26.4|0.1043
91899029|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|10.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||10.0|-18.4|0.5630
91899030|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.7|-27.9|0.0629
91899031|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.1|-28.8|0.0523
91899032|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|8.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||8.6|-19.6|0.4420
91899033|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||2.0|-26.4|0.0908
91899034|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||1.0|-27.9|0.0688
91782926|NCT00611026|183445575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||0.0|-0.2|0.0794
91782927|NCT00611026|183445575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||0.1|-0.1|0.5906
91782928|NCT00611026|183445575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.0|-0.3|0.0134
91782929|NCT00611026|183445575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.0|-0.2|0.1759
91782930|NCT00611026|183445575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||0.0|-0.2|0.1661
91782931|NCT00611026|183445576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0021
91782932|NCT00611026|183445576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0200
91782933|NCT00611026|183445577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||0.0006
91842600|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.37||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.37|-0.99|<0.001
91842601|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.93||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.93|-1.55|<0.001
91842602|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.66||Pairwise comparison, metformin 850 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.66|-1.28|<0.001
91842603|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.78||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.78|-1.39|<0.001
91782934|NCT00611026|183445577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0202
91842604|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.39||Pairwise comparison, metformin 500 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.39|-1.01|<0.001
91782935|NCT00611026|183445577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.2126
91842605|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 100 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.09|-0.71|0.011
91842606|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.36||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.09||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.09|-0.62|0.008
91842607|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.6||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.60|-1.13|<0.001
91842608|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.36||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.10|-0.63|0.007
91842609|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.35||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.35|-0.88|<0.001
91648729|NCT00272961|183190172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|3.04|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||3.04|-2.58|0.8656
91648730|NCT00272961|183190172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.36|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||2.36|-3.41|0.7113
91899035|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.2802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|6.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||6.4|-21.9|0.2802
91899036|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||-1.2|-29.8|0.0337
91899037|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||1.0|-27.8|0.0673
91782936|NCT00611026|183445577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
91782937|NCT00611026|183445577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0019
91782938|NCT00611026|183445577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0148
91899038|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||7.6|-21.1|0.3564
91899039|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||0.3|-27.6|0.0558
91899040|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||-0.2|-28.5|0.0471
91782939|NCT00611026|183445578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0012
91782940|NCT00611026|183445578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0205
91782941|NCT00611026|183445578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91899041|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.4101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||8.1|-19.7|0.4101
91899042|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||-1.7|-29.9|0.0287
91899043|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||-0.5|-29.1|0.0427
91899044|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.2828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|6.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||6.4|-21.7|0.2828
91899045|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||-1.6|-29.7|0.0294
91899046|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||0.8|-27.5|0.0636
91899047|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||7.7|-20.0|0.3812
91782942|NCT00611026|183445578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0038
91782943|NCT00611026|183445578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0219
91782944|NCT00611026|183445578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0001
91782945|NCT00611026|183445578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0805|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0805
91782946|NCT00611026|183445578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0093
91782947|NCT00611026|183445579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||-0.0|-0.7|0.0374
91782948|NCT00611026|183445579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.2|-0.5|0.3161
91842610|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.99||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.99|-1.52|<0.001
91842611|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.63||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.63|-1.16|<0.001
91842612|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.74||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.74|-1.26|<0.001
91842613|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.37||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.37|-0.90|<0.001
91842614|NCT01076088|183566488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.12||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.12|-0.65|0.004
91842615|NCT01076088|183566489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-18.52||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.75|-3.29||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-3.29|-33.75|0.017
91648731|NCT00272961|183190172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||1.77|-7.32|0.2204
91842616|NCT01076088|183566489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-61.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.61|-46.07||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-46.07|-76.61|<0.001
91842617|NCT01076088|183566489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-31.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|-16.28||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. metformin 500 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-16.28|-46.49|<0.001
91842618|NCT01076088|183566489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-48.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.21|-33.67||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-33.67|-64.21|<0.001
91842619|NCT01076088|183566489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-87.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.87|-72.27||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-72.27|-102.87|<0.001
91842620|NCT01076088|183566489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-69.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.41|-53.7||Pairwise comparison, metformin 850 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-53.70|-84.41|<0.001
91782949|NCT00611026|183445579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||0.1|-0.5|0.1817
91782950|NCT00611026|183445579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.8|-1.6|<0.0001
91782951|NCT00611026|183445579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0054
91782952|NCT00611026|183445579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||-0.3|-0.9|0.0005
91782953|NCT00611026|183445579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.6|-1.5|<0.0001
91782954|NCT00611026|183445579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.1|-0.7|0.1467
91782955|NCT00611026|183445579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-0.4|-1.1|<0.0001
91782956|NCT00611026|183445580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0828
91782957|NCT00611026|183445580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91782958|NCT00611026|183445580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0008
91782959|NCT00611026|183445580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0022
91782960|NCT00611026|183445580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91782961|NCT00611026|183445580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0008
91782962|NCT00611026|183445581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||0.0576
91842621|NCT01076088|183566489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-75.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.47|-59.87||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-59.87|-90.47|<0.001
91648732|NCT00272961|183190172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.5298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|2.66|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||2.66|-5.04|0.5298
91782963|NCT00611026|183445581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.2230
91648733|NCT00272961|183190172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|1.96|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||1.96|-5.86|0.3135
91648734|NCT00272961|183190172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.2962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.93|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||1.93|-6.09|0.2962
91648735|NCT00272961|183190173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|7.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.35|-14.84|0.4933
91782964|NCT00611026|183445581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.3555
91782965|NCT00611026|183445581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
91782966|NCT00611026|183445581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.0009
91782967|NCT00611026|183445581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.0071
91782968|NCT00611026|183445581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
91782969|NCT00611026|183445581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.1764
91782970|NCT00611026|183445581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.0001
91782971|NCT00611026|183445582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91782972|NCT00611026|183445582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0003
91782973|NCT00611026|183445582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0302
91842622|NCT01076088|183566489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-43.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.99|-28.58||Pairwise comparison, metformin 500 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-28.58|-58.99|<0.001
91842623|NCT01076088|183566489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-26.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-10.84||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 100 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-10.84|-41.62|<0.001
91842624|NCT01076088|183566490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.11||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|0.64||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||0.64|-16.86|0.069
91842625|NCT01076088|183566490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-25.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-17.04||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-17.04|-34.72|<0.001
91842626|NCT01076088|183566490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.72||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|3.0||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. metformin 500 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||3.00|-14.44|0.198
91842627|NCT01076088|183566490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-17.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.33|-8.72||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-8.72|-26.33|<0.001
91842628|NCT01076088|183566490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-35.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.56|-27.06||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-27.06|-44.56|<0.001
91842629|NCT01076088|183566490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-19.0||Pairwise comparison, metformin 850 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-19.00|-36.40|<0.001
91842630|NCT01076088|183566490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-27.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.18|-18.73||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-18.73|-36.18|<0.001
91842631|NCT01076088|183566490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-21.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.42|-13.04||Pairwise comparison, metformin 500 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-13.04|-30.42|<0.001
91842632|NCT01076088|183566490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.93||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|-1.14||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 100 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-1.14|-18.72|0.027
91842633|NCT05515679|183566499|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using a paired sample t-test (two tailed), we wished to examine whether there was an increase in Constructive Engagement and Pleasure and a reduction in Passive Engagement, Distracted Engagement, and Non-Engagement, from baseline to treatment. With an anticipated PWD sample of 24, and using means and standard deviations from the PI's previous studies, we calculated a power of 90% to detect effects (alpha = .05; one-tailed test). (3) PWD and staff report high satisfaction wi||.94|.51|<0.01
91842634|NCT05515679|183566500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-0.59|.017
91842635|NCT05515679|183566501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-0.43|.008
91842636|NCT05515679|183566502|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.00|-.30|0.053
91899048|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-1.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||-1.8|-29.7|0.0270
91842637|NCT05515679|183566503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.79|.54|<.01
91842638|NCT05515679|183566504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|5.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.60|2.62|<.001
91842639|NCT05515679|183566505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.58|-1.55|<.001
91842640|NCT05515679|183566506|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.4||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.1|0.97|.022
91842641|NCT05515679|183566507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.44|-2.90|.551
91842642|NCT05515679|183566508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|37.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||37.2|17.7|<.001
91842643|NCT01448044|183566513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|38.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.703|55.997||The pvalue was based on the CochranMantelHaenszel (CMH) test, stratified by IL28B host genotype, geography, and baseline cirrhosis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.997|21.703|<0.0001
91648736|NCT00272961|183190173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|5.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||5.57|-13.26|0.4080
91842644|NCT01952301|183566518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary hypothesis of the study evaluated whether CM was not inferior to Control in the generation of KT width from baseline to 6 months. A paired t-test was used to test for non-inferiority, using a one-sided significance level of 0.05 and a non-inferiority margin of 1.0 mm.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91842645|NCT01994720|183566524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01||In order to address the issue of multiple testing, a hierarchical test sequence will be used. Tested at 4.98% level.|Regression, Cox|||Composite of stroke/MI/death||1.01|0.78|0.0670
91842646|NCT01994720|183566525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0||If the treatment effect on the primary efficacy variable is significant at the 4.98% level, the secondary efficacy variable will be tested in a confirmatory sense. Otherwise it will be tested in an exploratory manner.|Regression, Cox|||Ischemic stroke||1.00|0.76|0.0462
91842647|NCT01994720|183566526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.79|0.0928
91842648|NCT01994720|183566527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||||1.01|0.78|0.0771
91842649|NCT01994720|183566528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.67|||Regression, Cox|||||1.67|0.83|0.3641
91842650|NCT01994720|183566529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||||1.85|0.75|0.4828
91842651|NCT01994720|183566530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.14|||Regression, Cox|||||2.14|0.67|0.5457
91842652|NCT01994720|183566531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.85|0.1393
91648737|NCT00272961|183190173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|6.93|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.93|-11.86|0.5936
91842653|NCT01994720|183566532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.75|0.0342
91842654|NCT01994720|183566533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.06|||Regression, Cox|||||2.06|0.55|0.8557
91842655|NCT01994720|183566534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.77|0.2126
91842656|NCT01994720|183566540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||PLATO Major bleeding||1.34|0.52|0.4511
91842657|NCT01994720|183566541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.34|||Regression, Cox|||||3.34|1.53|<0.0001
91842658|NCT02216422|183566542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.4|100.0|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Wilson score method.|||100.0|90.4|
91842659|NCT04033991|183566576|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
91842660|NCT04033991|183566576|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
91842661|NCT04033991|183566577|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
91842662|NCT04033991|183566577|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0068
91842663|NCT04033991|183566579|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
91842664|NCT04033991|183566579|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0004
91842665|NCT04033991|183566580|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
91842666|NCT04033991|183566580|OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0014
91842667|NCT04033991|183566585|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
91842668|NCT04033991|183566585|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
91842669|NCT04033991|183566586|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
91842670|NCT04033991|183566586|OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0094
91782974|NCT00611026|183445582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91790353|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.098||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.098|-0.219|0.456
91790354|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790355|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.023||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.023|-0.290|0.093
91790356|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790357|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.135||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.135|-0.187|0.750
91790358|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790359|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.366||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.366|-0.049|0.134
91790360|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790361|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.305||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.305|-0.099|0.316
91790362|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91648738|NCT00272961|183190173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.79||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.17|8.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||8.57|-11.17|0.7883
91648739|NCT00272961|183190173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|7.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.60|-13.46|0.5719
91648740|NCT00272961|183190173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.11|4.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||4.70|-13.11|0.3401
91648741|NCT00272961|183190173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.6329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|6.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.82|-11.01|0.6329
91648742|NCT00272961|183190173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.4037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|13.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||13.11|-5.45|0.4037
91648743|NCT00272961|183190174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.7685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|9.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||9.62|-7.19|0.7685
91648744|NCT00272961|183190174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||2.30|-12.07|0.1739
91648745|NCT00272961|183190174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.4612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|10.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||10.15|-4.74|0.4612
91648746|NCT00272961|183190174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.21|-8.90|0.7172
91648747|NCT00272961|183190174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|11.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||11.91|-5.01|0.4098
91648748|NCT00272961|183190174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.48||0.6943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|5.78|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||5.78|-8.54|0.6943
91648749|NCT00272961|183190174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|12.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||12.31|-2.76|0.2042
91648750|NCT00272961|183190174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.7791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|8.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||8.83|-6.69|0.7791
91648751|NCT01507831|183190176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-59.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-59.4|-64.3|<0.0001
91648752|NCT01507831|183190177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.9|-61.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|A hierarchial testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchial testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-61.2|-65.9|<0.0001
91842671|NCT00577720|183566595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 35 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.091|1.964||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||1.964|1.091|
91648753|NCT01507831|183190178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-62.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-62.4|-67.2|<0.0001
91648754|NCT01507831|183190179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-65.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.9|-63.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-63.2|-67.9|<0.0001
91648755|NCT01507831|183190180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-58.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-58.5|-64.0|<0.0001
91648756|NCT01507831|183190181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|-51.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-51.7|-56.3|<0.0001
91648757|NCT01507831|183190182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-53.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.2|-57.7|<0.0001
91648758|NCT01507831|183190183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-50.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-50.2|-54.4|<0.0001
91899049|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||1.0|-26.9|0.0679
91899050|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.4452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|8.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||8.5|-19.2|0.4452
91899051|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||-0.2|-28.2|0.0467
91899052|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||1.6|-26.1|0.0829
91648759|NCT01507831|183190184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-51.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-51.6|-55.7|<0.0001
91782975|NCT00611026|183445582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0007
91782976|NCT00611026|183445583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||0.0|-0.1|0.0701
91782977|NCT00611026|183445583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.0|-0.1|0.4823
91782978|NCT00611026|183445583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||0.0|-0.1|0.1702
91782979|NCT00611026|183445583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
91782980|NCT00611026|183445583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.2|0.0059
91899053|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.89||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|9.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||9.2|-18.0|0.5263
91899054|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||-2.6|-31.0|0.0210
91899055|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||0.7|-27.6|0.0623
91782981|NCT00611026|183445583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.2|0.0014
91899056|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.4899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||9.1|-18.9|0.4899
91782982|NCT00611026|183445583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
91842672|NCT00577720|183566595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRBB/35 mg IRBB)|1.507|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.139|2.066||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||2.066|1.139|
91842673|NCT00577720|183566595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.535|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.177|2.086||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||2.086|1.177|
91782983|NCT00611026|183445583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.0|-0.1|0.3110
91782984|NCT00611026|183445583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-0.1|-0.2|0.0004
91782985|NCT00611026|183445584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||-0.3|-2.7|0.0136
91782986|NCT00611026|183445584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.4|-2.0|0.1918
91782987|NCT00611026|183445584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||0.3|-1.7|0.1505
91782988|NCT00611026|183445584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-2.6|-5.2|<0.0001
91782989|NCT00611026|183445584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.7|-3.3|0.0034
91782990|NCT00611026|183445584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||-0.8|-3.0|0.0006
91782991|NCT00611026|183445584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-2.3|-5.0|<0.0001
91782992|NCT00611026|183445584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.2|-2.5|0.0859
91782993|NCT00611026|183445584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-1.4|-3.6|<0.0001
91782994|NCT00611026|183445585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0008
91782995|NCT00611026|183445585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0024
91782996|NCT00611026|183445585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6514|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.6514
91782997|NCT00611026|183445585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91842674|NCT00577720|183566595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mg DRBB)|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.867|1.321||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||1.321|0.867|
91842675|NCT00577720|183566595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mg DRBB)|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.824|1.267||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||1.267|0.824|
91842676|NCT00577720|183566596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 35 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.208|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.749|2.099||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.099|0.749|
91842677|NCT00577720|183566596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRBB/35 mg IRBB)|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.665|2.003||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.003|0.665|
91842678|NCT00577720|183566596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.913|2.404||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.404|0.913|
91842679|NCT00577720|183566596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg DRFB)|1.165|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|1.752||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||1.752|0.797|
91842680|NCT00577720|183566596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mg DRBB)|1.243|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|1.99||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||1.990|0.828|
91842681|NCT00577720|183566597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 35 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.316|2.993||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.993|0.316|
91842682|NCT00577720|183566597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRBB/35 mg IRBB)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|5.429||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||5.429|0.929|
91842683|NCT00577720|183566597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|4.718||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||4.718|0.801|
91842684|NCT00577720|183566597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg DRFB)|1.668|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|4.668||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||4.668|0.856|
91842685|NCT00577720|183566597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mgDRBB)|0.868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.504|1.488||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||1.488|0.504|
91842686|NCT03216902|183566631|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
91842687|NCT03216902|183566631|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
91842688|NCT03216902|183566631|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
91899057|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||-1.7|-29.9|0.0281
91782998|NCT00611026|183445585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0063
91842689|NCT03216902|183566631|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
91842690|NCT01850082|183566643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.83|0.47
91842691|NCT01850082|183566644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.821
91842692|NCT01850082|183566645|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91842693|NCT01850082|183566646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.176|||Regression, Cox|||||1.176|0.724|0.517
91842694|NCT02138747|183566653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.997||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-0.93||p-value based on the ANOVA model|ANOVA|||Tolerability score was analyzed using the ANOVA model (Model #1), with sequence group, study period, period-by-sequence interaction, gender and treatment group as factors, and subject-within-sequence as a random term. p-value based on the ANOVA model. Difference used mirabegron as the reference (difference =tolterodine ER -mirabegron). A negative difference indicates better reported tolerability with mirabegron than with tolterodine ER.||-0.93|-4.86|0.004
91842695|NCT02138747|183566654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||P value was obtained using Mainland-Gart test to compare the proportion of preference for each treatment group. The denominator excluded patients with No Preference.|Mainland-Gart|||Participants who selected Mirabegron or Tolterodine ER were included in the denominator and participants with No Preference were excluded. Comparison was between Mirabegron vs Tolterodine ER.||||0.77
91842696|NCT02138747|183566663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.49||Adjusted P value was generated from the ANCOVA model for the period-by-treatment interaction.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted difference vs mirabegron where difference used mirabegron as the reference (difference = tolterodine ER - mirabegron).||0.49|-0.39|0.971
91842697|NCT02138747|183566664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.5||Adjusted P value was generated from the ANCOVA model for the period-by-treatment interaction.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted difference vs mirabegron where difference used mirabegron as the reference (difference = tolterodine ER - mirabegron).||0.50|-0.28|0.211
91842698|NCT04793464|183566683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.26
91842699|NCT04793464|183566684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Ratio of Means||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.02
91842700|NCT04793464|183566685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Logistic regression||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.68
91842701|NCT04793464|183566686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Logistic regression||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.44
91899058|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|3.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||3.3|-24.7|0.1318
91842702|NCT04793464|183566687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.77
91842703|NCT04793464|183566688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.66
91842704|NCT04793464|183566689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.44
91842705|NCT04793464|183566690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||0.017
91842706|NCT00405704|183566698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91842707|NCT00405704|183566699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.55
91842708|NCT00405704|183566700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.37
91842709|NCT00405704|183566701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.94
91842710|NCT00405704|183566702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
91842711|NCT00405704|183566703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.065
91842712|NCT00405704|183566704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91842713|NCT00405704|183566705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91782999|NCT00611026|183445585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.0494
91783000|NCT00611026|183445585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0003
91783001|NCT00611026|183445585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0991
91783002|NCT00611026|183445585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0169
91783003|NCT00611026|183445586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0009
91783004|NCT00611026|183445586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0279
91783005|NCT00611026|183445586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2817|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||||0.2817
91783006|NCT00611026|183445586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91783007|NCT00611026|183445586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0001
91783008|NCT00611026|183445586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0177
91783009|NCT00611026|183445586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91842714|NCT02696902|183566706|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction|-23.7||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-83.8|16.8|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||||16.8|-83.8|0.491
91842715|NCT01857622|183566724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|26.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|no statistical test||||26.8|-14.7|
91842716|NCT01857622|183566724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|25.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||25.2|-15.4|
91783010|NCT00611026|183445586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0107
91783011|NCT00611026|183445586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0005
91783012|NCT00611026|183445587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0011
91783013|NCT00611026|183445587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0072
91783014|NCT00611026|183445587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3713|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.3713
91783015|NCT00611026|183445587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0002
91842717|NCT01603940|183566796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.616
91842718|NCT01603940|183566797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
91842719|NCT01603940|183566798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.618
91899059|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|8.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||8.5|-19.1|0.4458
91842720|NCT02819479|183566813|OTHER||eta^2|0.37||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,14) = 8.29||CHANGE IN VOLUME OF RADIATION NECROSIS: To explore durability of radiographic responses, we invoked a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.012
91842721|NCT02819479|183566813|OTHER||eta^2|0.19||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,14) = 3.29||CHANGE IN VOLUME OF CEREBRAL EDEMA: To explore durability of radiographic responses, we invoked a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.09
91842722|NCT02819479|183566814|OTHER||eta^2|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5,34) = 2.74||To explore durability of clinical response, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) TOTAL SCORES were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance)||||0.02
91842723|NCT02819479|183566815|OTHER||eta^2|0.37||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5,34) = 3.17||To explore durability of clinical response, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) DAYS OF HEADACHE were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.019
91842724|NCT02819479|183566816|OTHER||eta^2|0.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5,35) = 3.96||To explore durability of clinical response, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) MIDAS PAIN LEVEL data were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.0006
91842725|NCT02819479|183566817|OTHER||eta^2|0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5, 35) = 2.98||To explore durability of clinical response, Headache Impact Test (HIT-6™) scores were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.02
91842726|NCT02819479|183566818|OTHER||eta^2|0.19||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,14) = 1.62||To explore durability of clinical response, Karnofsky Performance Status Scale (KPS) data were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.23
91842727|NCT02819479|183566819|OTHER||Pearson's r|-0.199||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Z = -0.889||Wilcoxon signed rank test (2-sided) was used to compare the total number of days on steroids in the 12 months prior versus the 12 months immediately following single dose IA Avastin (bevacizumab).||||0.374
91842728|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.153||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.451||DIGITS FORWARD: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the DIGITS FORWARD variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.660
91842729|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.602||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 3.78||DIGITS BACKWARD: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the DIGITS BACKWARD variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.100
91842730|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.532||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 2.847||NUMBERS \& LETTERS SPEED: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NUMBERS \& LETTERS SPEED variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.149
91842731|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.721||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 6.470||NUMBERS \& LETTERS ERRORS: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NUMBERS \& LETTERS ERRORS variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.041
91842732|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.566||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F (2,5) = 3.256||NUMBERS \& LETTERS EFFICIENCY: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NUMBERS \& LETTERS EFFICIENCY variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.124
91842733|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.042||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.110||NAMING: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NAMING variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.898
91842734|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.107||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.299||LIST LEARNING LIST IMMEDIATE RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the LIST LEARNING LIST IMMEDIATE RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.754
91842735|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.751||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 7.556||LIST LEARNING LIST LONG DELAYED RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the LIST LEARNING LIST LONG DELAYED RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.031
91842736|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.289||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 1.018||SHAPE LEARNING IMMEDIATE RECOGNITION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the SHAPE LEARNING IMMEDIATE RECOGNITION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.426
91842737|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.361||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 1.412||SHAPE LEARNING DELAYED RECOGNITION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the SHAPE LEARNING DELAYED RECOGNITION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.326
91842738|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.09||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.247||STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT IMMEDIATE RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT IMMEDIATE RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.790
91842739|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.239||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.786||STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT DELAYED RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT DELAYED RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.505
91842740|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.636||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 4.362||DESIGN CONSTRUCTION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the DESIGN CONSTRUCTION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.080
91842741|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.693||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 5.654||MAZES: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the MAZES variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.052
91842742|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.013||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.033||CATEGORIES: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the CATEGORIES variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.968
91842743|NCT02819479|183566820|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.261||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.884||WORD GENERATION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the WORD GENERATION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.469
91842744|NCT02718417|183566825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.051|1.946||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||1.946|1.051|0.9890
91842745|NCT02718417|183566825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.7935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.565||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||1.565|0.832|0.7935
91842746|NCT02718417|183566826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.08||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||3.080|0.760|0.8848
91842747|NCT02718417|183566826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.8953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|3.111||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||3.111|0.776|0.8953
91842748|NCT02718417|183566827|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.9278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.578||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|||||1.578|0.935|0.9278
91842749|NCT02718417|183566827|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.189||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|||||1.189|0.688|0.2367
91842750|NCT00506285|183566861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|F(1,47)=26.7, p=.001||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,47)=26.7, p=.001||||||.001
91842751|NCT00506285|183566862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|mixed models analysis||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||F(1,47)=24.8, p=.001|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
91783016|NCT00611026|183445587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.1485
91783017|NCT00611026|183445587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.0040
91783018|NCT00611026|183445587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91783019|NCT00611026|183445587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0060
91783020|NCT00611026|183445587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0016
91783021|NCT00611026|183445588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-4.7|-9.5|<0.0001
91783022|NCT00611026|183445588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.0|-4.8|0.0458
91783023|NCT00611026|183445588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-2.7|-6.6|<0.0001
91783024|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|7.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL scale score total.||7.9|3.4|<0.0001
91783025|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs Placebo: HRQL scale score total.||4.6|0.1|0.0429
91783026|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL scale score total.||5.2|1.5|0.0003
91783027|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL concern domain.||9.2|4.0|<0.0001
91783028|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Placebo vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL concern domain.||4.9|-0.3|0.0795
91783029|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL concern domain.||6.3|2.1|<0.0001
91783030|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|9.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL coping domain.||9.6|4.3|<0.0001
91783031|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo: HRQL coping domain.||5.7|0.4|0.0229
91783032|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL coping domain.||6.0|1.7|0.0004
91783033|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL sleep domain.||6.9|2.0|0.0003
91783034|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo: HRQL sleep domain.||4.5|-0.3|0.0923
91783035|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine: HRQL sleep domain.||4.4|0.4|0.0180
91783036|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL social interaction domain.||5.1|1.3|0.0011
91783037|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo: HRQL social interaction domain.||3.1|-0.7|0.2208
91783038|NCT00611026|183445589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine: HRQL social interaction domain.||3.5|0.4|0.0117
91783039|NCT02817464|183445673|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|2.36||||||||2.36|1.44|
91783040|NCT02817464|183445674|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.33||||||||1.33|0.33|
91783041|NCT02817464|183445676|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|2.09||||||||2.09|1.33|
91783042|NCT02817464|183445677|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|2.01||||||||2.01|1.30|
91783043|NCT02817464|183445678|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.4||||||||1.40|1.04|
91783044|NCT02817464|183445679|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.13||||||||1.13|0.23|
91783045|NCT02817464|183445681|OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0073
91783046|NCT04292899|183445700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|1.115||P-value was calculated using a proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable and baseline clinical status as a continuous covariate.|Proportional odds model|||||1.115|0.507|0.1563
91783047|NCT04292899|183445700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|0.976||P-value was calculated using a proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||||0.976|0.458|0.0368
91783048|NCT04292899|183445701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.3||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.0||P-value for comparison of the percentages between the two groups was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline clinical status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.0|-7.4|0.7678
91648760|NCT01507831|183190185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-35.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-35.9|-39.1|<0.0001
91783049|NCT00948441|183445702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||matched pairs T test to compare infection rates during the two study periods||||0.012
91783050|NCT04674761|183445707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) with baseline score as a covariate, and baseline age stratification, baseline direct bilirubin, treatment group, time (in months), and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects. One-sided p-value was reported.||-0.33|-1.44|0.0012
91783051|NCT04674761|183445708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-112.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.864||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.78|-46.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) with baseline serum bile acid (sBA) concentration data as a covariate, and baseline age stratification, treatment group, visits (Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects. The comparison of treatment difference in change from baseline to the average of Week 20 and Week 24 is estimated and tested using contrast. One-sided p-value was reported.||-46.69|-178.78|0.0006
91783052|NCT05340478|183445719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91783053|NCT01032889|183445726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||0.00|-0.61|0.052
91783054|NCT01032889|183445726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.16|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-0.16|-0.77|0.003
91783055|NCT01032889|183445727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.2||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.06|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||0.06|-0.55|0.117
91783056|NCT01032889|183445727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-0.30|-0.91|<0.001
91783057|NCT01032889|183445728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-0.46|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-0.46|-2.44|0.005
91783058|NCT01032889|183445728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-1.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-1.48|-3.48|<0.001
91783059|NCT01032889|183445729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-606.0||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1482.0|269.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||269.3|-1482|0.166
91783060|NCT01032889|183445729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-110.0||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1013.0|792.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||792.6|-1013|0.803
91783061|NCT01032889|183445730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.69|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||-0.69|-2.32|<0.001
91783062|NCT01032889|183445730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-0.85|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||-0.85|-2.46|<0.001
91783063|NCT01500720|183445731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.169|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.563|3.01||P-value was calculated from stratified two-sided log-rank test, stratifying for brain metastases and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level at the time of randomization.|Stratified Two-Sided Log-Rank Test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a COX Proportional Hazards regression model, stratifying for brain metastases and LDH level at the time of randomization.|||3.01|1.563|<0.0001
91783064|NCT03532451|183445780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||Null hypothesis is the change in CD8+ cell density is not significantly different from zero.||||0.08
91783065|NCT03532451|183445780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.002
91783066|NCT03532451|183445781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.88
91783067|NCT00525161|183445790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Response Rate at 3 months|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Defined as complete response/partial response after 3 months of adding sorafenib to endocrine therapy|Based on known historical response rate to sorafenib of no better than 5-10%, the study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the clinical response rate is no better than 10% versus the alternative hypothesis that it is at least 25% when sorafenib is added to endocrine therapy. In the first stage, 18 patients were planned for enrollment, and if two or fewer responses were observed, the trial would be terminated. The study stopped after 11 due to slow accrual and withdrawal of funding.||||
91783068|NCT00525161|183445791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Progression Free Survival|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|11.3||||||||11.3|2.6|
91783069|NCT04845568|183445823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|5.43||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in self-efficacy for physical activity does not differ between conditions.||5.43|-3.16|0.592
91790363|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.339||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.339|-0.078|0.218
91790364|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91842752|NCT02892409|183566889|EQUIVALENCE|LS Mean Ratio (TAK-438/Lansoprazole), 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the ratio were obtained by taking the anti-log of the difference or confidence limits of difference between the LS means of test and reference on the natural logarithmic scale.|Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|105.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.051|167.183||||||||167.183|66.051|
91842753|NCT02892409|183566890|EQUIVALENCE|LS Mean Ratio (TAK-438/Lansoprazole), 95% CI of the ratio were obtained by taking the anti-log of the difference or confidence limits of difference between the LS means of test and reference on the natural logarithmic scale.|LS Mean Ratio|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.137|130.569||||||||130.569|67.137|
91842754|NCT02264574|183566906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.231|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.367|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||0.367|0.145|<0.0001
91842755|NCT02264574|183566907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.119|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.307|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||0.307|0.046|< 0.0001
91842756|NCT02264574|183566908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5253|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.5253
91842757|NCT02264574|183566909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5465|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.5465
91842758|NCT02264574|183566910|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.208||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.373|||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||1.373|1.062|0.0035
91842759|NCT02264574|183566911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.8057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.479|1.772|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||1.772|0.479|0.8057
91842760|NCT02264574|183566912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0835|||||||Fisher Exact|||"IRR Preferred Term~To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record."||||0.0835
91842761|NCT02264574|183566912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1944|||||||Fisher Exact|||"IRR By Customized SMQ~To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record."||||0.1944
91842762|NCT02264574|183566913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.0045
91899060|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-2.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||-2.3|-30.4|0.0229
91842763|NCT02264574|183566914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.8590
91842764|NCT02264574|183566915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.169|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.282|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.282|0.102|< 0.0001
91842765|NCT02264574|183566916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9657
91842766|NCT02264574|183566917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1612|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1612
91842767|NCT02264574|183566918|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.125||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|1.25|||Chi-squared|||||1.250|1.013|0.0273
91842768|NCT02264574|183566919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083||||0.7934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.973|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.973|0.595|0.7934
91842769|NCT02264574|183566920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0050
91899061|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||2.2|-25.9|0.0978
91842770|NCT02264574|183566921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.251|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.389|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.389|0.162|< 0.0001
91842771|NCT02080520|183566922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
91842772|NCT02080520|183566923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
91842773|NCT02080520|183566924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
91842774|NCT04102540|183566934|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median CD4 count at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median CD4 count following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|57.39||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.9|163.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||163.7|-48.9|0.283
91842775|NCT04102540|183566934|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median CD4 count at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median CD4 count following the exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|60.83||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|151.2||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||151.2|-29.5|0.1823
91842776|NCT04102540|183566935|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median viral load at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median viral load following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|-42.0||||0.7795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.8|255.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression||This is the difference in median viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||255.8|-339.8|0.7795
91842777|NCT04102540|183566935|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median viral load at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median viral load following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|-63.0||||0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-296.1|170.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|||Statistical analysis of viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.|This is the difference in median viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|170.1|-296.1|0.5971
91842778|NCT04102540|183566936|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median HIV-related knowledge score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median HIV-related knowledge score following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median HIV-Related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of HIV-related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||3.0|1.2|<.0001
91899062|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||7.6|-19.8|0.3792
91899063|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||-1.7|-30.2|0.0290
91899064|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|3.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||3.3|-25.0|0.1306
91842779|NCT04102540|183566936|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median HIV-related knowledge score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median HIV-related knowledge score following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median HIV-related knowledge score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of HIV-related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||2.8|1.2|<.0001
91842780|NCT04102540|183566938|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||0.7|-0.7|0.9879
91851677|NCT05382104|183586942|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for the differences between Treatment B versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|84.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.74|87.66|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment B / Treatment A).|||87.66|80.74|
91842781|NCT04102540|183566938|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||1.4|-0.2|0.1550
91842782|NCT04102540|183566939|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 2 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.52||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|In this model, the odds ratio estimate is for the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 2 relative to the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants adherence as adherent or non-adherent."||4.52|0.30|0.8190
91842783|NCT04102540|183566939|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 3 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.43||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|In this model, the odds ratio estimate is for the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 3 relative to the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants adherence as adherent or non-adherent."||1.43|0.07|0.1332
91842784|NCT04102540|183566940|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of good health at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of good health at exposure 2 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.46||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|This is the estimated odds ratio of having good health at exposure 2 relative to baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants' responses into the following categories: good vs bad health, where good included participant responses: excellent, very good, good, and bad included the participant responses: more or less and bad."||5.46|0.57|0.3160
91842785|NCT04102540|183566940|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of having good health at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of having good health at exposure 3 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.93||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|This is the estimated odds ratio of having good health at exposure 3 relative to baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants' responses into the following categories: good vs bad health, where good included participant responses: excellent, very good, good, and bad included the participant responses: more or less and bad."||3.93|0.32|0.8609
91842786|NCT04102540|183566941|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median current health status at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median current health status following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|9.13||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|18.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median current health status between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of current health status between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||18.6|-0.3|0.0572
91842787|NCT04102540|183566941|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median current health status at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median current health status following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|13.1||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median current health status between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||25.1|1.1|0.0332
91842788|NCT01567163|183566947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio geometric least squares (LS) means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The ratio of geometric LS means was calculated using a mixed effect model adjusted for cycle, participant and random error. Ratio of geometric LS means is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.|||1.10|0.84|
91842789|NCT01567163|183566949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||The ratio of geometric least squares means was calculated using a mixed effect model adjusted for cycle, participant and random error. Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.|||1.55|0.84|
91842790|NCT02571439|183566954|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91842791|NCT02571439|183566955|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91783070|NCT04845568|183445823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|2.02||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Self-Efficacy for Healthy Eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in self-efficacy for healthy eating does not differ between conditions.||2.02|-4.39|0.453
91783071|NCT04845568|183445824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.892||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Caregiver Readiness to Change Child's Eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in readiness for healthy eating does not differ between conditions.||.892|-.342|.368
91783072|NCT04845568|183445824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.827||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Caregiver Readiness for Physical Activity. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in caregiver intentions to help child improve physical activity from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.827|-.575|.714
91783073|NCT04845568|183445825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|3.34||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child attitudes toward healthy eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child attitudes toward healthy eating from baseline to post-intervention does not differ between conditions.||3.34|-4.39|.783
91783074|NCT04845568|183445825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|2.07||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intentions toward healthy eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child intentions toward healthy eating from baseline to post-intervention does not differ between conditions.||2.07|-6.05|.323
91783075|NCT04845568|183445825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|6.01||A priori threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in caregiver intentions toward helping their child engage in healthy eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in caregiver intentions from baseline to post-intervention does not differ between conditions.||6.01|-1.79|.276
91783076|NCT04845568|183445826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.08||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of fruits. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child fruit servings per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||1.08|-.59|.547
91783077|NCT04845568|183445826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.86||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of vegetables. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child vegetable servings per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.86|-.87|.990
91783078|NCT04845568|183445826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of fast food. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child fast food servings per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.45|-.86|.527
91783079|NCT04845568|183445827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.01||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child weekly intake of breakfast. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child breakfast meals per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||1.01|-1.33|.777
91790365|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.169||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.169|-0.219|0.799
91842792|NCT02571439|183566956|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.61
91842793|NCT02571439|183566957|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.46
91842794|NCT02571439|183566958|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.33
91783080|NCT04845568|183445827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.79||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of family dinners. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child family dinners per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.79|-2.26|.329
91783081|NCT04845568|183445828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.99||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child screentime. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child screentime per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.99|-0.07|.086
91783082|NCT04845568|183445828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child active hours. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child active hours per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.40|-.64|.64
91783083|NCT00630838|183445829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.897|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.897
91783084|NCT00256997|183445859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5498||||||P-value was calculated by Cox proportional hazard model stratified for positive and negative symptom scale.|Cox proportional hazard model|||||||0.5498
91842795|NCT02571439|183566959|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
91842796|NCT02571439|183566960|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
91842797|NCT02571439|183566961|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.87
91842798|NCT02571439|183566962|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
91842799|NCT02571439|183566963|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.91
91842800|NCT00318149|183567007|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS25 Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.7|1.16||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS25 administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.16|0.7|
91842801|NCT00318149|183567007|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS50 Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.71|1.56||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS50 administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.56|0.71|
91842802|NCT00318149|183567007|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS01B Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.79|1.38||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS01B administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.38|0.79|
91842803|NCT00318149|183567007|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS01E Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.79|1.44||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS01E administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.44|0.79|
91842804|NCT03088137|183567040|EQUIVALENCE|Study power of at least 80% at a significance level (alpha error) 5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/- 3.4 oocytes for the relevant population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.546|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.297||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.026|3.116|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.116|-2.026|0.002
91842805|NCT03088137|183567041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.709|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.067||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.405|2.824|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.824|-1.405|0.806
91842806|NCT03088137|183567042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.129||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.455|2.019|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.019|-2.455|0.617
91842807|NCT03088137|183567043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.636|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.995|1.723|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.723|-2.995|0.445
91842808|NCT03088137|183567044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.623
91842809|NCT03088137|183567045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.8||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.9|113.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||113.6|-83.9|0.488
91842810|NCT03088137|183567046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.201||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.379|0.416|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.416|-0.379|0.629
91842811|NCT03088137|183567047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.644|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.644
91783085|NCT04672655|183445879|OTHER|||||||0.8875||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.8875
91783086|NCT04672655|183445880|OTHER|||||||0.4811||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.4811
91783087|NCT04672655|183445881|OTHER|||||||0.754||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.754
91783088|NCT04672655|183445882|OTHER|||||||0.0406||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.0406
91783089|NCT04672655|183445883|OTHER|||||||0.9032||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.9032
91783090|NCT01326104|183445884|SUPERIORITY||comparing two curves|0.286||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.107|0.764||This is the p-value comparing Group A with historical control.|Log Rank|One sample log rank.||Based on published literature, PFS-12 for patients with recurrent disease after initiating treatment with HDC + PBSCT or standard salvage therapy was 33% (95% confidence interval of 10%, 59%). The study was designed to differentiate between a PFS-12 rate of 33% (null hypothesis) and 55% (alternative hypothesis). If 35 patients enrolled, this assessment has 90% power assuming a type I error rate of 0.10. We assume that PFS of historical controls follows exponential distribution.||0.764|0.107|0.927
91783091|NCT01326104|183445884|SUPERIORITY||compare two curves|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the p-value comparing Group B with historical control.|Log Rank|||Based on published literature, PFS-12 for patients with recurrent disease after initiating treatment with HDC + PBSCT or standard salvage therapy was 33% (95% confidence interval of 10%, 59%). The study was designed to differentiate between a PFS-12 rate of 33% (null hypothesis) and 55% (alternative hypothesis). If 35 patients enrolled, this assessment has 90% power assuming a type I error rate of 0.10. We assume that PFS of historical controls follows exponential distribution.||||<0.001
91783092|NCT01326104|183445884|SUPERIORITY||Comparing two curves|0.091|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.276||This is the p-value comparing Groups A and B combined with historical control.|Log Rank|||||0.276|0.03|<0.001
91783093|NCT01287741|183445890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12|||Log Rank|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) score (low/low-intermediate (excluding participants having an IPI score 0 without bulky disease).||||1.12|0.78|0.4753
91783094|NCT01287741|183445891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1|||Log Rank|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) score (low/low-intermediate (excluding participants having an IPI score 0 without bulky disease).||||1.10|0.72|0.2736
91783095|NCT03843541|183445906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.763|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the superiority comparisons of NAC vs. placebo, the Bonferroni correction was used.||||<0.001
91783096|NCT03843541|183445907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.783||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the superiority comparisons of NAC vs. placebo, the Bonferroni correction was used.||||0.002
91783097|NCT03843541|183445908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.239
91842812|NCT03088137|183567050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|17.0|||Chi-squared|||95% confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions.||17.0|-21.0|0.833
91783098|NCT03843541|183445909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||For the superiority comparisons of NAC vs. placebo, the Bonferroni correction was used.||||0.037
91783099|NCT03843541|183445910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.093
91783100|NCT03843541|183445910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.118
91783101|NCT03843541|183445911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.022
91783102|NCT03843541|183445911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.110
91783103|NCT03843541|183445912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.022
91783104|NCT03843541|183445912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.402
91842813|NCT03088137|183567051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|11.9|||Chi-squared|||95% confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions.||11.9|-24.3|0.507
91648761|NCT01507831|183190186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-53.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.7|-58.3|<0.0001
91783105|NCT03843541|183445913|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the one-sided confidence interval was within the interval.|Probability scale treatment difference|0.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.43|1.0|||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic||The point estimates of treatment differences in probability scale together with associated one-side confidence interval (97.5% or 98.75%) were computed according to Hochberg if both superiority contrasts were found statistically significant.|||1.00|0.43|0.002
91783106|NCT03843541|183445914|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the one-sided confidence interval was within the interval.|Probability scale treatment difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.45|1.0|||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic||"The point estimates of treatment differences in probability scale together with associated one-side confidence interval (97.5% or 98.75%) were computed according to Hochberg if both superiority contrasts were found statistically significant.~."|||1.00|0.45|<0.001
91783107|NCT03843541|183445915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.356
91783108|NCT03843541|183445915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.007
91842814|NCT05108649|183567054|OTHER|We treated the exposure as a four-level categorical variable with control messaging + NNC cigarettes as the control condition.||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA compared scale scores across the conditions.||||||0.0008
91783109|NCT03843541|183445916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.380
91783110|NCT03843541|183445916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.018
91842815|NCT05108649|183567055|OTHER|||||||0.9804|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9804
91842816|NCT05108649|183567056|OTHER|||||||0.6579|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6579
91842817|NCT05108649|183567057|OTHER|||||||0.4208|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4208
91648762|NCT01507831|183190187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.6|-52.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-52.6|-56.6|<0.0001
91783111|NCT03843541|183445917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.366
91783112|NCT03843541|183445917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.027
91783113|NCT03843541|183445918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.052
91783114|NCT03843541|183445918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.058
91783115|NCT03843541|183445919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.309
91783116|NCT03843541|183445919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.006
91842818|NCT05108649|183567058|OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.245
91842819|NCT05108649|183567059|OTHER|||||||0.6396|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6396
91842820|NCT05108649|183567060|OTHER|||||||0.0235|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0235
91842821|NCT05108649|183567061|OTHER|||||||0.3564|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3564
91842822|NCT05108649|183567062|OTHER|||||||0.6057|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6057
91842823|NCT05108649|183567063|OTHER|||||||0.2304|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2304
91842824|NCT00918749|183567070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.215||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.568|3.372|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||A two group t-test with a 0.100 one-sided significance level would have 96% power to detect the difference between a risedronate 150 mg IRBB mean, µ1, of -46.000 and a risedronate 75 mg DRFB mean, µ2, of -29.900 (a difference in means of -16.100), assuming that the common SD was 28.000, with sample sizes of 60 per group, respectively. Estimates were based on Study 2005107 (35 mg DR once a week Phase 2 study). The sample size calculation was not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.372|-10.568|0.3946
91842825|NCT00918749|183567070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.241||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.208|-5.185|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||-5.185|-19.208|0.0045
91842826|NCT00918749|183567071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.952||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.421|12.952|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||12.952|-3.421|0.3372
91842827|NCT00918749|183567071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.966||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.427|7.991|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||7.991|-8.427|0.9650
91899065|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.3923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|7.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||7.8|-19.8|0.3923
91899066|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-1.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||-1.9|-30.3|0.0265
91899067|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||3.6|-24.5|0.1456
91899068|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|9.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||9.2|-18.3|0.5138
91899069|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-1.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||-1.9|-29.8|0.0265
91899070|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||2.2|-25.7|0.0986
91899071|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||7.3|-20.0|0.3600
91842828|NCT00918749|183567072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.269||0.9276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.67|7.447|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||7.447|-6.670|0.9276
91899072|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-1.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-1.5|-29.5|0.0303
91899073|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||2.2|-25.7|0.0979
91899074|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|7.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||7.4|-19.9|0.3664
91899075|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|1.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||1.5|-26.3|0.0806
91899076|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||5.3|-22.4|0.2260
91899077|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.3835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||7.6|-19.7|0.3835
91842829|NCT00918749|183567072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.313||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.917|-3.657|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||-3.657|-17.917|0.0133
91842830|NCT00918749|183567073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.813|29.868|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||29.868|-0.813|0.1192
91783117|NCT02930018|183445922|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS (Acute Ischemic Stroke) patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.146||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.511||2 sided 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The primary hypothesis was that administration of nerinetide (NA-1) would result in an increase in the proportion of responders. The primary analysis was a Wald test for treatment group difference in the primary outcome from a logistic regression adjusted for the 2 stratification variables (alteplase use, first declared thrombectomy device), and the 6 covariates used in the minimization. The trial was designed to have 80% power to detect an 8.7% absolute difference between groups.||1.511|0.869|0.335
91783118|NCT02930018|183445923|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.024||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.342||2 sided 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.342|0.781|0.866
91783119|NCT02930018|183445924|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.776||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|1.143||2 sided 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.143|0.527|0.199
91842831|NCT00918749|183567073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.343||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|29.659|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||29.659|-1.230|0.1298
91842832|NCT00918749|183567074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.093||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.956|11.193|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||11.193|-8.956|0.8546
91842833|NCT00918749|183567074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.126||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.522|2.737|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||2.737|-17.522|0.2291
91842834|NCT00918749|183567075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.046||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.452|20.462|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||20.462|-9.452|0.5436
91842835|NCT00918749|183567075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.9201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.959|14.132|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||14.132|-15.959|0.9201
91899078|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||0.5|-26.7|0.0594
91899079|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|5.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||5.1|-22.2|0.2189
91899080|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||9.1|-17.8|0.5238
91899081|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|2.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||2.9|-24.5|0.1204
91899082|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||2.6|-24.4|0.1129
91899083|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.3911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||7.6|-19.3|0.3911
91899084|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||1.4|-26.0|0.0784
91899085|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.3046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|6.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||6.5|-20.7|0.3046
91842836|NCT00918749|183567076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.052||0.444|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.59|9.807|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||9.807|-3.590|0.4440
91842837|NCT00918749|183567076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.063||0.2349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.874|11.559|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||11.559|-1.874|0.2349
91842838|NCT00918749|183567077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.327||0.2527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.189|12.12|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||12.120|-2.189|0.2527
91842839|NCT00918749|183567077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.301|12.153|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||12.153|-2.301|0.2613
91842840|NCT00918749|183567078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.609|8.148|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||8.148|-5.609|0.7606
91842841|NCT00918749|183567078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.185||0.5006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.744|4.095|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||4.095|-9.744|0.5006
91842842|NCT03055832|183567111|NON_INFERIORITY|"This study provides a combined power of co-primary endpoints of 88% given the following primary endpoint assumptions:~* MGS non-inferiority delta of 5 points and standard deviation of 8 points provides power of 93.9%~* TBT non-inferiority delta of 2.5 seconds and standard deviation of 4 seconds, provides a TBT primary endpoint power of 93.9%~* Power that both endpoitns are significant, assuming independence was 0.939\^2 = 0.882 or 88.2% power."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|3.56||||||||3.56|-3.82|
91842843|NCT03055832|183567112|NON_INFERIORITY|"This study provides a combined power of co-primary endpoints of 88% given the following primary endpoint assumptions:~* MGS non-inferiority delta of 5 points and standard deviation of 8 points provides power of 93.9%~* TBT non-inferiority delta of 2.5 seconds and standard deviation of 4 seconds, provides a TBT primary endpoint power of 93.9%~* Power that both endpoitns are significant, assuming independence was 0.939\^2 = 0.882 or 88.2% power."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.16||||||||1.16|-0.97|
91842844|NCT03055832|183567113|OTHER|A formal hypothesis was not proposed for this endpoint and therefore a power calculation was not performed. A Fisher's Exact test was performed post hoc to determine if a significant difference existed between the two arms.||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91842845|NCT03055832|183567114|NON_INFERIORITY|A standard deviation of 14 was assumed based on pilot data and the non-inferiority delta was set to 7. The chosen sample size and alpha = 0.025 provides 80% power for this endpoint|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|2.59||||||All questions||2.59|-8.75|
91842846|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||||90.0|-0.064|-0.026|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M3||-0.026|-0.064|
91842847|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.025|0.02|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M6||0.020|-0.025|
91842848|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.033|0.013|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M9||0.013|-0.033|
91842849|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.044|0.004|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M12||0.004|-0.044|
91842850|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.048|0.003|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M15||0.003|-0.048|
91842851|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||||90.0|-0.05|0.004|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M18||0.004|-0.050|
91648763|NCT01507831|183190188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-37.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-37.5|-40.4|<0.0001
91783120|NCT02930018|183445925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.657||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.055|2.603|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.603|1.055|0.028
91783121|NCT02930018|183445925|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Risk Difference (%)|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted absolute risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
91783122|NCT02930018|183445925|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Difference (%)|19.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted relative risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
91783123|NCT02930018|183445926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.482||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|2.329|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.329|0.943|0.088
91783124|NCT02930018|183445926|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Risk Difference (%)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted absolute risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
91783125|NCT02930018|183445926|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Difference (%)|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted relative risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
91783126|NCT02930018|183445927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.572||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|1.013|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.013|0.323|0.055
91783127|NCT02930018|183445927|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Risk Difference (%)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted absolute risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
91783128|NCT02930018|183445927|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Difference (%)|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted relative risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
91783129|NCT02930018|183445928|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.887||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.286|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.286|0.612|0.529
91783130|NCT02930018|183445929|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.782||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.121|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.121|0.545|0.181
91783131|NCT02930018|183445930|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.874|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.874|0.588|0.869
91783132|NCT00479687|183445972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||There was a single primary variable and the a-prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed effects repeated measure model with baseline VAS, treatment, and week as fixed effects and subject nested within site as a random effect.||||||0.0380
91648764|NCT01507831|183190189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.6|99.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||99.1|51.6|<0.0001
91783133|NCT02840799|183445984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1309108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2619326||0.6191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6552259|0.3934043||A two-sided α=0.05 was determined by the power calculation.|t-test, 2 sided|t = -0.49979, df = 58. N=59 due to analyzing participants with complete data for Phase 1 and Phase 2 that crossovered.|Only participants that successfully crossed over were included in the t-test (N=59).|We considered an increase in peak VO2 of \~0.6 ml/kg/min to be the minimum clinically significant change. Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints with a two-sided α=0.05. PASS11157 was used to perform power calculations.||0.3934043|-0.6552259|0.6191
91783134|NCT02840799|183445984|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.62||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||0.62|-.043|0.711
91783135|NCT02840799|183445985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.217657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.065196||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.910612|6.3459261|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.0738, df = 62, p-value = 0.2871, N=63 due to analyzing participants with complete data for Phase 1 and Phase 2 that crossovered.||A two-sided α=0.05 was determined by the power calculation.||6.3459261|-1.910612|0.2871
91790366|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790367|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.111||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.111|-0.273|0.406
91648765|NCT01507831|183190190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|93.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|132.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||132.0|66.1|<0.0001
91648766|NCT01507831|183190191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|74.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|104.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||104.4|53.3|<0.0001
91648767|NCT01507831|183190192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|97.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|138.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||138.9|68.2|<0.0001
91648768|NCT01507831|183190193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-23.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.1|-28.1|<0.0001
91648769|NCT01507831|183190194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.9|3.3|<0.0001
91783136|NCT02840799|183445985|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.12||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|1.88||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect. Randomization sequence was not included in the final model due to lack of evidence for a carry over effect. Phase 1 data for participants that did not crossover due to IDS were considered for the model (N=74).||1.88|-6.12|0.2935
91783137|NCT02840799|183445986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1859922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.578944||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9674467|5.3392901||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.3844, df=65, p=0.171. N=66 due to analyzing participants with complete data for Phase 1 and Phase 2 that crossover correctly.||||5.3392901|-0.9674467|0.171
91783138|NCT02840799|183445986|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.51||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|0.61||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||0.61|-5.62|0.113
91648770|NCT01507831|183190195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-14.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-14.6|-20.1|<0.0001
91648771|NCT01507831|183190196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.2|1.6|<0.0001
91783139|NCT02840799|183445987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.776572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99464||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.264221|10.817366||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.69507, df=46, p=.4905. N=47 due to only analyzed participants that correctly crossovered.||||10.817366|-5.264221|0.4905
91783140|NCT02840799|183445987|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.088||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.48||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||9.48|-7.30|0.796
91783141|NCT02840799|183445988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.11189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.84245||0.4017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.63637|57.41259|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.86929,, df=12, p=0.4017||||57.41259|-133.63637|0.4017
91783142|NCT02840799|183445988|SUPERIORITY||Slope|61.77||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.15|157.69||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||157.69|-34.15|0.183
91783143|NCT02840799|183445989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202782||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4959279|0.9014918||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t=0.58074, df=59, p=0.5636||||0.9014918|-0.4959279|0.5636
91842852|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.047|0.007|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M21||0.007|-0.047|
91842853|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.054|0.002|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M24||0.002|-0.054|
91842854|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.021|0.034|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M1||0.034|-0.021|
91842855|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||90.0|-0.016|0.044|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M3||0.044|-0.016|
91842856|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.002|0.055|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M6||0.055|-0.002|
91842857|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.04|0.032|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M1||0.032|-0.040|
91842858|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.07|0.004|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M3||0.004|-0.070|
91842859|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.077|-0.002|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M6||-0.002|-0.077|
91842860|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.075|0.003|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M9||0.003|-0.075|
91842861|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.058|0.022|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M12||0.022|-0.058|
91842862|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.034|0.048|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M15||0.048|-0.034|
91783144|NCT02840799|183445989|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3118||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.37||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||0.37|-0.99|0.361
91842863|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.055|0.033|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M18||0.033|-0.055|
91842864|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.058|0.029|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M21||0.029|-0.058|
91842865|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.061|0.03|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M24||0.030|-0.061|
91842866|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.044|0.043|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M27||0.043|-0.044|
91842867|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.051|0.04|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M30||0.040|-0.051|
91842868|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||||90.0|-0.042|0.058|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M33||0.058|-0.042|
91648772|NCT01507831|183190197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-22.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-22.7|-27.4|<0.0001
91783145|NCT02840799|183445990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1532142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.1532142||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1998786|0.8934502||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t= -0.29271, df=61, p=0.7707||||0.8934502|-1.1998786|0.7707
91783146|NCT02840799|183445990|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18872||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.25||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||1.25|-0.88|0.724
91783147|NCT02840799|183445991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3262821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2333465||0.1680825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1421806|0.7947447||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.3983, df=51, p=0.1681||||0.7947447|-0.1421806|0.1680825
91783148|NCT02840799|183445991|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4082||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.07||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.88|0.0930
91783149|NCT02840799|183445992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.116437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.176768||0.07984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4966754|0.2638017||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||t = -1.7985, df=39, p=0.07984|||0.2638017|-4.4966754|0.07984
91783150|NCT02840799|183445992|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.68||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|3.9||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.90|-0.54|0.135
91783151|NCT02840799|183445993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0192733|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01295984||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0454871|0.0069404||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00694040|-0.0454871|0.1450
91783152|NCT02840799|183445993|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01324||||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.01|0.3047
91783153|NCT02840799|183445994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.506681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.494971||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.598617|5.585256||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.585256|-12.598617|0.44
91899086|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||9.1|-17.9|0.5205
91783154|NCT02840799|183445994|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.39106||||0.39911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|11.44||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.44|-4.66|0.39911
91899087|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||-0.7|-27.3|0.0388
91783155|NCT02642315|183446011|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|36.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0131
91783156|NCT02642315|183446012|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|36.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0131
91783157|NCT03860818|183446063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Rate of inpatient hospitalization during study||||<.001
91783158|NCT03860818|183446063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91783159|NCT03860818|183446064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Statistical analysis applies to all rows.||||||<0.001
91783160|NCT03860818|183446065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9064|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9064
91783161|NCT03860818|183446066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
91783162|NCT00505778|183446071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|BID-QD Difference in Remission Rates|1.3||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||4.9|-2.3|0.5016
91790368|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91783163|NCT00505778|183446072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|BID-QD Difference in Remission Rates|0.8||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||3.5|-1.8|0.5426
91783164|NCT00505778|183446073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|BID-QD Difference in Remission Rates|0.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||4.7|-4.6|0.9770
91783165|NCT00505778|183446074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.796|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||||1.796|0.762|0.4726
91783166|NCT00505778|183446075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference BID-QD in Least Square Mean|-0.45||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA with prior Asacol dose category as factor.||||0.20|-1.09|0.1753
91899088|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||2.5|-24.2|0.1105
91899089|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.68||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|10.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||10.7|-15.7|0.7039
91899090|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||ls|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|1.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||1.8|-25.2|0.0885
91899091|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||3.7|-23.1|0.1535
91899092|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|12.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||12.5|-14.2|0.8975
91899093|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||0.9|-26.6|0.0674
91899094|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3025||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|6.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||6.5|-20.8|0.3025
91899095|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.8964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|12.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||12.7|-14.5|0.8964
91899096|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.7|-26.1|0.0633
91899097|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|4.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||4.0|-22.9|0.1665
91899098|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78||0.7748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|11.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||11.4|-15.3|0.7748
91648773|NCT01507831|183190198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|6.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||6.8|4.3|<0.0001
91648774|NCT01507831|183190199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-15.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-15.3|-20.5|<0.0001
91648775|NCT01507831|183190200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.2|2.8|<0.0001
91783167|NCT00505778|183446076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|Difference BID-QD Remission Rates|3.6||||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||8.5|-1.3|0.1557
91783168|NCT03436082|183446077|OTHER|We used Stata version 14.2 (StataCorp LP) to perform chi-square tests to compare syncing of the Fitbit device and response rate for the postprocedure recovery PROMs and disease-specific PROMs between patients in the bariatric surgery and atrial fibrillation ablation groups, using a p value \< 0.05 to denote statistical significance.||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91783169|NCT03436082|183446079|OTHER|We used Stata version 14.2 (StataCorp LP) to perform chi-square tests to compare syncing of the Fitbit device and response rate for the postprocedure recovery PROMs and disease-specific PROMs between patients in the bariatric surgery and atrial fibrillation ablation groups, using a p value \< 0.05 to denote statistical significance.||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
91783170|NCT02917642|183446081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the irrigation protocol used after the chemo-mechanical preparation does not influence the reduction of bacteria within the root canal system.||||0.04
91783171|NCT02917642|183446082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the irrigation protocol used after the chemo-mechanical preparation does not influence the reduction of endotoxin within the root canal system.||||0.94
91783172|NCT01864603|183446083|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17||||||Comparison of Phase 1 arms||1.17|0.77|
91783173|NCT01864603|183446084|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.75||||||||0.75|0.09|
91783174|NCT02136069|183446110|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-0.9||||0.8114||95.0|-8.7|6.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.83|-8.70|0.8114
91783175|NCT02136069|183446111|NON_INFERIORITY|with margin -12.5%|Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-12.0||||0.1293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-3.26||p-values are not multiplicity adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test was used to determine the nominal p-value.||||-3.26|-20.50|0.1293
91783176|NCT02136069|183446112|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-3.4||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|4.74||p-values are not multiplicity adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.74|-11.53|0.4056
91783177|NCT02136069|183446113|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-2.4||||0.4591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|4.14||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.14|-8.88|0.4591
91783178|NCT02136069|183446114|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|5.3||||0.4196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|18.13||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.13|-7.54|0.4196
91783179|NCT02136069|183446115|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-12.4||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.84|-2.66||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.66|-21.84|0.0118
91783180|NCT02136069|183446116|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-4.9||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|4.12||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.12|-13.76|0.2845
91783181|NCT02136069|183446117|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-6.3||||0.1234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.84||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.84|-14.30|0.1234
91783182|NCT02136069|183446118|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-5.0||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|2.94||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.94|-12.84|0.2168
91783183|NCT02136069|183446119|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-9.5||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|0.29||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.29|-19.06|0.0564
91783184|NCT02136069|183446120|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-6.0||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|2.7||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.70|-14.51|0.1729
91783185|NCT02136069|183446121|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-0.8||||0.8941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|10.68||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.68|-12.01|0.8941
91783186|NCT02136069|183446130|SUPERIORITY|Week 10|Difference in Adjusted Means|-3.1||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|4.3||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||4.3|-10.6|0.4106
91783187|NCT02136069|183446130|SUPERIORITY|Week 30|Difference in Adjusted Means|-5.7||||0.1434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|1.9||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-13.3|0.1434
91783188|NCT02136069|183446130|SUPERIORITY|Week 54|Difference in Adjusted Means|-6.1||||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|1.4||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||1.4|-13.6|0.1103
91783189|NCT04154189|183446150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.08||One-sided P value|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on Cox Proportional Hazard Model including treatment group as a factor and stratified by Age (less than \[\<\]18 years, more than or equal to \[\>=\]18 years) in interactive response technology (IRT). Efron method was used for ties.|||1.08|0.27|0.0396
91783190|NCT04154189|183446151|OTHER|Difference in PFS rates, and 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs): CI and p-value constructed using the difference of the 2 Kaplan-Meier PFS rates (4 months) and the 2 corresponding Greenwood standard errors.|Difference in Percentage|10.2||||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|31.1||One-sided P value|Kaplan-Meier Method|||||31.1|-10.6|0.1683
91783191|NCT04154189|183446153|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.62||Nominal p-value from stratified log-rank test adjusted for the randomization stratification factor, that is, age.|Stratified Log-rank One-sided Test||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox Proportional Hazard Model including treatment group as a factor and stratified by Age (\<18 years, \>=18 years) in IRT. Efron method was used for ties.|||1.62|0.53|0.3924
91783192|NCT04154189|183446154|OTHER|Difference and 95% CI: difference of 2 Kaplan-Meier OS-1y rates and corresponding Greenwood standard errors.|Difference in Percentage|-22.9||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|1.9||One-sided P value|Kaplan Meier Method|||||1.9|-47.6|0.0352
91783193|NCT04154189|183446155|OTHER|Difference calculated as Treatment Arm A: Lenvatinib + Ifosfamide + Etoposide minus Treatment Arm B: Ifosfamide + Etoposide. 2-sided 95% CI: Miettinen-Nurminen (Score) confidence limits, stratified by randomization stratification factor age (\<18 and \>=18 years).|Difference in Percentage|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.3||||||||22.3|-6.4|
91783194|NCT04154189|183446156|OTHER|Difference calculated as Treatment Arm A: Lenvatinib + Ifosfamide + Etoposide minus Treatment Arm B: Ifosfamide + Etoposide. 2-sided 95% CI: Miettinen-Nurminen (Score) confidence limits, stratified by randomization stratification factor age (\<18 and \>=18 years).|Difference in Percentage|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|20.0||||||||20.0|-10.3|
91783195|NCT01056016|183446162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.4|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percentage of patients with whom pediatrician in each group utilized each practice behavior at baseline and 6-months was computed. The reported statistical analysis did not account potential clustering due to the small number of practices in this study.||||=.003
91783196|NCT04758637|183446190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.59||The calculated p-value is 7.62E-10.|Zero-inflated Poisson mixed regression|Model estimates were used to derive estimated difference in difference value. Confidence intervals were bootstrapped using 1000 repetitions.||Null hypothesis is the difference in difference in estimated mean pill counts from the last week of baseline (week 26) to the last week of the intervention period (week 53) between control and non-fatal is 0.||13.59|2.4|0
91783197|NCT04758637|183446190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.65||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.14|-6.97||The calculated p-value is 2E-16.|Zero-inflated Poisson mixed regression|Model estimates were used to derive estimated difference in difference value. Confidence intervals were bootstrapped using 1000 repetitions.||Null hypothesis is the difference in difference in estimated means from the study start (week 0) to the study end (week 23) between control and fatal is 0.||-6.97|-25.14|0
91783198|NCT04758637|183446191|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.86|-0.43|0.219
91783199|NCT04758637|183446191|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.46|-1.9|0.229
91783200|NCT01354314|183446193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.893
91783201|NCT01354314|183446193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.594
91783202|NCT01354314|183446193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.712
91783203|NCT01354314|183446194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.673
91648776|NCT01455545|183190213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.037|||Regression, Logistic|||Ho = no differences in ASK-20 results between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Comparison of two means. Unilateral test. (1-alpha)=95%. Statistic power: 90%. Precision: 10. S square: 256. Sample size: 44. Sample size adjusted to losses: 46 patients.||1.037|0.962|0.967
91648777|NCT01455545|183190214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.018|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.018|0.985|0.861
91783204|NCT01354314|183446194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.153
91783205|NCT01354314|183446194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.282
91783206|NCT01354314|183446195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.327
91783207|NCT01354314|183446195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.178
91783208|NCT01354314|183446195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.480
91783209|NCT01354314|183446196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.267
91783210|NCT01354314|183446196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.368
91783211|NCT01354314|183446196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.672
91783212|NCT05019521|183446226|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0413||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.126|-0.010|0.9205
91783213|NCT05019521|183446226|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0425||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.086|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.055|-0.086|0.9205
91783214|NCT05019521|183446226|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0422||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.033|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.106|-0.033|0.9205
91783215|NCT02721966|183446255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"||7.01|2.72|<.0001
91783216|NCT02721966|183446255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"||6.10|2.41|<.0001
91783217|NCT02721966|183446256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"||7.01|2.72|<.0001
91783218|NCT02721966|183446257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|8.33|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|8.33|2.67|<.0001
91783219|NCT02721966|183446257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|9.84|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|9.84|3.20|<.0001
91783220|NCT02721966|183446258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|8.33|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|8.33|2.43|<.0001
91783221|NCT02721966|183446258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|10.21|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|10.21|3.04|<.0001
91783222|NCT02721966|183446259|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-9.7|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-9.7|-20.0|<.0001
91783223|NCT02721966|183446259|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-7.8|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-7.8|-18.0|<.0001
91790369|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.105||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.105|-0.285|0.363
91648778|NCT01455545|183190215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.625||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|3.739|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences in gender results between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tab Chi square||3.739|0.706|0.252
91648779|NCT01455545|183190216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Chi - square||||0.217
91648780|NCT01455545|183190217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.829|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi square||1.829|0.376|0.643
91783224|NCT02721966|183446260|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-9.7|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-9.7|-20.4|<.0001
91783225|NCT02721966|183446260|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-9.8|-20.3|<.0001
91783226|NCT02721966|183446261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline SPARCC index as continuous covariate.|0.1|-1.1|0.0971
91783227|NCT02721966|183446261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-0.1|-1.3|0.0207
91783228|NCT02721966|183446262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0502||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.076|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline HAQ-DI index as continuous covariate|-0.076|-0.273|0.0005
91783229|NCT02721966|183446262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0497|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|-0.136|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline HAQ-DI index as continuous covariate|-0.136|-0.331|<.0001
91783230|NCT02721966|183446263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.7|||ANCOVA|||week 12|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline FACIT Fatigue© score as continuous covariate|5.7|1.8|0.0002
91842869|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||||90.0|-0.03|0.077|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M36||0.077|-0.030|
91648781|NCT01455545|183190218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.556||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|1.253|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||1.253|0.247|0.155
91648782|NCT01455545|183190219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.763|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||1.763|0.020|0.107
91648783|NCT01455545|183190220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.849||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.541|2.219|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||2.219|1.541|0.196
91648784|NCT01455545|183190221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.135||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|15.91|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||15.91|0.618|0.150
91648785|NCT01455545|183190222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.096||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|2.441|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Comparison of two proportions. Unilateral test. (1-alpha)=95%. Proportion: 90%. Precision: 10%. Sample size: 35. Sample size adjusted to losses: 41 patients.||2.441|0.492|0.822
91648786|NCT01455545|183190223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91648787|NCT01455545|183190223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.038||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.065|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.065|1.012|0.005
91648788|NCT01455545|183190224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.799|||Regression, Logistic|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups.||0.799|0.153|0.013
91648789|NCT03276962|183190293|SUPERIORITY||Incremental vaccine efficacy|-21.0||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.0|7.0|||Regression, Cox|The 95% Confidence Interval of the incremental vaccine efficacy estimates was calculated from Cox regression model.||To demonstrate the superiority of a 3-dose schedule of GSK Biologicals' malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS01E with a fractional third dose at Month 2 (Fx012-14-mFxD Group) compared to a standard schedule of RTS,S/AS01E with 3 full doses (R012-20 + R012-14 Group) in terms of vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria (primary case definition) over 12 months post-Dose 3.||7|-57|0.154
91648790|NCT03056001|183190327|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.0333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0008|0.1722|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The reported severe or life-threatening adverse event rate with weekly doxorubicin and dacarbazine was 0.55. If it became evident that the rate of severe or life-threatening toxicity convincingly exceeded 0.55, the study would have been halted. Convincing evidence of exceeding 0.55 was based on Bayesian methods and continuous monitoring, where the stopping rule would have held enrollment if the posterior probability at any point exceeded 0.75 or higher.||0.1722|0.0008|
91648791|NCT03056001|183190328|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median OS (in years) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median overall survival.|||2.1|0.8|
91648792|NCT03056001|183190329|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|8.3|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||8.3|4.1|
91648793|NCT03056001|183190330|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.367|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|0.561|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.561|0.199|
91648794|NCT03056001|183190331|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|34.6|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median DoR (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median duration of response.|||34.6|2.8|
91783231|NCT02721966|183446263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.3|||ANCOVA|||week 12|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline FACIT Fatigue© score as continuous covariate|5.3|1.4|0.0007
91783232|NCT02721966|183446264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group,visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline ASAS health index as continuous covariate.|-0.9|-2.5|<.0001
91783233|NCT02721966|183446264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group,visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline ASAS health index as continuous covariate.|-0.9|-2.4|<.0001
91783234|NCT02721966|183446265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|9.95|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||"Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables.~Missing ACR20 response variables were imputed by multiple imputation approach"|9.95|3.31|<.0001
91783235|NCT02721966|183446265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|8.16|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||"Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables.~Missing ACR20 response variables were imputed by multiple imputation approach"|8.16|2.83|<.0001
91790370|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91648795|NCT03567239|183190379|OTHER|"The PIADS is broken into 3 subgroups - Competence, Adaptability, and Self-Esteem. The minimum possible score is -3 and the maximum possible score is 3 for each subgroup - with positive 3 being the best. The 7-Point Likert scale was used in response to the question The device provided increased my ability to … in relation to the custom need they had. A response of 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree."|||||||||||||||||Median values: Overall = 2.42, Competence = 2.58, Adaptability = 2.33, Self-Esteem = 2.00, Likert = 7|||
91648796|NCT03567239|183190380|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The NASA Task Load Index ranges from 1 to 21 with the lower the score the better.|Median vales: Overall = 4.83, Mental demand = 11, Physical demand = 4, Temporal demand = 6, Performance = 3, Effort = 3, Frustration = 5.|||
91783236|NCT02840461|183446275|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence of the Test product to the Reference product based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the PP population. If the confidence interval is within 80-125% for the primary endpoint, then the Test and Reference treatments are considered therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|103.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.95|110.0||||||||110.00|97.95|
91783237|NCT02840461|183446275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|-3.42|||ANOVA|||||-3.42|-16.24|0.0027
91783238|NCT02840461|183446275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|-3.4|||ANOVA|||||-3.40|-16.25|0.0028
91648797|NCT03567239|183190381|OTHER|Median QUEST scores: Overall = 4.33, Device = 4.38, Services = 4.25.||||||||||||||||The QUEST (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology) evaluates a patient's satisfaction with various assistive technologies. It has two subgroups, Device and Service on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best score.|Median QUEST scores: Overall = 4.33, Device = 4.38, Services = 4.25.|||
91783239|NCT02840461|183446276|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (with Yates correction) for the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test and Reference groups considered to be a clinical success was contained within the pre-defined equivalence limits \[-20%, +20%\], the therapeutic equivalence of the Test to Reference product was considered supported.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|14.2||||||||14.2|-2.7|
91783240|NCT04301193|183446290|OTHER||Correlation - R value|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Using standard techniques for estimating sample size, a Delong's test indicated that a total of 61 samples would be sufcient to detect a 0.2 increase in the AUROC from the null hypothesis 0.5, assuming an alpha level of 5% and 90% power \[12\]. The manuscript was referenced against the STROBE checklist for cohort studies. Descriptive statistics were used to present.||||<0.05
91783241|NCT04301193|183446290|OTHER||Correlation - R value|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91790371|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.093||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.093|-0.400|0.220
91790372|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790373|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.099||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.099|-0.386|0.245
91790374|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790375|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.178||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.178|-0.323|0.569
91790376|NCT02880956|183460061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790377|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.19||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.190|-0.177|0.945
91790378|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91783242|NCT04193189|183446342|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin (2-CpG minus 3-alum): -10%.|Common proportion difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.1|20.9|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Primary objective of Group A||20.9|4.1|
91842870|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.042|0.035|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height. Ext M36 (LOCF) based on data in the extension phase only.|Ext M36 LOCF||0.035|-0.042|
91783243|NCT04193189|183446342|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.4|26.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe repeated confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Primary objective of Group A||26.2|10.4|
91783244|NCT04193189|183446342|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|11.8|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Secondary objective of Group A||11.8|-0.2|
91783245|NCT04193189|183446344|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|18.1|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 4 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 8 in 2-CpG, Week 28 in 3-alum)||18.1|0.1|
91783246|NCT04193189|183446344|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.0|27.9|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 8 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 12 in 2-CpG, Week 32 in 3-alum)||27.9|10.0|
91783247|NCT04193189|183446344|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|17.7|37.2|||||Common SP proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 24 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 28 in 2-CpG, Week 48 in 3-alum)||37.2|17.7|
91783248|NCT04193189|183446344|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.3|42.3|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 48 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 52 in 2-CpG, Week 72 in 3-alum)||42.3|21.3|
91842871|NCT00136916|183567121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.023|0.062|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext FU M3||0.062|-0.023|
91783249|NCT04193189|183446344|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.5|32.3|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 3-alum at 8 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 32)||32.3|15.5|
91783250|NCT04193189|183446344|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.2|41.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 3-alum at 24 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 48)||41.2|23.2|
91783251|NCT04193189|183446344|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|38.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|28.9|48.1|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 3-alum at 48 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 72)||48.1|28.9|
91783252|NCT04193189|183446344|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.1|16.4|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 4 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 28 in 3-CpG, Week 8 in 2-CpG)||16.4|3.1|
91783253|NCT04193189|183446344|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|10.5|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 8 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 32 in 3-CpG, Week 12 in 2-CpG)||10.5|-0.8|
91783254|NCT04193189|183446344|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|11.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 24 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 48 in 3-CpG, Week 28 in 2-CpG)||11.2|-0.8|
91783255|NCT04193189|183446344|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7|14.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 48 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 72 in 3-CpG, Week 52 in 2-CpG)||14.2|0.7|
91783256|NCT03036215|183446365|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Pilot study, no power analysis applicable; no statistical test||||
91783257|NCT03036215|183446366|OTHER|pilot study; no statistical test performed|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Pilot study; no statistical test run||||
91783258|NCT03036215|183446367|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Pilot study; no statistical test for significance run||||
91783259|NCT01474239|183446378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was assessed with a one-sided alpha error of 10 percent (%).|Exact Binomial Test|||The 6-month OS rate (OS-6) for bevacizumab was compared to the expected proportion of 0.60 under null hypothesis (ineffective treatment) with the application of the exact binomial test. The one-tailed statistical hypotheses was p0 less than or equal to (≤) 0.60 (null hypothesis) versus pA greater than or equal to (≥) 0.77 (alternative hypothesis), where p is the estimated probability of survival at 6 months.||||0.4291
91783260|NCT01243242|183446394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093||95.0||||p value for the difference between groups in change from Screening to Termination was calculated using the median test for independent samples|Median|||For the primary endpoint (CAARS change), median test was applied as the primary analysis due to outlier numbers observed ; secondary analysis of the primary endpoint utilized ANCOVA with adjustment to age, gender and site (which is usually expected to influence the endpoint) as well as baseline values. Additional parametric T-test was applied, but was found less effective due to outlier values.||||0.0093
91783261|NCT01243242|183446395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195||95.0||||p value for the difference between groups in change from Screening to Termination was calculated using ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline score, gender, site and age|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was applied for comparing the differences in changes from screening/baseline (Visit 1) to termination (Visit 6) and to Visits 3 through 5 in the primary endpoint, CAARS, and secondary endpoint scales, CGI-S, TOVA and AAQoL between the study groups with adjustment to confounders (baseline score, site, age, gender, dose and past exposure to any other ADHD drug).||||0.0195
91842872|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||||90.0|-0.215|-0.023|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M3||-0.023|-0.215|
91783262|NCT01243242|183446396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093||95.0||||p value for the difference between groups in change from Screening to Termination was calculated using ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline score, gender, site and age.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was applied for comparing the differences in changes from screening/baseline (Visit 1) to termination (Visit 6) between the study groups with adjustment to confounders (baseline score, site, age, gender, dose and past exposure to any other ADHD drug).||||0.0093
91842873|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||||90.0|-0.133|0.087|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M6||0.087|-0.133|
91842874|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||||90.0|-0.104|0.124|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M9||0.124|-0.104|
91842875|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||||90.0|-0.033|0.214|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M12||0.214|-0.033|
91842876|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||||90.0|-0.081|0.185|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M15||0.185|-0.081|
91648798|NCT02766400|183190398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cohen's d effect size at 12 months|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.19||a priori threshold was set at p\<0.05|Linear mixed models|F(4,150)=5.11|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 12) and standard error of change (baseline to month 12) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||1.19|-0.12|<0.001
91709214|NCT01402986|183311364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.29|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||1.29|0.50|0.365
91783263|NCT03983317|183446398|OTHER|We tested if the average drinks consumed was statistically different in Week 2 of the Treatment Phase vs. the Baseline Phase. This was evaluated via a paired t-test.||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.026
91783264|NCT03983317|183446400|OTHER|We tested if the average craving intensity was statistically different in Week 2 of the Treatment Phase vs. the Baseline Phase. This was evaluated via a paired t-test.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.001
91783265|NCT00662675|183446403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The p-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline percent COA-fat as a covariate.||The power calculation was based on the assumption that the true mean difference between the active and the placebo group was 31.2% with a common standard deviation of 22.6% using a 2-sided, 2-sample, t-test with a 5% significance level.||||<0.001
91783266|NCT00662675|183446404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline percent COA-protein(nitrogen) as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91783267|NCT01256294|183446414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.09||||||||1.09|0.96|
91783268|NCT01256294|183446414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.02||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08||ANOVA model for the dose-normalized log transformed values with treatment, period and sequence as fixed factors and subjects nested within sequences as a random factor.|ANOVA|||To compare the bioavailability of generic tacrolimus to branded tacrolimus, the 90% confidence intervals of the ratios of geometric means of AUC0-12h were assessed relative to the interval \[80%, 125%\].||1.08|0.97|0.486
91783269|NCT01256294|183446419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Ratio of geometric means: Generic tacrolimus/Branded tacrolimus|||1.20|1.00|
91783270|NCT01256294|183446419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.09||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.18||ANOVA model for the dose-normalized log transformed values with treatment, period and sequence as fixed factors and subjects nested within sequences as a random factor.|ANOVA|||To compare the bioavailability of generic tacrolimus to branded tacrolimus, the 90% confidence intervals of the ratios of geometric means of Cmax were assessed relative to the interval \[80%, 125%\].||1.18|1.01|0.057
91783271|NCT01621802|183446455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses is ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|1.98|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-measles antibody concentration ≥ 200 mIU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 1 should be at least 94.04% (=100%- the sum of type II errors associated to cohort 1."||1.98|-0.72|
91783272|NCT01621802|183446455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_I group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in Seroresponse rate (%)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|2.97|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_I Group minus Com\_MMR\_I Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-Measles antibody concentration ≥ 200 mIU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 2 should be at least 98.88% (=100%- the sum of type II error associated to cohort 2."||2.97|0.02|
91783273|NCT01621802|183446456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|1.97|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥ 10 EU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 1 should be at least 94.04% (=100%- the sum of type II errors associated to cohort 1."||1.97|-0.72|
91783274|NCT01621802|183446456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_I group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in Seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|1.75|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_I Group minus Com\_MMR\_I Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥ 10 EU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 2 should be at least 98.88% (=100%- the sum of type II error associated to cohort 2."||1.75|-0.68|
91783275|NCT01621802|183446457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_CO group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.98|1.84|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 1 should be at least 94.04% (=100%- the sum of type II errors associated to cohort 1."||1.84|-0.98|
91783276|NCT01621802|183446457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_I group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|1.75|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_I Group minus Com\_MMR\_I Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 2 should be at least 98.88% (=100%- the sum of type II error associated to cohort 2."||1.75|-0.68|
91783277|NCT01621802|183446458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|1.06|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.06|0.92|
91783278|NCT01621802|183446458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_I group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.96|1.1|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration country - pooled variance|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.10|0.96|
91783279|NCT01621802|183446459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.0|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.00|0.83|
91783280|NCT01621802|183446459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_I group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.06|0.87|
91790379|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.178||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.178|-0.184|0.974
91783281|NCT01621802|183446460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.09|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|Adjusted geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by Com\_MMR\_CO group) for antibodies to rubella virus.||1.09|0.97|
91783282|NCT01621802|183446460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_I group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.07|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.07|0.95|
91783283|NCT04857320|183446481|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.6e-05|||||||ANOVA|Degrees of Freedom = 5||Glucose was monitored by means of a wearable Continuous Glucose Monitor for several days prior to, during and post dosing. Measurements were gathered for each subject and averaged within-subject data. Our null hypothesis was that post prandial serum glucose would not vary significantly from their baseline values.||||0.000016
91783284|NCT04857320|183446482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||Subject received doses applied to the skin of 0.075, 0.10 and 0.15 IUs / Kilogram on successive days. The Subject's average Serum Glucose for these 3 days were compared against the Subject's baseline unmedicated Serum Glucose on non-dosed days.||||0
91783285|NCT04857320|183446482|SUPERIORITY|||||||3e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Subject received doses applied to the skin of 0.075, 0.10 and 0.15 IUs / Kilogram on successive days. The Subject's average Serum Glucose for these 3 days were compared against the Subject's baseline unmedicated Serum Glucose on non-dosed days.||||0.000003
91783286|NCT04857320|183446482|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||||||0.000002
91783287|NCT04857320|183446482|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.5e-05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||||||0.000035
91783288|NCT04857320|183446482|SUPERIORITY|||||||4e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||||||0.000004
91783289|NCT04857320|183446483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||||||0
91783290|NCT01149148|183446487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.626||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.02||A prior threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||The difference between baseline and three months is (baseline - 3 month). The difference in control and intervention is (intervention - control), which in this case is (unblinded - blinded).|The goal was to determine whether cerebral oximetry monitoring during surgery affected cognitive outcomes. Cerebral Oximetry Monitoring unblinded (intervention), and Cerebral Oxymetry Monitoring blinded (control) were given Mini Mental State Exam prior to surgery and three months after surgery. The differences between baseline and 3 month were calculated and compared between the intervention and control groups using t-test.||2.02|-1.36|0.678
91783291|NCT02249832|183446497|EQUIVALENCE|A 3x3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group (mean gait speed in the low, moderate, and high groups) and time (admission, discharge (week 6), and follow-up (overall week 18) in each condition) as factors. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean gait speed over time across the three groups. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|||||<|0.001||||||A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91783292|NCT02249832|183446498|EQUIVALENCE|A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||A 3x3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group (mean gait speed in the low, moderate, and high groups) and time (admission, discharge (week 6), and follow-up (overall week 18) in each condition) as factors. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean gait speed over time across the three groups. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||<0.001
91783293|NCT02249832|183446499|EQUIVALENCE|A 3x3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group (mean distance walked in the low, moderate, and high groups) and time (admission, discharge (week 6), and follow-up (overall week 18) in each condition) as factors. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean gait speed over time across the three groups. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.001||||||A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91783294|NCT02914301|183446513|OTHER|We compared outcomes between study arms using t-tests for continuous outcomes.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91783295|NCT04881942|183446585|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|89.44||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.77|163.11|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham)|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||163.11|15.77|0.0184
91790380|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91783296|NCT04881942|183446585|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|195.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.01|269.38|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||269.38|122.01|<.0001
91783297|NCT04881942|183446585|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|168.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.17|242.5|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||242.50|95.17|<.0001
91783298|NCT04881942|183446585|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|182.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.63|256.67|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||256.67|108.63|<.0001
91783299|NCT04881942|183446588|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|5972.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4191.1|7753.6|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||7753.6|4191.1|<.0001
91783300|NCT04881942|183446588|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|6099.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4317.8|7881.2|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||7881.2|4317.8|<.0001
91783301|NCT04881942|183446588|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|6484.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4701.7|8267.6|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||8267.6|4701.7|<.0001
91783302|NCT04881942|183446588|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|5366.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3575.9|7157.7|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||7157.7|3575.9|<.0001
91842877|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||||90.0|-0.054|0.234|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M18||0.234|-0.054|
91842878|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||||90.0|-0.073|0.208|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M21||0.208|-0.073|
91842879|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||||90.0|-0.058|0.257|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M24||0.257|-0.058|
91842880|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||||90.0|-0.143|0.154|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|FU M3||0.154|-0.143|
91783303|NCT04881942|183446591|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|3.25|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0.|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||3.25|-2.92|0.9150
91783304|NCT04881942|183446591|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||3.40|-2.70|0.8217
91783305|NCT04881942|183446591|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|21.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.06|24.16|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0.|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||24.16|18.06|<.0001
91783306|NCT04881942|183446591|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|31.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.91|34.12|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||34.12|27.91|<.0001
91783307|NCT04881942|183446594|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|1678.4||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|592.14|2764.6|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||2764.6|592.14|.0031
91783308|NCT04881942|183446594|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|1199.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.74|2285.7|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||2285.7|113.74|.0310
91783309|NCT04881942|183446594|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|3354.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2266.6|4442.3|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||4442.3|2266.6|<.0001
91783310|NCT04881942|183446594|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|2511.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1416.1|3605.9|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||3605.9|1416.1|<.0001
91790381|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.181||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||||0.181|-0.190|0.963
91648799|NCT03593772|183190401|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.04819|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02482||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total POQ Score as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0535
91783311|NCT04881942|183446597|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.38|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0.|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.38|0.12|.0002
91783312|NCT04881942|183446597|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.38|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.38|0.12|0.0003
91783313|NCT04881942|183446597|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.47|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.47|0.21|<.0001
91783314|NCT04881942|183446597|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.43|0.17|<.0001
91783315|NCT04881942|183446604|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.039|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.039|0.031|<.0001
91783316|NCT04881942|183446604|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.038|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.038|0.030|<.0001
91783317|NCT04881942|183446604|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.044|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.044|0.036|<.0001
91790382|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91709215|NCT01402986|183311364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.68|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||1.68|0.56|0.922
91783318|NCT04881942|183446604|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.041|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.041|0.033|<.0001
91783319|NCT04881942|183446605|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.04|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.040|0.031|<.0001
91783320|NCT04881942|183446605|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.041|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.041|0.032|<.0001
91783321|NCT04881942|183446605|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.046|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.046|0.037|<.0001
91783322|NCT04881942|183446605|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.038|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.042|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.042|0.033|<.0001
91783323|NCT04881942|183446606|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.536|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|0.665|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.665|0.407|<.0001
91783324|NCT04881942|183446606|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.408|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.537|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.537|0.280|<.0001
91783325|NCT04881942|183446606|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.468|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.596|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.596|0.339|<.0001
91783326|NCT04881942|183446606|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.559|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.559|0.301|<.0001
91842881|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||||90.0|-0.119|0.19|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|FU M6||0.190|-0.119|
91648800|NCT03593772|183190401|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001826||0.3729|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Rating as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3729
91648801|NCT03593772|183190401|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007228||0.4124|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Mobility as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4124
91648802|NCT03593772|183190401|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009334||0.6442|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Activities of Daily Living as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test if the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6442
91842882|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.2|0.161|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M1||0.161|-0.200|
91842883|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.101|0.263|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M3||0.263|-0.101|
91842884|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||||90.0|-0.038|0.32|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M6||0.320|-0.038|
91842885|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||||90.0|-0.041|0.342|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M9||0.342|-0.041|
91842886|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||||90.0|-0.09|0.298|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M12||0.298|-0.090|
91842887|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||||90.0|-0.132|0.279|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M15||0.279|-0.132|
91842888|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||90.0|-0.111|0.284|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M18||0.284|-0.111|
91842889|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||||90.0|-0.141|0.27|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M21||0.270|-0.141|
91842890|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||||90.0|-0.156|0.249|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M24||0.249|-0.156|
91842891|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||||90.0|-0.138|0.272|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M27||0.272|-0.138|
91842892|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||||90.0|-0.171|0.264|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M30||0.264|-0.171|
91842893|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.319||||90.0|-3.92|23.569|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M33||23.569|-3.920|
91842894|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||||90.0|-0.316|0.337|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M36||0.337|-0.316|
91842895|NCT00136916|183567127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||||90.0|-0.245|0.292|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext FU M3||0.292|-0.245|
91842896|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.054||||90.0|-19.07|-5.71|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M3||-5.710|-19.07|
91842897|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.795||||90.0|-22.11|-6.312|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M6||-6.312|-22.11|
91783327|NCT04881942|183446608|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|277.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.62|341.96|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||341.96|213.62|<.0001
91783328|NCT04881942|183446608|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|241.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|176.99|305.64|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||305.64|176.99|<.0001
91783329|NCT04881942|183446608|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|248.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|184.01|312.43|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||312.43|184.01|<.0001
91783330|NCT04881942|183446608|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|257.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|193.58|322.26|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||322.26|193.58|<.0001
91783331|NCT04881942|183446609|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.223|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.915|2.58|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.580|1.915|<.0001
91783332|NCT04881942|183446609|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.203|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.897|2.557|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.557|1.897|<.0001
91783333|NCT04881942|183446609|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.101|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.439|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.439|1.810|<.0001
91783334|NCT04881942|183446609|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.052|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.767|2.382|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.382|1.767|<.0001
91842898|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||||90.0|-19.07|-2.852|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M12||-2.852|-19.07|
91842899|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.052||||90.0|-20.89|-4.232|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M24||-4.232|-20.89|
91783335|NCT04881942|183446610|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|709.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|549.19|870.54|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||870.54|549.19|<.0001
91842900|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.867||||90.0|-80.69|47.019|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|FU M3||47.019|-80.69|
91842901|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.173||||90.0|-9.257|14.412|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|FU M6||14.412|-9.257|
91842902|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.007||||90.0|-19.37|0.45|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M1||0.450|-19.37|
91648803|NCT03593772|183190401|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006436||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Vitality as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1641
91648804|NCT03593772|183190401|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.01952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009846||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Neg. Affect as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0487
91783336|NCT04881942|183446610|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|568.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|407.18|729.51|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||729.51|407.18|<.0001
91783337|NCT04881942|183446610|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|562.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|401.34|722.67|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||722.67|401.34|<.0001
91783338|NCT04881942|183446610|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|517.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|356.11|678.34|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||678.34|356.11|<.0001
91783339|NCT01147627|183446632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|108 patients in each group was needed to provide 90% power to detect non-inferiority of exenatide, shown by a mean difference of 0.4% in HbA1c change from baseline.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91783340|NCT03328208|183446640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.724|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91783341|NCT03328208|183446641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91783342|NCT03656380|183446693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
91783343|NCT03656380|183446694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
91783344|NCT03656380|183446695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
91842903|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.446||||90.0|-20.11|1.153|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M3||1.153|-20.11|
91783345|NCT03656380|183446696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91783346|NCT03656380|183446697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||\<15 eos/hpf||||<0.001
91783347|NCT03656380|183446697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||≤6 eos/hpf||||0.02
91783348|NCT03656380|183446697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||≤1 eos/hpf||||0.27
91783349|NCT03656380|183446698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91783350|NCT03656380|183446699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
91783351|NCT01727024|183446700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||0.451
91842904|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.785||||90.0|-21.95|0.438|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M6||0.438|-21.95|
91842905|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.154||||90.0|-16.98|3.328|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M9||3.328|-16.98|
91842906|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.192||||90.0|-19.15|4.579|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M12||4.579|-19.15|
91709216|NCT01402986|183311364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.11||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.84|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||1.84|0.67|0.685
91842907|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.848|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.219||||90.0|-13.76|10.066|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M15||10.066|-13.76|
91842908|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.156||||90.0|-20.83|2.79|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M18||2.790|-20.83|
91842909|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.217||||90.0|-18.99|4.834|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M21||4.834|-18.99|
91783352|NCT02028208|183446714|OTHER|Concordance between 0.40 mg/cm2 mercury and 1.0% ammoniated mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.67||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.67|0.08|
91783353|NCT02028208|183446714|OTHER|Concordance between 0.40 mercury and 0.5% elemental mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.99||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.99|0.35|
91783354|NCT02028208|183446714|OTHER|Concordance between 0.36 mg/cm2 mercury and 1.0% ammoniated mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.76|0.15|
91783355|NCT02028208|183446714|OTHER|Concordance between 0.36 mg/cm2 mercury and 0.5% elemental mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.93||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.93|0.21|
91783356|NCT02028208|183446714|OTHER|Concordance between 0.10 mg/cm2 palladium and 3.0% sodium tetrachloropalladate in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.9||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.90|0.05|
91783357|NCT02028208|183446714|OTHER|Concordance between 0.10 mg/cm2 palladium and 1.0% palladium chloride in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.68||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.68|0.10|
91842910|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.329||||90.0|-24.63|-0.429|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M24||-0.429|-24.63|
91783358|NCT02028208|183446714|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||Concordance between 0.30 mg/cm2 palladium and 3.0% sodium tetrachloropalladate in petrolatum||1.00|0.50|
91783359|NCT02028208|183446714|OTHER|Concordance between 0.30 mg/cm2 palladium and 1.0% palladium chloride in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.39||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.39|-0.02|
91783360|NCT02028208|183446714|OTHER|Concordance between 0.60 mg/cm2 palladium and 3.0% sodium tetrachloropalladate in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||1.00|0.50|
91783361|NCT02028208|183446714|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17||||Concordance between 0.60 mg/cm2 palladium and 1.0 palladium chloride in petrolatum||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.17|-0.05|
91783362|NCT03776812|183446783|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.22|0.56|0.3293
91842911|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.895||||90.0|-30.45|-7.685|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M27||-7.685|-30.45|
91842912|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.223||||90.0|-15.15|8.705|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M30||8.705|-15.15|
91842913|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.625||||90.0|-21.09|4.107|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M33||4.107|-21.09|
91842914|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.906||||90.0|-36.66|-7.105|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M36||-7.105|-36.66|
91783363|NCT03776812|183446783|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.98|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.98|0.44|0.0384
91783364|NCT02082119|183446812|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91783365|NCT00552188|183446814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline value||||0.34
91783366|NCT00552188|183446815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline||||0.15
91783367|NCT00243269|183446822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary analyses consisted of calculating means and standard deviations on nausea for the four study arms to generate an effect size estimate for a later R01. We also planned to use a 2 x 2 (i.e., two levels of expectancy CDs and two levels of expectancy handouts) full factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the efficacy of these two methods of expectancy enhancement in reducing Average Nausea as well as any interaction effects.||||0.932
91783368|NCT00243269|183446823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ANOVA to compare means of the four groups was used.||||0.84
91783369|NCT00856518|183446835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||||||EMST arm vs. Sham arm baseline MEP value comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.899
91783370|NCT00856518|183446835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression Test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response||||||0.946
91783371|NCT00856518|183446835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|EMST arm post vs. pre-MEP comparison||||||0.00042
91783372|NCT00856518|183446835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||Sham arm post vs. pre-MEP comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0019
91783373|NCT00856518|183446837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||EMST arm vs. Sham arm baseline total score and subscale score comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||> 0.05
91783374|NCT00856518|183446837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression Test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response for total score and all subscale scores except for Burden and Pharyngeal domains||||||> 0.05
91783375|NCT00856518|183446837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression Test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response in Burden domain||||||0.014
91783376|NCT00856518|183446837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response in Pharyngeal domain||||||0.022
91783377|NCT00856518|183446837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Sham arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison for the total SWAL-QOL score and subscale scores except for the Burden and Mental Health domains.|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||>0.05
91783378|NCT00856518|183446837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|Sham arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Burden domain||||||0.038
91783379|NCT00856518|183446837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|Sham arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Mental Health domain||||||0.031
91783380|NCT00856518|183446837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Burden domain||||||0.027
91783381|NCT00856518|183446837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Mental Health domain||||||0.016
91783382|NCT00856518|183446837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Pharyngeal domain||||||0.007
91783383|NCT00856518|183446837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Saliva domain||||||0.036
91783384|NCT00856518|183446837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Fear domain||||||0.004
91783385|NCT00856518|183446837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Total SWAL-QOL score||||||0.016
91783386|NCT02867384|183446838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
91648805|NCT03593772|183190401|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.0066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004644||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Fear as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1554
91648806|NCT03593772|183190402|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000863||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1924
91648807|NCT03593772|183190402|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.0019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001152||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Stress as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1002
91709217|NCT01402986|183311364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.7|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||1.70|0.66|0.813
91709218|NCT01402986|183311365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=150 cells/mcgL||1.22|0.56|0.335
91709219|NCT01402986|183311365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.41|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=150 cells/mcgL||1.41|0.54|0.586
91709220|NCT01402986|183311365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.36||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.52|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<150 cells/mcgL||2.52|0.73|0.331
91783387|NCT02105961|183446849|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.8||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.65|0.068
91783388|NCT02105961|183446849|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.8||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.65|0.034
91783389|NCT02105961|183446849|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.86||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period|||1.05|0.70|0.140
91783390|NCT02105961|183446849|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.86||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||1.05|0.70|0.140
91783391|NCT02105961|183446850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio(Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.82||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.04|0.64|0.140
91783392|NCT02105961|183446850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.82||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.04|0.64|0.103
91783393|NCT02105961|183446850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.77||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.97|0.60|0.140
91842915|NCT00136916|183567128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.77||||90.0|-19.16|9.812|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext FU M3||9.812|-19.16|
91783394|NCT02105961|183446850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.77||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.97|0.60|0.030
91648808|NCT03593772|183190402|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000996||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Tension as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7311
91648809|NCT03593772|183190403|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001716||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1622
91783395|NCT02105961|183446851|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.59||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.98||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.35|0.140
91783396|NCT02105961|183446851|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.59||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.98||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.35|0.042
91783397|NCT02105961|183446851|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.83||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.34||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||1.34|0.51|0.447
91783398|NCT02105961|183446851|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.83||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.34||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||1.34|0.51|0.447
91842916|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||||90.0|-0.416|0.299|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M3||0.299|-0.416|
91783399|NCT02105961|183446852|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.8||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.8||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-4.5|0.447
91783400|NCT02105961|183446852|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-4.5|0.180
91783401|NCT02105961|183446852|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.1||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.6||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.6|-2.8|0.926
91783402|NCT02105961|183446852|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.1||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.6||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.6|-2.8|0.926
91783403|NCT02105961|183446853|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.1||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.0|-2.3|0.926
91783404|NCT02105961|183446853|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.1||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.0|-2.3|0.055
91709221|NCT01402986|183311365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.41||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.71|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<150 cells/mcgL||2.71|0.73|0.311
91783405|NCT02105961|183446853|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.4||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-1.5|0.926
91783406|NCT02105961|183446853|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.4||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-1.5|0.547
91783407|NCT04380519|183446861|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.012||||0.434|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.88|||Hochberg adjustment was applied for p-values|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.880|0.434
91783408|NCT04380519|183446861|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.125||||0.073|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.989|||Hochberg adjustment was applied for p-values|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.989|0.073
91783409|NCT04380519|183446863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.019||||0.393|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.892|||unadjusted|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.892|0.393
91783410|NCT04380519|183446863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.098||||0.061|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.975|||unadjusted|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.975|0.061
91783411|NCT04380519|183446864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.44||||||||1.44|0.31|
91783412|NCT04380519|183446864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.89||||||||0.89|0.12|
91783413|NCT04380519|183446864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.49||||||||1.49|0.28|
91783414|NCT04380519|183446864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||||||||0.87|0.11|
91783415|NCT04380519|183446865|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.92||||||||5.92|0.93|
91783416|NCT04380519|183446865|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.09||||||||4.09|0.55|
91783417|NCT04380519|183446865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.81||||||||6.81|0.94|
91783418|NCT04380519|183446865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.46||||||||4.46|0.53|
91783419|NCT04173494|183446866|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|15.67||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|25.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.81|5.54|0.0095
91790383|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.154||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.154|-0.255|0.625
91790384|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91842917|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||||90.0|-1.224|-0.246|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M6||-0.246|-1.224|
91842918|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||||90.0|-1.251|-0.032|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M12||-0.032|-1.251|
91842919|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.464||||90.0|-2.12|-0.589|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M24||-0.589|-2.120|
91842920|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||||90.0|-2.086|-0.52|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|FU M3||-0.520|-2.086|
91842921|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596||||90.0|-2.539|-0.575|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|FU M6||-0.575|-2.539|
91842922|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||||90.0|-1.898|0.09|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M1||0.090|-1.898|
91842923|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.573||||90.0|-2.225|-0.334|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M3||-0.334|-2.225|
91842924|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.652||||90.0|-1.909|0.241|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M6||0.241|-1.909|
91842925|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||||90.0|-2.08|0.078|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M9||0.078|-2.080|
91709222|NCT01402986|183311365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.81||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.35|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||1.35|0.48|0.414
91842926|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.676||||90.0|-2.431|-0.2|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M12||-0.200|-2.431|
91842927|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696||||90.0|-2.661|-0.363|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M15||-0.363|-2.661|
91842928|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916||||90.0|-2.824|0.198|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M18||0.198|-2.824|
91842929|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.904||||90.0|-3.891|-0.907|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M21||-0.907|-3.891|
91842930|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788||||90.0|-2.867|-0.265|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M24||-0.265|-2.867|
91842931|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041||||90.0|-4.439|-1.001|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M27||-1.001|-4.439|
91842932|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||||90.0|-2.755|-0.047|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M30||-0.047|-2.755|
91842933|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.908||||90.0|-3.781|-0.782|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M33||-0.782|-3.781|
91842934|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305||||90.0|-4.932|-0.599|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M36||-0.599|-4.932|
91842935|NCT00136916|183567129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||||90.0|-3.12|-0.153|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext FU M3||-0.153|-3.120|
91842936|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||||90.0|-0.466|-0.037|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M3||-0.037|-0.466|
91842937|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||||90.0|-0.323|0.134|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M6||0.134|-0.323|
91842938|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||||90.0|-0.158|0.325|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M9||0.325|-0.158|
91842939|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||||90.0|-0.524|-0.009|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M12||-0.009|-0.524|
91842940|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||||90.0|-0.453|0.091|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M15||0.091|-0.453|
91842941|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||||90.0|-0.427|0.145|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M18||0.145|-0.427|
91842942|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||||90.0|-0.445|0.134|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M21||0.134|-0.445|
91842943|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||||90.0|-0.193|0.431|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M24||0.431|-0.193|
91842944|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||||90.0|0.322|0.911|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M1||0.911|0.322|
91842945|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||||90.0|0.051|0.657|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M3||0.657|0.051|
91842946|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||||90.0|0.011|0.626|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M6||0.626|0.011|
91842947|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||||90.0|-0.227|0.5|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M1||0.500|-0.227|
91842948|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||||90.0|-0.289|0.485|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M3||0.485|-0.289|
91842949|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||||90.0|-0.576|0.172|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M6||0.172|-0.576|
91842950|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||||90.0|-0.18|0.669|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M9||0.669|-0.180|
91842951|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||||90.0|-0.284|0.535|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M12||0.535|-0.284|
91842952|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||||90.0|-0.395|0.441|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M15||0.441|-0.395|
91842953|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||||90.0|-0.262|0.554|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M18||0.554|-0.262|
91842954|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||||90.0|-0.138|0.78|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M21||0.780|-0.138|
91842955|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||||90.0|-0.419|0.506|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M24||0.506|-0.419|
91842956|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||||90.0|-0.279|0.659|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M27||0.659|-0.279|
91842957|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||||90.0|-0.579|0.346|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M30||0.346|-0.579|
91842958|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||||90.0|-0.189|0.714|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M33||0.714|-0.189|
91842959|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||||90.0|-0.37|0.904|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M36||0.904|-0.370|
91842960|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||||90.0|-0.003|0.802|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height. Ext M36 (LOCF) based on data in the extension phase only.|Ext M36 LOCF||0.802|-0.003|
91842961|NCT00136916|183567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||||90.0|0.137|1.102|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext FU M3||1.102|0.137|
91842962|NCT01991197|183567145|SUPERIORITY||U value|43.5||||0.648|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.648
91842963|NCT01991197|183567148|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91842964|NCT01991197|183567151|SUPERIORITY||U|29.5||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
91842965|NCT01012973|183567161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|52.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A positive value shows Eylea showed a higher BCVA total score compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis of difference of Eylea minus Sham of 0 was tested. In the database close after Week 24, basis for primary efficacy evaluation, 56 Sham / 96 Eylea subjects were considered as week 24 completers.||52.1|24.4|<.0001
91842966|NCT01012973|183567162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|18.7||As primary efficacy evaluation was significant, and this p-value was below significance level of two-sided \<.05, the fixed sequence testing did continue with next secondary endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA, adjusting for region and baseline BCVA category as fixed factors.|The difference is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A positive value indicates Eylea showed a higher change in BCVA total score until week 24 compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis was equality in change from baseline to Week 24 in BCVA total letter score between Eylea and Sham. If primary efficacy was successful, secondary efficacy endpoints were tested in a pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure. Change in BCVA letter score was to be tested first in this sequence.||18.7|10.8|<.0001
91842967|NCT01012973|183567163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square (LS) means|-239.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.31|-192.53||As fixed sequence testing did reject nullhypothesis of change from baseline in BCVA until week 24, and this p-value was below significance level of two-sided \<.05, the fixed sequence testing did continue with next secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, stratified by region and baseline BCVA category, baseline central retinal thickness added as covariate.|The difference is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A negative value indicates Eylea showed a higher reduction in change in central retinal thickness until week 24 compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis was equality in change from baseline to Week 24 in central retinal thickness between Eylea and Sham. If primary efficacy was successful, secondary efficacy end points were to be tested in a pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure. Change in central retinal thickness was to be tested at second place in this sequence.||-192.53|-286.31|<.0001
91842968|NCT01012973|183567164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted Difference|-1.5||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.4||As fixed sequence testing did reject nullhypothesis of change from baseline in CRT until week 24, and this p-value was not below significance level of two-sided \<.05, the fixed sequence testing did end with this evaluation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by region and baseline BCVA category.||Nullhypothesis of no difference in development of neovascularizations between Eylea and Sham group was tested. (Any neovascularization)||4.4|-7.4|0.5947
91842969|NCT01012973|183567165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.8|||||As the fixed sequence of secondary endpoints stopped with proportion of neovascularizations developed until week 24, 95% confidence interval is only of descriptive nature.|||6.8|1.7|
91842970|NCT01012973|183567166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.09|||||As the fixed sequence of secondary endpoints stopped with proportion of neovascularizations developed until week 24, 95% confidence interval is only of descriptive nature.|||0.09|-0.002|
91842971|NCT02923895|183567170|SUPERIORITY|All statistical analyses were conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.128||From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-1.128|-1.500|<.0001
91842972|NCT00846742|183567174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Comparison of proportion of patients' complete response rate between HOD99 (NCT number: NCT00145600) and HOD08|Exact Binominal Test|||The proportion of patients' complete response rate was provided with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.0003
91842973|NCT00846742|183567179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.159|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure with a 1-year increase in age.|||1.159|0.810|0.732
91842974|NCT00846742|183567180|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure comparing males to females.|Male vs. Female, with Female as the reference level||0.000|0.000|<0.001
91842975|NCT00846742|183567181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|30101.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3329.573|272135.5|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure comparing Stage IIA to Stage IA.|Stage IIA vs. Stage IA, with Stage IA as the reference level||272135.500|3329.573|<0.001
91842976|NCT00846742|183567182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|34027.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4072.872|284291.6|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure comparing Classical (all combined) to Nodular Lymphocyte Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma.|Classical (all combined) vs. Nodular lymphocyte predominant, with Nodular lymphocyte predominant as the reference level||284291.600|4072.872|<0.001
91842977|NCT00846742|183567183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year EFS between HOD08 Participants and HOD99 Participants||||0.461
91842978|NCT00846742|183567183|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year OS between HOD08 Participants and HOD99 Participants||||1.000
91842979|NCT00846742|183567183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Gray's test|||Comparing the 2-year CI of Local Failure between HOD08 Participants and HOD99 Participants||||0.836
91842980|NCT00846742|183567185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year EFS between HOD08 - CR and HOD99 - CR||||0.384
91842981|NCT00846742|183567185|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year OS between HOD08 - CR and HOD99 - CR||||1.000
91842982|NCT00846742|183567185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||Gray's test|||Comparing the 2-year CI of Local Failure between HOD08 - CR and HOD99 - CR||||0.386
91842983|NCT00846742|183567186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year EFS of patients treated without and with RT||||0.986
91842984|NCT02341144|183567204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91842985|NCT02341144|183567205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91842986|NCT02341144|183567206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
91842987|NCT02341144|183567207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91648810|NCT03593772|183190403|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002052||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Activity as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2540
91842988|NCT02341144|183567208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91842989|NCT03257995|183567243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1861|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1293|0.2429|||ANOVA|||||0.2429|0.1293|<0.001
91842990|NCT03257995|183567243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1463|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0898|0.2029|||ANOVA|||||0.2029|0.0898|<0.001
91842991|NCT03257995|183567243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0942|0.0147|||ANOVA|||||0.0147|-0.0942|
91842992|NCT03257995|183567249|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.33|-0.83|0.823
91842993|NCT03257995|183567249|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.51|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.51|-0.82|0.801
91842994|NCT03257995|183567249|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.73|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.73|-0.50|0.984
91842995|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2177|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1482|0.2872|||ANOVA|||at 5 min||0.2872|0.1482|<0.001
91842996|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2724|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.3417|||ANOVA|||15min||0.3417|0.2030|<0.001
91842997|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.273|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2036|0.3423|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3423|0.2036|<0.001
91842998|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2609|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1915|0.3302|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3302|0.1915|<0.001
91842999|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.3188|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.3188|0.1800|<0.001
91843000|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2273|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1578|0.2968|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.2968|0.1578|<0.001
91843001|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2396|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1697|0.3096|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.3096|0.1697|<0.001
91843002|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1742|0.3144|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.3144|0.1742|<0.001
91843003|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1563|0.2997|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.2997|0.1563|<0.001
91843004|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1954|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1237|0.2671|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.2671|0.1237|<0.001
91843005|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2195|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1502|0.2889|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2889|0.1502|<0.001
91843006|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2684|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1988|0.338|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.3380|0.1988|<0.001
91843007|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2572|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1879|0.3266|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3266|0.1879|<0.001
91843008|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1656|0.304|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3040|0.1656|<0.001
91843009|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2546|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1852|0.3239|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.3239|0.1852|<0.001
91843010|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2322|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1627|0.3017|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.3017|0.1627|<0.001
91843011|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2324|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1627|0.302|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.3020|0.1627|<0.001
91843012|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1359|0.2755|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.2755|0.1359|<0.001
91843013|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1625|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0912|0.2337|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.2337|0.0912|<0.001
91843014|NCT03257995|183567250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1793|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.2505|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.2505|0.1080|<0.001
91843015|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.2|||ANOVA|||at 5 min||9.2|5.0|<.001
91843016|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|10.6|||ANOVA|||at 15 min||10.6|6.4|<.001
91843017|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|10.7|||ANOVA|||at 30||10.7|6.5|<0.001
91843018|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|10.1|||ANOVA|||at 1 hour||10.1|6.0|<0.001
91843019|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|9.7|||ANOVA|||at 2 hours||9.7|5.5|<0.001
91843020|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.1|||ANOVA|||at 4 hours||9.1|5.0|<0.001
91843021|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.4|||ANOVA|||at 8 hours||9.4|5.2|<0.001
91843022|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|9.7|||ANOVA|||at 12 hours||9.7|5.5|<0.001
91843023|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|9.1|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 15 min||9.1|4.8|<0.001
91843024|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|8.6|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 45 min||8.6|4.2|<0.001
91843025|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.2|||ANOVA|||at 5 min||9.2|5.0|<0.001
91843026|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|10.4|||ANOVA|||at 15 min||10.4|6.2|<0.001
91843027|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|10.2|||ANOVA|||at 30 min||10.2|6.0|<0.001
91843028|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|9.4|||ANOVA|||at 1 hour||9.4|5.3|<0.001
91843029|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|9.9|||ANOVA|||at 2 hours||9.9|5.7|<0.001
91843030|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.4|||ANOVA|||at 4 hours||9.4|5.2|<0.001
91843031|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|9.5|||ANOVA|||at 8 hours||9.5|5.3|<0.001
91843032|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|8.4|||ANOVA|||at 12 hours||8.4|4.2|<0.001
91843033|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.2|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 15 min||7.2|2.9|<0.001
91843034|NCT03257995|183567251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|8.0|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 45 min||8.0|3.7|<0.001
91843035|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1866|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1121|0.2611|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2611|0.1121|<0.001
91843036|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1506|0.2992|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.2992|0.1506|<0.001
91843037|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1661|0.3148|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3148|0.1661|<0.001
91843038|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2074|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.2817|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.2817|0.1330|<0.001
91843039|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1802|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1059|0.2545|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.2545|0.1059|<0.001
91843040|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1621|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0876|0.2366|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.2366|0.0876|<0.001
91843041|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1239|0.2742|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.2742|0.1239|<0.001
91843042|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1747|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0994|0.2501|||ANOVA|||12 hours||0.2501|0.0994|<0.001
91843043|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1856|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1081|0.2631|||ANOVA|||23 hours 15 min||0.2631|0.1081|<0.001
91843044|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1484|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0709|0.2259|||ANOVA|||23 hours 45 min||0.2259|0.0709|<0.001
91648811|NCT03593772|183190403|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002297||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Sleep as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0082
91648812|NCT03593772|183190403|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002378||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Mood as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0079
91648813|NCT03593772|183190403|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002367||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Stress as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1588
91843045|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1386|0.2873|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2873|0.1386|<0.001
91843046|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1426|0.292|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.2920|0.1426|<0.001
91843047|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2375|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1632|0.3118|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3118|0.1632|<0.001
91843048|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2013|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1272|0.2754|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.2754|0.1272|<0.001
91843049|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2005|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1262|0.2749|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.2749|0.1262|<0.001
91843050|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1946|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1201|0.2691|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.2691|0.1201|<0.001
91843051|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1937|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.2684|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.2684|0.1190|<0.001
91843052|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1619|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.2369|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.2369|0.0870|<0.001
91843053|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.2018|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.2018|0.0480|<0.001
91843054|NCT03257995|183567252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1546|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0777|0.2315|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.2315|0.0777|<0.001
91843055|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.0|||ANOVA|||5 min||7.0|3.1|<0.001
91843056|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|7.9|||ANOVA|||15 min||7.9|4|<0.001
91843057|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|8.5|||ANOVA|||30 min||8.5|4.6|<0.001
91843058|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.4|||ANOVA|||1 hour||7.4|3.5|<0.001
91843059|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.7|||ANOVA|||2 hour||6.7|2.8|<0.001
91783420|NCT04173494|183446867|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI) is greater than 0, MMB was to be declared non-inferior to DAN.|Non-inferiority difference|13.58||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|25.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Non-inferiority difference, defined as p(MMB) - (0.8) \*p(DAN) where p(MMB) is percentage of participants with TI status in MMB arm and p(DAN) is percentage of participants with TI status in DAN arm.|||25.30|1.86|0.0116
91783421|NCT04173494|183446868|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|33.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.59|43.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.51|22.59|< 0.0001
91783422|NCT04173494|183446869|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.22||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.43|||mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-2.43|-10.0|0.0014
91783423|NCT04173494|183446870|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|18.18||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.77|26.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.59|9.77|0.0011
91783424|NCT04173494|183446871|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|17.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|26.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.40|7.99|0.0012
91783425|NCT04173494|183446872|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|10.62||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|23.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.64|-2.40|0.1133
91783426|NCT04173494|183446875|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.778|||Anderson & Gill proportional means model|||||0.778|0.397|0.0006
91783427|NCT04173494|183446876|OTHER||Stratified CMH|-8.26||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|3.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.66|-20.18|0.1602
91783428|NCT04173494|183446877|OTHER||Stratified CMH|19.0||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.68|33.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||\>=1g/dL Increase in Hemoglobin response|||33.32|4.68|0.0124
91783429|NCT04173494|183446877|OTHER||Stratified CMH|15.68||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||\>=1.5g/dL Increase in Hemoglobin response|||28.90|2.47|0.0282
91783430|NCT04173494|183446877|OTHER||Stratified CMH|6.97||||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|19.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||\>=2g/dL Increase in Hemoglobin response|||19.35|-5.41|0.2844
91783431|NCT04173494|183446882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.572|||Log Rank|||||1.572|0.504|0.6879
91783432|NCT04173494|183446883|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.804||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.386|||Log Rank|||||1.386|0.466|0.4320
91783433|NCT04173494|183446884|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.0|||MMRM|||||0.00|-1.42|0.0513
91783434|NCT04173494|183446885|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.82||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.15|-2.48|||MMRM|||||-2.48|-19.15|0.0113
91783435|NCT04173494|183446886|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.31||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|4.11|||MMRM|||||4.11|-1.49|0.3570
91783436|NCT05300763|183446909|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.22|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.22|1.25|
91783437|NCT05300763|183446910|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided adjusted (96.25%) confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.25|1.18|3.41|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.41|1.18|
91783438|NCT05300763|183446911|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided adjusted (97.5 %) confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|3.64|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.64|1.30|
91783439|NCT05300763|183446912|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.02|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.02|1.04|
91783440|NCT01485172|183446913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|4.05||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.05|-3.41|0.864
91783441|NCT01485172|183446913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|1.9||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|-3.61|0.539
91783442|NCT01485172|183446913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.39||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-5.21|0.091
91783443|NCT01485172|183446913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|0.6||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-4.93|0.124
91783444|NCT01485172|183446913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|3.19||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.19|-5.04|0.658
91783445|NCT01485172|183446913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.439
91783446|NCT01485172|183446913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
91783447|NCT01485172|183446913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.060
91783448|NCT01485172|183446913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
91783449|NCT01485172|183446913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.407
91783450|NCT01485172|183446914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.003||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.98|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||9.98|0.40|0.397
91783451|NCT01485172|183446914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.242||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.4|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||6.40|0.79|0.131
91783452|NCT01485172|183446914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.515||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.92|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||9.92|1.25|0.018
91783453|NCT01485172|183446914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.607||||0.02||95.0|1.22|10.64|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||10.64|1.22|0.020
91783454|NCT01485172|183446914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.679||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.16|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||12.16|0.59|0.202
91783455|NCT01485172|183446915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.544||||0.662||95.0|0.22|10.84|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||10.84|0.22|0.662
91843060|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.3|||ANOVA|||4 hour||6.3|2.3|<0.001
91783456|NCT01485172|183446915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.485||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.55|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||5.55|0.40|0.557
91783457|NCT01485172|183446915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.855||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.72|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||6.72|0.51|0.347
91783458|NCT01485172|183446915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.776||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.38|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||6.38|0.49|0.379
91783459|NCT01485172|183446915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.194||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|7.63|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||7.63|0.19|0.851
91783460|NCT01485172|183446917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|7.03|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||7.03|0.36|0.540
91783461|NCT01485172|183446917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.473||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.47|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.47|0.49|0.494
91783462|NCT01485172|183446917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.391||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.06|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||7.06|0.81|0.115
91783463|NCT01485172|183446917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.55|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||8.55|1.02|0.045
91783464|NCT01485172|183446917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.506||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|10.9|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||10.90|0.58|0.221
91783465|NCT01485172|183446918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|5.93||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.93|-3.78|0.662
91783466|NCT01485172|183446918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|2.77||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.77|-4.63|0.621
91783467|NCT01485172|183446918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.01||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-6.50|0.150
91783468|NCT01485172|183446918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-0.04||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-7.43|0.048
91783469|NCT01485172|183446918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|4.35||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.35|-6.32|0.715
91783470|NCT01485172|183446919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.81||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|-0.46|0.158
91783471|NCT01485172|183446919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.76||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|-1.71|0.446
91783472|NCT01485172|183446919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.36||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-2.10|0.163
91843061|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||8 hour||7|3|<0.001
91843062|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.5|||ANOVA|||12 hour||6.5|2.5|<0.001
91843063|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||6.7|2.6|<0.001
91843064|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.2|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||6.2|2.0|<0.001
91843065|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||5 min||7.8|3.9|<0.001
91843066|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||15 min||7.8|3.9|<0.001
91843067|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|8.3|||ANOVA|||30 min||8.3|4.4|<0.001
91843068|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.5|||ANOVA|||1 hour||7.5|3.5|<0.001
91843069|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.4|||ANOVA|||2 hour||7.4|3.5|<0.001
91843070|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.0|||ANOVA|||4 hour||7.0|3.1|<0.001
91843071|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||8 hour||7.0|3.0|<0.001
91843072|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.2|||ANOVA|||12 hour||6.2|2.2|<0.001
91843073|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||5.0|1.0|0.004
91843074|NCT03257995|183567253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.1|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||6.1|2.1|<0.001
91843075|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0139|0.0359|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.0359|0.0139|<.001
91843076|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.044|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.0440|0.0220|<.001
91843077|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0306|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0197|0.0416|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.0416|0.0197|<0.001
91843078|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0324|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0214|0.0434|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.0434|0.0214|<0.001
91843079|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0338|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0228|0.0447|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.0447|0.0228|<0.001
91843080|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0325|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0215|0.0435|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.0435|0.0215|<0.001
91843081|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0311|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.0422|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.0422|0.0200|<0.001
91843082|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0359|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0248|0.047|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.0470|0.0248|<0.001
91843083|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0211|0.044|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.0440|0.0211|<0.001
91843084|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0301|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0187|0.0415|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.0415|0.0187|<0.001
91843085|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0222|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0113|0.0332|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.0332|0.0113|<0.001
91843086|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0344|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0234|0.0454|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.0454|0.0234|<0.001
91843087|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.0399|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.0399|0.0180|<0.001
91843088|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0169|0.0387|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.0387|0.0169|<0.001
91843089|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0338|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0228|0.0447|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.0447|0.0228|<0.001
91843090|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0168|0.0387|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.0387|0.0168|<0.001
91843091|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0316|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0206|0.0426|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.0426|0.0206|<0.001
91843092|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0285|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0175|0.0396|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.0396|0.0175|<0.001
91843093|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0281|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0167|0.0394|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.0394|0.0167|<0.001
91843094|NCT03257995|183567254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0266|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0152|0.0379|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.0379|0.0152|<0.001
91843095|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1059|0.2952|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2952|0.1059|<0.001
91843096|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2923|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1979|0.3867|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.3867|0.1979|<0.001
91843097|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2657|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1713|0.3601|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3601|0.1713|<0.001
91843098|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1808|0.3696|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3696|0.1808|<0.001
91843099|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2819|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1875|0.3763|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.3763|0.1875|<0.001
91843100|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1874|0.3766|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.3766|0.1874|<0.001
91843101|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2538|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1585|0.3492|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.3492|0.1585|<0.001
91843102|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1732|0.3643|||ANOVA|||12 hours||0.3643|0.1732|<0.001
91843103|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2453|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1473|0.3434|||ANOVA|||23 hours 15 min||0.3434|0.1473|<0.001
91843104|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1862|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0882|0.2842|||ANOVA|||23 hours 45 min||0.2842|0.0882|<0.001
91843105|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1956|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1012|0.2899|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2899|0.1012|<0.001
91843106|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2927|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1979|0.3875|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.3875|0.1979|<0.001
91783473|NCT01485172|183446919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.25||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-2.27|0.117
91783474|NCT01485172|183446919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.2||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|-2.67|0.456
91783475|NCT01485172|183446920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|5.5||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.50|-4.38|0.823
91783476|NCT01485172|183446920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.68||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.68|-4.86|0.568
91783477|NCT01485172|183446920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|0.63||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-7.01|0.101
91783478|NCT01485172|183446920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.18||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-7.70|0.040
91783479|NCT01485172|183446920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|4.77||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.77|-6.08|0.811
91783480|NCT01485172|183446921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.08||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.86|0.102
91783481|NCT01485172|183446921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.41|0.723
91783482|NCT01485172|183446921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.66|0.084
91783483|NCT01485172|183446921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.42|0.697
91783484|NCT01485172|183446921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.97||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|-0.06|0.086
91783485|NCT01485172|183446922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.769||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.49|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.49|0.17|0.733
91783486|NCT01485172|183446922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.411||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.02|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.02|0.50|0.519
91783487|NCT01485172|183446922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.204||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|12.07|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||12.07|1.46|0.008
91783488|NCT01485172|183446922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.456||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|15.46|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||15.46|1.93|0.001
91783489|NCT01485172|183446922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.281||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|5.98|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||5.98|0.27|0.752
91783490|NCT03051178|183446930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||All post-hoc comparisons were Bonferroni corrected.|ANOVA|||TRS scores measured across different stimulation conditions were assessed using a mixed model ANOVA with the participant as a random effect. All post-hoc comparisons were Bonferroni corrected.||||<0.01
91783491|NCT00048074|183446941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The IV dosing regimen (2mg q 2 mo IV) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.257|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.814|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the IV regimen (2mg q 2 mo IV) and the active-control.|The primary hypothesis was that the difference in the effects of daily oral ibandronate and IV ibandronate (2mg q 2 mo IV) on the relative change in lumbar spine BMD (L2 - L4) was small, no more than 1%, the margin of clinical equivalence.||1.814|0.701|<0.001
91783492|NCT00048074|183446941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The IV dosing regimen (3mg q 3 mo IV) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.578|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the IV regimen (3mg q 3 mo IV) and the active-control.|The primary hypothesis was that the difference in the effects of daily oral ibandronate and IV ibandronate (3mg q 3 mo IV) on the relative change in lumbar spine BMD (L2 - L4) was small, no more than 1%, the margin of clinical equivalence.||1.578|0.471|<0.001
91783493|NCT02395081|183446960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||SBP wk 16-20|ANOVA|||||||0.70
91783494|NCT02395081|183446962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
91783495|NCT02395081|183446963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
91783496|NCT02395081|183446965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
91783497|NCT02395081|183446966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
91783498|NCT02395081|183446967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
91783499|NCT02395081|183446968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
91783500|NCT02395081|183446969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
91783501|NCT02395081|183446970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
91783502|NCT00356304|183446981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
91783503|NCT02504216|183446985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||Log Rank|P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.||IxRS: Interactive web/voice response system||0.96|0.76|=0.0043
91843107|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2723|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.3667|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3667|0.1780|<0.001
91843108|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2386|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1445|0.3328|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3328|0.1445|<0.001
91843109|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2986|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2042|0.393|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.3930|0.2042|<0.001
91648814|NCT03593772|183190404|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01379||0.4808|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PCL-5 Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4808
91709223|NCT01402986|183311365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.36|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||2.36|0.68|0.463
91709224|NCT01402986|183311365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.68|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||1.68|0.67|0.793
91783504|NCT02504216|183446986|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||=|0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.1|||Log Rank|P-value (2-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.||||2.10|0.97|=0.0695
91783505|NCT02504216|183446987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.71|=0.0004
91783506|NCT02504216|183446988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.99|0.79|=0.0140
91783507|NCT02504216|183446989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.85|0.62|<0.0001
91783508|NCT02504216|183446990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||=|0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.99|0.79|=0.0145
91783509|NCT02504216|183446991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.96|0.76|=0.0051
91783510|NCT02504216|183446992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.27||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||1.27|0.92|=0.8322
91783511|NCT02504216|183446993|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||=|0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.0||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||1.00|0.37|=0.0235
91783512|NCT02504216|183446994|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||=|0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.84|||Log Rank|||||1.84|1.10|=0.0068
91783513|NCT02504216|183446995|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||=|0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.76|||Log Rank|||||1.76|0.95|=0.0979
91783514|NCT03237286|183447023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0004
91783515|NCT00104520|183447063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||0.0||||Analysis based on 2-sided test with 0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||H0: no difference between AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in time to need for inhaled or IV antibiotics. Assuming 2-sided significance level of 0.05, \~210 subjects (70 in each AZLI group, 35 in each placebo group) provided \>90% power to reject null hypothesis based on Lakatos normal approximation method with weights being one. Therefore, 250 subjects were to be randomized at Visit 2 (Day -28) to ensure at least 210 participants entered double-blind treatment period at Day 0.||||0.0070
91783516|NCT00104520|183447064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.01||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.21||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and baseline value.||Null hypothesis was there is no difference between 75 mg AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS scores.||9.21|0.81|0.0196
91783517|NCT00104520|183447065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.28||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.06||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and baseline value.||Null hypothesis was there is no difference between 75 mg AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in percent change from baseline in FEV1 (L).||10.060|2.500|0.0012
91783518|NCT00104520|183447067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.659||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|-0.193|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and baseline highest MIC of aztreonam for PA (\<=2, 4-8, 16-128 or \>=256 μg/mL) value.||Null hypothesis was there is no difference between 75 mg AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in mean change from baseline in log10 PA CFUs in sputum.||-0.193|-1.125|0.0059
91783519|NCT03523988|183447085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups with jaw at rest.|ANOVA|||||||0.04
91783520|NCT03523988|183447085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while lightly biting.|ANOVA|||||||0.63
91843110|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2661|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1715|0.3607|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.3607|0.1715|<0.001
91843111|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2558|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1609|0.3506|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.3506|0.1609|<0.001
91899099|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.1239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|3.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||3.0|-24.8|0.1239
91783521|NCT03523988|183447085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while chewing paraffin wax.|ANOVA|||||||0.41
91783522|NCT03523988|183447086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups with jaw at rest.|ANOVA|||||||0.65
91783523|NCT03523988|183447086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while lightly biting.|ANOVA|||||||0.82
91783524|NCT03523988|183447086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while chewing paraffin wax.|ANOVA|||||||0.69
91783525|NCT03523988|183447087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups with jaw at rest.|ANOVA|||||||0.53
91783526|NCT03523988|183447087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while lightly biting.|ANOVA|||||||0.31
91843112|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1987|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1036|0.2938|||ANOVA|||12 hours||0.2938|0.1036|<0.001
91843113|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2044|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1071|0.3017|||ANOVA|||23 hours 15 min||0.3017|0.1071|<0.001
91843114|NCT03257995|183567255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1997|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1023|0.297|||ANOVA|||23 hours 45 min||0.2970|0.1023|<0.001
91843115|NCT03257995|183567256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2476|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1857|0.3095|||ANOVA|||||0.3095|0.1857|<.001
91843116|NCT03257995|183567256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2448|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|0.3066|||ANOVA|||||0.3066|0.1830|<.001
91843117|NCT03257995|183567256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0647|0.059|||ANOVA|||||0.0590|-0.0647|
91899100|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.3647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||7.6|-20.7|0.3647
91783527|NCT03523988|183447087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while chewing paraffin wax.|ANOVA|||||||0.37
91783528|NCT00806819|183447155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||0.99|0.70|0.0435
91783529|NCT00806819|183447156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.21|0.85|0.8940
91783530|NCT00806819|183447157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||1.00|0.70|0.0506
91783531|NCT00806819|183447158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.02|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||1.02|0.73|0.0865
91783532|NCT00806819|183447159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.85||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||1.85|0.65|0.7279
91783533|NCT00806819|183447159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.76||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||1.76|0.75|0.5180
91783534|NCT00806819|183447162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.85||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||1.85|1.02|0.0387
91783535|NCT00806819|183447162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.75||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on investigator's assessment||1.75|0.95|0.1071
91783536|NCT00806819|183447164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the central independent review||||0.1558
91783537|NCT00806819|183447164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||||0.0565
91783538|NCT00806819|183447165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.16|0.74|0.5068
91783539|NCT00806819|183447166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of cough. HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||1.05|0.66|0.1181
91783540|NCT00806819|183447166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of dyspnoea. HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.12|0.77|0.4264
91783541|NCT00806819|183447166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.23|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of pain. HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>= 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.23|0.84|0.8929
91783542|NCT00912197|183447202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.135
91783543|NCT00912197|183447203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.688
91783544|NCT00912197|183447204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||after treatment, 56 days||||0.715
91783545|NCT00912197|183447205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.578
91783546|NCT00912197|183447205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to after treatment, at 56 days||||0.007
91783547|NCT00912197|183447205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to after treatment, at 56 days||||0.05
91783548|NCT00912197|183447209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|||Acetate||||0.024
91783549|NCT00756613|183447214|EQUIVALENCE|We considered a 20% reduction in primary events to be a reasonable goal of intensive glycemic control over the anticipated 15-year study time period. This effect size was chosen by taking into consideration both the probability of observing an effect of that size given the level of achieved A1c separation, and the perceived value to the patient of this level of benefit relative to the risk and burden of intensive glycemic control.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||To determine the long term effects of intensive glycemic control in type 2 diabetes on major cardiovascular events.||1.06|0.78|0.24
91783550|NCT00756613|183447215|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is expected 20% reduction for the intensive treatment group compared to the standard treatment group.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.88|0.81
91783551|NCT00756613|183447216|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 20% reduction of intensive treatment group versus standard treatment group.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.67|0.48
91783552|NCT00756613|183447218|EQUIVALENCE|T-test comparing between the two groups of treatment using the average score of last two surveys.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.172
91843118|NCT03257995|183567257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.11|||ANOVA|||||0.11|-0.73|0.009
91783553|NCT03801044|183447227|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91783554|NCT04901715|183447243|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91783555|NCT04901715|183447243|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.054
91783556|NCT04901715|183447243|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
91783557|NCT04901715|183447244|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.014
91783558|NCT04901715|183447244|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.066
91783559|NCT04901715|183447244|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
91783560|NCT00147069|183447287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
91783561|NCT00147069|183447288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The reported p value was calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
91783562|NCT00147069|183447289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
91783563|NCT00147069|183447290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
91783564|NCT00122980|183447297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Based on pilot data, the efficacy of hydroxyurea to reduce secondary stroke rate was not predicted to be equivalent to transfusions. Therefore, an increased stroke rate (non-inferiority margin = 0.20) was allowed by study design. This acceptable stroke margin was predicted to be offset by the likelihood of significantly greater improvement in the management of iron overload through elimination of transfusions along with serial phlebotomy in the Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy arm."||||||0.214||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Concluding that Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy group is better than the Transfusion/Chelation group required rejecting the STROKE null hypothesis in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy recurrent stroke rate is less than Transfusion/Chelation rate plus 0.20, the non-inferiority margin, AND rejecting the IRON null hypothesis in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy baseline-adjusted mean LIC is less than for Transfusion/Chelation (see next primary endpoint analysis).||||0.214
91783565|NCT00122980|183447298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||The a priori defined LOCF approach was deemed to be biased due to the study's early termination, and was replaced by this mixed models analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Including main effects of age at consent, baseline iron, and treatment group, on observed change from baseline Log10 transformed values only.||Concluding that Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy group is better than the Transfusion/Chelation group required rejecting the STROKE null hypothesis (see previous primary endpoint analysis) in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy recurrent stroke rate is less than Transfusion/Chelation rate plus 0.20 AND rejecting the IRON null hypothesis in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy baseline-adjusted mean log10 transformed LIC is less than for Transfusion/Chelation.||||0.144
91843119|NCT03257995|183567257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.11|||ANOVA|||||0.11|-0.73|0.008
91843120|NCT03257995|183567258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|40.3|||ANOVA|||||40.3|25.6|<0.001
91843121|NCT03257995|183567258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|38.2|||ANOVA|||||38.2|23.5|<0.001
91783566|NCT00122980|183447299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|The change-from-baseline scores for each scale were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum, testing the hypothesis that the average change from baseline scores do not differ between the treatment groups.||||>0.05
91783567|NCT00122980|183447300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|The change-from-baseline scores for each scale were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||||>0.05
91783568|NCT00122980|183447301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The change-from-baseline to endpoint scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||||0.841
91783569|NCT00122980|183447302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum, testing the hypothesis that the average change from baseline scores do not differ between the treatment groups.||||>0.05
91783570|NCT00122980|183447303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum, testing the hypothesis that the average change from baseline scores do not differ between the treatment groups.||||0.039
91783571|NCT00122980|183447304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis controlling for baseline value and time on study.||||||0.033
91783572|NCT00122980|183447305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline value and time on study||||||<0.01
91783573|NCT00459732|183447306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
91843122|NCT01374802|183567302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.36|131.13|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Faldaprevir+DRV/r : DRV/r) of Darunavir||131.13|101.36|
91783574|NCT00459732|183447307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.44
91783575|NCT00459732|183447308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance adjusted for baseline osteocalcin level.||||||0.16
91783576|NCT00724711|183447318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"This study was designed to show noninferiority (change of \< 12%) in regard of proportions of responders (TLOVR) at Week 48.~With 170 subjects in each group, the lower limit of observed one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was expected to be greater than -0.120 with 80% power when the proportion of responders in both treatment groups is 0.820 (82%) at Week 48.~312 subjects were enrolled, representing 8% less than planned (n = 340). As a result, power to claim non-inferiority decreased to 78%."|Difference in percentages between groups|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|11.2|||Inverted two one-sided tests|Inverted two one-sided tests with the standardized statistic||"Null hypothesis: The TVD group is at least 12% worse than the ABC/3TC group with respect to the percentage of subjects maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL through Week 48 (responder rate, as defined by the TLOVR algorithm)~Alternative hypothesis: The TVD group is less than 12% worse than the ABC/3TC group with respect to the percentage of subjects maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL through Week 48 (responder rate, as defined by the TLOVR algorithm)"||11.2|-5.1|
91783577|NCT00535288|183447374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.2|-2.2|<0.01
91783578|NCT00535288|183447374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.7||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.7|-2.7|<0.01
91843123|NCT01374802|183567303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|87.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.609|112.63|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Faldaprevir+DRV/r : DRV/r) of Darunavir||112.630|68.609|
91843124|NCT01374802|183567304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|128.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.724|142.489|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Faldaprevir+DRV/r : DRV/r) of Darunavir||142.489|115.724|
91843125|NCT01370603|183567311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence was declared if the 97.5% expanded confidence interval for the mean difference between the fixed-dose combination and co-administration in percent change from baseline was contained within ±4%.|Difference in Least-squares means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|1.4|||ANCOVA|||It was anticipated that 85% of the enrolled participants would be evaluable to achieve 95% power in order to establish equivalence between the Ezetimibe/Atorvastatin Fixed Dose Combination and the co-administration of Ezetimibe and Atorvastatin with respect to percent change from baseline in LDL-C after 6 weeks of treatment using two one-sided tests each at 2.5% α-level, assuming the underlying true treatment difference is ±1.08% and that the standard deviation of the difference is 12.8%.||1.4|-1.9|
91843126|NCT01370603|183567312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.4|
91843127|NCT01370603|183567313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.8|
91843128|NCT01370603|183567314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.7|
91843129|NCT01370603|183567315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.9|
91899101|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|16.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||16.0|-12.5|0.8056
91899102|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||2.6|-26.4|0.1079
91899103|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|8.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||8.6|-20.6|0.4174
91899104|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|12.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||12.6|-16.7|0.7815
91843130|NCT01370603|183567316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.9|4.9|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||4.9|-4.9|
91843131|NCT05220501|183567329|NON_INFERIORITY|The justification of the noninferiority margin is based on review of 11 studies reporting on the benefit of multiparametric MRI-directed biopsy over systematic biopsy. The differences between the multiparametric MRI-directed biopsy and systematic biopsy were tabulated and found to range from 5%to 18%. Panel selected 10% noninferiority and a 1-sided α of .025 as a reasonable threshold that would demonstrate clinically similar outcomes.|||||<|0.001|||||||Jeffreys interval|||||||<0.001
91843132|NCT00802841|183567332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3106
91843133|NCT01268059|183567341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.205||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5|||Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio and its 95 percent (%) confidence interval ( CIs) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|||4.5|1.1|0.027
91843134|NCT01268059|183567343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.487||||||The 2-sided p-value was calculated by adjusting for the stratification factors histology, disease stage, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment effect Carboplatin/Paclitaxel + MEDI-575 versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel.||||0.487
91843135|NCT01268059|183567343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386||||||The 2-sided p-value was calculated by adjusting for the stratification factors histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment effect Carboplatin/Paclitaxel + MEDI-575 versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel.||||0.386
91843136|NCT01268059|183567346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.4|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||7.4|1.2|
91843137|NCT01268059|183567346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.3|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||4.3|0.3|
91899105|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||1.6|-27.0|0.0802
91648815|NCT03593772|183190405|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00856||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Physical Health Domain Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9692
91783579|NCT00535288|183447374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.4|-2.4|<0.01
91783580|NCT00535288|183447374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.9|-2.9|<0.01
91783581|NCT00535288|183447375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.01|-0.12|<0.01
91783582|NCT00535288|183447375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.06||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.01|-0.11|0.02
91783583|NCT00535288|183447375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.02||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.02|-0.13|<0.01
91783584|NCT00535288|183447375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.08|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.03||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.03|-0.14|<0.01
91783585|NCT00535288|183447376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||0.1|-2.1|0.08
91783586|NCT00535288|183447376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.5|-2.7|<0.01
91843138|NCT01268059|183567347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||2.4|0.7|
91648816|NCT03593772|183190405|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.01738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007848||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Mental Health Domain Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0277
91783587|NCT00535288|183447376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.4|-2.7|<0.01
91783588|NCT00535288|183447376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.9||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.9|-3.1|<0.01
91843139|NCT01268059|183567347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.8|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||10.8|0.4|
91843140|NCT03660943|183567360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.27|-4.42|0.0833
91843141|NCT03660943|183567361|SUPERIORITY|The number of NPRS subjects differed from the WOMAC outcomes because of differences in missing data.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.07|-0.91|0.0935
91843142|NCT03660943|183567362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.23|-2.22|0.0163
91843143|NCT03660943|183567363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.076||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.01|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.03|-16.01|0.0509
91843144|NCT03699124|183567364|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two lot groups is demonstrated if the confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs lies within the interval \[½, 2\]. For the trial to be successful, all three lot group comparisons must be equivalent by this definition.|GMT Ratio|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.073||||||||1.073|0.816|
91843145|NCT03699124|183567364|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two lot groups is demonstrated if the confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs lies within the interval \[½, 2\]. For the trial to be successful, all three lot group comparisons must be equivalent by this definition.|GMT Ratio|1.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.287||||||||1.287|0.967|
91843146|NCT03699124|183567364|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two lot groups is demonstrated if the confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs lies within the interval \[½, 2\]. For the trial to be successful, all three lot group comparisons must be equivalent by this definition.|GMT Ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.191||||||||1.191|0.915|
91843147|NCT00688259|183567421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.30
91843148|NCT00688259|183567422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.09
91843149|NCT00688259|183567423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.46
91843150|NCT00688259|183567424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.55
91843151|NCT00688259|183567425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.50
91843152|NCT00688259|183567426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
91843153|NCT01058863|183567432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.42||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||1.42|0.88|<0.0001
91843154|NCT01058863|183567432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.24||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||1.24|0.70|<0.0001
91843155|NCT01058863|183567432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.35||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level..||1.35|0.81|<0.0001
91783589|NCT00535288|183447379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.06||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||0.00|-0.12|0.07
91648817|NCT03593772|183190406|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003253||0.5642|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total PSQI Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.5642
91709225|NCT01402986|183311365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.77||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.22|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||1.22|0.49|0.264
91783590|NCT00535288|183447379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.05||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||0.02|-0.11|0.24
91783591|NCT00535288|183447379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.04||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||0.02|-0.11|0.29
91648818|NCT03593772|183190406|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00079||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Subjective Sleep Quality Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2438
91899106|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||3.6|-25.9|0.1386
91899107|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|9.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||9.6|-19.2|0.5101
91783592|NCT00535288|183447379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.07||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.01|-0.14|0.02
91783593|NCT04643158|183447398|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0236||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1934|0.2406|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2406|-0.1934|0.828
91783594|NCT04643158|183447398|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.196||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0143|0.3778|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3778|0.0143|0.035
91709226|NCT01402986|183311366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.66||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.32|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||1.32|0.33|0.245
91783595|NCT04643158|183447418|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|-38.31||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.11|31.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analyses were done on the natural log scale and the results were back-transformed to linear scale.|||31.72|-71.11|0.202
91783596|NCT04643158|183447418|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|-15.43||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.57|60.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analyses were done on the natural log scale and the results were back-transformed to linear scale.|||60.96|-55.57|0.596
91783597|NCT02197078|183447424|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03||||||||1.03|0.66|
91783598|NCT02197078|183447424|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.1||||||||1.10|0.65|
91783599|NCT02197078|183447424|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86||||||||0.86|0.49|
91783600|NCT02197078|183447424|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||||||||1.10|0.83|
91783601|NCT02197078|183447424|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19||||||||1.19|0.85|
91783602|NCT02197078|183447424|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96||||||||0.96|0.66|
91783603|NCT02197078|183447425|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.23||||||||1.23|0.66|
91851678|NCT05382104|183586942|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for differences between Treatment C versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|87.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.87|90.96|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment C / Treatment A).|||90.96|83.87|
91709227|NCT01402986|183311366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.54|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||1.54|0.37|0.438
91709228|NCT01402986|183311366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.57|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.57|0.66|0.947
91783604|NCT02197078|183447425|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16||||||||1.16|0.57|
91648819|NCT03593772|183190406|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000885||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep latency Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7317
91709229|NCT01402986|183311366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.59|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.59|0.59|0.916
91843156|NCT01058863|183567432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||1.15|0.61|<0.0001
91843157|NCT01058863|183567433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.21|40.74||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||40.74|26.21|<0.0001
91843158|NCT01058863|183567433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.686|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.47|34.99||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||34.99|20.47|<0.001
91843159|NCT01058863|183567433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.686|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.84|40.35||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||40.35|25.84|<0.0001
91843160|NCT01058863|183567433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|32.85||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||32.85|18.36|<0.0001
91843161|NCT03786094|183567457|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.85|1.41|||t-test, 2 sided||HR and associated 2-sided 96% CI are estimated by a Cox proportional hazards model stratified for randomization stratification factors including a fixed effect term for treatment arm.|||1.41|0.85|0.4450
91843162|NCT03786094|183567458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.81|1.41|||t-test, 2 sided||HR and associated 2-sided 96% CI are estimated by a Cox proportional hazards model stratified for randomization stratification factors including a fixed effect term for treatment arm.|||1.41|0.81|0.6158
91843163|NCT03786094|183567459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6126|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.66|1.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.77|0.66|0.6126
91843164|NCT03844321|183567513|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1607|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|We used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly WHO-5 scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks. This model accounts for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing assessment scores. The model includes a random slope and intercept, and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.||0.19|-0.24|.820
91843165|NCT03844321|183567513|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.08||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1147|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|We used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly WHO-5 scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks. This model accounts for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing assessment scores. The model includes a random slope and intercept, and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.||0.02|-0.18|.110
91843166|NCT03844321|183567514|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.03||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df= 1726|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PSS scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.02|-0.07|.284
91648820|NCT03593772|183190406|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001327||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep duration Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6393
91648821|NCT03593772|183190406|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000873||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep efficiency Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1995
91783605|NCT02197078|183447425|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.01||||||||1.01|0.48|
91709230|NCT01402986|183311367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.56|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=60%||1.56|0.52|0.723
91783606|NCT02197078|183447425|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||||||||1.28|0.85|
91783607|NCT02197078|183447425|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.28||||||||1.28|0.79|
91648822|NCT03593772|183190406|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000675||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep disturbance Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2886
91783608|NCT02197078|183447425|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06||||||||1.06|0.62|
91783609|NCT02197078|183447426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.94||||||||0.94|0.51|
91899108|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.25||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||2.2|-26.5|0.0972
91899109|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|9.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||9.2|-20.9|0.4454
91899110|NCT03816891|183693450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28||0.7638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||16.6|-12.2|0.7638
91899111|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|20.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||20.86|0.18|0.5673
91899112|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||||0.3173
91899113|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.7668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|29.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||29.41|0.08|0.7668
91899114|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|51.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||51.82|0.76|0.0520
91899115|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|28.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||28.14|0.17|0.5457
91899116|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|79.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||79.79|0.57|0.1053
91709231|NCT01402986|183311367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.86|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=60%||1.86|0.60|0.852
91783610|NCT02197078|183447426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.9||||||||0.90|0.44|
91899117|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.3||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|88.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||88.33|1.45|0.0043
91783611|NCT02197078|183447426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.88||||||||0.88|0.41|
91783612|NCT02197078|183447426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||||1.17|0.81|
91899118|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||18.08|0.06|1.0000
91899119|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|79.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||79.12|0.59|0.1006
91899120|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91899121|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.0193
91899122|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0463||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.0463
91783613|NCT02197078|183447426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||||||||1.19|0.77|
91783614|NCT02197078|183447426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||||0.97|0.60|
91783615|NCT02197078|183447427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.38||||||||1.38|0.58|
91783616|NCT02197078|183447427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.64||||||||1.64|0.60|
91783617|NCT02197078|183447427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.78||||||||0.78|0.24|
91783618|NCT02197078|183447427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.25||||||||1.25|0.73|
91783619|NCT02197078|183447427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52||||||||1.52|0.78|
91843167|NCT03844321|183567514|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.01||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1018|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PSS scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.03|-0.01|.394
91783620|NCT02197078|183447427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05||||||||1.05|0.52|
91783621|NCT02197078|183447428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.18||||||||2.18|1.10|
91783622|NCT02197078|183447428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.03||||||||3.03|1.19|
91783623|NCT02197078|183447428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.68||||||||1.68|0.73|
91783624|NCT02197078|183447428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29||||||||1.29|0.76|
91783625|NCT02197078|183447428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.56||||||||1.56|0.77|
91783626|NCT02197078|183447428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14||||||||1.14|0.54|
91783627|NCT02197078|183447429|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.0||||||||2.00|0.97|
91783628|NCT02197078|183447429|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.72||||||||2.72|1.07|
91783629|NCT02197078|183447429|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||||||||1.79|0.75|
91783630|NCT02197078|183447429|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.76||||||||1.76|1.01|
91783631|NCT02197078|183447429|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.27||||||||2.27|1.02|
91783632|NCT02197078|183447429|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.71||||||||1.71|0.81|
91783633|NCT02197078|183447430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.47||||||||1.47|1.04|
91783634|NCT02197078|183447430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61||||||||1.61|1.06|
91783635|NCT02197078|183447430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||||1.29|0.84|
91783636|NCT02197078|183447430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||||||||1.19|0.91|
91783637|NCT02197078|183447430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.27||||||||1.27|0.90|
91783638|NCT02197078|183447430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09||||||||1.09|0.75|
91783639|NCT02197078|183447431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.06||||||||4.06|0.64|
91783640|NCT02197078|183447431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.58||||||||4.58|0.61|
91783641|NCT02197078|183447431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.48||||||||5.48|0.62|
91783642|NCT02197078|183447431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.4||||||||2.40|0.57|
91783643|NCT02197078|183447431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.43||||||||2.43|0.38|
91783644|NCT02197078|183447431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.27||||||||4.27|0.64|
91783645|NCT00622440|183447432|OTHER||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Effect Size|0.275||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum||The wilcoxon rank sum effect size ranges in strength of effect from small (0.10 - \< 0.30), to medium (0.30 - \< 0.50), to large (\>=0.50) with a total range of 0 to 1|Estimated Effect Size for Phase 3 Trial||||.042
91783646|NCT02223377|183447436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.56|0.997
91783647|NCT02223377|183447441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.03|||ANOVA|||||-0.03|-1.43|0.040
91783648|NCT06026124|183447461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91783649|NCT06026124|183447461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91783650|NCT06026124|183447462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91783651|NCT06026124|183447462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91783652|NCT06026124|183447463|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91783653|NCT06026124|183447463|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91783654|NCT06026124|183447464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.0001
91783655|NCT06026124|183447464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91783656|NCT06026124|183447465|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.17|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.17
91783657|NCT06026124|183447465|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||LSD test|||||||=1.00
91783658|NCT06026124|183447466|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.0001
91783659|NCT06026124|183447467|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.51|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.51
91783660|NCT03023813|183447470|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91783661|NCT03023813|183447471|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
91783662|NCT03023813|183447472|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.39
91783663|NCT03023813|183447473|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91783664|NCT03023813|183447474|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91783665|NCT03023813|183447475|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91783666|NCT03023813|183447476|OTHER|Percent change in weight (lbs.) since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.96||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included weight loss||2.26|-8.18|0.27
91783667|NCT03023813|183447476|OTHER|Change in systolic blood pressure since the baseline encounter (mmHg)|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.42||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|3.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included blood pressure control||3.27|-16.12|0.19
91783668|NCT03023813|183447476|OTHER|Percentage point change in HbA1c (%) since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included glycemic control||0.45|-1.82|0.24
91648823|NCT03593772|183190406|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001356||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Use of sleep medication Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1323
91648824|NCT03593772|183190406|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000793||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Daytime dysfunction Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7923
91648825|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001074||0.6679|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on COS Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6679
91648826|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000769||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on COS Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1607
91648827|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00064||0.126|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS- Total as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1260
91648828|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000933||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Kindness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3311
91648829|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000887||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Judgment Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2416
91648830|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001016||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Common Humanity Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3903
91648831|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00095||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Isolation Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2131
91709232|NCT01402986|183311367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.23|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=80%||1.23|0.60|0.409
91790385|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.125||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.125|-0.272|0.468
91843168|NCT03844321|183567515|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.03||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1591|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Depression Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.09|-0.04|.431
91843169|NCT03844321|183567515|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.08||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1159|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Depression Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.08|0.02|<.001
91843170|NCT03844321|183567516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.01||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1601|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.02|-0.05|.399
91843171|NCT03844321|183567516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.02||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1171|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.03|0.00|.048
91843172|NCT03844321|183567517|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.02||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1560|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities Short Form scores (reverse scored) in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.03|-0.06|.488
91899123|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.95||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|112.81||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||112.81|2.26|0.0002
91899124|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82||||0.0917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|54.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||54.99|0.62|0.0917
91899125|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|79.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||79.12|0.59|0.1006
91899126|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.0001
91899127|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.0035
91899128|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0269||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.0269
91899129|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||<0.0001
91899130|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.0009
91899131|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.0098
91899132|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|258.26||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||258.26|3.21|<0.0001
91899133|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.16||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|79.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||79.08|1.31|0.0074
91899134|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|26.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||26.06|0.37|0.2466
91843173|NCT03844321|183567517|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.01||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1179|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities Short Form scores (reverse scored) in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.03|-0.01|.446
91648832|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000933||0.113|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Mindfulness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1130
91648833|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000939||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Over-identification Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0358
91648834|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000495||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS- Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7027
91648835|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00073||0.2979|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Kindness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2979
91648836|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000798||0.4278|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Judgment Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4278
91648837|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.0000074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000877||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Common Humanity Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9933
91709233|NCT01402986|183311367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=80%||1.58|0.72|0.744
91783669|NCT03023813|183447476|OTHER|Percentage point change in 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk (%), as estimated by the American College of Cardiology Pooled Cohort Equations, since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|1.26|||Generalized linear mixed regression||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included lipids control||1.26|-3.65|0.34
91783670|NCT03023813|183447476|OTHER|Change in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (mg/dL) since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.46||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.63|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included lipids control||9.70|-26.63|0.36
91790386|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790387|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.254||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.254|-0.155|0.636
91790388|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790389|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.236||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.236|-0.204|0.887
91790390|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91843174|NCT03844321|183567518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.04||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.07||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1618|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly FFMQ scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.07|-0.16|.469
91648838|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000816||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Isolation Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1589
91783671|NCT03023813|183447476|OTHER|Change in smoking intensity (defined as a change in smoking status from Current Every Day to either Current Some Days or Quit; or from Current Some Days to Quit) since the baseline encounter.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|45.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed regression with logit link|Result for intervention arm relative to control arm. OR \<1 indicates reduction in smoking intensity; OR \>1 indicates increase in smoking intensity.|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included tobacco cessation||45.56|0.03|0.92
91843175|NCT03844321|183567518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.06||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1067|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of time on weekly FFMQ scores across both intervention conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||-0.01|-0.11|.033
91899135|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|56.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||56.49|2.37|0.0005
91899136|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.06||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|29.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||29.37|1.25|0.0140
91899137|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|18.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||18.07|0.76|0.0823
91648839|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000767||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Mindfulness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.8875
91783672|NCT03023813|183447476|OTHER|Receipt of colorectal cancer screening since the baseline encounter|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|1000.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed regression with logit link|Result for intervention arm relative to control arm. Lower limit estimate was \<0.001 and upper limit estimate was \>1000 (ClinicalTrials.gov does not allow \< or \> to be entered into the confidence interval lower limit or upper limit fields).|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included colorectal cancer screening||1000|0.001|0.99
91783673|NCT02283762|183447491|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-2.34||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|0.3|||MMRM (Method 1)|||||0.30|-4.99|0.0815
91899138|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|35.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||35.02|2.51|0.0002
91899139|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|18.1||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||18.10|1.20|0.0197
91899140|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|15.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||15.69|0.99|0.0392
91899141|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|61.09||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||61.09|3.18|<0.0001
91899142|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.54||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|42.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||42.37|1.72|0.0036
91899143|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|24.23||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||24.23|0.81|0.0638
91899144|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|32.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||32.07|2.28|0.0005
91783674|NCT02283762|183447492|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|%|0.2||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|14.09|||Mantel Haenszel|||||14.09|-13.68|0.9770
91783675|NCT02283762|183447493|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|-0.07||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||MMRM (Method 1)|||change from baseline||0.08|-0.23|0.3529
91899145|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|16.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.19|1.03|0.0379
91899146|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||8.78|0.46|0.3367
91899147|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|38.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||38.51|2.46|0.0003
91709234|NCT01402986|183311368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.52|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||1.52|0.58|0.802
91783676|NCT02283762|183447494|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|0.79||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.69|||MMRM (Method 1)|||Change from baseline||1.69|-0.12|0.0887
91899148|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.72||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|24.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||24.75|1.82|0.0017
91899149|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||10.83|0.79|0.0831
91899150|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|28.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||28.06|2.58|0.0001
91899151|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|15.94||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||15.94|1.41|0.0087
91899152|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|9.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||9.37|0.73|0.1361
91709235|NCT01402986|183311368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.0|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||1.00|0.36|0.050
91783677|NCT02283762|183447495|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|0.83||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.54|||MMRM (Method 1)|||Change from baseline||1.54|0.11|0.0241
91783678|NCT02283762|183447496|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|-0.2||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.0|||MMRM (Method 1)|||change from baseline||3.00|-3.40|0.9010
91783679|NCT00202878|183447497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|0.988|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment.|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.988|0.887|0.016
91783680|NCT00202878|183447498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|0.996|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment.|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.996|0.903|0.035
91899153|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|44.56||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||44.56|3.08|<0.0001
91899154|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|21.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||21.75|1.51|0.0058
91843176|NCT03844321|183567519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Age measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.046
91843177|NCT03844321|183567519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Age measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.275
91843178|NCT03844321|183567520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PSS measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.977
91843179|NCT03844321|183567520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PSS measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.341
91843180|NCT03844321|183567521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDD measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.885
91843181|NCT03844321|183567521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDD measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.319
91843182|NCT03844321|183567522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.838
91709236|NCT01402986|183311368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.56|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||1.56|0.56|0.792
91843183|NCT03844321|183567522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.890
91843184|NCT03844321|183567523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: APRA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.425
91648840|NCT03593772|183190407|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00078||0.6859|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Over-identification Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6859
91648841|NCT03593772|183190408|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.01408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01085||0.1959|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on BDI total score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1959
91648842|NCT03593772|183190409|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005845||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Perceived Stress Scale Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1792
91648843|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01039||0.8991|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total RDAS as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.8991
91648844|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002349||0.3711|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Decision Making Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3711
91783681|NCT00202878|183447499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|0.983|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment.|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.983|0.847|0.016
91783682|NCT00202878|183447500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.945||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.897|0.996|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.996|0.897|0.035
91783683|NCT01594528|183447509|OTHER|||||||0.992||||||comparison between groups for body indicators|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.992
91783684|NCT01594528|183447509|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||comparison between groups facial indicators|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91783685|NCT01594528|183447509|OTHER|||||||0.586||||||comparison between groups for vocal indicators|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.586
91783686|NCT00078897|183447590|OTHER|Negative binomial regression|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.16|0.91|0.68
91783687|NCT04421027|183447633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.67|0.1800
91783688|NCT04421027|183447634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.16|0.58|0.7280
91783689|NCT04421027|183447635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.5444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.34|0.86|0.5444
91783690|NCT04421027|183447636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (net)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5|||ANOVA|||||1.5|-0.0|0.0586
91783691|NCT04421027|183447637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.99|0.1453
91783692|NCT04421027|183447638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.47|||Proportional Odds Model|||Day 4||1.47|1.00|0.0464
91783693|NCT04421027|183447639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.49|||Proportional Odds Model|||||1.49|1.04|0.0172
91783694|NCT04421027|183447640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.41|||Proportional Odds Model|||||1.41|0.97|0.0921
91783695|NCT04421027|183447641|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.56|||Proportional Odds Model|||||1.56|1.05|0.0168
91783696|NCT04421027|183447642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||ANOVA|||||0.0|-1.6|0.0626
91783697|NCT04421027|183447643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.81|0.4290
91783698|NCT04421027|183447644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.41|0.0018
91783699|NCT04421027|183447645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.9526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.65|||ANOVA|||||0.65|-0.62|0.9526
91783700|NCT04421027|183447646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.061|||Log Rank|||||1.061|0.741|0.1831
91783701|NCT04421027|183447647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.421|||Log Rank|||||1.421|1.017|0.0243
91783702|NCT04421027|183447648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4||0.08|-0.42|0.191
91783703|NCT04421027|183447648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.14|-0.49|0.278
91783704|NCT04421027|183447648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.24|-0.49|0.496
91783705|NCT04421027|183447648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.19|-0.70|0.263
91783706|NCT04421027|183447650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6436|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6436
91783707|NCT04421027|183447651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.127|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1270
91783708|NCT04421027|183447652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.3058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.21|||ANOVA|||||0.21|-0.68|0.3058
91783709|NCT04421027|183447653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.72|||ANOVA|||||0.72|-0.49|0.7073
91783710|NCT05767749|183447692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Ropivacaine) minus (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Bupivacaine)|||14.0|-12.8|0.93
91783711|NCT05767749|183447692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.73||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|15.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Ropivacaine) minus (Ropivacaine vs Bupivacaine)|||15.8|-8.3|0.54
91783712|NCT05767749|183447692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|15.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Bupivacaine) minus (Ropivacaine vs Bupivacaine)|||15.0|-8.7|0.60
91783713|NCT04838977|183447737|SUPERIORITY||Between group difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.8||||||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in mean CPSS at 10 weeks in the intervention group versus the control group.||-0.8|-7.6|
91783714|NCT00353470|183447747|SUPERIORITY||shared parameters model|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|>|0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Power: to detect a between-group effect size of 0.45, for statistical power of 0.80, 56 patients for PFPP or CBT vs. 28 for ART were required. Response rates at termination were calculated by chi-square in the full ITT sample using LOCF.||||>0.16
91783715|NCT00353470|183447747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91783716|NCT00950859|183447755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|91.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<400 c/mL or at least 0.7 log10 c/mL below their Baseline value at Day 11.|||91|58|
91783717|NCT00950859|183447755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|96.0||||||95.0|79.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<400 c/mL or at least 0.7 log10 c/mL below their Baseline value at Day 11.|||100|79|
91783718|NCT03583385|183447773|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric Means|103.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.18|112.37||||||||112.37|95.18|
91783719|NCT03583385|183447774|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric Means|106.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.99|115.19||||||||115.19|98.99|
91783720|NCT04248491|183447854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.342
91783721|NCT04248491|183447855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91783722|NCT04248491|183447857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
91783723|NCT04248491|183447859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
91783724|NCT04248491|183447860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.157
91783725|NCT04248491|183447861|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91783726|NCT04248491|183447862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.463
91783727|NCT04248491|183447863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.799
91783728|NCT04248491|183447864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.757
91783729|NCT04248491|183447865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.472
91783730|NCT04248491|183447867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.342
91790391|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.486||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.486|0.051|0.016
91790392|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91648845|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001864|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002348||0.428|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Values Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4280
91648846|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003205||0.9831|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Affection Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9831
91648847|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.003052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006364||0.632|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Consensus Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6320
91648848|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002259||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Stability Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9755
91648849|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001818||0.7584|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Conflict Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7584
91709237|NCT01402986|183311368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.39||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.38|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||2.38|0.81|0.231
91843185|NCT03844321|183567523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: APRA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.733
91899155|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.03||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||13.03|0.77|0.1036
91790393|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.342||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.342|-0.097|0.272
91790394|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790395|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.347||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.347|-0.223|0.671
91648850|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003444||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Satisfaction Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9313
91709238|NCT01402986|183311369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.25||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.98|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \>=Median||0.98|0.06|0.046
91790396|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790397|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.378||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.378|-0.183|0.493
91790398|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91843186|NCT03844321|183567524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FFMQ measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.582
91843187|NCT03844321|183567524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FFMQ measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.666
91843188|NCT03844321|183567525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of psychiatric illness at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.355
91843189|NCT03844321|183567525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of psychiatric illness at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.361
91843190|NCT03844321|183567526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of medical problems at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.640
91843191|NCT03844321|183567526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of medical problems at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.396
91648851|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002097||0.5401|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Activities Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.5401
91899156|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|948.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||948.31|5.35|<0.0001
91648852|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002471||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Discussion Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9421
91709239|NCT01402986|183311369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.47||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.48|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \>=Median||1.48|0.15|0.197
91790399|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.387||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.387|-0.190|0.501
91790400|NCT02880956|183460062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790401|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|0.431||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.431|-0.307|0.742
91790402|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91709240|NCT01402986|183311369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.18||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \< Median||2.79|0.50|0.708
91783731|NCT01068964|183447869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 1.5 mmHg was used. That is, if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in the mean diurnal IOP change between the two groups (Group 1 minus Group 2) is less than 1.5 mm Hg, then the null hypothesis will be rejected. The study had an 85% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.57||||||A non-inferiority test was performed for comparing the change from baseline in mean diurnal IOP at Week 4 between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was that the mean diurnal IOP change at Week 4 for Group 1 was at least 1.5 mmHg greater than that for Group 2. The hypothesis was tested using a confidence interval approach based on a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including factors for treatment and investigator.||0.57|-1.68|
91783732|NCT00621348|183447871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.93||p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The risk ratio is for Group A compared with Group C.|The incidence of hospital-acquired hyponatremia with current standard intravenous fluid therapy was approximately 30%. Sample of 72 patients would be needed in each group to demonstrate the decrease in incidence of hyponatremia (defined as plasma sodium\< 130 mEq/L) to 10%, with a power of 80 percent and alpha error of 0.05. In view of short study period and feasibility it was planned a priori to enroll at least 50 patients in each treatment limb.||0.93|0.016|<0.05
91783733|NCT02474069|183447876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Logistic regression model: Logit (proportion) = treatment + PASI Score at baseline + PASI score at randomization + error||1.07|0.39|0.087
91899157|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|83.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||83.47|1.62|0.0019
91843192|NCT03844321|183567527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of sessions completed was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.004
91783734|NCT02474069|183447877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Logistic regression model: Logit (proportion) = treatment + PASI Score at baseline + PASI score at randomization + error||1.28|0.43|0.281
91843193|NCT03844321|183567527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of sessions completed was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.291
91843194|NCT03844321|183567528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Level of education was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.603
91843195|NCT03844321|183567528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Level of education was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.333
91843196|NCT03844321|183567529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Race was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.224
91843197|NCT03844321|183567529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Race was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.885
91843198|NCT03844321|183567530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sex was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.490
91843199|NCT03844321|183567530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sex was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.266
91843200|NCT03844321|183567531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ethnicity was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.928
91843201|NCT03844321|183567531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ethnicity was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.307
91843202|NCT05822921|183567540|OTHER|Independent t-test was used.||||||0.871|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.871
91843203|NCT05822921|183567541|OTHER|Independent t-test was used.||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.896
91843204|NCT05822921|183567542|OTHER|Independent t-test was used.||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.351
91843205|NCT00064025|183567564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.701
91843206|NCT00064025|183567565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.001
91843207|NCT00064025|183567566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.001
91843208|NCT02036515|183567585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-0.50|-0.87|<0.001
91843209|NCT02036515|183567585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.58|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-0.58|-0.95|<0.001
91843210|NCT02036515|183567586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|5.2||||||||5.2|-16.5|
91843211|NCT02036515|183567586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|7.6||||||||7.6|-14.1|
91843212|NCT02036515|183567587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.6||||||||5.6|-4.4|
91843213|NCT02036515|183567587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.9||||||||4.9|-4.9|
91709241|NCT01402986|183311369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.31||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.57|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \< Median||3.57|0.48|0.594
91709242|NCT01402986|183311370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.67|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||7.67|0.14|0.975
91843214|NCT02036515|183567588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differenc in least squares means|-25.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.76|-17.54|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-17.54|-32.76|<0.001
91843215|NCT02036515|183567588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-31.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-23.66|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-23.66|-38.90|<0.001
91843216|NCT02036515|183567589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-1.4|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-1.40|-2.65|<0.001
91843217|NCT02036515|183567589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.09|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-1.09|-2.35|<0.001
91783735|NCT00918736|183447891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Previous report using 5 weekly injections, mean AOS score reduction is 2.6 with the SD of 1.8 in 75 patients. To test whether AOS reduction would be \> 1 using pair t-test after 3 weekly injections, investigators need \> 42 patients to give \> 90% power to reject the null hypothesis-mean AOS score reduction \<1 at 6 months, given that both the mean and standard deviation of AOS score reduction equal to 2. Considering possible dropout of participants, investigators decide to include 50 patients||||<0.05
91783736|NCT01474018|183447898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91783737|NCT01474018|183447899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91783738|NCT01474018|183447899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
91783739|NCT00838513|183447936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|94.0||||||"With a total of 20 patients enrolled between both protocols and, assuming that the true expected probability of TMA Event-Free for eculizumab-treated patients is 40%, then the study had 93.5% power to detect a statistically significant difference. Up to approximately 30 patients were to be enrolled.~All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS."||94|56|
91783740|NCT00838513|183447937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
91843218|NCT02036515|183567590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|5.72|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted with terms for treatment, baseline A1C, baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication.||||5.72|1.74|<0.001
91648853|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003983||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Cohesion Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7042
91648854|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.02128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008331||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total RDAS Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0114
91648855|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001727||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Decision Making Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1358
91783741|NCT00838513|183447938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|49.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||49|9|
91783742|NCT00838513|183447939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
91648856|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001796||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Values Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4354
91648857|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.005759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002113||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on AffectionSubdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0070
91790403|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|0.218||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.218|-0.511|0.431
91783743|NCT00838513|183447940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|6.75||||0.5423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|29.23|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||29.23|-15.73|0.5423
91783744|NCT00838513|183447941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
91843219|NCT02036515|183567590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|4.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|8.02|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted with terms for treatment, baseline A1C, baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication.||||8.02|2.44|<0.001
91783745|NCT00838513|183447942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|100.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||100|75|
91843220|NCT02036515|183567591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.93||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|-0.49|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-0.49|-5.36|0.019
91843221|NCT02036515|183567591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.94||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-1.5|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-1.50|-6.39|0.002
91783746|NCT00838513|183447943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
91843222|NCT02036515|183567592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.54||||||||-0.54|-0.98|
91843223|NCT02036515|183567592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.61||||||||-0.61|-1.05|
91709243|NCT01402986|183311370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.66||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.67|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||6.67|0.41|0.473
91783747|NCT00838513|183447944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|77.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||77|32|
91783748|NCT00838513|183447945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
91783749|NCT00838513|183447946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|-3.68||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|17.79|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||17.79|-25.15|0.7307
91783750|NCT00838513|183447947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
91648858|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.01037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004485||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Consensus Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0217
91709244|NCT01402986|183311370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.49||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.14|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.14|0.21|0.099
91709245|NCT01402986|183311370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.42||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.36|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.36|0.13|0.148
91843224|NCT02036515|183567593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-28.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.44|-21.09||||||||-21.09|-36.44|
91709246|NCT01402986|183311371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.19|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||2.19|0.31|0.698
91783751|NCT00035932|183447966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The time-averaged difference (TAD) in the reduction of log10 HIV RNA levels from baseline through Week 24 was compared pairwise for each atazanavir regimen to the lopinavir/RTV regimen, and assessed using a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval. The primary efficacy analysis was to declare two treatment regimens similar if the upper limit of this 97.5% confidence interval for the difference (atazanavir-lopinavir/RTV) was less than 0.5 log10.|Time-Averaged Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.09|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.09|
91783752|NCT00035932|183447966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The time-averaged difference (TAD) in the reduction of log10 HIV RNA levels from baseline through Week 24 was compared pairwise for each atazanavir regimen to the lopinavir/RTV regimen, and assessed using a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval. The primary efficacy analysis was to declare two treatment regimens similar if the upper limit of this 97.5% confidence interval for the difference (atazanavir-lopinavir/RTV) was less than 0.5 log10.|Time-Averaged Difference|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.07|0.55||||||||0.55|0.07|
91783753|NCT00035932|183447967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.04|
91783754|NCT00035932|183447967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35||||||||0.35|-0.01|
91783755|NCT00035932|183447970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.12|0.39||||||||0.39|-0.12|
91783756|NCT00035932|183447970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Distance|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.07|0.6||||||||0.60|0.07|
91783757|NCT00035932|183447971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|12.3|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|Randomized participants||12.3|-13.3|
91783758|NCT00035932|183447972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|14.1||||||||14.1|-7.0|
91783759|NCT00035932|183447972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|0.4||||||||0.4|-22.9|
91783760|NCT00035932|183447974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|7.0||||||||7.0|-16.9|
91783761|NCT00035932|183447974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-3.7||||||||-3.7|-28.5|
91783762|NCT00035932|183447976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|13.2|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|||13.2|-12.5|
91783763|NCT00035932|183447977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|15.4||||||||15.4|-9.1|
91648859|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001461||0.7881|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Stability Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7881
91648860|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.004717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00141||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Conflict Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0010
91648861|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.004393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002415||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Satisfaction Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0693
91648862|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001887||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Activities Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1184
91648863|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.003436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002262||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Discussion Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1301
91648864|NCT03593772|183190410|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.006022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003697||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Cohesion Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1049
91648865|NCT02795780|183190446|OTHER|||||||0.0166||||||No adjustments for multiplicity. No a priori threshold defined.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SUVr, age, and diagnosis group (AD/MCI)||Test of whether difference in least squares mean change is 0||||0.0166
91648866|NCT02795780|183190446|OTHER|||||||0.0108||||||No adjustments for multiplicity. No a priori threshold defined.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SUVr, age, and diagnosis group (AD/MCI)||Test of whether difference in least squares mean change is 0||||0.0108
91648867|NCT01364259|183190448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Our odds ratio is equal to 0\*5/9\*2 because we have a zero cell in the two by two table. Hence the OR = 0.|||||0.175
91648868|NCT01164137|183190455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.84|-.98|.87
91648869|NCT01164137|183190456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.88|-.62|.32
91648870|NCT01164137|183190457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.01|-.57|.18
91648871|NCT01164137|183190458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|3.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.81|-.39|.11
91648872|NCT01164137|183190459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|4.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.27|-.56|.13
91648873|NCT03033069|183190470|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS ) Mean Difference|-5.99|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-2.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||MMRM analysis with an unstructured (UN) variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||-2.19|-9.79|=0.0021
91783764|NCT00035932|183447977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-4.0||||||||-4.0|-29.4|
91783765|NCT00035932|183447978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|11.4||||||||11.4|-13.7|
91783766|NCT00035932|183447978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-5.3||||||||-5.3|-30.6|
91783767|NCT00035932|183447979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|10.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|||10.3|-15.0|
91783768|NCT00035932|183447980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|10.0||||||||10.0|-14.6|
91783769|NCT00035932|183447980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-7.1||||||||-7.1|-30.7|
91843225|NCT02036515|183567593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-29.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-21.85||||||||-21.85|-37.30|
91783770|NCT00035932|183447981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|5.8||||||||5.8|-18.7|
91648874|NCT03033069|183190470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|||=|0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.22|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||2.22|-5.70|=0.3868
91783771|NCT00035932|183447981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-5.9||||||||-5.9|-29.9|
91783772|NCT00035932|183447983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-44.3|7.5||||||||7.5|-44.3|
91783773|NCT00035932|183447983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-74.5|-15.3||||||||-15.3|-74.5|
91783774|NCT00035932|183447984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-45.6|10.6||||||||10.6|-45.6|
91783775|NCT00035932|183447984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-47.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-79.2|-16.1||||||||-16.1|-79.2|
91783776|NCT00035932|183447986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between IQ (\<10; \>=10) of ATV 300 mg / RTV and HIV RNA||||<0.05
91783777|NCT00035932|183447986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between number of PI Mutations at baseline (\<4; \>=4) of ATV 400 mg / SQV and HIV RNA||||<0.05
91843226|NCT02036515|183567594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-1.59||||||||-1.59|-3.43|
91843227|NCT02036515|183567594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.95||||||||-0.95|-2.81|
91648875|NCT03033069|183190470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||=|0.6399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|2.92|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||2.92|-4.74|=0.6399
91783778|NCT00035932|183447988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between ATV Cmin of ATV 300 mg / RTV and CD4 Cell Count||||<0.05
91783779|NCT00035932|183447988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between IQ (\<10; \>=10) of ATV 300 mg / RTV and CD4 Cell Count||||<0.05
91783780|NCT00035932|183447988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between # of PI Mutations at baseline (\<4; \>=4) of ATV 300 mg / RTV and CD4 Cell Count||||<0.05
91783781|NCT00035932|183447990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-6.0||||||Total Cholesterol||-6.0|-15.5|
91783782|NCT00035932|183447990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-7.6||||||Total Cholesterol||-7.6|-16.9|
91783783|NCT00035932|183447990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|0.7||||||HDL cholesterol||0.7|-13.6|
91783784|NCT00035932|183447990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.1||||||HDL Cholesterol||8.1|-9.3|
91783785|NCT00035932|183447990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.0||||||Fasting LDL Cholesterol||3.0|-15.6|
91783786|NCT00035932|183447990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|1.8||||||Fasting LDL Cholesterol||1.8|-15.5|
91783787|NCT00035932|183447990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-13.2||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-13.2|-35.0|
91783788|NCT00035932|183447990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-34.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|-23.4||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-23.4|-43.4|
91783789|NCT00035932|183447991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-7.2||||||Total Cholesterol||-7.2|-17.0|
91783790|NCT00035932|183447991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-6.5||||||Total Cholesterol||-6.5|-17.4|
91783791|NCT00035932|183447991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|3.5||||||HDL Cholesterol||3.5|-12.4|
91783792|NCT00035932|183447991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference Estimate|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|9.3||||||HDL Cholesterol||9.3|-11.0|
91783793|NCT00035932|183447991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|1.2||||||Fasting LDL CHolesterol||1.2|-19.0|
91783794|NCT00035932|183447991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|3.0||||||Fasting LDL Cholesterol||3.0|-17.7|
91783795|NCT00035932|183447991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-29.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-17.7||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-17.7|-41.6|
91783796|NCT00035932|183447991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-38.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-27.1||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-27.1|-49.7|
91783797|NCT00035932|183447992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-8.3|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|Observed values, Total Cholesterol||-8.3|-20.1|
91783798|NCT00035932|183447992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-1.3|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|observed values, total cholesterol||-1.3|-16.1|
91783799|NCT00035932|183447992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-1.2|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|observed values, HDL cholesterol||-1.2|-19.9|
91783800|NCT00035932|183447992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|7.0|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|Observed values, HDL cholesterol||7.0|-14.0|
91783801|NCT00035932|183447992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-1.8|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|observed cases, fasting LDL||-1.8|-22.3|
91783802|NCT00035932|183447992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|4.8|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|Observed Cases, Fasting LDL cholesterol||4.8|-19.0|
91783803|NCT00035932|183447992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-24.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-8.0|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|observed cases, fasting triglycerides||-8.0|-38.6|
91783804|NCT00035932|183447992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|1.3|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|observed cases, fasting triglycerides||1.3|-36.5|
91783805|NCT00035932|183448003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||time-averaged difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.13|0.41|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|overall||0.41|-0.13|
91783806|NCT00035932|183448003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||time-averaged difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.38|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|last observation carried forward||0.38|-0.16|
91783807|NCT02268175|183448011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||1-sided|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was that treatment with ARM 1 will have a pCR/MRD rate of 35% compared with Arm 2 rate of 10%. Given 75 men randomized in 2:1 ratio to Arm 1 (N=50) or Arm 2 (N=25), there was 84% power to detect this difference, using Fisher's exact test with one-sided type I error of 0.1.||||0.151
91843228|NCT02036515|183567595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.64||||||||6.64|1.98|
91843229|NCT02036515|183567595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|7.28||||||||7.28|2.22|
91843230|NCT02036515|183567596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|-2.15||||||||-2.15|-7.82|
91648876|NCT03033069|183190470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.08|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|-1.2|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||-1.20|-8.96|=0.0106
91648877|NCT03033069|183190470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.24|||=|0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|-0.23|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||-0.23|-8.26|=0.0384
91843231|NCT02036515|183567596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-2.07||||||||-2.07|-7.76|
91709247|NCT01402986|183311371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.55||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.7|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||1.70|0.18|0.299
91709248|NCT01402986|183311371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.25||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.34|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||1.34|0.05|0.105
91843232|NCT02036515|183567597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.48||||||||0.48|-2.97|
91648878|NCT00430638|183190471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included randomized treatment and baseline cuff blood pressure stage as factors and study baseline systolic BP value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis: For the entire efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91709249|NCT01402986|183311371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.7||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.47|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||2.47|0.20|0.576
91709250|NCT01402986|183311372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.48||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.25|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||1.25|0.19|0.133
91783808|NCT02100696|183448035|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in response rates|12.2||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|17.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.67|3.95|0.0033
91783809|NCT02100696|183448036|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.8||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|14.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.56|-7.13|0.4956
91783810|NCT02100696|183448037|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|12.5||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|17.94||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.94|4.19|0.0028
91783811|NCT02100696|183448038|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|14.3||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|24.14||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.14|3.21|0.0241
91783812|NCT02100696|183448039|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.1605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|17.22||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.22|-2.54|0.1605
91783813|NCT02100696|183448040|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|7.6||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|13.66||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.66|-1.22|0.3881
91783814|NCT02100696|183448041|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|4.9||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|14.69||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.69|-6.78|0.5879
91783815|NCT02100696|183448042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Unadjusted Means|-0.2||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.5|0.0351
91783816|NCT02100696|183448043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Unadjusted Means|-0.2||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.2698
91843233|NCT02036515|183567597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.36||||||||0.36|-3.11|
91843234|NCT02036515|183567598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.84||||||||0.84|-2.82|
91843235|NCT02036515|183567598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.99||||||||0.99|-2.69|
91843236|NCT02036515|183567599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-9.4||||||||-9.4|-21.9|
91648879|NCT00430638|183190472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA Model included randomized treatment and baseline cuff BP stage as factors and study baseline diastolic BP as a covariate.||Null hypothesis: For the entire efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91783817|NCT02100696|183448044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.6||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-2.9|0.2698
91783818|NCT02100696|183448045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.5||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-1.0|0.3881
91783819|NCT02100696|183448046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|9.1||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|17.9||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||17.9|0.2|0.0445
91783820|NCT02100696|183448047|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|0.1||||0.9959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|19.88||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.88|-19.67|0.9959
91783821|NCT02100696|183448048|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|3.8||||0.5014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|14.7||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.70|-7.26|0.5014
91783822|NCT02100696|183448049|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|0.6||||0.9538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.08|20.35||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.35|-19.08|0.9538
91783823|NCT02100696|183448050|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|14.5||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|25.78||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.78|2.66|0.0153
91783824|NCT02100696|183448051|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|16.8||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|28.41||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.41|4.44|0.0073
91783825|NCT02100696|183448052|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|11.9||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|21.71||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.71|1.87|0.0174
91783826|NCT02100696|183448053|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|7.3||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|21.6||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.60|-6.83|0.3015
91783827|NCT02100696|183448054|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|7.4||||0.2787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|21.17||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.17|-6.23|0.2787
91843237|NCT02036515|183567599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.5||||||||-8.5|-21.3|
91783828|NCT02100696|183448055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.5||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-3.1|0.0763
91783829|NCT02100696|183448056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.2||||0.5329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.0|0.5329
91783830|NCT02100696|183448057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-4.9||||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.0||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||3.0|-12.7|0.2228
91783831|NCT01009619|183448072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The frequency or rate of specific events (i.e. acute rejection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and non-CMV infections) was calculated by determining the number of events per year of study time for each subject, correcting for CMV-mismatch status.||||<0.05
91843238|NCT02036515|183567600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|-19.4||||||||-19.4|-38.3|
91783832|NCT01009619|183448073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The frequency or rate of specific events (i.e. acute rejection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and non-CMV infections) was calculated by determining the number of events per year of study time for each subject, correcting for CMV-mismatch status.||||<0.05
91783833|NCT02954172|183448132|EQUIVALENCE|the equivalence margin of the ORR ratio was set at (0.75, 1.33).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|1.077||||||||1.077|0.756|
91783834|NCT02954172|183448133|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.7066|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7066
91783835|NCT02954172|183448134|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.3497|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3497
91843239|NCT02036515|183567600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-18.4||||||||-18.4|-37.5|
91648880|NCT00430638|183190473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (male systolic blood pressure (SBP)): For the male efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91843240|NCT02036515|183567604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|12.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|18.68||||||||18.68|6.83|
91843241|NCT02036515|183567604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|11.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.94|17.88||||||||17.88|5.94|
91843242|NCT02036515|183567605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|12.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|19.03||||||||19.03|6.54|
91843243|NCT02036515|183567605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|12.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|19.18||||||||19.18|6.54|
91843244|NCT02036515|183567607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.04|
91843245|NCT02036515|183567607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.02|
91843246|NCT02036515|183567608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.04|
91843247|NCT02036515|183567608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.07|
91899158|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.48||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|68.26||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||68.26|1.14|0.0117
91899159|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|19.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||19.76|2.46|<0.0001
91648881|NCT00430638|183190473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Males - diastolic blood pressure (DBP)): For the male efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91843248|NCT00518713|183567609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0120
91899160|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|10.74||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||10.74|1.23|0.0173
91899161|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||6.00|0.63|0.2598
91899162|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|13.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||13.11|1.98|0.0003
91899163|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|8.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||8.02|1.05|0.0402
91899164|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||5.51|0.70|0.2003
91899165|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|9.67||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||9.67|1.52|0.0034
91899166|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||5.80|0.92|0.0749
91899167|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||5.02|0.82|0.1248
91843249|NCT00518713|183567609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0015
91843250|NCT00518713|183567609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91843251|NCT00518713|183567610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0027
91843252|NCT00518713|183567610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91899168|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.03||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||6.03|1.09|0.0278
91899169|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.97||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||2.97|0.48|0.7001
91899170|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.84||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||2.84|0.46|0.7844
91899171|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||6.44|1.12|0.0249
91648882|NCT00430638|183190474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - females): For the female efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91648883|NCT00430638|183190474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - females): For the female efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91648884|NCT00430638|183190475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - less than 65 years of age): For the efficacy population \< 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91790404|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91899172|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.54||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||6.54|1.09|0.0303
91899173|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||4.12|0.69|0.2601
91790405|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.574|0.172||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.172|-0.574|0.290
91790406|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790407|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.258||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.258|-0.492|0.541
91790408|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91648885|NCT00430638|183190475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - less than 65 years of age): For the efficacy population \< 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91648886|NCT00430638|183190476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - \> or equal to 65 years old): For the efficacy population \> or = to 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.0125
91843253|NCT00518713|183567610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91648887|NCT00430638|183190476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) \> or equal to 65): For the efficacy population \> or = to 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.0006
91648888|NCT00430638|183190477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - Black participants): For the Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91843254|NCT00518713|183567611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1041||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.1041
91843255|NCT00518713|183567611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2207||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.2207
91648889|NCT00430638|183190477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - Black participants): For the Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91648890|NCT00430638|183190478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - non-Black participants): For the Non-Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91648891|NCT00430638|183190478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - non-Black participants): For the Non-Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91648892|NCT00430638|183190479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - Stage 1 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 1 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91648893|NCT00430638|183190479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - Stage 1 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 1 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91783836|NCT00233064|183448135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall percentage of immune reactivity|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|1.9|||||The number and percentage of subjects with immune reactivity at Study Day 240-300 were constructed using the Clopper-Pearson Method.|The subject number of 200 per treatment group was derived to demonstrate a percentage of immune reactivity in either the liquid or lyophilized formulations of palivizumab of \<2-3% based on 95% confidence intervals \[(0%; 0.00, 1.83), (0.5%; 0.01, 2.75), (1%; 0.12, 3.57)\].||1.9|0.0|
91783837|NCT00233064|183448135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall percentage of immune reactivity|0.5||||||95.0|0.0|2.9|||||The number and percentage of subjects with immune reactivity at Study Day 240-300 were constructed using the Clopper-Pearson Method.|The subject number of 200 per treatment group was derived to demonstrate a percentage of immune reactivity in either the liquid or lyophilized formulations of palivizumab of \<2-3% based on 95% confidence intervals \[(0%; 0.00, 1.83), (0.5%; 0.01, 2.75), (1%; 0.12, 3.57)\].||2.9|0.0|
91843256|NCT00518713|183567611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0025
91843257|NCT00518713|183567612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1469||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.1469
91843258|NCT00518713|183567612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0161
91843259|NCT00518713|183567612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0024
91843260|NCT00518713|183567613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1324||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 25% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.1324
91843261|NCT00518713|183567613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 25% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0026
91843262|NCT00518713|183567613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 25% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0004
91843263|NCT00518713|183567613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 50% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.3383
91648894|NCT00430638|183190480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - Stage 2 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 2 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91648895|NCT00430638|183190480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - Stage 2 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 2 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91648896|NCT01529749|183190481|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91648897|NCT01529749|183190482|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91648898|NCT01529749|183190483|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91648899|NCT01529749|183190484|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91648900|NCT01529749|183190485|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91843264|NCT00518713|183567613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0159||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 50% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0159
91843265|NCT00518713|183567613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 50% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91899174|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.46||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||5.46|0.94|0.0691
91648901|NCT01529749|183190486|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91648902|NCT01529749|183190487|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91648903|NCT01529749|183190488|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91648904|NCT01529749|183190489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91648905|NCT01529749|183190490|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91648906|NCT01529749|183190491|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91648907|NCT01529749|183190492|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91648908|NCT01529749|183190493|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91648909|NCT01529749|183190494|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91648910|NCT01529749|183190495|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91648911|NCT01529749|183190496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.49
91648912|NCT01529749|183190497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
91709251|NCT01402986|183311372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.46||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.67|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||1.67|0.13|0.241
91843266|NCT00518713|183567613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 75% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0279
91843267|NCT00518713|183567613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 75% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0010
91843268|NCT00518713|183567613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 75% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91843269|NCT00518713|183567620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.7210
91843270|NCT00518713|183567620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2505||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.2505
91843271|NCT00518713|183567620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0924||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0924
91843272|NCT00518713|183567621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0414||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0414
91843273|NCT00518713|183567621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0044
91843274|NCT00518713|183567621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91843275|NCT01644474|183567647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|-23.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Alirocumab group was compared to ezetimibe group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-23.0|-40.2|<0.0001
91843276|NCT01644474|183567648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-21.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-21.2|-35.7|<0.0001
91843277|NCT01644474|183567649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-19.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.2|-32.3|<0.0001
91843278|NCT01644474|183567650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-17.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-17.4|-33.5|<0.0001
91843279|NCT01644474|183567651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-12.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-12.7|-24.7|<0.0001
91843280|NCT01644474|183567652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|-19.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.8|-31.5|<0.0001
91843281|NCT01644474|183567653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-19.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.2|-32.4|<0.0001
91843282|NCT01644474|183567654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-13.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.5|-23.1|<0.0001
91843283|NCT01644474|183567655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|139.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||139.0|8.7|<0.0001
91843284|NCT01644474|183567656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|556.0||Threshold for significance was ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||556.0|8.8|0.0001
91843285|NCT01644474|183567657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.9|-14.8|0.4013
91843286|NCT00050089|183567665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.165||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.585|||Log Rank||The comparison was Mega-ART (intensification) vs Standard-ART (standard).|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison.||1.585|0.856|0.69
91783838|NCT00233064|183448135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall percentage of immune reactivity|0.3||||||95.0|0.0|1.5|||||The number and percentage of subjects with immune reactivity at Study Day 240-300 were constructed using the Clopper-Pearson Method.|The subject number of 200 per treatment group was derived to demonstrate a percentage of immune reactivity in either the liquid or lyophilized formulations of palivizumab of \<2-3% based on 95% confidence intervals \[(0%; 0.00, 1.83), (0.5%; 0.01, 2.75), (1%; 0.12, 3.57)\].||1.5|0.0|
91709252|NCT01402986|183311372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.59||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.84|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||2.84|0.12|0.510
91790409|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.459|0.272||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.272|-0.459|0.617
91790410|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790411|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.233||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.233|-0.517|0.457
91790412|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790413|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.59||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.590|-0.151|0.245
91790414|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91843287|NCT00050089|183567666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.275|||Log Rank||The comparison was ARDFP (interruption) vs No ARDFP (continuation)|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank analysis was performed.||1.275|0.674|0.49
91843288|NCT00050089|183567667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Stratified Log-rank test was used to compare the four treatment||||0.87
91709253|NCT01402986|183311372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.74||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.85|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||2.85|0.19|0.661
91709254|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.79||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|13.79|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||13.79|-0.21|0.057
91843289|NCT00050089|183567668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35|||Log Rank||The comparison was Standard-ART (standard) vs Mega-ART (intensification)|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison||1.35|0.75|0.92
91843290|NCT00050089|183567669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46|||Log Rank||The comparison was ARDFP (interruption) vs No ARDFP (continuation) of ART|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison.||1.46|0.8|0.68
91843291|NCT04039503|183567672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-1.88|<0.001
91709255|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.57||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|7.68|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||7.68|-6.54|0.874
91843292|NCT04039503|183567672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-1.88|<0.001
91843293|NCT04039503|183567673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.52|<0.001
91843294|NCT04039503|183567674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.3|-9.4|<0.001
91843295|NCT04039503|183567674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-11.5|<0.001
91648913|NCT02623426|183190509|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of baseline|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.56||A Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the co-primary hypotheses;a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05/2 = 0.025 was used to determine statistical significance for the two pairwise comparisons (Ozurdex vs Methotrexate and Ozurdex vs Lucentis)|mixed effects model||The treatment effect is the ratio of the proportions of baseline retinal thickness (Methotrexate/Ozurdex). Values greater than 1 indicate less reduction in retinal thickness in the Methotrexate treated group compared to Ozurdex|A sample size of 240 was calculated to provide 91% power to detect a 25% reduction for Ozurdex, a 38% reduction for Methotrexate and Lucentis assuming a standard deviation of 0.33, 25% with bilateral disease, between-eye correlation of 0.4, 10% loss to follow-up, and a two-sided type 1 error rate of 0.025 for each pairwise comparison.||1.56|1.19|<0.001
91709256|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.37||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.95|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||13.95|0.80|0.028
91709257|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|1.09||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|7.66|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||7.66|-5.48|0.745
91709258|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.12||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|12.58|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||12.58|1.66|0.011
91843296|NCT04039503|183567674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.0|-14.2|<0.001
91843297|NCT04039503|183567675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.23|93.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.70|15.23|<0.001
91843298|NCT04039503|183567675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.02|333.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||333.62|30.02|<0.001
91843299|NCT04039503|183567675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.92|110.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||110.83|16.92|<0.001
91843300|NCT04039503|183567676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.4|-29.5|<0.001
91843301|NCT04039503|183567676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-22.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.0|-36.0|<0.001
91709259|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.48||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|4.97|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||4.97|-5.93|0.863
91709260|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.24||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|16.27|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||16.27|-3.80|0.221
91783839|NCT01120964|183448161|OTHER|Analyses presented herein are for re-intubation time included.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|73.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Total duration of postoperative invasive mechanical ventilation was analyzed by treatment group using summary statistics, and was compared between citrulline and placebo groups using an ANOVA.~Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed for: 1) zero durations censored, 2) zero durations uncensored, 3) patients with zero duration excluded. The same analyses were performed with re-intubation time removed."||73.4|-9.5|0.0222
91783840|NCT01120964|183448162|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|73.4||Re-intubation time included. Threshold for significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses presented herein are for re-intubation time included.||73.4|-9.5|0.0222
91843302|NCT04039503|183567676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-21.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.6|-35.9|<0.001
91783841|NCT01120964|183448163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.7||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|96.0||The threshold for significance was P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||96.0|5.4|0.0418
91783842|NCT01120964|183448164|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|28.1||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||28.1|-2.6|0.0727
91783843|NCT01120964|183448165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|559.8||||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-193.5|1313.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1313.2|-193.5|0.1271
91709261|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|8.58||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|19.07|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||19.07|-1.91|0.108
91783844|NCT01120964|183448166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|14.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.1|-7.0|0.9720
91783845|NCT01120964|183448167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|18.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.0|-7.7|0.8884
91783846|NCT01120964|183448168|OTHER|Total number of postoperative hours spent in PICU|Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.14||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|187.67||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||187.67|-49.39|0.1891
91783847|NCT01120964|183448169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.2||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|71.1||Duration including re-intubation time. Threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||71.1|-10.8|0.0479
91843303|NCT04039503|183567678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|38.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.93|7.55|<0.001
91648914|NCT02623426|183190509|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|1.22||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.43||A Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the co-primary hypotheses;a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05/2 = 0.025 was used to determine statistical significance for the two pairwise comparisons (Ozurdex vs Methotrexate and Ozurdex vs Lucentis)|mixed effects model||The treatment effect is the ratio of the proportions of baseline retinal thickness (Lucentis/Ozurdex) at 12 weeks. Values greater than 1 indicate less reduction in retinal thickness in the Lucentis treated group compared to Ozurdex|A sample size of 240 was calculated to provide 91% power to detect a 25% reduction for Ozurdex, a 38% reduction for methotrexate and Lucentis assuming a standard deviation of 0.33, 25% with bilateral disease, between-eye correlation of 0.4, 10% loss to follow-up, and a two-sided type 1 error rate of 0.025 for each pairwise comparison.||1.43|1.04|0.012
91648915|NCT02094937|183190510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.49||||||||2.49|0.31|
91648916|NCT02094937|183190510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.19||||||||2.19|0.28|
91648917|NCT02094937|183190511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.12||||||||4.12|0.90|
91648918|NCT02094937|183190511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.2||||||||3.20|0.66|
91648919|NCT05166421|183190536|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8458|1.0403||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD7442||1.0403|0.8458|
91648920|NCT05166421|183190536|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.1066||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD7442||1.1066|0.8980|
91648921|NCT05166421|183190536|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0627|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9579|1.179||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD7442||1.1790|0.9579|
91648922|NCT05166421|183190536|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8107|0.9974||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD8895||0.9974|0.8107|
91648923|NCT05166421|183190536|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9826|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8854|1.0905||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD8895||1.0905|0.8854|
91648924|NCT05166421|183190536|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9853|1.212||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD8895||1.2120|0.9853|
91648925|NCT05166421|183190536|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9029|1.1161||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD1061||1.1161|0.9029|
91648926|NCT05166421|183190536|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0336|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9288|1.1503||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD1061||1.1503|0.9288|
91648927|NCT05166421|183190536|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0296|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9258|1.1451||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD1061||1.1451|0.9258|
91648928|NCT05166421|183190537|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9418|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8512|1.0421||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD7442||1.0421|0.8512|
91783848|NCT01120964|183448170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.2637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|9.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||9.7|-2.2|0.2637
91783849|NCT01120964|183448172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|41.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||41.0|-25.9|0.6431
91783850|NCT01120964|183448173|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.5||||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.2|213.1|||ANOVA|||||213.1|-134.2|0.6408
91648929|NCT05166421|183190537|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9004|1.1046||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD7442||1.1046|0.9004|
91648930|NCT05166421|183190537|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0589|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9559|1.173||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD7442||1.1730|0.9559|
91648931|NCT05166421|183190537|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8812|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7933|0.9788||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD8895||0.9788|0.7933|
91783851|NCT00826202|183448185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|cohen's d= 0.67||||||0.07
91783852|NCT00826202|183448186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|cohen's d=0.84||||||.056
91783853|NCT00826202|183448187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d=0.68||||||0.03
91783854|NCT00826202|183448188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|cohen's d=0.93||||||0.12
91648932|NCT05166421|183190537|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8633|1.0674||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD8895||1.0674|0.8633|
91648933|NCT05166421|183190537|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0894|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9796|1.2116||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD8895||1.2116|0.9796|
91648934|NCT05166421|183190537|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0065|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9061|1.118||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD1061||1.1180|0.9061|
91648935|NCT05166421|183190537|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9257|1.1446||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD1061||1.1446|0.9257|
91648936|NCT05166421|183190537|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0227|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9196|1.1373||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD1061||1.1373|0.9196|
91648937|NCT05166421|183190538|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0308|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9451|1.1243||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD7442||1.1243|0.9451|
91648938|NCT05166421|183190538|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9112|1.0822||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD7442||1.0822|0.9112|
91648939|NCT05166421|183190538|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9634|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8833|1.0507||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD7442||1.0507|0.8833|
91648940|NCT05166421|183190538|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9701|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8894|1.0582||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD8895||1.0582|0.8894|
91648941|NCT05166421|183190538|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8835|1.0494||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD8895||1.0494|0.8835|
91648942|NCT05166421|183190538|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.0826||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD8895||1.0826|0.9100|
91648943|NCT05166421|183190538|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9992|1.2057||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD1061||1.2057|0.9992|
91648944|NCT05166421|183190538|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0195|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.119||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD1061||1.1190|0.9290|
91783855|NCT00494676|183448245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|21.0|||McNemar||The marginal odds ratio based on discordant pairs was computed.|The analysis used a McNemar test for data combined across both periods of the crossover. We estimated that 70% and 35% of participants would say yes to the real and sham prisms, respectively. For a 2-tailed test, the minimum sample size to detect a 35% difference in yes responses to real and sham prisms was 57 participants, assuming 30% overlap (30% said yes to both pairs of glasses), power of 90% and α of 1%. Assuming an attrition rate of 20%, we planned to enroll 68 participants.||21.0|1.8|= 0.001
91843304|NCT04039503|183567678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.87|62.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.55|11.87|<0.001
91843305|NCT04039503|183567678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.76|193.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||193.44|32.76|<0.001
91843306|NCT04039503|183567679|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-22.8||||||||-22.8|-46.0|
91843307|NCT04039503|183567679|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|-26.1||||||||-26.1|-48.3|
91843308|NCT04039503|183567679|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-49.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-39.4||||||||-39.4|-57.7|
91843309|NCT04039503|183567682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|38.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.00|3.93|<0.001
91843310|NCT04039503|183567682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.52|99.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.49|10.52|<0.001
91843311|NCT04039503|183567682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.27|173.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||173.26|18.27|<0.001
91899175|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.52||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||5.52|0.98|0.0538
91648945|NCT05166421|183190538|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9289|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8457|1.0203||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD1061||1.0203|0.8457|
91709262|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|9.89||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|21.35|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||21.35|-1.57|0.090
91709263|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.7||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|12.59|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||12.59|-11.19|0.908
91843312|NCT02044458|183567690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
91843313|NCT02044458|183567691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.38
91843314|NCT02044458|183567692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.57
91709264|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.52||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|11.64|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||11.64|1.41|0.013
91709265|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|1.23||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|6.29|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||6.29|-3.84|0.635
91899176|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.94||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||2.94|0.52|0.6258
91899177|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||2.63|0.50|0.7407
91709266|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|8.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|15.94|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||15.94|1.84|0.014
91899178|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||3.06|0.57|0.5218
91843315|NCT02218203|183567693|OTHER|We report the interaction between the lidocaine dose response and dextromethorphan dose response. The type of statistical test was a linear regression model with Chi-square test.|Lidocaine dose*dextromethorphan dose|0.0042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0004|0.0081|||Pearson's Chi-squared test||The estimated value is an estimated interaction term, and not a P-value.|We performed a lidocaine dose response clinical trial nested within a dextromethorphan clinical trial to evaluate a potential interaction between lidocaine dose and dextromethorphan dose (pain intensity; Gracely scale).||0.0081|0.0004|0.0322
91843316|NCT04145349|183567700|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Hazard Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.25|1.69|||Bayesian hierarchical model|||The Bayesian analyses below include posterior mean of Hazard ratio, and credible intervals instead of confidence intervals.|The posterior probability treatment difference is 0.864|1.69|0.25|
91843317|NCT05567952|183567707|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.705|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.093|-0.316|||MMRM|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) included fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA level, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction; an unstructured (co) variance structure was used.||-0.316|-1.093|= 0.0004
91843318|NCT05567952|183567708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.235|||=|0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|1.551|||COX proportional hazard ratio|||Analysis was based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) model which included treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA level (\< 4 log10 copies/mL or \>= 4 log10 copies/mL) and time since the last vaccination (less than or equal to \[\<=6\] months, \> 6 months or unvaccinated) as appropriate.||1.551|0.983|= 0.0697
91843319|NCT05567952|183567709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.084|||=|0.5202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.385|||COX proportional hazard ratio|||Analysis was based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) model which included treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA level (\< 4 log10 copies/mL or \>= 4 log10 copies/mL) and time since the last vaccination (\<=6 months, \> 6 months or unvaccinated) as appropriate.||1.385|0.848|= 0.5202
91843320|NCT03280563|183567713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|21.14||||||||21.14|-21.14|
91648946|NCT03877237|183190561|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|4.23||||0.02164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|8.22||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-TSS, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.04990~* H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus~* H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-TSS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||8.22|0.96|0.02164
91843321|NCT03280563|183567713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|16.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|42.88||||||||42.88|-9.03|
91843322|NCT03280563|183567713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.76|50.09||||||||50.09|-36.76|
91843323|NCT03280563|183567713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|20.73||||||||20.73|-27.39|
91843324|NCT03280563|183567713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|16.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|39.34||||||||39.34|-6.71|
91783856|NCT00494676|183448246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mobility improvement scores were normally distributed. A paired t-test was used to conduct a within-subjects comparison of the crossover differences in mobility scores between real and sham prism glasses. An alpha level of 5% was used to indicate statistical significance for secondary analyses||1.3|-0.1|= 0.09
91843325|NCT03280563|183567714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.66||||||||1.66|0.50|
91843326|NCT03280563|183567714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.2||||||||1.20|0.35|
91843327|NCT03280563|183567714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.48||||||||3.48|0.45|
91783857|NCT00494676|183448247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.0|0.7|= 0.002
91783858|NCT00494676|183448248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-1.2|= 0.21
91843328|NCT03280563|183567714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.23||||||||3.23|0.74|
91843329|NCT03280563|183567714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.88||||||||0.88|0.28|
91843330|NCT03280563|183567716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65||||||||1.65|0.36|
91843331|NCT03280563|183567716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.58||||||||1.58|0.34|
91843332|NCT03280563|183567716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|9.34||||||||9.34|0.55|
91843333|NCT03280563|183567716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.01||||||||2.01|0.28|
91843334|NCT03280563|183567716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.46||||||||1.46|0.35|
91843335|NCT03280563|183567717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.98|29.48||||||||29.48|-30.98|
91783859|NCT04976192|183448249|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.94||||||||0.94|-1.56|
91783860|NCT04976192|183448250|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.58||||||||0.58|-1.37|
91783861|NCT04976192|183448250|OTHER||Relative Potency|0.89|||||||||||||Relative potency of TEV-45779 and XOLAIR is a co-primary efficacy endpoint for FDA submission.|The relative potency of the test drug to the reference drug was defined as the dose of the test drug that produced the same biological response as 1 unit of the dose of the reference drug. Relative potency was demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for relative potency fell entirely within the equivalence margins.||||
91783862|NCT04073225|183448277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.8||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.9|33.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||33.2|-100.9|.323
91783863|NCT04073225|183448278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-81.3||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.2|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||2.5|-165.2|.057
91783864|NCT04073225|183448279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|6.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||6.08|0.03|.047
91783865|NCT04073225|183448280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||2.6|-1.4|.565
91783866|NCT04073225|183448281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.03|-0.50|0.147
91783867|NCT04073225|183448282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|99.4||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-334.3|533.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||We conducted t-tests of differences in volumetric change comparing intervention to control arms.||533.0|-334.3|.605
91783868|NCT04073225|183448283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|130.8||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-259.7|248.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||We conducted t-tests of differences in volumetric change comparing intervention to control arms.||248.6|-259.7|.590
91783869|NCT04073225|183448284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.85||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.11|133.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||133.68|-183.11|.743
91783870|NCT04073225|183448285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|5.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.71|-7.91|0.731
91790415|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|0.496||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.496|-0.238|0.491
91790416|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91648947|NCT03877237|183190562|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|4.17||||0.05842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|8.33||KCCQ-PLS was tested at the alpha level of 0.04990 because KCCQ-TSS had a statistically significant p-value, in accordance with the pre-specified testing strategy.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-PLS, the following hypothesis was tested at significant level of 0.04990~* H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus~* H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-PLS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||8.33|0.03|0.05842
91648948|NCT03877237|183190563|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|3.2||||0.68626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|13.0||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the primary efficacy endpoint 6MWD, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.00010:~H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, 6MWD, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||13.0|-6.5|0.68626
91709267|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|3.91||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|11.02|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||11.02|-3.19|0.280
91843336|NCT03280563|183567717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|46.23||||||||46.23|-10.84|
91709268|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|3.22||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|9.22|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||9.22|-2.78|0.292
91843337|NCT03280563|183567717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|11.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.63|50.33||||||||50.33|-26.63|
91843338|NCT03280563|183567717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|37.95||||||||37.95|-16.96|
91843339|NCT03280563|183567718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.9||||||||7.90|0.15|
91843340|NCT03280563|183567718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.2||||||||4.20|0.15|
91648949|NCT03877237|183190564|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|-0.16||||0.19748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.22||Total time spent in LVPA was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value is considered nominal because the test for 6MWD was not statistically significant.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, the testing hypothesis is~* H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus~* H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, from baseline to End of study among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||0.22|-0.55|0.19748
91648950|NCT02290028|183190574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||Primary endpoint 1 was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the observed proportion (overall complication-free rate at 6 months) to the performance goal of 90.0%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall complication-free rate must be greater than 90.0%.||||<0.0001
91783871|NCT05407064|183448286|SUPERIORITY|Mean change from baseline and mean difference between MM120 dose groups and placebo were estimated using model averaging method (of 3 models). The minimally efficacious dose was defined as a placebo-adjusted improvement of 2.5 points on the HAM-A, with a statistical significance set at an alpha level of 0.05.||||||||||||||||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline to Week 4 in total HAM-A score and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed, and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) likely to present the true underlying dose-response curve.|A test statistic was derived from the data using an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline to Week 4 for the HAM-A Total Score as a response variable, treatment arm and Baseline value of HAM-A Total Score as covariates. The ANCOVA model was repeated for each imputed dataset, which resulted in a set of LS mean estimates for all dose groups and the related covariance matrices. Rubin's rule was used to combine the multiple sets of LS mean estimates and the related covariance matrices to a single set of LS mean estimates of change from Baseline to Week 4 for HAM-A Total Score for all dose groups and the related covariance matrix. The SAS procedure PROC MIANALYZE was used to combine the results from imputed datasets.|||
91843341|NCT03280563|183567718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.84||||||||3.84|0.15|
91648951|NCT02290028|183190575|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Exact, binomial|||Primary endpoint 2 was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing an observed proportion (rate of acceptable LV pacing thresholds at the permanently programmed pacing vector at 3 months) to 88%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the percentage of subjects with an acceptable LV pacing threshold in the permanently programmed pacing vector must be greater than 88.0%.||||=0.002
91843342|NCT05160025|183567774|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"rmANOVA \< 0.001~post hoc paired t-tests or nonparametric equivalent with correction (x3) indicated the following: self-competition \> feedback (p \< 0.001) other-competition \> feedback (p \< 0.001) self-competition = other-competition (p \> 0.05)"|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91843343|NCT05160025|183567777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||"rmANOVA p = 0.111~post hoc paired t-tests not performed"|ANOVA|||||||0.111
91843344|NCT05160025|183567780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"rmANOVA \< 0.001~post hoc paired t-tests or nonparametric equivalent corrected (x3) indicated the following: self-competition \> feedback (p = 0.003) other-competition \> feedback (p = 0.007) self-competition = other-competition (p \> 0.05)"|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91843345|NCT05160025|183567783|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"rmANOVA p \> 0.05 with a partial eta squared effect size = 0.073~post hoc paired t-tests not performed"|ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
91843346|NCT05160025|183567788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||"rmANOVA = 0.004~post hoc paired t-tests or nonparametric equivalent corrected (x3) indicated the following: self-competition \> feedback (p = 0.007) other-competition \> feedback (p = 0.002) self-competition = other-competition (p \> 0.05)"|ANOVA|||||||0.004
91843347|NCT05160025|183567796|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||ranking compared to expected value for each condition and the p-value was adjusted for 3 comparisons for each condition: self-competition (p \> 0.05) other-competition (p \> 0.05) feedback (p \> 0.05)|Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
91843348|NCT05160025|183567797|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||ranking compared to expected value for each condition and the p-value was adjusted for 3 comparisons for each condition: self-competition (p \> 0.05) other-competition (p \> 0.05) feedback (p \> 0.05)|Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
91709269|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-1.18||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|4.64|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||4.64|-6.99|0.691
91843349|NCT03850444|183567816|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.00|0.38|
91843350|NCT03850444|183567817|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.95|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.95|0.41|
91843351|NCT03850444|183567818|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.94|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.94|0.45|
91843352|NCT03850444|183567819|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.28|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.28|0.57|
91843353|NCT03850444|183567820|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.39|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.39|0.70|
91843354|NCT03850444|183567821|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.35|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.35|0.74|
91843355|NCT03850444|183567822|OTHER||Difference in Percentage (DP)|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|31.6|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||31.6|1.8|
91843356|NCT03850444|183567823|OTHER||Difference in Percentage (DP)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.7|||||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||23.7|-1.4|
91843357|NCT03850444|183567824|OTHER||Difference in Percentage (DP)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|18.9|||||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||18.9|-3.0|
91709270|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|8.83||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|14.81|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μL||14.81|2.85|0.004
91709271|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|4.25||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|10.43|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μL||10.43|-1.92|0.177
91709272|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.05||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|14.5|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||14.50|-2.39|0.159
91709273|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.72||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|7.18|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||7.18|-8.63|0.857
91783872|NCT05407064|183448287|SUPERIORITY|Mean change from baseline and mean difference between MM120 dose groups and placebo were estimated using model averaging method (of 3 models). The minimally efficacious dose was defined as a placebo-adjusted improvement of 2.5 points on the HAM-A, with a statistical significance set at an alpha level of 0.05.||||||||||||||||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline to Week 8 in total HAM-A score and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed, and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) likely to present the true underlying dose-response curve.|A test statistic was derived from the data using an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline to Week 8 for the HAM-A Total Score as a response variable, treatment arm and Baseline value of HAM-A Total Score as covariates. The ANCOVA model was repeated for each imputed dataset, which resulted in a set of LS mean estimates for all dose groups and the related covariance matrices. Rubin's rule was used to combine the multiple sets of LS mean estimates and the related covariance matrices to a single set of LS mean estimates of change from Baseline to Week 8 for HAM-A Total Score for all dose groups and the related covariance matrix. The SAS procedure PROC MIANALYZE was used to combine the results from imputed datasets.|||
91783873|NCT05407064|183448288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1157|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.1157
91783874|NCT05407064|183448288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.6630
91783875|NCT05407064|183448288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0004
91783876|NCT05407064|183448288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0100
91783877|NCT05407064|183448289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2309|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.2309
91783878|NCT05407064|183448289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7218|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.7218
91783879|NCT05407064|183448289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0637|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0637
91783880|NCT05407064|183448289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0216
91648952|NCT02290028|183190576|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Primary endpoint 3 will be evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the observed proportion (overall complication-free rate at 5 years) to the performance goal of 92.5%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall complication-free rate must be greater than 92.5%|On September 24, 2019, BIOTRONIK received FDA approval to transition the ongoing Sentus Post Approval Registry to a new EP PASSION real-world data methodology. As of study closure, the number of subjects with complete data required to perform the hypothesis test was not met. Therefore, this outcome measure was not analyzed.|||
91648953|NCT01735877|183190587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline||||0.77
91648954|NCT01735877|183190587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|17.25|||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from baseline to 1 month||17.25|11.02|<0.0001
91648955|NCT01735877|183190587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.65|26.48|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 3 month||26.48|18.65|<0.0001
91648956|NCT01735877|183190587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.94|27.62|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 6 month||27.62|18.94|<0.0001
91648957|NCT01735877|183190588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At Baseline||||0.99
91783881|NCT05407064|183448290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1006|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.1006
91783882|NCT05407064|183448290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2225|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.2225
91783883|NCT05407064|183448290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0025
91899179|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.34||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||2.34|0.43|0.9855
91648958|NCT01735877|183190588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At 1 month||||0.99
91648959|NCT01735877|183190588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months||||0.03
91783884|NCT05407064|183448290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0042
91783885|NCT05407064|183448291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.6258
91783886|NCT05407064|183448291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.95
91783887|NCT05407064|183448291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0174
91783888|NCT05407064|183448291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0206
91783889|NCT05407064|183448292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.5538
91783890|NCT05407064|183448292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.6650
91783891|NCT05407064|183448292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0190
91783892|NCT05407064|183448292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0034
91783893|NCT05407064|183448293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.7236
91783894|NCT05407064|183448293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.9738
91783895|NCT05407064|183448293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0338
91783896|NCT05407064|183448293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0282
91783897|NCT05407064|183448294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.9302
91783898|NCT05407064|183448294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.6763
91783899|NCT05407064|183448294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0816
91783900|NCT05407064|183448294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0190
91783901|NCT05407064|183448295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.5647
91783902|NCT05407064|183448295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3497
91783903|NCT05407064|183448295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0229
91783904|NCT05407064|183448295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0073
91783905|NCT05407064|183448296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0158
91783906|NCT05407064|183448296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0429|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0429
91783907|NCT05407064|183448296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0001
91783908|NCT05407064|183448296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0000
91783909|NCT05407064|183448297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0804
91783910|NCT05407064|183448297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0532|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0532
91783911|NCT05407064|183448297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0001
91783912|NCT05407064|183448297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0000
91648960|NCT01735877|183190588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months||||0.004
91648961|NCT01735877|183190589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline||||0.64
91648962|NCT01735877|183190589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|9.6|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 1 month||9.60|2.24|0.002
91783913|NCT05407064|183448298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2152
91783914|NCT05407064|183448298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3369|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3369
91783915|NCT05407064|183448298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0010
91783916|NCT05407064|183448298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0046
91783917|NCT05407064|183448299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4489|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.4489
91783918|NCT05407064|183448299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.7326
91783919|NCT05407064|183448299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0492|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0492
91783920|NCT05407064|183448299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0131
91783921|NCT05407064|183448300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3330
91783922|NCT05407064|183448300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.1193
91783923|NCT05407064|183448300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0032
91783924|NCT05407064|183448300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0127
91648963|NCT01735877|183190589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.71||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.63|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 3 month||14.63|2.80|0.005
91648964|NCT01735877|183190589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.63||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|14.6|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 6 month||14.60|2.67|0.006
91843358|NCT03226457|183567921|OTHER|Details of the power calculation are published in the Circulation, DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048739|||||=|0.005||||||(calculated)|ANCOVA|||"Details on the statistical analysis are published in the Circulation, DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048739~Analyses were performed on the primary and secondary measures comparing empagliflozin versus placebo and assessed by 2-way analysis of covariance correcting for treatment order, baseline value, and any percentage change in furosemide dose at the visit. Data for continuous outcome measures were assessed for normality before analysis."||||= 0.005
91648965|NCT01735877|183190590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.99
91648966|NCT01735877|183190590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|4.42|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 1 month||4.42|2.93|<0.0001
91843359|NCT00594932|183567946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||superiority|4.0|||=|0.041||||||This was the primary endpoint therefore no adjustment for multiple comparisons was necessary|Fisher Exact|||this is a categorical assessment. Prespecified. Fishers exact test. Significant is calculated as \< 0.05||||=0.041
91648967|NCT01735877|183190590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|4.21|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 3 month||4.21|2.61|<0.0001
91843360|NCT05199233|183567960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The mean change from baseline was compared to zero using a one-sample t-test.||||||<0.001
91843361|NCT05199233|183567961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The mean change from baseline was compared to zero using a one-sample t-test.||||||<0.001
91843362|NCT02144519|183567995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.00|1.18|0.008
91648968|NCT01735877|183190590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.02|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 6 month||4.02|2.40|<0.0001
91843363|NCT02144519|183567996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|9.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.95|1.45|0.003
91843364|NCT05126459|183568020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Musculo skeletal related sedation related events during sedation.||||0.016
91648969|NCT01735877|183190591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At Baseline||||0.99
91648970|NCT01735877|183190591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At month 1||||0.99
91648971|NCT01735877|183190591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||At month 3||||0.04
91843365|NCT05126459|183568021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Musculo skeletal related sedation related events at 8 hours after sedation.||||0.211
91843366|NCT05126459|183568022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.374
91648972|NCT01735877|183190591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||At month 6||||0.01
91648973|NCT04364165|183190613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.78|1.44|.01
91648974|NCT04364165|183190614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.78|0.36|.41
91843367|NCT05126459|183568023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in GI reaction between the 3 regimens.||||0.55
91648975|NCT00830063|183190615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.72||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean was estimated from the corresponding analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.72|-1.76|<0.001
91843368|NCT05126459|183568024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in GI reaction between the 3 regimens 8 hours after sedation.||||0.16
91648976|NCT00830063|183190615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.49||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.49|-1.52|<0.001
91783925|NCT05407064|183448301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0046
91648977|NCT00830063|183190615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.20|-1.23|0.007
91783926|NCT05407064|183448301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0052
91783927|NCT05407064|183448301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
91783928|NCT05407064|183448301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
91843369|NCT05126459|183568025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in GI reaction between the 3 regimens at 24 hours after sedation.||||0.012
91648978|NCT00830063|183190615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.03|-0.99|0.068
91648979|NCT00830063|183190616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.77||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.77|-1.73|<0.001
91783929|NCT05407064|183448302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0567
91783930|NCT05407064|183448302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0235
91783931|NCT05407064|183448302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
91783932|NCT05407064|183448302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
91843370|NCT04675242|183568103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|15.3|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the proportion of study eyes with complete cure||15.3|-11.5|0.4434
91783933|NCT05407064|183448303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.2632
91783934|NCT05407064|183448303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2962|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.2962
91843371|NCT04675242|183568104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.1|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline eye dryness VAS score||Difference in the change from baseline between treatment groups||2.1|-9.5|0.2105
91843372|NCT04675242|183568105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline eye dryness VAS score||Difference in the mean change from baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.5936
91783935|NCT05407064|183448303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0013
91783936|NCT05407064|183448303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0547|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0547
91783937|NCT05407064|183448304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0937|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0937
91783938|NCT05407064|183448304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.8230
91783939|NCT05407064|183448304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0032
91783940|NCT05407064|183448304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0129|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0129
91783941|NCT05407064|183448305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1889
91783942|NCT05407064|183448305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1589|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1589
91783943|NCT05407064|183448305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0008
91783944|NCT05407064|183448305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0194
91709274|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|13.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|22.22|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||22.22|5.28|0.002
91783945|NCT05407064|183448306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0057
91783946|NCT05407064|183448306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0168
91783947|NCT05407064|183448306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000
91783948|NCT05407064|183448306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0000
91783949|NCT05407064|183448307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0958
91783950|NCT05407064|183448307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0544
91783951|NCT05407064|183448307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0029
91783952|NCT05407064|183448307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0006
91783953|NCT05407064|183448308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.2038
91783954|NCT05407064|183448308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.1977
91783955|NCT05407064|183448308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0357|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0357
91783956|NCT05407064|183448308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0302
91783957|NCT05407064|183448309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2165
91783958|NCT05407064|183448309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.6868
91783959|NCT05407064|183448309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.1350
91783960|NCT05407064|183448309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0273|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0273
91783961|NCT05407064|183448310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2450
91783962|NCT05407064|183448310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3461|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3461
91783963|NCT05407064|183448310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.1110
91783964|NCT05407064|183448310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2386
91783965|NCT05407064|183448311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1475
91783966|NCT05407064|183448311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0308
91783967|NCT05407064|183448311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
91783968|NCT05407064|183448311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0004
91783969|NCT05407064|183448312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0873
91783970|NCT05407064|183448312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1702
91783971|NCT05407064|183448312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0007
91783972|NCT05407064|183448312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0001
91783973|NCT05407064|183448313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.4193
91783974|NCT05407064|183448313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1663
91783975|NCT05407064|183448313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0002
91843373|NCT04707391|183568126|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for serogroup A.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.38|3.5||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups A at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.50|-4.38|
91783976|NCT05407064|183448313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0306
91783977|NCT05407064|183448314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.0534
91783978|NCT05407064|183448314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.6551
91783979|NCT05407064|183448314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.0079
91783980|NCT05407064|183448314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.1133
91783981|NCT05407064|183448315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1248
91783982|NCT05407064|183448315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1788
91783983|NCT05407064|183448315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0030
91783984|NCT05407064|183448315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0534
91783985|NCT04236141|183448428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|40.43||||||||40.43|-19.00|
91783986|NCT04236141|183448429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.03|36.31||||||||36.31|-22.03|
91783987|NCT04236141|183448430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|44.46||||||||44.46|-15.89|
91783988|NCT04236141|183448431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|52.3||||||||52.30|-9.44|
91783989|NCT04236141|183448432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|37.4||||||||37.40|-1.69|
91783990|NCT04236141|183448433|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|37.4||||||||37.40|-1.69|
91783991|NCT04236141|183448434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|48.42||||||||48.42|-12.70|
91783992|NCT04236141|183448435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|44.46||||||||44.46|-15.89|
91783993|NCT04236141|183448436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|60.38||||||||60.38|-10.38|
91783994|NCT04236141|183448437|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.84|40.98||||||||40.98|-33.84|
91783995|NCT02160899|183448520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91783996|NCT02160899|183448520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91709275|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|5.23||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|14.02|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||14.02|-3.56|0.243
91783997|NCT02160899|183448520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Exact Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.044
91709276|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|4.37||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.24|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||10.24|-1.50|0.144
91709277|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.72||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.46|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil cou|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μ||6.46|-5.01|0.804
91783998|NCT04473235|183448526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.531
91783999|NCT04473235|183448527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the connectivity between the left hippocampus and left prefrontal cortex.||||0.627
91784000|NCT04473235|183448527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the connectivity between the right hippocampus and right prefrontal cortex.||||0.120
91784001|NCT00745849|183448554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91784002|NCT05111301|183448559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.004
91784003|NCT05111301|183448560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.004
91784004|NCT05111301|183448561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.54
91784005|NCT05111301|183448562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.03
91784006|NCT05111301|183448563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.001
91784007|NCT05111301|183448564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.01
91784008|NCT05111301|183448565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.80
91784009|NCT02785770|183448582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.96||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|3.07|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.07|-1.15|0.4540
91784010|NCT02785770|183448582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.77|9.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||9.99|5.77|< 0.0001
91784011|NCT02785770|183448582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.22|13.44|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||13.44|9.22|< 0.0001
91784012|NCT02785770|183448582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.48|10.7|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||10.70|6.48|< 0.0001
91784013|NCT02785770|183448582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.85|11.07|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||11.07|6.85|< 0.0001
91648980|NCT00830063|183190616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.55||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.55|-1.51|<0.001
91784014|NCT02785770|183448582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.96|10.18|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||10.18|5.96|< 0.0001
91784015|NCT02785770|183448582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.42|7.64|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||7.64|3.42|< 0.0001
91843374|NCT04707391|183568126|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for serogroup C.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.14|3.98||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups C at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.98|-4.14|
91648981|NCT00830063|183190616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.28||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.28|-1.24|0.002
91648982|NCT00830063|183190616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.05||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.05|-1.01|0.030
91709278|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|11.19||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|21.23|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||21.23|1.15|0.029
91843375|NCT04707391|183568126|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for each serogroup W.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-2.73|4.89||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups W at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||4.89|-2.73|
91843376|NCT04707391|183568126|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for each serogroup Y.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-3.93|3.91||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups Y at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.91|-3.93|
91843377|NCT04707391|183568127|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in the 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup A.|Difference in percentage of participants|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-5.59|0.47||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups A at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||0.47|-5.59|
91899180|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||2.68|0.50|0.7407
91899181|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||4.17|0.76|0.1843
91899182|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||2.77|0.54|0.6364
91899183|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.4||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||2.40|0.45|0.9206
91899184|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||2.87|0.52|0.6473
91899185|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.15||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||2.15|0.40|0.8733
91843378|NCT04707391|183568127|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup C.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-2.76|2.94||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups C at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||2.94|-2.76|
91843379|NCT04707391|183568127|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup W.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-2.41|3.25||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroupsW at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.25|-2.41|
91843380|NCT04707391|183568127|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup Y.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-3.62|2.09||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups Y at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||2.09|-3.62|
91843381|NCT01406717|183568147|OTHER||ANCOVA|0.0002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31377|0.31418||||||||0.31418|-0.31377|
91843382|NCT01406717|183568148|OTHER||ANCOVA|5.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7565|18.5535||||||||18.5535|-6.7565|
91843383|NCT01406717|183568149|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91843384|NCT01406717|183568151|OTHER|||||||0.6318|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6318
91843385|NCT01406717|183568152|OTHER|||||||0.4887|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4887
91843386|NCT01406717|183568153|OTHER|||||||0.3813|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3813
91843387|NCT01406717|183568154|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9900
91843388|NCT01406717|183568155|OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0017
91843389|NCT01406717|183568156|OTHER|||||||0.6098|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.6098
91648983|NCT00830063|183190617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.16||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.16|-0.50|<0.001
91843390|NCT01406717|183568157|OTHER|||||||0.7324|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7324
91843391|NCT01406717|183568158|OTHER|||||||0.2984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2984
91843392|NCT02040090|183568159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We will reject the null hypothesis at the one-sided 5% significance level, and conclude that Cp \> -0.1, if the lower bound of an exact 90% binomial confidence interval (CI) exceeds0.1. A sample size of 53 in each group provides 80% power to reject the null hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.082|0.031||||||The null hypothesis was that Cp ≤ -0.1.||0.031|-0.082|
91843393|NCT02275533|183568174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.56||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.56|0.54|0.38
91843394|NCT02275533|183568175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.51||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.51|0.40|0.23
91843395|NCT02275533|183568177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91843396|NCT01168674|183568201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The report is of the mean MADRS difference between ziprasidone versus placebo after linear mixed regression, correcting for confounding effects of order of treatment as well as other identified potential confounders.|Linear mixed effects regression model||||0.48
91843397|NCT01556763|183568212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.10
91843398|NCT01556763|183568213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.07||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.07
91843399|NCT01556763|183568214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.02
91843400|NCT01556763|183568215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.008
91843401|NCT02258464|183568216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.745||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.504|1.102||The SSE-FS was compared using a stratified log-rank test with a 2-sided alpha of 0.2|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis that both treatment groups have the same SSE-FS distribution will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the distribution of SSE-FS time in radium-223 dichloride is different from the placebo group||1.102|0.504|0.3339
91843402|NCT02258464|183568217|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.888||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.576|1.37|||Log Rank|||||1.370|0.576|0.7259
91843403|NCT02258464|183568218|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.932||||0.8785|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.513|1.693|||Log Rank|||||1.693|0.513|0.8785
91843404|NCT02258464|183568219|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.824||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.556|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.220|0.556|0.5240
91648984|NCT00830063|183190617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.04|-0.39|0.014
91843405|NCT02258464|183568220|OTHER||Difference (Radium 223 - Placebo) %|11.8||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.7|26.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.3|-2.7|0.345
91843406|NCT02258464|183568221|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.968||||0.9128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.657|1.425|||Log Rank|||||1.425|0.657|0.9128
91648985|NCT00830063|183190617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.36|0.026
91648986|NCT00830063|183190617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.09|-0.25|0.349
91648987|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.69|0.355
91843407|NCT02258464|183568222|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|1.023||||0.9227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.753|1.391|||Log Rank|||||1.391|0.753|0.9227
91843408|NCT00932646|183568225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.139|<0.0001
91843409|NCT00932646|183568225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.140|<0.0001
91648988|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.10|-1.04|0.017
91648989|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||1.03|0.09|0.020
91843410|NCT00932646|183568225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.191|0.124|<0.0001
91843411|NCT00932646|183568226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.114|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.114|<0.0001
91843412|NCT00932646|183568226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.116|<0.0001
91843413|NCT00932646|183568226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.187|0.125|<0.0001
91843414|NCT00932646|183568227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.149|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.223|0.149|<0.0001
91648990|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.26|0.388
91709279|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.72||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|10.62|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||10.62|-9.19|0.887
91784016|NCT02785770|183448582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.74||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.64|5.85|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||5.85|1.64|0.0036
91784017|NCT02785770|183448583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|1.8|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.80|-2.38|0.8195
91784018|NCT02785770|183448583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.54||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.44|6.64|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||6.64|2.44|0.0004
91784019|NCT02785770|183448584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|2.22|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.22|-1.95|0.9146
91784020|NCT02785770|183448584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|7.14|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||7.14|2.95|<0.0001
91648991|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.7||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.70|-1.65|<0.001
91709280|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|12.59|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||12.59|2.76|0.002
91843415|NCT00932646|183568227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.162|<0.0001
91843416|NCT00932646|183568227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.250|0.176|<0.0001
91843417|NCT00932646|183568228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.230|0.154|<0.0001
91843418|NCT00932646|183568228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.158|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.158|<0.0001
91843419|NCT00932646|183568228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.255|0.178|<0.0001
91843420|NCT00932646|183568229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003||95.0|0.045|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.045|0.0003
91843421|NCT00932646|183568229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.051|0.0001
91843422|NCT00932646|183568229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0026||95.0|0.028|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.132|0.028|0.0026
91843423|NCT00932646|183568230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.195|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.306|0.195|<0.0001
91843424|NCT00932646|183568230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.19|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.190|<0.0001
91843425|NCT00932646|183568230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.291|0.179|<0.0001
91843426|NCT00932646|183568231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.222|0.101|<0.0001
91843427|NCT00932646|183568231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|0.096|<0.0001
91843428|NCT00932646|183568231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.284|0.162|<0.0001
91843429|NCT00932646|183568232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.155|<0.0001
91843430|NCT00932646|183568232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.150|<0.0001
91843431|NCT00932646|183568232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.281|0.176|<0.0001
91843432|NCT00932646|183568233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.233|0.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.365|0.233|<0.0001
91843433|NCT00932646|183568233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.236|0.369|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.369|0.236|<0.0001
91843434|NCT00932646|183568233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.271|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.405|0.271|<0.0001
91843435|NCT00932646|183568234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0163||95.0|0.024|0.239|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.239|0.024|0.0163
91843436|NCT00932646|183568234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0118||95.0|0.031|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.031|0.0118
91843437|NCT00932646|183568234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0076||95.0|0.04|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.256|0.040|0.0076
91709281|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|2.79||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|7.74|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||7.74|-2.15|0.268
91709282|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.82||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|13.01|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||13.01|2.64|0.003
91709283|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|2.42||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|7.62|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||7.62|-2.78|0.361
91784021|NCT02785770|183448585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.24||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|3.33|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.33|-0.84|0.3272
91843438|NCT00932646|183568235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.082|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.154|0.082|<0.0001
91784022|NCT02785770|183448585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|6.36|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||6.36|2.16|0.0009
91843439|NCT00932646|183568235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.157|0.084|<0.0001
91843440|NCT00932646|183568235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.191|0.119|<0.0001
91843441|NCT00653263|183568237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Means and ranges were computed for the continuous baseline characteristics.For data with 5 time points (baseline and weeks 1 through 4), hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between baseline and each subsequent time point as well as differences between each time point For data with 3 time points hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between baseline and wk 2, wk 2 and wk 4, as well as between baseline and wk 4.||||<0.05
91843442|NCT00653263|183568238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Means and ranges were computed for continuous baseline(BL)characteristics.For longitudinal data,Proc GLIMMIX in SAS was used to fit a Mixed Model with Random Intercept.For data with 5 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and each subsequent time point as well as differences between each time point. For data with 3 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and wk 2,wk 2and wk 4,as well as between BL and wk 4.||||<0.05
91899186|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||2.68|0.50|0.7380
91648992|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.13||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.13|-2.07|<0.001
91648993|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.21|-0.73|0.274
91648994|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.22||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.22|-1.16|0.004
91709284|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.34||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|15.75|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||15.75|-3.06|0.185
91784023|NCT02785770|183448586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.57|1.6|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.60|-2.57|0.7024
91784024|NCT02785770|183448586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.26||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|4.36|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||4.36|0.16|0.0768
91784025|NCT02785770|183448587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.97||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.06|0.12|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.12|-4.06|0.1201
91784026|NCT02785770|183448587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21||||0.3424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|3.31|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.31|-0.89|0.3424
91899187|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.43||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||3.43|0.63|0.3768
91784027|NCT02785770|183448588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.35||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|0.74|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.74|-3.44|0.2870
91784028|NCT02785770|183448588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|1.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.99|-2.21|0.9334
91784029|NCT02785770|183448589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.16||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|-0.07|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.07|-4.24|0.0893
91784030|NCT02785770|183448589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.61||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|-0.51|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.51|-4.71|0.0412
91784031|NCT02785770|183448590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.34||||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.43|0.74|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.74|-3.43|0.2892
91784032|NCT02785770|183448590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.78||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.88|-0.68|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.68|-4.88|0.0294
91784033|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.28||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|2.78|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.78|-0.22|0.1600
91784034|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|3.87|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.87|0.88|0.0092
91784035|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.91||||0.3174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|2.41|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.41|-0.59|0.3174
91784036|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|1.19|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.19|-1.81|0.7344
91784037|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.5881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.99|-1.00|0.5881
91843443|NCT00653263|183568239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Means and ranges were computed for continuous baseline(BL)characteristics.For longitudinal data,Proc GLIMMIX in SAS was used to fit a Mixed Model with Random Intercept.For data with 5 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and each subsequent time point as well as differences between each time point. For data with 3 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and wk 2,wk 2and wk 4,as well as between BL and wk 4.||||<0.05
91843444|NCT01155726|183568284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4||||||Unmasked minus masked||1.4|-2.2|
91843445|NCT01155726|183568284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||||||Unmasked minus masked||2.5|-1.5|
91843446|NCT01155726|183568284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.2||||||Unmasked minus masked||2.2|-0.1|
91843447|NCT01155726|183568284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.5||||||Unmasked minus masked||3.5|0.2|
91843448|NCT01155726|183568284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.2||||||Partial masked minus masked||1.2|-3.3|
91709285|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.08||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.34|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||9.34|-9.50|0.986
91843449|NCT01155726|183568284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||||||Partial masked minus masked||1.1|-1.9|
91843450|NCT01155726|183568284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.7||||||Partial masked minus masked||2.7|-2.9|
91843451|NCT01155726|183568284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9||||||Partial masked minus masked||1.9|-1.1|
91843452|NCT02054247|183568285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.442
91843453|NCT02054247|183568286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.083
91709286|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.87||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|16.44|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||16.44|-14.70|0.912
91843454|NCT02054247|183568287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.125
91843455|NCT02054247|183568288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.146
91843456|NCT05257837|183568290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91843457|NCT05257837|183568291|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91843458|NCT05257837|183568292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.012
91843459|NCT05257837|183568294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.217
91843460|NCT05257837|183568295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.745
91843461|NCT05675709|183568299|SUPERIORITY|paired t-test||||||0.05|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.05
91843462|NCT05675709|183568300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||.05
91843463|NCT05675709|183568301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||.05
91843464|NCT01254565|183568309|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested at the 0.05 level (1-sided).|LS Mean Difference|-76.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.9|-50.0|||ANOVA|A rank analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 pg/mL or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||The hypothesis for this study (Cohorts 2 and 3) was that intravenous administration of etelcalcetide is superior to placebo for the reduction of PTH after TIW dosing in hemodialysis patients with secondary HPT. This hypothesis was tested in Cohorts 2 and 3 by comparing the mean percent changes from baseline in pre-hemodialysis PTH levels collected during the efficacy phase between the etelcalcetide and placebo groups within each cohort.||-50.0|-86.9|<0.0001
91843465|NCT01254565|183568309|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested at the 0.05 level (1-sided).|LS Mean Difference|-36.7||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|-13.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 pg/mL or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||The hypothesis for this study (Cohorts 2 and 3) was that intravenous administration of etelcalcetide is superior to placebo for the reduction of PTH after TIW dosing in hemodialysis patients with secondary HPT. This hypothesis was tested in Cohorts 2 and 3 by comparing the mean percent changes from baseline in pre-hemodialysis PTH levels collected during the efficacy phase between the etelcalcetide and placebo groups within each cohort.||-13.6|-59.8|0.0032
91843466|NCT01254565|183568310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91843467|NCT01254565|183568310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0968|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0968
91843468|NCT01254565|183568311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91899188|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||2.41|0.45|0.9363
91899189|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.18||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||3.18|0.60|0.4558
91899190|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||3.24|0.57|0.4883
91843469|NCT01254565|183568311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0730
91843470|NCT01254565|183568312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-8.4|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-8.4|-16.4|< 0.0001
91843471|NCT01254565|183568312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.9||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-1.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-1.0|-12.8|0.0235
91843472|NCT01254565|183568313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.2255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|5.7|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||5.7|-18.6|0.2255
91843473|NCT01254565|183568313|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-21.8||||0.1751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|5.9|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||5.9|-29.8|0.1751
91843474|NCT01254565|183568314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-4.9|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-4.9|-26.8|0.0112
91843475|NCT01254565|183568314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.7||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|-1.6|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-1.6|-39.3|0.0554
91843476|NCT03123263|183568378|OTHER|Repeated measures one sided ANOVA was used to analyze changes in ejection fraction over time.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|F (2,98) =13.974||||||<0.0005
91843477|NCT02971891|183568438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1789|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1789
91843478|NCT01196104|183568457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study terminated early due to business reasons, results are not properly powered.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2158||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4901|0.3956|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as covariate||0.3956|-0.4901|0.8283
91843479|NCT00065468|183568498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2 null hypotheses (Ho) were tested: 1) Survival distributions for temsirolimus alone and Interferon Alfa (IFN)-alone treatment groups were identical. 2) Survival distributions for temsirolimus in combination with IFN and IFN-alone treatment groups were identical. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each test was that the survival distributions differed.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.97|0.63|0.0252
91899191|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.96||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||1.96|0.36|0.6970
91648995|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.75||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.75|-1.74|<0.001
91784038|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.82||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|0.68|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.68|-2.32|0.3680
91784039|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|0.76|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.76|-2.23|0.4200
91784040|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.03||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.53|-1.53|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-1.53|-4.53|0.0009
91784041|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.96|5.97|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||5.97|2.96|< 0.0001
91784042|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.32|7.33|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||7.33|4.32|< 0.0001
91784043|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.58|5.59|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||5.59|2.58|< 0.0001
91784044|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.53||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|4.03|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||4.03|1.02|0.0059
91784045|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.5||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|4.01|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||4.01|1.00|0.0063
91784046|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.45||||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|2.95|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.95|-0.06|0.1138
91784047|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.36||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|1.15|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.15|-1.86|0.6976
91784048|NCT02785770|183448591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.12||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.62|-0.61|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.61|-3.62|0.0208
91784049|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.64||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|1.25|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.25|-2.53|0.5760
91784050|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.94||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.83|0.95|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.95|-2.83|0.4126
91784051|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.17||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|0.72|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.72|-3.06|0.3085
91784052|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.99||||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.88|0.9|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.90|-2.88|0.3889
91784053|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.57||||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|1.32|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.32|-2.46|0.6192
91784054|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.45||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|-0.56|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.56|-4.34|0.0332
91648996|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.01|-2.00|<0.001
91843480|NCT00065468|183568498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2 null hypotheses (Ho) were tested: 1) Survival distributions for temsirolimus alone and IFN-alone treatment groups were identical. 2) Survival distributions for temsirolimus in combination with IFN and IFN-alone treatment groups were identical. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each test was that the survival distributions differed.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.4902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||1.15|0.75|0.4902
91843481|NCT00065468|183568499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.74||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.91|0.60|0.0042
91843482|NCT00065468|183568499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.94|0.62|0.0107
91843483|NCT00065468|183568500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1361|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||0.1361
91843484|NCT00065468|183568500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||0.1062
91843485|NCT00065468|183568501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||<0.0001
91899192|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||3.16|0.60|0.4601
91648997|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.00|-0.99|0.051
91709287|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-1.46||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|14.84|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||14.84|-17.76|0.860
91899193|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||3.51|0.63|0.3758
91899194|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||2.02|0.36|0.7248
91843486|NCT00065468|183568501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||0.0011
91843487|NCT00065468|183568503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.76|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.76|0.51|<0.0001
91843488|NCT00065468|183568503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.89|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.89|0.60|0.0020
91843489|NCT04496167|183568506|OTHER||Least Square Mean Treatment Difference|1.386||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.804|7.577||Considered significant if p-value is less than 0.05.|MMRM||"The model included treatment, visit and interaction of treatment, visit as fixed effects, Baseline as a covariate, and repeated measures with visit/participant.~Treatment difference: EN3835 - Placebo"|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) was performed to estimate the change from Baseline treatment effect of the adapted ASES composite score in the affected shoulder comparing EN3835 to placebo treatment.||7.577|-4.804|0.659
91843490|NCT00598481|183568538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||One-sided Poisson-regression|||||||0.005
91843491|NCT00598481|183568539|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|3.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|6.19||P value related to geometric mean ratio at 1 year post gene therapy compared to baseline|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||6.19|1.45|0.003
91899195|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||3.11|0.60|0.4550
91899196|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||3.35|0.64|0.3672
91899197|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||2.35|0.47|0.9120
91899198|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||3.35|0.65|0.3506
91843492|NCT00598481|183568539|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|11.25||P value related to geometric mean ratio at 2 years post gene therapy compared to baseline|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||11.25|2.63|<0.001
91843493|NCT00598481|183568539|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|13.64||P value related to geometric mean ratio at 3 years post gene therapy compared to baseline|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||13.64|3.08|<0.001
91899199|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.4969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||3.16|0.58|0.4969
91648998|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.25|-1.24|0.003
91843494|NCT01232556|183568631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.44||A one sided 0.025 level testing plan was specified with two interim analyses and final testing level at one-sided 0.023.|Log Rank|From one sided stratified log-rank test.|From stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The stratification factors are are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline Secondary International Prognostic Index (sIPI), and best response to most recent chemo therapy.|Primary null hypothesis: Equality of survival distributions. Sample size sufficient to have power 0.96 for an experimental/control hazard ratio of 0.6.||1.44|0.82|0.708
91843495|NCT01232556|183568632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19||An hierarchical testing strategy was specified for OS, PFS and response. PFS could be tested at the 0.023 level if the OS test result were positive. Response could be tested if both the OS and PFS test results were positive.|Log Rank|From one sided stratified log-rank test.|From stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The stratification factors are are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.|Second comparison in hierarchical testing strategy was used for power calculation.||1.19|0.72|0.271
91843496|NCT01232556|183568633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||||||An hierarchical testing strategy was specified for OS, PFS and response. PFS could be tested at the 0.023 level if the OS test result were positive. Response could be tested if both the OS and PFS test results were positive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The stratification factors are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.||Third comparison in hierarchical testing strategy was used for power calculation.||||0.843
91899200|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||2.19|0.42|0.9265
91899201|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||3.79|0.72|0.2440
91899202|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.15||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||3.15|0.59|0.4829
91899203|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||2.61|0.51|0.7382
91899204|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.41|0.47|0.8833
91899205|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.41|0.44|0.9385
91899206|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.82|0.35|0.5975
91899207|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.13||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||3.13|0.61|0.4491
91899208|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||4.05|0.72|0.2348
91899209|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||2.38|0.46|0.9087
91899210|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.42||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||3.42|0.66|0.3349
91899211|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||3.17|0.58|0.4806
91899212|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.15||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||2.15|0.42|0.8998
91899213|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||3.12|0.60|0.4618
91899214|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.93||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.93|0.53|0.6154
91899215|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.34||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.34|0.45|0.9442
91709288|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|12.36|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||12.36|2.76|0.002
91648999|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.07||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-1.07|-2.12|<0.001
91649000|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.85||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-0.85|-1.90|<0.001
91649001|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.37||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.37|-1.42|<0.001
91649002|NCT00830063|183190618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.15||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.15|-1.19|0.012
91843497|NCT01232556|183568634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||||||An hierarchical testing strategy was specified for OS, PFS and response. PFS could be tested at the 0.023 level if the OS test result were positive. Response could be tested if both the OS and PFS test results were positive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The stratification factors are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.||Third comparison in hierarchical testing strategy was used for power calculation.||||0.714
91843498|NCT01232556|183568635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.25|||Log Rank|From one sided stratified log-rank test.|From stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The stratification factors are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.|DOR was not part of the formal hypothesis testing strategy.||1.25|0.47|0.142
91843499|NCT01232556|183568636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed effects model with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.06|-0.02|0.2892
91843500|NCT01232556|183568637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.11||||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|7.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed effects model with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||7.74|-1.52|0.1879
91649003|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.69|0.355
91649004|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.10|-1.04|0.017
91649005|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||1.03|0.09|0.020
91649006|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.26|0.388
91649007|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.52||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.52|-1.45|<0.001
91709289|NCT01402986|183311373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|1.28||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|6.06|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||6.06|-3.51|0.601
91851679|NCT05382104|183586943|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for the differences between Treatment B versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|84.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.28|88.34|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment B / Treatment A).|||88.34|81.28|
91649008|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.10|-2.02|<0.001
91649009|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.68|0.361
91649010|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.33||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.33|-1.25|<0.001
91649011|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.59||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.59|-1.54|<0.001
91709290|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.24||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.08|-0.57|0.145
91784055|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41||||0.7224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.48|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.48|-2.30|0.7224
91784056|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|2.41|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.41|-1.37|0.6507
91784057|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.72||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.62|0.18|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.18|-3.62|0.1366
91649012|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.09|-2.04|<0.001
91649013|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.02|-0.93|0.063
91784058|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.81||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|-0.91|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.91|-4.71|0.0153
91784059|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.88||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.78|0.02|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.02|-3.78|0.1040
91899216|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.08|0.60|0.4580
91709291|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.05||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.38|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.38|-0.28|0.759
91709292|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.01||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.35|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.35|-0.38|0.936
91784060|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.51||||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|0.4|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.40|-3.41|0.1924
91851680|NCT05382104|183586943|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for differences between Treatment C versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|87.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.3|91.53|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment C / Treatment A).|||91.53|84.30|
91851681|NCT01227707|183586961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||one sample binomial test|||||||1.00
91709293|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.28||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.08|-0.64|0.127
91649014|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.48||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.48|-1.43|<0.001
91649015|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.71||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.71|-1.70|<0.001
91649016|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.86||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.86|-1.85|<0.001
91649017|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.21|-1.19|0.006
91649018|NCT00830063|183190619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.36||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.36|-1.34|<0.001
91649019|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.69|0.355
91649020|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.10|-1.04|0.017
91784061|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.94||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.84|-0.04|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.04|-3.84|0.0928
91851682|NCT03215927|183586977|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|4.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments are for baseline FVC, age, and gender, with a repeated measures effect of participant.|The comparison difference value is µABT - µPlacebo.|The null hypothesis for the change outcomes is µABT - µPlacebo = 0.||4.26|-9.36|<0.05
91649021|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||1.03|0.09|0.020
91649022|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.26|0.388
91649023|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.7||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.70|-1.65|<0.001
91649024|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.13||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-1.13|-2.07|<0.001
91649025|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.21|-0.73|0.274
91649026|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.22||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.22|-1.16|0.004
91784062|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.06||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.96|-0.16|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.16|-3.96|0.0745
91784063|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.01||||0.3836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.91|0.9|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.90|-2.91|0.3836
91649027|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.75||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.75|-1.74|<0.001
91649028|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.01|-2.00|<0.001
91649029|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.00|-0.99|0.051
91784064|NCT02785770|183448592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.07||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.97|-0.17|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.17|-3.97|0.0734
91784065|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8||||0.2588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.96|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.96|-0.36|0.2588
91784066|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.30|-1.03|0.8465
91851683|NCT03215927|183586978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.77|||Regression, Cox||ABT is the numerator and Placebo is the denominator for the hazard ratios. The dispersion value given is the SE of the estimate on the natural log scale.|The null hypothesis for the time to event outcomes is exp(bABT) / exp(bPlacebo) = 1.||2.77|0.16|<0.05
91709294|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.13||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.14|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin\>= 25th percentile||0.14|-0.41|0.343
91899217|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.95||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.95|0.52|0.6275
91709295|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin\>= 25th percentile||0.27|-0.29|0.928
91649030|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.25|-1.24|0.003
91649031|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||-1.59|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.07||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.07|-2.12|<0.001
91649032|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.85||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.85|-1.90|<0.001
91709296|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.23||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.28|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.28|-0.74|0.374
91649033|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.37||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.37|-1.42|<0.001
91649034|NCT00830063|183190620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.15||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.15|-1.19|0.012
91649035|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.06||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.06|-0.96|0.026
91709297|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.29||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.22|-0.81|0.259
91899218|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.36||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.36|0.65|0.3558
91843501|NCT03785340|183568644|SUPERIORITY|"The endpoints were tested in a fixed sequence, proceeding to the next endpoint until a p-value \>0.05 was found:~1. Change from baseline to 4 weeks (Day 28) in SANDE score~2. Change from baseline to 4 weeks (Day 28) in Lissamine Green conjunctival staining scores~3. Change from baseline to 2 weeks (Day 14) in SANDE score~4. Change from baseline to 2 weeks (Day 14) in Lissamine Green conjunctival staining scores"|Least squares mean difference|-0.844||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.823|4.134|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Change from baseline to 4 weeks (Day 28) in SANDE score; OCU-310 vs. Placebo|Four endpoints (two primary and two secondary) were to be tested in a fixed sequence, proceeding to the next endpoint until a p-value \>0.05 was found. The analysis of the four outcomes employed a repeated measures mixed model with mean change from baseline score at the stated time point as the response with baseline score as a covariate and treatment, visit, and their interaction as fixed effects. The least squares mean difference (OCU 310 - placebo) at the stated time point was tested.||4.134|-5.823|0.739
91843502|NCT02584855|183568661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (cDMARD) use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
91843503|NCT02584855|183568662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|-32.3||||||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment, geographic region, and cDMARD use at the time of double-blind randomization .||-32.3|-58.8|
91843504|NCT02584855|183568665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
91843505|NCT02584855|183568666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
91649036|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.43||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.43|-1.32|<0.001
91649037|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.23|0.333
91843506|NCT02584855|183568667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
91843507|NCT02584855|183568668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
91843508|NCT02584855|183568669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
91843509|NCT02611830|183568677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|45.0||P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-α antagonist failure/concomitant immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.0|19.7|<0.001
91843510|NCT02611830|183568678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|49.3||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by randomization strata according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-α antagonist failure/concomitant immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.3|22.1|<0.001
91843511|NCT02611830|183568679|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|50.9||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by randomization strata according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-α antagonist failure/concomitant immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.9|21.2|<0.001
91649038|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.30|-0.59|0.527
91649039|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.57||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.57|-1.48|<0.001
91649040|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.25|-2.16|<0.001
91649041|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.32|-0.58|0.574
91649042|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.36||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.36|-1.26|<0.001
91843512|NCT02611830|183568680|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|25.7||P-value was calculated by Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||25.7|-6.6|0.076
91843513|NCT02611830|183568681|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|43.7||P-value was calculated by Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||43.7|-4.5|0.067
91843514|NCT01607411|183568689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|7.58||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||7.58|3.60|<0.0001
91649043|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.67|-1.60|<0.001
91649044|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.17||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.17|-2.10|<0.001
91649045|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.01|-0.92|0.055
91709298|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||0.11|-0.84|0.127
91843515|NCT01607411|183568689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|6.35||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||6.35|2.37|<0.0001
91843516|NCT01607411|183568689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.16||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|5.15||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||5.15|1.17|0.0021
91851684|NCT03215927|183586979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|23.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments are for baseline FVC, age, and gender, with a repeated measures effect of participant.|The comparison difference value is µABT - µPlacebo.|The null hypothesis for the change outcomes is µABT - µPlacebo = 0.||23.83|-8.80|<0.05
91843517|NCT01607411|183568690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.23||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|3.22||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||3.22|-0.76|0.2225
91843518|NCT01607411|183568690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.44||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.43||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||4.43|0.44|0.0168
91899219|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.4749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||3.04|0.60|0.4749
91649046|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.49||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.49|-1.42|<0.001
91649047|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.79||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.79|-1.75|<0.001
91649048|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.99||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.99|-1.95|<0.001
91709299|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||0.42|-0.56|0.775
91843519|NCT01607411|183568690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.19||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||3.19|-0.79|0.2352
91843520|NCT01607411|183568691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|34.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.07|39.24||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||39.24|30.07|<0.0001
91649049|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.19||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.19|-1.15|0.006
91649050|NCT00830063|183190621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.39||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.39|-1.34|<0.001
91843521|NCT01607411|183568691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|34.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.28|39.44||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||39.44|30.28|<0.0001
91899220|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.46||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||3.46|0.64|0.3672
91843522|NCT01607411|183568691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|28.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.97|33.13||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||33.13|23.97|< 0.0001
91851685|NCT03215927|183586980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.02|||Regression, Cox||ABT is the numerator and Placebo is the denominator for the hazard ratios. The dispersion value given is the SE of the estimate on the natural log scale.|The null hypothesis for the time to event outcomes is exp(bABT) / exp(bPlacebo) = 1.||4.02|0.04|<0.05
91649051|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.00|-0.32|0.045
91709300|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.1||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.19|-0.38|0.512
91843523|NCT01607411|183568691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|4.38||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||4.38|-4.79|0.9292
91899221|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||3.37|0.65|0.3462
91649052|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.33|0.030
91649053|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.34|0.02|0.027
91709301|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.12||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.16|-0.40|0.404
91709302|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.24||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.11|-0.59|0.181
91784067|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.02||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|2.18|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.18|-0.15|0.1502
91784068|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|1.14|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.14|-1.19|0.9700
91709303|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.25||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.10|-0.60|0.161
91709304|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.25|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.25|-0.47|0.540
91784069|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|-0.02|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.02|-2.34|0.0947
91784070|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.36|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.36|-0.96|0.7759
91843524|NCT01607411|183568691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.1||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|10.69||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||10.69|1.52|0.0094
91843525|NCT01607411|183568691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.31||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|10.89||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||10.89|1.72|0.0073
91649054|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.32|0.01|0.040
91649055|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.35||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.35|-0.66|<0.001
91899222|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.5856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||2.82|0.56|0.5856
91899223|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.58||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||3.58|0.64|0.3563
91899224|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||2.82|0.54|0.6165
91649056|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.41||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.41|-0.72|<0.001
91649057|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.01|-0.32|0.041
91649058|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.06||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.06|-0.38|0.006
91649059|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.27||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.27|-0.60|<0.001
91649060|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.29||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.29|-0.62|<0.001
91649061|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.05|-0.38|0.011
91649062|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.07||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.07|-0.40|0.006
91649063|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.26||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.26|-0.60|<0.001
91649064|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.14||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-0.14|-0.48|<0.001
91649065|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.09|-0.42|0.003
91709305|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.27|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.27|-0.42|0.674
91784071|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.9649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.19|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.19|-1.13|0.9649
91784072|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|1.25|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.25|-1.08|0.9034
91649066|NCT00830063|183190622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.03|-0.30|0.105
91649067|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.00|-0.32|0.045
91649068|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.33|0.030
91649069|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.34|0.02|0.027
91784073|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.68||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|0.49|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.49|-1.85|0.3391
91649070|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.32|0.01|0.040
91649071|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.32|-0.64|<0.001
91649072|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.42||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.42|-0.74|<0.001
91649073|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.02|-0.30|0.094
91649074|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.08||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.08|-0.40|0.003
91649075|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.23|-0.57|<0.001
91784074|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.19||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.35|-0.02|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.02|-2.35|0.0948
91784075|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.74||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|0.43|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.43|-1.91|0.2959
91784076|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.09|-1.24|0.9161
91784077|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.07||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.24|-0.91|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.91|-3.24|0.0036
91784078|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.3063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|0.44|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.44|-1.89|0.3063
91843526|NCT01607411|183568692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random factor|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.98|0.58|<0.0001
91843527|NCT01607411|183568692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.99|0.58|<0.0001
91843528|NCT01607411|183568692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.69|0.29|< 0.0001
91843529|NCT01607411|183568692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.2||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.20|-0.21|0.9631
91843530|NCT01607411|183568692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.29||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.49||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.49|0.09|0.0047
91843531|NCT01607411|183568692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.50|0.10|0.0040
91843532|NCT00544544|183568695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91843533|NCT00544544|183568696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91843534|NCT00544544|183568697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
91843535|NCT00544544|183568698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91843536|NCT03277378|183568712|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis was tested at the 5% significance level.||||||0.0003|||||||Farrington- Manning non-inferioirty test|||"The hypothesis was formally addressed as:~H0: AB - TB ≤ -15% H1: AB - TB \> -15% where AB = permanent system qualification rate of Group 1 (AB) TB = permanent system qualification rate of Group 2 (TB)"||||0.0003
91843537|NCT03277378|183568713|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||"The hypothesis was formally addressed as:~H0: P ≤ 60% H1: P \> 60% where P= percentage of physician prefer anatomic placement over targeted placement.~The analysis population included physicians who have performed both placement procedures. The hypothesis was tested at the 5% significance level."||||0.2500
91843538|NCT02107274|183568737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"Sputum volume were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
91843539|NCT02107274|183568737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"Sputum volume were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
91843540|NCT02107274|183568738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"SGRQ scores were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
91843541|NCT02107274|183568738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p valu of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"SGRQ scores were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables"||||<0.01
91843542|NCT02107274|183568739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"FEV1 values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
91843543|NCT02107274|183568739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||"FEV1 values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
91899225|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.1||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||3.10|0.60|0.4532
91649076|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.35||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.35|-0.68|<0.001
91649077|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.35|0.032
91649078|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.13||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.13|-0.46|<0.001
91649079|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.21|-0.54|<0.001
91649080|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.19||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.19|-0.52|<0.001
91649081|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.05|-0.38|0.012
91649082|NCT00830063|183190623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.03|-0.36|0.021
91649083|NCT00325403|183190664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|23.0||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|41.0||P-Value|ANCOVA|||Using an allocation ratio of 2:1 between oral treprostinil and placebo, a fixed sample size of approximately 195 subjects with access to 0.25 mg tablets at randomization would provide at least 90% power at a significance level of 0.01 (two-sided hypothesis) to detect a between-treatment difference in the change from Baseline to Week 12 in distance traversed during the 6-minute walk, assuming a true underlying treatment difference of 45 meters with a SD of 75 meters in both treatment groups.||41|4|0.0125
91784079|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.4918|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|0.68|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.68|-1.65|0.4918
91784080|NCT02785770|183448593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|0.55|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.55|-1.78|0.3862
91784081|NCT00813943|183448605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.972||P-value is not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||||0.972|0.484|0.0328
91649084|NCT00325403|183190665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|13.0||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|33.0|||ANCOVA|||||33|-2|0.0653
91649085|NCT00325403|183190666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|17.0||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|33.0|||ANCOVA|||||33|1|0.0307
91649086|NCT00325403|183190667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|12.0||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24|0|0.0518
91649087|NCT00325403|183190668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91649088|NCT00325403|183190669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||"In cases where the value corresponding to overall poorest relative change was imputed for walk distance, a value of IV was used for the WHO functional classification for PAH."|Wilcoxon rank sum test||The values for the estimated parameter and 95% confidence interval were calculated.|||0|0|0.7380
91649089|NCT00325403|183190670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0|-1|0.4887
91649090|NCT00325403|183190671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.6116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon sum-rank test|||||1|0|0.6116
91649091|NCT00325403|183190673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|26.0||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|49.0|||ANCOVA|||||49|1|0.0326
91649092|NCT00325403|183190674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|16.0||||0.2275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|47.0|||ANCOVA|||||47|-15|0.2275
91649093|NCT00325403|183190675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|32.0||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|55.0|||ANCOVA|||||55|10|0.0024
91649094|NCT00325403|183190676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|25.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|41.0|||ANCOVA|||||41|10|0.0001
91784082|NCT00813943|183448605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.858||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.204||P-value is not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||||1.204|0.612|0.3771
91784083|NCT05367492|183448618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.1|||Regression, Logistic|Model fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only, adjusted for sex and baseline E-cigarette Dependence Inventory score.|Adjusted odds ratio comparing varenicline (numerator) versus placebo (denominator).|||14.1|3.0|<0.001
91649095|NCT00325403|183190677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|17.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|33.0|||ANCOVA|||||33|3|0.0025
91649096|NCT00325403|183190678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|20.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.0|||ANCOVA|||||34|7|0.0008
91649097|NCT00325403|183190679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|14.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|25.0|||ANCOVA|||||25|3.9|0.0025
91649098|NCT00936884|183190703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|83.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.5|1074.7||Comparison of the MNTX group and the placebo group in the proportion of subjects having a RFBM within 4 hours after the first injection was performed by using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square test at the alpha level of 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||1074.7|6.50|<0.0001
91649099|NCT00936884|183190704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|40.62|72.66||Comparison of the MNTX group and the placebo group was based on ANOVA model with the proportion of injections resulting in RFBM within 4 hours during the double-blind period as the dependent variable and the treatment group as the fixed effect. .|ANOVA||Estimated value is the difference in least squared means for MNTX vs. placebo (MNTX minus placebo). Based on the ANOVA model, there is 97.5% confidence that the difference between MNTX and placebo falls between the lower and upper limits presented.|||72.66|40.62|<0.0001
91649100|NCT00936884|183190705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.91|50.14||Comparison of the MNTX group and the placebo group in the proportion of subjects having a RFBM within 4 hours after each injection was performed by using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square test at the alpha level of 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||50.14|10.91|< 0.0001
91649101|NCT01663714|183190706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with unconfirmed response.|||100|100|
91649102|NCT01663714|183190707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response.|||100|100|
91899226|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.27||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||3.27|0.58|0.4691
91649103|NCT00597584|183190728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study has been determined based on a two group evaluation of non-inferiority using the t-distribution (one-sided significance level 0.025) with a non inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL. A sample size of approximately 750 (peginesatide group of 500 and epoetin group of 250) provided at least 99% power for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.26|-0.05|
91649104|NCT00597584|183190729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.24|0.50|
91649105|NCT00597584|183190730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.07|0.87|
91649106|NCT03726437|183190753|SUPERIORITY|Analyses were performed to determine whether RealConsent was superior to Stress and Mood Management in reducing incidence of sexual violence victimization.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for fixed effects.||||.69|.33|.0002
91649107|NCT03726437|183190753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for fixed effects.||||1.28|.47|.31
91649108|NCT03726437|183190754|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|1.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||1.22|0.12|.03
91649109|NCT03726437|183190755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||0.27|-1.27|<.05
91649110|NCT03726437|183190756|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.81||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||.97|.67|.02
91649111|NCT03726437|183190757|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.05||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||1.20|.92|.43
91649112|NCT03726437|183190758|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|1.72||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||2.55|1.17|.006
91649113|NCT01889862|183190767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-973.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1204.19|-741.85||Based on Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with change from baseline as the response variable, and treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction and baseline blood phe concentration as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change in blood Phe concentration during Part 2 in subjects previously exposed to BMN165 who self administer BMN165 20mg/day compared with those who self administer matching placebo.||-741.85|-1204.19|<0.0001
91784084|NCT05367492|183448618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the primary outcome measure. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Omnibus tests for any difference in abstinence rates across study groups, based on χ² Wald statistic and adjusted for sex and baseline ECDI score.||||||<0.001
91784085|NCT05367492|183448619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|12.3||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Model fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only, adjusted for sex and baseline E-cigarette Dependence Inventory score.|Adjusted odds ratio comparing varenicline (numerator) versus placebo (denominator).|||12.3|3.1|<0.001
91784086|NCT05367492|183448619|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Omnibus tests for any difference in abstinence rates across study groups, based on χ² Wald statistic and adjusted for sex and baseline ECDI score.||||||<0.001
91843544|NCT02107274|183568740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"FVC values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
91649114|NCT01889862|183190767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-588.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-830.07|-346.94||Based on Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with change from baseline as the response variable, and treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction and baseline blood phe concentration as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change in blood Phe concentration during Part 2 in subjects previously exposed to BMN165 who self administer BMN165 40mg/day compared with those who self administer matching placebo.||-346.94|-830.07|<0.0001
91649115|NCT00033631|183190773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2||Two-sided test, significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = 70.2 Gy arm|The original target sample size was 1520 patients with a requirement of 715 deaths to test the hypothesis of overall survival (OS) efficacy of the 79.2 Gy arm. The trial was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.30 (standard/high-dose) with 90% statistical power at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.2|0.83|0.98
91784087|NCT05367492|183448620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.9||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Model fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only, adjusted for sex and baseline E-cigarette Dependence Inventory score.|Adjusted odds ratio comparing varenicline (numerator) versus placebo (denominator).|||16.9|2.1|0.001
91784088|NCT05367492|183448620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Omnibus tests for any difference in abstinence rates across study groups, based on χ² Wald statistic and adjusted for sex and baseline ECDI score.||||||<0.001
91784089|NCT05367492|183448621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.83||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic trend of time.|Adjusted mean difference comparing varenicline versus placebo. Negative indicates larger mean in placebo.|||-0.83|-2.93|0.001
91784090|NCT05367492|183448621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic time. Omnibus Wald test of any difference across study group.||||||<0.001
91784091|NCT05367492|183448622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|-4.45||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic trend of time.|Adjusted mean difference comparing varenicline versus placebo. Negative indicates larger mean in placebo.|||-4.45|-9.08|<0.001
91784092|NCT05367492|183448622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Omnibus tests of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic time. Omnibus Wald test of any difference across study groups.||||||<0.001
91784093|NCT05367492|183448623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.78||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.48||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic trend of time.|Adjusted mean difference comparing varenicline versus placebo. Negative indicates larger mean in placebo.|||-0.48|-3.08|0.008
91649116|NCT00033631|183190774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.7||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|Reference arm is 70.2 Gy arm||||0.70|0.50|<0.0001
91649117|NCT00033631|183190775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.15|||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level is 70.2 Gy arm|||1.15|0.38|0.14
91649118|NCT00033631|183190776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.66|||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = 70.2 Gy arm|||0.66|0.25|0.0001
91649119|NCT00033631|183190777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.01||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test||Reference level is the 70.2 Gy level|||1.01|0.42|0.051
91649120|NCT00033631|183190778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.29
91649121|NCT00033631|183190779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0513|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||With an expected percentage of erectile disfunction (ED) at 12 months of 29%, a two-sided significance level of 0.05, and 688 patients per arm provides 90% statistical power to detect a reduction in ED to 19%. This calculation assumes 26% ED at baseline and 80% compliance at 12 months. Only participants with baseline ED are analyzed.||||0.0513
91843545|NCT02107274|183568740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"FVC values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
91843546|NCT03251144|183568741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91843547|NCT05305040|183568742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.5603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.09|0.5603
91649122|NCT00033631|183190780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.59
91649123|NCT01827371|183190790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.72|1.93||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm B)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm B) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm B)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm B) \< 2.~Sample Size: The SD for log2 PRNT based on a prior study was\~1.9. The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used. Power=80%"||1.93|0.72|
91649124|NCT01827371|183190790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.26|1.47||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm C)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm C) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm C)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm C) \< 2.~Sample Size: The SD for log2 PRNT based on a prior study was\~1.9. The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used. Power=80%"||1.47|0.26|
91649125|NCT01827371|183190790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.17|1.0007||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm D)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm D) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm D)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm D) \< 2.~Sample Size: The SD for log2 PRNT based on a prior study was\~1.9. The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used. Power=80%"||1.0007|-0.17|
91649126|NCT01827371|183190791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm A) = Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm D) H1: Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm A) not = Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm D)"||||0.4782
91649127|NCT01827371|183190791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1704|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm A) = Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm D) H1: Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm A) not = Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm D)"||||0.1704
91649128|NCT01827371|183190791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Underarm pain' Arm A) = Pr('Underarm pain' Arm D) H1: Pr('Underarm pain' Arm A) not = Pr('Underarm pain' Arm D)"||||1.000
91843548|NCT01195675|183568747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|1.87|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||1.87|-0.69|
91843549|NCT01195675|183568748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.71|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||1.71|-0.38|
91843550|NCT01195675|183568749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.93|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||0.93|-1.23|
91843551|NCT01195675|183568750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.73|14.11|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, period, treatment sequence, baseline and subject within sequence.|Non-confirmatory testing. Mean difference = Moxifloxacin minus placebo.|||14.11|10.73|<0.0001
91843552|NCT01195675|183568751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|4.67|||Repeated measures analysis|Based on repeated measured analysis with terms for subject, baseline, period, treatment, time, baseline by time, period by time and treatment by time.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||4.67|-0.34|
91709306|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.22||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μL||0.08|-0.52|0.154
91843553|NCT01195675|183568752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|3.53|||Repeated measures analysis|Based on repeated measured analysis with terms for subject, baseline, period, treatment, time, baseline by time, period by time and treatment by time.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||3.53|-0.35|
91843554|NCT01195675|183568753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|0.94|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||0.94|-1.39|
91843555|NCT02424344|183568757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.125||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.01|||ANCOVA|Adjusted by baseline and age as covariates, and treatment group, sex and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.010|-0.259|0.069
91899227|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.3703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||3.32|0.64|0.3703
91784094|NCT05367492|183448623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Omnibus Wald test of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic time. Omnibus Wald test of any difference across study groups.||||||0.02
91784095|NCT05367492|183448624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
91843556|NCT04730947|183568760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
91843557|NCT04730947|183568761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91843558|NCT04730947|183568762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91843559|NCT04730947|183568763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91843560|NCT04730947|183568764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91899228|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.15||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.15|0.43|0.9319
91899229|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.94||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.94|0.52|0.6374
91899230|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.42||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.42|0.65|0.3457
91899231|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.37|0.47|0.8906
91899232|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.68|0.47|0.7882
91899233|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.59||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.59|0.49|0.7898
91899234|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.18||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||2.18|0.44|0.9521
91899235|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||3.05|0.53|0.6001
91899236|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||2.80|0.55|0.6054
91784096|NCT05367492|183448624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.083
91784097|NCT00265148|183448625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1334||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0583|0.3251|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Grey matter||0.3251|-0.0583|0.1695
91784098|NCT00265148|183448625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175||||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.388|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For posterior cingulate Gyrus||0.3880|-0.0380|0.1057
91784099|NCT00265148|183448625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1426||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0691|0.3543|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Frontal lobe||0.3543|-0.0691|0.1833
91843561|NCT04730947|183568765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91843562|NCT04730947|183568766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
91843563|NCT04730947|183568767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
91843564|NCT04730947|183568768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
91843565|NCT03639675|183568802|OTHER||Mean change|-8.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-4.4|||one-sample t-statistics|||||-4.4|-12.2|0.0004
91843566|NCT00826280|183568835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
91843567|NCT00826280|183568835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
91843568|NCT00826280|183568835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
91843569|NCT00826280|183568835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9328||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.9328
91843570|NCT00826280|183568836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0011
91843571|NCT00826280|183568836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0034||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0034
91843572|NCT00826280|183568836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
91843573|NCT00826280|183568836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5902||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.5902
91899237|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.81||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||1.81|0.36|0.6042
91899238|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.73||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||3.73|0.64|0.3465
91899239|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||2.64|0.50|0.7427
91899240|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||2.30|0.47|0.9218
91899241|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||3.30|0.57|0.4909
91899242|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||3.31|0.65|0.3616
91899243|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||2.55|0.51|0.7578
91899244|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||4.24|0.71|0.2369
91899245|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||2.12|0.41|0.8774
91899246|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||2.55|0.51|0.7578
91899247|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||3.33|0.58|0.4691
91899248|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.95||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||1.95|0.38|0.7272
91899249|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||2.35|0.47|0.9080
91899250|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||3.05|0.53|0.6001
91899251|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||1.76|0.35|0.5599
91899252|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.17|0.43|0.9274
91899253|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.47|0.44|0.9333
91899254|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.50|0.50|0.7796
91899255|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||2.44|0.46|0.8861
91899256|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.03||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||2.03|0.36|0.7331
91899257|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||1.78|0.35|0.5686
91899258|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.84||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.84|0.55|0.6010
91843574|NCT00826280|183568837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0037
91843575|NCT00826280|183568837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0089||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0089
91843576|NCT00826280|183568837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0016
91843577|NCT00826280|183568837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5654||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.5654
91843578|NCT00826280|183568838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
91843579|NCT00826280|183568838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
91843580|NCT00826280|183568838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
91843581|NCT00826280|183568838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4246||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||.4246
91843582|NCT04731714|183568842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.0104
91843583|NCT04731714|183568843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.079
91899259|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.4||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.40|0.43|0.9732
91843584|NCT04731714|183568844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9222|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.9222
91843585|NCT04731714|183568845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.7995
91843586|NCT04731714|183568846|OTHER|||||||0.314||||||rhythmic days|Friedman Test|See publication for further details||||||0.3140
91843587|NCT04731714|183568846|OTHER|||||||0.239||||||arrhythmic days|Friedman Test|See publication for further details||||||0.239
91843588|NCT04731714|183568850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8844|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.8844
91843589|NCT04731714|183568852|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||binomial|One-sided||||||0.73
91843590|NCT03354637|183568863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.707||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|27.0||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Since this was the first multicenter study evaluating the effect of ATI-50002 Topical Solution in subjects with stable patchy alopecia areata, the sample size was based upon feasibility issues rather than a formal power calculation. Planned data from 120 subjects, utilizing LOCF for missing data, provides 80% power to detect a 24-point difference in percent change from baseline in SALT score between any two treatment groups. This power computation is based upon assumed standard deviation of 38%.||27.00|0.77|0.038
91843591|NCT03354637|183568863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.784||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|22.55||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Since this was the first multicenter study evaluating the effect of ATI-50002 Topical Solution in subjects with stable patchy alopecia areata, the sample size was based upon feasibility issues rather than a formal power calculation. Planned data from 120 subjects, utilizing LOCF for missing data, provides 80% power to detect a 24-point difference in percent change from baseline in SALT score between any two treatment groups. This power computation is based upon assumed standard deviation of 38%.||22.55|-3.90|0.166
91843592|NCT03354637|183568864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.511||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|19.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.17|-5.97|0.302
91843593|NCT03354637|183568864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.584||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.90|-9.44|0.616
91843594|NCT03354637|183568865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.074||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.30|-1.26|0.125
91843595|NCT03354637|183568865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.107||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.36|-2.30|0.234
91843596|NCT03354637|183568866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.131||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|7.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.49|-4.39|0.607
91843597|NCT03354637|183568866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.165||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|5.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.92|-6.06|0.981
91843598|NCT03354637|183568867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.6|0.4|0.620
91899260|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.32|0.46|0.9378
91649129|NCT01827371|183190791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm A) = Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm D) H1: Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm A) not = Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm D)"||||0.6171
91843599|NCT03354637|183568867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8|0.5|0.366
91843600|NCT03354637|183568868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|0.0|0.157
91649130|NCT01827371|183190791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha=5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm A) = Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm D) H1: Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm A) not = Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm D)"||||<0.0001
91843601|NCT03354637|183568868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|0.1|0.353
91843602|NCT03354637|183568869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|0.6|0.333
91843603|NCT03354637|183568869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|0.5|0.388
91843604|NCT03354637|183568870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|0.3|0.435
91843605|NCT03354637|183568870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|0.2|0.370
91843606|NCT03354637|183568871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|0.6|0.333
91843607|NCT03354637|183568871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|0.5|0.388
91843608|NCT03354637|183568872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.505
91843609|NCT03354637|183568872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.359
91843610|NCT03354637|183568873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.602
91843611|NCT03354637|183568873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.643
91843612|NCT03354637|183568874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.992
91843613|NCT03354637|183568874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.257
91843614|NCT03354637|183568876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
91843615|NCT03354637|183568876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.253
91843616|NCT03354637|183568878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.102
91843617|NCT03354637|183568878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
91843618|NCT03354637|183568879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.481
91843619|NCT03354637|183568879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
91843620|NCT00738530|183568889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.76|0.3360
91899261|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.92||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||2.92|0.55|0.5799
91843621|NCT00738530|183568891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.64|0.0004
91843622|NCT00738530|183568892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.62|0.0002
91843623|NCT00738530|183568894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.66|0.0023
91843624|NCT00738530|183568895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|19.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|26.6|||Chi-squared|||||26.6|13.2|<.0001
91843625|NCT01656759|183568900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
91843626|NCT01656759|183568901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91843627|NCT01656759|183568903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91843628|NCT04179461|183568904|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data. Data for the CASI was captured at clinical visits. 3. A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.52||||||Change in CASI score from V1 to V3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The modified CASI score incorporates key asthma outcomes such as symptoms, healthcare utilization, and medication dose.||||0.52
91843629|NCT04179461|183568905|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data. Data for the c-ACT/ACT was captured at clinical visits and from monthly phone calls. Because c-ACT/ACT could vary through time, we calculated the average c-ACT/ACT between V1-V2 and V2-V3. Data analysis was performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC). A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.45||||||The change in ACT score from V1 to V2 (the period between V1 and V2).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91843630|NCT04179461|183568905|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data. Data for the c-ACT/ACT was captured at clinical visits and from monthly phone calls. Because c-ACT/ACT could vary through time, we calculated the average c-ACT/ACT between V1-V2 and V2-V3. Data analysis was performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC). A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.01||||||The change in ACT score from V1-V2 to V2-V3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91843631|NCT04179461|183568906|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data and the Bowker's test was used to compare categorical FEV1-FVC data. Data analysis was performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC). A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.27||||||The Change in FEV1/FVC from Visit 1 to Visit 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91843632|NCT04179461|183568907|EQUIVALENCE|Intervention adherence and end of study adherence were each calculated based on the 30 days prior to end of intervention and V3, respectively, in order to assess a consistent timeframe. The paired Wilcoxon signed rank test was conducted to compare controller inhaler adherence during baseline, adherence intervention, and end of study.||||||0.17||||||Change between baseline (V1) to end of study (V3)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91843633|NCT02916862|183568927|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations were done for Aim 1, so the main analysis was done only between SCF and placebo. Significance was set at a p value \<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|5.53||We adjusted the models for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height.|ANCOVA|We adjusted the models for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height.||The main analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. For the primary analysis, percent change from baseline in whole-body BMC after one year of supplement (SCF) vs placebo (AIM 1), we used analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height. Effects were considered significant at the alpha level of 0.05.||5.53|-2.12|0.377
91851686|NCT03779048|183586983|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in. Primary prediction analysis presented below was pre-specified to evaluate together postprandial satiety, postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests) and includes only the 125 participants from whom baseline blood samples could be obtained.|Standardized Beta coefficient|0.11||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controls for postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests)||||||.24
91851687|NCT03779048|183586984|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in. Primary prediction analysis presented below was pre-specified to evaluate together postprandial satiety, postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests) and includes only the 125 participants from whom baseline blood samples could be obtained.|Standardized Beta coefficient|-0.09||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controls for baseline postprandial satiety and gastric emptying (acetaminophen test)||||||.34
91649131|NCT01827371|183190791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha=5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm A) = Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm D) H1: Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm A) not = Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm D)"||||0.0050
91784100|NCT00265148|183448625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1366||||0.1644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0574|0.3307|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For parietal lobe||0.3307|-0.0574|0.1644
91784101|NCT00265148|183448625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1259||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0471|0.2989|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Posterior temporal lobe||0.2989|-0.0471|0.1509
91784102|NCT00265148|183448625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1339||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0747|0.3424|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For cerebellum||0.3424|-0.0747|0.2041
91784103|NCT00265148|183448625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1094||||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0385|0.2572|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For medial temporal lobe||0.2572|-0.0385|0.1445
91784104|NCT00265148|183448626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1211||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0763|0.3185|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||At Month 1||0.3185|-0.0763|0.2251
91784105|NCT00265148|183448626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0893||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0643|0.243|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Month 6||0.2430|-0.0643|0.2497
91784106|NCT00265148|183448627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.7618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.8|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For BSR test , Month 1||0.80|-0.59|0.7618
91784107|NCT00265148|183448627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.66|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For BSR test, Month 6||0.66|-0.53|0.8350
91843634|NCT02916862|183568927|SUPERIORITY|Significance was set at a p value \<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.366|5.266|||ANCOVA|||The main analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. For the secondary analysis, percent change from baseline in whole-body BMC after one year of supplement (SCF+calcium) vs placebo+calcium (AIM 2), we used analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height. Effects were considered significant at the alpha level of 0.05.||5.266|-1.366|0.245
91843635|NCT02916862|183568928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.655||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.765|8.143|||ANCOVA|||The main analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. For the secondary analysis, percent change from baseline in lumbar BMC after one year of supplement (SCF) vs placebo, we used analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height. Effects were considered significant at the alpha level of 0.05.||8.143|-0.765|0.05
91649132|NCT01827371|183190791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha=5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm A) = Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm D) H1: Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm A) not = Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm D)"||||0.0012
91709307|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.17||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.13|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μ||0.13|-0.48|0.271
91709308|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.08||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.36|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.36|-0.51|0.725
91709309|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.12||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.28|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.28|-0.53|0.559
91899262|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||2.44|0.42|0.9790
91649133|NCT01827371|183190792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.37|1.15||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm B)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm B) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm B)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm B) \< 2.~The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used."||1.15|0.37|
91843636|NCT02916862|183568928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.535||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|2.435|||ANCOVA|||||2.435|-7.680|0.05
91784108|NCT00265148|183448627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.51|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For BSR test, Month 12||0.51|-0.78|0.6735
91843637|NCT03259373|183568939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was the that proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at one year were the same between the two groups.||1.07|0.95|0.79
91843638|NCT03259373|183568939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.12|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 183 days were the same between the two groups.||1.12|0.96|0.307
91899263|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||2.64|0.51|0.7299
91784109|NCT00265148|183448628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.7045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.3|||Repetaed measure mixed model|||For Month 1||0.30|-0.44|0.7045
91784110|NCT00265148|183448628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.32|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 6||0.32|-0.40|0.8181
91784111|NCT00265148|183448628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.53|||Repeated measure mixed model|||AT Month 12||0.53|-0.71|0.7688
91784112|NCT00265148|183448628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26|||Repeated measure mixed model|||Overall||0.26|-0.40|0.6810
91843639|NCT03259373|183568939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.16|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 90 days were the same between the two groups.||1.16|0.95|0.375
91843640|NCT03259373|183568939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 42 days were the same between the two groups.||1.26|0.94|0.265
91843641|NCT03259373|183568939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among females were the same between the two groups.||1.15|0.97|0.237
91843642|NCT03259373|183568939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.05|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among males were the same between the two groups.||1.05|0.89|0.487
91843643|NCT03259373|183568939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age \<= 64 yrs were the same between the two groups.||1.27|0.78|0.952
91709310|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.47||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||-0.08|-0.87|0.019
91709311|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.2||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.21|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||0.21|-0.61|0.348
91843644|NCT03259373|183568939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of the patients with at least one OAC filled among age 65 - 74 yrs were the same between the two groups.||1.14|0.91|0.696
91709312|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.03||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.29|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.29|-0.35|0.855
91784113|NCT00265148|183448632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.99|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 1||1.99|-2.38|0.8593
91784114|NCT00265148|183448632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.32|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 6||4.32|-1.43|0.3201
91709313|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.2||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.11|-0.50|0.203
91899264|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.64|0.51|0.7357
91709314|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.44||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.01|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||0.01|-0.89|0.055
91784115|NCT00265148|183448632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|6.04|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 12||6.04|-1.68|0.2627
91784116|NCT00265148|183448632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|3.64|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For overall period||3.64|-1.35|0.3633
91784117|NCT00265148|183448633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.26|||Repetaed measure mixed model|||For overall period||0.26|-0.48|0.5647
91784118|NCT00265148|183448633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.46|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 1||0.46|-0.46|0.9935
91784119|NCT00265148|183448633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.3794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.28|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 6||0.28|-0.72|0.3794
91784120|NCT00265148|183448633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.49|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 12||0.49|-0.70|0.7357
91843645|NCT03259373|183568939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.13|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age 75 - 84 yrs were the same between groups.||1.13|0.94|0.584
91843646|NCT03259373|183568939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age \>= 85 yrs were the same between the two groups.||1.14|0.87|0.911
91843647|NCT03259373|183568939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of the patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC of 2-3 were the same between the two groups.||1.10|0.88|0.746
91899265|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.51|0.28|0.3243
91843648|NCT03259373|183568939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC score of 4-5 were the same between the two groups.||1.19|0.98|0.109
91843649|NCT03259373|183568939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC score \>=6 were the same between the two groups.||1.05|0.84|0.244
91843650|NCT03259373|183568940|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.08|0.79|0.300
91843651|NCT03259373|183568941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.83|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.83|0.93|0.122
91843652|NCT03259373|183568942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.13|0.85|0.760
91843653|NCT03259373|183568943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.14|0.86|0.760
91784121|NCT00265148|183448636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4971.6||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-255515.6|15572.4|||Repeated measure mixed model|Arithmetic means have been presented; however, statistical analysis is based upon the least square (LS) means||At Month 6||15572.4|-255515.6|0.6299
91784122|NCT00265148|183448636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12223.0||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7450.6|31896.5|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 12||31896.5|-7450.6|0.2184
91843654|NCT03259373|183568944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.08|0.88|0.616
91843655|NCT03259373|183568945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.15|0.87|0.992
91843656|NCT03259373|183568946|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||1.07|0.95|0.808
91784123|NCT00265148|183448637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 6||-0.1|-1.0|0.0129
91843657|NCT03259373|183568947|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.853
91843658|NCT03259373|183568948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.06|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||1.06|0.82|0.303
91843659|NCT03259373|183568949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.16|0.91|0.649
91899266|NCT03816891|183693451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.63|0.32|0.4364
91899267|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18||||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|44.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||44.60|0.60|0.0957
91899268|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|28.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||28.14|0.17|0.5457
91899269|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|41.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||41.51|0.24|0.3797
91709315|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||0.08|-0.82|0.104
91784124|NCT00265148|183448637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 12||0.6|-1.0|0.5607
91784125|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1154||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0967|0.3275|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Grey matter, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3275|-0.0967|0.2800
91784126|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1337||||0.4159||95.0|-0.1931|0.4605|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Grey matter, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.4605|-0.1931|0.4159
91784127|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1491||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0897|0.3878|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior cingulate gyrus, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3878|-0.0897|0.2158
91784128|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2346||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.6042|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior cingulate gyrus, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.6042|-0.1350|0.2087
91784129|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1233||||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1162|0.3628|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Frontal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3628|-0.1162|0.3064
91784130|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1734||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1952|0.542|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Frontal lobe APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.5420|-0.1952|0.3500
91784131|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0937|0.3538|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For parietal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3538|-0.0937|0.2487
91784132|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1038||||0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.4516|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For parietal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.4516|-0.2440|0.5521
91784133|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1384||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.3409|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3409|-0.0640|0.1760
91784134|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0837||||0.5952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2303|0.3978|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.3978|-0.2303|0.5952
91784135|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0847||||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1169|0.2863|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Cerebellum, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.2863|-0.1169|0.4025
91784136|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1536||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1458|0.453|||Repeated measure mixed model95|||For Cerebellum, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.4530|-0.1458|0.3081
91784137|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0839||||0.2964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0758|0.2436|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For medial temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.2436|-0.0758|0.2964
91784138|NCT00265148|183448649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1536||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0892|0.3963|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For medial temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.3963|-0.0892|0.2101
91784139|NCT04780919|183448654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B at 3 weeks follow-up after the last application.|Two-way ANOVA|||The Group A will have significantly decreased Cross Section Area compared to Group B at 3 weeks follow up after last application.||||0.722
91784140|NCT04780919|183448655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B in the timeframe of the last application.|Two-way ANOVA|||The maximum pain will decrease significantly more in Group A compared to Group B in the timeframe of the last application compared to baseline.||||0.096
91784141|NCT04780919|183448656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.|Two-way ANOVA|||The maximum pain will decrease significantly more in Group A compared to Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.||||0.035
91784142|NCT04780919|183448657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.|Two-way ANOVA|||The maximum of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion will increase significantly more in Group A compared to Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.||||0.171
91784143|NCT04780919|183448660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B in 3 weeks follow up after the last application.|Two-way ANOVA|||The VISA-A score will increase significantly more in Group A compared to Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.||||0.104
91784144|NCT04075734|183448716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.59
91784145|NCT04075734|183448716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.003
91784146|NCT04075734|183448717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.03
91784147|NCT04075734|183448718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.07
91784148|NCT04075734|183448719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.2
91784149|NCT04075734|183448720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.006
91843660|NCT03259373|183568950|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-0.4998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.587|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.587
91843661|NCT03259373|183568950|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-0.4655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.613|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.613
91843662|NCT03259373|183568950|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.515
91843663|NCT03259373|183568950|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.018
91784150|NCT04075734|183448721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.86
91784151|NCT04075734|183448722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.14
91843664|NCT03259373|183568950|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.956
91843665|NCT03259373|183568951|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-1.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.279
91843666|NCT03259373|183568951|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-1.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.143|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.143
91843667|NCT01706965|183568957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA, controlling for baseline PANSS total||||.38
91843668|NCT01706965|183568958|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA, controlled for baseline MATRICS||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||.99
91843669|NCT00556374|183568975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.504|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Stratification factors are hospital type, prior use of aromatase inhibitor, and baseline lumbar spine BMD.|From the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the independent variable and stratified by randomization strata. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer fracture-free time for denosumab relative to placebo.|The efficacy clinical hypothesis is that denosumab, when administered subcutaneously at a dose of 60 mg every 6 months, will be considered efficacious in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer receiving AIT if the rate of first clinical fracture in denosumab-treated patients is lower than that in placebo-treated patients. It is anticipated that denosumab will reduce the rate by 30% compared with placebo (ie, the true hazard ratio of denosumab compared with placebo is 0.70).||0.65|0.39|<0.0001
91843670|NCT00556374|183568976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference from Placebo|10.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.04|11.01||The Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment group as the independent variable and adjusted for baseline value and the randomization stratification factors.||||11.01|9.04|<0.0001
91843671|NCT00556374|183568977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference from Placebo|7.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.87|8.97||The Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment group as the independent variable and adjusted for baseline value and the randomization stratification factors.||||8.97|6.87|<0.0001
91843672|NCT00556374|183568978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference from Placebo|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|7.39||The Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment group as the independent variable and adjusted for baseline value and the randomization stratification factors.||||7.39|5.62|<0.0001
91843673|NCT00556374|183568979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment groups as the independent variable and stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor denosumab.|||0.85|0.33|0.0088
91843674|NCT00556374|183568980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment groups as the independent variable and stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor denosumab.|||0.84|0.34|0.0070
91843675|NCT00556374|183568981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.816||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Stratified by randomization strata (hospital type, use of aromatase inhibitor, baseline lumbar spine BMD).|From the Cox Proportional hazards model with treatment fitted as a covariate and stratified by randomization strata. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer disease-free time for denosumab relative to placebo.|||1.00|0.66|0.0515
91843676|NCT00556374|183568982|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of BMFS was conditional on the outcome of DFS due to hierarchical testing strategy, therefore p-value not reported.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|0.997|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer bone metastases-free time for denosumab relative to placebo.|||0.997|0.654|
91843677|NCT00556374|183568983|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of OS was conditional on the outcome of DFS due to hierarchical testing strategy, therefore p-value not reported.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.013|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer overall survival time for denosumab relative to placebo.|||1.013|0.635|
91843678|NCT01053637|183569030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Pain at 5 minutes using Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale validated in the younger population. Using a 2-point difference in CHEOPS pain scale as a clinically significant change, 34 patients were required in the younger 2- to 7 group.|Fisher Exact|||Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale, for children 2-7 years. This score ranks 6 categories: Cry, Facial expression, Verbal Response, Torso movement, Touch, and Leg movement. The scale varies by each category from 0-2 or 1-2 or 1-3; such that a minimum score is 4 (no pain) and a maximum score is 13 signifying greatest or worst pain.||||0.05
91843679|NCT01053637|183569031|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children pre vs. post procedure for matched pairs. Higher numbers indicated higher state anxiety. State Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC) scores pre vs. post procedure for matched pairs. A lower STAIC score indicates less anxiety and a greater score indicates more anxiety based on Likert-type scales and analyzed using nonparametric testing.||||0.05
91843680|NCT02404493|183569051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One-sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91843681|NCT02404493|183569051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.023
91843682|NCT02404493|183569051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|422.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|122.905||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|166.435|679.186||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||679.186|166.435|0.003
91843683|NCT02404493|183569052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91843684|NCT02404493|183569052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.754
91843685|NCT02404493|183569052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.21||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.23|92.373||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||92.373|12.230|0.013
91843686|NCT02404493|183569053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91843687|NCT02404493|183569053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.271
91843688|NCT02404493|183569053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|167.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.21||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.046|268.854||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||268.854|67.046|0.002
91784152|NCT04075734|183448723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of intervention over time.||||||0.02
91843689|NCT02404493|183569054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One-sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.002
91843690|NCT02404493|183569054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.260
91843691|NCT02404493|183569054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|221.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|100.674||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.254|432.68||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||432.680|11.254|0.040
91843692|NCT02404493|183569055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91843693|NCT02404493|183569055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.220
91843694|NCT02404493|183569055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|194.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.461||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.712|337.291||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||337.291|50.712|0.011
91843695|NCT02404493|183569056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.002
91843696|NCT02404493|183569056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.060
91649134|NCT01827371|183190792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.06|0.67||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm C)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm C) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm C)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm C) \< 2.~The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used."||0.67|-0.06|
91843697|NCT02404493|183569056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|134.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.567||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.266|302.063||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||302.063|-32.266|0.107
91784153|NCT04075734|183448724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.29
91784154|NCT04075734|183448725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.13
91784155|NCT04075734|183448726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.14
91784156|NCT04075734|183448727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.03
91784157|NCT04075734|183448728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.66
91784158|NCT04075734|183448729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.15
91784159|NCT02433080|183448733|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|16.5|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies for the outcomes 2-8.||16.5|-3.6|0.05
91784160|NCT03462511|183448744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||Independent variables: study month, study group, their interactions and a person-level random intercept to incorporate clustering.|Regression, Linear|||Based on estimated effect size from our prior feasibility trial, the target enrollment was 87 dyads plus additional 20% to account for attrition before Month 6 or blood transfusions or acute illness rendering HbF levels inaccurate.||||0.067
91784161|NCT03462511|183448745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We compared the difference in proportion of days covered by hydroxyurea at two timepoints: (1) from the year prior to study entry to 6 months (the end of the active intervention phase of the trial) and (2) from 6 months to 12 months (the sustainability phase of the trial).||||0.60
91784162|NCT03462511|183448746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that, compared to the control group, generic quality of life (QOL) for youth in the intervention group would improve from baseline to 9 months.||||<0.001
91784163|NCT03462511|183448746|NON_INFERIORITY|30% of the standard deviation was used as the non-inferiority margin. For this test generic quality of life (QOL) scores for months 4-9 (efficacy period) were compared to months \>9 (sustainability period).||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvement in quality of life experienced by the intervention group would be sustained from month 9 to month 12.||||0.04
91784164|NCT03462511|183448747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that, compared to the control group, sickle cell disease specific quality of life (SC-QOL) for youth in the intervention group would improve from baseline to 9 months.||||0.47
91784165|NCT03462511|183448747|NON_INFERIORITY|30% of the standard deviation was used as the non-inferiority margin. For this test sickle cell disease specific quality of life (SC-QOL) scores for months 4-9 (efficacy period) were compared to months \>9 (sustainability period).||||||0.045|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvement in sickle cell disease specific quality of life (SC-QOL) experienced by the intervention group would be sustained from month 9 to month 12.||||0.045
91784166|NCT03462511|183448748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that, compared to the control group, responsibility for self-management concordance for youth-caregiver dyads in the intervention group would improve from baseline to 6 months.||||0.002
91784167|NCT03462511|183448748|NON_INFERIORITY|50% of the standard deviation was used as the non-inferiority margin. For this test youth caregiver concordance for self-management responsibility scores for months 0-6 (efficacy period) were compared to months 6-12 (sustainability period).||||||0.23|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvement in concordance between youth and caregivers for self-management responsibility experienced by the intervention group would be sustained from month 6 to month 12.||||0.23
91784168|NCT03001817|183448756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784169|NCT03001817|183448757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784170|NCT03001817|183448758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann Method|||||||<0.0001
91784171|NCT03001817|183448759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5443|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.5443
91843698|NCT02404493|183569057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.692
91843699|NCT02404493|183569057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.541||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.541
91843700|NCT02404493|183569057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.502||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.502|-0.250|0.492
91843701|NCT02404493|183569058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.017
91784172|NCT03001817|183448760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann Method|||||||<0.0001
91784173|NCT03001817|183448761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784174|NCT03001817|183448762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784175|NCT03001817|183448763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784176|NCT03001817|183448764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784177|NCT03001817|183448765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4939|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.4939
91784178|NCT03001817|183448766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784179|NCT03001817|183448767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8371|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.8371
91784180|NCT03001817|183448768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3415|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.3415
91784181|NCT03001817|183448769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784182|NCT03001817|183448770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784183|NCT03001817|183448771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784184|NCT03001817|183448772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7442|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.7442
91784185|NCT03001817|183448773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784186|NCT03001817|183448774|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91843702|NCT02404493|183569058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.223
91784187|NCT03001817|183448775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0374|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0374
91784188|NCT03001817|183448776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7429|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.7429
91784189|NCT03001817|183448777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784190|NCT03001817|183448778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784191|NCT03001817|183448779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784192|NCT03001817|183448780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91843703|NCT02404493|183569058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|0.331||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.331|-0.635|0.518
91843704|NCT02404493|183569059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.005
91784193|NCT03001817|183448781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784194|NCT03001817|183448782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3669|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.3669
91784195|NCT03001817|183448783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784196|NCT03001817|183448784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784197|NCT03001817|183448785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784198|NCT03001817|183448786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784199|NCT03001817|183448787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0509|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0509
91784200|NCT03001817|183448788|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784201|NCT03001817|183448789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784202|NCT03001817|183448790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784203|NCT03001817|183448791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784204|NCT03001817|183448792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0647|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0647
91784205|NCT03001817|183448793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0007
91784206|NCT03001817|183448794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1399|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1399
91784207|NCT03001817|183448795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0122|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0122
91784208|NCT03001817|183448796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0994|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0994
91784209|NCT03001817|183448797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0904|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0904
91784210|NCT03001817|183448798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4346|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.4346
91784211|NCT03001817|183448799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1474|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1474
91784212|NCT03001817|183448800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0054
91784213|NCT03001817|183448801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0002
91784214|NCT03001817|183448802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784215|NCT03001817|183448803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0118
91784216|NCT03001817|183448804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784217|NCT03001817|183448805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91784218|NCT03001817|183448806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2049|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2049
91784219|NCT03001817|183448807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784220|NCT03001817|183448808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784221|NCT03001817|183448809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784222|NCT03001817|183448810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784223|NCT03001817|183448811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9117|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.9117
91784224|NCT03001817|183448812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91784225|NCT01640834|183448888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.84||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|0.14|||t-test, 1 sided|||The mean change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 100-mg LY2409021 dose group using a 1 sample t-test.||0.14|-11.82|0.0542
91843705|NCT02404493|183569059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.821
91843706|NCT02404493|183569059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.435|0.032||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.032|-1.435|0.060
91843707|NCT02404493|183569060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.007
91843708|NCT02404493|183569060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.051
91843709|NCT02404493|183569060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.375||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.375|-0.410|0.926
91843710|NCT02404493|183569061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.580
91843711|NCT02404493|183569061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.363
91843712|NCT02404493|183569061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|0.286||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.286|-0.531|0.539
91843713|NCT02404493|183569062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.055
91790417|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.652||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.652|-0.085|0.132
91709316|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.23|-0.37|0.652
91649135|NCT01827371|183190792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.5|0.3||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm D)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm D) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm D)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm D) \< 2.~The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used."||0.30|-0.50|
91649136|NCT00950599|183190794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9888||95.0||||A significance level of alpha = 0.05 was used for the trend test.|Kruskal-Wallis|ANCOVA Model: post-pre=pre treatment.||A test for log-linear trend across saxagliptin doses was performed using a linear contrast among the saxagliptin doses from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The ANCOVA model was the same model used for the first secondary endpoint.||||0.9888
91649137|NCT00950599|183190795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9888||95.0||||Positive efficacy trend among doses of saxagliptin by assessing the adjusted mean change from baseline in A1C in the 0-40 mg cohort.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post-pre=pretreatment. Contrast Coefficients: -2, -1, 0, 1 2.||||||0.9888
91649138|NCT01361607|183190878|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|1.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.50|-6.19|0.2735
91649139|NCT00125931|183190889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||comparison of mean scores at hour 2 vs 3||||0.01
91649140|NCT00125931|183190890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||comparison of mean score on treatment vs post-treatment days||||0.01
91649141|NCT00125931|183190890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||comparison of mean scores at pre-treatment vs treatment days||||0.4
91649142|NCT02273206|183190893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2562|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference||||0.2562
91649143|NCT02273206|183190893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9795|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Breast Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference||||0.9795
91649144|NCT02273206|183190893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3917|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference||||0.3917
91649145|NCT02273206|183190894|SUPERIORITY|Test the coefficient for intervention|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.346||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.851||Treatment Group (CCI vs PCM)|Regression, Logistic|p\<0.05|In the logistic regression model, adjustments were made for PHQ9 at baseline, improvement of depression by one level, baseline colorectal cancer up to date status, age, and income.|||1.851|0.979|0.0677
91649146|NCT02273206|183190895|SUPERIORITY|Test the coefficient for intervention|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.031||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.41||Treatment Group (CCI vs PCM)|Regression, Logistic|p\<0.05|In the logistic regression model, adjustments were made for PHQ9 at baseline, improvement of depression by one level, baseline breast cancer up to date status, age, and income|||1.410|0.753|0.8501
91843714|NCT02404493|183569062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.076
91843715|NCT02404493|183569062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.672|0.449||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.449|-0.672|0.682
91843716|NCT02404493|183569063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.004
91843717|NCT02404493|183569063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.025
91843718|NCT02404493|183569063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.509|0.514||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.514|-0.509|0.991
91843719|NCT02404493|183569064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91649147|NCT02273206|183190896|SUPERIORITY|Test the coefficient for intervention|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.876||||0.4432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|1.228||Treatment Group(CCI vs PCM)|Regression, Logistic|p\<0.05|In the logistic regression model, adjustments were made for PHQ9 at baseline, improvement of depression by one level, baseline cervical cancer up to date status, age, and income.|||1.228|0.625|0.4432
91843720|NCT02404493|183569064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91843721|NCT02404493|183569064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.6||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.600|-0.214|0.334
91843722|NCT02404493|183569065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.169
91843723|NCT02404493|183569065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.778|0.278||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.278|-0.778|0.317
91843724|NCT02404493|183569066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91843725|NCT02404493|183569066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.182
91843726|NCT02404493|183569066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|-0.069||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.069|-0.931|0.027
91843727|NCT02404493|183569067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91649148|NCT02273206|183190897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Two-sample t-test|p\<0.05||PHQ9 Intervention Arm Difference between baseline and 12-month follow up||||0.39
91843728|NCT02404493|183569067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.080
91843729|NCT02404493|183569067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|0.574||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.574|-0.824|0.699
91843730|NCT02404493|183569068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91843731|NCT02404493|183569068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.058
91899270|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.97||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|38.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||38.75|1.64|0.0042
91843732|NCT02404493|183569068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.607|0.857||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.857|-0.607|0.711
91843733|NCT02404493|183569069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.006
91843734|NCT02404493|183569069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.012
91843735|NCT02404493|183569069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.424||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.424|-0.391|0.932
91843736|NCT02404493|183569070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.003
91843737|NCT02404493|183569070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91843738|NCT02404493|183569070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.547||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.547|-0.410|0.767
91843739|NCT02404493|183569071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91843740|NCT02404493|183569071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.004
91843741|NCT02404493|183569071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.37||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.370|-0.650|0.571
91843742|NCT02102464|183569169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.0|8.0|<0.0001
91843743|NCT02102464|183569170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-5.2|-10.2|<0.0001
91843744|NCT02102464|183569171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.4|2.5|<0.0001
91843745|NCT01778062|183569177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91649149|NCT02273206|183190898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at baseline.||||0.60
91649150|NCT02273206|183190898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at 6 Months||||0.86
91649151|NCT02273206|183190899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at Baseline.||||0.60
91649152|NCT02273206|183190899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at 12 months.||||0.23
91649153|NCT02273206|183190900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4483|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference at 12 Months||||0.4483
91649154|NCT02273206|183190900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1706|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference at 12 Months||||0.1706
91649155|NCT02273206|183190900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3568|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Breast Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference at 12 Months||||0.3568
91649156|NCT02273206|183190901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Visits at baseline.||||0.85
91649157|NCT02273206|183190901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Visits at 6 months.||||0.23
91843746|NCT00950937|183569182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
91843747|NCT00950937|183569182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
91843748|NCT00950937|183569182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
91843749|NCT00950937|183569183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
91843750|NCT00950937|183569183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
91843751|NCT00950937|183569183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
91843752|NCT00950937|183569184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
91843753|NCT00950937|183569184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
91843754|NCT00950937|183569184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
91843755|NCT00950937|183569185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
91843756|NCT00950937|183569185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
91843757|NCT00950937|183569185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
91843758|NCT00950937|183569186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
91843759|NCT00950937|183569186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
91843760|NCT00950937|183569186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
91899271|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|26.09||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||26.09|0.99|0.0383
91843761|NCT00950937|183569187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
91843762|NCT00950937|183569187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
91843763|NCT00950937|183569187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
91843764|NCT00950937|183569188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was utilized to compare the two groups (HIV group and Control group)||||||<0.05
91843765|NCT00462644|183569205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91843766|NCT00462644|183569206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91843767|NCT00462644|183569207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91843768|NCT00462644|183569208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Normality was tested using the Kolmogorow-Smirnov test.||||0.022
91843769|NCT00462644|183569209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91843770|NCT00462644|183569210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91843771|NCT03317379|183569212|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.17|.80
91843772|NCT03317379|183569212|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.10|.32
91843773|NCT03317379|183569213|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.24||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.03|0.01
91649158|NCT02273206|183190901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Visits at 12 months.||||0.98
91649159|NCT02273206|183190901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Prescriptions at baseline.||||0.57
91649160|NCT02273206|183190901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Prescriptions at 6 months.||||0.92
91649161|NCT02273206|183190901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Prescriptions at 12 months.||||0.99
91649162|NCT02273206|183190902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening at baseline.||||0.20
91649163|NCT02273206|183190902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening at 6 months.||||0.17
91649164|NCT02273206|183190902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening at 12 months.||||0.69
91649165|NCT02273206|183190902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in breast cancer screening at baseline.||||0.72
91649166|NCT02273206|183190902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in breast cancer screening at 6 months.||||0.72
91649167|NCT02273206|183190902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in breast cancer screening at 12 months.||||0.87
91649168|NCT02273206|183190902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in cervical cancer screening at baseline.||||0.65
91649169|NCT02273206|183190902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in cervical cancer screening at 6 months.||||0.82
91784226|NCT01640834|183448888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.89||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.95|1.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||The mean change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 300-mg LY2409021 dose group.||1.16|-14.95|0.0826
91649170|NCT02273206|183190902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in cervical cancer screening at 12 months.||||0.92
91649171|NCT02273206|183190902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in Mental Health Care at 12 months.||||0.56
91649172|NCT02273206|183190903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening at baseline.||||0.17
91790418|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91649173|NCT02273206|183190903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening at 6 months.||||0.38
91649174|NCT02273206|183190903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening at 12 months.||||0.07
91649175|NCT02273206|183190903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Breast Cancer Screening at baseline.||||0.99
91649176|NCT02273206|183190903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Breast Cancer Screening at 6 months.||||0.15
91649177|NCT02273206|183190903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Breast Cancer Screening at 12 months.||||0.55
91649178|NCT02273206|183190903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Cervical Cancer Screening at baseline.||||0.34
91649179|NCT02273206|183190903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Cervical Cancer Screening at 6 months. .||||0.31
91649180|NCT02273206|183190903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Cervical Cancer Screening at 12 months.||||0.39
91649181|NCT02273206|183190903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Mental Health Care at baseline.||||0.87
91649182|NCT02273206|183190903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Mental Health Care at 6 months.||||0.83
91649183|NCT02273206|183190903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Mental Health Care at 12 months.||||0.36
91649184|NCT02273206|183190904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale at baseline. Coding of the measure was based on Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., \& Lowe, B. (2006).||||0.95
91649185|NCT02273206|183190904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale score at 6 months. Coding of the measure was based on Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., \& Lowe, B. (2006).||||0.08
91649186|NCT02273206|183190904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale score at 12 months. Coding of the measure was based on Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., \& Lowe, B. (2006).||||0.27
91649187|NCT02273206|183190905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.54
91649188|NCT02273206|183190905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.68
91649189|NCT02273206|183190905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.68
91649190|NCT02273206|183190906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||Colorectal Cancer Screening attitudes at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.74
91649191|NCT02273206|183190906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||Colorectal Cancer Screening attitudes at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.86
91649192|NCT02273206|183190906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||Colorectal Cancer Screening attitudes at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.79
91649193|NCT02273206|183190906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Breast Cancer Screening attitudes at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.91
91784227|NCT01640834|183448889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis was performed using the percent change in insulin dose, which takes into account absolute differences in individual insulin doses. The mean percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 100-mg LY2409021 dose group using a 1 sample t-test.||-0.4|-33.7|0.0460
91784228|NCT01640834|183448889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.6||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-4.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis was performed using the percent change in insulin dose, which takes into account absolute differences in individual insulin doses. The mean percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 300-mg LY2409021 dose group using a 1 sample t-test.||-4.3|-35.0|0.0192
91784229|NCT01640834|183448894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.0||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|-9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on peak glucose concentration after an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-9|-82|0.0187
91649194|NCT02273206|183190906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||Breast Cancer Screening attitudes at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.71
91649195|NCT02273206|183190906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||Breast Cancer Screening attitudes at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.77
91649196|NCT02273206|183190906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||Cervical Cancer Screening attitudes at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.64
91649197|NCT02273206|183190906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Cervical Cancer Screening attitudes at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.11
91649198|NCT02273206|183190906|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Cervical Cancer Screening attitudes at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||1.00
91649199|NCT02273206|183190908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in Mental Health Care at 12 months. Recoding of the continuous measure was based on quartiles.||||0.56
91649200|NCT02273206|183190909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||Devaluation-Discrimination Scale Score at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.18
91649201|NCT02273206|183190909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||Devaluation-Discrimination Scale score at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.32
91649202|NCT02273206|183190910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Shared Decision Making at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.50
91649203|NCT02273206|183190910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Shared Decision Making at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.51
91649204|NCT02273206|183190910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Shared Decision Making at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.02
91649205|NCT02273206|183190910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Access at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.91
91899272|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|28.92||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||28.92|1.02|0.0357
91784230|NCT01640834|183448894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.0||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|-23.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on peak glucose concentration after an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-23|-96|0.0048
91649206|NCT02273206|183190910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Access at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.69
91649207|NCT02273206|183190910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Access at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.63
91649208|NCT02273206|183190910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Care Coordination at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.55
91649209|NCT02273206|183190910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Care Coordination at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.34
91649210|NCT02273206|183190910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Care Coordination at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.19
91649211|NCT02273206|183190910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Quality at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.47
91649212|NCT02273206|183190910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Quality at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.38
91649213|NCT02273206|183190910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Quality at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.98
91649214|NCT02273206|183190911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||Medication Adherence at baseline. Coding of the measure was based on Morisky et al. (2008).||||0.78
91649215|NCT02273206|183190911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Medication Adherence at 6 months. Coding of the measure was based on Morisky et al. (2008).||||0.20
91784231|NCT01640834|183448895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4423.0||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8256.0|-590.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on area under the glucose concentration curve from time 0 to 2 hours postdose following an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-590|-8256|0.0278
91843774|NCT03317379|183569213|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-.07|0.28
91784232|NCT01640834|183448895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5187.0||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8371.0|-2004.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on area under the glucose concentration curve from time 0 to 2 hours postdose following an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-2004|-8371|0.0046
91784233|NCT01387542|183448896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.000
91649216|NCT02273206|183190911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||Medication Adherence at 12 Months. Coding of the measure was based on Morisky et al. (2008).||||0.77
91784234|NCT01387542|183448897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.009
91784235|NCT01387542|183448898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.001
91784236|NCT01387542|183448899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.000
91784237|NCT03601117|183448900|OTHER|This is to test for the antidepressant effect of LDLPFC stimulation. Test is change in score from baseline to approximately 48 hours after the final session.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
91784238|NCT00130247|183449119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This two-sided equivalence trial compared the efficacy of 4 and 6 months of treatment. We assumed that the risk of relapse for patients in the 6 month arm was 3.5% and that an absolute difference of 5% (i.e. relapse rate of 8.5%) was clinically meaningful. For a level of significance of 0.05 and 80% power (two sided), we estimated that 284 evaluable subjects per arm were required.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.051||||||95.0|0.01|0.09|||Regression, Cox||Confidence interval for difference of binomial proportions adjusted with Hauck Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of binomial proportion of relapse: Intention-to-treat||0.09|0.01|
91649217|NCT02273206|183190912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-efficacy at baseline.Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.70
91649218|NCT02273206|183190912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-efficacy at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.89
91784239|NCT00130247|183449122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|3.43||||||95.0|0.94|12.5|||Regression, Linear|||Rate of relapse at 1 year. All patients adherent with treatment and remaining in follow-up at 1 year were included in the calculation of the relapse incidence rate.||12.5|0.94|
91784240|NCT00130247|183449122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident rate ratio|4.52||||||95.0|1.29|15.9|||Regression, Linear|||Rate of relapse at 2 years. All patients adherent with treatment and remaining in follow-up at 2 years were included in the calculation of the relapse incidence rate.||15.9|1.29|
91784241|NCT00130247|183449128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This two-sided equivalence trial compared the efficacy of 4 and 6 months of treatment. We assumed that the risk of relapse for patients in the 6 month arm was 3.5% and that an absolute difference of 5% (i.e. relapse rate of 8.5%) was clinically meaningful. For a level of significance of 0.05 and 80% power (two sided), we estimated that 284 evaluable subjects per arm were required.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.054||||||95.0|0.01|0.1|||Regression, Cox||Confidence interval for difference of binomial proportions adjusted with Hauck Anderson continuity correction.|||0.10|0.01|
91843775|NCT03317379|183569214|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.16||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.16|0.06|0.03
91843776|NCT03317379|183569214|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.27|0.09|0.02
91649219|NCT02273206|183190912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-efficacy at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.95
91649220|NCT02741271|183190922|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|7.2|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method, using the constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model for missing data|Between-Treatment Difference|||7.20|3.21|<0.001
91649221|NCT02741271|183190925|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.53|8.56|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 4 hr Post-Dose|||8.56|3.53|<0.001
91649222|NCT02741271|183190925|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|7.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.74|9.35|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 2 hr Post-Dose|||9.35|4.74|<0.001
91649223|NCT02741271|183190925|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|8.28|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 60 min Post-Dose|||8.28|4.09|<0.001
91649224|NCT02741271|183190925|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|8.67|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 30 min Post-Dose|||8.67|5.10|<0.001
91649225|NCT02741271|183190925|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|8.39|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 15 min Post-Dose|||8.39|4.89|<0.001
91649226|NCT02741271|183190925|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.91|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 5 min Post-Dose|||5.91|2.50|<0.001
91649227|NCT02741271|183190926|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|8.27|||cLDA|Secondary Outcome Measure on Day 1|Between-Treatment Difference at 4 hr Post-Dose|||8.27|4.36|<0.001
91649228|NCT02741271|183190926|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.33||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.26|||cLDA|Secondary Outcome Measure at Week 12|Between-Treatment Difference at 4 hr Post-Dose|||6.26|0.41|0.026
91649229|NCT02741271|183190927|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.63||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|4.11|||cLDA|Secondary Outcome Measure|Between-Treatment Difference|||4.11|-0.85|0.197
91649230|NCT00373685|183190935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Life Table Extension of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Test|Life Table Extension of CMH Test|||||||0.0003
91649231|NCT00373685|183190936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension of CMH Test|||||||0.0035
91649232|NCT00373685|183190937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension of CMH Test|||||||0.6140
91649233|NCT00373685|183190939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value associated with Overall (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91649234|NCT00373685|183190941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value associated with Overall (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91649235|NCT00373685|183190942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value associated with Overall (LOCF)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
91649236|NCT00373685|183190943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.1008
91649237|NCT00373685|183190943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91784242|NCT03844945|183449130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91649238|NCT00373685|183190943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91649239|NCT00373685|183190943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0005
91649240|NCT00373685|183190943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||<0.0001
91649241|NCT00373685|183190944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6562|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.6562
91784243|NCT04518995|183449131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.33||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.33|0.23|<0.0001
91784244|NCT04518995|183449131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.46|0.32|<0.0001
91649242|NCT00373685|183190944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91649243|NCT00373685|183190944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91649244|NCT00373685|183190944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0245
91649245|NCT00373685|183190944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||0.0074
91649246|NCT00373685|183190945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4074|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.4074
91649247|NCT00373685|183190945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91649248|NCT00373685|183190945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91649249|NCT00373685|183190945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0127
91649250|NCT00373685|183190945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||0.0019
91649251|NCT00373685|183190946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2699|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.2699
91649252|NCT00373685|183190946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91649253|NCT00373685|183190946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91649254|NCT00373685|183190946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0027
91649255|NCT00373685|183190946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||0.0001
91709317|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.02||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.32|-0.28|0.905
91784245|NCT04518995|183449132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.32||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.32|0.17|<0.0001
91649256|NCT02570165|183190950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|191.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.07|284.26|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for the mean difference between batefenterol 37.5 µg dose and placebo (batefenterol 37.5 µg minus placebo) was estimated.|||284.26|101.07|
91784246|NCT04518995|183449132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.43||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.43|0.26|<0.0001
91784247|NCT04518995|183449132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.38||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.38|0.24|<0.0001
91784248|NCT04518995|183449132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.51||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.51|0.35|<0.0001
91843777|NCT03317379|183569215|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.42||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.02|0.08
91843778|NCT03317379|183569215|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.41||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.04|0.12
91649257|NCT02570165|183190950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|231.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|149.31|310.02|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 75 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||310.02|149.31|
91649258|NCT02570165|183190950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|261.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|189.85|332.25|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 150 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||332.25|189.85|
91784249|NCT04518995|183449132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.39||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.39|0.26|<0.0001
91649259|NCT02570165|183190950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|281.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.35|351.3|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 300 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||351.30|212.35|
91784250|NCT04518995|183449132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.55||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.55|0.39|<0.0001
91784251|NCT04518995|183449132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.44||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.44|0.31|<0.0001
91784252|NCT04518995|183449132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.55||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.55|0.39|<0.0001
91784253|NCT04518995|183449133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 4||0.02|-0.00|0.0816
91649260|NCT02570165|183190950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|292.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|223.02|364.42|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 600 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||364.42|223.02|
91649261|NCT02570165|183190951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|182.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.8|264.6|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 37.5 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||264.60|99.80|
91649262|NCT02570165|183190951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|196.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|128.4|264.8|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 75 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||264.80|128.40|
91649263|NCT02570165|183190951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|204.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|137.2|272.1|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 150 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||272.10|137.20|
91649264|NCT02570165|183190951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|208.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.7|279.2|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 300 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||279.20|138.70|
91649265|NCT02570165|183190951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|211.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.6|283.7|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 600 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||283.70|138.60|
91649266|NCT04428502|183190988|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis tested was to evaluate that there is no difference in response between ACCP positive and ACCP negative PsA participants who were treated with etanercept.||||||0.6|||||||Student's t-test|||At Month 1: P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant, without multiplicity adjustment.||||0.6
91649267|NCT04428502|183190988|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis tested was to evaluate that there is no difference in response between ACCP positive and ACCP negative PsA participants who were treated with etanercept.||||||0.007|||||||Student's t-test|||At Month 6: P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant, without multiplicity adjustment.||||0.007
91649268|NCT04428502|183190988|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis tested was to evaluate that there is no difference in response between ACCP positive and ACCP negative PsA participants who were treated with etanercept.||||||0.004|||||||Student's t-test|||At Month 12: P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant, without multiplicity adjustment.||||0.004
91649269|NCT02295280|183190995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Reduction in pain scores by at least 2 units six hours post administration|Mann Whitney U test|Mann Whitney U test used for analysis of this continuous variable as data were not normally distributed. Outcome was comparable at the 6-hour mark.||A sample size calculation of 35 patients in each group was based on an estimated reduction in headache pain score by at least two points, with an a of 0.05 and power of 90%, which is similar to estimates reported in prior studies in non-pregnant patients and felt to be a clinically significant decrease. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square, Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, the independent Student's t-test and Kolmogorov-Smirnov for continuous variables.||||0.14
91784254|NCT04518995|183449133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.05|0.01|0.0005
91784255|NCT04518995|183449133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.09|0.03|0.0002
91784256|NCT04518995|183449133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.14|0.06|<0.0001
91843779|NCT03317379|183569216|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.74||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.74|-0.14|0.18
91649270|NCT01241565|183191015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of incidence of PAL|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|21.3|||||Incidence of Prolonged Air Leak (PAL) is estimated at between 5-10% in literature. PAL of 10%of evaluable cases was used to determine study success.|||21.3|3.9|
91649271|NCT02713243|183191022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.04||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Period 1 \& 2)||7.11|0.98|0.01
91649272|NCT02713243|183191022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Period 1 \& 2)||4.38|-1.77|0.401
91649273|NCT02713243|183191022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1\&2 (Period 1 \& 2)||4.89|0.46|0.019
91784257|NCT04518995|183449133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.22|0.12|<0.0001
91649274|NCT02713243|183191027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Period 1 \& 2)||0.52|-0.27|0.533
91649275|NCT02713243|183191027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Period 1 \& 2)||0.30|-0.49|0.640
91649276|NCT02713243|183191027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1\&2 (Period 1 \& 2)||0.30|-0.27|0.916
91649277|NCT01133392|183191028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.034||||||||1.034|0.948|
91649278|NCT01133392|183191029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|0.972||||||||0.972|0.897|
91649279|NCT01133392|183191030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.054||||||||1.054|0.958|
91649280|NCT01133392|183191031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.5||||||||0.500|-0.400|
91649281|NCT01133392|183191032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.07||||||||1.070|0.961|
91843780|NCT03317379|183569216|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.62||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-0.30|0.50
91843781|NCT04445155|183569217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.125
91843782|NCT04445155|183569219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Paired t-test|||"Null Hypothesis: The means of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The means of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.011
91843783|NCT04445155|183569220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.002
91899273|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|77.91||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||77.91|3.86|<0.0001
91649282|NCT03751124|183191033|OTHER|Chi-square test was used for the comparison between relugolix plus E2/NETA group and placebo group.|Treatment difference|63.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.85|73.86||P-value was based on the stratified test statistics via log-log transformation of the difference in survival curve at a fixed time point stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume and duration of prior exposure to relugolix.|Log-Log transformation|Log-Log transformation of survival curve based on stratified Kaplan-Meier analysis|The 95% confidence interval (CI) of treatment difference was calculated via linear transformation of the difference in survival function with pooled variance.|The primary efficacy analysis was the comparison of the relugolix plus E2/NETA group with the placebo group with respect to responder rate.||73.86|52.85|<0.0001
91649283|NCT03751124|183191034|OTHER|Stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison between relugolix plus E2/NETA group and placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||P-value for comparison of relugolix plus E2/NETA to placebo was based on the stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (95% CI) of relugolix plus E2/NETA to placebo was based on a proportional hazard model stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume (\<225 mL or ≥225 mL) and duration of prior exposure to relugolix (28 weeks or 52 weeks).|||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
91649284|NCT03751124|183191035|OTHER|Chi-square test was used for the comparison between relugolix plus E2/NETA group and placebo group.|Treatment difference|58.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.97|69.11||P-value was based on the stratified test statistics via log-log transformation of the difference in survival curve at a fixed time point stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume and duration of prior exposure to relugolix.|Log-Log transformation|Log-Log transformation of survival curve based on stratified Kaplan-Meier analysis|The 95% CI of treatment difference was calculated via linear transformation of the difference in survival function with pooled variance.|||69.11|46.97|<0.0001
91649285|NCT03751124|183191036|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|44.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.13|55.11||P-value for difference between relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume (\<225 mL or ≥225 mL) and duration of prior exposure to relugolix (28 weeks or 52 weeks).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||55.11|33.13|<0.0001
91649286|NCT02462382|183191090|EQUIVALENCE|The univariate analyses were conducted using Independent t-Tests for continuous variables and Fisher Exact Tests or Chi-Square Tests of Independence for categorical comparisons.|Fisher Exact Tests|0.041||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||POD 1 1cm incision.|Chi-squared|||Comparisons of pain scores using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) based on Post-Operative Day (POD).||||.006
91784258|NCT04518995|183449133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.19||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.19|0.10|<0.0001
91784259|NCT04518995|183449133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.33||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.33|0.20|<0.0001
91784260|NCT04518995|183449133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.28||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.28|0.19|<0.0001
91784261|NCT04518995|183449133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.41|0.28|<0.0001
91784262|NCT04518995|183449134|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.1||P-value was calculated by mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.1|-4.4|0.0564
91843784|NCT04445155|183569220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.008
91843785|NCT04445155|183569221|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||<0.001
91843786|NCT04445155|183569221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.002
91843787|NCT04445155|183569222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||<0.001
91649287|NCT02496221|183191102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0021||||0.1229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5781|2.5739|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||2.5739|-20.5781|0.1229
91899274|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|26.01||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||26.01|0.97|0.0408
91649288|NCT02496221|183191103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-545.9585||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1260.0|168.0858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||168.0858|-1260.00|0.1291
91649289|NCT02496221|183191105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2992||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0762|-1.5223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||-1.5223|-31.0762|0.0317
91649290|NCT02496221|183191106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|252.6099||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5081|475.7117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||475.7117|29.5081|0.0291
91649291|NCT02496221|183191107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3748||||0.7961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4109|2.6614|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||2.6614|-3.4109|0.7961
91899275|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|28.92||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||28.92|1.02|0.0357
91899276|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|62.54||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||62.54|4.51|<0.0001
91899277|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|18.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.78|1.31|0.0116
91899278|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|8.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||8.82|0.43|0.3738
91899279|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|320.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||320.77|6.06|<0.0001
91899280|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.11||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|268.93||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||268.93|2.73|0.0002
91899281|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.02||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|166.84||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||166.84|1.74|0.0029
91899282|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|67.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||67.78|4.70|<0.0001
91899283|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|37.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||37.44|2.60|0.0002
91899284|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.87||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|22.53||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||22.53|1.53|0.0055
91899285|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|45.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||45.75|4.37|<0.0001
91899286|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|22.25||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||22.25|2.11|0.0005
91899287|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|14.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||14.41|1.25|0.0160
91899288|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|45.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.75|4.37|<0.0001
91899289|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|20.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||20.33|1.93|0.0009
91899290|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|14.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||14.04|1.25|0.0151
91899291|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|69.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||69.06|5.35|<0.0001
91899292|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|38.09||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||38.09|3.48|<0.0001
91899293|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|20.2||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||20.20|1.86|0.0013
91649292|NCT02496221|183191109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001526||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045665|0.048717|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||0.048717|-0.045665|0.9424
91649293|NCT02496221|183191110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01456||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.030666|0.001554|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||0.001554|-0.030666|0.0733
91649294|NCT01335399|183191117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4358|||||||Stratified Log Rank|||||||0.4358
91843788|NCT04445155|183569222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.125
91649295|NCT01335399|183191117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.71|0.77|1.12|||||E-Ld/Ld. Calculated using Cox proportional hazards modeling|||1.12|0.77|
91649296|NCT01335399|183191118|SUPERIORITY||CMH ESTIMATE OF COMMON ODDS RATIO|1.26||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.82|||CMH ESTIMATE OF COMMON ODDS RATIO|||||1.82|0.87|0.2232
91843789|NCT00904150|183569239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis is of the distribution of PR PROGINS polymorphism frequencies between groups||||0.513
91843790|NCT00904150|183569240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis is of the distribution of Estrogen receptor 1 G594a polymorphism frequencies between groups||||0.75
91843791|NCT00904150|183569241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.434||||0.002743||95.0|0.24|0.75|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of distribution of TNF genotype frequencies between groups||0.75|0.24|0.002743
91843792|NCT00904150|183569242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.02462||95.0|0.49|0.95|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of distribution of SYNE1 genotype frequencies between groups||0.95|0.49|0.02462
91843793|NCT00904150|183569243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis is of the distribution of Estrogen receptor 1 C325G polymorphism frequencies between groups||||0.18
91843794|NCT00904150|183569244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
91649297|NCT01335399|183191119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Stratified log rank test||Stratified by stage of disease (International Staging System 1 - 2 vs 3), age (\<75 years old vs \>= 75 years old) and ECOG performance status (0 vs 1 - 2) at randomization.|||1.19|0.82|0.8932
91649298|NCT01335399|183191121|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12|||Hazard Ratio|||||1.12|0.78|0.4358
91843795|NCT00904150|183569245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
91843796|NCT01671748|183569246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|18.6||ANCOVA was used to analyse differences between the NLFU+SOC and SOC arms of the primary endpoint, percentage change in wound area from baseline (week 5) to final visit (week 13). Patients' baseline (week 5) wound area was used as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||The study was powered to detect a difference in the change in wound area of 20% between the two arms with a two sided significance level and power of 90%. A standard deviation of 17.5% came from published literature. A minimum of 17 patients in each arm was required.||18.6|-33.4|0.565
91649299|NCT01893983|183191122|EQUIVALENCE|Compare whether 2 groups had any difference in risk/hazard of mental health engagement at any time during follow-up.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.58||P value 0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for site, mental health treatment history and mental health symptom severity at baseline, baseline amphetamine and opioid scores.|The referral alone arm is the reference group (denominator), and the motivational coaching arm is the numerator.|Compare 2 groups in regard to time to first mental health treatment using Cox proportional hazards regression.||1.58|0.81|0.660
91649300|NCT01120600|183191126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|6.7|||cLDA|||A constrained full likelihood longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||6.7|4.48|< 0.001
91899294|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|43.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||43.82|4.89|<0.0001
91784263|NCT04518995|183449134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.0|-5.9|0.0054
91784264|NCT04518995|183449134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-4.3|-12.7|<0.0001
91784265|NCT04518995|183449134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-10.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-10.3|-19.5|<0.0001
91784266|NCT04518995|183449134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-16.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-16.0|-27.5|<0.0001
91784267|NCT04518995|183449134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-23.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-23.8|-36.3|<0.0001
91784268|NCT04518995|183449134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-21.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-21.8|-35.1|<0.0001
91784269|NCT04518995|183449134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-31.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-31.3|-45.7|<0.0001
91784270|NCT04518995|183449134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-27.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-27.7|-42.1|<0.0001
91784271|NCT04518995|183449134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-36.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-36.8|-52.3|<0.0001
91784272|NCT04518995|183449134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-31.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-31.8|-46.7|<0.0001
91784273|NCT04518995|183449134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-39.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-39.0|-55.1|<0.0001
91784274|NCT04518995|183449135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by cochran mantel haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91784275|NCT04518995|183449135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91649301|NCT01120600|183191127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.77|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||2.77|1.27|< 0.001
91649302|NCT01120600|183191128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.69|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.93|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||2.93|0.45|= 0.008
91709318|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.19||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.1|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.10|-0.49|0.198
91784276|NCT04518995|183449135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91784277|NCT04518995|183449135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91784278|NCT04518995|183449135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91784279|NCT04518995|183449135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91784280|NCT04518995|183449135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91784281|NCT04518995|183449135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91784282|NCT04518995|183449136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91843797|NCT01671748|183569247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used for change in HRQoL from week 1 to week 13 (with week 1 HRQoL score as the covariate).||||0.490
91784283|NCT04518995|183449136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91784284|NCT04518995|183449136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91784285|NCT04518995|183449136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91784286|NCT04518995|183449136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91843798|NCT01671748|183569248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.08||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|1.06|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used for change in pain score (VAS) from week 5 to week 13 (covariate was baseline pain score).||1.06|-19.23|0.078
91649303|NCT01120600|183191129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.3|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||3.3|0.93|< 0.001
91649304|NCT01120600|183191130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-76.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.56|-60.61|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-60.61|-92.56|< 0.001
91649305|NCT01120600|183191131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-68.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.1|-58.06|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-58.06|-78.1|< 0.001
91649306|NCT01120600|183191132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.94|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-1.31|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-1.31|-14.58|= 0.019
91649307|NCT01120600|183191133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.0|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.74|-6.27|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-6.27|-25.74|= 0.001
91649308|NCT02544633|183191187|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion (two-sided a=5%) will be performed to test H0: ORR \<=20% against H1: ORR \>20%.|Objective response rate|10.7||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|28.23|||exact test|||||28.23|2.27|0.94
91649309|NCT02544633|183191187|SUPERIORITY||Objective response rate|15.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|37.89|||exact test|||||37.89|3.21|0.79
91649310|NCT02544633|183191187|SUPERIORITY||Objective response rate|25.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|65.09|||Exact Test|||||65.09|3.19|0.47
91649311|NCT02544633|183191187|SUPERIORITY||Objective response rate|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|26.46|||Exact test|||||26.46|0.00|>0.999
91649312|NCT02092961|183191204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.75||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|-0.42||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS synovitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||-0.42|-2.75|0.022
91649313|NCT02092961|183191204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS synovitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||2.00|-1.00|0.402
91649314|NCT02092961|183191205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS osteitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||0.50|-1.00|0.746
91649315|NCT02092961|183191205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.0||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|3.5||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS synovitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||3.50|-1.50|0.413
91649316|NCT02092961|183191206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0||A negative value for change from baseline in JSN score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||0.00|0.00|0.491
91649317|NCT02092961|183191206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0||A negative value for change from baseline in JSN score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||0.00|0.00|0.341
91709319|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.18||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.11|-0.47|0.226
91709320|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.14||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.28|-0.56|0.513
91899295|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|26.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||26.76|3.44|<0.0001
91843799|NCT01671748|183569249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.346|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in number of infections were not normally distributed and differences between the arms were tested using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test.||||0.346
91843800|NCT01671748|183569251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|Patients' baseline (week 5) wound area was used as the covariate.||||2.9|-4.7|0.618
91843801|NCT04191135|183569262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.33||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|Log Rank||Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.33|0.72|0.4556
91843802|NCT04191135|183569263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.4||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|Log Rank||Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.40|0.64|0.3903
91843803|NCT04191135|183569264|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.43|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and BRCA status (BRCAm versus BRCAwt).|||1.43|0.59|
91843804|NCT04191135|183569265|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.76|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and BRCA status (BRCAm versus BRCAwt).|||1.76|0.53|
91843805|NCT04191135|183569266|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.48|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS≥1 vs CPS\<1).|||1.48|0.33|
91843806|NCT04191135|183569267|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.37|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS≥1 vs CPS\<1).|||2.37|0.28|
91843807|NCT04191135|183569268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.28||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|1.12|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||1.12|-7.69|0.1430
91843808|NCT04191135|183569269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.16||||0.9454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|4.56|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||4.56|-4.89|0.9454
91843809|NCT04191135|183569270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.08||||0.4351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|7.31|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||7.31|-3.16|0.4351
91843810|NCT04191135|183569271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.93||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.06|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||4.06|-2.20|0.5588
91843811|NCT04191135|183569272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.37||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|3.28|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||3.28|-4.03|0.8408
91843812|NCT04191135|183569273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.34||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|8.95|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||8.95|-11.63|0.7950
91709321|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.42|-0.43|0.974
91899296|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|11.9||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||11.90|1.48|0.0049
91899297|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|21.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||21.77|3.17|<0.0001
91899298|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|13.92||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||13.92|2.20|<0.0001
91899299|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||5.86|0.85|0.0939
91899300|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|20.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||20.31|2.91|<0.0001
91899301|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|16.93||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.93|2.51|<0.0001
91899302|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.28||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||5.28|0.77|0.1425
91899303|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|27.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||27.64|3.61|<0.0001
91899304|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|22.43||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||22.43|3.08|<0.0001
91899305|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|8.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||8.60|1.17|0.0194
91899306|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|23.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||23.77|3.50|<0.0001
91899307|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|20.7||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||20.70|3.11|<0.0001
91899308|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|7.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||7.87|1.12|0.0266
91899309|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|28.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||28.00|3.85|<0.0001
91899310|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|21.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||21.86|3.04|<0.0001
91899311|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.29||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||9.29|1.22|0.0172
91899312|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|22.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||22.14|3.34|<0.0001
91899313|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|19.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||19.79|2.91|<0.0001
91709322|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.23|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.23|-0.97|0.226
91709323|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.15||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.75|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.75|-0.44|0.613
91709324|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.17||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.09|-0.43|0.198
91843813|NCT04191135|183569274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.82||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|11.62|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||11.62|-1.97|0.1597
91899314|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||5.75|0.80|0.1252
91649318|NCT02092961|183191207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS erosions score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||0.00|-0.50|0.366
91649319|NCT02092961|183191207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.25||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.5||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS erosions score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||2.50|0.50|0.053
91649320|NCT02092961|183191208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Treatment Difference|0.89||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.41|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Nonresponder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Patients who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.41|0.36|0.006
91649321|NCT02092961|183191208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.49|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Nonresponder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Patients who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||0.49|-1.16|0.496
91649322|NCT01625845|183191255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.474
91649323|NCT01625845|183191256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.068
91899315|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|20.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||20.75|3.09|<0.0001
91649324|NCT01625845|183191257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.296
91649325|NCT01625845|183191258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.203
91899316|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|22.4||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||22.40|3.30|<0.0001
91649326|NCT01625845|183191259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.906
91649327|NCT01625845|183191260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.869
91649328|NCT01625845|183191261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.026
91649329|NCT01294592|183191262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7||Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.7|-2.8|<0.001
91649330|NCT01294592|183191262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.5||Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.5|-2.7|<0.001
91709325|NCT01402986|183311374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.19||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.08|-0.45|0.165
91649331|NCT01294592|183191262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.9||Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-0.9|-2.1|<0.001
91649332|NCT01294592|183191262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0||Month 9|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.2|<0.001
91649333|NCT01294592|183191262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0||Month 12|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.2|<0.001
91649334|NCT01294592|183191262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.0||Month 15|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.3|<0.001
91709326|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.23||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.6|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.60|-0.13|0.211
91899317|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|8.34||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||8.34|1.38|0.0074
91649335|NCT01294592|183191262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0||Month 18|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.4|<0.001
91843814|NCT04191135|183569275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.52||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|12.49|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||12.49|-7.45|0.6138
91843815|NCT04191135|183569276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6||||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|3.83|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||3.83|-7.02|0.5567
91709327|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.16||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.53|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.53|-0.21|0.397
91843816|NCT04191135|183569277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.56||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.32|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||12.32|-1.20|0.1050
91843817|NCT04191135|183569278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.00676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.71|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||2.71|1.16|0.00676
91843818|NCT04191135|183569279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.96425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.69|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.69|0.61|0.96425
91843819|NCT04191135|183569280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.74965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.71|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.71|0.69|0.74965
91843820|NCT04191135|183569281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.10502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.53|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||3.53|0.88|0.10502
91843821|NCT04191135|183569282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.0|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||3.00|0.57|0.50190
91843822|NCT04191135|183569283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.47384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.97|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||1.97|0.24|0.47384
91843823|NCT04191135|183569284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.81463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.38|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||2.38|0.33|0.81463
91843824|NCT04191135|183569285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.67255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|8.82|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||8.82|0.24|0.67255
91843825|NCT00354029|183569291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91843826|NCT02033993|183569292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.23||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.23|0.68|0.31
91843827|NCT02033993|183569293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.3||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.30|0.70|0.40
91843828|NCT02033993|183569294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.59|0.76|0.28
91843829|NCT02033993|183569295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.51|||Log Rank|||||1.51|0.46|0.54
91843830|NCT02096081|183569336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 1 month was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group. The hypothesis testing procedure to test the equivalence of the two products is as follows:~Ho (null): D ≤ -∆ OR D ≥ ∆ versus Ha (alternate): -∆ \< D \< ∆, where ∆ is the margin of equivalence = 0.15."|Difference in proportions of response|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then Ho is rejected in favor of Ha (i.e., equivalence of incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA can be concluded); otherwise, treatment equivalence cannot be concluded.|With assumptions of an alpha of 5%, an equivalence margin of 15% for each side, the real response rate expected as 90% for incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA at day 30 and a 1:1 allocation ratio, a total of 225 subjects were needed to achieve a statistical power of 90% in order to make an equivalence conclusion at day 30. Results are based on the Newcombe-Wilson confidence interval. To account for exclusions from the PPS of about 10%, approximately 250 subjects were enrolled.||0.6|-7.5|
91899318|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|9.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||9.33|1.66|0.0015
91899319|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|12.4||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||12.40|2.04|0.0003
91899320|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.23||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||4.23|0.78|0.1667
91899321|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|7.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||7.41|1.31|0.0087
91649336|NCT01294592|183191262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.2||Month 21|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.2|-2.5|<0.001
91784287|NCT04518995|183449136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91784288|NCT04518995|183449136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91899322|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|7.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||7.87|1.35|0.0079
91899323|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||3.63|0.71|0.2631
91899324|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||6.05|1.11|0.0263
91899325|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.46||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||5.46|0.96|0.0643
91899326|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.27||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||3.27|0.63|0.3954
91899327|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||4.61|0.86|0.1083
91899328|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||5.69|0.96|0.0613
91709328|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.19||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.56|||Repeated Measure Model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.56|-0.18|0.315
91709329|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.26||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.63|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.63|-0.11|0.166
91784289|NCT04518995|183449136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91784290|NCT04518995|183449137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
91784291|NCT04518995|183449137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
91784292|NCT04518995|183449137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
91784293|NCT04518995|183449137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.3|-1.9|<0.0001
91784294|NCT04518995|183449137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.2|-1.8|<0.0001
91784295|NCT04518995|183449137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.6|-2.3|<0.0001
91899329|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||4.47|0.82|0.1354
91843831|NCT02096081|183569337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 2 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.5|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||1.5|-12.1|
91843832|NCT02096081|183569338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 3 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.6|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||9.6|-10.6|
91843833|NCT02096081|183569339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 4 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|7.1|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||7.1|-17.4|
91843834|NCT02096081|183569340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 1 month was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.2|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||3.2|-8.5|
91843835|NCT02096081|183569341|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 2 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|5.3|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||5.3|-11.0|
91843836|NCT02096081|183569342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 3 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|9.5|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||9.5|-12.4|
91899330|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.2362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||3.82|0.72|0.2362
91899331|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||5.17|0.88|0.0949
91899332|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||3.04|0.58|0.5013
91899333|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||3.16|0.61|0.4386
91899334|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|6.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||6.24|0.99|0.0504
91899335|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.3781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||3.32|0.64|0.3781
91899336|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.21||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||4.21|0.79|0.1535
91899337|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||4.99|0.87|0.0925
91709330|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.17||||0.262||95.0|-0.13|0.47|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||0.47|-0.13|0.262
91843837|NCT02096081|183569343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 4 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|10.7|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||10.7|-14.4|
91843838|NCT02886728|183569350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|15.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||15.6|3.6|<0.001
91649337|NCT01294592|183191262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.2||Month 24|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.2|-2.5|<0.001
91649338|NCT00623623|183191290|OTHER||Relative risk|0.86||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.08|0.68|0.195
91649339|NCT00623623|183191291|OTHER||Relative risk|1.03||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.55|||modified Poisson regression|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.55|0.68|0.904
91649340|NCT00623623|183191292|OTHER||Relative risk|0.97||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.58|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.58|0.60|0.905
91649341|NCT00623623|183191293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.73||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.08|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.08|0.49|0.120
91649342|NCT00623623|183191294|OTHER||Relative risk|0.79||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.11|0.57|0.170
91649343|NCT00623623|183191295|OTHER||Relative risk|1.1||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.97|0.61|0.758
91649344|NCT00623623|183191296|OTHER||Relative risk|1.1||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.66|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.66|0.73|0.663
91649345|NCT00623623|183191297|OTHER||Relative risk|1.72||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.6|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||3.60|0.82|0.148
91709331|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.14||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.44|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||0.44|-0.17|0.379
91784296|NCT04518995|183449137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-2.0|<0.0001
91784297|NCT04518995|183449137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.7|-2.5|<0.0001
91784298|NCT04518995|183449138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
91784299|NCT04518995|183449138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.6|-1.3|<0.0001
91784300|NCT04518995|183449138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
91899338|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.1948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||4.07|0.75|0.1948
91899339|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||3.17|0.61|0.4304
91784301|NCT04518995|183449138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.4|-2.1|<0.0001
91899340|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||5.31|0.89|0.0873
91784302|NCT04518995|183449138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.0|-1.7|<0.0001
91784303|NCT04518995|183449138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.5|-2.3|<0.0001
91784304|NCT04518995|183449138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-2.0|<0.0001
91784305|NCT04518995|183449138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.8|-2.6|<0.0001
91784306|NCT04518995|183449139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.12||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.12|0.06|<0.0001
91784307|NCT04518995|183449139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.22|0.12|<0.0001
91784308|NCT04518995|183449139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.33||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.33|0.23|<0.0001
91784309|NCT04518995|183449139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.45||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.45|0.32|<0.0001
91784310|NCT04518995|183449139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.06|0.02|0.0006
91784311|NCT04518995|183449139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.14|0.06|<0.0001
91784312|NCT04518995|183449139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.23|0.15|<0.0001
91784313|NCT04518995|183449139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.37||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.37|0.24|<0.0001
91784314|NCT04518995|183449140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.2|0.3|0.0010
91784315|NCT04518995|183449140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.6|0.6|<0.0001
91784316|NCT04518995|183449140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.2|1.2|<0.0001
91784317|NCT04518995|183449140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.4|1.4|<0.0001
91899341|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||3.38|0.64|0.3683
91899342|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.48||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||3.48|0.66|0.3203
91899343|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.98||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||4.98|0.82|0.1284
91899344|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||4.11|0.76|0.1790
91899345|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.91||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||2.91|0.56|0.5470
91899346|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.2612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||4.16|0.68|0.2612
91899347|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||3.11|0.57|0.5071
91899348|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||3.19|0.61|0.4175
91899349|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||4.32|0.68|0.284
91899350|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||2.33|0.46|0.9281
91899351|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||2.69|0.51|0.6987
91899352|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||3.41|0.56|0.4794
91899353|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.52||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||2.52|0.48|0.8164
91899354|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.5484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.93||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||2.93|0.56|0.5484
91899355|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||3.76|0.62|0.3596
91899356|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||2.78|0.53|0.6414
91899357|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.2||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||3.20|0.60|0.4233
91899358|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.7||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||3.70|0.62|0.3632
91899359|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||2.49|0.49|0.8018
91899360|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||3.02|0.55|0.5465
91899361|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||4.14|0.68|0.2560
91784318|NCT04518995|183449141|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.3|0.5|<0.0001
91649346|NCT00623623|183191298|OTHER||Relative risk|0.5||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.52|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||5.52|0.05|0.572
91899362|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.1||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.10|0.42|0.8810
91899363|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||2.24|0.43|0.9701
91784319|NCT04518995|183449141|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.8|1.0|<0.0001
91784320|NCT04518995|183449141|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.0|1.0|<0.0001
91899364|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.96||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||3.96|0.62|0.3331
91899365|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||2.11|0.40|0.8386
91899366|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.28||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||3.28|0.61|0.4091
91899367|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.57||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||3.57|0.61|0.3746
91899368|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||2.49|0.49|0.8018
91899369|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.6717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.79|0.51|0.6717
91899370|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.41|0.41|0.9850
91899371|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.31|0.43|0.9983
91784321|NCT04518995|183449141|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.4|1.4|<0.0001
91899372|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.02|0.56|0.5311
91899373|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.99|0.50|0.6628
91899374|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.09||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.09|0.56|0.5208
91899375|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||2.55|0.46|0.8483
91899376|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.2||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||3.20|0.50|0.6232
91899377|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||2.61|0.46|0.8312
91784322|NCT04518995|183449142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.0001
91899378|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||3.30|0.55|0.5083
91899379|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||2.86|0.44|0.8111
91899380|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||2.68|0.46|0.8089
91899381|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||2.37|0.41|0.9723
91843839|NCT02886728|183569350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||16.1|1.5|0.017
91649347|NCT00623623|183191299|OTHER||Relative risk|0.81||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.13|||modified Poission Regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.13|0.58|0.207
91649348|NCT00623623|183191300|OTHER||Relative risk|0.81||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||modified Poission Regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.04|0.63|0.100
91649349|NCT00623623|183191301|OTHER||Relative Risk|0.91||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.22|||modified Poission Regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.22|0.67|0.511
91649350|NCT00623623|183191302|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.75||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|5.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||5.97|0.52|0.369
91649351|NCT00623623|183191303|OTHER||Relative Risk|4.99||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|49.08|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||49.08|0.51|0.168
91649352|NCT00623623|183191304|OTHER||Relative Risk|8.02||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|63.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||63.97|1.00|0.049
91649353|NCT00623623|183191305|OTHER||Relative Risk|4.51||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|20.82|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||20.82|0.98|0.054
91649354|NCT00623623|183191306|OTHER||Relative Risk|2.0||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.99|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||7.99|0.50|0.324
91649355|NCT00623623|183191307|OTHER||Relative Risk|3.01||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.24|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||8.24|1.10|0.032
91649356|NCT00623623|183191308|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.36||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.97|0.93|0.111
91784323|NCT04518995|183449142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
91784324|NCT04518995|183449142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
91784325|NCT04518995|183449142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
91649357|NCT00623623|183191309|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.08||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.28|0.91|0.397
91649358|NCT00623623|183191310|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.13||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.31|0.97|0.107
91649359|NCT00623623|183191311|OTHER||Relative Risk|0.84||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.34|0.53|0.471
91649360|NCT00623623|183191312|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.71|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||0.71|0.17|0.003
91843840|NCT02886728|183569350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.7||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|14.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||14.1|-0.7|0.058
91784326|NCT04518995|183449142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
91843841|NCT02886728|183569351|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.11||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.11|-0.27|<0.001
91843842|NCT02886728|183569351|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.03||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.03|-0.23|0.009
91843843|NCT02886728|183569351|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.20|0.032
91843844|NCT02886728|183569352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|31.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||31.7|18.3|<0.001
91843845|NCT02886728|183569352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||21.8|5.0|<0.001
91843846|NCT02886728|183569352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||21.6|5.0|<0.001
91843847|NCT02886728|183569353|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.02||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.02|-0.61|0.068
91843848|NCT02886728|183569353|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.10|-0.67|0.14
91899382|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.58||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||2.58|0.39|0.9883
91649361|NCT00623623|183191313|OTHER||Relative risk|1.17||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.73|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||||1.73|0.78|0.451
91649362|NCT00623623|183191314|OTHER||Relative Risk|0.87||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||||1.09|0.69|0.220
91649363|NCT02144259|183191349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||GEE|||Because the expected amount of postpartum weight loss in non-breastfeeding women is not documented in the literature, we chose a sample size that would enable us to detect a one standard deviation difference in weight loss between the 3 groups at the primary 6 month endpoint. We used generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to test differences among all 3 groups over all the study periods.||||<0.05
91649364|NCT02144259|183191351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91649365|NCT00950833|183191365|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 1.|GMC ratio for anti-1|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|7.58|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory induced for anti-pneumococcal serotype 1 following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||7.58|5.03|
91843849|NCT02886728|183569353|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.16||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.16|-0.94|0.006
91843850|NCT02886728|183569354|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.0|1.8|<0.001
91843851|NCT02886728|183569354|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|0.2|0.021
91843852|NCT02886728|183569354|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.2|-0.5|0.24
91843853|NCT02886728|183569355|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.6|-0.0|0.056
91899383|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.98||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||1.98|0.35|0.6781
91899384|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.86|0.50|0.6924
91709332|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.25||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.81|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.81|-0.32|0.387
91843854|NCT02886728|183569355|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-0.3|0.10
91709333|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.29||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.84|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.84|-0.26|0.303
91784327|NCT04518995|183449142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.2|-1.7|< 0.0001
91784328|NCT04518995|183449142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
91784329|NCT04518995|183449142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-1.8|< 0.0001
91784330|NCT04518995|183449143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.34||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.34|0.17|< 0.0001
91784331|NCT04518995|183449143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.42|0.23|< 0.0001
91784332|NCT04518995|183449143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.42||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.42|0.27|< 0.0001
91784333|NCT04518995|183449143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.48|0.30|< 0.0001
91784334|NCT04518995|183449143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.42||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.42|0.26|< 0.0001
91784335|NCT04518995|183449143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.51||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.51|0.34|< 0.0001
91784336|NCT04518995|183449143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.44||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.44|0.29|< 0.0001
91784337|NCT04518995|183449143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.53||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.53|0.35|< 0.0001
91784338|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
91784339|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
91784340|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.6|-1.1|<0.0001
91784341|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-1.0|-1.4|<0.0001
91784342|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
91784343|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1.1|-1.6|<0.0001
91843855|NCT02886728|183569355|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-1.3|0.67
91843856|NCT02886728|183569356|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.27||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, campaign groups, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.27|-1.03|<0.001
91899385|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.47|0.40|0.9883
91899386|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.18||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.18|0.39|0.8581
91899387|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.37|0.41|0.9723
91899388|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.63|0.38|0.9937
91899389|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.98||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||1.98|0.35|0.6781
91899390|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||2.37|0.41|0.9723
91899391|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||2.63|0.38|0.9937
91899392|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.98||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||1.98|0.35|0.6781
91899393|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.57||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||2.57|0.44|0.8892
91899394|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.21||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||3.21|0.50|0.6296
91899395|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||2.02|0.36|0.7271
91899396|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.42||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||2.42|0.40|0.9636
91899397|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||2.00|0.32|0.6355
91899398|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||1.64|0.28|0.3901
91899399|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.36||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||3.36|0.54|0.5177
91899400|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||2.49|0.40|0.9910
91899401|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.01||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||2.01|0.35|0.7064
91899402|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||2.77|0.44|0.8373
91899403|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||3.11|0.44|0.7614
91899404|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||1.83|0.31|0.5301
91649366|NCT00950833|183191365|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled SynflorixI+II Group over Synflorix Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 4.|GMC ratio for anti-4|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|3.45|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4 induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||3.45|2.38|
91784344|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
91709334|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>=75th percentile||0.11|-0.84|0.127
91784345|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.2|-1.7|<0.0001
91784346|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.4|-0.8|<0.0001
91843857|NCT02886728|183569356|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.16||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, campaign groups, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.16|-1.09|0.008
91649367|NCT00950833|183191365|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 5.|GMC ratio for anti-5|13.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.96|16.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 5 induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||16.55|10.96|
91649368|NCT00950833|183191365|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 6B.|GMC ratio for anti-6B|28.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.54|36.81|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||36.81|22.54|
91843858|NCT02886728|183569356|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, campaign groups, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.19|-1.14|0.006
91843859|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|31.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||31.7|19.3|<0.001
91843860|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||28.5|12.8|<0.001
91843861|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|30.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||30.8|15.1|<0.001
91843862|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|35.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||35.6|22.1|<0.001
91843863|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|30.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||30.7|13.6|<0.001
91843864|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|27.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||27.5|10.5|<0.001
91843865|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|23.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||23.8|10.8|<0.001
91843866|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|20.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||20.7|4.5|0.002
91899405|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||2.80|0.44|0.8248
91899406|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||2.32|0.35|0.8374
91899407|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.67||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||1.67|0.29|0.4088
91843867|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|20.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||20.1|4.0|0.002
91843868|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||13.5|0.9|0.016
91899408|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.5||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.50|0.39|0.9745
91899409|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.4916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.84||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.84|0.28|0.4916
91843869|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|13.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||13.0|-2.7|0.18
91784347|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
91843870|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||15.6|0.3|0.030
91843871|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|19.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||19.7|6.7|<0.001
91843872|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|19.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||19.6|3.7|0.003
91843873|NCT02886728|183569357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|20.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.8|5.1|<0.001
91843874|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|13.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||13.9|6.2|<0.001
91784348|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
91784349|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
91784350|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
91784351|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
91784352|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
91784353|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
91784354|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 12||-0.5|-0.9|< 0.0001
91843875|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|10.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||10.9|1.7|0.001
91843876|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||18.9|7.7|<0.001
91843877|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|25.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||25.4|14.5|<0.001
91843878|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|18.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||18.0|4.8|<0.001
91843879|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|23.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||23.2|9.4|<0.001
91843880|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|31.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||31.5|18.1|<0.001
91843881|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|24.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||24.5|7.7|<0.001
91843882|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|25.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||25.7|9.0|<0.001
91843883|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|22.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.8|8.9|<0.001
91843884|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||20.0|2.7|0.006
91843885|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|21.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||21.0|3.9|0.002
91843886|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|19.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||19.0|5.1|<0.001
91843887|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|15.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||15.7|-1.7|0.090
91843888|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|18.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||18.6|1.4|0.014
91843889|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.9|7.0|<0.001
91843890|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|19.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||19.7|2.5|0.008
91843891|NCT02886728|183569358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|21.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||21.6|4.6|0.001
91843892|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.4||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||4.5|0.3|0.018
91843893|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.2||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||3.6|-1.2|0.17
91843894|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||6.8|0.3|0.004
91843895|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|13.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||13.1|5.2|<0.001
91843896|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||6.6|-1.7|0.18
91843897|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||12.6|2.5|<0.001
91843898|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|25.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||25.5|13.9|<0.001
91843899|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|21.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||21.1|6.6|<0.001
91843900|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||23.1|8.5|<0.001
91843901|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|24.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||24.4|11.2|<0.001
91843902|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|22.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.4|5.9|<0.001
91899410|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.35|0.23|0.1854
91843903|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|22.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.2|5.8|<0.001
91843904|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|20.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||20.5|6.9|<0.001
91709335|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>=75th percentile||0.42|-0.56|0.775
91843905|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||13.3|-3.3|0.20
91843906|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|15.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||15.7|-1.0|0.056
91843907|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|24.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||24.8|11.3|<0.001
91843908|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|18.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||18.6|1.9|0.010
91843909|NCT02886728|183569359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|23.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||23.8|7.0|<0.001
91843910|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.17||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.17|-0.29|<0.001
91843911|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.13|-0.28|<0.001
91899411|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||2.77|0.44|0.8373
91899412|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||1.83|0.29|0.5051
91899413|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||1.24|0.21|0.1375
91899414|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.82|0.49|0.7180
91899415|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.13||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.13|0.37|0.7838
91899416|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||1.83|0.34|0.5795
91899417|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||3.14|0.54|0.5517
91899418|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.89||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||1.89|0.34|0.6060
91843912|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.09||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.09|-0.24|<0.001
91899419|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||2.02|0.38|0.7491
91899420|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.63|0.45|0.8593
91899421|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.32|0.23|0.1868
91899422|NCT03816891|183693452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.2436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.41|0.26|0.2436
91899423|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0841||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.0841
91899424|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.3442
91899425|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|33.01||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||33.01|0.31|0.3083
91899426|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|22.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.64|0.21|0.4905
91843913|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.22||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.22|-0.35|<0.001
91843914|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.06||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.06|-0.23|<0.001
91709336|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.1||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.19|-0.38|0.512
91843915|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.12||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.12|-0.29|<0.001
91843916|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.20|-0.35|<0.001
91843917|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.09||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.09|-0.28|<0.001
91843918|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.07|-0.26|<0.001
91899427|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|21.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||21.08|0.15|0.6379
91709337|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.12||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.16|-0.40|0.404
91843919|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.05||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.05|-0.22|0.002
91843920|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.04|-0.17|0.23
91843921|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.04|-0.16|0.24
91843922|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.08||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.08|-0.25|<0.001
91843923|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.01|-0.20|0.077
91843924|NCT02886728|183569360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.22|0.039
91843925|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-6.0|<0.001
91843926|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-6.0|<0.001
91843927|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-7.0|<0.001
91843928|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-7.0|<0.001
91843929|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-6.0|<0.001
91843930|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-7.0|<0.001
91843931|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
91843932|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
91843933|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-6.0|<0.001
91843934|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91843935|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|0.005
91843936|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
91843937|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-2.0|0.063
91843938|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-1.0|0.64
91843939|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91843940|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91843941|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-2.0|0.095
91843942|NCT02886728|183569361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91899428|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.37||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|36.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||36.68|1.48|0.0073
91843943|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91709338|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.31||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.69|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.69|-0.06|0.102
91843944|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|0.002
91843945|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
91843946|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
91843947|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
91899429|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|14.66||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||14.66|0.49|0.2453
91843948|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
91843949|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-3.0|<0.001
91843950|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91843951|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
91843952|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
91843953|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
91843954|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91843955|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-1.0|<0.001
91843956|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-1.0|0.12
91843957|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-1.0|0.019
91843958|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
91843959|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-1.0|0.032
91843960|NCT02886728|183569362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-2.0|<0.001
91843961|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-13.0|<0.001
91843962|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-10.0|<0.001
91843963|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-10.0|<0.001
91843964|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-15.0|<0.001
91843965|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-10.0|0.001
91843966|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
91843967|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-9.0|-15.0|<0.001
91899430|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.4853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.9||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||4.90|0.04|0.4853
91843968|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-9.0|0.009
91843969|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-10.0|0.003
91843970|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-13.0|<0.001
91709339|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.3||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.68|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.68|-0.08|0.116
91709340|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.25|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.25|-0.47|0.540
91843971|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-7.0|0.11
91843972|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-8.0|0.066
91784355|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 12||-0.6|-1.1|< 0.0001
91843973|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
91843974|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-6.0|0.40
91843975|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-6.0|0.24
91843976|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-12.0|<0.001
91843977|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-7.0|0.17
91843978|NCT02886728|183569363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-10.0|0.008
91784356|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 16||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
91843979|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-12.0|<0.001
91843980|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-9.0|<0.001
91843981|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
91843982|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-13.0|<0.001
91843983|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
91843984|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
91843985|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
91843986|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-9.0|<0.001
91843987|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-8.0|0.001
91843988|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-8.0|<0.001
91843989|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-7.0|0.007
91843990|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-6.0|0.046
91843991|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-6.0|0.002
91843992|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-4.0|0.44
91843993|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-5.0|0.21
91843994|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-7.0|<0.001
91843995|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-6.0|0.029
91899431|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|10.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||10.68|1.15|0.0205
91843996|NCT02886728|183569364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-6.0|0.010
91843997|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-9.0|-15.0|<0.001
91843998|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
91843999|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-13.0|<0.001
91844000|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-16.0|<0.001
91844001|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
91844002|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-13.0|<0.001
91844003|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-15.0|<0.001
91844004|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-9.0|0.019
91844005|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-10.0|0.007
91851688|NCT03779048|183586985|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in. Primary prediction analysis presented below was pre-specified to evaluate together postprandial satiety, postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests) and includes only the 125 participants from whom baseline blood samples could be obtained.|Standardized Beta coefficient|0.03||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controls for baseline postprandial satiety and postprandial change in GLP-1||||||.78
91844006|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-12.0|<0.001
91844007|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-7.0|0.13
91844008|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-8.0|0.047
91844009|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
91844010|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-6.0|0.34
91844011|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-6.0|0.46
91709341|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.27|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.27|-0.42|0.674
91851689|NCT03779048|183586986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1|1.1|.003
91851690|NCT03779048|183586987|OTHER|Correlation between baseline postprandial hunger AUC and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.23
91851691|NCT03779048|183586988|OTHER|Correlation between baseline high energy density food reinforcer points earned and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.23
91851692|NCT03779048|183586989|OTHER|Regression results using baseline AUC for delay discounting to predict 4-week percent weight loss, controlling for participant age.|r2 change|0.033||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.033
91851693|NCT03779048|183586990|OTHER|Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included together in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.|r|0.17||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation to Implicit wanting of High Fat Savory.|Regression, Linear|||||||.04
91851694|NCT03779048|183586990|OTHER|Correlation to Implicit wanting of Low Fat Savory.|r|-0.03||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included taughter in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.||||.72
91851695|NCT03779048|183586990|OTHER|Correlation to Implicit wanting of High Fat Sweet.|r|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included together in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.||||.94
91851696|NCT03779048|183586990|OTHER|Correlation to Implicit wanting of Low Fat Sweet.|r|-0.15||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included together in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.||||.09
91851697|NCT03779048|183586991|OTHER|Correlation between baseline fasting active ghrelin and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|0.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.73
91851698|NCT03779048|183586992|OTHER||r|-0.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline fasting leptin and 4-week percent weight loss.||||.25
91851699|NCT03779048|183586993|OTHER|Correlation between baseline postprandial AUC for change in insulin and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.03||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.72
91851700|NCT03779048|183586994|OTHER|Correlation between baseline postprandial incremental AUC for PYY and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.82
91851701|NCT03779048|183586995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0|1.1|.002
91784357|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 16||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
91784358|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 20||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
91899432|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.78|0.95|0.0548
91899433|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.96||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||2.96|0.19|0.6853
91899434|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|17.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||17.47|1.83|0.0017
91899435|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||10.99|1.19|0.0196
91899436|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.6213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||4.69|0.40|0.6213
91899437|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|23.73||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||23.73|2.33|0.0003
91899438|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.84||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|15.58||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||15.58|1.50|0.0060
91899439|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|6.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||6.07|0.54|0.3432
91899440|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|13.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||13.37|1.84|0.0012
91899441|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|8.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||8.11|1.27|0.0121
91899442|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||3.08|0.41|0.8315
91899443|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||3.35|0.61|0.4161
91899444|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.82|0.54|0.6277
91899445|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.64|0.29|0.4128
91899446|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.30|0.42|0.9726
91899447|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.39||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.39|0.46|0.9070
91899448|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.14|0.21|0.0944
91899449|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.88||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.88|0.37|0.6513
91784359|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 20||-0.9|-1.3|< 0.0001
91784360|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 24||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
91784361|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 24||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
91784362|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 12||-0.3|-0.7|< 0.0001
91844012|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-12.0|<0.001
91709342|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.17||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.49|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>=150 cells/μL||0.49|-0.15|0.295
91709343|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.16||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.49|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>=150 cells/μL||0.49|-0.17|0.342
91784363|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 12||-0.4|-0.8|< 0.0001
91784364|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 16||-0.5|-0.9|< 0.0001
91844013|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-9.0|0.030
91844014|NCT02886728|183569365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-12.0|<0.001
91844015|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.983|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|-8.85||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.85|-12.71|<0.001
91844016|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.207|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|-6.39||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.39|-11.13|<0.001
91844017|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.29||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.29|-12.00|<0.001
91844018|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.884|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|-8.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.19|-11.65|<0.001
91844019|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|-6.21||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.21|-10.47|<0.001
91844020|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-5.21||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.21|-9.45|<0.001
91844021|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-4.39||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.39|-7.56|<0.001
91844022|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-2.27||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.27|-6.14|<0.001
91709344|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.18||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.6|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.60|-0.24|0.406
91709345|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.38||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.79|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.79|-0.03|0.069
91851702|NCT03779048|183587000|SUPERIORITY|Difference between placebo- and phentermine-treated participants in change in delay discounting area under the curve from randomization to week 24 was calculated using repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for age.|F|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.68
91709346|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.19||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.62|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||0.62|-0.23|0.371
91844023|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-2.39||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.39|-6.29|<0.001
91844024|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-3.31||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.31|-7.24|<0.001
91844025|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.222||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.89||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.89|-5.68|0.007
91844026|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.20|-7.02|<0.001
91844027|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-1.53||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.53|-5.35|<0.001
91844028|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-1.09||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.09|-5.72|0.004
91709347|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.07||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.51|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||0.51|-0.37|0.766
91709348|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.24||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.57|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.57|-0.09|0.147
91784365|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 16||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
91784366|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 20||-0.5|-0.9|< 0.0001
91784367|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 20||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.0001
91844029|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.19|-4.44|0.072
91844030|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.789|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-3.24||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.24|-6.34|<0.001
91851703|NCT03779048|183587001|OTHER|Regression using the three Eating Inventory subscales (Cognitive restraint, disinhibition, hunger) to predict 4-week weight loss|r2|0.01||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||For full model including all 3 predictors|Regression, Linear|||||||.75
91851704|NCT03779048|183587002|OTHER|Correlation between baseline past-week appetite and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.09||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.31
91851705|NCT03779048|183587004|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores for Behavioral Inhibition (BIS) and Behavioral Activation fro Reward to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in.|r2|0.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
91851706|NCT03779048|183587005|OTHER|Correlation between baseline BIS-15 total score and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|0.03||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.76
91851707|NCT05328297|183587028|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.84|2.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.23|-2.84|=0.438
91851708|NCT01286272|183587055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.74|||Log Rank|||||1.74|0.51|0.8457
91851709|NCT02945332|183587060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
91851710|NCT02945332|183587061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
91851711|NCT02945332|183587062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
91851712|NCT02945332|183587063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.32||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
91851713|NCT02945332|183587064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.36||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91851714|NCT02945332|183587065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
91851715|NCT03979365|183587067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
91851716|NCT03979365|183587068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Trembling Hands||||0.345
91851717|NCT03979365|183587068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Muscle Cramps||||0.451
91851718|NCT03979365|183587068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Muscle Weakness||||0.953
91851719|NCT03979365|183587068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swollen Gums||||0.579
91851720|NCT03979365|183587068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Increased Hair Growth||||0.513
91851721|NCT03979365|183587069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
91851722|NCT03979365|183587072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.836
91851723|NCT03979365|183587073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
91851724|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Taste Change||||0.314
91851725|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Appetite||||0.486
91851726|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Constipation||||0.452
91851727|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Diarrhea||||0.750
91851728|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swelling||||0.764
91851729|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Palpitations||||0.726
91851730|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Dry Skin||||0.421
91851731|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Darker Skin||||0.679
91851732|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Blurry Vision||||0.779
91851733|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Headache||||0.533
91851734|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Insomnia||||0.668
91851735|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Fatigue||||1.00
91851736|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Anxiety||||0.232
91851737|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.566|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Depression||||0.566
91851738|NCT03979365|183587074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Sadness||||0.038
91851739|NCT03979365|183587075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.754
91851740|NCT03979365|183587077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.371
91851741|NCT02296424|183587142|EQUIVALENCE|nominal 2.5% two-sided significance level was expected to have 90% powe to detect a difference between the Null Hypothesis proportion of patients who remain at their dose level.||||||0.0001|||||||exact binomial test|||||||0.0001
91851742|NCT02680457|183587148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.630
91851743|NCT02680457|183587149|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91851744|NCT01112670|183587150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
91851745|NCT01112670|183587151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
91851746|NCT01112670|183587152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
91851747|NCT01112670|183587153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.56
91851748|NCT01112670|183587154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
91851749|NCT01112670|183587155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.86
91851750|NCT01112670|183587156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
91844031|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-1.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.13|-4.88|0.002
91844032|NCT02886728|183569366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.89||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.89|-5.65|<0.001
91844033|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|26.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||26.7|12.8|<0.001
91709349|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.35||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.68|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.68|0.03|0.031
91844034|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|25.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||25.0|7.6|<0.001
91844035|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|20.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||20.4|3.0|0.004
91844036|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|25.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||25.2|11.7|<0.001
91844037|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.1||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|15.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||15.8|-1.6|0.083
91709350|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.09|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||1.09|0.10|0.020
91709351|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.29||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.77|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||0.77|-0.18|0.226
91709352|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.33|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.33|-0.31|0.964
91844038|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||23.1|6.4|<0.001
91851751|NCT01112670|183587157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
91851752|NCT01112670|183587158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
91784368|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 24||-0.6|-1.1|< 0.0001
91784369|NCT04518995|183449144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 24||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
91851753|NCT01112670|183587159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
91851754|NCT01112670|183587160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
91844039|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|16.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||16.7|4.4|<0.001
91844040|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||12.6|-3.1|0.22
91844041|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||12.1|-3.6|0.25
91844042|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.7||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||8.9|-3.5|0.35
91844043|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||12.1|-2.9|0.20
91844044|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||10.6|-4.5|0.36
91844045|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|12.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||12.8|-0.2|0.043
91899450|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.82|0.35|0.5924
91844046|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.4||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|17.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||17.2|1.6|0.015
91844047|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|14.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||14.4|-1.5|0.085
91844048|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||16.6|3.2|0.002
91844049|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|18.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||18.7|2.3|0.010
91844050|NCT02886728|183569367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|17.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||17.8|1.4|0.014
91844051|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
91844052|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.001
91899451|NCT03816891|183693453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.38|0.27|0.2313
91784370|NCT04518995|183449145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9||P-value was calculated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||0.9|-0.2|0.2489
91844053|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
91784371|NCT04518995|183449145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||1.1|-0.1|0.1235
91709353|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.1||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.42|-0.22|0.533
91709354|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.17||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.5|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.50|-0.15|0.292
91709355|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.27||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.59|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.59|-0.05|0.097
91844054|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.1|<0.001
91844055|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.9|<0.001
91844056|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-1.0|<0.001
91844057|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-1.0|<0.001
91844058|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.8|<0.001
91844059|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.9|<0.001
91844060|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
91844061|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
91844062|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
91844063|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
91844064|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-0.4|0.033
91844065|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
91844066|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
91844067|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
91649369|NCT00950833|183191365|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 7F.|GMC ratio for anti-7F|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.78|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||5.78|3.9|
91844068|NCT02886728|183569368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
91709356|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.24||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.67|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.67|-0.18|0.260
91709357|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.1||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.53|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.53|-0.33|0.648
91844069|NCT02886728|183569369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|24.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||24.4|13.1|<0.001
91844070|NCT02886728|183569369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|18.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||18.6|4.7|<0.001
91899452|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|33.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||33.17|0.31|0.3137
91844071|NCT02886728|183569369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|27.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||27.3|12.5|<0.001
91844072|NCT02886728|183569369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|33.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||33.9|20.5|<0.001
91844073|NCT02886728|183569369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||30.1|13.2|<0.001
91899453|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.5982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|25.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.75|0.16|0.5982
91649370|NCT00950833|183191365|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 9V.|GMC ratio for anti-9V|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|17.75|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||17.75|11.21|
91709358|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.28||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.93|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.93|-0.37|0.398
91784372|NCT04518995|183449145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||0.5|-0.5|0.9765
91709359|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.32||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.32|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.32|-0.95|0.327
91784373|NCT04518995|183449145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||0.8|-0.3|0.3559
91649371|NCT00950833|183191365|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 14.|GMC ratio for anti-14|22.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.51|30.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 14 induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||30|17.51|
91649372|NCT00950833|183191365|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 18C.|GMC ratio for anti-18C|10.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.95|12.61|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||12.61|7.95|
91649373|NCT00950833|183191365|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 19F.|GMC ratio for anti-19F|9.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|11.74|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||11.74|7.29|
91649374|NCT00950833|183191365|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 23F.|GMC ratio for anti-23F|36.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.59|48.34|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||48.34|27.59|
91649375|NCT01205529|183191411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||0 participants with rare SCN5A non-synonymous variants met the primary outcome for ST-segment elevation.||Given the very small number of outcomes (N=4) and the small number of participants with the primary determinant (N=2), a Fisher's Exact Test is the appropriate test and it yields a P-value=1.000.|||1.0
91844074|NCT02886728|183569369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|27.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||27.9|11.1|<0.001
91649376|NCT00711867|183191412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as -0.5 C.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||||95.0|-0.55|-0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Mu\_VH - Mu\_BH \<= -0.5 C.||-0.14|-0.55|
91844075|NCT02886728|183569369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|29.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||29.4|15.8|<0.001
91844076|NCT02886728|183569369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|25.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||25.2|8.1|<0.001
91844077|NCT02886728|183569369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.4|5.3|<0.001
91844078|NCT02886728|183569369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|28.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||28.2|14.6|<0.001
91649377|NCT03840135|183191413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||The value of δ = -0.52 days was considered as the boundary of superiority. The end of the fever period is considered to have an axillary body temperature of ≤36.9 ° C in two consecutive measurements (morning-evening / evening-morning).||0.16|-0.6|<0.05
91649378|NCT03840135|183191414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
91649379|NCT03840135|183191415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
91649380|NCT03840135|183191416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
91649381|NCT03840135|183191417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91844079|NCT02886728|183569369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.9|3.7|0.003
91844080|NCT02886728|183569369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|26.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||26.5|9.7|<0.001
91844081|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|9.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||9.1|3.4|<0.001
91844082|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||6.7|0.1|0.010
91899454|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|25.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.38|0.31|0.3244
91649382|NCT03840135|183191418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
91649383|NCT03840135|183191419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
91649384|NCT03840135|183191422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91844083|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|13.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||13.6|4.5|<0.001
91844084|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||16.1|7.4|<0.001
91649385|NCT03840135|183191423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91649386|NCT04133519|183191424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.84||P value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel testing of H0: OR=1; H1: OR≠1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel testing of H0: OR=1; H1: OR≠1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender||1.84|0.73|0.5352
91649387|NCT04133519|183191424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio reflects the odds of the number of GDH responders being greater than the number of MR responders for abdominal pain intensity.|The final 4 weeks of the on-treatment period (weeks 9-12) was a pre-specified period for analysis of the primary endpoint measure of abdominal pain due to IBS. An abdominal pain intensity responder was defined as a participant whose daily abdominal pain intensity averaged over the last 4 weeks of phase s (weeks 9 through 12) was at least 30% reduced compared with the daily abdominal pain intensity averaged over the 4 weeks of phase 1.||2.87|1.08|0.0232
91844085|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||15.8|4.5|<0.001
91649388|NCT04133519|183191424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.89||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test testing H0: OR=1; H1: OR\<\>1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio reflects the odds of GDH being superior to MR.|"Abdominal pain scores were averaged each week on treatment (1-12) and compared with the average baseline abdominal pain score. Participants that recorded a \> 30% decrease in abdominal pain in at least half the weeks on treatment were considered responders.~This analysis was specified in FDA Guidance for Industry, Irritable Bowel Syndrome - Clinical Evaluation of Drugs for Treatment, May 2012. Both the analysis period and the responder threshold (30%) are specified by the FDA Guidance."|Among all subjects, 64.0% reported Adequate Relief and 67.7% reported overall satisfaction with Regulora.|2.89|1.07|0.0254
91649389|NCT04133519|183191425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.8115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.554|||ANOVA|||The least square (LS) mean difference between the GDH and MR groups using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model||0.554|-0.434|0.8115
91649390|NCT04133519|183191426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.7564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.325|||ANOVA|||Average abdominal pain frequency at Week 13-16 will be statistically compared between GDH and comparator using an ANOVA model adjusted for gender and IBS subtype. The daily pain frequency measurement was derived from the daily pain intensity measurement. Days where severity was \>0 were considered a day with pain and were recorded as positive. Days with a score of 0 were days without pain. Mean represents the mean number of days in each time period with abdominal pain.||0.325|-0.236|0.7564
91649391|NCT04133519|183191427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.81||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test testing H0: OR=1; H1: OR\<\>1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||GDH:MR Relative Risk|A Stool Consistency Responder is defined as a \>=30% improvement in the proportion of Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) scores that fall within Group 2 (normal stools)||1.81|0.76|0.4753
91649392|NCT04133519|183191428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.6793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model for IBS-C participants:~parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random Means are the mean daily number of bowel movements for a 24-hour period."||0.460|-0.301|0.6793
91709360|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.23||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.52|-0.05|0.105
91844086|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|20.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||20.8|8.6|<0.001
91649393|NCT04133519|183191428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173||||0.9468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.904|5.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model for IBS-D participants:~parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random Means are the mean daily number of bowel movements for a 24-hour period."||5.249|-4.904|0.9468
91649394|NCT04133519|183191429|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.602||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.282|3.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model:~parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random The unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the within-participant correlation. The model-based least square (LS) means and LS mean differences (GDH minus comparator) and associated 95% CIs for each week and overall were estimated."||3.077|-6.282|0.5015
91784374|NCT04518995|183449146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.25||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.25|0.16|<0.0001
91784375|NCT04518995|183449146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.39||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.39|0.27|<0.0001
91649395|NCT04133519|183191430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.586||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.619|11.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to IBS defined as the percent time missed by not showing up for work, plus the percent time missed while working, and calculated as: Q2/(Q2+Q4)+\[(1-(Q2/(Q2+Q4))x(Q5/10)\]."||11.790|-2.619|0.2117
91790419|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.313||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.313|-0.434|0.751
91790420|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91844087|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|28.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||28.8|16.4|<0.001
91844088|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|22.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||22.5|7.1|<0.001
91709361|NCT01402986|183311375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.6|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.60|0.03|0.030
91844089|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||20.0|4.9|<0.001
91844090|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|25.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||25.1|11.4|<0.001
91844091|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.7||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||16.1|-0.8|0.056
91844092|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|17.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||17.4|0.5|0.023
91844093|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|28.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||28.7|15.1|<0.001
91649396|NCT04133519|183191431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.372||||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.793|7.537|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model: parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random||7.537|-2.793|0.3676
91649397|NCT00323609|183191432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.214
91844094|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.0|3.1|0.004
91844095|NCT02886728|183569370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||23.1|6.3|<0.001
91649398|NCT00323609|183191433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 7 days.||||0.430
91649399|NCT00323609|183191433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 30 days.||||0.655
91844096|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.1|-7.3|<0.001
91844097|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.4|-6.4|<0.001
91649400|NCT00323609|183191433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.756
91649401|NCT00323609|183191433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.503
91649402|NCT00323609|183191433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.837
91649403|NCT00323609|183191434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 30 days||||0.785
91649404|NCT00323609|183191434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.393
91649405|NCT00323609|183191434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months||||0.875
91649406|NCT00323609|183191434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.833
91649407|NCT00323609|183191435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 30 days.||||0.180
91790421|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|0.103||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.103|-0.635|0.157
91790422|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790423|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.585|0.172||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.172|-0.585|0.283
91790424|NCT02880956|183460063|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790425|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.231||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.231|-0.085|0.363
91784376|NCT01235598|183449205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-1.5||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \< 0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||0.0|-3.0|0.049
91784377|NCT01235598|183449206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference within group changes|-1.0||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \< 0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \< 0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained. Testing was stopped in the next step.||1.0|-3.0|0.206
91784378|NCT01235598|183449210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-0.0035||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.0025||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||0.0025|-0.0120|0.164
91784379|NCT01235598|183449211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-0.069||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.138||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||0.1380|-0.2010|0.865
91784380|NCT01235598|183449212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-421.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1542.5|-47.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||-47.0|-1542.5|0.015
91899455|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.58||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|59.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||59.86|0.96|0.0266
91899456|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|42.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||42.80|0.63|0.0892
91899457|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|37.67||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||37.67|0.44|0.1864
91899458|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|45.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.55|1.89|0.0020
91899459|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|32.22||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||32.22|1.28|0.0141
91649408|NCT00323609|183191435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 3 months||||0.822
91899460|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|10.89||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||10.89|0.34|0.4485
91899461|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|9.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.55|1.14|0.0235
91649409|NCT00323609|183191435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 12 months||||0.291
91899462|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|9.59||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.59|1.13|0.0252
91844098|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.7|-7.7|<0.001
91784381|NCT01235598|183449224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.394
91649410|NCT00323609|183191435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 24 months||||0.996
91649411|NCT00323609|183191435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 30 days||||0.983
91649412|NCT00323609|183191435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 3 months||||0.576
91649413|NCT00323609|183191435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 12 months||||0.393
91649414|NCT00323609|183191435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 24 months||||0.722
91784382|NCT01235598|183449225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.625
91784383|NCT01235598|183449226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.128
91784384|NCT01235598|183449227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.732
91784385|NCT01235598|183449228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.411
91784386|NCT01235598|183449229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.208
91784387|NCT01235598|183449230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|||0.0|-1.0|0.254
91784388|NCT01235598|183449231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|||1.0|-2.0|0.472
91844099|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-5.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.6|-8.9|<0.001
91844100|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-3.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.3|-7.3|<0.001
91899463|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||3.14|0.27|0.9062
91899464|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|13.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||13.19|1.57|0.0041
91844101|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.7|-7.8|<0.001
91649415|NCT00323609|183191436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 30 days.||||0.318
91649416|NCT00323609|183191436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.523
91649417|NCT00323609|183191436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.634
91649418|NCT00323609|183191436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.457
91649419|NCT00323609|183191437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.818||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.818
91649420|NCT00323609|183191438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.226
91649421|NCT00323609|183191439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91844102|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-4.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.4|-7.3|<0.001
91649422|NCT00323609|183191440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.112
91649423|NCT00323609|183191440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.364
91649424|NCT00323609|183191440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.185
91649425|NCT00323609|183191440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.100
91649426|NCT00323609|183191441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.005
91649427|NCT00323609|183191441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.382
91784389|NCT00395343|183449232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.7|-0.42|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum (on vs. not on metformin); insulin stratum (pre-mixed vs. intermediate or long-acting)||||-0.42|-0.70|<0.001
91784390|NCT00395343|183449233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-23.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum; insulin stratum||||-6.5|-23.4|<0.001
91844103|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.7|-6.1|<0.001
91784391|NCT00395343|183449234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-47.1|-25.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum; insulin stratum||||-25.1|-47.1|<0.001
91784392|NCT00395343|183449235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Difference|36.5||||0.01||95.0|8.9|64.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; log-scaled baseline value; metformin stratum; insulin stratum||||64.7|8.9|0.01
91899465|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.72||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|13.39||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||13.39|1.66|0.0025
91784393|NCT00395343|183449236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.001||95.0|1.89|6.85||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 24 in the Sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. group vs. the Placebo group.|Logistic Regression|Model terms: treatment; baseline; Metformin stratum; and insulin stratum||||6.85|1.89|<0.001
91899466|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||6.76|0.73|0.1632
91899467|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|10.65||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||10.65|1.57|0.0030
91899468|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.91||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||13.91|1.80|0.0014
91899469|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||4.82|0.62|0.3017
91899470|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|10.48||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||10.48|1.67|0.0018
91899471|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|10.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||10.99|1.69|0.0017
91899472|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||3.55|0.52|0.5365
91899473|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.46||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.46|0.46|0.8774
91899474|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.70|0.50|0.7261
91899475|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.63|0.31|0.4195
91784394|NCT00395343|183449237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.584||95.0|0.45|4.18||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 24 in the Sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. group vs. the Placebo group.|Logistic Regression|Model terms: treatment; baseline; Metformin stratum; and insulin stratum|This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<6.5% at Week 24 in the Sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. group vs. the Placebo group.|||4.18|0.45|0.584
91899476|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.31|0.42|0.9759
91899477|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.81||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.81|0.51|0.6857
91899478|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.04|0.19|0.0633
91899479|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.88||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.88|0.36|0.6466
91899480|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.23||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.23|0.41|0.9298
91899481|NCT03816891|183693454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.49|0.29|0.3143
91899482|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1656||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.1656
91899483|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3026||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.3026
91899484|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.3442
91899485|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|45.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||45.07|0.47|0.1641
91899486|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|25.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||25.61|0.20|0.5103
91899487|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|22.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.02|0.19|0.5457
91899488|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||22.44|0.80|0.0722
91899489|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|16.01||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.01|0.51|0.2215
91899490|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.4872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|5.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||5.06|0.03|0.4872
91899491|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.68|0.95|0.0550
91899492|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.1||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||6.10|0.52|0.3519
91899493|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.34||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||3.34|0.22|0.8266
91899494|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.99||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|30.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||30.30|2.11|0.0009
91899495|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|18.39||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||18.39|1.32|0.0116
91899496|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|10.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||10.60|0.59|0.2127
91899497|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|22.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||22.61|2.17|0.0006
91899498|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|14.43||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||14.43|1.47|0.0061
91784395|NCT00395343|183449238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.72|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum; insulin stratum, treatment by insulin stratum interaction||||-0.40|-0.72|<0.001
91784396|NCT01667419|183449239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.37|0.0010
91784397|NCT01667419|183449239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.54|0.2598
91784398|NCT01667419|183449240|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.37|0.0133
91784399|NCT01667419|183449240|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.57|0.6815
91784400|NCT01667419|183449241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.94|||Log Rank|||||.94|0.30|0.0274
91784401|NCT01667419|183449241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Log Rank|||||1.66|0.55|0.8597
91790426|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91784402|NCT03364270|183449245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.84||Threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in mean 18F-RGD uptake (expressed as a target to background ratio) in the culprit artery (carotid artery implicated in stroke or transient ischemic attack \[TIA\]) when compared to mean 18F-RGD uptake in the contralateral carotid artery. A paired t-test was used to compare 18F-RGD uptake in culprit plaque to plaque in the contralateral artery.||0.84|0.33|.001
91784403|NCT03869216|183449247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.916||0.8388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.19|||t-test, 2 sided||Intervention - Control|H0:muI = muC||4.19|-3.40|0.8388
91784404|NCT03869216|183449248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.588||0.4929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|6.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0:muI = muC||6.91|-3.35|0.4929
91784405|NCT03869216|183449249|SUPERIORITY|Intervention - Control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.932||0.4312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0:muI = muC||1.11|-2.58|0.4312
91784406|NCT03869216|183449250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-0.1548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.1216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.033|||t-test, 2 sided|Chi Square Test gives same results|Intervention - Control|H0: piI = piC||0.033|-0.342|0.1216
91784407|NCT03860259|183449290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1771||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.1771
91784408|NCT03860259|183449290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2833||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.2833
91784409|NCT03860259|183449290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.0909
91784410|NCT03860259|183449290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.2310
91899499|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.2317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.9||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||6.90|0.62|0.2317
91784411|NCT03860259|183449290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0801|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.0801
91784412|NCT03860259|183449290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0307||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Total||||0.0307
91784413|NCT03860259|183449291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1956||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.1956
91784414|NCT03860259|183449291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2274||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.2274
91784415|NCT03860259|183449291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.1090
91784416|NCT03860259|183449291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1618||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.1618
91784417|NCT03860259|183449291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1264||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.1264
91784418|NCT03860259|183449291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0394||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14||||0.0394
91784419|NCT03860259|183449291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3968||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30||||0.3968
91784420|NCT03860259|183449291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3407||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60||||0.3407
91844104|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.4|-6.8|<0.001
91899500|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.81||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||9.81|1.36|0.0093
91899501|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||8.80|1.21|0.0183
91784421|NCT03860259|183449291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4033||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90||||0.4033
91784422|NCT03860259|183449292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1707||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Time of discharge||||0.1707
91784423|NCT03860259|183449292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3446||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.3446
91784424|NCT03860259|183449292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.4310
91844105|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.9|-5.3|<0.001
91844106|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.3|-4.3|<0.001
91899502|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.45||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||3.45|0.40|0.7648
91844107|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.4|-4.4|<0.001
91844108|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.1|-3.4|<0.001
91844109|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.8|-2.0|0.36
91649428|NCT00323609|183191441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.196
91844110|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-3.3|0.009
91649429|NCT00323609|183191441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.281
91899503|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||3.68|0.65|0.3370
91649430|NCT00323609|183191442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.033
91649431|NCT00323609|183191442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.981||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.981
91649432|NCT00323609|183191442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.631
91649433|NCT00323609|183191442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.790
91844111|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.2|-4.5|<0.001
91649434|NCT00323609|183191443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.663
91844112|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.1|-2.7|0.042
91844113|NCT02886728|183569373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.7|<0.001
91649435|NCT00323609|183191443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.933
91649436|NCT00323609|183191443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.089
91899504|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||3.16|0.57|0.5054
91649437|NCT00323609|183191443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.036
91649438|NCT00323609|183191444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.472
91649439|NCT00323609|183191444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.745
91784425|NCT03860259|183449292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3143||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.3143
91649440|NCT00323609|183191444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.565
91649441|NCT00323609|183191444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.687
91649442|NCT03803085|183191447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91649443|NCT03803085|183191448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91649444|NCT03803085|183191449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||p\<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
91784426|NCT03860259|183449292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4749||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.4749
91784427|NCT03860259|183449292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3728||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.3728
91784428|NCT03860259|183449292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1628|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14||||0.1628
91784429|NCT03860259|183449292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0731||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30||||0.0731
91784430|NCT03860259|183449292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4909||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60||||0.4909
91784431|NCT03860259|183449292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4411||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90||||0.4411
91649445|NCT01154153|183191478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio of Geometric mean|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.045|||ANCOVA||The treatment ratio was calculated as an exponential of the mean difference between treatments in log scale.|Missing cortisol values were imputed with multiple imputation. AUC(0-24 hr) was calculated for each imputation and analyzed with log-transformation using an ANCOVA model and analyzed with treatment, sex, and age group as fixed effects, and log-transformed baseline value as a covariate. The mean difference in log scale between treatments and its standard error were calculated by Least Squares mean. Results from multiply imputed data were combined using SAS procedure MIANALYZE.||1.045|0.892|
91649446|NCT01154153|183191479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.37|||ANCOVA|For ANCOVA, treatment arm, randomization strata were fixed effects and baseline value was a covariate.||||-0.37|-1.34|0.0007
91649447|NCT01154153|183191480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1332||95.0||||Based on the ordinal evaluation score and adjusted for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1332
91649448|NCT01154153|183191481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3314||95.0||||Based on the ordinal evaluation score and adjusted for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3314
91784432|NCT03860259|183449293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1786||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Acetaminophen||||0.1786
91649449|NCT03404206|183191537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91784433|NCT03860259|183449293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1876||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Ibuprofen||||0.1876
91709362|NCT01402986|183311376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.44|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Atopic asthma||1.44|0.62|0.803
91649450|NCT03404206|183191537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91649451|NCT03404206|183191538|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-34.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.67|-23.8|||ANCOVA|||||-23.8|-45.67|
91649452|NCT03404206|183191538|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-73.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.01|-57.85|||ANCOVA|||||-57.85|-89.01|
91649453|NCT03404206|183191538|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-38.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-23.11|||ANCOVA|||||-23.11|-54.29|
91649454|NCT03404206|183191539|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-18.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|-12.89|||ANCOVA|||||-12.89|-23.52|
91649455|NCT03404206|183191539|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-33.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.29|-26.14|||ANCOVA|||||-26.14|-41.29|
91649456|NCT03404206|183191539|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-15.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.09|-7.93|||ANCOVA|||||-7.93|-23.09|
91709363|NCT01402986|183311376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.35|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Atopic asthma||1.35|0.52|0.457
91709364|NCT01402986|183311376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.71||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.27|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Non-atopic asthma||1.27|0.40|0.250
91784434|NCT03860259|183449294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3638||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline PCS||||0.3638
91784435|NCT03860259|183449294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0856||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14 PCS||||0.0856
91784436|NCT03860259|183449294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4428||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30 PCS||||0.4428
91784437|NCT03860259|183449294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3378||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60 PCS||||0.3378
91784438|NCT03860259|183449294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3942||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90 PCS||||0.3942
91784439|NCT03860259|183449294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline MCS||||0.2190
91649457|NCT05478603|183191540|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.86|127.04|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||127.04|70.86|
91784440|NCT03860259|183449294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1112||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14 MCS||||0.1112
91784441|NCT03860259|183449294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1737||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30 MCS||||0.1737
91784442|NCT03860259|183449294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2408||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60 MCS||||0.2408
91844114|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-5.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.2|-8.5|<0.001
91784443|NCT03860259|183449294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90 MCS||||0.0380
91784444|NCT03860259|183449295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2220
91784445|NCT03860259|183449296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2856||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2856
91784446|NCT03860259|183449299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2241
91784447|NCT03860259|183449300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2714||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Time of discharge||||0.2714
91784448|NCT03860259|183449300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3749||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.3749
91784449|NCT03860259|183449300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3862||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.3862
91784450|NCT03860259|183449300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1735||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.1735
91784451|NCT03860259|183449300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4304||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.4304
91784452|NCT03860259|183449300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4902||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.4902
91784453|NCT03860259|183449300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4371||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14||||0.4371
91784454|NCT03860259|183449300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30||||0.1950
91784455|NCT03860259|183449300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4124|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60||||0.4124
91784456|NCT03860259|183449300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90||||0.0268
91784457|NCT02280408|183449310|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
91784458|NCT02280408|183449310|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
91649458|NCT05478603|183191540|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.5|133.56|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||133.56|74.50|
91784459|NCT02280408|183449310|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
91784460|NCT02280408|183449310|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.010
91784461|NCT02280408|183449310|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.011
91784462|NCT02280408|183449310|OTHER|||||||0.969|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||0.969
91784463|NCT02280408|183449311|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
91784464|NCT02280408|183449311|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
91784465|NCT02280408|183449311|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
91784466|NCT02280408|183449311|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
91784467|NCT02280408|183449311|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
91784468|NCT02280408|183449311|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||0.733
91784469|NCT02280408|183449312|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
91784470|NCT02280408|183449312|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
91784471|NCT02280408|183449312|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
91784472|NCT02280408|183449312|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.132
91784473|NCT02280408|183449312|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.070
91784474|NCT02280408|183449312|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.743
91784475|NCT02280408|183449313|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
91784476|NCT02280408|183449313|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
91784477|NCT02280408|183449313|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
91784478|NCT02280408|183449313|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.014
91784479|NCT02280408|183449313|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.011
91784480|NCT02280408|183449313|OTHER|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.923
91844115|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-3.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.3|-7.3|<0.001
91649459|NCT05478603|183191540|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|68.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.31|91.98|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||91.98|51.31|
91649460|NCT05478603|183191541|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.74|173.71|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||173.71|59.74|
91784481|NCT03563183|183449339|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine Group compared to Placebo Group.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|95.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.58|98.22|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Non-Frail-HZ/su vs Non-Frail-Placebo groups.||98.22|91.58|<0.0001
91844116|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.7|-8.8|<0.001
91844117|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-6.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.6|-9.9|<0.001
91844118|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.1|-8.2|<0.001
91899505|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.24|0.19|0.1341
91709365|NCT01402986|183311376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.74|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Non-atopic asthma||1.74|0.66|0.794
91899506|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.25||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.25|0.43|0.9628
91784482|NCT03563183|183449339|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine group compared to placebo people.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|90.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.41|94.43|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Pre-Frail-HZ/su vs Pre-Frail-Placebo groups.||94.43|84.41|<0.0001
91784483|NCT03563183|183449339|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine group compared to placebo people.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|90.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.36|96.65|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Frail-HZ/su vs Frail-Placebo groups.||96.65|75.36|<0.0001
91784484|NCT03563183|183449339|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine group compared to placebo people.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|100.0||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.61|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Unknown-HZ/su vs Unknown-Placebo groups.||100|14.61|0.069
91784485|NCT03563183|183449340|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|98.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|100.0||||||VE against confirmed HZ BOI and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented by frailty status in the mTVC.||100|97.1|
91784486|NCT03563183|183449340|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.6|98.7||||||VE against confirmed HZ BOI and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented by frailty status in the mTVC.||98.7|86.6|
91784487|NCT03563183|183449340|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.6|100.0||||||VE against confirmed HZ BOI and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented by frailty status in the mTVC.||100|62.6|
91844119|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-4.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.5|-8.5|<0.001
91649461|NCT05478603|183191541|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|156.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.53|266.14|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||266.14|91.53|
91649462|NCT05478603|183191541|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.58|164.51|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||164.51|56.58|
91649463|NCT05478603|183191542|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.91|174.39|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||174.39|59.91|
91649464|NCT05478603|183191542|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|152.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.62|260.9|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||260.90|89.62|
91649465|NCT05478603|183191542|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|97.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.9|165.65|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||165.65|56.90|
91649466|NCT05478603|183191543|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.61|134.69|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||134.69|64.61|
91649467|NCT05478603|183191543|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.89|154.03|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||154.03|73.89|
91649468|NCT05478603|183191543|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|246.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|170.57|355.58|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||355.58|170.57|
91649469|NCT05478603|183191544|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.13|122.12|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||122.12|64.13|
91899507|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.39||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.39|0.46|0.9185
91784488|NCT03563183|183449340|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|100.0||||||||||||||VE against the BOI due to confirmed HZ. The 95% Confidence Interval was not calculated as there were no subjects reported with a confirmed Zoster episode in the Unknown-HZ/su Group.||||
91784489|NCT01015638|183449372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
91649470|NCT05478603|183191544|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.11|146.83|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||146.83|77.11|
91784490|NCT01015638|183449373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||>0.05
91784491|NCT01015638|183449374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
91784492|NCT01015638|183449375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||> 0.05
91784493|NCT06011759|183449409|SUPERIORITY|T-test to evaluate the effect of the intervention compared to control sites on reported suicide behavior events in the past 4 quarters that had an SP 2.0 Consult submitted.||||||0.5747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 6||We compared participating sites with similar non-participating sites. Four non-participating sites were selected as matched controls, one for each participating site. Control sites were matched to participating sites on number of suicide behavior events and prevalence of Suicide Prevention Telehealth Program consults submitted at baseline.||||0.5747
91784494|NCT06011759|183449410|SUPERIORITY|T-test to evaluate the effect of the intervention compared to control sites on referrals to the SP 2.0 Clinic.||||||0.8057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 6||We compared participating sites with similar non-participating sites. Four non-participating sites were selected as matched controls, one for each participating site. Control sites were matched to participating sites on number of suicide behavior events and prevalence of Suicide Prevention Telehealth Program consults submitted at baseline.||||0.8057
91649471|NCT05478603|183191544|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|169.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.61|233.47|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||233.47|122.61|
91784495|NCT05487196|183449417|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin δ was set as the median of fentanyl group + 30 representing a 1-point pain numeric rating scale difference per unit time across the 30-minute initiation period. A conventional 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed using normal distribution assumptions. Analysis was by intent to treat. Comparisons of PI-AUC30 between the three agents were made by one-way ANOVA.||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.226
91784496|NCT05487196|183449418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
91784497|NCT05487196|183449419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
91784498|NCT05487196|183449420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
91784499|NCT05487196|183449421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
91649472|NCT05478603|183191545|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.6|172.03|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||172.03|52.60|
91844120|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-5.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.1|-8.0|<0.001
91899508|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.00|0.18|0.0496
91784500|NCT05487196|183449422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
91844121|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-6.5|<0.001
91899509|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.04|0.38|0.7785
91784501|NCT05487196|183449423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.83
91784502|NCT05487196|183449424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91784503|NCT05487196|183449425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
91784504|NCT05487196|183449426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
91784505|NCT05487196|183449427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
91784506|NCT05487196|183449428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.58
91784507|NCT05487196|183449429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.98
91790427|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.124||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.124|-0.188|0.688
91790428|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790429|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.281||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.281|-0.039|0.137
91790430|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790431|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.122||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.122|-0.300|0.408
91790432|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790433|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|0.085||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.085|-0.325|0.249
91790434|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790435|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.157||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.157|-0.265|0.616
91790436|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790437|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.304||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.304|-0.163|0.555
91790438|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790439|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.258||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.258|-0.203|0.815
91790440|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790441|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.409||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.409|-0.057|0.138
91844122|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.8|-7.4|<0.001
91709366|NCT01402986|183311377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.2||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.46|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|With chronic OCS use||2.46|0.59|0.614
91784508|NCT05188053|183449430|OTHER|"Sample size calculations were performed to estimate the number of subjects needed to detect a 30% difference in NRS pain AUC scores between the study groups.~30% reduction in pain was considered the minimal clinically important difference in pain control based off previous pain research.~A 30% reduction in pain would correspond with a difference of approximately 136 in area under the curve of mean pain over time."||||||0.17||||||a priori threshold p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance||Two-sample t-test with unequal variance. The null hypothesis is that there was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups based on a standard alpha value of 0.05.||||0.170
91784509|NCT05126225|183449456|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.960|0.032|0.05
91784510|NCT05126225|183449457|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.440|0.160|0.05
91784511|NCT01904773|183449488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0087||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment, compared with 0.025|ANCOVA|Each subject received each treatment multiple times in a crossover design||Comparison with placebo||||0.0087
91784512|NCT01904773|183449488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.1198||||||Bonferroni-Holm compared with 0.025|ANCOVA|Each subject received each treatment multiple times in a crossover design||||||0.1198
91784513|NCT00220779|183449493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221||||||0.2g/kg IGIV Group versus Placebo|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary efficacy comparison was the comparison of the proportions of relapse free subjects (relapse defined as reported, not necessarily confirmed relapse). The multiple test procedure (hierarchical procedure) was to be stopped as soon as one of the statistical tests resulted in a non-significant P value \> 0.05.||||0.221
91784514|NCT00220779|183449493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||||||0.4 g/kg IGIV Group versus Placebo|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary efficacy comparison was the comparison of the proportions of relapse free subjects (relapse defined as reported, not necessarily confirmed relapse). The multiple test procedure (hierarchical procedure) was to be stopped as soon as one of the statistical tests resulted in a non-significant P value \> 0.05.||||0.471
91784515|NCT02891070|183449518|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of Tisseel to DuraSeal for the primary endpoint, the lower limit of the 95% CI (based on normal approximation) for the difference in average predicted proportions had to be greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.11|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in Average Predicted Proportion (Tisseel - Duraseal)|||2.54|-21.11|
91784516|NCT02891070|183449520|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.11|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in Average Predicted Proportion (Tisseel - Duraseal)|||2.54|-21.11|
91784517|NCT02891070|183449521|OTHER|||||||0.0241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0241
91784518|NCT02891070|183449522|OTHER|||||||0.1015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1015
91784519|NCT02891070|183449523|OTHER|||||||0.9943|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9943
91784520|NCT02891070|183449524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|-13.60|
91784521|NCT04491604|183449563|EQUIVALENCE|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data.|responder rate difference|45.8||||0.00192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|68.0|||McNemar|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. A multiple imputation approach was used for missing data.|The difference is the treatment/discordance difference in percentage of responders (primary wounds with complete healing), which is the same as the difference in the percentage of treatment responders and the percentage of placebo responders.|The null hypothesis of interest was the absence of a treatment effect on wound healing and the alternative hypothesis is the presence of a treatment effect on wound healing. The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. For subjects with missing primary wound healing data, a multiple imputation approach was used.||68.0|23.6|0.00192
91784522|NCT04491604|183449564|EQUIVALENCE|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data.|responder rate difference|51.0||||0.00047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|72.6||There is no multiplicity adjustment needed since the hypothesis testing are hierarchical.|McNemar|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. A multiple imputation approach was used for missing data.|The difference is the treatment/discordance difference in percentage of responders (complete wound healing), which is the same as the difference in the percentage of treatment responders and the percentage of placebo responders.|The null hypothesis of interest was the absence of a treatment effect on wound healing and the alternative hypothesis is the presence of a treatment effect on wound healing. The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. For subjects with missing primary wound healing data, a multiple imputation approach was used.||72.6|29.3|0.00047
91784523|NCT00606905|183449586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.61|||Chi-squared|||||4.61|0.41|<0.05
91649473|NCT05478603|183191545|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|166.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|301.62|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||301.62|92.21|
91784524|NCT04657666|183449587|SUPERIORITY||Combined least mean square difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23||Based on a combination of 300 linear mixed models for crossover data on the response variable change from baseline in LLMT-6 with period level LLMT-6 baseline covariate, treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|Pattern mixture model (PMM) control-based imputation, mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||||0.23|-0.16|0.7152
91649474|NCT05478603|183191545|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|237.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.46|430.0|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||430.00|131.46|
91784525|NCT02386189|183449646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The t-test was conducted on change between baseline and 12-month follow-up.||||0.02
91784526|NCT02386189|183449647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91784527|NCT02386189|183449648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91784528|NCT02386189|183449649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
91784529|NCT02386189|183449650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
91784530|NCT02386189|183449651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91844123|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.4|-5.9|<0.001
91784531|NCT02386189|183449652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
91784532|NCT03120351|183449653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.06|-7.11|0.28
91784533|NCT00332722|183449679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t test|||||||<0.05
91784534|NCT00332722|183449680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t test|||||||<0.05
91784535|NCT00486291|183449681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||It is anticipated that the pooled standard deviation (SD) of the change from baseline in HbA1c will be between 1.0 and 1.5. With 90 subjects per treatment group the study will have 90% power (two-sided alpha=0.05) to detect a mean difference between groups of 0.486 for SD=1.0, and a mean difference between groups of 0.729 for SD=1.5.||-0.2|-0.9|0.0007
91899510|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.13||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.13|0.42|0.8857
91784536|NCT00486291|183449682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4.9|-8.1|<0.0001
91784537|NCT04413617|183449705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||The primary clinical hypothesis is that mean decrease at Week 12 in DAS28-CRP score in one or both combo arms exceeds the mean decrease in the reference (tofacitinib) treatment arm, regardless of occurrence of intercurrent events. The null hypothesis is that the mean decrease in DAS28-CRP score at Week 12 is identical in the control (tofacitinib arm) and combination arms.||-0.08|-0.62|0.0158
91784538|NCT04413617|183449705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||The primary clinical hypothesis is that mean decrease at Week 12 in DAS28-CRP score in one or both combo arms exceeds the mean decrease in the reference (tofacitinib) treatment arm, regardless of occurrence of intercurrent events. The null hypothesis is that the mean decrease in DAS28-CRP score at Week 12 is identical in the control (tofacitinib arm) and combination arms.||0.23|-0.32|0.3933
91784539|NCT00984620|183449728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|-1.25||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||11.8|-14.3|0.855
91784540|NCT00984620|183449729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|9.02||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||23.3|-5.3|0.229
91784541|NCT00984620|183449730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|5.48||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||18.3|-7.3|0.417
91784542|NCT00984620|183449731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|2.99||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||16.6|-10.6|0.676
91784543|NCT00984620|183449732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|3.24||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||14.6|-8.1|0.588
91784544|NCT00984620|183449733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|4.78||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||18.6|-9.0|0.512
91784545|NCT00984620|183449735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1397||||||Compare 120 MG Faldaprevir 120mg (24 Weeks) over 120 MG Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks) using log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.1397
91784546|NCT00947882|183449757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0911||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 3 in the FAS population using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0911
91790442|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91784547|NCT00947882|183449757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 3 in the FAS population using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0865
91709367|NCT01402986|183311377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.74|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|With chronic OCS use||2.74|0.61|0.506
91784548|NCT00947882|183449757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.2342||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 3 in the FAS population using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.2342
91784549|NCT00947882|183449758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.0367||||||P-values based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Months 4 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0367
91784550|NCT00947882|183449758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0231||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 4 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0231
91784551|NCT00947882|183449758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.1638||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 4 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1638
91784552|NCT00947882|183449758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.1941||||||P-values based on Williams' extended trend test of comparisons vs. placebo at Month 5. No adjustment for multiple comparison was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 5 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1941
91784553|NCT00947882|183449758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.1083||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 5 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1083
91784554|NCT00947882|183449758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.2782||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 5 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.2782
91784555|NCT00947882|183449758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.1562||||||P-values based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 6 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1562
91790443|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|0.22||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.220|-0.397|0.573
91844124|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.6|-4.6|<0.001
91899511|NCT03816891|183693455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.62|0.31|0.4174
91784556|NCT00947882|183449758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.1736||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 6 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1736
91899512|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||22.87|0.18|0.5673
91899513|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|32.21||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||32.21|0.31|0.3139
91899514|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|22.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||22.83|0.16|0.6197
91899515|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.95||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|60.25||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||60.25|0.80|0.0480
91899516|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|48.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||48.12|0.62|0.0945
91899517|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|40.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||40.60|0.45|0.1745
91899518|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|27.25||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.25|1.10|0.0233
91899519|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|16.53||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.53|0.63|0.1422
91899520|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|11.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||11.77|0.31|0.4810
91899521|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|8.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||8.60|0.93|0.0628
91899522|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||6.87|0.80|0.1149
91899523|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.48||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||3.48|0.30|0.9726
91899524|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|11.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||11.00|1.28|0.0134
91899525|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||9.06|1.21|0.0148
91899526|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.71||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||6.71|0.73|0.1611
91899527|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||9.60|1.44|0.0061
91899528|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.18||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||7.18|1.13|0.0228
91899529|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||4.37|0.61|0.3331
91899530|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||4.38|0.78|0.1718
91899531|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.66||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||4.66|0.83|0.1219
91899532|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.45||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||2.45|0.40|0.9755
91899533|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.02|0.38|0.7579
91899534|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.19|0.42|0.9213
91899535|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.14|0.21|0.1001
91899536|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.05|0.39|0.7945
91899537|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.69|0.51|0.7214
91899538|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.07|0.20|0.0727
91899539|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.4871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.72||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.72|0.32|0.4871
91899540|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.85||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.85|0.35|0.6037
91899541|NCT03816891|183693456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.22||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.22|0.23|0.1323
91899542|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-1.6|-3.8|<0.0001
91899543|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-1.2|-3.3|<0.0001
91899544|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.3|-2.5|0.0125
91899545|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.0|-3.8|<0.0001
91899546|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-1.0|-2.9|<0.0001
91899547|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.2|-2.1|0.0198
91844125|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.9|-4.9|<0.001
91844126|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.4|-3.8|<0.001
91899548|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-1.2|-3.4|<0.0001
91899549|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.9|-3.2|0.0004
91844127|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.6|-2.4|0.23
91844128|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-3.6|0.005
91844129|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.6|-5.0|<0.001
91649475|NCT05478603|183191546|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.67|172.59|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||172.59|52.67|
91709368|NCT01402986|183311377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.79||||0.243||95.0|0.53|1.18|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Without chronic OCS use||1.18|0.53|0.243
91784557|NCT00947882|183449758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.3132||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 6 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.3132
91649476|NCT05478603|183191546|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|163.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|295.22|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||295.22|90.10|
91649477|NCT05478603|183191546|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|239.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.29|433.47|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||433.47|132.29|
91649478|NCT05003167|183191597|SUPERIORITY||F|8.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.||||.001
91649479|NCT05003167|183191599|SUPERIORITY||F|2.29||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|df = 2,44||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.||||.113
91649480|NCT05003167|183191600|SUPERIORITY||F|3.17||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.||||.052
91649481|NCT05003167|183191601|SUPERIORITY||F|0.07||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.~Results here are for percent of breaths at major boundaries."||||.931
91899550|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.2|-2.1|0.0969
91790444|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790445|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.365||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.365|-0.241|0.689
91899551|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-1.3|-3.7|<0.0001
91899552|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||ls|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.8|-3.2|0.0012
91899553|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.6|-1.9|0.3212
91899554|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-0.8|-3.2|0.0011
91899555|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-0.6|-3.0|0.0044
91899556|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||0.7|-1.8|0.3635
91899557|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.3|-2.7|0.0172
91899558|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.1|-2.6|0.0401
91899559|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||1.1|-1.4|0.7627
91899560|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||0.1|-2.0|0.0827
91899561|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||0.3|-1.9|0.1315
91899562|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.6133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||1.4|-0.8|0.6133
91649482|NCT05003167|183191601|SUPERIORITY||F|0.23||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05. Results reflect percent of breaths at boundaries unrelated to syntax.||||0.164
91649483|NCT01010230|183191609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|3.11||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|BMC was normalized for height and adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8% we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||3.11|-5.59|0.69
91790446|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790447|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.382||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.382|-0.243|0.662
91649484|NCT01010230|183191610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.35||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.35|0.00|0.18
91649485|NCT01010230|183191611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|9.25||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05|ANOVA|BMC was normalized for height and adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8% we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||9.25|-6.93|0.85
91784558|NCT00947882|183449759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|2.628||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||2.628|0.814|0.2034
91784559|NCT00947882|183449759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|2.71||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||2.710|0.834|0.1748
91784560|NCT00947882|183449759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|3.195||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||3.195|0.964|0.0658
91784561|NCT00947882|183449759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|3.184||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|||3.184|0.979|0.0587
91844130|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-3.1|0.021
91844131|NCT02886728|183569374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.4|-4.3|<0.001
91844132|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|12.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||12.9|2.2|0.006
91844133|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||11.6|-1.8|0.16
91899563|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.5|-1.6|0.3136
91899564|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.3218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.5|-1.6|0.3218
91899565|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||1.3|-0.8|0.6576
91649486|NCT01010230|183191612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.95||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||5.95|0.43|0.12
91844134|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||14.1|1.1|0.029
91844135|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||14.6|1.6|0.015
91899566|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.3|-1.9|0.1565
91899567|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-1.7|0.2280
91899568|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||1.1|-1.0|0.9400
91899569|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.5|-1.8|0.2760
91899570|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.7|-1.6|0.4096
91899571|NCT03816891|183693457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||1.3|-1.0|0.8177
91899572|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-145.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.6|-73.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-73.3|-216.6|0.0001
91899573|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-106.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.82||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.2|-35.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-35.5|-177.2|0.0035
91649487|NCT01010230|183191613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|4.05||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage (from general linear model).||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||4.05|-4.24|0.97
91649488|NCT01010230|183191614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|4.68||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||4.68|-4.05|0.91
91649489|NCT01010230|183191615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.11||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||3.11|-0.69|0.40
91649490|NCT01010230|183191616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|3.33||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||3.33|-2.02|0.73
91649491|NCT01010230|183191617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.34||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.34|0.06|0.08
91649492|NCT01010230|183191618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.26||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.26|0.00|0.17
91784562|NCT00947882|183449759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|3.283||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|||3.283|1.003|0.0490
91784563|NCT00947882|183449759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|2.464||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|||2.464|0.774|0.2742
91790448|NCT02880956|183460064|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91844136|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||12.2|-3.9|0.33
91844137|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|17.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||17.9|2.5|0.013
91649493|NCT01010230|183191619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.2||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.20|-0.04|0.38
91844138|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.6||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.53)||7.6|-0.3|0.074
91844139|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.53)||6.9|-3.1|0.49
91844140|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.4||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|8.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.53)||8.9|-0.2|0.075
91784564|NCT00947882|183449759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.4206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|2.304||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|||2.304|0.706|0.4206
91784565|NCT00947882|183449759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|2.16||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|||2.160|0.664|0.5494
91784566|NCT00947882|183449759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.975||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|||1.975|0.609|0.7586
91784567|NCT00947882|183449759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|2.717||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||2.717|0.816|0.1946
91784568|NCT00947882|183449759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|2.174||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||2.174|0.667|0.5380
91784569|NCT00947882|183449759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|2.308||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||2.308|0.702|0.4263
91844141|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||16.2|4.3|<0.001
91844142|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|15.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||15.2|0.7|0.045
91844143|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|14.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||14.0|-1.1|0.100
91844144|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||16.7|3.2|0.004
91844145|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|14.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||14.0|-2.9|0.25
91844146|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||15.0|-2.0|0.14
91844147|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|12.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.77)||12.3|2.8|0.002
91844148|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|13.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.77)||13.6|2.9|0.008
91844149|NCT02886728|183569375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.77)||8.9|-3.9|0.47
91649494|NCT01010230|183191620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.18|-0.22|0.88
91649495|NCT01010230|183191621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.46||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.46|0.09|0.06
91649496|NCT00530439|183191628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91649497|NCT02367781|183191631|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.639|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|0.763|||Log Rank|||||0.763|0.536|<.0001
91649498|NCT02367781|183191632|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|0.977|||Log Rank|||||0.977|0.636|0.0298
91790449|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.167||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.167|-0.555|0.291
91649499|NCT02367781|183191633|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|0.768|||Log Rank|||ITT Population||0.768|0.545|<0.0001
91649500|NCT02367781|183191633|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.561|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.728|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT ITT Population||0.728|0.432|<0.0001
91709369|NCT01402986|183311377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.34|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Without chronic OCS use||1.34|0.57|0.531
91649501|NCT02367781|183191633|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.708|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||0.708|0.425|<0.0001
91649502|NCT02367781|183191634|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.017|||Log Rank|||||1.017|0.689|0.0732
91649503|NCT02367781|183191635|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.039|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||1.039|0.545|0.0830
91649504|NCT02367781|183191635|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.746||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.038|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 WT ITT Population||1.038|0.536|0.0813
91649505|NCT02367781|183191636|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|19.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.05|27.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Wald with Continuity Correction|||27.37|11.05|<.0001
91649506|NCT02367781|183191637|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|16.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|24.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Wald with Continuity Correction|ITT Population||24.88|8.90|<.0001
91649507|NCT02367781|183191637|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.56||||||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT Population||3.56|1.38|
91649508|NCT02367781|183191637|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||3.51|1.39|0.0007
91649509|NCT02367781|183191638|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.614||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|0.797|||Log Rank|||ITT Population||0.797|0.473|0.0002
91709370|NCT03749109|183311410|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.74||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|13.94|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||13.94|-10.45|0.78
91709371|NCT03749109|183311410|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|3.35||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|9.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||9.59|-2.89|0.29
91649510|NCT02367781|183191638|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|0.785|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT Population||0.785|0.458|0.0002
91790450|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91649511|NCT02367781|183191638|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.548||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.791|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||0.791|0.379|0.0011
91649512|NCT02367781|183191638|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.798|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT Population||0.798|0.381|0.0014
91649513|NCT02367781|183191639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.46||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|15.37|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1 ITT WT Population||15.37|-0.45|0.0647
91649514|NCT02367781|183191639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.07||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|16.19|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2 ITT WT Population||16.19|-0.06|0.0516
91784570|NCT00947882|183449760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.113|4.59||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||4.590|-10.113|0.4607
91784571|NCT00947882|183449760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.24||||0.3876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.614|4.128||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||4.128|-10.614|0.3876
91784572|NCT00947882|183449760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.28||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|3.096||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||3.096|-11.650|0.2548
91899574|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-109.9||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.2|-37.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-37.6|-182.2|0.0031
91649515|NCT02367781|183191639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.19||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|14.91|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1 ITT Population||14.91|-0.54|0.0683
91649516|NCT02367781|183191639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.53||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|15.44|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2 ITT Population||15.44|-0.39|0.0625
91784573|NCT00947882|183449760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.5652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.729|5.322||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||5.322|-9.729|0.5652
91649517|NCT02367781|183191640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.69||||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|17.83|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT||17.83|-4.44|0.2385
91649518|NCT02367781|183191640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.64||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|24.03|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT||24.03|-6.75|0.2710
91649519|NCT02367781|183191640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.34||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.67|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) Year 1 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT||17.67|-5.00|0.2733
91649520|NCT02367781|183191640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.69||||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|24.81|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) Year 2 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT||24.81|-7.44|0.2909
91649521|NCT02367781|183191641|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.893||||0.3342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.123|||Log Rank|||||1.123|0.711|0.3342
91649522|NCT02060461|183191655|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired Students t-test of FS200 and IntraLase intraoperative flap thickness measurements obtained by ultrasound pachymetry||||.003
91649523|NCT00740727|183191658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of subjects with infusion pain|11.1||||||95.0|1.4|34.7|||95% binomial exact confidence interval|||This analysis reports the number of subjects (of 18 possible) who experienced pain, during EASI placement or infusion, at the a priori-defined level of at least 3 on a 10-point pain scale.||34.7|1.4|
91709372|NCT03749109|183311410|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.33||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|10.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis||10.99|-10.33|0.95
91709373|NCT03749109|183311411|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-6.99||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|22.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||22.82|-36.80|0.65
91649524|NCT00740727|183191659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with next-day EASI site pain|0.0||||||97.5|0.0|18.5|||binomial exact confidence interval|Because the point estimate was zero, the statistical software (STATA version 10MP) reports a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval.||This analysis reports the number of subjects (of 18 possible) who experienced pain, as assessed on next-day follow-up (24 hours after EASI infusion), at the a priori-defined level of at least 3 on a 10-point pain scale.||18.5|0|
91649525|NCT05321810|183191665|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.016
91649526|NCT05321810|183191670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.812||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.957|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.957|0.690|0.013
91649527|NCT05321810|183191676|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.002
91784574|NCT00947882|183449760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.7502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.768|6.322||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||6.322|-8.768|0.7502
91790451|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.001||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.001|-0.713|0.051
91649528|NCT05321810|183191679|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||<0.001
91844150|NCT02886728|183569377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|2.4|<0.001
91649529|NCT05321810|183191680|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.773|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.773|0.420|<0.001
91649530|NCT05321810|183191682|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.350
91649531|NCT05321810|183191683|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.155||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|1.540|0.867|0.324
91844151|NCT02886728|183569377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.7|0.001
91844152|NCT02886728|183569377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.4|1.3|<0.001
91899575|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.2|-46.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-46.4|-105.2|<0.0001
91899576|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.14||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.3|-25.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-25.5|-85.3|0.0003
91899577|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0053||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.5|-13.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-13.1|-73.5|0.0053
91899578|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.28||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.5|-84.6|0.0472
91899579|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-54.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.11||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.7|-12.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-12.3|-95.7|0.0115
91899580|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.28||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.2|10.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||10.9|-73.2|0.1453
91899581|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-88.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.58||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.5|-33.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-33.6|-142.5|0.0017
91649532|NCT05321810|183191685|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.111
91649533|NCT05321810|183191686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.028|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|1.028|0.730|0.100
91649534|NCT05321810|183191688|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.979
91899582|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-71.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.87||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.8|-16.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-16.7|-126.8|0.0110
91899583|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.46||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.5|3.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||3.9|-108.5|0.0681
91899584|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.3|-17.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-17.8|-72.3|0.0013
91899585|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.96||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|-6.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-6.4|-61.5|0.0161
91784575|NCT00947882|183449760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.6089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.513|5.581||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||5.581|-9.513|0.6089
91784576|NCT00947882|183449761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.8511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|1.294||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||1.294|-1.068|0.8511
91784577|NCT00947882|183449761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.477||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||1.477|-0.900|0.6331
91784578|NCT00947882|183449761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.113|1.25||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||1.250|-1.113|0.9090
91784579|NCT00947882|183449761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.956|1.802||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||1.802|-0.956|0.5469
91784580|NCT00947882|183449761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.576|1.2||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||1.200|-1.576|0.7906
91784581|NCT00947882|183449761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.773|0.987||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||0.987|-1.773|0.5757
91784582|NCT02447302|183449764|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|=|0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|-0.3||The analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the adapted MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 2 mg from placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||-0.30|-1.68|= 0.0091
91784583|NCT02447302|183449764|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|=|0.1457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.24||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the adapted MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 1 mg from placebo|||0.24|-1.11|= 0.1457
91784584|NCT02447302|183449765|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.8|39.0||Mantel-Haenszel (MH) estimated common risk difference adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 2 mg from Placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||39.0|9.8|= 0.003
91784585|NCT02447302|183449765|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|=|0.3059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|17.2||MH estimated common risk difference adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 1 mg from Placebo|||17.2|-9.1|= 0.3059
91784586|NCT02447302|183449766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.36||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the 2-component MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 2 mg from placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||-0.36|-1.32|= 0.0020
91784587|NCT02447302|183449766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|=|0.0858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.08||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the 2-component MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 1 mg from placebo|||0.08|-0.85|= 0.0858
91790452|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91784588|NCT02447302|183449767|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.17|-0.37||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the TMS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 2 mg from placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||-0.37|-2.17|= 0.0100
91784589|NCT02447302|183449767|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|=|0.1277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|0.27||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the TMS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 1 mg from placebo|||0.27|-1.48|= 0.1277
91784590|NCT02447302|183449768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||=|0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|5.51||The analysis was performed using an ordered logistic regression model with terms for treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, and prior exposure to TNFα antagonists.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the odds of achieving higher trichotomous composite score between the groups using 1-sided test at 0.05 level of significance.||The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||5.51|1.40|= 0.0071
91899586|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.02||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|11.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||11.4|-44.0|0.2466
91649535|NCT05321810|183191689|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.177|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|1.177|0.854|0.978
91844153|NCT02886728|183569377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.8|2.7|<0.001
91649536|NCT05321810|183191691|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||<0.001
91649537|NCT05321810|183191692|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.428|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.697|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.697|0.263|<0.001
91649538|NCT05321810|183191696|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.727||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|0.881|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.881|0.599|0.001
91709374|NCT03749109|183311411|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.13||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|20.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||20.51|-22.77|0.92
91709375|NCT03749109|183311411|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-5.92||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|29.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||||29.10|-40.94|0.74
91784591|NCT02447302|183449768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||=|0.1192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|3.14||The analysis was performed using an ordered logistic regression model with terms for treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, and prior exposure to TNFα antagonists.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the odds of achieving higher trichotomous composite score between the groups using 1-sided test at 0.05 level of significance.||||3.14|0.83|= 0.1192
91784592|NCT02447302|183449769|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.5|38.1||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 2 mg from Placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||38.1|13.5|= 0.0003
91844154|NCT02886728|183569377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|0.5|0.008
91709376|NCT03749109|183311412|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Endometrioma||2.82|0.38|0.95
91844155|NCT02886728|183569377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.2|0.023
91844156|NCT02886728|183569377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|0.6|0.003
91844157|NCT02886728|183569377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-0.8|0.38
91844158|NCT02886728|183569377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.8|-1.0|0.59
91844159|NCT02886728|183569377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.0|1.6|<0.001
91844160|NCT02886728|183569377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|-0.3|0.11
91844161|NCT02886728|183569377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|-0.17|0.071
91844162|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.6|<0.001
91709377|NCT03749109|183311412|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Adenomyosis||2.17|0.14|0.39
91709378|NCT03749109|183311413|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Endometrioma||2.65|0.19|0.60
91844163|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|0.1|0.032
91844164|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.0|<0.001
91899587|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.17||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.6|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.7|-64.6|0.0451
91709379|NCT03749109|183311413|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Adenomyosis||1.79|0.07|0.21
91844165|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.6|0.2|0.023
91709380|NCT03749109|183311414|OTHER||Rate Ratio|2.53||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|8.39|||Negative-binomial regression|||Endometrioma - Disappearing Lesions||8.39|0.76|0.13
91844166|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|-0.1|0.065
91709381|NCT03749109|183311414|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.49||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.41|||Negative-binomial regression|||Adenomyosis - Disappearing Lesions||5.41|0.04|0.56
91709382|NCT03749109|183311415|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.23||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.78|13.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||13.23|-12.78|0.97
91709383|NCT03749109|183311415|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.72||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||5.07|-3.63|0.74
91654969|NCT03384745|183202667|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 25 (48.1% \[34.0-62.4\], p\<0.0001) of 52 participants in the M1095 30mg treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
91649539|NCT00803959|183191711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigators selected the 11% noninferiority margin on the basis of clinical judgement that it was a reasonable threshold for a trade-off between a decrease in the rate of successful treatment and the potential benefits of eliminating UDS studies from preoperative assessment. To minimize bias toward noninferiority, only women treated per protocol (e.g. who underwent the randomly assigned evaluation) were considered in the primary outcome analysis (ITT analysis considered secondary).|Difference in success % (UDS - no UDS)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.9|||Chi-squared|Noninferiority declared if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in % success (UDS - no UDS) was \< 11%.|Point estimates of success percentage are calculated as 200/259= 77.2% for Office Evaluation Only and 203/264 = 76.9% for Urodynamic Testing arm.|The null hypothesis was that the no UDS group was non-inferior to those in the UDS group. Assuming a significance level of 5% and a true success rate in each group of 70% with a noninferiority margin of 11 percentage points, we needed to enroll 270 women/group to have 80% power for determining whether the results in the no UDS group were non inferior to those in the UDS group. Assuming a 10% dropout rate, a sample of 300 women per group was required.||6.9|-7.5|
91649540|NCT00803959|183191712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha level is considered to be 0.05.|Chi-squared|No adjustments were made; test had 1 degree of freedom.||Null hypothesis is that the two groups will not differ in the percent meeting 70% reduction in Urogenital Distress Inventory score.||||0.63
91649541|NCT00803959|183191713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared|No adjustments made; 1 degree of freedom test.||"Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportion responding very much better or much better on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement at the 12 month visit."||||0.68
91649542|NCT00803959|183191714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One df t test assumed equal variance; no evidence was found to the contrary.||Null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to change in UDI score.||||0.68
91649543|NCT00803959|183191715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Test was 1 df t-test assuming equal variances; no evidence to the contrary was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to change in ISI score.||||0.40
91649544|NCT00803959|183191716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold was alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The t test had 1 df assuming equal variances; no evidence of unequal variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ in change in MESA stress score.||||0.50
91649545|NCT00803959|183191717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The t test had 1 df and assumed equal variances; no evidence of different variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to change in MESA urgency score.||||0.19
91649546|NCT00803959|183191718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|T test had 1 df and assumed equal variance; no evidence of different variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in IIQ score.||||0.49
91649547|NCT00803959|183191719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|T test had 1 df assuming equal variances; no evidence of unequal variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in SF-12 scores.||||0.02
91649548|NCT00803959|183191720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|The t test had 1 df and assumed equal variance; no evidence of different variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in PGI-S score.||||0.51
91649549|NCT00803959|183191721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test had 1 df and no adjustments.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ in the proportion of women who score moderate or severe on the PGI-S at 12 months||||0.51
91649550|NCT00803959|183191722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|T test had 1 df and assumed equal variances; no evidence of unequal variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean overall patient satisfaction score at 12 months.||||0.28
91649551|NCT00803959|183191723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-values was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test had 1 df and no adjustments.||Null hypothesis is that the proportion having a positive provocative stress test at 12 months was the same in both treatment arms.||||0.19
91649552|NCT01859390|183191724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test||0.22|-0.49|0.460
91649553|NCT01859390|183191724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.513|0.173|||Regression, Linear||"Regression Model predictors include: AquADEKs-2 arm, Age \>=18 years, Sex, Screening FEV1%Predicted \>70%, Chronic use of Inhaled Antibiotics and Azithromycin.~The estimated value is the mean difference between groups for 16 week change in log10 MPO."|||0.173|-0.513|0.325
91649554|NCT01859390|183191725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions-SAE incidence|-12.9||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|7.8|||Fisher Exact|||||7.8|-32.1|0.302
91649555|NCT01859390|183191726|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||Poisson Model|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the AquADEKs-2 group was 642 and in the Control group was 639.||1.13|0.78|0.486
91649556|NCT01859390|183191726|SUPERIORITY|Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the AquADEKs-2 group was 642 and in the Control group was 639.|Rate Ratio|0.74||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.26|||Poisson Regression|||||1.26|0.43|0.269
91649557|NCT01859390|183191727|SUPERIORITY|Two sample T-test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.43||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.16|-2.30|0.4463
91649558|NCT01859390|183191728|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.44|-0.37|0.8623
91649559|NCT01859390|183191729|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.536||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.009||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha at 0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Cox model parameters include: AquADEKs-2 arm, Age \>=18 years, Sex, Screening FEV1 % Predicted \>70%, Chronic use of Inhaled Antibiotics and Azithromycin.~The parameter of interest is the Hazard Ratio comparing the AquADEKs-2 arm to the control arm."|||1.009|0.284|0.0534
91649560|NCT01859390|183191730|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.16|||Poisson Model|||Rate Ratio for PEx calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months in the AquADEKs-2 group was 148 and in the Control group was 147.||1.16|0.44|0.1731
91649561|NCT01859390|183191731|SUPERIORITY|Difference in Proportions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8||||0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|7.4||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha at 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||7.4|-35.1|0.2363
91649562|NCT01859390|183191732|SUPERIORITY|Difference in Proportions|Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||||4.8|-34.5|0.1900
91649563|NCT01151813|183191734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
91649564|NCT01151813|183191735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91649565|NCT01151813|183191736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91649566|NCT01151813|183191737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91649567|NCT01084005|183191749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.81|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.81|<0.0001
91784593|NCT02447302|183449769|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46|=|0.136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|17.7||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 1 mg from Placebo|||17.7|-3.5|= 0.1360
91649568|NCT01084005|183191750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.45|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.45|<0.0001
91649569|NCT01084005|183191751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-0.71|<0.0001
91649570|NCT01084005|183191752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||||-0.47|-0.77|<0.0001
91649571|NCT01084005|183191753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-30.2|-11.2|||ANCOVA|||||-11.2|-30.2|<0.0001
91649572|NCT01084005|183191754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-24.7|-12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.6|-24.7|<0.0001
91649573|NCT01084005|183191755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-28.1|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.8|-28.1|<0.0001
91649574|NCT01084005|183191756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.8|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.4|-29.8|<0.0001
91649575|NCT01084005|183191757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.319|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.321|20.837|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.837|3.321|<0.0001
91649576|NCT01084005|183191760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.214||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.625|||Regression, Logistic|||Lina 5 mg qd vs Placebo||0.625|0.073|0.0048
91790453|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.383||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.383|-0.346|0.921
91649577|NCT00606684|183191786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.144|||ANCOVA|||||0.144|0.039|<0.001
91649578|NCT00606684|183191786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.150|0.046|<0.001
91649579|NCT00606684|183191786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.162|||ANCOVA|||||0.162|0.057|<0.001
91649580|NCT00606684|183191786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.137|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.190|0.085|<0.001
91649581|NCT00606684|183191786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.217|||ANCOVA|||||0.217|0.112|<0.001
91784594|NCT02447302|183449770|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92|=|0.0282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|35.3||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 2 mg from Placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||35.3|2.6|= 0.0282
91649582|NCT02967133|183191795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5186|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5186
91784595|NCT02447302|183449770|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.14|=|0.1309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|28.1||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 1 mg from Placebo|||28.1|-5.3|= 0.1309
91784596|NCT01742286|183449795|OTHER||MTD/RDE|510.0||||||||||||||||||
91784597|NCT01742286|183449795|OTHER||MTD/RDE|500.0||||||||||||||||||
91784598|NCT02578095|183449838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.80|1.70|0.0032
91649583|NCT01828255|183191805|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
91784599|NCT02578095|183449838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|10.54|||ANCOVA|||||10.54|3.76|<0.0001
91784600|NCT02578095|183449838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.55|12.6|||ANCOVA|||||12.60|5.55|<0.0001
91784601|NCT05091567|183449842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.67|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) at randomization (0 vs. 1); Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH) at randomization (\<=upper limit of normal (ULN) vs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) (yes vs. no).||0.67|0.43|< .0001
91649584|NCT04169282|183191860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test for normally distributed and transformed data or Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test for non-parametric paired data||||||0.108
91784602|NCT05091567|183449843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||=|0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were ECOG PS at randomization (0 vs. 1); LDH at randomization (\<=ULN vs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of PCI (yes vs. no).||0.95|0.57|= 0.0174
91784603|NCT05091567|183449844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.68||||||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were ECOG PS at randomization (0 vs. 1); LDH at randomization (\<=ULN vs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of PCI (yes vs. no).||0.68|0.45|
91844167|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|-0.4|0.15
91649585|NCT04169282|183191861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test for normally distributed and transformed data or Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test for non-parametric paired data||||||0.003
91899588|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.43||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|10.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||10.2|-54.8|0.1770
91649586|NCT04169282|183191862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test for normally distributed and transformed data or Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test for non-parametric paired data||||||0.025
91649587|NCT01275313|183191864|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: To determine a difference of 20% in the control group and 10% in the treatment group with 80% power, 440 participants would be needed.||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Null hypothesis: At-risk nursing home residents provided with an individually-configured manual lightweight wheelchair and skin protection cushion have the same incidence of pressure injury development compared to individuals using a facility-provided manual wheelchair modified with a skin protection cushion and related adjustments.||||0.77
91649588|NCT00322309|183191870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference between the two treatment groups for benzoylecgonine data collected for Week 11.||||>0.05
91649589|NCT00322309|183191871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that means scores for the CGI-O would not differ significantly for these values obtained in the final treatment week, Week 11.||||>0.05
91899589|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.54||0.6893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|26.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||26.1|-39.3|0.6893
91649590|NCT00322309|183191872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis involves a between group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||It hypothesized that the two treatment groups would not differ significantly with respect to the total HAM-D scores obtained in the final week of the study (Week 11).||||>0.05
91649591|NCT00322309|183191873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0|>|0.05||95.0||||Percent of capsules administered does not differ significantly between the two groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in the mean percentage of capsules of those dispensed between the two groups.||||>0.05
91784604|NCT05091567|183449845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|16.9||||||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were ECOGPS at randomization (0 vs. 1);LDH at randomization (\<=ULN vs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of PCI (yes vs. no).||16.90|1.07|
91784605|NCT05091567|183449846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|11.32||||||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were ECOGPS at randomization (0 vs. 1);LDH at randomization (\<=ULNvs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of PCI (yes vs. no).||11.32|-3.51|
91784606|NCT05091567|183449849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|22.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.12|31.0||||||||31.00|14.12|
91784607|NCT05091567|183449849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|16.31||||||||16.31|0.72|
91784608|NCT05091567|183449850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|23.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.09|32.2||||||||32.20|15.09|
91844168|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.5|-1.0|0.73
91899590|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.02||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-9.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-9.6|-65.0|0.0087
91784609|NCT05091567|183449850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|15.16||||||||15.16|-0.11|
91784610|NCT03054129|183449862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.866
91784611|NCT03054129|183449863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.361
91784612|NCT03054129|183449864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.565
91784613|NCT03054129|183449865|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91784614|NCT03054129|183449866|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91784615|NCT03054129|183449867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
91784616|NCT03054129|183449868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
91784617|NCT03054129|183449869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.978
91784618|NCT03054129|183449870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.191
91649592|NCT00322309|183191874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5|>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference between the two groups in the mean percent of urines positive for riboflavin.||||>0.05
91709384|NCT03749109|183311416|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|10.13||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|35.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||||35.00|-14.74|0.42
91709385|NCT03749109|183311417|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.09||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||2.38|-0.20|0.10
91784619|NCT03054129|183449871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.097
91784620|NCT03054129|183449872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.339
91784621|NCT03054129|183449873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
91784622|NCT03054129|183449874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.933
91784623|NCT03054129|183449875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.136
91784624|NCT03054129|183449876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.673
91649593|NCT01165684|183191882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4% or equivalently if the p-value for the one-sided test of was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (step-wise regimen minus basal-bolus regimen).|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.14||||0.088||95.0|-0.02|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||||0.30|-0.02|0.088
91649594|NCT01165684|183191883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.55|||<|0.001||95.0|0.42|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||||0.69|0.42|<0.001
91649595|NCT01165684|183191884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|0.21|0.53|||Regression, Linear|||||0.53|0.21|<0.001
91649596|NCT01165684|183191885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85|||<|0.001||95.0|4.12|11.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.39|4.12|<0.001
91649597|NCT01165684|183191886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38|||<|0.001||95.0|1.56|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|1.56|<0.001
91784625|NCT03054129|183449877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
91899591|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-0.8|-57.7|0.0439
91649598|NCT01165684|183191887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.146||95.0|0.9|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.90|0.146
91649599|NCT01165684|183191890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean|0.12||||0.635||95.0|-0.37|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.60|-0.37|0.635
91649600|NCT01165684|183191893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|0.36||||0.046||95.0|0.01|0.71|||Regression, Linear|||||0.71|0.01|0.046
91649601|NCT01165684|183191894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|-0.48||||0.228||95.0|-1.25|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||||0.30|-1.25|0.228
91649602|NCT01165684|183191895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|-0.17||||0.224||95.0|-0.45|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||||0.11|-0.45|0.224
91784626|NCT03054129|183449878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.040
91784627|NCT03054129|183449879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.779
91784628|NCT03054129|183449880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.152
91784629|NCT03054129|183449881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.129
91649603|NCT04549259|183191906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.33
91649604|NCT04549259|183191906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.63
91649605|NCT04549259|183191906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.78
91649606|NCT04549259|183191906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.90
91784630|NCT03054129|183449882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.384
91784631|NCT03054129|183449883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.978
91649607|NCT04549259|183191906|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.38
91709386|NCT03749109|183311417|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.28||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||1.58|-1.02|0.67
91784632|NCT03054129|183449884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
91784633|NCT03054129|183449885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
91784634|NCT03054129|183449886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.933
91784635|NCT03054129|183449887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.684
91784636|NCT03054129|183449888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.112
91784637|NCT03054129|183449889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
91784638|NCT03054129|183449890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.633
91784639|NCT03054129|183449891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.736|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.736
91784640|NCT03054129|183449892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
91784641|NCT03054129|183449893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.109
91784642|NCT03054129|183449894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.844
91784643|NCT03054129|183449895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.122
91784644|NCT03054129|183449896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
91784645|NCT03054129|183449897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.593
91709387|NCT03749109|183311417|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.32||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis||1.71|-1.06|0.64
91709388|NCT03749109|183311418|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.21||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 1||1.44|-1.02|0.73
91784646|NCT03054129|183449898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.508
91784647|NCT00843284|183449900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.35|-3.97|||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test||Change from Baseline; observational study||-3.97|-4.35|<0.0001
91784648|NCT00843284|183449901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.24|-3.8|||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test.||Change from baseline||-3.80|-4.24|<0.0001
91649608|NCT04549259|183191906|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.78
91649609|NCT04549259|183191906|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.45
91709389|NCT03749109|183311418|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.42||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 2||1.82|-0.97|0.54
91844169|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.2|-0.8|0.37
91649610|NCT04549259|183191906|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.91
91709390|NCT03749109|183311418|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 3||0.85|-1.86|0.46
91709391|NCT03749109|183311418|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.53||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 4||2.05|-0.99|0.49
91844170|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.4|-1.7|0.83
91844171|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|-0.1|0.073
91844172|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|-0.2|0.090
91844173|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.2|-1.9|0.68
91844174|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-0.6|0.30
91844175|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.9|-1.3|0.69
91844176|NCT02886728|183569379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.5|-1.7|0.95
91844177|NCT02886728|183569381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.4|2.1|<0.001
91844178|NCT02886728|183569381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.1|<0.001
91844179|NCT02886728|183569381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|1.3|<0.001
91844180|NCT02886728|183569381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.5|1.0|<0.001
91899592|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.33||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|18.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||18.9|-37.8|0.5110
91709392|NCT03749109|183311418|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 1||1.30|-1.32|0.99
91899593|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||1.1|-57.2|0.0592
91709393|NCT03749109|183311418|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.17||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 2||1.71|-1.38|0.83
91709394|NCT03749109|183311418|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.74||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 3||0.63|-2.11|0.28
91844181|NCT02886728|183569381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|-0.4|0.13
91844182|NCT02886728|183569381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.2|0.1|0.032
91844183|NCT02886728|183569381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.2|0.028
91709395|NCT03749109|183311418|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.75||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 4||2.07|-0.57|0.26
91844184|NCT02886728|183569381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|-0.4|0.15
91844185|NCT02886728|183569381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.3|-0.9|0.41
91844186|NCT02886728|183569381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.1|0.3|0.017
91844187|NCT02886728|183569381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.6|-0.7|0.27
91709396|NCT03749109|183311418|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.91||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 1||2.31|-0.49|0.19
91709397|NCT03749109|183311418|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.07||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 2||1.58|-1.45|0.93
91899594|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.21||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|11.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||11.8|-48.3|0.2327
91649611|NCT04549259|183191907|SUPERIORITY||B|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.36
91649612|NCT04549259|183191907|SUPERIORITY||B|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.88
91784649|NCT00109590|183449919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was two-sided P\<0.05.|wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in within-subject Cpredose LPV/r plasma drug concentrations within 72 hours after delivery versus at 30 days postpartum.||||0.009
91790454|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91844188|NCT02886728|183569381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|-0.5|0.15
91649613|NCT04549259|183191907|SUPERIORITY||B|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.89
91649614|NCT04549259|183191907|SUPERIORITY||B|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.73
91709398|NCT03749109|183311418|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.13||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 3||1.32|-1.58|0.85
91709399|NCT03749109|183311418|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 4||1.69|-1.68|0.99
91709400|NCT03749109|183311419|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-7.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.97|39.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 2||39.27|-53.97|0.75
91899595|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.8173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|26.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||26.4|-33.5|0.8173
91899596|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.06||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.5|-57.1|0.0725
91899597|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.25||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|6.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||6.8|-53.5|0.1285
91899598|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.82||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|23.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||23.4|-35.2|0.6911
91899599|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.24||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|11.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||11.7|-48.6|0.2283
91899600|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.6||0.3049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|14.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||14.8|-46.9|0.3049
91899601|NCT03816891|183693458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|25.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||25.2|-36.6|0.7172
91899602|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|-12.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-12.0|-24.1|<0.0001
91899603|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-5.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-5.6|-17.8|0.0002
91899604|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-3.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-3.8|-15.9|0.0017
91899605|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-13.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-13.9|-28.0|<0.0001
91899606|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-5.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-5.4|-19.3|0.0006
91649615|NCT04549259|183191907|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.01
91649616|NCT04549259|183191907|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.12
91649617|NCT04549259|183191907|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.08
91649618|NCT04549259|183191907|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.12
91649619|NCT04549259|183191908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.049
91649620|NCT04549259|183191908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.66
91784650|NCT00109590|183449919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was two-sided P\<0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in within-subject C4hour LPV/r plasma drug concentrations within 72 hours after delivery versus at 30 days postpartum||||0.048
91784651|NCT01129583|183449939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91784652|NCT01129583|183449940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91784653|NCT01129583|183449941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91784654|NCT04672954|183449947|OTHER||Ratio|1.29||||0.3941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|2.13|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.34|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||2.13|0.78|0.3941
91790455|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.12||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.120|-0.711|0.163
91790456|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790457|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|0.239||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.239|-0.567|0.424
91790458|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790459|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.326||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.326|-0.510|0.664
91709401|NCT03749109|183311419|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|17.31||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.41|60.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 4||60.04|-25.41|0.42
91709402|NCT03749109|183311419|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-17.66||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.3|30.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 2||30.98|-66.30|0.47
91790460|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91649621|NCT04549259|183191908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.78
91649622|NCT04549259|183191908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.54
91649623|NCT04549259|183191908|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.09
91649624|NCT04549259|183191908|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.40
91784655|NCT04672954|183449947|OTHER||Ratio|1.66||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|2.79|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.35|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||2.79|0.99|0.1089
91790461|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.265||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.265|-0.638|0.417
91649625|NCT04549259|183191908|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.66
91784656|NCT04672954|183449947|OTHER||Ratio|1.14||||0.6308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.85|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.32|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||1.85|0.71|0.6308
91784657|NCT04672954|183449947|OTHER||Ratio|1.75||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|2.89|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.33|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||2.89|1.06|0.0690
91784658|NCT03861988|183449962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91784659|NCT02617485|183449970|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence met if the 90% CI of the Geo LS Means ratio is contained with the pre-specified equivalence margin of 70% - 143%.|Ratio of Geo LS-means|1.0406|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9565|1.1321||||||Estimated Geo LS-means ratio.||1.1321|0.9565|
91844189|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||12.0|6.0|<0.001
91784660|NCT02617485|183449971|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence met if the 90% CI of the Geo LS Means ratio is contained with the pre-specified equivalence margin of 70% - 143%.|Ratio of Geo LS-means|1.0611|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9822|1.1464||||||Estimated Geo LS-means ratio.||1.1464|0.9822|
91784661|NCT00669409|183449995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|13.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.8|-17.8|
91784662|NCT00669409|183449995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-2.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.8|-34.3|
91784663|NCT00669409|183449995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|13.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.1|-18.5|
91649626|NCT04549259|183191908|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.87
91709403|NCT03749109|183311419|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|25.61||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|72.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 4||72.27|-21.05|0.27
91899607|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.0|-13.9|0.0497
91709404|NCT03749109|183311419|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-20.95||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.83|29.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 2||29.92|-71.83|0.41
91709405|NCT03749109|183311419|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|2.25||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.57|54.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 4||54.06|-49.57|0.93
91649627|NCT04549259|183191909|SUPERIORITY||B|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.24
91649628|NCT04549259|183191909|SUPERIORITY||B|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.17
91649629|NCT04549259|183191909|SUPERIORITY||B|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.66
91649630|NCT04549259|183191909|SUPERIORITY||B|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.89
91784664|NCT00669409|183449995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|1.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.8|-29.4|
91784665|NCT00669409|183449995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-34.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-13.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-13.7|-55.2|
91784666|NCT00669409|183449996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|12.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.2|-19.4|
91784667|NCT00669409|183449996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|0.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.8|-30.8|
91709406|NCT03951753|183311456|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.29|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||1.29|0.87|<0.001
91784668|NCT00669409|183449996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|19.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.9|-11.7|
91784669|NCT00669409|183449996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|4.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.6|-26.6|
91844190|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|1.0|0.006
91649631|NCT04549259|183191909|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.045
91649632|NCT04549259|183191909|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.07
91649633|NCT04549259|183191909|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.57
91649634|NCT04549259|183191909|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.42
91709407|NCT03951753|183311456|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.24|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||2.24|1.59|<0.001
91784670|NCT00669409|183449996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|10.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.9|-30.5|
91784671|NCT00669409|183449997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|12.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.2|-19.4|
91784672|NCT00669409|183449997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-2.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.8|-34.3|
91784673|NCT00669409|183449997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|19.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.0|-12.6|
91784674|NCT00669409|183449997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|6.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.2|-25.0|
91784675|NCT00669409|183449997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|16.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.1|-25.4|
91784676|NCT00669409|183449998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|13.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.5|-18.1|
91899608|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-12.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-12.3|-28.9|<0.0001
91649635|NCT02008721|183191975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size, i.e. an expected mean yearly UMSARS-ME increase of 3,9 under verum treatment compared to 7.8 ± 6.8 (mean ± standard deviation) under Placebo treatment.~We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in motor examination scores on UMSARS between baseline and week 52 between the study groups."||||0.51
91649636|NCT02008721|183191976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size, i.e. an expected mean yearly UMSARS-ME increase of 3,9 under verum treatment compared to 7.8 ± 6.8 (mean ± standard deviation) under Placebo treatment.~We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in motor examination scores on UMSARS between baseline and week 52 between the study groups."||||0.82
91649637|NCT02008721|183191977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size. We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in UMSARS total score between baseline and week 52 between the study groups.~We did a post-hoc power calculation based on the mean change in motor examination scores on UMSARS and SDs in the placebo group of the per-protocol study completer set to test the assumptions of our initial power calculation."||||0.99
91649638|NCT02008721|183191978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size. We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in UMSARS total score between baseline and week 52 between the study groups.~We did a post-hoc power calculation based on the mean change in motor examination scores on UMSARS and SDs in the placebo group of the per-protocol study completer set to test the assumptions of our initial power calculation."||||0.43
91649639|NCT01967888|183191993|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-1.2||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||000|-14.3|0.542
91649640|NCT01967888|183191994|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.1601778||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317803|-0.0025525|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.0025525|-0.3178030|0.092
91899609|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-8.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-8.0|-24.6|0.0002
91649641|NCT01967888|183191995|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.1178242||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287431|0.0517825|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0517825|-0.2874310|0.161
91649642|NCT01967888|183191996|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.0136||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0508|0.0781|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0781|-0.0508|0.846
91649643|NCT01967888|183191997|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.025||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0939|0.0689|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0689|-0.0939|0.817
91649644|NCT01967888|183191998|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-9.4641||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.49|23.5618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.5618|-42.4900|0.570
91649645|NCT01967888|183191999|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-22.9454|||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1826|2.2918|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2918|-48.1826|=0.074
91649646|NCT01967888|183192000|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.2074|||=|0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6538|0.2389|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2389|-0.6538|=0.358
91649647|NCT01967888|183192001|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.277|||=|0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7936|0.2396|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2396|-0.7936|=0.288
91784677|NCT00669409|183449998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-2.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.1|-33.6|
91784678|NCT00669409|183449998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|14.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.4|-17.2|
91784679|NCT00669409|183449998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|4.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.4|-26.7|
91899610|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.6|-17.5|0.0362
91649648|NCT01967888|183192002|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.09716|||=|0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41834|7.61266|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.61266|-7.41834|=0.980
91784680|NCT00669409|183449998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-5.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-5.0|-46.5|
91784681|NCT00669409|183449999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|15.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.0|-16.6|
91784682|NCT00669409|183449999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-1.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.3|-32.8|
91784683|NCT00669409|183449999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.6|-21.0|
91844191|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|3.0|<0.001
91899611|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-13.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-13.2|-28.8|<0.0001
91784684|NCT00669409|183449999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.9|-28.3|
91784685|NCT00669409|183449999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-8.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-8.2|-49.6|
91784686|NCT00669409|183450000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|14.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.8|-16.8|
91784687|NCT00669409|183450000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-3.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.5|-35.0|
91784688|NCT00669409|183450000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|9.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.8|-21.8|
91784689|NCT00669409|183450000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|3.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.2|-28.0|
91649649|NCT01967888|183192003|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.07617|||=|0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76562|8.91796|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.91796|-6.76562|=0.785
91784690|NCT00669409|183450000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-9.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-9.1|-50.6|
91784691|NCT00669409|183450001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|19.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.7|-11.9|
91784692|NCT00669409|183450001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-3.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.6|-35.1|
91784693|NCT00669409|183450001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|10.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.3|-21.3|
91649650|NCT01967888|183192004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.176
91784694|NCT00669409|183450001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|3.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.4|-27.8|
91784695|NCT00669409|183450001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-4.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-4.3|-45.8|
91784696|NCT00669409|183450002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|22.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||22.5|-9.1|
91784697|NCT00669409|183450002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-0.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.2|-31.7|
91784698|NCT00669409|183450002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|13.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.2|-18.5|
91784699|NCT00669409|183450002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|5.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.3|-25.9|
91784700|NCT00669409|183450002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-2.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.7|-44.2|
91649651|NCT01967888|183192005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.403
91649652|NCT01967888|183192006|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.1||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|22.33|||Chi-squared|||||22.33|-18.20|0.842
91649653|NCT01967888|183192007|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.21||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|34.97|||Anderson-Gill model|||||34.97|0.29|0.339
91649654|NCT01967888|183192008|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|5.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|25.93|||Chi-squared|||||25.93|-15.91|0.640
91784701|NCT00669409|183450003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|27.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.0|-4.6|
91649655|NCT01967888|183192014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.448
91649656|NCT01967888|183192015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.910
91649657|NCT01967888|183192016|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||1.000
91784702|NCT00669409|183450003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|1.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.5|-30.0|
91784703|NCT00669409|183450003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|17.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.3|-14.3|
91784704|NCT00669409|183450003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|9.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.3|-21.9|
91784705|NCT00669409|183450003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|1.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.0|-40.5|
91784706|NCT00669409|183450004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|26.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||26.6|-5.0|
91784707|NCT00669409|183450004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|1.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.6|-30.0|
91784708|NCT00669409|183450004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|17.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.0|-14.6|
91649658|NCT01967888|183192021|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|31.3491|||=|0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.998|123.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||123.70|-60.9980|=0.5018
91649659|NCT01967888|183192022|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.5454|||=|0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6619|85.7528|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||85.7528|-38.6619|=0.4537
91649660|NCT03175120|183192033|SUPERIORITY||Treatment contrast|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed factors and corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-0.75|-1.09|<.0001
91649661|NCT01859325|183192122|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.67|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Samples size based on published data on populations of early treated patients undergoing ART interruption. The power based on a 2-sample t-test with a 2-tailed alpha of .05 and a total sample size of 30 is approximately 91% to detect a 1.25 log10 reduction in the rebound plasma viremia between vaccine and placebo groups.||0.67|-1.41|0.406
91709408|NCT03951753|183311456|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.21|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||1.21|0.46|<0.001
91784709|NCT00669409|183450004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.2|-21.0|
91784710|NCT00669409|183450004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|6.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.2|-35.3|
91784711|NCT00669409|183450005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|26.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||26.1|-5.5|
91784712|NCT00669409|183450005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|4.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.5|-27.0|
91784713|NCT00669409|183450005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|18.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.3|-13.3|
91709409|NCT03951753|183311457|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-30.7|||ANCOVA|||||-30.7|-45.4|<0.001
91784714|NCT00669409|183450005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|11.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.9|-19.2|
91784715|NCT00669409|183450005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|7.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.0|-34.4|
91784716|NCT00669409|183450006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|26.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||26.8|-4.8|
91784717|NCT00669409|183450006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|7.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.6|-23.9|
91844192|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|2.0|<0.001
91899612|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-7.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-7.7|-23.5|0.0001
91709410|NCT03951753|183311457|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-39.5|||ANCOVA|||||-39.5|-54.6|<0.001
91709411|NCT03951753|183311457|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-15.4|0.006
91784718|NCT00669409|183450006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|17.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.6|-14.0|
91784719|NCT00669409|183450006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-19.2|
91784720|NCT00669409|183450006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|8.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.0|-33.5|
91784721|NCT00669409|183450007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|27.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.2|-4.4|
91784722|NCT00669409|183450007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|10.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.3|-21.2|
91784723|NCT00669409|183450007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|20.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.4|-11.2|
91784724|NCT00669409|183450007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|10.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.9|-20.3|
91709412|NCT03951753|183311458|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14696.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17045.0|-12347.3|||ANCOVA|||||-12347.3|-17045.0|<0.001
91784725|NCT00669409|183450007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|16.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.6|-24.9|
91784726|NCT00669409|183450008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|12.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.3|-20.7|
91784727|NCT00669409|183450008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-3.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.0|-35.6|
91709413|NCT03951753|183311458|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17873.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20239.0|-15507.4|||ANCOVA|||||-15507.4|-20239.0|<0.001
91784728|NCT00669409|183450008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|12.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.1|-20.5|
91784729|NCT00669409|183450008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|0.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.3|-31.9|
91784730|NCT00669409|183450008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-35.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-13.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-13.8|-56.4|
91844193|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|-0.0|0.089
91899613|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-2.5|-18.3|0.0100
91649662|NCT00986154|183192143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed to accumulate approximately 220 Overall primary efficacy events in the mITT (modified Intent to Treat) Analysis Set. Assuming equal efficacy (Hazard Ratio = 1.00), a total of 220 events gave a power of 85% to demonstrate that (LMW) heparin/edoxaban was non-inferior to the comparator, considering a relative non-inferiority margin of 1.5 (two sided α=0.05).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.128|||Regression, Cox||Time to 1st event analyzed by Cox proportional hazards with terms treatment group, randomization stratification factors: Presenting Diagnosis (PE with/without DVT, DVT only); Baseline risk factors (temp factors; all others); Need for reduced dose|(LMW) heparin/edoxaban will be non-inferior to (LMW) heparin/warfarin in preventing recurrence of acute, symptomatic VTE following initial index event. (LMW) Heparin/edoxaban was considered non-inferior to the standard therapy (\[LMW\] heparin/warfarin) if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Hazard Ratio (\[LMW\] heparin/edoxaban to standard therapy) was less than 1.5. Events included in Overall study period if occurred on or after randomization date up to Day 365.||1.128|.703|<0.0001
91709414|NCT03951753|183311458|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3177.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5194.3|-1159.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1159.8|-5194.3|0.002
91784731|NCT00669409|183450009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|11.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.8|-21.2|
91784732|NCT00669409|183450009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-0.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.4|-33.0|
91784733|NCT00669409|183450009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|19.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.1|-13.5|
91784734|NCT00669409|183450009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|3.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.0|-29.2|
91649663|NCT00986154|183192144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Time to 1st event analyzed by Cox proportional hazards with terms treatment group, randomization stratification factors: Presenting Diagnosis (PE with/without DVT, DVT only); Baseline risk factors (temp factors; all others); Need for reduced dose.|||1.200|.832|.9933
91899614|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-4.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-4.3|-21.1|0.0035
91899615|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-1.2|-18.3|0.0255
91899616|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.2869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|3.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||3.9|-13.1|0.2869
91899617|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||0.8|-15.4|0.0760
91899618|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||3.6|-12.8|0.2673
91649664|NCT00986154|183192145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|0.936|||Regression, Cox||Time to 1st event analyzed by Cox proportional hazards with terms treatment group, randomization stratification factors: Presenting Diagnosis (PE with/without DVT, DVT only); Baseline risk factors (temp factors; all others); Need for reduced dose|"Safety Analysis set includes all randomized subjects who received at least one dose of study drug.~Null hypothesis (LMW) heparin/edoxaban will be comparable to (LMW) heparin/warfarin in preventing recurrence of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding."||.936|.705|.0040
91784735|NCT00669409|183450009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|9.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.7|-32.8|
91784736|NCT00669409|183450010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|10.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.1|-22.9|
91784737|NCT00669409|183450010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-3.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.1|-35.7|
91784738|NCT00669409|183450010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|17.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.6|-15.0|
91784739|NCT00669409|183450010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|5.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.1|-27.1|
91784740|NCT00669409|183450010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|16.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.5|-26.0|
91784741|NCT00669409|183450011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|11.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.9|-21.1|
91784742|NCT00669409|183450011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-3.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.3|-35.9|
91784743|NCT00669409|183450011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|12.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.2|-20.4|
91784744|NCT00669409|183450011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|2.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.3|-30.0|
91784745|NCT00669409|183450011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.8|-6.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-6.2|-48.8|
91784746|NCT00669409|183450012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|13.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.4|-19.6|
91899619|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|6.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||6.8|-9.6|0.7320
91899620|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.7|-16.4|0.0726
91899621|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.4475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||5.4|-12.1|0.4475
91844194|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-1.0|0.18
91844195|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|1.0|0.003
91844196|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|0.0|0.049
91844197|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-4.0|0.84
91844198|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|2.0|<0.001
91844199|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|-0.0|0.078
91844200|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-2.0|0.39
91844201|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|2.0|0.004
91844202|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-3.0|0.45
91844203|NCT02886728|183569384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.0|-4.0|0.85
91844204|NCT01676220|183569401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Stepwise closed testing approach was used to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.174||||||Analysis was performed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; baseline HbA1c and baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.174|-0.090|
91844205|NCT01676220|183569402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.4536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A one-sided test (at alpha=0.025) for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed in case the non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus for the primary endpoint was demonstrated. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan).||1.20|0.66|0.4536
91709415|NCT03951753|183311459|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.67|-2.18|<0.001
91709416|NCT03951753|183311459|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.08|-2.58|<0.001
91709417|NCT03951753|183311459|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.63|<0.001
91844206|NCT01676220|183569403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.605||||||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analyzed using MMRM model with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; baseline preinjection SMPG value and baseline preinjection SMPG value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.605|-0.275|
91844207|NCT01152554|183569515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.50|0.54|0.697
91844208|NCT01152554|183569516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.57|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.57|0.45|0.582
91844209|NCT03486899|183569529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.52|0.88|0.055
91844210|NCT03486899|183569529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.27|0.61|0.245
91844211|NCT03486899|183569529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.10|0.71|0.129
91844212|NCT03486899|183569530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|0.53|0.214
91844213|NCT03486899|183569530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.10|0.43|0.381
91844214|NCT03486899|183569530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|13.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.48|0.75|0.079
91844215|NCT03486899|183569531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.47|0.63|0.180
91844216|NCT03486899|183569531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.20|0.38|0.612
91844217|NCT03486899|183569531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.10|0.81|0.079
91844218|NCT03486899|183569532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.03|0.15|0.038
91649665|NCT00267293|183192150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power for 80%|||||<|0.001||||||comparision of mean temperatures from repeated exposure. At hour 6 temperature|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power for 80%||||<0.001
91844219|NCT03486899|183569532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.57|0.22|0.256
91844220|NCT03486899|183569532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.73|0.25|0.296
91844221|NCT03486899|183569533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.80|0.22|0.718
91844222|NCT03486899|183569533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.87|0.05|0.632
91844223|NCT03486899|183569533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.19|0.01|0.293
91844224|NCT03486899|183569534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.80|0.22|0.718
91844225|NCT03486899|183569534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.87|0.05|0.632
91844226|NCT03486899|183569534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.19|0.01|0.293
91844227|NCT03486899|183569535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.12|0.73|0.101
91844228|NCT03486899|183569535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.17|0.36|0.587
91844229|NCT03486899|183569535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.20|0.45|0.371
91844230|NCT03486899|183569536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|0.53|0.214
91844231|NCT03486899|183569536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.10|0.43|0.381
91844232|NCT03486899|183569536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|0.53|0.214
91844233|NCT03486899|183569537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|11.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.21|0.83|0.060
91844234|NCT03486899|183569537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|7.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.92|0.53|0.276
91844235|NCT03486899|183569537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.20|0.45|0.371
91844236|NCT03486899|183569538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.87|0.62|0.242
91844237|NCT03486899|183569538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.26|0.37|0.803
91844238|NCT03486899|183569538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.46|0.56|0.350
91844239|NCT01439711|183569539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91784747|NCT00669409|183450012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-3.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.1|-35.8|
91784748|NCT00669409|183450012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|7.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.2|-25.4|
91784749|NCT00669409|183450012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-0.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.5|-32.8|
91784750|NCT00669409|183450012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-11.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-11.4|-53.9|
91784751|NCT00669409|183450013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|12.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.9|-20.1|
91844240|NCT01439711|183569540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91844241|NCT02397460|183569553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment effects on Emax following capsaicin challenge were modeled for dose dependence and were estimated on the basis of disease status for participants who were healthy or had chronic cough and received gefapixant 50 mg, gefapixant 300 mg, or placebo.||||< 0.0001
91844242|NCT02397460|183569554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment effects following capsaicin challenge were modeled for dose. dependence and were estimated on the basis of disease status for participants who had chronic cough and received gefapixant 50 mg, gefapixant 300 mg, or placebo.||||< 0.0001
91784752|NCT00669409|183450013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-5.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-5.2|-37.9|
91784753|NCT00669409|183450013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|6.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.9|-25.7|
91784754|NCT00669409|183450013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|0.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.7|-31.5|
91784755|NCT00669409|183450013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-11.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-11.2|-53.7|
91784756|NCT00669409|183450014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|16.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.0|-17.0|
91784757|NCT00669409|183450014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|-4.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-4.9|-37.6|
91784758|NCT00669409|183450014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|8.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.5|-24.1|
91784759|NCT00669409|183450014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|0.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.0|-32.2|
91784760|NCT00669409|183450014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-5.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-5.5|-48.1|
91784761|NCT00669409|183450015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|20.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.2|-12.8|
91784762|NCT00669409|183450015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-2.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.2|-34.8|
91784763|NCT00669409|183450015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|11.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.0|-21.7|
91784764|NCT00669409|183450015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|2.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.1|-30.1|
91899622|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||6.9|-10.5|0.6854
91649666|NCT00267293|183192150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Binary outcome \<38C and \>=38C|Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91649667|NCT01684722|183192153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5|-0.7|0.25
91649668|NCT01684722|183192153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-0.7|0.27
91649669|NCT01684722|183192154|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of change from baseline, active to|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|0.84|0.90
91649670|NCT01684722|183192154|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of change from baseline, active to|0.96||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.81|0.64
91649671|NCT00219557|183192160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.17||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.1 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by the stratified log-rank test where the stratification factors are Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (less than or equal to 1 or 2) and extent of disease (locally advanced or metastatic).||1.170|0.490|0.1026
91649672|NCT00219557|183192171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|4.3||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.7|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in percent of participants with overall response expressed as response rate, was used for calculation of 95% confidence interval (CI).||12.7|-4.0|0.661
91649673|NCT00219557|183192173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9648||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.73||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.1 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by the stratified log-rank test where the stratification factors are ECOG performance status (less than equal to 1 or 2) and extent of disease (locally advanced or metastatic).||1.7300|0.5400|0.4466
91844243|NCT01767129|183569581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.4||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.02|48.23|||ANOVA|The standard analysis of variance (ANOVA) model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The least squares (LS) mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||48.23|-215.02|0.1907
91844244|NCT01767129|183569582|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.9||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.28|27.42|||ANOVA|The standard ANOVA model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||27.42|-65.28|0.3880
91649674|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|2.19||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||2.19|-19.06|
91649675|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.36||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||3.36|-15.4|
91649676|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.77|5.12||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||5.12|-23.77|
91649677|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.25|5.79||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||5.79|-15.25|
91649678|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|5.61||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||5.61|-15.83|
91649679|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|12.06||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||12.06|-18.72|
91844245|NCT01767129|183569583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|171.9||||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1022.79|1366.64|||ANOVA|The standard ANOVA model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||1366.64|-1022.79|0.7574
91844246|NCT01767129|183569584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.8||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.63|178.3|||ANOVA|The standard ANOVA model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||178.30|-80.63|0.4203
91844247|NCT01767129|183569585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.27|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part I||0.27|-2.41|0.1067
91844248|NCT01767129|183569585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.09|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part II||3.09|-2.64|0.8650
91844249|NCT01767129|183569585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|0.27|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part IV||0.27|-4.94|0.0745
91844250|NCT01767129|183569586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.24|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part 1||0.24|-8.10|0.0625
91844251|NCT01767129|183569586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.07|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part 2||1.07|-3.74|0.2474
91844252|NCT01767129|183569587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.01|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||3.01|-3.10|0.9764
91844253|NCT01767129|183569588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.6359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|6.36|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Mobility||6.36|-9.94|0.6359
91649680|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|22.44||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.44|-1.62|
91844254|NCT01767129|183569588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-1.87|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Activities of Daily Living||-1.87|-15.20|0.0167
91844255|NCT01767129|183569588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|1.56|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Emotional Well Being||1.56|-16.54|0.0959
91844256|NCT01767129|183569588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.5108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.72|8.83|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Stigma||8.83|-16.72|0.5108
91844257|NCT01767129|183569588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.06|1.42|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Social support||1.42|-21.06|0.0806
91844258|NCT01767129|183569588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|7.03|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Cognitive impairment (Cognitions)||7.03|-15.66|0.4205
91844259|NCT01767129|183569588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|1.53|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Communication||1.53|-13.63|0.1065
91844260|NCT01767129|183569588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.51|9.19|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Bodily discomfort||9.19|-19.51|0.4456
91844261|NCT01767129|183569589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|-1.07|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||-1.07|-11.72|0.0233
91844262|NCT01767129|183569590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.31|||ANOVA|Change from Screening values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||0.31|-1.39|0.1930
91784765|NCT00669409|183450015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-3.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.5|-46.0|
91784766|NCT00669409|183450016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|25.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||25.5|-7.5|
91784767|NCT00669409|183450016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|0.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.6|-32.0|
91649681|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|7.96||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.96|-16.55|
91649682|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|22.32||||||For change in pain at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.32|-7.57|
91844263|NCT01767129|183569591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.01|||ANOVA|Change were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Dyskinesia||0.01|-2.17|0.0511
91844264|NCT01767129|183569591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.91|||ANOVA|Change were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Other symptoms||0.91|-0.70|0.7745
91844265|NCT01473420|183569600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.24||||||Least square (LS) mean and 95 percent confidence interval (CI) derived from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect of treatment.||0.24|-0.17|
91844266|NCT01473420|183569601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.175|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|9.82||||||LS mean and 95 percent CI derived from an ANCOVA model with fixed effect of treatment.||9.82|-14.51|
91844267|NCT01473420|183569602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8338|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.8338
91649683|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|26.3||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.30|-1.28|
91649684|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|25.49||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.49|-5.70|
91649685|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|32.07||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||32.07|-4.81|
91709418|NCT03951753|183311460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|279.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.366|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|245.1|313.18|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||313.18|245.10|<0.001
91844268|NCT01473420|183569603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6895|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.||||||0.6895
91844269|NCT01473420|183569604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9177|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.||||||0.9177
91649686|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|20.96||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.96|-11.62|
91649687|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|12.54||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||12.54|-15.1|
91649688|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|15.53||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.53|-4.67|
91649689|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.34|0.67||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||0.67|-32.34|
91709419|NCT03951753|183311460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|381.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.399|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|339.29|423.17|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||423.17|339.29|<0.001
91844270|NCT03990363|183569665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0648|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Model|||||||0.0648
91844271|NCT03990363|183569665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6296|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Model|||||||0.6296
91709420|NCT03951753|183311460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|102.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.84|152.33|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||152.33|51.84|<0.001
91844272|NCT03990363|183569665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0263|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Model|||||||0.0263
91844273|NCT01563978|183569679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean treatment difference|2.93||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.45|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||||5.45|0.40|0.023
91784768|NCT00669409|183450016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|15.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.9|-16.7|
91784769|NCT00669409|183450016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|6.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.7|-25.5|
91784770|NCT00669409|183450016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|0.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.5|-42.0|
91784771|NCT00669409|183450017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||24.6|-8.4|
91784772|NCT00669409|183450017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|0.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.0|-32.6|
91844274|NCT01563978|183569680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean treatment difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.03|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||||5.03|2.04|<0.001
91649690|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.12|0.96||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||0.96|-24.12|
91649691|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.47|-1.83||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-1.83|-35.47|
91784773|NCT00669409|183450017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|15.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.5|-17.1|
91784774|NCT00669409|183450017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|7.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.8|-24.4|
91784775|NCT00669409|183450017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|4.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.5|-38.0|
91784776|NCT00669409|183450018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|25.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||25.3|-7.7|
91784777|NCT00669409|183450018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|3.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.5|-29.2|
91784778|NCT00669409|183450018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|16.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.8|-15.8|
91784779|NCT00669409|183450018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|8.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.6|-23.6|
91784780|NCT00669409|183450018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|5.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.5|-37.0|
91784781|NCT00669409|183450019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|25.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||25.5|-7.4|
91784782|NCT00669409|183450019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|5.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.5|-27.1|
91784783|NCT00669409|183450019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|15.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.7|-16.9|
91784784|NCT00669409|183450019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|8.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.4|-23.9|
91844275|NCT01563978|183569681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.08|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean daytime SBP (Day 28)||6.08|0.53|0.020
91649692|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.16|1.32||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1.32|-29.16|
91649693|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|6.77||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||6.77|-20.97|
91649694|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|9.04||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||9.04|-28.28|
91844276|NCT01563978|183569681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.42|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean daytime DBP (Day 28)||5.42|2.08|<0.001
91649695|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|33.54||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.54|-1.27|
91899623|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|4.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||4.5|-13.3|0.3287
91899624|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|8.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||8.7|-9.0|0.9752
91899625|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||11.2|-6.2|0.5761
91899626|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|4.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||4.1|-13.9|0.2817
91899627|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.3554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|4.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||4.8|-13.3|0.3554
91899628|NCT03816891|183693459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|7.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||7.7|-10.4|0.7713
91899629|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-16.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-16.9|-32.8|<0.0001
91899630|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-8.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-8.6|-24.6|<0.0001
91649696|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.78|15.18||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.18|-18.78|
91649697|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|36.39||||||For change in pain at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.39|-3.22|
91649698|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|26.47||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.47|-5.68|
91649699|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|23.36||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.36|-20.19|
91649700|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|40.1||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||40.1|-7.62|
91899631|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-5.3|-21.2|0.0013
91899632|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-19.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-19.1|-36.5|<0.0001
91899633|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-8.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-8.2|-25.4|0.0002
91784785|NCT00669409|183450019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|5.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.4|-37.1|
91844277|NCT01563978|183569681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.07||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|5.11|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean night-time SBP (Day 28)||5.11|-0.96|0.179
91844278|NCT01563978|183569681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.14|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean night-time DBP (Day 28)||5.14|1.13|0.002
91784786|NCT00669409|183450020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|27.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.9|-5.1|
91784787|NCT00669409|183450020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|8.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.2|-24.4|
91899634|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.0|-17.2|0.0511
91899635|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-17.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-17.1|-37.8|<0.0001
91899636|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-11.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-11.5|-32.3|<0.0001
91899637|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.6|-21.8|0.0386
91784788|NCT00669409|183450020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|18.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.4|-14.2|
91784789|NCT00669409|183450020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|8.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.0|-24.3|
91899638|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-18.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-18.4|-37.8|<0.0001
91899639|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-11.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-11.5|-31.0|<0.0001
91899640|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-3.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-3.0|-22.5|0.0108
91899641|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-8.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-8.4|-29.6|0.0006
91899642|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-3.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-3.8|-25.3|0.0084
91784790|NCT00669409|183450020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|14.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.9|-27.6|
91784791|NCT00669409|183450021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|11.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.8|-21.6|
91784792|NCT00669409|183450021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.9|-36.1|
91784793|NCT00669409|183450021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|11.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.4|-21.8|
91784794|NCT00669409|183450021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|1.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.2|-31.6|
91784795|NCT00669409|183450021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-19.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-19.0|-62.6|
91899643|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|4.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||4.4|-17.1|0.2422
91899644|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-1.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-1.5|-21.9|0.0249
91899645|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|2.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||2.8|-17.9|0.1497
91844279|NCT01563978|183569682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.11||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.81|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean awake SBP (Day 28)||5.81|0.41|0.024
91649701|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.49|23.02||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.02|-17.49|
91844280|NCT01563978|183569682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.22|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean awake DBP (Day 28)||5.22|2.10|<0.001
91649702|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.29|22.03||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.03|-16.29|
91649703|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|20.92||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.92|-9.81|
91844281|NCT01563978|183569683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean treatment difference|1.99||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|5.2|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean sleeping SBP||5.20|-1.22|0.223
91844282|NCT01563978|183569683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.93|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean sleeping DBP||4.93|0.81|0.007
91649704|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.52|7.57||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.57|-19.52|
91784796|NCT00669409|183450022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|12.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.5|-20.9|
91844283|NCT01563978|183569684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.24||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.69|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in clinic SBP (Day 29)||5.69|-1.20|0.200
91649705|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.75|8.46||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||8.46|-19.75|
91844284|NCT01563978|183569684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.36||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.68|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in clinic DBP (Day 29)||4.68|0.05|0.046
91649706|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.11|4.05||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||4.05|-39.11|
91784797|NCT00669409|183450022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|0.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.7|-32.6|
91784798|NCT00669409|183450022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.1|-13.2|
91899646|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||8.2|-12.4|0.6910
91649707|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|2.0||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||2.00|-26.5|
91784799|NCT00669409|183450022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|4.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.5|-28.4|
91899647|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||-1.0|-23.4|0.0331
91649708|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.13|9.15||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||9.15|-23.13|
91784800|NCT00669409|183450022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|4.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.8|-38.8|
91844285|NCT01563978|183569685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|6.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.03|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average pre-dose home SBP (Week 4)||9.03|3.60|<0.001
91844286|NCT01563978|183569685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|6.25|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average pre-dose home DBP (Week 4)||6.25|2.91|<0.001
91844287|NCT01563978|183569686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|7.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.29|10.16|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average post-dose home SBP (Week 4)||10.16|4.29|<0.001
91844288|NCT01563978|183569686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|4.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.59|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average post-dose home DBP (Week 4)||6.59|2.90|<0.001
91899648|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|6.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||6.2|-16.6|0.3709
91649709|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.48|16.31||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||16.31|-30.48|
91649710|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|27.63||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.63|-5.86|
91649711|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.11|1.91||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1.91|-24.11|
91649712|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.26|14.0||||||For change in pain at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||14.00|-24.26|
91649713|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.18|24.44||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.44|-14.18|
91649714|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.25|13.59||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||13.59|-26.25|
91844289|NCT01563978|183569688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.08||Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)|ANCOVA|||Improvement from baseline at Day 29. Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any dose of background disease modifying antirheumatic drug increased or any other RA treatment initiated including DMARDs, anti-TNFs or other biologics, or receiving any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.08|0.40|<0.001
91844290|NCT01824472|183569723|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference compared across 3 groups|0.43||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||"Kruskal-Wallis test implemented as PROC NPAR1WAY in Statistical Analysis System (SAS v9.4) for a single groupwise comparison. The mean difference (baseline to follow-up) was determined for each group, and this was compared across all 3 groups."|||||0.8
91899649|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||9.1|-13.7|0.6924
91649715|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|33.32||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.32|-15.26|
91649716|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.71|26.82||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.82|-25.71|
91649717|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.07|28.01||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.01|-24.07|
91649718|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|24.86||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.86|-5.89|
91649719|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.19|3.17||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||3.17|-43.19|
91649720|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|10.1||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||10.10|-27.24|
91649721|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|8.96||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||8.96|-41.10|
91649722|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.72|-5.5||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-5.50|-42.72|
91649723|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.66|10.61||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||10.61|-29.66|
91649724|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.93|7.46||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.46|-47.93|
91784801|NCT00669409|183450023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|11.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.2|-22.2|
91784802|NCT00669409|183450023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.9|-36.1|
91784803|NCT00669409|183450023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|17.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.7|-15.6|
91784804|NCT00669409|183450023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|4.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.8|-28.0|
91784805|NCT00669409|183450023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|13.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.5|-30.1|
91784806|NCT00669409|183450024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|12.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.8|-20.6|
91784807|NCT00669409|183450024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-2.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.3|-35.6|
91649725|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|46.77||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.77|3.23|
91649726|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.49|25.99||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.99|-13.49|
91649727|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|46.41||||||For change in pain at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.41|-7.12|
91649728|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|43.66||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||43.66|0.38|
91709421|NCT03951753|183311461|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|17.7|||ANCOVA|||||17.7|4.9|<0.001
91709422|NCT03951753|183311461|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|26.1|||ANCOVA|||||26.1|13.4|<0.001
91784808|NCT00669409|183450024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|13.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.7|-19.6|
91784809|NCT00669409|183450024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|1.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.9|-30.9|
91784810|NCT00669409|183450024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-7.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-7.6|-51.2|
91784811|NCT00669409|183450025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|17.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.1|-16.3|
91709423|NCT03951753|183311461|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.0|||ANCOVA|||||14.0|3.0|0.003
91649729|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.49|38.73||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.73|-18.49|
91784812|NCT00669409|183450025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-2.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.2|-35.4|
91784813|NCT00669409|183450025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|9.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.1|-24.1|
91784814|NCT00669409|183450025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|0.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.9|-31.9|
91649730|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|55.65||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||55.65|-13.98|
91649731|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.02|42.83||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.83|-19.02|
91709424|NCT03951753|183311462|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-5.5|<0.001
91844291|NCT01815736|183569724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|2.7||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.01|-0.3|5.6||The p-value for the superiority test used a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by prior treatment regimen.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages and its 95.01% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|NDA Data Cut||5.6|-0.3|0.051
91649732|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|39.94||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||39.94|-16.13|
91649733|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.38|23.38||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.38|-23.38|
91649734|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.53|17.21||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups||17.21|-34.53|
91649735|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.01|26.04||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.04|-52.01|
91649736|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.87|19.24||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||19.24|-71.87|
91649737|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|14.31||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||14.31|-26.59|
91649738|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.46|11.48||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||11.48|-35.46|
91784815|NCT00669409|183450025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|-9.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-9.5|-53.1|
91784816|NCT00669409|183450026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|16.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.5|-16.9|
91784817|NCT00669409|183450026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-3.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.4|-36.7|
91784818|NCT00669409|183450026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|9.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.0|-24.2|
91649739|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|49.04||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.04|-20.97|
91649740|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|62.61||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||62.61|-15.83|
91649741|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.84|38.73||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.73|-30.84|
91649742|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.08|62.2||||||For change in pain at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||62.20|-13.08|
91649743|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.65|34.94||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.94|-38.65|
91649744|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.43|56.73||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||56.73|-37.43|
91649745|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.22|97.54||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||97.54|-71.22|
91649746|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.61|68.22||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||68.22|-22.61|
91649747|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|35.59||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||35.59|-39.10|
91649748|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|46.86||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.86|1.09|
91649749|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.03|63.11||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||63.11|-39.03|
91649750|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.74|58.52||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||58.52|-20.74|
91649751|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.94|15.28||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.28|-111.94|
91649752|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.59|20.74||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.74|-22.59|
91649753|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.98|39.43||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||39.43|-24.98|
91649754|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.71|77.71||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.71|-57.71|
91784819|NCT00669409|183450026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|3.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.0|-29.8|
91784820|NCT00669409|183450026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|-12.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-12.0|-55.6|
91784821|NCT00669409|183450027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|20.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.4|-12.9|
91649755|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.87|24.79||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.79|-58.87|
91649756|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|13.1||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||13.10|-43.10|
91649757|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.75|57.3||||||For change in pain at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||57.30|-41.75|
91649758|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.79|20.46||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.46|-53.79|
91649759|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.14|30.92||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||30.92|-73.14|
91649760|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.58|51.13||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||51.13|-115.58|
91649761|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|125.26||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||125.26|-18.60|
91649762|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.92|41.58||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||41.58|-34.92|
91784822|NCT00669409|183450027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-3.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.3|-36.5|
91784823|NCT00669409|183450027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|10.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.0|-23.3|
91784824|NCT00669409|183450027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|1.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.6|-31.2|
91784825|NCT00669409|183450027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-6.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-6.4|-50.0|
91649763|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|20.96||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.96|-34.3|
91649764|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.94|100.6||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||100.60|-58.94|
91649765|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.54|63.2||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||63.20|-44.54|
91649766|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|75.3||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||75.30|-35.30|
91649767|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.66|36.66||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.66|-51.66|
91784826|NCT00669409|183450028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|24.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||24.0|-9.4|
91784827|NCT00669409|183450028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-1.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.2|-34.4|
91784828|NCT00669409|183450028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|13.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.2|-20.0|
91784829|NCT00669409|183450028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.9|-29.9|
91784830|NCT00669409|183450028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|-6.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-6.7|-50.3|
91784831|NCT00669409|183450029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|29.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||29.1|-4.3|
91784832|NCT00669409|183450029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|1.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.9|-31.4|
91784833|NCT00669409|183450029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|18.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.6|-14.6|
91649768|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.06|69.39||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||69.39|-36.06|
91649769|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.36|86.36||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||86.36|-76.36|
91649770|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.63|42.08||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.08|-77.63|
91649771|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.33|28.99||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.99|-62.33|
91784834|NCT00669409|183450029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.8|-25.0|
91784835|NCT00669409|183450029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-1.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.3|-44.9|
91784836|NCT00669409|183450030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|28.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.3|-5.1|
91784837|NCT00669409|183450030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|1.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.1|-32.1|
91784838|NCT00669409|183450030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|19.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.7|-13.5|
91784839|NCT00669409|183450030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|9.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.7|-23.1|
91784840|NCT00669409|183450030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.9|-40.7|
91784841|NCT00669409|183450031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|29.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||29.0|-4.4|
91784842|NCT00669409|183450031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|5.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.4|-27.8|
91784843|NCT00669409|183450031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.1|-13.2|
91784844|NCT00669409|183450031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|9.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.0|-23.9|
91784845|NCT00669409|183450031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|3.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.2|-40.4|
91784846|NCT00669409|183450032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|27.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.9|-5.5|
91784847|NCT00669409|183450032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|7.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.0|-26.3|
91784848|NCT00669409|183450032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|18.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.5|-14.7|
91784849|NCT00669409|183450032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|9.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.2|-23.6|
91784850|NCT00669409|183450032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|1.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.4|-42.2|
91784851|NCT00669409|183450033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|30.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||30.2|-3.2|
91784852|NCT00669409|183450033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|9.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.9|-23.3|
91709425|NCT03951753|183311462|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-6.3|<0.001
91784853|NCT00669409|183450033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|21.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||21.7|-11.5|
91784854|NCT00669409|183450033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|8.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.8|-24.1|
91784855|NCT00669409|183450033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|12.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-31.6|
91784856|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|6.4||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.4|-24.7|
91784857|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-4.9||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-4.9|-36.0|
91784858|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|11.4||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.4|-19.9|
91784859|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-0.4||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.4|-30.9|
91784860|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-8.9||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-8.9|-49.4|
91784861|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|14.3||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.3|-16.9|
91784862|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|1.7||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.7|-29.5|
91784863|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|16.5||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.5|-15.4|
91784864|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|3.7||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.7|-27.3|
91784865|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-2.4||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.4|-43.1|
91784866|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-0.3||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.3|-33.2|
91784867|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-10.8||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-10.8|-43.7|
91784868|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|9.9||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.9|-23.4|
91784869|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-3.2||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.2|-35.6|
91784870|NCT00669409|183450034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-2.9||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.9|-45.8|
91784871|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|12.6||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.6|-18.5|
91709426|NCT03951753|183311462|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-2.4|0.277
91784872|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|0.8||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.8|-30.3|
91784873|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|28.1||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.1|-3.2|
91784874|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|7.4||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.4|-23.1|
91784875|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|17.2||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.2|-23.3|
91784876|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|16.3||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.3|-14.9|
91784877|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|5.7||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.7|-25.5|
91784878|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|28.5||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.5|-3.4|
91784879|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|9.0||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.0|-21.9|
91784880|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|15.5||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.5|-25.2|
91784881|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|11.5||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.5|-21.4|
91784882|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|2.7||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.7|-30.3|
91784883|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|32.7||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||32.7|-0.6|
91784884|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|9.5||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.5|-22.9|
91784885|NCT00669409|183450035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|17.4||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.4|-25.5|
91844292|NCT01815736|183569724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.7||The p-value for the superiority test used a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by prior treatment regimen.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|All Participants||6.7|1.6|<0.001
91844293|NCT01815736|183569725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|2.078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.697|2.459||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|NDA Data Cut||2.459|1.697|<0.001
91844294|NCT01815736|183569725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.807|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.488|2.126||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|All Participants||2.126|1.488|<0.001
91784886|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|8.2||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.2|-22.9|
91784887|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-3.3||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.3|-34.4|
91709427|NCT03951753|183311463|OTHER||Slope|-296.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-584.8|-7.5|||ANCOVA|||||-7.5|-584.8|0.044
91784888|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|6.1||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.1|-25.2|
91784889|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-0.2||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.2|-30.8|
91784890|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-7.6||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-7.6|-48.1|
91784891|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|9.9||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.9|-21.3|
91784892|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-1.4||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.4|-32.6|
91784893|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|7.5||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.5|-24.3|
91784894|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-1.3||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.3|-32.2|
91784895|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-7.1||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-7.1|-47.8|
91784896|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|7.4||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.4|-25.5|
91784897|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-3.2||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.2|-36.1|
91844295|NCT01815736|183569726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.551|2.39||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|NDA Data Cut||2.390|1.551|<0.001
91784898|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|11.3||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.3|-22.1|
91784899|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|1.6||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.6|-30.9|
91784900|NCT00669409|183450036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-1.5||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.5|-44.4|
91784901|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|18.8||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.8|-12.2|
91844296|NCT01815736|183569726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.549|2.452||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|All Participants||2.452|1.549|<0.001
91784902|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|4.1||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.1|-27.0|
91784903|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|13.9||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.9|-17.4|
91844297|NCT01815736|183569727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.03||P-value was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|NDA Data Cut||-0.03|-0.07|<0.001
91844298|NCT01815736|183569727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02||P-value was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|All Participants||-0.02|-0.05|<0.001
91844299|NCT01815736|183569728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||The P-value comparing the 2 treatment groups was from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NDA Data Cut||||<0.001
91844300|NCT01815736|183569728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||The P-value comparing the 2 treatment groups was from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All Participants||||<0.001
91844301|NCT01815736|183569729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: The E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|3.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.0||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|||7.0|0.4|0.017
91844302|NCT01815736|183569730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: The E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|1.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.3||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|NDA Data Cut||5.3|-1.7|0.29
91844303|NCT01815736|183569730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|3.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.3||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|All Participants||6.3|0.1|0.031
91844304|NCT01815736|183569731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|5.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.0||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|||9.0|1.6|0.003
91899650|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|3.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.2|-19.6|0.1583
91649772|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.59|96.26||||||For change in pain at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.26|-79.59|
91649773|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.98|52.94||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||52.94|-89.98|
91649774|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.08|93.08||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||93.08|-133.08|
91649775|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.27|77.94||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.94|-151.27|
91649776|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.58|65.91||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||65.91|-72.58|
91649777|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.45|163.12||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||163.12|-16.45|
91649778|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.23|41.56||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||41.56|-48.23|
91649779|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.75|106.0||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.00|-74.75|
91784904|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|5.8||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.8|-24.8|
91784905|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|1.3||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.3|-39.2|
91649780|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.22|83.89||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||83.89|-17.22|
91649781|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.04|66.37||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||66.37|-58.04|
91649782|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.19|38.61||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.61|-28.19|
91649783|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|103.44||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.44|-40.94|
91649784|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.02|145.18||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||145.18|-91.02|
91649785|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.46|68.9||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||68.90|-99.46|
91649786|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.69|19.69||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||19.69|-69.69|
91649787|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|77.4||||||For change in pain at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.40|-77.40|
91649788|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.89|54.32||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||54.32|-82.89|
91649789|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.02|78.69||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||78.69|-87.02|
91649790|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.57|134.57||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||134.57|-184.57|
91649791|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.73|89.06||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||89.06|-105.73|
91649792|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.72|188.06||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||188.06|-29.72|
91649793|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.74|49.41||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.41|-57.74|
91649794|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.62|72.95||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||72.95|-39.62|
91649795|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|61.66||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||61.66|-6.42|
91784906|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|20.6||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.6|-10.6|
91784907|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|7.1||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.1|-24.0|
91784908|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|14.8||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.8|-17.1|
91784909|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|6.3||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.3|-24.6|
91649796|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|81.66||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||81.66|-29.28|
91649797|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.74|56.6||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||56.6|-63.74|
91784910|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|2.5||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.5|-38.2|
91784911|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|14.6||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.6|-18.3|
91649798|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.66|79.28||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||79.28|-31.66|
91649799|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.82|110.96||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||110.96|-53.82|
91649800|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.53|34.21||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.21|-94.53|
91649801|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.26|49.93||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.93|-83.26|
91784912|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-3.6||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.6|-36.5|
91784913|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|13.9||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.9|-19.5|
91784914|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|5.4||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.4|-27.1|
91784915|NCT00669409|183450037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|10.9||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.9|-32.0|
91784916|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|28.6||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.6|-2.5|
91784917|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.0||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.0|-21.0|
91649802|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.98|88.45||||||For change in pain at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||88.45|-97.98|
91784918|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|20.9||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.9|-10.4|
91649803|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.68|64.46||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||64.46|-86.68|
91844305|NCT01815736|183569732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|6.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|26.0||P-values were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. FTC/TDF+3rd Agent) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|NDA Data Cut: Change at Week 48||26|-14|0.56
91784919|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|7.5||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.5|-23.1|
91784920|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|10.8||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.8|-29.7|
91784921|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|29.8||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||29.8|-1.3|
91784922|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.0||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-19.2|
91784923|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|22.8||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||22.8|-9.1|
91649804|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.41|64.93||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||64.93|-55.41|
91649805|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.86|110.82||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||110.82|-129.86|
91844306|NCT01815736|183569732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|11.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|29.0||P-values were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs.SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|All Participants: Change at Week 48||29|-8|0.26
91844307|NCT01815736|183569733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|18.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|38.0||P-values were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|||38|-2|0.074
91844308|NCT04684914|183569800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3029
91844309|NCT04684914|183569800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4881|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4881
91844310|NCT04684914|183569801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3029
91844311|NCT04684914|183569801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4881|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4881
91844312|NCT04684914|183569802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4169|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4169
91844313|NCT04684914|183569802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5495|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5495
91844314|NCT04471792|183569840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||P=0.380 comparing creatine vs. placebo|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for pre vs. post values and for the difference between creatine vs. placebo||||||0.38
91784924|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|5.1||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.1|-25.8|
91844315|NCT04471792|183569841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||p=0.883 when comparing effect of creatine to palcebo on rate/change in reperfusion slope|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA, pre vs. post differences and creatine vs. placebo differences were examined||||||0.883
91649806|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.92|79.82||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||79.82|-117.92|
91784925|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|12.0||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-28.8|
91844316|NCT04471792|183569841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.883
91844317|NCT04213846|183569845|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.07|0.81|0.34
91649807|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|159.13||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||159.13|-6.75|
91649808|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.93|55.41||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||55.41|-64.93|
91649809|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.74|260.62||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||260.62|-271.74|
91649810|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.87|197.98||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||197.98|-166.87|
91649811|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.4|293.96||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||293.96|-238.4|
91784926|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|23.4||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||23.4|-9.5|
91784927|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|10.6||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.6|-22.4|
91784928|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|28.9||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.9|-4.5|
91784929|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|7.2||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.2|-25.2|
91784930|NCT00669409|183450038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|20.5||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.5|-22.4|
91784931|NCT02191865|183450089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the geometric means|215.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.71|384.32|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh A (Test): Healthy Child Pugh A (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-inf) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||384.32|120.71|
91649812|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.22|241.89||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||241.89|-275.22|
91709428|NCT03951753|183311463|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-637.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-925.2|-350.2|||ANCOVA|||||-350.2|-925.2|<0.001
91784932|NCT02191865|183450089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|867.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|572.93|1312.41|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh B (Test): Healthy Child Pugh B (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-inf) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||1312.41|572.93|
91899651|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||9.3|-13.5|0.7193
91844318|NCT04213846|183569845|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.30|0.91|0.37
91784933|NCT02191865|183450090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the geometric means|221.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.73|365.01|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh A (Test): Healthy Child Pugh A (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||365.01|134.73|
91790462|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91649813|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.94|319.05||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||319.05|-307.94|
91649814|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.4|293.96||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||293.96|-238.40|
91649815|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.01|244.64||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||244.64|-215.01|
91649816|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-302.38|324.6||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||324.60|-302.38|
91649817|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.85|383.63||||||For change in pain at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||383.63|-305.85|
91784934|NCT02191865|183450090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|761.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|69.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|439.01|1319.18|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh B (Test): Healthy Child Pugh B (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||1319.18|439.01|
91790463|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.166||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.166|-0.727|0.217
91649818|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-355.85|333.63||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||333.63|-355.85|
91649819|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-322.52|366.97||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||366.97|-322.52|
91649820|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.53|297.42||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||297.42|-208.53|
91649821|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.61|165.61||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||165.61|-165.61|
91649822|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.84|173.39||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||173.39|-17.84|
91649823|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.73|84.5||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||84.5|-106.73|
91649824|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-512.66|404.33||||||For change in global QoL at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||404.33|-512.66|
91649825|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.36|3.36||||||For change in physical functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||3.36|-143.36|
91784935|NCT02191865|183450091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the geometric means|216.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.37|390.45|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh A (Test): Healthy Child Pugh A (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-tz) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||390.45|120.37|
91790464|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91649826|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-400.13|333.46||||||For change in role functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||333.46|-400.13|
91709429|NCT03951753|183311463|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-341.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-585.2|-97.9|||ANCOVA|||||-97.9|-585.2|0.006
91649827|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-591.86|508.53||||||For change in emotional functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||508.53|-591.86|
91649828|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.67|-66.67||||||For change in cognitive functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-66.67|-66.67|
91649829|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-450.13|283.46||||||For change in social functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||283.46|-450.13|
91649830|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.86|311.2||||||For change in fatigue at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||311.2|-177.86|
91649831|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-333.46|400.13||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||400.13|-333.46|
91649832|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1258.79|1308.79||||||For change in pain at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1308.79|-1258.79|
91649833|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.46|450.13||||||For change in dyspnea at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||450.13|-283.46|
91649834|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-700.26|766.93||||||For change in insomnia at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||766.93|-700.26|
91784936|NCT02191865|183450091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|870.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|576.36|1315.49|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh B (Test): Healthy Child Pugh B (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-tz) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||1315.49|576.36|
91649835|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1050.39|1150.39||||||For change in appetite loss at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1150.39|-1050.39|
91649836|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1850.65|1817.32||||||For change in constipation at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1817.32|-1850.65|
91709430|NCT03951753|183311464|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-245.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-357.7|-133.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-133.3|-357.7|<0.001
91649837|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-700.26|766.93||||||For change in diarrhea at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||766.93|-700.26|
91649838|NCT00219557|183192175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-383.46|350.13||||||For change in financial difficulties at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||350.13|-383.46|
91649839|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.11|15.29||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.29|-10.11|
91649840|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|20.2||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.20|-13.39|
91709431|NCT03951753|183311464|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-309.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-423.0|-196.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-196.6|-423.0|<0.001
91709432|NCT03951753|183311464|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-64.3||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.3|31.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.7|-160.3|0.187
91790465|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|0.526||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.526|-0.381|0.753
91784937|NCT01523275|183450093|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of 44 subjects (22 in each arm) would provide 90% power to detect a difference in the time interval to reoperation of 6 months between the two treatment arms, at an alpha level of 0.05. This difference of 6 months is clinically meaningful and is smaller than previous case series studies would suggest. However, due to poor patient accrual, the study was closed prior to reaching the desired study size.||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91784938|NCT01523275|183450094|EQUIVALENCE|A difference of 6 months to symptom progression is clinically meaningful.||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91784939|NCT01523275|183450095|EQUIVALENCE|0.5 liters per second is clinically significant.||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91784940|NCT00966875|183450218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||A log transformed dose was used in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.031
91784941|NCT00966875|183450219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91784942|NCT00966875|183450219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
91784943|NCT00966875|183450223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.013
91784944|NCT00966875|183450223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.004
91784945|NCT00966875|183450223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91784946|NCT00966875|183450223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91784947|NCT00966875|183450223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91784948|NCT00966875|183450223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91784949|NCT00966875|183450223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91784950|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.227
91784951|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.306
91784952|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91784953|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.070
91784954|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.058
91784955|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91784956|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
91784957|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.191
91784958|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
91784959|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91784960|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.017
91784961|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
91784962|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
91784963|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.102
91784964|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.388
91784965|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91649841|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|33.43||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.43|5.96|
91649842|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|24.47||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.47|0.93|
91649843|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|28.91||||||For change in body image at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.91|1.28|
91649844|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|23.3||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.30|-14.59|
91649845|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.53|-4.85||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-4.85|-37.53|
91649846|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.04|9.4||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||9.40|-25.04|
91649847|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|21.5||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||21.50|-9.59|
91649848|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|30.4||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||30.40|-1.61|
91649849|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|22.22||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.22|2.78|
91649850|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|20.39||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.39|1.36|
91649851|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|11.71||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||11.71|-16.36|
91649852|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|24.2||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.20|-11.78|
91649853|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|28.94||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.94|0.79|
91899652|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|12.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||12.9|-9.4|0.7589
91649854|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|34.42||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.42|-7.45|
91649855|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|37.55||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||37.55|0.17|
91649856|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|22.48||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.48|0.66|
91649857|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|36.95||||||For change in body image at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.95|0.49|
91649858|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|11.17||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||11.17|-32.40|
91649859|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|17.27||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||17.27|-14.63|
91649860|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|17.78||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||17.78|-14.70|
91649861|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|32.75||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||32.75|-10.65|
91649862|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|24.13||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.13|-17.33|
91649863|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|22.93||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.93|-4.40|
91649864|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|35.39||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||35.39|2.99|
91649865|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|22.43||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.43|-23.70|
91649866|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|46.12||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.12|-3.10|
91649867|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.57|13.19||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||13.19|-21.57|
91784966|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
91784967|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.199
91784968|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
91784969|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.696
91784970|NCT00966875|183450225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.112
91784971|NCT00966875|183450227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.017
91784972|NCT00966875|183450227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.042
91784973|NCT00966875|183450227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.004
91844319|NCT04213846|183569845|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.23|0.85|0.80
91844320|NCT04213846|183569846|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, college type and used a Poisson error distribution. Peak eBAC multiplied by 100 and rounded up to the nearest integer.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.20|0.88|0.75
91844321|NCT04213846|183569846|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, college type and used a Poisson error distribution. Peak eBAC multiplied by 100 and rounded up to the nearest integer.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.25|0.86|0.72
91784974|NCT00966875|183450227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91784975|NCT00966875|183450227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91784976|NCT00966875|183450227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.008
91899653|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|3.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||3.4|-20.0|0.1642
91784977|NCT00966875|183450227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.007
91784978|NCT00966875|183450229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.093
91784979|NCT00966875|183450229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.023
91784980|NCT00966875|183450229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.006
91784981|NCT00966875|183450229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.001
91784982|NCT00966875|183450229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.028
91844322|NCT04213846|183569846|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, college type and used a Poisson error distribution. Peak eBAC multiplied by 100 and rounded up to the nearest integer.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.21|0.85|0.91
91784983|NCT00966875|183450229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91784984|NCT00966875|183450229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91784985|NCT00966875|183450231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.247
91784986|NCT00966875|183450231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.315
91784987|NCT00966875|183450231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.006
91784988|NCT00966875|183450231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.042
91649868|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.86|7.66||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.66|-32.86|
91784989|NCT00966875|183450231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.055
91784990|NCT00966875|183450231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.365
91784991|NCT00966875|183450231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.005
91784992|NCT00966875|183450233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.778
91784993|NCT00966875|183450233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.865
91784994|NCT00966875|183450233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.030
91784995|NCT00966875|183450233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.331
91784996|NCT00966875|183450233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||||||P-value is for Week 12..|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.039
91784997|NCT00966875|183450233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.292
91784998|NCT00966875|183450233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.003
91784999|NCT00966875|183450235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.090
91899654|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|5.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||5.0|-18.4|0.2611
91899655|NCT03816891|183693460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.8076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|10.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||10.3|-13.2|0.8076
91785000|NCT00966875|183450235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.131
91899656|NCT05135000|183693514|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.7||||0.6843|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|2.8|||Log Rank|||||2.8|0.2|0.6843
91899657|NCT04417127|183693516|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of the primary outcome was conducted using a doubly-robust generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data on baseline covariates; Rubin's rule was used for variance estimation. The GEE model included the intervention arm, used an independence working correlation matrix and variance was estimated using a sandwich variance estimator for clustered data.|Odds Ratio, log|0.84||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12||Baseline values of variables (county, gender, age, education, income, viral load) were used for differential dropout adjustment for the primary comparison and differential dropout and confounding adjustments for comparisons to matched participants.|Wald test|Hypothesis: Microfinance with Integrated, Community-based Care \> Microfinance with Usual Care in terms of viral suppression at 18-months.|The intervention effect was estimated using the log odds ratio coefficient associated with the intervention in the GEE. The primary hypothesis test of intervention effect was conducted using a Wald test and 95% Wald-based confidence intervals.|For the primary outcome, the primary analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all randomized participants comparing viral suppression at 18-months. Following studies of the effect of financial interventions, we powered the study to have at least 80% power to detect a 15% additive increase in viral suppression among microfinance group members receiving integrated community care compared to those receiving facility-based care, assuming 15% dropout.||1.12|0.63|0.23
91899658|NCT04417127|183693516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.19||Hypothesis: Microfinance with Integrated, Community-based Care \> Usual (Facility-based) Care in terms of viral suppression at 18-months.|Wald test|||A secondary analysis of the primary outcome included a comparison of viral suppression at 18- months, between each of the two randomized trial arms and the non-randomized, prospectively-followed, frequency-matched participants who were not engaged in microfinance. The secondary analysis used the same analytic model as the primary analysis, assuming no clustering in the non-randomized sample.||3.19|1.48|<0.001
91899659|NCT04417127|183693516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.42||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.92||Hypothesis: Microfinance with Usual (Facility-based) Care \> Usual (Facility-based) Care in terms of viral suppression at 18-months.|Wald test|||A secondary analysis of the primary outcome included a comparison of viral suppression at 18- months, between each of the two randomized trial arms and the non-randomized, prospectively-followed, frequency-matched participants who were not engaged in microfinance. The secondary analysis used the same analytic model as the primary analysis, assuming no clustering in the non-randomized sample.||1.92|1.05|0.023
91899660|NCT04417127|183693517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|4.26|||Wald test|||The retention in care analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all enrolled participants and used the same analysis methods as those for the viral suppression (primary outcome) analysis. The retention in care analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity and should be considered hypothesis generating.||4.26|2.58|<0.001
91785001|NCT00966875|183450235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.008
91785002|NCT00966875|183450235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.013
91785003|NCT00966875|183450235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.010
91785004|NCT00966875|183450235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91785005|NCT00966875|183450235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91785006|NCT00966875|183450237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91785007|NCT00966875|183450237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.012
91785008|NCT00966875|183450237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91785009|NCT00966875|183450237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91844323|NCT04213846|183569847|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||0.99|0.69|0.04
91785010|NCT00966875|183450237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91844324|NCT04213846|183569847|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.23|0.77|0.84
91785011|NCT00966875|183450237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91785012|NCT00966875|183450237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.001
91785013|NCT00966875|183450239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91649869|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|34.82||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.82|-10.33|
91649870|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|25.85||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.85|-0.18|
91785014|NCT00966875|183450239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.076
91649871|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.45|24.14||||||For change in body image at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.14|-16.45|
91785015|NCT00966875|183450239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91785016|NCT00966875|183450239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91649872|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|37.34||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||37.34|-23.23|
91649873|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|21.5||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||21.50|-26.55|
91649874|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.48|8.56||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||8.56|-27.48|
91649875|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.62|16.7||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||16.70|-30.62|
91649876|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.37|27.8||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.80|-20.37|
91649877|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|31.81||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||31.81|-5.73|
91649878|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|33.46||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.46|-3.23|
91649879|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.18|20.37||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.37|-36.18|
91649880|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.24|51.01||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||51.01|-20.24|
91649881|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|32.59||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||32.59|-10.09|
91649882|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.22|40.03||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||40.03|-25.22|
91649883|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|52.32||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||52.32|4.23|
91649884|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|43.34||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||43.34|5.09|
91649885|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|50.38||||||For change in body image at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||50.38|-0.16|
91649886|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.95|27.8||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.80|-47.95|
91649887|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.78|14.57||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||14.57|-21.78|
91649888|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|28.99||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.99|-17.02|
91649889|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|49.55||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.55|-5.39|
91649890|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|34.89||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.89|-15.33|
91649891|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|42.06||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.06|-10.43|
91785017|NCT00966875|183450239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91785018|NCT00966875|183450239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91785019|NCT00966875|183450239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91785020|NCT00966875|183450241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.307
91785021|NCT00966875|183450241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.104
91785022|NCT00966875|183450241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.139
91844325|NCT04213846|183569847|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.22|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.22|0.73|0.34
91844326|NCT04213846|183569848|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.16|0.82|0.78
91649892|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|42.43||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.43|1.11|
91649893|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.91|12.28||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||12.28|-41.91|
91649894|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|60.62||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||60.62|1.60|
91649895|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.62|38.1||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.10|-20.62|
91649896|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.52|42.05||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.05|-68.52|
91649897|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|52.05||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||52.05|-7.93|
91649898|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|42.89||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.89|-5.64|
91649899|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|57.84||||||For change in body image at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||57.84|-9.93|
91649900|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|59.78||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.78|-32.70|
91649901|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|55.74||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||55.74|-29.46|
91649902|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.04|36.79||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.79|-24.04|
91649903|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.94|59.12||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.12|-17.94|
91649904|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.12|40.71||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||40.71|-20.12|
91649905|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|59.69||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.69|-8.22|
91649906|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.32|71.81||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||71.81|5.32|
91649907|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.14|44.25||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||44.25|-53.14|
91649908|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.9|61.57||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||61.57|-69.90|
91649909|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|50.45||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||50.45|-24.52|
91649910|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.41|30.11||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||30.11|-76.41|
91649911|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.89|33.0||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.00|-71.89|
91649912|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|87.13||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||87.13|7.31|
91785023|NCT00966875|183450241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.056
91785024|NCT00966875|183450241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.048
91785025|NCT00966875|183450241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.160
91785026|NCT00966875|183450241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
91785027|NCT00966875|183450243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.272
91785028|NCT00966875|183450243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.962
91785029|NCT00966875|183450243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.236
91785030|NCT00966875|183450243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.316
91785031|NCT00966875|183450243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.138
91785032|NCT00966875|183450243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.975
91785033|NCT00966875|183450243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.079
91649913|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|119.34||||||For change in body image at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||119.34|-36.00|
91844327|NCT04213846|183569848|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.08|0.75|0.27
91844328|NCT04213846|183569848|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.20|0.84|0.95
91844329|NCT04213846|183569849|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear model was estimated using a sample of N=346.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a negative binomial error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.08|0.89|0.69
91844330|NCT05516342|183569882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91844331|NCT05516342|183569883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91649914|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|82.83||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||82.83|-5.05|
91710805|NCT02258217|183314018|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in EDSS score variable. This was calculated as follows:~EDSS score (new relapse) - EDSS score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test||The interquartile range for the median difference in EDSS scores is 0.0 to 0.5|"We compared the two EDSS scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in medians is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in medians is not = 0~We used the Wilcoxon Signed rank test to compare the pre - post EDSS scores."||||0.23
91785034|NCT00966875|183450245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.982
91844332|NCT05516342|183569884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91649915|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|66.37||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||66.37|-2.09|
91649916|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.46|29.64||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||29.64|-44.46|
91649917|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.45|66.37||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||66.37|-40.45|
91785035|NCT00966875|183450245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.276
91785036|NCT00966875|183450245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.050
91785037|NCT00966875|183450245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.010
91785038|NCT00966875|183450245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.046
91785039|NCT00966875|183450245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.017
91785040|NCT00966875|183450245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.066
91785041|NCT00966875|183450247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.538||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.538
91785042|NCT00966875|183450247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
91785043|NCT00966875|183450247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
91844333|NCT05516342|183569885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91844334|NCT05516342|183569886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91844335|NCT05516342|183569887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
91844336|NCT05516342|183569888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
91844337|NCT05516342|183569889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
91844338|NCT05516342|183569890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
91844339|NCT01866475|183569891|NON_INFERIORITY|This study is designed to test the hypothesis that the IO device has no greater than a 4 percent infection rate. Equivalently, we define success as having at least a 96 percent infection free 48-hour placement.|||||||||||||||||The historical data for the device suggests an infection rate of 0.6 percent per 48 hours or a success rate of 99.4 percent. The formal objective in the design is to reject the one-sided null hypothesis that the success rate is no higher than 96 percent. The analysis will use the exact binomial test and will tolerate a Type I Error rate of 0.05 or less. If we assume a 99.4 percent success rate, the study will have 84 percent power with a sample size of 117 to reject the null hypothesis. If the null hypothesis is rejected, we conclude that the infection rate is less than 4 percent.|||
91844340|NCT02401529|183569916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
91844341|NCT02401529|183569917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.026
91844342|NCT02401529|183569918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.016
91649918|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.71|60.49||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||60.49|-32.71|
91649919|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|77.89||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.89|-16.16|
91649920|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|86.62||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||86.62|-44.95|
91649921|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.22|78.19||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||78.19|-115.22|
91649922|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.71|86.63||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||86.63|-39.71|
91649923|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.69|104.76||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||104.76|-130.69|
91649924|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|103.42||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.42|-7.12|
91649925|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|92.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.16|122.02||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||122.02|63.16|
91649926|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.03|96.14||||||For change in body image at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.14|-85.03|
91649927|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|103.54||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.54|-29.46|
91649928|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.45|27.16||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.16|-41.45|
91649929|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.04|59.64||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.64|-67.04|
91649930|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.79|89.97||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||89.97|-104.79|
91785044|NCT00966875|183450247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
91844343|NCT02401529|183569919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
91649931|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|103.25||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.25|-58.80|
91649932|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.28|91.83||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||91.83|-36.28|
91649933|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|96.52||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.52|-74.30|
91649934|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.55|84.21||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||84.21|-142.55|
91649935|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-212.46|101.35||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||101.35|-212.46|
91649936|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.93|96.26||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.26|-62.93|
91649937|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.74|116.31||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||116.31|-87.74|
91649938|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|139.72||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||139.72|7.90|
91649939|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.64|118.74||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||118.74|33.64|
91649940|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.64|121.79||||||For change in body image at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||121.79|-64.64|
91649941|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.11|99.53||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||99.53|-28.11|
91649942|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.01|77.34||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.34|-104.01|
91649943|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.03|51.14||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||51.14|-140.03|
91785045|NCT00966875|183450247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.393
91785046|NCT00966875|183450247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.077
91785047|NCT00966875|183450247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.105
91785048|NCT00689117|183450255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.063
91785049|NCT00689117|183450255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91785050|NCT00689117|183450255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785051|NCT00689117|183450255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91649944|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.45|97.98||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||97.98|-88.45|
91899661|NCT04417127|183693517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|9.55|||Wald test|||The retention in care analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all enrolled participants and used the same analysis methods as those for the viral suppression (primary outcome) analysis. The retention in care analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity and should be considered hypothesis generating.||9.55|6.00|<0.001
91785052|NCT00689117|183450255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.550
91785053|NCT00689117|183450255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785054|NCT00689117|183450255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785055|NCT00689117|183450255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.016
91785056|NCT00689117|183450255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785057|NCT00689117|183450256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Data based on Data on File documenting FDA reanalysis request|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91785058|NCT00689117|183450256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Data based on Data on File documenting FDA reanalysis request|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91844344|NCT02401529|183569920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.012
91785059|NCT00689117|183450256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Data based on Data on File documenting FDA reanalysis request|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91844345|NCT02401529|183569921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
91785060|NCT00689117|183450257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.065
91844346|NCT02401529|183569922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91844347|NCT02401529|183569923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
91649945|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.32|82.89||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||82.89|-54.32|
91785061|NCT00689117|183450257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91785062|NCT00689117|183450257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785063|NCT00689117|183450257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91844348|NCT02401529|183569924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.026
91844349|NCT02401529|183569925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
91649946|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.45|114.07||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||114.07|-66.45|
91649947|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.14|119.63||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||119.63|-56.14|
91899662|NCT04417127|183693517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.06|||Wald test|||The retention in care analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all enrolled participants and used the same analysis methods as those for the viral suppression (primary outcome) analysis. The retention in care analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity and should be considered hypothesis generating.||3.06|2.14|<0.001
91899663|NCT04417127|183693518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.595|2.183|||Wald test|||||2.183|-2.595|
91649948|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.35|63.35||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||63.35|-163.35|
91649949|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.23|96.66||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.66|-125.23|
91649950|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.18|95.18||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||95.18|-45.18|
91785064|NCT00689117|183450257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.284
91785065|NCT00689117|183450257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785066|NCT00689117|183450257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785067|NCT00689117|183450257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.028
91785068|NCT00689117|183450257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785069|NCT00689117|183450258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.671
91899664|NCT04417127|183693519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4478|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.701|-0.194|||Wald test|||||-0.194|-0.701|
91785070|NCT00689117|183450258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.919||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.919
91785071|NCT00689117|183450258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
91785072|NCT00689117|183450259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
91785073|NCT00689117|183450259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91785074|NCT00689117|183450259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91785075|NCT02204124|183450260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91785076|NCT02204124|183450261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.513
91785077|NCT02204124|183450264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91785078|NCT02204124|183450265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.132
91785079|NCT02204124|183450266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #1 is for readmission||||0.975
91785080|NCT02204124|183450266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #2 is for wound infection.||||0.401
91785081|NCT02204124|183450266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #3 is for gastroparesis.||||0.975
91785082|NCT02204124|183450266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #4 is for pancreatic fistula.||||0.401
91785083|NCT02204124|183450266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #5 is for intraabdominal abscess.||||0.219
91785084|NCT02204124|183450266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #6 is for anastomotic leakage.||||0.401
91785085|NCT02204124|183450266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #7 is for blood product transfusion (anemia).||||0.219
91785086|NCT01305577|183450296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|8.28|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||8.28|2.70|<0.001
91785087|NCT01305577|183450296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|10.94|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo. An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme.||10.94|3.52|<0.001
91785088|NCT01305577|183450297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|25.87|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||25.87|1.20|0.028
91649951|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.18|95.18||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||95.18|-45.18|
91649952|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.55|141.0||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||141.00|14.55|
91649953|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.61|131.61||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||131.61|40.61|
91649954|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.48|106.48||||||For change in body image at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.48|-56.48|
91649955|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.69|132.13||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||132.13|-37.69|
91649956|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.68|110.68||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||110.68|-70.68|
91649957|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.87|25.2||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.20|-91.87|
91649958|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.89|97.45||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||97.45|-41.89|
91649959|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.03|67.36||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||67.36|-34.03|
91844350|NCT05310084|183569967|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate-administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.89|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of concentrations (coadmin group-separate admin group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|||0.89|0.77|
91649960|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.19|116.86||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||116.86|-100.19|
91649961|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.73|105.58||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||105.58|-53.73|
91649962|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.07|117.07||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||117.07|-117.07|
91649963|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.53|249.31||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||249.31|-221.53|
91649964|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-260.62|271.74||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||271.74|-260.62|
91844351|NCT05310084|183569968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|B/Austria||1.04|0.77|
91844352|NCT05310084|183569968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|B/Phuket||1.13|0.89|
91785089|NCT01305577|183450297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|52.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||52.90|2.75|<0.001
91785090|NCT01305577|183450298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|5.14|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline SSRS value in the model|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||5.14|1.74|<0.001
91790466|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91649965|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.41|285.75||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||285.75|-152.41|
91649966|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.08|319.08||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||319.08|-119.08|
91649967|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-185.75|252.41||||||For change in body image at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||252.41|-185.75|
91649968|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.04|170.93||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||170.93|-82.04|
91649969|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-733.59|733.59||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||733.59|-733.59|
91649970|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.34|180.12||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||180.12|-202.34|
91649971|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.5|106.73||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.73|-84.50|
91785091|NCT01305577|183450298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|9.11|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline SSRS value in the model|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||9.11|2.99|<0.001
91785092|NCT01305577|183450299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.35|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.35|-0.68|<0.001
91649972|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.5|106.73||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.73|-84.50|
91785093|NCT01305577|183450299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.50|-0.84|<0.001
91899665|NCT03566810|183693561|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square(LS)Mean%|98.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|105.64||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||105.64|92.20|
91649973|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.6|165.37||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||165.37|-87.60|
91649974|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.53|297.42||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||297.42|-208.53|
91649975|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.19|230.75||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||230.75|-275.19|
91649976|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-491.86|608.53||||||For change in pancreatic pain at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||608.53|-491.86|
91785094|NCT01305577|183450300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.47|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.47|0.61|<0.001
91785095|NCT01305577|183450300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.84|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.84|0.99|<0.001
91649977|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1258.79|1308.79||||||For change in eating related items at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1308.79|-1258.79|
91649978|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.46|450.13||||||For change in altered bowel habits at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||450.13|-283.46|
91649979|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.06|191.73||||||For change in jaundice at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||191.73|-175.06|
91649980|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-733.59|733.59||||||For change in ascites at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||733.59|-733.59|
91649981|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-733.59|733.59||||||For change in indigestion at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||733.59|-733.59|
91649982|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.46|450.13||||||For change in flatulence at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||450.13|-283.46|
91649983|NCT00219557|183192176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1375.5|1436.61||||||For change in side effects at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1436.61|-1375.5|
91649984|NCT03063632|183192179|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Per Global Response Score used in Mycosis Fungoides and Sezary Syndrome, Response is assessed by the standard response criteria: Complete Response (CR), complete disappearance of all clinical evidence of disease where all categories (i.e., skin, lymph nodes, viscera, blood) have complete response/noninvolved; Partial Response (PR), regression of measurable disease; Stable Disease (SD), failure to attain CR, PR, or PD.|Simple statistics. Non-responders excluded from analysis.|||
91649985|NCT03063632|183192180|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Kaplan-Meier method|||
91844353|NCT05310084|183569968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|H1N1 A/Victoria||1.09|0.83|
91844354|NCT05310084|183569968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|H3N2 A/Darwin||1.09|0.85|
91844355|NCT03531905|183570057|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares (LS) means|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-33.4|||ANCOVA|||||-33.4|-45.8|<0.001
91844356|NCT03531905|183570057|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-13.4|||ANCOVA|||||-13.4|-25.7|<0.001
91844357|NCT03531905|183570057|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14.0|-26.2|<0.001
91844358|NCT03531905|183570058|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14.0|-26.2|<0.001
91844359|NCT03531905|183570059|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-36.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.97|-17.67|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-17.67|-55.97|<0.001
91844360|NCT03531905|183570059|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-29.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.92|-9.62|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-9.62|-48.92|0.005
91844361|NCT03531905|183570059|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.51|13.76|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||13.76|-30.51|0.480
91844362|NCT03531905|183570060|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-27.5|||ANCOVA|||||-27.5|-38.6|<0.001
91844363|NCT03531905|183570060|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-9.7|||ANCOVA|||||-9.7|-20.8|<0.001
91844364|NCT03531905|183570060|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-12.4|||ANCOVA|||||-12.4|-23.3|<0.001
91844365|NCT03531905|183570061|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-22.8|||ANCOVA|||||-22.8|-31.7|<0.001
91844366|NCT03531905|183570061|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-9.0|||ANCOVA|||||-9.0|-17.8|<0.001
91785096|NCT01305577|183450301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.87|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline values as covariate.||||-0.87|-2.50|<0.001
91785097|NCT01305577|183450301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline values as covariate.||||-1.15|-2.79|<0.001
91785098|NCT01305577|183450302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||<0.001
91785099|NCT01305577|183450302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||<0.001
91785100|NCT01256190|183450337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91785101|NCT01256190|183450338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91785102|NCT01256190|183450339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to-treat analysis||||.022
91785103|NCT01256190|183450340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to treat analysis||||0.113
91785104|NCT01256190|183450341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to-treat analysis||||.025
91844367|NCT03531905|183570061|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-9.5|||ANCOVA|||||-9.5|-18.2|<0.001
91844368|NCT03531905|183570062|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-21.8|||ANCOVA|||||-21.8|-32.6|<0.001
91844369|NCT03531905|183570062|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-7.4|||ANCOVA|||||-7.4|-18.1|<0.001
91844370|NCT03531905|183570062|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-9.1|||ANCOVA|||||-9.1|-19.7|<0.001
91844371|NCT03531905|183570063|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.44||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|6.79|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||6.79|-14.55|0.457
91844372|NCT03531905|183570063|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|15.63|||ANCOVA|||||15.63|-4.93|0.351
91844373|NCT03531905|183570063|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.92|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-17.92|0.068
91844374|NCT03531905|183570064|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-10.1|0.007
91844375|NCT03531905|183570064|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||||-3.1|-11.5|<0.001
91844376|NCT03531905|183570064|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.5|||ANCOVA|||||5.5|-2.8|0.517
91844377|NCT03531905|183570065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91844378|NCT03531905|183570065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
91844379|NCT03531905|183570065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91844380|NCT03531905|183570066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91844381|NCT03531905|183570066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91844382|NCT03531905|183570068|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|-3.9|0.877
91844383|NCT03531905|183570068|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|-2.8|0.669
91844384|NCT03531905|183570068|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-4.6|0.556
91844385|NCT03531905|183570069|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.7|||ANCOVA|||||11.7|-6.7|0.589
91844386|NCT03531905|183570069|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|-8.6|0.904
91844387|NCT03531905|183570069|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.66||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|11.2|||ANCOVA|||||11.2|-7.3|0.676
91844388|NCT03531905|183570071|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.95||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|11.7|||ANCOVA|||||11.7|-43.4|0.258
91844389|NCT03531905|183570071|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|27.7|||ANCOVA|||||27.7|-26.8|0.972
91844390|NCT03531905|183570071|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.68||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|10.7|||ANCOVA|||||10.7|-43.3|0.235
91844391|NCT05153174|183570097|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 to reject null hypothesis of equivalence||||||0.931|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.931
91844392|NCT05153174|183570098|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 to reject null hypothesis of equivalence||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
91844393|NCT01033643|183570127|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|2.36|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or geometric mean ratio (GMR) was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
91844394|NCT01033643|183570128|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.62|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 13) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 4).|||||
91844395|NCT01033643|183570130|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.9|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
91844396|NCT01033643|183570130|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.63|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
91844397|NCT01033643|183570131|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.91|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
91844398|NCT01033643|183570132|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.38|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 13) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 4).|||||
91844399|NCT01033643|183570139|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.53|1.2||||||||1.20|-9.53|
91844400|NCT01033643|183570139|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|10.97||||||||10.97|-1.41|
91844401|NCT01033643|183570139|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.37|1.42||||||||1.42|-8.37|
91844402|NCT01033643|183570139|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|8.42||||||||8.42|-1.37|
91649986|NCT03063632|183192181|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Progression is assessed by the standard response criteria used in Mycosis Fungoides and Sezary Syndrome (skin, lymph nodes, viscera, blood, global). Per Global Response Score, progression is defined as Progressive Disease (PD) in any category (i.e., skin, lymph nodes, viscera, blood).|Kaplan-Meier method|||
91844403|NCT01033643|183570140|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.91|7.36||||||||7.36|-6.91|
91844404|NCT01033643|183570140|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.79|5.47||||||||5.47|-8.79|
91844405|NCT01033643|183570140|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.02|9.25||||||||9.25|-5.02|
91844406|NCT01033643|183570140|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.41|6.94||||||||6.94|-9.41|
91844407|NCT01033643|183570141|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.29|7.79||||||||7.79|-9.29|
91844408|NCT01033643|183570141|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.32|6.86||||||||6.86|-14.32|
91844409|NCT01033643|183570141|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.88|9.2||||||||9.20|-7.88|
91844410|NCT01033643|183570141|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-9.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.54|-0.3||||||||-0.30|-19.54|
91844411|NCT01033643|183570142|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.36|7.32||||||||7.32|-9.36|
91844412|NCT01033643|183570142|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.47|8.22||||||||8.22|-12.47|
91844413|NCT01033643|183570142|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.87|7.81||||||||7.81|-8.87|
91844414|NCT01033643|183570142|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-10.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.83|-1.04||||||||-1.04|-19.83|
91844415|NCT01033643|183570143|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|3.04||||||||3.04|-6.50|
91844416|NCT01033643|183570143|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-4.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|0.54||||||||0.54|-9.00|
91844417|NCT01033643|183570143|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.82|3.72||||||||3.72|-5.82|
91844418|NCT01033643|183570143|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.46|7.46||||||||7.46|-3.46|
91844419|NCT01033643|183570144|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.37|1.64||||||||1.64|-9.37|
91844420|NCT01033643|183570144|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.03|-0.37||||||||-0.37|-14.03|
91844421|NCT01033643|183570144|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.83|4.18||||||||4.18|-6.83|
91785105|NCT02834793|183450342|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-19.3|||=|0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|4.8||The p-value was based on a rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, region, and age-group as factors, and prerandomization drop seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The median difference to placebo and the 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||4.8|-49.2|= 0.107
91785106|NCT03255629|183450377|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||McNemar|||||||0.103
91785107|NCT03255629|183450378|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||||||0.180
91785108|NCT03255629|183450380|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
91844422|NCT01033643|183570144|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.45|3.96||||||||3.96|-8.45|
91649987|NCT03063632|183192182|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Kaplan-Meier method|||
91785109|NCT03255629|183450381|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||McNemar|||||||0.008
91785110|NCT03255629|183450382|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||McNemar|||||||0.083
91785111|NCT03255629|183450383|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||||||0.025
91785112|NCT03255629|183450385|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models to account for correlation within subjects over time||||||0.049
91785113|NCT03255629|183450386|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models to account for correlation within subjects over time||||||0.056
91785114|NCT03255629|183450387|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91785115|NCT03255629|183450388|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
91785116|NCT03255629|183450389|OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.195
91785117|NCT03255629|183450390|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.043
91785118|NCT03255629|183450391|OTHER|||||||0.659|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.659
91844423|NCT01033643|183570145|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.92|2.43||||||||2.43|-7.92|
91844424|NCT01033643|183570145|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.09|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-13.09|
91844425|NCT01033643|183570145|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|4.44||||||||4.44|-5.91|
91844426|NCT01033643|183570145|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.64|3.02||||||||3.02|-8.64|
91844427|NCT01033643|183570146|OTHER|Linear Model|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.87|||||GMR was calculated as MK-3614 Dose divided by Placebo|||1.87|0.47|
91844428|NCT01033643|183570146|OTHER|Linear Model|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.87|||||GMR was calculated as MK-3614 Dose divided by Placebo|||0.87|0.26|
91649988|NCT03063632|183192183|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Binomial distribution|||
91785119|NCT03255629|183450392|OTHER|||||||0.406|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.406
91785120|NCT03255629|183450393|OTHER|||||||0.611|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.611
91785121|NCT03255629|183450394|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.183
91785122|NCT03255629|183450395|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
91785123|NCT03255629|183450396|OTHER|||||||0.789|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.789
91785124|NCT03255629|183450397|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||McNemar|||||||0.865
91649989|NCT00410410|183192187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.09||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata (whether a participant had an inadequate response and/or intolerance to anti-TNF therapy).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Conditional on ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg vs PLA comparison being statistically significant at 5% level, ABA \~10 vs PLA to be tested at 5% significance level.||Null hypothesis=no treatment difference between ABA arm and placebo (PLA) arm. ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg vs PLA: power=98%, sample size=140 per arm,expected PLA response rate=40%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=65%. ABA \~10 mg/kg vs. PLA: power=90%, sample size=140 per arm, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 40%, ABA \~10=60%.||1.09|0.48|0.124
91649990|NCT00410410|183192189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.67||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Conditional on ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA comparison for clinical response being significant at 5% level, this comparison for remission will be tested at 5%.|Conditional on both the remission comparison for ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA, and the clinical response comparison for ABA\~10 vs PLA being significant at 5%, the secondary remission comparison for ABA \~10 vs PLA will be tested at 5%.|Null hypothesis=no treatment difference between each of the ABA and placebo (PLA). At 5% significance level, Aba 30/\~10 vs. PLA: power=96%, sample size=140 per arm, expected PLA rate=15%. ABA 30/\~10 =35%; Aba \~10 vs. PLA: power=82%, sample size=140 per arm, expected PLA response rate= 15%, ABA/\~10 mg/kg=30%||0.67|.06|
91785125|NCT03255629|183450398|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||McNemar|||||||0.875
91785126|NCT01086358|183450438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order||Analysis is a superiority comparison based on the use of linear mixed effect model with subject as a random effect, with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects.||-0.49|-2.92|0.007
91785127|NCT01086358|183450439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order||Analysis is a superiority comparison based on the use of linear mixed effect model with subject as a random effect, with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects.||-0.27|-1.79|0.010
91785128|NCT01086358|183450440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order.||Analysis is a superiority comparison based on the use of linear mixed effect model with subject as a random effect, with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects.||0.03|-1.39|0.059
91649991|NCT00410410|183192190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|If ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA remission comparison is significant at 5% level, the mucosal healing comparison for the same treatment group will be tested at 5%|Conditional on both the comparison for mucosal healing for ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA and the comparison for remission for ABA \~10 vs. PLA being significant, the comparison for mucosal healing for ABA \~10 vs PLA will be tested at 5%.|Null hypothesis=no treatment difference (relative risk \[RR\] of ABA over placebo=1) for mucosal healing. ABA 30/\~10 vs. placebo: power=99%, sample size=140 per arm, expected PLA response rate=30%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=60%. ABA \~10 vs. placebo: power=98%, sample size=140 per arm, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 30%, ABA \~10 mg/kg=55%||1.05|0.42|
91649992|NCT00410410|183192191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%.|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms.||||0.044
91649993|NCT00410410|183192197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms. Normal approximation was used if the number of responses in a treatment group is at least 5. Otherwise an exact method was used.||||0.149
91649994|NCT00106028|183192246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.438||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|9.111|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||9.111|-0.235|0.0625
91785129|NCT01086358|183450441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|6.84|||Regression, Logistic|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order.||Logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations were used. In these models, a logit link function was used for a favorable response (yes/no) with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects..||6.84|1.22|0.016
91785130|NCT00312195|183450493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2544||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.95||P value is from a logistic regression analysis with terms for treatment effect, country and pain site (hip, knee, back and other).|Regression, Logistic||Primary variable was defined as: ratio of the probability of having ineffective treatment divided by the probability of having effective treatment.|H0: the odds of ineffective treatment is the same for subjects receiving placebo as for those receiving BTDS versus the alternative H1: the odds of ineffective treatment is different for subjects receiving placebo from those receiving BTDS.||2.95|1.09|.0217
91844429|NCT01033643|183570146|OTHER|Linear Model|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.79|||||GMR was calculated as MK-3614 Dose divided by Placebo|||1.79|0.51|
91649995|NCT00106028|183192247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.537||||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.424|7.497|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||7.497|-4.424|0.6103
91649996|NCT00106028|183192248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.554||||0.0808||95.0|-0.193|3.301|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||3.301|-0.193|0.0808
91649997|NCT00106028|183192249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.498||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.648|2.644|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||2.644|-1.648|0.6466
91649998|NCT00106028|183192250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.465||||0.7391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.224|2.294|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||2.294|-3.224|0.7391
91649999|NCT00106028|183192251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.333|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.258|15.408|||ANCOVA|LS Means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||15.408|5.258|<0.0001
91785131|NCT04145219|183450507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average daily TCRS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||1.4|0.5|<0.0001
91785132|NCT04145219|183450508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinitis DSS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.6|0.2|<0.0001
91785133|NCT04145219|183450509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis|||The average rhinitis DMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.8|0.2|0.0016
91785134|NCT04145219|183450510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs.12 SQ-HDM|||1.7|0.6|<0.0001
91785135|NCT04145219|183450511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinoconjunctivitis DSS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.7|0.3|<0.0001
91844430|NCT03527277|183570150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for BMI, Outcome at baseline and gender||||3.5|-4.0|0.88
91650000|NCT00106028|183192252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.04||||1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|14.887|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||14.887|-2.807|01789
91650001|NCT00106028|183192253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.196|12.755|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||12.755|-12.196|0.9646
91650002|NCT00106028|183192254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.494||||0.003||95.0|1.912|9.077|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||9.077|1.912|0.0030
91650003|NCT00106028|183192255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.473||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.245|7.192|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||7.192|-4.245|0.6106
91650004|NCT00106028|183192256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.315||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.598|8.229|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||8.229|-7.598|0.9372
91790467|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.27||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.270|-0.740|0.362
91790468|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790469|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.575||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.575|-0.432|0.780
91790470|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790471|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|0.509||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.509|-0.526|0.974
91785136|NCT04145219|183450512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinoconjunctivitis DMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||1.0|0.2|0.0018
91899666|NCT03566810|183693561|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|99.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|106.05||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||106.05|93.15|
91899667|NCT03566810|183693562|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.08|107.44||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||107.44|91.08|
91899668|NCT03566810|183693562|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|96.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.87|104.46||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||104.46|89.87|
91785137|NCT04145219|183450513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The overall PRQLQ score was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model. The model includes the overall PRQLQ score as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the baseline overall PRQLQ score as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.2|0.1|<0.0001
91785138|NCT04145219|183450514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average asthma DSS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.2|0.0|0.0259
91785139|NCT04145219|183450515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo)|The odds of having a SABA free day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included SABA free day (yes/no) as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed effects, the baseline average asthma DSS as a covariate, the combined (country/region) variable within cohort and subject as random effects. Proportion is the estimated probability of having a day where a subject with asthma did not use SABA, odds ratio is (odds active/odds Placebo).||3.3|1.0|0.0527
91785140|NCT04145219|183450516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The endpoint was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model. The model includes the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||1.0|-0.1|0.1256
91785141|NCT04145219|183450517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.5|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo)|The odds of having a rhinitis mild day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included the endpoint (yes/no) as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed effects, the baseline average rhinitis TCRS as a covariate, the combined (country/region) variable within cohort and subject as random effects. Proportion is the estimated probability of having a day with no or mild rhinitis symptoms, odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo).||2.5|1.3|0.0008
91785142|NCT04145219|183450518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo)|The odds of having a rhinitis exacerbation day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included the endpoint (yes/no) as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed effects, the baseline average rhinitis DSS as a covariate, the combined (country/region) variable within cohort and subject as random effects. Proportion is the estimated probability of having a rhinitis exacerbation day, odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo).||0.7|0.4|<0.0001
91785143|NCT04145219|183450519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinitis CSMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.3|0.1|<0.0001
91785144|NCT04145219|183450520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinoconjunctivitis CSMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.3|0.1|<0.0001
91785145|NCT05871450|183450540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91790472|NCT02880956|183460065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790473|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.278||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.278|-0.269|0.976
91790474|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 24||||
91650005|NCT00106028|183192257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.675|||<|0.0001||95.0|21.051|42.3|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||42.300|21.051|<0.0001
91650006|NCT00106028|183192258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.029||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.667|29.726|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||29.726|-1.667|0.0793
91785146|NCT01303224|183450548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Multiplicity was adjusted by using the Hochberg Procedure.|Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel-Test was used to compare separately each of the 3 active treatment groups with placebo using a two-sided overall significance level of 5%. The proportion of responders was tested with the following hypotheses: H0 (placebo) vs H1(Ibodutant:1mg/3mg/10mg). Approximately 80% power based on the assumptions: rate placebo 40%, expected mean therapeutic gain over placebo 15% for at least one dose of Ibodutant.||||<0.05
91785147|NCT01303224|183450549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Multiplicity was adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.05
91790475|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.296||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.296|-0.244|0.850
91790476|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790477|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.275||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.275|-0.281|0.981
91790478|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790479|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.318||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.318|-0.323|0.989
91650007|NCT00106028|183192259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.567|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.59|11.545|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||11.545|5.590|<0.0001
91650008|NCT00106028|183192260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.315||||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.477|23.107|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||23.107|-10.477|0.4575
91650009|NCT00106028|183192261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.594||||0.0172||95.0|6.801|68.386|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||68.386|6.801|0.0172
91650010|NCT00106028|183192262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.492||||0.9786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.807|35.824|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||35.824|-36.807|0.9786
91650011|NCT00106028|183192263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.64||||0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.952|23.672|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||23.672|-40.952|0.5971
91785148|NCT01888432|183450553|NON_INFERIORITY|HO: πT - πC ≥ 0.12 vs. HA: πT - πC \< 0.12, where πT and πC are the true proportions of composite efficacy failure of tBPAR, GL, or D, (tBPAR/GL/D) at 12 months post-transplant for the respective treatment groups. The proportion of 0.12, or 12%, was pre-determined as the non-inferiority (NI) margin for composite efficacy failure.|Kaplan-Meier|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.7||Z-test p-value for non-inferiority test (non-inferiority margin = 12%) is for one-sided test and should be compared to 0.05 significance level.|Z-test|||non-inferior efficacy failure of the reduced tacrolimus regimen to control by rejecting the null hypothesis.||3.7|-5.2|< 0.001
91785149|NCT01888432|183450554|NON_INFERIORITY|the null hypothesis below was tested at the one-sided α = 0.05 level: H0: μT - μC ≤ -6 mL/min/1.73 m2 vs. HA: μT - μC \> -6 mL/min/1.73 m\^2, where μT and μC are the true means of change in eGFR (MDRD-4) from randomization to Month 12 post-transplant for the reduced tacrolimus group and control group, respectively.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.574|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|8.4|||ANCOVA|||||8.40|-0.09|< 0.001
91785150|NCT01888432|183450555|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.699|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.70|-1.21|<0.001
91785151|NCT01888432|183450557|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.0|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||2.0|-4.7|
91785152|NCT01888432|183450557|OTHER|tBPAR - month 24|Kaplan-Meier|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|2.6|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||2.6|-5.1|
91785153|NCT01888432|183450557|OTHER|On-treatment tBPAR - month 24|Kaplan-Meier|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|1.4|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||1.4|-5.7|
91785154|NCT01888432|183450558|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|5.1|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||5.1|-3.4|
91785155|NCT01888432|183450558|OTHER|Month 24|Kaplan-Meier|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|5.6|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||5.6|-3.6|
91785156|NCT01888432|183450559|OTHER|graft loss at month 24|Kaplan-Meier|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.5|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||0.5|-2.1|
91785157|NCT01888432|183450560|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.8|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||3.8|-2.5|
91785158|NCT01888432|183450560|OTHER|Month 24|Kaplan-Meier|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|6.6|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||6.6|-2.1|
91844431|NCT03527277|183570151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.3|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||||2.3|-3.7|0.65
91785159|NCT01888432|183450561|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.8|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||3.8|-2.5|
91785160|NCT01888432|183450561|OTHER|Month 24|Kaplan-Meier|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|7.2|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||7.2|-1.1|
91650012|NCT00106028|183192264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.014||||0.4154||95.0|-1.442|3.47|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||3.470|-1.442|0.4154
91650013|NCT00106028|183192265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.884||||0.6404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.855|4.623|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||4.623|-2.855|0.6404
91650014|NCT00106028|183192266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66||||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.499|3.179|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||3.179|-6.499|0.4978
91650015|NCT00106028|183192267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.534||||0.027||95.0|0.41|6.658|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||6.658|0.410|0.0270
91650016|NCT00106028|183192268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.065||||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.868|4.998|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||4.998|-2.868|0.5925
91785161|NCT01888432|183450561|OTHER|Month 24 (On-treatment death)|Kaplan-Meier|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.9|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||3.9|-2.5|
91785162|NCT01888432|183450562|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|5.3|||||Month 12|||5.3|-3.9|
91785163|NCT01888432|183450562|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|7.2|||||Month 24|||7.2|-3.0|
91785164|NCT01888432|183450563|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|3.1|||||Month 12|||3.1|-4.5|
91785165|NCT01888432|183450563|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|4.2|||||Month 24|||4.2|-4.2|
91785166|NCT01888432|183450567|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|30.6|||||Composite endpoint|||30.6|-19.9|
91785167|NCT01888432|183450567|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|19.3|||||On-treatment composite endpoint|||19.3|-6.0|
91785168|NCT01888432|183450567|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|28.7|||||Graft loss/death|||28.7|-24.6|
91785169|NCT01888432|183450567|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|33.1|||||tBPAR|||33.1|-4.2|
91785170|NCT01888432|183450567|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|31.6|||||Death|||31.6|-9.4|
91785171|NCT01888432|183450567|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|35.2|||||AR|||35.2|-28.9|
91785172|NCT01888432|183450567|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|33.1|||||tAR|||33.1|-4.2|
91785173|NCT01888432|183450567|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|52.1|||||BPR|||52.1|-22.3|
91785174|NCT01888432|183450567|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|35.2|||||BPAR|||35.2|-28.9|
91785175|NCT01888432|183450568|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.91|39.89||||||||39.89|-59.91|
91785176|NCT01954927|183450616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227||||||1-sided p-value|z-test Proportion|z-test of proportions without continuity correction||||||0.227
91785177|NCT01954927|183450617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.897
91785178|NCT01954927|183450618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.181
91785179|NCT01954927|183450619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.730
91785180|NCT01954927|183450620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.713
91785181|NCT01954927|183450621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.739
91785182|NCT01954927|183450622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.388
91785183|NCT00955305|183450637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||one-sided p-value using stratified logrank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors||||||0.33
91785184|NCT00955305|183450638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||two-sided p-value by stratified log rank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors||||||0.95
91785185|NCT00955305|183450639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||two sided p-value by Fisher's exact test|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
91785186|NCT01221285|183450642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fold change|1.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Fold change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline IgE. Denominator is baseline IgE.|||2.8|1.1|0.02
91785187|NCT01221285|183450643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fold change|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.4|||Fold change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline IgG. Denominator is baseline IgG.|||3.4|1.8|<0.0001
91785188|NCT01221285|183450644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fold change|12.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.5|||Fold Change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline IgG4. Denominator is baseline IgG4.|||22.5|7.5|<0.0001
91785189|NCT01221285|183450645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change|-42.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|-26.2|||Change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline FAB. Denominator is baseline FAB.|||-26.2|-59.4|<0.0001
91785190|NCT02123251|183450646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2139||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0092|0.8293|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, race, gender, and baseline hypertension.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||0.8293|-0.0092|0.0553
91790480|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790481|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.319|0.307||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.307|-0.319|0.970
91899669|NCT03566810|183693563|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Median point estimate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||0.00|-0.50|
91785191|NCT02123251|183450647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9571||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1274|1.5442|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model||The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||1.5442|-6.1274|0.2416
91790482|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91650017|NCT00106028|183192269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.193||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.604|6.991|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||6.991|-4.604|0.6840
91650018|NCT00106028|183192270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.0680
91899670|NCT03566810|183693563|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Median point estimate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||0.50|-0.50|
91650019|NCT00106028|183192271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4121||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.4121
91790483|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|0.119||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.119|-0.526|0.215
91790484|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790485|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.25||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.250|-0.392|0.665
91790486|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91844432|NCT03527277|183570152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.4|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||||3.4|-3.7|0.92
91844433|NCT03527277|183570153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.6|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||2.6|-3.3|0.81
91844434|NCT03527277|183570154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.49|||ANCOVA|Effect of group with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||-0.49|-1.34|<0.0001
91844435|NCT03527277|183570155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.1|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||-2.1|-4.7|<0.0001
91844436|NCT03527277|183570156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.31|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||0.31|-0.74|0.42
91899671|NCT03566810|183693565|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|97.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.38|104.86||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||104.86|91.38|
91650020|NCT00106028|183192272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3658||95.0|||||Savage Exact Test|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.3658
91844437|NCT03527277|183570157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.76|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||0.76|-0.23|0.28
91844438|NCT03527277|183570158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|24.7|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment of gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||24.7|-42.9|0.59
91844439|NCT03527277|183570159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.08|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome at baseline.||||0.08|-0.21|0.35
91844440|NCT03527277|183570160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.59|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||||0.59|-0.61|0.97
91899672|NCT03566810|183693565|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.37|104.14||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||104.14|92.37|
91785192|NCT02123251|183450648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2622||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5632|1.3846|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||1.3846|-3.5632|0.3881
91785193|NCT02123251|183450649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7086||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4517|13.7653|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||13.7653|-16.4517|0.8617
91790487|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|0.012||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.012|-0.625|0.059
91785194|NCT02123251|183450650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.5519||0.5333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7478|38.1737|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||38.1737|-73.7478|0.5333
91844441|NCT03527277|183570161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for BMI, outcome at baseline and gender.||-5.4|-22.4|0.002
91844442|NCT03527277|183570162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||1.8|-17.6|0.11
91785195|NCT02123251|183450651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2351||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3509|11.1702|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||11.1702|-9.3509|0.8620
91844443|NCT03527277|183570163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23340.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8284.0|38396.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||38396|8284|0.0032
91844444|NCT03527277|183570164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5558.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2680.0|8437.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||8437|2680|0.0003
91899673|NCT01444651|183693584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in HOMA-IR (3 month minus baseline value), comparing tadalafil versus placebo groups after adjusting for baseline HOMA-IR.||||0.34
91899674|NCT01444651|183693585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in Matsuda Index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil versus placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.18
91710806|NCT02258217|183314019|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in SAGE score variable. This was calculated as follows:~SAGE score (new relapse) - SAGE score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test||The interquartile range for the difference in medians is -1 to 0.|"We compared the two SAGE scores measured in the same arm at different time points (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in medians is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in medians is not = 0~We used the Wilcoxon Signed rank test to compare the pre - post SAGE scores."||||0.44
91710807|NCT01806168|183314022|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.046
91710808|NCT01806168|183314022|EQUIVALENCE|a \< 0.05||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
91790488|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91650021|NCT00106028|183192273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3408||95.0|||||Savage Exact Test|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.3408
91710809|NCT01806168|183314022|EQUIVALENCE|a \< 0.05||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91844445|NCT03527277|183570165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3824.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1611.0|6036.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline||||6036|1611|0.0012
91710810|NCT01806168|183314023|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test primary and secondary outcomes, we utilized intention to treat data and linear mixed models with a group random effect. Significance was set to a \< 0.05.||||0.93
91710811|NCT01806168|183314024|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
91785196|NCT02123251|183450652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0433||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3272|2.7626|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||2.7626|-1.3272|0.4915
91710812|NCT01806168|183314025|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
91710813|NCT01806168|183314026|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
91710814|NCT01806168|183314027|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
91844446|NCT03527277|183570166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19522.0||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7353.0|31691.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||31691|7353|0.0023
91844447|NCT03527277|183570167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21881.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11307.0|32455.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||32455|11307|0.0001
91650022|NCT00106028|183192276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534||||0.0253||95.0|0.31|0.922||All Fractures|Cox proportional hazards|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.922|0.310|0.0253
91710815|NCT01100723|183314035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with PTH values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
91844448|NCT03527277|183570168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9666.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4808.0|14524.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||14524|4808|0.0002
91899675|NCT01444651|183693586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the difference in EndoPAT (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil to placebo groups after adjusting for baseline values.||||0.76
91899676|NCT01444651|183693587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in insulinogenic index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil to placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.06
91899677|NCT01444651|183693588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in oral disposition index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil versus placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.009
91899678|NCT01444651|183693589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in Matsuda disposition index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil to placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.05
91899679|NCT02952001|183693648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. No adjustments made or required for multiplicity.|Log-rank chi-square test|||The null hypothesis of no difference in the survival time distributions was tested.||||0.562
91899680|NCT00148954|183693652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|1.11|0.003
91899681|NCT01681628|183693656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|24.0||This was an a priori threshold.|t-test, 2 sided|||Means and differences were calculated for both groups before (time 1) and after treatment (or no treatment) (time 2). Also, the differences in mean scores from time 1 to 2 were compared between the two groups, the primary outcome. The numbers in the groups were considered adequate based on previous similar studies. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in any mean change in scores from time 1 to 2, between both groups.||24.0|16.1|<0.001
91899682|NCT01681628|183693656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|34.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in PCL-C scores from before to after treatment.||34.7|29.1|<0.001
91899683|NCT01681628|183693656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|17.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in PCL-C scores for control group after no treatment.||17.1|11.4|<0.001
91899684|NCT01681628|183693656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|22.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom 94||Change in control group PCL-C scores after treatment, that is from time 2 to time 3.||22.5|17.1|<0.001
91899685|NCT01681628|183693657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-squared test of any change in PCL-C from time 1 to time 2.||||<0.001
91844449|NCT03527277|183570169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3413.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1456.0|5370.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||5370|1456|0.0011
91844450|NCT03527277|183570170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|55.1|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||55.1|-32.0|0.59
91844451|NCT03527277|183570171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|74.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|147.9|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||147.9|1.3|0.046
91899686|NCT01681628|183693657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants with PCL score > 50|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage with diagnostic scores in the wait list group after no treatment at times 1 and 2.||||<0.001
91899687|NCT01681628|183693657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91899688|NCT01681628|183693658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|20.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Both the original treatment and control groups were combined as both groups had been treated at a similar time before the nineteen month assessment. The null hypothesis was that there had been no change in the PCL-C scores at nineteen months compared to one week following treatment.||20.5|15.2|<0.001
91899689|NCT04796896|183693679|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if:~The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|1.224|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.413||||||||1.413|1.061|
91650023|NCT00106028|183192276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.922||All Non-Vertebral Fractures|Cox Proportional Hazard|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.922|0.310|0.0253
91650024|NCT00106028|183192276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.487||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.95||Long Bone Non-Vertebral Fracture|Cox Proportional Hazards|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.950|0.250|0.0501
91650025|NCT00106028|183192276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.608||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.41||Other Non-Vertebral Fracture|Cox Proportional Hazard|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||1.410|0.262|0.2141
91650026|NCT00106028|183192277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.584||||0.0416||95.0|0.348|0.98||All Fractures|Wald test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.980|0.348|0.0416
91650027|NCT00106028|183192277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.584||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.98||Non-Vertebral Fracture|Wald Test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.980|0.348|0.0416
91650028|NCT00106028|183192277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.543||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|1.076||Long Bone Non-Vertebral Fracture|Wald Test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||1.076|0.274|0.0799
91650029|NCT00106028|183192277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.682||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|1.532||Other Non-Vertebral Fracture|Wald Test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||1.532|0.304|0.682
91844452|NCT03527277|183570172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||Effect of group on change in outcome with adjustment for BMI, Outcome at baseline and gender.||1.3|-0.7|0.56
91650030|NCT00106028|183192278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.678||||0.0318||95.0|-22.325|-1.031|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||-1.031|-22.325|0.0318
91650031|NCT00106028|183192279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.9907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.401|11.536|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||11.536|-11.401|0.9907
91844453|NCT03527277|183570173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.35|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||0.35|-1.94|0.17
91844454|NCT03527277|183570174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||3.0|-1.9|0.65
91790489|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.251||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.251|-0.394|0.663
91899690|NCT04796896|183693680|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.139||||||||1.139|0.870|
91844455|NCT03527277|183570175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and outcome at baseline.||||0.6|-0.5|0.88
91785197|NCT02123251|183450653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||standard diffs-in-diffs model|||A standard diffs-in-diffs model was utilized to estimate the causal effect of the intervention on medical costs per patient/day. The average change in cost over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no difference in the cost per patient per day from baseline to endpoint between groups.||||>0.05
91785198|NCT02123251|183450654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3148||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0233|1.2572|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model||The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference in these average changes is referred to as the difference-in-differences values which was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no difference in the General Diet subscale from baseline to endpoint between groups. Generalized estimating equation modeling was used to examine changes in SDSCA between groups at different time points.||1.2572|0.0233|0.0420
91785199|NCT02123251|183450655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0981|4.1395|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The effect of age and gender is adjusted in the GEE model.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that of the control group. The difference in the average changes is referred to as the difference-in-differences values which was assessed for significance at p=0.05. Null assumed no group difference in the Physical Component Summary measure of SF-36v2 from baseline to midpoint. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine changes in health measures between groups at different time points.||4.1395|0.0981|.0399
91785200|NCT00926029|183450697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91785201|NCT00926029|183450698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91785202|NCT02250703|183450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Difference in proportions in satisfactory sedation on separation from parents and on induction between M and D groups (Primary Outcome variables)|Chi-squared|||A sample size of at least 33 patients in each group would detect at least 30% difference in proportion of children who achieve satisfactory sedation between the M and D groups at 0.05 level of significance and 80% power||||0.025
91650032|NCT00106028|183192280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.686||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.276|5.903|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||5.903|-15.276|0.3826
91785203|NCT02250703|183450760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91785204|NCT02250703|183450761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91785205|NCT02250703|183450762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91785206|NCT01776307|183450780|OTHER|Descriptive analysis for investigational arms; no comparator analysis|||||||||||||||||The exact 95% confidence interval is based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|||
91785207|NCT01776307|183450781|OTHER|Estimates provided for investigational arms; no comparator analysis|||||||||||||||||Estimated from Kaplan Meier Curve|||
91785208|NCT01776307|183450782|OTHER|Estimates provided for investigational arms; no comparator analysis|||||||||||||||||Estimated from Kaplan Meier Curve|||
91785209|NCT00567255|183450795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.56|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.19|-3.93|||ANCOVA|||||-3.93|-5.19|<0.001
91785210|NCT00567255|183450796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-4.38|||ANCOVA|||||-4.38|-5.95|<0.001
91785211|NCT00567255|183450797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.61|||<|0.001||95.0|4.95|8.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.84|4.95|<0.001
91785212|NCT00567255|183450798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|7.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.47|4.05|<0.001
91844456|NCT03527277|183570176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.7|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||5.7|-4.4|0.81
91785213|NCT00567255|183450799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|7.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.98|3.60|<0.001
91844457|NCT03527277|183570177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.9|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||2.9|-4.4|0.69
91844458|NCT03527277|183570178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome at baseline.||||0.1|-1.0|0.10
91650033|NCT00106028|183192281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.629|||<|0.0001||95.0|-38.089|-15.169|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||-15.169|-38.089|<0.0001
91650034|NCT00106028|183192282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.04||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.433|26.512|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||26.512|-8.433|0.3075
91710816|NCT01100723|183314036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with phosphorus values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||<0.05
91785214|NCT00567255|183450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-2.53|||ANCOVA|||||-2.53|-4.33|<0.001
91844459|NCT03527277|183570179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of Outcome with adjustment for outcome at baseline.||||1.2|-2.1|0.55
91844460|NCT02459587|183570197|SUPERIORITY|Survival analysis using start/stop counting method to identify time until event, structured to allow for multiple events per person. VCL contacts with and without suicide ideation were combined, due to low counts.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.92||2-tailed P-value above was calculated from type III test.|Regression, Cox|Model was structured to allow multiple events per person. No covariates.|Model was structured to allow multiple events per person. No covariates. HR based on parameter estimate = -0.218 (SEM=0.222)|||1.92|0.80|0.33
91844461|NCT02459587|183570198|SUPERIORITY|Survival analysis using start/stop counting method to identify time until event, structured to allow for multiple events per person.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.7||All tests of significance were 2-tailed. P-value above is type III. No covariates.|Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was structured to allow multiple events per person. No covariates. HR based on parameter estimate = -0.660 (SEM=0.153)|||0.70|0.38|<0.0001
91899691|NCT04796896|183693680|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|1.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.101|1.434||||||||1.434|1.101|
91899692|NCT04796896|183693681|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.6||||||||1.6|-2.2|
91899693|NCT04796896|183693682|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.5||||||||1.5|-2.5|
91899694|NCT04796896|183693682|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4||||||||2.4|-0.8|
91899695|NCT04796896|183693683|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|3.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.158|4.808||||||||4.808|3.158|
91899696|NCT04796896|183693683|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|3.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.404|4.657||||||||4.657|3.404|
91899697|NCT04796896|183693685|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||||||||2.4|-4.4|
91899698|NCT04796896|183693685|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.4||||||||2.4|-2.2|
91899699|NCT04796896|183693694|OTHER|The 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.706|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.325|0.873|||||Vaccine efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.873|0.325|
91899700|NCT04796896|183693694|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|0.509|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.509|0.287|
91899701|NCT04796896|183693694|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.474|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.474|0.127|
91899702|NCT04796896|183693695|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.882|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.882|0.151|
91899703|NCT04796896|183693695|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.48|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.480|-0.007|
91899704|NCT04796896|183693695|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|-0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.832|0.352|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.352|-0.832|
91844462|NCT02459587|183570199|SUPERIORITY|Two binary variables were derived from Treatment Services Review responses to identify any general mental health service utilization, one binary variable for Baseline and another for any outpatient mental health service utilization at any time point in the 1 year follow-up period. The Baseline variable was included as a main-effects covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|1.146||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.176|||Regression, Logistic|Bivariate logistic, adjusted for (1) if any general outpatient mental heath visits at baseline (0) otherwise||||2.176|0.604|0.66
91844463|NCT02028884|183570205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.88|||Log Rank|||Stratified by Baseline annualized relapse rate (ARR: 1, \> 1) and geographic region (Asia, EU/Other).||0.88|0.16|0.0184
91844464|NCT02028884|183570206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.344||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|13.033|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: treatment group as fixed effect and baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||13.033|-0.280|0.0602
91844465|NCT02028884|183570207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.752|0.574|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: treatment group as fixed effect and baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||0.574|-4.752|0.1224
91844466|NCT05176353|183570236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.86
91844467|NCT05176353|183570237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.05
91844468|NCT05176353|183570238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.59
91844469|NCT05176353|183570239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||<0.01
91844470|NCT05176353|183570240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.20
91844471|NCT05176353|183570241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.03
91844472|NCT05176353|183570242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||<0.01
91844473|NCT05176353|183570243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.05
91844474|NCT02037061|183570276|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91844475|NCT00519779|183570279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value, visit, gender, SAD||||0.18|-0.18|0.97
91844476|NCT00519779|183570280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.011|-0.44|0.04
91844477|NCT00519779|183570281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.002|-0.15|0.06
91844478|NCT00519779|183570282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.009|-0.30|0.04
91844479|NCT00519779|183570283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.018|-0.33|0.08
91844480|NCT00519779|183570284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.26|0.93
91844481|NCT01875861|183570322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.38||||||Because of data discontinuity, assumptions for time series analysis did not hold. Repeated measures regression models were developed to compare overall weight monitoring rates at baseline across the implementation phases.||1.38|1.02|
91844482|NCT01875861|183570323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.39||||||See comments about time series analysis for primary outcome measure. Repeated measures regression analysis of the likelihood of monitoring for each time period was conducted.||1.39|1.03|
91844483|NCT03824535|183570372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis applies to the row 'Specificity' in the Outcome Measure data table.||||0.02
91844484|NCT03824535|183570373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was predefined as p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91844485|NCT03824535|183570373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was predefined as p ≤ 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91785215|NCT00567255|183450801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.57|||ANCOVA|||||3.57|1.61|<0.001
91710817|NCT01100723|183314037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with PTH values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
91785216|NCT00567255|183450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.96||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91650035|NCT00106028|183192283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.039||||0.3998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.849|6.772|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||6.772|-16.849|0.3998
91650036|NCT00106028|183192284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.352||||0.1592||95.0|-0.845|0.14|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.140|-0.845|0.1592
91785217|NCT00567255|183450803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.09|||ANCOVA|||||5.09|2.46|<0.001
91785218|NCT00567255|183450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.24||||0.091|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.091
91785219|NCT00567255|183450805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.64|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
91785220|NCT00567255|183450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.85||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.85|-1.60|
91650037|NCT00106028|183192285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127||||0.2917||95.0|-0.111|0.365|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANOVA model with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.365|-0.111|0.2917
91650038|NCT00106028|183192286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007||||0.9622||95.0|-0.304|0.319|||ANOVA|LS mean and p-value are from ANOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.319|-0.304|0.9622
91650039|NCT00106028|183192287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||0.9596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.354|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.354|-0.336|0.9596
91650040|NCT00106028|183192288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.107||||0.34||95.0|-0.114|0.328|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANOVA model with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.328|-0.114|0.3400
91710818|NCT01100723|183314038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with phosphorus values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
91650041|NCT00106028|183192289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.029||||0.6218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.142|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.142|-0.084|0.6218
91785221|NCT00567255|183450807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
91785222|NCT00567255|183450808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-4.54||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-4.54|-9.92|
91785223|NCT00567255|183450809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|-1.44||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-1.44|-7.29|
91785224|NCT00567255|183450810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.30|-0.70|
91844486|NCT03824535|183570373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The threshold for statistical significance was predefined as p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91710819|NCT01100723|183314039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with Ca values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
91785225|NCT00567255|183450811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.58||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.58|0.16|
91785226|NCT00567255|183450812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.6||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.60|-0.49|
91844487|NCT06403605|183570385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Adjusted p value in the mITT analysis population.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
91844488|NCT06403605|183570385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Adjusted p value in the PP analysis population.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
91650042|NCT00479401|183192319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority hypothesis comparing pramipexole ER to pramipexole IR was to be tested using a non-inferiority margin of -3 points. The primary efficacy endpoint in UPDRS part II+III was the change from baseline (week 0) to week 33 on the UPDRS Parts II+III score combined. The statistical model was analysis of covariance, controlling for baseline UPDRS Part II+III. Fixed terms in the model were treatment, country, and UPDRS Part II+III score at baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|Null hypothesis was tested using an analysis of covariance model with α = 0.05 in full analysis set with last observation carried forward.|PPX ER non-inferior to PPX IR, if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the difference is higher than the non-inferiority margin of -3|A non-inferiority hypothesis (H0: μER - μIR \< -3 vs. H1: μER - μIR ≥ -3) comparing pramipexole ER to pramipexole IR was tested using a non-inferiority margin of -3 points.||1.7|-2.2|
91650043|NCT01504867|183192335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wald|This was a large sample (Wald) test estimated using a conditional logistic regression model with site as a stratification variable.||The primary outcome significance level was adjusted for multiple testing associated with the interim analysis. Its significance level is 92.6%||||0.53
91650044|NCT01504867|183192336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91650045|NCT01504867|183192337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91650046|NCT01504867|183192338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
91650047|NCT01504867|183192339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91650048|NCT01504867|183192340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
91650049|NCT01504867|183192341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91650050|NCT02257632|183192366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.64|-10.32||missing Baseline VEGF-A level covariate values were imputed by the mean value of non-missing Baseline VEGF-A level from all other patients|ANCOVA|including treatment group and center as fixed effect factors and Baseline VEGF-A as a covariate||||-10.32|-19.64|<0.0001
91650051|NCT02257632|183192367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.98|-6.94||missing Baseline VEGF-A level covariate values were imputed by the mean value of non-missing Baseline VEGF-A level from all the patients with values|ANCOVA|including treatment group and center as fixed effect factors and Baseline VEGF-A as a covariate||||-6.94|-15.98|< 0.0001
91650052|NCT01133821|183192409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||time effect for HRSD-17||||<0.0001
91650053|NCT01133821|183192410|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline scores||||||>0.05
91650054|NCT00434161|183192411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.679||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.351|1.313||A 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison gives an overall type I error rate of 5%.|Proportional odds model|The proportional odds model including the randomization factors as covariates was used for the primary endpoint, maximum severity of OM.|The odds ratio was defined to be the odds of a subject receiving placebo experiencing OM divided by the odds of a subject receiving palifermin developing OM.|The null hypothesis was that the severity distribution for OM was identical for the placebo and each of the two palifermin groups, and the alternative hypothesis was that palifermin resulted in a shift in the distribution to less severe mucositis than placebo. A total of 275 subjects would give at least 95% power, with a 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison to detect an odds ratio of at least 3.5 between the placebo group and each of the two palifermin groups.||1.313|0.351|0.188
91650055|NCT00434161|183192411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.242||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.635|2.431||A 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison gives an overall type I error rate of 5%.|Proportional odds model|The proportional odds model including the randomization factors as covariates was used for the primary endpoint, maximum severity of OM.|The odds ratio was defined to be the odds of a subject receiving placebo experiencing OM divided by the odds of a subject receiving palifermin developing OM.|The null hypothesis was that the severity distribution for OM was identical for the placebo and each of the two palifermin groups, and the alternative hypothesis was that palifermin resulted in a shift in the distribution to less severe mucositis than placebo. A total of 275 subjects would give at least 95% power, with a 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison to detect an odds ratio of at least 3.5 between the placebo group and each of the two palifermin groups.||2.431|0.635|0.468
91650056|NCT00434161|183192412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.262||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.303|30.828||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.828|-4.303|0.245
91844489|NCT06403605|183570386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||Adjusted p-value in the mITT population.|Log Rank|||||||0.049
91844490|NCT06403605|183570386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||Adjusted p value in the PP population.|Log Rank|||||||0.084
91650057|NCT00434161|183192412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.014||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.519|16.491||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.491|-20.519|0.806
91650058|NCT00434161|183192413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.409|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.82||0.095|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.07|4.748||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||A type I error rate was protected by using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiple testing. Palifermin was not to be declared to be statistically superior to placebo with respect to secondary efficacy endpoints unless the primary endpoint was statistically significant in favor of palifermin.||4.748|0.070|0.095
91844491|NCT06403605|183570389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91844492|NCT07083843|183570390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.115|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|5.36|||paired sample T-test.|Degree of freedom = 25||Data was analyzed using SPSS v22.0., Descriptive statistics will summarize baseline variables. Paired t-test will assess pre- vs. post - intervention scores within groups, and between-group differences will be compared, the null hypothesis states there is no difference between intervention and control groups. A two-tailed P\< 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.||5.36|2.87|0.05
91650059|NCT00434161|183192413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.13||0.806|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.575|2.15||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||||2.150|-2.575|0.806
91785227|NCT00567255|183450813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.52||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.52|-0.56|
91650060|NCT00434161|183192414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.436||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.542|32.415||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||For the secondary endpoints, the type I error rate was protected by using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiple testing16. Palifermin was not to be declared to be statistically superior to placebo with respect to secondary efficacy endpoints unless the primary endpoint was statistically significant in favor of palifermin.||32.415|-1.542|0.142
91650061|NCT00434161|183192414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.331||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.82|22.482||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||||22.482|-11.820|0.806
91650062|NCT00434161|183192415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.669|33.43||According to statistical analysis plan it was not planned to calculate any P-Value.||||||33.43|-21.669|
91844493|NCT07083843|183570391|SUPERIORITY|A superiority analysis was performed to compare depression and anxiety scores between the intervention and control groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.192|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|3.238|||paired sample T-test.|degree of freedom= 25||data were processed and analyzed using the SPSS software, version 22.0. The descriptive statistics were calculated, including frequencies and percentages for categorical data, and means and standard deviations for numerical variables. A paired t-test was used to assess the change in the psychological level before and after the intervention program. All hypothesis testing was done at the 5% level of significance||3.238|0.986|0.05
91844494|NCT02941146|183570392|OTHER||sucess proportion|64.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|87.2||||||||87.2|35.1|
91650063|NCT00434161|183192417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.181||||||||0.181|-0.134|
91844495|NCT02331940|183570405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.88
91650064|NCT00434161|183192418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.26||||||||0.260|-0.138|
91650065|NCT00434161|183192419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.641|14.264||||||||14.264|-21.641|
91650066|NCT00434161|183192420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|12.58||||||||12.580|-0.679|
91650067|NCT00434161|183192422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.26|||Log Rank|||All comparisons for the long-term safety endpoints were based on the combined palifermin group (pre- and post- high dose chemotherapy and pre-high dose chemotherapy only) versus placebo (placebo over palifermin). Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Kaplan-Meier estimates were provided together with the 95% confidence interval.||1.26|0.33|0.192
91844496|NCT01450943|183570409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.712595||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9141|8.4839|||Fisher Exact|||||8.4839|0.9141|0.0517
91844497|NCT01450943|183570410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.812339||||0.7974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2543|2.5224|||Fisher Exact|||||2.5224|0.2543|0.7974
91844498|NCT00839982|183570420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Hypothesis: achieving CR provides an overall longer survival.|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91844499|NCT02724020|183570426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||=|0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.36|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.36|0.75|=0.388
91844500|NCT02724020|183570426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.52|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.52|0.75|0.667
91844501|NCT02724020|183570428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.49|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||3.49|0.89|0.212
91844502|NCT02724020|183570428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.98|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.98|0.77|0.546
91844503|NCT02724020|183570429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.57|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.05|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||3.05|0.81|=0.156
91844504|NCT02724020|183570429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.79|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.79|0.72|0.667
91844505|NCT02724020|183570430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.22|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI were obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|As prespecified in the protocol, the statistical analysis was performed between arms - Arm A: Single-agent Everolimus 10 mg QD and Arm C: Combination of MLN0128 4 mg QD + MLN1117 200 mg QD only.|As prespecified in protocol, the statistical analysis was performed between arms - Arm A: Single-agent Everolimus 10 mg QD and Arm C: Combination of MLN0128 4 mg QD + MLN1117 200 mg QD only for this outcome measure.|2.22|0.08|
91844506|NCT02724020|183570431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.69|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||1.69|0.24|
91844507|NCT02724020|183570431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.21|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||2.21|0.28|
91844508|NCT02724020|183570432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.38|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||1.38|0.16|
91844509|NCT02724020|183570432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||1.80|0.20|
91844510|NCT02954575|183570457|OTHER||Poisson test estimate|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.76||versus mean TABR \>29|Poisson test estimate|||A confirmative one-sided, one-sample Poisson test was used to test whether the mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) in patients treated prophylactically with Wilate was below the threshold of 29 BEs per patient year (alpha = 2.5%). This threshold corresponds to 50% of the TABR reported in the GENA-01 study (NCT00989196), which observed 58.1 BEs per patient per year. A corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the TABR was also analyzed.||2.76|1.64|<0.0001
91844511|NCT02954575|183570458|OTHER||Poisson test estimate|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.08||versus mean SABR \>19.1|Poisson test estimate|||A confirmative one-sided, one-sample Poisson test was used to test whether the mean SABR in patients treated prophylactically with Wilate was below the threshold of 19.1 BEs per patient year (alpha = 2.5%). This threshold corresponds to 50% of the SABR in the GENA-01 study (NCT00989196), which observed 38.2 spontaneous BEs per patient per year. A corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the SABR was also analyzed.||2.08|1.13|<0.0001
91844512|NCT02954575|183570459|OTHER||Generalized estimation equation|84.21||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.13|92.52|||Confirmatory data analysis|||"Confirmatory statistical testing tested the null hypotheses that the percentage of success is ≤70% (alternative hypothesis: percentage \>70%); the test procedure based on the generalized estimation equation took into account several BEs in one patient as correlated repeated measurements (alpha = 2.5%). Thus, π denotes the proportion of success and the following pair of hypotheses was tested:~H0: π ≤ 0.7 vs. H1: π \> 0.7"||92.52|72.13|0.0096
91844513|NCT02954575|183570465|OTHER|||||||0.0346|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0346
91844514|NCT02954575|183570466|OTHER|||||||0.4244|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4244
91844515|NCT02954575|183570468|OTHER||Pearson-Copper|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.11||||||||16.11|0|
91844516|NCT01438229|183570551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91650068|NCT00434161|183192423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.417|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.086|45.919||||||||45.919|-11.086|
91899705|NCT04796896|183693696|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|0.965|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.965|-0.416|
91710820|NCT01100723|183314040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Proportion of subjects on specified medications were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects on the specified medications was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
91710821|NCT03665077|183314051|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level, with time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.684|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.684
91785228|NCT00567255|183450814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.02||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.02|-0.98|
91785229|NCT03530124|183450835|SUPERIORITY|The number of infants with ≥1 apneic event for each group and compared using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by study site and gestational age group (\< 28 weeks versus ≥ 28 weeks) to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the occurrence of apnea.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|5.73|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the primary objective.|||5.73|1.27|0.0104
91785230|NCT03530124|183450836|OTHER|The number of apnea events were compared using a linear regression model (assuming a Poisson distribution) with study site and gestational age group covariates to control for the randomization blocks.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.||||||0.11
91785231|NCT03530124|183450837|OTHER|Average duration of apnea episodes between groups were compared using a mixed effects model with a random intercept for each infant with one or more events and study site and gestational age group as covariates to control for the randomization blocks.||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Effects Model|No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.||||||0.36
91785232|NCT03530124|183450838|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of infants requiring an increase in respiratory support for each group were compared using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by study site and gestational age group to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the occurrence of apnea.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.23|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.|||7.23|0.59|0.3555
91785233|NCT03530124|183450839|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of infants with ≥1 cardiorespiratory event using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.77|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.|Only Duke University had viable monitoring data to analyze this compound outcome objective.||2.77|0.29|1.0000
91785234|NCT03530124|183450840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|21.63|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.|The proportion of infants requiring positive pressure ventilation for each group were compared using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by study site and gestational age group to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the occurrence of apnea during the 48-hour monitoring period.||21.63|0.17|1.0000
91785235|NCT02791763|183450859|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (-1.0 g/dL).|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.28||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the non-inferiority assessment.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Analysis was performed by a MMRM with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline-by-visit interaction.|||0.28|-0.07|<.0001
91785236|NCT02791763|183450860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.04||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the superiority assessment.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, and Baseline ESA use.|||3.04|0.33|0.4941
91785237|NCT02791763|183450861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.04||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the superiority assessment.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, and Baseline ESA use.|||3.04|0.33|0.4941
91785238|NCT02878798|183450984|OTHER|Non-inferiority and superiority tests were completed|Slope|0.2105|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4328||||||||||-0.4328|
91785239|NCT02878798|183450985|OTHER|Non-inferiority and superiority tests were done|Slope|-1.5219|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.1933||||||||1.1933||
91785240|NCT02878798|183450986|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02322|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6337|0.5872|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5872|-0.6337|
91785241|NCT02878798|183450987|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.168||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4612|0.1253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1253|-0.4612|0.261
91785242|NCT02878798|183450988|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.061||||0.9007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0213|0.8992|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8992|-1.0213|0.9007
91785243|NCT02878798|183450989|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0106||||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0793|0.1005|||Hurdle model|||||0.1005|-0.0793|0.8174
91785244|NCT02878798|183450990|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7394||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3775|-0.1013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1013|-1.3775|0.0233
91785245|NCT02878798|183450991|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1328||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|0.7164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7164|-0.982|0.7586
91785246|NCT02878798|183450992|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0021||||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.0799|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0799|-0.084|0.9604
91785247|NCT02878798|183450993|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0396||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1053|0.0261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0261|-0.1053|0.2365
91785248|NCT02878798|183450994|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.3848||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1336|10.9032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.9032|-6.1336|0.5813
91650069|NCT00434161|183192424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.16|||Log Rank|||All comparisons for the long-term safety endpoints were based on the combined palifermin group (pre- and post- high dose chemotherapy and pre-high dose chemotherapy only) versus placebo (placebo over palifermin). Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Kaplan-Meier estimates were provided together with the 95% confidence interval.||1.16|0.55|0.236
91650070|NCT00434161|183192425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.84||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23|||Log Rank|||All comparisons for the long-term safety endpoints were based on the combined palifermin group (pre- and post- high dose chemotherapy and pre-high dose chemotherapy only) versus placebo (placebo over palifermin). Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Kaplan-Meier estimates were provided together with the 95% confidence interval.||1.23|0.58|0.372
91650071|NCT03342898|183192427|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between YF + TDV (Group 3) and YF + Placebo (Group 1) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 1 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the seroprotection rate difference (Group 1 - Group 3) was less than 5%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.69|||||The Newcombe score method was used to compute the 95% CI of the seroprotection rate difference.|||2.69|-1.85|
91650072|NCT03342898|183192428|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.22|||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-1||2.22|1.19|
91650073|NCT03342898|183192428|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.3||||||95.0|1.03|1.75|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-2||1.75|1.03|
91650074|NCT03342898|183192428|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.3||||||95.0|0.99|1.61|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-3||1.61|0.99|
91650075|NCT03342898|183192428|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.46|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-4||1.46|0.89|
91785249|NCT02878798|183450995|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0547||||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5705|1.4611|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4611|-3.5705|0.4092
91785250|NCT02762370|183450996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0452
91785251|NCT01708902|183451023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.01|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||0.01|-0.45|0.0587
91785252|NCT01708902|183451023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.78|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||-0.78|-1.23|<0.0001
91785253|NCT01708902|183451023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.29|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||-0.29|-0.73|<0.0001
91790490|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91650076|NCT03342898|183192432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between YF + TDV (Group 3) and YF + Placebo (Group 1) at Day 30. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 1 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 1/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.26|||||ANOVA model was used for analyses, including the log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|||1.26|0.77|
91650077|NCT00461500|183192486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.6||0.683||95.0|-27.96|42.43|||ANCOVA||mean difference = drug SFC 100 minus FP 100|||42.43|-27.96|0.683
91650078|NCT01144663|183192517|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percentage|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.2||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 3 Group compared to the Menjugate Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI (confidence interval) for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 3 Group minus Menjugate Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||1.2|-1.17|
91650079|NCT01144663|183192517|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percenttage|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.4||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 3 Group compared to the NeisVac-C Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 3 Group minus NeisVac-C Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||0.4|-1.57|
91650080|NCT01144663|183192517|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percentage|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.43||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 2 Group compared to Menjugate Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 2 Group minus Menjugate Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||0.43|-2.45|
91650081|NCT01144663|183192517|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percentage|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.48||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 2 Group compared to NeisVac-C Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 2 Group minus NeisVac-C Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||-0.48|-2.84|
91709433|NCT04633291|183311478|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard Male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.58||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.58|-0.50|0.88
91709434|NCT04633291|183311479|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.44||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.44|-0.72|0.62
91710822|NCT03665077|183314052|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level, with time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.02
91710823|NCT03665077|183314053|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.058
91785254|NCT01708902|183451023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.64|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||-0.64|-1.09|<0.0001
91785255|NCT01708902|183451024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|2.961|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||2.961|0.946|0.0771
91650082|NCT03081767|183192565|OTHER||||||<|1e-07||||||Actual P-Value = 3.89597E-42. A P-value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0000001
91785256|NCT01708902|183451024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.543|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.164|9.522|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||9.522|3.164|<0.0001
91785257|NCT01708902|183451024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.678|4.767|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||4.767|1.678|<0.0001
91785258|NCT01708902|183451024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.259|6.454|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||6.454|2.259|<0.0001
91785259|NCT01708902|183451025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.565||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.997|8.701|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||8.701|1.997|0.0001
91785260|NCT01708902|183451026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|2.746|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||2.746|1.004|0.0480
91785261|NCT01708902|183451026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.923|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.632|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.452|10.164|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||10.164|3.452|<0.0001
91785262|NCT01708902|183451026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.563|4.239|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||4.239|1.563|0.0002
91844517|NCT04770220|183570634|OTHER|"For the primary efficacy outcome of ADAS-Cog 13, this study has \>90% power to detect a 3.0-point difference between the active ALZ-801 treatment and the placebo in the CBL to Week 78. An increase in ADAS-Cog scores denotes cognitive worsening.~The primary analysis population was the full analysis set (FAS). The FAS included all study subjects who received at least one dose of the study drug and had at least one baseline assessment and any post baseline efficacy assessment."|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was two-sided at the α=0.05 significance level. Between-treatment group comparison (effect in ALZ-801 minus effect in placebo): LSM difference and p-value.|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|"The null hypothesis was change from baseline (CBL) of ADAS-Cog13 in the ALZ-801 arm was not different from the placebo arm. The alternative hypothesis was that the CBL of ADAS-Cog13 in ALZ-801 arm was different.~A Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) model was used with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age group, disease severity based on baseline MMSE (≤ 26 vs. \> 26), concomitant AD medications, visit, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline ADAS-Cog 13 values as covariates."||||0.6058
91844518|NCT04770220|183570636|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|Nominal (descriptive only)|ALZ-801 minus placebo|"The A-IADL-W is one of 2 key secondary endpoints. The key secondary efficacy endpoints were to be compared only after the comparison of the primary endpoint has reached statistical significance. Because the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance, the comparisons for the key secondary endpoints are descriptive only.~The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the key secondary endpoints."||||0.9966
91844519|NCT04770220|183570637|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.309|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|"The CDR-SB is one of 2 key secondary endpoints. The key secondary efficacy endpoints were to be compared only after the comparison of the primary endpoint has reached statistical significance. Because the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance, the comparisons for the key secondary endpoints are descriptive only.~The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the key secondary endpoints."||||0.3090
91844520|NCT04770220|183570638|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.2763|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|Nominal (descriptive only)|ALZ-801 minus placebo|The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the additional secondary endpoints. The hypothesis testing was done without control for type I errors due to multiple comparisons, and the p-value was considered nominal.||||0.2763
91844521|NCT04770220|183570639|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|Nominal (descriptive only)|ALZ-801 minus placebo|The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the additional secondary endpoints. The hypothesis testing was done without control for type I errors due to multiple comparisons, and the p-value was considered nominal.||||0.4484
91650083|NCT01267266|183192568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.20
91785263|NCT01708902|183451026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.751|7.968|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||7.968|2.751|<0.0001
91785264|NCT01708902|183451027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.383|7.11|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||7.110|1.383|0.0062
91785265|NCT01708902|183451028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.07|-0.53|0.0109
91844522|NCT04770220|183570640|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|73.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.711||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo.|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0174
91844523|NCT04770220|183570641|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0020
91844524|NCT04770220|183570642|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0040
91844525|NCT04770220|183570643|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2821.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1366.533||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0400
91844526|NCT04770220|183570644|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1157.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|367.0||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0018
91650084|NCT01335477|183192575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|93.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.907||0.0002||95.0|44.78|142.68||The objective of this trial was to assess the superiority of nintedanib 150 mg bid compared to placebo on the annual rate of decline in FVC.|Random coefficient regression|The Roger-Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominators degrees of freedom.|"Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix.~Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-components variance-covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|"Random coefficient regression with fixed effects for treatment, gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.~A hierarchical procedure was used in order to demonstrate the superiority of nintedanib over placebo for one primary and two key secondary endpoints.~The consecutive steps of the hierarchy were only considered if the previous step was significant at the one-sided 2.5% level and the results were in favour of nintedanib."||142.68|44.78|0.0002
91844527|NCT04770220|183570645|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0000214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000111||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000432|0.00000037||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the DTI-MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline DTI-MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||0.00000037|-0.0000432|0.054
91844528|NCT04770220|183570646|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0000228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000829||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000391|-0.0000065||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||-0.0000065|-0.0000391|0.0064
91844529|NCT04770220|183570647|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.009455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00472||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0001469|0.01876||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||0.01876|0.0001469|0.0465
91899706|NCT04796896|183693696|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.466|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.574|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.574|0.328|
91844530|NCT04770220|183570648|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0416
91844531|NCT04770220|183570649|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.3945
91844532|NCT04770220|183570650|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.2682
91844533|NCT04770220|183570651|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.2178
91844534|NCT04770220|183570652|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0533
91844535|NCT04770220|183570653|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.6854
91650085|NCT01335477|183192576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151||0.0197||95.0|-4.95|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Total score, baseline SGRQ Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||-0.43|-4.95|0.0197
91785266|NCT01708902|183451028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.81|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.81|-1.27|<0.0001
91785267|NCT01708902|183451028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.24|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID ' minus 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID' .|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.24|-0.70|<0.0001
91785268|NCT01708902|183451028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.58|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.58|-1.04|<0.0001
91785269|NCT01708902|183451029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.63|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"The treatment effect of the 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' was compared with 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate."||-0.63|-1.87|0.0001
91785270|NCT01708902|183451030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||2.130|0.456|0.9705
91785271|NCT01708902|183451030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.612|5.938|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||5.938|1.612|0.0007
91785272|NCT01708902|183451030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.243||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.486|6.849|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||6.849|1.486|0.0029
91785273|NCT01708902|183451030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.846|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.318|10.238|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||10.238|2.318|<0.0001
91785274|NCT01708902|183451031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.865|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.015||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|5.42|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||5.420|0.642|0.2523
91785275|NCT01708902|183451032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|0.98|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||0.98|-11.72|0.0971
91785276|NCT01708902|183451032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.67|-26.16|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-26.16|-38.67|<0.0001
91785277|NCT01708902|183451032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|-3.27|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-3.27|-15.66|0.0028
91785278|NCT01708902|183451032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.54|-18.08|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-18.08|-30.54|<0.0001
91844536|NCT04770220|183570654|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0161
91844537|NCT04770220|183570655|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.8387|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.8387
91844538|NCT04770220|183570656|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|1.845||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||1.845|-0.103|0.0795
91844539|NCT04770220|183570657|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.845||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||0.845|-1.070|0.8169
91844540|NCT04770220|183570658|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|108.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.46||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0042
91844541|NCT04770220|183570659|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|51.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.42||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.1145
91650086|NCT01335477|183192577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.005||95.0|0.19|0.77|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo.|Hazard Ratio is based on a Cox's regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||0.77|0.19|0.0050
91650087|NCT01335477|183192578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|109.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.808|<|0.0001||95.0|70.92|148.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||148.62|70.92|<0.0001
91785279|NCT01708902|183451033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.48|-16.95|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-16.95|-53.48|0.0002
91785280|NCT01708902|183451034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.838|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c. The validity of the model is questionable as there is possibly a quasi-complete separation of data points, the results shown are based on the last maximum likelihood iteration."||0.838|0.052|0.0271
91785281|NCT01708902|183451034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916||0.9699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.202|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c. The validity of the model is questionable as there is possibly a quasi-complete separation of data points, the results shown are based on the last maximum likelihood iteration."||6.202|0.150|0.9699
91785282|NCT01708902|183451034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.882|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c. The validity of the model is questionable as there is possibly a quasi-complete separation of data points, the results shown are based on the last maximum likelihood iteration."||0.882|0.038|0.0343
91785283|NCT01708902|183451035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.976|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||0.976|0.013|0.0474
91785284|NCT02445794|183451064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.008
91785285|NCT01057589|183451073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||||||P-value is for Change at End of Triplet Combination Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.697
91785286|NCT01057589|183451073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||||||P-value is for Change at End of Maintenance Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
91785287|NCT01057589|183451074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||||||P-value is for Change at End of Triplet Combination Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223
91785288|NCT01057589|183451074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||||||P-value is for Change at End of Maintenance Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.788
91785289|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||P-value is for NOD, Triplicate Combination Therapy Cycle 2. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
91785290|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||P-value is for NOD, Triplicate Combination Therapy Cycle 4. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91785291|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||P-value is for NOD, Triplicate Combination Therapy Cycle 6. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91785292|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 1. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91785293|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 3. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
91785294|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 5. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91785295|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 7. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91785296|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||P-value is for EIP, Triplicate Combination Cycle 2. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
91844542|NCT04770220|183570660|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||< 0.0001
91844543|NCT04770220|183570661|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0985
91844544|NCT04770220|183570662|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0002
91844545|NCT04770220|183570663|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0699
91844546|NCT04770220|183570664|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3843.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1726.729||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0267
91844547|NCT04770220|183570665|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2164.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1457.282||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.1386
91844548|NCT04770220|183570666|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1312.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|437.0||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0029
91844549|NCT04770220|183570667|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1057.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|386.0||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0065
91844550|NCT04770220|183570668|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|149.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|89.801||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0966
91844551|NCT04770220|183570669|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|137.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|112.257||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.2200
91844552|NCT04770220|183570670|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|157.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.523||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.1005
91844553|NCT04894903|183570677|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.68||This is the calculated p-value. We used an alpha level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline number of gaps||||0.68|0.30|<0.001
91844554|NCT04894903|183570679|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|0.20|0.29
91844555|NCT04894903|183570680|OTHER||beta coefficient|-0.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.24|0.74
91899707|NCT04796896|183693696|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.432|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|0.576|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.576|0.232|
91899708|NCT02021292|183693698|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.84||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||The null hypothesis (change of PVR at rest in Week 16 in percent of baseline PVR in subjects treated with placebo or macitentan is the same) is tested on the primary endpoint by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log(e) transformed % of baseline PVR at rest at Week 16.||0.99|0.70|0.0410
91899709|NCT02021292|183693699|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean difference|34.04||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|65.2||To control multiplicity across all endpoints, secondary endpoints were analyzed in sequence using hierarchical approach based on order and significance as pre-specified in protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline in 6MWD at Week 24 is the same in the placebo and the macitentan group. Statistical model is ANCOVA including 6MWD at baseline as a covariate, with treatment as factor in the model.||65.2|2.9|0.0326
91899710|NCT02021292|183693700|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.39||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.43||To control multiplicity across all endpoints, secondary endpoints were analyzed in sequence using hierarchical approach based on order and significance as pre-specified in protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is the same in the placebo and the macitentan group. Statistical model is Analysis of Covariance including Borg dyspnea index at baseline as a covariate, with Treatment as factor in the model.||0.43|-1.21|0.3492
91899711|NCT02021292|183693701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.212||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|1.464||To control multiplicity across all endpoints, secondary endpoints were analyzed in sequence using hierarchical approach based on order and significance as pre-specified in protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is the odds of worsening are the same in the placebo and the macitentan group. Logistic regression is used for Treatment Group vs. Placebo comparison to generate odds ratio, confidence levels, and p-values with treatment and WHO functional class at baseline as factors in the model.||1.464|0.001|0.0962
91844556|NCT04894903|183570681|OTHER||beta coefficient|-0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-0.60|0.88
91844557|NCT04894903|183570682|OTHER||beta coefficient|-1.24||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-3.19|0.21
91844558|NCT04894903|183570685|OTHER||beta coefficient|0.47||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-0.27|0.21
91844559|NCT01923428|183570687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91844560|NCT02550873|183570688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.10|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||"The sample size calculation was based on the following assumptions:~Normal distribution Homogeneity of variance the same in both arms, and for both types of patients Randomization ratio PRM-151:placebo = 2:1 Expected value for patients on pirfenidone or nintedanib = -1.5 Expected value for patients on no other treatment = -3 Expected value for patients on PRM-151 ≥ 0.75 Standard deviation = 5 75% of patients on a stable dose of pirfenidone or nintedanib α=0.10 two-sided Power = 80%"||3.5|1.1|0.0014
91844561|NCT02550873|183570689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.4|45.1||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||45.1|17.4|0.0002
91785297|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-value is for EIP, Triplicate Combination Cycle 4. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91785298|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||P-value is for EIP, Triplicate Combination Cycle 6. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91785299|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 1. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91785300|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 3. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91785301|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 5. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91785302|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 7. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91785303|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P-value is for UOS, Triplicate Combination Cycle 2. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
91844562|NCT02550873|183570690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|93.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.98||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.7|214.7||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept and slope; dependent variable=raw values; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||214.7|-27.7|0.2032
91844563|NCT02550873|183570691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.33||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.0|108.8||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||108.8|-45.0|0.4927
91844564|NCT02550873|183570692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.5835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|4.3||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||4.3|-2.2|0.5835
91785304|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P-value is for UOS, Triplicate Combination Cycle 4. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91785305|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value is for UOS, Triplicate Combination Cycle 6. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91785306|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 1. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91785307|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 3. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
91785308|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 5. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91785309|NCT01057589|183451075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 7. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91785310|NCT01497366|183451108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SVR12 rates was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|8.0|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and the 95% CI calculated were based on stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||8.0|-7.5|
91785311|NCT02745080|183451127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||1.72|0.98|0.0719
91785312|NCT02745080|183451128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.71|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||3.71|1.67|<0.0001
91785313|NCT02745080|183451129|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.55|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||1.55|0.90|0.2251
91785314|NCT02745080|183451130|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit as factors, weight/baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit, baseline score by analysis visit as interation terms and unstructured covariance structure|||0.05|-0.10|0.5465
91844565|NCT02550873|183570693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.28||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-126.3|213.5||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||213.5|-126.3|0.6707
91844566|NCT02550873|183570694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|1.9||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||1.9|-4.4|0.52
91844567|NCT02550873|183570695|OTHER|Correlation analysis||||||0.0001||||||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Pearson's correlation|||||||0.0001
91844568|NCT02550873|183570695|OTHER|Correlation analysis||||||0.0069|||||||Pearson's correlation|||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.||||0.0069
91844569|NCT02550873|183570696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4179||||||P-Value for decline in % Predicted FVC ≥ 5%. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.4179
91650088|NCT01335477|183192579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.742|<|0.0001||95.0|2.78|5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.69|2.78|<0.0001
91650089|NCT01335477|183192580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.607|<|0.0001||95.0|1.87|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.25|1.87|<0.0001
91844570|NCT02550873|183570696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2184||||||P-Value for decline in % predicted FVC ≥ 10%. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.2184
91844571|NCT02550873|183570697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7773||||||P-Value for decline in FVC ≥ 100 mL. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.7773
91844572|NCT02550873|183570697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5976||||||P-Value for decline in FVC ≥ 200 mL. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.5976
91844573|NCT02550873|183570698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-Value for increase in % predicted FVC ≥ 5%. P-Value for an increase in % predicted FVC ≥ 10% not reported. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.29
91844574|NCT02550873|183570699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0508||||||P-Value for increase in FVC ≥ 100 mL. P-Value for increase in FVC ≥ 200 mL not reported. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.0508
91844575|NCT02550873|183570700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6308||||||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.6308
91844576|NCT02550873|183570701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1846||||||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.1846
91844577|NCT02550873|183570702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.7||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||1.7|-2.6|0.7424
91844578|NCT02550873|183570712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|114.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.1||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.2|207.1||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept and slope; dependent variable=raw values; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||207.1|22.2|0.0416
91844579|NCT04320615|183570719|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0|||Van Elteren Test|||||0.0|-2.5|0.3600
91844580|NCT04320615|183570720|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.448||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.08|||Log Rank|||||2.08|1.01|0.0443
91844581|NCT04320615|183570721|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.263||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.64|||Log Rank|||||1.64|0.97|0.0820
91844582|NCT04320615|183570722|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.79|||Log Rank|||||1.79|1.02|0.0370
91844583|NCT04320615|183570723|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-6.2||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.4|-13.8|0.0996
91844584|NCT04320615|183570723|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-8.9||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.0|-20.7|0.1355
91844585|NCT04320615|183570724|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.0|||Van Elteren test|||||13.0|-2.8|0.3202
91844586|NCT04320615|183570725|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-5.7||||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2|-13.7|0.1514
91844587|NCT04320615|183570725|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-14.8||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.0|-28.6|0.0290
91844588|NCT04320615|183570726|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.9|||Van Elteren test|||||2.9|-15.0|0.0454
91844589|NCT04320615|183570727|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5|||Van Elteren test|||||0.5|-2.0|0.0548
91844590|NCT04320615|183570728|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.57|0.1627
91844591|NCT04320615|183570729|OTHER||Weighted % difference|0.3||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.2|-7.6|0.9410
91844592|NCT04320615|183570730|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.307||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.72|||Log Rank|||||1.72|1.00|0.0528
91844593|NCT04320615|183570731|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.5|||Van Elteren test|||||0.5|-9.0|0.0477
91844594|NCT02107443|183570744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91844595|NCT02107443|183570745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.041
91844596|NCT02107443|183570747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above p-values is for 4-6 weeks.|The above values are for 4-6 weeks.|||1.98|0.12|0.03
91785315|NCT02745080|183451131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.87|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||1.87|0.91|0.1498
91844597|NCT02107443|183570747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above p-value is for is for 3 months.|The above values are for 3 months|||1.77|-0.11|.08
91844598|NCT02107443|183570747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above p-value is for 6 months|The above values are for 6 months.|||1.59|-0.36|0.20
91844599|NCT02325713|183570832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.7|110.6||||||||110.6|83.7|
91844600|NCT02325713|183570832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.3|22.0||||||||22.0|15.3|
91844601|NCT02325713|183570832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|222.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|186.8|265.6||||||||265.6|186.8|
91785316|NCT00829504|183451157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.16||||||90.0|95.5|105.04|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.04|95.5|
91844602|NCT02325713|183570832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|238.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|198.7|285.3||||||||285.3|198.7|
91844603|NCT02325713|183570832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|82.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.5|98.3||||||||98.3|68.5|
91844604|NCT00951561|183570894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation is performed in nQuery version 5.0 with the following stipulations: alpha is 0.05; response for both ibuprofen and Vipon is 85%; delta is 10%; no difference in response rates is expected between the two treatment arms, and power is 80%. This calculation is performed for an equivalence/non-inferiority primary analysis.|Difference in % of Uses from Mixed Model|-1.6|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91844605|NCT02092987|183570895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||interaction term|||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis testing in changes in mean from baseline to follow-up were were conducted primarily with mixed models. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using ANOVA.||||0.70
91899712|NCT02021292|183693702|SUPERIORITY||Model-adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.81||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||The same statistical model as for the predefined analysis (ANCOVA) was applied, including 13 subjects with corrected hemodynamic values.||0.95|0.70|0.0098
91844606|NCT02092987|183570896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||comparison of arms using mixed models|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91844607|NCT02092987|183570897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
91844608|NCT02092987|183570898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
91844609|NCT02092987|183570899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
91844610|NCT02092987|183570900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
91844611|NCT02092987|183570901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
91844612|NCT02967016|183570910|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative Steps 6 h||||0.002
91844613|NCT02967016|183570910|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 12 h||||.0002
91844614|NCT02967016|183570910|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 24 h||||.0006
91844615|NCT02967016|183570910|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 36 h||||0.0006
91844616|NCT02967016|183570910|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 48 h||||0.03
91844617|NCT02967016|183570911|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 6 h||||0.06
91844618|NCT02967016|183570911|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 12 h||||.30
91844619|NCT02967016|183570911|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 24 h||||.002
91844620|NCT02967016|183570911|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 36 h||||0.003
91844621|NCT02967016|183570911|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest at 48 h||||.02
91844622|NCT02967016|183570912|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 6 h||||.43
91844623|NCT02967016|183570912|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 12 h||||.24
91844624|NCT02967016|183570912|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 24 h||||.012
91844625|NCT02967016|183570912|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 36 h||||<0.0001
91844626|NCT02967016|183570912|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 48 h||||.0005
91650090|NCT01335477|183192581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743|<|0.0001||95.0|2.76|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.67|2.76|<0.0001
91650091|NCT01335477|183192584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.286||||0.1833||95.0|0.89|1.86|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted||1.86|0.89|0.1833
91650092|NCT01335477|183192585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.794||||0.0011||95.0|1.26|2.55|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted.||2.55|1.26|0.0011
91650093|NCT01335477|183192586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.664||||0.0218||95.0|1.08|2.57|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, baseline SGRQ total score||2.57|1.08|0.0218
91650094|NCT01335477|183192587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.675||0.4019||95.0|-4.69|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component-by-visit and random effect for patient.||1.88|-4.69|0.4019
91650095|NCT01335477|183192588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.342||0.022||95.0|-5.71|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient error are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ impact component, baseline SGRQ impact component-by-visit and random effect for patient||-0.45|-5.71|0.0220
91650096|NCT01335477|183192589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0152||95.0|-5.97|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Activities component, baseline SGRQ Activities component-by-visit and random effect for patient||-0.64|-5.97|0.0152
91650097|NCT01335477|183192590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.0089||95.0|-5.46|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ-I Total score, baseline SGRQ-I Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||-0.79|-5.46|0.0089
91650098|NCT01335477|183192591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.685||0.1587||95.0|-5.68|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SOBQ score, baseline SOBQ score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.93|-5.68|0.1587
91650099|NCT01335477|183192592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.713||0.2326||95.0|-1.31|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.41|-1.31|0.2326
91650100|NCT01335477|183192593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.564||0.2475||95.0|-1.26|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.88|-1.26|0.2475
91650101|NCT01335477|183192594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.379||||0.069||95.0|0.98|1.95|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with term treatment||1.95|0.98|0.0690
91650102|NCT01335477|183192596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.007||95.0|0.19|0.77|||Normal distribution|Risk ratio was calculated as the ratio of risk of exacerbation in both treatment groups.|Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|The log of the risk ratio was assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance equal to the sum of the reciprocals of the number of patients with at least one exacerbation in each treatment arm.||0.77|0.19|0.0070
91650103|NCT01335477|183192597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2995||95.0|0.4|1.35|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.35|0.40|0.2995
91899713|NCT02021292|183693703|SUPERIORITY||Model-adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.79||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||||0.93|0.68|0.0061
91650104|NCT01335477|183192598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6654||95.0|0.39|1.9|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.90|0.39|0.6654
91650105|NCT01335477|183192599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.2209||95.0|0.34|1.35|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.35|0.34|0.2209
91785317|NCT00829504|183451158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.76||||||90.0|95.45|108.49|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.49|95.45|
91785318|NCT00829504|183451159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.1||||||90.0|95.64|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109|95.64|
91785319|NCT02248675|183451161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Regression, Linear|multiple regression controlling for baseline values of the dependent variable was used to examine between group effects at post-treatment||||||.153
91650106|NCT01335477|183192600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1664||95.0|0.37|1.21|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.21|0.37|0.1664
91785320|NCT02248675|183451162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.627
91785321|NCT02248675|183451163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|multiple regression controlling for baseline values of the dependent variable was used to examine between group effects at post-treatment||||||<.001
91785322|NCT02248675|183451164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|multiple regression controlling for baseline values of the dependent variable was used to examine between group effects at post-treatment||||||<.001
91785323|NCT03745820|183451170|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328|=|0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|2.37|||MMRM|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures(MMRM)model was used to analyze change from baseline of outcome measure(OM)using fixed effects of treatment group,region,study visit,study visit-by-treatment interaction,baseline value of OM,baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.37|-2.88|=0.8472
91844627|NCT04365413|183570966|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91844628|NCT04365413|183570967|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.042|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91785324|NCT03745820|183451170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.323|=|0.8053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.29|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.29|-2.94|=0.8053
91785325|NCT03745820|183451174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835|=|0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.06|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||7.06|-0.20|=0.0637
91785326|NCT03745820|183451174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.844|=|0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|7.06|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||7.06|-0.23|=0.0659
91785327|NCT03745820|183451175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.5|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||0.50|-0.32|=0.6653
91650107|NCT01335477|183192601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2123||95.0|0.55|1.16|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.16|0.55|0.2123
91785328|NCT03745820|183451175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.51|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||0.51|-0.30|=0.6140
91844629|NCT01323660|183571023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|25.0||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|91.0||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||91.0|-41.0|0.456
91785329|NCT03745820|183451176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.033|=|0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.94|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.94|-3.14|=0.2886
91844630|NCT01323660|183571023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|74.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|143.4||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||143.4|6.0|0.033
91844631|NCT01323660|183571023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|30.6||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|88.0||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||88.0|-26.8|0.295
91844632|NCT01323660|183571023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|44.4||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|110.6||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||110.6|-21.8|0.188
91650108|NCT01335477|183192602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.2032||95.0|-0.15|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline SpO2, baseline SpO2-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.69|-0.15|0.2032
91650109|NCT01335477|183192603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005||0.26||95.0|-0.084|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\], baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.310|-0.084|0.2600
91650110|NCT03549130|183192606|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.77||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.53||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||0.53|-2.06|0.2446
91650111|NCT03549130|183192606|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-0.14||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep Time Problems.||-0.14|-3.45|0.0333
91650112|NCT03549130|183192606|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.63||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.12||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Symptoms on Waking in the Morning.||-0.12|-3.13|0.0345
91650113|NCT03549130|183192606|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.31||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Practical Problems.||0.31|-1.72|0.1711
91785330|NCT03745820|183451176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032|=|0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.53|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.53|-1.55|=0.6349
91650114|NCT03549130|183192607|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.5063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.92||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||0.92|-1.85|0.5063
91785331|NCT03745820|183451177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.345|=|0.7372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|3.11||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Verbal Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.11|-2.21|=0.7372
91785332|NCT03745820|183451177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346|=|0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.12||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Verbal Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.12|-3.20|=0.6894
91785333|NCT03745820|183451177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.162|=|0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|0.16||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Speed of Processing: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.16|-4.44|=0.0674
91785334|NCT03745820|183451177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.161|=|0.7132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.87||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Speed of Processing: Change From Baseline at Week 12||1.87|-2.72|=0.7132
91785335|NCT03745820|183451177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.203|=|0.9428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|2.29||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Attention/Vigilance: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.29|-2.46|=0.9428
91650115|NCT03549130|183192607|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.69||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep time problems.||0.69|-2.64|0.2496
91650116|NCT03549130|183192607|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71||||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.74||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for symptoms on waking in the morning.||0.74|-2.16|0.3325
91650117|NCT03549130|183192607|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81||||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.18||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for practical problems.||0.18|-1.81|0.1088
91785336|NCT03745820|183451177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.202|=|0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|3.3||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Attention/Vigilance: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.30|-1.45|=0.4425
91785337|NCT03745820|183451177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597|=|0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|1.64||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Visual Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||1.64|-4.66|=0.3455
91785338|NCT03745820|183451177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.595|=|0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.21||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Visual Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.21|-3.09|=0.9686
91785339|NCT03745820|183451177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.351|=|0.3832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.85||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Social Cognition: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.85|-1.49|=0.3832
91785340|NCT03745820|183451177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean DIfference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.357|=|0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.75||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Social Cognition: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.75|-1.61|=0.4297
91785341|NCT03745820|183451177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.438|=|0.6245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.14||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Reasoning and Problem Solving: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.14|-3.55|=0.6245
91785342|NCT03745820|183451177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436|=|0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|4.43||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Reasoning and Problem Solving: Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.43|-1.25|=0.2698
91785343|NCT03745820|183451178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|=|0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.76||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Positive Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.76|-1.65|=0.4654
91785344|NCT03745820|183451178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608|=|0.5886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.87||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Positive Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.87|-1.53|=0.5886
91785345|NCT03745820|183451178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655|=|0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.22||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Negative Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||1.22|-1.37|=0.9079
91785346|NCT03745820|183451178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|=|0.4441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.79||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Negative Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.79|-1.78|=0.4441
91785347|NCT03745820|183451178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.017|=|0.5537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|2.79||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Total Score: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.79|-5.18|=0.5537
91785348|NCT03745820|183451178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|=|0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|2.02||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Total Score: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.02|-5.95|=0.3320
91650118|NCT03549130|183192608|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.18||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.18|-0.68|0.2513
91785349|NCT03745820|183451179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|=|0.8517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.28|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.28|-0.23|=0.8517
91785350|NCT03745820|183451179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|=|0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.25|-0.25|=0.9952
91785351|NCT04250077|183451195|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.36923076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16518156||0.02578184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0021812|0.64531855|||Agresti Caffo proportion comparison|||||0.64531855|-0.0021812|0.02578184
91785352|NCT04250077|183451196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0454545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62386242||0.00787297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18213496|35.9087741|||t-test, 1 sided|||||35.9087741|4.18213496|0.00787297
91785353|NCT04250077|183451197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.183333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.8274398||0.01387108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.356073|-5.0105927|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-5.0105927|-73.356073|0.01387108
91650119|NCT03549130|183192608|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.04||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.04|-0.78|0.0743
91785354|NCT04250077|183451198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.43728901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28323704||0.00908118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59437702|15.280201|||t-test, 1 sided|||||15.2802010|1.59437702|0.00908118
91785355|NCT04250077|183451199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47698833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68529034||0.34633293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1910435|9.14502026|||t-test, 1 sided|||||9.14502026|-6.1910435|0.34633293
91785356|NCT04250077|183451200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4285714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07315199||0.57872623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4078121|4.55066924|||t-test, 1 sided|||||4.55066924|-5.4078121|0.57872623
91785357|NCT04250077|183451201|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.29230769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81588207||0.06283641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3873203|2.97193574|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.97193574|-0.3873203|0.06283641
91785358|NCT04250077|183451202|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.11794871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16796576||0.26422281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2233244|0.43508919|||Agresti Caffo proportion comparison|||||0.43508919|-0.2233244|0.26422281
91785359|NCT02471612|183451203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.665||||||Comparing the sensitivity of APACHE-II and P-POSSUM|McNemar|||"Area under the curve (AUC) is used to measure the size of the prediction composed by the graphic display between the 'sensitivity' and the '1-specificity' relationship. AUC can range from 0.5 to 1.0 and a result of 1.0 indicates a perfect discriminatory ability. An AUC value \> 0.8 is considered good, a range between 0.60-0.80 is considered as moderate, and an AUC value \< 0.60 is regarded as poor."||||0.665
91785360|NCT00647270|183451222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|7.4|||Chi-squared||Treatment difference between adalimumab 80 mg monthly and placebo divided by the difference between adalimumab 40 mg eow and placebo.|Adalimumab 80 mg monthly versus placebo: The null hypothesis associated with this comparison stated that adalimumab 80 mg monthly would be inferior to placebo with respect to ACR20 response percentage; the alternative hypothesis was that adalimumab 80 mg monthly would be superior to placebo with respect to ACR20 response.||7.4|-13.3|0.074
91785361|NCT00647270|183451222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sensitivity analysis was proposed for the non-inferiority comparison. If the lower confidence limit of θ80 - θ40 was greater than -0.1, then the non-inferiority of adalimumab 80 mg monthly to adalimumab 40 mg eow would be claimed||||||0.74||95.0||||Non - inferiority of adalimumab 80 mg monthly compared with 40 mg eow could not be tested because the null hypothesis of the first comparison was not rejected.|Chi-squared|||The non-inferiority of adalimumab 80 mg monthly to adalimumab 40 mg every other week (eow) was to be claimed if at least 50% of the treatment effect of adalimumab 40 mg eow over placebo was to be achieved by adalimumab 80 mg monthly over placebo.||||0.74
91844633|NCT01323660|183571023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|38.8||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|96.5||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||96.5|-18.9|0.187
91785362|NCT00647270|183451223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.002
91785363|NCT00647270|183451224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.005
91785364|NCT00647270|183451224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.002
91899714|NCT02021292|183693704|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.85||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||||0.99|0.73|0.0414
91790491|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|0.348||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.348|-0.413|0.866
91785365|NCT00647270|183451225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||The ANCOVA Model was adjusted for the Baseline Measure.|ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.002
91785366|NCT00647270|183451226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||The ANCOVA Model was adjusted for Baseline Measure.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA Model was adjusted for Baseline Measure.||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.005
91785367|NCT03615040|183451227|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||A generalised linear model (assuming neg. binomial distribution) was used. The model includes the number of exacerbations during the 48 week treatment as an outcome with explanatory variables of treatment arm \& number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), and log-time on trial (in weeks) as an offset. The offset, allows for different lengths of time in the trial. Only observed exacerbations were used alongside the corresponding time period in the offset.||1.14|0.53|0.195
91650120|NCT03549130|183192608|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.55||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.1||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||-0.10|-0.99|0.0158
91650121|NCT03549130|183192608|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.0||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.00|-0.94|0.0489
91785368|NCT03615040|183451230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Calculated using mixed effect linear model with dependent variable of the outcome at baseline and follow-up time points (Week 4, 12, 24, 36, 48); explanatory variables of treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), visit time point (as categorical variable), baseline score; an interaction term between treatment and visit as fixed effects; and patient identification as a random effect.||-0.2|-6.4|0.039
91785369|NCT03615040|183451231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Calculated using mixed effect linear model with dependent variable of the outcome at baseline and follow-up time points (Week 4, 12, 24, 36, 48); explanatory variables of treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), visit time point (as categorical variable), baseline score; an interaction term between treatment and visit as fixed effects; and patient identification as a random effect.||2.00|-0.91|0.469
91785370|NCT03615040|183451232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 4||||0.90
91785371|NCT03615040|183451232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 12||||0.95
91785372|NCT03615040|183451232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 24||||0.78
91785373|NCT03615040|183451232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 36||||0.88
91785374|NCT03615040|183451232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 48||||0.78
91785375|NCT03615040|183451233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|6.2||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS total||6.2|-24.9|0.236
91785376|NCT03615040|183451233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|0.7||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS Dyspnoea||0.7|-10.6|0.083
91785377|NCT03615040|183451233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|4.7||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS Cough||4.7|-8.9|0.546
91785378|NCT03615040|183451233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.0||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS Sputum production||4.0|-7.8|0.527
91785379|NCT03615040|183451234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 12||||0.84
91785380|NCT03615040|183451234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 24||||0.52
91785381|NCT03615040|183451234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 36||||0.82
91785382|NCT03615040|183451234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 48||||0.95
91785383|NCT03615040|183451235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.06||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|18.97|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FEV1/FVC ratio: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||18.97|-0.83|0.069
91785384|NCT03615040|183451236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables of treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), visit time point (as categorical variable), baseline score and patient identification as a random effect to account for repeated measures over time was fitted for each outcome. Adjusted mean difference between treatment arms with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported. In the modified ITT population.||0.09|-0.01|0.094
91785385|NCT03615040|183451237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.52||To compare change from baseline to 48 weeks (pre and post treatment measurements), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value as a covariate was fitted. Adjusted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported.|ANCOVA|||Total Lung Capacity||0.52|-0.46|0.905
91785386|NCT03615040|183451237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.47||To compare change from baseline to 48 weeks (pre and post treatment measurements), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value as a covariate was fitted. Adjusted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported.|ANCOVA|||Residual Volume||0.47|-0.62|0.775
91785387|NCT03615040|183451238|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07||"Outcome was log transformed~Explanatory variables:~treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), log BL value, visit time point (categorical) and patient identification (random effect)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||White blood cell count||1.07|0.95|0.736
91785388|NCT03615040|183451238|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69||"Outcome was log transformed~Explanatory variables:~treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), log BL value, visit time point (categorical) and patient identification (random effect)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Eosinophil Count||0.69|0.51|<0.001
91785389|NCT03615040|183451238|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.02||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||"Outcome was log transformed~Explanatory variables:~treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), log BL value, visit time point (categorical) and patient identification (random effect)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Neutrophil Count||1.13|0.93|0.678
91899715|NCT02021292|183693705|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean difference|37.19||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|73.83||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|Statistical model is ANCOVA including 6MWD at baseline as a covariate, with treatment as factor in the model.||||73.83|0.54|0.0468
91785390|NCT03615040|183451239|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.33||A mixed effect linear model of the log outcome with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and log baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Eosinophil count||0.33|0.19|<0.001
91785391|NCT03615040|183451255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FVC (litres): Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||0.35|-0.14|0.362
91785392|NCT03615040|183451255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FVC (litre):Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||0.44|-0.61|0.713
91899716|NCT04356183|183693706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91844634|NCT01323660|183571023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-8.9||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.8|60.1||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg|||60.1|-77.8|0.801
91844635|NCT01323660|183571023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|35.2||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|93.1||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||93.1|-22.7|0.233
91844636|NCT01323660|183571023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|69.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|114.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||114.4|24.5|0.003
91844637|NCT01323660|183571023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|65.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|111.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||111.3|20.3|0.005
91844638|NCT01323660|183571024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.203|0.086|<0.001
91844639|NCT01323660|183571024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.255|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.318|0.193|<0.001
91844640|NCT01323660|183571024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.112|||<|0.001||95.0|0.061|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.163|0.061|<0.001
91844641|NCT01323660|183571024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.099|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||0.157|0.041|<0.001
91844642|NCT01323660|183571024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.132|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.183|0.081|<0.001
91844643|NCT01323660|183571024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.006||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.067|-0.055|0.849
91899717|NCT04356183|183693707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91899718|NCT04356183|183693708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91785393|NCT03615040|183451256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Pre FEV1 predicted: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||12.20|-8.63|0.711
91785394|NCT03615040|183451256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|7.1|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FVC predicted (%): Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||7.1|-27.9|0.214
91785395|NCT03615040|183451257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|1.65||To compare change from baseline to 48 weeks (pre and post treatment measurements), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value as a covariate was fitted. Adjusted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported.|ANCOVA|||Residual Volume/Total Lung Capacity ratio.||1.65|-7.53|0.201
91785396|NCT03615040|183451258|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.75||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.07||A mixed effect linear model of the log outcome with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and log baseline score as fixed effects|Mixed Models Analysis|||Macrophage count||1.07|0.52|0.114
91709435|NCT04633291|183311480|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.57||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.57|-0.36|0.63
91844644|NCT01323660|183571024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.201|0.098|<0.001
91844645|NCT01323660|183571024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.243|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.284|0.202|<0.001
91709436|NCT04633291|183311481|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.08||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.08|-0.38|0.19
91844646|NCT01323660|183571024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.261|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.303|0.220|<0.001
91844647|NCT03566680|183571052|EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91844648|NCT03566680|183571053|EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91844649|NCT03566680|183571054|EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91844650|NCT03566680|183571055|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91844651|NCT03566680|183571056|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91844652|NCT03566680|183571057|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
91899719|NCT01676909|183693729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test hypothesis 1, regarding the three SF-12 subscales, a linear mixed effects models was used. All available data were used from all three assessment time points. Group, time, and group-by-time terms were included in the model. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to post-intervention, the significance test of the group-by-post-intervention coefficient was performed. A logistic mixed model for change in proportion with an ED visit was used to test hypothesis 2.||||0.362
91650122|NCT03549130|183192609|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.18||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.18|-0.57|0.3034
91785397|NCT03615040|183451259|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.79||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15||A mixed effect linear model of the log outcome with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and log baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Epithelium count||1.15|0.54|0.215
91785398|NCT01024309|183451266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Apriori level of significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum was used||||||.04
91785399|NCT01024309|183451267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||||||0.08
91785400|NCT01024309|183451268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.04
91785401|NCT01024309|183451269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.22
91785402|NCT01024309|183451270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||.0029
91785403|NCT01024309|183451271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.13
91785404|NCT01024309|183451272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum||||||0.29
91785405|NCT01024309|183451273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.23
91785406|NCT01024309|183451274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcox Rank Sum Test||||||0.49
91790492|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91785407|NCT01743001|183451275|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-4.7||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|13.5||To control for multiplicity across the primary and secondary endpoints, all secondary endpoints were analyzed hierarchically according to order and significance as pre-specified in the protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment group, presence of DS (yes/no), and WHO FC (II vs III/IV) as categorical factors, and baseline 6MWD value as covariate||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between macitentan and placebo for the mean change from baseline to Week 16 in 6MWD. Null hypothesis was tested by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||13.5|-22.8|0.6120
91650123|NCT03549130|183192609|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.4891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.27||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.27|-0.57|0.4891
91790493|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.238||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.238|-0.514|0.471
91790494|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790495|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.493|0.287||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.287|-0.493|0.604
91650124|NCT03549130|183192609|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.9498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.4||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||0.40|-0.43|0.9498
91650125|NCT03549130|183192609|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.1||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.10|-0.83|0.1235
91650126|NCT03549130|183192610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8498||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.8498
91650127|NCT03549130|183192610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4652||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.4652
91650128|NCT03549130|183192610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4390
91650129|NCT03549130|183192610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2997||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.2997
91650130|NCT03549130|183192610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1116||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.1116
91650131|NCT03549130|183192610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5101||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.5101
91650132|NCT03549130|183192610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.4740
91650133|NCT03549130|183192610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2787||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.2787
91650134|NCT03549130|183192611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5958||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.5958
91844653|NCT04227340|183571062|OTHER|The count, percentage and confidence interval will be calculated for allogeneic HCT patients who receive PBM and develop Grade 3 mucositis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.356|||||Odds of grade 3 in Allogeneic group compared to historical rates. The study efficacy of mucositis reduction by 20% with an estimation of 51% developing grade 3 mucositis.|The count, percentage and confidence interval were calculated for allogeneic HCT participants who receive PBM and developed Grade 3 mucositis. Whether the percentage of the prospective sample is significantly different from the estimated rate of 71% was accessed.||0.356|0.091|
91844654|NCT04227340|183571063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcox Rank Sum|||||||0.03
91844655|NCT04227340|183571065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91650135|NCT03549130|183192611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7296||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.7296
91650136|NCT03549130|183192611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7171||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.7171
91844656|NCT04227340|183571067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91844657|NCT04227340|183571069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1
91650137|NCT03549130|183192611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4030
91650138|NCT03549130|183192611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4741||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.4741
91844658|NCT04227340|183571071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91844659|NCT04003974|183571073|OTHER|Mean DUX4 activity was derived for each participant at each time point (Baseline and post-Baseline) based on normalized gene expression values for the 6-gene panel. Changes from Baseline to post-Baseline were analyzed using an ANCOVA model.|Least square mean difference|0.4284||||0.5621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0376|1.8945|||ANCOVA||Results are expressed as difference in Least-Squares (LS) means of the changes from Baseline to post-Baseline in DUX4 activity for each group, losmapimod and placebo.|||1.8945|-1.0376|0.5621
91650139|NCT03549130|183192611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5591||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.5591
91650140|NCT03549130|183192611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8285||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.8285
91650141|NCT03549130|183192611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3487||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.3487
91650142|NCT01078623|183192612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.174|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and baseline values at each period as a covariate||||0.268|0.174|<0.0001
91650143|NCT01078623|183192612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.186|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and baseline values at each period as a covariate||||0.281|0.186|<0.0001
91650144|NCT00621686|183192641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
91785408|NCT01743001|183451276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.24||The secondary efficacy endpoints were analyzed hierarchically as this approach eliminated the requirement for further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for randomized treatment group and location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid / post-tricupsid ) as factors.||For this secondary endpoint of WHO functional class, the improvement from baseline to Week 16 in WHO functional class was evaluated. The null hypothesis is the odds of improvement are the same in the placebo and the macitentan group.||1.24|0.23|0.1450
91785409|NCT01743001|183451277|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.08||||0.6818||95.0|-0.29|0.44||The secondary efficacy endpoints were analyzed hierarchically as this approach eliminated the requirement for further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect(pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors, baseline Borg dyspnea index as covariate||The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 in the Borg dyspnea index is the same in the macitentan and in the placebo group.||0.44|-0.29|0.6818
91785410|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.0||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.1|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Physical Functioning.||3.1|-5.0|0.6431
91785411|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.4||||0.5988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Physical.||3.9|-6.7|0.5988
91650145|NCT01797120|183192650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.92|||Log Rank|Log rank test was stratified on ECOG performance status, measurable disease, and prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease||||0.92|0.40|0.02
91790496|NCT02880956|183460066|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91650146|NCT01797120|183192651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91650147|NCT01797120|183192652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
91899720|NCT01676909|183693730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test hypothesis 1, regarding the three SF-12 subscales, a linear mixed effects models was used. All available data were used from all three assessment time points. Group, time, and group-by-time terms were included in the model. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to post-intervention, the significance test of the group-by-post-intervention coefficient was performed. A logistic mixed model for change in proportion with an ED visit was used to test hypothesis 2.||||0.026
91650148|NCT00992264|183192672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.51|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months in intent to treat sample. Participants receiving content written in a Prescriptive tone were compared against persons receiving content in a Motivational tone (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Prescriptive message tone (n = 932) against persons assigned to Motivational message tone (n = 933).||1.51|0.51|
91785412|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.1||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Pain Index.||6.2|-5.9|0.9642
91785413|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|3.1||||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of General Health Perceptions.||7.3|-1.2|0.1542
91899721|NCT01676909|183693731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test hypothesis 1, regarding the three SF-12 subscales, a linear mixed effects models was used. All available data were used from all three assessment time points. Group, time, and group-by-time terms were included in the model. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to post-intervention, the significance test of the group-by-post-intervention coefficient was performed. A logistic mixed model for change in proportion with an ED visit was used to test hypothesis 2.||||0.032
91899722|NCT01676909|183693732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A logistic mixed effects model over two 6-month time periods (prior to baseline and between baseline and the 6-month follow-up visit) was used. Terms in the model included group, binary time (pre-f/u versus pre-baseline), and group by time interaction. Two-sided alpha = .05 level tests were used. The hypothesis that the proportion with ER visits would decrease in the Living Well group versus the control group was tests by test of the interaction term.||||.64
91899723|NCT01676909|183693733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||<.0001
91899724|NCT01676909|183693734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.038
91899725|NCT01676909|183693735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.544
91785414|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|1.1||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Vitality.||5.3|-3.1|0.6020
91785415|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.4||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Social Functioning.||4.4|-7.2|0.6340
91785416|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-2.8||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Emotional.||3.0|-8.7|0.3384
91785417|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-2.3||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Mental Health Index.||1.8|-6.4|0.2704
91785418|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-0.4||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Physical Functioning (norm-based).||1.3|-2.1|0.6431
91785419|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-0.6||||0.5988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Physical (norm-based).||1.5|-2.6|0.5988
91785420|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.1||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Pain Index (norm-based).||2.6|-2.5|0.9642
91785421|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|1.5||||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of General Health Perceptions (norm-based).||3.5|-0.6|0.1542
91785422|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.6||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Vitality (norm-based).||2.6|-1.5|0.6020
91785423|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-0.6||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Social Functioning (norm-based).||1.9|-3.1|0.6340
91785424|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.3||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Emotional (norm-based).||1.4|-4.1|0.3384
91785425|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.3||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Mental Health Index.||1.0|-3.6|0.2704
91785426|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.7||||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the Physical Component Summary Score.||2.3|-1.0|0.4332
91785427|NCT01743001|183451278|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.1||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the Mental Component Summary Score.||1.2|-3.4|0.3416
91785428|NCT02657408|183451281|EQUIVALENCE|confirmatory statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.27||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.87|||ANOVA|||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.87|0.86|0.3043
91785429|NCT02657408|183451282|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.16||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.16|0.88|
91785430|NCT02657408|183451283|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|4.03||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||4.03|0.59|
91785431|NCT02657408|183451284|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|2.85||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||2.85|0.49|
91844660|NCT02400307|183571092|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|Geometric Least-Square Mean (GLSM) Ratio|72.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.8|108.1||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||108.10|48.80|
91785432|NCT02657408|183451285|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.83||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.83|0.91|
91785433|NCT02657408|183451286|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.18||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.18|0.90|
91650149|NCT00992264|183192672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.91|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months when persons who randomly received a Testimonial were compared against persons receiving No Testimonial (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Testimonials (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive no testimonials (n = 932).||1.91|0.66|
91785434|NCT02657408|183451287|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.53||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.53|0.91|
91844661|NCT02400307|183571093|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|99.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.49|124.04||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||124.04|79.49|
91851755|NCT01192542|183587183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin of 0.05 (1/2 LogMAR line) was used.|Least-square mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons between two lenses were carried out using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for least-square mean differences.|The mean difference is calculated as: Test lens - Control lens.|The alternative hypothesis is the monocular visual acuity of the galyfilcon A prototype lens is non-inferior to that of the enfilcon A lens.||0.003|-0.022|
91785435|NCT02657408|183451288|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.09||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.09|0.80|
91785436|NCT02657408|183451289|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.28||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.28|0.51|
91785437|NCT02657408|183451290|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.97||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||0.97|0.43|
91785438|NCT05498701|183451300|OTHER||Ratios of Adjusted Geometric Means|93.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.1|99.7||||||Bioequivalence of the Test treatment (Tafamidis free acid 12.2 mg oral tablet \[Fasted\]) to Reference treatment (Tafamidis meglumine 20 mg oral capsule \[Fasted\]) was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of adjusted geometric means for tafamidis AUCinf fell entirely within the acceptance region of (80%,125%).||99.70|87.10|
91785439|NCT05498701|183451301|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.0||||||90.0|76.25|86.04||||||Bioequivalence of the Test treatment (Tafamidis free acid 12.2 mg oral tablet \[Fasted\]) to Reference treatment (Tafamidis meglumine 20 mg oral capsule \[Fasted\]) was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of adjusted geometric means for tafamidis Cmax fell entirely within the acceptance region of (80%,125%).||86.04|76.25|
91785440|NCT01864005|183451302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons. statistical significance level: 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0021
91785441|NCT01864005|183451302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.421||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.559|58.283|||ANOVA|||||58.283|18.559|0.0003
91785442|NCT01864005|183451303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0828
91785443|NCT01864005|183451304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91785444|NCT01864005|183451305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91785445|NCT01864005|183451306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91785446|NCT02184572|183451309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The upper limit of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the group difference (INV\_MMR minus COM\_MMR) in incidence of fever ≥ 39.0°C (≥ 102.2°F) should be equal to or below 5%.|Difference in incidence of fever|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.89||||||Difference between groups (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) in incidence of fever \> 39.0°C.||2.89|-0.93|
91785447|NCT02184572|183451309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The upper limit of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (INV\_MMR minus COM\_MMR) in incidence of fever ≥ 38.0°C (≥ 100.4°F) should be equal to or below 10%.|Difference in incidence of fever|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|4.85||||||Difference between groups (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) in incidence of fever \> 38.0°C.||4.85|-2.89|
91785448|NCT00763698|183451330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Performance Criteria|80.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.0||||Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis|||The objective performance criteria established for freedom from left ventricular lead related complications at 3 months was greater than 80%. At least 80% of the patients were required to be free from left venticular lead related complications at 3 months.|||5|
91785449|NCT00763698|183451331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Performance Criteria|80.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|2.5||||Wilson score interval method||||||2.5|
91785450|NCT03679754|183451360|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Subjects in the Expansion trial did not have biopsies analyzed for cellular responses.|||
91785451|NCT01247272|183451370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|113.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.03|118.96|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||118.96|108.03|
91785452|NCT01247272|183451371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.18|113.69|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||113.69|102.18|
91785453|NCT01247272|183451372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.09|112.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.12|102.09|
91785454|NCT01247272|183451373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.54|107.76|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||107.76|99.54|
91785455|NCT01247272|183451374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.66|110.12|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||110.12|101.66|
91785456|NCT01247272|183451375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.27|110.61|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||110.61|101.27|
91785457|NCT00711477|183451445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.9||||||||0.90|0.50|
91785458|NCT00711477|183451446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.72|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.72|-1.83|0.380
91785459|NCT00711477|183451447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|2.07|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||2.07|-2.87|0.744
91785460|NCT00711477|183451448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.64||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.56|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.56|-3.84|0.139
91785461|NCT00711477|183451449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.24|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.24|-2.96|0.094
91785462|NCT00711477|183451450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|0.51|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.51|-5.48|0.102
91785463|NCT00711477|183451451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4||||0.16||95.0|-22.7|3.89|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||3.89|-22.7|0.160
91785464|NCT00711477|183451452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.8||||||||0.80|0.40|
91785465|NCT00711477|183451453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.0||||||||1.00|0.50|
91785466|NCT00711477|183451454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.24||||||||1.24|0.74|
91844662|NCT02400307|183571094|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|72.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.54|108.07||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||108.07|48.54|
91844663|NCT02400307|183571095|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.24|123.74||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||123.74|79.24|
91844664|NCT02400307|183571096|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|80.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.56|108.3||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||108.30|59.56|
91844665|NCT02400307|183571097|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.46|137.85||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||137.85|87.46|
91844666|NCT03248440|183571100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||2-sided Pearson's chi-square|||||||0.579
91844667|NCT03248440|183571101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||2-sided Pearson's chi-square|||||||0.082
91844668|NCT04081298|183571127|EQUIVALENCE|feasibility assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05. (feasibility assessment)|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.24
91844669|NCT04081298|183571128|EQUIVALENCE|feasibility assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.5 (feasibility assessment)|paired t-test|||||||0.43
91844670|NCT04081298|183571129|EQUIVALENCE|McNemar's test evaluates equivalence between nominal groups. Power not calculated as this is a feasibility study with small sample size.||||||0.1|||||||McNemar|||Single arm pre-post comparison at baseline and 3-month follow-up (feasibility study)||||0.10
91844671|NCT04081298|183571130|EQUIVALENCE|feasibility assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.5 (feasibility assessment)|paired-sample t-test|||||||0.20
91844672|NCT04081298|183571131|EQUIVALENCE|paired sample t-test (feasibility assessment)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||paired sample t-test|||||||0.71
91844673|NCT04081298|183571132|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis is an equivalence analysis of change (H1) in mean value from baseline to 3 month follow-up. Power was not calculated for this analysis because this is a feasibility study. The sample size is not large enough to approach appropriate power.||||||0.94|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Single arm pre-post comparison at baseline and 3-month follow-up (feasibility study)||||0.94
91844674|NCT04081298|183571133|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis is an equivalence analysis of change (H1) in mean value from baseline to 3 month follow-up using a paired-sample t-test. Power was not calculated for this analysis because this is a feasibility study. The sample size is not large enough to approach appropriate power.||||||0.03|||||||paired-sample t-test|||||||0.03
91844675|NCT04081298|183571134|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis is an equivalence analysis of change (H1) in mean value from baseline to 3 month follow-up using a paired-sample t-test. Power was not calculated for this analysis because this is a feasibility study. The sample size is not large enough to approach appropriate power.||||||0.36|||||||paired-sample t-test|||||||0.36
91844676|NCT02059161|183571135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for declaring non-inferiority was for the upper bound of the 95% CI to lie below 0.4%.|Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.19|-0.11|
91844677|NCT02059161|183571136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Percentages|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||4.0|-11.8|
91844678|NCT02059161|183571137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|10.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||10.1|-16.1|
91785467|NCT00711477|183451455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.65||||||||1.65|0.95|
91785468|NCT00711477|183451456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.57||||||||0.57|0.31|
91785469|NCT01400880|183451457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.27||||||All subjects were monitored with the electrode sensor, TOCO and IUPC. Measurements were taken with the electrode sensor vs. IUPC and were also taken with TOCO vs. IUPC and those measurements were compared to each other. These results are for TOCO and IUPC. Agreement between TOCO and IUPC. Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0.||4.27|1.70|
91844679|NCT02059161|183571140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.14|-0.18|
91844680|NCT02059161|183571141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|1.16|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.16|-4.69|
91844681|NCT02059161|183571142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.06|
91785470|NCT01400880|183451457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|4.92||||||All subjects were monitored with the electrode sensor, TOCO and IUPC. Measurements were taken with the electrode sensor vs. IUPC and were also taken with TOCO vs. IUPC and those measurements were compared to each other. These results are for the electrode sensor and IUPC. Agreement between electrode sensor and IUPC. Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0.||4.92|2.98|
91785471|NCT02695420|183451466|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|34.7|||Repeated Measures Model|||||34.7|9.6|0.0008
91785472|NCT02695420|183451466|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|42.3|||Repeated measures model|||||42.3|16.3|< 0.0001
91785473|NCT02695420|183451466|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|38.4|||Repeated measures model|||||38.4|12.6|0.0002
91785474|NCT02448641|183451468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.09||GLMM: Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Mixed Models Analysis|A GLMM with FMMS responder as outcome, treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pooled site, Baseline FMMS and Baseline mRS scores as covariates||Combined SB623 Implant Vs Sham Surgery group at Month 6||5.09|0.35|0.6743
91785475|NCT02448641|183451469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.18||GLMM: Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Mixed Models Analysis|A GLMM with mRS responder as outcome, treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pooled site and Baseline mRS scores as covariates||Combined SB623 Implant Vs Sham Surgery group at Month 6||1.18|0.15|0.1000
91785476|NCT02448641|183451472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.7788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.17||Combined SB623 vs. Sham at month 6 MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, pooled site, corresponding Baseline sub-domain T-score, Baseline mRS score, and the treatment-by-visit interaction|LSMD (Least square mean difference) (SE): -0.36 (1.283)|Statistical analysis: NeuroQOL score for the Upper Extremity Function (Represents Mean Change from Baseline in T-Scores at Month 6)||2.17|-2.90|0.7788
91785477|NCT02448641|183451472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.43||Combined SB623 vs. Sham at month 6 MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, pooled site, corresponding Baseline sub-domain T-score, Baseline mRS score, and the treatment-by-visit interaction|LSMD (Least square mean difference) (SE): 0.58 (0.934)|Statistical Analysis: NeuroQOL score for Lower Extremity Function (Represents Mean Change from Baseline in T-Scores at Month 6)||2.43|-1.26|0.5347
91785478|NCT02448641|183451474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.6||MMRM: Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, pooled site, corresponding Baseline sub-domain T-score, Baseline mRS score, and the treatment-by-visit interaction|LSMD (Least square mean difference) (SE): 1.2 (1.18)|"Change from Baseline at Month 6~Between-group Effect size is calculated as the LS mean difference divided by the model estimate of the pooled SD, obtained from the square root of the diagonal element, associated with the analysis visit summarized, from the covariance matrix."||3.6|-1.1|0.2959
91650150|NCT00992264|183192672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.02|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months when persons assigned to Dictated navigation were compared to those not assigned to Dictated navigation (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to the Dictated Navigation arm (n = 934) against persons assigned to assigned free navigation of the website (n = 931).||2.02|0.70|
91785479|NCT02448641|183451475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.92||GLMM: Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Mixed Models Analysis|A GLMM with FMMS responder as outcome, treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pooled site, Baseline FMMS and Baseline mRS scores as covariates||Combined SB623 Implant Vs Sham Surgery group at Month 6||5.92|0.31|0.6854
91785480|NCT00916929|183451476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate per patient year of follow up|1.5||||||95.0|||||exact method|95% Upper Confidence Limit of objective performance criteria||"For each patient cohort, the hypothesis is formally expressed as follows:~H0: Expected False Positive Rate ≥1.5 per patient-year of follow-up Ha: Expected False Positive Rate \<1.5 per patient-year of follow-up~The null hypothesis is rejected at the 5% significance level if the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) for expected FPR is less than 1.5 per patient-year of follow-up."||||
91790497|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.202||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.202|-0.067|0.325
91844682|NCT02059161|183571143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.2|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||22.2|-3.0|
91844683|NCT02059161|183571144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.5|-9.8|
91844684|NCT02059161|183571145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||14.3|-12.8|
91650151|NCT00992264|183192672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.3|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months when persons assigned to receive Proactive Email reminders were compared against persons who received No Emails (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Proactive Email Outreach (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive No Proactive Email Outreach (n = 932).||1.30|0.43|
91650152|NCT00992264|183192673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to Prescriptive Tone were compared to persons assigned to receive content in a Motivational Tone (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Prescriptive message tone (n = 932) against persons assigned to Motivational message tone (n = 933).||1.43|0.62|
91650153|NCT00992264|183192673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.07|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to receive a Testimonial were compared to persons assigned to receive No Testimonial (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Testimonials (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive no testimonials (n = 932).||1.07|0.46|
91650154|NCT00992264|183192673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.18|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to Dictated Navigation were compared to persons not assigned to Dictated Navigation (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to the Dictated Navigation arm (n = 934) against persons assigned to assigned free navigation of the website (n = 931).||1.18|0.51|
91844685|NCT02059161|183571147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|1.39|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.39|-4.92|
91650155|NCT00992264|183192673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.03|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to Proactive Email reminders were compared to persons not assigned to receive Proactive Email reminders (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Proactive Email Outreach (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive No Proactive Email Outreach (n = 932).||1.03|0.44|
91844686|NCT02059161|183571148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.02|-0.05|
91844687|NCT02059161|183571149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.9|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||8.9|-19.7|
91650156|NCT00909727|183192674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|18.3||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation. No imputation of missing data was done.||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). The model included absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) as the dependent variable, treatment (ivacaftor versus placebo) and visit (Day 15, Week 8, Week 16, and Week 24) as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect, with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of percent predicted FEV1.||18.3|6.6|<0.0001
91785481|NCT00916929|183451477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|50.0||||exact method|||"For each patient cohort, the hypothesis is formally expressed as follows:~H0: Sensitivity ≤ 50% Ha: Sensitivity \> 50%~The desired outcome was to reject the null hypothesis at the 5% significance level. The null hypothesis is rejected at the 5% significance level if the 95% lower confidence limit (LCL) for sensitivity is greater than 50%."|||50|
91844688|NCT02059161|183571151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|8.2|||||Longitudinal data analysis model including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||8.2|-8.9|
91844689|NCT02059161|183571152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|2.4|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||2.4|-18.6|
91785482|NCT04530136|183451506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0346|||||||Wilcoxon rank test|||||||0.0346
91785483|NCT04530136|183451507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4441|||||||WHO Ordinal Scale|||||||0.4441
91844690|NCT02059161|183571153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in %s (A1C < 7.0%)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|8.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen, stratified by prior insulin status.|||8.1|-9.7|
91844691|NCT02059161|183571153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in %s (A1C <6.5%)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|6.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen, stratified by prior insulin status.|||6.5|-8.6|
91844692|NCT02059161|183571154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference (A1C < 7.0%)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|||9.1|-8.7|
91844693|NCT02059161|183571154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference (A1C < 6.5%)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|2.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|||2.8|-11.5|
91844694|NCT02059161|183571155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Means Squares|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.48|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.48|-2.33|
91785484|NCT04530136|183451508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1021|||||||WHO Ordinal Scale for Clin Improvement|||||||0.1021
91650157|NCT00909727|183192675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.5||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation. no imputation of missing data was done.||Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). Estimates were obtained from MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit \& treatment group, \& adjustment for the continuous baseline value of percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||15.5|4.5|0.0006
91785485|NCT04530136|183451509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615|||||||WHO Ordinal Scale|||||||0.1615
91785486|NCT01309282|183451510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0078
91844695|NCT02059161|183571156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Means Squares|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.02|-0.02|
91844696|NCT02059161|183571157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|0.69|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.69|-3.69|
91899726|NCT01676909|183693736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.699
91785487|NCT01309282|183451511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0078
91785488|NCT01309282|183451512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01403|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.01403
91785489|NCT01309282|183451513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0355
91785490|NCT01309282|183451514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5469
91785491|NCT01309282|183451515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0225
91785492|NCT01309282|183451516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0225
91785493|NCT01309282|183451517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0904
91785494|NCT01309282|183451518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2969|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2969
91785495|NCT02692391|183451524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91785496|NCT02692391|183451525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91785497|NCT02692391|183451526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
91844697|NCT02059161|183571158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02||||||95.0|-0.04|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.04|
91844698|NCT02059161|183571159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.04|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.04|-2.52|
91785498|NCT02692391|183451527|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91785499|NCT01136785|183451531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||two-sided t test for the change from baseline between the treated and untreated groups.||||0.01
91785500|NCT01136785|183451532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||2-sided Paired t-test|||comparing pre and post Interstitial Glucose levels in the active CPAP group||||0.011
91785501|NCT01136785|183451533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
91785502|NCT01136785|183451534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754|||||||two-sided paired t-test|||Plasma cortisol pre and post 1-week of active CPAP||||0.754
91785503|NCT01136785|183451535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||two-sided paired t-test|||comparing pre and post levels in the active CPAP group||||0.308
91785504|NCT01136785|183451536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||two-sided paired t-test|||comparing pre and post levels in the active CPAP group||||0.036
91785505|NCT00612807|183451540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing whether slope of change over time varied by identified patient status and treatment condition.|Interaction term|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.056||95.0||||Interaction indicates that slope of change varied by identified patient status and tx condition. Slope of change in depression was significantly negative for everyone but identified patients in the control condition.|Fixed effect in multi-level model|||Utilized a hierarchical linear model with time nested within individual and individual nested within couple. Given the small sample size, we chose to include participants' baseline depression scores as a covariate, and model the trajectory of change in depression scores beginning with the second assessment, which occurred one month into the study. Additional fixed effect predictors included status as identified patient or spouse, treatment condition, time, and all possible interactions.||||0.056
91785506|NCT00612807|183451541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing whether slope of change over time varied by identified patient status and treatment condition.|Interaction term|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.32||95.0|||||Fixed effect in multi-level model|||Utilized a hierarchical linear model with time nested within individual and individual nested within couple. Given the small sample size, we chose to include participants' baseline depression scores as a covariate, and model the trajectory of change in depression scores beginning with the second assessment, which occurred one month into the study. Additional fixed effect predictors included status as identified patient or spouse, treatment condition, time, and all possible interactions.||||0.32
91785507|NCT00612807|183451541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing whether means at each timepoint varied by identified patient status and treatment condition.|Interaction term|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.005||95.0||||We probed this interaction and discovered that at each assessment, spouses in the couple therapy + medication treatment group reported greater dyadic adjustment than did spouses in the medication alone condition (b = 10.53, z = 2.72, p = 0.006).|Fixed effect in multi-level model|||Utilized a hierarchical linear model with time nested within individual and individual nested within couple. Given the small sample size, we chose to include participants' baseline depression scores as a covariate, and model the trajectory of change in depression scores beginning with the second assessment, which occurred one month into the study. Additional fixed effect predictors included status as identified patient or spouse, treatment condition, time, and all possible interactions.||||0.005
91785508|NCT03818035|183451570|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided two-group normal approximation Wald Z-test with Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights for 'disease duration' to test for non-inferiority of 100 mg q16w to 100 mg q8w with non-inferiority margin of 10%. Stratified analysis results are reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|4.5|||Wald Z-test|||||4.5|-5.7|0.0013
91785509|NCT01043939|183451594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.16||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.11||24 participants required to achieve 80% power to detect mean difference of 0.3 in RH-PAT index score between juice groups, assuming standard deviation of the difference was 0.25, using a two-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|||0.11|-0.42|0.25
91785510|NCT01043939|183451595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least square means|3.09||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.||||8.91|-2.73|0.29
91785511|NCT01043939|183451596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of means|0.92||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.|MPO was log transformed prior to analyses; the difference of log-transformed least square means (95% CI) were back-transformed to obtain the ratio of the means (95% CI).|||1.03|0.82|0.15
91785512|NCT01043939|183451597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of means|1.34||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.|hs-CRP was log transformed prior to analyses; the difference of log-transformed least square means (95% CI) were back-transformed to obtain the ratio of the means (95% CI).|||2.62|0.69|0.37
91785513|NCT00281658|183451607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94||Stratified Log-Rank (one-sided)|Log Rank||The treatment hazard ratio based on the proportional hazard model stratifying for metastatic disease sites and hormonal status. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Lapatinib 1500mg + Paclitaxel compared with Placebo + Paclitaxel.|Primary OS analysis cut-off date = 18-Jun-2010||0.94|0.58|0.0062
91785514|NCT00281658|183451608|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||||The treatment hazard ratio based on the proportional hazard model stratifying for metastatic disease sites and hormonal status. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Lapatinib 1500mg + Paclitaxel compared with Placebo + Paclitaxel.|Final OS analysis cut-0ff date = 23-Nov-2021||0.98|0.64|
91785515|NCT00281658|183451609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.66|||||The Pike estimator of the treatment hazard ratio based on the log rank test stratifying for metastatic disease sites and hormonal status. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Lapatinib 1500mg + Paclitaxel compared with Placebo + Paclitaxel.|||0.66|0.44|
91785516|NCT00281658|183451610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.47||||||||3.47|1.54|
91785517|NCT00281658|183451611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.58||||||||3.58|1.54|
91785518|NCT00281658|183451616|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.57||||||Participants with PIK3CA wild-type||7.57|1.07|
91785519|NCT00281658|183451617|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.63||||||Participants with PTEN low||4.63|1.28|
91785520|NCT00281658|183451617|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|4.82||||||Participants without PTEN low||4.82|1.04|
91785521|NCT00281658|183451619|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|6.49||||||Participants with PTEN low||6.49|1.58|
91785522|NCT00281658|183451619|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.66||||||Participants without PTEN low||5.66|1.13|
91790498|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91785523|NCT01248104|183451624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Continuous variables were compared by multivariate linear regression analysis to adjust for possible covariates of intraoperative fluids, age, bypass time, and procedure time. Tukey-Kramer test was then used to compare for specific differences between groups for each variable. Categorical data were compared using Fisher's exact test. All comparisons were made at a significance level of 0.05, and analysis was performed with Minitab version 17).||||||0.35||||||The primary outcome measure showed that there was no difference in PRBC transfusion frequency or amounts in the operating room or the in ICU up to POD 2|ANOVA|||A power analysis based on the comparison of a 15% difference in total transfusion amounts up to POD 2 between the treatment groups indicated a total sample size of 80 with a power of 0.8, confidence interval 0.9, and p= 0.05.||||0.35
91844699|NCT02059161|183571160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.03|
91785524|NCT01410357|183451637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785||||||Bonferroni corrections were conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.785
91785525|NCT01410357|183451638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.016
91785526|NCT01410357|183451639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||<0.001
91785527|NCT01410357|183451640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.003
91844700|NCT02059161|183571161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.83|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.83|-3.34|
91785528|NCT01410357|183451641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.086
91844701|NCT02059161|183571162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.04|
91844702|NCT03389893|183571166|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.033|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.131|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator.|||0.131|0.008|<0.001
91844703|NCT03389893|183571167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.28||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 3||0.80|0.09|0.019
91844704|NCT03389893|183571167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.37||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 7||1.51|0.09|0.165
91844705|NCT03389893|183571167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 14||0.27|0.02|<0.001
91844706|NCT03389893|183571167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 21||0.25|0.02|<0.001
91844707|NCT03389893|183571167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 42||0.55|0.05|0.004
91844708|NCT03389893|183571167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.38||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 77||1.80|0.08|0.216
91844709|NCT03389893|183571167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.24||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 112||1.13|0.05|0.071
91844710|NCT03389893|183571167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.34||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||0.85|0.13|0.022
91844711|NCT03389893|183571167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||0.76|0.08|0.015
91785529|NCT01410357|183451642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.872
91785530|NCT01410357|183451643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.662
91785531|NCT01410357|183451644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.633
91785532|NCT01410357|183451645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.175
91785533|NCT01410357|183451646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.680
91785534|NCT01410357|183451647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.407
91785535|NCT01410357|183451648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.870
91844712|NCT03389893|183571167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||0.41|0.04|<0.001
91844713|NCT03389893|183571167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.16||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||0.58|0.04|0.006
91844714|NCT03389893|183571168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 3||2.82|0.23|0.724
91844715|NCT03389893|183571168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.27||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 7||0.89|0.08|0.033
91844716|NCT03389893|183571168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.36||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 14||1.10|0.12|0.073
91844717|NCT03389893|183571168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 21||2.29|0.23|0.579
91844718|NCT03389893|183571168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.17||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 28||0.53|0.05|0.003
91844719|NCT03389893|183571168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 42||1.81|0.15|0.297
91844720|NCT03389893|183571168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.48||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 77||2.12|0.11|0.326
91844721|NCT03389893|183571168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 112||2.42|0.11|0.401
91785536|NCT01410357|183451649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.707|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.707
91785537|NCT01410357|183451650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.838
91785538|NCT01410357|183451651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.853
91785539|NCT01410357|183451652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.853
91785540|NCT01410357|183451653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.510
91785541|NCT01410357|183451654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.573
91785542|NCT01410357|183451655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.758
91785543|NCT01410357|183451656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.156
91785544|NCT01410357|183451657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.156
91785545|NCT01410357|183451658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91785546|NCT01410357|183451659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.878
91785547|NCT01410357|183451660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.014
91785548|NCT01410357|183451661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.227
91790499|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.088||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.088|-0.177|0.510
91790500|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790501|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.172||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.172|-0.100|0.601
91790502|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790503|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.119||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.119|-0.157|0.783
91790504|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790505|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.103||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.103|-0.165|0.646
91790506|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790507|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.05||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.050|-0.226|0.209
91790508|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790509|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.11||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.110|-0.246|0.454
91790510|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790511|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.043||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.043|-0.306|0.141
91785549|NCT01589653|183451688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4% or equivalently when the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D \> 0.4% against HA: D ≤ 0.4%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (subject-driven titration minus investigator-driven titration).|Treatment difference|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Analyses were adjusted for treatment, strata, country and baseline HbA1c||The null-hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority as given by: H0: D \> 0.4% against HA: D ≤ 0.4% where D is the mean treatment difference for change in HbA1c (subject-driven titration minus investigator-driven titration).||0.08|-0.54|<0.001
91785550|NCT01767142|183451731|OTHER||sucess proportion|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.8|90.7||||||||90.7|74.8|
91785551|NCT00635219|183451738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.51||Since p-value \>0.025, hierarchically testing stopped here.|ANCOVA||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.51|-3.92|0.1321
91785552|NCT00635219|183451738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|0.72||Since p-value \>0.025, hierarchically testing stopped here.|ANCOVA||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.72|-3.73|0.1847
91785553|NCT00635219|183451738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.2187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|0.82||This dose was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.82|-3.59|0.2187
91785554|NCT00635219|183451738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.2||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-4.27|0.0741
91785555|NCT00635219|183451739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.42||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.42|-4.01|0.1120
91785556|NCT00635219|183451739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.59||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.59|-3.85|0.1487
91785557|NCT00635219|183451739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.3246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.1||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.10|-3.31|0.3246
91785558|NCT00635219|183451739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.24||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||-0.24|-4.70|0.0298
91785559|NCT00635219|183451740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.23||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.23|0.90|0.1370
91785560|NCT00635219|183451740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.43||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.43|0.97|0.0664
91785561|NCT00635219|183451740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.12||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.12|0.85|0.2023
91785562|NCT00635219|183451740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.4||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.40|0.96|0.0765
91785563|NCT00635219|183451741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.07|-0.47|0.1436
91785564|NCT00635219|183451741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.10|-0.44|0.2114
91785565|NCT00635219|183451741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.07|-0.47|0.1389
91785566|NCT00635219|183451741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.06||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.06|-0.48|0.1271
91785567|NCT00635219|183451742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.79||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.79|-4.08|0.4421
91785568|NCT00635219|183451742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.77||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.77|-4.07|0.4399
91785569|NCT00635219|183451742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.8093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|3.4||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||3.40|-2.65|0.8093
91785570|NCT00635219|183451742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|0.41||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.41|-5.61|0.0897
91785571|NCT00635219|183451743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.52||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.52|-2.35|0.6748
91785572|NCT00635219|183451743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.25||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.25|-3.64|0.0871
91785573|NCT00635219|183451743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.96||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.96|-2.94|0.3186
91785574|NCT00635219|183451743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|0.19||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.19|-3.79|0.0768
91785575|NCT00635219|183451744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.81||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.81|0.70|0.6258
91785576|NCT00635219|183451744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.76||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.76|0.68|0.7178
91785577|NCT00635219|183451744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.55||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.55|0.59|0.8651
91785578|NCT00635219|183451744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.69||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.69|0.65|0.8563
91785579|NCT00635219|183451745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.57||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.57|-2.82|0.1925
91785580|NCT00635219|183451745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.2434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.69||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.69|-2.72|0.2434
91785581|NCT00635219|183451745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.39||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.39|-2.00|0.7246
91650158|NCT00909727|183192676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.5||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with the addition of the baseline domain score as a covariate.||13.5|-1.4|0.1092
91650159|NCT00909727|183192676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.8||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with the addition of the baseline domain score as a covariate.||11.8|-1.6|0.1354
91785582|NCT00635219|183451745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.27||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.27|-3.16|0.0981
91785583|NCT00635219|183451746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.11||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.11|-0.46|0.2285
91785584|NCT00635219|183451746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.09||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.09|-0.48|0.1794
91785585|NCT00635219|183451746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.09||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.09|-0.48|0.1741
91785586|NCT00635219|183451746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.11||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.11|-0.46|0.2247
91785587|NCT00635219|183451747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.45||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.45|-1.93|0.7789
91785588|NCT00635219|183451747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.5||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.50|-1.91|0.8121
91785589|NCT00635219|183451747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.59||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.59|-1.82|0.8918
91785590|NCT00635219|183451747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.75||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.75|-1.69|0.9720
91785591|NCT04093024|183451755|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||0.8|-0.8|0.9858
91844722|NCT03389893|183571168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||2.40|0.28|0.705
91785592|NCT04093024|183451756|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||1.6|-1.7|0.9769
91785593|NCT04093024|183451758|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.4442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||4.0|-1.8|0.4442
91785594|NCT04093024|183451761|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||1.8|-1.5|0.8820
91785595|NCT04093024|183451762|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.9652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||3.3|-3.2|0.9652
91785596|NCT04093024|183451763|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.4084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||4.0|-9.3|0.4084
91785597|NCT04093024|183451764|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||1.6|-1.6|0.9928
91844723|NCT03389893|183571168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||2.08|0.25|0.538
91844724|NCT03389893|183571168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||3.34|0.25|0.892
91844725|NCT03389893|183571168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||2.56|0.21|0.624
91844726|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.53||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|-1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference.)|Day 3, Lesional||-1.63|-17.44|0.019
91844727|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7, Lesional||9.32|-11.47|0.837
91785598|NCT04093024|183451765|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.6366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||3.6|-2.3|0.6366
91785599|NCT04093024|183451766|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.8823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||5.9|-5.2|0.8823
91785600|NCT04093024|183451767|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2491||0.5962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3966|5.807|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||5.8070|-3.3966|0.5962
91785601|NCT04093024|183451768|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7733|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1424||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7015|8.2481|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||8.2481|-4.7015|0.5776
91785602|NCT04093024|183451769|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.316||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.975|8.707|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||8.707|-8.975|0.9755
91785603|NCT04093024|183451770|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|3.453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.225||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|14.157|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||14.157|-7.250|0.5140
91785604|NCT04093024|183451771|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.358||0.7613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.848|7.908|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||7.908|-5.848|0.7613
91785605|NCT04093024|183451772|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.049||0.9468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.026|10.707|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||10.707|-10.026|0.9468
91785606|NCT04093024|183451773|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|5.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||5.02|-0.39|0.0908
91785607|NCT04093024|183451774|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|5.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||5.25|-0.69|0.1222
91785608|NCT04093024|183451775|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.2||0.8012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|65.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||65.0|-50.7|0.8012
91785609|NCT04093024|183451776|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.8||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.1|37.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||37.2|-103.1|0.3401
91844728|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|7.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14, Lesional||7.92|-6.98|0.900
91785610|NCT00435045|183451794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the non-HDL-C response was assessed by calculating the 2-sided 90% and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)for each difference in response based on comparing the effects of increases in atorvastatin dose on the percent changes from baseline to the end of each atorvastatin period, a repeated-ANOVA model was used.||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91785611|NCT03052426|183451819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9327||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSqaure 0.1394, DF 2 for aches||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for aches/pains at the three month time frame||||0.9327
91785612|NCT03052426|183451819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7523||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSquare 0.5693, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for discomfort at the three month time frame||||0.7523
91785613|NCT03052426|183451819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9196||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSquare 0.1676, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for interference at the three month time frame.||||0.9196
91785614|NCT03052426|183451820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6316||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSqaure 0.9190, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSquare Analysis were completed||||0.6316
91844729|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.97||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21, Lesional||1.82|-13.76|0.130
91844730|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28, Lesional||0.56|-14.76|0.069
91844731|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.25|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42, Lesional||-0.73|-15.25|0.032
91844732|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Lesional||7.28|-9.37|0.803
91844733|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|9.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112, Lesional||9.34|-9.02|0.972
91844734|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Lesional||6.12|-6.66|0.933
91844735|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Lesional||4.45|-8.10|0.563
91844736|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Lesional||0.73|-14.88|0.075
91844737|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.19|-2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Lesional||-2.48|-17.19|0.010
91844738|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|6.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 3, Non-lesional||6.23|-4.86|0.805
91844739|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.36||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|7.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7, Non-lesional||7.15|-2.44|0.329
91899727|NCT01676909|183693737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.006
91899728|NCT01676909|183693738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.762
91844740|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14, Non-lesional||5.60|-5.39|0.970
91844741|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21, Non-lesional||1.56|-8.18|0.180
91844742|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28, Non-lesional||1.94|-5.45|0.342
91844743|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42, Non-lesional||1.47|-5.81|0.234
91844744|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Non-lesional||2.07|-6.27|0.316
91844745|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112, Non-lesional||1.59|-5.37|0.276
91844746|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Non-lesional||1.06|-4.19|0.237
91844747|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.03||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Non-lesional||-0.77|-5.30|0.010
91899729|NCT01676909|183693739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.326
91899730|NCT01676909|183693740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.667
91899731|NCT01676909|183693741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.142
91899732|NCT01676909|183693742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.342
91899733|NCT01676909|183693743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.563
91899734|NCT01676909|183693744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.004
91899735|NCT01676909|183693745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.727
91899736|NCT01676909|183693746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.446
91899737|NCT01676909|183693747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.459
91899738|NCT01676909|183693748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.038
91899739|NCT01676909|183693749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.238
91844748|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Non-lesional||2.65|-3.57|0.770
91844749|NCT03389893|183571169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Non-lesional||0.56|-4.84|0.117
91650160|NCT00909727|183192677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.8|-46.8||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for sweat chloride and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), using unstructured covariance matrix.||-46.8|-61.8|<0.0001
91650161|NCT00909727|183192677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.9|-46.0||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for sweat chloride and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), using unstructured covariance matrix.||-46.0|-60.9|<0.0001
91650162|NCT00909727|183192678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.9||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 24: Analysis for this variable was based on a Linear Mixed Effect (LME) model with dependent variable weight; treatment as a fixed effect; and intercept, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||2.9|0.9|0.0004
91650163|NCT00909727|183192678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.2||P-value is for the treatment effect at Week 48 (obtained as a linear contrast of treatment at Day 336). There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 48: Analysis for this variable was based on a Linear Mixed Effect (LME) model with random intercept and random slope, treatment as a fixed effect, and visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for categorical baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||4.2|1.3|0.0002
91650164|NCT02491788|183192723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91650165|NCT00672620|183192724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.46||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors, baseline HAM-D24 as covariate.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and with P-values evaluated at the 5% significance level (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 5 mg and 2.5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||1.46|-2.61|0.577
91650166|NCT00672620|183192724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors, baseline HAM-D24 as covariate.||||0.50|-3.58|0.138
91650167|NCT00672620|183192724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.047||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-0.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors, baseline HAM-D24 as covariate.||||-0.91|-5.02|0.005
91785615|NCT03052426|183451820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2595||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSqaure 2.6983, DF||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for discomfort at the six month time frame.||||0.2595
91785616|NCT03052426|183451820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4495||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSquare 1.5991, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for interference at the six month time frame||||0.4495
91650168|NCT02965820|183192741|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.0030
91650169|NCT03051256|183192757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0122|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0122
91650170|NCT03051256|183192757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0308
91650171|NCT03051256|183192758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0103|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0103
91650172|NCT03051256|183192758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0039
91785617|NCT03052426|183451821|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Aches (F-test G-G Epsilon (1.26, 15.18) = 34.70, p \< 0.0001)|MANOVA|||Three and six month results were combined and compared to baseline data for each of the outcome variables. Repeated measures MANOVAs with pairwise comparisons were used to examine the decrease of variables over time from time 1 to times 2 and 3.||||<0.0001
91785618|NCT03052426|183451821|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006||||||Uncomfortable (F-test G-G Epsilon (1.43, 17.15) = 14.39, p = 0.0006), from time 1 to times 2 and 3|MANOVA|||Three and six month results were combined and compared to baseline data for each of the outcome variables. Repeated measures MANOVAs with pairwise comparisons were used to examine the decrease of variables over time from time 1 to times 2 and 3.||||=0.0006
91650173|NCT03051256|183192759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1237|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1237
91650174|NCT03051256|183192759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1017
91650175|NCT03051256|183192760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0066
91650176|NCT03051256|183192760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0014
91650177|NCT03051256|183192761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0245|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0245
91650178|NCT03051256|183192761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0253|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0253
91650179|NCT03051256|183192762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0454|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0454
91650180|NCT03051256|183192762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0043
91650181|NCT03051256|183192763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0177
91650182|NCT03051256|183192763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0072
91844750|NCT03389893|183571170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85.05||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|182.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7||182.12|-12.02|0.085
91844751|NCT03389893|183571170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.91||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.13|105.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14||105.32|-149.13|0.733
91844752|NCT03389893|183571170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.5||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.6|24.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21||24.61|-189.60|0.129
91844753|NCT03389893|183571170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-92.11||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.11|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28||2.89|-187.11|0.057
91844754|NCT03389893|183571170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.76||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.52|34.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42||34.00|-131.52|0.242
91844755|NCT03389893|183571170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.37||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.24|41.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Lesional||41.49|-150.24|0.262
91844756|NCT03389893|183571170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.97||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.79|53.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112||53.86|-99.79|0.546
91844757|NCT03389893|183571170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.34|42.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42||42.75|-86.34|0.503
91844758|NCT03389893|183571170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.01|-4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42||-4.98|-123.01|0.034
91844759|NCT03389893|183571170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.29||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.63|66.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42||66.04|-86.63|0.789
91844760|NCT03389893|183571170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.9||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.82|-17.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42||-17.98|-149.82|0.014
91844761|NCT03389893|183571171|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7||0.77|-0.92|0.860
91844762|NCT03389893|183571171|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14||0.41|-0.85|0.488
91844763|NCT03389893|183571171|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.55||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21||0.20|-1.30|0.144
91844764|NCT03389893|183571171|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28||0.30|-1.00|0.279
91844765|NCT03389893|183571171|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42||0.50|-1.09|0.461
91844766|NCT03389893|183571171|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Lesional||0.30|-0.84|0.345
91844767|NCT03389893|183571171|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112||0.23|-0.77|0.275
91844768|NCT00958009|183571196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean positive response|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93|||||Confidence Interval calculated from normal approximation to the binomial. The primary objective was met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is \>0.50.|||0.93|0.80|
91844769|NCT00087490|183571209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|4.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.5|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI).||11.5|-3.0|0.249
91709437|NCT04633291|183311482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.6||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Proportional odds model|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is evaluated easier than the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is evaluated easier than the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||6.60|0.47|0.381
91844770|NCT00087490|183571210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|3.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.5|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||9.5|-1.7|0.168
91650183|NCT03051256|183192764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0895
91650184|NCT03051256|183192764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0109
91650185|NCT01578707|183192778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91650186|NCT01578707|183192779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
91650187|NCT01578707|183192780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1653|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1653
91650188|NCT02063698|183192784|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||1.0
91650189|NCT02063698|183192784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.45
91650190|NCT02063698|183192784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 4: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.38
91650191|NCT02063698|183192784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 5: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.12
91650192|NCT02063698|183192784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 6: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.70
91650193|NCT02063698|183192784|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||1.0
91650194|NCT02063698|183192784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 8: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.44
91650195|NCT02063698|183192785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Equal variance t-test|||||||0.44
91650196|NCT02063698|183192786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Equal variance t-test|||||||0.13
91650197|NCT02063698|183192788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91650198|NCT02063698|183192789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91650199|NCT02063698|183192790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91650200|NCT02063698|183192791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91650201|NCT02063698|183192792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91650202|NCT00449930|183192794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4%; i.e., non-inferiority required that the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) to be less than 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||||95.0|0.06|0.21|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment group and baseline value.|||0.21|0.06|
91650203|NCT00449930|183192795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-10.6|-4.2|||Fisher Exact||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with diarrhea.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% Confidence Interval (CI)."|||-4.2|-10.6|<0.001
91650204|NCT00449930|183192796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||0.032||95.0|-3.9|-0.2|||Fisher Exact||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with nausea.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% CI."|||-0.2|-3.9|0.032
91650205|NCT00449930|183192797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.103||95.0|-4.0|0.3|||Fisher Exact||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with abdominal pain.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% CI."|||0.3|-4.0|0.103
91650206|NCT00449930|183192798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||||95.0|-2.4|0.2|||||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with vomiting.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% CI."|||0.2|-2.4|
91785619|NCT03052426|183451821|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Interference (F-test G-G Epsilon (1.55, 18.66) = 34.09, p \< 0.0001), from time 1 to times 2 and 3.|MANOVA|||We used repeated measures MANOVAs with pairwise comparisons to examine the decrease of the variables over time. Significant differences for within subjects by time were found||||<0.0001
91785620|NCT00865280|183451853|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.5|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.5|-12.4|
91785621|NCT00865280|183451854|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|8.3|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.3|-15.5|
91785622|NCT00865280|183451855|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|26.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||26.6|-11.2|
91785623|NCT00865280|183451856|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||7.6|-8.3|
91785624|NCT00865280|183451857|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|26.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||26.6|-11.2|
91899740|NCT01676909|183693750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.011
91844771|NCT00087490|183571211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|7.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|14.2|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||14.2|0.1|0.048
91844772|NCT00087490|183571212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|4.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|10.3|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||10.3|-0.7|0.090
91844773|NCT00087490|183571213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|6.6||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|15.0|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||15.0|-1.9|0.127
91844774|NCT00087490|183571214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|16.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|24.2|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||24.2|9.0|0.000
91844775|NCT00087490|183571215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|7.7||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.4|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||15.4|-0.0|0.051
91650207|NCT00575328|183192806|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is a test of statistical significance to evaluate whether the results are consistent with the assumption of there being no difference in the clinical improvement (i.e. change in ASEX score) of the two treatments (null hypothesis).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|12.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. P value for significance set a priori at P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in clinical improvement (i.e. change in ASEX score) between treatment arms. No formal power analysis was carried out, given the small study sample.|The analysis is not truly informative, since the analyzable sample (n=6) was too small. Results should be viewed with caution.|12.3|-8.7|0.62
91844776|NCT00087490|183571216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|15.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|21.8|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||21.8|8.2|0.000
91785625|NCT00865280|183451858|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||7.6|-8.3|
91785626|NCT00329797|183451860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Log Rank|||The study is designed to show a 40% relative reduction in the yearly ABF hazard rate, equivalent to an improvement in a 3-year FABF rate from 88% to 92.6%. A sample size of 1030 analyzable patients with a one-sided log-rank test at α = 0.05, was calculated to provide 80% statistical power, with one interim analysis and a final analysis for efficacy using Haybittle-Peto boundaries.||||0.95
91844777|NCT00087490|183571219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha = 0.05 was the level of significance if the null hypothesis was rejected.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the treatment groups.||||0.022
91844778|NCT00087490|183571220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha = 0.05 was the level of significance if the null hypothesis was rejected.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the treatment groups.||||0.016
91844779|NCT00087490|183571221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000
91844780|NCT00087490|183571222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000
91844781|NCT01925170|183571224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the two groups for all densities, significant difference p ≤ 0.05.||||<0.001
91844782|NCT01925170|183571224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of two groups for all densities; significant difference p ≤ 0.05.||||0.004
91844783|NCT01925170|183571225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
91844784|NCT01925170|183571225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.0001
91844785|NCT01925170|183571226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||< 0.001
91844786|NCT01925170|183571226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||0.004
91844787|NCT01925170|183571227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||< 0.001
91844788|NCT01925170|183571227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
91844789|NCT01925170|183571228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
91844790|NCT01925170|183571228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
91844791|NCT03862482|183571240|EQUIVALENCE|Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, two-way mixed-effect model) assessed inter- and intra-examiner reliability of bone level measurement on 20 radiographs. Dahlberg measurement error. Two-way, mixed effect model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.49||Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA. Dahlberg measurement error||Total 35 Brånemark® implants analyzed for all Configurations. Size difference expected 0.95 bone level change between B/SW/SC. Sample size 16 participants ensured 80% power to reject null hypothesis (two-sided Bonferroni-adjusted α level 0.017, pairwise comparisons between implant groups). Repeated measures ANOVA. Mixed models, repeated measures within subject. Implant type/site/configuration independent variables (length covariate). (B/SW/SC lengths compared with Kruskal-Wallis test)||-0.49|-1.22|<0.05
91844792|NCT03862482|183571240|EQUIVALENCE|Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, two-way mixed-effect model) assessed inter- and intra-examiner reliability of bone level measurement on 20 radiographs. Dahlberg measurement error. Two-way, mixed effect model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.64||Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA. Dahlberg measurement error||Total 36 Swede-Vent® implants analyzed for all Configurations. Size difference expected 0.95 bone level change between B/SW/SC. Sample size 16 participants ensured 80% power to reject null hypothesis (two-sided Bonferroni-adjusted α level 0.017, pairwise comparisons between implant groups). Repeated measures ANOVA. Mixed models, repeated measures within subject. Implant type/site/configuration independent variables (length covariate). (B/SW/SC lengths compared with Kruskal-Wallis test)||-0.64|-1.35|<0.05
91844793|NCT03862482|183571240|EQUIVALENCE|Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, two-way mixed-effect model) assessed inter- and intra-examiner reliability of bone level measurement on 20 radiographs. Dahlberg measurement error. Two-way, mixed effect model|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-1.41||Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA. Dahlberg measurement error||Total 36 Screw-Vent® implants analyzed for all Configurations. Size difference expected 0.95 bone level change between B/SW/SC. Sample size 16 participants ensured 80% power to reject null hypothesis (two-sided Bonferroni-adjusted α level 0.017, pairwise comparisons between implant groups). Repeated measures ANOVA. Mixed models, repeated measures within subject. Implant type/site/configuration independent variables (length covariate). (B/SW/SC lengths compared with Kruskal-Wallis test)||-1.41|-2.13|<0.05
91844794|NCT02300311|183571248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.849|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.454|-1.244||The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, time and treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|REML based repeated measures approach|restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach|Differences between the treatment group effects (Finalgon® cream - placebo).|"PID8 utilised a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach, using all available longitudinal pain intensity observations at each post-baseline time up to 8 hours.~The statistical model was applied to the analysis of change from baseline in pain intensity at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 hours."||-1.244|-2.454|<0.0001
91844795|NCT02300311|183571249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.832|-0.851||The statistical model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, time and treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|REML based repeated measures approach|restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach|Differences between the treatment group effects (Finalgon® cream - placebo)|"PID4 utilised a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach, using all available longitudinal pain intensity observations at each post-baseline time up to 4 hours.~The statistical model was applied to the analysis of change from baseline in pain intensity at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 hours."||-0.851|-1.832|<0.0001
91709438|NCT04633291|183311483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.8||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|34.0||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Proportional odds model|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|"OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is evaluated easier than the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is evaluated easier than the investigational device.~Of note: Log transformed estimates."|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||34.00|-18.40|0.541
91785627|NCT00329797|183451861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Lumbar||||<0.0001
91844796|NCT02300311|183571250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.958|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.712|-2.205|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA using the fixed, categorical effects of treatment and country as well as the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Differences between the treatment group effects (Finalgon® cream - placebo)|The difference of average pain intensity from pre-dose baseline on the last individual treatment day was analysed using ANCOVA.||-2.205|-3.712|<0.0001
91844797|NCT02300311|183571251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.342|24.199|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression models adjusting for the continuous covariate 'baseline PI' and the categorical variable 'country' was performed.|Odds ratio of (Finalgon® cream / placebo)|"For the analysis of the repeated multinomial efficacy endpoint 'patient assessment of efficacy' on the last individual treatment day, ordinal logistic regression models is used.~Only non-missing data is analysed in the statistical model."||24.199|5.342|<0.0001
91844798|NCT00848211|183571258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
91844799|NCT00848211|183571260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
91844800|NCT00994279|183571289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is that the two arms will not differ in retention at 14 weeks.||||.53
91844801|NCT00994279|183571290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that the two groups would not differ in fatigue at 10 weeks.||||.98
91785628|NCT00329797|183451861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Hip - right||||0.47
91785629|NCT00329797|183451861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Hip - left||||0.0002
91785630|NCT00329797|183451861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Femoral - right||||0.076
91785631|NCT00329797|183451861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Femoral - left||||0.0007
91785632|NCT00329797|183451862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical subscale||||0.33
91785633|NCT00329797|183451862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Social subscale||||0.82
91785634|NCT00329797|183451862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional subscale||||0.51
91785635|NCT00329797|183451862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Functional subscale||||0.25
91785636|NCT00329797|183451862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Total||||0.63
91785637|NCT01901250|183451869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Permutation test|Adjusted for child's gender, caries burden at study entry, surface-years at risk, and study cohort.||||||0.25
91785638|NCT01980485|183451890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study had 87% power to detect a 40% increase in 28-dayabstinence rates (i.e., from 50% to 70%) based on a two-tailed chi-squared test and alpha = 0.05. We selected this effect size as being at the lower end of the effect size continuum that would be clinically meaningful at 28 days and have the potential to still be meaningful in the longer term even with similar relapse rates in both groups over subsequent months.||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.65
91785639|NCT02633020|183451893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.7||0.7451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.26|20.56|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline % aberrant IELs vs total IELs as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||20.56|-30.26|0.7451
91785640|NCT02633020|183451894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.48||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.73|19.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline % aberrant IELs vs intestinal epithelial cells as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||19.29|-95.73|0.1803
91785641|NCT02633020|183451895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.0||0.6607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.97|60.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline VH:CD ratio as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||60.31|-38.97|0.6607
91785642|NCT02633020|183451896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.9204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.01|0.20|0.9204
91785643|NCT02633020|183451897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.34||0.6885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.57|52.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA) model with baseline total IEL counts as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||52.12|-77.57|0.6885
91785644|NCT02633020|183451898|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.8|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model with subject as a random effect and treatment group, time (week) and their interaction as fixed effects.||||1.8|0.77|0.4469
91785645|NCT02633020|183451900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.26|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|Linear mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline value, treatment group, time point and time point-by-treatment group as fixed effects.||||0.26|-0.53|0.4832
91844802|NCT01606189|183571291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Box Scale-11 pain scores were compared between treatment groups using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.18|-0.98|0.005
91844803|NCT01606189|183571291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.24|||ANOVA|||Box Scale-11 pain scores were compared between treatment groups using an ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.24|-1.03|0.002
91844804|NCT01606189|183571292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04|||ANOVA|||Sleep disturbance scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep disturbance Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.04|-0.37|0.017
91844805|NCT01606189|183571292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.16|||ANOVA|||Sleep disturbance scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep disturbance Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.16|-0.49|<0.001
91899741|NCT01676909|183693751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.709
91899742|NCT01676909|183693752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.134
91899743|NCT01676909|183693753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.045
91899744|NCT01676909|183693754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.099
91899745|NCT01676909|183693755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.852
91785646|NCT02633020|183451901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.5561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.35|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|Linear mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline value, treatment group, time point and a time point-by-treatment group as fixed effects.||||0.35|-0.64|0.5561
91899746|NCT01676909|183693756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.285
91899747|NCT01676909|183693757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.222
91785647|NCT05661851|183451904|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -20 was used.|Least-square Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|13.38|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|A sample size of 104 subjects provides at least 90% statistical power to test non-inferiority of the Test eyedrop compared to the Control eyedrop using a two sample t-test with a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||13.38|-1.67|
91785648|NCT05661851|183451905|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -20 was used.|Mean Population Difference Estimate|5.843|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.456|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8904|14.5768|||Bootstrapping methods||Bootstrap Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|A sample size of 104 subjects provides at least 90% statistical power to test non-inferiority of the Test eyedrop compared to the Control eyedrop using a two sample t-test with a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||14.5768|-2.8904|
91785649|NCT01014910|183451929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on a previously-identified mean LOS of 65.3 hours, we estimated we would need to enroll 80 patients in each study arm to provide adequate sample size to detect a difference in mean LOS of 18 hours with 80% power and alpha=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Sample size calculations were performed using Power and Sample Size Calculator, version 3.0 (by developers William D. Dupont and Walton D. Plummer Jr)||Differences in LOS were compared between study arms using the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 13.1 for Windows (StataCorp). All patients enrolled in the study, including those who subsequently had consent for the intervention withdrawn, were included for analysis (intention to treat).||||<0.05
91785650|NCT01014910|183451930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The proportion of patients transferred to the intensive care unit in each study arm was compared between study arms using the Pearson χ2 test. All patients enrolled in the study, including those who subsequently had consent for the intervention withdrawn, were included for analysis (intention to treat).||||0.05
91785651|NCT00800254|183451944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785652|NCT00800254|183451946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.003
91790512|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91899748|NCT00823901|183693778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91785653|NCT00744042|183451952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Testing whether median change in rickets severity from Baseline to Week 24, measured by RGI-C at Week 24, is from zero.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|The last post-baseline observation carry forward method is used; patients with no post-baseline assessments were imputed as having no change.||One treatment group||||0.0039
91899749|NCT01369511|183693779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 12||||0.527
91899750|NCT01369511|183693779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 12||||0.291
91899751|NCT01369511|183693779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 12||||0.129
91899752|NCT01369511|183693780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 8||||0.751
91899753|NCT01369511|183693780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 8||||0.066
91899754|NCT01369511|183693780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 8||||0.031
91899755|NCT01369511|183693780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 16||||0.315
91899756|NCT01369511|183693780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 16||||0.002
91785654|NCT02654769|183451957|EQUIVALENCE|Difference (Generic- Picato)|90% Wald's confidence interval|-1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.37|8.63|||Fisher Exact|||||8.63|-12.37|<0.0001
91785655|NCT02654769|183451958|EQUIVALENCE|Difference (Generic - Picato)|90% Wald's confidence interval|-2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.14|7.86|||Fisher Exact|||Partial Clearance at Week 8||7.86|-13.14|<0.0001
91785656|NCT02055118|183451961|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|13.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||The Mixed model repeated measures included fixed categorical effects for treatment, visit week, treatment by visit week interaction, baseline GCA classification factor (less than or equal to \[\<=\] 70 or \>70), baseline age group (\<6 years or \>=6 years), treatment by baseline GCA classification factor interaction, treatment by baseline age group interaction, interaction between baseline GCA classification factor and baseline age group, genotype, and the baseline GCA score as a continuous covariate.||13.3|-7.3|0.5669
91785657|NCT00730028|183452112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|5.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess at the Test of Cure (TOC) visit.||5.1|-7.6|0.7688
91785658|NCT00730028|183452112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||5.1|-5.4|1.0000
91899757|NCT01369511|183693780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 16||||0.007
91899758|NCT01376349|183693781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91899759|NCT01376349|183693781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91899760|NCT01294683|183693804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.206||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.434|0.936|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||0.936|-1.434|0.654
91899761|NCT01294683|183693804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.304||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|3.768|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||3.768|-0.427|0.090
91899762|NCT01294683|183693805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.206||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.303|0.779|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||0.779|-1.303|0.563
91899763|NCT01294683|183693805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.87||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.858|3.118|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||3.118|-0.858|0.166
91899764|NCT01294683|183693807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.87||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.858|3.118|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||3.118|-0.858|0.166
91899765|NCT01294683|183693810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.617||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|2.023|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||2.023|-0.575|0.255
91899766|NCT01294683|183693810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.395||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.091|2.966|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||2.966|-2.091|0.690
91899767|NCT01294683|183693811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.967|0.967|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||0.967|-0.967|>0.999
91899768|NCT01294683|183693812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.301|5.252|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|Periods I/II||5.252|-7.301|
91899769|NCT01294683|183693812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.599|9.338|||||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|Period III||9.338|-7.599|
91899770|NCT01294683|183693813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|3.45||||||Periods I/II||3.450|-4.280|
91899771|NCT01294683|183693813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.533|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.916|2.619|||||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|Period III||2.619|-3.916|
91899772|NCT00051363|183693814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||||||"2M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).~After correction for multiple comparisons (sequential Bonferroni) P Value=0.0444 (NS)"|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD.||||0.0074
91899773|NCT00051363|183693814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2254||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD.||||0.2254
91650208|NCT00575328|183192807|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is a test of statistical significance to evaluate whether the results are consistent with the assumption of there being no difference in the clinical improvement (i.e. change in MGH-SD score) of the two treatments (null hypothesis).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.97||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. P value for significance set a priori at P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in clinical improvement (i.e. change in MGH-SD score) between treatment arms. No formal power analysis was carried out, given the small study sample.|Analysis was not truly informative since the analyzable sample (n=6) was too small. Results should be interpreted with caution.|13.97|-6.7|0.38
91650209|NCT03124381|183192873|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (based on ANCOVA) is less than 15 percentage points. Terms for treatment, gender, center as factors and baseline as covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|13.42||||||Non-inferiority test performed after significance vs. baseline confirmed for each cell. The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was H0: A-B≥15%, where A and B are the mean percent change at Week 12 of global face total acne lesion count of the Gel-Cream + Acne Mask cell and Acne Mask cell, respectively.||13.42|-7.04|
91785659|NCT00730028|183452112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-5.6||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-5.6|-19.2|<0.0001
91790513|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.031||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.031|-0.323|0.107
91790514|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
91790515|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.232||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.232|-0.243|0.961
91790516|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790517|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.173||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.173|-0.290|0.618
91790518|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790519|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.092||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.092|-0.385|0.227
91790520|NCT02880956|183460067|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
91790521|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.697||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.697|-0.009|0.056
91790522|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790523|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.349||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.349|-0.348|0.997
91790524|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790525|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.772||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.772|0.056|0.023
91790526|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.36|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790527|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.558||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.558|-0.274|0.502
91790528|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790529|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.224||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.224|-0.587|0.379
91790530|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790531|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.394||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.394|-0.439|0.916
91790532|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91844806|NCT01606189|183571293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.55||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.01|||ANOVA|||Sleep quality scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep Quality Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||1.01|0.09|0.019
91844807|NCT01606189|183571293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.79||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.24|||ANOVA|||Sleep quality scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep Quality Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||1.24|0.33|0.001
91844808|NCT01606189|183571294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.55||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.55|||ANOVA|||Total pain intensity scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Total Pain Intensity Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||0.55|-3.64|0.146
91844809|NCT01606189|183571294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Total pain intensity scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Total Pain Intensity Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.10|-4.29|0.040
91844810|NCT01606189|183571295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.28||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.78|1.21|||ANOVA|||Intensity of Pain scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Intensity of Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||1.21|-15.78|0.092
91709439|NCT04633291|183311484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|265.95||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is in favor compared to the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is in favor compared to the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||265.95|0.19|0.269
91844811|NCT01606189|183571295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-8.99||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.41|-0.57|||ANOVA|||Intensity of Pain scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Intensity of Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.57|-17.41|0.037
91844812|NCT01606189|183571296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mann-Whitney U statistic|1222.0||||0.328||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain at present was analysed using the Mann-Whitney test with a correction for ties. Results were presented in terms of the sums of the ranks for the two groups, the Mann-Whitney U statistic and the associated p-value.||||0.328
91785660|NCT00730028|183452112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-5.4||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-5.4|-19.1|0.0002
91844813|NCT01606189|183571296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mann-Whitney U statistic|1200.5||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain at present was analysed using the Mann-Whitney test with a correction for ties. Results were presented in terms of the sums of the ranks for the two groups, the Mann-Whitney U statistic and the associated p-value.||||0.560
91650210|NCT03124381|183192873|SUPERIORITY|Superiority concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference is less than 0. Terms for treatment, gender, and center as factors and baseline score as covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.164||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|13.42|||ANCOVA|||Superiority test performed after non-inferiority confirmed as described above. The null hypothesis for the superiority test was H0: A-B = 0, where A and B are the mean percent change at Week 12 of global face total acne lesion count of the Acne Mask and the Gel-Cream + Acne Mask cell, respectively.||13.42|-7.04|0.538
91650211|NCT02473510|183192916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.6||||||||2.6|-5.2|
91650212|NCT02473510|183192917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|27.6||||||Up to Day 8||27.6|3.6|
91650213|NCT02473510|183192917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|29.3||||||Up to Day 15||29.3|4.4|
91844814|NCT01606189|183571297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.75||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|0.83|||ANOVA|||Pain Disability Index scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Pain Disability Index Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||0.83|-4.32|0.181
91650214|NCT00500656|183192939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.475|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.901|6.355|||The Wilcoxon version of the log rank|The median time to onset was calculated using Kaplan Meier methodology. The Wilcoxon version of the log rank test of SAS was used||||6.355|1.901|< 0.001
91650215|NCT00500656|183192940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||The Wilcoxon version of the log rank|The median time to almost complete symptom relief was calculated using Kaplan Meier methodology.The Wilcoxon version of the log rank test SAS was used||||||< 0.001
91785661|NCT00730028|183452115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.9||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess at the Test of Cure (TOC) visit.||4.9|-10.2|0.5200
91650216|NCT01806597|183192951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|154.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Data at Week 16 was analyzed using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test. The test was stratified by body-weight category (\<90 kg or ≥90 kg).||154.6|2.4|0.0002
91785662|NCT00730028|183452115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.7||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||5.7|-8.4|0.7324
91785663|NCT00730028|183452115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-6.4||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-6.4|-22.0|0.0001
91785664|NCT00730028|183452115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-5.0||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-5.0|-20.8|0.0008
91785665|NCT00730028|183452116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.3||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||5.3|-7.1|0.7707
91785666|NCT00730028|183452116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.5||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||8.5|-2.0|0.2141
91785667|NCT00730028|183452116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.5||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||0.5|-12.4|0.0593
91785668|NCT00730028|183452116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-3.1|-15.3|0.0017
91785669|NCT00730028|183452117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.8||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||1.8|-13.1|0.1381
91785670|NCT00730028|183452117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|8.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||8.2|-6.4|0.8302
91785671|NCT00730028|183452117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||1.1|-14.3|0.0838
91785672|NCT00730028|183452117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|0.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||0.2|-15.2|0.0507
91785673|NCT00730028|183452118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|1.9||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||1.9|-13.3|0.1505
91790533|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.302||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.302|-0.633|0.487
91790534|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790535|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.473||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.473|-0.451|0.963
91790536|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790537|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.424|0.51||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.510|-0.424|0.856
91844815|NCT01606189|183571297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.43||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.98|||ANOVA|||Pain Disability Index scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Pain Disability Index Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||2.98|-2.12|0.739
91844816|NCT01606189|183571298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.23||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.45|||ANOVA|||12-Item General Health Questionnaire scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: 12-Item General Health Questionnaire Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.45|-4.01|0.015
91785674|NCT00730028|183452118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||2.2|-10.9|0.1666
91785675|NCT00730028|183452118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-8.0||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-8.0|-23.0|<0.0001
91844817|NCT01606189|183571298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.21||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.56|||ANOVA|||12-Item General Health Questionnaire scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: 12-Item General Health Questionnaire Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||0.56|-2.97|0.178
91844818|NCT00519636|183571308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001||95.0|-1.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FFNS - Mean Change in Placebo.|FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FFNS/FPNS) \& 2 (Placebo FF/FP) compared with Placebo FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FFNS/FPNS) \& 2 (Placebo FF/FP).||-0.3|-1.3|<0.001
91844819|NCT00519636|183571308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.014||95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FPNS - Mean Change in Placebo.|FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FPNS/FFNS) \& 2 (Placebo FP/FF) compared with Placebo FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FPNS/FFNS)\& 2 (Placebo FP/FF).||-0.1|-1.1|0.014
91650217|NCT01806597|183192951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|211.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Data at Week 16 was analyzed using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test. The test was stratified by body-weight category (\<90 kg or ≥90 kg).||211.9|4.1|<0.0001
91650218|NCT01473758|183192967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.6491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.731|7.538||The model contains neutrophil count at Baseline and treatment as independent variables, fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||7.538|-4.731|0.6491
91650219|NCT01473758|183192968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.687||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.766|4.943||The model contains neutrophil count at Baseline and treatment as independent variables, fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||4.943|-5.766|0.8786
91650220|NCT02763579|183193025|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.77||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.62|0.0170
91650221|NCT02763579|183193026|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.7||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.54|0.0069
91650222|NCT02763579|183193027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.37||||||||1.37|0.55|
91650223|NCT02763579|183193028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|0.911|||Log Rank|||||0.911|0.562|0.0063
91650224|NCT02763579|183193029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.47||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|17.27|||Z-test|||PFS Rate at 6 months||17.27|-0.33|0.0593
91844820|NCT00519636|183571309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH): stratified approximate to Prescotts test; variation of chi-square test for treatment sequence/subjects no preference.||||||<0.001
91650225|NCT02763579|183193029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.27||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|13.02|||Z-test|||PFS Rate at 1 year||13.02|1.52|0.0133
91650226|NCT02763579|183193030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|13.46||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|23.64|||Z-test|||OS Rate at 1 year||23.64|3.29|0.0095
91650227|NCT02763579|183193031|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.221||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.874|||Log Rank|||Cough||1.874|0.795|0.3604
91650228|NCT02763579|183193031|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.7712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.553|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest||1.553|0.722|0.7712
91650229|NCT02763579|183193031|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.077||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.552|||Log Rank|||Pain in Arm or Shoulder||1.552|0.747|0.6922
91650230|NCT02763579|183193031|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.748||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|1.019|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea||1.019|0.549|0.0650
91844821|NCT03077620|183571402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.256||Poor sleepers compared to good sleepers with Compound Symmetry covariance structure. Mean difference is poor sleepers minus good sleepers.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.256|-0.017|0.05
91844822|NCT03077620|183571403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.087||After corrected for multiple comparisons with Bonferroni test, treatment groups 1 and 2 compared to placebo with Compound Symmetry covariance structure. Mean difference is placebo minus treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.087|-0.078|0.05
91844823|NCT03077620|183571403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.117||After corrected for multiple comparisons with Bonferroni test, treatment groups 1 and 2 compared to placebo with Compound Symmetry covariance structure. Mean difference is placebo minus treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.117|-0.051|0.05
91844824|NCT00550173|183571413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Overall; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||||0.003
91844825|NCT00550173|183571413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.81||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Primary Analysis; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||0.81|0.40|0.002
91844826|NCT00550173|183571413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.85||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Primary Analysis; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||0.85|0.39|0.005
91844827|NCT00550173|183571413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.99||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Secondary Analysis; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||1.40|0.70|0.959
91844828|NCT00550173|183571414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||<0.001
91844829|NCT00550173|183571414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.09|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||4.09|1.07|0.031
91844830|NCT00550173|183571414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|18.48|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||18.48|3.19|<0.001
91844831|NCT00550173|183571414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.27||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||0.66|0.11|0.004
91844832|NCT00550173|183571415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||0.194
91650231|NCT00936377|183193038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91844833|NCT00550173|183571415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.67|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||1.67|0.69|0.747
91844834|NCT00550173|183571415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.13|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||1.13|0.49|0.168
91844835|NCT00550173|183571415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.21|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||2.21|0.94|0.094
91844836|NCT00550173|183571417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||0.306
91844837|NCT00550173|183571417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||3.18|0.87|0.127
91650232|NCT00936377|183193038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91650233|NCT00936377|183193039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91650234|NCT00936377|183193039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91650235|NCT00936377|183193040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
91650236|NCT00936377|183193040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91650237|NCT00936377|183193041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Percentage of CIWA scores rates as severe|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Percentage of CIWA scores rates as severe||||0.18
91650238|NCT00936377|183193041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||Percentage of CIWA scores rates as severe|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.35
91844838|NCT00550173|183571417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||2.71|0.72|0.318
91650239|NCT00936377|183193042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||For hypotension||||1
91650240|NCT00936377|183193042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||For hypotension||||0.47
91650241|NCT00936377|183193042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||For bradycardia||||1
91650242|NCT00936377|183193042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||For bradycardia||||0.2
91650243|NCT00936377|183193043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91650244|NCT00936377|183193044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91650245|NCT00936377|183193044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91650246|NCT00936377|183193045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91650247|NCT00936377|183193045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91650248|NCT00829413|183193046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|48.2|||McNemar|||||48.2|27.4|<.0001
91650249|NCT00829413|183193046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|40.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|50.3|||McNemar|||||50.3|30.4|<.0001
91650250|NCT00829413|183193046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|75.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|83.3|||McNemar|||||83.3|67.9|<.0001
91650251|NCT00829413|183193047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|7.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|18.2|||McNemar|||||18.2|-2.4|0.1380
91650252|NCT00829413|183193047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|37.5|||McNemar|||||37.5|19.7|<.0001
91650253|NCT00829413|183193047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|50.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|59.5|||McNemar|||||59.5|42.0|<.0001
91650254|NCT00829413|183193048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|29.2|||McNemar|||||29.2|14.1|<.0001
91650255|NCT00829413|183193048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|40.7|||McNemar|||||40.7|27.3|<.0001
91650256|NCT00829413|183193048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|75.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|83.3|||McNemar|||||83.3|67.9|<.0001
91650257|NCT00829413|183193049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91650258|NCT00829413|183193049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91650259|NCT00829413|183193049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91650260|NCT00829413|183193050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91650261|NCT00829413|183193050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91650262|NCT00829413|183193050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91709440|NCT04633291|183311485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|64.83||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is in favor compared to the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is in favor compared to the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||64.83|0.02|1.0
91844839|NCT00550173|183571417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||2.22|0.63|0.599
91650263|NCT00294723|183193059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.42||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.42|-0.83|<0.0001
91650264|NCT00294723|183193059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%. Superiority of 1.2 mg liraglutide was only tested if 1.2 mg liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride and 1.8 mg liraglutide was superior to glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33||||0.0014||95.0|-0.53|-0.13||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.13|-0.53|0.0014
91650265|NCT00294723|183193059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg to liraglutide 1.2 mg was performed to compare the two doses. Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg - liraglutide 1.2 mg) was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.29||||0.0046||95.0|-0.5|-0.09||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.09|-0.50|0.0046
91650266|NCT00294723|183193060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.28|-2.87||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.87|-4.28|<.0001
91785676|NCT00730028|183452118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-3.2|-19.0|0.0046
91785677|NCT00730028|183452119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|2.8||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||2.8|-13.6|0.1815
91785678|NCT00730028|183452119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.1552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|2.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||2.1|-13.2|0.1552
91785679|NCT00730028|183452119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-7.8||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-7.8|-24.0|<0.0001
91790538|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91785680|NCT00730028|183452119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-2.0||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-2.0|-18.7|0.0145
91844840|NCT00550173|183571418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||0.013
91844841|NCT00550173|183571418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.87||Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||0.87|0.41|0.007
91844842|NCT00550173|183571418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.38|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||1.38|0.62|0.700
91844843|NCT00550173|183571418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||0.94|0.44|0.023
91844844|NCT00550173|183571419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.040
91844845|NCT00550173|183571419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.27|0.241
91844846|NCT00550173|183571419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||||0.78|0.14|0.011
91899774|NCT00051363|183693815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4538||||||DX A/P Function- PFN-TOTL; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Parametric survival analysis|Parametric survival analyses were conducted using by-visit comparisons for A/P Function- PFN-TOTL since these data were right censored at 60.||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX A/P Function- PFN-TOTL.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."||||0.4538
91650267|NCT00294723|183193060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.87|-2.47||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.47|-3.87|<.0001
91650268|NCT00294723|183193060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.41||||0.2584||95.0|-1.11|0.3||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.30|-1.11|0.2584
91650269|NCT00294723|183193061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.44|-2.86||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.86|-4.44|<.0001
91650270|NCT00294723|183193061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.63|-2.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.06|-3.63|<.0001
91650271|NCT00294723|183193061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.8||||0.0462||95.0|-1.59|-0.01||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.01|-1.59|0.0462
91790539|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.748||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.748|-0.341|0.463
91650272|NCT00294723|183193062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.38||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.38|-0.83|<.0001
91785681|NCT01250496|183452121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed. The threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||null hypothesis: aminophylline administration does not reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint as compared to placebo. The chi-square test was used to compare event rate between the study arm.||0.98|0.2|0.04
91785682|NCT01250496|183452122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7||P value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||"null hypothesis: the rate of regadenoson adverse effects (global symptomatic burden) in the aminophylline and placebo group are not statistically different.~The chi-square test was used for comparison."||0.7|0.2|< 0.001
91785683|NCT01425463|183452159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the investigational drug (Ferrous (II) Glycine Sulphate Complex) to the reference drug (Polyferose) was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval was greater than -7.0 g/L.|LS-Mean of ANCOVA|-2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|4.09||||||||4.09|-8.47|
91785684|NCT03467152|183452167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6909||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.6909
91785685|NCT03467152|183452168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.018||||0.8251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.492||Generalized Linear Mixed Models Analysis (GLMM)|GLMM|||||1.492|0.695|0.8251
91785686|NCT03467152|183452169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.853||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|1.247||Generalized Linear Mixed Models Analysis (GLMM)|GLMM|||||1.247|0.584|0.3003
91650273|NCT00294723|183193062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% CI for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%. Superiority of 1.2 mg liraglutide was only tested if 1.2 mg liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride and 1.8 mg liraglutide was superior to glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.31||||0.0076||95.0|-0.54|-0.08||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.08|-0.54|0.0076
91785687|NCT03467152|183452170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9198||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.9198
91785688|NCT03467152|183452171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2909|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2909
91785689|NCT03467152|183452172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6127||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.6127
91785690|NCT03467152|183452173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.8780
91785691|NCT03467152|183452174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.4090
91785692|NCT03467152|183452175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8736||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.8736
91785693|NCT01236547|183452194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.43||One-sided significance level = 0.1379|Log Rank||Reference arm = placebo|Assuming hazard ratio (pazopanib/placebo) of 0.625 (1-year 19% vs. 35.4%), 1-sided alpha 0.15, logrank test, 80% power, 1 interim analysis, required 71 deaths in 79 eligible patients (88 allowing 10% ineligible) in original design. The protocol was amended for phase II final analysis to be performed after all phase II eligible participants were potentially followed for 3 years with 1-sided alpha 0.1379, providing 77% power. See Limitations and Caveats||1.43|0.52|0.2831
91785694|NCT01236547|183452196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.67|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.15|Reference arm = placebo|||2.67|0.55|0.6880
91785695|NCT01236547|183452197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1921||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1921
91785696|NCT01236547|183452198|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91785697|NCT01236547|183452199|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||1.00
91844847|NCT00550173|183571419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.36|||Regression, Cox|||||4.36|0.83|0.128
91785698|NCT00538785|183452205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|1.586|||Guess method|Exact conditional binomial method conditioning on the total number of cases with mid-probability adjustment||Relative risk and confidence interval adjusted for the stratification factor of CHD stratum (cyanotic or other) specified on the CRF||1.586|0.344|
91785699|NCT00538785|183452206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|1.989|||Guess method|Exact conditional binomial method conditioning on the total number of cases with mid-probability adjustment||Relative risk and confidence interval adjusted for the stratification factor of CHD stratum (cyanotic or other) specified on the CRF||1.989|0.101|
91844848|NCT01345292|183571421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.556|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.37|14.5||If Sensodyne is better than Crest Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Sensodyne and Crest Regular. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||14.50|8.37|<0.001
91650274|NCT00294723|183193062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg to liraglutide 1.2 mg was performed to compare the two doses. Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg - liraglutide 1.2 mg) was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.29||||0.0129||95.0|-0.52|-0.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.06|-0.52|0.0129
91650275|NCT00294723|183193063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.48|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.28|-2.68||2-sided significance level was 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.68|-4.28|<0.0001
91650276|NCT00294723|183193063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.52|-1.93||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-1.93|-3.52|<0.0001
91650277|NCT00294723|183193063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.75||||0.0642||95.0|-1.55|0.05||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariance.||0.05|-1.55|0.0642
91650278|NCT00294723|183193064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-20.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.09|-11.46||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-11.46|-29.09|<.0001
91650279|NCT00294723|183193064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-9.92||||0.027||95.0|-18.7|-1.12||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-1.12|-18.70|0.0270
91650280|NCT00294723|183193064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-10.36||||0.0223||95.0|-19.24|-1.48||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-1.48|-19.24|0.0223
91785700|NCT03083990|183452231|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio and its 90%CI are obtained after anti-logarithmic transformation.If 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUC 0-t and AUC 0-∞ (trial/control) ranges between 0.8-1.25, then it is considered that IBI305 and Bevacizumab are bioequivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9502|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8921|1.012|||ANOVA|||||1.0120|0.8921|>0.05
91785701|NCT03083990|183452232|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio and its 90%CI are obtained after anti-logarithmic transformation.If 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUC 0-t and AUC 0-∞ (trial/control) ranges between 0.8-1.25, then it is considered that IBI305 and Bevacizumab are bioequivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9483|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8896|1.0108|||ANOVA|||||1.0108|0.8896|>0.05
91899775|NCT00051363|183693815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||2M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Parametric survival analysis|Parametric survival analyses were conducted using by-visit comparisons for A/P Function- PFN-TOTL since these data were right censored at 60.||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."||||0.0860
91785702|NCT03083990|183452233|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9749|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9123|1.0418|||ANOVA|||||1.0418|0.9123|>0.05
91785703|NCT00835211|183452268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax. These analyses were performed using the SAS® procedure.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.5||||||90.0|87.8|108.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.3|87.8|
91785704|NCT00835211|183452269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax. These analyses were performed using the SAS® procedure.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.6||||||90.0|86.9|105.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.2|86.9|
91899776|NCT00051363|183693815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2103||||||6M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Parametric survival analysis|Parametric survival analyses were conducted using by-visit comparisons for A/P Function- PFN-TOTL since these data were right censored at 60.||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."||||0.2103
91899777|NCT00051363|183693816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7936||||||DX L/M Function- BSRT-SR; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX L/M Function- BSRT-SR.||||0.7936
91785705|NCT00835211|183452270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax. These analyses were performed using the SAS® procedure.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.5||||||90.0|87.7|106.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.1|87.7|
91785706|NCT02343549|183452271|SUPERIORITY||12-Month Survival Rate|0.333||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.701||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment of Stage 1. As enrollment was halted early, this p-value is descriptive in nature and cannot determine the success/failure of the trial.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|Assuming the true 12-month survival rate is 0.30 under the null hypothesis, then this design will provide 90% power to detect a difference of 0.20 under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha = 0.10 significance level. A Simon optimal 2-stage design with Stage 1 n=22 and a total of n=46 subjects was determined with the following rejection regions: For n = 22, the rejection region in number of subjects alive at 12 months is 0 - 7, and for n = 46 it is 8 - 17.||0.701|0.075|0.537
91785707|NCT02343549|183452272|OTHER|Estimation Only|Median|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|12.8|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS(in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.|||12.8|4.8|
91785708|NCT02343549|183452273|OTHER|Estimation Only|Median|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|10.4|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median PFS (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median progression free survival.|||10.4|4.8|
91785709|NCT02343549|183452274|OTHER|Estimation only|Response Rate|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.701|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.701|0.075|
91650281|NCT00294723|183193065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-17.79||||0.0003||95.0|-27.48|-8.09||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-8.09|-27.48|0.0003
91650282|NCT00294723|183193065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-11.33||||0.0217||95.0|-20.99|-1.66||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-1.66|-20.99|0.0217
91650283|NCT00294723|183193065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.46||||0.1942||95.0|-16.23|3.3||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||3.30|-16.23|0.1942
91650284|NCT00294723|183193066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-16.63||||0.0007||95.0|-26.19|-7.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-7.06|-26.19|0.0007
91851756|NCT01192542|183587186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin of 0.05 (1/2 LogMAR line) was used.|Least-square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0091|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons between two lenses were carried out using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for least-square mean differences.||The alternative hypothesis is the binocular visual acuity of the galyfilcon A prototype lens is non-inferior to that of the enfilcon A lens.||0.018|-0.018|
91709441|NCT04633291|183311486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|12.87||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is in favor compared to the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is in favor compared to the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||12.87|0.08|1.0
91785710|NCT02343549|183452275|OTHER|Estimation only|Disease Control Rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.0||||||||1.000|0.664|
91785711|NCT02343549|183452276|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|8.6|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response.|||8.6|3.7|
91785712|NCT02343549|183452277|OTHER|Estimation Only|Median|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|10.4|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of disease control (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of disease control.|||10.4|4.8|
91785713|NCT04343235|183452310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
91785714|NCT04343235|183452311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Main effect for Randomization group|ANOVA|||||||0.70
91785715|NCT04343235|183452312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|Main effect for randomization group||||||0.77
91785716|NCT04343235|183452313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|Main effect for randomization group||||||0.54
91785717|NCT04343235|183452314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.1|-1.5|0.47
91785718|NCT04343235|183452315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
91785719|NCT04343235|183452316|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91785720|NCT01763996|183452322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|13.76||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model that includes sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and subjects within sequence as a random factor.||||13.76|-10.10|0.756
91785721|NCT00776919|183452333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91785722|NCT00776919|183452333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.016
91851757|NCT02314117|183587189|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.935||||||||0.935|0.607|
91851758|NCT02314117|183587190|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.156||||||||1.156|0.801|
91650285|NCT00294723|183193066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-10.02||||0.0395||95.0|-19.56|-0.49||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-0.49|-19.56|0.0395
91851759|NCT02314117|183587191|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.108||||||||1.108|0.774|
91709442|NCT01483599|183311503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (less than or equal to (\<=) 90 kilogram (kg), greater than (\>) 90 kg).||||0.002
91851760|NCT02314117|183587194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.859||||||||0.859|0.569|
91785723|NCT00776919|183452333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91785724|NCT00776919|183452334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785725|NCT00776919|183452334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91785726|NCT00776919|183452334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785727|NCT00776919|183452335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785728|NCT00776919|183452335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.102
91785729|NCT00776919|183452335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785730|NCT00776919|183452336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785731|NCT00776919|183452336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.032
91851761|NCT02314117|183587195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|0.866||||||||0.866|0.499|
91785732|NCT00776919|183452336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91785733|NCT02093819|183452348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.1313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0633|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0249|1.2376|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - all dose groups. Number of subjects included in the analysis=44.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.2376|1.0249|
91785734|NCT02093819|183452348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1019|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.783|1.1307|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 600mg. Number of subjects included in the analysis=28.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.1307|0.7830|
91844849|NCT01345292|183571421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|11.42||If Potassium Oxalate Mouth Rinse is better than Crest Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Potassium Oxalate Mouth Rinse and Crest Regular. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||11.42|5.24|<0.001
91650286|NCT00294723|183193066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.6||||0.1789||95.0|-16.24|3.03||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||3.03|-16.24|0.1789
91650287|NCT00294723|183193067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-12.9||||0.0038||95.0|-21.6|-4.2||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in mean postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-4.2|-21.6|0.0038
91785735|NCT02093819|183452349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0732|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0468|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9946|1.1518|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - all dose groups. Number of subjects included in the analysis=44.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.1518|0.9946|
91785736|NCT02093819|183452349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9603|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0838|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8174|1.1032|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50 mg to 600 mg. Number of subjects included in the analysis 28.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.1032|0.8174|
91785737|NCT02428478|183452360|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Tonic analysis||||0.01
91785738|NCT02428478|183452360|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Phasic analysis||||0.38
91785739|NCT02428478|183452361|OTHER||Median Change|-0.6||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Passive Pcrit||||0.037
91851762|NCT02314117|183587196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.332||||||||1.332|0.770|
91851763|NCT02314117|183587198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58||||||||1.580|0.790|
91709443|NCT01483599|183311503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91785740|NCT02428478|183452361|OTHER||||||>|0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Active Pcrit||||>0.5
91844850|NCT01345292|183571422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.65|1.45|<0.001
91709444|NCT01483599|183311503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91650288|NCT00294723|183193067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.3||||0.1616||95.0|-15.0|2.5||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||2.5|-15.0|0.1616
91785741|NCT00884741|183452362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.37||To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).|Log Rank|||The trial was designed to concurrently provide 80% power for the detection of a 25% relative reduction in mortality hazard (hazard ratio .75) and 30% reduction in progression hazard (hazard ratio .70) for the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide and radiation. To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).||1.37|0.93|0.11
91844851|NCT01345292|183571422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.02||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.02|0.80|0.004
91899778|NCT00051363|183693816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5444||||||2M L/M Function- BSRT-SR; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M L/M Function- BSRT-SR.||||0.5444
91785742|NCT00884741|183452363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94||To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).|Log Rank|||The trial was designed to concurrently provide 80% power for the detection of a 25% relative reduction in mortality hazard (hazard ratio .75) and 30% reduction in progression hazard (hazard ratio .70) for the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide and radiation. To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).||0.94|0.66|0.004
91785743|NCT00884741|183452364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Two-sided|Chi-squared|||||||0.42
91899779|NCT00051363|183693816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7569||||||6M L/M Function- BSRT-SR; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M L/M Function- BSRT-SR.||||0.7569
91650289|NCT00294723|183193067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.6||||0.1319||95.0|-15.3|2.0||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||2.0|-15.3|0.1319
91709445|NCT01483599|183311503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91785744|NCT02969655|183452369|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -1.0 g/dL. Even if the 95% CI for the difference was completely negative (i.e. lied fully within the range -1.0 to \<0 g/dL) non-inferiority was concluded on condition that the mean Hgb estimated in the daprodustat group was within the target range.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the non-inferiority assessment.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Analysis was performed by a MMRM with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline-by-visit interaction.|||0.23|-0.11|<.0001
91709446|NCT01483599|183311503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91785745|NCT02969655|183452370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.71||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the superiority assessment.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression with covariates of treatment and Baseline Hgb.|||1.71|0.34|0.7442
91785746|NCT01578850|183452393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.78|35.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).|Participants who took rescue therapy had the final value taken before rescue used for analysis at all ensuing time points.|||35.81|16.78|<0.001
91709447|NCT01483599|183311503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91844852|NCT01345292|183571423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.091||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|2.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.06|-6.19|0.324
91785747|NCT01578850|183452394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|23.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|40.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value from CMH test of general association was stratified by geographic region.||||40.61|6.83|0.019
91709448|NCT01483599|183311504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91785748|NCT01578850|183452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Baseline||0.57|-1.76|0.371
91785749|NCT01578850|183452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Baseline||1.81|-0.59|0.358
91650290|NCT00294723|183193068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-12.3||||0.0105||95.0|-21.71|-2.89||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-2.89|-21.71|0.0105
91785750|NCT01578850|183452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|9.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 24||9.98|-4.76|0.667
91785751|NCT01578850|183452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|21.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.99|32.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 28||32.02|10.99|0.001
91785752|NCT01578850|183452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|19.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.81|29.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 28||29.10|8.81|0.004
91650291|NCT00294723|183193068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.49||||0.606||95.0|-11.95|6.98||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||6.98|-11.95|0.6060
91709449|NCT01483599|183311504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91785753|NCT01578850|183452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.79|40.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 36||40.83|20.79|<0.001
91785754|NCT01578850|183452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.89|37.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 36||37.54|16.89|<0.001
91785755|NCT01578850|183452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.51|41.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 44||41.08|21.51|<0.001
91785756|NCT01578850|183452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.95|40.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 44||40.47|19.95|<0.001
91785757|NCT01578850|183452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.78|35.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 52||35.81|16.78|<0.001
91785758|NCT01578850|183452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.67|37.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 52||37.47|16.67|<0.001
91785759|NCT01578850|183452398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|11.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 24||11.68|-9.03|0.774
91785760|NCT01578850|183452398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.3||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|21.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 28||21.69|2.86|0.034
91785761|NCT01578850|183452398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|16.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|27.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 28||27.54|6.33|0.020
91709450|NCT01483599|183311504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91785762|NCT01578850|183452398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|14.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.48|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 36||23.80|5.48|0.007
91844853|NCT01345292|183571423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.093||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.31|-8.56|0.035
91709451|NCT01483599|183311504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91785763|NCT01578850|183452398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|34.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 36||34.98|14.72|<0.001
91785764|NCT01578850|183452398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.16|27.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 44||27.38|10.16|<0.001
91785765|NCT01578850|183452398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.03|40.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 44||40.76|21.03|<0.001
91709452|NCT01483599|183311504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91844854|NCT01345292|183571424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.551|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-3.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-3.52|-13.6|<0.001
91785766|NCT01578850|183452398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.78|29.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 52||29.52|11.78|<0.001
91650292|NCT00294723|183193068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-9.81||||0.0392||95.0|-19.14|-0.49||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-0.49|-19.14|0.0392
91650293|NCT00294723|183193069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-10.98||||0.0227||95.0|-20.42|-1.54||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-1.54|-20.42|0.0227
91650294|NCT00294723|183193069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.83||||0.7047||95.0|-11.33|7.66||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||7.66|-11.33|0.7047
91650295|NCT00294723|183193069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-9.15||||0.0553||95.0|-18.51|0.21||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||0.21|-18.51|0.0553
91785767|NCT01578850|183452398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|36.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 52||36.93|17.38|<0.001
91785768|NCT01578850|183452400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 28||-0.20|-0.73|<0.001
91785769|NCT01578850|183452400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.11|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 28||-0.11|-0.61|0.006
91785770|NCT01578850|183452400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.39|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 36||-0.39|-0.96|<0.001
91785771|NCT01578850|183452400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 36||-0.28|-0.82|<0.001
91785772|NCT01578850|183452400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.46|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 44||-0.46|-1.03|<0.001
91785773|NCT01578850|183452400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.37|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 44||-0.37|-0.92|<0.001
91785774|NCT01578850|183452400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 52||-0.40|-0.98|<0.001
91785775|NCT01578850|183452400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.36|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 52||-0.36|-0.91|<0.001
91785776|NCT01578850|183452401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91785777|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|8.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 24||8.90|-6.13|0.961
91785778|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|21.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.99|32.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 28||32.02|10.99|0.001
91899780|NCT00051363|183693817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5606||||||"2M L/M Function- PN-RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.5606
91785779|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.08|28.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 28||28.53|8.08|0.007
91785780|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.42|41.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 36||41.39|21.42|<0.001
91785781|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.83|37.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 36||37.54|16.83|<0.001
91785782|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.53|41.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 44||41.02|21.53|<0.001
91785783|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.54|41.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 44||41.05|20.54|<0.001
91785784|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.82|35.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 52||35.74|16.82|<0.001
91785785|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.63|37.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 52||37.44|16.63|<0.001
91785786|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 24||1.65|-1.69|0.766
91785787|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|8.2||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|14.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 28||14.10|2.32|0.091
91785788|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.5||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|11.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-CRP Week 28||11.75|1.28|0.227
91785789|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.9||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 36||16.60|3.27|0.072
91785790|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.8||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-CRP Week 36||15.20|2.43|0.108
91785791|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.7||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|18.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 44||18.72|4.69|0.035
91785792|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 44||17.06|4.20|0.030
91785793|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|18.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 52||18.06|4.15|0.048
91785794|NCT01578850|183452403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|17.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-CRP Week 52||17.58|4.92|0.016
91785795|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA Baseline||1.81|-0.59|0.358
91785796|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|9.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 24||9.16|-2.38|0.341
91785797|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|28.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 28||28.27|8.40|0.004
91785798|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.88|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 36||34.40|13.88|<0.001
91650296|NCT00294723|183193070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete CI was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.34||The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity. 2-sided significance level was 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.34|-0.77|<0.0001
91650297|NCT00294723|183193070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete CI was below 0%. Superiority of 1.2 mg liraglutide was only tested if 1.2 mg liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride and 1.8 mg liraglutide was superior to glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.0122||95.0|-0.49|-0.06||The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity. 2-sided significance level was 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.06|-0.49|0.0122
91650298|NCT00294723|183193070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg to liraglutide 1.2 mg was performed to compare the two doses. Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg - liraglutide 1.2 mg) was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.0123||95.0|-0.49|-0.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.06|-0.49|0.0123
91709453|NCT01483599|183311504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91785799|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.85|37.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 44||37.35|16.85|<0.001
91785800|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.61|34.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 52||34.42|13.61|<0.001
91785801|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|10.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 24||10.06|-5.50|0.774
91785802|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|8.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 28||8.03|-7.15|0.645
91650299|NCT00294723|183193071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-4.0||||0.1396||95.0|-9.4|1.3||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.3|-9.4|0.1396
91709454|NCT01483599|183311505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-4.0||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||-4.0|-44.0|
91785803|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|16.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 36||16.35|0.36|0.080
91899781|NCT00051363|183693817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6487||||||"2M L/M Function- PN-RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.6487
91899782|NCT00051363|183693817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5667||||||"2M L/M Function- PN-RT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.5667
91899783|NCT00051363|183693817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3972||||||"6M L/M Function- PN-RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.3972
91899784|NCT00051363|183693817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3973||||||"6M L/M Function- PN-RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.3973
91899785|NCT00051363|183693817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3055||||||"6M L/M Function- PN-RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.3055
91899786|NCT00051363|183693818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3699||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3699
91899787|NCT00051363|183693818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9673||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9673
91899788|NCT00051363|183693818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3426||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3426
91899789|NCT00051363|183693818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3901||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3901
91844855|NCT01345292|183571424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.553|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-5.13|-15.2|<0.001
91844856|NCT01345292|183571425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.271||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|-0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.43|-9.38|0.032
91709455|NCT01483599|183311505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|23.5||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||23.5|-17.9|
91709456|NCT01483599|183311505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|39.3||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||39.3|1.5|
91844857|NCT01345292|183571425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.288||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|1.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.09|-7.93|0.136
91650300|NCT00294723|183193071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.9||||0.2968||95.0|-8.3|2.5||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||2.5|-8.3|0.2968
91650301|NCT00294723|183193071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.2||||0.6639||95.0|-6.5|4.1||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||4.1|-6.5|0.6639
91650302|NCT00294723|183193072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.81||||0.172||95.0|-9.28|1.66||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.66|-9.28|0.1720
91650303|NCT00294723|183193072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33||||0.906||95.0|-5.82|5.16||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||5.16|-5.82|0.9060
91709457|NCT01483599|183311505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|27.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|45.6||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||45.6|9.8|
91785804|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|17.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 44||17.68|1.49|0.025
91844858|NCT01345292|183571426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.508|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-6.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-6.23|-16.1|<0.001
91785805|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|16.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 52||16.88|1.02|0.088
91785806|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Baseline||1.81|-0.59|0.358
91650304|NCT00294723|183193072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.48||||0.2089||95.0|-8.91|1.95||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.95|-8.91|0.2089
91785807|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|10.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 24||10.13|-3.57|0.258
91785808|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|17.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.49|27.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 28||27.92|7.49|0.005
91709458|NCT01483599|183311505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|43.6||||||||43.6|7.2|
91785809|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.93|37.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 36||37.55|16.93|<0.001
91785810|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|32.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.83|42.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 44||42.23|21.83|<0.001
91785811|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|38.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 52||38.69|18.00|<0.001
91785812|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|11.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 24||11.51|-5.51|0.672
91785813|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 28||8.00|-8.03|0.556
91709459|NCT01483599|183311506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|6.9||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||6.9|-37.7|
91709460|NCT01483599|183311506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|32.4||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||32.4|-10.7|
91785814|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.3||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|18.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 36||18.45|2.07|0.022
91785815|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.0||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|17.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 44||17.25|0.85|0.047
91785816|NCT01578850|183452405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.1||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 52||20.57|3.70|0.031
91785817|NCT01578850|183452407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 28||-0.01|-4.19|0.049
91785818|NCT01578850|183452407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-1.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 36||-1.05|-5.72|0.005
91785819|NCT01578850|183452407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-1.67|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 44||-1.67|-6.37|<0.001
91785820|NCT01578850|183452407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|-1.68|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 52||-1.68|-6.36|<0.001
91785821|NCT01578850|183452407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 28||-0.03|-4.40|0.047
91785822|NCT01578850|183452407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|-1.12|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 36||-1.12|-5.97|0.004
91785823|NCT01578850|183452407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-1.88|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 44||-1.88|-6.78|<0.001
91785824|NCT01578850|183452407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.84|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 52||-1.84|-6.70|<0.001
91785825|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 24||3.90|-4.21|0.742
91785826|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.8||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|17.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 28||17.06|2.45|0.143
91785827|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.4||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|19.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 36||19.51|3.31|0.111
91785828|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|18.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 44||18.49|1.80|0.175
91785829|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.8||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|19.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 52||19.05|2.49|0.088
91785830|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|9.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 24||9.75|-4.78|0.584
91785831|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.5||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|21.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 28||21.34|1.59|0.226
91844859|NCT01345292|183571426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.527|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-5.25|-15.2|<0.001
91844860|NCT01345292|183571427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.012||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|2.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.71|-5.22|0.533
91844861|NCT01345292|183571427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.023||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|2.69||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.69|-5.29|0.522
91844862|NCT01345292|183571428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.331|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-3.94||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-3.94|-13.1|<0.001
91844863|NCT01345292|183571428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.344||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-1.51|-10.8|0.010
91650305|NCT00294723|183193073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.04||||0.2749||95.0|-8.51|2.42||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||2.42|-8.51|0.2749
91844864|NCT01207908|183571436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|20.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.1|-37.1|0.53
91844865|NCT01207908|183571437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.55|-3.78|<0.0001
91844866|NCT01207908|183571438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.38|-1.26|0.53
91844867|NCT02403674|183571455|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10.|Difference in percentages|3.537|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.951|9.026|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||9.026|-1.951|
91785832|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|17.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|27.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 36||27.56|6.76|0.012
91785833|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|19.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.59|29.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 44||29.35|8.59|0.006
91785834|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|17.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|28.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 52||28.16|7.30|0.014
91785835|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-2.7||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.49|8.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 24||8.11|-13.49|0.702
91785836|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.1||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 28||17.50|-3.37|0.378
91785837|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|17.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.12|27.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 36||27.56|7.12|0.004
91785838|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|28.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 44||28.55|8.40|0.001
91785839|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|16.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|26.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 52||26.02|5.96|0.005
91785840|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|5.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 24||5.67|-6.19|0.921
91785841|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|8.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 28||8.86|-2.19|0.410
91785842|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.4||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|12.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 36||12.48|0.41|0.073
91785843|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|10.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 44||10.08|-0.97|0.219
91785844|NCT01578850|183452409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.9||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|12.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 52||12.40|-0.60|0.196
91785845|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 28||0.05|-1.84|0.062
91785846|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.27|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 36||-0.27|-2.41|0.015
91709461|NCT01483599|183311506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|43.6||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||43.6|1.8|
91709462|NCT01483599|183311506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|49.0||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||49.0|8.5|
91785847|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.57|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 44||-0.57|-2.72|0.003
91785848|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.66|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 52||-0.66|-2.85|0.002
91785849|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.5|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 28||0.50|-0.77|0.680
91785850|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.45|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 36||0.45|-1.04|0.437
91844868|NCT02403674|183571456|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-22.5||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Dizziness difference||-22.5|-34.0|<0.001
91844869|NCT02403674|183571456|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-7.9||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Sleep disorders and disturbances difference||-7.9|-19.1|<0.001
91844870|NCT02403674|183571456|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-3.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.3||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Altered sensorium difference||-0.3|-7.6|0.033
91844871|NCT02403674|183571457|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10|Difference in percentages|3.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.412|10.042|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||10.042|-2.412|
91785851|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.17|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 44||0.17|-1.31|0.131
91785852|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.25|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 52||0.25|-1.22|0.199
91844872|NCT02403674|183571458|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10.|Difference in percentages|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.7|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||9.7|-1.5|
91785853|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.28|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 28||0.28|-2.60|0.115
91709463|NCT01483599|183311506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|52.8||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||52.8|13.0|
91785854|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.35|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 36||-0.35|-3.42|0.017
91709464|NCT01483599|183311507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||0.008
91709465|NCT01483599|183311507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
91844873|NCT02403674|183571459|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10|Difference in percentages|3.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.057|9.593|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||9.593|-3.057|
91844874|NCT02403674|183571460|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when group difference (MK-1439A-ATRIPLA®) was a positive value.|Difference in mean %change from baseline|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|36.3|||||95% CIs were calculated based on t-distribution.|||36.3|-16.1|
91785855|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-0.76|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 44||-0.76|-3.91|0.004
91785856|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.97|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 52||-0.97|-4.19|0.002
91785857|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.42|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 28||0.42|-1.13|0.368
91785858|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.32|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 36||0.32|-1.46|0.208
91709466|NCT01483599|183311507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
91785859|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 44||0.05|-1.73|0.064
91785860|NCT01578850|183452411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 52||0.10|-1.66|0.081
91844875|NCT02403674|183571461|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when group difference (MK-1439A-ATRIPLA) was a positive value|Diff in mean % change from baseline|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|48.2|||||The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|||48.2|-18.7|
91844876|NCT02403674|183571462|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 AE(s)|Difference in percentages|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-3.1|||||95% CIs were calculated with the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-3.1|-13.0|
91844877|NCT02403674|183571463|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 AE(s)|Difference in percentages|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.5|||||95% CIs were calculated with the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-0.5|-6.9|
91844878|NCT02403674|183571464|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.8||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Depression and suicide/self-injury difference||0.8|-5.9|<0.001
91650306|NCT00294723|183193073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.43||||0.8765||95.0|-5.05|5.92||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||5.92|-5.05|0.8765
91650307|NCT00294723|183193073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.48||||0.2088||95.0|-8.9|1.95||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.95|-8.90|0.2088
91650308|NCT03255031|183193097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.067
91650309|NCT03255031|183193098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91650310|NCT01809314|183193107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The difference between Baseline and Month 4 was analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
91650311|NCT01809314|183193108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Overall (all categories combined) change from Baseline in ECOG performance status at Month 4 was analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.001
91785861|NCT01578850|183452413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 28||-0.16|-0.90|0.005
91650312|NCT03654898|183193146|SUPERIORITY||cross-tabulation|0.48||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
91650313|NCT03654898|183193146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted logistic regression||||1.42|0.80|0.67
91785862|NCT01578850|183452413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 36||-0.38|-1.18|<0.001
91785863|NCT01578850|183452413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.54|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 44||-0.54|-1.35|<0.001
91785864|NCT01578850|183452413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.53|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 52||-0.53|-1.33|<0.001
91844879|NCT02403674|183571464|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Psychosis and psychotic disorders difference||0.5|-2.5|<0.001
91650314|NCT03654898|183193147|SUPERIORITY||Cross-tabulation|0.71||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
91650315|NCT03654898|183193148|SUPERIORITY||Cross-tabulation|0.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Test 1 was for TFVdp while test 2 was for 3TCtp.||||0.78
91650316|NCT03654898|183193148|SUPERIORITY||Cross-tabulation|2.13||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Test 2 was for 3TCtp while test 1 was for TFVdp.||||0.34
91650317|NCT02868281|183193184|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.87||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|48.11|||Mixed effect logistic regression||The model included treatment, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, center, type of Baseline controller, gender and age, with the center as a random factor.|||48.11|1.29|0.027
91650318|NCT02868281|183193185|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.222
91650319|NCT02868281|183193185|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.156
91709467|NCT01483599|183311507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
91709468|NCT01483599|183311507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
91650320|NCT02868281|183193185|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.245
91650321|NCT02868281|183193185|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.057
91650322|NCT02868281|183193185|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.151
91650323|NCT02868281|183193185|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.114
91650324|NCT02868281|183193186|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.05||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.09|-0.18|0.487
91650325|NCT02868281|183193186|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.04||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.09|-0.16|0.546
91650326|NCT02868281|183193186|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.06|-0.17|0.314
91650327|NCT02868281|183193186|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.07||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.04|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.04|-0.19|0.197
91650328|NCT02868281|183193186|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.06|-0.17|0.282
91650329|NCT02868281|183193186|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.03||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.08|-0.15|0.543
91650330|NCT02868281|183193187|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.06||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.18|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline FEV1, type of Baseline controller, gender and age, with the center as a random factor.|||0.180|-0.059|0.273
91785865|NCT01578850|183452415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 28||-0.01|-1.00|0.048
91650331|NCT02868281|183193188|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.0||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|16.3|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||16.3|-40.3|0.367
91650332|NCT02868281|183193188|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.2||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|21.2|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||21.2|-35.5|0.587
91785866|NCT01578850|183452415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 36||-0.43|-1.44|<0.001
91650333|NCT02868281|183193188|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.7||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|23.7|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||23.7|-33.1|0.721
91650334|NCT02868281|183193188|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.3||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|25.1|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||25.1|-31.7|0.801
91650335|NCT02868281|183193188|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.0||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|23.4|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||23.4|-33.3|0.704
91785867|NCT01578850|183452415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.33|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 44||-0.33|-1.33|0.001
91650336|NCT02868281|183193188|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.0||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|24.5|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||24.5|-32.4|0.762
91650337|NCT02868281|183193189|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.8||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|16.5|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||16.5|-42.1|0.354
91785868|NCT01578850|183452415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.31|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 52||-0.31|-1.33|0.002
91785869|NCT01578850|183452417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.11||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-1.16|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 28||-1.16|-27.07|0.033
91785870|NCT01578850|183452417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.04||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.39|-3.68|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 36||-3.68|-30.39|0.013
91844880|NCT02403674|183571465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-10.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|-6.49|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-6.49|-13.53|<0.0001
91844881|NCT02403674|183571466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-17.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.89|-13.16|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-13.16|-20.89|<0.0001
91844882|NCT02403674|183571467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-23.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.57|-19.32|||||95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-19.32|-27.57|
91844883|NCT02403674|183571468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-35.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.1|-24.82|||||95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-24.82|-47.10|
91844884|NCT02403674|183571469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-6.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|-4.96|||||95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-4.96|-7.97|
91844885|NCT03019458|183571476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons but rather it is the priori threshold for statistical significance at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|We adjusted for baseline Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10), MGH-Swallowing Screening Test (MGH-SST), and the Burkes-Fahn-Marsden Dysonia Scale (BFM).||||||0.084
91844886|NCT01161160|183571492|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence criteria were fulfilled if the 2-sided 95% confidence limits on the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was within the interval 0.5 to 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.26||||||To demonstrate the immunological equivalence of HA antigen adjuvanted with AS03B manufactured in Quebec (Arepanrix™) and HA antigen adjuvanted with AS03B manufactured in Dresden (Pandemrix™), 21 days after vaccination.||1.26|0.73|
91844887|NCT01561079|183571515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The p values were not adjusted for multiplicity The a priori threshold = .05|Hierarchical Linear Modeling|The p-value was calculated||||||0.001
91844888|NCT01561079|183571516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||<.002
91844889|NCT01561079|183571517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||0.0001
91844890|NCT01561079|183571518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|The reported p-value was calculated||||||.008
91844891|NCT01561079|183571519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||.002
91844892|NCT01207934|183571549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||ANOVA for reapeated measures was used to compare the three groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no change in glucose disposal between the three groups (placebo, low dose leptin, and high dose leptin). Power calculations were done showing that 6 subjects in each arm was enough to detect a 35% between group difference in glucose disposal at the 0.05 level with 80% power.||||>0.05
91844893|NCT01207934|183571550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was set at p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|T-tests compared pre and post-treatment values.||The null hypothesis is that treatment would not effect plasma leptin levels.||||<0.01
91844894|NCT01207934|183571550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that plasma leptin levels would be equal after treatment in the placebo and high-dose leptin groups.||||<0.01
91844895|NCT01276535|183571554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is made of the combined application of the Erchonia MLS and the Erchonia THL. Results are analyzed at 6 weeks relative to Baseline.||||<0.01
91844896|NCT01276535|183571555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is made of the combined application of the Erchonia MLS and the Erchonia THL. Results are analyzed at 6 weeks relative to Baseline.||||<0.01
91844897|NCT00180674|183571558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test|||||||0.043
91650338|NCT02868281|183193189|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.4||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|21.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||21.0|-37.8|0.538
91650339|NCT02868281|183193189|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.0||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|24.5|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||24.5|-34.4|0.716
91650340|NCT02868281|183193189|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.1||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|26.3|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||26.3|-32.5|0.822
91709469|NCT01483599|183311507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
91785871|NCT01578850|183452417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.54||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.35|-2.73|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 44||-2.73|-30.35|0.019
91650341|NCT02868281|183193189|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.0||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|25.4|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||25.4|-33.4|0.767
91785872|NCT01578850|183452417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.66||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.78|-5.54|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 52||-5.54|-33.78|0.007
91650342|NCT02868281|183193189|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.8||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|25.7|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||25.7|-33.4|0.779
91785873|NCT01578850|183452419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|0.48|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 28||0.48|-8.91|0.078
91785874|NCT01578850|183452419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|-2.59|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 36||-2.59|-12.49|0.003
91844898|NCT01106976|183571564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0012||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test. Hypothesis of significant cholinergic interval changes over the study interval period.||||0.0009
91785875|NCT01578850|183452419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-3.18|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 44||-3.18|-13.20|0.001
91785876|NCT01578850|183452419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|-3.55|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 52||-3.55|-13.64|<0.001
91785877|NCT01578850|183452419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.91||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|-1.06|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 28||-1.06|-10.75|0.017
91851764|NCT04141917|183587210|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.02||||||The number of influenza-positive tests was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model following a Poisson distribution with a log link and robust variance. The model is adjusted for calendar time and an exposure time variable based on shelter capacity. This model includes symptomatic individuals who tested throughout Year 1 of the study (November 15, 2019 - March 31, 2020).||5.02|0.35|
91785878|NCT01578850|183452419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|-3.34|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 36||-3.34|-13.85|0.001
91650343|NCT02868281|183193190|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.3||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline AQLQ(S) score, type of Baseline controller, gender and age, with the center as a random factor.|||0.6|-0.0|0.059
91650344|NCT02868281|183193191|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.843||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.926|||Cox proportional hazards model||The model included treatment, Baseline ACT total score, center, type of Baseline controller, gender and age as covariates.|||2.926|1.160|0.010
91785879|NCT01578850|183452419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-4.26|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 44||-4.26|-14.72|<0.001
91785880|NCT01578850|183452419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-3.99|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 52||-3.99|-14.60|<0.001
91785881|NCT01578850|183452421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|-1.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 28||-1.05|-9.39|0.014
91785882|NCT01578850|183452421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|-1.46|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 36||-1.46|-11.09|0.011
91785883|NCT01578850|183452421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-3.44|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 44||-3.44|-12.06|<0.001
91851765|NCT00922207|183587218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.75|0.46|0.6853
91650345|NCT02868281|183193192|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.73|||Generalised linear model||The model included treatment, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender and age as covariates.|||3.73|0.32|0.897
91709470|NCT00727090|183311547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Change in serum sodium from baseline is not different between groups||||<0.05
91709471|NCT01037816|183311555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||ANCOVA|||The treatment effect of the FS-67 patch was estimated by computing the difference in LS means of the FS-67 and placebo patches from the ANCOVA model||||0.137
91709472|NCT01037816|183311556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
91709473|NCT04378569|183311569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|||2.53|0.49|0.5788
91785884|NCT01578850|183452421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-2.85|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 52||-2.85|-11.48|0.001
91785885|NCT01578850|183452421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|-2.49|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 28||-2.49|-9.23|<0.001
91785886|NCT01578850|183452421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|-5.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 36||-5.05|-12.33|<0.001
91785887|NCT01578850|183452421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|-3.8|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 44||-3.80|-11.38|<0.001
91785888|NCT01578850|183452421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|-2.6|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 52||-2.60|-10.03|<0.001
91785889|NCT03508908|183452432|OTHER||US dollars per DALY averted|3098.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cost (in US dollars) per DALY averted (Intervention referenced to Observation)|Cost (in US dollars) per DALY averted (Intervention referenced to Observation)||||
91785890|NCT00329524|183452434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis based on paired t-test.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91785891|NCT00329524|183452435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||test for order effect|||||||.05
91785892|NCT01001325|183452436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in incidence of pandemic strain influenza infection for people given seasonal influenza vaccine compared to those given a placebo.~Power to detect a 2-fold difference if attack rate in non-vaccinated participants is 10%: 86%"||||0.685
91785893|NCT02758184|183452437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1031.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|681.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
91785894|NCT01584440|183452451|SUPERIORITY||Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Z-statistic|-1.5|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD): data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||<=0.001
91785895|NCT01584440|183452451|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
91785896|NCT01584440|183452451|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
91785897|NCT01584440|183452453|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.46||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.014
91785898|NCT01584440|183452453|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Day 36|||
91785899|NCT01584440|183452453|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
91785900|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|0.77||||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Delusions Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.444
91785901|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Delusions Domain; Day 36|||||
91785902|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Delusions Domain; Day 70|||||
91785903|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.18||||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Hallucinations Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.861
91785904|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Hallucinations Domain; Day 36|||||
91785905|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Hallucinations Domain; Day 70|||||
91785906|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.32||||0.749|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Depression/Dysphoria Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.749
91785907|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Depression/Dysphoria Domain; Day 36|||||
91785908|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Depression/Dysphoria Domain; Day 70|||||
91785909|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.81||||0.416|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Anxiety Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.416
91785910|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Anxiety Domain; Day 36|||||
91785911|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Anxiety Domain|||||
91785912|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.07||||0.287|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Euphoria/Elation Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.287
91785913|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Euphoria/Elation Domain; Day 36|||||
91785914|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Euphoria/Elation Domain; Day 70|||||
91785915|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.31||||0.191|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Apathy/Indifference Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.191
91785916|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Apathy/Indifference Domain; Day 36|||||
91785917|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Apathy/Indifference Domain; Day 36|||||
91785918|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.1||||0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Disinhibition Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.271
91785919|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Disinhibition Domain; Day 36|||||
91785920|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Disinhibition Domain; Day 70|||||
91785921|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.18||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Irritability/Lability Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.029
91785922|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Irritability/Lability Domain; Day 36|||||
91650346|NCT01335464|183193193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|125.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.209|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.68|172.84||The objective of this trial was to assess the superiority of nintedanib 150 mg bid compared to placebo on the annual rate of decline in FVC.|Random coefficient regression|The Roger-Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominators degrees of freedom.|"Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix.~Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-components variance-covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|"Random coefficient regression with fixed effects for treatment, gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.~A hierarchical procedure was used in order to demonstrate the superiority of nintedanib over placebo for one primary and two key secondary endpoints.~The consecutive steps of the hierarchy were only considered if the previous step was significant at the one-sided 2.5% level and the results were in favour of nintedanib."||172.84|77.68|<0.0001
91785923|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Irritability/Lability Domain; Day 70|||||
91785924|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.21||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.027
91785925|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain; Day 36|||||
91785926|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain; Day 70|||||
91844899|NCT05677867|183571583|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|102.08|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios. Formulation A was the Reference treatment while Formulation B was the Test treatment.||102.08|92.92|
91844900|NCT05677867|183571584|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Adjusted Means|97.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.77|102.17|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios. Formulation A was the Reference treatment while Formulation B was the Test treatment.||102.17|92.77|
91844901|NCT05677867|183571585|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.4|110.18|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios. Formulation A was the Reference treatment while Formulation B was the Test treatment.||110.18|81.40|
91785927|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.09||||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.274
91785928|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior disorders Domain; Day 36|||||
91785929|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior disorders Domain; Day 70|||||
91785930|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.65||||0.513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Appetite/Eating Changes Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.513
91785931|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Appetite/Eating Changes Domain; Day 36|||||
91851766|NCT00922207|183587218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.26|0.35|0.1977
91851767|NCT00922207|183587218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.2916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.38|0.39|0.2916
91851768|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.34||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.66|0.02|0.0353
91650347|NCT01335464|183193194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.9657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Total score, baseline SGRQ Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||2.40|-2.50|0.9657
91650348|NCT01335464|183193195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.42|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard Ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||2.42|0.54|0.6728
91650349|NCT01335464|183193196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|109.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.708|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.27|148.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||148.59|71.27|<0.0001
91650350|NCT01335464|183193197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.50|2.54|<0.0001
91650351|NCT01335464|183193198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.33|2.11|<0.0001
91709474|NCT04378569|183311569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|||2.17|0.33|0.6488
91709475|NCT04378569|183311569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|||2.25|0.32|0.5653
91785932|NCT01584440|183452454|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Appetite/Eating Changes Domain; Day 70|||||
91709476|NCT04378569|183311570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||2.78|0.25|0.5033
91785933|NCT01584440|183452455|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-3.53|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||<=0.001
91785934|NCT01584440|183452455|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
91785935|NCT01584440|183452455|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.49|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
91785936|NCT01584440|183452456|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-3.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.001
91709477|NCT04378569|183311570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||2.79|0.25|0.4975
91785937|NCT01584440|183452456|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
91785938|NCT01584440|183452456|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
91785939|NCT01584440|183452457|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.46||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.014
91785940|NCT01584440|183452457|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
91709478|NCT04378569|183311570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.55||P value was not evaluable|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||2.55|0.04|
91785941|NCT01584440|183452457|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Day 70|||
91785942|NCT01584440|183452458|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.57||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.010
91785943|NCT01584440|183452458|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
91785944|NCT01584440|183452458|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
91785945|NCT01584440|183452459|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-3.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.002
91785946|NCT01584440|183452459|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
91785947|NCT01584440|183452459|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
91785948|NCT01584440|183452460|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.008
91785949|NCT01584440|183452460|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
91785950|NCT01584440|183452460|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
91785951|NCT01584440|183452461|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.96||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.050
91785952|NCT01584440|183452461|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
91785953|NCT01584440|183452461|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
91785954|NCT01584440|183452462|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.020
91785955|NCT01584440|183452462|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
91785956|NCT01584440|183452462|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
91785957|NCT01584440|183452463|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|1.94||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.053
91785958|NCT01584440|183452463|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
91785959|NCT01584440|183452463|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
91785960|NCT01584440|183452464|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.72||||0.469|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population|Caregiver|||||0.469
91785961|NCT01584440|183452464|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Caregiver: Day 36|||||
91785962|NCT01584440|183452464|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Caregiver: Day 70|||||
91785963|NCT01584440|183452464|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|1.41||||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population|Participant|||||0.159
91785964|NCT01584440|183452464|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participant: Day 36|||||
91785965|NCT01584440|183452464|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participant: Day 70|||||
91785966|NCT01584440|183452465|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.4||||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.163
91785967|NCT01584440|183452465|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
91785968|NCT01584440|183452465|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
91785969|NCT01584440|183452466|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.08||||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.279
91785970|NCT01584440|183452466|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 8|||||
91785971|NCT01584440|183452466|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 22|||||
91785972|NCT01584440|183452466|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 43|||||
91785973|NCT01584440|183452466|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 57|||||
91785974|NCT01584440|183452467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.5|||ANCOVA||Day 36|||4.50|1.62|0.0001
91785975|NCT01584440|183452467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.43|||ANCOVA||Day 70|||3.43|0.75|0.2184
91785976|NCT01584440|183452468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.42|||ANCOVA|||||5.42|1.11|0.0266
91785977|NCT01584440|183452469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.55|||ANCOVA||Day 36|||3.55|1.31|0.002
91785978|NCT01584440|183452469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.0|||ANCOVA||Day 70|||5.00|1.08|0.031
91785979|NCT01584440|183452470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.46|||ANCOVA|||||4.46|1.31|0.0048
91785980|NCT00531427|183452489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistics are based on a mixed effect general linear model||"\[Week 12 analysis\] The null hypothesis was no group differences. The alternative hypothesis was that BTDS arm was superior to the placebo arm.~Pain scale is 11 points (0 = no pain to 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine)."||0.05|-0.80|0.0853
91785981|NCT00531427|183452490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.7098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.159||To control multiplicity and family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy (stepwise approach) was used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary variables. If the primary is negative, the secondary P values are descriptive only.|ANCOVA|with treatment as a factor and screening and pre-randomization mean pain as covariates.||Categorical analysis P value is based on a Fisher's exact test. Mean daily number of tablets for subjects who took \<=1 dose of supplemental analgesia||0.159|-0.233|0.7098
91785982|NCT00531427|183452491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.46||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-1.48||To control multiplicity and family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy (stepwise approach) was used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary variables. If the primary is negative, the secondary P values are descriptive only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 4, 8, 12 analysis The sleep disturbance subscale was analyzed using the mixed effect linear model with fixed effects for treatment (BTDS or placebo) and time (weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12) as categorical, screening mean and prerandomization mean value as covariates, and subject as a random effect.||-1.48|-7.44|0.0034
91785983|NCT05477108|183452492|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 42.91. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.1028 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|104.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.78|113.44|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||113.44|95.78|
91844902|NCT02851511|183571599|SUPERIORITY|tDCS vs. sham superiority with cognitive training will be tested based on the 320 participants who are assigned to the two cognitive training arms. The effects of tDCS on changes in NIH Toolbox Fluid Cognition Composite Score (NIHTB FCC) from baseline to 3-month follow-up are estimated by linear regression models, with missing outcomes predicted by regression models that include demographic and baseline characteristics.|Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.56||Formal statistical inference of the tDCS effect was based on the inverse-normal combination of two p-values, one from the Phase I data (N=42) and the other from the Phase II data (N=292).|Regression, Linear|||"Null hypothesis: The combination of cognitive training (12 weeks) and active stimulation (over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) will not lead to beneficial changes on the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery.~The study is designed to have at least 90% power to detect a difference of effect size 0.42 between cognitive training+tDCS and cognitive training+sham, using a normal inverse combination test at one-sided 0.025 level."||1.56|-0.91|<0.05
91844903|NCT04004208|183571607|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is 5%. Confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval based on the Bayesian analysis.|Difference in proportions|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.162||||||Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior distributions. Calculation of two-sided 90% credible interval for the treatment difference (aflibercept - laser photocoagulation).||0.162|-0.08|
91844904|NCT04004208|183571608|OTHER|Confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval based on the Bayesian analysis.|Difference in proportions|-0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.046||||||Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior distributions. Calculation of two-sided 90% credible interval for the treatment difference (aflibercept - laser photocoagulation).||0.046|-0.11|
91844905|NCT04004208|183571609|OTHER|Confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval based on the Bayesian analysis.|Difference in proportions|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.019|0.175||||||Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior distributions. Calculation of two-sided 90% credible interval for the treatment difference (aflibercept - laser photocoagulation).||0.175|0.019|
91844906|NCT02118714|183571639|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.7|41.6||||||||41.6|10.7|
91844907|NCT02118714|183571639|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|49.9||||||||49.9|6.8|
91844908|NCT02118714|183571640|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.2|28.4||||||||28.4|3.2|
91844909|NCT02118714|183571640|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|36.4||||||||36.4|1.5|
91844910|NCT02013687|183571671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance of IgG values at study day 196 as compared to day 0 (pre-immune).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91844911|NCT02013687|183571671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance of IgG values at study day 196 as compared to day 0 (pre-immune).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91844912|NCT02013687|183571672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91844913|NCT02013687|183571672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
91844914|NCT02013687|183571673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91844915|NCT02013687|183571673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91844916|NCT01272011|183571674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Two-way RMANOVA Student-Newman-Keuls|||Daily acute and cumulative Pre vs Post comparisons||||<0.001
91844917|NCT01272011|183571675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA and Student-Neuman-Keuls|||Compared outcomes from Baseline versus Post-Day 10 IH for mean slope of AF vs. Resistance||||<0.05
91844918|NCT01272011|183571675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA and Student-Neuman-Keuls|||Compared outcomes from Baseline versus Post-Day 10 IH for mean slope of of Pressure vs. Resistance||||<0.05
91844919|NCT02240680|183571681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures(MMRM) included treatment, week and interaction as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c, daily basal insulin dose as covariates|Adjusted mean of all differences between HbA1c at baseline and after 24 weeks. It is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||MMRM including fixed effects treatment , week and treatment by week interaction linear covariates baseline HbA1c , baseline daily basal insulin and baseline HbA1c by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).|-0.46|-0.81|< 0.0001
91844920|NCT02240680|183571682|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|2.491|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error for odds ratio.|For any hypoglycemia event accompanied by prespecified glucose value||2.491|0.861|0.1594
91844921|NCT02240680|183571682|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.188|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error for odds ratio.|For glucose value \< 54mg/dL according American Diabetes Association definition of clinically significant hypoglycaemia||2.188|0.604|0.6720
91844922|NCT02240680|183571683|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.468|10.206|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error of odds ratio|||10.206|2.468|< 0.0001
91844923|NCT02240680|183571684|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.519|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.485|8.848|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error of odds ratio|||8.848|2.485|< 0.0001
91851769|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.52|-0.05|0.1114
91851770|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.21|-0.42|0.5150
91844924|NCT02240680|183571685|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.731|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.302|6.048|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error of odds ratio|||6.048|2.302|< 0.0001
91844925|NCT02240680|183571686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures(MMRM) included treatment, week and interaction as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c, FPG, daily insulin dose as covariates|Adjusted mean of all differences between HbA1c at baseline and after 24 weeks. It is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||MMRM including fixed effects treatment, week and treatment by week interaction, linear covariates baseline HbA1c, baseline daily basal insulin, baseline FPG and baseline FPG by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).|-2.0|-21.0|0.0178
91844926|NCT01657032|183571687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The differences between the study groups were considered significant when the P value was \<0.05.||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91844927|NCT01782326|183571698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study was designed to have \>95% power to rule out a 1.15-fold increase in the rate exacerbations for QVA149 vs. salmeterol/fluticasone.|Rate Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||Generalized linear model||If the upper limit of the confidence interval was \<1.15 then non-inferiority of QVA149 compared to SFC could be claimed|||0.96|0.83|
91650352|NCT01335464|183193199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|5.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.48|2.52|<0.0001
91650353|NCT01335464|183193202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.914||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.79|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted||2.79|1.32|0.0007
91650354|NCT01335464|183193203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.847||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.66|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted||2.66|1.28|0.0010
91844928|NCT01782326|183571698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||Generalized linear method||If non-inferiority was demonstrated, superiority of QVA149A compared to SFC in reducing exacerbation rate could be claimed if the upper limit of the same CI was less than 1.|||0.96|0.83|0.003
91844929|NCT01782326|183571699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||||0.91|0.78|<0.001
91844930|NCT01782326|183571700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.91|||Generalized linear model|||||0.91|0.75|<0.001
91844931|NCT01782326|183571701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.86|||Regression, Cox|||||0.86|0.70|<0.001
91844932|NCT01782326|183571706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.74|0.256
91844933|NCT01782326|183571707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.69|0.008
91785984|NCT05477108|183452492|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.85. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0831 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.31|103.58|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||103.58|84.31|
91785985|NCT05477108|183452492|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.66. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0971 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.9|109.11|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||109.11|91.90|
91785986|NCT05477108|183452492|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. The intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 42.66. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were within the expanded equivalence limits of 73.29% to 136.44% and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.44|112.6|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||112.60|94.44|
91844934|NCT01782326|183571708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.66|0.046
91844935|NCT01782326|183571709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.10|0.38|0.790
91844936|NCT02303574|183571768|OTHER|Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.|Slope|1.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.391||||||||1.391|1.183|
91844937|NCT02303574|183571768|OTHER|Effect of food analysis by linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effect of fasting status.|Ratio (%)|90.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.72|98.31||||||||98.31|83.72|
91844938|NCT02303574|183571769|OTHER|Time dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|159.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.61|180.7||||||||180.70|140.61|
91844939|NCT02303574|183571769|OTHER|Time dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|151.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.23|166.74||||||||166.74|138.23|
91851771|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||0.89|0.34|<0.001
91844940|NCT02303574|183571769|OTHER|Time dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|158.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.67|171.67||||||||171.67|146.67|
91844941|NCT02303574|183571770|OTHER|Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.|Slope|1.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1329|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9513|1.504||||||||1.504|0.9513|
91844942|NCT02303574|183571770|OTHER|ime dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|159.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.61|180.7||||||||180.70|140.61|
91844943|NCT02303574|183571770|OTHER|ime dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|151.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.23|166.74||||||||166.74|138.23|
91844944|NCT02303574|183571770|OTHER|ime dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|158.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.67|171.67||||||||171.67|146.67|
91844945|NCT02303574|183571771|OTHER||Slope|1.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.198|1.406||||||Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.||1.406|1.198|
91844946|NCT02303574|183571771|OTHER|Effect of food analysis by linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effect of fasting status.|Ratio (%)|64.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.07|74.7||||||||74.70|55.07|
91650355|NCT01335464|183193204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, baseline SGRQ total score||1.29|0.55|0.4298
91709479|NCT04378569|183311571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.7237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|||2.44|0.23|0.7237
91844947|NCT02303574|183571772|OTHER|Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.|Slope|1.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1098|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9285|1.385||||||||1.385|0.9285|
91844948|NCT00495469|183571836|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.003||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.003
91844949|NCT00495469|183571836|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.047||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.047
91844950|NCT00495469|183571836|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.006||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.006
91844951|NCT00495469|183571836|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.085||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.085
91844952|NCT00495469|183571836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.05|-0.73|0.085
91844953|NCT00495469|183571836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.16||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.16|-0.95|0.006
91844954|NCT00495469|183571836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.05|-0.73|0.084
91844955|NCT00495469|183571836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.28||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.28|-1.05|0.001
91844956|NCT00495469|183571836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.2||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.20|-0.97|0.003
91844957|NCT00495469|183571836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.20|-0.58|0.337
91844958|NCT00495469|183571838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.04||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.04|-1.67|0.039
91844959|NCT00495469|183571838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.23||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.23|-1.89|0.013
91844960|NCT00495469|183571838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.19||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.19|-1.46|0.131
91844961|NCT00495469|183571838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.13||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.13|-1.77|0.023
91851772|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-1.65|-2.19|<0.001
91844962|NCT00495469|183571838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.32||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.32|-1.95|0.007
91844963|NCT00495469|183571838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.32||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.32|-1.34|0.223
91844964|NCT00495469|183571839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-7.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-7.4|-40.9|0.005
91844965|NCT00495469|183571839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|-17.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-17.4|-52.5|<0.001
91650356|NCT01335464|183193205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.744||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component-by-visit and random effect for patient.||1.10|-5.74|0.1832
91650357|NCT01335464|183193206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.446||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient error are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ impact component, baseline SGRQ Impact component-by-visit and random effect for patient||3.70|-1.97|0.5510
91650358|NCT01335464|183193207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427||0.4049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Activities component, baseline SGRQ Activities component-by-visit and random effect for patient||1.61|-3.99|0.4049
91785987|NCT05477108|183452492|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. The intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.75. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were within the expanded equivalence limits of 74.24% to 134.70% and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.29|102.26|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||102.26|85.29|
91650359|NCT01335464|183193208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289||0.5446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ-I Total score, baseline SGRQ-I Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||1.75|-3.31|0.5446
91650360|NCT01335464|183193209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SOBQ score, baseline SOBQ score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||2.60|-4.35|0.6203
91650361|NCT01335464|183193210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.803||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within- patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||3.30|-3.78|0.8942
91709480|NCT04378569|183311571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|||2.10|0.17|0.8380
91851773|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-2.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-2.27|-2.81|<0.001
91851774|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||2.06|1.34|<0.001
91851775|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-0.15|-0.95|0.0071
91851776|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-1.90|-2.61|<0.001
91851777|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||2.08|1.16|<0.001
91851778|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.53|-0.56|0.9557
91851779|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-1.14|-2.15|<0.001
91851780|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||1.27|0.18|0.0094
91851781|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||1.11|-0.09|0.0943
91851782|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.35|-0.82|0.4354
91851783|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.2509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.98|-0.26|0.2509
91851784|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.67||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||1.31|0.02|0.0429
91851785|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.93|-0.34|0.3585
91851786|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.9014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.74|-0.65|0.9014
91851787|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||1.28|-0.13|0.1122
91851788|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||1.23|-0.20|0.1602
91851789|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.19|-1.17|0.1599
91851790|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.5045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.92|-0.45|0.5045
91851791|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||1.41|0.03|0.0412
91844966|NCT00495469|183571839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-12.7||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-12.7|-46.9|0.001
91844967|NCT00495469|183571839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-19.5||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-19.5|-53.6|<0.001
91844968|NCT00495469|183571839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-12.7||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-12.7|-46.3|0.001
91844969|NCT00495469|183571839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|3.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||3.4|-31.0|0.114
91844970|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.06||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||6.06|0.27|0.757
91844971|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|8.01||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||8.01|0.31|0.580
91844972|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.73||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||5.73|0.22|0.881
91844973|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|8.75||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||8.75|0.44|0.382
91844974|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|8.68||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<=6.5%)||8.68|0.42|0.409
91844975|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.29||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||6.29|0.24|0.795
91709481|NCT04378569|183311571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.55||p-value was unevaluable||Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|||2.55|0.04|
91844976|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.95||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||3.95|0.36|0.765
91844977|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|9.09||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||9.09|0.82|0.100
91844978|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.3||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||4.30|0.38|0.687
91844979|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.52||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||5.52|0.50|0.409
91844980|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|9.15||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<7%)||9.15|0.86|0.086
91844981|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|5.88||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||5.88|0.52|0.369
91844982|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||6.40|0.74|0.160
91844983|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|11.42||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||11.42|1.31|0.014
91785988|NCT05477108|183452492|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. The intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.81. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were within the expanded equivalence limits of 74.21% to 134.75% and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.44|108.71|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||108.71|91.44|
91785989|NCT05477108|183452493|EQUIVALENCE|For AUCinf, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 34.29. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0593 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.35|115.72|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||115.72|100.35|
91785990|NCT05477108|183452493|EQUIVALENCE|For AUCinf, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 86.08. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.2925 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Ratio Mean (%)|112.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.27|136.49|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||136.49|92.27|
91844984|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.44||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||6.44|0.73|0.162
91844985|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|12.17||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||12.17|1.38|0.011
91785991|NCT05477108|183452493|EQUIVALENCE|For AUCinf, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 47.07. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.1250 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.76|112.15|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||112.15|91.76|
91785992|NCT05477108|183452494|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 35.68. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0668 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|106.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.3|115.01|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||115.01|99.30|
91785993|NCT05477108|183452494|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 74.17. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.2735 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|102.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.12|116.79|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||116.79|89.12|
91785994|NCT05477108|183452494|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 66.88. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.2210 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.91|122.36|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||122.36|94.91|
91785995|NCT05477108|183452494|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean ratio (%)|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.39|114.41|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||114.41|98.39|
91785996|NCT05477108|183452494|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|97.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.18|111.82|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||111.82|84.18|
91785997|NCT05477108|183452494|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|105.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.59|120.75|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||120.75|92.59|
91785998|NCT01253577|183452502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.0280
91785999|NCT01253577|183452503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91786000|NCT01253577|183452504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.0023
91786001|NCT05688670|183452505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.18|-0.59|0.001
91786002|NCT05688670|183452506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||12-24 hour postoperative opioid use||0.08|-0.20|0.41
91844986|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|15.73||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||15.73|1.79|0.003
91844987|NCT00495469|183571840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.49||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||5.49|0.63|0.264
91786003|NCT05688670|183452506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||24-48 hour postoperative opioid use||0.06|-0.37|0.14
91786004|NCT05688670|183452506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||12-48 hours hours after surgery||0.09|-0.52|0.16
91650362|NCT01335464|183193211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.596||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.77|-1.49|0.3042
91650363|NCT01335464|183193212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.276||||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.83|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo|Logistic regression with term treatment||1.83|0.89|0.1818
91786005|NCT05688670|183452507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.02|0.004
91786006|NCT05688670|183452508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.9|-20.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-20.1|-78.9|0.002
91786007|NCT00488683|183452509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.06||||0.69||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.69
91786008|NCT00488683|183452509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.3||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.30
91786009|NCT00488683|183452509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||<0.0001
91844988|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.28||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||5.28|0.46|0.480
91786010|NCT00488683|183452509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.67||||0.001||95.0||||Values from Groups I, II and III were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.001
91650364|NCT01335464|183193214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.6793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.46|||Normal distribution|Risk ratio was calculated as the ratio of risk of exacerbation in both treatment groups.|Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|The log of the risk ratio was assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance equal to the sum of the reciprocals of the number of patients with at least one exacerbation in each treatment arm.||2.46|0.56|0.6793
91786011|NCT00488683|183452509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.08||||0.61||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.61
91650365|NCT01335464|183193215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.36|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.36|0.29|0.2880
91844989|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|16.46||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||16.46|1.44|0.011
91851792|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.17|-1.24|0.1347
91851793|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||1.01|-0.41|0.4027
91650366|NCT01335464|183193216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.47|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.47|0.25|0.3515
91650367|NCT01335464|183193217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.82|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.82|0.26|0.4869
91786012|NCT00488683|183452509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.02||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.02
91786013|NCT00488683|183452509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.45||||0.002||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.002
91786014|NCT00488683|183452509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.4||||0.08||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.08
91844990|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|9.96||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||9.96|0.85|0.087
91844991|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.78||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||9.78|0.87|0.082
91844992|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.27||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||13.27|1.20|0.024
91844993|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|16.66||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||16.66|1.41|0.012
91844994|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.54||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||5.54|0.62|0.270
91844995|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.72||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||9.72|1.04|0.043
91844996|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.53||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||6.53|0.72|0.169
91844997|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.36||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||9.36|1.04|0.042
91786015|NCT00488683|183452509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.004||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
91786016|NCT00488683|183452509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
91786017|NCT00488683|183452509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.66||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91844998|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|11.06||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||11.06|1.23|0.020
91844999|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|6.24||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||6.24|0.67|0.211
91845000|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|13.75||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||13.75|0.61|0.179
91845001|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|20.87||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||20.87|1.17|0.030
91845002|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|12.86||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||12.86|0.69|0.142
91845003|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.21||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|25.83||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||25.83|1.49|0.012
91845004|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|54.0||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||54.00|3.14|<0.001
91845005|NCT00495469|183571841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|27.99||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||27.99|1.56|0.010
91845006|NCT00495469|183571842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.59||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.59|-0.19|0.318
91845007|NCT00495469|183571842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.10|-0.73|0.131
91650368|NCT01335464|183193218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.51|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.51|0.36|0.4430
91650369|NCT01335464|183193219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.25|0.52|0.3558
91650370|NCT01335464|183193220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline SpO2, baseline SpO2-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.64|-0.07|0.1138
91650371|NCT01335464|183193221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0896||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\], baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.161|-0.191|0.8650
91650372|NCT01365845|183193225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Non-parametric paired t-test (Wilcoxon)|29.1||||0.0078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0078
91650373|NCT03210259|183193237|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if the confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Least squares means ratio|105.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.2|96.58|114.64|||||The least squares means were from ANCOVA. Ratio was calculated with the switching arm in the numerator and the continuous arm in the denominator.|The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected means for Switching vs. Continuous Humira is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.||114.64|96.58|
91650374|NCT03210259|183193238|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if the confidence interval (CI) for the LS means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Least squares means ratio|101.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.2|93.26|109.7|||||The least squares means were from ANCOVA. Ratio was calculated with the switching arm in the numerator and the continuous arm in the denominator.|The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected means for Switching vs. Continuous Humira is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.||109.70|93.26|
91786018|NCT00488683|183452509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.45||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
91786019|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.7||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.70
91786020|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.13||||0.37||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.37
91786021|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.66|||<|0.0001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||<0.0001
91650375|NCT03210259|183193239|OTHER||Least squares means ratio|107.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.2|97.33|118.43|||||The least squares means were from ANCOVA. Ratio was calculated with the switching arm as numerator and the continuous arm as the denominator.|No hypothesis was defined and no statistical test was performed.||118.43|97.33|
91650376|NCT03210259|183193241|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.45|13.96|||||Risk difference was calculated as Switching arm minus Continuous Humira.|No hypothesis was tested.||13.96|-2.45|
91650377|NCT03210259|183193242|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.35|15.62|||||Risk difference was calculated as Switching arm minus Continuous Humira.|No hypothesis was tested.||15.62|-4.35|
91650378|NCT00990561|183193289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = there is no difference between using ultravate once daily vs. twice daily||||<0.001
91786022|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.9|||<|0.0001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||<0.0001
91650379|NCT03182686|183193298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"H0:π ≤ π0 versus HA:π \> π0~Where π0 is the hypothesized clinically significant value for the proportion of responders. The value will be 30% in this study. This test will be tested using an exact binomial test. That is, given the sample size of n, the number of responders X, and the value of π0 =0.30, then probability that X or more events would be observed will be calculated as the p-value. Since this is a one-sided test, the alpha level will be 0.025."||||<0.0001
91786023|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.01||||0.94||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.94
91786024|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.7||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.70
91786025|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.3||||0.04||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.04
91786026|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.46||||0.004||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.004
91650380|NCT01989195|183193358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91786027|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.005||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
91786028|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
91786029|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.43||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91786030|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.82||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
91786031|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.05||||0.68||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 2 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.68
91786032|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.46||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.46
91786033|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.08||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.08
91786034|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.45|||<|0.001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||<0.001
91786035|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.75||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.75
91786036|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.27||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.27
91786037|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.07||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.07
91786038|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.23||||0.06||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.06
91786039|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0029||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
91845008|NCT00495469|183571842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.24||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.24|-0.54|0.452
91845009|NCT00495469|183571842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.36||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.36|-0.44|0.845
91709482|NCT04378569|183311572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||3.07|0.31|0.9604
91709483|NCT04378569|183311572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||3.25|0.32|0.9752
91845010|NCT00495469|183571842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.23||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.23|-0.58|0.393
91845011|NCT00495469|183571842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.03||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.03|-0.76|0.072
91650381|NCT01512979|183193371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.13|-0.46||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.13|<0.0001
91786040|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0059||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
91786041|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.04||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91786042|NCT00488683|183452510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
91786043|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.26||||0.46||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.46
91786044|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.14||||0.59||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.59
91786045|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.006||||0.98||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.98
91786046|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.24||||0.2||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.20
91786047|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.43||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.08
91786048|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.08||||0.68||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.68
91786049|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.77||||0.006||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.006
91786050|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.16||||0.48||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.48
91786051|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.26||||0.46||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.46
91786052|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.21||||0.4||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.40
91786053|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.12||||0.6||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.60
91786054|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.4||||0.03||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.03
91786055|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.72||||0.001||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.001
91786056|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.0||||1||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||1.00
91786057|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.39||||0.24||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.24
91786058|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.34||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for the analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.34
91786059|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786060|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786061|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786062|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786063|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786064|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.007||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786065|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.59||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786066|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786067|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.77||||0.0002||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.0002
91786068|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.03||||0.9||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.90
91650382|NCT01512979|183193372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.0032||95.0|-28.0|-5.7||The model includes treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and continuous baseline FPG.|ANCOVA|||||-5.7|-28.0|0.0032
91786069|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.47||||0.02||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.02
91786070|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.29||||0.12||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.12
91786071|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.22||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.22
91845012|NCT00495469|183571843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.30|-0.40|0.767
91845013|NCT00495469|183571843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.27||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.27|-0.46|0.604
91786072|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||<0.0001
91650383|NCT01512979|183193374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.0031||95.0|1.573|9.328||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.328|1.573|0.0031
91786073|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.15||||0.82||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.82
91786074|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.15||||0.66||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.66
91786075|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.03||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.03
91899790|NCT00051363|183693818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9464||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9464
91899791|NCT00051363|183693818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4372||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.4372
91899792|NCT00051363|183693819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9656||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9656
91899793|NCT00051363|183693819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6765||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.6765
91899794|NCT00051363|183693819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5288||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.5288
91899795|NCT00051363|183693819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7807||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.7807
91899796|NCT00051363|183693819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9603||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9603
91899797|NCT00051363|183693819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3075||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3075
91845014|NCT00495469|183571843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.48||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.48|-0.23|0.483
91845015|NCT00495469|183571843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.37||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.37|-0.35|0.956
91845016|NCT00495469|183571843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.6||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.60|-0.12|0.185
91845017|NCT00495469|183571843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.39||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.39|-0.32|0.863
91845018|NCT00495469|183571844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.16|-0.46|0.348
91845019|NCT00495469|183571844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.31||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.31|-0.33|0.952
91845020|NCT00495469|183571844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.42||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.42|-0.21|0.523
91899798|NCT00051363|183693820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4262||||||2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.4262
91899799|NCT00051363|183693820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3161||||||2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.3161
91899800|NCT00051363|183693820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1835||||||2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.1835
91845021|NCT00495469|183571844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.29|-0.34|0.889
91845022|NCT00495469|183571844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.56||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.56|-0.07|0.124
91845023|NCT00495469|183571844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.40|-0.22|0.581
91845024|NCT00495469|183571845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.10|-0.05|0.518
91845025|NCT00495469|183571845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.11|-0.04|0.352
91845026|NCT00495469|183571845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.16||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.16|0.01|0.026
91845027|NCT00495469|183571845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.14||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.14|-0.01|0.069
91845028|NCT00495469|183571845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.13|-0.02|0.154
91845029|NCT00495469|183571845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.18||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.18|0.03|0.005
91845030|NCT00495469|183571846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.08||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.08|-0.58|0.143
91845031|NCT00495469|183571846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.22||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.22|-0.46|0.495
91845032|NCT00495469|183571846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.14||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.14|-0.52|0.261
91845033|NCT00495469|183571846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.2||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.20|-0.46|0.446
91845034|NCT00495469|183571846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.38|-0.29|0.783
91845035|NCT00495469|183571846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.21|-0.46|0.454
91845036|NCT00495469|183571847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.22||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.22|-0.59|0.363
91845037|NCT00495469|183571847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.08||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.08|-0.76|0.111
91845038|NCT00495469|183571847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.04||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.04|-0.77|0.080
91845039|NCT00495469|183571847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.18||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.18|-0.64|0.267
91845040|NCT00495469|183571847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.29||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.29|-0.54|0.549
91845041|NCT00495469|183571847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.01||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.01|-0.81|0.056
91845042|NCT00495469|183571848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.66||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.66|-1.65|0.396
91845043|NCT00495469|183571848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.33||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||-0.33|-2.70|0.013
91845044|NCT00495469|183571848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.26||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||-0.26|-2.61|0.017
91845045|NCT00495469|183571848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.28||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||-0.28|-2.61|0.015
91845046|NCT00495469|183571848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.08||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.08|-2.26|0.069
91845047|NCT00495469|183571848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.2||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||2.20|-0.15|0.086
91845048|NCT00372567|183571901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.235|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||No hypothesis tested.||2.235|0.484|
91845049|NCT00372567|183571902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|12.41|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||12.41|0.640|
91845050|NCT00372567|183571904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|2.088|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||2.088|0.505|
91845051|NCT00372567|183571905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||13.0|0.4|
91845052|NCT00372567|183571908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.434|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|11.15|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||11.15|1.057|
91845053|NCT00372567|183571909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.379|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified for previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||2.3|0.1|
91845054|NCT00372567|183571910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.318|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified for previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||3.8|0.5|
91845055|NCT03890120|183571935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-1.4||||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|12.3|||Mantel Haenszel||The difference of cilofexor and placebo,95% confidence interval(CI),and P value(1-sided)were obtained by the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method,with baseline ursodeoxycholic acid(UDCA)use and Ludwig fibrosis stage as stratification factors.|||12.3|-15.2|0.4186
91845056|NCT03890120|183571940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-4.0||||0.3884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||The LSM,95% CI and P-value(1-sided) were obtained by an analysis of covariance(ANCOVA)model with change at Week 96 as dependent variable,baseline value of outcome measure,baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||21|-28|0.3884
91845057|NCT03890120|183571941|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-9.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|1.0|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||1|-20|0.0390
91845058|NCT03890120|183571942|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.6||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|6.4|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||6.4|-11.6|0.2845
91650384|NCT01512979|183193375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.0025||95.0|1.458|5.849||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.849|1.458|0.0025
91650385|NCT01512979|183193376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.448||||0.0008||95.0|1.453|4.123||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.123|1.453|0.0008
91650386|NCT00529568|183193382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference in SVR|6.0||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.9||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test adjusted for the randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with SVR in the eltrombopag group minus the percentage of participants with SVR in the placebo group. Adjusted for the actual strata: HCV genotype, baseline platelet count, and HCV RNA.|||10.9|1.2|0.0202
91650387|NCT00951899|183193441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||A P value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean total GLP-1 concentration from baseline to 12 weeks in Colesevelam subjects||||0.0006
91650388|NCT00951899|183193441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean total GLP-1 concentration from baseline to 12 weeks in Placebo subjects||||0.30
91650389|NCT01123980|183193449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered to be confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was below or equal to 0.4% or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D \> 0.4% against HA: D =\< 0.4%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (investigational product minus comparator). Furthermore, superiority of BIAsp 30 OD over insulin glargine OD was shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference is lower than 0%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001||95.0|-0.25|0.02||The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either non-inferiority or superiority, statistical significance level is 2.5%.|ANCOVA|The estimates are from a normal linear regression model with treatment, country and previous OADs as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||H0: The mean treatment difference (BIAsp 30 minus insulin glargine) \> 0.4%. HA: The mean treatment difference (BIAsp 30 minus insulin glargine) =\< 0.4%. Sample size was calculated to achieve a power of at least 90%, assuming an equal change in HbA1c and a common standard deviation of 1.25%||0.02|-0.25|< 0.001
91786076|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.53||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.53
91650390|NCT01123980|183193450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.24|0.19||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before breakfast|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.19|-0.24|<0.001
91786077|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.35||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.35
91786078|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.47||||0.09||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.09
91845059|NCT03890120|183571943|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.1||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|13.5|||Mantel Haenszel||The difference between cilofexor and Placebo, 95% CI, and the p-value (1-sided) were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline UDCA use and Ludwig fibrosis stage as stratification factors.|||13.5|-5.3|0.1978
91845060|NCT03890120|183571944|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|8.9||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|21.2|||Mantel Haenszel||The difference between cilofexor and Placebo, 95% CI, and the p-value (1-sided) were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline UDCA use and Ludwig fibrosis stage as stratification factors.|||21.2|-3.5|0.0797
91786079|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.04||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.04
91851794|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||1.55|0.07|0.0311
91786080|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.35||||0.1||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.10
91845061|NCT03890120|183571945|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.0||||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||3|-1|0.7275
91845062|NCT03890120|183571946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.03||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||0.14|-0.20|0.3636
91845063|NCT03890120|183571947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||1.5|-2.2|0.3595
91851795|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.3183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.35|-1.07|0.3183
91851796|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||1.22|-0.17|0.1371
91845064|NCT01052662|183571948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.00935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00356|=|0.00874|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Z = -2.62209|We modeled the mean proportion of weekly opioid use using a mixed-effect linear regression approach to assess the treatment effect, the time effect and the interaction of time x treatment effect while adjusting for the baseline mean proportion of weekly opioid use with baseline COWS, Addiction Severity Index (ASI) psychiatric and legal composite scores as covariates.||||=0.00874
91845065|NCT01052662|183571949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.87||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.64
91845066|NCT01052662|183571950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.4||||1.2|TWO_SIDED|||||These results are using survival curve estimates to first positive urine toxicology for any opioid. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used to perform our survival event analyses.|Log Rank|||||||1.2
91786081|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.35||||0.56||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.56
91786082|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.84||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.84
91786083|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.59||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91845067|NCT02478359|183571959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.92|0.33
91845068|NCT02478359|183571960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.77|0.88
91786084|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.001||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786085|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.22||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91845069|NCT02478359|183571961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.24|0.89|0.53
91786086|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786087|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.1||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91845070|NCT02478359|183571962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.20|0.88|0.73
91845071|NCT02478359|183571963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.93|0.21
91845072|NCT02478359|183571964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.93|0.26
91845073|NCT02478359|183571965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91845074|NCT02478359|183571966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
91845075|NCT02478359|183571967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||adjusted p values|Regression, Logistic|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.34
91845076|NCT02478359|183571968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
91845077|NCT02478359|183571969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
91845078|NCT02478359|183571970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.47
91650391|NCT01123980|183193450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.45|0.58||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Two hours after breakfast|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.58|-0.45|<0.001
91845079|NCT02478359|183571971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
91786088|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.66||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786089|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786090|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91845080|NCT02478359|183571972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.87
91851797|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||1.60|0.21|0.0113
91650392|NCT01123980|183193450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.31|0.58||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before lunch|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.58|-0.31|<0.001
91650393|NCT01123980|183193450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.26|0.82||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Two hours after lunch|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.82|-0.26|<0.001
91786091|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.29||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.08
91786092|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.05||||0.74||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.74
91786093|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.01||||0.94||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.94
91786094|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.09||||0.51||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.51
91786095|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.27||||0.12||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.12
91786096|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.25||||0.09||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.09
91786097|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.81||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.81
91786098|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.07||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.07
91786099|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.36||||0.02||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.02
91845081|NCT02478359|183571973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.70
91786100|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.59||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.59
91786101|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.1||||0.51||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.51
91786102|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.02||||0.9||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.9
91786103|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.39||||0.02||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.02
91851798|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.5608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.50|-0.92|0.5608
91650394|NCT01123980|183193450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|0.22|1.06||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before dinner|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||1.06|0.22|<0.001
91786104|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.19||||0.2||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.20
91786105|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.18||||0.34||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.34
91786106|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.33||||0.04||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.04
91786107|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786108|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0027||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786109|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0002||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786110|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0077||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786111|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786112|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786113|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0023||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786114|NCT00488683|183452511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786115|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.25||||0.59||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.59
91786116|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.12||||0.68||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.68
91786117|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.36||||0.12||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.12
91786118|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.26||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.26
91786119|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.43||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.08
91786120|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.17||||0.42||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.42
91786121|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.77||||0.02||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.02
91786122|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.12||||0.65||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.65
91786123|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.25||||0.58||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.58
91786124|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.19||||-0.51||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||-0.51
91786125|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.24||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.24
91899801|NCT00051363|183693820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2462||||||6M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.2462
91899802|NCT00051363|183693820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2069||||||6M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.2069
91786126|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.36||||0.06||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.06
91786127|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.72||||0.001||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.001
91786128|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.32||||0.12||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.12
91786129|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.49||||0.18||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.18
91786130|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.25||||0.34||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.34
91786131|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786132|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786133|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.13||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786134|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.05||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786135|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786136|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786137|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.6||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786138|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786139|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.83||||0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.001
91786140|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.57||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.57
91786141|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.65||||0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.001
91845082|NCT02478359|183571974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted P Values||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.35
91786142|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.11||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.11
91786143|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.02||||0.94||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.94
91786144|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.0003||||1||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||1.00
91845083|NCT02478359|183571975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||Adjusted P Values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.09
91786145|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.004||||1||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||1.00
91786146|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.3||||0.37||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.37
91786147|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.52||||0.09||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.09
91786148|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.21||||0.4||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.40
91851799|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.88|-0.53|0.6323
91786149|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.2||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.20
91786150|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.41||||0.03||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.03
91786151|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.48||||0.07||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.07
91786152|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.3||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.30
91786153|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.26||||0.74||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.74
91786154|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.378||||0.25||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.25
91786155|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.69||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786156|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786157|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.42||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786158|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.1||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786159|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0004||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786160|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786161|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786162|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.9||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786163|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.86||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.86
91790540|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91845084|NCT02478359|183571976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Adjusted P Values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.82
91845085|NCT02478359|183571977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Adjusted P values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.16
91845086|NCT02478359|183571978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Adjusted P values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.86
91845087|NCT02478359|183571979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91845088|NCT02478359|183571980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.82|0.69
91845089|NCT02478359|183571981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.35|0.11
91845090|NCT02478359|183571982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.65|0.21
91845091|NCT02478359|183571983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.84|0.60
91845092|NCT02478359|183571984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.66|0.63
91845093|NCT02478359|183571985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.68|0.80
91845094|NCT02478359|183571986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.06
91845095|NCT02478359|183571987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.07
91845096|NCT02478359|183571988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.67
91845097|NCT02478359|183571989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.13
91845098|NCT02478359|183571990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.34
91845099|NCT02478359|183571991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.11
91845100|NCT02478359|183571992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariated included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.83
91845101|NCT01818700|183572003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.96|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided|"The primary endpoint will be the actual reduction rate of pain intensity (0 -10) score at 8 weeks.~It will be analyzed by using paired t-test."||||10|-10|<0.05
91845102|NCT01852955|183572009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
91845103|NCT01852955|183572010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.04
91845104|NCT01852955|183572011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.36
91851800|NCT00922207|183587219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||1.11|-0.32|0.2752
91851801|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||9.71|0.26|0.6107
91786164|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.7||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.7
91786165|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.11||||0.58||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.58
91786166|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.13||||0.44||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.44
91786167|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.75||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.75
91786168|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.84||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.84
91786169|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.11||||0.67||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.67
91786170|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.002||||0.99||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.99
91786171|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.62||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.62
91786172|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.17||||0.36||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.36
91786173|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.003||||0.99||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.99
91790541|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.518|0.557||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.557|-0.518|0.943
91790542|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91851802|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.0788
91845105|NCT03633903|183572012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"The reported p-value was calculated and is not indicating a threshold for significance.~This applies to the change from row 1 to row 3 (e.g., baseline pre TSST-C versus follow-up timepoint pre TSST-C)"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91845106|NCT03633903|183572012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"The reported p-value was calculated and is not indicating a threshold for significance.~This is for the difference from row 1 to row 2 (baseline pre versus baseline post TSST-C)"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91845107|NCT03633903|183572012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||"The reported p-value was calculated and is not indicating a threshold for significance.~Comparing row 1 and row 4 (baseline pre TSST-C versus follow-up post TSST-C)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
91845108|NCT03633903|183572013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing group differences (CRP biomarker) in mindfulness versus control at baseline versus follow-up timepoints.||||.39
91845109|NCT03633903|183572013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing group differences (IL-6 biomarker) in mindfulness versus control at baseline versus follow-up timepoints.||||.95
91845110|NCT03633903|183572014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||the calculated p value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing group differences (symptoms of anxiety/depression) in mindfulness versus control at baseline versus follow-up timepoints.||||.08
91845111|NCT02987829|183572015|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Determination of the maximum tolerated dose.|One dose limiting toxicity occurred at 320 mg daily of grade 3 QTc prolongation therefore the 280 mg dose was determined to be the maximum tolerated dose and selected as the phase 2 dose.|||
91845112|NCT02531438|183572029|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.8|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus moxifloxacin.|||3.8|-7.1|
91845113|NCT02531438|183572030|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.4|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus moxifloxacin.|||7.4|-2.4|
91845114|NCT02531438|183572031|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.8|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus moxifloxacin.|||6.8|-1.7|
91845115|NCT01813422|183572032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.375|-0.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for the treatment group, the geographic region stratification factor, and baseline PAV.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-0.640|-1.375|< 0.0001
91845116|NCT01813422|183572033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.247|-2.531|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for the treatment group, the geographic region stratification factor, and baseline TAV.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-2.531|-7.247|< 0.0001
91845117|NCT01813422|183572034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by geographic region.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||23.5|10.3|< 0.0001
91845118|NCT01813422|183572035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|12.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by geographic region.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||19.1|5.8|0.0002
91845119|NCT00483262|183572050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||>= grade 3 adverse event proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.98|||||Estimated proportion of patients with a adverse event of grade 3 or higher.|Single Arm Study||.98|.72|
91845120|NCT00483262|183572050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||toxicity grade >=3 proportion|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.89|||||No comparison. Estimate the proportion of patients with grade 3 or higher toxicity.|Phase II toxicity||.89|.66|
91845121|NCT00483262|183572051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||response rate of PR or better|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.28|||||Response of PR or better|Phase I part of this phase I/II study||.28|.02|
91845122|NCT00483262|183572051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||response rate of PR or better|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.47|||||Response of PR or better|Phase II part of this phase I/II study.||0.47|0.21|
91845123|NCT00162942|183572106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.858
91845124|NCT00162942|183572108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||||||0.813
91845125|NCT00162942|183572109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91845126|NCT00162942|183572110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||||||0.670
91845127|NCT00162942|183572111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.977
91845128|NCT00162942|183572112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.670
91845129|NCT00162942|183572113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.170
91845130|NCT00162942|183572114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0773||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0773
91845131|NCT00162942|183572115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.261
91845132|NCT00162942|183572116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.379
91845133|NCT00162942|183572117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.441
91845134|NCT00162942|183572118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.759
91845135|NCT00162942|183572119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.222
91845136|NCT00162942|183572120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.256
91845137|NCT00162942|183572121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.870
91845138|NCT00162942|183572122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.350
91845139|NCT00162942|183572123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0632||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0632
91845140|NCT00162942|183572123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0504||95.0|||||Fisher Exact (Mid-P-Value)|||||||0.0504
91845141|NCT00162942|183572124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8265||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8265
91845142|NCT00162942|183572125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0676||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0676
91845143|NCT00162942|183572125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0506||95.0|||||Fisher Exact (Mid-P-Value)|||||||0.0506
91845144|NCT00162942|183572126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8721||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8721
91845145|NCT00162942|183572127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0289
91845146|NCT00162942|183572128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8618||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8618
91845147|NCT00410384|183572129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.19||For the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a step-down sequential testing procedure was used to control the type 1 error.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors (SELENA SLEDAI Score: ≤9 vs ≥10; proteinuria: \<2g vs ≥2g per 24hr; Race: African/indig-American vs Other)||||2.19|1.08|0.0167
91845148|NCT00410384|183572129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94||After superiority of 10 mg/kg vs placebo was established, the 1 mg/kg group was tested vs placebo (2-sided alpha=0.05)|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||1.94|0.95|0.0889
91845149|NCT00410384|183572130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||1.87|0.92|0.1323
91845150|NCT00410384|183572130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||Analysis was adjusted for baseline stratification factors.|||1.91|0.94|0.1050
91845151|NCT00410384|183572131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.32|1.15|0.0063
91845152|NCT00410384|183572131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||1.96|0.97|0.0740
91845153|NCT00410384|183572132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7962|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.7962
91845154|NCT00410384|183572132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9703|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.9703
91845155|NCT00410384|183572133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6583|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis adjusted for baseline PCS and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.6583
91845156|NCT00410384|183572133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3762|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis adjusted for baseline PCS and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.3762
91845157|NCT00410384|183572134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for baseline prednisone dose and baseline stratification factors.||||2.74|0.65|0.4253
91845158|NCT00410384|183572134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for baseline prednisone dose and baseline stratification factors.||||3.13|0.78|0.2081
91786174|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.2||||0.24||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.24
91786175|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.62||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.62
91786176|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.69||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for the analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.69
91786177|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.13||||0.6||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.60
91786178|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.01||||0.95||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.95
91786179|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0015||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786180|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0057||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786181|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786182|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Groups 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786183|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0048||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786184|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0018||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786185|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786186|NCT00488683|183452512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786187|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.14||||0.68||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.68
91786188|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.44||||0.09||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.09
91786189|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.69||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.69
91786190|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.38||||0.2||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.20
91786191|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.88||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.88
91786192|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.41||||0.12||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.12
91851803|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.1761
91786193|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.25||||0.37||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.37
91845159|NCT00783718|183572138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary comparison of the Induction Phase was tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test at a 5% significance level, with stratification according to the stratification factors (concomitant use of oral corticosteroids and previous exposure to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator \[6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine\] use).||31.7|11.6|< 0.0001
91845160|NCT00783718|183572139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|37.2||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both P-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the P-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other P-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the P-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||37.2|14.9|< 0.0001
91845161|NCT00783718|183572139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|40.4||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both P-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the P-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other P-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the P-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||40.4|17.9|< 0.0001
91845162|NCT00783718|183572140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|18.3||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); and 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially (closed sequential method). The first secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the primary comparison was significant and the second key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the first secondary endpoint was significant for vedolizumab.||18.3|4.7|0.0009
91845163|NCT00783718|183572141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0012||95.0|6.4|25.9||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); and 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially (closed sequential method). The first secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the primary comparison was significant and the second key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the first secondary endpoint was significant for vedolizumab.||25.9|6.4|0.0012
91845164|NCT00783718|183572142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|44.7||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||44.7|20.8|< 0.0001
91845165|NCT00783718|183572142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|40.3||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||40.3|16.7|< 0.0001
91845166|NCT00783718|183572143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|43.8||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||43.8|20.3|< 0.0001
91851804|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|5.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||5.09|0.34|0.7044
91851805|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.35||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|46.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||46.76|0.61|0.0927
91786194|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.36||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.36
91845167|NCT00783718|183572143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|48.3||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||48.3|24.4|< 0.0001
91845168|NCT00783718|183572144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|20.5||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||20.5|3.1|0.0079
91845169|NCT00783718|183572144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|24.4||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||24.4|6.2|0.0009
91845170|NCT00783718|183572145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|31.3||P-value based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||31.3|3.9|0.0120
91845171|NCT00783718|183572145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|46.2||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||46.2|16.6|< 0.0001
91845172|NCT01253980|183572168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.6|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.37|||Fisher Exact|||||3.37|0.11|>0.50
91845173|NCT01027871|183572212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.17||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.52||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.52|-0.18|0.433
91845174|NCT01027871|183572213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.2||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.19||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.19|-0.59|0.388
91845175|NCT01027871|183572214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.09||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.03||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.03|-0.21|0.197
91845176|NCT01027871|183572215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.609
91786195|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786196|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.2||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786197|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786198|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.15||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786199|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|1.0||||||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786200|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|1.0||||||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786201|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|1.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786202|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786203|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786204|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.08||||0.79||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.79
91786205|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.35||||0.16||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.16
91786206|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.48||||0.1||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.10
91786207|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.98||||0.003||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.003
91786208|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.91||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.91
91786209|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.57||||0.01||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.01
91786210|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.39||||0.19||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.19
91786211|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.89||||0.04||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.04
91786212|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786213|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.12||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786214|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.23||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786215|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.96||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786216|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.18||||0.46||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.46
91786217|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.9||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.90
91786218|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.008||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.008
91786219|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.42||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.08
91845177|NCT01027871|183572215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.314
91845178|NCT01027871|183572216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.375
91786220|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.15||||0.52||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.52
91786221|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.27||||0.18||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.18
91786222|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.37||||0.07||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.07
91786223|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.55||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.55
91786224|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91786225|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0007||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786226|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.27||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91786227|NCT00488683|183452513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91786228|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.45||||0.0006||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells at 12 months of age||||0.0006
91786229|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.41||||0.0021||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells at 12 months of age||||0.0021
91786230|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells at 12 months of age||||
91786231|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.15||||0.53||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells 1 month after booster vaccination||||0.53
91786232|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.21||||0.26||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Groups 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||0.26
91786233|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.84||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||0.84
91786234|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|0.22||||0.26||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||0.26
91786235|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||
91845179|NCT01027871|183572216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P- value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.811
91786236|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.05||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||
91786237|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age||||<0.001
91786238|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.46|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age||||<0.001
91786239|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age||||<0.001
91845180|NCT01027871|183572217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.43||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.05||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P- value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG"|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.05|-0.92|0.144
91851806|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04||||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|36.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||36.89|0.44|0.1858
91851807|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||3.38|0.33|0.9385
91851808|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||5.77|0.43|0.5068
91851809|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||5.50|0.41|0.5544
91851810|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||2.31|0.26|0.6510
91851811|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.3192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||1.69|0.20|0.3192
91851812|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||2.03|0.29|0.5818
91851813|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||2.66|0.41|0.8796
91851814|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||1.52|0.27|0.3050
91851815|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.2414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||1.44|0.26|0.2414
91851816|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.22|0.50|0.8502
91851817|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.61|0.38|0.5000
91851818|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.53|0.36|0.3882
91851819|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.99|0.50|0.9584
91851820|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.34|0.35|0.2576
91851821|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.34|0.36|0.2362
91851822|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.90|0.49|0.9861
91851823|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.2919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.35|0.37|0.2919
91851824|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.38|0.38|0.2674
91851825|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||1.64|0.43|0.6148
91851826|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||1.08|0.30|0.0904
91851827|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||1.27|0.36|0.2073
91851828|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.98|0.52|0.9980
91851829|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.3489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.40|0.39|0.3489
91851830|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.38|0.38|0.2847
91851831|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||1.62|0.44|0.5596
91851832|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||1.27|0.36|0.2112
91851833|NCT00922207|183587220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||1.48|0.43|0.4066
91851834|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.6921
91851835|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.3939
91851836|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6818|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.6818
91845181|NCT01027871|183572217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.25||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.2||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.20|-0.70|0.360
91845182|NCT01027871|183572217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.26||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.19||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.19|-0.72|0.342
91845183|NCT01027871|183572217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.12||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.32||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG"|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.32|-0.56|0.654
91845184|NCT01027871|183572217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.25||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|0.23||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.23|-0.73|0.387
91845185|NCT01027871|183572217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.29||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.21||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.21|-0.79|0.339
91845186|NCT01027871|183572217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.1||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for 0300 hours BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.50|-0.30|0.676
91845187|NCT01027871|183572219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.162
91845188|NCT01027871|183572220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.804
91845189|NCT01027871|183572222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.937||90.0|-0.16|0.14||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for baseline."|ANOVA||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.14|-0.16|0.937
91845190|NCT01027871|183572222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.03||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.1||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for Week 12."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.10|-0.16|0.687
91845191|NCT01027871|183572224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.4||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.07||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.07|-0.87|0.159
91845192|NCT01027871|183572224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.17||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.29||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.29|-0.62|0.542
91845193|NCT01027871|183572225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.13||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.13|-0.16|0.880
91845194|NCT01027871|183572225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.17||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|-0.03||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.03|-0.32|0.045
91845195|NCT01027871|183572226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.273
91845196|NCT01027871|183572226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.287
91845197|NCT01027871|183572226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.879||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.879
91845198|NCT01027871|183572226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.722
91845199|NCT01027871|183572227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.139
91845200|NCT01027871|183572227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.569
91845201|NCT01027871|183572227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
91845202|NCT01027871|183572227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91851837|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7582|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.7582
91851838|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5381|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.5381
91851839|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.7747
91851840|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8034|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.8034
91786240|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.24||||0.06||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||0.06
91786241|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||<0.001
91845203|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.26||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.67||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.67|-0.16|0.305
91845204|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.14||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.26||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.26|-0.54|0.571
91845205|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.26||||0.454||90.0|-0.85|0.32||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.32|-0.85|0.454
91845206|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.26||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.26|-1.40|0.016
91845207|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.07||||0.838||90.0|-0.61|0.48||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.48|-0.61|0.838
91845208|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.69||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|-0.16||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.16|-1.22|0.033
91899803|NCT00051363|183693820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5235||||||6M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.5235
91786242|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.01||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||0.01
91786243|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.1||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||0.10
91845209|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.4||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.15||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.15|-0.95|0.229
91786244|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||
91845210|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.27||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.27||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.27|-0.80|0.412
91845211|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.15||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.38||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.38|-0.68|0.642
91786245|NCT00488683|183452514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.25||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||
91786246|NCT00488683|183452520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.04||||0.7||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup A||||0.70
91845212|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.16||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.36||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.36|-0.67|0.614
91786247|NCT00488683|183452520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.63||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup C||||0.63
91845213|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.5||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|0.07||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.07|-1.07|0.147
91845214|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.42||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.13||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.13|-0.98|0.210
91845215|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.28||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.31||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.31|-0.86|0.438
91845216|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|-0.13||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.13|-1.28|0.043
91845217|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.24||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.72||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for 0300 hours BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.72|-0.23|0.403
91845218|NCT01027871|183572228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.29||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.18||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for 0300 hours BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.18|-0.75|0.314
91845219|NCT01027871|183572230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.046
91845220|NCT01027871|183572230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.224
91845221|NCT01027871|183572231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.561
91845222|NCT01027871|183572231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.518
91709484|NCT04378569|183311572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.5077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||3.03|0.11|0.5077
91845223|NCT01027871|183572232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.18||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for baseline."|ANOVA||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.18|-0.20|0.938
91845224|NCT01027871|183572232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.19||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for baseline."|ANOVA||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.19|-0.18|0.972
91845225|NCT01027871|183572232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.15||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for Week 12."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.15|-0.16|0.927
91845226|NCT01027871|183572232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.1||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.05||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for Week 12."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.05|-0.25|0.293
91845227|NCT05489224|183572242|EQUIVALENCE|Predefined margin: -0.6 to 0.5|Treatment difference and 90% CI|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with multiple imputation||||0.10|-0.30|
91845228|NCT04640571|183572265|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if pravastatin AUC value is larger after metformin than after placebo.||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
91786248|NCT00488683|183452520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.74||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup W-135||||0.74
91786249|NCT00488683|183452520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.74||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup Y||||0.74
91786250|NCT00488683|183452520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.18||||0.05||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup A||||0.05
91786251|NCT00488683|183452520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.36||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup C||||0.36
91786252|NCT00488683|183452520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.11||||0.18||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup W-135||||0.18
91786253|NCT00488683|183452520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.02||||0.82||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup Y||||0.82
91786254|NCT00488683|183452520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0013||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup A||||
91786255|NCT00488683|183452520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0014||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup C||||
91786256|NCT00488683|183452520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0008||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup W-135||||
91845229|NCT04640571|183572266|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if pravastatin Cmax value is larger after metformin than after placebo|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91786257|NCT00488683|183452520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0009||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup Y||||
91786258|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.34||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
91786259|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.14||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
91786260|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.09||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells at 5 months of age and hSBA titers at 12 months of age after a 2, 4-month course of MenACWY-CRM vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91786261|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.16||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
91786262|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.22||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91786263|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.33||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91786264|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.74||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
91786265|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.53||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
91786266|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.37||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
91786267|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.14||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
91786268|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.13||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
91786269|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
91786270|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.9||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91786271|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.78||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91786272|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.94||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
91786273|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.85||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
91786274|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
91786275|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
91786276|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.007||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
91845230|NCT04640571|183572267|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA AUC value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91845231|NCT04640571|183572268|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA Cmax value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91845232|NCT04640571|183572269|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if acyclovir AUC value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91845233|NCT04640571|183572270|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if acyclovir Cmax value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91845234|NCT04640571|183572271|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA AUC value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91845235|NCT04640571|183572272|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA Cmax value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91845236|NCT04640571|183572273|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if enalaprilat AUC value is increased after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91845237|NCT04640571|183572274|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if enalaprilat Cmax value is increased after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91845238|NCT04640571|183572275|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid AUC value is larger after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91845239|NCT04640571|183572276|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid Cmax value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91899804|NCT00051363|183693821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5419||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.5419
91845240|NCT04640571|183572277|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid AUC value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91845241|NCT04640571|183572278|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid Cmax value is larger after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91845242|NCT04060680|183572325|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified Objective Performance Criterion (OPC) for the major complication free rate at 6 months is 0.79. If the lower confidence bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the freedom from the first major EV ICD System/procedure-related complication through 182 days post implant exceeds 0.79, the primary safety objective will be met. The freedom from the first major EV ICD System/procedure-related complication was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.|Major complication-free rate|92.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|95.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025|Kaplan-Meier method|||The primary safety objective is to demonstrate the freedom from major complications related to the EV ICD System and/or procedure at 6 months post-implant exceeds an OPC of 79%. H0: p ≤ 0.79 HA: p \> 0.79, where p denotes the 6-month (182 days) freedom from major EV ICD System/procedure-related complications rate.||95.0|89.0|<0.0001
91845243|NCT04060680|183572326|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified OPC for the EV ICD defibrillation testing success at implant is 0.88. If the lower confidence bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the proportion of EV ICD patients achieving defibrillation testing success at implant exceeds 0.88, the primary efficacy objective will be met. The primary efficacy objective will be evaluated using a one-proportion binomial exact test along with a two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence bound.|Proportion|98.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.6|99.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025|One-proportion binomial exact test|||The primary efficacy is to demonstrate the EV ICD defibrillation testing success rate at implant is greater than an OPC of 88%. H0: p ≤ 0.88 HA: p \> 0.88, where p denotes the probability of EV ICD defibrillation success at implant.||99.6|96.6|<0.0001
91845244|NCT02320721|183572337|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was \<0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.129||||||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and following multiple imputation procedure for missing data.||0.129|-0.092|
91845245|NCT02320721|183572338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Relative risk|1.01||||0.8415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.153||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was done by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with randomization strata (screening HbA1c \[\<8.0%; ≥8.0%\], previous use of insulin \[naive, pre-treated\], use of sulfonylurea or meglitinides at screening \[yes, no\]), following multiple imputation procedure for missing data.||1.153|0.890|0.8415
91845246|NCT03173248|183572349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.69||P-value is calculated from the one-sided log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (AML status and geographic region).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox's proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (AML status and geographic region) with placebo + azacitidine as the denominator.|||0.69|0.16|0.0011
91845247|NCT00929305|183572415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91845248|NCT00929305|183572418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91845249|NCT02624778|183572431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.21|0.309
91845250|NCT02624778|183572431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.27|0.061
91845251|NCT02624778|183572431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.41|0.053
91845252|NCT02624778|183572431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
91899805|NCT00051363|183693821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8900
91899806|NCT00051363|183693821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.0031
91899807|NCT00051363|183693821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8703||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8703
91899808|NCT00051363|183693821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1838||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.1838
91845253|NCT02624778|183572431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-0.51|<0.001
91845254|NCT02624778|183572431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.46|<0.001
91845255|NCT05541497|183572438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.37||||||||3.37|0.68|
91845256|NCT05541497|183572439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.13||||||||3.13|0.59|
91845257|NCT04091672|183572440|NON_INFERIORITY|"The one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (97.5% CI) was calculated for the difference (Control-RECELL) in percentages of subjects with confirmed treatment area closure.~The calculation used the normal approximation taking correlation into account. In order for the null hypothesis to be rejected and the non-inferiority of RECELL to be established, the upper limit of the 97.5% CI had to be less than 10%."||||||0.005|||||||1-sided z-test of proportions|alpha=0.025||||||.005
91845258|NCT04091672|183572441|SUPERIORITY|A geometric mean ratio (GMR of ratios) 95% CI with a lower bound exceeding 1 would indicate superiority of RECELL over Control with respect to this endpoint.||||||0.001|||||||GMR of ratios|||||||0.001
91845259|NCT01796665|183572448|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|105.2|||Fieller's method|||||105.2|92.5|
91845260|NCT01796665|183572449|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|99.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|110.5|||Fieller's method|||||110.5|92.9|
91845261|NCT01796665|183572450|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.23|-1.13|||Fieller's method|||||-1.13|-13.23|
91845262|NCT00231179|183572461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample sizes were established when the trial was first developed. For all power calculations, we set alpha = .05 and beta = .20 and specified 2-tailed tests.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.13||Bonferroni corrections were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared scores for verbal, performance, and full scale Intelligence Quotient (IQ).||2.13|0.31|0.59
91845263|NCT00231179|183572462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Please see earlier power calculation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91845264|NCT00231179|183572463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See previous.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91786277|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.04||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
91845265|NCT00231179|183572464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See previous.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91845266|NCT00231179|183572465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See previous.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
91845267|NCT01955382|183572473|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91845268|NCT04672460|183572500|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|105.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.0|111.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment A were reference; treatment B were test.||111.70|99.00|
91845269|NCT04672460|183572501|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|136.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.05|149.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment A were reference; treatment B were test.||149.27|125.05|
91845270|NCT04672460|183572502|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|87.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.82|94.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B were reference; treatment C were test.||94.58|81.82|
91845271|NCT04672460|183572503|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|58.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.55|65.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B were reference; treatment C were test.||65.84|51.55|
91845272|NCT03575962|183572511|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1169|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.27||||||||1.27|0.99|
91786278|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91845273|NCT03575962|183572512|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1556|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.35||||||||1.35|0.99|
91845274|NCT02949271|183572563|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91845275|NCT02949271|183572564|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91845276|NCT02949271|183572566|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91845277|NCT02949271|183572567|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91845278|NCT02949271|183572568|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
91845279|NCT02949271|183572569|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91845280|NCT02949271|183572570|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91845281|NCT02949271|183572571|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
91845282|NCT02949271|183572573|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
91845283|NCT05458102|183572574|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|560.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|414.0|757.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||757|414|
91845284|NCT05458102|183572574|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|137.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|189.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||189|99.5|
91845285|NCT05458102|183572575|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|433.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|347.0|540.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||540|347|
91845286|NCT05458102|183572575|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.5|150.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||150|93.5|
91845287|NCT05458102|183572576|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|752.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|525.0|1080.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||1080|525|
91845288|NCT05458102|183572576|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.3|172.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||172|80.3|
91845289|NCT05458102|183572578|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.5|103.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||103|45.5|
91845290|NCT05458102|183572578|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|65.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.5|101.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||101|42.5|
91845291|NCT05458102|183572582|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|120.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.0|138.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||138|104|
91845292|NCT05458102|183572582|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|111.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|128.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||128|95.4|
91845293|NCT05642000|183572587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.454|-0.079|
91845294|NCT02373813|183572595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|33.9||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||33.9|7.6|0.004
91845295|NCT02373813|183572596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|40.5||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||40.5|7.9|0.006
91845296|NCT02373813|183572597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.27|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.27|-0.48|0.58
91845297|NCT02373813|183572597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.31|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.31|-0.37|0.85
91845298|NCT02373813|183572597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|0.67|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.67|-5.89|0.12
91845299|NCT02373813|183572597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-0.16|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.16|-5.12|0.037
91845300|NCT02373813|183572597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.13|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.13|-4.80|0.063
91845301|NCT02373813|183572597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.01|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||2.01|-3.27|0.64
91845302|NCT02373813|183572597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.15|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.15|-3.09|0.031
91845303|NCT02373813|183572597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.35|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.35|-3.20|0.015
91845304|NCT02373813|183572597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.45|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||1.45|-2.55|0.58
91845305|NCT02373813|183572597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.17|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.17|-1.99|0.020
91845306|NCT02373813|183572598|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|0.77|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||0.77|-5.68|0.13
91845307|NCT02373813|183572598|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-0.06|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.06|-4.99|0.045
91845308|NCT02373813|183572598|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|0.2|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.20|-4.75|0.071
91845309|NCT02373813|183572598|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|2.0|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||2.00|-3.28|0.63
91845310|NCT02373813|183572598|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.10|-3.11|0.037
91845311|NCT02373813|183572598|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.39|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.39|-3.30|0.013
91845312|NCT02373813|183572598|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.53|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||1.53|-2.54|0.62
91845313|NCT02373813|183572598|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.22|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||-0.22|-2.02|0.015
91845314|NCT02373813|183572599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.26|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.26|-0.19|0.75
91845315|NCT02373813|183572599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.27|-0.11|0.43
91845316|NCT02373813|183572599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.0|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.00|-0.91|0.049
91845317|NCT02373813|183572599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.04|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.04|-0.77|0.032
91845318|NCT02373813|183572599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.11|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.11|-0.58|0.18
91845319|NCT02373813|183572599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.51|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.51|-0.24|0.48
91845320|NCT02373813|183572599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||0.18|-0.51|0.35
91845321|NCT02373813|183572599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.12|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||0.12|-0.41|0.28
91845322|NCT02373813|183572599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.21|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||0.21|-0.44|0.48
91845323|NCT02373813|183572599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.24|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||0.24|-0.26|0.92
91845324|NCT02373813|183572600|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.04|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.04|-0.91|0.032
91845325|NCT02373813|183572600|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.15|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.15|-0.78|0.005
91845326|NCT02373813|183572600|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.01|-0.63|0.058
91845327|NCT02373813|183572600|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.38|-0.29|0.78
91845328|NCT02373813|183572600|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.14|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||0.14|-0.49|0.27
91845329|NCT02373813|183572600|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||0.03|-0.47|0.078
91845330|NCT02373813|183572600|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||0.20|-0.43|0.47
91845331|NCT02373813|183572600|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.13|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||0.13|-0.33|0.39
91786279|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91845332|NCT02373813|183572601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.15|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.15|-0.09|0.60
91845333|NCT02373813|183572601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.10|-0.10|0.97
91786280|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.13||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
91786281|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.28||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
91786282|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.3||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
91786283|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.1||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
91786284|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.11||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
91786285|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
91786286|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91786287|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91786288|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.39||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
91786289|NCT00488683|183452521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.33||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
91786290|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.24||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
91786291|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
91786292|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.52||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
91786293|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
91845334|NCT02373813|183572601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.01|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.01|-0.82|0.044
91845335|NCT02373813|183572601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.14|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.14|-0.76|0.004
91845336|NCT02373813|183572601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||-0.10|-0.66|0.009
91845337|NCT02373813|183572601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.16|-0.46|0.34
91845338|NCT02373813|183572601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.0|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||0.00|-0.47|0.046
91845339|NCT02373813|183572601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.08|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.08|-0.49|0.006
91845340|NCT02373813|183572601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.10|-0.40|0.25
91845341|NCT02373813|183572601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.03|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.03|-0.37|0.021
91845342|NCT02373813|183572602|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.04|-0.82|0.030
91845343|NCT02373813|183572602|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.13|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.13|-0.72|0.005
91845344|NCT02373813|183572602|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.15|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||-0.15|-0.69|0.002
91845345|NCT02373813|183572602|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.16|-0.46|0.34
91845346|NCT02373813|183572602|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.06|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.06|-0.52|0.014
91845347|NCT02373813|183572602|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.10|-0.51|0.004
91845348|NCT02373813|183572602|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||0.05|-0.43|0.12
91845349|NCT02373813|183572602|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||-0.05|-0.37|0.010
91845350|NCT02373813|183572603|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.02|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.02|-0.62|0.067
91845351|NCT02373813|183572603|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.23|-0.41|0.59
91845352|NCT02373813|183572603|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.13||95.0|-5.66|0.74|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.74|-5.66|0.13
91845353|NCT02373813|183572603|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|0.09|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.09|-4.76|0.059
91845354|NCT02373813|183572603|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.5|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||-0.50|-4.95|0.017
91845355|NCT02373813|183572603|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|2.15|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||2.15|-3.04|0.74
91845356|NCT02373813|183572603|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.08|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.08|-3.03|0.039
91845357|NCT02373813|183572603|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.23|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.23|-3.10|0.023
91845358|NCT02373813|183572603|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|1.52|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||1.52|-2.43|0.65
91845359|NCT02373813|183572603|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.19|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.19|-1.94|0.017
91845360|NCT02373813|183572604|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.18||95.0|-5.29|1.0|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||1.00|-5.29|0.18
91845361|NCT02373813|183572604|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|0.16|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||0.16|-4.63|0.067
91845362|NCT02373813|183572604|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.17|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||-0.17|-4.62|0.035
91845363|NCT02373813|183572604|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.23|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||2.23|-2.91|0.79
91845364|NCT02373813|183572604|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.2|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||0.20|-2.75|0.090
91845365|NCT02373813|183572604|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.17|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.17|-3.06|0.029
91845366|NCT02373813|183572604|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.81|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||1.81|-2.15|0.86
91845367|NCT02373813|183572604|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.16|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||-0.16|-1.88|0.021
91845368|NCT02373813|183572605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||6.6|-6.5|1.00
91845369|NCT02373813|183572605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||2.6|-10.4|0.38
91845370|NCT02373813|183572605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|40.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||40.0|9.0|0.007
91845371|NCT02373813|183572605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|27.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||27.6|0.4|0.063
91845372|NCT02373813|183572605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|39.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||39.8|6.7|0.012
91845373|NCT02373813|183572605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|31.5||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||31.5|4.1|0.018
91845374|NCT02373813|183572605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||35.9|2.1|0.044
91845375|NCT02373813|183572605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|33.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||33.2|5.8|0.010
91786294|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|1.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
91786295|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.29||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
91786296|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
91786297|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.05||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
91786298|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.7||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
91786299|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
91786300|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.5||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
91650395|NCT01123980|183193450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.03|-1.0||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Two hours after dinner|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||-1.00|-2.03|<0.001
91786301|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.16||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
91845376|NCT02373813|183572605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|42.5||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||42.5|8.9|0.005
91650396|NCT01123980|183193450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.73|-0.78||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Bedtime|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||-0.78|-1.73|<0.001
91786302|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|1.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
91845377|NCT02373813|183572605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|35.2||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||35.2|7.9|0.004
91851841|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6306|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.6306
91709485|NCT04378569|183311572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||2.15|0.26|0.5916
91786303|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.3||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
91786304|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
91786305|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.12||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
91786306|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0015||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
91786307|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0057||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
91786308|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
91786309|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
91786310|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0048||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
91786311|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0018||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Groups 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
91845378|NCT02373813|183572606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|27.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||27.6|-5.4|0.25
91845379|NCT02373813|183572606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|13.8||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||13.8|-12.5|1.00
91845380|NCT02373813|183572606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|14.9||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||14.9|-11.6|0.98
91845381|NCT02373813|183572606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|16.2||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||16.2|-6.2|0.48
91845382|NCT02373813|183572606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|25.7||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||25.7|-3.1|0.16
91845383|NCT02373813|183572606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|11.9||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||11.9|-9.0|0.94
91845384|NCT02373813|183572606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|27.0||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||27.0|-2.1|0.12
91845385|NCT02373813|183572606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.8||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||16.8|-5.2|0.40
91845386|NCT02373813|183572606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|20.4||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||20.4|-9.8|0.63
91845387|NCT02373813|183572606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|4.2||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||4.2|-18.0|0.31
91845388|NCT02373813|183572608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
91845389|NCT02373813|183572608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
91845390|NCT02373813|183572609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.31
91899809|NCT00051363|183693821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0739||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.0739
91899810|NCT00051363|183693822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.0450
91845391|NCT02373813|183572609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.51
91899811|NCT00051363|183693822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4512||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.4512
91845392|NCT02373813|183572610|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.1||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|40.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||40.2|-15.2|0.58
91709486|NCT04378569|183311572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||1.57|0.27|0.3320
91845393|NCT01764386|183572630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-7.15|||ANCOVA|||||-7.15|-9.88|<0.0001
91845394|NCT01764386|183572631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|116.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||116.3|16.6|<0.0001
91845395|NCT01764386|183572632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|76.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||76.7|6.0|<0.0001
91845396|NCT01764386|183572634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-7.24|||ANCOVA|||||-7.24|-10.07|<0.0001
91845397|NCT01764386|183572635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||||-3.50|-7.14|<0.0001
91845398|NCT01764386|183572636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.4||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-29.5|0.0019
91845399|NCT01764386|183572637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|5.73|||ANCOVA|||||5.73|-5.96|0.9686
91650397|NCT01123980|183193450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.81|-0.13||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||02 - 04 a.m.|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||-0.13|-0.81|<0.001
91786312|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
91786313|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
91786314|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.27||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
91786315|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
91786316|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
91786317|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
91786318|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.45||||0.0436||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||0.0436
91786319|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
91786320|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.37||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
91786321|NCT00488683|183452522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
91786322|NCT00505076|183452580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusting for baseline scores, was used to compare treatment groups on cognitive and functional measures. The predefined primary cognition outcome measure was the MCCB (MATRICS (Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia Research) Consensus Cognitive Battery) composite T-score, tested at overall two-sided alpha=0.05.||||0.21
91786323|NCT00505076|183452581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined using the analysis of covariance power formula, n=2\[za+zβ\]2s2 (1-R2)/d2, with za=2.24, zβ=0.842 (corresponding to power=0.80), R=the correlation between baseline and end of study measures of the outcome, d the difference between groups, and s the standard deviation of the outcome. Actual recruitment was only about 20 participants per group, but the observed R≅0.9, suggesting power to detect an effect size of 0.49.||||0.47
91786324|NCT00505076|183452582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined using the analysis of covariance power formula, n=2\[za+zβ\]2s2 (1-R2)/d2, with za=2.24, zβ=0.842 (corresponding to power=0.80), R=the correlation between baseline and end of study measures of the outcome, d the difference between groups, and s the standard deviation of the outcome. Actual recruitment was only about 20 participants per group, but the observed R≅0.9, suggesting power to detect an effect size of 0.49.||||0.84
91786325|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.57||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||0.57|-1.00|
91786326|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.11||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||1.11|-0.53|
91786327|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.748|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.52||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||1.52|-0.02|
91786328|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.41||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||-0.41|-2.01|
91786329|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.81||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7 , pre-breakfast||1.81|0.18|
91786330|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.497|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.34||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||2.34|0.66|
91786331|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.75||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||2.75|1.16|
91786332|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.18||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||0.18|-1.74|
91786333|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.19||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||1.19|-0.81|
91786334|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.55||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||1.55|-0.35|
91786335|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.08||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-0.08|-2.05|
91650398|NCT01123980|183193450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.06|0.4||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before breakfast the following day|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.40|-0.06|<0.001
91650399|NCT01123980|183193451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8583||95.0|0.64|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval is for the HbA1c less than 7% treatment target were included.|The responder analysis was based on logistic regression model using treatment, country and previous OAD therapy (with or without a third OAD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.46|0.64|0.8583
91845400|NCT01764386|183572638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.06|||ANCOVA|||||6.06|1.99|0.0001
91845401|NCT01764386|183572639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-4.9|0.1706
91845402|NCT01764386|183572640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-2.6|0.7160
91845403|NCT01764386|183572641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-0.3|0.0913
91845404|NCT01764386|183572642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-7.2|0.0016
91845405|NCT01764386|183572643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-6.2|0.0004
91845406|NCT01764386|183572644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.7|0.0003
91845407|NCT01764386|183572645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-6.0|||ANCOVA|||||-6.0|-9.8|<0.0001
91845408|NCT01764386|183572646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.1|<0.0001
91845409|NCT01764386|183572647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.45|21.36|||ANCOVA|||||21.36|13.45|<0.0001
91845410|NCT01341080|183572715|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.15||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.61|||Repeated measures analysis or variance|||Efficacy was measured as a change on the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) from baseline to the end of study after 8 weeks on drug. The BBS has a scale range of 0-56, with 56 indicating normal balance. To evaluate efficacy, repeated measures analysis of variance was run on BBS scores. The scale score was the dependent measure, time point (baseline or end of study) was the repeat measure, and treatment group (varenicline or sugar pill) was the independent measure. Significance was defined as alpha \<0.05.||4.61|-4.01|0.05
91845411|NCT01341080|183572716|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.53|||Repeated measures analysis or variance|||Change in cognitive functioning was measured in part with the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) from Baseline to 8 weeks on drug. Repeated analysis of variance was run on the FAB scores. Scale cores was the dependent measure, time point (Baseline or end of study) was the repeated measure, and treatment group (varenicline or sugar pill) was the independent measure. Significant was defined as \<0.05.||1.53|-1.39|0.05
91845412|NCT01341080|183572717|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.81||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.4|||Repeated measures analysis or variance|||Change in cognitive functioning was measured in part with the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) from Baseline to 8 weeks on drug. Repeated analysis of variance was run on the MMSE scores. Scale score was the dependent measure, time point (Baseline or end of study) was the repeated measure, and treatment group (varenicline or sugar pill) was the independent measure. Significant was defined as \<0.05.||1.40|-0.40|0.05
91845413|NCT00755755|183572747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|72.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.1|83.2||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p-values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjustment for randomization strata|Confidence intervals with the use of Newcombe-Wilson score method (uncorrected)|||83.2|55.1|<0.001
91845414|NCT00755755|183572747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|73.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.2|84.0||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjustment for randomization strata|Confidence intervals with the use of Newcombe-Wilson score method (uncorrected)|||84.0|56.2|<0.001
91845415|NCT00755755|183572748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-22.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-8.2||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p-values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Use of the Van Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with adjustment for randomization strata|Hodges-Lehmann point estimator with corresponding Moses confidence interval.|||-8.2|-36.1|0.002
91845416|NCT00755755|183572748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-5.2||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Use of the Van Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with adjustment for randomization strata|Hodges-Lehmann point estimator with corresponding Moses confidence interval.|||-5.2|-33.0|0.006
91845417|NCT00811187|183572757|SUPERIORITY|\[Not Specified\]|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Treatment pain difference= Lidocaine (0.97) - Placebo (3.00).|A sample size calculation and power analysis was conducted using PS Power and Sample Size Calculations 2.1.30 (Vanderbilt University, Department of Biostatistics, Nashville, TN) to determine necessary sample size.||||<.001
91845418|NCT00083174|183572766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.7|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between two groups. The sample size estimate was based on an assumption of annual invasive breast cancer rate of 0.60% in the placebo group and 0.21% in exemestane group, a relative reduction of 65% with exemestane. To detect this with a two-sided 5% level and 90% power, a total of 38 cases of invasive breast cancer were required, projected to occur when 4560 women were randomly assigned in a 3-year period and then followed for an additional 1.2 years.||0.70|0.18|0.002
91845419|NCT00083174|183572767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.79|||Log Rank|||||0.79|0.27|0.004
91845420|NCT00083174|183572768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.11|0.07
91845421|NCT02444143|183572851|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91786336|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.289|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.29||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||1.29|-0.71|
91786337|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.29||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||2.29|0.22|
91786338|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.669|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.65||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||2.65|0.68|
91786339|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.54||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||0.54|-1.65|
91786340|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.89||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.89|-0.40|
91786341|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.711|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.78||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.78|-0.36|
91786342|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.09||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||0.09|-2.15|
91786343|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.61||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.61|-0.66|
91786344|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.95||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||2.95|0.60|
91786345|NCT01128621|183452615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.86||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||2.86|0.63|
91786346|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.17|17.56||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||17.56|-17.17|
91786347|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.863|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|0.98||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||0.98|-34.70|
91786348|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|12.12||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||12.12|-23.04|
91786349|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|21.58||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||21.58|-13.89|
91786350|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.655|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|14.39||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||14.39|-21.70|
91786351|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.25|-2.17||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||-2.17|-39.25|
91786352|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.63|9.01||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||9.01|-27.63|
91786353|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.649|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.43|12.14||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||12.14|-19.43|
91786354|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.72|-0.6||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-0.60|-32.72|
91786355|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.34|-6.16||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-6.16|-38.34|
91786356|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.69|11.51||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||11.51|-20.69|
91786357|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|17.28||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||17.28|-15.40|
91786358|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.82|4.68||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||4.68|-28.82|
91786359|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.662|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-0.6||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-0.60|-34.72|
91786360|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|5.8||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||5.80|-44.00|
91786361|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.56|-2.39||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||-2.39|-53.56|
91786362|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.82|1.6||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.60|-48.82|
91786363|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|28.53||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||28.53|-22.34|
91786364|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|3.69||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||3.69|-48.07|
91786365|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.66|-4.48||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||-4.48|-57.66|
91786366|NCT01128621|183452616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.98|-0.42||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||-0.42|-52.98|
91786367|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||0.50|-1.50|
91786368|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.513|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.54||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||1.54|-0.51|
91786369|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.01||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||2.01|0.05|
91786370|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.07||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||0.07|-1.98|
91786371|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.5||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||1.50|-0.59|
91845422|NCT02444143|183572852|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
91845423|NCT03582137|183572853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8049||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8839|2.2741|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2741|-5.8839|0.3785
91845424|NCT03582137|183572857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4254||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4018|3.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5510|-12.4018|0.2712
91845425|NCT03582137|183572858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3133||||0.8974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5414|5.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1680|-4.5414|0.8974
91845426|NCT03582137|183572859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1505||||0.4643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2882|0.5892|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5892|-0.2882|0.4643
91845427|NCT03582137|183572860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1188||||0.6245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6019|0.3644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3644|-0.6019|0.6245
91845428|NCT03582137|183572866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3341||||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5749|0.9068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9068|-1.5749|0.5921
91845429|NCT03582137|183572867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9352||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4372|4.3076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3076|-0.4372|0.1016
91709487|NCT04378569|183311572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||1.57|0.14|0.1922
91845430|NCT03582137|183572868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.686||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3733|40.7452|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.7452|-1.3733|0.0661
91845431|NCT03582137|183572869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2214||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9381|0.4953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4953|-6.9381|0.0880
91845432|NCT03582137|183572870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9836||||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2093|4.2421|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2421|-14.2093|0.2827
91845433|NCT03582137|183572871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.576||||0.7703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3697|4.5216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.5216|-3.3697|0.7703
91845434|NCT03582137|183572872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8834||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2172|0.4504|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4504|-2.2172|0.1874
91845435|NCT03582137|183572875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2993||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5533|3.1519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1519|-0.5533|0.1646
91845436|NCT03582137|183572876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7519||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9082|0.4045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4045|-3.9082|0.1093
91845437|NCT03582137|183572877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3532||||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6511|3.3576|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3576|-0.6511|0.1819
91845438|NCT03582137|183572878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9667||||0.2282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6287|2.5621|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5621|-0.6287|0.2282
91845439|NCT03582137|183572879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2614||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3002|0.7775|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7775|-1.3002|0.6167
91845440|NCT03582137|183572880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3067||||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6765|3.2899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2899|-2.6765|0.8378
91845441|NCT03582137|183572882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3237||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.8353|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8353|-0.1880|0.2103
91845442|NCT03582137|183572883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.504||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3015|2.2934|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2934|-3.3015|0.7197
91845443|NCT03582137|183572884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6158||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2058|5.4373|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4373|-0.2058|0.0686
91845444|NCT03582137|183572885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7891||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8523|7.4304|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.4304|-1.8523|0.2339
91845445|NCT03582137|183572886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9536||||0.7557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1655|7.0727|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.0727|-5.1655|0.7557
91845446|NCT03582137|183572888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05126||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9086|1.0111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0111|-0.9086|0.9150
91845447|NCT03582137|183572889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6699||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3316|1.9918|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9918|-3.3316|0.6164
91845448|NCT03582137|183572890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1358||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0028|0.7312|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7312|-1.0028|0.7550
91845449|NCT03582137|183572891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09605||||0.9016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6449|1.4528|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4528|-1.6449|0.9016
91845450|NCT03582137|183572892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3217||||0.9219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8584|6.2151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.2151|-6.8584|0.9219
91845451|NCT03582137|183572893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02897||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02857|0.08651|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08651|-0.02857|0.3178
91845452|NCT03582137|183572898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2288||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|1.7825|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7825|-1.3250|0.7693
91845453|NCT03582137|183572899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8121||||0.5285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3743|1.7501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7501|-3.3743|0.5285
91845454|NCT03582137|183572900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02525||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7717|0.7212|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7212|-0.7717|0.9463
91845455|NCT03582137|183572901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3042||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0817|0.4732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4732|-1.0817|0.4362
91845456|NCT03582137|183572902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06489||||0.9327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5957|1.4659|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4659|-1.5957|0.9327
91845457|NCT03582137|183572905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2763||||0.4401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.988|0.4354|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4354|-0.9880|0.4401
91845458|NCT03582137|183572906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8319||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6835|6.0197|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.0197|-7.6835|0.8085
91845459|NCT03582137|183572908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02673||||0.9674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2757|1.3292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3292|-1.2757|0.9674
91845460|NCT03582137|183572910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.92||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.51|11.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.68|-105.51|0.1128
91845461|NCT00558753|183572926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91845462|NCT00558753|183572927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Independence: Chi-squared|10.3||||0.0013||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||For 3 month followup on incidence of neuropathic pain.||||0.0013
91786372|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.55||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||2.55|0.39|
91786373|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.01||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||3.01|0.96|
91786374|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.76||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||0.76|-1.38|
91786375|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.49||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||1.49|-0.70|
91786376|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.93||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||1.93|-0.18|
91786377|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.25||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||0.25|-1.95|
91786378|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.66||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||1.66|-0.58|
91786379|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.4||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||2.40|0.09|
91786380|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.729|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.83||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||2.83|0.63|
91786381|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.91||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||0.91|-1.21|
91786382|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.81||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||1.81|-0.34|
91786383|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.28||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||2.28|0.21|
91786384|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.46||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||0.46|-1.71|
91786385|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.57||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||1.57|-0.62|
91786386|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.49||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||2.49|0.23|
91786387|NCT01128621|183452619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.869|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.95||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||2.95|0.79|
91786388|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.619|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.25|2.01||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||2.01|-59.25|
91786389|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.23|-16.56||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||-16.56|-79.23|
91786390|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.665|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.53|6.2||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||6.20|-55.53|
91786391|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.76|25.89||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||25.89|-36.76|
91786392|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|8.63||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||8.63|-55.00|
91786393|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.18|-9.74||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||-9.74|-75.18|
91786394|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.83|13.37||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||13.37|-51.83|
91786395|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.15|12.28||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||12.28|-49.15|
91786396|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-58.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.08|-27.24||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||-27.24|-90.08|
91786397|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.96|-6.05||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||-6.05|-67.96|
91786398|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.896|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.31|21.52||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||21.52|-41.31|
91786399|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.44|23.36||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||23.36|-40.44|
91786400|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.58|-15.95||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||-15.95|-81.58|
91786401|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|5.58||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||5.58|-59.80|
91845463|NCT00558753|183572927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Independence: Chi-squared|6.05||||0.0139|||||||Chi-squared|||For 6 month followup on incidence of neuropathic pain.||||0.0139
91845464|NCT00558753|183572928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.2||||0.0133||95.0||||Test of condition(Placebo v Pregabalin) main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with main effects and time by condition interaction.||Mixed model test of condition (Placebo v Pregabalin) main effect.||||0.0133
91845465|NCT00558753|183572928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|1.04||||0.3097||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 1-day post surgery time point (Slice)||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 1-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.3097
91845466|NCT00558753|183572928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|5.1||||0.0247||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 2-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.0247
91845467|NCT00558753|183572928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|3.11||||0.0786||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 3-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.0786
91845468|NCT00558753|183572928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|5.04||||0.0254||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 30-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.0254
91845469|NCT01167023|183572931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.26||||0.304||95.0||||Pain rate was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with baseline pain intensity, treatment group, and stratification variable sickle-cell genotype as explanatory variables.|ANCOVA||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||0.304
91845470|NCT01167023|183572933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.051|||<|0.001||95.0||||A mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis with baseline measurement, stratification variable sickle cell genotype, treatment, time, and time\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect in the model was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||<0.001
91845471|NCT01167023|183572934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.244||95.0||||Average pain intensity was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with baseline intensity, treatment group and stratification variable sickle-cell genotype as explanatory variables.|ANCOVA||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||0.244
91845472|NCT01167023|183572935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-128.3|||<|0.001||95.0||||A mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis with baseline measurement, stratification variable sickle cell genotype, treatment, time and time\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||<0.001
91845473|NCT02820051|183572947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281||||||threshold for statistical significance: \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample was calculated with alpha 0.05, beta 0.20, standard deviation of 7.3,8 minimum PtcCO2 difference to detect of 5 mmHg, loss to follow-up estimated 0.20, and two-tails. According to the above, the sample size was 42 patients per group.|We tested normal distribution with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Data are shown as means and standard deviations for variables with normal distribution and as medians and interquartile ranges for non-normal variables. We used the t-test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, ANOVA, or chi-square as indicated. We defined a statistically significant difference as a P value \< 0.05. The analysis was performed using SPSS version 18.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).|||0.281
91845474|NCT02820051|183572948|SUPERIORITY|We used the t-test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, ANOVA, or chi-square as indicated. We defined a statistically significant difference as a P value \< 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91845475|NCT02820051|183572949|SUPERIORITY|T test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91845476|NCT04883346|183572959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 32 degrees of freedom (one participant did not have baseline DEXA data so could not be included.||||||<0.001
91845477|NCT04883346|183572960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 33 degrees of freedom.||||||<0.001
91650400|NCT01123980|183193452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8013||95.0|0.64|1.79|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval is for the HbA1c below or equal to 6.5% treatment target were included.|The responder analysis was based on logistic regression model using treatment, country and previous OAD therapy (with or without a third OAD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.79|0.64|0.8013
91650401|NCT02557672|183193463|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the Geometric Means|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19|||Regression, Linear|||||1.19|0.81|0.84
91650402|NCT02557672|183193464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.22|0.09
91650403|NCT02557672|183193465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.76||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.33|0.51
91650404|NCT02557672|183193466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.79|0.51|0.53
91650405|NCT02557672|183193467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.30|0.12|0.39
91650406|NCT03705169|183193469|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence Interval (CI) on Geometric Mean Ratio.|Geometric Mean Ratio|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.3|||||The ratios of the geometric means (Arm A/Arm C) and the corresponding 95% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 95% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|As dose-normalized AUC 0-12WK values were considered, participants were pooled within Arm (i.e., Arm A participants receiving 1, 3, 10, or 30 mg/kg were pooled and Arm C participants 0.3 or 1.0 mg/kg were pooled).|No comparisons were done with Arm B participants, as only two participants in that arm had available measurements such that AUC 0-12WK could be estimated.|5.3|1.9|
91650407|NCT03705169|183193470|OTHER||Mean|-0.18||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.18||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no change in HIV-1 RNA (log10 copies/mL) from baseline to Day 7 of SAR441236 monotherapy for viremic participants with HIV (Arm B cohorts).|t-test, 2 sided|||Arm B participants were pooled across doses for analysis.||0.18|-0.53|0.26
91650408|NCT03705169|183193472|OTHER||Mean|-0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no change in HIV-1 RNA (log10 copies/mL) from baseline to Day 14 of SAR441236 monotherapy for viremic participants with HIV (Arm B cohorts).|t-test, 2 sided|||Arm B participants were pooled across doses for analysis.||0.19|-0.24|0.78
91650409|NCT00458302|183193489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary comparison was performed at Week 48. If at Week 48, the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval of the difference between DRV/r and DRV/r+2NRTIs exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of the DRV/r 800/100 once a day (O.D) monotherapy versus the DRV/r 800/100 mg O.D. plus two NRTIs triple combination therapy was concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|6.8|||||Difference in proportion of response DRV/r minus DRV/r+2NRTIs.|Assuming a virologic response rate of 90% at 48 weeks for both treatment arms, 111 patients were required per treatment arm to establish non-inferiority of DRV/r versus triple regimen with a maximum allowable difference of 12%, with a one-sided significance level of p=0.025 and 80% power. To account for a maximum of 10% major protocol violations that would be excluded from the on-protocol analysis, 125 patients were recruited in each treatment arm, so 250 patients in total.||6.8|-10.1|
91786402|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.359|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.95|8.23||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||8.23|-48.95|
91786403|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.92|-24.5||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||-24.50|-82.92|
91786404|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.552|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.24|-8.86||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||-8.86|-66.24|
91786405|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|21.27||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||21.27|-37.20|
91786406|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.397|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|17.3||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||17.30|-42.10|
91786407|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.2|-15.3||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||-15.30|-76.20|
91786408|NCT01128621|183452620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.82|0.64||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||0.64|-59.82|
91786409|NCT04074161|183452637|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.|Treatment difference|-9.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||||-6.80|-11.97|<0.0001
91786410|NCT03232333|183452688|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.71|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.71
91786411|NCT03232333|183452689|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.63|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.63
91786412|NCT03232333|183452690|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=.01
91786413|NCT01087736|183452694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.89||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.98||We tested our Primary hypothesis with a random-intercept repeated subject negative binomial model, modeling week (baseline - week 12) as a continuous variable. All analyses were intent-to-treat and used all observations from all weeks.|negative binomial regression|||Our primary protocol-defined analysis was to examine the within-group efficacy of topiramate to reduce percent drinking days (%DD).||0.98|0.89|0.019
91786414|NCT01087736|183452694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Other|||There were no pre hoc hypothesis regarding change within placebo group. We were only tested change within the topiramate condition.||||0.00
91786415|NCT01087736|183452694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.38||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.94|||Negative binomial model|||"A secondary analysis was powered to detect a Signal or statistical trend (p\<0.10) for a difference between the topiramate and placebo condition. We compared percent drinking days per week between groups averaged over the active phase of the trial (weeks 1-12). The negative binomial model included fixed effect for week, treatment group, and the interaction between treatment group and week. We covaried for baseline %DD averages to control for prestudy and study enrollment effects."||0.94|0.15|0.036
91790543|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|1.295||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.295|0.191|0.009
91786416|NCT01087736|183452695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We planned to explore the efficacy of topiramate in reducing PTSD symptom severity. We used random-intercept linear mixed models to explore the efficacy for topiramate related reduction in PTSD symptomatology. We looked for an effect of week within TOP. Baseline scores for PTSD symptoms were used as covariates in group comparisons. All analyses were intent-to-treat and used all observations from all weeks.||||<0.026
91845478|NCT04883346|183572961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 33 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
91845479|NCT04883346|183572962|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 33 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
91845480|NCT01670500|183572963|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.2|||||The risk ratio is comparing cisplatin to doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC)|||1.2|0.39|
91845481|NCT01670500|183572964|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.1|||||The risk ratio is comparing cisplatin to doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC)|||1.1|.5|
91845482|NCT04955626|183572968|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.5|98.3||||||2-Sided CI for Relative vaccine efficacy (RVE) is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||98.3|89.5|
91845483|NCT04955626|183572969|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.5|97.9||||||2-Sided CI for RVE is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||97.9|88.5|
91845484|NCT04955626|183572970|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|63.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.1|73.5||||||2-Sided CI for Relative Vaccine Efficacy (RVE) is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||73.5|51.1|
91845485|NCT04955626|183572971|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|62.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.5|72.2||||||2-Sided CI for RVE is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||72.2|49.5|
91845486|NCT04955626|183573009|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration (GMR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.22||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||2.22|1.39|
91786417|NCT01087736|183452695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Other|||There was not a pre hoc hypothesis regarding change within placebo group. We only examined within group change in the topiramate condition.||||0.00
91786418|NCT00759564|183452712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|124.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.57|145.94||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||145.94|106.57|
91845487|NCT04955626|183573010|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|34.3||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||34.3|11.1|
91845488|NCT04955626|183573011|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration (GMR)|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|3.78||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||3.78|2.18|
91845489|NCT04955626|183573012|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.38||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||3.38|2.06|
91845490|NCT04955626|183573013|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|40.3||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||40.3|17.2|
91851842|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4574|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.4574
91786419|NCT00759564|183452712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|163.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.72|191.34||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||191.34|139.72|
91786420|NCT00759564|183452712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.16|70.83||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||70.83|48.16|
91786421|NCT00759564|183452714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|167.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.27|204.61||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||204.61|137.27|
91786422|NCT00759564|183452714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|246.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.11|301.27||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||301.27|202.11|
91786423|NCT00759564|183452714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|107.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.06|130.32||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||130.32|88.06|
91786424|NCT00759564|183452715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|168.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.4|205.75||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||205.75|137.40|
91786425|NCT00759564|183452715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|248.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.98|303.94||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||303.94|202.98|
91786426|NCT00759564|183452715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|110.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.84|134.98||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||134.98|89.84|
91786427|NCT00759564|183452717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|134.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.88|165.52||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||165.52|109.88|
91851843|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||0.5824
91851844|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9321|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||0.9321
91851845|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||0.5263
91851846|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||||0.2025
91851847|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6702|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||||0.6702
91851848|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||||0.0818
91845491|NCT04955626|183573014|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|33.2||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||33.2|8.3|
91845492|NCT04955626|183573015|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration (GMR)|9.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|12.53||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||12.53|7.90|
91845493|NCT04955626|183573016|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.8||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||13.8|-3.0|
91845494|NCT04955626|183573023|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.0||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||3.00|1.65|
91845495|NCT04955626|183573023|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|4.16||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||4.16|2.38|
91845496|NCT04955626|183573023|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.08||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||2.08|1.17|
91845497|NCT04955626|183573023|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.68||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||2.68|1.45|
91845498|NCT04955626|183573024|OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|29.7||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||29.7|9.3|
91845499|NCT04955626|183573024|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|29.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|38.5||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||38.5|19.4|
91845500|NCT04955626|183573024|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.9||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||24.9|4.0|
91845501|NCT04955626|183573024|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.4||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||21.4|0.1|
91845502|NCT04955626|183573032|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.56||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.56|0.40|
91845503|NCT04955626|183573032|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.43||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.43|0.93|
91845504|NCT04955626|183573032|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.55||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.55|1.22|
91845505|NCT04955626|183573032|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.89||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\]- BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.89|0.76|
91845506|NCT04955626|183573032|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.53||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.53|1.20|
91845507|NCT04955626|183573033|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.42||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.42|0.40|
91845508|NCT04955626|183573033|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.58||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.58|0.47|
91845509|NCT04955626|183573033|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.95||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.95|0.57|
91851849|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||0.6214
91851850|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6774|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||0.6774
91845510|NCT04955626|183573033|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.09||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.09|0.61|
91845511|NCT04955626|183573033|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.5||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.50|0.73|
91845512|NCT04955626|183573034|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.56||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.56|0.58|
91845513|NCT04955626|183573034|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.93||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.93|0.77|
91845514|NCT04955626|183573034|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.8||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.80|0.71|
91899812|NCT00051363|183693822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6672||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.6672
91899813|NCT00051363|183693822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8197||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8197
91899814|NCT00051363|183693822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.989||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.9890
91899815|NCT00051363|183693822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5029||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.5029
91899816|NCT00051363|183693823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9518||||||2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.9518
91899817|NCT00051363|183693823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4108||||||2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.4108
91845515|NCT04955626|183573034|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.84||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.84|0.73|
91845516|NCT04955626|183573034|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.37||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.37|0.94|
91845517|NCT04955626|183573035|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.03||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.03|0.24|
91845518|NCT04955626|183573035|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.76||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.76|0.90|
91845519|NCT04955626|183573035|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.5||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.50|0.84|
91845520|NCT04955626|183573035|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.59||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.59|0.85|
91845521|NCT04955626|183573035|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.2||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.20|0.76|
91845522|NCT04955626|183573036|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.95||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||0.95|0.26|
91845523|NCT04955626|183573036|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.43||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.43|0.41|
91845524|NCT04955626|183573036|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.84||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.84|0.52|
91845525|NCT04955626|183573036|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.8||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.80|0.51|
91845526|NCT04955626|183573036|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.34||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.34|0.38|
91845527|NCT04955626|183573037|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.37||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.37|0.38|
91851851|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3154|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||0.3154
91851852|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||||0.2709
91709488|NCT04378569|183311572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||1.81|0.23|0.4188
91786428|NCT00759564|183452717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|226.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|184.36|277.72||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||277.72|184.36|
91786429|NCT00759564|183452717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|285.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|221.8|366.33||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||366.33|221.80|
91786430|NCT00759564|183452719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|209.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.81|275.87||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||275.87|158.81|
91786431|NCT00759564|183452719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|353.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|267.83|465.25||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||465.25|267.83|
91786432|NCT00759564|183452719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|742.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|529.59|1041.5||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||1041.50|529.59|
91786433|NCT00759564|183452720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|209.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.72|276.66||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||276.66|158.72|
91786434|NCT00759564|183452720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|353.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|267.57|466.39||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||466.39|267.57|
91786435|NCT00759564|183452720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|735.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|523.56|1034.0||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||1034.00|523.56|
91786436|NCT01565343|183452749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9893||||||95.0|||||ICC|||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of AD subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
91786437|NCT01565343|183452749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9574||||||95.0|||||ICC|||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient of Control subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
91786438|NCT01565343|183452749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean % difference|2.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.413||||95.0||||||||Intra-subject variability (% difference) of AD subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
91786439|NCT01565343|183452749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean % difference|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.839||||95.0||||||||Intra-subject variability (% difference) of control subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
91786440|NCT02059291|183452756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||<0.0001
91786441|NCT02059291|183452756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.0020
91786442|NCT02059291|183452756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.0050
91786443|NCT02059291|183452757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|69.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||69.21|4.15|<0.0001
91786444|NCT02059291|183452757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.63||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|65.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||65.59|2.83|0.0006
91786445|NCT02059291|183452757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.79||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|224.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||224.86|2.52|0.0028
91786446|NCT02059291|183452758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|151.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||151.31|5.86|<0.0001
91786447|NCT02059291|183452758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|63.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||63.89|2.53|0.0010
91786448|NCT02059291|183452758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|36.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.57|1.20|0.0149
91786449|NCT02059291|183452759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.46||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|332.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||332.92|0.92|0.0286
91845528|NCT04955626|183573037|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.21||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.21|0.65|
91845529|NCT04955626|183573037|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.02||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.02|0.88|
91845530|NCT04955626|183573037|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.39||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.39|0.68|
91845531|NCT04955626|183573037|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.67||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.67|0.76|
91845532|NCT04955626|183573038|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.25||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.25|0.21|
91845533|NCT04955626|183573038|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|4.88||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.88|0.88|
91845534|NCT04955626|183573038|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|7.06||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||7.06|1.24|
91845535|NCT04955626|183573038|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.62||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.62|0.64|
91845536|NCT04955626|183573038|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.67||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.67|0.64|
91845537|NCT04955626|183573039|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.09||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.09|0.25|
91845538|NCT04955626|183573039|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.04||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.04|0.49|
91845539|NCT04955626|183573039|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.68||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.68|0.63|
91786450|NCT02059291|183452759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.26||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|51.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.97|0.53|0.0778
91786451|NCT02059291|183452759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.69||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|268.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||268.50|1.04|0.0235
91786452|NCT02059291|183452760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.17||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|113.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||113.44|0.75|0.0513
91786453|NCT02059291|183452760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|366.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||366.24|0.27|0.2168
91786454|NCT02059291|183452760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|313.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||313.49|0.15|0.3571
91786455|NCT02673541|183452762|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91786456|NCT05408637|183452767|OTHER|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we looked at overall patterns and calculated differences between stimulation (Active vs Sham).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Active - Sham|||||
91786457|NCT05408637|183452767|OTHER||Percent Difference|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Active - Sham|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we looked at percent difference between stimulation (Active vs Sham).||||
91786458|NCT05408637|183452767|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We evaluated the effect size of the difference between Active and Sham using Cohen's d.||||
91786459|NCT05408637|183452768|OTHER|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we looked at overall patterns and calculated differences between active stimulation timepoints (Day 1 vs Day 5).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|224.8392|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Day 5 Active - Day 1 Active|||||
91786460|NCT05408637|183452768|OTHER||Percent Difference|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Day 5 Active - Day 1 Active|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we calculated percent difference between active stimulation timepoints (Day 1 vs Day 5).||||
91786461|NCT05408637|183452768|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We evaluated the effect size of the difference between active stimulation timepoints (Day 1 vs Day 5) using Cohen's d.||||
91786462|NCT05408637|183452769|OTHER||rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.767||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the IGT at Baseline vs Day 5 due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.||||0.15
91786463|NCT05408637|183452769|OTHER|The Friedman test was used to assess overall differences in IGT across Baseline, Day 1, and Day 5.||||||0.038|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.038
91786464|NCT05408637|183452769|OTHER|The Friedman test was used to assess overall differences in IGT across all timepoints (Baseline, Day 1, Day 5, Follow-Up).||||||0.043|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.043
91786465|NCT05408637|183452769|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the BIS across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.|rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.134||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|BIS across timepoints||||||0.42
91786466|NCT05408637|183452769|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the BRIEF-A across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions.||||||0.232|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|BRIEF-A across timepoints||||||0.232
91786467|NCT05408637|183452769|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the i7 Impulsivity across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.|rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.575||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|i7 Impulsivity||||||0.06
91786468|NCT05408637|183452769|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the i7 Venturesomeness across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.|rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.275||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.36
91786469|NCT05408637|183452770|OTHER|Non-parametric tests were employed to evaluate changes across MOODS-SR Baseline to Day 5 due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were applied for pairwise comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d to estimate the magnitude of change.|Cohen's d|0.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.6
91786470|NCT05408637|183452770|OTHER|Non-parametric tests were employed to evaluate changes across MOODS-SR Baseline to Follow Up due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were applied for pairwise comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d to estimate the magnitude of change.|Cohen's d|0.24||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2
91845540|NCT04955626|183573039|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.59||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.59|0.38|
91845541|NCT04955626|183573039|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.36||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.36|0.32|
91845542|NCT04955626|183573040|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.76||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.76|0.32|
91845543|NCT04955626|183573040|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.85||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.85|0.74|
91845544|NCT04955626|183573040|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.91||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.91|0.92|
91845545|NCT04955626|183573040|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.33||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.33|0.43|
91845546|NCT04955626|183573040|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.04||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.04|0.39|
91845547|NCT04955626|183573041|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.12||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.12|0.31|
91845548|NCT04955626|183573041|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|14.07||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||14.07|1.49|
91845549|NCT04955626|183573041|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|22.76||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||22.76|2.34|
91786471|NCT04975438|183452771|OTHER||Posterior Median Difference|-33.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|-14.84|||||The posterior median of the difference (GSK1070806 - placebo) and 95% credible interval in PCFB in the EASI is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian analysis under the hypothetical strategy using an informative prior (robust MAP prior).|||-14.84|-50.96|
91786472|NCT04975438|183452772|OTHER||Posterior Median Difference|-9.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-3.6|||||The posterior median of the difference (GSK1070806 - placebo) and 95% credible interval in PCFB in the EASI is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian analysis with vague priors and adjusting for baseline EASI.|||-3.60|-15.70|
91845550|NCT04955626|183573041|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.1||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||7.10|0.72|
91845551|NCT04955626|183573041|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.03||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.03|0.41|
91845552|NCT04955626|183573042|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.7||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.70|0.38|
91899818|NCT00051363|183693823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4528||||||2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.4528
91899819|NCT00051363|183693823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8391||||||6M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8391
91899820|NCT00051363|183693823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2771||||||6M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.2771
91899821|NCT00051363|183693823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961||||||6M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8961
91899822|NCT00051363|183693824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||||||DX- MWT-MSL; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.6540
91899823|NCT00051363|183693824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9778||||||DX- MWT-MSL (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.9778
91899824|NCT00051363|183693824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8314||||||DX- MWT-MSL (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.8314
91786473|NCT02693132|183452785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91786474|NCT02693132|183452786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91786475|NCT02693132|183452787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91786476|NCT02693132|183452788|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91786477|NCT02693132|183452789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91786478|NCT01168986|183452791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91786479|NCT01168986|183452792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
91786480|NCT01168986|183452793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
91786481|NCT01168986|183452794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
91786482|NCT03116152|183452852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.701||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|0.972|||Log Rank|||||0.972|0.504|0.032
91786483|NCT03116152|183452853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.391|||Log Rank|||||1.391|0.722|0.979
91845553|NCT04955626|183573042|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.2||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||5.20|0.76|
91845554|NCT04955626|183573042|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.94||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||7.94|1.13|
91845555|NCT04955626|183573042|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.75||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.75|0.68|
91845556|NCT04955626|183573042|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.24||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.24|0.32|
91845557|NCT04955626|183573043|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.12||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||5.12|0.44|
91845558|NCT04955626|183573043|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|10.46||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||10.46|0.99|
91845559|NCT04955626|183573043|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|6.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|21.27||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||21.27|1.96|
91845560|NCT04955626|183573043|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.89||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||6.89|0.63|
91845561|NCT04955626|183573043|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.17||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.17|0.28|
91845562|NCT04955626|183573068|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-358.6|100.0||||||||100.0|-358.6|
91845563|NCT04955626|183573069|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-355.5|100.0||||||2-Sided CI for RVE is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||100.0|-355.5|
91845564|NCT04955626|183573078|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||1.20|0.82|
91845565|NCT04955626|183573078|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.58||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||1.58|1.07|
91851853|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||||0.3804
91786484|NCT03116152|183452854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|15.4||||||||15.4|-2.2|
91786485|NCT03116152|183452855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.345
91786486|NCT01215097|183452964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-0.70|<0.0001
91786487|NCT01215097|183452965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|-0.311|||ANCOVA|||||-0.311|-0.555|<0.0001
91786488|NCT01215097|183452966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.752|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-0.752|<0.0001
91786489|NCT01215097|183452967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-0.70|<0.0001
91786490|NCT01215097|183452968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.71|<0.0001
91786491|NCT01215097|183452969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.0233||95.0|-17.8|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-17.8|0.0233
91786492|NCT01215097|183452970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-28.7|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||||-15.6|-28.7|<0.0001
91786493|NCT01215097|183452971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.005||95.0|-17.3|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||||-3.1|-17.3|0.0050
91786494|NCT01215097|183452972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0044||95.0|-19.5|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-19.5|0.0044
91845566|NCT03714022|183573086|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.941|1.058|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||1.058|0.941|
91845567|NCT03714022|183573087|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.884|0.976|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||0.976|0.884|
91845568|NCT03714022|183573089|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|0.983|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||0.983|0.891|
91845569|NCT03714022|183573090|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.001|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||1.001|0.915|
91845570|NCT02487446|183573137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 97.5% one -sided confidence interval (CI) \> -20 mL.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00778||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0269|0.0038||p-value unadjusted|Linear Mixed Model|||Ho: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d; Ha: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is non-inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d.||0.0038|-0.0269|0.139
91845571|NCT02487446|183573138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00778|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0269|0.0038||||||Ho: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d; Ha: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is non-inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d.||0.0038|-0.0269|
91845572|NCT02487446|183573139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0361|0.0056||||||||0.0056|-0.0361|
91845573|NCT02487446|183573140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00806|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0108|0.0209||||||||0.0209|-0.0108|
91845574|NCT04951479|183573166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of KOOS Pain score pre and 6 months post embolization||||0.00041
91845575|NCT04951479|183573167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91845576|NCT04951479|183573168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91845577|NCT04951479|183573169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.00797
91845578|NCT03706690|183573171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|0.986|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT).||The hazard ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (PD-L1 \<1% versus \[vs\] PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (concurrent \[c\]CRT vs sequential \[s\]CRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||0.986|0.578|0.038
91845579|NCT03706690|183573172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.166|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For mITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.166|0.656|0.346
91845580|NCT03706690|183573172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.162|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For ITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.162|0.663|0.346
91845581|NCT03706690|183573173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.966|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT).||The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs PD-L1\>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||0.966|0.575|0.026
91845582|NCT03706690|183573175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|2.607|||Regression, Logistic|||For mITT set. The comparison was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.||2.607|0.891|0.128
91845583|NCT03706690|183573175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|2.638|||Regression, Logistic|||For ITT set. The comparison was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.||2.638|0.915|0.105
91845584|NCT03706690|183573178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.138|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For mITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.138|0.648|0.275
91851854|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7645|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||||0.7645
91851855|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||||0.1820
91845585|NCT03706690|183573178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.122|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For ITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.122|0.648|0.241
91845586|NCT03706690|183573179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.578|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For mITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.578|0.726|0.769
91845587|NCT03706690|183573179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.539|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For ITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.539|0.726|0.812
91845588|NCT02711826|183573188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.425
91845589|NCT02711826|183573189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.700
91845590|NCT02711826|183573190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.201
91845591|NCT00729690|183573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4742||95.0|||||ANOVA|||For 1st 24 hours NRS AUC Pain scores||||0.4742
91845592|NCT00729690|183573213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7596||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.7596
91845593|NCT00729690|183573214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4321||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4321
91845594|NCT00729690|183573215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9361||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.9361
91845595|NCT02507219|183573235|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000055||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00011|0.00022|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is percent signal change per milligram of ibuprofen.|A linear mixed effects model was run for the left amygdala with contrast and percent signal change between faces and shapes as the dependent variable and ibuprofen dose as a continuous predictor. Each subject had up to 3 visits and each visit contained 3 contrasts (happy - shape, angry - shape, fearful - shape) so subject and drug were used as random effects. Drug was nested inside of subject.||0.00022|-0.00011|0.512
91786495|NCT01215097|183452974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.243|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.831|13.769|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>=7.0%||13.769|2.831|<0.0001
91786496|NCT01215097|183452976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97||||0.0129||95.0|1.404|17.592|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>= 6.5%||17.592|1.404|0.0129
91845596|NCT02507219|183573235|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00012||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.000067|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is the percent signal change per mg of ibuprofen.|A linear mixed effects model was run for the right amygdala with contrast and percent signal change between faces and shapes as the dependent variable and ibuprofen dose as a continuous predictor. Each subject had up to 3 visits and each visit contained 3 contrasts (happy - shape, angry - shape, fearful - shape) so subject and drug were used as random effects. Drug was nested inside of subject.||0.000067|-0.00030|0.221
91845597|NCT03929302|183573251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91845598|NCT03929302|183573251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
91845599|NCT03929302|183573251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.642|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.642
91845600|NCT03815916|183573252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3865||||0.1077|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy endpoint is the mean change in the average NAD+/NADH brain ratio from baseline to Week 12 using a partial volume coil 31P-MRS data on the Per Protocol Treatment Population. A paired t-test will be used to analyze the mean change from baseline.||||0.1077
91845601|NCT02688621|183573354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was designed to detect a 2.2-kg group weight loss difference between groups with a standard deviation of 5.8 kg,4,5 a 5% Type I error rate, and 80% power. To adjust for possible clustering effects in this nested design, the adjusted variance estimate was increased to 7.67, calculated using a conservative intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.05.||||<.01
91845602|NCT01996644|183573372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.043
91845603|NCT05349864|183573381|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment B, natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|120.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.76|131.75||||||||131.75|109.76|
91786497|NCT01215097|183452977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.054|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.799|5.185|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with HbA1c at least lowering 0.5% from baseline||5.185|1.799|<0.0001
91786498|NCT01818752|183452978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.101||The p-value boundary for PFS analysis was 0.02141.|Log Rank|Log-rank p-value (1-sided) stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|The hazard ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|The inferential test associated with the primary analysis of PFS was assessed against an overall 1-sided significance level of α=0.025.||1.101|0.746|0.1590
91786499|NCT01818752|183452979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.211||||0.8934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.637||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Log Rank|Log-rank p-value (1-sided) stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|The hazard ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|||1.637|0.896|0.8934
91851856|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7167|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||||0.7167
91790544|NCT02880956|183460068|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790545|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.136||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.136|-0.408|0.325
91790546|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790547|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.263||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.263|-0.274|0.966
91790548|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790549|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.22||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.220|-0.330|0.695
91790550|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790551|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.221||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.221|-0.348|0.662
91790552|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790553|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.304||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.304|-0.250|0.849
91790554|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790555|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.284||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.284|-0.286|0.995
91650410|NCT00458302|183193490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If at Week 48, the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval of the difference between DRV/r and DRV/r+2NRTIs exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of the DRV/r 800/100 once a day (O.D) monotherapy versus the DRV/r 800/100 mg O.D. plus two NRTIs triple combination therapy was concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|7.8|||||Difference in proportion of response DRV/r minus DRV/r+2NRTIs.|Assuming a virologic response rate of 90% at 48 weeks for both treatment arms, 111 patients were required per treatment arm to establish non-inferiority of DRV/r versus triple regimen with a maximum allowable difference of 12%, with a one-sided significance level of p=0.025 and 80% power. To account for a maximum of 10% major protocol violations that would be excluded from the on-protocol analysis, 125 patients were recruited in each treatment are, so 250 patients in total.||7.8|-9.9|
91845604|NCT05349864|183573382|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment B, natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|116.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.91|137.95||||||||137.95|97.91|
91845605|NCT05349864|183573383|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment B, natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|206.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|171.14|250.15||||||||250.15|171.14|
91845606|NCT05349864|183573384|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment C, natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|135.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.36|161.19||||||||161.19|114.36|
91845607|NCT05349864|183573385|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment C, natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|138.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.11|180.41||||||||180.41|106.11|
91845608|NCT05349864|183573386|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment C, natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|236.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.12|294.38||||||||294.38|190.12|
91845609|NCT00984282|183573395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||stratified by age group (\< 60 years, \>= 60 years) and region (Europe, North-America, Asia)|Log Rank|||The two treatment groups were compared using a stratified one-sided log rank test with an overall alpha of 0.01 stratified by age group and region. The null hypothesis that both treatment arms have the same PFS distribution will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the distribution of PFS times in the sorafenib arm is different from the control arm according to the Lehmann alternative, which is equivalent to the assumption of proportional hazards of the treatment arms.||||<0.0001
91845610|NCT00984282|183573395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|0.758|||Regression, Cox|stratified by age group and region||||0.758|0.454|
91845611|NCT00984282|183573396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2892|||||||Log Rank|stratified by age group and region||||||0.2892
91845612|NCT00984282|183573396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.208|||Regression, Cox|stratified by age group and region||||1.208|0.713|
91845613|NCT00984282|183573397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|stratified by age group and region||||||<0.0001
91845614|NCT00984282|183573397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.724|||Regression, Cox|stratified by age group and region||||0.724|0.429|
91845615|NCT00984282|183573398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of response rates|11.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|19.4||stratified by age group and region|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference of disease control rates sorafenib minus placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel confidence interval stratified by age group and region|||19.4|3.9|0.0015
91650411|NCT00458302|183193492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of response|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|10.58|||||Difference in proportion of response DRV/r minus DRV/r+2NRTIs.|||10.58|-7.99|
91786500|NCT01818752|183452980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.973||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|Odds ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|||1.973|1.010|0.0218
91650412|NCT02661126|183193502|OTHER|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR) of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.92||||||||2.92|1.40|
91845616|NCT00984282|183573399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|16.5||stratified by age group and region|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference of response rates sorafenib minus placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel confidence interval stratified by age group and region|||16.5|7.0|<0.0001
91851857|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3104|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||||0.3104
91851858|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.091|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||||0.0910
91851859|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||||0.6094
91845617|NCT04541186|183573440|SUPERIORITY||Median Percent Change Difference|-43.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.08|-30.31||Significant level = 0.05|van Elteren test|Nonparametric analysis stratified by baseline TG level and background lipid therapy to test the treatment difference using pooled data.|The location shift and Hodges-Lehmann 95% confidence interval were based on Hodges-Lehman estimation. Placebo group is the reference group, and the comparison was performed in pooled pegozafermin treatment group vs. placebo pooled.|||-30.31|-57.08|<0.001
91845618|NCT04541186|183573441|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significant level = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline TG level and lipid modifying therapy use.||||||<0.001
91845619|NCT04541186|183573442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-17.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.425||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.67|-5.07||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of non-HDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||-5.07|-30.67|0.007
91845620|NCT04541186|183573442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-11.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.888||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.48|-2.01||Significant level of 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of ApoB comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||-2.01|-21.48|0.019
91786501|NCT01818752|183452981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.589||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|Odds ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|||1.589|0.875|0.1388
91845621|NCT04541186|183573442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.519||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.21|22.68||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of LDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||22.68|-19.21|0.870
91845622|NCT04541186|183573442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|15.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.182||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|31.7||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of HDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||31.70|-0.89|0.064
91650413|NCT02661126|183193503|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.89||||||||2.89|1.39|
91650414|NCT02661126|183193504|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.92||||||||2.92|1.39|
91650415|NCT02661126|183193505|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|2.74||||||||2.74|1.35|
91650416|NCT02661126|183193511|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.72||||||||2.72|1.39|
91845623|NCT04541186|183573443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Significant level = 0.05|van Elteren Test|||Nonparametric analysis of VLDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.006
91845624|NCT04541186|183573443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Significant level of 0.05|van Elteren test|||Nonparametric analysis of VLDL-TG comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.002
91845625|NCT04541186|183573444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of fasting plasma glucose comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.809
91845626|NCT04541186|183573444|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of adiponectin comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||<0.001
91845627|NCT04541186|183573444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of body weight comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.973
91845628|NCT04541186|183573445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Significant level = 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.012
91845629|NCT00058058|183573463|OTHER|Estimation of diagnostic yield|Binomial proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.042||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 4 or 5 based on Final BI-RADS||0.042|0.020|
91845630|NCT00058058|183573463|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.044||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 4 or 5 based on initial MRI and subsequent work-up||0.044|0.021|
91845631|NCT00058058|183573463|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.042||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 4 or 5 based on initial MRI and subsequent work-up and a completed biopsy procedure||0.042|0.020|
91851860|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||||0.2166
91851861|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.901|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||||0.9010
91845632|NCT00058058|183573463|OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.042||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 4 or 5 on the initial MRI scan||0.042|0.020|
91845633|NCT00058058|183573463|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.043||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 3, 4 or 5 on the initial MRI scan||0.043|0.021|
91845634|NCT00058058|183573463|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.043||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 3, 4 or 5 based on initial MRI and subsequent work-up||0.043|0.021|
91845635|NCT00058058|183573464|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.9091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05004|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7567|0.9809||||||"Sensitivity estimate - estimates the P(T+\|D+) where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)"||0.9809|0.7567|
91845636|NCT00058058|183573464|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.8782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8555|0.8985||||||"Specificity - estimates the P(T-\|D-) of MRI where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)"||0.8985|0.8555|
91845637|NCT00058058|183573464|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.2083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0338|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1452|0.2839||||||"PPV estimate - estimates the P(D+\|T+), where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)."||0.2839|0.1452|
91845638|NCT00058058|183573464|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.9964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9894|0.9993||||||"B. NPV Analysis for ALL Cases in Analysis Set NPV estimate - estimates the P(D-\|T-), where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)"||0.9993|0.9894|
91845639|NCT00058058|183573464|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00556|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.044||||||B. Diagnostic Yield for ALL Cases in Analysis Set Diagnostic Yield - estimates the likelihood that the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis||0.044|0.021|
91845640|NCT00058058|183573465|OTHER||ROC analysis|0.9355|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8956|0.9753|||||exact CI|ROC analysis - estimates the accuracy of MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram to detect cancer in the contralateral breast||0.9753|0.8956|
91845641|NCT00790062|183573488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.59|||ANCOVA|||||1.59|0.63|0.670
91845642|NCT02680756|183573489|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided CI for difference in the proportions of Hb responders (risk difference for ferric maltol - IV iron) between the two treatment groups, and comparing the LCL of this CI to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 20%. The CI was calculated using the Delta Method approach based on a logistic regression model, adjusted for treatment group, baseline Hb (below the observed median or at least the observed median), and IBD subgroup (UC or CD).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.06|-0.28|0.298
91845643|NCT02680756|183573490|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided CI for difference in the proportions of Hb responders (risk difference for ferric maltol - IV iron) between the two treatment groups, and comparing the LCL of this CI to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 20%. The CI was calculated using the Delta Method approach based on a logistic regression model, adjusted for treatment group, baseline Hb (below the observed median or at least the observed median), and IBD subgroup (UC or CD).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.05|-0.30|0.341
91845644|NCT02374957|183573511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: six-week change in EQ5D sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D than the other over initial six weeks (two-sided test)."||||0.26
91845645|NCT02374957|183573512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: three-month change in EQ5D sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D than the other over three months (two-sided test)."||||0.17
91845646|NCT02374957|183573513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: six-week change in EQ5D visual analog score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D visual analog score than the other over initial six weeks (two-sided test)."||||0.027
91845647|NCT02374957|183573514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: three-month change in EQ5D visual analog score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D visual analog score than the other over three months (two-sided test)."||||0.014
91845648|NCT02374957|183573515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: six-week change in EACH Q sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EACH Q sum score than the other over initial six weeks (two-sided test)."||||0.82
91845649|NCT02374957|183573516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: three-month change in EACH Q sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EACH Q sum score than the other over three months (two-sided test)."||||0.61
91845650|NCT02374957|183573517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Log Rank|||"Null hypothesis: time to patency-failure (graft occlusion) is the same between treatment arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm differs from the other in durability of graft patency (two-sided test)."||||0.26
91845651|NCT00562965|183573539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.02|||Cox proportional hazard regression model|A 2-sided 5% significance level on a stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model was used.|In this regression model, treatment arm was the covariate and the strata (number of prior regimens, investigator's choice of therapy and geographical region) over which participants were stratified prior to randomization were the variables.|To detect a hazard ratio of 0.77 with 85% power using a 2-sided log-rank test at the 5% significance level, it was planned that approximately 978 participants were needed to be randomized but due to premature termination only 29 participants were randomized.||1.02|0.04|0.0358
91845652|NCT00562965|183573540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0801
91851862|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||||0.9060
91845653|NCT00562965|183573541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.81|||Cox proportional hazard regression model|Stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model was utilized.|In this regression model, treatment arm was the covariate and the strata (number of prior regimens, investigator's choice of therapy and geographical region) over which participants were stratified prior to randomization were the variables.|||1.81|0.05|0.1727
91845654|NCT01648283|183573553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91845655|NCT01253200|183573576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Primary Safety Endpoint was evaluated using a one-sided, non-inferiority test for two binomial proportions at an alpha-level of 0.05. A 95% confidence interval based upon a score test of the difference of proportion of subjects in the Investigational and Control Groups free from a procedure-related complication seven days post-procedure was constructed. The upper bound of the confidence interval was compared to 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.78||||||Note that analysis of the primary outcome was conducted for Randomized subjects only as prespecified in the study protocol. This is consistent analysis publicly available in the Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED).||9.78||
91845656|NCT02049437|183573580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|21.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.83|0.90|0.07
91845657|NCT02049437|183573581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2036.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3490.32|-900.62|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-900.62|-3490.32|<0.001
91845658|NCT02049437|183573582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.65|-0.79|0.77
91845659|NCT01163149|183573586|SUPERIORITY|If p-values were less than 0.05 and the Hodges-Lehman-Sen estimate favored asfotase alfa (eg, it had a negative sign indicating the between-group differences in change from Baseline favored treated patients), then superiority over control was claimed.|Hodges-Lehman-Sen|-302.05||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-626.4|-59.2||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||PLP Change from Baseline to Week 24||-59.20|-626.40|0.0285
91845660|NCT01163149|183573587|SUPERIORITY|If p-values were less than 0.05 and the Hodges-Lehman-Sen estimate favored asfotase alfa (eg, it had a negative sign indicating the between-group differences in change from Baseline favored treated patients), then superiority over control was claimed.|Hodges-Lehman-Sen|-1.825||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|0.23||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum||Estimate and exact confidence interval are from Hodges-Lehmann-Sen method for location shift in distribution between the treatment group and the control group.|PPi Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.230|-3.210|0.0715
91845661|NCT01163149|183573589|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-0.91||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|1.78||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Hip Total BMC Change from Baseline to Week 24||1.780|-3.320|0.3301
91845662|NCT01163149|183573589|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|1.33||||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|3.12||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Lumbar Spine BMC Change from Baseline to Week 24||3.120|-1.360|0.3827
91845663|NCT01163149|183573589|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-77.1||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-917.44|-1.74||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Whole Body BMC Change from Baseline to Week 24||-1.740|-917.440|0.0485
91845664|NCT01163149|183573590|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-0.0125||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.039||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Hip Total Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.0390|-0.0400|0.7357
91845665|NCT01163149|183573590|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|0.0255||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.041||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Lumbar Spine BMD Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.0410|-0.0090|0.2439
91845666|NCT01163149|183573590|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-0.0315||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.012||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Whole Body BMD Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.0120|-0.0590|0.1222
91845667|NCT01163149|183573591|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|44.0||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|114.0||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum||Estimate and exact confidence interval are from Hodges-Lehmann-Sen method for location shift in distribution between the treatment group and the control group|Week 24 Change from Baseline||114.0|-73.0|0.1303
91845668|NCT01700530|183573597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91845669|NCT05302791|183573624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||ANOVA|time x condition ANOVA||||||.609
91845670|NCT05302791|183573625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||ANOVA|time x condition anova||||||.858
91650417|NCT02661126|183193512|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.74||||||||2.74|1.50|
91845671|NCT05302791|183573626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||ANOVA|||||||.633
91845672|NCT05302791|183573627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||||||.076
91845673|NCT05302791|183573628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||ANOVA|||||||.151
91845674|NCT05302791|183573629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||ANOVA|||||||.385
91845675|NCT05302791|183573630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||ANOVA|||||||.665
91845676|NCT05302791|183573631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|||||||.078
91845677|NCT05302791|183573632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||ANOVA|||||||.773
91845678|NCT05302791|183573633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||ANOVA|||||||.118
91845679|NCT05302791|183573634|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Time x condition ANOVA||||||<0.001
91845680|NCT05302791|183573635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|time x condition anova||||||<0.001
91851863|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7268|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||||0.7268
91851864|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.5372|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||||0.5372
91845681|NCT04956692|183573637|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin with respect to the geometric means ratio (GMR) was 0.8|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.98|1.1||The one-sided p-value non-inferiority boundary is 0.02|t-test, 1 sided|Welch's unequal variances t-test. The null hypothesis was that GMR≤0.8.|Numerator Arm A/Denominator Arm B|||1.10|0.98|<0.0001
91845682|NCT04956692|183573638|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin with respect to the geometric means ratio (GMR) was 0.8|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|94.0|1.69|2.03||The one-sided p-value non-inferiority boundary is 0.03|t-test, 1 sided|Welch's unequal variances t-test. The null hypothesis was that GMR≤0.8.|Numerator Arm A/Denominator Arm B|||2.03|1.69|<0.0001
91845683|NCT01449721|183573679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||2-sample z-test|z-test for differences in proportions||Null hypothesis: In patients with moderate severity sepsis, there is no change in the incidence of organ dysfunction within 72 hours associated with the use of an empiric fluid resuscitation algorithm.||||0.064
91845684|NCT04447820|183573700|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.3084|||||||Mixed Model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.3084
91845685|NCT04447820|183573700|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.593|||||||Mixed Model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.5930
91845686|NCT04447820|183573701|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.9788|||||||MMRM|||||||0.9788
91845687|NCT04447820|183573701|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.1314|||||||MMRM|||||||0.1314
91845688|NCT04447820|183573702|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.884|||||||MMRM analysis|||||||0.8840
91845689|NCT04447820|183573702|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.1202|||||||MMRM analysis|||||||0.1202
91845690|NCT04447820|183573703|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.9353|||||||MMRM|||||||0.9353
91845691|NCT04447820|183573703|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.3099|||||||MMRM|||||||0.3099
91845692|NCT04447820|183573704|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.2098|||||||MMRM|||||||0.2098
91851865|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.1588|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||||0.1588
91851866|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4268|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||||0.4268
91845693|NCT04447820|183573704|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.3688|||||||MMRM|||||||0.3688
91845694|NCT04447820|183573705|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.5647|||||||MMRM|||||||0.5647
91845695|NCT04447820|183573705|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.217|||||||MMRM|||||||0.2170
91845696|NCT04447820|183573706|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.2562|||||||MMRM|||||||0.2562
91845697|NCT04447820|183573706|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.4268|||||||MMRM|||||||0.4268
91845698|NCT01251614|183573788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-25.5||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|-3.7|||Chi-squared|||"The a priori defined order of the statistical hypotheses was as follows:~1. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX for the percentage of participants achieving a ≥ PASI 75 response at Week 16.~2. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX, for the percentage of participants achieving a PGA cleared or minimal at Week 16.~This order was adhered to for confirmatory testing, all statistical tests were at a level of significance of 5% and the overall type I error was preserved."||-3.7|-47.2|0.027
91845699|NCT01251614|183573789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-20.0||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|2.2|||Chi-squared|||"The a priori defined order of the statistical hypotheses was as follows:~1. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX for the percentage of participants achieving a ≥ PASI 75 response at Week 16.~2. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX, for the percentage of participants achieving a PGA cleared or minimal at Week 16.~This order was adhered to for confirmatory testing, all statistical tests were at a level of significance of 5% and the overall type I error was preserved."||2.2|-42.2|0.083
91845700|NCT01251614|183573790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.3||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|12.3|||Chi-squared|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||12.3|-26.9|0.466
91845701|NCT01251614|183573791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-15.7||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-2.3|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||-2.3|-29.1|0.056
91851867|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.4389|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||||0.4389
91851868|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6708|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||||0.6708
91851869|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.2145|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||||0.2145
91786502|NCT01818752|183452982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.048|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.088||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Pearson Chi-Square test||Unstratified odds ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated.|||0.088|0.026|< 0.0001
91786503|NCT01818752|183452983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.773|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|6.51||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||Treatment groups were compared using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment (all baseline responses were modeled with a dummy treatment), the randomization stratification factors - ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region, age, and random effects of subject intercept and coefficient on time.||6.51|3.48|< 0.0001
91786504|NCT02872285|183453021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8||||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.793|8.199||ANCOVA was used to compare mean percent change in PASI score between baseline and Week 12 between LYC-30937 and placebo treatment groups with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Subjects included in this analysis had to have both a baseline and Week 12 PASI scores.||8.199|-33.793|0.2205
91786505|NCT02872285|183453022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided p-value.||||||0.4712
91786506|NCT02872285|183453023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34||||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.87|20.18|||ANCOVA|||||20.18|-30.87|0.6695
91845702|NCT01251614|183573792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.61||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|4.7|||ANOVA|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||4.70|-1.48|0.304
91845703|NCT01251614|183573793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-8.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-2.82|||ANOVA|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||-2.82|-14.94|0.005
91786507|NCT02872285|183453024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712||||||2-sided p-value|Chi-squared|||||||0.4712
91786508|NCT02872285|183453025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712||||||2-sided p-value|Chi-squared|||||||0.4712
91786509|NCT01065454|183453117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-2.71||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|0.057||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||0.057|-5.99|0.1044
91786510|NCT01065454|183453117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMEANS Difference|-1.38||||0.5292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.94||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||2.94|-5.71|0.5292
91786511|NCT01065454|183453117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-4.51||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-0.5||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-8.52|0.0278
91786512|NCT01065454|183453117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|1.8||||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|5.84||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||5.84|-2.25|0.3821
91786513|NCT01065454|183453117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|3.13||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|8.02||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||8.02|-1.76|0.2084
91786514|NCT01065454|183453117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-1.33||||0.5442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|3.0||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||3.00|-5.66|0.5442
91786515|NCT01065454|183453118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.56||||||||4.56|-0.83|
91786516|NCT01065454|183453118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|3.51||||||||3.51|-3.12|
91786517|NCT01065454|183453118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.77||||||||3.77|-3.31|
91786518|NCT01065454|183453119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-46.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|-3.8||||||||-3.8|-89.4|
91786519|NCT01065454|183453119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-32.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.9|20.4||||||||20.4|-84.9|
91786520|NCT01065454|183453119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-26.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|30.0||||||||30.0|-83.0|
91786521|NCT01065454|183453120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-89.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.9|5.5||||||||5.5|-172.9|
91786522|NCT01065454|183453120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-58.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.1|45.6||||||||45.6|-162.1|
91786523|NCT01065454|183453120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-43.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.7|67.1||||||||67.1|-153.7|
91786524|NCT01065454|183453121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-239.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-363.4|-115.3||||||||-115.3|-363.4|
91786525|NCT01065454|183453121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-120.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-274.4|32.6||||||||32.6|-274.4|
91786526|NCT01065454|183453121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-25.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.3|138.2||||||||138.2|-189.3|
91786527|NCT01065454|183453122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-446.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-687.4|-205.6||||||||-205.6|-687.4|
91786528|NCT01065454|183453122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-231.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-530.4|67.2||||||||67.2|-530.4|
91786529|NCT01065454|183453122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-34.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-353.7|283.7||||||||283.7|-353.7|
91786530|NCT01065454|183453123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.5||||||||0.5|-3.1|
91786531|NCT01065454|183453123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3||||||||1.3|-3.1|
91786532|NCT01065454|183453123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.5||||||||1.5|-3.2|
91786533|NCT01065454|183453124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSS-MEANS Difference|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.8||||||||0.8|-5.0|
91786534|NCT01065454|183453124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.9||||||||4.9|-2.1|
91786535|NCT01065454|183453124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS Difference|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.7||||||||2.7|-4.9|
91786536|NCT01065454|183453125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.14||||||||1.14|-0.58|
91786537|NCT01065454|183453125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.87||||||||1.87|-0.23|
91786538|NCT01065454|183453125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.06||||||||1.06|-1.11|
91786539|NCT01065454|183453126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|1.09||||||||1.09|-8.76|
91786540|NCT01065454|183453126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANs Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|6.01||||||||6.01|-6.05|
91786541|NCT01065454|183453126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|4.06||||||||4.06|-8.93|
91786542|NCT01065454|183453127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.24||||||||1.24|-0.21|
91786543|NCT01065454|183453127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS Difference|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.69||||||||1.69|-0.07|
91786544|NCT01065454|183453127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.15||||||||1.15|-0.74|
91786545|NCT01065454|183453128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|7.22||||||||7.22|-17.33|
91786546|NCT01065454|183453128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|15.11||||||||15.11|-14.55|
91786547|NCT01065454|183453128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-5.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|10.69||||||||10.69|-21.05|
91786548|NCT01065454|183453129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS Difference|-4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.13|12.6||||||||12.60|-21.13|
91786549|NCT01065454|183453129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|23.16||||||||23.16|-17.59|
91786550|NCT01065454|183453129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|17.2||||||||17.20|-26.43|
91786551|NCT01065454|183453130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|17.95||||||||17.95|-7.38|
91786552|NCT01065454|183453130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|6.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|22.73||||||||22.73|-9.79|
91786553|NCT01065454|183453130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|10.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|26.84||||||||26.84|-6.14|
91786554|NCT01065454|183453131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.55|
91786555|NCT01065454|183453131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.67||||||||0.67|-0.34|
91786556|NCT01065454|183453131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.56||||||||0.56|-0.45|
91786557|NCT01065454|183453132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|10.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.48|38.81||||||||38.81|-18.48|
91786558|NCT01065454|183453132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.76|42.59||||||||42.59|-26.76|
91786559|NCT01065454|183453132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|31.78||||||||31.78|-44.08|
91786560|NCT01065454|183453134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|14.61||||||||14.61|-13.36|
91786561|NCT01065454|183453134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.32|5.39||||||||5.39|-24.32|
91845704|NCT01251614|183573794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-28.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|4.0|||Chi-squared|||"The difference between the combined adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg + MTX groups versus the adalimumab 0.4 mg/kg group.~Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were to be 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (P value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank."||4.0|-60.6|0.113
91845705|NCT01251614|183573795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.17|||Log Rank|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (P value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||3.17|0.66|0.343
91845706|NCT01251614|183573795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.21|||Log Rank|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (P value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||3.21|0.71|0.276
91845707|NCT03635112|183573856|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.62|39.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||39.11|-40.62|0.970
91845708|NCT03635112|183573856|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.13||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.46|26.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||26.19|-52.46|0.510
91845709|NCT03635112|183573857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.07||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.135|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.135|-0.277|0.5102
91845710|NCT03635112|183573857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.02||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.218|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.218|-0.181|0.8591
91845711|NCT03635112|183573858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.13||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.061|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.061|-0.322|0.1805
91845712|NCT03635112|183573858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.01||||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.184|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.184|-0.204|0.9215
91845713|NCT03635112|183573859|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.8|-1.6|0.316
91845714|NCT03635112|183573859|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-3.2|0.988
91845715|NCT03635112|183573860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.11||||0.1828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.059|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.059|-0.270|0.1828
91845716|NCT03635112|183573860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.06||||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.244|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.244|-0.133|0.5785
91845717|NCT03635112|183573861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.07||||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|0.095|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.095|-0.225|0.3776
91845718|NCT03635112|183573861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.04||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.111|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.111|-0.189|0.6063
91845719|NCT01950260|183573863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91845720|NCT01950260|183573864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.41
91845721|NCT01950260|183573865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
91845722|NCT03283553|183573868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months compared to baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Complete illness understanding at 9 months was compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.264
91845723|NCT03283553|183573869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Satisfaction with cancer care at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.555
91845724|NCT03283553|183573870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months vs baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Symptoms of anxiety at 9 months were compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.619
91845725|NCT03283553|183573871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months compared to baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Complete illness understanding at 9 months was compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.532
91845726|NCT03283553|183573872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Satisfaction with cancer care at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.108
91851870|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8608|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||||0.8608
91851871|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||||0.0283
91851872|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||||0.0369
91845727|NCT03283553|183573873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months vs baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Symptoms of anxiety at 9 months were compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.405
91845728|NCT03283553|183573874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Quality of communication at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.412
91845729|NCT03283553|183573875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Quality of communication at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.872
91845730|NCT03283553|183573876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who were registered during the 9-month follow up period.||||||<0.001
91845731|NCT03283553|183573877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.||||||0.003
91845732|NCT03283553|183573878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.||||||<0.001
91845733|NCT03283553|183573879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.128
91845734|NCT03283553|183573880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247||||||P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.247
91845735|NCT03686683|183573881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.74|0.78|0.4586
91845736|NCT01770860|183573883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with Treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
91845737|NCT01770860|183573884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
91845738|NCT01770860|183573885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
91650418|NCT02661126|183193513|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.56||||||||2.56|1.15|
91845739|NCT01770860|183573886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
91845740|NCT01770860|183573887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect||||||0.0476
91845741|NCT00714233|183573892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to analyze BMI at baseline and 24 weeks||||<0.05
91845742|NCT03432533|183573897|NON_INFERIORITY|Conclusions for the primary efficacy hypothesis of efficacy of self-administration of romosozumab by AI/Pen compared with HCP-administered romosozumab by PFS at lumbar spine BMD at Month 6 was made using a 1-sided test with type 1 error rate of 0.025 and noninferiority margin of -2.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.3|0.84
91851873|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||||0.4606
91650419|NCT02661126|183193514|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|2.87||||||||2.87|1.20|
91650420|NCT02661126|183193515|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.97||||||||2.97|1.38|
91650421|NCT02661126|183193519|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|2.53||||||||2.53|1.44|
91650422|NCT02661126|183193520|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.48|2.63||||||||2.63|1.48|
91786562|NCT01065454|183453134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.26|10.13||||||||10.13|-22.26|
91786563|NCT01065454|183453136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.04|
91786564|NCT01065454|183453136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.07|
91786565|NCT01065454|183453136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.07|
91786566|NCT01065454|183453137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-0.78||||||||-0.78|-12.81|
91786567|NCT01065454|183453137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-6.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|0.35||||||||0.35|-13.96|
91786568|NCT01065454|183453137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|0.28||||||||0.28|-15.29|
91786569|NCT01065454|183453138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-24.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.58|68.33||||||||68.33|-117.58|
91786570|NCT01065454|183453138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-53.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.46|55.88||||||||55.88|-162.46|
91786571|NCT01065454|183453138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-8.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.78|119.06||||||||119.06|-135.78|
91786572|NCT01065454|183453139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-407.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1055.23|240.54||||||||240.54|-1055.23|
91786573|NCT01065454|183453139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-447.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1212.74|318.22||||||||318.22|-1212.74|
91786574|NCT01065454|183453139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-517.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1369.48|334.53||||||||334.53|-1369.48|
91786575|NCT01065454|183453140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.01|
91786576|NCT01065454|183453140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0||||||||0.00|-0.02|
91786577|NCT01065454|183453140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.02|
91786578|NCT01065454|183453141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.04|
91786579|NCT01065454|183453141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.04|
91786580|NCT01065454|183453141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.07|
91786581|NCT01065454|183453142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANSA Difference|-14.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.79|2.53||||||||2.53|-30.79|
91786582|NCT01065454|183453142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.89|7.43||||||||7.43|-32.89|
91786583|NCT01065454|183453142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-18.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.53|5.0||||||||5.00|-41.53|
91786584|NCT03630770|183453181|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.7||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (before v. during supplementation) for the control group.||1.7|0.55|0.9
91786585|NCT03630770|183453181|OTHER||Rate Ratio|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|25.0||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (during v. after supplementation) for the control group.||25|2.6|<0.001
91786586|NCT03630770|183453181|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.75||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (before v. during supplementation) for the MCT group.||0.75|0.03|0.02
91786587|NCT03630770|183453181|OTHER||Rate Ratio|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|533.0||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (during v. after supplementation) for the MCT group.||533|6.9|<0.001
91851874|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||||0.0832
91786588|NCT02558829|183453182|OTHER|Positive percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x A/(A+C). A= MAC outcome positive and ITT outcome positive; C = MAC outcome negative and ITT positive|CI (Clopper Pearson): positive agreement|74.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.84|83.78||||||The estimated percentages of the agreements and the two-sided 95% confidence interval (or one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) of the percent agreement based on Clopper-Pearson are presented. The performance of the MAC (cut-off point 2.8 ng/mL) was considered to be acceptable if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI (or lower bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI) was 75% or higher for 'percent negative agreement', and 70% or higher for the 'percent positive agreement'.||83.78|62.84|
91786589|NCT02558829|183453182|OTHER|Negative percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x D/(B+D). D = MAC outcome negative and ITT outcome negative; B = MAC outcome positive and ITT outcome negative|CI (Clopper Pearson): negative agreement|93.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.2|98.32||||||Please refer to Statistical Analysis 1.||98.32|85.20|
91786590|NCT02558829|183453183|OTHER|The secondary diagnostic accuracy measure was 'percent overall agreement'.|overall agreement|83.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.38|89.29||||||This variable was analyzed using the same methodology described for the analyses for the primary efficacy variables. in the below, the results for Step 1 (peak GH level among all post baseline samples) are presented.||89.29|76.38|
91786591|NCT02558829|183453185|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.38|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Pre/post dose comparison of ECGs was done for both GHSTs. During the GHSTs, ECGs were measured at pre-dose (up to 15 min before) and 60 minutes post-dose. Furthermore, ECGs were measured at screening and at End-of-Study (EOS) Visit.~Calculations were done from two time points: baseline and 60 min post-dose. Baseline is either the screening or pre-dose value."||||
91786592|NCT02558829|183453185|OTHER|Please refer to Statistical Analysis 1 for this secondary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.15|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91786593|NCT02558829|183453186|OTHER|Sensitivity is the probability that the test result is positive given the subject has the disease (for the purpose of this analysis, all group A subjects were assumed to have AGHD, but none of the group D subjects). Sensitivity (SS) was estimated by: SS = TP/(TP+FN). TP=True AGHD positive subject; FN=False AGHD negative subject.|CI (Clopper Pearson)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96||||||Sensitivity was estimated for the MAC at the pre-defined cut-off point GH: 2.8 ng/mL.||0.96|0.72|
91786594|NCT02558829|183453186|OTHER|"Specificity is the probability that the test result is negative given the subject does not have the disease.~Specificity (SP) was estimated by: SP = TN/(TN+FP). TN = True AGHD negative Subjects; FP = False AGHD positive subjects."|CI (Clopper Pearson)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||||||Specificity was estimated for the MAC at the pre-defined cut-off point GH: 2.8 ng/mL.||1.00|0.80|
91786595|NCT02558829|183453187|OTHER|Positive percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x A/(A+C). A= test outcome positive for MAC core study part and positive for MAC repeatability extension; C = test outcome positive for MAC core study part and negative for MAC repeatability extension.|CI (Clopper Pearson): positive agreement|88.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.29|98.62||||||Please refer to Statistical Analysis 1 for this outcome.||98.62|65.29|
91786596|NCT02558829|183453187|OTHER|Negative percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x D/(B+D). D = test outcome negative for MAC core study part and negative for MAC repeatability extension; B = test outcome negative for MAC core study part and positive for MAC repeatability extension|CI (Clopper Pearson): negative agreement|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.41|100.0||||||Amendment no 1 had been issued for selected sites in Europe to obtain exploratory data on the repeatability of the MAC in a subset of subjects that had completed the core study.||100.00|79.41|
91786597|NCT00955201|183453216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|Comparison to baseline values||Evaluated within group across time||||0.49
91786598|NCT00955201|183453216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.82
91786599|NCT00955201|183453216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.96
91786600|NCT00955201|183453216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.93
91786601|NCT00955201|183453216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.63
91786602|NCT00955201|183453216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wk||||0.31
91786603|NCT00955201|183453216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wk||||0.28
91786604|NCT00955201|183453217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.53
91786605|NCT00955201|183453217|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
91786606|NCT00955201|183453217|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
91786607|NCT00955201|183453217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.93
91786608|NCT00955201|183453217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.80
91786609|NCT00955201|183453217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.63
91786610|NCT00955201|183453217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wk||||0.31
91786611|NCT00955201|183453218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.39
91786612|NCT00955201|183453218|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
91786613|NCT00955201|183453218|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
91786614|NCT00955201|183453218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.98
91786615|NCT00955201|183453218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.70
91786616|NCT00955201|183453218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.45
91786617|NCT00955201|183453218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.22
91786618|NCT00955201|183453219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.98
91786619|NCT00955201|183453219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.90
91786620|NCT00955201|183453219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.97
91845743|NCT00797225|183573908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.98|0.0464
91845744|NCT00797225|183573908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.17|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.17|-1.13|0.0080
91845745|NCT00797225|183573908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.11|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-1.08|0.0159
91845746|NCT00797225|183573908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.24|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.89|0.2563
91845747|NCT00797225|183573908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.09|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.09|-1.21|0.0239
91845748|NCT00797225|183573908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.07|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.07|-1.19|0.0280
91845749|NCT00797225|183573908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.46|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.46|-0.70|0.6904
91845750|NCT00797225|183573908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.33|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.83|0.4022
91851875|NCT00922207|183587222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||||0.2655
91851876|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.43|-0.01|0.0649
91851877|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.33|-0.06|0.1867
91851878|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.5003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.15|-0.30|0.5003
91851879|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||0.05|-0.22|0.2259
91851880|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-0.11|-0.36|<0.001
91851881|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-0.04|-0.27|0.0085
91851882|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||0.18|-0.22|0.8160
91851883|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||0.12|-0.27|0.4393
91851884|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||0.11|-0.22|0.4890
91851885|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.30|-0.14|0.4656
91851886|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.31|-0.15|0.5016
91851887|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.22|-0.23|0.9582
91851888|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.36|-0.21|0.6214
91845751|NCT00797225|183573908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-1.17|0.0451
91845752|NCT00797225|183573909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.69|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.69|-2.56|0.0007
91845753|NCT00797225|183573909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.7|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.70|-2.56|0.0006
91845754|NCT00797225|183573909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.35|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.35|-2.21|0.0073
91845755|NCT00797225|183573909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.4|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.40|-2.28|0.0054
91845756|NCT00797225|183573909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-1.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-1.12|-3.01|< 0.0001
91845757|NCT00797225|183573909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.79|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-1.79|-3.67|< 0.0001
91845758|NCT00797225|183573909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.0|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-1.89|0.0509
91845759|NCT00797225|183573909|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.43|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.43|-2.33|0.0046
91851889|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.39|-0.21|0.5493
91851890|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.32|-0.28|0.8881
91851891|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.27|-0.36|0.7912
91851892|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.5427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.46|-0.24|0.5427
91851893|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.49|-0.19|0.3788
91851894|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.6172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.26|-0.44|0.6172
91851895|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.6002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.50|-0.29|0.6002
91851896|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.56|-0.18|0.3101
91851897|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.20|-0.47|0.4256
91851898|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.36|-0.35|0.9762
91851899|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.47|-0.21|0.4504
91899825|NCT00051363|183693824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5018||||||DX- MWT-MSL (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.5018
91786621|NCT00955201|183453219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.78
91899826|NCT00051363|183693824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0052||||||2M- MWT-MSL; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0052
91786622|NCT00955201|183453219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.63
91786623|NCT00955201|183453219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wk||||0.97
91786624|NCT00955201|183453219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.99
91786625|NCT00955201|183453220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.94
91786626|NCT00955201|183453220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.69
91786627|NCT00955201|183453220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.98
91786628|NCT00955201|183453220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.97
91786629|NCT00955201|183453220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.45
91786630|NCT00955201|183453220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.91
91786631|NCT00955201|183453220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.51
91786632|NCT00955201|183453221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
91786633|NCT00955201|183453221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.72
91786634|NCT00955201|183453221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
91786635|NCT00955201|183453221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
91786636|NCT00955201|183453221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.85
91786637|NCT00955201|183453221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.98
91786638|NCT00955201|183453221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.68
91786639|NCT00955201|183453222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.91
91786640|NCT00955201|183453222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
91786641|NCT00955201|183453222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.94
91786642|NCT00955201|183453222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.93
91786643|NCT00955201|183453222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.38
91786644|NCT00955201|183453222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.51
91786645|NCT00955201|183453222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.94
91786646|NCT00955201|183453223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
91786647|NCT00955201|183453223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.97
91786648|NCT00955201|183453223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.96
91786649|NCT00955201|183453223|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
91786650|NCT00955201|183453223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.16
91786651|NCT00955201|183453223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.37
91786652|NCT00955201|183453223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.75
91786653|NCT00955201|183453224|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
91786654|NCT00955201|183453224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.99
91786655|NCT00955201|183453224|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
91786656|NCT00955201|183453224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.81
91786657|NCT00955201|183453224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.28
91786658|NCT00955201|183453224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.28
91786659|NCT00955201|183453224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.83
91786660|NCT00955201|183453225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
91786661|NCT00955201|183453225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.97
91786662|NCT00955201|183453225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.82
91786663|NCT00955201|183453225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.96
91786664|NCT00955201|183453225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.55
91786665|NCT00955201|183453225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.31
91786666|NCT00955201|183453225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.32
91845760|NCT00797225|183573909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.38|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-1.38|-3.26|< 0.0001
91845761|NCT00797225|183573910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.0|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-0.33|0.0453
91845762|NCT00797225|183573910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.31|0.0609
91845763|NCT00797225|183573910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.06|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.06|-0.38|0.0069
91845764|NCT00797225|183573910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model]|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-0.32|0.0556
91845765|NCT00797225|183573910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.33|0.0387
91845766|NCT00797225|183573910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.12|-0.44|0.0008
91845767|NCT00797225|183573910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.21|0.5879
91845768|NCT00797225|183573910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.20|0.6122
91845769|NCT00797225|183573910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.41|0.0023
91851900|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.4076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.17|-0.42|0.4076
91851901|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.27|-0.37|0.7591
91650423|NCT02661126|183193521|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|2.48||||||||2.48|1.54|
91786667|NCT00955201|183453226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.81
91786668|NCT00955201|183453226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.92
91786669|NCT00955201|183453226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.93
91786670|NCT00955201|183453226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.99
91786671|NCT00955201|183453226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.50
91786672|NCT00955201|183453226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.47
91786673|NCT00955201|183453226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.97
91786674|NCT00955201|183453227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.83
91786675|NCT00955201|183453227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.91
91845770|NCT00797225|183573911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.24|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.69|< 0.0001
91845771|NCT00797225|183573911|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.27|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.27|-0.73|< 0.0001
91845772|NCT00797225|183573911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.25|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.71|< 0.0001
91845773|NCT00797225|183573911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.23|-0.69|< 0.0001
91845774|NCT00797225|183573911|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.4|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.40|-0.87|< 0.0001
91845775|NCT00797225|183573911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.59|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.59|-1.04|< 0.0001
91845776|NCT00797225|183573911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.18|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.18|-0.65|0.0005
91845777|NCT00797225|183573911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.29|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.29|-0.76|< 0.0001
91845778|NCT00797225|183573911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.56|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.56|-1.02|< 0.0001
91899827|NCT00051363|183693824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2476||||||2M- MWT-MSL (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.2476
91899828|NCT00051363|183693824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||||||2M- MWT-MSL (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.7520
91650424|NCT02661126|183193522|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.24||||||||2.24|1.29|
91786676|NCT00955201|183453227|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
91786677|NCT00955201|183453227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.95
91786678|NCT00955201|183453227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.26
91786679|NCT00955201|183453227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.42
91786680|NCT00955201|183453227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.95
91786681|NCT00955201|183453228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.96
91786682|NCT00955201|183453228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.53
91786683|NCT00955201|183453228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.79
91845779|NCT00797225|183573912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.13|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.51|0.0011
91845780|NCT00797225|183573912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.13|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.51|0.0010
91845781|NCT00797225|183573912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.19|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.19|-0.57|< 0.0001
91845782|NCT00797225|183573912|SUPERIORITY||-0.33|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.52|0.0007
91845783|NCT00797225|183573912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.24|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.62|< 0.0001
91845784|NCT00797225|183573912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.35|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.35|-0.73|< 0.0001
91845785|NCT00797225|183573912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.04|-0.34|0.1319
91845786|NCT00797225|183573912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.03|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.42|0.0222
91845787|NCT00797225|183573912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.28|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.28|-0.66|< 0.0001
91845788|NCT02408965|183573932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91845789|NCT02408965|183573933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91845790|NCT02408965|183573934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91845791|NCT02408965|183573935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91845792|NCT02408965|183573936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91845793|NCT02408965|183573937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91845794|NCT02408965|183573938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91845795|NCT02408965|183573939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91845796|NCT02408965|183573940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91845797|NCT00916006|183573946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91845798|NCT00916006|183573947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91845799|NCT03419780|183573948|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91845800|NCT03419780|183573949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91845801|NCT03419780|183573950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
91845802|NCT03419780|183573951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91845803|NCT03419780|183573952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91845804|NCT03419780|183573953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91845805|NCT03419780|183573954|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
91851902|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.40|-0.25|0.6449
91786684|NCT00955201|183453228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.94
91786685|NCT00955201|183453228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.75
91786686|NCT00955201|183453228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.51
91786687|NCT00955201|183453228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.63
91786688|NCT00955201|183453229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.98
91786689|NCT00955201|183453229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.99
91786690|NCT00955201|183453229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.89
91851903|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.25|-0.36|0.7108
91786691|NCT00955201|183453229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.90
91786692|NCT00955201|183453229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.98
91786693|NCT00955201|183453229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.94
91786694|NCT00955201|183453229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.91
91786695|NCT00955201|183453230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
91786696|NCT00955201|183453230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.99
91786697|NCT00955201|183453230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.84
91786698|NCT00955201|183453230|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
91786699|NCT00955201|183453230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.96
91786700|NCT00955201|183453230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.86
91786701|NCT00955201|183453230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.92
91786702|NCT00955201|183453231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.03
91786703|NCT00955201|183453231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.29
91786704|NCT00955201|183453231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.36
91786705|NCT00955201|183453231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.15
91786706|NCT00955201|183453231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||Comparison of pre- and post-responses across groups at baseline.||||0.20
91786707|NCT00955201|183453231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||Comparison of pre- and post-test responses across groups at 12 wks.||||0.51
91786708|NCT00955201|183453231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||Comparison of pre- and post-test responses across groups at 24 wks.||||0.59
91786709|NCT00955201|183453232|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
91786710|NCT00955201|183453232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||0.01
91786711|NCT00955201|183453232|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
91786712|NCT00955201|183453232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||0.98
91786713|NCT00955201|183453232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.96
91786714|NCT00955201|183453232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.06
91786715|NCT00955201|183453232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.14
91786716|NCT00955201|183453233|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
91786717|NCT00955201|183453233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.36
91786718|NCT00955201|183453233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
91786719|NCT00955201|183453233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.46
91786720|NCT00955201|183453233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.14
91786721|NCT00955201|183453233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.05
91786722|NCT00955201|183453233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.01
91786723|NCT00955201|183453234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
91786724|NCT00955201|183453234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
91786725|NCT00955201|183453234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.67
91786726|NCT00955201|183453234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.55
91786727|NCT00955201|183453234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.40
91786728|NCT00955201|183453234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.47
91786729|NCT00955201|183453234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.43
91786730|NCT00955201|183453235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.84
91786731|NCT00955201|183453235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
91786732|NCT00955201|183453235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.94
91845806|NCT01072929|183573962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|-0.92||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||-0.92|-6.58|0.0097
91845807|NCT01072929|183573962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-0.16||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||-0.16|-5.71|0.0385
91845808|NCT04833855|183573985|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.4||Nominal p-value|Repeated measure model|Model parameters: stratification factor (prior anti-IgE status), baseline UAS7, treatment, study week, interaction between treatment and study week.|Tezepelumab 210 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||4.4|-4.3|0.99
91845809|NCT04833855|183573985|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.1||Nominal p-value|Repeated measure model|Model parameters: stratification factor (prior anti-IgE status), baseline UAS7, treatment, study week, interaction between treatment and study week.|Tezepelumab 420 mg SC Q2W - Placebo|||3.1|-5.4|0.60
91845810|NCT02806336|183574010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||change in combined groups||||0.03
91845811|NCT02806336|183574011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
91845812|NCT02806336|183574012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91845813|NCT02806336|183574013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||change in functional gait analysis (FGA) in combined groups compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91845814|NCT02806336|183574014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91845815|NCT02806336|183574015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.17
91845816|NCT02806336|183574015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91845817|NCT02806336|183574016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91845818|NCT03682536|183574017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.8|2.0|<.0001
91899829|NCT00051363|183693824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||2M- MWT-MSL (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0002
91899830|NCT00051363|183693824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||6M- MWT-MSL; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0022
91899831|NCT00051363|183693824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||||||6M- MWT-MSL (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.7630
91650425|NCT02661126|183193523|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|2.57||||||||2.57|1.47|
91845819|NCT03682536|183574018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.7|1.4|0.0003
91845820|NCT03682536|183574020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.5|1.8|<.0001
91845821|NCT03682536|183574022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.0|1.6|<.0001
91845822|NCT03682536|183574023|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.864|||Log Rank||Calculated by Cox proportional hazard model|||0.864|0.330|0.0096
91845823|NCT03682536|183574027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.8|1.4|0.0007
91845824|NCT03682536|183574028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.3|1.6|<.0001
91845825|NCT04824131|183574039|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.7|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Discontinued Early due to Intolerability of Injection or Burden of Study Procedures|6.7|0|
91845826|NCT04824131|183574040|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|74.7|||||||Exact 95% confidence interval for proportion for Participants who received at least one injection and preferred injectable PrEP at end of step 2.|74.7|47.0|
91845827|NCT04824131|183574043|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|94.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.3|98.8|||||||The Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Number of Participants with Grade 2 or above AEs during Injection Phase|98.8|84.3|
91845828|NCT04824131|183574044|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.3|100.0|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who received at least one Injection who Completed All Scheduled Injections|100|93.3|
91851904|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.4725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.47|-0.22|0.4725
91851905|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.50|-0.13|0.2439
91851906|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.50|-0.10|0.1862
91851907|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.3057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.43|-0.14|0.3057
91845829|NCT04824131|183574045|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1704||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.06||"GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Sexual Partners - Visit as Continuous Variable.~Difference from baselines in the number of sex partners (vaginal or anal sex) reported in the past month"|poisson model||"GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Sexual Partners - Visit as Continuous Variable.~Difference from baselines in the number of sex partners (vaginal or anal sex) reported in the past month"|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance to model change in self-reported sexual behavior from enrollment (W0) to follow up visits (W4, W5, W9, W17, W25, W33, W+12, W+24, W+36, W+48), with an indicator variable for all on-study visits (i.e. enrollment visit = 0) to measure change in the outcome behavior. We will model count outcomes (number of sexual partners) using a poisson model.||0.06|-0.61|0.1093
91845830|NCT04824131|183574046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2253||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.14||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Vaginal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of vaginal sex without a condom reported in the past month|poisson model||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Vaginal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of vaginal sex without a condom reported in the past month.|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance to model change in self-reported sexual behavior from enrollment (W0) to follow up visits (W4, W5, W9, W17, W25, W33, W+12, W+24, W+36, W+48), with an indicator variable for all on-study visits (i.e. enrollment visit = 0) to measure change in the outcome behavior. We will model count outcomes (number of episodes of vaginal sex without a condom) using a poisson model.||-0.14|-1.03|0.0093
91845831|NCT04824131|183574046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4036||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|2.44||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Anal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of anal sex without a condom reported in the past month|Regression, Logistic||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Anal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of anal sex without a condom reported in the past month|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance to model change in self-reported sexual behavior from enrollment (W0) to follow up visits (W4, W5, W9, W17, W25, W33, W+12, W+24, W+36, W+48), with an indicator variable for all on-study visits (i.e. enrollment visit = 0) to measure change in the outcome behavior. We will model binary outcomes (any episodes of anal sex without a condom) using a logistic model.||2.44|-3.06|0.8259
91845832|NCT04824131|183574047|OTHER||CI for Incidence rate, exact Poisson|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.8|||||Person-years: 34.0||Incidence rate is calculated HIV infections per 100 person years. CI for Incidence rate is calculated using exact Poisson method|10.8|0.0|
91845833|NCT03643965|183574048|OTHER|Ratio of UPCR at 9 months compared to baseline for Nefecon compared to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.61|0.88|||MMRM model|||||0.88|0.61|0.0003
91845834|NCT03643965|183574049|OTHER|Time-weighted average of eGFR, Nefecon compared to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.15|||robust regression|||||1.15|1.06|<0.0001
91845835|NCT03643965|183574050|OTHER|Ratio of eGFR at 9 months comparison of Nefecon to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.07||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.13|||robust regression|||||1.13|1.03|0.0014
91845836|NCT03643965|183574051|OTHER|Ratio of eGFR at 12 months comparison of Nefecon to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.07||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.13|||robust regression|||||1.13|1.01|0.0106
91845837|NCT03643965|183574052|OTHER|Ratio of UACR at 9 months comparison of Nefecon to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.69||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.86|||MMRM model|||||0.86|0.55|0.0005
91845838|NCT03643965|183574053|OTHER|Time to 30% reduction in eGFR comparison Nefecon to Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.75|||Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with individual patient censoring weighting.||||0.75|0.26|0.0028
91845839|NCT03643965|183574054|OTHER|Time to receiving rescue medication comparison Nefecon to Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.2647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.33|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.33|0.34|0.2647
91845840|NCT03643965|183574055|OTHER|Ratio of UPCR compared to baseline averaged over time points between 12 and 24 months, comparison Nefecon vs Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.68|||MMRM model|||||0.68|0.51|<0.0001
91845841|NCT03643965|183574056|OTHER|Ratio of UACR compared to baseline averaged over time points between 12 and 24 months, Nefecon vs Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.63|||MMRM model|||||0.63|0.45|<0.0001
91845842|NCT03643965|183574057|OTHER|Ratio of eGFR compared to baseline averaged over time points between 12 and 24 months, comparison Nefecon vs Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.16|||robust regression|||||1.16|1.06|<0.0001
91845843|NCT03643965|183574058|OTHER|Proportion of patients without microhematuria, comparison Nefecon vs Placebo|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.1|1.6|0.0001
91845844|NCT01222247|183574151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Primary Outcome composite||0.97|0.66|0.02
91845845|NCT01222247|183574151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.95|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for CPAP or high-flow nasal cannula||0.95|0.63|0.01
91845846|NCT01222247|183574151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Fraction of inspired oxygen||1.12|0.53|0.17
91845847|NCT01222247|183574151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.21|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for mechanical ventilation||1.21|0.50|0.26
91845848|NCT01222247|183574152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84|||Chi-squared|||||0.84|0.53|<0.001
91845849|NCT01222247|183574153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Chi-squared|||||0.92|0.66|0.003
91845850|NCT01222247|183574154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|0.65|0.36
91845851|NCT01222247|183574155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Chi-squared|||||0.87|0.53|0.002
91845852|NCT01222247|183574156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.55|0.57
91845853|NCT01222247|183574157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92|||Chi-squared|||||0.92|0.02|0.04
91786733|NCT00955201|183453235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.94
91786734|NCT00955201|183453235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.88
91786735|NCT00955201|183453235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.48
91786736|NCT00955201|183453235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.38
91786737|NCT00955201|183453236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.87
91786738|NCT00955201|183453236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
91786739|NCT00955201|183453236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.51
91786740|NCT00955201|183453236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.89
91786741|NCT00955201|183453236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.46
91786742|NCT00955201|183453236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.72
91786743|NCT00955201|183453236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24wks.||||0.22
91786744|NCT00955201|183453237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
91786745|NCT00955201|183453237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.99
91786746|NCT00955201|183453237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.87
91786747|NCT00955201|183453237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.95
91786748|NCT00955201|183453237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.39
91786749|NCT00955201|183453237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.59
91786750|NCT00955201|183453237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.29
91786751|NCT00955201|183453238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time||||0.97
91786752|NCT00955201|183453238|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
91786753|NCT00955201|183453238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.09
91786754|NCT00955201|183453238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.05
91786755|NCT00955201|183453238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.11
91786756|NCT00955201|183453238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.41
91786757|NCT00955201|183453238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.03
91786758|NCT00955201|183453239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.95
91786759|NCT00955201|183453239|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
91786760|NCT00955201|183453239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.87
91786761|NCT00955201|183453239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.48
91786762|NCT00955201|183453239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.58
91786763|NCT00955201|183453239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.50
91786764|NCT00955201|183453239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.33
91786765|NCT00955201|183453240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
91786766|NCT00955201|183453240|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
91786767|NCT00955201|183453240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.88
91786768|NCT00955201|183453240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
91786769|NCT00955201|183453240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.38
91786770|NCT00955201|183453240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.55
91786771|NCT00955201|183453240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.37
91786772|NCT00955201|183453241|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
91786773|NCT00955201|183453241|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
91786774|NCT00955201|183453241|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
91845854|NCT01222247|183574158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.17|0.10
91845855|NCT01222247|183574159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.96|||Chi-squared|||||0.96|0.37|0.03
91845856|NCT01222247|183574160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Chi-squared|||||0.93|0.66|0.004
91845857|NCT01222247|183574161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.68|||Chi-squared|||||2.68|0.25|0.74
91845858|NCT01222247|183574162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.50
91845859|NCT01222247|183574163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91845860|NCT01222247|183574164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.34|||Chi-squared|||||1.34|0.96|0.13
91845861|NCT01222247|183574165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
91845862|NCT01222247|183574167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.93|||Chi-squared|||||1.93|0.33|0.62
91845863|NCT01222247|183574169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.66|0.40
91845864|NCT01222247|183574170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.87|||Chi-squared|||||1.87|1.37|<0.001
91845865|NCT01222247|183574171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91845866|NCT01222247|183574172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1|||Chi-squared|||||1.10|0.78|0.40
91845867|NCT01222247|183574173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.4|||Chi-squared|||||1.40|0.95|0.15
91845868|NCT01222247|183574174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.47|||Chi-squared|||||1.47|0.91|0.24
91845869|NCT01222247|183574175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for NICU stay of any duration||1.01|0.85|0.09
91845870|NCT01222247|183574175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.98|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for duration greater than or equal to 3 days||0.98|0.80|0.03
91845871|NCT01222247|183574176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
91899832|NCT00051363|183693824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||||||6M- MWT-MSL (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.5170
91845872|NCT01222247|183574177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.07|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis for chorioamnionitis||1.07|0.35|0.08
91845873|NCT01222247|183574177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.95|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Postpartum Endometritis||1.95|0.49|0.96
91845874|NCT01222247|183574177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis for cesarean delivery||1.15|0.93|0.56
91845875|NCT01222247|183574178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for interval from randomization to delivery||||0.57
91845876|NCT01222247|183574179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91845877|NCT02084082|183574200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|100.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.562|104.326|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||104.326|96.562|<0.0001
91845878|NCT02084082|183574200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio (net)|94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.037||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.712|101.089|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000 Fed/ L+M 1000 Fed)|||101.089|88.712|0.0004
91845879|NCT02084082|183574201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|108.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.054||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.022|117.989|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||117.989|99.022|0.0038
91845880|NCT02084082|183574201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.067|102.597|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||102.597|94.067|<0.0001
91845881|NCT02084082|183574202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|99.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.03|107.47|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||107.47|93.03|<0.0001
91786775|NCT00955201|183453241|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
91786776|NCT00955201|183453241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.81
91786777|NCT00955201|183453241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.60
91786778|NCT00955201|183453241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.99
91786779|NCT00955201|183453242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.59
91786780|NCT00955201|183453243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
91851908|NCT00922207|183587223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.8002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.29|-0.38|0.8002
91851909|NCT02476890|183587225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||0.7|-0.6|0.9666
91786781|NCT00955201|183453243|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
91786782|NCT00955201|183453243|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
91786783|NCT00955201|183453243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.72
91786784|NCT00955201|183453243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.62
91786785|NCT00955201|183453243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.33
91786786|NCT00955201|183453243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.38
91786787|NCT00955201|183453244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.88
91786788|NCT00955201|183453244|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
91786789|NCT00955201|183453244|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
91786790|NCT00955201|183453244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.76
91786791|NCT00955201|183453244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.82
91786792|NCT00955201|183453244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.53
91786793|NCT00955201|183453244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.68
91786794|NCT00955201|183453245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.70
91786795|NCT00955201|183453247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.59
91786796|NCT00955201|183453248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.45
91786797|NCT00955201|183453249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.04
91786798|NCT00955201|183453250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.77
91786799|NCT00955201|183453251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.12
91786800|NCT00955201|183453252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.42
91786801|NCT00955201|183453253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.79
91786802|NCT02737891|183453254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|-1.29||Two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was based on a parametric model, i.e. compared between treatment arms by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (proc MIXED) using change from baseline to the end of treatment as dependent variable, treatment and study site as fixed effects and the value from baseline as covariate. The residual errors were assumed independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and normally distributed.||-1.29|-6.36|0.004
91786803|NCT02737891|183453255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.33||Two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was based on a parametric model, i.e. compared between treatment arms by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (proc MIXED) using change from baseline to the end of treatment as dependent variable, treatment and study site as fixed effects and the value from baseline as covariate. The residual errors were assumed independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and normally distributed.||0.33|-0.23|0.724
91786804|NCT02737891|183453256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-2.3||Two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was based on a parametric model, i.e. compared between treatment arms by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (proc MIXED) using change from baseline to the end of treatment as dependent variable, treatment and study site as fixed effects and the value from baseline as covariate. The residual errors were assumed independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and normally distributed.||-2.30|-4.65|<0.0001
91786805|NCT01816945|183453303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
91786806|NCT01816945|183453306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t-test for PHQ-9 at 12 months||||0.96
91786807|NCT01816945|183453307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t-test for Social Network Score at 12 month||||0.043
91786808|NCT00244140|183453308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent: BR1|95.8||||||95.0|93.3|97.6||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 1 (BR1).||97.6|93.3|
91786809|NCT00244140|183453308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent: BR2|96.3||||||95.0|93.9|98.0||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 2 (BR2).||98.0|93.9|
91786810|NCT00244140|183453308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent: BR3|98.4||||||95.0|96.6|99.4||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 3 (BR3).||99.4|96.6|
91786811|NCT00244140|183453309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes|99.7||||||95.0|98.6|100.0||||||||100.0|98.6|
91786812|NCT00244140|183453310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent|99.5||||||95.0|98.1|99.9||||||||99.9|98.1|
91786813|NCT00244140|183453311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes: BR1|98.4||||||95.0|96.6|99.4||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 1 (BR1).||99.4|96.6|
91786814|NCT00244140|183453311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes: BR2|100.0||||||95.0|99.0|100.0||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 2 (BR2).||100.0|99.0|
91786815|NCT00244140|183453311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes: BR3|99.7||||||95.0|98.6|100.0||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 3 (BR3).||100.0|98.6|
91786816|NCT00275340|183453325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered to determine significant group differences; thus trends are reported for p\<0.20.|||||p<|0||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean change scores were computed on domain and summary scores. Mean differences in change scores between groups were computed and t-tests used to detect significant differences.||||p<0.20
91786817|NCT00862641|183453331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1451||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of treatment effect was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by investigative site. Sites with \<15 subjects were pooled.||||||0.1451
91786818|NCT00862641|183453331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of treatment effect was based on the CMH test stratified by investigative site. Sites with less than 15 subjects were pooled.||||||0.5790
91786819|NCT00862641|183453334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0029
91786820|NCT00862641|183453334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6189||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.6189
91786821|NCT00862641|183453335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0015
91845882|NCT02084082|183574202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|96.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.24|101.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||101.89|92.24|<0.0001
91786822|NCT00862641|183453335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4385||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.4385
91786823|NCT00862641|183453336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0789
91786824|NCT00862641|183453336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0258||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0258
91786825|NCT00862641|183453337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.2087
91786826|NCT00862641|183453337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0289
91786827|NCT00862641|183453338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9904||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'~P-value based on ranked analysis of covariance with treatment and investigator site as main effects and baseline value as a covariate in the model."||||0.9904
91786828|NCT00862641|183453338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8085||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'~P-value based on ranked analysis of covariance with treatment and investigator site as main effects and baseline value as a covariate in the model."||||0.8085
91786829|NCT02365480|183453342|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|36.37|||Fisher Exact|||||36.37|0.10|0.60
91786830|NCT01419197|183453350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.661||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was used to compare progression-free survival between the two treatment arms at the overall two-sided significance level of 0.5%.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||0.661|0.422|<0.0001
91786831|NCT01419197|183453351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.552||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|0.826||The 2-sided stratified log-rank test was used at the overall two-sided significance level of 4.5%. The pre-specified O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for this first OS interim analysis was HR\<0.363 (p-value \< 0.0000013).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||0.826|0.369|0.0034
91786832|NCT01419197|183453352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Percentage|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|29.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||29.2|16.2|<0.0001
91786833|NCT01419197|183453354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|12.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|20.09||The p-value for the difference in survival rate was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||6-month survival||20.09|5.03|0.0011
91786834|NCT01419197|183453354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|11.7||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|28.75||The p-value for the difference in survival rates was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||1-year survival||28.75|-5.41|0.1805
91786835|NCT01419197|183453355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.115||||0.4952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.517|||Log Rank|||The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||1.517|0.819|0.4952
91845883|NCT02084082|183574203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|99.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.464|107.645|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||107.645|92.464|<0.0001
91845884|NCT02084082|183574203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.95|103.16|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||103.160|94.950|<0.0001
91845885|NCT02084082|183574204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|99.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.163|104.493|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||104.493|95.163|<0.0001
91845886|NCT02084082|183574204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|97.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.082|122.963|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||122.963|77.082|0.0778
91845887|NCT02084082|183574205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|99.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.37|106.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||106.35|92.37|<0.0001
91845888|NCT02084082|183574205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.34|103.27|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||103.27|93.34|<0.0001
91786836|NCT01419197|183453357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.85||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was used at the overall two-sided significance level of 4.5%. The pre-specified O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for this second and final interim analysis was HR\<0.748 (p value \< 0.012).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease versus no visceral disease).||0.850|0.539|0.0007
91845889|NCT04736056|183574238|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.66||||||0 to 12 weeks||1.66|0.73|
91845890|NCT04736056|183574238|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51||||||0 to 16 weeks||1.51|0.61|
91845891|NCT04736056|183574239|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.71||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.71|-0.02|
91845892|NCT04736056|183574239|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.61||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.61|-0.12|
91845893|NCT04736056|183574240|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.18||||||0 to 12 weeks||1.18|0.38|
91845894|NCT04736056|183574240|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.87|0.11|
91845895|NCT04736056|183574241|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.58||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.58|-0.13|
91845896|NCT04736056|183574241|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.68||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.68|-0.05|
91786837|NCT01419197|183453358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|12.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|19.14||The p-value for the difference in survival rate was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||6-month survival||19.14|5.67|0.0003
91786838|NCT01419197|183453358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|11.0||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|19.33||The p-value for the difference in survival rates was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||1-year survival||19.33|2.58|0.0104
91845897|NCT04736056|183574242|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.68||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.68|-0.04|
91786839|NCT01099449|183453361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used\>\> to compare the AUC of CIPN sensory subscale between each of the two schedules of\>\> Ca/Mg infusions vs placebo arms at the 2.5% significance level. If the CIPN sensory\>\> subscales are observed to be unbalanced, we will adjust for the baseline CIPN sensory\>\> subscale scores from the AUC or incorporate them as a covariate in generalized linear\>\> regression model.||||.73
91786840|NCT01099449|183453361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used\>\> to compare the AUC of CIPN sensory subscale between each of the two schedules of\>\> Ca/Mg infusions vs placebo arms at the 2.5% significance level. If the CIPN sensory\>\> subscales are observed to be unbalanced, we will adjust for the baseline CIPN sensory\>\> subscale scores from the AUC or incorporate them as a covariate in generalized linear\>\> regression model.||||.29
91786841|NCT01099449|183453362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.054
91786842|NCT01099449|183453362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.27
91790556|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790557|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.378||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.378|-0.256|0.707
91790558|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91786843|NCT01099449|183453363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.29
91786844|NCT01099449|183453363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.25
91786845|NCT01099449|183453366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Kruskal Wallis Analysis||||||0.89|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.89
91786846|NCT01099449|183453366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Kruskal Wallis Analysis||||||0.496|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.496
91786847|NCT01099449|183453367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Chi-Squared Analysis||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.52
91786848|NCT01099449|183453367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Chi-Squared Analysis||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.66
91786849|NCT00146848|183453371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|3.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||The changes in quality of life were compared between groups using two-sided t-tests.||3.74|-3.14|0.86
91786850|NCT00146848|183453371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|5.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference in changes in quality of life between groups were compared using a t-test.||5.16|-2.18|0.43
91786851|NCT00146848|183453372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend|||One sided test testing for shift towards improvement in either atrial support pacing treatment arm compared to the DDD-40 arm.||||0.55
91786852|NCT00146848|183453372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend|||||||0.80
91786853|NCT00146848|183453373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.65|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare the difference in the changes in physical activity scores between groups using a t-test.||2.30|-22.65|0.11
91786854|NCT00146848|183453373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.11|-0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Compare the difference in the changes in physical activity scores between groups using a t-test.~To adjust for multiple comparisons, an alpha level of 0.025 should be used to deem significance."||-0.37|-26.11|0.04
91786855|NCT01798849|183453376|OTHER||Difference in Least-square (LS) Means|-0.5||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.43|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.43|-3.42|0.732
91845898|NCT04736056|183574242|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.0||||||0 to 16 weeks||1.00|0.22|
91786856|NCT01798849|183453376|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.94||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|2.06|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.06|-3.94|0.531
91845899|NCT04736056|183574243|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.74||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.74|0.01|
91786857|NCT01798849|183453376|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.88||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|0.08|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.08|-5.83|0.056
91786858|NCT01798849|183453376|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.92||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.17|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.17|-6.00|0.063
91845900|NCT04736056|183574243|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.85||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.85|0.09|
91650426|NCT02661126|183193526|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.75||||||||2.75|0.65|
91786859|NCT01798849|183453376|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|-1.99|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-1.99|-7.79|0.002
91786860|NCT01798849|183453376|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-2.31|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-2.31|-8.32|0.001
91845901|NCT04736056|183574244|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.65||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.65|-0.07|
91845902|NCT04736056|183574244|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.99||||||||0.99|0.21|
91845903|NCT04736056|183574245|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.91||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.91|0.16|
91845904|NCT04736056|183574245|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.89||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.89|0.12|
91845905|NCT04736056|183574246|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.3||||||0 to 12 weeks||1.30|0.47|
91845906|NCT04736056|183574246|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.05||||||0 to 16 weeks||1.05|0.26|
91845907|NCT04736056|183574247|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03||||||0 to 12 weeks||-0.03|-0.76|
91845908|NCT04736056|183574247|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.03||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.03|-0.71|
91845909|NCT04736056|183574248|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.35|-0.35|
91845910|NCT04736056|183574248|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.09|-0.64|
91845911|NCT04736056|183574249|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.26||||||||0.26|-0.45|
91845912|NCT04736056|183574249|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.45||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.45|-0.27|
91845913|NCT04736056|183574250|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.01||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.01|-0.71|
91650427|NCT02661126|183193527|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|3.19||||||||3.19|0.79|
91786861|NCT01798849|183453376|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-2.6|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-2.60|-8.62|0.001
91786862|NCT01798849|183453376|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-7.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.63|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-4.63|-10.50|<0.0001
91786863|NCT01798849|183453379|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.34||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|1.02|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||1.02|-5.70|0.165
91786864|NCT01798849|183453379|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.53||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|-0.21|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.21|-6.86|0.038
91786865|NCT01798849|183453379|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-6.32||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|-3.1|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.10|-9.55|0.000
91786866|NCT01798849|183453379|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-6.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.35|-3.92|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.92|-9.35|<0.0001
91786867|NCT01798849|183453380|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.67||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|0.8|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.80|-6.14|0.128
91786868|NCT01798849|183453380|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.76||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.72|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.72|-2.24|0.305
91786869|NCT01798849|183453380|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.03||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|0.17|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.17|-4.23|0.070
91786870|NCT01798849|183453380|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.84||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|-0.19|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.19|-5.48|0.036
91786871|NCT01798849|183453380|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.37|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.37|-6.40|<0.0001
91786872|NCT01798849|183453380|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|-3.46|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.46|-7.29|<0.0001
91786873|NCT01798849|183453380|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.65|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-4.65|-6.70|<0.0001
91786874|NCT01798849|183453380|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-8.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|-4.5|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-4.50|-11.95|<0.0001
91786875|NCT01798849|183453381|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.77||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|1.05|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||1.05|-4.59|0.212
91786876|NCT01798849|183453381|OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.32||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.64|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||6.64|0.00|0.050
91845914|NCT04736056|183574250|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.08|-0.65|
91845915|NCT04736056|183574251|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.03||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.03|-0.70|
91845916|NCT04736056|183574251|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.09||||||0 to 16 weeks||-0.09|-0.85|
91650428|NCT02661126|183193528|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|2.57||||||||2.57|0.51|
91650429|NCT02661126|183193529|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|3.05||||||||3.05|0.50|
91650430|NCT02661126|183193530|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|2.91||||||||2.91|0.56|
91786877|NCT01798849|183453381|OTHER||Difference in LS means|2.48||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.47|||Mixed effect model||Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||4.47|0.49|0.016
91786878|NCT01798849|183453381|OTHER||Difference in LS means|5.21||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|8.92|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||8.92|1.51|0.007
91845917|NCT04529538|183574260|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|1.838|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of Type 1 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||1.838|0.252|
91845918|NCT04529538|183574261|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|6.833|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 1 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||6.833|0.232|
91786879|NCT01798849|183453381|OTHER||Difference in LS means|7.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|11.1|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||11.10|3.03|0.001
91786880|NCT01798849|183453381|OTHER||Difference in LS means|6.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|10.71|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||10.71|2.54|0.002
91845919|NCT04529538|183574261|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|6.528|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 1 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 57||6.528|0.603|
91845920|NCT04529538|183574262|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|3.828|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 3 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||3.828|0.639|
91845921|NCT04529538|183574263|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|4.163|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 3 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||4.163|0.772|
91786881|NCT01798849|183453381|OTHER||Difference in LS means|8.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|10.76|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||10.76|5.45|<0.0001
91786882|NCT01798849|183453381|OTHER||Difference in LS means|14.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|17.57|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||17.57|10.54|<0.0001
91786883|NCT01798849|183453382|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.66||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|0.93|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.93|-4.24|0.202
91650431|NCT02661126|183193535|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|2.05||||||||2.05|1.19|
91786884|NCT01798849|183453382|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.23||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|0.57|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.57|-5.03|0.115
91786885|NCT01798849|183453382|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.75||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.09|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.09|-5.40|0.043
91845922|NCT04529538|183574263|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|6.34|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 3 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 57||6.340|0.994|
91786886|NCT01798849|183453382|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.19||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|2.84|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.84|-3.22|0.901
91786887|NCT01798849|183453382|OTHER||Mixed effect model|-4.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|-1.57|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|||-1.57|-6.74|0.002
91786888|NCT01798849|183453382|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.77||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-1.06|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-1.06|-6.48|0.008
91786889|NCT01798849|183453382|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.77||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.98|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.98|-4.51|0.201
91650432|NCT02661126|183193536|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|2.05||||||||2.05|1.20|
91650433|NCT02661126|183193537|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.98||||||||1.98|1.13|
91650434|NCT02661126|183193538|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.98||||||||1.98|1.05|
91786890|NCT01798849|183453382|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|-2.11|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-2.11|-7.37|0.001
91786891|NCT01798849|183453383|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.53||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.1|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.10|-4.97|0.042
91786892|NCT01798849|183453383|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-0.88|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.88|-5.71|0.010
91786893|NCT01798849|183453383|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-6.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-3.89|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.89|-8.94|<0.0001
91786894|NCT01798849|183453383|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-8.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|-5.25|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-5.25|-11.32|<0.0001
91786895|NCT01798849|183453384|OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.54||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.87|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.87|-1.80|0.638
91786896|NCT01798849|183453384|OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.72||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.63|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||3.63|-2.20|0.616
91786897|NCT01798849|183453384|OTHER||Difference in LS means|2.33||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.56|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||4.56|0.11|0.041
91786898|NCT01798849|183453384|OTHER||Difference in LS means|9.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.98|11.3|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||11.30|6.98|<0.0001
91786899|NCT01798849|183453385|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.65||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.52|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.52|-3.81|0.677
91786900|NCT01798849|183453385|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.92||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.24|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.24|-4.08|0.554
91786901|NCT01798849|183453385|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.29||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|0.78|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.78|-5.35|0.137
91786902|NCT01798849|183453385|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.78||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-1.19|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-1.19|-6.37|0.006
91786903|NCT02395172|183453403|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||=|0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.71|= 0.0721
91786904|NCT02395172|183453404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05||||||||1.05|0.77|
91786905|NCT02395172|183453405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27||||||||1.27|0.80|
91786906|NCT02395172|183453406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.41||||||||1.41|0.98|
91786907|NCT02395172|183453409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.13||||||||2.13|0.92|
91786908|NCT02395172|183453410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.86||||||||2.86|1.08|
91786909|NCT00612105|183453426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.171|0.312|||ANCOVA|||||0.312|-1.171|0.2537
91786910|NCT00475982|183453489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.965||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.965
91786911|NCT00475982|183453490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.884||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.884
91786912|NCT00475982|183453491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.294
91786913|NCT00475982|183453491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.440
91786914|NCT00475982|183453491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.49||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|21.3|||paired t-test|||analysis between the weight loss and control arms||21.3|-4.31|0.186
91845923|NCT04529538|183574264|OTHER||Rate Difference|-4.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|22.72|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-Group Seroconversion Rate (4-fold rise) in Neutralizing Antibody Titers||22.72|-27.67|>0.999
91845924|NCT04529538|183574265|OTHER||Rate Difference|-2.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.47|20.86|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after first dose.||20.86|-20.47|>0.999
91845925|NCT04529538|183574265|OTHER||Rate Difference|8.3||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|30.57|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group comparison of seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after 2nd dose.||30.57|-5.71|0.263
91845926|NCT04529538|183574266|OTHER||Rate Difference|14.3||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|40.45|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after vaccination||40.45|-8.30|0.224
91845927|NCT04529538|183574267|OTHER||Rate Difference|9.8||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|35.19|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group comparison of seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after first dose.||35.19|-7.29|0.275
91845928|NCT04529538|183574267|OTHER||Rate Difference|17.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|44.93|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group comparison of seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after 2nd dose.||44.93|-1.27|0.100
91845929|NCT03552978|183574298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df - 63||||||<.001
91845930|NCT03552978|183574299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 59||||||<.001
91845931|NCT03552978|183574303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.28||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 152.11||We examined total Cigarettes smoked in the past 30 days using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in cigarette use over time by treatment group.||||.39
91845932|NCT03552978|183574304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 140.87||We examined days of e-cigarette use in the previous 30 days using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in e-cigarette use over time by treatment group.||||.91
91845933|NCT03552978|183574305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3,199||We examined days of chewing tobacco use in the previous 30 days using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in chewing tobacco use over time by treatment group.||||.66
91845934|NCT03552978|183574306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 102.04||We examined nicotine dependence using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in nicotine dependence over time by treatment group.||||.76
91845935|NCT03552978|183574307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 12|Chi-squared|df = 1||||||.28
91845936|NCT03552978|183574307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 24|Chi-squared|df = 1||||||.19
91845937|NCT03552978|183574308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||Week 12||||.42
91845938|NCT03552978|183574308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||Week 24||||.17
91845939|NCT03552978|183574309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 100.51||We examined days of changes in PTSD symptoms using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in PTSD symptoms over time by treatment group.||||.58
91786915|NCT00475982|183453492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.162
91786916|NCT00475982|183453492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.986
91786917|NCT00475982|183453492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.22||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|7.02|||paired t-test|||analysis between the weight loss and control arms||7.02|-2.58|0.353
91786918|NCT00475982|183453493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.283
91786919|NCT00475982|183453493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.701
91786920|NCT00475982|183453493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|8.24|||paired t-test|||analysis between the intervention and control arms||8.24|-6.70|0.835
91786921|NCT00475982|183453494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.00
91786922|NCT00475982|183453494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.009
91786923|NCT00475982|183453494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.59|||paired t-test|||analysis between the two arms||3.59|0.64|0.007
91786924|NCT00475982|183453495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.073
91786925|NCT00475982|183453495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.207
91786926|NCT00475982|183453495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.75|||paired t-test|||analysis between the two arms||2.75|-0.08|0.063
91786927|NCT00743106|183453498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean decrease in GFR was an estimated 11% less for fenoldopam than for placebo (interim-adjusted 95% confidence interval 9% more, 31% less).|||9|-31|0.15
91786928|NCT00743106|183453499|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric mean|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We assessed the effect of fenoldopam on creatinine over time (immediately postoperatively and on PODs 1-4). A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the main effect of fenoldopam on the postoperative log-transformed (base 2) serum creatinine, adjusting for baseline serum creatinine.||1.19|0.79|0.78
91786929|NCT00029146|183453523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|1.7||||0.78||95.0|-10.4|13.8|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference. The 2-sided z-statistic was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.The study was terminated early for futility after 195 of the planned 372 participants were enrolled.||13.8|-10.4|0.78
91786930|NCT00029146|183453524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|3.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|16.1|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors.||16.1|-9.2|0.59
91786931|NCT00029146|183453525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|-3.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.6|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Negative indicates lower rate in non-surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||2.6|-9.0|0.27
91786932|NCT00029146|183453526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|1.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.2|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||5.2|-2.5|0.50
91786933|NCT00029146|183453527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|4.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.7|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||9.7|-1.2|0.13
91786934|NCT00029146|183453528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|6.5||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|19.6|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||19.6|-6.5|.33
91786935|NCT00029146|183453529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|-6.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|7.3|||Fisher Exact||Negative indicates lower rate in non-surgical group. In this case, lower rate is worse since Rankin 0-1 indicates a good outcome.|||7.3|-20.6|0.41
91786936|NCT00029146|183453530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|4.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|16.9|||Fisher Exact||Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group In this case, lower rate is worse since Rankin 0-2 indicates a good outcome.|||16.9|-8.2|0.70
91786937|NCT00029146|183453531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||0.85
91786938|NCT00029146|183453532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative indicates lower score in non-surgical group.A higher score indicates better quality of life|||0.07|-0.54|0.13
91790559|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.333||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.333|-0.294|0.901
91845940|NCT03437668|183574312|SUPERIORITY|To test for a differential treatment effect, we fit a linear mixed with group, time, and a group by time interaction as the predictors and random intercepts to account for the correlations induced by the repeated measurements within subjects. Given the form of the trajectories and the small sample size, we chose to treat time as continuous to minimize the number of degrees of freedom and the risk of overfitting.|Slope|-0.22||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the interaction of time and treatment group in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.31
91845941|NCT03298815|183574314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375|||||||McNemar|||||||0.375
91845942|NCT03298815|183574315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.391
91845943|NCT03298815|183574316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.267
91845944|NCT03298815|183574317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.445
91845945|NCT03298815|183574318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
91845946|NCT03298815|183574319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<1.00
91845947|NCT03298815|183574320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
91845948|NCT03298815|183574321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
91899833|NCT00051363|183693824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||6M- MWT-MSL (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0002
91845949|NCT03298815|183574322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91845950|NCT03298815|183574323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.156
91845951|NCT03298815|183574324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.208
91845952|NCT03298815|183574325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||30 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
91845953|NCT03298815|183574325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469||||||60 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.469
91845954|NCT03298815|183574325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||100 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.750
91845955|NCT03298815|183574326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||30 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.063
91899834|NCT00051363|183693825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9291||||||DX- ESS-TS; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.9291
91899835|NCT00051363|183693825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6152||||||DX- ESS-TS (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.6152
91845956|NCT03298815|183574326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1||||||60 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<1.000
91845957|NCT03298815|183574326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||100 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
91650435|NCT02661126|183193539|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.07||||||||2.07|1.15|
91845958|NCT04996069|183574327|SUPERIORITY|No power calculation performed.||||||0.45||||||p value threshold is .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
91845959|NCT00935792|183574331|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimated maximum tolerated dose was 2.5mg of oral everolimus thrice weekly for 9 weeks and alemtuzumab subcutaneously thrice weekly for 8 weeks.|||
91845960|NCT04739423|183574337|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|5.4822||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0575|10.9069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for happiness - change from baseline to Day 14.||10.9069|0.0575|0.0479
91650436|NCT01513551|183193544|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||15.0|-1.4|
91650437|NCT01513551|183193544|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|17.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||17.7|1.1|
91650438|NCT02917447|183193551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Omnibus test for difference in change from baseline in PCL by treatment group across the three post-treatment assessments, adjusted for rural/urban status and MST.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects were study assessment, group, the assessment by group interaction, and covariates. Participant was modeled as a random effect.||||||0.15
91845961|NCT04739423|183574337|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|4.7954||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9843|8.6064|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for sadness - Change from baseline to Day 14||8.6064|0.9843|0.0161
91845962|NCT04739423|183574337|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|167.29||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.36|309.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis of Reaction time for anger - change from baseline to Day 7||309.23|25.36|0.0237
91845963|NCT04739423|183574337|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.2761||||0.7188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2424|6.6902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for happiness - change from baseline to Day 14||6.6902|-9.2424|0.7188
91845964|NCT04739423|183574337|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.8955||||0.5478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9026|8.6935|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for sadness - Change from baseline to Day 14||8.6935|-4.9026|0.5478
91845965|NCT04739423|183574337|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.52||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.21|276.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis of Reaction time for anger - change from baseline to Day 7||276.17|-291.21|0.9510
91845966|NCT04739423|183574339|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.68||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|1.432|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||1.432|-0.066|0.0737
91845967|NCT04739423|183574339|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.12||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|1.868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 14, 4 hours post-dose||1.868|0.382|0.0033
91845968|NCT04739423|183574339|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.72||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment comparison for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||2.840|0.600|0.0029
91709489|NCT04378569|183311572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||1.92|0.29|0.5520
91845969|NCT04739423|183574339|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.29||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|2.418|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.418|0.168|0.0247
91845970|NCT04739423|183574339|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.69||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|2.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recognition: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.732|0.653|0.0016
91845971|NCT04739423|183574339|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.127|1.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||1.009|-1.127|0.9126
91786939|NCT00029146|183453533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|1.5||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|13.7|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.||Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||13.7|-10.7|0.81
91845972|NCT04739423|183574339|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.24||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.317|0.837|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 14, 4 hours post-dose||0.837|-1.317|0.6570
91709490|NCT04378569|183311572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||2.20|0.21|0.69
91786940|NCT02663934|183453535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.25|||ANOVA|||||.25|.05|0.31
91786941|NCT02663934|183453536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in Global CBF in EXS vs. SIS||||.24
91786942|NCT02663934|183453536|OTHER||Slope|0.41||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Strength \& Change in Frontal Brain Volume in EXS||||.02
91845973|NCT04739423|183574339|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.787|1.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment comparison for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||1.669|-1.787|0.9458
91845974|NCT04739423|183574339|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.97||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.642|2.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.579|-0.642|0.2327
91845975|NCT04739423|183574339|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.84||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.208|2.879|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recognition: number of words - Change from Baseline to day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.879|-1.208|0.4154
91845976|NCT04739423|183574340|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|5.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.956|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis (active - placebo) for Sleeping Heart Rate change from baseline across periods||6.160|3.956|<0.0001
91845977|NCT04739423|183574341|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.0||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|1.565|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis (active - placebo) for sleeping HRV change from baseline across periods.||1.565|0.432|0.0017
91845978|NCT04739423|183574342|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-10.22||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.867|-3.567|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis (active - placebo) for sleeping HRV root mean square of successive differences change from baseline across periods||-3.567|-16.867|0.0049
91845979|NCT04019561|183574365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.20|-5.02|0.439
91845980|NCT04019561|183574365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-1.48|||ANCOVA|||||-1.48|-8.54|0.006
91845981|NCT04019561|183574366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.508||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.191|6.174|||ANCOVA|||||6.174|-9.191|0.695
91845982|NCT04019561|183574366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.291||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.76|-1.822|||ANCOVA|||||-1.822|-16.760|0.016
91845983|NCT04019561|183574367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.74||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.174|18.695|||ANCOVA|||||18.695|-40.174|0.468
91845984|NCT04019561|183574367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.395||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.38|-8.409|||ANCOVA|||||-8.409|-66.380|0.012
91845985|NCT04019561|183574368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.26||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.698|15.218|||ANCOVA|||||15.218|-2.698|0.166
91845986|NCT04019561|183574368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.749||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.537|9.035|||ANCOVA|||||9.035|-7.537|0.856
91845987|NCT04019561|183574369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.283||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.641|3.076|||ANCOVA|||||3.076|-9.641|0.302
91845988|NCT04019561|183574369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.821||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.316|2.675|||ANCOVA|||||2.675|-8.316|0.304
91845989|NCT04019561|183574370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.038||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.493|9.569|||ANCOVA|||||9.569|-7.493|0.808
91845990|NCT04019561|183574370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.106||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.043|9.255|||ANCOVA|||||9.255|-7.043|0.786
91899836|NCT00051363|183693825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||||||DX- ESS-TS (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.7040
91845991|NCT04019561|183574371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.448||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.524|7.421|||ANCOVA|||||7.421|-0.524|0.087
91845992|NCT04019561|183574371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.085|3.312|||ANCOVA|||||3.312|-4.085|0.834
91845993|NCT04019561|183574372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.386||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.681|1.908|||ANCOVA|||||1.908|-2.681|0.735
91845994|NCT04019561|183574372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.091||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.226|1.044|||ANCOVA|||||1.044|-3.226|0.308
91845995|NCT04019561|183574373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.277||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.704|10.15|||ANCOVA|||||10.150|-48.704|0.195
91845996|NCT04019561|183574373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.328||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.674|5.019|||ANCOVA|||||5.019|-53.674|0.103
91845997|NCT04019561|183574374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.39||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.802|29.022|||ANCOVA|||||29.022|-49.802|0.600
91845998|NCT04019561|183574374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.086||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.163|46.336|||ANCOVA|||||46.336|-32.163|0.720
91845999|NCT04019561|183574375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.14||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.134|16.854|||ANCOVA|||||16.854|-35.134|0.485
91846000|NCT04019561|183574375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.645||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.288|5.999|||ANCOVA|||||5.999|-45.288|0.131
91846001|NCT04019561|183574376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.719||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.191|1.754|||ANCOVA|||||1.754|-3.191|0.564
91846002|NCT04019561|183574376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.366||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.854|0.122|||ANCOVA|||||0.122|-4.854|0.062
91846003|NCT04019561|183574377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.007|0.838|||ANCOVA|||||0.838|-1.007|0.856
91846004|NCT04019561|183574377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.777||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.147|||ANCOVA|||||0.147|-1.700|0.098
91846005|NCT03005288|183574422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.48|-6.14|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-6.14|-8.48|<0.001
91846006|NCT03005288|183574423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.01|-4.37|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-4.37|-6.01|<0.001
91846007|NCT03005288|183574424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.42|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||-0.83|-1.42|<0.001
91846008|NCT03005288|183574424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.2|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 48||-0.41|-1.20|0.005
91846009|NCT03005288|183574428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.71|-0.95|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-0.95|-1.71|<0.001
91846010|NCT03005288|183574428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-1.34|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 48||-1.34|-2.48|<0.001
91846011|NCT03005288|183574429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.54|-2.31|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-2.31|-4.54|<0.001
91846012|NCT03005288|183574429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.74|-3.47|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 48||-3.47|-6.74|<0.001
91846013|NCT03005288|183574430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.82|2.06|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||2.06|0.82|0.003
91846014|NCT03005288|183574430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.36|2.93|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 48||2.93|1.36|<0.001
91709491|NCT04378569|183311573|SUPERIORITY|Week 2|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|||0.21|-0.33|0.6464
91786943|NCT02663934|183453536|OTHER||Slope|0.4||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Changes in Brain Volumes associated with changes Memory Performance in EXS||||0.02
91709492|NCT04378569|183311573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||0.25|-0.29|0.8881
91786944|NCT02663934|183453537|OTHER||Slope|0.47||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Increases in Time Spent in MVPA and Increased Learning Performance in EXS||||.005
91786945|NCT04556383|183453542|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||10.2|-15.2|0.6694
91786946|NCT04556383|183453542|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.4719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||17.8|-9.0|0.4719
91786947|NCT04556383|183453544|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|8.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||8.3|-23.2|0.3263
91786948|NCT04556383|183453544|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||25.8|-6.1|0.2002
91786949|NCT04556383|183453545|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||15.9|-15.2|0.9472
91786950|NCT04556383|183453545|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||22.4|-9.3|0.3685
91786951|NCT04556383|183453546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.8484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||15.2|-12.7|0.8484
91786952|NCT04556383|183453546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||22.3|-6.4|0.2392
91786953|NCT04556383|183453547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||12.5|-14.8|0.8493
91786954|NCT04556383|183453547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||16.5|-11.5|0.6647
91786955|NCT04556383|183453548|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||0.2263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|6.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||6.0|-19.1|0.2263
91786956|NCT04556383|183453548|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4||||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||12.2|-14.8|0.8259
91786957|NCT04556383|183453549|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|18.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||18.1|-12.7|0.7418
91786958|NCT04556383|183453549|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.4||||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||24.2|-7.8|0.2758
91786959|NCT04556383|183453550|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|8.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||8.9|-20.6|0.3504
91786960|NCT04556383|183453550|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||17.5|-14.2|0.8009
91786961|NCT04556383|183453551|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||13.7|-14.3|0.9474
91786962|NCT04556383|183453551|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.0||||0.6409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||10.8|-16.6|0.6409
91786963|NCT04556383|183453552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|6.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||6.3|-22.4|0.1932
91786964|NCT04556383|183453552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.7459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|12.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||12.9|-17.6|0.7459
91786965|NCT04784442|183453571|SUPERIORITY|The overall Type I error rate will be controlled by performing comparison versus the placebo group starting from the highest ETC 1002 dose group by a closed testing procedure at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least squares mean difference|-19.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.768|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|-13.88|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.88|-24.81|<0.001
91786966|NCT04784442|183453571|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.798|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|-14.41|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 120 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-14.41|-25.45|<0.001
91786967|NCT04784442|183453571|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-3.12|||ANCOVA||||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|-3.12|-14.22|0.002
91786968|NCT00509145|183453581|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.911|||Over-dispersed Poisson Regression||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs. placebo|Response variable: number of relapses during 24 months. Offset based on the log of subject's exposure in years was employed to adjust for variability of treatment exposure. In addition to the treatment group, the Poisson regression model included the following covariates: baseline EDSS score, log of prior 2-year number of relapses+1 and Country or Geographical Region (CGR).||0.911|0.650|0.0024
91786969|NCT01994889|183453588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Method|||||||0.0006
91790560|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91846015|NCT03005288|183574431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.26|-2.92|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-2.92|-5.26|<0.001
91786970|NCT01994889|183453589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|0.958|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.958|0.508|0.0259
91786971|NCT01994889|183453590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6761|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5639|0.8107||Poisson regression analysis with treatment, TTR genotype, NYHA baseline classification, treatment-by-TTR genotype interaction, and treatment-by-NYHA baseline classification interaction terms as factors adjusted for treatment duration.|Poisson regression analysis|||||0.8107|0.5639|<0.0001
91786972|NCT01994889|183453591|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|75.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.56|93.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||L.S. means are from an ANCOVA (MMRM) model with an unstructured covariance matrix; center and participant within center as random effects; treatment, visit, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type), and visit by treatment interaction, as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||93.80|57.56|<.0001
91786973|NCT01994889|183453592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.48|17.83|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Change at Month 30||17.83|9.48|<.0001
91786974|NCT01994889|183453593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|0.98|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type) and NYHA baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.980|0.488|0.0383
91786975|NCT01994889|183453594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91786976|NCT01711216|183453613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3181|TWO_SIDED|||||Test statistic (d.f.) 1.0157 (1) A Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test was used, exact p-value was computed using Monte Carlo estimation.|Mantel Haenszel|||Test of association between the number of regular menstrual cycles during the follow-up period and the number of dydrogesterone therapy cycles received during the treatment period (Follow-up Analysis Set) Follow-up Analysis Set (N=915)||||0.3181
91786977|NCT02259088|183453615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided p-value for treatment difference is derived from the two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the row means score statistics.|Estimated from ANOVA (stratified) model. Stratified analysis includes DME type (focal, diffuse, honeycomb and petaloid) and Baseline BCVA(≤ 60 letters and \> 60 letters) as factors.|||7.5|4.1|<0.001
91786978|NCT03060551|183453639|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.256||||||p value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.256
91786979|NCT03060551|183453640|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.682||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.682
91786980|NCT03060551|183453641|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.151||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
91786981|NCT03060551|183453642|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.516||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.516
91786982|NCT03060551|183453643|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.|||||>|0.999||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
91846016|NCT03005288|183574431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.3|-7.64|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 52||-7.64|-11.3|<0.001
91846017|NCT03005288|183574432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-0.00|-0.03|0.062
91846018|NCT03005288|183574432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|-0.04|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 52||-0.04|-0.08|<0.001
91846019|NCT03005288|183574433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.03|-0.28|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 12||-0.28|-1.03|0.028
91846020|NCT03005288|183574433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.14|-0.18|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 36||-0.18|-1.14|0.081
91846021|NCT04011033|183574435|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.16|<0.001
91846022|NCT04011033|183574437|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.003
91846023|NCT04011033|183574438|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91846024|NCT04011033|183574440|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.19|=0.001
91846025|NCT01823341|183574441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846026|NCT01823341|183574442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91846027|NCT01823341|183574442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91899837|NCT00051363|183693825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9537||||||DX- ESS-TS (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.9537
91846028|NCT01823341|183574443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846029|NCT01823341|183574443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91846030|NCT01823341|183574444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846031|NCT01823341|183574444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91846032|NCT01823341|183574445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91846033|NCT01823341|183574445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91846034|NCT01823341|183574446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91846035|NCT01823341|183574446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
91846036|NCT01823341|183574447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846037|NCT01823341|183574447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91846038|NCT01823341|183574448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91846039|NCT01823341|183574448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91846040|NCT01823341|183574449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91846041|NCT01823341|183574449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91846042|NCT01823341|183574450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91846043|NCT01823341|183574450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91846044|NCT01125774|183574468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent incidence|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Telcagepant percent incidence versus Placebo percent incidence|||2.1|-4.4|
91846045|NCT01125774|183574469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent incidence|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Telcagepant percent incidence versus Placebo percent incidence|||0.8|-1.4|
91846046|NCT01125774|183574470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent incidence|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Telcagepant percent incidence versus Placebo percent incidence|||1.6|-0.5|
91846047|NCT01125774|183574472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||α=0.0499|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|This measure tests the primary hypothesis, that telcagepant 140 mg is superior to placebo as measured by mean monthly headache days in participants with MRM or PMM||0.1|-1.1|0.130
91846048|NCT01125774|183574473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||0.4|-1.0|0.369
91846049|NCT01125774|183574474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
91846050|NCT01125774|183574475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
91846051|NCT01125774|183574476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||0.2|-0.4|0.393
91851910|NCT02476890|183587225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.5993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||0.6|-1.1|0.5993
91851911|NCT02476890|183587225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||0.9|-0.3|0.2823
91851912|NCT02476890|183587225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||0.9|-0.4|0.4287
91786983|NCT03060551|183453644|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.034||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.034
91786984|NCT03060551|183453645|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.656||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
91786985|NCT03060551|183453646|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.096||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.096
91786986|NCT03060551|183453647|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.019||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
91786987|NCT03060551|183453648|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.05||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
91786988|NCT03060551|183453649|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.372||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
91786989|NCT03060551|183453650|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.024||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
91846052|NCT01449929|183574483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTG 50 mg and DRV+RTV at Week 48 can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages (DTG - DRV+RTV) is greater than -12%. If non-inferiority is established, superiority can be tested at the nominal 5% level based on a pre-specified testing procedure.|Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.2||P-value is for test of superiority.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the Baseline (BL) stratification factors: Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<=100,000 c/mL vs \>100,000 c/mL) and Baseline background dual NRTI therapy (ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC).|||13.2|0.9|0.025
91846053|NCT03253653|183574499|OTHER||z score|1.578||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.115
91846054|NCT03253653|183574500|OTHER||z|0.497||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||z||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.619
91846055|NCT03253653|183574501|OTHER||z|1.72||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcox and signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.085
91846056|NCT03253653|183574502|OTHER||z|6.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||<0.001
91786990|NCT03060551|183453651|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.188||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
91846057|NCT03253653|183574503|OTHER||z|-1.144||||0.253|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in systolic blood pressure for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.253
91846058|NCT03253653|183574504|OTHER||z|-1.004||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in diastolic blood pressure for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in diastolic blood pressure for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.315
91846059|NCT03253653|183574505|OTHER||z|3.089||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcox and signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in heart rate for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) was significantly different from the pre-to-post change in heart rate for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.002
91846060|NCT03253653|183574506|OTHER||z|-7.024|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
91846061|NCT03253653|183574507|OTHER||z|-4.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the SPMA metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
91846062|NCT03253653|183574508|OTHER||z|-2.569||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the 1-HOP metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||.010
91846063|NCT03253653|183574509|OTHER||z|-7.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the exhaled carbon monoxide after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
91846064|NCT03253653|183574510|OTHER||z|-1.304||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.192
91846065|NCT03253653|183574511|OTHER||z|-2.136||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level diastolic blood pressure after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.033
91846066|NCT03253653|183574512|OTHER||z|-1.22||||0.223|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the heart rate after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.223
91846067|NCT03253653|183574513|OTHER||z|-7.024|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
91846068|NCT03253653|183574514|OTHER||z|-1.248||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the SPMA metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.212
91846069|NCT03253653|183574515|OTHER||z|-2.721||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.007
91846070|NCT03253653|183574516|OTHER||z|2.778||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of exhaled carbon monoxide after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.006
91846071|NCT03253653|183574517|OTHER||z|-0.832||||0.406|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of systolic blood pressure after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.406
91786991|NCT03060551|183453652|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.372||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
91846072|NCT03253653|183574518|OTHER||z|-1.467||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U ranksum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of diastolic blood pressure after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.142
91846073|NCT03253653|183574519|OTHER||z|-0.596||||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the heart rate after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.551
91846074|NCT03253653|183574520|OTHER||z|-0.787||||0.431|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.431
91846075|NCT03253653|183574521|OTHER||z|-0.652||||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.515
91846076|NCT03253653|183574522|OTHER||z|-2.394||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0. 017
91846077|NCT03253653|183574523|OTHER||z|-1.286||||0.199|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.199
91846078|NCT03253653|183574524|OTHER||z|-3.091||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.002
91846079|NCT03253653|183574525|OTHER||z|0.13||||0.896|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.896
91846080|NCT03253653|183574526|OTHER||z|-0.362||||0.717|TWO_SIDED||||||The Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.717
91846081|NCT03253653|183574527|OTHER||z|2.233||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.026
91851913|NCT02476890|183587226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||1.4|-0.3|0.1771
91851914|NCT02476890|183587226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.5473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||1.3|-0.7|0.5473
91851915|NCT02476890|183587226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||1.0|-0.5|0.5169
91851916|NCT02476890|183587226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||1.0|-0.4|0.4243
91851917|NCT02476890|183587227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||2.0|-0.2|0.1125
91786992|NCT03060551|183453653|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.633||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.633
91786993|NCT03060551|183453654|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.38||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.380
91786994|NCT03698591|183453673|OTHER||F-statistic|6.155||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to 3 way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distancing performance would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.019
91786995|NCT03698591|183453673|OTHER||F-statistic|5.911||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to two-way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||This analysis evaluated the two-way interaction of task condition and study period. The null hypothesis was that distancing performance would not differ by study period. Within-subjects factors included task condition and study period.||||.021
91786996|NCT03698591|183453673|OTHER||t-statistic|-1.656||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A dependent-samples t-test was used to compare distancing performance between study periods 1 and 2. The null hypothesis was that distancing performance would not differ by study period.||||.108
91786997|NCT03698591|183453673|OTHER||F-statistic|0.004||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.948
91786998|NCT03698591|183453674|OTHER||F-statistic|0.031||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the two way interaction of task condition and study arm . A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distancing self-reported effort would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.862
91786999|NCT03698591|183453674|OTHER||F-statistic|4.04||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the main effect of study period. A priori threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||A follow-up ANOVA was run with within-subjects factors of task condition and study period.||||.054
91787000|NCT03698591|183453674|OTHER||t-statistic|2.694||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A follow-up dependent-samples t-test was run to test a potential effect of study period on distancing effort.||||.012
91787001|NCT03698591|183453674|OTHER||F-statistic|3.196||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||Post-hoc analyses were used to explore treatment effects using covariates related to the treatment parameters. For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.085
91787002|NCT03698591|183453674|OTHER||F-statistic|7.162||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the effect of study arm specifically on distancing effort. The within-subjects factor was study arm, between-subjects factor was study arm order, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.013
91787003|NCT03698591|183453675|OTHER||F-statistic|6.155||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to 3 way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distraction performance would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.019
91787004|NCT03698591|183453675|OTHER||F-statistic|5.911||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to two-way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||This analysis evaluated the two-way interaction of task condition and study period. The null hypothesis was that distraction performance would not differ by study period. Within-subjects factors included task condition and study period.||||.021
91787005|NCT03698591|183453675|OTHER||t-statistic|1.282||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A dependent-samples t-test was used to compare distraction performance between study periods 1 and 2. The null hypothesis was that distraction performance would not differ by study period.||||.210
91787006|NCT03698591|183453675|OTHER||F-statistic|0.004||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||Post-hoc analyses were used to explore treatment effects using covariates related to the treatment parameters. For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.948
91787007|NCT03698591|183453676|OTHER||F-statistic|0.031||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the two way interaction of task condition and study arm . A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distraction self-reported effort would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.862
91787008|NCT03698591|183453676|OTHER||F-statistic|4.04||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the main effect of study period. A priori threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||A follow-up ANOVA was run with within-subjects factors of task condition and study period.||||.054
91851918|NCT02476890|183587227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||1.4|0.4|0.0029
91851919|NCT02476890|183587227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||2.4|0.7|0.0006
91851920|NCT02476890|183587227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||2.2|0.4|0.0067
91851921|NCT02476890|183587228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||0.5|0.2|< 0.0001
91851922|NCT02476890|183587228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||0.6|-0.1|0.1798
91851923|NCT02476890|183587228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||0.5|0.1|0.0011
91851924|NCT02476890|183587228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||0.4|0.1|0.0023
91851925|NCT02476890|183587229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough Severity VAS Analysis||-6.2|-29.8|0.0037
91787009|NCT03698591|183453676|OTHER||t-statistic|0.828||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A follow-up dependent-samples t-test was run to test the effect of study period on distraction effort.||||.415
91787010|NCT03698591|183453676|OTHER||F-statistic|3.196||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||Post-hoc analyses were used to explore treatment effects using covariates related to the treatment parameters. For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.085
91787011|NCT03698591|183453676|OTHER||F-statistic|0.396||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the effect of study arm specifically on distraction performance. The within-subjects factor was study arm, between-subjects factor was study arm order, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.535
91787012|NCT03009396|183453679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2112|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2112
91787013|NCT03009396|183453680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0356
91787014|NCT03009396|183453681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0514|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0514
91787015|NCT03009396|183453682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1259|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1259
91787016|NCT03009396|183453683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4114|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4114
91787017|NCT02660983|183453690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) means|-0.58||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-1.79|0.3455
91787018|NCT02660983|183453691|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.12||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.09|||ANCOVA||LS mean of Donepezil group - LS mean of Placebo (when the difference of LS mean scores were less than 0, considered as demonstrated hypothesis), analyzed with ANCOVA model with baseline (CIBIS) as covariate and treatment as main effect.|||0.09|-0.32|0.2570
91787019|NCT02660983|183453692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|0.65||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.26|||ANCOVA|||||1.26|0.03|0.0396
91787020|NCT02660983|183453693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-7.73||||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.13|4.68|||ANCOVA|||Part A||4.68|-20.13|0.2213
91787021|NCT02660983|183453693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-14.88||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Part B||0.33|-30.10|0.0551
91787022|NCT03376295|183453716|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||Cox proportional hazards model||The hazard ratio (HR) is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform for moderate/severe exacerbation that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||1.20|0.90|
91787023|NCT03376295|183453716|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.36|||Cox proportional hazards model||HR presented is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform for severe exacerbation that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||1.36|0.65|
91787024|NCT03376295|183453717|OTHER||Rate ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.25|||Negative binomial model||The rate ratio (RR) (LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination) is adjusted RR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|Moderate/severe exacerbation||1.25|0.92|
91787025|NCT03376295|183453717|OTHER||Rate ratio (RR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.33|||Negative binomial model||The RR (LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination) is adjusted RR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|Severe exacerbation||1.33|0.55|
91787026|NCT03376295|183453718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05|||Cox proportional hazards model||The HR is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score|The cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform an as-treated analysis that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||1.05|0.42|
91787027|NCT03376295|183453718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||Cox proportional hazards model||The HR is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score|The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform an on-treatment analysis that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||0.92|0.48|
91787028|NCT00893815|183453719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.1||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|||1.10|0.27|0.09
91787029|NCT00893815|183453720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.61||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of verbal fluency impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||1.61|0.35|0.45
91787030|NCT00893815|183453720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.56||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of abstraction executive functioning impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||1.56|0.35|0.43
91846082|NCT03253653|183574528|OTHER||z|0.383||||0.702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.702
91846083|NCT03253653|183574529|OTHER||z|2.244||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.025
91846084|NCT02857283|183574539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.46
91787031|NCT00893815|183453720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.17||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of speed of information processing impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||5.17|0.41|0.56
91787032|NCT00893815|183453720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.93||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of attention/working memory impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||2.93|0.60|0.49
91787033|NCT00893815|183453720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.84||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of learning impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||0.84|0.22|0.01
91846085|NCT02857283|183574540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481|||||||ANOVA|Paired||||||0.0481
91846086|NCT02857283|183574541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0179|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0179
91787034|NCT00893815|183453720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.34||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of recall impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||3.34|0.58|0.46
91846087|NCT02857283|183574542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.10
91846088|NCT02857283|183574543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.69
91846089|NCT02857283|183574544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.27
91846090|NCT02857283|183574545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.50
91846091|NCT02857283|183574546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.54
91846092|NCT02857283|183574547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.90
91846093|NCT02857283|183574549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.64
91846094|NCT02857283|183574550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.79
91846095|NCT02857283|183574551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.094
91846096|NCT00961805|183574561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||"Sample size was calculated by visual analogue scale for pain (alpha error of 5%, beta error of 20% and standard deviation of 2). The sample was determined to contain 30 patients in each group. Ten additional patients were added to compensate possible losses.~Analysis was intention to treat using the LOCF technique."||||<0.001
91709493|NCT04378569|183311573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.46|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||0.46|-0.20|0.4360
91709494|NCT04378569|183311573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.36|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||0.36|-0.29|0.8196
91787035|NCT00893815|183453720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.85||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of motor speed \& dexterity impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||1.85|0.43|0.76
91787036|NCT06457204|183453736|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.4|105.0|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 6.9."|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale included effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs.||105.0|98.4|
91787037|NCT06457204|183453737|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.6|105.5|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 15.0."|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale included effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs.||105.5|91.6|
91787038|NCT06457204|183453738|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|105.0|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 7.1."|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale included effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs.||105.0|98.2|
91787039|NCT01457352|183453739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2062
91787040|NCT01457352|183453740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0485|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0485
91787041|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.43|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg versus (Vs) Placebo for Day 1, AM|||0.43|0.31|
91787042|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.39|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, PM|||0.39|0.28|
91787043|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.45|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, AM|||0.45|0.32|
91787044|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.44|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, PM|||0.44|0.31|
91787045|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.54|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, AM|||0.54|0.39|
91787046|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.56|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, PM|||0.56|0.40|
91787047|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.66|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, AM|||0.66|0.47|
91787048|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.69|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, PM|||0.69|0.49|
91787049|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.75|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, AM|||0.75|0.53|
91787050|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, PM|||0.80|0.57|
91787051|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, AM|||0.80|0.56|
91787052|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, PM|||0.74|0.52|
91787053|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, AM|||0.71|0.51|
91787054|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, PM|Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, AM||0.74|0.52|
91787055|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, AM|||0.81|0.58|
91787056|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, PM|||0.80|0.57|
91787057|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.78|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, AM|||0.78|0.56|
91787058|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, PM|||0.80|0.57|
91787059|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.78|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, AM|||0.78|0.55|
91787060|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, PM|||0.81|0.58|
91787061|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, AM|||0.86|0.61|
91787062|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, PM|||0.86|0.61|
91787063|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.85|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, AM|||0.85|0.61|
91787064|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, PM|||0.84|0.60|
91787065|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, AM|||0.86|0.61|
91787066|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, PM|||0.93|0.66|
91787067|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, AM|||0.93|0.66|
91787068|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.79|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, PM|||0.79|0.56|
91787069|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, AM|||0.93|0.66|
91787070|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, PM|||0.94|0.66|
91787071|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.87|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, AM|||0.87|0.62|
91787072|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, PM|||0.86|0.61|
91787073|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, AM|||0.91|0.65|
91787074|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.01|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, PM|||1.01|0.65|
91787075|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, AM|||0.96|0.61|
91787076|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, PM|||1.00|0.59|
91787077|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.05|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, AM|||1.05|0.63|
91787078|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.0|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, PM|||1.00|0.52|
91787079|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.09|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, AM|||1.09|0.56|
91787080|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, PM|||1.14|0.53|
91787081|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.22|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, AM|||1.22|0.59|
91787082|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.13|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, PM|||1.13|0.50|
91787083|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 22, AM|||1.25|0.55|
91787084|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.16|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 22, PM|||1.16|0.51|
91787085|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.49|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 23, AM|||1.49|0.66|
91787086|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.51|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 23, PM|||1.51|0.29|
91787087|NCT02712047|183453741|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.64|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 24, AM|||1.64|0.32|
91787088|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.69|68.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, AM|||68.03|23.69|
91787089|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|67.55|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, PM|||67.55|23.20|
91787090|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.86|56.21|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, AM|||56.21|11.86|
91787091|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.38|53.73|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, PM|||53.73|9.38|
91787092|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|45.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, AM|||45.03|0.68|
91787093|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.77|59.12|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, PM|||59.12|14.77|
91787094|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|41.66|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, AM|||41.66|-3.00|
91787095|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|43.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, PM|||43.03|-1.32|
91787096|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|39.11|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, AM|||39.11|-5.47|
91787097|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|44.14|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, PM|||44.14|-0.41|
91787098|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|35.67|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, AM|||35.67|-9.57|
91787099|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.38|51.98|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, PM|||51.98|5.38|
91787100|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|39.26|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, AM|||39.26|-5.08|
91787101|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|46.94|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, PM|||46.94|0.28|
91787102|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|35.05|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, AM|||35.05|-9.30|
91787103|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|29.68|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, PM|||29.68|-14.67|
91899838|NCT00051363|183693825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||2M- ESS-TS; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0004
91899839|NCT00051363|183693825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3886||||||2M- ESS-TS (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.3886
91899840|NCT00051363|183693825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0236||||||2M- ESS-TS (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0236
91899841|NCT00051363|183693825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||2M- ESS-TS (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0005
91899842|NCT00051363|183693825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||6M- ESS-TS; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0005
91899843|NCT00051363|183693825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3796||||||6M- ESS-TS (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.3796
91787104|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|25.74|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, AM|||25.74|-19.11|
91787105|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|26.0|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, PM|||26.00|-18.34|
91787106|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.11|33.82|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, AM|||33.82|-11.11|
91787107|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|50.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, PM|||50.03|5.43|
91787108|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|36.98|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, AM|||36.98|-7.57|
91787109|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|15.55|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, PM|||15.55|-28.80|
91787110|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|27.11|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, AM|||27.11|-18.39|
91787111|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.99|30.57|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, PM|||30.57|-13.99|
91787112|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.64|22.92|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, AM|||22.92|-21.64|
91787113|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.96|16.19|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, PM|||16.19|-29.96|
91787114|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|51.13|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, AM|||51.13|5.76|
91787115|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|34.74|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, PM|||34.74|-10.13|
91787116|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.16|26.36|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, AM|||26.36|-18.16|
91787117|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|41.63|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, PM|||41.63|-3.89|
91787118|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.17|28.88|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, AM|||28.88|-16.17|
91787119|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|41.41|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, PM|||41.41|-3.27|
91787120|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.87|52.15|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, AM|||52.15|6.87|
91787121|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|37.19|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, PM|||37.19|-17.91|
91787122|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|53.73|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, AM|||53.73|-4.20|
91787123|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|47.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.63|79.45|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, PM|||79.45|14.63|
91787124|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|52.52|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, AM|||52.52|-12.30|
91787125|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.02|65.27|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, PM|||65.27|-15.02|
91787126|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.04|32.25|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, AM|||32.25|-48.04|
91787127|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.22|54.25|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, PM|||54.25|-37.22|
91787128|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|58.67|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, AM|||58.67|-28.50|
91787129|NCT02712047|183453743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.35|55.73|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, PM|||55.73|-45.35|
91846097|NCT00961805|183574562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91846098|NCT00961805|183574563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||<0.003
91846099|NCT00961805|183574564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.146
91846100|NCT00961805|183574565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.131
91846101|NCT00961805|183574566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91846102|NCT00961805|183574567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.580
91846103|NCT00961805|183574568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.082
91846104|NCT00961805|183574569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.055
91846105|NCT00961805|183574570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
91846106|NCT00961805|183574571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.021
91846107|NCT00961805|183574572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.136
91846108|NCT00961805|183574573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.009
91846109|NCT00587288|183574575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.01||The p-value for the treatment comparison is based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.76|0.0541
91846110|NCT00587288|183574576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.46||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on logistic regression with adjustment for stratification factor.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.46|0.91|0.0848
91846111|NCT00587288|183574577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.392||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.392|0.088|0.0023
91846112|NCT00587288|183574578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.65||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||12.65|3.30|0.0010
91846113|NCT00587288|183574579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-125.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.885||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.81|-35.77||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline. The difference between reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg and placebo groups was from comparison of the least square means.|ANCOVA|||||-35.77|-214.81|0.0068
91846114|NCT00587288|183574580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.15||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on logistic regression with adjustment for stratification factor.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.15|0.10|0.0833
91846115|NCT00587288|183574580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0809|||||||Log Rank|The p value for the treatment comparison was based on log rank test adjusting for stratification factor (ie, ACQ score ≤2 and \>2).||"Kaplan-Meier estimate of time to first CAE. (First quartile, median and third quartile survival times with 95% confidence intervals (ie, time to first CAE) could not be estimated since the proportion of patients experiencing CAE was too low. Therefore, the only number presented in regard to the Kaplan-Meier analysis is the p-value of the log-rank test, below. )"||||0.0809
91846116|NCT00762463|183574582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|LS mean difference calculated as LS mean change for Celecoxib 200 mg once daily minus LS mean change for Diclofenac SR 75 mg once daily. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<10 mm.|LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); factors: treatment group and study center; covariate: baseline Patient's Assessment of Global Pain Intensity score.||"Null hypothesis: Least Squares (LS) mean difference between Celecoxib 200 mg once daily versus Diclofenac SR 75 mg once daily on change in Global Pain Intensity from baseline to Week 6 was at least 10 mm. Corresponding alternative hypothesis: This difference was \<10 mm.~For the non-inferiority test, power was 80% and significance level was 0.025 (1-sided)."||8.8|-2.2|0.0085
91846117|NCT00762463|183574584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.7849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|4.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||4.2|-5.6|0.7849
91846118|NCT00762463|183574584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||7.8|-2.6|0.3223
91846119|NCT00762463|183574586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.17|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.17|-0.15|0.8938
91851926|NCT02476890|183587230|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Urge to Cough VAS Analysis||-7.0|-29.1|0.0020
91846120|NCT00762463|183574586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.31|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.31|0.01|0.0426
91846121|NCT00762463|183574586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.29|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.29|-0.05|0.1502
91846122|NCT00762463|183574588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.1|-0.2|0.5945
91846123|NCT00762463|183574588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.2|-0.1|0.3427
91846124|NCT00762463|183574588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.2|-0.1|0.6522
91846125|NCT00762463|183574590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.4|-0.3|0.9358
91846126|NCT00762463|183574590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.5|-0.3|0.5916
91846127|NCT00762463|183574590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.7|-0.1|0.1790
91846128|NCT00762463|183574592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.5|-0.3|0.6335
91846129|NCT00762463|183574592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.6|-0.2|0.2729
91846130|NCT00762463|183574592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.8|-0.1|0.1559
91846131|NCT00762463|183574595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||9.5|-1.0|0.1111
91787130|NCT02712047|183453744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.46|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, AM|||0.46|0.26|
91787131|NCT02712047|183453744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.36|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, PM|||0.36|0.16|
91787132|NCT02712047|183453744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.44|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, AM|||0.44|0.24|
91787133|NCT02712047|183453744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.34|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, PM|||0.34|0.14|
91787134|NCT02712047|183453744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.36|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, AM|||0.36|0.16|
91787135|NCT02712047|183453744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.28|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, PM|||0.28|0.08|
91787136|NCT02712047|183453744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.34|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, AM|||0.34|0.14|
91787137|NCT02712047|183453744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.27|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, PM|||0.27|0.07|
91787138|NCT02712047|183453744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.17|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, AM|||0.17|-0.03|
91787139|NCT02712047|183453744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, AM|||0.14|-0.06|
91787140|NCT02712047|183453744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.13|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, AM|||0.13|-0.07|
91787141|NCT02908490|183453766|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline FMD within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|-1.42||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.68||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-3.54|0.185
91787142|NCT02908490|183453767|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline EndoPAT within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|0.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.331||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.331|0.069|0.003
91787143|NCT02908490|183453773|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline biomarker within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|7.63||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|15.63||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.63|-0.36|0.061
91787144|NCT02908490|183453774|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline biomarker within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|55.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.79|97.81||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||97.81|12.79|0.011
91787145|NCT02908490|183453775|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline biomarker within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|74.93||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|157.84||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||157.84|-7.98|0.077
91787146|NCT01122264|183453784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.51|0.85||P-value: Tadalafil Once a Day versus Sildenafil Citrate On Demand treatment groups. Cox's proportional hazards model with factors for randomized treatment group, baseline International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function score, and country.|Regression, Cox|||||0.85|0.51|<0.001
91787147|NCT01122264|183453784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.37|0.65||P-value: Tadalafil On Demand versus Sildenafil Citrate On Demand treatment groups. Cox's proportional hazards model with factors for randomized treatment group, baseline International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function score, and country.|Regression, Cox|||||0.65|0.37|<0.001
91787148|NCT01122264|183453784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.32||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71||P-value: Tadalafil On Demand versus Tadalafil Once a Day treatment groups using Cox's proportional hazards model with factors for randomized treatment group, baseline International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function score, and country.|Regression, Cox|||||1.71|1.02|0.033
91787149|NCT00097981|183453802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) stage 1,2 and 3||||||0.49
91787150|NCT00097981|183453803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) stage 1,2 and 3||||||0.42
91787151|NCT00097981|183453804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.42
91787152|NCT00097981|183453805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5162||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5162
91787153|NCT00097981|183453806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.797|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test||||1.797|0.529|0.93
91787154|NCT00913458|183453840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.5||The rate of sustained remission was analyzed using a logistic regression model with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Values are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||12.5|2.7|<0.0001
91787155|NCT00913458|183453840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.3||The rate of sustained remission was analyzed using a logistic regression model with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Values are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.3|1.3|0.0085
91787156|NCT00913458|183453840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.8||The rate of sustained remission was analyzed using a logistic regression model with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.|Regression, Linear|Values are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.8|1.0|0.0397
91787157|NCT00913458|183453841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~End of Phase 1"||||<0.0001
91787158|NCT00913458|183453842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 52"||||0.1183
91787159|NCT00913458|183453842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Final on therapy"||||0.0286
91787160|NCT00913458|183453843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91787161|NCT00913458|183453844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91787162|NCT00913458|183453845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13"||||0.0063
91787163|NCT00913458|183453845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 26"||||0.0053
91846132|NCT00762463|183574595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||7.9|-2.9|0.3574
91846133|NCT00762463|183574595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.1464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||9.5|-1.4|0.1464
91846134|NCT00762463|183574597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||1.8|-1.7|0.9641
91846135|NCT00762463|183574597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.7749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.2|-1.6|0.7749
91846136|NCT00762463|183574597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.2|-1.6|0.7529
91846137|NCT00762463|183574599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.2|-0.2|0.8780
91846138|NCT00762463|183574599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.4|-0.1|0.2202
91846139|NCT00762463|183574599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.4|-0.2|0.5340
91846140|NCT00762463|183574601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.9|-4.3|0.7003
91851927|NCT02476890|183587231|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough Frequency Analysis||-1.0|-6.2|0.0075
91787164|NCT00913458|183453845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 39"||||0.0027
91787165|NCT00913458|183453845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 52"||||0.0002
91846141|NCT00762463|183574603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.221||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|2.94|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.94|-5.82|0.5183
91846142|NCT00531479|183574615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.74||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|1.51||P-value based on a 1-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||The 95% CI was based on using Greenwood's formula for the variance of the KM estimator.|All-cause mortality calculated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) product limit estimator on Day 42 (Week 6) within each stratum and weighted by the harmonic mean of the sample sizes in the strata. Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables were site of infection and host factors.||1.51|-18.99|0.0434
91846143|NCT00531479|183574616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|1.15||P-value for global response was to be reported only if Week 6 mortality was significant.|||95% confidence interval based on the difference in success rates using the normal approximation to the binoial distribution.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||1.15|-21.6|
91851928|NCT03515304|183587248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2497
91650439|NCT02917447|183193552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||Omnibus test for difference in change from baseline in outcome by treatment group across the three post-treatment assessments, adjusted for rural/urban status and MST.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects were study assessment, group, the assessment by group interaction, and covariates. Participant was modeled as a random effect.||||||.049
91650440|NCT02917447|183193553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Omnibus test for difference in change from baseline in outcome by treatment group across the three post-treatment assessments, adjusted for rural/urban status and MST.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects were study assessment, group, the assessment by group interaction, and covariates. Participant was modeled as a random effect.||||||0.92
91650441|NCT01706198|183193555|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.34||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy (AMT) at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||2.34|1.70|<0.001
91787166|NCT00913458|183453845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Final on therapy"||||0.0005
91787167|NCT00913458|183453846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91650442|NCT01706198|183193556|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.2||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care for Week 12 has been presented.|||2.20|1.67|<0.001
91787168|NCT00913458|183453847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91787169|NCT00913458|183453848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91787170|NCT00913458|183453849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91787171|NCT00913458|183453850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91787172|NCT00913458|183453851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91787173|NCT00913458|183453852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91787174|NCT00913458|183453853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91787175|NCT00913458|183453854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91787176|NCT00913458|183453855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91787177|NCT00913458|183453856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||"P-value is from McNemar's test for no change from baseline in response rate.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91787178|NCT00913458|183453857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.6|0.4|0.4075
91787179|NCT00913458|183453857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.88||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|33.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||33.1|2.4|0.0011
91787180|NCT00913458|183453857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.9|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||13.9|1.7|0.0031
91787181|NCT00913458|183453858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||2.0|0.3|0.5951
91787182|NCT00913458|183453858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.5|0.9|0.0934
91787183|NCT00913458|183453858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.4|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.4|1.1|0.0314
91787184|NCT00913458|183453859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||2.8|0.5|0.6152
91787185|NCT00913458|183453859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.4|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.4|1.0|0.0432
91787186|NCT00913458|183453859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.3|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.3|0.8|0.1189
91787187|NCT00913458|183453860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.7|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.7|1.0|0.0535
91787188|NCT00913458|183453860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.5|1.4|0.0064
91787189|NCT00913458|183453860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||3.6|0.6|0.3696
91846144|NCT00531479|183574617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|5.56||P-Value based on a 1-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||95% confidence interval based on using Greenwood's formula for the variance of the Kaplan Meier estimator.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||5.56|-10.77|0.2611
91846145|NCT00531479|183574618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.18||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.44|1.09||P-Value based on a 1-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||95% confidence intervalbased on using Greenwood's formula for the variance of the Kaplan Meier estimator.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||1.09|-21.44|0.0383
91846146|NCT00531479|183574619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|3.42||P-Value based on a one-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||95% confidence interval based on Greenwood's formula for the variance of the Kaplan Meier estimator.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||3.42|-15.9|0.1029
91709495|NCT04378569|183311573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||0.34|-0.31|0.9217
91846147|NCT00531479|183574620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.696||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio: hazard of death in the Voriconazole/Anidulafungin arm relative to the Voriconazole/Placebo arm, adjusted for host factor status and site of infection. Participants who died beyond Day 84 were censored.||1.04|0.46|0.083
91846148|NCT00531479|183574621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model||95% confidence interval based on Greenwood's formula.|Analysis based on Cox proportional hazards model. Participants who died beyond day 84 were censored.||1.16|0.40|0.164
91846149|NCT01743729|183574629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.03||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.10|0.6186
91846150|NCT01743729|183574630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|12.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.51|16.7|||ANCOVA|||||16.70|8.51|<0.0001
91846151|NCT05074498|183574664|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.35||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.047|-0.741|0.0838
91846152|NCT01306331|183574699|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound for the confidence interval of the difference was \< 5.5, then the null hypothesis would be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.2||||||The primary hypothesis test was performed using 95% confidence interval for the difference in cumulative pregnancy rates between the treatment arms. If the upper bound for the confidence interval of the difference was \< 5.5, then the null hypothesis would be rejected.||3.2|-2.2|
91709496|NCT04378569|183311573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.4783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.53|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|||0.53|-0.25|0.4783
91787190|NCT00913458|183453861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.2|0.9|0.0788
91846153|NCT03371108|183574702|EQUIVALENCE|The determination of equivalence was defined by the US-FDA as a confidence interval that was contained within the equivalence limits of +/- 10.7.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|3.5|||||The asymptotic standard error was planned and is reported above.|This is a two-arm study.||3.5|-7.6|
91846154|NCT01677936|183574714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||=|0.024||||||Compared to snacks, raisins reduced percent post-prandial glucose levels by 23%, which met the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.024
91846155|NCT01677936|183574715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||=|0.035||||||Compared with snacks, the 8.8 mmHg reduction with raisins met the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.035
91846156|NCT02790606|183574721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Exact binomial test|||"The primary safety endpoint is evaluated against a PG of 88%, which was derived from safety event rates of PTA in published literature.~Hypothesis: The safety rate in subjects treated with the COVERA™ Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) at 30 days post-index procedure is greater than that of the PG of 88%. 109 treated subjects \[104 evaluable\] will give 99% power with one-sided type I error = 0.05."||||0.0021
91709497|NCT04378569|183311573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.43|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||0.43|-0.32|0.7725
91709498|NCT04378569|183311573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.33|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||0.33|-0.43|0.7861
91846157|NCT02790606|183574722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is compared to the PG (40%) and computed using the exact binomial test.|Exact binomial test|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint is evaluated against a PG of 40%, which was derived from clinical literature as well as other pivotal and post-market studies of stent grafts at the graft-vein anastomosis of AV access patients dialyzing with an AV graft. 89% estimated power for primary endpoint.~Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects treated with the COVERA™ Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) with respect to TLPP through 6 months post-index procedure is greater than that of the PG of 40%."||||<0.0001
91846158|NCT02022462|183574805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change of z-scores.||||.073
91846159|NCT02022462|183574805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group mean z-score change from 6 months to 12-months (post-intervention) for the immediate treatment group only.||||.066
91846160|NCT02022462|183574806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.983|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.983
91846161|NCT02022462|183574806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.95||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group mean change from 6 months to 12-months (post-intervention) for the immediate treatment group only.||||.533
91846162|NCT02022462|183574807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.731
91846163|NCT02022462|183574807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group mean change from 6 months to 12-months (post-intervention) for the immediate treatment group only.||||.211
91846164|NCT02022462|183574808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.244
91846165|NCT02022462|183574808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.016
91846166|NCT02022462|183574809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.019
91846167|NCT02022462|183574809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.609|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.609
91846168|NCT02022462|183574810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.203
91846169|NCT02022462|183574810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.480
91709499|NCT04378569|183311573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.3521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.68|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||0.68|-0.24|0.3521
91846170|NCT02022462|183574811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.897|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.897
91846171|NCT02022462|183574811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.903|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.903
91846172|NCT02022462|183574812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.787||||0.433|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.433
91846173|NCT02022462|183574812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||0.936|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.936
91846174|NCT02022462|183574813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change in z-scores of diet.||||.228
91846175|NCT02022462|183574813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.617
91846176|NCT02022462|183574814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.894|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.894
91846177|NCT02022462|183574814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.930
91846178|NCT02022462|183574815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.530
91846179|NCT02022462|183574815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27||0.458|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.458
91846180|NCT02022462|183574816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.036
91846181|NCT02022462|183574816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.892
91846182|NCT02022462|183574817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.931|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.931
91846183|NCT02022462|183574817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.058
91846184|NCT02022462|183574818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.576
91846185|NCT02022462|183574818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.89||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.829
91846186|NCT02022462|183574819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.792
91846187|NCT02022462|183574819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.55||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.622
91846188|NCT02022462|183574820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.986||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.049
91846189|NCT02022462|183574820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.211
91846190|NCT03613129|183574821|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91846191|NCT03613129|183574821|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
91846192|NCT03613129|183574821|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91846193|NCT03613129|183574821|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.451
91846194|NCT03613129|183574821|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.240
91846195|NCT03613129|183574822|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91846196|NCT03613129|183574822|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
91846197|NCT03613129|183574822|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91846198|NCT03613129|183574822|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
91846199|NCT03613129|183574822|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
91846200|NCT03613129|183574823|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.587|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.587
91846201|NCT03613129|183574823|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.618
91846202|NCT03613129|183574823|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.634|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.634
91846203|NCT03613129|183574823|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.355|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.355
91846204|NCT03613129|183574823|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.417
91846205|NCT02334306|183574824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.262|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|0.7|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval and p-value.|||0.7|-3.6|0.262
91846206|NCT02334306|183574825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.64|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For plasma cell levels||1.64|0.52|0.820
91846207|NCT02334306|183574825|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.28|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For TFH cells||1.28|0.33|0.291
91846208|NCT02334306|183574826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.18|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For total plasma cells||1.18|0.65|0.440
91846209|NCT02334306|183574826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.7|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For CD4/ICOS TFH cells||0.70|0.26|0.008
91846210|NCT02334306|183574826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.59|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For PD-1/ICOS TFH cells||1.59|0.64|0.972
91846211|NCT02334306|183574828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval and p-value.|||1.6|-0.8|0.574
91846212|NCT02334306|183574829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|25.0||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|50.9|||Fisher Exact|||ESSDAI \[3\]||50.9|-3.1|0.252
91846213|NCT02334306|183574829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in precentages|25.0||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|50.9|||Fisher Exact|||ESSDAI\[4\]||50.9|-3.1|0.252
91846214|NCT02390557|183574838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||we had a prior hypothesis that the survey intervention would be associated with a larger increase in perceived quality of health care compared with control from Wave 1 to Wave 2||||0.074
91846215|NCT02390557|183574838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||We compared change in perception of quality of health care between Control v YES Health, wave 1 v Wave 2||||.069
91846216|NCT02002819|183574840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.32|||ANOVA|||||0.32|-0.18|0.55
91846217|NCT02002819|183574841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.8|||ANOVA|||||6.8|-1.0|0.14
91846218|NCT02002819|183574842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5|||ANOVA|||||1.5|-3.4|.43
91846219|NCT02002819|183574843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.2|0.63
91846220|NCT02002819|183574844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.3|-1.1|0.90
91846221|NCT02002819|183574845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.80
91787191|NCT00913458|183453861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||11.0|1.9|0.0007
91846222|NCT02002819|183574846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.7|-3.6|0.46
91846223|NCT02002819|183574847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.1|-0.9|0.40
91846224|NCT02002819|183574848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.7|||ANOVA|||||14.7|0.2|0.046
91787192|NCT00913458|183453861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.7|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.7|0.9|0.0676
91787193|NCT00913458|183453862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.56||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|59.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||59.5|1.0|0.0548
91846225|NCT02002819|183574849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.7|||ANOVA|||||2.7|-7.8|.30
91846226|NCT02002819|183574850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|16.0|||Cohen f|||||16.0|-8.5|0.52
91846227|NCT02002819|183574851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.4|||ANOVA|||||2.4|-1.0|0.40
91846228|NCT02002819|183574852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-1.1|0.63
91846229|NCT02002819|183574854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-0.3|.15
91846230|NCT00920686|183574858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6407|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6407
91846231|NCT03006341|183574867|OTHER||C-Statistic|0.81|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with bleeding history or predisposition as dependent and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables|The C-statistic can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|"The concordance statistic is equal to the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The C-statistic (sometimes called the concordance statistic or C-index) is a measure of goodness of fit for binary outcomes in a logistic regression model."||||
91846232|NCT03006341|183574869|OTHER||Adjusted R squared statistic|0.02|||||||||||Regression, Linear|Logistic regression model with serum creatinine as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables|The adjusted R² statistic, or coefficient of determination, is the proportion of the variance in the (EMR) outcome that is predictable from the independent (claims) variables, adjusted for the number of predictors in the model.|R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.||||
91846233|NCT03006341|183574871|OTHER||Adjusted R squared statistic|0.04|||||||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with duration of atrial fibrillation as dependent and treatment groups and claims based variables as independent variables|The adjusted R² statistic, or coefficient of determination, is the proportion of the variance in the (EMR) outcome that is predictable from the independent (claims) variables, adjusted for the number of predictors in the model.|R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.||||
91846234|NCT03006341|183574877|OTHER||C-Statistic|0.88|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with diabetes as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables.|The C-statistic can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|"The concordance statistic is equal to the area under a ROC curve. The C-statistic (sometimes called the concordance statistic or C-index) is a measure of goodness of fit for binary outcomes in a logistic regression model."||||
91846235|NCT03006341|183574878|OTHER||C-Statistic|0.69|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with hyperlipidemia as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables.|The C-statistic can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|"The concordance statistic is equal to the area under a ROC curve. The C-statistic (sometimes called the concordance statistic or C-index) is a measure of goodness of fit for binary outcomes in a logistic regression model."||||
91846236|NCT03006341|183574879|OTHER||Adjusted R squared statistic|0.34|||||||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with HAS-BLED score as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables.|The adjusted R² statistic, or coefficient of determination, is the proportion of the variance in the (EMR) outcome that is predictable from the independent (claims) variables, adjusted for the number of predictors in the model.|R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.||||
91846237|NCT00335153|183574921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846238|NCT00335153|183574922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
91846239|NCT00335153|183574923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846240|NCT00335153|183574924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846241|NCT00335153|183574925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974
91846242|NCT00335153|183574926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846243|NCT00335153|183574927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846244|NCT00335153|183574928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846245|NCT00335153|183574929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846246|NCT00335153|183574930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91787194|NCT00913458|183453862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.18||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|94.2|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||94.2|1.6|0.0166
91787195|NCT00913458|183453862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.3619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.5|0.6|0.3619
91787196|NCT00913458|183453863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, p-values, and 95% CIs are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||6.7|1.6|0.0017
91787197|NCT00913458|183453863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|28.0|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, p-values, and 95% CIs are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||28.0|4.4|<0.0001
91846247|NCT00335153|183574931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846248|NCT00335153|183574932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846249|NCT00335153|183574933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846250|NCT00335153|183574934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846251|NCT00335153|183574935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.757
91787198|NCT00913458|183453863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.8|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, p-values, and 95% CIs are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||8.8|1.3|0.0111
91787199|NCT00913458|183453864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.66||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-0.7|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-0.7|-16.6|0.0328
91787200|NCT00913458|183453864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-13.2|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-13.2|-30.1|<0.0001
91846252|NCT00335153|183574936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846253|NCT00335153|183574937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846254|NCT00335153|183574938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846255|NCT00335153|183574939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846256|NCT00335153|183574940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846257|NCT00335153|183574941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.824
91846258|NCT01822821|183574959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was tested using a noninferiority margin of 1.15.|ratio of geometric means|0.89||||0.08|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.06|||Regression, Linear||Ratio of geometric means (CI) for IV acetaminophen versus placebo was estimated as the exponentiated treatment effect parameter from a multivariable linear regression model on log opioid consumption adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.06||0.08
91846259|NCT01822821|183574959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|0.89||||0.28|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.1|||Regression, Linear||Ratio of geometric means (CI) for IV acetaminophen versus placebo was estimated as the exponentiated treatment effect parameter from a multivariable linear regression model on log opioid consumption adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.10||0.28
91846260|NCT01822821|183574960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We assessed whether IV acetaminophen is noninferior to placebo using a noninferiority margin of 1.0.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.5|||Regression, Linear||Difference in overall postoperative pain score means based on a repeated measures linear regression model with an autoregressive correlation structure, adjusting for age, time, and diabetes.|||-0.5||< 0.001
91846261|NCT01822821|183574960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.42|||Regression, Linear||Difference in overall postoperative pain score means based on a repeated measures linear regression model with an autoregressive correlation structure, adjusting for age, time, and diabetes.|||-0.42||< 0.001
91846262|NCT01822821|183574961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.34|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||Relative risk of PONV in IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients estimated from a multivariable logistic regression model using the log link and adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.7|0.34|0.35
91846263|NCT01822821|183574962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in medians of IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients based on Wilcoxon rank sum test and Hodges-Lehmann estimation of location shift.|Analysis at 8 hours after surgery.||0|0|0.13
91846264|NCT01822821|183574962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in medians of IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients based on Wilcoxon rank sum test and Hodges-Lehmann estimation of location shift.|Analysis at 16 hours after surgery.||0|0|0.44
91846265|NCT01822821|183574962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in medians of IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients based on Wilcoxon rank sum test and Hodges-Lehmann estimation of location shift.|Analysis at 24 hours after surgery||0|0|0.38
91846266|NCT01822821|183574963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.52|3.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on duration of mechanical ventilation was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||3.20|0.52|0.46
91846267|NCT01822821|183574964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|0.93||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.74|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on duration of ICU stay was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.20|0.74|0.38
91846268|NCT01822821|183574965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.94|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on duration of mechanical ventilation was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.20|0.94|0.12
91846269|NCT01822821|183574966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.9|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on ALT was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a repeated measures multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.2|0.9|0.31
91650443|NCT01706198|183193556|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.91||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care for Week 40 has been presented.|||1.91|1.45|<0.001
91846270|NCT01822821|183574967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.8|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on AST was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a repeated measures multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.2|0.8|0.98
91846271|NCT01822821|183574968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.87|1.3|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on bilirubin was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a repeated measures multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.3|0.87|0.40
91846272|NCT02322775|183574987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.08||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.15||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was: H0: Change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (L) at Week 12 (benralizumab vs placebo)=0.||0.15|0|0.040
91846273|NCT02322775|183574988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|8.84||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|23.42||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.42|-5.74|0.233
91846274|NCT02322775|183574989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|5.29||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|19.25||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.25|-8.67|0.456
91846275|NCT02322775|183574990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.13||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.1||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.35|0.266
91846276|NCT02322775|183574991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.36||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.19||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.91|0.200
91846277|NCT02322775|183574992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.03||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.03||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.08|0.380
91846278|NCT02322775|183574993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.04||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.39|0.114
91846279|NCT02322775|183574995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.21||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.42||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Total score||0.42|0|0.055
91846280|NCT02322775|183574995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.23||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.47||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Symptoms score||0.47|-0.01|0.063
91846281|NCT02322775|183574995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.2||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.41||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Activity limitation score||0.41|-0.01|0.061
91846282|NCT02322775|183574995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.19||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.45||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Emotional function score||0.45|-0.07|0.156
91846283|NCT02322775|183574995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.19||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.44||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Environmental stimuli score||0.44|-0.06|0.135
91846284|NCT05780047|183574998|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91846285|NCT05780047|183574999|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||paired samples t-test|||Paired samples t-tests were run to compare whether EHL knowledge, attitudes and behavior changed after the intervention. EHL scores were expected to increase between pre and post testing.||||<0.05
91846286|NCT03194776|183575014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.74|||=|0.2612|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.03|2.55||P-value of \<= 0.2 was considered significant.|two-sided test|||Statistical analysis was done by mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) model analysis.||2.55|-38.03|= 0.2612
91846287|NCT00764868|183575024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of LDX at baseline and 52 weeks||||||<0.001
91846288|NCT00764868|183575026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of LDX at baseline and 52 weeks||||||<0.001
91846289|NCT00665561|183575044|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.67||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude risk ratio (RR) and CI.||0.67|0.42|
91846290|NCT00665561|183575045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.88||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||5.88|0.12|
91846291|NCT00665561|183575046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.33||||||All Malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.33|0.66|
91846292|NCT00665561|183575046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.31||||||AIDS defining Malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.31|0.29|
91846293|NCT00665561|183575046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.58||||||Non-AIDS defining Malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.58|0.71|
91846294|NCT00665561|183575047|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.18||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||2.18|0.44|
91846295|NCT00665561|183575048|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.59||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.59|0.51|
91846296|NCT00665561|183575049|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.76||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.76|0.70|
91846297|NCT00665561|183575050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.93||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||4.93|0.25|
91846298|NCT00665561|183575051|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.47||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||2.47|0.18|
91846299|NCT00665561|183575052|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.08|0.57|
91846300|NCT00665561|183575053|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||0.99|0.61|
91846301|NCT00665561|183575054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33||||||All malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.33|0.64|
91846302|NCT00665561|183575054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.52||||||AIDS defining malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.52|0.32|
91846303|NCT00665561|183575054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||||||Non-AIDS defining malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.52|0.66|
91846304|NCT00665561|183575055|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.10|0.35|
91846305|NCT00665561|183575056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.52||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.52|0.59|
91787201|NCT00913458|183453864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.98||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-4.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-4.5|-21.5|0.0035
91787202|NCT00913458|183453865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.36||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||3.1|-11.8|0.2473
91787203|NCT00913458|183453865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.19||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-5.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-5.1|-21.3|0.0016
91846306|NCT00665561|183575057|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.28|0.66|
91787204|NCT00913458|183453865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-0.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-0.6|-17.0|0.0348
91787205|NCT00913458|183453866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.51||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|1.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||1.6|-12.6|0.1248
91787206|NCT00913458|183453866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.14||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-6.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-6.5|-21.8|0.0004
91787207|NCT00913458|183453866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.63||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-0.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-0.8|-16.4|0.0306
91787208|NCT00913458|183453867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.6|0.5|0.4717
91846307|NCT00665561|183575058|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.66|0.6225
91846308|NCT04949399|183575060|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|37.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.2|23.5|<.0001
91787209|NCT00913458|183453867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.8|1.0|0.0551
91787210|NCT00913458|183453867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.8|0.7|0.2141
91846309|NCT04949399|183575061|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|47.7||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.7|32.0|<0.0001
91787211|NCT00913458|183453869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on ANCOVA on ranks of change in score with ranks of Week 52 value as covariate.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.4|-0.5|0.9652
91846310|NCT04949399|183575062|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|41.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|49.6||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.6|33.7|<0.0001
91846311|NCT04949399|183575065|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|54.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|62.8||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.8|46.8|<.0001
91846312|NCT04949399|183575066|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|47.8||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.8|30.5|<.0001
91846313|NCT04949399|183575067|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|52.5||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.5|36.8|<.0001
91846314|NCT04949399|183575068|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.7||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-4.7|-6.7|<.0001
91846315|NCT04949399|183575071|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|38.1|54.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.2|38.1|<0.0001
91846316|NCT04949399|183575072|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|51.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|60.5||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.5|43.3|<0.0001
91846317|NCT04949399|183575073|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|49.0||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.0|31.3|<0.0001
91846318|NCT04949399|183575074|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|45.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|53.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.2|37.1|<0.0001
91846319|NCT04949399|183575075|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-4.6||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-4.6|-6.8|<0.0001
91846320|NCT04949399|183575076|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.5||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 30||-4.5|-6.7|<0.0001
91846321|NCT04949399|183575076|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.9||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 60||-3.9|-6.0|<0.0001
91846322|NCT04949399|183575076|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.8||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 90||-2.8|-4.9|<0.0001
91846323|NCT01871285|183575083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.60|.7942
91846324|NCT01871285|183575083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.683||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|13.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.25|-11.89|.6155
91846325|NCT01871285|183575084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.60|.7942
91846326|NCT01871285|183575084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.683||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|13.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.25|-11.89|.6155
91846327|NCT05397470|183575085|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.003||||0.7501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.020|-0.014|0.7501
91846328|NCT02162446|183575132|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in total tissues between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.016
91846329|NCT02162446|183575132|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in total tissues between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
91846330|NCT02162446|183575132|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.012
91846331|NCT02162446|183575132|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
91846332|NCT02162446|183575132|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.500
91846333|NCT02162446|183575132|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||1.000
91846334|NCT02162446|183575134|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.250
91846335|NCT02162446|183575134|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
91846336|NCT02162446|183575134|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.688
91846337|NCT02162446|183575134|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.578
91846338|NCT02162446|183575135|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in liver between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.027
91846339|NCT02162446|183575135|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in lymph node between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.219
91846340|NCT02162446|183575136|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.064
91846341|NCT02162446|183575136|OTHER|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.339
91846342|NCT02162446|183575136|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.001
91846343|NCT02162446|183575136|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.000
91787212|NCT00913458|183453869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on ANCOVA on ranks of change in score with ranks of Week 52 value as covariate.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.0|-1.0|0.2168
91846344|NCT02162446|183575136|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.297
91787213|NCT00913458|183453869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on ANCOVA on ranks of change in score with ranks of Week 52 value as covariate.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.0|-1.0|0.2131
91787214|NCT00913458|183453871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.9|||ANCOVA||Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.|Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hyothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||10.9|-10.0|0.9338
91787215|NCT00913458|183453871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|11.2|||ANCOVA|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||11.2|-16.4|0.7130
91787216|NCT00913458|183453871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.6628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|10.6|||ANCOVA|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||10.6|-16.6|0.6628
91787217|NCT00913458|183453873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.74||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|2.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||2.0|-15.5|0.1303
91787218|NCT00913458|183453873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.59||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-6.0|||Longitudinal statisitical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-6.0|-27.1|0.0024
91787219|NCT00913458|183453873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.85||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|0.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.5|-20.2|0.0621
91787220|NCT00913458|183453875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01||||0.4664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|6.9|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||6.9|-15.0|0.4664
91846345|NCT02162446|183575136|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||1.000
91650444|NCT01706198|183193556|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.02||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care for Week 52 has been presented.|||2.02|1.54|<0.001
91787221|NCT00913458|183453875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.57||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-2.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-2.6|-30.6|0.0210
91787222|NCT00913458|183453875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.56||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|1.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||1.1|-26.2|0.0713
91787223|NCT00913458|183453877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.11||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-1.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-1.1|-17.1|0.0256
91846346|NCT02162446|183575137|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in muscle between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.470
91846347|NCT02162446|183575137|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in liver between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.233
91846348|NCT02162446|183575137|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in lymph node between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.375
91787224|NCT00913458|183453877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-11.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-11.1|-28.1|<0.0001
91846349|NCT02162446|183575138|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
91846350|NCT02162446|183575138|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
91846351|NCT02162446|183575138|OTHER|||||||0.426|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.426
91846352|NCT02162446|183575138|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.098
91846353|NCT02162446|183575138|OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.813
91846354|NCT02162446|183575138|OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.813
91846355|NCT02162446|183575138|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.297
91846356|NCT02162446|183575138|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.469
91846357|NCT02162446|183575139|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as liver between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.910
91846358|NCT02162446|183575139|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as muscle between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.039
91846359|NCT02162446|183575139|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as lymph node between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.375
91846360|NCT02162446|183575139|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as muscle between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.219
91846361|NCT01257503|183575206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in same participant||change in runny nose||||.86
91846362|NCT01257503|183575206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant||change in sneeze||||.89
91846363|NCT01257503|183575206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant||change in cough||||.45
91846364|NCT01257503|183575206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant||change in congestion||||.82
91846365|NCT01257503|183575207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in irritability||||.61
91846366|NCT01257503|183575207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in lethargy||||.97
91846367|NCT01257503|183575207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in fussiness||||.79
91846368|NCT01257503|183575207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in appetite||||.81
91846369|NCT01257503|183575208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status day 1||||.16
91846370|NCT01257503|183575208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status day 2||||.70
91846371|NCT01257503|183575208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status day 3||||.77
91846372|NCT01257503|183575208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status at 7-10 day follow-up||||.41
91846373|NCT01257503|183575209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status day 1||||.10
91846374|NCT01257503|183575209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status day 2||||.28
91787225|NCT00913458|183453877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.51||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-2.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-2.0|-19.0|0.0161
91787226|NCT05194579|183453884|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence were assessed by constructing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the GMR (test/reference) for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf. This table displays Cmax statistical analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Mean|117.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.07|132.93|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was PF-06881894 OBI was not equivalent to PF-06881894 PFS.||132.93|103.07|
91787227|NCT05194579|183453885|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence were assessed by constructing the 90% CIs for the GMR (test/reference) for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf. This table displays AUClast statistical analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Mean|122.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.9|138.22|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was PF-06881894 OBI was not equivalent to PF-06881894 PFS.||138.22|107.90|
91846375|NCT01257503|183575209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status day 3||||.26
91846376|NCT01257503|183575209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status at follow-up||||.88
91846377|NCT01257503|183575210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 1 assessment 1||||.02
91846378|NCT01257503|183575210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 1 assessment 2||||.01
91846379|NCT01257503|183575210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 2 assessment 1||||.25
91846380|NCT01257503|183575210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 2 assessment 2||||.15
91650445|NCT01706198|183193557|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.4||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 12 has been presented.|||2.40|1.82|<0.001
91650446|NCT01706198|183193557|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.25||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 24 has been presented.|||2.25|1.70|<0.001
91787228|NCT05194579|183453886|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence were assessed by constructing the 90% CIs for the GMR (test/reference) for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf. This table displays AUCinf statistical analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Mean|123.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.75|140.82|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was PF-06881894 OBI was not equivalent to PF-06881894 PFS.||140.82|108.75|
91787229|NCT03890666|183453892|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||||||||||||The statistical model is a logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor, pooled study sites as a random factor, and baseline ACT score as a covariate.||||
91846381|NCT01257503|183575210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 3 assessment 1||||.88
91846382|NCT01257503|183575210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 3 assessment 2||||.35
91846383|NCT01257503|183575210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score at 7-10 day follow-up||||.36
91846384|NCT02359435|183575221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.016|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91846385|NCT01492309|183575227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||This analysis is based on a mixed model that can handle missing data.||||0.003
91846386|NCT01492309|183575228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis is based on a mixed model that can handle missing data.||||0.425
91846387|NCT00711646|183575231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.517||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.004|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean 11-point Numerical Rating Scale spasticity score was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline 11-point Numerical Rating Scale spasticity score as a covariate.||-0.004|-1.029|0.048
91846388|NCT00711646|183575232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean Ashworth Scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Ashworth Scale score as a covariate.||0.07|-0.29|0.218
91846389|NCT00711646|183575233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.17||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.06|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean spasm frequency score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline spasm frequency score as a covariate.||0.06|-0.39|0.141
91846390|NCT00711646|183575234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.3||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|10.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean Motricity Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Motricity Index score as a covariate.||10.07|-7.47|0.766
91846391|NCT00711646|183575235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|8.46||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|23.66|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact Test.||23.66|-6.74|0.349
91846392|NCT00711646|183575237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|3.86||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|7.78|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean Motricity Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Motricity Index score as a covariate.||7.78|-0.06|0.054
91846393|NCT01360840|183575248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.39||||||||1.39|0.57|
91846394|NCT01360840|183575248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.26||||||||1.26|0.52|
91846395|NCT01360840|183575249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.31||||||||2.31|0.52|
91846396|NCT01360840|183575249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.15||||||||2.15|0.47|
91846397|NCT01360840|183575250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.44||||||||1.44|0.58|
91846398|NCT01360840|183575250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.27||||||||1.27|0.52|
91846399|NCT00615433|183575323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Improvements in PANSS ratings are estimated from 2 prior studies of lurasidone. Assuming lurasidone differs from placebo in change from baseline in PANSS by 6.8 and 10.0 for 40 and 120 mg, respectively, and assuming a standard deviation of 19.1, then n=120 subjects per group provides approximately 97% power (at α=0.05, two-sided) to reject the null hypothesis of no difference from placebo for at least 1 dose. This calculation uses Bonferroni's procedure for controlling pairwise differences.||||<0.05
91846400|NCT00615433|183575324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91899844|NCT00051363|183693825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106||||||6M- ESS-TS (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0106
91650447|NCT01706198|183193557|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.06||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 40 has been presented.|||2.06|1.56|<0.001
91851929|NCT03684265|183587272|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptance range for the ratio of geometric means was 80- 125%|Geometric mean ratio T/R, %|92.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.02|96.62|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra individual coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Movalis® capsules (T) with Movalis® tablets (R) for AUC0-t. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model in the log scale was used. This model included the sequence, period and type of therapy as fixed effects and the effect study subjects grouped within the sequence was considered random||96.62|89.02|
91846401|NCT00783692|183575325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|14.3||P-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level for the multiple comparisons of the primary endpoints. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both primary endpoints were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the primary endpoints was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither primary was declared significant, no further testing was to be conducted.||14.3|1.2|0.0206
91846402|NCT00783692|183575326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|15.0||P-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level for the multiple comparisons of the primary endpoints. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both primary endpoints were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the primary endpoints was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither primary was declared significant, no further testing was to be conducted.||15.0|-3.6|0.2322
91846403|NCT00783692|183575327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.5||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||27.5|7.3|0.0007
91851930|NCT03684265|183587273|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptance range for the ratio of geometric means was 80- 125%|Geometric mean ratio T/R, %|78.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.7|84.56|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra individual coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Movalis® capsules (T) with Movalis® tablets (R) for Cmax. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model in the log scale was used. This model included the sequence, period and type of therapy as fixed effects and the effect study subjects grouped within the sequence was considered random||84.56|73.70|
91899845|NCT00051363|183693825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||6M- ESS-TS (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0010
91846404|NCT00783692|183575327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|24.7||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||24.7|4.6|0.0042
91899846|NCT03282240|183693836|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|1.224||||||B Victoria: The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||1.224|0.958|
91650448|NCT01706198|183193557|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.24||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 52 has been presented.|||2.24|1.69|<0.001
91650449|NCT01706198|183193558|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.62||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 12 has been presented.|||2.62|1.98|<0.001
91787230|NCT01105065|183453909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||There would be no change in retinal vascular dysregulation after treatment with brimonidine||||<0.0001
91787231|NCT01105065|183453910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||paired t-test|||A paired t-test was used to determine if their was a statistically significant difference between the mean deviation of the frequency doubling perimetry in the RVD patients pre and post brimonidine treatment.||||0.28
91787232|NCT03495856|183453926|OTHER|within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p less than or equal to 0.05. That calculated p-value in the statistical hypothesis test was equal to 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.55|0.05
91787233|NCT03495856|183453927|OTHER|within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|-0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.71|-6.63|0.017
91787234|NCT03495856|183453928|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.50|-1.39|0.938
91787235|NCT03495856|183453929|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-1.15||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p less than or equal to 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.15|-5.53|0.005
91787236|NCT03495856|183453930|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.66|-5.09|0.124
91787237|NCT03495856|183453931|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.07|-7.30|0.001
91787238|NCT03495856|183453932|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-2.31|0.018
91787239|NCT03495856|183453933|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.01|0.58|0.016
91787240|NCT03495856|183453934|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.03|-7.88|0.002
91787241|NCT03495856|183453935|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.47|18.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||18.07|8.47|<0.001
91787242|NCT03495856|183453936|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|12.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.08|3.92|0.001
91846405|NCT00783692|183575328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9288||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test on the CRP change from baseline values (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If at least 1 of the primary endpoints was significant, the sequential Hochberg procedure was to be used to test the secondary endpoint for significance at the 0.05% level.||||0.9288
91846406|NCT00783692|183575329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|24.0||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||24.0|2.8|0.0132
91846407|NCT00783692|183575329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|26.0||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||26.0|4.6|0.0053
91846408|NCT00783692|183575330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.9||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|28.7||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 2) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||28.7|3.0|0.0154
91846409|NCT00783692|183575330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|25.5||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 2) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||25.5|0.3|0.0450
91846410|NCT00783692|183575331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.0||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||16.0|-1.5|0.1036
91846411|NCT00783692|183575331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|10.2||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||10.2|-6.3|0.6413
91846412|NCT04438785|183575351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the Apnea Hypopnea Index from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||<0.001
91846413|NCT04438785|183575352|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.971||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the O2 desaturation index (ODI) from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.003
91650450|NCT01706198|183193558|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.41||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 24 has been presented.|||2.41|1.81|<0.001
91846414|NCT04438785|183575353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.364||||0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the IOPI tongue score from baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.001
91846415|NCT04438785|183575354|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.131||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the IOPI lip score from the baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.001
91650451|NCT01706198|183193558|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.02||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 40 has been presented.|||2.02|1.53|<0.001
91650452|NCT01706198|183193558|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.21||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 52 has been presented.|||2.21|1.66|<0.001
91846416|NCT04438785|183575355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.92|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the neck circumference from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.92
91846417|NCT04438785|183575356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.92|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the waist circumference from baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.92
91846418|NCT04438785|183575357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.98|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the BMI from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.98
91846419|NCT04438785|183575358|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the Epworth Sleepiness Scale from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.001
91846420|NCT04438785|183575359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.22|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Evaluate if the Pittsburgh sleep quality index from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.22
91846421|NCT00689104|183575370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.09||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.09|-0.72|0.003
91846422|NCT00689104|183575370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.03||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||0.03|-0.61|0.010
91846423|NCT00689104|183575370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.21||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||0.21|-0.42|0.11
91846424|NCT00689104|183575371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.29||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.29|-0.90|<0.001
91846425|NCT00689104|183575371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.13||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.74|0.005
91846426|NCT00689104|183575371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||0.06|-0.55|0.11
91846427|NCT00689104|183575372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|17.4||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||17.4|6.3|<0.001
91899847|NCT03282240|183693836|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.129||||||B Yamagata: The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||1.129|0.881|
91846428|NCT00689104|183575372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.7||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||18.7|7.7|<0.001
91846429|NCT00689104|183575372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|18.2||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||18.2|7.1|<0.001
91846430|NCT00689104|183575373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.06||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.71|0.002
91846431|NCT00689104|183575373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.05||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.05|-0.71|0.002
91846432|NCT00689104|183575373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.35||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.03||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||-0.03|-0.68|0.019
91846433|NCT00689104|183575374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.13||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.66|0.004
91846434|NCT00689104|183575374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.26||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.26|-0.79|<0.001
91846435|NCT00689104|183575374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||-0.06|-0.60|0.016
91846436|NCT04873817|183575410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91846437|NCT00216320|183575412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
91846438|NCT02081365|183575423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.55|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||3.55|.74|<0.05
91846439|NCT02081365|183575424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||1.57|.39|<0.05
91846440|NCT02081365|183575425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||1.85|.61|<0.05
91846441|NCT02081365|183575426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||1.64|.01|<0.05
91846442|NCT01394991|183575427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.018||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.016|||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis was that the group of participants receiving epoetin alfa QW and the group of participants receiving epoetin alfa TIW would have similar incidence rate of participants with at least 1 clinically relevant and objectively confirmed TVE from randomization through Week 16.||0.016|-0.051|0.248
91846443|NCT01394991|183575427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.254||95.0|0.18|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.18|0.254
91846444|NCT01394991|183575428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.029||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.007|||Chi-squared|||||0.007|-0.065|0.08
91846445|NCT01394991|183575429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.13|||Log Rank|The stratified log-rank test accounting for ECOG performance status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used to compare the difference between treatment groups.|The Cox regression model with covariates for treatment group and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used for estimates of hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval.|||1.13|0.14|0.073
91846446|NCT01394991|183575430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.039||||0.059||95.0|-0.083|0.005|||Chi-squared|||||0.005|-0.083|0.059
91846447|NCT01394991|183575431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.03|||Log Rank|The stratified log-rank test accounting for ECOG score status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used to compare the difference between treatment groups.|The Cox regression model including covariates for treatment group and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used for estimates of a hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval.|||1.03|0.21|0.054
91846448|NCT01394991|183575432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0041||||0.88||95.0|-0.0526|0.0608|||Chi-squared|||||0.0608|-0.0526|0.88
91846449|NCT01394991|183575433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.108|||Chi-squared|||||0.108|-0.056|0.514
91846450|NCT01394991|183575434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.003||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.065|||Chi-squared|||||0.065|-0.071|0.920
91846451|NCT02337361|183575449|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)(Diggle et al. 2002) tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation.|||
91846452|NCT02337361|183575449|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation|||
91846453|NCT02337361|183575450|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report weekly or more frequent drinking at 6 month follow-up||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation.|||<.01
91709500|NCT04378569|183311573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.14|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 12||0.14|-0.62|0.2166
91846454|NCT02337361|183575451|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report drinking a maximum quantity of 5 or more drinks in a day at 6 month follow-up|||||<.05
91787243|NCT00322621|183453944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.5 point on the BPI 24-hour average pain scale.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|||<|0.001||97.5|0.35|0.79||Significance level 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that duloxetine treatment effect on pain reduction in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is not maintained, as indicated by an increase of more than 1.5 point on the BPI 24-hour average pain scale. Null hypothesis is rejected at significance level 0.025 if the upper bound of one-sided 97.5% CI is less than or equal to non-inferiority margin of 1.5 point.||0.79|0.35|<0.001
91787244|NCT00322621|183453947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.269
91846455|NCT02337361|183575452|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report any tobacco use at 6 month follow-up||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation.|||<.10
91846456|NCT02337361|183575453|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report significant depression at 6 month follow-up|||||<.01
91846457|NCT02337361|183575454|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) tested DrinkWise's effects on changes in depression over time controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites.|||
91650453|NCT01706198|183193559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.77||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 12 has been presented.|||1.77|1.30|<0.001
91787245|NCT00322621|183453948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91846458|NCT02427646|183575478|OTHER|"A linear mixed effects (LME) model via the maximized likelihood estimation was implemented using open-source statistical software, R (version 3.3.3). The effects of each clinical and kinematic outcome measures were examined for each participant group (ET and PD arms were separately analyzed thus no interaction effects were investigated) in separate LME models (lme4 package using lmer function)."|||||<|0.05|||||||Linear mixed effects model|||||||<0.05
91787246|NCT00322621|183453949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.160
91787247|NCT00322621|183453950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91787248|NCT00322621|183453951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.075
91846459|NCT02427646|183575479|OTHER|"A linear mixed effects (LME) model via the maximized likelihood estimation was implemented using open-source statistical software, R (version 3.3.3). The effects of each clinical and kinematic outcome measures were examined for each participant group (ET and PD arms were separately analyzed thus no interaction effects were investigated) in separate LME models (lme4 package using lmer function)."|||||<|0.05|||||||Linear mixed effects model|a log-transformation ofthe RMS datasets was applied for statistical analysis||||||<0.05
91846460|NCT03824236|183575480|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people (P-Fx Group) compared to unvaccinated people (Infectivity Control Group).|Vaccine efficacy rate|52.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|68.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing P. falciparum parasitemia incidence after sporozoite challenge between P-Fx group and the Infectivity Control group.||68|28|0.003
91846461|NCT03824236|183575480|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people (NP-Fx Group) compared to unvaccinated people (Infectivity Control Group).|Vaccine efficacy rate|54.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|70.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing P. falciparum parasitemia incidence after sporozoite challenge between NP-Fx group and the Infectivity Control group.||70|29|0.002
91787249|NCT00322621|183453952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91787250|NCT00322621|183453953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
91787251|NCT00322621|183453954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91846462|NCT01641861|183575491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.3||||||||7.3|0.1|
91650454|NCT01706198|183193559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.76||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.76|1.25|<0.001
91650455|NCT01706198|183193559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.63||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 40 has been presented.|||1.63|1.11|<0.001
91650456|NCT01706198|183193559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.76||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 52 has been presented.|||1.76|1.24|<0.001
91650457|NCT01706198|183193561|OTHER||Ratio|1.03||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28||GLM assuming negative binomial distribution (NBD) adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.28|0.83|0.786
91650458|NCT01706198|183193562|OTHER||Ratio|1.02||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.08||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.08|0.97|0.461
91650459|NCT01706198|183193564|OTHER||Ratio|0.99||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.08|0.91|0.822
91787252|NCT00322621|183453955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.406
91846463|NCT01641861|183575492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.8||||||||12.8|0.9|
91846464|NCT01641861|183575494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91650460|NCT01706198|183193565|OTHER||Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.15||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.15|1.05|<0.001
91787253|NCT00322621|183453956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
91787254|NCT00322621|183453957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.124
91787255|NCT00322621|183453958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.505
91787256|NCT00322621|183453959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
91787257|NCT00322621|183453960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91846465|NCT01641861|183575495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91846466|NCT03230006|183575530|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.152||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||A two-way mixed ANOVA was conducted to investigate treatment group differences in change in mean number of drinks consumed from baseline to post-treatment, as indicated by the Time by Treatment Condition interaction effect.|||||0.002
91787258|NCT00322621|183453961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91787259|NCT00322621|183453962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
91787260|NCT00322621|183453963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.550
91787261|NCT00322621|183453964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.752
91787262|NCT00322621|183453965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.713
91787263|NCT00322621|183453966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066
91787264|NCT00322621|183453967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.711
91787265|NCT00322621|183453968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.678
91787266|NCT00322621|183453969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.216
91787267|NCT00322621|183453970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.113
91787268|NCT00322621|183453973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.368
91787269|NCT00322621|183453974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91787270|NCT00322621|183453975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.666
91787271|NCT00322621|183453976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.138
91787272|NCT00322621|183453977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.145
91787273|NCT00322621|183453978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512
91846467|NCT03230006|183575530|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.342|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance is p \<.05.|ANOVA||This is the partial eta squared for the main effect of time.|||||<.001
91846468|NCT03230006|183575530|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.018||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||This is the partial eta squared for the main effect of treatment condition.|||||.309
91846469|NCT03230006|183575530|OTHER||F|38.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance is p \<.05.|ANOVA|||After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, follow-up testing was conducted to determine the simple main effects of time (pre to post) on mean number of drinks per week within each treatment condition, which was examined using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs.||||<.001
91787274|NCT00119678|183454084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||||Cox proportional-hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio of abatacept versus placebo for SLE disease flare. The 95% two-sided confidence interval was provided for the hazard ratio for treatment.|||1.5|0.7|
91787275|NCT03567343|183454109|EQUIVALENCE|Significance set to 0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.1543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|0.82||The threshold for statistical significance was P\< 0.05.|Paired T-test|||||0.82|-5.03|0.1543
91787276|NCT03567343|183454109|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.53||||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.24|||Paired T-test|||||1.24|-6.3|0.1827
91787277|NCT03567343|183454110|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.56|||Paired T-test|||||1.56|-1.96|0.8165
91787278|NCT03567343|183454110|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.58||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.94|||Paired T-test|||||3.94|-0.77|0.1821
91787279|NCT03567343|183454111|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|20.94||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|37.69|||Paired T-test|||||37.69|4.19|0.0156
91787280|NCT03567343|183454111|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|20.08||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|40.8|||Paired T-test|||||40.8|-0.64|0.0572
91787281|NCT03567343|183454112|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.48||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|0.41|||Paired T-test|||||0.41|-9.37|0.0781
91787282|NCT03567343|183454112|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.1|||Paired T-test|||||2.1|-8.1|0.242
91787283|NCT03567343|183454113|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|2.91||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.32|||Paired T-test|||||5.32|0.49|0.0195
91846470|NCT03230006|183575530|OTHER||F|5.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, follow-up testing was conducted to determine the simple main effects of time (pre to post) on mean number of drinks per week within each treatment condition, which was examined using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs.||||.030
91846471|NCT03230006|183575530|OTHER||F|1.15||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||This is the simple main effect of treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at baseline. For the UP, n=51; for the TC, n=24.|After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, the simple main effects for treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at each timepoint (pre and post) were examined using one-way ANOVAs.||||.016
91846472|NCT03230006|183575530|OTHER||F|7.78||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||This is the simple main effect of treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at post-treatment. For the UP, n=38; for the TC, n=21.|After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, the simple main effects for treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at each timepoint (pre and post) were examined using one-way ANOVAs.||||.007
91787284|NCT03567343|183454113|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|4.66||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|8.12|||Paired T-test|||||8.12|1.19|0.0097
91787285|NCT03567343|183454114|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.28|||Paired T-test|||||1.28|0.59|<0.0001
91787286|NCT03567343|183454114|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.81|||Paired T-test|||||0.81|0.08|0.0179
91787287|NCT03567343|183454115|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.83|||Paired T-test|||||3.83|-3.89|0.9875
91787288|NCT03567343|183454115|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|5.82|||Paired T-test|||||5.82|-6.23|0.9463
91787289|NCT03567343|183454116|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|28.5||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|47.17|||Paired T-test|||||47.17|9.84|0.0037
91787290|NCT03567343|183454116|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|9.84||||0.4395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.63|35.31|||Paired T-test|||||35.31|-15.63|0.4395
91787291|NCT03567343|183454117|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.53|||Paired T-test|||||0.53|-0.59|0.912
91787292|NCT03567343|183454117|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.8207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.83|||Paired T-test|||||0.83|-1.04|.8207
91787293|NCT03567343|183454118|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.1929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.47|||Paired T-test|||||0.47|-2.26|0.1929
91787294|NCT03567343|183454118|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.8744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|2.86|||Paired T-test|||||2.86|-3.35|0.8744
91787295|NCT03567343|183454119|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.54|||Paired T-test|||||0.54|-2.45|0.2048
91787296|NCT03567343|183454119|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.42|||Paired T-test|||||2.42|-0.5|0.1933
91787297|NCT03567343|183454120|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.13|||Paired T-test|||change in mean number of lapses||-0.13|-3.25|0.034
91787298|NCT03567343|183454120|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.5242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.71|||Paired T-test|||Change in number of lapses||1.71|-0.88|0.5242
91787299|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|6.25|||Paired T-test|||POMS-TMD||6.25|-4.92|0.8106
91787300|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|3.87||||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|9.09|||Paired T-test|||POMS-TMD||9.09|-1.35|0.1427
91787301|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.21|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Tension||1.21|-1.11|0.9344
91787302|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.54||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.69|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Tension||2.69|0.40|0.0092
91787303|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.12|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Depression||2.12|-1.55|0.755
91787304|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.92|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Depression||1.92|-0.44|0.2131
91787305|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.43|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Anger||2.43|-0.05|0.06
91787306|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.82|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Anger||0.82|-0.34|0.4117
91787307|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.9548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.73|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Fatigue||1.73|-1.64|0.9548
91787308|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.4649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.79|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Fatigue||1.79|-0.83|0.4649
91650461|NCT01706198|183193567|OTHER||Ratio|0.98||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment; asthma maintenance therapy and ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification; number of severe asthma exacerbations in previous year prior to randomization categorized; gender \& age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.09|0.88|0.697
91650462|NCT01706198|183193568|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07||Cox proportional hazards model with randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age as covariates|Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicated a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care|||1.07|0.86|0.504
91650463|NCT01706198|183193569|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender,age \& number of salbutamol inhalers in year prior to randomization|ANCOVA||Difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented.|||-0.5|-1.1|<0.001
91650464|NCT01706198|183193570|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.38||Cox proportional hazards model with randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age as covariates|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented|||1.38|1.09|<0.001
91709501|NCT04378569|183311573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.27|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 12||0.27|-0.52|0.5262
91709502|NCT04378569|183311573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.54|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 12||0.54|-0.39|0.7575
91709503|NCT04378569|183311575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified|Stratified|Week 2||4.70|0.64|0.2662
91709504|NCT04378569|183311575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.3798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.00|0.59|0.3798
91650465|NCT01706198|183193571|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.06||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender, age and Baseline score.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio of FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||2.06|1.55|<0.001
91650466|NCT01706198|183193572|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.73||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender, age and Baseline score.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio of FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented.|||1.73|1.31|<0.001
91709505|NCT04378569|183311575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||11.17|0.90|0.0611
91709506|NCT04378569|183311575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||3.93|0.64|0.3129
91709507|NCT04378569|183311575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||2.74|0.35|0.9586
91709508|NCT04378569|183311575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|15.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||15.29|0.87|0.0643
91709509|NCT04378569|183311575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||6.88|0.84|0.0932
91709510|NCT04378569|183311575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||4.59|0.44|0.5730
91709511|NCT04378569|183311575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|25.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||25.66|0.96|0.0389
91709512|NCT04378569|183311575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||5.53|0.60|0.2813
91709513|NCT04378569|183311575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||3.03|0.17|0.6841
91709514|NCT04378569|183311575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|9.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.21|0.49|0.3113
91709515|NCT04378569|183311578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|10.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 2||10.67|0.46|0.2674
91787309|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.18|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Confusion||1.18|-0.65|0.5656
91787310|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.4307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.15|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Confusion||1.15|-0.5|0.4307
91787311|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|3.25|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Vigor||3.25|-0.92|0.2651
91787312|NCT03567343|183454121|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.53|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Vigor||1.53|-2.61|0.5992
91787313|NCT03567343|183454122|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.22|||Paired T-test|||||2.22|-1.48|0.6869
91787314|NCT03567343|183454122|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|3.43|||Paired T-test|||||3.43|-0.65|0.1769
91787315|NCT03567343|183454123|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.6422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.72|||Paired T-test|||||2.72|-1.69|0.6422
91787316|NCT03567343|183454123|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.16|||Paired T-test|||||2.16|-0.9|0.4106
91787317|NCT03567343|183454124|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.5672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.58|||Paired T-test|||||0.58|-1.05|0.5672
91787318|NCT03567343|183454124|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.99|||Paired T-test|||||0.99|-0.77|0.805
91650467|NCT01706198|183193573|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the incidence ratio is less than 2.|Incidence ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.7|||||Incidence ratio was calculated as percentage of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the FF/VI group divided by the percentage of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the Usual Care group.|||2.7|0.8|
91650468|NCT01706198|183193574|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.74||Cox proportional hazards model with randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age as covariates.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented.|||2.74|0.77|0.255
91650469|NCT00549198|183193578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by MDRD, baseline BMI, race group, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by MDRD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.435
91650470|NCT00549198|183193579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by MDRD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by MDRD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.057
91787319|NCT03567343|183454125|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Median Difference (Net)|-43.09||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.43|12.26|||Paired T-test|||Change in lapse time||12.26|-98.43|.1236
91650471|NCT00549198|183193580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by MDRD, baseline BMI, race group, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by MDRD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.060
91787320|NCT03567343|183454125|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.01||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.13|16.11|||Paired T-test|||Change in lapse time||16.11|-20.13|.8241
91787321|NCT02744040|183454136|OTHER|||||||0.048||||||Multiple hypothesis testing was performed using Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) procedure.|Mixed Effects Models|||Total HIV DNA at the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups||||0.048
91790561|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.439||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.439|-0.195|0.451
91787322|NCT02744040|183454137|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
91787323|NCT02744040|183454137|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
91787324|NCT02744040|183454137|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
91787325|NCT02744040|183454137|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
91787326|NCT02744040|183454137|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
91787327|NCT02744040|183454137|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
91787328|NCT02744040|183454138|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Multiple hypothesis testing was performed using Tukey's HSD procedure.|Mixed Effects Models|||Integrated HIV DNA at the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups||||>0.05
91787329|NCT02744040|183454139|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
91787330|NCT02744040|183454139|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
91846473|NCT00901485|183575630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To test for non-inferiority, a sample size of 36 (18 patients completing both arms of the crossover) was calculated to provide 80% power to detect a 2.5% drop in the primary outcome, mean overnight oxygen saturation (SpO2), with a SD of 3% at a significance level of 0.05|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"We tested the hypothesis that iVAPS can ventilate a patient naive to NIV at least as effectively as standard PS.~Sleep and breathing parameters at the end of each treatment period were compared using Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. The median difference between treatments with 95% confidence intervals was then compared by related-samples Hodges-Lehman test"||1.0|-0.2|0.13
91846474|NCT00901485|183575631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|PtcCO2 is compared as a secondary outcome resulting in CO2 elimination similar to that of standard PS ventilation (median difference (95% CI) of -0.04(- 0.03 to 0.4)kPa in mean overnight PtcCO2).|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis: that we tested the hypothesis that iVAPS, with automated selection of ventilator settings, was non-inferior to standard pressure support (PS) ventilation, with settings determined by an experienced healthcare professional, for controlling nocturnal hypoventilation in patients naïve to NIV.||0.4|-0.3|0.54
91846475|NCT00901485|183575632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.5|-0.5|0.94
91650472|NCT00549198|183193581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by CG, baseline BMI, race group, age group, hypertension, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by CG\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.186
91787331|NCT02744040|183454139|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
91846476|NCT00901485|183575633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-2|0.42
91846477|NCT00901485|183575634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.82||95.0|-8.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4|-8|0.82
91846478|NCT00901485|183575635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.44|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.44|0.27|0.0004
91846479|NCT00901485|183575636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.5|-1.2|0.5
91846480|NCT00901485|183575637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.3|-4.5|0.001
91846481|NCT00901485|183575638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|23.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||23|-54|0.47
91846482|NCT00901485|183575639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.2|-0.7|0.41
91709516|NCT04378569|183311578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|17.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 2||17.54|0.44|0.2850
91787332|NCT02744040|183454139|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||>0.05
91846483|NCT00901485|183575640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12|-5|0.36
91846484|NCT00901485|183575641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14|-5|0.59
91787333|NCT02744040|183454139|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||>0.05
91846485|NCT00901485|183575642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14|-5|0.59
91846486|NCT00901485|183575643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|-9|0.72
91787334|NCT02744040|183454139|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||>0.05
91787335|NCT02744040|183454140|OTHER|||||||0.057||||||Multiple hypothesis testing was performed using Tukey's HSD procedure.|Mixed Effects Models|||TILDA stimulation reservoir measure at the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups||||0.057
91650473|NCT00549198|183193582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by CG, baseline BMI, race group, age group, hypertension, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by CG\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.413
91787336|NCT02744040|183454141|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test||||||0.01||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||0.010
91787337|NCT02744040|183454141|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||<0.0001
91787338|NCT02744040|183454141|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||>0.05
91787339|NCT02744040|183454141|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||>0.05
91787340|NCT02744040|183454141|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test||||||0.052||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||0.052
91787341|NCT02744040|183454141|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||>0.05
91787342|NCT01185353|183454149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91650474|NCT00549198|183193583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by CG, baseline BMI, race group, baseline CD4, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by CG\*visit, baseline BMI\*visit and baseline CD4\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.315
91787343|NCT01185353|183454151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.045
91787344|NCT01185353|183454151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.088
91787345|NCT01185353|183454151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91787346|NCT01185353|183454151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91787347|NCT01185353|183454153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91787348|NCT01185353|183454153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.162
91787349|NCT01185353|183454153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91787350|NCT01185353|183454153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91787351|NCT01185353|183454155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.017
91846487|NCT01474538|183575688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was below 0.4%, lispro was declared non-inferior to aspart.|LS Mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.210|-0.002|
91709517|NCT04378569|183311578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|16.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 2||16.52|0.42|0.3086
91787352|NCT01185353|183454155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.109
91787353|NCT01185353|183454155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91787354|NCT01185353|183454155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91787355|NCT01185353|183454159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.480
91846488|NCT01474538|183575689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.35|-2.92|
91846489|NCT01474538|183575690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.522|||||||Negative binomial|||||||0.522
91846490|NCT01474538|183575691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.58||||0.216|||||||Grizzle Model|||||||0.216
91846491|NCT01474538|183575692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||Prescott test|||||||0.471
91846492|NCT00367237|183575693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages of respondents|19.61||||0.021||95.0|3.27|35.95||Comparison of treatments (IFX + MTX versus MTX)|Chi-squared||Difference in percentages of respondents is (percentage of respondents in IFX+MTX group minus percentage of respondents in MTX group)|||35.95|3.27|0.0210
91846493|NCT00367237|183575693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of Responders|0.863||||||95.0||||||||||||
91846494|NCT00367237|183575693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of Responders|0.667||||||95.0||||||||||||
91846495|NCT02501629|183575697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|2.157||Significance at 0.05.|proportional odds model|factors for treatment group and randomization strata (age and OCS dose); baseline OCS dose and duration of OCS use prior to study were covariates.||The proportional odds ratio (reslizumab/placebo) was estimated from this model, representing the ratio of the odds of a patient outcome being in a higher OCS dose reduction category for reslizumab compared to placebo.||2.157|0.702|0.468
91846496|NCT02501629|183575698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|2.683||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||2.683|0.786|0.234
91846497|NCT02501629|183575699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|2.229||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||2.229|0.631|0.596
91899848|NCT03282240|183693836|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|0.932||||||A/H1N1: The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||0.932|0.744|
91787356|NCT01185353|183454159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.064
91787357|NCT01185353|183454159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787358|NCT01185353|183454159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91846498|NCT02501629|183575700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.759||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.986|3.494|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Reslizumab - Placebo|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, age group, and OCS dose group, duration of OCS use and baseline value as covariates, and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for the repeated measures.||3.494|-38.986|0.101
91650475|NCT00549198|183193590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline spine BMD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, hypertension, treatment\*visit, baseline spine BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
91650476|NCT00549198|183193591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline hip BMD, baseline BMI, race group, risk factor, country group, treatment\*visit, baseline hip BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
91650477|NCT00549198|183193592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline spine BMD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, treatment\*visit, baseline spine BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.036
91851931|NCT03684265|183587274|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptance range for the ratio of geometric means was 80- 125%|Geometric mean ratio T/R, %|97.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.57|101.72|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra individual coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Movalis® capsules (T) with Movalis® tablets (R) for AUC0-∞. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model in the log scale was used. This model included the sequence, period and type of therapy as fixed effects and the effect study subjects grouped within the sequence was considered random||101.72|92.57|
91899849|NCT03282240|183693836|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.066||||||A/H3N2: The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||1.066|0.842|
91899850|NCT03282240|183693837|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|2.7||||||B Victoria: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||2.70|-7.66|
91899851|NCT03282240|183693837|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.53||||||B Yamagata: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||3.53|-7.04|
91899852|NCT03282240|183693837|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|3.42||||||A/H3N2: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||3.42|-4.83|
91899853|NCT03282240|183693837|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|0.86||||||A/H1N1: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||0.86|-7.37|
91899854|NCT03282240|183693838|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in GMTs was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups was \> 1.5 for comparison group.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.804|2.315||||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||2.315|1.804|
91899855|NCT03282240|183693838|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in GMTs was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups was \> 1.5 for comparison group.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.802|2.288||||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||2.288|1.802|
91899856|NCT03282240|183693840|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in seroconversion was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of seroconversion rates between groups is \> 10% for each applicable comparison.|Difference in Percentage|29.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|33.29||||||B Yamagata: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||33.29|24.78|
91899857|NCT03282240|183693840|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in seroconversion was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of seroconversion rates between groups is \> 10% for each applicable comparison.|Difference in Percentage|20.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|24.61||||||B Victoria: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||24.61|16.5|
91899858|NCT02910739|183693853|OTHER|The pharmacokinetic condition to initiate Part 2 of the study would be met if the point estimate for the AUC0-∞ ratio of geometric means (participants with moderate HI / healthy matched control participants) exceeds 1.5.|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.3|||||GMR = geometric least squares mean (GLSM) for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on AUC0-∞; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.30|0.83|
91899859|NCT02910739|183693854|OTHER||GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.5|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on Cmax; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.50|0.77|
91899860|NCT02910739|183693855|OTHER||GMR|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.31|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on AUC0-last; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.31|0.82|
91787359|NCT01185353|183454159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.116
91787360|NCT01185353|183454159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.201
91787361|NCT01185353|183454159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91846499|NCT02501629|183575701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|2.562||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||2.562|0.722|0.341
91846500|NCT02501629|183575702|SUPERIORITY||CAE rate ratio|0.82||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.321|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for stratification factors (OCS dose group), age, number of prior exacerbations, and an offset variable.|reslizumab vs placebo|||1.321|0.504|0.407
91846501|NCT02501629|183575703|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|1.818||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||1.818|0.371|0.628
91846502|NCT00886613|183575733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||kappa coefficient of agreement|0.85||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.99|||McNemar||The significance of the difference between the proportion of subjects with a positive skin test at 48 hours and the proportion of subjects with a positive skin test at 72 hours|||0.99|0.72|0.564
91846503|NCT00886613|183575735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.06||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.28|||Chi-squared||Statistical analysis for dose 2|||0.28|-0.17|0.343
91846504|NCT00672256|183575741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
91846505|NCT00672256|183575742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
91846506|NCT00672256|183575743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
91846507|NCT00672256|183575744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
91846508|NCT01124162|183575745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|108.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.43|120.03|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120.03|97.43|
91846509|NCT01124162|183575746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.57|104.93|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.93|98.57|
91846510|NCT01124162|183575747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.41|104.68|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.68|98.41|
91846511|NCT01124162|183575748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.24|106.06|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.06|98.24|
91846512|NCT01124162|183575749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.84|102.84|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.84|97.84|
91787362|NCT01185353|183454159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91787363|NCT01185353|183454161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91787364|NCT01185353|183454161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.167
91787365|NCT01185353|183454161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787366|NCT01185353|183454161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91846513|NCT01124162|183575750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.87|102.69|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.69|97.87|
91650478|NCT00549198|183193593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline hip BMD, baseline BMI, race group, risk factor, prohibited medication, previous fracture, treatment\*visit, baseline hip BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
91709518|NCT04378569|183311578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|40.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 4||40.83|0.46|0.1655
91846514|NCT02534896|183575773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.018
91846515|NCT02534896|183575773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.007
91846516|NCT02534896|183575774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.028
91846517|NCT02534896|183575774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.003
91709519|NCT04378569|183311578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|7.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 4||7.67|0.26|0.7154
91709520|NCT04378569|183311578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.5371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|14.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 4||14.64|0.27|0.5371
91709521|NCT04378569|183311578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|57.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 8||57.83|0.43|0.2170
91787367|NCT01185353|183454163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.016
91787368|NCT01185353|183454163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.108
91787369|NCT01185353|183454163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
91787370|NCT01185353|183454163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.368
91787371|NCT01185353|183454165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.039
91787372|NCT01185353|183454165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.458
91787373|NCT01185353|183454165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
91787374|NCT01185353|183454165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
91787375|NCT01185353|183454167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.217
91787376|NCT01185353|183454167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.092
91787377|NCT01185353|183454167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787378|NCT01185353|183454167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91899861|NCT02910739|183693856|OTHER||GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.27|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on AUC0-24hr; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.27|0.80|
91650479|NCT00549198|183193594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline spine BMD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, treatment\*visit, baseline spine BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.112
91709522|NCT04378569|183311578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|18.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 8||18.22|0.41|0.3408
91787379|NCT01185353|183454167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787380|NCT01185353|183454167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.072
91787381|NCT01185353|183454167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787382|NCT01185353|183454167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787383|NCT01185353|183454167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787384|NCT01185353|183454167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.082
91650480|NCT00549198|183193595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline hip BMD, baseline BMI, race group, risk factor, prohibited medication, previous fracture, treatment\*visit, baseline hip BMD\*visit, and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
91709523|NCT04378569|183311578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 8||14.20|0.41|0.3270
91709524|NCT04378569|183311578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0719|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade||Week 12||||0.0719
91787385|NCT01185353|183454167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787386|NCT01185353|183454167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787387|NCT01185353|183454169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.024
91787388|NCT01185353|183454169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
91899862|NCT02910739|183693857|OTHER||GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on C24hr; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.30|0.90|
91899863|NCT02087748|183693878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0324
91846518|NCT02534896|183575775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.960
91846519|NCT02534896|183575775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.339
91846520|NCT02534896|183575776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.573
91650481|NCT00549198|183193628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3025||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, baseline biomarker value, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||0.3025
91650482|NCT00549198|183193629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, baseline biomarker value, baseline CD4, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||<0.0001
91650483|NCT00549198|183193630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3323||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, and baseline biomarker value.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||0.3323
91787389|NCT01185353|183454169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787390|NCT01185353|183454169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787391|NCT01185353|183454171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.120
91787392|NCT01185353|183454171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
91787393|NCT01185353|183454171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91787394|NCT01185353|183454171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91787395|NCT01185353|183454173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.409
91787396|NCT01185353|183454173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.371
91787397|NCT01185353|183454173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91787398|NCT01185353|183454173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91787399|NCT01185353|183454173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91787400|NCT01185353|183454173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
91787401|NCT01185353|183454173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91787402|NCT01185353|183454173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91787403|NCT01185353|183454175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91787404|NCT01185353|183454175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.073
91787405|NCT01185353|183454175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787406|NCT01185353|183454175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787407|NCT01185353|183454176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.021
91787408|NCT01185353|183454176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.194
91787409|NCT01185353|183454176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787410|NCT01185353|183454176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.012
91787411|NCT01185353|183454176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.449
91787412|NCT01185353|183454176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.578
91787413|NCT01185353|183454176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.140
91787414|NCT01185353|183454176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.266
91787415|NCT01185353|183454177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.||||||0.005
91787416|NCT01185353|183454177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.135
91787417|NCT01185353|183454177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91787418|NCT01185353|183454177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91787419|NCT01185353|183454178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.203
91787420|NCT01185353|183454178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.164
91787421|NCT01185353|183454178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
91787422|NCT01185353|183454178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.097
91787423|NCT03456882|183454182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6346||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.6346
91787424|NCT03456882|183454182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.3585
91787425|NCT03456882|183454183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4388||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.4388
91846521|NCT02534896|183575776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.374
91650484|NCT00549198|183193631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, baseline biomarker value, baseline CD4, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||<0.0001
91787426|NCT03456882|183454183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.2||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.9887
91787427|NCT03456882|183454184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9622||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.9622
91787428|NCT03456882|183454184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.3||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.6533
91899864|NCT02087748|183693879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3688
91650485|NCT00549198|183193632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, and baseline biomarker value.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from ana ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||<0.0001
91650486|NCT00549198|183193633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, baseline biomarker value, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model.||||||0.0019
91650487|NCT00549198|183193634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, baseline biomarker value, and baseline CD4.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model.||||||0.0019
91650488|NCT00549198|183193635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0266||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, baseline biomarker value, and baseline CD4.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model.||||||0.0266
91650489|NCT04229303|183193644|OTHER||Slope|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.424|0.821|||General power constant model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t||0.821|0.424|<0.0001
91650490|NCT04229303|183193644|OTHER||Slope|1.21||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.362|||General power linear model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t||1.362|1.050|0.0363
91650491|NCT04229303|183193644|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|13.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.096|17.994|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t, 40mg vs 5mg||17.994|10.096|<0.0001
91650492|NCT04229303|183193644|OTHER||Slope|1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.728|1.963|||General power constant model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t||1.963|1.728|<0.0001
91650493|NCT04229303|183193644|OTHER||Slope|0.87||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|0.96|||General power linear model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t||0.960|0.789|0.0201
91709525|NCT04378569|183311578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade||Week 12||8.43|0.07|0.8527
91650494|NCT04229303|183193644|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|6.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.253|7.217|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t, 40mg vs 5mg||7.217|5.253|<0.0001
91650495|NCT04229303|183193644|OTHER||Slope|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.661|0.958|||General power constant model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf||0.958|0.661|<0.0001
91787429|NCT03456882|183454185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9137||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.9137
91787430|NCT03456882|183454185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.7||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.3985
91787431|NCT03456882|183454186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2543||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.2543
91787432|NCT03456882|183454186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2209|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.2209
91650496|NCT04229303|183193644|OTHER||Slope|1.12||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.245|||General power linear model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf||1.245|0.990|0.1278
91650497|NCT04229303|183193644|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|9.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.834|13.012|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf, 40mg vs 5mg||13.012|6.834|<0.0001
91650498|NCT04229303|183193644|OTHER||Slope|1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|2.106|||General power constant model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf||2.106|1.860|<0.0001
91650499|NCT04229303|183193644|OTHER||Slope|0.79||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.912|||General power linear model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf||0.912|0.670|0.0082
91650500|NCT04229303|183193644|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|5.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.627|7.421|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf, 40mg vs 5mg||7.421|4.627|<0.0001
91650501|NCT04229303|183193645|OTHER||Slope|0.12||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.308|||General power constant model|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax||0.308|-0.060|0.2575
91650502|NCT04229303|183193645|OTHER||Slope|1.17||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.316|||General power linear model|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax||1.316|1.030|0.0491
91650503|NCT04229303|183193645|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|11.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.435|14.803|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax, 40mg vs 5mg||14.803|8.435|<0.0001
91650504|NCT04229303|183193645|OTHER||Slope|1.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.135|1.363|||General power constant model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax||1.363|1.135|<0.0001
91650505|NCT04229303|183193645|OTHER||Slope|0.74||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.634|0.843|||General power linear model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax||0.843|0.634|0.0003
91650506|NCT04229303|183193645|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|4.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.946|6.254|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax, 40mg vs 5mg||6.254|3.946|<0.0001
91650507|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|2.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.528|2.617|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||2.617|1.528|0.0004
91650508|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|4.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.612|6.187|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||6.187|3.612|<0.0001
91650509|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|2.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.017|3.925|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t day 10||3.925|2.017|<0.0001
91650510|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|5.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.783|7.361|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 10||7.361|3.783|<0.0001
91709526|NCT04378569|183311578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|13.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade||Week 12||13.11|0.37|0.3545
91709527|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 2||0.4|-9.2|0.0725
91650511|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.615|2.396|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||2.396|1.615|<0.0001
91650512|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|5.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.178|6.196|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||6.196|4.178|<0.0001
91650513|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|2.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.791|3.349|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 10||3.349|1.791|0.0002
91650514|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.365|6.294|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 10||6.294|3.365|<0.0001
91787433|NCT03456882|183454187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2738||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.2738
91650515|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|1.99||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.524|2.602|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||2.602|1.524|0.0005
91650516|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.505|5.984|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||5.984|3.505|<0.0001
91650517|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|2.65||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.851|3.781|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||3.781|1.851|0.0003
91787434|NCT03456882|183454187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.4239
91787435|NCT03456882|183454188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1708||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.1708
91899865|NCT02087748|183693880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0275
91899866|NCT03219320|183693885|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91650518|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.587|7.088|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||7.088|3.587|<0.0001
91650519|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.569|2.384|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||2.384|1.569|<0.0001
91650520|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|4.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.608|5.759|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||5.759|3.608|<0.0001
91790562|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790563|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.298||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.298|-0.429|0.722
91790564|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790565|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|0.21||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.210|-0.503|0.420
91650521|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|2.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.694|3.402|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||3.402|1.694|0.0007
91790566|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790567|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.241||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.241|-0.495|0.498
91846522|NCT05349084|183575808|EQUIVALENCE|A Fisher's exact test was performed to determine the association between coronary artery stenosis and PET myocardial blood flow (MBF) values during stress. The following myocardial segments were analyzed: left anterior descending (LAD), left circumflex (LCx), and right coronary artery (RCA). Coronary arteries were categorized as coronary arteries with a diameter stenosis ≥50% or \<50%. The MBF values during stress were categorized as normal or abnormal. Normal MBF is defined as \>1.8 mL/g/min.||||||0.2522||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2522
91846523|NCT05349084|183575809|OTHER|A Pearson's Correlation test was performed between PET MFR during stress and CT-FFR by territory.||||||0.028||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation test|A Pearson's Correlation test was performed between PET MFR during stress and CT-FFR by territory.||||||0.028
91846524|NCT01579578|183575815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.23||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.81|20.81||two sided p value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including covariates for baseline tumour size, for the time from the baseline scan to randomisation and with a term for HER2 status.|the difference in LS means is estimated|60 patients had been considered to detect a -20% difference in the estimated average percentage change in tumour size at 8 weeks for AZD8931 plus paclitaxel compared to paclitaxel alone at a one-sided significance level of 10% with 90% power. This is based on a standard deviation of 30% for tumour data (on an absolute scale)||20.81|-30.81|0.688
91846525|NCT03688542|183575818|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.0|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = follow-up value; adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||1.0|-3.8|<0.05
91846526|NCT03688542|183575819|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = number of PIM DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||0.03|-0.39|<0.05
91846527|NCT03688542|183575820|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.035|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.025|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = number of PIM DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||0.025|-0.095|<0.05
91790568|NCT02880956|183460069|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790569|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.142||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.142|-0.138|0.975
91790570|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790571|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.261||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.261|-0.014|0.078
91790572|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790573|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.094||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.094|-0.188|0.514
91790574|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91846528|NCT03688542|183575821|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.237|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = number of PIM DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||-0.040|-0.435|<0.05
91846529|NCT03688542|183575822|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|2.938|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, interaction between mission and group.||||2.938|0.164|<0.05
91846530|NCT03688542|183575823|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-12.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-4.0|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, interaction between mission and group.||||-4.0|-21.5|<0.05
91846531|NCT03688542|183575824|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.165|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.754|0.424|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents||||0.424|-0.754|<0.05
91846532|NCT03688542|183575825|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|7.6|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents||||7.6|-16.0|<0.05
91846533|NCT02341534|183575833|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.64|0.21
91846534|NCT01112735|183575893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5621|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5621
91846535|NCT01112735|183575894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3595|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3595
91846536|NCT01112735|183575895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3||||0.9417
91846537|NCT01112735|183575895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5488|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7||||0.5488
91846538|NCT01112735|183575895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||0.7107
91846539|NCT01112735|183575895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8809|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 28||||0.8809
91846540|NCT01112735|183575895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4598|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 60||||0.4598
91846541|NCT01112735|183575895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3837|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 90||||0.3837
91846542|NCT01112735|183575896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9699|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3||||0.9699
91846543|NCT01112735|183575896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4709|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7||||0.4709
91846544|NCT01112735|183575896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1406|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||0.1406
91846545|NCT01112735|183575896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4291|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 28||||0.4291
91846546|NCT01112735|183575896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2704|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 60||||0.2704
91787436|NCT03456882|183454188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.8133
91787437|NCT03456882|183454189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5239||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.5239
91787438|NCT03456882|183454189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4401|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.4401
91787439|NCT03456882|183454190|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5725|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction||Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment period (change per week, from baseline to week 24) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 24 is not different between groups.||||0.5725
91787440|NCT03456882|183454190|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5728|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast of the slopes during the off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from week 24 to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.5728
91787441|NCT03456882|183454191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: the survival curves over the on-treatment and the off-treatment follow-up period are not different between groups.||||0.9212
91787442|NCT03456882|183454192|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment period (change per week, from baseline to week 24) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 24 is not different between groups.||||0.0101
91787443|NCT03456882|183454192|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast of the slopes during the off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from week 24 to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.5924
91787444|NCT03456882|183454193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9598||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||AE treatment discontinuation 4 weeks. Null hypothesis: the percentage of patients experiencing at least one adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation within 4 weeks is not different between groups||||0.9598
91787445|NCT03456882|183454193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||AE treatment discontinuation 12 weeks. Null hypothesis: the percentage of patients experiencing at least one adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation within 12 weeks is not different between groups||||0.9390
91787446|NCT03456882|183454193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||AE treatment discontinuation 24 weeks. Null hypothesis: the percentage of patients experiencing at least one adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation within 24 weeks is not different between groups||||0.3442
91787447|NCT03456882|183454194|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 physical mobility. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.1503
91790575|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|0.036||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.036|-0.367|0.107
91790576|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91846547|NCT01112735|183575896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 90||||0.7564
91787448|NCT03456882|183454194|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 ADL and independence.Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.1556
91787449|NCT03456882|183454194|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 eating and drinking. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.0319
91787450|NCT03456882|183454194|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6419|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 communication. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.6419
91787451|NCT03456882|183454194|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 emotional reactions. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.3951
91787452|NCT03456882|183454195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.9563|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.9563
91846548|NCT02775435|183575914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.7||Treatment comparison stratified by programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Tumor Proportion Score \[TPS\] ≥1% vs. \<1%), taxane chemotherapy (paclitaxel vs. nab-paclitaxel) \& geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia)|Regression, Cox|||||0.70|0.45|<0.0001
91787453|NCT03456882|183454196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.4||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.2253
91846549|NCT02775435|183575915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85||Treatment comparison stratified by programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Tumor Proportion Score \[TPS\] ≥1% vs. \<1%), taxane chemotherapy (paclitaxel vs. nab-paclitaxel) \& geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia)|Regression, Cox|||||0.85|0.49|0.0008
91846550|NCT00320489|183575920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.612
91846551|NCT00320489|183575921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||95.0||||P-Value is for change from baseline at Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.649
91846552|NCT00320489|183575922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Mental Score Detail.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.744
91846553|NCT00320489|183575922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Physical Score Detail.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.653
91650522|NCT04229303|183193652|OTHER||Slope|4.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.975|5.974|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||5.974|2.975|<0.0001
91846554|NCT00320489|183575922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Physical Functioning.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.640
91846555|NCT00320489|183575922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Role-Physical.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.454
91846556|NCT00320489|183575922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Bodily Pain.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.135
91846557|NCT00320489|183575922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in General Health.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.229
91846558|NCT00320489|183575922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Vitality.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.594
91846559|NCT00320489|183575922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Social Functioning.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.256
91846560|NCT00320489|183575922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.775||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Role-Emotional.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.775
91846561|NCT00320489|183575922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Mental Health.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.781
91846562|NCT00320489|183575923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.465
91846563|NCT00320489|183575924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.581
91846564|NCT00320489|183575927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is type III p-value of ANOVA model: Total number of hospitalization days = Therapy.||||||0.020
91650523|NCT04229303|183193653|OTHER||Slope|2.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.562|2.65|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||2.650|1.562|0.0003
91846565|NCT00320489|183575928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||P-value is for Total Score (Items 1-5) change to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = investigator, treatment, and baseline.||||||0.583
91846566|NCT00320489|183575928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747||95.0||||P-value is for Total Score (Items 1-4) change to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = investigator, treatment, and baseline.||||||0.747
91846567|NCT00320489|183575929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = investigator, treatment, and baseline.||||||0.371
91846568|NCT00320489|183575930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||95.0||||P-value is fro change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.681
91846569|NCT00320489|183575931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-value is for overall satisfaction with current medication.|ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit.||||||0.60
91650524|NCT04229303|183193653|OTHER||Slope|4.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.74|6.345|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||6.345|3.740|<0.0001
91846570|NCT00320489|183575931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value is for preference current/previous medication.|ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit||||||.258
91846571|NCT00320489|183575931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492||95.0||||P-value is for side effects - current vs previous medication.|ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit.||||||0.492
91846572|NCT00320489|183575932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit.||||||0.854
91846573|NCT00320489|183575933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.600
91846574|NCT00320489|183575934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.282
91846575|NCT00320489|183575935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.834
91846576|NCT00320489|183575935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Positive Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.871
91846577|NCT00320489|183575935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Negative Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.692
91846578|NCT00320489|183575935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.893
91846579|NCT00320489|183575936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.585
91846580|NCT00320489|183575937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.659
91846581|NCT00320489|183575938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.952
91846582|NCT00320489|183575940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.777||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = baseline, treatment, and investigator.||||||0.777
91846583|NCT00320489|183575941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.530
91846584|NCT00320489|183575942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value for fasting glucose.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.258
91846585|NCT00320489|183575942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||P-value is for fasting total cholesterol.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.688
91846586|NCT00320489|183575942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0||||P-value is for fasting triglycerides.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.908
91846587|NCT00320489|183575943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.835
91846588|NCT00320489|183575944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||P-value is for ALT.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.834
91846589|NCT00320489|183575944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||P-value is for AST.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.723
91846590|NCT00320489|183575944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0||||P-value is for total bilirubin.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.247
91846591|NCT00320489|183575945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.885
91846592|NCT01872611|183575952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for United States (US) registration and secondary for European Union (EU) registration.||1.3|0.7|0.671
91790577|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.116||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.116|-0.275|0.425
91846593|NCT01872611|183575953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for EU registration and secondary for US registration.||0.7|0.2|0.001
91846594|NCT02783950|183576008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
91846595|NCT02783950|183576009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Test p-value|||||||0.70
91899867|NCT03078907|183693886|OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean|13.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.695|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.366|40.944|||ANCOVA|||Daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (minutes), Freedson '98||40.944|13.366|
91790578|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790579|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|-0.011||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||-0.011|-0.413|0.039
91790580|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790581|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.212||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.212|-0.302|0.729
91790582|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790583|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.307||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.307|-0.198|0.671
91790584|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790585|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.276||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.276|-0.235|0.876
91790586|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790587|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.362||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.362|-0.266|0.763
91790588|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790589|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.185||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.185|-0.434|0.429
91790590|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790591|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.381||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.381|-0.256|0.701
91650525|NCT04229303|183193653|OTHER||Slope|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.081|3.429|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 10||3.429|2.081|<0.0001
91650526|NCT04229303|183193653|OTHER||Slope|5.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.647|7.658|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 10||7.658|4.647|<0.0001
91650527|NCT04229303|183193653|OTHER||Slope|2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.688|2.406|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||2.406|1.688|<0.0001
91650528|NCT04229303|183193653|OTHER||Slope|4.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.964|5.65|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||5.650|3.964|<0.0001
91650529|NCT04229303|183193653|OTHER||Slope|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.655|2.711|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax Day 10||2.711|1.655|<0.0001
91787454|NCT03456882|183454197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.6263
91787455|NCT03456882|183454198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.3671
91650530|NCT04229303|183193653|OTHER||Slope|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.135|5.135|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax day 10||5.135|3.135|<0.0001
91787456|NCT03456882|183454199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.845|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.845
91846596|NCT05174065|183576039|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors of rounded PPPASI total score range (≤ 20/21 to 30/≥ 31) and focal infection status (yes/no) at baseline.|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors. The adjusted difference in proportion was the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata.|||46.5|18.7|<0.0001
91650531|NCT04229303|183193674|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.107|0.146||||||Part 3 - ZP-059 20mg: Oral Voriconazole (200mg VFEND)||0.146|0.107|
91650532|NCT04229303|183193674|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.545|2.853||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 1||2.853|1.545|
91650533|NCT04229303|183193674|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.953|3.544||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 1||3.544|1.953|
91650534|NCT04229303|183193674|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.386|2.52||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 10||2.520|1.386|
91650535|NCT04229303|183193675|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.059|0.075||||||Part 3 ZP-059 20mg: Oral Voriconazole (200mg VFEND®)||0.075|0.059|
91650536|NCT04229303|183193675|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.891||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 1||1.891|0.850|
91650537|NCT04229303|183193675|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.953|3.544||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 1||3.544|1.953|
91650538|NCT04229303|183193675|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.386|2.52||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 10||2.520|1.386|
91650539|NCT01764854|183193684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANCOVA|||AZD1722 in-patient and Placebo in-patient are not included in this analysis since it was only a one week evaluation period and an effect was not expected. Also the size (n=8) of the group was too small to .perform this analysis.||||0.46
91787457|NCT03456882|183454200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.2161
91846597|NCT05174065|183576040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|-3.69|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-3.69|-8.57|<0.0001
91650540|NCT01764854|183193685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AZD1722 out-patient and Placebo out-patient were not included in this analysis since stool was only collected in the clinical pharmacology unit of the in-patient groups.||||<0.0001
91650541|NCT03273387|183193686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||95% Confidence interval 1.97 - 11.3 statistical significant if p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t=2.988 df=18||||||0.008
91650542|NCT03273387|183193687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||statistical significant if p \<0.05|two-way ANOVA|DF=3||||||0.33
91787458|NCT03456882|183454201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.4962
91650543|NCT03273387|183193688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||95% Confidence interval 15.92 to 42.53 statistical significant if p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t=4.598 df=19||||||0.0002
91650544|NCT01399723|183193708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority between amoxicillin and benzyl penicillin was defined a priori as a risk difference of treatment failure and associated upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of \<7%. A sample size of 576 would provide 80% power to detect noninferiority of amoxicillin against benzyl penicillin within a margin of 7% at a 1-sided level of significance of 0.025, assuming a prevalence of treatment failure of 10% at 48 hours derived from a preintervention pilot phase of the study|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.2|||||Risk difference comparison is for amoxicillin versus benzyl penicillin|||4.2|-5.0|
91650545|NCT01399723|183193709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The initial sample size estimate of 576 children (288 per group) would provide 80% power to detect noninferiority of amoxicillin against benzyl penicillin within a margin of 7% at a 1-sided level of significance of 0.025, assuming a prevalence of treatment failure of 10% at 48 hours derived from a preintervention pilot phase of the study|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.8|||||Risk difference comparison is for amoxicillin versus benzyl penicillin|||5.8|-5.0|
91650546|NCT01399723|183193712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The initial sample size estimate of 576 children (288 per group) would provide 80% power to detect noninferiority of amoxicillin against benzyl penicillin within a margin of 7% at a 1-sided level of significance of 0.025, assuming a prevalence of treatment failure of 10% at 48 hours derived from a preintervention pilot phase of the study|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||||Risk difference comparison is for amoxicillin versus benzyl penicillin|||3.0|-10.0|
91787459|NCT03456882|183454202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8738||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 4 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 4 weeks is not different between groups||||0.8738
91787460|NCT03456882|183454202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7556||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 12 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 12 weeks is not different between groups||||0.7556
91787461|NCT03456882|183454202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6477||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 24 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 24 weeks is not different between groups||||0.6477
91787462|NCT03456882|183454202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6084||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 48 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 48 weeks is not different between groups||||0.6084
91650547|NCT00981253|183193726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-18.7|
91650548|NCT00981253|183193727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91650549|NCT00981253|183193728|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.24|
91787463|NCT04303195|183454421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.23||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||0.23|-1.67|0.1350
91650550|NCT00981253|183193729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.17|||ANCOVA|||||1.17|-0.14|.95
91787464|NCT04303195|183454421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.79|0.0997
91846598|NCT05174065|183576041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and baseline value as covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.9|-2.2|<0.0001
91650551|NCT00981253|183193730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.22|0.99
91709528|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 2||-1.0|-10.7|0.0183
91787465|NCT04303195|183454421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.2195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.37|-1.58|0.2195
91650552|NCT00981253|183193731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.74|||ANCOVA|||||1.74|-0.78|0.99
91787466|NCT04303195|183454422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.85|-1.11|0.7944
91846599|NCT05174065|183576042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-0.6|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.6|-14.9|0.0330
91650553|NCT00981253|183193732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.22|0.99
91650554|NCT00981253|183193732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.14|0.99
91650555|NCT00752791|183193733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from Baseline|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.44|||||A two-sided 95% CI of the estimated mean change from Baseline in hemoglobin was derived from the t-distribution.|||0.44|-0.24|
91709529|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables||Week 2||4.3|-7.7|0.5701
91709530|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 4||2.3|-10.4|0.2116
91787467|NCT04303195|183454422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.66||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.36|0.4956
91787468|NCT04303195|183454422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.26||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.26|-0.76|0.6260
91846600|NCT05174065|183576043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.8||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-2.9|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-2.9|-18.6|0.0076
91787469|NCT04303195|183454423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.00|-1.15|0.8866
91787470|NCT04303195|183454423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.8699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.01|-1.19|0.8699
91650556|NCT01127581|183193740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-677.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||Sample size 675 per group provides 90% power to see an improvement of ≥320 minutes (20% improvement from DVI) in time to vaginal delivery between MVI 200 \& DVI assuming a median time of 1600 minutes for DVI \& 34% dropout rate based on 5% 2-sided test|Subjects who underwent a cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdrew consent prior to delivery were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||<0.001
91709531|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 4||1.4|-11.5|0.1235
91787471|NCT04303195|183454423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-0.91|0.7297
91787472|NCT04303195|183454424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.86||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.86|-0.76|0.9034
91787473|NCT04303195|183454424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.63||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.63|-0.68|0.9742
91846601|NCT05174065|183576044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.4||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.5|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.5|-2.4|0.0036
91846602|NCT02909101|183576221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.039
91899868|NCT03078907|183693886|OTHER||LS means|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.782|15.396|||ANCOVA|||Daily time spent in MVPA (minutes), Freedson '98||15.396|-10.782|
91650557|NCT01127581|183193741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 675 subjects per group will provide a sufficient number of subjects to assess non-inferiority of MVI 200 with respect to rate of cesarean delivery, based on an alpha level of 5% and 80% power for a two-sided approach using a 10% non-inferiority limit (relative to the DVI rate), assuming a 30% rate of cesarean delivery in the DVI group compared to a 26% rate in the MVI 200 group.|Difference in Populations|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|3.59|||Chi-squared||MVI 200 - DVI|The analysis of the cesarean delivery rates during the first hospitalization was based on a between-treatment-group difference. If the upper limit of the asymptotic two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in event rates (MVI minus DVI) was less than the calculated non-inferiority margin (10% relative to the DVI rate, i.e., 0.1 times DVI rate), then MVI 200 would be considered non-inferior to DVI.||3.59|-5.79|
91650558|NCT01127581|183193742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-543.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - DVI|Subjects who did not deliver during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge without delivery, independent of treatment group.||||<0.001
91650559|NCT01127581|183193743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-390.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - DVI|Subjects who never went into active labor during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdrew consent prior to delivery were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||<0.001
91650560|NCT01127581|183193744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
91650561|NCT01127581|183193745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|9.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
91846603|NCT02909101|183576222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.054
91846604|NCT02909101|183576223|OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To determine acceptability, we examined whether mean ratings for both arms were above 3.5, and we also examined whether there was any difference between arms.||||0.744
91846605|NCT02909101|183576224|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To determine acceptability in terms of helpfulness, we examined whether mean ratings for both arms were above 3.5, and we also examined whether there was any difference between arms.||||0.719
91846606|NCT02909101|183576225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.337
91899869|NCT03078907|183693886|OTHER||LS mean|17.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.003|41.619|||ANCOVA|||Daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (minutes), Koster '16||41.619|-6.003|
91899870|NCT03078907|183693887|OTHER||LS mean|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.204|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.713|3.06|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (%), Freedson '98||3.060|-1.713|
91650562|NCT01127581|183193746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|26.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
91846607|NCT02909101|183576226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.025
91846608|NCT02909101|183576227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.133
91650563|NCT01127581|183193747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
91650564|NCT01127581|183193748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
91787474|NCT04303195|183454424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.33|-0.31|0.2235
91787475|NCT04303195|183454425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.3567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.12||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.34|0.3567
91650565|NCT01127581|183193749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
91650566|NCT01769378|183193753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Squares Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-1.57|<0.001
91650567|NCT01769378|183193754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|33.84|||Regression, Logistic|Sequential gatekeeping strategy was used to adjust for multiplicity.||\<7.0% HbA1c||33.84|3.82|<0.001
91650568|NCT01769378|183193754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|35.34|||Regression, Logistic|||≤6.5% HbA1c||35.34|3.71|<0.001
91650569|NCT01769378|183193755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.55|-20.53|||ANCOVA|Sequential gatekeeping strategy was used to adjust for multiplicity.||||-20.53|-46.55|<0.001
91650570|NCT01769378|183193756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequential gatekeeping strategy was used to adjust for multiplicity.||||0.18|-1.53|0.120
91650571|NCT01769378|183193757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.09||No adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.54|0.161
91650572|NCT01769378|183193758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.49|-19.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.40|-38.49|<0.001
91650573|NCT02784106|183193836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.07|
91787476|NCT04303195|183454425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.43|0.1129
91787477|NCT04303195|183454425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.33|0.4590
91787478|NCT04303195|183454426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.65|-1.27|0.5250
91787479|NCT04303195|183454426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.3991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-1.41|0.3991
91787480|NCT04303195|183454426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.9006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.92||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.92|-1.05|0.9006
91787481|NCT04303195|183454427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.64||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.64|-1.11|0.6009
91787482|NCT04303195|183454427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-1.23|0.4654
91846609|NCT04358549|183576231|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0415
91899871|NCT03078907|183693887|OTHER||LS mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.351|1.258|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of daily time spent in MVPA (%), Freedson '98||1.258|-1.351|
91846610|NCT04358549|183576232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.653|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|2.24||||||||2.240|0.190|
91846611|NCT04358549|183576233|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9879
91851932|NCT02045836|183587280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-1.||1.31|0.81|
91899872|NCT03078907|183693887|OTHER||LS mean|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.104|3.618|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (%), Koster '16||3.618|-1.104|
91899873|NCT03078907|183693888|OTHER||LS mean|20.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|63.695|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.632|146.958|||ANCOVA|||Volume of total daily activities (counts / minute)||146.958|-105.632|
91899874|NCT03078907|183693888|OTHER||LS means|27.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.945|156.976|||ANCOVA|||Volume of non-sedentary activity (counts/minute), Koster '16||156.976|-101.945|
91899875|NCT03078907|183693889|OTHER||LS means|58409.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64985.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70444.0|187263.0|||ANCOVA|||||187263|-70444|
91650574|NCT02784106|183193837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.54|1.69||||||||1.69|-5.54|
91650575|NCT02784106|183193838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.06||||||Day 28||0.06|-0.13|
91650576|NCT02784106|183193838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.09||||||Day 56||0.09|-0.18|
91650577|NCT02784106|183193838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.12||||||Day 84||0.12|-0.15|
91787483|NCT04303195|183454427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.97||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.97|-0.83|0.8842
91851933|NCT02045836|183587280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-3||1.16|0.8|
91650578|NCT02784106|183193839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.14||||||Day 28||0.14|0.01|
91650579|NCT02784106|183193839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.11||||||Day 56||0.11|-0.05|
91650580|NCT02784106|183193839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.07||||||Day 84||0.07|-0.15|
91650581|NCT02784106|183193840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.37|2.58||||||||2.58|-5.37|
91650582|NCT02784106|183193841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.16||||||Day 28||0.16|-0.33|
91650583|NCT02784106|183193841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.43||||||Day 84||0.43|-0.29|
91650584|NCT02784106|183193842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Participants|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.04|0.21||||||||0.21|-0.04|
91650585|NCT02784106|183193843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Participants|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.13|
91650586|NCT02927847|183193871|OTHER||t-value|0.138||||0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891
91787484|NCT01808092|183454442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical test of NI for the primary efficacy analysis will be performed at the 2.5% 1 sided significance level. This test will be based on the lower limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Consistent with the protocol, NI will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -12.5%.|percentage: units for RD are %|-4.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|2.46||P-value for 1-sided test at test of cure (TOC) with a -12.5% non-inferiority margin, i.e. H0: diff \<= -12.5%.|% Risk Difference (RD)|RD is CAZ-AVI clinical cure rate minus Meropenem clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.||Statistical analysis for the proportion of patients with clinical cure at TOC in cMITT analysis set||2.46|-10.76|0.007
91899876|NCT03078907|183693890|OTHER||LS means|201.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|224.212|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.977|646.163|||ANCOVA|||||646.163|-242.977|
91650587|NCT02927847|183193872|OTHER||t-value|-0.575||||0.571|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.571
91899877|NCT03078907|183693891|OTHER||LS means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|0.51|||ANCOVA|||||0.510|-0.366|
91650588|NCT02927847|183193873|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.739|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.739
91650589|NCT03882047|183193911|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650590|NCT03882047|183193911|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650591|NCT03882047|183193911|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
91650592|NCT03882047|183193912|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650593|NCT03882047|183193912|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650594|NCT03882047|183193912|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.31
91650595|NCT03882047|183193913|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650596|NCT03882047|183193913|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650597|NCT03882047|183193913|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91650598|NCT03882047|183193914|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91650599|NCT03882047|183193914|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650600|NCT03882047|183193914|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
91650601|NCT03882047|183193915|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650602|NCT03882047|183193915|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650603|NCT03882047|183193915|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91650604|NCT03882047|183193916|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91650605|NCT03882047|183193916|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650606|NCT03882047|183193916|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91650607|NCT03882047|183193917|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650608|NCT03882047|183193917|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650609|NCT03882047|183193917|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91650610|NCT03882047|183193918|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650611|NCT03882047|183193918|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650612|NCT03882047|183193918|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
91650613|NCT03882047|183193919|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650614|NCT03882047|183193919|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91851934|NCT02045836|183587280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.4|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-4||1.4|0.92|
91650615|NCT03882047|183193919|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
91650616|NCT03882047|183193920|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650617|NCT03882047|183193920|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650618|NCT03882047|183193920|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.53
91650619|NCT03882047|183193921|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650620|NCT03882047|183193921|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91650621|NCT03882047|183193921|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
91650622|NCT00475852|183193941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographical region.||||0.7|-2.1|0.313
91650623|NCT00475852|183193942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.030
91650624|NCT00475852|183193943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.007
91650625|NCT00475852|183193944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.318
91650626|NCT00475852|183193945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.018
91650627|NCT00475852|183193946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for region.||||0.5|-1.5|0.295
91650628|NCT00475852|183193947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.16|||||||ANOVA|Controlled for region.|This analysis excluded subjects who were lost to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent before Day 30, or whose Day 30 visit occurred prior to Day 30.|||||0.160
91650629|NCT00475852|183193948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for region.|For subjects with a Day 30 visit prior to Day 30, information from their Day 180 visit, if available, was used to impute the mortality and rehospitalization status at Day 30.|||0.6|-2.4|0.238
91650630|NCT00475852|183193952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for region.||||1.21|0.98|0.109
91650631|NCT03563027|183193961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|433.0||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.0|1203.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1203|-337|.81
91650632|NCT03563027|183193961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1224.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|451.0|1996.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1996|451|.005
91650633|NCT03563027|183193962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-160.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-983.0|663.0|||Regression, Linear|||||663|-983|.92
91650634|NCT03563027|183193962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|564.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-261.0|1389.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1389|-261|.37
91650635|NCT03563027|183193963|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||.24|.18|<.001
91650636|NCT03563027|183193963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.37|||Regression, Linear|||||.37|.31|<.001
91650637|NCT03563027|183193964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||0.1|.06|<.001
91650638|NCT03563027|183193964|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||.20|.15|<.001
91650639|NCT02444533|183194051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for pain on day of surgery. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.043
91650640|NCT02444533|183194051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for pain at 14 days after surgery. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.445
91650641|NCT02444533|183194052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for ibuprofen usage. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.650
91650642|NCT02444533|183194052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for acetaminophen usage. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.970
91650643|NCT02444533|183194052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for oxycodone usage. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.835
91650644|NCT02444533|183194053|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 7 days. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||1.0
91787485|NCT01808092|183454443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical test of NI for the primary efficacy analysis will be performed at the 2.5% 1 sided significance level. This test will be based on the lower limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Consistent with the protocol, NI will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -12.5%.|percentage: units for RD are %|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|6.39||P-value for 1-sided test at test of cure (TOC) with a -12.5% non-inferiority margin, i.e. H0: diff \<= -12.5%.|% Risk Difference (RD)|RD is CAZ-AVI clinical cure rate minus Meropenem clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.||Statistical analysis for the proportion of patients with clinical cure at TOC in CE at TOC analysis set||6.39|-7.86|<0.001
91787486|NCT04219085|183454491|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
91787487|NCT04219085|183454492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91787488|NCT04219085|183454493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
91787489|NCT01909011|183454501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91787490|NCT01909011|183454502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066
91787491|NCT01909011|183454503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91650645|NCT01488019|183194085|NON_INFERIORITY|The hazard ratio and 90% two-sided confidence interval for the hazard ratio comparing Perforomist to placebo were estimated. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was wholly less than 1.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.711|1.308||Hazard Ratio was calculated as Perforomist vs Placebo. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio is 1.5. Subjects with no primary event at withdrawal or study completion were treated as censored observations at time of withdrawal|Regression, Cox|Treatment, site group, and bronchodilator reversibility included as covariates in the model.|Hazard Ratio was calculated as Perforomist Inhalation Solution vs Placebo. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio is 1.5.|||1.308|0.711|
91650646|NCT02173301|183194112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) - an REML-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with and with baseline PASI score as covariate||||||0.066
91650647|NCT02173301|183194112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) - an REML-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with and with baseline PASI score as covariate||||||0.001
91787492|NCT03425253|183454505|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Investigator: Both Sides of Face, Last Treatment||||<0.001
91787493|NCT03425253|183454505|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Investigator: Right Side of Face, Last Treatment||||<0.001
91787494|NCT03425253|183454505|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Investigator: Left Side of Face, Last Treatment||||<0.001
91787495|NCT03425253|183454505|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Independent Reviewer: Both Sides of Face, Last Treatment||||0.018
91787496|NCT03425253|183454505|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Independent Reviewer: Right Side of Face, Last Treatment||||0.301
91787497|NCT03425253|183454505|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Independent Reviewer: Left Side of Face, Last Treatment||||0.011
91650648|NCT02173301|183194112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) - an REML-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with and with baseline PASI score as covariate||||||<0.001
91650649|NCT02173301|183194113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.501
91650650|NCT02173301|183194113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.340
91650651|NCT02173301|183194113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.075
91787498|NCT03425253|183454506|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91787499|NCT03425253|183454507|OTHER|||||||0.597||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||0.597
91787500|NCT03425253|183454508|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91787501|NCT03425253|183454509|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91787502|NCT03425253|183454510|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91787503|NCT03425253|183454511|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||0.003
91787504|NCT03425253|183454512|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Both Side of the Face, End of Study||||<0.001
91787505|NCT03425253|183454512|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Right Side of the Face, End of study||||<0.001
91787506|NCT03425253|183454512|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Left Side of the Face, End of Study||||<0.001
91787507|NCT00695097|183454513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Pretreatment (Baseline)compared to post-treatment (follow-up) CD3 cell density||||0.25
91787508|NCT00695097|183454513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Pretreatment (Baseline) compared to post-treatment (follow-up) CD3 cell density||||0.46
91787509|NCT00695097|183454513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||pretreatment (baseline) compared to post-treatment (follow-up) biopsy CD20 cell density||||0.054
91787510|NCT00695097|183454513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Pretreatment (baseline) compared to post-treatment (follow-up) CD20 cell density||||0.62
91846612|NCT00646451|183576267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162|||||||ANOVA|||"Outcome on study completers was assessed via ANOVA models using a 2 × 2 Latin-square crossover design including sequence, period, and treatment effects. A significant carryover effect was excluded. Analyses were performed using Stata IC version 10.0 for Windows.~Unfortunately the small sample size of our study limits the possibility of a meaningful post-hoc analysis targeted to these variables."|The Quest rates patient perception of health status as influenced by tremor across 5 domains, physical, psychosocial, communication, hobbies/leisure, and work/finance. HAM-A rates severity of anxiety symptomatology across 14 parameters. Scores of 14-17 correspond to mild anxiety, scores of 18-24 is moderate anxiety and 25-30 severe anxiety. HD-16 rates insomnia-related QoL across 5 domains: physical symptoms, energy \& motivation, concentration, interpersonal relations and psychological symptoms. These scales were scored per published guidelines.|||0.162
91846613|NCT00157014|183576295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4725||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4725
91650652|NCT02173301|183194114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.229
91846614|NCT00157014|183576306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8373||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8373
91787511|NCT00982423|183454522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline dose of furosemide (3 weeks) versus reduced dose of furosemide (approximately 6 weeks).||||<0.05
91787512|NCT00982423|183454522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between GFR taken at baseline dose Furosemide (3 weeks) versus normal GFR||||<0.05
91650653|NCT02173301|183194114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.604
91650654|NCT02173301|183194114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.573
91787513|NCT00982423|183454527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between reduced dose Furosemide and baseline dose Furosemide||||0.075
91787514|NCT04174365|183454528|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.22||||0.4597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|2.05|||Mixed model repeated measures(MMRM)|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction. Significance test was based on least-square means using a two-sided 0.05 level.|||2.05|-4.49|0.4597
91846615|NCT01362491|183576309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Square (LS) mean difference|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|7.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-placebo) and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI): based on LS means from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by declaring pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium versus (vs.) placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||7.73|4.49|<0.001
91709532|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|5.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 4||5.9|-9.7|0.6334
91709533|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 8||2.1|-11.4|0.1788
91790592|NCT02880956|183460070|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91709534|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 8||-0.8|-14.4|0.0292
91709535|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 8||-0.5|-17.1|0.0371
91790593|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.137||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.137|-0.115|0.867
91790594|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790595|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.116||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.116|-0.132|0.898
91709536|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 12||3.5|-11.3|0.2971
91851935|NCT02045836|183587280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.21|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-5||1.21|0.75|
91709537|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 12||-1.9|-17.2|0.0150
91846616|NCT01362491|183576310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.65||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by declaring pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium vs. placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||1.65|0.88|0.253
91846617|NCT01362491|183576311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|7.14||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||7.14|2.69|<0.001
91846618|NCT01362491|183576311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|5.94||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||5.94|2.23|<0.001
91899878|NCT01672788|183693908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.89|105.93|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||105.93|96.89|
91899879|NCT01672788|183693908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|103.29|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||103.29|97.40|
91899880|NCT01672788|183693909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose.|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.94|105.41|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||105.41|97.94|
91899881|NCT01672788|183693909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.24|103.08|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||103.08|94.24|
91899882|NCT01672788|183693910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.89|105.71|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||105.71|96.89|
91846619|NCT01362491|183576312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|7.64||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||7.64|2.87|<0.001
91899883|NCT01672788|183693910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.41|103.3|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||103.30|97.41|
91650655|NCT04444752|183194141|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs placebo were performed and a serial gate-keeping procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Each CBP-201 group was compared to placebo group in order from highest dose (300 mg Q2W) to the lowest dose frequency (300 mg Q4W), until statistical signficance at p=0.05 level was not achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.794||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping procedure at the 5% in descending order: 1. 300 mg dose Q2W 2. 150 mg dose Q2W 3. 300 mg dose Q4W vs placebo|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline vIGA (moderate, severe), and baseline EASI.||"The primary efficacy analysis includes comparison of percentage reduction in EASI from baseline to Week 16 for CBP-201 300 mg Q2W regimen vs placebo.~The sample size of the study was determined based on power calculations for the primary endpoint in patients receiving CBP-201 300 mg Q2W.~Null hypothesis: CBP-201 300 Q2W is not superior to placebo in terms of percent reduction in EASI Score from Baseline to Week 16."||||0.0007
91650656|NCT04444752|183194141|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs placebo were performed and a serial gatekeeping procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Each CBP-201 group was compared with the placebo group in order from the highest dose (300 mg Q2W) to the lowest dose frequency (300 mg Q4W), until statistical significance at 0.05 level was not achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.537||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping procedure at the 5% in descending order: 1. 300 mg dose Q2W 2. 150 mg Q2W 3. 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline vIGA (moderate, severe), and baseline EASI.||"The sample size of the study was determined based on power calculations for the primary endpoint in patients receiving CBP-201 300 mg Q2W.~Null hypothesis: CBP-201 150 Q2W is not superior to placebo in terms of percent reduction in EASI Score from Baseline to Week 16."||||0.0067
91709538|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 12||1.9|-15.8|0.1245
91846620|NCT01362491|183576312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|6.34||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||6.34|2.38|<0.001
91846621|NCT01362491|183576312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.66||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.66|0.88|0.247
91899884|NCT01672788|183693911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.75|106.81|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||106.81|98.75|
91899885|NCT01672788|183693911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.94|106.27|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||106.27|95.94|
91846622|NCT01362491|183576313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|0.92|<0.001
91846623|NCT01362491|183576313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.61|0.93|< 0.001
91846624|NCT01362491|183576313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.01||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.27|-0.29|0.943
91846625|NCT01362491|183576313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.62||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.62|0.89|<0.001
91846626|NCT01362491|183576313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|0.85|<0.001
91846627|NCT01362491|183576313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.03||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.33|-0.27|0.847
91846628|NCT01362491|183576313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.05|1.14|<0.001
91846629|NCT01362491|183576313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.13|1.22|<0.001
91846630|NCT01362491|183576313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.08||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.29||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - (Ibuprofen IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.29|-0.46|0.663
91846631|NCT01362491|183576314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.72||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.72|0.37|<0.001
91846632|NCT01362491|183576314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|0.33|<0.001
91846633|NCT01362491|183576314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.03||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.18|-0.11|0.651
91846634|NCT01362491|183576314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.81||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.81|0.42|<0.001
91846635|NCT01362491|183576314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.85|0.46|<0.001
91846636|NCT01362491|183576314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.03||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.19|0.669
91846637|NCT01362491|183576314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.11|0.57|<0.001
91846638|NCT01362491|183576314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.21||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.21|0.67|<0.001
91650657|NCT04444752|183194141|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs placebo were performed and a serial gatekeeping procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Each CBP-201 group was compared with placebo in order from highest dose (300 mg Q2W) to the lowest dose frequency (300 mg Q4W), until statistical significance at the 0.05 level was not achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.575||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for mulitplicity using a serial gatekeeping procedure at the 5% in descending order: 1. 300 mg dose Q2W 2. 150 mg Q2W 3. 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.|ANCOVA|The data were anlayzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline vIGA (moderate, severe), and baseline EASI||"The efficacy analysis includes comparing percentage reduction in EASI from baseline to Week 16 for CBP-201 300 mg Q4W regimen vs placebo.~The sample size of the study was determined based on power calculations for the primary endpoint in patients receiving CBP-201 300 mg Q2W.~Null hypothesis: CBP-201 300 Q4W is not superior to placebo in terms of percent reduction in EASI Score from Baseline to Week 16."||||0.0004
91650658|NCT04444752|183194142|SUPERIORITY|The secondary efficacy analysis includes comparison of the number of patients achieving a vIGA score of 0/1 (clear/almost clear) at Week 16 for each CBP-201 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.|Difference in vIGA Response Rate|28.1||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons. For IGA response, counts, percentage, and 95% CIs obtained using the Clopper-Pearson method and were presented for pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs. placebo.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: CBP-201 300 Q2W is not superior to placebo in terms of the number of patients achieving a vIGA score of 0/1 (clear/almost clear) at Week 16.||||0.0089
91899886|NCT01672788|183693912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose .|Geometric Mean Ratio|99.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.39|104.09|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||104.09|95.39|
91846639|NCT01362491|183576314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.1||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.32|0.396
91846640|NCT01362491|183576315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.30|1.30|<0.001
91846641|NCT01362491|183576315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.28|1.28|<0.001
91846642|NCT01362491|183576315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.43|-0.39|0.911
91846643|NCT01362491|183576315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.41|1.33|<0.001
91846644|NCT01362491|183576315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.42|1.34|<0.001
91846645|NCT01362491|183576315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.44|-0.45|0.982
91846646|NCT01362491|183576315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.15|1.72|<0.001
91846647|NCT01362491|183576315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.33|1.90|<0.001
91709539|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|2.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 13||2.1|-12.7|0.1591
91846648|NCT01362491|183576315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.18||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.41|-0.77|0.547
91846649|NCT01362491|183576316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.50|0.83|<0.001
91846650|NCT01362491|183576316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.50|0.83|<0.001
91846651|NCT01362491|183576316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.27|-0.28|0.992
91846652|NCT01362491|183576316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.58|1.43|<0.001
91846653|NCT01362491|183576316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.68||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.68|1.53|<0.001
91846654|NCT01362491|183576316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.1||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.38|-0.57|0.684
91650659|NCT00433381|183194144|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis: 20% of patients progression-free at six months. Alternative hypothesis: 35%. Type I and II error rates = 0.10. Required sample size = 57.|The determination of treatment efficacy was to be made made based on the following rules: If 16 or more of the cases (16/57=28.1%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the null hypothesis that the rate is no better than 20%. If 15 or fewer of the cases (15/57=26.3%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the alternative hypothesis that the rate is at least 35%.|||
91709540|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 13||0.3|-14.8|0.0600
91846655|NCT01362491|183576317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.17||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.17|1.85|<0.001
91846656|NCT01362491|183576317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - Placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.15|1.83|<0.001
91846657|NCT01362491|183576317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.56|-0.52|0.943
91846658|NCT01362491|183576317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|5.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.18|3.03|<0.001
91846659|NCT01362491|183576317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|5.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - Placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.24|3.09|<0.001
91846660|NCT01362491|183576317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.06||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.82||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.82|-0.95|0.888
91846661|NCT01362491|183576318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|4.64||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.64|2.71|<0.001
91846662|NCT01362491|183576318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|4.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.63|2.68|<0.001
91899887|NCT01672788|183693912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose.|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.82|102.15|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||102.15|93.82|
91899888|NCT01672788|183693913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose .|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.95|105.21|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||105.21|97.95|
91899889|NCT01672788|183693913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose .|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|102.81|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||102.81|94.50|
91899890|NCT02445196|183693914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVAs assessed the condition by time (baseline to posttreatment) interaction effects covarying PTSD treatment. Following the ITT principle, data from all randomized participants were analyzed and multiple imputation replaced missing values. A power analysis indicated that to achieve 80% power to detect an effect size in the magnitude (i.e., d = 0.25 to .33) with alpha of .05 and a correlation between repeated measures of .5, 60 participants per condition would be needed.||||.035
91899891|NCT02445196|183693915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.87||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.086
91899892|NCT02445196|183693916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.007
91899893|NCT02445196|183693917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.005
91846663|NCT01362491|183576318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.82|-0.78|0.964
91846664|NCT01362491|183576318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|6.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|7.89||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.89|4.65|<0.001
91846665|NCT01362491|183576318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.16||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.17||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.17|-1.49|0.812
91846666|NCT01362491|183576319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|12.02||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|18.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.77|5.27|0.015
91846667|NCT01362491|183576319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.88|0.13|0.146
91846668|NCT01362491|183576319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.62||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|15.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.63|-0.38|0.064
91846669|NCT01362491|183576319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|58.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.96|72.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||72.21|44.96|<0.001
91846670|NCT01362491|183576319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|52.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|66.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||66.41|38.20|<0.001
91846671|NCT01362491|183576319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.4||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|20.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.07|-7.27|0.357
91846672|NCT01362491|183576319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|46.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.43|62.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||62.93|30.43|<0.001
91846673|NCT01362491|183576319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|47.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.35|63.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.83|31.35|<0.001
91846674|NCT01362491|183576319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
91846675|NCT01362491|183576319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|40.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.85|56.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||56.68|23.85|<0.001
91899894|NCT02445196|183693918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.113
91846676|NCT01362491|183576319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|57.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||57.59|24.78|<0.001
91846677|NCT01362491|183576319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
91846678|NCT01362491|183576320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|18.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.43|26.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||26.73|10.43|0.002
91846679|NCT01362491|183576320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.8||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|13.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.46|2.14|0.055
91846680|NCT01362491|183576320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|10.91||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|20.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.83|0.98|0.033
91846681|NCT01362491|183576320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|62.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.65|75.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||75.41|48.65|<0.001
91846682|NCT01362491|183576320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|59.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.69|73.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.19|45.69|<0.001
91846683|NCT01362491|183576320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.96||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|15.44||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.44|-9.52|0.642
91846684|NCT01362491|183576320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|40.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.85|56.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||56.68|23.85|<0.001
91846685|NCT01362491|183576320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|57.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||57.59|24.78|<0.001
91846686|NCT01362491|183576320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
91846687|NCT01362491|183576320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|40.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.85|56.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||56.68|23.85|<0.001
91846688|NCT01362491|183576320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|57.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||57.59|24.78|<0.001
91899895|NCT02464228|183693943|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilson approximation|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||0.000
91709541|NCT04378569|183311579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 13||5.5|-12.0|0.4640
91846689|NCT01362491|183576320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
91846690|NCT01362491|183576323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.21||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|9.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.55|-3.12|0.389
91846691|NCT01362491|183576323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.35||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|8.39||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.39|-3.69|0.490
91846692|NCT01362491|183576323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.98||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|7.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.41|-5.45|0.764
91846693|NCT01362491|183576323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|28.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.72|41.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||41.70|15.72|<0.001
91846694|NCT01362491|183576323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|29.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.19|42.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||42.56|16.19|<0.001
91846695|NCT01362491|183576323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.93||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|-15.22|0.898
91709542|NCT04378569|183311580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.064|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 2||0.064|-0.196|0.3184
91790596|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790597|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.168||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.168|-0.088|0.537
91790598|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790599|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.045||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.045|-0.245|0.176
91790600|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790601|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.031||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.031|-0.251|0.125
91790602|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91846696|NCT02004613|183576361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|97.8|0.72|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: dexmedetomidine would reduce the incidence of postoperative atrial arrhythmias.||1.15|0.72|0.34
91790603|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.114||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||week 48||0.114|-0.176|0.676
91846697|NCT02004613|183576362|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|97.8|0.99|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||hypothesis: Dexmedetomidine may reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium.||2.23|0.99|0.026
91846698|NCT02004613|183576363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.34|0.84|0.14
91846699|NCT02004613|183576364|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.16|0.65|0.29
91846700|NCT03710564|183576404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||Pairwise ANOVA|||||0.9|-2.1|0.4537
91846701|NCT00293462|183576421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Two by two table was used. One cell had expected frequency test less than five, so Fisher's exact two-tailed test was used.||Fisher's exact two tailed test||||0.09
91846702|NCT00293462|183576422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Log rank, Breslow, Tarone-Ware test, but used mantel cox log rank for this analysis||Kaplan-Meier estimate of the survival curves used information from subjects who develop mucositis to the healing of the mucositis in three groups, Group GG, SS, and SG. In order to compare the three curves that were created, the Mantel-Haenszel log-rank statistic was used||||0.92
91846703|NCT00293462|183576423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||95.0||||0.28 (quadratic)|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood Methods with random intercepts was the only model used for the three groups and seven measurement time points.||Multilevel regression was used.||||0.28
91846704|NCT00293462|183576424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0||||0.78 (quadratic)|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood Methods with random intercepts was the only model used for the three groups and seven measurement time points.||||||0.78
91846705|NCT00293462|183576425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0||||0.22 (quadratic)|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood Methods with random intercepts was the only model used for the three groups and seven measurement time points.||||||0.22
91846706|NCT00372060|183576426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior oral anti-hyperglycemic medication (except for pioglitazone), and baseline HbA1c.||||-0.6|-1.0|<0.001
91846707|NCT00372060|183576427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001||95.0|-23.4|-10.0|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior oral anti-hyperglycemic medication (except for pioglitazone), and baseline fasting plasma glucose.||||-10.0|-23.4|<0.001
91709543|NCT04378569|183311580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013||||0.8514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.123|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 2||0.123|-0.149|0.8514
91846708|NCT00372060|183576428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-49.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7|<|0.001||95.0|-64.5|-33.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior oral anti-hyperglycemic medication (except for pioglitazone), and baseline 2-hour postprandial glucose.||||-33.9|-64.5|<0.001
91846709|NCT00647348|183576430|OTHER|intention-to-treat analysis||||||0.003|||||||BBSI=brain boundary shift integral|||||||0.003
91846710|NCT00647348|183576431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||EDSS,mean score at 24 months was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline score and minimisation variables.|ANCOVA|EDSS,mean score at 24 months was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline score and minimisation variables.||||||0.05
91846711|NCT01119703|183576460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-0.7|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||-0.7|-13.8|
91846712|NCT01119703|183576461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|20.9|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||20.9|10.6|
91846713|NCT01119703|183576462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|32.4|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||32.4|19.6|
91846714|NCT01119703|183576463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|3.3||||||95.0|-2.8|8.5|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||8.5|-2.8|
91846715|NCT01119703|183576464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Diphtheria versus Hepatitis B||0.13|-0.2|0.66
91846716|NCT01119703|183576464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.25|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Diphtheria versus Cholera||0.25|-0.07|0.26
91846717|NCT01119703|183576464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.53|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Diphtheria versus Tetanus||0.53|0.26|<0.001
91846718|NCT01119703|183576464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.17||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Hepatitis B versus Cholera||-0.01|-0.32|0.04
91846719|NCT01119703|183576464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.09||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Hepatitis B versus Tetanus||0.08|-0.25|0.30
91846720|NCT01119703|183576464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.08||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Cholera versus Tetanus||0.24|-0.09|0.36
91846721|NCT01119703|183576465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.7|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||-2.7|-16.6|
91846722|NCT01119703|183576466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|29.7|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||29.7|14.0|
91846723|NCT01119703|183576467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|41.5|||||Crossvalidated;negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||41.5|28.7|
91846724|NCT01119703|183576468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.4|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||4.4|-7.8|
91846725|NCT04668144|183576483|NON_INFERIORITY|Under the assumption of 0 difference in mean PRU between groups and a common standard deviation of 50 PRU, a sample size of 22 patients per group would allow for the 95%CI to stay within ± 45 PRU with a 90% power and alpha=0.05. In line with previously reported investigations, 45 PRU was chosen for the noninferiority margin for the upper 95%CI limit of the difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|130.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|176.0||p-value was not calculated for noninferiority analysis|ANCOVA|||The primary hypothesis of our study was that in patients receiving concomitant administration of cangrelor and prasugrel (experimental arm), platelet inhibition as assessed by PRU would be noninferior to patients receiving prasugrel only (active control)||176|85|
91846726|NCT03441984|183576486|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.569|1.8373|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented|||1.8373|1.5690|
91846727|NCT03441984|183576486|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3512|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2465|1.4647|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4647|1.2465|
91846728|NCT03441984|183576486|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2541|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1569|1.3595|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented|||1.3595|1.1569|
91846729|NCT03441984|183576487|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.7001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5685|1.8428|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8428|1.5685|
91846730|NCT03441984|183576487|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3519|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2475|1.465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4650|1.2475|
91846731|NCT03441984|183576487|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2576|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1605|1.3629|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.3629|1.1605|
91846732|NCT03441984|183576488|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.7382|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5983|1.8904|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8904|1.5983|
91846733|NCT03441984|183576488|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3614|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2525|1.4798|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4798|1.2525|
91846734|NCT03441984|183576488|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2768|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1746|1.3878|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.3878|1.1746|
91846735|NCT03441984|183576489|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0118|1.0704|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0704|1.0118|
91846736|NCT03441984|183576489|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0228|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9944|1.052|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0520|0.9944|
91787515|NCT04174365|183454529|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.7315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.32|||MMRM|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction. Significance test was based on least-square means using a two-sided 0.05 level.|||0.32|-0.46|0.7315
91787516|NCT05141448|183454531|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of was below 0.05 logMAR|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A C3 (EMO-118) minus omafilcon A|||0.06|0.02|
91787517|NCT01330017|183454538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4912||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4912
91787518|NCT01330017|183454538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4519||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4519
91787519|NCT01330017|183454538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2186||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2186
91787520|NCT01330017|183454538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5983||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5983
91787521|NCT03137069|183454559|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.02||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.01|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-1.03|-13.01|0.0559
91787522|NCT03137069|183454559|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||5.58|-6.60|0.8892
91787523|NCT03137069|183454559|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.43||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.29|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-0.57|-12.29|0.0717
91846737|NCT03441984|183576489|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0175|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9893|1.0465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0465|0.9893|
91846738|NCT03441984|183576490|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0121|1.0708|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0708|1.0121|
91846739|NCT03441984|183576490|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0232|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9948|1.0524|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0524|0.9948|
91846740|NCT03441984|183576490|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0174|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9892|1.0465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0465|0.9892|
91846741|NCT03441984|183576491|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9885|1.1223|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.1223|0.9885|
91846742|NCT03441984|183576491|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9167|1.0405|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0405|0.9167|
91899896|NCT02464228|183693943|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilson approximation|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||1.000
91899897|NCT02464228|183693943|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilson approximation|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||0.026
91899898|NCT02464228|183693943|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||1.000
91899899|NCT01177787|183693963|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.669|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.503
91899900|NCT01570036|183693967|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.25|||Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis|||||1.25|.31|0.18
91899901|NCT01570036|183693969|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Comparison of the mean LVEF from baseline to 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months; this time period includes the therapy period of trastuzumab.|ANOVA|||||||0.02
91899902|NCT01570036|183693969|OTHER|||||||0.58||||||The mean LVEF compared at baseline to 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months; this time period includes the duration of trastuzumab therapy and 1 year after completion of trastuzumab therapy.|ANOVA|||||||0.58
91899903|NCT01570036|183693969|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Evaluating LVEF at all time points with a linear mixed regression model, this analysis compared cardiac ejection fraction over time.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.65
91899904|NCT01570036|183693969|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||This analysis evaluated LVEF at all time points with a linear mixed regression model between randomization arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.91
91846743|NCT03441984|183576491|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0123|1.149|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1490|1.0123|
91846744|NCT03441984|183576492|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9536|1.0486|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0486|0.9536|
91846745|NCT03441984|183576492|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9039|0.9939|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||0.9939|0.9039|
91899905|NCT01570036|183693969|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||This analysis evaluated LVEF at all time points with a linear mixed regression model between the arms over time.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.81
91899906|NCT01570036|183693970|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison of the maximum related local toxicity experienced per patient and compared between treatment arms.||The safety group consisted of any patients who received NPS with GM-CSF or placebo with GM-CSF inoculations.||||0.149
91899907|NCT01570036|183693970|OTHER|||||||0.901|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison of the maximum related systemic toxicity experienced per patient and compared between treatment arms.||||||0.901
91899908|NCT00819286|183693974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 Month CT Scores (Plates vs Wires)||||0.003
91899909|NCT00819286|183693974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 Month CT Scores (Plates vs Wires)||||0.01
91899910|NCT00819286|183693975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Plates vs Wires||||0.93
91787524|NCT03137069|183454559|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.53||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.5|-3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-3.55|-15.50|0.0097
91787525|NCT03137069|183454560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.1087
91787526|NCT03137069|183454560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3418|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.3418
91787527|NCT03137069|183454560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0459|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.0459
91787528|NCT03137069|183454560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.0190
91787529|NCT03137069|183454561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.94|-6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-6.82|-18.94|0.0010
91650660|NCT00433381|183194145|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis: 35% discontinuation rate of bevacizumab and temozolomide. Alternative hypothesis: 5%. Type I and II error rates = 0.10. Sample size = 29.|The determination of treatment tolerability was to be made based on the following rules: If 6 or fewer of the cases (6/29=20.6%) stop treatment due to medical conditions, then reject the null hypothesis that the discontinuation rate is at least 35% and conclude tolerability. If 7 or more of the cases (7/29=24.1%) stop treatment due to medical conditions, then reject the alternative hypothesis that the discontinuation rate no more than 15%.|||
91787530|NCT03137069|183454561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.83||||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.11|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||3.46|-9.11|0.4565
91787531|NCT03137069|183454561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.03||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||1.03|-11.10|0.1711
91787532|NCT03137069|183454561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.76||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.97|-4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-4.56|-16.97|0.0050
91650661|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.91||||||Accuracy estimate, as measured by the Area under the Curve (AUC), for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||0.91|0.09|
91790604|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91650662|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.95||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||0.95|0.14|
91650663|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.99||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||0.99|0|
91790605|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.071||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.071|-0.301|0.226
91790606|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790607|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.145||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.145|-0.222|0.683
91846746|NCT03441984|183576492|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0061|1.1063|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1063|1.0061|
91846747|NCT03441984|183576493|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9525|1.0486|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0486|0.9525|
91846748|NCT03441984|183576493|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9432|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|0.9896|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||0.9896|0.8990|
91846749|NCT03441984|183576493|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0596|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0099|1.1117|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1117|1.0099|
91846750|NCT03441984|183576494|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9362|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8677|1.0101|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0101|0.8677|
91846751|NCT03441984|183576494|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8416|0.9795|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||0.9795|0.8416|
91846752|NCT03441984|183576494|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0312|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9558|1.1124|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1124|0.9558|
91846753|NCT03441984|183576495|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6439|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4649|1.8449|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8449|1.4649|
91846754|NCT03441984|183576495|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2698|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1315|1.425|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4250|1.1315|
91846755|NCT03441984|183576495|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1536|1.4529|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.4529|1.1536|
91846756|NCT03441984|183576496|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6578|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4709|1.8685|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8685|1.4709|
91846757|NCT03441984|183576496|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2755|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1317|1.4375|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4375|1.1317|
91846758|NCT03441984|183576496|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1533|1.465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.4650|1.1533|
91846759|NCT03441984|183576497|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.9758|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7585|2.2201|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||2.2201|1.7585|
91846760|NCT03441984|183576497|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2873|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1457|1.4465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4465|1.1457|
91846761|NCT03441984|183576497|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.5348|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.366|1.7245|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.7245|1.3660|
91846762|NCT03441984|183576498|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9241|1.0389|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0389|0.9241|
91846763|NCT03441984|183576498|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9605|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9059|1.0185|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.0185|0.9059|
91846764|NCT03441984|183576498|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0201|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9633|1.0802|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0802|0.9633|
91899911|NCT05193500|183693976|OTHER|||||||0.085||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|one-sample t-test, compared to 0.5 (chance)||||||0.085
91650664|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||1|0.53|
91650665|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.47|
91650666|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.11|
91650667|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|0.21|
91846765|NCT03441984|183576499|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9831|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9243|1.0457|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0457|0.9243|
91846766|NCT03441984|183576499|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9121|1.032|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.0320|0.9121|
91650668|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|1|
91650669|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0|
91650670|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.88||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||0.88|0|
91650671|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.91||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||0.91|0.13|
91650672|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||1|0.06|
91650673|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||0.92|0.02|
91650674|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.8||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||0.80|0.01|
91650675|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.22|
91650676|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|1|
91846767|NCT03441984|183576499|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0134|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9527|1.0779|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0779|0.9527|
91846768|NCT03441984|183576500|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8196|1.0102|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0102|0.8196|
91846769|NCT03441984|183576500|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9198|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8285|1.0212|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.0212|0.8285|
91846770|NCT03441984|183576500|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9893|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8911|1.0983|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0983|0.8911|
91846771|NCT03441984|183576506|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6503|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5131|1.8|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8000|1.5131|
91846772|NCT03441984|183576506|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3501|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2381|1.4722|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4722|1.2381|
91846773|NCT03441984|183576506|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2224|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.121|1.333|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.3330|1.1210|
91846774|NCT03441984|183576515|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0251|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|1.2392|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.2392|0.8480|
91899912|NCT05193500|183693976|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
91650677|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|1|
91846775|NCT03441984|183576515|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9181|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7592|1.1103|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.1103|0.7592|
91846776|NCT03441984|183576515|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1165|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9376|1.3295|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) is presented|||1.3295|0.9376|
91846777|NCT03441984|183576523|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0844|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9904|1.1873|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.1873|0.9904|
91846778|NCT03441984|183576523|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1311|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0334|1.2379|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.2379|1.0334|
91846779|NCT03441984|183576523|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9587|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.0493|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0493|0.8760|
91846780|NCT03441984|183576531|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.5619|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3678|1.7835|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult DTG (50 mg, 1 conventional tablet) and adult 3TC (300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.7835|1.3678|
91846781|NCT03441984|183576531|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.253|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0973|1.4307|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4307|1.0973|
91846782|NCT03441984|183576531|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2466|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0917|1.4234|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.4234|1.0917|
91846783|NCT03441984|183576540|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0745|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9997|1.1549|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult DTG (50 mg, 1 conventional tablet) and adult 3TC (300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.1549|0.9997|
91846784|NCT03441984|183576540|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0706|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9961|1.1507|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.1507|0.9961|
91846785|NCT03441984|183576540|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9338|1.0787|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0787|0.9338|
91846786|NCT02696785|183576613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Work Impairment Score||5.52|1.35|0.005
91846787|NCT02696785|183576613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Work Impairment Score.||9.03|2.20|<0.001
91846788|NCT02696785|183576613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|10.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Work Impairment Score.||10.28|2.52|<0.001
91846789|NCT02696785|183576613|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-0.7|-13.2|<0.001
91846790|NCT02696785|183576613|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-3.0|-15.5|<0.001
91846791|NCT02696785|183576613|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-2.5|-15.2|<0.001
91899913|NCT05193500|183693977|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91846792|NCT02696785|183576614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.23|1.25|0.007
91846793|NCT02696785|183576614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.24|1.48|0.001
91846794|NCT02696785|183576614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|6.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.41|1.79|<0.001
91846795|NCT02696785|183576615|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.11|<0.001
91846796|NCT02696785|183576615|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-1.25|<0.001
91846797|NCT02696785|183576615|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.63|-1.18|<0.001
91846798|NCT02696785|183576616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.21|1.23|0.012
91846799|NCT02696785|183576616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|7.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.70|1.82|<0.001
91846800|NCT02696785|183576616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|7.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.98|1.91|<0.001
91846801|NCT02696785|183576617|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.56|0.001
91846802|NCT02696785|183576617|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-1.83|<0.001
91846803|NCT02696785|183576617|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.86|<0.001
91846804|NCT02696785|183576618|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.62||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|34.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||34.68|1.67|0.009
91846805|NCT02696785|183576618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.03||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|36.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.83|1.75|0.007
91650678|NCT00433381|183194146|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.73|
91846806|NCT02696785|183576618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|24.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.49|1.07|0.041
91846807|NCT02696785|183576619|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-3.7|<0.001
91846808|NCT02696785|183576619|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-3.5|<0.001
91846809|NCT02696785|183576619|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-3.3|<0.001
91846810|NCT02696785|183576620|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.2574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0437||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2041|5.3106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||5.3106|1.2041|0.002
91846811|NCT02696785|183576620|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9432|6.1608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||6.1608|1.9432|<0.001
91846812|NCT02696785|183576620|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.3254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0641|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2321|6.4186|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||6.4186|2.2321|<0.001
91846813|NCT02696785|183576620|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.4321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1718||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8732|2.7373|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||2.7373|-1.8732|0.713
91846814|NCT02696785|183576620|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.6273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2028||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7387|2.9934|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||2.9934|-1.7387|0.602
91846815|NCT02696785|183576620|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.4467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1978||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9097|2.803|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||2.8030|-1.9097|0.709
91846816|NCT02696785|183576621|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-1.87|0.012
91846817|NCT02696785|183576621|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-1.95|0.010
91846818|NCT02696785|183576621|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.66|-2.32|<0.001
91650679|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.92||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||0.92|0|
91846819|NCT02696785|183576622|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.628|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6724||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.885|-3.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.371|-13.885|0.001
91846820|NCT02696785|183576622|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7438||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.033|-1.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.238|-12.033|0.016
91846821|NCT02696785|183576622|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7248||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.351|-2.631|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.631|-13.351|0.004
91846822|NCT02696785|183576623|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1143||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|-0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.142|-0.592|0.001
91846823|NCT02696785|183576623|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.422|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1184|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.655|-0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.189|-0.655|<0.001
91846824|NCT02696785|183576623|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1167||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|-0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.099|-0.558|0.005
91790608|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91650680|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.88||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||0.88|0|
91790609|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.204||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.204|-0.168|0.848
91790610|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790611|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.192||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.192|-0.305|0.656
91790612|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790613|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.209||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.209|-0.279|0.777
91790614|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91846825|NCT02696785|183576624|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.22|0.003
91846826|NCT02696785|183576624|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|-0.00|0.051
91846827|NCT02696785|183576624|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.18|0.005
91899914|NCT02993523|183693988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.723||Stratified log-rank test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate, poor).|Log Rank||HR from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate, poor).|||0.723|0.465|<0.001
91650681|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Accuracy: Area Under the ROC|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||1|0.25|
91846828|NCT02696785|183576625|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-1.30|0.039
91846829|NCT02696785|183576625|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-1.28|0.057
91846830|NCT02696785|183576625|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-1.31|0.042
91846831|NCT02696785|183576626|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||||-3.5|-6.7|<0.001
91846832|NCT02696785|183576626|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-6.5|<0.001
91899915|NCT02993523|183693989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate, poor).||||||<0.001
91787533|NCT01106092|183454573|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 1\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 1 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 1) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix™/Hib vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 1 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
91787534|NCT01106092|183454573|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 2\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 1 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.94||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 2) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 1 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||6.94|-3.53|
91846833|NCT02696785|183576626|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.816|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-6.8|<0.001
91650682|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||1|0.47|
91650683|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.44|
91846834|NCT02696785|183576627|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.4|0.317
91846835|NCT02696785|183576627|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-1.1|0.683
91846836|NCT02696785|183576627|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-1.3|0.500
91846837|NCT02696785|183576628|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-1.9|0.154
91650684|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.17|
91650685|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|0.45|
91846838|NCT02696785|183576628|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||-0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.8|-0.6
91846839|NCT02696785|183576628|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.6|0.398
91846840|NCT02696785|183576629|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.7|0.783
91846841|NCT02696785|183576629|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.0|0.550
91790615|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.397||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.397|-0.106|0.256
91846842|NCT02696785|183576629|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-2.8|0.091
91846843|NCT02696785|183576631|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.3|0.027
91846844|NCT02696785|183576631|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.7|0.002
91846845|NCT02696785|183576631|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-1.3|0.035
91899916|NCT03694418|183693997|OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.95|1.02|<0.05
91790616|NCT02880956|183460071|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91846846|NCT02696785|183576632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-2.3|0.041
91846847|NCT02696785|183576632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-2.1|0.125
91846848|NCT02696785|183576632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-2.6|0.013
91899917|NCT01806129|183694006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|3.31|||||Odds ratio represents the odds of adopting the appropriate reproductive health management for patients with intervention compared to the odds among patients without intervention. Odds ratio was calculated by GEE analysis.|||3.31|1.29|
91899918|NCT00784693|183694083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.69||||||Week 8: Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with main effects of treatment, contraceptive use and baseline severity of pain.||1.69|-0.87|
91899919|NCT02982187|183694103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.114|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.047||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1: DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||11.047|<0.001
91899920|NCT02982187|183694103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.744|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.512||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||10.512|<0.001
91650686|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.19|
91846849|NCT02696785|183576633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.082||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.12|-6.03|0.989
91846850|NCT02696785|183576633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.146||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.70|-3.71|0.429
91846851|NCT02696785|183576633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|-11.92|0.096
91846852|NCT02696785|183576637|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-2.6|0.166
91846853|NCT02696785|183576637|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-3.4|0.011
91846854|NCT02696785|183576637|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-2.6|0.182
91846855|NCT02696785|183576638|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.588|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-6.9|||ANCOVA|||||-6.9|-13.2|<0.001
91899921|NCT02982187|183694104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.248||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.416||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||1.416|0.029
91846856|NCT02696785|183576638|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||||-6.4|-12.6|<0.001
91846857|NCT02696785|183576638|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.603|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-4.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4.9|-11.2|<0.001
91846858|NCT01016353|183576642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.06
91846859|NCT04863898|183576643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-5.2|||||LME regression, random intercepts by individual and fixed effects of participant characteristics. Difference = endline - baseline.|Using the PASS software program, we estimated the power for comparisons of scores from pre- to post-intervention, assuming a p-value of 0.05 (two-sided) and a final sample size of 131 with both measurements. We would have 85% power to detect a small-to-medium sized effect based on standardized mean difference (d=0.32).||-5.2|-7|
91846860|NCT04863898|183576647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||||Calculated using a linear mixed effect regression model with random intercepts by individual Difference = endline - baseline.|Using the PASS software program, we estimated the power for comparisons of scores from pre- to post-intervention, assuming a p-value of 0.05 (two-sided) and a final sample size of 131 with both measurements. We would have 85% power to detect a small-to-medium sized effect based on standardized mean difference (d=0.32).||1.09|0.86|
91846861|NCT04863898|183576648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.6|||||LME regression, random intercepts by individual and fixed effects of participant characteristics. Difference = endline - baseline.|Using the PASS software program, we estimated the power for comparisons of scores from pre- to post-intervention, assuming a p-value of 0.05 (two-sided) and a final sample size of 131 with both measurements. We would have 85% power to detect a small-to-medium sized effect based on standardized mean difference (d=0.32).||-3.6|-4.7|
91846862|NCT00614744|183576649|SUPERIORITY|This trial estimated the probability that the intervention has no effect on the outcome (or conversely, the probability that it does), given the data obtained in the trial and any prior evidence.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29|||Bayesian log binomial models|Bayesian log binomial models were used to analyze the primary outcome of death or moderate/severe disability.|In log binomial models used Normal (0, sd=0.35) neutral prior in the log RR scale. Estimation used Normal weakly informative priors. Reported posterior medians \& 95% credible intervals for the RR above instead of confidence intervals.|Whole-body Hypothermia vs. Normothermia (Normothermia is the comparison group)|"We fitted all Bayesian models via Markov chain Monte Carlo methods (MCMC) using JAGS (version 3.4) and OpenBUGS (3.2.3) in R (version 3.2.5). For each analysis we ran 3 MCMC chains with starting values randomly drawn from the estimated parameters from a frequentist log binomial model. A burn-in of 1,000 iterations was used, with sampling from a further 10,000 iterations for each chain. To monitor convergence, trace plots and the Gelman-Rubin convergence diagnostic (Rhat) were used for all parameters.~For all analyses, the trace plots show good mixing of the 3 chains with Rhat \< 1.01 for all parameters, indicating convergence."|1.29|0.59|
91846863|NCT00770211|183576689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference response rate|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.56|||Fisher Exact|||The efficacy of the treatment was confirmed, if H0 was rejected at a given alpha of 5%, that means if the two sided p-value is ≤ 0.05. Power of 90%||0.56|0.40|<0.0001
91846864|NCT01446003|183576695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|4.56|||Linear mixed effect models|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||If the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval lies below the bound 5 mmHg, the hypothesis that change from baseline in ambulatory 24-hour mean SBP in participants with mild to moderate hypertension following 10 days of multiple dosing of MK-8457 is similar to placebo will be supported.||4.56|-0.52|
91846865|NCT01446003|183576696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|2.96|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||||2.96|0.19|
91846866|NCT01446003|183576697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.44|13.35|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in SBP from baseline to Day 10 after AM dosing||13.35|2.44|
91846867|NCT01446003|183576697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.68|3.81|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in SBP from baseline to Day 10 after PM dosing||3.81|-5.68|
91846868|NCT01446003|183576697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|9.71|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in DBP from baseline to Day 10 after AM dosing||9.71|0.81|
91846869|NCT01446003|183576697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.55|1.17|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in DBP from baseline to Day 10 after PM dosing||1.17|-4.55|
91846870|NCT00318656|183576704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.064||95.0|-0.32|10.36|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|Mean Difference =(Rosiglitazone + Met) - (Glimepiride+Met)|Statistical analysis was based off of week 12 results.||10.36|-0.32|0.064
91846871|NCT00318656|183576705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.923||95.0|-3.37|2.85||P value von elteren (adjusted on sex)|ANCOVA||Mean Difference =(Rosiglitazone + Met) - (Glimepiride+Met)|Statistical analysis was based off of week 12 results.||2.85|-3.37|0.923
91650687|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.03|
91650688|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||1|0.20|
91650689|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||1|0.36|
91650690|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.94||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||0.94|0.06|
91846872|NCT00819234|183576768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.863||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment comparisons between each active treatment and placebo. Statistical tests performed two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between each active treatment and the placebo treatment. The primary analysis did not incorporate any adjustment for multiple comparisons.||-1.54|-12.93|0.0135
91846873|NCT00819234|183576768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.681||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|-1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment comparisons between each active treatment and placebo. Statistical tests performed two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between each active treatment and the placebo treatment. The primary analysis did not incorporate any adjustment for multiple comparisons||-1.21|-11.89|0.0168
91846874|NCT00819234|183576768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-5.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.887||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment comparisons between each active treatment and placebo. Statistical tests performed two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between each active treatment and the placebo treatment. The primary analysis did not incorporate any adjustment for multiple comparisons||0.23|-11.27|0.0595
91846875|NCT03568162|183576802|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was conducted using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit|LS Mean Difference|-20.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4781|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.944|5.439|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference|||5.439|-34.944|= 0.008
91846876|NCT03568162|183576802|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was conducted using a MMRM model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit.|LS Mean Difference|-14.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6622|=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.552|0.674|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference|||0.674|-29.552|= 0.061
91846877|NCT03568162|183576802|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was conducted using a mixed MMRM model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit.|LS Mean Difference|3.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8864|=|0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|18.698|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference.|||18.698|-12.410|= 0.691
91846878|NCT03568162|183576802|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.409|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.895|-4.503|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference.|The analysis was conducted using a MMRM model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit.||-4.503|-29.895|= 0.008
91846879|NCT00938340|183576824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
91899922|NCT02982187|183694104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.855||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.394||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||1.394|0.026
91899923|NCT02982187|183694105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||0.459|0.400
91846880|NCT00938340|183576824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
91846881|NCT00938340|183576824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
91846882|NCT00938340|183576824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
91846883|NCT00938340|183576824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91846884|NCT00938340|183576824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.093||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.093
91846885|NCT00938340|183576824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91846886|NCT00938340|183576825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91650691|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.95||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||0.95|0.22|
91846887|NCT00938340|183576825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
91650692|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.87||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||0.87|0.13|
91650693|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.47|
91650694|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|1|
91846888|NCT00938340|183576825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
91846889|NCT00938340|183576825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
91846890|NCT00938340|183576825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
91846891|NCT00938340|183576825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
91846892|NCT00938340|183576825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0013
91846893|NCT00938340|183576826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||Main effect of treatment by timepoint|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
91790617|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.126||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.126|-0.269|0.479
91650695|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.63|
91790618|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91650696|NCT00433381|183194147|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|1|
91650697|NCT00433381|183194148|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The determination of treatment efficacy was to be made made based on the following rules: If 16 or more of the cases (16/57=28.1%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the null hypothesis that the rate is no better than 20%. If 15 or fewer of the cases (15/57=26.3%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the alternative hypothesis that the rate is at least 35%.|||
91650698|NCT00433381|183194150|OTHER|Agreement was assessed using a Kappa statistic|Kappa Statistic|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57||||||Agreement between Local and Central determinations 6-month PFS, based on imaging, was evaluated using Kappa statistics||0.57|0.21|
91650699|NCT00433381|183194151|OTHER|Sensitivity|Sensitivity|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73||||||Sensitivity||0.73|0.46|
91787535|NCT01106092|183454573|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 3\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 1 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 3) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 1 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
91787536|NCT01106092|183454573|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 1\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 2 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.78||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 1) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 2 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.78|-4.78|
91787537|NCT01106092|183454573|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 2\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 2 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 2) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 2 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
91787538|NCT01106092|183454573|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 3\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 2 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 3) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 2 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
91790619|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.299|0.091||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.091|-0.299|0.295
91790620|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790621|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.215||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.215|-0.186|0.884
91650700|NCT00433381|183194151|OTHER|Specificity|Specificity|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.87||||||Specificity||0.87|0.66|
91650701|NCT01387282|183194158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
91650702|NCT01387282|183194159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||0.6480
91650703|NCT01387282|183194160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.0016
91650704|NCT01387282|183194161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8637|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.8637
91650705|NCT01387282|183194162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
91650706|NCT01034137|183194201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.996|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.589|2.506|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The SRR was compared between the treatment groups by means of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test taking into account the stratification factors used for randomization.||2.506|1.589|< 0.001
91650707|NCT01034137|183194201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.855|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.481|2.323|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The SRR was compared between the treatment groups by means of the CMH test taking into account the stratification factors used for randomization.||2.323|1.481|< 0.001
91650708|NCT01034137|183194201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The SRR was compared between the treatment groups by means of the CMH test taking into account the stratification factors used for randomization.||1.160|0.915|0.616
91650709|NCT01381900|183194250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.644|-0.367|||ANCOVA|||||-0.367|-0.644|<0.001
91650710|NCT01381900|183194250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.453|||ANCOVA|||||-0.453|-0.731|<0.001
91650711|NCT01381900|183194251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.375|-0.694|||ANCOVA|||||-0.694|-1.375|<0.001
91650712|NCT01381900|183194251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.769|-1.089|||ANCOVA|||||-1.089|-1.769|<0.001
91650713|NCT01381900|183194252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-2.7|<0.001
91650714|NCT01381900|183194252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-2.9|<0.001
91650715|NCT01381900|183194253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.09|2.09|
91846894|NCT00938340|183576827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
91650716|NCT01381900|183194253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.27|2.55|
91790622|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91650717|NCT01381900|183194254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.45|
91650718|NCT01381900|183194254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|5.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.75|1.88|
91790623|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.155||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.155|-0.281|0.569
91790624|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91787539|NCT01106092|183454573|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 1\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 3 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.94||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 1) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 3 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||6.94|-3.53|
91846895|NCT00938340|183576828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
91846896|NCT00938340|183576828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
91846897|NCT00938340|183576828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91846898|NCT00938340|183576828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91846899|NCT00938340|183576828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91846900|NCT00938340|183576828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91846901|NCT00938340|183576828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
91846902|NCT00938340|183576829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91846903|NCT00938340|183576829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91846904|NCT00938340|183576829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
91846905|NCT00938340|183576829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
91846906|NCT00938340|183576829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91846907|NCT00938340|183576829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
91709544|NCT04378569|183311580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.249|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 2||0.249|-0.068|0.2603
91846908|NCT00938340|183576829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.074||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.074
91846909|NCT00938340|183576830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91846910|NCT00938340|183576831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91846911|NCT00938340|183576832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91846912|NCT00938340|183576833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91846913|NCT00938340|183576834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91846914|NCT00938340|183576835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
91846915|NCT00938340|183576836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
91846916|NCT00938340|183576837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
91846917|NCT00938340|183576837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91846918|NCT00938340|183576837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91846919|NCT00938340|183576837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.037
91846920|NCT00938340|183576837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0087||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0087
91846921|NCT00938340|183576837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
91846922|NCT00938340|183576837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.043
91846923|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91650719|NCT01772368|183194255|OTHER|linearity statistical test|||||<|0.0001||||||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.||A linear in log-dose-trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined precisely as log (dose+1) to accommodate the case of Fp MDPI 100 mcg, since the dose used in this trend analysis was the salmeterol dose. The study was considered positive if the trend test was positive and the test involving the highest FS MDPI dose (100/50 mcg) compared with Fp MDPI 100 mcg was positive, regardless of the results of the tests for the other doses.||||<0.0001
91650720|NCT01772368|183194255|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|251.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|215.6|287.1||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||287.1|215.6|<0.0001
91650721|NCT01772368|183194255|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|227.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|191.6|263.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||263.5|191.6|<0.0001
91650722|NCT01772368|183194255|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|196.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|161.2|232.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/512.5 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||232.5|161.2|<0.0001
91790625|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.171||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.171|-0.254|0.702
91790626|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790627|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.283||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.283|-0.155|0.566
91790628|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790629|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|0.065||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.065|-0.458|0.141
91790630|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790631|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.23||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.230|-0.285|0.834
91790632|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.99|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790633|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.215||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.215|-0.309|0.724
91790634|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91846924|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91846925|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91846926|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0011
91846927|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
91846928|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91846929|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91846930|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91846931|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
91846932|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
91846933|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
91846934|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91846935|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91846936|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91846937|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0089||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0089
91846938|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
91846939|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
91846940|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
91846941|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91846942|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
91846943|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
91846944|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91846945|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
91846946|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
91846947|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
91846948|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.65||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.65
91846949|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
91790635|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.559|0.095||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.095|-0.559|0.163
91790636|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790637|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.21||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.210|-0.432|0.497
91790638|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790639|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.349||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.349|-0.314|0.919
91790640|NCT02880956|183460072|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790641|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.974|0.409||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.409|-0.974|0.423
91790642|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790643|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.408|-0.047||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.047|-1.408|0.036
91790644|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.96|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790645|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.147||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.147|-1.250|0.121
91790646|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790647|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.163|0.296||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.296|-1.163|0.244
91790648|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790649|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.086||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.086|-1.330|0.085
91790650|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790651|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.177||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.177|-1.280|0.137
91790652|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790653|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|1.091||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.091|-0.294|0.258
91899924|NCT02982187|183694105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.732||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||0.397|0.500
91899925|NCT02982187|183694106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.539|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.268||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||9.268|<0.001
91899926|NCT02982187|183694106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.974|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.239||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||7.239|<0.001
91899927|NCT02982187|183694107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.237||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.124||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||1.124|0.067
91899928|NCT02982187|183694107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.357||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.219||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||2.219|0.003
91899929|NCT02982187|183694108|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||stratified exact logistic model|||Sub study 1: DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|These statistics were only presented when the model successfully converged. A stratified exact logistic model was used with participant included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|||
91899930|NCT02982187|183694108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.732||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||0.397|0.500
91790654|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91899931|NCT02982187|183694109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This method of analysis does not take sequence of treatment option into account||Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA||||<0.001
91899932|NCT02982187|183694109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This method of analysis does not take sequence of treatment option into account||Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA||||<0.001
91899933|NCT02982187|183694113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91899934|NCT02982187|183694113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91899935|NCT02982187|183694114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91899936|NCT02982187|183694114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91790655|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.814||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.814|-0.555|0.711
91790656|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.05|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790657|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.454|0.924||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.924|-0.454|0.503
91650723|NCT01772368|183194255|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|151.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.9|187.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||187.5|115.9|<0.0001
91650724|NCT01772368|183194255|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|193.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|157.4|229.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||229.5|157.4|<0.0001
91650725|NCT01772368|183194255|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|57.88||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|93.7||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||93.7|22.0|0.0017
91709545|NCT04378569|183311580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|-0.019|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 4||-0.019|-0.323|0.0273
91790658|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.99|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91846950|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
91846951|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
91846952|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0085||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0085
91846953|NCT00938340|183576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
91846954|NCT00924560|183576842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|91-day levonorgestrel OC was declared to be non-inferior to the untreated control group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.2|||||Difference = OC group minus the untreated control|The primary efficacy endpoint (percent change from baseline to 12 months in lumbar spine BMD) was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.20|-0.67|
91846955|NCT00924560|183576842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|28-day levonorgestrel OC was declared to be non-inferior to the untreated control group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -3%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.61|||||Difference = OC group minus the untreated control|The primary efficacy endpoint (percent change from baseline to 12 months in lumbar spine BMD) was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.61|-1.49|
91846956|NCT00924560|183576843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.01|-0.00|
91846957|NCT00924560|183576843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.00|-0.01|
91846958|NCT00924560|183576843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
91709546|NCT04378569|183311580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|-0.021|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 4||-0.021|-0.339|0.0266
91790659|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.806|0.784||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.784|-0.806|0.978
91790660|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790661|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.239|0.342||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.342|-1.239|0.265
91790662|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790663|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.704|0.925||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.925|-0.704|0.789
91790664|NCT02880956|183460073|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.||||
91790665|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|1.395||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.395|-0.965|0.720
91790666|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790667|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.607|0.722||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.722|-1.607|0.455
91790668|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790669|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|1.625||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.625|-0.755|0.473
91790670|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.25|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790671|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.187|1.512||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.512|-1.187|0.813
91790672|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
91790673|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.672||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.863|0.78||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.780|-1.863|0.421
91650726|NCT01772368|183194255|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|34.14||||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|70.1||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||70.1|-1.8|0.0624
91650727|NCT01772368|183194255|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.42||||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|39.1||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||39.1|-32.3|0.8503
91650728|NCT01772368|183194255|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-41.72||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.6|-5.8||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||-5.8|-77.6|0.0229
91790674|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790675|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|1.564||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.564|-1.139|0.758
91790676|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.18|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790677|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.066||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.066|-2.140|0.511
91846959|NCT00924560|183576843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.01|-0.02|
91709547|NCT04378569|183311580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.9023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.173|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 4||0.173|-0.196|0.9023
91846960|NCT00924560|183576844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.42||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.42|-0.08|
91846961|NCT00924560|183576844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.18||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.18|-0.68|
91846962|NCT00924560|183576844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.24||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.24|-0.39|
91846963|NCT00924560|183576844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.42||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.42|-1.05|
91846964|NCT00924560|183576845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.01|0.00|
91846965|NCT00924560|183576845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
91709548|NCT04378569|183311580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.096||||0.3298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.098|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 8||0.098|-0.291|0.3298
91846966|NCT00924560|183576845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.01|0.00|
91846967|NCT00924560|183576845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
91846968|NCT00924560|183576846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.28||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.28|-0.03|
91846969|NCT00924560|183576846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.11|-0.20|
91899937|NCT02888665|183694122|OTHER||see above|||||||||||see above. target ORR was not met.|||see above. target ORR was not met.|The primary objective of the phase II design compared ORR with historical rates (Judson et al. Lancet Onc., 2014). A 2-stage design with null hypothesis of 15% using a 1-sided 0.05 α level test has 85% power to detect an increase to 35%. This required up to 35 patients. After 2 responses in stage 1 (20 pts), the study moved to stage 2 (15 pts). If 10 responses were seen (29%), this would have ruled out an ORR of 15%. The study was closed when it became clear we would not meet this benchmark.|see above. target ORR was not met.|||
91790678|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790679|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.801||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.623|0.527||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.527|-2.623|0.192
91790680|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790681|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.816||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|2.294||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.294|-0.914|0.398
91790682|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790683|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.851|2.784||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.784|-0.851|0.296
91790684|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790685|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.907||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.126|1.442||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.442|-2.126|0.706
91790686|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790687|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.929||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|3.617||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||3.617|-0.036|0.055
91790688|NCT02880956|183460074|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790689|NCT02880956|183460075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.166||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.166|-0.266|0.651
91846970|NCT00924560|183576846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.34|-0.01|
91650729|NCT01772368|183194255|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-193.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.5|-157.4||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Fp MDPI 100 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between Fp MDPI 100 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||-157.4|-229.5|<0.0001
91790690|NCT02880956|183460075|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790691|NCT02880956|183460075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|0.104||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.104|-0.318|0.320
91790692|NCT02880956|183460075|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790693|NCT02880956|183460075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.182||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.182|-0.250|0.757
91790694|NCT02880956|183460075|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790695|NCT02880956|183460075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.236||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.236|-0.241|0.984
91790696|NCT02880956|183460075|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91650730|NCT01772368|183194256|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|226.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|172.4|281.1||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||281.1|172.4|<0.0001
91650731|NCT01772368|183194256|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|198.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|143.7|252.9||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||252.9|143.7|<0.0001
91790697|NCT02880956|183460075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.17||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.170|-0.296|0.595
91790698|NCT02880956|183460075|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790699|NCT02880956|183460075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.291||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.291|-0.187|0.670
91790700|NCT02880956|183460075|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790701|NCT02880956|183460076|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.18||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.180|-0.260|0.722
91790702|NCT02880956|183460076|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790703|NCT02880956|183460076|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.198||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.198|-0.232|0.878
91846971|NCT00924560|183576846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.03||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.03|-0.32|
91846972|NCT00924560|183576847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
91846973|NCT00924560|183576847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
91846974|NCT00924560|183576847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.00|-0.01|
91846975|NCT00924560|183576847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.00|-0.01|
91846976|NCT00924560|183576848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|12.61||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||12.61|-23.57|
91846977|NCT00924560|183576848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.65|10.55||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||10.55|-25.65|
91846978|NCT00924560|183576848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.99|10.81||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||10.81|-34.99|
91846979|NCT00924560|183576848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|1.74||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||1.74|-44.08|
91650732|NCT01772368|183194256|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|158.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.7|213.3||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||213.3|104.7|<0.0001
91846980|NCT02753530|183576856|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.24||Primary Estimand (Treatment Policy)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The baseline observation was the last observation recorded prior to the first dose of study medication. The change from baseline in IBMFRS total score was analyzed using a Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment interacting with visit and trial site as factors. Baseline IBMFRS total score interacting with visit was further included as covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed.||0.24|-2.23|0.1146
91846981|NCT01290094|183576904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0005
91846982|NCT01290094|183576905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0005
91846983|NCT01290094|183576906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||0.001
91846984|NCT01290094|183576907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||0.056
91846985|NCT01290094|183576908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 12: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0005
91846986|NCT01290094|183576908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 24: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0005
91846987|NCT01290094|183576909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 12: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0005
91846988|NCT01290094|183576909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 24: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||0.027
91846989|NCT01289119|183576934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The analysis was conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level without a multiplicity adjustment.||-0.37|-0.78|<0.001
91846990|NCT01289119|183576934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.51||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c with baseline metformin dose as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level without a multiplicity adjustment.||-0.51|-0.87|<0.001
91846991|NCT01289119|183576934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c with baseline metformin therapy status and baseline pioglitazone dose as covariates.||The analysis was conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level without a multiplicity adjustment.||-0.28|-0.75|<0.001
91846992|NCT01704846|183576946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.9|105.25|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||105.25|95.90|
91846993|NCT01704846|183576947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|102.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.57|110.98|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||110.98|95.57|
91899938|NCT02349451|183694127|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|57.7||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group. The a priori statistical significance threshold is P = 0.025.|Fisher Exact|||||57.7|17.2|<0.001
91899939|NCT02349451|183694127|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|50.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|67.4||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group. The a priori statistical significance threshold is P = 0.025.|Fisher Exact|||||67.4|28.1|<0.001
91790704|NCT02880956|183460076|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91899940|NCT02349451|183694128|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|-3.3||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|12.1||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||12.1|-18.5|0.723
91899941|NCT02349451|183694128|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|7.3||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|21.6||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||21.6|-7.4|0.215
91899942|NCT02349451|183694129|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|24.1||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|39.3||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||39.3|3.9|0.021
91790705|NCT02880956|183460076|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.29||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.290|-0.151|0.535
91899943|NCT02349451|183694129|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|-0.9||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|14.8||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||14.8|-16.5|0.611
91899944|NCT02349451|183694129|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|40.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|55.8||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||55.8|20.1|<0.001
91899945|NCT02349451|183694129|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|15.9||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|31.3||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||31.3|-0.3|0.039
91899946|NCT02349451|183694130|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|18.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|29.7||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||29.7|1.5|0.034
91790706|NCT02880956|183460076|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91899947|NCT02349451|183694130|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|7.3||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|19.9||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||19.9|-5.8|0.185
91899948|NCT02349451|183694130|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|27.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|39.0||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||39.0|9.6|0.004
91899949|NCT02349451|183694130|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|16.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|29.3||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||29.3|2.3|0.017
91790707|NCT02880956|183460076|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.239||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.239|-0.266|0.916
91899950|NCT02349451|183694131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with placebo group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||<0.001
91790708|NCT02880956|183460076|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790709|NCT02880956|183460076|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.165||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.165|-0.330|0.511
91790710|NCT02880956|183460076|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790711|NCT02880956|183460076|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.292||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.292|-0.217|0.771
91650733|NCT01772368|183194256|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|116.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|171.6||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||171.6|62.4|<0.0001
91790712|NCT02880956|183460076|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
91790713|NCT02880956|183460077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.18||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.180|-0.159|0.903
91790714|NCT02880956|183460077|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790715|NCT02880956|183460077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.145||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.145|-0.185|0.811
91790716|NCT02880956|183460077|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790717|NCT02880956|183460077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.194||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.194|-0.145|0.775
91790718|NCT02880956|183460077|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790719|NCT02880956|183460077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.096||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.096|-0.337|0.273
91790720|NCT02880956|183460077|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790721|NCT02880956|183460077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.176||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.176|-0.248|0.740
91790722|NCT02880956|183460077|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790723|NCT02880956|183460077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.155||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.155|-0.282|0.567
91790724|NCT02880956|183460077|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790725|NCT02880956|183460078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.187||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.187|-0.204|0.931
91790726|NCT02880956|183460078|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790727|NCT02880956|183460078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.063||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.063|-0.320|0.187
91790728|NCT02880956|183460078|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790729|NCT02880956|183460078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.201||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.201|-0.191|0.961
91790730|NCT02880956|183460078|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790731|NCT02880956|183460078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.227||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.227|-0.260|0.894
91790732|NCT02880956|183460078|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91846994|NCT01704846|183576948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|105.18|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||105.18|96.10|
91899951|NCT02349451|183694131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.561||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with adalimumab group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.561
91899952|NCT02349451|183694131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with placebo group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||<0.001
91899953|NCT02349451|183694131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with adalimumab group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.106
91899954|NCT02349451|183694132|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.57||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-1.58|<0.001
91899955|NCT02349451|183694132|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.13||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.23||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.48|0.479
91899956|NCT02349451|183694132|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.89||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.89|-1.90|<0.001
91899957|NCT02349451|183694132|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.1||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.81|0.012
91899958|NCT02349451|183694133|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.53||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-1.81|<0.001
91899959|NCT02349451|183694133|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.09||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.36||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.54|0.696
91899960|NCT02349451|183694133|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.77||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.77|-2.04|<0.001
91899961|NCT02349451|183694133|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.12||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.77|0.151
91899962|NCT02349451|183694134|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-2.19||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-2.19|-4.14|<0.001
91846995|NCT01704846|183576949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the adjusted mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Mean Ratio (%)|97.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.54|103.78|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||103.78|91.54|
91899963|NCT02349451|183694134|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.81||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.12||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.51|0.021
91899964|NCT02349451|183694134|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.75||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-3.70|<0.001
91709549|NCT04378569|183311580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.15|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 8||0.150|-0.251|0.6205
91899965|NCT02349451|183694134|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.37||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.32||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.06|0.288
91899966|NCT02168842|183694151|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of the risk of need for antiparkinsonian therapy in Isradipine group to the risk in placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.61|0.073
91899967|NCT02168842|183694152|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison the risk of need for dyskinesia in Isradipine group to the risk in a placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.01|||Log Rank|||||3.01|0.78|0.21
91899968|NCT02168842|183694153|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of the risk of need for antiparkinsonian therapy in Isradipine group to the risk in placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.56|0.35
91899969|NCT00186069|183694188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.86|||Fisher Exact|||||1.86|0.77|0.68
91899970|NCT00186069|183694189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
91899971|NCT00186069|183694190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.95
91899972|NCT00696761|183694206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91899973|NCT00696761|183694207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis test, analysis of variance, and the Wilcoxon signed rank-sum test were used to compare changes from baseline to endpoint after treatment.||||<0.05
91790733|NCT02880956|183460078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.251||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.251|-0.226|0.917
91790734|NCT02880956|183460078|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790735|NCT02880956|183460078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.303||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.303|-0.186|0.639
91790736|NCT02880956|183460078|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790737|NCT02880956|183460079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.175||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.851|2.703||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.703|-5.851|0.470
91790738|NCT02880956|183460079|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.44|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790739|NCT02880956|183460079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.127||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.819|4.548||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||4.548|-3.819|0.864
91846996|NCT01704846|183576950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.51|102.2|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||102.20|98.51|
91846997|NCT01704846|183576951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.85|101.51|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||101.51|97.85|
91846998|NCT01704846|183576952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|102.34|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||102.34|98.10|
91846999|NCT00530335|183576969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Total ADHD Symptoms Score (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847000|NCT00530335|183576969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Inattentive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847001|NCT00530335|183576969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Hyperactivity/Impulsive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847002|NCT00530335|183576969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in ADHD Index Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847003|NCT00530335|183576970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Total ADHD Symptoms Score (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847004|NCT00530335|183576970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Inattentive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847005|NCT00530335|183576970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Hyperactive/Impulsive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847006|NCT00530335|183576970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in ADHD Index Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847007|NCT00530335|183576971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847008|NCT00530335|183576972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.749
91847009|NCT00530335|183576973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.886
91847010|NCT00530335|183576975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for comparing differences in Word Test number of correct responses (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91847011|NCT00530335|183576975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for comparing differences in Color Test number of correct responses (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847012|NCT00530335|183576975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for comparing differences in Color-Word Test number of correct responses (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91847013|NCT02584790|183577018|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||2x2 table of: Row: 1. NBI suspicious pattern 2. NBI non-suspicious pattern Category: 1. with residual disease 2. without residual disease||||0.004
91847014|NCT02072226|183577071|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Adjusted Risk Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|7.25||||||||7.25|-9.44|
91847015|NCT02072226|183577072|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|1.244||||||||1.244|0.527|
91847016|NCT02072226|183577073|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.393||||||||1.393|0.529|
91847017|NCT02072226|183577074|OTHER|Confidence Interval|difference in percentages|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|7.38||||||||7.38|0.75|
91847018|NCT02072226|183577075|OTHER|Confidence Interval|difference in percentages|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|10.07||||||Any ICH within 36 hours reported by site||10.07|-0.34|
91847019|NCT02072226|183577075|OTHER|Confidence Interval|difference in percentages|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|9.49||||||Any ICH within 36 hours reported by central reader||9.49|-1.23|
91847020|NCT00810303|183577084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
91847021|NCT00810303|183577085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
91847022|NCT00810303|183577087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
91847023|NCT00810303|183577088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
91847024|NCT00810303|183577089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
91847025|NCT00810303|183577089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
91847026|NCT00810303|183577090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
91847027|NCT00810303|183577091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetics of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
91899974|NCT01794923|183694252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||||0.200
91650734|NCT01772368|183194256|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|159.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.3|213.7||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||213.7|104.3|<0.0001
91790740|NCT02880956|183460079|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91787540|NCT01106092|183454573|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 2\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 3 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.94||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 2) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 3 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||6.94|-3.53|
91650735|NCT01772368|183194256|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|67.76||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|122.2||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||122.2|13.3|0.0150
91847028|NCT00810303|183577092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
91847029|NCT00810303|183577092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetics of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
91650736|NCT01772368|183194256|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|39.31||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|94.0||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||94.0|-15.3|0.1578
91847030|NCT00810303|183577093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
91650737|NCT01772368|183194256|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.02||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|54.4||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||54.4|-54.4|0.9993
91650738|NCT01772368|183194256|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-42.05||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.7|12.6||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||12.6|-96.7|0.1311
91847031|NCT00810303|183577093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
91847032|NCT00810303|183577094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
91847033|NCT00810303|183577094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
91847034|NCT00810303|183577095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
91847035|NCT00810303|183577095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
91847036|NCT00810303|183577096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
91847037|NCT00810303|183577097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
91847038|NCT00810303|183577098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
91847039|NCT00810303|183577098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
91847040|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.5.g.ml, 24 hrs||||0.181
91847041|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.2.g.ml||||.164
91847042|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.10.M, 24 hrs||||.132
91847043|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.5.M||||.066
91847044|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.3.M, 24 hrs||||0.268
91847045|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Arach.Acid.0.5.mg.ml||||0.106
91847046|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristocetin.1.5.mg.ml||||0.625
91847047|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristocetin.0.5.mg.ml||||0.381
91847048|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.5.g.ml, 48 hrs||||0.549
91847049|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.2.g.ml, 48 hrs||||.838
91847050|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.10.M||||0.245
91847051|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.5.M||||0.417
91847052|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.3.M, 48 hrs||||0.770
91847053|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Arach.Acid.0.5.mg.ml, 48 hrs||||0.614
91847054|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristochetin.1.5.mg.ml||||0.969
91847055|NCT01720043|183577099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristocetin.0.5.mg.ml, 48 hrs||||0.238
91847056|NCT02796092|183577121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assuming that both methods were equally effective, we did not use this primary outcome to calculate sample size. It was determined using our own retrospective data of patients from the year 2013, comparing the means of the procedure total time with both methods (41.20±4.66 vs 34.99±4.43 minutes). Ten patients in each group were considered enough to detect the above-mentioned differences with a α-error of 0.05 and 80% power, using a two-sided test.||||>0.999
91847057|NCT02796092|183577122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3
91847058|NCT02796092|183577123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91847059|NCT02796092|183577124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91847060|NCT02796092|183577125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.061
91847061|NCT02796092|183577126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91847062|NCT02796092|183577127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91847063|NCT02796092|183577128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847064|NCT02796092|183577129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847065|NCT02796092|183577130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91847066|NCT02796092|183577131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91847067|NCT02796092|183577132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0499|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0499
91847068|NCT02796092|183577134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.095
91847069|NCT02467491|183577139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score at baseline was compared with the SPPB scored after 4 weeks of physical activity intervention with a paired t-test||||0.04
91847070|NCT02467491|183577140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score after 4 weeks of physical activity intervention was compared with the SPPB score after 2 to 3 months from the completion of the physical activity intervention with a paired t-test||||0.02
91847071|NCT03101592|183577176|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|12.3|||||RD is for retention 3MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||12.3|-4.3|
91847072|NCT03101592|183577176|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|17.2|||||RD is for retention 6MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||17.2|0.9|
91851936|NCT02045836|183587280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-6B||1.16|0.73|
91847073|NCT03101592|183577176|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.1|||||RD is for retention 6MD vs. 3MD.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||9.1|1|
91847074|NCT03101592|183577176|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||||RD is for transfer 3MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||1.6|-0.8|
91847075|NCT03101592|183577176|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||RD is for transfer 6MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.8|-0.9|
91847076|NCT03101592|183577176|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||||RD is for transfer 6MD vs. 3MD.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.7|-1.7|
91847077|NCT03101592|183577176|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||RD is for death 3MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.2|-0.4|
91851937|NCT02045836|183587280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.29|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-7F||1.29|0.89|
91851938|NCT02045836|183587280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-9V||1.19|0.79|
91899975|NCT01794923|183694252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|7.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|19.92|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||19.92|-4.81|0.230
91851939|NCT02045836|183587280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-14||1.18|0.81|
91851940|NCT02045836|183587280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-18C||1.16|0.77|
91650739|NCT01772368|183194256|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-159.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.7|-104.3||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Fp MDPI 100 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each Fp MDPI 100 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||-104.3|-213.7|<0.0001
91847078|NCT03101592|183577176|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||RD is for death 6MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.8|-0.9|
91847079|NCT03101592|183577176|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||RD is for death 6MD vs. 3MD.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.3|-0.3|
91847080|NCT01970943|183577180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6078||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91847081|NCT01970943|183577182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037786||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
91847082|NCT01352507|183577189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilson Score method|||Null hypothesis (H0): The proportion of participants who chose tadalafil over sildenafil is equal to 0.5 (p = 0.5), versus alternative hypothesis (H1): p is not equal to 0.5 (2-sided test).||||<0.001
91847083|NCT01352507|183577191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.11|0.793
91847084|NCT01352507|183577192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.37||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|-1.35|0.988
91847085|NCT01352507|183577193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.01|0.102
91847086|NCT01352507|183577195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.19||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.22|0.861
91847087|NCT01352507|183577196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.19|0.495
91847088|NCT01352507|183577197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.18|0.917
91847089|NCT01352507|183577198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.23||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.04||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.04|-1.58|0.391
91847090|NCT01352507|183577199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|0.09|<0.001
91847091|NCT01352507|183577200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.09||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.19|<0.001
91847092|NCT01352507|183577201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.55||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|-0.20|0.364
91847093|NCT01018511|183577220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Overall power was 90% power for non-inferiority vs placebo for total IPSS. Only the FDC(s) that succeeded in stage 1 were evaluated in stage 2 for total IPSS. If both FDCs succeeded in stage 1, then both FDCs proceeded to stage 2 and the Hochberg procedure was implemented at one-sided alpha = 0.025. If one FDC succeeded in stage 1, then only this FDC proceeded to stage 2 and the FDC vs. TOCAS alone for non-inferiority was assessed at one-sided alpha = 0.025/2 = 0.0125.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.73|0.11||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The non-inferiority of FDC vs TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.11|-1.73|0.001
91847094|NCT01018511|183577220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Only the FDC(s) that succeeded in stage 1 were evaluated in stage 2 for total IPSS. If both FDCs succeeded in stage 1, then both FDCs proceeded to stage 2 and the Hochberg procedure was implemented at one-sided alpha = 0.025. If one FDC succeeded in stage 1, then only this FDC proceeded to stage 2 and the FDC vs. TOCAS alone for non-inferiority was assessed at one-sided alpha = 0.025/2 = 0.0125.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.22|0.64||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The non-inferiority of FDC vs. TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.64|-1.22|0.028
91847095|NCT01018511|183577220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC vs. TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS.||||0.048
91847096|NCT01018511|183577220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|||||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC vs. TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS.||||0.483
91847097|NCT01018511|183577220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of the FDC vs placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||-0.9|-2.4|<0.001
91847098|NCT01018511|183577220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of the FDC vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||-0.3|-1.9|0.006
91847099|NCT01018511|183577220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of TOCAS vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. With a sample size of 274 participants per arm, the overall power to meet this outcome measure was 97% power for superiority vs placebo for total IPSS.||-0.0|-1.6|0.039
91847100|NCT01018511|183577221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.9|0.0||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for TUS using the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/6 mg vs. TOCAS in the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.0|-2.9|0.025
91790741|NCT02880956|183460079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.206||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.826|-0.15||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||-0.150|-8.826|0.043
91790742|NCT02880956|183460079|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.24|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790743|NCT02880956|183460079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.874||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.041|6.27||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||6.270|-5.041|0.831
91790744|NCT02880956|183460079|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.06|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790745|NCT02880956|183460079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.843||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.784|7.404||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||7.404|-3.784|0.525
91847101|NCT01018511|183577221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.162|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.3|0.5||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for TUS using the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/6 mg vs. TOCAS in the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.5|-2.3|0.162
91847102|NCT01018511|183577221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/6 mg vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS.||-2.5|-4.9|<0.001
91847103|NCT01018511|183577221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/9 mg vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS.||-1.9|-4.4|<0.001
91847104|NCT01018511|183577221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of TOCAS vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS.||-1.0|-3.5|<0.001
91847105|NCT01018511|183577222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
91847106|NCT01018511|183577222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.1|-0.6|0.223
91650740|NCT01772368|183194257|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|2.202||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=58||2.202|1.690|
91847107|NCT01018511|183577222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.8|-1.5|< 0.001
91899976|NCT01794923|183694252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|7.99|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||7.99|-16.81|0.484
91650741|NCT01772368|183194257|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.702|0.911||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||0.911|0.702|
91650742|NCT01772368|183194257|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.427|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.376|0.485||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=61||0.485|0.376|
91650743|NCT01772368|183194257|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.151|0.196||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||0.196|0.151|
91650744|NCT01772368|183194258|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|3.622|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.149|4.168||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=58||4.168|3.149|
91899977|NCT01794923|183694252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|12.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|25.25|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||25.25|-1.32|0.077
91650745|NCT01772368|183194258|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.534|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.335|1.763||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||1.763|1.335|
91899978|NCT01794923|183694253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.860
91847108|NCT01018511|183577222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.4|-1.1|< 0.001
91847109|NCT01018511|183577222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-0.9|0.002
91847110|NCT01018511|183577223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|29.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.6|16.6|< 0.001
91847111|NCT01018511|183577223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|29.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.8|16.6|< 0.001
91847112|NCT01018511|183577223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|33.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||33.9|21.0|< 0.001
91847113|NCT01018511|183577223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|34.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||34.1|21.1|< 0.001
91847114|NCT01018511|183577223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||10.9|-2.2|0.189
91847115|NCT01018511|183577224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|29.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.3|-0.2|0.053
91847116|NCT01018511|183577224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|29.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.6|-0.2|0.053
91847117|NCT01018511|183577224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|33.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||33.0|4.1|0.012
91847118|NCT01018511|183577224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|33.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||33.4|4.1|0.012
91847119|NCT01018511|183577224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||18.7|-10.7|0.591
91847120|NCT01018511|183577225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.4|-0.6|0.616
91847121|NCT01018511|183577225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-0.7|0.319
91847122|NCT01018511|183577225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.6|-1.5|< 0.001
91847123|NCT01018511|183577225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.7|-1.7|< 0.001
91899979|NCT01794923|183694253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|32.38|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||32.38|-18.30|0.584
91650746|NCT01772368|183194258|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.694|0.911||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=61||0.911|0.694|
91650747|NCT01772368|183194258|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.339|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.295|0.39||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||0.390|0.295|
91709550|NCT04378569|183311580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.217|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 8||0.217|-0.253|0.8817
91650748|NCT02449291|183194261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.016) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.016
91650749|NCT02449291|183194261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.015) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.016
91650750|NCT02449291|183194262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91650751|NCT02449291|183194262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91650752|NCT02449291|183194263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.170
91650753|NCT02449291|183194263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.552
91650754|NCT02449291|183194264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.003
91650755|NCT02449291|183194264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.001
91650756|NCT02449291|183194265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.209|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.209
91650757|NCT02449291|183194265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.440
91650758|NCT02449291|183194266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91650759|NCT02449291|183194266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91790746|NCT02880956|183460079|OTHER||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.47|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91650760|NCT02449291|183194267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.115
91650761|NCT02449291|183194267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.222
91650762|NCT02449291|183194268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.474
91650763|NCT02449291|183194268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.505
91650764|NCT02449291|183194269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.103
91650765|NCT02449291|183194269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.166
91650766|NCT02449291|183194270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91650767|NCT02449291|183194270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
91650768|NCT02462421|183194273|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.92||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Viewed as unnecessary inasmuch as none of the comparisons achieved p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Each of the variant genotypes was compared to the control group (homozygous for major alleles at all three genetic loci) in an unpaired t-test. The study was terminated early because it was clear that we would not meet our recruitment targets and that the study was likely underpowered.~Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant."||||0.92
91650769|NCT02462421|183194273|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.63||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.63
91790747|NCT02880956|183460079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.921||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.239|4.255||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||4.255|-7.239|0.610
91790748|NCT02880956|183460079|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790749|NCT02880956|183460080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.798|1.214||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.214|-2.798|0.438
91790750|NCT02880956|183460080|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790751|NCT02880956|183460080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.164|2.788||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.788|-1.164|0.419
91790752|NCT02880956|183460080|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790753|NCT02880956|183460080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.959|2.092||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.092|-1.959|0.948
91847124|NCT01018511|183577225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.4|-1.4|< 0.001
91650770|NCT02462421|183194273|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.86||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.86
91847125|NCT01018511|183577226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.5|-0.3|0.591
91650771|NCT02462421|183194274|OTHER|"We compared the two groups (wild type versus SLC2A9 variant homozygotes. Null hypothesis: there are no differences between the two groups with respect to the pharmacodynamic effect of canagliflozin on fractional excretion of uric acid in the urine."||||||0.04||||||Because the study was terminated early, we did not have sufficient statistical power to adjust for multiple comparisons. We are reporting a nominal p-value without adjusting for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||The study was terminated early because of slow recruitment. As a result the study did not achieve the statistical power that had been planned.||||0.04
91650772|NCT02462421|183194275|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.07||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.07
91847126|NCT01018511|183577226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.8|-0.1|0.102
91650773|NCT02462421|183194275|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.53||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.53
91790754|NCT02880956|183460080|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790755|NCT02880956|183460080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|2.101||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.101|-4.180|0.516
91790756|NCT02880956|183460080|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790757|NCT02880956|183460080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.582||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.055|3.168||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||3.168|-3.055|0.971
91899980|NCT01794923|183694253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|28.06|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||28.06|-22.77|0.838
91899981|NCT01794923|183694253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.4||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.81|31.61|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||31.61|-22.81|0.750
91899982|NCT01794923|183694253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.533
91790758|NCT02880956|183460080|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
91790759|NCT02880956|183460080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.577|1.8||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.800|-4.577|0.392
91787541|NCT01106092|183454573|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 3\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 3 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 3) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 3 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
91787542|NCT02434471|183454591|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91787543|NCT02434471|183454592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
91787544|NCT01473368|183454594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
91787545|NCT01473368|183454598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91787546|NCT04839562|183454602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1|-7.7|=.0106
91899983|NCT01794923|183694253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.81|13.95|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||13.95|-41.81|0.326
91899984|NCT01794923|183694253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.98|28.94|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||28.94|-26.98|0.945
91787547|NCT04839562|183454603|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.002
91787548|NCT04839562|183454604|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0173
91787549|NCT04839562|183454605|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1144|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.1144
91899985|NCT01794923|183694253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.9||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.85|15.03|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||15.03|-44.85|0.327
91787550|NCT04839562|183454606|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0348
91899986|NCT01794923|183694253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.988|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.988
91899987|NCT01794923|183694253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.31|41.81|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||41.81|-48.31|0.887
91899988|NCT01794923|183694253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.88|42.5|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||42.50|-47.88|0.907
91787551|NCT04839562|183454607|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1
91787552|NCT04839562|183454608|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0173
91787553|NCT04839562|183454609|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1864|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.1864
91787554|NCT04839562|183454610|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.4173
91787555|NCT04839562|183454611|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0343|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0343
91787556|NCT04839562|183454612|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0636|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0636
91787557|NCT04839562|183454613|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.065
91787558|NCT04839562|183454614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1144|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.1144
91787559|NCT04839562|183454615|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2829|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.2829
91787560|NCT01347580|183454620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.327||pvalue at 0.025 , adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||||1.327|0.799|0.8214
91787561|NCT01347580|183454621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.441||P value at 0.025 adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||||1.441|0.801|0.6322
91787562|NCT01347580|183454622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.027||||0.9056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.595|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.595|0.661|0.9056
91787563|NCT01347580|183454623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.4168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.942|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.942|0.760|0.4168
91787564|NCT01347580|183454624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.189||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.856|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.856|0.042|0.0307
91787565|NCT01347580|183454625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.132||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.462|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.462|0.876|0.344
91787566|NCT01347580|183454626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.225||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.506|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.506|0.996|0.0547
91787567|NCT01347580|183454627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.803||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.096|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.096|0.588|0.1660
91787568|NCT00412373|183454642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.774||95.0|-2.7|3.7|||ANOVA|P-value based on the actual value and was from an ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Actual Score.|||3.7|-2.7|0.774
91899989|NCT01794923|183694253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.95|47.83|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||47.83|-48.95|0.982
91899990|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.630
91899991|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.14|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.14|-0.39|0.342
91899992|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.19|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.19|-0.34|0.600
91899993|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.23|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.23|-0.34|0.691
91650774|NCT02462421|183194275|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.92||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.92
91650775|NCT02462421|183194276|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.|||||<|0.01||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||<0.01
91650776|NCT02462421|183194276|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.77||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.77
91650777|NCT02462421|183194276|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.65||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.65
91650778|NCT02462421|183194277|OTHER|Null hypothesis: None of the three genotypes is associated with an alteration in the pharmacodynamic effect of canagliflozin on urinary Na excretion||||||0.2||||||Because the study was terminated early, the study does not have sufficient statistical power to adjust for multiple comparisons. Accordingly, nominal p-values are reported.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The wild type genotype group was compared to homozygotes for each of the three other genotypes."||||0.20
91650779|NCT02462421|183194277|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.01
91899994|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.091|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.091
91899995|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.16|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.16|-0.44|0.351
91650780|NCT02462421|183194277|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.16||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.16
91787569|NCT00412373|183454643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001||95.0|-13.8|-4.9|||ANCOVA|P-values are from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-4.9|-13.8|<0.001
91650781|NCT02462421|183194278|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.21||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.21
91650782|NCT02462421|183194278|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.92||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.92
91650783|NCT02462421|183194278|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.39||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.||||0.39
91650784|NCT02891200|183194279|SUPERIORITY||Predicted Mean Difference|1.46||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear model with study site and setting as fixed effects, and adjusted for baseline SGRQ domain scores.||||5.38|-2.47|0.467
91650785|NCT01339910|183194290|SUPERIORITY||Difference in 18 month OS (MAC-RIC)|9.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|20.3||This final test was performed at a 0.049 significance level, since 0.001 was spent at interim analyses and the overall significance level was 0.050.|Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall survival at 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. 18 month overall survival was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis.||20.3|-0.8|0.07
91787570|NCT00412373|183454644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|-4.4|-1.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-1.2|-4.4|<0.001
91787571|NCT00412373|183454645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0|-3.1|-0.8|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.8|-3.1|<0.001
91787572|NCT00412373|183454646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-2.3|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-2.3|-6.8|<0.001
91787573|NCT00412373|183454647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|-4.2|-1.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-1.1|-4.2|<0.001
91847127|NCT01018511|183577226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-0.6|0.204
91847128|NCT01018511|183577226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.4|-0.4|0.936
91650786|NCT01339910|183194291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in 18 month RFS (MAC-RIC)|20.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|32.0||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in relapse-free survival at 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. 18 month relapse-free survival was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis.||32.0|8.9|< 0.01
91650787|NCT01339910|183194292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of disease relapse during the first 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of disease relapse was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||< 0.001
91650788|NCT01339910|183194293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment-related mortality during the first 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of treatment-related mortality was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating disease relapse as a competing risk.||||0.002
91650789|NCT01339910|183194294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment at Day 28 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment at Day 28 was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis. Death was treated as a competing risk.||||0.002
91650790|NCT01339910|183194294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment at Day 60 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment at Day 60 was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis. Death was treated as a competing risk.||||0.065
91847129|NCT01018511|183577226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.0|-0.8|0.081
91847130|NCT01018511|183577227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.6|-0.3|0.511
91650791|NCT01339910|183194295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with full chimerism, mixed chimerism, graft rejection, and death prior to assessment at Day 28 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens.||||0.005
91650792|NCT01339910|183194295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with full chimerism, mixed chimerism, graft rejection, and death prior to assessment at Day 100 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens.||||0.011
91847131|NCT01018511|183577227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.8|-0.2|0.182
91847132|NCT01018511|183577227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.3|-0.6|0.552
91650793|NCT01339910|183194295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with full chimerism, mixed chimerism, graft rejection, and death prior to assessment at 18 months post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens.||||0.39
91650794|NCT01339910|183194296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD during the first 100 days post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||0.024
91650795|NCT01339910|183194296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade III-IV acute GVHD during the first 100 days post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of grade III-IV acute GVHD was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||0.066
91709551|NCT04378569|183311580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.058|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 12||0.058|-0.302|0.1837
91650796|NCT01339910|183194297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD during the first 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||0.019
91650797|NCT02322879|183194305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
91650798|NCT00810732|183194306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.94|0.0040
91847133|NCT01018511|183577227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo||0.5|-0.4|0.891
91847134|NCT01018511|183577227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.2|-0.8|0.215
91899996|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.04|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||-0.04|-0.64|0.029
91899997|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.52|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.52|-0.13|0.238
91650799|NCT00810732|183194306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.99|0.0018
91650800|NCT00810732|183194306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.33|0.7945
91899998|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.305
91650801|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 3||-0.91|-6.08|0.0087
91650802|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 3||0.66|-4.50|0.1424
91650803|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 3||1.00|-4.15|0.2277
91650804|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||1.03|-6.16|0.1599
91650805|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.5545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.52|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||2.52|-4.66|0.5545
91899999|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.20|-0.54|0.370
91900000|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.09|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.09|-0.66|0.130
91650806|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.4095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||2.09|-5.08|0.4095
91650807|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|-1.67|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||-1.67|-6.49|0.0012
91650808|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||-0.57|-5.38|0.0159
91650809|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||1.30|-3.51|0.3627
91709552|NCT04378569|183311580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.102||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.088|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|||0.088|-0.293|0.2896
91847135|NCT01018511|183577228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.1|-0.2|0.383
91650810|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-1.03|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 6||-1.03|-5.69|0.0057
91650811|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 6||1.80|-2.86|0.6503
91650812|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 6||-0.50|-5.16|0.0183
91650813|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): Week 6||0.27|-5.89|0.0726
91650814|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|3.14|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): Week 6||3.14|-3.01|0.9661
91650815|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): Week 6||0.19|-5.94|0.0656
91650816|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-0.92|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): Week 6||-0.92|-5.39|0.0068
91650817|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): Week 6||1.24|-3.22|0.3760
91709553|NCT04378569|183311580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.227|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 12||0.227|-0.205|0.9190
91847136|NCT01018511|183577228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-0.1|0.402
91847137|NCT01018511|183577228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.0|-0.3|0.021
91847138|NCT01018511|183577228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-0.2|0.584
91847139|NCT01018511|183577228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.0|-0.3|0.166
91847140|NCT01018511|183577229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-1.0|0.187
91847141|NCT01018511|183577229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-1.0|0.203
91847142|NCT01018511|183577229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-1.1|0.090
91847143|NCT01018511|183577229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-1.1|0.098
91900001|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.51|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.51|-0.28|0.561
91650818|NCT00810732|183194307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): Week 6||0.07|-4.40|0.0572
91847144|NCT01018511|183577229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.5|-0.7|0.772
91900002|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.209|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.209
91650819|NCT00810732|183194308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.45|-0.39|0.8823
91847145|NCT01018511|183577230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-0.9|0.210
91847146|NCT01018511|183577230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.6|-0.5|0.775
91847147|NCT01018511|183577230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-1.2|0.010
91847148|NCT01018511|183577230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.3|-0.8|0.317
91847149|NCT01018511|183577230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.2|-0.9|0.196
91847150|NCT01018511|183577231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.1|-0.9|0.009
91847151|NCT01018511|183577231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.0|-0.8|0.045
91847152|NCT01018511|183577231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.7|-1.4|< 0.001
91900003|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.19|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.19|-0.68|0.277
91847153|NCT01018511|183577231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.1|-0.9|0.011
91847154|NCT01018511|183577231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares men difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.5|-1.3|< 0.001
91847155|NCT01018511|183577232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.1|-0.5|0.008
91847156|NCT01018511|183577232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.0|-0.4|0.021
91847157|NCT01018511|183577232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-0.6|< 0.001
91787574|NCT00412373|183454648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0|-3.3|-0.9|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.9|-3.3|<0.001
91650820|NCT00810732|183194308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.43|-0.41|0.9457
91650821|NCT00810732|183194308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.44|-0.40|0.9358
91787575|NCT00412373|183454649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001||95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.9|-2.9|<0.001
91847158|NCT01018511|183577232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-0.6|< 0.001
91847159|NCT01018511|183577232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.0|-0.3|0.139
91847160|NCT01018511|183577234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-4.3|0.068
91847161|NCT01018511|183577234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.4|-4.9|0.020
91847162|NCT01018511|183577234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-2.5|-6.9|< 0.001
91847163|NCT01018511|183577234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||-3.1|-7.5|< 0.001
91709554|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CIs are calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.3|-4.4|
91900004|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.05|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.05|-0.82|0.085
91650822|NCT00810732|183194308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.25|-1.03|0.0022
91787576|NCT00412373|183454650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.001||95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.6|-2.6|0.001
91787577|NCT00412373|183454651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.016||95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.2|-1.8|0.016
91650823|NCT00810732|183194308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.36|-0.41|0.8956
91650824|NCT00810732|183194308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.23|-1.00|0.0030
91650825|NCT00124020|183194309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 20% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||||95.0|-6.8|7.2||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.||||||7.2|-6.8|
91650826|NCT05117099|183194310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||ANOVA|||||||.548
91847164|NCT01018511|183577234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.4|-4.8|0.022
91900005|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.61|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.61|-0.32|0.546
91650827|NCT05117099|183194312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||||||.915
91650828|NCT05117099|183194313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||ANOVA|||||||.663
91650829|NCT05117099|183194314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|||||||.138
91787578|NCT00412373|183454653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.002||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.2|-0.7|0.002
91900006|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.185
91650830|NCT05117099|183194315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||ANOVA|||||||.114
91650831|NCT05117099|183194316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||ANOVA|||||||.065
91650832|NCT05117099|183194317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394|||||||ANOVA|||||||.394
91650833|NCT05117099|183194318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||ANOVA|||||||.388
91650834|NCT05117099|183194319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||ANOVA|||||||.332
91650835|NCT05085613|183194329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6279928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.150369||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.463627|10.71961||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF=6|Economic recovery condition - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||10.71961|-9.463627|0.998
91650836|NCT05085613|183194329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.044194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.302202||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.416608|14.505||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||14.505|-6.416608|0.725
91650837|NCT05085613|183194329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-1.53656||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25295|9.179834||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Humor - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||9.179834|-12.25295|0.980
91787579|NCT00412373|183454654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANOVA|P-value is from an ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
91787580|NCT00412373|183454655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test with modified ridit scores, stratified by concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||||0.046
91787581|NCT00412373|183454657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-6.4|-1.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-1.7|-6.4|<0.001
91787582|NCT00412373|183454659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.001||95.0|-7.7|-2.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-2.0|-7.7|0.001
91787583|NCT01478048|183454668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.06||Log Rank test was stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor use (Yes versus No), presence of at least 1 FcγRIIIa V allele (Yes versus No) and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3) at randomization|Log Rank|Adjusted alpha level= 0.30||||1.06|0.49|0.0923
91787584|NCT01478048|183454671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference using Chan-Zhang method|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|17.8||||||||17.8|-13.2|
91787585|NCT01369329|183454677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.002
91787586|NCT01369329|183454677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.003
91787587|NCT01369329|183454678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.003
91787588|NCT01369329|183454678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||< 0.001
91787589|NCT01369329|183454679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.001
91787590|NCT01369329|183454679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||< 0.001
91787591|NCT01369329|183454680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||< 0.001
91787592|NCT01369329|183454680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.002
91787593|NCT01369329|183454681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.009
91787594|NCT01369329|183454681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.001
91787595|NCT03032380|183454682|NON_INFERIORITY|The study hypothesis was that the all-cause mortality rate at Day 14 in participants who received cefiderocol would be non-inferior to that in participants who received high-dose meropenem. The margin of non-inferiority was 12.5%. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in mortality at Day 14 between the 2 treatment groups (cefiderocol - meropenem) was smaller than 12.5%.|Treatment Difference|0.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the ACM rate at Day 14 based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel weights using APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16) as the stratification factor.|||8.2|-6.6|0.0020
91787596|NCT03032380|183454683|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|10.7|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the eradication rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||10.7|-13.5|
91787597|NCT03032380|183454684|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|8.5|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||8.5|-12.5|
91787598|NCT03032380|183454685|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.2|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||8.2|-8.8|
91787599|NCT03032380|183454686|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|5.1|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||5.1|-12.8|
91787600|NCT03032380|183454687|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.8|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||10.8|-10.9|
91900007|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.26|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.26|-0.64|0.400
91900008|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.03|-0.88|0.067
91900009|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.71|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.71|-0.25|0.350
91900010|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.493|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.493
91900011|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.48|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.48|-0.53|0.922
91900012|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.22|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.22|-0.80|0.265
91650838|NCT05085613|183194330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.002255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.801527||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39448|28.39899||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Df = 6|Economic recovery condition - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||28.39899|-14.39448|0.813
91787601|NCT03032380|183454688|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-0.5|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||-0.5|-24.4|
91790760|NCT02880956|183460080|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790761|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.902||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.465||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.465|-3.080|0.148
91900013|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.81|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.81|-0.28|0.342
91790762|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91900014|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.311|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.311
91787602|NCT03032380|183454689|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|7.9|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||7.9|-15.5|
91787603|NCT03032380|183454690|OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|15.8|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||15.8|-7.9|
91787604|NCT03032380|183454691|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.8|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the ACM rate at Day 28 based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel weights using APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16) as the stratification factor.|||9.8|-8.7|
91787605|NCT03032380|183454692|OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.4|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the ACM rate at EOS based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel weights using APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16) as the stratification factor.|||13.4|-6.3|
91787606|NCT03032380|183454693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9382|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Hospitalization time at test of cure||||0.9382
91787607|NCT03032380|183454693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6552|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of hospitalization time at follow-up||||0.6552
91787608|NCT02937584|183454695|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.11||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.22|1.02|0.0187
91787609|NCT02937584|183454695|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.33||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.33|1.14|<0.0001
91787610|NCT02937584|183454696|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.75||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.95||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.95|0.59|0.0219
91787611|NCT02937584|183454696|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.71||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.71|0.44|<0.0001
91787612|NCT02937584|183454697|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.12||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.24|1.01|0.0283
91787613|NCT02937584|183454697|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.31|1.12|<0.0001
91787614|NCT02937584|183454698|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.76||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.97|0.59|0.0304
91787615|NCT02937584|183454698|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.72|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.72|0.41|0.0003
91787616|NCT02937584|183454699|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.065||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.158|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.158|-0.028|0.1582
91787617|NCT02937584|183454699|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.151||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.292|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.292|0.010|0.0375
91787618|NCT02937584|183454700|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.978||||0.6176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.073|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.073|0.891|0.6176
91787619|NCT02937584|183454700|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.938||||0.2699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.056|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.056|0.833|0.2699
91787620|NCT00796445|183454713|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) of recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the overall study population of patients with completely resected stage III cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013||||0.8566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.169|||Regression, Cox|||At Final analysis (Month 30)||1.169|0.879|0.8566
91787621|NCT00796445|183454713|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population presenting the potentially favorable gene expression signature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.491|||Regression, Cox|||At Final analysis (Month 30)||1.491|0.828|0.4821
91787622|NCT00796445|183454713|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population without the potentially favorable gene expression signature|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.5375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|1.212|||Regression, Cox|||At Final analysis (Month 30)||1.212|0.691|0.5375
91787623|NCT00796445|183454714|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) of recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the overall study population of patients with completely resected stage III cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.023||||0.7534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.175|||Regression, Cox|||At Follow-up analysis (up to Year 5)||1.175|0.890|0.7534
91787624|NCT00796445|183454714|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population presenting the potentially favorable gene expression signature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094||||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.457|||Regression, Cox|||At Follow-up analysis (up to Year 5)||1.457|0.821|0.5385
91847165|NCT01018511|183577235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs TOCAS.||5.2|0.7|0.011
91847166|NCT01018511|183577235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.8|0.2|0.035
91847167|NCT01018511|183577235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||7.3|2.8|< 0.001
91847168|NCT01018511|183577235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||6.8|2.3|< 0.001
91847169|NCT01018511|183577235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||4.4|-0.2|0.068
91847170|NCT01018511|183577236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.7|0.5|0.013
91847171|NCT01018511|183577236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.3|0.1|0.043
91847172|NCT01018511|183577236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||6.5|2.4|< 0.001
91847173|NCT01018511|183577236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||6.1|1.9|< 0.001
91900015|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.58|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.58|-0.49|0.865
91847174|NCT01018511|183577236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||3.9|-0.3|0.092
91847175|NCT01018511|183577237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||5.5|0.7|0.011
91847176|NCT01018511|183577237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.6|-1.2|0.314
91847177|NCT01018511|183577237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||5.9|1.2|0.003
91847178|NCT01018511|183577237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||4.1|-0.7|0.161
91847179|NCT01018511|183577237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||2.8|-1.9|0.708
91847180|NCT01018511|183577238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.3|0.1|0.043
91847181|NCT01018511|183577238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.0|-0.3|0.120
91900016|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.18|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.18|-0.89|0.193
91900017|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.97|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.97|-0.17|0.170
91847182|NCT01018511|183577238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||4.0|0.8|0.003
91847183|NCT01018511|183577238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||3.7|0.4|0.014
91847184|NCT01018511|183577238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||2.4|-0.9|0.384
91847185|NCT01018511|183577239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.4|0.8|0.004
91847186|NCT01018511|183577239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.8|0.1|0.035
91847187|NCT01018511|183577239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||5.8|2.2|< 0.001
91847188|NCT01018511|183577239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||5.1|1.5|< 0.001
91847189|NCT01018511|183577239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||3.2|-0.5|0.142
91847190|NCT01018511|183577240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS (superiority test).||||0.874
91847191|NCT01018511|183577240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS (superiority test).||||0.240
91847192|NCT01018511|183577240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo (superiority test).||||0.324
91847193|NCT01018511|183577240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo (superiority test).||||0.043
91847194|NCT01018511|183577240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo (superiority test).||||0.407
91847195|NCT01018511|183577247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||<.001
91847196|NCT01018511|183577247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||<.001
91847197|NCT01018511|183577247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
91847198|NCT01018511|183577247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
91847199|NCT01018511|183577247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||0.058
91847200|NCT01018511|183577248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.053
91847201|NCT01018511|183577248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.031
91847202|NCT01018511|183577248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
91847203|NCT01018511|183577248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
91650839|NCT05085613|183194330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.12214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07444||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.938055|37.18234||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||37.18234|-6.938055|0.268
91847204|NCT01018511|183577248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||0.018
91847205|NCT01018511|183577249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.110
91847206|NCT01018511|183577249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.071
91847207|NCT01018511|183577249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
91847208|NCT01018511|183577249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
91847209|NCT01018511|183577249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||0.019
91847210|NCT01324882|183577308|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91900018|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.383
91650840|NCT05085613|183194330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.305576||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.218891|37.0253||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Humor - Control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||37.0253|-8.218891|0.330
91650841|NCT05085613|183194331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.457003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.380984||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.98852|14.07451||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 5|Economic recovery - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||14.07451|-16.98852|0.994
91650842|NCT05085613|183194331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.097586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.675066||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.34491|15.14973||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 5|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||15.14973|-17.34491|0.998
91847211|NCT00430677|183577357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.03||The median time to confirmed CRR was not estimable due to the low number of events. However, the time to confirmed CRR was compared between the abatacept and placebo treatment regimens using a score test.|Regression, Cox||Point estimate, 95% CI and P-value (based on Score Test) for the hazard ratio is determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||2.03|0.60|0.746
91847212|NCT00430677|183577357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.6||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.83||The median time to confirmed CRR was not estimable due to the low number of events. However, the time to confirmed CRR was compared between the abatacept and placebo treatment regimens using a score test.|Regression, Cox||Point estimate, 95% CI and P-value (based on Score Test) for the hazard ratio is determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||2.83|0.89|0.118
91847213|NCT00430677|183577360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.78|||||Point Estimate, 95% CI for the hazard ratio was determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||1.78|0.91|
91847214|NCT00430677|183577360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.77|||||Point Estimate, 95% CI for the hazard ratio was determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||1.77|0.91|
91847215|NCT00430677|183577366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|21.3||||||||21.3|0.68|
91847216|NCT00430677|183577366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.59||||||||1.59|0.49|
91847217|NCT00430677|183577368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||ANCOVA||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and randomization strata (prior treatment status) and baseline measurements as covariates.|||0.19|-0.13|
91847218|NCT00430677|183577368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||ANCOVA||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and randomization strata (prior treatment status) and baseline measurements as covariates.|||0.14|-0.18|
91847219|NCT00299702|183577481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684||||||Hochberg procedure was used for adjusting multiple endpoint comparisons|Log Rank|Insufficient number of subjects who had an event for median estimation.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in time to relapse||||0.684
91847220|NCT00299702|183577482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||||||Hochberg procedure was used for adjusting multiple endpoint comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in time in remission between the two treatment groups||||0.646
91847221|NCT02931396|183577483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.768
91847222|NCT02931396|183577484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.5||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91847223|NCT02931396|183577485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91847224|NCT01866917|183577493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.574
91847225|NCT01866917|183577494|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis performed using SPSS software, version 15 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Data for quantitative variables reported as a median and interquartile range. The Mann Whitney and chi-square tests were used for the analysis of continuous and categorical variables.|Interquartile range (IQR)|3.0||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect size was calculated for the numeric pain rating scale at the immediate post-operative period, 4-hour, 8-hour , 12-hour, and 24-hour time periods as a means to assess post-operative pain control.|Chi-squared|||TAP has been demonstrated to have a potential role in reducing pain, post-operative opioid requirement, and time to hospital discharge after abdominal hysterectomies and cesarean sections.||||.825
91847226|NCT00662909|183577507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.03||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.03|-0.66|0.026
91900019|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.62|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.62|-0.48|0.802
91900020|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.24|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.24|-0.87|0.260
91650843|NCT05085613|183194331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.926191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.588643||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.110771|24.96315||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 5|Humor - Control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||24.96315|-7.110771|0.447
91847227|NCT00662909|183577507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.18||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.18|-0.82|<0.001
91847228|NCT00662909|183577508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.24||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.24|-0.98|0.001
91847229|NCT00662909|183577508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.33||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.33|-1.07|<0.001
91847230|NCT00662909|183577509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|17.9||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||17.9|4.4|0.001
91847231|NCT00662909|183577509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.7||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||17.7|4.2|0.002
91847232|NCT00662909|183577510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.15||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.15|-0.80|0.003
91650844|NCT05085613|183194332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.154612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.986723||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.985328|0.6761041||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Economic recovery - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||.6761041|-8.985328|0.113
91900021|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.98|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.98|-0.21|0.199
91900022|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.139
91650845|NCT05085613|183194332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.685896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.046067||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6609|2.289114||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||2.289114|-7.66090|0.473
91847233|NCT00662909|183577510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.13||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.79|<0.001
91847234|NCT00662909|183577511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.77|0.022
91847235|NCT00662909|183577511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.24||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.24|-0.96|0.001
91847236|NCT01451814|183577542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.48|||Chi-squared|||||5.48|0.67|.22
91847237|NCT01451814|183577543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|22.1|||Chi-squared|||||22.1|0.84|.06
91847238|NCT01451814|183577544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|16.11|||Chi-squared|||||16.11|0.56|.18
91847239|NCT02145182|183577551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression results for the DGF composite, the effect of treatment adjusted for preservation type, donor type, and Irish score.|Calculated using the logistic regression model.|Analysis of DGF composite||1.33|0.49|0.3983
91847240|NCT01466881|183577560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided alpha level of 0.05||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in Aurora kinase A expression between responders and non-responders.||||0.2316
91847241|NCT02219490|183577565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
91847242|NCT02219490|183577565|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.358|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.358|0.044|<0.001
91847243|NCT02219490|183577566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
91847244|NCT02219490|183577566|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.031||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.38|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.380|0.003|0.007
91650846|NCT05085613|183194332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.469932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.102231||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58151|-1.358358||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Humor - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||-1.358358|-11.58151|0.008
91847245|NCT02219490|183577567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
91847246|NCT02219490|183577567|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.156|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.156|0.009|<0.001
91847247|NCT02219490|183577568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.860
91847248|NCT02219490|183577568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.997
91900023|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.8|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.80|-0.35|0.441
91650847|NCT00602030|183194380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.72||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimation of odds ratio adjusted for the smoking history stratification factor, using placebo as reference group.|||1.89|0.27|0.505
91650848|NCT00602030|183194381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.31||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimation of odds ratio was adjusted for the smoking history stratification factor, using placebo as reference group .|||1.54|0.06|0.13
91650849|NCT00602030|183194382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.06||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimation of odds ratio was adjusted for the smoking history stratification factor, using placebo as reference group.|||3.27|0.34|0.918
91650850|NCT00397839|183194422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.58|||<|0.001||95.0|1.41|3.76|||ANCOVA|||||3.76|1.41|<0.001
91847249|NCT02219490|183577569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.608
91900024|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.18|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.18|-0.96|0.183
91900025|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.23|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.23|-0.00|0.050
91900026|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.221
91900027|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.79|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.79|-0.40|0.526
91900028|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.4||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.23|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.23|-0.96|0.232
91847250|NCT02219490|183577569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.992
91847251|NCT02219490|183577570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
91847252|NCT02219490|183577570|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.313|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.313|0.057|<0.001
91847253|NCT02219490|183577571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.37|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Final Treatment Visit~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||2.37|-0.37|0.151
91847254|NCT02219490|183577571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.4|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 12~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||1.4|-1.64|0.878
91847255|NCT02219490|183577571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.48|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 24~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||0.48|-2.33|=0.199
91847256|NCT02219490|183577571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.33|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 52~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||-0.33|-4|0.021
91847257|NCT02219490|183577571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.71|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 104~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||-0.71|-4.22|0.006
91650851|NCT00397839|183194423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.118||95.0|-0.22|1.94|||ANCOVA|||||1.94|-0.22|0.118
91847258|NCT02219490|183577571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-0.79|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 156~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||-0.79|-4.38|0.005
91847259|NCT02219490|183577571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.59|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 208~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||0.59|-3.32|0.172
91900029|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.19|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.19|-0.08|0.089
91650852|NCT00397839|183194424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.13|||<|0.001||95.0|1.34|2.92|||ANCOVA|||Total Hip subgroup||2.92|1.34|<0.001
91650853|NCT00397839|183194424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43||||0.012||95.0|0.32|2.55|||ANCOVA|||Femoral Neckm subgroup||2.55|0.32|0.012
91650854|NCT00397839|183194424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.004||95.0|0.56|2.88|||ANCOVA|||Trochanter subgroup||2.88|0.56|0.004
91650855|NCT00397839|183194425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75|||<|0.001||95.0|1.11|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Total Hip subgroup||2.40|1.11|<0.001
91847260|NCT02219490|183577571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.1|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 260~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||1.1|-3.35|0.322
91847261|NCT01454362|183577573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91847262|NCT01454362|183577574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91847263|NCT01454362|183577575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847264|NCT01454362|183577576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91847265|NCT01454362|183577577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91847266|NCT01928940|183577600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
91650856|NCT00397839|183194425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.031||95.0|0.11|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Femoral Neck subgroup||2.25|0.11|0.031
91650857|NCT00397839|183194425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.031||95.0|0.11|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Trochanter subgroup||2.25|0.11|0.031
91650858|NCT00397839|183194426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.362||95.0|0.73|1.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Spine BMD at Month 6||1.13|0.73|0.362
91650859|NCT00397839|183194426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.044||95.0|0.72|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Spine BMD at Month 12||1.01|0.72|0.044
91650860|NCT00397839|183194426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||<|0.001||95.0|0.3|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Hip BMD at Month 6||0.72|0.30|<0.001
91650861|NCT00397839|183194426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|0.41|0.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Hip BMD at Month 12||0.80|0.41|<0.001
91650862|NCT00397839|183194426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||<|0.001||95.0|0.23|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Both Total Hip and Total Spine BMD at Month 6||0.72|0.23|<0.001
91650863|NCT00397839|183194426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|0.33|0.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Both Total Hip and Total Spine BMD||0.75|0.33|<0.001
91650864|NCT02151461|183194427|OTHER|A mixed-effects model for analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze changes from Baseline in plasma glucose AUC(0-3hr) at Week 4 in the Day 28 Evaluable population. The model includes factors for treatment group and fasting plasma glucose stratum.||||||0.0435||||||Baseline plasma glucose AUC(0-3hr) is adjusted as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0435
91650865|NCT02151461|183194427|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.065
91650866|NCT02151461|183194427|OTHER|||||||0.1216|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1216
91650867|NCT02151461|183194428|OTHER|A mixed-effects model for analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze changes from Baseline in incremental plasma glucose AUC at Week 4 in the Day 28 Evaluable population. The model will include factors for treatment group and fasting plasma glucose stratum.||||||0.8867|||||||ANCOVA|The model includes factors for treatment group and fasting plasma glucose stratum.||||||0.8867
91650868|NCT02151461|183194428|OTHER|||||||0.7641|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7641
91847267|NCT01928940|183577600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
91847268|NCT01928940|183577605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
91847269|NCT01928940|183577605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|50.0||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|82.2|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||82.2|11.8|0.0158
91847270|NCT01928940|183577606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
91847271|NCT01928940|183577606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|50.0||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|88.2|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||88.2|11.8|0.0158
91847272|NCT01928940|183577609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
91847273|NCT01928940|183577609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
91847274|NCT01363479|183577624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis was rejected (and non inferiority of oral palonosetron 0.50 mg versus I.V. palonosetron 0.25 mg demonstrated), if the lower limit of the 2 sided 99% CI for the difference in proportion of patients with CR (risk difference) was greater (i.e., closer to zero) than 15%.Study had 90% power.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.74|9.17|||||The risk difference and the 99% CI calculation were performed using a 2 sided stratum adjusted Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including gender and region as strata.|||9.17|-2.74|
91847275|NCT04807517|183577658|OTHER|Within-group test for 16-week change|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression||||||<0.001
91847276|NCT04939428|183577684|SUPERIORITY||Confidence Interval|-2.0|||=|0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||0.9|-5|= 0.0848
91847277|NCT04939428|183577685|OTHER|Estimated differences and confidence intervals are provided.|Confidence Interval|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||95% CIs (Tier 2 endpoints) was provided for between treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events; these analyses was performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||2.0|-4.8|
91847278|NCT04939428|183577686|OTHER|Estimated differences and confidence intervals are provided|Confidence Interval|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method.|||95% CIs (Tier 2 endpoints) was provided for between treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events; these analyses was performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.0|-0.4|
91847279|NCT04939428|183577687|SUPERIORITY||Confidence Interval|-3.2|||=|0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||-0.1|-6.3|= 0.0205
91847280|NCT04939428|183577688|OTHER|Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals.|Confidence Interval|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||1.0|-5.4|
91847281|NCT04939428|183577689|OTHER|Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals|Confidence Interval|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.8||||||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||0.8|-6.9|
91787625|NCT00796445|183454714|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population without the potentially favorable gene expression signature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.207|||Regression, Cox|||At Follow-up analysis (up to Year 5)||1.207|0.698|0.5419
91787626|NCT01433289|183454763|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study hypothesis tested whether Polyphenon E given twice daily for 14 days at the specified doses has an effect on antiviral activity compared with placebo, measured by differences from baseline to day 14 in plasma HIV-1 RNA level (log10 copies/mL). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the null hypothesis that there was no change at Day 14 versus baseline.||||>0.05
91787627|NCT01433289|183454763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Analysis was stratified by treatment group. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the change of log10 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml between treatment groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.74
91787628|NCT00783198|183454796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.57|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.57|-2.95|0.0039
91787629|NCT00783198|183454796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.07|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-1.07|-3.41|0.0002
91787630|NCT00783198|183454797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.09|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.09|-2.08|0.0320
91787631|NCT00783198|183454797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.82|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.82|-2.78|0.0003
91787632|NCT00783198|183454798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.01|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.01|-1.54|0.0472
91787633|NCT00783198|183454798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.19|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.19|-1.70|0.0144
91787634|NCT00783198|183454799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.19|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.19|-1.11|0.1686
91847282|NCT04939428|183577690|OTHER|Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||2.0|-22.7|
91650869|NCT02151461|183194428|OTHER|||||||0.2518|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2518
91787635|NCT00783198|183454799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.18|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.18|-1.46|0.0125
91650870|NCT02151461|183194429|OTHER|||||||0.0179|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose, Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.0179
91787636|NCT00783198|183454800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.32|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.32|-1.65|0.0039
91787637|NCT00783198|183454800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.64|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.64|-1.95|0.0001
91787638|NCT01134705|183454812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Repeated measures Analysis of covariance|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.5|-1.2|<0.001
91787639|NCT01134705|183454813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91787640|NCT01134705|183454814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
91787641|NCT00101452|183454824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91787642|NCT01510769|183454825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|-0.03|0.1298
91787643|NCT01510769|183454825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.42|0.17|<0.0001
91787644|NCT01510769|183454826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.4453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.16|-0.07|0.4453
91787645|NCT01510769|183454826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.02|0.1149
91787646|NCT01510769|183454827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|-0.10|0.6450
91847283|NCT05096117|183577691|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.178||||0.784|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.784
91851941|NCT02045836|183587280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.4|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-19A||1.4|0.95|
91787647|NCT01510769|183454827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06||||0.4118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.08|0.4118
91787648|NCT01510769|183454828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.07|-0.24|0.3034
91847284|NCT04319094|183577705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-2.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = Post-intervention - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-2.62|-4.77|<0.0001
91787649|NCT01510769|183454828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.04|-0.34|0.0210
91787650|NCT02874144|183454849|SUPERIORITY|intention-to-treat with participants analyzed according to a randomly assigned treatment group irrespective of compliance.|Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We used baseline scores to track change to follow-up scores and used a difference-in-differences (D-I-D) statistical approach to compare the change over time compare relative rate of change over time between scores within the treatment group (AZD1981 plus INCS) and within the to scores within the placebo group (INCS treatment only)..|For inflammatory mediator analyses, data were reported as mean (SEM) with statistical significance determined by Kruskal-Wallis test.|||<0.05
91847285|NCT04319094|183577705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-1.25||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = 3-month - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.25|-3.81|0.0001
91847286|NCT04319094|183577705|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.53|-4.13|<0.0001
91847287|NCT04319094|183577705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.49||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.49|-4.03|<0.0001
91847288|NCT04319094|183577705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-1.17||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference =12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.17|-3.95|0.0003
91847289|NCT04319094|183577705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of PHQ-9 over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.4375
91847290|NCT04319094|183577706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|6.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36 - Physical Functioning scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|6.37|-3.15|0.51
91847291|NCT04319094|183577706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|11.21||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|11.21|-2.08|0.18
91847292|NCT04319094|183577706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|8.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|8.04|-4.89|0.63
91900030|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.190
91650871|NCT02151461|183194429|OTHER|||||||0.0736|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0736
91650872|NCT02151461|183194429|OTHER|||||||0.0475|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0475
91650873|NCT02151461|183194430|OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose. Pairwise Comparison using Treatment D as the Reference Group||||||0.0089
91650874|NCT02151461|183194430|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.376
91650875|NCT02151461|183194430|OTHER|||||||0.0578|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0578
91790763|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.278|0.246||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.246|-3.278|0.092
91790764|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790765|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.915||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.446|0.152||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.152|-3.446|0.073
91790766|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790767|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.081||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.652|2.599||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.599|-1.652|0.662
91790768|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.07|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790769|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.089|2.068||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.068|-2.089|0.992
91790770|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.38|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790771|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.088||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.961|1.32||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.320|-2.961|0.451
91790772|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790773|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.088|1.739||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.739|-3.088|0.583
91790774|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790775|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.213||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.975|0.795||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.795|-3.975|0.191
91790776|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.37|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790777|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.238||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.541|1.329|||repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.329|-3.541|0.372
91790778|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.96|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
91790779|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.303||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.553|1.571||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.571|-3.553|0.447
91790780|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.35|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
91790781|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.334|2.719||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.719|-2.334|0.881
91790782|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.68|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790783|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.881|2.383||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.383|-2.881|0.853
91790784|NCT02880956|183460081|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.54|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91900031|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.85|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.85|-0.31|0.365
91900032|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.27|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.27|-0.89|0.295
91900033|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.2|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.20|-0.05|0.069
91900034|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.197
91709555|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.1||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.1|-6.2|
91790785|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.567|0.762||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.762|-2.567|0.287
91790786|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790787|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.838||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.661|0.633||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.633|-2.661|0.227
91790788|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790789|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.698|0.681||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.681|-2.698|0.241
91790790|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.22|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790791|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.958||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.073|2.696||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.696|-1.073|0.397
91790792|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790793|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.239|1.443||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.443|-2.239|0.671
91790794|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.59|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790795|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.964||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.052|0.738||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.738|-3.052|0.231
91790796|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.25|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790797|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.137||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.701||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||4.701|0.230|0.031
91790798|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.65|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91851942|NCT02045836|183587280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-19F||1.25|0.84|
91650876|NCT02151461|183194431|OTHER|||||||0.2177|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose. Pairwise Comparison using Treatment D as the Reference Group||The HOMA Calculator,is an algorithm that takes account of variations in hepatic and peripheral glucose resistance, increases in insulin secretion curve for plasma glucose concentrations above 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL), and contribution of circulating proinsulin (eg, C-peptide) to estimate steady state beta cell function (%HOMA-B) and insulin sensitivity (%HOMA-S), as percentages of a normal reference population. %HOMA-IR was analyzed on a logarithmic scale (natural logarithmic transformation).||||0.2177
91650877|NCT02151461|183194431|OTHER|||||||0.4144|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4144
91650878|NCT02151461|183194431|OTHER|||||||0.3117|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3117
91650879|NCT02151461|183194432|OTHER|Average Change in Pre-meal Glucose Level||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.011
91900035|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.92|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.92|-0.29|0.309
91847293|NCT04319094|183577706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|4.91||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.91|-6.94|0.74
91847294|NCT04319094|183577706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|8.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|8.23|-6.82|0.85
91847295|NCT04319094|183577706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3988|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of physical functioning over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.3988
91847296|NCT04319094|183577707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|11.79||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|11.79|-1.63|0.14
91847297|NCT04319094|183577707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|18.19||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|18.19|2.45|0.01
91650880|NCT02151461|183194432|OTHER|Average Change in Pre-meal Glucose Level||||||0.0152|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0152
91650881|NCT02151461|183194432|OTHER|Average Change in Pre-meal Glucose Level||||||0.0284|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0284
91847298|NCT04319094|183577707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|18.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|18.5|2.01|0.015
91847299|NCT04319094|183577707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|19.73||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|19.73|3.7|0.004
91847300|NCT04319094|183577707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|14.55||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|14.55|-3.09|0.2
91847301|NCT04319094|183577707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of social functioning over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.8037
91847302|NCT04319094|183577708|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.01||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|22.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|22.37|2.67|0.0129
91847303|NCT04319094|183577708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.32|31.36||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|31.36|8.32|0.0008
91847304|NCT04319094|183577708|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|17.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.92|30.06||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|30.06|5.92|0.0036
91847305|NCT04319094|183577708|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|16.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.47|28.01||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|28.01|4.47|0.007
91847306|NCT04319094|183577708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|25.19||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|25.19|-0.68|0.065
91847307|NCT04319094|183577708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of emotional functioning over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.8810
91900036|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.33|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.33|-0.89|0.359
91650882|NCT02151461|183194432|OTHER|Average Change in Post-meal Glucose Level||||||0.1273|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.1273
91650883|NCT02151461|183194432|OTHER|Average Change in Post-meal Glucose Level||||||0.0085|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0085
91650884|NCT02151461|183194432|OTHER|Average Change in Post-meal Glucose Level||||||0.1289|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1289
91650885|NCT02151461|183194433|OTHER|Plasma Insulin Absolute AUC(0-2hr) (h\*uIU/mL)||||||0.3143|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose. Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group.||||||0.3143
91650886|NCT02151461|183194433|OTHER|Plasma Insulin Absolute AUC(0-2hr) (h\*uIU/mL)||||||0.5677|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5677
91790799|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.532|2.888||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.888|-1.532|0.547
91650887|NCT02151461|183194433|OTHER|Plasma Insulin Absolute AUC(0-2hr) (h\*uIU/mL)||||||0.8407|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8407
91650888|NCT02151461|183194434|OTHER|||||||0.9789|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.9789
91650889|NCT02151461|183194434|OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.841
91650890|NCT02151461|183194434|OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.748
91650891|NCT02191579|183194466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.681|9.085||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were estimated using a logistic regression model adjusted by baseline headache days.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.085|2.681|<0.001
91650892|NCT02191579|183194467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.936|-4.462||Estimated mean difference, 95% CI, and p-value were assessed using analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline headache days.|ANCOVA|||||-4.462|-7.936|<0.001
91650893|NCT02191579|183194468|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.248|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.766|-2.731||Estimated mean difference, 95% CI, and p-value for Week 30 were assessed using analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline headache days.|ANCOVA|||||-2.731|-5.766|<0.001
91650894|NCT02191579|183194469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.001||95.0|2.014|8.157||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value for the Week 29-32 interval were estimated using a logistic regression model adjusted by baseline headache days.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.157|2.014|<0.001
91650895|NCT01086215|183194496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
91650896|NCT01086215|183194496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
91650897|NCT01086215|183194496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
91650898|NCT01086215|183194496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
91790800|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790801|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.145||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.521|2.984||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.984|-1.521|0.524
91790802|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.42|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790803|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.499|1.836||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.836|-3.499|0.540
91790804|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790805|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.208|2.046||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.046|-3.208|0.664
91847308|NCT04319094|183577709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|F-test for overall significance|Degrees of freedom: 370||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the change in probability of ER use from baseline to post-intervention between PEERS and control participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|||0.031
91847309|NCT04319094|183577714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|-2.18||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: post-intervention - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-2.18|-7.78|0.0005
91847310|NCT04319094|183577714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|-3.69||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 3-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-3.69|-11.08|<0.0001
91847311|NCT04319094|183577714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-3.95||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-3.95|-11.3|<0.0001
91650899|NCT01965652|183194500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72||The significance level was set at 0.05 (2-sided). The analysis of efficacy endpoints was not adjusted for multiplicity; hence, the p-values are purely nominal. A mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method was used for the comparisons.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||1.72|0.83|<0.0001
91900037|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.25|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.25|-0.05|0.072
91847312|NCT04319094|183577714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|-4.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-4.7|-11.53|<0.0001
91847313|NCT04319094|183577714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-4.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-4.14|-12.37|<0.0001
91847314|NCT04319094|183577714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6857|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: there is no statistical difference in the change of UCLA Loneliness score over time between control and PEERS participants||||0.6857
91847315|NCT04319094|183577715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: post-intervention - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|2.86|0.72|0.001
91847316|NCT04319094|183577715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.25||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 3-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|2.25|-0.39|0.18
91847317|NCT04319094|183577715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|2.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|2.45|-0.24|0.11
91847318|NCT04319094|183577715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.54||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|3.54|0.98|0.0006
91847319|NCT04319094|183577715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.95||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|3.95|1.01|0.001
91900038|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.151|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.151
91847320|NCT04319094|183577715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1195|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of GSES scores over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.1195
91847321|NCT04319094|183577716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.73||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: post-intervention - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.73|1.71|<0.0001
91847322|NCT04319094|183577716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 3-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.62|0.57|0.0123
91847323|NCT04319094|183577716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.63||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.63|0.63|0.01
91847324|NCT04319094|183577716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|6.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|6.04|2.32|<0.0001
91847325|NCT04319094|183577716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.44||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|5.44|0.83|0.0078
91847326|NCT04319094|183577716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: there is no statistical difference in the change in adaptive coping over time between control and PEERS participants.||||0.1408
91847327|NCT02042443|183577747|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.03|||Log Rank|||||4.03|1.01|0.05
91847328|NCT01649427|183577751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91847329|NCT02735187|183577757|SUPERIORITY|A paired t-test was applied to test the primary hypothesis. In case the requirements for normality were not met, a non-parametric analysis (Wilcoxon signed rank test) was performed.||||||0.6469||||||A probability (P-Value) above 0.05 is considered not to be statistical significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6469
91847330|NCT02138916|183577768|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.96||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.15|0.8|0.6490
91847331|NCT02138916|183577768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.00|0.69|0.0525
91847332|NCT02138916|183577769|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.5236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.34|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.34|0.86|0.5236
91847333|NCT02138916|183577769|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.27|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.27|0.82|0.8812
91847334|NCT02138916|183577770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.048|-0.035|0.7550
91847335|NCT02138916|183577770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.062|-0.021|0.3285
91847336|NCT02138916|183577771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.011||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.887|0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.865|-2.887|0.2906
91847337|NCT02138916|183577771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.136||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.251|-4.020|0.0264
91847338|NCT02138916|183577772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.70|-1.08|0.6782
91847339|NCT02138916|183577772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.08|-1.70|0.0753
91847340|NCT02138916|183577773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.585||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.089|-1.260|0.0889
91847341|NCT02138916|183577773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.703||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.378|-0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.028|-1.378|0.0413
91847342|NCT02138916|183577774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.348||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.032|-0.728|0.0728
91847343|NCT02138916|183577774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.487||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.868|-0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.107|-0.868|0.0121
91847344|NCT02138916|183577775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.006|-0.077|0.0235
91847345|NCT02138916|183577775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.008|-0.080|0.0158
91847346|NCT02138916|183577779|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.09||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.34|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.34|0.89|0.4080
91847347|NCT02138916|183577779|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.21|0.80|0.8688
91847348|NCT02138916|183577780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.22|0.66|0.4850
91847349|NCT02138916|183577780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.21|0.65|0.4489
91847350|NCT02138916|183577782|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.06||||0.7733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.53|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||1.53|0.73|0.7733
91847351|NCT02138916|183577782|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.58||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.89|||Nagative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||0.89|0.39|0.0114
91847352|NCT05750745|183577799|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||0.02|-0.36|0.0871
91847353|NCT05750745|183577800|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.548||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|13.2|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||13.20|-0.78|0.0972
91847354|NCT05750745|183577801|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|0.41|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||0.41|-12.04|0.0671
91847355|NCT05750745|183577802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||0.01|-0.27|0.0673
91847356|NCT05750745|183577803|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.446||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|7.2|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||7.20|-2.44|0.4050
91847357|NCT05750745|183577804|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.656||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|-0.41|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||-0.41|-10.88|0.0346
91847358|NCT05750745|183577805|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.8256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||0.19|-0.15|0.8256
91847359|NCT05750745|183577805|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.5314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.30|-0.16|0.5314
91847360|NCT05750745|183577806|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.5575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|3.3|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the Van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||3.30|-8.48|0.5575
91847361|NCT05750745|183577806|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.308||0.7717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.37|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||7.37|-9.60|0.7717
91847362|NCT05750745|183577807|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.235||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|7.12|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||7.12|-5.63|0.8180
91900039|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.32|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.32|-0.10|0.090
91900040|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.66|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.66|-0.76|0.889
91900041|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.42|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.42|-0.10|0.088
91900042|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.673
91900043|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.04|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.04|-0.41|0.393
91900044|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.78|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.78|-0.67|0.887
91900045|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.04|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.04|-0.51|0.507
91900046|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.873
91900047|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.0|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.00|-0.58|0.605
91900048|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.86|||ANOVA|||26 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.86|-0.72|0.860
91900049|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.98|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.98|-0.71|0.751
91900050|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.528|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.528
91847363|NCT05750745|183577807|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.834||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|11.28|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||11.28|-3.83|0.3322
91847364|NCT04888585|183577829|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||31.0|11.5|<0.001
91847365|NCT04888585|183577829|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||36.7|16.5|<0.001
91847366|NCT04888585|183577829|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||48.1|27.4|<0.001
91847367|NCT04888585|183577829|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||32.6|13.8|<0.001
91847368|NCT04888585|183577830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg - Placebo|||-0.14|-0.87|0.007
91847369|NCT04888585|183577830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.64|-1.38|<0.001
91847370|NCT04888585|183577830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||-1.05|-1.80|<0.001
91847371|NCT04888585|183577830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340 E4W - Placebo|||-0.26|-0.99|<0.001
91847372|NCT04888585|183577831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.56||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.92|-8.21|0.014
91847373|NCT04888585|183577831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-8.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||-4.31|-11.70|<0.001
91847374|NCT04888585|183577831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-11.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||-7.73|-15.10|<0.001
91847375|NCT04888585|183577831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|-1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||-1.69|-8.89|0.004
91847376|NCT04888585|183577832|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||37.3|12.1|<0.001
91847377|NCT04888585|183577832|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||42.9|17.4|<0.001
91650900|NCT01965652|183194500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.47|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||1.47|0.53|<0.0001
91847378|NCT04888585|183577832|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|45.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||57.4|33.5|<0.001
91847379|NCT04888585|183577832|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||37.3|11.9|<0.001
91847380|NCT04888585|183577833|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|6.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||12.4|0.6|0.031
91847381|NCT04888585|183577833|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|9.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||17.0|2.7|0.007
91847382|NCT04888585|183577833|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||18.2|3.6|0.004
91650901|NCT01965652|183194500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.5|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||1.50|0.52|<0.0001
91650902|NCT01965652|183194500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.51|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||1.51|0.49|0.0001
91900051|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.52|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.52|-1.09|0.486
91900052|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.02|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.02|-0.60|0.610
91709556|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.5||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.5|-5.6|
91790806|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790807|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.923|1.546||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.546|-3.923|0.393
91790808|NCT02880956|183460082|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790809|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.498||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.498|-0.534|0.946
91790810|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790811|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.813|0.206||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.206|-0.813|0.242
91790812|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790813|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.36||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.360|-0.685|0.541
91790814|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790815|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|0.691||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.691|-0.481|0.724
91790816|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.36|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790817|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.913||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.913|-0.226|0.236
91790818|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790819|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|0.695||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.695|-0.477|0.714
91790820|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790821|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|0.593||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.593|-0.496|0.860
91790822|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790823|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.733|0.343||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.343|-0.733|0.476
91790824|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91847383|NCT04888585|183577833|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|0.9||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||5.9|-4.0|0.709
91847384|NCT04888585|183577834|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||28.9|4.9|0.006
91847385|NCT04888585|183577834|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|25.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||38.1|13.5|<0.001
91847386|NCT04888585|183577834|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||44.2|18.9|<0.001
91847387|NCT04888585|183577834|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||35.4|11.0|<0.001
91847388|NCT04888585|183577835|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||26.2|2.0|0.022
91847389|NCT04888585|183577835|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||35.5|10.0|<0.001
91847390|NCT04888585|183577835|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|37.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||37.0|11.6|<0.001
91847391|NCT04888585|183577835|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|12.6||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|24.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||24.7|0.5|0.042
91900053|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.37|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.37|-1.36|0.261
91900054|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.943|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.943
91900055|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.68|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.68|-0.96|0.733
91847392|NCT04888585|183577836|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.1||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||14.6|-4.4|0.296
91847393|NCT04888585|183577836|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||30.2|8.7|<0.001
91900056|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.77|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.77|-0.87|0.902
91900057|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.79|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.79|-0.97|0.840
91900058|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.758
91900059|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.54|-1.12|0.493
91900060|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.82|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.82|-0.84|0.974
91900061|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.61|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.61|-1.16|0.543
91847394|NCT04888585|183577836|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||36.7|14.3|<0.001
91847395|NCT04888585|183577836|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||24.5|3.8|0.007
91847396|NCT04888585|183577837|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.1||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||13.0|1.3|0.017
91847397|NCT04888585|183577837|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.0||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||6.8|-2.8|0.424
91847398|NCT04888585|183577837|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||7.5|-2.3|0.303
91847399|NCT04888585|183577837|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|1.3||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340 E4W - Placebo|||5.4|-2.9|0.551
91847400|NCT04888585|183577838|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.03|-0.33|0.022
91650903|NCT01965652|183194502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.25|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.25|-0.44|<0.0001
91900062|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.238|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.238
91650904|NCT01965652|183194502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.14|-0.36|<0.0001
91650905|NCT01965652|183194502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.18|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.18|-0.40|<0.0001
91847401|NCT04888585|183577838|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.10|-0.41|0.001
91847402|NCT04888585|183577838|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.17|-0.48|<0.001
91847403|NCT04888585|183577838|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||-0.06|-0.36|0.007
91847404|NCT04927975|183577839|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-7.6||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.18|6.97|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||6.97|-22.18|0.304
91847405|NCT04927975|183577839|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-21.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.02|-6.52|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-6.52|-36.02|0.005
91847406|NCT04927975|183577839|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-19.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|-4.16|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-4.16|-35.04|0.013
91847407|NCT04927975|183577840|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|6.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||15.2|-1.3|0.100
91847408|NCT04927975|183577840|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|17.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||29.0|6.5|0.002
91847409|NCT04927975|183577840|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|11.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|21.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||21.9|1.4|0.026
91847410|NCT04927975|183577841|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|6.6||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||19.7|-6.6|0.327
91650906|NCT01965652|183194502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.24|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.24|-0.47|<0.0001
91650907|NCT01965652|183194502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.12|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.12|-0.35|<0.0001
91847411|NCT04927975|183577841|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|44.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||44.9|13.8|<0.001
91900063|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.14|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.14|-1.46|0.106
91650908|NCT01965652|183194503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.1|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.10|-0.31|0.0002
91650909|NCT01965652|183194503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.03|||Mixed-effects model repeated meaures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.03|-0.26|0.0173
91650910|NCT01965652|183194503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.06|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.06|-0.30|0.0035
91650911|NCT01965652|183194503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.16|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.16|-0.40|<0.0001
91847412|NCT04927975|183577841|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|28.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|44.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||44.7|12.6|<0.001
91847413|NCT04927975|183577842|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|3.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||11.2|-3.9|0.340
91847414|NCT04927975|183577842|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|3.8||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||11.8|-4.3|0.358
91847415|NCT04927975|183577842|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|9.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||17.2|1.0|0.027
91847416|NCT04927975|183577843|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-7.45||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|1.96|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||1.96|-16.86|0.120
91847417|NCT04927975|183577843|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-10.84||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.37|-1.32|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-1.32|-20.37|0.026
91847418|NCT04927975|183577843|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-14.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-4.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-4.30|-24.24|0.005
91900064|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.71|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.71|-0.90|0.817
91900065|NCT01794923|183694254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.3|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.30|-1.43|0.197
91900066|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.702|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.702
91900067|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|15.53|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||15.53|-9.91|0.664
91650912|NCT01965652|183194503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.01|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.01|-0.26|0.0336
91790825|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.694||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.694|-0.393|0.586
91847419|NCT04927975|183577844|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.4|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||4.4|-8.3|0.545
91847420|NCT04927975|183577844|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|8.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||8.3|-4.5|0.565
91847421|NCT04927975|183577844|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.6|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||5.6|-7.8|0.754
91847422|NCT05550337|183577884|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for the Test-to-Reference ratio of LS mean percent reduction from Baseline to Week 12/Day 84, in the inflammatory lesion counts to be contained within (0.80, 1.25).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.927|1.076||||||||1.076|0.927|
91900068|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|9.68|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||9.68|-15.77|0.637
91900069|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.9||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|19.57|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||19.57|-7.85|0.401
91900070|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.926
91900071|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.51|21.1|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||21.10|-29.51|0.743
91790826|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91650913|NCT01965652|183194504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.14|-0.37|<0.0001
91650914|NCT01965652|183194504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.04|-0.28|0.0114
91650915|NCT01965652|183194504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.11|-0.36|0.0003
91650916|NCT01965652|183194504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.13|-0.38|<0.0001
91790827|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.903||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.903|-0.371|0.412
91790828|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790829|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.868||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.868|-0.386|0.450
91790830|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790831|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|0.816||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.816|-0.481|0.612
91790832|NCT02880956|183460083|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91847423|NCT05550337|183577885|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for the Test-to-Reference ratio of LS mean percent reduction from Baseline to Week 12/Day 84, in the non-inflammatory lesion counts to be contained within (0.80, 1.25).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.017|1.228||||||||1.228|1.017|
91847424|NCT02266329|183577895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.8||The significance of the study visit by treatment interaction with study visit coded as baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in headache (HA) frequency (1. Primary Outcome Measure) is based on linear mixed effects regression of outcome on study visit by treatment interaction with study participant as a random effect.||-0.8|-6.9|0.034
91900072|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.55|26.08|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||26.08|-24.55|0.952
91847425|NCT00813488|183577909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.2|||Mixed effects ANOVA crossover model|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID15 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.20|0.06|0.0004
91847426|NCT00813488|183577910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID5 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.05|-0.01|0.2242
91847427|NCT00813488|183577911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID10 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.11|0.01|0.0106
91847428|NCT00813488|183577912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.4||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID30 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.40|.21|<0.0001
91847429|NCT00813488|183577913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.37||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID45 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.37|0.18|<0.0001
91851943|NCT02045836|183587280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-23F||1.12|0.7|
91787651|NCT02874144|183454849|SUPERIORITY|This was a superiority trial. We used repeated-measures linear regression using the mixed procedure to calculate means for each outcome by visits and treatment status. We used baseline scores to track change to follow-up scores and used a difference-in-differences (D-I-D) statistical approach to compare the change over time between scores within the treatment group (AZD1981 plus INCS) to scores within the placebo group (INCS treatment only).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No, the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|repeated-measures linear regression|We used repeated-measures linear regression using the MIXED procedure to calculate means (SEMS) for each outcome by visits and treatment status.|Our study did not include at relative risk.|The trial design is a continuous outcome superiority trial with primary efficacy outcome measures of change in Total Polyp Score (TPS) comparing AZD to placebo arm from V1 to V5. Total polyp score is a standardized method for assessing nasal polyp size by endoscopy, based on a scale of 1-4 per side. Inclusion criterion for this study is a TPS of ≥4 with a maximum of 8 and a standard deviation ± 2. A clinically meaningful effect is considered to be a decrease in total polyp score of 1.5.||||<0.05
91787652|NCT02975557|183454870|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The type I error was adjusted by using the alpha spending function approach with O'Brien-Fleming type boundaries.||We evaluated if the categorical type of tolerability measure is different between control (Artificial Tears) and intervention (Brimonidine, including both 0.15% high and 0.075% low doses groups).||||1
91787653|NCT04525885|183454871|SUPERIORITY|Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|8.7||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.51|70.03|||ANCOVA||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to placebo was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e\*\*DIFF=exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.|||70.03|-30.51|0.713
91787654|NCT04525885|183454874|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|11.58||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.68|74.57||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to placebo was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e\*\*DIFF=exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.|||74.57|-28.68|0.628
91847430|NCT00813488|183577914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.27||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID60 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.27|0.08|0.0002
91847431|NCT00813488|183577921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.50|0.25|<0.0001
91847432|NCT00813488|183577922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.10|.55|<0.0001
91847433|NCT00813488|183577923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.5575
91650917|NCT01965652|183194504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.04|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.04|-0.29|0.0119
91847434|NCT00813488|183577924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0981
91847435|NCT00813488|183577925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0443|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0443
91847436|NCT00813488|183577926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0004
91650918|NCT01965652|183194505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.39|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.39|-0.64|<0.0001
91847437|NCT00813488|183577927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0001
91847438|NCT00813488|183577928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0018
91847439|NCT00813488|183577929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|0.58|0.9||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||||0.90|0.58|<0.0001
91847440|NCT00813488|183577931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1464||||0.7012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.3|0.6|0.7012
91847441|NCT00813488|183577932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0704||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.4|0.8|0.6545
91847442|NCT00813488|183577933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2544||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|1.0|0.0407
91847443|NCT00813488|183577934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5745||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.0|1.2|0.0007
91847444|NCT00813488|183577935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5828||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.4|1.0|0.0372
91847445|NCT00813488|183577936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3722||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.5|0.7|0.3099
91847446|NCT00813488|183577937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8434||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.5|.5|0.5777
91847447|NCT00813488|183577938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.986||||0.9567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|0.6|0.9567
91787655|NCT04525885|183454875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.13||Comparison based on logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline LCQ total score, and the interaction of baseline LCQ total score by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.13|0.43|0.917
91847448|NCT00813488|183577939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1366||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|0.8|0.4253
91847449|NCT00813488|183577940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4269||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.8|1.1|0.0038
91787656|NCT04525885|183454876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.88||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline 24-hour coughs per hour and the interaction of baseline 24-hour coughs per hour by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.88|0.38|0.687
91787657|NCT04525885|183454877|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.49||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline mean weekly CSD total score and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||2.49|0.49|
91787658|NCT04525885|183454878|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.64||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates||4.64|0.80|
91787659|NCT04525885|183454879|OTHER|Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline mean weekly VAS score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly VAS score by visit as covariates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.72||||||||2.72|0.45|
91787660|NCT03158285|183454881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|39.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.5|22.9|< 0.001
91900073|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|22.3|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||22.30|-32.25|0.719
91650919|NCT01965652|183194505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.26|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.26|-0.51|<0.0001
91650920|NCT01965652|183194505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.27|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.27|-0.54|<0.0001
91650921|NCT01965652|183194505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.34|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.34|-0.62|<0.0001
91650922|NCT01965652|183194505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.23|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.23|-0.52|<0.0001
91787661|NCT03158285|183454881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|39.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.1|22.4|< 0.001
91650923|NCT01965652|183194506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.3|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.30|-0.49|<0.0001
91787662|NCT03158285|183454882|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.2372|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|-0.1534|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1534|-0.3210|< 0.001
91787663|NCT03158285|183454882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.2704|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3544|-0.1864|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1864|-0.3544|< 0.001
91787664|NCT03158285|183454883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.001||95.0|10.0|24.4||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.4|10.0|< 0.001
91787665|NCT03158285|183454883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|26.1||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|11.5|< 0.001
91787666|NCT03158285|183454884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|59.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.7|42.2|<0.001
91787667|NCT03158285|183454884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|58.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.4|41.2|< 0.001
91787668|NCT03158285|183454885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|30.0||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.0|13.1|< 0.001
91787669|NCT03158285|183454885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|30.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.7|13.7|< 0.001
91787670|NCT03158285|183454886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.43||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.90|0.072
91787671|NCT03158285|183454886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.66||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.13|0.011
91787672|NCT03158285|183454887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|28.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|11.8|0.030
91787673|NCT03158285|183454887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|6.4|0.030
91787674|NCT03158285|183454888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.6|7.4|0.030
91787675|NCT03158285|183454888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.0|10.5|0.011
91787676|NCT03158285|183454889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.23||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.77|< 0.001
91787677|NCT03158285|183454889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.31||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.83|< 0.001
91787678|NCT03158285|183454890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.79||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-2.99|< 0.001
91787679|NCT03158285|183454890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.66||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-2.87|0.002
91787680|NCT03158285|183454891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.97||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|5.2|||ANCOVA|||||5.20|2.75|0.011
91787681|NCT03158285|183454891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.62||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|4.85|||ANCOVA|||||4.85|2.39|0.011
91787682|NCT03158285|183454892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.43||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-0.80|< 0.001
91787683|NCT03158285|183454892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.47||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.47|-0.83|< 0.001
91787684|NCT03158285|183454893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.02||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.49|||ANCOVA|||||3.49|0.56|0.072
91787685|NCT03158285|183454893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.07||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.54|||ANCOVA|||||3.54|0.60|0.072
91787686|NCT03158285|183454894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|25.9||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.9|12.6|< 0.001
91787687|NCT03158285|183454894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|17.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|5.2|< 0.001
91787688|NCT03158285|183454895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|19.9||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.9|9.1|< 0.001
91787689|NCT03158285|183454895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|13.8||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.8|4.1|< 0.001
91790833|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.058|0.535||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.535|-1.058|0.520
91847450|NCT00813488|183577941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5118||||0.0012||95.0|1.2|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|1.2|0.0012
91847451|NCT00813488|183577942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5826||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.2|1.1|0.0074
91847452|NCT00813488|183577943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.059||||0.8444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|0.6|0.8444
91847453|NCT00813488|183577944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6033|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.8|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||1.8|1.4|<0.0001
91847454|NCT00813488|183577945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3334|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||1.5|1.2|<0.0001
91847455|NCT02926937|183577963|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|-0.415|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.415|-0.975|<0.0001
91847456|NCT02926937|183577964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.565||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0166|-0.114|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, country, treatment-by-country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.1140|-1.0166|0.0141
91847457|NCT02926937|183577965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.346||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8853|0.1928|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups under Amendment 1 randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, country, treatment-by-country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.1928|-0.8853|0.2081
91847458|NCT02926937|183577966|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.556|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1876|-0.9234|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥ 130mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-0.9234|-2.1876|<0.0001
91847459|NCT02926937|183577967|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.5||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.478|1.476|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using analysis ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.476|-8.478|0.1680
91847460|NCT02926937|183577968|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.78||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.311|1.753|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.753|-3.311|0.5467
91847461|NCT02926937|183577969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.19||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.869|-0.518|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.518|-5.869|0.0193
91650924|NCT01965652|183194506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.26|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.26|-0.46|<0.0001
91900074|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.284
91650925|NCT01965652|183194506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.22|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.22|-0.43|<0.0001
91847462|NCT02926937|183577970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.404|-0.676|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-0.676|-2.404|0.0005
91847463|NCT02926937|183577971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.17||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.281|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-0.050|-2.281|0.0406
91847464|NCT02926937|183577972|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.6||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|21.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from each stratum (randomization strata of HbA1c (\<=8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, \>=130 mmHg) at screening) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||21.02|4.18|0.0037
91847465|NCT02926937|183577973|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|19.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.39|30.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from each stratum (randomization strata of HbA1c (\<=8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, \>=130 mmHg) at screening) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||30.00|8.39|0.0007
91847466|NCT02926937|183577974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.989|-0.354|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.354|-0.989|<0.0001
91847467|NCT00126113|183577994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Analysis for main effect of group||||||>0.05
91847468|NCT00126113|183577995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis for main effect of group|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91847469|NCT00126113|183577996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Analysis for main effect of group||||||>0.05
91787690|NCT00750152|183455097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||one-sided p-value from CMH test|0.001||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test after stratification by site compared the proportion of complete cure in NAFT-500 to that of placebo to evaluate its superiority.||"In order to compare complete cure rate in the NAFT-500 group with that in the placebo group, the following one-sided null and alternate hypotheses will be tested:~* H0: p1 \<= p0~* Ha: p1 \> p0 where p0 and p1 denote the proportion of subjects with complete cure in the placebo and NAFT-500 groups, respectively."||||0.025
91787691|NCT01809639|183455107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||.42
91787692|NCT00978757|183455108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91787693|NCT02140593|183455118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91847470|NCT00126113|183577997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Analysis for main effect of group||||||>0.05
91847471|NCT03499600|183577999|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. This linear regressions tested condition effects on caregiver perceptions of the extent to which the provider understood the caregivers' values or what is important to them.||||.03
91847472|NCT03499600|183577999|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.68|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed.This linear regressions tested condition effects on caregiver satisfaction with the intake.||||.68
91787694|NCT02140593|183455119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91847473|NCT03499600|183577999|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed.This linear regressions tested condition effects on provider perceptions of the extent to which the provider understood the caregivers' values or what is important to them.||||.03
91847474|NCT03499600|183577999|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. This linear regressions tested condition effects on provider satisfaction with the intake.||||<.05
91787695|NCT02043808|183455191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.92|0.52|
91787696|NCT02043808|183455192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.98|0.71|
91787697|NCT02043808|183455193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.07|0.59|
91787698|NCT02043808|183455194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.7|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.70|0.13|
91787699|NCT02043808|183455195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.77|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.77|0.30|
91787700|NCT02043808|183455196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.07|0.76|
91787701|NCT02043808|183455197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.3|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.30|0.89|
91787702|NCT02043808|183455198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.03|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.03|0.50|
91787703|NCT02043808|183455199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.54|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.54|0.99|
91787704|NCT02043808|183455200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.72|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.72|0.17|
91787705|NCT02043808|183455201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.64|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.64|0.22|
91787706|NCT02043808|183455202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.26|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.26|0.55|
91787707|NCT02043808|183455203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.95|0.45|
91787708|NCT02043808|183455204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.31|0.31|
91787709|NCT02043808|183455205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.21|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.21|0.16|
91787710|NCT02043808|183455206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.81|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||2.81|0.34|
91787711|NCT02043808|183455207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.69|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.69|0.52|
91787712|NCT05601544|183455235|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.25||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.025|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-squares mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 41 (for the Multifocal strata) and 6 (for the Sphere strata) participants in each vision group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least a power of 90% (for the Multifocal strata) and a power of 94% (for the Sphere strata) to detect a statistical superiority with respect to visual range.||0.25|0.19|<.0001
91787713|NCT05601544|183455235|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.18||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.025|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-squares mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 41 (for the Multifocal strata) and 6 (for the Sphere strata) participants in each vision group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least a power of 90% (for the Multifocal strata) and a power of 94% (for the Sphere strata) to detect a statistical superiority with respect to visual range.||0.18|0.14|<.0001
91787714|NCT05601544|183455238|SUPERIORITY||Median Ratio|0.83||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.64|1.09||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.0083.|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Median Ratio was calculated as test over control|It was calculated that 16 participants in each group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 92% power to detect a statistical superiority with respect to motion detection.||1.09|0.64|0.0465
91787715|NCT05601544|183455239|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.112|0.17||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.0083|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 29 participants in each group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 91% power to detect a statistical superiority with respect to motion detection.||0.170|0.112|<.0001
91790834|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.52|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790835|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.201|0.374||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.374|-1.201|0.303
91790836|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91900075|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-19.0||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.21|8.28|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||8.28|-46.21|0.171
91900076|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.08|29.42|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||29.42|-25.08|0.875
91790837|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.307|0.315||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.315|-1.307|0.230
91790838|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790839|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5222||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698|0.356||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.356|-1.698|0.200
91790840|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.07|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790841|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.508||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.917||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.917|-1.080|0.873
91790842|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790843|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.482|0.576||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.576|-1.482|0.388
91790844|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790845|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.355|0.955||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.955|-1.355|0.734
91790846|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790847|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.579||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.608|0.668||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.668|-1.608|0.417
91790848|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790849|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.836|0.482||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.482|-1.836|0.252
91790850|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790851|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.669||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.462||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.462|-1.170|0.827
91790852|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.69|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91847475|NCT03499600|183578001|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|||Power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. Linear regressions tested condition effects on therapeutic alliance.||||.93
91847476|NCT03499600|183578001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Linear|||Tested the moderation effects of language of service reception and condition on therapeutic alliance.||||.90
91847477|NCT03499600|183578002|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery. Baseline ECBI score was included as a covariate for the treatment response analyses.||||||0.171|||||||Regression, Logistic|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. A logistic regression tested condition effects on treatment response.||||.171
91847478|NCT03499600|183578002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Testes the effects of the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on treatment response.||||<.05
91847479|NCT03499600|183578003|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.38|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. Linear regressions tested condition effects on session attendance.||||.38
91847480|NCT03499600|183578003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses tested the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on session attendance.||||.01
91847481|NCT03499600|183578003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||Power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. linear regressions tested condition effects on homework completion. Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||.56
91847482|NCT03499600|183578003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses tested the moderation effect of language of service delivery and condition on homework completion.||||<.01
91847483|NCT03499600|183578003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. Logistic regressions tested condition effects on initial session attendance. Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||.40
91900077|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|8.23|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||8.23|-50.50|0.157
91900078|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.699
91847484|NCT03499600|183578003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses tested the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on initial session attendance.||||.01
91900079|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.58|26.9|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||26.90|-62.58|0.433
91900080|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.73|43.78|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||43.78|-45.73|0.966
91900081|NCT01794923|183694255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-16.9||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.08|31.36|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||31.36|-65.08|0.491
91847485|NCT03499600|183578003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. A Logistic regression tested condition effects on completion of first treatment module. Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||.03
91847486|NCT03499600|183578003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses tested the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on completion of first treatment module.||||.03
91847487|NCT03499600|183578004|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.854|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. linear regressions tested condition effects on treatment satisfaction.||||.854
91847488|NCT03499600|183578005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. linear regressions tested change in ECBI score from baseline to post treatment.||||.319
91847489|NCT00561574|183578012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91847490|NCT00561574|183578012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91847491|NCT00561574|183578013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91847492|NCT00561574|183578013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91847493|NCT00561574|183578014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91847494|NCT00561574|183578014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91847495|NCT00561574|183578015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3129||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3129
91847496|NCT00561574|183578015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3154||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3154
91847497|NCT00561574|183578016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91847498|NCT00561574|183578016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91847499|NCT00561574|183578017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91847500|NCT00561574|183578017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91847501|NCT00561574|183578018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91847502|NCT00561574|183578018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91847503|NCT00561574|183578019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0116||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0116
91847504|NCT00561574|183578019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
91847505|NCT03860077|183578034|SUPERIORITY|Average cigarettes per day was positively skewed, with a non-normal residual distribution in a mixed model analysis specifying a normal (Gaussian) outcome distribution. Therefore, this outcome was recoded to integers and modeled as a count with a negative binomial distribution and log link. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||The reported value is the standard error of the mean for the non-exponentiated estimate = 0.35.|These are results of a 2-group (VLNC \& NNC) x 2 repeated measures (Baseline \& Week 4) mixed effects model to test the effect of the randomization group (VLNC vs. NNC) on change in cigarette use and alternative tobacco product (ATP) use from Baseline to Week 4. Group (VLNC vs. NNC) is a fixed, between-subjects focal predictor. Timepoint (Baseline vs. Week 4) is a fixed, within-subjects repeated measure. Subject is a random effect, accounting for variability in Baseline cigarette and ATP use.||2.19|0.92|.111
91847506|NCT03860077|183578035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||The reported value is the standard error of the mean for the non-exponentiated estimate = - 0.34.|This outcome was recoded as a dichotomous outcome with a binary distribution and log link. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.||4.75|.11|.721
91790853|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.962|1.624||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.624|-0.962|0.615
91847507|NCT03860077|183578036|SUPERIORITY|Frequencies of non-combustible alternative product use (ATP) were bimodal with peaks at 0 (no use) and 7 (daily use). Therefore, this outcome was recoded as a dichotomous outcome with a binary distribution and log link. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|3.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||The reported value is the standard error of the mean for the non-exponentiated estimate = - 0.56.|||3.99|.08|.564
91847508|NCT03860077|183578037|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The study cigarette outcome is modeled with a normal, Gaussian distribution. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group. Baseline in this analysis is average number of usual brand cigarettes at baseline, prior to randomization.||3.42|-2.92|.876
91847509|NCT03860077|183578038|SUPERIORITY|The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.|Slope|-2166.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1753.48||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5743.04|1409.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1409.47|-5743.04|.226
91847510|NCT01779375|183578068|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||All analyses were conducted with values on a log scale and re-exponentiated for presentation.|Regression, Linear|Measures of ß-cell response were modeled simultaneously with insulin sensitivity (M/I) using 2-df seemingly unrelated regression models.||Seemingly unrelated regression was used to compare treatment arms on the combination of insulin sensitivity (M/I as calculated from the hyperglycemic clamp) and insulin secretion (steady-state C-peptide and ACPRmax as co-primary; ACPRg as major secondary,). See statistical analysis plan for further details and R code.||||>0.05
91847511|NCT01779375|183578069|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses were completed on a log scale and re-exponentiated for presentation.||||>0.05
91847512|NCT01779375|183578071|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses were completed on a log scale and re-exponentiated for display.||||>0.05
91847513|NCT05460663|183578120|EQUIVALENCE|Paired Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were used to compare changes at 12-week, 18-week, or 24-week follow-ups from the baseline scores for all measurements in each training modality separately and combined. Comparisons were made with participants who had data at both baseline and the follow-up. Difference-in-difference comparison of changes between two training modalities at each follow-up from the baseline were made to assess differences between CBT and in-person training.||||||0.083||||||The reported P-value is for differences between groups at 24-weeks post-intervention.The Benjamini \& Hochberg adjustment was applied to control for the false-discovery rate among all pairwise pre-post comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.083
91847514|NCT01140347|183578139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.046|||Log Rank||HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) stratification factors (geographical regions and etiology of liver disease).|||1.046|0.717|0.1391
91847515|NCT01140347|183578140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|0.75|||Log Rank||HR with 95% CI was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors (geographical regions and etiology of liver disease).|||0.750|0.522|<0.0001
91847516|NCT01140347|183578141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted for geographic region and etiology liver disease||||||<0.0001
91900082|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.219
91790854|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.61|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
91847517|NCT01140347|183578142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.593|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|0.722|||Log Rank||HR with 95% CI was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors (geographical regions and etiology of liver disease).|||0.722|0.487|<0.0001
91847518|NCT01606124|183578164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5631
91847519|NCT01606124|183578165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1439
91847520|NCT03107611|183578234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0817|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0817
91847521|NCT03107611|183578234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2874|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2874
91847522|NCT03107611|183578235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: -0.20, +0.20|Difference in proportions|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.12|
91851944|NCT02045836|183587281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: UL of the 95% CI for the anti-gE antibodies GMC ratio between the Control group and the Co-Ad group had to be below 1.5|Adjusted GMC|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration and age - pooled variance|Adjusted ratios of GMCs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMCs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for anti-gE antibody ELISA concentrations||1.11|0.93|
91851945|NCT00367055|183587344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||p value is for Total AUC(0-10 min)|Van Elteren|||||||0.376
91790855|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.653|1.014||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.014|-1.653|0.637
91790856|NCT02880956|183460084|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790857|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.135|0.308||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.308|-1.135|0.261
91790858|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790859|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.001||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.001|-0.420|0.423
91790860|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790861|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.097|0.361||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.361|-1.097|0.322
91790862|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790863|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|1.049||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.049|-0.511|0.498
91790864|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790865|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|1.51||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.510|-0.006|0.052
91790866|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790867|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.993|0.572||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.572|-0.993|0.597
91790868|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790869|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|0.788||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.788|-0.689|0.896
91790870|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
91790871|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|1.258||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.258|-0.192|0.149
91790872|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91900083|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.08|-0.37|0.214
91790873|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.499||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.499|-0.980|0.522
91790874|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91851946|NCT00367055|183587344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||p value is for Incremental AUC(0-10 min)|Van Elteren|||||||0.990
91851947|NCT00430300|183587375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NDLM estimate difference|-0.0087||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0943|0.0774|||Bayesian NDLM model|||The Bayesian normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of 0.075 liter from placebo.||0.0774|-0.0943|0.0284
91851948|NCT00430300|183587375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NDLM estimate difference|-0.0389||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1299|0.0471|||Bayesian NDLM model|||The Bayesian normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of 0.075 liter from placebo.||0.0471|-0.1299|0.0056
91851949|NCT00430300|183587375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NDLM estimate difference|-0.051||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1298|0.029|||Bayesian NDLM model|||The Bayesian normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of 0.075 liter from placebo.||0.0290|-0.1298|0.0009
91851950|NCT00430300|183587376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5849|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.5849
91851951|NCT00430300|183587376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9737|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.9737
91851952|NCT00430300|183587376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.387|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.3870
91851953|NCT00430300|183587376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8612|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.15|0.8612
91851954|NCT00430300|183587376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7499|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.7499
91851955|NCT00430300|183587376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5134|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.08|0.5134
91851956|NCT00430300|183587376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1244|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.04||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.04|0.1244
91851957|NCT00430300|183587376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.53|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.5300
91851958|NCT00430300|183587376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.055|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.00|0.0550
91851959|NCT00430300|183587377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7444|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.7444
91851960|NCT00430300|183587377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9134|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.21||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.21|0.9134
91851961|NCT00430300|183587377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6841|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.6841
91650926|NCT01965652|183194506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.29|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.29|-0.50|<0.0001
91650927|NCT01965652|183194506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.2|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.20|-0.42|<0.0001
91650928|NCT01965652|183194507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.28|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.28|-0.50|<0.0001
91650929|NCT01965652|183194507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.2|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Anaysis||-0.20|-0.44|<0.0001
91650930|NCT01965652|183194507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.15|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.15|-0.40|<0.0001
91650931|NCT01965652|183194507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.21|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.21|-0.48|<0.0001
91650932|NCT01965652|183194507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.15|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.15|-0.41|<0.0001
91650933|NCT01965652|183194508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.14|-0.34|<0.0001
91650934|NCT01965652|183194508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.14|-0.35|<0.0001
91650935|NCT01965652|183194508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.14|-0.36|<0.0001
91650936|NCT01965652|183194508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.19|-0.43|<0.0001
91650937|NCT01965652|183194508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.09|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.09|-0.33|0.0006
91790875|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|0.567||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.567|-1.103|0.528
91650938|NCT01965652|183194509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.29|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.29|-0.50|<0.0001
91650939|NCT01965652|183194509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.24|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.24|-0.48|<0.0001
91790876|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790877|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|1.116||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.116|-0.519|0.474
91790878|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790879|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.176|0.513||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.513|-1.176|0.441
91790880|NCT02880956|183460085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790881|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.383|-0.082||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.082|-1.383|0.027
91900084|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.29|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.29|-0.16|0.555
91900085|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.03|-0.45|0.090
91847523|NCT01720446|183578252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of semaglutide versus placebo was considered to be confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the HR was below 1.8 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of: H0: HR ≥ 1.8 against Ha: HR \<1.8 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% for a two-sided test).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95||The 'p-value' is for the two-sided Wald test of non-inferiority with limit 1.8.|Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|The primary endpoint was analysed using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group (semaglutide, placebo) as fixed factor. Assuming the same population MACE risk for the semaglutide and placebo groups (i.e., the population hazards ratio \[HR\] equals 1), a total minimum of 122 events were needed in order to have at least 90% power to ascertain that the upper two-sided 95% confidence limit for the HR was less than 1.8.||0.95|0.58|<0.0001
91847524|NCT01720446|183578252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95||The 'p-value' is for the two-sided Wald test of no difference.|Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|A post hoc analysis of superiority of semaglutide versus placebo was performed based on the pre-specified Cox proportional hazard analysis using the two-sided Wald test of no difference, with treatment (semaglutide, placebo) as fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.95|0.58|0.0167
91847525|NCT01720446|183578253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.89|0.62|0.0016
91847526|NCT01720446|183578254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.48|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for CV death was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.48|0.65|0.9181
91847527|NCT01720446|183578254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for non-fatal myocardial infarction was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.08|0.51|0.1194
91847528|NCT01720446|183578254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.99|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for non-fatal stroke was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.99|0.38|0.0438
91847529|NCT01720446|183578254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for revascularisation was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.86|0.50|0.0027
91847530|NCT01720446|183578254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.4914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.44|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for 'unstable angina requiring hospitalisation' was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.44|0.47|0.4914
91847531|NCT01720446|183578254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.61|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placcbo|Analysis for hospitalisation for heart failure was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.61|0.77|0.5735
91847532|NCT01720446|183578255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for all-cause death, non-fatal MI or non-fatal stroke was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.97|0.61|0.0292
91900086|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.161
91847533|NCT01720446|183578256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.52|-0.80|<0.0001
91847534|NCT01720446|183578256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.91|-1.19|<0.0001
91650940|NCT01965652|183194509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.21|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.21|-0.45|<0.0001
91847535|NCT01720446|183578257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.38|-1.06|<0.0001
91847536|NCT01720446|183578257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.88|-1.56|<0.0001
91650941|NCT01965652|183194509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.3|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.30|-0.54|<0.0001
91847537|NCT01720446|183578258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg - Placebo|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-2.44|-3.47|<0.0001
91847538|NCT01720446|183578258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-3.75|-4.78|<0.0001
91650942|NCT01965652|183194509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.19|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.19|-0.44|<0.0001
91650943|NCT01965652|183194510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.53|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.53|-0.81|<0.0001
91650944|NCT01965652|183194510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.43|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.43|-0.73|<0.0001
91790882|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790883|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.328||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.123|0.167||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.167|-1.123|0.146
91650945|NCT01965652|183194510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.36|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.36|-0.66|<0.0001
91650946|NCT01965652|183194510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.38|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.38|-0.69|<0.0001
91650947|NCT01965652|183194510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.32|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.32|-0.64|<0.0001
91650948|NCT01965652|183194511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91650949|NCT01033864|183194512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8055
91650950|NCT01033864|183194513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2548
91650951|NCT01033864|183194514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4417
91650952|NCT01033864|183194515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0455|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0455
91650953|NCT01033864|183194516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2300
91650954|NCT01033864|183194517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0106
91790884|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790885|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.537|-0.22||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.220|-1.537|0.009
91790886|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790887|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|0.634||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.634|-0.674|0.952
91790888|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790889|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.734||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.734|-0.540|0.764
91790890|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
91847539|NCT01720446|183578259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for total cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. The response and its baseline value were log-transformed before analysis.||1.00|0.95|0.0149
91847540|NCT01720446|183578259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for total cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. The response and its baseline value were log-transformed before analysis.||1.01|0.97|0.2580
91847541|NCT01720446|183578259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for HDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.02|0.99|0.8106
91847542|NCT01720446|183578259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for HDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.06|1.02|<0.0001
91847543|NCT01720446|183578259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.96||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for LDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.99|0.93|0.0185
91650955|NCT01033864|183194518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3401
91650956|NCT01033864|183194519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0074
91847544|NCT01720446|183578259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for LDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.03|0.96|0.5996
91847545|NCT01720446|183578259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for triglycerides was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.01|0.93|0.1833
91847546|NCT01720446|183578259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.93||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for triglycerides was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.97|0.89|0.0009
91847547|NCT01720446|183578260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg / Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for urinary albumin to creatinine ration was donne using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. The response and its baseline value were log-transformed before analysis.||0.89|0.68|0.0003
91847548|NCT01720446|183578260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 1.0 mg / Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for urinary albumin to creatinine ration was donne using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.81|0.62|<0.0001
91650957|NCT01033864|183194520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91650958|NCT02524106|183194522|OTHER||percentage difference|61.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.028
91650959|NCT02524106|183194523|OTHER||percentage difference|39.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.096
91650960|NCT01121900|183194524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|39.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.4|46.0|||||Test/reference (%)|||46.0|34.4|
91787716|NCT02043899|183455278|OTHER|"1. Exact one-sided binomial test of the null hypothesis (p≤90%) using α=0.05 on \[124I\]mIBG PET/CT SIOPEN consensus scores. If this was accepted and the alternative hypothesis rejected, then trial stopped early for futility.~2. If the null hypothesis was rejected, then a one-sided binomial test of the null hypothesis (p≥97%) was performed (α=0.025). If this was accepted and the alternative hypothesis rejected then the trial stopped early for efficacy."|||||<|0.001||||||Overall design has 82% power and an α of 0.03. Total minimum sample size of 100 lesions was calculated based on a single stage A'hern design with p0 = 0.90 and p1 = 0.97. The overall power and α was calculated based on exact binomial probabilities.|Exact one-sided binomial test||||"For the primary endpoint, a sensitivity analysis was also performed on patients with \<20 positive lesions on \[124I\]mIBG PET/CT to test if few patients with large numbers of positive lesions were affecting the results. The results of the sensitivity analysis were consistent with those of the overall analysis.~Secondary efficacy analysis, separate exact one-sided binomial test of the null hypothesis (p≥97%), performed (α=0.025) performed for skeletal and soft tissue lesions."|||<0.001
91787717|NCT02720107|183455281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD4+ Naïve T cells||||< 0.0001
91787718|NCT02720107|183455281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from study Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD4+ Central memory T cells||||0.0493
91847549|NCT01720446|183578261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for diastolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.92|-0.83|0.9205
91847550|NCT01720446|183578261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.14||||0.7477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for diastolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.03|-0.74|0.7477
91650961|NCT01121900|183194525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-tlast) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.2|88.3|||||Test/reference (%)|||88.3|74.2|
91650962|NCT01121900|183194526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|83.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|91.1|||||Test/reference (%)|||91.1|76.5|
91650963|NCT00408876|183194537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.503
91650964|NCT00408876|183194537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.447
91650965|NCT00408876|183194537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.084
91650966|NCT00408876|183194537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.964
91650967|NCT00408876|183194537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.451
91650968|NCT00408876|183194537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.333
91650969|NCT00408876|183194538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.318||95.0|-0.62|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.62|0.318
91650970|NCT00408876|183194538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.005||95.0|-0.83|-0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.15|-0.83|0.005
91650971|NCT00408876|183194538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.124||95.0|-0.61|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.61|0.124
91650972|NCT00408876|183194538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.183||95.0|-0.7|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.70|0.183
91650973|NCT00408876|183194538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.778||95.0|-0.48|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.36|-0.48|0.778
91900087|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.01|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.01|-0.55|0.056
91650974|NCT00408876|183194538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.21||95.0|-0.13|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.13|0.210
91650975|NCT00408876|183194539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.161||95.0|-2.32|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.39|-2.32|0.161
91650976|NCT00408876|183194539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41||||0.019||95.0|-2.59|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-2.59|0.019
91650977|NCT00408876|183194539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.01||95.0|-2.74|-0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.38|-2.74|0.010
91847551|NCT01720446|183578261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.27||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for systolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.23|-2.77|0.0976
91847552|NCT01720446|183578261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.59||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for systolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.08|-4.09|0.0008
91650978|NCT00408876|183194539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.526||95.0|-1.83|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-1.83|0.526
91847553|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5||||0.3171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for bodily pain was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.47|-0.48|0.3171
91900088|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.16|-0.40|0.395
91847554|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.47||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for bodily pain was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.45|0.50|0.0031
91900089|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.15|-0.45|0.324
91847555|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.87||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for general health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.69|0.06|0.0350
91847556|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for general health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.24|0.60|0.0007
91847557|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.7277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for mental component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.13|-0.79|0.7277
91900090|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.246|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.246
91900091|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.05|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.05|-0.68|0.094
91650979|NCT00408876|183194539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.397||95.0|-1.96|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.78|-1.96|0.397
91650980|NCT00408876|183194539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.813||95.0|-1.35|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|-1.35|0.813
91650981|NCT00408876|183194540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.657||95.0|-0.5|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-0.50|0.657
91650982|NCT00408876|183194540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.384||95.0|-0.76|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.76|0.384
91650983|NCT00408876|183194540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.04||95.0|-1.1|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.03|-1.10|0.040
91650984|NCT00408876|183194540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.253||95.0|-1.03|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|-1.03|0.253
91650985|NCT00408876|183194540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.034||95.0|-1.36|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.05|-1.36|0.034
91650986|NCT00408876|183194540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.232||95.0|-0.86|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-0.86|0.232
91650987|NCT00408876|183194541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.365||95.0|-0.39|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.05|-0.39|0.365
91900092|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.24|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.24|-0.50|0.491
91900093|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.21|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.21|-0.58|0.359
91847558|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.97||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for mental component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.94|0.00|0.0489
91847559|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.61||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for mental health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.53|-0.30|0.1860
91847560|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.39||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for mental health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.31|0.48|0.0029
91847561|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.68||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for physical component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.45|-0.09|0.0833
91847562|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for physical component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.17|0.62|0.0004
91900094|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.294
91650988|NCT00408876|183194541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.232||95.0|-0.95|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|-0.95|0.232
91650989|NCT00408876|183194541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.314||95.0|-0.9|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.90|0.314
91650990|NCT00408876|183194541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.062||95.0|-1.41|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.03|-1.41|0.062
91650991|NCT00408876|183194541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.083||95.0|-1.36|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-1.36|0.083
91650992|NCT00408876|183194541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.859||95.0|-0.54|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.65|-0.54|0.859
91650993|NCT00408876|183194542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.984||95.0|-0.34|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.34|0.984
91650994|NCT00408876|183194542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.004||95.0|-0.7|-0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.13|-0.70|0.004
91650995|NCT00408876|183194542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.81|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-0.81|<0.001
91650996|NCT00408876|183194542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.018||95.0|-0.76|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-0.76|0.018
91650997|NCT00408876|183194542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.003||95.0|-0.87|-0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.19|-0.87|0.003
91650998|NCT00408876|183194542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.442||95.0|-0.4|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.17|-0.40|0.442
91650999|NCT00408876|183194543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.464||95.0|-0.52|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.14|-0.52|0.464
91651000|NCT00408876|183194543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.052||95.0|-1.36|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.36|0.052
91651001|NCT00408876|183194543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.052||95.0|-1.37|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.37|0.052
91651002|NCT00408876|183194543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.021||95.0|-1.83|-0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.15|-1.83|0.021
91847563|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.8||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for physical functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.69|-0.10|0.0799
91847564|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for physical functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.40|0.60|0.0011
91847565|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.53||||0.3717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for role emotional was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.68|-0.63|0.3717
91847566|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.94||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for role emotional was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.10|-0.22|0.1136
91847567|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.72||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for role physical was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.67|-0.24|0.1431
91787719|NCT02720107|183455281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD4+ Effector memory T cells||||< 0.0001
91847568|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.14||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for role physical was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.11|0.18|0.0197
91900095|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.1|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.10|-0.74|0.136
91651003|NCT00408876|183194543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.02||95.0|-1.83|-0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.16|-1.83|0.020
91651004|NCT00408876|183194543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.988||95.0|-0.7|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.69|-0.70|0.988
91787720|NCT02720107|183455281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD8+ Naïve T cells||||< 0.0001
91847569|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.9223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for social functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.93|-1.03|0.9223
91847570|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.14||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for social functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.13|0.15|0.0237
91847571|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.33||||0.4523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for vitality was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.19|-0.53|0.4523
91847572|NCT01720446|183578265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.2||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for vitality was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.07|0.34|0.0064
91847573|NCT01720446|183578266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.7796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for free fatty acids was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.04|0.95|0.7796
91651005|NCT00408876|183194544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.543||95.0|-0.46|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.88|-0.46|0.543
91651006|NCT00408876|183194544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.053||95.0|-1.1|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.10|0.053
91651007|NCT00408876|183194544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.024||95.0|-1.21|-0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.09|-1.21|0.024
91651008|NCT00408876|183194544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.03||95.0|-1.43|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-1.43|0.030
91651009|NCT00408876|183194544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.014||95.0|-1.54|-0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.17|-1.54|0.014
91651010|NCT00408876|183194544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.727||95.0|-0.66|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.46|-0.66|0.727
91651011|NCT00408876|183194545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.813||95.0|-0.63|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.80|-0.63|0.813
91651012|NCT00408876|183194545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.035||95.0|-1.21|-0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.04|-1.21|0.035
91651013|NCT00408876|183194545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.054||95.0|-1.17|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.17|0.054
91651014|NCT00408876|183194545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.051||95.0|-1.43|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.43|0.051
91651015|NCT00408876|183194545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.07||95.0|-1.39|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.05|-1.39|0.070
91651016|NCT00408876|183194545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.872||95.0|-0.54|0.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.64|-0.54|0.872
91651017|NCT00408876|183194546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.79||95.0|-0.68|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.89|-0.68|0.790
91651018|NCT00408876|183194546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.005||95.0|-1.57|-0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.28|-1.57|0.005
91851962|NCT00430300|183587377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9283|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.9283
91651019|NCT00408876|183194546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.009||95.0|-1.52|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.52|0.009
91651020|NCT00408876|183194546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.011||95.0|-1.83|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-1.83|0.011
91651021|NCT00408876|183194546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.016||95.0|-1.77|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.18|-1.77|0.016
91651022|NCT00408876|183194546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.857||95.0|-0.6|0.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.72|-0.60|0.857
91651023|NCT00408876|183194547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.948||95.0|-0.81|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.76|-0.81|0.948
91651024|NCT00408876|183194547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.096||95.0|-1.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10|-1.20|0.096
91651025|NCT00408876|183194547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.239||95.0|-1.05|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.05|0.239
91651026|NCT00408876|183194547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.196||95.0|-1.32|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|-1.32|0.196
91651027|NCT00408876|183194547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.367||95.0|-1.17|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.43|-1.17|0.367
91651028|NCT00408876|183194547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.637||95.0|-0.5|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|-0.50|0.637
91651029|NCT00408876|183194548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.887||95.0|-0.76|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.65|-0.76|0.887
91847574|NCT01720446|183578266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.92||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for free fatty acids was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.96|0.88|0.0003
91847575|NCT01720446|183578267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for pulse rate was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.98|1.07|<0.0001
91847576|NCT01720446|183578267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for pulse rate was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||3.43|1.52|<0.0001
91651030|NCT00408876|183194548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.006||95.0|-1.4|-0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.23|-1.40|0.006
91651031|NCT00408876|183194548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.392||95.0|-0.84|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.84|0.392
91651032|NCT00408876|183194548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.036||95.0|-1.48|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.05|-1.48|0.036
91651033|NCT00408876|183194548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.573||95.0|-0.92|0.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.51|-0.92|0.573
91651034|NCT00408876|183194548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.064||95.0|-0.03|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.15|-0.03|0.064
91651035|NCT00408876|183194549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.374||95.0|-1.15|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.43|-1.15|0.374
91651036|NCT00408876|183194549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.007||95.0|-1.55|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.25|-1.55|0.007
91651037|NCT00408876|183194549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.169||95.0|-1.12|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-1.12|0.169
91847577|NCT01020838|183578268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.774|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|0.894|||||Point estimate of sensitivity was calculated by the method of Rao and Scott. Variance for sensitivity is based on subjects that contribute at least one brain region, which is amyloid positive according to the SoT|"For the primary analysis, point estimates together with normal-approximated, two sided 95% confidence intervals, were given for sensitivity in beta-amyloid detection based on the majority read.~The following hypothesis was formulated for sensitivity:~H0,sens: sensitivity ≤ 0.6 vs. H1, sens: sensitivity \> 0.6 H0,sens was to be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI is larger than 0.6"||0.894|0.654|
91847578|NCT01020838|183578268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|0.998|||||Point estimate of specificity was calculated using the method of Rao and Scott. Variance for specificity is based on subjects that contribute at least one brain region, which is amyloid negative according to the SoT|"For the primary analysis, point estimates together with normal-approximated, two sided 95% confidence intervals, were given for specificity in amyloid detection based on the majority read.~The following hypothesis was formulated for specificity:~H0,spec: specificity ≤ 0.8 vs. H1, spec: specificity \> 0.8 H0,spec was to be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI is larger than 0.8"||0.998|0.886|
91847579|NCT00742274|183578304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91651038|NCT00408876|183194549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.182||95.0|-1.35|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.35|0.182
91847580|NCT01101165|183578305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.8|100.56|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||100.56|92.80|
91847581|NCT01101165|183578306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|97.24|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.24|92.42|
91847582|NCT01101165|183578307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|98.18|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||98.18|92.93|
91847583|NCT03124108|183578322|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-52.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-41.5|||ANCOVA|||||-41.5|-62.5|<0.001
91847584|NCT03124108|183578322|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-43.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-32.1|||ANCOVA|||||-32.1|-55.7|<0.001
91847585|NCT01219855|183578375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Z-test cmpared 2 independ. proportions|||||||<0.0001
91847586|NCT01219855|183578376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.01
91847587|NCT01219855|183578377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.0001
91847588|NCT01219855|183578377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.01
91847589|NCT01219855|183578378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.0001
91847590|NCT01219855|183578379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Z-test compared 2 independ. proportions|||||||<0.05
91847591|NCT01219855|183578380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test compared 2 independ. proportions|||The proportion of subjects achieving a ≥20% decrease in plasma iPTH at EOT was greater in the CTAP101 Capsules 60 and 90 μg groups compared to the corresponding placebo group.||||<0.001
91847592|NCT01335932|183578452|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0001
91847593|NCT01335932|183578453|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91847594|NCT01335932|183578459|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91847595|NCT01335932|183578460|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
91847596|NCT01335932|183578461|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
91847597|NCT01335932|183578462|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91847598|NCT01335932|183578463|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91847599|NCT01335932|183578464|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91847600|NCT01335932|183578465|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91847601|NCT01335932|183578466|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91847602|NCT01335932|183578467|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91847603|NCT01335932|183578468|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91847604|NCT01335932|183578469|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
91847605|NCT01335932|183578470|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
91847606|NCT01335932|183578471|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91847607|NCT01335932|183578472|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91847608|NCT01335932|183578473|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91847609|NCT01335932|183578474|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91847610|NCT01335932|183578475|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91847611|NCT01335932|183578476|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91847612|NCT01335932|183578477|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91847613|NCT01335932|183578478|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91847614|NCT01335932|183578479|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91847615|NCT01335932|183578480|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91847616|NCT01335932|183578481|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
91847617|NCT01335932|183578482|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91847618|NCT01335932|183578483|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91847619|NCT01335932|183578484|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91847620|NCT00952718|183578518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value for MIP was adjusted by linear regression model.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
91847621|NCT00952718|183578518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||adjusted p for MEP by linear regression|Regression, Linear|||||||0.038
91847622|NCT00952718|183578519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.063
91847623|NCT00952718|183578520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.269
91847624|NCT03582956|183578521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.525
91847625|NCT03582956|183578522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.607
91847626|NCT03582956|183578523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.466
91847627|NCT03582956|183578524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.414
91847628|NCT00517933|183578539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
91847629|NCT00517933|183578541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|37.3|||Regression, Linear|||||37.3|-3.9|0.11
91847630|NCT00517933|183578542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.41
91847631|NCT00517933|183578543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.92|-11.25|0.006
91847632|NCT00517933|183578545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.05|0.70
91847633|NCT00517933|183578547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|0.1|0.04
91847634|NCT00517933|183578549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||||0.14|-0.81|0.16
91847635|NCT00517933|183578551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.9|-7.3|0.01
91847636|NCT00517933|183578553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.9|-10.6|0.02
91847637|NCT00517933|183578555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.1|-7.2|0.04
91847638|NCT00517933|183578557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.4|-7.8|0.07
91847639|NCT00517933|183578559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||||0.06|-0.01|0.18
91847640|NCT00517933|183578561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.3|-2.8|0.37
91847641|NCT00517933|183578565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.0|||Regression, Linear|||||5.0|0.8|0.008
91847642|NCT00517933|183578567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||||1.7|-2.1|0.86
91847643|NCT01078246|183578569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|2.282||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.344|3.875|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||3.875|1.344|0.002
91847644|NCT01078246|183578569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.621|4.977|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||4.977|1.621|<0.05
91847645|NCT01078246|183578569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.871||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.207|2.899|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||2.899|1.207|0.005
91847646|NCT01078246|183578569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.879||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.879|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||2.879|1.227|0.004
91847647|NCT01078246|183578569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.943||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.191|3.168|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||3.168|1.191|0.008
91847648|NCT01078246|183578569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.459||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.454|4.159|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||4.159|1.454|0.001
91847649|NCT01078246|183578569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.776||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.199|2.631|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||2.631|1.199|0.004
91847650|NCT01078246|183578569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.274|2.717|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||2.717|1.274|0.001
91847651|NCT01078246|183578570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.807||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.168|||Poisson regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.168|0.557|0.255
91651039|NCT00408876|183194549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.802||95.0|-0.91|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.91|0.802
91847652|NCT01078246|183578570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.376|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.376|0.597|0.646
91651040|NCT00408876|183194549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.191||95.0|-0.22|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.11|-0.22|0.191
91847653|NCT01078246|183578570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.268||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.795|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.795|0.895|0.182
91651041|NCT00408876|183194550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.556||95.0|-1.1|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|-1.10|0.556
91651042|NCT00408876|183194550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.041||95.0|-1.42|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.03|-1.42|0.041
91847654|NCT01078246|183578570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.257||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.768|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.768|0.894|0.188
91847655|NCT01078246|183578571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.016||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.297|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.297|0.796|0.897
91847656|NCT01078246|183578571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.287||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.69|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.690|0.980|0.070
91847657|NCT01078246|183578571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.067||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.339|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.339|0.850|0.575
91847658|NCT01078246|183578571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.319|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.319|0.847|0.626
91847659|NCT01078246|183578573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.389|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.551|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||0.551|0.274|<0.0001
91847660|NCT01078246|183578573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.707|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||0.707|0.314|<0.05
91651043|NCT00408876|183194550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.22||95.0|-1.14|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.14|0.220
91651044|NCT00408876|183194550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.278||95.0|-1.33|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|-1.33|0.278
91651045|NCT00408876|183194550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.673||95.0|-1.04|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.68|-1.04|0.673
91847661|NCT01078246|183578573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.65||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.102|2.47|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.470|1.102|0.015
91651046|NCT00408876|183194550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.422||95.0|-0.42|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.42|0.422
91651047|NCT00408876|183194551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.234||95.0|-1.03|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.25|-1.03|0.234
91847662|NCT01078246|183578573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.622||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|2.425|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.425|1.085|0.018
91847663|NCT01078246|183578574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.75||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.517|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.517|0.370|0.423
91847664|NCT01078246|183578574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.208||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|2.612|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.612|0.559|0.631
91651048|NCT00408876|183194551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.46|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.40|-1.46|<0.001
91651049|NCT00408876|183194551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.213||95.0|-0.87|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.87|0.213
91651050|NCT00408876|183194551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.105||95.0|-1.19|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.11|-1.19|0.105
91651051|NCT00408876|183194551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.876||95.0|-0.6|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.60|0.876
91651052|NCT00408876|183194551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.033||95.0|0.05|1.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.13|0.05|0.033
91651053|NCT00408876|183194552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.925||95.0|-0.73|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.80|-0.73|0.925
91847665|NCT01078246|183578574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.845||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.561|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.561|0.458|0.592
91847666|NCT01078246|183578574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|1.85|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.850|0.565|0.943
91847667|NCT01078246|183578575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.708||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.08|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.080|0.464|0.109
91847668|NCT01078246|183578575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|1.296|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.296|0.486|0.356
91847669|NCT01078246|183578575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.556||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|2.37|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.370|1.022|0.039
91651054|NCT00408876|183194552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.008||95.0|-1.49|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.49|0.008
91651055|NCT00408876|183194552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.132||95.0|-1.12|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-1.12|0.132
91651056|NCT00408876|183194552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.024||95.0|-1.67|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.12|-1.67|0.024
91651057|NCT00408876|183194552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.184||95.0|-1.3|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.25|-1.30|0.184
91651058|NCT00408876|183194552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.262||95.0|-0.27|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.01|-0.27|0.262
91847670|NCT01078246|183578575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.564||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|2.361|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.361|1.036|0.033
91651059|NCT00408876|183194553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.849||95.0|-0.84|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.69|-0.84|0.849
91651060|NCT00408876|183194553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.024||95.0|-1.36|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.10|-1.36|0.024
91651061|NCT00408876|183194553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.773||95.0|-0.73|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.73|0.773
91651062|NCT00408876|183194553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.097||95.0|-1.43|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.12|-1.43|0.097
91651063|NCT00408876|183194553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.96||95.0|-0.79|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.75|-0.79|0.960
91651064|NCT00408876|183194553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.052||95.0|0.0|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.28|0.00|0.052
91651065|NCT00408876|183194554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.756
91847671|NCT01078246|183578575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|3.437|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, and propensity score, and was stratified by the 1st treatment regimen.||||3.437|0.861|0.125
91847672|NCT01078246|183578575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|2.155|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, and propensity score, and was stratified by the 2nd treatment regimen.||||2.155|0.517|0.881
91847673|NCT01078246|183578575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.077||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|5.05|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, and propensity score, and was stratified by the 3rd+ treatment regimen.||||5.05|0.854|0.107
91851963|NCT00430300|183587377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2991|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.08|0.2991
91651066|NCT00408876|183194554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.507
91651067|NCT00408876|183194554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.056
91651068|NCT00408876|183194554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.816
91651069|NCT00408876|183194554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.208
91651070|NCT00408876|183194554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.212
91651071|NCT00408876|183194555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.885
91651072|NCT00408876|183194555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.026
91651073|NCT00408876|183194555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.007
91651074|NCT00408876|183194555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.095
91651075|NCT00408876|183194555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.040
91651076|NCT00408876|183194555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.635
91651077|NCT00408876|183194556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.575
91651078|NCT00408876|183194556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.009
91651079|NCT00408876|183194556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91651080|NCT00408876|183194556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.115
91851964|NCT00430300|183587377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.7403|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.15|0.7403
91651081|NCT00408876|183194556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.002
91651082|NCT00408876|183194556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.072
91651083|NCT00408876|183194557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.516
91900096|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.20|-0.65|0.293
91651084|NCT00408876|183194557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.006
91651085|NCT00408876|183194557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91847674|NCT00235495|183578576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1||The generalized linear model with log link function is tested at the one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjustment is made for baseline NIHSS and Thrombolysis stratum.|Adjusted risk ratio greater than 1 indicates greater risk of good outcome in the Albumin treatment group, while adjusted risk ratio less than 1 indicates greater risk of good outcome in the Saline treatment group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with NIHSS 0-1 or mRS 0-1 or both at 90 days post-randomization in Albumin and Saline treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (greater proportion of subjects with NIHSS 0-1 or mRS 0-1 or both at 90 days post-randomization in Albumin treatment arm).||1.10|0.84|
91651086|NCT00408876|183194557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.112
91651087|NCT00408876|183194557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.010
91847675|NCT00235495|183578577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.8|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.80|
91847676|NCT00235495|183578578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.66|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.66|
91847677|NCT00235495|183578579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.71|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.71|
91847678|NCT00235495|183578580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.82|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.82|
91787721|NCT02720107|183455281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD8+ Central memory T cells||||< 0.0001
91847679|NCT00235495|183578581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.85|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.85|
91847680|NCT00235495|183578582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.87|
91847681|NCT00235495|183578583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.83|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.83|
91847682|NCT00235495|183578584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.84|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.17|0.84|
91847683|NCT00235495|183578585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.84|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.84|
91847684|NCT00235495|183578586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rank Sum|73098.0||||0.913||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, normal approx|||||||0.913
91847685|NCT00235495|183578587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rank Sum|44853.5||||0.923||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, normal approx|||||||0.923
91847686|NCT00235495|183578588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.79|
91847687|NCT00235495|183578589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.47|
91847688|NCT00235495|183578590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.41|0.39|
91847689|NCT00235495|183578591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.94|0.98|
91900097|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.36|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.36|-0.55|0.682
91651088|NCT00408876|183194557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.219
91787722|NCT02720107|183455281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD8+ Effector memory T cells||||< 0.0001
91847690|NCT00235495|183578592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|26.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.72|4.37|
91847691|NCT00235495|183578593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.12|1.09|
91847692|NCT00235495|183578594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.78|1.02|
91847693|NCT00235495|183578595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.01|0.68|
91847694|NCT00235495|183578596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.61|0.68|
91847695|NCT00235495|183578597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.74|
91847696|NCT01639443|183578602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We counted days containing at least one Fast-tracked participant as a Fast-tracked day for the sake of analysis at the clinic level. Our null hypothesis is that these days will not differ in terms of percentage of clinic capacity filled. We are powered to detect a 0.5 Standard Deviation (SD) difference in clinic capacity (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 81%), with a equal ratio of Experimental and Control days."||||<0.0001
91847697|NCT01639443|183578603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We calculated this measure on the patient level. Our null hypothesis is that the lag time between scheduling and appointment, measured in days, will not differ between groups. We are powered to detect a 0.3 SD difference in lag time (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 84%), accounting for the large sampling ratio (approximately 14:1).||||0.29
91847698|NCT01639443|183578604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||We would have only expected 2 patients to be bumped in the Experimental Group, and observed 0.|Fisher Exact|||We did not explicitly power this study to detect differences in the number of service bumps, but we can compare them using Fisher's Exact Test||||0.49
91787723|NCT02720107|183455281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||TH17 central memory cells||||< 0.0001
91787724|NCT01949337|183455285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.80|0.33
91847699|NCT01639443|183578605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We calculated this measure on the patient level, but were hampered by a large sampling ratio (more than 50:1). Our null hypothesis is that the number of polyps detected will not differ between groups. We are powered to detect a 0.25 SD difference in polyp count per patient (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 80%).||||0.05
91847700|NCT01639443|183578606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We counted days containing at least one Fast-tracked participant as a Fast-tracked day for the sake of analysis at the clinic level. Our null hypothesis is that these days will not differ in terms of length of workday. We are powered to detect approximately 0.5 SD difference in workday length in hours (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 81%), with a equal ratio of Experimental and Control days."||||0.024
91847701|NCT01639443|183578607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We counted days containing at least one Fast-tracked participant as a Fast-tracked day for the sake of analysis at the clinic level. Our null hypothesis is that these days will not differ in terms of cost per day. We are powered to detect a 0.5 SD difference in clinic capacity (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 81%), with a equal ratio of Experimental and Control days."||||0.11
91847702|NCT02806895|183578608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0062
91847703|NCT02806895|183578609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0432
91847704|NCT02806895|183578610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0414|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0414
91847705|NCT02806895|183578611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0963|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0963
91847706|NCT02806895|183578612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1435|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1435
91847707|NCT02806895|183578613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1796|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1796
91847708|NCT02806895|183578614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1094|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1094
91847709|NCT02806895|183578615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4531|||||||McNemar|||||||0.4531
91847710|NCT02806895|183578616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3593|||||||McNemar|||||||0.3593
91847711|NCT02806895|183578617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6072|||||||McNemar|||||||0.6072
91651089|NCT00408876|183194558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.309
91651090|NCT00408876|183194558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.001
91651091|NCT00408876|183194558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91651092|NCT00408876|183194558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.116
91651093|NCT00408876|183194558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.033
91847712|NCT02806895|183578618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7905|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7905
91847713|NCT02806895|183578619|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91847714|NCT02806895|183578620|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91847715|NCT02806895|183578621|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91847716|NCT02806895|183578622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4116|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4116
91847717|NCT02806895|183578623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1991|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1991
91847718|NCT02806895|183578624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0806
91847719|NCT02806895|183578625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9391|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9391
91847720|NCT02806895|183578626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2116|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2116
91847721|NCT02806895|183578627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1604|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1604
91847722|NCT02806895|183578628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2144|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2144
91847723|NCT02806895|183578629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0387|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0387
91847724|NCT02806895|183578630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3426|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3426
91847725|NCT02806895|183578631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1531|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1531
91847726|NCT02806895|183578632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5603|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5603
91847727|NCT02806895|183578633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4851|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4851
91847728|NCT02806895|183578634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0241|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0241
91847729|NCT00601965|183578650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log rank test = 32.67, df = 3||||||<.001
91847730|NCT00601965|183578651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Beta = -0.48, 95% CI = -0.84 to -0.11||||||0.01
91847731|NCT02387749|183578666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.005
91847732|NCT00836810|183578759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priory test for statistical significance was P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91847733|NCT00836810|183578759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91651094|NCT00408876|183194558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.480
91651095|NCT00408876|183194559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.709
91651096|NCT00408876|183194559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.012
91651097|NCT00408876|183194559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.001
91651098|NCT00408876|183194559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.097
91790891|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.191|0.109||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.109|-1.191|0.103
91847734|NCT00836810|183578759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||||||A priori statistical significance set as P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91847735|NCT00836810|183578760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05||||||<0.001
91847736|NCT00836810|183578760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91651099|NCT00408876|183194559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.023
91651100|NCT00408876|183194559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.435
91651101|NCT00408876|183194560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.931
91651102|NCT00408876|183194560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.007
91847737|NCT00836810|183578760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91651103|NCT00408876|183194560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91651104|NCT00408876|183194560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.036
91651105|NCT00408876|183194560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.007
91651106|NCT00408876|183194560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.416
91651107|NCT00408876|183194561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.634
91651108|NCT00408876|183194561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.031
91651109|NCT00408876|183194561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.002
91651110|NCT00408876|183194561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.026
91651111|NCT00408876|183194561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.003
91651112|NCT00408876|183194561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.313
91651113|NCT00408876|183194562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.910
91651114|NCT00408876|183194562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.026
91651115|NCT00408876|183194562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91651116|NCT00408876|183194562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.090
91651117|NCT00408876|183194562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.006
91651118|NCT00408876|183194562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.171
91651119|NCT00408876|183194563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.733
91651120|NCT00408876|183194563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.022
91651121|NCT00408876|183194563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91790892|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790893|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.396|0.028||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.028|-1.396|0.060
91790894|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790895|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.316|0.098||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.098|-1.316|0.091
91790896|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
91790897|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.274|0.147||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.147|-1.274|0.120
91790898|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790899|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.464||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.464|-1.090|0.429
91790900|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.13|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
91790901|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.559|0.97||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.970|-0.559|0.597
91790902|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91847738|NCT00836810|183578761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
91651122|NCT00408876|183194563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.128
91847739|NCT00836810|183578761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0906||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0906
91847740|NCT00836810|183578761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
91847741|NCT00836810|183578762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91651123|NCT00408876|183194563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.013
91651124|NCT00408876|183194563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.225
91847742|NCT00836810|183578762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91651125|NCT00408876|183194564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.890
91651126|NCT00408876|183194564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.079
91651127|NCT00408876|183194564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.035
91651128|NCT00408876|183194564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.117
91847743|NCT00836810|183578762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91847744|NCT00836810|183578763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
91847745|NCT00836810|183578763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91847746|NCT00836810|183578763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
91847747|NCT00836810|183578764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
91847748|NCT00836810|183578764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91847749|NCT00836810|183578764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91847750|NCT05570006|183578773|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.4|||||ONE_SIDED|||||Bayesian method||||Compared to historical placebo||||
91847751|NCT03068468|183578861|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||28-item:Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on a mixed model for repeated measures model (MMRM), with change from baseline in 28-item PSPRS total score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time(categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline 28-item PSPRS, baseline 28-item PSPRS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.6|-2.0|0.8483
91651129|NCT00408876|183194564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.060
91847752|NCT03068468|183578861|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.28||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.94|||MMRM|||15-items:Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in 15-item PSPRS total score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time(categorical), treatment groupby-time interaction, baseline 15-item PSPRS, baseline 15-item PSPRS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test(\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.94|-1.50|0.6503
91847753|NCT03068468|183578863|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4||||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.7|-1.0|0.6031
91847754|NCT03068468|183578864|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.7743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with CGI-C as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline CGI-S, baseline CGI-S by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.1|-0.2|0.7743
91847755|NCT03068468|183578865|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.038||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.112|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSP-cognitive composite battery as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline PSP-cognitive composite battery, baseline PSP-cognitive composite battery by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.112|-0.036|0.3180
91851965|NCT00430300|183587377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3499|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.11||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.11|0.3499
91847756|NCT03068468|183578866|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in RBANS as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline RBANS , baseline RBANS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds and region.||1.4|-1.8|0.8270
91651130|NCT00408876|183194564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.647
91847757|NCT03068468|183578867|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2||||0.9304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.3|||MMRM|||Physical scale score: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSP-QoL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for PSP-QoL, baseline PSP-QoL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||3.3|-3.6|0.9304
91847758|NCT03068468|183578867|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.7|||MMRM|||Mental scale score: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSPQoL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-bytime interaction, baseline for PSP-QoL, baseline PSP-QoL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||3.7|-2.8|0.7859
91847759|NCT03068468|183578867|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.7||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.5|||MMRM|||Satisfaction With Your Life Today: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSPQoL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-bytime interaction, baseline for PSP-QoL, baseline PSP-QoL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||2.5|-5.8|0.4297
91847760|NCT03068468|183578868|SUPERIORITY||Difference|2.0||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.2|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in SEADL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for SEADL , baseline SEADL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||5.2|-1.1|0.2084
91847761|NCT03068468|183578869|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CGI-S as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for CGI-S, baseline CGI-S by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.1|-0.2|0.5701
91651131|NCT00408876|183194565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.243
91847762|NCT03068468|183578870|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Phonemic Fluency Test as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline Phonemic Fluency Test, baseline Phonemic Fluency Test by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.8|-0.0|0.0517
91847763|NCT03068468|183578871|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.7|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Letter Number Sequence as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline Letter Number Sequence, baseline Letter Number Sequence by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.7|0.0|0.0387
91847764|NCT03068468|183578872|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.1||||0.9815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.3|||MMRM|||Color Trails Test 1: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Color trails Test 1 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for Color Trails Test 1, baseline Color Trails Test 1 by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||8.3|-8.1|0.9815
91847765|NCT03068468|183578872|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|5.6|||MMRM|||Color Trails Test 2: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Color Trails Test 2 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for Color Trails Test 2, baseline Color Trails Test 2 by time interaction, and region.||5.6|-5.7|0.9869
91847766|NCT03068468|183578873|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MoCA as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MoCA, baseline MoCA by time interaction,baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.2|-0.2|0.1763
91847767|NCT03068468|183578875|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.021||||0.9527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.726|0.684|||MMRM|||Ventricles Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.684|-0.726|0.9527
91847768|NCT03068468|183578875|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.514||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.506|2.478|||MMRM|||Whole Brain Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||2.478|-3.506|0.7357
91847769|NCT03068468|183578875|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.004||||0.6439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.014|||MMRM|||Midbrain Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.014|-0.023|0.6439
91847770|NCT03068468|183578875|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.04|||MMRM|||Pons Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.040|-0.039|0.9864
91851966|NCT00430300|183587377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2734|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.2734
91847771|NCT03068468|183578875|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.001||||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.006|||MMRM|||Cerebellar Peduncle Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.006|-0.004|0.7529
91847772|NCT03068468|183578875|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.006||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.038|||MMRM|||Third Ventricle Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.038|-0.025|0.6850
91847773|NCT03068468|183578875|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.041||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.598|||MMRM|||Frontal Lobe Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.598|-0.680|0.9000
91847774|NCT02085356|183578876|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91847775|NCT02085356|183578877|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91847776|NCT02085356|183578878|OTHER|||||||0.605|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.605
91847777|NCT02085356|183578879|OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||Chi-squared|||Attendance records could not be retrieved for most participants. However, this analysis was still conducted among those participants who had data.||||0.902
91847778|NCT02085356|183578880|OTHER|||||||0.869|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.869
91847779|NCT02085356|183578880|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.982
91900098|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.747
91900099|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.34|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.34|-0.60|0.592
91651132|NCT00408876|183194565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.110
91847780|NCT02263508|183578969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.04|0.71|0.13
91847781|NCT02263508|183578970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.21|0.77|0.77
91847782|NCT02263508|183578978|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||3.07|1.15|0.012
91847783|NCT02263508|183578979|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.34|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.34|0.82|0.14
91847784|NCT02263508|183578980|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.24|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.24|0.63|0.47
91847785|NCT02263508|183578981|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.79|0.97|0.081
91900100|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.3|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.30|-0.64|0.473
91900101|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.55|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.55|-0.46|0.866
91790903|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.717|0.858||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.858|-0.717|0.860
91900102|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.776
91790904|NCT02880956|183460086|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.22|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790905|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.069|0.885||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.885|-1.069|0.854
91790906|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790907|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.368|0.562||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.562|-1.368|0.412
91790908|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790909|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.554|0.424||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.424|-1.554|0.262
91790910|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790911|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|2.036||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.036|-0.209|0.110
91790912|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91847786|NCT02263508|183578983|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.90|1.02|0.039
91847787|NCT02263508|183578985|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.75|0.94|0.11
91651133|NCT00408876|183194565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.236
91651134|NCT00408876|183194565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.014
91651135|NCT00408876|183194565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.036
91651136|NCT00408876|183194565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.756
91651137|NCT00408876|183194566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.465||95.0|-0.84|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.39|-0.84|0.465
91651138|NCT00408876|183194566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.002||95.0|-1.3|-0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.29|-1.30|0.002
91651139|NCT00408876|183194566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.233||95.0|-0.82|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.82|0.233
91651140|NCT00408876|183194566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.075||95.0|-1.19|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.06|-1.19|0.075
91651141|NCT00408876|183194566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.798||95.0|-0.71|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.71|0.798
91847788|NCT02263508|183578986|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.96|1.06|0.020
91847789|NCT02263508|183578988|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||2.17|1.16|0.004
91651142|NCT00408876|183194566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.066||95.0|-0.03|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.03|0.066
91651143|NCT00408876|183194567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.869
91651144|NCT00408876|183194567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.141
91651145|NCT00408876|183194567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91651146|NCT00408876|183194567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.142
91651147|NCT00408876|183194567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
91651148|NCT00408876|183194567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.587
91651149|NCT00408876|183194568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.356
91651150|NCT00408876|183194568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.472
91651151|NCT00408876|183194568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.255
91651152|NCT00408876|183194568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
91651153|NCT00408876|183194568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
91651154|NCT00408876|183194568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.779
91900103|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.43|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.43|-0.59|0.761
91651155|NCT00408876|183194569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.747||95.0|-1.47|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|-1.47|0.747
91651156|NCT00408876|183194569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.045||95.0|-2.12|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.02|-2.12|0.045
91651157|NCT00408876|183194569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.58||95.0|-0.76|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.76|0.580
91651158|NCT00408876|183194569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.185||95.0|-2.14|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.41|-2.14|0.185
91651159|NCT00408876|183194569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.438||95.0|-0.77|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.79|-0.77|0.438
91651160|NCT00408876|183194569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.012||95.0|0.3|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.44|0.30|0.012
91651161|NCT00408876|183194570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.729||95.0|-2.16|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.08|-2.16|0.729
91651162|NCT00408876|183194570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.352||95.0|-1.14|3.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.18|-1.14|0.352
91651163|NCT00408876|183194570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.465||95.0|-3.0|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.37|-3.00|0.465
91651164|NCT00408876|183194570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.677||95.0|-2.09|3.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.21|-2.09|0.677
91651165|NCT00408876|183194570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.345||95.0|-3.92|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.38|-3.92|0.345
91651166|NCT00408876|183194570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.102||95.0|-4.04|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.37|-4.04|0.102
91651167|NCT00408876|183194571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.977||95.0|-2.91|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.83|-2.91|0.977
91847790|NCT02263508|183578990|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.85|0.99|0.058
91847791|NCT02263508|183578991|OTHER||Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures include the fixed and categorical effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, the fixed and continuous covariates of baseline HRQL score, randomization stratification factors (stage of disease and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy per IVRS) and baseline PD-L1 status (positive and not positive). Random subject effect was modeled using within subject-error correlation structure.||2.05|-1.67|0.84
91847792|NCT01149681|183579001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2364|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||||||0.2364
91847793|NCT01803646|183579009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.51|0.32
91847794|NCT01803646|183579010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.4|-4|0.63
91847795|NCT01803646|183579011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis for air conduction||||0.821
91847796|NCT01803646|183579011|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis for bone conduction||||1.0
91847797|NCT01167426|183579012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean ranks|79.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference in mean ranks between Week 2 and Week 6|Comparison of Week 2 (20 mg/1.0 mL utilizing autoject 2 for glass syringe) to Week 6 (20 mg/0.5 mL utilizing the autoject 2 20 mg/0.5 mL).||||<0.0001
91847798|NCT01167426|183579013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Goodness-of-fit p-value comparing overall preference to expected frequencies of 33.3% in each category. That is, no preference across the full sample of patients in the study.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91847799|NCT02020018|183579044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
91651168|NCT00408876|183194571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.451||95.0|-1.44|3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.24|-1.44|0.451
91847800|NCT04044664|183579047|OTHER|||||||0.1728|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||CAPS-5 Total Score||||0.1728
91847801|NCT04044664|183579047|OTHER|||||||0.0962|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Cognition and Mood sub-score||||0.0962
91651169|NCT00408876|183194571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74||||0.15||95.0|-0.63|4.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.11|-0.63|0.150
91651170|NCT00408876|183194571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.524||95.0|-1.96|3.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.83|-1.96|0.524
91651171|NCT00408876|183194571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.78||||0.23||95.0|-1.13|4.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.69|-1.13|0.230
91847802|NCT04044664|183579047|OTHER|||||||0.0191|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Arousal and Reactivity sub-score||||0.0191
91847803|NCT04044664|183579053|OTHER|||||||0.0452|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0452
91847804|NCT04044664|183579053|OTHER|||||||0.0614|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0614
91847805|NCT04044664|183579054|OTHER|||||||0.0182|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||greater than or equal to 30% decrease from baseline||||0.0182
91847806|NCT04044664|183579054|OTHER|||||||0.0705|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||greater than or equal to 50% decrease from baseline||||0.0705
91847807|NCT00478556|183579061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|62.0|||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test of proportion|tested if values were different from 50%||All individuals tasted both preparations and indicated preference. A binomial test of proportion was done to see if these values differed from 50%.||||<0.001
91847808|NCT00478556|183579062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to assess differences in bowel opacification score between the two groups.||||0.270
91900104|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.33|-0.69|0.477
91651172|NCT00408876|183194571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.491||95.0|-1.55|3.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.23|-1.55|0.491
91847809|NCT03736785|183579064|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reported is within group comparison between Week 32 and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91847810|NCT03736785|183579064|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reported is within group comparison between Week 32 and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91847811|NCT03736785|183579064|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reported is within group comparison between Week 32 and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91847812|NCT03736785|183579065|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.4%|LSMean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.11|
91847813|NCT03736785|183579065|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.4%|LSMean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.10|
91847814|NCT02974010|183579072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||BDM LS difference overall|Mixed Models Analysis|BDM LS difference overall||||||.03
91847815|NCT03852433|183579144|OTHER||Difference in percentages|34.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|50.4|||Fisher Exact|||||50.4|14.6|0.0003
91847816|NCT03852433|183579144|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.3||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|34.2|||Fisher Exact|||||34.2|-8.2|0.2631
91847817|NCT03852433|183579144|OTHER||Difference in percentages|29.3||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|48.2|||Fisher Exact|||||48.2|1.8|0.0197
91847818|NCT03852433|183579144|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.7||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|11.8|||Fisher Exact|||||11.8|-26.3|0.7186
91651173|NCT00408876|183194572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.645||95.0|-0.49|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-0.49|0.645
91651174|NCT00408876|183194572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.027||95.0|0.07|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.12|0.07|0.027
91651175|NCT00408876|183194572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.006||95.0|0.22|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.29|0.22|0.006
91651176|NCT00408876|183194572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.18||95.0|-0.21|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.10|-0.21|0.180
91651177|NCT00408876|183194572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.069||95.0|-0.05|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.25|-0.05|0.069
91651178|NCT00408876|183194572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.564||95.0|-0.38|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.38|0.564
91651179|NCT00408876|183194573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.929||95.0|-0.92|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.92|0.929
91787725|NCT03595618|183455325|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.04514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02465||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00317|0.09345||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose minus placebo using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value||0.09345|-0.00317|0.165
91790913|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.713|0.469||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.469|-1.713|0.263
91651180|NCT00408876|183194573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.147||95.0|-0.21|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.21|0.147
91651181|NCT00408876|183194573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.7||95.0|-0.64|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.95|-0.64|0.700
91651182|NCT00408876|183194573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.279||95.0|-0.44|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.51|-0.44|0.279
91651183|NCT00408876|183194573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.822||95.0|-0.86|1.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.09|-0.86|0.822
91651184|NCT00408876|183194573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.299||95.0|-1.22|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|-1.22|0.299
91900105|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.65|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.65|-0.44|0.705
91651185|NCT00408876|183194574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.766||95.0|-1.33|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.98|-1.33|0.766
91651186|NCT00408876|183194574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.217||95.0|-0.35|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.55|-0.35|0.217
91651187|NCT00408876|183194574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.88||95.0|-0.89|1.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.04|-0.89|0.880
91651188|NCT00408876|183194574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.193||95.0|-0.39|1.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.94|-0.39|0.193
91651189|NCT00408876|183194574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.675||95.0|-0.92|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-0.92|0.675
91651190|NCT00408876|183194574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.288||95.0|-1.5|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.45|-1.50|0.288
91651191|NCT00408876|183194575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.501||95.0|-1.66|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.81|-1.66|0.501
91651192|NCT00408876|183194575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.524||95.0|-0.69|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.35|-0.69|0.524
91651193|NCT00408876|183194575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.089||95.0|-0.14|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.91|-0.14|0.089
91651194|NCT00408876|183194575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.234||95.0|-0.49|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.00|-0.49|0.234
91651195|NCT00408876|183194575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.04||95.0|0.06|2.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.56|0.06|0.040
91651196|NCT00408876|183194575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.289||95.0|-0.48|1.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.59|-0.48|0.289
91651197|NCT00408876|183194576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.862||95.0|-0.27|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.32|-0.27|0.862
91651198|NCT00408876|183194576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.368||95.0|-0.13|0.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.35|-0.13|0.368
91651199|NCT00408876|183194576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.628||95.0|-0.18|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-0.18|0.628
91651200|NCT00408876|183194576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.573||95.0|-0.21|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|-0.21|0.573
91651201|NCT00408876|183194576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.819||95.0|-0.26|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.26|0.819
91651202|NCT00408876|183194576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.687||95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.30|0.687
91651203|NCT00408876|183194577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.972||95.0|-0.48|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.48|0.972
91651204|NCT00408876|183194577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99||95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.40|-0.40|0.990
91651205|NCT00408876|183194577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.793||95.0|-0.35|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.46|-0.35|0.793
91651206|NCT00408876|183194577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.981||95.0|-0.5|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.49|-0.50|0.981
91651207|NCT00408876|183194577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.857||95.0|-0.45|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.45|0.857
91651208|NCT00408876|183194577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.805||95.0|-0.36|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.46|-0.36|0.805
91651209|NCT00408876|183194578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.34||95.0|-0.26|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.75|-0.26|0.340
91790914|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91847819|NCT03852433|183579144|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.0||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|32.7|||Fisher Exact|||||32.7|-5.5|0.2184
91847820|NCT03852433|183579144|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-20.0||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-3.5|||Fisher Exact|||||-3.5|-36.1|0.0283
91847821|NCT03852433|183579147|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.0||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0|||Fisher Exact|||||44.0|6.0|0.0134
91847822|NCT03852433|183579148|OTHER||Difference in percentages|28.0||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|45.1|||Fisher Exact|||||45.1|8.2|0.0049
91847823|NCT03852433|183579149|OTHER||Difference in percentages|34.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|50.4|||Fisher Exact|||||50.4|14.6|0.0003
91847824|NCT03852433|183579149|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-22.8|1.0000
91847825|NCT03852433|183579149|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.0||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|42.2|||Fisher Exact|||||42.2|-5.3|0.1265
91847826|NCT03852433|183579149|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-13.0||||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|5.4|||Fisher Exact|||||5.4|-35.3|0.1863
91847827|NCT03852433|183579149|OTHER||Difference in percentages|20.0||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|38.2|||Fisher Exact|||||38.2|1.0|0.0601
91847828|NCT03852433|183579149|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-14.0||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|1.7|||Fisher Exact|||||1.7|-29.9|0.1247
91847829|NCT03852433|183579150|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.56||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|3.26|||MMRM|||||3.26|-0.14|0.0717
91847830|NCT03852433|183579150|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.84||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|0.71|||MMRM|||||0.71|-4.39|0.1563
91847831|NCT03852433|183579150|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.8||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|0.73|||MMRM|||||0.73|-4.33|0.1626
91847832|NCT03852433|183579150|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.34||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|-0.82|||MMRM|||||-0.82|-5.87|0.0099
91847833|NCT03852433|183579150|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.81|||MMRM|||||1.81|-1.67|0.9384
91847834|NCT03852433|183579150|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.49||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.22|||MMRM|||||0.22|-3.20|0.0875
91847835|NCT03852433|183579151|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.8645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.83|||MMRM|||||1.83|-1.54|0.8645
91847836|NCT03852433|183579151|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.33||||0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.39|||MMRM|||||1.39|-2.06|0.7033
91847837|NCT03852433|183579151|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.48||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.23|||MMRM|||||1.23|-2.18|0.5806
91847838|NCT03852433|183579152|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.68||||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|0.39|||MMRM|||||0.39|-3.75|0.1103
91847839|NCT03852433|183579152|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.05||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|0.77|||MMRM|||||0.77|-4.88|0.1533
91847840|NCT03852433|183579152|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.22||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|0.53|||MMRM|||||0.53|-4.98|0.1129
91847841|NCT03852433|183579152|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.58||||0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|2.17|||MMRM|||||2.17|-3.34|0.6753
91847842|NCT03852433|183579152|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.12||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.04|||MMRM|||||2.04|-2.28|0.9124
91847843|NCT03852433|183579152|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.56||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|3.7|||MMRM|||||3.70|-0.59|0.1526
91847844|NCT02929069|183579159|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|.52|0.52
91847845|NCT00389519|183579234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||two-sided test|ANCOVA|test from contrast statement from full model||"Planned interim efficacy analysis: 80 placebo and 80 high-dose ramipril subjects provided 93% power, alpha=0.032, to detect 5 mmHg difference in primary outcome. SD of 8.5 mmHg assumed. Alpha of 0.032 required for the planned interim efficacy analysis.~If study continued: 450 total subjects would provide 90% power, alpha=0.027, to detect 3 mmHg difference between placebo and combined ramipril dose groups. Alpha of 0.027 required for the final analysis."||||0.044
91847846|NCT00389519|183579235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||two-sided, unadjusted|ANCOVA|test from contrast statement from full model||||||0.006
91847847|NCT03425539|183579254|OTHER|An ANCOVA was applied to the change from baseline to Month 6 including the baseline value, the two stratification factors (sex and enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) treatment status), and the treatment group.|LS Mean difference vs. placebo|0.42||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.23|||ANCOVA|||||1.23|-0.4|0.3189
91847848|NCT03425539|183579255|OTHER|An ANCOVA was applied to the change from baseline to Month 6 including the baseline value, the two stratification factors (sex and ERT treatment status), and the treatment group.|LS Mean difference vs. placebo|-873.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1097.53|-649.53|||ANCOVA|||||-649.53|-1097.53|<0.0001
91847849|NCT03425539|183579256|OTHER|An ANCOVA was applied to the change from baseline to Month 6 including the terms value, the two stratification factors (sex and ERT treatment status), and the treatment group.|LS Mean difference vs. placebo|0.31||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.16|||ANCOVA|||||1.16|-0.53|0.4676
91847850|NCT03425539|183579257|OTHER||Win ratio|1.0||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.89|||ANCOVA|||The p-value was derived from a rank ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value and stratified by sex and ERT treatment status.||1.89|0.57|0.8986
91847851|NCT00946192|183579264|OTHER|Least square means||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
91847852|NCT00946192|183579265|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91847853|NCT02014558|183579301|OTHER||Slope|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.788|1.19||||||Dose Proportionality (Single Dose / Day -2) was evaluated using the power model.||1.19|0.788|
91847854|NCT02014558|183579301|OTHER||Slope|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.43||||||Dose Proportionality (Multiple Dose / Cycle 1 Day 15) was evaluated using the power model.||1.43|1.00|
91847855|NCT02014558|183579302|OTHER||Slope|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.629|0.988||||||Dose Proportionality (Single Dose / Day -2) was evaluated using the power model.||0.988|0.629|
91847856|NCT02014558|183579302|OTHER||Slope|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.41||||||Dose Proportionality (Multiple Dose / Cycle 1 Day 15) was evaluated using the power model.||1.41|1.02|
91847857|NCT02014558|183579340|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|109.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.82|240.48||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of least squares (LS) means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between midazolam alone and midazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||240.48|49.82|
91847858|NCT02014558|183579341|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|149.9||||||90.0|74.88|300.06||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between 1-hydroxymidazolam alone and 1-hydroxymidazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||300.06|74.88|
91787726|NCT03595618|183455325|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02585||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03868|0.06267||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose minus placebo using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.06267|-0.03868|0.939
91787727|NCT03595618|183455325|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.02329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02536||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02641|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose minus placebo using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.07300|-0.02641|0.682
91847859|NCT02014558|183579342|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|111.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.54|179.25||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between midazolam alone and midazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||179.25|69.54|
91847860|NCT02014558|183579343|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|123.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.41|210.52||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between 1-hydroxymidazolam/midazolam alone and 1-hydroxymidazolam/midazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||210.52|72.41|
91847861|NCT02014558|183579348|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|93.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.29|117.26||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||117.26|75.29|
91847862|NCT02014558|183579349|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|91.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.6|112.12||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||112.12|74.60|
91847863|NCT02014558|183579350|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|97.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.19|128.7||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||128.70|74.19|
91847864|NCT02014558|183579353|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|106.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.28|132.81||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||132.81|85.28|
91847865|NCT02014558|183579355|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|83.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.53|151.39||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||151.39|46.53|
91847866|NCT02014558|183579357|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|82.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.25|170.48||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||170.48|40.25|
91847867|NCT05273801|183579358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently clinician ask about RPE/HR during session||||0.73
91847868|NCT05273801|183579358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently education provided regarding HR/RPE during session||||0.05
91847869|NCT05273801|183579358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently HR/RPE target is mentioned in session||||0.007
91847870|NCT05273801|183579358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently clinician modifies session/task to reach HR/RPE target||||0.005
91847871|NCT05273801|183579358|SUPERIORITY|||||||1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently clinicians monitor HR/RPE during session||||0.00001
91847872|NCT04159506|183579376|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This pilot study was designed mostly to determine feasibility and acceptability of TEE, AC, and study methods. Nonetheless, Paired Difference Signed Rank Tests were used to compare conditions given small sample and non-normal distribution of data.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No adjustments were made given this was a pilot study focused on feasibility and acceptability.||||||<0.05
91851967|NCT00430300|183587377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5806|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.5806
91847873|NCT04159506|183579377|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No adjustments were made given this was a pilot study focused on feasibility and acceptability.||This pilot study was designed mostly to determine feasibility and acceptability of TEE, AC, and study methods. Nonetheless, Paired Difference Signed Rank Tests were used to compare conditions given small sample and non-normal distribution of data.||||<0.05
91900106|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.600
91651210|NCT00408876|183194578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.848||95.0|-0.45|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.37|-0.45|0.848
91651211|NCT00408876|183194578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.573||95.0|-0.54|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|-0.54|0.573
91651212|NCT00408876|183194578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.272||95.0|-0.79|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|-0.79|0.272
91900107|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.56|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.56|-0.52|0.931
91847874|NCT04159506|183579378|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No adjustments were made given this was a pilot study focused on feasibility and acceptability.||This pilot study was designed mostly to determine feasibility and acceptability of TEE, AC, and study methods. Nonetheless, Paired Difference Signed Rank Tests were used to compare conditions given small sample and non-normal distribution of data.||||<0.05
91851968|NCT00430300|183587377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.054|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.00|0.0540
91851969|NCT00430300|183587377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2616|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.11||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.11|0.2616
91851970|NCT00430300|183587377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0724|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.02||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.02|0.0724
91851971|NCT00430300|183587378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9362|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.9362
91851972|NCT00430300|183587378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9469|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.33||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.33|0.9469
91851973|NCT00430300|183587378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9153|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.27||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.27|0.9153
91851974|NCT00430300|183587378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9686|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.36||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.36|0.9686
91851975|NCT00430300|183587378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1548|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1548
91651213|NCT00408876|183194578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.161||95.0|-0.88|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.88|0.161
91847875|NCT01875250|183579384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.74
91847876|NCT00739102|183579415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion - 12-month patency rate|0.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.725||The observed rate of primary patency at 12 month was 66.5% (143/215) with a lower 95% confidence interval of 60.0%.|Agresti-Coull method||The 95% confidence intervals and the standard error were calculated using the Agresti-Coull method|The null hypothesis to be tested was Ho: P = 0.66 against Ha: P \> 0.66, where 0.66 was the Objective Performance Criteria (OPC). A sample size of 212 subjects was required to achieve 90% power to reject the 66% 12-months patency rate at a one-sided 2.5% significance level when the unknown true patency is at 76%.||0.725|0.6|0.437
91847877|NCT00739102|183579417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Death Rate (%)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.9||||||||4.9|0.7|
91847878|NCT00739102|183579418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Index Limb Amputation Rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||||1.5|0.0|
91847879|NCT00739102|183579419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinically Driven TVR Rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||||1.5|0.0|
91847880|NCT00739102|183579420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinically Driven TVR Rate (%)|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|18.6||||||||18.6|9.5|
91847881|NCT00739102|183579421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stent Fracture Rate (%)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.4||||||||4.4|0.3|
91847882|NCT00739102|183579422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Index Limb Ischemia Rate (%)|5.6||||||95.0||||||||||||
91847883|NCT00739102|183579423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Primary safety endpoint rate (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|100.0|||Agresti-Coull method|||The null hypothesis to be tested was Ho: P = 0.88 against Ha: P \> 0.88, where 0.88 was the Objective Performance Criteria (OPC).||100|98.2|<0.001
91847884|NCT00739102|183579424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Index Limb Ischemia Rate (%)|8.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
91847885|NCT00739102|183579427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Major adverse event rate (%)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|19.5||||||||19.5|10.2|
91847886|NCT05298111|183579473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91847887|NCT05298111|183579474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||< 0.001
91651214|NCT00408876|183194578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.711||95.0|-0.5|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.50|0.711
91847888|NCT05298111|183579475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Sign test|||||||< 0.001
91847889|NCT05298111|183579476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Sign test|||||||0.001
91651215|NCT00408876|183194579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.713||95.0|-1.39|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.95|-1.39|0.713
91847890|NCT05298111|183579477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.894
91847891|NCT05298111|183579478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.629
91847892|NCT05298111|183579479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.653
91847893|NCT05298111|183579480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.624
91847894|NCT05298111|183579481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.414
91847895|NCT05298111|183579482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.105
91847896|NCT01268891|183579499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.23||The threshold for statistical significance in showing a trend for this study is 0.10.|ANCOVA|||The power for this study, which is designed to show a trend, that is, to show a clinical difference in the primary outcome measure, is 72%.||0.23|-0.93|0.3257
91847897|NCT01268891|183579500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.65|0.0946
91847898|NCT01268891|183579501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-1.84|0.2258
91847899|NCT01268891|183579502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-3.29|0.1700
91847900|NCT00991276|183579503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.78|-18.42||This analysis was step 1 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The least squares (LS) means and standard errors (SE) were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.42|-35.78|<0.0001
91851976|NCT00430300|183587378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7973|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.22||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.22|0.7973
91851977|NCT00430300|183587378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6348|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.22||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.22|0.6348
91851978|NCT00430300|183587378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5742|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.19||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.19|0.5742
91651216|NCT00408876|183194579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.288||95.0|-0.44|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.49|-0.44|0.288
91847901|NCT00991276|183579503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-26.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.54|-18.32||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.32|-35.54|<0.0001
91847902|NCT00991276|183579503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.9684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|8.38||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.38|-8.72|0.9684
91651217|NCT00408876|183194579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.351||95.0|-1.44|0.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.51|-1.44|0.351
91847903|NCT00991276|183579504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-1.92||This analysis was step 2 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.92|-5.44|<0.0001
91847904|NCT00991276|183579504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.01||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||3.01|-0.48|0.1541
91651218|NCT00408876|183194579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.219||95.0|-0.44|1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.93|-0.44|0.219
91651219|NCT00408876|183194579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.686||95.0|-1.43|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-1.43|0.686
91651220|NCT00408876|183194579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.05||95.0|-1.97|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.97|0.050
91651221|NCT00408876|183194580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.663||95.0|-0.06|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.04|-0.06|0.663
91651222|NCT00408876|183194580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.33||95.0|-0.02|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.06|-0.02|0.330
91651223|NCT00408876|183194580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.143||95.0|-0.01|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.01|0.143
91900108|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.3|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.30|-0.78|0.381
91651224|NCT00408876|183194580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.218||95.0|-0.02|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.02|0.218
91651225|NCT00408876|183194580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.1||95.0|-0.01|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.01|0.100
91847905|NCT00991276|183579504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-3.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.21|-6.68|<0.0001
91651226|NCT00408876|183194580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.614||95.0|-0.03|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.05|-0.03|0.614
91651227|NCT00408876|183194581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.786||95.0|-1.83|1.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.39|-1.83|0.786
91651228|NCT00408876|183194581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.445||95.0|-1.85|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.81|-1.85|0.445
91847906|NCT00991276|183579505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|30.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.14|45.49||This analysis was step 3 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||45.49|16.14|<0.0001
91847907|NCT00991276|183579505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|26.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.26|41.32||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||41.32|12.26|0.0004
91651229|NCT00408876|183194581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.043||95.0|0.04|2.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.74|0.04|0.043
91847908|NCT00991276|183579505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|18.41||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||18.41|-10.36|0.5807
91651230|NCT00408876|183194581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.721||95.0|-1.92|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-1.92|0.721
91651231|NCT00408876|183194581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61||||0.053||95.0|-0.02|3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.24|-0.02|0.053
91900109|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.85|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.85|-0.32|0.371
91900110|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.670
91651232|NCT00408876|183194581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.006||95.0|0.54|3.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.27|0.54|0.006
91651233|NCT00408876|183194582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.378||95.0|-0.48|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.25|-0.48|0.378
91651234|NCT00408876|183194582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.723||95.0|-0.84|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|-0.84|0.723
91651235|NCT00408876|183194582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.542||95.0|-0.95|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.95|0.542
91651236|NCT00408876|183194582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.245||95.0|-1.39|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.36|-1.39|0.245
91651237|NCT00408876|183194582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.169||95.0|-1.48|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.48|0.169
91651238|NCT00408876|183194582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.796||95.0|-0.82|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|-0.82|0.796
91847909|NCT00991276|183579506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.54||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N1 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.54|-9.80|0.0076
91847910|NCT00991276|183579506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|-6.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N1 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-6.21|-14.43|<0.0001
91847911|NCT00991276|183579506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|8.73||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N1 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.73|0.58|0.0257
91847912|NCT00991276|183579506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|34.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N2 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||34.67|10.74|0.0003
91847913|NCT00991276|183579506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.35|-2.59||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N2 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-2.59|-26.35|0.0174
91847914|NCT00991276|183579506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|37.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.38|48.96||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N2 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||48.96|25.38|<0.0001
91900111|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.58|-0.54|0.941
91900112|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.34|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.34|-0.78|0.437
91651239|NCT00408876|183194584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91651240|NCT00408876|183194584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91900113|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.84|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.84|-0.36|0.429
91651241|NCT00408876|183194584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91651242|NCT00408876|183194585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91651243|NCT00408876|183194586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
91651244|NCT00408876|183194587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91651245|NCT00408876|183194587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91847915|NCT00991276|183579506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|20.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.61|29.25||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N3 sleep/SWS: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||29.25|12.61|<0.0001
91847916|NCT00991276|183579506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.83|40.36||This analysis was step 4 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N3 sleep/SWS: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||40.36|23.83|<0.0001
91847917|NCT00991276|183579506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-11.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.37|-2.97||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N3 sleep/SWS: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-2.97|-19.37|0.0080
91847918|NCT00991276|183579506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|0.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage R sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.67|-10.61|0.0834
91651246|NCT00408876|183194588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91651247|NCT00408876|183194589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
91651248|NCT00408876|183194590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91651249|NCT00408876|183194591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91651250|NCT00408876|183194592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
91651251|NCT00408876|183194593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91651252|NCT00408876|183194593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91651253|NCT00408876|183194593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91651254|NCT00408876|183194594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.38||||0.348||95.0|-4.28|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.51|-4.28|0.348
91651255|NCT00408876|183194594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.04||95.0|0.11|4.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.89|0.11|0.040
91651256|NCT00408876|183194594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61||||0.191||95.0|-0.81|4.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.03|-0.81|0.191
91651257|NCT00408876|183194594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.89||||0.009||95.0|0.97|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.80|0.97|0.009
91651258|NCT00408876|183194594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.044||95.0|0.08|5.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.91|0.08|0.044
91651259|NCT00408876|183194594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.473||95.0|-3.33|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.55|-3.33|0.473
91651260|NCT00408876|183194595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.846||95.0|-3.61|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.40|-3.61|0.846
91651261|NCT00408876|183194595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.934||95.0|-3.45|3.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.17|-3.45|0.934
91651262|NCT00408876|183194595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.03||||0.234||95.0|-1.32|5.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.39|-1.32|0.234
91651263|NCT00408876|183194595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.794||95.0|-4.58|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.50|-4.58|0.794
91847919|NCT00991276|183579506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|18.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.99|24.19||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage R sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||24.19|12.99|<0.0001
91847920|NCT00991276|183579506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-23.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|-18.01||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage R sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.01|-29.12|<0.0001
91651264|NCT00408876|183194595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.64||||0.426||95.0|-2.4|5.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.67|-2.40|0.426
91709557|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-0.9||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-0.9|-9.6|
91651265|NCT00408876|183194595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17||||0.207||95.0|-1.21|5.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.55|-1.21|0.207
91651266|NCT00408876|183194596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.901||95.0|-2.54|2.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.89|-2.54|0.901
91651267|NCT00408876|183194596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.926||95.0|-2.35|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.14|-2.35|0.926
91651268|NCT00408876|183194596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.62||||0.002||95.0|1.35|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.90|1.35|0.002
91651269|NCT00408876|183194596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.841||95.0|-3.02|2.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.46|-3.02|0.841
91651270|NCT00408876|183194596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.45||||0.014||95.0|0.71|6.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.19|0.71|0.014
91651271|NCT00408876|183194596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.73||||0.001||95.0|1.44|6.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.02|1.44|0.001
91651272|NCT00408876|183194597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.057||95.0|-1.41|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-1.41|0.057
91651273|NCT00408876|183194597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.128||95.0|-1.05|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-1.05|0.128
91651274|NCT00408876|183194597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||0.007||95.0|-1.42|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.42|0.007
91651275|NCT00408876|183194597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.518||95.0|-0.48|0.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.96|-0.48|0.518
91651276|NCT00408876|183194597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.734||95.0|-0.85|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.60|-0.85|0.734
91847921|NCT00991276|183579507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-0.72||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.72|-4.63|0.0077
91651277|NCT00408876|183194597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.239||95.0|-0.97|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.24|-0.97|0.239
91651278|NCT00291330|183194598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 2.75 for the HR analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.65|1.7||Non-inferiority P-Value. Two Statistical analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the risk difference and for the hazard ratio analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on the primary endpoint.|Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.70|0.65|<0.0001
91651279|NCT00291330|183194598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 3.6% for the risk difference based on KM estimates|Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|1.5||Non-inferiority P-Value. Two Statistical analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the risk difference and for the hazard ratio analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on the primary endpoint.|Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death related to VTE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.50|-0.80|<0.0001
91651280|NCT00291330|183194598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.65|1.84|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at day 180||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and the day 180). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.84|0.65|
91651281|NCT00291330|183194599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.622||95.0|-1.0|1.7|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.70|-1.00|0.6220
91651282|NCT00291330|183194599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9844||95.0|0.69|1.46|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.46|0.69|0.9844
91651283|NCT00291330|183194600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.2||||0.6466||95.0|-1.1|0.7|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic DVT at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.70|-1.10|0.6466
91709558|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.0||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-4.0|-13.0|
91651284|NCT00291330|183194600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.385||95.0|0.4|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.42|0.40|0.3850
91651285|NCT00291330|183194601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.2981||95.0|-0.3|1.0|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic non-fatal PE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.00|-0.30|0.2981
91651286|NCT00291330|183194601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.1092||95.0|0.86|4.68|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||4.68|0.86|0.1092
91651287|NCT00291330|183194602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.3||||0.5327||95.0|-1.2|0.6|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died due to VTE . Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.60|-1.20|0.5327
91651288|NCT00291330|183194602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.3332||95.0|0.03|3.15|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||3.15|0.03|0.3332
91651289|NCT00291330|183194603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.1||||0.8018||95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died from any cause. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.80|-1.00|0.8018
91651290|NCT00291330|183194603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8203||95.0|0.54|1.63|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.63|0.54|0.8203
91651291|NCT00291330|183194604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.5063||95.0|0.45|1.48|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin for the category major bleeding events (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.48|0.45|0.5063
91651292|NCT00291330|183194604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin for the category of any bleeding events (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||0.85|0.59|0.0002
91651293|NCT00566709|183194607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91651294|NCT00566709|183194608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.07
91651295|NCT00566709|183194609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.56
91651296|NCT00566709|183194610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91651297|NCT00566709|183194611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.77
91651298|NCT00566709|183194612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.22
91847922|NCT00991276|183579507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|-5.93||This analysis was step 5 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-5.93|-9.81|<0.0001
91851979|NCT00430300|183587378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6719|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.19||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.19|0.6719
91900114|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.484
91651299|NCT03443869|183194613|NON_INFERIORITY|LET was concluded non-inferior to VGCV if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for difference in percentage of participants with adjudicated CMV disease (LET - VGCV) was no higher than 10%|Stratum-adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.8|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|The Observed failure (OF) approach was used to handle missing values, that is participants who had discontinued prematurely from the study for any reason were not considered failures||3.8|-6.5|
91847923|NCT00991276|183579507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|7.12||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||7.12|3.27|<0.0001
91847924|NCT00991276|183579508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|-0.26||This analysis was step 6 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.26|-10.44|0.0396
91847925|NCT00991276|183579508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.95|0.14||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.14|-9.95|0.0568
91847926|NCT00991276|183579508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|4.54||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||4.54|-5.44|0.8589
91847927|NCT00991276|183579509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-8.74||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-8.74|-20.26|<0.0001
91847928|NCT00991276|183579509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|17.04||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||17.04|5.65|0.0001
91787728|NCT03595618|183455326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.58||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen||2.58|0.84|0.396
91709559|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-3.7||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-3.7|-14.0|
91787729|NCT03595618|183455326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen||1.50|0.53|0.951
91900115|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.78|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.78|-0.38|0.504
91651300|NCT03443869|183194614|OTHER||Stratum-adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.1|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|The Observed failure (OF) approach was used to handle missing values, that is participants who had discontinued prematurely from the study for any reason were not considered failures||0.1|-3.4|
91651301|NCT03443869|183194616|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.2|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|||4.2|-4.4|
91651302|NCT03443869|183194617|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.9|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|||-0.9|-7.0|
91651303|NCT00931385|183194637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.113|<0.0001
91651304|NCT00931385|183194637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.113|<0.0001
91651305|NCT00931385|183194637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.177|0.106|<0.0001
91709560|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.3||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-6.8|
91709561|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.4||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.4|-6.4|
91709562|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.4|-4.4|
91651306|NCT00931385|183194638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.146|0.073|<0.0001
91651307|NCT00931385|183194638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|0.091|<0.0001
91651308|NCT00931385|183194638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.209|0.135|<0.0001
91651309|NCT00931385|183194639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.163|0.094|<0.0001
91651310|NCT00931385|183194639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.172|0.103|<0.0001
91651311|NCT00931385|183194639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.191|0.122|<0.0001
91651312|NCT00931385|183194640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.201|0.126|<0.0001
91651313|NCT00931385|183194640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.202|0.127|<0.0001
91651314|NCT00931385|183194640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.16|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.236|0.160|<0.0001
91709563|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.5||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.5|-5.6|
91709564|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.1|-2.1|
91787730|NCT03595618|183455326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.83||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen||1.83|0.64|0.985
91651315|NCT00931385|183194641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.135|<0.0001
91651316|NCT00931385|183194641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.127|<0.0001
91651317|NCT00931385|183194641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.257|0.178|<0.0001
91651318|NCT00931385|183194642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.064|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.147|0.064|<0.0001
91651319|NCT00931385|183194642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.072|<0.0001
91900116|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.4|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.40|-0.77|0.528
91709565|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.7|
91709566|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.2||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.2|-9.5|
91709567|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.0||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.0|3.0|
91709568|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-33.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-26.2||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-26.2|-40.7|
91709569|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.4||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.4|3.8|
91709570|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-12.5||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-12.5|-25.7|
91709571|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.6||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||9.6|2.2|
91790915|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.026|1.217||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.217|-1.026|0.868
91900117|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.01|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.01|-0.24|0.229
91709572|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.4||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.4|3.8|
91709573|NCT04530838|183311598|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||6.0|-3.2|
91709574|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-1.7||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-1.7|-10.4|
91709575|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.9||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.9|-5.2|
91900118|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.536
91900119|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.7|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.70|-0.49|0.728
91709576|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.9||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.9|-6.2|
91709577|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.8||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||5.8|-4.5|
91847929|NCT00991276|183579509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.51|-20.17||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-20.17|-31.51|<0.0001
91651320|NCT00931385|183194642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.092|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.175|0.092|<0.0001
91651321|NCT00931385|183194643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.167|<0.0001
91651322|NCT00931385|183194643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.287|0.170|<0.0001
91847930|NCT00991276|183579510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.84|-8.22||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-8.22|-20.84|<0.0001
91651323|NCT00931385|183194643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.262|0.144|<0.0001
91709578|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|10.0||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.0|-0.2|
91709579|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.1||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-12.5|
91709580|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.1||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||3.1|-5.4|
91709581|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|1.4||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.4|-7.7|
91787731|NCT03595618|183455327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Total score: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.3|-5.6|0.467
91790916|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790917|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.298|1.029||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.029|-1.298|0.820
91790918|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91709582|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.2||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||3.2|-4.4|
91847931|NCT00991276|183579510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|14.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.18|20.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||20.67|8.18|<0.0001
91847932|NCT00991276|183579510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.16|-22.74||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-22.74|-35.16|<0.0001
91651324|NCT00931385|183194644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.087|<0.0001
91651325|NCT00931385|183194644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.112|<0.0001
91651326|NCT00931385|183194644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.311|0.191|<0.0001
91651327|NCT00931385|183194645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.241|0.132|<0.0001
91709583|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.9||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.9|-6.2|
91709584|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-3.0|
91851980|NCT00430300|183587378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0881|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.04||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.04|0.0881
91851981|NCT00430300|183587378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2772|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2772
91851982|NCT00430300|183587378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1363|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1363
91851983|NCT00430300|183587379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0938|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.03||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.03|0.0938
91651328|NCT00931385|183194645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.145|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.254|0.145|<0.0001
91651329|NCT00931385|183194645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.172|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.282|0.172|<0.0001
91709585|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
91709586|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|5.1||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||5.1|-6.9|
91709587|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.1|-2.2|
91709588|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|8.6||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||8.6|-9.8|
91709589|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
91709590|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.2||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||8.2|-8.2|
91709591|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.0|-3.3|
91900120|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.35|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.35|-0.84|0.414
91651330|NCT00931385|183194646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.330|0.191|<0.0001
91651331|NCT00931385|183194646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.183|0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.322|0.183|<0.0001
91900121|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.99|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.99|-0.29|0.280
91651332|NCT00931385|183194646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.232|0.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.372|0.232|<0.0001
91900122|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.402
91847933|NCT00991276|183579511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-1.8||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.80|-3.93|<0.0001
91847934|NCT00991276|183579511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|-3.65||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.65|-5.76|<0.0001
91847935|NCT00991276|183579511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.89||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.89|0.79|0.0007
91847936|NCT00991276|183579512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.12||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.12|-5.02|0.0617
91847937|NCT00991276|183579512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-3.8||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.80|-8.91|<0.0001
91847938|NCT00991276|183579512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|6.44||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||6.44|1.37|0.0028
91847939|NCT00991276|183579513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.21|-1.17|0.0056
91847940|NCT00991276|183579513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.95||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.95|-1.90|<0.0001
91847941|NCT00991276|183579513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.21|0.26|0.0026
91847942|NCT00991276|183579514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.09||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-4.09|-8.10|<0.0001
91709592|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
91651333|NCT00931385|183194647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.087|<0.0001
91651334|NCT00931385|183194647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.086|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.086|<0.0001
91651335|NCT00931385|183194647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.250|0.115|<0.0001
91651336|NCT02033876|183194649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.43
91651337|NCT02033876|183194650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.65
91651338|NCT02033876|183194652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
91651339|NCT02033876|183194653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
91651340|NCT02033876|183194654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4
91651341|NCT02033876|183194655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8
91651342|NCT02033876|183194656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91709593|NCT04530838|183311598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.2||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.2|-7.5|
91790919|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.984|1.308||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.308|-0.984|0.781
91651343|NCT01360632|183194660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||The primary analysis was performed on the Efficacy Sample by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with an unstructured variance covariance structure in which the change from the end of Phase A (Week 8) in MADRS Total Score (at Weeks 9 to 14) was the dependent variable. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||0.2|-2.58|0.0925
91651344|NCT01360632|183194660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||The primary analysis was performed on the Efficacy Sample by fitting a MMRM analysis with an unstructured variance covariance structure in which the change from the end of Phase A (Week 8) in MADRS Total Score (at Weeks 9 to 14) was the dependent variable. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||-0.13|-2.92|0.0327
91651345|NCT01360632|183194661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.13|-2.73|0.0737
91787732|NCT03595618|183455327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.5||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Total score: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.5|-5.4|0.557
91787733|NCT03595618|183455327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.6||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Total score: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.6|-5.3|0.593
91787734|NCT03595618|183455327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Pain subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.4|-1.0|0.776
91787735|NCT03595618|183455327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Pain subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.3|-1.2|0.446
91787736|NCT03595618|183455327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Pain subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.4|-1.1|0.649
91787737|NCT03595618|183455327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.9||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Physical function subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.9|-4.1|0.452
91787738|NCT03595618|183455327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Physical Function subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.3|-3.7|0.665
91787739|NCT03595618|183455327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.2||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Physical Function subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.2|-3.9|0.598
91651346|NCT01360632|183194661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.51|-3.39|0.0079
91787740|NCT03595618|183455327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Stiffness subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.1|-0.6|0.400
91787741|NCT03595618|183455327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Stiffness subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.1|-0.6|0.393
91787742|NCT03595618|183455327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Stiffness subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.2|-0.5|0.858
91651347|NCT01360632|183194662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.26|-1.86|0.0096
91651348|NCT01360632|183194662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.47|-1.14|0.4137
91790920|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91651349|NCT01360632|183194662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate||Statistical analysis at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.4|-2.47|0.0065
91790921|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.082|1.238||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.238|-1.082|0.895
91651350|NCT01360632|183194662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.14|-1.93|0.0914
91651351|NCT01360632|183194662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.28|-2.5|0.0139
91651352|NCT01360632|183194662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.4|-1.82|0.2097
91651353|NCT01360632|183194662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.38|-2.75|0.0099
91709594|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.72||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.72|0.54|
91787743|NCT03595618|183455328|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.7||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||2.7|-7.1|0.705
91787744|NCT03595618|183455328|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.8||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.8|-9.0|0.243
91787745|NCT03595618|183455328|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.9||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||3.9|-6.1|0.949
91787746|NCT03595618|183455329|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||6.3|-3.4|0.890
91787747|NCT03595618|183455329|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.6||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||2.6|-7.1|0.682
91787748|NCT03595618|183455329|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.0||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||5.0|-4.8|1.000
91790922|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790923|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|1.991||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.991|-0.724|0.359
91790924|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91651354|NCT01360632|183194662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.1|-2.48|0.034
91651355|NCT01360632|183194662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.27|-2.8|0.0177
91651356|NCT01360632|183194662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.44|-2.98|0.0085
91651357|NCT01360632|183194663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.1|-1.74|0.0286
91651358|NCT01360632|183194663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.4|-1.24|0.3173
91900123|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.81|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.81|-0.41|0.513
91651359|NCT01360632|183194663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.11|-2.23|0.0313
91651360|NCT01360632|183194663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.09|-2.04|0.0732
91651361|NCT01360632|183194663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.21|-2.51|0.0206
91651362|NCT01360632|183194663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.25|-2.06|0.1233
91651363|NCT01360632|183194663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.39|-2.84|0.0097
91787749|NCT03595618|183455330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.58||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen.||1.58|0.70|0.991
91787750|NCT03595618|183455330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen.||1.43|0.64|0.992
91787751|NCT03595618|183455330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen.||1.23|0.55|0.653
91790925|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.675||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.985|1.67||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.670|-0.985|0.612
91790926|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91709595|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.81||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.81|0.63|
91847943|NCT00991276|183579514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-1.07||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.07|-5.07|0.0029
91847944|NCT00991276|183579514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-1.04||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.04|-5.02|0.0032
91847945|NCT00991276|183579516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|10.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|25.95||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||25.95|-4.56|0.1677
91847946|NCT00991276|183579516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.88|-20.66||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-20.66|-50.88|<0.0001
91847947|NCT00991276|183579516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|46.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.45|61.48||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||61.48|31.45|<0.0001
91847948|NCT00991276|183579517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|1.61||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.61|-17.07|0.1040
91847949|NCT00991276|183579517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.9325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|8.87||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.87|-9.67|0.9325
91847950|NCT00991276|183579517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.1175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|1.87||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.87|-16.54|0.1175
91847951|NCT00991276|183579518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-23.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|-15.18||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-15.18|-32.78|<0.0001
91851984|NCT00430300|183587379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2149|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.2149
91847952|NCT00991276|183579518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.46|-16.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-16.02|-33.46|<0.0001
91847953|NCT00991276|183579518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.8622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.43||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||9.43|-7.90|0.8622
91847954|NCT00991276|183579519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.4||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.40|-7.00|0.0800
91709596|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.7||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.70|0.51|
91709597|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.71||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.71|0.49|
91709598|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.7||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.70|0.50|
91709599|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.64||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.64|0.40|
91709600|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.84||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.84|0.62|
91709601|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.8||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.80|0.60|
91709602|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.01|0.70|
91790927|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.872|1.867||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.867|-0.872|0.475
91709603|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.77||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.77|0.57|
91709604|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.87||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.87|0.65|
91709605|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.85|0.67|
91790928|NCT02880956|183460087|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790929|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.799|0.878||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.878|-0.799|0.926
91651364|NCT01360632|183194663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.41|-2.86|0.0092
91651365|NCT01360632|183194663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.33|-2.94|0.0139
91651366|NCT01360632|183194663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.81|-3.42|0.0015
91651367|NCT01360632|183194664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.23||MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.23|-0.87|0.0008
91651368|NCT01360632|183194664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.5792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23||MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B||0.23|-0.41|0.5792
91651369|NCT01360632|183194664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.12|-0.87|0.0091
91651370|NCT01360632|183194664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0|-0.73|0.0474
91651371|NCT01360632|183194665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.22||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.22|-0.94|0.0015
91651372|NCT01360632|183194665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.15||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.15|-0.56|0.2627
91651373|NCT01360632|183194665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3||-0.09|-0.89|0.0158
91651374|NCT01360632|183194665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.08|-0.88|0.0191
91651375|NCT01360632|183194666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Work/School: Week 11||-0.03|-0.88|0.0377
91851985|NCT00430300|183587379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1682|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1682
91709606|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.78||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.78|0.53|
91709607|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|4.79||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||4.79|3.36|
91651376|NCT01360632|183194666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.04||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||-0.43|For Item: Work/School: Week 14||0.04|-0.91|0.0741
91651377|NCT01360632|183194666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.81||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For Item: Work/School: Week 11||0.81|-0.07|0.0966
91651378|NCT01360632|183194666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.4774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Item: Work/School: Week 14||0.31|-0.66|0.4774
91651379|NCT01360632|183194666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.05||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||-0.05|-0.76|0.0263
91651380|NCT01360632|183194666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||-0.07|-0.89|0.0214
91787752|NCT03595618|183455331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02156||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00448|0.08005||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.08005|-0.00448|0.193
91651381|NCT01360632|183194666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.32||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||0.32|-0.40|0.8281
91651382|NCT01360632|183194666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||0.01|-0.80|0.0540
91651383|NCT01360632|183194666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.26||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||-0.26|-0.99|0.0008
91851986|NCT00430300|183587379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4492|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.4492
91851987|NCT00430300|183587379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2539|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.2539
91651384|NCT01360632|183194666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.14|-0.97|0.0093
91651385|NCT01360632|183194666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||0.14|-0.59|0.2182
91651386|NCT01360632|183194666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.06|-0.90|0.0256
91651387|NCT01360632|183194667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.04||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Work/school: Week 11||-0.04|-1.01|0.0341
91651388|NCT01360632|183194667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.06||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||School/work: Week 14||0.06|-0.99|0.0816
91651389|NCT01360632|183194667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.78||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Work/school: Week 11||0.78|-0.21|0.2561
91651390|NCT01360632|183194667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.25||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Work/school: Week 14||0.25|-0.82|0.2952
91651391|NCT01360632|183194667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.03||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||-0.03|-0.82|0.0331
91851988|NCT00430300|183587379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8168|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.22||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.22|0.8168
91651392|NCT01360632|183194667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||-0.03|-0.90|0.0352
91651393|NCT01360632|183194667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.25||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||0.25|-0.54|0.4860
91651394|NCT01360632|183194667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.05||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||-0.05|-0.93|0.0282
91651395|NCT01360632|183194667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.24||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||-0.24|-1.01|0.0016
91651396|NCT01360632|183194667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.09|-0.94|0.0186
91651397|NCT01360632|183194667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.04||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||0.04|-0.73|0.0824
91651398|NCT01360632|183194667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.16||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.16|-1.02|0.0077
91651399|NCT01360632|183194668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0|-0.18|0.0436
91651400|NCT01360632|183194668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||-0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.03|-0.15|-0.06
91651401|NCT01360632|183194668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.08|-0.34|0.0012
91651402|NCT01360632|183194668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.02|-0.27|0.0266
91790930|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790931|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.082|0.58||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.580|-1.082|0.553
91790932|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790933|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.021|0.677||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.677|-1.021|0.690
91790934|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790935|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|1.879||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.879|-0.085|0.073
91790936|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91651403|NCT01360632|183194668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.07|-0.33|0.0034
91651404|NCT01360632|183194668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.06|-0.2|0.3053
91651405|NCT01360632|183194668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0|-0.29|0.0541
91651406|NCT01360632|183194668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.02|-0.28|0.0912
91651407|NCT01360632|183194668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.04|-0.28|0.1553
91651408|NCT01360632|183194668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.05|-0.27|0.1855
91651409|NCT01360632|183194668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.06|-0.28|0.2015
91651410|NCT01360632|183194668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.02|-0.32|0.0852
91787753|NCT03595618|183455331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02235||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00801|0.07962||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.07962|-0.00801|0.256
91651411|NCT01360632|183194669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.01|-0.17|0.0817
91651412|NCT01360632|183194669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.02|-0.16|0.1406
91790937|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|1.273||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.273|-0.641|0.517
91790938|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790939|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|1.36||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.360|-0.609|0.454
91787754|NCT03595618|183455331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02243||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00514|0.08281||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.08281|-0.00514|0.201
91790940|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.45|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
91651413|NCT01360632|183194669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.04|-0.29|0.011
91790941|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.522||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|1.596||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.596|-0.456|0.276
91790942|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91787755|NCT03595618|183455332|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.12394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13671||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02464|9.27252||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: Placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||9.27252|-3.02464|0.627
91787756|NCT03595618|183455332|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.46842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21111||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82659|6.76343||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: Placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||6.76343|-5.82659|0.998
91787757|NCT03595618|183455332|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|4.11756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2759||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.30536|10.54049||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: Placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||10.54049|-2.30536|0.449
91787758|NCT03595618|183455333|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.84781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75674||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51643|10.21205||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||10.21205|-4.51643|0.789
91787759|NCT03595618|183455333|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-3.64759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84747||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19071|3.89553||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||3.89553|-11.19071|0.661
91787760|NCT03595618|183455333|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.55176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81987||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04053|4.93701||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||4.93701|-10.04053|0.843
91790943|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|1.058||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.058|-0.973|0.935
91790944|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790945|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.066||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.066|-0.990|0.942
91787761|NCT03595618|183455334|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0499||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0028|0.1929||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||0.1929|-0.0028|0.141
91651414|NCT01360632|183194669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.02|-0.27|0.0287
91651415|NCT01360632|183194669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.05|-0.32|0.0071
91651416|NCT01360632|183194669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.06|-0.22|0.2503
91651417|NCT01360632|183194669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0|-0.3|0.0539
91651418|NCT01360632|183194669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.01|-0.31|0.0398
91787762|NCT03595618|183455334|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0519||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0861|0.1177||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||0.1177|-0.0861|0.981
91787763|NCT03595618|183455334|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0529||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0286|0.1792||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||0.1792|-0.0286|0.349
91651419|NCT01360632|183194669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.03|-0.3|0.1168
91651420|NCT01360632|183194669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.01|-0.32|0.0621
91651421|NCT01360632|183194669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.02|-0.32|0.089
91787764|NCT02279407|183455338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.83||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||Hypotheses tested using Dunnett's multiple testing procedure with a family-wise error rate of 5%, adjusting for 3 pairwise comparisons versus a single control (placebo).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.00|0.70|0.046
91651422|NCT01360632|183194669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.03|-0.38|0.0213
91651423|NCT01360632|183194670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.18|-2.37|0.0228
91651424|NCT01360632|183194670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.73|-1.47|0.5081
91651425|NCT01360632|183194670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.53|-3.2|0.0064
91847955|NCT00991276|183579519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.2209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|1.39||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.39|-5.95|0.2209
91900124|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.36|||ANOVA|||11 hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.36|-0.86|0.424
91651426|NCT01360632|183194670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.44|-2.23|0.1898
91651427|NCT01360632|183194670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.56|-3.62|0.0074
91787765|NCT02279407|183455339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.91||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11||Conditional upon rejection of at least 1 of the 3 hypotheses for the primary analysis, secondary hypotheses are tested using Tukey's multiple testing procedure with a family-wise error rate of 5%, adjusting for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.75|0.502
91787766|NCT02279407|183455339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.91||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.13||Conditional upon rejection of at least 1 of the hypotheses for the primary analysis, secondary hypotheses are tested using Tukey's multiple testing procedure with a family-wise error rate of 5%, adjusting for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.73|0.562
91790946|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91651428|NCT01360632|183194670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.5935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||1.11|-1.95|0.5935
91651429|NCT01360632|183194670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.29|-3.52|0.0211
91651430|NCT01360632|183194670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.27|-2.96|0.1031
91787767|NCT00422084|183455340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of the PA group compared to the comparator group with regard to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 using the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction) and a 5% non-inferiority margin. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the CI for the difference \>-5%.|ACPR percent difference|0.3||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.8||If non-inferiority of PA is demonstrated, the p-value associated with a superiority test was calculated based on a 2-sided Chi-square test. If the calculated p-value is \<5%, then the superiority of PA compared to AL is statistically demonstrated.|Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (AL) by more than 5%.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is not inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (AL) by more than -5%."||1.8|-0.7|0.578
91787768|NCT01323855|183455358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\]|GMR|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.62|||||Severe CRI/Healthy|||2.62|0.54|
91900125|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.1|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.10|-0.21|0.178
91787769|NCT01323855|183455359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMR is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\]|GMR|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|2.87|||||Moderate CRI/Healthy|||2.87|0.59|
91651431|NCT01360632|183194670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1366||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.41|-3.02|0.1366
91651432|NCT01360632|183194670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.75|-2.68|0.2709
91651433|NCT01360632|183194670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.2|-3.4|0.0812
91651434|NCT01360632|183194670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.29|-3.33|0.1001
91651435|NCT01360632|183194671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0|-2.24|0.0496
91787770|NCT01323855|183455360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMR is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\]|GMR|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|5.04|||||Mild CRI/Healthy|||5.04|1.38|
91787771|NCT03996369|183455361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.69|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|18.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||18.23|1.14|=0.026
91787772|NCT03996369|183455362|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.11|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|21.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||21.23|3.00|=0.009
91787773|NCT03996369|183455363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.48|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.81|28.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.15|6.81|=0.001
91787774|NCT03996369|183455364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.44|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|14.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||14.39|0.50|=0.036
91787775|NCT03996369|183455365|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.18|32.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||32.29|10.18|<0.001
91787776|NCT03996369|183455366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.24|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.20|2.27|=0.009
91787777|NCT03996369|183455367|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.85|||=|0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|13.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||13.13|-1.42|=0.115
91787778|NCT03996369|183455367|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.83|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|20.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||20.47|3.19|=0.007
91787779|NCT03996369|183455367|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.84|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|24.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||24.69|4.98|=0.003
91787780|NCT03996369|183455368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.83|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|6.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||6.48|-0.81|=0.128
91787781|NCT03996369|183455368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.32|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|13.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||13.64|3.01|=0.002
91787782|NCT03996369|183455368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.06|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|13.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||13.49|0.62|=0.032
91787783|NCT03996369|183455368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.18|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|16.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.54|1.82|=0.014
91787784|NCT03996369|183455369|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.55|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|25.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.46|5.65|=0.002
91651436|NCT01360632|183194671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.63|-1.61|0.387
91651437|NCT01360632|183194671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.38|-3.13|0.0125
91787785|NCT03996369|183455369|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.98|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|25.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||25.91|4.05|=0.007
91787786|NCT03996369|183455369|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.95|33.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||33.25|11.95|<0.001
91787787|NCT03996369|183455369|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.58|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|28.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.47|6.70|=0.002
91787788|NCT03996369|183455370|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.99|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|25.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.91|6.07|=0.002
91787789|NCT03996369|183455370|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.45|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|26.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||26.36|4.54|=0.006
91787790|NCT03996369|183455370|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.43|32.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||32.85|11.43|<0.001
91851989|NCT00430300|183587379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3248|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.3248
91651438|NCT01360632|183194671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.19|-2.57|0.0898
91787791|NCT03996369|183455370|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|29.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.33|7.65|<0.001
91651439|NCT01360632|183194671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.74|-3.88|0.004
91787792|NCT00653432|183455373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.1450
91787793|NCT00653432|183455374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5824|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.5824
91787794|NCT00653432|183455375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9136|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.9136
91787795|NCT00653432|183455376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1699|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.1699
91787796|NCT00653432|183455377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3238|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.3238
91787797|NCT00653432|183455378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0427|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.0427
91787798|NCT00653432|183455379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8206|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.8206
91787799|NCT00653432|183455380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9818|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.9818
91787800|NCT00653432|183455381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0542|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.0542
91787801|NCT00653432|183455382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.3230
91787802|NCT01782469|183455384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 2 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
91787803|NCT01782469|183455384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 3 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
91787804|NCT01782469|183455384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 4 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
91787805|NCT01782469|183455384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 5 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
91787806|NCT01782469|183455385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 2 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||.130
91787807|NCT01782469|183455385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 3 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.031
91787808|NCT01782469|183455385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 4 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.006
91787809|NCT01782469|183455385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 5 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.003
91787810|NCT00600119|183455404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7781|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7781
91787811|NCT00600119|183455404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0020
91787812|NCT00600119|183455404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91787813|NCT00600119|183455405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5118
91787814|NCT00600119|183455405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0022
91787815|NCT00600119|183455405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91787816|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5522||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Physical Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5522
91787817|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Physical Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0589
91651440|NCT01360632|183194671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.74|-2.4|0.301
91787818|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1691||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Physical Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1691
91651441|NCT01360632|183194671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.48|-3.82|0.0118
91651442|NCT01360632|183194671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.19|-3.54|0.0287
91787819|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6293||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Worries/Concerns domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6293
91787820|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0836||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Worries/Concerns domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0836
91787821|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1155||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Worries/Concerns domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1155
91787822|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9938||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Psychosocial Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9938
91787823|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2101||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Psychosocial Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2101
91787824|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4597||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Psychosocial Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4597
91787825|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4822||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Satisfaction domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4822
91787826|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0171||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Satisfaction domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0171
91787827|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Satisfaction domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0160
91787828|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6857||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Total Score from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6857
91787829|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Total Score from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0253
91787830|NCT00600119|183455406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0772||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Total Score from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0772
91787831|NCT00600119|183455407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5008||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Abdominal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5008
91787832|NCT00600119|183455407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1823||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Abdominal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1823
91787833|NCT00600119|183455407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7045||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Abdominal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7045
91787834|NCT00600119|183455407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7088||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Rectal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7088
91787835|NCT00600119|183455407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5828||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Rectal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5828
91787836|NCT00600119|183455407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Rectal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0116
91787837|NCT00600119|183455407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7848||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Stool Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7848
91787838|NCT00600119|183455407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0335||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Stool Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0335
91787839|NCT00600119|183455407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0591||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Stool Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0591
91787840|NCT00600119|183455407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9317||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Total Score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9317
91651443|NCT01360632|183194671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.12|-3.39|0.0686
91787841|NCT00600119|183455407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0675||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Total Score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0675
91787842|NCT00600119|183455407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1745||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Total Score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1745
91787843|NCT04740905|183455408|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. The final sample size provided \>90% power for the non-inferiority assessment (at a one-sided 0.02485 significance level).||1.1|-2.2|
91787844|NCT04740905|183455408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1||Tested at a two-sided 0.0497 significance level.|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The final sample size provided \>80% power for a 3.5-letter superiority assessment of faricimab over aflibercept.||1.1|-2.2|0.4978
91787845|NCT04740905|183455410|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|3.8||||||||3.8|-12.3|
91787846|NCT04740905|183455426|OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.9|
91787847|NCT00561977|183455456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|time measurement, treatment group, interaction between time and group term as fixed effect, subject as random effect.||Mean dietary quality score by visit and study group was estimated using SAS PROC MIXED. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.13 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).||||0.14
91787848|NCT01960907|183455480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.342
91651444|NCT01360632|183194671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.04|-3.47|0.056
91651445|NCT01360632|183194671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.04|-3.75|0.0448
91651446|NCT01360632|183194671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.27|-3.98|0.0251
91651447|NCT01360632|183194672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was used to impute missing data.||0.29|-1.63|0.1732
91651448|NCT01360632|183194672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was used to impute missing data.||-0.37|-2.31|0.0066
91787849|NCT01960907|183455481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.915
91787850|NCT01960907|183455482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
91787851|NCT00993226|183455493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.36|||t-test in ANOVA model|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||0.36|-0.79|0.467
91787852|NCT00993226|183455494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.57||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|2.58|||t-test in ANOVA model|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||2.58|-7.59|0.331
91787853|NCT00791817|183455499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1998|1.6097||||Confidence Interval is on the Ratio of Fed to Fasted|Confidence Interval is on the Ratio of Fed to Fasted|values are Geometric Means and Confidence Intervals are on the Ratio of Fed to Fasted||1.6097|1.1998|
91787854|NCT00796926|183455568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91790947|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.569||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.802|1.436||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.436|-0.802|0.578
91790948|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91787855|NCT00006289|183455581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Data from 16 patients is analyzed using one-sided paired t-test without breaking treatment code (Drug A or B, without knowing which drug is Neurotropin or Placebo) to determine if (1) the study should be terminated (if 0.0058 ≤ p), (2) the study should be terminated with rejection of the null hypothesis that there are no differences between Drug A and Drug B (p ≥ 0.9), or (3) the study will be continued to obtain the total of 42 patients (0.0058 ≤ p ≤ 0.9).||||0.0058
91787856|NCT00006289|183455582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Data from 16 patients is analyzed using one-sided paired t-test without breaking treatment code (Drug A or B) to determine if (1) the study should be terminated (if 0.0058 ≤ p), (2) the study should be terminated with rejection of the null hypothesis that there are no differences between Drug A and Drug B (p ≥ 0.9), or (3) the study will be continued to obtain the total of 42 patients (0.0058 ≤ p ≤ 0.9).||||0.0058
91787857|NCT00006289|183455583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Data from 16 patients is analyzed using one-sided paired t-test without breaking treatment code (Drug A or B) to determine if (1) the study should be terminated (if 0.0058 ≤ p), (2) the study should be terminated with rejection of the null hypothesis that there are no differences between Drug A and Drug B (p ≥ 0.9), or (3) the study will be continued to obtain the total of 42 patients (0.0058 ≤ p ≤ 0.9).||||0.0058
91787858|NCT00678743|183455622|SUPERIORITY|All statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed. Comparability of baseline characteristics between those who did and did not opt to enter the extension study was assessed with the chi square test and analysis of variance.||||||0.0008||||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0008
91787859|NCT00576420|183455626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1564||90.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.1564
91787860|NCT00576420|183455628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.060
91787861|NCT00576420|183455628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.005
91787862|NCT00576420|183455629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.123
91787863|NCT00576420|183455629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.026
91787864|NCT00576420|183455630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.929
91787865|NCT00576420|183455630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.228
91787866|NCT00576420|183455632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.234
91787867|NCT00576420|183455632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.955
91787868|NCT00576420|183455633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.106
91787869|NCT00576420|183455633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.243
91787870|NCT00576420|183455633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.127
91787871|NCT00576420|183455634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.257
91787872|NCT00576420|183455634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.096
91787873|NCT00576420|183455634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.127
91787874|NCT01221272|183455657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed Models Analysis|0.67||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.9||The null hypothesis that ranolazine treatment had no effect on PDS would be rejected if the PDS and TPD p-values were less than 0.05 or the PDS p-value was less than 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-0.6|0.29
91787875|NCT01221272|183455658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed Models Analysis|0.65||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7||The null hypothesis that ranolazine treatment had no effect on TPD would be rejected if the PDS and TPD p-values were less than 0.05 or the TPD p-value was less than 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-0.4|0.22
91787876|NCT01340872|183455662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.81||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for primary endpoint, Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 12 in double-blind phase, FAS|||1.81|< 0.0001
91787877|NCT01340872|183455666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis of the change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 4 of the double-blind phase - Full Analysis Set, multiple imputation|||0.82|< 0.0001
91651449|NCT01360632|183194673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.21|-1.78|0.1226
91651450|NCT01360632|183194673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.68|-2.69|0.001
91651451|NCT01360632|183194674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.73|-0.93|0.8164
91651452|NCT01360632|183194674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.28|-1.39|0.1939
91651453|NCT01360632|183194675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.5192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.57|-1.14|0.5192
91651454|NCT01360632|183194675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.02|-1.75|0.0443
91651455|NCT01360632|183194676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.02|-0.26|0.0248
91651456|NCT01360632|183194676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean scores statistics controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.03|-0.22|0.1334
91651457|NCT01360632|183194676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.11|-0.42|0.0009
91787878|NCT01340872|183455667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.43||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis of Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 8 of double-blind phase - FAS, multiple imputation|||1.43|< 0.0001
91787879|NCT01340872|183455678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.87||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the PPAS|||1.87|< 0.0001
91851990|NCT00430300|183587379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3148|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.3148
91787880|NCT01340872|183455679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the FAS LOCF - Change in Haemoglobin Concentration from Baseline to Week 12|||1.82|< 0.0001
91851991|NCT00430300|183587379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6563|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.6563
91651458|NCT01360632|183194676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean scores statistics controlling for study center||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.38|0.0019
91651459|NCT01360632|183194676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.11|-0.42|0.0009
91787881|NCT01502332|183455691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
91787882|NCT01502332|183455692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.014
91787883|NCT01502332|183455693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.037
91900126|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.442|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.442
91787884|NCT01502332|183455695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.267
91787885|NCT03039621|183455696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance equals 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
91787886|NCT03039621|183455697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
91787887|NCT03039621|183455698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
91787888|NCT03039621|183455699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
91651460|NCT01360632|183194676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.02|-0.34|0.0254
91787889|NCT03039621|183455700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of total severity index of the disease from Day 2 to Day 3, 4, 5 and 6 endpoint between Ergoferon and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0201
91787890|NCT03039621|183455701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
91787891|NCT03039621|183455702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0025
91787892|NCT03039621|183455702|OTHER|Test for assessing the homogeneity of the odds ratio in several 2 × 2 contingency tables.||||||0.22|||||||Breslow-Day test|||||||0.22
91787893|NCT03039621|183455703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of total severity index of the disease from Day 1 to Day 2, 3 and 4 endpoint between Ergoferon and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0037
91787894|NCT03039621|183455704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
91787895|NCT02522624|183455705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91847956|NCT00991276|183579519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.5815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.63||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.63|-4.66|0.5815
91847957|NCT00991276|183579520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|32.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.02|43.42||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||43.42|22.02|<0.0001
91651461|NCT01360632|183194676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.08|-0.41|0.0035
91651462|NCT01360632|183194676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.04|-0.39|0.0152
91651463|NCT01360632|183194676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.08|-0.42|0.004
91651464|NCT01360632|183194676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.05|-0.42|0.013
91651465|NCT01360632|183194676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.02|-0.33|0.0755
91651466|NCT01360632|183194676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0|-0.39|0.0527
91651467|NCT01360632|183194677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.01|-0.26|0.0275
91651468|NCT01360632|183194677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.04|-0.22|0.1583
91651469|NCT01360632|183194677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.41|0.0021
91651470|NCT01360632|183194677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.4|0.0018
91787896|NCT02522624|183455705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.16
91651471|NCT01360632|183194677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.11|-0.43|0.0011
91651472|NCT01360632|183194677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.03|-0.36|0.0235
91787897|NCT02522624|183455705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||<.001
91787898|NCT02522624|183455706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
91787899|NCT02522624|183455706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.30
91787900|NCT02522624|183455706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.82
91651473|NCT01360632|183194677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.10|-0.44|0.0021
91651474|NCT01360632|183194677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.05|-0.42|0.0111
91651475|NCT01360632|183194677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.44|0.0030
91651476|NCT01360632|183194677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.47|0.0046
91651477|NCT01360632|183194677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.03|-0.39|0.0237
91651478|NCT01360632|183194677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.04|-0.45|0.0171
91651479|NCT01360632|183194678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.37||||0.5279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.68|0.51|0.5279
91651480|NCT01360632|183194678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.13||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.94|0.02|0.0141
91651481|NCT01360632|183194678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.92||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.72|0.99|0.0484
91651482|NCT01360632|183194678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.23||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|0.60|0.5813
91651483|NCT01360632|183194678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.51||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.54|0.90|0.1236
91787901|NCT02522624|183455707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91651484|NCT01360632|183194678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.21||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.10|0.70|0.4998
91787902|NCT02522624|183455707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.82
91787903|NCT02522624|183455707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.15
91787904|NCT02522624|183455708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.36||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.92|0.10
91787905|NCT02522624|183455708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.26
91787906|NCT02522624|183455708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.58
91651485|NCT01360632|183194678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.64||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.61|1.03|0.0365
91900127|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.91|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.91|-0.33|0.357
91651486|NCT01360632|183194678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.52||||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.43|0.95|0.0822
91651487|NCT01360632|183194678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.19||||0.4049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.78|0.79|0.4049
91651488|NCT01360632|183194678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.23||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.80|0.84|0.2951
91651489|NCT01360632|183194678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.53||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.20|1.06|0.0248
91651490|NCT01360632|183194678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.51||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.21|1.03|0.0326
91651491|NCT01360632|183194679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.87||||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.55|0.30|0.7993
91651492|NCT01360632|183194679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.11||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.93|0.01|0.0118
91787907|NCT02522624|183455709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.01||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.01|1.58|<.001
91651493|NCT01360632|183194679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.5||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.16|0.71|0.2825
91651494|NCT01360632|183194679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.2||||0.6375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|0.58|0.6375
91651495|NCT01360632|183194679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.62||||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.82|0.92|0.0923
91651496|NCT01360632|183194679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.29||||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.30|0.73|0.3812
91787908|NCT02522624|183455709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.39
91787909|NCT02522624|183455709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.57
91787910|NCT02522624|183455710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.94|17.95||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||||17.95|5.94|<.001
91787911|NCT02522624|183455710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.001
91787912|NCT02522624|183455710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for numeracy.||||0.46
91900128|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.49|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.49|-0.75|0.675
91900129|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.09|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.09|-0.25|0.215
91651497|NCT01360632|183194679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.63||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.65|1.00|0.0464
91787913|NCT00362180|183455718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7244|TWO_SIDED||||||exact Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|||The p-value is a comparison between the placebo group and the mipomersen group in Cohort E as a change from Baseline to Day 26.||||0.7244
91900130|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.643
91651498|NCT01360632|183194679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.62||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.64|1.00|0.0490
91651499|NCT01360632|183194679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.32||||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.06|0.85|0.2124
91651500|NCT01360632|183194679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.14|0.93|0.1078
91651501|NCT01360632|183194679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.69||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|1.14|0.0094
91651502|NCT01360632|183194679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.65||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|1.09|0.0162
91651503|NCT01360632|183194680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of remission rate|1.03||||0.9498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.90|0.37|0.9498
91651504|NCT01360632|183194680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.13||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.94|0.02|0.0141
91651505|NCT01360632|183194680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.93||||0.8609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.17|0.40|0.8609
91651506|NCT01360632|183194680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.59||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.54|0.22|0.2846
91651507|NCT01360632|183194680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.5||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.99|0.75|0.2480
91651508|NCT01360632|183194680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.13||||0.7513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.37|0.54|0.7513
91787914|NCT00362180|183455718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED||||||exact Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|||The p-value is a comparison between the placebo group and the mipomersen group in Cohort E as a change from Baseline to Day 99.||||0.0513
91787915|NCT03930264|183455725|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of Cmax for tablet and suspension were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.35|||ANOVA|||||1.35|0.93|0.3008
91787916|NCT03930264|183455726|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-τ for tablet and suspension were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio|1.06||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||ANOVA|||||1.13|1.00|0.1061
91787917|NCT03930264|183455727|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-∞ for tablet and suspension were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio|1.02||||0.5696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09|||ANOVA|||||1.09|0.96|0.5696
91651509|NCT01360632|183194680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.82||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.35|0.99|0.0554
91651510|NCT01360632|183194680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.48||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.87|0.76|0.2409
91651511|NCT01360632|183194680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.18||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.02|0.69|0.5538
91651512|NCT01360632|183194680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.44||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.41|0.85|0.1743
91651513|NCT01360632|183194680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.3||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.07|0.81|0.2843
91651514|NCT01360632|183194680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.19||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.92|0.74|0.4640
91709608|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.76||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.76|0.48|
91651515|NCT01360632|183194681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.6||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.97|0.18|0.3867
91651516|NCT01360632|183194681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.11||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.93|0.01|0.0118
91651517|NCT01360632|183194681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.59||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.66|0.21|0.3200
91787918|NCT02600871|183455728|SUPERIORITY|The significance of variation in proportions with treatment (Provodine®, Control) was assessed with Fisher's Exact tests and variation in the mean with treatment was assessed with T-tests.||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
91787919|NCT00789074|183455751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
91787920|NCT00789074|183455752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||<0.001
91787921|NCT00789074|183455753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||F=16.60|ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||<0.001
91787922|NCT00789074|183455754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0||||F=2.92|ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||<0.04
91651518|NCT01360632|183194681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.6||||0.3266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.62|0.23|0.3266
91651519|NCT01360632|183194681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.47||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11 All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.10|0.70|0.3027
91651520|NCT01360632|183194681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.17||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11 All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.52|0.54|0.6960
91787923|NCT00789074|183455755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||0.02
91787924|NCT00789074|183455756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||0.97
91787925|NCT01350544|183455798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.91||a priori threshold for significance for p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used generalized linear mixed models predicting adherence at baseline and 1.5-, 3-, 4.5-, and 6-months post-baseline, with intervention , time, interaction between intervention and time, medical and socio-demographic covariates, and baseline viral load. Sample size was determined with a power analysis assuming .80 power and an alpha level of .05 that would allow for detection of a small-to-medium effect size in adherence between arms.||0.91|0.69|.005
91787926|NCT00594425|183455808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% success rate|5.53||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|19.04||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||19.04|-7.97|0.5288
91787927|NCT00594425|183455808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% success rate|3.95||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|16.69||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||16.69|-8.79|0.7539
91847958|NCT00991276|183579520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|25.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.22|36.49||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||36.49|15.22|<0.0001
91847959|NCT00991276|183579520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|17.42||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||17.42|-3.69|0.2005
91847960|NCT00991276|183579521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|9.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||9.02|4.57|<0.0001
91847961|NCT00991276|183579521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|7.45||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||7.45|3.02|<0.0001
91847962|NCT00991276|183579521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|3.75||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||3.75|-0.64|0.1622
91847963|NCT00991276|183579528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.47||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.47|-1.18|<0.0001
91847964|NCT00991276|183579528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.6||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.60|-1.31|<0.0001
91787928|NCT00594425|183455809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-2.64||||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|2.63||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||2.63|-7.91|0.3236
91851992|NCT00430300|183587379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1735|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.1735
91787929|NCT00594425|183455809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.19||||0.6657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|4.26||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||4.26|-6.64|0.6657
91900131|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.99|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.99|-0.46|0.466
91787930|NCT00594425|183455837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||%success rate|3.09||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|17.33||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||17.33|-11.16|0.7889
91787931|NCT00594425|183455837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent success|5.48||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|21.11||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||21.11|-10.15|0.8880
91787932|NCT00594425|183455838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.33||||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|5.86||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||5.86|-6.53|0.9151
91651521|NCT01360632|183194681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.62||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.07||CMH general association test controlling for trial site|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12 All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.07|0.86|0.1368
91651522|NCT01360632|183194681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.48||||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.89|0.76|0.2387
91651523|NCT01360632|183194681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.26||||0.4498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.28|0.69|0.4498
91651524|NCT01360632|183194681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.6||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.82|0.91|0.1009
91651525|NCT01360632|183194681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.45||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.41|0.87|0.1499
91651526|NCT01360632|183194681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.31||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.18|0.78|0.3012
91651527|NCT01360632|183194682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.65|0.75|0.2873
91651528|NCT01360632|183194682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.37||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.36|0.79|0.2677
91900132|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.64|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.64|-0.81|0.818
91651529|NCT01360632|183194682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.8||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.68|1.21|0.0031
91651530|NCT01360632|183194682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.7||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|1.15|0.0066
91787933|NCT00594425|183455838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.18||||0.7233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|5.45||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||5.45|-7.81|0.7233
91651531|NCT01360632|183194682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.34||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.83|0.98|0.0665
91651532|NCT01360632|183194682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.91|1.05|0.0250
91651533|NCT01360632|183194682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.18||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.54|0.90|0.2224
91651534|NCT01360632|183194682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.31||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.68|1.01|0.0369
91651535|NCT01360632|183194682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.36||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.75|1.05|0.0179
91651536|NCT01360632|183194682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.49||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.89|1.17|0.0011
91651537|NCT01360632|183194682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.12||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.41|0.89|0.3249
91847965|NCT00991276|183579528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.48||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.48|-0.22|0.4677
91787934|NCT02871882|183455870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91651538|NCT01360632|183194682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.33||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.66|1.06|0.0122
91651539|NCT01360632|183194683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.22||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.49|0.60|0.5836
91651540|NCT01360632|183194683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.31||||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.37|0.73|0.3792
91651541|NCT01360632|183194683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.77||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74|||Ratio of response rate|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.74|1.14|0.0101
91651542|NCT01360632|183194683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.75||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.63|1.17|0.0065
91651543|NCT01360632|183194683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.99|1.00|0.0526
91790949|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.762|1.441||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.441|-0.762|0.545
91790950|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790951|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.697|0.597||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.597|-1.697|0.346
91651544|NCT01360632|183194683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.51||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.11|1.08|0.0156
91651545|NCT01360632|183194683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.22||||0.1689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.63|0.92|0.1689
91651546|NCT01360632|183194683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.37||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.80|1.04|0.0231
91651547|NCT01360632|183194683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.4||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.84|1.06|0.0175
91651548|NCT01360632|183194683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.07|1.22|0.0004
91787935|NCT01733212|183455882|EQUIVALENCE|Considering the null hypothesis that the number of participants who will have vomiting will be equal in the two arms, we performed this study with a significance level of 0.05% and power of 80% to prove that there is a difference in the number.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Number of participants who had vomiting in each group is compared to the other. Two sided Chi square test was conducted, Type I error of 0.05% and power of 80% are considered.||||0.07
91651549|NCT01360632|183194683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.21||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.55|0.94|0.1396
91651550|NCT01360632|183194683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.46||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.86|1.15|0.0016
91787936|NCT00864916|183455969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.52|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.52
91787937|NCT00470834|183455986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.79
91651551|NCT02046369|183194743|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoint (the change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at Week 6)will be analyzed using a likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM).The response (dependent) variable is the change from baseline in CDRS-R total score assessed weekly (Weeks 1 to 6).The MMRM model includes fixed effects terms for treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled country, age stratum (stratification factor, CDRS-R total score at baseline, and treatment-by-visit interaction.|LS mean differnce (SE)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.0|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||A mean difference in change from Baseline in CDRS-R total score of 5.0 units was assumed for the lurasidone 20-80 mg/day arm over the placebo arm, and a common standard deviation of 14.2 units (effect size=0.35), a sample size of 145 subjects per treatment arm was calculated to yield a power of 85%. With an expected attrition rate of 15%, approximately 170 subjects per treatment arm (340 in total) were to be randomized in a 1:1 ratio .||-3.0|-8.4|<0.0001
91651552|NCT02046369|183194744|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||-0.1|-2.2|0.0385
91651553|NCT02046369|183194745|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.5|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||6.5|1.2|0.0044
91651554|NCT02046369|183194746|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.0|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||7.0|2.4|<0.0001
91651555|NCT02046369|183194747|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.3715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||0.8|-2.2|0.3715
91651556|NCT02046369|183194748|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.22||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).|LS mean differnece (SE)|||||-0.22|-0.66|<0.0001
91651557|NCT04345471|183194769|SUPERIORITY|To adjust for the multiplicity, only when the superiority of MD-120 50 mg to Placebo was verified, the superiority of MD-120 100 mg to Placebo was tested.|LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided.|MMRM|||||1.2|-2.5|0.509
91651558|NCT04345471|183194769|SUPERIORITY|To adjust for the multiplicity, only when the superiority of MD-120 50 mg to Placebo was verified, the superiority of MD-120 100 mg to Placebo was tested.|LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided. The value was based on the post-hoc analysis by not taking into account the multiplicity.|MMRM|||||0.4|-3.3|0.131
91787938|NCT00470834|183455986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46|||||The hazard ratio is based on the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.46|0.61|
91651559|NCT04345471|183194771|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided.|MMRM|||||1.2|-1.5|0.811
91651560|NCT04345471|183194771|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided.|MMRM|||||0.8|-1.9|0.424
91651561|NCT01710306|183194784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1996|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1996
91651562|NCT00185211|183194800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||A 2-sided error level of 0.0253 was used for analyses at month 36 and 60 in order to keep the study-wise error level at 0.05. A conditional sequential testing approach was used for the family of null hypotheses of the primary efficacy variables.|Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis for comparison of initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo treatment was:~H0: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to CDMS is ≥ t) are identical for both treatment arms for all points in time t\>0.~The two-sided alternative hypothesis was:~H1: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to CDMS is ≥ t) are not identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0."||||0.0027
91787939|NCT00470834|183455986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|5.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.14|39.05|||||Relative Risk Reduction = 100 \* (1 - Relative Risk).|||39.05|-46.14|
91790952|NCT02880956|183460088|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790953|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.473|0.1||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.100|-0.473|0.202
91900133|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.13|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.13|-0.43|0.373
91790954|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91900134|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.984|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.984
91651563|NCT00185211|183194800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.663||||0.0028||97.47|0.488|0.902|||Regression, Cox|covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Time to CDMS was modelled by a Cox proportional hazards regression model with the following covariates: treatment group, steroid use during first event (yes vs. no), onset of disease (monofocal vs. multifocal) and number of T2 lesions at screening (categories: 2-4, 5-8 and at least 9 T2 lesions). The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for CDMS, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||0.902|0.488|0.0028
91651564|NCT00185211|183194801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1768||95.0||||A 2-sided error level of 0.0253 was used for analyses at month 36 and 60 in order to keep the study-wise error level at 0.05. A conditional sequential testing approach was used for the family of null hypotheses of the primary efficacy variables.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis for comparison of initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo treatment was: H0: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to confirmed EDSS progression is ≥ t) are not identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0. The two-sided alternative hypothesis was: H1: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to confirmed EDSS progression is ≥ t) are identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0.||||0.1768
91651565|NCT00185211|183194801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.1604||97.47|0.497|1.174|||Regression, Cox|The variable used as additional covariate adjustment was volume of T2 lesions on screening MRI.|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Time to confirmed EDSS progression was modelled by a Cox proportional hazards regression model with the following covariates: treatment group and volume of T2 lesions on screening MRI. The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for confirmed EDSS progression, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||1.174|0.497|0.1604
91651566|NCT00185211|183194802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888||95.0||||A 2-sided error level of 0.0253 was used for analyses at month 36 and 60 in order to keep the study-wise error level at 0.05. A conditional sequential testing approach was used for the family of null hypotheses of the primary efficacy variables.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: FAMS TOI measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The distribution of FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is not the same in the two treatment arms using a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.8880
91790955|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.239||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.239|-0.327|0.760
91787940|NCT00977080|183456001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons between treatment groups since the study was designed to evaluate the primary outcome measure by testing a single hypothesis within each stratum independently.|Fisher Exact|||With a sample size of 49 participants in each treatment group in the IV stratum, a Fisher's exact test with a 0.050 2-sided significance level will have 81% power to detect a 30% difference in the percentage of participants who achieve iPTH between 150 and 300 pg/mL, assuming the cinacalcet percentage is 36% and the paricalcitol percentage is 66%.||||0.016
91847966|NCT00991276|183579529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.83|-14.8||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-14.80|-35.83|<0.0001
91851993|NCT00430300|183587379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1237|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1237
91787941|NCT00977080|183456001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons between treatment groups since the study was designed to evaluate the primary outcome measure by testing a single hypothesis within each stratum independently.|Fisher Exact|||With a sample size of 49 participants in each treatment group in the oral stratum, a Fisher's exact test with a 0.050 2-sided significance level will have 81% power to detect a 30% difference in the percentage of participants who achieve iPTH between 150 and 300 pg/mL, assuming the cinacalcet percentage is 36% and the paricalcitol percentage is 66%.||||0.260
91847967|NCT00991276|183579529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.89|-18.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.02|-38.89|<0.0001
91847968|NCT00991276|183579529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|13.4||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||13.40|-7.13|0.5461
91851994|NCT00430300|183587379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6113|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.21||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.21|0.6113
91709609|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|8.13||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||8.13|5.69|
91787942|NCT00977080|183456002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91787943|NCT00977080|183456002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.239
91787944|NCT00977080|183456003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91651567|NCT00185211|183194802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3832||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: FAMS TOI measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The mean FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is not the same in the two treatment arms using a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.3832
91651568|NCT00185211|183194803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6e-06||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis for comparison of initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo treatment was:~H0: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to McDonald MS is ≥ t) are identical for both treatment arms for all points in time t\>0.~The two-sided alternative hypothesis was:~H1: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to McDonald MS is ≥ t) are not identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0."||||0.000006
91651569|NCT00185211|183194803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||<|1e-06||95.0|0.474|0.718|||Regression, Cox|covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo, i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Time to McDonald MS was modelled by a Cox proportional hazards regression model with the following covariates: treatment group, steroid use during first event (yes vs. no), onset of disease (monofocal vs. multifocal) and number of T2 lesions at screening (categories: 2-4, 5-8 and at least 9 T2 lesions). The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for McDonald MS, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||0.718|0.474|< 0.000001
91787945|NCT00977080|183456003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.704
91787946|NCT00977080|183456004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.010
91787947|NCT00977080|183456005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91787948|NCT00977080|183456005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91787949|NCT00977080|183456006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
91787950|NCT00977080|183456006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91787951|NCT00096356|183456025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.64||The a priori significance level was 0.05 for the primary outcome; there is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimate of the difference in arms (Co-Q10 minus placebo). Lower is better for this outcome.|Constrained repeated measures analysis of variance - constrained such that baseline fatigue was the same in both groups and unadjusted for any baseline covariates.||0.64|-3.39|0.1815
91790956|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91787952|NCT00096356|183456026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|6.53||0.05 significance level; no multiple comparison adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference in treatment groups at 24 weeks (Co-Q10 minus Placebo). Higher is better for this outcome.|Constrained repeated measures analysis of variance - constrained to have equal means at baseline, unadjusted for other covariates||6.53|-2.56|.3903
91651570|NCT00185211|183194804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.1265||95.0|0.595|1.066||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|Andersen-Gill Model|Covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|The time to recurrent relapses was modelled by an extension of Cox's PH regression model (Andersen-Gill Model) for recurrent events with the following covariates: treatment group, steroid use during first event (yes vs. no), onset of disease (monofocal vs. multifocal) and number of T2 lesions at screening (2-4, 5-8 and at least 9 T2 lesions). The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for recurrent relapses, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||1.066|0.595|0.1265
91651571|NCT00185211|183194805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7971||||0.0141||95.0|0.665|0.9554||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|generalized linear Poisson regression|covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Risk Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Relapse rate was analyzed by a generalized linear Poisson regression model with individual relapse counts as dependent variable, covariates: treatment arm, steroid use during first event, onset of disease and categorized number of T2 lesions at screening and offset variable natural log of time (in years) as difference between last clinical visit and baseline visit. The treatment effect on the relapse rate was of primary interest.||0.9554|0.6650|0.0141
91651572|NCT00185211|183194806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6078||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: MSFC Z-scores measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score is identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The distribution of MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score is not the same in the two treatment groups based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.6078
91651573|NCT00185211|183194806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8245||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: MSFC Z-scores measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score are identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The mean MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score are not the same in the two treatment groups based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.8245
91651574|NCT00185211|183194807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: number of Gd-enhancing lesions on T1 at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the cumulative number of newly active lesions at month 60 adjusted for the number of Gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesions on T1 at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.0062
91651575|NCT00185211|183194807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative effect size|0.7351||||0.0435||95.0|0.5436|0.994||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|generalized linear model|Distribution: negative binomial distribution; covariate: number of Gd-enhancing lesions on T1 at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo.|Assuming that the cumulative number of newly active lesions at month 60 follows a negative binomial distribution, a generalized linear model (logarithmic link function, covariate: number of Gd-enhancing lesions on T1 at BENEFIT screening) was set up in order to analyze the treatment effect on that MRI outcome.||0.9940|0.5436|0.0435
91651576|NCT00185211|183194808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7801||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: T2 lesion volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the absolute change of T2 lesion volume at month 60 adjusted for the T2 lesion volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.7801
91651577|NCT00185211|183194808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9408||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: T2 lesion volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean absolute change of T2 lesion volume at month 60 adjusted for the T2 lesion volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.9408
91787953|NCT00096356|183456027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.88||0.05 significance level, unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference between treatment groups at 24 weeks (Co-Q10 minus Placebo). Lower is better for this outcome.|Constrained repeated measures analysis of variance, constrained such that the baseline means are equal, unadjusted of other covariates||1.88|-3.25|.6014
91787954|NCT01181986|183456028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence, group (diabetes duration) and time.||||||<0.0001
91787955|NCT01181986|183456028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence.||||||0.006
91787956|NCT01181986|183456028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence.||||||0.003
91851995|NCT00430300|183587380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5549|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.5549
91787957|NCT01181986|183456029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence and diabetes duration group.||||||<0.0001
91787958|NCT01181986|183456030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91787959|NCT01675167|183456039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.64||P value was adjusted using weighted z-test (CHW).|ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-1.32|<.00001
91651578|NCT00185211|183194809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6619||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Volume of black holes at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the absolute change of volume of black holes at month 60 adjusted for the volume of black holes at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.6619
91651579|NCT00185211|183194809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8558||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Volume of black holes at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean absolute change of volume of black holes at month 60 adjusted for the volume of black holes at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.8558
91651580|NCT00185211|183194810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1208||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Brain volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the percentage change of brain volume at month 60 adjusted for the brain volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.1208
91651581|NCT00185211|183194810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0719||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Brain volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean percentage change of brain volume at month 60 adjusted for the brain volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.0719
91651582|NCT00420290|183194822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||0.031 is the upper level of significance|ANCOVA|||Using data from 128 CHD patients, CRP data were highly skewed, and data were log transformed to achieve normality. With 14 pts in each group (total of 28), it was predicted the minimum detectable difference between control and intervention would be 15% (1.22 for control group and 1.00 for the intervention group), with an 80% power and an alpha of 0.05 using t test approach. Thus, planned sample size was 30 to complete the study.||||0.008
91651583|NCT00420290|183194823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91651584|NCT00420290|183194824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91651585|NCT00420290|183194825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91651586|NCT00420290|183194826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91651587|NCT00972153|183194828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Descriptive statistics (means, medians, frequencies) were used to evaluate the distributions of variables. One-way analysis of variance and independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare patient and environmental characteristics between groups. Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the effects of group and other factors on airborne CFUs/cubic meter at the surgical site in each 10 minute interval.||||<0.001
91651588|NCT00972153|183194829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Descriptive statistics (means, medians, frequencies) were used to evaluate the distributions of variables. One-way analysis of variance and independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare patient and environmental characteristics between groups. Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the effects of group and other factors on airborne CFUs/cubic meter at the surgical site in each 10 minute interval.||||<0.001
91709610|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.20|0.76|
91787960|NCT01675167|183456040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by stratum (dose level)||Responders with ≥30% pain reduction||||<.0001
91651589|NCT04136626|183194840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0475||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3977|0.3027||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified primary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Y-BOCS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||0.3027|-4.3977|0.0871
91787961|NCT01675167|183456040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Stratum (Dose Level)||Responders with ≥50% pain reduction||||<.0001
91787962|NCT04531462|183456054|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c after 52 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg = mean change from baseline in HbA1c after 52 weeks of treatment with placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.36||Threshold level for statistical significance: α = 0.05 .|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed classification effects for treatment, gender, baseline renal function, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction, and a linear covariate for baseline HbA1c and age. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient errors. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.36|-0.78|<0.0001
91787963|NCT04531462|183456055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.39|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline muscle mass, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.39|-1.61|0.2310
91787964|NCT04531462|183456056|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-1.04|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline body fat measurement, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||-1.04|-2.65|<0.0001
91787965|NCT04531462|183456057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.22|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline lean body mass, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.22|-1.28|0.1632
91787966|NCT04531462|183456058|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.03|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline total body water, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||-0.03|-1.23|0.0384
91787967|NCT04531462|183456059|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline bone mineral content, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.07|0.1975
91787968|NCT04531462|183456060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.081||||0.3725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.098|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) which included baseline skeletal muscle index, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.098|-0.259|0.3725
91787969|NCT04531462|183456061|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline grip strength, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.5|-1.1|0.4208
91851996|NCT00430300|183587380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.988|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.9880
91787970|NCT04531462|183456062|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline 5-time chair stand test, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.9|-1.0|0.9267
91651590|NCT04136626|183194840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|-3.4385||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7394|-1.1376||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment Y-BOCS total scores between the treatment groups.||-1.1376|-5.7394|0.0036
91787971|NCT03859973|183456068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.866||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.605|0.833|||Mixed Models Analysis||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, visit (screening, baseline, week 6 and Week 12), planned treatment by visit interaction, continuous covariate of baseline value, baseline by visit interaction, categorical factor of age group, and continuous covariate of change from screening to baseline value.||0.833|-2.605|0.3101
91787972|NCT03859973|183456069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.051||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|0.676|||Mixed Models Analysis||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, visit (screening, baseline, week 6 and Week 12), planned treatment by visit interaction, continuous covariate of baseline value, baseline by visit interaction, categorical factor of age group, and continuous covariate of change from screening to baseline value.||0.676|-2.778|0.2309
91787973|NCT03859973|183456070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.577||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.207|2.362|||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, continuous covariate of baseline value, categorical factor of age group.||2.362|-1.207|0.5237
91851997|NCT00430300|183587380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.8572|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.8572
91787974|NCT03859973|183456071|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.669||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, visit (baseline, Week 6 and Week 12), planned treatment by visit interaction, continuous covariate of baseline value, baseline by visit interaction, categorical factor of age group.||2.172|-3.510|0.6420
91851998|NCT00430300|183587380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8402|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.8402
91787975|NCT03874429|183456081|NON_INFERIORITY|Non- inferiority was demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI was no higher than 2 points for the the difference of T2259 minus Vismed Multi.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.05|||ANCOVA|||To assess the non inferiority of T2259 compared to Vismed Multi, two-sided 95% confidence interval from ANCOVA model was computed of the difference of T2259 minus Vismed Multi. The model was adjusted for the main effects of investigation product and baseline score.||1.05|-0.42|
91900135|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.68|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.68|-0.79|0.874
91847969|NCT00991276|183579530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.45||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.45|0.63|<0.0001
91790957|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.17||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.170|-0.409|0.419
91790958|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790959|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.317||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.317|-0.363|0.893
91790960|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|||||
91790961|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.354||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.354|-0.306|0.886
91790962|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.46|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91651591|NCT04136626|183194841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8743||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7666|1.0181||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in depression severity (QIDS-SR total scores) between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||1.0181|-2.7666|0.3616
91847970|NCT00991276|183579530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.46||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.46|0.65|<0.0001
91709611|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|8.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.75|9.92||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||9.92|6.75|
91851999|NCT00430300|183587380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6562|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.6562
91651592|NCT04136626|183194841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|-1.3076||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3014|0.6862||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment depression severity (QIDS-SR total scores) between the treatment groups.||0.6862|-3.3014|0.1973
91900136|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.74|-0.73|0.990
91790963|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.515|0.162||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.162|-0.515|0.306
91790964|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790965|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|-0.079||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||-0.079|-0.535|0.008
91790966|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91847971|NCT00991276|183579530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.39||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.39|-0.42|0.9403
91847972|NCT00991276|183579531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-1.14||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.14|-14.03|0.0215
91651593|NCT04136626|183194842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7992||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4246|0.8262||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in functional impairment (WSAS total scores) between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||0.8262|-6.4246|0.1289
91900137|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.73|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.73|-0.85|0.875
91651594|NCT04136626|183194842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|-4.5704||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1939|-0.9468||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment functional impairment (WSAS total scores) between the treatment groups.||-0.9468|-8.1939|0.0137
91651595|NCT04136626|183194843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3953||||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0543|10.8448||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in quality of life (Q-LES-Q-SF percentage scores) between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||10.8448|-2.0543|0.1796
91790967|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|-0.023||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||-0.023|-0.474|0.031
91790968|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790969|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|-0.059||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||-0.059|-0.514|0.014
91790970|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|||||
91847973|NCT00991276|183579531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.5569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|8.29||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.29|-4.49|0.5569
91709612|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|7.12||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||7.12|5.00|
91847974|NCT00991276|183579531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.81|-3.16||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.16|-15.81|0.0036
91847975|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.6947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|4.27||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Awaken Short of Breath/with Headache: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||4.27|-2.85|0.6947
91790971|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.016||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.016|-0.514|0.065
91790972|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91651596|NCT04136626|183194843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|6.7962||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|13.2785||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment quality of life (Q-LES-Q-SF percentage scores) between the treatment groups.||13.2785|0.3140|0.0400
91852000|NCT00430300|183587380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5632|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.08|0.5632
91900138|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.841
91787976|NCT00159822|183456109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with success|31.7||||||95.0|18.08|48.09|||||Number of subjects with successful global outcomes were summarized and 95% two-sided confidence intervals based on the exact Clopper-Pearson method for the binomial distribution provided.|For sample size calculation, null hypothesis (p\<p0) is defined as response rate \<15% (ie, weak drug efficacy). Alternative hypothesis (p\>pA) defined as response rate \>30%. To reduce the chance of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis to 5% (α=5%) and incorrectly rejecting the alternate hypothesis to 20% (β=20%) it was calculated that a sample size of 48 subjects was required. Null hypothesis was rejected (assessing efficacy of study drug) if the number of eligible success was ≥ than n=12.||48.09|18.08|
91847976|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|2.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Awaken Short of Breath/with Headache: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.02|-5.06|0.3980
91651597|NCT02410252|183194859|OTHER||%|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There was no statistical analysis conducted on demographic characteristics or baseline surveys|descriptive analysis|||Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample, and survey responses.||||
91651598|NCT02410252|183194859|OTHER|Only percents were calculated, no formal statistical analysis was completed.||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not completed. This was a feasibility study with small n and was not powered to determine statistical significance.||||Only percent will be calculated. No statistical analysis will be conducted.|No statistical analysis was conducted as part of this study.|||
91651599|NCT02410252|183194860|OTHER||%|0.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance was set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"GAD-7 scores were coded as a categorical variable as follows: mild anxiety (total score 0 to 5) and moderate/ severe anxiety (total score 6-15).~Proportion of participants with mild and moderate/ severe anxiety at enrollment and closeout was compared using Cochran's Q test."||||0.13
91651600|NCT02410252|183194861|OTHER||%|84.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||descriptive analysis|||Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample, and survey responses. All analysis was conducted using STATA version 14.2 with an alpha of 0.05 set a priori. Since this was an exploratory study with descriptive statistics, a complete case analysis approach was adopted for this study||||0.05
91651601|NCT00387712|183194868|OTHER|Analysis of variance between groups across time is the primary analyses.||||||0.001||||||Group (high velocity training vs. low velocity duration training) by time (baseline to post-6 months) for the primary outcome category (peak fitness) using repeated measures analysis of variance. No adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed.|ANOVA|No other adjustments such as degrees of freedom was necessary.||"Power Calculation: It was calculated that 29 subjects should be randomized to 2 groups to achieve a significant time by group interaction for peak fitness for high-velocity or low velocity duration training groups, assuming a power of 90 percent power and alpha = 0.01, two-tailed analyses.~Primary analyses is a group by time analysis of variance in peak fitness levels between the higher-intensity and lower intensity training groups across baseline to 6 months post-exercise time points."||||0.001
91651602|NCT00387712|183194869|OTHER|Primary analyses is a group by time analysis of variance in myosin heavy chain levels levels between the higher-intensity and lower intensity training groups across baseline to 6 months post-exercise time points.||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Power Calculation: It was calculated that 22 participants should be randomized to 2 groups to achieve a significant time by group interaction for myosin heavy chain isoforms for high-velocity or low velocity duration training groups, assuming a power of 90 percent power and alpha = 0.01, two-tailed analyses.||||0.11
91651603|NCT00387712|183194870|OTHER|Analysis of variance between groups across time is the primary analyses.||||||0.81||||||Group (high velocity training vs. low velocity duration training) by time (baseline to post-6 months) for the secondary outcome category (30 ft walk time - fastest comfortable gait) using repeated measures analysis of variance.|ANOVA|No other adjustments such as degrees of freedom was necessary.||Primary analyses is a group by time analysis of variance in 30 foot walk time (sec) between the higher-intensity and lower intensity training groups across baseline to 6 months post-exercise time points.||||0.81
91651604|NCT00006170|183194871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
91651605|NCT00006170|183194871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.25||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.25
91651606|NCT00006170|183194871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.07||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.07
91709613|NCT04530838|183311599|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.51||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||2.51|1.69|
91787977|NCT00159822|183456110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with success|33.3||||||95.0|18.6|51.0|||||Number of subjects with successful global outcomes were summarized and 95% two-sided confidence intervals based on the exact Clopper-Pearson method for the binomial distribution provided.|Month 3 success=yes||51.0|18.6|
91787978|NCT00159822|183456110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with success|43.9||||||95.0|28.5|60.3|||||Number of subjects with successful global outcomes were summarized and 95% two-sided confidence intervals based on the exact Clopper-Pearson method for the binomial distribution provided.|EOT success=yes||60.3|28.5|
91787979|NCT00159822|183456116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate overall survival|0.85||||||95.0|0.725|0.976|||||Global survival rate calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival.|||0.976|0.725|
91787980|NCT04121078|183456131|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate and its 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A ratio of geometric means for Cmax based on the mixed-effect model of log-transformed Cmax with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means is entirely contained within 80% to 125% for Cmax. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Geometric Mean Ratio|6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.62|8.42||||||||8.42|4.62|
91900139|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.57|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.57|-1.01|0.580
91651607|NCT00006170|183194872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91787981|NCT04121078|183456132|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate and its 90% CI were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A ratio of geometric means for AUC∞ based on the mixed-effect model of log-transformed AUC∞ with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means is entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC∞. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.25|6.25||||||||6.25|4.25|
91651608|NCT00006170|183194872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.053||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.053
91651609|NCT00006170|183194872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.08||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
91651610|NCT00006170|183194873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.006||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.006
91900140|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.77|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.77|-0.81|0.958
91651611|NCT00006170|183194873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.45||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.45
91651612|NCT00006170|183194873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.046||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.046
91651613|NCT00268346|183194885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage response|6.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||binomial test for a single proportion|||In patients with prior chemotherapy, \>25% response indicates efficacy and \<10% indicates lack of efficacy. In patients with no prior chemotherapy, \>45% response indicates efficacy and \<25% indicates lack of efficacy. Using a 5% significance level, the study was designed to have 80% power to test each hypothesis.||||<0.05
91651614|NCT00723554|183194931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-5.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in average inhalation times from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||-5.4|-6.9|<0.001
91787982|NCT04121078|183456133|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate and its 90% CI were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A ratio of geometric means for AUClast based on the mixed-effect model of log-transformed AUClast with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means is entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUClast. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.29|6.32||||||||6.32|4.29|
91651615|NCT00723554|183194935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in average number of days of dosing from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||0.6|-1.0|0.59
91651616|NCT00723554|183194939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in average number of daily doses from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||0.7|0.2|<0.001
91651617|NCT00723554|183194943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|15.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in percentage of complete doses delivered from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||15.6|6.5|<0.0001
91651618|NCT01614509|183194994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Central retinal thickness was measured using an optical coherence tomography by every visit intended for all participants.||||||0.6||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Central retinal thickness was measured using an optical coherence tomography by every visit. And we compare the difference of central retinal thickness between two groups||||0.60
91651619|NCT02345486|183195024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.74|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"reported mean difference is a difference in proportions."|||0.74|0.66|0.001
91651620|NCT03979677|183195049|OTHER|HDI and DHI analyzed using linear mixed-effects models with two within-participant factors, Intervention (pre-intervention, post-intervention) and Inventory (DHI, HDI). All models included participant as a random factor. Models constructed using lmer function of the lme package in R and analyzed using anova function in base R. Significant main effects and interactions were evaluated using emmeans . Pairwise comparisons were adjusted to account for false-discovery rates.|||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons were adjusted.|linear mixed-effects models|||||||<.0001
91651621|NCT03979677|183195050|OTHER|HDI and DHI analyzed using linear mixed-effects models with two within-participant factors, Intervention (pre-intervention, post-intervention) and Inventory (DHI, HDI). All models included participant as a random factor. Models constructed using lmer function of the lme package in R and analyzed using anova function in base R. Significant main effects and interactions were evaluated using emmeans . Pairwise comparisons were adjusted to account for false-discovery rates.|||||<|0.0001||||||Point change in DHI was tests.|linear mixed-effects models|||||||<.0001
91651622|NCT00415532|183195051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.172|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.352||Significant level is set at 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.352|0.084|<0.0001
91651623|NCT00415532|183195052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.307||||0.0005||95.0|0.154|0.611||Significant level is set at 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.611|0.154|0.0005
91651624|NCT00415532|183195055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0133
91787983|NCT02012582|183456162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Mixed model analysis for TIL with the patient as random effect and study day, cohort, treatment, and interaction between study day and treatment as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus pooled VAS203 Arms/Groups||||<0.04
91651625|NCT00415532|183195056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3434||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3434
91651626|NCT00415532|183195057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0076||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0076
91651627|NCT00415532|183195058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0246||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0246
91709614|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.99|0.73|
91787984|NCT02012582|183456163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Placebo versus pooled VAS203 Arms/Group||||<0.01
91709615|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.98|0.74|
91651628|NCT01952574|183195068|SUPERIORITY|To maintain the type I error at ≤ 0.05, the pairwise comparison was tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 70 mg vs placebo, 21 mg vs placebo, and 7 mg vs placebo. The lower dose group was only to be tested when the higher dose group was tested as significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.12||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.17|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||-0.17|-2.06|0.021
91651629|NCT01952574|183195068|SUPERIORITY|To maintain the type I error at ≤ 0.05, the pairwise comparison was tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 70 mg vs placebo, 21 mg vs placebo, and 7 mg vs placebo. The lower dose group was only to be tested when the higher dose group was tested as significant.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.86|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||0.86|-1.07|0.83
91651630|NCT01952574|183195068|SUPERIORITY|To maintain the type I error at ≤ 0.05, the pairwise comparison was tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 70 mg vs placebo, 21 mg vs placebo, and 7 mg vs placebo. The lower dose group was only to be tested when the higher dose group was tested as significant.|LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|92.0|-0.83|1.05|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||1.05|-0.83|0.82
91651631|NCT01952574|183195069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.42|||Generalised Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||The generalized linear mixed model includes data for all participants in the efficacy analysis set with at least one percent change from baseline value in monthly migraine days (152 participants in the placebo group and 104 in the erenumab 70 mg group)||3.42|1.17|0.011
91709616|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.16|0.83|
91709617|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.19|0.81|
91709618|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.44||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.44|0.98|
91790973|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.055||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.055|-0.465|0.121
91651632|NCT01952574|183195069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.18|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||The generalized linear mixed model includes data for all participants in the efficacy analysis set with at least one change from baseline value in monthly migraine days (152 participants in the placebo group and 99 in the erenumab 21 mg group)||2.18|0.71|0.44
91651633|NCT01952574|183195069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.63|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||The generalized linear mixed model includes data for all participants in the efficacy analysis set with at least one change from baseline value in monthly migraine days (152 participants in the placebo group and 107 in the erenumab 7 mg group)||1.63|0.53|0.80
91651634|NCT01952574|183195070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.12|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||||0.12|-0.92|0.13
91651635|NCT01952574|183195070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.54|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||||0.54|-0.51|0.95
91709619|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.21|0.72|
91709620|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.12|0.82|
91709621|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.16|0.85|
91709622|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.04|0.72|
91709623|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.07|0.79|
91709624|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.13|0.84|
91709625|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.10|0.87|
91709626|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.19|0.81|
91847977|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.76||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Awaken Short of Breath/with Headache: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||5.76|-1.30|0.2144
91790974|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790975|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|0.097||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.097|-0.438|0.210
91847978|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|14.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|22.08||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adequacy: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||22.08|6.25|0.0006
91709627|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.13|0.87|
91709628|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.20|0.73|
91787985|NCT02412488|183456182|OTHER|"The goal of the primary study objective was to estimate the rate of untoward events associated with Reveal LINQ insertions performed in the out-of-cathlab setting through 3-months within a desired level of precision. The target sample size of approximately 200 subjects undergoing Reveal LINQ insertion was selected to ensure that the upper 95% confidence interval would be within 3 percentage points of the point estimate of the untoward event rate assuming the underlying rate was 2%"|Event Rate expressed as a percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1|||||The estimate is the observed rate of untoward events expressed as a percentage. The 95% confidence interval is also expressed as a percentage|"There was no formal statistical hypothesis test associated with the primary outcome measure. Rather the goal of the primary study objective was to estimate the rate of untoward events associated with Reveal LINQ insertions performed in the out-of-cathlab setting through 3-months within a desired level of precision."||2.1|0|
91651636|NCT01952574|183195070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.87|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||||0.87|-0.14|0.16
91651637|NCT01271933|183195098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was calculated using log-rank test for comparing pregabalin CR with placebo|Log Rank|||||||0.0186
91651638|NCT01271933|183195102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-1.2|0.3310
91651639|NCT01271933|183195105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.8|0.9247
91651640|NCT01271933|183195114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.4314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Subjective Wake after Sleep Onset||8.5|-19.7|0.4314
91651641|NCT01271933|183195114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.26||0.8915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|19.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Subjective Latency to Sleep Onset||19.6|-17.1|0.8915
91709629|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.06||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.06|0.81|
91787986|NCT00816023|183456189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||||||0.474
91787987|NCT01616693|183456208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in seroconversion proportion|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.4|13.2||||||||13.2|-4.4|
91787988|NCT01616693|183456208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in seroconversion proportion|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.2||||||||16.2|-1.4|
91651642|NCT01271933|183195115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.5|0.4571
91651643|NCT01271933|183195116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.3779
91651644|NCT01271933|183195117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.2|0.2009
91651645|NCT01271933|183195119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.6|0.1845
91651646|NCT01271933|183195122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep disturbance||1.0|-18.9|0.0305
91651647|NCT01271933|183195122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|15.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Snoring||15.5|-5.0|0.3133
91651648|NCT01271933|183195122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.2985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Awakening Short of Breath or with a Headache||3.5|-11.2|0.2985
91651649|NCT01271933|183195122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|17.7||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep adequacy||17.7|-4.1|0.2159
91651650|NCT01271933|183195122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Somnolence||2.9|-13.4|0.2041
91651651|NCT01271933|183195122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep Problems Index I||1.8|-13.4|0.1319
91709630|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.15||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.15|0.71|
91787989|NCT01616693|183456208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in seroconversion proportion|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.8||||||||22.8|.8|
91787990|NCT01616693|183456210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.6||||||||6.6|-4.3|
91651652|NCT01271933|183195122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep Problems Index II||2.0|-13.4|0.1473
91651653|NCT01271933|183195123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.3596
91651654|NCT01271933|183195125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.36||Nominal p-value for two-sided test.|two-sided test|||"Odds ratio is the probability of the event occurring in Pregabalin 330 - 495 mg/day relative to the event occurring in Placebo for Pregabalin.~Odds ratio \> 1 is in favor of Pregabalin 330 - 495 mg/day."||2.36|0.66|0.4985
91651655|NCT01271933|183195127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|6.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Physical Functioning||6.8|-9.5|0.7400
91651656|NCT01271933|183195127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|12.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Role-Physical||12.3|-7.1|0.5938
91651657|NCT01271933|183195127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|12.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Pain Index||12.4|-5.9|0.4842
91651658|NCT01271933|183195127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|0.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 General Health Perceptions||0.8|-12.9|0.0827
91709631|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.18|0.85|
91651659|NCT01271933|183195127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.4561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.09|5.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Vitality||5.8|-12.09|0.4561
91651660|NCT01271933|183195127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Social Functioning||8.4|-8.8|0.9645
91651661|NCT01271933|183195127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|12.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Role-Emotional||12.4|-9.1|0.7636
91651662|NCT01271933|183195127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Mental Health Index||8.4|-5.7|0.7067
91651663|NCT01271933|183195127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Physical Component Score||3.2|-3.9|0.8352
91651664|NCT01271933|183195127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.9347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Mental Component Score||4.6|-4.2|0.9347
91651665|NCT01271933|183195129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS-A Anxiety scale||2.3|-0.5|0.1901
91651666|NCT01271933|183195129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.6914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS-D Depression scale||1.0|-1.6|0.6914
91651667|NCT01271933|183195131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 1: Physical activities||1.2|-0.5|0.3721
91651668|NCT01271933|183195131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 2: Feel good||1.4|-1.1|0.8084
91651669|NCT01271933|183195131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 3: Work missed||0.5|-0.9|0.6312
91651670|NCT01271933|183195131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 4: Do job||1.2|-1.0|0.8824
91709632|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.02|0.78|
91787991|NCT01616693|183456210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.3||||||||2.3|-8.6|
91787992|NCT01616693|183456210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.7||||||||5.7|-9.8|
91787993|NCT00441116|183456214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.37||0.0319||95.0|0.75|14.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Drug A minus Drug B|Month 6 - Baseline||14.33|0.75|0.0319
91847979|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|18.92||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adequacy: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||18.92|3.22|0.0061
91651671|NCT01271933|183195131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 5: Pain||0.4|-1.5|0.2742
91651672|NCT01271933|183195131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 6: Fatigue||1.0|-0.8|0.8520
91651673|NCT01271933|183195131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 7: Rested||0.7|-1.4|0.5264
91651674|NCT01271933|183195131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 8: Stiffness||0.9|-1.3|0.6601
91651675|NCT01271933|183195131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.8937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 9: Anxiety||1.0|-1.2|0.8937
91651676|NCT01271933|183195131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 10: Depression||0.9|-1.0|0.9151
91651677|NCT01271933|183195131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.9045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|7.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the total score||7.3|-8.2|0.9045
91651678|NCT01271933|183195133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: General Fatigue||0.9|-0.4|0.4606
91651679|NCT01271933|183195133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.4703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Physical Fatigue||0.5|-1.0|0.4703
91651680|NCT01271933|183195133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.4009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Reduced activity||1.0|-0.4|0.4009
91651681|NCT01271933|183195133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Reduced motivation||1.3|-0.1|0.0695
91787994|NCT01332461|183456286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|0.926|||Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||0.926|0.455|0.05
91651682|NCT01271933|183195133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Mental fatigue||0.4|-0.7|0.5869
91651683|NCT01271933|183195135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.81||Nominal p-value for two-sided test.|two-sided test|||This analysis is for the domain: Benefit from treatment||4.81|1.09|0.0296
91651684|NCT01271933|183195135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.61||Nominal p-value for two-sided test|two-sided test|||This analysis is for the domain: Satisfaction from treatment||2.61|0.64|0.4691
91651685|NCT01271933|183195135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.01||Nominal p-value for two-sided test|two-sided test|||This analysis is for the domain: Willingness to continue treatment||2.01|0.48|0.9577
91651686|NCT01271933|183195137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.85||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|39.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Work Time Missed||39.2|-0.5|0.0562
91787995|NCT01332461|183456287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.109||COPD-related hospitalization|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||1.109|0.326|<0.05
91787996|NCT01332461|183456287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.977||COPD-related ER visit|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||0.977|0.434|<0.05
91900141|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.65|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.65|-1.05|0.643
91651687|NCT01271933|183195137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|9.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Impairment While Working||9.2|-7.0|0.7892
91651688|NCT01271933|183195137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Activity Impairment||6.8|-0.4|0.0819
91651689|NCT01271933|183195137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.4135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Overall Work Impairment||5.4|-2.2|0.4135
91651690|NCT01271933|183195148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.1|0.1224
91651691|NCT01271933|183195149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||6.9|-9.3|0.7680
91651692|NCT01271933|183195150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-4.5|0.1360
91651693|NCT01271933|183195151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6489.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12579.5||0.6077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18648.6|31627.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Total daytime activity||31627.6|-18648.6|0.6077
91651694|NCT01271933|183195152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||3.4|-2.2|0.6647
91651695|NCT00591253|183195166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|-2.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-7.97|0.001
91787997|NCT01332461|183456287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.008||COPD-related physician + Rx visit|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||1.008|0.658|<0.05
91787998|NCT01332461|183456287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.785|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|0.948||COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit/physician+Rx|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||0.948|0.649|<0.05
91787999|NCT01008423|183456300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression test was used to test for a difference in the percentages between the 2 treatment arms after adjusting for analysis center (country).||||<0.0001
91651696|NCT00591253|183195166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|-4.86||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-4.86|-10.69|<0.001
91651697|NCT00591253|183195167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-10.18|<0.001
91651698|NCT00591253|183195167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-2.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.81|-10.27|<0.001
91651699|NCT00591253|183195168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-1.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-5.47|0.001
91651700|NCT00591253|183195168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|-3.77||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.77|-7.78|<0.001
91651701|NCT00591253|183195169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|-1.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-5.22|0.004
91651702|NCT00591253|183195169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-0.84||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.84|-5.08|0.006
91651703|NCT00591253|183195170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|-2.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-8.14|0.001
91709633|NCT04530838|183311599|OTHER||GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.15||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.15|0.79|
91651704|NCT00591253|183195170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.97||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.97|-10.96|<0.001
91651705|NCT00591253|183195171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.61||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-5.86|<0.001
91651706|NCT00591253|183195171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|-3.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.81|-7.99|<0.001
91651707|NCT00591253|183195172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-1.27||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-8.54|0.008
91651708|NCT00591253|183195172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-3.69||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.69|-10.85|<0.001
91651709|NCT00591253|183195173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-0.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-5.69|0.024
91709634|NCT02672176|183311606|EQUIVALENCE|Information included in Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91709635|NCT02672176|183311607|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91709636|NCT02672176|183311608|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91709637|NCT02672176|183311609|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91651710|NCT00591253|183195173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-3.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.19|-8.39|<0.001
91651711|NCT00591253|183195174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-2.08||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.08|-8.52|0.001
91651712|NCT00591253|183195174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|-4.55||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.55|-10.88|<0.001
91651713|NCT00591253|183195175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-1.54||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.54|-6.08|0.001
91651714|NCT00591253|183195175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-3.41||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.41|-7.88|<0.001
91651715|NCT00591253|183195176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.86||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-1.01||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.01|-8.72|0.014
91651716|NCT00591253|183195176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-4.92||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.92|-12.50|<0.001
91651717|NCT00591253|183195177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-0.91||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-7.17|0.012
91651718|NCT00591253|183195177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|-4.48||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.48|-10.63|<0.001
91651719|NCT00591253|183195178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.65||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.65|1.27|0.004
91651720|NCT00591253|183195178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.31||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|1.13|0.016
91790976|NCT02880956|183460089|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91651721|NCT00591253|183195179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.08||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.08|1.11|0.018
91651722|NCT00591253|183195179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.16||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|1.13|0.015
91852001|NCT00430300|183587380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.637|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.6370
91709638|NCT02672176|183311610|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91709639|NCT02672176|183311611|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91709640|NCT02672176|183311612|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91651723|NCT00591253|183195180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.24||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.24|1.31|0.004
91651724|NCT00591253|183195180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.13||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.13|1.57|<0.001
91709641|NCT02672176|183311613|EQUIVALENCE|Information in Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91651725|NCT00362401|183195181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The comparison of the three valve groups with respect to the objective sound measures was made by the one-way ANOVA method. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference on intensity of heart valve sounds among the three groups.||||<0.05
91651726|NCT01841359|183195198|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91651727|NCT01841359|183195199|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91651728|NCT01841359|183195200|OTHER||||||=|0.20492|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||= 0.20492
91651729|NCT01841359|183195201|OTHER|||||||0.2655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2655
91651730|NCT01841359|183195202|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91651731|NCT01841359|183195203|OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.597
91651732|NCT01841359|183195204|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91651733|NCT01841359|183195205|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91651734|NCT01841359|183195206|OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.412
91651735|NCT01841359|183195207|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
91651736|NCT01841359|183195208|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
91651737|NCT00252187|183195211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Change in end systolic LV volume index compared between two groups||||0.004
91651738|NCT00252187|183195211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Change in LV end diastolic volume was compared between two groups||||0.001
91651739|NCT00252187|183195212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91651740|NCT00252187|183195214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91651741|NCT00252187|183195215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91651742|NCT03764059|183195219|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for non-inferiority is based on a 95% CI of the difference between the investigational and control groups with respect to the rate of clinically acceptable restorations at 1-year post placement. The non-inferiority margin was 7%. To establish non-inferiority the lower limit has to be \> -7%|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.2|- 0.6|< 0.0001
91651743|NCT00769015|183195232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.54||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.06||Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test. The p-value refers to the overall test of between group differences in rates of depression.|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.06|.27|.067
91651744|NCT00769015|183195233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|4.3|||Linear Mixed effects model|||||4.30|-5.92|.75
91651745|NCT00769015|183195234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change in least squares mean|3.47||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.29|-12.22|.68
91651746|NCT00769015|183195235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|7.41|||Least squares mean|||||7.41|-2.58|.34
91651747|NCT00769015|183195236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.76|||Least squares mean|||||5.76|-9.80|.68
91651748|NCT00769015|183195237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|6.82|||Least squares mean|||||6.82|-4.04|.68
91651749|NCT00769015|183195238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|9.17|||Least squares mean|||||9.17|-5.94|.68
91651750|NCT00947765|183195242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91651751|NCT00947765|183195243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91651752|NCT00947765|183195244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0022
91651753|NCT00947765|183195245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91651754|NCT00947765|183195246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0127
91651755|NCT00947765|183195247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0184||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0184
91651756|NCT00947765|183195248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0058
91651757|NCT00947765|183195249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0064
91790977|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.176||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.176|-0.564|0.303
91790978|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790979|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.536|0.194||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.194|-0.536|0.358
91900142|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.299
91651758|NCT01328054|183195250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.151|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|9.89|||||Confidence interval (CI), estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for pre dose|||9.89|2.72|
91651759|NCT01328054|183195250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|9.87|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 1 hour post dose|||9.87|3.00|
91651760|NCT01328054|183195250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.734|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.82|10.6|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 2 hour post dose|||10.60|4.82|
91651761|NCT01328054|183195250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.085|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|9.89|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 3 hour post dose|||9.89|2.94|
91651762|NCT01328054|183195250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.434|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.54|10.65|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 4 hour post dose|||10.65|2.54|
91651763|NCT01328054|183195250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.573|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|10.14|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 6 hour post dose|||10.14|1.57|
91651764|NCT01328054|183195250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.735|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|9.47|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 8 hour post dose|||9.47|0.35|
91651765|NCT01328054|183195250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.08|13.42|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 10 hour post dose|||13.42|4.08|
91790980|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91790981|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|0.195||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.195|-0.553|0.347
91651766|NCT01328054|183195250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.759|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|10.36|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 12 hour post dose|||10.36|1.16|
91651767|NCT01328054|183195250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.164|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|7.36|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 24 hour post dose|||7.36|0.15|
91847980|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|10.93||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adequacy: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||10.93|-4.72|0.4342
91651768|NCT03740100|183195274|OTHER||Percent with objective response|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|58.0||||||The primary endpoint was to determine the objective response rate of patients with R/M HNSCC harboring NOTCH1 LOF mutations to oral bimiralisib using RECIST v1.1. We used a Simon's optimal two-stage design. In order to have 80% power to detect a response rate of 30%, (one-sided α=0.05 and β=0.20), we planned to enroll up to 10 patients in the first stage. If ≥ 2 patients had an objective response, then the study would enroll an additional 19 patients in the second stage.||58|1|
91651769|NCT01191255|183195282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value for the change in mean serum phosphorus was calculated via an ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed effect and Week-52-baseline as the co-variate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91651770|NCT01191255|183195283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value for the change in mean serum Ferritin were created via an ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed effect and Study-baseline as the co-variate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91709642|NCT02672176|183311614|EQUIVALENCE|Information included in Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91709643|NCT02501161|183311636|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Test for no treatment difference was based on using a stratified log-rank test where treatment, baseline HbA1c group and pre-trial OAD treatment group were included as strata in the model.||||<.0001
91790982|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91709644|NCT02501161|183311637|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Test for no treatment difference was based on using a stratified log-rank test where treatment, baseline HbA1c group and pre-trial OAD treatment group were included as strata in the model.||||<.0001
91709645|NCT04336475|183311690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. p value stands for the comparison of final oral aperture measurements between two groups. (after 2 months' period)|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||0.564
91709646|NCT01441245|183311692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||0.04
91900143|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.31|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.31|-1.26|0.230
91790983|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.423||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.423|-0.205|0.494
91900144|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.94|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.94|-0.63|0.694
91900145|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.21|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.21|-1.48|0.140
91900146|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.503
91900147|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.35|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.35|-1.28|0.262
91900148|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.75|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.75|-0.88|0.871
91900149|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.48|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.48|-1.27|0.373
91900150|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.413
91900151|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.4|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.40|-1.22|0.317
91900152|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.97|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.97|-0.66|0.708
91900153|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.31|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.31|-1.44|0.202
91900154|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.190
91900155|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.11|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.11|-1.44|0.094
91900156|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.76|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.76|-0.80|0.960
91900157|NCT01794923|183694256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.2|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.20|-1.48|0.132
91790984|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.22|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91900158|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.163
91900159|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|11.02|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||11.02|-1.86|0.162
91900160|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|4.57|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||4.57|-8.42|0.559
91900161|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|13.45|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||13.45|-0.44|0.066
91900162|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.957
91900163|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|13.33|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||13.33|-11.20|0.864
91651771|NCT01191255|183195284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91900164|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|11.45|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||11.45|-13.30|0.883
91900165|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|15.22|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||15.22|-11.24|0.767
91900166|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.243|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.243
91651772|NCT01191255|183195285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91651773|NCT01191255|183195286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91651774|NCT01715415|183195297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic peg-interferon/ribavirin (pegIFN/RBV) treatment-experienced subjects administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 60% to achieve noninferiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV, and the LCB of the 95% CI must have exceeded 70% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.1|98.4|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to proceed through the primary and numbered secondary efficacy endpoints.|With a sample size of 300 subjects and assuming that 85% of the subjects in Arm A will achieve sustained virologic response (SVR) 12, this study has greater than 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 60% and greater than 90% power to demonstrate superiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 70% (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion).||98.4|94.1|
91651775|NCT01715415|183195298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure will be used to proceed through the primary and the first 3 secondary endpoints in the order numbered below.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91651776|NCT01715415|183195299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic pegIFN/RBV treatment-experienced subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 65% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|98.9|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||98.9|93.0|
91651777|NCT01715415|183195300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic pegIFN/RBV treatment-experienced subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 77% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.6|99.9||||||||99.9|93.6|
91790985|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.423||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.423|-0.189|0.454
91790986|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790987|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.388||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.388|-0.240|0.644
91900167|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.12|3.7|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||3.70|-20.12|0.176
91900168|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|14.03|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||14.03|-10.00|0.741
91900169|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.2||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.07|2.62|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||2.62|-23.07|0.118
91651778|NCT04578548|183195303|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Difference|-0.91||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|2.64|||Random coefficient regression model|||Based on a random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on htTKV log-transformed values with time (in weeks) as a continuous variable, treatment, time-by-treatment interaction and a random intercept and slope. The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.||2.64|-4.34|0.606
91651779|NCT04578548|183195305|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares mean difference|-2.31||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|1.02|||Random coefficient regression model|||Least-squares mean difference (95% CI) from a random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on eGFR values with time (in weeks) as a continuous variable, the time-by-treatment interaction and a random intercept and slope. The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.||1.02|-5.64|0.171
91651780|NCT01379781|183195345|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.54||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model was used to compare Hamilton Rating Scales of Depression (HRSD) for women who received the PREPP intervention between the pre-randomization assessment and the 6 weeks postpartum session.||||.01
91651781|NCT02247479|183195346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.019||||0.8381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.167|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.167|-0.206|0.8381
91651782|NCT02247479|183195346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.051||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.236|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.236|-0.134|0.5901
91651783|NCT02247479|183195347|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.2||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.8|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||4.8|-5.2|0.9350
91651784|NCT02247479|183195347|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.2|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||5.2|-5.0|0.9789
91651785|NCT02247479|183195348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.28||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.22|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||1.22|-0.66|0.5538
91651786|NCT02247479|183195348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.63||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.35|-1.60|0.2032
91651787|NCT02247479|183195349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.0||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.8|-0.7|0.2547
91651788|NCT02247479|183195349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.2||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.6|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||1.6|-1.9|0.8423
91651789|NCT02247479|183195350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline BCVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.2|0.8|0.3248
91651790|NCT02247479|183195350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline BCVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||1.8|0.7|0.7209
91651791|NCT02247479|183195351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.6||||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.6|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||2.6|-1.4|0.5695
91651792|NCT02247479|183195351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.3||||0.7865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||2.3|-1.7|0.7865
91651793|NCT02247479|183195352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline LLVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||1.7|0.6|0.9448
91651794|NCT02247479|183195352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline LLVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||1.8|0.6|0.8764
91847981|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.66||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Somnolence: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.66|-6.53|0.2420
91847982|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|4.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Somnolence: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||4.02|-4.12|0.9810
91651795|NCT02247479|183195353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|5.66||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|12.38|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||12.38|-1.07|0.0991
91651796|NCT02247479|183195353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.99||||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|5.69|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||5.69|-7.66|0.7713
91651797|NCT02247479|183195354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.72||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|8.53|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis uses change as response variable included terms for treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||8.53|-5.09|0.6204
91651798|NCT02247479|183195354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.47||||0.6705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.25|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis uses change as response variable included terms for treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||8.25|-5.31|0.6705
91651799|NCT02247479|183195355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.36||||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.64|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||1.64|-2.35|0.7246
91651800|NCT02247479|183195355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.56||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|0.4|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.40|-3.53|0.1193
91651801|NCT02247479|183195356|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.22||||0.8659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|2.39|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||2.39|-2.84|0.8659
91651802|NCT02247479|183195356|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.94||||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.64|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.64|-4.51|0.1399
91651803|NCT02247479|183195357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.99||||0.4855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|3.76|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.76|-1.79|0.4855
91651804|NCT02247479|183195357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.6||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|1.13|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||1.13|-4.33|0.2515
91651805|NCT02247479|183195358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.07||||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.04|-0.18|0.2075
91651806|NCT02247479|183195358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.02|-0.19|0.1222
91651807|NCT02247479|183195359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.022||||0.8612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.223|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.223|-0.266|0.8612
91651808|NCT02247479|183195359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.077||||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.319|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.319|-0.165|0.5317
91651809|NCT02247479|183195359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.033||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.257|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.257|-0.322|0.8240
91790988|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91790989|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.551||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.551|-0.363|0.685
91790990|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91847983|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.2468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|1.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Somnolence: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.67|-6.44|0.2468
91651810|NCT02247479|183195359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.006||||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.294|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.294|-0.283|0.9676
91651811|NCT01506323|183195444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects, repeated measures models adjusting for demographic factors were implemented.||This analysis is from baseline (week 0) to post-treatment (week 8). Cronbach's alpha for this study was .92 at baseline.||||<.006
91651812|NCT01506323|183195444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||repeated measures||||<|0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.||This analysis is from baseline (week 0) to 2 months follow-up.||||<.031
91651813|NCT01506323|183195445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on false discovery rate adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .86 at baseline.||||0.82
91651814|NCT01506323|183195445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|ONE_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment.||||0.82
91651815|NCT01506323|183195446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|repeated measures|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .85 at baseline.||||<0.008
91709647|NCT01441245|183311693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Qualitative variables are expressed as percentage and compared with chi-square test. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||<0.01
91709648|NCT01441245|183311694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91852002|NCT00430300|183587380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4686|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.4686
91651816|NCT01506323|183195446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment||||<0.09
91651817|NCT01506323|183195447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .78 at baseline.||||<.006
91709649|NCT01441245|183311695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91900170|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.920
91709650|NCT01441245|183311696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91709651|NCT01441245|183311696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.57|||Regression, Linear||BNP levels at discharge \>500 pg/ml (RR: 2.06 \[1.65-2.57\];).|||2.57|1.65|0.01
91709652|NCT01441245|183311697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||0.03
91709653|NCT01441245|183311698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||0.01
91709654|NCT01441245|183311699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant||||0.05
91651818|NCT01506323|183195447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|repeated measures|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment.||||<.03
91651819|NCT01506323|183195448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|repeated measures|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .89 at baseline.||||<0.0008
91651820|NCT01506323|183195448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment.||||<0.006
91651821|NCT01506323|183195449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing. Raw p-value was \<0.02.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for total score in this study was .86 at baseline.||||<0.10
91651822|NCT01506323|183195449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment.||||<0.49
91651823|NCT01506323|183195450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .96 at baseline.||||<0.78
91709655|NCT01441245|183311700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Qualitative variables are expressed as percentage of partecipants and compared with chi-square test. p-value equal or lower than 0.05 are considered statistically significant.||||<0.01
91790991|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.73||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.730|-0.168|0.219
91709656|NCT03188523|183311701|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.03|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8504 and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>98%|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).||||
91847984|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.09||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Quantity: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.09|-0.17|0.1496
91900171|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.64|16.23|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||16.23|-24.64|0.685
91651824|NCT01506323|183195450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.99
91651825|NCT01506323|183195451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis was from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .92 at baseline.||||<0.04
91651826|NCT01506323|183195451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.25
91651827|NCT01506323|183195452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .89 at baseline.||||<0.99
91709657|NCT03188523|183311701|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.92|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8504 and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>95%|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).||||
91651828|NCT01506323|183195452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.94
91651829|NCT01506323|183195453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .88 at baseline.||||<0.12
91847985|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.55||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Quantity: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.55|-0.69|0.8184
91651830|NCT01506323|183195453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.49
91651831|NCT01506323|183195454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for total score was .89 at baseline.||||<0.59
91651832|NCT01506323|183195454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects, repeated measures models adjusting for demographic factors were implemented.||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.10
91651833|NCT03907280|183195476|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability comparison|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for treatment sequence ('fixed effect'), subjects nested within treatment sequences ('random effect'), and treatment ('fixed effect').||0.63|0.39|
91651834|NCT03907280|183195476|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability comparison|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|40.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.68|51.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for treatment sequence ('fixed effect'), subjects nested within treatment sequences ('random effect'), and treatment ('fixed effect').||51.15|31.68|
91651835|NCT03907280|183195476|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability comparison|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|40.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.86|50.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.||Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for treatment sequence ('fixed effect'), subjects nested within treatment sequences ('random effect'), and treatment ('fixed effect').||50.83|31.86|
91651836|NCT02637076|183195496|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|F(2,36)=1.26||||||0.31
91651837|NCT02637076|183195501|OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.748
91651838|NCT04604184|183195539|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.39||||0.3232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.08|5.3|||Regression, Logistic|includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||||5.30|-16.08|0.3232
91709658|NCT03188523|183311717|OTHER||Posterior Probability (percentage)|99.0|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (percentage) of true geometric mean (GM) C168hr TFV-DP level in PBMCs ≥0.1 μM|PBMC TFV-DP C168hr values pooled, natural log transformed and analyzed based on a linear model containing a fixed effect for dose level. The posterior probability that the true GM of PBMC TFV-DP C168hr level was ≥0.1 μM was calculated for the dose level using flat priors under a normal likelihood assumption. An 80% posterior probability for a dose level that also exhibits acceptable safety and tolerability would satisfy the secondary PK hypothesis.||||
91709659|NCT03188523|183311717|OTHER||Posterior Probability (percentage)|99.0|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (percentage) of true geometric mean (GM) C168hr TFV-DP level in PBMCs ≥0.1 μM|PBMC TFV-DP C168hr values pooled, natural log transformed and analyzed based on a linear model containing a fixed effect for dose level. The posterior probability that the true GM of PBMC TFV-DP C168hr level was ≥0.1 μM was calculated for the dose level using flat priors under a normal likelihood assumption. An 80% posterior probability for a dose level that also exhibits acceptable safety and tolerability would satisfy the secondary PK hypothesis.||||
91847986|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.15||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Quantity: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.15|-0.09|0.0918
91852003|NCT00430300|183587380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6164|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.11||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.11|0.6164
91651839|NCT04604184|183195540|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.86||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.54|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||||2.82|-22.54|0.1274
91651840|NCT04604184|183195541|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.66||||0.6828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.11|15.43|||Regression, Logistic|includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||||15.43|-10.11|0.6828
91651841|NCT04604184|183195542|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.67||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99|||Regression, Cox|Covariates are treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline and duration of symptoms before hospitalization||||0.99|0.46|0.0445
91651842|NCT04604184|183195543|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.87|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates|Difference = covariate adjusted BI 764198 - covariate adjusted Placebo|||1.87|-3.47|0.5526
91651843|NCT04604184|183195544|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.32||||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|11.65|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 15||11.65|-1.01|0.0995
91651844|NCT04604184|183195544|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.06||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|15.31|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 29||15.31|-3.19|0.1992
91651845|NCT04604184|183195544|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.93||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|18.62|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 60||18.62|-0.76|0.0709
91651846|NCT04604184|183195544|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.35||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|20.28|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 90||20.28|0.41|0.0412
91651847|NCT03734237|183195555|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: RR=1, Alternative hypothesis: RR not equal to 1|Risk Ratio (RR)|-26.7||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7|7.6|||Chi-squared|||Relative vaccine effectiveness with the outcome laboratory confirmed influenza identified via surveillance and/or abstracted from clinical records.||7.6|-73.7|0.1412
91709660|NCT02179047|183311726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91709661|NCT02179047|183311727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91847987|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-9.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-4.99||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||6-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-4.99|-14.80|0.0001
91651848|NCT03734237|183195555|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: RR=1, Alternative hypothesis: RR not equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|-13.1||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|18.2|||Chi-squared|||Relative vaccine effectiveness with the outcome laboratory confirmed influenza identified via surveillance and/or abstracted from clinical records.||18.2|-56.4|0.4552
91651849|NCT01844583|183195570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.35|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.35|0.97|
91651850|NCT01844583|183195571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.45|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.45|1.08|
91651851|NCT01844583|183195572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.53|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.53|1.07|
91651852|NCT01844583|183195575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.26|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.26|0.84|
91651853|NCT01844583|183195576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.62|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||0.62|0.41|
91651854|NCT01844583|183195577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.7|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||0.70|0.41|
91651855|NCT01625377|183195583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.34|-7.34|||ANCOVA|||||-7.34|-21.34|<0.0001
91651856|NCT03513497|183195596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91651857|NCT03513497|183195597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91651858|NCT03513497|183195598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
91852004|NCT00430300|183587388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.9885|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-2.4|0.9885
91651859|NCT03513497|183195599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91651860|NCT01412541|183195602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The evaluable sample size required for 90% power is 150 (50 Control plus 100 Test). This endpoint is not the sample-size driver of the study. Randomization of 476 subjects is expected to provide at least 405 evaluable subjects, after adjustment for up to 15% censoring) and approximately 99% power.||||||0.025|||||||Farrington and Manning|||"To assess if proportion of subjects with at least one safety event\* in the Test group is inferior or not inferior to that of Control group through 12-months Post index procedure (PPI) H0: The proportion of subjects with safety events in the Test group through 12-months PPI is clinically inferior to that of the Control group.~H1: The proportion of subjects with safety events in the Test group through 12-months PPI is clinically non-inferior to that of the Control group."||||0.025
91651861|NCT01412541|183195603|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis is a likelihood ratio chi-square test for inequality of binomial proportions; the test is a two-sided test at α=0.05. The response variable in each subject will be the presence or absence of at least one efficacy event from the time following the index procedure through 12 months. The study evaluable sample size required for 90% power is approximately 405 subjects. After adjustment for 15% censoring through 12 months, the study size is 476.||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|The statistical analysis is a likelihood ratio chi-square test for inequality of binomial proportions; the test is a two-sided test.||"To assess whether the proportion of subjects with at least one efficacy event\* in the Test group is equal or not to that of Control group through 12-months post-index procedure.~H0: The proportion of subjects with efficacy events in the Control group through 12-months post-index procedure is equal to that of the Test group.~H1: The proportion of subjects with efficacy events in the Control group through 12-months post-index procedure is not equal to that of the Test group."||||0.05
91709662|NCT02179047|183311728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91709663|NCT01563198|183311748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Change in Non-completion Rate of MRI Scans From Baseline at Average of One Year (All Schedule Patients)||||<0.0001
91651862|NCT03294538|183195620|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted 90% confidence interval on the difference between proportions of participants considered Responders in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group was contained within the equivalence range \[-0.20, +0.20\], then treatment with generic estradiol vaginal cream and treatment with Estrace Vaginal Cream were considered therapeutically equivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|7.2||||||Therapeutic equivalence of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group to the Estrace Vaginal Cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the PP population.||7.2|-5.8|
91651863|NCT03294538|183195621|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Responders in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Responders in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Responders than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|19.9|||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||<0.0001
91651864|NCT03294538|183195621|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Responders in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Responders in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Responders than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|20.2|||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||<0.0001
91651865|NCT03294538|183195622|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted 90% confidence interval on the difference between proportions of participants considered Treatment Success in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group was contained within the equivalence range \[-0.20, +0.20\], then treatment with generic estradiol vaginal cream and treatment with Estrace Vaginal Cream were considered therapeutically equivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|6.2||||||Therapeutic equivalence of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group to the Estrace Vaginal Cream group based on the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the PP population.||6.2|-9.0|
91709664|NCT01563198|183311749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91709665|NCT01563198|183311750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91709666|NCT01703169|183311753|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The proportion of platelet response in a previous study (PMID:22762314) was 0.36 (9/25). The null hypothesis of no difference between the platelet response rate in this study and that of the previous study was tested using a two-sided exact test of binomial proportions. A p-value of 0.40 was obtained. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|||
91709667|NCT00905567|183311758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA's guidleines.|Ratio of the Least Squares Mean|93.01||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Least Squares Mean (test/reference x 100) falls within 80-125.|||||
91709668|NCT00905567|183311759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA's guidleines.|Ratio of the Least Squares Mean|96.62||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when the Ratio of the Least Squares Mean (test/reference x 100) falls within 80-125.|||||
91847988|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-1.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||6-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.67|-11.42|0.0089
91709669|NCT00905567|183311760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA's guidleines.|Ratio of the Least Squares Mean|96.43||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when the Ratio of the Least Squares Mean (test/reference x 100) falls within 80-125.|||||
91651866|NCT03294538|183195623|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Treatment Success in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Treatment Success in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Treatment Success than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.2897|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||0.2897
91651867|NCT03294538|183195623|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Treatment Success in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Treatment Success in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Treatment Success than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.4949|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||0.4949
91651868|NCT01787825|183195644|NON_INFERIORITY|This is McNemar design.|percentage concordance|77.19||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.68|83.93||The blinded readers assessed concordance of normal versus abnormal and overall concordance of clinically significant abnormal images.|McNemar||Overall concordance of clinically significant abnormal images.|There was a comparison between normal and abnormal images. And detailed analysis of abnormal images that were considered clinical significant.||83.93|68.68|1.0000
91651869|NCT01787825|183195646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage concordance|71.93||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.07|79.36|||Bowkers|||||79.36|63.07|0.972
91651870|NCT02040766|183195698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|4.821||significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or non-corticosteroid (NCS) therapy) at the time of screening visit, during the run-in period, and during treatment.||4.821|0.796|0.0063
91651871|NCT02040766|183195698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.354|2.614||significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or NCS therapy) at the time of screening visit, during the run-in period, and during treatment.||2.614|-1.354|0.5332
91709670|NCT02362191|183311765|OTHER|||||||0.758||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.758
91709671|NCT02362191|183311766|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91900172|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|19.19|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||19.19|-22.04|0.892
91651872|NCT02040766|183195698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.077|2.924||significance at 0.05|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or NCS therapy) at the time of screening visit, during the run-in period, and during treatment.||2.924|-1.077|0.3649
91651873|NCT02040766|183195698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.902|3.088|||ANCOVA|||||3.088|-0.902|0.2823
91651874|NCT02040766|183195699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.58|17.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.06|5.58|0.0001
91651875|NCT02040766|183195699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|14.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.24|2.71|0.0041
91651876|NCT02040766|183195699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|13.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.35|1.79|0.0103
91651877|NCT02040766|183195699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|12.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.23|0.71|0.0278
91651878|NCT02040766|183195700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|17.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.45|5.96|<0.0001
91651879|NCT02040766|183195700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|15.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.76|4.20|0.0007
91651880|NCT02040766|183195700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|15.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.68|4.11|0.0008
91790992|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91651881|NCT02040766|183195700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|14.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.49|2.95|0.0031
91651882|NCT02040766|183195701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|-0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.174|-0.548|0.0002
91651883|NCT02040766|183195701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.044|-0.331|0.1320
91651884|NCT02040766|183195701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.5866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.136|-0.240|0.5866
91651885|NCT02040766|183195701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.007|-0.369|0.0587
91651886|NCT02040766|183195702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.065|-0.261|0.0011
91651887|NCT02040766|183195702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.013|-0.185|0.0869
91651888|NCT02040766|183195702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.060|-0.138|0.4388
91651889|NCT02040766|183195702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.1041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.017|-0.180|0.1041
91651890|NCT02040766|183195703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2870
91651891|NCT02040766|183195703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5257|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5257
91790993|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.61||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.610|-0.302|0.507
91651892|NCT02040766|183195703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9982|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9982
91651893|NCT02040766|183195703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7633|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7633
91651894|NCT00617461|183195718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.29||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|-0.1|||ANCOVA|An ANCOVA (repeated measures mixed model) with body mass index, baseline 24-hr average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.10|-0.48|0.013
91651895|NCT01620489|183195755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.43||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not used since there was only one primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested using a two-sided test based on a mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) analysis. The model included treatment, country, stratification groups (6 groups from cross-classifying renal function category (2 levels: eGFR\<45 and ≥45 mL/min) and the background insulin treatment category (3 levels: basal, premix or no insulin)) as fixed effects factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate, all nested within week.||-0.43|-0.90|<0.0001
91651896|NCT01620489|183195756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated odds ratio|4.48|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.46|8.18||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Analysed by a logistic regression model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and HbA1c and body weight at baseline as covariates. No weight gain was defined as change from baseline to Week 26 in body weight ≤0 kg.||8.18|2.46|<0.0001
91651897|NCT01620489|183195757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated odds ratio|3.94|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.12|7.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Analysed by a logistic regression model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and HbA1c at baseline as covariates.||7.30|2.12|<0.0001
91651898|NCT01620489|183195758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-1.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.58|-0.58||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in the 7-point profile (SMPG) after 26 weeks treatment was analysed using an MMRM model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.58|-1.58|<0.0001
91790994|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91790995|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|0.167||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.167|-0.683|0.233
91900173|NCT01794923|183694257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.82|19.25|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||19.25|-24.82|0.804
91709672|NCT01473940|183311773|OTHER|||||||||||||P-Value not used||||A 3 + 3 enrollment design was adopted to monitor safety and determine the MTD based on DLTs obsesved. The MTD is the highest dose at which 0 of 3 or 1 of 6 DLTs are detected. The MTD is exceeded if 2 of 3 or 2 of 6 DLTs are detected. There will be no dose escalation within a cohort.|The number of DLTs seen at each cohort were used to determine the MTD for the expansion cohort. The MTD was determined to be Gemcitabine - 1,000 mg/m2, Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg|||
91900174|NCT01794923|183694258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||||0.533
91790996|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91790997|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.446||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.446|-0.383|0.881
91651899|NCT01620489|183195759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.51|||=|0.0022||95.0|-0.83|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Not adjusted for multiple comparisons||Change from baseline in BMI (kg/m˄2) after 26 weeks treatment was analysed separately using an MMRM analysis model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.18|-0.83|= 0.0022
91651900|NCT01620489|183195760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment ratio|0.98|||=|0.3575||95.0|0.94|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The ratio to baseline in eGFR (mL/min/1.73m˄2) after 26 weeks treatment was estimated based on log-transformed data for changes from baseline. The responses were analysed using an MMRM model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and log-transformed baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit. The resulting estimates were back-transformed to the original scale.||1.02|0.94|= 0.3575
91651901|NCT02629965|183195769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.153|0.077|<0.001
91709673|NCT00534248|183311780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.698|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|0.806|||Conditional Exact Method||The point estimate was for vaccine efficacy with respect to incidence of HZ.|Vaccine efficacy with respect to HZ was defined as the relative reduction in incidence rate of HZ point estimate (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the ratio of the estimated incidence rates of HZ in the zoster vaccine group and the placebo group.||.806|.541|<.001
91651902|NCT02629965|183195770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.211|14.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|14.548|-6.211|0.4291
91651903|NCT02629965|183195771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.704||0.9098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.692|174.694|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|174.694|-155.692|0.9098
91651904|NCT02629965|183195772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.217|0.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.633|-1.217|0.5338
91651905|NCT02629965|183195773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.939|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.048|2.926|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|2.926|-1.048|0.3524
91709674|NCT00534248|183311781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean titre ratio|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.4|||linear mixed longitudinal analysis model|||||2.4|2.2|<.001
91709675|NCT00534248|183311782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.595||||||Analysis of proportion of participants reporting one or more serious adverse experiences reported within 42 days postvaccination.||1.595|.805|
91900175|NCT01794923|183694258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.38|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||1.38|-0.38|0.266
91900176|NCT01794923|183694258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.05|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||1.05|-0.74|0.730
91651906|NCT02629965|183195774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.647||0.3949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.966|7.481|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|7.481|-2.966|0.3949
91651907|NCT02629965|183195775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.543||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.572|9.411|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|9.411|-4.572|0.4955
91651908|NCT02629965|183195776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.176|0.091|<0.0001
91651909|NCT02629965|183195777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.123|0.088|<0.0001
91651910|NCT02629965|183195778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.197|0.130|<0.0001
91651911|NCT02629965|183195779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.162|0.103|<0.0001
91651912|NCT02629965|183195780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.156|0.100|<0.0001
91651913|NCT02629965|183195781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.108|0.056|<0.0001
91651914|NCT02629965|183195782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.114|0.058|<0.0001
91651915|NCT02629965|183195783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.108|0.059|<0.0001
91651916|NCT02629965|183195784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.189|0.114|<0.0001
91651917|NCT00634283|183195815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91709676|NCT02259400|183311791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the calculation of sample size we used the duration of ventilation as the main primary outcome. As no basic data are available for this population, we were able to retrieve from the database of our two NICUs the duration of ventilation on NIV. We assumed a difference of 24-h between the two groups in the duration of NIV as clinically relevant. We used a confidence level α=0.05; the power level desired was 0.80 and consequently we needed 62 patients for each group.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91900177|NCT01794923|183694258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||1.30|-0.61|0.479
91788000|NCT02034409|183456315|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 48-week OMERACT-OARSI response the minimally clinically significant difference is an absolute rate difference of 10% between sham and PLIUS groups. With a total sample size of 144 the probability of correctly selecting the group with the greatest OORR is at least 0.885 assuming (δ=10%) that the sham group is drawn from a population with a 50% response rate and the PLIUS group is drawn from a population with response rate of at least 60% or at most 40%.||||||||||||||||Sample size has been calculated with ranking and selection methodology, a procedure used for Phase II trials. The purpose of the procedure as applied to this study is to identify whether PLIUS has a high probability of being more effective than sham. This is accomplished by obtaining sample estimates of the outcome for the PLIUS and sham groups and determining whether the PLIUS group outcome is better by the pre-specified margin of difference.|Since the ranking and selection procedures are fundamentally different from traditional hypothesis testing, concepts of statistical significance and power have no direct analogue.|||
91790998|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91709677|NCT03498313|183311812|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the p-value for the Treatment X Cycle Phase Interaction. Kenward-Roger Method was utilized for degrees of freedom.|Placebo represents the reference treatment.|Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=E2) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Early Luteal Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||-.08|-.41|.002
91709678|NCT03498313|183311812|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the p-value for the Treatment X Cycle Phase Interaction. Kenward-Roger Method was utilized for degrees of freedom.|Placebo Represents the Reference Condition.|Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=P4) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Early Luteal Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||.10|-.22|.46
91790999|NCT02880956|183460090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.335||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.335|-0.520|0.671
91709679|NCT00112918|183311815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2024||95.0|||||Closed test procedure|||Adjustments for multiplicity was done using a closed test procedure which tests for differences between all three treatment groups at the 5% alpha level first. Only in case of a significant result, the pair-wise comparison between the control arm and each of the bevacizumab arm will be tested, again at the 5% alpha level.||||0.2024
91651918|NCT00634283|183195815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||The a priori threshold was set at 0.05, 2-tailed, without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in PFC over the one-week placebo lead-in period was compared between antidepressant-experienced and antidepressant-naive groups using a between groups t-test.|"Group differences in PFC changes over time during administration of venlafaxine were assessed using mixed-model analysis.~we compared brain functional changes over the course of venlafaxine treatment between antidepressant-experienced and antidepressant-naïve subjects using linear mixed model analysis (random intercept model) conducted using full maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). Changes in PFC were calculated from the end of placebo lead-in to 48 hours, and 1, 2, and 4 weeks, yielding a within-group factor of time with four levels. We employed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure to reflect our assumption that PFC measurements closer together in time would be more highly correlated."|||0.32
91651919|NCT01743677|183195820|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.15|0.56||||||||0.56|-3.15|
91791000|NCT02880956|183460090|OTHER||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91651920|NCT01743677|183195821|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|0.43||||||||0.43|-3.28|
91791001|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.232|0.377||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.377|-1.232|0.297
91900178|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.189
91847989|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|1.51||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||6-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.51|-8.21|0.1746
91651921|NCT01743677|183195822|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|-0.44||||||||-0.44|-4.15|
91651922|NCT01743677|183195823|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|0.5||||||||0.50|-3.21|
91651923|NCT01743677|183195824|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|2.93||||||||2.93|-0.78|
91651924|NCT01743677|183195825|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.71||||||||2.71|-1.00|
91651925|NCT01743677|183195826|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|3.0||||||||3.00|-0.71|
91651926|NCT01743677|183195827|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|4.0||||||||4.00|0.29|
91651927|NCT01743677|183195828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|3.21||||||||3.21|-0.50|
91651928|NCT01743677|183195829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.62|12.96||||||||12.96|9.62|
91651929|NCT01743677|183195830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|2.44||||||0.25 hour post-dose||2.44|-2.11|
91651930|NCT01743677|183195830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|4.06||||||0.5 hour post-dose||4.06|-0.49|
91651931|NCT01743677|183195830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|5.26||||||1 hour post-dose||5.26|0.71|
91651932|NCT01743677|183195830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|3.36||||||2 hours post-dose||3.36|-1.19|
91651933|NCT01743677|183195830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|4.44||||||4 hours post-dose||4.44|-0.11|
91651934|NCT01743677|183195830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|2.33||||||8 hours post-dose||2.33|-2.22|
91651935|NCT01743677|183195830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|2.76||||||12 hours post-dose||2.76|-1.79|
91651936|NCT01743677|183195830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|4.38||||||16 hours post-dose||4.38|-0.17|
91651937|NCT01743677|183195830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|3.06||||||24 hours post-dose||3.06|-1.49|
91651938|NCT03586830|183195863|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square (LS) means|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-3.06|||Hochberg Approach|||||-3.06|-6.05|<.001
91651939|NCT03586830|183195863|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-4.36|||Hochberg Approach|||||-4.36|-7.34|<.001
91651940|NCT03586830|183195863|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-5.75|||Hochberg Approach|||||-5.75|-8.70|<.001
91651941|NCT00395083|183195867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|0.70|0.62
91788001|NCT02034409|183456316|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 48-week cartilage change outcome measure the minimally clinically significant difference is 33 μm. With a difference of 33 μm, σ=152 μm standard deviation, k=2 groups, and P=0.90 probability to obtain τ=1.8124, which we use to estimate the per-group sample size: n=σ2(τ/δ\*)2=72 or a total of 144.||||||||||||||||Sample size has been calculated with ranking and selection methodology, a procedure used for Phase II trials. The purpose of the procedure as applied to this study is to identify whether PLIUS has a high probability of being more effective than sham. This is accomplished by obtaining sample estimates of the outcome for the PLIUS and sham groups and determining whether the PLIUS group outcome is better by the pre-specified margin of difference.|Since the ranking and selection procedures are fundamentally different from traditional hypothesis testing, concepts of statistical significance and power have no direct analogue.|||
91788002|NCT02342418|183456327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
91651942|NCT00395083|183195868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.80|0.70|0.62
91651943|NCT00395083|183195869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.17|||Regression, Cox|||||6.17|1.46|0.003
91651944|NCT00395083|183195870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.17|||Log Rank|||||6.17|1.46|0.002
91651945|NCT04192799|183195871|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Gamma Regression with Log Link Function|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||0.85|0.65|<0.001
91651946|NCT04192799|183195872|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.19||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Gamma Regression with Log Link Function|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||1.19|1.06|<0.001
91788003|NCT02342418|183456328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test||||0.214
91651947|NCT04192799|183195873|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Ratio|0.93||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Gamma Regression with Log Link Function|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||1.09|0.80|0.37
91651948|NCT04192799|183195874|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|12.27||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||12.27|0.14|0.81
91788004|NCT00183729|183456335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null: the two groups would not differ in depressive symptoms over time (ie both groups would improve equally in terms of their depressive symptoms) Power calculation: none; this was a pilot study||||0.42
91788005|NCT00183729|183456337|SUPERIORITY|(no comments)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: functional recovery would be the same in both groups. Power calculation: none. This was a pilot study.||||0.06
91651949|NCT04192799|183195875|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Slope|0.05||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||0.11|-0.01|0.12
91709680|NCT00828061|183311842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.25||||0.002||95.0|0.12|0.54||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.54|0.12|0.002
91651950|NCT00982410|183195902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2255|-0.0722|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline NRS-1 pain level. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.|EUC (Arm 2) was referent. Estimation parameter = value for Cognitive Behavior Treatment group minus value for Educational Support group.|Ho: There was no difference in average pain level across the follow-up period, between CBT group and Educational support group.||-0.07220|-1.2255|<0.05
91651951|NCT00982410|183195903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline WHY MPI General Activity score. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.|Education Support group was referent. Mean difference = value for CBT group minus value for Educational Support group.|||0.466|0.034|<0.05
91651952|NCT00982410|183195904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline #days of alcohol use. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.||||||<0.01
91651953|NCT00982410|183195905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline #days illicit drug use. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance. EUC group was referent.||||||>0.05
91651954|NCT00982410|183195906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.66|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline pain tolerance. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.|Educational Support group = referent. Estimation parameter = CBT group minus EUC group, adjusted for BL pain tolerance. Cold tolerance distribution had ceiling and floor effects; and, \~20% of participants refused cold tolerance task in follow-up.|||14.32|-5.00|>0.05
91651955|NCT00982410|183195907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.28|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|16.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CPSS PSE score. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance. EUC group was referent.|Adjusted for baseline CPSS PSE score. EUC group was referent. Mean difference = value for CBT minus value for Educational Support group.|||16.63|3.93|<0.005
91651956|NCT01016652|183195911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a non-inferiority analysis, with \>=5 CLUE points being the non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ho: There are not significant differences between the two lenses (etafilcon A multifocal (test) vs. etafilcon A sphere (control)for Vision quality.~Ha: The test lens is greater than or equal by 5 CLUE points than the control lense."||1.59|-9.86|
91651957|NCT01016652|183195912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin will be exceeded if the test lens is greater than or equal to 0.25D over the control lens.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ho: There is not a difference between the test lens and the control lens for amplitude of accommodation.~Ha: Monocular amplitude of accommodation of the test lens is significantly better than the control lens"||0.10|-0.09|
91900179|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.07|-0.17|0.389
91651958|NCT02034799|183195917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumed proportion of success for SOC is 0.95 and the proportion of success for the Bioseal group at which the power is calculated is 0.95. A sample size of 112 subjects per group achieves 80% power to detect the non-inferiority margin difference between the group proportions of -0.10. One-sided significance level of 0.025 was used. Using drop-out rate of 10%, 125 subjects per treatment group were randomized for a total of 250 subjects.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.199||||||H0: Delta \</= -0.1 HA: Delta \> -0.1 Delta is difference in proportion of successes between Bioseal and SOC gropus (Bioseal minus SOC). Success is defined as hemostasis at the TBS at 6 minutes following treatment application||0.199|-0.048|
91709681|NCT00828061|183311842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.07|||<|0.001||95.0|0.03|0.15||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.15|0.03|<0.001
91847990|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|-5.32||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||9-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-5.32|-14.96|<0.0001
91651959|NCT05188521|183195959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91651960|NCT05188521|183195960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.593
91651961|NCT05188521|183195961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91651962|NCT05188521|183195962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.138
91847991|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-0.34||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||9-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.34|-9.91|0.0359
91847992|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|-0.24||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||9-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.24|-9.78|0.0395
91847993|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Optimal Sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.27|0.02|0.0278
91651963|NCT05188521|183195963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91651964|NCT05188521|183195964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
91651965|NCT05188521|183195965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91900180|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.19|-0.05|0.273
91651966|NCT05188521|183195966|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91651967|NCT01341639|183195969|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|11.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.44|14.68||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for PRP|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|14.68|8.44|< 0.001
91651968|NCT01341639|183195969|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.96||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Diphtheria|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.96|-0.95|< 0.001
91651969|NCT01341639|183195969|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Tetanus|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.74|-0.71|< 0.001
91709682|NCT00828061|183311843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.537||95.0|-15.48|17.26||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||17.26|-15.48|0.537
91709683|NCT01461473|183311849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2067|||||||Analysis of covariance (GLM)|||These data were analyzed using an analysis of covariance via general linear model (GLM). The GLM has an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA plus covariates for baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline NMAP. The primary hypothesis tested is that the 2-month means differ between study arms, after adjustment for the above covariates. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.2067
91847994|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2||95.0|-0.04|0.2||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Optimal Sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.20|-0.04|0.2000
91651970|NCT01341639|183195969|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.07||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for IPV1|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.07|-0.51|< 0.001
91651971|NCT01341639|183195969|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.21||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for IPV2|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.21|-0.69|< 0.001
91651972|NCT01341639|183195969|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.73||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for IPV3|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.73|-0.7|< 0.001
91651973|NCT01341639|183195970|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.85||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for HBsAg|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.85|-0.49|< 0.001
91651974|NCT01341639|183195970|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.86||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for PT|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.86|0.32|< 0.001
91651975|NCT01341639|183195970|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.29||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for FHA|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|-1.29|-4.39|< 0.001
91709684|NCT01461473|183311850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3902|||||||GLMM|||Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit in which the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline value of the outcome. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.3902
91847995|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Optimal Sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.18|-0.06|0.3396
91709685|NCT01461473|183311851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9319|||||||GLMM|||A GLMM was fit in which the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline value of the outcome. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.9319
91847996|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|-8.19||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-8.19|-20.93|<0.0001
91847997|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|0.22||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.22|-12.43|0.0584
91847998|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|-2.15||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-2.15|-14.76|0.0090
91709686|NCT01461473|183311852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3895|||||||GLMM|||A GLMM was fit in which the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline value of the outcome. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.3895
91847999|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.2405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.82||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Snoring: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.82|-7.20|0.2405
91848000|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|3.77||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Snoring: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||3.77|-5.18|0.7565
91651976|NCT01341639|183195970|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.52||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for PRN|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.52|-1.4|< 0.001
91651977|NCT01341639|183195972|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.25||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Measles|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.25|-2.82|< 0.001
91651978|NCT01341639|183195972|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|3.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|6.4||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Mumps|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6.4|-0.12|< 0.001
91651979|NCT01341639|183195972|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.34||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Rubella|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.34|-1.5|< 0.001
91651980|NCT01341639|183195972|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.06||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Varicella|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.06|-2.11|< 0.001
91848001|NCT00991276|183579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|2.47||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Snoring: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.47|-6.43|0.3792
91788006|NCT03512457|183456338|SUPERIORITY|Chi-square||||||0.12||||||P-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance. The hypothesis was that more women randomized to the intensive intervention would perform skin self-examination.|Chi-squared|Chi-Squared is equal to 1.58, with a P-Value of 0.12.||change from baseline to 3 months in performance of skin self-examination Parallel: response rate||||0.12
91788007|NCT03512457|183456339|SUPERIORITY|Types of lesions in the following categories: Benign nevus, seborrheic keratosis, lentigo, dermatofibroma, atypical nevus. melanoma|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||results of skin clinical examination and biopsy of clinically suspicious moles||||<0.05
91788008|NCT03602560|183456353|OTHER|The primary endpoint was analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \<350 U/L and 2:350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \<4 and 2:4).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91788009|NCT03602560|183456353|OTHER|The primary endpoint was analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \<350 U/L and 2:350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \<4 and 2:4).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91848002|NCT00991276|183579533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|8.55||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.55|1.98|0.0019
91788010|NCT03602560|183456354|OTHER|Two-sided p-value for each pair-wise comparison was based on the CMH test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \<350 U/L and 350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \<4 and 4). Breslow-Day test was used to check the homogeneity of treatment effects across stratum.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91900181|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.01|-0.25|0.069
91788011|NCT03602560|183456354|OTHER|Two-sided p-value for each pair-wise comparison is based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \< 350 U/L and \>= 350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \< 4 and \>= 4). Breslow-Day test is used to check the homogeneity of treatment effects across stratum.||||||0.0839|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0839
91788012|NCT03602560|183456355|OTHER|"Change from baseline is estimated by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (including 3 levels:~Placebo, Initial Dose 5mg, and Initial Dose 10 mg) and randomization ALP stratification as factors, and baseline as a covariate.~The p-value for the interaction between treatment and stratum is 0.7595, hence the interaction is dropped from the model."|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.59||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.87|0.0164
91900182|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.716|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.716
91788013|NCT03602560|183456355|OTHER|"Change from baseline is estimated by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (including 3 levels:~Placebo, Initial Dose 5mg, and Initial Dose 10 mg) and randomization ALP stratification as factors, and baseline as a covariate.~The p-value for the interaction between treatment and stratum is 0.7595, hence the interaction is dropped from the model."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|-1.77|0.4781
91788014|NCT01379508|183456376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference lied above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.5||||||Missing DNA data at Wk 52=failure: To evaluate the primary objective, Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimates approach (stratified by HBV DNA level (\< 7 log10 copies/mL or ≥ 7 log10 copies/mL) and ALT (\< 3×ULN or ≥ 3×ULN) at baseline) was employed to assess the proportion of patients (response rate) who achieve HBV DNA \< 300 copies/mL after 52 weeks treatment in each treatment arm, as well as the difference in proportions (telbivudine - tenofovir arm) and the 95% CI of the difference.||2.5|-10.5|
91709687|NCT01461473|183311853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3449|||||||see Comments|Analysis of covariance with robust MM regression due to extreme residuals from initial fit showing strong departure from normal distribution.||Using analysis of covariance (robust MM regression), the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline outcome, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site, baseline brachial-artery diameter, body mass index, age, and the interaction of gender and study arm. The latter allows for the possibility that treatment effect may differ between males and females. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.3449
91709688|NCT01461473|183311854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1531|||||||see Comments|Analysis of covariance with robust MM regression due to extreme residuals from initial fit showing strong departure from normal distribution.||Using analysis of covariance (robust MM regression), the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline outcome, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site, baseline brachial-artery diameter, body mass index, age, and the interaction of gender and study arm. The latter allows for the possibility that treatment effect may differ between males and females. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.1531
91651981|NCT01341639|183195973|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: ISRs or systemic AEs|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.4|-1.9|
91651982|NCT01341639|183195973|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: ISRs or vaccine-related systemic AEs|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.1|-1.8|
91651983|NCT01341639|183195973|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 ISR|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|4.3|-2.1|
91651984|NCT01341639|183195973|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 solicited ISR|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|4.3|-2.4|
91791002|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91651985|NCT01341639|183195973|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.3|-2.4|
91651986|NCT01341639|183195973|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 vaccine-related systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.3|-3.2|
91709689|NCT00435461|183311865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.2|<0.001
91900183|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.15|0.735
91651987|NCT01341639|183195973|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.2|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 solicited systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.2|-3.3|
91651988|NCT01341639|183195973|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 vaccine-related solicited systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.1|-3.7|
91651989|NCT01341639|183195974|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|10.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site erythema|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|10.1|-0.5|
91709690|NCT00435461|183311865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.2|<0.001
91709691|NCT00435461|183311865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.3|0.816
91709692|NCT00435461|183311866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-1.6|<0.001
91709693|NCT00435461|183311866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.4|<0.001
91791003|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|0.786||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.786|-0.808|0.979
91900184|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.08|-0.19|0.414
91791004|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91651990|NCT01341639|183195974|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.8|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site pain|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6.8|-3.2|
91791005|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.996|0.634||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.634|-0.996|0.663
91709694|NCT00435461|183311866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.136
91709695|NCT00435461|183311867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.5|<0.001
91651991|NCT01341639|183195974|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.6|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site swelling|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|9.6|-1.6|
91651992|NCT01341639|183195975|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site bruising|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.1|-1.8|
91848003|NCT00991276|183579533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|6.51||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||6.51|-0.01|0.0506
91651993|NCT01341639|183195975|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site haematoma|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.1|-0.6|
91651994|NCT01341639|183195975|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site haemorrhage|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.8|-2.3|
91709696|NCT00435461|183311867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
91651995|NCT01341639|183195975|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.5|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site induration|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.5|-7.8|
91651996|NCT01341639|183195975|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site nodule|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.3|-1.7|
91709697|NCT00435461|183311867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.136
91709698|NCT00435461|183311868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-1.6|<0.001
91709699|NCT00435461|183311868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.3|<0.001
91709700|NCT00435461|183311868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.136
91709701|NCT00435461|183311869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.8|0.001
91709702|NCT00435461|183311869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-0.6|0.106
91709703|NCT00435461|183311869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.286
91709704|NCT00435461|183311870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.007
91709705|NCT00435461|183311870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.286
91709706|NCT00435461|183311870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.106
91709707|NCT00435461|183311871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.7|0.003
91709708|NCT00435461|183311871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.286
91709709|NCT00435461|183311871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-0.6|0.106
91709710|NCT00435461|183311872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTNSS||-1|-1.7|<0.001
91709711|NCT00435461|183311872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTNSS||-0.7|-1.4|<0.001
91709712|NCT00435461|183311872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTNSS||0.1|-0.6|0.193
91848004|NCT00991276|183579533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|5.26||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||5.26|-1.24|0.2222
91709713|NCT00435461|183311872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTOSS||-0.2|-0.8|<0.001
91709714|NCT00435461|183311872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTOSS||0|-0.6|0.058
91709715|NCT00435461|183311872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTOSS||0|-0.5|0.16
91709716|NCT00435461|183311873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|11.9|||ANCOVA|||Morning assessment||11.9|5.7|<0.001
91709717|NCT00435461|183311873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Morning assessment||11.5|5.3|<0.001
91709718|NCT00435461|183311873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.7|||ANCOVA|||Morning assessment||2.7|-3.6|0.779
91709719|NCT00435461|183311873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|9.6|||ANCOVA|||Evening assessment||9.6|3.1|<0.001
91709720|NCT00435461|183311873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.3|||ANCOVA|||Evening assessment||10.3|3.8|<0.001
91709721|NCT00435461|183311873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.0|||ANCOVA|||Evening assessment||4|-2.5|0.662
91709722|NCT00435461|183311874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
91709723|NCT00435461|183311874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.203
91709724|NCT00435461|183311874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-0.8|<0.001
91709725|NCT01515696|183311888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
91709726|NCT01515696|183311889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91709727|NCT01515696|183311890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91709728|NCT01188668|183311896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|105.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.39|110.76|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||110.76|101.39|
91709729|NCT01188668|183311897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|101.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.94|109.87|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||109.87|92.94|
91709730|NCT01188668|183311902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|102.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.21|112.46|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||112.46|94.21|
91848005|NCT00959920|183579574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that patients for whom indwelling foley catheterization was employed will have their time to delivery interval reduced by 30 minutes.||||.42
91848006|NCT02628093|183579581|OTHER|Because this was a pilot (exploratory) randomized study, no formal sample size calculation was required.||||||0.214||||||P value threshold \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Because this was a pilot (exploratory) randomized study, no formal sample size calculation was required. Demographic, preoperative, and postoperative variables and the primary outcome were compared between groups (THUNDERBEAT and LigaSure) by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables and the chi-square test/Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, as appropriate. All p-values are two-sided with statistical significance evaluated at the 0.05 alpha level.||||0.214
91651997|NCT01341639|183195975|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||||95.0|-0.6|3.0|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site warmth|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|3|-0.6|
91651998|NCT01341639|183195976|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Crying|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.4|-6.3|
91651999|NCT01341639|183195976|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Decreased appetite|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.3|-8.4|
91652000|NCT01341639|183195976|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.0|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Irritability|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6|-1.7|
91848007|NCT02628093|183579582|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P value threshold \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||compared between groups by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||0.007
91848008|NCT02628093|183579586|OTHER|||||||1||||||P value threshold \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91848009|NCT01107626|183579602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||||||0.12
91652001|NCT01341639|183195976|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Pyrexia|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|3.4|-6.7|
91848010|NCT01107626|183579602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||||||0.28
91848011|NCT02715258|183579631|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.41||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.16||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 24||-0.16|-0.66|0.0012
91652002|NCT01341639|183195976|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|1.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Somnolence|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.4|-7.8|
91652003|NCT01341639|183195976|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.0|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Vomiting|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6|-4.4|
91791006|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91652004|NCT01590433|183195977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91652005|NCT02040428|183195987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||Adaptive group sequential design|Whitehead method for triangular test||Superiority||||0.0001
91652006|NCT02040428|183195988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
91652007|NCT02058628|183195991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||Data is represented as per CTR.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|DUAC versus SKINOREN with a nominal alpha level of 5%, without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0004
91652008|NCT03551730|183196016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91652009|NCT03551730|183196016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91652010|NCT03551730|183196016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91652011|NCT03551730|183196017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|53922.58||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1529
91652012|NCT03551730|183196017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|124993.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91652013|NCT03551730|183196017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|96385.09||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0032
91652014|NCT02363010|183196034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline weight.||Exploring group differences in 12 month weight losses.||||.68
91652015|NCT02363010|183196034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||A prior threshold for significance was p\<.05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline weight.||Exploring group differences in 18 month weight losses.||||.11
91791007|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.282||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.282|-1.220|0.961
91791008|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91791009|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.083|1.344||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.344|-1.083|0.833
91791010|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.06|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91848012|NCT02715258|183579631|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.41||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.15||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 1: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) including observations obtained after rescue medication||-0.15|-0.68|0.0021
91652016|NCT02363010|183196035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 12 month moderator to vigorous physical activity (MVPA).||||.41
91652017|NCT02363010|183196035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 12 month MVPA.||||.46
91652018|NCT02363010|183196035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 12 month MVPA.||||.82
91652019|NCT02363010|183196035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 18 month MVPA.||||.42
91652020|NCT02363010|183196035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 18 month MVPA.||||.28
91652021|NCT02363010|183196035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 18 month MVPA.||||.82
91848013|NCT02715258|183579631|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity Analysis 2: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) excluding observations obtained after rescue medication||-0.30|-0.80|<0.0001
91652022|NCT02363010|183196036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline half-mile walk time.||Exploring group differences in 12 month cardiorespiratory fitness, measured by half-mile walk time.||||.06
91652023|NCT02363010|183196036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline half-mile walk time.||Exploring group differences in 18 month cardiorespiratory fitness, measured by half-mile walk time.||||.30
91652024|NCT02363010|183196037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline waist circumference.||Exploring group differences in 12 month waist circumference.||||.59
91652025|NCT02363010|183196037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline waist circumference.||Exploring group differences in 18 month waist circumference.||||.57
91652026|NCT02363010|183196038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.978
91709731|NCT01188668|183311903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|106.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.97|111.85|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||111.85|100.97|
91709732|NCT00351936|183311910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91709733|NCT00351936|183311911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91709734|NCT00351936|183311912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.747
91848014|NCT02715258|183579631|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.17||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 3: LOCF for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) including observations obtained after rescue medication||-0.17|-0.64|0.0009
91652027|NCT02363010|183196038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.998
91652028|NCT02363010|183196038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.878
91709735|NCT00351936|183311913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.208
91709736|NCT00351936|183311914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.665
91709737|NCT00351936|183311915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.999
91709738|NCT00351936|183311916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91709739|NCT00583011|183311921|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91709740|NCT01129804|183311973|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal Linear mixed modeling|Slope|0.1|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Tested the null hypothesis that slopes of PDA over time would not differ between treatment conditions, as indicated by the significance of the Treatment main effect and Treatment X Time interaction effect, at the level of p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis||||Multilevel longitudinal modeling (MLM) with random effects and maximum likelihood estimation (Proc MIXED; SAS Institute, 1999) was used to evaluate the effects of treatment over time for each of the continuously scaled outcome variables described above. The MLM approach was used because it employs maximum likelihood estimation of covariance matrices rather than raw data, allowing us to take advantage of all data collected for anyone randomized to treatment. Each repeated dependent variable was analyzed as a unction of treatment condition, time since intake (in months), and the interaction of treatment condition by time.|||<.04
91709741|NCT03658642|183311981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.43|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site and multiple covariates.||||2.43|0.61|0.58
91709742|NCT03658642|183311982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.47|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||2.47|0.43|0.95
91709743|NCT03658642|183311984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.16|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||2.16|1.11|0.01
91709744|NCT03658642|183311985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.57|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||1.57|0.91|0.48
91709745|NCT03658642|183311986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.14|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||2.14|0.81|0.27
91709746|NCT04811664|183312089|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy, (1-HR) *100%|52.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|80.3|||||"Immediate Vaccination compared to Standard of care (reference). Wald 95% CI."|Cox model on the calendar time scale, stratified by site and adjusted for sex, residence, team sport participation, mask wearing and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk score. Outside vaccination censoring.||80.3|-14.1|
91652029|NCT02363010|183196038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.602
91652030|NCT02363010|183196039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.487
91791011|NCT02880956|183460091|OTHER||LS Mean of Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.017|1.484||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.484|-1.017|0.714
91652031|NCT02363010|183196039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.262
91652032|NCT02363010|183196039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.851
91791012|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91652033|NCT02363010|183196039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.978
91652034|NCT02363010|183196040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.796
91652035|NCT02363010|183196040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.481
91652036|NCT02363010|183196040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.872
91652037|NCT02363010|183196040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.802
91652038|NCT02363010|183196041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.926||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.926
91652039|NCT02363010|183196041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.820
91652040|NCT02363010|183196041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.127
91652041|NCT02363010|183196041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.814
91652042|NCT04527471|183196063|OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91900185|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.17|-0.11|0.652
91900186|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.622
91900187|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.21|-0.17|0.830
91900188|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.26|0.442
91652043|NCT02884206|183196107|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority that LCZ696 does not lead to a relevant decrease in cognition compared to valsartan at year 3, the lower bound of 95% CI does not include the pre-specified non-inferiority (NI) boundary (Cohen's D) of -0.3. An effect size of 0.3 in Cohen's D is generally considered as small.|LSM|-0.018||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.087|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA|Cohen's D: -0.0277, 95% CI: -0.1101 to 0.0778|0.0870|-0.1230|0.7363
91791013|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.663||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.733|0.876||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.876|-1.733|0.518
91652044|NCT02884206|183196108|NON_INFERIORITY|To show that the point estimate of SUVr difference in mean change over 3 years is in favor of LCZ696 and the non-inferiority is demonstrated, with the upper bound of the 95% CI excluding the NI boundary of 0.01.|Least Squares Mean|-0.0292||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0593|0.001|||ANCOVA|||Multiple Imputation ANCOVA in Global cortical composite||0.0010|-0.0593|0.0579
91652045|NCT02884206|183196109|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0007||||0.9916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1339|0.1353|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA for memory domain|Cohen's D: 0.0009; 95% CI: -0.0912 to 0.0922|0.1353|-0.1339|0.9916
91652046|NCT02884206|183196109|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0327||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1024|0.1677|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA for executive function domain|Cohen's D: 0.0391, 95% CI: -0.0727 to 0.1192|0.1677|-0.1024|0.6348
91652047|NCT02884206|183196109|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.1042||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2783|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA for attention domain|Cohen's D: -0.0967, 95% CI: -0.1542 to 0.0387|0.0700|-0.2783|0.2403
91652048|NCT02884206|183196110|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.1105||||0.7081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6906|0.4696|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA|Cohen's D: -0.0308, 95% CI: -0.1208 to 0.0820|0.4696|-0.6906|0.7081
91652049|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.74|||||ONE_SIDED||||||||GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"||||
91652050|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91652051|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91652052|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91652053|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91652054|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91652055|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91652056|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91652057|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI GMT ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91652058|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91791014|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91709747|NCT04811664|183312092|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy, (1-HR) *100%|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|92.3|||||"Immediate Vaccination compared to Standard of care (reference). Wald 95% CI."|Cox model on the calendar time scale, stratified by site and adjusted for sex, residence, team sport participation, mask wearing and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk score. Outside vaccination censoring.||92.3|-9.5|
91848015|NCT02715258|183579632|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-2.14||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|1.39||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of change from baseline in SBP (mm Hg) at Week 24||1.39|-5.66|0.2340
91709748|NCT04811664|183312093|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy, (1-HR) *100%|41.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|74.9|||||"Immediate Vaccination compared to Standard of care (reference). Wald 95% CI."|Cox model on the calendar time scale, stratified by site and adjusted for sex, residence, team sport participation, mask wearing and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk score. Outside vaccination censoring.||74.9|-37.7|
91788015|NCT01379508|183456376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference was above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.1||||||Imputing +/- 7 days DNA for Wk 52: To evaluate the primary objective, Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimates approach (stratified by HBV DNA level (\< 7 log10 copies/mL or ≥ 7 log10 copies/mL) and ALT (\< 3×ULN or ≥ 3×ULN) at baseline) was employed to assess the proportion of patients (response rate) who achieve HBV DNA \< 300 copies/mL after 52 weeks treatment in each treatment arm, as well as the difference in proportions (telbivudine - tenofovir arm) and the 95% CI of the difference.||3.1|-9.4|
91652059|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Men 16-26:~Castellsague X, Giuliano AR, Goldstone S, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men. Vaccine. 2015;33(48):6892-6901. (HM data)."|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91652060|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91791015|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.598|0.973||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.973|-1.598|0.633
91709749|NCT02717442|183312107|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.658|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|0.957||Study week was based on each 4-week interval and was modeled as a categorical variable, and an offset for the log of the number of diary entries recorded for each 4-week interval post-baseline was included for each subject.|Regression, Linear|||The primary efficacy endpoint was compared between OTO-104 and placebo at the 2-tailed 0.05 alpha level using a generalized Poisson linear mixed model. The model included fixed effects for randomized treatment group, sex, study week, a treatment group by study week interaction, and the count of lead-in period DVD standardized to 28 days as a covariate.||0.957|0.453|=0.029
91709750|NCT02717442|183312108|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.896|||Regression, Linear|||The primary efficacy endpoint was compared between OTO-104 and placebo at the 2-tailed 0.05 alpha level using a generalized Poisson linear mixed model. The model included fixed effects for randomized treatment group, sex, study week, a treatment group by study week interaction, and the count of lead-in period DVD standardized to 28 days as a covariate.||0.896|0.388|=0.014
91652061|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91652062|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91652063|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Men 16-26:~Castellsague X, Giuliano AR, Goldstone S, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men. Vaccine. 2015;33(48):6892-6901. (HM data)."|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91652064|NCT01492582|183196118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91652065|NCT01492582|183196119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Injection site - Pain, any; Injection site - Swelling, any; Injection site - Erythema, any; Systemic - Nausea Historical Healthy Population: Reported from Gardasil Package Insert 04/2015, Tables 1, 2, 5, and 6||||<0.001
91652066|NCT01492582|183196119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Fever Historical Healthy Population: Reported from Gardasil Package Insert 04/2015, Tables 1, 2, 5, and 6||||0.03
91788016|NCT01379508|183456376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference lied above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.4||||||Imputing LOCF DNA for wk 52: d/c for non response prior to Wk 52: Treating missing as failure for patients who discontinued prior to Week 52 due to unsatisfactory therapeutic effect and imputing missing with LOCF for other patients||0.4|-7.9|
91709751|NCT00076258|183312118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Remission rate|29.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Both unadjusted and adjusted rates (for significant covariates) were reported||||||<0.05
91791016|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.9|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91652067|NCT01492582|183196119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Dizziness Historical Healthy Population: Reported from Gardasil Package Insert 04/2015, Tables 1, 2, 5, and 6||||0.48
91652068|NCT01492582|183196119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Injection site - Pain, any; Injection site - Swelling, any; Injection site - Erythema, any; Systemic - Nausea; Systemic - Fatigue Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||<0.001
91652069|NCT01492582|183196119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Headache Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||0.07
91652070|NCT01492582|183196119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Fever Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||0.28
91788017|NCT01379508|183456376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference lied above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.8||||||Imputing within +28d DNA for wk52: d/c for non response \<28 days from Wk 52:Treating missing as failure for patients who discontinued prior to Week 52 due to unsatisfactory therapeutic effect and imputing missing with the earliest available assessment within the 28-day window starting from the scheduled Week 52 date for other patients (if no such assessment is available, treated as failure)||3.8|-8.3|
91652071|NCT01492582|183196119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||Systemic - Dizziness Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||0.45
91652072|NCT00096265|183196149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.31||One-sided|Log Rank||WBRT + SRS is the denominator of the hazard ratio.|120 patients per arm required to detect a 33% reduction in hazard rate corresponding to improvement in MST of 5.9 (null hypothesis) to 8.9 months with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 and 85% power.||2.31|0.89|0.93
91788018|NCT00833664|183456380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.2||||||90.0|88.1|109.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.5|88.1|
91788019|NCT00833664|183456381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|107.6||||||90.0|104.7|110.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.6|104.7|
91848016|NCT02715258|183579632|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-1.91||||0.2937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|1.66||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 1: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in SBP (mm Hg) including observations obtained after rescue medication||1.66|-5.48|0.2937
91848017|NCT02715258|183579632|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-1.72||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|2.32||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 2: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in SBP (mm Hg) excluding observations obtained after rescue medication||2.32|-5.75|0.4030
91652073|NCT00096265|183196149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.36||One-sided|Log Rank||WBRT + SRS is the denominator of the hazard ratio.|120 patients per arm required to detect a 33% reduction in hazard rate corresponding to improvement in MST of 5.9 (null hypothesis) to 8.9 months with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 and 85% power.||2.36|0.92|0.95
91652074|NCT00096265|183196150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.30
91652075|NCT00096265|183196150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.48
91788020|NCT00833664|183456382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.2||||||90.0|92.7|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.0|92.7|
91788021|NCT03952039|183456383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the Greenland and Robins method to adjust for stratification factors: spleen size by palpation and platelet counts.||Stratified analysis (based on CRF)||39.4|19.9|<0.0001
91848018|NCT02715258|183579632|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-2.09||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|1.23||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.23|-5.41|0.2160
91848019|NCT02715258|183579633|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.79||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.21||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of change from baseline in body weight (kg) at Week 24 for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2||0.21|-1.80|0.1222
91848020|NCT02715258|183579633|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.65||||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.35||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 1: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in body weight (kg) for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 including observations obtained after rescue medication||0.35|-1.65|0.2014
91848021|NCT02715258|183579633|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.91||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.05||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 2: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in body weight (kg) for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 excluding observations obtained after rescue medication||0.05|-1.88|0.0638
91848022|NCT02715258|183579633|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.69||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.24||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 3: LOCF for change from baseline in body weight (kg) for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 including observations obtained after rescue medication||0.24|-1.63|0.1456
91848023|NCT02715258|183579634|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-1.09||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) over time across 24 weeks||-1.09|-1.92|<0.0001
91848024|NCT02715258|183579635|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.43||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 6||-0.43|-0.79|<0.0001
91848025|NCT02715258|183579635|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.5||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 12||-0.50|-0.92|<0.0001
91848026|NCT02715258|183579635|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.36||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 18||-0.36|-0.78|<0.0001
91848027|NCT02715258|183579635|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.41||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.16||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 24||-0.16|-0.66|0.0012
91848028|NCT02715258|183579635|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) across 24 weeks||-0.39|-0.76|<0.0001
91848029|NCT02715258|183579636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|6.8||The logistic regression includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-Adjusted proportion of subjects with HbA1c \<7% across 24 weeks||6.80|1.69|0.0006
91848030|NCT04310579|183579641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.22|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.5||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with midazolam compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone with midazolam compared to oxycodone alone.|Part 1 is powered with consideration to both the effect of oxycodone versus placebo and oxycodone plus midazolam versus oxycodone. Assuming a -4 L/min effect size on VE55 and standard deviation of 5 L/min, there is greater than 90% power at a one-sided 0.05 significance level for a sample size of 20 subjects.||2.5||0.22
91848031|NCT04310579|183579642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.6||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with paroxetine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-0.6||0.01
91709752|NCT00076258|183312118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Remission Rate|28.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||For the covariate adjusted GLMM the remission rates were 15.5 for the LD and 28.3 for the PHD with a p \< 0.06 and the NNT of 7.8 for the PHD versus the LD.||||<0.05
91788022|NCT03952039|183456384|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis (based on CRF)|Difference in Proportion|17.1||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test using the Greenland and Robins method to adjust for stratification factors: spleen size by palpation and platelet counts.||||29.4|4.8|0.0033
91709753|NCT01490840|183312140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 90 in each group would have 80% power to detect a difference in means of 3.8, assuming that the common standard deviation is 9.05, using a two group t-test with a 0.05 2-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47||||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.44|||ANCOVA|||||2.44|-5.39|0.4579
91709754|NCT02756819|183312161|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change at Month 6 relative to Baseline.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91788023|NCT03952039|183456385|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|45.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the Greenland and Robins method to adjust for stratification factors: spleen size by palpation and platelet counts.||Stratified analysis (based on CRF)||45.1|21.9|<0.0001
91788024|NCT03952039|183456388|SUPERIORITY||Greenland and Robins method|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|29.7|||Greenland and Robins method|||||29.7|10.0|
91788025|NCT02656680|183456405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U Test||||0.72
91788026|NCT02656680|183456406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi square test comparing proportion retained in each condition.||||0.31
91848032|NCT04310579|183579642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.28|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.8||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with quetiapine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||2.8||0.28
91848033|NCT04310579|183579643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-6.3||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with paroxetine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-6.3||<0.001
91848034|NCT04310579|183579643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.37|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.2||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with quetiapine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||3.2||0.37
91852005|NCT00430300|183587388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8055|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.5|0.8055
91900189|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.29|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.29|-0.11|0.358
91652076|NCT00096265|183196152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||With 70 patients per arm, a 0.05 level chi-square test would have 80% power to distinguish between two groups when the proportions in the three categories are as follows for standard vs. experimental arm, respectively: 25% vs. 50% improvement, 55% vs. 40% stable, and 20% vs. 10% deterioration, or any distribution that corresponds to an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0702.||||0.39
91652077|NCT00096265|183196152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||With 70 patients per arm, a 0.05 level chi-square test would have 80% power to distinguish between two groups when the proportions in the three categories are as follows for standard vs. experimental arm, respectively: 25% vs. 50% improvement, 55% vs. 40% stable, and 20% vs. 10% deterioration, or any distribution that corresponds to an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0702.||||0.28
91652078|NCT00096265|183196153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||108 with three month performance status data, per arm, would result in a 0.050 level chi-square test with 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0586.||||0.002
91652079|NCT00096265|183196153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||108 cases with three month performance status data, per arm, would result in a 0.050 level chi-square test with 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0586.||||< 0.001
91652080|NCT00096265|183196154|SUPERIORITY|Assuming the survival rate of the standard arm (MST = 5.9 months), then 49% of patients were expected to be alive at six months. Assuming steroid data would be available for 90% of these patients, results in a projection of 52 cases/arm with steroid data at 6 months. With this sample size, a two-sided 0.050 alpha test will have 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.1217.||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
91652081|NCT00096265|183196154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Assuming the survival rate of the standard arm (MST = 5.9 months), then 49% of patients were expected to be alive at six months. Assuming steroid data would be available for 90% of these patients, results in a projection of 52 cases/arm with steroid data at 6 months. With this sample size, a two-sided 0.050 alpha test will have 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.1217.||||0.56
91709755|NCT02756819|183312162|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change at Month 6 relative to Baseline.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91788027|NCT02656680|183456407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
91709756|NCT02756819|183312165|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Overweight)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91788028|NCT02656680|183456408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218|||||||ANOVA|||We compared mean percent weight loss from baseline across groups with a one-way ANOVA. One participant became pregnant and thus removed from the analysis. This analysis is exploratory given that this pilot study was not powered to detect weight loss differences between groups.||||0.218
91788029|NCT02656680|183456409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.421
91788030|NCT04966910|183456422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||This p-value applies to the time x condition interaction variable in a repeated-measure ANOVA for client data.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA including a time x condition interaction term to test for differences in slopes by condition for client data.||||0.036
91788031|NCT04966910|183456423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||||||.226
91788032|NCT04966910|183456424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.674
91788033|NCT04966910|183456425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.317
91788034|NCT04966910|183456426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.741
91788035|NCT04966910|183456427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.737
91788036|NCT00830791|183456431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.26|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale for this comparison was 0.322.|||1.26|0.43|0.325
91788037|NCT00830791|183456432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.2|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale was 0.061 for this comparison.|||1.20|0.76|0.718
91788038|NCT00830791|183456433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.63||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|2.2|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale was 0.104 for this comparison.|||2.20|1.21|0.014
91788039|NCT00830791|183456435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.6|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale for this comparison was 0.133.|||1.60|0.81|0.505
91652082|NCT00096265|183196155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||A two group chi-square test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level would have 89% power to detect the difference between a proportion of 0.50 and a proportion of 0.30, or equivalently, of 0.70, when the sample size in each group is 120.||||0.78
91652083|NCT00096265|183196155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||A two group chi-square test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level would have 89% power to detect the difference between a proportion of 0.50 and a proportion of 0.30, or equivalently, of 0.70, when the sample size in each group is 120.||||0.80
91652084|NCT01172600|183196156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.17|||Regression, Linear|The analysis adjusted for VAS at baseline (before 1st block), number of epidural blocks received, and imbalanced baseline variables.|This is an intention- to-treat analysis. We assigned missing outcomes to 10 patients.|||1.17|-1.43|0.84
91652085|NCT01172600|183196156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.28|||Regression, Linear||This is a per-protocol analysis, using 68 patients with completed data.|||0.28|-2.34|0.12
91652086|NCT01172600|183196157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.8|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures, adjusting for VAS pain score at baseline, number of epidural blocks received, and imbalanced baseline variables.|This analysis was per-protocol, using only patients with completed data.|||1.21|-1.80|0.63
91709757|NCT02756819|183312165|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class I)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91652087|NCT01172600|183196158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-3.05|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures, adjusting for VAS pain score at baseline, number of epidural blocks received, and imbalanced baseline variables.|This analysis was per-protocol, using only patients with completed data.|||0.82|-3.05|0.16
91652088|NCT02232074|183196169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.14||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will be more likely to have timely first treatment (i.e. receipt of first treatment within 90 days of diagnosis).||3.14|0.21|0.77
91652089|NCT02232074|183196170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|45.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will be more likely to have timely first treatment (i.e. receipt of first treatment within 90 days of diagnosis).||45.4|0.35|0.26
91652090|NCT02232074|183196171|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 3 months post-enrollment||||0.53
91652091|NCT02232074|183196172|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.|Regression, Linear|||Compared to the control group, the LUNG cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 3 months post-enrollment||||0.43
91652092|NCT02232074|183196173|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.18
91709758|NCT02756819|183312165|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class II)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709759|NCT02756819|183312165|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class III)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709760|NCT02756819|183312165|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Normal glucose metabolism)||||||<0.001
91709761|NCT02756819|183312165|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Impaired glucose tolerance)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91848035|NCT04310579|183579644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-2.5||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone compared to placebo.|Part 1 is powered with consideration to both the effect of oxycodone versus placebo and oxycodone plus midazolam versus oxycodone. Assuming a -4 L/min effect size on VE55 and standard deviation of 5 L/min, there is greater than 90% power at a one-sided 0.05 significance level for a sample size of 20 subjects.||-2.5||0.005
91848036|NCT04310579|183579644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.37|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.7||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of midazolam compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of midazolam compared to placebo.|Part 1 is powered with consideration to both the effect of oxycodone versus placebo and oxycodone plus midazolam versus oxycodone. Assuming a -4 L/min effect size on VE55 and standard deviation of 5 L/min, there is greater than 90% power at a one-sided 0.05 significance level for a sample size of 20 subjects.||3.7||0.37
91709762|NCT02756819|183312165|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - No)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709763|NCT02756819|183312165|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - Yes)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709764|NCT02756819|183312165|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Neither diabetes mellitus nor metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91788040|NCT00830791|183456437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|0.00|
91709765|NCT02756819|183312165|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709766|NCT02756819|183312166|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Overweight)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709767|NCT02756819|183312166|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class I)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709768|NCT02756819|183312166|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class II)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709769|NCT02756819|183312166|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class III)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709770|NCT02756819|183312166|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Normal glucose metabolism)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709771|NCT02756819|183312166|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Impaired glucose tolerance)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709772|NCT02756819|183312166|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - No)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709773|NCT02756819|183312166|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - Yes)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709774|NCT02756819|183312166|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Neither diabetes mellitus nor metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91709775|NCT02756819|183312166|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91788041|NCT00830791|183456438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|0.00|
91788042|NCT04175509|183456452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.378
91788043|NCT04175509|183456453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.753
91788044|NCT04175509|183456454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
91788045|NCT04175509|183456455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91900190|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.714
91900191|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.19|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.19|-0.29|0.683
91652093|NCT02232074|183196174|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.||Compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.33
91652094|NCT02232074|183196175|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.68
91652095|NCT02232074|183196176|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
91652096|NCT02232074|183196177|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will be more satisfied with patient navigation at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.62
91652097|NCT02232074|183196178|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||Compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will be more satisfied with patient navigation at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.69
91652098|NCT02232074|183196179|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|adjusting for baseline Case scores.||Compared to the control group, the breast cancer INTERVENTION group would have higher self-efficacy was adjusting for baseline self-efficacy scores.||||0.58
91652099|NCT02232074|183196180|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|adjusting for baseline Case scores.||Compared to the control group, the lung cancer INTERVENTION group would have higher self-efficacy was adjusting for baseline self-efficacy scores.||||0.09
91652100|NCT02232074|183196181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.79||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||We hypothesize that compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will receive quality care (i.e. receipt of radiation within one year of diagnosis).||2.79|0.28|0.79
91652101|NCT02232074|183196182|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||We hypothesize that compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 12 months post-enrollment.||||0.71
91652102|NCT02232074|183196183|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.71||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||We hypothesize that compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 12 months post-enrollment||||0.61
91652103|NCT02232074|183196184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
91788046|NCT04175509|183456456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91788047|NCT04175509|183456457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
91788048|NCT04175509|183456458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91788049|NCT04175509|183456459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91788050|NCT02054481|183456466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|53.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||53.8|19.0|<0.0001
91788051|NCT02054481|183456467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.6||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|Week 12||28.2|1.0|0.0355
91848037|NCT04310579|183579645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.9||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-3.9||<0.001
91848038|NCT04310579|183579645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.67|ONE_SIDED|97.5||6.4||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of quetiapine compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of quetiapine compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||6.4||0.67
91848039|NCT04310579|183579647|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.17||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.17|0.96|0.33
91848040|NCT04310579|183579647|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.37||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.37|1.14|<0.001
91848041|NCT04310579|183579648|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.43||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.43|1.19|<0.001
91852006|NCT00430300|183587388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9759|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-2.0|0.9759
91652104|NCT02232074|183196185|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.89
91652105|NCT02232074|183196186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.66||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
91652106|NCT02232074|183196187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.93||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
91652107|NCT02232074|183196188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.13
91652108|NCT02232074|183196189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
91652109|NCT01464827|183196210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.61||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Group A : Group G|"The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of the percentage of treatment-naïve participants with SVR24 after treatment with 3 DAAs (at the 150 mg ABT-450 dose) and ribavirin for 8 weeks (Group A) versus 12 weeks (Group G).~Logistic regression with baseline log10 HCV RNA level, treatment group, Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), and geographic region (US or non-US) as predictors."||2.61|0.09|0.406
91652110|NCT01464827|183196211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.02||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Group A : Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment for 8 weeks versus 12 weeks was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), and ABT-450/ritonavir dose and population (treatment-naïve or null-responders) as predictors.||2.02|0.08|0.266
91652111|NCT01464827|183196211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.4||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Group A : Groups \[H + I + M + N\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment for 8 weeks versus 24 weeks was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), ABT-450/ritonavir dose and population (treatment-naïve or null-responders) as predictors.||2.40|0.18|0.525
91652112|NCT01464827|183196211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.92||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Groups \[F + G + K + L\] : Groups \[H + I + M + N\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment for 12 weeks versus 24 weeks was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), ABT-450/ritonavir dose and population (treatment-naïve or null-responders) as predictors.||4.92|0.55|0.375
91652113|NCT01464827|183196212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-12.16||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|0.88||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel-Haenszel method was used because logistic regression failed due to separation or quasi-separation.|Difference = Group B - Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 2 DAAs and ribavirin versus 3 DAAs and ribavirin was compared using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) and HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a).||0.88|-25.20|0.068
91652114|NCT01464827|183196212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.75||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|0.43||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel-Haenszel method was used because logistic regression failed due to separation or quasi-separation.|Difference = Groups \[C + D + J\] - Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 2 DAAs and ribavirin versus 3 DAAs and ribavirin was compared using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) and HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a).||0.43|-13.93|0.065
91848042|NCT04310579|183579648|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.57||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.57|1.22|<0.001
91652115|NCT01464827|183196213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.13||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|1.51||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel-Haenszel method was used because logistic regression failed due to separation or quasi-separation.|Difference = Group E - Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 3 DAAs with and without ribavirin was compared using a stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) and HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a).||1.51|-15.77|0.106
91848043|NCT04310579|183579650|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.03||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.17||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.17|0.91|0.64
91848044|NCT04310579|183579650|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.15||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.15|0.98|0.24
91652116|NCT01464827|183196214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.34||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Groups \[F + G + H + I\] : Groups \[K + L + M + N\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 3 DAAs and ribavirin in treatment-naïve versus null-responders was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), and ABT-450/ritonavir dose as predictors.||5.34|0.37|0.616
91652117|NCT01075763|183196215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.64
91652118|NCT01075763|183196215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.92
91652119|NCT01075763|183196216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 12: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.63
91652120|NCT01075763|183196216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.74
91652121|NCT01075763|183196217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.45
91652122|NCT01075763|183196217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 12: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.88
91652123|NCT01075763|183196217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.68
91652124|NCT01075763|183196217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.81
91652125|NCT01075763|183196218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.29
91652126|NCT01075763|183196218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 12: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.36
91652127|NCT01075763|183196218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.68
91652128|NCT01075763|183196218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.41
91652129|NCT01075763|183196219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.86
91652130|NCT01075763|183196219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.62
91652131|NCT01075763|183196219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.21
91652132|NCT01075763|183196220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.95
91652133|NCT01075763|183196220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.73
91652134|NCT01075763|183196220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.30
91652135|NCT01075763|183196222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.80
91652136|NCT01075763|183196222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.74
91652137|NCT01075763|183196222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.12
91652138|NCT01075763|183196223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.53
91652139|NCT01075763|183196223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.85
91652140|NCT01075763|183196223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.85
91652141|NCT00586521|183196224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary outcome measure was analyzed by paired t-test and Wilcoxon test (number of joint bleeds prophylaxis treatment compared to number of joint bleeds on-demand treatment) at 6 months of treatment.||||<0.001
91652142|NCT00586521|183196224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||The maximum individual reduction in the actual number of joint bleeds after the switch to prophylactic treatment was analyzed by a paired t-test of the individual difference between prophylaxis treatment bleed compared to on-demand treatment bleeds.||||<0.001
91848045|NCT04310579|183579651|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.19||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.19|1.02|0.05
91652143|NCT00586521|183196225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||paired t-test (prophylaxis compared to on-demand) at 6 months of treatment.||||<0.001
91652144|NCT00586521|183196226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||The Gilbert Score was the sum of 3 scores: pain (0=no pain to 3=severe pain); bleeding score (0=none to 3=3 or more major bleeds or 7 or more minor bleeds); and physical score (based on swelling, muscle atrophy; and axial deformity (at knee or ankle), range of motion, crepitus on motion, flexion contracture, instability.||||<0.001
91652145|NCT00586521|183196227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||||||The alpha level for a significant P-value was pre-defined at 5%.|paired t-test|||"The Haemo-QoL A questionnaire measures the subject's self-assessment of disease impact on physical functioning, role functioning, worry, consequences, positive affect, and treatment concern."||||0.314
91652146|NCT01633827|183196234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91652147|NCT01633827|183196235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
91652148|NCT01633827|183196236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91652149|NCT01633827|183196237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91652150|NCT01633827|183196238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91652151|NCT05431153|183196249|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|103.91|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||103.91|94.00|
91652152|NCT05431153|183196249|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.88|102.35|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||102.35|93.88|
91652153|NCT05431153|183196249|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.79|105.73|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||105.73|91.79|
91652154|NCT05431153|183196250|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.48|106.12|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||106.12|87.48|
91652155|NCT05431153|183196250|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.65|102.0|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||102.00|85.65|
91652156|NCT05431153|183196250|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.86|106.9|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||106.90|89.86|
91652157|NCT05431153|183196251|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|111.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.55|124.93|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||124.93|99.55|
91652158|NCT05431153|183196251|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.68|106.73|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||106.73|90.68|
91652159|NCT05431153|183196252|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|111.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|128.93|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||128.93|96.46|
91652160|NCT05431153|183196252|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|81.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.06|88.26|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||88.26|75.06|
91652161|NCT00678392|183196258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.812||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log rank test, stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) and prior treatment. One-sided log-rank test at 0.025 level of significance was used to compare PFS between the 2 treatment arms.|Log Rank|||||0.812|0.544|<0.0001
91652162|NCT00678392|183196259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.174|||Log Rank|P-value was obtained from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by ECOG performance status and prior treatment.||||1.174|0.800|0.3744
91652163|NCT00678392|183196260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.056||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.408|3.003|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by ECOG performance status and prior treatment.||||3.003|1.408|0.0001
91652164|NCT00782509|183196293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.116|<0.0001
91652165|NCT00782509|183196293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.110|<0.0001
91652166|NCT00782509|183196294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0116||95.0|0.011|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.084|0.011|0.0116
91652167|NCT00782509|183196294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0095||95.0|0.012|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.085|0.012|0.0095
91652168|NCT00782509|183196295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.057|0.162|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.162|0.057|<0.0001
91652169|NCT00782509|183196295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0011||95.0|0.036|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|0.036|0.0011
91848046|NCT04310579|183579651|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.36||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.36|1.19|<0.001
91652170|NCT00782509|183196296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.131|<0.0001
91788052|NCT02054481|183456467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.1||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|36.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|Week 24||36.2|6.0|0.0062
91652171|NCT00782509|183196296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.138|<0.0001
91652172|NCT00782509|183196297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.130|<0.0001
91652173|NCT00782509|183196297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.119|<0.0001
91652174|NCT00782509|183196298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.135|<0.0001
91788053|NCT02054481|183456468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.1||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||42.9|11.3|0.0008
91848047|NCT01280591|183579655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.8|-33.7|||ANCOVA|||||-33.7|-106.8|0.0002
91848048|NCT01280591|183579656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91848049|NCT01280591|183579657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|70.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.85||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|112.7|||ANCOVA|||||112.7|28.1|0.0001
91848050|NCT01280591|183579658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|19.7|||ANCOVA|||||19.7|3.7|0.0007
91652175|NCT00782509|183196298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|0.127|<0.0001
91848051|NCT01280591|183579659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91848052|NCT01280591|183579660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0027
91652176|NCT00782509|183196299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.131|<0.0001
91848053|NCT01280591|183579661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0321
91848054|NCT01280591|183579662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0019
91848055|NCT01280591|183579663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91848056|NCT01280591|183579664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
91652177|NCT00782509|183196299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.102|<0.0001
91848057|NCT01280591|183579665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
91848058|NCT01280591|183579666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91652178|NCT00782509|183196300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|0.127|<0.0001
91652179|NCT00782509|183196300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.123|<0.0001
91652180|NCT00782509|183196301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0043||95.0|0.017|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.089|0.017|0.0043
91652181|NCT00782509|183196301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0005||95.0|0.028|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.101|0.028|0.0005
91652182|NCT00782509|183196302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.037|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.110|0.037|<0.0001
91652183|NCT00782509|183196302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.121|0.049|<0.0001
91652184|NCT00782509|183196303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.032|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.032|0.0002
91652185|NCT00782509|183196303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0186||95.0|0.007|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.081|0.007|0.0186
91652186|NCT00782509|183196304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0003||95.0|0.032|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.032|0.0003
91652187|NCT00782509|183196304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.002||95.0|0.021|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.095|0.021|0.0020
91652188|NCT00782509|183196305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0024||95.0|0.02|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.095|0.020|0.0024
91652189|NCT00782509|183196305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.1614||95.0|-0.011|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.064|-0.011|0.1614
91652190|NCT00782509|183196306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0012||95.0|0.025|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.099|0.025|0.0012
91652191|NCT00782509|183196306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.034|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.109|0.034|0.0002
91652192|NCT00782509|183196307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0004||95.0|0.031|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.031|0.0004
91652193|NCT00782509|183196307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.033|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.108|0.033|0.0002
91652194|NCT00782509|183196308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.132|<0.0001
91788054|NCT02054481|183456469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.1||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||21.1|-0.8|0.0706
91788055|NCT02054481|183456470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||37.7|1.9|0.0300
91788056|NCT02054481|183456472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.2||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|36.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||36.6|5.7|0.0072
91652195|NCT00782509|183196308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.142|<0.0001
91652196|NCT00782509|183196309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.119|<0.0001
91652197|NCT00782509|183196309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.111|<0.0001
91652198|NCT00782509|183196310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.136|<0.0001
91652199|NCT00782509|183196310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.202|0.130|<0.0001
91652200|NCT00782509|183196311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.108|<0.0001
91652201|NCT00782509|183196311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.094|<0.0001
91709776|NCT02700425|183312173|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test was two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) and STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon signed rank test||The sample size was estimated based on the primary endpoint of echocardiographic response to test the hypothesis that an absolute 10% greater improvement in LVEF would be observed with His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing, with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 6-months as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.001
91709777|NCT02700425|183312173|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test was two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) and STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon signed rank test||The sample size was estimated based on the primary endpoint of echocardiographic response to test the hypothesis that an absolute 10% greater improvement in LVEF would be observed with His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing, with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 6-months as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.001
91788057|NCT02054481|183456473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1844|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||Log Rank|||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
91652202|NCT00782509|183196312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.201|0.128|<0.0001
91652203|NCT00782509|183196312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.098|<0.0001
91652204|NCT00782509|183196313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.118|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|0.118|<0.0001
91652205|NCT00782509|183196313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.194|0.120|<0.0001
91652206|NCT00782509|183196314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.263|0.399|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.399|0.263|<0.0001
91652207|NCT00782509|183196314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.265|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.400|0.265|<0.0001
91788058|NCT00528970|183456483|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.944||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using log-rank test stratified by surgery type and region for comparisons of survival distributions for active MOA versus Placebo group.||||0.944
91848059|NCT01280591|183579667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91848060|NCT01280591|183579668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0016
91848061|NCT01280591|183579669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
91848062|NCT01280591|183579670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91848063|NCT01280591|183579671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0064
91652208|NCT00782509|183196315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.174|<0.0001
91652209|NCT00782509|183196315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.294|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.294|0.159|<0.0001
91652210|NCT00782509|183196316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.195|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.332|0.195|<0.0001
91652211|NCT00782509|183196316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.315|0.178|<0.0001
91652212|NCT00782509|183196317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.308|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.308|0.170|<0.0001
91652213|NCT00782509|183196317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.314|0.176|<0.0001
91652214|NCT00782509|183196318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.171|0.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.311|0.171|<0.0001
91652215|NCT00782509|183196318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.289|0.150|<0.0001
91848064|NCT01280591|183579672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0047
91848065|NCT01280591|183579673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0053
91652216|NCT00782509|183196319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.147|<0.0001
91788059|NCT00528970|183456483|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.208||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using log-rank test stratified by surgery type and region for comparisons of survival distributions for active MOA versus Placebo group.||||0.208
91788060|NCT02882152|183456487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Results were compared by means of the ANOVA of repeated measures followed by Bonferroni test.~Comparing: all four moments, from zero to 72hs within femoral blockade group, all four moments within morphine group, and all four moments between the groups"||||<0.05
91652217|NCT00782509|183196319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.148|<0.0001
91652218|NCT00782509|183196320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.104||95.0|-0.012|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.131|-0.012|0.1040
91788061|NCT02882152|183456488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Results were compared by means of the ANOVA of repeated measures followed by Bonferroni test.~Comparing: all four moments, from zero to 72hs within femoral blockade group, all four moments within morphine group, and all four moments between the groups"||||<0.05
91788062|NCT02788279|183456624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.38|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.38|0.73|0.9871
91788063|NCT02788279|183456624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.71|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.71|0.83|0.3360
91848066|NCT01280591|183579675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2734|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2734
91848067|NCT02175212|183579756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.15|||Regression, Cox|||||3.15|1.12|0.01
91848068|NCT02175212|183579757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.85|||Regression, Cox|||||3.85|1.23|0.01
91848069|NCT02175212|183579758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.48||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.68|||Regression, Cox|||||4.68|1.31|0.009
91652219|NCT00782509|183196320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0172||95.0|0.015|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|0.015|0.0172
91652220|NCT00782509|183196321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0106||95.0|0.022|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.022|0.0106
91652221|NCT00782509|183196321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0013||95.0|0.046|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.046|0.0013
91652222|NCT00782509|183196322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.3821||95.0|-0.04|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.105|-0.040|0.3821
91652223|NCT00782509|183196322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1917||95.0|-0.024|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.120|-0.024|0.1917
91652224|NCT00782509|183196323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1808||95.0|-0.023|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|-0.023|0.1808
91652225|NCT00782509|183196323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.37||95.0|-0.039|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|-0.039|0.3700
91652226|NCT00782509|183196324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.2312||95.0|-0.029|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.118|-0.029|0.2312
91652227|NCT00782509|183196324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0596||95.0|-0.003|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.144|-0.003|0.0596
91652228|NCT00782509|183196325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.311||95.0|-0.036|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.111|-0.036|0.3110
91652229|NCT00782509|183196325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.9426||95.0|-0.076|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.071|-0.076|0.9426
91652230|NCT00782509|183196326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.268||95.0|-0.032|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.115|-0.032|0.2680
91652231|NCT00782509|183196326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0662||95.0|-0.005|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.005|0.0662
91652232|NCT00782509|183196327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.2249||95.0|-0.028|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.120|-0.028|0.2249
91788064|NCT02788279|183456624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.38|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.38|0.74|0.9686
91788065|NCT02788279|183456624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.69|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.69|0.83|0.3553
91788066|NCT02788279|183456625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.65|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.65|0.94|0.1208
91709778|NCT02700425|183312174|OTHER|paired t-test||||||0.002||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.002
91709779|NCT02700425|183312174|OTHER|paired t-test||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome of His Bundle Pacing was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.002
91709780|NCT02700425|183312175|OTHER|Log rank test of a survival analysis||||||0.62||||||P-value did not need to be adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Log Rank|||Primary outcome of time to first cardiovascular hospitalization or death by His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing presented median and interquartile range in years based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a log rank test.||||0.62
91709781|NCT02700425|183312176|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon sign rank test||NYHA functional class of Coronary Sinus Pacing arm was presented at baseline as medians (interquartile ranges) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon sign rank test.||||0.09
91709782|NCT02700425|183312176|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon sign rank test||NYHA functional class of the His Bundle Pacing arm was presented at baseline and 12 months as medians (interquartile ranges) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon sign rank test.||||0.32
91709783|NCT02700425|183312177|OTHER|||||||0.35||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Quality of Life was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) for patients with His Bundle Pacing based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.35
91709784|NCT02700425|183312177|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Quality of Life was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) for patients with Coronary Sinus Pacing based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.07
91788067|NCT02788279|183456625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.94|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.94|1.00|0.0509
91709785|NCT02700425|183312178|OTHER|Log rank test of a survival analysis||||||0.14||||||P-value did not need to be adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Log Rank|||Primary outcome of time to first cardiovascular rehospitalization by His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing presented median and interquartile range in years based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a log rank test.||||0.14
91709786|NCT02700425|183312179|OTHER|Log rank test of a survival analysis||||||0.14||||||P-value did not need to be adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Log Rank|||Primary outcome of time to first treated VT/VF by His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing presented median and interquartile range in years based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a log rank test.||||0.14
91709787|NCT01462305|183312221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||||||interaction effect and week of treatment condition|ANOVA|||To test the hypothesis that depressed SAD patients would demonstrate greater antidepressant therapeutic benefit from the \~465nm (shorter wavelength) source compared with the \~595nm (longer wavelength) source, we conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA using PROC MIXED in SAS 9.3 with treatment (\~465nm vs. \~595nm) as a between-subject factor and time (treatment visit 1, treatment visit 2, treatment visit 3, phone assessment 1, phone assessment 2, and treatment visit 4) as a within-subject factor.||||0.74
91709788|NCT01462305|183312221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A repeated-measures ANOVA on the 29 subjects revealed no significant effect or interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.9
91709789|NCT01462305|183312221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A repeated-measures ANOVA on the 29 subjects revealed significant effect of treatment week|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91709790|NCT01462305|183312223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.20
91709791|NCT00169104|183312232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||t=-0.29|t-test, 2 sided|df=15||T test||||>0.05
91709792|NCT02020889|183312248|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|13.03|||Proportional odds regression model|Proportional odds regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score, region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||13.03|2.68|<0.001
91652233|NCT00782509|183196327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0994||95.0|-0.012|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.136|-0.012|0.0994
91652234|NCT00782509|183196328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.261|0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.403|0.261|<0.0001
91652235|NCT00782509|183196328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.263|0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.403|0.263|<0.0001
91709793|NCT02020889|183312249|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|77.56|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||77.56|3.61|<0.001
91652236|NCT00782509|183196329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.296|0.153|<0.0001
91652237|NCT00782509|183196329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.139|<0.0001
91652238|NCT00782509|183196330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.196|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.340|0.196|<0.0001
91709794|NCT02020889|183312250|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.322|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|0.502|||Cox Proportional Hazard regression|Cox proportional hazards model with covariates of treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||0.502|0.206|<0.001
91709795|NCT02020889|183312251|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.41|||Proportional odds regression model|Proportional odds regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score, region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||0.41|0.09|<0.001
91709796|NCT02020889|183312252|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.65||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|167.93|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||167.93|2.30|0.007
91709797|NCT02020889|183312253|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|10.74|||Proportional odds regression model|Proportional odds regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score, region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||10.74|2.63|<0.001
91652239|NCT00782509|183196330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.323|0.179|<0.0001
91652240|NCT00782509|183196331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.298|0.154|<0.0001
91652241|NCT00782509|183196331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.137|<0.0001
91652242|NCT00782509|183196332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.299|0.153|<0.0001
91709798|NCT02020889|183312254|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|19.87|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||19.87|2.60|<0.001
91788068|NCT02788279|183456625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.6|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.60|0.92|0.1726
91848070|NCT02131324|183579785|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided hypothesis testing was conducted for all the tests. Resulting p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant unless noted otherwise. No adjustments of p values were made for multiple comparisons.||||||0.086|||||||ANOVA|||Two-sided hypothesis testing was conducted for all the tests. Resulting p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant unless noted otherwise. No adjustments of p values were made for multiple comparisons.||||0.086
91848071|NCT00812877|183579796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.35||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.66||A clustered permutation test with 10,000 random permutations based on the log rank test statistic was used for the primary treatment comparison to account for censoring and to ensure proper test size given the number of practices.|Log Rank||A confirmatory analysis, adjusted for patient, dentist, and tooth characteristics, and follow-up time, was performed using marginal proportional hazards regression with robust standard error estimates accounting for clustering by practice.|||4.66|1.19|.046
91848072|NCT01664104|183579848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
91652243|NCT00782509|183196332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.279|0.133|<0.0001
91848073|NCT01664104|183579848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
91848074|NCT01664104|183579849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
91848075|NCT01664104|183579849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.||||||<0.0001
91709799|NCT02020889|183312255|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|55.24|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region.|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||55.24|2.35|0.003
91709800|NCT00809094|183312275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the change in human neutrophil activity measured from baseline to end of the study (24 weeks)||0.48|-0.07|0.14
91709801|NCT04676724|183312353|OTHER||Difference in SVR Rate|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|11.0|||||The point estimate of SVR and its 95% highest posterior density Credible Interval (CI) are estimated from a Bayesian model that incorporates the analysis stratification factors and treatment arm.|||11|-29|
91788069|NCT02788279|183456625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.91|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.91|1.00|0.0467
91848076|NCT01664104|183579850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.||||||<0.0001
91652244|NCT00782509|183196333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.280|0.133|<0.0001
91652245|NCT00782509|183196333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.285|0.138|<0.0001
91652246|NCT00782509|183196334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0028||95.0|0.049|0.235|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.049|0.0028
91652247|NCT00782509|183196334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0013||95.0|0.061|0.25|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.061|0.0013
91652248|NCT00782509|183196335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.959||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.622|23.099|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||23.099|3.622|0.0072
91652249|NCT00782509|183196335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.894|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.323|30.545|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||30.545|11.323|<0.0001
91709802|NCT00237692|183312361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.7|63.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at Baseline||63.9|55.7|
91848077|NCT01664104|183579850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.||||||<0.0001
91652250|NCT00782509|183196336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.201||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.242|22.67|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||22.670|2.242|0.0169
91848078|NCT01664104|183579870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
91652251|NCT00782509|183196336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.653|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.132|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.574|30.731|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||30.731|10.574|<0.0001
91652252|NCT00782509|183196337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.665|-0.167|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.167|-0.665|0.0011
91652253|NCT00782509|183196337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.267|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.267|-0.760|<0.0001
91709803|NCT00237692|183312361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of patients with controled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.7|64.0|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at Baseline||64.0|55.7|
91709804|NCT00237692|183312361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of patinets with controlled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|63.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled BP at Baseline||63.9|55.6|
91848079|NCT01664104|183579870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
91848080|NCT01664104|183579871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
91848081|NCT01664104|183579871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
91652254|NCT00782509|183196338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|-0.111|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.111|-0.729|0.0077
91652255|NCT00782509|183196338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.065|-0.456|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.456|-1.065|<0.0001
91652256|NCT00782509|183196339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.333|-0.342|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.342|-1.333|0.0010
91652257|NCT00782509|183196339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.767|-0.789|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.789|-1.767|<0.0001
91652258|NCT00782509|183196340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0122||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0122
91652259|NCT00782509|183196340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0008||95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0008
91652260|NCT00782509|183196341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0028||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0028
91788070|NCT02788279|183456626|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.51||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|4.94|||Stratified Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.94|-3.92|1.0000
91652261|NCT00782509|183196341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0169||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.5|0.0169
91652262|NCT00782509|183196342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.5|0.0180
91652263|NCT00782509|183196342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0015||95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0015
91652264|NCT00782509|183196343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1313||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum,visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.1313
91652265|NCT00782509|183196343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0089||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0089
91652266|NCT00782509|183196344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.436|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.436|0.687|0.9853
91652267|NCT00782509|183196344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.763|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.763|0.873|0.2344
91652268|NCT00782509|183196345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.9035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|2.38|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||2.380|0.463|0.9035
91652269|NCT00782509|183196345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.9304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|2.209|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||2.209|0.415|0.9304
91652270|NCT00782509|183196346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.657|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.657|0.717|0.6690
91652271|NCT00782509|183196346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|2.002|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||2.002|0.902|0.1437
91652272|NCT00782509|183196347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2251||0.3637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8188|1.7234|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.7234|0.8188|0.3637
91652273|NCT00782509|183196347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.2822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2403||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8874|1.8527|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.8527|0.8874|0.1853
91652274|NCT00782509|183196348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4664||0.9455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4244|2.5063|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.5063|0.4244|0.9455
91652275|NCT00782509|183196348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.1273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5028||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4696|2.7064|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.7064|0.4696|0.7883
91652276|NCT00782509|183196349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.2846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2803||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.9717|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.9717|0.8370|0.2514
91652277|NCT00782509|183196349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.3373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2901||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8735|2.0474|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.0474|0.8735|0.1807
91652278|NCT03151499|183196369|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.74|10.601|||||gMean ratio = BI 409306 + Rifampicin pretreatment (T) / BI 409306 (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the Geometric Standard Error.|The main focus is on estimation, therefore no hypothesis was tested. The statistical analysis model for the primary endpoints is an ANOVA (analysis of variance). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' will be considered as random, whereas the treatment effect will be considered as fixed. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||10.601|5.740|
91652279|NCT03151499|183196370|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.767|14.098|||||gMean ratio = BI 409306 + Rifampicin pretreatment (T) / BI 409306 (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the Geometric Standard Error.|The main focus is on estimation, therefore no hypothesis was tested. The statistical analysis model for the primary endpoints is an ANOVA (analysis of variance). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' will be considered as random, whereas the treatment effect will be considered as fixed. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||14.098|6.767|
91652280|NCT03151499|183196371|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.187|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.081|11.126|||||gMean ratio = BI 409306 + Rifampicin pretreatment (T) / BI 409306 (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the Geometric Standard Error.|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, therefore no hypothesis was tested.The statistical analysis model is an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' will be considered as random, whereas the treatment effect will be considered as fixed. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||11.126|6.081|
91652281|NCT01798485|183196377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.372|||Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region).||Primary study hypothesis was tested at a 2-sided, 0.05 significance level using a stratified log-rank test.||1.372|0.899|0.3293
91709805|NCT00237692|183312361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|63.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at Baseline||63.9|55.6|
91709806|NCT00237692|183312362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|66.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at 6 months.||66.7|49.3|
91848082|NCT01664104|183579872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6904|||||||t-test|P-value signifies CRP at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using DAS28-CRP (remission versus no remission).||||||0.6904
91900192|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.14|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.14|-0.34|0.413
91900193|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.31|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.31|-0.21|0.699
91900194|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.244
91900195|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.26|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.26|-0.21|0.833
91900196|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.07|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.07|-0.41|0.156
91900197|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.46|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.46|-0.06|0.128
91900198|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.359
91900199|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.43|-0.12|0.278
91900200|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.22|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.22|-0.33|0.699
91900201|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.5|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.50|-0.09|0.172
91900202|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.515
91900203|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.37|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.37|-0.19|0.527
91900204|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.19|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.19|-0.37|0.545
91900205|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.47|-0.12|0.250
91900206|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.568
91900207|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.41|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.41|-0.16|0.381
91900208|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.26|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.26|-0.31|0.863
91900209|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.46|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.46|-0.16|0.330
91900210|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.167
91900211|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.5|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.50|-0.09|0.165
91900212|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.21|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.21|-0.39|0.564
91900213|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.62|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.62|-0.02|0.068
91900214|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.131
91900215|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.56|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.56|-0.06|0.119
91900216|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.23|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.23|-0.39|0.616
91900217|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.66|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.66|-0.01|0.056
91900218|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.255
91652282|NCT01798485|183196377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111|||||TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.821|1.503||||||"Futility analysis for the first Interim Analysis which had a database cutoff of 19 October 2015. For the first interim analysis, if the lower limit of the 2-sided 99.5% confidence interval (CI) for the Hazard Ratio was greater than 0.75, then the study could be stopped for futility, based on Data Monitoring Committee recommendation.~Hazard ratio and 99.5% CI were calculated using the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region)."||1.503|0.821|
91652283|NCT01798485|183196378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.161||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|1.403||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with stratification variables, ECOG, screening total LDH levels, and geographic region, used to compare the treatment groups.||||1.403|0.961|0.1180
91652284|NCT01798485|183196379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232||||0.2506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.754||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening ECOG and geographic region).||||1.754|0.865|0.2506
91652285|NCT01798485|183196380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.448
91652286|NCT01798485|183196381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||\>= 6 weeks||||0.339
91848083|NCT01664104|183579872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6032|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the CRP at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using SDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.6032
91848084|NCT01664104|183579872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6146|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the CRP at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using CDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.6146
91652287|NCT01798485|183196381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||\>= 12 weeks||||0.817
91652288|NCT01798485|183196382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.344||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.207|4.551||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region).||||4.551|1.207|0.0111
91652289|NCT01798485|183196383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.112||||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.551||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening ECOG and geographic region).||||1.551|0.797|0.5191
91652290|NCT01798485|183196386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.233||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.621||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region).||||1.621|0.937|0.1343
91709807|NCT00237692|183312362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|60.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.5|69.3|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 6 months.||69.3|52.5|
91788071|NCT02788279|183456626|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|4.89|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.89|-4.89|1.0000
91788072|NCT00329849|183456643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup A, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|47.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup A one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||47|29|
91788073|NCT00329849|183456643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup C, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|40.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup C one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||40|19|
91900219|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.57|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.57|-0.08|0.144
91652291|NCT01798485|183196387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.250
91652292|NCT00770991|183196409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All patients received BRB suppositories and were pooled for the analysis comparing baseline and end of study polyp counts.||||0.065
91900220|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.31|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.31|-0.34|0.935
91652293|NCT00770991|183196410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.016
91652294|NCT00770991|183196411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
91900221|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.61|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.61|-0.10|0.153
91652295|NCT01945138|183196439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91652296|NCT01945138|183196440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
91652297|NCT01945138|183196441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
91652298|NCT01945138|183196442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.848
91652299|NCT01945138|183196443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.074
91709808|NCT00237692|183312362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.9|73.1|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 6 months.||73.1|56.9|
91652300|NCT01945138|183196444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91652301|NCT01945138|183196445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.461
91652302|NCT01945138|183196446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.205
91791017|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.661||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.488|1.112||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.112|-1.488|0.776
91900222|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.128
91900223|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.63|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.63|-0.02|0.067
91652303|NCT01945138|183196447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.157
91652304|NCT01945138|183196448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.443
91652305|NCT01945138|183196449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91652306|NCT01945138|183196450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.401
91652307|NCT01945138|183196451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91652308|NCT01945138|183196452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.325
91652309|NCT01945138|183196453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.311
91652310|NCT01132118|183196467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The P-value calculated was for the difference betweeen the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.930
91652311|NCT01132118|183196467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||The P-value was calculated for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.785
91652312|NCT01132118|183196468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||||||Unadjusted P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.575
91652313|NCT01132118|183196468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.308
91652314|NCT01132118|183196469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference betweeen change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo suing Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.468
91652315|NCT01132118|183196469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.902
91652316|NCT01132118|183196470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.004
91652317|NCT01132118|183196470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.004
91652318|NCT01132118|183196471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.009
91900224|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.33|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.33|-0.33|0.999
91652319|NCT01132118|183196471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.011
91652320|NCT01132118|183196472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.730
91652321|NCT01132118|183196472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.208
91652322|NCT01132118|183196473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||||||Unadjusted P-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.487
91652323|NCT01132118|183196473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884||||||P-value adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxycholorquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.884
91652324|NCT01644890|183196474|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary PFS analysis was confirmed whether or not the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) for NK105 relative to PTX fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.215 (\<1.215) by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model that included allocation adjustment factors other than the study site as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|1.592|||||History of chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent breast cancer (yes/no), History of treatment using a taxane anticancer drug (yes/no), ER status \[(+) or (-)\], and Disease free interval (\<12 months or ≥12 months) were covariates for adjustment.|Based on the results of previous studies, the expected median PFS was 5.5 months for PTX and 6.35 months for NK105. Assuming a randomization period of 18 months, a follow-up period of 12 months, a one-sided significance level of 2.5%, a power of 85% and the non-inferiority margin of 1.215, the number of patients was estimated to 172 pts per group, a total of 344 patients. Considering an expected withdrawal/dropout rate of approximately 20%, the target sample size was set at 414.||1.592|0.989|
91652325|NCT01644890|183196475|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.62|||||History of chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent breast cancer (yes/no), History of treatment using a taxane anticancer drug (yes/no), ER status \[(+) or (-)\], and Disease free interval (\<12 months or ≥12 months) were covariates for adjustment.|||1.620|0.885|
91652326|NCT01644890|183196476|OTHER||Difference in ORR (%)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|2.7||||||||2.7|-17.4|
91848085|NCT01664104|183579873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using DAS28-CRP (remission versus no remission).||||||0.0018
91652327|NCT03031899|183196526|NON_INFERIORITY|"1. Rose bengal should stain the areas positively stained by Toluidine blue~2. areas stained by rose bengal that shows dysplasia in biopsy"|SN, SP, PPV, NPV|||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91652328|NCT04682444|183196540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5547|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.5547
91652329|NCT04682444|183196540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||<0.0001
91652330|NCT04682444|183196541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used for testing without adjustment for baseline status.||||0.0001
91652331|NCT04682444|183196542|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||<0.0001
91652332|NCT04682444|183196542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0013
91848086|NCT01664104|183579873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1617|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using SDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.1617
91652333|NCT04682444|183196543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0474|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0474
91652334|NCT04682444|183196543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||<0.0001
91652335|NCT04682444|183196544|SUPERIORITY|A mixed model repeated measurement was used, which considered baseline, treatment visit\*treatment as fixed and patient as random effect.||||||0.0065|||||||MMRM|||Day 3||||0.0065
91652336|NCT04682444|183196544|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A mixed model repeated measurement was used, which considered baseline, treatment visit\*treatment as fixed and patient as random effect.|MMRM|||Day 7||||<0.0001
91652337|NCT04682444|183196544|SUPERIORITY|A mixed model repeated measurement was used, which considered baseline, treatment visit\*treatment as fixed and patient as random effect.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Day 14||||<0.0001
91652338|NCT04682444|183196546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5152|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.5152
91652339|NCT04682444|183196546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0009
91652340|NCT04682444|183196546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||<0.0001
91652341|NCT04682444|183196547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.1253
91652342|NCT04682444|183196547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0611|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0611
91652343|NCT04682444|183196547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.4000
91652344|NCT04682444|183196548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4636|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.4636
91652345|NCT04682444|183196548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.1000
91652346|NCT04682444|183196548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0363|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.0363
91652347|NCT04682444|183196549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3107|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.3107
91652348|NCT04682444|183196549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0083|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0083
91652349|NCT04682444|183196549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0611|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.0611
91652350|NCT04682444|183196550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2988|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.2988
91652351|NCT04682444|183196551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.0005
91652352|NCT04682444|183196551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0238|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0238
91848087|NCT01664104|183579873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1296|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using CDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.1296
91652353|NCT04682444|183196551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0277|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.0277
91652354|NCT04682444|183196552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.1253
91652355|NCT04682444|183196552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0611|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0611
91788074|NCT00329849|183456643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup W, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|39.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup W one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||39|17|
91652356|NCT04682444|183196552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.4000
91652357|NCT04682444|183196554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||<0.0001
91652358|NCT04682444|183196555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3973|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.3973
91652359|NCT04682444|183196555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3122|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.3122
91652360|NCT04682444|183196555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.0064
91652361|NCT04682444|183196557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3||||0.012
91652362|NCT04682444|183196557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7||||0.036
91652363|NCT04682444|183196557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||<0.0001
91652364|NCT04682444|183196559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.0002
91788075|NCT00329849|183456643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup Y, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|28.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup Y one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||28|8|
91652365|NCT04682444|183196559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4048|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.4048
91652366|NCT04682444|183196560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.0002
91652367|NCT04682444|183196560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1614|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.1614
91652368|NCT04682444|183196561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5581|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.5581
91652369|NCT04682444|183196561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4167|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.4167
91652370|NCT04682444|183196562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0406|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.0406
91652371|NCT04682444|183196562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.2000
91652372|NCT04682444|183196563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2208|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.2208
91652373|NCT04682444|183196563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0659|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0659
91652374|NCT04682444|183196565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 0, IFN-alpha||||0.941
91652375|NCT04682444|183196565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 0, IFN-gamma||||0.943
91652376|NCT04682444|183196565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7, IFN-alpha||||<0.001
91652377|NCT04682444|183196565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7, IFN-gamma||||<0.001
91652378|NCT04682444|183196565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14, IFN-alpha||||0.625
91652379|NCT04682444|183196565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14, IFN-gamma||||<0.001
91652380|NCT00494975|183196580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.56|||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||The VAS score of pruritus intensity was recorded for each participant at baseline and weekly until week 12 so that each one had 12 repeatedly measured data scores. To investigate the predictive effects of age, sex, comorbid diseases, phototherapy, and results of blood laboratory exams on the intensity of pruritus, marginal linear regression model was fitted to the repeatedly measured VAS score data using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method.||1.56|0.31|<0.05
91652381|NCT02180061|183196599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216||||||One-sided p-value. The ORR was deemed clinically meaningful if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval exceeded 10% (p\<0.0250).|Exact Binomial Distribution|||||||0.0216
91652382|NCT01469364|183196609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test 2 sided.||||||0.2030
91652383|NCT01469364|183196610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test 2 sided.||||||0.2527
91652384|NCT01469364|183196615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Absolute Difference|-1.52||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measured t-test||P-Value for the SF-36 PCS||||0.34
91652385|NCT01469364|183196615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|0.78||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measured t-test||P-Value for the SF-36 MCS||||0.18
91652386|NCT01469364|183196616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|1.62||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SF-36 PCS||||0.09
91652387|NCT01469364|183196616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|-1.24||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SF-36 MCS||||0.31
91709809|NCT00237692|183312362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|63.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|72.0|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 6 months.||72.0|55.6|
91709810|NCT00237692|183312362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% diff|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral and Arm 1 - Control at 6months.||14.9|-9.0|
91709811|NCT00237692|183312362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|18.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Med Management and Arm 1 - Control at 6months.||18.7|-4.7|
91652388|NCT01469364|183196617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|0.82||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SGRQ measure||||0.56
91652389|NCT01469364|183196618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|0.15||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SGRQ Measure||||0.68
91652390|NCT01469364|183196619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test 2 sided.||||||0.7454
91652391|NCT01469364|183196620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9638|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was completed.||||||0.9638
91652392|NCT02295774|183196633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mc Nemar's χ2 test|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||Mc Nemar's χ2 test was not applicable because there is no change between visits.|Mc Nemar's χ2 test was not applicable because there is no change between visits.|"The results of the γH2AX analysis were listed and summarised by frequency tables by visit and colonic region.~The results were compared between Visit 2 and Visit 1 for each colonic region and overall using the Mc Nemar's χ2 test.~In case of the presence of at least one positive colonic region, that visit was to be considered as 'Positive' for the overall γH2AX analysis."||||
91652393|NCT01617577|183196637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||ADAScog scores at baseline vs final visit (wk 14); null hypothesis is there is no difference between scores||||0.36
91652394|NCT01617577|183196637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||PAL(mem) at baseline and 14 wk (final visit): null hypothesis is thereis no difference in score||||0.058
91652395|NCT01617577|183196637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||PALtot trials adj at baseline vs 14wk (final visit)||||0.034
91652396|NCT03532009|183196638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426|||||||F-test|||The p-value was obtained by pooling the p-values from Chi-square tests performed on individual data sets using the F-distribution and reflects a global test of no difference in distribution of patients in the respective categories between SZC and placebo groups. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between SZC and placebo in the distribution of percentage of patients in the 4 RAASi treatment categories. The hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 5%.||||0.426
91652397|NCT00368966|183196645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-2.9|1.6||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 1:8 threshold was calculated||1.6|-2.9|
91709812|NCT00237692|183312362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.6||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Combined Behavioral \& Med Mgmt and Arm 1 - Control at 6months.||17.6|-6.0|
91709813|NCT00237692|183312363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|68.3|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 12 months.||68.3|51.4|
91709814|NCT00237692|183312363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|73.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.6|80.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 12 months||80.7|65.6|
91709815|NCT00237692|183312363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|73.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|80.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 12 months.||80.7|66.1|
91709816|NCT00237692|183312363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|68.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.5|76.6|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at 12 months.||76.6|60.5|
91652398|NCT00368966|183196645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.2||||||95.0|-2.3|4.9||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||4.9|-2.3|
91652399|NCT00368966|183196645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
91788076|NCT00329849|183456644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety of MenACWY-CRM vaccination was considered non-inferior to the safety of MenACWY-PS vaccination if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio (MenACWY-CRM group divided by MenACWY-PS group) of the percentage of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction during 1 to 7 days after vaccination was less than 3.|Group Ratio|6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|49.2|||Risk ratio(MenACWY-CRM/MenACWY-PS)|||||49.2|0.82|
91652400|NCT00368966|183196646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by Meningitec was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.6|0.86||||||For Meningococcal C the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.86|0.60|
91652401|NCT00368966|183196647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by Meningitec was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.81||||||95.0|0.7|0.94||||||For Diphtheria the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.94|0.70|
91791018|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.93|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91788077|NCT02683746|183456688|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary hypothesis tested was that the liquid drug product would provide glycemic control non-inferior to the lyophilized drug product for a period of 26 weeks of treatment in participants with T2DM. Non-inferiority testing was performed at a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 0.4.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model|||||0.24|-0.13|0.0002
91788078|NCT02683746|183456696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.14||||||||0.14|-0.83|
91652402|NCT00368966|183196650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.23||||||95.0|1.13|1.35||||||For serotype 4, the Geometric Mean fold Rise (GMFR) were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.35|1.13|
91652403|NCT00368966|183196650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.28||||||95.0|8.18|10.53||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||10.53|8.18|
91652404|NCT00368966|183196650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.15||||||95.0|1.05|1.25||||||For serotype 6B, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.25|1.05|
91709817|NCT00237692|183312363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|24.4||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral and Arm 1 - Control at 12 months.||24.4|2.0|
91788079|NCT02683746|183456697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.13||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 4 are presented.|||0.13|-0.07|<0.0001
91652405|NCT00368966|183196650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.61||||||95.0|1.41|1.83||||||For serotype 14, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.83|1.41|
91652406|NCT00368966|183196650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.45||||||95.0|1.3|1.61||||||For serotype 18C, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.61|1.30|
91652407|NCT00368966|183196650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.93||||||95.0|0.83|1.03||||||For serotype 19F, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.03|0.83|
91709818|NCT00237692|183312363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|24.6||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 3 - Nurse Med Management and Arm 1 - Control at 12 months.||24.6|2.4|
91709819|NCT00237692|183312363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% diff|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|20.2||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 4 - Combined Behavioral \& Med Mgmt and Arm 1 - Control at 12 months.||20.2|-2.9|
91652408|NCT00368966|183196650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0||||||95.0|3.55|4.5||||||For serotype 23F, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||4.50|3.55|
91652409|NCT00368966|183196650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.6||||||95.0|1.46|1.76||||||For serotype 1, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.76|1.46|
91652410|NCT00368966|183196650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.23||||||95.0|1.13|1.35||||||For serotype 3, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.35|1.13|
91652411|NCT00368966|183196650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.94||||||95.0|1.78|2.11||||||For serotype 5, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||2.11|1.78|
91652412|NCT00368966|183196650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.87||||||95.0|2.58|3.2||||||For serotype 6A, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||3.20|2.58|
91652413|NCT00368966|183196650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.18||||||95.0|1.98|2.41||||||For serotype 7F, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||2.41|1.98|
91652414|NCT00368966|183196650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.3||||||95.0|1.18|1.44||||||For serotype 19A, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.44|1.18|
91652415|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
91652416|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.9||||||95.0|-6.0|2.0||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 20 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-6.0|
91652417|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
91652418|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
91652419|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-5.2|2.6||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 64 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.6|-5.2|
91652420|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
91652421|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-4.4|3.2||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 39 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-4.4|
91652422|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|1.7||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.7|
91652423|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.4||||||95.0|-5.1|2.2||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 11 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-5.1|
91652424|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91652425|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91652426|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-4.6|3.3||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 99 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.3|-4.6|
91652427|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91788080|NCT02683746|183456697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 8 are presented.|||0.20|-0.07|<0.0001
91652428|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.7||||||95.0|-5.8|2.3||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 69 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.3|-5.8|
91788081|NCT02683746|183456697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.24||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 12 are presented.|||0.24|-0.08|<0.0001
91788082|NCT02683746|183456697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.2||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 16 are presented.|||0.20|-0.16|<0.0001
91652429|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||0.7|-2.5|
91652430|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
91709820|NCT00237692|183312364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|70.6|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at 18 months||70.6|53.0|
91788083|NCT02683746|183456697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 20 are presented.|||0.19|-0.15|<0.0001
91652431|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.8||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||0.8|-2.8|
91848088|NCT01664104|183579876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5332|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the CRP at the start of TCZ treatment using the morning stiffness ( ≤ 30 minutes versus \> 30 minutes).||||||0.5332
91652432|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
91788084|NCT02683746|183456697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 26 are presented.|||0.20|-0.17|<0.0001
91788085|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.65|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 1 are presented.|||0.65|-0.15|
91788086|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.69|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 2 are presented.|||0.69|-0.20|
91848089|NCT01664104|183579877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6159|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment using the morning stiffness ( ≤ 30 minutes versus \> 30 minutes).||||||0.6159
91848090|NCT01664104|183579878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.2370
91709821|NCT00237692|183312364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.8|67.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled BP at 18 months||67.9|50.8|
91709822|NCT00237692|183312364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|63.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.1|72.0|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 18 months.||72.0|55.1|
91709823|NCT00237692|183312364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|79.5|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 18 months||79.5|63.7|
91788087|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 3 are presented.|||0.40|-0.42|
91788088|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.36|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 4 are presented.|||0.36|-0.42|
91788089|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.57|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 5 are presented.|||0.57|-0.19|
91709824|NCT00237692|183312364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|9.7||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral and Arm 1 - Control at 18 months.||9.7|-14.6|
91709825|NCT00237692|183312364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|13.8||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 3 - Nurse Med Management and Arm 1 - Control at 18 months.||13.8|-10.3|
91709826|NCT00237692|183312364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|21.4||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 4 - Combined Behavioral \& Med Mgmt and Arm 1 - Control at 18 months.||21.4|-1.9|
91709827|NCT00237692|183312366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled SBP|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1|||||Systolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in systolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral||7.1|-3.1|
91788090|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.55|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 6 are presented.|||0.55|-0.26|
91788091|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.71|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 7 are presented.|||0.71|-0.16|
91788092|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.6|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 8 are presented.|||0.60|-0.22|
91788093|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.47|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 9 are presented.|||0.47|-0.41|
91788094|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.57|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 10 are presented.|||0.57|-0.28|
91788095|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.56|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 11 are presented.|||0.56|-0.34|
91788096|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.46|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 12 are presented.|||0.46|-0.41|
91788097|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.57|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 13 are presented.|||0.57|-0.47|
91788098|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.54|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 16 are presented.|||0.54|-0.41|
91788099|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.53|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 20 are presented.|||0.53|-0.47|
91788100|NCT02683746|183456698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.14|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 26 are presented.|||0.14|-0.83|
91788101|NCT04987944|183456702|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|5.0||||||||5.0|-24.5|
91788102|NCT04987944|183456703|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|11.5||||||||11.5|-19.4|
91788103|NCT04987944|183456704|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.423|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.972||||||||0.972|-0.125|
91848091|NCT01664104|183579878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8033|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-D1 (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.8033
91848092|NCT01664104|183579879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0306|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient for change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.0306
91848093|NCT01664104|183579879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient for change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.0749
91788104|NCT02614469|183456708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.0|108.0|||||Fed/Fasting Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||108|98.0|
91788105|NCT02614469|183456709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.9|102.0|||||Fed/Fasted Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||102|96.9|
91788106|NCT02614469|183456713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.9|118.0|||||Fed/Fasted Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||118|90.9|
91788107|NCT02614469|183456714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|83.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.1|112.0|||||Fed/Fasted Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||112|62.1|
91788108|NCT00345332|183456720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91848094|NCT01664104|183579880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4854|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.4854
91848095|NCT01664104|183579880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||S|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.3250
91848096|NCT01664104|183579881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.0011
91848097|NCT01664104|183579881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.0013
91848098|NCT01664104|183579882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5655|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.5655
91652433|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.9||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.9|-2.1|
91652434|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
91652435|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.8||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||3.8|-2.1|
91652436|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.8|
91652437|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.4|
91788109|NCT00345332|183456721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91788110|NCT01976988|183456775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
91788111|NCT01976988|183456776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
91788112|NCT01976988|183456777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91788113|NCT01976988|183456778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91788114|NCT01976988|183456779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91788115|NCT01976988|183456780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91788116|NCT01328444|183456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|26.5||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|78.9||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||78.9|-25.9|0.321
91788117|NCT01328444|183456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|13.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|65.1||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||65.1|-38.9|0.620
91788118|NCT01328444|183456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.0||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.5|35.4||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||35.4|-55.5|0.665
91788119|NCT01328444|183456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.6||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.6|48.4||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||48.4|-57.6|0.865
91788120|NCT01328444|183456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|31.9||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|77.9||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||77.9|-14.1|0.174
91788121|NCT01328444|183456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|19.3||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|71.9||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||71.9|-33.4|0.472
91848099|NCT01664104|183579882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3977|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.3977
91848100|NCT01664104|183579883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value obtained from Pearson correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in morning stiffness at Month 6.||||||0.0123
91848101|NCT01664104|183579883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value obtained from Spearman correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in morning stiffness at Month 6||||||0.0151
91848102|NCT01664104|183579884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9909|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.9909
91848103|NCT01664104|183579884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6482|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.6482
91652438|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||2.6|-0.6|
91652439|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||2.0|-1.0|
91652440|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
91652441|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-1.1|
91848104|NCT04930822|183579885|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-5.107||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.385||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||2.385|-12.60|0.1779
91652442|NCT00368966|183196651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
91652443|NCT00368966|183196652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.82|1.23||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.23|0.82|
91652444|NCT00368966|183196652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.76|1.18||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.18|0.76|
91652445|NCT00368966|183196652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.76|1.19||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.19|0.76|
91652446|NCT00368966|183196652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.69|0.98||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.98|0.69|
91652447|NCT00368966|183196652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.75|1.09||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.09|0.75|
91788122|NCT01328444|183456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|42.4||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|88.7||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||88.7|-3.8|0.072
91788123|NCT01328444|183456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|21.9||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|58.0||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||58.0|-14.2|0.234
91788124|NCT01328444|183456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|32.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|68.8||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||68.8|-3.9|0.080
91788125|NCT01328444|183456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.087||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.143||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.143|0.030|0.003
91848105|NCT04930822|183579885|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-8.809||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-1.317||Fisher's LSD utilized; no corrections for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-1.317|-16.30|0.0219
91848106|NCT04930822|183579885|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-4.063||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-0.8849||Fisher's LSD utilized; no corrections for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-0.8849|-7.240|0.0139
91848107|NCT04930822|183579885|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-7.765|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-4.682||Fisher's LSD utilized; no corrections for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-4.682|-10.85|<0.0001
91848108|NCT04930822|183579886|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-7.883||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.59|14.83||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||14.83|-30.59|0.4930
91900225|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.66|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.66|-0.05|0.088
91788126|NCT01328444|183456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.196||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.196|0.084|<0.001
91788127|NCT01328444|183456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.099|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.148||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.148|0.050|<0.001
91900226|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.195|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.195
91848109|NCT04930822|183579886|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-13.97||||0.2255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.68|8.744||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||8.744|-36.68|0.2255
91652448|NCT00368966|183196652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.07||||||95.0|0.88|1.29||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.29|0.88|
91848110|NCT04930822|183579886|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-49.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.18|-35.46||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-35.46|-63.18|<0.0001
91848111|NCT04930822|183579886|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-55.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.66|-43.16||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-43.16|-67.66|<0.0001
91652449|NCT00368966|183196653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.75|0.96||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.75|
91652450|NCT00368966|183196653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.88|1.2||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.20|0.88|
91652451|NCT00368966|183196653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.71|1.02||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.02|0.71|
91652452|NCT00368966|183196653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.12||||||95.0|0.9|1.4||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.40|0.90|
91848112|NCT04930822|183579887|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-2.611||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|4.909||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha is set at 0.05||4.909|-10.13|0.49
91652453|NCT00368966|183196654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.93|1.13||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.93|
91652454|NCT00368966|183196654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.07||||||95.0|0.96|1.2||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.20|0.96|
91652455|NCT00368966|183196654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.05||||||95.0|0.92|1.18||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.18|0.92|
91652456|NCT00368966|183196654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.88|1.14||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.14|0.88|
91652457|NCT00368966|183196654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.88|1.15||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.15|0.88|
91848113|NCT04930822|183579887|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-4.634||||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|2.886||Fisher's LSD utlilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||2.886|-12.15|0.2246
91848114|NCT04930822|183579887|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-16.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.91|-11.74||Fisher's LSD; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-11.74|-20.91|<0.0001
91848115|NCT04930822|183579887|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-18.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-14.29||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-14.29|-22.40|<0.0001
91848116|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Day 1.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91788128|NCT01328444|183456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.181||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||0.181|0.067|<0.001
91788129|NCT01328444|183456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.161||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.161|0.062|<0.001
91788130|NCT01328444|183456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.029||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.086||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.086|-0.028|0.320
91788131|NCT01328444|183456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.07||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.12||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.120|0.019|0.007
91848117|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Day 14.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848118|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Day 31.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848119|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 10.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848120|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 18.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848121|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 26.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848122|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 34.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91652458|NCT00368966|183196654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.89||||||95.0|0.78|1.02||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.02|0.78|
91652459|NCT00368966|183196655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2||||||95.0|0.1|4.4||||||For serotype 4, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||4.4|0.1|
91652460|NCT00368966|183196655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|41.2||||||95.0|34.9|46.9||||||For serotype 6B, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||46.9|34.9|
91652461|NCT00368966|183196655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.3||||||95.0|4.1|10.4||||||For serotype 9V, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||10.4|4.1|
91652462|NCT00368966|183196655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.1||||||95.0|-3.4|1.2||||||For serotype 14, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||1.2|-3.4|
91652463|NCT00368966|183196655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.4||||||95.0|3.1|9.5||||||For serotype 18C, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||9.5|3.1|
91652464|NCT00368966|183196655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||||95.0|-0.4|3.4||||||For serotype 19F, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||3.4|-0.4|
91652465|NCT00368966|183196655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.5||||||95.0|20.7|31.9||||||For serotype 23F, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||31.9|20.7|
91709828|NCT00237692|183312366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. Dif in Patient w/Controlled DBP|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.8|||||Diastolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in diastolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral||3.8|-2.7|
91652466|NCT00368966|183196655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.0||||||95.0|0.8|5.1||||||For serotype 1, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||5.1|0.8|
91652467|NCT00368966|183196655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2||||||95.0|-1.8|6.3||||||For serotype 3, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||6.3|-1.8|
91652468|NCT00368966|183196655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0||||||95.0|5.9|13.9||||||For serotype 5, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||13.9|5.9|
91652469|NCT00368966|183196655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.0||||||95.0|8.6|17.2||||||For serotype 6A, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||17.2|8.6|
91652470|NCT00368966|183196655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||||95.0|-0.1|3.1||||||For serotype 7F, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||3.1|-0.1|
91652471|NCT00368966|183196655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||||95.0|-0.4|3.4||||||For serotype 19A, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||3.4|-0.4|
91652472|NCT01602614|183196661|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.3117|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.3117
91652473|NCT01602614|183196662|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.6175||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.6175
91652474|NCT01602614|183196663|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.7129||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.7129
91652475|NCT01602614|183196664|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.9828|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.9828
91652476|NCT01602614|183196665|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.9656|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.9656
91652477|NCT01602614|183196666|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.5113|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.5113
91788132|NCT01328444|183456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.211|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.249||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.249|0.172|<0.001
91788133|NCT01328444|183456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.169|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.209||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.209|0.129|<0.001
91788134|NCT03207438|183456787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
91788135|NCT03207438|183456787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Interaction - treatment condition x melancholia||||.18
91788136|NCT03207438|183456787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
91652478|NCT01602614|183196667|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.217||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.2170
91652479|NCT01602614|183196668|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.4299||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.4299
91652480|NCT01602614|183196669|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.8629||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.8629
91652481|NCT01602614|183196670|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.5717||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.5717
91652482|NCT01694485|183196686|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered for formal statistical testing of the abrilumab 70 mg and 210 mg groups. To account for multiplicity of statistical testing, primary and key secondary end points for the 2 highest doses of abrilumab (70 and 210 mg) were tested at the end of the 8-week induction period under a sequential framework at a 2-sided significance level of 0.10 using the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|7.95|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||7.95|1.41|0.021
91652483|NCT01694485|183196686|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|14.6||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||14.6|1.6|
91848123|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 42.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91652484|NCT01694485|183196686|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered for formal statistical testing of the abrilumab 70 mg and 210 mg groups. To account for multiplicity of statistical testing, primary and key secondary end points for the 2 highest doses of abrilumab (70 and 210 mg) were tested at the end of the 8-week induction period under a sequential framework at a 2-sided significance level of 0.10 using the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|8.26|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.26|1.34|0.030
91652485|NCT01694485|183196686|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|14.9||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||14.9|0.8|
91848124|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 50.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848125|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 58.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848126|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 70.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848127|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 82.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848128|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 94.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91900227|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.67|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.67|-0.12|0.175
91900228|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.30|-0.50|0.610
91848129|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 106.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848130|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 118.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848131|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 130.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848132|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 142.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848133|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 154.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848134|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 166.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848135|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 178.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848136|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 190.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848137|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 202.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91848138|NCT02449044|183579906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 214.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
91900229|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.81|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.81|-0.05|0.083
91652486|NCT01694485|183196686|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.17|0.13|0.64
91652487|NCT01694485|183196686|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|5.5||||||The difference in remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.5|-5.2|
91848139|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4922|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 31||||0.4922
91709829|NCT00237692|183312366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled SBP|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.5|||||Systolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in systolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 3 - Nurse Med Management.||5.5|-4.8|
91848140|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 10||||0.1054
91709830|NCT00237692|183312366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled DBP|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.0|||||Diastolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in diastolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 3 - Nuse Med Management||4.0|-2.6|
91788137|NCT03207438|183456787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Interaction - treatment condition by melancholia||||.14
91848141|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7656|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 18||||0.7656
91848142|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 26||||0.7084
91652488|NCT01694485|183196686|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|4.33|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.33|0.03|0.49
91652489|NCT01694485|183196686|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|5.4||||||The difference in remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.4|-5.5|
91652490|NCT01694485|183196687|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.71|4.52|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.52|1.71|<0.001
91652491|NCT01694485|183196687|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.8|33.2||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||33.2|11.8|
91652492|NCT01694485|183196687|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.53|4.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.31|1.53|0.003
91652493|NCT01694485|183196687|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.0|31.8||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||31.8|9.0|
91709831|NCT00237692|183312366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled SBP|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.6|||||Systolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in systolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 4 - Combined Behaviorial and Med Management||6.6|-3.3|
91848143|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 34||||0.5138
91848144|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7175|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 42||||0.7175
91848145|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 50||||0.3540
91788138|NCT03207438|183456788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
91788139|NCT03207438|183456788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Interaction - treatment condition x melancholia||||.17
91788140|NCT03207438|183456788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
91848146|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 58||||0.0852
91848147|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 70||||0.1923
91848148|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 82||||0.2335
91652494|NCT01694485|183196687|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|5.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.02|1.29|0.024
91652495|NCT01694485|183196687|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|34.1||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||34.1|4.9|
91788141|NCT03207438|183456788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Interaction - treatment condition by melancholia||||.13
91788142|NCT03207438|183456789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher's exact test|||Day 4 - Fisher's exact test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup|An exact OR could not be estimated by R; the 95% confidence interval was 0.31 to infinity, p = .33.|||.33
91788143|NCT03207438|183456789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact test||The exact limits of 95% confidence interval could not be estimated, it was reported as 0.40 to infinity.|Week 1 - Fisher's exact test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.44
91788144|NCT03207438|183456789|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.38||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 2 - Chi-squared test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.73
91848149|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 94||||0.1346
91848150|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 106||||0.5237
91848151|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 118||||0.3476
91848152|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 130||||0.2488
91848153|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1598|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 142||||0.1598
91848154|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 154||||0.2820
91848155|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 166||||0.3743
91848156|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 178||||0.3600
91848157|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 190||||0.3101
91848158|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 202||||0.0269
91848159|NCT02449044|183579913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 214||||0.0944
91848160|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 14||||0.1739
91652496|NCT01694485|183196687|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||1.22|0.13|0.18
91652497|NCT01694485|183196687|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.4|2.7||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.7|-24.4|
91848161|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6095|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 31||||0.6095
91709832|NCT00237692|183312366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled DBP|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.6|||||Diastolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in diastolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 4 - Combined Behaviorial and Med Management||6.6|0.3|
91709833|NCT00685360|183312367|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.534|||=|0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|2.124|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||2.124|1.107|=0.0083
91848162|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6902|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 10||||0.6902
91848163|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 18||||0.6340
91848164|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 26||||0.3210
91848165|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7787|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 34||||0.7787
91848166|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2198|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 42||||0.2198
91848167|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 50||||0.1926
91848168|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3109|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 58||||0.3109
91848169|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 70||||0.2269
91848170|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 82||||0.2749
91652498|NCT01694485|183196688|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|4.07|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.07|1.35|0.011
91848171|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 94||||0.0702
91848172|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 106||||0.0412
91848173|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4448|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 142||||0.4448
91848174|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6233|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 166||||0.6233
91848175|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 178||||0.1001
91848176|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 190||||0.3739
91652499|NCT01694485|183196688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|24.0||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||24.0|4.8|
91848177|NCT02449044|183579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3334|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 214||||0.3334
91848178|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 14||||0.2575
91848179|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2715|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 31||||0.2715
91848180|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 10||||0.6860
91848181|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 18||||0.0224
91848182|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 26||||0.1871
91848183|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 34||||0.0039
91848184|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 42||||0.0325
91652500|NCT01694485|183196688|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.82|1.15|0.041
91848185|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 50||||0.0631
91848186|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 58||||0.0277
91848187|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 70||||0.0128
91848188|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 82||||0.0164
91848189|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 94||||0.0119
91848190|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 106||||0.0013
91848191|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 142||||0.6691
91848192|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6923|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 166||||0.6923
91848193|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 178||||0.9292
91900230|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.884|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.884
91848194|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4401|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 190||||0.4401
91848195|NCT02449044|183579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 214||||0.3609
91848196|NCT00315120|183579957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|2.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2|||Chi-squared|||||3.2|1.2|0.007
91848197|NCT00315120|183579962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.7|0.7|0.72
91848198|NCT05419557|183579985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|54.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.6|1.3|0.02
91848199|NCT05419557|183579986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.98||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|64.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.25|1.55|0.015
91848200|NCT02281318|183580019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.9|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-4.9|-10.5|<0.001
91848201|NCT02281318|183580020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|192.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||192|47|0.001
91848202|NCT02281318|183580021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.22|1.55|<0.001
91848203|NCT02281318|183580022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.22|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.22|-0.58|<0.001
91900231|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.35|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.35|-0.43|0.833
91848204|NCT03102710|183580071|SUPERIORITY|Covariates included 1) age, 2) cream randomization, and 3) the difference in ERS for lidocaine before and after expectancy manipulation (which represented how well the expectancy was modulated) in Session 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA||The mean difference between anodal vs. sham was 0.4, between cathodal vs. sham was 1.2, and between anodal vs. cathodal was -0.8.|To assess the modulation effects of tDCS on placebo, we first performed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with placebo as the dependent variable and group (i.e., anodal, cathodal, and sham tDCS) as the fixed factor.||||0.03
91848205|NCT03102710|183580071|SUPERIORITY|Covariates included 1) age, 2) cream randomization, and 3) the difference in ERS for capsaicin before and after expectancy manipulation (which represented how well the expectancy was modulated) in Session 2. In addition, we added the STAI state and trait anxiety scores as covariates when assessing the modulation effects of tDCS on the nocebo effect, as previous studies have suggested that anxiety level could affect nocebo hyperalgesia.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA||The mean difference between anodal vs. sham was 1.4, between cathodal vs. sham was 1.0, and between anodal vs. cathodal was -0.3.|To assess the modulation effects of tDCS on nocebo, we first performed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with nocebo as the dependent variable and group (i.e., anodal, cathodal, and sham tDCS) as the fixed factor.||||0.04
91848206|NCT01368406|183580072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.13|||t-test, 2 sided|t test for independent samples||||1.13|-0.65|0.055
91848207|NCT01368406|183580072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.83|0.13|0.055
91788145|NCT03207438|183456789|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|1.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 4 - Chi-squared test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.11
91788146|NCT03207438|183456789|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.001||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The actual estimated Chi-squared statistic was 6.35(10\^-31)|Week 6 - Chi-squared test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.50
91848208|NCT04304534|183580073|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.052|||=|0.8439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.687|1.612|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.612|0.687|= 0.8439
91652501|NCT01694485|183196688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|22.1||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||22.1|1.7|
91848209|NCT04304534|183580073|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.096|||=|0.7562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.674|1.781|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||1.781|0.674|= 0.7562
91848210|NCT04304534|183580073|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.008|||=|0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.614|1.656|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.656|0.614|= 0.978
91709834|NCT00685360|183312367|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.416|||=|0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.98||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.980|1.012|=0.0393
91709835|NCT00685360|183312379|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.599|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.175|2.177|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||2.177|1.175|=0.0021
91788147|NCT03207438|183456790|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.001||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated chi-squared statistic was 1.88(10\^-29).|Day 4 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.5
91788148|NCT03207438|183456790|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|3.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 1 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.03
91788149|NCT03207438|183456790|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|3.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 2 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.02
91788150|NCT03207438|183456790|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.62||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 4 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.22
91788151|NCT03207438|183456790|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|2.45||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 6 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.059
91652502|NCT01694485|183196688|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||1.97|0.32|0.68
91652503|NCT01694485|183196688|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|9.4||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||9.4|-11.9|
91709836|NCT00685360|183312379|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.939|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.449|2.595|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.595|1.449|<.0001
91709837|NCT00685360|183312380|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2419|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from analysis of covariance(ANCOVA)model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.2419
91709838|NCT00685360|183312380|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2239|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison is derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.2239
91709839|NCT00685360|183312380|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9544|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison is derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.9544
91709840|NCT00685360|183312381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0246|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.0246
91709841|NCT00685360|183312381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.0529
91848211|NCT04304534|183580074|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||=|0.9158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.713|1.347|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Pooled Asundexian group versus Placebo group||1.347|0.713|= 0.9158
91709842|NCT00685360|183312381|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7508|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.7508
91709843|NCT00685360|183312382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.272|||=|0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.627|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.627|0.995|=0.0518
91709844|NCT00685360|183312382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.203|||=|0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.550|0.934|=0.1506
91652504|NCT01694485|183196688|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.22|0.21|0.60
91652505|NCT01694485|183196688|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|11.3||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||11.3|-14.9|
91652506|NCT01694485|183196689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|8.36|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.36|1.03|0.090
91652507|NCT01694485|183196689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|10.4||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||10.4|-0.6|
91652508|NCT01694485|183196689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.56|0.38|0.72
91788152|NCT03241368|183456791|OTHER|Comparative - This purpose of this study is to evaluate performance of the PillCam Crohn's capsule \[referred to as capsule endoscopy (CE)\] as compared to IC with MRE.||||||0.125|||||||McNemar|Exact McNemar's test||This was a 1-arm, non-powered study. Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) was estimated for each treatment group, along with the 95% confidence interval. The difference between treatment groups in Sensitivity and Specificity was compared.||||0.125
91900232|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.29|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.29|-0.49|0.620
91709845|NCT00685360|183312383|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.234|||=|0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.612|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.612|0.945|=0.1201
91709846|NCT00685360|183312383|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.099|||=|0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.456|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.456|0.829|=0.5112
91709847|NCT00685360|183312384|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.323|||=|0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|1.661|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.661|1.053|=0.0141
91709848|NCT00685360|183312384|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.438|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.155|1.791|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.791|1.155|=0.0008
91652509|NCT01694485|183196689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|4.6||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.6|-4.7|
91652510|NCT01694485|183196689|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|4.41|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.41|0.16|0.86
91652511|NCT01694485|183196689|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|6.2||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.2|-3.9|
91709849|NCT00685360|183312385|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.341|||=|0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.044|1.722|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.722|1.044|=0.0196
91900233|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.48|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.48|-0.36|0.788
91900234|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.755
91900235|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.34|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.34|-0.45|0.787
91652512|NCT01694485|183196689|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.31|0.04|0.64
91652513|NCT01694485|183196689|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|6.4||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.4|-4.2|
91652514|NCT02907203|183196690|NON_INFERIORITY|Compared with the Performance Goal: 0.9mm|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.152|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.152|-0.5|0.000
91791019|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.723|0.558||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.558|-1.723|0.316
91652515|NCT00952484|183196692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test comparing the median RGI-C score for the asfotase alfa combined reporting group to the historical control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
91652516|NCT00952484|183196693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0097
91652517|NCT00952484|183196694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0789
91791020|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91791021|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.569||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.569|-1.660|0.336
91791022|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91791023|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.647|0.663||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.663|-1.647|0.403
91791024|NCT02880956|183460091|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91791025|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.856|0.716||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.716|-0.856|0.861
91791026|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91791027|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.648|0.905||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.905|-0.648|0.746
91791028|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.46|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91791029|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|0.868||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.868|-0.724|0.859
91791030|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91652518|NCT00952484|183196695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7417
91652519|NCT00952484|183196696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|||||||0.7570
91652520|NCT00952484|183196697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91652521|NCT00952484|183196698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
91652522|NCT02750306|183196705|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|28.2||||0.00128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|45.2|||ANCOVA|||||45.2|11.1|0.00128
91652523|NCT02750306|183196708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.7||||0.01354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-28.1|0.01354
91652524|NCT02422290|183196709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|7.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between CY-BOCS scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||7.87|-2.27|.20
91652525|NCT02422290|183196710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between CGI-S scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||2.16|-.56|.18
91791031|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|1.469||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.469|-0.369|0.240
91652526|NCT02422290|183196711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between OCD-VAS scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||2.78|-2.78|1.00
91652527|NCT02422290|183196712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.46|18.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between OCD-VAS scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||18.96|-15.46|.77
91652528|NCT00457665|183196744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.94
91652529|NCT01102777|183196770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of outcome, MMRC dyspnea score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||0.142
91652530|NCT01102777|183196771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for group, time, group\*time interaction, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.502
91652531|NCT01102777|183196772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value and rural residence.||||||.90
91652532|NCT01102777|183196773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value and rural residence.||||||.93
91652533|NCT01102777|183196774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson regression|Adjusted for age, gender, oxygen use, and arm.||||||.08
91652534|NCT01102777|183196775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for group, time, group\*time interaction, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||0.731
91652535|NCT01102777|183196776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for time, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.52
91652536|NCT01102777|183196777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The determination of arm occurred after recruitment, and Study Reach is a recruitment value.||||
91652537|NCT01102777|183196778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for time, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.11
91652538|NCT01102777|183196779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for time, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.01
91652539|NCT00210626|183196816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3807||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate used is Baseline SF-36 PF Score. Baseline SF-36 PF Score was collected prior to the start of Procrit or Placebo treatment||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Procrit and Placebo in average SF-36 Physical Function Scores||||0.3807
91652540|NCT00210626|183196817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7038||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7038
91709850|NCT00685360|183312385|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.503|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.909|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.909|1.183|=0.0006
91652541|NCT04147715|183196873|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9913|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9232|1.0645|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) fit with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log (ln)-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% confidence interval (CI) between the ln-transformed Cmax of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0645|0.9232|
91652542|NCT04147715|183196873|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9754|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8916|1.0671|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed by an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0671|0.8916|
91652543|NCT04147715|183196875|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0353|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9421|1.1377|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1377|0.9421|
91709851|NCT00685360|183312386|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0468|||||||Cochran-Armitage Linear Trend Test|Cochran-Armitage test was performed for dose response with the treatment group ordered as placebo, delamanid 100 mg BID, and delamanid 200 mg BID.||||||=0.0468
91709852|NCT00685360|183312387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.856|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.255|2.745|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|p-value was derived from log-rank test with SAS Proc lifetest for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.745|1.255|=0.0011
91788153|NCT01270802|183456822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.37||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; P\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||We assumed that the declines in FMD seen with TDF/FTC/EFV in our previous study would fully reverse. Thus, the clinically relevant effect size to be detected for FMD change was +3.12% (SD 4%) in those switching from EFV to RAL. Using a two-sample, independent, two-tailed t-test with 5% type I error and 20% type II error, a sample size of 13 per group would be needed to find a difference in FMD between groups. Allowing for a 10% dropout rate, we planned to recruit 15 subjects per group.||2.37|-0.75|0.67
91788154|NCT01270802|183456823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|9.77||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.77|-13.04|0.40
91848212|NCT04304534|183580074|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867|||=|0.5633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.577|1.302|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 10 mg group versus Placebo group||1.302|0.577|= 0.5633
91848213|NCT04304534|183580074|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875|||=|0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.587|1.306|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||1.306|0.587|= 0.584
91848214|NCT04304534|183580074|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202|||=|0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|1.747|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.747|0.828|= 0.417
91709853|NCT00685360|183312387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.849|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.246|2.743|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|p-value was derived from log-rank test with SAS Proc lifetest for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.743|1.246|=0.0013
91709854|NCT00685360|183312388|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.926|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.315|2.82|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.820|1.315|=0.0004
91709855|NCT00685360|183312388|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.504|3.189|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||3.189|1.504|<.0001
91709856|NCT00685360|183312389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.727|||=|0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.591|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.591|1.152|=0.0056
91848215|NCT04304534|183580075|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.322|5.05||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||5.050|0.322|
91900236|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.25|-0.56|0.455
91900237|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.53|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.53|-0.33|0.654
91709857|NCT00685360|183312389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.585|||=|0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|2.399|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.399|1.048|=0.0232
91709858|NCT00685360|183312390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.846|||=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.235|2.759|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.759|1.235|=0.0016
91709859|NCT00685360|183312390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.301|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.555|3.405|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||3.405|1.555|<.0001
91709860|NCT04274075|183312406|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.12|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.12|0.945|
91709861|NCT04274075|183312406|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.726|0.859|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||0.859|0.726|
91709862|NCT04274075|183312407|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.525|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.225|1.5|||||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.50|-0.225|
91848216|NCT04304534|183580075|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.479|8.273||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||8.273|0.479|
91900238|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.370
91652544|NCT04147715|183196875|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8791|0.9411|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||0.9411|0.8791|
91709863|NCT04274075|183312407|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|2.45|||||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||2.45|1.26|
91709864|NCT04274075|183312410|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.04|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.04|0.903|
91652545|NCT04147715|183196876|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9679|1.0479|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0479|0.9679|
91652546|NCT04147715|183196876|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9605|1.0105|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0105|0.9605|
91652547|NCT04147715|183196878|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.1806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1171|1.2477|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.2477|1.1171|
91652548|NCT04147715|183196878|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9656|1.1373|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1373|0.9656|
91709865|NCT04274075|183312410|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.855|0.988|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||0.988|0.855|
91709866|NCT04274075|183312411|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.05|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.05|0.908|
91709867|NCT04274075|183312411|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|0.985|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||0.985|0.856|
91788155|NCT04620798|183456837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.07|0.96|
91848217|NCT04304534|183580076|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.125|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.696|1.819||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg versus Placebo group||1.819|0.696|
91709868|NCT01386944|183312426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||||||||-0.5|-1.0|
91709869|NCT01386944|183312427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||||||||-1.0|-1.5|
91709870|NCT01386944|183312428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.0|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.0|
91709871|NCT01386944|183312429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.5|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.5|
91848218|NCT04304534|183580076|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.181|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.686|2.031||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||2.031|0.686|
91652549|NCT04147715|183196880|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.3445|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2352|1.4636|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.4636|1.2352|
91652550|NCT04147715|183196880|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0769|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0137|1.1441|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1441|1.0137|
91788156|NCT04620798|183456837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.44|0.77|
91709872|NCT01386944|183312430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.5|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.5|
91709873|NCT01386944|183312431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.0|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.0|
91709874|NCT00524680|183312433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91791032|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.41|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91652551|NCT04147715|183196881|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.1939|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1176|1.2754|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.2754|1.1176|
91652552|NCT04147715|183196881|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0482|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9881|1.1119|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1119|0.9881|
91652553|NCT04147715|183196883|OTHER||Slope|0.9857|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9341|1.0373||||||The dose proportionality of plasma PK parameters of S-648414 was examined for all fasted groups in Part 1 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the ln-transformed parameter and ln-transformed dose where ln(Cmax) = Intercept + Slope × ln(Dose) + Random error||1.0373|0.9341|
91652554|NCT04147715|183196883|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8786|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7705|1.0019|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|"The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed state and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed Cmax were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||1.0019|0.7705|
91652555|NCT04147715|183196885|OTHER||Slope|1.0252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.0665||||||The dose proportionality of plasma PK parameters of S-648414 was examined for all fasted groups in Part 1 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the ln-transformed parameter and ln-transformed dose where ln(AUC0-last) = Intercept + Slope × ln(Dose) + Random error||1.0665|0.9840|
91709875|NCT00524680|183312433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91652556|NCT04147715|183196885|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8585|1.073|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model, with ln-transformed AUC0-last as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed AUC0-last were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0730|0.8585|
91652557|NCT04147715|183196886|OTHER||Slope|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9866|1.0695||||||The dose proportionality of plasma PK parameters of S-648414 was examined for all fasted groups in Part 1 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the ln-transformed parameter and ln-transformed dose where ln(AUC0-inf) = Intercept + Slope × ln(Dose) + Random error||1.0695|0.9866|
91709876|NCT00524680|183312433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91788157|NCT04620798|183456838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.10|0.89|
91900239|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.24|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.24|-0.51|0.472
91709877|NCT00524680|183312433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91709878|NCT00524680|183312433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91709879|NCT00524680|183312433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91791033|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|1.087||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.087|0.023|0.044
91900240|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.53|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.53|-0.23|0.427
91709880|NCT00524680|183312433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91709881|NCT00524680|183312433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91652558|NCT04147715|183196886|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8643|1.0766|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model, with ln-transformed AUC0-inf as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed AUC0-inf were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0766|0.8643|
91652559|NCT04147715|183196887|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0272|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9949|1.0606|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model, with ln-transformed t1/2,z as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed t1/2,z were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0606|0.9949|
91652560|NCT04147715|183196894|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.5167|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2654|1.818|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 Cmax after a single dose of S-648414 (Day 1) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed Cmax, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed Cmax, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||1.8180|1.2654|
91652561|NCT04147715|183196894|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.8372|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5696|2.1506|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 Cmax after multiple doses of S-648414 (Day 14) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed Cmax, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed Cmax, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.1506|1.5696|
91652562|NCT04147715|183196894|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.7489|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.525|2.0057|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of Cmax in the 30 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed Cmax, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.0057|1.5250|
91788158|NCT04620798|183456838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.62|0.50|
91652563|NCT04147715|183196894|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.1453|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9741|2.3313|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of Cmax in the 50 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed Cmax, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.3313|1.9741|
91709882|NCT00524680|183312433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91791034|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
91791035|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|1.524||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.524|-0.312|0.195
91791036|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
91709883|NCT00524680|183312433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91709884|NCT00524680|183312433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91709885|NCT00524680|183312433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91709886|NCT00524680|183312434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8244|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.8244
91791037|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|1.229||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.229|-0.921|0.778
91652564|NCT04147715|183196896|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.6277|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4038|1.8874|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 AUC0-τ after a single dose of S-648414 (Day 1) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed AUC0-τ, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed AUC0-τ, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||1.8874|1.4038|
91652565|NCT04147715|183196896|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.7454|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4785|2.0605|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 AUC0-τ after multiple doses of S-648414 (Day 14) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed AUC0-τ, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed AUC0-τ, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.0605|1.4785|
91652566|NCT04147715|183196896|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.9102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7788|2.0513|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of AUC0-τ in the 30 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed AUC0-τ, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.0513|1.7788|
91791038|NCT02880956|183460092|OTHER||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.99|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
91791039|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|1.376||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.376|-0.743|0.558
91791040|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.89|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
91652567|NCT04147715|183196896|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.0478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9203|2.1837|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of AUC0-τ in the 50 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed AUC0-τ, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.1837|1.9203|
91788159|NCT04620798|183456839|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.06|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.06|0.96|
91848219|NCT04304534|183580076|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.613|1.866||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.866|0.613|
91848220|NCT04304534|183580079|OTHER|For all-cause mortality there is no competing event.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.266|||=|0.6016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.603|2.658|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||2.658|0.603|= 0.6016
91848221|NCT04304534|183580079|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.996|||=|0.9945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.414|2.401|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||2.401|0.414|= 0.9945
91848222|NCT04304534|183580079|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.506|||=|0.4085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.667|3.405|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||3.405|0.667|= 0.4085
91900241|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.69|0.159
91848223|NCT03055767|183580115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.038
91848224|NCT03055767|183580116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.047
91709887|NCT00524680|183312434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1025
91652568|NCT04147715|183196903|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9241|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8057|1.06|||||Ratio = 30 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0600|0.8057|
91652569|NCT04147715|183196903|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0303|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9299|1.1415|||||Ratio = 50 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.1415|0.9299|
91652570|NCT04147715|183196905|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6628|1.0696|||||Ratio = 30 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-last as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-last of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0696|0.6628|
91652571|NCT04147715|183196905|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8542|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7185|1.0155|||||Ratio = 50 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-last as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-last of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0155|0.7185|
91709888|NCT00524680|183312434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1744|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-Month for dose level 4000 IU.||||0.1744
91709889|NCT00524680|183312434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1281
91848225|NCT03055767|183580117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.148
91709890|NCT00524680|183312434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9688|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.9688
91709891|NCT00524680|183312434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-month for 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<0.0001
91848226|NCT03055767|183580118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.047
91709892|NCT00524680|183312434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.8241
91709893|NCT00524680|183312434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1828|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1828
91709894|NCT00524680|183312434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-month for 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1348
91709895|NCT00524680|183312434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2214|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.2214
91709896|NCT00524680|183312434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.0079
91709897|NCT00524680|183312434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-month for 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.0631
91709898|NCT01096680|183312457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.9|5.0|<0.0001
91709899|NCT01096680|183312457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.0|10.2|<0.0001
91709900|NCT01096680|183312457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.2|11.7|<0.0001
91709901|NCT01096680|183312457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7|9.9|<0.0001
91848227|NCT03055767|183580119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.002
91848228|NCT03055767|183580120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||McNemar|||||||0.82
91848229|NCT03055767|183580121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||McNemar|||||||0.006
91848230|NCT03055767|183580122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||McNemar|||||||0.039
91848231|NCT03055767|183580123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||McNemar|||||||0.016
91848232|NCT03055767|183580124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||||||0.18
91848233|NCT03055767|183580125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||<0.001
91848234|NCT03055767|183580126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.64
91652572|NCT04147715|183196906|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8377|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6645|1.0561|||||Ratio = 30 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-inf as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-inf of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0561|0.6645|
91652573|NCT04147715|183196906|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7213|1.0085|||||Ratio = 50 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-inf as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-inf of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0085|0.7213|
91652574|NCT02330081|183196958|NON_INFERIORITY|The FDA validation level requirements for test platelet quality is that the lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit of platelet recovery must be ≥ 66% of fresh control platelet values|Risk Ratio (RR)|83.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|76.2||||||Estimate is the ratio of the mean platelet recovery of treatment over control||||76.2|
91652575|NCT02330081|183196959|NON_INFERIORITY|One of the FDA validation level requirements for test platelet quality is that the lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit of the mean platelet survival time must be ≥58% of fresh control platelet mean survival time|Mean Ratio Survival Time|81.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|77.0||||||Estimate is the ratio of the mean platelet survival time of treatment over control||||77.0|
91652576|NCT02277769|183196972|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.46|34.69||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||34.69|20.46|< 0.0001
91652577|NCT02277769|183196972|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.87|34.99||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||34.99|20.87|< 0.0001
91652578|NCT02277769|183196973|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.75|39.94||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||39.94|24.75|< 0.0001
91652579|NCT02277769|183196973|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.69|43.81||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||43.81|28.69|< 0.0001
91652580|NCT02277769|183196974|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.13|33.87||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||33.87|19.13|< 0.0001
91788160|NCT04620798|183456839|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.31|0.74|
91848235|NCT02228408|183580131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||poisson|||||||0.04
91848236|NCT02228408|183580132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91652581|NCT02277769|183196974|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.11|36.95||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||36.95|22.11|< 0.0001
91652582|NCT02277769|183196975|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.03|45.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||45.60|30.03|< 0.0001
91652583|NCT02277769|183196975|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.56|44.06||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||44.06|28.56|< 0.0001
91709902|NCT01096680|183312457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-6.9|0.0014
91848237|NCT02228408|183580133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
91848238|NCT02228408|183580137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
91848239|NCT00606580|183580164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||H01: There is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between WR 279,396 and Vehicle AND there is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between Paromomycin Alone and Vehicle.||||0.0001
91848240|NCT00606580|183580164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||H01: There is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between WR 279,396 and Vehicle AND there is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between Paromomycin Alone and Vehicle.||||<0.0001
91852007|NCT00430300|183587388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4401|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.1|0.4401
91652584|NCT02277769|183196976|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.04|-21.83||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.83|-36.04|< 0.0001
91652585|NCT02277769|183196976|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|-25.49||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.49|-40.20|< 0.0001
91652586|NCT02277769|183196977|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|22.68||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||22.68|9.99|< 0.0001
91852008|NCT00430300|183587388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.5957|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.4|0.5957
91709903|NCT01096680|183312457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-1.5|0.7601
91709904|NCT01096680|183312457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|0.1|0.0351
91709905|NCT01096680|183312458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.1|0.1123
91709906|NCT01096680|183312458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-1.8|0.0002
91848241|NCT00606580|183580164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.871|||||||Chi-squared|||H02: There is no difference in clinical cure between WR 279,396 and Paromomycin Alone. Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||0.871
91709907|NCT01096680|183312458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-2.2|<0.0001
91709908|NCT01096680|183312458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.1|0.0947
91709909|NCT01096680|183312458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.6|0.9393
91709910|NCT01096680|183312458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.3|0.0297
91709911|NCT01096680|183312458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-1.7|0.0004
91709912|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.6|-0.5|0.7758
91709913|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.9|-0.2|0.1798
91709914|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.7|-0.4|0.6090
91709915|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||1.0|-0.1|0.1169
91709916|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.3028
91709917|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.5|-0.5|0.9831
91709918|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.2|-0.8|0.2887
91709919|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.4395
91709920|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.6|-0.5|0.9019
91709921|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.3419
91709922|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.5|-0.6|0.9581
91709923|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.2|-0.9|0.2572
91848242|NCT00606580|183580165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0006
91848243|NCT00606580|183580165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
91848244|NCT00606580|183580165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.767|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.767
91788161|NCT04620798|183456840|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.09|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.09|0.84|
91788162|NCT04620798|183456840|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.72|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.72|0.33|
91848245|NCT00606580|183580166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Log Rank|Mantel-Cox (log-rank) grouped failure time test using proportion re-epithelialized at each of the scheduled assessments through Day 42 without relapse||||||0.330
91848246|NCT00606580|183580166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.275
91848247|NCT00606580|183580166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.830
91848248|NCT00606580|183580171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91848249|NCT00606580|183580171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91848250|NCT00606580|183580171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.725|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.725
91848251|NCT00606580|183580172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91652587|NCT02277769|183196977|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.66|27.93||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||27.93|14.66|< 0.0001
91652588|NCT02277769|183196978|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|9.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|13.98||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||13.98|5.54|< 0.0001
91652589|NCT02277769|183196978|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|16.32||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||16.32|7.31|< 0.0001
91848252|NCT00606580|183580172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91709924|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.5|-0.6|0.8085
91788163|NCT04620798|183456841|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.04|0.74|
91848253|NCT00606580|183580172|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
91848254|NCT00606580|183580173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91709925|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.3678
91709926|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.4|-0.9|0.3732
91709927|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.4|-0.9|0.4924
91709928|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.6|-0.7|0.9798
91848255|NCT00606580|183580173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91848256|NCT00606580|183580173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.893|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.893
91709929|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.7|-0.6|0.8557
91791041|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.025|1.124||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.124|-1.025|0.928
91900242|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.480
91652590|NCT02277769|183196979|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.605|-1.587||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.587|-2.605|< 0.0001
91652591|NCT02277769|183196979|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.982|-1.957||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.957|-2.982|< 0.0001
91652592|NCT02277769|183196980|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.46|-28.86|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-28.86|-43.46|< 0.0001
91652593|NCT02277769|183196980|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.55|-30.88||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.88|-45.55|< 0.0001
91652594|NCT02277769|183196981|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.12|51.29||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||51.29|35.12|< 0.0001
91652595|NCT02277769|183196981|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.92|47.19||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||47.19|30.92|< 0.0001
91709930|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.1|-1.2|0.0998
91900243|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.15|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.15|-0.59|0.238
91652596|NCT02277769|183196982|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.09|29.59||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||29.59|16.09|< 0.0001
91652597|NCT02277769|183196982|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.63|30.05||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||30.05|16.63|< 0.0001
91709931|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.2|-1.1|0.1479
91709932|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.6|-0.7|0.8358
91709933|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||-0.1|-1.6|0.0199
91791042|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.27|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
91652598|NCT02277769|183196983|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.062|-13.927||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.927|-22.062|< 0.0001
91652599|NCT02277769|183196983|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.491|-15.529||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-15.529|-23.491|< 0.0001
91848257|NCT00606580|183580174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91848258|NCT00606580|183580174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91848259|NCT00606580|183580174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.247|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.247
91652600|NCT02277769|183196984|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.36|-25.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.40|-37.36|< 0.0001
91652601|NCT02277769|183196984|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.75|-27.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-27.80|-39.75|< 0.0001
91652602|NCT02277769|183196985|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|-4.47||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.47|-6.86|< 0.0001
91652603|NCT02277769|183196985|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.72||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.72|-7.10|< 0.0001
91652604|NCT02277769|183196986|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-5.57||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-5.57|-8.36|< 0.0001
91652605|NCT02277769|183196986|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|-6.64||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-6.64|-9.36|< 0.0001
91652606|NCT02277769|183196987|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-3.09||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-3.09|-5.34|< 0.0001
91652607|NCT02277769|183196987|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-3.81||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-3.81|-6.04|< 0.0001
91652608|NCT02277769|183196988|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.73|-21.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.70|-33.73|< 0.0001
91652609|NCT02277769|183196988|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.03|-22.74||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-22.74|-35.03|< 0.0001
91652610|NCT02277769|183196989|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.96|-13.53||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.53|-21.96|< 0.0001
91848260|NCT00606580|183580175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.409
91848261|NCT00606580|183580175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.651|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.651
91848262|NCT00606580|183580175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.701|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.701
91848263|NCT01444287|183580183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2093||0.0035||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0035
91652611|NCT02277769|183196989|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.16|-10.78||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-10.78|-19.16|< 0.0001
91652612|NCT02196506|183197014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||-0.62|-3.97|0.0074
91791043|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|1.704||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.704|-0.425|0.238
91652613|NCT02196506|183197015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||0.23|-0.66|0.3331
91652614|NCT02196506|183197016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||-0.27|-4.23|0.0263
91652615|NCT02196506|183197017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||-0.72|-5.24|0.0099
91652616|NCT01070394|183197018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||<.001
91652617|NCT01070394|183197019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||.569
91652618|NCT01070394|183197019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||The following p-value is for AMSES In-Clinic, a subset of the overall AMSES||||.827
91652619|NCT01070394|183197019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||The following p-value is for AMSES, Evening, a subset of the AMSES||||.569
91652620|NCT01070394|183197020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||.001
91652621|NCT01070394|183197021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE regression model|||||||<.001
91791044|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91791045|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|1.898||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.898|-0.186|0.107
91791046|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.41|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91791047|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|1.942||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.942|-0.214|0.116
91791048|NCT02880956|183460092|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91791049|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.29||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.290|-0.442|0.683
91788164|NCT04620798|183456841|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.25|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||3.25|0.60|
91788165|NCT04620798|183456842|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.03|0.99|
91788166|NCT04620798|183456842|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.21|0.77|
91788167|NCT04620798|183456843|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.06|0.97|
91788168|NCT04620798|183456843|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.11|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.11|0.60|
91788169|NCT04620798|183456844|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.04|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.04|0.97|
91788170|NCT04620798|183456844|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.12|0.74|
91788171|NCT04620798|183456845|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.71|||||This analysis compares the probability of seroconverting during the study period. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and seroconversion. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.71|0.52|
91788172|NCT03222492|183456858|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
91788173|NCT03222492|183456858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.444
91788174|NCT03222492|183456859|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
91788175|NCT03222492|183456859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.400
91848264|NCT01444287|183580183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2093||0||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control - Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0000
91848265|NCT01444287|183580183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2093||0.8957||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.8957
91788176|NCT03222492|183456860|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
91788177|NCT03222492|183456860|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
91788178|NCT03222492|183456860|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||1.000
91848266|NCT01444287|183580184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0031||0.0692||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0692
91709934|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.6|-0.9|0.7625
91788179|NCT03222492|183456860|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||1.000
91788180|NCT03222492|183456860|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||1.000
91652622|NCT01070394|183197022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||<.0001
91652623|NCT01070394|183197023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||0.001
91652624|NCT04014959|183197123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -4.47||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Pre-tx/Pre-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.001
91652625|NCT04014959|183197123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -3.00||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Pre-tx/Post-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.005
91652626|NCT04014959|183197123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -2.96||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Post-tx/Pre-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.005
91788181|NCT03222492|183456860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.500
91709935|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.3|-1.2|0.1936
91788182|NCT03222492|183456861|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
91788183|NCT03222492|183456861|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
91709936|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||1.0|-0.5|0.4534
91709937|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||-0.5|-2.0|0.0012
91709938|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.2072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.3|-1.2|0.2072
91652627|NCT04014959|183197123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -5.05||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Post-tx/Post-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.001
91652628|NCT04014959|183197125|OTHER|Statistics are an unadjusted linear regression of change in DASS-21 depression score on the pre-intervention TMS/fMRI evoked brain response.||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|β = -33.60||Analysis to investigate the correlation between changes in DASS-21 Scores (Secondary Outcome) and Evoked Functional Brain Activity (Other Pre-specified Outcome) pre and post the 3-Day TMS Intervention Regimen.||||0.007
91652629|NCT02004847|183197130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to the end of treatment (week 12) of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0005
91652630|NCT02004847|183197131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to the end of treatment during the attack period (week 4) of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0036
91652631|NCT02004847|183197132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from end of treatment (week 12, visit 7) to end of follow up (week 16, visit 8) of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.3075
91709939|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.0|-1.5|0.0413
91788184|NCT03222492|183456862|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||1.000
91788185|NCT03222492|183456862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.467
91848267|NCT01444287|183580184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0032||0.7301||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.7301
91848268|NCT01444287|183580184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0032||0.8055||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.8055
91652632|NCT02004847|183197133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to week 4 of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0140
91652633|NCT02004847|183197133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to week 12 of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0064
91652634|NCT02004847|183197133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to week 16 of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.1020
91652635|NCT02220920|183197146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-1.33|<0.001
91652636|NCT02220920|183197147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-18.9|||ANCOVA|||||-18.9|-46.3|<0.001
91788186|NCT03222492|183456863|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||1.000
91788187|NCT03222492|183456863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.400
91788188|NCT03222492|183456864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||0.464
91652637|NCT02220920|183197148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-3.09|<0.001
91652638|NCT02220920|183197149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|0.11|||ANCOVA||Estimated P-Value, Least-Squares Mean Difference, Standard Error of the mean, 95% CI are presented for the change from Baseline in systolic blood pressure for week 16.|||0.11|-6.49|0.058
91652639|NCT02220920|183197149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|0.8|||ANCOVA||Estimated P-Value, Least-Squares Mean Difference, Standard Error of the mean, 95% CI are presented for the change from Baseline in diastolic blood pressure for week 16.|||0.80|-3.27|0.232
91652640|NCT00789802|183197154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.03
91652641|NCT00789802|183197154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.02
91788189|NCT03222492|183456864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||0.500
91788190|NCT03222492|183456864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.250
91788191|NCT03222492|183456864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.167
91788192|NCT03222492|183456864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.083
91788193|NCT03222492|183456864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.083
91788194|NCT03222492|183456865|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
91788195|NCT03222492|183456865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||0.429
91788196|NCT03222492|183456866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.286
91788197|NCT03222492|183456866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.067
91788198|NCT03222492|183456867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.100
91652642|NCT02811861|183197158|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.8|||Stratified Log-rank Test|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox Proportional Hazards Model including treatment group as a factor.||||0.80|0.53|<0.0001
91709940|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.1|-1.5|0.1086
91652643|NCT02811861|183197158|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.49|||Stratified Log-rank Test|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox Proportional Hazards Model including treatment group as a factor.||||0.49|0.32|<0.0001
91652644|NCT04081337|183197174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.68||||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.36|89.72|||ANCOVA|||||89.72|-50.36|0.5733
91652645|NCT04081337|183197175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-855.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1090.87|-621.02|||ANCOVA|||||-621.02|-1090.87|<0.0001
91652646|NCT04081337|183197176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.22||||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.65|96.2|||ANCOVA|||||96.20|-102.65|0.9481
91652647|NCT04081337|183197177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||||-0.018|-0.051|<0.0001
91652648|NCT04081337|183197178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.028||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||||-0.010|-0.045|0.0031
91652649|NCT04081337|183197179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|251.89||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.09|384.69|||ANCOVA|||||384.69|119.09|0.0004
91709941|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.5843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.6|-1.0|0.5843
91788199|NCT03222492|183456868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.100
91788200|NCT03222492|183456879|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
91788201|NCT03222492|183456879|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
91652650|NCT04081337|183197180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.87||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|-3.22|||ANCOVA|||For Adjusted protein oxidation||-3.22|-10.51|0.0005
91652651|NCT04081337|183197180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|14.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.02|20.93|||ANCOVA|||For Adjusted fat oxidation||20.93|8.02|<0.0001
91652652|NCT04081337|183197180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-26.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-13.83|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted carbohydrate oxidation||-13.83|-39.46|0.0001
91652653|NCT04081337|183197181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.90|-11.04|<0.0001
91652654|NCT04081337|183197182|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.05|-5.12|<0.0001
91652655|NCT04081337|183197183|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-3.22|||ANCOVA|||||-3.22|-6.93|<0.0001
91652656|NCT04081337|183197184|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-2.16|0.0304
91652657|NCT04081337|183197185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||For Triglyceride||-1.06|-2.60|<0.0001
91652658|NCT04081337|183197185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||For VLDL||-0.48|-1.19|<0.0001
91652659|NCT04081337|183197185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.53||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||For HDL||-0.02|-1.05|0.0436
91652660|NCT04081337|183197185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.66|||ANCOVA|||For Free fatty acid||0.66|0.23|0.0002
91652661|NCT04081337|183197186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|-0.34|0.8762
91652662|NCT04081337|183197187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.49||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.19|||ANCOVA|||||6.19|0.79|0.0126
91652663|NCT04081337|183197188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.26||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-2.34|0.0222
91652664|NCT04081337|183197189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.48|<0.0001
91652665|NCT06624072|183197190|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (T1/R)|103.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.31|109.52|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 8.7%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||109.52|97.31|
91652666|NCT06624072|183197191|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T2/T1|95.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.37|102.18|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 10.3%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||102.18|89.37|
91709942|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.0|-1.6|0.0571
91709943|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.5|-1.2|0.3965
91709944|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||-0.6|-2.2|0.0009
91709945|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||-0.1|-1.8|0.0211
91709946|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.4|-1.2|0.2863
91709947|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||0.0|-1.7|0.0428
91709948|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||1.2|-0.5|0.3757
91848269|NCT01444287|183580185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1111||0.9127||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.9127
91788202|NCT03222492|183456880|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91788203|NCT03222492|183456880|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
91788204|NCT01054183|183456881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|powered for 62 patients||||||0.57||95.0|||||z test, two-sided|||Null hypothesis: the proportion of successful 1st intubation attempt is the same for both groups||||0.57
91709949|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||-0.8|-2.4|0.0002
91709950|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||0.4|-1.2|0.3535
91709951|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||-1.1|-2.7|<0.0001
91848270|NCT01444287|183580185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6864|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1098||0||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0000
91709952|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||0.2|-1.5|0.1131
91709953|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||-0.4|-2.0|0.0039
91848271|NCT01444287|183580185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1098||0.1256||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.1256
91652667|NCT06624072|183197192|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T1/R|104.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|119.65|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 20.4%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||119.65|91.00|
91709954|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.2|-1.5|0.1302
91709955|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||1.1|-0.6|0.6138
91709956|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||-0.6|-2.3|0.0008
91709957|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.1643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.3|-1.5|0.1643
91709958|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||-0.8|-2.5|0.0002
91709959|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.1|-1.6|0.0782
91709960|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.0|-1.7|0.0441
91709961|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-0.2|-2.2|0.0193
91709962|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||0.8|-1.2|0.7071
91709963|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-0.9|-2.9|0.0002
91788205|NCT01054183|183456882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|powered for 62 patients||||||0.002||95.0|||||z test, two-sided|||Null hypothesis: overall successful intubation rate is the same for both groups.||||0.002
91788206|NCT02486627|183456883|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CIs for the difference in cure rates were calculated using the Newcombe method with continuity correction.|Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.1||||||||3.1|-10|
91788207|NCT02486627|183456884|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CIs for the difference in cure rates were calculated using the Newcombe method with continuity correction.|Difference|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.3||||||||20.3|2.7|
91788208|NCT02189954|183456893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91709964|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||0.0|-1.9|0.0611
91788209|NCT02189954|183456893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney U|||||||<0.05
91788210|NCT02112045|183456897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
91788211|NCT02112045|183456898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
91788212|NCT03554486|183456909|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051
91788213|NCT03554486|183456910|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91788214|NCT03554486|183456911|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
91788215|NCT02270944|183456928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To assess the vaccine formulations equivalence, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMCs at Day 31 after vaccination must be \> 0.5 and the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI must be \< 2.0 (the entire two-sided 95% CI must be contained in the 0.5, 2.0 interval).|Ratio of GMCs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.32|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine group and center as fixed effects and log10-prevaccination antibody concentration as a covariate||To demonstrate the equivalence of the liquid GBS trivalent vaccine formulation to the lyophilized GBS trivalent vaccine formulation for serotypes Ia when administered to healthy non-pregnant women, as measured by geometric mean concentrations (GMC).||1.32|0.79|
91788216|NCT02270944|183456929|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the vaccine formulations equivalence, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMCs at Day 31 after vaccination must be \> 0.5 and the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI must be \< 2.0 (the entire two-sided 95% CI must be contained in the 0.5, 2.0 interval).|Ratio of GMCs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine group and center as fixed effects and log10-prevaccination antibody concentration as a covariate||to demonstrate the equivalence of the liquid GBS trivalent vaccine formulation to the lyophilized GBS trivalent vaccine formulation for serotypes III when administered to healthy non-pregnant women, as measured by geometric mean concentrations (GMC).||1.30|0.76|
91791050|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91791051|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.368||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.368|-0.356|0.973
91709965|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-1.2|-3.2|<0.0001
91709966|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-0.2|-2.2|0.0160
91709967|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||0.0|-2.0|0.0480
91709968|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-0.2|-2.2|0.0234
91709969|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||0.7|-1.3|0.5624
91709970|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-1.5|-3.5|<0.0001
91709971|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-0.6|-2.6|0.0022
91709972|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-1.6|-3.7|<0.0001
91709973|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-0.8|-2.8|0.0008
91652668|NCT06624072|183197193|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T2/T1|68.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.23|77.11|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.9%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||77.11|61.23|
91788217|NCT02270944|183456930|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the vaccine formulations equivalence, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMCs at Day 31 after vaccination must be \> 0.5 and the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI must be \< 2.0 (the entire two-sided 95% CI must be contained in the 0.5, 2.0 interval).|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine group and center as fixed effects and log10-prevaccination antibody concentration as a covariate||to demonstrate the equivalence of the liquid GBS trivalent vaccine formulation to the lyophilized GBS trivalent vaccine formulation for serotypes Ib when administered to healthy non-pregnant women, as measured by geometric mean concentrations (GMC).||1.22|0.72|
91709974|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||0.1|-1.9|0.0883
91788218|NCT01375075|183456948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|92.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.65|107.57||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 2.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||107.57|77.65|<0.001
91709975|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||0.5|-1.5|0.3093
91788219|NCT01375075|183456948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|106.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.47|123.87||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||123.87|88.47|<0.001
91709976|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||1.1|-0.9|0.8871
91788220|NCT01375075|183456948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.14|122.17||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||122.17|85.14|<0.001
91791052|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91652669|NCT06624072|183197194|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T1/R|103.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.22|109.25|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 8.6%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||109.25|97.22|
91652670|NCT06624072|183197195|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T2/T1|95.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.47|102.42|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 10.4%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||102.42|89.47|
91652671|NCT00449072|183197219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (LS Mean)|-0.45||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.11|||ANCOVA|The treatment arm, age group (at Visit 1) and sex were fixed effects, and baseline growth velocity was a covariate in the ANCOVA model||||-0.11|-0.78|0.0096
91652672|NCT00449072|183197220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.58|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|||0.58|-0.83|0.7341
91848272|NCT01444287|183580186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.044||0.9892||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.9892
91652673|NCT00449072|183197221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differerence|-0.15||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in nasal stuffiness||0.08|-0.37|0.1963
91652674|NCT00449072|183197221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in Nasal Discharge||0.17|-0.24|0.7193
91652675|NCT00449072|183197221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.29|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in Sneezing||0.29|-0.12|0.4020
91709977|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-1.2|-3.2|<0.0001
91709978|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-0.6|-2.6|0.0022
91788221|NCT01375075|183456948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.73|-10.19||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 2.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-10.19|-24.73|<0.001
91788222|NCT01375075|183456948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.67|-3.11||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-3.11|-17.67|0.019
91709979|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-1.4|-3.4|<0.0001
91709980|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-0.8|-2.8|0.0006
91709981|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.2462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||0.4|-1.6|0.2462
91791053|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.352||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.352|-0.389|0.921
91652676|NCT00449072|183197221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-0.02||||0.8854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in Nasal Itching||0.20|-0.23|0.8854
91652677|NCT00449072|183197222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0951||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical Analysis for Day 120||||0.0951
91652678|NCT00449072|183197222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1247||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical analysis for Day 240||||0.1247
91709982|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||0.6|-1.4|0.4427
91709983|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||1.4|-0.6|0.4405
91652679|NCT00449072|183197222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0207||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical analysis for Day 360||||0.0207
91788223|NCT01375075|183456948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.17|-4.36||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-4.36|-20.17|0.011
91652680|NCT00449072|183197223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2445||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical Analysis for Day 120||||0.2445
91652681|NCT00449072|183197223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4488||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical Analysis for Day 240||||0.4488
91709984|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-0.9|-3.0|0.0003
91709985|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-0.1|-2.2|0.0279
91709986|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-1.5|-3.5|<0.0001
91709987|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-0.7|-2.7|0.0015
91709988|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||0.2|-1.8|0.1246
91709989|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.3067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||0.5|-1.6|0.3067
91788224|NCT01375075|183456951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|7.88||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||7.88|-0.39|0.136
91788225|NCT01375075|183456951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|6.94||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||6.94|-1.28|0.257
91788226|NCT01375075|183456951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|10.1||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||10.10|1.70|0.021
91652682|NCT00449072|183197223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142||95.0||||The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||Statistical Analysis for Day 360||||0.0142
91709990|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||1.1|-1.0|0.8940
91709991|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||-0.5|-2.7|0.0034
91709992|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||0.1|-2.0|0.0708
91709993|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||-1.4|-3.6|<0.0001
91709994|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||-0.8|-2.9|0.0006
91788227|NCT01375075|183456951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|3.62||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.62|-4.71|0.829
91848273|NCT01444287|183580186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.984||0.0007||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0007
91709995|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||0.4|-1.7|0.2476
91848274|NCT01444287|183580186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.984||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0030
91848275|NCT02427737|183580196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.0001
91848276|NCT02427737|183580196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3037||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||0.3037
91709996|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||0.4|-1.8|0.2310
91848277|NCT02427737|183580196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||<0.01
91848278|NCT02427737|183580197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.0001
91848279|NCT02427737|183580197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201||||||Bonferroni-correction was not done since the corrected p-value would be have been greater than 1.|Chi-squared|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||0.2010
91848280|NCT02427737|183580197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||<0.001
91848281|NCT02427737|183580198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.0001
91852009|NCT00430300|183587388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8302|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.7|0.8302
91652683|NCT04041570|183197295|OTHER|t-tests were only employed to determine which individuals were responders. Response rates with 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were reported within group.||||||0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and was only used to assess whether participants had a positive response or not.|t-test, 1 sided|This test was only used to determine whether participants were positive responders or not.||Statistical testing was performed within group and not between groups. Positivity for an individual was determined if there was a significant (p-value\<0.05) increase (one-sided test) in the ELISA titers at week 4 when compared to those at baseline. For each participant a t-test was performed to compare the triplicate baseline titers to their triplicate week 4 titers. The proportion of positive responses and associated Clopper-Pearson 95% was calculated within group.|For each participant, a positive response was defined as a significant increase in ELISA titer post vaccination (Week 4) from baseline (Week 0). Within each participant, a t-test is performed to compare the triplicate readings (replicates 1-3) post vaccination versus the triplicate readings at baseline. A participant is defined as a positive responder if one-sided t-test has p-value \< 0.05. The proportion of responders and associated 95% Clopper-Pearson Confidence Intervals were calculated.|||0.05
91652684|NCT01992107|183197329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain A/H1N1||1.14|0.93|
91652685|NCT01992107|183197329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain A/H3N2||1.14|0.97|
91652686|NCT01992107|183197329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1||1.1|0.89|
91652687|NCT01992107|183197329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV2c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2||1.14|0.87|
91652688|NCT01992107|183197330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.9|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain A/H1N1||6.9|-2.5|
91709997|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||1.0|-1.2|0.8369
91652689|NCT01992107|183197330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain A/H3N2||9.2|-1.4|
91652690|NCT01992107|183197330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.5|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1||4.5|-5.5|
91652691|NCT01992107|183197330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV2c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2||3.2|-6.5|
91709998|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||-0.5|-2.7|0.0035
91788228|NCT01375075|183456951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|3.24||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.24|-1.69|0.603
91709999|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||0.0|-2.2|0.0498
91710000|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||-1.4|-3.6|<0.0001
91710001|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||-0.8|-3.0|0.0007
91710002|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||0.5|-1.6|0.3198
91788229|NCT01375075|183456951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|1.78||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.78|-3.11|0.656
91788230|NCT01375075|183456951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|4.34||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||4.34|-0.67|0.228
91652692|NCT01992107|183197336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.29||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2.The upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMTQIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1 met.||0.29|0.22|
91652693|NCT01992107|183197337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference b/w SC rates(Day 22/Day 50)|-47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-42.1||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2.The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - %seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points met.||-42.1|-51.1|
91788231|NCT01375075|183456951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.47|1.51||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.51|-3.47|0.516
91652694|NCT01992107|183197338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.42||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1.The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV2c /GMTQIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1 met.||0.42|0.35|
91652695|NCT01992107|183197339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference b/w SC rates(Day 22/Day 50)|-34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-29.3||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1.The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c or TIV2c - %seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points met.||-29.3|-38.8|
91652696|NCT02022007|183197342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||McNemar|||Study change from dysglycemia to normal glucose state||||.007
91652697|NCT02022007|183197343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||This was a Subjects (SS)/Groups repeated measures design||||.02
91652698|NCT02022007|183197344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|n||Pretreatment fasting glucose levels were compared with post-treatment levels||||<0.0001
91652699|NCT02022007|183197345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||||||.038
91652700|NCT02022007|183197346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91652701|NCT02022007|183197347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||||||.025
91652702|NCT02022007|183197348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.006
91652703|NCT02022007|183197349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
91652704|NCT02022007|183197350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||.026
91652705|NCT02022007|183197351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
91652706|NCT02022007|183197352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
91652707|NCT02022007|183197353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91652708|NCT05056727|183197436|OTHER||Treatment difference in mean slope|-0.7354||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7311|1.2604||Test of no treatment difference in mean total eGFR-slope|Mixed Models Analysis||SZC minus Placebo|||1.2604|-2.7311|0.4691
91652709|NCT05056727|183197437|OTHER|Test of no treatment difference in mean chronic eGFR slope|Treatment difference in mean slope|-2.0421||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7156|0.6314|||Mixed Models Analysis||SZC minus Placebo|||0.6314|-4.7156|0.1338
91652710|NCT05056727|183197438|OTHER|Test of treatment HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.9|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||5.90|0.50|0.390
91652711|NCT05056727|183197439|OTHER|Test of treatment HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.47|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||0.47|0.25|<0.001
91652712|NCT05056727|183197440|OTHER|Test of zero treatment difference|Mean Difference|301.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.15|579.11|||Regression, Linear||SZC minus Placebo|||579.11|23.15|0.034
91652713|NCT00895583|183197469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3||Two-sided alpha equals (=) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||1.3|0.4|0.239
91652714|NCT00895583|183197470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||||1.4|0.5|0.422
91652715|NCT00895583|183197471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.4|0.5|0.524
91652716|NCT00895583|183197471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||1.2|0.4|0.298
91788232|NCT01375075|183456952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.513|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.57|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.11|-2.57|0.513
91788233|NCT01375075|183456952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.90|-1.82|0.970
91788234|NCT01375075|183456952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.17|-1.66|0.824
91788235|NCT01375075|183456952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.52|-2.18|0.769
91652717|NCT00895583|183197472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.0|0.3|0.055
91652718|NCT00895583|183197472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||1.3|0.4|0.330
91652719|NCT00895583|183197473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.5|0.4|0.543
91788236|NCT01375075|183456953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.43|-0.65|0.735
91788237|NCT01375075|183456953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.76|-0.32|0.503
91788238|NCT01375075|183456953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.54|-0.53|0.988
91710003|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||1.7|-0.6|0.3750
91788239|NCT01375075|183456953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.13|-0.95|0.207
91710004|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||1.0|-1.3|0.7978
91710005|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||0.8|-1.5|0.5197
91710006|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||0.1|-2.2|0.0751
91710007|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||0.2|-2.1|0.1079
91788240|NCT01375075|183456954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.756|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.84|-0.57|0.756
91788241|NCT01375075|183456954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.70|-0.71|0.990
91788242|NCT01375075|183456954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.97|-0.47|0.565
91788243|NCT01375075|183456954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.89|-0.53|0.678
91652720|NCT00895583|183197473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||1.8|0.6|1.000
91652721|NCT00895583|183197475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.5||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 6||5.5|0.5|0.019
91652722|NCT00895583|183197475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 12||1.1|-4.8|0.215
91652723|NCT00895583|183197475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.9||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 18||3.9|-2.7|0.722
91652724|NCT00895583|183197475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 24||4.4|-3.0|0.710
91652725|NCT00895583|183197476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope difference (SRL-TAC)|-1.8||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.5|||Random coefficient model||Random coefficient model with GFR as the dependent variable and study day as the independent variable.|Slope difference (sirolimus \[SRL\] minus tacrolimus \[TAC\])||0.5|-4.2|0.131
91652726|NCT00895583|183197478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.8||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 6||0.8|-8.6|0.105
91652727|NCT00895583|183197478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.3||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 12||14.3|1.1|0.023
91652728|NCT00895583|183197478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 18||6.4|-6.8|0.955
91652729|NCT00895583|183197478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|14.6||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 24||14.6|-8.2|0.582
91900244|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.32|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.32|-0.42|0.794
91652730|NCT00895583|183197479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91652731|NCT00895583|183197480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Post-randomization to Month 12 Post-transplantation||||1.000
91652732|NCT00895583|183197480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Post-randomization to Month 24 post-transplantation||||0.215
91652733|NCT00895583|183197481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||||0.499
91652734|NCT00895583|183197481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||||0.067
91652735|NCT00895583|183197481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 18||||0.061
91652736|NCT00895583|183197481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||||0.020
91652737|NCT00895583|183197484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||On-therapy Period||||1.000
91652738|NCT00895583|183197484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Off-therapy Period||||1.000
91652739|NCT00895583|183197485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.284
91848282|NCT02427737|183580198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303||||||"Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.~Chi-square analysis was used to assess equipment utilization at trained sites compared with untrained sites when stratifying by time (chi-square MH = 858.2)."|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly equipment utilization rate as compared to the baseline quarter Q4FY15 over time and at sites||||0.303
91652740|NCT00895583|183197485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||||0.046
91652741|NCT00895583|183197485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||||1.000
91652742|NCT00895583|183197486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||TC, Month 12||||<0.001
91652743|NCT00895583|183197486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||TC, Month 24||||<0.001
91652744|NCT00895583|183197486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.824|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||HDL-C, Month 12||||0.824
91652745|NCT00895583|183197486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.735|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||HDL-C, Month 24||||0.735
91652746|NCT00895583|183197486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||LDL-C, Month 12||||<0.001
91652747|NCT00895583|183197486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||LDL-C, Month 24||||0.001
91652748|NCT00895583|183197486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||Triglycerides, Month 12||||<0.001
91652749|NCT00895583|183197486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||Triglycerides, Month 24||||0.028
91652750|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Anti-hypertensives, Baseline||||0.429
91652751|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Anti-hypertensives, Month 12||||0.326
91652752|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Anti-hypertensives, Month 24||||0.517
91652753|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agents (insulin), Baseline||||1.000
91652754|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (insulin), Month 12||||1.000
91652755|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (insulin), Month 24||||0.223
91652756|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (non-insulin), Baseline||||0.498
91652757|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (non-insulin), Month 12||||0.566
91652758|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (non-insulin), Month 24||||0.423
91652759|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Lipid-lowering agents, Baseline||||0.033
91652760|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Lipid-lowering agents, Month 12||||0.900
91652761|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Lipid-lowering agents, Month 24||||0.802
91652762|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||ESAs, Baseline||||0.260
91652763|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||ESAs, Month 12||||0.086
91788244|NCT01375075|183456955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.12|-0.90|0.856
91652764|NCT00895583|183197487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||ESAs, Month 24||||0.723
91652765|NCT00895583|183197488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.11||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Upr/Cr as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic pre-randomization value as covariate.||Change from pre-randomization at Month 12; treatment ratio (SRC/TAC) in adjusted geometric mean fold-change from baseline.||2.11|1.38|<0.001
91652766|NCT00895583|183197488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.26||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Upr/Cr as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic pre-randomization value as covariate.||Change from pre-randomization at Month 24; treatment ratio (SRC/TAC) in adjusted geometric mean fold-change from baseline.||2.26|1.39|<0.001
91652767|NCT00895583|183197489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Pre-randomization||||1.000
91652768|NCT00895583|183197489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy Period||||0.020
91652769|NCT00895583|183197489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy Period||||0.021
91652770|NCT00895583|183197490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91652771|NCT00895583|183197491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy Period, any treatment||||<0.001
91652772|NCT00895583|183197491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy Period, any treatment||||0.685
91652773|NCT00895583|183197492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.521|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||0.521
91652774|NCT00895583|183197493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|||||0.265
91652775|NCT00895583|183197494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.61||0.672|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|||||0.672
91652776|NCT00895583|183197495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.504|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|||||0.504
91652777|NCT00895583|183197496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.637|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.637
91652778|NCT00895583|183197497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.955|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.955
91652779|NCT00895583|183197498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|216.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|198.84||0.279|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.279
91788245|NCT01375075|183456955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.10|-0.90|0.869
91788246|NCT01375075|183456955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.13|-0.92|0.869
91652780|NCT00895583|183197499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.337|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||0.337
91788247|NCT01375075|183456955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.63|-0.40|0.317
91652781|NCT00895583|183197500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||New onset (from baseline up to On-Therapy Month 24)||||0.025
91652782|NCT00895583|183197500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||New onset at 1 year (from baseline up to On-Therapy Month 12)||||0.012
91652783|NCT00895583|183197500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||New onset at 2 years (from On-Therapy Month 12 to On-Therapy Month 24)||||1.000
91652784|NCT00895583|183197501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Insulin (12-Month)||||1.000
91652785|NCT00895583|183197501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Non-insulin (12-Month)||||1.000
91652786|NCT00895583|183197501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Non-insulin (24-Month)||||0.386
91652787|NCT00895583|183197501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Insulin (24-Month)||||1.000
91652788|NCT00895583|183197502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.129
91652789|NCT00895583|183197503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91652790|NCT00895583|183197504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.276
91652791|NCT00895583|183197505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.158
91652792|NCT02100956|183197548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in VAS pain scale scores after intrathecal study drug injection between oxytocin and placebo. To account for repeated measures across time and drug conditions, VAS apin scale scores were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with random intercepts at the level of participant. Each outcome was regressed on fixed-effects for order of study day, study drug, time after injection, and drug x time interaction.||||<0.05
91788248|NCT01375075|183456957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.20|-0.24|0.888
91848283|NCT02427737|183580198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||<0.001
91848284|NCT02427737|183580199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||CMH test was used with time as a strata variable (rather than pooling all data together as in the regular chi-squared test). The CMH chi-squared value was 858.2, and the regular chi-squared value was 858.8.|Chi-squared, Corrected|Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.||||||<0.0001
91848285|NCT02427737|183580200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91652793|NCT03529955|183197554|EQUIVALENCE|The student t test (paired) and ANOVA analysis of variance were used to assess the mean change in CDASI, MMT-8, DLQI and to compare the positive cell detection on immunohistochemistry for CCL5, pSTAT1 and pSTAT3 at baseline and 3 months post apremilast. All p values were two-sided, and values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software Inc.). The last observation carried forward approach was used for missing values.||||||0.01||||||The investigators hypothesized that genes identified as significantly differentially expressed between the two groups will have ≥2-fold change at p\<0.01.|ANOVA|||The student t test (paired) and ANOVA analysis of variance were used to assess the mean change in CDASI, MMT-8, DLQI and to compare the positive cell detection on immunohistochemistry for CCL5, pSTAT1 and pSTAT3 at baseline and 3 months post apremilast. All p values were two-sided, and values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software Inc.). The last observation carried forward approach was used for missing values.||||0.01
91652794|NCT04526899|183197571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||||||0.0148
91652795|NCT00220701|183197621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|2.82||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.10
91652796|NCT03433274|183197648|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||one-sided 2.5% level of significance|||"The null and alternative hypotheses are:~H0: πD ≤ πPG H1: πD \> πPG where πD is the true event rate for freedom from all-cause mortality and HFH at 12 months and πPG is the performance goal (PG)."||||0.0002
91652797|NCT03433274|183197649|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial test|at a one-sided 2.5% level of significance||"The null and alternative hypotheses are stated as:~H0: PMR ≤ 1+ ≤ PPG H1: P MR ≤ 1+ \> PPG where PMR ≤ 1+ is the proportion of subjects who have MR ≤ 1+ at 30 days post index procedure."||||<0.0001
91652798|NCT03433274|183197650|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|at a one-sided 2.5% level of significance||"The null and alternative hypotheses are:~H0: D12M ≤ 0 H1: D12M \> 0 Where D12M is the average change in KCCQ score from baseline at 12 months."||||<0.0001
91652799|NCT03433274|183197651|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|at a two-sided 5% level of significance||"The null and alternative hypotheses are stated as:~H0: PM12 = PB H1: PM12 ≠ PB where PM12 and PB represent the proportion of NYHA Classification I or II at 12 months and baseline, respectively."||||<0.0001
91652800|NCT03433274|183197652|OTHER|||||||0.0338|||||||paired t-test|at a one-sided 2.5% significance level||"The null and alternative hypotheses are:~H0: D12M ≤ 0 H1: D12M \> 0 Where D12M is the average change in 6MWT distance from baseline at 12 months."||||0.0338
91710008|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||-0.5|-2.8|0.0065
91788249|NCT01375075|183456957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.23|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.23|-0.21|0.939
91848286|NCT02427737|183580202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2357||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||0.2357
91848287|NCT02427737|183580202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8523||||||No Bonferroni-correction|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly no-shows as compared to the baseline quarter||||0.8523
91652801|NCT04969939|183197661|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-point)|-2.15||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 48 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factors and baseline body weight (kg) as covariate.||-0.06|-4.24|0.0437
91848288|NCT02427737|183580202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5883||||||Bonferroni-correction was not done for this nonsignificant result since the corrected p-value would be have been greater than 1, which is not possible.|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly average no-show rate as compared to the baseline quarter at untrained sites||||0.5883
91848289|NCT02427737|183580203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||0.0195
91652802|NCT02667067|183197726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
91848290|NCT02427737|183580203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.276||||||No Bonferroni-correction|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly no-shows compared to the baseline quarter||||0.276
91652803|NCT01149616|183197821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
91652804|NCT01149616|183197822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.006
91652805|NCT01149616|183197823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated, and threshold for significance calculated at less than or equal to 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.05
91652806|NCT06268730|183197905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.104
91848291|NCT02427737|183580203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2764||||||No Bonferroni-correction|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly no-shows as compared to the baseline quarter at untrained sites||||0.2764
91848292|NCT02427737|183580204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.01
91848293|NCT02427737|183580204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9012||||||Bonferroni-correction was not done since the corrected p-value would be have been greater than 1.|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly average no show rate as compared to the baseline quarter for trained sites||||0.9012
91652807|NCT06268730|183197906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.061
91900245|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.23|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.23|-0.57|0.395
91652808|NCT06268730|183197907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.053
91652809|NCT06268730|183197908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.003
91652810|NCT06268730|183197909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.58
91652811|NCT01711021|183197923|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-4.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis for SKAMP total score in Double-Blind period||||-4.97|-6.76|< 0.001
91652812|NCT01711021|183197925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91710009|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||1.8|-0.5|0.2529
91652813|NCT02833415|183197941|OTHER|Differences of Least Squares Means|Differences of Least Squares Means|0.9398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2941||0.0053|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Followup||||0.0053
91652814|NCT02833415|183197941|OTHER|Differences of Least Squares Means|Differences of Least Squares Means|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2424||0.5394|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Followup||||0.5394
91652815|NCT02324972|183198004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.25|||ANCOVA|||A sample size of 20 subjects per group was assumed to have 80% power to allow detection of a statistically significant difference in change from baseline in TLSS between the 2 groups, if the effect size was approximately less than or equal to 0.9. This is equivalent to detecting a difference of -4.5 between the 2 groups with a common standard deviation of 5. The primary analysis was doing using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputed data.||1.25|-1.30|0.636
91652816|NCT02324972|183198005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.68|||ANOVA|||||0.68|-0.44|0.677
91652817|NCT02324972|183198006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.983|1.544|||ANOVA|||||1.544|-1.983|0.802
91652818|NCT02324972|183198007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.076|7.292|||ANOVA|||||7.292|-7.076|0.976
91652819|NCT02324972|183198008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|6.72|||ANOVA|||||6.72|-1.68|0.233
91710010|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||0.8|-1.3|0.6364
91652820|NCT02398188|183198019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.397
91652821|NCT02398188|183198020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.379
91788250|NCT01375075|183456957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.36|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.36|-0.08|0.296
91848294|NCT02427737|183580204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9065||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the quarterly average no-show rate as compared to the baseline quarter for untrained sites||||0.9065
91652822|NCT00620763|183198022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis of variance tested for treatment and feeding sequence effects.||16 subjects required to detect a difference in Calcium 47 absorption of 2 percentage points with 90% power, alpha = 0.05||||0.02
91788251|NCT01375075|183456957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.40|-0.04|0.181
91652823|NCT00729859|183198023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0075||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.035|||paired t-test|||p value for the difference = 0.28||0.035|0.005|0.28
91652824|NCT05034731|183198036|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analyses were based on paired t-tests looking at the differences in speech scores calculated using the investigational speech scores minus the control speech scores. The primary efficacy analyses tested the null hypothesis (inferiority) that the mean of the paired differences in AzBio sentence scores in quite (remote fitting - in-office fitting) are less than or equal to -10 percentile points.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91652825|NCT05034731|183198037|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analyses were based on paired t-tests looking at the differences in speech scores calculated using the investigational speech scores minus the control speech scores. The primary efficacy analyses tested the null hypothesis (inferiority) that the mean of the paired differences in AzBio sentence scores in quite (remote fitting - in-office fitting) are less than or equal to -10 percentile points.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91652826|NCT00696709|183198079|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|Longitudinal regression (LR)|Calculated based on LR model (adjusting for pre-vaccination immunogenicity level and incomplete data) with visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
91710011|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||1.0|-1.1|0.9417
91710012|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||-0.2|-2.3|0.0200
91710013|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||0.0|-2.1|0.0527
91710014|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||-0.3|-2.5|0.0107
91710015|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||-0.1|-2.2|0.0303
91710016|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||0.8|-1.3|0.6889
91710017|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||1.1|-1.2|0.9552
91788252|NCT01375075|183456958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.16|-33.41||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-33.41|-53.16|<0.001
91848295|NCT02427737|183580205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|CMH test with time as a strata variable was 28.7; chi-square value with pooling all data together was 28.6||Comparison among trained and untrained sites over time||||<0.0001
91848296|NCT02427737|183580210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91848297|NCT02427737|183580211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2396|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2396
91848298|NCT02427737|183580212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5267|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5267
91848299|NCT02427737|183580213|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91788253|NCT01375075|183456958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-76.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-86.89|-66.97||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-66.97|-86.89|<0.001
91788254|NCT01375075|183456958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-90.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-100.87|-80.75||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-80.75|-100.87|<0.001
91788255|NCT01375075|183456958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-67.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-77.12|-57.39||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-57.39|-77.12|<0.001
91788256|NCT01375075|183456958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.88|-32.33||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-32.33|-52.88|<0.001
91848300|NCT02427737|183580214|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91710018|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||1.3|-1.0|0.7558
91788257|NCT01375075|183456958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-89.15|-68.71||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-68.71|-89.15|<0.001
91788258|NCT01375075|183456958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-93.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.08|-83.26||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-83.26|-104.08|<0.001
91852010|NCT00430300|183587388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.9657|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-3.1|0.9657
91652827|NCT00696709|183198080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|Longitudinal regression (LR)|Calculated based on LR model (adjusting for pre-vaccination immunogenicity level and incomplete data) with visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
91652828|NCT00696709|183198081|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|Longitudinal regression (LR)|Calculated based on LR model (adjusting for pre-vaccination immunogenicity level and incomplete data) with visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
91652829|NCT00696709|183198082|OTHER|The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA with log-transformed VZV responses at each visit as response variables and visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
91652830|NCT00696709|183198083|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.7|-10.8|
91652831|NCT00696709|183198083|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|8.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||8.8|-9.2|
91652832|NCT00696709|183198084|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|52.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||52.6|15.2|<0.001
91652833|NCT00696709|183198084|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|57.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||57.0|19.6|<0.001
91652834|NCT00696709|183198085|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|16.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||16.1|-25.3|
91652835|NCT00696709|183198085|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|24.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||24.9|-16.9|
91652836|NCT00696709|183198086|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||8.4|-9.3|0.480
91652837|NCT00696709|183198086|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|8.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||8.8|-9.2|0.469
91652838|NCT00696709|183198087|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.7|-10.8|
91652839|NCT00696709|183198087|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|6.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||6.0|-10.8|
91710019|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.4|-1.9|0.1824
91652840|NCT01261325|183198103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over PBO|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|31.2||"Type I error rate of 0.05 based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure would be considered statistically significant or similar, as accurate and appropriate."|ANCOVA|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||31.2|13.3|<0.001
91652841|NCT01261325|183198103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over PBO|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|31.6||Statistically significant with control of Type I error rate based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|ANCOVA|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||31.6|13.8|<0.001
91652842|NCT01261325|183198104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds ratio (BRV versus PBO)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.6||Statistically significant with control of Type I error rate based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|Regression, Logistic|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||3.6|1.6|<0.001
91652843|NCT01261325|183198104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds ratio (BRV versus PBO)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.3||Statistically significant with control of Type I error rate based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|Regression, Logistic|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||3.3|1.5|<0.001
91852011|NCT00430300|183587388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.6378|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.7|0.6378
91652844|NCT01261325|183198105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median difference vs placebo|15.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|24.2||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann non-parametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals are provided above.|||24.2|7.6|<0.001
91652845|NCT01261325|183198105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median difference vs placebo|18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|26.4||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann non-parametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals are provided above.|||26.4|10.4|<0.001
91652846|NCT01261325|183198109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.82||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.82|0.56|<0.001
91652847|NCT01261325|183198109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.79||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.79|0.54|<0.001
91652848|NCT01261325|183198110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.8||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.80|0.53|<0.001
91652849|NCT01261325|183198110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.71||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.71|0.47|<0.001
91652850|NCT01261325|183198111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||0.93|0.60|0.009
91652851|NCT01261325|183198111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||0.85|0.55|<0.001
91652852|NCT02668302|183198112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-values from two-sample T-test with equal variance assumption||||||0.4709
91652853|NCT00526890|183198136|OTHER|||||||0.3149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test was used to test the correlation between selenium levels and serious adverse events.||||0.3149
91652854|NCT03611309|183198151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|4.89||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear||FACIT-Pal Total score|||4.89|-8.15|.623
91652855|NCT03611309|183198152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of physical health score.||0.15|-0.29|.555
91652856|NCT03611309|183198152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of mental health score.||0.20|-0.20|.983
91652857|NCT03611309|183198154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear||FACIT-Sp-12 Total Score|||2.10|-2.09|.997
91652858|NCT03611309|183198155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Help you live longer?"||||.484
91652859|NCT03611309|183198155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Cure your cancer?"||||.343
91652860|NCT03611309|183198155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||Regression, Linear|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.||"Analysis of question Help you with problems you were having because of your cancer?"||||.908
91652861|NCT03611309|183198158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||.531
91652862|NCT03611309|183198159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||.871
91652863|NCT03611309|183198160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Help your loved one live longer?"||||.770
91652864|NCT03611309|183198160|SUPERIORITY|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.||||||0.755|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Awareness after: Cure your loved one's cancer?"||||.755
91652865|NCT03611309|183198160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Awareness after: Help your loved one with problems due to the cancer?"||||.929
91652866|NCT04128696|183198161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.29||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.29|0.99|0.973
91852012|NCT00430300|183587388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.899|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-2.2|0.8990
91652867|NCT04128696|183198162|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.44|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|9.82||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||9.82|2.01|>0.999
91652868|NCT04128696|183198163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.86||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||1.86|1.05|0.989
91652869|NCT04128696|183198164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.99||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx)||1.99|1.10|0.996
91652870|NCT04128696|183198165|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.43|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx)||2.43|0.98|
91900246|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.400
91652871|NCT04128696|183198166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.53|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.53|1.00|
91652872|NCT04128696|183198171|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.0||||||The comparison between the treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||4.0|-14.6|
91652873|NCT04128696|183198172|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|1.5||||||The comparison between the treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.5|-27.8|
91652874|NCT04128696|183198173|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-1.1||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||-1.1|-22.4|
91652875|NCT04128696|183198174|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-1.4||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||-1.4|-33.7|
91652876|NCT04128696|183198183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.77||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||1.77|0.78|0.783
91652877|NCT04128696|183198184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test, stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.00|0.50|0.500
91652878|NCT04128696|183198185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.34||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||1.34|0.62|0.329
91788259|NCT01375075|183456958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-75.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-85.46|-64.57||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-64.57|-85.46|<0.001
91652879|NCT04128696|183198186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.00|0.60|0.608
91652880|NCT03280537|183198188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.12||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NPS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.12|-1.05|0.0140
91710020|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.3323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.6|-1.7|0.3323
91710021|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.0|-2.4|0.0413
91652881|NCT03280537|183198189|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.19||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NCS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.19|-0.80|0.0017
91652882|NCT03280537|183198190|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.16||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline SSS, treatment and baseline SSS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Sense of Smell Score (SSS) at Week 24.||-0.16|-0.73|0.0024
91652883|NCT03280537|183198191|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.27||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline PRS, treatment and baseline PRS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Posterior Rhinorrhea Score (PRS) at Week 24.||-0.27|-0.81|0.0001
91848301|NCT00543725|183580215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|3.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.6|9.0||Significance level was set at 2.5% (one-sided). No adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons, since there was only single comparison for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 75% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 340 subjects were needed per treatment (TMC278 or EFV) to establish non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV with a maximum allowable difference of 12% and a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%, to yield 95% power.||9.0|-1.6|<0.0001
91652884|NCT03280537|183198192|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.44||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the NPS at Week 16.||-0.44|-1.39|0.0002
91652885|NCT03280537|183198193|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.3||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily NCS at Week 16.||-0.30|-0.87|<0.0001
91652886|NCT03280537|183198194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.26|-8.82||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the SNOT-22 score at Week 24.||-8.82|-21.26|<0.0001
91652887|NCT03280537|183198195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.35||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline ARS, treatment and baseline ARS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Anterior Rhinorrhea Score (ARS) at Week 24.||-0.35|-0.90|<0.0001
91852013|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8757|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.42||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.42|0.8757
91652888|NCT03280537|183198196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.89||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for geographic region and asthma/aspirin sensitivity comorbidity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue medication through Week 24.||1.89|0.02|0.1594
91652889|NCT03280537|183198197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.61||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for having had surgery for nasal polyps through Week 24.||20.61|0.00|1.0000
91652890|NCT03280537|183198198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|15.25|||Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for Baseline AQLQ, geographic region, and aspirin sensitivity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for number of participants with a change from baseline in AQLQ score of ≥0.5 at Week 24.||15.25|1.07|0.0396
91710022|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.2|-2.2|0.0925
91710023|NCT01096680|183312459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.9|-1.4|0.7133
91652891|NCT03280537|183198199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.89||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for geographic region and asthma/aspirin sensitivity comorbidity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue treatment through Week 24.||1.89|0.02|0.1594
91652892|NCT03280537|183198200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.22||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|60.23||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in reduction in the need for surgery for nasal polyps by Week 24.||60.23|1.23|0.0139
91652893|NCT03280537|183198201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.18||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline TNSS, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) at Week 24.||-1.18|-3.00|<0.0001
91788260|NCT01375075|183456958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.53|-42.04||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-42.04|-58.53|<0.001
91652894|NCT03280537|183198202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|6.15||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline UPSIT, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the UPSIT score at Week 24.||6.15|1.57|0.0011
91652895|NCT03118739|183198218|SUPERIORITY||Mean % Change from Baseline|-39.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.785|-3.814||||||||-3.814|-61.785|
91652896|NCT07174544|183198305|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was assessed by comparing outcomes between the intervention and wait-list control groups over time.|||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Generalized estimating equations were used to examine changes in outcomes over time between groups, accounting for repeated measurements.|||Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle using available data at each assessment time point. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline characteristics.|||
91710024|NCT01096680|183312460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.5|-36.6|<0.0001
91710025|NCT01096680|183312460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-25.4|-45.5|<0.0001
91710026|NCT01096680|183312460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.6|-36.7|<0.0001
91652897|NCT03419234|183198315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test||||||0.049
91652898|NCT05918952|183198327|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.98|1.21|.05
91652899|NCT05918952|183198328|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: Higher General Sentiment (GS) scores will be associated with greater likelihood of COVID-19 testing uptake.||2.41|1.35|<0.001
91652900|NCT05918952|183198329|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: Higher VFS scores will be associated with increased likelihood of test uptake.||6.20|2.01|<0.001
91652901|NCT05918952|183198329|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.01||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|95.17||Low sample size and power. Model considered unstable and potentially overfit. Results not reliable.|Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: Higher VFS scores will be associated with increased likelihood of completion of a follow-up test.||95.17|1.27|0.029
91710027|NCT01096680|183312460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.5|-36.6|<0.0001
91652902|NCT05918952|183198330|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: Higher Practical Support (PS) scores will be associated with greater likelihood of COVID-19 testing uptake.||2.40|1.19|0.003
91710028|NCT01096680|183312460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.0|-10.1|0.9945
91710029|NCT01096680|183312460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-18.9|0.0814
91710030|NCT01096680|183312460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.9743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.9|-10.2|0.9743
91848302|NCT00543725|183580216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|3.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.9|9.6|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||9.6|-1.9|<0.0001
91652903|NCT00101582|183198332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|4.1764||||0.041||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants having no assessment were assumed as having WHO grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||Sample size calculations were based on the number of participants needed to detect, with 90% power and 5% type 1 error rate, at least a 25% difference in the incidence of severe OM between the treatment groups. A 25% absolute reduction in the incidence of severe OM from the placebo group was considered by investigators as clinically meaningful in this clinical setting.||||0.0410
91652904|NCT00101582|183198333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|5.8002||||0.016||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.0160
91852014|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6334|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.6334
91652905|NCT00101582|183198333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1122||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To protect the overall type 1 error, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple statistical testing of the secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.1122
91710031|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||0.2|-19.4|0.0544
91652906|NCT00101582|183198334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6603||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4546|0.9592|||Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).|Hazard ratio of palifermin over placebo based on Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.9592|0.4546|0.0261
91652907|NCT00101582|183198334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1566||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Stratified Log-Rank test|||||||0.1566
91652908|NCT00101582|183198335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.9715||||0.0463||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants having no assessment were assumed to have the event.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.0463
91652909|NCT00101582|183198335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2314||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2314
91652910|NCT00101582|183198336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.2548||||0.0712||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.0712
91652911|NCT00101582|183198336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2849||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2849
91652912|NCT00101582|183198337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|1.3901||||0.2384||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.2384
91652913|NCT00101582|183198337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6835||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6835
91652914|NCT00101582|183198338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.9039||||0.3417||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.3417
91652915|NCT00101582|183198338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6835||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6835
91652916|NCT00101582|183198339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.0027||||0.9587||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.9587
91852015|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5448|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.5448
91652917|NCT00101582|183198339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9587||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9587
91652918|NCT01907087|183198340|OTHER|Inference is by an exact binomial test of the null hypothesis H0: Prob(response) \<= 0.50 vs. the alternative hypothesis H1: Prob(response) \> 0.50, where Prob(response) denotes the population probability of a response. The confidence interval is an exact interval with significance level α=0.05.|Proportion of responders|0.87||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||exact binomial test|||"Responder Analysis using ITT Population: Proportion of Subjects without an Unreversed Two-point Decline or Score of 0 in ML Scale Score at 48 Weeks.~A 'response' is defined as the absence of an unreversed two-point decline or score of 0 in the 0-to-6 point CLN2 score at 48 weeks."||0.97|0.66|0.0002
91652919|NCT01907087|183198340|OTHER|"Subject rate of decline per 48 weeks is estimated: (baseline CLN2 score - last CLN2 score)/(time elapsed in units of 48 weeks).~P-value computed as a two-sided t-test for the hypothesis H0: Rate=2.0 points lost/48 weeks vs. H1: Rate not equal 2.0 points lost/48 weeks."|Slope|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.809|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Slopes Analysis using ITT Population: Estimated Rate of Decline (300 mg Dosing Period).||0.75|0.05|<0.0001
91652920|NCT01919190|183198346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.8
91652921|NCT01919190|183198347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0456
91652922|NCT00135707|183198397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25|||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis states that antioxidant therapy initiated prior to 16 weeks gestation in women will reduce the frequency of serious maternal and infant complications associated with pregnancy related hypertension. We estimated that with a sample size of 10,000 women, the study would have 90% power to show a 30% reduction in the rate of the primary outcome, from 4% in the placebo to 2.8% in the vitamin group, with a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||1.25|0.91|0.42
91652923|NCT00135707|183198398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.85|0.79
91652924|NCT00135707|183198399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.47|0.35
91652925|NCT00135707|183198400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|0.39|0.16
91652926|NCT00135707|183198401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.63|||Chi-squared|||||1.63|0.25|0.34
91652927|NCT00135707|183198402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.49||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.94|||Chi-squared|||||7.94|0.78|0.11
91652928|NCT00135707|183198403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.68|||Chi-squared|||||1.68|0.39|0.57
91652929|NCT00135707|183198404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.9|||Chi-squared|||||1.90|0.89|0.18
91652930|NCT00135707|183198405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.46|||Chi-squared|||||2.46|0.48|0.84
91652931|NCT00135707|183198406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.93|0.33
91652932|NCT00135707|183198407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|1.03|0.004
91652933|NCT00135707|183198408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.21|||Chi-squared|||||1.21|0.95|0.25
91652934|NCT00135707|183198409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.15||95.0|0.47|1.12|||Chi-squared|||||1.12|0.47|0.15
91652935|NCT00135707|183198410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.77|||Chi-squared|||||1.77|0.32|0.51
91652936|NCT00135707|183198411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.79|||Chi-squared|||||1.79|0.82|0.33
91652937|NCT00135707|183198412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22|||Chi-squared|||||1.22|0.75|0.74
91652938|NCT00135707|183198413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.40|0.12
91652939|NCT00135707|183198414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.97|0.35
91652940|NCT00135707|183198416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.08|||Chi-squared|||||1.08|0.08|0.05
91652941|NCT00135707|183198417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.45|0.05
91652942|NCT00135707|183198418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
91652943|NCT00135707|183198419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
91652944|NCT00135707|183198420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Chi-squared|||\<37 weeks' gestation||1.09|0.87|0.63
91652945|NCT00135707|183198420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Chi-squared|||\<32 weeks' gestation||1.06|0.69|0.16
91652946|NCT00135707|183198421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.72|0.53
91652947|NCT00135707|183198422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91652948|NCT00135707|183198423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.79|0.98
91652949|NCT00135707|183198424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||Chi-squared|||||1.07|0.81|0.32
91652950|NCT00135707|183198425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.92|0.58
91652951|NCT00135707|183198426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.83|0.75
91652952|NCT00135707|183198427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.54|||Chi-squared|||||2.54|0.29|0.78
91652953|NCT00135707|183198428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.23|||Chi-squared|||||2.23|0.76|0.34
91652954|NCT00135707|183198429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.6|||Chi-squared|||||1.60|0.32|0.41
91652955|NCT00135707|183198430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.3|||Chi-squared|||||2.30|0.61|0.62
91652956|NCT00135707|183198431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.48|||Chi-squared|||||1.48|0.49|0.56
91652957|NCT00135707|183198432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91652958|NCT00135707|183198433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Chi-squared|||||1.26|0.82|0.86
91652959|NCT00135707|183198434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.89|0.32
91652960|NCT01681030|183198435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.998|||||CI for EVARREST Group|||0.998|0.640|
91652961|NCT01681030|183198435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.59|||||CI for Topical Hemostat group|||0.590|0.133|
91652962|NCT01681030|183198435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.766|||||CI for Standard of Care group|||0.766|0.167|
91652963|NCT01176448|183198489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|With 12 scars (or pairs to compare), our power calculation had a 95 percent probability that the study will detect a treatment difference at a two-sided 0.05 percent significance level, if a significant difference between treatments is 1.5 units (based on a 0-4 scale as mentioned above). This is based on the assumption that the within-patient standard deviation of the response variable is 0.5 units.||||||0.77||95.0||||Appropriately powered, this study failed to reject the null hypothesis that fraxel achieves a similar cosmetic result at 3 months when compared to dermabrasion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||efficacy outcomes analyzed by 3 surgeons blinded to the treatment and scars evaluated by halves comparing pre-treatment photos to 3-month photos and given a score on the quartile scale described in table 1. The ordinal rater scores of each evaluator were then averaged, and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks performed on the group's scores. (table 5) There were 4 Fraxel winners, 4 Dermabrasion winners, and 4 ties. There was a p value of 0.77 indicating no significant difference between the categories||||.77
91652964|NCT02584140|183198522|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The P-Value for Week 4 was \<0.001; The P-Value for Week 12 was 0.005; The P-Value for Week 24 was 0.029; The P-Value for Week 36 was 0.008; The P-Value for Week 48 was 0.03.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91652965|NCT01006707|183198588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||Results were considered significant at p\<0.05.||||0.042
91652966|NCT01006707|183198589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322|||||||ANOVA|||Results were considered significant at p\<0.05.||||0.322
91652967|NCT01006707|183198590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||ANOVA|||Results were considered significant at p\<0.05.||||0.261
91652968|NCT00358826|183198630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91652969|NCT00358826|183198630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91652970|NCT00358826|183198630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91652971|NCT00358826|183198631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91652972|NCT00358826|183198631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91652973|NCT00358826|183198631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91652974|NCT00358826|183198632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.656
91652975|NCT00358826|183198632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.863
91652976|NCT00358826|183198632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.996
91652977|NCT00358826|183198633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.331
91652978|NCT00358826|183198633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.606
91652979|NCT00358826|183198633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91652980|NCT00358826|183198634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.22
91652981|NCT00358826|183198634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||<0.005
91788261|NCT01375075|183456958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-91.32|-74.83||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-74.83|-91.32|<0.001
91900247|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.11|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.61|0.176
91652982|NCT00358826|183198634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.60
91652983|NCT00358826|183198635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.92
91652984|NCT00358826|183198635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.96
91652985|NCT00358826|183198635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||1.00
91652986|NCT00358826|183198636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.99
91652987|NCT00358826|183198636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.11
91652988|NCT00358826|183198636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.99
91652989|NCT00283686|183198637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0||adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site.|Mixed Models Analysis|Test for differences between treatment groups over time.||||5.0|-0.8|0.52
91652990|NCT00283686|183198637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2||adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing differences between blood pressure groups over time||||-0.2|-1.6|0.006
91788262|NCT01375075|183456958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-94.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-102.92|-86.1||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-86.10|-102.92|<0.001
91710032|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||6.0|-13.6|0.4410
91710033|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||1.7|-17.9|0.1046
91710034|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.6467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||7.5|-12.0|0.6467
91710035|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||3.4|-16.2|0.1971
91788263|NCT01375075|183456958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-67.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.2|-59.16||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-59.16|-76.20|<0.001
91710036|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.9052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||9.2|-10.4|0.9052
91710037|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||4.0|-15.6|0.2420
91710038|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-8.3|-25.1|0.0001
91710039|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||11.6|-5.0|0.4321
91710040|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-10.1|-26.7|<0.0001
91710041|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||9.9|-6.7|0.6999
91710042|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-9.8|-26.4|<0.0001
91710043|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||10.2|-6.4|0.6566
91710044|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-11.7|-28.3|<0.0001
91710045|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-14.3|-36.1|<0.0001
91710046|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||9.4|-12.4|0.7824
91710047|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-14.3|-36.0|<0.0001
91852016|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6986|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.34||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.34|0.6986
91788264|NCT01375075|183456959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.21||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.21|1.38|<0.001
91652991|NCT00283686|183198638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3||adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing for differences in treatment over time (differences in slopes over time).||||0.3|-0.6|0.52
91652992|NCT00283686|183198638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||adjusted for age, sex, race, and clinical site|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing for differences between groups over time (differences in slopes over time)||||0.6|-0.3|0.55
91652993|NCT00283686|183198639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||1.9|-3.3|0.57
91652994|NCT00283686|183198639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||-3.4|-8.5|<0.0001
91652995|NCT00283686|183198640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.6|-3.1|0.18
91652996|NCT00283686|183198640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.6|-3.1|0.19
91652997|NCT00283686|183198641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.088||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|comparing the annual change over time between ACE/ARB and ACE alone|||0.22|-0.40|0.58
91788265|NCT01375075|183456959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.65|3.48||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.48|2.65|<0.001
91652998|NCT00283686|183198641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|comparing annual change in LVMI between Low Blood Pressure and Standard Blood Pressure groups|||-0.29|-0.91|0.0002
91652999|NCT00283686|183198642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|difference in annual change in mL/min/1.73 m\^2 for ACE+ARB compared to ACE alone|||8.50|-2.55|0.29
91653000|NCT00283686|183198642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|difference in annual change mL/min/1.73 m\^2 between low and standard blood pressure groups|||6.50|-4.54|0.73
91653001|NCT00283686|183198643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.95|0.53|0.0228
91653002|NCT00283686|183198643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.22|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||1.22|0.70|0.59
91653003|NCT00283686|183198644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.17|-0.19|0.87
91653004|NCT00283686|183198644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.31|-0.046|0.14
91710048|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.7867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||9.4|-12.4|0.7867
91653005|NCT00283686|183198645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.46|0.036|0.0221
91710049|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-15.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-15.6|-37.4|<0.0001
91788266|NCT01375075|183456959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.04|3.88||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.88|3.04|<0.001
91653006|NCT00283686|183198645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||-0.018|-0.44|0.0339
91653007|NCT00543439|183198646|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of arithmetic means|0.03||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.08|||Paired t-test|||Ratio of the arithmetic means of the ABR for OD cohort: OD therapy to OD cohort: RP therapy 25 IU/kg was calculated. One-sided 95% CI for this ratio was reported.||0.08||0.0020
91653008|NCT00543439|183198647|EQUIVALENCE|90% 2-sided CI for the mean difference in ABRs for the 2 prophylaxis regimens for ITT participants was constructed using the t distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom (n equals the number of participants) to assess the equivalence of the 2 regimens. Equivalence was demonstrated and the null hypothesis rejected if the limits of the 90% CI fell wholly within the interval of (-4, 4) bleeds per year.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|2.22||||||||2.22|0.03|
91653009|NCT01484028|183198682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 LogMAR was used.|Least-square mean difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The alternative hypothesis is the monocular distance Snellen VA (LogMAR scale) of etafilcon A with embedded print and PVP for dark/light eyes is non-inferior to that of etafilcon A control lenses.||0.017|0.004|
91653010|NCT02400710|183198685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
91653011|NCT02400710|183198686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.05
91653012|NCT02826603|183198721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|1.72|<0.0001
91653013|NCT02826603|183198722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|1.63|<0.0001
91653014|NCT02826603|183198723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|1.89|<0.0001
91653015|NCT02826603|183198724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.71|2.65|<0.0001
91653016|NCT02826603|183198725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.01|1.80|<0.0001
91653017|NCT02826603|183198726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.37|1.96|<0.0001
91653018|NCT02826603|183198727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|1.89|<0.0001
91653019|NCT02826603|183198728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.17|1.96|<0.0001
91653020|NCT02826603|183198729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.71|2.19|<0.0001
91653021|NCT02826603|183198730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|1.41|<0.0001
91710050|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.6029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||8.0|-13.7|0.6029
91710051|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-12.8|-34.5|<0.0001
91710052|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-24.1|-50.1|<0.0001
91710053|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.8684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||14.1|-11.9|0.8684
91710054|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.3|-40.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-40.3|-66.3|<0.0001
91710055|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-2.1|-28.1|0.0228
91710056|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-27.0|-53.0|<0.0001
91653022|NCT00905489|183198731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio NVP XR: NVP IR (%)|91.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.47|99.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted geometric means are estimated from the mixed model for intra-individual comparison.||||99.64|83.47|0.0080
91653023|NCT03558997|183198749|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.73||||0.7185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.023|30.487|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs SCIT) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||30.487|-21.023|0.7185
91653024|NCT03558997|183198750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.3||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.661|1.254|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs SCIT) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||1.254|-0.661|0.5438
91653025|NCT03558997|183198751|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.928|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab vs Placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.928|-0.877|0.9559
91788267|NCT01375075|183456959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|2.63||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.63|1.81|<0.001
91788268|NCT01375075|183456959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.36||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.36|1.40|<0.001
91788269|NCT01375075|183456959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|3.47||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.47|2.51|<0.001
91848303|NCT00543725|183580217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|2.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.6|8.4||Significance level was set at 2.5% (one-sided). No adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons, since there was only single comparison for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 75% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 340 subjects were needed per treatment (TMC278 or EFV) to establish non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV with a maximum allowable difference of 12% and a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%, to yield 95% power.||8.4|-3.6|<0.0001
91900248|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.26|-0.47|0.573
91788270|NCT01375075|183456959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.42|4.41||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||4.41|3.42|<0.001
91788271|NCT01375075|183456959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|2.52||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.52|1.56|<0.001
91788272|NCT01375075|183456959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|2.31||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.31|1.34|<0.001
91852017|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3151|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.18||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.18|0.3151
91788273|NCT01375075|183456959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.34|3.31||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.31|2.34|<0.001
91788274|NCT01375075|183456959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.74|3.73||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.73|2.74|<0.001
91788275|NCT01375075|183456959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.65|2.63||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.63|1.65|<0.001
91710057|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||11.2|-14.8|0.7852
91710058|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-25.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-25.2|-51.2|<0.0001
91710059|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-25.1|-51.3|<0.0001
91710060|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||17.0|-9.1|0.5528
91710061|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|-40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-40.9|-67.0|<0.0001
91788276|NCT01375075|183456960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|74.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.38|95.07||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||95.07|53.38|<0.001
91710062|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||1.2|-24.9|0.0747
91710063|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|-36.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-36.1|-62.2|<0.0001
91710064|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||6.0|-20.1|0.2868
91710065|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-29.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-29.1|-55.2|<0.0001
91710066|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.1|-16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-16.2|-59.1|0.0007
91710067|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.9089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||20.2|-22.7|0.9089
91710068|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|-31.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-31.4|-74.3|<0.0001
91710069|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||5.0|-37.9|0.1307
91710070|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-14.8|-57.7|0.0011
91710071|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|21.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||21.6|-21.3|0.9903
91710072|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.8|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-14.9|-57.8|0.0010
91710073|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||9.0|-51.7|0.1655
91710074|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|28.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||28.5|-32.4|0.8975
91710075|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.2||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||-5.8|-66.5|0.0199
91710076|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||13.7|-47.2|0.2785
91710077|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|20.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||20.1|-40.6|0.5048
91788277|NCT01375075|183456960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|115.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.58|136.14||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||136.14|94.58|<0.001
91788278|NCT01375075|183456960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.5|156.63||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||156.63|114.50|<0.001
91788279|NCT01375075|183456960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.5|-7.43||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||-7.43|-23.50|0.002
91788280|NCT01375075|183456960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.37|-15.38||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||-15.38|-31.37|<0.001
91848304|NCT00543725|183580218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.6|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||7.0|-5.6|<0.0001
91653026|NCT03558997|183198752|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|7.25||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.028|30.53|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab vs Placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||30.530|-16.028|0.5416
91653027|NCT03558997|183198753|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.848|-0.037|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs Dupilumab) of LS mean difference using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-0.037|-1.848|0.0414
91653028|NCT03558997|183198754|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-30.45||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.874|-7.034|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs Dupilumab) of LS mean difference using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-7.034|-53.874|0.0108
91653029|NCT03558997|183198755|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.665||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.21|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||3.2100|-0.770|0.1449
91653030|NCT03558997|183198756|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|335.3||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-551.47|1746.55|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1746.55|-551.47|0.1231
91788281|NCT01375075|183456960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.32|-14.06||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||-14.06|-30.32|<0.001
91848305|NCT03095508|183580226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.446
91848306|NCT03095508|183580228|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91653031|NCT03558997|183198757|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-13.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.94|-8.36|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-8.3600|-23.9400|<0.0001
91653032|NCT03558997|183198758|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-134.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.51|-94.98|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-94.98|-205.51|<0.0001
91653033|NCT03558997|183198759|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.27|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1.2700|0.4500|<0.0001
91848307|NCT03095508|183580229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.145
91848308|NCT03095508|183580230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
91653034|NCT02473991|183198768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis In normal pregnant women, placental thickness during second trimesters may be correlated with birth weight at term.||||<0.01
91788282|NCT01375075|183456960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.32|124.18||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||124.18|82.32|<0.001
91653035|NCT02473991|183198769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis In normal pregnant women, placental thickness during third trimesters may be correlated with birth weight at term.||||<0.01
91788283|NCT01375075|183456960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.72|-6.55||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-6.55|-22.72|0.003
91653036|NCT03123549|183198770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.017
91653037|NCT04567615|183198787|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference in ORR|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.3|||||Difference in ORR of Treatment B over ORR Treatment A|||5.3|-10.7|
91653038|NCT04567615|183198790|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard model|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||||HR of Treatment B over HR Treatment A|||1.33|0.75|
91653039|NCT04567615|183198791|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference in ORR|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|7.4|||||Difference in ORR of Treatment B over ORR Treatment A|||7.4|-9.2|
91653040|NCT04567615|183198794|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard model|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||||HR of Treatment B over HR of Treatment A|||1.33|0.75|
91788284|NCT03050775|183456974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.807
91653041|NCT04567615|183198795|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard model|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.49|||||HR of Treatment B over HR of Treatment A|||1.49|0.74|
91653042|NCT04680052|183198819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.434|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.58|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.580|0.324|<0.0001
91653043|NCT04680052|183198821|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|0.653|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.653|0.383|<0.0001
91653044|NCT04680052|183198822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.13|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.13|1.04|0.0286
91653045|NCT04680052|183198824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|1.128|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.128|0.306|0.1061
91653046|NCT04680052|183198825|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.03|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.03|1.06|0.0221
91788285|NCT03050775|183456974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.237|||ANCOVA|||||0.237|-0.085|0.358
91653047|NCT04680052|183198826|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.33|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.33|0.61|0.4093
91653048|NCT04680052|183198827|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.47|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.47|0.69|0.2874
91653049|NCT04680052|183198828|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.02|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.02|1.30|0.0014
91653050|NCT04680052|183198829|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.74|1.29|0.0009
91653051|NCT04680052|183198831|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.473|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.678|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.678|0.330|<0.0001
91653052|NCT04680052|183198833|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.763|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.763|0.397|0.0003
91653053|NCT04680052|183198835|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.5837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.519|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.519|0.476|0.5837
91653054|NCT04680052|183198837|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.563|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.563|0.294|<0.0001
91653055|NCT04680052|183198839|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.647|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.647|0.357|<0.0001
91788286|NCT03050775|183456975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||\~30 minutes post-induction||0.2|-0.3|0.823
91848309|NCT03095508|183580231|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin 14.5% absolute difference between percentages in group A and B|Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.24||p- value for superiority: 0.021|Fisher Exact|||p1=proportion of patients without sore throat at Day 4 in Arm A p2=proportion of patients without sore throat at Day 4 in Arm B Н0: p1 - p2 ≤ -0.145||0.24|0.03|0.00001
91653056|NCT04680052|183198840|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.43|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.43|1.43|0.0003
91788287|NCT03050775|183456975|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||\~60 minutes post-induction. Data was obtained from 33 subjects in the treatment group.||0.3|-0.2|0.853
91653057|NCT04680052|183198841|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.86|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.86|1.33|0.0005
91653058|NCT04680052|183198843|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|0.681|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.681|0.312|<0.0001
91653059|NCT04680052|183198845|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|3.475|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||3.475|0.409|0.7469
91710078|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|39.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||39.6|-21.3|0.5533
91710079|NCT01096680|183312461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||11.1|-49.9|0.2098
91710080|NCT04485637|183312496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced table \> Basic table||2.79|1.00|=0.05
91788288|NCT03050775|183456975|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||\~120 minutes post-induction||0.2|-0.2|0.986
91788289|NCT03050775|183456976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.9|||Fisher Exact|||Post-operative shivering observed||5.9|0.5|0.540
91788290|NCT03050775|183456977|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-1|0.672
91788291|NCT03050775|183456978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Data was obtained from 32 subjects in the treatment group.||0.1|-0.2|0.571
91788292|NCT03050775|183456979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.7|||Fisher Exact|||||3.7|0.5|0.619
91653060|NCT01073020|183198857|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimation parameter is the difference between the proportion of patients in the LAGB group vs. proportion of patients in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp) who achieved the primary outcome.|||||0.60
91788293|NCT03050775|183456980|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|75.0||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|250.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||250|-100|0.404
91788294|NCT03603509|183456982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluad = HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluzone Alternative Hypothesis: HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluad NE HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluzone||||0.062
91848310|NCT00335556|183580234|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|5.419||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients with Stage II-IV diffuse anaplastic Wilms' tumor on AREN0321 and NWTS-5 (NCT00002610) were compared using the log-rank test.||||.0199
91653061|NCT01073020|183198857|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.42||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimation parameter is the difference between the proportion of patients in the RYGB group vs. proportion of patients in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp) who achieved the primary outcome.|||||0.005
91653062|NCT01073020|183198858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in HbA1c in the LAGB group vs. change from baseline in HbA1c in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp), adjusted for baseline HbA1c.|||||0.33
91710081|NCT04485637|183312496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced graph \> Basic table||2.76|1.00|=0.05
91788295|NCT03603509|183456991|SUPERIORITY|null hypothesis: CMV Fluad sample index = CMV Fluzone sample index at Baseline alternate hypothesis: CMV Fluad sample index not equal to CMV Fluzone sample index at Baseline||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91788296|NCT01727700|183457008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-6.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.34||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||Assuming 5% of participants may drop out of the trial without a postbaseline efficacy evaluation, a total of 126 participants were required to provide at least 80% power to detect a treatment difference of -5 (common standard deviation \[SD\] of 8.5) between at least 1 of 2 aripiprazole dose levels and placebo in the primary outcome.||-2.34|-10.18|0.0020
91848311|NCT00335556|183580235|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|0.8814||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The overall survival distributions of patients with Stage I-IV malignant rhabdoid tumors on AREN0321 and National Wilms Tumor Study-5 -- Treatment of Relapsed Patients, A National Wilms Tumor Study Group Phase III Study (NCT00002610) were compared using the log-rank test.||||.3478
91848312|NCT00335556|183580237|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|3.6216||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients with Stage I focal and diffuse anaplastic Wilms tumors on AREN0321 and National Wilms Tumor Study-5 -- Treatment of Relapsed Patients, A National Wilms Tumor Study Group Phase III Study (NCT00002610) were compared using the log-rank test.||||.0570
91848313|NCT01710514|183580297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative (Ha) by constructing two-sided 95%CI for the difference. The non-inferiority limit for the difference was pre-specified to -10.0% (absolute). If the lower limit of the two-sided 95%CI was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%) for both the FAS and per protocol set, the null hypothesis was to be rejected. In that case it would be claimed that the rate observed in this trial was non-inferior to the rate observed in the CS08 trial|Difference of % to historical control|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.8||||||To verify sufficient supplementation of luteal hormone, the proportion of subjects with blood progesterone concentration ≥ 10 ng/mL on Day 5 was compared to the result from a historical control, trial CS08 (NCT number: 00884221). The corresponding proportion of subjects in trial CS08 was 99.8% (95%CI: 99.1;100.0, 631/632 subjects). The non-inferiority hypothesis tested for this primary endpoint was: H0: P(000072)-P(CS08) ≤ -10.0% against the alternative Ha: P(000072)-P(CS08) \> -10.0%.||1.8|-3.6|
91848314|NCT03404843|183580305|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.97
91653063|NCT01073020|183198858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in HbA1c in the RYGB group vs. change from baseline in HbA1c in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp), adjusted for baseline HbA1c.|||||<0.001
91653064|NCT01073020|183198859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in BMI in the LAGB group vs. change from baseline in BMI in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp), adjusted for baseline BMI.|||||<0.001
91710082|NCT04485637|183312497|SUPERIORITY|Enhanced table \> Basic table|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||=|0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||||3.26|0.71|=0.29
91653065|NCT01073020|183198859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in BMI in the RYGB group vs. change from baseline in BMI in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp), adjusted for baseline BMI.|||||<0.001
91653066|NCT01073020|183198860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in LAGB group vs. change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp), adjusted for baseline CHD risk.|||||0.81
91653067|NCT01073020|183198860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in RYGB group vs. change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp), adjusted for baseline CHD risk.|||||0.009
91710083|NCT04485637|183312497|SUPERIORITY|Enhanced graph \> Basic table|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||||1.93|0.48|=0.90
91710084|NCT04485637|183312498|SUPERIORITY||Unst|-0.14|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced table \> Basic table||0.04|-0.32|=0.13
91710085|NCT04485637|183312498|SUPERIORITY||Unstandardized B|-0.14|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced graph \> Basic table||0.04|-0.32|=0.12
91710086|NCT04485637|183312499|SUPERIORITY|Enhanced table \> Basic table|Unstandardized B|-0.08|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||||0.08|-0.25|=0.33
91848315|NCT03404843|183580305|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||<0.05
91710087|NCT04485637|183312499|SUPERIORITY||Unstandardized B|-0.09|||=|0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||||0.08|-0.26|=0.29
91710088|NCT02182830|183312500|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the primary endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|"MMRM model : HbA1c baseline, treatment, renal function, pre-treatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and HbA1c baseline by treatment interaction. Treatment, renal function, pre-treatment with metformin, visit, and visit by treatment interaction were fixed classification effects, and HbA1c baseline was a linear covariate. The interaction visit by HbA1c baseline interaction was based on the linear covariate HbA1c baseline."||-0.38|-1.18|0.0002
91710089|NCT02182830|183312501|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-5.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|-1.18|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|"change from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP at 12 weeks of treatment was evaluated by using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The respective model included treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, continuous baseline HbA1c, and continuous baseline of the endpoint."||-1.18|-9.24|0.0117
91710090|NCT02182830|183312502|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|-0.81|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|"ANCOVA mode:~The respective model included treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, continuous baseline HbA1c, and continuous baseline of the endpoint."||-0.81|-11.16|0.0237
91710091|NCT02182830|183312503|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the key secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline key secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline key secondary endpoint.||-0.07|-2.39|0.0382
91791054|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91710092|NCT02182830|183312504|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the key secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline key secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline key secondary endpoint.||1.09|-9.16|0.1215
91710093|NCT02182830|183312505|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-3.04|-13.74|0.0025
91710094|NCT02182830|183312506|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.96|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|The respective ANCOVA model includes treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, continuous baseline HbA1c, and continuous baseline of the respective secondary endpoint.||-0.96|-5.90|0.0069
91791055|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.257||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.257|-0.751|0.335
91653068|NCT00094302|183198865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 320 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 351 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.04|0.77|0.14
91653069|NCT00094302|183198866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 336 subjects (160 in the Spironolactone group and 176 in the Placebo group) with a confirmed event."||1.12|0.73|0.35
91653070|NCT00094302|183198867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.5||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 8 subjects (3 in the Spironolactone group and 5 in the Placebo group) with a confirmed event."||2.50|0.14|0.48
91653071|NCT00094302|183198868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 451 subjects (206 in the Spironolactone group and 245 in the Placebo group) who have been confirmed to have experienced the event"||0.99|0.69|0.04
91653072|NCT00094302|183198869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Endpoint compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to event from randomization. Subjects who did not experience endpoint were censored at time of last contact. Attempts were made to determine vital status as of each subject's last potential visit, based on randomization, even if the subject ended study participation before then. This outcome was adjudicated. There were 252 events over 6,022 patient-years in Spironolactone arm and 274 events over 5,981 patient-years in Placebo arm.||1.08|0.77|0.29
91653073|NCT00094302|183198870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 382 subjects in Spironolactone group and 404 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.06|0.80|0.28
91848316|NCT03404843|183580306|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||<0.05
91848317|NCT03404843|183580306|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||<0.05
91710095|NCT02182830|183312507|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-1.46|-8.35|0.0058
91788297|NCT01727700|183457008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-9.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|-5.86||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||Assuming 5% of participants may drop out of the trial without a postbaseline efficacy evaluation, a total of 126 participants were required to provide at least 80% power to detect a treatment difference of -5 (common standard SD of 8.5) between at least 1 of 2 aripiprazole dose levels and placebo in the primary outcome.||-5.86|-13.84|<0.0001
91788298|NCT01727700|183457009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.03||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.52||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||||-0.52|-1.54|0.0001
91788299|NCT01727700|183457009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.49||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||||-0.49|-1.54|0.0002
91848318|NCT03404843|183580307|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.28
91848319|NCT03404843|183580307|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.37
91848320|NCT03404843|183580308|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.89
91653074|NCT00094302|183198871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 291 subjects in Spironolactone group and 320 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.04|0.76|0.15
91653075|NCT00094302|183198872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate ratio|0.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97||No covariate adjustment|Negative binomial regression||Spironolactone compared to Placebo|There were a total of 869 confirmed heart failure hospitalizations (394 in the Spironolactone group and 475 in the Placebo group) during the 11,471 person-years collected over the course of the TOPCAT trial (5,755 person-years in the Spironolactone group and 5,716 person-years in the Placebo group). The incidence rate of heart failure hospitalizations for each treatment group was compared using a negative binomial regression with a p-value threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.||0.97|0.58|0.03
91710096|NCT02182830|183312508|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-2.48|-12.37|0.0036
91710097|NCT02182830|183312509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||1.25|-4.93|0.2402
91653076|NCT00094302|183198873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.38||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 58 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 60 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.38|0.67|0.82
91653077|NCT00094302|183198874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.83||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 56 subjects (29 in the Spironolactone group and 27 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.83|0.64|0.76
91710098|NCT02182830|183312510|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-1.29|-7.21|0.0053
91710099|NCT04399538|183312511|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) mean|-52.36|||<|0.0001||80.0|-60.07|-43.17|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||-43.17|-60.07|<0.0001
91788300|NCT01727700|183457010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-13.26||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.43|-5.08||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.08|-21.43|0.0017
91653078|NCT00094302|183198875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.5||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 103 subjects (52 in the Spironolactone group and 51 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.50|0.69|0.94
91710100|NCT04399538|183312511|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-56.58|||<|0.0001||80.0|-63.88|-47.8|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||-47.80|-63.88|<0.0001
91710101|NCT04399538|183312511|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-58.8|||<|0.0001||80.0|-65.66|-50.57|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. Relative change was converted to percent change as follows: Percent change = 100\*(RC-1). 80% CI was calculated based on difference in LS mean between groups.||-50.57|-65.66|<0.0001
91710102|NCT04399538|183312511|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-45.8||||0.0003||80.0|-55.86|-33.46|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||-33.46|-55.86|0.0003
91788301|NCT01727700|183457010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-19.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-11.04||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.04|-27.70|<0.0001
91848321|NCT03404843|183580308|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.30
91653079|NCT00094302|183198876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 129 subjects (65 in the Spironolactone group and 64 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.42|0.71|0.98
91653080|NCT00094302|183198877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.35||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 117 subjects (57 in the Spironolactone group and 60 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.35|0.65|0.73
91653081|NCT00094302|183198878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.87||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~There were 295 subjects (175 in the Spironolactone group and 120 in the Placebo group) experiencing this endpoint. This endpoint did not undergo adjudication by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee."||1.87|1.18|<0.01
91653082|NCT00094302|183198879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.35||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 58 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 61 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.35|0.66|0.75
91653083|NCT00094302|183198880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.27
91653084|NCT00094302|183198880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
91710103|NCT03268005|183312538|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between faster aspart and NovoRapid was compared to a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. If it was below or equal to 0.4% non-inferiority was considered established and effect demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||ANOVA||Faster aspart-NovoRapid|Change from baseline in HbA1c was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model included treatment, region and metformin use at baseline (Yes/No) as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.03|-0.11|0.310
91710104|NCT00492232|183312596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.71||||0.484||95.0|0.27|1.85||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Log odds of achieving response were estimated using the logistic regression analysis adjusted for effects of treatment and pooled center.||||1.85|0.27|0.484
91788302|NCT01727700|183457011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.33||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-1.27|0.0010
91653085|NCT00094302|183198881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.87
91653086|NCT00094302|183198881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.16
91710105|NCT00492232|183312597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.946||95.0|-6.23|5.81||P-values are from t-tests of the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for the difference in least squares (LS) means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||5.81|-6.23|0.946
91788303|NCT01727700|183457011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM|-0.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.44||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.41|0.0002
91788304|NCT01727700|183457012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.36||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.88||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Response ratio \> 1 favors aripiprazole.||||1.88|0.98|0.0835
91788305|NCT01727700|183457012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.61||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.16||P-value derived from CMH General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Response ratio \> 1 favors aripiprazole.||||2.16|1.20|0.0014
91710106|NCT00492232|183312598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.901||95.0|-5.31|6.03||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||6.03|-5.31|0.901
91710107|NCT00492232|183312599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.538||95.0|-4.32|8.23||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||8.23|-4.32|0.538
91710108|NCT00492232|183312600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.517||95.0|-9.09|4.6||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||4.60|-9.09|0.517
91710109|NCT00492232|183312601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.965||95.0|-6.28|6.56||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||6.56|-6.28|0.965
91710110|NCT00492232|183312602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.617||95.0|-0.27|0.45||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||0.45|-0.27|0.617
91710111|NCT00492232|183312603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.541||95.0|-0.39|0.74||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||0.74|-0.39|0.541
91710112|NCT00492232|183312604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.163||95.0|-0.23|1.33||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||1.33|-0.23|0.163
91848322|NCT03404843|183580309|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.08
91848323|NCT03404843|183580309|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.05
91710113|NCT00492232|183312605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.757||95.0|-0.79|1.08||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||1.08|-0.79|0.757
91788306|NCT01727700|183457013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Discontinuation ratio|1.16||||0.9187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|7.05||Discontinuation ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from CMH General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.05|0.19|0.9187
91788307|NCT01727700|183457013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9576||||||Hazard ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from Cox proportional hazard regression adjusting for region and weight group.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.9576
91710114|NCT00492232|183312606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.82||95.0|-0.93|1.17||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||1.17|-0.93|0.820
91710115|NCT00492232|183312608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.01||||0.284||95.0|0.55|7.34||P-values are from Chi-square tests of the log-regression model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Log odds of achieving response were estimated using logistic regression analysis adjusted for effects of baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg).||||7.34|0.55|0.284
91788308|NCT01727700|183457013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Discontinuation ratio|4.06||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.95||Discontinuation ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from CMH General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.95|1.10|0.0132
91788309|NCT01727700|183457013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.51||||0.0278||||||Hazard ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from Cox proportional hazard regression adjusting for region and weight group.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.0278
91788310|NCT02484859|183457018|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median intraoperative bleeding scores were compared with Wilcoxon test. In this pilot study the power analysis showed that a sample size of 44 patients in each group was sufficient to detect a difference of 0.2 in the mean (standard deviation of 0.4) with an 80% power with an alpha error of 0.05 and a beta error of 20%. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test the distribution of data.||||>0.69
91788311|NCT02484859|183457019|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91788312|NCT02484859|183457020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
91788313|NCT02484859|183457021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was that the visual analog pain scores (VAS) of patients at arrrival to post anesthetic care unit (PACU) were similar.||||0.05
91788314|NCT02484859|183457021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was that the visual analog pain scores (VAS) of patients at discharge from post anesthetic care unit (PACU) were similar.||||0.55
91788315|NCT02484859|183457022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91788316|NCT02564432|183457023|EQUIVALENCE|This is not a randomized clinical trial but is an observational study, each patient's thigh skin site served as the control.|Base mean abundance|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value was calculated.|Unweighted UniFrac (qualitative)|Both weighted and unweighted UniFrac were calculated; weighted UniFrac is calculated to be p = 0.398 while unweighted UniFrac was P\<0.03|Differential abundance of Staphylococcus aureus in the stoma calculated by Log2 fold change (y-axis) versus base mean abundance (x-axis)|Sample similarity was calculated using the statistical comparisons of community composition.||||<0.05
91653087|NCT00094302|183198882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score and treatment group as predictor variables. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group.||||0.99
91653088|NCT00094302|183198883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.39
91653089|NCT00094302|183198883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.01
91653090|NCT00094302|183198884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~There were a total of 1558 subjects (766 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 792 subjects in the Placebo) who were hospitalized for any cause while on study. This endpoint was not adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee."||1.04|0.85|0.25
91791056|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91653091|NCT00094302|183198885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.27
91653092|NCT00094302|183198885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
91653093|NCT00094302|183198886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.53
91653094|NCT00094302|183198886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
91653095|NCT00094302|183198887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.11
91653096|NCT00094302|183198887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
91653097|NCT00094302|183198888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.59
91653098|NCT00094302|183198888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.54
91710116|NCT00492232|183312609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.42||||0.389||95.0|0.64|3.13||P-values are from Chi-square tests of the log-regression model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Log odds of achieving response were estimated using logistic regression analysis adjusted for effects of baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg).||||3.13|0.64|0.389
91788317|NCT02564432|183457023|OTHER|"In this study, dissimilarities between the stomal and healthy thigh skins were tested.~Observational study. Used only for visualizing trends in the data."|PERMANOVA|0.001|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Each stomal community type was distinguished by both its diversity and taxonomic composition|Bray-Curtis dissimilarities|Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of Bray-Curtis dissimilarities|||Loess Regression was used to visualize temporal trends in the Shannnon Diversity and relative abundance of microbes (Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Corynebacterium, and obligate anaerobes).|||<0.005
91653099|NCT00094302|183198889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.98
91653100|NCT00094302|183198889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.02
91653101|NCT02761980|183198907|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.15|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on Least Square Mean (LSM) from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||5.15|1.13|0.002
91653102|NCT02761980|183198907|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.91||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.33|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||2.33|-0.52|0.210
91653103|NCT02761980|183198907|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.79||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|2.21|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||2.21|-0.64|0.280
91848324|NCT00567164|183580311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.356||0.0001||95.0|-16.3|-7.394|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-7.394|-16.3|0.0001
91653104|NCT02761980|183198907|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|2.23||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.25|||ANCOVA|||||4.25|0.22|0.030
91653105|NCT02761980|183198907|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|2.35||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.37|||ANCOVA|||||4.37|0.33|0.023
91653106|NCT02761980|183198907|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.12||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||1.29|-1.54|0.864
91653107|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.51|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||1.51|0.29|0.004
91788318|NCT02415842|183457175|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H1N1\_AS over H1N1\_NAS) at Day 21. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.72|0.73|
91653108|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.39||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.82|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||0.82|-0.04|0.078
91653109|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.3||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.74|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||0.74|-0.13|0.172
91653110|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.51||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.13|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||1.13|-0.10|0.098
91653111|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.21|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||1.21|-0.01|0.054
91653112|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.09||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.34|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||0.34|-0.52|0.692
91653113|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.88|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||2.88|0.86|< 0.001
91653114|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.61||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.33|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||1.33|-0.10|0.094
91653115|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.45||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.17|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||1.17|-0.27|0.217
91710117|NCT03078127|183312644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.615||||||ANOVA was performed (with multiple comparisons to compare each intervention to baseline) to assess for difference in MCC with each ACT. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05|ANOVA|||No comparable preliminary data exists on mucociliary clearance (MCC) in response to airway clearance therapy methods (ACTs) for a power calculation. However, prior studies of medication effect on MCC gave a baseline mean change of Ave270 clr of 27.7% (std dev of 15.1%). Thus, the investigators estimated a mean change of 20% for effective ACT with the same estimate for variability (Std Dev of 15.1%). Using a paired 2-tailed test to compare means, 7 subjects were estimated to be needed.||||0.615
91710118|NCT03078127|183312645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||ANOVA was performed (with multiple comparisons to compare each intervention to baseline) to assess for difference in MCC with each ACT. The a priori threshold for significance was \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.696
91710119|NCT03078127|183312647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The investigators compared FENO before and after ACT in a pooled manner (i.e., grouping each of the comparisons together), as the study was not powered for FENO comparisons within each ACT type.||||0.001
91710120|NCT03078127|183312647|OTHER|A linear regression was performed between change in FENO and Ave90Clr||||||0.692||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (i.e., slope different than zero) between MCC and FENO was 0.05|Regression, Linear|||if the difference between pre and post-ACT FENO was significant (defined as p\<0.05), it was investigated whether change in FENO correlated with MCC (as represented by Ave90Clr)||||0.692
91710121|NCT03078127|183312648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Non-parametric test used due to lack of data normality. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The study was not designed or powered to assess for inter-group differences between the types of ACT, and for analytical purposes, these were pooled, with the analysis being a paired comparison within subjects to pre- to post-ACT.||||0.146
91788319|NCT02415842|183457175|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H1N1\_AS over H1N1\_NAS) at Day 42. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.81|0.83|
91653116|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.26||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.27||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||2.27|0.24|0.015
91653117|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.44|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||2.44|0.40|0.006
91653118|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.16||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.55|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||0.55|-0.87|0.659
91653119|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.08|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||4.08|1.16|< 0.001
91653120|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.79||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.82|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||1.82|-0.25|0.135
91653121|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.7||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.74|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||1.74|-0.34|0.186
91710122|NCT03078127|183312649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Non-parametric test used due to lack of data normality. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The study was not designed or powered to assess for inter-group differences between the types of ACT, and for analytical purposes, these were pooled, with the analysis being a paired comparison within subjects to pre- to post-ACT.||||0.041
91653122|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.83||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.29|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||3.29|0.37|0.014
91653123|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.92||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.39|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||3.39|0.45|0.011
91653124|NCT02761980|183198908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.09||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.94|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||0.94|-1.12|0.865
91653125|NCT02761980|183198909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.449
91653126|NCT02761980|183198909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.142
91653127|NCT02761980|183198909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.822
91653128|NCT02761980|183198909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.671
91710123|NCT03078127|183312649|OTHER|A linear regression was performed between change in pre and post-ACT adenosine (purine) in EBC and Ave90Clr||||||0.047||||||The a priori threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|Regression, Linear|||If the difference between pre and post-ACT adenosine (purine) in EBC was significant (defined as p\<0.05), the correlation between change in adenosine concentration and MCC (as represented by Ave90Clr) was investigated.||||0.047
91852018|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1802|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.1802
91653129|NCT02761980|183198909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.514
91653130|NCT02761980|183198909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.191
91653131|NCT02761980|183198910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||P-value, hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment term in the model.|hazard ratio|||||||0.997
91653132|NCT02761980|183198910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||P-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the PH model with treatment term in the model.|Hazard Ratio|||||||0.998
91653133|NCT02761980|183198910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||P-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the PH model with treatment term in the model.|Hazard Ratio|||||||0.997
91653134|NCT02761980|183198911|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.67||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.48|||ANCOVA|||||1.48|-0.13|0.101
91653135|NCT02761980|183198911|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.16||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.73|||ANCOVA|||||0.73|-0.41|0.582
91653136|NCT02761980|183198911|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.15||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||0.72|-0.43|0.614
91653137|NCT02761980|183198911|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.51||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-0.29|0.212
91653138|NCT02761980|183198911|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.53||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|-0.28|0.202
91653139|NCT02761980|183198911|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.01||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.55|||ANCOVA|||||0.55|-0.58|0.965
91653140|NCT01082952|183198929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value is calculated for the results of ASM proliferation following incubation with eosinophils isolated from patients in each group. p\< 0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|Proliferation data was evaluated using two-way factorial ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc test.||||||<0.05
91653141|NCT02337933|183198931|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91653142|NCT02337933|183198932|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91653143|NCT02337933|183198933|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91653144|NCT02337933|183198934|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.308
91710124|NCT03078127|183312650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Non-parametric test used due to lack of data normality. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The study was not designed or powered to assess for inter-group differences between the types of ACT, and for analytical purposes, these were pooled, with the analysis being a paired comparison within subjects to pre- to post-ACT.||||0.070
91710125|NCT05052697|183312707|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.2|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: A1||2.20|0.34|
91653145|NCT02337933|183198935|OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
91653146|NCT02337933|183198936|OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.169
91653147|NCT02337933|183198937|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.373
91653148|NCT02337933|183198938|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91653149|NCT02337933|183198939|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
91653150|NCT02337933|183198940|OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.224
91653151|NCT02337933|183198941|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.116
91653152|NCT02337933|183198942|OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
91848325|NCT01879371|183580352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|107.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.334|110.431|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen acid film-coated tablet '.|"The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect.~The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested."||110.431|105.334|
91848326|NCT01879371|183580352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|109.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.072|111.936|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen lysinate film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||111.936|107.072|
91653153|NCT02337933|183198943|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.999
91653154|NCT02743702|183198961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91653155|NCT00755326|183198962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91653156|NCT01111110|183199007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||half the mean difference|21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|41.7|||t-test, 2 sided|two sample effect size must be halved to account for mean difference estimates twice the effect size|See 4 Puff result|(Comparison of period 2 minus period 1) results Point and interval estimates are halved because this estimates twice the effect size.||41.7|3.8|0.026
91653157|NCT01111110|183199008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||half the mean difference|23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|41.0||The effect size is half the difference between the means as (A-B)-(B-A)=2A-2B|t-test, 2 sided|Must take half the mean difference to estimate effect size|No comments|Study intended to get more subjects, but PI's review committee had to deal with candidate deadlines and a high rate of screen failures and allowed her to test seven subjects. Primary concern was the research experience, not the study questions. There was no bias in failing to meet accrual objectives thanks to the blinding.||41.0|6.0|0.018
91653158|NCT01111110|183199009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size=half the mean diff|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|41.7|||t-test, 2 sided||You kicked this out on another trial, but note that the period 2-Period 1 differences between the orderings estimate twice the effect size. The effect sizes herein take this into account.|Null hypothesis is that the Treatment order is independent of the dependent variable based on Period 2 minus Period 1||41.7|7.7|0.013
91653159|NCT00662025|183199015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percentage)|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|43.0||||||||43.0|19.2|
91653160|NCT00662025|183199016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percentage)|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|39.7||||||||39.7|16.6|
91653161|NCT00662025|183199017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|50.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|63.6||||||||63.6|37.9|
91653162|NCT00662025|183199018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.4|65.1||||||||65.1|39.4|
91653163|NCT01333033|183199036|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91653164|NCT01842958|183199082|NON_INFERIORITY|The test arm will be considered non-inferior to the control arm if the 95% upper confidence interval of the estimated difference between the test and control arms is less than -0.5mm.||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy endpoint is change in crestal bone level from loading to 12 months post-loading. The primary analysis is a test for non-inferiority of the test implant to the control implant at the one-sided 5% significance level. The null hypothesis is that µ3.3 ≥ µ4.1 + δ, where µ3.3 is the mean change in crestal bone level for the test implants, µ4.1 is the mean change in crestal bone level for control implants, and δ is a pre-specified clinically significant difference.||||0.02
91653165|NCT00818623|183199115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||5.86e-05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0000586
91653166|NCT00818623|183199116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0014
91653167|NCT00818623|183199116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|87.5||||||95.0|66.1|95.8||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||95.8|66.1|
91653168|NCT00818623|183199116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|66.7||||||95.0|33.7|86.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||86|33.7|
91653169|NCT00818623|183199116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|54.5||||||95.0|22.9|78.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||78|22.9|
91653170|NCT00818623|183199116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|100.0||||||95.0|85.8|100.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||100|85.8|
91653171|NCT00818623|183199116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|75.0||||||95.0|52.6|87.9||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||87.9|52.6|
91653172|NCT00818623|183199116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|95.7||||||95.0|72.9|99.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||99.4|72.9|
91653173|NCT00818623|183199116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|62.5||||||95.0|40.3|78.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||78.4|40.3|
91653174|NCT00818623|183199116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|88.9||||||95.0|69.4|96.3||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||96.3|69.4|
91653175|NCT00818623|183199117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0031
91710126|NCT05052697|183312707|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.7|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: A2||2.70|0.86|
91653176|NCT00818623|183199117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|45.8||||||95.0|25.6|64.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||64|25.6|
91653177|NCT00818623|183199117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|38.1||||||95.0|12.1|64.3||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||64.3|12.1|
91653178|NCT00818623|183199117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|32.7||||||95.0|8.3|60.6||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||60.6|8.3|
91653179|NCT00818623|183199117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|83.3||||||95.0|61.5|93.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||93.4|61.5|
91653180|NCT00818623|183199117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|49.4||||||95.0|28.3|67.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||67.4|28.3|
91653181|NCT00818623|183199117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|82.0||||||95.0|58.8|92.8||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||92.8|58.8|
91653182|NCT00818623|183199117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|50.0||||||95.0|29.1|67.8||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||67.8|29.1|
91653183|NCT00818623|183199117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|70.4||||||95.0|49.4|83.9||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||83.9|49.4|
91653184|NCT00818623|183199118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0866||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0866
91653185|NCT00818623|183199119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.033
91653186|NCT00818623|183199120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.131
91653187|NCT01166568|183199124|SUPERIORITY||binomial distribution|0.75||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.75|||the p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||"The PSI procedure is defined as successful if 75% of subjects achieve the first primary endpoint or second primary endpoint. The corresponding statistical hypotheses are as follows:~H0 (null hypothesis): p1 ≤ 0.75 Ha (alternative hypothesis): p1 \> 0.75, Where, p1 is the probability of subjects achieving the first primary endpoint. H0 (null hypothesis): p2 ≤ 0.75 Ha (alternative hypothesis): p2 \> 0.75, Where, p2 is the probability of subjects achieving the second primary endpoint."|||0.75|0.025
91653188|NCT00320593|183199167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.55|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was a comparison of treatment groups using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model in which myopia at 3 years was adjusted for myopia at baseline and prior SVL wear. The sample size was computed to reach a 90% power and type I error rate of 5%, so that a difference in 3-year myopia progression between treatment groups would be detected if the true difference was at least 0.60 D, assuming a standard deviation of 0.85 D in each group and loss of follow up of 10%.||0.55|0.01|
91653189|NCT00320593|183199167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.53|||ANCOVA|||An adjusted analysis for the treatment group difference of change in spherical equivalent from baseline to 3 years was performed by including in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model the following covariates in addition to baseline myopia and prior single vision lens wear, which are known to be related to myopia progression: age, sex, ethnicity, accommodative lag, and magnitude of near esophoria.||0.53|0.02|
91653190|NCT00320593|183199170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.28|||ANCOVA|||A secondary analysis was conducted to assess the treatment effect on myopia at the interim time point of 1 year, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for the treatment group difference of change in spherical equivalent refractive error from baseline to 1 year, in which myopia at 1 year was adjusted for myopia at baseline and prior single vision lenses wear. Only complete cases (cases in which both baseline and 1 year values were known) were included.||0.28|-0.005|
91710127|NCT05052697|183312707|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.28|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: B1||2.28|0.40|
91710128|NCT05052697|183312707|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.18|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: B2||1.18|0.25|
91848327|NCT01879371|183580353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|99.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.874|105.776|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen acid film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||105.776|93.874|
91852019|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9102|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.49||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.49|0.9102
91710129|NCT05052697|183312708|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|53.5|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: A1||53.5|-4.5|
91848328|NCT01879371|183580353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|70.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.087|73.928|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen lysinate film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||73.928|67.087|
91848329|NCT01879371|183580354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|106.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.05|109.004|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen acid film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||109.004|104.050|
91848330|NCT01879371|183580354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|108.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.185|111.054|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen lysinate film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||111.054|106.185|
91848331|NCT00580801|183580365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.54|1.78|||||Day 1: The least square (LS) means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.78|0.54|
91848332|NCT00580801|183580365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.33||||||90.0|1.03|1.72|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.72|1.03|
91848333|NCT00580801|183580366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.0||||||90.0|0.58|1.72|||||Day 1: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.72|0.58|
91848334|NCT00580801|183580366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.32||||||90.0|1.05|1.66|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.66|1.05|
91653191|NCT00320593|183199171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.45|||ANCOVA|||A secondary analysis was conducted to assess the treatment effect on myopia at the interim time point of 2 years, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for the treatment group difference of change in spherical equivalent refractive error from baseline to 2 years, in which myopia at 2 years was adjusted for myopia at baseline and prior single vision lenses wear. Only complete cases (cases in which both baseline and 2 year values were known) were included.||0.45|0.02|
91710130|NCT05052697|183312708|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|49.4|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: A2||49.4|-19.2|
91848335|NCT00580801|183580367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.43||||||90.0|1.02|2.02|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||2.02|1.02|
91848336|NCT00580801|183580368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.24||||||90.0|0.88|1.74|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.74|0.88|
91848337|NCT02595398|183580371|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|31.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|45.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. Prior to evaluating the results of the CMH test, a Breslow-Day test with Tarone's adjustment was conducted to confirm the homogeneity of the odds ratios between country strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by the country, i.e., US+Israel and India.|Estimated value was calculated as the percentage of subjects in the Active arm meeting the primary endpoint minus the percentage of subjects in the Control arm meeting the primary endpoint.|A total sample size of 150 subjects in a 3:2 randomization had 90% power to detect a difference between treatments in the proportion of subjects showing improvement is 0.60 for treated and 0.34 for sham. The primary analysis was a test of superiority of the CLS-TA arm over the sham arm, and was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by country.||45.9|15.5|<0.001
91848338|NCT05576051|183580463|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Mixed model linear regression|Mixed model linear regression with propensity-score matched pairs as the random effect.||||||0.278
91710131|NCT05052697|183312708|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|19.1|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: B1||19.1|-41.7|
91848339|NCT05576051|183580464|OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||Mixed model linear regression|Mixed model linear regression with propensity-score matched pairs as the random effect.||||||0.131
91848340|NCT05576051|183580465|OTHER|||||||0.987|||||||Mixed model linear regression|Mixed model linear regression with propensity-score matched pairs as the random effect.||||||0.987
91848341|NCT03410992|183580577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|496.318|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.798|2975.086||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||2975.086|82.798|<0.001
91653192|NCT01851590|183199180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for negative KOH staining, negative cultures, and a combination of these at 4- and 10-month time points. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel and χ2-tests were used to analyse efficacy criteria.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The sample size was estimated according to complete mycological cure at 10 months. Estimation was based on the design of a binary-outcome head-to-head superiority trial. Orally administered terbinafine treatment was considered the active control. Approximately 25 patients / arm were required to have 80% power (β=0.2) at a two-sided α=0.05 significance level to detect a decrease in primary outcome from 50% in the terbinafine arm to 15% in the amorolfine or resin lacquer treatment arms.||||<0.05
91788320|NCT02415842|183457175|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H1N1\_AS over H1N1\_NAS) at Day 182. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.24|0.63|
91788321|NCT02415842|183457176|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 21 . Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||2.47|1.12|
91848342|NCT03410992|183580578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|657.255|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.792|4083.333||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||4083.333|105.792|<0.001
91653193|NCT01851590|183199181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variances, and pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91653194|NCT01851590|183199182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variances, and pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91653195|NCT01851590|183199183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variances, and pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91653196|NCT01851590|183199184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Qualitative data are expressed as frequencies and percentages, and differences between parallel groups were compared with the χ2-test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91653197|NCT00321711|183199187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.032||||||95.0|0.153|6.95||||||||6.950|0.153|
91788322|NCT02415842|183457176|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 42. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||3.03|1.54|
91788323|NCT02415842|183457176|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 182. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||2.54|1.49|
91788324|NCT02415842|183457176|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 385 . Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||2.01|1.32|
91788325|NCT02415842|183457177|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H9N2\_AS over H9N2\_NAS) at Day 21. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.69|1.14|
91788326|NCT02415842|183457177|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H9N2\_AS over H9N2\_NAS) at Day 42. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.73|1.28|
91788327|NCT02415842|183457177|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H9N2\_AS over H9N2\_NAS) at Day 182. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.44|1.00|
91788328|NCT02415842|183457178|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H1N1\_AS minus H1N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 21.|Difference in percentage of subjects|10.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|36.83|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||36.83|-16.50|
91788329|NCT02415842|183457178|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H1N1\_AS minus H1N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 42.|Difference in percentage of subjects|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.45|36.98|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||36.98|-14.45|
91788330|NCT02415842|183457178|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H1N1\_AS minus H1N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 182.|Difference in percentage of subjects|-6.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.56|18.65|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||18.65|-30.56|
91848343|NCT03410992|183580579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|220.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.757|1683.639||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||1683.639|28.757|<0.001
91653198|NCT00321711|183199187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.333||||||95.0|0.028|3.926||||||||3.926|0.028|
91788331|NCT02415842|183457179|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 21.|Difference in percentage of subjects|27.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|47.01|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||47.01|5.96|
91788332|NCT02415842|183457179|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 42.|Difference in percentage of subjects|36.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.41|57.53|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||57.53|11.41|
91788333|NCT02415842|183457179|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 182.|Difference in percentage of subjects|6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|24.71|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||24.71|-11.91|
91788334|NCT02415842|183457179|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 365.|Difference in percentage of subjects|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|22.15|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||22.15|-6.19|
91788335|NCT02415842|183457180|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H9N2\_AS minus H9N2\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 21.|Difference in percentage of subjects|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.06|20.24|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||20.24|-13.06|
91788336|NCT02415842|183457180|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H9N2\_AS minus H9N2\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 42.|Difference in percentage of subjects|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|34.76|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||34.76|0.35|
91788337|NCT02415842|183457180|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H9N2\_AS minus H9N2\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 182.|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|15.0|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||15.00|-13.76|
91852020|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6391|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.6391
91653199|NCT00321711|183199187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.118||||||95.0|0.007|1.882|||||Adjusted by the stratification factor|||1.882|0.007|
91653200|NCT00321711|183199188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.063|15.988|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||15.988|0.063|
91848344|NCT03410992|183580580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|224.744|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.13|1676.425||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||1676.425|30.130|<0.001
91653201|NCT00321711|183199189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.827||||||95.0|0.347|9.618|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||9.618|0.347|
91653202|NCT00321711|183199189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.445||||||95.0|0.037|5.325|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||5.325|0.037|
91653203|NCT00321711|183199189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.444||||||95.0|0.032|6.08|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||6.080|0.032|
91653204|NCT00321711|183199190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence rate|-33.5||||||95.0|-69.0|2.0|||||Romiplostim - placebo|||2.0|-69.0|
91848345|NCT03410992|183580581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|316.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.423|2543.254||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||2543.254|39.423|<0.001
91848346|NCT03410992|183580582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.325|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.22|82.856||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||82.856|14.220|<0.001
91848347|NCT03410992|183580583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.497|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.728|120.295||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||120.295|15.728|<0.001
91852021|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6838|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.6838
91653205|NCT00321711|183199190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.315||||||95.0|0.029|3.412||||||||3.412|0.029|
91653206|NCT00321711|183199190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.211||||||95.0|0.021|2.082||||||||2.082|0.021|
91653207|NCT01211769|183199196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TIME COMPARISON||||<0.001
91653208|NCT01211769|183199196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Variance (F)|0.71||||0.69||95.0|||||ANOVA|||GROUP COMPARISON||||0.69
91653209|NCT01211769|183199197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TIME COMPARISON||||<0.001
91653210|NCT01211769|183199197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Variance (F)|0.73||||0.53||95.0|||||ANOVA|||GROUP COMPARISON||||0.53
91788338|NCT00791973|183457203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.33
91788339|NCT00791973|183457204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.14
91653211|NCT01211769|183199198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TIME COMPARISON||||<0.001
91653212|NCT01211769|183199198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Variance (F)|1.08||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||GROUP COMPARISON||||0.37
91653213|NCT01709383|183199200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.57
91653214|NCT01709383|183199202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.64
91653215|NCT01688037|183199209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-2.3|0.2966
91653216|NCT01688037|183199210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.743
91653217|NCT01688037|183199211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.1151
91653218|NCT01688037|183199211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANOVA|||||0.0|-0.8|0.0277
91653219|NCT03065283|183199216|EQUIVALENCE|p\< or = 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was used for intragroup analysis, and an independent Student's t-test was used for intergroup analysis. Data are represented in mean between-group difference with a 95% CI, and analysis was by intention to treat.||0.57|-0.38|0.05
91653220|NCT05440097|183199234|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.079|13.431|||Mixed Models Analysis|The primary analysis used mixed effect logistic regression model, taking the timepoint as the fixed effect, hospital and patient as random effects.||||13.431|9.079|<.0001
91653221|NCT05440097|183199235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.82|34.25|||Normal approximation|||||34.25|26.82|
91653222|NCT05440097|183199236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.58|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in proportion at week 12|||3.58|0.77|
91653223|NCT05440097|183199236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.56|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in proportion at week 24|||3.56|0.57|
91653224|NCT05440097|183199236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.2||||||95.0|9.25|15.13|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in proportion at week 36|||15.13|9.25|
91653225|NCT05440097|183199236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.1||||||95.0|10.32|15.79|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in proportion at week 48|||15.79|10.32|
91653226|NCT05440097|183199238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|16.85|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in the Proportion at week 12|||16.85|9.21|
91653227|NCT05440097|183199238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.23|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in the proportion at week 24|||8.23|0.61|
91653228|NCT05440097|183199238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|10.36|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in the proportion at week 36|||10.36|2.68|
91788340|NCT00797966|183457208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.81|||ANCOVA|||The planned sample size of 120 participants per arm will yield 80% power to detect the treatment effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.025. The 0.025 significance level corresponds to the second level of Hochberg's procedure for handling the two primary efficacy comparisons.||1.81|-2.87|0.6551
91788341|NCT00797966|183457208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.55|||ANCOVA|||The planned sample size of 120 participants per arm will yield 80% power to detect the treatment effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.025. The 0.025 significance level corresponds to the second level of Hochberg's procedure for handling the two primary efficacy comparisons.||1.55|-2.30|0.7037
91900249|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.24|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.24|-0.53|0.466
91653229|NCT04828161|183199288|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.86|<0.001
91653230|NCT04828161|183199288|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.60|0.014
91653231|NCT04828161|183199288|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.68|0.002
91710132|NCT05052697|183312708|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|32.5|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: B2||32.5|-29.2|
91848348|NCT03410992|183580584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|60.946|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.56|180.669||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haensze (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||180.669|20.560|<0.001
91848349|NCT03410992|183580585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|158.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.263|506.745||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||506.745|49.263|<0.001
91848350|NCT03410992|183580586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.192|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.622|109.672||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. This statistical analysis is not controlled for multiplicity and is only nominal.||109.672|18.622|<0.001
91788342|NCT00797966|183457208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||The planned sample size of 120 participants per arm will yield 80% power to detect the treatment effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.025. The 0.025 significance level corresponds to the second level of Hochberg's procedure for handling the two primary efficacy comparisons.||-0.21|-4.08|0.0303
91788343|NCT00797966|183457209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.4166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.18|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo|||0.18|-0.43|0.4166
91788344|NCT00797966|183457209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.15|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.15|-0.35|0.4193
91848351|NCT03410992|183580586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.297|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.887|128.673||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. This statistical analysis is not controlled for multiplicity and is only nominal.||128.673|18.887|<0.001
91848352|NCT03410992|183580586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.406|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.087|101.75||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. This statistical analysis is not controlled for multiplicity and is only nominal.||101.750|22.087|<0.001
91848353|NCT03568318|183580604|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.4|43.8|<0.001
91848354|NCT03568318|183580604|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|45.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.4|30.8|<0.001
91848355|NCT03568318|183580605|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.1|54.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.0|41.1|<0.001
91848356|NCT03568318|183580605|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||34.9|22.1|<0.001
91848357|NCT03568318|183580606|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.9|55.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||55.7|41.9|<0.001
91848358|NCT03568318|183580606|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.8|29.7|<0.001
91653232|NCT03093454|183199306|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed effects models were used to investigate HADS scores (total, anxiety, and depression), sleep scores, and pain scores. Variables for time point (preoperative/Post-op Day 1/final Post-op Day) \& arm were analyzed. Adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons used the Scheffe method. Analyses were conducted based on the intent to treat principle. P-values\<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Each time point, the mean and corresponding 95% confidence interval has been plotted.|Odds Ratio (OR)|95.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value is calculated and adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Lavender group compared to control group||||0.05
91848359|NCT03568318|183580607|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|56.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.4|43.3|<0.001
91848360|NCT03568318|183580607|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.3|22.8|<0.001
91848361|NCT03568318|183580608|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|57.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.3|43.8|<0.001
91848362|NCT03568318|183580608|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|44.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.3|30.4|<0.001
91848363|NCT03568318|183580609|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|63.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||63.9|51.2|<0.001
91653233|NCT01884025|183199313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-Value: 0.55||Change in total BADS score.||||0.59
91852022|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9648|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.49||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.49|0.9648
91653234|NCT01884025|183199313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.03||Change in Activation Subscale||||0.98
91653235|NCT01884025|183199313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|"DF: 18~1 Value: -0.04"||Change in Avoidance/Rumination Subscale||||0.96
91653236|NCT01884025|183199313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 1.31||Change in Work/School Impairment Subscale||||0.21
91653237|NCT01884025|183199313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.99||Change in Social Impairment Subscale||||0.34
91653238|NCT01884025|183199314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.33||||||0.75
91653239|NCT01884025|183199315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: -0.36||Change in overall physical activity frequency were compared between the two groups.||||0.72
91653240|NCT01884025|183199315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: -0.39||Change in moderate physical activity frequency between the two groups.||||0.70
91653241|NCT01884025|183199316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.77||Change in the physical health scale of the RAND 12 were compared.||||0.45
91653242|NCT01884025|183199316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.76||Change in the mental health scale of the RAND 12 were compared.||||0.45
91653243|NCT01884025|183199317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: -0.36||||||0.72
91653244|NCT01884025|183199318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.15||||||0.88
91900250|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.092
91653245|NCT01884025|183199319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 1.83||||||.08
91653246|NCT01884025|183199320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Chi Squared 1.98|Chi-squared|||||||.16
91788345|NCT00797966|183457209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||-0.10|-0.60|0.0064
91653247|NCT01884025|183199321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||t value: .19|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.85
91653248|NCT01884025|183199322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||t value: .54|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.60
91653249|NCT01884025|183199323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||t value: -1.17|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.26
91653250|NCT01884025|183199324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||t value: 1.85|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.08
91788346|NCT00797966|183457210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|6.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||6.02|-2.67|0.4490
91788347|NCT00797966|183457210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.7412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|4.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||4.24|-3.02|0.7412
91788348|NCT00797966|183457210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.17|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||5.17|-2.10|0.4070
91788349|NCT00797966|183457211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.4954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.42|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.42|-0.86|0.4954
91788350|NCT00797966|183457211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.35|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.35|-0.73|0.4902
91788351|NCT00797966|183457211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.12|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||-0.12|-1.20|0.0161
91788352|NCT00797966|183457217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.46|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||1.46|-2.54|0.5953
91788353|NCT00797966|183457217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.55|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||1.55|-1.66|0.9479
91788354|NCT00797966|183457217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.22|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.22|-2.95|0.0919
91788355|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3998||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||||0.3998
91788356|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8838||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||||0.8838
91788357|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4012||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||||0.4012
91788358|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6131||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||||0.6131
91788359|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5964||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||||0.5964
91788360|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||||0.2540
91788361|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8524||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||||0.8524
91848364|NCT03568318|183580609|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|50.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.5|37.0|<0.001
91848365|NCT03568318|183580610|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.3|31.0|<0.001
91848366|NCT03568318|183580610|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.9|18.1|<0.001
91653251|NCT01700621|183199341|NON_INFERIORITY|A noninferiority margin of -10% was chosen as the maximal absolute reduction in proportion seroprotection allowed in the concomitant measles-rubella and rotavirus vaccine group as compared to the measles-rubella vaccine alone group.|Seroconversion proportion difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.0||||||||9.0|-6.9|
91653252|NCT03588390|183199358|OTHER||Slope|0.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0971|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5006|0.8914|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.8914|0.5006|
91710133|NCT03796676|183312727|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|16.7||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||29.9|3.5|0.0147
91788362|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6969||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||||0.6969
91788363|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3108||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||||0.3108
91788364|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8719||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||||0.8719
91788365|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6105||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||||0.6105
91788366|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0709||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||||0.0709
91710134|NCT03796676|183312727|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|20.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||33.9|7.3|0.0030
91788367|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9574||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||||0.9574
91788368|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||||0.2310
91848367|NCT03568318|183580611|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|44.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.8|32.8|<0.001
91852023|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8961|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.40|0.8961
91710135|NCT03796676|183312728|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|26.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||39.8|13.1|0.0002
91710136|NCT03796676|183312728|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||42.5|16.3|<0.0001
91788369|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0672||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||||0.0672
91788370|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8441||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||||0.8441
91788371|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6741||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||||0.6741
91788372|NCT00797966|183457218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||||0.0183
91848368|NCT03568318|183580611|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.9|17.7|<0.001
91848369|NCT03568318|183580612|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.1|16.3|<0.001
91848370|NCT03568318|183580613|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.1|11.3|<0.001
91653253|NCT03588390|183199358|OTHER||Slope|0.9244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6764|1.1724|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.1724|0.6764|
91710137|NCT03796676|183312729|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|14.7||||0.0119||95.0|3.5|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 2 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||25.9|3.5|0.0119
91653254|NCT03588390|183199359|OTHER||Slope|0.6533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0982|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4556|0.851|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.8510|0.4556|
91653255|NCT03588390|183199359|OTHER||Slope|0.8586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1307|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5929|1.1242|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.1242|0.5929|
91653256|NCT00384033|183199360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided. Global F-test was used to adjust for multiplicity. If global F-test was significant at 0.05 level, pair wise analysis was interpreted without any further p-value adjustment.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, HAM-D17 total score was evaluated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D17 score as the covariate.||2.70|-0.60|0.198
91653257|NCT00384033|183199360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided. Global F-test was used to adjust for multiplicity. If global F-test was significant at 0.05 level, pair wise analysis was interpreted without any further p-value adjustment.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, HAM-D17 total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D17 score as the covariate.||3.40|0.20|0.028
91653258|NCT00384033|183199360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, HAM-D17 total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D17 score as the covariate.||3.40|0.00|0.047
91653259|NCT00384033|183199361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For DVS SR 50 mg, CGI-I was evaluated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with treatment as a factor and controlling for center.||||0.110
91788373|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.49||||0.3007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.93|0.12|0.3007
91788374|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.94||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||2.10|0.42|0.8812
91788375|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.32||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.07||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.07|0.10|0.0553
91788376|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.78||||0.6051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.05||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.05|0.30|0.6051
91788377|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.92||||0.8264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.85||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.85|0.46|0.8264
91653260|NCT00384033|183199361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For DVS SR 100 mg, CGI-I was evaluated using CMH test with treatment as a factor and controlling for center.||||0.009
91788378|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.06||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.10|0.54|0.8690
91788379|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.35||||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.44||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.44|0.74|0.3441
91788380|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.14||||0.6375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.94||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.94|0.67|0.6375
91788381|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.31||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.21||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.21|0.78|0.3135
91788382|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|2.35||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.18||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||4.18|1.32|0.0035
91788383|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.27||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.31||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||2.31|0.70|0.4358
91788384|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|2.02||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.41||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||3.41|1.20|0.0063
91788385|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.27||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.23||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.23|0.72|0.3968
91848371|NCT03568318|183580613|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||13.4|4.9|<0.001
91852024|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9534|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.41||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.41|0.9534
91788386|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.27||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.00|0.81|0.2990
91788387|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.39||||0.1614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.25||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.25|0.86|0.1614
91653261|NCT00384033|183199361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, CGI-I was evaluated using CMH test with treatment as a factor and controlling for center.||||0.008
91653262|NCT00384033|183199362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, CGI-S was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||0.40|-0.10|0.248
91653263|NCT00384033|183199362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, CGI-S was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||0.60|0.10|0.011
91653264|NCT00384033|183199362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, CGI-S was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||0.60|0.00|0.026
91653265|NCT00384033|183199363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, MADRS total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline MADRS score as the covariate.||4.00|-0.60|0.149
91653266|NCT00384033|183199363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, MADRS total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline MADRS score as the covariate.||5.60|1.10|0.004
91653267|NCT00384033|183199363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.8||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, MADRS total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline MADRS score as the covariate.||5.80|1.10|0.005
91788388|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.29||||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.12||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||2.12|0.79|0.3254
91653268|NCT00384033|183199364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.46||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, lassitude item of the MADRS score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline lassitude item of the MADRS score as the covariate.||0.46|-0.22|0.473
91788389|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.02||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.62|0.64|0.9463
91653269|NCT00384033|183199364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.61||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, lassitude item of the MADRS score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline lassitude item of the MADRS score as the covariate.||0.61|-0.07|0.119
91710138|NCT03796676|183312729|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|38.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 2 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||38.3|13.9|<0.0001
91788390|NCT00797966|183457219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.74||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.65||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||2.65|1.14|0.0080
91788391|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.59||||0.5791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||3.90|0.09|0.5791
91788392|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.43||||0.2653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.93|0.10|0.2653
91653270|NCT00384033|183199364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, lassitude item of the MADRS score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline lassitude item of the MADRS score as the covariate.||0.40|-0.27|0.710
91848372|NCT03568318|183580614|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-41.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.417|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.46|-33.11|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-33.11|-50.46|<0.001
91900251|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.04|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.04|-0.67|0.086
91900252|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.45|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.45|-0.27|0.616
91900253|NCT01794923|183694259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||-0.02|-0.79|0.040
91900254|NCT01794923|183694260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.751|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||||0.751
91900255|NCT01794923|183694260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.0||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||0.20|-0.28|0.696
91900256|NCT01794923|183694260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||0.29|-0.21|0.760
91900257|NCT01794923|183694260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.1||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||0.16|-0.36|0.463
91900258|NCT01881750|183694264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Effects Regression Model|||Group X Time Interaction Cohen's d||||0.42
91900259|NCT03318809|183694279|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|Ratio (Group 1/Group 2)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.1|||||The ratio and confidence interval (CI) are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||2.10|0.73|
91900260|NCT03318809|183694280|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|Ratio (Group 1/Group 2)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.27|||||The ratio and CI are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||2.27|0.88|
91900261|NCT03318809|183694283|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|Ratio (Group 1/Group 2)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.1|||||The ratio and CI are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||2.10|0.73|
91900262|NCT04668586|183694285|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.006
91900263|NCT04668586|183694286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Adjusted for four-category stratification group.||||||0.008
91900264|NCT04668586|183694288|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91900265|NCT04668586|183694289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Adjusted for four-category stratification group.||||||0.09
91900266|NCT05089656|183694408|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||3.25|0.51|0.0074
91710139|NCT03796676|183312729|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|10.9||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 4 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||23.6|-1.8|0.0971
91900267|NCT05089656|183694409|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means - difference|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||3.22|-0.33|0.1097
91900268|NCT05089656|183694410|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||2.71|0.34|0.0122
91900269|NCT05089656|183694411|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.836||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||3.12|-0.22|0.0873
91900270|NCT05089656|183694412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||End of Followup Period 1 (Week 52)||4.57|0.90|0.0879
91900271|NCT05089656|183694413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||End of Followup Period 1 (Week 52)||3.56|0.46|0.6448
91900272|NCT03662139|183694449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
91900273|NCT03662139|183694449|SUPERIORITY||ICC|0.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|0.99|||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient(ICC)|Two-way random-effect model|Reliability estimates were interpreted as follows: \>0.90=excellent; 0.75-0.90=good; 0.50-0.75=medium; \<0.50=low|Test - Retest Reliability (Difference between 1st and 2nd assessments in Cerebral Palsy group)||0.99|0.915|<0.05
91900274|NCT03662139|183694449|SUPERIORITY||ICC|0.983|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|0.998|||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient(ICC)|Two-way random-effect model|Reliability estimates were interpreted as follows: \>0.90=excellent; 0.75-0.90=good; 0.50-0.75=medium; \<0.50=low|Interrater Reliability (Difference between 1st and 2nd evaluators in Cerebral Palsy group)||0.998|0.882|<0.01
91900275|NCT03662139|183694450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
91900276|NCT03662139|183694450|SUPERIORITY||Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs)|0.724|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation Test|The level of relationship was classified as follows \<0.30=small/negligible; 0.30-0.50=low; 0.50-0.70=moderate; 0.70-0.90=high; \>0.90=very high.||Correlation between Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) and Pediatric Balance Scale (PBS) scores in Cerebral Palsy group||||<0.05
91900277|NCT03662139|183694451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
91848373|NCT03568318|183580614|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-33.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.72|-24.44|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-24.44|-41.72|<0.001
91848374|NCT03568318|183580615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-36.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.||-36.22|-46.68|<0.001
91848375|NCT03568318|183580615|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-32.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.659|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.35|-26.91|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-26.91|-37.35|<0.001
91653271|NCT00384033|183199365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, HAM-D6 score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D6 score as the covariate.||1.50|-0.30|0.215
91848376|NCT03568318|183580616|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|67.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.4|38.8|<0.001
91848377|NCT03568318|183580616|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|49.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.0|16.3|<0.001
91848378|NCT03568318|183580617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|55.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|69.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.5|41.4|<0.001
91710140|NCT03796676|183312729|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 4 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||42.9|16.0|<0.0001
91788393|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.39||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.87||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.87|0.08|0.2259
91788394|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.83||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.18||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.18|0.32|0.6986
91788395|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.61||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.35||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.35|0.28|0.2339
91788396|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.07||||0.8615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.15||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.15|0.53|0.8615
91788397|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.06||||0.8807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.20|0.51|0.8807
91788398|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.96||||0.9035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.77||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.77|0.52|0.9035
91788399|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.19||||0.5898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.24|0.64|0.5898
91788400|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.82||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.58||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||3.58|0.93|0.0840
91788401|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.96||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.88|0.49|0.9115
91788402|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.77||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||3.17|0.98|0.0522
91788403|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.24||||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.34||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.34|0.65|0.4997
91788404|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.16||||0.5846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.93|0.69|0.5846
91788405|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.99||||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.76||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.76|0.55|0.9602
91788406|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.62||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.02||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||3.02|0.87|0.1254
91788407|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.13||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.99||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.99|0.65|0.6670
91788408|NCT00797966|183457220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.7||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||2.93|0.98|0.0525
91788409|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.98||||0.9462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.84||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.84|0.52|0.9462
91788410|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.8||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.49||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.49|0.43|0.4971
91788411|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.93||||0.8118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.63||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.63|0.53|0.8118
91788412|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.95||||0.8323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.53||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.53|0.59|0.8323
91788413|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.68||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.08||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.08|0.43|0.0930
91788414|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.88||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.32||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.32|0.59|0.5530
91788415|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.06||||0.8007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.61||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.61|0.69|0.8007
91788416|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.03||||0.8945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.49||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.49|0.71|0.8945
91788417|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.17||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.64||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.64|0.83|0.3837
91788418|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.09||||0.7064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.63|0.72|0.7064
91848379|NCT03568318|183580617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.4|12.1|<0.001
91848380|NCT03568318|183580618|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.8|14.1|<0.001
91848381|NCT03568318|183580618|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|40.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.8|8.2|0.003
91848382|NCT03568318|183580619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|66.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.7|37.3|<0.001
91848383|NCT03568318|183580619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.1|11.1|0.001
91653272|NCT00384033|183199365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, HAM-D6 score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D6 score as the covariate.||2.30|0.40|0.005
91848384|NCT03568318|183580620|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|23.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.1|6.9|0.006
91848385|NCT03568318|183580620|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|22.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|39.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.2|6.2|0.007
91848386|NCT03568318|183580621|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|64.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||64.6|34.1|<0.001
91848387|NCT03568318|183580621|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|26.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.1|9.4|0.002
91848388|NCT03568318|183580622|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|41.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|55.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||55.1|27.8|<0.001
91848389|NCT03568318|183580622|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.4|10.3|0.001
91848390|NCT03568318|183580623|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|49.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.3|20.6|<0.001
91788419|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.06||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.52||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.52|0.74|0.7469
91788420|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.34||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.86||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.86|0.97|0.0832
91788421|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.09||||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.61||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.61|0.74|0.6611
91788422|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.13||||0.4435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.56||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.56|0.83|0.4435
91788423|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.47||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.98||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.98|1.09|0.0118
91788424|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.89||||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.26||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.26|0.63|0.5111
91788425|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.9||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.22|0.66|0.4903
91788426|NCT00797966|183457221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.28||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.67||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.67|0.98|0.0662
91788427|NCT02478398|183457226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-2.0|||ANOVA|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma status, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-2.00|-3.45|< 0.001
91788428|NCT02478398|183457227|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.27|||ANOVA|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma status, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-1.27|-2.46|< 0.001
91788429|NCT02478398|183457228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.99|||ANOVA|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma status, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-0.99|-1.81|< 0.001
91788430|NCT02478398|183457229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.08|||Zero-Inflated Log-Normal Model|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-1.08|-2.60|< 0.001
91788431|NCT02478398|183457230|OTHER||Difference in % estimates|37.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.82|43.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||43.12|31.82|< 0.001
91788432|NCT02478398|183457231|OTHER||Difference in % estimates|0.39|||=|0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.53|-0.57|= 0.320
91788433|NCT02478398|183457232|OTHER||Difference in % estimates|0.0|||=|0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.92|-0.92|= 0.996
91788434|NCT01475071|183457248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority margin of -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6||0.0345|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.8||||paired Student's t statistic|||The primary purpose of this study is to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Metvix and daylight compared to Metvix and the lamp in terms of lesion complete response rate.|||-6.8|0.0345
91788435|NCT01475071|183457249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided Wilcoxon rank signed||superiority of Metvix adaylight and Metvix Lamp in term of pain||||<0.001
91788436|NCT01205581|183457255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
91788437|NCT01205581|183457258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
91788438|NCT01205581|183457259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.51
91788439|NCT01205581|183457260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
91788440|NCT01205581|183457261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
91788441|NCT01205581|183457262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
91788442|NCT01512667|183457276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity will be concluded if the GMR (severe renal insufficiency / healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.40, 2.50\].|GMR|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.23||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a categorical factor for population (severe renal insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and body mass index (BMI). Data are back transformed to geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR) (severe renal insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||2.23|1.15|
91788443|NCT01512667|183457277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.81||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with a categorical factor for population (severe renal insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and BMI. Data are back transformed to GMR (severe renal insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||1.81|1.18|
91788444|NCT02775240|183457283|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.248|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.378|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed Cmax values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Cmax of Digoxin||1.378|1.130|
91788445|NCT02775240|183457284|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.144|||Linear mixed effects model|||Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Cmax of Dextromethorphan||1.144|0.778|
91788446|NCT02775240|183457285|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.883|1.007|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed Cmax values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Cmax of Dextrorphan||1.007|0.883|
91848391|NCT03568318|183580623|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.7|10.4|0.001
91848392|NCT03568318|183580624|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|31.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.8|7.8|0.001
91848393|NCT03568318|183580625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.2||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||18.2|-5.7|0.306
91848394|NCT03568318|183580625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-1.0||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||9.3|-11.2|0.855
91848395|NCT03568318|183580626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.956||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.59|7.48|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||7.48|-39.59|0.180
91848396|NCT03568318|183580626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.986||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.97|-2.79|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.79|-49.97|0.029
91848397|NCT03568318|183580627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.354|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.28|-25.11|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-25.11|-46.28|<0.001
91653273|NCT00384033|183199365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, HAM-D6 score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D6 score as the covariate.||2.10|0.20|0.024
91653274|NCT00384033|183199366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.17||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, HAM-D energy subscale score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D energy score as the covariate.||1.17|-0.10|0.100
91653275|NCT00384033|183199366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.42||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, HAM-D energy subscale score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D energy score as the covariate.||1.42|0.16|0.014
91653276|NCT00384033|183199366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.38||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, HAM-D energy subscale score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D energy score as the covariate.||1.38|0.06|0.032
91848398|NCT03568318|183580627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.423|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-13.65|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-13.65|-35.10|<0.001
91848399|NCT04988295|183580639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.35|<0.0001
91848400|NCT04988295|183580639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.36|0.64|||Log Rank|||||0.64|0.36|<0.0001
91848401|NCT02657629|183580658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91848402|NCT00516503|183580659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91848403|NCT00516503|183580660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
91848404|NCT00516503|183580661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
91848405|NCT00930813|183580666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The study required 100 subjects to provide 80% power to detect a clinically meaningful difference in late lumen loss of 15% of reference vessel diameter between treatment groups on the basis of a 2-sample Student t test with 2-sided alpha 0.05.||||0.016
91848406|NCT05197049|183580686|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|44.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||44.6|25.1|< 0.001
91848407|NCT05197049|183580687|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|29.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||29.6|10.2|< 0.001
91848408|NCT05197049|183580688|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|48.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||48.4|25.6|< 0.001
91848409|NCT05197049|183580688|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|39.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|50.7|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||50.7|28.0|< 0.001
91848410|NCT05197049|183580689|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|41.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||41.2|22.9|< 0.001
91848411|NCT05197049|183580690|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|50.7|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||50.7|29.9|< 0.001
91848412|NCT04889118|183580737|SUPERIORITY|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.81||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||0.81|0.37|0.0013
91788447|NCT02775240|183457291|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.206|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.099|1.324|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUC0-infinity values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUC0-infinity of Digoxin||1.324|1.099|
91788448|NCT02775240|183457293|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.943|0.999|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUC0-infinity values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUC0-infinity of Dextrorphan||0.999|0.943|
91653277|NCT00384033|183199367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, Covi anxiety scale was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline Covi anxiety score as the covariate.||0.50|-0.20|0.445
91653278|NCT00384033|183199367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, Covi anxiety scale was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline Covi anxiety score as the covariate.||0.70|-0.00|0.056
91653279|NCT00384033|183199367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, Covi anxiety scale was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline Covi anxiety score as the covariate.||0.90|0.10|0.006
91653280|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.9||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, overall VAS-PI score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline VAS-PI score as the covariate.||7.90|-0.90|0.124
91653281|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, overall VAS-PI score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline VAS-PI score as the covariate.||9.10|0.30|0.035
91653282|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.8||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, overall VAS-PI score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline VAS-PI score as the covariate.||8.80|-0.70|0.093
91653283|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, stomach pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline stomach pain score as the covariate.||7.70|-1.40|0.177
91653284|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|9.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, stomach pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline stomach pain score as the covariate.||9.10|0.10|0.048
91653285|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, stomach pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline stomach pain score as the covariate.||8.10|-0.50|0.088
91653286|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|8.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, back pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline back pain score as the covariate.||8.40|-1.00|0.122
91653287|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, back pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline back pain score as the covariate.||10.50|1.10|0.015
91653288|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|9.2||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, back pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline back pain score as the covariate.||9.20|-0.80|0.103
91653289|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, chest pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline chest pain score as the covariate.||4.50|-1.70|0.384
91788449|NCT02775240|183457294|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.287|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUClast for Digoxin||1.287|1.080|
91788450|NCT02775240|183457295|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.696|1.118|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUClast of Dextromethorphan||1.118|0.696|
91848413|NCT04889118|183580738|SUPERIORITY|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.48||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||1.48|0.58|0.3728
91848414|NCT00601640|183580747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
91848415|NCT01456936|183580751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0652||||||An interaction between treatment and cohort was considered significant at 10% level. No multiplicity adjustments were utilized.|Regression, Linear|A generalized linear regression analysis based on the safety analysis set was used to evaluate incidence of NPS AE as the primary analysis.||The reduced (final) statistical model included treatment group, cohort and region, plus the 2-way interaction of treatment by cohort. Other interactions not included due to lack of significance. Region reduced to 2-level to address event sparseness issue.||||0.0652
91653290|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, chest pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline chest pain score as the covariate.||5.10|-1.20|0.221
91653291|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, chest pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline chest pain score as the covariate.||4.70|-1.90|0.411
91653292|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, arms, legs, joint pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline arms, legs, pain score as the covariate.||6.70|-2.80|0.412
91653293|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, arms, legs, joint pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline arms, legs, pain score as the covariate.||9.60|0.20|0.042
91653294|NCT00384033|183199368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.8||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, arms, legs, joint pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline arms, legs, pain score as the covariate.||7.80|-1.20|0.155
91653295|NCT02300025|183199380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.2|143.4|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between test and reference treatments obtained from mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and mild hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The least squares (LS) means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||143.4|59.2|
91653296|NCT02300025|183199380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.6|132.1|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and moderate hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||132.1|54.6|
91653297|NCT02300025|183199380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.1|60.7|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and severe hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||60.7|25.1|
91653298|NCT02300025|183199382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.0|186.0|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and mild hepatic impairment (test) where, hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||186.0|52.0|
91710141|NCT03796676|183312729|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|22.8||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||37.7|8.0|0.0035
91848416|NCT01456936|183580752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.15|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for varenicline versus placebo from estimation model.|Non-psychiatric cohort||-0.15|-2.40|
91848417|NCT01456936|183580752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.21|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for bupropion 150 mg BID versus placebo from estimation model.|Non-psychiatric cohort||1.21|-1.37|
91848418|NCT01456936|183580752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.12|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for NRT versus placebo from estimation model.|Non-psychiatric cohort||1.12|-1.54|
91848419|NCT01456936|183580752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|3.59|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for varenicline versus placebo from estimation model|Psychiatric cohort||3.59|-0.42|
91848420|NCT01456936|183580752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|3.81|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for bupropion 150 mg BID versus placebo from estimation model.|Psychiatric cohort||3.81|-0.24|
91900278|NCT03662139|183694451|SUPERIORITY||Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs)|-0.828|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation Test||The level of relationship was classified as follows \<0.30=small/negligible; 0.30-0.50=low; 0.50-0.70=moderate; 0.70-0.90=high; \>0.90=very high.|Correlation between Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) and Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) scores in Cerebral Palsy group||||<0.01
91900279|NCT03662139|183694452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
91848421|NCT01456936|183580752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.26|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for NRT versus placebo from estimation model.|Psychiatric cohort||2.26|-1.53|
91848422|NCT01456936|183580767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.0||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||5.00|3.20|<0.0001
91653299|NCT02300025|183199382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|102.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.0|193.2|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and moderate hepatic impairment (test) where, hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||193.2|54.0|
91653300|NCT02300025|183199382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.5|80.5|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and severe hepatic impairment (test) where, hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||80.5|22.5|
91653301|NCT02300025|183199383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.3|160.6|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0 - ∞) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and mild hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||160.6|59.3|
91653302|NCT02300025|183199383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.6|169.6|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0 - ∞) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and moderate hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||169.6|62.6|
91653303|NCT02300025|183199383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.4|116.2|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0 - ∞) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and severe hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||116.2|40.4|
91653304|NCT01227668|183199422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.12|||Stratified log rank|||||1.12|0.28|0.097
91710142|NCT03796676|183312729|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|25.6||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|40.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||40.6|10.6|0.0013
91848423|NCT01456936|183580767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.85||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.85|1.80|<0.0001
91710143|NCT03796676|183312730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The least squares mean difference at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||0.0|-1.1|0.0664
91848424|NCT01456936|183580767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.90|1.83|<0.0001
91848425|NCT01456936|183580768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|4.11||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||4.11|2.56|<0.0001
91848426|NCT01456936|183580768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.39||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.39|1.46|<0.0001
91710144|NCT03796676|183312730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The least squares mean difference at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||-0.1|-1.3|0.0142
91848427|NCT01456936|183580768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.55||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.55|1.56|<0.0001
91848428|NCT01456936|183580769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|4.24||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||4.24|3.07|<0.0001
91848429|NCT01456936|183580769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.45||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.45|1.75|<0.0001
91848430|NCT01456936|183580769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.54||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.54|1.82|<0.0001
91848431|NCT01456936|183580770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|3.83||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||3.83|2.33|<0.0001
91848432|NCT01456936|183580770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.59||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.59|1.54|<0.0001
91848433|NCT01456936|183580770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.54||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.54|1.51|<0.0001
91848434|NCT01456936|183580771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.29||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||3.29|1.90|<0.0001
91848435|NCT01456936|183580771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.36||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.36|1.33|<0.0001
91848436|NCT01456936|183580771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.20|1.24|<0.0001
91848437|NCT01456936|183580772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|3.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||3.30|2.28|<0.0001
91653305|NCT01227668|183199423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|0.02||For secondary endpoints, hierarchical testing aimed to keep the overall experiment-wise type I error rate to \<=0.05. Difference in chg from BL was tested at 0.05 significance only if APR arm significantly differed vs placebo from primary analysis.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-8.82|0.051
91653306|NCT01227668|183199424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||Treatment diff in chg from BL to endpnt in IS score was tested at 0.05 signif only if ARP arm signif differed vs pb from PA. Thus, if ARP arm signif differed vs pb in IS score, treatment diff in mean CGI-I score at endpnt was tested at 0.05 signfnce.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.3|0.090
91848438|NCT01456936|183580772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.29||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.29|1.56|<0.0001
91848439|NCT01456936|183580772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.19||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.19|1.49|<0.0001
91848440|NCT00906698|183580785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|126.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.549|229.012|||ANOVA|||||229.012|69.549|
91848441|NCT00906698|183580786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|75.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.037|87.837|||ANOVA|||||87.837|65.037|
91848442|NCT00906698|183580787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|132.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.305|243.917|||ANOVA|||||243.917|72.305|
91848443|NCT00906698|183580788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|83.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.156|114.823|||ANOVA|||||114.823|61.156|
91848444|NCT00906698|183580791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|90.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.071|106.978|||ANOVA|||||106.978|76.071|
91848445|NCT00906698|183580792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|76.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.71|103.871|||ANOVA|||||103.871|56.710|
91848446|NCT00906698|183580793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|83.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.369|105.966|||ANOVA|||||105.966|66.369|
91848447|NCT00906698|183580794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|81.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.47|110.369|||ANOVA|||||110.369|60.470|
91848448|NCT03879642|183580797|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.117|||||TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||
91848449|NCT03879642|183580798|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91848450|NCT00404079|183580823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was glucosamine sulfate is not superior to placebo to reduce pain and disability associated with chronic low back pain. Power calculation was based on a 3 point difference between the groups with the primary outcome. Data was analysed with linear mixed models||||0.05
91848451|NCT00404079|183580823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91848452|NCT01460342|183580842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-2.4|<0.001
91848453|NCT01460342|183580843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5||The p-value is for the change from baseline in the IPSS Total Score at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-2.0|<0.001
91653307|NCT04281485|183199427|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|=|0.9116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|1.64|-1.46|=0.9116
91653308|NCT04281485|183199428|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|85.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.17|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.15|122.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model contained treatment group (categorical variable) and screening age (continuous variable).||||122.35|49.15|=0.0002
91653309|NCT04281485|183199429|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|51.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.43|71.49|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model contained treatment group (categorical variable) and screening age (continuous variable).||||71.49|31.43|<0.0001
91653310|NCT04281485|183199430|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Ratio of LS Means|0.64|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||||MMRM approach for log transformed data including visits through Week 52 where serum CK concentration was assessed with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction, and with additional fixed effects for natural log of baseline (continuous variable), screening age covariate (continuous variable), natural log of baseline by visit interaction, and screening age covariate by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|0.81|0.50|=0.0002
91710145|NCT02724410|183312769|OTHER|Chi Square test of independence||||||0.7188|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7188
91848454|NCT01460342|183580843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4||The p-value is for the change from baseline in the IPSS Total Score at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-2.0|0.003
91848455|NCT01460342|183580844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Storage (Irritative) Subscore at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.6|0.090
91848456|NCT01460342|183580844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Storage (Irritative) Subscore at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.011
91848457|NCT01460342|183580844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Storage (Irritative) Subscore at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.002
91848458|NCT01460342|183580845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Voiding (Obstructive) Subscore at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.5|<0.001
91848459|NCT01460342|183580845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Voiding (Obstructive) Subscore at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.007
91848460|NCT01460342|183580845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Voiding (Obstructive) Subscore at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-1.5|0.002
91653311|NCT04281485|183199431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||=|0.2784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.62|||Binomial regression||||The generalized mixed linear model assumed a binomial distribution with logit link \& contains fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable) \& screening age (continuous variable).|4.62|0.64|=0.2784
91653312|NCT04281485|183199432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.28|||Binomial Regression||||The generalized mixed linear model assumed a binomial distribution with a logit link and contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable) and screening age (continuous variable).|1.28|0.63|=0.5437
91710146|NCT02724410|183312770|OTHER|Chi Square test of independence||||||0.5933|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5933
91710147|NCT02724410|183312771|OTHER|Chi Square test of independence|||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.99
91710148|NCT02724410|183312772|OTHER|T-test for difference between groups|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
91848461|NCT01460342|183580846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS QoL Index Score at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.2|0.277
91710149|NCT02636439|183312816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|112.0|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||112|-25|0.21
91710150|NCT02636439|183312817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0.8|-1.0|0.86
91848462|NCT01460342|183580846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS QoL Index Score at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.3|0.170
91848463|NCT01460342|183580846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS QoL Index Score at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-0.4|0.038
91848464|NCT01460342|183580847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH-LUTS) and previous alpha-blocker therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91848465|NCT01460342|183580848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH-LUTS) and previous alpha-blocker therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91710151|NCT02636439|183312818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||3.8|-2.8|0.77
91710152|NCT02636439|183312819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0.2|-0.3|0.85
91848466|NCT01460342|183580849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.2|0.060
91848467|NCT02107014|183580850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.576
91848468|NCT02107014|183580851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
91848469|NCT02107014|183580852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.008
91848470|NCT02107014|183580853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.015
91848471|NCT02107014|183580854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.007
91653313|NCT04281485|183199433|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|=|0.3343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|0.083|-0.242|=0.3343
91653314|NCT04281485|183199434|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|=|0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|0.045|-0.052|=0.8826
91653315|NCT04281485|183199435|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|=|0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|5.24|-1.22|=0.2190
91653316|NCT04281485|183199436|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|=|0.7096||95.0|-4.79|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|7.00|-4.79|=0.7096
91653317|NCT00891878|183199457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
91848472|NCT02107014|183580855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.016
91848473|NCT02107014|183580856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91848474|NCT02107014|183580857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.212
91848475|NCT02107014|183580860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91848476|NCT02107014|183580861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91653318|NCT00891878|183199458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
91653319|NCT01360450|183199463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||yes the P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|2 sided ANOVA|Mean difference between the two treatment arms|||||>0.05
91653320|NCT03211416|183199477|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate|0.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.483||||||||0.483|0.151|
91848477|NCT02107014|183580862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91848478|NCT02107014|183580863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.047
91848479|NCT02107014|183580864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91848480|NCT02107014|183580865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91848481|NCT02107014|183580866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.191
91848482|NCT02107014|183580867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.088
91848483|NCT02107014|183580868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.478
91848484|NCT02107014|183580871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
91848485|NCT02107014|183580872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
91848486|NCT02107014|183580873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
91848487|NCT02107014|183580874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.426
91848488|NCT02107014|183580875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.042
91848489|NCT02107014|183580876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.708
91848490|NCT02107014|183580877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.558
91848491|NCT02107014|183580878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
91848492|NCT02107014|183580879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.655
91848493|NCT02107014|183580880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.248
91848494|NCT02107014|183580881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.128
91848495|NCT02107014|183580882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
91848496|NCT02107014|183580883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.962
91848497|NCT02107014|183580884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.402
91848498|NCT02107014|183580885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.201
91848499|NCT02107014|183580886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
91848500|NCT02107014|183580887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
91848501|NCT02107014|183580888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91848502|NCT02107014|183580889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
91848503|NCT02107014|183580890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
91848504|NCT02107014|183580891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91848505|NCT02107014|183580893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.508
91848506|NCT02107014|183580894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.119
91848507|NCT02107014|183580895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.326
91848508|NCT02107014|183580896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.753
91848509|NCT02107014|183580897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.067
91848510|NCT02107014|183580898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.080
91848511|NCT02107014|183580899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
91900280|NCT03662139|183694452|SUPERIORITY||Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs)|-0.673|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation Test||The level of relationship was classified as follows \<0.30=small/negligible; 0.30-0.50=low; 0.50-0.70=moderate; 0.70-0.90=high; \>0.90=very high.|Correlation between Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) and Four Square Step Test (FSST) scores in Cerebral Palsy group.||||<0.05
91900281|NCT04658186|183694499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|0.31||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.61|||Wald Chi-square||Results were obtained from a generalized linear model for the restricted mean event time (RMET), with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as the effect of interest.|||1.61|-1.00|0.647
91900282|NCT04658186|183694499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|0.81||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.09|||Wald Chi-square||Results obtained from generalized linear model for RMET, with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as effect of interest.|||2.09|-0.47|0.214
91848512|NCT02107014|183580902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.945
91900283|NCT04658186|183694502|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|1.0||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.27|||Wald Chi-square||Results were obtained from a generalized linear model for the RMET, with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as the effect of interest.|||2.27|-0.27|0.124
91900284|NCT04658186|183694502|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|1.22||||0.064||95.0|-0.07|2.51|||Wald Chi-sqaure||Results were obtained from a generalized linear model for the RMET, with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as the effect of interest.|||2.51|-0.07|0.064
91900285|NCT00752622|183694615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Infliximab from Induction baseline to evaluation Week 10.||||<.0001
91900286|NCT00752622|183694615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Infliximab from Induction baseline to Week 30 of the Observational Phase.||||<.0001
91900287|NCT00752622|183694615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Infliximab from Induction baseline to Week 54 of the Observational Phase.||||<.0001
91900288|NCT00178126|183694695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
91900289|NCT01323634|183694697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.124|||ANCOVA|||||0.124|0.037|<0.001
91900290|NCT01182194|183694701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.53|100.03|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.03|85.53|
91900291|NCT01182194|183694702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.66|101.96|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.96|95.66|
91900292|NCT01182194|183694703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.35|101.7|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.70|95.35|
91653321|NCT03211416|183199480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Two-sided, one-sample t-test|||The null hypothesis is that the mean ratio of T effect cells (post / pre) is equal to 1 (no change).||||0.40
91710153|NCT02636439|183312820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|12.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||12.9|-0.1|0.053
91710154|NCT02636439|183312821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.13|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0.13|0.00|0.043
91848513|NCT02107014|183580903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
91848514|NCT02107014|183580904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.281
91848515|NCT02107014|183580905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.030
91848516|NCT02107014|183580906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
91848517|NCT02107014|183580907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.610
91848518|NCT02107014|183580908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.893
91848519|NCT02107014|183580909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.041
91848520|NCT02107014|183580912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.967
91848521|NCT02107014|183580913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91653322|NCT00494806|183199486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05||95.0|0.3174|1.1383|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 64|Relative risk not calculated.|"No differences in time to first flatus between the rocking and non rocking groups is the null hypothesis.~Sample size calculations by setting the criterion for significance at .05, two-tailed test (an effect in either directions was accepted), and power at .80. A total sample of 54 participants was determined necessary to yield statistically significant results (27 in Group A and 27 in Group B)."||1.1383|0.3174|<0.05
91653323|NCT01533428|183199501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level||-0.8|-12.3|0.025
91653324|NCT01533428|183199502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||-1.2|-12.9|0.018
91653325|NCT01533428|183199503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 2.||2.3|-10.4|0.208
91653326|NCT01533428|183199503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 3.||-0.4|-13.1|0.036
91653327|NCT01533428|183199503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 4.||-0.8|-13.5|0.027
91653328|NCT01533428|183199503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 5.||-1.0|-13.6|0.024
91653329|NCT01533428|183199503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 6.||0.0|-12.6|0.051
91653330|NCT01533428|183199503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 7.||-1.8|-14.4|0.012
91653331|NCT01533428|183199503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 8.||-0.8|-13.5|0.026
91653332|NCT01533428|183199503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.9||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 9.||-0.6|-13.2|0.032
91653333|NCT01533428|183199503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 10.||-1.2|-13.9|0.020
91653334|NCT01533428|183199503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-1.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 11.||-1.1|-13.7|0.022
91848522|NCT02107014|183580914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91848523|NCT01549652|183580934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||||||Students' t-tests for paired samples with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were used to compare differences between the outcome measures for crossover treatment arms (placebo vs. ondansetron).|t-test, 2 sided|||For the purposes of our post-hoc power calculation we considered a 30% treatment effect clinically significant. Based on the mean observed OOWS score during withdrawal during the placebo session and the variance of that mean score and assuming a paired data analysis and an alpha of 0.05, we found that we had 80% power to detect a treatment effect as low as 25% reduction in OOWS.||||0.87
91848524|NCT01549652|183580935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91848525|NCT01549652|183580936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
91653335|NCT01533428|183199503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-2.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 12.||-2.7|-15.3|0.005
91653336|NCT01533428|183199505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 30% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-8. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.2|0.9|0.108
91653337|NCT01533428|183199505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 30% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-12. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.4|1.0|0.050
91848526|NCT01549652|183580937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91848527|NCT01549652|183580938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91848528|NCT01549652|183580939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91710155|NCT02636439|183312822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0|-10|0.07
91710156|NCT02636439|183312823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||3.3|-4.4|0.79
91710157|NCT04679948|183312826|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|112.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.02|124.3|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + caffeine/GLSM of caffeine). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =16.2."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||124.30|101.02|
91788451|NCT02775240|183457296|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|0.998|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUClast for Dextrorphan||0.998|0.949|
91788452|NCT02775240|183457297|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.721|1.138|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast ratio values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Dextromethorphan/Dextrorphan (Parent/Metabolite) AUClast ratio||1.138|0.721|
91788453|NCT00445588|183457339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||cox regression model was used to estimate the HR of death compared to NABTT historical control with same histology, adjusted for age, KPS, and surgical procedure|Regression, Cox|cox regression model used to estimate the HR of death compared to NABTT historical control same histology, adjusted for age, KPS, surgical procedure||The overall failure rate will be estimated by dividing the number of events (death) with the total exposure time in the study cohort. 95% confidence intervals and median time of survival will be calculated using standard methods.||1.3|0.6|0.4
91788454|NCT03192358|183457357|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANOVA||Cohen's d values \> 0.8 are considered large|This was an observational study. The statistical test explores whether there were significant differences in tongue pressure between the two cohorts. The hypothesis was that individuals with ALS would display significantly lower maximum anterior isometric tongue pressures compared to the people with PD.||||< 0.001
91788455|NCT03192358|183457358|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Cohen's d values \> 0.8 are considered large|This was an observational study rather than a trial. The hypothesis was that individuals with ALS would display significantly lower regular effort saliva swallow pressures than the individuals with PD.||||< 0.001
91788456|NCT02509117|183457433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-58.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0642|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-61.95|-55.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-55.08|-61.95|<0.0001
91848529|NCT01549652|183580940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Students' t-test for paired samples were used to compare differences between the outcome measures for treatment groups (placebo vs. ondansetron).|t-test, 2 sided|||We aimed for a 20% change in OOWS score to show the treatment effect with a power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05, yielding a target of 23 patients per treatment group.||||0.6
91848530|NCT01549652|183580941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91848531|NCT01549652|183580942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
91848532|NCT01549652|183580943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91848533|NCT01549652|183580944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91848534|NCT01549652|183580945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91848535|NCT02512042|183580978|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 8:00 (hours 0, before the morning drop) at the Day 14 visit should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/-1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-0.69|
91848536|NCT02512042|183580978|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 8:00 hour on Day 42 should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/- 1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.43|
91848537|NCT02512042|183580978|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 10:00 hour on Day 14 should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/-1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09||||||||-0.09|-0.71|
91848538|NCT02512042|183580978|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 10:00 hour on Day 42 should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/-1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.50|
91848539|NCT01194258|183580985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was set at 0.40.|LS Mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.3876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 110 participants were planned to be enrolled to allow approximately 88 participants to complete both treatment periods. Assuming a dropout rate of ≤20%, an intra-participant correlation of 0.80, a standard deviation of 1.2, and a true difference of 0, the study would have \>90% power to show that either Lispro-PH20 or Aspart-PH20 (each tested separately) was non-inferior to insulin lispro alone with respect to the change from baseline in A1C at the end of each treatment period.||0.05|-0.12|0.3876
91848540|NCT01467700|183580991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.518|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.9|3.1||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-2.9|0.518
91848541|NCT01467700|183580991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.979|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.4|5.7||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-0.4|0.979
91653338|NCT01533428|183199506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 50% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-8. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.1|0.7|0.403
91653339|NCT01533428|183199506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 50% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-12. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.0|0.7|0.446
91653340|NCT01533428|183199507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for counts by category using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||0.072
91653341|NCT01533428|183199508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for counts by category using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||0.075
91653342|NCT01533428|183199509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for counts by category using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||0.169
91848542|NCT01467700|183580991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.4|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-3.7|3.0||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-3.7|0.400
91848543|NCT01467700|183580992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.5|9.9||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.9|-0.5|0.017
91848544|NCT01467700|183580992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.361|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-4.5|6.1||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.1|-4.5|0.361
91848545|NCT01467700|183580992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.6|12.1||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.1|0.6|0.002
91848546|NCT05822440|183581072|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|124.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.22|154.29||||||Ratio was between test to reference, where test is PF-07817883 + Itraconazole arm and reference is PF-07817883 arm. Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||154.29|100.22|
91848547|NCT05822440|183581073|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|212.83||||||90.0|183.76|246.5||||||Ratio was between test to reference, where test is PF-07817883 + Itraconazole arm and reference is PF-07817883 arm. Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||246.50|183.76|
91848548|NCT02081391|183581083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.0|||ANOVA|||The endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of variance model. This included treatment, baseline age group, and the used SOAM as factors. For participants discontinuing treatment before 12 hours for any other reason than no further need of opioid analgesics or switch to exclusively oral opioid analgesics, cumulative SOAM use over the respective time period was based on the observed SOAM use up to the time of the participant's discontinuation.||0|-0.09|0.0404
91848549|NCT02081391|183581084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.02|||ANOVA|||The endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of variance model. This included treatment, baseline age group, and the used supplemental opioid analgesic medication (SOAM) as factors. For participants discontinuing treatment before 24 hours for any other reason than no further need of SOAM or switch to exclusively oral opioid analgesics, cumulative SOAM use over the respective time period was based on the observed SOAM use up to the time of the participant's discontinuation.||-0.02|-0.18|0.0154
91848550|NCT03184428|183581100|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Spearman's rank-order correlation|Bonferroni adjustment in addition||||||<0.05
91848551|NCT03720990|183581167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91848552|NCT01249092|183581168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.2|-26.4||This study tested the hypothesis that treatment with pentoxifylline would result in a statistically significant change from baseline in the level of alkaline phosphatase.|Paired t-test|||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant and all analyses were carried out using SAS version 9.2 (The SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Matched pairs t-test was used to compare the change in alkaline phosphatase from baseline. The efficacy of therapy was measured based on improvement in AP levels after therapy with PTX. AP levels at end of the study were compared with values at baseline by matched pairs t-test.||-26.4|-88.2|0.001
91848553|NCT01249092|183581169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|8.68||Hypothesis tested if TIMP-1 levels after therapy with pentoxifylline changed significantly from baseline from baseline.|Paired t-test.|||Change from baseline in TIMP-1 levels was assessed by paired-t test. Distribution the variable values was assessed using normal probability plots. Matched pairs t-test was used to compare the change from baseline.||8.68|-24.14|0.5
91848554|NCT00286741|183581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
91848555|NCT00286741|183581187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91848556|NCT01859312|183581193|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.021
91848557|NCT01859312|183581195|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.027
91848558|NCT01859312|183581197|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.008
91848559|NCT01859312|183581199|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.012
91848560|NCT01859312|183581201|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.157
91848561|NCT01859312|183581203|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.015
91848562|NCT01859312|183581205|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.009
91848563|NCT01859312|183581207|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.008
91848564|NCT01859312|183581209|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.009
91848565|NCT01859312|183581211|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.043
91848566|NCT01859312|183581213|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.024
91848567|NCT01859312|183581215|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.031
91848568|NCT01859312|183581217|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.005
91848569|NCT01859312|183581219|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.004
91848570|NCT01859312|183581221|OTHER|||||||0.524|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.524
91848571|NCT01859312|183581223|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.|Comparison of hormone levels on conventional glucocorticoid therapy at baseline and following 6 months of CSHI.|||0.007
91848572|NCT01859312|183581225|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.084
91848573|NCT01859312|183581227|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.057
91848574|NCT01859312|183581229|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.103
91848575|NCT01859312|183581231|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.070
91848576|NCT03495713|183581285|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analysis only based limited enrollments.|||
91848577|NCT01097343|183581286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||A sample of size of 50 patients for the cross-over study was chosen because it provided 80% power to detect a decrease in the rate of high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HPR, defined as \>230 PRU) from 75% to 46% with high dose clopidogrel, with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||=0.02
91848578|NCT00964119|183581291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||P-value \< .05 is the computed p-value for this measurement.|t-test, 2 sided|||PI and lead author left the institution before publishing data. Study has been closed and data files archived.||||<.05
91848579|NCT02059980|183581292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 30 participants rnadomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have .90 power to detect a large effect (f=.40), but is somewhat underpowered to detect a medium effect (f=.25) between the two groups. Sample size was determined using a repeated-measures ANOVA test (α = .05, a correlation of .5 among repeated measures, and a nonsphericity correction of .6), considering the design effect and potential patient attrition (=25%).||||= 0.56
91653343|NCT01533428|183199510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||The statistical comparison between Baseline and Week 8 was made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||5.0|-1.6|0.320
91653344|NCT01533428|183199510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||The statistical comparison between Baseline and Week 12 was made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||4.5|-2.1|0.473
91653345|NCT01533428|183199510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||The statistical comparison between Baseline and Week 2 was made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||2.2|-4.4|0.514
91653346|NCT01533428|183199511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 2 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.7|-0.5|0.719
91848580|NCT02059980|183581293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 30 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have .90 power to detect a large effect (f=.40), but is somewhat underpowered to detect a medium effect (f=.25) between the two groups. Sample size was determined using a repeated-measures ANOVA test (α = .05, a correlation of .5 among repeated measures, and a nonsphericity correction of .6), considering the design effect and potential patient attrition (=25%).||||=.98
91848581|NCT03412747|183581299|NON_INFERIORITY|The evaluation of non-inferiority is tested at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 and based on a 1-sided 97.5% CI and a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|39.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|47.7||||||Risk Difference: BKZ-ADA calculated using stratified CMH.||47.7|30.9|
91653347|NCT01533428|183199511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 8 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.3|-0.8|0.334
91848582|NCT03412747|183581299|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.459|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.709|11.816||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||11.816|4.709|<0.001
91848583|NCT03412747|183581300|NON_INFERIORITY|The evaluation of non-inferiority is tested at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 and based on a 1-sided 97.5% CI and a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|28.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|36.7||||||Risk Difference: BKZ-ADA calculated using stratified CMH.||36.7|19.7|
91848584|NCT03412747|183581300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.341|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.785|6.765||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||6.765|2.785|<0.001
91653348|NCT01533428|183199511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 12 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.5|-0.7|0.726
91653349|NCT01533428|183199512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 2 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.5|-0.6|0.841
91653350|NCT01533428|183199512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 8 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.2|-0.9|0.171
91848585|NCT03412747|183581301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.231|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.515|11.046||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||11.046|3.515|<0.001
91848586|NCT03412747|183581301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.657|9.041||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||9.041|3.657|<0.001
91788457|NCT02509117|183457433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-68.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0665|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-70.66|-65.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-65.16|-70.66|<0.0001
91848587|NCT03412747|183581302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.724|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.683|8.318||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||8.318|2.683|<0.001
91788458|NCT02509117|183457433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-86.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.26|-84.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-84.95|-87.26|<0.0001
91788459|NCT02509117|183457433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0558|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.7|-36.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-36.10|-44.70|<0.0001
91788460|NCT02509117|183457433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0561|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.78|-47.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-47.70|-54.78|<0.0001
91848588|NCT03412747|183581302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.762|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.014|7.523||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.523|3.014|<0.001
91848589|NCT03412747|183581303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.103|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.637|10.88||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||10.880|4.637|<0.001
91848590|NCT03412747|183581304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.974|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|7.661||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.661|3.230|<0.001
91848591|NCT03412747|183581305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.207|8.593||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||8.593|3.207|<0.001
91848592|NCT03412747|183581305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.974|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.257|7.594||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.594|3.257|<0.001
91848593|NCT04982575|183581325|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.3||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate using retrieved participants multiple imputation of missing data regardless of treatment or stratification.||0.19|-0.79|0.2284
91788461|NCT02509117|183457433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-59.583|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0558|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.4|-56.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-56.56|-62.40|<0.0001
91848594|NCT03038022|183581346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-9.8|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in LDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo.||-9.8|-27.8|<0.0001
91848595|NCT03038022|183581352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-11.1|||ANOVA|||||-11.1|-27.9|<0.0001
91848596|NCT03038022|183581353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-14.2|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in triglycerides between MGL-3196 and placebo.||-14.2|-36.7|<0.0001
91788462|NCT02509117|183457433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-37.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1007|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.06|-28.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta Total: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-28.62|-45.06|<0.0001
91848597|NCT03038022|183581354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-16.4|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo.||-16.4|-36.2|<0.0001
91848598|NCT03038022|183581355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-12.8|||ANOVA|||||-12.8|-32.6|<0.0001
91848599|NCT03038022|183581356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-12.2|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in ApoB between MGL-3196 and placebo.||-12.2|-23.7|<0.0001
91848600|NCT03038022|183581357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.0|||ANOVA|||||-3.0|-15.3|0.0037
91848601|NCT03038022|183581358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-1.8|||ANOVA|||||-1.8|-17.8|0.017
91848602|NCT03038022|183581359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-15.5|||ANOVA|||||-15.5|-38.4|<0.0001
91848603|NCT03038022|183581361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-5.9|||ANOVA|||||-5.9|-26.7|0.0025
91848604|NCT03038022|183581361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-10.9|||ANOVA|||||-10.9|-31.4|<0.0001
91848605|NCT03038022|183581362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-245.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-363.7|-126.7|||ANOVA|||||-126.7|-363.7|<0.0001
91848606|NCT03038022|183581363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-99.4||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.6|-28.2|||ANOVA|||||-28.2|-170.6|0.0067
91848607|NCT03038022|183581364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.7||||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.5|31.0|||ANOVA|||||31.0|-60.5|0.5245
91848608|NCT03038022|183581365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-135.3||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.7|-45.8|||ANOVA|||||-45.8|-224.7|0.0034
91848609|NCT03038022|183581366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.2|||ANOVA|||||-2.2|-17.9|0.0129
91848610|NCT03038022|183581367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.3088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.72|||ANOVA|||||0.72|-2.26|0.3088
91848611|NCT03038022|183581368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.23|||ANOVA|||||0.23|-0.15|0.6905
91848612|NCT03038022|183581369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|3.78|||ANOVA|||||3.78|-1.86|0.5008
91848613|NCT03038022|183581370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.26|||ANOVA|||||0.26|-0.03|0.1066
91848614|NCT04925752|183581405|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.182||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||Confidence Interval (CI) for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 01: LEN/bHIV\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly lower than bHIV.||0.182|0.010|<0.0001
91848615|NCT04925752|183581405|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.182||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 02: LEN/bHIV\>= 0.8; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly and at least 20% lower than bHIV.||0.182|0.010|< 0.0001
91848616|NCT04925752|183581406|OTHER|Null Hypothesis 03: LEN - F/TDF\>= 0.8/100PY; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN is not substantially greater than F/TDF (LEN is comparable to F/TDF).|Rate difference|-0.828|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.669|-0.255||p-value for rate difference (SC LEN minus F/TDF) is based on a hybrid approach.|Hybrid approach||Exact CI for rate difference versus F/TDF is based on a hybrid approach.|||-0.255|-1.669|<0.0001
91848617|NCT04925752|183581406|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.111||||0.00245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.513||P-value for rate ratio versus F/TDF is from a Poisson model.|Poisson model||Confidence interval for rate ratio versus F/TDF is from a Poisson model.|Null Hypothesis 04: LEN vs F/TDF\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly lower than F/TDF.||0.513|0.024|0.00245
91848618|NCT04269200|183581410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by mismatch repair (MMR) status (proficient versus deficient) and disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by MMR status (proficient versus deficient) and disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||0.89|0.57|0.003
91848619|NCT04269200|183581410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.69||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by MMR status (proficient versus deficient) and disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by MMR status (proficient versus deficient) and disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab + Olaparib.|||0.69|0.43|<0.0001
91848620|NCT04269200|183581410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.25||China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||1.25|0.42|
91848621|NCT04269200|183581410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.61||China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab + Olaparib.|||1.61|0.57|
91848622|NCT04269200|183581412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07||Descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model is unstratified.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||1.07|0.59|
91848623|NCT04269200|183581412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.76||Descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model is unstratified.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab + Olaparib.|||0.76|0.40|
91848624|NCT04269200|183581412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.21||China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||2.21|0.48|
91788463|NCT02509117|183457433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.72|-37.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta Total: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-37.38|-51.72|<0.0001
91788464|NCT02509117|183457433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-66.51|-56.42|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta Total: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-56.42|-66.51|<0.0001
91788465|NCT03467685|183457482|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
91788466|NCT01227824|183457500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG - RAL) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.1|||||Analysis was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusted for the following Baseline stratification factors: baseline HIV-1 RNA and background dual NRTI.|||7.1|-2.2|
91788467|NCT02390791|183457531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||generalized linear model|assuming a Poisson distribution with a log link function||||||0.04
91788468|NCT02390791|183457532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91788469|NCT02390791|183457533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
91788470|NCT02390791|183457534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91788471|NCT02390791|183457535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91788472|NCT02390791|183457536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
91788473|NCT02390791|183457537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91788474|NCT02390791|183457538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91788475|NCT02390791|183457539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||generalized linear model|||||||0.48
91788476|NCT02390791|183457540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||generalized linear model|||||||0.71
91788477|NCT00821509|183457543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of proportions|1.03||||0.004|||||||proportion test|The test was carried out using the proportions calculated from the number of sick-leave episodes over the number o total follow-up weeks in each arm||According to the null hypothesis the proportion of weeks with an onset of days-off period in neither of the intervention arms was different from that of control. No in advance power calculations were done.||||0.004
91788478|NCT00821509|183457544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of proportions|0.933||||0.04|||||||proportion test|||According to the null hypothesis the proportion of weeks with an onset of an infectious disease period in neither of the intervention arms was different from that of control. No in advance power calculations were done.||||0.04
91788479|NCT01551420|183457545|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of no change after home use|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28||Two way comparison between scores at baseline and after 9-12 weeks of Prosthetic use. Alpha=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-tests||||0.28|-0.27|.9358
91788480|NCT01551420|183457545|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of QOL measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.09|-1.47|0.08
91788481|NCT01551420|183457546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this analyses was 44 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with UEFS data at both time points).||0.43|0.17|<0.0001
91788482|NCT01551420|183457546|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UEFS at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UEFS use measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.40|-0.73|<0.0001
91788483|NCT01551420|183457547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this analysis was 34 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with TAPES data at both time points).||0.11|-0.55|0.186
91791057|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.596||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.596|-0.383|0.670
91653351|NCT01533428|183199512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 12 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.4|-0.7|0.595
91653352|NCT01533428|183199514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment,gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||-0.9|-17.2|0.030
91653353|NCT01533428|183199514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-1.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment,gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||-1.5|-17.4|0.020
91788484|NCT01551420|183457547|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.23|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for TAPES at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from TAPES measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.23|-2.06|0.0168
91788485|NCT01551420|183457548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.61||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UEFS data at both time points).||1.05|-2.99|0.3367
91788486|NCT01551420|183457548|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.6339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|2.39|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 22 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UEFS at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from AM-ULA measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||2.39|-3.84|0.6339
91788487|NCT01551420|183457549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|4.05|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with SF-36V Role Physical data at both time points).||4.05|-7.53|0.5465
91791058|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91848625|NCT04269200|183581412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.9||China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||2.90|0.68|
91848626|NCT04269200|183581413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.98||Descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Logistic|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|An odds ratio greater than 1 favours SoC + durvalumab.|||1.98|0.89|
91848627|NCT04269200|183581413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.18||Descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Logistic|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|An odds ratio greater than 1 favours SoC + durvalumab + Olaparib.|||2.18|0.95|
91848628|NCT04269200|183581420|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.5||Descriptive analysis only.|Mixed model for repeated measures|Fixed effects for treatment, visit, and baseline score with the treatment by visit and baseline score by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||4.5|-1.2|
91848629|NCT04269200|183581420|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.2||Descriptive analysis only.|Mixed model for repeated measures|Fixed effects for treatment, visit, and baseline score with the treatment by visit and baseline score by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||2.2|-3.4|
91788488|NCT01551420|183457549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.37||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline to End of A (with SF-36V Social Functioning data at both time points).||1.57|-9.12|0.1610
91788489|NCT01551420|183457549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.9||0.7765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.68|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline to End of A (with SF-36V Physical Functioning data at both time points).||3.68|-4.90|0.7765
91788490|NCT01551420|183457549|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.72|1.02|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for SF-36 at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of SF-36V; Role Physical measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||1.02|-27.72|0.0669
91788491|NCT01551420|183457549|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|6.54|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for SF-36 at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of SF-36V: Social Functioning measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||6.54|-23.01|0.2592
91788492|NCT01551420|183457549|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-30.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-17.23|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for SF-36 at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of SF-36V: Physical Functioning measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-17.23|-43.23|<0.0001
91788493|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Writing data at both time points).||0.07|-0.05|0.6691
91788494|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Page turning data at both time points).||0.00|-0.05|0.0511
91788495|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.5942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Lifting Small Items data at both time points).||0.04|-0.02|0.5942
91788496|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Checkers data at both time points).||-0.01|-0.07|0.0101
91788497|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Feeding data at both time points).||0.01|-0.06|0.1063
91848630|NCT04269200|183581421|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6||Descriptive analysis only.|Mixed model for repeated measures|Fixed effects for treatment, visit, and baseline score with the treatment by visit and baseline score by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||2.6|-2.5|
91848631|NCT04269200|183581421|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.6||Descriptive analysis only.|Mixed model for repeated measures|Fixed effects for treatment, visit, and baseline score with the treatment by visit and baseline score by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||1.6|-3.4|
91788498|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Light Cans data at both time points).||0.01|-0.06|0.2474
91788499|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Heavy Cans data at both time points).||0.02|-0.09|0.1604
91848632|NCT03887936|183581442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91848633|NCT06269367|183581445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA with time (Baseline, post-intervention) and condition (NewGait, Control) as within-subjects factors||||||0.894
91848634|NCT06269367|183581446|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.299||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA with time (Baseline, post-intervention) and condition (NewGait, Control) as within-subjects factors||||||>0.299
91848635|NCT06269367|183581447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set to 0.05|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA with time (Baseline, post-intervention) and condition (NewGait, Control) as within-subjects factors||||||0.469
91791059|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.486|0.519||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.519|-0.486|0.950
91791060|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91791061|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|0.281||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.281|-0.729|0.383
91791062|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91791063|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.494||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.494|-0.504|0.985
91791064|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91791065|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|0.027||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.027|-0.982|0.064
91653354|NCT00095199|183199528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median PFS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favours Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.21|0.87|0.756
91653355|NCT00095199|183199528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.13||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median PFS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favours Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.13|0.73|0.391
91653356|NCT00095199|183199529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median OS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.20|0.86|0.864
91653357|NCT00095199|183199529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.41||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median OS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.41|0.90|0.307
91653358|NCT00095199|183199530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.26||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||3.26|0.78|0.200
91653359|NCT00095199|183199530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.74||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.74|0.52|0.683
91653360|NCT00095199|183199531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.62||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.62|0.86|0.310
91653361|NCT00095199|183199531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.4||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.40|0.93|0.100
91791066|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91791067|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.729||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.729|-0.374|0.527
91653362|NCT00095199|183199532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.06|0.46|0.091
91653363|NCT00095199|183199532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.5||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.50|0.72|0.361
91653364|NCT00095199|183199533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.74||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimated time to symptomatic progression. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.74|0.77|0.472
91788500|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.09|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Writing measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.09|-0.12|0.4208
91788501|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Page Turning measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.02|-0.09|0.1959
91788502|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Lifting Small Items measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.|Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|||0.03|-0.09|0.3328
91788503|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Checkers measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.08|-0.05|0.6585
91788504|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Feeding measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.|Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|||0.00|-0.12|0.0552
91788505|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Light Cans measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.01|-0.25|0.0319
91788506|NCT01551420|183457550|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Heavy Cans measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.04|-0.24|0.0073
91788507|NCT01551420|183457551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||0.6529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 30 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UNB: Spontaneity data at both time points).||0.15|-0.24|0.6529
91788508|NCT01551420|183457551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 30 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UNB: Skill data at both time points).||0.22|-0.26|0.8490
91788509|NCT01551420|183457551|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.48|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UNB: Spontaneity at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UNB: Spontaneity measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.48|-0.22|0.4589
91788510|NCT01551420|183457551|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.44|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UNB: Skill at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UNB: Skill measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.44|-0.31|0.7110
91788511|NCT01551420|183457552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|253.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|325.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|146.7|360.5|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 38 participants.||Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with T-MAP data at both time points).|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|360.5|146.7|<0.0001
91848636|NCT05824351|183581465|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as an average difference of \< or = 2|Mean of paired differences|-0.2571|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided lower t-test||Draize scores for erythema/eschar and edema were summed for analysis (range of 0 to 8, where a higher score indicated greater irritation).||||<0.0001
91848637|NCT05824351|183581465|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as an average difference of \< or = 2|Mean of paired differences|0.0294|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided upper t-test||Draize scores for erythema/eschar and edema were summed for analysis (range of 0 to 8, where a higher score indicated greater irritation).||||0.0003
91848638|NCT02912260|183581490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-12.2|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference in hepatic fat fraction between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-12.2|-32.9|<0.0001
91848639|NCT02912260|183581492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-15.4|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference in hepatic fat fraction between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-15.4|-41.3|<0.0001
91653365|NCT00095199|183199533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.27||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimated time to symptomatic progression. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.27|0.42|0.272
91653366|NCT00095199|183199534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.36||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|The Kaplan-Meier method estimated duration of response. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||3.36|0.74|0.236
91653367|NCT00095199|183199534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.18||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|The Kaplan-Meier method estimated duration of response. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.18|0.42|0.887
91848640|NCT02912260|183581493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference in absolute hepatic fat fraction between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-2.4|-6.3|<0.0001
91848641|NCT02912260|183581494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference in absolute hepatic fat fraction between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-2.8|-7.8|<0.0001
91848642|NCT02912260|183581505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.81||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|79.0|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in hsCRP between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||79.0|-47.0|0.6155
91848643|NCT02912260|183581506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|118.09||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.4|291.1|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in hsCRP between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||291.1|-177.4|0.6311
91848644|NCT02912260|183581507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|6.4|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ALT between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||6.4|-12.4|0.5260
91848645|NCT02912260|183581508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-9.9|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ALT between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-9.9|-42.8|0.0019
91848646|NCT02912260|183581509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.1275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.4|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in AST between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||1.4|-10.9|0.1275
91848647|NCT02912260|183581510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-4.3|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ALT between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-4.3|-17.8|0.0016
91848648|NCT02912260|183581511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-6.1|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in LDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-6.1|-19.6|0.0002
91848649|NCT02912260|183581511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.8|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in HDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||9.8|-3.4|0.3388
91848650|NCT02912260|183581511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-7.4|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in non-HDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-7.4|-19.3|<0.0001
91788512|NCT01551420|183457552|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-183.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|186.9||0.3397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-574.3|208.2|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 22 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for T-MAP at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from T-MAP measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||208.2|-574.3|0.3397
91848651|NCT02912260|183581511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-4.9|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in TC between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-4.9|-14.3|0.0001
91848652|NCT02912260|183581511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-2.0|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in TG between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-2.0|-31.2|0.0258
91848653|NCT02912260|183581511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-9.9|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ApoB between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-9.9|-20.8|<0.0001
91848654|NCT02912260|183581511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-6.6|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ApoCIII between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-6.6|-28.9|0.0021
91848655|NCT02912260|183581511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|5.0|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||5.0|-46.8|0.1123
91848656|NCT02912260|183581512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-5.0|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in LDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-5.0|-19.9|0.0013
91848657|NCT02912260|183581512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.8213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|11.5|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in HDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||11.5|-14.5|0.8213
91848658|NCT02912260|183581512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-9.4|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in nonHDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-9.4|-22.7|<0.0001
91653368|NCT00717977|183199547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||Adjusted for CGM device type. Age was analyzed as continuous.|Regression, Linear|||The associations of mean sensor glucose and glucose variability measures with age were assessed using least-squares regression models adjusting for device type.||||0.009
91653369|NCT00717977|183199548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Adjusted for CGM device type. Age was analyzed as continuous.|Regression, Linear|||The associations of mean sensor glucose and glucose variability measures with age were assessed using least-squares regression models adjusting for device type.||||0.04
91653370|NCT00717977|183199549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Adjusted for device type. Age was analyzed as continuous.|Regression, Linear|||The associations of mean sensor glucose and glucose variability measures with age were assessed using least-squares regression models adjusting for device type.||||<0.001
91653371|NCT01806688|183199604|EQUIVALENCE|The study is designed to detect a 10.0% difference in area under the curve (AUC) appetite ratings between foods. The required number of Participants is 38.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Sources of variation included in the model: snack, visit number, baseline score, visit number × snack, and snack × overweight.||Items #1 were compared to each other and Items #2 were compared to each other||||<0.05
91653372|NCT01806688|183199605|EQUIVALENCE|The study is designed to detect a 10.0% difference in area under the curve (AUC) appetite ratings between foods. The required number of Participants is 38.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Sources of variation included in the model: snack, visit number, baseline score, visit number × snack, and snack × overweight.||Items #1 were compared to each other and Items #2 were compared to each other||||<0.05
91788513|NCT01551420|183457553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.01||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.53|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 24 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UEFS data at both time points).||8.53|0.07|0.0465
91848659|NCT02912260|183581512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-6.9|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in TC between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-6.9|-18.1|<0.0001
91848660|NCT02912260|183581512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-22.3|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in TG between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-22.3|-52.3|<0.0001
91848661|NCT02912260|183581512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-11.2|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ApoB between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-11.2|-23.6|<0.0001
91848662|NCT02912260|183581512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-23.5|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ApoCIII between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-23.5|-49.6|<0.0001
91848663|NCT02912260|183581512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|18.2|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||18.2|-58.2|0.3008
91788514|NCT01551420|183457553|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.82|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 19participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UEFS at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UEFS measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||2.82|-7.60|0.3450
91788515|NCT01551420|183457554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.54||0.6881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.79|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with CRIS: Extent of Limitations data at both time points).||2.79|-1.86|0.6881
91848664|NCT02912260|183581513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|5.0|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||5.0|-46.8|0.1123
91788516|NCT01551420|183457554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.95||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|3.67|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with CRIS: Perceived Limitations data at both time points).||3.67|-5.01|0.7363
91653373|NCT01806688|183199607|EQUIVALENCE|The study is designed to detect a 10.0% difference in area under the curve (AUC) appetite ratings between foods. The required number of Participants is 38.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Sources of variation included in the model: snack, visit number, baseline score, visit number × snack, and snack × overweight.||Items #1 were compared to each other and Items #2 were compared to each other||||<0.05
91653374|NCT02146430|183199608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12|||Difference of means|||||0.12|-0.61|0.1870
91653375|NCT02146430|183199608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05|||Difference of means|||||0.05|-0.67|0.0944
91653376|NCT02146430|183199608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09|||Difference of means|||||0.09|-0.64|0.1391
91788517|NCT01551420|183457554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.12||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with CRIS: Satisfaction data at both time points).||1.01|-3.99|0.2361
91791068|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91653377|NCT02146430|183199608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.3|||Difference of means|||||0.30|-0.43|0.7338
91653378|NCT02146430|183199608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.34|||Difference of means|||||0.34|-0.40|0.8705
91653379|NCT02146430|183199610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|-0.28|||Difference of means|||||-0.28|-6.52|0.0326
91791069|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.854||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.854|-0.226|0.254
91791070|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91791071|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.488||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.488|-0.628|0.805
91791072|NCT02880956|183460093|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91791073|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.935|0.485||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.485|-0.935|0.534
91791074|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91791075|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.821||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.821|-0.580|0.735
91791076|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91791077|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.673|-0.24||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.240|-1.673|0.009
91791078|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91788518|NCT01551420|183457554|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|1.29|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for CRIS-CAT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from CRIS-CAT: Extent of Limitations measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||1.29|-15.43|0.0932
91788519|NCT01551420|183457554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|1.99|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for CRIS-CAT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from CRIS-CAT: Perceived Limitations measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||1.99|-22.9|0.0951
91788520|NCT01551420|183457554|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|3.43|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for CRIS-CAT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from CRIS-CAT: Satisfaction measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||3.43|-13.3|0.2346
91788521|NCT03073733|183457620|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|5.8|||linear model for repeated measures|||||5.8|-10.3|0.582
91788522|NCT03073733|183457620|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.0|||linear model for repeated measures|||||8.0|-8.2|0.984
91788523|NCT03073733|183457621|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|1.2986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8744||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1341|3.7313|||linear model for repeated measures|||||3.7313|-1.1341|0.290
91848665|NCT02912260|183581514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|18.2|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||18.2|-58.2|0.3008
91653380|NCT02146430|183199610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.84|||Difference of means|||||1.84|-4.40|0.4220
91653381|NCT02146430|183199610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.615||0.9659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.23|||Difference of means|||||3.23|-3.10|0.9659
91653382|NCT02146430|183199610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.608||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|5.28|||Difference of means|||||5.28|-1.03|0.1867
91848666|NCT02912260|183581515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-58.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.551||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.7|63.21|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in CK-18 between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||63.21|-180.70|0.3419
91653383|NCT02146430|183199610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.631||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.67|||Difference of means|||||6.67|0.27|0.0333
91848667|NCT02912260|183581515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-171.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.423||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-285.06|-57.42|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in CK-18 between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-57.42|-285.06|0.0035
91848668|NCT02912260|183581516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1458||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|-0.103|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ELF-test between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-0.103|-0.686|0.0089
91848669|NCT02912260|183581516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1973||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.879|-0.088|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ELF test between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-0.088|-0.879|0.0174
91653384|NCT02146430|183199612|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.9|0.2474
91653385|NCT02146430|183199612|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.3347
91653386|NCT02146430|183199612|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.3|0.3999
91653387|NCT02146430|183199612|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.8435
91653388|NCT02146430|183199612|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|0.0|0.0446
91848670|NCT03878446|183581547|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.4||||||||0.4|-3.2|
91653389|NCT02146430|183199613|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.5|-0.5|0.9775
91653390|NCT02146430|183199613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.6|0.6500
91653391|NCT02146430|183199613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.6|0.6546
91653392|NCT02146430|183199613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.6|0.6692
91653393|NCT02146430|183199613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.6|0.6737
91653394|NCT02146430|183199613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.3|-0.8|0.3888
91653395|NCT02146430|183199613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.5|0.9200
91848671|NCT03878446|183581547|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.5||||||||2.5|-1.1|
91848672|NCT03878446|183581547|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9||||||||0.9|-2.6|
91848673|NCT03878446|183581547|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-2.4|
91848674|NCT03370133|183581560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.869|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.02|293.175||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||293.175|34.020|<0.001
91848675|NCT03370133|183581560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.056|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.874|9.466||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||9.466|3.874|<0.001
91848676|NCT03370133|183581561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|118.762|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.701|384.307||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||384.307|36.701|<0.001
91848677|NCT03370133|183581561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.809|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.096|7.47||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.470|3.096|<0.001
91900293|NCT01182194|183694704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.36|109.08|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.08|94.36|
91788524|NCT03073733|183457621|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.3542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7793||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6516|1.9433|||linear model for repeated measures|||||1.9433|-2.6516|0.759
91653396|NCT02146430|183199613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.4|0.7061
91653397|NCT02146430|183199613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.3|0.3337
91653398|NCT02146430|183199613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|-0.2|0.2139
91653399|NCT02146430|183199614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4933||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.733|5.126|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||5.126|-0.733|0.1416
91788525|NCT03073733|183457622|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-278.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|305.192||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1126.21|568.75|||linear model for repeated measures|||||568.75|-1126.21|0.515
91788526|NCT03073733|183457622|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|292.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|308.659||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-562.87|1147.23|||linear model for repeated measures|||||1147.23|-562.87|0.499
91788527|NCT03073733|183457623|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.3|-2.1|0.160
91788528|NCT03073733|183457623|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.9|-1.5|0.622
91788529|NCT03073733|183457624|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1038||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.176|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.176|-0.399|0.442
91788530|NCT03073733|183457624|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1037||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.409|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.409|-0.165|0.401
91788531|NCT03073733|183457626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.205
91788532|NCT03073733|183457627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.157
91788533|NCT03073733|183457628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.125
91788534|NCT03073733|183457629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.173
91788535|NCT03073733|183457630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.2)||||||0.099
91788536|NCT03073733|183457630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 1.9)||||||0.130
91788537|NCT03073733|183457631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0959|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0959
91788538|NCT03073733|183457632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1868|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1868
91788539|NCT03073733|183457633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.608
91788540|NCT03073733|183457634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 7.9)||||||0.264
91788541|NCT03073733|183457634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 25.9)||||||0.139
91788542|NCT03073733|183457635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 7.9)||||||0.261
91788543|NCT03073733|183457635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 6.3)||||||0.139
91848678|NCT03370133|183581562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.063|72.253||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||72.253|9.063|<0.001
91848679|NCT03370133|183581563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.471|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.02|71.925||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||71.925|9.020|<0.001
91848680|NCT03370133|183581564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|123.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.394|514.862||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||514.862|29.394|<0.001
91852025|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7726|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.45||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.45|0.7726
91653400|NCT02146430|183199614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.492||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.679|3.176|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.176|-2.679|0.8677
91848681|NCT03370133|183581564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.202|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.998|30.123||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||30.123|10.998|<0.001
91848682|NCT03370133|183581565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.258|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.356|35.931||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||35.931|7.356|<0.001
91848683|NCT03370133|183581566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.795|50.674||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||50.674|9.795|<0.001
91848684|NCT03370133|183581567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.049|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.201|52.077||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||52.077|10.201|<0.001
91653401|NCT02146430|183199614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4959||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.834|2.036|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||2.036|-3.834|0.5481
91653402|NCT02146430|183199614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4875||0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.866|0.971|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.971|-4.866|0.1906
91653403|NCT02146430|183199614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-3.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4883||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.015|-0.175|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.175|-6.015|0.0378
91788544|NCT03073733|183457636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 0.8).||||||0.350
91788545|NCT03073733|183457636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.5)||||||0.500
91788546|NCT03073733|183457637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.9).||||||0.220
91848685|NCT03370133|183581568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.696|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.92|83.987||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||83.987|16.920|<0.001
91653404|NCT02146430|183199614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6865||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|2.011|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||2.011|-0.683|0.3337
91653405|NCT02146430|183199614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.152|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.152|-1.540|0.7778
91653406|NCT02146430|183199614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6879||0.8991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.437|1.262|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.262|-1.437|0.8991
91653407|NCT02146430|183199614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6833||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.198|0.483|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.483|-2.198|0.2098
91788547|NCT03073733|183457637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 1.9).||||||0.119
91788548|NCT03073733|183457638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.7)||||||0.006
91788549|NCT03073733|183457639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
91788550|NCT03073733|183457640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
91788551|NCT03073733|183457641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.010
91788552|NCT03073733|183457642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.072
91788553|NCT03073733|183457643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 5.9)||||||0.019
91788554|NCT03073733|183457643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.98)||||||0.019
91653408|NCT02146430|183199614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6842||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.093|0.591|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.591|-2.093|0.2725
91653409|NCT02146430|183199615|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01329||0.8923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0243|0.0279|||ANCOVA|||||0.0279|-0.0243|0.8923
91653410|NCT02146430|183199615|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01327||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0281|0.024|||ANCOVA|||||0.0240|-0.0281|0.8749
91653411|NCT02146430|183199615|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01332||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0353|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.0170|-0.0353|0.4932
91653412|NCT02146430|183199615|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01323||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0298|0.0221|||ANCOVA|||||0.0221|-0.0298|0.7688
91653413|NCT02146430|183199615|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01326||0.4099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0369|0.0151|||ANCOVA|||||0.0151|-0.0369|0.4099
91653414|NCT02146430|183199616|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-0.88|0.0009
91653415|NCT02146430|183199616|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.96|0.0001
91653416|NCT02146430|183199616|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.17|<0.0001
91653417|NCT02146430|183199616|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.40|0.6408
91788555|NCT03073733|183457644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91653418|NCT02146430|183199616|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.62|0.0786
91653419|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.0|-0.7|0.0541
91653420|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.7771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.4|0.7771
91653421|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.5488
91788556|NCT03073733|183457645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91788557|NCT03073733|183457646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.199
91788558|NCT03073733|183457647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 56.3)||||||0.075
91653422|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.0987
91653423|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.1|0.1840
91653424|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-0.6|0.1903
91653425|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.4|0.5787
91653426|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.5|0.5535
91653427|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.2|0.4476
91653428|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.2|0.4737
91653429|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.0|-0.6|0.0814
91653430|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.5|0.3069
91653431|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.5|0.3916
91653432|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.2|0.4667
91653433|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.2|0.3744
91788559|NCT03073733|183457647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 25.2)||||||0.062
91788560|NCT03073733|183457648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 9.9)||||||0.255
91788561|NCT03073733|183457648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 8.7)||||||0.109
91788562|NCT03073733|183457649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 0.7).||||||0.488
91788563|NCT03073733|183457649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.5)||||||0.273
91788564|NCT03073733|183457650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91788565|NCT03073733|183457651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91788566|NCT03073733|183457652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
91788567|NCT03073733|183457653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.098
91788568|NCT03073733|183457654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 8.2)||||||0.019
91788569|NCT03073733|183457654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 4.7)||||||0.011
91788570|NCT03073733|183457655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
91653434|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-0.6|0.2959
91653435|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.4|0.9119
91653436|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.9399
91653437|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.2|0.2455
91653438|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.2|0.3311
91653439|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1647||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|0.069|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.069|-0.577|0.1233
91653440|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1643||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.250|-0.394|0.6610
91653441|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1649||0.5514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.225|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.225|-0.422|0.5514
91788571|NCT03073733|183457656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.096
91653442|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1638||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.503|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.503|-0.140|0.2673
91653443|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1644||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.478|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.478|-0.167|0.3439
91653444|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.4|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||7.4|-2.1|0.2708
91653445|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||5.9|-3.5|0.6285
91653446|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.9177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.5|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 150 mg BID||4.5|-5.0|0.9177
91653447|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.5334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.2|-6.2|0.5334
91653448|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.8|-7.6|0.2261
91653449|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.758||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.42|-7.32|0.0281
91653450|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.756||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|2.03|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||2.03|-4.87|0.4190
91653451|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.763||0.3622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.85|-5.06|0.3622
91653452|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|5.88|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||5.88|-0.99|0.1623
91653453|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.753||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|5.7|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||5.70|-1.18|0.1978
91788572|NCT03073733|183457657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.480
91788573|NCT03073733|183457658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 51.5)||||||0.076
91788574|NCT03073733|183457658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 26.1)||||||0.057
91788575|NCT03073733|183457659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 29.0)||||||0.117
91788576|NCT03073733|183457659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 9.5)||||||0.083
91788577|NCT03073733|183457660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 6.7)||||||0.172
91788578|NCT03073733|183457660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.98)||||||0.140
91788579|NCT03073733|183457661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 5.4).||||||0.011
91788580|NCT03073733|183457662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0406|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0406
91788581|NCT03073733|183457663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91788582|NCT03073733|183457664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
91788583|NCT03073733|183457665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
91788584|NCT03073733|183457666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 22.2)||||||0.030
91788585|NCT03073733|183457666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.3)||||||0.033
91788586|NCT03073733|183457667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
91788587|NCT03073733|183457668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
91788588|NCT03073733|183457669|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91788589|NCT03073733|183457670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 606.4)||||||0.080
91788590|NCT03073733|183457670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 52.3)||||||0.050
91788591|NCT03073733|183457671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 35.7)||||||0.099
91788592|NCT03073733|183457671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 17.6)||||||0.076
91653454|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-0.8|0.0867
91788593|NCT03073733|183457672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1099|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 4.5)||||||0.1099
91788594|NCT03073733|183457672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 14.3)||||||0.012
91788595|NCT01227629|183457689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0357||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison of differences from baseline to last available value||||0.0357
91653455|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.5|0.6993
91653456|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.8702
91653457|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.1826
91788596|NCT01227629|183457690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26711||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison of differences from baseline to week 12||||0.26711
91788597|NCT01588470|183457700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91788598|NCT01588470|183457702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91788599|NCT02446171|183457720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|98.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.4|105.84|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||105.84|92.40|
91788600|NCT02446171|183457720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|100.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.17|107.43|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||107.43|93.17|
91788601|NCT02446171|183457720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|94.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.7|100.4|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||100.40|88.70|
91788602|NCT02446171|183457721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|98.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.24|105.8|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||105.80|92.24|
91788603|NCT02446171|183457721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|100.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.65|107.72|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||107.72|93.65|
91788604|NCT02446171|183457721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|94.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.2|100.82|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||100.82|89.20|
91788605|NCT02446171|183457722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|97.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.09|106.92|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||106.92|88.09|
91788606|NCT02446171|183457722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|100.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|110.16|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||110.16|91.80|
91788607|NCT02446171|183457722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|102.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.13|111.82|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||111.82|93.13|
91788608|NCT02320903|183457751|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was 0.16.|||
91788609|NCT02320903|183457751|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.22.|||
91788610|NCT02320903|183457752|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.22.|||
91788611|NCT02320903|183457752|OTHER|What was the within-group change over time effect size?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for teens over time.|Cohen's d for teen report on this measure was d = 0.22.|||
91788612|NCT02320903|183457753|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.10.|||
91848686|NCT03370133|183581569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.107|12.679||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||12.679|5.107|<0.001
91848687|NCT03370133|183581570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.442|5.899||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||5.899|2.442|<0.001
91848688|NCT03370133|183581571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.379|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.73||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||6.730|2.850|<0.001
91848689|NCT03370133|183581572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.412|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.573|3.699||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.699|1.573|<0.001
91848690|NCT02501811|183581583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|2.023|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.023|-2.190|0.993
91848691|NCT02501811|183581583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.229|2.635|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.635|-1.229|0.499
91848692|NCT02501811|183581583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|3.485|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||3.485|-0.729|0.578
91788613|NCT02320903|183457753|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size? (Cohen's d)||||||||||||||||Paired samples T tests were used to measure change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.28.|||
91788614|NCT02320903|183457754|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.16.|||
91788615|NCT02320903|183457754|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size? (Cohen's d)||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for teens over time.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.21.|||
91788616|NCT02320903|183457755|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.62.|||
91788617|NCT02320903|183457755|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.23.|||
91788618|NCT02320903|183457756|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.22.|||
91788619|NCT02320903|183457756|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired samples T tests were used to measure within-groups change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.26.|||
91788620|NCT02320903|183457757|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d =.12.|||
91788621|NCT02320903|183457758|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.81.|||
91788622|NCT02320903|183457759|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.43.|||
91788623|NCT02320903|183457760|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for teens over time.|Cohen's d for youth report on this measure was d = 24.|||
91788624|NCT03386253|183457776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Group x time p value|ANOVA|||||||0.77
91788625|NCT01012219|183457777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.56||||||||1.56|0.96|
91788626|NCT03493815|183457778|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.9|||binary regression w/ comp log-log link||Ultrasound guided is the numerator and traditional is the denominator.|||1.90|0.28|0.51
91788627|NCT03493815|183457779|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.18|||binary regression w/ comp log-log link||Ultrasound guided is the numerator and traditional is the denominator.|||2.18|0.15|0.41
91788628|NCT03493815|183457780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91788629|NCT03493815|183457781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.70
91788630|NCT03811093|183457782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.036|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|2.828||p-value is calculated using SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that in the population from where the sample was obtained there was no difference between the intervention (invisa-RED Elite) and placebo groups in the mean change in the primary outcome variable, i.e. Change in Body Fat Percentage.||2.828|1.243|<0.01
91788631|NCT03811093|183457782|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||The significance value has been Lilliefors corrected and represents the lower bound of the true significance.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||"A single sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was used to examine if variables are normally distributed for the population from which the trial groups are drawn.~The null hypothesis is that the distribution of Percent of Body Fat Lost or Gained is normal with mean -.83 and standard deviation 1.50218."||||0.20
91788632|NCT03811093|183457782|OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Levene's Test for Equality of Variance|||To test that the trial participant's population variances are equal (or exhibit homogeneity of variance), a Levene's Test for Equality of Variance was conducted. It tests the null hypothesis that the population variances are equal (called homogeneity of variance or homoscedasticity). For this test if the resulting p-value of Levene's test is less than .05, the obtained differences in sample variances are unlikely to have occurred based on random sampling from a population with equal variances.||||0.075
91788633|NCT03811093|183457783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.063|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.829|10.296||p-value is calculated using SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||Designed as a superiority trial with the aim of establishing whether the intervention was superior or inferior to a placebo in effectiveness as a therapy for change over time in measured body circumference. The null hypothesis states that in the population from where the sample was obtained there was no difference between the intervention (invisa-RED Elite) and placebo groups in the mean change in the primary outcome variable, i.e. measured body circumference.||10.296|3.829|<0.01
91788634|NCT03811093|183457783|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||The significance value has been Lilliefors corrected and represents the lower bound of the true significance.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||"A Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was used to examine if variables are normally distributed for the population from which the trial groups are drawn.~The null hypothesis is that the distribution of Total Inches Lost or Gained is normal with mean -7.136 and standard deviation 5.796."||||0.20
91788635|NCT03811093|183457783|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Levene's Test for Equality of Variance|||To test that the trial participant's population variances are equal (or exhibit homogeneity of variance), a Levene's Test for Equality of Variance was conducted. It tests the null hypothesis that the population variances are equal (called homogeneity of variance or homoscedasticity). For this test if the resulting p-value of Levene's test is less than .05, the obtained differences in sample variances are unlikely to have occurred based on random sampling from a population with equal variances.||||0.44
91791079|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.854|0.806||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.806|-0.854|0.954
91791080|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91791081|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.622|0.997||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.997|-0.622|0.649
91791082|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91791083|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.443||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.443|-1.220|0.358
91653458|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1206
91653459|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-0.9|0.0211
91653460|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.6|0.4963
91653461|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.6|0.3031
91653462|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.1|0.1019
91653463|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.2010
91653464|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.0|-0.9|0.0331
91653465|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.5|0.7478
91791084|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.99|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91653466|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.6940
91653467|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.0|0.0690
91653468|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.8|-0.0|0.0816
91653469|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-0.7|0.1174
91653470|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.4|0.9250
91653471|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.8555
91653472|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.0956
91653473|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1659
91791085|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.155|0.963||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.963|-1.155|0.859
91791086|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91791087|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.529||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.644|1.437||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.437|-0.644|0.455
91791088|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91791089|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.578|0.539||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.539|-1.578|0.335
91791090|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91791091|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.447|1.233||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.233|-1.447|0.875
91791092|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91791093|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|1.561||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.561|-1.068|0.712
91791094|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91848693|NCT02501811|183581583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.552|0.629|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||0.629|-3.552|0.523
91653474|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.0|-0.8|0.0468
91653475|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.7|0.1083
91653476|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.0|-0.8|0.0505
91653477|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.6993
91653478|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.9781
91653479|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-1.0|0.0154
91653480|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.9|0.0731
91653481|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.1|-1.0|0.0259
91788636|NCT03811093|183457784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4703|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3372|6.6034||p-value is computed using SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||Designed as a superiority trial with the aim of establishing whether the intervention was superior or inferior to a placebo in effectiveness as a therapy for change in body fat, measured in pounds. The null hypothesis states that in the population from where the sample was obtained there was no difference between the intervention (invisa-RED Elite) and placebo groups in the mean change in the primary outcome variable, i.e. change in pounds of body fat.||6.6034|2.3372|<0.01
91848694|NCT02501811|183581583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.127|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.127|-2.7|0.471
91848695|NCT02501811|183581583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.59|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.590|-1.240|0.485
91653482|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.3|0.5243
91653483|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.4|0.8488
91653484|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-0.7|0.2746
91653485|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.4|0.9349
91848696|NCT02501811|183581584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.406|1.887|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.887|-2.406|0.942
91653486|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.3|0.5164
91653487|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.2|0.2382
91653488|NCT02146430|183199618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.8|-0.0|0.0807
91653489|NCT02146430|183199619|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.002|||ANCOVA|||||0.002|-0.091|0.0601
91653490|NCT02146430|183199619|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.041|||ANCOVA|||||0.041|-0.052|0.8299
91653491|NCT02146430|183199619|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.004|||ANCOVA|||||0.004|-0.096|0.0347
91653492|NCT02146430|183199619|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.086|||ANCOVA|||||0.086|-0.007|0.0951
91653493|NCT02146430|183199619|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.8199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.041|||ANCOVA|||||0.041|-0.052|0.8199
91653494|NCT03093324|183199620|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.542||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.754|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.754|0.390|0.0003
91653495|NCT03093324|183199621|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.52||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.76|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.760|0.356|0.0007
91848697|NCT02501811|183581584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.815|2.975|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.975|-1.815|0.282
91848698|NCT02501811|183581584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.635|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.635|-1.310|0.163
91848699|NCT02501811|183581584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.471|0.628|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.628|-2.471|0.175
91848700|NCT02501811|183581584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.932|1.254|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.254|-2.932|0.329
91848701|NCT02501811|183581584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.829|1.994|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.994|-1.829|0.752
91653496|NCT03093324|183199622|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.714||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|0.921|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.921|0.554|0.009
91653497|NCT03093324|183199623|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.555||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.862|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.862|0.357|0.009
91848702|NCT02501811|183581585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.118|1.927|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.927|-1.118|0.733
91848703|NCT02501811|183581585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|2.041|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.041|-1.248|0.735
91848704|NCT02501811|183581585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.464|1.767|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.767|-1.464|0.794
91848705|NCT02501811|183581585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.161|1.666|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.666|-1.161|0.951
91848706|NCT02501811|183581585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.441|1.457|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.457|-1.441|0.962
91848707|NCT02501811|183581585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.793|1.303|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.303|-1.793|0.945
91848708|NCT02501811|183581586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.754|5.711|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||5.711|-9.754|0.602
91848709|NCT02501811|183581586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.609|4.044|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.044|-9.609|0.443
91848710|NCT02501811|183581586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.011|2.76|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.760|-11.011|0.348
91848711|NCT02501811|183581586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|9.968|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||9.968|-5.760|0.812
91848712|NCT02501811|183581586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.052|8.574|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||8.574|-7.052|0.900
91848713|NCT02501811|183581586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.321|5.635|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||5.635|-8.321|0.848
91848714|NCT02501811|183581587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.281|4.789|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.789|-7.281|0.659
91848715|NCT02501811|183581587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.621|3.71|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||3.710|-8.621|0.466
91848716|NCT02501811|183581587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.799|1.594|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.594|-10.799|0.293
91848717|NCT02501811|183581587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.795|9.508|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||9.508|-2.795|0.530
91848718|NCT02501811|183581587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|7.33|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||7.330|-4.910|0.761
91848719|NCT02501811|183581587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.426|4.132|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.132|-8.426|0.669
91848720|NCT02501811|183581588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.04|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.040|-0.048|0.989
91848721|NCT02501811|183581588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.033|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.033|-0.056|0.493
91848722|NCT02501811|183581588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.039|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.039|-0.053|0.926
91848723|NCT02501811|183581588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.047|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.047|-0.041|0.904
91848724|NCT02501811|183581588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.049|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.049|-0.035|0.476
91848725|NCT02501811|183581588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.048|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.048|-0.040|0.515
91788637|NCT03811093|183457784|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||The significance value has been Lilliefors corrected and represents the lower bound of the true significance.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||"A single sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was used to examine if variables are normally distributed for the population from which the trial groups are drawn.~The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the Weight of Body Fat Lost or Gained is normal with mean -2.49 and standard deviation 3.71209."||||.200
91788638|NCT03811093|183457784|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Levene's Test for Equality of Variance|||To test that the trial participant's population variances are equal (or exhibit homogeneity of variance), a Levene's Test for Equality of Variance was conducted. It tests the null hypothesis that the population variances are equal (called homogeneity of variance or homoscedasticity). For this test if the resulting p-value of Levene's test is less than .05, the obtained differences in sample variances are unlikely to have occurred based on random sampling from a population with equal variances.||||.438
91788639|NCT00178503|183457785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear trend P value|0.0|||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Data were analyzed using SPSS-PC repeated measures one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with MPH dosing regimen as the within-subjects variable.||||=.001
91788640|NCT00178503|183457786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear p|0.005||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||.005
91788641|NCT00178503|183457787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear p|0.0|||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91788642|NCT00464490|183457789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value \<0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): Ventilator time (DG) = Ventilator time (CG)||||0.02
91788643|NCT03739242|183457851|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-39.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.57|-29.75|||ANCOVA|||||-29.75|-48.57|<0.0001
91788644|NCT03739242|183457852|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-41.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.73|-30.74|||ANCOVA|||||-30.74|-51.73|0.0001
91788645|NCT03739242|183457853|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.09||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|3.05|||ANCOVA|||||3.05|-2.87|0.9510
91788646|NCT03739242|183457854|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.58|-31.82|||ANCOVA|||||-31.82|-51.58|<0.0001
91788647|NCT03739242|183457855|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-7.0||||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|3.59|||ANCOVA|||||3.59|-17.59|0.1924
91788648|NCT03739242|183457856|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-17.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.54|-10.98|||ANCOVA|||||-10.98|-23.54|<0.0001
91788649|NCT03739242|183457857|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-1.19|<0.0001
91788650|NCT03739242|183457858|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.05|<0.0001
91788651|NCT03739242|183457859|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-3.47||||0.4535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|5.7|||ANCOVA|||||5.7|-12.64|0.4535
91788652|NCT03739242|183457860|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.74||||0.5594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|3.24|||ANCOVA|||||3.24|-1.76|0.5594
91788653|NCT03739242|183457861|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.07||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.48|||ANCOVA|||||1.48|-1.63|0.9266
91788654|NCT03739242|183457862|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|6.02||||0.2654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|16.69|||ANCOVA|||||16.69|-4.66|0.2654
91788655|NCT03739242|183457863|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-5.95||||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.37|4.47|||ANCOVA|||||4.47|-16.37|0.2595
91788656|NCT03739242|183457864|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.003||||0.8476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.032|||ANCOVA|||||0.032|-0.039|0.8476
91788657|NCT03739242|183457865|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.21||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.49|0.1499
91788658|NCT03739242|183457866|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|1.71||||0.7224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|11.25|||ANCOVA|||||11.25|-7.83|0.7224
91788659|NCT01122394|183457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||robust regression|controlling for provider clustering||Robust regressions were performed||||0.29
91788660|NCT01122394|183457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Logistic|This analysis includes participants in pre-action and action/maintenance||||||0.25
91788661|NCT01122394|183457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91788662|NCT01122394|183457870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.81
91653498|NCT03093324|183199624|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.696||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|0.972|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.972|0.499|0.033
91653499|NCT03093324|183199625|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.662||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|1.031|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||1.031|0.425|0.068
91653500|NCT03093324|183199626|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.713||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|1.217|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||1.217|0.417|0.215
91653501|NCT03093324|183199627|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Nausea: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||-0.0|-0.6|0.043
91653502|NCT03093324|183199627|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Vomiting: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
91653503|NCT03093324|183199627|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Upper Abdominal Pain: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
91653504|NCT03093324|183199627|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Lower Abdominal Pain: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||0.2|-0.4|0.403
91653505|NCT03093324|183199627|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Diarrhea: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||0.2|-0.6|0.261
91653506|NCT01767597|183199629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||No p-value adjustments for multiple comparisons were required. Significance was determined using a p-value \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Power calculations were performed to detect \>15% difference in immediate linkage-to-care and vaccination. We hypothesized from discussions with an expert panel that \~30% of participants would have appropriate care with standard HBV serology. Assuming type 1 error=0.05 and power=80%, 152 participants per arm would be needed. As \~40% of the population would be nonimmunized or HBsAg-positive from previous data, a minimum 375 participants per arm would be required.||||0.5
91788663|NCT01122394|183457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
91653507|NCT04583579|183199651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91653508|NCT02006706|183199653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.22|||t-test, 2 sided||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the DAS28 at baseline and DAS28 after 24 weeks of follow-up|||4.22|1.73|<0.001
91653509|NCT02006706|183199654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91653510|NCT02173704|183199677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 70%.|Single binomial proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|100.0|||Exact test of binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis 5/99 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the primary objective for strain 5/99 was 99%.||100|97.2|
91653511|NCT02173704|183199677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:5 should be ≥ 70%.|single binomial proportion|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.4|85.8|||Exact test of binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis NZ98/254 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the primary objective for strain NZ98/25 was 94%.||85.8|71.4|
91653512|NCT02173704|183199679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 70%.|Single binomial proportion|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.7|99.98|||Exact test of binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis H44/76 strain: The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective is that the proportion of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 one month after the third dose of the Bexsero® vaccine was ≤ 0.70. Assuming the results for the three strains are independent, the power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the primary objectives to demonstrate sufficiency of response (for all three strains was 92%.||99.98|95.7|
91788664|NCT00039871|183457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.217||||||99.0|0.195|0.239||||||||0.239|0.195|
91788665|NCT00039871|183457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.563||||||95.0|0.529|0.596||||||||0.596|0.529|
91788666|NCT00039871|183457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.122||||||95.0|0.076|0.169||||||||0.169|0.076|
91788667|NCT02446743|183457875|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[(Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine Group Difference|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|84.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||84.1|68.1|
91791095|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.112|0.59||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.590|-2.112|0.269
91653513|NCT02173704|183199679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 75%.|Single binomial proportion|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.7|99.82|||Exact test for binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis 5/99 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the secondary objective for strain 5/99 was 99%.||99.82|94.7|
91653514|NCT02173704|183199679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 75%.|Single binomial proportion|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|97.4|||Exact test for binomial proportions|||Statistical analysis NZ98/254 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the secondary objective for strain NZ98/254 was 99%.||97.4|88.7|
91848726|NCT02501811|183581589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.687|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.687|-1.770|0.569
91653515|NCT03901963|183199688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|8.57||Tested at 2-sided 0.05 significance level through stratified CMH method. Stratification factor included baseline cytogenetic risk per investigator'|stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)||Odds ratio and 95% CI were estimated by Mantel-Haenszel method. Stratification factor included baseline cytogenetic risk per investigator's assessment (high risk versus standard/unknown risk) as used for randomization of the study.|||8.57|2.37|<0.0001
91848727|NCT02501811|183581589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.792|1.457|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.457|-1.792|0.767
91788668|NCT02446743|183457875|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.9|69.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||69.2|49.9|
91788669|NCT02446743|183457875|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.5|73.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||73.5|60.5|
91788670|NCT02446743|183457875|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|14.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||14.8|5.3|
91788671|NCT02446743|183457875|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10 vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|24.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||24.2|4.9|
91653516|NCT02909673|183199700|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: No difference between Fourth R Treatment and Control treatment in the rate of Physical DV perpetration. Power analyses were conducted to ensure adequate statistical power to detect minimum detectible differences of 3-6%. An intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) =0.01 was assumed among observations of students attending the same school and was accounted for in the power estimation though the use of a variance inflation factor (VIF)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple test. ICC was estimated at 0.006. Type I error rate was set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Multilevel logistic regression used to adjust for the clustered sample design (students nested within schools).|Odds of Physical DV perpetration in the control group relative to the treatment group|||1.00|0.43|0.05
91653517|NCT01288859|183199706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The results from LC-MS/MS analysis of parent polyphenols were analyzed and expressed as the absolute changes from the baseline to reduce possible effects of inter-subject fasting variability|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91653518|NCT01288859|183199707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed using the statistical package SPSS for Windows (version15). By the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures the subjective time curves for all measured compounds were compared and tested for the effect of treatment and of time as factors. For all tests, following a significant main effect in the ANOVA, individual means were compared using the Bonferroni test (p \< 0.05). Results were considered significant at p \< 0.05.||||0.01
91653519|NCT01288859|183199708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91653520|NCT00780026|183199826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841||||||P value for Bacterial infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.841
91791096|NCT02880956|183460094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91653521|NCT00780026|183199826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||||||P-value for fungal infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.298
91653522|NCT00780026|183199826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||||||P value for transplant incision wound|Chi-squared|||||||0.585
91653523|NCT00780026|183199826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||||||P value for viral infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.505
91653524|NCT00780026|183199827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
91653525|NCT00780026|183199828|EQUIVALENCE|If the p-value for the means is \> 0.05 between the groups then they will be deemed equivalent.||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.384
91653526|NCT00780026|183199830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.401
91653527|NCT00780026|183199831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||||||P value for bile leak|Chi-squared|||||||0.826
91653528|NCT00780026|183199831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137||||||This is the p value for Biliary Stricture|Chi-squared|||||||0.137
91653529|NCT00780026|183199832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
91653530|NCT01816477|183199843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91653531|NCT01816477|183199844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0872|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between the groups for day 1.||||0.0872
91653532|NCT01816477|183199844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6751|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 2.||||0.6751
91848728|NCT02501811|183581589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.965|0.921|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.921|-1.965|0.261
91653533|NCT01816477|183199844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1203|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 3.||||0.1203
91653534|NCT01816477|183199844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3582|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 4.||||0.3582
91653535|NCT01816477|183199844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 5||||0.0625
91653536|NCT01816477|183199844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0484|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 6.||||0.0484
91653537|NCT01816477|183199845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6465|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between the groups for day 1.||||0.6465
91653538|NCT01816477|183199845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9233|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 2.||||0.9233
91848729|NCT02501811|183581589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.261|2.222|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.222|-1.261|0.587
91848730|NCT02501811|183581589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.763|2.014|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.014|-1.763|0.994
91848731|NCT02501811|183581589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.993|1.283|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.283|-1.993|0.639
91848732|NCT02501811|183581590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.437|3.319|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||3.319|-2.437|0.992
91848733|NCT02501811|183581590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.278|2.643|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.643|-2.278|0.862
91848734|NCT02501811|183581590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.846|1.443|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.443|-3.846|0.217
91848735|NCT02501811|183581590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|4.611|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||4.611|-1.325|0.327
91653539|NCT01816477|183199845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5788|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 3.||||0.5788
91653540|NCT01816477|183199845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1036|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between the groups for day 4.||||0.1036
91848736|NCT02501811|183581590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.551|3.068|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||3.068|-2.551|0.859
91848737|NCT02501811|183581590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.952|1.184|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.184|-3.952|0.338
91848738|NCT02501811|183581591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.456|0.411|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.411|-2.456|0.157
91848739|NCT02501811|183581591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.798|0.859|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.859|-2.798|0.428
91848740|NCT02501811|183581591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|2.093|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.093|-0.83|0.382
91848741|NCT02501811|183581591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.255|-0.052|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||-0.052|-3.255|0.056
91848742|NCT02501811|183581591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.991|1.885|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.885|-1.991|0.610
91848743|NCT02501811|183581591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|3.557|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||3.557|-0.356|0.195
91848744|NCT02501811|183581592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.01||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.537|56.687|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||56.687|-19.537|0.348
91848745|NCT02501811|183581592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.88||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.759|59.134|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||59.134|-12.759|0.230
91653541|NCT01816477|183199845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5314|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 5.||||0.5314
91653542|NCT01816477|183199845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7166|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 6.||||0.7166
91653543|NCT04128007|183199864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|32.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|S-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||32.32|6.64|<0.0001
91788672|NCT02446743|183457875|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|15.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||15.9|4.3|
91788673|NCT02446743|183457876|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|31.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||31.4|18.2|
91653544|NCT04128007|183199865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|21.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|B-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||21.18|3.65|<0.0001
91788674|NCT02446743|183457876|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[(Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine groups difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||30.1|13.2|
91653545|NCT04128007|183199866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|7.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|SI-NRS Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio||7.71|2.14|<0.0001
91653546|NCT04128007|183199866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|9.78||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|SI-NRS Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio||9.78|2.93|<0.0001
91653547|NCT04128007|183199866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|18.89||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|SI-NRS Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||18.89|5.02|<0.0001
91653548|NCT04128007|183199867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-11.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|Comparison of Week 4 Change from Baseline||-11.8|-27.4|<0.0001
91653549|NCT04128007|183199867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-19.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|Comparison of Week 8 Change from Baseline||-19.5|-35.5|<0.0001
91788675|NCT02446743|183457876|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|39.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||39.6|20.0|
91788676|NCT02446743|183457876|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||11.9|-3.4|
91788677|NCT02446743|183457876|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1(V72\_41)\]|vaccine group differences|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|24.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||24.2|0.33|
91791097|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.785||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.509|1.577||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.577|-1.509|0.966
91653550|NCT04128007|183199868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.764|5.616||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization.|Log Rank||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization.|Time to PSSI-50 Hazard Ratio||5.616|2.764|<0.0001
91653551|NCT04128007|183199869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|18.61||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PSSI-75 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||18.61|4.81|<0.0001
91791098|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91791099|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.646|1.4||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.400|-1.646|0.874
91848746|NCT02501811|183581592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.21||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.974|34.361|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||34.361|-30.974|0.905
91848747|NCT02501811|183581592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.98||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.267|49.03|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||49.030|-15.267|0.335
91653552|NCT04128007|183199870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.49|139.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PSSI-90 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||139.77|8.49|<0.0001
91653553|NCT00481247|183199872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Hasford Score.||||||0.0056
91653554|NCT00481247|183199873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.13||||||||1.13|0.55|
91653555|NCT00481247|183199875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.77||||||Hazard Ratio and Confidence Interval were based on analyses on all randomized subjects||1.77|1.20|
91653556|NCT00481247|183199876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.89||||||Hazard Ratio, and Confidence Interval were based on analyses on all randomized subjects||1.89|1.25|
91653557|NCT01716754|183199881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.35|0.576
91653558|NCT01716754|183199881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.46|0.556
91653559|NCT01716754|183199883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.86|0.61|0.483
91653560|NCT01716754|183199883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.44|0.79|0.261
91653561|NCT01716754|183199885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Morning||||0.604
91653562|NCT01716754|183199885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Morning||||0.260
91788678|NCT02446743|183457876|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1(V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.5|-10.0|
91788679|NCT02446743|183457878|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|28.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||28.6|16.5|
91848748|NCT02501811|183581592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.68||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.106|30.88|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||30.880|-40.106|0.827
91848749|NCT02501811|183581592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.63||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.989|8.001|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||8.001|-50.989|0.163
91653563|NCT01716754|183199885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Evening||||0.937
91653564|NCT01716754|183199885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Evening||||0.880
91653565|NCT01716754|183199885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Overall daily||||0.762
91653566|NCT01716754|183199885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Overall daily||||0.408
91653567|NCT02110706|183199901|OTHER|"A futility (non-superiority) design is a screening tool to identify whether agents should be candidates for phase III trials while minimizing costs/sample size If futility is declared, results would imply not cost effective to conduct a future phase III clinical trial If futility is not declared, suggests that there could be a clinically meaningful effect - supports exploration in a larger, phase III trial"|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||"This futility design tests the following hypothesis:~H0: Rituximab improves outcome by at least 30% compared to placebo (pR - pP ≥ 0.30 - not futile) versus HA: Rituximab does not improve outcome by at least 30% compared to placebo (pR - pP \< 0.30 - futile)"||2.41||0.03
91653568|NCT02110706|183199902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|2.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||% of study participants with treatment related AEs||2.21|0.23|0.63
91653569|NCT02110706|183199902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||% study participants with treatment related SAEs||2.11|0.27|0.65
91653570|NCT02110706|183199903|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.93|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.02|||Regression, Linear|||This objective was assessed longitudinally by comparing the final score at the end of the study to the score obtained at baseline. The outcome was defined as the change from baseline to week 52 in the MGC. This hypothesis was assessed using a linear regression model, adjusted for differences in baseline MGC scores.||2.02||0.93
91653571|NCT02110706|183199904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.39|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.03|||Regression, Linear|||This objective was assessed longitudinally by comparing the final score at the end of the study to the score obtained at baseline. The outcome was defined as the change from baseline to week 52 in the QMG. This hypothesis was assessed using a linear regression model, adjusted for differences in baseline QMG scores.||1.03||0.39
91653572|NCT01832090|183199914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91653573|NCT01832090|183199915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91653574|NCT01832090|183199916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91653575|NCT01832090|183199917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91653576|NCT01832090|183199918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91653577|NCT01832090|183199919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91653578|NCT01832090|183199922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91653579|NCT01832090|183199923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91653580|NCT04182204|183199929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.43|0.0017
91710158|NCT04679948|183312827|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|96.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.55|102.23|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + caffeine/GLSM of caffeine). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 8.6."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||102.23|91.55|
91710159|NCT04679948|183312828|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|110.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.15|113.71|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + warfarin/GLSM of Warfarin). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =4.8."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||113.71|107.15|
91710160|NCT04679948|183312829|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|108.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.11|113.01|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + warfarin/GLSM of Warfarin). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 6.6."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||113.01|104.11|
91788680|NCT02446743|183457878|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|28.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||28.9|14.6|
91788681|NCT02446743|183457878|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|35.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||35.3|16.4|
91788682|NCT02446743|183457878|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.8|73.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||73.7|60.8|
91791100|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91791101|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.794||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|2.551||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||2.551|-0.572|0.213
91791102|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91791103|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.242||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.242|-0.490|0.208
91791104|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91791105|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|2.365||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.365|-0.307|0.131
91710161|NCT04679948|183312830|OTHER||Ratio of GLSM [%]|99.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.66|110.95|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + omeprazole/GLSM of Omeprazole). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =12.3."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||110.95|89.66|
91653581|NCT04182204|183199930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.51|||Log Rank|||||0.51|0.27|<0.0001
91653582|NCT04182204|183199931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|21.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|32.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.94|9.58|<0.0001
91653583|NCT04182204|183199932|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|28.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.89|40.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.33|15.89|<0.0001
91788683|NCT02446743|183457878|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.3|81.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||81.3|65.3|
91653584|NCT04182204|183199933|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.71|42.68||||||||42.68|17.71|
91653585|NCT04182204|183199934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|28.86||||||||28.86|5.95|
91788684|NCT02446743|183457878|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.6|72.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||72.3|53.6|
91788685|NCT02446743|183457878|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|14.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||14.0|3.7|
91788686|NCT02446743|183457878|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.3|3.3|
91788687|NCT02446743|183457878|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|22.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||22.0|4.5|
91788688|NCT02446743|183457878|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.8|-3.4|
91791106|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91848750|NCT02501811|183581593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.915|-0.357|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||-0.357|-18.915|0.023
91848751|NCT02501811|183581593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.871|-3.319|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||-3.319|-26.871|0.050
91653586|NCT04182204|183199935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|20.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.16|32.56||||||||32.56|8.16|
91848752|NCT02501811|183581593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.784|8.836|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||8.836|-14.784|0.119
91848753|NCT02501811|183581593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.087|4.762|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.762|-18.087|0.845
91653587|NCT04182204|183199937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53||||||||0.53|0.30|
91653588|NCT04182204|183199938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.83||||||||0.83|0.40|
91653589|NCT04182204|183199939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17||||||||1.17|0.62|
91653590|NCT04182204|183199940|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.91||||||||0.91|0.45|
91653591|NCT04182204|183199945|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|10.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|22.63||||||||22.63|-2.37|
91653592|NCT04182204|183199946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|9.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|22.78||||||||22.78|-3.22|
91653593|NCT04182204|183199947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|18.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|30.97||||||||30.97|5.54|
91653594|NCT00947427|183199980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
91848754|NCT02501811|183581593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.931|16.848|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||16.848|-5.931|0.976
91848755|NCT02501811|183581593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.337|25.578|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||25.578|-1.337|0.717
91788689|NCT02446743|183457878|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|21.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||21.4|-3.3|
91788690|NCT02446743|183457878|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||14.5|-6.4|
91788691|NCT02446743|183457879|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|20.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.9|10.1|
91848756|NCT02501811|183581594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1411.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|840.6||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3108.3|284.9|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||284.9|-3108.3|0.110
91848757|NCT02501811|183581594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-634.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|405.1||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1460.7|191.4|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||191.4|-1460.7|0.112
91848758|NCT02501811|183581594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-483.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|400.7||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1301.5|335.2|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||335.2|-1301.5|0.891
91848759|NCT02501811|183581594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-928.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|754.2||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2470.7|613.6|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||613.6|-2470.7|0.009
91848760|NCT02501811|183581594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-777.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|756.5||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2323.2|769.1|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||769.1|-2323.2|0.661
91653595|NCT03212170|183200013|OTHER|Pearson correlation statistical test||||||0.1347|||||||two-sided hypothesis test|||||||0.1347
91791107|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|2.719||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.719|-0.014|0.052
91653596|NCT03212170|183200015|OTHER|Bland-Altman statistical test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.544||||||||0.544|-0.282|
91653597|NCT03212170|183200016|OTHER|||||||0.2521|||||||Pearson Correlation Statistical Test|||||||0.2521
91653598|NCT01937364|183200019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7275|-0.0206||One-sided p-value|z-statistic with pooled estimate||RD = Baclofen - Placebo|||-0.0206|-0.7275|0.0334
91653599|NCT01937364|183200020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3744|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baclofen - Placebo; 24 hours||||0.3744
91653600|NCT01937364|183200020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7616|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baclofen - Placebo; 48 hours||||0.7616
91653601|NCT01937364|183200020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1393|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baclofen - Placebo; 72 hours||||0.1393
91653602|NCT01937364|183200021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Baclofen - Placebo; Peak Ativan 1mg PO equivalent dose|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
91653603|NCT01937364|183200021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baclofen - Placebo; Total Ativan 1mg PO equivalent dose||||0.80
91653604|NCT06394973|183200051|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.376|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.376
91653605|NCT06394973|183200051|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.518
91791108|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91788692|NCT02446743|183457879|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|18.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||18.1|7.5|
91653606|NCT04071769|183200052|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the Xenon MRI measure of RBC-to-Membrane (RBC:M) at baseline vs. 3 months after initiating anti-fibrotic therapy.||||0.27
91788693|NCT02446743|183457879|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|29.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||29.9|12.3|
91653607|NCT04071769|183200053|OTHER|Baseline to 3 months||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
91653608|NCT04071769|183200053|OTHER|Baseline to 6 months||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91653609|NCT04071769|183200053|OTHER|Baseline to 12 months||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91653610|NCT04071769|183200054|OTHER|Baseline to 3 months||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91653611|NCT04071769|183200054|OTHER|Baseline to 6 months||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91653612|NCT04071769|183200054|OTHER|Baseline to 12 months||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91653613|NCT02489318|183200116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|0.6|||Log Rank|||||0.600|0.391|<0.0001
91788694|NCT02446743|183457879|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.6|72.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||72.4|59.6|
91791109|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.908|2.268||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.268|-1.908|0.866
91791110|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91791111|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.048||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.599|2.523||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.523|-1.599|0.660
91791112|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91791113|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|3.995||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||3.995|-0.184|0.074
91791114|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.65|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91791115|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.545|1.828||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.828|-2.545|0.747
91791116|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
91791117|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.004|2.304||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.304|-2.004|0.891
91653614|NCT02489318|183200117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.793|||Log Rank|||||0.793|0.534|<0.0001
91788695|NCT02446743|183457879|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.8|77.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||77.0|60.8|
91653615|NCT02489318|183200118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.630|0.350|<.0001
91653616|NCT02489318|183200119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.076|||Log Rank|||||1.076|0.700|0.1966
91653617|NCT02489318|183200120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.094|||Log Rank|||||1.094|0.576|0.1563
91653618|NCT02489318|183200121|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.3608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.194|||Log Rank|||||1.194|0.615|0.3608
91653619|NCT02261428|183200122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|8.73|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.73|1.79|<0.05
91791118|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91710162|NCT04679948|183312831|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|71.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.64|113.96|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + omeprazole/GLSM of Omeprazole). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =87.8."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||113.96|44.64|
91900294|NCT01182194|183694705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|102.71|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.71|94.55|
91900295|NCT01182194|183694706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.07|103.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.46|96.07|
91900296|NCT01585987|183694710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.439||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.085|1.908||Significance level used: 0.2|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its associated two-sided 80% confidence interval (CI) was estimated via a stratified Cox model with treatment arm as the only covariate in the model|||1.908|1.085|0.0972
91900297|NCT01585987|183694711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.588||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.199|2.103||Significance level used: 0.2|Log Rank|||||2.103|1.199|0.0336
91900298|NCT01585987|183694712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.602|1.269||Significance level used: 0.2|Log Rank||HR was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment arm as the only covariate in the model.|||1.269|0.602|0.6433
91900299|NCT01585987|183694714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0549||||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7009|47.6447||Significance level used: 0.2|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.6447|0.7009|0.3686
91900300|NCT03291587|183694715|SUPERIORITY|With 418 analyzable participants across 13 clinics per group, we have 80% power to detect a group difference in primary outcome (7-day abstinence). This assumes control abstinence rate will be 10% versus 20% intervention rate using a 2-sided Z-test for proportions with alpha=0.05 (2-sided). To account for the clustering we used an intra-class correlation value of 0.03. We plan to enroll 1114-1300 patients (or approximately 42-50 per site) to conservatively allow for 25%- 35.5% loss to follow-up.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.652|1.433|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized estimating equation marginal model was used in an intent-to-treat analysis to predict the 7-day tobacco use binary outcome. A binomial distribution with logit link was specified with group, time, and the interaction of group by time included as covariates while allowing intercept and time to vary by participants within site with an exchangeable working correlation matrix designation.||1.433|0.652|0.865
91900301|NCT02197767|183694724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.072
91900302|NCT02197767|183694725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068
91900303|NCT04526197|183694733|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.776|1.001||||||||1.001|0.776|
91900304|NCT04526197|183694734|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.959|1.077||||||||1.077|0.959|
91900305|NCT04526197|183694735|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.07||||||||1.070|0.954|
91900306|NCT03933774|183694801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The degree of hyperpigmentation is the same between the tretinoin applied side and placebo applied side.||||0.002
91900307|NCT03933774|183694802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479||||||P value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|McNemar|||Null hypothesis: The number of participants who showed ≥75% repigmentation is the same between the tretinoin applied side and placebo applied side.||||0.479
91900308|NCT01783041|183694815|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||These are calculated p values.|ANOVA|Differences in continuous and categorical variables were compared using ANOVA and either Chi square test or Fisher's exact test, respectively.||||||<0.05
91900309|NCT01783041|183694816|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||These are calculated p values.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis applies to all sub-scales that were compared between the 2 study groups.||||||<0.05
91900310|NCT01783041|183694817|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Reported p values have been calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|Differences between the groups were analyzed using a two sided t-test.||||||<0.05
91653620|NCT03679741|183200129|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.8|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as test minus control|It was calculated that 30 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens wear sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 point difference between the test and control lenses with respect to overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||5.8|-1.9|
91788696|NCT02446743|183457879|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|73.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||73.7|55.2|
91788697|NCT02446743|183457879|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.6|4.9|
91788698|NCT02446743|183457879|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.7|1.2|
91653621|NCT03679741|183200130|NON_INFERIORITY|A cumulative odds ratio non-inferiority margin of 0.67 was used. This margin is based on no more than a 10% difference in proportion between the Test and the Control lenses. The odds ratio represents the cumulative odds ratio of having a higher rating/experience of the Test lens compared to the Control lens.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|6.62|||Bayesian multinomial random-effects mode|A 95% Credible Interval for the odds ratio, was used to test for non-inferiority.|Odds ratio was calculated as test over control|||6.62|2.27|
91653622|NCT03679741|183200131|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% credible interval was below 0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0074|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|-0.008|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|with random effects|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 4 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect non-inferiority with respect to visual acuity (logMAR) at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's method. The analysis presented below, summarizes the low luminance high contrast lighting condition.||-0.008|-0.037|
91653623|NCT03679741|183200131|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% credible interval was below 0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0075|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|-0.02|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|with random effect|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 4 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect non-inferiority with respect to visual acuity (logMAR) at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's method. The analysis presented below, summarizes the high illumination low contrast lighting condition.||-0.020|-0.049|
91788699|NCT02446743|183457879|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||22.6|7.5|
91788700|NCT02446743|183457879|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.0|-6.8|
91900311|NCT01783041|183694818|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||These are calculated p values.|ANOVA|Differences in continuous and categorical variables were compared using ANOVA and either Chi square test or Fisher's exact test, respectively.||||||<0.05
91900312|NCT00803270|183694851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.44|||Fisher Exact|||||0.44|-0.28|0.99
91900313|NCT00803270|183694852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of proportions|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.87||Fisher's Exact Test of equality of percent meeting optimal outcome.|Fisher Exact|||||0.87|0.03|0.08
91788701|NCT02446743|183457879|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|15.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.2|-9.8|
91788702|NCT02446743|183457879|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||14.7|-7.8|
91900314|NCT01966471|183694853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.827||95.0|0.71|1.32|||Log Rank|||||1.32|0.71|0.8270
91653624|NCT03679741|183200132|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 90% was used. Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 90%|Mean Percentage of eyes|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.002|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.0|100.0|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|for correlated binary data||It was calculated that 65 participants were required to show that the acceptable lens fitting for the Test lens would be superior to 90% with at least 80% power. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||100.0|99.0|
91791119|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|2.759||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.759|-1.650|0.621
91900315|NCT01966471|183694854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9291||95.0|0.77|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.77|0.9291
91848761|NCT02501811|183581594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|151.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|162.2||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.4|478.4|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||478.4|-175.4|0.015
91791120|NCT02880956|183460095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91848762|NCT02501811|183581595|OTHER||slope of time|0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported||||0.269
91653625|NCT03679741|183200133|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority cumulative odds ratio margin of 2 was used. This margin corresponds to no more than a 5% difference between the Test and Control lenses assuming the Control reference rate does not exceed 5%. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% credible interval was below 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.003|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.008|||Bayesian beta-binomial hierarchical||Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 50 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens wear sequences would have at least 80% power to detect 5% difference between the Test and Control lens with respect to the proportion of eyes with Grade 3 or higher slit lamp findings across all study visits. Sample size was determined using simulations methods.||0.008|-0.004|
91791121|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.064||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.064|-0.010|0.147
91791122|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91791123|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.031||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.031|-0.041|0.795
91791124|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.147|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91848763|NCT02501811|183581596|OTHER||slope of time|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.361|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.361
91848764|NCT02501811|183581597|OTHER||slope of time|-0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.107|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.107
91653626|NCT03679741|183200134|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|8.1|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|for random effects|Mean difference was calculated as test minus control|Sample size was based on primary endpoints only.||8.1|3.1|
91653627|NCT03679741|183200135|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.5|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|for random effects|Mean difference was calculated as test minus control|Sample size was based on primary endpoints only.||5.5|-0.6|
91653628|NCT03679741|183200136|NON_INFERIORITY|A cumulative odds ratio non-inferiority margin of 0.67 was used. This margin is based on no more than a 10% difference in proportion between the Test and the Control lenses. The odds ratio represents the cumulative odds ratio of having a higher rating/experience of the Test lens compared to the Control lens.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.459|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||Bayesian multinomial random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the odds ratio, was used to test for non-inferiority.|Odds ratio was calculated as test over control|||2.82|1.00|
91653629|NCT01399736|183200182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.55|||Chi-squared|||||0.55|0.22|<0.001
91653630|NCT01399736|183200183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.56|||Chi-squared|||||2.56|0.25|0.70
91653631|NCT01399736|183200184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.01|||Chi-squared|||||4.01|0.25|1.00
91653632|NCT01399736|183200185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.13|||Chi-squared|||||1.13|0.22|0.10
91653633|NCT01399736|183200186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.59|||Chi-squared|||||1.59|0.22|0.29
91900316|NCT01966471|183694855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8756||95.0|0.74|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.74|0.8756
91788703|NCT02446743|183457880|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.12|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.12|2.07|
91788704|NCT02446743|183457880|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.72|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.72|1.66|
91788705|NCT02446743|183457880|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|4.07|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||4.07|2.15|
91788706|NCT02446743|183457880|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group ratio of GMTs|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||21|12|
91791125|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.069||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.069|-0.006|0.095
91653634|NCT01399736|183200187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.57|||Chi-squared|||||0.57|0.24|<0.001
91791126|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
91653635|NCT01399736|183200188|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.02|||Chi-squared|||||5.02|0.29|0.80
91653636|NCT00948675|183200223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.176
91653637|NCT00948675|183200224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.610
91653638|NCT00948675|183200225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.615||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.615
91791127|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.072||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.072|-0.028|0.390
91848765|NCT02501811|183581598|OTHER||slope of time|1.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829||0.095|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.095
91848766|NCT02501811|183581599|OTHER||slope of time|0.603|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||0.379|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.379
91848767|NCT02501811|183581600|OTHER||slope of time|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.401|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.401
91848768|NCT02501811|183581601|OTHER||slope of time|-0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.126|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.126
91848769|NCT02501811|183581602|OTHER||slope of time|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.139|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.139
91848770|NCT02501811|183581603|OTHER||slope of time|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.472|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.472
91848771|NCT02501811|183581604|OTHER||slope of time|6.544|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.882||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.025
91848772|NCT02501811|183581605|OTHER||slope with interaction|-7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. A time by treatment interaction was assessed.||||0.037
91848773|NCT02501811|183581605|OTHER||slope with interaction|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. A time by treatment interaction was assessed.||||0.035
91848774|NCT02501811|183581606|OTHER||slope of time|84.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.81||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.092
91848775|NCT00151996|183581639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score||||<0.0001
91653639|NCT00948675|183200226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.414||95.0|||||Pearson Chi-square Test|||||||0.414
91848776|NCT00151996|183581639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score||||<0.0001
91848777|NCT00151996|183581641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in CPRS-R total score||||<0.0001
91848778|NCT00151996|183581641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in CPRS-R total score||||0.0002
91848779|NCT00151996|183581643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in physical summary score||||0.7004
91848780|NCT00151996|183581643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in psychosocial summary score||||<0.0001
91848781|NCT00151996|183581643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9257||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in physical summary score||||0.9257
91900317|NCT01966471|183694856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9341||95.0|0.75|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.75|0.9341
91900318|NCT01966471|183694857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4577||95.0|0.61|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.61|0.4577
91653640|NCT00948675|183200227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Pearson Chi-square Test|||||||0.575
91653641|NCT03335371|183200252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.087|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.39|<0.0001
91653642|NCT06331156|183200269|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Co-administration group minus Staggered group) in seroconversion rate is greater than or equal to (\>=) -10% for the anti-poliovirus type 1 antibodies.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|3.76|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate for IPV at month 3.5 between Co-administration group minus staggered group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of IPV when co-administered with HRV PCV-free compared with IPV administered alone in terms of seroconversion rates 1-month post-Dose 3 of IPV (Month 3.5).||3.76|-3.14|
91653643|NCT06331156|183200269|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group difference (Co-administration group minus Staggered group) in seroconversion rate is \>= -10% for the anti-poliovirus type 2 antibodies.|Difference in seroconversion rate|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.3|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate for IPV at month 3.5 between Co-administration group minus staggered group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of IPV when co-administered with HRV PCV-free compared with IPV administered alone in terms of seroconversion rates 1-month post-Dose 3 of IPV (Month 3.5).||2.30|-3.86|
91653644|NCT06331156|183200269|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group difference (Co-administration group minus Staggered group) in seroconversion rate is \>= -10% for the anti-poliovirus type 3 antibodies.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.99|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate for IPV at Month 3.5 between Co-administration group minus Staggered group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of IPV when co-administered with HRV PCV-free compared with IPV administered alone in terms of seroconversion rates 1-month post-Dose 3 of IPV (Month 3.5).||2.99|-2.63|
91653645|NCT05845645|183200278|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|0.8269|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7535|0.9076|||||The geometric least square mean (GLSM) ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For normal gastric pH||0.9076|0.7535|
91653646|NCT05845645|183200278|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.7053|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6427|0.7741|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||0.7741|0.6427|
91653647|NCT05845645|183200278|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.8529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7771|0.9361|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||0.9361|0.7771|
91788707|NCT02446743|183457880|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|28.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||28|14|
91653648|NCT05845645|183200278|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.563|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.376|1.776|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.776|1.376|
91653649|NCT05845645|183200278|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.415|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.248|1.604|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.604|1.248|
91653650|NCT05845645|183200278|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7972|1.027|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.027|0.7972|
91653651|NCT05845645|183200279|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9052|1.003|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||1.003|0.9052|
91653652|NCT05845645|183200279|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8758|0.9706|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||0.9706|0.8758|
91788708|NCT02446743|183457880|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.05|20.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||20|9.05|
91653653|NCT05845645|183200279|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9676|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9191|1.019|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||1.019|0.9191|
91791128|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91653654|NCT05845645|183200279|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.001|1.12|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.120|1.001|
91653655|NCT05845645|183200279|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9826|1.097|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.097|0.9826|
91653656|NCT05845645|183200279|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9273|1.037|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.037|0.9273|
91653657|NCT05845645|183200280|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9519|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9011|1.006|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||1.006|0.9011|
91791129|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.045||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.045|-0.052|0.898
91848782|NCT00151996|183581643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in psychosocial summary score||||<0.0001
91848783|NCT00420316|183581665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|34.3||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-348.7|88.9|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to any rotavirus gastroenteritis (RV GE) caused by the circulating wild-type rotavirus strain. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||88.9|-348.7|0.691
91653658|NCT05845645|183200280|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8762|0.9777|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||0.9777|0.8762|
91653659|NCT05845645|183200280|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9723|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9204|1.027|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||1.027|0.9204|
91653660|NCT05845645|183200280|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.116|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.116|0.9940|
91653661|NCT05845645|183200280|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.086|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.086|0.9710|
91710163|NCT04679948|183312832|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|126.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.15|135.05|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + midazolam/GLSM of Midazolam). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =10.1."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||135.05|119.15|
91710164|NCT04679948|183312833|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|130.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.25|139.92|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + midazolam/GLSM of Midazolam). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =11.6."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||139.92|121.25|
91653662|NCT05845645|183200280|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9747|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9208|1.032|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.032|0.9208|
91653663|NCT02649231|183200296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.75||||||Confirmed alcohol relapse by drug condition at 6 months using the Alcohol Timeline-Followback. Logistic regression modelling was used to compare the ketamine group with the placebo group (combined across therapy and alcohol education).||1.75|0.28|
91653664|NCT02649231|183200297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|19.0||||||Linear regression modelling was used to compare the ketamine group with the placebo group (combined across therapy and psychoeducation). Only participants with a minimum of 159 days of completed drinking self-report data were included in the main ITT analysis as this was the shortest duration of time before any participant completed the 6 month (23-25 week) follow up in the study. Reporting time was capped at 180 days.||19.0|1.1|
91848784|NCT00420316|183581666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|50.7||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3769.6|99.4|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the circulating wild-type rotavirus strain was assessed. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who have received placebo.||99.4|-3769.6|0.551
91900319|NCT01966471|183694858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2864||95.0|0.83|1.84|||Log Rank|||||1.84|0.83|0.2864
91653665|NCT02970669|183200300|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means (SacVal/Ena)|0.9456||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8863|1.0088|||ANCOVA|model for a log-scaled response with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value in logarithmic scale as a continuous covariate.||||1.0088|0.8863|0.0895
91653666|NCT02970669|183200301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|293.6||||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-916.5|1503.8|||ANCOVA|model with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value as a continuous covariate.||||1503.8|-916.5|0.6316
91653667|NCT02970669|183200303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.038||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|4.138|||ANCOVA|model with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value as a continuous covariate.||||4.138|-0.062|0.0570
91653668|NCT02970669|183200304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.478||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|4.403|||ANCOVA|model with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value as a continuous covariate.||||4.403|0.553|0.0121
91653669|NCT01714505|183200331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-tests: compare LBGI, carbohydrates for hypoglycemia treatment, % of time in range and average BG on CLC vs OL.||||||0.003
91653670|NCT01714505|183200332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.1
91653671|NCT01714505|183200333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91653672|NCT00249821|183200360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.001
91653673|NCT00249821|183200361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.012
91653674|NCT00249821|183200361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.002
91710165|NCT02494401|183312834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||p value of baseline comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91900320|NCT02092220|183694865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-12.56||Repeated measures model.|t-test, 2 sided||Bionic Pancreas Arm - Usual Care Arm|||-12.56|-28.00|<0.0001
91653675|NCT00249821|183200362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.022
91653676|NCT00249821|183200362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.002
91653677|NCT00249821|183200363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.029
91653678|NCT00249821|183200364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.972
91653679|NCT00249821|183200365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.058
91653680|NCT00249821|183200365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.026
91788709|NCT02446743|183457880|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.78|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.78|1.26|
91788710|NCT02446743|183457880|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.51|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.51|1.11|
91788711|NCT02446743|183457880|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.28|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||2.28|1.27|
91788712|NCT02446743|183457880|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.68|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.68|0.94|
91791130|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91900321|NCT02092220|183694866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8||Repeated measures model.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|0.8|<0.0001
91653681|NCT00249821|183200366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.793
91653682|NCT00249821|183200366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.055
91653683|NCT00814320|183200379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.025|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.046||Testing the null hypothesis of 1 VASBI/year against a one-sided alternative at the 0.01 level of statistical significance.|Poisson|||For SC Administration of IGIV, 10%, with rHuPH20 after ramp-up, only||0.046||<0.0001
91653684|NCT01488578|183200449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91653685|NCT01488578|183200452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.032
91653686|NCT01488578|183200453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91653687|NCT01488578|183200454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91653688|NCT01488578|183200455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91653689|NCT01488578|183200456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||The Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness-of-Fit TEST|||||||<0.001
91653690|NCT01488578|183200458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.006
91653691|NCT01488578|183200459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91653692|NCT01488578|183200460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.015
91653693|NCT01488578|183200461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91653694|NCT01488578|183200462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91653695|NCT05550532|183200466|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|=|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|1.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Model|||||1.90|-2.95|=0.670
91653696|NCT05550532|183200471|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.71||||||||1.71|-1.13|
91653697|NCT02780661|183200481|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.86||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.196||Log10 change from baseline in aerobic bacteria microbial count as response variable, treatment and period as fixed effect, participant level and period level pre-treatment microbial count as covariates and participant as random effect.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment in log10{(count+1)/(baseline+1)} such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|H0: There is no treatment difference between daily and weekly product use. H1: There is a treatment difference between daily and weekly product use.||-0.196|-1.530|0.0144
91710166|NCT02494401|183312834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||p value for 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91710167|NCT02494401|183312834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91710168|NCT02494401|183312835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91848785|NCT00420316|183581668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|100.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1822.5|100.0|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the wild-type rotavirus strain of serotype G1. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||100|-1822.5|0.33
91848786|NCT00420316|183581669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|-97.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9610.8|80.5|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to any rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the wild-type rotavirus strain of non-G1 serotype. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||80.5|-9610.8|1
91848787|NCT00420316|183581670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|98.7|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the wild-type rotavirus strain of non-G1 serotype was assessed. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||98.7|0|1
91848788|NCT00420316|183581671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|-23.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.7|54.8|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe gastroenteritis (GE) was assessed. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||54.8|-287.7|0.817
91848789|NCT03546907|183581674|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.808||||0.1296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.065|||Negative binomial regression model|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial regression model with total number of events occurring during observation duration as response variable, treatment, baseline eosinophil strata, region, number of severe COPD exacerbations experienced in previous year(0 vs. 1+) at baseline, smoking history(current vs. former smoker), post-BD FEV1 percent(%) predicted (less than\[\<\] 50% vs greater than equal\[\>=\]50%) at baseline as covariates, and log-transformed observation duration as offset variable.||1.065|0.613|0.1296
91848790|NCT03110458|183581686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8466|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8466
91848791|NCT03110458|183581687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9538|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9538
91710169|NCT02494401|183312835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p value 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91788713|NCT02446743|183457880|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.05|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||2.05|0.85|
91848792|NCT03110458|183581688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3166|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3166
91848793|NCT03110458|183581689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.393
91848794|NCT03110458|183581692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5324|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5324
91848795|NCT04936035|183581700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-12.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran 300 mg Q6M and placebo, 95% CI was calculated using Dunnett's procedure.||-12.3|-21.2|<0.0001
91848796|NCT04936035|183581700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-10.6||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|||The adjusted 95% CI and p-value are based on Dunnett's test. LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran 600 mg Q6M and placebo, 95% CI was calculated using Dunnett's procedure.||-10.6|-20.8|<0.0001
91848797|NCT04936035|183581701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-8.3||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-8.3|-15.7|<0.0001
91848798|NCT04936035|183581701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-4.8||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-4.8|-13.4|<0.0001
91788714|NCT02446743|183457880|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.78|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.78|0.81|
91788715|NCT02446743|183457885|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|21.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||21.6|8.0|
91788716|NCT02446743|183457885|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|23.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||23.1|10.8|
91788717|NCT02446743|183457885|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|20.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.1|11.0|
91848799|NCT04936035|183581702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-9.4||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-9.4|-18.9|<0.0001
91848800|NCT04936035|183581702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-9.5||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-9.5|-18.9|<0.0001
91653698|NCT02780661|183200482|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.261||Log10 change from baseline in anaerobic bacteria microbial count as response variable, treatment and period as fixed effect, participant level and period level pre-treatment microbial count as covariates and participant as random effect.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment in log10{(count+1)/(baseline+1)} such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|H0: There is no treatment difference between daily and weekly product use. H1: There is a treatment difference between daily and weekly product use.||0.261|-1.230|0.1879
91653699|NCT01691508|183200496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.56|||Proportional odds model|||||4.56|1.25|0.008
91653700|NCT00395226|183200520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.62||The a priori significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided)|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA used group as a factor and baseline rosacea severity score as a covariate.|The effect of zinc sulfate treatment on rosacea severity score was estimated with baseline rosacea severity score included in the regression model|"The null hypothesis was no group differences. The alternative hypothesis was that the zinc sulfate arm is superior to placebo arm."||1.62|-0.47|0.2840
91848801|NCT04936035|183581703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-7.1||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-7.1|-17.2|<0.0001
91848802|NCT04936035|183581703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-5.3||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-5.3|-15.1|<0.0001
91848803|NCT04936035|183581704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|30.64||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black; all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP as a covariate|Regression, Logistic|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||30.64|3.76|<0.0001
91710170|NCT02494401|183312835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p value 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91788718|NCT02446743|183457885|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|63.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||63.3|43.0|
91848804|NCT04936035|183581704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|51.52||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black; all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP as a covariate|Regression, Logistic|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||51.52|6.24|<0.0001
91848805|NCT03745794|183581714|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
91848806|NCT04131933|183581746|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that there would be a 50% reduction in Oncotype DX assay requests following the intervention.||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test to compare number of patients with Oncotype DX ordered at 0-6 months (pre-intervention) vs 7-12 months (post-intervention)||Pre-Intervention (Period 1 and Period 2) vs Post-Intervention (Period 3 and Period 4)||||0.37
91848807|NCT00667693|183581750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.55|||Regression, Cox|||||0.55|0.23|<0.001
91900322|NCT00593957|183694898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.40
91900323|NCT00593957|183694898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.62
91788719|NCT02446743|183457885|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|40.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||40.1|22.0|
91848808|NCT00097253|183581776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Cortisol. Analyses consisted of repeated-measures linear models fit to each dependent variable.IVs assessed in each model were odor, time, gender, expectancy group (primed vs. blind), their interactions;baseline level of the DV was included as a covariate. Post hoc tests were used as appropriate. A two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05 was used. Model controlled for Time 1 baseline.||||0.83
91852026|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5665|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.33||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.33|0.5665
91852027|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2684|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.2684
91852028|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.6485|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.39||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.39|0.6485
91852029|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4821|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.4821
91852030|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2557|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.2557
91852031|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9031|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.52||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.52|0.9031
91852032|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8634|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.47||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.47|0.8634
91710171|NCT02494401|183312836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||p value baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91710172|NCT02494401|183312836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91710173|NCT02494401|183312836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
91710174|NCT02494401|183312837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91710175|NCT02494401|183312837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91788720|NCT02446743|183457885|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|47.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||47.2|33.6|
91788721|NCT02446743|183457886|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|25.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||25.4|15.0|
91788722|NCT02446743|183457886|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|27.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.0|10.7|
91788723|NCT02446743|183457886|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|28.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.8|15.6|
91788724|NCT02446743|183457886|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|16.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.8|8.0|
91788725|NCT02446743|183457886|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.6|12.8|
91788726|NCT02446743|183457886|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.2|1.5|
91848809|NCT00097253|183581776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Epinephrine. Analyses consisted of repeated-measures linear models fit to each dependent variable.IVs assessed in each model were odor, time, gender, expectancy group (primed vs. blind), their interactions;baseline level of the DV was included as a covariate. Post hoc tests were used as appropriate. A two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05 was used. Model controlled for Time 1 baseline.||||0.16
91848810|NCT00097253|183581776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Norepinephrine. Model controlled for Time 1 baseline. Comparing timepoints 4 and 5 for pre versus post stressor, e.g. lemon versus water control; Citrus(5-4)-Water(5-4).||||0.017
91848811|NCT00097253|183581777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IL-6. Mixed effect linear models were used to test the hypothesis. These models included the post-odor and post-stress dependent variable measurements with a covariate for the baseline pre-odor measurement. Base 10 logarithms were used for each dependent variable and baseline covariate.||||0.10
91848812|NCT00097253|183581777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IL-10. Mixed effect linear models were used to test the hypothesis. These models included the post-odor and post-stress dependent variable measurements with a covariate for the baseline pre-odor measurement. Base 10 logarithms were used for each dependent variable and baseline covariate.||||0.50
91848813|NCT00097253|183581778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated-measures mixed effects models were used. Model was fit to the log-transformed data. Analysis applied to odor category, e.g. lavender / lemon / water.||||0.60
91848814|NCT00097253|183581779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The maximum DTH wheal of days 1-3 (24, 48, or 72 h) was used as the dependent variable for each subject at each visit. Visits for subjects with a maximum DTH wheal of 5mm or less were excluded. A repeated measures linear model was used to evaluate odor and placebo effects.||||0.014
91848815|NCT04511650|183581790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4795|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by disease severity.||Pooled Razuprotafib comparison to Placebo. All results are summarized descriptively by treatment arm and expressed as proportions, along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference between response rates, and p-values.||||0.4795
91848816|NCT02982213|183581801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
91900324|NCT00593957|183694898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.38||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.38
91653701|NCT02059993|183200521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was calculated to assess a minimum reduction of 5 ± 5 mm Hg in systolic BPafter CPAP treatment, assuming an alpha error of 5% and a statistical power of 80%.||||<0.05
91653702|NCT02059993|183200522|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91710176|NCT02494401|183312837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
91710177|NCT02494401|183312838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||p value baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91710178|NCT02494401|183312838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91710179|NCT02494401|183312838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91788727|NCT02446743|183457887|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|33.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.3|21.9|
91788728|NCT02446743|183457887|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|40.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||40.3|21.8|
91788729|NCT02446743|183457887|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|33.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.1|19.2|
91788730|NCT02446743|183457887|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|24.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||24.3|14.3|
91791131|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.057||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.057|-0.044|0.800
91710180|NCT02494401|183312839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||p value for baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91710181|NCT02494401|183312839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||p value for 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91710182|NCT02494401|183312839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91710183|NCT02494401|183312840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||p value for baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
91710184|NCT02494401|183312840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p value for 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91710185|NCT02494401|183312840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
91791132|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
91791133|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.064||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.064|-0.066|0.977
91653703|NCT02655237|183200524|NON_INFERIORITY|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between Relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group (Relugolix 40 mg group - leuprorelin group), using Farrington and Manning (FM) method. If the lower boundary of the 95% CI was greater or equal to the non-inferiority margin of -15%, then the non-inferiority of Relugolix 40 mg to leuprorelin was concluded.|Difference in percentage|-0.9||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.098|8.346|||Farrington and Manning (FM)||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||8.346|-10.098|0.0013
91848817|NCT02982213|183581805|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 5 per group to achieve 80% power to detect a change in the log odds ration of 1.0 at a .05 significance level using a two sided Mann Whitney U test.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||.001
91848818|NCT03247543|183581808|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.9|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-1.9|-10.0|0.0038
91848819|NCT03247543|183581808|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.7|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-1.7|-9.9|0.0063
91848820|NCT03247543|183581809|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.2|-0.8|0.0028
91848821|NCT03247543|183581809|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.1|-0.8|0.0099
91848822|NCT03247543|183581810|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-6.5|0.0064
91848823|NCT03247543|183581810|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.0917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-5.3|0.0917
91848824|NCT03247543|183581811|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.22|0.0651
91848825|NCT03247543|183581811|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.20|0.1680
91848826|NCT03247543|183581812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|23.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.1|-2.9|0.1316
91653704|NCT02655237|183200525|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group, using FM method with the non-inferiority margin of -15%. The confidence interval was presented in a descriptive manner and not for the purpose of statistical inference.|Difference in percentage|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.953|44.134|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||44.134|20.953|
91848827|NCT03247543|183581812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|28.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.9|2.0|0.0276
91848828|NCT03247543|183581813|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-8.7|0.2128
91848829|NCT03247543|183581813|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-11.3|0.0409
91848830|NCT03247543|183581814|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.2|-5.4|0.0020
91848831|NCT03247543|183581814|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.0|-5.3|0.0039
91848832|NCT03247543|183581814|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.7|-4.8|0.0087
91848833|NCT03247543|183581814|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.3|-4.6|0.0248
91848834|NCT03247543|183581815|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-3.3|0.7003
91848835|NCT03247543|183581815|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-4.9|0.1602
91848836|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0236|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment.||||0.0236
91653705|NCT02655237|183200526|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group, using FM method with the non-inferiority margin of -15%. The confidence interval was presented in a descriptive manner and not for the purpose of statistical inference.|Difference in percentage|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.337|-2.883|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||-2.883|-18.337|
91848837|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0505|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment.||||0.0505
91848838|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1225|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment.||||0.1225
91848839|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment.||||0.0254
91848840|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0261|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment.||||0.0261
91848841|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment.||||0.0037
91848842|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0385|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7 of treatment.||||0.0385
91848843|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0956|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 8 of treatment.||||0.0956
91848844|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0962|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment.||||0.0962
91848845|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0744|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment.||||0.0744
91788731|NCT02446743|183457887|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|27.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.5|12.1|
91788732|NCT02446743|183457887|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||26.4|13.3|
91788733|NCT02446743|183457887|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|49.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||49.9|35.2|
91788734|NCT02446743|183457887|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.6|67.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||67.3|46.6|
91788735|NCT02446743|183457887|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|42.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||42.5|23.0|
91788736|NCT02446743|183457887|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|18.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||18.3|8.8|
91788737|NCT02446743|183457887|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|29.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||29.0|12.6|
91710186|NCT02494401|183312841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
91788738|NCT02446743|183457887|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||14.7|2.7|
91791134|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91791135|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.064||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.064|-0.063|0.990
91710187|NCT02494401|183312841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91710188|NCT02494401|183312841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
91710189|NCT02494401|183312842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91710190|NCT02494401|183312842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91710191|NCT02494401|183312842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91791136|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91791137|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.067||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.067|-0.063|0.944
91848846|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment.||||0.0218
91791138|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91848847|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment.||||0.1150
91848848|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1086|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment.||||0.1086
91848849|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0082|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment.||||0.0082
91848850|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2326|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7 of treatment.||||0.2326
91791139|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.085||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.085|-0.079|0.942
91791140|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91791141|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.074||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.074|-0.087|0.876
91791142|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91791143|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.143||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.143|-0.024|0.163
91791144|NCT02880956|183460096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91791145|NCT02081859|183460097|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
91791146|NCT02081859|183460098|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
91791147|NCT03718299|183460101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||||<0.001
91791148|NCT03718299|183460102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91791149|NCT03718299|183460103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91791150|NCT03718299|183460104|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|76.2||||||||76.2|46.5|
91791151|NCT03718299|183460105|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|98.6||||||||98.6|81.7|
91791152|NCT03718299|183460106|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.7|90.4||||||||90.4|62.7|
91791153|NCT03718299|183460107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91791154|NCT03718299|183460108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91791155|NCT03718299|183460109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91791156|NCT03718299|183460110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91791157|NCT03718299|183460111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91791158|NCT03718299|183460112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91791159|NCT03718299|183460113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91791160|NCT03718299|183460114|SUPERIORITY||Mean (Clopper-Pearson)|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|39.5||||||||39.5|12.9|
91791161|NCT03718299|183460115|SUPERIORITY||Mean (Clopper-Pearson)|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.1||||||||32.1|8.0|
91791162|NCT03718299|183460116|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|48.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|64.2||||||||64.2|33.7|
91791163|NCT03718299|183460117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total Activity Impairment||||<0.001
91791164|NCT03718299|183460117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total Work Productivity Impairment||||<0.001
91791165|NCT03718299|183460118|SUPERIORITY||Mean|79.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.06|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time- Effectiveness||||
91791166|NCT03718299|183460118|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact binomial test|||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time-Side Effects||||<0.001
91791167|NCT03718299|183460118|SUPERIORITY||Mean|82.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.35|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time - Convenience||||
91791168|NCT03718299|183460118|SUPERIORITY||Mean|81.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time - Global Satisfaction||||
91791169|NCT03718299|183460119|SUPERIORITY||Mean|8.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Improvement in Symptoms||||
91791170|NCT03718299|183460119|SUPERIORITY||Mean|8.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Speed of Symptom Improvement||||
91791171|NCT03718299|183460119|SUPERIORITY||Mean|9.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Frequency of Taking Medication||||
91791172|NCT03718299|183460119|SUPERIORITY||Mean|9.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Side Effects||||
91791173|NCT03718299|183460120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91788739|NCT02446743|183457888|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|46.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||46.3|33.9|
91788740|NCT02446743|183457888|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|49.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.9|58.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||58.5|38.9|
91788741|NCT02446743|183457888|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|42.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||42.2|26.6|
91788742|NCT02446743|183457888|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|33.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.0|21.6|
91788743|NCT02446743|183457888|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|32.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||32.0|15.5|
91848851|NCT03247543|183581816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0883|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 8 of treatment.||||0.0883
91848852|NCT01726023|183581851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority would be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI; corresponding to a 97.5% 1 sided lower bound) was greater than -12.5% for the primary outcome variable.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|4.97||P-value for 1-sided test at test of cure (TOC) with a -12.5% non-inferiority margin, i.e. H0: diff ≤ -12.5%.|% Risk Difference (RD)|RD is CAZ AVI clinical cure rate minus Meropenem clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|units for RD are %|The Primary objective of this study was to assess the non inferiority (based on a 12.5% margin) of CAZ AVI plus metronidazole compared to meropenem alone with respect to clinical cure at the TOC visit in patients who were CE.||4.97|-5.53|<0.001
91848853|NCT01726023|183581884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in median time (days)|0.5||||0.773|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.773
91788744|NCT02446743|183457888|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|38.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||38.1|22.9|
91788745|NCT02446743|183457888|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|50.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||50.6|35.1|
91848854|NCT01726023|183581885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in median time (days)|1.0||||0.598|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.598
91848855|NCT00816829|183581892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.048
91848856|NCT00816829|183581893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.203
91848857|NCT00816829|183581894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups was performed using Wilcoxon Test on data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.007
91710192|NCT02494401|183312843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91710193|NCT02494401|183312843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
91848858|NCT00816829|183581895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.199
91848859|NCT00816829|183581896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.114
91788746|NCT02446743|183457888|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.3|60.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||60.9|39.3|
91653706|NCT02655237|183200527|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group, using FM method with the non-inferiority margin of -15%. The confidence interval was presented in a descriptive manner and not for the purpose of statistical inference.|Difference in percentage|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.418|-5.118|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||-5.118|-21.418|
91653707|NCT02655237|183200528|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-12.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.778|-4.33|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 2||-4.330|-19.778|
91653708|NCT02655237|183200528|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.916|6.819|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||6.819|-11.916|
91653709|NCT02655237|183200528|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|4.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.141|12.529|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||12.529|-3.141|
91653710|NCT02655237|183200528|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.433|10.605|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||10.605|-3.433|
91653711|NCT02655237|183200528|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|3.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.319|11.245|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||11.245|-3.319|
91791174|NCT04389970|183460124|OTHER|Single group, within subject pre/post change.||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no conclusion of significance can be made.||||.39
91848860|NCT00816829|183581897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.533
91788747|NCT02446743|183457888|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|50.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||50.2|29.9|
91788748|NCT02446743|183457888|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|24.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||24.6|12.9|
91788749|NCT02446743|183457888|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|37.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||37.8|17.9|
91788750|NCT02446743|183457888|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|20.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.1|6.4|
91788751|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.2|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.20|2.11|
91848861|NCT00816829|183581898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.521
91710194|NCT02494401|183312843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91900325|NCT00593957|183694900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.38|||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there would be no significant difference in social abilities as measured by the SSI score in this treatment group baseline to 6 months post-treatment.||||<0.10
91788752|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.85|15.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||15|8.85|
91900326|NCT00593957|183694900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||<|0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.50
91900327|NCT00593957|183694900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.48|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.48
91653712|NCT02655237|183200529|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-15.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.786|-9.509|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 2||-9.509|-20.786|
91900328|NCT00593957|183694901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.947|||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91900329|NCT05104476|183694944|SUPERIORITY||Bayesian Progression Model|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.13|||||Reported here is the estimated effect parameter from the Bayesian Progression Model and the associated Credibility Interval for the active arm.|||1.13|0.56|
91900330|NCT03865940|183694963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-values less than 0.05 considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Testing null hypothesis that guanfacine has no effect on time from injection to return to baseline.||||||0.374
91791175|NCT04389970|183460125|OTHER|Single group, within subject pre/post change.||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.3
91653713|NCT02655237|183200529|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-10.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.291|-3.246|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||-3.246|-17.291|
91900331|NCT03865940|183694964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values less than 0.05 considered significant.|Regression, Logistic|Analysis adjusted for pre-injection score and accounted for repeated measures. Effect of study drug was tested using a four degree-of-freedom test.||||||<0.001
91900332|NCT03865940|183694965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Regression, Linear|The analysis adjusted for pre-injection score and accounted for repeat measures.The results of the analyses tested using a two degree-of-freedom test.||||||0.775
91900333|NCT03865940|183694966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|The analysis adjusted for pre-injection score and accounted for repeat measures.The results of the analyses tested using a two degree-of-freedom test.||||||0.099
91900334|NCT03865940|183694967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||Proportional Odds Regression|The analysis was not adjusted for baseline factors.||||||0.907
91900335|NCT03865940|183694968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for use of pain medication at baseline||||||0.373
91788753|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison-Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.79|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.79|1.70|
91788754|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison-post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.22|17.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||17|8.22|
91788755|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.2|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||4.20|2.20|
91788756|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.75|16.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||16|7.75|
91788757|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.0|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||21|12|
91788758|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|90.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||90|51|
91788759|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|26.0|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||26|13|
91788760|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|107.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||107|51|
91788761|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|22.0|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||22|8.99|
91791176|NCT04389970|183460126|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change.||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-sample t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.77
91710195|NCT02494401|183312844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91791177|NCT04389970|183460127|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change.||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test.||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.66
91791178|NCT04389970|183460128|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.88
91710196|NCT02494401|183312844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91791179|NCT04389970|183460129|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.03
91848862|NCT00816829|183581899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.333
91848863|NCT00816829|183581900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.264
91848864|NCT00816829|183581901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.401
91848865|NCT02908620|183582019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|8.69|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||8.69|-3.06|0.322
91653714|NCT02655237|183200529|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.996|5.209|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||5.209|-6.996|
91848866|NCT02908620|183582020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.38|2.99|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||2.99|-20.38|0.134
91848867|NCT02908620|183582021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|14.62|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||14.62|-6.48|0.442
91848868|NCT02908620|183582022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|16.9|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||16.90|-3.27|0.172
91653715|NCT02655237|183200529|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.964|5.076|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||5.076|-6.964|
91653716|NCT02655237|183200529|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.206|7.935|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||7.935|-6.206|
91848869|NCT04548622|183582029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91848870|NCT04548622|183582030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91848871|NCT04548622|183582031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91848872|NCT04538664|183582049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.528|||Log Rank|||||0.528|0.296|<0.0001
91848873|NCT03536884|183582117|NON_INFERIORITY|The evaluation of noninferiority is tested at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 and based on a 1-sided 97.5% CI and a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|12.682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.771|19.592||||||Risk Difference: BKZ-Secukinumab calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH).||19.592|5.771|
91848874|NCT03536884|183582117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.714|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.271|2.31||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test for the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||2.310|1.271|<0.001
91848875|NCT03536884|183582118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.817|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.068|3.836||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association. P-values are not controlled for multiplicity and should only be considered descriptively.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.836|2.068|<0.001
91848876|NCT03536884|183582120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.835|3.377||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association. P-values are not controlled for multiplicity and should only be considered descriptively.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.377|1.835|<0.001
91848877|NCT03536884|183582120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.511|3.11||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.110|1.511|<0.001
91848878|NCT03536884|183582120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.243|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.103|5.0||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||5.000|2.103|<0.001
91848879|NCT03722446|183582125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91848880|NCT03722446|183582126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01020
91848881|NCT03722446|183582127|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
91848882|NCT03722446|183582128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3753|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3753
91848883|NCT03722446|183582129|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
91653717|NCT02655237|183200530|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.381|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||0.381|0.015|
91653718|NCT02655237|183200530|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.333|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||0.333|-0.135|
91653719|NCT02655237|183200530|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.323|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||0.323|-0.189|
91653720|NCT02655237|183200530|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.251|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 16||0.251|-0.275|
91848884|NCT03722446|183582130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91848885|NCT03451851|183582164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|49.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|69.4|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||69.4|25.9|<0.001
91848886|NCT03451851|183582165|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|55.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|74.0|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||74.0|32.1|<0.001
91653721|NCT02655237|183200530|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.18|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 20||0.180|-0.386|
91653722|NCT02655237|183200530|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.209|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||0.209|-0.385|
91788762|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|95.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||95|41|
91788763|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.75|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.75|1.24|
91788764|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|7.76|||ANOVA|||Post booster dose/ post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||7.76|4.49|
91653723|NCT02655237|183200530|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.787|-0.199|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Follow up (up to Week 28)||-0.199|-0.787|
91653724|NCT02655237|183200531|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.174|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 6 to 12||0.174|-0.032|
91653725|NCT02655237|183200531|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.197|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 2 to 6||0.197|-0.089|
91788765|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.54|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||1.54|1.13|
91848887|NCT03451851|183582166|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.1|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|61.3|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||61.3|15.6|=0.003
91848888|NCT03451851|183582167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|35.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|56.8|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||56.8|10.5|=0.004
91848889|NCT03451851|183582168|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.1|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|25.0|9.7|56.1|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||56.1|9.7|=0.002
91848890|NCT03451851|183582169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|-3.06|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||-3.06|-7.33|<0.001
91653726|NCT02655237|183200531|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.086|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 18 to 24||0.086|-0.060|
91653727|NCT02655237|183200531|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.099|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|For 6 Weeks Before the Final Dose (up to Week 24)||0.099|-0.063|
91653728|NCT02655237|183200532|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.43|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||1.43|-6.39|
91653729|NCT02655237|183200532|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-1.31|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||-1.31|-6.68|
91653730|NCT02655237|183200532|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.36|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||2.36|-1.99|
91848891|NCT03451851|183582175|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|59.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|77.6||p-value is nominal|Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||77.6|36.9|<0.001
91848892|NCT03451851|183582183|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.7|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|67.3||p-value is nominal|Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||||67.3|21.9|=0.002
91653731|NCT02655237|183200532|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|3.28|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 16||3.28|-0.68|
91848893|NCT03451851|183582185|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.1|||=|0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|47.0||p-value is nominal|Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||47.0|-3.4|=0.139
91653732|NCT02655237|183200532|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.32|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 20||2.32|-1.80|
91710197|NCT02494401|183312844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91653733|NCT02655237|183200532|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.52|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||2.52|-1.48|
91653734|NCT02655237|183200532|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.77|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Follow-Up (up to Week 28)||5.77|1.08|
91653735|NCT02655237|183200533|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|6.34|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||6.34|-1.66|
91653736|NCT02655237|183200533|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|5.77|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||5.77|-0.37|
91653737|NCT02655237|183200533|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.61|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||3.61|-1.84|
91653738|NCT02655237|183200533|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.79|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 16||2.79|-2.61|
91653739|NCT02655237|183200533|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|3.41|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 20||3.41|-1.74|
91710198|NCT02494401|183312845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91848894|NCT03451851|183582187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.87||p-value is nominal|MMRM model|||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||-2.87|-8.00|<0.001
91653740|NCT02655237|183200533|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.71|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||2.71|-2.07|
91653741|NCT02655237|183200533|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|1.09|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Follow-Up (up to Week 28)||1.09|-3.96|
91653742|NCT03748641|183200581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.956|||Log Rank|||||0.956|0.556|0.0217
91653743|NCT03748641|183200582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.533||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|0.789|||Log Rank|||||0.789|0.361|0.0014
91653744|NCT00926289|183200607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.6|-6.4|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-6.4|-10.6|<0.0001
91653745|NCT00926289|183200608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.3|-5.2|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-5.2|-9.3|<0.0001
91653746|NCT00926289|183200609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.8|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-4.7|-8.8|<0.0001
91653747|NCT00926289|183200610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-1.9|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-1.9|-4.5|<0.0001
91653748|NCT00926289|183200611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.74|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.21|1.74|<0.0001
91791180|NCT04389970|183460130|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change.||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.06
91653749|NCT00926289|183200612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.7|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.12|1.70|<0.0001
91653750|NCT00926289|183200613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.6|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.01|1.60|<0.0001
91710199|NCT02494401|183312845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91710200|NCT02494401|183312845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91710201|NCT02494401|183312846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91710202|NCT02494401|183312846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
91710203|NCT02494401|183312846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91710204|NCT02494401|183312847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91791181|NCT04389970|183460131|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.04
91791182|NCT04389970|183460132|OTHER|Single group, within subjects analysis.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired sample t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||0
91848895|NCT03451851|183582189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|-9.28||p-value is nominal|MMRM model|||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||-9.28|-20.28|<0.001
91653751|NCT00926289|183200614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.46|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||2.73|1.46|<0.0001
91653752|NCT00926289|183200615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.48|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||2.76|1.48|<0.0001
91653753|NCT00926289|183200616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0005||95.0|1.28|2.37|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline and fixed effect country||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||2.37|1.28|0.0005
91653754|NCT00926289|183200617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.76|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline (SBP), treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.26|1.76|<0.0001
91653755|NCT00926289|183200618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.78|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline (DBP), treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.29|1.78|<0.0001
91653756|NCT00926289|183200619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.7|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||4.04|1.70|<0.0001
91653757|NCT00926289|183200620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.57|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.16|1.57|<0.0001
91653758|NCT00926289|183200621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren test stratified for country|||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||||<0.0001
91653759|NCT01199601|183200629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.23|||Regression, Linear|Information provided for crude analysis results; adjustment for significant baseline differences between groups did not change results substantially.||Outcomes were assessed by crude and adjusted risk ratios with log-binomial generalized linear models.||1.23|1.02|<0.05
91848896|NCT01090024|183582225|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.624||0.4473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.147|1.313|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 200 mg BID (D) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A compound symmetry covariance structure was used.||1.313|-1.147|0.4473
91852033|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6375|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.6375
91653760|NCT01199601|183200630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.18|||Regression, Linear|Outcomes were assessed by crude and adjusted risk ratios with log-binomial generalized linear models.||||1.18|1.02|<0.05
91653761|NCT01199601|183200631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|The crude analysis result is provided as the odds ratio did not change substantially when adjusted for possible confounders.||||1.25|1.01|0.05
91653762|NCT02292238|183200642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8691|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5727||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||Power was calculated based on expected difference in change on the ADAS-Cog of 3 points between the treatment and control groups. Estimates based on using a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 4, enrolling 29 patients per group, (N = 58) suggest 80% power to detect a mean change of 3 between treatment and placebo.||||0.125
91653763|NCT02292238|183200643|OTHER|Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.00184|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0225||0.7529|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.7529
91653764|NCT02292238|183200644|OTHER|Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0636|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8176||0.3687|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.3687
91653765|NCT02292238|183200645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8203|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8988||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.4850
91653766|NCT02292238|183200646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1907|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3097||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.0337
91653767|NCT02292238|183200647|OTHER|Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6161|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6812||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.315
91653768|NCT00491504|183200672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.625|||||||ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as effect and Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.625
91653769|NCT02041702|183200679|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|Ratio|100.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.6|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson|Clopper-Pearson CI for the binomial proportion|The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than 90%.|The hypothesis was: H0: P≤ 90% vs H1: P\>90% P: The proportion of subjects free from MRI scan related complications at 1 month post MRI scan in cardiac MRI scan group||100|97.6|<0.01
91710205|NCT02494401|183312847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91710206|NCT02494401|183312847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91852034|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8775|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.51||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.51|0.8775
91848897|NCT01090024|183582225|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.625||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|1.903|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg PM QD (C) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A compound symmetry covariance structure was used.||1.903|-0.563|0.1426
91710207|NCT02494401|183312848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91710208|NCT02494401|183312848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91848898|NCT01090024|183582225|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|1.486|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg AM QD (B) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A compound symmetry covariance structure was used.||1.486|-0.924|0.3231
91653770|NCT02041702|183200680|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|-0.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|3.8|||Farrington-Manning Test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was: H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL\>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in the Cardiac MRI scan group for the change in right atrial capture threshold @0.5ms at 1month post MRI compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in the Control group for the change in right atrial capture threshold @0.5ms at 1month post MRI compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||3.8|-5.6|0.0007
91653771|NCT02041702|183200681|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|-1.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|2.8|||Farrington-Manning test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was: H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL \>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in the Cardiac MRI Scan Group for change in RV capture threshold value @0.5ms at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in Control Group for change in RV capture threshold value @0.5ms at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||2.8|-6.2|0.0012
91653772|NCT02041702|183200682|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|-2.7||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|4.3|||Farrington-Manning test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was:H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL \>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in MRI Scan Group for change in RA sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in Control Group for change in RA sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||4.3|-9.8|0.0446
91848899|NCT01090024|183582226|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.068|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 200 mg BID (D) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A autoregressive covariance structure was used.||0.068|-0.180|0.1879
91848900|NCT01090024|183582226|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.098|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg PM QD (C) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A autoregressive covariance structure was used.||0.098|-0.151|0.3384
91848901|NCT01090024|183582226|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.029|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg AM QD (B) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A autoregressive covariance structure was used.||0.029|-0.214|0.0670
91848902|NCT00470626|183582259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Probability of Successful Retrieval|0.9||||||95.0|||||||Probability of successful retrieval is from Kaplan-Meier analysis.|||||
91848903|NCT02380742|183582265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at removal were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for baseline pain.||||.02
91653773|NCT02041702|183200683|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|2.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|8.4|||Farrington-Manning test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was: H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL \>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in the Cardiac MRI Scan Group for change in RV sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in the Control Group for change in RV sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||8.4|-3.2|0.0002
91710209|NCT02494401|183312848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
91710210|NCT02494401|183312849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91788766|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|8.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.83|12.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||12|5.83|
91848904|NCT02380742|183582266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at removal were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for investigator training and pessary type.||||.03
91848905|NCT02380742|183582267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at removal were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for baseline pain and patient age.||||.03
91848906|NCT02380742|183582268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at insertion were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for baseline pain.||||.09
91848907|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.22|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between genders: women and men.||1.22|0.45|0.235
91848908|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between Age: \<= 55 years and \> 55 years||1.22|0.55|0.331
91848909|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.23|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between time since initial diagnosis: \>= 10 years and \< 10 years||2.23|1.00|0.050
91848910|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.46|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between participants without erosive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and participants with erosive RA||2.46|0.88|0.144
91848911|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.65|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between DAS-28 score: \<= 5.1 and DAS-28 \>5.1||2.65|1.14|0.010
91848912|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.1|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between ESR: \<= 28 mm/h and \> 28 mm/h||2.10|0.92|0.119
91848913|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.13|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between number of participants without anemia and number of participants with anemia||2.13|0.81|0.265
91848914|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.71|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between dose of corticosteroids: \<= 5 mg and \> 5 mg||1.71|0.77|0.511
91653774|NCT02308111|183200693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.01||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.51||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the interactive web response system (IWRS) as strata|Log Rank|||||1.51|0.68|0.954
91653775|NCT02308111|183200694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.61|0.304
91653776|NCT02308111|183200695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||1.52|0.69|0.898
91848915|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HAQ score: \<= 1.5 and \> 1.5||2.00|0.90|0.153
91848916|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.31|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient: fatigue \<= 66 and \> 66||3.31|1.45|<0.001
91848917|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.08|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient: pain \<= 66 and \> 66||3.08|1.35|<0.001
91848918|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.75|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient (quality of sleep) score: \<=30 score and 30 - 59 score||2.75|0.86|0.261
91848919|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient (quality of sleep) score: \<= 30 and 59 - 77||2.05|0.67|0.261
91848920|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.89|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient (quality of sleep) score: \<= 30 and \> 77||2.89|0.95|0.261
91848921|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.14|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient: global assessment score: \<= 67 and \> 67||3.14|1.38|<0.001
91848922|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.47|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between SF36 vitality score: \> 33 and \<= 33||3.47|1.50|< 0.001
91848923|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.93|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Anxiety (No case) and HADS score: Anxiety (Doubtful case)||1.93|0.60|0.399
91848924|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.26|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Anxiety (No case) and HADS score: Anxiety (Certain case)||1.26|0.48|0.399
91848925|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.81|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Depression (No Case) and HADS score: Depression (Doubtful case)||1.81|0.65|0.858
91848926|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Depression (No Case) and HADS score: Depression (Certain case)||1.52|0.57|0.858
91848927|NCT01185522|183582290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.58|||Multivariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between time since initial diagnosis: \>= 10 years and \< 10 years||2.58|1.03|0.036
91848928|NCT01185522|183582291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.28|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor: C-Reactive Protein||1.28|1.05|0.004
91653777|NCT02308111|183200696|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.91||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||1.91|0.69|0.594
91653778|NCT02308111|183200697|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.78||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||2.78|0.57|0.568
91653779|NCT02308111|183200698|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.07||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the interactive web response system (IWRS) as strata.|Gray's Test|||||2.07|0.59|0.769
91653780|NCT02308111|183200699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.67||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.67|0.42|0.599
91788767|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.2|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.20|1.22|
91848929|NCT01185522|183582291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.27|||Multivariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor: C-Reactive Protein||1.27|1.03|0.013
91710211|NCT02494401|183312849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91848930|NCT01185522|183582292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.05|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor: Tender joint||1.05|0.99|0.253
91788768|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|6.58|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||6.58|2.88|
91788769|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.75|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.75|0.97|
91848931|NCT01185522|183582292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.09|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor : Swollen joint||1.09|1.01|0.021
91653781|NCT02308111|183200700|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.43||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||3.43|0.18|0.745
91653782|NCT02308111|183200701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.44||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.44|0.43|0.437
91653783|NCT02308111|183200702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.24||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||2.24|0.37|0.838
91653784|NCT02308111|183200703|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.04||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||4.04|0.26|0.980
91788770|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|3.25|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.25|2.08|
91788771|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.18|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.18|0.90|
91852035|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7191|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.40|0.7191
91653785|NCT02308111|183200704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.83||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.83|0.58|0.933
91653786|NCT02308111|183200705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.34|0.53|0.468
91653787|NCT02308111|183200706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.41||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.41|0.13|0.178
91653788|NCT02308111|183200706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.41|0.13|0.190
91852036|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.8677|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.44||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.44|0.8677
91653789|NCT02308111|183200707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.54||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||3.54|0.05|0.443
91653790|NCT03977584|183200860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00993||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0327|0.0068|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: GTP1 PET = Treatment \* Analysis Year + Interactive Voice or Web Response System (IxRS) defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined apolipoprotein (APOE4) Carrier Status + IxRS defined Clinical Dementia Rating Global Score.||0.0068|-0.0327|0.1953
91710212|NCT02494401|183312849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
91788772|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.81|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.81|2.04|
91848932|NCT01729819|183582304|SUPERIORITY|The change in mean nocturnal voids from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline mean nocturnal voids as a covariate, and treatments and visit (Month 1, Month 2, and Month 3) as factors, was considered for the analysis. Longitudinal analysis based on repeated measures using analysis of covariance with subject as random effect. Missing values post-baseline were not imputed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.08|||ANCOVA|Change in mean nocturnal voids as the dependent variable and baseline mean nocturnal voids as a covariate, treatment and visit as factors.|Longitudinal analysis based on repeated measures using analysis of covariance with subject as random effect. The estimated value represents the contrast of combination - tolterodine.|Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. effect in combination group minus effect in tolterodine group) is presented. The trial was to be declared positive if a statistically significant (two-sided, p \< 0.05) positive effect for combining tolterodine and desmopressin compared to tolterodine monotherapy on the primary endpoint had been demonstrated.||0.08|-0.77|0.112
91852037|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9838|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.42||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.42|0.9838
91710213|NCT02494401|183312850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91653791|NCT00745251|183200881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.0084|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.84|||ANCOVA|||||-4.84||0.0084
91653792|NCT00745251|183200882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-9.37|0.0006
91653793|NCT03390504|183200883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||=|0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.48|=0.0031
91653794|NCT03390504|183200883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.48|||Stratified log-rank test|||||1.48|0.92|=0.2121
91653795|NCT03482713|183200995|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.93|||||Based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, gender and the log-transformed baseline.|||1.93|-0.34|
91848933|NCT01729819|183582305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.96|58.96|||ANCOVA|Change in mean time to first void as dependent variable and baseline mean time to first void as a covariate, and treatment and visit as factors.|The estimated value represents the contrast of combination - tolterodine.|Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. effect in combination group minus effect in tolterodine group) is presented.||58.96|-22.96|0.385
91653796|NCT03482713|183200996|OTHER||Difference least squares mean|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.88|||||Based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, gender and the log-transformed baseline.|||1.88|-0.35|
91653797|NCT03626857|183200997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.025
91653798|NCT03626857|183200998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
91653799|NCT02192905|183201025|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean positive problem solving change from baseline to week 8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.31||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.05|-3.34|.63
91653800|NCT02192905|183201026|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean within-person percent weight change from baseline to week 8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0285|-0.0096|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.0096|-.0285|<0.001
91653801|NCT02192905|183201027|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean within-person percent weight change from baseline to week 16.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.011||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.006|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.006|-.039|0.143
91653802|NCT02192905|183201028|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean positive problem solving change from baseline to week 16.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.07||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|3.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.6|-5.11|.73
91788773|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.82|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||1.82|0.82|
91788774|NCT02446743|183457889|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.36|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.36|1.79|
91852038|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8106|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.28||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.28|0.8106
91710214|NCT02494401|183312850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91710215|NCT02494401|183312850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
91788775|NCT02446743|183457891|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|33.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.0|20.7|
91710216|NCT00803712|183312871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis to be tested: the proportion of participants achieving the specified PTH target of ≥ 30% reduction in PTH from baseline will be greater in the cinacalcet plus low dose active vitamin D group than in the control group during the efficacy assessment phase at month 6 (weeks 22 to 26).||||<0.0001
91788776|NCT02446743|183457891|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|38.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||38.7|19.3|
91788777|NCT02446743|183457891|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.9|18.3|
91788778|NCT02446743|183457891|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|27.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval or the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.9|15.9|
91788779|NCT02446743|183457891|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|28.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.5|11.5|
91788780|NCT02446743|183457891|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|31.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||31.9|14.6|
91788781|NCT02446743|183457891|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|45.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||45.4|29.8|
91788782|NCT02446743|183457891|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|64.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||64.7|43.5|
91848934|NCT01729819|183582306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.16||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.46|13.14|||ANCOVA|Change in mean nocturnal volume as the dependent variable and baseline mean nocturnal volume as a covariate, and treatment and visit as factors.|The estimated value represents the contrast of combination - tolterodine.|Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. effect in combination group minus effect in tolterodine group) is presented||13.14|-141.46|0.103
91848935|NCT01729819|183582307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.62||33% responder status as dependent variable, baseline mean nocturnal voids as covariate, treatment, and visit as factors.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. odds of being responder in combination group versus odds of being responder in tolterodine group) is presented. The proportion of responders during three months of treatment was analysed (i.e. the odds ratio of the odds of being a responder) longitudinally using Generalised Estimating Equation (GEE) for a repeated logistic regression.||2.62|0.71|0.352
91848936|NCT01729819|183582308|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.443||||||Adjusted treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) in mean number of nocturnal voids at Month 1|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 1||||0.443
91653803|NCT02396381|183201049|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|1.1|5.09|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach||"The analysis will test if the mean level of HDL-C for THS-use is greater than for CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XTHS - XCC \> 0.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||5.09|1.10|<0.001
91848937|NCT01729819|183582308|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.086||||||Adjusted treatment difference in mean number of nocturnal voids (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 2|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 2||||0.086
91848938|NCT01729819|183582308|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.055||||||Adjusted treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) in mean number of nocturnal voids at Month 3|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 3||||0.055
91848939|NCT01729819|183582308|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.106||||||Adjusted treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) in mean number of nocturnal voids for the duration of 3 months|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) for the duration of 3 months||||0.106
91848940|NCT01729819|183582309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.05|||ANCOVA|Quality of sleep rating score as dependent variable, baseline quality of sleep rating scale value as a covariate, and responder status as a factor.|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. score on scale in combination group versus score on scale in tolterodine group) is presented.Statistical analysis for from very tired to wide awake, how do you feel now"||1.05|-0.20|0.178
91653804|NCT02396381|183201050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-0.717|-0.123|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach||"The analysis will test if the mean level of WBC for THS-use is lower than for CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS - XCC ≥ 0.0~HA: XTHS - XCC \< 0.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||-0.123|-0.717|0.001
91653805|NCT02396381|183201051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.28||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|96.875|0.145|2.42|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach||"The analysis will test if the mean level of FEV1 for THS-use is greater than for CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XTHS - XCC \> 0.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||2.42|0.145|0.008
91848941|NCT01729819|183582309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.94|||ANCOVA|Quality of sleep rating score as dependent variable, baseline quality of sleep rating scale value as a covariate, and responder status as a factor.|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. score on scale in combination group versus score on scale in tolterodine group) is presented. Statistical analysis for Rate how refreshed you feel now"||0.94|-0.26|0.257
91848942|NCT01729819|183582309|SUPERIORITY|Quality of sleep rating score as dependent variable, baseline quality of sleep rating scale value as a covariate, and responder status as a factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.88|||ANCOVA|Longitudinal analysis of covariance on change from baseline with baseline as a covariate, and treatment and visit as factors.|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. score on scale in combination group versus score on scale in tolterodine group) is presented. Statistical analysis for Rate the quality of your sleep last night"||0.88|-0.32|0.360
91848943|NCT02987543|183582319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|379.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||379.18|4.18|<0.0001
91848944|NCT02987543|183582320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.63|||Regression, Cox|||||0.63|0.38|<0.0001
91848945|NCT02987543|183582321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||||0.91|0.22|0.0192
91848946|NCT02987543|183582322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.50|0.0175
91848947|NCT02987543|183582323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.47|||Regression, Cox|||||0.47|0.25|<0.0001
91653806|NCT02396381|183201052|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|2.86||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-0.426|6.04|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of sICAM-1 will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||6.04|-0.426|0.030
91848948|NCT03224299|183582324|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.69||||||"Abdomen 10 minutes~Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||0.69|-0.44|
91653807|NCT02396381|183201053|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|4.74||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-7.5|15.6|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of 11-DTX-B2 will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||15.6|-7.5|0.193
91653808|NCT02396381|183201054|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|6.8||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-0.216|13.3|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of 8-epi-PGF2α will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||13.3|-0.216|0.018
91653809|NCT02396381|183201055|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|43.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|33.7|51.9|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of Total NNAL will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||51.9|33.7|<0.001
91710217|NCT00803712|183312872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is presented, adjusted using the Dubey and Armitage-Parmer method|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
91710218|NCT00803712|183312873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139||||||Adjusted p-value is presented. P-value is adjusted using Dubey and Armitage-Parmer method of adjusting for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0139
91848949|NCT03224299|183582324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.49||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.49|1.36|
91788783|NCT02446743|183457891|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|35.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||35.1|12.9|
91848950|NCT03224299|183582324|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.36||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.36|-0.73|
91848951|NCT03224299|183582324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.78||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.78|1.69|
91788784|NCT02446743|183457891|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|30.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||30.8|14.7|
91848952|NCT03224299|183582324|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.31||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.31|-0.90|
91900336|NCT00992511|183694972|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMT between the initial process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A INI 2D Group) and (over) new process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A NEW 2D Group) was less than or equal to (≤) 2.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.46||||||To evaluate the immunological non-inferiority (in terms of vaccine-homologous virus H1N1 Haemagglutinin Inhibition \[HI\] antibody geometric mean titres \[GMTs\]) of the new process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen compared to the initial process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen, 21 days after first vaccination in healthy subjects aged 18 to 60 years.||1.46|0.77|
91848953|NCT03224299|183582324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.22||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||3.22|1.98|
91848954|NCT03224299|183582324|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.57||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.57|-0.61|
91848955|NCT03224299|183582324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.93||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.93|1.72|
91848956|NCT03224299|183582324|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.22||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.22|-0.91|
91848957|NCT03224299|183582324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|3.01||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||3.01|1.88|
91848958|NCT03224299|183582324|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.24||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.24|-0.85|
91848959|NCT03224299|183582324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.95||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.95|1.87|
91848960|NCT03224299|183582324|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.4||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.40|-0.67|
91788785|NCT02446743|183457891|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|35.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||35.5|12.2|
91848961|NCT03224299|183582324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.8||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.80|1.70|
91788786|NCT02446743|183457891|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|32.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||32.9|10.6|
91848962|NCT03224299|183582324|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.48||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.48|-0.56|
91848963|NCT03224299|183582324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.68||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.68|1.62|
91848964|NCT01227278|183582336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.03||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.58|||Van Elteren Test|Day 1 to 393: Van Elteren test was used to compare the two arms.|95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for rate ratio was based on normal approximation assuming rate with Poisson distribution.|||1.58|0.67|0.941
91848965|NCT00835380|183582422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.0||||||95.0|89.0|99.0||||||||99|89|
91848966|NCT03727854|183582424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.933
91848967|NCT03727854|183582425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.971
91710219|NCT00803712|183312874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386||||||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is presented, adjusted using the Dubey and Armitage-Parmer method|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2386
91788787|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|4.5||Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||4.5|-15.0|
91848968|NCT03727854|183582426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.608
91788788|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|11.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||11.4|-17.0|
91848969|NCT03727854|183582427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.617
91710220|NCT00803712|183312875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0875|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0875
91848970|NCT03727854|183582428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.823
91848971|NCT03727854|183582429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.740
91848972|NCT03727854|183582430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.551
91848973|NCT03727854|183582431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
91710221|NCT00803712|183312876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4304|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4304
91848974|NCT03727854|183582432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.639
91848975|NCT01081145|183582433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in treatment failures|-15.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-4.5|-26.6|0.006
91848976|NCT01081145|183582434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
91848977|NCT01081145|183582435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-3.48||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-3.48|-9.01|<0.001
91848978|NCT01081145|183582436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percent of subjects|17.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|28.5||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|6.6|0.001
91848979|NCT01081145|183582437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.02||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.14|0.118
91848980|NCT01081145|183582440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91848981|NCT01081145|183582444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91848982|NCT03593070|183582447|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total scores for the MM-CGI from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).|Slope|0.646|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.622||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
91848983|NCT03593070|183582448|OTHER||Slope|0.444|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.105||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analyses compared changes in total scores for the CESD from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).||||0.001
91848984|NCT03593070|183582449|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).|Slope|0.514|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.102||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
91848985|NCT03593070|183582450|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total positive state of mind scale (PSOMS) scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).|Slope|0.653|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.093||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
91848986|NCT03593070|183582451|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in conflict scores (based on FPCR) from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT)|Slope|0.609|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
91848987|NCT03593070|183582452|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total scores for satisfaction with care measure (FPCT) from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT)|Slope|0.731|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.074||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
91848988|NCT03593070|183582453|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total Family Knowledge of Alzheimer's Test (FKAT) scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT)|Slope|0.687|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.084||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
91848989|NCT03593070|183582454|OTHER||Slope|0.527|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.088||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A prior alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analyses compared changes in caregiver sense of loss, guilt, and role captivity scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT). This measure uses 51 items of the FPCR measure.||||0.001
91653810|NCT02396381|183201056|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|24.5|39.0|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis will test if the mean level of COHb for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||39|24.5|<0.001
91653811|NCT04033445|183201084|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|46.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||46.3|20.9|< 0.001
91653812|NCT04033445|183201084|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|45.4|||CMH chi-square test||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||45.4|20.8|< 0.001
91848990|NCT00635817|183582509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.099
91848991|NCT00635817|183582509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.074
91848992|NCT00635817|183582509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.026
91848993|NCT00635817|183582509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.102
91848994|NCT00635817|183582510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.008
91848995|NCT00635817|183582510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.002
91848996|NCT00635817|183582510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.347
91848997|NCT00635817|183582510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.150
91848998|NCT04341298|183582513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
91848999|NCT04341298|183582514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91849000|NCT04341298|183582515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects with a pain score of 3 or less after 2 hours, were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects reporting mild or no symptoms after 2 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||0.66
91849001|NCT04341298|183582516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects requiring abortive medication within 8 hours were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects requiring abortive medication within 8 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||0.59
91849002|NCT04341298|183582517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects experiencing light sensitivity after 2 hours, were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects reporting light sensitivity after 2 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||0.19
91849003|NCT04341298|183582518|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects experiencing light sensitivity after 4 hours, were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects reporting light sensitivity after 4 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||1.0
91849004|NCT04341298|183582519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Pain score difference after 2 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||Null hypothesis is that 2 hour difference in pain score is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||0.021
91849005|NCT04341298|183582520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Pain score difference after 4 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||Null hypothesis is that 4 hour difference in pain score is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||0.019
91849006|NCT04341298|183582521|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis is that proportion of headaches with light sensitivity experienced after 2 hours is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||||0.028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Proportion of headaches with light sensitivity after 2 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||||0.028
91849007|NCT04341298|183582522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Proportion of headaches with light sensitivity after 4 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||Null hypothesis is that proportion of headaches with light sensitivity experienced after 4 hours is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||0.46
91849008|NCT04487080|183582523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||Log Rank||HR and its 95% CI was estimated based on a stratified Cox's regression model with treatment as the sole explanatory variable.|||0.85|0.58|0.0002
91653813|NCT04033445|183201085|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|19.9|||CMH chi-square test||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||19.9|9.9|< 0.001
91653814|NCT04033445|183201086|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||33.9|16.4|< 0.001
91653815|NCT04033445|183201086|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||38.1|20.9|< 0.001
91653816|NCT00585780|183201110|OTHER|Expected outcome was that Prazosin will be better than placebo in reducing HDD% among High AW individuals but no differences by medication treatment in the Low AW individuals.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.55||This is for the apriori hypothesis of significant AWX Treatment X Time effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Simple effects were conducted to assess source of the interaction.||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses with baseline AW severity (mean-centered continuous CIWA-Ar scores) as a moderator of Time (Pre-Full Dose(FD): weeks 1-2; Post FD: weeks 3-12) were conducted with linear or generalized linear mixed effect (LME/GLME) piecewise growth models for continuous and binary outcomes. Control variables that were modeled in all analyses. As hypothesized, significant interactions were tested using AW median cut-offs for high and Low AW groups.||0.55|0.1|0.016
91710222|NCT00803712|183312877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0910
91710223|NCT00803712|183312878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9520
91710224|NCT00803712|183312879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
91849009|NCT03944512|183582554|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.19||||||||1.19|0.37|
91849010|NCT03944512|183582555|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.67||||||||2.67|0.07|
91849011|NCT03944512|183582556|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|77.16||||||||77.16|0.32|
91849012|NCT03944512|183582557|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.43||||||||1.43|0.22|
91849013|NCT03944512|183582558|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in the placebo group.|||
91849014|NCT03944512|183582559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.24||||||||5.24|0.58|
91849015|NCT03944512|183582560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91849016|NCT03944512|183582561|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in the pravastatin and placebo groups|||
91710225|NCT00803712|183312880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0611|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0611
91710226|NCT00803712|183312881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3298|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3298
91849017|NCT03944512|183582562|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91849018|NCT03944512|183582563|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in the placebo group|||
91849019|NCT03944512|183582564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91849020|NCT03944512|183582565|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.23||||||||2.23|0.73|
91849021|NCT03944512|183582566|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.91||||||||2.91|0.57|
91849022|NCT03944512|183582567|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.71||||||||1.71|0.19|
91849023|NCT03944512|183582568|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.35||||||||5.35|0.02|
91849024|NCT03944512|183582569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
91849025|NCT03944512|183582570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|13.59||||||||13.59|0.24|
91849026|NCT03944512|183582571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.73||||||||2.73|0.42|
91849027|NCT03944512|183582572|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.18||||||||2.18|0.58|
91849028|NCT03944512|183582573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91849029|NCT03944512|183582574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.51||||||||4.51|0.52|
91849030|NCT03944512|183582575|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.0||||||||5.00|0.42|
91849031|NCT03944512|183582576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.95||||||||2.95|0.11|
91849032|NCT03944512|183582577|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
91849033|NCT03944512|183582578|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in the pravastatin group.|||
91849034|NCT03944512|183582579|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
91849035|NCT03944512|183582580|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
91849036|NCT03944512|183582581|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
91849037|NCT03944512|183582582|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in pravastatin group.|||
91849038|NCT03944512|183582583|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
91849039|NCT03944512|183582584|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.04||||||||2.04|0.17|
91849040|NCT03944512|183582585|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
91849041|NCT03944512|183582586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|31.79||||||||31.79|0.03|
91849042|NCT03944512|183582587|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
91849043|NCT03944512|183582588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91849044|NCT03944512|183582589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91849045|NCT03944512|183582590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91849046|NCT03944512|183582591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91849047|NCT03944512|183582592|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91849048|NCT03944512|183582593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact||||RR not reported given zero events in the pravastatin group.|||0.22
91849049|NCT03944512|183582594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91849050|NCT03944512|183582595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact||||RR not reported given zero events in the pravastatin group.|||0.47
91849051|NCT00309452|183582607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Between groups comparison for hospitalization rates, adjusted for pretreatment hospitalization||||0.018
91849052|NCT00309452|183582611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Between groups comparison for vocational engagement, adjusted for pretreatment vocational engagement||||0.002
91849053|NCT02962674|183582618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null and alternative hypotheses associated with this objective was written as:~H0: μ ΔIPSS ≤ 6.5 points HA: μ ΔIPSS \> 6.5 points where μ ΔIPSS was the true underlying value of mean ΔIPSS following a treatment at the 3-month follow-up visit and 6.5 points was an objective performance goal (OPG). The objective was met at a given time point by rejecting the null hypothesis in a one-sided t-test at the 5% significance level."||||0.004
91849054|NCT00771667|183582634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level for the primary endpoint, beginning with the highest dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.005
91849055|NCT00771667|183582634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level for the primary endpoint, beginning with the highest dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.057
91849056|NCT00771667|183582634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level for the primary endpoint, beginning with the highest dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.021
91849057|NCT00771667|183582635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.682
91849058|NCT00771667|183582635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.206
91849059|NCT00771667|183582635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.196
91849060|NCT00771667|183582636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.008
91849061|NCT00771667|183582636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||<0.001
91849062|NCT00771667|183582636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.035
91849063|NCT00771667|183582637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||<0.001
91849064|NCT00771667|183582637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.007
91849065|NCT00771667|183582637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.006
91849066|NCT00771667|183582638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.074
91849067|NCT00771667|183582638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.081
91849068|NCT00771667|183582638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.105
91849069|NCT00771667|183582639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Testing for Week-22 clinical remission was performed if the comparison of 6-mg/kg ustekinumab with placebo was positive for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test chi-square test, stratified by IV induction dose and clinical remission status at Week 6.||||||0.029
91849070|NCT00771667|183582640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for induction dose and clinical remission status at Week 6.||||||<0.001
91788789|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||7.3|-20.0|
91849071|NCT02814643|183582685|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.35|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H1N1||1.35|0.56|
91849072|NCT02814643|183582685|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.71|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H3N2||1.71|0.82|
91849073|NCT02814643|183582685|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.29|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Yamagata lineage||1.29|0.67|
91849074|NCT02814643|183582685|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.19|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Victoria lineage||1.19|0.54|
91849075|NCT02814643|183582686|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.31|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H1N1||1.31|0.76|
91849076|NCT02814643|183582686|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.77|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H3N2||1.77|0.93|
91849077|NCT02814643|183582686|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.79|1.34|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Yamagata lineage||1.34|0.79|
91849078|NCT02814643|183582686|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.26||||||90.0|0.93|1.7|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Victoria lineage||1.70|0.93|
91849079|NCT00531518|183582697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|||||The final analysis included adjstment for site and baseline sum psychotic symptom score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis used regression discontinuity methods, in which the baseline sum scores were adjusted and centered to an equalize control and experimental conditions.||||.0034
91653817|NCT00585780|183201111|OTHER|Expected outcome was that Prazosin will be better than placebo in reducing percent of drinking days (DD%) among High AW individuals but no differences by medication treatment in the Low AW individuals.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.92||This is for apriori hypothesized significant AW X Treatment X Post-full dose time interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses with baseline AW severity (mean-centered continuous CIWA-Ar scores) as a moderator of Time (Pre-Full Dose(FD): weeks 1-2; Post FD: weeks 3-12) were conducted with linear or generalized linear mixed effect (LME/GLME) piecewise growth models for continuous and binary outcomes. Control variables that were modeled in all analyses. As hypothesized, significant interactions were tested using AW median cut-offs for high and Low AW groups.||0.92|0.28|0.002
91710227|NCT00803712|183312882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4436|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4436
91788790|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||6.2|-0.9|
91788791|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.8|-3.6|
91849080|NCT00558363|183582739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk (Hazard Ratio)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.5||Comparing 24-month survival curves (includes time to PSA doubling as well as time to censoring); stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|Log Rank||Relative risk of dutasteride compared to placebo, derived from Cox Proportional Hazard model stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|||0.50|0.23|<0.001
91788792|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.0|-2.5|
91788793|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.4|-3.6|
91653818|NCT02978326|183201146|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.5||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.5|-6.9|0.0028
91653819|NCT02978326|183201147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 3||-0.3|-5.1|0.0252
91900337|NCT00992511|183694972|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMT between the initial process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A INI 2D Group) and (over) new process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A NEW 2D Group) was less than or equal to (≤) 2.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.61||||||To evaluate the immunological non-inferiority (in terms of vaccine-homologous virus H1N1 Haemagglutinin Inhibition \[HI\] antibody geometric mean titres \[GMTs\]) of the new process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen compared to the initial process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen, 21 days after first vaccination in healthy subjects aged 18 to 60 years.||1.61|0.86|
91653820|NCT02978326|183201147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 8||-0.8|-6.0|0.0106
91653821|NCT02978326|183201147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 21||-0.3|-6.0|0.0321
91653822|NCT02978326|183201147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 45||-1.4|-6.7|0.0027
91653823|NCT02978326|183201148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.6||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 3||3.60|0.89|0.1004
91849081|NCT00558363|183582749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparing percentages of participants with PSA doubling: 57% versus 28%|Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|||||||<0.001
91900338|NCT01176968|183694993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.581|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|0.756||All analyses for primary endpoint were tested at two-sided, α-level of 0.05, without adjusting for multiplicity.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI) of hazard ratio, and p-value for the Primary Analysis based on a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), with/without previous MI, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom, and location of index MI anterior or non-anterior.||0.756|0.446|< 0.0001
91849082|NCT00558363|183582750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk (Hazard Ratio)|0.25|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.45||Comparing 12-month survival curves (includes time to PSA doubling as well as time to censoring); stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|Log Rank||Relative risk of dutasteride compared to placebo, derived from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|||0.45|0.14|<0.001
91653824|NCT02978326|183201148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.45||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 8||4.45|1.20|0.0127
91653825|NCT02978326|183201148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|5.16||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 15||5.16|1.34|0.0049
91653826|NCT02978326|183201148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.64||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 21||3.64|0.94|0.0763
91653827|NCT02978326|183201148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.6||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 45||4.60|1.13|0.0216
91653828|NCT02978326|183201149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|12.23||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 3||12.23|1.24|0.0200
91849083|NCT00558363|183582751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparing percentages of participants with PSA doubling: 35% versus 10%|Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|||||||<0.001
91849084|NCT02174562|183582771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.75||0.05 was the a priori level of significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||PC-OT is the numerator, Enhanced Usual care is the denominator|Null hypothesis is that the Relative Risk of reduction of HbA1C \>=0.5 for PCOT vs EUC is 1.||1.75|0.84|0.31
91849085|NCT02174562|183582772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for comparison of least squares means for period 2 (months 4-6).||Mixed effects linear regression was used to model the percentage of doses taken each month. Fixed effects were period (1-3 months, 4-6 months, 7-9 months, 10-12 months), randomization group, randomization by period interaction, stratification group, age, and run-in percentage doses taken. The outcome was transformed using the arcsin-square root transformation prior to analysis. A first-order autoregressive correlation structure was assumed.||||0.87
91849086|NCT01651949|183582794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.21|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used.||Anti-HPV Type 6||1.21|1.02|<0.001
91849087|NCT01651949|183582794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.19|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 11||1.19|1.00|<0.001
91849088|NCT01651949|183582794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 16||1.30|1.10|<0.001
91653829|NCT02978326|183201149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.13||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 8||4.13|0.89|0.0990
91653830|NCT02978326|183201149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.17||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 15||5.17|1.24|0.0110
91653831|NCT02978326|183201149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.19||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 21||3.19|0.79|0.1982
91653832|NCT02978326|183201149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|5.03||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 45||5.03|1.26|0.0091
91653833|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.3832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.7||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||2.7|-6.9|0.3832
91653834|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-0.2|-10.5|0.0415
91849089|NCT01651949|183582794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.31|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 18||1.31|1.08|<0.001
91852039|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.775|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.7750
91653835|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||0.2|-10.5|0.0606
91710228|NCT00803712|183312883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata. Due to distributional properties of the data, analysis was performed on log-transformed data||||||<0.0001
91653836|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-0.6|-12.1|0.0318
91849090|NCT01651949|183582794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.37|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 31||1.37|1.13|<0.001
91849091|NCT01651949|183582794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 33||1.30|1.10|<0.001
91900339|NCT01176968|183694994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.562||||0.6406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.308|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||6.308|0.050|0.6406
91788794|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.8|-2.3|
91710229|NCT00803712|183312884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata.||||||<0.0001
91788795|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.1|-0.9|
91849092|NCT01651949|183582794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.41|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 45||1.41|1.14|<0.001
91849093|NCT01651949|183582794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.26|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 52||1.26|1.05|<0.001
91849094|NCT01651949|183582794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.36|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 58||1.36|1.14|<0.001
91849095|NCT01651949|183582795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of AEs of injection-site erythema reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Injection-site Erythema||-8.0|-15.0|<0.001
91849096|NCT01651949|183582795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-15.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of AEs of injection-site erythema reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Injection-site Pain||-15.7|-22.5|<0.001
91849097|NCT01651949|183582795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-13.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of AEs of injection-site erythema reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Injection-site Swelling||-13.7|-20.8|<0.001
91849098|NCT01651949|183582796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of maximum body temperature \>=37.8° C reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Elevated Body Temperature||0.2|-3.4|0.091
91849099|NCT01651949|183582797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 6||0.9|-0.7|<0.001
91710230|NCT00803712|183312885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata. Due to distributional properties of the data, analysis was performed on log-transformed data||||||0.0040
91849100|NCT01651949|183582797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 11||0.8|-0.3|<0.001
91849101|NCT01651949|183582797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 16||0.7|-0.3|<0.001
91710231|NCT00803712|183312886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata.||||||<0.0001
91710232|NCT00803712|183312887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium||||||<0.0001
91710233|NCT00803712|183312888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium.||||||<0.0001
91849102|NCT01651949|183582797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 18||0.8|-0.4|<0.001
91849103|NCT01651949|183582797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 31||0.5|-0.4|<0.001
91849104|NCT01651949|183582797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 33||0.7|-0.3|<0.001
91849105|NCT01651949|183582797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 45||1.0|-0.4|<0.001
91849106|NCT01651949|183582797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 52||0.9|-0.2|<0.001
91849107|NCT01651949|183582797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 58||0.9|-0.2|<0.001
91849108|NCT02155829|183582804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.442
91849109|NCT02155829|183582805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.994
91849110|NCT02155829|183582806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.684
91849111|NCT02155829|183582807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.913
91900340|NCT01176968|183694995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.726||||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|1.99|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||1.990|0.265|0.5338
91849112|NCT02155829|183582808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.746
91849113|NCT02155829|183582809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.057
91849114|NCT02155829|183582810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0496|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.0496
91849115|NCT00678795|183582812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint, the change in the number of incontinence episodes per day, was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of incontinence episodes per day as a covariate.||0.26|-0.47|0.569
91849116|NCT00678795|183582813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.76||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of urgency episodes per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of urgency episodes per day as a covariate.||0.07|-1.58|0.071
91849117|NCT00678795|183582814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of nocturia episodes per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of nocturia episodes per day as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.50|0.010
91849118|NCT00678795|183582815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.41|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of incontinence pads used per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of number of incontinence pads used per day as a covariate.||0.41|-0.57|0.74
91849119|NCT00678795|183582816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|3.9||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|9.46|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the I-QOL score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline I-QOL score as a covariate.||9.46|-1.65|0.166
91849120|NCT00678795|183582817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the overall bladder condition Numerical Rating Scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline overall bladder condition Numerical Rating Scale score as a covariate.||-0.51|-1.82|0.001
91849121|NCT00678795|183582818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|25.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.37|40.42|||Fisher Exact|||For Patient Global Impression of Change, the proportions of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact Test.||40.42|10.37|0.002
91849122|NCT00678795|183582819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.85||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of voids per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of voids per day as a covariate.||-0.23|-1.47|0.007
91849123|NCT01585038|183582820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.64|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.64|-1.56|0.30
91849124|NCT01585038|183582821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.30|-4.71|0.35
91849125|NCT01585038|183582822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.49|75.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||75.89|-62.49|0.41
91849126|NCT01585038|183582823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-194.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-353.7|-34.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-34.6|-353.7|0.02
91849127|NCT00843193|183582846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 2||0.06|-0.27|0.1955
91849128|NCT00843193|183582846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 4||-0.03|-0.34|0.0193
91849129|NCT00843193|183582846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 8||0.14|-0.23|0.6156
91849130|NCT00843193|183582846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.4672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between GSK679586 120 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 12||0.14|-0.31|0.4672
91849131|NCT00843193|183582849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 2||0.06|-0.08|0.7693
91849132|NCT00843193|183582849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 4||0.09|-0.08|0.8987
91653837|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-2.4|-13.0|0.0047
91653838|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||-2.1|-12.0|0.0053
91849133|NCT00843193|183582849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.4231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 8||0.05|-0.12|0.4231
91849134|NCT00843193|183582849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 12||0.00|-0.19|0.0537
91849135|NCT03301220|183582895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.36|<0.0001
91849136|NCT05012644|183582935|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.266|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|2.241||||||||2.241|0.715|
91849137|NCT05012644|183582936|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.508|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|2.774||||||||2.774|0.819|
91849138|NCT04845620|183582937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.648|5.064|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA Success at Week 4||5.064|1.648|<0.0001
91849139|NCT04845620|183582938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.662|5.772|||Chi-squared|Multiple imputation of missing observations|Multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA Success at Week 4 in Participants with Moderate Baseline vIGA||5.772|1.662|<0.0001
91849140|NCT04845620|183582939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.578|3.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|EASI-75 at Week 4||3.870|1.578|<0.0001
91849141|NCT04845620|183582940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.98|5.475|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 4||5.475|1.980|<0.0001
91849142|NCT04845620|183582941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.912|7.313|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|||7.313|1.912|<0.0001
91900341|NCT01176968|183694997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.083||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|2.04|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||2.040|0.575|0.8042
91849143|NCT04845620|183582942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.216|59.101|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|vIGA-AD Success at Week 1||59.101|2.216|<0.0001
91653839|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-1.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-1.1|-12.1|0.0181
91710234|NCT00803712|183312889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium.||||||<0.0001
91849144|NCT04845620|183582943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.137|6.761|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|vIGA-AD of Clear or Almost Clear at Week 2||6.761|2.137|<0.0001
91849145|NCT04845620|183582944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.342|14.113|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|vIGA-AD of Clear or Almost Clear at Week 2||14.113|2.342|<0.0001
91849146|NCT00708097|183582945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.98||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.97||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.97|-5.00|0.5757
91849147|NCT00708097|183582946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.17||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|9.14||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.14|-4.79|0.5387
91849148|NCT00708097|183582946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.79||||0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|9.77||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.77|-4.18|0.4306
91849149|NCT00708097|183582946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.09|-18.06||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-18.06|-32.09|<0.0001
91653840|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-4.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||-4.2|-15.3|0.0007
91710235|NCT00803712|183312890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium.||||||<0.0001
91710236|NCT00803712|183312891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.0085
91710237|NCT00803712|183312892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.0710
91710238|NCT00803712|183312893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3546|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.3546
91788796|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|-7.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-7.5|-35.2|
91788797|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-15.7|-46.5|
91788798|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-17.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-17.1|-38.4|
91788799|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|9.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.2|-19.2|
91788800|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|12.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||12.3|-14.1|
91788801|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|5.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||5.6|-13.6|
91788802|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|21.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||21.6|3.6|
91788803|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|24.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||24.6|6.4|
91788804|NCT02446743|183457892|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||20.3|7.6|
91788805|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-33.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-33.1|-52.7|
91788806|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.6|-3.9|
91788807|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||2.4|-2.7|
91653841|NCT02978326|183201150|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-0.5|-11.5|0.0332
91653842|NCT02978326|183201150|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-2.5||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-2.5|-13.5|0.0048
91788808|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-29.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-29.8|-58.4|
91849150|NCT00708097|183582946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19||||0.9567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|7.09||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.09|-6.71|0.9567
91849151|NCT00708097|183582946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.81||||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|7.76||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.76|-6.14|0.8188
91849152|NCT00708097|183582946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.03|-20.08||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-20.08|-34.03|<0.0001
91849153|NCT00708097|183582946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.62||||0.8599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|7.51||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.51|-6.28|0.8599
91849154|NCT00708097|183582946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-20.3||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-20.30|-34.20|<0.0001
91852040|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8082|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.33||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.33|0.8082
91849155|NCT00708097|183582946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.84|-20.89||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-20.89|-34.84|<0.0001
91849156|NCT00708097|183582947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.45||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|3.26||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||3.26|-6.15|0.5451
91849157|NCT00708097|183582947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.5||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.19||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.19|-1.20|0.1433
91849158|NCT00708097|183582947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|12.16||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.16|2.78|0.0020
91849159|NCT00708097|183582947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.79|28.25||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||28.25|18.79|<0.0001
91849160|NCT00708097|183582947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.94||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|9.59||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.59|0.29|0.0373
91849161|NCT00708097|183582947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|13.59||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||13.59|4.24|0.0002
91653843|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||2.0|-10.3|0.1840
91653844|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-0.1|-13.2|0.0462
91653845|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-1.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||-1.6|-14.9|0.0150
91849162|NCT00708097|183582947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|24.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.27|29.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||29.66|20.27|<0.0001
91849163|NCT00708097|183582947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.98||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|8.61||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.61|-0.66|0.0925
91849164|NCT00708097|183582947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|20.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.35|24.7||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||24.70|15.35|<0.0001
91849165|NCT00708097|183582947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|20.74||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||20.74|11.36|<0.0001
91849166|NCT00708097|183582948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.01||||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.34|102.32||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||102.32|-106.34|0.9697
91849167|NCT00708097|183582948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|106.9||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|210.87||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||210.87|2.92|0.0440
91849168|NCT00708097|183582948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|160.92||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.96|264.88||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||264.88|56.96|0.0026
91849169|NCT00708097|183582948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|222.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.58|327.36||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||327.36|117.58|<0.0001
91849170|NCT00708097|183582948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|108.91||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|211.83||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||211.83|5.98|0.0382
91852041|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7678|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.31||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.31|0.7678
91849171|NCT00708097|183582948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|162.93||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.68|266.18||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||266.18|59.68|0.0021
91849172|NCT00708097|183582948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|224.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.51|328.46||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||328.46|120.51|<0.0001
91849173|NCT00708097|183582948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|54.03||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.56|156.61||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||156.61|-48.56|0.3003
91849174|NCT00708097|183582948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|61.55||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.14|165.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||165.24|-42.14|0.2432
91849175|NCT00708097|183582948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|115.58||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.02|219.13||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||219.13|12.02|0.0289
91849176|NCT00708097|183582949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.9293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-322.47|294.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||294.66|-322.47|0.9293
91849177|NCT00708097|183582949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|575.71||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|268.24|883.17||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||883.17|268.24|0.0003
91849178|NCT00708097|183582949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|637.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|330.3|945.03||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||945.03|330.30|<0.0001
91849179|NCT00708097|183582949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1813.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1503.03|2123.54||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||2123.54|1503.03|<0.0001
91849180|NCT00708097|183582949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|589.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|285.31|893.92|||ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||893.92|285.31|0.0002
91849181|NCT00708097|183582949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|651.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|346.44|956.7||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||956.70|346.44|<0.0001
91849182|NCT00708097|183582949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1827.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1519.78|2134.6||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||2134.60|1519.78|<0.0001
91849183|NCT00708097|183582949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|61.96||||0.6874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.25|365.17||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||365.17|-241.25|0.6874
91849184|NCT00708097|183582949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1237.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|931.46|1543.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||1543.70|931.46|<0.0001
91849185|NCT00708097|183582949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1175.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|869.15|1482.1||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||1482.10|869.15|<0.0001
91849186|NCT03425643|183582950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.72||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|||0.72|0.48|<0.00001
91852042|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.5373|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.5373
91849187|NCT03425643|183582951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.00517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|||0.93|0.56|0.00517
91849188|NCT03425643|183582952|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Percentage|19.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|24.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||24.7|13.9|<0.00001
91849189|NCT03425643|183582953|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Pertentage|14.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||18.7|10.1|<0.00001
91849190|NCT03425643|183582954|OTHER|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Least Square Means|1.43||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|4.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.49|-1.64|0.3611
91849191|NCT03425643|183582955|OTHER|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Least Square Means|2.22||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|5.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.02|-0.58|0.1197
91849192|NCT00726596|183582981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6789|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.6789
91849193|NCT00482729|183582986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.78|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline A1C||||-0.43|-0.78|<0.001
91849194|NCT00482729|183582987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.001||95.0|1.6|2.69||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 18 in the Sita/Met FDC group vs. the Metformin group.|ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline A1C|This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 18 in the Sita/Met FDC group vs. the Metformin group.|||2.69|1.60|<0.001
91849195|NCT00482729|183582988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.4|-9.0|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline A1C||||-9.0|-22.4|<0.001
91849196|NCT00482729|183582989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||||95.0|-0.67|-0.3|||||This is a difference in least squares means, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0) A1C.|||-0.30|-0.67|
91849197|NCT00482729|183582990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||||95.0|1.63|2.73|||||This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 44 in the Sita/Met FDC group vs. the Metformin group, based on a logistic regression model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0) A1C|||2.73|1.63|
91849198|NCT01549314|183582996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in cortical volumentric bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF taking ivacaftor and subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor.||||0.77
91653846|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-1.0|-15.0|0.0245
91849199|NCT01549314|183582996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in cortical volumentric bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor and healthy subjects.||||0.82
91710239|NCT00803712|183312894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7518|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.7518
91849200|NCT01549314|183582997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in DXA PA spine bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF taking ivacaftor and subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor.||||0.64
91849201|NCT01549314|183582997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in DXA PA spine bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor and healthy subjects.||||0.78
91900342|NCT01176968|183694998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.598||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.791|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||0.791|0.452|0.0003
91849202|NCT01549314|183582998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in osteocalcin was determined and compared between subjects with CF taking ivacaftor and subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor.||||0.86
91849203|NCT01549314|183582998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in osteocalcin was determined and compared between subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor and healthy subjects.||||0.99
91849204|NCT00954707|183583000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of TLF at 12-month (%)|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|7.5||||||||7.5|5.5|
91849205|NCT00954707|183583001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of device success (%)|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|98.4||||||||98.4|97.4|
91849206|NCT00954707|183583002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of lesion success (%)|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.6|99.9||||||||99.9|99.6|
91849207|NCT00954707|183583003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of procedure success (%)|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|98.2||||||||98.2|97.0|
91849208|NCT00954707|183583004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Clinically-driven TLR (%)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|5.13||||||||5.13|3.45|
91849209|NCT00954707|183583005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Clinically-driven TVR (%)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|6.81||||||||6.81|4.87|
91849210|NCT00954707|183583006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Target vessel failure (%)|7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|9.09||||||||9.09|6.85|
91849211|NCT00954707|183583007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of MACE (%)|7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.37|8.55||||||||8.55|6.37|
91849212|NCT00954707|183583008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of protocol defined ST (%)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.38||||||||1.38|0.56|
91849213|NCT00954707|183583009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of ARC defined ST (%)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.64||||||||1.64|0.74|
91849214|NCT00954707|183583010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of major bleeding complications (%)|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.85||||||||3.85|2.40|
91849215|NCT00954707|183583011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of cardiac death (%)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.23||||||||1.23|0.46|
91849216|NCT00954707|183583012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of non-cardiac death (%)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.12||||||||1.12|0.40|
91849217|NCT03265210|183583013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|1.95|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Baseline||1.95|-4.95|0.39
91849218|NCT03265210|183583013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|-0.39|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|6 weeks||-0.39|-7.19|0.03
91849219|NCT03265210|183583013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|9 weeks||2.26|-5.38|0.42
91849220|NCT03265210|183583013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.37||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|12 weeks||0.28|-7.02|0.07
91849221|NCT03265210|183583014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, Baseline||0.33|-1.81|0.17
91849222|NCT03265210|183583014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, 6 weeks||0.44|-1.68|0.25
91849223|NCT03265210|183583014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, 9 weeks||0.17|-2.29|0.09
91849224|NCT03265210|183583014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, 12 weeks||0.01|-2.19|0.05
91849225|NCT03265210|183583014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.48|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, Baseline||-0.48|-5.90|0.02
91849226|NCT03265210|183583014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-1.54|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, 6 weeks||-1.54|-7.06|0.003
91849227|NCT03265210|183583014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|-3.05|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, 9 weeks||-3.05|-8.85|0.0001
91849228|NCT03265210|183583014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-1.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, 12 weeks||-1.24|-7.46|0.007
91849229|NCT03265210|183583015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.69|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1||1.69|0.53|0.0003
91849230|NCT03265210|183583015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2||0.83|0.21|0.001
91849231|NCT03265210|183583015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.56|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 3||1.56|0.36|0.002
91849232|NCT00738699|183583054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46||One-sided log rank test stratified by route of administration for primary chemotherapy (intraperitoneal vs intravenous) and geographic region (North America, Europe, and other participating countries).|Log Rank||Stratified as described above.|||1.46|0.88|0.8360
91849233|NCT00738699|183583055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11||||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48||One-sided log rank test stratified by route of administration for primary chemotherapy and geographic region.|Log Rank||Stratified as described above|||1.48|0.83|0.7568
91849234|NCT00738699|183583056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.4||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-0.7||Compared the ratio of complete or partial responders in the two arms. Stratified by route of administration for first line therapy and geographic region as specified at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||(FAR + Paclitaxel) minus (Placebo + Paclitaxel). Confidence interval based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||-0.7|-14.1|0.0399
91849235|NCT00549848|183583060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
91849236|NCT03670602|183583074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment influenced improvements in delay discounting across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Treatment group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate.||||0.0035
91849237|NCT03670602|183583074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for the time effect, or if delay discounting improved across all three timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Treatment group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.001
91849238|NCT03670602|183583075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced weight across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.85
91653847|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-2.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-2.8|-16.0|0.0054
91653848|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|0.9||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||0.9|-10.1|0.0972
91653849|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-1.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-1.4|-13.1|0.0155
91849239|NCT03670602|183583075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in weight, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.001
91852043|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9548|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.47||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.47|0.9548
91788809|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.1|-7.7|
91849240|NCT03670602|183583076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment group influenced change in hBa1c across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.79
91849241|NCT03670602|183583076|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for the time effect, or if hBa1c changed across timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.001
91849242|NCT03670602|183583077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced medication adherence across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.201
91788810|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.7|-5.7|
91849243|NCT03670602|183583077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315||||||This is for the time effect, or if timepoint influenced medication adherence across all timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.315
91849244|NCT03670602|183583078|SUPERIORITY|A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||||0.345||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment group influenced change in percent of time engaged in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||||||0.345
91849245|NCT03670602|183583078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||This is for the time effect, or if percent of time engaged in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) changed across timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.0003
91710240|NCT00947310|183312956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm B. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||0.85|0.24|0.01
91710241|NCT00947310|183312956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm C. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||1.02|0.30|0.06
91710242|NCT00947310|183312957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.47|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm B. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||2.47|0.71|0.39
91849246|NCT03670602|183583079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced changes in calorie intake across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.007
91900343|NCT01176968|183694999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.069||||0.9353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|5.371|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||5.371|0.213|0.9353
91653850|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-1.5||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||-1.5|-13.4|0.0149
91653851|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-0.9||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-0.9|-13.3|0.0250
91849247|NCT03670602|183583079|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in calorie intake, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.0001
91653852|NCT02978326|183201150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-3.6|-15.3|0.0017
91653853|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.5|0.1569
91788811|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-25.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-25.4|-51.8|
91849248|NCT03670602|183583080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced changes in working memory across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.774
91849249|NCT03670602|183583080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in working memory, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.019
91849250|NCT03670602|183583081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced relative reinforcing efficacy of unhealthy food across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.650
91849251|NCT03670602|183583081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in relative reinforcing efficacy of unhealthy food, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.0001
91849252|NCT00957658|183583085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 6%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Asymptotic WALD test|||Literature control = 96% with no aseptic loosening, intraop femoral fracture or thigh pain at 2 years||||<.0001
91849253|NCT00957658|183583088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Improvement from preop to 2 year and preop to 5 year||||<.0001
91849254|NCT00957658|183583089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare Pre-op SF-12 Physical Score preop to 2 year and preop to 5 year||||<.0001
91849255|NCT00957658|183583089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Score preop to 2 years||||<.0001
91849256|NCT00957658|183583089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare SF-12 Mental Score preop to 5 years||||.0004
91849257|NCT00957658|183583090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Compare LEAS score preop to 2 years and preop to 5 years||||<.0001
91849258|NCT00957658|183583093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare to historical control (n=94 hips): mean wear 5 years = 0.134 (0.078)||||<.0001
91849259|NCT00957658|183583094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Sign test|||Compare Wrist DXA T-score preop to 5 years||||.0002
91849260|NCT03383887|183583095|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91849261|NCT03383887|183583096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
91849262|NCT00300456|183583097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 24% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
91849263|NCT00300456|183583097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect 24% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
91849264|NCT00300456|183583098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 98% power to detect a 9% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
91849265|NCT00300456|183583098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 98% power to detect a 9% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
91849266|NCT00300456|183583099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect an 11% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
91852044|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9743|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.49||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.49|0.9743
91849267|NCT00300456|183583099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect an 11% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
91849268|NCT01806714|183583184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||clustered stratified Proportional Hazard||We determined hazard ratios using a clustered stratified Cox model with the Efron method to handle tied events and the Huber/White variance estimator that clustered on primary care provider and stratified on practice.|||1.6|1.0|<0.04
91849269|NCT01120275|183583207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-month PFS|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22||||||6-month progression free survival (PFS) was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier and confidence intervals were calculated using the log-log transformation.||0.22|0.02|
91849270|NCT01120275|183583208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-year OS|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.66||||||1-year overall survival (OS) was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier and confidence intervals were calculated using the log-log transformation.||0.66|0.32|
91849271|NCT01156116|183583224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||0.03
91849272|NCT01156116|183583225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||0.04
91849273|NCT01156116|183583226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||0.009
91849274|NCT01156116|183583227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||<0.001
91849275|NCT02057718|183583228|OTHER|Null hypothesis (H0): mean change from baseline to Week 13 is zero. The null hypothesis was tested for each of the 2 PFIC subgroups and overall; the change in the overall population is presented here.|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.304|STANDARD_DEVIATION|160.9748|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.35|35.742||||||This analysis shows the change from baseline to Week 13 in sBA levels for the overall Modified Intent-to-treat Population. Even though a comparison of PFIC1 vs PFIC2 (overall) is noted, the results are the change from baseline for all participants and is not comparative.||35.742|-82.35|
91849276|NCT00434018|183583237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91849277|NCT03068611|183583254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.90
91849278|NCT03068611|183583255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.54
91849279|NCT03068611|183583256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Data were log-transformed transformed due to positive skewness||||||.36
91849280|NCT03068611|183583257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Data were log-transformed to correct positive skewness||||||.92
91849281|NCT04567888|183583270|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.95||Threshold for statistical significance set to .050.|Repeated-measures Multilevel Models|||||-0.95|-1.88|<.001
91849282|NCT04567888|183583271|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.3||Threshold for statistical significance was set to .050.|Repeated-measures Multilevel Models|||||-0.30|-0.78|< .001
91852045|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8408|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.8408
91849283|NCT01157182|183583272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.63|108.55|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.55|97.63|
91849284|NCT01157182|183583273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.15|101.76|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.76|95.15|
91849285|NCT01157182|183583274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.33|102.26|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.26|95.33|
91849286|NCT01157182|183583275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.64|96.55|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||96.55|88.64|
91849287|NCT01157182|183583276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.6|98.81|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.81|92.60|
91653854|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.7|0.0376
91653855|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.6|0.1035
91653856|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.2|-0.9|0.0037
91849288|NCT01157182|183583277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.62|98.91|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.91|92.62|
91852046|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9887|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.55||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.55|0.9887
91788812|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.0|-3.3|
91653857|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.8|0.0061
91653858|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.3|-0.4|0.7878
91849289|NCT01157182|183583278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.65|96.33|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||96.33|88.65|
91849290|NCT01157182|183583279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|98.77|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.77|92.68|
91849291|NCT01157182|183583280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|98.88|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.88|92.68|
91653859|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.6|0.0498
91710243|NCT00947310|183312957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm C. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||2.05|0.58|0.80
91849292|NCT01157182|183583281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.62|98.31|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.31|84.62|
91849293|NCT01157182|183583282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.04|99.47|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.47|89.04|
91849294|NCT01157182|183583283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|104.76|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.76|90.70|
91849295|NCT01157182|183583284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.78|98.81|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.81|89.78|
91653860|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.5|0.1719
91710244|NCT00947310|183312958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm B. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||0.34|0.13|<0.001
91710245|NCT00947310|183312958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.4|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm C. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||0.40|0.15|<0.001
91710246|NCT00547248|183312959|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the difference in terms of incidence of post-immunization febrile reactions (rectal temperature \> 39.0°C) in Synflorix™ vaccine minus Prevenar™ did not exceed the pre-defined clinically acceptable threshold of 5% + half the incidence in Prevenar.|Difference in percentage|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|5.59|||Philips' statistical test|||||5.59|-4.82|
91849296|NCT01157182|183583285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.73|99.36|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.36|92.73|
91849297|NCT01157182|183583286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.62|100.96|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.96|93.62|
91849298|NCT01157182|183583287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.46|99.62|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.62|84.46|
91849299|NCT01157182|183583288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.37|103.14|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.14|88.37|
91653861|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.7|0.0161
91653862|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.6|0.0191
91849300|NCT01157182|183583289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.1|103.81|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.81|88.10|
91849301|NCT01157182|183583290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.56|98.98|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.98|89.56|
91852047|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.9918|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.55||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.55|0.9918
91849302|NCT01157182|183583291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.14|100.04|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.04|92.14|
91849303|NCT01157182|183583292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.75|100.93|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.93|92.75|
91849304|NCT00383188|183583304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.97||0.3131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.565|23.664|||Chi-squared|||||23.664|-7.565|0.3131
91849305|NCT00383188|183583304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.602|26.224|||Chi-squared|||||26.224|-4.602|0.1719
91849306|NCT00383188|183583304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.16||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.123|27.799|||Chi-squared|||||27.799|-8.123|0.2783
91849307|NCT00383188|183583304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43||0.3381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.566|27.404|||Chi-squared|||||27.404|-9.566|0.3381
91849308|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.8619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.733|10.845|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||10.845|-8.733|0.8619
91653863|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.2|0.2537
91653864|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||-0.1|-0.2|0.0018
91710247|NCT05133323|183312994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0106|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6||0.0106
91788813|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.0|-2.4|
91849309|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.176|17.651|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||17.651|-3.176|0.2546
91849310|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|27.115|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||27.115|0.921|0.0644
91849311|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.8304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.13|13.125|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||13.125|-10.13|0.8304
91849312|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.15|18.371|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||18.371|-6.150|0.4123
91849313|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||0.4591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.581|17.392|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||17.392|-6.581|0.4591
91849314|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.93||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.89|31.28|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||31.280|1.890|0.0585
91849315|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.21||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.522|30.829|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||30.829|0.522|0.0808
91849316|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.684|17.398|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||17.398|-7.684|0.5240
91849317|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.172|27.588|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||27.588|2.172|0.0571
91849318|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.08||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.222|31.087|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||31.087|1.222|0.0712
91849319|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.956|35.99|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||35.990|4.956|0.0279
91849320|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.71|10.515|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||10.515|-14.71|0.7848
91849321|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.91||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|27.869|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||27.869|1.860|0.0632
91849322|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.16||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.237|24.893|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||24.893|-5.237|0.2783
91849323|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.703|32.135|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||32.135|0.703|0.0828
91849324|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.7505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.77|11.328|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||11.328|-16.77|0.7505
91849325|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.8641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|15.156|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||15.156|-12.30|0.8641
91849326|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99||0.7399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.12|19.734|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||19.734|-13.12|0.7399
91849327|NCT00383188|183583305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-12.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.98|3.018|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||3.018|-27.98|0.1996
91849328|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.944|3.929|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||3.929|-0.944|0.2982
91849329|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.892|3.709|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||3.709|-0.892|0.3122
91849330|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.631|9.934|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||9.934|-0.631|0.0649
91849331|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.681|10.938|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||10.938|-0.681|0.0525
91849332|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.681|9.573|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||9.573|-0.681|0.1481
91849333|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.093|14.124|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||14.124|2.093|0.0292
91849334|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.839|18.186|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||18.186|1.839|0.0167
91849335|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.269|20.029|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||20.029|2.269|0.0110
91849336|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.959|2.946|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||2.946|-7.959|0.4550
91849337|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.271|15.946|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||15.946|0.271|0.0919
91849338|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.38||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.28|23.272|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||23.272|2.280|0.0264
91849339|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.308|22.881|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||22.881|1.308|0.0369
91849340|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-9.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.85|-1.482|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||-1.482|-16.85|0.0568
91849341|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.4961|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.727|13.835|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||13.835|-5.727|0.4961
91849342|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.008|18.89|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||18.890|-5.008|0.3212
91849343|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.87|12.843|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||12.843|-9.870|0.8274
91849344|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.3774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.538|14.996|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||14.996|-4.538|0.3774
91849345|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.11||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.591|19.51|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||19.510|-0.591|0.1246
91653865|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.0|-0.2|0.2878
91653866|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.2|0.2594
91653867|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.3|0.0086
91849346|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.502|20.087|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||20.087|-3.502|0.2257
91849347|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.355|17.03|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||17.030|-6.355|0.4336
91849348|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.7682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.61|9.467|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||9.467|-13.61|0.7682
91849349|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.6726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.97|8.257|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||8.257|-13.97|0.6726
91849350|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.28|7.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||7.000|-18.28|0.4795
91849351|NCT00383188|183583306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-16.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.19|-6.137|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||-6.137|-26.19|0.0276
91849352|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
91849353|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
91849354|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
91849355|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
91849356|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||0.00|0.00|0.000
91849357|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||0.00|0.00|0.000
91849358|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.423|5.968|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||5.968|-1.423|0.1928
91849359|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|6.56|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||6.560|-1.560|0.1719
91849360|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.9603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.138|3.334|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||3.334|-3.138|0.9603
91849361|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.559|0.856|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||0.856|-3.559|0.3157
91849362|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.162|12.096|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||12.096|-1.162|0.1125
91849363|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.434|9.732|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||9.732|-2.434|0.2455
91849364|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.3452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.057|1.847|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||1.847|-7.057|0.3452
91849365|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.333|5.333|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||5.333|-5.333|1.0000
91849366|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.417|16.036|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||16.036|-1.417|0.1267
91849367|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|14.612|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||14.612|-2.720|0.2069
91849368|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.6506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.871|8.553|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||8.553|-4.871|0.6506
91849369|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.075|9.48|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||9.480|-4.075|0.5125
91849370|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.4412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.652|12.023|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||12.023|-4.652|0.4412
91849371|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.006|10.195|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||10.195|-6.006|0.6566
91849372|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.57|2.247|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||2.247|-12.57|0.2634
91849373|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.63|4.916|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||4.916|-10.63|0.5460
91849374|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.65|-0.086|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||-0.086|-14.65|0.1626
91849375|NCT00383188|183583307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.65|-0.086|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||-0.086|-14.65|0.1626
91849376|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.624|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.624|-2.400|0.7053
91849377|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.291|0.668|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.668|-3.291|0.1938
91849378|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.491|0.116|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.116|-4.491|0.0627
91849379|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.218|1.517|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.517|-3.218|0.4809
91900344|NCT01176968|183695000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.6||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|4.525|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||4.525|0.566|0.3757
91849380|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.286|0.709|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.709|-3.286|0.2057
91849381|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.293|0.631|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.631|-3.293|0.1833
91849382|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.166||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.037|-0.459|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.459|-5.037|0.0187
91849383|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.695|1.005|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.005|-3.695|0.2615
91849384|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.761|0.233|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.233|-3.761|0.0832
91849385|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.576|0.347|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.347|-3.576|0.1066
91849386|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.166||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.695|-0.118|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.118|-4.695|0.0394
91849387|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.705|0.995|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.995|-3.705|0.2580
91849388|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.754|1.238|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.238|-2.754|0.4560
91849389|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.982|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.060|-3.982|0.0434
91653868|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.6|0.0424
91653869|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.6|0.0207
91849390|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.165||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.016|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.560|-4.016|0.1386
91849391|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.3353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.503|1.196|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.196|-3.503|0.3353
91849392|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.075|-0.085|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.085|-4.075|0.0410
91849393|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.194|-0.274|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.274|-4.194|0.0255
91849394|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.165||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.671|-0.097|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.097|-4.671|0.0410
91849395|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.196||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.259|0.438|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.438|-4.259|0.1106
91849396|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.048||0.8107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.307|1.805|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.805|-2.307|0.8107
91849397|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.726|2.269|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.269|-1.726|0.7895
91849398|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.7996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.673|2.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.060|-2.673|0.7996
91710248|NCT00909220|183312997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.49|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA comparing groups (HEA v MDD), controlling for baseline depression (IDS-C score at week 0) to estimate depression at the end of treatment (IDS-C score at week 16).||0.49|0.27|0.05
91849399|NCT00383188|183583308|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.235||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.610|-2.240|0.8811
91849400|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.687|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.427|1.053|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.053|-2.427|0.4385
91849401|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.794|0.624|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.624|-2.794|0.2131
91849402|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013||0.1216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.559|0.419|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.419|-3.559|0.1216
91849403|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.728|1.378|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.378|-2.728|0.5190
91849404|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.193|0.264|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.264|-3.193|0.0967
91852048|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9833|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.46||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.46|0.9833
91653870|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.2|-0.7|0.0010
91653871|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.0|-0.5|0.0871
91653872|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.2|-0.4|0.5680
91653873|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||-0.1|-0.6|0.0143
91653874|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||-0.1|-0.6|0.0063
91653875|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.6|0.0042
91653876|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.6|0.0137
91653877|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.6|0.0099
91653878|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.5|0.0507
91653879|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.5|0.0205
91849405|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.721|0.668|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.668|-2.721|0.2346
91849406|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.635|0.318|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.318|-3.635|0.1000
91849407|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.805|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.844|1.234|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.234|-2.844|0.4385
91849408|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.327|0.128|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.128|-3.327|0.0696
91849409|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.294|0.094|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.094|-3.294|0.0642
91849410|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.807|0.146|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.146|-3.807|0.0695
91849411|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.532|1.545|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.545|-2.532|0.6349
91710249|NCT00909220|183312998|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.59|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA comparing groups (HEA v MDD), controlling for baseline depression (IDS-SR score at week 0) to estimate depression at the end of treatment (IDS-SR score at week 16).||0.59|0.31|<0.05
91788814|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.8|-12.4|
91788815|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.7|-2.2|
91849412|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.903|0.551|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.551|-2.903|0.1818
91849413|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.862||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.961|0.426|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.426|-2.961|0.1421
91900345|NCT01176968|183695001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.1744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.65|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with observed value as the dependent variable, treatment as a major factor, and baseline QRS duration, baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, time (in hours) of first dose administered post onset of index symptom, and location of index MI (anterior versus all other locations) as covariates.||0.65|-3.55|0.1744
91849414|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.874|1.078|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.078|-2.874|0.3726
91849415|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.4995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.739|1.337|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.337|-2.739|0.4995
91849416|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.327|0.126|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.126|-3.327|0.0691
91710250|NCT00909220|183312999|OTHER|Multiple regression analyses|beta|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p \<0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||||||.02
91788816|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.5|2.8|
91653880|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.5|0.1409
91653881|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY|MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.5|0.2021
91653882|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.6|0.0117
91788817|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|10.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||10.6|-17.8|
91849417|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.862||0.2083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|0.607|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.607|-2.778|0.2083
91849418|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.811|1.139|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.139|-2.811|0.4063
91849419|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.234|1.841|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.841|-2.234|0.8501
91849420|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.904||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.399|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.150|-1.399|0.6778
91849421|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.508|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.877||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.230|-1.214|0.5627
91849422|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.501|2.576|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.576|-1.501|0.6049
91849423|NCT00383188|183583309|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.068||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.587|2.608|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.608|-1.587|0.6332
91849424|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.098||0.4943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|5.243|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.243|-10.85|0.4943
91849425|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.026||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.09|-2.283|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.283|-18.09|0.0116
91849426|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.98|-3.485|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.485|-21.98|0.0070
91849427|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.812||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|-1.688|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.688|-20.58|0.0209
91849428|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.056||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.524|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.524|-15.40|0.0671
91849429|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.986||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.28|-2.632|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.632|-18.28|0.0089
91849430|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.657||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.24|-4.959|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-4.959|-23.24|0.0025
91849431|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.774||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.25|1.496|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.496|-17.25|0.0994
91849432|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.056||0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.926|5.999|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.999|-9.926|0.6284
91849433|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.986||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|-2.109|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.109|-17.76|0.0129
91849434|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.656||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|1.044|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.044|-17.24|0.0825
91849435|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.774||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|7.465|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.465|-11.28|0.6897
91849436|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.861|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.055||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.821|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.821|-6.100|0.6465
91849437|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.985||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.47|-2.824|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.824|-18.47|0.0077
91653883|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.2|-0.4|0.5511
91653884|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.2|-0.5|0.4949
91653885|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.7|0.0203
91653886|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.6|0.2076
91849438|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.655||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|1.213|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.213|-17.07|0.0890
91849439|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.773||0.2119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|3.406|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.406|-15.33|0.2119
91849440|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-4.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.053||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|3.191|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.191|-12.72|0.2401
91849441|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.983||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|-3.251|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.251|-18.89|0.0056
91849442|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.654||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|0.251|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.251|-18.02|0.0566
91653887|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.8|0.0362
91653888|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.3|-0.1|0.3589
91653889|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.2|-0.2|0.6991
91849443|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.772||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.45|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.720|-19.45|0.0348
91653890|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.2|-0.2|0.9655
91653891|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.2|-0.2|0.8699
91653892|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.3|0.3715
91653893|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.4|0.0670
91653894|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||-0.1|-0.5|0.0104
91653895|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.5|0.0122
91849444|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.191||0.2436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.336|13.116|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.116|-3.336|0.2436
91849445|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.066||0.6616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.762|6.201|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.201|-9.762|0.6616
91849446|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.574|13.388|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.388|-5.574|0.4189
91849447|NCT00383188|183583310|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.942||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.305|14.096|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.096|-5.305|0.3741
91849448|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.996|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|4.773|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.773|-10.77|0.4493
91849449|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-14.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.891||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.08|-6.807|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-6.807|-22.08|0.0002
91653896|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.3|0.3157
91653897|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.5|0.0077
91653898|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||-0.1|-0.8|0.0078
91849450|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.522||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.42|-2.661|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.661|-20.42|0.0109
91653899|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.7|0.0372
91653900|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.7|0.0244
91849451|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.651||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.49|1.765|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.765|-16.49|0.1137
91653901|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.6|0.0993
91653902|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.7|0.0185
91653903|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.4|0.2471
91653904|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.5|0.1076
91653905|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.4|0.2782
91849452|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.915||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|3.697|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.697|-11.68|0.3086
91653906|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.2|-0.4|0.4646
91849453|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-0.799|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.799|-15.92|0.0303
91653907|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.5|0.1600
91653908|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.5|0.0474
91653909|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.5|0.0446
91653910|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.6|0.0093
91653911|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.4|0.2998
91653912|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.5|0.0545
91653913|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.4|0.2177
91653914|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.1|-0.4|0.2300
91653915|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.2|-0.7|0.0001
91653916|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.5|0.0151
91653917|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.5|0.0502
91653918|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.3|0.3659
91653919|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.2|-0.3|0.6003
91653920|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.0|-0.5|0.0785
91849454|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.489||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.47|-1.845|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.845|-19.47|0.0178
91653921|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.4|0.3668
91653922|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.4|0.1827
91653923|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.4|0.1327
91849455|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.612||0.2486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|3.729|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.729|-14.38|0.2486
91849456|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.915||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|4.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.720|-10.65|0.4491
91849457|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|-2.671|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.671|-17.79|0.0081
91849458|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.480|-18.10|0.0388
91849459|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|6.553|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.553|-11.55|0.5880
91849460|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.914||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.904|11.464|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.464|-3.904|0.3345
91653924|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.4|0.0993
91849461|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.849||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|-1.463|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.463|-16.58|0.0194
91849462|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|2.863|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.863|-14.76|0.1855
91849463|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|3.803|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.803|-14.30|0.2553
91849464|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-4.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.912||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|3.639|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.639|-11.72|0.3020
91849465|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.847||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|-2.715|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.715|-17.82|0.0078
91849466|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.486||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|0.284|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.284|-17.33|0.0578
91849467|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.09|2.007|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.007|-16.09|0.1270
91653925|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.2|-0.6|0.0002
91653926|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.5|0.0056
91653927|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.5|0.0122
91653928|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.3|0.1305
91653929|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.1|-0.2|0.6638
91653930|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.2|0.4341
91653931|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.1|0.9085
91849468|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.051||0.1438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.023|13.877|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.877|-2.023|0.1438
91653932|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.3|0.1820
91849469|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.931||0.6149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.696|5.738|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.738|-9.696|0.6149
91653933|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.1|0.1593
91653934|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.1|0.6555
91653935|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.0|-0.1|0.0170
91653936|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.0|-0.1|0.0188
91788818|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.0|-3.2|
91849470|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.664||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|15.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.700|-2.610|0.1609
91653937|NCT02978326|183201151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.2|0.0726
91653938|NCT02978326|183201152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MADRS Total Score at Day 3||0.4|-6.5|0.0791
91653939|NCT02978326|183201152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|1.86|-7.7|-0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MADRS Total Score at Day 8||-0.3|-7.7|0.0322
91653940|NCT02978326|183201152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MADRS Total Score at Day 15||-0.8|-8.3|0.0180
91788819|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.5|3.7|
91849471|NCT00383188|183583311|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.804|15.961|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.961|-2.804|0.1691
91849472|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.341||0.6733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.967|5.149|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.149|-7.967|0.6733
91653941|NCT02978326|183201152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.5||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MADRS Total Score at 21||-0.5|-8.1|0.0271
91653942|NCT02978326|183201152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MADRS Total Score at 45||-2.2|-9.4|0.0018
91849473|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.274||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|0.797|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.797|-12.05|0.0859
91849474|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|-2.259|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.259|-17.18|0.0107
91788820|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||11.0|-11.8|
91788821|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.1|-4.6|
91849475|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.921||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|4.002|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.002|-11.39|0.3463
91849476|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.312||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|1.316|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.316|-11.69|0.1178
91653943|NCT02978326|183201153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.81||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 3||2.81|0.70|0.3372
91653944|NCT02978326|183201153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.47||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 8||3.47|0.91|0.0935
91849477|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.245||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.48|-0.737|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.737|-13.48|0.0288
91653945|NCT02978326|183201153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.28||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 15||4.28|1.09|0.0276
91849478|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.772||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.15|-2.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.340|-17.15|0.0100
91788822|NCT02446743|183457893|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.5|-0.8|
91788823|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-34.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-34.3|-54.4|
91788824|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.2|-4.5|
91788825|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.9|-1.9|
91653946|NCT02978326|183201153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.54||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment: Baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 21||3.54|0.91|0.0920
91788826|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-48.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|-32.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-32.0|-60.8|
91849479|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.164|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.164|-13.10|0.1600
91788827|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.1|-7.3|
91653947|NCT02978326|183201153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.51||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 45||3.51|0.88|0.1109
91653948|NCT02978326|183201154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 3||-0.6|-5.7|0.0169
91653949|NCT02978326|183201154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 8||-1.8|-7.0|0.0010
91653950|NCT02978326|183201154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 15||-1.1|-6.7|0.0063
91788828|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.7|-5.7|
91852049|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9619|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.50|0.9619
91710824|NCT02504320|183314063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|1.0848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9528|1.235|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.2350|0.9528|
91849480|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.312||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.101|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.101|-6.900|0.9040
91653951|NCT02978326|183201154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 21||-0.8|-6.2|0.0119
91653952|NCT02978326|183201154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-2.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 45||-2.4|-7.5|0.0002
91653953|NCT02978326|183201155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.53||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 3||3.53|0.87|0.1145
91653954|NCT02978326|183201155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.3||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 8||3.30|0.89|0.1069
91849481|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.245||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|-0.524|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.524|-13.26|0.0339
91849482|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.891|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.771||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.29|-1.488|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.488|-16.29|0.0186
91653955|NCT02978326|183201155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.27||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 15||5.27|1.36|0.0045
91849483|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.4854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|4.918|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.918|-10.35|0.4854
91849484|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.311||0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.886|5.112|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.112|-7.886|0.6753
91849485|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.46|-4.724|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-4.724|-17.46|0.0007
91849486|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.771||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|-2.134|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.134|-16.94|0.0116
91849487|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|-0.691|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.691|-15.95|0.0326
91849488|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.309||0.2738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|2.872|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.872|-10.12|0.2738
91849489|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.243||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|-3.412|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.412|-16.14|0.0026
91849490|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.769||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-1.941|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.941|-16.74|0.0134
91849491|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.886||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|2.101|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.101|-13.16|0.1553
91849492|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.444||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.878|6.641|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.641|-6.878|0.9726
91849493|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.321||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.109|7.928|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.928|-5.109|0.6714
91849494|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.925||0.8693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.058|8.351|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.351|-7.058|0.8693
91849495|NCT00383188|183583312|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.035||0.7495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.631|9.208|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.208|-6.631|0.7495
91849496|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.469||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.75|-0.214|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.214|-17.75|0.0447
91849497|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-15.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.345||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.65|-6.596|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-6.596|-23.65|0.0005
91849498|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.981||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.84|-7.296|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-7.296|-26.84|0.0006
91849499|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-16.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.218||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.49|-6.018|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-6.018|-26.49|0.0019
91849500|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|4.726|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.726|-12.41|0.3792
91849501|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.66|-1.031|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.031|-17.66|0.0276
91653956|NCT02978326|183201155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.93||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 21||3.93|1.03|0.0421
91653957|NCT02978326|183201155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.03||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 45||4.03|0.99|0.0541
91653958|NCT02978326|183201156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|7.38||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 3||7.38|1.09|0.0326
91849502|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|-3.128|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.128|-22.25|0.0093
91849503|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.47|0.271|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.271|-19.47|0.0566
91849504|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.764|9.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.370|-7.764|0.8540
91849505|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|5.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.950|-10.68|0.5770
91849506|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|3.232|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.232|-15.89|0.1942
91849507|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.376|11.364|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.364|-8.376|0.7665
91849508|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.276|11.858|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.858|-5.276|0.4512
91849509|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.409|8.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.220|-8.409|0.9822
91849510|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|4.414|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.414|-14.71|0.2910
91849511|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.5741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.042|12.698|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.698|-7.042|0.5741
91849512|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|11.674|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.674|-5.460|0.4768
91849513|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|6.058|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.058|-10.57|0.5945
91849514|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.9006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.953|10.171|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.171|-8.953|0.9006
91849515|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|19.094|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.094|-0.646|0.0670
91849516|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.647||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|17.379|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||17.379|-0.857|0.0757
91849517|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.427||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.329|14.043|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.043|-3.329|0.2265
91849518|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.178||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.517|11.801|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.801|-8.517|0.7512
91849519|NCT00383188|183583313|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.557|13.332|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.332|-7.557|0.5876
91849520|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.101|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.101|-0.638|0.1540
91849521|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|-0.242|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.242|-0.958|0.0011
91849522|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.105|-0.277|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.277|-1.105|0.0011
91849523|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.983|-0.125|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.125|-0.983|0.0115
91849524|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.673|0.053|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.053|-0.673|0.0940
91849525|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.106|-0.811|0.0109
91849526|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.075|-0.259|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.259|-1.075|0.0014
91653959|NCT02978326|183201156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.79||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 8||2.79|0.68|0.3749
91849527|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|-0.028|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.028|-0.867|0.0364
91849528|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|0.092|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.092|-0.634|0.1436
91849529|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|-0.052|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.052|-0.757|0.0246
91653960|NCT02978326|183201156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.92||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 15||4.92|1.26|0.0087
91653961|NCT02978326|183201156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.31||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 21||4.31|1.10|0.0257
91710251|NCT00909220|183313000|OTHER|Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) , an ordinary least square (OLS) regression-based analysis.|Slope|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.77||The variation of slopes among participants for each variable were calculated. If significant, a second level of analysis focused on predictors of the variation was conducted.|Regression, Logistic|df = 31||A two-level hierarchical linear model assessing the effects of negativity bias and positivity offset at pre-treatment on the rate of depression severity (IDS-SR) over 16 weeks of treatment (time). First level units were 'weeks in BA treatment', with participants limited to those who attended five or more therapy sessions, resulting in a total of 421 treatment weeks for analysis. Second-level units were the 'subjects entering BA treatment'.||2.77|1.22|<0.05
91849530|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.954|-0.138|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.138|-0.954|0.0088
91849531|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|0.152|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.152|-0.686|0.2121
91849532|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.265|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.265|-0.461|0.5975
91849533|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|-0.112|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.112|-0.817|0.0099
91849534|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.853|-0.037|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.037|-0.853|0.0328
91849535|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.205|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.205|-0.633|0.3162
91849536|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.716|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.010|-0.716|0.0569
91849537|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.801|-0.096|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.096|-0.801|0.0126
91849538|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.923|-0.107|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.107|-0.923|0.0135
91849539|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.274|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.274|-0.564|0.4979
91849540|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.1643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.653|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.653|-0.111|0.1643
91849541|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.445|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.445|-0.282|0.6611
91849542|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.526|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.526|-0.333|0.6587
91849543|NCT00383188|183583314|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.592|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.592|-0.284|0.4903
91849544|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.057|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.057|-0.296|0.1857
91849545|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|-0.103|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.103|-0.451|0.0019
91849546|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|-0.042|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.042|-0.446|0.0178
91849547|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.3547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.110|-0.305|0.3547
91849548|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.040|-0.310|0.1301
91849549|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|-0.017|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.017|-0.363|0.0313
91849550|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.019|-0.420|0.0323
91849551|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.6318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.156|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.156|-0.256|0.6318
91849552|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.120|-0.230|0.5388
91849553|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|0.016|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.016|-0.329|0.0755
91849554|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.019|-0.420|0.0323
91849555|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.134|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.134|-0.277|0.4948
91849556|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.235|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.235|-0.115|0.5022
91849557|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.018|-0.363|0.0307
91849558|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.029|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.029|-0.372|0.0933
91849559|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.233|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.233|-0.179|0.7967
91849560|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.7059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.141|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.141|-0.208|0.7059
91849561|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|-0.041|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.041|-0.386|0.0154
91849562|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.065|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.065|-0.336|0.1836
91849563|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.284|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.284|-0.128|0.4577
91653962|NCT02978326|183201156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.09||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 45||4.09|1.06|0.0339
91849564|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.262|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.262|-0.098|0.3692
91849565|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.241|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.241|-0.111|0.4677
91849566|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.307|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.307|-0.107|0.3427
91849567|NCT00383188|183583316|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.347|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.347|-0.077|0.2120
91849568|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|0.074|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.074|-1.248|0.0815
91849569|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.707|-0.407|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.407|-1.707|0.0015
91849570|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.863|-0.351|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.351|-1.863|0.0042
91849571|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.060|-1.624|0.0348
91849572|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.095|0.211|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.211|-1.095|0.1843
91849573|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|0.061|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.061|-1.225|0.0760
91849574|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.769|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.270|-1.769|0.0078
91849575|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.292|0.258|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.258|-1.292|0.1905
91849576|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.801|0.504|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.504|-0.801|0.6552
91849577|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.363|-0.078|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.078|-1.363|0.0281
91849578|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.599|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.100|-1.599|0.0263
91849579|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|0.346|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.346|-1.204|0.2772
91849580|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.9433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.676|0.629|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.629|-0.676|0.9433
91849581|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.125|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.125|-1.410|0.193
91849582|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.763|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.013|-1.512|0.461
91849583|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|0.521|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.521|-1.029|0.5200
91849584|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.476|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|0.177|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.177|-1.129|0.1526
91849585|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.738|-0.453|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.453|-1.738|0.0009
91849586|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.273|0.227|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.227|-1.273|0.1711
91849587|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.338|0.211|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.211|-1.338|0.1539
91849588|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.219|0.195|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.195|-1.219|0.1554
91849589|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.585|-0.193|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.193|-1.585|0.0124
91849590|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.723|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.106|-1.723|0.0268
91849591|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.519|0.158|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.158|-1.519|0.1113
91849592|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.160|-1.240|0.1305
91849593|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.261|0.118|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.118|-1.261|0.1043
91849594|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.214|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.214|-1.820|0.0131
91849595|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.324|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.340|-1.324|0.2459
91849596|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|0.479|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.479|-0.921|0.5360
91849597|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.155|0.225|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.225|-1.155|0.1858
91849598|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.018|-1.624|0.0451
91849599|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.021|0.643|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.643|-1.021|0.6551
91849600|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|0.718|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.718|-0.682|0.9602
91849601|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.131|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.131|-1.510|0.0198
91849602|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.751|-0.145|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.145|-1.751|0.0208
91849603|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.265|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.400|-1.265|0.3077
91849604|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.911|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.490|-0.911|0.5550
91849605|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.795|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.485|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.106|-1.485|0.0239
91849606|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.416|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.190|-1.416|0.1342
91849607|NCT00383188|183583317|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|0.465|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.465|-1.199|0.3868
91849608|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.4693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.357|2.941|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||2.941|-1.357|0.4693
91849609|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.077||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|4.044|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.044|-0.190|0.0743
91849610|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.286||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.668|6.723|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.723|1.668|0.0012
91849611|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.308||0.3452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.335|3.807|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||3.807|-1.335|0.3452
91849612|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|3.239|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||3.239|-1.050|0.3162
91849613|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|4.622|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.622|0.406|0.0195
91849614|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.283||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|5.285|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||5.285|0.239|0.0320
91849615|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.8356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.268|2.804|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||2.804|-2.268|0.8356
91849616|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.5787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.101|2.293|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||2.293|-4.101|0.5787
91849617|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.854|4.436|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.436|-1.854|0.4203
91849618|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.916||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.449|6.084|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.084|-1.449|0.2272
91849619|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.947||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.998|4.655|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.655|-2.998|0.6707
91849620|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.7935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.764|3.613|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||3.613|-2.764|0.7935
91849621|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.605|5.655|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||5.655|-0.605|0.1135
91849622|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.912||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|6.388|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.388|-1.128|0.1697
91849623|NCT00383188|183583318|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.561|5.981|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||5.981|-1.561|0.2500
91849624|NCT01544062|183583327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|31.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||31.1|2.3|0.024
91849625|NCT01544062|183583327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
91849626|NCT01544062|183583328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
91849627|NCT01544062|183583328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.020
91849628|NCT01544062|183583329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.724
91849629|NCT01544062|183583329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.510
91849630|NCT01544062|183583330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.397
91849631|NCT01544062|183583330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.458
91849632|NCT01544062|183583331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.600
91849633|NCT01544062|183583331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|controlling for age, sex and body mass index||||||0.509
91849634|NCT01544062|183583332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.399
91849635|NCT01544062|183583332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.395
91849636|NCT01544062|183583333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.771
91849637|NCT01544062|183583333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.927
91849638|NCT01544062|183583334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.644
91849639|NCT01544062|183583334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.160
91849640|NCT01544062|183583335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.710
91849641|NCT01544062|183583335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.475
91849642|NCT01544062|183583336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.508
91849643|NCT01544062|183583336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.905
91849644|NCT01544062|183583337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.104
91849645|NCT01544062|183583338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.580
91849646|NCT01544062|183583339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.619
91849647|NCT01544062|183583340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.511
91849648|NCT01544062|183583341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.501
91849649|NCT01544062|183583342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91849650|NCT01544062|183583343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.299
91849651|NCT01544062|183583344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91849652|NCT01544062|183583345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.492
91849653|NCT01544062|183583346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.455
91849654|NCT01544062|183583347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91849655|NCT00414206|183583348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91849656|NCT03028363|183583352|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.3430
91849657|NCT03028363|183583353|OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.1260
91849658|NCT03028363|183583354|OTHER|||||||0.5247|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression (Firth's Penalized Likelihood), MCMC Multiple Imputation||||||0.5247
91849659|NCT04771273|183583358|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|7.25||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||7.25|1.66|0.0010
91849660|NCT04771273|183583358|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|20.85||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||20.85|4.35|<0.0001
91710252|NCT04152083|183313006|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Likelihood ratio test|||The median estimate for each treatment group, hazard ratio, and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on the stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling. The analysis was censored at the time point of first rescue medication. The stratification factors were concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||1.98|1.20|0.0006
91710253|NCT04152083|183313007|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Likelihood ratio test|||The median estimate for each treatment group, hazard ratio, and its 95% CI were based on the stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling. The analysis was censored at the time point of first rescue medication. The stratification factors were concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||2.19|1.41|<0.0001
91710254|NCT04152083|183313008|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio and 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the study's stratification factors of concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||3.72|1.39|0.0009
91710255|NCT04152083|183313009|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.25||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio and 95% CI were based on CMH test adjusted for the study's stratification factors of concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||3.25|1.55|<0.0001
91788829|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-25.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-25.5|-53.3|
91788830|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.1|-4.8|
91849661|NCT04771273|183583358|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.16||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||16.16|3.10|<.0001
91710256|NCT03318003|183313022|SUPERIORITY||Pearson Chi Square|0.76||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustments made|Chi-squared|||||||0.92
91710257|NCT04819438|183313044|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence analysis was that the 90% confidence interval for the Test/Reference ratio of Cmax geometric means was within the 80.00-125.00 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|117.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.43|124.06|||ANOVA|||||124.06|110.43|<0.0001
91710258|NCT04819438|183313045|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence analysis was that the 90% confidence interval for the Test/Reference ratio of AUC0-t geometric means was within the 80.00-125.00 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|111.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.25|115.5|||ANOVA|||||115.50|108.25|<0.0001
91710259|NCT04819438|183313047|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence analysis was that the 90% confidence interval for the Test/Reference ratio of AUC0-∞ geometric means was within the 80.00-125.00 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|111.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.19|115.29|||ANOVA|||||115.29|108.19|<0.0001
91710260|NCT04607135|183313056|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||F-statistic = 11.71|Welch's ANOVA|||||||0.0003
91710261|NCT04607135|183313056|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||q-statistic = 6.74|Games-Howell post-hoc test|||||||0.002
91710262|NCT04607135|183313056|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||q-statistic = 2.34|Games-Howell post-hoc test|||||||0.24
91849662|NCT04771273|183583358|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849663|NCT04771273|183583358|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849664|NCT04771273|183583358|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0008|||||||MCP-Mod exponential -2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0008
91849665|NCT04771273|183583358|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849666|NCT04771273|183583358|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849667|NCT04771273|183583358|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849668|NCT04771273|183583359|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|12.28||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model includes planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||12.28|2.46|<.0001
91849669|NCT04771273|183583359|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|22.87||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model includes planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||22.87|4.49|<.0001
91653963|NCT04309474|183201186|OTHER|A statistical test was not performed.|Area under the curve (AUC)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.764|2.175|||||"AUC analyses based on trapezoidal rule using contrast derived from MMRM with stratification factors, treatment, visit, and a treatment by visit interaction included in the model.~Posterior probability that the difference in AUC exceeds 0.6 = 0.557"|||2.175|-0.764|
91653964|NCT04309474|183201187|OTHER|A statistical test was not performed.|Odds Ratio of LS Means|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.24|||||Point estimate for responder rate (defined as having an mRS score of 0, 1, or 2), odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals based on a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM).|||4.24|0.71|
91653965|NCT02974153|183201194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.74|||ANCOVA|||||-1.74|-3.45|<0.0001
91653966|NCT02974153|183201194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-2.88|<0.0001
91788831|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|7.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score methodx|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.8|-0.6|
91788832|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.6|-15.9|
91788833|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.2|-0.9|
91788834|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.1|-0.9|
91788835|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||10.3|-19.2|
91788836|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.8|-3.6|
91788837|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.4|-3.6|
91788838|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|9.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.1|-19.4|
91788839|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.0|-2.5|
91788840|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.8|-2.3|
91788841|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||-15.7|-36.6|
91788842|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|8.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.5|-13.3|
91788843|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.3|12.8|
91788844|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-5.8|-32.5|
91849670|NCT04771273|183583359|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|10.91||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model includes planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||10.91|2.18|0.0001
91849671|NCT04771273|183583359|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0001|||||||MCPMod linear model fit|linear model fit assumption||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0001
91849672|NCT04771273|183583359|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0115|||||||MCPMod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0115
91849673|NCT04771273|183583359|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.2204|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.2204
91849674|NCT04771273|183583359|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849675|NCT04771273|183583359|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849676|NCT04771273|183583359|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849677|NCT04771273|183583360|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|10.4||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||10.40|2.47|<.0001
91849678|NCT04771273|183583360|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|20.51||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||20.51|4.36|<.0001
91849679|NCT04771273|183583360|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.69|38.73||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||38.73|6.69|<.0001
91849680|NCT04771273|183583360|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91653967|NCT02974153|183201195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|12.0|<0.0001
91653968|NCT02974153|183201195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.5|5.8|0.0001
91653969|NCT02974153|183201196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|27.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.6|15.0|<0.0001
91653970|NCT02974153|183201196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|9.3|<0.0001
91653971|NCT02974153|183201197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|29.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.2|14.9|<0.0001
91653972|NCT02974153|183201197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|11.1|<0.0001
91653973|NCT02974153|183201198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91653974|NCT02974153|183201198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91653975|NCT02974153|183201199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-1.88|<0.0001
91653976|NCT02974153|183201199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.66|<0.0001
91653977|NCT02974153|183201200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.84|||ANCOVA|||||-1.84|-3.91|<0.0001
91788845|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.5|-22.3|
91788846|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|31.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||31.3|8.4|
91849681|NCT04771273|183583360|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849682|NCT04771273|183583360|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849683|NCT04771273|183583360|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849684|NCT04771273|183583360|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91852050|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9917|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.58||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.58|0.9917
91852051|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9376|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.40|0.9376
91653978|NCT02974153|183201200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.70|-2.76|0.0010
91653979|NCT02974153|183201201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-7.77|||Repeated Measures Model|||||-7.77|-14.22|<0.0001
91788847|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-15.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-15.5|-46.0|
91653980|NCT02974153|183201201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-5.05|||Repeated Measures Model|||||-5.05|-11.48|<0.0001
91653981|NCT01364870|183201235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||The p value was adjusted using Bonferroni's method to account for the multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||There were instances of missing data due to patient time restraints and patient refusal.||||0.016
91710263|NCT04607135|183313056|OTHER|||||||0.35||||||q-statistic = 2.04|Games-Howell post-hoc test|||||||0.35
91710264|NCT04607135|183313057|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
91849685|NCT04771273|183583360|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849686|NCT04771273|183583361|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|23.45||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||23.45|4.60|<.0001
91849687|NCT04771273|183583361|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|27.45||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||27.45|5.30|<.0001
91849688|NCT04771273|183583361|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|18.5||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||18.50|3.66|<.0001
91849689|NCT04771273|183583361|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849690|NCT04771273|183583361|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0031|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0031
91849691|NCT04771273|183583361|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0925|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0925
91849692|NCT04771273|183583361|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91852052|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9084|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.47||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.47|0.9084
91653982|NCT01364870|183201236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||P-value was adjusted using Bonferroni's method to account for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||There were instances of missing data due to patient time restraints and patient refusal.||||0.008
91653983|NCT04471428|183201239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.3668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.156|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|||1.156|0.676|0.3668
91849693|NCT04771273|183583361|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91852053|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7906|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.7906
91788848|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|18.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||18.8|-10.8|
91788849|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|32.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||32.8|12.1|
91788850|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.1|-13.4|
91788851|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.5|-3.2|
91788852|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|13.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.2|4.2|
91788853|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|16.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||16.1|-15.1|
91788854|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|13.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.9|-4.7|
91788855|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|20.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.9|5.9|
91788856|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||8.6|-16.7|
91788857|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.1|-5.7|
91788858|NCT02446743|183457894|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.1||||||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.1|-0.7|
91852054|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8765|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.8765
91710265|NCT04607135|183313058|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.74
91849694|NCT04771273|183583361|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
91849695|NCT04771273|183583362|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|-6.6||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-6.60|-10.59|<.0001
91849696|NCT04771273|183583362|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.96|-8.86||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.86|-12.96|<.0001
91653984|NCT04471428|183201239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.182|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||1.182|0.696|0.4709
91653985|NCT04471428|183201240|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|0.923|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens||0.923|0.585|0.0079
91653986|NCT04471428|183201240|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.915|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified analysis||0.915|0.583|0.0061
91653987|NCT04471428|183201241|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-1.51||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|5.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Stratified analysis; stratification factors- histology, prior NSCLC treatment regimens||5.84|-8.85|0.6846
91653988|NCT04471428|183201241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.63|||||Odds ratios were estimated by logistic regression. 95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Stratified analysis; stratification factors- histology, prior NSCLC treatment regimens||1.63|0.47|
91653989|NCT04471428|183201241|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-1.51||||0.7216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|5.84|||Chi-squared, Corrected||95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Unstratified Analysis||5.84|-8.85|0.7216
91653990|NCT04471428|183201241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.62|||||Odds ratios were estimated by logistic regression. 95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Unstratified Analysis||1.62|0.47|
91653991|NCT04471428|183201243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens||1.16|0.59|0.2700
91653992|NCT04471428|183201243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||1.17|0.60|0.3031
91653993|NCT04471428|183201244|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.79|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens||1.79|0.86|0.2408
91653994|NCT04471428|183201244|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.81|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||1.81|0.88|0.1992
91653995|NCT04471428|183201245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|15.85||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|25.59|||z-test||The 95% CI for the difference in PFS rates were estimated using the normal approximation method, with standard errors computed using the Greenwood method.|At 6 months||25.59|6.12|0.0014
91653996|NCT04471428|183201245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.32||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|13.21|||z-test||The 95% CI for the difference in PFS rates were estimated using the normal approximation method, with standard errors computed using the Greenwood method.|At 1 year||13.21|-0.56|0.0719
91653997|NCT04471428|183201246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.85||||0.8767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|9.92|||z-test||The 95% CI for the difference in OS rates were estimated using the normal approximation method, with standard errors computed using the Greenwood method.|At 1 year||9.92|-11.63|0.8767
91653998|NCT03504852|183201253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.72||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|27.98||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||27.98|7.45|0.0003
91653999|NCT03504852|183201253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.78||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|1.44|0.0003
91654000|NCT03504852|183201254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.28||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|18.2||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||18.20|-1.65|0.0498
91654001|NCT03504852|183201254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.47||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.47|0.92|0.0498
91654002|NCT01618305|183201299|SUPERIORITY|P-value was calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks)||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91654003|NCT01618305|183201300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks)||||||0.557
91849697|NCT04771273|183583362|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-8.92||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.92|-13.23|<.0001
91849698|NCT04771273|183583363|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|-7.03||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-7.03|-11.21|<.0001
91849699|NCT04771273|183583363|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-8.73||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.73|-12.85|<.0001
91849700|NCT04771273|183583363|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.73||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.73|-13.00|<.0001
91849701|NCT04771273|183583364|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.49|-33.79||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-33.79|-53.49|<.0001
91849702|NCT04771273|183583364|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.61|-45.42||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-45.42|-65.61|<.0001
91849703|NCT04771273|183583364|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-57.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.66|-46.39||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg-Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-46.39|-67.66|<.0001
91654004|NCT01618305|183201301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||0.909
91849704|NCT04771273|183583365|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-46.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.74|-36.25||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-36.25|-56.74|<.0001
91849705|NCT04771273|183583365|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.25|-44.98||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-44.98|-65.25|<.0001
91654005|NCT01618305|183201302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by maternal gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||0.938
91654006|NCT01618305|183201303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||<0.001
91654007|NCT01618305|183201304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||<0.001
91654008|NCT01618305|183201309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.623
91654009|NCT01618305|183201310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.63
91654010|NCT01618305|183201311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.54
91654011|NCT01618305|183201312|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91654012|NCT01618305|183201313|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91849706|NCT04771273|183583365|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-56.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.76|-45.77||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg-Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-45.77|-66.76|<.0001
91849707|NCT04771273|183583366|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.26||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||3.26|0.79|0.1894
91849708|NCT04771273|183583366|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.2||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.20|0.95|0.0685
91849709|NCT04771273|183583366|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|7.45||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||7.45|1.52|0.0028
91849710|NCT04771273|183583367|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.27||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.27|0.95|0.0663
91849711|NCT04771273|183583367|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.23||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.23|0.95|0.0672
91849712|NCT04771273|183583367|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.46||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.46|1.00|0.0512
91849713|NCT01144182|183583401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, significance level was set at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.56
91849714|NCT01144182|183583402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91849715|NCT01144182|183583403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91849716|NCT01144182|183583404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91849717|NCT01144182|183583405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91654013|NCT01618305|183201314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of HIV-infected infants among those who had a determinable HIV-infection status was compared between arms.||||0.064
91654014|NCT00455533|183201331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8921||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8921
91654015|NCT00455533|183201331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.55|0.60|0.8966
91849718|NCT01144182|183583406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
91849719|NCT01144182|183583407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91849720|NCT01144182|183583408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91849721|NCT01144182|183583409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91849722|NCT01144182|183583410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91849723|NCT01144182|183583411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91654016|NCT00455533|183201331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in pCR|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.7|||||The difference in pCR rates and the confidence interval computed using the method of DerSimonian and Laird stratified by tumor size at baseline, estrogen receptor status, and clinical response to AC.|||6.7|-7.9|
91654017|NCT00455533|183201334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6186||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6186
91654018|NCT00455533|183201334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.34|0.56|0.5806
91654019|NCT00455533|183201334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|6.0|||||The difference in pCR/RCB-I rates and the confidence interval computed using the method of DerSimonian and Laird stratified by tumor size at baseline, estrogen receptor status, and clinical response to AC.|||6.0|-11|
91654020|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4115||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 (209993\_at)||||0.4115
91849724|NCT01144182|183583412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91849725|NCT01144182|183583413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91849726|NCT01670110|183583417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91849727|NCT01670110|183583418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91849728|NCT01670110|183583419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91849729|NCT01670110|183583420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91849730|NCT01670110|183583421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91849731|NCT01670110|183583422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91849732|NCT01670110|183583423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91849733|NCT01670110|183583424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical functioning||||0.31
91849734|NCT01670110|183583424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical role||||0.48
91849735|NCT01670110|183583424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bodily pain||||0.89
91849736|NCT01670110|183583424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||General health||||0.18
91849737|NCT01670110|183583424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Vitality||||0.28
91849738|NCT01670110|183583424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social functioning||||0.66
91849739|NCT01670110|183583424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Role emotional||||0.43
91849740|NCT01670110|183583424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental health||||0.51
91849741|NCT03693742|183583436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in uptake of F18-DCFPyL between the MSG and placebo groups.~A sample size of 10 achieves 100% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 5.0 (33%) with an estimated standard deviation of differences of 1.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a one-sided paired t-test. If the estimated standard deviation of differences is 5.0, a sample size of 10 achieves 90% power to detect a mean difference of 5.0 with an alpha of 0.05."||||<0.001
91849742|NCT00798265|183583462|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-16 at 7 months in Cohort 1.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||0.0020
91849743|NCT00798265|183583462|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-18 at 7 months in Cohort 1.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||<.0001
91849744|NCT00798265|183583462|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-16 at 7 months in Cohort 2.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||0.0002
91849745|NCT00798265|183583462|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-18 at 7 months in Cohort 2.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||<.0001
91849746|NCT04411082|183583470|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91849747|NCT04411082|183583471|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91849748|NCT04411082|183583472|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91849749|NCT04411082|183583473|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.4839|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.4839
91849750|NCT04411082|183583474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2065
91849751|NCT04411082|183583475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4839|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4839
91849752|NCT04411082|183583476|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91849753|NCT04411082|183583477|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91849754|NCT03538041|183583496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2815|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.2815
91849755|NCT03538041|183583497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2921|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 2||||0.2921
91849756|NCT03538041|183583498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1267|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.1267
91849757|NCT03538041|183583499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2676|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.2676
91849758|NCT00094809|183583510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.1|0.37|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio of the pegfilgrastim group compared to the placebo group|||0.37|0.10|<0.0001
91849759|NCT00094809|183583511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-18.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-26.2|-9.8|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Treatment difference in percentage of participants (pegfilgrastim group - placebo group)|||-9.8|-26.2|<0.0001
91849760|NCT00094809|183583512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-12.0||||0.0646||95.0|-23.7|0.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Treatment difference in percentage of participants (pegfilgrastim group - placebo group)|||0.5|-23.7|0.0646
91849761|NCT00094809|183583513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0384||95.0|0.07|1.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio of pegfilgrastim group compared to placebo group|||1.00|0.07|0.0384
91849762|NCT00094809|183583514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5514||95.0|0.26|2.04|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio for pegfilgrastim group compared to placebo group|||2.04|0.26|0.5514
91849763|NCT00094809|183583516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.5||||0.5434||95.0|-14.8|7.8|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Treatment difference (pegfilgrastim group - placebo group) in the percentage of participants with a complete or partial response|||7.8|-14.8|0.5434
91849764|NCT00094809|183583517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-12.1||||||95.0|-28.1|4.0|||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the difference in percent mortality for the pegfilgrastim group - placebo group. Median survival time was not reached for the pegfilgrastim group.|||4.0|-28.1|
91849765|NCT00094809|183583518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.0457||95.0|0.05|1.09|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio for pegfilgrastim group compared to placebo group|||1.09|0.05|0.0457
91849766|NCT00094809|183583519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.3792||95.0|0.32|1.53|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio of the pegfilgrastim group compared to the placebo group|||1.53|0.32|0.3792
91849767|NCT02469064|183583523|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.2|||Mann Whitneey||Univariate analysis of the probability of extubation was performed using Kaplan-Meir survival analysis and the logrank test.The multivariate analysis was performed by cox regression, a simple model was performed and a final model.|||1.20|0.55|0.84
91849768|NCT02469064|183583524|OTHER||Slope|0.46||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|4.78|||t-test, 2 sided||The slope shows the difference between the means of the change in the MIP of the group that received the experimental treatment and the group that received the conventional treatment|||4.78|-3.75|0.48
91849769|NCT00964366|183583534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||> 0.05
91849770|NCT00964366|183583536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Dapsone versus Clindamycin/BPO gel.|Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||< 0.05
91849771|NCT00964366|183583537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91849772|NCT00964366|183583538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91849773|NCT05372094|183583539|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fixed factor of program and random intercept of participant||||0.007
91849774|NCT05372094|183583539|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow up comparison between noise reduction setting OFF and noise reduction setting STRONG||||< 0.05
91849775|NCT05372094|183583539|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow up comparison between noise reduction setting STRONG and noise reduction setting WEAK||||<0.01
91849776|NCT05372094|183583539|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Follow up comparison between ratings of effort with OFF and WEAK"||||>.05
91849777|NCT05372094|183583540|OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.283
91849778|NCT05372094|183583541|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done only between NR OFF and NR at a custom or preferred setting.||||0.145
91849779|NCT05372094|183583542|OTHER|||||||0.3018|||||||Exact Binomial test|||An exact binomial test was performed to evaluate if the majority of teens and pre-teens with mild to severe hearing loss preferred NR setting (i.e., either weak or strong) to the NR setting OFF.||||0.3018
91849780|NCT05372094|183583543|OTHER|||||||0.1796|||||||Exact Binomial test|||Exact binomial test was done to evaluate if the majority (\>50%) of teens and pre-teens prefer to use Tap Control to access Bluetooth streaming, compared to using the HA push button or phone controls.||||0.1796
91654021|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1629||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.1629
91654022|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5074||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.5074
91654023|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.5530
91849781|NCT02957539|183583566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.7|1.6|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm.|||1.6|-10.7|
91849782|NCT02957539|183583566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.1|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the non-financial arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1|-11.1|<0.025
91654024|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1845||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.1845
91654025|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3538||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.3538
91849783|NCT02957539|183583567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|1.8|||||Change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||1.8|-0.5|
91849784|NCT02957539|183583567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.5|||||Change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||1.5|-0.8|
91654026|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9751||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.9751
91849785|NCT02957539|183583568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|1.4|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.4|-1.2|
91849786|NCT02957539|183583568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|1.8|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.8|-.9|
91849787|NCT02957539|183583569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.2|2.8|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||2.8|0.2|
91849788|NCT02957539|183583569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.0|2.3|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||2.3|0.0|
91654027|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8874||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.8874
91849789|NCT02957539|183583570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.9|||||Change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||0.9|-0.4|
91849790|NCT02957539|183583570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|0.7|||||Change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||0.7|-0.6|
91849791|NCT02957539|183583571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|1.3|||||The change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.3|-0.2|
91654028|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6907||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.6907
91849792|NCT02957539|183583571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|1.6|||||The change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.6|-0.3|
91849793|NCT02957539|183583572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|1.5|||||The change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 52 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||1.5|-0.5|
91849794|NCT02957539|183583572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.6|||||Incentive Group minus usual care|||1.6|-0.8|
91849795|NCT02957539|183583573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|2.6|||||Change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||2.6|-2.0|
91849796|NCT02957539|183583573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.5|2.9|||||Change in PHQ-9 from week baseline to week 16 in the non-financial incentive group minus the change from week baseline to week 16 in the no rewards group|||2.9|-1.5|
91849797|NCT02957539|183583574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|4.5|||||The change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||4.5|-1.7|
91849798|NCT02957539|183583574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|5.0|||||The change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||5.0|-0.7|
91849799|NCT02957539|183583575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.9|2.8|||||Change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 52 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm.|||2.8|-4.9|
91849800|NCT02957539|183583575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.9|3.6|||||The change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 52 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||3.6|-2.9|
91849801|NCT02957539|183583576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.4|1.0|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||1|-7.4|
91654029|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8052||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.8052
91849802|NCT02957539|183583576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.7|-0.4|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 16 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm.|||-0.4|-8.7|
91849803|NCT02957539|183583577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.0|10.7|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm.|||10.7|-6|
91849804|NCT02957539|183583577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.2|4.1|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm.|||4.1|-11.2|
91849805|NCT01689519|183583601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Primary Analysis 9 May 2014||0.68|0.39|0.0001
91849806|NCT01689519|183583601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.72||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Post hoc Efficacy Analysis: 16 January 2015||0.72|0.46|<0.0001
91849807|NCT01689519|183583601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.79||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Extended 5-Year Analysis: 21 July 2019||0.79|0.53|<0.0001
91849808|NCT01689519|183583602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.0||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Primary Analysis 9 May 2014||1.00|0.42|0.0463
91849809|NCT01689519|183583602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.87||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Post hoc Analysis 16 January 2015||0.87|0.49|0.0034
91849810|NCT01689519|183583602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.9||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Final Analysis 28 August 2015||0.90|0.55|0.0050
91849811|NCT01689519|183583603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|31.58|||Chi-squared|||Primary Analysis: 9 May 2014||31.58|14.13|<0.0001
91849812|NCT01689519|183583603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|28.3|||Chi-squared|||Post hoc Efficacy Analysis: 16 January 2015||28.3|11.0|<0.0001
91849813|NCT01689519|183583603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|28.7|||Chi-squared|||Extended 5-Year Analysis: 21 July 2019||28.70|11.40|<0.0001
91849814|NCT01245439|183583624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.929
91654030|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5031||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.5031
91849815|NCT01245439|183583624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to 3||||<0.001
91849816|NCT01245439|183583624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
91849817|NCT01245439|183583624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.050
91849818|NCT01245439|183583624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.165
91849819|NCT01245439|183583624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.133
91849820|NCT01245439|183583624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.217
91849821|NCT01245439|183583624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
91849822|NCT01245439|183583627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.169
91849823|NCT01245439|183583627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
91849824|NCT01245439|183583627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.053
91849825|NCT01245439|183583627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.514
91849826|NCT01245439|183583627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.064
91849827|NCT01245439|183583627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.038
91654031|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7588||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.7588
91654032|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1542||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.1542
91788859|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-19.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-19.0|-40.4|
91788860|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.3|-2.6|
91788861|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.5|3.9|
91788862|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|-12.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-12.9|-41.8|
91788863|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.2|-6.0|
91849828|NCT01245439|183583627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.064
91849829|NCT01245439|183583627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
91849830|NCT01245439|183583628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.981
91849831|NCT01245439|183583628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
91849832|NCT01245439|183583628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.005
91849833|NCT01245439|183583628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.566
91849834|NCT01245439|183583628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.264
91849835|NCT01245439|183583628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.126
91849836|NCT01245439|183583628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.779
91849837|NCT01245439|183583628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||||||<0.001
91710266|NCT03836209|183313084|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|-0.071||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.205|0.062||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.062|-0.205|0.366
91849838|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.410
91849839|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
91849840|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
91849841|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.021
91849842|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.003
91849843|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 6 to Visit7||||0.827
91849844|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.093
91849845|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
91849846|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.792
91849847|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
91849848|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.002
91788864|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|15.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.2|1.4|
91788865|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-14.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-14.6|-45.1|
91788866|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.5|1.9|
91788867|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.0|4.4|
91788868|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.5|-16.0|
91788869|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.2|-0.9|
91788870|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.0|-0.33|
91788871|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|10.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||10.6|-20.5|
91788872|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.8|-3.6|
91788873|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.4|-3.6|
91849849|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.374
91849850|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.518
91654033|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0235||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0235
91849851|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.744
91849852|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.048
91849853|NCT01245439|183583629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
91788874|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|13.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||13.0|-19.4|
91788875|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.0|-2.5|
91849854|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
91849855|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
91849856|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.075
91849857|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.119
91849858|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.007
91849859|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.047
91849860|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
91849861|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
91849862|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
91849863|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.001
91849864|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.084
91849865|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.272
91849866|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.020
91849867|NCT01245439|183583630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
91849868|NCT01245439|183583631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
91849869|NCT01245439|183583631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
91849870|NCT01245439|183583631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.254
91849871|NCT01245439|183583631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.138
91849872|NCT01245439|183583631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.002
91849873|NCT01245439|183583631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.104
91849874|NCT01245439|183583631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
91849875|NCT01245439|183583632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
91849876|NCT01245439|183583632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.002
91849877|NCT01245439|183583632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.078
91849878|NCT01245439|183583632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.349
91849879|NCT01245439|183583632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.722
91849880|NCT01245439|183583632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.224
91849881|NCT01972152|183583646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis.||||||0.24
91849882|NCT01972152|183583647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were log transformed for analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91849883|NCT01972152|183583647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were log transformed for analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91849884|NCT01972152|183583648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.95
91849885|NCT01972152|183583649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
91849886|NCT01972152|183583650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
91849887|NCT01972152|183583650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91849888|NCT01972152|183583651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||0.16
91849889|NCT01972152|183583652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||<0.001
91849890|NCT01972152|183583652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||<0.001
91849891|NCT01972152|183583653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||<0.001
91849892|NCT01972152|183583653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were log transformed for analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91849893|NCT01972152|183583654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91849894|NCT01972152|183583654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91849895|NCT00972504|183583655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-1.2|
91849896|NCT00972504|183583655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.8||||||||-0.8|-1.8|
91849897|NCT00972504|183583655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.8||||||||-0.8|-1.9|
91849898|NCT00972504|183583656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||||Comparison of Nasal Blockage between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||0.3|-0.0|
91849899|NCT00972504|183583656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Nasal Blockage between Placebo and GSK835726 10 mg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
91849900|NCT00972504|183583656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Nasal Blockage between Placebo and Cetirizine 10 mg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
91849901|NCT00972504|183583656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Rhinorrhoea between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
91849902|NCT00972504|183583656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||||Comparison of Rhinorrhoea between Placebo and GSK835726 10 mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.6|
91849903|NCT00972504|183583656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3|||||Comparison of Rhinorrhoea between Placebo and Cetirizine 10 mg once daily.|||-0.3|-0.6|
91849904|NCT00972504|183583656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Nasal Itching between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
91849905|NCT00972504|183583656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Nasal Itching between Placebo and GSK835726 10 mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
91849906|NCT00972504|183583656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Nasal Itching between Placebo and Cetirizine 10 mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
91849907|NCT00972504|183583656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Sneezing between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
91849908|NCT00972504|183583656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2|||||Comparison of Sneezing between Placebo and GSK835726 10mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.4|
91849909|NCT00972504|183583656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Sneezing between Placebo and Cetirizine 10mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
91849910|NCT00972504|183583657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.212||||||||-0.212|-1.870|
91849911|NCT00972504|183583657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.584|-0.936||||||||-0.936|-2.584|
91849912|NCT00972504|183583657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.626|-1.957||||||||-1.957|-3.626|
91849913|NCT00972504|183583658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.93||||||||0.93|-0.28|
91849914|NCT00972504|183583658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.45||||||||-0.45|-1.65|
91849915|NCT00972504|183583658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||||95.0|-1.68|-0.46||||||||-0.46|-1.68|
91849916|NCT04495634|183583726|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91849917|NCT04495634|183583727|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
91849918|NCT04495634|183583728|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91849919|NCT04495634|183583729|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91849920|NCT04391309|183583730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.435
91849921|NCT04391309|183583731|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis||||1
91849922|NCT04391309|183583732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.391
91849923|NCT04391309|183583733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.895
91849924|NCT04391309|183583734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.702
91849925|NCT04391309|183583735|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
91849926|NCT04391309|183583736|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis||||1
91849927|NCT04391309|183583737|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the anlysis.||||1
91849928|NCT04391309|183583738|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
91849929|NCT04391309|183583739|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
91849930|NCT04391309|183583740|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
91849931|NCT04391309|183583741|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
91849932|NCT00768651|183583759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size of 8 was determined to provide a 95% confidence interval expected width of 0.62 for the proportion of subjects who become insulin independent with treatment. Four of eight subjects (50%) would have to achieve insulin independence in order to reject the null hypothesis with 85% power and one sided alpha of 0.025. Statistical significance was set at 5%. Mean values were computed using Student's t-test while medians were compared using Wilcoxon's test.||||< 0.05
91849933|NCT01543685|183583791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|441.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|129.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|187.1|696.5|||ANCOVA|||||696.5|187.1|<0.001
91849934|NCT01543685|183583791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|260.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|130.3||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|516.3|||ANCOVA|||||516.3|4.1|0.046
91849935|NCT01543685|183583791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|312.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|130.4||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.6|568.9|||ANCOVA|||||568.9|56.6|0.017
91849936|NCT01543685|183583791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|211.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|129.6||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|466.2|||ANCOVA|||||466.2|-43.1|0.103
91849937|NCT01543685|183583792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
91849938|NCT01543685|183583792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91849939|NCT01543685|183583792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
91849940|NCT01543685|183583792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
91849941|NCT01543685|183583793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91849942|NCT01543685|183583793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91654034|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3612||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.3612
91849943|NCT01543685|183583793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
91849944|NCT01543685|183583793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
91710267|NCT03836209|183313085|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|-0.059||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.191|0.073||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.073|-0.191|0.446
91849945|NCT01543685|183583794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91849946|NCT01543685|183583794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91849947|NCT01543685|183583794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91849948|NCT01543685|183583794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91849949|NCT01543685|183583795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91849950|NCT01543685|183583795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
91849951|NCT01543685|183583795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.146
91849952|NCT01543685|183583795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
91849953|NCT01543685|183583796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91849954|NCT01543685|183583796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91849955|NCT01543685|183583796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
91849956|NCT01543685|183583796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91849957|NCT01543685|183583797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91849958|NCT01543685|183583797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91849959|NCT01543685|183583797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91849960|NCT01543685|183583797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
91849961|NCT01543685|183583798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91849962|NCT01543685|183583798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91849963|NCT01543685|183583798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91849964|NCT01543685|183583798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91849965|NCT00556543|183583806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation performed.||||||0.19||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test with the null hypothesis that the proportion with adverse events was the same in both groups.||||0.190
91849966|NCT01838551|183583817|SUPERIORITY|Under the null hypothesis of at most 20% UFC responders, 90 subjects in the ITT population would provide 90% power, with two-sided type 1 error of 0.05, assuming an observed response of 35%.||||||0.0154||||||One-sided p-value is based on a null hypothesis that true response proportion is ≤ 0.20.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Generalized Linear Model described above was used to generate the p-value.||The least squares mean (LSMEAN) estimate of the UFC response after 6 months of treatment in the Maintenance Phase alongside its 95% Wald CI is presented. Supportive to the 95% CI, the p-value corresponding to the null hypothesis that the response rate is ≤ 20% is presented (1-sided test).||||0.0154
91849967|NCT00038103|183583823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|49.0||||||95.0|34.4|63.7|||||Number of subjects showing clinical benefits out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||63.7|34.4|
91849968|NCT00038103|183583823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|47.1||||||95.0|32.9|61.5|||||Number of subjects showing clinical benefits out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||61.5|32.9|
91849969|NCT00038103|183583824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|22.4||||||95.0|11.8|36.6|||||Number of subjects showing objective response out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||36.6|11.8|
91849970|NCT00038103|183583824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|23.5||||||95.0|12.8|37.5|||||Number of subjects showing objective response out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||37.5|12.8|
91849971|NCT01391013|183583831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.08
91849972|NCT01391013|183583832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.88
91849973|NCT01391013|183583833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.31
91849974|NCT01391013|183583834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.37
91849975|NCT01391013|183583835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.66
91849976|NCT01391013|183583836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.02
91849977|NCT01391013|183583837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.12
91654035|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.1840
91849978|NCT01391013|183583838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.71
91849979|NCT01391013|183583839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.83
91849980|NCT01391013|183583840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.66
91849981|NCT01391013|183583841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.76
91849982|NCT01391013|183583842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.56
91849983|NCT01391013|183583843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.11
91849984|NCT01391013|183583844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.18
91654036|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0942||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.0942
91710268|NCT03836209|183313086|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.047||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.084|0.178||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.178|-0.084|0.539
91849985|NCT01391013|183583845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.03
91849986|NCT01391013|183583846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.04
91849987|NCT01304147|183583915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|11.3|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||within-subject crossover design||11.3|3.9|<0.001
91849988|NCT01942707|183583929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|179.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|222.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91849989|NCT01942707|183583930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91849990|NCT01942707|183583931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.7||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.809
91849991|NCT00831272|183583950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.32
91849992|NCT00864682|183583958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Hypothesis: Lidocaine / propofol admixture would be superior to lidocaine pretreatment for attenuating propofol-induced injection pain. Sample size calculated to detect a difference of at least 2 VPS points; beta 0.8.||||<0.0001
91849993|NCT00864682|183583959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.008||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Fisher's exact test after chi-squared||||||<0.008
91849994|NCT01678196|183583970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.927
91849995|NCT01678196|183583971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA reflects change from Time 1 scores (entered as covariate) to Time 2 Scores.||||||0.67
91849996|NCT01678196|183583972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA results include Time 1 scores as a covariate, thus reflecting change over time||||||0.743
91849997|NCT01678196|183583973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA reflects change for Time 1 values (entered as the covariate) to Time 2 values (entered as the DV)||||||<.001
91849998|NCT04897737|183584024|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||All analyses were by intention-to-treat. In the case of missing outcomes for participants who did not return for the follow-up visit, we assigned outcome values of the following: poor PrEP adherence (TFV undetected) and partner not tested for HIV. We constructed univariate Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to examine the predictors of outcomes of interests. Model results are presented as crude risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CIs.||2.82|1.19|<0.001
91849999|NCT04897737|183584025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|7.27|||Regression, Linear|||All analyses were by intention-to-treat. In the case of missing outcomes for participants who did not return for the follow-up visit, we assigned outcome values of the following: poor PrEP adherence (TFV undetected) and partner not tested for HIV. We constructed univariate Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to examine the predictors of outcomes of interests. Model results are presented as crude risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs.|RD=49.1% (95% CI=32.8, 65.3), p\<0.001|7.27|2.08|<0.001
91850000|NCT04059237|183584030|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91850001|NCT04059237|183584031|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||<.001
91850002|NCT04059237|183584032|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91850003|NCT04059237|183584033|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.10
91654037|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5327||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.5327
91654038|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8847||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.8847
91788876|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.4|-1.2|
91788877|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-11.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-11.1|-30.0|
91788878|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.7|-7.6|
91788879|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|40.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||40.2|23.2|
91788880|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-3.0|-25.9|
91788881|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|15.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.9|-17.1|
91788882|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|45.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||45.3|20.5|
91788883|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|-11.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-11.2|-40.1|
91788884|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|28.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.1|-3.9|
91850004|NCT04059237|183584034|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||.01
91654039|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8947||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.8947
91710269|NCT03836209|183313087|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.131||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.242||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.242|0.020|0.042
91788885|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|44.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||44.1|22.0|
91850005|NCT04059237|183584035|OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.59
91850006|NCT04059237|183584036|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.02
91850007|NCT04059237|183584037|OTHER|||||||0.52||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.52
91850008|NCT04059237|183584038|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.08
91850009|NCT03525119|183584054|NON_INFERIORITY|As per predefined criteria in protocol the non-inferiority was established only between group 1 and group 3. Non-inferiority of HAV+TDV to HAV was established if the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than 10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|-1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|4.28||||||||4.28|-8.91|
91850010|NCT05046132|183584063|OTHER||Mean of Placebo-corrected CHFB|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|6.17||||||"The C-QTc analysis was performed with a non-linear model.~The mean of placebo-corrected CHFB in QTcF at maximum concentration (Cmax) geometric mean of therapeutic dose (3 mg QD) was estimated with bias-corrected 90% CI by nonparametric bootstrap methods."||6.17|1.23|
91850011|NCT05046132|183584064|OTHER||Mean of Placebo-corrected CHFB|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|7.64||||||The C-QTc analysis was performed with a non-linear model. The mean of placebo-corrected CHFB in QTcF at Cmax geometric mean of therapeutic dose (7 mg QD) was estimated with bias-corrected 90% CI by nonparametric bootstrap methods.||7.64|1.70|
91850012|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|5.6||||||Pre-dose||5.6|-0.6|
91850013|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|3.1||||||0.5 hr Post dose||3.1|-3.0|
91850014|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.0||||||1 hr Post dose||3.0|-2.8|
91850015|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|5.1||||||1.5 hr Post dose||5.1|-1.8|
91850016|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|4.1||||||2 hr Post dose||4.1|-2.8|
91850017|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|3.4||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.4|-2.9|
91850018|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|5.7||||||3 hr Post dose||5.7|-1.4|
91850019|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|2.7||||||4 hr Post dose||2.7|-2.9|
91850020|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|2.7||||||5 hr Post dose||2.7|-3.1|
91850021|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.3||||||6 hr Post dose||2.3|-3.8|
91850022|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|-0.1||||||7 hr Post dose||-0.1|-5.5|
91850023|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|1.3||||||8 hr Post dose||1.3|-4.5|
91850024|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.0||||||9 hr Post dose||3.0|-2.5|
91850025|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|2.7||||||10 hr Post dose||2.7|-2.3|
91850026|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|-0.1||||||12 hr Post dose||-0.1|-5.9|
91788886|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.0|-16.0|
91788887|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.9|-6.8|
91850027|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|1.0||||||16 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.1|
91788888|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|16.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.9|5.3|
91788889|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|14.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||14.1|-18.0|
91788890|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.7|-9.7|
91788891|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|27.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.8|8.2|
91850028|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|3.8||||||24 hr Post dose||3.8|-1.6|
91850029|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|4.5||||||Pre-dose||4.5|-1.7|
91850030|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.7||||||0.5 hr Post dose||4.7|-1.4|
91850031|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.8||||||1 hr Post dose||4.8|-1.0|
91850032|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|6.0||||||1.5 hr Post dose||6.0|-0.9|
91850033|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|4.8||||||2 hr Post dose||4.8|-2.1|
91850034|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.9||||||2.5 hr Post dose||4.9|-1.4|
91850035|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|5.1||||||3 hr Post dose||5.1|-1.9|
91850036|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.2||||||4 hr Post dose||4.2|-1.4|
91850037|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|5.7||||||5 hr Post dose||5.7|-0.2|
91850038|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|7.5||||||6 hr Post dose||7.5|1.4|
91850039|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.5||||||7 hr Post dose||5.5|0.1|
91850040|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|7.0||||||8 hr Post dose||7.0|1.2|
91850041|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|6.3||||||9 hr Post dose||6.3|0.8|
91850042|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|5.8||||||10 hr Post dose||5.8|0.8|
91850043|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|5.5||||||12 hr Post dose||5.5|-0.3|
91850044|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.4||||||16 hr Post dose||3.4|-2.7|
91850045|NCT05046132|183584065|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.4||||||24 hr Post dose||4.4|-1.0|
91850046|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.4||||||Pre dose||3.4|-2.8|
91850047|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|1.0||||||0.5 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.3|
91850048|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|1.4||||||1 hr Post dose||1.4|-4.7|
91850049|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|1.0||||||1.5 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.3|
91850050|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|-0.3||||||2 hr Post dose||-0.3|-6.3|
91850051|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|1.7||||||2.5 hr Post dose||1.7|-4.1|
91850052|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|1.7||||||3 hr Post dose||1.7|-4.2|
91850053|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|2.5||||||4 hr Post dose||2.5|-3.6|
91850054|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.1||||||5 hr Post dose||2.1|-4.1|
91850055|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.5||||||6 hr Post dose||3.5|-2.7|
91850056|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|0.5||||||7 hr Post dose||0.5|-5.5|
91850057|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|0.8||||||8 hr Post dose||0.8|-5.2|
91850058|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|2.6||||||9 hr Post dose||2.6|-4.3|
91850059|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|3.2||||||10 hr Post dose||3.2|-3.6|
91850060|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|1.0||||||12 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.5|
91850061|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|1.7||||||16 hr Post dose||1.7|-5.4|
91850062|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|6.3||||||24 hr Post dose||6.3|-1.2|
91850063|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|0.8||||||Pre-dose||0.8|-5.1|
91788892|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|9.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.1|-19.1|
91850064|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|3.0||||||0.5 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.1|
91850065|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|2.9||||||1 hr Post dose||2.9|-3.0|
91850066|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|3.0||||||1.5 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.1|
91850067|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.0||||||2 hr Post dose||2.0|-3.8|
91850068|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.0||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.0|-2.5|
91850069|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.7||||||3 hr Post dose||3.7|-1.9|
91850070|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|3.7||||||4 hr Post dose||3.7|-2.2|
91850071|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.1||||||5 hr Post dose||3.1|-2.8|
91788893|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|11.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.8|-8.4|
91788894|NCT02446743|183457895|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|12.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.6|-0.47|
91788895|NCT02446743|183457896|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|4.29|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||4.29|2.85|
91788896|NCT02446743|183457896|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.69|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.69|2.02|
91788897|NCT02446743|183457896|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|5.88|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||5.88|3.38|
91850072|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|2.0||||||6 hr Post dose||2.0|-3.9|
91788898|NCT02446743|183457896|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|8.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|10.0|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||10|6.51|
91788899|NCT02446743|183457896|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|9.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.17|13.0|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||13|7.17|
91788900|NCT02446743|183457896|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|9.87|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||9.87|4.82|
91788901|NCT02446743|183457896|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.36|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.36|1.98|
91788902|NCT02446743|183457896|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.73|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.73|1.89|
91788903|NCT02446743|183457896|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.78|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.78|1.67|
91788904|NCT02446743|183457896|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.36|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||2.36|1.52|
91788905|NCT02446743|183457896|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.59|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.59|1.37|
91788906|NCT02446743|183457896|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.58|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.58|1.41|
91850073|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|2.7||||||7 hr Post dose||2.7|-3.1|
91850074|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.1||||||8 hr Post dose||3.1|-2.7|
91850075|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|4.0||||||9 hr Post dose||4.0|-2.7|
91850076|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|4.1||||||10 hr Post dose||4.1|-2.3|
91850077|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|2.8||||||12 hr Post dose||2.8|-3.5|
91850078|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|3.0||||||16 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.8|
91850079|NCT05046132|183584066|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|2.0||||||24 hr Post dose||2.0|-5.1|
91900346|NCT01176968|183695002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.7123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14||ANCOVA was used for between-treatment comparisons of the LSMeans, 95% CI of LSMEANS, LSMeans difference, 95% CI of LSMeans difference, and p-value with observed value at the given time point as variable.|ANCOVA|||For the Between-Treatment difference for Eplerenone and Placebo groups of observed value taken at Month 6 visit, ANCOVA model was performed for LAD based on the LOCF method including treatment groups with/without adjustments for baseline eGFR (in mL/min/1.73 m2), previous MI (yes/no), time (in hours) of first dose administered post-onset of symptom, index MI location (anterior versus all others) as covariates.||0.14|-0.10|0.7123
91900347|NCT01176968|183695002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13||ANCOVA was used for between-treatment comparisons of the LSMeans, 95% CI of LSMEANS, LSMeans difference, 95% CI of LSMeans difference, and p-value with observed value at the given time point as variable.|ANCOVA|||For the Between-Treatment difference for Eplerenone and Placebo groups of observed value taken at Month 6 visit, ANCOVA model was performed for LAD based on the LOCF method including treatment groups with/without adjustments for baseline eGFR (in mL/min/1.73 m2), previous MI (yes/no), time (in hours) of first dose administered post-onset of symptom, index MI location (anterior versus all others) as covariates.||0.13|-0.05|0.4105
91850080|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|6.8||||||Pre dose||6.8|0.1|
91850081|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|4.6||||||0.5 hr Post dose||4.6|-3.0|
91850082|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|3.9||||||1 hr Post dose||3.9|-4.1|
91850083|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|4.4||||||1.5 hr Post dose||4.4|-2.7|
91850084|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|6.6||||||2 hr Post dose||6.6|-0.6|
91850085|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|7.4||||||2.5 hr Post dose||7.4|-0.3|
91850086|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|8.1||||||3 hr Post dose||8.1|1.2|
91850087|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|8.9||||||4 hr Post dose||8.9|1.5|
91850088|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|5.8||||||5 hr Post dose||5.8|-1.7|
91850089|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|5.1||||||6 hr Post dose||5.1|-1.6|
91850090|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|5.7||||||7 hr Post dose||5.7|-1.1|
91850091|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|6.2||||||8 hr Post dose||6.2|-1.4|
91850092|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|7.8||||||9 hr Post dose||7.8|0.9|
91850093|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|7.4||||||10 hr Post dose||7.4|0.3|
91850094|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|2.7||||||12 hr Post dose||2.7|-4.2|
91850095|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|7.0||||||16 hr Post dose||7.0|0.1|
91850096|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|2.8||||||24 hr Post dose||2.8|-5.7|
91850097|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|5.6||||||Pre dose||5.6|-1.0|
91850098|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|2.2||||||0.5 hr Post dose||2.2|-5.4|
91850099|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|4.3||||||1 hr Post dose||4.3|-3.8|
91850100|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|7.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||7.6|0.4|
91850101|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|10.0||||||2 hr Post dose||10.0|2.7|
91850102|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|10.2||||||2.5 hr Post dose||10.2|2.6|
91850103|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.0|12.0||||||3 hr Post dose||12.0|5.0|
91850104|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.4|13.8||||||4 hr Post dose||13.8|6.4|
91850105|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.1|11.6||||||5 hr Post dose||11.6|4.1|
91850106|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|11.2||||||6 hr Post dose||11.2|4.4|
91850107|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|10.2||||||7 hr Post dose||10.2|3.4|
91850108|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.3||||||8 hr Post dose||8.3|0.6|
91850109|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|10.0||||||9 hr Post dose||10.0|3.1|
91850110|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|10.1||||||10 hr Post dose||10.1|3.0|
91654040|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4085||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.4085
91654041|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1119||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.1119
91654042|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0250
91788907|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||1.8|-7.5|
91788908|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|62.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||62.5|42.1|
91788909|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|64.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||64.7|50.5|
91850111|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|8.8||||||12 hr Post dose||8.8|1.8|
91850112|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.7|10.6||||||16 hr Post dose||10.6|3.7|
91654043|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3569||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.3569
91788910|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||2.0|-14.1|
91850113|NCT05046132|183584067|OTHER||LS Mean|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|7.5||||||24 hr Post dose||7.5|-1.0|
91850114|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.7|11.8||||||Pre dose||11.8|3.7|
91654044|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4103||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.4103
91654045|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.1490
91788911|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|58.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||58.5|28.1|
91850115|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.3|9.8||||||0.5 hr Post dose||9.8|3.3|
91850116|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.6||||||1 hr Post dose||8.6|0.6|
91850117|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||8.6|0.6|
91850118|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|8.0||||||2 hr Post dose||8.0|-0.4|
91850119|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|10.4||||||2.5 hr Post dose||10.4|1.8|
91850120|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|9.8||||||3 hr Post dose||9.8|1.7|
91850121|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|9.8||||||4 hr Post dose||9.8|2.5|
91850122|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|9.8||||||5 hr Post dose||9.8|1.6|
91850123|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|8.4||||||6 hr Post dose||8.4|1.1|
91850124|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|7.0||||||7 hr Post dose||7.0|-0.9|
91850125|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|8.8||||||8 hr Post dose||8.8|1.3|
91850126|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|10.6||||||9 hr Post dose||10.6|2.5|
91850127|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|12.3||||||10 hr Post dose||12.3|4.8|
91850128|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|11.4||||||12 hr Post dose||11.4|4.4|
91850129|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|8.9||||||16 hr Post dose||8.9|0.9|
91850130|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.6|12.0||||||24 hr Post dose||12.0|3.6|
91850131|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|6.0||||||Pre dose||6.0|-1.8|
91850132|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|6.2||||||0.5 hr Post dose||6.2|-0.0|
91850133|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|5.7||||||1 hr Post dose||5.7|-1.9|
91850134|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|10.4||||||1.5 hr Post dose||10.4|2.6|
91850135|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|9.3||||||2 hr Post dose||9.3|1.3|
91850136|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.0|15.1||||||2.5 hr Post dose||15.1|7.0|
91850137|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.9|13.6||||||3 hr Post dose||13.6|5.9|
91850138|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|14.2||||||4 hr Post dose||14.2|7.2|
91850139|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|12.7||||||5 hr Post dose||12.7|4.9|
91850140|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.5|14.5||||||6 hr Post dose||14.5|7.5|
91850141|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1|14.6||||||7 hr Post dose||14.6|7.1|
91850142|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|14.9||||||8 hr Post dose||14.9|7.6|
91850143|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.9|13.7||||||9 hr Post dose||13.7|5.9|
91850144|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.9|14.1||||||10 hr Post dose||14.1|6.9|
91850145|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|15.2||||||12 hr Post dose||15.2|8.4|
91850146|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|13.3||||||16 hr Post dose||13.3|5.6|
91850147|NCT05046132|183584068|OTHER||LS Mean|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.8|14.9||||||24 hr Post dose||14.9|6.8|
91850148|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|-2.2||||||Pre dose||-2.2|-8.4|
91850149|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|0.5||||||0.5 hr Post dose||0.5|-5.9|
91850150|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|-0.7||||||1 hr Post dose||-0.7|-5.7|
91850151|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|1.9||||||1.5 hr Post dose||1.9|-3.7|
91850152|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|-0.2||||||2 hr Post dose||-0.2|-5.7|
91850153|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-1.5||||||2.5 hr Post dose||-1.5|-6.5|
91850154|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|-1.3||||||3 hr Post dose||-1.3|-7.1|
91850155|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|-0.8||||||4 hr Post dose||-0.8|-7.4|
91850156|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.1||||||5 hr Post dose||2.1|-3.7|
91850157|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|-0.4||||||6 hr Post dose||-0.4|-6.3|
91850158|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|-0.5||||||7 hr Post dose||-0.5|-6.0|
91850159|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|1.5||||||8 hr Post dose||1.5|-4.7|
91850160|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|-1.2||||||9 hr Post dose||-1.2|-6.9|
91850161|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|-1.0||||||10 hr Post dose||-1.0|-7.6|
91850162|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|-2.1||||||12 hr Post dose||-2.1|-8.7|
91850163|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|-0.8||||||16 hr Post dose||-0.8|-7.4|
91850164|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|-4.2||||||24 hr Post dose||-4.2|-10.1|
91850165|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|4.2||||||Pre dose||4.2|-2.0|
91850166|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|6.3||||||0.5 hr Post dose||6.3|-0.1|
91850167|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|4.9||||||1 hr Post dose||4.9|-0.1|
91850168|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|5.8||||||1.5 hr Post dose||5.8|0.2|
91850169|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.6||||||2 hr Post dose||4.6|-1.0|
91850170|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.1||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.1|-1.9|
91850171|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.8||||||3 hr Post dose||4.8|-1.0|
91850172|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|3.0||||||4 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.5|
91850173|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.2||||||5 hr Post dose||3.2|-2.6|
91850174|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|1.1||||||6 hr Post dose||1.1|-4.8|
91850175|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|1.7||||||7 hr Post dose||1.7|-3.8|
91850176|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|2.6||||||8 hr Post dose||2.6|-3.6|
91850177|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|0.2||||||9 hr Post dose||0.2|-5.6|
91850178|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-0.2||||||10 hr Post dose||-0.2|-6.8|
91850179|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|0.1||||||12 hr Post dose||0.1|-6.6|
91850180|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|3.6||||||16 hr Post dose||3.6|-3.0|
91850181|NCT05046132|183584069|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|2.9||||||24 hr Post dose||2.9|-3.0|
91850182|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|-3.0||||||Pre dose||-3.0|-10.3|
91850183|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|-4.0||||||0.5 hr Post dose||-4.0|-10.5|
91850184|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|-1.2||||||1 hr Post dose||-1.2|-8.8|
91850185|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|-1.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||-1.6|-8.4|
91850186|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|-0.3||||||2 hr Post dose||-0.3|-6.6|
91850187|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|0.3||||||2.5 hr Post dose||0.3|-6.1|
91850188|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|-1.5||||||3 hr Post dose||-1.5|-7.7|
91850189|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|-3.8||||||4 hr Post dose||-3.8|-10.3|
91850190|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|0.6||||||5 hr Post dose||0.6|-6.9|
91850191|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-0.6||||||6 hr Post dose||-0.6|-7.8|
91850192|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|-1.6||||||7 hr Post dose||-1.6|-8.1|
91850193|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-1.1||||||8 hr Post dose||-1.1|-7.8|
91850194|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|-2.6||||||9 hr Post dose||-2.6|-9.3|
91850195|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-1.1||||||10 hr Post dose||-1.1|-7.8|
91850196|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|-1.1||||||12 hr Post dose||-1.1|-7.3|
91850197|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|-2.0||||||16 hr Post dose||-2.0|-9.7|
91850198|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|-3.8||||||24 hr Post dose||-3.8|-12.5|
91850199|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|5.9||||||Pre dose||5.9|-1.2|
91850200|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|1.8||||||0.5 hr Post dose||1.8|-4.5|
91850201|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|3.3||||||1 hr Post dose||3.3|-4.0|
91850202|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|3.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||3.6|-3.0|
91850203|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|2.0||||||2 hr Post dose||2.0|-4.0|
91850204|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.6||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.6|-2.6|
91850205|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.3||||||3 hr Post dose||2.3|-3.7|
91850206|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|0.9||||||4 hr Post dose||0.9|-5.4|
91850207|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|4.6||||||5 hr Post dose||4.6|-2.5|
91850208|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|2.8||||||6 hr Post dose||2.8|-4.1|
91850209|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|1.3||||||7 hr Post dose||1.3|-5.0|
91850210|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.8||||||8 hr Post dose||2.8|-3.7|
91654046|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.5590
91654047|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4796||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.4796
91654048|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2794||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.2794
91850211|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|3.1||||||9 hr Post dose||3.1|-3.4|
91850212|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.7||||||10 hr Post dose||3.7|-2.8|
91850213|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|3.1||||||12 hr Post dose||3.1|-2.9|
91850214|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|4.3||||||16 hr Post dose||4.3|-3.1|
91850215|NCT05046132|183584070|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|5.9||||||24 hr Post dose||5.9|-2.5|
91850216|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.2||||||Pre dose||1.2|-2.6|
91850217|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|0.7||||||0.5 hr post dose||0.7|-2.6|
91850218|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|2.3||||||1 hr post dose||2.3|-1.1|
91850219|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|1.3||||||1.5 hr post dose||1.3|-1.5|
91850220|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.4||||||2 hr post dose||2.4|-0.8|
91850221|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.4||||||2.5 hr post dose||2.4|-1.0|
91850222|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.0||||||3 hr post dose||2.0|-1.6|
91850223|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|2.3||||||4 hr post dose||2.3|-0.9|
91850224|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.1||||||5 hr post dose||2.1|-1.2|
91850225|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.4||||||6 hr post dose||2.4|-0.7|
91850226|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.4||||||7 hr post dose||2.4|-0.6|
91850227|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.2||||||8 hr post dose||2.2|-1.0|
91850228|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.3||||||9 hr post dose||1.3|-1.6|
91850229|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|1.6||||||10 hr post dose||1.6|-1.5|
91850230|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|3.0||||||12 hr post dose||3.0|-0.2|
91850231|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|3.4||||||16 hr post dose||3.4|-0.3|
91850232|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.6||||||24 hr post dose||1.6|-2.1|
91850233|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.6||||||Pre dose||2.6|-1.2|
91850234|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.4||||||0.5 hr post dose||1.4|-1.9|
91850235|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.2||||||1 hr post dose||2.2|-1.2|
91850236|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.1||||||1.5 hr post dose||2.1|-0.7|
91850237|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|2.2||||||2 hr post dose||2.2|-1.1|
91850238|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|2.5||||||2.5 hr post dose||2.5|-0.9|
91850239|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|2.1||||||3 hr post dose||2.1|-1.5|
91850240|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.1||||||4 hr post dose||1.1|-2.1|
91850241|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|1.9||||||5 hr post dose||1.9|-1.5|
91850242|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.4||||||6 hr post dose||1.4|-1.7|
91850243|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.4||||||7 hr post dose||1.4|-1.6|
91850244|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.4||||||8 hr post dose||2.4|-0.7|
91850245|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.3||||||9 hr post dose||1.3|-1.6|
91850246|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|1.6||||||10 hr post dose||1.6|-1.4|
91850247|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|3.1||||||12 hr post dose||3.1|-0.1|
91850248|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|3.0||||||16 hr post dose||3.0|-0.7|
91850249|NCT05046132|183584071|OTHER||LS Mean|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|3.4||||||24 hr post dose||3.4|-0.3|
91850250|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.9||||||Pre dose||2.9|-1.3|
91850251|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.2||||||0.5 hr post dose||1.2|-1.8|
91654049|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1646||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.1646
91654050|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0782||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.0782
91850252|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.8||||||1 hr post dose||3.8|-1.4|
91850253|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.8||||||1.5 hr post dose||1.8|-1.8|
91850254|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.3||||||2 hr post dose||0.3|-3.0|
91850255|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.1||||||2.5 hr post dose||3.1|-0.0|
91850256|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.5||||||3 hr post dose||1.5|-1.7|
91850257|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|2.9||||||4 hr post dose||2.9|-0.3|
91850258|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.0||||||5 hr post dose||2.0|-2.2|
91850259|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.3||||||6 hr post dose||2.3|-0.8|
91850260|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.7||||||7 hr post dose||2.7|-0.8|
91850261|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|2.4||||||8 hr post dose||2.4|-0.3|
91850262|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.9||||||9 hr post dose||2.9|-0.7|
91850263|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|1.9||||||10 hr post dose||1.9|-1.4|
91850264|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|3.2||||||12 hr post dose||3.2|-0.6|
91850265|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.4||||||16 hr post dose||2.4|-1.0|
91850266|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.2||||||24 hr post dose||4.2|-1.0|
91850267|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.7||||||Pre dose||1.7|-2.3|
91850268|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.3||||||0.5 hr post dose||1.3|-1.6|
91850269|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|1.2||||||1 hr post dose||1.2|-3.8|
91850270|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.8||||||1.5 hr post dose||1.8|-1.7|
91850271|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|0.5||||||2 hr post dose||0.5|-2.7|
91850272|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.3||||||2.5 hr post dose||2.3|-0.8|
91900348|NCT01176968|183695003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Aldosterone, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
91850273|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.8||||||3 hr post dose||1.8|-1.3|
91850274|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|1.9||||||4 hr post dose||1.9|-1.2|
91850275|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|0.5||||||5 hr post dose||0.5|-3.5|
91850276|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.3||||||6 hr post dose||2.3|-0.6|
91850277|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.1||||||7 hr post dose||2.1|-1.3|
91850278|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.6||||||8 hr post dose||2.6|-0.0|
91850279|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.2||||||9 hr post dose||2.2|-1.3|
91900349|NCT01176968|183695003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.5552|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Aldosterone, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.5552
91900350|NCT01176968|183695003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Aldosterone, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
91850280|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|0.5||||||10 hr post dose||0.5|-2.7|
91850281|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.5||||||12 hr post dose||1.5|-2.1|
91850282|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.4||||||16 hr post dose||1.4|-1.9|
91850283|NCT05046132|183584072|OTHER||LS Mean|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|4.9||||||24 hr post dose||4.9|-0.2|
91850284|NCT00982033|183584111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.90
91850285|NCT00414648|183584130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||The model included the time since enrollment, the treatment assignment, and the interaction between time and treatment.|Regression, Linear|Mixed model with the use of the Kenward-Roger correction without imputation of missing data.||FEV1 slope||||<0.001
91850286|NCT00414648|183584131|OTHER|||||||0.441|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.441
91850287|NCT00414648|183584132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.001
91850288|NCT00414648|183584133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.17
91850289|NCT00414648|183584134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.34
91850290|NCT00414648|183584135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.88
91850291|NCT00414648|183584136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.001
91850292|NCT02371746|183584137|SUPERIORITY||Change from baseline|30.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|36.6|||ANCOVA|||estimatCohort 1 all Groups: Non-study eye: TRAVANTAN Z Cohort 1 - Group 1: Study Eye: 28.2 ug travoprost Cohort 1 - Group 2: Study Eye: 42.3 ug travoprost Cohort 1 - Group 3: Study Eye: 42 .5 ug travoprost Cohort 1 - Group 4: Study Eye: 85.0 ug travoprost||36.6|-1.8|<0.001
91850293|NCT04173572|183584160|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.09|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 10 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850294|NCT04173572|183584160|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.743|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 9 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91900351|NCT01176968|183695003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Serum Cortisol, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
91900352|NCT01176968|183695003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Serum Cortisol, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
91900353|NCT01176968|183695003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Serum Cortisol, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.3347
91900354|NCT01176968|183695004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PIIINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0005
91850295|NCT04173572|183584161|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|22.133|STANDARD_DEVIATION|79.938|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850296|NCT04173572|183584161|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|99.645|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850297|NCT04173572|183584162|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.642|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4213.837|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850298|NCT04173572|183584162|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-483.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2497.312|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850299|NCT04173572|183584163|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.229|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850300|NCT04173572|183584163|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.563|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.695|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 16 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850301|NCT04173572|183584164|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Median Difference (Net)|-9.333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.166|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850302|NCT04173572|183584164|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Median Difference (Net)|0.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.664|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 16 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91900355|NCT01176968|183695004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PIIINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
91900356|NCT01176968|183695004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum test|||For Biomarker- PIIINP, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.1558
91850303|NCT04173572|183584165|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.392|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.148|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 13 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91900357|NCT01176968|183695004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Galecting 3, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0008
91900358|NCT01176968|183695004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Galecting 3, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
91900359|NCT01176968|183695004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Galecting 3, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.0293
91900360|NCT01176968|183695004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.1723
91850304|NCT04173572|183584165|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.113|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.401|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850305|NCT04173572|183584166|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.11|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850306|NCT04173572|183584166|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.91|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850307|NCT04173572|183584167|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 11 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850308|NCT04173572|183584167|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 11 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850309|NCT04173572|183584168|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.067|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850310|NCT04173572|183584168|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.071|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.25|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91654051|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1407||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.1407
91850311|NCT04173572|183584169|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850312|NCT04173572|183584169|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.714|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.717|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850313|NCT04173572|183584170|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.071|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.737|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91654052|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2369||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.2369
91654053|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7756||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.7756
91850314|NCT04173572|183584170|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.571|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.288|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
91850315|NCT01490580|183584177|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.1|-21.0|0.38
91850316|NCT02026258|183584196|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based on previous findings, it takes approximately 117 ± 46 days for complete alignment of the mandibular anterior teeth in subjects with severe crowding treated without extractions. For a clinically significant 40% faster alignment in the piezotome-corticision group compared to the control group at an alpha-level (p = 0.05) and desired power of 80%, a sample size of 28 subjects (14 per group) was required. Twenty subjects per group assuming an overall attrition rate of 28%.||||<0.05
91654054|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2623||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.2623
91654055|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3147||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.3147
91850317|NCT02026258|183584197|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T0||||<0.05
91654056|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2885||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.2885
91850318|NCT02026258|183584197|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T1||||<0.05
91850319|NCT02026258|183584197|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T2||||<0.05
91850320|NCT02026258|183584197|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T3||||<0.05
91850321|NCT02026258|183584198|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ease of Procedure||||<0.05
91850322|NCT02026258|183584198|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Satisfaction with procedure||||<0.05
91850323|NCT02026258|183584199|OTHER||Fisher chi square|0.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Use of Medications||||||<0.05
91850324|NCT02026258|183584199|OTHER||Fisher chi square|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Undergo procedure again||||<0.05
91850325|NCT02026258|183584199|OTHER||Fisher chi square|0.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Recommend procedure to a friend||||<0.05
91850326|NCT00761930|183584200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91850327|NCT00761930|183584201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91850328|NCT00761930|183584202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91654057|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7187||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.7187
91654058|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6017||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.6017
91654059|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.4500
91654060|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0952||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.0952
91788912|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|54.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||54.1|32.7|
91654061|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7069||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.7069
91654062|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4767||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.4767
91788913|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.8|-8.0|
91788914|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|71.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||71.5|45.0|
91850329|NCT03478696|183584203|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated, if the lower bound of the two-sided 95 percentage (%) confidence interval around the (FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO) treatment difference was above -50 milliliter.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.041|||||The primary treatment effect estimated (hypothetical effect) excluded data following intercurrent events: discontinuation of treatment, taking wrong treatment, taking prohibited medication, unblinding, noncompliance, COPD exacerbation or pneumonia.|||0.041|-0.020|
91654063|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6191||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.6191
91850330|NCT03478696|183584204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0122||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.049||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 2 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 2|||0.049|0.002|0.037
91850331|NCT03478696|183584204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.089||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 28 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 28|||0.089|0.036|<0.001
91850332|NCT03478696|183584204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0144|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.083||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 84 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 84|||0.083|0.026|<0.001
91850333|NCT03478696|183584204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.082||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 85 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 85|||0.082|0.021|0.001
91850334|NCT03478696|183584205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0098||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.023||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on weighted mean change from Baseline in FEV1 over 0-24 hours on Day 1 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.023|-0.016|0.702
91850335|NCT03478696|183584206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.044||The analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measures analysis, which included covariates of Baseline FEV1, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline interaction.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.044|-0.011|0.244
91850336|NCT04673851|183584220|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.44|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850337|NCT04673851|183584220|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850338|NCT04673851|183584220|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.61|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850339|NCT04673851|183584220|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91654064|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5276||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.5276
91654065|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3323||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.3323
91654066|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1025||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1025
91654067|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1715||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1715
91654068|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.1070
91654069|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2751||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.2751
91654070|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0276||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.0276
91654071|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1689||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.1689
91654072|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0769||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.0769
91654073|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1058||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.1058
91654074|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6406||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.6406
91654075|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1733||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.1733
91788915|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|78.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||78.5|61.2|
91788916|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||4|-9.1|
91850340|NCT04673851|183584220|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850341|NCT04673851|183584220|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91654076|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2631||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.2631
91654077|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.2170
91654078|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0868||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.0868
91654079|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1117||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.1117
91654080|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4943||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 (208601\_s\_at)||||0.4943
91654081|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.5190
91654082|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.7350
91654083|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.3820
91850342|NCT04673851|183584220|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.93|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850343|NCT04673851|183584220|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850344|NCT04673851|183584221|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850345|NCT04673851|183584221|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91788917|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|48.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||48.1|27.0|
91788918|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|40.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||40.4|25.2|
91850346|NCT04673851|183584221|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850347|NCT04673851|183584221|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850348|NCT04673851|183584221|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.29|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850349|NCT04673851|183584221|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850350|NCT04673851|183584221|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850351|NCT04673851|183584221|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850352|NCT04673851|183584222|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.08|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850353|NCT04673851|183584222|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91654084|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.9290
91850354|NCT04673851|183584222|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.53|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850355|NCT04673851|183584222|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850356|NCT04673851|183584222|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850357|NCT04673851|183584222|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850358|NCT04673851|183584222|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850359|NCT04673851|183584222|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850360|NCT04673851|183584223|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.27|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850361|NCT04673851|183584223|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850362|NCT04673851|183584223|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850363|NCT04673851|183584223|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91654085|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0699||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.0699
91850364|NCT04673851|183584223|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.84|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850365|NCT04673851|183584223|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850366|NCT04673851|183584223|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|6.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850367|NCT04673851|183584223|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850368|NCT04673851|183584224|OTHER|Single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.86|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850369|NCT04673851|183584224|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91900361|NCT01176968|183695004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0295
91900362|NCT01176968|183695004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- PINP, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.0865
91900363|NCT01176968|183695005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- ICTP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0944
91654086|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3515||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.3515
91850370|NCT04673851|183584224|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.88|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91900364|NCT01176968|183695005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- ICTP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0360
91654087|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2128||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.2128
91654088|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1275||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.1275
91850371|NCT04673851|183584224|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850372|NCT04673851|183584224|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.78|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850373|NCT04673851|183584224|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Cohen's d|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850374|NCT04673851|183584224|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91900365|NCT01176968|183695005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6459|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- ICTP, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.6459
91900366|NCT01176968|183695006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Interleukin-6, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
91900367|NCT01176968|183695006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Interleukin-6, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
91900368|NCT01176968|183695006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Interleukin-6, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.0801
91900369|NCT00744523|183695012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of the primary endpoint|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.2|||t-test, 1 sided||"Parameter Dispersion Type of Standard Error of the mean is meant to state that 'mean is the mean of proportions in the sense of a central-limit theorem"|The ARMOUR trial tested the null hypothesis that the MACCE rate was greater than or equal to the Performance Goal (PG) of 13% versus the alternative hypothesis that the true MACCE rate was less than the PG. The sample size was calculated based on 90% power and a Type I error rate of 0.05 (one-sided). The Performance Goal was calculated from results of carotid artery stenting trials that utilized embolic protection devices (EPD).||5.2||<0.05
91900370|NCT03588728|183695044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term.||Test of between-subjects effects||||.781
91900371|NCT03588728|183695045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term.||Test of between-subjects effects||||.409
91654089|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2158||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.2158
91900372|NCT03588728|183695046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term.||Test of between-subjects effects||||.697
91788919|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|10.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.2|-8.7|
91850375|NCT04673851|183584224|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850376|NCT04673851|183584225|OTHER|Single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.76|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850377|NCT04673851|183584225|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850378|NCT04673851|183584225|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.73|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850379|NCT04673851|183584225|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850380|NCT04673851|183584225|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.44|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850381|NCT04673851|183584225|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Cohen's d|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850382|NCT04673851|183584225|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850383|NCT04673851|183584225|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850384|NCT04673851|183584226|OTHER|Single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850385|NCT04673851|183584226|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91654090|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0266||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.0266
91788920|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|58.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||58.6|27.7|
91788921|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|53.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||53.0|31.1|
91788922|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||0.9|-19.2|
91788923|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|47.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||47.0|18.2|
91788924|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|34.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||34.4|13.2|
91850386|NCT04673851|183584226|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.05|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850387|NCT04673851|183584226|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850388|NCT04673851|183584226|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850389|NCT04673851|183584226|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Cohen's d|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91900373|NCT03588728|183695047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates interaction term.||Test of between subjects effects||||.193
91788925|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.4|-4.7|
91900374|NCT03588728|183695048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-subjects effects||||.185
91654091|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3636||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.3636
91654092|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9479||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.9479
91654093|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3753||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.3753
91654094|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5477||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.5477
91654095|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.4760
91788926|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|45.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||45.7|25.6|
91788927|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|61.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||61.1|45.2|
91788928|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.0|-8.4|
91788929|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|43.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||43.0|12.1|
91788930|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|57.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/154 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||57.1|33.6|
91788931|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.4|-8.0|
91788932|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|54.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||54.5|27.8|
91788933|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.9|69.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||69.6|47.9|
91788934|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.4|-1.1|
91788935|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||34.9|19.1|
91850390|NCT04673851|183584226|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.12|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91654096|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3314||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.3314
91654097|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1005||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.1005
91850391|NCT04673851|183584226|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91850392|NCT00880048|183584248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||-0.34|-2.87|0.0133
91850393|NCT00880048|183584248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.26||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.98|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.98|-3.54|0.0006
91850394|NCT00880048|183584248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||-0.08|-3.06|0.0394
91850395|NCT00880048|183584248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|-0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||-0.13|-3.16|0.0332
91850396|NCT00880048|183584248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.08|-3.71|0.0601
91850397|NCT00880048|183584248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.12|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||-0.12|-3.94|0.0369
91710270|NCT01768559|183313092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.064|||ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Insulin Glulisine QD|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate. The non-inferiority was assessed using upper bound of 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI).||0.064|-0.17|
91654098|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1180
91710271|NCT01768559|183313092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.328|||ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Insulin Glulisine TID|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model as described above. Hochberg procedure was used to control type 1 error at significance level = 0.025 (1-sided) for comparison between Lixisenatide vs Insulin glulisine TID in HbA1c and body weight. If both comparisons were met, then both would be declared significant. Otherwise, if only one was met, then the one met should be tested at α=0.0125 (1-sided).||0.328|0.095|
91710272|NCT01768559|183313093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.593|-1.396||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|The superiority was assessed by comparing the P-value at significance level = 0.025 or 0.0125.|Lixisenatide vs Insulin Glulisine TID|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model as described above. Hochberg procedure was used to control type 1 error at α = 0.025 (1-sided) for comparison between lixisenatide vs insulin glulisine TID in HbA1c and body weight. If both comparisons were met, then both would be declared significant. Otherwise, if only one was met, then the one met should be tested at α=0.0125 (1-sided).||-1.396|-2.593|< 0.0001
91710273|NCT05446142|183313159|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|95.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.82|99.9||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||99.90|90.82|
91710274|NCT05446142|183313159|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.71|101.12||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||101.12|91.71|
91710275|NCT05446142|183313159|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.91|112.47||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||112.47|82.91|
91788936|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|46.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||46.6|31.6|
91788937|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.7|-4.9|
91654099|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1580
91654100|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4385||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.4385
91654101|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7324||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.7324
91710276|NCT05446142|183313159|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|88.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.59|94.95||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||94.95|82.59|
91710277|NCT05446142|183313160|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|104.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.4|119.04||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||119.04|91.40|
91850398|NCT00880048|183584248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||0.39|-3.73|0.1122
91850399|NCT00880048|183584248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|1.32|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||1.32|-2.85|0.4713
91850400|NCT00880048|183584249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||7.39|0.63|0.2232
91654102|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2657||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.2657
91654103|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5637||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.5637
91850401|NCT00880048|183584249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|10.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||10.2|0.97|0.0559
91654104|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4473||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.4473
91850402|NCT00880048|183584249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||3.61|0.64|0.3395
91850403|NCT00880048|183584249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||3.50|0.59|0.4256
91850404|NCT00880048|183584249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||2.64|0.69|0.3790
91850405|NCT00880048|183584249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||2.86|0.76|0.2554
91850406|NCT00880048|183584249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.1961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||2.91|0.80|0.1961
91850407|NCT00880048|183584249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||2.25|0.58|0.6916
91850408|NCT00880048|183584250|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.95|||Log Rank|||||1.95|0.50|0.61
91850409|NCT00880048|183584250|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.36|0.35
91850410|NCT00880048|183584251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||-0.04|-1.34|0.0362
91850411|NCT00880048|183584251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.16|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.16|-1.46|0.0155
91850412|NCT00880048|183584251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.2593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||0.34|-1.27|0.2593
91850413|NCT00880048|183584251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||0.20|-1.44|0.1407
91850414|NCT00880048|183584251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.34|-1.67|0.1933
91850415|NCT00880048|183584251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.27|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||0.27|-1.76|0.1500
91850416|NCT00880048|183584251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||0.02|-2.21|0.0550
91850417|NCT00880048|183584251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.61|-1.65|0.3627
91850418|NCT00880048|183584252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||0.05|-2.11|0.0616
91850419|NCT00880048|183584252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-1.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-1.19|-3.36|<0.0001
91850420|NCT00880048|183584252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||-0.19|-2.68|0.0239
91654105|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3292||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.3292
91654106|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2054||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.2054
91654107|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5226||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.5226
91654108|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.1720
91654109|NCT00455533|183201335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3346||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.3346
91654110|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5604||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.5604
91850421|NCT00880048|183584252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.57|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||-0.57|-3.12|0.0048
91654111|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2715||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.2715
91654112|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5268||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.5268
91850422|NCT00880048|183584252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||-0.18|-2.97|0.0270
91654113|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6058||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.6058
91654114|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1918||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.1918
91654115|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.6712
91654116|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9195||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.9195
91654117|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7021||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.7021
91654118|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.3910
91850423|NCT00880048|183584252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.86||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.44|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||-0.44|-3.27|0.0103
91850424|NCT00880048|183584252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.53||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||-0.00|-3.06|0.0497
91850425|NCT00880048|183584252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41||||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.17|-2.98|0.0794
91788938|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|37.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||37.1|9.7|
91788939|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|47.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||47.0|25.1|
91788940|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.6|-3.9|
91788941|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|36.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||36.6|20.2|
91850426|NCT00880048|183584253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||0.19|-0.75|0.2400
91788942|NCT02446743|183457898|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|51.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||51.9|31.0|
91788943|NCT03086967|183457906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
91788944|NCT03086967|183457907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.133
91788945|NCT03086967|183457908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91788946|NCT03086967|183457909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91788947|NCT03086967|183457910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
91788948|NCT03086967|183457911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
91788949|NCT03086967|183457912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.98
91788950|NCT03086967|183457913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91788951|NCT03086967|183457914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
91900375|NCT03588728|183695049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-measures effects||||.198
91900376|NCT03588728|183695050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||ANOVA|||Test of between-subjects effects||||.638
91788952|NCT03086967|183457915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
91900377|NCT03588728|183695051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|p-value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-subjects effectd||||.574
91900378|NCT03588728|183695052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||ANOVA|P-value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-subjects effects||||.564
91900379|NCT03588728|183695053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||ANOVA|p-value indicates the interaction term||Tests of between-subjects effects||||.998
91900380|NCT03588728|183695054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|P-value indicates the interaction term||Tests of between-subjecs effects||||.348
91654119|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2909||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.2909
91654120|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3336||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.3336
91654121|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.2360
91788953|NCT03086967|183457916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91654122|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0281
91654123|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0434||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0434
91788954|NCT00917644|183457979|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%)|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.79||||||90.0|94.57|103.2|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. AUClast + (Clast\*/kel), where Clast\* was the predicted plasma concentration at the last quantifiable time point estimated from the log-linear regression analysis.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (Test-Ref) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||103.20|94.57|
91788955|NCT00917644|183457981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%). AUCinf method of determination includes AUClast calculated value.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.72||||||90.0|94.41|103.23|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. Log-linear trapezoidal method.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence interval was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||103.23|94.41|
91791183|NCT03123185|183460134|OTHER|No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|158.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.679|188.195|||||gMean ratio = 10 mg BI 705564 fed/10 mg BI 705564 fast. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect subjects within sequences will be considered as random, the other effects as fixed."||188.195|133.679|
91850427|NCT00880048|183584253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.28|-1.23|0.0020
91850428|NCT00880048|183584253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.5605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.36|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||0.36|-0.67|0.5605
91850429|NCT00880048|183584253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||0.20|-0.86|0.2215
91850430|NCT00880048|183584253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.30|-1.01|0.2870
91850431|NCT00880048|183584253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||-0.01|-1.33|0.0465
91850432|NCT00880048|183584253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||0.34|-0.99|0.3399
91850433|NCT00880048|183584253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.49|-0.86|0.5931
91850434|NCT00880048|183584254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||8.22|0.97|0.0562
91850435|NCT00880048|183584254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||6.73|0.73|0.1596
91850436|NCT00880048|183584254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||6.30|1.34|0.0067
91850437|NCT00880048|183584254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.1154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||4.36|0.85|0.1154
91850438|NCT00880048|183584254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||2.07|0.62|0.6895
91850439|NCT00880048|183584254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||2.41|0.72|0.3654
91850440|NCT00880048|183584254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||2.65|0.78|0.2408
91850441|NCT00880048|183584254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.3066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||2.60|0.74|0.3066
91850442|NCT00880048|183584255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||0.05|-0.36|0.1472
91850443|NCT00880048|183584255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.06|-0.48|0.0107
91850444|NCT00880048|183584255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||0.01|-0.51|0.0603
91850445|NCT00880048|183584255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||0.07|-0.46|0.1458
91850446|NCT00880048|183584255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.05|-0.58|0.0941
91850447|NCT00880048|183584255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4|||0.04|-0.59|0.0880
91850448|NCT00880048|183584255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||-0.03|-0.73|0.0313
91850449|NCT00880048|183584255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.15|-0.55|0.2639
91850450|NCT00880048|183584256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||-0.06|-3.08|0.0421
91900381|NCT01067326|183695115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in EPCs from baseline to 4 months||||0.02
91850451|NCT00880048|183584256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.3394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.78|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||0.78|-2.27|0.3394
91850452|NCT00880048|183584256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||0.25|-3.05|0.0963
91850453|NCT00880048|183584256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.26|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||-0.26|-3.62|0.0235
91850454|NCT00880048|183584256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||1.01|-2.54|0.3956
91850455|NCT00880048|183584256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||1.07|-2.53|0.4273
91850456|NCT00880048|183584256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.3429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||1.01|-2.89|0.3429
91850457|NCT00880048|183584256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||0.80|-3.18|0.2403
91850458|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mixed effects repeated measures model|22.52||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|49.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, total sleep time||49.61|-4.58|0.1030
91850459|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.21||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|60.65|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, total sleep time||60.65|5.76|0.0179
91850460|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.62||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.25|34.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, total sleep time||34.49|-19.25|0.5773
91850461|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.4||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|48.76|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, total sleep time||48.76|-5.97|0.1250
91850462|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.87||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|59.45|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, total sleep time||59.45|2.29|0.0344
91850463|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.52||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.72|65.32|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, total sleep time||65.32|7.72|0.0131
91654124|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0283||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0283
91654125|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.0151
91788956|NCT00917644|183457982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%)|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.66||||||90.0|95.73|114.42|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. Observed directly from data.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals were obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||114.42|95.73|
91850464|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.8794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|30.46|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, total sleep time||30.46|-26.10|0.8794
91850465|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.4||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|57.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, total sleep time||57.50|-0.69|0.0556
91654126|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1999||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.1999
91654127|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.0146
91654128|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1185||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.1185
91654129|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8705||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.8705
91788957|NCT02108262|183458006|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|1.0|||=|0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||2.5|-0.1|= 0.1241
91850466|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.9||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.46|-6.33|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, sleep onset latency||-6.33|-41.46|0.0078
91850467|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.49||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-7.68|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, sleep onset latency||-7.68|-43.30|0.0052
91850468|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.45||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.14|8.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, sleep onset latency||8.24|-33.14|0.2373
91900382|NCT01067326|183695116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 4 months.||||.006
91654130|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.0284
91654131|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0399||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0399
91654132|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0136
91654133|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0576
91654134|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2245||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.2245
91850469|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|22.87|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, sleep onset latency||22.87|-19.38|0.8707
91850470|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.92||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.43|6.59|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo va GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, sleep onset latency||6.59|-32.43|0.1933
91850471|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.55||||0.2933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.26|9.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, sleep onset latency||9.17|-30.26|0.2933
91788958|NCT02108262|183458006|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|0.5|||=|0.4994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||1.7|-0.5|= 0.4994
91850472|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.58||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.15|-5.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, sleep onset latency||-5.01|-52.15|0.0177
91850473|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.07||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-5.84|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, sleep onset latency||-5.84|-54.29|0.0152
91850474|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.19||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.36|-4.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, wake time after sleep onset||-4.01|-30.36|0.0108
91850475|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.15||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.61|-2.68|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, wake time after sleep onset||-2.68|-29.61|0.0190
91850476|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.89||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|18.21|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, wake time after sleep onset||18.21|-14.43|0.8195
91850477|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.27||||0.5327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|21.89|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, wake time after sleep onset||21.89|-11.35|0.5327
91850478|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.7387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|12.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, wake time after sleep onset||12.25|-17.24|0.7387
91850479|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.44||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.35|5.48|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, wake time after sleep onset||5.48|-24.35|0.2134
91850480|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.51||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.61|5.6|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, wake time after sleep onset||5.60|-34.61|0.1561
91850481|NCT00880048|183584257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.1||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.84|3.64|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, wake time after sleep onset||3.64|-37.84|0.1054
91850482|NCT00880048|183584258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.21|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||-0.21|-0.94|0.0024
91850483|NCT00880048|183584258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||0.28|-0.47|0.6146
91850484|NCT00880048|183584258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.1442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||0.09|-0.59|0.1442
91850485|NCT00880048|183584258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.8001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||0.39|-0.30|0.8001
91850486|NCT00880048|183584258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.45|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||0.45|-0.55|0.8439
91850487|NCT00880048|183584258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.11|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||0.11|-0.91|0.1259
91850488|NCT00880048|183584258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.64|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||0.64|-0.24|0.3709
91850489|NCT00880048|183584258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.22|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||0.22|-0.70|0.2993
91850490|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, sleep quality||1.14|0.04|0.0344
91900383|NCT01067326|183695117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to 4 months.||||0.04
91654135|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1388||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.1388
91654136|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0692||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.0692
91654137|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1058||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.1058
91654138|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2688||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.2688
91654139|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.0192
91654140|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.0033
91654141|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2053||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.2053
91654142|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.0032
91654143|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6783||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.6783
91654144|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.1630
91654145|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2944||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.2944
91654146|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3727||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.3727
91654147|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8796||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.8796
91654148|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8344||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.8344
91654149|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.2700
91654150|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2624||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.2624
91654151|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.0830
91654152|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.0849
91654153|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6578||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.6578
91654154|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0396||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.0396
91654155|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1657||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1657
91654156|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0675||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.0675
91654157|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1071||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1071
91900384|NCT01067326|183695118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value for intergroup comparison of change from baseline to month 4||||0.94
91654158|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.0142
91654159|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2465||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.2465
91654160|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.0031
91654161|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1231||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.1231
91654162|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.0849
91654163|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.2740
91654164|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2383||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.2383
91654165|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0644||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.0644
91654166|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2866||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.2866
91654167|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1259||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.1259
91654168|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0718||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.0718
91654169|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.3170
91654170|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7844||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.7844
91654171|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4688||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.4688
91654172|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8553||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.8553
91654173|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6926||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.6926
91654174|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2222||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.2222
91654175|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4676||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.4676
91654176|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2036||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.2036
91654177|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4197||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.4197
91788959|NCT02108262|183458007|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|-0.2|||=|0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||0.7|-1.4|= 0.4988
91654178|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0776||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.0776
91788960|NCT02108262|183458007|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|0.5|||=|0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||1.9|-0.7|= 0.6241
91788961|NCT02108262|183458008|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||=|0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05||Stratified log-rank p-value|Log Rank|||||2.05|0.67|= 0.5733
91850491|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.27|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, sleep quality||1.27|0.17|0.0111
91654179|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4076||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.4076
91788962|NCT02108262|183458008|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||=|0.9717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.8||Stratified log-rank p-value|Log Rank|||||1.80|0.57|= 0.9717
91788963|NCT02700334|183458069|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91788964|NCT02700334|183458070|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.093
91788965|NCT02700334|183458071|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.878
91788966|NCT02700334|183458072|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.959
91788967|NCT02700334|183458073|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91788968|NCT02700334|183458074|OTHER|||||||0.331|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.331
91788969|NCT02700334|183458075|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91788970|NCT02700334|183458076|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91850492|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.99|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, sleep quality||0.99|-0.15|0.1443
91788971|NCT02700334|183458077|OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
91850493|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, sleep quality||1.08|-0.07|0.0873
91850494|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.33|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, sleep quality||1.33|0.13|0.0170
91710278|NCT05446142|183313160|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|90.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.17|103.12||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||103.12|79.17|
91654180|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0629||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.0629
91654181|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2547||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.2547
91654182|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7125||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.7125
91654183|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6001||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.6001
91654184|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5398||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.5398
91654185|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.3970
91654186|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5085||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.5085
91654187|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1213||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.1213
91654188|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0999||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.0999
91654189|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1201||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1201
91654190|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1172||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1172
91788972|NCT02700334|183458078|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
91788973|NCT02700334|183458079|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.721
91788974|NCT02700334|183458080|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
91788975|NCT02700334|183458081|OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.333
91788976|NCT02700334|183458082|OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
91788977|NCT02700334|183458083|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91788978|NCT02700334|183458084|OTHER|||||||0.919|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.919
91788979|NCT02700334|183458085|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.720
91788980|NCT02312882|183458091|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91788981|NCT00247611|183458126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and thresholds for significance were 0.05 alpha two tailed.|HLM|||For the ITT sample, the observed pattern of an increasing proportion of participants in the intervention arm reporting perfect adherence as time progressed from was associated with a p-value of 0.12, two-tailed alpha 0.05.||||0.12
91788982|NCT00247611|183458126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and thresholds for significance was 0.05 alpha, two tailed.|HLM|||For the on protocol sample, study arm was associated with perfect ACTG-assessed 3-day ARV adherence at p = 0.024, alpha two-tailed.||||0.024
91788983|NCT00247611|183458127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)|||For the ITT or OP samples, the significance threshold between groups over time for differential increases in proportion with suppressed (undetectable) viral load was p \> 0.50. The study was underpowered to detect differences in Viral load.||||>0.50
91788984|NCT00247611|183458128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||0.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and is reported as 0.12 at alpha 0.05 two tailed|HLM|||For the ITT sample (t=586) the observed pattern of an increasing proportion of participants in the intervention arm reporting perfect adherence as time progressed from baseline was associated with a p-value of 0.12, alpha 0.05 two-tailed.||||0.12
91788985|NCT00247611|183458128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and is reported as 0.12 at alpha 0.05 two tailed.|HLM|||For the on protocol sample the pattern of increased proportion of participants in the intervention arm reporting perfect adherence as time progressed from baseline was associated with a p-value of 0.12, alpha 0.05 two-tailed.||||0.12
91788986|NCT00247611|183458129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||P-value for difference in unemployment rate between On Protocol (OP) sample, and participants excluded from on protocol analysis.||||<0.001
91654191|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6596||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.6596
91654192|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3289||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.3289
91654193|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3657||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.3657
91710279|NCT05446142|183313160|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|79.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.7|108.08||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||108.08|58.70|
91710280|NCT05446142|183313160|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|80.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.82|100.68||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||100.68|64.82|
91710281|NCT05446142|183313161|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|95.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|100.59||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||100.59|90.37|
91710282|NCT05446142|183313161|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|94.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.73|99.88||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||99.88|89.73|
91850495|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, sleep quality||1.02|-0.18|0.1675
91850496|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, sleep quality||1.23|-0.10|0.0956
91788987|NCT00247611|183458129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||P-value for difference of participants on disability between On Protocol (OP) sample, and participants excluded from on protocol analysis.||||<0.01
91788988|NCT00392379|183458136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Based upon previous research, we hypothesized that the end-of-treatment abstinence rate for subjects receiving placebo would be 35% and the abstinence rate for subjects receiving the 4-mg nicotine lozenge would be 53%. A resulting power calculation indicated that 270 subjects (135 per group) were required in order to have 85% power to detect a significant difference (two-sided, α = 0.05 level test).||||<0.05
91654194|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0275||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.0275
91654195|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3946||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.3946
91850497|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.3503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, sleep quality||1.00|-0.35|0.3503
91654196|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.0074
91710283|NCT05446142|183313161|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|95.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.1|109.04||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||109.04|84.10|
91710284|NCT05446142|183313161|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|88.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.36|94.7||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||94.70|82.36|
91788989|NCT02184624|183458139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical comparison for categories Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91788990|NCT02184624|183458139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91654197|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2341||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.2341
91788991|NCT02184624|183458139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91788992|NCT02184624|183458139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91788993|NCT02184624|183458139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91788994|NCT02184624|183458140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91788995|NCT02184624|183458140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91788996|NCT02184624|183458140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91788997|NCT02184624|183458140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91788998|NCT02184624|183458140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91788999|NCT02184624|183458141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.480
91789000|NCT02184624|183458141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.044
91789001|NCT02184624|183458141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.025
91789002|NCT02184624|183458141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91789003|NCT02184624|183458141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.014
91789004|NCT02184624|183458142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91789005|NCT02184624|183458142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91789006|NCT02184624|183458142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
91789007|NCT02184624|183458142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91789008|NCT02184624|183458142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
91789009|NCT02184624|183458143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for DISKUS/ACCUHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91789010|NCT02184624|183458143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for MDI inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91789011|NCT02184624|183458143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for TURBUHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91789012|NCT02184624|183458143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for HANDIHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91789013|NCT02184624|183458143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for BREEZHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91789014|NCT02184624|183458144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring DISKUS/ACCUHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91654198|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0933||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.0933
91654199|NCT00455533|183201336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2016||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.2016
91654200|NCT00455533|183201337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|-0.017|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||-0.017|-0.27|
91654201|NCT00455533|183201337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.064|0.197|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker STatus||0.197|-0.064|
91654202|NCT00455533|183201337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.152|0.046|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||0.046|-0.152|
91654203|NCT00455533|183201337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|0.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.37|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.37|-0.13|
91654204|NCT00455533|183201338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.114|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.258|0.22|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto/Negative Biomarker Status||0.22|-0.258|
91654205|NCT00455533|183201338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference (bootstrap method)|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.137|0.155|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.155|-0.137|
91654206|NCT00455533|183201338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.167|0.053|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||0.053|-0.167|
91654207|NCT00455533|183201338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.227|0.309|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.309|-0.227|
91654208|NCT00455533|183201339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.482|-0.094|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||-0.094|-0.482|
91654209|NCT00455533|183201339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (boostrap method)|0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.073|0.291|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.291|-0.073|
91654210|NCT00455533|183201339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.236|0.067|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||0.067|-0.236|
91900385|NCT00323297|183695119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.722||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.843|17.087||A sequential closed-testing procedure was implemented for all secondary endpoints. If no statistically significant treatment effect was found for the primary endpoint then statistical tests were not to be performed on the secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|The mean difference in method of estimation is the difference between Sildenafil - placebo.||"The estimated sample size was based upon the primary endpoint. A sample size of 51 subjects per treatment group was required to detect a difference of 30 meters between treatments with 80% power at a one-sided significance level of 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 60 meters.~This primary statistical analysis was carried for Week 12 data."||17.087|-21.843|0.5802
91789015|NCT02184624|183458144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring MDI device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91789016|NCT02184624|183458144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring TURBUHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91654211|NCT00455533|183201339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootsrap method)|0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.218|0.469|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.469|-0.218|
91654212|NCT01739790|183201378|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
91654213|NCT00862979|183201401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||||-6.1|-16.5|<.0001
91654214|NCT00862979|183201402|OTHER|difference||||||0.203|||||||Fisher Exact|||Month 6 to Month 9||||0.203
91654215|NCT00862979|183201402|OTHER|difference||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Month 9 to Month 18||||0.002
91654216|NCT00862979|183201404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-8.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||-8.3|-19.6|<.0001
91710285|NCT00547157|183313173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||||difference is PRT - CRT|||0.07|-0.26|
91789017|NCT02184624|183458144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring HANDIHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91789018|NCT02184624|183458144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring BREEZHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91900386|NCT01498289|183695132|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.41|0.83
91900387|NCT01498289|183695133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||||0.93|0.50|0.02
91900388|NCT01498289|183695134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.61|0.20
91900389|NCT01498289|183695135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
91900390|NCT01498289|183695136|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q1 ERCC1||1.40|0.44|0.41
91789019|NCT02184624|183458145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring DISKUS/ACCUHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91654217|NCT00862979|183201404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 18||-6.1|-16.5|<.0001
91654218|NCT00862979|183201406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91654219|NCT01027143|183201423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91789020|NCT02184624|183458145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring MDI device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91789021|NCT02184624|183458145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring TURBUHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91789022|NCT02184624|183458145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring HANDIHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91789023|NCT02184624|183458145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring BREEZHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91789024|NCT02365233|183458173|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||IRB withheld the data due to inadequate supporting documentation|||
91789025|NCT00934843|183458174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.33|||Multivariate risk computation|||The current study was designed with an anticipated enrollment of 87 patients per treatment arm to achieve a statistical power of 80% (1- β) while controlling type I error at 0.05 (α) using a more conservative estimate of LCOS rate in the Single Dose MP group of 33%, and an incidence of LCOS in the Two Dose MP group of 15%.||1.33|0.45|0.35
91789026|NCT00934843|183458175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||A repeated measures analysis of variance framework was used for longitudinal analysis of inotrope score. In order to identify potential confounding variables, a variable was considered a relevant covariate and added into the model with a p ≤ 0.15.|ANCOVA|||||||0.43
91789027|NCT00934843|183458177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||Analysis of variance/covariance models were used to test both unadjusted and multivariable relationships between treatment groups for diuresis.|ANCOVA|||||||0.052
91789028|NCT00934843|183458178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of variance/covariance models were used to test both unadjusted and multivariable relationships between treatment groups for diuresis.||||||0.047
91789029|NCT00160667|183458179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||=|0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|13.41|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|||13.41|-12.82|=0.965
91789030|NCT00160667|183458179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||=|0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|14.65|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|||14.65|-11.69|=0.825
91789031|NCT01779219|183458193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Fisher's exact test (two-tailed)|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91789032|NCT01779219|183458194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91789033|NCT01779219|183458195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total length of hospital stay||||0.16
91789034|NCT01779219|183458195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Length of the preoperative hospital stay||||0.73
91789035|NCT01779219|183458195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Length of the postoperative hospital stay||||1.0
91789036|NCT01779219|183458196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total OR time||||<0.001
91789037|NCT01779219|183458196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time of preoperative preparations||||0.004
91789038|NCT01779219|183458196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Time of the operation (skin-to-skin)"||||0.024
91789039|NCT00428584|183458197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||||||P value refers to mean change to 30 minute post injection|ANOVA|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed by using a two-way ANOVA model on ranked data including treatment group and site as fixed effect.||||0.524
91789040|NCT00428584|183458198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.484
91789041|NCT00428584|183458199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.838
91789042|NCT00428584|183458200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||No pain is defined as a VAS = 0 for all 21 full dose injections.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.451
91789043|NCT00428584|183458201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.338
91850498|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.2147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.88|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, refreshing value of sleep||0.88|-0.20|0.2147
91654220|NCT01095003|183201438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||Log Rank|||The final analysis of progression free survival was conducted once the required number of events(615 progressions or deaths) was reached.using the IRC assessment of date of progressions following the blinded radiological and clinical review of data. Kaplan-Meier curves and life tables by treatment arm were provided.A stratified Cox proportional model was used to compare the two treatment arms||0.99|0.71|0.0426
91850499|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, refreshing value of sleep||1.17|0.09|0.0233
91850500|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.89|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, refreshing value of sleep||0.89|-0.22|0.2404
91850501|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.22|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, refreshing value of sleep||1.22|0.08|0.0247
91850502|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.29|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, refreshing value of sleep||1.29|0.08|0.0271
91900391|NCT01498289|183695136|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q2 ERCC1||1.02|0.32|0.06
91789044|NCT03259620|183458207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2587|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2587
91789045|NCT03860935|183458259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Method|||||||<0.0001
91789046|NCT03860935|183458260|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|39.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.477|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|20.18|59.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS means are from a MMRM model with treatment group, visit, randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level (as recorded in IXRS) and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Missing measurements due to early discontinuation of study treatment and due to death were imputed using the Jump to Reference (J2R) method and sampling with replacement from the worst 5% of observed values, respectively, as specified in study SAP.||59.10|20.18|<0.0001
91789047|NCT03860935|183458261|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|5.79|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS means are from a MMRM model with treatment group, visit, randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level (as recorded in IXRS) and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Missing measurements due to early discontinuation of study treatment and due to death were imputed using the Jump to Reference (J2R) method and sampling with replacement from the worst 5% of observed values, respectively, as specified in study SAP.||14.10|5.79|<0.0001
91850503|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, refreshing value of sleep||1.00|-0.22|0.2129
91850504|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, refreshing value of sleep||1.06|-0.31|0.2874
91850505|NCT00880048|183584259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, refreshing value of sleep||1.41|0.01|0.0472
91850506|NCT00880048|183584260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||7.09|0.13|0.9824
91900392|NCT01498289|183695136|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q3 ERCC1||1.58|0.49|0.66
91900393|NCT01498289|183695136|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q4 ERCC1||1.31|0.42|0.30
91850507|NCT00880048|183584260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||6.13|0.05|0.6227
91850508|NCT00880048|183584260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||5.07|0.20|0.9967
91900394|NCT00078754|183695140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.622
91789048|NCT03860935|183458262|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|5.73|8.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS means are from a MMRM model with treatment group, visit, randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level (as recorded in IXRS) and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Missing measurements due to early discontinuation of study treatment and due to death were imputed using the Jump to Reference (J2R) method and sampling with replacement from the worst 5% of observed values, respectively, as specified in study SAP.||8.46|5.73|<0.0001
91900395|NCT00078754|183695141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||LHA score main effect.|ANCOVA|The LHA Score F\[1,83\] = 4.91, p = 0.029; Condition F\[2,83\] = 0.20, p = 0.815; Condition x LHA Score F\[2,83\] = 0.255, p = 0.799.||The hypothesis was that subjects with LHA Scores = 18 or more would respond better to divalproex (than fluoxetine) while those with LHA scores = or \< 17 would respond better to fluoxetine (than divalproex).||||0.029
91789049|NCT03860935|183458263|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|25.0||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level as recorded in IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0569
91850509|NCT00880048|183584260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||8.63|0.46|0.3550
91850510|NCT00880048|183584260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||6.49|0.85|0.1009
91850511|NCT00880048|183584260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||7.68|1.02|0.0455
91900396|NCT00078754|183695141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Baseline OAS-M Aggression score as covariate.||ANCOVA at endpoint with baseline OAS-M AGG score as covariate.||||0.80
91900397|NCT00809523|183695143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data were analyzed at the follow up timepoint (4 weeks) to test for differences between the experimental groups.||||0.007
91900398|NCT00809523|183695144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91900399|NCT00986440|183695168|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic for difference|3.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||2-sided P value for z test|||||||<0.0001
91900400|NCT00986440|183695168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91900401|NCT00986440|183695169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0380
91789050|NCT01437995|183458277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.69|1.65||||||||1.65|0.69|
91789051|NCT01437995|183458278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.43
91789052|NCT01437995|183458278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.022
91789053|NCT01437995|183458278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
91789054|NCT01437995|183458279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.41||||||||1.41|0.63|
91789055|NCT01437995|183458279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.73||||||||1.73|0.80|
91789056|NCT01437995|183458279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.81||||||||1.81|0.83|
91789057|NCT01437995|183458280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1||||0.15
91850512|NCT00880048|183584260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||5.32|1.00|0.0507
91654221|NCT01095003|183201439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.7657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.83|0.7657
91654222|NCT01095003|183201440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.103
91654223|NCT01095003|183201441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0089
91789058|NCT01437995|183458280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1||||<0.001
91789059|NCT01437995|183458280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1||||0.027
91789060|NCT01437995|183458280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in pre-bronchodilator FVC||||0.40
91789061|NCT01437995|183458280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in pre-bronchodilator FVC||||0.032
91789062|NCT01437995|183458280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in pre-bronchodilator FVC||||0.21
91789063|NCT01437995|183458281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in FEV1/FVC ratio||||0.14
91789064|NCT01437995|183458281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in FEV1/FVC ratio||||<0.001
91850513|NCT00880048|183584260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||3.45|0.55|0.4962
91654224|NCT02637557|183201443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.952||||0.6065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.222|8.318||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||8.318|-14.222|0.6065
91654225|NCT02637557|183201443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.036||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.318|2.245||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.245|-20.318|0.1160
91789065|NCT01437995|183458281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in FEV1/FVC ratio||||0.031
91789066|NCT04456673|183458282|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.435||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|-0.188|||Negative binomial model||Derived using delta method|Derived using negative binomial model with the total number of the events occurring during the 52-week treatment period as the response variable, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, baseline disease severity, and number of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation events within one year prior to the study as covariates, and log-transformed treatment duration as an offset variable.||-0.188|-0.682|0.0002
91789067|NCT04456673|183458283|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.082||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.124|||MMRM model|||Derived from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model with the change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 up to Week 12 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.124|0.040|0.0001
91850514|NCT00880048|183584263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|3.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||3.10|-1.03|0.3241
91850515|NCT00880048|183584263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||1.55|-2.66|0.6020
91850516|NCT00880048|183584263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.99|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||4.99|-0.10|0.0594
91850517|NCT00880048|183584263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||3.50|-1.67|0.4828
91850518|NCT00880048|183584263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||3.18|-2.80|0.9008
91850519|NCT00880048|183584263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.6428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|2.32|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||2.32|-3.74|0.6428
91850520|NCT00880048|183584263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|2.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||2.70|-4.06|0.6911
91850521|NCT00880048|183584263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.67||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|2.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||2.80|-4.14|0.7026
91850522|NCT00880048|183584264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.29|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||0.29|-2.24|0.1301
91850523|NCT00880048|183584264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.73|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||1.73|-0.79|0.4644
91850524|NCT00880048|183584264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.3382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||0.80|-2.33|0.3382
91850525|NCT00880048|183584264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.51|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||2.51|-0.63|0.2410
91850526|NCT00880048|183584264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||0.79|-2.75|0.2768
91850527|NCT00880048|183584264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.83|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||1.83|-1.70|0.9434
91850528|NCT00880048|183584264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|1.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||1.40|-2.49|0.5796
91850529|NCT00880048|183584264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.66|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||2.66|-1.24|0.4753
91850530|NCT02914522|183584282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|10.8||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1.||||19.5|2.1|0.0157
91850531|NCT02914522|183584282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|3.8||||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|12.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||12.0|-4.3|0.3379
91850532|NCT02914522|183584282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|7.2||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||12.8|1.6|0.0103
91900402|NCT00986440|183695169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1773|||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.1773
91900403|NCT00986440|183695169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2844
91710286|NCT00547157|183313174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.613||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.656|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus radiotherapy:chemoradiotherapy.|||2.656|0.980|0.0601
91850533|NCT02914522|183584282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.2||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||10.5|-0.0|0.0645
91850534|NCT02914522|183584283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||35.9|16.0|< 0.0001
91850535|NCT02914522|183584283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|10.4||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||20.7|-0.0|0.0420
91850536|NCT02914522|183584284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|12.1||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|20.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||20.4|3.8|0.0053
91900404|NCT00986440|183695169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Tarone-Ware|||||||0.1140
91900405|NCT00986440|183695170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1213|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1213
91654226|NCT02637557|183201443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.943||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.334|-0.551||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.551|-23.334|0.0400
91654227|NCT02637557|183201443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.0225
91654228|NCT02637557|183201444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.711||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.028|6.606||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||6.606|-14.028|0.4795
91654229|NCT02637557|183201444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.739||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.066|7.588||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||7.588|-13.066|0.6020
91654230|NCT02637557|183201444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.602||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.03|1.826||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.826|-19.030|0.1055
91654231|NCT02637557|183201444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1387||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.1387
91654232|NCT02637557|183201445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.058||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415|0.299||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.299|-0.415|0.7488
91654233|NCT02637557|183201445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.254||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|0.103||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.103|-0.611|0.1627
91850537|NCT02914522|183584284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.6||||0.2295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||12.2|-3.1|0.2295
91654234|NCT02637557|183201445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.417||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.777|-0.056||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.056|-0.777|0.0237
91850538|NCT02914522|183584284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.3||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||10.7|-0.1|0.0393
91654235|NCT02637557|183201445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.0130
91654236|NCT02637557|183201446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.265||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.265|-0.369|0.7470
91654237|NCT02637557|183201446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|0.27||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.270|-0.364|0.7699
91654238|NCT02637557|183201446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.257||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|0.064||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.064|-0.577|0.1157
91654239|NCT02637557|183201446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1374||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.1374
91654240|NCT02637557|183201447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.77||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.77|0.47|0.7903
91654241|NCT02637557|183201447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.71||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.71|0.70|0.3518
91654242|NCT02637557|183201447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.26||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.26|0.83|0.1544
91850539|NCT02914522|183584284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.7||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||6.6|-3.1|0.5308
91654243|NCT02637557|183201448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.23||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.23|0.25|0.1489
91654244|NCT02637557|183201448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.19||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.19|0.51|0.8891
91654245|NCT02637557|183201448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.2||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.20|0.76|0.2237
91654246|NCT02637557|183201449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.18||Odds ratio, 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.18|0.48|0.6566
91654247|NCT02637557|183201449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.98||Odds ratio, 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.98|0.81|0.1280
91654248|NCT02637557|183201449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.91||Odds ratio, 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.91|0.79|0.1463
91654249|NCT02637557|183201450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.5504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.279|0.683||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.683|-1.279|0.5504
91789068|NCT04456673|183458284|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-3.371||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.811|-0.931|||MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in SGRQ total score up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline SGRQ total score, and SGRQ baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.931|-5.811|0.0068
91789069|NCT04456673|183458285|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.164||||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.581|||Regression, Logistic|||Derived from logistic regression model which includes treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, and baseline SGRQ total score as covariates.||1.581|0.856|0.3329
91654250|NCT02637557|183201450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.252||||0.6177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|1.244||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.244|-0.741|0.6177
91654251|NCT02637557|183201450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.513||||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|1.513||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.513|-0.488|0.3138
91654252|NCT02637557|183201451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.019||||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.897|0.935||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.935|-0.897|0.9675
91654253|NCT02637557|183201451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.419||||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|1.345||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.345|-0.507|0.3741
91850540|NCT02914522|183584285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|8.6||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|14.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||14.3|2.9|0.0047
91654254|NCT02637557|183201451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.461||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|1.385||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.385|-0.464|0.3275
91654255|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.023||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.272||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.272|-0.226|0.8560
91654256|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.124||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.373||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.373|-0.126|0.3301
91654257|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.019||||0.8845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.233||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.233|-0.270|0.8845
91654258|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.303||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.303|-0.262|0.8879
91654259|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.299||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.299|-0.266|0.9072
91654260|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.108||||0.4573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.177||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.177|-0.393|0.4573
91654261|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.049||||0.7476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.251||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.251|-0.350|0.7476
91654262|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.062||||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.239||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.239|-0.362|0.6873
91654263|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.258||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.562|0.045||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.045|-0.562|0.0952
91654264|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.018||||0.9111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.291||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.291|-0.326|0.9111
91789070|NCT04456673|183458286|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|0.062||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.113|||MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.113|0.011|0.0182
91789071|NCT05508074|183458351|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|6.6|||ANCOVA|adjusted on baseline ALSFRS-R and treatment.||primary analysis results based on estimand 1 (see attached SAP)||6.60|-7.27|0.923
91789072|NCT05508074|183458351|OTHER|FAS post hoc|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.2||post hoc analysis on the FAS population, adjusted on baseline NfL on top of previous parameters|ANCOVA|||post hoc analysis adjusted on baseline NfL on top of previous parameters||8.2|-5.1|0.65
91789073|NCT05508074|183458352|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.118||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.186|||binomial exact method|||primary analysis results based on estimand 1 (see attached SAP)||0.186|-0.408|0.398
91850541|NCT02914522|183584285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|2.1||||0.3495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||6.8|-2.6|0.3495
91850542|NCT02914522|183584285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.3||||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||5.1|-2.5|0.4269
91789074|NCT05508074|183458353|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.271|||binomial exact method|||calculation based on estimand 1 (see SAP)||0.271|-0.326|0.835
91850543|NCT02914522|183584285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||0.9987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||3.4|-3.4|0.9987
91789075|NCT05508074|183458354|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|20.34|||ANCOVA|||based on estimand 1 (see SAP). change of SVC percentage from baseline to 6 months||20.34|-9.72|0.481
91654265|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.004||||0.9772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.313||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.313|-0.304|0.9772
91654266|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.235||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.546|0.077||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.077|-0.546|0.1390
91654267|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.316||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.316|-0.349|0.9215
91654268|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.055||||0.7453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.278||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.278|-0.388|0.7453
91654269|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.393||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|-0.057||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.057|-0.729|0.0220
91654270|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.053||||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.387||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.387|-0.282|0.7561
91789076|NCT05508074|183458364|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.21|||ANCOVA|||based on available data at V4||1.21|0.89|0.609
91654271|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071||||0.6758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.263||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.263|-0.406|0.6758
91654272|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.348||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|-0.01||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.010|-0.686|0.0434
91654273|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.042||||0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.392||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.392|-0.308|0.8123
91850544|NCT02914522|183584286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||28.2|9.9|<0.0001
91850545|NCT02914522|183584286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|7.8||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||16.2|-0.7|0.0672
91654274|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.044||||0.8038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.306||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.306|-0.394|0.8038
91654275|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|0.053||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.053|-0.654|0.0954
91654276|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.078||||0.6649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.275||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.275|-0.430|0.6649
91850546|NCT02914522|183584286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|11.4||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||18.6|4.2|0.0019
91654277|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.262||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|0.091||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.091|-0.614|0.1448
91710287|NCT00547157|183313175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.731||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|2.806|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus radiotherapy:chemoradiotherapy.|||2.806|1.068|0.0259
91850547|NCT02914522|183584286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.2||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||11.8|-1.4|0.1286
91850548|NCT02914522|183584287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|7.9||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1||||13.8|1.9|0.0105
91850549|NCT02914522|183584287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.3||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1||||9.6|-1.0|0.1062
91850550|NCT02914522|183584287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.7||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||5.6|-2.2|0.3084
91850551|NCT02914522|183584287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||3.4|-3.4|0.9109
91850552|NCT02914522|183584293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||35.0|16.0|<0.0001
91850553|NCT02914522|183584293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.2||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||19.5|-1.1|0.0658
91850554|NCT02914522|183584294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|13.0||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||20.6|5.3|0.0024
91850555|NCT02914522|183584294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.9||||0.7951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||8.7|-7.0|0.7951
91850556|NCT02914522|183584295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|20.8||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||33.9|7.7|0.0055
91850557|NCT02914522|183584295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|8.2||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||20.6|-4.2|0.1265
91850558|NCT02914522|183584296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.5||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||17.1|1.8|0.0157
91850559|NCT02914522|183584296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.5||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||13.9|-2.9|0.1808
91850560|NCT02914522|183584297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||35.2|14.6|<0.0001
91850561|NCT02914522|183584297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.9||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||21.2|-1.3|0.0521
91850562|NCT02914522|183584298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|16.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||24.2|7.8|0.0005
91850563|NCT02914522|183584298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.3||||0.2946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||12.6|-3.9|0.2946
91850564|NCT03368001|183584305|OTHER|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses. We accounted for any non-independence of observations due to cohort membership by obtaining cluster-robust standard errors using robust maximum likelihood estimation (MLR in Mplus) in tandem with the Type = Complex option available in Mplus, treating cohorts as clusters. All models were structurally saturated, so model fit was necessarily perfect.||||||0.039||||||IFM Posttest.|Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses.||Population models were specified using parameter values derived from past research in tandem with minimal expected effect sizes for the effects of most interest. These models were used to generate 5000 samples for a given N, the models were fit to each sample, and the significance (or not) of key effects was noted. This process was repeated until the target power of at least .80 was reached indicating with 216 participants we would have .82 power.||||.039
91850565|NCT03368001|183584305|OTHER|The residuals associated with the mediator and outcome were allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|0.064|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.014|0.118||One-tailed significance test|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for Verbal Expressiveness at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The indirect effect of SENSE Theatre® vs. TTT through post-test IFM on follow-up Vocal Expressiveness. We adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag between pretest and posttest for the a path and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag between pretest to follow-up for the b and c' paths.||0.118|0.014|<0.05
91654278|NCT02637557|183201452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.403||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.759|-0.048||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.048|-0.759|0.0264
91654279|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.102||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.347||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.347|-0.143|0.4137
91654280|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.147||||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.392||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.392|-0.098|0.2395
91654281|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.036||||0.7729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.212||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.212|-0.284|0.7729
91654282|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.079||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.363||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.363|-0.205|0.5824
91654283|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.028||||0.8466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.312||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.312|-0.256|0.8466
91654284|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.118||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.169||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.169|-0.405|0.4192
91654285|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.035||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.264||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.264|-0.333|0.8192
91654286|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.073||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.226||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.226|-0.372|0.6320
91654287|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.345||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.647|-0.043||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.043|-0.647|0.0254
91654288|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.7689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.266||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.266|-0.360|0.7689
91654289|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.117||||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.196||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.196|-0.430|0.4631
91654290|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|0.019||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.019|-0.615|0.0651
91654291|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.271||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.271|-0.392|0.7197
91654292|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.097||||0.5649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|0.234||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.234|-0.428|0.5649
91654293|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.422||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|-0.087||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.087|-0.757|0.0138
91654294|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.7202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.388||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.388|-0.269|0.7202
91654295|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.236||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.236|-0.421|0.5784
91710288|NCT00547157|183313176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.593||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|2.793|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus radiotherapy:chemoradiotherapy|||2.793|0.909|0.1039
91789077|NCT02142387|183458371|OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
91789078|NCT02142387|183458372|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91852055|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8469|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.8469
91654296|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.376||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.044||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.044|-0.708|0.0266
91654297|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.049||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.293||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.293|-0.391|0.7770
91789079|NCT02142387|183458373|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
91789080|NCT01101308|183458374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.51|107.27|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||107.27|97.51|
91789081|NCT01101308|183458375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.19|103.0|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||103.00|97.19|
91852056|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9717|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.50|0.9717
91789082|NCT01101308|183458376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.14|102.99|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||102.99|97.14|
91789083|NCT02984943|183458377|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.10
91852057|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7591|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.29||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.29|0.7591
91789084|NCT02984943|183458378|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.10
91654298|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.114||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|0.228||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.228|-0.456|0.5121
91789085|NCT02984943|183458379|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.02
91789086|NCT02984943|183458380|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.02
91789087|NCT02984943|183458381|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.004
91789088|NCT02984943|183458382|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.004
91789089|NCT02984943|183458383|OTHER|||||||0.2938|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.2938
91789090|NCT02984943|183458384|OTHER|||||||0.2938|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.2938
91789091|NCT02984943|183458385|OTHER|||||||0.0608|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0608
91654299|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.366||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|-0.02||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.020|-0.711|0.0384
91900406|NCT00381303|183695200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test for non-inferiority (Delta=15%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.85|0.68||P-Value for difference (Female - Male): Test for non-inferiority (Delta=15%)|Regression, Logistic|Estimates from logistic regression analysis include baseline log10 viral load and baseline CD4 cell count as covariates and gender as a factor.||"Confidence interval of the difference in proportion of response between two sexes estimated by:~* Application of delta method to be obtained Standard Error (SE)~* Calculation of lower and upper bound using normal approximation to the difference in response rates"||0.68|-19.85|0.30
91900407|NCT01777269|183695220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|-5.79|||mixed-model repeated-measures|||||-5.79|-10.22|<0.001
91900408|NCT01777269|183695221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|-2.21|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-2.21|-6.01|<0.001
91900409|NCT01777269|183695221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-4.41|||Adjusted mean difference||Month 3|||-4.41|-8.45|<0.001
91900410|NCT01777269|183695221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|-6.77|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-6.77|-11.31|<0.001
91900411|NCT01777269|183695221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-6.67|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-6.67|-10.96|<0.001
91900412|NCT01777269|183695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||0.23|-0.62|0.37
91900413|NCT01777269|183695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.24||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.24|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||0.24|-0.71|0.33
91900414|NCT01777269|183695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.37||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.15|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||0.15|-0.88|0.16
91900415|NCT01777269|183695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.68||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.17|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.17|-1.19|0.009
91900416|NCT01777269|183695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.07|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||0.07|-0.99|0.091
91900417|NCT01777269|183695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.7|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-1.70|-4.07|<0.001
91900418|NCT01777269|183695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-3.9|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-3.90|-6.59|<0.001
91900419|NCT01777269|183695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-5.34|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-5.34|-8.30|<0.001
91900420|NCT01777269|183695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|-5.59|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-5.59|-8.51|<0.001
91900421|NCT01777269|183695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-5.38|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-5.38|-8.47|<0.001
91900422|NCT01777269|183695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.94||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.21|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-0.21|-1.67|0.012
91900423|NCT01777269|183695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.93||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.17|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-0.17|-1.69|0.017
91789092|NCT02984943|183458386|OTHER|||||||0.0608|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0608
91900424|NCT01777269|183695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.88|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-0.88|-2.57|<0.001
91900425|NCT01777269|183695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.15||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.3|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.30|-2.01|0.009
91900426|NCT01777269|183695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.83||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.01|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-0.01|-1.65|0.047
91900427|NCT01777269|183695226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.85|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Week 2|||-0.85|-2.45|<0.001
91900428|NCT01777269|183695226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.55||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.37|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||0.37|-1.47|0.24
91900429|NCT01777269|183695226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.27||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.36|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-0.36|-2.19|0.006
91900430|NCT01777269|183695226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-0.72|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-0.72|-2.74|<0.001
91900431|NCT01777269|183695226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.34||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.28|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.28|-2.40|0.013
91900432|NCT01777269|183695226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.83|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-0.83|-3.12|<0.001
91900433|NCT01777269|183695227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.03|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Week 2|||-0.03|-0.78|0.036
91900434|NCT01777269|183695227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.37|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||0.37|-0.37|1.00
91900435|NCT01777269|183695227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.26||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.15|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||0.15|-0.67|0.21
91900436|NCT01777269|183695227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.62||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.15|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-0.15|-1.09|0.009
91900437|NCT01777269|183695227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.45||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.01|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||0.01|-0.91|0.056
91900438|NCT01777269|183695227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.58||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.08|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-0.08|-1.08|0.023
91900439|NCT01777269|183695228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-2.1|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Week 2|||-2.10|-3.89|<0.001
91789093|NCT02984943|183458387|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.1496
91654300|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.245||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.245|-0.431|0.5876
91654301|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.636|0.04||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.040|-0.636|0.0842
91654302|NCT02637557|183201453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.452||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|-0.11||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.110|-0.793|0.0098
91654303|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.054||||0.6663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|0.301||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.301|-0.193|0.6663
91654304|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.148||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.396||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.396|-0.100|0.2400
91654305|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.023||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.227||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.227|-0.273|0.8560
91654306|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.051||||0.7209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.335||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.335|-0.232|0.7209
91654307|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.013||||0.9283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.271||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.271|-0.297|0.9283
91789094|NCT02984943|183458388|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.1496
91789095|NCT02984943|183458389|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.36
91654308|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.162||||0.2659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.449|0.124||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.124|-0.449|0.2659
91654309|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.006||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.298||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.298|-0.310|0.9680
91654310|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.125||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.18||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.180|-0.429|0.4213
91654311|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.311||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|-0.004||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.004|-0.618|0.0471
91654312|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.025||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.288||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.288|-0.337|0.8769
91654313|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.059||||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.254||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.254|-0.372|0.7109
91654314|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.254||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.062||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.062|-0.570|0.1146
91654315|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.048||||0.7736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.378||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.378|-0.281|0.7736
91654316|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.310|-0.350|0.9059
91654317|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.299||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.034||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.034|-0.633|0.0779
91654318|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.086||||0.6068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.412||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.412|-0.241|0.6068
91789096|NCT02984943|183458390|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.36
91789097|NCT02984943|183458391|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0012
91900440|NCT01777269|183695228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.06|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-1.06|-3.15|<0.001
91900441|NCT01777269|183695228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.98|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-0.98|-3.25|<0.001
91789098|NCT02984943|183458392|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0012
91789099|NCT02984943|183458393|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.90
91789100|NCT02984943|183458394|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.90
91789101|NCT02984943|183458395|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0068
91789102|NCT02984943|183458396|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0068
91654319|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.024||||0.8838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.303||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.303|-0.352|0.8838
91654320|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.323||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.653|0.008||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.008|-0.653|0.0556
91654321|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.051||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.287||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.287|-0.389|0.7673
91654322|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.289||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.289|-0.389|0.7709
91654323|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.386||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|-0.043||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.043|-0.728|0.0273
91710289|NCT00547157|183313177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.791||||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|1.785|||Regression, Logistic||The odd ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||1.785|0.342|0.5744
91710290|NCT00547157|183313177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in objective response rate|-0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.112|||||Difference is objective response rate in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm minus the rate in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||0.112|-0.187|
91850566|NCT03368001|183584305|OTHER|The residual associated with the mediator was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator, yielding a saturated model.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|0.032|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.087||One-sided hypothesis test.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for Rapport at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The partially standardized indirect effect of treatment on follow-up Quality of Rapport through posttest Incidental Face Memory. We adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag (pretest to posttest) and baseline mediator, and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag (pretest to follow-up) and baseline outcome.||0.087|0.002|<0.05
91850567|NCT03368001|183584305|OTHER|The residuals associated with the mediator and outcome were allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator, yielding a saturated model.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|0.005|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.059||One-sided hypothesis test|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for Social Anxiety at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The partially standardized indirect effect of treatment on follow-up Social Anxiety through posttest IFM. Adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag between pretest and posttest for the a path and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag between pretest to follow-up for the b and c' paths.||0.059|-0.015|>0.05
91710291|NCT00547157|183313178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.278||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|4.043|||Regression, Logistic||The odd ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||4.043|0.438|0.8070
91852058|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.7141|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.7141
91900442|NCT01777269|183695228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-1.3|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-1.30|-3.76|<0.001
91654324|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.044||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.289||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.289|-0.378|0.7950
91654325|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.236||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.098||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.098|-0.570|0.1656
91710292|NCT00547157|183313178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in complete response rate|0.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.141|||||Difference is objective response rate in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm minus the rate in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||0.141|-0.103|
91710293|NCT03883477|183313183|OTHER|The trial was powered to detect a difference in POSAS score of 10, deemed to be clinically significant by the investigators. To detect a mean difference in POSAS score of 10 points (SD = 8) with a two-sided significance level of 5% and power of 80% with equal allocation to two arms required 12 patients in each arm of the trial.||||||0.013||||||1 week P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91710294|NCT03883477|183313183|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||1 month P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The trial was powered to detect a difference in POSAS score of 10, deemed to be clinically significant by the investigators. To detect a mean difference in POSAS score of 10 points (SD = 8) with a two-sided significance level of 5% and power of 80% with equal allocation to two arms required 12 patients in each arm of the trial.||||0.007
91710295|NCT03883477|183313183|OTHER|||||||0.804||||||6 month P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The trial was powered to detect a difference in POSAS score of 10, deemed to be clinically significant by the investigators. To detect a mean difference in POSAS score of 10 points (SD = 8) with a two-sided significance level of 5% and power of 80% with equal allocation to two arms required 12 patients in each arm of the trial.||||0.804
91710296|NCT03883477|183313184|OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.142
91710297|NCT03883477|183313185|OTHER|||||||0.561|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.561
91654326|NCT02637557|183201454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.385||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|-0.048||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.048|-0.722|0.0254
91654327|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.093||||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.3||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.300|-0.114|0.3788
91654328|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.189||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.397||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.397|-0.020|0.0761
91654329|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.021||||0.8415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.189||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.189|-0.232|0.8415
91654330|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.052||||0.6719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.294||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.294|-0.190|0.6719
91654331|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.007||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.251||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.251|-0.237|0.9549
91654332|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.149||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.149|-0.342|0.4408
91654333|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.004||||0.9736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.253||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.253|-0.262|0.9736
91654334|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.146||||0.2703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.114||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.114|-0.405|0.2703
91789103|NCT02984943|183458397|OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0183
91654335|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.351||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|-0.089||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.089|-0.612|0.0087
91654336|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.026||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.243||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.243|-0.295|0.8480
91789104|NCT02984943|183458398|OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0183
91654337|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.073||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.198||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.198|-0.344|0.5966
91654338|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.324||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.051||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.051|-0.596|0.0203
91852059|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8104|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.42||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.42|0.8104
91654339|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.025||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.244||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.244|-0.294|0.8540
91710298|NCT03883477|183313186|OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.748
91710299|NCT03883477|183313187|OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.184
91710300|NCT03883477|183313188|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.382
91789105|NCT02984943|183458399|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.08
91789106|NCT02984943|183458400|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.08
91789107|NCT02984943|183458401|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91789108|NCT02984943|183458402|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91789109|NCT02984943|183458403|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91789110|NCT02984943|183458404|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91789111|NCT02984943|183458405|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91789112|NCT02984943|183458406|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91789113|NCT02984943|183458407|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91789114|NCT02984943|183458409|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91654340|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.022||||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.25||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.250|-0.293|0.8757
91654341|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.332||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.605|-0.059||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.059|-0.605|0.0174
91654342|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.078||||0.5831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.358||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.358|-0.202|0.5831
91654343|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.078||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.204||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.204|-0.360|0.5859
91654344|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.291||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|-0.007||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.007|-0.575|0.0447
91710301|NCT03883477|183313189|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.382
91789115|NCT02984943|183458410|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91789116|NCT02984943|183458411|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91789117|NCT02984943|183458413|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91789118|NCT02984943|183458414|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91789119|NCT02984943|183458415|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91789120|NCT02984943|183458416|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91789121|NCT02296138|183458432|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis testing strategy ensures that the overall type I error is protected at 2-sided 0.01 level.|Ratio of rates vs. Tiotropium 5 μg|0.93||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.85|1.02|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of events Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) is provided.|Annualised rate of moderate to severe COPD exacerbation was analysed using a negative binomial model including the fixed, categorical effect of treatment as well as the logarithm of the treatment exposure as an offset.||1.02|0.85|0.0498
91852060|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7664|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.35||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.35|0.7664
91654345|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.093||||0.5365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.388||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.388|-0.203|0.5365
91789122|NCT02296138|183458432|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|0.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.96|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of rates Tiotropium (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) is provided.|Model was based on SPARK/FLAME- Covariates: Smoking status, baseline inhaled corticosteroid, Global Initiative on Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage, region, COPD Assessment Test score (replacing baseline symptom score), exacerbations treated with antibiotics/steroids history in previous year (replacing 1-year history of exacerbations)||0.96|0.84|0.0010
91900443|NCT01777269|183695228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.05|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.05|-2.56|0.042
91900444|NCT01777269|183695228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-2.14|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-2.14|-4.87|<0.001
91654346|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.057||||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.241||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.241|-0.355|0.7067
91710302|NCT02432209|183313192|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.34|||Chi-squared|||||1.34|0.48|0.404
91789123|NCT02296138|183458432|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|0.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.98|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of rates Tiotropium (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) is provided.|Model was based on HERMES- Covariates: age, sex, smoking status, baseline Long-acting Beta-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid, region and percent predicted post-bronchodilator Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second||0.98|0.85|0.0080
91654347|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.317||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|-0.017||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.017|-0.616|0.0386
91654348|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.042||||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.336||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.336|-0.253|0.7804
91654349|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.125||||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.171||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.171|-0.422|0.4064
91654350|NCT02637557|183201455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.333||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|-0.035||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.035|-0.632|0.0289
91654351|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.037||||0.7207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.241||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.241|-0.167|0.7207
91654352|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.133||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.133|-0.275|0.4946
91654353|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.077||||0.4596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.129||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.129|-0.283|0.4596
91654354|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.067||||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.315||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.315|-0.182|0.5987
91710303|NCT00305565|183313199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis consisted of contrasts comparing High Dose vs. Low Dose and Medium Dose vs. Low Dose averaged over the 4 Acute Phase visits using the Hochberg approach to adjust for multiplicity. If both comparisons involving the Low Dose were significant, then a test of High Dose vs. Medium Dose was evaluated at the P≤0.05 level. The pivotal analysis was performed on the ITT population using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach to impute missing data.||3.02|-2.34|0.803
91789124|NCT02296138|183458432|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|0.89||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.96|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of rates Tiotropium (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) is provided.|Model was based on TRINITY/TRILOGY- Covariates: Treatment, region, severity of airflow limitation, and smoking status as effects, and exacerbations treated with antibiotics/steroids in previous year.||0.96|0.84|0.0011
91654355|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.122||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.127||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.127|-0.372|0.3348
91654356|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.062||||0.6288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.19||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.190|-0.313|0.6288
91654357|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.048||||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.216||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.216|-0.312|0.7193
91654358|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.006||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.006|-0.534|0.0452
91654359|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.252||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|0.014||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.014|-0.519|0.0635
91654360|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.126||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.156||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.156|-0.409|0.3800
91654361|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.336||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.053||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.053|-0.620|0.0200
91654362|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.328||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|-0.043||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.043|-0.614|0.0244
91852061|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7888|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.31||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.31|0.7888
91852062|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.393|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.3930
91654363|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.5232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.2||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.200|-0.392|0.5232
91789125|NCT02296138|183458433|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis testing strategy ensures that the overall type I error is protected at 2-sided 0.01 level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.03|||Log Rank||Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg)|A Cox's proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding Confidence Interval. A log-rank test was used to obtain the p-value||1.03|0.87|0.1188
91789126|NCT02296138|183458434|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of events vs. Tiotropium 5 μg|0.89||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of events Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) is provided.|Annualised rate of exacerbations leading to hospitalization was analysed using a negative binomial model including the fixed, categorical effect of treatment as well as the logarithm of the treatment exposure as an offset.||1.03|0.76|0.1265
91789127|NCT02296138|183458435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.06|||Log Rank||Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg)|A Cox's proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding Confidence Interval. A log-rank test was used to obtain the p-value||1.06|0.82|0.2773
91789128|NCT02296138|183458436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.75|||Log Rank||Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg)|A Cox's proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding Confidence Interval. A log-rank test was used to obtain the p-value||1.75|0.67|0.7357
91789129|NCT00711516|183458437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-241.8||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2470.0|2102.3||The hierarchical testing procedure was employed to control the studywise error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The assumption of normality was violated (p-value ≤0.05), therefore the treatment comparison was made using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Using the standardized difference of 1.10, 28 evaluable patients (14 per treatment group) were required to provide 80% power while controlling the 2-sided, Type 1 error rate at 0.05. With an estimated 25% attrition rate, a total of 38 patients (19 per group) were planned. First analyzed using ANCOVA,the residuals were used to test for normality using Shapiro-Wilk; normality was violated therefore treatment comparison used the Wilcoxon rank sum.||2102.3|-2470.0|0.7382
91789130|NCT00711516|183458438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|53.2||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|136.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical hypothesis for this key secondary efficacy variable was to be tested using the same model as specified for the primary objective efficacy variable (ANCOVA, ANOVA, and Wilcoxon as appropriate). All statistical tests were 2 tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.||136.1|-17.8|0.1661
91654364|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.282||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.579|0.015||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.015|-0.579|0.0623
91710304|NCT00305565|183313199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis consisted of contrasts comparing High Dose vs. Low Dose and Medium Dose vs. Low Dose averaged over the 4 Acute Phase visits using the Hochberg approach to adjust for multiplicity. If both comparisons involving the Low Dose were significant, then a test of High Dose vs. Medium Dose was evaluated at the P≤0.05 level. The pivotal analysis was performed on the ITT population using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach to impute missing data.||3.05|-2.39|0.813
91710305|NCT03124537|183313246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health||Tested whether weekly steps increased from the baseline week in both conditions (main effect of time).||||< .001
91900445|NCT01777269|183695229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-5.49|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Par. with IPSS change from baseline \>=2 points improvement at any time post-baseline visit|||-5.49|-10.07|<0.001
91710306|NCT03124537|183313246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846||||||Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested whether weekly step increases from the baseline week differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.846
91710307|NCT03124537|183313247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571||||||Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested whether exercise self-efficacy increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.571
91789131|NCT00711516|183458439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|78.9||||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.8|311.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||311.3|-157.8|0.5774
91710308|NCT03124537|183313247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether exercise self efficacy increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.361
91710309|NCT03124537|183313248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether exercise control increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.564
91710310|NCT03124537|183313248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether exercise control belief increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.641
91710311|NCT03124537|183313250|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether daily walking was related to mood within-persons.||||< .001
91900446|NCT01777269|183695229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-4.99|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Par. with IPSS change from baseline \>=3 points improvement at any time post-baseline visit|||-4.99|-9.79|<0.001
91710312|NCT03124537|183313250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether daily walking was related to energy within-persons.||||.003
91710313|NCT03124537|183313250|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether the relationship between daily walking and mood differed between males and females (steps by sex interaction).||||< .001
91710314|NCT03124537|183313250|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether the relationship between daily walking and energy differed between males and females (steps by sex interaction).||||< .001
91710315|NCT03124537|183313251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported vigorous physical activity increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.011
91710316|NCT03124537|183313251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported vigorous physical activity increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.232
91710317|NCT03124537|183313252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported moderate physical activity increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.530
91710318|NCT03124537|183313252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.831|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported moderate physical activity increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.831
91710319|NCT03124537|183313253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported light physical activity increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.199
91710320|NCT03124537|183313253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported light physical activity increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.203
91710321|NCT02029274|183313277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5519||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.447|23.549|||Repeated measures analysis|||||23.549|-22.447|0.9621
91900447|NCT01777269|183695230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|-5.35|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Par. with IPSS change from baseline \>=25 points improvement at any time post-baseline visit|||-5.35|-10.22|<0.001
91900448|NCT00504881|183695232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction over Placebo|7.3|||=|0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|15.9|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA on log-transformed partial seizure frequency per week over the treatment period, with log-transformed baseline seizure frequency per week as covariate, and including terms for treatment and stratification factors.||15.9|-2.2|=0.125
91710322|NCT02029274|183313277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9297||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.128|6.391|||Repeated measures analysis|||||6.391|-37.128|0.1637
91710323|NCT02029274|183313277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.709|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6016||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.806|9.388|||Repeated measures|||||9.388|-36.806|0.2409
91710324|NCT02756364|183313282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.26|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original interactive response technology (IRT) stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.26|0.47|0.537
91710325|NCT02756364|183313282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.45|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.45|0.53|0.849
91710326|NCT02756364|183313283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.4|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.40|0.36|0.276
91789132|NCT00711516|183458440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|90.1||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-806.7|707.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||707.0|-806.7|0.8610
91789133|NCT00711516|183458441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|252.8||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1066.5|1523.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1523.8|-1066.5|0.6907
91789134|NCT00711516|183458442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.2456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-8.0|0.2456
91789135|NCT00711516|183458443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||9.0|-8.0|0.7115
91789136|NCT00711516|183458444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|19.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||19.0|-13.0|0.6103
91789137|NCT00711516|183458445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|17.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||17.0|-18.0|0.9619
91654365|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.255||||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.554|0.045||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.045|-0.554|0.0951
91654366|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.6985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.243||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.243|-0.363|0.6985
91710327|NCT02756364|183313283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.68|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.68|0.47|0.470
91654367|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.373||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|-0.069||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.069|-0.677|0.0163
91654368|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.345||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|-0.039||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.039|-0.652|0.0273
91710328|NCT02756364|183313284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.25|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.25|0.46|0.495
91789138|NCT00711516|183458446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-335.5||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1270.7|723.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||723.3|-1270.7|0.4544
91789139|NCT00711516|183458447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|6410.3||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1064.7|12087.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12087.3|1064.7|0.0193
91789140|NCT00711516|183458448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.1|0.1704
91789141|NCT00711516|183458449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.3|0.0609
91654369|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.056||||0.7187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.25||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.250|-0.362|0.7187
91710329|NCT02756364|183313284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.38|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.38|0.49|0.646
91710330|NCT02756364|183313285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|7.29|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||7.29|0.68|
91710331|NCT02756364|183313285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.39|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||4.39|0.34|
91850568|NCT03368001|183584305|OTHER|The residuals associated with the mediator and outcome were allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator, yielding a saturated model.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|-0.0002|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.054|0.061||One-sided hypothesis test|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for SRS-2 Social Communication at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The partially standardized indirect effect of treatment on follow-up SRS Communication. We adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag between pretest and posttest for the a path and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag between pretest to follow-up for the b and c' paths.||0.061|-0.054|>0.05
91710332|NCT02756364|183313286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.94|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||6.94|0.94|
91710333|NCT02756364|183313286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.44|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||4.44|0.69|
91850569|NCT03368001|183584306|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||SRS Communication Posttest.|Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses.||||||.490
91850570|NCT03368001|183584307|OTHER|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pre-test scores||||||0.704|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.704
91850571|NCT03368001|183584307|OTHER|Followup ANCOVA controlling for pretest values||||||0.406|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.406
91654370|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|0.017||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.017|-0.596|0.0640
91654371|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.484||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|-0.175||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.175|-0.793|0.0023
91654372|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.079||||0.6033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.22||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.220|-0.378|0.6033
91710334|NCT02223364|183313288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.144
91710335|NCT02223364|183313288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
91710336|NCT02223364|183313288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
91710337|NCT02223364|183313289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91710338|NCT02223364|183313289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91710339|NCT02223364|183313289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91710340|NCT02223364|183313290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91710341|NCT02223364|183313290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91710342|NCT02223364|183313290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.257
91710343|NCT02223364|183313291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.059
91710344|NCT02223364|183313291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91710345|NCT02223364|183313291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.214
91710346|NCT02223364|183313292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.189
91710347|NCT02223364|183313292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
91710348|NCT02223364|183313292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
91710349|NCT02223364|183313293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.958
91710350|NCT02223364|183313293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
91710351|NCT02223364|183313293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
91710352|NCT02223364|183313294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.493
91710353|NCT02223364|183313294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.299
91710354|NCT02223364|183313294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.797
91850572|NCT03368001|183584308|OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses.||Vocal Expressiveness Posttest.||||.217
91850573|NCT03368001|183584308|OTHER|||||||0.448|||||||Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses||Quality of Rapport Posttest.||||.448
91654373|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.05||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.050|-0.650|0.0222
91654374|NCT02637557|183201456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.482||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|-0.18||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.180|-0.785|0.0019
91789142|NCT00711516|183458450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.0||Nominal P-value for treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as factors and the baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the studywise error rate at 0.05. If treatment was statistically significant on the primary variable, the key secondary variable would be claimed as significant if p-value was \<= 0.05. If primary and key secondary variables were significant subsequent secondary variables following the order presented here would be claimed as significant if their p-values were \<= 0.05. If any were \>0.05 subsequent p-values would be reported as nominal p-values.||-0.0|-5.8|0.0499
91789143|NCT00711516|183458451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7343||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7343
91654375|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.143||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.357||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.357|-0.072|0.1922
91710355|NCT02223364|183313295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.571
91710356|NCT02223364|183313295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.991
91850574|NCT03368001|183584308|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses||Social Anxiety Posttest.||||.150
91710357|NCT02223364|183313295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.496
91850575|NCT03368001|183584309|OTHER|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pre-test values||||||0.169|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.169
91850576|NCT03368001|183584309|OTHER|Followup ANCOVA controlling for pretest values.||||||0.555|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.555
91850577|NCT03612804|183584310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.64||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with random intercept for provider and main effect term for study site.|Proactive care arm represents numerator of odds ratio, unstructured care arm represents denominator of odds ratio.|||1.64|0.67|0.83
91654376|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.072||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.288||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.288|-0.143|0.5091
91850578|NCT03105128|183584328|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.0|12.4|<0.001
91850579|NCT03105128|183584328|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.9|8.5|<0.001
91850580|NCT03105128|183584329|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.4|21.2|<0.001
91654377|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.037||||0.7394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.254||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.254|-0.181|0.7394
91850581|NCT03105128|183584329|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|13.6|<0.001
91850582|NCT03105128|183584330|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|13.8|<0.001
91850583|NCT03105128|183584330|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.8|10.8|<0.001
91850584|NCT03105128|183584331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.4|21.2|<0.001
91850585|NCT03105128|183584331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|13.6|<0.001
91850586|NCT03105128|183584332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|13.8|<0.001
91654378|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.073||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.334||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.334|-0.189|0.5845
91850587|NCT03105128|183584332|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.8|10.8|<0.001
91654379|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.034||||0.7959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.228||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.228|-0.296|0.7959
91850588|NCT03105128|183584333|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.7|7.2|<0.001
91850589|NCT03105128|183584333|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|3.1|0.007
91850590|NCT03105128|183584334|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.9|14.2|<0.001
91850591|NCT03105128|183584334|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.4|19.0|<0.001
91850592|NCT03105128|183584335|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.2|3.2|<0.001
91850593|NCT03105128|183584335|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.1|2.1|<0.001
91850594|NCT03105128|183584336|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.7|1.5|0.015
91850595|NCT03105128|183584336|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.6|2.3|0.007
91850596|NCT03105128|183584337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.5|18.5|<0.001
91850597|NCT03105128|183584337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.9|11.8|<0.001
91850598|NCT03105128|183584338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.7|15.7|<0.001
91654380|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.249||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.249|-0.280|0.9086
91850599|NCT03105128|183584338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.1|15.1|<0.001
91654381|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.5334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.173||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.173|-0.333|0.5334
91654382|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.212||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|0.042||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.042|-0.466|0.1020
91654383|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.357||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|-0.1||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.100|-0.613|0.0066
91850600|NCT03105128|183584339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|30.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.0|12.4|<0.001
91850601|NCT03105128|183584339|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.8|10.1|<0.001
91850602|NCT03105128|183584340|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.0|<0.001
91850603|NCT03105128|183584340|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|9.4|<0.001
91710358|NCT02223364|183313296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.807
91850604|NCT03105128|183584341|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.5|6.2|0.001
91850605|NCT03105128|183584341|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.3|3.2|0.007
91850606|NCT03105128|183584342|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.5|7.9|<0.001
91710359|NCT02223364|183313296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.171
91710360|NCT02223364|183313296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
91710361|NCT02223364|183313298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
91710362|NCT02223364|183313298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91710363|NCT02223364|183313298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.293
91710364|NCT02223364|183313299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.202
91710365|NCT02223364|183313299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91710366|NCT02223364|183313299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.148
91710367|NCT02223364|183313300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.933
91710368|NCT02223364|183313300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.169
91710369|NCT02223364|183313300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
91710370|NCT02223364|183313301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.768
91710371|NCT02223364|183313302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||Regression, Cox|||Within group comparison of baseline and 3 months (approximately 12 weeks)||||0.623
91850607|NCT03105128|183584342|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|14.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|3.7|0.001
91850608|NCT03105128|183584343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|12.2|<0.001
91710372|NCT02223364|183313302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Cox|||Within group comparison of baseline and 3 months (approximately 12 weeks)||||0.001
91850609|NCT03105128|183584343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|12.8|<0.001
91710373|NCT02223364|183313302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Regression, Cox|||Within group comparison of baseline and three months (approximately 12 weeks)||||0.048
91710374|NCT02685072|183313315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5818||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1968|1.7202|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom =1|Odds ratio represents odds of smoking abstinence in TPN + progesterone group versus TPN + placebo group|||1.7202|0.1968|0.3253
91710375|NCT02685072|183313316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0781||||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|3.2744|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo groups|||3.2744|0.3550|0.8944
91710376|NCT02685072|183313317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7619||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2247|2.5838|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 ppm (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.5838|0.2247|0.6620
91710377|NCT02685072|183313318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.913||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3171|2.6287|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 ppm (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.6287|0.3171|0.8661
91710378|NCT02685072|183313319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.7||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided||(Placebo + TPN) - (Progesterone + TPN)|||9.0|-27.1|0.31
91850610|NCT03105128|183584344|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.0|2.1|0.022
91850611|NCT03105128|183584344|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.3|11.1|<0.001
91850612|NCT03105128|183584345|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-3.5|||Chi-squared|||||-3.5|-13.9|<0.001
91850613|NCT03105128|183584345|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.2|||Chi-squared|||||-5.2|-15.2|<0.001
91850614|NCT03105128|183584346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|39.7|||Chi-squared|||||39.7|-28.6|1.00
91850615|NCT03105128|183584346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|25.0|-25.7|39.6|||Chi-squared|||||39.6|-25.7|1.000
91850616|NCT03105128|183584347|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.0|12.4|<0.001
91850617|NCT03105128|183584347|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.9|8.5|<0.001
91710379|NCT02685072|183313320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9747|1.2707|||t-test, 2 sided||(placebo + TPN) - (progesterone + TPN)|||1.2707|-0.9747|0.7910
91850618|NCT03105128|183584348|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.7|7.2|<0.001
91710380|NCT02685072|183313321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.26||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|15.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.81|2.71|0.0065
91710381|NCT02685072|183313332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7172||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1738|2.9594|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 ppm (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.9594|0.1738|.6449
91850619|NCT03105128|183584348|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|3.1|0.007
91850620|NCT03105128|183584349|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.5|5.4|<0.001
91850621|NCT03105128|183584349|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.8|5.7|<0.001
91850622|NCT03105128|183584350|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.9|14.2|<0.001
91850623|NCT03105128|183584350|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.4|19.0|<0.001
91850624|NCT03105128|183584351|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|7.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||7.2|3.2|<0.001
91850625|NCT03105128|183584351|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||6.1|2.1|<0.001
91850626|NCT03105128|183584352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|27.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||27.1|14.3|<0.001
91850627|NCT03105128|183584352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|25.8|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||25.8|13.1|<0.001
91850628|NCT03105128|183584353|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|16.8|<0.001
91850629|NCT03105128|183584353|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.3|<0.001
91850630|NCT03105128|183584354|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.0|<0.001
91850631|NCT03105128|183584354|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|9.4|<0.001
91850632|NCT03105128|183584355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.5|6.2|0.001
91850633|NCT03105128|183584355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.3|3.2|0.007
91850634|NCT03105128|183584356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.5|7.9|<0.001
91850635|NCT03105128|183584356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|14.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|3.7|0.001
91850636|NCT03105128|183584357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|12.2|<0.001
91850637|NCT03105128|183584357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|12.8|<0.001
91850638|NCT03105128|183584358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.0|2.1|0.022
91900449|NCT02411578|183695263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the crossover trial primary analysis, analyzed events were study treatment events meeting the following criteria: a) a survey was completed in the smart phone application, b) the initial BG measurement was 40 to 69 mg/dL, c) BG measurements were performed at both the 15-minute (in a window of 13 to 20 minutes) and 30-minute (28 to 40 minutes) time points, and d) appropriate treatment including dose was taken both at the initial and 15-minute time points.||||0.99
91900450|NCT02411578|183695264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.34
91900451|NCT02411578|183695265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.01
91900452|NCT02411578|183695266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.02
91900453|NCT02411578|183695267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.86
91850639|NCT03105128|183584358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.3|11.1|<0.001
91850640|NCT03105128|183584359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-3.5|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-3.5|-13.9|<0.001
91850641|NCT03105128|183584359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-5.2|-15.2|<0.001
91900454|NCT02411578|183695268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.95
91900455|NCT02411578|183695269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.78
91900456|NCT02411578|183695270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.21
91850642|NCT03105128|183584360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|39.7|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||39.7|-28.6|1.000
91850643|NCT03105128|183584360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|39.6|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||39.6|-25.7|1.000
91850644|NCT03105128|183584361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.586||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.89|-1.282|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-1.282|-17.890|0.024
91850645|NCT03105128|183584361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.141||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|-3.892|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-3.892|-20.390|0.004
91850646|NCT03105128|183584362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.913|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.512|4.313|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||4.313|1.512|<0.001
91850647|NCT03105128|183584362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.275|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.877|4.672|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||4.672|1.877|<0.001
91850648|NCT05826431|183584379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.65||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||Study analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 29. Frequencies and descriptive data were tabulated to describe the sample and quantify device use, satisfaction, and perceived impact. Qualitative responses regarding usability and feasibility were summarized based on the themes of the responses.||||0.153
91850649|NCT05826431|183584380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.103
91850650|NCT05826431|183584382|OTHER|Single group, frequencies, and descriptive data|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||.083
91850651|NCT05826431|183584383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||441|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0441
91850652|NCT05826431|183584384|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.095
91850653|NCT05826431|183584385|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.487
91850654|NCT05826431|183584386|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.483|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.483
91850655|NCT05826431|183584387|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||.0483
91850656|NCT05826431|183584388|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.123
91850657|NCT01199237|183584389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.11
91850658|NCT03254394|183584404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.88||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|20.85||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Average AUC of cold pain score over 14 days of a chemotherapy cycle in the Control group is equal or lower than that of the experimental group. The comparison is for average AUC values over 7 cycles of chemotherapy per patient||20.85|-7.09|0.318
91850659|NCT03254394|183584404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.67||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|29.1||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Cold hypersensitivity counted as unpleasantness score for 14 days after cycle (AUC) in the Control group is less than that of the experimental group. The difference was calculated for the Cycle 6 visit.||29.10|-13.76|0.466
91900457|NCT02411578|183695271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.09
91654384|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.3586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.145||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.145|-0.399|0.3586
91654385|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.348||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|-0.075||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.075|-0.621|0.0128
91654386|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.384||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.109||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.109|-0.660|0.0064
91654387|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.076||||0.6124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.218||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.218|-0.369|0.6124
91654388|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.223||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.518|0.071||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.071|-0.518|0.1365
91654389|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.355||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|-0.058||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.058|-0.652|0.0193
91654390|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.037||||0.8046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.258||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.258|-0.333|0.8046
91789144|NCT00711516|183458452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.2||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.3||P-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||14.3|-1.8|0.1246
91654391|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.319||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|-0.023||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.023|-0.616|0.0350
91654392|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.392||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.691|-0.093||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.093|-0.691|0.0105
91654393|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.094||||0.5482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.403|0.214||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.214|-0.403|0.5482
91654394|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.377||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|-0.068||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.068|-0.687|0.0170
91654395|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.469||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.781|-0.157||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.157|-0.781|0.0034
91654396|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.5346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.202||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.202|-0.388|0.5346
91654397|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.336||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|-0.04||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.040|-0.632|0.0262
91789145|NCT00711516|183458453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.026||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.684|19.98|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||19.980|-21.684|0.7382
91789146|NCT00711516|183458454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.086||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.195|25.043|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||25.043|-19.195|1.000
91789147|NCT00711516|183458455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.282||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|14.77|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.770|-11.460|0.8861
91789148|NCT00711516|183458456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|11.825||||0.4738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.601|37.987|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||37.987|-12.601|0.4738
91789149|NCT00711516|183458457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0573||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between fMRI variable and performance on the 2-back working memory test||||0.0573
91789150|NCT00711516|183458457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0754||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||.0754
91789151|NCT00711516|183458458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2727||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.2727
91789152|NCT00711516|183458458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5671||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||.5671
91789153|NCT00711516|183458459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1169||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.1169
91789154|NCT00711516|183458459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.1634
91789155|NCT00711516|183458460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0692||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's Z-transformation.||||||0.0692
91789156|NCT00711516|183458460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8876||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||.8876
91789157|NCT00711516|183458461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.603||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's Z-transformation.||||||0.6030
91654398|NCT02637557|183201457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.545||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.843|-0.246||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.246|-0.843|0.0004
91789158|NCT00711516|183458461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||<.0001
91789159|NCT00711516|183458462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's Z-transformation.||||||0.9170
91789160|NCT00711516|183458462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9642||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||.9642
91789161|NCT00711516|183458463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7813||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.7813
91789162|NCT00711516|183458463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.1560
91654399|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.098||||0.3007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.284||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.284|-0.088|0.3007
91654400|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.143||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.328||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.328|-0.042|0.1295
91654401|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.028||||0.7671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.159||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.159|-0.216|0.7671
91654402|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.238||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.238|-0.217|0.9308
91654403|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.051||||0.6595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.277||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.277|-0.176|0.6595
91654404|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.2771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.102||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.102|-0.356|0.2771
91654405|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.203||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.436|0.031||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.031|-0.436|0.0887
91654406|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.022||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.022|-0.443|0.0758
91789163|NCT00711516|183458464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.9010
91654407|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.063||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.063|-0.534|0.0132
91654408|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.086||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.16||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.160|-0.332|0.4903
91789164|NCT00711516|183458464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.0135
91789165|NCT00711516|183458473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.841||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.778|19.313|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||19.313|-27.778|0.7053
91654409|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.068||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.176||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.176|-0.313|0.5824
91654410|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.215||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.033||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.033|-0.463|0.0885
91654411|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.111||||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.13||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.130|-0.352|0.3652
91654412|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.108||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.131||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.131|-0.348|0.3739
91654413|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|-0.027||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.027|-0.512|0.0294
91654414|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.102||||0.4236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.148||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.148|-0.351|0.4236
91654415|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.105||||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.144||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.144|-0.353|0.4071
91789166|NCT00711516|183458474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.792||||0.5163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.631|16.19|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.190|-30.631|0.5163
91789167|NCT00711516|183458475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.108||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.341|5.498|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.498|-14.341|0.8711
91789168|NCT00711516|183458476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|13.855||||0.1825||95.0|-15.357|25.714|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||25.714|-15.357|0.1825
91789169|NCT00711516|183458477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-323.5||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9311.0|2375.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2375.5|-9311.0|0.9282
91789170|NCT00711516|183458478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1069.0|426.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||426.0|-1069.0|1.0000
91789171|NCT00711516|183458479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-82.8||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-788.0|165.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||165.5|-788.0|0.5284
91789172|NCT00711516|183458480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-145.8||||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3151.0|1006.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1006.5|-3151.0|0.8997
91789173|NCT00711516|183458481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.1||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|8.0|||ANCOVA|||||8.0|-58.2|0.1305
91789174|NCT02692651|183458482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.195
91789175|NCT02692651|183458483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.99
91789176|NCT02692651|183458484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.999
91789177|NCT03490981|183458485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.486
91789178|NCT03490981|183458486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.342
91850660|NCT03254394|183584405|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|20.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the null hypothesis is EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 sensory score change in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the last follow-up study visit.||||0.338
91789179|NCT03490981|183458487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.646
91789180|NCT03490981|183458488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.205
91789181|NCT03490981|183458489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.492
91789182|NCT03490981|183458490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.272
91789183|NCT03490981|183458491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.870
91789184|NCT03490981|183458492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.570
91789185|NCT01860846|183458511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004||||||Baseline vs. 12 months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||=0.004
91789186|NCT01860846|183458512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.022||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.022
91850661|NCT03254394|183584405|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 sensory score change in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the cycle 6 (12 weeks) follow-up study visit.||||0.759
91850662|NCT03254394|183584406|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is NPSI total score in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the C3 (6 weeks) study visit.||||0.581
91850663|NCT03254394|183584406|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is NPSI total score in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the C6 (12 weeks) study visit.||||0.962
91850664|NCT03254394|183584406|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is NPSI total score in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the last follow-up study visit.||||0.365
91850665|NCT03254394|183584407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.68||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1771.0|1886.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is Oxaliplatin cumulative dose in the Control group is equal to or higher than that of the experimental group.||1886|-1771|0.730
91850666|NCT01867580|183584425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.6770
91850667|NCT01867580|183584426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0202
91850668|NCT01867580|183584427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0142
91850669|NCT01212757|183584428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|13.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||22.7|4.0|0.0060
91850670|NCT01212757|183584428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||28.2|9.1|0.0002
91850671|NCT01212757|183584429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.045|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.045|-0.236|0.0042
91900458|NCT02411578|183695272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.49
91900459|NCT02411578|183695273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.63
91710382|NCT02685072|183313333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7172||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1738|2.9594|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of prolonged abstinence in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.9594|0.1738|0.6449
91710383|NCT03597139|183313342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-1.7|0.1491
91710384|NCT03597139|183313343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.9|||ANCOVA|||||13.9|-1.6|0.1187
91789187|NCT01860846|183458513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.006||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.006
91900460|NCT02411578|183695274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.41
91900461|NCT02411578|183695275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.80
91654416|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.259||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.008||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.008|-0.510|0.0434
91654417|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.103||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.147||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.147|-0.354|0.4172
91710385|NCT03597139|183313344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|16.5|||ANCOVA|||||16.5|-3.7|0.2128
91710386|NCT03597139|183313345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|9.6|||ANCOVA|||||9.6|-11.8|0.8408
91710387|NCT03597139|183313346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.5356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.6|||ANCOVA|||||11.6|-6.1|0.5356
91710388|NCT03597139|183313347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.1|||ANCOVA|||||14.1|-2.7|0.1787
91710389|NCT03597139|183313348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.7666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|9.3|||ANCOVA|||||9.3|-12.6|0.7666
91710390|NCT03597139|183313349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.4|||ANCOVA|||||8.4|-10.7|0.8082
91710391|NCT03597139|183313350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6||||0.6362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|60.3|||ANCOVA|||||60.3|-37|0.6362
91710392|NCT03597139|183313351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.9||Frequency|ANCOVA|||Frequency||20.9|-1.7|0.0961
91710393|NCT03597139|183313351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.7|||ANCOVA|||Severity||18.7|-3.4|0.1722
91710394|NCT03597139|183313352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.9||Left Eye|ANCOVA|||Left Eye||8.9|1.6|0.0051
91710395|NCT03597139|183313352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.4||Right Eye|ANCOVA|||Right Eye||8.4|1.1|0.0104
91789188|NCT01860846|183458514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
91789189|NCT01860846|183458515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Physical Functioning Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
91789190|NCT01860846|183458515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Role-Physical Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
91850672|NCT01212757|183584429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.104||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|-0.009|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.009|-0.199|0.0320
91789191|NCT01860846|183458515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Role-Emotional Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.001
91789192|NCT01860846|183458515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.019||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Vitality Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.019
91852063|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4785|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.4785
91710396|NCT03597139|183313353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.0||Left Eye|ANCOVA||Add in RE LE info|Left Eye||-1.0|-3.2|0.0003
91789193|NCT01860846|183458515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.017||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Mental Health Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.017
91789194|NCT01860846|183458515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.007||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Social Functioning Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.007
91789195|NCT01860846|183458515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Bodily Pain Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
91789196|NCT01860846|183458515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||General Health Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.005
91789197|NCT01860846|183458516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Bowel-related Symptoms Scores: The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
91850673|NCT01212757|183584430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.2||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|17.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.8|0.5|0.0394
91654418|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071||||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.179||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.179|-0.321|0.5759
91850674|NCT01212757|183584430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|15.7||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|24.7||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.7|6.7|0.0009
91789198|NCT01860846|183458516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Systemic Symptoms Scores:The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
91789199|NCT01860846|183458516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Emotional Function Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
91789200|NCT01860846|183458516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Social Function Scores: The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
91789201|NCT00770146|183458526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤ 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C is approximately 22%. With at least 20 patients in the control group and 40 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 90% power to detect a 20% difference between the 2 groups.||||<0.001
91900462|NCT02411578|183695276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.13
91789202|NCT00770146|183458528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91789203|NCT00770146|183458530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91710397|NCT03597139|183313353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.5||Right Eye|ANCOVA|||Right Eye||-0.5|-2.6|0.0038
91850675|NCT01212757|183584431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.121||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|-0.02|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||-0.020|-0.222|0.0191
91789204|NCT00770146|183458532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91850676|NCT01212757|183584431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||0.020|-0.180|0.1179
91850677|NCT01212757|183584432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.92|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above||3.92|0.28|0.0237
91850678|NCT01212757|183584432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.36||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|3.15|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above||3.15|-0.44|0.1388
91850679|NCT01212757|183584433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|14.9||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|25.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||25.5|4.3|0.0065
91850680|NCT01212757|183584433|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.7||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||25.2|4.1|0.0071
91789205|NCT00770146|183458534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91789206|NCT00770146|183458536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977
91789207|NCT00770146|183458538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91789208|NCT00770146|183458540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91789209|NCT00770146|183458542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91789210|NCT00770146|183458544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
91789211|NCT04345367|183458564|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|29.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method adjusted by baseline disease severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.5|15.8|<0.0001
91789212|NCT04345367|183458565|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|20.0||CMH method adjusted by baseline disease severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.0|8.2|<0.0001
91789213|NCT04345367|183458566|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|19.7||CMH method adjusted by baseline disease severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||19.7|5.3|0.0008
91789214|NCT04345367|183458567|OTHER||Estimate of difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.7|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||8.7|0.2|
91789215|NCT04345367|183458567|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|26.9|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.9|13.2|
91789216|NCT04345367|183458567|OTHER||Estimate of difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|21.1|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||21.1|6.9|
91789217|NCT04345367|183458567|OTHER||Estimate of difference|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|20.0|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.0|5.5|
91789218|NCT04345367|183458567|OTHER||Estimate of difference|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.3|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||14.3|-0.4|
91850681|NCT01212757|183584434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-10.0|0.0648
91850682|NCT01212757|183584434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.4|-10.6|0.0347
91850683|NCT01212757|183584435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.2|0.3496
91710398|NCT01249833|183313354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-30.4||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|||-0.1|-60.7|.0492
91850684|NCT01212757|183584435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8|-0.7|0.8874
91850685|NCT01212757|183584436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-1.0|0.5438
91850686|NCT01212757|183584436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||1.0|-0.4|0.3759
91710399|NCT01249833|183313355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.8||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|6.42|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|||6.42|1.14|0.0054
91710400|NCT01249833|183313356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.9||||0.9685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-190.1|197.9|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|||197.9|-190.1|.9685
91710401|NCT01249833|183313357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.9||||0.3195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.7|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|Alertness: the higher the value, the greater the alertness.||5.7|-1.9|.3195
91710402|NCT01249833|183313357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6||||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care AL one was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|Calmness: the higher the value, the greater the calmness.||2.9|-4.1|.7219
91789219|NCT04345367|183458568|OTHER||Estimate of difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.4|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||14.4|1.8|
91789220|NCT04345367|183458568|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|28.0|||||Week 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||28.0|13.8|
91850687|NCT01212757|183584437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.51||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.16|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.16|-5.86|0.0035
91710403|NCT01249833|183313357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.3||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|7.4|||ANCOVA||The LS means of Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|Contentedness: the higher the value, the greater the contentedness.||7.4|-.8|.1162
91789221|NCT04345367|183458568|OTHER||Estimate of difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|25.3|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||25.3|11.4|
91850688|NCT01212757|183584437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-2.14|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.14|-6.76|0.0002
91850689|NCT01212757|183584438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.18|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.18|-0.61|0.0004
91850690|NCT01212757|183584438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.25|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.25|-0.68|<0.0001
91850691|NCT01212757|183584439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.12||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.06|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.06|0.19|0.0318
91850692|NCT01212757|183584439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.20|-1.65|0.7803
91850693|NCT01212757|183584440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.86||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.70|0.02|0.0473
91850694|NCT01212757|183584440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.53||||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|3.35|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.35|-0.29|0.0997
91850695|NCT01212757|183584441|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|7.8||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|17.5||The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.5|-1.9|0.1195
91850696|NCT01212757|183584441|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|15.5||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|25.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.5|5.6|0.0026
91850697|NCT01212757|183584442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.5067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.4|-6.8|0.5067
91850698|NCT01212757|183584442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-3.5||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||1.6|-8.5|0.1762
91850699|NCT01212757|183584443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-1.2|0.2719
91850700|NCT01212757|183584443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7|-0.8|0.9727
91850701|NCT01212757|183584444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.0|0.3705
91850702|NCT01212757|183584444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.6777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8|-0.6|0.6777
91850703|NCT01212757|183584445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.14||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-0.76|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.76|-5.52|0.0097
91850704|NCT01212757|183584445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-2.16|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.16|-6.85|0.0002
91850705|NCT01212757|183584446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.15|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.15|-0.60|0.0011
91850706|NCT01212757|183584446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.23|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.23|-0.68|0.0001
91850707|NCT01212757|183584447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.14||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.07|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.07|0.20|0.0303
91850708|NCT01212757|183584447|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|0.16||||0.8704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.08|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.08|-1.76|0.8704
91850709|NCT01212757|183584448|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.6||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights.|||17.2|-9.9|0.6022
91850710|NCT01212757|183584448|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.3||||0.8462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights.|||14.7|-12.1|0.8462
91654419|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.285||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.538|-0.033||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.033|-0.538|0.0271
91654420|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.115||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.115|-0.395|0.2804
91654421|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.218||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.472|0.035||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.035|-0.472|0.0913
91654422|NCT02637557|183201458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.123||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.123|-0.637|0.0039
91900463|NCT02411578|183695277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.70
91654423|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.128||||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.319||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.319|-0.064|0.1902
91654424|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.292||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.292|-0.091|0.3021
91654425|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.028||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.165||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.165|-0.221|0.7750
91710404|NCT00802672|183313377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For the primary efficacy analysis, a 90% confidence interval was constructed for the difference in the Therapeutic Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Therapeutic equivalence (bioequivalence) was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-0.20% to +0.20%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.61|2.45|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||2.45|-17.61|
91710405|NCT03159299|183313397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.15
91789222|NCT04345367|183458568|OTHER||Estimate of difference|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|21.5|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||21.5|8.2|
91710406|NCT01990573|183313425|OTHER|ANOVA|F statistic|0.002||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.002
91710407|NCT01990573|183313426|OTHER|ANOVA|F statistic|0.962||||0.962|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.962
91710408|NCT00320242|183313487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|two-tailed paired t-test||||2.23|0.26|0.0152
91710409|NCT00320242|183313488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|76.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||76.1|23.9|0.005
91789223|NCT04345367|183458568|OTHER||Estimate of difference|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.0|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||16.0|3.0|
91789224|NCT04345367|183458568|OTHER||Estimate of difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.5|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.5|-1.4|
91789225|NCT04345367|183458568|OTHER||Estimate of difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.2|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||7.2|-5.9|
91850711|NCT01212757|183584449|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.8||||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.9|-13.3|0.7337
91850712|NCT01212757|183584449|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.3||||0.6881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.3|-12.7|0.6881
91850713|NCT01212757|183584450|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|17.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||27.9|7.0|0.0014
91850714|NCT01212757|183584450|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|22.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||32.5|11.7|0.0001
91789226|NCT04345367|183458569|OTHER||Estimate of difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|11.7|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.7|2.8|
91710410|NCT00320242|183313489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.31||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-tailed Wilcoxan signed-rank sum test||two-tailed Wilcoxan signed-rank sum test||||0.02
91789227|NCT04345367|183458569|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|26.9|||||Week 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.9|14.3|
91789228|NCT04345367|183458569|OTHER||Estimate of difference|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|26.4|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.4|12.5|
91789229|NCT04345367|183458569|OTHER||Estimate of difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|23.0|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||23.0|8.7|
91789230|NCT04345367|183458569|OTHER||Estimate of difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|20.2|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.2|5.9|
91789231|NCT04345367|183458569|OTHER||Estimate of difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|16.4|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||16.4|2.0|
91789232|NCT04345367|183458569|OTHER||Estimate of difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|11.8|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.8|-2.8|
91789233|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|11.1|||||Day 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.1|3.1|
91654426|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.099||||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.33||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.330|-0.133|0.4022
91789234|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of difference|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.3|||||Day 3. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.3|1.7|
91789235|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|16.8|||||Day 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||16.8|6.0|
91789236|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of difference|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|20.3|||||Day 5. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.3|8.8|
91789237|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|19.0|||||Day 6. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||19.0|6.9|
91789238|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of difference|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|26.0|||||Day 7. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.0|13.8|
91654427|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.062||||0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.293||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.293|-0.169|0.5971
91789239|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|28.3|||||Day 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||28.3|15.9|
91789240|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of difference|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|28.1|||||Day 9. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||28.1|15.2|
91789241|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of other|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|27.9|||||Day 10. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||27.9|14.7|
91789242|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.6|||||Day 11. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.6|13.3|
91654428|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.045||||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.188||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.188|-0.279|0.7024
91654429|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.115||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.111||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.111|-0.342|0.3173
91654430|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.151||||0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.076||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.076|-0.378|0.1906
91710411|NCT00320242|183313490|OTHER|The percentage change in falls was analyzed using a two-tailed one-sample t-test with a hypothesized mean of 0||||||0.002||||||Two-tailed one-sample t-test with a hypothesized mean of 0. This analysis was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The percentage change in falls was analyzed using a two-tailed one-sample t-test with a hypothesized mean of 0||||0.002
91789243|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of difference|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|27.9|||||Day 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||27.9|14.6|
91789244|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|29.2|||||Day 13. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.2|15.8|
91654431|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.183||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.046||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.046|-0.412|0.1177
91654432|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.198||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.198|-0.297|0.6936
91710412|NCT00411450|183313492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|21.0|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|Difference at Week 17||21|-11|
91710413|NCT00411450|183313492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|23.0||||||Difference at Week 25||23|-9|
91789245|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|29.2|||||Day 14. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.2|15.6|
91789246|NCT04345367|183458570|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|29.9|||||Day 15. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.9|16.0|
91789247|NCT04345367|183458571|OTHER||Estimate of difference|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|24.5|||||Week 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||24.5|10.1|
91789248|NCT04345367|183458571|OTHER||Estimate of difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|20.1|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.1|6.0|
91654433|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.152||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.152|-0.343|0.4466
91654434|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.155||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.095||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.095|-0.405|0.2225
91850715|NCT01212757|183584451|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.6||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.0|-6.8|0.3376
91850716|NCT01212757|183584451|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.1||||0.3756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.4|-7.2|0.3756
91850717|NCT01212757|183584452|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.8||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.2|-8.7|0.3959
91900464|NCT02411578|183695278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
91710414|NCT00411450|183313494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|23.0|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|||23|-11|
91654435|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.193||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.193|-0.297|0.6764
91654436|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.061||||0.6243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.184||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.184|-0.306|0.6243
91654437|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.156||||0.2151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.403|0.091||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.091|-0.403|0.2151
91710415|NCT00411450|183313495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|31.4|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|Difference at Week 17||31.4|-6.3|
91789249|NCT04345367|183458571|OTHER||Estimate of difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.4|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.4|-2.5|
91900465|NCT02411578|183695279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
91654438|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.16||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.160|-0.351|0.4611
91654439|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.139||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.116||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.116|-0.394|0.2849
91789250|NCT04345367|183458571|OTHER||Estimate of difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.5|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||10.5|-3.4|
91850718|NCT01212757|183584452|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.8||||0.3941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.4|-8.7|0.3941
91850719|NCT01212757|183584453|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.1||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.7|2.6|0.0142
91900466|NCT02411578|183695280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91654440|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.228||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|0.03||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.030|-0.485|0.0833
91654441|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.242||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.242|-0.277|0.8955
91654442|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.207||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.207|-0.312|0.6916
91654443|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.159||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.103||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.103|-0.421|0.2345
91654444|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.043||||0.7466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.218||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.218|-0.304|0.7466
91789251|NCT04345367|183458571|OTHER||Estimate of difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.0|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||9.0|-4.9|
91789252|NCT04345367|183458571|OTHER||Estimate of difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.9|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.9|-1.9|
91654445|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.176||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.084||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.084|-0.437|0.1843
91654446|NCT02637557|183201459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.267||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|-0.003||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.003|-0.531|0.0471
91789253|NCT04345367|183458573|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.6|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-4.6|-14.0|
91789254|NCT04345367|183458573|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-7.6|||||Week 4. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-7.6|-17.4|
91789255|NCT04345367|183458573|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-6.6|||||Week 8. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-6.6|-15.6|
91654447|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.088||||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.265||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.265|-0.088|0.3258
91654448|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.084||||0.3483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.261||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.261|-0.092|0.3483
91654449|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.022||||0.8055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.201||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.201|-0.156|0.8055
91654450|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.103||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.326||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.326|-0.119|0.3627
91654451|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.087||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.31||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.310|-0.135|0.4404
91654452|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.001||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.226||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.226|-0.224|0.9939
91654453|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.128||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.1||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.100|-0.356|0.2716
91710416|NCT00411450|183313495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|30.2||||||Difference at Week 25||30.2|-8.4|
91789256|NCT04345367|183458573|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-5.1|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-5.1|-13.7|
91654454|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.116||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.345|0.112||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.112|-0.345|0.3175
91654455|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.252||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.483|-0.021||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.021|-0.483|0.0325
91654456|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.169||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415|0.077||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.077|-0.415|0.1769
91654457|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.188||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.058||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.058|-0.434|0.1343
91654458|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.295||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.544|-0.046||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.046|-0.544|0.0203
91654459|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.152||||0.2543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415|0.11||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.110|-0.415|0.2543
91654460|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.142||||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.121||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.121|-0.405|0.2892
91710417|NCT00411450|183313496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||1.1|0.5|
91710418|NCT00411450|183313497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|25.0|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|Difference at Week 17||25|-14|
91710419|NCT00411450|183313497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|25.0||||||Difference at Week 25||25|-14|
91710420|NCT00411450|183313498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||2.0|0.2|
91850720|NCT01212757|183584453|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|20.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|30.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||30.3|10.8|0.0001
91710421|NCT00411450|183313499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||0.9|0.4|
91710422|NCT00411450|183313500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||1.1|0.5|
91654461|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.306||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.571|-0.04||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.040|-0.571|0.0243
91789257|NCT04345367|183458573|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-2.9|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-2.9|-10.9|
91789258|NCT04345367|183458573|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-1.7|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.7|-9.0|
91654462|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.059||||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.194||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.194|-0.312|0.6471
91654463|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.106||||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.148||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.148|-0.359|0.4123
91654464|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.278||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.021||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.021|-0.534|0.0338
91789259|NCT04345367|183458573|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.4|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-7.1|
91789260|NCT04345367|183458574|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-7.6|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-7.6|-14.5|
91789261|NCT04345367|183458574|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-9.5|||||Week 4. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-9.5|-16.0|
91654465|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.095||||0.4841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.172||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.172|-0.362|0.4841
91654466|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.152||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|0.115||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.115|-0.419|0.2627
91654467|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.311||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|-0.041||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.041|-0.581|0.0241
91789262|NCT04345367|183458574|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-6.8|||||Week 8. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-6.8|-13.6|
91789263|NCT04345367|183458574|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.1|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-4.1|-10.5|
91654468|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.4881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.17||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.170|-0.355|0.4881
91654469|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.164||||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.099||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.099|-0.427|0.2205
91789264|NCT04345367|183458574|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.0|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-3.0|-9.3|
91789265|NCT04345367|183458574|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.7|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.7|-8.2|
91789266|NCT04345367|183458574|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|0.1|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.1|-6.6|
91789267|NCT04345367|183458575|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-0.4|
91710423|NCT00411450|183313501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||1.2|0.5|
91710424|NCT00614874|183313505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||Comparison is between baseline and week 12|ANOVA|||||||0.048
91789268|NCT04345367|183458575|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-0.3|
91710425|NCT00614874|183313506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.0||0.183||95.0||||comparison was at baseline and week 12|Friedman|||||||0.183
91710426|NCT00614874|183313507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95||0.398||95.0||||Comparison was at baseline and week 12|Friedman|||||||0.398
91710427|NCT00705341|183313517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Log-linear generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to assess the dose effect on PC20.||||0.65
91710428|NCT00205660|183313519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|||A repeated measures ANCOVA was used to test for a time by treatment condition interaction that would indicate differences between groups in change over time in the primary outcome. The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time x treatment condition).||||0.03
91789269|NCT04345367|183458575|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-0.3|
91789270|NCT04345367|183458576|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.3|-0.3|
91654470|NCT02637557|183201460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.433||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|-0.168||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.168|-0.699|0.0015
91654471|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.043||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.238||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.238|-0.152|0.6653
91654472|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.345||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.345|-0.046|0.1327
91654473|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.043||||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.241||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.241|-0.155|0.6697
91654474|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.021||||0.8598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.251||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.251|-0.210|0.8598
91654475|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.113||||0.3354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.344||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.344|-0.118|0.3354
91654476|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.055||||0.6429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.289||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.289|-0.179|0.6429
91654477|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.101||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.135||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.135|-0.336|0.4010
91654478|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.129||||0.2821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|0.106||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.106|-0.364|0.2821
91710429|NCT00205660|183313520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|||A repeated measures ANCOVA was used to test for a time by treatment condition interaction that would indicate differences between groups in change over time in the primary outcome. The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time x treatment condition).||||0.01
91789271|NCT04345367|183458576|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-0.2|
91654479|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.149||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.089||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.089|-0.388|0.2189
91789272|NCT04345367|183458576|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-0.1|
91654480|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.161||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.161|-0.346|0.4717
91654481|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.158||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.158|-0.349|0.4572
91654482|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.165||||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.092||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.092|-0.422|0.2064
91654483|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.088||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.164||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.164|-0.339|0.4932
91654484|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.069||||0.5897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.183||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.183|-0.321|0.5897
91654485|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.166||||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.089||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.089|-0.421|0.2014
91654486|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.044||||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.215||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.215|-0.304|0.7384
91710430|NCT03173456|183313530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The plan was to only do individual comparisons between means if the overall test of the analysis of variance (AVOVA) was statistically significant|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that all means are equal. The alternate hypothesis is that one or more mean is less than or more than another.||||0.69
91850721|NCT01212757|183584454|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.6||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||11.3|-0.2|0.0589
91850722|NCT01212757|183584454|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.8||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.1|3.4|0.0034
91789273|NCT04345367|183458577|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.3|-2.6|
91850723|NCT01212757|183584455|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.6||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||2.7|-1.5|0.5620
91789274|NCT04345367|183458577|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.4|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.4|-1.6|
91654487|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.043||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|0.216||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.216|-0.303|0.7423
91654488|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.141||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.122||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.122|-0.404|0.2923
91654489|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.085||||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.188||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.188|-0.359|0.5388
91654490|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.008||||0.9565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.281||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.281|-0.266|0.9565
91654491|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.099||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|0.179||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.179|-0.376|0.4848
91654492|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.164||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|0.117||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.117|-0.445|0.2523
91654493|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.112||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.17||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.170|-0.393|0.4356
91654494|NCT02637557|183201461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.199||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|0.086||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.086|-0.485|0.1706
91789275|NCT04345367|183458577|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.2|-1.4|
91789276|NCT04345367|183458577|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.0|-1.2|
91789277|NCT04345367|183458577|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-1.0|
91654495|NCT02637557|183201462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.7689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.115||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.115|-0.155|0.7689
91654496|NCT02637557|183201462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.034||||0.6287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.17||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.170|-0.103|0.6287
91654497|NCT02637557|183201462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.207||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.207|-0.066|0.3106
91654498|NCT02637557|183201463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.101||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.101|-0.100|0.9961
91654499|NCT02637557|183201463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.008||||0.8829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.094||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.094|-0.109|0.8829
91654500|NCT02637557|183201463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.201||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.201|-0.001|0.0527
91789278|NCT04345367|183458578|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.856|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.856|-1.220|
91789279|NCT04345367|183458578|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|4.267|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||4.267|-0.081|
91789280|NCT04345367|183458578|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.816|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.914|1.281|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.281|-2.914|
91789281|NCT04345367|183458579|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.7|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.7|-2.5|
91789282|NCT04345367|183458579|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.5|-2.2|
91789283|NCT04345367|183458579|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-1.3|
91654501|NCT00992407|183201464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.8595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Personal and Social Performance (PSP) Scale Score at Week 52||6.3|-7.5|0.8595
91789284|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||||Quantity of hours slept: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-0.1|
91789285|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Quantity of hours slept: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-0.2|
91789286|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Quantity of hours slept: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-0.2|
91789287|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.4|||||Short of Breath or Headache score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.4|-0.9|
91654502|NCT00992407|183201465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.8118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|12.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Score at Week 52||12.2|-9.6|0.8118
91654503|NCT00992407|183201474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|24.8|||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline in Psychosocial Well-being Index (PWI) Score at Week 52||24.8|-4.8|0.1768
91654504|NCT00992407|183201475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|12.2|||Student's t-test|||||12.2|-12.8|0.9569
91789288|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.2|||||Short of Breath or Headache score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.2|-2.0|
91789289|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||||Short of Breath or Headache score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.6|-1.5|
91654505|NCT00992407|183201476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9|-5.5|0.5294
91654506|NCT01521559|183201495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|40.1||P-value was calculated using 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by regions (Japan vs North America) and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was IAI group minus laser group; Difference and confidence interval were calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by regions (Japan vs North America) and baseline BCVA (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200).|||40.1|13.0|0.0003
91710431|NCT03173456|183313531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The plan was to only compare means if the overall test of AVOVA was statistically significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.85
91789290|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.5|||||Snoring score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-4.2|
91789291|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||||Snoring score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.5|-3.3|
91789292|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.4|||||Snoring score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.4|-1.7|
91654507|NCT01521559|183201496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|14.0|||ANCOVA|||Difference was IAI group minus laser group. P-value, Point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and treatment group, region, and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200) as fixed factors.||14.0|7.1|<0.0001
91654508|NCT01521559|183201497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-148.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.8|-117.4|||ANCOVA|||Difference was IAI group minus laser group; P-value, Point estimate, and 95% CI, were based on an ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and treatment group, region, and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200) as fixed factors.||-117.4|-179.8|<0.0001
91654509|NCT01521559|183201498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.5|||ANCOVA|||Difference was IAI group minus laser group; P-value, Point estimate, and 95% CI, were based on an ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and treatment group, region, and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200) as fixed factors.||5.5|-0.3|0.0833
91654510|NCT03197064|183201503|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.35
91654511|NCT03197064|183201503|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.47
91654512|NCT03197064|183201503|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.066
91654513|NCT03197064|183201504|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.72
91850724|NCT01212757|183584455|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.2|-0.0|0.0570
91850725|NCT01212757|183584456|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.1||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|9.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||9.6|-3.5|0.3629
91850726|NCT01212757|183584456|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.4||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||12.3|-1.5|0.1323
91654514|NCT03197064|183201504|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.72
91654515|NCT03197064|183201504|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.78
91654516|NCT03197064|183201505|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.93
91850727|NCT01212757|183584457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.6||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||3.0|-4.3|0.7273
91654517|NCT03197064|183201505|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.39
91654518|NCT03197064|183201505|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.08
91654519|NCT03197064|183201506|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.42
91654520|NCT03197064|183201506|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.37
91654521|NCT03197064|183201506|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.49
91654522|NCT03197064|183201507|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.386
91654523|NCT03197064|183201507|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.388
91654524|NCT03197064|183201507|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.247
91654525|NCT00757601|183201524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To assess the effect of food at the 30 mg dose, a point estimate was constructed for the geometric mean ratio for the fed/fasted states (GMR\[fed/fasted\]) of MK1006 AUC (0-∞).~The GMR (fed/fasted) was calculated using the geometric mean AUC (0-∞) of the fed state divided by the geometric mean AUC (0-∞) fasted state.~A GMR (fed/fasted) point estimate value within 20% of unity (1.00) was considered consistent with an absence of a clinically significant food effect."|Geometric Mean Ratio (fed/fasted)|1.03||||||95.0|||||Mixed-Effect Model|||A linear mixed-effect model was used to estimate the geometric mean AUC (0-∞) for MK1006 at every dose level.||||
91654526|NCT00757601|183201525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To assess the effect of food at the 30 mg dose, a point estimate was constructed for the geometric mean ratio for the fed/fasted states (GMR\[fed/fasted\]) of MK1006 Cmax.~The GMR (fed/fasted) was calculated using the geometric mean Cmax of the fed state divided by the geometric mean Cmax fasted state.~A GMR (fed/fasted) point estimate value within 20% of unity (1.00) was considered consistent with an absence of a clinically significant food effect."|Geometric Mean Ratio (fed/fasted)|1.14||||||95.0|||||Mixed-effect Model|||A linear mixed-effect model was used to estimate the geometric mean Cmax for MK1006 at every dose level.||||
91710432|NCT03173456|183313532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91710433|NCT03173456|183313534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
91850728|NCT01212757|183584457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.4||||0.2929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.8|-2.0|0.2929
91850729|NCT01212757|183584458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.2||||0.7023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||9.1|-13.5|0.7023
91654527|NCT04543136|183201530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|94.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||94.5|-4.5|0.074
91654528|NCT04543136|183201530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.8||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|109.1||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||109.1|8.5|0.022
91710434|NCT03173456|183313535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0501||||||0.05 was the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|||||||0.0501
91850730|NCT01212757|183584458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.3305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.7|-5.9|0.3305
91850731|NCT01212757|183584459|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.3||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.6|-16.0|0.9698
91654529|NCT04543136|183201530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2|36.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||36.6|-64.2|0.587
91654530|NCT04543136|183201531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|104.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||104.4|5.3|0.030
91654531|NCT04543136|183201531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|111.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||111.2|12.5|0.015
91654532|NCT04543136|183201531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|42.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||42.5|-56.5|0.780
91654533|NCT04543136|183201532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|11.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||11.2|-37.9|0.281
91789293|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.6|||||Sleep disturbance score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.6|-6.6|
91710435|NCT01733121|183313536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-4.5|<.0001
91654534|NCT04543136|183201532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|31.7||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||31.7|-18.3|0.597
91850732|NCT01212757|183584459|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.9||||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|18.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.1|-14.3|0.8205
91710436|NCT01733121|183313537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.0001
91710437|NCT01733121|183313538|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.7|0.0005
91850733|NCT01212757|183584460|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.2||||0.8424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|10.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||10.3|-12.7|0.8424
91850734|NCT01212757|183584460|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.8|-6.0|0.3395
91654535|NCT04543136|183201532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|5.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||5.0|-45.1|0.116
91789294|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.4|||||Sleep disturbance score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.4|-6.2|
91789295|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.7|||||Sleep disturbance score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.7|-4.1|
91654536|NCT04543136|183201533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|27.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||27.9|-21.2|0.787
91654537|NCT04543136|183201533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|31.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||31.3|-17.6|0.576
91654538|NCT04543136|183201533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|21.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||21.0|-28.1|0.775
91654539|NCT04543136|183201534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.52||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.52|-0.70|0.766
91654540|NCT04543136|183201534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.06||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.06|-1.30|0.032
91654541|NCT04543136|183201534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.21||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.21|-0.03|0.063
91654542|NCT04543136|183201535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.54||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.54|-0.12|0.213
91654543|NCT04543136|183201535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.51||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.51|-0.16|0.291
91654544|NCT04543136|183201535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.36||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.36|-0.31|0.868
91789296|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.6|||||Sleep adequacy score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.6|-1.6|
91654545|NCT04543136|183201536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.55||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.55|-0.35|0.661
91654546|NCT04543136|183201536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.17||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.17|-0.75|0.218
91710438|NCT01733121|183313539|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||ANOVA|||||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
91789297|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.4|||||Sleep adequacy score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||5.4|0.4|
91789298|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.4|||||Sleep adequacy score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.4|-1.9|
91789299|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3|||||Sleep somnolence score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.3|-2.8|
91789300|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.4|||||Sleep somnolence score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.4|-4.4|
91850735|NCT01212757|183584461|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.1|-10.3|0.4811
91850736|NCT01212757|183584461|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.3||||0.6965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.5|-13.3|0.6965
91850737|NCT01049503|183584482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov and Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.~Data were analyzed by 2-way RM-ANOVA after logarithmic transformation and Bonferroni's test."||||<0.05
91710439|NCT01151345|183313551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric means ratio|88.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.23|96.75||||||Natural-log transformed AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||96.75|81.23|
91850738|NCT01049503|183584483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively. Data from the clinical exams were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis' test.||||<0.05
91850739|NCT01049503|183584484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.Data from the clinical exams were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis' test.||||<0.05
91850740|NCT01049503|183584485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||"The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov and Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.~Data were analyzed by One-way ANOVA after logarithmic transformation and Tukey's test."||||<0.05
91850741|NCT01049503|183584486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively. Data from fluorescence loss were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests.||||<0.05
91850742|NCT01049503|183584487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively. Data from lesion area were evaluated by ANOVA after logarithmic transformation and Tukey's test.||||<0.05
91850743|NCT01049503|183584488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.Data from the clinical exams were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis' test.||||<0.05
91850744|NCT02525796|183584498|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in PTH over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and placebo||||0.84
91850745|NCT02525796|183584498|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in PTH over 4 weeks between amiloride monotherapy and placebo||||0.54
91850746|NCT02525796|183584498|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.6||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in PTH over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and amiloride monotherapy||||0.58
91850747|NCT02525796|183584499|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in serum calcium over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and placebo||||0.82
91850748|NCT02525796|183584499|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in serum calcium over 4 weeks between amiloride monotherapy and placebo||||0.21
91850749|NCT02525796|183584499|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in serum calcium over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and amiloride monotherapy||||0.12
91850750|NCT01198275|183584510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.441|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|0.666|||Kaplan Meyer analysis|The time to first AF recurrence was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test.|Hazard ratios between n-3 PUFA and Placebo together with confidence intervals were estimated using the Cox proportional regression model.|Give a relapse rate ranging from 40% to 60% on ACE-I/ARB and amiodarone therapy, considering the high risk of relapses in our study population we conservatively assumed a 50% relapse rate. We calculated that a total of 180 patients would yield 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of about 20% in AF recurrence with the addition of n-3 PUFAs at a log-rank test, with a significance level of 0.05.||0.666|0.292|< 0.05
91850751|NCT02729701|183584528|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for within-group change by paired two-sample non-parametric test||||0.017
91850752|NCT02729701|183584529|OTHER|||||||0.043||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||Test for within-group change via paired, two-sample non-parametric test||||0.043
91850753|NCT02729701|183584530|OTHER|||||||0.088||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for within-group change using paired two-sample non-parametric etst||||0.088
91850754|NCT02477670|183584532|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD) Weighted Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) z-statistic. Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).||0.17|-3.75|0.073
91850755|NCT02477670|183584533|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.29|-4.21|0.025
91850756|NCT02477670|183584534|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.2||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.24|-4.16|0.027
91850757|NCT02477670|183584535|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.26||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.3|-4.22|0.024
91850758|NCT02477670|183584536|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.64|-4.56|0.009
91850759|NCT02477670|183584537|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.57|-2.35|0.700
91850760|NCT02477670|183584538|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.93||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.03|-3.89|0.054
91850761|NCT02477670|183584539|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.35||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.61|-2.31|0.723
91850762|NCT02477670|183584540|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.85||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.11|-3.81|0.064
91850763|NCT02477670|183584541|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.64||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.32|-3.6|0.100
91850764|NCT02477670|183584542|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.86||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.1|-2.82|0.388
91850765|NCT02477670|183584543|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.9||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.06|-2.86|0.367
91850766|NCT02477670|183584544|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.76||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.2|-2.72|0.447
91850767|NCT02477670|183584545|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.23||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.27|-4.19|0.026
91850768|NCT02477670|183584546|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.62||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.34|-3.58|0.106
91850769|NCT02477670|183584547|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|1.78||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||3.74|-0.18|0.074
91850770|NCT02477670|183584548|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.79||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.17|-2.75|0.427
91850771|NCT02477670|183584549|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.91||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.05|||McNemar|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.05|-3.87|0.0566
91850772|NCT02477670|183584550|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.37||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-3.33|0.1700
91850773|NCT02477670|183584551|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|0.53||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||2.49|-1.43|0.595
91850774|NCT02477670|183584552|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|2.284||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|4.244|||ANCOVA|||||4.244|0.324|0.022
91850775|NCT02477670|183584553|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.17||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.79|||ANCOVA|||||1.79|-2.13|0.862
91850776|NCT02477670|183584554|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.149||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.109|0.811|||ANCOVA|||||0.811|-3.109|0.251
91850777|NCT02477670|183584555|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.159||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.119|0.801|||ANCOVA|||||0.801|-3.119|0.246
91850778|NCT02477670|183584556|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|0.231||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.729|2.191|||ANCOVA|||||2.191|-1.729|0.818
91850779|NCT02477670|183584557|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.04||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.92|||ANCOVA|||||1.92|-2.00|0.968
91850780|NCT02477670|183584558|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.306||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.266|1.654|||ANCOVA|||||1.654|-2.266|0.760
91850781|NCT02477670|183584559|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|1.243||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.717|3.203|||ANCOVA|||||3.203|-0.717|0.214
91850782|NCT02477670|183584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||SPCD 1 degree of freedom score test|||||||0.071
91850783|NCT02477670|183584561|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|0.951||||-0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.009|2.911|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||2.911|-1.009|-0.06
91850784|NCT00970307|183584562|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10% .|Difference in percentage|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|2.22||||||||2.22|-4.21|
91850785|NCT00970307|183584563|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10% .|Difference in percentage|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|3.57||||||||3.57|-5.19|
91850786|NCT01930045|183584667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.4||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.52|||Hochberg step-up procedure||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs geometric mean ratio (GMR) is not less than 0.4||0.52|0.31|0.507
91850787|NCT01930045|183584667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.38||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.49|||Hochberg step-up procedure||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs GMR is not less than 0.4||0.49|0.30|0.624
91850788|NCT01930045|183584668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.05|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.05|0.63|
91850789|NCT01930045|183584668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.92|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||0.92|0.50|
91850790|NCT01930045|183584669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.1|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.10|0.55|
91850791|NCT01930045|183584669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.04|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.04|0.48|
91654547|NCT04543136|183201536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.85||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.85|-0.08|0.100
91850792|NCT01930045|183584670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.65|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs GMR is not less than 0.4||0.65|0.39|
91850793|NCT01930045|183584670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.64|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs GMR is not less than 0.4||0.64|0.40|
91850794|NCT01930045|183584671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.18|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.18|0.64|
91654548|NCT04543136|183201537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.54||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.54|-0.80|0.701
91654549|NCT04543136|183201537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.42||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.42|-0.96|0.438
91654550|NCT04543136|183201537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.83||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.83|-0.55|0.689
91789301|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.3|||||Sleep somnolence score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.3|-4.3|
91789302|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.7|||||Sleep Problems Index I score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.7|-3.0|
91850795|NCT01930045|183584671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.22|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.22|0.64|
91850796|NCT01930045|183584672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.4|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.40|0.58|
91850797|NCT01930045|183584672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.41|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.41|0.58|
91850798|NCT01193153|183584725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.99|||Log Rank|||All participants: p-value was calculated using log-rank test.||3.99|1.55|<0.001
91850799|NCT01193153|183584725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|7.28|||Regression, Cox|||Monotherapy subset: Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||7.28|1.57|0.002
91654551|NCT04543136|183201538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.30|-0.92|0.309
91654552|NCT04543136|183201538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.11||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.11|-1.10|0.109
91850800|NCT01193153|183584725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.68|||Regression, Cox|||Adjunct therapy subset: Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||3.68|1.11|0.021
91654553|NCT04543136|183201538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.79|-0.43|0.555
91789303|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.5|||||Sleep Problems Index I score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.5|-4.0|
91789304|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.9|||||Sleep Problems Index I score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.9|-2.5|
91850801|NCT01193153|183584725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.67|||Regression, Cox|||Psychotic Symptoms: Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||4.67|1.70|<0.001
91850802|NCT01193153|183584725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.04|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Any Mood Symptoms):Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.04|1.70|<0.001
91850803|NCT01193153|183584725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.62||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.89|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Manic): Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||9.89|1.32|0.012
91789305|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.3|||||Sleep Problems Index II score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.3|-4.0|
91789306|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.1|||||Sleep Problems Index II score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.1|-4.8|
91654554|NCT04543136|183201539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.31|-0.35|0.896
91654555|NCT04543136|183201539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.16||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.16|-0.49|0.320
91789307|NCT04345367|183458580|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.4|||||Sleep Problems Index II score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-3.2|
91789308|NCT04345367|183458581|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.8|-1.5|
91789309|NCT04345367|183458581|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.1|-0.8|
91789310|NCT04345367|183458581|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.1|-0.6|
91789311|NCT04345367|183458581|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.0|-0.6|
91850804|NCT01193153|183584725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.12||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.98|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Depressive): Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||6.98|1.39|0.006
91850805|NCT01193153|183584725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.93||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.78|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Mixed): Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.78|0.65|0.238
91789312|NCT04345367|183458581|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.1|-0.5|
91789313|NCT04345367|183458582|OTHER||Least square mean difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|25.7||||||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment as a main effect and baseline disease severity as covariates.||25.7|10.5|
91789314|NCT04345367|183458583|OTHER||Estimate of difference|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|20.1|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.1|7.3|
91850806|NCT01193153|183584726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.95||P-value based on change from DB baseline in PSP score and was analyzed using mixed-model repeated measures analysis of covariance based on observed data; within-participant repeated measures were modeled using an unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean of the PSP total score between the two treatment groups.||5.95|0.68|0.014
91654556|NCT04543136|183201539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.47||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.47|-0.19|0.390
91789315|NCT04345367|183458583|OTHER||Estimate of difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.4|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||9.4|-1.6|
91789316|NCT04345367|183458583|OTHER||Estimate of difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.0|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||4.0|-7.1|
91850807|NCT01193153|183584728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|7.15||Change at Endpoint (Week 64/LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||7.15|1.94|<0.001
91850808|NCT02503202|183584742|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency requires the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio of \>0.5 and ≤2.0 for the primary analysis and \>0.67 and ≤1.5 for the secondary analysis.|GMT ratio (Lot A / Lot B)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.14||Primary analysis: a p-value \<0.025 supported the conclusion of equivalence. If equivalence was established for the 3 pairwise comparisons, the lots would be considered to be consistent.|ANOVA|||||1.14|0.77|<0.001
91654557|NCT04543136|183201540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.40|-0.51|0.802
91850809|NCT02503202|183584742|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency requires the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio of \>0.5 and ≤2.0 for the primary analysis and \>0.67 and ≤1.5 for the secondary analysis.|GMT ratio (Lot A / Lot C)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.09||Primary analysis: a p-value \<0.025 supported the conclusion of equivalence. If equivalence was established for the 3 pairwise comparisons, the lots would be considered to be consistent.|ANOVA|||||1.09|0.71|<0.001
91850810|NCT02503202|183584742|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency requires the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio of \>0.5 and ≤2.0 for the primary analysis and \>0.67 and ≤1.5 for the secondary analysis.|GMT ratio (Lot B / Lot C)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15||Primary analysis: a p-value \<0.025 supported the conclusion of equivalence. If equivalence was established for the 3 pairwise comparisons, the lots would be considered to be consistent.|ANOVA|||||1.15|0.77|<0.001
91850811|NCT02503202|183584743|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||4.0|-1.5|0.368
91850812|NCT02503202|183584743|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||3.0|-3.1|0.989
91850813|NCT02503202|183584743|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||1.5|-4.1|0.361
91850814|NCT02503202|183584743|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||3.3|-1.7|0.214
91850815|NCT02503202|183584744|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Injection site erythema||9.9|-1.6|0.160
91850816|NCT02503202|183584744|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Injection site erythema||6.0|-6.2|0.971
91850817|NCT02503202|183584744|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Injection site erythema||1.5|-10.0|0.151
91850818|NCT02503202|183584744|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Injection site erythema||9.9|1.4|0.016
91850819|NCT02503202|183584744|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Injection site pain||1.6|-14.0|0.120
91850820|NCT02503202|183584744|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-11.4|4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Injection site pain||4.4|-11.4|0.380
91850821|NCT02503202|183584744|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|10.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Injection site pain||10.4|-5.1|0.499
91850822|NCT02503202|183584744|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|54.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.2|62.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Injection site pain||62.3|46.2|<0.001
91850823|NCT02503202|183584744|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Injection site swelling||10.3|-2.2|0.202
91850824|NCT02503202|183584744|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Injection site swelling||6.1|-7.1|0.878
91850825|NCT02503202|183584744|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.6||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Injection site swelling||1.7|-10.9|0.154
91850826|NCT02503202|183584744|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Injection site swelling||18.6|7.4|<0.001
91850827|NCT02503202|183584745|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||11.4|-2.1|0.176
91850828|NCT02503202|183584745|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||6.0|-8.2|0.769
91850829|NCT02503202|183584745|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||1.1|-12.5|0.100
91850830|NCT02503202|183584745|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|37.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||37.5|25.6|<0.001
91850831|NCT02503202|183584746|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Arthralgia||4.1|-4.2|0.983
91850832|NCT02503202|183584746|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Arthralgia||3.4|-5.1|0.699
91850833|NCT02503202|183584746|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Arthralgia||3.5|-5.1|0.716
91850834|NCT02503202|183584746|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Arthralgia||10.4|1.8|0.012
91850835|NCT02503202|183584746|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Arthritis||4.4|-2.9|0.677
91850836|NCT02503202|183584746|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Arthritis||5.4|-1.4|0.250
91850837|NCT02503202|183584746|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Arthritis||4.5|-2.1|0.460
91850838|NCT02503202|183584746|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Arthritis||6.0|0.2|0.041
91850839|NCT02503202|183584747|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||1.9|-5.1|0.353
91850840|NCT02503202|183584747|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||2.5|-4.2|0.620
91850841|NCT02503202|183584747|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||4.5|-2.9|0.663
91789317|NCT04345367|183458583|OTHER||Estimate of difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.6|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||3.6|-7.6|
91654558|NCT04543136|183201540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.05||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.05|-0.85|0.082
91789318|NCT04345367|183458583|OTHER||Estimate of difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.9|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||1.9|-10.3|
91789319|NCT01755026|183458622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|191.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|166.01|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91789320|NCT03836001|183458623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
91789321|NCT03836001|183458624|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
91789322|NCT03836001|183458625|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
91789323|NCT03836001|183458626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
91850842|NCT02503202|183584747|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||5.7|-1.8|0.202
91850843|NCT02503202|183584748|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||3.3|-1.6|0.483
91789324|NCT03836001|183458627|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
91789325|NCT03836001|183458628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline through week 8 including all time points. For this analysis, data were censored at the time of participant discontinuation.||0.02|-0.24|0.09
91789326|NCT03836001|183458629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.03||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline through week 8 including all time points. For this analysis, data were censored at the time of participant discontinuation.||0.03|-0.19|0.16
91789327|NCT03836001|183458631|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline through week 8 including all time points. For this analysis, data were censored at the time of participant discontinuation.||-0.09|-0.41|0.002
91850844|NCT02503202|183584748|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||3.0|-2.2|0.746
91850845|NCT02503202|183584748|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||2.0|-2.8|0.704
91850846|NCT02503202|183584748|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||3.9|-1.3|0.151
91850847|NCT03951649|183584749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
91850848|NCT03951649|183584750|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||The p-value was calculated using a 2 sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
91850849|NCT03951649|183584751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
91850850|NCT03951649|183584752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
91850851|NCT03951649|183584753|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value was calculated|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91850852|NCT03951649|183584754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
91850853|NCT03951649|183584755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
91850854|NCT03951649|183584757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
91850855|NCT03951649|183584758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
91850856|NCT03951649|183584759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.92
91850857|NCT03951649|183584760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91850858|NCT03951649|183584761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
91850859|NCT03951649|183584762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91850860|NCT00758602|183584774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.6581||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.4||p-value, least squares (LS) mean difference, and 95% confidence interval (CI) based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, center, and the treatment-by-center interaction as fixed effects, and the donor age as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.40|-0.08|0.0813
91654559|NCT04543136|183201540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.80|-0.11|0.137
91791184|NCT03123185|183460135|OTHER|No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.|gMean ratio (%)|194.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.912|237.267|||||gMean ratio = 10 mg BI 705564 fed/10 mg BI 705564 fast. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect subjects within sequences will be considered as random, the other effects as fixed."||237.267|158.912|
91791185|NCT03123185|183460136|OTHER||Slope|0.4879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0546|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3767|0.599|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fasted condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.5990|0.3767|
91850861|NCT00758602|183584775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.5977||||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.77|10.58||p-value, LS mean difference, and 95% CI based on ANCOVA model with treatment, center, and the treatment-by-center interaction as fixed effects, and the donor age as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||10.58|-13.77|0.7949
91654560|NCT04543136|183201541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.46||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.46|-0.89|0.525
91654561|NCT04543136|183201541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.11||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.11|-1.24|0.098
91654562|NCT04543136|183201541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.02||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.02|-0.33|0.306
91654563|NCT04684524|183201551|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-7.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|-5.35|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-5.35|-9.38|<0.0001
91654564|NCT04684524|183201552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.18|<0.0001
91654565|NCT04684524|183201553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.41|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-1.41|-3.31|<0.0001
91789328|NCT01978938|183458634|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI test was based on the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), using the method proposed without stratification by Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in Responder (clinical cure and microbiologic success) rates in the micro-ITT population exceeded -10%, then the null hypothesis was rejected and the NI of eravacycline to levofloxacin was declared.|Treatment Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|1.2||||||For the FDA, an NI margin of 10% was used, which was based on historical data regarding the treatment effect of antibiotics. A 10% NI margin for the Responder outcome is robust and can sufficiently confirm a clinically meaningful treatment effect of eravacycline in the treatment of cUTI.||1.2|-14.1|
91900467|NCT01231516|183695303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority of DTG 50 mg and RAL at Week 48 can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages (DTG - RAL) is greater than -12%. If non-inferiority were established, superiority would be tested at the nominal 5% level based on a pre-specified testing procedure.|Difference in percentage|7.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.2||P-value is for test of superiority.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted difference in proportion which is based on the difference in percentage, adjusted for Baseline (BL) stratification factors.|Analysis was adjusted for BL stratification factors: HIV-1 RNA (\<=50000 versus \[vs\]\>50000 c/mL), darunavir-ritonavir use without primary protease inhibitor mutations (yes vs no), and phenotypic susceptibility score (2 vs \<2) to background regimen.|||14.2|0.7|0.030
91789329|NCT02650921|183458638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|76.1|||McNemar|||||76.1|53.3|<0.0001
91900468|NCT02460666|183695319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3
91900469|NCT02460666|183695320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
91900470|NCT02460666|183695321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
91900471|NCT02460666|183695322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91900472|NCT05266586|183695324|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.59|-48.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-48.18|-68.59|<.0001
91900473|NCT05266586|183695325|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.59|-48.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-48.18|-68.59|<.0001
91900474|NCT05266586|183695326|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.59|-48.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-48.18|-68.59|<.0001
91900475|NCT05266586|183695327|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.47|-47.83|||ANCOVA|||||-47.83|-68.47|<.0001
91900476|NCT05266586|183695328|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.47|-47.83|||ANCOVA|||||-47.83|-68.47|<.0001
91900477|NCT05266586|183695329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.47|-47.83|||ANCOVA|||||-47.83|-68.47|<.0001
91900478|NCT05266586|183695330|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-38.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.397|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.07|-27.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.63|-49.07|<.0001
91900479|NCT05266586|183695331|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-38.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.397|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.07|-27.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.63|-49.07|<.0001
91789330|NCT02650921|183458639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|72.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.9|82.7|||McNemar|||||82.7|61.9|<0.0001
91789331|NCT02650921|183458640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|57.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|69.8|||McNemar|||||69.8|44.8|<0.0001
91900480|NCT05266586|183695332|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-38.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.397|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.07|-27.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.63|-49.07|<.0001
91900481|NCT05266586|183695333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.465|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|-26.35|||ANCOVA|||||-26.35|-48.07|<.0001
91900482|NCT05266586|183695334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.465|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|-26.35|||ANCOVA|||||-26.35|-48.07|<.0001
91900483|NCT05266586|183695335|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.465|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|-26.35|||ANCOVA|||||-26.35|-48.07|<.0001
91900484|NCT05266586|183695336|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-35.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.13|-43.23|<.0001
91654566|NCT04684524|183201554|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|-3.43|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-3.43|-7.48|<0.0001
91654567|NCT04684524|183201555|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-1.32|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-1.32|-3.04|<0.0001
91789332|NCT02650921|183458641|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|45.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|59.3|||McNemar|||||59.3|32.3|<0.0001
91654568|NCT04684524|183201556|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.46||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|8.71|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||8.71|0.22|0.0392
91850862|NCT00758602|183584776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6812|||||||Fisher Exact|||Acute rejection, 6 months post-transplant||||0.6812
91850863|NCT00758602|183584776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6812|||||||Fisher Exact|||Acute rejection, 12 months post-transplant||||0.6812
91850864|NCT00758602|183584776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Death, 12 months post-transplant||||1.0000
91791186|NCT03123185|183460136|OTHER||Slope|0.7553|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5736|0.937|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fed condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.9370|0.5736|
91791187|NCT03123185|183460137|OTHER||Slope|0.4651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1935|0.7368|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fasted condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.7368|0.1935|
91791188|NCT03123185|183460137|OTHER||Slope|0.6651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1385|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3679|0.9622|||Power model||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fed condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.9622|0.3679|
91791189|NCT03702244|183460140|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing for recurrent events was performed using the negative binomial methods for recurrent events.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.41|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, sex, and coronary artery disease equivalent (diabetes, history of peripheral artery disease or cerebrovascular disease), and intended first test strata (invasive or noninvasive).|Sample size and power calculations for this study are based on the hypothesis that the precision evaluation arm is superior to the usual care arm on the time-to-first event of the composite 3-component endpoint: all-cause death, non-fatal MI, or invasive cardiac catheterization without obstructive CAD over a 12-month of follow-up. Time to event analysis will use the date of the event, including the date of catheterization at which the absence of obstructive CAD is demonstrated.||0.41|0.20|<.001
91791190|NCT04369924|183460153|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|1.49||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.25
91791191|NCT04369924|183460154|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|2.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.12
91791192|NCT04369924|183460155|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|0.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.70
91654569|NCT04684524|183201557|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-0.49|-1.29|<0.0001
91654570|NCT04684524|183201558|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-1.72|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-1.72|-3.82|<0.0001
91654571|NCT04684524|183201559|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-1.02|-1.77|<0.0001
91654572|NCT04684524|183201560|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.86|-7.74|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-7.74|-26.86|0.0004
91654573|NCT04684524|183201561|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.59|-27.03|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-27.03|-45.59|<0.0001
91654574|NCT04684524|183201562|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-29.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.42|-11.79|||Mantel Haenszel|||Risk difference was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel estimate and confidence limits, with Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights for time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years) and region (Americas and Asia) and the Sato variance estimator.||-11.79|-46.42|0.0010
91654575|NCT04684524|183201563|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.11||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|-5.07|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-5.07|-25.15|0.0032
91654576|NCT04684524|183201564|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-80.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.82|-48.61|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-48.61|-112.82|<0.0001
91654577|NCT03466411|183201598|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|124.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.8|158.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure||LS Mean difference between the treatment groups and p-values for the comparisons of each guselkumab treatment group with the placebo group were based on MMRM analysis.|||158.7|89.8|<0.001
91789333|NCT01087788|183458667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|44.6||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||44.6|22.8|<0.001
91791193|NCT04369924|183460156|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|3.67||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.07
91654578|NCT03466411|183201598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|102.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.5|136.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure||LS Mean difference between the treatment groups and p-values for the comparisons of each guselkumab treatment group with the placebo group were based on MMRM analysis.|||136.9|68.5|<0.001
91654579|NCT03466411|183201598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|108.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.9|143.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure||LS Mean difference between the treatment groups and p-values for the comparisons of each guselkumab treatment group with the placebo group were based on MMRM analysis.|||143.5|73.9|<0.001
91791194|NCT04369924|183460157|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.82
91791195|NCT04369924|183460158|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.41||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.59
91850865|NCT00758602|183584778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0000
91850866|NCT00758602|183584779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4586|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4586
91850867|NCT00758602|183584780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91654580|NCT03466411|183201599|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|48.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||48.9|27.3|<0.001
91654581|NCT03466411|183201599|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|42.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|53.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||53.9|31.6|<0.001
91654582|NCT03466411|183201600|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|43.2|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||43.2|24.1|<0.001
91654583|NCT03466411|183201600|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|42.4|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||42.4|23.5|<0.001
91654584|NCT03466411|183201601|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|34.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|45.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||45.3|23.2|<0.001
91654585|NCT03466411|183201601|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|46.5|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||46.5|23.5|<0.001
91850868|NCT00208507|183584788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This was a non-inferiority test of the Harris Hip Score means at 24+ months with a 5 point non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.56||||ANCOVA|Preoperative Harris Hip score was included in the ANCOVA model as the only covariate.|||||-1.56|0.001
91654586|NCT03466411|183201602|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|37.1|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||37.1|18.7|<0.001
91791196|NCT01653132|183460162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.194|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.32|||||negative values correspond to a reduction in saliva weight with Inco-A.|Based on the primary outcome measure of mean reduction in saliva weight at 1 month post Inco-A /placebo as compared to baseline, using paired t-test with a two-sided nominal significance (alpha) of 0.05, assuming a correlation of 0.5 between observations, a sample size of 10 pairs has a power of 0.803 to detect a 50% difference in salivary weight.||0.32|-0.71|
91791197|NCT01653132|183460163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|6.2|||||negative numbers represent reduction in saliva weight with Inco-A|||6.2|-50.8|
91791198|NCT01653132|183460164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.69|||||negative values represent reduction in scores (improvement in drooling) with Inco-A|||0.69|-1.16|
91791199|NCT01653132|183460165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.071||||||||0.071|-0.633|
91791200|NCT01653132|183460166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.28||||||||0.28|-0.46|
91791201|NCT03828370|183460167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||.04
91791202|NCT03828370|183460168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.034
91850869|NCT00855465|183584846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Prespecified significance level for all significance tests was 5%. Primary analysis, due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region.||Missing values for participants who withdrew/died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 0m in case of death/clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise. Comparison was done using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with baseline 6MWD as a covariate and treatment group and region as main effects. The primary statistical method was the stratified Wilcoxon test if the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of residuals was statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91850870|NCT00855465|183584846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.74|66.63||Additional analysis, due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||66.63|24.74|<0.0001
91850871|NCT00855465|183584846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
91900485|NCT05266586|183695337|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-35.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.13|-43.23|<.0001
91900486|NCT05266586|183695338|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-35.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.13|-43.23|<.0001
91900487|NCT05266586|183695339|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.21|-14.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.36|-30.21|<.0001
91900488|NCT05266586|183695340|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.21|-14.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.36|-30.21|<.0001
91900489|NCT05266586|183695341|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.21|-14.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.36|-30.21|<.0001
91900490|NCT01323621|183695361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.029||||0.267||95.0|-0.022|0.08|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA analysis was conducted with covariates for country, smoking status, reversibility, and Baseline FEV1.|||0.080|-0.022|0.267
91900491|NCT00954421|183695363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.61|-4.65|||two-sided sign-rank test||p-value assessed via sign-rank test (pre-planned method)|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in Tremor Rating Scale score from baseline to six months post-implant (with VIM and VO stimulators turned ON) will be zero||-4.65|-30.61|.026
91900492|NCT00954421|183695364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|14.5||Sign rank test was pre-planned for P-value|Sign-Rank test||p-value assessed using sign rank test|The null hypothesis is that difference in change in Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) score from baseline to 6 months when both stimulators are on (VIM and VO), versus when both stimulators are off, will be zero (i.e., that there will be no difference in effect between having both stimulators on versus both stimulators off)||14.5|2.2|0.011
91900493|NCT00954421|183695364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.49||0.68||95.0|-4.96|6.42|||two-sided sign rank test|two sided sign rank test as pre-planned||The null hypothesis is that difference in change in Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) score from baseline to 6 months when VO is on and VIM is off, versus when VIM is on and VO is off, will be zero (i.e., that there will be no difference in effect between having exclusively VIM versus VO on)||6.42|-4.96|.68
91900494|NCT05245097|183695365|OTHER|For the multiple imputation, a total of 50 imputed datasets will be calculated (Graham et al.). Fully conditional specification (FCS) discriminant function method will be used to impute missing primary endpoint using the baseline covariates of age, sex, race, ethnicity, mobility level, and BIMS Score. The FCS logistic method was replaced with the FCS discriminant function method due to a quasi-separation caused by only one observed primary endpoint event in the treatment group.||||||0.004||||||The null hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 level of significance using a logistic regression analysis to compare treatment groups while controlling for propensity score.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.004
91900495|NCT05245097|183695366|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The hip fracture due to fall rate was compared between treatment groups using firth logistic regression while controlling for propensity score. A one-sided 0.025 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
91900496|NCT05245097|183695366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
91900497|NCT05245097|183695367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The emergency department visit due to fall rate was compared between treatment groups using firth logistic regression while controlling for propensity score. A one-sided 0.025 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|Subjects with multiple ED visits due to falls are only counted once.||||||0.001
91900498|NCT05245097|183695368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The hospitalization due to fall rate was compared between treatment groups using firth logistic regression while controlling for propensity score. A one-sided 0.025 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|Subjects with multiple hospitalizations due to falls are only counted once.||||||0.003
91900499|NCT00883051|183695393|OTHER|A hierarchical test procedure was applied only for analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend|||||||<0.0001
91900500|NCT00883051|183695394|OTHER|A hierarchical test procedure was applied only for analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint.|||||=|0.0006|||||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend]|||||||=0.0006
91900501|NCT00692978|183695411|EQUIVALENCE|Log transformed parametric ANOVA|||||<|0.05||||||calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91850872|NCT00855465|183584847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
91850873|NCT00855465|183584847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-246.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-303.33|-189.53||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-189.53|-303.33|<0.0001
91900502|NCT00458341|183695416|OTHER|||||||0.133||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 1 versus Day 14 of Cycle 1||||0.133
91654587|NCT03466411|183201602|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|40.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||40.3|21.3|<0.001
91791203|NCT00046891|183460179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total HSCS Area Under the Curve (AUC) scores between the two treatment arms.||||0.84
91791204|NCT01431300|183460208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios of the central veins in the 0.01 mmol/kg and 0.03mmol/kg dose groups were compared.||||<0.01
91791205|NCT01431300|183460208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios of the central veins in the 0.01 mmol/kg and 0.03mmol/kg dose groups were compared.||||<0.01
91791206|NCT06054269|183460216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.004
91791207|NCT06054269|183460216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.066
91791208|NCT06054269|183460216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.694
91791209|NCT06054269|183460216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.408
91791210|NCT06054269|183460217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.164
91791211|NCT06054269|183460217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.113
91791212|NCT06054269|183460217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.404
91791213|NCT06054269|183460217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.879|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.879
91791214|NCT06054269|183460218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||<0.001
91791215|NCT06054269|183460218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.002
91791216|NCT06054269|183460218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.468
91791217|NCT06054269|183460218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.057
91791218|NCT06054269|183460219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.112
91791219|NCT06054269|183460219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.149
91791220|NCT06054269|183460219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.101
91791221|NCT06054269|183460219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.259
91791222|NCT06054269|183460220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.097
91791223|NCT06054269|183460220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.733
91791224|NCT06054269|183460220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.477
91791225|NCT06054269|183460220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.312
91791226|NCT06054269|183460221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.220
91791227|NCT06054269|183460221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.003
91791228|NCT06054269|183460221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.897
91791229|NCT06054269|183460221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.931
91791230|NCT01738477|183460222|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the non-inferiority of the second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 2 Group) minus first dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 1 Group) for anti-diphtheria. Objective of non-inferiority was considered to be met if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than, or equal to -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|-3.25|9.95||||||Non-inferiority in terms of seroprotection rates to diphtheria.||9.95|-3.25|
91900503|NCT00458341|183695416|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 1 versus Day 14 of Cycle 1||||0.190
91654588|NCT03466411|183201603|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|36.2|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||36.2|14.1|<0.001
91791231|NCT01738477|183460222|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the non-inferiority of the second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 2 Group) minus first dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 1 Group) for anti-tetanus. Objective of non-inferiority was considered to be met if the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|-3.25|9.95||||||Non-inferiority in terms of seroprotection rates to tetanus.||9.95|-3.25|
91900504|NCT00458341|183695416|OTHER|||||||0.123||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 2 versus Day 14 of Cycle 2||||0.123
91900505|NCT00458341|183695416|OTHER|||||||0.592||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 2 versus Day 14 of Cycle 2||||0.592
91900506|NCT00458341|183695417|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 1 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.021
91900507|NCT00458341|183695417|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 1 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.021
91900508|NCT00458341|183695417|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 2 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.021
91900509|NCT00458341|183695417|OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 2 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.518
91900510|NCT02083705|183695433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We hypothesised that during neonatal CPR, CC+SI will reduce the time needed to achieve ROSC. Our aim was to examine if CC+SI reduces ROSC compared with 3:1 C:V CPR in preterm infants \<33 weeks of gestation.~For this pilot study, based on the local incidence of CPR in preterm neonates, a convenient sample size of five patients per group was enrolled. Our primary outcome was time to achieve ROSC measured using ECG."||||0.05
91900511|NCT00467285|183695437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of changes in BMD at 6months compared to baseline||||<0.05
91900512|NCT03891524|183695472|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||MCP-mod analysis|||||||0.0004
91900513|NCT03891524|183695473|OTHER|||||||0.7188|||||||MCP-MOD analysis|||||||0.7188
91900514|NCT01598311|183695480|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in adjusted percentage of cured subjects was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.6||||||||7.6|-4.9|
91900515|NCT01598311|183695482|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the adjusted difference in sustained response was \> 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.2||||||||12.2|-3.6|
91900516|NCT04223856|183695493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|0.538||P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. The p-value threshold for statistical significance is 0.005.|Log Rank||HR was calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.538|0.377|<0.00001
91900517|NCT04223856|183695494|SUPERIORITY|P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. The p-value threshold for statistical significance is 0.01548.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.468|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.582|||Log Rank||HR was calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.582|0.376|<0.00001
91900518|NCT06515483|183695514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.254||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing baseline PLI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at baseline were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.254|-0.095|0.323
91900519|NCT06515483|183695514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.084||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing 30-day PLI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at 30 days were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.084|-0.156|0.371
91900520|NCT06515483|183695514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.115||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.031||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparing the mean difference in PLI from baseline to 30 days between groups|||0.031|-0.262|0.120
91900521|NCT06515483|183695515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.204||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing baseline MGI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at baseline were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.204|-0.048|0.270
91900522|NCT06515483|183695515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.033||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing 30-day MGI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at 30 days were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.033|-0.203|0.071
91900523|NCT06515483|183695515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|-0.077|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing the mean difference in MGI from baseline to 30 days between groups|||-0.077|-0.249|<0.001
91900524|NCT06515483|183695516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|6.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing baseline BOMP between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at baseline were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||6.85|-6.23|0.902
91710440|NCT01151345|183313552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric means ratio|91.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.83|99.34||||||Natural-log transformed AUC (0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||99.34|83.83|
91900525|NCT06515483|183695516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.22||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.46|0.02||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing 30-day BOMP between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at 30 days were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.02|-16.46|0.006
91850874|NCT00855465|183584847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
91850875|NCT00855465|183584848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
91900526|NCT06515483|183695516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.53||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.31|-0.75||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparing the mean difference in BOMP from baseline to 30 days between groups|||-0.75|-16.31|0.032
91850876|NCT00855465|183584848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-443.99||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-842.95|-45.03||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-45.03|-842.95|0.0293
91850877|NCT00855465|183584848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
91900527|NCT03454828|183695519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.399
91654589|NCT03466411|183201604|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|36.1|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||36.1|19.3|<0.001
91654590|NCT03466411|183201605|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|41.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||41.3|21.1|<0.001
91850878|NCT00855465|183584849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region.||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of IV in case of clinical worsening without termination visit or measurement at that termination visit and with a worst value of V in case of death and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0026
91850879|NCT00855465|183584850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.37||||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|1.99||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Log Rank|Test was stratified by region.|Based on Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by region.|"Test for difference of occurence of Any event."||1.99|-8.72|0.1724
91900528|NCT00523718|183695524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.24
91654591|NCT03466411|183201606|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|31.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||31.9|12.2|<0.001
91900529|NCT02217436|183695530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
91900530|NCT02217436|183695531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91850880|NCT00855465|183584851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0035||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Nominally significant only due to hierarchical testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region.||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 10 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0035
91850881|NCT00855465|183584852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO FC, TTCW, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.Nominally significant only due to hierarchical testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of -0.594 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||<0.0001
91850882|NCT00855465|183584852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|0.06|0.0002
91850883|NCT00855465|183584852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
91850884|NCT00855465|183584853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg Dyspnea Score, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 105 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.1220
91850885|NCT00855465|183584853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.76||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|-1.06||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-10.45|0.0165
91850886|NCT00855465|183584853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
91850887|NCT00855465|183584855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Exploratory testing. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
91850888|NCT00855465|183584855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-3.16||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-3.16|-6.75|<0.0001
91850889|NCT00855465|183584855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0231|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0231
91850890|NCT00855465|183584856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.62||Exploratory testing. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis as for primary efficacy parameter.||0.62|0.33|<0.0001
91850891|NCT00855465|183584856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91654592|NCT03462719|183201637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.216|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.357|||Log Rank|||||0.357|0.131|<0.0001
91850892|NCT00855465|183584856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.1160
91850893|NCT04365400|183584891|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann Median|8.24||||0.1148124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|18.19|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.19|-2.01|0.1148124
91850894|NCT04365400|183584891|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann Median|-0.82||||0.8668467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|7.96|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||7.96|-10.16|0.8668467
91850895|NCT04365400|183584892|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Change in HbA1c (%)|0.02516||||0.8658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26658|0.316897|||ANCOVA|||||0.316897|-0.26658|0.8658
91850896|NCT04365400|183584892|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Change in HbA1c (%)|-0.07333||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39012|0.243455|||ANCOVA|||||0.243455|-0.39012|0.6500
91850897|NCT00612586|183584895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8956||||||One sided|Log Rank|||||||0.8956
91850898|NCT00612586|183584896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9865||||||One-sided|Log Rank|||||||0.9865
91850899|NCT02613364|183584900|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is established if the difference in mean change on the ISI between YOCAS©® and CBT-I is less than 1.15. Using ANCOVA to estimate differences in mean change between YOCAS©® and CBT-I, a correlation of 0.576 (from our prior study), and a sample of 168 subjects per group, we will have sufficient (80%) power to detect non-inferiority using a margin of 1.15 at p = 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.37||The p-value shown above is from the Least Squares Mean between YOCAS - CBT-I from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is YOCAS - CBT-I|Constructed a 95% confidence interval on the mean change of ISI from baseline between the arms (YOCAS - CBT-I). If the lower bound of the interval is less than 1.5 then we conclude that YOCAS is non-inferior.||4.37|2.66|<.0001
91850900|NCT02613364|183584901|SUPERIORITY|Using ANCOVA to estimate differences in mean change between YOCAS and health education, a correlation of 0.576 (from our prior study), and a sample size of 168 evaluable subjects per group, we will have sufficient power to detect differences on the ISI of at least 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 (all larger than our 1.15 non-inferiority margin) at 80%, 90%, and 95% power, respectively|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.58||the comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the ISI Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||-0.58|-2.23|0.0009
91654593|NCT04799158|183201652|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.84|35.55|||Fisher Exact|||||35.55|21.84|<0.0001
91654594|NCT04799158|183201652|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.28|40.23|||Fisher Exact|||||40.23|26.28|<0.0001
91654595|NCT04799158|183201652|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.92|49.42|||Fisher Exact|||||49.42|35.92|<0.0001
91789334|NCT01087788|183458667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|38.7||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||38.7|16.5|<0.001
91654596|NCT04799158|183201653|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|37.09|||Fisher Exact|||||37.09|23.41|<0.0001
91791232|NCT02720094|183460235|SUPERIORITY||A bias-adjusted hazard ratio|0.34||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.62|||Regression, Cox||The bias-adjusted hazard ratio, CI, and p-value account for the group-sequential trial design and the early stopping time.|||0.62|0.18|0.0005
91791233|NCT02720094|183460235|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.328||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.61|||Regression, Cox||The unadjusted hazard ratio is based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by region.|||0.61|0.18|0.0005
91791234|NCT02720094|183460237|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45||The P-Values are two-sided.|Regression, Cox|||The analysis population Injection Step 2 Efficacy consists of the subset of the mITT population who received at least one injection and had at least one HIV test result after the week 5 injection visit.||0.45|0.10|<0.001
91791235|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1217|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Sex||||=0.1217
91791236|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8241|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA=Analysis of variance||PCS-12: Employment Status||||=0.8241
91791237|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3471|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Smoking Status||||=0.3471
91791238|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9951|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Age at Onset||||=0.9951
91791239|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0631|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Disease Location||||=0.0631
91791240|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7473|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Disease Behavior||||=0.7473
91791241|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4422|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Presence of any Extraintestinal Manifestation of CD||||=0.4422
91791242|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1796|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With High Intersphincteric Type||||=0.1796
91791243|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3535|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With High Transsphincteric Type||||=0.3535
91791244|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1508|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Suprasphincteric Type||||=0.1508
91791245|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2671|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula with Extrasphincteric Type||||=0.2671
91791246|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0594|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Low Intersphincteric Type||||=0.0594
91791247|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5484|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Low Transsphincteric Type||||=0.5484
91791248|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5387|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Midline Position||||=0.5387
91791249|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.527|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Lateral Position||||=0.5270
91791250|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3863|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Seton||||=0.3863
91791251|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4206|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: HBI Categories (Remission, Mild and Moderate Activity)||||=0.4206
91791252|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0538|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery-naïve||||=0.0538
91791253|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9572|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery - Fistulotomy||||=0.9572
91791254|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4742|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery - Loose Seton||||=0.4742
91791255|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5735|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery - Other||||=0.5735
91791256|NCT04876690|183460291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.376|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Presence of Perianal Abscess||||=0.3760
91791257|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4814|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Sex||||=0.4814
91791258|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3136|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||MCS-12: Employment Status||||=0.3136
91791259|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5808|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Smoking Status||||=0.5808
91791260|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2965|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Age at Onset||||=0.2965
91791261|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2874|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Disease Location||||=0.2874
91654597|NCT04799158|183201653|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.67|31.05|||Fisher Exact|||||31.05|16.67|<0.0001
91654598|NCT04799158|183201653|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|44.35|||Fisher Exact|||||44.35|31.00|<0.0001
91654599|NCT04799158|183201654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1771|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1771
91654600|NCT04799158|183201654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1551|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1551
91654601|NCT04799158|183201654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0094
91654602|NCT04799158|183201655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3395|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3395
91654603|NCT04799158|183201655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4882|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4882
91654604|NCT04799158|183201655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0722|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0722
91654605|NCT04799158|183201656|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-3.9||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.41|16.52|||Fisher Exact|||||16.52|-24.41|0.8300
91654606|NCT04799158|183201656|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|1.4|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|22.16|||Fisher Exact|||||22.16|-19.28|>0.9999
91654607|NCT04799158|183201656|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|2.3|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.22|22.88|||Fisher Exact|||||22.88|-18.22|>0.9999
91654608|NCT04799158|183201657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4684|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4684
91654609|NCT04799158|183201657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6560
91654610|NCT04799158|183201657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6324|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6324
91791262|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4269|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Disease Behavior||||=0.4269
91791263|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8931|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Presence of any Extraintestinal Manifestation of CD||||=0.8931
91791264|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9384|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With High Intersphincteric Type||||=0.9384
91791265|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8286|||||||Mann-Whitney|||MCS-12: Fistula With High Transsphincteric Type||||=0.8286
91791266|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1919|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Suprasphincteric Type||||=0.1919
91791267|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6452|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula with Extrasphincteric Type||||=0.6452
91791268|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7218|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Low Intersphincteric Type||||=0.7218
91791269|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9738|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Low Transsphincteric Type||||=0.9738
91791270|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2419|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Midline Position||||=0.2419
91791271|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5524|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Lateral Position||||=0.5524
91791272|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4443|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Seton||||=0.4443
91791273|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4106|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: HBI Categories (Remission, Mild and Moderate Activity)||||=0.4106
91791274|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7795|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery-naïve||||=0.7795
91791275|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2964|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery - Fistulotomy||||=0.2964
91791276|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3287|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery - Loose Seton||||=0.3287
91791277|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0091|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery - Other||||=0.0091
91791278|NCT04876690|183460292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3889|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Presence of Perianal Abscess||||=0.3889
91791279|NCT04876690|183460293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8001|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Age||||=0.8001
91791280|NCT04876690|183460293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4532|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: BMI||||=0.4532
91791281|NCT04876690|183460293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9597|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Time Between CD Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.9597
91791282|NCT04876690|183460293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3304|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Total Number of CPFs per Participant||||=0.3304
91791283|NCT04876690|183460293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6333|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Time Since Seton Replacement||||=0.6333
91791284|NCT04876690|183460293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8003|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Time Between First CPF Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.8003
91791285|NCT04876690|183460293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0032|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: PDAI Score||||=0.0032
91791286|NCT04876690|183460293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0923|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Number of Internal Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.0923
91791287|NCT04876690|183460293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0994|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Number of External Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.0994
91791288|NCT04876690|183460293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0444|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: SIBDQ Score||||=0.0444
91791289|NCT04876690|183460293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.086|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: SQoL-M Score||||=0.0860
91791290|NCT04876690|183460293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9415|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: SQoL-F Score||||=0.9415
91791291|NCT04876690|183460293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3709|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Wexner Score||||=0.3709
91791292|NCT04876690|183460294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0674|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Age||||=0.0674
91791293|NCT04876690|183460294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9392|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: BMI||||=0.9392
91791294|NCT04876690|183460294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6387|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Time Between CD Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.6387
91791295|NCT04876690|183460294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7846|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Total Number of CPFs per Participant||||=0.7846
91791296|NCT04876690|183460294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3972|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Time Since Seton Placement||||=0.3972
91791297|NCT04876690|183460294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9496|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Time Between First CPF Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.9496
91791298|NCT04876690|183460294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.813|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: PDAI Score||||=0.8130
91791299|NCT04876690|183460294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4588|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Number of Internal Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.4588
91791300|NCT04876690|183460294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8663|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Number of External Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.8663
91791301|NCT04876690|183460294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1349|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: SIBDQ Score||||=0.1349
91791302|NCT04876690|183460294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5647|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: SQoL-M Score||||=0.5647
91791303|NCT04876690|183460294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9509|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: SQoL-F Score||||=0.9509
91791304|NCT04876690|183460294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5328|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Wexner Score||||=0.5328
91791305|NCT03400956|183460298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Number of subjects per treatment: 63 (Vilaprisan) / 33 (Placebo).|Vilaprisan (A1) and Vilaprisan+Placebo (B2) combined vs. Placebo+Vilaprisan (B1) in treatment period 1||0.93|0.72|<.0001
91791306|NCT00492063|183460305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 after one vaccination in adults.||3|-3|
91850901|NCT02613364|183584902|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.04||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the ISI Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.04|-0.98|0.0700
91850902|NCT02613364|183584903|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.75||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the ISI Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||2.75|1.70|<.0001
91850903|NCT02613364|183584904|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|33.54||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||33.54|5.91|0.0052
91850904|NCT02613364|183584905|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|29.94||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.94|1.93|0.0258
91850905|NCT02613364|183584906|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.048||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|||0.048|-0.053|0.92
91850906|NCT02613364|183584907|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.098||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the CBT-I control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.098|-0.004|0.07
91852064|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6756|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.34||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.34|0.6756
91852065|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2627|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.2627
91852066|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2281|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2281
91852067|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7656|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.7656
91852068|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2105|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2105
91852069|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2221|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.2221
91852070|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4396|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.4396
91852071|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2243|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.2243
91852072|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3597|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.3597
91852073|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.203|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.2030
91852074|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1207|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.07||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.07|0.1207
91852075|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1836|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.1836
91852076|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2359|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.2359
91852077|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2861|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.18||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.18|0.2861
91852078|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2151|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2151
91852079|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3545|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.21||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.21|0.3545
91852080|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7102|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.35||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.35|0.7102
91789335|NCT01087788|183458668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-10.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35|=|0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|5.77||Diff. of CZP 200mg+400mg versus PBO (and corresponding 95% Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor(TNF)-antagonist exposure as factors \& BL mTSS score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected. This is the pre-defined primary analysis.||5.77|-27.05|=0.203
91791307|NCT00492063|183460305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 after one vaccination in adults.||2|-1|
91654611|NCT04799158|183201658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9896|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9896
91850907|NCT02613364|183584908|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.44||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||4.44|0.09|0.04
91900531|NCT02656420|183695532|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance of the treatment effect (p \< 0.01) for the lower doses compared to the high dose as the reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.57||Using a linear mixed effects model with random intercepts and slope, SF level (in the log scale) was regressed on categorical treatment group (medium dose and low dose; high as the reference) as well as day (continuous variable).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that the urinary sulforaphane levels are equal across treatment arms. Sulforaphane metabolite levels were measured daily for 10 days in each arm.||-1.57|-1.89|<0.001
91900532|NCT02656420|183695533|SUPERIORITY|To summarize first 12-hour SPMA levels over the study course by participant, the SPMA geometric mean (in the log scale) for each individual was calculated and used as the outcome. Treatment arms (placebo, fifth, half and full doses) were independent (categorical) variables in a linear regression model with placebo as the reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|140.9|||Regression, Linear||This Estimation Parameter was based on the comparison between the full dose group and the placebo group.|All broccoli sprout arms were compared with the placebo arm.||140.9|10.6|<0.05
91654612|NCT04799158|183201658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6916|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6916
91654613|NCT04799158|183201658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9316|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9316
91654614|NCT00319956|183201659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
91654615|NCT02607800|183201663|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SVR12 was greater than -5%. If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -5% (ie, the noninferiority null hypothesis was rejected), a 2-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was to be used to test for the superiority of SOF/VEL/VOX for 8 weeks over SOF/VEL for 12 weeks at a significance level of 0.05.|Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.4|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% CI were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||-0.4|-6.0|
91789336|NCT01087788|183458668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.04||Difference of CZP 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints.Conditional on the 1st test being significant, the 2nd hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5%. Stat. testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected Re-analysis approach, restricted to subjects in the RS who have at least 2 x-ray values at scheduled visits (at least 8 wks apart)||-0.04|-0.38|=0.017
91789337|NCT01087788|183458668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.07||Difference of CZP 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints.Conditional on the 1st test being significant, the 2nd hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5%. Stat. testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected Re-analysis approach, restricted to subjects in the RS who have at least 2 x-ray values at scheduled visits (at least 8 wks apart)||0.07|-0.27|=0.261
91789338|NCT01087788|183458669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|51.0||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||51.0|29.5|<0.001
91900533|NCT04533451|183695539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0385|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0385
91900534|NCT04533451|183695541|EQUIVALENCE|Relatively large sample size and groups are independent.||||||0.9829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9829
91654616|NCT01202747|183201676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||p\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0005
91654617|NCT00601484|183201720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.203|-0.51||||||Analysis was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, age, gender, body mass index (BMI), baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.510|-2.203|
91654618|NCT00601484|183201721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.363|0.011||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.011|-1.363|
91654619|NCT00601484|183201721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.969|-0.297||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.297|-1.969|
91654620|NCT00601484|183201721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|0.09||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.090|-1.790|
91789339|NCT01087788|183458669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|43.8||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||43.8|21.8|<0.001
91789340|NCT01087788|183458670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.2||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline HAQ-DI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-0.20|-0.42|<0.001
91789341|NCT01087788|183458671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|46.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|56.9||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg + 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||56.9|35.7|<0.001
91789342|NCT01087788|183458672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|=|0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected. This is the predefined analysis.||0.05|-0.43|=0.127
91850908|NCT02613364|183584909|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|1.43||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||1.43|-2.97|0.49
91654621|NCT00601484|183201721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.356|0.457||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.457|-1.356|
91654622|NCT00601484|183201722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.727|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.954|2.601||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.601|-19.954|
91654623|NCT00601484|183201722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.948|-3.523||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-3.523|-31.948|
91850909|NCT02613364|183584910|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.05|-0.13|0.43
91850910|NCT02613364|183584911|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.11|-0.07|0.70
91850911|NCT02613364|183584912|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.5||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||-0.50|-2.65|0.0041
91900535|NCT05344092|183695543|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing baseline score to post-mobile app intervention score (approximately 4 week) for the VetEd Mobile Application user group.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.40
91850912|NCT02613364|183584913|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.81||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||3.81|1.61|<.0001
91850913|NCT02613364|183584914|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.36||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||-0.36|-2.78|0.0108
91850914|NCT02613364|183584915|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|4.02||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||4.02|1.54|<.0001
91850915|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.52|3.17||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 1.||3.17|-4.52|
91850916|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-3.94|4.38||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4.||4.38|-3.94|
91850917|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.63|3.19||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 5.||3.19|-4.63|
91654624|NCT00601484|183201722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-20.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.138|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.347|-6.971||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-6.971|-34.347|
91654625|NCT00601484|183201722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.612|2.452||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.452|-29.612|
91900536|NCT05344092|183695545|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test comparing baseline score to post-mobile app use score (approximately Week 4) for users of the VetEd mobile app.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.92
91654626|NCT00601484|183201722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.807|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.58|7.08||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||7.080|-22.580|
91654627|NCT00601484|183201723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.768|0.65||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.650|-1.768|
91654628|NCT00601484|183201723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.723|0.297||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.297|-2.723|
91791308|NCT00492063|183460305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B after one vaccination in adults.||3|-3|
91791309|NCT00492063|183460305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 after one vaccination in the elderly population.||3|-4|
91710441|NCT01151345|183313553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric means ratio|83.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.08|103.31||||||Natural-log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||103.31|67.08|
91900537|NCT05344092|183695546|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test comparing baseline score to post-mobile app use score (approximately Week 4) for users of the VetEd mobile app.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.68
91900538|NCT02634346|183695547|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-2.8|-10.0|<0.001
91900539|NCT02634346|183695547|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-1.7|-8.9|0.004
91900540|NCT02634346|183695548|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-0.14|-0.61|0.002
91900541|NCT02634346|183695548|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-0.20|-0.67|<0.001
91900542|NCT03153137|183695608|SUPERIORITY|For each stage, the p-value from the ANCOVA model including randomized treatment, geographical region, and baseline peak VO2 was used to construct the final adjusted p-value.|Median unbiased estimate and repeated CI|0.62|||=|0.193|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.62|1.85||Final adjusted p-value (from weighted inverse normal combination test)|ANCOVA|||Due to adaptive nature of the design, the main analysis was conducted on FAS using the inverse normal combination method with pre-specified weights to combine first and second stage p-values.||1.85|-0.62|= 0.1930
91900543|NCT01821378|183695635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-8.4|0.255
91900544|NCT01821378|183695635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.3|||<|-0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-14.9|<-0.001
91900545|NCT01821378|183695636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.49|0.169
91710442|NCT01087203|183313569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.16|-2.28|0.025
91900546|NCT01821378|183695636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-0.83|<0.001
91900547|NCT01821378|183695637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.8|0.706
91900548|NCT01821378|183695637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.3|0.003
91900549|NCT01821378|183695638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.5|0.8|0.173
91900550|NCT01821378|183695638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.2|2.0|<0.001
91900551|NCT01821378|183695639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-14.3|0.023
91900552|NCT01821378|183695640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.9|0.464
91900553|NCT01821378|183695640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-4.1|0.122
91900554|NCT01821378|183695641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|2.3||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.2|-1.7|0.258
91900555|NCT01821378|183695641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.1|3.2|<0.001
91900556|NCT01821378|183695642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.70|0.052
91789343|NCT01087788|183458672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.01||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected. This is the post-hoc analysis for the subgroup 'Baseline mTSS \> 6'.||-0.01|-1.04|=0.048
91789344|NCT00043550|183458679|SUPERIORITY|The proposed sample size had at least 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.36 between the two active treatment conditions and placebo during the active phase. These power calculations were based on a priori values of within-subject correlation of 0.50, 10% attrition, and 6 assessment points.|Slope|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall significant effect for treatment, as well as the two moderating effects, used a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167 (0.05/3).|HLM|||Comparison of conditions||||.95
91789345|NCT00043550|183458679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||HLM|||effects of conditions over time||||<.0001
91789346|NCT00043550|183458679|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.41||||||||.41|-.35|
91789347|NCT00043550|183458679|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.45||||||||.45|-.33|
91850918|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-9.4|10.99||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 6B.||10.99|-9.4|
91850919|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-2.7|4.71||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 7F.||4.71|-2.7|
91900557|NCT01821378|183695643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.084||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.149|||ANCOVA|||||0.149|0.018|0.012
91900558|NCT01821378|183695643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.194|||ANCOVA|||||0.194|0.081|<0.001
91900559|NCT01821378|183695644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6|-6.6|0.992
91900560|NCT01821378|183695644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-14.4|0.044
91900561|NCT01821378|183695645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.45|0.578
91900562|NCT01821378|183695645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.96|0.003
91900563|NCT00195507|183695646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.64|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Treatment and center as main effects, and baseline score as a covariant.||||-0.43|-0.64|<0.001
91900564|NCT00195507|183695647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91900565|NCT00195507|183695649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.143
91900566|NCT01106404|183695665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportion|0.865|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.765||||Fisher Exact||In this ITT analysis, the combined percentage of subjects with improved pain relief and/or convenience during the AdaptiveStim programming relative to the manual programming in both groups was reported.|"ITT analysis:~Hypothesis: The percentage of subjects who succeed must be greater than 25%. H0: p ≤ 0.25 HA: p \> 0.25"|||0.765|< 0.001
91900567|NCT01106404|183695665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportion|0.901|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.807||||Fisher Exact||In this completed case analysis, the combined percentage of subjects with improved pain relief and/or convenience during the AdaptiveStim programming relative to the manual programming in both groups was reported.|Completed case analysis|||0.807|< 0.001
91900568|NCT01106404|183695666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportion|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.098|||||The combined percentage of subjects with worsened pain relief was reported.|||0.098|0.003|
91900569|NCT01106404|183695667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.9|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
91900570|NCT01106404|183695668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
91900571|NCT01106404|183695668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
91900572|NCT03027557|183695683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
91900573|NCT03027557|183695684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
91900574|NCT03027557|183695685|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0019|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0019
91900575|NCT03027557|183695686|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.096|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.096
91900576|NCT03027557|183695687|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0001
91900577|NCT03027557|183695688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
91900578|NCT03027557|183695689|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0027|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0027
91900579|NCT03027557|183695690|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.081|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.081
91900580|NCT03027557|183695691|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0071|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0071
91900581|NCT03027557|183695692|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0001
91900582|NCT03027557|183695693|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
91900583|NCT03027557|183695694|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.38|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.38
91900584|NCT03027557|183695699|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.83
91900585|NCT03027557|183695702|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91900586|NCT03027557|183695703|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0077|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0077
91900587|NCT03027557|183695704|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.011
91900588|NCT03027557|183695705|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.011
91900589|NCT03027557|183695706|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
91900590|NCT03027557|183695707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
91900591|NCT03027557|183695708|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
91900592|NCT03027557|183695709|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0001
91900593|NCT03027557|183695710|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
91900594|NCT03027557|183695712|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.5
91900595|NCT03027557|183695713|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.85|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.85
91900596|NCT03027557|183695714|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.22
91900597|NCT03027557|183695715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.18|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.18
91900598|NCT02430051|183695720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed-effects regression model|Adjusted for attained age and first or second clinic visit.||||||0.01
91900599|NCT02430051|183695721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed-effects regression model|Adjustment for attained age and first and second clinic visit.||||||0.25
91900600|NCT02430051|183695722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91900601|NCT02430051|183695723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91900602|NCT02430051|183695724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91900603|NCT02430051|183695725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91900604|NCT02430051|183695726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91900605|NCT02430051|183695727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91900606|NCT02430051|183695728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91900607|NCT02430051|183695729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91900608|NCT02430051|183695730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
91900609|NCT02430051|183695731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Multivariate linear regression|Adjusted for autism severity, IQ, dental fear and anxiety, sensory over-responsivity, general anxiety, expressive communication, gender, and age.||||||<0.0001
91900610|NCT02430051|183695732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||General linear mixed model|||||||0.61
91900611|NCT00267631|183695754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.026
91850920|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.05|3.82||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 9V.||3.82|-5.05|
91850921|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.68|3.15||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 14.||3.15|-4.68|
91850922|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.04|3.85||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 18C.||3.85|-5.04|
91850923|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.6|3.14||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 19F.||3.14|-4.6|
91850924|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.08||||||98.25|-7.66|8.1||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 23F.||8.1|-7.66|
91850925|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.52|2.91||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 1.||2.91|-4.52|
91852081|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3883|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.19||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.19|0.3883
91852082|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2228|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.2228
91852083|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6342|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.6342
91852084|NCT00430300|183587389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3141|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.3141
91852085|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.27|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.28||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.28|0.2700
91900612|NCT01009554|183695768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0905||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.306||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter values (L, a, and b) and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.306|-0.054|0.168
91900613|NCT01009554|183695770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.139||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter values (L, a, and b) and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.139|-0.127|0.928
91900614|NCT01009554|183695771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0718||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.378||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter values (L, a, and b) and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.378|0.092|0.002
91789348|NCT02285062|183458690|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.849||||0.2864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.14|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|Hazard ratio was derived from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors|||1.140|0.632|0.2864
91789349|NCT02285062|183458691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038||||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.344|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|Hazard ratio was derived from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors.|||1.344|0.802|0.7294
91789350|NCT02285062|183458692|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.3|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by 3 factors: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence of bulky disease (bulky or nonbulky), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65).|Hazard ratio was derived from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors.|||1.300|0.716|0.8760
91789351|NCT02285062|183458693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2933||||||Obtained from CMH test adjusting for stratification factors: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence of bulky disease (bulky or nonbulky), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2933
91900615|NCT01009554|183695772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1235||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.286||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value L and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.286|-0.205|0.741
91900616|NCT01009554|183695773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1386||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.115||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value L and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.115|-0.437|0.249
91789352|NCT02285062|183458694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9964||||||Obtained from CMH test adjusting for stratification factors: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence of bulky disease (bulky or nonbulky), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9964
91789353|NCT02285062|183458695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.157|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|HR was derived from COX model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors mentioned above.|||1.157|0.521|0.2143
91789354|NCT02285062|183458696|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.167||||0.315||95.0|0.856|1.59|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|HR is derived from Cox model|||1.590|0.856|0.3150
91900617|NCT01009554|183695774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1398||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.479|0.077||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value L and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.077|-0.479|0.154
91654629|NCT00601484|183201723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.311|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.682|0.752||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.752|-3.682|
91654630|NCT00601484|183201723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|2.198||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.198|-1.110|
91654631|NCT00601484|183201723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.114|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.904|0.922||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.922|-2.904|
91900618|NCT01009554|183695775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0746||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|-0.047||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value b and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.047|-0.343|0.011
91900619|NCT01009554|183695776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0703|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|-0.195||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value b and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.195|-0.474|<0.001
91900620|NCT01009554|183695777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0939||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.401|-0.027||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value b and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.027|-0.401|0.025
91900621|NCT01009554|183695778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0562||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.168||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.168|-0.055|0.319
91900622|NCT01009554|183695779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0668|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|0.405||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.405|0.139|<0.001
91900623|NCT01009554|183695780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.565||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.565|0.231|<0.001
91900624|NCT01009554|183695781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0271||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.084||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.084|-0.024|0.270
91900625|NCT01009554|183695782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0324|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.202||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.202|0.073|<0.001
91900626|NCT01009554|183695783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0399|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.273||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.273|0.114|<0.001
91900627|NCT01009554|183695784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0273||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.088||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.088|-0.020|0.217
91654632|NCT00601484|183201724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.65|4.826||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.826|-13.650|
91654633|NCT00601484|183201724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.041|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.493|3.192||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||3.192|-20.493|
91850926|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.57|2.91||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 4.||2.91|-4.57|
91850927|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.63|2.92||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 5.||2.92|-4.63|
91710443|NCT01087203|183313570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||0.32|-0.92|0.332
91852086|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1831|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.1831
91852087|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1796|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.1796
91852088|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8136|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.79||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.79|0.8136
91852089|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6877|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.66||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.66|0.6877
91852090|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6382|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.54||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.54|0.6382
91852091|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.766|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.87||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.87|0.7660
91852092|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.7226|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.80|0.7226
91852093|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6634|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.65||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.65|0.6634
91852094|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.7598|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.83||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.83|0.7598
91852095|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.53|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.59||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.59|0.5300
91852096|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7054|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.66||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.66|0.7054
91852097|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8851|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.30|0.8851
91852098|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.7575|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.05||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.05|0.7575
91850928|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-12.02|7.22||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 6B.||7.22|-12.02|
91850929|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-3.34|3.48||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 7F.||3.48|-3.34|
91850930|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.66|2.32||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 9V.||2.32|-5.66|
91850931|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.08|4.12||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 14.||4.12|-4.08|
91850932|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.08|3.54||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 18C.||3.54|-5.08|
91850933|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-3.4|5.2||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 19F.||5.2|-3.4|
91850934|NCT01235949|183584919|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.3|11.04||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 23F.||11.04|-5.3|
91850935|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.71|1.29||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 1.||1.29|0.71|
91850936|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.77|1.35||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4.||1.35|0.77|
91852099|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.4325|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.58||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.58|0.4325
91852100|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.8934|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.41||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.41|0.8934
91789355|NCT00545129|183458705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. Least squares (LS) mean difference, and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.66|-1.18|0.569
91789356|NCT00545129|183458706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.34|-0.60|0.581
91850937|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.8|1.41||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 5.||1.41|0.8|
91789357|NCT00545129|183458706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.73|-0.56|0.795
91789358|NCT00545129|183458706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.93|-0.76|0.843
91850938|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.72|1.74||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B.||1.74|0.72|
91850939|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.79|1.35||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F.||1.35|0.79|
91850940|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.7|1.31||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V.||1.31|0.7|
91654634|NCT00601484|183201724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.089|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.775|7.343||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||7.343|-26.775|
91850941|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.71|1.4||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 14.||1.4|0.71|
91654635|NCT00601484|183201724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.95|16.465||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||16.465|-8.950|
91789359|NCT00545129|183458706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.42|-1.34|0.292
91789360|NCT00545129|183458707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.23|-0.72|0.299
91850942|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.6|1.31||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C.||1.31|0.6|
91850943|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.87|1.75||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F.||1.75|0.87|
91852101|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.5283|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.82||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.82|0.5283
91654636|NCT00601484|183201724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.906|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.299|4.851||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.851|-22.299|
91654637|NCT00601484|183201725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.776|1.265||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.265|-0.776|
91654638|NCT00601484|183201725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|1.044||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.044|-1.220|
91654639|NCT00601484|183201725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.124|2.269||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.269|-1.124|
91654640|NCT00601484|183201725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.441|1.988||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.988|-1.441|
91654641|NCT00601484|183201725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.769|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.307|2.283||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.283|-0.307|
91654642|NCT00601484|183201726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.05|5.76||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||5.76|-9.05|
91654643|NCT00601484|183201726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.65|4.24||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||4.24|-12.65|
91654644|NCT00601484|183201726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.96|7.9||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||7.90|-8.96|
91654645|NCT00601484|183201726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.57|8.28||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||8.28|-11.57|
91654646|NCT00601484|183201726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.82|13.02||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||13.02|-6.82|
91654647|NCT00601484|183201727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.414|0.983||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.983|-2.414|
91654648|NCT00601484|183201727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.548|2.384||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.384|-1.548|
91654649|NCT00601484|183201727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.821|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|2.693||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.693|-0.075|
91654650|NCT00601484|183201727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.178|1.512||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.512|-2.178|
91654651|NCT00601484|183201727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.208|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.038|4.112||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.112|0.038|
91654652|NCT00601484|183201728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-6.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.33|18.68||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||18.68|-33.33|
91710444|NCT01087203|183313570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||0.36|-1.15|0.297
91850944|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.66|1.44||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F.||1.44|0.66|
91850945|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.67|1.21||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 1.||1.21|0.67|
91850946|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.76|1.32||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4.||1.32|0.76|
91850947|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.66|1.14||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 5.||1.14|0.66|
91850948|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.83|1.97||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B.||1.97|0.83|
91654653|NCT00601484|183201728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|15.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.12|41.18||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||41.18|-14.12|
91654654|NCT00601484|183201728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|19.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|38.1||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||38.10|0.00|
91654655|NCT00601484|183201728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.95|32.73||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||32.73|-30.95|
91710445|NCT01087203|183313570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.10|-1.81|0.029
91850949|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.8|1.31||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F.||1.31|0.8|
91850950|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.69|1.22||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V.||1.22|0.69|
91852102|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.49|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.68||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.68|0.4900
91900628|NCT01009554|183695785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.2||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.200|0.073|<0.001
91654656|NCT00601484|183201728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|34.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.57|70.0||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||70.00|-4.57|
91789361|NCT00545129|183458707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.91|-0.47|0.519
91789362|NCT00545129|183458707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.98|-0.74|0.776
91654657|NCT00601484|183201729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.529|0.61||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.610|-0.529|
91654658|NCT00601484|183201729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.077|0.043||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.043|-1.077|
91654659|NCT00601484|183201729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.835|0.396||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.396|-0.835|
91654660|NCT00601484|183201729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.718|0.273||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.273|-0.718|
91654661|NCT00601484|183201729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.044|0.445||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.445|-1.044|
91654662|NCT00601484|183201730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.56|5.37||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||5.37|-27.56|
91654663|NCT00601484|183201730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-22.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.39|0.0||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||0.00|-56.39|
91654664|NCT00601484|183201730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.44|0.0||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||0.00|-40.44|
91789363|NCT00545129|183458707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.91|-0.93|0.978
91850951|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.68|1.32||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 14.||1.32|0.68|
91654665|NCT00601484|183201730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-14.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.71|0.0||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||0.00|-50.71|
91789364|NCT00545129|183458707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.73|-1.10|0.689
91789365|NCT00545129|183458708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.23|-0.72|0.299
91850952|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.6|1.27||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C.||1.27|0.6|
91850953|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.72|1.44||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F.||1.44|0.72|
91654666|NCT00601484|183201730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-8.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.87|4.64||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||4.64|-36.87|
91654667|NCT00601484|183201731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.495|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.852|26.044||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||26.044|-15.852|
91654668|NCT00601484|183201731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.802|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.216|25.764||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||25.764|-17.216|
91654669|NCT00601484|183201731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.741|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.917|20.307||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||20.307|-25.917|
91654670|NCT00601484|183201731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.416|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.626|20.162||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||20.162|-21.626|
91789366|NCT00545129|183458708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.91|-0.47|0.519
91850954|NCT01235949|183584920|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.58|1.27||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F.||1.27|0.58|
91789367|NCT00545129|183458708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.13|-0.68|0.618
91789368|NCT00545129|183458708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.07|-0.85|0.818
91789369|NCT00545129|183458708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.09|-0.87|0.819
91850955|NCT01235949|183584921|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for protein D.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.69|1.28||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-Protein D (anti-PD) antibody.||1.28|0.69|
91850956|NCT01235949|183584921|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for protein D.|GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.64|1.17||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-Protein D (anti-PD) antibody.||1.17|0.64|
91850957|NCT02534350|183584982|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-0.43|0.72
91850958|NCT02534350|183584983|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.94|0.76
91850959|NCT02534350|183584984|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.12|0.86
91850960|NCT02534350|183584985|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.25||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|9.08|||ANCOVA|||||9.08|-15.58|0.60
91850961|NCT00716144|183585030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.884
91850962|NCT00716144|183585031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 3||||1.000
91850963|NCT00716144|183585031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 4||||0.604
91850964|NCT00716144|183585031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 5||||0.463
91850965|NCT00716144|183585031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 6||||0.042
91850966|NCT00716144|183585031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 7||||0.034
91850967|NCT00716144|183585031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 8||||0.019
91850968|NCT00716144|183585033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 3||||1.000
91850969|NCT00716144|183585033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 4||||0.673
91850970|NCT00716144|183585033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 5||||0.550
91850971|NCT00716144|183585033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 7||||0.721
91850972|NCT00716144|183585033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 8||||0.030
91850973|NCT00281918|183585076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<.0001
91850974|NCT00281918|183585077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<.0001
91850975|NCT00281918|183585078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0427
91850976|NCT00281918|183585079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7882||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7882
91850977|NCT00281918|183585080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.48|<.0001
91850978|NCT00281918|183585081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.54|0.0010
91850979|NCT00281918|183585082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.48|<.0001
91850980|NCT00281918|183585083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.52|0.0523
91850981|NCT00281918|183585084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.48|<.0001
91850982|NCT00281918|183585085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.28|||Chi-squared|||||3.28|1.62|<.0001
91654671|NCT00601484|183201731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|10.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.469|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.858|34.868||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||34.868|-13.858|
91654672|NCT00601484|183201732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.968|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.049|15.316||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||15.316|-8.049|
91654673|NCT00601484|183201732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.353|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.153|15.533||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||15.533|-9.153|
91654674|NCT00601484|183201732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.651|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.806|11.932||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||11.932|-13.806|
91654675|NCT00601484|183201732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.543|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.901|19.486||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||19.486|-5.901|
91654676|NCT00601484|183201732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.221|18.765||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||18.765|-9.221|
91654677|NCT00601484|183201733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.546|-0.182||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.182|-1.546|
91654678|NCT00601484|183201733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.196|-0.57||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.570|-2.196|
91789370|NCT00545129|183458709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.74|-0.66|0.906
91850983|NCT00281918|183585086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.49|<.0001
91850984|NCT03772964|183585088|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between samples and sample groups (beta-diversity), were evaluated with ADONIS (aka PERMANOVA) comparisons of differences between sample groups.|R2|0.071435|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ADONISBeta Diversity|Comparisons between samples and sample groups (beta-diversity) were evaluated with ADONIS (aka PERMANOVA)|R2 values estimate the amount of variation explained by each variable.|Beta Diversity - Differences between Samples and Sample groups||||<0.01
91850985|NCT03772964|183585089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6057|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6057
91850986|NCT03772964|183585091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91654679|NCT00601484|183201733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.204|-0.388||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.388|-2.204|
91654680|NCT00601484|183201733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.032|-0.172||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.172|-2.032|
91654681|NCT00601484|183201733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.878|-0.152||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.152|-1.878|
91654682|NCT00601484|183201734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-16.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.064|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.757|-2.718||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-2.718|-29.757|
91850987|NCT03772964|183585092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.69
91850988|NCT01278862|183585114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2423|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in color match||||0.2423
91850989|NCT01278862|183585114|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in margin discoloration||||>0.999
91850990|NCT01278862|183585114|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in crown fracture||||>0.999
91850991|NCT01278862|183585114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis no difference in Proximal Contact - Mesial||||>0.999
91850992|NCT01278862|183585114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis no difference in proximal contact - distal||||>0.999
91850993|NCT01278862|183585115|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in gingival index||||>0.999
91850994|NCT01278862|183585115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in plaque index||||0.5240
91850995|NCT04520165|183585116|EQUIVALENCE|if p\<0.05 than the null hypothesis was considered as wrong and groups differed for the analysed parameter.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline parameters in each group were compared with Mann-Whitney U test was performed.||||<0.05
91850996|NCT04520165|183585118|EQUIVALENCE|if p\<0.05 than the null hypothesis was considered as wrong and groups differed for the analysed parameter.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline parameters in each group were compared with Mann-Whitney U test was performed.||||<0.05
91850997|NCT04520165|183585119|EQUIVALENCE|if p\<0.05 than the null hypothesis was considered as wrong and groups differed for the analysed parameter.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline parameters in each group were compared with Mann-Whitney U test was performed.||||<0.05
91850998|NCT03686813|183585214|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
91850999|NCT03686813|183585215|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
91851000|NCT03686813|183585216|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||||||>0.999
91851001|NCT03686813|183585217|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||||||0.18
91851002|NCT03686813|183585218|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||McNemar|||||||0.29
91851003|NCT00955825|183585226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference vs. Placebo|-0.126||||0.0003||95.0|-0.194|-0.058|||ANCOVA||Relative LS Means difference (%) = - 28.24|||-0.058|-0.194|0.0003
91851004|NCT01904071|183585234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91851005|NCT01904071|183585235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91851006|NCT01904071|183585236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.005
91851007|NCT01904071|183585237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91851008|NCT01904071|183585238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.342
91851009|NCT04035668|183585239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.01||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|||-1.01|-4.71|0.002
91851010|NCT04035668|183585239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.25|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|||1.25|-3.24|
91851011|NCT04035668|183585240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.3||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||0.30|-2.29|0.065
91851012|NCT04035668|183585240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.29||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||-0.29|-3.24|0.010
91851013|NCT04035668|183585240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.22||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||1.22|-2.17|0.289
91851014|NCT04035668|183585240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.59||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||0.59|-2.97|0.093
91851015|NCT04035668|183585240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|0.57||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||0.57|-2.84|0.094
91851016|NCT04035668|183585240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.28||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|-0.28|-3.71|0.012
91851017|NCT04035668|183585240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.84|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||0.84|-2.10|
91851018|NCT04035668|183585240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.69|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||1.69|-1.75|
91851019|NCT04035668|183585240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.21|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||2.21|-1.83|
91851020|NCT04035668|183585240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.01|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||1.01|-3.20|
91851021|NCT04035668|183585240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.6|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||0.60|-3.50|
91851022|NCT04035668|183585240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|0.95|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||0.95|-3.22|
91851023|NCT04035668|183585241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.62||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||0.62|-0.69|0.460
91851024|NCT04035668|183585241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.66||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||0.66|-0.82|0.418
91851025|NCT04035668|183585241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.7||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||0.70|-0.76|0.466
91789371|NCT00545129|183458709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.85|-0.95|0.906
91789372|NCT00545129|183458709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.29|-0.78|0.613
91789373|NCT00545129|183458709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.94|-0.95|0.988
91851026|NCT04035668|183585241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.79||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||0.79|-0.67|0.560
91851027|NCT04035668|183585241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.99||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||0.99|-0.73|0.616
91851028|NCT04035668|183585241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.99||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|0.99|-0.81|0.581
91851029|NCT04035668|183585241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.96||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||0.96|-0.62|0.663
91654683|NCT00601484|183201734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-27.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.846|-11.075||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-11.075|-44.846|
91654684|NCT00601484|183201734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-25.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.508|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.079|-6.369||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-6.369|-45.079|
91789374|NCT00545129|183458709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.92|-1.01|0.922
91851030|NCT04035668|183585241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.11|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||0.11|-1.35|
91851031|NCT04035668|183585241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.26|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||0.26|-1.42|
91851032|NCT04035668|183585241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.42|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||0.42|-1.31|
91851033|NCT04035668|183585241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.31|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||0.31|-1.44|
91851034|NCT04035668|183585241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.65|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||0.65|-1.39|
91851035|NCT04035668|183585241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.65|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||0.65|-1.39|
91851036|NCT04035668|183585241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.57|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||0.57|-1.37|
91851037|NCT04035668|183585242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|0.73||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||0.73|-6.18|0.940
91654685|NCT00601484|183201734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-19.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.157|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.017|0.902||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.902|-40.017|
91789375|NCT00545129|183458710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.66|-1.03|0.655
91851038|NCT04035668|183585242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|4.74||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||4.74|-2.95|0.322
91851039|NCT04035668|183585242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.59||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||2.59|-5.32|0.753
91851040|NCT04035668|183585242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|1.66||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||1.66|-7.13|0.891
91851041|NCT04035668|183585242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|1.01||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||1.01|-8.77|0.941
91851042|NCT04035668|183585242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|6.79||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|6.79|-4.01|0.304
91900629|NCT01009554|183695786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0406|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.276||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.276|0.114|<0.001
91900630|NCT01009554|183695787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0716||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.197||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area score for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.197|-0.087|0.444
91900631|NCT01009554|183695788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.517||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.517|0.182|<0.001
91900632|NCT01009554|183695789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.754||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.754|0.331|<0.001
91900633|NCT01009554|183695790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0344||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.1||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.100|-0.037|0.361
91900634|NCT01009554|183695791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.256||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.256|0.092|<0.001
91900635|NCT01009554|183695792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0504|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|0.364||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.364|0.164|<0.001
91654686|NCT00601484|183201734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.124|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.633|-3.171||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-3.171|-40.633|
91851043|NCT04035668|183585242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|4.79||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||4.79|-6.89|0.640
91851044|NCT04035668|183585242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|6.07|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||6.07|-1.44|
91851045|NCT04035668|183585242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|5.18|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||5.18|-3.46|
91851046|NCT04035668|183585242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|4.83|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||4.83|-4.43|
91900636|NCT01009554|183695793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0345||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.102||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.102|-0.035|0.331
91654687|NCT00601484|183201735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.942|-0.057||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.057|-2.942|
91654688|NCT00601484|183201735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.458|-0.705||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.705|-3.458|
91654689|NCT00601484|183201735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.267|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.265|-0.004||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.004|-4.265|
91654690|NCT00601484|183201735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.531|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.029|1.124||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.124|-4.029|
91654691|NCT00601484|183201735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.293|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.419|-0.063||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.063|-4.419|
91851047|NCT04035668|183585242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|5.78|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||5.78|-4.53|
91900637|NCT01009554|183695794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.259||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.259|0.095|<0.001
91900638|NCT01009554|183695795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0519|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.368||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.368|0.162|<0.001
91900639|NCT01009554|183695796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0726||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.282||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.282|-0.006|0.060
91900640|NCT01009554|183695797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.510|0.165|<0.001
91900641|NCT01009554|183695798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.612||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.612|0.176|<0.001
91654692|NCT00601484|183201736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-7.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.32|11.32||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||11.32|-27.32|
91654693|NCT00601484|183201736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.04|4.37||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||4.37|-42.04|
91654694|NCT00601484|183201736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-24.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.58|0.67||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||0.67|-51.58|
91851048|NCT04035668|183585242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.82|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||6.82|-4.60|
91851049|NCT04035668|183585242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|12.04|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||12.04|-0.66|
91851050|NCT04035668|183585242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|10.59|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||10.59|-3.53|
91851051|NCT04035668|183585243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|7.96||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||7.96|-7.84|0.494
91710446|NCT01087203|183313570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.30|-2.17|0.010
91710447|NCT01087203|183313570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.34|-2.30|0.009
91789376|NCT00545129|183458710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.96|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.96|-0.85|0.897
91789377|NCT00545129|183458710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.20|-0.93|0.798
91900642|NCT01009554|183695799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0355||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.143||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.143|0.002|0.045
91900643|NCT01009554|183695800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.260|0.095|<0.001
91710448|NCT01087203|183313570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.27|-2.36|0.015
91710449|NCT03790865|183313629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.025
91710450|NCT00502853|183313633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1776|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||||0.1776
91710451|NCT00502853|183313633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1215|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||0.1215
91710452|NCT00502853|183313633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1231||0.2246|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.2246
91710453|NCT00502853|183313634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8989|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||||0.8989
91710454|NCT00502853|183313634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8834|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||0.8834
91789378|NCT00545129|183458710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.27|-0.83|0.672
91851052|NCT04035668|183585243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.87||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|3.06||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||3.06|-10.81|0.866
91654695|NCT00601484|183201736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.71|17.33||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||17.33|-41.71|
91654696|NCT00601484|183201736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-21.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.76|7.92||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||7.92|-54.76|
91710455|NCT00502853|183313634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9051||0.8841|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.8841
91789379|NCT00545129|183458710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.41|-1.56|0.243
91654697|NCT00601484|183201737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.591|-0.04||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.040|-0.591|
91654698|NCT00601484|183201737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.734|0.02||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.020|-0.734|
91654699|NCT00601484|183201737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.724|-0.015||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.015|-0.724|
91654700|NCT00601484|183201737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.806|-0.005||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.005|-0.806|
91654701|NCT00601484|183201737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.223||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.223|-0.470|
91710456|NCT00502853|183313635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5911|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||||0.5911
91710457|NCT00502853|183313635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1475|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||0.1475
91710458|NCT00502853|183313635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1123||0.1463|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.1463
91710459|NCT00502853|183313636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1101|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1101
91710460|NCT00502853|183313636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0003
91789380|NCT00545129|183458711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.52|-1.16|0.445
91789381|NCT00545129|183458711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.00|0.992
91789382|NCT00545129|183458711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.86|-1.34|0.655
91789383|NCT00545129|183458711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.30|-1.09|0.860
91789384|NCT00545129|183458711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.89|-1.52|0.595
91789385|NCT00545129|183458712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.35|-1.76|0.179
91900644|NCT01009554|183695801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.3||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.300|0.094|<0.001
91900645|NCT01009554|183695802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0355||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.147||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.147|0.006|0.034
91900646|NCT01009554|183695803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0398|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.247||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.247|0.089|<0.001
91900647|NCT01009554|183695804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0516|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.296||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.296|0.091|<0.001
91900648|NCT01009554|183695805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.042||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.042|-0.082|0.524
91900649|NCT01009554|183695806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0395||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.133||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.133|-0.024|0.172
91900650|NCT01009554|183695807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0439||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.203||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.203|0.028|0.010
91900651|NCT01009554|183695808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0145||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.015||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.015|-0.043|0.348
91900652|NCT01009554|183695809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.062||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.062|-0.012|0.185
91900653|NCT01009554|183695810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.088||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.088|0.010|0.014
91900654|NCT01009554|183695811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.024||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.024|-0.040|0.623
91900655|NCT01009554|183695812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.061||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.061|-0.013|0.192
91900656|NCT01009554|183695813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0213||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.099||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.099|0.014|0.009
91789386|NCT00545129|183458712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.10|-1.02|0.938
91710461|NCT00502853|183313636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0018
91851053|NCT04035668|183585243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|5.73||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||5.73|-9.37|0.684
91851054|NCT04035668|183585243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|2.14||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||2.14|-10.93|0.908
91851055|NCT04035668|183585243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|8.26||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||8.26|-8.00|0.487
91851056|NCT04035668|183585243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|4.49||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|4.49|-10.61|0.790
91654702|NCT00601484|183201738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-15.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.425|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.468|-1.209||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-1.209|-29.468|
91654703|NCT00601484|183201738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-16.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.102|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.608|1.665||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.665|-35.608|
91851057|NCT04035668|183585243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|9.88||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||9.88|-6.48|0.340
91851058|NCT04035668|183585243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|8.68|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||8.68|-9.06|
91851059|NCT04035668|183585243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|6.17|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||6.17|-9.59|
91851060|NCT04035668|183585243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|8.74|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||8.74|-9.34|
91851061|NCT04035668|183585243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|3.86|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||3.86|-11.74|
91851062|NCT04035668|183585243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|4.93|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||4.93|-14.34|
91654704|NCT00601484|183201738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-18.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.358|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.476|-0.613||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.613|-35.476|
91851063|NCT04035668|183585243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.44|2.87|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||2.87|-15.44|
91851064|NCT04035668|183585243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|6.16|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||6.16|-14.01|
91851065|NCT04035668|183585244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|8.16||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||8.16|-6.75|0.575
91851066|NCT04035668|183585244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|5.27||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||5.27|-9.22|0.294
91851067|NCT04035668|183585244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.41||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||7.41|-8.40|0.450
91851068|NCT04035668|183585244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|14.78||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||14.78|-2.74|0.913
91851069|NCT04035668|183585244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|11.34||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||11.34|-6.16|0.722
91851070|NCT04035668|183585244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|5.24||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|5.24|-10.96|0.241
91851071|NCT04035668|183585244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|11.99||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||11.99|-6.09|0.742
91851072|NCT04035668|183585244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|7.91|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||7.91|-8.28|
91851073|NCT04035668|183585244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|7.58|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||7.58|-8.87|
91851074|NCT04035668|183585244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|9.48|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||9.48|-9.28|
91851075|NCT04035668|183585244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|5.9|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||5.90|-14.71|
91851076|NCT04035668|183585244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.47|-1.77|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||-1.77|-22.47|
91851077|NCT04035668|183585244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|3.5|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||3.50|-16.00|
91851078|NCT04035668|183585244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.16|2.96|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||2.96|-19.16|
91851079|NCT00004124|183585261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.79|0.70
91654705|NCT00601484|183201738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-19.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.418|3.46||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||3.460|-42.418|
91851080|NCT00004124|183585262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.80|0.94
91851081|NCT03262935|183585291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6401|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4885|0.8389||P-value from stratified log-rank test for median estimate of PFS: stratified according to the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||A stratified Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio of PFS, along with 95% CIs. Stratification factors assigned at randomization were world region (Europe, Singapore, and North America), number of prior treatment lines for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (excluding hormone therapy) (1 to 2, \>2), and prior treatment with pertuzumab (yes, no).||0.8389|0.4885|=0.002
91789387|NCT00545129|183458712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.86|-1.41|0.621
91789388|NCT00545129|183458712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.21|-1.44|0.863
91789389|NCT00545129|183458712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.51|-1.95|0.237
91789390|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.94|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.94|0.10|1.000
91789391|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.32|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.32|0.23|1.000
91789392|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.35|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.35|0.05|1.000
91789393|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.53|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.53|0.44|0.601
91710462|NCT00502853|183313636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.0857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4965||0.0023|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0023
91789394|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.51|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.51|0.46|0.360
91789395|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|10.24|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||10.24|0.01|1.000
91789396|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.66|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.66|0.43|0.596
91789397|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.24|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.24|0.39|0.552
91789398|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|131.03|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||131.03|0.10|0.612
91789399|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.66|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||19.66|0.00|1.000
91789400|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|14.32|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||14.32|1.04|0.029
91789401|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|11.36|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||11.36|0.67|0.143
91654706|NCT00601484|183201738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.097|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.174|7.849||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||7.849|-26.174|
91654707|NCT00601484|183201739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.394|0.03||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.030|-1.394|
91654708|NCT00601484|183201739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.149|0.468||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.468|-1.149|
91710463|NCT00502853|183313637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3358|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.3358
91710464|NCT00502853|183313637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9158|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.9158
91789402|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|15.25|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||15.25|0.07|1.000
91654709|NCT00601484|183201739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.443|0.156||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.156|-1.443|
91654710|NCT00601484|183201739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.046|0.931||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.931|-1.046|
91789403|NCT00545129|183458713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.57|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.57|0.00|0.492
91789404|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.94|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.94|0.10|1.000
91654711|NCT00601484|183201739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.876|0.592||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.592|-1.876|
91710465|NCT00502853|183313637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.003418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02345||0.8877|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.8877
91789405|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.32|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.32|0.23|1.000
91789406|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.35|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.35|0.05|1.000
91710466|NCT00502853|183313638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7624|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.7624
91789407|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.88|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=30%) reduction: odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.88|0.38|0.795
91710467|NCT00502853|183313638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0212|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0212
91710468|NCT00502853|183313638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.2681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0529||0.0712|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0712
91710469|NCT00502853|183313639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0240
91710470|NCT00502853|183313639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0045
91710471|NCT00502853|183313639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0018
91789408|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.51|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.51|0.46|0.360
91789409|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|10.24|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||10.24|0.01|1.000
91789410|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.39|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.39|0.33|1.000
91789411|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.83|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.83|0.33|0.771
91789412|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|131.03|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||131.03|0.10|0.612
91851082|NCT03262935|183585292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868|||=|0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.1145||P-value from stratified log-rank test for Kaplan-Meier estimate of median OS: stratified according to the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||A stratified Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio of OS, along with 95% CIs. Stratification factors assigned at randomization were world region (Europe, Singapore, and North America), number of prior treatment lines for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (excluding hormone therapy) (1 to 2, \>2), and prior treatment with pertuzumab (yes, no).||1.1145|0.676|=0.236
91851083|NCT03262935|183585293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.732||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test including the randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (strata based on the baseline stratification factors) was used to compare the two treatment groups with respect to the ORR at two-sided 5% level of significance.||||=0.732
91851084|NCT03262935|183585294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5995|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4666|0.7703||P-value from stratified log-rank test for median estimate of PFS: stratified according to the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||A stratified Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the HR of PFS, along with the 95% CI. The treatment groups were compared using the 2-sided stratified log-rank test.||0.7703|0.4666|<0.001
91851085|NCT03262935|183585295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||MMRM|||The change from baseline in the global health status/QoL scale transformed score was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) approach.||||0.473
91900657|NCT01009554|183695814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0384||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.071||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.071|-0.081|0.893
91900658|NCT01009554|183695815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0476||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.116||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.116|-0.073|0.655
91900659|NCT01009554|183695816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0693||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.359||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.359|0.084|0.002
91900660|NCT01009554|183695817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0187||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.035||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.035|-0.039|0.914
91900661|NCT01009554|183695818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0229||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.056||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.056|-0.035|0.646
91710472|NCT00502853|183313639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04524||0.0019|||||||Random Coefficient Model|||Trend over time||||0.0019
91900662|NCT01009554|183695819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0309||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.163||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.163|0.040|0.001
91710473|NCT00502853|183313640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.6294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8623||0.0074|||||||Random Coefficient Model|||Trend over time||||0.0074
91789413|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.66|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||19.66|0.00|1.000
91789414|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.3|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||7.30|0.66|0.187
91900663|NCT01009554|183695820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.037||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.037|-0.034|0.930
91900664|NCT01009554|183695821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.060|-0.029|0.486
91900665|NCT01009554|183695822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0338||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.180|0.045|0.001
91900666|NCT01009554|183695823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1006||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.320|-0.080|0.237
91900667|NCT01009554|183695824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.743||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.743|0.298|<0.001
91900668|NCT01009554|183695825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1367|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|0.839||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.839|0.295|<0.001
91710474|NCT00502853|183313640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1273|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1273
91710475|NCT00502853|183313640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0132|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0132
91710476|NCT00502853|183313640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1542|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.1542
91710477|NCT00502853|183313641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1396|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1396
91789415|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|6.43|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.43|0.48|0.399
91789416|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|15.25|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||15.25|0.07|1.000
91851086|NCT01811706|183585296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of T25FW between Dalfampridine and Placebo. The test was performed with a significant level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||>0.05
91710478|NCT00502853|183313641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0050
91789417|NCT00545129|183458714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.57|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.57|0.00|0.492
91789418|NCT00545129|183458716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.73|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 1: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||3.73|0.77|0.188
91789419|NCT00545129|183458716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.54|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 2: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||4.54|0.72|0.207
91789420|NCT00545129|183458716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.93|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 3: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||4.93|0.60|0.317
91851087|NCT01811706|183585297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of SARA score between Dalfampridine and Placebo. The test was performed with a significant level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||>0.05
91789421|NCT00545129|183458716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.71|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 4: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||3.71|0.50|0.554
91789422|NCT00545129|183458716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.89|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 5: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.89|0.32|0.581
91789423|NCT00545129|183458716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.43|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 6: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.43|0.26|0.252
91654712|NCT00601484|183201740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-34.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.509|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.879|4.375||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.375|-72.879|
91654713|NCT00601484|183201740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-30.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.418|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-75.23|13.285||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||13.285|-75.230|
91654714|NCT00601484|183201740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-37.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-90.62|16.265||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||16.265|-90.620|
91789424|NCT00545129|183458716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.64|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 7: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.64|0.26|0.365
91789425|NCT00545129|183458716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.36|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 8: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.36|0.25|0.212
91789426|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Fatigue MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.55|-0.13|0.215
91789427|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Fatigue MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.42|-0.45|0.947
91851088|NCT01811706|183585298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of Stride Length on BAG between Dalfampridine and Placebo. The test was performed with a significant level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||>0.05
91851089|NCT00545844|183585346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91851090|NCT00545844|183585347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91710479|NCT00502853|183313641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0050
91789428|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Fatigue MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.20|-0.56|0.341
91789429|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Drowsiness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.17|-0.83|0.180
91789430|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Drowsiness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.84|-0.43|0.509
91789431|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Drowsiness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.82|-0.62|0.767
91789432|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Inability to Concentrate MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.95|-0.11|0.108
91789433|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Inability to Concentrate MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.41|-1.26|0.280
91789434|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Inability to Concentrate MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.15|-1.53|0.747
91851091|NCT00545844|183585348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar-Bowker|||McNemar-Bowker test is McNemar chi-squared statistic for binary matched pairs, with Bowker chi-squared fit test of symmetry model (tests all rows of data) (cf. Agresti, 2007)||||<0.001
91789435|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Nausea MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.88|-0.87|0.991
91654715|NCT00601484|183201740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.222|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-74.604|86.142||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||86.142|-74.604|
91654716|NCT00601484|183201740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-21.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|70.862|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-164.142|121.438||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||121.438|-164.142|
91654717|NCT00601484|183201743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.562|0.081||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.081|-2.562|
91789436|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Nausea MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.99|-0.41|0.335
91789437|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Nausea MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.48|-4.57|0.159
91789438|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Dizziness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.94|-0.16|0.136
91789439|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Dizziness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||5.90|-3.46|0.186
91789440|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Constipation MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.49|-1.52|0.292
91789441|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Constipation MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.30|-0.34|0.225
91654718|NCT00601484|183201743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.782|0.535||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.535|-2.782|
91789442|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Constipation MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.07|-0.58|0.517
91789443|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Itching MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||2.48|-2.48|1.000
91710480|NCT00502853|183313641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07966||0.0054|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0054
91789444|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Itching MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||-0.99|-1.01|<0.001
91851092|NCT00545844|183585349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar-Bowker|||McNemar-Bowker test is McNemar chi-squared statistic for binary matched pairs, with Bowker chi-squared fit test of symmetry model (tests all rows of data) (cf. Agresti, 2007)||||<0.001
91900669|NCT01009554|183695826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0491||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.160|-0.036|0.210
91654719|NCT00601484|183201743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.036|0.819||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.819|-3.036|
91789445|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Difficulty with Urination MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.63|-0.75|0.362
91654720|NCT00601484|183201743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.816|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.534|1.221||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.221|-1.534|
91654721|NCT00601484|183201743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.398|1.32||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.320|-2.398|
91789446|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.87|51.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Difficulty with Urination MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||51.87|-51.87|1.000
91789447|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Retching/Vomiting MDR): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||-0.76|-3.30|0.031
91789448|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Frequency Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.32|-0.28|0.886
91789449|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Frequency Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.33|-0.52|0.660
91789450|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Frequency Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.14|-0.54|0.238
91851093|NCT00545844|183585350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar-Bowker|||McNemar-Bowker test is McNemar chi-squared statistic for binary matched pairs, with Bowker chi-squared fit test of symmetry model (tests all rows of data) (cf. Agresti, 2007)||||<0.001
91654722|NCT00601484|183201744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-10.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.718|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.25|0.277||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.277|-22.250|
91654723|NCT00601484|183201744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.001|6.132||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||6.132|-23.001|
91654724|NCT00601484|183201744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.737|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.602|8.327||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||8.327|-24.602|
91654725|NCT00601484|183201744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.406|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.948|11.04||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||11.040|-13.948|
91789451|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Severity Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.16|-0.42|0.360
91654726|NCT00601484|183201744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.352|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.884|8.234||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||8.234|-23.884|
91654727|NCT00601484|183201745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.709|15.007||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on proportional odds analysis, to determine the odds ratio for the odds of responding (compared to not responding) on Tanezumab vs placebo.||15.007|1.709|
91789452|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Severity Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.54|-0.16|0.278
91789453|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Severity Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.27|-0.34|0.809
91789454|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Bother Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.38|-0.35|0.944
91789455|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Bother Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.55|-0.48|0.892
91851094|NCT00371566|183585363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93||0.394||95.0|-5.5|2.19|||ANCOVA|Null hypothesis or reject it in favor of the two sided alternative hypothesis||The study was designed to provide evidence to support the null hypothesis: Delta equals 0% or reject it in favor of the two sided alternative hypothesis: Delta does not equal 0%, where Delta was the difference in the true response rate for the two treatment groups.||2.19|-5.50|.394
91851095|NCT05565391|183585396|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.47|||Log-binomial regression model||Unweighted RRs were estimated using a log-binomial regression model with Wald confidence intervals.|||2.47|1.54|<.0001
91851096|NCT05565391|183585396|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.67|||Log-binomial regression model||Unweighted RRs were estimated using a log-binomial regression model with Wald confidence intervals.|||2.67|1.52|<.0001
91851097|NCT05565391|183585397|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.9|||Log-binomial regression model||Risk ratio was estimated using a log-binomial regression model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||2.90|1.69|<.0001
91654728|NCT00601484|183201745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.722|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|9.795||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on proportional odds analysis, to determine the odds ratio for the odds of responding (compared to not responding) on Tanezumab vs placebo.||9.795|0.756|
91710481|NCT00502853|183313642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0254
91851098|NCT05565391|183585398|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.15|||Log-binomial regression model||Risk ratio was estimated using a log-binomial regression model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||3.15|1.01|0.0447
91851099|NCT05565391|183585399|OTHER|||||||0.4241|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.4241
91851100|NCT05565391|183585399|OTHER|||||||0.0281|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.0281
91851101|NCT05565391|183585400|OTHER|||||||0.7682|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.7682
91851102|NCT05565391|183585401|OTHER|||||||0.0326|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.0326
91851103|NCT05565391|183585402|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.31|||Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.31|0.09|<.0001
91654729|NCT02928848|183201766|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) with Condition (active, sham) and time point (baseline, 0-week) as within-subject factors. Analysis tests whether active vs. sham stimulation confers a greater improvement in overall language ability, as measured by the Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient (WAB-AQ), that endures over time.||||0.14
91789456|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Bother Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.45|-0.39|0.884
91789457|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (MDA Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.28|-0.26|0.919
91710482|NCT00502853|183313642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0384|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0384
91710483|NCT00502853|183313642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0271
91789458|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (MDA Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.45|-0.33|0.752
91654730|NCT02928848|183201767|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) with Condition (active, sham) and time point (baseline, 0-weeks) as within-subject factors. Analysis tests whether active vs. sham stimulation confers a greater improvement in naming ability, as measured by the naming subtest of the WAB, that endures over time.||||.02
91654731|NCT00663871|183201788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.27|0.59
91789459|NCT00545129|183458717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (MDA Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.24|-0.34|0.715
91654732|NCT00663871|183201789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.24|0.21
91654733|NCT00663871|183201790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.5||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time. The Negative Affect scores were categorized by quartiles of the baseline measures.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling was used with a multinomial distribution with cumulative link.||||1.50|0.69|0.92
91654734|NCT00663871|183201791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.44||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.44|-1.21|0.86
91654735|NCT00663871|183201792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.94||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.94|-1.57|0.63
91654736|NCT00663871|183201793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.61||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-1.25|0.50
91654737|NCT00663871|183201794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.88||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-0.23|0.25
91789460|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.18|-0.77|0.666
91789461|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.18|-0.86|0.745
91789462|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.83|-1.14|0.749
91654738|NCT00663871|183201795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.92||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|-1.83|0.52
91851104|NCT05565391|183585402|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.43|||Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.43|0.11|<.0001
91654739|NCT00663871|183201796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.24||The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time. The Type A personality scores were categorized by quartiles of the baseline measures.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling was used with a multinomial distribution with cumulative link.||||2.24|0.67|0.52
91654740|NCT00663871|183201797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1||The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.16|0.68
91654741|NCT00663871|183201798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.41|0.16
91654742|NCT00663871|183201799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.24|0.59
91654743|NCT00663871|183201800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.06|0.35
91654744|NCT00663871|183201801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.18|0.74
91654745|NCT00663871|183201802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.27|0.28
91789463|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.90|-1.16|0.794
91654746|NCT00663871|183201803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||standardized mean difference|0.15||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.39|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|||||0.39|-0.09|0.76
91851105|NCT05565391|183585403|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.22|||Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||0.22|0.06|<.0001
91654747|NCT00663871|183201804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||standardized mean difference|0.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.3|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|||||0.30|-0.18|0.62
91654748|NCT00663871|183201805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||standardized mean difference|0.03||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.26|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|||||0.26|-0.21|0.42
91654749|NCT00663871|183201806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized mean difference|-0.06||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|Repeated Measures MANOVA||||0.18|-0.30|0.54
91654750|NCT00582309|183201809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Original Power Analysis: The expected differences in mean blood glucose concentration between groups are \> 30 mg/dL. Assuming two-tailed alpha of .05, a standard deviation of approximately 40, and a one-to-one allocation and no subject attrition, fifty patients per treatment group (150 total) will be sufficient to achieve 90% power for group mean comparisons allowing for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All results obtained by ANOVA are verified by the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Statistical significance will be judged by P-values \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Demographic and baseline measurements are reported as either means and standard deviations or as frequency and percentages. These and the outcome measures are compared among the three groups by 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for means or by Fisher's Exact test for frequencies as appropriate. If there is an overall significant difference, the post hoc multiple comparisons will be done by Fisher's least significant difference method.||||<0.05
91654751|NCT00955747|183201821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All tests will be two-tailed. Unless specified otherwise, p-values less than or equal to O.050, when rounded to four decimal places,will be considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
91851106|NCT05565391|183585404|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45|||Weighted Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||0.45|0.10|<.0001
91654752|NCT01497938|183201822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used for sample size calculation. sample size is based on two-sample t test with one-sided type 1 error of 2.5%. Assuming a same mean of change in A1C for the treatment arm and control arm and a common standard deviation of 1% for both treatment groups, it showed that a total of 200 subjects will provide over 80% power to detect the non-inferiority with a margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15||
91654753|NCT01497938|183201823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-588.0|||<|0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.025
91710484|NCT00502853|183313642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.7586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5278||0.0124|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0124
91851107|NCT00530842|183585406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|-0.001|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, treatment, and period and random term for subject within sequence.||||-0.001|-0.174|0.0482
91851108|NCT00530842|183585407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|27.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||The confidence interval was determined by Hodges-Lehmann method.|||27.5|-9.5|0.3407
91654754|NCT03708211|183201824|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.9359|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8084|1.0835||||||Following log-transformation, PK parameters were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) fitting terms for treatment group, sequence and period. Participants within sequence were treated as a random effect. The obtained point estimates and adjusted 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for difference in treatment were exponentially back transformed to provide point and confidence interval estimates for the ratios of interest appropriately.||1.0835|0.8084|
91654755|NCT03708211|183201825|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.0036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8992|1.1201||||||Following log-transformation, PK parameters were analyzed by ANOVA fitting terms for treatment group, sequence and period. Participants within sequence were treated as a random effect. The obtained point estimates and adjusted 90% CIs for difference in treatment were exponentially back transformed to provide point and confidence interval estimates for the ratios of interest appropriately.||1.1201|0.8992|
91654756|NCT03708211|183201826|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.0071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9033|1.1227||||||Following log-transformation, PK parameters were analyzed by ANOVA fitting terms for treatment group, sequence and period. Participants within sequence were treated as a random effect. The obtained point estimates and adjusted 90% CIs for difference in treatment were exponentially back transformed to provide point and confidence interval estimates for the ratios of interest appropriately.||1.1227|0.9033|
91789464|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.33|0.772
91654757|NCT00097695|183201837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.142||95.0|||||Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test|The Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test of SAS was used to calculate statistical significance between p- vs icatibant group and placebo group.||||||0.142
91654758|NCT00097695|183201838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test|The median time to onset is calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. The Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test of SAS is used.||||||< 0.001
91789465|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.34|-0.73|0.547
91789466|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.91|-1.43|0.650
91654759|NCT00097695|183201839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test|The median time to almost complete symptom relief was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology.The Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test of SAS used.||||||= 0.079
91789467|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.27|0.808
91789468|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.07|-1.19|0.915
91789469|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.14|-1.54|0.757
91789470|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.17|-1.19|0.987
91789471|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.51|-1.14|0.781
91789472|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.38|-1.13|0.834
91789473|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.10|-1.32|0.851
91789474|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.15|-1.68|0.701
91789475|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.77|-1.68|0.453
91789476|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.60|-2.15|0.258
91789477|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.09|-1.53|0.736
91789478|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.87|-1.76|0.491
91851109|NCT03399370|183585474|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.86|-54.43||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-54.43|-60.86|<.0001
91851110|NCT03399370|183585475|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.23|-51.33||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-51.33|-56.23|<0.0001
91654760|NCT05328375|183201841|OTHER||Mean|0.91|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.62||||||The estimate is based on the number of participants enrolled per month over the 11-month recruitment period of the trial. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.62|
91654761|NCT05328375|183201842|OTHER||Mean|0.87|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.66||||||The estimate is based on the mean proportion of cardiac rehabilitation sessions completed by THCR participants. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.66|
91654762|NCT05328375|183201843|OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.55||||||The estimate is based on the proportion of participants in the Telehealth-enhanced Hybrid CR arm who attended at least one cardiac rehabilitation session after randomization. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.55|
91654763|NCT05328375|183201843|OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.55||||||The estimate is based on the proportion of participants in the Traditional CR arm who attended at least one cardiac rehabilitation session after randomization. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.55|
91654764|NCT05328375|183201844|OTHER||Mean|0.69|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.4||||||The estimate is based on the mean proportion of cardiac rehabilitation sessions completed by participants in the Traditional CR arm. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.40|
91789479|NCT00545129|183458718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.04|-1.53|0.695
91789480|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.19|-1.34|0.897
91789481|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.43|-0.90|0.643
91789482|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.68|-1.45|0.464
91789483|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.86|-1.46|0.593
91789484|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.77|-1.77|0.423
91789485|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.54|-1.21|0.805
91789486|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.51|-1.30|0.882
91789487|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.81|-1.79|0.446
91789488|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.05|-1.77|0.604
91789489|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.91|-2.24|0.393
91789490|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.97|-2.33|0.399
91789491|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.66|-1.43|0.876
91789492|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.14|-1.58|0.740
91789493|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.31|-1.56|0.854
91789494|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-2.24|0.436
91654765|NCT05328375|183201845|OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.55||||||Adequate feasibility was defined as a mean score ≥4 across four post-program items. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was calculated.||||0.55|
91654766|NCT01893905|183201897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0307|||||||Pocock approach|||||||<0.0307
91851111|NCT03399370|183585476|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.37|-50.88||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-50.88|-57.37|<0.0001
91851112|NCT03399370|183585477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.75|-50.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-50.80|-55.75|<0.0001
91851113|NCT03399370|183585478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.25|-77.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-77.34|-89.25|<0.0001
91851114|NCT03399370|183585479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-30.97||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-30.97|-35.30|<0.0001
91851115|NCT03399370|183585480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-40.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-40.67|-45.50|<.0001
91851116|NCT03399370|183585481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.25|-44.47||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-44.47|-50.25|<0.0001
91710485|NCT00502853|183313643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7376|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.7376
91710486|NCT00502853|183313643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1631|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.1631
91851117|NCT05819190|183585494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean AUC of WURSS-21 scores assessed during the first 8 days of the study between both groups - FAS set||||0.0192
91851118|NCT05819190|183585495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0296|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean AUC of WURSS-21 scores assessed during the first 8 days of the study between both groups - PP set||||0.0296
91851119|NCT05819190|183585496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0085
91851120|NCT05819190|183585497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0081
91851121|NCT05819190|183585498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0050
91851122|NCT05819190|183585499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0107
91851123|NCT05819190|183585500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0424|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0424
91851124|NCT05819190|183585501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||one sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.430
91851125|NCT05819190|183585502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.339
91851126|NCT05819190|183585503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.704
91851127|NCT05819190|183585504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.298
91851128|NCT05819190|183585505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.906
91851129|NCT05819190|183585506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.582
91851130|NCT05819190|183585507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.743
91654767|NCT02708290|183201899|OTHER|Participants in the MITA group were matched to those in Control (treatment-as-usual) group using propensity score analysis based on age and all four ATEC subscales at baseline. Least squares means were calculated for all subscales at all visits.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"The concept of a Visit was developed by dividing the three-year-long observation interval into 3-month periods. All evaluations were mapped into 3-month-long bins (Reference: Mahapatra, S. et al. Autism Dev. Disord. 2018, 1). It was then hypothesized that there was a three-way interaction between an age group, Visit, and treatment. This hypothesis was modeled by applying the Linear Model with repeated measures, where a three-way interaction term was introduced to test the hypothesis."||||<0.0001
91654768|NCT00976664|183201907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in VAS for low back pain from randomization visit to 6-week visit were assessed via the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.0007
91654769|NCT00976664|183201907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3913|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in VAS for low back pain from randomization visit to 12-week visit were assessed via the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.3913
91789495|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.21|-2.81|0.087
91789496|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.72|-2.40|0.278
91789497|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.84|0.548
91789498|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.79|-2.33|0.318
91789499|NCT00545129|183458719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.99|-2.02|0.484
91789500|NCT00545129|183458720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH test) stratified by center.||||0.399
91789501|NCT00545129|183458720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.779
91789502|NCT00545129|183458720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.922
91789503|NCT00545129|183458720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.811|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.811
91789504|NCT00545129|183458720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.237
91654770|NCT00976664|183201908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in ODI for low back pain from randomization visit to 6-week visit were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.002
91654771|NCT00976664|183201908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0336|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in ODI for low back pain from randomization visit to 12-week visit were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.0336
91789505|NCT00545129|183458721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.09|-0.82|0.108
91789506|NCT00545129|183458721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.16|-0.70|0.202
91789507|NCT00545129|183458721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.30|-0.54|0.571
91789508|NCT00545129|183458721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.43|-0.55|0.808
91654772|NCT02688400|183201912|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of Diacerein versus Celecoxib was assessed by computing the difference in the adjusted mean change from baseline (Visit 2) in WOMAC Pain subscale score after 182 days of treatment between Diacerein and Celecoxib treatment groups from a MMRM.~Assuming that:~* Non inferiority margin of 10 points for the absolute change in WOMAC Pain Subscale Score (scale 0-100)~* SD of 26 in the two treatment groups,~* Type I error: α = 0.025 (one-sided condition) and power equal to 90%"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.18||MMRM. Non-inferiority claim:Diacerein to be non-inferior to Celecoxib if upper bound of the the difference in the adjusted mean change was inferior to 5 cm on the PPS.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.18||<0.025
91654773|NCT02688400|183201913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91654774|NCT02688400|183201914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91789509|NCT00545129|183458721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.51|-0.57|0.913
91789510|NCT00545129|183458722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.09|-0.82|0.108
91789511|NCT00545129|183458722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.23|-0.65|0.339
91654775|NCT02688400|183201915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91654776|NCT02688400|183201916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91654777|NCT02688400|183201917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91654778|NCT02688400|183201918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91654779|NCT02688400|183201919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91654780|NCT02688400|183201920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91654781|NCT03068273|183201933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1460
91654782|NCT03068273|183201933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91654783|NCT03068273|183201933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.331|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91654784|NCT03068273|183201934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.838||0.0615|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0615
91654785|NCT03068273|183201935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.775||0.0404|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0404
91654786|NCT03068273|183201936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.268|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2680
91789512|NCT00545129|183458722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.28|-0.67|0.408
91789513|NCT00545129|183458722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.45|-0.67|0.686
91654787|NCT03068273|183201937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.839||0.0403|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0403
91654788|NCT02207231|183201953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||<0.001
91654789|NCT02207231|183201954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||<0.001
91654790|NCT02207231|183201955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 24||||< 0.001
91654791|NCT02207231|183201955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 48||||< 0.001
91654792|NCT02207231|183201956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 24||||< 0.001
91654793|NCT02207231|183201956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 48||||< 0.001
91654794|NCT02207231|183201957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 24||||< 0.001
91654795|NCT02207231|183201957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 48||||< 0.001
91654796|NCT02207231|183201958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91710487|NCT00502853|183313643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8816|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.8816
91789514|NCT00545129|183458722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.40|-0.81|0.493
91789515|NCT00545129|183458723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|12.27|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||12.27|0.03|0.724
91789516|NCT00545129|183458723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.947|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 2: P-value was calculated using Fisher Extract method.||||0.947
91789517|NCT00545129|183458723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|8.71|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.71|0.03|0.634
91789518|NCT00545129|183458723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.74|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||7.74|0.14|0.975
91789519|NCT00545129|183458723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|18.86|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||18.86|0.12|0.759
91789520|NCT00545129|183458724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|12.27|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||12.27|0.03|0.724
91654797|NCT02207231|183201959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= 10.0%|Difference in Percentage|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|25.7|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided Mantel Haenszel (MH) Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||25.7|12.9|< 0.001
91789521|NCT00545129|183458724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 2: P-value was calculated using Fisher Extract test.||||0.950
91789522|NCT00545129|183458724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|8.71|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.71|0.03|0.634
91710488|NCT00502853|183313643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9408||0.8835|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.8835
91789523|NCT00545129|183458724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.74|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||7.74|0.14|0.975
91789524|NCT00545129|183458724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|23.89|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||23.89|0.17|0.578
91789525|NCT04896229|183458763|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.022
91851131|NCT05819190|183585508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Fisher Exact|One sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.605
91851132|NCT05819190|183585509|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||1.000
91789526|NCT04896229|183458764|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.800
91789527|NCT04896229|183458765|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.235
91851133|NCT05819190|183585510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||Fisher Exact|One sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.988
91851134|NCT05819190|183585511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Fisher Exact|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.483
91654798|NCT02207231|183201959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91654799|NCT02207231|183201960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= 10.0%|Difference in Percentage|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|31.0|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||31.0|17.0|< 0.001
91654800|NCT02207231|183201960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91789528|NCT04896229|183458766|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.325
91851135|NCT01656304|183585514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1217|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|0.5||||||||.50|.20|
91851136|NCT01093534|183585544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.169||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|0.03||Hochberg Method for controlling the overall risk of type I error of 5% was used to adjust for using two co-primary endpoints.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and region and Baseline of least squares mean BWT as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline in BWT in the pooled solifenacin group and placebo was the same. Estimated as two-sided contrast with 95% confidence interval. Power was planned for 80% (assumption: mean difference = 0.5 mm, standard deviation=1.65, 314 and 157 participants, bonferroni adjustment for alpha =0.025)||0.030|-0.368|0.095
91851137|NCT01093534|183585545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||||||Hochberg Method for controlling the overall risk of type I error of 5% was used to adjust for using two co-primary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test does not adjust for other factors.||The null hypothesis for the co-primary treatment comparison was that the mean free (neutralized) uNGF/Cr value in the pooled solifenacin group and placebo was the same. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used instead of a contrast from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), because data was not normally distributed. Power was planned for 80% (assumption: mean difference = 0.74 pg/μmol, standard deviation=2.0, 220 and 110 participants, bonferroni adjustment for alpha =0.025).||||0.250
91851138|NCT03538054|183585627|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.065||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|||||The clinical threshold was p \< 0.05, with no corrections for multiple comparisons.|GEE|Outcome scores were mean-centered by participant, allowing analyses to reflect within-person changes rather than between-person differences.||||||0.146
91851139|NCT03538054|183585628|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.221||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||The clinical threshold was p \< 0.05, with no corrections for multiple comparisons.|GEE|Outcome scores were mean-centered by participant, allowing analyses to reflect within-person changes rather than between-person differences.||||||0.052
91851140|NCT00667745|183585630|SUPERIORITY||F value, main effect|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
91851141|NCT00667745|183585631|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.967
91851142|NCT00667745|183585632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
91789529|NCT04896229|183458767|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.502
91789530|NCT04896229|183458768|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.005
91851143|NCT00667745|183585633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
91710489|NCT00502853|183313644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1312|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1312
91710490|NCT00502853|183313644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0662|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0662
91710491|NCT00502853|183313644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4133|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.4133
91710492|NCT00502853|183313644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|8.8196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.4534||0.6049|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.6049
91710493|NCT00502853|183313645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1725|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1725
91789531|NCT04896229|183458769|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.712
91789532|NCT04896229|183458770|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.245|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.245
91789533|NCT04896229|183458771|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.282|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.282
91789534|NCT04896229|183458772|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.289
91851144|NCT00667745|183585634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Value shown above describes emergent suicidal ideation for participants with baseline MSSI = 0. P=.36 describes exacerbation of baseline suicidal ideation for those with baseline MSSI \> 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.49
91851145|NCT02317016|183585642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No effect on the PK of rosuvastatin after co-administration of AZD9291 was concluded if the 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of rosuvastatin AUC and Cmax were within the range of 70% to 143%.|Geometric least-squares (LS) mean ratio|171.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.94|202.53|||||AZD9291+ rosuvastatin / rosuvastatin alone (Day 32 versus Day 1).|Natural log-transformed Cmax values were compared between treatments using a mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for rosuvastatin in both area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and Cmax was 41%. No change in the exposure for rosuvastatin when given with AZD9291 was also assumed.||202.53|145.94|
91789535|NCT04896229|183458773|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.296
91789536|NCT00992589|183458782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.449||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.087|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in daily average frequency of regurgitation from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.190|-1.087|0.168
91710494|NCT00502853|183313645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0832|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0832
91710495|NCT00502853|183313645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1685|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.1685
91710496|NCT00502853|183313645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-55.4458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.5821||0.1331|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.1331
91710497|NCT00502853|183313646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2938|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.2938
91710498|NCT00502853|183313646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2216|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.2216
91710499|NCT00502853|183313646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567|TWO_SIDED||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.5670
91710500|NCT00502853|183313647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0934|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0934
91710501|NCT00502853|183313647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.4047
91710502|NCT00502853|183313647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2101|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.2101
91710503|NCT00502853|183313647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.3997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2506||0.1451|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.1451
91710504|NCT00502853|183313648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4963|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.4963
91710505|NCT00502853|183313648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2198|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.2198
91710506|NCT00502853|183313648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6773|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.6773
91710507|NCT00502853|183313648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.3688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5987||0.5531|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.5531
91710508|NCT00502853|183313649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5002|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.5002
91710509|NCT00502853|183313650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||1.0000
91710510|NCT00502853|183313651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7002|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.7002
91710511|NCT00502853|183313652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3132|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.3132
91710512|NCT00502853|183313653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8597|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.8597
91710513|NCT00502853|183313654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3617|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.3617
91710514|NCT03162328|183313682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.363
91710515|NCT03162328|183313683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.291
91654801|NCT02207231|183201961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= 10%|Difference in percentage|18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|23.8|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||23.8|12.4|< 0.001
91654802|NCT02207231|183201961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91654803|NCT02207231|183201962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91710516|NCT01990768|183313695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.1809|ONE_SIDED|||||Based on an interim futility analysis, a one-sided P-value less than .1028 was required to declare benefit.|Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for regional site. Missing outcomes were multiply imputed.|Odds ratio for unfavorable GOS-E (\<=4) for the Combined TXA Arms (numerator) vs. Placebo (denominator)|This study was designed with an asymmetric boundary for tests for treatment harm and benefit. The conventional 0.025 level was used to test for harm while a 0.1 level was used to determine benefit for this Phase II trial. Statistical significance for the primary analysis was conducted under a group-sequential design that included a single, interim futility analysis using a Wang-Tsiatis boundary with parameter 0.8 based on outcome data from the first 200 subjects.||||.1809
91710517|NCT03479944|183313714|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.505|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.289|||t-test based on MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Least Squares Mean Difference from a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||-1.289|-1.720|<0.0001
91789537|NCT00992589|183458783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.03||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.108|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Double-blind (DB) Baseline as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in Weight-for-Age Z-Score from DB Baseline to DB Endpoint between Rabeprazole Sodium Total and Placebo.||0.108|-0.047|0.440
91789538|NCT00992589|183458785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.006||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|0.632|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in weekly average I-GERQ-DD Regurgitation Subscale Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.632|-0.619|0.984
91789539|NCT00992589|183458786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.182||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.325|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in weekly average I-GERQ-DD Discomfort Subscale Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.325|-0.690|0.479
91852103|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.7465|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.20|0.7465
91852104|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5848|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.95||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.95|0.5848
91654804|NCT02207231|183201963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on ANOVA model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91654805|NCT02207231|183201964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91654806|NCT01545076|183202013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|-24.6|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-6.21|||Fisher Exact|||||-6.21|-40.7|=0.007
91654807|NCT01545076|183202013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|-30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-12.2|||Fisher Exact|||||-12.2|-46.0|<0.001
91654808|NCT01545076|183202014|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||0|-1|=0.005
91654809|NCT01545076|183202014|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||0|-1|<0.001
91654810|NCT01545076|183202015|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.6|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||14|2|=0.004
91710518|NCT03479944|183313715|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2||||0.2602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3|||t-test based on MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Least Squares Mean Difference from a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3.3|-0.9|0.2602
91710519|NCT03479944|183313716|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.87|-7.18|||||Least Squares Mean Difference from a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||-7.18|-15.87|
91789540|NCT00992589|183458787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.192||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.366|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in weekly average I-GERQ-DD Eating Behavior Subscale Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.366|-0.751|0.498
91789541|NCT00992589|183458788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.042||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.615|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in I-GERQ-R Total Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||1.700|-1.615|0.960
91789542|NCT00992589|183458789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.024||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.167|1.214|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in Weekly Average I-GERQ-DD Total Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||1.214|-1.167|0.968
91789543|NCT04575597|183458829|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated confidence intervals (CIs) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|2.5||||||||2.5|-12.2|
91789544|NCT04575597|183458829|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated CIs were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|6.2||||||||6.2|-9.9|
91789545|NCT04575597|183458829|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated CIs were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Differences in Rates %|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|6.4||||||||6.4|-9.6|
91789546|NCT04575597|183458829|SUPERIORITY|Difference in rates %, associated CIs, and p-value were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-6.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||-2.4|-11.3|0.0012
91900670|NCT01009554|183695827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.372||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.372|0.153|<0.001
91654811|NCT01545076|183202015|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.7|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.7|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||11.7|0.7|=0.014
91654812|NCT01545076|183202016|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||4|1|=0.003
91789547|NCT04575597|183458832|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.13||||||||1.13|0.48|
91789548|NCT04575597|183458832|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08||||||||1.08|0.46|
91851146|NCT02317016|183585643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No effect on the PK of rosuvastatin after co-administration of AZD9291 was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of rosuvastatin AUC and Cmax were within the range of 70% to 143%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|134.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.41|157.07|||||AZD9291+ rosuvastatin / rosuvastatin alone (Day 32 versus Day 1).|Natural log-transformed AUC values were compared between treatments using a mixed effects ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for rosuvastatin in both AUC and Cmax was 41%. No change in the exposure for rosuvastatin when given with AZD9291 was also assumed.||157.07|115.41|
91851147|NCT03418324|183585657|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|98.7|||||Estimated values reflects the percentage of participants with overall clinical benefit.|For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms||98.7|1.3|
91789549|NCT04575597|183458832|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.11||||||||1.11|0.47|
91789550|NCT04575597|183458832|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.18||||||||1.18|0.92|
91851148|NCT03418324|183585657|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm|Binomial proportion|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|95.7|||||Estimated values reflects the percentage of participants with overall clinical benefit|For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two groups.||95.7|22.3|
91851149|NCT03418324|183585660|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|98.7||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms||98.7|1.3|
91851150|NCT03418324|183585660|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|95.7||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms.||95.7|22.3|
91851151|NCT03418324|183585661|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|98.7||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms.||98.7|1.3|
91900671|NCT01009554|183695828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.411||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.411|0.151|<0.001
91789551|NCT04575597|183458833|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.76||||||||2.76|0.80|
91789552|NCT04575597|183458833|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.09||||||||2.09|0.69|
91789553|NCT04575597|183458833|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.62||||||||1.62|0.54|
91851152|NCT03418324|183585661|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|88.2||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms.||88.2|11.8|
91851153|NCT01768676|183585664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in percentage of subjects with a \>/= 50% reduction from baseline to Week 26 in sperm concentration between treatment arms was analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method to account for the randomization stratification by baseline sperm concentration. If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.56|-4.29|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||-4.29|-21.56|
91851154|NCT01768676|183585665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|0.7|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||0.7|-23.5|
91851155|NCT01768676|183585666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.3|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||1.3|-4.2|
91851156|NCT01768676|183585667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.1|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||1.1|-6.8|
91851157|NCT01768676|183585668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||0|0|
91851158|NCT00605033|183585669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined as a lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference greater than -0.15.|Proportion difference|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.034|||Binomial approximation|||||0.034|-0.142|
91789554|NCT04575597|183458833|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.33||||||||1.33|0.95|
91654813|NCT01545076|183202016|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||4|1|=0.002
91654814|NCT01545076|183202017|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.0|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||9|0|=0.03
91654815|NCT01545076|183202017|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||9|2|<0.001
91654816|NCT00797108|183202039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Cure Difference|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|55.3||||||Two-sided 80% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the clinical cure response rates between treatement group and the comparator was formed using the exact methods.||55.3|-4.0|
91654817|NCT00797108|183202039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Cure Difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.1|57.9||||||Two-sided 80% CI for the difference in the clinical cure response rates between treatement group and the comparator was formed using the exact methods.||57.9|-13.1|
91789555|NCT04575597|183458834|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46||||||||1.46|0.62|
91789556|NCT04575597|183458834|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||||||||1.79|0.75|
91654818|NCT03238677|183202051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect of biofeedback at 10 weeks||3.1|-23.2|.132
91654819|NCT03238677|183202051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect of Practice Distribution at 10 weeks||-1.5|-25.9|.028
91789557|NCT04575597|183458834|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.07||||||||1.07|0.45|
91789558|NCT04575597|183458834|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.23||||||||1.23|0.93|
91789559|NCT04575597|183458835|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.83||||||||1.83|0.62|
91789560|NCT04575597|183458835|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26||||||||1.26|0.40|
91789561|NCT04575597|183458835|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.85||||||||0.85|0.20|
91789562|NCT04575597|183458835|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18||||||||1.18|0.86|
91654820|NCT03238677|183202051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect comparing telepractice vs face-to-face treatment||5.0|-24.9|.187
91789563|NCT04575597|183458836|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.34||||||||1.34|0.32|
91789564|NCT04575597|183458836|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.71||||||||2.71|0.76|
91789565|NCT04575597|183458836|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.42||||||||1.42|0.39|
91710520|NCT01554163|183313743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Etoricoxib 30 mg will be considered non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the betweentreatment difference in LS mean time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks in WOMAC Pain Subscale (VAS) is no greater than 10 mm (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.63||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.10|-5.37|0.390
91710521|NCT01554163|183313744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Etoricoxib 30 mg will be considered non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in LS means (etoricoxib minus celecoxib) is no greater than 10 mm.|Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.32||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|2.23|||ANCOVA|||||2.23|-4.88|0.464
91710522|NCT01554163|183313745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Etoricoxib 30 mg will be considered non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in LS means (etoricoxib minus celecoxib) is no greater than 10 mm.|Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.09||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.30|-5.48|0.624
91789566|NCT04575597|183458836|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.37||||||||1.37|0.94|
91789567|NCT04575597|183458837|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.61||||||||1.61|0.66|
91789568|NCT04575597|183458837|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.09||||||||2.09|0.83|
91789569|NCT04575597|183458837|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.23||||||||1.23|0.47|
91789570|NCT04575597|183458837|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||||||||1.16|0.88|
91789571|NCT04575597|183458838|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41||||||||1.41|0.62|
91789572|NCT04575597|183458838|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.69||||||||1.69|0.70|
91710523|NCT01554163|183313746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.08||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.26|0.369
91789573|NCT04575597|183458838|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.51||||||||1.51|0.66|
91710524|NCT01554163|183313747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.09||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.25|0.294
91710525|NCT01554163|183313748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.86||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.24|||ANCOVA|||||3.24|-4.96|0.679
91710526|NCT01554163|183313749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.1||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.30|0.314
91710527|NCT02634983|183313754|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|8.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Ventilated Lung Volume||8.60|1.40|0.0254
91789574|NCT04575597|183458838|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.31||||||||1.31|1.01|
91789575|NCT04575597|183458839|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.69||||||||1.69|0.54|
91789576|NCT04575597|183458839|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.0||||||||2.00|0.61|
91789577|NCT04575597|183458839|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.38||||||||1.38|0.50|
91789578|NCT04575597|183458839|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21||||||||1.21|0.90|
91789579|NCT04575597|183458840|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.76||||||||2.76|0.77|
91789580|NCT04575597|183458840|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.38||||||||3.38|0.92|
91851159|NCT02023125|183585673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|270.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|228.0|320.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and confidence intervals (CIs).||320|228|
91851160|NCT02023125|183585674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|116.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.0|132.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||132|103|
91851161|NCT02023125|183585675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|292.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|258.0|329.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||329|258|
91789581|NCT04575597|183458840|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.86||||||||2.86|0.81|
91789582|NCT04575597|183458840|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24||||||||1.24|0.89|
91789583|NCT04575597|183458841|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.2||||||||2.20|0.81|
91789584|NCT04575597|183458841|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.31||||||||2.31|0.85|
91789585|NCT04575597|183458841|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.65||||||||1.65|0.57|
91789586|NCT04575597|183458841|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18||||||||1.18|0.89|
91789587|NCT04575597|183458842|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.91||||||||1.91|0.36|
91789588|NCT04575597|183458842|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.97||||||||2.97|0.64|
91789589|NCT04575597|183458842|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.02||||||||2.02|0.37|
91851162|NCT02023125|183585676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|136.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||136|109|
91851163|NCT02023125|183585677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|377.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|303.0|468.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||468|303|
91851164|NCT02023125|183585678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|119.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||119|87.0|
91654821|NCT03238677|183202051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.22||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|46.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interaction of biofeedback and practice distribution at 10 weeks|η2 =.054|46.3|-5.8|.125
91789590|NCT04575597|183458842|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14||||||||1.14|0.74|
91789591|NCT04575597|183458843|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.06||||||||1.06|0.44|
91789592|NCT04575597|183458844|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.67||||||||0.67|0.06|
91789593|NCT04575597|183458844|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83||||||||0.83|0.13|
91789594|NCT04575597|183458844|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.79||||||||0.79|0.09|
91789595|NCT04575597|183458844|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36||||||||1.36|0.87|
91851165|NCT02023125|183585679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|328.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|276.0|389.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||389|276|
91851166|NCT02023125|183585680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.3|126.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||126|96.3|
91851167|NCT02023125|183585683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|306.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|269.0|348.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||348|269|
91851168|NCT02023125|183585684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.0|136.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||136|110|
91851169|NCT02023125|183585685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|349.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|288.0|422.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||422|288|
91851170|NCT02023125|183585686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|126.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||126|95.3|
91851171|NCT05147233|183585699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|44.9|||Wald test|||||44.9|21.5|<0.0001
91851172|NCT05147233|183585700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|35.3|||Wald test|||||35.3|11.7|<0.0001
91851182|NCT04517864|183585717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.097||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-effects Model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.097|-0.056|
91851183|NCT04517864|183585718|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0307|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.07||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.070|-0.052|
91851184|NCT04517864|183585719|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.053||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-effects Model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.053|-0.065|
91851185|NCT04517864|183585721|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.088||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.088|-0.005|
91851186|NCT04517864|183585727|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.03||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 6||0.030|-0.059|
91851187|NCT04517864|183585727|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|-0.012||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 9||-0.012|-0.107|
91851188|NCT04517864|183585729|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.02||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 6||0.020|-0.076|
91851189|NCT04517864|183585729|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.056||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 9||0.056|-0.049|
91710528|NCT02634983|183313755|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|8.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Ventilation||8.44|1.11|0.0350
91710529|NCT02634983|183313755|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|9.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Lower Lobe Ventilation||9.84|0.08|0.0946
91710530|NCT02634983|183313755|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|9.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Upper Lobe Ventilation||9.07|0.87|0.0486
91710531|NCT02634983|183313755|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|9.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Ventilation||9.35|1.42|0.0286
91710532|NCT02634983|183313755|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|7.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Lower Lobe Ventilation||7.17|-0.63|0.1650
91789596|NCT04575597|183458845|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.23||||||||2.23|0.74|
91789597|NCT04575597|183458845|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.8||||||||1.80|0.45|
91789598|NCT04575597|183458845|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.89||||||||1.89|0.55|
91710533|NCT02634983|183313755|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|11.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Middle Lobe Ventilation||11.94|-0.71|0.1421
91789599|NCT04575597|183458845|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.37||||||||1.37|0.94|
91710534|NCT02634983|183313755|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.98|12.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Upper Lobe Ventilation||12.47|2.98|0.0099
91710535|NCT02634983|183313756|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.323|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung Perfusion||2.50|-0.64|0.3230
91710536|NCT02634983|183313756|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|2.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Perfusion||2.97|-0.29|0.1717
91710537|NCT02634983|183313756|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Lower Lobe Perfusion||2.43|-1.05|0.5031
91710538|NCT02634983|183313756|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|3.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Upper Lobe Perfusion||3.65|0.15|0.0760
91851190|NCT04541303|183585753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||None specified|||||||.028
91654822|NCT03194464|183202065|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was established at p \<.05 (non-adjusted).|ANOVA|||We performed repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) to determine if intracortical inhibition, as measured by SICI, in the ipsilesional hemisphere was altered by less affected hand exercise to task-failure and to determine the time course and recovery of this effect.||||0.15
91654823|NCT03194464|183202066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Statistical Significance established as p \<.05|ANOVA|Repeated-Measures ANOVA||We performed repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) to determine if intracortical inhibition, as measured by SICI, in the ipsilesional hemisphere was altered by repeated sessions of less affected hand exercise to task-failure. Pre-exercise SICI was compared between Session1 and Session8.||||.83
91789600|NCT04575597|183458846|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.33||||||||2.33|0.83|
91789601|NCT04575597|183458846|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.48||||||||1.48|0.50|
91654824|NCT03194464|183202067|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||ANOVA|||RM-ANOVA||||0.204
91654825|NCT03194464|183202068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||statistical significance was established a priori at p \<.05|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA comparing Session8 vs. Session1 performance||We performed repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) to determine if motor dexterity, as measured by the BBT, was improved by repeated sessions of non-paretic hand exercise to task-failure. BBT performance was compared between Session1 and Session8.||||.004
91654826|NCT02129348|183202079|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Lithium will significantly reduce agitation/aggression compared to placebo. In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||2.7|-1.4|0.53
91654827|NCT02129348|183202080|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|2.11||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||Odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were computed.|Change in both NPI core score (≥30% versus \<30%) and CGI behavior change (1 or 2 versus ≥3) were required for response; these two measures were then analyzed separately. A x² test was used to identify whether there was a change in NPI core scores and CGI scores from baseline to week 12.||6.13|0.73|0.26
91654828|NCT02129348|183202081|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|1.79||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.04||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||CGI behavior change scores were categorized into responders versus non-responders (1 or 2 versus ≥3) using the last variable observation for drop-outs. A x² test was used to identify the percentage of participants in each group, lithium versus placebo, that improved from baseline to week 12.||5.04|0.64|0.25
91654829|NCT02129348|183202082|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|2.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||5.1|-1.1|0.21
91851191|NCT03351075|183585763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.5163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|2.65||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||The sample size was based on comparing the changes for the primary outcome measure (PDI-DLV) at 12 months after surgery. The calculation was based on comparing the values at 12 months. Assuming a coefficient of variation (CV) equal to 0.5, 87 participants per group were needed based on a two-sample pooled t-test of a mean ratio with lognormal data and α=0.05 to detect with 80% power a difference of 20% in PDI. To anticipate a drop-out ratio of 5%, a total of 184 subjects were needed.||2.65|-5.28|0.5163
91654830|NCT02129348|183202083|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|-0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||2.4|-2.6|0.91
91654831|NCT02129348|183202084|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Effect size (d)= -0.02 (Cohen's D)|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||1.4|-1.5|0.94
91789602|NCT04575597|183458846|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.72||||||||1.72|0.56|
91789603|NCT04575597|183458846|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.43||||||||1.43|1.01|
91851192|NCT03351075|183585764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.33||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain-related disability from baseline to 4 months||2.33|-4.26|0.5655
91851193|NCT03351075|183585764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|2.51||P\<.05 was considered significant. No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain-related disability from baseline to 1.5 years||2.51|-4.64|0.5592
91851194|NCT03351075|183585765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.23||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|5.37||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain intensity from baseline to 4 months||5.37|-9.84|0.5630
91851195|NCT03351075|183585765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|3.09||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain intensity from baseline to 12 months||3.09|-11.68|0.2524
91789604|NCT04575597|183458847|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.19||||||||2.19|0.29|
91789605|NCT04575597|183458847|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.44||||||||2.44|0.34|
91851196|NCT03351075|183585765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|3.09|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain intensity from baseline to 1.5 years||3.09|-12.69|0.2315
91789606|NCT04575597|183458847|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.23||||||||4.23|0.74|
91789607|NCT04575597|183458847|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04||||||||1.04|0.67|
91851197|NCT03351075|183585766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.7494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|3.32||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported central sensitisation symptoms from baseline to 4 months.||3.32|-2.39|0.7494
91851198|NCT03351075|183585766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.58|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||The difference in change in self-reported central sensitisation symptoms from baseline to 12 months.||2.58|-3.09|0.8617
91851199|NCT03351075|183585766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.59|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported central sensitisation symptoms from baseline to 1.5 years||2.59|-3.16|0.8454
91851200|NCT03351075|183585767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35||||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.51|||multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical detection sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 4 months||2.51|0.72|0.3463
91851201|NCT03351075|183585767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.66|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical detection sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1 year||1.66|0.451|0.6613
91789608|NCT04575597|183458848|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.53||||||||6.53|0.98|
91789609|NCT04575597|183458848|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.52||||||||2.52|0.23|
91789610|NCT04575597|183458848|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.84||||||||1.84|0.11|
91789611|NCT04575597|183458848|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16||||||||1.16|0.66|
91789612|NCT04575597|183458849|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.32||||||||3.32|0.46|
91789613|NCT04575597|183458849|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.74||||||||3.74|0.54|
91789614|NCT04575597|183458849|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.76||||||||2.76|0.34|
91789615|NCT04575597|183458849|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.1||||||||1.10|0.66|
91789616|NCT04575597|183458850|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.52||||||||2.52|0.41|
91789617|NCT04575597|183458850|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.9||||||||1.90|0.26|
91789618|NCT04575597|183458850|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.0||||||||3.00|0.51|
91789619|NCT04575597|183458850|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||||1.17|0.69|
91789620|NCT04575597|183458851|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.75||||||||1.75|0.36|
91789621|NCT04575597|183458851|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.64||||||||1.64|0.33|
91789622|NCT04575597|183458851|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62||||||||1.62|0.31|
91789623|NCT04575597|183458851|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.16||||||||1.16|0.76|
91789624|NCT04575597|183458852|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.39||||||||1.39|0.25|
91789625|NCT04575597|183458852|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.78||||||||1.78|0.38|
91789626|NCT04575597|183458852|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.39||||||||1.39|0.25|
91789627|NCT04575597|183458852|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.48||||||||1.48|0.91|
91789628|NCT04575597|183458853|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.34||||||||1.34|0.26|
91654832|NCT02129348|183202085|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||0.8|-0.4|0.63
91654833|NCT02129348|183202086|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|3.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.4||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Effect size (d)= 0.44 (Cohen's D)|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||8.4|-2.1|0.24
91789629|NCT04575597|183458853|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.37||||||||1.37|0.28|
91789630|NCT04575597|183458853|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.74||||||||1.74|0.38|
91789631|NCT04575597|183458853|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||||||||1.21|0.79|
91789632|NCT04575597|183458854|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.02||||||||3.02|0.47|
91789633|NCT04575597|183458854|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.2||||||||2.20|0.29|
91789634|NCT04575597|183458854|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.45||||||||2.45|0.32|
91789635|NCT04575597|183458854|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||||||||1.11|0.62|
91789636|NCT04575597|183458855|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.27||||||||2.27|0.30|
91789637|NCT04575597|183458855|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.0||||||||1.00|0.04|
91789638|NCT04575597|183458855|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.91||||||||1.91|0.23|
91789639|NCT04575597|183458855|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23||||||||1.23|0.62|
91789640|NCT04575597|183458856|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.2||||||||1.20|0.28|
91710539|NCT02634983|183313756|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Perfusion||2.16|-1.02|0.5465
91710540|NCT02634983|183313756|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.9913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Lower Lobe Perfusion||1.87|-1.85|0.9913
91710541|NCT02634983|183313756|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Middle Lobe Perfusion||4.40|-1.39|0.3837
91789641|NCT04575597|183458856|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.95||||||||0.95|0.20|
91789642|NCT04575597|183458856|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.59||||||||1.59|0.43|
91851202|NCT03351075|183585767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26||||0.4908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.42|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical detection sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1.5 years||2.42|0.65|0.4908
91851203|NCT03351075|183585768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.69|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in warmth detection sensitivity from baseline to 4 months||1.69|-1.25|0.7708
91789643|NCT04575597|183458856|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19||||||||1.19|0.73|
91789644|NCT04575597|183458857|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.11||||||||2.11|0.35|
91789645|NCT04575597|183458857|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.34||||||||1.34|0.16|
91851204|NCT03351075|183585768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.81|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in warmth detection sensitivity from baseline to 1 year||1.81|-1.23|0.7060
91851205|NCT03351075|183585768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.9806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.42|||Multivariate linear model|||Difference in change in warmth detection sensitivity from baseline to 1.5 years||1.42|-1.38|0.9806
91851206|NCT03351075|183585769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.4|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome||Difference in change in wind-up from baseline to 4 months||1.40|0.08|0.0284
91851207|NCT03351075|183585769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.73|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome||Difference in change in wind-up from baseline to 1 year||0.73|-0.55|0.7776
91851208|NCT03351075|183585769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.01|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome||Difference in change in wind-up from baseline to 1.5 years||1.01|-0.39|0.3829
91851209|NCT03351075|183585770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.1948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.77|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in conditioned pain modulation from baseline to 4 months||0.77|-0.16|0.1948
91851210|NCT03351075|183585770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.65|||Multivariate linear model|||Difference in change in conditioned pain modulation from baseline to 1 year||0.65|-0.31|0.4937
91851211|NCT03351075|183585770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.73|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in conditioned pain modulation from baseline to 1.5 years||0.73|-0.27|0.3690
91654834|NCT02129348|183202087|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d=0.01|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||1.8|-1.7|0.96
91654835|NCT02129348|183202088|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|2.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d=0.35|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||6.6|-2.3|0.35
91654836|NCT01463683|183202107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Incidence of seroprotection with V232-2XP SC is non-inferior to V232-1XP SC if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the difference is greater than -10%|Difference in percentage of participants|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||13.6|1.9|
91654837|NCT01463683|183202108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|4.9||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||11.9|-2.0|0.162
91789646|NCT04575597|183458857|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79||||||||2.79|0.50|
91654838|NCT01463683|183202108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|11.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|21.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||21.6|1.1|0.028
91654839|NCT01463683|183202108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.0||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||16.8|-4.0|0.246
91789647|NCT04575597|183458857|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.32||||||||1.32|0.74|
91789648|NCT04575597|183458858|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.54||||||||15.54|0.06|
91789649|NCT04575597|183458858|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||NA = Upper limit not reached as no events were recorded||||||||0.00|
91710542|NCT02634983|183313756|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|2.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Upper Lobe Perfusion||2.48|-0.73|0.3624
91789650|NCT04575597|183458858|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.99||||||||15.99|0.06|
91851212|NCT03351075|183585771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.24||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|6.43|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported upper limb function from baseline to 4 months||6.43|-1.94|0.2915
91654840|NCT01463683|183202109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.7||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.4|-3.8|0.659
91654841|NCT01463683|183202109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-1.6||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.2|-7.7|0.459
91654842|NCT01463683|183202109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.0|-7.1|0.686
91654843|NCT00365352|183202130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0015||95.0|-5.6|-1.3|||ANCOVA||Mean difference was adjusted for Baseline value, treatment pooled sites, and treatment by pool site interaction.|||-1.3|-5.6|0.0015
91654844|NCT00365352|183202131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.287||||0.0001||95.0|2.338|7.861|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model was used with treatment and pooled center as explanatory factors.||||7.861|2.338|0.0001
91789651|NCT04575597|183458858|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.25||||||||1.25|0.46|
91789652|NCT04575597|183458859|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.83||||||||3.83|0.58|
91851213|NCT03351075|183585771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63||||0.4632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|2.75|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported upper limb function from baseline to 1 year||2.75|-6.02|0.4632
91654845|NCT02581345|183202171|EQUIVALENCE|Per Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the equivalence testing was made using 90% confidence interval and an equivalence margin of 18%|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.043|0.072||||||||0.072|-0.043|
91654846|NCT02581345|183202171|EQUIVALENCE|Per European Medicines Agency (EMA), the equivalence testing was made using 95% confidence interval and an equivalence margin of 15%|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.082||||||||0.082|-0.054|
91789653|NCT04575597|183458859|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.05||||||||3.05|0.42|
91654847|NCT02581345|183202172|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale was calculated using stratified Newcombe method.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.11||||||||0.110|-0.048|
91789654|NCT04575597|183458859|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.93||||||||3.93|0.57|
91710543|NCT02634983|183313757|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 1 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.18|0.11|<0.0001
91789655|NCT04575597|183458859|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||||||||1.10|0.61|
91789656|NCT04575597|183458860|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.21||||||||1.21|0.11|
91789657|NCT04575597|183458860|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.36||||||||1.36|0.20|
91789658|NCT04575597|183458860|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.89||||||||1.89|0.29|
91789659|NCT04575597|183458860|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2||||||||1.20|0.68|
91789660|NCT04575597|183458861|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.33||||||||1.33|0.09|
91789661|NCT04575597|183458861|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.15||||||||2.15|0.30|
91789662|NCT04575597|183458861|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.48||||||||1.48|0.18|
91789663|NCT04575597|183458861|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.04||||||||1.04|0.62|
91789664|NCT04575597|183458862|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|15.59||||||||15.59|0.59|
91789665|NCT04575597|183458862|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.16||||||||6.16|0.29|
91789666|NCT04575597|183458862|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.44||||||||1.44|0.09|
91789667|NCT04575597|183458862|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.3||||||||2.30|0.62|
91789668|NCT04575597|183458863|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|11.88||||||||11.88|1.14|
91789669|NCT04575597|183458863|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.98||||||||3.98|0.34|
91789670|NCT04575597|183458863|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.68||||||||2.68|0.27|
91789671|NCT04575597|183458863|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.39||||||||2.39|0.96|
91789672|NCT04575597|183458864|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.45||||||||3.45|0.82|
91789673|NCT04575597|183458864|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.33||||||||2.33|0.55|
91789674|NCT04575597|183458864|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.29||||||||1.29|0.27|
91789675|NCT04575597|183458864|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.2||||||||2.20|1.14|
91789676|NCT04575597|183458865|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.73||||||||2.73|0.73|
91789677|NCT04575597|183458865|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.94||||||||1.94|0.52|
91789678|NCT04575597|183458865|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.32||||||||1.32|0.34|
91789679|NCT04575597|183458865|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.78||||||||1.78|1.03|
91789680|NCT04575597|183458866|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.66||||||||1.66|0.35|
91789681|NCT04575597|183458866|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.79||||||||1.79|0.38|
91789682|NCT04575597|183458866|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.81||||||||1.81|0.37|
91789683|NCT04575597|183458866|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||||1.29|0.84|
91789684|NCT04575597|183458867|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated CIs were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-5.9|
91789685|NCT01029405|183458897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided sign test|||||||<0.001
91789686|NCT03312751|183458902|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate|62.9||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|78.5|||Exact binomial|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed with an exact binomial test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Overall Response Rate was, at most, 40%. This test was performed at the one sided 0.025 significance level.||78.5|44.9|0.0053
91654848|NCT02581345|183202173|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are: \[-0.18;+0.18\] for 90% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.061|0.016||||||||0.016|-0.061|
91654849|NCT02581345|183202173|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are: \[-0.15;+0.15\] for 95% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.024||||||||0.024|-0.069|
91654850|NCT02581345|183202176|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are: \[-0.18;+0.18\] for 90% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.149||||||||0.149|0.010|
91900672|NCT01009554|183695829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0496||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.165||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.165|-0.033|0.187
91900673|NCT01009554|183695830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0544|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.364||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.364|0.148|<0.001
91789687|NCT03312751|183458902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2839|||||||Exact binomial|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed with an exact binomial test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Overall Response Rate was, at most, 40%. This test was performed at the one sided 0.025 significance level.||||0.2839
91789688|NCT03312751|183458902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Exact binomial|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed with an exact binomial test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Overall Response Rate was, at most, 40%. This test was performed at the one sided 0.025 significance level.||||0.0031
91789689|NCT01856764|183458921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5542|0.4574||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Model: SCORAD change from baseline = treatment + visit + treatment by visit interaction + baseline SCORAD score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4574|-1.5542|0.276
91789690|NCT01856764|183458922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.454||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9134|1.0835||MMRM model: TEWL change from baseline = treatment + visit + treatment by visit interaction + baseline TEWL score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0835|-12.9134|0.095
91789691|NCT01856764|183458923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7656|-0.3492||MMRM model: Assessment of Pruritus change from baseline = treatment + visit + treatment by visit interaction + baseline Assessment of Pruritus score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3492|-2.7656|0.013
91789692|NCT00420641|183458924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The point estimate was calculated as least square (LS) mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS total score at Week 10.||1.05|-2.60|0.485
91789693|NCT00420641|183458924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.75|-2.22|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS total score at Week 10.||-2.22|-5.75|0.000
91789694|NCT00420641|183458925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|0.23|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in Bech score at Week 10.||0.23|-1.28|0.252
91789695|NCT00420641|183458925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.49|-1.05|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS total score at Week 10.||-1.05|-2.49|0.000
91789696|NCT00420641|183458926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.19|0.87|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR total score at Week 10.||0.87|-4.19|0.279
91789697|NCT00420641|183458926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.55|-2.68|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR total score at Week 10.||-2.68|-7.55|0.001
91789698|NCT00420641|183458927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|1.12|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-SR total score at Week 10.||1.12|-5.23|0.287
91789699|NCT00420641|183458927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.21|-3.25|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-SR total score at Week 10.||-3.25|-9.21|0.001
91789700|NCT00420641|183458928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|0.41|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in QIDS-CR16 total score at Week 10.||0.41|-1.47|0.352
91789701|NCT00420641|183458928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|-0.81|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in QIDS-CR16 total score at Week 10.||-0.81|-2.62|0.002
91789702|NCT00420641|183458929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|0.2|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in QIDS-SR16 total score at Week 10.||0.20|-2.27|0.168
91900674|NCT01009554|183695831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0669|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.406||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.406|0.140|<0.001
91900675|NCT04427501|183695859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.58||||||||0.58|0.15|
91900676|NCT04427501|183695859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31||||||||0.31|0.04|
91900677|NCT04427501|183695860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.4||||||||0.40|0.13|
91900678|NCT04427501|183695861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-0.35|0.6921
91789703|NCT00420641|183458929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.27|-0.97|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in QIDS-SR16 total score at Week 10.||-0.97|-3.27|0.002
91789704|NCT00420641|183458930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.09|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS Item 2 score at Week 10.||0.09|-0.46|0.257
91789705|NCT00420641|183458930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|-0.25|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS Item 2 score at Week 10.||-0.25|-0.77|0.001
91789706|NCT00420641|183458931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.0|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR Item 5 score at Week 10.||-0.00|-0.33|0.096
91789707|NCT00420641|183458931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|-0.22|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR Item 5 at Week 10.||-0.22|-0.53|0.000
91789708|NCT00420641|183458932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|0.91|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 total score at Week 10.||0.91|-1.84|0.576
91789709|NCT00420641|183458932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|-1.64|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 total score at Week 10.||-1.64|-4.28|0.000
91789710|NCT00420641|183458933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.05|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 Item 1 score at Week 10.||0.05|-0.38|0.209
91789711|NCT00420641|183458933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|-0.19|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 Item 1 score at Week 10.||-0.19|-0.60|0.002
91789712|NCT00420641|183458934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.12|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||0.12|-1.23|0.175
91789713|NCT00420641|183458934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|-0.5|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||-0.50|-1.79|0.003
91789714|NCT00420641|183458934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.92|-0.05|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-SR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||-0.05|-1.92|0.082
91789715|NCT00420641|183458934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|-0.9|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-SR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||-0.90|-2.64|0.001
91789716|NCT00420641|183458935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.06|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in CGI-S score at Week 10.||0.06|-0.45|0.208
91851214|NCT03351075|183585771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.16||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|1.63|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported upper limb function from baseline to 1,5 years||1.63|-7.94|0.1944
91851215|NCT03351075|183585772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-293.0||||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1218.0|632.0|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in step count from baseline to 4 months||632|-1218|0.5332
91851216|NCT03351075|183585772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|839.0||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.0|1900.0|||Multivariate linear model|||Difference in change in step count from baseline to 1 year||1900|-221|0.1201
91900679|NCT04427501|183695861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.71|0.2110
91851217|NCT03351075|183585773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.831||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.233|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain catastrophizing from baseline to 4 months||1.233|0.561|0.3590
91851218|NCT03351075|183585773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.839||||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.236|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain catastrophizing from baseline to 1 year||1.236|0.570|0.3744
91851219|NCT03351075|183585773|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.848||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.304|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain catastrophizing from baseline to 1.5 years||1.304|0.522|0.4533
91851220|NCT03351075|183585774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.862||||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.33|||MUltivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported depression from baseline to 4 months||1.330|0.558|0.5018
91851221|NCT03351075|183585774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.808||||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.248|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported depression from baseline to 1 year||1.248|0.522|0.3362
91851222|NCT03351075|183585774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.958||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.449|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported depression from baseline to 1.5 years||1.449|0.633|0.8375
91851223|NCT03351075|183585775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported health-related quality of life from baseline to 4 months||0.14|-0.78|0.1745
91851224|NCT03351075|183585775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.5025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.71|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported health-related quality of life from baseline to 1 year||0.71|-0.35|0.5025
91851225|NCT03351075|183585775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.05|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported health-related quality of life from baseline to 1,5 years||1.05|-0.14|0.1363
91851226|NCT03351075|183585776|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|-0.184||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|0.008|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of working participants at 1 year||0.008|-0.358|0.074
91900680|NCT04427501|183695861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|-0.13|0.1630
91789717|NCT00420641|183458935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|-0.28|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in CGI-S score at Week 10.||-0.28|-0.76|0.000
91789718|NCT00420641|183458936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.71|6.24|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in MEI total score at Week 10.||6.24|-2.71|0.516
91789719|NCT00420641|183458936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|10.48|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MEI total score at Week 10.||10.48|1.97|0.016
91789720|NCT00420641|183458937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|3.57|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in CSFQ-14SF total score at Week 10.||3.57|-0.13|0.126
91789721|NCT00420641|183458937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|1.81|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in CSFQ-14SF total score at Week 10.||1.81|-1.69|0.957
91789722|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|1.93|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 1.||1.93|0.21|0.5061
91789723|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|3.25|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 1.||3.25|0.46|0.7398
91789724|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|2.08|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 2.||2.08|0.52|0.9209
91789725|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|3.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 2.||3.13|0.78|0.2908
91789726|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.72|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 3.||0.72|0.23|0.0086
91789727|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.83|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 3.||1.83|0.64|0.8087
91789728|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.52|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 4.||0.52|0.18|0.0002
91789729|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.94|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 4.||1.94|0.78|0.4606
91789730|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 5.||1.05|0.40|0.1399
91789731|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.73|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 5.||2.73|1.10|0.0461
91789732|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 6.||1.05|0.41|0.1400
91789733|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|4.21|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 6.||4.21|1.74|0.0002
91789734|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 8.||1.64|0.59|0.9596
91789735|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|5.23|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 8.||5.23|2.01|0.0000
91789736|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.93|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 10.||1.93|0.69|0.6530
91789737|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.48||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.11|5.73|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 10.||5.73|2.11|0.0000
91851227|NCT03351075|183585776|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|-0.09||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.078|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of working participants at 1,5 years||0.078|-0.26|0.352
91851228|NCT03351075|183585777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.64|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in cold detection sensitivity from baseline to 4 months||2.64|-2.17|0.8497
91851229|NCT03351075|183585777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.14|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in cold detection sensitivity from baseline to 1 year||3.14|-1.52|0.4971
91851230|NCT03351075|183585777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.6831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.62|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in cold detection sensitivity from baseline to 1.5 years||2.62|-1.72|0.6831
91851231|NCT03351075|183585778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.78||||0.8584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.72|57.28|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical pain sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 4 months||57.28|-47.72|0.8584
91851232|NCT03351075|183585778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.25||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.57|-3.93|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical pain sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1 year||-3.93|-110.57|0.0353
91851233|NCT03351075|183585778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.1||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.72|36.52|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical pain sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1.5 years||36.52|-76.72|0.4865
91851234|NCT03351075|183585779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.27|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in pressure pain sensitivity at the pectoral region from baseline to 4 months||1.27|0.97|0.1278
91851235|NCT03351075|183585779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.3|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in pressure pain sensitivity at the pectoral region from baseline to 1 year||1.30|0.95|0.1875
91851236|NCT03351075|183585779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05||||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in pressure pain sensitivity at the pectoral region from baseline to 1.5 years||1.23|0.89|0.5612
91851237|NCT03351075|183585780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.089||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.62|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported anxiety from baseline to 4 months||1.620|0.693|0.7902
91851238|NCT03351075|183585780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.934||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|1.443|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported anxiety from baseline to 1 year||1.443|0.604|0.7578
91900681|NCT04427501|183695861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-1.00|0.0099
91900682|NCT04427501|183695866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.86||||||||1.86|1.13|
91654851|NCT02581345|183202176|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are:\[-0.15;+0.15\] for 95% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.162||||||||0.162|-0.004|
91789738|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|3.48|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 1.||3.48|0.23|0.8844
91789739|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.7425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|4.68|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 1.||4.68|0.36|0.7425
91789740|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.07|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 2.||2.07|0.39|0.8355
91851239|NCT03351075|183585780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.504|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported anxiety from baseline to 1.5 years||1.504|0.679|0.9600
91851240|NCT03351075|183585781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.068||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.639|||Multivariate linear model|multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported stress from baseline to 4 months||1.639|0.696|0.7619
91900683|NCT04427501|183695866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.95||||||||1.95|1.24|
91900684|NCT04427501|183695866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.53||||||||2.53|1.06|
91900685|NCT04427501|183695867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.93||||||||1.93|1.17|
91900686|NCT04427501|183695867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.09||||||||2.09|1.33|
91900687|NCT04427501|183695867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.9||||||||2.9|1.22|
91900688|NCT04427501|183695868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.64||||||||0.64|0.18|
91851241|NCT03351075|183585781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.087||||0.7169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|1.673|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported stress from baseline to 1 year||1.673|0.702|0.7169
91900689|NCT04427501|183695868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.38||||||||0.38|0.07|
91654852|NCT02433665|183202273|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary end point for this study was a comparison between fixed-dose and customized-dose contrast material injection CT protocols for vascular and parenchymal enhancement by using a noninferiority approach. The limit of noninferiority was set at 0.1 before the initiation of the study on the basis of a similar study that examined contrast media dose optimization for CT angiography examinations.|Odds Ratio, log|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.38|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91654853|NCT02456532|183202274|OTHER|analyses of variance comparing the three treatment gropus|||||=|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.05
91851242|NCT03351075|183585781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.987||||0.9535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.525|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported stress from baseline to 1.5 years||1.525|0.639|0.9535
91851243|NCT05219253|183585783|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted GMC ratio between the HZ/su Group and Placebo Group for anti-gE antibody concentrations was equal to or above (\>=) 3.|GMC Ratio|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.09|27.82|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunogenicity of HZ/su vaccine compared to Placebo, in terms of anti-gE GMCs, at 1 month post-Dose 2 of study intervention administration (Month 3).||27.82|14.09|
91851244|NCT03086369|183585795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.527|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|||1.527|0.728|0.7902
91851245|NCT03086369|183585799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.764|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|||1.764|0.806|0.3771
91851246|NCT03086369|183585802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.872|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).||||0.872|0.175|0.017
91900690|NCT04427501|183695868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.05||||||||1.05|0.06|
91900691|NCT04427501|183695869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.46|<0.0000000
91900692|NCT04427501|183695869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.85|-1.34|<0.0000000
91900693|NCT04427501|183695869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||3.777e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.45|0.00003777
91900694|NCT04427501|183695870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.007
91654854|NCT02456532|183202275|OTHER|ANOVA|||||=|0.643|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.643
91654855|NCT02750761|183202290|OTHER|Bioavailability: Geometric least squares mean ratio between the Oral Group's and IV Group's dose normalized AUC from time zero to infinity.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.35|||||The Oral Group represented the numerator in the bioavailability ratio, and the IV Group represented the denominator.|||1.35|0.93|
91654856|NCT01860976|183202294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimate of Difference|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|8.7|<0.001
91851247|NCT03086369|183585803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|1.317|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Appetite loss||1.317|0.392|0.288
91851248|NCT03086369|183585803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|1.468|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Constipation||1.468|0.423|0.442
91900695|NCT04427501|183695870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.130
91900696|NCT04427501|183695870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.012
91900697|NCT04427501|183695871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.007
91900698|NCT04427501|183695871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.033
91900699|NCT04427501|183695871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.521||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.017
91900700|NCT04427501|183695872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|-0.31|0.499
91900701|NCT04427501|183695872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.64|0.492
91900702|NCT04427501|183695872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|-0.11|0.125
91900703|NCT04427501|183695872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.89|0.069
91900704|NCT04427501|183695873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|1.04|0.034
91900705|NCT04427501|183695873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.91|0.69|0.594
91900706|NCT04427501|183695873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.20|0.79|0.291
91900707|NCT04427501|183695873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.40|0.88|0.143
91900708|NCT04427501|183695874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|1.14|0.014
91900709|NCT04427501|183695874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.64|0.828
91789741|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|4.32|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 2.||4.32|0.86|0.1786
91789742|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.97|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 3.||0.97|0.26|0.0835
91851249|NCT03086369|183585803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.755|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Diarrhoea||1.755|0.612|0.883
91900710|NCT04427501|183695874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.02|1.09|0.022
91789743|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.98|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 3.||1.98|0.58|0.8558
91789744|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.67|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 4.||0.67|0.20|0.0067
91789745|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.98|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 4.||1.98|0.67|0.6647
91789746|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.74|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 5.||1.74|0.55|0.9553
91789747|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.004||90.0|1.5|4.42|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 5.||4.42|1.50|0.0040
91789748|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.43|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 6.||1.43|0.52|0.6327
91789749|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|3.79|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 6.||3.79|1.47|0.0027
91789750|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3961|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.29|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 8.||1.29|0.45|0.3961
91789751|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|3.06|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 8.||3.06|1.17|0.0298
91789752|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.61|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 10.||1.61|0.56|0.8826
91851250|NCT03086369|183585803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.636|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Dyspnoea||1.636|0.532|0.803
91851251|NCT03086369|183585803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.053||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.645|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Fatigue||1.645|0.675|0.805
91851252|NCT03086369|183585803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.464|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Financial difficulties||1.464|0.420|0.465
91851253|NCT03086369|183585803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.457||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|2.698|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Insomnia||2.698|0.787|0.231
91851254|NCT03086369|183585803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.57|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Nausea and vomiting||1.570|0.532|0.748
91851255|NCT03086369|183585803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.827|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Pain||1.827|0.491|0.875
91851256|NCT00516386|183585822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|543.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.0|<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test|||We used paired t-tests to assess changes in levels of IGF-1 from baseline levels in girls with AN receiving rhIGF-1. Our hypothesis was that rhIGF-1 administration would be associated with a significant increase in IGF-1 levels.||||<0.05
91654857|NCT00810368|183202370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||2-tailed paired Student's t-tests between Week 0 and Week 12 responses (above) were anticipated to show significant benefits with carnosine treatment but no change with placebo. There were no corrections for multiple comparisons in the reported data.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Description of Power Calculation: The planned sample size completing each arm was based on individual incremental improvements in the primary outcomes of : A) CFS Severity Scores (Baraniuk et al., Annals Allergy Astma Immunol, 1998), B) Instantaneous Fatigue (Kim et al. Journal of Rehab Res Dev, 2010), and C) increased accuracy of 4/35 letters for 2 back working memory task (Owen, Human Brain Mapping, 2005).||||0.30
91654858|NCT00810368|183202370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91654859|NCT00810368|183202371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Fisher's Exact Test, we determined whether there was a significant difference in the number of participants complaining of IBS symptoms.|Fisher Exact|2 by 2 Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.018
91654860|NCT00810368|183202372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0018
91654861|NCT00810368|183202372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91654862|NCT00810368|183202374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91654863|NCT00810368|183202375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91851257|NCT00516386|183585823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||We used a paired t-test to determine the change in P1NP from baseline to 7-10 days following administration of rhIGF-1||||<0.05
91851258|NCT00186186|183585915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91851259|NCT00186186|183585916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91851260|NCT03622580|183585920|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|1.6|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||1.6|-2.0|
91900711|NCT04427501|183695874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.43|0.90|0.119
91900712|NCT04427501|183695877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.04|0.098
91851261|NCT03622580|183585920|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.5|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.5|-1.1|
91900713|NCT04427501|183695877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.51|0.09|0.165
91851262|NCT03622580|183585920|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.4699|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|1.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||1.4|-2.8|0.4699
91851263|NCT03622580|183585920|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.965|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|2.2||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.2|-2.1|0.9650
91851264|NCT03622580|183585920|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|1.6||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||1.6|-2.0|0.7967
91851265|NCT03622580|183585920|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.5||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.5|-1.1|0.3772
91851266|NCT03622580|183585921|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab 6 mg Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab 6 mg Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|20.0||||||The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||20.0|0.3|
91852105|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3178|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.53||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.53|0.3178
91852106|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.8169|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.34||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.34|0.8169
91852107|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6727|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.08|0.6727
91852108|NCT00430300|183587390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5014|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.75||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.75|0.5014
91852109|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.7292|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-14.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-14.3|0.7292
91852110|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.2768|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-6.6|0.2768
91852111|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.3795|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-7.4|0.3795
91852112|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.7374|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-17.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-17.7|0.7374
91654864|NCT00810368|183202376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91654865|NCT02362594|183202388|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.43|0.74||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of RFS time-to-event distribution between the 2 treatment arms was based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by stage (IIIA \[\>1 mm metastasis\] vs. IIIB vs. IIIC 1-3 nodes vs. IIIC ≥4 nodes) as indicated at randomization.||0.74|0.43|<0.0001
91789753|NCT00420641|183458941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|4.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 10.||4.05|1.52|0.0022
91789754|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.5072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.89|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 1.||1.89|0.22|0.5072
91789755|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|2.93|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 1.||2.93|0.52|0.6886
91789756|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|2.04|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 2.||2.04|0.56|0.8664
91789757|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.79|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 2.||2.79|0.80|0.2897
91900714|NCT04427501|183695877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.10|0.191
91789758|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.18|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 3.||1.18|0.39|0.2474
91789759|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.47|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 3.||2.47|0.89|0.2007
91789760|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|0.82|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 4.||0.82|0.29|0.0214
91789761|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.23|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 4.||2.23|0.88|0.2368
91900715|NCT04427501|183695877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.18|0.04|0.075
91900716|NCT04427501|183695878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.616
91900717|NCT04427501|183695878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.281
91900718|NCT04427501|183695878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.815
91851267|NCT03622580|183585921|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab 6 mg PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab 6 mg PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|15.8||||||The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||15.8|-3.6|
91851268|NCT03622580|183585921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|7.2||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.6|18.9||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||18.9|-4.6|0.1761
91851269|NCT03622580|183585921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.8||||0.3539|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.7|16.3||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||16.3|-6.7|0.3539
91851270|NCT03622580|183585921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|10.2||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|20.0||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||20.0|0.3|0.0237
91900719|NCT04427501|183695878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.334
91789762|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.59|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 5.||1.59|0.63|0.9870
91789763|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|3.0|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 5.||3.00|1.21|0.0193
91789764|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.5|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 6.||1.50|0.59|0.8351
91789765|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|4.77|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 6.||4.77|1.90|0.0001
91789766|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 8.||1.80|0.67|0.7510
91789767|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|3.8|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 8.||3.80|1.47|0.0029
91789768|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|2.55|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 10.||2.55|0.92|0.1707
91789769|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|5.36|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 10.||5.36|1.99|0.0001
91789770|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.48|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 1.||1.48|0.05|0.2050
91789771|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.1735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.24|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 1.||1.24|0.11|0.1735
91789772|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|4.75|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 2.||4.75|0.78|0.2305
91789773|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|4.5|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 2.||4.50|0.77|0.2507
91789774|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 3.||1.64|0.35|0.5608
91789775|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|2.42|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 3.||2.42|0.60|0.6526
91789776|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.77|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 4.||0.77|0.21|0.0208
91789777|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.22|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 4.||1.22|0.39|0.2859
91789778|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.66|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 5.||1.66|0.49|0.7921
91789779|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.31|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 5.||2.31|0.79|0.3620
91789780|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.4331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.34|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 6.||1.34|0.44|0.4331
91789781|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|3.75|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 6.||3.75|1.42|0.0047
91789782|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.32|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 8.||1.32|0.46|0.4431
91789783|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|2.44|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 8.||2.44|0.90|0.1901
91789784|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.66|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 10.||1.66|0.56|0.9222
91851271|NCT03622580|183585921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|6.1||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|15.8||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||15.8|-3.6|0.1677
91851272|NCT03622580|183585924|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.9|-10.0|
91851273|NCT03622580|183585924|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.1|-4.0|
91654866|NCT02362594|183202389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.69||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of RFS time-to-event distribution between the 2 treatment arms (PD-L1-positive participants) was based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by stage (IIIA \[\>1 mm metastasis\] vs. IIIB vs. IIIC 1-3 nodes vs. IIIC ≥4 nodes) as indicated at randomization.||0.69|0.42|<0.0001
91654867|NCT03365375|183202421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91654868|NCT01807871|183202464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91851274|NCT03622580|183585924|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|7.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||7.9|-8.6|
91851275|NCT03622580|183585924|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.8|-7.4|
91851276|NCT03622580|183585924|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.1|-9.1|
91851277|NCT03622580|183585924|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.5|-8.5|
91654869|NCT01807871|183202466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of number of participants who reported removing the nicotine patch due to a side effect||||0.24
91851278|NCT03622580|183585924|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.8|-4.6|
91851279|NCT03622580|183585924|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||7.5|-1.0|
91851280|NCT03622580|183585929|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|3.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||3.5|-14.0|
91900720|NCT03170154|183695885|OTHER||1-sided 95% Upper CL|99.99|||||ONE_SIDED||||||||Historical comparison to EN ISO 11979-7:2014: SPE rate of at least 92.5 for the AAS at 12 months.|||||
91789785|NCT00420641|183458942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.43|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 10.||2.43|0.93|0.1665
91654870|NCT03019965|183202467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.02|||Chi-squared||||The efficacy of the maneuver was evaluated by calculating the absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat.|1.02|0.87|0.156
91654871|NCT03019965|183202468|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.98||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|28.45|||Chi-squared|||||28.45|0.31|0.722
91654872|NCT01569451|183202480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0493
91654873|NCT01569451|183202481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268|||||||Peto|||||||0.0268
91654874|NCT01569451|183202482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0189|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0189
91654875|NCT01569451|183202483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3167|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3167
91654876|NCT01569451|183202484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0940
91789786|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.5057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|1.98|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 1.||1.98|0.20|0.5057
91789787|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|3.3|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 1.||3.30|0.38|0.8633
91789788|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|2.16|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 2.||2.16|0.55|0.8428
91789789|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|2.84|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 2.||2.84|0.76|0.3416
91789790|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.26|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 3.||1.26|0.40|0.3287
91789791|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.57|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 3.||2.57|0.88|0.2112
91789792|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.76|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 4.||0.76|0.26|0.0134
91789793|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.3412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.17|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 4.||2.17|0.81|0.3412
91789794|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.54|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 5.||1.54|0.58|0.8434
91789795|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.63|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 5.||2.63|1.03|0.0819
91710544|NCT02634983|183313757|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 1 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.25|0.15|<0.0001
91789796|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.19|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 6.||1.19|0.44|0.2832
91789797|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|3.97|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 6.||3.97|1.54|0.0016
91789798|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.63|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 8.||1.63|0.60|0.9727
91789799|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|4.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 8.||4.13|1.60|0.0010
91789800|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 10.||1.80|0.64|0.8312
91789801|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|5.02|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 10.||5.02|1.86|0.0002
91789802|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|2.6|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 1.||2.60|0.13|0.5530
91789803|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|3.41|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 1.||3.41|0.28|0.9780
91789804|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|3.03|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 2.||3.03|0.43|0.8312
91789805|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|5.25|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 2.||5.25|0.83|0.1881
91789806|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.69|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 3.||1.69|0.39|0.6384
91789807|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|3.37|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 3.||3.37|0.84|0.2160
91851281|NCT03622580|183585929|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||10.3|-7.0|
91654877|NCT01569451|183202485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3507|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3507
91654878|NCT01569451|183202486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91710545|NCT02634983|183313757|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 1 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.24|0.13|<0.0001
91789808|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.79|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 4.||0.79|0.20|0.0259
91851282|NCT03622580|183585929|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||9.5|-9.5|
91900721|NCT03170154|183695886|OTHER||1-sided 95% Upper CL|99.98|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||||Historical comparison to EN ISO 11979-7:2014: SPE rate of at least 96.7 for the BAS at 12 months.|||||
91654879|NCT01569451|183202487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4904|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test||||0.4904
91654880|NCT01569451|183202488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4073|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4073
91654881|NCT01569451|183202489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8677
91654882|NCT01569451|183202490|OTHER|Mean difference between treatment groups.||||||0.3974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3974
91654883|NCT01890915|183202491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Due to impaired thermoregulatory mechanisms secondary to spinal cord injury, subjects with tetraplegia were hypothesized to have a significant rise in core temperature after exposure to warm ambient temperatures, while control subjects were hypothesized to maintain constant core temperature.~Percent change in core temperature of subjects in each group were compared to determine if they were significantly different from baseline to warm exposure."||||0.0001
91654884|NCT01890915|183202492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized that subjects with tetraplegia would demonstrate a change in cognitive performance after heat exposure if they had demonstrated a significant increase in core body temperature - as was hypothesized in our primary hypothesis. Cognitive performance was measured, in part, by Interference T-scores derived from the Stroop Color and Word Test.||||0.006
91789809|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.35|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 4.||1.35|0.39|0.3959
91789810|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.34|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 5.||1.34|0.39|0.3857
91789811|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.3126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.52|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 5.||2.52|0.80|0.3126
91789812|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.03|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 6.||1.03|0.36|0.1182
91789813|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|3.43|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 6.||3.43|1.29|0.0125
91789814|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 8.||1.13|0.42|0.2147
91789815|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.69|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 8.||2.69|1.03|0.0783
91789816|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9067||90.0|0.57|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 10.||1.64|0.57|0.9067
91789817|NCT00420641|183458943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.92|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 10.||2.92|1.15|0.0328
91789818|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|3.76|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 1.||3.76|0.44|0.6928
91900722|NCT02876835|183695979|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.19|0.89|
91900723|NCT02876835|183695980|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.13||||||||0.13|0.03|
91789819|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|5.01|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 1.||5.01|0.69|0.3039
91789820|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.7|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 2.||2.70|0.89|0.1938
91789821|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|3.16|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 2.||3.16|1.08|0.0600
91789822|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.53|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 3.||1.53|0.61|0.8989
91789823|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|3.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 3.||3.05|1.25|0.0136
91789824|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.18|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 4.||1.18|0.50|0.3099
91789825|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.27|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 4.||2.27|0.98|0.1137
91789826|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8682||90.0|0.67|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 5.||1.64|0.67|0.8682
91789827|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.63|4.03|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 5.||4.03|1.63|0.0006
91789828|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.51|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 6.||1.51|0.62|0.8992
91789829|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|4.09|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 6.||4.09|1.67|0.0004
91789830|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.23|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage o|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 8.||2.23|0.85|0.2800
91789831|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.24|6.08|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 8.||6.08|2.24|0.0000
91789832|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 10.||3.13|1.10|0.0507
91789833|NCT00420641|183458944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|4.88|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 10.||4.88|1.81|0.0003
91789834|NCT00420641|183458945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8782|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants Satisfied with Study Medication at Week 10.||1.50|0.62|0.8782
91789835|NCT00420641|183458945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants Satisfied with Study Medication at Week 10.||3.86|1.56|0.0011
91789836|NCT02815280|183458955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.35|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion count and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.||5.35|0.95|0.0051
91789837|NCT02815280|183458956|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined log (Risk Ratio) equals 0.|Risk ratio|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.46|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.46|1.02|0.0424
91789838|NCT02815280|183458957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|23.23||Percent change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline non-inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor. For the superiority comparison between FMX101 4% and vehicle.|ANCOVA|||||23.23|2.44|0.0155
91789839|NCT02815280|183458958|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 6 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.90|1.88|0.0001
91789840|NCT02815280|183458958|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 9 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.95|||ANCOVA|||||5.95|1.60|0.0007
91900724|NCT02876835|183695981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.670884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19||The p-value was compared against 0.008333 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.19|0.89|0.670884
91789841|NCT02815280|183458959|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined log (Risk Ratio) equals 0. Percentage of participants achieving IGA treatment success at Week 6.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.69|1.06|0.0071
91789842|NCT02815280|183458959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.5143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.58|-3.30|0.5143
91789843|NCT00609362|183458968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is un-adjusted. A priori threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The minimum number of participants was determined by power calculations to be 44 (22 in each group), assuming a difference in change in BMD of 1.7%, a standard deviation of 2%, a power of 80%, and a level of significance of 5%.||||0.055
91789844|NCT00609362|183458969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
91789845|NCT00609362|183458970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91789846|NCT05027971|183458981|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.07||||||||.07|.002|
91789847|NCT05027971|183458982|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.084||||||||.084|.006|
91789848|NCT05027971|183458983|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.768||||||||.768|.553|
91789849|NCT05027971|183458984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-14.2||||||||-14.2|-17.4|
91789850|NCT05027971|183458987|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
91789851|NCT05027971|183458988|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
91789852|NCT05027971|183458989|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
91789853|NCT05027971|183458990|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.943||||||||.943|.810|
91789854|NCT05027971|183458991|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|18.6||||||||18.6|11.3|
91789855|NCT05027971|183458992|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.9||||||||-2.9|-3.9|
91789856|NCT05027971|183458993|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
91789857|NCT02025556|183458994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.55|-4.07|< .0001
91789858|NCT02025556|183458994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.38||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.38|-3.9|< .0001
91851283|NCT03622580|183585929|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|11.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.3|-7.1|
91851284|NCT03622580|183585929|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|2.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.9|-11.9|
91851285|NCT03622580|183585929|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|0.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||0.2|-14.6|
91851286|NCT03622580|183585929|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-5.5|
91851287|NCT03622580|183585929|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||7.0|-3.0|
91851288|NCT03622580|183585934|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.3|-2.8|
91851289|NCT03622580|183585934|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.5|-2.2|
91851290|NCT03622580|183585934|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||0.9|-4.6|
91851291|NCT03622580|183585934|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-2.2|
91851292|NCT03622580|183585934|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-4.5|
91851293|NCT03622580|183585934|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||3.4|-2.6|
91851294|NCT03622580|183585938|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.3|-3.5|
91851295|NCT03622580|183585938|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.3|-3.1|
91851296|NCT03622580|183585938|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||0.9|-5.1|
91851297|NCT03622580|183585938|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.6|-3.5|
91851298|NCT03622580|183585938|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.8|-5.2|
91851299|NCT03622580|183585938|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||3.3|-4.1|
91851300|NCT03622580|183585942|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.9|-12.6|
91851301|NCT03622580|183585942|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||9.8|-5.9|
91851302|NCT03622580|183585942|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|0.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.5|-17.8|
91851303|NCT03622580|183585942|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|8.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||8.2|-9.9|
91851304|NCT03622580|183585945|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||3.8|-10.2|
91851305|NCT03622580|183585945|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|9.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||9.2|-4.3|
91851306|NCT03622580|183585945|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|3.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||3.1|-12.6|
91851307|NCT03622580|183585945|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||6.4|-8.9|
91851308|NCT03622580|183585948|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.9|-1.8|
91654885|NCT01890915|183202493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Due to impaired thermoregulatory mechanisms, subjects with tetraplegia were hypothesized to have diminished increases in sweat rate in comparison to controls after heat exposure.||||0.015
91851309|NCT03622580|183585948|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.3|-2.2|
91851310|NCT03622580|183585948|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||3.6|-2.0|
91851311|NCT03622580|183585948|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.5|-2.6|
91851312|NCT03622580|183585957|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.0|-1.1|
91851313|NCT03622580|183585957|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.0|-1.1|
91851314|NCT03622580|183585957|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.6|-1.9|
91789859|NCT02582684|183458999|OTHER|Binomial Proportion of Participants with Virologic Success and 95% Confidence Interval|proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||||Confidence interval was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.95|0.83|
91851315|NCT03622580|183585957|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.5|-1.5|
91851316|NCT03622580|183585958|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||1.2|-0.4|
91789860|NCT02582684|183459000|OTHER|Binomial Proportion of Participants with Virologic Success and 95% Confidence Interval|Proportion|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.94|||||Confidence interval was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.94|0.82|
91789861|NCT02582684|183459001|OTHER|Binomial Proportion of Participants with Virologic Success and 95% Confidence Interval|proportion|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91|||||Confidence interval was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.91|0.77|
91789862|NCT01587898|183459015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5888|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Subgroup: Baseline Hgb||||0.5888
91851317|NCT03622580|183585958|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.0|0.0|
91851318|NCT03622580|183585958|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
91851319|NCT03622580|183585958|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
91851320|NCT03622580|183585965|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-24.7||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-24.7|-47.8|
91851321|NCT03622580|183585965|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-14.7||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-14.7|-37.7|
91851322|NCT03622580|183585965|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|-18.6||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-18.6|-43.6|
91851323|NCT03622580|183585965|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-11.6||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-11.6|-36.2|
91851324|NCT03622580|183585968|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|23.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||23.1|8.9|
91851325|NCT03622580|183585968|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||20.0|5.4|
91789863|NCT01587898|183459015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Subgroup: Baseline Weight||||0.6600
91851326|NCT03622580|183585968|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|23.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||23.2|7.3|
91851327|NCT03622580|183585968|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|20.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||20.6|4.4|
91851328|NCT03959241|183585991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.835||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of GRFS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies.||0.835|0.492|0.001
91851329|NCT03959241|183585992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.995
91851330|NCT03959241|183585992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade III-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.001
91851331|NCT03959241|183585992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.267||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups using a Cox regression model for the cause-specific hazard of aGVHD||1.267|0.758|0.879
91851332|NCT03959241|183585992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.386||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.691||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade III-IV aGVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies.||0.691|0.215|0.001
91851333|NCT03959241|183585996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of chronic GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.005
91851334|NCT03959241|183585996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.813||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the chronic GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||0.813|0.381|0.002
91851335|NCT03959241|183585999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Immunosuppression-Free Survival between the treatment groups||||0.038
91851336|NCT03959241|183586000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Neutrophil Recovery between the treatment groups||||0.032
91851337|NCT03959241|183586001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Platelet Recovery greater than or equal to 20,000/mm\^3 between the treatment groups||||<0.001
91851338|NCT03959241|183586001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Platelet Recovery greater than or equal to 50,000/mm\^3 between the treatment groups||||<0.001
91851339|NCT03959241|183586002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Lymphocyte Recovery between the treatment groups||||<0.001
91851340|NCT03959241|183586003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Donor Cell Engraftment at Day 28 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.919
91851341|NCT03959241|183586003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Donor Cell Engraftment at Day 100 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.198
91851342|NCT03959241|183586004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of quantitative donor chimerism at Day 28 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.670
91789864|NCT01587898|183459015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7999|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Subgroup: Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)||||0.7999
91789865|NCT01587898|183459015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2092|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Ethnicity||||0.2092
91789866|NCT01587898|183459015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9996||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Geographic Ancestry||||0.9996
91789867|NCT01587898|183459015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7002|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Sex||||0.7002
91789868|NCT01587898|183459015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5536||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Age||||0.5536
91789869|NCT01587898|183459015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Co-administration with food||||0.0085
91789870|NCT01587898|183459015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Diabetic||||0.0021
91789871|NCT01587898|183459015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2194||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Region||||0.2194
91789872|NCT00796991|183459063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|1.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to paclitaxel log(Cmax) using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on paclitaxel Cmax. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the paclitaxel/carboplatin/ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to paclitaxel/carboplatin alone (Day 1)||1.168|0.794|
91789873|NCT00796991|183459063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|1.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|study day was used as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on dacarbazine Cmax. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.243|0.848|
91789874|NCT00796991|183459063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|study day was used as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on AIC Cmax. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.150|0.974|
91789875|NCT00796991|183459063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.934||||||90.0|0.768|1.136|||linear model|treatment arm as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of paclitaxel/carboplatin on ipilimumab Cmax: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(Cmax)) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in first and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the 3 drug combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.136|0.768|
91789876|NCT00796991|183459063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|1.208|||linear model|treatment arm as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of dacarbazine on ipilimumab Cmax: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(Cmax) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in second and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.208|0.798|
91789877|NCT00796991|183459067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to paclitaxel log\[AUC(INF)\] using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on paclitaxel AUC(INF). Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the paclitaxel/carboplatin/ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to paclitaxel/carboplatin alone (Day 1).||1.196|0.954|
91789878|NCT00796991|183459067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.757|1.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to dacarbazine log\[AUC(INF)\] using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on dacarbazine AUC(INF). Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.099|0.757|
91789879|NCT00796991|183459067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|1.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to active metabolite AIC log\[AUC(INF)\] using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on AUC(INF) for AIC. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.056|0.891|
91851343|NCT03959241|183586004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of quantitative donor chimerism at Day 100 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.607
91851344|NCT03959241|183586005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease Relapse between the treatment groups||||0.906
91851345|NCT03959241|183586005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.985||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.515||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease Relapse hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.515|0.641|0.947
91851346|NCT03959241|183586006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Treatment-related Mortality between the treatment groups||||0.167
91851347|NCT03959241|183586006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|1.127||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Treatment-related Mortality hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.127|0.404|0.133
91851348|NCT03959241|183586010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Grade 2 and 3 infections between the treatment groups||||0.018
91851349|NCT03959241|183586011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.825||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of CMV between the treatment groups||||0. 825
91851350|NCT03959241|183586012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease-Free Survival between the treatment groups||||0.351
91851351|NCT03959241|183586012|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.176||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease-Free Survival hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.176|0.610|0.320
91851352|NCT03959241|183586013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Overall Survival between the treatment groups||||0.335
91851353|NCT03959241|183586013|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|1.175||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the Overall Survival hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.175|0.541|0.252
91851354|NCT03987451|183586026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratio between semaglutide and placebo adjusting for baseline diabetes was estimated along with exact 95% confidence interval based on conditioning on the marginal 2×2 tables.||1.24|0.06|0.0867
91851355|NCT02194933|183586104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||Test for Baseline vs. Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3992
91851356|NCT02194933|183586105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053||||||Test for Baseline vs. Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0053
91851357|NCT02194933|183586107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1559|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1559
91851358|NCT02194933|183586107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6201|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6201
91851359|NCT02194933|183586108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1642|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1642
91851360|NCT02194933|183586108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1873|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1873
91851361|NCT02194933|183586111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2061
91851362|NCT02194933|183586111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1778|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1778
91851363|NCT02194933|183586112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4138|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4138
91851364|NCT02194933|183586112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3375|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3375
91851365|NCT02194933|183586115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8437
91851366|NCT02194933|183586115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8318
91851367|NCT02194933|183586116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6697|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6697
91851368|NCT02194933|183586116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8829|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8829
91851369|NCT02194933|183586117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2301|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2301
91851370|NCT02194933|183586117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0599|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0599
91851371|NCT02194933|183586118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1595|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1595
91851372|NCT02194933|183586118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1211|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1211
91851373|NCT02194933|183586119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1322|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1322
91851374|NCT02194933|183586119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2113|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2113
91851375|NCT02194933|183586120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0578|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0578
91851376|NCT02194933|183586120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0588|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0588
91851377|NCT02194933|183586121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1666|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1666
91851378|NCT02194933|183586121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.767|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7670
91789880|NCT00796991|183459067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|1.136|||linear model|treatment arm as fixed effect||Estimated effect of paclitaxel/carboplatin on ipilimumab AUC: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(AUC(0-21d)) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in first and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the 3 drug combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.136|0.768|
91789881|NCT00796991|183459067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7981|1.208|||linear model|treatment arm as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of dacarbazine on ipilimumab AUC: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(AUC(0-21d)) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in second and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.208|0.7981|
91789882|NCT00796991|183459073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||||||p-value was not corrected for multiple testing. F-statistic = 1.86.|conditional F test|15 degrees freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis of no mean ALC changes over time in any treatment group. Conditional F-tests were used to test for mean ALC changes over time in each treatment arm and the difference between treatment arms in the pattern of change in ALC over time.||||0.027
91851379|NCT02194933|183586122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7178|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7178
91851380|NCT02194933|183586122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2336|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2336
91851381|NCT02194933|183586123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6558|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6558
91851382|NCT02194933|183586123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9058
91851383|NCT02194933|183586124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0078
91851384|NCT02194933|183586124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4272|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4272
91851385|NCT02336438|183586141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.99
91851386|NCT02336438|183586142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4922|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.4922
91851387|NCT02336438|183586143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.77
91851388|NCT02336438|183586144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0156
91789883|NCT00796991|183459073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic =0.94|Omnibus conditional F-test|10 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in all treatment groups. Test of overall time-by-treatment interaction used an omnibus conditional F-test.||||0.5
91851389|NCT02336438|183586145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.020
91900725|NCT02876835|183695982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.800813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.22||The p-value was compared against 0.012500 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.22|0.93|0.800813
91789884|NCT00796991|183459073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic =1.08|conditional F-test|5 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in the given pair of treatment groups.||||0.37
91789885|NCT00796991|183459073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic =0.39|conditional F-test|5 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in the given pair of treatment groups.||||0.85
91789886|NCT00796991|183459073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic = 1.41|conditional F-test|5 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in the given pair of treatment groups.||||0.22
91789887|NCT02199717|183459094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All statistical analyses were completed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Descriptive statistics such as mean (± SD) and range were calculated and provided for demographic variables, accelerometry variables and questionnaire outcomes. Differences between the two groups (mild/moderate versus severe haemophilia) were examined in exploratory analyses.||||0.32
91789888|NCT02199717|183459095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|306.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|254.8|358.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||358|254.8|<0.01
91789889|NCT04355728|183459138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no difference in the number of subjects experiencing serious adverse events in the UC-MSC vs control group."||||.04
91851390|NCT02336438|183586146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.13
91851391|NCT05190419|183586150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|-16.0||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|ANCOVA|p-value is calculated by analysis of covariance with treatment group as factor and baseline PASI as covariate.||||-16.0|-54.7|<0.001
91851392|NCT05190419|183586150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-43.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-24.8||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|ANCOVA|p-value is calculated by analysis of covariance with treatment group as factor and baseline PASI as covariate.||||-24.8|-63.1|<0.001
91851393|NCT05190419|183586150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|-27.3||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|ANCOVA|p-value is calculated by analysis of covariance with treatment group as factor and baseline PASI as covariate.||||-27.3|-65.6|<0.001
91851394|NCT02124460|183586174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.03|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation was used for missing follow-up data.|Health Coaching group compared to Enhanced Primary Care|||0.03|-0.08|0.3928
91851395|NCT02124460|183586175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.33|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up|Health Coaching group compared to Enhanced Primary Care|||2.33|-0.56|0.2306
91851396|NCT02124460|183586176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up|Health Coaching group compared to Enhanced Primary Care.|||0.16|-0.02|.14
91789890|NCT04355728|183459147|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.289||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.948|||Log Rank||Censoring was limited to dropout from study, and the event of interest was recovery. In the case of death, the patient's time to recovery was censored at the end of study observation; thus the patient remained in the risk set for all KM estimations.|"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no difference in Time to Recovery up to 31 days post infusion between the UC-MSC group and control group. Time to recovery was estimated in each group with Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. Log-rank tests were used to compare hazards between groups."||0.948|0.088|0.0307
91789891|NCT04355728|183459148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: The center of the distributions of ventilator free days are equal in the UC-MSC and control group.||||.0563
91789892|NCT04355728|183459149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: The center of the distributions of ventilator free days are equal in the UC-MSC and control group.||||.0563
91789893|NCT04355728|183459180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0356
91789894|NCT04355728|183459181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0215
91851397|NCT02124460|183586177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.19|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||-0.19|-0.81|0.0016
91851398|NCT02124460|183586178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.62||Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.|Linear repeated measures|||||0.62|0.22|<.0001
91789895|NCT04355728|183459182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3498.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3078.2||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6404.7|-591.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-591.2|-6404.7|0.0210
91789896|NCT04355728|183459184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class I) status and treatment group at 3 days post first infusion."||||0.48
91789897|NCT04355728|183459184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class II) status and treatment group at 3 days post first infusion."||||0.41
91789898|NCT04355728|183459185|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class I) status and treatment group at 6 days post first infusion."||||1.00
91789899|NCT04355728|183459185|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (Class II) status and treatment group at 6 days post first infusion."||||1.00
91789900|NCT04355728|183459186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class I) status and treatment group at 14 days post first infusion."||||0.44
91789901|NCT04355728|183459186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5238|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class II) status and treatment group at 14 days post first infusion."||||0.5238
91789902|NCT00608569|183459203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Results were considered to be statistically significant if p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test (unstratified)||||0.133
91789903|NCT03011892|183459211|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-59.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.85|-41.47|||MMRM|||||-41.47|-77.85|< 0.0001
91789904|NCT03011892|183459212|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.01||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.27|-14.76|||MMRM|||DB: Vehicle BID, Ruxolitinib 0.15% QD||-14.76|-51.27|0.0004
91789905|NCT03011892|183459212|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-40.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.23|-22.57|||MMRM|||||-22.57|-59.23|< 0.0001
91789906|NCT03011892|183459212|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-54.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.93|-36.7|||MMRM|||||-36.70|-72.93|< 0.0001
91789907|NCT03011892|183459213|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|14.63||||0.1127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|32.73|||MMRM|||Triamcinolone 0.1% BID/Vehicle Cream BID, DB: Ruxolitinib 0.15% QD||32.73|-3.47|0.1127
91789908|NCT03011892|183459213|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|6.74||||0.4659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|24.92|||MMRM|||Triamcinolone 0.1% BID/Vehicle Cream BID, DB: Ruxolitinib 0.5% QD||24.92|-11.44|0.4659
91789909|NCT03011892|183459213|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.18||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.13|10.77|||MMRM|||Triamcinolone 0.1% BID/Vehicle Cream BID, DB: Ruxolitinib 1.5% QD||10.77|-25.13|0.4320
91789910|NCT03011892|183459213|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.02||||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.05|6.0|||MMRM|||||6.00|-30.05|0.1903
91789911|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.12||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.84|-10.41|||MMRM|||Week 2||-10.41|-39.84|0.0009
91789912|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-47.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.64|-33.06|||MMRM|||Week 2||-33.06|-62.64|< 0.0001
91789913|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-41.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-26.08|||MMRM|||Week 2||-26.08|-56.00|< 0.0001
91789914|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-45.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.69|-30.4|||MMRM|||Week 2||-30.40|-59.69|< 0.0001
91789915|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|9.99||||0.1806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|24.63|||MMRM|||Week 2||24.63|-4.66|0.1806
91789916|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-5.93||||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.82|8.95|||MMRM|||Week 2||8.95|-20.82|0.4333
91789917|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.94||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.51|4.63|||MMRM|||Week 2||4.63|-24.51|0.1805
91789918|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.74||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.45|1.98|||MMRM|||Week 2||1.98|-27.45|0.0895
91789919|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.38||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.74|-9.02|||MMRM|||Week 8||-9.02|-47.74|0.0042
91789920|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-36.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.03|-17.01|||MMRM|||Week 8||-17.01|-56.03|0.0003
91789921|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-45.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||MMRM|||Week 8||||< 0.0001
91789922|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-57.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.53|-37.77|||MMRM|||Week 8||-37.77|-76.53|< 0.0001
91789923|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.78||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|26.93|||MMRM|||Week 8||26.93|-11.37|0.4243
91789924|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.35||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.65|18.95|||MMRM|||Week 8||18.95|-19.65|0.9715
91789925|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.03||||0.3507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.05|9.99|||MMRM|||Week 8||9.99|-28.05|0.3507
91789926|NCT03011892|183459214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-20.98||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.15|-1.82|||MMRM|||Week 8||-1.82|-40.15|0.0320
91789927|NCT03381729|183459233|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|-6.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|22.8|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the percentage of participants who achieved the ability to stand alone.|Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 7 (13.7%) participants achieved the ability to stand alone and 44 (86.3%) participants did not achieve the ability to stand alone.|22.8|-21.8|>0.9999
91789928|NCT03381729|183459234|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Least Squares Mean|5.5||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|9.0|||Mixed-Model Repeat Measure||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where the least squares mean (95% confidence interval) of the change from baseline in HFMSE scores at 12 months was 0.5 (-2.2 to 3.2).|9.0|1.9|0.0027
91851399|NCT02124460|183586179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.53|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||0.53|-0.16|0.3043
91851400|NCT02124460|183586180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.56|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||0.56|0.07|0.0113
91851401|NCT02124460|183586181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||0.03|-0.45|0.0792
91851402|NCT00392678|183586202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91851403|NCT03008915|183586209|OTHER|Paired t-test for participants with measures on both aspirin and placebo.||||||0.692|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between measures on aspirin and placebo.||||0.692
91851404|NCT00712166|183586214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|6.44||"The primary endpoint analysis was based on a two-sided test with an 0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.~A gate-keeper approach was established a priori to control the type 1 error rate, however, the primary endpoint was not met."|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included: treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Denominator degrees of freedom computed with Satterthwaite approximation.||"Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 28.~At the 5% significance level (i.e., α = 0.05) using a two-sided significance test, a sample size of 70 participants per treatment group provided at least 90% power to detect a 10 point difference between groups in the mean change from baseline at Day 28 in the CFQ-R RSS score, assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 17.5."||6.44|-2.83|0.433
91851405|NCT00712166|183586215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.37||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|7.78||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included terms: treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences were calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the CFQ-R RSS score at Day 14.||7.78|-1.04|0.133
91789929|NCT03381729|183459236|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.1|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|27.0|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the percentage of participants who achieved the ability to walk alone.|Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 PubMed 25080519) where 5 (9.8%) participants achieved the ability to walk alone and 46 (90.2%) participants did not achieve the ability to walk alone.|27.0|-17.2|>0.9999
91789930|NCT04456153|183459238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||GLMM|||||||0.170
91789931|NCT04456153|183459239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||GLMM|||||||0.051
91789932|NCT04456153|183459242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
91789933|NCT04456153|183459243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||trapezoidal method|||||||0.76
91789934|NCT03758755|183459245|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.0219|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between groups in IKDC score at 12 weeks post-op.||||0.0219
91789935|NCT03758755|183459246|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between groups in VAS score at 12 weeks post-op.||||0.008
91851406|NCT00712166|183586216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|4.76||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS and age group (\<18 years, \>=18 years). Treatment differences calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the CFQ-R RSS score at Day 42.||4.76|-4.56|0.965
91851407|NCT00712166|183586217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47||||0.256||95.0|-1.81|6.76||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included: treatment, baseline CFQ-R Physical Function Domain score and age (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the CFQ-R physical functioning domain score at Day 28.||6.76|-1.81|0.256
91851408|NCT00712166|183586218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|A participant with multiple usage was counted only once.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in number of participants using additional (nonprotocol-specified) antipseudomonal antibiotics during study.||||>0.999
91789936|NCT03758755|183459247|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in quadriceps tendon strength between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis as the percent difference of the operated knee compared to the contralateral side. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in quadriceps tendon strength over time.||||0.011
91789937|NCT03758755|183459248|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in thigh circumference between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis as the percent difference of the operated knee compared to the contralateral side. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in thigh circumference over time.||||0.223
91900726|NCT02876835|183695983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.886195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24||The p-value was compared against 0.025000 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.24|0.95|0.886195
91900727|NCT02876835|183695984|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.98||||0.36947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine and Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.13|0.84|0.369470
91900728|NCT02876835|183695985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.20|0.87|0.6197
91789938|NCT03758755|183459249|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.242|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in degrees of knee flexion between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group from 2 weeks post-op to 12 weeks post-op. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in degrees of knee flexion over time.||||0.242
91789939|NCT03758755|183459250|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in degrees of knee extension between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group from 2 weeks post-op to 12 weeks post-op. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in degrees of knee extension over time.||||0.049
91789940|NCT02312687|183459268|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.88||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|generalized estimation equation (GEE)|||Change at Week 24||0.88|0.48|< 0.0001
91789941|NCT02312687|183459268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.79||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||0.79|0.57|< 0.0001
91789942|NCT02312687|183459268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||0.75|0.44|< 0.0001
91789943|NCT02312687|183459268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.63||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||0.63|0.31|< 0.0001
91789944|NCT02312687|183459268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.73||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||0.73|0.41|< 0.0001
91789945|NCT02312687|183459268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.76||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||0.76|0.43|< 0.0001
91789946|NCT02312687|183459269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.75||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.59|3.09||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 24||3.09|-22.59|0.1366
91789947|NCT02312687|183459269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.17||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.76|3.42||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 48||3.42|-25.76|0.1334
91789948|NCT02312687|183459269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-18.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-9.17||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 72||-9.17|-27.07|< 0.0001
91789949|NCT02312687|183459269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-25.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-14.35||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 96||-14.35|-36.21|< 0.0001
91789950|NCT02312687|183459269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.51|-13.26||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 120||-13.26|-31.51|< 0.0001
91789951|NCT02312687|183459269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-28.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.11|-16.56||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 144||-16.56|-40.11|< 0.0001
91789952|NCT02312687|183459270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|215493.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|194650.78|236335.97||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||236335.97|194650.78|< 0.0001
91789953|NCT02312687|183459270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|202525.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|168364.92|236685.83||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||236685.83|168364.92|< 0.0001
91789954|NCT02312687|183459270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|221481.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|179628.07|263333.98||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||263333.98|179628.07|< 0.0001
91789955|NCT02312687|183459270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|221674.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|181313.34|262034.81||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||262034.81|181313.34|< 0.0001
91789956|NCT02312687|183459270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|208270.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|167217.98|249322.06||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||249322.06|167217.98|< 0.0001
91789957|NCT02312687|183459270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|235953.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|166110.59|305796.52||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||305796.52|166110.59|< 0.0001
91789958|NCT02312687|183459271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1277.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1202.34|1353.34||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||1353.34|1202.34|< 0.0001
91789959|NCT02312687|183459271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1244.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1166.1|1323.88||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||1323.88|1166.10|< 0.0001
91789960|NCT02312687|183459271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1298.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1233.56|1363.43||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||1363.43|1233.56|< 0.0001
91789961|NCT02312687|183459271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1311.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1238.3|1383.8||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||1383.80|1238.30|< 0.0001
91789962|NCT02312687|183459271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1368.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1327.4|1409.96||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||1409.96|1327.40|< 0.0001
91789963|NCT02312687|183459271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1298.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1208.31|1388.51||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||1388.51|1208.31|< 0.0001
91851409|NCT00712166|183586219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|A participant with multiple hospitalizations was counted only once.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in proportion of participants hospitalized.||||0.122
91851410|NCT00712166|183586222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.23||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline log10 CFU, and age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences were calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the log10 CFU at Day 28.||-0.23|-2.20|0.016
91851411|NCT00712166|183586223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.04||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline FEV1 % predicted, and age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences were calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in % change from baseline in FEV1 % predicted at Day 28.||5.04|0.42|0.021
91851412|NCT01264718|183586269|OTHER|The Intervention Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) is the difference in total costs between the intervention group and controls was divided by the intergroup difference in the proportion of insured children.|ICER|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The estimated value is the savings per child per year insured.|||||
91851413|NCT01264718|183586269|OTHER|The Intervention Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) is the difference in total costs between the intervention group and controls was divided by the intergroup difference in the proportion of insured children.|ICER|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The estimated value is the savings for each percent increase in children obtaining insurance per year.|||||
91851414|NCT00536380|183586274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.721||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.721
91851415|NCT00387465|183586275|OTHER|The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was derived from the number of participants experiencing dose-limiting toxicities in the Phase I arms. The MTD was the dose at which ≤30% of patients experienced DLTs during cycle 1 up to a pre-specified maximal dose of 40 mg/m2 of azacitidine.|Maximum Tolerated Dose|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD of Azacitidine measured in mg/m\^2|||||
91851416|NCT04493242|183586339|OTHER|log-rank test||||||0.1343|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1343
91851417|NCT01124188|183586362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.8||||||||1.80|0.63|
91851418|NCT01124188|183586363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.49
91900729|NCT02876835|183695986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.8976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.58|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.58|0.91|0.8976
91851419|NCT01124188|183586364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
91851420|NCT02027558|183586401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-1.83|-4.58|<.001
91851421|NCT02027558|183586402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.02|-2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-2.49|-29.02|0.013
91851422|NCT02027558|183586403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.75||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.63|-3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-3.29|-37.63|0.019
91851423|NCT02027558|183586404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|16.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||16.44|4.53|0.001
91851424|NCT02027558|183586405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||6.83|1.87|0.001
91851425|NCT02027558|183586406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.29|-7.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-7.55|-27.29|0.0007
91851426|NCT02694978|183586414|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of 2.64% was used for the primary endpoint statistical analysis.|Treatment difference|-0.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.61|||Wald|The p-value was calculated using the Wald large sample assumption.||"Statistical analysis was only performed on composite reaction data (that is, the Any TE moderate to severe hypersensitivity rxn row in the data table)."||0.61|-0.80|0.0001
91900730|NCT02876835|183695987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.40|0.80|0.6581
91851427|NCT03675581|183586432|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|101.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.83|110.67|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||110.67|92.83|
91900731|NCT02876835|183695988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.07|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||2.07|0.85|0.8940
91900732|NCT02876835|183695989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.9422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.23|||Chi-squared||Overall HR is presented using Model 1. Model 1 assumed a common treatment effect, regardless of number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a Prentice, Williams and Peterson(PWP) model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.23|0.98|0.9422
91851428|NCT03675581|183586433|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|96.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.48|101.58|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T = Test, R = Reference|||101.58|91.48|
91900733|NCT02876835|183695989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.24|0.95|0.8862
91900734|NCT02876835|183695989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.39|||Chi-squared||Second Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.39|0.82|0.6789
91851429|NCT03675581|183586434|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|116.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.63|126.51|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||126.51|107.63|
91900735|NCT02876835|183695989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.9016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.19|||Chi-squared||Third Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||2.19|0.85|0.9016
91900736|NCT02876835|183695989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.24|0.95|0.8862
91900737|NCT02876835|183695989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.8989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.46|||Chi-squared||Subsequent Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.46|0.92|0.8989
91900738|NCT02876835|183695990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.33|0.88|0.7673
91900739|NCT02876835|183695991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.15|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.15|0.96|0.8601
91654886|NCT03552757|183202510|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-6.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-5.15|||ANCOVA|||Results are based on the data from in-trial observation period. Week 68 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) with randomised treatment, stratification groups (oral anti-diabetic (OAD) treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-5.15|-7.28|<0.0001
91789964|NCT02312687|183459272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.87||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|12.58||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||12.58|3.16|0.0011
91654887|NCT03552757|183202510|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-7.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-6.58|||MMRM|||Results are based on the data from on-treatment observation period. All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with randomised treatment, stratification groups (OAD treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||-6.58|-8.56|<0.0001
91789965|NCT02312687|183459272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.7||||0.3092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||7.90|-2.50|0.3092
91789966|NCT02312687|183459272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.62||||0.2958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|7.53||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||7.53|-2.29|0.2958
91789967|NCT02312687|183459272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.31||||0.8796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|4.33||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||4.33|-3.71|0.8796
91789968|NCT02312687|183459272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.48||||0.8396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|4.16||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||4.16|-5.11|0.8396
91710546|NCT02634983|183313757|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (-0.75 hrs post-dose)||0.27|0.16|<0.0001
91789969|NCT02312687|183459272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.43||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.15||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||2.15|-9.00|0.2284
91789970|NCT02312687|183459273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.83||||||Change at Week 24||0.83|0.32|
91789971|NCT02312687|183459273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.56||||||Change at Week 48||0.56|0.37|
91851430|NCT03675581|183586435|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|100.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.9|113.23|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||113.23|89.90|
91851431|NCT03675581|183586436|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|101.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.95|109.1|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||109.10|93.95|
91851432|NCT03675581|183586437|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|88.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.03|96.96|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||96.96|80.03|
91851433|NCT00807144|183586438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.26
91851434|NCT00807144|183586439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Log Rank|||Year 1||||0.48
91710547|NCT02634983|183313757|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (-0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.28|0.16|<0.0001
91789972|NCT02312687|183459273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.56||||||Change at Week 72||0.56|0.28|
91851435|NCT00807144|183586439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||Year 2||||0.75
91851436|NCT01616654|183586461|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|13.115||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.266|29.495|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction.||29.495|-3.266|0.096
91851437|NCT01616654|183586461|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|16.393||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|33.036|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction||33.036|-0.249|0.040
91851438|NCT01616654|183586461|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|10.273||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.923|26.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction.||26.470|-5.923|0.184
91851439|NCT01616654|183586461|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|16.393||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|33.036|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction.||33.036|-0.249|0.041
91851440|NCT01616654|183586462|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-6.74||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, stratum, and Baseline lesion count as covariate.||1.48|-14.96|0.108
91851441|NCT01616654|183586462|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-7.88||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, stratum, and Baseline lesion count as covariate.||0.34|-16.11|0.060
91851442|NCT01616654|183586462|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-8.11||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.35|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with terms for treatment, stratum, treatment stratum, and with Baseline lesion count as covariate.||0.13|-16.35|0.054
91851443|NCT01616654|183586462|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-12.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|-4.76|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with terms for treatment, stratum, treatment stratum, and with Baseline lesion count as covariate.||-4.76|-21.18|0.002
91851444|NCT01616654|183586463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.067
91851445|NCT01616654|183586463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.054
91851446|NCT01616654|183586463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.038
91851447|NCT01616654|183586463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
91851448|NCT02057692|183586467|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3969||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698|0.081|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 13/ET) average daily ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a PROC MIXED procedure. Least-squares (LS) mean change from baseline to Endpoint (Week 13/ET), along with associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the LS mean, and pair-wise treatment P-values were calculated for each treatment group.||0.081|-1.698|0.0321
91789973|NCT02312687|183459273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.6||||||Change at Week 96||0.60|0.27|
91789974|NCT02312687|183459273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48||||||Change at Week 120||0.48|0.23|
91851449|NCT02057692|183586467|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3503||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.192|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 13/ET) average daily ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated by ANCOVA using a PROC MIXED procedure. LS mean change from baseline to Endpoint (Week 13/ET), along with associated 95% CI for the LS mean, and pair-wise treatment P-values were calculated for each treatment group.||-0.192|-1.620|0.0145
91789975|NCT02312687|183459273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.62||||||Change at Week 144||0.62|0.32|
91789976|NCT02312687|183459274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.07||||||Change at Week 24||0.07|0.01|
91789977|NCT02312687|183459274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||||||Change at Week 48||0.03|-0.01|
91789978|NCT02312687|183459274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||||||Change at Week 72||0.04|-0.01|
91789979|NCT02312687|183459274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.07||||||Change at Week 96||0.07|0.02|
91851450|NCT02057692|183586467|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4431||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|0.863|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 13/ET) average daily ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated by ANCOVA using a PROC MIXED procedure. LS mean change from baseline to Endpoint (Week 13/ET), along with associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the LS mean, and pair-wise treatment P-values were calculated for each treatment group.||0.863|-0.942|0.9298
91851451|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total score controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
91852113|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.7615|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-18.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-18.1|0.7615
91900740|NCT02876835|183695992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.22|0.86|0.6207
91900741|NCT02876835|183695993|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.9393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.26|0.97|0.9393
91900742|NCT02876835|183695994|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.9412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.56|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.56|0.95|0.9412
91900743|NCT02876835|183695995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.8994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.84|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.84|0.88|0.8994
91900744|NCT02876835|183695996|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.92||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine \& Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.13|0.75|0.2073
91900745|NCT02876835|183695997|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|1.0||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine \& Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.19|0.84|0.5068
91900746|NCT02876835|183695998|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.88||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.54|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine \& Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.54|0.51|0.3285
91900747|NCT02876835|183695999|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.05|
91900748|NCT02876835|183696000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for current ESA use and region was used to compare the number of responders between the treatment groups.|||11.4|5.2|<0.0001
91900749|NCT02876835|183696001|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|7.11|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-darbepoetin alfa) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||7.11|2.04|
91900750|NCT02876835|183696002|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.57|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.57|0.53|<0.0001
91789980|NCT02312687|183459274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||||||Change at Week 120||0.03|-0.02|
91789981|NCT02312687|183459274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||||||Change at Week 144||0.05|-0.01|
91789982|NCT02312687|183459275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01||||||Change at Week 24||-0.01|-0.07|
91789983|NCT02312687|183459275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||||||Change at Week 48||0.01|-0.03|
91789984|NCT02312687|183459275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01||||||Change at Week 72||0.01|-0.04|
91789985|NCT02312687|183459275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02||||||Change at Week 96||-0.02|-0.07|
91789986|NCT02312687|183459275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02||||||Change at Week 120||0.02|-0.03|
91789987|NCT02312687|183459275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||||||Change at Week 144||0.01|-0.05|
91789988|NCT02312687|183459276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08||||||Change at Week 24||0.08|-0.10|
91789989|NCT02312687|183459276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.1||||||Change at Week 48||0.10|-0.07|
91789990|NCT02312687|183459276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16||||||Change at Week 72||0.16|-0.01|
91789991|NCT02312687|183459276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||||||Change at Week 96||0.06|-0.09|
91789992|NCT02312687|183459276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.1||||||Change at Week 120||0.10|-0.12|
91789993|NCT02312687|183459276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.06||||||Change at Week 144||0.06|-0.16|
91789994|NCT02312687|183459277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|22.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|47.6||||||Change at Week 24||47.60|-1.81|
91789995|NCT02312687|183459277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|15.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|32.62||||||Change at Week 48||32.62|-2.32|
91789996|NCT02312687|183459277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.33|36.53||||||Change at Week 72||36.53|-14.33|
91900751|NCT02876835|183696003|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.91|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-darbepoetin alfa) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||5.91|1.90|
91900752|NCT02876835|183696004|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.56|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.56|0.52|<0.0001
91900753|NCT02876835|183696005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.7916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.9|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||1.90|-0.79|0.7916
91900754|NCT02876835|183696005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.65||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.38|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||1.38|-0.09|0.9581
91900755|NCT02876835|183696005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.43|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||1.43|-0.22|0.9241
91900756|NCT02876835|183696006|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.02|||ANCOVA||For SBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, region and Baseline value.|||1.02|-1.18|0.4420
91900757|NCT02876835|183696006|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.6369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.75|||ANCOVA||For DBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, region and Baseline value.|||0.75|-0.52|0.6369
91900758|NCT02876835|183696006|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.74|||ANCOVA||For MAP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, region and Baseline value.|||0.74|-0.65|0.5490
91900759|NCT02876835|183696007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of exacerbation rate|0.88||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of model estimated exacerbation rates and CIs estimated using negative binomial model with treatment,current ESA use at randomization and region as covariates and logarithm of time on treatment as offset variable for treatment group comparison.|||0.98|0.79|0.0074
91789997|NCT02312687|183459277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-16.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|4.2||||||Change at Week 96||4.20|-37.50|
91900760|NCT02876835|183696009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group, current ESA use and region.|||0.94|0.42|0.0113
91900761|NCT02876835|183696010|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.11|||MMRM||Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||0.11|-0.83|0.9320
91789998|NCT02312687|183459277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.53|39.49||||||Change at Week 120||39.49|-32.53|
91789999|NCT02312687|183459277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|68.22||||||Change at Week 144||68.22|-11.12|
91790000|NCT02312687|183459278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-14.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.62|58.08||||||Change at Week 24||58.08|-87.62|
91790001|NCT02312687|183459278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-70.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.31|19.74||||||Change at Week 48||19.74|-161.31|
91790002|NCT02312687|183459278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-16.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.96|78.73||||||Change at Week 72||78.73|-110.96|
91790003|NCT02312687|183459278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-41.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.61|67.13||||||Change at Week 96||67.13|-150.61|
91790004|NCT02312687|183459278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-76.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.29|85.08||||||Change at Week 120||85.08|-237.29|
91790005|NCT02312687|183459278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-96.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.59|14.46||||||Change at Week 144||14.46|-206.59|
91790006|NCT02312687|183459279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||||||Change at Week 24||0.03|-0.01|
91790007|NCT02312687|183459279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||||||Change at Week 48||0.04|-0.01|
91790008|NCT02312687|183459279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02||||||Change at Week 72||0.02|-0.02|
91790009|NCT02312687|183459279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||||||Change at Week 96||0.02|-0.04|
91790010|NCT02312687|183459279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||||||Change at Week 120||0.03|-0.02|
91790011|NCT02312687|183459279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||||||Change at Week 144||0.08|-0.01|
91790012|NCT02312687|183459280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.92||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|28.52||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||28.52|1.33|0.0314
91851452|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total vegetable component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
91851453|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 greens and beans component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||0.20
91852114|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.5811|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-12.4|0.5811
91852115|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.8939|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-25.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-25.3|0.8939
91852116|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.8117|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.6|0.8117
91852117|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.4393|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-11.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-11.2|0.4393
91852118|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.8055|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-24.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-24.7|0.8055
91852119|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.6767|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-20.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-20.2|0.6767
91852120|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.407|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-12.0|0.4070
91852121|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.9705|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-34.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-34.7|0.9705
91852122|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.8249|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-24.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-24.6|0.8249
91852123|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.9345|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-26.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-26.6|0.9345
91852124|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.7384|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-25.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-25.3|0.7384
91852125|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.5239|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-18.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-18.4|0.5239
91852126|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.417|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-13.7|0.4170
91852127|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.7695|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-24.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-24.8|0.7695
91852128|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.4566|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.6|0.4566
91852129|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||0.3535|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-11.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-11.4|0.3535
91790013|NCT02312687|183459280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.73||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|9.55||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||9.55|-13.00|0.7640
91790014|NCT02312687|183459280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-14.35||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||-14.35|-30.20|< 0.0001
91790015|NCT02312687|183459280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-20.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.92|-13.94||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||-13.94|-27.92|< 0.0001
91851454|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total fruit component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||0.20
91851455|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 whole fruit component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||0.19
91851456|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 whole grain component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.0
91851457|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total dairy component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.0
91851458|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total protein foods component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
91851459|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||-0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 seafood and plant protein component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||-0.12
91851460|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 fatty acid component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
91851461|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 sodium component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
91851462|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 refined grains component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
91851463|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 added sugar component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
91900762|NCT02876835|183696010|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.36|||MMRM||Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.36|-0.59|0.6761
91900763|NCT02876835|183696010|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12||||0.3335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.67|||MMRM||Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.67|-0.43|0.3335
91900764|NCT02876835|183696010|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.41|||MMRM||Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.41|-0.81|0.7423
91900765|NCT02876835|183696011|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.32|||MMRM||Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.32|-0.90|0.8268
91900766|NCT02876835|183696011|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.47|||MMRM||Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.47|-0.77|0.6851
91900767|NCT02876835|183696011|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.8316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.35|||MMRM||Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.35|-1.01|0.8316
91900768|NCT02876835|183696011|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.46|||MMRM||Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.46|-1.16|0.8032
91900769|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.8562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.28|||MMRM||B pain,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.28|-0.95|0.8562
91851464|NCT03923491|183586472|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||||||1.00
91851465|NCT00355914|183586475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Results were considered statistically significant if the P value was less than 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||compared baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months between groups||||>0.05
91900770|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.6849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.47|||MMRM||B pain,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.47|-0.77|0.6849
91900771|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.24|||MMRM||B pain,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.24|-1.22|0.9074
91790016|NCT02312687|183459280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-18.77||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.93|-4.6||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||-4.60|-32.93|0.0094
91851466|NCT00355914|183586476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Results were considered statistically significant if the P value was less than 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months between groups||||>0.05
91851467|NCT02633358|183586477|SUPERIORITY|Therapeutic hypothermia need to have superiority in the survival rate after 90 days|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.82||P-value less than 0.05 means significant data|Chi-squared|Test method for proportional data||Therapeutic hypothermia group compare with control group||0.82|0.41|<0.001
91851468|NCT02633358|183586478|SUPERIORITY|Therapeutic hypothermia nee to have superiority in neurological outcome in the 90 days after enrollment.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||P value less than 0.05 means significant date|Chi-squared|Test method for proportional data||Therapeutic hypothermia group compare with control group||0.98|0.66|0.04
91851469|NCT02633358|183586479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value less than 0.05 is statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91851470|NCT02633358|183586480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value less than 0.05 is statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91851471|NCT02633358|183586481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value less then 0.05 is statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91790017|NCT02312687|183459280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-25.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.89|-14.54||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||-14.54|-36.89|< 0.0001
91851472|NCT03823300|183586482|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95.03% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. A sample size of approximately 320 participants in each arm provided greater than 90% power to show non-inferiority of faricimab to aflibercept in the change from baseline BCVA averaged over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 in the ITT population, using a non-inferiority margin of 4 letters at the one-sided 0.02485 significance level.||1.8|-1.7|
91851473|NCT03823300|183586483|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||1.3|-2.4|
91790018|NCT02312687|183459281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.68||||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|11.32||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||11.32|-1.96|0.1673
91790019|NCT02312687|183459281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.68||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|1.72||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||1.72|-7.09|0.2330
91790020|NCT02312687|183459281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|-5.36||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||-5.36|-9.54|< 0.0001
91790021|NCT02312687|183459281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|-6.29||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||-6.29|-9.86|< 0.0001
91790022|NCT02312687|183459281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-10.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|-6.95||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||-6.95|-13.07|< 0.0001
91790023|NCT02312687|183459281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-10.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.77|-7.02||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||-7.02|-14.77|< 0.0001
91790024|NCT02312687|183459282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|343.38||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.66|609.11||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||609.11|77.66|0.0113
91790025|NCT02312687|183459282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|41.45||||0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.23|161.13||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||161.13|-78.23|0.4972
91790026|NCT02312687|183459282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-61.96||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.34|62.41||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||62.41|-186.34|0.3288
91851474|NCT03823300|183586485|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||4.3|-8.3|
91851475|NCT03823300|183586485|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.7|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||10.7|-3.9|
91851476|NCT03823300|183586485|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.6|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||8.6|-6.6|
91851477|NCT03823300|183586485|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥0 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||9.3|-3.1|
91851478|NCT03823300|183586486|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||5.3|-7.7|
91851479|NCT03823300|183586491|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||1.3|-4.4|
91851480|NCT03823300|183586491|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.8|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||2.8|-4.5|
91851481|NCT03823300|183586491|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||7.3|-2.1|
91851482|NCT03823300|183586492|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||3.3|-2.6|
91851483|NCT03823300|183586496|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.1|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters or achieving BCVA ≥84 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||5.1|-8.5|
91851484|NCT03823300|183586498|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.9|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants achieving BCVA ≥69 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||12.9|-1.4|
91851485|NCT03823300|183586500|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants with BCVA ≤38 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||4.4|-3.6|
91851486|NCT03823300|183586508|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|2.1|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 40-48||2.1|-14.8|
91851487|NCT03823300|183586509|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|9.3|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||9.3|-6.6|
91851488|NCT01290224|183586530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A one-sided McNemar's test of the primary endpoint with 10 patients will have 86% power at 5% Type I error rate to detect a 60% difference in the percentage of at least 50% reduction in the scrambler and sham procedure, based on the assumption that the proportion of discordant pairs is at 70%.||||||0.763||95.0|||||McNemar|||McNemar's test was used to test for a difference between Scrambler and Sham procedure in their success rate.||||0.7630
91851489|NCT05694065|183586544|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The diagnostic discrimination ability of UFR was analyzed by ROC curve analysis using the DeLong method. Cutoff value of ≤0.80 was used for FFR and UFR to define the physiological significance of a coronary stenosis, with two-sided P\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|||
91851490|NCT05694065|183586548|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The diagnostic discrimination abilities of UFR and MLA were compared by ROC curves analysis using the DeLong method. A prespecified MLA cutoff value was applied based on the prior study. Cutoff value of ≤0.80 was used for FFR and UFR to define the physiological significance of a coronary stenosis, with two-sided P\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|||
91851491|NCT01087762|183586549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|32.4||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||32.4|6.3|=0.004
91851492|NCT01087762|183586549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|38.2||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||38.2|12.3|<0.001
91851493|NCT01087762|183586550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|50.0||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||50.0|25.4|<0.001
91790027|NCT02312687|183459282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-68.62||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.39|55.16||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||55.16|-192.39|0.2772
91790028|NCT02312687|183459282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-53.41||||0.2907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.47|45.66||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||45.66|-152.47|0.2907
91790029|NCT02312687|183459282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-97.46||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.57|11.65||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||11.65|-206.57|0.0800
91790030|NCT02312687|183459283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|72.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.21|105.7||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||105.70|39.21|< 0.0001
91790031|NCT02312687|183459283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|44.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.34|58.47||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||58.47|30.34|< 0.0001
91790032|NCT02312687|183459283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.24|43.37||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||43.37|13.24|0.0002
91790033|NCT02312687|183459283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|27.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.81|40.22||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||40.22|13.81|< 0.0001
91790034|NCT02312687|183459283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|13.02||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|29.4||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||29.40|-3.37|0.1195
91851494|NCT01087762|183586550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|53.3||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||53.3|28.9|<0.001
91851495|NCT01087762|183586551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.01||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASFI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.01|-1.96|<0.001
91852130|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.8598|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-30.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-30.7|0.8598
91852131|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.8005|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-27.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-27.4|0.8005
91790035|NCT02312687|183459283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|43.12||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.96|109.2||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||109.20|-22.96|0.2009
91851496|NCT01087762|183586552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.38||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASFI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.38|-2.38|<0.001
91654888|NCT03552757|183202511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|6.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Results are based on the data from in-trial observation period. Week 68 responses were analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomised treatment, stratification groups (OAD treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||6.64|3.58|<0.0001
91852132|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.3441|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-12.2|0.3441
91851497|NCT01087762|183586553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.12||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASDAI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.12|-2.07|<0.001
91851498|NCT01087762|183586554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.5||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASDAI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.50|-2.49|<0.001
91851499|NCT01087762|183586555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASMI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-0.20|-0.60|<0.001
91851500|NCT01087762|183586556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.23||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASMI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-0.23|-0.66|<0.001
91851501|NCT02311972|183586562|SUPERIORITY|Mean axillary admission temperature||||||0.7294|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7294
91851502|NCT02311972|183586563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2360
91851503|NCT02311972|183586564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91851504|NCT02311972|183586565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1089
91851505|NCT02311972|183586566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91851506|NCT02311972|183586567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4947|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4947
91851507|NCT02311972|183586568|SUPERIORITY|Infant 007|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91790036|NCT00906971|183459288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis to compare the two groups at the end of the follow-up period with regard to the primary outcome measures was blind, by intention-to-treat, considering loss of follow-up as treatment failure. In such cases, at the end of the follow-up period, the frequency of defecations was recorded.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The Mann-Whitney test was used for numerical variables with non-normal distribution.||||||<0.05
91851508|NCT02311972|183586568|SUPERIORITY|Infant 010|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91851509|NCT02311972|183586568|SUPERIORITY|Infant 015|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91851510|NCT02311972|183586568|SUPERIORITY|Infant 039|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91851511|NCT02311972|183586568|SUPERIORITY|Infant 040||||||0.3947|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3947
91851512|NCT02393716|183586576|OTHER|Single arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Percentage|2.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||7.2|||Based on exact binomial distribution|||"The primary safety endpoint was tested against a predetermined safety Performance Goal (PG) using the following statistical hypotheses:~H0: p ≥ 20% vs. H1: p \< 20% where p is the proportion of subjects experiencing a MAE within 30 days of the index procedure in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo AAA Stent graft system and 20% is the safety PG."||7.2||<0.001
91851513|NCT02393716|183586577|OTHER|Single-arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Percentage|95.8|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|90.4||||Based on exact binomial distribution|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint was tested against a predetermined effectiveness PG using following statistical hypotheses:~H0: q ≤ 80% vs. H1: q \> 80% where q is the proportion of subjects who have a successful aneurysm treatment in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo AAA Stent graft system and 80% is the effectiveness PG."|||90.4|<0.001
91851514|NCT01924767|183586595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean of ratio|43.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.52|69.269|||Regression, Linear|||This was non-confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for Cmax (single dose) was analysed.||69.269|27.520|
91851515|NCT01924767|183586595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean of ratio|31.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.193|80.011|||Regression, Linear|||This was non-confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for Cmax,ss (Multiple dose) was analysed.||80.011|12.193|
91851516|NCT01924767|183586596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean of ratio|49.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.49|73.776|||Regression, Linear|||This was non-confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for AUC (0-infinity, single dose) was analysed.||73.776|33.490|
91851517|NCT01924767|183586596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean of ratio|37.632|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.429|91.789|||Regression, Linear|||This was non confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for AUC (0-infinity, at steady state, day 9) was analysed.||91.789|15.429|
91851518|NCT01924767|183586607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37645.43||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11021.57|64269.3||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.||The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||64269.30|11021.57|0.0067
91710548|NCT02634983|183313757|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.33|0.23|<0.0001
91851519|NCT01924767|183586607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82898.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55344.83|110451.6||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||110451.6|55344.83|<0.0001
91851520|NCT01924767|183586607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79982.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53087.22|106878.6||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean Difference to placebo is calculated.|The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||106878.6|53087.22|<0.0001
91851521|NCT01924767|183586607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|91306.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64685.41|117928.5||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean Difference to placebo was calculated|The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||117928.5|64685.41|<0.0001
91851522|NCT01924767|183586608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.456||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.543|-0.369||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||-0.369|-30.543|0.0449
91851523|NCT01924767|183586608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.467||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.085|-7.848||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||-7.848|-39.085|0.0042
91851524|NCT01924767|183586608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.956||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.057|0.145||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||0.145|-30.057|0.0521
91851525|NCT01924767|183586608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|-10.602||||0.1676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.848|4.644||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||4.644|-25.848|0.1676
91851526|NCT01924767|183586609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.269||||0.2239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.162|4.624||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||4.624|-19.162|0.2239
91851527|NCT01924767|183586609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.844||||0.0421||95.0|-25.205|-0.484||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||-0.484|-25.205|0.0421
91900772|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.32|||MMRM||B pain,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.32|-1.26|0.8765
91851528|NCT01924767|183586609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.719||||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.842|9.403||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||9.403|-14.842|0.6527
91851529|NCT01924767|183586609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.998||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.818|2.822||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||2.822|-20.818|0.1318
91851530|NCT03621761|183586672|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.774||||0.3451|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on total MFIS score, in linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline MFIS score. Output reflects models that were imputed for missing data.||||0.3451
91851531|NCT03621761|183586672|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3094||||0.4834|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on total MFIS score, in linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline MFIS score. Output reflects models that were imputed for missing data.||||0.4834
91851532|NCT03621761|183586673|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4077||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue intensity NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue intensity score.||||0.2570
91900773|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.4|||MMRM||GH,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.40|-0.56|0.6252
91710549|NCT02634983|183313757|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.37|0.26|<0.0001
91710550|NCT02634983|183313757|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.38|0.26|<0.0001
91710551|NCT02634983|183313758|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 1 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.33|0.15|<0.0001
91851533|NCT03621761|183586673|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2452||||0.5017|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue intensity NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue intensity score.||||0.5017
91851534|NCT03621761|183586674|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.095||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue interference NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue interference score.||||0.154
91851535|NCT03621761|183586674|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.034||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue interference NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue interference score.||||0.610
91851536|NCT03621761|183586675|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00427||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in fatigability score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline fatigability score.||||0.4955
91851537|NCT03621761|183586675|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00948||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in fatigability score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline fatigability score.||||0.1333
91851538|NCT00470106|183586676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons because it is primary.|mixed model|same analysis as for secondary outcome variable.||||||<.001
91790037|NCT00906971|183459289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis to compare the two groups at the end of the follow-up period with regard to the primary outcome measures was blind, by intention-to-treat, considering loss of follow-up as treatment failure. In such cases, at the end of the follow-up period, the frequency of fecal incontinence was recorded reported at the beginning of the study|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The Mann-Whitney test was used for numerical variables with non-normal distribution.||||||>0.05
91851539|NCT00470106|183586677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||A priori threshold for significance was P \< .05|mixed model|Same as for the primary variable.||||||<.10
91851540|NCT01256034|183586684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91851541|NCT01183780|183586690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.976|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed on stratified data.|The estimation was performed on stratified data.|||0.976|0.730|0.0219
91851542|NCT01183780|183586691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|0.903|||Log Rank|Analysis was performed on stratified data.|Analysis was performed on stratified data.|||0.903|0.697|0.0005
91790038|NCT00223236|183459294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4637|||||||Chi-squared|df=1 n=34||Null hypothsis is no group association in cocaine use.||||.4637
91790039|NCT01007253|183459298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean eye symptoms score difference among the four treatment groups.||||<0.001
91710552|NCT02634983|183313758|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 1 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.45|0.25|<0.0001
91851543|NCT01183780|183586692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6336
91851544|NCT01596504|183586734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|||p-values ordered(p1≤p2) as per rules:if p2≤0.05: lixisenatide superior to liraglutide (both doses);if p2\>0.05 \& p1≤0.025:lixisenatide superior to dose of liraglutide associated with p1;if p2\>0.05 \& p1\>0.025:no comparison as statistically significant.|Linear fixed effects model|The threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Lixisenatide vs Liraglutide 1.2 mg|Analysis was performed using linear fixed effects model with treatment groups and stratification factors (HbA1c levels on Day -7 \[\<8% and \>=8%\], use of metformin at screening \[yes or no\]) and the study site) as fixed effects and baseline plasma glucose AUC from 0.5 to 4.5 hours as covariate. To address multiplicity issue and ensure overall 1-sided level of 5%, Hochberg method was used for testing procedure of comparison between lixisenatide vs liraglutide 1.2 mg or 1.8 mg.|||-7.77|<0.0001
91790040|NCT01007253|183459299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean nasal symptoms score difference among the four treatment groups.||||0.05
91790041|NCT01007253|183459300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean sneeze difference among the four treatment groups.||||0.001
91790042|NCT01007253|183459301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean histamine level difference among the four treatment groups.||||0.11
91790043|NCT01007253|183459302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean tryptase level difference among the four treatment groups.||||<0.001
91790044|NCT01206387|183459328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
91790045|NCT01206387|183459329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91790046|NCT01206387|183459330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91790047|NCT01206387|183459331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91790048|NCT01206387|183459332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
91790049|NCT01895361|183459350|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-1.01|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crisis history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.00|-2.00|= 0.010
91790050|NCT01895361|183459350|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-0.69|||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.02|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.02|-1.84|= 0.180
91790051|NCT01895361|183459351|OTHER||Change vs placebo (%)|-45.3|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
91790052|NCT01895361|183459351|OTHER||Change vs placebo (%)|-32.6|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
91790053|NCT01895361|183459352|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.00|-4.36|= 0.450
91790054|NCT01895361|183459352|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.61|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||2.61|-3.90|= 0.837
91790055|NCT01895361|183459353|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.741|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||0.741|0.331|= 0.001
91790056|NCT01895361|183459353|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752|||=|0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.097|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||1.097|0.515|= 0.136
91790057|NCT01895361|183459354|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.866|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||0.866|0.329|= 0.022
91790058|NCT01895361|183459354|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||=|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.092|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||1.092|0.440|= 0.100
91790059|NCT01895361|183459355|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-1.0|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata||||0.00|-1.98|= 0.015
91790060|NCT01895361|183459355|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-0.87|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata||||0.00|-1.77|= 0.120
91790061|NCT01895361|183459356|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata||||0.00|0.00|= 0.780
91790062|NCT01895361|183459356|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.00|0.00|= 0.868
91790063|NCT00282464|183459358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.0056
91790064|NCT00282464|183459358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0866||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.0866
91790065|NCT00282464|183459358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0568||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.0568
91790066|NCT00282464|183459358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.0130
91790067|NCT00282464|183459358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0188||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0188
91790068|NCT00282464|183459358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6394||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.6394
91790069|NCT00282464|183459358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7707||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7707
91654889|NCT03552757|183202511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|11.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Results are based on the data from on-treatment observation period. All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in a MMRM with randomised treatment, stratification groups (OAD treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||11.97|6.31|<0.0001
91790070|NCT00282464|183459359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2185||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.2185
91790071|NCT00282464|183459359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4124||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.4124
91790072|NCT00282464|183459359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6098||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.6098
91790073|NCT00282464|183459360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.0005
91790074|NCT00282464|183459360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.0099
91790075|NCT00282464|183459360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0423||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.0423
91790076|NCT00282464|183459360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0618||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.0618
91790077|NCT00282464|183459360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0451||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0451
91900774|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.29|||MMRM||GH,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.29|-0.68|0.7852
91790078|NCT00282464|183459360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2633||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.2633
91900775|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.3614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.66|||MMRM||GH,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.66|-0.46|0.3614
91900776|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.5991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.54|||MMRM||GH,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.54|-0.70|0.5991
91900777|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.8526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.27|||MMRM||MH,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.27|-0.88|0.8526
91900778|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.61|||MMRM||MH,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.61|-0.56|0.4673
91900779|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.33|||MMRM||MH,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.33|-0.95|0.8262
91900780|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.51|||MMRM||MH,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.51|-1.00|0.7380
91900781|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.5997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.62|||MMRM||RE,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.62|-0.80|0.5997
91900782|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26||||0.7649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.45|||MMRM||RE,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.45|-0.98|0.7649
91900783|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.43|||MMRM||RE,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.43|-1.18|0.8175
91900784|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.43|||MMRM||RE,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.43|-1.47|0.8591
91900785|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.9588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.06|||MMRM||RP,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.06|-1.06|0.9588
91900786|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.8761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.23|||MMRM||RP,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.23|-0.90|0.8761
91900787|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.4293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.7|||MMRM||RP,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.70|-0.58|0.4293
91900788|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.6983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.53|||MMRM||RP,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.53|-0.92|0.6983
91900789|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.62||||0.9743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.0|||MMRM||SF,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.00|-1.25|0.9743
91790079|NCT00282464|183459360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2206||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.2206
91654890|NCT00571428|183202551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies had to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||||90.0|-0.015|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, predose FEV1, \& Visit number are fixed effects; subject within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.037|-0.015|
91654891|NCT00571428|183202552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies has to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||||90.0|0.035|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit Number are fixed effects; subjects within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.090|0.035|
91790080|NCT00282464|183459361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9863||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.9863
91790081|NCT00282464|183459361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1017||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.1017
91790082|NCT00282464|183459361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4033||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.4033
91790083|NCT00282464|183459362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||No multiple comparison adjustment is applicable. Statistical significance level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.002
91790084|NCT00282464|183459362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.019
91790085|NCT00282464|183459362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.038
91790086|NCT00282464|183459362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.069
91851545|NCT01596504|183586734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|||p-values ordered(p1≤p2) as per rules:if p2≤0.05:lixisenatide superior to liraglutide (both doses);if p2\>0.05 \& p1≤0.025:lixisenatide superior to dose of liraglutide associated with p1;if p2\>0.05 \& p1\>0.025: no comparison as statistically significant.|Linear fixed effects model|The threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Lixisenatide vs Liraglutide 1. 8 mg|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effects model with treatment groups and stratification factors (HbA1c levels on Day -7 \[\<8% and \>=8%\], use of metformin at screening \[yes or no\]), and the study site) as fixed effects and baseline plasma glucose AUC from 0.5 to 4.5 hours as covariate. To address multiplicity issue and ensure overall 1-sided level of 5%, Hochberg method was used for testing procedure of comparison between lixisenatide vs liraglutide 1.2 mg or 1.8 mg.|||-6.34|<0.0001
91851546|NCT02716324|183586751|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.001||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.012|||GLS random-effects model|||Random effects models regressed VPRS scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. We examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.012|-0.010|.871
91851547|NCT02716324|183586752|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.001||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.004|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed GAS scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. We examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.004|-0.002|0.499
91851548|NCT02716324|183586753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of any services were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.718
91851549|NCT02716324|183586753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of ambulatory mental health services were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.903
91790087|NCT00282464|183459362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.053
91790088|NCT00282464|183459362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6 An estimated sample size of 180 was needed per treatment arm in order to achieve 85% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.5 in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score with a two-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level. The common standard deviation was estimated as 11.0. The null hypotheses is equality of mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||||0.154
91851550|NCT02716324|183586753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of any inpatient mental health services were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.915
91790089|NCT00282464|183459362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.007
91851551|NCT02716324|183586754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of any mental health services during the study period were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.310
91790090|NCT00282464|183459363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.112||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.112
91790091|NCT00282464|183459363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.352||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.352
91790092|NCT00282464|183459363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.873
91790093|NCT00282464|183459364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.305
91790094|NCT00282464|183459364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.510
91851552|NCT02716324|183586754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of ambulatory mental health services during the study period were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.251
91654892|NCT00571428|183202553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies has to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.035||||||90.0|-0.079|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit Number are fixed effects; subjects within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.008|-0.079|
91654893|NCT00571428|183202554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies has to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||||90.0|-0.086|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit Number are fixed effects; subjects within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.026|-0.086|
91654894|NCT00571428|183202559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.694||||||90.0|0.525|2.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit number are fixed effects; subject within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||2.862|0.525|
91654895|NCT00571428|183202560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies had to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||||90.0|0.015|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit number are fixed effects; subject within treatment sequence is a random effect||||0.090|0.015|
91790095|NCT00282464|183459364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.710
91790096|NCT00282464|183459365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.026
91851553|NCT02716324|183586754|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of inpatient mental health services during the study period were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||1.00
91654896|NCT00386009|183202566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.068
91654897|NCT00386009|183202567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.626
91654898|NCT00386009|183202568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.113
91654899|NCT00386009|183202569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.837
91654900|NCT00386009|183202570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.400
91790097|NCT00282464|183459365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.223
91851554|NCT02716324|183586755|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Parent-reported PRO School Performance Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.662
91710553|NCT02634983|183313758|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 1 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.42|0.20|<0.0001
91710554|NCT02634983|183313758|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (-0.75 hrs post-dose)||0.45|0.25|<0.001
91710555|NCT02634983|183313758|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (-0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.37|0.19|<0.0001
91710556|NCT02634983|183313758|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.53|0.33|<0.0001
91710557|NCT02634983|183313758|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.54|0.36|<0.0001
91790098|NCT00282464|183459365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.848||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.848
91790099|NCT00282464|183459366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.381||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.381
91851555|NCT02716324|183586755|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.001||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.002|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child PRO School Performance Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.002|0.000|0.075
91851556|NCT02716324|183586756|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Parent-reported PRO Student Engagement Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.707
91710558|NCT02634983|183313758|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.55|0.33|<0.0001
91710559|NCT02634983|183313759|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|3.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 1 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||3.12|1.21|0.0006
91790100|NCT00282464|183459366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.676||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.676
91790101|NCT00282464|183459366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.295
91790102|NCT00282464|183459367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.068
91790103|NCT00282464|183459367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.043
91790104|NCT00282464|183459367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.404||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.404
91654901|NCT00386009|183202571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.864
91654902|NCT00386009|183202572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.340
91654903|NCT00386009|183202573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.838
91790105|NCT00282464|183459368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.899||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.899
91654904|NCT00386009|183202574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.609
91790106|NCT00282464|183459368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.739
91790107|NCT00282464|183459368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.797||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.797
91790108|NCT00282464|183459369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.434||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.434
91790109|NCT00282464|183459369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.777||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.777
91654905|NCT00386009|183202575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.427
91654906|NCT00386009|183202576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.838
91654907|NCT00386009|183202577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.090
91654908|NCT00386009|183202578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.113
91654909|NCT00386009|183202581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91710560|NCT02634983|183313759|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|3.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 1 (1 hrs post-dose)||3.33|0.78|0.0106
91790110|NCT00282464|183459369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.820
91654910|NCT00936975|183202606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.6084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7644|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|GEE||GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|This was an exploratory study and no a priori assumptions were employed.||||<0.001
91654911|NCT00936975|183202607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0089||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|GEE|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|the difference in Patlak flux in tumor bone between baseline and 12 weeks, accounting for the fact that each participant could contribute more than one tumor bone.||||0.1945
91851557|NCT02716324|183586756|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child PRO Student Engagement Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.735
91852133|NCT00430300|183587391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.4436|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-10.5|0.4436
91654912|NCT00936975|183202608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3274||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.32
91710561|NCT02634983|183313759|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|3.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 1 (2 hrs post-dose)||3.44|1.20|0.0013
91790111|NCT00282464|183459370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.468||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.468
91790112|NCT00282464|183459370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.110
91790113|NCT00282464|183459370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.738||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.738
91900790|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.8405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.31|||MMRM||SF,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.31|-0.94|0.8405
91900791|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.6459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.56|||MMRM||SF,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.56|-0.82|0.6459
91900792|NCT02876835|183696012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38||||0.8272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.41|||MMRM||SF,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.41|-1.17|0.8272
91900793|NCT02876835|183696013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.9786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.02|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||-0.02|-1.09|0.9786
91900794|NCT02876835|183696013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.44|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.44|-0.68|0.6642
91790114|NCT00282464|183459370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.617||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.617
91900795|NCT02876835|183696013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.6261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.52|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.52|-0.72|0.6261
91790115|NCT00282464|183459370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.642||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.642
91790116|NCT00282464|183459370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.644||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.644
91790117|NCT00282464|183459370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.789||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.789
91790118|NCT00282464|183459371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.042
91790119|NCT00282464|183459371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.088
91900796|NCT02876835|183696013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.21|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.21|-1.19|0.9161
91790120|NCT00282464|183459371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.651||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.651
91790121|NCT00282464|183459371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.665||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.665
91900797|NCT02876835|183696014|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.8703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.24|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.24|-0.88|0.8703
91900798|NCT02876835|183696014|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.67|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.67|-0.41|0.3167
91710825|NCT02504320|183314063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.7709|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6767|0.8782|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen B) and reference (Regimen D).||0.8782|0.6767|
91710826|NCT02504320|183314063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.9389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8246|1.0689|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen C) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0689|0.8246|
91710827|NCT02504320|183314064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|1.0435|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.984|1.1066|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.1066|0.9840|
91710828|NCT02504320|183314064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.8777|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8274|0.9311|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen B) and reference (Regimen D).||0.9311|0.8274|
91710829|NCT02504320|183314064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8996|1.0117|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0117|0.8996|
91710830|NCT02504320|183314065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|1.0283|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9691|1.0911|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0911|0.9691|
91710831|NCT02504320|183314065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.9056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8516|0.963|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen B) and reference (Regimen D).||0.9630|0.8516|
91710832|NCT02504320|183314065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimates|0.9463|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8909|1.0051|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen C) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0051|0.8909|
91710833|NCT02497404|183314067|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|46.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|62.8||||||||62.8|30.1|
91710834|NCT02497404|183314068|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|78.8||||||||78.8|47.2|
91710835|NCT02497404|183314069|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|50.2||||||||50.2|19.1|
91710836|NCT02497404|183314070|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|89.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.8|97.1||||||||97.1|75.8|
91710837|NCT02497404|183314071|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|78.8||||||||78.8|47.2|
91710838|NCT02497404|183314072|OTHER||Proportion (percent)|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|55.4||||||Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.||55.4|23.4|
91710839|NCT02497404|183314073|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the graft failure proportion.|Proportion (percent)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|13.5||||||||13.5|0.07|
91710840|NCT02497404|183314074|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the GVHD proportion.|Proportion (percent)|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|50.2||||||||50.2|19.1|
91710841|NCT02497404|183314075|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the high-risk extensive chronic graft-versus-host-disease proportion.|Proportion (percent)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|15.3||||||||15.3|0.63|
91710842|NCT01408901|183314076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.7||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|52.3||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||52.3|5.1|0.052
91654970|NCT03384745|183202667|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 44 (84.6% \[71.9-93.1\], p\<0.0001) of 52 participants in the M1095 60mg treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
91904141|NCT04667377|183703252|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-15.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-12.9||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo at week 46.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-12.90|-18.67|<.0001
91691886|NCT00925704|183278285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||< 0.001
91691887|NCT00925704|183278286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|||Analysis for Tmax used the Hodges-Lehmann estimate for Wilcoxon's Signed Rank Test.||||0.039
91654971|NCT03384745|183202667|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 41 (77.4% \[63.8-87.7\], p\<0.0001) of 53 participants in the M1095 120mg normal load treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
91691888|NCT00925704|183278286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|||Analysis for Tmax used the Hodges-Lehmann estimate for Wilcoxon's Signed Rank Test.||||0.305
91852171|NCT03622593|183587490|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|3.2|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||3.2|-0.1|
91710843|NCT01408901|183314076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|17.6||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||17.6|-30.2|0.91
91852172|NCT03622593|183587490|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.1|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.1|-1.1|
91654972|NCT03384745|183202667|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 45 (88.2% \[76.1-95.6\], p\<0.0001) of 51 participants in the M1095 120mg augmented load treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
91710844|NCT01408901|183314076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|22.4||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||22.4|-25.2|0.91
91691889|NCT02667704|183278332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means in percentage|98.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.32|107.01|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (T/R) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale including treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect||107.010|91.320|
91710845|NCT01408901|183314076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|57.7||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||57.7|9.4|0.02
91710846|NCT01408901|183314077|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.61||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.44||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.44|-1.67|0.49
91710847|NCT01408901|183314077|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.67||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.51||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.51|-1.84|0.49
91654973|NCT03384745|183202667|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 41 (77.4% \[63.8-87.7\], p\<0.0001) of 53 participants in the secukinumab 300mg treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
91654974|NCT02260492|183202689|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence test compares the Test/Reference with confidence bounds set at standard 80-125%.~Superiority test compares Test with Placebo (p\<0.05) Superiority test compares Reference with Placebo (p\<0.05) (p\<0.05)"|Test/Reference|1.0799|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||ANCOVA|||"Primary analyses were conducted on BL subtracted values (pre-dose - post-dose). The two one-sided tests method of interval analysis is standard for bioequivalence testing and employs 2 sets of one-sided hypotheses as follows, performed at the 5% alpha level:~H01: uT-uR \< -0.20 uR vs. Ha1: -0.20 uR \</= uT- uR (the lower tail) and H02: uT-uR \>0.25 uR vs. Ha2: uT- uR \</=0.25 uR (the upper tail) When uT is the LSM SOLIS, uR is the LSM of ADVAIR DISKUS"|"Day 1 superiority to placebo:~Solis vs. Placebo p=0.004 Advair vs. Placebo p=0.012"|1.25|.8|<0.05
91654975|NCT02260492|183202690|EQUIVALENCE|Standard bioequivalence 90% confidence bounds set at 0.8-1.25.|Test/Reference|1.0475|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||ANOVA|||Same as the Day 1 analyses|"Week 4 superiority to placebo:~Solis vs. Placebo p=0.019 Advair vs. Placebo p=0.035"|1.25|.8|<0.05
91654976|NCT04634409|183202692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.009273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.78|0.18|0.009273
91654977|NCT04634409|183202692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.000271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.59|0.18|0.000271
91654978|NCT04634409|183202692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.000257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.51|0.10|0.000257
91654979|NCT04634409|183202692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.013378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.23|0.013378
91654980|NCT04634409|183202692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.000318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.52|0.11|0.000318
91654981|NCT04634409|183202692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.140563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.09|0.140563
91654982|NCT04634409|183202693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.000835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.58|0.12|0.000835
91852173|NCT03622593|183587490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|3.0||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||3.0|-0.7|0.1718
91852174|NCT03622593|183587490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|2.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.4|-1.2|0.4602
91852175|NCT03622593|183587490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|3.2||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||3.2|-0.1|0.0361
91654983|NCT04634409|183202694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.097231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.28|0.097231
91654984|NCT04634409|183202694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.13236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.17|0.30|0.132360
91852176|NCT03622593|183587490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.493|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.1||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.1|-1.1|0.4930
91852177|NCT03622593|183587491|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.6|7.4||||||This analysis is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||7.4|-12.6|
91852178|NCT03622593|183587491|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.4|6.3||||||This analysis is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||6.3|-13.4|
91852179|NCT03622593|183587491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-5.4||||0.3009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.9|6.1||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||6.1|-16.9|0.3009
91852180|NCT03622593|183587491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-6.9||||0.1735|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.3|4.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||4.4|-18.3|0.1735
91654985|NCT04634409|183202700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|15.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.57|0.02|0.769
91654986|NCT04634409|183202700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|8.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.12|0.01|0.494
91654987|NCT04634409|183202700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.51|0.02|0.671
91654988|NCT04634409|183202700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.27|0.02|0.663
91654989|NCT04634409|183202700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.76|0.02|0.680
91654990|NCT04634409|183202700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|67.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.88|0.09|0.584
91654991|NCT04634409|183202702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.06|0.17|0.979
91654992|NCT04634409|183202702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.39|0.27|0.675
91654993|NCT04634409|183202705|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.67||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-1.17|0.009
91654994|NCT04634409|183202705|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-1.06|0.002
91654995|NCT04634409|183202705|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.26||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.72|0.263
91654996|NCT04634409|183202705|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.41||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.87|0.083
91654997|NCT04634409|183202705|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-1.35|<0.001
91654998|NCT04634409|183202705|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.64||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-1.52|0.149
91654999|NCT04634409|183202706|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-1.33|0.002
91655000|NCT04634409|183202707|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.14||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.70|0.606
91655001|NCT04634409|183202707|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.38||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.93|0.170
91710848|NCT01408901|183314077|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.36||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.38||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.38|-0.66|0.49
91710849|NCT01408901|183314077|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.48||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.59||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.59|-0.64|0.49
91655002|NCT04634409|183202713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.53|0.890
91655003|NCT04634409|183202713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.89|0.141
91655004|NCT04634409|183202713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.98|0.67|0.603
91655005|NCT04634409|183202713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|1.00|0.048
91655006|NCT04634409|183202713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.69|0.533
91655007|NCT04634409|183202713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.99|0.40|0.869
91655008|NCT04634409|183202714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|0.72|0.374
91655009|NCT04634409|183202715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.08|1.13|0.015
91655010|NCT04634409|183202715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.78|0.317
91655011|NCT04634409|183202718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.81|0.94|0.082
91655012|NCT04634409|183202718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|1.11|0.018
91655013|NCT04634409|183202718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|1.09|0.021
91655014|NCT04634409|183202718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.22|1.16|0.011
91655015|NCT04634409|183202718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.60|1.30|0.003
91655016|NCT04634409|183202718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.48|0.52|0.546
91655017|NCT04634409|183202719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.60|0.888
91655018|NCT04634409|183202720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.13|1.13|0.014
91655019|NCT04634409|183202720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|0.98|0.057
91710850|NCT01408901|183314078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.0||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.0|2.1|<0.01
91655020|NCT02683187|183202732|EQUIVALENCE|Insulin secretion, determined by insulin or C-peptide values in the 10 minutes after arginine infusion will be compared as a repeated measure for each subject in a 2 x 2 analysis of sitagliptin/placebo and Exendin-9/saline.|Median Difference (Final Values)|371.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
91655021|NCT05665595|183202733|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.8|||||Hazard Ratio based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by melanoma risk-based stage (IIB/IIC/clinical IIB and IIC/IIIA/IIIB vs IIIC/IIID/IV) and region of enrollment (Asia vs ROW).|||1.80|0.87|
91655022|NCT02122796|183202746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Means of pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared using paired, two-sided Student's t tests. P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.|t-test, 2 sided|P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.||||||<0.01
91655023|NCT02122796|183202747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Means of pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared using paired, two-sided Student's t tests. P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.|t-test, 2 sided|P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.||||||<0.01
91655024|NCT02122796|183202749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Means of pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared using paired, two-sided Student's t tests. P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.|t-test, 2 sided|P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.||||||<0.01
91655025|NCT00234078|183202756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.385
91655026|NCT00234078|183202757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.601
91655027|NCT00234078|183202758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
91655028|NCT00234078|183202758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91655029|NCT00234078|183202758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
91655030|NCT00234078|183202759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
91655031|NCT00234078|183202759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91655032|NCT00234078|183202759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91710851|NCT01408901|183314078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.8||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-2.1|0.44
91655033|NCT03471078|183202760|OTHER|The primary efficacy endpoint was tested between avatrombopag and placebo using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel 2-sided test at α=0.05, adjusting for the number of eligible chemotherapy agents as collected in IWRS (1 or ≥2 permissible chemotherapy agents).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|15.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.6|-21.7|0.7186
91655034|NCT03471078|183202761|OTHER|||||||0.8372|||||||Van Elteren Test|||||||0.8372
91655035|NCT00502775|183202764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001||95.0|-1.2|-0.6||Symptom scores were grouped in 3 families: nasal, ocular, instantaneous. Within each family, results of hypothesis tests were adjusted using Hochberg's method.|ANCOVA|No other strata or covariates, other than investigator, were defined.|Mean Difference = Mean Change in Fluticasone Furoate - Mean Change in Fexofenadine|The primary efficacy measure, mean change from baseline over the two-week treatment period in NSS compared between fluticasone furoate and fexofenadine, was assessed at a significance level of α=0.05. If the null hypothesis of this comparison was rejected, then the secondary measures were subject to hypothesis testing. The study was powered at 90%.||-0.6|-1.2|<0.001
91655036|NCT00502775|183202764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in Fluticasone Furoate - Mean Change in Placebo|||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91655037|NCT00502775|183202764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.374||95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in Fexofenadine - Mean Change in Placebo|||0.5|-0.2|0.374
91655038|NCT05381948|183202777|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.199||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.24|-2.48|0.919
91655039|NCT05381948|183202777|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.187||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.02|||MMRM|||||2.02|-2.63|0.795
91655040|NCT00520741|183202797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted exit rate at 112 days|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.355|||Kaplan-Meier|Subjects who dropped out due to non-exit criteria reasons over the 10 % censoring maximum were to be counted as an exit.||The upper limit of the Confidence Interval for the estimate of the Lacosamide (LCM) 400 mg/day exit rate was compared with the lower bound of the 95 % prediction interval for the historical-control of 0.653; hereafter referred to as the historical-control exit rate. The LCM 400 mg/day dose group would be declared an effective conversion to monotherapy treatment if the upper 95 % confidence limit for the estimate of the exit rate was less than 0.653.||0.355|0.246|
91655041|NCT00520741|183202799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predicted exit rate at 112 days|0.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.378|||Kaplan-Meier|Subjects who dropped out due to non-exit criteria reasons over the 10 % censoring maximum were to be counted as an exit.||The upper limit of the Confidence Interval for the estimate of the Lacosamide (LCM) 400 mg/day exit rate was compared with the historical-control exit rate. The LCM 400 mg/day dose group would be declared an effective conversion to monotherapy treatment if the upper 95 % confidence limit for the estimate of the exit rate was less than 0.653.||0.378|0.268|
91710852|NCT01408901|183314078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.1|0.44
91710853|NCT01408901|183314078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.2||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.2|2.2|<0.01
91710854|NCT01408901|183314079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.001|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.001|-0.012|0.09
91655042|NCT03702621|183202803|OTHER|P values are from mixed model least squares (LS) means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||0.54
91655043|NCT03702621|183202804|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91655044|NCT03702621|183202805|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.98||||||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||0.98
91655045|NCT03702621|183202806|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.94||||||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||0.94
91655046|NCT03702621|183202807|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||0.86
91655047|NCT03702621|183202808|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||1||||||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||1.0
91655048|NCT03702621|183202809|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91655049|NCT03702621|183202810|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91852181|NCT03622593|183587491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.6||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.6|7.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||7.4|-12.6|0.5757
91852182|NCT03622593|183587491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.5||||0.4293|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.4|6.3||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||6.3|-13.4|0.4293
91655050|NCT03702621|183202811|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.72|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
91655051|NCT03702621|183202812|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
91655052|NCT03702621|183202813|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
91655053|NCT03702621|183202814|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91655054|NCT01024738|183202885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91655055|NCT02684578|183202886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Linear mixed-effects regression|||||||0.39
91655056|NCT02684578|183202887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Linear mixed-effects|||||||0.97
91655057|NCT02684578|183202888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Linear mixed-effects|||||||0.12
91655058|NCT00626925|183202922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91655059|NCT00626925|183202923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91655060|NCT00626925|183202925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91655061|NCT00626925|183202926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91655062|NCT00626925|183202927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91655063|NCT00626925|183202928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
91655064|NCT00626925|183202929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91655065|NCT01966042|183202930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test (n=13)|||||||< 0.001
91655066|NCT00625807|183202935|OTHER||||||>|0.1||||||Cohen's d = 0.5|ANOVA|||ANOVA for group by time interaction||||> 0.1
91655067|NCT00625807|183202936|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.103
91655068|NCT00625807|183202937|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change pre to week 8||||.022
91655069|NCT00625807|183202937|OTHER|within group change from pre to week 8|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91655070|NCT00625807|183202938|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to week 8||||.015
91655071|NCT00625807|183202938|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to week 8||||.53
91655072|NCT00625807|183202939|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to week 8||||.06
91655073|NCT00625807|183202939|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to post||||<.001
91655074|NCT03267264|183202940|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.7||||||||24.7|10.3|
91655075|NCT03267264|183202941|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|30.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|44.3||||||||44.3|16.8|
91852183|NCT03622593|183587494|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.1|-4.0|
91655076|NCT03267264|183202941|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|37.1||||||||37.1|4.1|
91655077|NCT03267264|183202941|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|overal mean|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|19.5||||||||19.5|-7.2|
91655078|NCT03267264|183202941|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|26.7||||||||26.7|-1.1|
91710855|NCT01408901|183314080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.001|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.001|-0.010|0.03
91710856|NCT01408901|183314081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.001|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.001|-0.012|0.09
91710857|NCT01408901|183314082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.002|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.002|-0.009|0.17
91655079|NCT03267264|183202942|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall mean|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|24.7||||||Overall Comfort||24.7|11.3|
91655080|NCT03267264|183202942|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|21.8||||||Anxiety Associated with a Needle Stick Injury||21.8|9.9|
91655081|NCT03267264|183202942|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|22.1||||||Injection Pain||22.1|8.9|
91655082|NCT03267264|183202942|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|25.7||||||Ease of Use||25.7|13.8|
91655083|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|40.7||||||Overall Comfort||40.7|14.9|
91655084|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|31.6||||||Anxiety Associated with a needle stick injury||31.6|8.9|
91655085|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|28.8||||||Injection Pain||28.8|3.4|
91655086|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|42.1||||||Ease of Use||42.1|19.3|
91655087|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|36.1||||||Overall Comfort||36.1|5.3|
91655088|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|32.8||||||Anxiety Associated with a needle stick||32.8|6|
91655089|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|33.7||||||Injection Pain||33.7|3.6|
91710858|NCT02098395|183314097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg versus placebo was planned to be concluded if and only if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c was less than zero.||-0.2|-0.5|< 0.0001
91710859|NCT02098395|183314097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg was planned to be evaluated only if superiority for liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded.||-0.08|-0.38|= 0.0021
91722408|NCT00689936|183337135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.31274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.43|||Fisher Exact|||||2.43|0.78|0.31274
91852184|NCT03622593|183587494|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-9.1|
91710860|NCT02098395|183314097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of liraglutide 0.6 mg versus placebo was planned to be evaluated only if superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg was concluded.||-0.1|-0.39|= 0.0011
91710861|NCT01509612|183314138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.397
91710862|NCT01509612|183314139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Only those groups were compared who received an intervention||||0.02
91710863|NCT01765569|183314179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.63|2.02||||||||2.02|1.63|
91852185|NCT03622593|183587494|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|13.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||13.4|-2.5|
91852186|NCT03622593|183587494|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||6.8|-8.9|
91904142|NCT04667377|183703253|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-0.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.98|-7.74|0.0116
91710864|NCT01765569|183314183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.65||||||||1.65|1.3|
91710865|NCT05415462|183314193|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H1N1 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.952|1.071||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.071|0.952|
91710866|NCT05415462|183314193|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H3N2 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|GMR|1.657|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.562|1.757||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.757|1.562|
91852187|NCT03622593|183587494|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|10.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||10.3|-2.7|
91852188|NCT03622593|183587494|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.9|-7.3|
91655090|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|31.9||||||Ease of Use||31.9|4.9|
91655091|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|20.9||||||Overall Comfort||20.9|-4.0|
91710867|NCT05415462|183314193|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Victoria-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|GMR|0.665|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|0.702||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/ Victoria Lineage||0.702|0.630|
91852189|NCT03622593|183587494|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-3.8|
91852190|NCT03622593|183587494|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.2|-4.9|
91852191|NCT03622593|183587499|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|8.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.9|-8.5|
91852192|NCT03622593|183587499|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.8|-11.8|
91852193|NCT03622593|183587499|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|11.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.4|-6.9|
91852194|NCT03622593|183587499|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|8.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.1|-9.8|
91852195|NCT03622593|183587499|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.5|-6.2|
91852196|NCT03622593|183587499|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||6.2|-8.3|
91852197|NCT03622593|183587499|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||6.2|-3.8|
91852198|NCT03622593|183587499|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-4.8|
91852199|NCT03622593|183587504|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.1|-1.6|
91852200|NCT03622593|183587504|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.9|-1.8|
91852201|NCT03622593|183587504|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.1|-2.3|
91852202|NCT03622593|183587504|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.9|-2.4|
91722409|NCT00689936|183337135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.01936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.19|||Fisher Exact|||||3.19|1.13|0.01936
91852203|NCT03622593|183587504|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.5|-1.9|
91852204|NCT03622593|183587504|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.6|-1.5|
91852205|NCT03622593|183587508|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-2.3|
91852206|NCT03622593|183587508|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-2.0|
91852207|NCT03622593|183587508|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.6|-2.7|
91852208|NCT03622593|183587508|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.3|-2.9|
91852209|NCT03622593|183587508|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.7||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.7|-2.0|
91852210|NCT03622593|183587508|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.4|-2.1|
91852211|NCT03622593|183587512|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.7||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||12.7|-3.1|
91852212|NCT03622593|183587512|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||6.2|-8.8|
91852213|NCT03622593|183587512|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|11.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||11.6|-6.5|
91852214|NCT03622593|183587512|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|7.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||7.4|-10.0|
91655092|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|23.8||||||Anxiety Associated with a Needle stick injury||23.8|1.9|
91655093|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.4||||||Injection Pain||19.4|-5.3|
91655094|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|28.8||||||Ease of Use||28.8|6.7|
91655095|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|28.1||||||Overall Comfort||28.1|2.1|
91655096|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|22.4||||||Anxiety Associated with a Needle Stick Injury||22.4|-0.5|
91655097|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|33.1||||||Injection Pain||33.1|7.4|
91655098|NCT03267264|183202943|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|23.5||||||Eae of Use||23.5|0.5|
91655099|NCT00266409|183202946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1143||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.1143
91655100|NCT00266409|183202946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4544||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.4544
91655101|NCT00266409|183202947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0173||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate||||0.0173
91655102|NCT00266409|183202947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0516||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate||||0.0516
91655103|NCT00266409|183202948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0361
91655104|NCT00266409|183202948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0366||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0366
91655105|NCT00266409|183202949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7390
91655106|NCT00266409|183202949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6735||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6735
91655107|NCT00266409|183202950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4261||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4261
91655108|NCT00266409|183202950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0231||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0231
91655109|NCT00266409|183202951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1820
91852215|NCT03622593|183587515|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|11.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||11.8|-2.4|
91852216|NCT03622593|183587515|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||9.8|-4.1|
91655110|NCT00266409|183202951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2187||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2187
91655111|NCT00266409|183202952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1456||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1456
91655112|NCT00266409|183202952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3618||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3618
91655113|NCT00266409|183202953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3535||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3535
91655114|NCT00266409|183202953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5660
91655115|NCT00266409|183202954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3414||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3414
91655116|NCT00266409|183202954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7344||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7344
91655117|NCT00266409|183202955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1197||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1197
91655118|NCT00266409|183202955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4416||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4416
91655119|NCT00266409|183202956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.0350
91655120|NCT00266409|183202956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4205||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.4205
91655121|NCT00266409|183202957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2645||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.2645
91655122|NCT00266409|183202957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5369||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.5369
91655123|NCT00266409|183202958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9988||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.9988
91655124|NCT00266409|183202958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7729||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.7729
91655125|NCT00266409|183202959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7338||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.7338
91655126|NCT00266409|183202959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0897||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.0897
91655127|NCT00266409|183202960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6501||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.6501
91655128|NCT00266409|183202960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8196||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.8196
91655129|NCT00266409|183202961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6404||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.6404
91655130|NCT00266409|183202961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.8263
91655131|NCT00266409|183202962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6946||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.6946
91655132|NCT00266409|183202962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9629||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.9629
91655133|NCT00266409|183202963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8617||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.8617
91655134|NCT00266409|183202963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7555||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.7555
91655135|NCT00266409|183202964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5836||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.5836
91655136|NCT00266409|183202964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9096||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.9096
91655137|NCT00266409|183202965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0002
91655138|NCT00266409|183202965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0006
91655139|NCT00266409|183202966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0255||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint, CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0255
91655140|NCT00266409|183202966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0065
91655141|NCT00266409|183202967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0370
91710868|NCT05415462|183314193|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|GMR|0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|0.693||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/ Yamagata Lineage||0.693|0.630|
91655142|NCT00266409|183202967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9569||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.9569
91852217|NCT03622593|183587515|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||9.4|-6.5|
91655143|NCT00266409|183202968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0978||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0978
91655144|NCT00266409|183202968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7096||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.7096
91655145|NCT00266409|183202969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0001
91655146|NCT00266409|183202969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0003
91655147|NCT00266409|183202970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0025
91655148|NCT00266409|183202970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0101||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0101
91655149|NCT00266409|183202971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0095
91655150|NCT00266409|183202971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0390
91655151|NCT00266409|183202972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0160
91655152|NCT00266409|183202972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1024||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.1024
91655153|NCT00266409|183202973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0761||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0761
91655154|NCT00266409|183202973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0376||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0376
91710869|NCT05415462|183314194|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H1N1 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|5.75|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.12|8.38||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||8.38|3.12|
91852218|NCT03622593|183587515|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|9.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||9.3|-6.0|
91852219|NCT03622593|183587518|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||1.5|-1.4|
91852220|NCT03622593|183587518|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.2|-1.6|
91852221|NCT03622593|183587518|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.1|-1.1|
91852222|NCT03622593|183587518|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.4|-1.4|
91852223|NCT03622593|183587527|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||1.8|-1.0|
91852224|NCT03622593|183587527|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.0|-1.0|
91655155|NCT00266409|183202974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1196||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.1196
91852225|NCT03622593|183587527|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||1.8|-0.6|
91710870|NCT05415462|183314194|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H3N2 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|16.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.27|19.54||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||19.54|14.27|
91710871|NCT05415462|183314194|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Victoria-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|-17.34|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.22|-14.43||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/Victoria Lineage||-14.43|-20.22|
91710872|NCT05415462|183314194|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|-15.68|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.57|-12.76||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/Yamagata Lineage||-12.76|-18.57|
91710873|NCT00423813|183314227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Overall Comparison||||0.001
91655156|NCT00266409|183202974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint.CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0029
91655157|NCT00266409|183202975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6323||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.6323
91710874|NCT00423813|183314227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of Xyrem 4.5g and placebo||||<0.001
91710875|NCT00423813|183314227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of Xyrem 6.0g and placebo||||0.001
91710876|NCT01904032|183314236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0537||0.6982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2691|4.8656|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the CES-D change score between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||4.8656|-3.2691|.6982
91710877|NCT01904032|183314237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6619||0.9908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2946|7.2097|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the PAID change score between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||7.2097|-7.2946|.9908
91710878|NCT01904032|183314238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1474||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7366|6.7298|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change in systolic blood pressure between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||6.7298|-5.7366|.8749
91710879|NCT01904032|183314239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8636||0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1784|5.2033|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change in diastolic blood pressure between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||5.2033|-2.1784|.4187
91710880|NCT02373137|183314263|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.0|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model with a covariate for baseline visual acuity.|Coefficient reported in lines, comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK. Compared to UT-DSAEK, DMEK had 1.8 lines better vision at 6 months.|||-1.0|-2.8|<0.001
91722410|NCT00689936|183337136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.82128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.8|||Fisher Exact|||||2.80|0.46|0.82128
91852226|NCT03622593|183587527|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.8|-0.4|
91852227|NCT03622593|183587528|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.0|0.0|
91852228|NCT03622593|183587528|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.0|0.0|
91852229|NCT03622593|183587528|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
91710881|NCT02373137|183314264|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model with a covariate for baseline visual acuity|Coefficient reported in lines, comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK. Compared to UT-DSAEK, DMEK had 1.5 lines better vision at 3 months.|Comparison of 3-Month Visual Acuity Between Groups||-0.6|-2.5|0.002
91722411|NCT00689936|183337136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.11041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.14|||Fisher Exact|||||1.14|0.19|0.11041
91852230|NCT03622593|183587528|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
91655158|NCT00266409|183202975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5533||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.5533
91655159|NCT00266409|183202976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1705||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.1705
91655160|NCT00266409|183202976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3196||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.3196
91655161|NCT00266409|183202977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0419
91655162|NCT00266409|183202977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2541||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.2541
91655163|NCT00266409|183202978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0677||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0677
91655164|NCT00266409|183202978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0273
91655165|NCT00266409|183202979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5153||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5153
91655166|NCT00266409|183202979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0122||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0122
91655167|NCT00266409|183202980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4648||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4648
91655168|NCT00266409|183202980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5502||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5502
91655169|NCT00266409|183202981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9093||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9093
91655170|NCT00266409|183202981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1354||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1354
91655171|NCT00266409|183202982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7434||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7434
91655172|NCT00266409|183202982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1148||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1148
91655173|NCT00266409|183202983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9346||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9346
91655174|NCT00266409|183202983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2709||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2709
91655175|NCT00266409|183202984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3827||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3827
91655176|NCT00266409|183202984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2513||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2513
91655177|NCT00266409|183202985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3930
91655178|NCT00266409|183202985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5461||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5461
91655179|NCT00266409|183202986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0722||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0722
91655180|NCT00266409|183202986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4639||95.0||||P-values based on an ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4639
91655181|NCT00266409|183202987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0075
91852231|NCT03622593|183587535|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-14.0||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-14.0|-37.4|
91710882|NCT02373137|183314264|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.7|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model with a covariate for baseline visual acuity|Coefficient reported in lines, comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK. Compared to UT-DSAEK, DMEK had 1.4 lines better vision at 12 months.|Comparison of 12 Month Visual Acuity Between Groups||-0.7|-2.2|<0.001
91710883|NCT02373137|183314266|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-77.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-326.0|172.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK at 3 months.|||172|-326|0.53
91710884|NCT02373137|183314266|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-150.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.0|66.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK at 6 months.|||66|-356|0.17
91710885|NCT02373137|183314266|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-215.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-430.0|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK at 12 months.|||-0.4|-430|0.051
91710886|NCT02373137|183314272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91710887|NCT02559570|183314314|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.252|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.252|-0.335|0.7789
91710888|NCT02559570|183314314|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.284|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.284|-0.282|0.9930
91710889|NCT02559570|183314314|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.408|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.408|-0.167|0.4107
91710890|NCT02559570|183314315|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.729|0.552|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.552|-1.729|0.3097
91710891|NCT02559570|183314315|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.286|0.913|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.913|-1.286|0.7384
91710892|NCT02559570|183314315|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.748|1.477|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||1.477|-0.748|0.5188
91710893|NCT02559570|183314316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.543|0.444|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.444|-0.543|0.8426
91710894|NCT02559570|183314316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.525|0.448|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.448|-0.525|0.8770
91710895|NCT02559570|183314316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.842|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.842|-0.131|0.1502
91722412|NCT00689936|183337136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.07302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.91|||Fisher Exact|||||5.91|1.01|0.07302
91655182|NCT00266409|183202987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1641||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1641
91655183|NCT00266409|183202988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0932||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0932
91655184|NCT00266409|183202988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0852||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0852
91655185|NCT00266409|183202989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7896||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7896
91655186|NCT00266409|183202989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9651||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9651
91655187|NCT00266409|183202990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.8280
91655188|NCT00266409|183202990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0936||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0936
91655189|NCT00266409|183202991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3539||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3539
91655190|NCT00266409|183202991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4672||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4672
91655191|NCT00266409|183202992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2550
91655192|NCT00266409|183202992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3125||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3125
91655193|NCT00266409|183202993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3174||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3174
91655194|NCT00266409|183202993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9427||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9427
91655195|NCT00266409|183202994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3252||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3252
91655196|NCT00266409|183202994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6090
91655197|NCT00266409|183202995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1247||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1247
91655198|NCT00266409|183202995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.8430
91655199|NCT00266409|183202996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1031||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1031
91655200|NCT00266409|183202996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0543||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0543
91655201|NCT00266409|183202997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0508||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0508
91655202|NCT00266409|183202997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0871||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0871
91655203|NCT00266409|183202998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.8318
91655204|NCT00266409|183202998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5375||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5375
91655205|NCT00266409|183202999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2186||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2186
91655206|NCT00266409|183202999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0422||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0422
91655207|NCT00266409|183203000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1164||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1164
91655208|NCT00266409|183203000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1935||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1935
91655209|NCT00266409|183203001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1244||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1244
91655210|NCT00266409|183203001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6182||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6182
91655211|NCT00266409|183203002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4589||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4589
91655212|NCT00266409|183203002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3930
91655213|NCT00266409|183203003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4450
91655214|NCT00266409|183203003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2924||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2924
91655215|NCT00266409|183203004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2184||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2184
91710896|NCT02559570|183314316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.410|-0.535|0.7949
91655216|NCT00266409|183203004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1281||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1281
91655217|NCT00266409|183203005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6602||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.6602
91655218|NCT00266409|183203006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5544||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.5544
91655219|NCT00266409|183203007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9269||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.9269
91655220|NCT00266409|183203008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5271||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.5271
91655221|NCT00266409|183203009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1447||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.1447
91655222|NCT00266409|183203010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9375||95.0||||P-value from a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||||||0.9375
91655223|NCT00266409|183203011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9883||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.9883
91655224|NCT00266409|183203012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3093||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.3093
91710897|NCT02559570|183314316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.392|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.392|-0.540|0.7543
91655225|NCT00266409|183203013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5824||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.5824
91655226|NCT00266409|183203014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.044
91655227|NCT00266409|183203014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6587||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.6587
91655228|NCT00108732|183203022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.3|75.3||||||||75.3|48.3|
91655229|NCT00108732|183203023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate (percent)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|7.2||||||||7.2|0|
91655230|NCT00108732|183203024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median of difference|0.45||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test the difference between day 4 PSA and day 15 PSA.||||||0.003
91655231|NCT00108732|183203025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median of difference|-0.04||||0.02||95.0||||The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the difference between pre and post-treatment PSA slopes assessed by multiple PSA values on natural log scale using a piecewise linear model with a common knot point at the date of registration.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
91655232|NCT01901055|183203031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04||F-test statistics for group X time = 4.27|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|Statistical analyses were revised from the original protocol for reporting results at 24 week because unable to recruit an adequate sample size at this time point of participants originally on CPAP for 24 weeks and those who were in the original sham-CPAP group who crossed over to CPAP and completed 24 weeks of treatment.||0.04|-0.68|0.017
91655233|NCT01901055|183203032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.66|5.09||F test statistics for group X time = 1.20|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||5.09|-38.66|0.307
91655234|NCT01901055|183203033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.35||F test statistics for group X time = 0.31|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||0.35|-0.85|0.732
91655235|NCT01901055|183203034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|8.92||F test statistics for group X time = 0.01|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||8.92|-1.62|0.919
91655236|NCT01901055|183203035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.96||F-test statistics for group X time = 2.12|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||0.96|-1.18|0.125
91655237|NCT01901055|183203036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|87.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|529.1||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-936.1|1137.5||F-test statistics for group X time = 0.45|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||1137.50|-936.10|0.639
91655238|NCT01901055|183203037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.35||F-test statistics for group X time = 0.78|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||0.35|-1.61|0.461
91655239|NCT01901055|183203038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|10.86||F-test statistics for group X time= 0.25|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||10.86|-4.78|0.776
91655240|NCT01901055|183203039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.89||F-test statistics for group X time = 0.98|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||1.89|-1.24|0.378
91655241|NCT01901055|183203040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|17.56||F-test statistics for group X time = 1.57|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||17.56|-11.19|0.213
91722413|NCT00230737|183337179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3594.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91722414|NCT00848185|183337180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA for three groups||||<0.001
91655242|NCT01901055|183203041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.28||F-test statistics for group X time = 5.66|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||1.28|-1.27|0.005
91655243|NCT01915732|183203082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-7.4|0.002
91655244|NCT01915732|183203083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-7.3|<0.001
91655245|NCT01915732|183203084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.018
91655246|NCT01915732|183203085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.013
91655247|NCT01915732|183203086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||0.1|-1.8|0.077
91655248|NCT01915732|183203086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-1.1|-5.7|0.004
91655249|NCT01915732|183203087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||-0.1|-2.0|0.028
91655250|NCT01915732|183203087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.2|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-1.2|-5.5|0.002
91655251|NCT01915732|183203088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||0.00|-0.06|0.080
91655252|NCT01915732|183203088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-0.02|-0.12|0.004
91710898|NCT02559570|183314316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.2676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.728|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.728|-0.204|0.2676
91655253|NCT01915732|183203088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Statisticial data for the category=Total.|||-0.02|-0.09|0.003
91655254|NCT01915732|183203089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||-0.00|-0.07|0.025
91655255|NCT01915732|183203089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-0.04|-0.14|<0.001
91655256|NCT01915732|183203089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.03|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=Total.|||-0.03|-0.10|<0.001
91655257|NCT01915732|183203090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91655258|NCT01915732|183203091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91655259|NCT00698685|183203092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||actuarial probability of engraftment|70.0||||||95.0|||||||Actuarial probability of engraftment at day +100 is calculated according to the product-limit estimate method.|||||
91655260|NCT01325207|183203094|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) was determined to be 80mg IT every two weeks. This is based on no DLTs being seeing in Cohorts 1-4 with lower doses and 1 DLT out of 7 patients observed at 80mg IT in Cohort 5.|||
91655261|NCT00635154|183203129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of confirmed responses (%)|1.8||||||95.0|0.5|10.0|||||95% Confidence intervals were calculated for the true confirmed response rate using properties of the binomial distribution.|Proportion of confirmed responses to Anakinra alone was estimated by the number of patients who achieved a confirmed response divided by the total number of assessable patients.||10|0.5|
91655262|NCT03312257|183203137|OTHER|Repeated measures analyses using mixed linear models in STATA (version 15) were undertaken to model myopia progression (primary outcome) and axial elongation (secondary outcome) to account for the clusters of correlated data due to repeated participant outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Repeated measures analyses|||||0.21|-0.14|0.70
91655263|NCT03312257|183203138|OTHER|Repeated measures analyses using mixed linear models in STATA (version 15) were undertaken to model myopia progression (primary outcome) and axial elongation (secondary outcome) to account for the clusters of correlated data due to repeated participant outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.002|||Repeated measures analyses|||||0.002|-0.16|0.054
91655264|NCT02660242|183203148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model w/ repeated measures to account for correlation from cross-over design and multiple measures, adjusting for baseline glucose and period.||The mini-dose glucagon (MDG) condition was compared with each of the conditions. In the event that exercise was terminated early due to glucose \<70 mg/dL and the participant was treated for hypoglycemia (or if participant was treated for hypoglycemia during early recovery \[prior to the meal\]), the nadir glucose value was carried forward through the end of early recovery.||||<0.001
91655265|NCT02660242|183203149|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for subject effect, exercise session, and baseline blood glucose||||||0.99
91655266|NCT02660242|183203150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for subject effect, exercise session, and baseline blood glucose||||||0.15
91655267|NCT02660242|183203151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.99
91655268|NCT02660242|183203152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.43
91655269|NCT02660242|183203153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.16
91655270|NCT02660242|183203154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.69
91794608|NCT03981822|183468101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0367
91852232|NCT03622593|183587535|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-6.0||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-6.0|-29.2|
91852233|NCT03622593|183587535|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-7.0||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-7.0|-32.9|
91710899|NCT02559570|183314317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.359|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.359|-0.465|0.7997
91710900|NCT02559570|183314317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.5602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.288|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.288|-0.530|0.5602
91710901|NCT02559570|183314317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.170|-0.641|0.2529
91710902|NCT02559570|183314317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.352|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.352|-0.461|0.7923
91710903|NCT02559570|183314317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.290|-0.517|0.5802
91710904|NCT02559570|183314317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.201|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.201|-0.600|0.3263
91710905|NCT02559570|183314318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.349|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.349|-0.252|0.7507
91710906|NCT02559570|183314318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.317|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.317|-0.262|0.8505
91710907|NCT02559570|183314318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.7933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.332|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.332|-0.254|0.7933
91794609|NCT03981822|183468101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1746|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1746
91794610|NCT03981822|183468101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0123
91794611|NCT03981822|183468102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.96||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-1.24||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, Tx by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.24|-5.41|0.0021
91794612|NCT03981822|183468102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.72||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-0.66|-5.95|0.0150
91794613|NCT03981822|183468102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.31||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|-1.69||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.69|-6.54|0.0011
91794614|NCT03981822|183468102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|-2.32||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 EOT Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.32|-8.25|0.0007
91794615|NCT03981822|183468102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.15||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.91||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.91|-7.50|0.0012
91852234|NCT03622593|183587535|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-1.5||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-1.5|-27.1|
91852235|NCT03622593|183587538|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||18.9|5.7|
91852236|NCT03622593|183587538|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||14.9|1.5|
91655271|NCT02660242|183203155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.67
91710908|NCT02559570|183314319|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.313|0.463|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.463|-1.313|0.3461
91710909|NCT02559570|183314319|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.095|0.624|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.624|-1.095|0.5892
91710910|NCT02559570|183314319|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|0.949|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.949|-0.789|0.8560
91655272|NCT02660242|183203156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.84
91655273|NCT02660242|183203157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.63
91655274|NCT02660242|183203158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.24
91655275|NCT02660242|183203159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.26
91655276|NCT00982553|183203160|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||||||||1.00|0.62|
91655277|NCT00982553|183203161|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.86||||||||1.86|0.73|
91710911|NCT01680653|183314335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||In analyzing prolonged events on remote monitoring versus control, we used x squared analysis or Fisher's exact test to analyze data on 2 x 2 contingency tables. Significance was defined as P\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was a feasibility and preliminary safety study. As such, the sample size was not statistically derived and the protocol was not powered to provide for definitive conclusions. The study was limited to 20 participants at each camp session. A hypoglycemic event was defined as at least two consecutive CGM readings (10 mins) below the hypoglycemic threshold of \<70 mg/dL. Recovery from a hypoglycemic event required readings above threshold for \> or = 25 minutes.||||0.106
91710912|NCT01680653|183314336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.078
91852237|NCT03622593|183587538|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|16.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||16.3|1.6|
91852238|NCT03622593|183587538|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|13.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||13.6|-1.2|
91852239|NCT01324453|183587613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.90
91852240|NCT01324453|183587614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.81
91710913|NCT01680653|183314337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher's exact test|||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the P value for the number of events \<70 mg/dL longer than one hour||||0.003
91710914|NCT01680653|183314337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact test|||This is the p value for the number of events \<70 mg/dL that were greater than 2 hours||||0.010
91710915|NCT01680653|183314337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact test|||This is the p value for the number of events that were \<50 mg/dL for \> 30 minutes||||0.021
91710916|NCT01680653|183314337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact|||This is the P value for the number of events \<50 mg/dL that were \>1 hr||||0.077
91710917|NCT03373461|183314338|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||||||0.038
91710918|NCT03373461|183314338|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|1.0||||||||1.00|0.86|
91852241|NCT01324453|183587615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
91852242|NCT01324453|183587616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91710919|NCT03373461|183314338|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|0.98||||||||0.98|0.76|
91710920|NCT03373461|183314338|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72|0.96||||||||0.96|0.72|
91710921|NCT03373461|183314338|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|0.92||||||||0.92|0.66|
91710922|NCT03373461|183314339|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21|6.344||||||||6.344|0.210|
91710923|NCT03373461|183314339|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.642|9.01||||||||9.010|2.642|
91710924|NCT03373461|183314339|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.427|6.7||||||||6.700|0.427|
91710925|NCT03373461|183314339|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.882|8.638||||||||8.638|2.882|
91710926|NCT03373461|183314340|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.253|-3.145||||||||-3.145|-15.253|
91710927|NCT03373461|183314340|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.499|-3.0||||||||-3.000|-15.499|
91710928|NCT03373461|183314340|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.04|0.26||||||||0.260|-12.040|
91710929|NCT03373461|183314340|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.12|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.763|-4.471||||||||-4.471|-15.763|
91710930|NCT03373461|183314342|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.742|1.222||||||||1.222|0.742|
91710931|NCT03373461|183314342|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.356||||||||1.356|0.830|
91710932|NCT03373461|183314342|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.569|0.928||||||||0.928|0.569|
91710933|NCT03373461|183314342|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.669|1.05||||||||1.050|0.669|
91710934|NCT03373461|183314343|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.741|1.25||||||||1.250|0.741|
91710935|NCT03373461|183314343|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.872|1.458||||||||1.458|0.872|
91710936|NCT03373461|183314343|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.574|0.957||||||||0.957|0.574|
91710937|NCT03373461|183314343|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.706|1.132||||||||1.132|0.706|
91710938|NCT03373461|183314344|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.794|1.214||||||||1.214|0.794|
91710939|NCT03373461|183314344|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.835|1.269||||||||1.269|0.835|
91710940|NCT03373461|183314344|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.616|0.942||||||||0.942|0.616|
91710941|NCT03373461|183314344|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.704|1.027||||||||1.027|0.704|
91710942|NCT03373461|183314345|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.723|1.172||||||||1.172|0.723|
91710943|NCT03373461|183314345|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.767|1.249||||||||1.249|0.767|
91710944|NCT03373461|183314345|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.577|0.937||||||||0.937|0.577|
91710945|NCT03373461|183314345|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.678|1.052||||||||1.052|0.678|
91710946|NCT03373461|183314354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|7.472||||||||7.472|0.420|
91710947|NCT03373461|183314354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.747|4.39||||||||4.390|-2.747|
91710948|NCT03373461|183314354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.745|3.262||||||||3.262|-2.745|
91710949|NCT03373461|183314354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.368|5.337||||||||5.337|-1.368|
91710950|NCT03373461|183314355|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.579||||||||1.579|0.680|
91710951|NCT03373461|183314355|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.607|1.39||||||||1.390|0.607|
91710952|NCT03373461|183314355|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.558|1.153||||||||1.153|0.558|
91710953|NCT03373461|183314355|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.614|1.362||||||||1.362|0.614|
91710954|NCT03373461|183314357|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.792|1.692||||||||1.692|0.792|
91710955|NCT03373461|183314357|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.446|0.945||||||||0.945|0.446|
91710956|NCT03373461|183314357|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.518|0.997||||||||0.997|0.518|
91710957|NCT03373461|183314357|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.558|1.146||||||||1.146|0.558|
91852243|NCT01324453|183587617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.86
91852244|NCT01324453|183587618|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.00
91852245|NCT01324453|183587619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.58
91852246|NCT01324453|183587620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.77
91852247|NCT01499134|183587621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91852248|NCT01499134|183587622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
91852249|NCT01499134|183587623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is correct, confirmed with report from statistician.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91852250|NCT01499134|183587624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.363
91852251|NCT01499134|183587625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
91655278|NCT00982553|183203162|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||||||||1.18|0.87|
91655279|NCT00982553|183203163|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.85||||||||1.85|0.36|
91655280|NCT04087395|183203164|NON_INFERIORITY|To achieve non-inferiority, the observed p-value must be \<= 0.5 taking into account of the non-inferiority margin (i.e., 10mm difference in Pain VAS between the two treatment groups).|||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided paired student t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91655281|NCT02796664|183203173|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.462|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and cerebral ischemic events including ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack. The number of participants who suffered ischemic stroke and the number of paticipants who suffered transient ischemic attack were analyzed together to test the null hypothesis in two by two table.||||0.462
91655282|NCT02796664|183203174|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and modified Rankin Scale at follow-up.||||0.34
91655283|NCT02796664|183203175|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and flow change in steno-occlusive lesion.||||0.13
91655284|NCT02796664|183203175|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and flow change in collateral vessel.||||0.17
91655285|NCT02796664|183203176|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and periventricular white matter lesions at follow-up.||||0.74
91655286|NCT02796664|183203176|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and deep white matter lesions at follow-up.||||0.95
91655287|NCT02796664|183203177|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and parenchymal ischemic lesions at follow-up.||||0.23
91655288|NCT02796664|183203178|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and drug compliance at follow-up.||||0.79
91655289|NCT01626079|183203185|NON_INFERIORITY|Two thousand (2000) simulations were performed to calculate sample size and power for the primary safety endpoint. Assuming 22% mortality and 7.5% attrition at 12 months, a total of 305 subjects in the Device group will provide \> 95% power to reject the null hypothesis at the one-sided significance level of 5%.|Kaplan Meier|0.966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.948||||Z test Using Kaplan Meier Survival|P-value calculated from Z test using Kaplan Meier survival estimate together with Greenwood method estimated variance|||||0.948|<0.0001
91655290|NCT01626079|183203218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.96|||Joint Fraility Model|||||0.96|0.60|<0.02
91655291|NCT01626079|183203219|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.04|||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Analysis|||||2.04|1.29|<0.0001
91655292|NCT02566135|183203543|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4628||||0.5033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6401|3.3428|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Chi square test was applied to see weather there is a statistical significant difference between group I and group C for attempt for supraglottic airway insertion.||3.3428|0.6401|0.5033
91655293|NCT02566135|183203544|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8972|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4858|1.6569|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||We had applied chi square to see the statistical significant difference between group I and group C for number of attempt for ventilating bougie insertion.||1.6569|0.4858|>0.05
91655294|NCT02566135|183203545|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
91655295|NCT02566135|183203546|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured at base line among the group I and group C.||||0.44
91655296|NCT02566135|183203546|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute is measured following Dexmedetomidine injection among the group I and group C.||||0.58
91655297|NCT02566135|183203546|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured following induction of anaesthesia among the group I and group C.||||0.16
91655298|NCT02566135|183203546|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured following supraglottic airway insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.22
91655299|NCT02566135|183203546|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured following ventilating bougie insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.059
91655300|NCT02566135|183203546|OTHER||||||>|0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured at endotracheal intubation among the group I and group C.||||>0.33
91655301|NCT02566135|183203546|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 3 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.63
91655302|NCT02566135|183203546|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 5 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.29
91655303|NCT02566135|183203546|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 7 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.18
91655304|NCT02566135|183203546|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 10 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.98
91710958|NCT03373461|183314358|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.765|1.699||||||||1.699|0.765|
91852252|NCT01499134|183587626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.476
91852253|NCT01499134|183587627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.170
91852254|NCT01499134|183587628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.595
91863962|NCT05622812|183616666|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|99.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|100.0||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 3||100.0|97.1|<0.001
91863963|NCT05622812|183616666|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.9|98.2||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 6||98.2|76.9|<0.001
91655305|NCT02566135|183203546|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 15 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.49
91710959|NCT03373461|183314358|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.446|0.984||||||||0.984|0.446|
91655306|NCT02566135|183203547|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared at base line between group I and group C.||||0.24
91655307|NCT02566135|183203547|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following Dexmedetomidine injection between group I and group C.||||0.11
91655308|NCT02566135|183203547|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following induction os anaesthesia between group I and group C.||||0.07
91655309|NCT02566135|183203547|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following supraglottic airway insertion between group I and group C.||||0.85
91655310|NCT02566135|183203547|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following ventilating bougie insertion between group I and group C.||||0.055
91655311|NCT02566135|183203547|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared at ETT insertion time between group I and group C.||||0.71
91655312|NCT02566135|183203547|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 3 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.20
91655313|NCT02566135|183203547|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 5 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.86
91655314|NCT02566135|183203547|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 7 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.68
91655315|NCT02566135|183203547|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 10 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.98
91655316|NCT02566135|183203547|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 15 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.49
91655317|NCT02566135|183203548|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared at base line between group I and group C.||||0.34
91655318|NCT02566135|183203548|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following Dexmedetomidine injection between group I and group C.||||0.27
91655319|NCT02566135|183203548|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following induction of anaesrthesia between group I and group C.||||0.22
91710960|NCT03373461|183314358|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.501|0.995||||||||0.995|0.501|
91710961|NCT03373461|183314358|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.52|1.107||||||||1.107|0.520|
91710962|NCT03020550|183314369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline GERD symptom severity.||The outcome measure was calculated using a general linear model with average daily post GERD symptom severity as the dependent variable with the following independent variables: baseline average GERD symptom severity and change in GSR (galvanic skin response). No term for visit type assignment was included in the model.||||0.034
91710963|NCT03020550|183314370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline GERD symptom severity||The outcome measure was calculated using a general linear model with average daily post GERD symptom severity as the dependent variable with the following independent variables: baseline average GERD symptom severity and change in RMSSD (high frequency HRV). No term for visit type assignment was included in the model.||||0.56
91710964|NCT03020550|183314371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||The outcome measure was calculated using a Pearson correlation to compare the session index representing the amount of concordance in GSR between patient and physician and the percent change in patients' GERD symptoms. Visit type assignment was not included in the analysis.||||0.80
91710965|NCT02861664|183314400|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.4||From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-0.4|-0.8|<.0001
91710966|NCT01000974|183314424|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Test Hib to Control Hib, each co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV, 13Pn and HRV vaccines, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of anti-PRP antibody concentration ≥ 1.0 μg/mL.|difference in percentage|-8.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|-4.07|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 μg/mL||-4.07|-12.28|
91710967|NCT01000974|183314424|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Test Hib to Control Hib, each co-administered with DTPa-HBVIPV, 13Pn and HRV vaccines, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of anti-PRP antibody concentrations ≥ 0.15 μg/mL.|Difference in percentage|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.82|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-PRP concentration≥ 0.15 μg/mL||2.82|-1.98|
91710968|NCT01000974|183314425|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to diphtheria (Anti-D).|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.81|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-D antibody concentrations||1.81|-1.26|
91710969|NCT01000974|183314425|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to tetanus (Anti-T).|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.8|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-T antibody concentrations||1.8|-1.26|
91710970|NCT01000974|183314427|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to pertussis toxoid \[PT\].|GMC ratio|1.017|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.918|1.127|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority GMC ratio anti-PT||1.127|0.918|
91710971|NCT01000974|183314427|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to filamentous hemagglutinin \[FHA\].|GMC ratio|1.088|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.983|1.204|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority GMC ratio anti-FHA||1.204|0.983|
91710972|NCT01000974|183314427|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to pertactin \[PRN\]|GMC ratio|1.193|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.03|1.382|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority GMC ratio anti-PRN||1.382|1.03|
91710973|NCT01000974|183314428|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs|GMC ratio|1.006|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.873|1.159|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 1 concentrations||1.159|0.873|
91710974|NCT01000974|183314428|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.921|1.192|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 3 concentrations||1.192|0.921|
91710975|NCT01000974|183314428|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.886|1.13|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 4 concentrations||1.13|0.886|
91710976|NCT01000974|183314428|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.874|1.19|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 5 concentrations||1.19|0.874|
91710977|NCT01000974|183314428|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs|GMC ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.894|1.188|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 6A concentrations||1.188|0.894|
91710978|NCT01000974|183314428|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs|GMC ratio|1.072|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.871|1.32|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 6B concentrations||1.32|0.871|
91710979|NCT01000974|183314428|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.098|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.964|1.251|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 7F concentrations||1.251|0.964|
91710980|NCT01000974|183314428|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.89|1.204|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 9V concentrations||1.204|0.89|
91710981|NCT01000974|183314428|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.929|1.294|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 14 concentrations||1.294|0.929|
91710982|NCT01000974|183314428|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.207|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 18C concentrations||1.207|0.9|
91710983|NCT01000974|183314428|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.859|1.167|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 19A concentrations||1.167|0.859|
91710984|NCT01000974|183314428|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.855|1.098|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 19F concentrations||1.098|0.855|
91710985|NCT01000974|183314428|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.862|1.232|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 23F concentrations||1.232|0.862|
91710986|NCT01000974|183314429|OTHER|To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to FHA in subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV coadministered with Test Hib,13Pn \& HRV vaccines compared to subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn \&HRV vaccines,following 3 primary vaccine doses where seroresponse wasdefined as percentage of subjects showing aconcentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in control|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|P-value is computed by integrating on the p-values of one-sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in the control group||Difference in seroresponse Anti-FHA||||<0.0001
91710987|NCT01000974|183314429|OTHER|To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PT in subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV coadministered with Test Hib,13Pn \& HRV vaccines compared to subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn \&HRV vaccines,following 3 primary vaccine doses where seroresponse wasdefined as percentage of subjects showing aconcentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in control|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is computed by integrating on the p-values of one-sided test with alpha=0.025 and the posterior probability of the cut-off in the control group|t-test, 1 sided|||Difference in seroresponse Anti-PT||||<0.0001
91710988|NCT01000974|183314429|OTHER|To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PRN in subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV coadministered with Test Hib,13Pn \& HRV vaccines compared to subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn \&HRV vaccines,following 3 primary vaccine doses where seroresponse wasdefined as percentage of subjects showing aconcentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in control|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is computed by integrating on the p-values of one-sided test with alpha=0.025 and the posterior probability of the cut-off in the control group|t-test, 1 sided|||Difference in seroresponse Anti-PRN||||<0.0001
91710989|NCT01000974|183314430|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to poliovirus 1.|Difference in percentage|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.24|0.87|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Polio 1 concentrations||0.87|-2.24|
91863964|NCT05622812|183616666|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|80.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.6|92.4||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 9||92.4|68.6|<0.001
91863965|NCT05622812|183616666|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|73.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.9|85.5||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 12||85.5|61.9|<0.001
91710990|NCT01000974|183314430|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to poliovirus 2.|Difference in percentage|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.45|2.91|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Polio 2 concentration||2.91|-1.45|
91710991|NCT01000974|183314430|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to poliovirus 3.|Difference in percentage|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.2|0.88|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Polio 3 concentration||0.88|-2.2|
91710992|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071225
91710993|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092027
91710994|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.601716
91710995|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.639911
91710996|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.842476
91710997|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999941|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999941
91710998|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.883479
91710999|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.782208
91711000|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.607134
91711001|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.939549
91711002|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86475
91711003|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704759
91711004|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999989|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999989
91711005|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997568
91711006|NCT03365934|183314469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999518
91711007|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.985332
91711008|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91711009|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.870459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.870459
91711010|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004963|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004963
91711011|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071935
91711012|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988995
91711013|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.545378
91711014|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000649
91711015|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014600
91711016|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854566|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.854566
91711017|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004322|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004322
91711018|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0651
91711019|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.300536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300536
91711020|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.753883
91711021|NCT03365934|183314470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97621|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97621
91711022|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027774
91711023|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08431|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08431
91711024|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049247|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049247
91711025|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000126|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000126
91711026|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.010829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010829
91711027|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711028|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711029|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91655320|NCT02566135|183203548|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following supraglottic airway insertion between group I and group C.||||0.96
91655321|NCT02566135|183203548|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following ventilating bougie insertion between group I and group C.||||0.71
91655322|NCT02566135|183203548|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared the time of endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.55
91655323|NCT02566135|183203548|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 3 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.49
91655324|NCT02566135|183203548|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 5 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.49
91655325|NCT02566135|183203548|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 7 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.76
91655326|NCT02566135|183203548|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 10 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.69
91655327|NCT02566135|183203548|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 15 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.81
91655328|NCT02566135|183203549|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We had compared time of insertion for supraglottic airway between group I and group C.||||<0.0001
91655329|NCT02566135|183203550|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91655330|NCT00865709|183203551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.231||1-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test, stratified by factors of # metastatic sites and liver metastasis determined by Principal Investigator|Log Rank||The relative risk (sorafenib to placebo) was estimated by the hazard ratio from stratified Cox regression with a 95% confidence interval.|A sample size of 120 PFS events would provide a \> 85% power at a target HR = 0.65 between sorafenib and matching placebo, with a 1-sided alpha = 0.10, for testing the null hypothesis H0: HR ≥ 1 versus the alternative hypothesis H1: HR \< 1 based on the log-rank test. The test was conducted using the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, defined as all subjects who were randomized to treatment.||1.231|0.635|0.2309
91655331|NCT00865709|183203553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.174||1-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test, stratified by factors of # metastatic sites and liver metastasis determined by Principal Investigator|Log Rank||The relative risk (sorafenib to placebo) was estimated by the hazard ratio from stratified Cox regression with a 95% confidence interval.|A sample size of 120 PDs would provide a \> 85% power at a target HR = 0.65 between sorafenib and matching placebo, with a 1-sided alpha = 0.10, for testing H0: HR ≥ 1 versus H1: HR \< 1 based on the log-rank test. The test was conducted using the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (all subjects who were randomized).||1.174|0.586|0.1437
91655332|NCT00865709|183203554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||1-sided p-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for the stratification factors of # metastatic sites and liver metastasis determined by Principal Investigator|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of subjects achieving overall response (CR or PR), when confirmation of response was not required, was estimated with a 95% confidence interval for each treatment group. The treatment groups were compared with respect to overall response rate using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for the stratification factors.||||0.023
91655333|NCT00429923|183203556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0014
91655334|NCT03740165|183203586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||0.83|0.53|0.0002
91655335|NCT03740165|183203586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.19|0.77|0.3339
91655336|NCT03740165|183203587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.84||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||0.84|0.61|<0.0001
91655337|NCT03740165|183203587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.18|0.87|0.5527
91655338|NCT03740165|183203588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.27|0.75|0.4314
91711030|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91655339|NCT03740165|183203588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.22||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.22|0.72|0.3107
91655340|NCT03740165|183203589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.25|0.87|0.6716
91655341|NCT03740165|183203589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.27|0.89|0.7448
91655342|NCT03740165|183203590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.86||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||0.86|0.50|0.0012
91655343|NCT03740165|183203590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.27|0.75|0.4366
91655344|NCT03740165|183203591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.89||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||0.89|0.61|0.0008
91655345|NCT03740165|183203591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.27|0.88|0.7174
91655346|NCT03740165|183203592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.00|0.62|0.0228
91655347|NCT03740165|183203592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.22||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.22|0.77|0.3935
91711031|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999533
91655348|NCT03740165|183203593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.03|0.74|0.0573
91655349|NCT03740165|183203593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.23|0.89|0.7234
91711032|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4205363|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4205363
91711033|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9802252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9802252
91711034|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6845362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6845362
91711035|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9992002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9992002
91711036|NCT03365934|183314471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8562779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8562779
91711037|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0403539
91711038|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2953049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2953049
91711039|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.290551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.290551
91711040|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY|||||||2.47e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000247
91711041|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0133001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0133001
91711042|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.67e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000167
91711043|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY|||||||2.12e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000212
91655350|NCT03740165|183203594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|0.26||||0.8481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||2.97|-2.44|0.8481
91655351|NCT03740165|183203594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.1||||0.4335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|1.66|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||1.66|-3.87|0.4335
91711044|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711045|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711046|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99999995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99999995
91655352|NCT03740165|183203595|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|0.14||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||2.44|-2.15|0.9024
91711047|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0792013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0792013
91711048|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.870163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.870163
91711049|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103828|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.103828
91711050|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.900265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.900265
91711051|NCT03365934|183314472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.570015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.570015
91711052|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882449
91711053|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088558
91711054|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081846|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.081846
91711055|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711056|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.03e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000303
91711057|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001817|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001817
91711058|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001825|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001825
91711059|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711060|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711061|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999999
91711062|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038836|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038836
91711063|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.184508
91711064|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062829
91655353|NCT03740165|183203595|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|-0.08||||0.9478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.31|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||2.31|-2.47|0.9478
91655354|NCT03740165|183203596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by surgery (planned interval debulking versus R0 following primary debulking versus R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (yes versus no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10)|||1.17|0.73|0.2644
91655355|NCT03740165|183203596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by surgery (planned interval debulking versus R0 following primary debulking versus R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (yes versus no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10)|||1.14|0.71|0.1953
91655356|NCT03740165|183203597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.3||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.30|0.77|0.5188
91655357|NCT03740165|183203597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.3||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.30|0.77|0.5091
91655358|NCT03740165|183203598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||0.79|0.51|<0.0001
91655359|NCT03740165|183203598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.08|0.70|0.0981
91711065|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.253458
91655360|NCT03740165|183203599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.8||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||0.80|0.59|<0.0001
91655361|NCT03740165|183203599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.06|0.79|0.1206
91655362|NCT03740165|183203600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0316||95.0|0.63|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.01|0.63|0.0316
91655363|NCT03740165|183203600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4441||95.0|0.78|1.24||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.24|0.78|0.4441
91711066|NCT03365934|183314473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987798|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987798
91711067|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516068
91711068|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.358412
91711069|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.834145
91711070|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.5e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000035
91711071|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000843|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000843
91711072|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002997|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002997
91711073|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051717
91711074|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711075|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91655364|NCT03740165|183203601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0853||95.0|0.76|1.05||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.05|0.76|0.0853
91655365|NCT03740165|183203601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7165||95.0|0.89|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.23|0.89|0.7165
91655366|NCT03740165|183203602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.08|0.71|0.1029
91711076|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.985602
91655367|NCT03740165|183203602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.36|0.90|0.8231
91711077|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046422|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046422
91711078|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28061
91655368|NCT03740165|183203603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0442||95.0|0.76|1.02||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.02|0.76|0.0442
91655369|NCT03740165|183203603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.9565||95.0|0.98|1.31||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.31|0.98|0.9565
91794333|NCT00591578|183467638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.1||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.10|1.02|0.041
91711079|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011015
91711080|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089156
91711081|NCT03365934|183314474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.963882
91711082|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00526
91655370|NCT03740165|183203604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.4||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.5||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|t-test, 1 sided||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||11.5|-1.9|0.0644
91711083|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91711084|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.914409
91711085|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013004
91711086|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028517|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028517
91711087|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001356|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001356
91711088|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY|||||||5.9e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000059
91711089|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711090|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711091|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859272|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.859272
91711092|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002821|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002821
91711093|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007492|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007492
91711094|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208803
91711095|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341884|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.341884
91711096|NCT03365934|183314475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999531|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999531
91711097|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066788
91711098|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.942653
91711099|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.893545
91711100|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.165225
91711101|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.140475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140475
91711102|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002026
91711103|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001916
91711104|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711105|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711106|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999957
91711107|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672573
91711108|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.630145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.630145
91711109|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832757
91711110|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803277|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.803277
91711111|NCT03365934|183314476|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91711112|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.943522
91711113|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002376
91711114|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711115|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711116|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711117|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.061015
91711118|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000211
91711119|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711120|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711121|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412626|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.412626
91711122|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.104388
91711123|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.197791
91711124|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994413|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.994413
91711125|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
91655371|NCT03740165|183203605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.7||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|t-test, 1 sided||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by bevacizumab use (Yes vs No) and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||7.3|-0.3|0.0318
91655372|NCT03049618|183203613|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91655373|NCT03049618|183203614|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91655374|NCT03049618|183203615|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.057
91655375|NCT03049618|183203616|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91655376|NCT03049618|183203618|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
91655377|NCT03049618|183203619|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
91655378|NCT03049618|183203620|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
91655379|NCT03049618|183203621|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.47
91655380|NCT03049618|183203623|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
91655381|NCT03049618|183203624|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
91655382|NCT03049618|183203625|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
91655383|NCT03049618|183203626|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.96
91655384|NCT01055223|183203628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.78|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.78|1.13|
91655385|NCT01055223|183203628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.52|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.52|0.93|
91655386|NCT01055223|183203628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.98|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||2.98|0.78|
91655387|NCT01055223|183203628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.89|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||2.89|0.74|
91655388|NCT01055223|183203628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.14|||||Undadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference Group: TZD alone.|||22.14|0.18|
91655389|NCT01055223|183203628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|15.5|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||15.50|0.12|
91655390|NCT01055223|183203629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.89|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.89|1.05|
91655391|NCT01055223|183203629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.65|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.65|0.88|
91655392|NCT01055223|183203629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.6|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||3.60|0.69|
91655393|NCT01055223|183203629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.81|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||3.81|0.70|
91655394|NCT01055223|183203629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
91655395|NCT01055223|183203629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
91655396|NCT01055223|183203630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.79|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference Group: TZD alone.|||1.79|0.92|
91655397|NCT01055223|183203630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.45|0.71|
91655398|NCT01055223|183203630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.90|0.10|
91655399|NCT01055223|183203630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.54|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.54|0.08|
91655400|NCT01055223|183203630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|21.93|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||21.93|0.18|
91655401|NCT01055223|183203630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|12.36|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||12.36|0.09|
91711126|NCT03365934|183314477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999621|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999621
91711127|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193667
91711128|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526573
91711129|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898749|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.898749
91711130|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.975044
91711131|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.760706|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.760706
91711132|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.985237
91711133|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837995
91711134|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592697|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.592697
91711135|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.912495
91711136|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99245
91711137|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925553|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.925553
91655402|NCT01055223|183203631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.88|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.88|0.80|
91655403|NCT01055223|183203631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.57|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.57|0.62|
91711138|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999171
91711139|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999324
91711140|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999913|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999913
91711141|NCT03365934|183314478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.990516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.990516
91711142|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92106
91711143|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.976812|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.976812
91655404|NCT01055223|183203631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
91655405|NCT01055223|183203631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
91655406|NCT01055223|183203631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
91711144|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.233992
91711145|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007591
91711146|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038958
91711147|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99809|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99809
91711148|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773028
91711149|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135805
91711150|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.350556|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350556
91711151|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61046
91711152|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062163
91711153|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.203418
91711154|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942304|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.942304
91711155|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995238
91711156|NCT03365934|183314479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99858
91711157|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998949|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998949
91711158|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111084
91711159|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456846|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.456846
91711160|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00062
91711161|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006871|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006871
91711162|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039407|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039407
91711163|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245375|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.245375
91711164|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000113
91711165|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001612
91711166|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988067
91711167|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.599171
91711168|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928722|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.928722
91711169|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.256079
91711170|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626498|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.626498
91711171|NCT03365934|183314480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988693
91711172|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99916
91711173|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016246
91711174|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.289112
91711175|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.8e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000038
91711176|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014558
91711177|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03731|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03731
91711178|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.465745
91711179|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000112
91711180|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034575|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034575
91711181|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.889597
91711182|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726932|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.726932
91711183|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999998
91711184|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.130235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.130235
91711185|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.910989|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.910989
91711186|NCT03365934|183314481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.616933
91711187|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999952|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999952
91711188|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421347
91711189|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.598141
91711190|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000197
91711191|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000115
91711192|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.511155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.511155
91711193|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693868
91791315|NCT00492063|183460306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in the elderly population.||5|-6|
91711194|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000232|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000232
91711195|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000133
91711196|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999894
91863966|NCT05622812|183616667|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|93.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.2|98.0||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 3||98.0|88.2|<0.001
91655407|NCT01055223|183203631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates|||0.00|0.00|
91655408|NCT01055223|183203632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|19.45|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||19.45|1.53|
91655409|NCT01055223|183203632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|15.86|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||15.86|0.64|
91655410|NCT01055223|183203632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
91655411|NCT01055223|183203632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
91655412|NCT01055223|183203632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
91655413|NCT01055223|183203632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
91655414|NCT01055223|183203633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|80.35|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||80.35|0.66|
91655415|NCT01055223|183203633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|96.47|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosponates.|||96.47|0.03|
91655416|NCT01055223|183203633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference Group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
91655417|NCT01055223|183203633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
91655418|NCT01055223|183203633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
91655419|NCT01055223|183203633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
91655420|NCT03387033|183203635|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.005
91655421|NCT03387033|183203636|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.05
91655422|NCT03387033|183203637|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.05
91655423|NCT00076102|183203678|OTHER|||||||0.0301||||||The reported F statistic and p-value are representative of the difference in the Parent proxy Form and the Child Self-Report Form response for Adaptive Behavior.|ANOVA|||F=5.45 under the null hypothesis||||0.0301
91655424|NCT00076102|183203678|OTHER|||||||0.0186||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in the Parent proxy Form and the Child Self-Report Form response for Emotional Functioning.|ANOVA|||F = 6.56 under the null hypothesis||||0.0186
91655425|NCT00076102|183203678|OTHER|||||||0.0032||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in the Parent proxy Form and the Child Self-Report Form response for Medical/Physical Status.|ANOVA|||F=11.23 under the null hypothesis||||0.0032
91655426|NCT00076102|183203679|OTHER|||||||0.6263|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.25 under the null hypothesis||||0.6263
91655427|NCT00076102|183203679|OTHER|||||||0.3625|||||||ANOVA|||F= 0.87 under the null hypothesis||||0.3625
91655428|NCT00076102|183203679|OTHER|||||||0.5877|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.31 under the null hypothesis||||0.5877
91655429|NCT00076102|183203679|OTHER|||||||0.2767|||||||ANOVA|||F=1.27 under the null hypothesis||||0.2767
91655430|NCT00076102|183203679|OTHER|||||||0.8466|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.04 under the null hypothesis||||0.8466
91655431|NCT00076102|183203679|OTHER|||||||0.6774|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.18 under the null hypothesis||||0.6774
91655432|NCT00414466|183203699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided.|Williams test for minimum effective dose|||Williams' test for Minimum Effective Dose was used to compare each active group to the placebo.||||0.802
91655433|NCT00414466|183203699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided.|Williams test for minimum effective dose|||Williams' test for Minimum Effective Dose was used to compare each active group to the placebo.||||0.874
91711197|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078046
91711198|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054975|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054975
91655434|NCT00414466|183203699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided.|Williams test for minimum effective dose|||Williams' test for Minimum Effective Dose was used to compare each active group to the placebo.||||0.899
91655435|NCT00414466|183203700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91655436|NCT00414466|183203700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91655437|NCT00414466|183203700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91655438|NCT00414466|183203701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.083
91655439|NCT00414466|183203701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91655440|NCT00414466|183203701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
91655441|NCT05920161|183203702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.023
91655442|NCT05920161|183203702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.068
91655443|NCT05920161|183203703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within-group A - B (null \>0)||||0.281
91655444|NCT05920161|183203703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within-group A - B (null \>0)||||0.645
91655445|NCT05920161|183203703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison||||0.245
91655446|NCT05920161|183203704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.143
91655447|NCT05920161|183203704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||above chance 0.5|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.797
91655448|NCT05920161|183203704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
91655449|NCT05920161|183203705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A condition||||<0.0001
91655450|NCT05920161|183203705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||B condition||||<0.0001
91655451|NCT05920161|183203705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||X condition||||<0.0001
91655452|NCT05920161|183203706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.000
91655453|NCT05920161|183203706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0008
91655454|NCT05920161|183203707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.083
91655455|NCT05920161|183203707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.088
91655456|NCT02016300|183203715|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.162
91655457|NCT02016300|183203715|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.094
91655458|NCT02016300|183203715|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.043
91655459|NCT02016300|183203716|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.387
91655460|NCT02016300|183203716|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.340
91655461|NCT02016300|183203716|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.179
91655462|NCT02016300|183203717|OTHER|||||||0.729|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.729
91655463|NCT02016300|183203717|OTHER|||||||0.958|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.958
91655464|NCT02016300|183203717|OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.634
91655465|NCT02016300|183203718|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.733
91655466|NCT02016300|183203718|OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.666
91655467|NCT02016300|183203718|OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.854
91655468|NCT02016300|183203719|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.774
91655469|NCT02016300|183203719|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.414
91655470|NCT02016300|183203720|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.064
91655471|NCT02016300|183203720|OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.276
91655472|NCT02016300|183203721|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.020
91655473|NCT02016300|183203721|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.091
91711199|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.050132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050132
91711200|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034793
91711201|NCT03365934|183314482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999993
91711202|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997406
91711203|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.354187
91655474|NCT00655642|183203722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the aforementioned values, we calculated a sample size for each treatment arm of 131 patients. We increased this sample estimate to 150 per treatment arm (total of 600 patients) to account for anticipated study attrition. Based on an unplanned interim conditional power futility analysis done at 30% information fraction, the decision was made to end the trial early.The futility analysis found the observed differences were far less than what was deemed clinically important.|Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0||0.16||||||Being aware of the multiple comparison issues, we deliberately chose the 0.01 alpha level following a Bonferroni type of correction so that the overall type I error rate is about 0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|We computed the effect of the 3 treatments relative to ondansetron.|Change in VAS score was calculated as (VAS 30 min - VAS baseline). We calculated the differences in median VAS reductions for each arm relative to ondansetron.|The null hypothesis is that ondanestron is not more effective in reducing nausea than metoclopramide, promethazine or isotonic normal saline. The sample size was chosen to detect a 12-mm difference in VAS improvement between ondanestron and any other treatment arm (assuming a SD of 25mm) at 90% power and 0.01 alpha significance level. We chose the 0.01 alpha level following a Bonferroni type of correction so that the overall type I error rate is about 0.05.||||0.16
91655475|NCT01546987|183203732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.48||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT|Revised protocol due to early accrual closure (September 2014) computes that seventy events with five years of additional follow-up after early accrual closure provides 70% power (at one-sided alpha = 0.05) to detect a 40% reduction in the assumed rate control arm rate of is 0.08/year.||1.48|0.47|0.55
91655476|NCT01546987|183203733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.31||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT|Revised protocol due to early accrual closure (September 2014) computes that 5-year survival of 78% and annual hazard rate of 0.055 for ADT + RT arm, with five years of additional follow-up after early accrual closure provides 28% power (at two-sided alpha = 0.05) to detect a 33% reduction in failure rate.||1.31|0.38|0.27
91655477|NCT01546987|183203734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.4|||Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT arm|||3.40|1.54|<0.001
91711204|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.883222
91711205|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000412
91711206|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000332
91655478|NCT01546987|183203735|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.13|||Log Rank|||||3.13|0.33|0.99
91655479|NCT01546987|183203736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.75||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT arm|Revised protocol due to early accrual closure (September 2014) computes that 5-year survival of 78% and annual hazard rate of 0.02 for ADT + RT arm, with five years of additional follow-up after early accrual closure provides 32% power (at two-sided alpha = 0.05) to detect a 50% reduction in failure rate.||1.75|0.29|0.48
91711207|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.626878
91655480|NCT01546987|183203737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.63||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT|||1.63|0.45|0.65
91711208|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984465|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.984465
91711209|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001845|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001845
91711210|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001507
91711211|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.970029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.970029
91711212|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19886
91711213|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.177549
91711214|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041698
91711215|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036131
91711216|NCT03365934|183314483|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91711217|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91711218|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.317315
91711219|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.829352
91711220|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.010561|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010561
91711221|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001099
91711222|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.175148
91711223|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728796|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.728796
91711224|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001992
91711225|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000113
91711226|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974567
91711227|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.668933
91711228|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.239446
91711229|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283848|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.283848
91711230|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06829
91711231|NCT03365934|183314484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.979516
91711232|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.996522
91711233|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.875832
91711234|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
91711235|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038527
91711236|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018334
91711237|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512209
91711238|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665529|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.665529
91711239|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002257|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002257
91711240|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000728|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000728
91711241|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999993
91711242|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.417914
91655481|NCT01546987|183203739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.76
91655482|NCT01546987|183203740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Bowel domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.44
91655483|NCT01546987|183203740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Urinary domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.13
91655484|NCT01546987|183203740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Sexual domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.50
91655485|NCT01546987|183203740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Hormonal domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.96
91655486|NCT01546987|183203751|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.89|||Log Rank||Reference arm = ADT + RT arm|||0.89|0.29|0.0104
91655487|NCT02270736|183203753|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.03|||MMRM|||Least square mean (LS-Mean) is from a mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) analysis with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline uSFR score as covariate.||-0.03|-0.1|= 0.0012
91711243|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.277469
91711244|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385419|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385419
91711245|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257647
91711246|NCT03365934|183314485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999897
91711247|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.862516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.862516
91711248|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00473
91711249|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.085238
91711250|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711251|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711252|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.168409
91711253|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652654
91711254|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001436
91711255|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000235
91711256|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974842|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974842
91655488|NCT02270736|183203754|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.53|||MMRM|||LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis model with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline Modified Teacher Drooling Scale (mTDS) score as covariate.||0.53|0.02|= 0.032
91863967|NCT05622812|183616667|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.4|94.3||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 6||94.3|81.4|<0.001
91711257|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557877|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.557877
91711258|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.277244
91863968|NCT05622812|183616667|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|80.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|88.1||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|||88.1|72.7|<0.001
91863969|NCT05622812|183616667|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|71.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|80.3||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 12||80.3|62.8|<0.001
91904143|NCT04667377|183703253|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-11.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|-7.66||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-7.66|-14.39|<.0001
91655489|NCT02270736|183203756|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.05|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 8: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline uSFR score as covariate.||-0.05|-0.12|<0.0001
91655490|NCT02270736|183203756|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.06|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 12: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline uSFR score as covariate.||-0.06|-0.14|<0.0001
91655491|NCT02270736|183203757|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.63|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 8: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis model with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline mTDS score as covariate.||0.63|0.17|=0.0008
91655492|NCT02270736|183203757|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|=|0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.66|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 12: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis model with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline mTDS score as covariate.||0.66|0.14|=0.0026
91655493|NCT00262600|183203762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.74|1.1||p-value for protocol specified margin of 1.46|Regression, Cox|||Non-inferiority comparison of dabigatran 110 mg to warfarin||1.10|0.74|<.0001
91655494|NCT00262600|183203762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.52|0.81||p-value for protocol specified margin of 1.46|Regression, Cox|||Non-inferiority comparison of dabigatran 150 mg to warfarin||0.81|0.52|<.0001
91655495|NCT00262600|183203763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.2206||95.0|0.83|1.04||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||1.04|0.83|0.2206
91655496|NCT00262600|183203763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83||||0.0015||95.0|0.74|0.93||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||0.93|0.74|0.0015
91655497|NCT00262600|183203764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.7508||95.0|0.87|1.11||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||1.11|0.87|0.7508
91655498|NCT00262600|183203764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.0093||95.0|0.74|0.96||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||0.96|0.74|0.0093
91655499|NCT00262600|183203765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.0026||95.0|0.7|0.93||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis is for adjudicated major bleeds||0.93|0.70|0.0026
91655500|NCT00262600|183203765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.3146||95.0|0.81|1.07||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis is for adjudicated major bleeds||1.07|0.81|0.3146
91655501|NCT00262600|183203766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.19|0.45||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis of ICH||0.45|0.19|<0.0001
91655502|NCT00262600|183203766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.28|0.6||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis of ICH||0.60|0.28|<0.0001
91655503|NCT04908748|183203780|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-26.0|||ANCOVA|||||-26.0|-32.2|< 0.0001
91655504|NCT00721409|183203862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.488||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|0.748||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by stratification factors per randomization and Part.|Log Rank|||The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ=1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus letrozole:letrozole alone hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole. Stratified analysis was presented above.||0.748|0.319|0.0004
91655505|NCT00721409|183203862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.572||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ=1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus letrozole:letrozole alone hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole. Unstratified analysis was presented above.||0.572|0.156|<0.0001
91655506|NCT00721409|183203862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.508||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.853||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ=1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus letrozole:letrozole alone hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole. Unstratified analysis was presented above.||0.853|0.303|0.0046
91711259|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.195527
91711260|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.070843|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.070843
91711261|NCT03365934|183314486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997565|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997565
91711262|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016628|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016628
91711263|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217862|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.217862
91863970|NCT03916185|183616668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|32.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||32|-32|>0.99
91863971|NCT03916185|183616668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-15.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|18.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||18|-46|0.53
91711264|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.812915
91711265|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999971
91711266|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275557|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.275557
91711267|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.870124|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.870124
91711268|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.380144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.380144
91711269|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029518
91711270|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.815476
91711271|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944307
91711272|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313389|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.313389
91711273|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999996
91711274|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894272|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.894272
91711275|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.969093
91711276|NCT03365934|183314487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383434
91711277|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.393119
91711278|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.890335|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890335
91711279|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021978|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021978
91711280|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000983|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000983
91711281|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006615
91711282|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.951883
91863972|NCT03916185|183616668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|16.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|52.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||52|-29|0.66
91863973|NCT03916185|183616669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|20.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||20|-20|>0.99
91863974|NCT03916185|183616669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|13.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||13|-25|>0.99
91863975|NCT03916185|183616669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|34.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||34|-26|>0.99
91863976|NCT03916185|183616670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|18.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||18|-18|>0.99
91863977|NCT03916185|183616670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|18.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||18|-18|>0.99
91863978|NCT03916185|183616670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|41.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||41|-17|>0.99
91863979|NCT03916185|183616671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|83.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||83|27|<0.001
91863980|NCT03916185|183616671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|79.0|||Fisher Exact|Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||79|22|<0.001
91863981|NCT03916185|183616671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|56.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|86.0|||Fisher Exact|Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||86|9|0.011
91863982|NCT03916185|183616671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|6.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|36.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine.|||36|-25|>0.99
91863983|NCT03916185|183616671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|5.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|48.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||48|-31|>0.99
91863984|NCT03916185|183616671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|44.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||44|-38|>0.99
91863985|NCT03916185|183616672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|91.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||91|44|<0.001
91711283|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.692455
91711284|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257254|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257254
91711285|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.530181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.530181
91711286|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.219274
91711287|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029675|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029675
91711288|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111454
91852255|NCT03557658|183587656|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|106.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.34|144.02|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for total bexagliflozin by hepatic function group.||144.02|78.34|
91655507|NCT00721409|183203875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.294||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by Part (α = 0.10).|Log Rank|||Stratified analysis was presented above. Hazard ratio was assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of palbociclib + letrozole.||1.294|0.623|0.2812
91655508|NCT00721409|183203875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837||||0.2803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.527||1-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above.||1.527|0.458|0.2803
91655509|NCT00721409|183203875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.48||1-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above.||1.480|0.590|0.3875
91711289|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995849|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995849
91711290|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999994|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999994
91711291|NCT03365934|183314488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998744|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998744
91711292|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999858
91711293|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.215132
91711294|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958812|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.958812
91711295|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00622|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00622
91711296|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017733
91711297|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.330576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.330576
91711298|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.990334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.990334
91711299|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013025
91711300|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034707|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034707
91711301|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.771698
91711302|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.790117|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.790117
91711303|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.923224
91711304|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112245
91711305|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216229|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.216229
91711306|NCT03365934|183314489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999663
91711307|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91874|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91874
91711308|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013582|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013582
91711309|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.523284
91711310|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000315
91711311|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059485
91711312|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15037
91711313|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967277|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.967277
91711314|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008729|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008729
91711315|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421603
91711316|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647267
91711317|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.953645
91711318|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987387
91711319|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147361|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.147361
91711320|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.930371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.930371
91711321|NCT03365934|183314490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6094
91711322|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99253|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99253
91711323|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795279|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795279
91711324|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.855067
91711325|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003915
91711326|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000221
91711327|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97816
91711328|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98972
91711329|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01764
91711330|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001185|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001185
91711331|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999999
91711332|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119961|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.119961
91852256|NCT03557658|183587656|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.00 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|110.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.34|163.06|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for unbound bexagliflozin by hepatic function group||163.06|75.34|
91863986|NCT03916185|183616672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|83.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||83|27|<0.001
91711333|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013468
91711334|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112192
91711335|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013135
91711336|NCT03365934|183314491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965966|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.965966
91711337|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968005
91711338|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526293
91711339|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.994384
91711340|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004967
91711341|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000948|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000948
91711342|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.936394
91711343|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999945|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999945
91711344|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.050032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050032
91711345|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01256
91711346|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886978|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.886978
91711347|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391295|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391295
91711348|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.163678
91711349|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047937|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047937
91711350|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013231|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013231
91711351|NCT03365934|183314492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.996358
91711352|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995862|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995862
91711353|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223341
91711354|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.834338
91711355|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.030267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030267
91711356|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00104
91711357|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377217|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.377217
91711358|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965547|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.965547
91711359|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052284
91711360|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001348
91711361|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.927936
91711362|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.946487
91711363|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.327918
91711364|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.475038
91711365|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.060057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060057
91711366|NCT03365934|183314493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.857177
91711367|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999997|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999997
91711368|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938793
91711369|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.965993
91711370|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.057803
91711371|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022816
91711372|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945179|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.945179
91711373|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.972522
91711374|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033704
91711375|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.010747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010747
91711376|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999999
91711377|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385474
91711378|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213798|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213798
91711379|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388682|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.388682
91711380|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22386
91711381|NCT03365934|183314494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999494
91711382|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891244
91711383|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022659|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022659
91711384|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693615
91711385|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000237
91711386|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000005
91711387|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.352008
91711388|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998761|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998761
91711389|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017832
91711390|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000974
91711391|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638238
91711392|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777423|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777423
91711393|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249909|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.249909
91711394|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068196
91711395|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005786
91711396|NCT03365934|183314495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954163
91711397|NCT03365934|183314497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1279|-1.8688|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||-1.8688|-13.1279|0.009
91711398|NCT03365934|183314497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7083|0.5508|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.5508|-10.7083|0.077
91655510|NCT00721409|183203876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.97||1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test (1-sided, α =0.10)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Objective Response CI was calculated using the exact Clopper-Pearson method. The stratified analysis presented above was based on CMH test stratified by Part. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib + letrozole arm.||2.97|0.76|0.1347
91655511|NCT00721409|183203876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.84||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||7.84|0.74|0.0849
91655512|NCT00721409|183203876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.76||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||2.76|0.48|0.4515
91655513|NCT00721409|183203877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.08||1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test (1-sided, α =0.10)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Objective Response CI was calculated using the exact Clopper-Pearson method. The stratified analysis presented above was based on CMH test stratified by Part. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib + letrozole arm.||4.08|0.91|0.0471
91655514|NCT00721409|183203877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|8.66||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||8.66|0.65|0.1180
91655515|NCT00721409|183203877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.54||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||4.54|0.65|0.1631
91655516|NCT00721409|183203879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.98||1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test (1-sided, α =0.10).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR CI was calculated using the exact Clopper-Pearson method. The stratified analysis presented above was based on CMH test stratified by Part. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib + letrozole arm.||6.98|1.48|0.0009
91655517|NCT00721409|183203879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|13.9||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||13.90|1.30|0.0065
91655518|NCT00721409|183203879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|7.7||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||7.70|0.89|0.0442
91655519|NCT00721409|183203880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.399|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|0.601||1-sided p-value is from the stratified log-rank test (α =0.10).|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was applied for median and 95% CI. Hazard ratio was based on assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of palbociclib + letrozole.||0.601|0.265|<0.0001
91655520|NCT00721409|183203880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.572||1-sided p-value is from unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Kaplan-Meier method was applied for median and 95% CI.||0.572|0.156|<0.0001
91655521|NCT00721409|183203880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.486||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.822||1-sided p-value is from unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Kaplan-Meier method was applied for median and 95% CI.||0.822|0.288|0.0030
91655522|NCT00721409|183203881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.0|-0.7|0.6900
91655523|NCT00721409|183203881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.2|-1.8|0.7125
91655524|NCT00721409|183203881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.5|-0.6|0.4012
91655525|NCT00721409|183203882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.3||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Interference Scale.||1.3|-0.5|0.3346
91655526|NCT00721409|183203882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Interference Scale.||1.9|-1.0|0.5630
91655527|NCT00721409|183203882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.6|-0.7|0.4427
91655528|NCT02483975|183203891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of each dose of fluticasone furoate 50 µg versus placebo was greater than 0.8.|Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.0505||||||||1.0505|0.8040|
91655529|NCT02483975|183203892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of each dose of fluticasone furoate 50 µg versus placebo was greater than 0.8.|Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8096|1.062||||||||1.0620|0.8096|
91655530|NCT02483975|183203893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.06||||||||1.06|0.81|
91655531|NCT02483975|183203894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03||||||||1.03|0.61|
91655532|NCT02483975|183203895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||||1.07|0.72|
91691890|NCT02667704|183278333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means in percentage|103.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.134|124.025|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (T/R) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale including treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect||124.025|86.134|
91711399|NCT03365934|183314497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0399|3.2192|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||3.2192|-8.0399|0.399
91655533|NCT00818883|183203896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-2.9||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.9|-8.3|<0.001
91655534|NCT00818883|183203896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-7.5|-2.5||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-2.5|-7.5|<0.001
91655535|NCT00818883|183203897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.2||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.2|-5.2|<0.001
91655536|NCT00818883|183203897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.3||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-1.3|-4.1|<0.001
91655537|NCT00818883|183203898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-4.2|-10.5|<0.001
91655538|NCT00818883|183203898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-1.7|-6.8|0.001
91655539|NCT00818883|183203899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-2.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.3|-6.3|<0.001
91655540|NCT00818883|183203899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-0.7|-4.2|0.006
91655541|NCT00818883|183203900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-3.2|-8.4|<0.001
91655542|NCT00818883|183203900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.0||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-2.0|-6.4|<0.001
91655543|NCT00818883|183203901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.1||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.1|-5.5|<0.001
91655544|NCT00818883|183203901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.1||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-1.1|-4.1|<0.001
91655545|NCT03879239|183203921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||Responder Rate on Weekly CSBM1 in the ITT (Intention to Treat) analysis set. (For details, refer to the primary outcome description).|Chi-squared|||||||0.0011
91655546|NCT03879239|183203921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||Responder Rate on Weekly CSBM2 in the ITT (Intention to Treat) analysis set. (For details, refer to the primary outcome description).|Chi-squared|||||||0.0085
91711400|NCT03365934|183314497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9144|6.3446|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||6.3446|-4.9144|0.802
91711401|NCT03365934|183314498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3738|-5.3723|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||-5.3723|-17.3738|<0.001
91711402|NCT03365934|183314498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6789|-6.6775|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||-6.6775|-18.6789|<0.001
91711403|NCT03365934|183314498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9571|4.0444|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||4.0444|-7.9571|0.521
91711404|NCT03365934|183314498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3925|14.394|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||14.3940|2.3925|0.006
91711405|NCT03365934|183314499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3967|-22.2538|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-22.2538|-41.3967|<0.001
91711406|NCT03365934|183314499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8727|-17.7298|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-17.7298|-36.8727|<0.001
91711407|NCT03365934|183314499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2784|-4.1355|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-4.1355|-23.2784|0.005
91711408|NCT03365934|183314499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4969|19.6398|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||19.6398|0.4969|0.039
91655547|NCT03179345|183203948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.016|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within Sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||-0.016|-0.266|0.0275
91711409|NCT03365934|183314500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0324|-29.7496|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-29.7496|-51.0324|<0.001
91711410|NCT03365934|183314500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4787|-27.1959|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-27.1959|-48.4787|<0.001
91711411|NCT03365934|183314500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6336|-10.3508|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-10.3508|-31.6336|<0.001
91711412|NCT03365934|183314500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8871|19.3957|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||19.3957|-1.8871|0.106
91711413|NCT03365934|183314501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3249|-22.4838|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-22.4838|-43.3249|<0.001
91711414|NCT03365934|183314501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7279|-16.8868|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-16.8868|-37.7279|<0.001
91655548|NCT03179345|183203948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.245|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.245|-0.006|0.0611
91655549|NCT03179345|183203949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.024|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.024|-0.227|0.1103
91711415|NCT03365934|183314501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1785|-8.3374|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-8.3374|-29.1785|<0.001
91711416|NCT03365934|183314501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6303|17.2107|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||17.2107|-3.6303|0.200
91711417|NCT03365934|183314502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5325|-22.265|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-22.2650|-39.5325|<0.001
91711418|NCT03365934|183314502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9669|-16.6993|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-16.6993|-33.9669|<0.001
91711419|NCT03365934|183314502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2588|-11.9912|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-11.9912|-29.2588|<0.001
91711420|NCT03365934|183314502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.362|12.9055|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||12.9055|-4.3620|0.330
91711421|NCT03365934|183314503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.368|-6.5419|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-6.5419|-21.3680|<0.001
91711422|NCT03365934|183314503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9563|-4.1302|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-4.1302|-18.9563|0.002
91711423|NCT03365934|183314503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4867|-2.6606|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-2.6606|-17.4867|0.008
91711424|NCT03365934|183314503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5447|14.2814|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||14.2814|-0.5447|0.069
91711425|NCT03365934|183314504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1631|3.6504|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||3.6504|-9.1631|0.397
91711426|NCT03365934|183314504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6006|7.2129|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||7.2129|-5.6006|0.804
91711427|NCT03365934|183314504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7231|-2.9096|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||-2.9096|-15.7231|0.005
91711428|NCT03365934|183314504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3452|6.4683|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||6.4683|-6.3452|0.985
91711429|NCT03365934|183314506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.0458|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.0458|-0.1290|0.348
91711430|NCT03365934|183314506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1904|-0.0178|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||-0.0178|-0.1904|0.019
91711431|NCT03365934|183314506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1437|0.0278|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.0278|-0.1437|0.183
91711432|NCT03365934|183314506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0725|0.1023|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.1023|-0.0725|0.736
91711433|NCT03365934|183314507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.0687|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||0.0687|-0.1360|0.516
91711434|NCT03365934|183314507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2459|-0.0412|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||-0.0412|-0.2459|0.006
91711435|NCT03365934|183314507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1235|0.0798|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||0.0798|-0.1235|0.671
91711436|NCT03365934|183314507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0504|0.2578|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||0.2578|0.0504|0.004
91711437|NCT03365934|183314508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1896|0.0579|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||0.0579|-0.1896|0.292
91711438|NCT03365934|183314508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2773|-0.0297|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-0.0297|-0.2773|0.016
91711439|NCT03365934|183314508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1622|0.0853|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||0.0853|-0.1622|0.538
91711440|NCT03365934|183314508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0059|0.2515|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||0.2515|-0.0059|0.061
91711441|NCT03365934|183314509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3265|-0.0895|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-0.0895|-0.3265|0.001
91711442|NCT03365934|183314509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3614|-0.1243|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-0.1243|-0.3614|<0.001
91711443|NCT03365934|183314509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1899|0.0471|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||0.0471|-0.1899|0.236
91711444|NCT03365934|183314509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0902|0.1492|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||0.1492|-0.0902|0.627
91711445|NCT03365934|183314510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3331|-0.1305|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-0.1305|-0.3331|<0.001
91711446|NCT03365934|183314510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3091|-0.1092|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-0.1092|-0.3091|<0.001
91711447|NCT03365934|183314510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2439|-0.0457|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-0.0457|-0.2439|0.005
91711448|NCT03365934|183314510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0197|0.2252|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||0.2252|0.0197|0.020
91711449|NCT03365934|183314511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4019|-0.2044|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-0.2044|-0.4019|<0.001
91711450|NCT03365934|183314511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3655|-0.1679|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-0.1679|-0.3655|<0.001
91711451|NCT03365934|183314511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3338|-0.1377|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-0.1377|-0.3338|<0.001
91711452|NCT03365934|183314511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0767|0.1231|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||0.1231|-0.0767|0.646
91711453|NCT03365934|183314512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2254|-0.0384|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-0.0384|-0.2254|0.006
91711454|NCT03365934|183314512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2444|-0.0574|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-0.0574|-0.2444|0.002
91711455|NCT03365934|183314512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2541|-0.0682|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-0.0682|-0.2541|0.001
91711456|NCT03365934|183314512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0891|0.0998|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||0.0998|-0.0891|0.911
91711457|NCT03365934|183314513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0818|0.0755|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||0.0755|-0.0818|0.937
91852257|NCT03557658|183587659|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.00 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|128.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.98|164.73|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for total bexagliflozin by hepatic function group||164.73|99.98|
91852258|NCT03557658|183587659|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.00 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|132.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|181.08|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for unbound bexagliflozin by hepatic function group||181.08|96.46|
91852259|NCT01194154|183587661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment effect|2.21||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.78|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with adjustment for baseline eGFR was used to obtain an estimate of the treatment difference.|||4.78|-0.35|0.657
91852260|NCT01194154|183587662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment effect|2.24||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.01|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||ANCOVA model with adjustment for baseline eGFR was used to obtain an estimate of the treatment difference.|||5.01|-0.54|0.709
91852261|NCT01901276|183587672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-individual differences in Shannon indices were tested using paired t tests (normally distributed data).||||0.71
91852262|NCT03482011|183587685|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.5|69.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||69.4|56.5|<0.001
91900890|NCT03801902|183696205|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"If 0-1 of initial 6 evaluable patients on an arm have a safety event, then the regimen will be deemed safe and that arm will continue to the second part of the study to enroll 6 additional evaluable patients. However, if 2 or more of the 6 patients develop a safety event, then that arm is considered not safe and will not continue to second part. The probability of the treatment being judged to be too toxic when the true toxicity rate is ≥ 40% is at least 77%. If the true toxicity rate is ≤ 18%, then the probability that the treatment will be deemed to be safe is at least 70%.~If fewer than 4 of the total of 12 evaluable patients on an arm experience a safety event, then the treatment will be considered tolerable. With a cohort of 12 patients, the probability of the treatment being judged to be too toxic when the true toxicity rate is ≥ 40% at least 78%. If the true toxicity rate is ≤ 18%, the probability that the treatment will be deemed to be safe is 85%."|||
91711458|NCT03365934|183314513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1663|-0.0108|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||-0.0108|-0.1663|0.026
91711459|NCT03365934|183314513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1562|-0.0017|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||-0.0017|-0.1562|0.045
91711460|NCT03365934|183314513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0799|0.0755|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||0.0755|-0.0799|0.956
91711461|NCT02964338|183314522|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|3.5||||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.82||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||9.82|-2.80|0.2741
91711462|NCT02964338|183314522|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.3||||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|3.01||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.01|-9.59|0.3047
91711463|NCT04611542|183314536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91711464|NCT04611542|183314537|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91711465|NCT04611542|183314538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Investigators tested whether pretest to posttest change was significantly greater than 0 at P \< 0.05.|||||<0.001
91852263|NCT03482011|183587686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|57.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|64.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||64.4|51.3|<0.001
91852264|NCT03482011|183587687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.7|11.6|<0.001
91852265|NCT03482011|183587688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|80.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.1|67.1|<0.001
91852266|NCT03482011|183587689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.7|26.0|<0.001
91852267|NCT03482011|183587690|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|48.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.9|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.2|42.9|<0.001
91852268|NCT03482011|183587691|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.1|14.5|<0.001
91852269|NCT03482011|183587692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.8|56.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||56.4|42.8|<0.001
91711466|NCT02291029|183314539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.89||One-sided p-value|Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||2.89|-3.70|0.397
91711467|NCT02291029|183314539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-0.96||One-sided p-value|Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate.||||-0.96|-9.46|0.009
91711468|NCT02291029|183314539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.34||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|7.45||two-sided p-value|Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate.||||7.45|-2.78|0.344
91791316|NCT00492063|183460306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in the elderly population.||8|-2|
91791317|NCT00492063|183460306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|11.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in the elderly population.||11|2|
91791318|NCT00492063|183460307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in adults.||1.28|0.9|
91791319|NCT00492063|183460307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in adults.||0.99|0.72|
91791320|NCT00492063|183460307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.3||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in adults.||1.3|0.99|
91791321|NCT00492063|183460307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in the elderly population.||1.12|0.82|
91711469|NCT02291029|183314540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.8|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||0.80|-2.97|0.205
91711470|NCT02291029|183314540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.5|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||0.50|-2.41|0.188
91711471|NCT02291029|183314540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.35|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||1.35|-2.08|0.663
91791322|NCT00492063|183460307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in the elderly population.||1.02|0.74|
91852270|NCT03482011|183587693|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|77.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.5|56.0|<0.001
91852271|NCT03482011|183587693|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|65.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|77.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.0|54.9|<0.001
91852272|NCT03482011|183587694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.10|-7.31|<0.001
91711472|NCT02291029|183314541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.26||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|7.38|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||7.38|-37.90|0.161
91711473|NCT02291029|183314541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.16||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.94|-2.38|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||-2.38|-21.94|0.017
91711474|NCT02291029|183314542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.45||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|17.3|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||17.30|-36.20|0.456
91711475|NCT02291029|183314542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.14||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|10.39|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||10.39|-26.67|0.376
91711476|NCT02291029|183314543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.91|2.91|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||2.91|-13.91|0.172
91711477|NCT02291029|183314543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.83||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|9.48|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||9.48|-1.81|0.175
91791323|NCT00492063|183460307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.4||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in the elderly population.||1.4|1.11|
91852273|NCT03482011|183587695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|-15.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.39|-19.28|<0.001
91852274|NCT03482011|183587696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|-3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.58|-10.37|<0.001
91852275|NCT03482011|183587697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|6.22|||ANCOVA|||||6.22|3.50|<0.001
91852276|NCT03482011|183587698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|6.23|||ANCOVA|||||6.23|3.33|<0.001
91852277|NCT03482011|183587699|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.2|72.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||72.9|63.2|<0.001
91852278|NCT03482011|183587700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-0.06|||ANOVA|||Absenteeism||-0.06|-7.30|0.002
91655550|NCT03179345|183203949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.245|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.245|-0.006|0.0611
91655551|NCT03179345|183203950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.02|0.9946
91655552|NCT03179345|183203950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04|||ANCOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.04|-0.01|0.1673
91711478|NCT02291029|183314544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|8.35|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||8.35|-8.49|0.986
91711479|NCT02291029|183314544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.83||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|9.48|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||9.48|-1.81|0.175
91711480|NCT02291029|183314545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|13.15|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||13.15|-10.48|0.807
91711481|NCT02291029|183314545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.66|1.01|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||1.01|-20.66|0.074
91711482|NCT02171429|183314546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|7.2||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|16.12||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value \<0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was the same in both the placebo and etrolizumab arms. The alternative hypothesis (H1): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was not the same in the placebo and etrolizumab arms.||16.12|-3.83|0.1729
91711483|NCT02171429|183314547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-6.8||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|2.73||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.73|-16.26|0.1458
91900891|NCT02260882|183696214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 3. The statistical success criterion for demonstrating greater geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks postvaccination is that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval in Geometric Mean Fold Rise will be greater than 1 for all 3 serotypes.||||<0.001
91655553|NCT03179345|183203950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.6208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.03|-0.02|0.6208
91655554|NCT03179345|183203951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.8799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|4.8|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||4.80|-5.59|0.8799
91655555|NCT03179345|183203951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|5.45|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||5.45|-4.97|0.9277
91655556|NCT03179345|183203951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.73||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|1.49|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.49|-8.94|0.1587
91655557|NCT03179345|183203952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.03|0.7111
91711484|NCT02171429|183314548|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|1.75||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||1.75|-11.66|1
91900892|NCT02260882|183696214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 6B. The statistical success criterion for demonstrating greater geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks postvaccination is that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval in Geometric Mean Fold Rise will be greater than 1 for all 3 serotypes.||||<0.001
91655558|NCT03179345|183203952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.02|0.9048
91711485|NCT02171429|183314549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.0||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|27.19||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||27.19|-0.12|0.1729
91791324|NCT01947855|183460315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-104.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.77|-64.97|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, number of previous antidiabetic medication, baseline renal function, baseline HbA1c and baseline AUC1-4h for plasma glucose.||Difference calculated as empa 25 mg minus placebo. The analyses will be performed sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significance level (5%) will be maintained by the hierarchical procedure.||-64.97|-144.77|<0.0001
91711486|NCT02171429|183314549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-2.5||||0.6726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|9.01||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||9.01|-13.83|0.6726
91711487|NCT02171429|183314550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|9.26||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.26|-6.98|1
91711488|NCT02171429|183314551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.4||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|21.95||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||21.95|-4.31|0.2372
91711489|NCT02171429|183314551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-3.5||||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|7.82||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||7.82|-14.76|0.5341
91711490|NCT02171429|183314552|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|9.88||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.88|-6.04|1
91711491|NCT02171429|183314553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|11.2||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|19.76||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||19.76|0.59|0.2372
91852279|NCT03482011|183587700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.89|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||-15.60|-24.89|<0.001
91852280|NCT03482011|183587700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.56|-15.62|||ANCOVA|||Overall Absenteeism and Presenteeism||-15.62|-26.56|<0.001
91852281|NCT03482011|183587700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|-18.43|||ANCOVA|||Impairment in Activities Performed Outside of Work||-18.43|-27.39|<0.001
91852282|NCT03482011|183587701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.14|||ANCOVA|||||4.14|-3.08|0.004
91852283|NCT03482011|183587702|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|48.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|55.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.9|41.6|<0.001
91863987|NCT03916185|183616672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|85.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|97.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||97|42|<0.001
91863988|NCT03916185|183616672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|12.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|40.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine.|||40|-17|0.66
91852284|NCT00468052|183587704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Null hypothesis is not significantly different from group D and F.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sixty subjects were required per group to determine that with Dex would decrease the incidence of severe EA after surgery by 50% with 80% power (0.05)in comparison with the control group.60 subjects were required by group to show the that intraoperative rescue fentanyl and rescue morphine in the PACU would be 50% lower in subjects receiving dex.||||.001
91852285|NCT00468052|183587704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Treatment with Dex would reduce the incidence of severe agitation be 50% with an 80% power (alpha 0.05)||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis dexmedetomidine would be a safe and effective substitute to opiates in reducing pain and the incidence of severe EA||||.001
91852286|NCT00468052|183587705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91852287|NCT00468052|183587707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91852288|NCT00468052|183587708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91852289|NCT04707313|183587717|SUPERIORITY||Difference to placebo|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.41|-3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-3.74|-7.41|<.0001
91852290|NCT04707313|183587717|SUPERIORITY||Difference to placebo|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-3.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-3.16|-6.80|<.0001
91852291|NCT04707313|183587717|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.89|-7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-7.28|-10.89|<.0001
91852292|NCT04707313|183587717|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.75|-4.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.39|-8.75|<.0001
91852293|NCT04707313|183587717|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.43|-7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-7.56|-11.43|<.0001
91852294|NCT04707313|183587717|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-7.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.41|-4.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.78|-9.41|<.0001
91852295|NCT04707313|183587717|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.11|-7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-7.08|-11.11|<.0001
91852296|NCT04707313|183587717|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-7.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.32|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.99|-9.32|<.0001
91655559|NCT03179345|183203952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.01|-0.03|0.3262
91655560|NCT03179345|183203953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.26|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.26|-2.18|0.5950
91852297|NCT04707313|183587718|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.66|-4.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.63|-11.66|<.0001
91863989|NCT03916185|183616672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-12.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|30.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||30|-36|>0.99
91852298|NCT04707313|183587718|SUPERIORITY||Difference to placebo|-8.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.83|-4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.92|-11.83|<.0001
91852299|NCT04707313|183587718|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-12.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.15|-9.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-9.47|-16.15|<.0001
91852300|NCT04707313|183587731|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.81|19.3||||||||19.30|2.81|
91852301|NCT04707313|183587731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|16.53||||||Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.||16.53|2.62|
91852302|NCT04707313|183587731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.47|41.24||||||Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.||41.24|6.47|
91852303|NCT04707313|183587731|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.39|37.66||||||||37.66|5.39|
91852304|NCT04707313|183587731|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|30.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.35|80.2||||||||80.20|11.35|
91655561|NCT03179345|183203953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865||0.7057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.06|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||2.06|-1.40|0.7057
91655562|NCT03179345|183203953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865||0.6741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.1|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||2.10|-1.36|0.6741
91655563|NCT03179345|183203954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0175||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.01|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||-0.01|-0.08|0.0070
91655564|NCT03179345|183203954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0175||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.05|-0.02|0.5183
91852305|NCT04707313|183587731|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.91|33.53||||||||33.53|2.91|
91863990|NCT03916185|183616672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-24.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|20.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||20|-50|0.28
91863991|NCT03916185|183616673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91863992|NCT03916185|183616673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91863993|NCT03916185|183616673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91863994|NCT03916185|183616673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91655565|NCT03179345|183203954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0175||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.05|0.5084
91852306|NCT04707313|183587731|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|24.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.28|71.95||||||||71.95|8.28|
91852307|NCT04707313|183587731|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.56|35.08||||||||35.08|4.56|
91852308|NCT04707313|183587732|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|33.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.05|366.64||||||||366.64|3.05|
91852309|NCT04707313|183587732|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|34.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|373.85||||||||373.85|3.10|
91852310|NCT04707313|183587732|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|127.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.55|1533.46||||||||1533.46|10.55|
91852311|NCT02459899|183587743|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.02||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery method (CSII, MDI), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||0.02|-0.53|0.07
91852312|NCT02459899|183587743|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery method (CSII, MDI), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.22|-0.75|<0.001
91852313|NCT02459899|183587743|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.11||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery method (CSII, MDI), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.65|0.006
91852314|NCT01215695|183587765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91852315|NCT01215695|183587766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91852316|NCT01215695|183587767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91852317|NCT01215695|183587768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91900893|NCT02260882|183696214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 23F. The statistical success criterion for demonstrating greater geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks postvaccination is that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval in Geometric Mean Fold Rise will be greater than 1 for all 3 serotypes.||||<0.001
91852318|NCT01215695|183587769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91852319|NCT01378065|183587792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91655566|NCT03179345|183203955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|1.124|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.124|-0.104|0.1026
91655567|NCT03179345|183203955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.7634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.523|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.523|-0.711|0.7634
91655568|NCT03179345|183203955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.1041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|1.127|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.127|-0.107|0.1041
91655569|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|-0.051|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Vision||-0.051|-0.521|0.0177
91852320|NCT01378065|183587793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91852321|NCT01378065|183587794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91852322|NCT01378065|183587795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91852323|NCT01378065|183587796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.202
91852324|NCT01378065|183587797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91852325|NCT01378065|183587798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91852326|NCT01378065|183587799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
91852327|NCT01378065|183587800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 6 weeks.||||0.001
91852328|NCT01378065|183587801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 3 months.||||0.004
91852329|NCT01378065|183587802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 6 months.||||<.001
91852330|NCT01378065|183587803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 12 months.||||<.001
91852331|NCT00361283|183587804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-111.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.0|42.0||No confounders were controlled for as each person is his/her own control.|t-test, 2 sided|||The study in healthy volunteers was to compare levels at baseline to 16 weeks in ENA-78, a cytokine. The one sample t-test was used to obtain the result.||42|-264|0.15
91711492|NCT02171429|183314553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-7.5||||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|2.33||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.33|-17.20|0.1192
91794334|NCT00591578|183467638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.28||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.28|1.09|0.015
91711493|NCT02171429|183314554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|3.3||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||3.30|-10.27|1
91711494|NCT02171429|183314555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|9.6||||0.2729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|22.02||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||22.02|-4.71|0.2729
91711495|NCT02171429|183314555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-14.8||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.97|-2.04||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||-2.04|-26.97|0.0215
91711496|NCT02171429|183314556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|8.45||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||8.45|-9.13|1
91711497|NCT02171429|183314557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.1729
91711498|NCT02171429|183314557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2864||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.2864
91852332|NCT01123083|183587902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.0|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline C-peptide AUC. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||0.00|-0.17|0.051
91655570|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.536|0.222|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Energy Level||0.222|-0.536|0.4120
91852333|NCT01123083|183587903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.02|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline C-peptide AUC. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||-0.02|-0.18|0.022
91852334|NCT01123083|183587903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline C-peptide AUC. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||0.03|-0.15|0.191
91852335|NCT01123083|183587905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.37|||GEE Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline HbA1c/Insulin Use Response. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||3.37|0.50|0.912
91852336|NCT01123083|183587905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.42|||GEE Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline HbA1c/Insulin Use Response. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||2.42|0.37|0.912
91852337|NCT01123083|183587905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.52|||GEE Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline HbA1c/Insulin Use Response. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 12||4.52|0.54|0.412
91863995|NCT03916185|183616673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91655571|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.27|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Memory||0.270|-0.362|0.7724
91655572|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.18|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Walking Balance||0.180|-0.423|0.4255
91711499|NCT02171429|183314558|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
91711500|NCT02171429|183314559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.1729
91711501|NCT02171429|183314559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4174||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.4174
91711502|NCT02171429|183314560|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
91711503|NCT02171429|183314561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.5|-2.8|0.1659
91711504|NCT02171429|183314561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||1.4|-1.3|0.9182
91711505|NCT02171429|183314562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.2|-2.1|1
91711506|NCT02171429|183314562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.7|-1.2|1
91711507|NCT02171429|183314563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||-0.2|-1.7|0.0116
91711508|NCT02171429|183314563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.6771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.5|-0.8|0.6771
91711509|NCT02171429|183314564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.0|-1.0|1
91655573|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.262|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Interest in activities||0.262|-0.229|0.8925
91900894|NCT00372385|183696355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.758||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.424|5.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.340|1.424|0.0026
91655574|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|0.063|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Coordination||0.063|-0.487|0.1293
91655575|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.014|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Tremor||-0.014|-0.266|0.0304
91655576|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.217|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Concentration||0.217|-0.384|0.5811
91655577|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.024|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Speech||0.024|-0.220|0.1144
91655578|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.135|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Forgetfulness||0.135|-0.352|0.3774
91900895|NCT00372385|183696355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.709||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.212|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.212|0.910|0.959
91900896|NCT00372385|183696355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.589||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|1.125|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.125|0.309|0.1089
91863996|NCT03916185|183616673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
91863997|NCT03916185|183616674|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91711510|NCT02171429|183314564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.1|-0.7|1
91711511|NCT02171429|183314565|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|7.9||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|16.87||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||16.87|-3.19|0.1382
91711512|NCT02171429|183314565|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-7.5||||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|2.22||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.22|-17.10|0.1163
91711513|NCT02171429|183314566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|2.9||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|10.14||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||10.14|-6.47|0.4772
91711514|NCT02171429|183314566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-5.2||||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|2.63||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.63|-12.95|0.1801
91794616|NCT03981822|183468102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.02||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-0.26||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up visit day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-0.26|-6.78|0.0349
91794617|NCT03981822|183468102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-2.85||P-value is based on MMRM mode|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.85|-7.47|<0.0001
91794618|NCT03981822|183468102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-2.43||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Degrees of freedom associated with the error term were computed using Kenward-Rogers method.||-2.43|-8.37|0.0005
91794619|NCT03981822|183468102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-4.12||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-4.12|-9.65|<0.0001
91794620|NCT03981822|183468102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|-2.92||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.92|-9.67|0.0004
91863998|NCT03916185|183616674|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91655579|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.8658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.727|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Sleepiness||0.727|-0.613|0.8658
91852338|NCT01123083|183587906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline Mean Daily Insulin Use. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||0.02|-0.08|0.210
91852339|NCT01123083|183587906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline Mean Daily Insulin Use. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||0.02|-0.11|0.210
91852340|NCT01123083|183587906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline Mean Daily Insulin Use. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 12||0.13|-0.05|0.402
91900897|NCT00372385|183696356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.632||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.359|5.097|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.097|1.359|0.0041
91655580|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.216|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Moodiness||0.216|-0.179|0.8543
91655581|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|0.231|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Alertness||0.231|-0.537|0.4294
91655582|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.357|0.132|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Attention Span||0.132|-0.357|0.3613
91655583|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.212|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Motivation||0.212|-0.305|0.7201
91655584|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.448|0.023|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Vision||0.023|-0.448|0.0767
91711515|NCT02171429|183314567|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|4.0||||0.4833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|15.2||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||15.2|-7.2|0.4833
91655585|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597|0.165|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Energy Level||0.165|-0.597|0.2618
91791325|NCT01947855|183460315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-85.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.01|-44.97|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, number of previous antidiabetic medication, baseline renal function, baseline HbA1c and baseline AUC1-4h for plasma glucose.||Difference calculated as empa 10 mg minus placebo. The analyses will be performed sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significance level (5%) will be maintained by the hierarchical procedure.||-44.97|-126.01|<0.0001
91900898|NCT00372385|183696356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.623||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.050|0.864|0.1324
91900899|NCT00372385|183696356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.591||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.311|1.126|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.126|0.311|0.1099
91900900|NCT01405937|183696361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The Type-I error rate over the multiple tests comparisons was controlled by the Hochberg testing procedure.|exact test for binomial proportion|||The null hypothesis that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was 20% versus the alternative that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was over 20% was tested.||||<0.001
91655586|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|0.269|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Memory||0.269|-0.366|0.7633
91791326|NCT01816451|183460322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||For pre-post training variables data were expressed as mean and standard deviation. Heart Rate and Blood Lactate, were by three-way ANOVA (Measure x Group x Time) with repeated measures for the factors Measure and Time. The variables absolute and relative VO2, tVO2, Body Fat, Body Mass, RPE, were made two-way ANOVAs (Group x Measure) with repeated measures on the factor Measure. Where the ANOVA was significant, the Tukey-Kramer as post-hoc was used.||||< 0.05
91655587|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|0.105|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Walking Balance||0.105|-0.502|0.1968
91655588|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.197|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Interest in Activities||0.197|-0.296|0.6891
91655589|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|0.106|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Coordination||0.106|-0.447|0.2229
91655590|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.054|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Tremor||0.054|-0.197|0.2591
91655591|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.246|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Concentration||0.246|-0.359|0.7099
91655592|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.154|0.092|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Speech||0.092|-0.154|0.6215
91655593|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.187|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Forgetfulness||0.187|-0.302|0.6422
91655594|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.157|0.19|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Sleepiness||0.190|-1.157|0.1574
91655595|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.282|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Moodiness||0.282|-0.115|0.4039
91655596|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.695|0.076|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Alertness||0.076|-0.695|0.1145
91655597|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.119|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Attention Span||0.119|-0.372|0.3083
91655598|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.0776|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Motivation||0.0776|-0.443|0.1638
91655599|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.157|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Vision||0.157|-0.314|0.5101
91655600|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|0.149|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Energy Level||0.149|-0.614|0.2285
91655601|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.436|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Memory||0.436|-0.200|0.4612
91655602|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.402|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Walking Balance||0.402|-0.205|0.5190
91655603|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.271|0.223|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Interest in Activities||0.223|-0.271|0.8479
91655604|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.238|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Coordination||0.238|-0.316|0.7808
91655605|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|-0.045|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Tremor||-0.045|-0.296|0.0083
91655606|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.201|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Concentration||0.201|-0.404|0.5068
91655607|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.055|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Speech||0.055|-0.191|0.2725
91655608|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.284|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Forgetfulness||0.284|-0.206|0.7498
91655609|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|0.826|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Sleepiness||0.826|-0.522|0.6554
91655610|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.28|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Moodiness||0.280|-0.116|0.4143
91655611|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.441|0.33|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Alertness||0.330|-0.441|0.7761
91655612|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.251|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Attention Span||0.251|-0.241|0.9697
91655613|NCT03179345|183203956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.174|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Motivation|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|0.174|-0.346|0.5118
91655614|NCT03179345|183203957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.8293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.178|0.947|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.947|-1.178|0.8293
91655615|NCT03179345|183203957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|1.049|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.049|-1.089|0.9705
91655616|NCT03179345|183203958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.3666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|0.581|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.581|-1.556|0.3666
91655617|NCT03179345|183203958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|1.049|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.049|-1.089|0.9705
91655618|NCT00290745|183203983|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Tumor volume between baseline and Month 6||||0.07
91655619|NCT00290745|183203984|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Tumor volume between baseline and Month 6||||<0.001
91655620|NCT00290745|183203987|OTHER|||||||0.538|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.538
91900901|NCT01405937|183696361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The Type-I error rate over the multiple tests comparisons was controlled by the Hochberg testing procedure.|exact test for binomial proportion|||The null hypothesis that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was 20% versus the alternative that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was over 20% was tested.||||<0.001
91900902|NCT02554903|183696369|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7393||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5798|0.9426|||ANCOVA|||||0.9426|0.5798|0.0158
91900903|NCT02340091|183696398|SUPERIORITY||Subjects % with difference in VAS ≥ 10mm|0.9194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||||||||0.97|0.80|
91900904|NCT05640648|183696403|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Poisson model adjusting for time and group level (paired health centres, based on randomization) cluster||||2.09|1.62|<0.001
91655621|NCT00290745|183203988|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
91655622|NCT00290745|183203989|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.714
91655623|NCT00290745|183203990|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91655624|NCT00290745|183203991|OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.906
91900905|NCT05640648|183696404|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|7.46||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|26.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Poisson model adjusting for time and group level (paired health centres, based on randomization) cluster||||26.95|2.06|0.002
91900906|NCT05640648|183696405|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.25||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects poisson model adjusting for time and group (paired healthcentres, based on randomization)||||2.42|0.65|0.50
91900907|NCT05640648|183696408|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|4.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|10.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Poisson model adjusting for time and group level (paired health centres, based on randomization) cluster||||10.91|2.07|<0.001
91900908|NCT05090995|183696411|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91900909|NCT05090995|183696412|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91900910|NCT05090995|183696413|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91900911|NCT05090995|183696414|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91900912|NCT05090995|183696415|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For baseline consequences||||<.0001
91655625|NCT03522948|183204028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|-0.71||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within-subject t-test||||.03
91655626|NCT03522948|183204029|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-1.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||d = -0.51|||0.23
91655627|NCT03522948|183204030|SUPERIORITY||t-test|1.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|2.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||GSAB self-efficacy||2.41|-0.69|<.05
91655628|NCT03522948|183204031|SUPERIORITY||t-test|2.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of GSAB self-efficacy subscale for condom use||3.41|0.31|<.05
91655629|NCT01984242|183204041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.69|0.9819
91655630|NCT01984242|183204041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.71|||Log Rank|||||1.71|0.82|0.3580
91655631|NCT01984242|183204043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0952||95.0|0.38|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.38|0.0952
91655632|NCT01984242|183204043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.67|||Log Rank|||||1.67|0.63|0.9172
91655633|NCT01984242|183204045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.26|0.0153
91900913|NCT05090995|183696415|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For effects with time||||<.0001
91900914|NCT05090995|183696416|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
91900915|NCT05090995|183696417|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Effect of baseline sleep scores||||<.0001
91900916|NCT05090995|183696417|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For effects with time||||0.04
91900917|NCT05090995|183696418|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For interaction between treatment group and time||||0.02
91900918|NCT05090995|183696418|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of sex||||0.02
91900919|NCT05090995|183696418|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of type of day of the week (weekday vs. weekend)||||0.0007
91900920|NCT05090995|183696418|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91900921|NCT05090995|183696419|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect of day of the week.||||0.0001
91900922|NCT05090995|183696420|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For interaction between treatment condition and time||||0.04
91655634|NCT01984242|183204045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.5545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.48|0.5545
91711516|NCT02171429|183314567|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.0||||0.9931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.1||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||9.1|-9.2|0.9931
91711517|NCT01724177|183314591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"A one sample binomial one sided exact test for the ORR (CR, CRu, or PR) was performed to provide the p-value (significance level: 0.05). The hypotheses of interest:~H0: ORR ≤ 5% versus H1: ORR \> 5%"|Exact Test|||||||<0.0001
91711518|NCT03397121|183314599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.04|-43.99||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-43.99|-55.04|<.0001
91711519|NCT03397121|183314600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.48|-40.12||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-40.12|-48.48|<0.0001
91711520|NCT03397121|183314601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.11|-60.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-60.67|-77.11|<0.0001
91711521|NCT03397121|183314602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.01|-56.48||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-56.48|-69.01|<0.0001
91711522|NCT03397121|183314603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.65|-73.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-73.04|-83.65|<0.0001
91711523|NCT03397121|183314604|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.59|-27.94||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-27.94|-35.59|<0.0001
91711524|NCT03397121|183314605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.99|-32.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-32.14|-39.99|<0.0001
91711525|NCT03397121|183314606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.32|-37.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-37.40|-47.32|<0.0001
91711526|NCT04085601|183314611|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7311|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|0.8902||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of packed red blood cell (PRBC) within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥ 4) reported in electronic data capture (EDC) data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.8902|0.572|<0.0001
91711527|NCT04085601|183314612|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1470.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2113.44|-827.32||p-value for Baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||-827.32|-2113.44|<0.0001
91711528|NCT04085601|183314613|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5411|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.7431||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥ 4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.7431|0.339|<0.0001
91900923|NCT05090995|183696420|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of sex||||<.0001
91655635|NCT01984242|183204047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.28|0.0086
91655636|NCT01984242|183204047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7675||95.0|0.56|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.56|0.7675
91711529|NCT04085601|183314614|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-103.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.9|-48.74||P-value for Baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||-48.74|-158.9|0.0002
91711530|NCT04085601|183314615|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.67||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.35||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||4.35|0.99|0.0019
91711531|NCT04085601|183314616|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7505|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9041|-0.5969||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.5969|-0.9041|<0.0001
91711532|NCT04085601|183314617|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7241|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5583|0.8899||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.8899|0.5583|<0.0001
91900924|NCT05090995|183696420|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of type of day of the week (weekday vs. weekend)||||<0.0001
91900925|NCT05090995|183696420|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91900926|NCT01005459|183696421|OTHER|unpaired t-test|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
91655637|NCT01984242|183204049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1973||95.0|0.44|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.44|0.1973
91655638|NCT01984242|183204049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.7738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.76|||Log Rank|||||1.76|0.65|0.7738
91655639|NCT01984242|183204051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.083||95.0|0.43|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.43|0.0830
91655640|NCT01984242|183204051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.69|||Log Rank|||||1.69|0.70|0.7141
91655641|NCT01984242|183204053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2541||95.0|0.59|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.59|0.2541
91655642|NCT01984242|183204053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.86|0.3103
91655643|NCT01984242|183204055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.37|0.0351
91655644|NCT01984242|183204055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9769||95.0|0.64|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.64|0.9769
91655645|NCT01984242|183204056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.97||||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|16.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.62|-10.68|0.6492
91711533|NCT04085601|183314618|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.0||Wilcoxon rank-sum test p-value for the comparison between treatments is based on median using stratified non-parametric analysis. The 95% confidence interval (CI) is constructed using Hodges-Lehmann Estimation of Location Shift.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||4|2|<0.0001
91711534|NCT04085601|183314619|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.51||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|9.24||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||9.24|-0.21|0.061
91655646|NCT01984242|183204056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.47||||0.5433||95.0|-16.63|9.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.69|-16.63|0.5433
91655647|NCT01984242|183204057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.33||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|38.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.94|-0.28|0.0141
91655648|NCT01984242|183204057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|1.11||||0.8719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|19.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.24|-17.02|0.8719
91655649|NCT01984242|183204058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|1.98||||0.8068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.00|-12.04|0.8068
91655650|NCT01984242|183204058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-9.37||||0.1321||95.0|-22.61|3.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.87|-22.61|0.1321
91655651|NCT01984242|183204059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.67||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|39.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.44|-0.10|0.0199
91655652|NCT01984242|183204059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.41||||0.7836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|15.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.68|-20.50|0.7836
91655653|NCT01984242|183204060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.96||||0.6231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|18.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.15|-10.23|0.6231
91655654|NCT01984242|183204060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.42||||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|5.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.02|-21.86|0.1816
91655655|NCT01984242|183204061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|22.0||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|41.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.89|2.11|0.0111
91655656|NCT01984242|183204061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.22||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.63|16.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.19|-20.63|0.8209
91655657|NCT01984242|183204063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0863||95.0|0.5|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.50|0.0863
91655658|NCT01984242|183204063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.57|||Log Rank|||||1.57|0.77|0.5922
91655659|NCT01984242|183204065|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0021||95.0|0.25|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.25|0.0021
91655660|NCT01984242|183204065|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.56|0.6566
91655661|NCT01984242|183204073|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.13|||Log Rank|||||2.13|0.80|0.2867
91655662|NCT01984242|183204073|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8039||95.0|0.65|1.73|||Log Rank|||||1.73|0.65|0.8039
91655663|NCT01984242|183204075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.7879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.78|||Log Rank|||||1.78|0.47|0.7879
91655664|NCT01984242|183204075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|0.52|0.9065
91655665|NCT00449150|183204090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means estimate|-0.198||||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.98|||ANOVA|||||0.98|-1.38|0.7424
91655666|NCT00449150|183204090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means estimate|0.055||||0.926||95.0|-1.1|1.21|||ANOVA|||||1.21|-1.10|0.926
91655667|NCT00449150|183204090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means estimate|-0.252||||0.6699||95.0|-1.41|0.91|||ANOVA|||||0.91|-1.41|0.6699
91655668|NCT01089647|183204106|OTHER||||||=|0.946|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group comparisons at follow-up were made using a stepwise multivariable logistic model.||||=0.946
91655669|NCT02364557|183204204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.71|1.17||One-side significance level = 0.15|Log Rank||Reference level = SOC arm|Assuming an increase in median PFS from 10.5 to 19 months (HR: 0.55), 69 events provide \>90% power to conclude superiority with 1-sided α = 0.15.||1.17|0.71|0.36
91655670|NCT02364557|183204207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.61||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test||Reference level = SOC arm|||1.61|0.59|0.91
91655671|NCT02364557|183204209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.02||Two-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank||Reference level = CTCs Absent|||2.02|0.54|0.90
91655672|NCT06052566|183204216|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.54||||||||1.54|0.61|
91655673|NCT06052566|183204216|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.71||||||||1.71|0.63|
91655674|NCT06052566|183204217|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.65||||||||1.65|0.60|
91655675|NCT06052566|183204217|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.65||||||||1.65|0.53|
91655676|NCT06052566|183204218|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.21||||||||1.21|0.44|
91655677|NCT06052566|183204218|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.53||||||||1.53|0.47|
91655678|NCT00966953|183204257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91655679|NCT02841709|183204261|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Model|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose response across placebo and all ACT-541468 doses. The null hypothesis of no dose response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrasts Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cranrprojects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
91655680|NCT02841709|183204261|OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|4.0|||Linear mixed effects model||Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the LS Mean|||4.0|-14.7|0.258
91655681|NCT02841709|183204261|OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-9.0|||Linear mixed effects model||Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the LS Mean|||-9.0|-27.8|<0.001
91655682|NCT02841709|183204261|OTHER||LS mean difference|-31.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-22.2|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-22.2|-40.9|<0.001
91900927|NCT01005459|183696421|OTHER|unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
91900928|NCT00174265|183696453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0148||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.05 (0.049 to adjust for one interim analysis).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from Baseline in NSA Scale total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 365.||||0.0148
91900929|NCT00174265|183696454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||95.0||||Significant level adjusted for one interim analysis was set as 0.049 two-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from Baseline in QLS total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Week 52.||||0.8100
91900930|NCT03231943|183696511|OTHER||Power model|0.9476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8982|0.9971|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-inf) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9971|0.8982|
91655683|NCT02841709|183204261|OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|-38.5|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-38.5|-57.2|<0.001
91655684|NCT01210001|183204263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.27||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.27|-0.69|<0.0001
91655685|NCT01210001|183204263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.82|-0.4||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.40|-0.82|<0.0001
91900931|NCT03231943|183696512|OTHER||Power model|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8877|0.9683|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-24) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9683|0.8877|
91900932|NCT03231943|183696513|OTHER||Power Model|0.9352|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|0.9734|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Cmax) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9734|0.8970|
91900933|NCT03231943|183696514|OTHER||Power model|0.7968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6424|0.9512|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-tau) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9512|0.6424|
91900934|NCT03231943|183696515|OTHER||Power model|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6149|0.9631|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Ctrough) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9631|0.6149|
91900935|NCT03231943|183696516|OTHER||Power model|0.7955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6562|0.9349|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Cmax) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9349|0.6562|
91900936|NCT03231943|183696521|OTHER||Power model|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5649|0.9091|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Cmax) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9091|0.5649|
91900937|NCT03231943|183696522|OTHER||Power model|0.7397|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5576|0.9218|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-24) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9218|0.5576|
91900938|NCT03471871|183696529|OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.36||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.07||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||0.07|-0.78|0.099
91900939|NCT03471871|183696529|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.14||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||0.14|-0.72|0.176
91655686|NCT01210001|183204264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.81|-15.15||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in FPG was the second step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-15.15|-31.81|<0.0001
91655687|NCT01210001|183204264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-36.73|-20.19||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in FPG was the second step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-20.19|-36.73|<0.0001
91655688|NCT01210001|183204265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.64|-1.27||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in body weight was the third step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-1.27|-2.64|<0.0001
91655689|NCT01210001|183204265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.49|-1.13||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in body weight was the third step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-1.13|-2.49|<0.0001
91655690|NCT01210001|183204266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.21||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa vs placebo change from baseline in HbA1c for pio+met background only was the fourth step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.21|-0.69|<0.0001
91655691|NCT01210001|183204266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.83|-0.36||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa vs placebo change from baseline in HbA1c for pio+met background only was the fourth step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.36|-0.83|<0.0001
91711535|NCT04085601|183314620|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3645||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1648|0.5642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.5642|0.1648|0.001
91655692|NCT04526210|183204282|OTHER||Geometric least square (LS) mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9415|1.0205||||||||1.0205|0.9415|
91711536|NCT04085601|183314621|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5592|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3682|0.7502|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.7502|0.3682|<0.0001
91711537|NCT04085601|183314622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.75||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|34.16||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||34.16|9.35|0.0006
91711538|NCT04085601|183314623|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|55.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.83|94.74||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||94.74|16.83|0.005
91711539|NCT04085601|183314624|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4639||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2529|0.675||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥ 4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.675|0.2529|0.0002
91711540|NCT04085601|183314625|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.091||Hazard ratio is based on cox proportional hazards model.|Stratified Wilcoxon|||||0.091|0.004|<0.0001
91711541|NCT04085601|183314626|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.025|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.121|||Stratified Wilcoxon|||||0.121|0.005|<0.0001
91711542|NCT03492437|183314627|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|151.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.35|179.93||||||||179.93|127.35|
91711543|NCT03492437|183314628|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|144.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.89|170.39||||||||170.39|122.89|
91711544|NCT03492437|183314629|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|138.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.59|157.65||||||||157.65|121.59|
91711545|NCT03492437|183314630|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.0||||||||1.0|-0.3|
91711546|NCT00572455|183314662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.02||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.25|0.78|0.028
91711547|NCT00572455|183314662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|6.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.96|2.50|<0.001
91711548|NCT00572455|183314662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.33|8.79|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.79|4.33|<0.001
91711549|NCT00572455|183314662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.6|7.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.95|3.60|<0.001
91711550|NCT00572455|183314662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.74|7.37|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.37|2.74|<0.001
91711551|NCT00572455|183314662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.79|8.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.25|3.79|<0.001
91711552|NCT00572455|183314663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|2.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.32|-0.21|0.171
91655693|NCT04526210|183204283|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9344|1.0244||||||||1.0244|0.9344|
91655694|NCT04526210|183204284|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9368|1.0269||||||||1.0269|0.9368|
91900940|NCT03471871|183696530|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.83||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||1.83|-1.95|0.948
91900941|NCT03471871|183696531|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.76||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||2.76|-1.72|0.639
91900942|NCT03471871|183696531|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.16||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.08||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||1.08|-3.40|0.297
91900943|NCT03471871|183696532|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.17||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||2.17|-2.22|0.979
91900944|NCT03471871|183696533|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.185||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.405||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<90%||0.405|-0.034|0.095
91900945|NCT03471871|183696533|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.245||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.464||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||When SpO2 is \<90%||0.464|0.025|0.030
91900946|NCT03471871|183696533|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.004||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.067||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<85%||0.067|-0.058|0.885
91900947|NCT03471871|183696533|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.044||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.107||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<85%||0.107|-0.018|0.158
91900948|NCT03471871|183696533|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.001||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.005||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<80%||0.005|-0.002|0.462
91900949|NCT03471871|183696533|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.002||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.006||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<80%||0.006|-0.001|0.166
91900950|NCT03471871|183696535|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.46||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: Mean SpO2 during TST||0.46|-0.31|0.699
91900951|NCT03471871|183696535|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.61||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: Mean SpO2 during TST||0.61|-0.11|0.169
91900952|NCT03471871|183696536|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.312||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|1.181||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: SpO2 is \<90%||1.181|-0.558|0.472
91900953|NCT03471871|183696536|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.067||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.258||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: SpO2 is \<85%||0.258|-0.124|0.479
91900954|NCT03471871|183696536|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.002||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.023||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: SpO2 is \<80%||0.023|-0.019|0.852
91900955|NCT03471871|183696536|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.088||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.607||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: SpO2 is \<90%||0.607|-0.431|0.733
91900956|NCT03471871|183696536|OTHER||LSM difference|0.056||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.228||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: When SpO2 is \<85%||0.228|-0.117|0.518
91900957|NCT03471871|183696536|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.006||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.026||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: SpO2 is \<80%||0.026|-0.015|0.576
91900958|NCT03040622|183696538|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91900959|NCT03040622|183696539|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
91900960|NCT03040622|183696540|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91900962|NCT02673619|183696594|OTHER||Percentage difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|75.1||||||||75.1|-21.1|
91900963|NCT02673619|183696594|OTHER||Percentage difference|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|59.2||||||||59.2|-10.2|
91900964|NCT02673619|183696595|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-59.7|32.0||||||||32.0|-59.7|
91900965|NCT02673619|183696595|OTHER||Percentage Difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.8|52.1||||||||52.1|-18.8|
91900966|NCT02673619|183696599|OTHER||Percentage Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.0|59.7||||||||59.7|-32.0|
91900967|NCT02673619|183696599|OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.7|42.3||||||||42.3|-27.7|
91900968|NCT03444324|183696618|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis of this endpoint was to test non-inferiority in the Per-protocol Set. The final analysis was performed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the least squares mean (LSM) was less than the non-inferiority margin (150 mL).|Difference in LSM|-279.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-552.38|-6.48||p-value from Van Elteren test, stratified by predictive blood loss (\> 1,000 mL to = 2,000 mL and \>2,000 mL)|Van Elteren test|||||-6.48|-552.38|<0.001
91655695|NCT00090857|183204295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density between arms was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.15
91655696|NCT00090857|183204296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density between arms was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.70
91655697|NCT00090857|183204297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density between arms was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.03
91711553|NCT00572455|183314663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.70|-0.80|0.553
91900969|NCT03444324|183696619|OTHER||Difference in response rate|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|50.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model stratified by predictive blood loss (\> 1,000 mL to ≤ 2,000 mL and \> 2,000 mL).||||50.3|26|<0.001
91900970|NCT03444324|183696620|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91900971|NCT03444324|183696626|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-15.5|||<|0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.83|126.88|||ANOVA|||||126.88|-157.83|<0.831
91900972|NCT03444324|183696627|OTHER||Difference in LSM|12.4|||=|0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.84|113.66|||ANOVA|||||113.66|-88.84|=0.809
91900973|NCT03444324|183696628|OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.8|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.7|-8.9|=0.022
91900974|NCT01078220|183696648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|9.21|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|||9.21|3.91|
91900975|NCT01078220|183696648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|7.08|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|||7.08|1.18|
91900976|NCT01078220|183696652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.3|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-14 after vaccination.||2.3|1.17|
91900977|NCT01078220|183696652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-60 after vaccination.||1.35|0.82|
91900978|NCT01078220|183696652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.98|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-14 after vaccination.||1.98|0.53|
91711554|NCT00572455|183314663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.70|-0.80|0.555
91711555|NCT00572455|183314663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.48||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|2.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.73|0.22|0.053
91711556|NCT00572455|183314663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|3.8|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.80|1.29|<0.001
91711557|NCT00572455|183314663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.81||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|3.07|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to Latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.07|0.56|0.018
91711558|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.62||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.90|1.34|0.011
91711559|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.19||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.91|6.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.47|1.91|0.004
91711560|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.19|8.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.75|4.19|<0.001
91711561|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.11|7.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.54|3.11|<0.001
91711562|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.66|8.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.33|3.66|<0.001
91711563|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.52|8.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.08|3.52|<0.001
91711564|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.02|-0.14|0.120
91711565|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.55||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|7.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.14|1.97|0.005
91711566|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.58|8.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.75|3.58|<0.001
91711567|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.52|8.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.54|3.52|<0.001
91711568|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.66|9.95|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.95|4.66|<0.001
91711569|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.91|8.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its Vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.08|2.91|<0.001
91711570|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|6.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.53|1.56|0.009
91711571|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.49|9.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.50|4.49|<0.001
91711572|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.11|10.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||10.11|5.11|<0.001
91711573|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.64|9.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.53|4.64|<0.001
91711574|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|8.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.62|3.40|<0.001
91863999|NCT03916185|183616674|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91864000|NCT03916185|183616674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91864001|NCT03916185|183616674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91900979|NCT01078220|183696652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.21|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-60 after vaccination.||1.21|0.5|
91655698|NCT00090857|183204298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.06
91655699|NCT00090857|183204299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.38
91655700|NCT00090857|183204300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91655701|NCT00090857|183204301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91655702|NCT00090857|183204302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.88
91655703|NCT00090857|183204303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.27
91655704|NCT00090857|183204304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.60
91655705|NCT00090857|183204305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.58
91655706|NCT00090857|183204306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.49
91655707|NCT05097326|183204310|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||a p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Analysis of total contractions||||0.44
91655708|NCT05097326|183204310|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Analysis of contractions per hour||||0.02
91655709|NCT05097326|183204311|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Comparison at 12 hours after labor induction||||0.04
91655710|NCT05097326|183204311|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of uterine tachysystole of total labor duration||||0.17
91655711|NCT05097326|183204312|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||a p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91655712|NCT05097326|183204313|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91655713|NCT05097326|183204314|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at complete cervical dilation||||0.04
91655714|NCT05097326|183204315|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at postpartum transfer||||0.04
91655715|NCT05097326|183204316|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||||0.68
91655716|NCT05097326|183204317|OTHER|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
91655717|NCT05097326|183204318|OTHER|||||||1||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||||1
91655718|NCT05097326|183204319|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91655719|NCT05097326|183204320|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||a p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||1 minute APGAR score||||0.17
91655720|NCT05097326|183204320|OTHER|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||APGAR score at 5 minutes||||1
91655721|NCT05097326|183204321|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91655722|NCT03480425|183204322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-2.4|<0.05
91655723|NCT02753842|183204324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.26||The a priori threshold was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing fitted to standard condoms, the null hypothesis was no difference in pleasure.||2.26|0.52|<0.05
91655724|NCT02753842|183204325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A single item assessed whether participants preferred fitted condoms or standard condoms at the end of the study (the item word viewed by participants used the blinded identifiers of each condom type).||1.38|0.92|>0.05
91655725|NCT02753842|183204327|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.24|||logistic mixed effects model|||We assessed clinical condom failure for anal sex, comparing anal sex acts with fitted condoms to anal sex acts with standard condoms.||3.24|0.27|>0.05
91655726|NCT02753842|183204328|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.94||The a priori threshold was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing thin to standard condoms, the null hypothesis was no difference in pleasure.||1.94|0.18|<0.05
91655727|NCT05216081|183204329|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|69.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.5|76.2||||||||76.2|61.5|
91655728|NCT05216081|183204330|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.7|99.8||||||||99.8|94.7|
91655729|NCT05216081|183204332|OTHER||Percentage screened positive for EM|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|24.2||||||||24.2|10|
91655730|NCT05216081|183204335|OTHER||Percentage who self-disclosed|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|78.6||||||||78.6|32.6|
91655731|NCT05216081|183204336|OTHER||Percentage substantiated by socialworker|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|89.8||||||||89.8|50.5|
91655732|NCT03292653|183204342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|7.93|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic, ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||7.93|-5.4|0.736
91655733|NCT03292653|183204342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.7694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.22|5.18|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic, ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||5.18|-7.22|0.7694
91864002|NCT03916185|183616674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
91711575|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.11|11.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||11.30|6.11|<0.001
91900980|NCT03226275|183696654|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|99.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.25|106.09||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting state||106.09|93.25|
91655734|NCT03292653|183204343|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||0.01|-0.09|0.184
91655735|NCT03292653|183204343|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||0.02|-0.07|0.3397
91655736|NCT03292653|183204344|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.79|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||-0.35|-33.79|0.094
91655737|NCT03292653|183204344|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-12.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.49||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.65|3.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||3.46|-27.65|0.1878
91655738|NCT03292653|183204345|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.45|5.8|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||5.8|-15.45|0.4269
91655739|NCT03292653|183204345|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.24|3.52|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||3.52|-16.24|0.2684
91711576|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.66||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.02|0.29|0.066
91711577|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.76|6.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.50|1.76|0.006
91711578|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.76|8.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.49|3.76|<0.001
91711579|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.51|8.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.11|3.51|<0.001
91711580|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.53|6.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.50|1.53|0.010
91711581|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.03|7.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.93|3.03|<0.001
91711582|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.91|7.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.19|1.91|0.006
91900981|NCT03226275|183696654|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.95|100.73||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||100.73|92.95|
91711583|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.66|7.94|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.94|2.66|0.002
91711584|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.87|10.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||10.16|4.87|<0.001
91711585|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.57|11.71|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||11.71|6.57|<0.001
91711586|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|8.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.44|2.94|0.002
91711587|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.16|9.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.62|4.16|<0.001
91711588|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.83||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|4.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.58|-0.91|0.269
91711589|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.49||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.75|7.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.24|1.75|0.009
91711590|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.08|9.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.57|4.08|<0.001
91711591|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.52|8.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.84|3.52|<0.001
91711592|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.71|8.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.33|2.71|0.002
91711593|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.01|9.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.50|4.01|<0.001
91900982|NCT03226275|183696654|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|98.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.02|108.76||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||108.76|90.02|
91711594|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.36||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|5.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.76|0.95|0.024
91711595|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.82|7.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.66|2.82|<0.001
91711596|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.23|9.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.06|4.23|<0.001
91711597|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.87|7.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.58|2.87|<0.001
91900983|NCT03226275|183696654|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.53|111.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||111.20|95.53|
91711598|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.88||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|6.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.37|1.39|0.012
91711599|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.48|9.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.48|4.48|<0.001
91711600|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.41||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.11|6.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.72|2.11|0.003
91711601|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|7.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.33|2.72|<0.001
91711602|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.27|8.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.88|4.27|<0.001
91711603|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.31|7.78|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.78|3.31|<0.001
91711604|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.06|6.82|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.82|2.06|0.003
91711605|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.7|9.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.47|4.70|<0.001
91711606|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.41||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|4.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.84|-0.02|0.103
91711607|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.75||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|6.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.18|1.32|0.013
91711608|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.53|8.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.39|3.53|<0.001
91711609|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.5|8.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.23|3.50|<0.001
91711610|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.18|8.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.11|3.18|<0.001
91711611|NCT00572455|183314667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.46|8.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.48|3.46|<0.001
91711612|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.72||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|2.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.08|-0.63|0.377
91655740|NCT03292653|183204346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|847.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|576.98||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-210.46|1904.86|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||1904.86|-210.46|0.1761
91655741|NCT03292653|183204346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|489.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|579.35||0.4202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-572.68|1551.34|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||1551.34|-572.68|0.4202
91655742|NCT03292653|183204347|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|13.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|28.53|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline erythropoietin as the covariate.||28.53|-1.03|0.1242
91655743|NCT03292653|183204347|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.49|13.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline erythropoietin as the covariate.||13.30|-13.49|0.9903
91655744|NCT03292653|183204348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-150.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|116.09||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-353.57|51.78|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline NT-proBNP as the covariate.||51.78|-353.57|0.2121
91711613|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.68||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.01|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||-0.35|-3.01|0.039
91711614|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||0.98|-1.67|0.668
91711615|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.26||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.59|-0.07|0.121
91711616|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.67||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|2.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.99|0.34|0.039
91711617|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.99||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.31|-0.34|0.220
91711618|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.3||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.59|0.01|0.098
91655745|NCT03292653|183204348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.88||0.9574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-174.4|163.87|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline NT-proBNP as the covariate.||163.87|-174.4|0.9574
91655746|NCT02606500|183204360|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9
91655747|NCT02606500|183204361|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5
91655748|NCT02606500|183204362|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3
91655749|NCT02606500|183204363|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9
91655750|NCT02606500|183204364|NON_INFERIORITY|We presumed Elonva 150 mcg in obese and normal weighing women yields comparable biochemical pregnancy rates.||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.4
91655751|NCT02465567|183204421|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.83|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.83|0.69|<0.0001
91655752|NCT02465567|183204421|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.95|0.79|0.0027
91655753|NCT02465567|183204421|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.83|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.83|0.69|<0.0001
91655754|NCT02465567|183204421|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.95|0.79|0.0020
91655755|NCT02465567|183204422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|0.959|||Regression, Cox|||||0.959|0.807|0.0035
91655756|NCT02465567|183204422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|0.966|||Regression, Cox|||||0.966|0.814|0.057
91655757|NCT02465567|183204422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|0.944|||Regression, Cox|||||0.944|0.794|0.0011
91711619|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.77|-0.77|0.519
91655758|NCT02465567|183204422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.873||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|0.951|||Regression, Cox|||||0.951|0.801|0.0019
91655759|NCT02465567|183204423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.34|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.34|-0.68|<0.0001
91655760|NCT02465567|183204423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.20|-0.54|<0.0001
91711620|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.55|-1.00|0.724
91655761|NCT02465567|183204423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.18|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.18|-0.53|<0.0001
91711621|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.46||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|2.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.74|0.19|0.059
91655762|NCT02465567|183204423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.05|-0.39|0.0127
91655763|NCT02465567|183204424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.358|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.199|1.539|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.539|1.199|<0.0001
91655764|NCT02465567|183204424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.246||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.410|1.100|0.0005
91655765|NCT02465567|183204424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.283|||<|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|1.454|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.454|1.133|<0.0004
91655766|NCT02465567|183204424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.177||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.333|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.333|1.039|0.0103
91655767|NCT02465567|183204425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||||0.870|0.340|0.0111
91655768|NCT02465567|183204425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|1.296|||Regression, Cox|||||1.296|0.472|0.3401
91655769|NCT02465567|183204425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.201|||Regression, Cox|||||1.201|0.518|0.2690
91655770|NCT02465567|183204425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.796|||Regression, Cox|||||1.796|0.716|0.5918
91655771|NCT02465567|183204426|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.84||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.03|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.03|0.69|0.6552
91655772|NCT02465567|183204426|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.97|0.66|0.0221
91655773|NCT02465567|183204426|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.08|0.72|0.2157
91655774|NCT02465567|183204426|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.01|0.69|0.0647
91655775|NCT01807637|183204434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91655776|NCT01807637|183204435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
91655777|NCT01807637|183204436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.41||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
91655778|NCT00662129|183204493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91655779|NCT00329602|183204525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|Repeated Measures Mixed Model|Adjusted for baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment group interaction, and center group.||||||0.039
91655780|NCT00329602|183204525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value is for Week 26.|Repeated Measures Mixed Model|Adjusted for baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment group interaction, and center group.||||||0.023
91655781|NCT02579096|183204540|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority bound of 8% was established during the trial design; a one-sided alpha level was set at 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-1.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||One-sided null hypothesis posited that allopurinol was inferior to febuxostat. The proportions of participants with ≥ 1 gout flare during phase 3 were compared between the two treatments.||-1.2||<0.001
91655782|NCT02097121|183204581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.107|=|0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.203|1.243|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group as factor. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was used."||1.243|-3.203|= 0.3802
91655783|NCT02097121|183204581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.154|=|0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.921|2.712|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group as factor. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was used."||2.712|-1.921|= 0.733
91655784|NCT02097121|183204582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442|=|0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.082|3.713|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||3.713|-2.082|= 0.5743
91655785|NCT02097121|183204582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.455|=|0.1451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|5.078|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||5.078|-0.769|= 0.1451
91655786|NCT02097121|183204583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|=|0.8206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.205|2.551|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||2.551|-3.205|= 0.8206
91655787|NCT02097121|183204583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|=|0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|2.95|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||2.95|-2.807|= 0.9604
91655788|NCT02097121|183204585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|35.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.175|=|0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.207|79.873|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||79.873|-9.207|= 0.1174
91655789|NCT02097121|183204585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|34.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.722|=|0.1567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.536|81.76|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||81.76|-13.536|= 0.1567
91655790|NCT02097121|183204586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.091|=|0.7481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.553|6.909|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||6.909|-9.553|= 0.7481
91691891|NCT02667704|183278334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means in percentage|101.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.909|109.57|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (T/R) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale including treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect||109.570|94.909|
91691892|NCT00997373|183278349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0373
91691893|NCT00832455|183278362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91691894|NCT00832455|183278362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91655791|NCT02097121|183204586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.299|=|0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.799|10.498|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||10.498|-6.799|= 0.6691
91655792|NCT02097121|183204587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343|=|0.9297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.721|0.661|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.661|-0.721|= 0.9297
91655793|NCT02097121|183204587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|=|0.3976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.022|0.413|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented.||0.413|-1.022|= 0.3976
91655794|NCT02097121|183204588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302|=|0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.904|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.904|-0.311|= 0.3309
91655795|NCT02097121|183204588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315|=|0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|1.024|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||1.024|-0.245|= 0.2235
91655796|NCT02097121|183204589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|=|0.6689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.67|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.67|-0.434|= 0.6689
91655797|NCT02097121|183204589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288|=|0.6076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.729|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.729|-0.431|= 0.6076
91655798|NCT02097121|183204590|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference %|15.5|||=|0.6092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.94|46.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes (a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period)."||46.19|-18.94|= 0.6092
91655799|NCT02097121|183204590|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference %|17.6|||=|0.4824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|48.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes (a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period)."||48.9|-16.2|= 0.4824
91655800|NCT01200394|183204621|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.843||||0.9889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|0.975||Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as P-value) that PF-00489791 has a greater than 0% reduction in UACR compared to placebo.|ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio and corresponding 95% credible intervals were calculated.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework on normal logarithmic scale with treatment as fixed effect, baseline UACR and baseline supine systolic blood pressure (BP) as covariate. Values were back-transformed from log scale. Model used informative prior distribution for placebo.||0.975|0.728|0.9889
91691895|NCT00832455|183278364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar-Bowker|The McNemar-Bowker test is a statistical procedure used to compare the proportion of physician satisfaction at week 0 compared to week 12.||||||<0.001
91691896|NCT00832455|183278364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar-Bowker|The McNemar-Bowker test is a statistical procedure used to compare the proportion of physician satisfaction at week 0 compared to week 8.||||||<0.001
91691897|NCT00832455|183278365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar-Bowker|The McNemar-Bowker test is a statistical procedure used to compare the proportion of patient satisfaction at week 0 compared to week 12.||||||<0.001
91691898|NCT00832455|183278366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Change in PACQLQ score between Week 12 and baseline is statistically different than zero||||||<0.001
91691899|NCT02883062|183278430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||0.36
91691900|NCT02883062|183278431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.018
91852341|NCT01123083|183587907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.16|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and baseline HbA1c. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||0.16|-0.52|0.582
91711622|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|3.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.98|1.43|<0.001
91711623|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.09||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|3.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.37|0.82|0.008
91711624|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.32||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|2.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.51|0.13|0.068
91711625|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.18|-1.16|0.994
91900984|NCT03226275|183696655|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|97.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.29|103.74||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting State||103.74|92.29|
91711626|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.69|-0.70|0.494
91711627|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.39||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|2.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.62|0.16|0.063
91711628|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|3.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.34|0.95|0.004
91711629|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.17||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|3.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.38|0.97|0.004
91711630|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.55||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.77|0.32|0.038
91711631|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.48||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM : Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.68|-0.72|0.512
91711632|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.66||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.89|-0.56|0.373
91711633|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|2.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.56|0.05|0.088
91711634|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|3.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.44|0.98|0.004
91711635|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|3.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.57|1.09|0.003
91711636|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.87||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|3.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.04|0.69|0.010
91711637|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.89||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|2.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.05|-0.27|0.205
91711638|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.44||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|2.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.63|0.26|0.045
91711639|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.09||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|3.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.31|0.88|0.005
91711640|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.70|1.33|<0.001
91711641|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.29||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.48|1.10|0.002
91711642|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.69|-1.15|0.757
91655801|NCT01200394|183204621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|||||Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as P-value) that PF-00489791 has a greater than or equal to 20% reduction in UACR compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework on normal logarithmic scale with treatment as fixed effect, baseline UACR and baseline supine systolic BP as covariate. Values were back-transformed from log scale. Model used informative prior distribution for placebo.||||0.2402
91711643|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.27|-1.54|0.878
91711644|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.17|-1.64|0.780
91711645|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.36||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.77|-1.04|0.670
91711646|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.98||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|3.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.38|0.58|0.021
91711647|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|2.71|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.71|-0.10|0.126
91711648|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.97||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.26|-0.32|0.215
91711649|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||0.91|-1.65|0.635
91711650|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.22|-1.35|0.934
91711651|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|1.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.87|-0.74|0.478
91711652|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|3.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.87|1.26|0.002
91711653|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.99||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.30|0.68|0.013
91711654|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.57|-1.04|0.736
91711655|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|0.61|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||0.61|-1.96|0.386
91655802|NCT01200394|183204622|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8759||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7727|0.9927|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9927|0.7727|0.0382
91655803|NCT01200394|183204622|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8311||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7208|0.9584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9584|0.7208|0.0112
91711656|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.24|-1.35|0.948
91711657|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.22|-1.41|0.908
91711658|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.97||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|3.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.28|0.65|0.015
91791327|NCT01816451|183460322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||For pre; during (retest I 0-6weeks; retest II 0-10 weeks) and post training data were expressed as mean and standard deviation. HR and \[La\], were by three-way ANOVA (Measure x Group x Time) with repeated measures for the factors Measure and Time. The variables RPE, Velocity were made two-way ANOVAs (Group x Measure) with repeated measures on the factor Measure. Where the ANOVA was significant, the Tukey-Kramer as post-hoc was used. Control didn't do submaximal test for training intensities.||||<0.05
91711659|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|2.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.92|0.29|0.046
91711660|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|2.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.89|0.31|0.042
91711661|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.34|-1.22|0.940
91711662|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.24||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.53|-0.05|0.114
91711663|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.97||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.28|-0.35|0.228
91711664|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.29||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.60|0.98|0.005
91711665|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.48||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|2.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.79|0.17|0.063
91711666|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|1.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.91|-0.92|0.562
91711667|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.67||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|2.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.07|-0.73|0.431
91711668|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|1.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.62|-1.18|0.795
91655804|NCT01200394|183204622|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8816||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7427|1.0465|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0465|0.7427|0.1490
91655805|NCT01200394|183204623|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8565||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.9847|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9847|0.7450|0.0297
91655806|NCT01200394|183204623|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8524||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7376|0.985|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9850|0.7376|0.0305
91655807|NCT01200394|183204623|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7937||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6717|0.9378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9378|0.6717|0.0068
91655808|NCT01200394|183204623|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8634||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.0368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0368|0.7190|0.1151
91655809|NCT01200394|183204624|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9816||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9434|1.0214|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0214|0.9434|0.3585
91655810|NCT01200394|183204624|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9939||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9577|1.0315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0315|0.9577|0.7475
91655811|NCT01200394|183204624|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9866||||0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9488|1.0259|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0259|0.9488|0.4972
91655812|NCT01200394|183204624|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0024||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9588|1.0481|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0481|0.9588|0.9146
91655813|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 0: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||-2.84|-7.94|<0.0001
91655814|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 0: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||-2.04|-5.38|<0.0001
91655815|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9489|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 0: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||-2.72|-6.46|<0.0001
91655816|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4056||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 3: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.24|-3.29|0.7093
91655817|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9089||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 3: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.20|-1.39|0.6564
91711669|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.83||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|3.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.23|0.43|0.032
91791328|NCT03445156|183460374|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|F(2, 273) = 3.16, p = .044, partial c\^2 = .023||||||0.04
91791329|NCT03445156|183460374|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|F(1, 36) = 44.42||||||.0001
91711670|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|4.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.13|1.34|0.002
91711671|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.04||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|3.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.44|0.64|0.017
91791330|NCT03445156|183460375|OTHER|ANCOVA|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|F(1, 36) = 44.42||Hypothesis: Participants who played a violent FPS game were expected to have more hits to targets with heads or faces than were participants who played a nonviolent shooting game.||||<.001
91711672|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.26||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|2.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.60|-0.09|0.124
91711673|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.08||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.41|-1.25|0.920
91711674|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.46|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.22|-1.46|0.887
91711675|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.42||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|2.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.77|0.08|0.083
91711676|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|4.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.01|1.29|0.002
91711677|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|3.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.66|0.94|0.006
91655818|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0334||0.8763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 3: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.87|-2.20|0.8763
91711678|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.78|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.78|-0.80|0.533
91852342|NCT01123083|183587907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.45|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and baseline HbA1c. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||0.45|-0.46|0.987
91655819|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4926||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 6: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.46|-3.42|0.7491
91711679|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|1.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.26|-1.29|0.985
91655820|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9235||0.6141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 6: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.35|-2.29|0.6141
91655821|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0582||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 6: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.42|-2.75|0.5281
91711680|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|1.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.62|-0.95|0.665
91655822|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8764||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 12: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||4.50|-2.90|0.6695
91655823|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 12: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.49|-2.74|0.5607
91655824|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2722||0.8297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 12: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.23|-2.78|0.8297
91655825|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7065||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 16: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||3.87|-2.85|0.7644
91711681|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.86||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.15|-0.44|0.276
91900985|NCT03226275|183696655|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|100.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.37|106.03||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||106.03|94.37|
91655826|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9917||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 16: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.61|-1.30|0.5123
91655827|NCT01200394|183204625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1355||0.6838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 16: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.70|-1.77|0.6838
91655828|NCT01200394|183204627|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9282||||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7297|1.1807|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.1807|0.7297|0.5422
91711682|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.34||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|3.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.65|1.04|0.004
91711683|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.04||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|3.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.35|0.74|0.011
91711684|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.78||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|3.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.14|0.41|0.033
91655829|NCT01200394|183204627|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7998||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6402|0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9990|0.6402|0.0490
91900986|NCT03226275|183696655|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|93.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.56|104.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||104.20|84.56|
91711685|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.84||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.19|-0.50|0.302
91711686|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.94||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.30|-0.42|0.255
91711687|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.08||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|2.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.46|-0.30|0.198
91655830|NCT01200394|183204627|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0435||||0.7264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8211|1.3262|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.3262|0.8211|0.7264
91655831|NCT01200394|183204627|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1154||||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8761|1.4201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.4201|0.8761|0.3733
91655832|NCT01835145|183204638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||A one-sided chi-squared test for a difference in PFS4 rates will be used to test for a difference between arms.||||0.70
91655833|NCT02708277|183204676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91655834|NCT02708277|183204677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.303
91655835|NCT02708277|183204678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.606
91655836|NCT02708277|183204679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91711688|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|4.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.06|1.30|0.002
91711689|NCT00572455|183314669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.68||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|3.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.06|0.30|0.046
91711690|NCT02609386|183314673|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.102||||0.6176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1|||Log Rank|||||2.1|0.6|0.6176
91655837|NCT02739984|183204716|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.16|-60.12|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-60.12|-68.16|<0.0001
91655838|NCT02739984|183204717|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.56|-48.71|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-48.71|-57.56|<0.0001
91655839|NCT02739984|183204718|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-67.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|-62.2|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-62.2|-72.1|<0.0001
91655840|NCT02739984|183204719|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-50.5|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-50.5|-61.0|<0.0001
91711691|NCT02609386|183314674|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.009||||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||Log Rank|||||2.2|0.5|0.3889
91711692|NCT02609386|183314675|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.009||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||Log Rank|||||2.2|0.5|0.5091
91711693|NCT03280056|183314676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|2.798|||Chi-squared|||||2.798|0.632|0.453
91711694|NCT03280056|183314677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.998||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|2.395|||Chi-squared|||||2.395|0.416|0.997
91711695|NCT03280056|183314678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.926||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.20|-1.47|0.693
91711696|NCT03280056|183314679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.176||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|13.72|||ANCOVA|||||13.72|-10.65|0.804
91655841|NCT02739984|183204720|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.28|-52.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-52.85|-60.28|<0.0001
91655842|NCT02739984|183204721|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.42|-42.15|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-42.15|-50.42|<0.0001
91655843|NCT02739984|183204722|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|-48.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-48.85|-56.10|<0.0001
91655844|NCT02739984|183204723|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.13|-38.11|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-38.11|-46.13|<0.0001
91711697|NCT00397189|183314723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-6.0|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a comparison of sleep latency as measured by the sleep diary at Visit 3 in the ITT 65-80 population, using a linear regression model with terms for treatment (Circadin® 2mg vs. Placebo) and baseline sleep latency.||-6|-25.3|<0.05
91711698|NCT00141518|183314748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-9.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.5||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Total Score, Change From Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=25)||||0.017
91711699|NCT00141518|183314749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.919|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=25)||||0.919
91711700|NCT00141518|183314750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=25)||||0.002
91711701|NCT00141518|183314777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-6.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 0 (n=27)||||0.001
91711702|NCT00141518|183314777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 3 (n=23)||||<0.001
91711703|NCT00141518|183314777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.2||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 6 (n=24)||||0.022
91711704|NCT00141518|183314777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 9 (n=23)||||0.005
91711705|NCT00141518|183314777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.9||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=23)||||0.126
91711706|NCT00141518|183314777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 18 (n=22)||||0.049
91711707|NCT00141518|183314777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 24 (n=21)||||0.203
91711708|NCT00141518|183314777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 30 (n=21)||||0.733
91900987|NCT03226275|183696655|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|106.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.82|116.08||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||116.08|97.82|
91711709|NCT00141518|183314777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.3||0.414|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 36 (n=20)||||0.414
91711710|NCT00141518|183314777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Endpoint (n=27)||||0.534
91711711|NCT00141518|183314786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.016
91711712|NCT00141518|183314786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.188
91711713|NCT00141518|183314787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.008
91711714|NCT00141518|183314787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.107
91711715|NCT00141518|183314788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.002
91711716|NCT00141518|183314788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.010
91711717|NCT00141518|183314789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.048
91711718|NCT00141518|183314789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.003
91711719|NCT00141518|183314790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.001
91711720|NCT00141518|183314790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.003
91711721|NCT00141518|183314791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||1.000
91711722|NCT00141518|183314791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.002
91711723|NCT00141518|183314792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.017
91711724|NCT00141518|183314792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||||||0.191
91711725|NCT00141518|183314793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.002
91711726|NCT00141518|183314793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||<0.001
91711727|NCT00141518|183314794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.047
91711728|NCT00141518|183314794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.847
91711729|NCT00141518|183314795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.012
91655845|NCT02739984|183204724|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-38.22|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-38.22|-43.90|<0.0001
91655846|NCT02739984|183204725|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.87|-30.6|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-30.60|-36.87|<0.0001
91655847|NCT02739984|183204726|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|77.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|83.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||83.5|70.0|<0.0001
91655848|NCT02739984|183204727|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|69.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|75.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||75.7|60.4|<0.0001
91655849|NCT02739984|183204728|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|83.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.7|87.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||87.4|77.7|<0.0001
91711730|NCT00141518|183314795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.035
91655850|NCT02739984|183204729|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.7|70.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||70.3|57.7|<0.0001
91655851|NCT02739984|183204730|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.11|-32.9|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-32.90|-48.11|<0.0001
91655852|NCT02739984|183204731|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.58|-25.53|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-25.53|-39.58|<0.0001
91655853|NCT02739984|183204732|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.95|-12.54|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-12.54|-25.95|<0.0001
91655854|NCT02739984|183204733|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-5.8|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-5.80|-21.60|<0.0001
91655855|NCT02739984|183204734|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.95|12.64|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||12.64|6.95|<0.0001
91711731|NCT00141518|183314796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.599
91711732|NCT00141518|183314796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.048
91655856|NCT02739984|183204735|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|10.56|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||10.56|4.19|<0.0001
91711733|NCT00141518|183314797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.026
91711734|NCT00141518|183314797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.208
91711735|NCT00141518|183314798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.010
91711736|NCT00141518|183314798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.073
91711737|NCT00141518|183314799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.048
91711738|NCT00141518|183314799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.030
91711739|NCT00141518|183314800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.208
91711740|NCT00141518|183314800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.048
91711741|NCT01029262|183314813|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|10.616|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.639|42.702|||Fisher Exact|p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare lenalidomide treatment group to placebo group||||42.702|2.639|<0.001
91711742|NCT01029262|183314814|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare lenalidomide treatment group to placebo group.||||||1.000
91711743|NCT01029262|183314815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||NA for risk ratio is due to 0 responder in placebo group.|P-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare the lenalidomide arm to the placebo arm.|Fisher Exact||||||0|< 0.001
91711744|NCT01029262|183314816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|p-value from log-rank test to compare lenalidomide and placebo.||||||0.639
91711745|NCT01029262|183314817|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.276||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.877||p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare the lenalidomide arm to the placebo arm.|Fisher Exact|||||1.877|0.867|0.252
91711746|NCT01029262|183314819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value from log-rank test to compare lenalidomide and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||0.864
91711747|NCT01029262|183314820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||p-value from log-rank test to compare lenalidomide and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||0.980
91711748|NCT01029262|183314822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Baseline||||0.823
91711749|NCT01029262|183314822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 12 (±3 days)||||0.371
91711750|NCT01029262|183314822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 24 (±3 days)||||0.391
91711751|NCT01029262|183314822|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 36 (±3 days)||||1.000
91711752|NCT01029262|183314822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 48 (±3 days)||||0.508
91655857|NCT02739984|183204736|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-17.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.91|-11.21|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-11.21|-22.91|<0.0001
91711753|NCT01029262|183314823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.||Week 12||||0.323
91655858|NCT02739984|183204737|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.09|-6.56|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-6.56|-20.09|<0.0001
91655859|NCT01048333|183204742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.35|||Regression, Cox|||||3.35|1.31|0.002
91711754|NCT01029262|183314823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.071
91711755|NCT01029262|183314824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.760
91711756|NCT01029262|183314824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.251
91711757|NCT01029262|183314825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.424
91655860|NCT01048333|183204742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.534||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|12.02|||Regression, Cox|||||12.02|3.55|0.001
91711758|NCT01029262|183314825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.116
91711759|NCT01029262|183314826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.746
91711760|NCT01029262|183314826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||||||0.460
91655861|NCT01048333|183204742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.127||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|5.52|||Regression, Cox|||||5.52|1.77|0.001
91655862|NCT04947579|183204753|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|2.4||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||22.7|-18.2|0.829
91655863|NCT04947579|183204753|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|7.3||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||27.5|-13.8|0.512
91655864|NCT04947579|183204754|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|3.3||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||21.0|-14.9|0.725
91655865|NCT04947579|183204754|SUPERIORITY||Stratfied difference|12.2||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||30.5|-7.2|0.219
91655866|NCT04947579|183204755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.16|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||0.16|-0.50|0.299
91655867|NCT04947579|183204755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||0.22|-0.45|0.488
91655868|NCT04947579|183204756|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.79|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||0.79|-0.76|0.970
91711761|NCT01029262|183314827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.265
91711762|NCT01029262|183314827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||3\]: P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.047
91655869|NCT04947579|183204756|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.61|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||0.61|-0.95|0.668
91655870|NCT04947579|183204757|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.88|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||0.88|-0.77|0.890
91655871|NCT04947579|183204757|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.08|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||1.08|-0.57|0.545
91655872|NCT04947579|183204758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.7|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||1.70|-2.26|0.778
91655873|NCT04947579|183204758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|1.03|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||1.03|-3.02|0.330
91711763|NCT01029262|183314828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.2909
91711764|NCT01029262|183314828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.0759
91711765|NCT01029262|183314829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6957|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.6957
91711766|NCT01029262|183314829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.1729
91711767|NCT01029262|183314830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3975|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.||Week 12||||0.3975
91711768|NCT01029262|183314830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.1714
91711769|NCT01029262|183314831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.6408
91655874|NCT04947579|183204759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.567||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|2.28|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||2.28|-3.93|0.600
91655875|NCT04947579|183204759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|1.87|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||1.87|-4.49|0.416
91655876|NCT04947579|183204760|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.741||||95.0|-27.31|14.79||||||||14.79|-27.31|
91655877|NCT04947579|183204760|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.57|-0.58||||||||-0.58|-36.57|
91655878|NCT04947579|183204760|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean|-12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.105|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.96|7.65||||||||7.65|-31.96|
91655879|NCT00767325|183204763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||||Day 7|||-0.1|-1.2|
91655880|NCT00767325|183204763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.7|||||Day 15|||-0.7|-2.0|
91655881|NCT00767325|183204763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.7|||||Day 29|||-1.7|-3.2|
91655882|NCT00767325|183204763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-2.1|||||Day 43|||-2.1|-3.7|
91655883|NCT00767325|183204763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.4|||||Day 57|||-2.4|-4.0|
91655884|NCT00767325|183204763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.9|||||Day 85|||-2.9|-4.7|
91655885|NCT00767325|183204763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-3.5|||||Day 113|||-3.5|-5.4|
91655886|NCT00767325|183204763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.8|||||Day 141|||-3.8|-5.8|
91655887|NCT00767325|183204763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.9|||||Day 169|||-3.9|-5.8|
91711770|NCT01029262|183314831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.5750
91655888|NCT00996736|183204785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is less than 1.5 lines logMAR acuity. (Adjusted three-month visual acuity confidence bounds for the difference between the voriconazole and natamycin groups which meet or exceed 0.15 logMAR units would not permit noninferiority to be declared.) Note that this design also allows declaration of superiority (2-sided alpha of 0.05, corrected for an interim analysis).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.05|-0.30|0.006
91655889|NCT00770315|183204866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.2192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.45|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.45|-1.98|0.2192
91655890|NCT00770315|183204866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.36|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.36|-2.80|0.0113
91655891|NCT00770315|183204866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.79|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.79|-3.30|0.0015
91655892|NCT00770315|183204867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.13|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.13|-1.88|0.0878
91655893|NCT00770315|183204867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.28|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.28|-2.29|0.0125
91655894|NCT00770315|183204867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.88|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.88|-2.95|0.0003
91655895|NCT00770315|183204868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.45|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.45|-0.96|0.4781
91655896|NCT00770315|183204868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.21|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.21|-1.21|0.1695
91655897|NCT00770315|183204868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.21|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.21|-1.67|0.0118
91655898|NCT00770315|183204869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.25|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.25|-0.93|0.2622
91711771|NCT01029262|183314832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments||Week 12||||0.2848
91655899|NCT00770315|183204869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.2|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.20|-0.99|0.1914
91655900|NCT00770315|183204869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.35|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.35|-1.57|0.0021
91711772|NCT01029262|183314832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 24||||0.1053
91655901|NCT00770315|183204870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.25|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.25|-1.26|0.1900
91655902|NCT00770315|183204870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.32|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.32|-1.84|0.0053
91655903|NCT00770315|183204870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.32|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.32|-1.89|0.0058
91655904|NCT03900624|183204882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.632
91655905|NCT03900624|183204883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.725
91655906|NCT03900624|183204884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.725
91711773|NCT01029262|183314833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.042
91711774|NCT01029262|183314833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.448
91711775|NCT01029262|183314834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.825
91655907|NCT02999178|183204887|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|106.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.42|148.5||Treatment comparison of slopes was assessed through the treatment-by-time interaction coefficient. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|"Fixed effects: Treatment, HRCT fibrotic pattern, baseline FVC (mL), treatment-by-time, baseline-by-time interactions.~Random effects: time, intercept."|Difference of adjusted annual rates of decline was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|The decrease in FVC was assumed to be linear within each participant over 52 weeks. The intercepts and slopes were assumed to be normally distributed with unstructured covariance matrix. The within participant error was assumed to be independent and normally distributed with mean 0 and a common variance. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors (SEs).||148.50|65.42|<.0001
91691901|NCT00380874|183278450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2536||||||Cycle 1. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 1. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.2536
91655908|NCT02999178|183204888|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|128.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.81|185.59||Treatment comparison of slopes was assessed through the treatment-by-time interaction coefficient. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Treatment, baseline FVC (mL), treatment-by-time, baseline-by-time interactions. Random effects: time, intercept.|Difference of adjusted annual rates of decline was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|The decrease in FVC was assumed to be linear within each participant over 52 weeks. The intercepts and slopes were assumed to be normally distributed with unstructured covariance matrix. The within participant error was assumed to be independent and normally distributed with mean 0 and a common variance. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors (SEs).||185.59|70.81|<.0001
91655909|NCT02999178|183204889|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.98|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects: baseline K-BILD Total score, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interactions, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||2.98|-0.31|0.1115
91655910|NCT02999178|183204890|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|3.74|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects: baseline K-BILD Total score, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interactions, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||3.74|-0.68|0.1747
91655911|NCT02999178|183204891|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.34|||Log Rank|Stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern.|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern, was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.34|0.48|0.3948
91655912|NCT02999178|183204892|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.24|||Log Rank||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.24|0.36|0.1985
91655913|NCT02999178|183204893|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.86|||Log Rank|Stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern.|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern, was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.86|0.47|0.8544
91655914|NCT02999178|183204894|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.47|||Log Rank||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.47|0.32|0.3291
91655915|NCT02999178|183204897|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||Log Rank|Stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern.|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern, was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.85|0.49|0.0017
91655916|NCT02999178|183204898|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.89|||Log Rank||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.89|0.45|0.0081
91655917|NCT02999178|183204899|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred and binary covariate HRCT fibrotic pattern.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.96|0.52|
91655918|NCT02999178|183204900|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.94|0.43|
91655919|NCT02999178|183204901|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.68|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred and binary covariate HRCT fibrotic pattern.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.68|0.36|
91655920|NCT02999178|183204902|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.69|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.69|0.31|
91655921|NCT02999178|183204903|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-0.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, HRCT fibrotic pattern, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-0.92|-6.14|
91655922|NCT02999178|183204904|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|-0.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-0.88|-7.48|
91655923|NCT02999178|183204905|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-6.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-2.53|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, HRCT fibrotic pattern, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-2.53|-9.65|
91655924|NCT02999178|183204906|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|-2.71|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-2.71|-11.86|
91655925|NCT01244126|183204923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kruskall Wallis ANOVA by ranks|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The primary outcome of the study was the maximum postoperative FLACC pain score.||||0.21
91655926|NCT01244126|183204924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kruskall Wallis ANOVA|0.34||||0.34||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskall Wallis test||||0.34
91655927|NCT00863746|183204942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9934||||0.4687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8409|1.1735||p-value of one-sided test (significance level 2.5%)|Log Rank|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||Test for superiority of Sorafenib over Placebo||1.1735|0.8409|0.4687
91711776|NCT01029262|183314834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.568
91655928|NCT00863746|183204943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6068|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5139|0.7165||p-value of one-sided test (significance level 2.5%)|Log Rank|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||Test for superiority of Sorafenib over Placebo||0.7165|0.5139|<0.0001
91655929|NCT00863746|183204944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH-adjusted difference in proportions|0.2263|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1575|0.2952|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||||0.2952|0.1575|<0.000001
91655930|NCT00863746|183204945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH-adjusted difference in proportions|0.039||||0.000876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0137|0.0642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||||0.0642|0.0137|0.000876
91655931|NCT00863746|183204946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4526|0.6492||p-value of one-sided test (significance level 2.5%)|Log Rank|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||Test for superiority of Sorafenib over Placebo||0.6492|0.4526|<0.0001
91655932|NCT00863746|183204947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3121||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3121
91655933|NCT00863746|183204948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2948||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2948
91655934|NCT00863746|183204949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8344||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8344
91655935|NCT00863746|183204950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1438||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1438
91655936|NCT00863746|183204951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9228||||||p-value for treatment effect equal to 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9228
91711777|NCT01029262|183314835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.119
91900988|NCT03226275|183696656|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting State||0.50|0.00|
91655937|NCT00153803|183204960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.65|0.165
91655938|NCT00153803|183204961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.85|0.32
91655939|NCT03311646|183204995|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.4||alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = VLNC-NNC|Comparison of carbon monoxide during VLNC condition to carbon monoxide during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p-value: p=0.27|1.4|-1.27|0.92
91655940|NCT03311646|183204996|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.66||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = VLNC-NNC|Comparison of cigarette per day during VLNC condition to cigarette per day during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p=0.23|2.66|-0.41|0.15
91655941|NCT03311646|183204997|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference=VLNC-NNC|Comparison of Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale during VLNC condition to Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p=0.95|4.60|1.77|<0.001
91655942|NCT03311646|183204998|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.5||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = VLNC-NNC|Comparison of carbon monoxide during VLNC condition to carbon monoxide during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p=0.94|2.5|-2.0|0.84
91655943|NCT00067236|183204999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Changes from baseline in efficacy parameters at Day 90.||||0.4239
91655944|NCT01439165|183205036|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference of seroprotection rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||Comparison of anti-tetanus seroprotection rate between the two groups||1.2|-0.4|
91655945|NCT01439165|183205036|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of seroprotection rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.1||||||Comparison of anti-diphtheria seroprotection rates between the two groups||2.1|-0.3|
91655946|NCT01439165|183205037|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|-7.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.7||||||Comparison of the anti-tetanus booster response rates between the two groups||-1.7|-12.0|
91711778|NCT01029262|183314835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.172
91711779|NCT01029262|183314836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values were calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.792
91655947|NCT01439165|183205037|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.0||||||Comparison of the anti-diphteria booster response rates between the two groups||4.0|-5.4|
91711780|NCT01029262|183314836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.279
91711781|NCT01029262|183314837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.476
91711782|NCT01029262|183314837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.052
91711783|NCT01029262|183314838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.759||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.856||p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare lenalidomide treatment group to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||2.856|1.083|0.017
91655948|NCT01439165|183205038|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.18||||||Comparison of anti-pertussis toxoid GMCs between Adacel and historical control groups||1.18|0.92|
91655949|NCT01439165|183205038|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC Ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|5.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|6.05||||||Comparison of the anti-FHA GMCs between Adacel and historical Control groups||6.05|4.51|
91655950|NCT01439165|183205038|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC Ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|3.51||||||Comparison of the anti-Pertactin GMCs between Adacel and historical Control groups||3.51|2.46|
91655951|NCT01439165|183205038|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC Ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.6||||||Comparison of the post-vaccination anti-Fimbriae (types 2 and 3) GMCs between Adacel and historical Control groups||2.60|1.84|
91791331|NCT03445156|183460375|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|F(2, 273) = 3.16||Hypothesis: Participants who played a violent FPS game were expected to hit the mannequin's head more often than were participants who played either the nonviolent shooting game or the nonviolent non-shooting game Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun.||||.044
91791332|NCT03445156|183460375|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(274) = 2.40||"Hypothesis: Because the nonviolent shooting game rewards other shots, participants who played a nonviolent shooting game were expected to hit the mannequin's torso more often than were participants who played the nonviolent non-shooting game.~Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun."||||0.17
91655952|NCT01439165|183205039|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10% .|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|16.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|18.73||||||comparison of anti-pertussis toxoid booster response rates was performed between the Adacel and historical groups||18.73|13.27|
91655953|NCT01439165|183205039|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|-4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-1.34||||||Comparison of the anti-FHA booster response rates between the Adacel and historical groups||-1.34|-7.23|
91655954|NCT01439165|183205039|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10% .|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|-18.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-15.6||||||Comparison of the anti-Pertactin booster response rates between Adacel and historical groups||-15.6|-21.7|
91655955|NCT01439165|183205039|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10% .|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|-19.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-16.0||||||Comparison of the anti-Fimbriae (types 2 and 3) booster response rates between Adacel and historical groups||-16.0|-22.3|
91655956|NCT03499964|183205055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.0001
91655957|NCT03499964|183205057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91655958|NCT01047345|183205060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.5||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||6.2|0.5|0.026
91711784|NCT01468454|183314846|OTHER||Specificity|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|97.1||||||||97.1|75.2|
91655959|NCT01047345|183205061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||10.8|-2.8|
91655960|NCT01047345|183205062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.9|-1.5|
91711785|NCT01468454|183314846|OTHER||Sensitivity|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.3|92.0||||||||92|72.3|
91711786|NCT03060291|183314856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.549
91711787|NCT03060291|183314856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.854|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.854
91711788|NCT03060291|183314856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.469|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.469
91655961|NCT01047345|183205063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.6|-1.7|
91655962|NCT01047345|183205064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|13.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||13.1|7.5|
91655963|NCT01047345|183205065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion rate|99.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the proportion of participants seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 31||100.0|98.9|<0.001
91655964|NCT01047345|183205065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 33||100.0|98.9|<0.001
91655965|NCT01047345|183205065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|98.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.7|99.2||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 45||99.2|96.7|<0.001
91711789|NCT03060291|183314857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.535|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.535
91711790|NCT03060291|183314857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.081|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.081
91711791|NCT03060291|183314857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.295|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.295
91655966|NCT01047345|183205065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 52||100.0|98.6|<0.001
91655967|NCT01047345|183205065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 58||100.0|98.9|<0.001
91711792|NCT03060291|183314858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.149|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.149
91711793|NCT03060291|183314858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.207
91711794|NCT03060291|183314858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.871
91711795|NCT03060291|183314859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.547|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.547
91655968|NCT00995553|183205070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MATRICS Working Memory Index||||.06
91655969|NCT00995553|183205070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MATRICS Attention Index||||.09
91791333|NCT03445156|183460375|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(274) = -0.76||Hypothesis: participants who played a nonviolent shooting game were expected to hit the mannequin's head less often than were participants who played the nonviolent non-shooting game Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun.||||.449
91711796|NCT03060291|183314859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.575
91711797|NCT03060291|183314859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.964
91655970|NCT00995553|183205071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||||||.73
91711798|NCT03060291|183314860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.236
91655971|NCT00950807|183205078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.196|0.060|<0.001
91655972|NCT00950807|183205078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.216|0.077|<0.001
91655973|NCT00950807|183205078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.162|0.027|0.006
91655974|NCT00950807|183205078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.205|0.074|<0.001
91655975|NCT00950807|183205078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.259|0.113|<0.001
91655976|NCT00950807|183205078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.151|0.008|0.030
91852343|NCT01123083|183587907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.59|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and baseline HbA1c. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 12||0.59|-0.33|0.572
91655977|NCT00950807|183205078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.204|0.064|<0.001
91655978|NCT00950807|183205078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.242|0.101|<0.001
91655979|NCT00950807|183205078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.173|0.037|0.003
91655980|NCT00659607|183205093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test for paired observations|||||||<0.0001
91711799|NCT03060291|183314860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.142
91655981|NCT00659607|183205094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2669|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2669
91655982|NCT00659607|183205095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9674|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9674
91655983|NCT00659607|183205096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9207|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9207
91655984|NCT00659607|183205097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8249|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8249
91655985|NCT00659607|183205098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test for paired observations|||||||<0.0001
91655986|NCT00659607|183205100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.121|4.151|||Chi-squared||The estimation of Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Interval based on the logistic regression analysis|||4.151|1.121|0.0003
91655987|NCT00659607|183205101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.642|6.776|||Chi-squared||The Estimation of Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Interval based the logistic regression analysis|||6.776|1.642|<0.0001
91655988|NCT00659607|183205102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0075
91655989|NCT00659607|183205103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0007
91655990|NCT00659607|183205104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0393
91655991|NCT00659607|183205105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0245
91655992|NCT01822548|183205126|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model (GLM)||||||<0.05
91711800|NCT03060291|183314860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.810
91655993|NCT01822548|183205126|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.362|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.695|||ANOVA|adjustment for baseline value of EPC||||0.695|0.028|<0.05
91655994|NCT01822548|183205127|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.067|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|0.224|||ANOVA|||||0.224|-0.358|<0.05
91655995|NCT01734772|183205143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|149.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.6||0.9456||90.0|124.388|179.383||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||179.383|124.388|0.9456
91655996|NCT01734772|183205143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|126.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.3||0.5481||90.0|107.363|148.967||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||148.967|107.363|0.5481
91711801|NCT03060291|183314861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.599|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.599
91711802|NCT03060291|183314861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.523|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.523
91711803|NCT03060291|183314861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.252
91711804|NCT03060291|183314862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.867|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.867
91711805|NCT03060291|183314862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.127|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.127
91655997|NCT01734772|183205143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|127.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||0.5665||90.0|108.047|149.295||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||149.295|108.047|0.5665
91655998|NCT01734772|183205144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|164.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.9||0.9841||90.0|133.945|202.619||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||202.619|133.945|0.9841
91655999|NCT01734772|183205144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|128.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.0||0.6003||90.0|106.37|155.495||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||155.495|106.370|0.6003
91656000|NCT01734772|183205144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|gMean Ratio|123.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.9||0.4656||90.0|102.695|149.288||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||149.288|102.695|0.4656
91656001|NCT00720122|183205146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00653||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0081|0.0193|||Paired t-test|||A paired t-test was performed. The null hypothesis was that bone density would decrease over 6 months in females with anorexia nervosa, as observed in life course studies.||0.0193|-0.0081|0.40
91656002|NCT00661999|183205154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the primary hematopoietic response endpoint through Fisher's exact test, if the true percentage of patients that experience a hematopoietic response was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.39
91656003|NCT00661999|183205154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the primary hematopoietic response endpoint through Fisher's exact test, if the true percentage of patients that experience a hematopoietic response was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.73
91656004|NCT00661999|183205156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the true percentage of patients that need transfusion was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.7250
91711806|NCT03060291|183314862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||.101
91711807|NCT00718094|183314863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91656005|NCT00661999|183205156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the true percentage of patients that need transfusion was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.8700
91656006|NCT00661999|183205157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6639||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.6639
91656007|NCT00661999|183205157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.5660
91656008|NCT00661999|183205158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1124||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.1124
91656009|NCT00661999|183205158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2051||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.2051
91656010|NCT00661999|183205159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0648||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0648
91656011|NCT00661999|183205161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.61
91656012|NCT00661999|183205161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.44
91656013|NCT00661999|183205162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.62
91656014|NCT00661999|183205162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.30
91711808|NCT02420262|183314877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for IDegLira vs basal-bolus (IGlar + IAsp) was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was strictly below 0.30% or equivalent for non-inferiority using one-sided test for null hypothesis (H0): D ≥0.30% against alternative hypothesis (HA): D \<0.30% was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus basal-bolus).|Treatment contrast|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, visit and region as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Interactions between visit and all factors and the covariate were also included in the model.||0.12|-0.16|<0.0001
91656015|NCT00661999|183205163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.19
91656016|NCT00661999|183205163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.17
91656017|NCT00661999|183205164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.73
91656018|NCT00661999|183205164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.83
91656019|NCT00661999|183205165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3852||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 1 Level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3852
91791334|NCT03445156|183460375|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(273) = -0.46||"Hypothesis: participants who played a nonviolent shooting game were expected to hit the mannequin's torso more often than were participants who played the nonviolent non-shooting game.~Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun."||||.645
91852344|NCT01123083|183587910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 6||||0.452
91656020|NCT00661999|183205165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0663||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 7 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0663
91656021|NCT00661999|183205165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 16 Level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3220
91656022|NCT00661999|183205166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 1 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1826
91656023|NCT00661999|183205166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0113||95.0||||Test comparison for week 7 level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0113
91656024|NCT00661999|183205166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3358||95.0||||Test Comparison for week 16 level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3358
91656025|NCT00661999|183205167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9022||95.0||||Test comparison for Baseline level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9022
91656026|NCT00661999|183205167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 7 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0002
91656027|NCT00661999|183205167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 16 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0022
91656028|NCT00661999|183205168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1137||95.0||||Test comparison for baseline level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1137
91656029|NCT00661999|183205168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8042||95.0||||Test comparison for week 7 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8042
91656030|NCT00661999|183205168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2016||95.0||||Test comparison for week 16 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2016
91656031|NCT00661999|183205169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1139||95.0||||Test comparison for baseline level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1139
91656032|NCT00661999|183205169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0424||95.0||||Test comparison for week 7 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0424
91656033|NCT00661999|183205169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2025||95.0||||Test comparison for week 16 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2025
91656034|NCT01658943|183205210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
91656035|NCT05905783|183205228|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.7|2.2|0.0183
91656036|NCT05905783|183205229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|6.7|0.0007
91656037|NCT05905783|183205230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.4|6.1|0.0008
91656038|NCT05905783|183205231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|0.2|0.0462
91656039|NCT05905783|183205232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.6|-14.3|0.6285
91656040|NCT05905783|183205233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.16||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.88|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-0.88|-3.44|0.0011
91656041|NCT05905783|183205234|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|39.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.7|9.6|0.0013
91656042|NCT05905783|183205235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.6|2.1|0.0245
91656043|NCT01396044|183205247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91656044|NCT01396044|183205248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.093
91656045|NCT01396044|183205249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
91656046|NCT01396044|183205250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91656047|NCT01396044|183205251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91656048|NCT01396044|183205253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91656049|NCT03008460|183205262|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the adjusted treatment difference was higher than -15%.|Adjusted treatment difference|-7.61||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.45|3.24||P-value for non-inferiority was estimated from the adjusted treatment difference.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a logistic regression model, including treatment and country as covariates.||3.24|-18.45|0.0907
91656050|NCT03008460|183205263|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.18||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||-0.01|-0.36|0.0428
91656051|NCT03008460|183205264|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.07||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.12|||ANOVA|||"Left colon:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||0.12|-0.25|0.4676
91656052|NCT03008460|183205264|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.09||||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANOVA|||"Transverse colon:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||0.08|-0.25|0.3076
91656053|NCT03008460|183205264|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.24||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.05|||ANOVA|||"Right colon:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||-0.05|-0.44|0.0155
91656054|NCT03008460|183205264|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.36||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.07|||ANOVA|||"Global score:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||0.07|-0.79|0.0975
91656055|NCT03008460|183205265|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|1.3847||||0.2428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.4|||CMH chi-square|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square method (using the general association statistic), stratified on country.||2.4|0.8|0.2428
91656056|NCT03008460|183205266|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|24.0219|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|45.9|||CMH chi-square|||Analysis was performed using CMH chi-square method (using the general association statistic), stratified on country.||45.9|12.6|<0.0001
91852345|NCT01123083|183587910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 12||||0.452
91852346|NCT01123083|183587911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 6||||0.123
91852347|NCT01123083|183587911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 12||||0.373
91852348|NCT00961636|183587912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The closed ordered testing procedure was applied to the efficacy hypotheses. If statistical significance was achieved for the primary hypothesis, then the secondary hypothesis was tested. All tests were performed at significance level 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by country||||||<0.001
91711809|NCT02420262|183314878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.17|||Negative binomial regression model||Superiority for IDegLira vs basal-bolus was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment rate ratio was entirely below 1.0.|Hypoglycaemic episodes were analysed using a negative binomial regression. The model included treatment and region as fixed factors and logarithm of the time period in which a hypoglycaemic episode considered treatment emergent as offset. The test for superiority of the confirmatory secondary endpoints was carried out only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs basal-bolus for primary endpoint was confirmed.||0.17|0.08|<0.0001
91791335|NCT03445156|183460375|OTHER|Zero-order correlation||||||0.032|||||||Zero-order correlation|||Hypothesis: A positive correlation was expected between the number of violent shooting games participants listed among their three favorite video games and hits to the mannequin's head.||||.032
91791336|NCT02889562|183460394|OTHER|Pearson chi-squared tests or Fisher exact tests||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91711810|NCT02420262|183314879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||Superiority for IDegLira vs basal-bolus was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was below 0 or equal to zero.|Body weight measurements were analysed using a linear mixed model with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, visit and region as fixed factors and baseline bodyweight as covariate. Interactions between visit and all factors and the covariate were also included in the model. The test for superiority of the confirmatory secondary endpoints was carried out only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs basal-bolus for primary endpoint was confirmed.||-2.95|-4.19|<0.0001
91711811|NCT00941304|183314887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.34||||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|12.62|||ANCOVA|||||12.62|-5.94|.4739
91656057|NCT03008460|183205267|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|1.0022||||0.9257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||CMH chi-square|||Analysis was performed using CMH chi-square method (using the general association statistic), stratified on country.||1.1|1.0|0.9257
91656058|NCT03008460|183205269|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.93||||0.4459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|1.47|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||1.47|-3.32|0.4459
91656059|NCT03008460|183205270|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.03|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||1.03|0.40|<0.0001
91711812|NCT00941304|183314887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.26||||0.2183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|16.34|||ANCOVA|||||16.34|-3.81|.2183
91711813|NCT00941304|183314887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.74||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|18.56|||ANCOVA|||||18.56|-1.11|.0809
91711814|NCT03293394|183314898|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.001
91711815|NCT03293394|183314899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
91711816|NCT03293394|183314900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.190
91656060|NCT03008460|183205271|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|1.22||||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.05|||ANOVA|||"Dose 1:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||4.05|-1.60|0.3945
91711817|NCT03293394|183314901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.652
91711818|NCT03293394|183314902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.190
91711819|NCT03293394|183314903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91656061|NCT03008460|183205271|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|6.38||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|11.12|||ANOVA|||"Dose 2:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||11.12|1.65|0.0085
91656062|NCT03008460|183205271|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|7.48||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|12.5|||ANOVA|||"Global:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||12.50|2.46|0.0036
91711820|NCT03293394|183314904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91711821|NCT03293394|183314905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91711822|NCT01903993|183314921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||Log rank (Stratified)|||Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated by a Cox regression model.||0.92|0.52|= 0.0106
91711823|NCT01903993|183314922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|0.59|||=|0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|8.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.85|-7.67|= 0.8884
91711824|NCT01903993|183314923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||=|0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Log rank (Stratified)|||HR were estimated by a Cox regression model. The two treatment comparison was based on a stratified log-rank test.||1.20|0.71|=0.5563
91711825|NCT01903993|183314924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.7|||Log rank (unstratified)|||HR were estimated by a unstratified Cox regression model.||0.70|0.15|= 0.0028
91656063|NCT03008460|183205274|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|1.05||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.69|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||1.69|0.41|0.0015
91656064|NCT00539539|183205276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in cluster-specific rates of ROSC.||0.05|-0.04|0.96
91656065|NCT00539539|183205277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average difference in cluster-specific rates.||3.4|-4.9|0.71
91791337|NCT02889562|183460397|OTHER|t-test and Wilcoxon analysis||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
91791338|NCT01943474|183460399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91656066|NCT00539539|183205278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.009|||t-test, 2 sided|By-cluster difference in outcome rates.||Average change in cluster-specific risk difference.||0.009|-0.039|0.21
91656067|NCT00539539|183205279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.4|||Regression, Linear|Difference in means, adjusted for cluster.||Cluster adjusted difference in average CPR fraction.||3.4|0.4|0.016
91656068|NCT00539539|183205280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization by cluster.||Cluster adjusted difference in means.||2.7|0.5|0.005
91656069|NCT00539539|183205281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.0|||Regression, Linear|||Cluster adjusted difference in average compression rate.||-3.0|-6.4|<0.001
91656070|NCT00539539|183205282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.5|||Regression, Linear|||Cluster adjusted difference in the average rate.||-1.5|-5.2|<0.001
91656071|NCT00539539|183205283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||Cluster adjusted difference in average rate.||0.7|-0.5|0.73
91656072|NCT02130466|183205301|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.74|||||Cox regression model|||0.74|0.29|
91711826|NCT03681184|183314973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|-53.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.314|-44.778||P=1.685E-14|MMRM|||The Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-44.778|-62.314|<0.0001
91656073|NCT02130466|183205308|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.95|||||Cox regression model|||0.95|0.38|
91656074|NCT04529109|183205373|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 0.90.|Mean Proportion|0.9998|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.0|||Bayesian Binary model||Interval presented is a 95% Credible interval.|||1.000|0.999|
91656075|NCT01508936|183205392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||slope difference|0.3007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2559||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|||||The interaction was tested at the significance level 0.10 using the FAS|Regression, Linear||Active - Placebo|The primary analysis was the linear regression model with model effects including treatment (reslizumab or placebo), blood eosinophil count at baseline, and the interaction of treatment and eosinophil count. A significant treatment by baseline eosinophil interaction would indicate that treatment difference varies by the baseline eosinophil count.||||0.2407
91656076|NCT01508936|183205393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0417||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.158||Statistical significance level is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|treatment, blood eosinophil count at baseline, and the interaction of treatment and eosinophil count as fixed effects.|Active - Placebo|"The change from baseline over the 16 week treatment period was measured for the key secondary variables of:~* Lung function as measured by FEV1~* ACQ~Testing of the key secondary variables was performed using the sequential testing procedure in the order as specified above at the alpha level of 0.05."||0.158|-0.006|0.0697
91656077|NCT01508936|183205394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0762||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.027||significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Fixed effects for treatment, hx of asthma exacerbation, sex, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit; covariates for height and baseline value|Active - Placebo|"The change from baseline over the 16 week treatment period was measured for the key secondary variables of:~* Lung function as measured by FEV1~* ACQ~Testing of the key secondary variables was performed using the sequential testing procedure in the order as specified above at the alpha level of 0.05."||0.027|-0.273|0.1072
91656078|NCT01611090|183205415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.229|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|0.286|||Log Rank|||||0.286|0.183|< 0.0001
91656079|NCT03968224|183205429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91656080|NCT03968224|183205430|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91656081|NCT03968224|183205431|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91656082|NCT03968224|183205432|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91711827|NCT03681184|183314974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0998|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.177|-0.772||P=1.225E-11|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.772|-1.177|<0.0001
91791339|NCT01943474|183460400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91656083|NCT05771428|183205436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.83|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||1.83|-1.87|0.9819
91656084|NCT05771428|183205436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.931||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.42|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||1.42|-2.25|0.6545
91656085|NCT05771428|183205436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.928||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.08|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||2.08|-1.58|0.7860
91656086|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.2|1.0||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.0|-2.2|
91656087|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.0|3.8||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥16 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.8|-4.0|
91656088|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.4||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.6|
91711828|NCT03681184|183314975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-51.7718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2653|-39.2784||P=5.032E-10|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate:creatinine ratio as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-39.2784|-64.2653|<0.0001
91711829|NCT03681184|183314976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94||P=8.341E-07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants (lumasiran vs. placebo) with 24-hour urinary oxalate ≤1.5 x ULN at Month 6 is analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA (≤1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2 vs. \>1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2). The difference in proportion (lumasiran vs. placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated using the Newcombe method, based on the Wilson score.||0.94|0.55|<0.0001
91656089|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.4||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.4|-1.6|
91656090|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-5.0|2.9||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥31 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.9|-5.0|
91656091|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.5|1.4||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.4|-1.5|
91656092|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.2||||||95.0|-7.8|1.0||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥40 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.0|-7.8|
91656093|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-3.6|5.0||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated.||5.0|-3.6|
91711830|NCT03681184|183314977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants (lumasiran vs. placebo) with 24-hour urinary oxalate ≤ULN at Month 6 is analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA (≤1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2 vs. \>1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2). The difference in proportion (lumasiran vs. placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated using the Newcombe method, based on the Wilson score.||0.70|0.23|0.0010
91711831|NCT03681184|183314978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-39.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.181|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-28.87||P=2.862E-08|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline plasma oxalate as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-28.87|-50.10|<0.0001
91711832|NCT03681184|183314979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-8.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-5.98||P=3.893E-07|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline plasma oxalate as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-5.98|-11.45|<0.0001
91711833|NCT04672044|183315019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
91711834|NCT02453256|183315020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.73||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.32|||Repeated Measure|||Difference in least square means between the TCZ group and the Placebo group at week 48. Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the TCZ group and the placebo group in mean change in mRSS from baseline to Week 48.||0.32|-3.78|0.0983
91656094|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.2||||||95.0|-9.1|2.4||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||2.4|-9.1|
91711835|NCT02453256|183315021|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|21.91||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with ≥ 20% improvement in mRSS.||34.6|9.2|0.0007
91656095|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-8.2|9.5||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||9.5|-8.2|
91711836|NCT02453256|183315021|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|4.32||||0.5139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with ≥ 40% improvement in mRSS.||17.3|-8.7|0.5139
91711837|NCT02453256|183315021|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|-5.41||||0.3276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with ≥ 60% improvement in mRSS.||5.4|-16.2|0.3276
91711838|NCT02453256|183315022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||P-value from Van Elteren analysis stratified by IL-6 level (\<10; \>=10 pg/mL) at screening.|Van Elteren|||||||0.0015
91711839|NCT02453256|183315023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.167||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.25|||Repeated Measure|||||0.250|0.083|0.0001
91711840|NCT02453256|183315024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.053||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.085|||Repeated Measure|||||0.085|-0.192|0.4489
91711841|NCT02453256|183315025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.44||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|3.7|||Repeated Measure|||||3.70|-8.57|0.4339
91711842|NCT02453256|183315026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.46||||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|3.79|||Repeated Measure|||||3.79|-8.72|0.4378
91711843|NCT02453256|183315027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.06|||Cox-proportional hazards model|||||1.06|0.37|0.0821
91722415|NCT02512419|183337362|SUPERIORITY||regression parameter (median diff)|37.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.01||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||quantile regression|Models regressed outcome at 6 months on treatment assigned, baseline value of the outcome and actigraph wear time. Effect sizes reported are adjusted|Effects are unstandardized regression coefficients. They represent difference in median outcome between conditions at 6m controlling for baseline and covariates.|To examine potential intervention effects on the primary outcome (MVPA at 6 months), we used a series of quantile regression models which model median outcome at follow-up as a function of baseline value of the outcome (MVPA), treatment condition and covariates. Note that the adjusted difference in median MVPA between conditions at follow-up will not equal the difference in median minutes as seen in the unadjusted tables as these estimates are adjusted||||.04
91656096|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.8|1.6||||||For Diptheria the difference in percentages between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.6|-1.8|
91656097|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.5||||||95.0|-8.3|0.8||||||For Diptheria the difference in percentage between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||0.8|-8.3|
91656098|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|1.7||||||95.0|-3.9|7.1||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||7.1|-3.9|
91722416|NCT02512419|183337363|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|42.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.83||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||quantile regression|||Quantile regression was used.||||0.10
91656099|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-2.3|1.7||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||1.7|-2.3|
91656100|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.0|2.8||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.8|-5.0|
91656101|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-1.6|2.9||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.9|-1.6|
91656102|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.6|
91656103|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.7||||||95.0|-7.3|1.8||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥21 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.8|-7.3|
91656104|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.6|
91656105|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.6|
91656106|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-4.3|4.1||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥162 EU/mL threshold was calculated||4.1|-4.3|
91722417|NCT00434434|183337365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.13
91656107|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.7|-1.6|
91656108|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-4.7|3.7||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥106 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.7|-4.7|
91656109|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-3.0|2.0||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.0|-3.0|
91656110|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|1.4||||||95.0|-0.8|4.2||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 μg/mL threshold was calculated||4.2|-0.8|
91656111|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|4.0||||||95.0|-0.4|8.7||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||8.7|-0.4|
91656112|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.0||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.0|-2.3|
91656113|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.0||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-2.3|
91656114|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|3.8||||||95.0|-1.7|10.9||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||10.9|-1.7|
91656115|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.4|2.1||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.1|-2.4|
91656116|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.4|2.1||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.1|-2.4|
91722418|NCT00434434|183337365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.0133
91656117|NCT00366899|183205448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.4|2.1||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.1|-2.4|
91656118|NCT00366899|183205449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.87|1.1||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.87|
91656119|NCT00366899|183205449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.92|1.16||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.16|0.92|
91656120|NCT00366899|183205449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.87|1.17||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.17|0.87|
91656121|NCT00366899|183205449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.89|1.15||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.15|0.89|
91656122|NCT00366899|183205449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.83|1.07||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.83|
91656123|NCT00366899|183205449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.82|1.07||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.82|
91656124|NCT00366899|183205452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC)/geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.72|1.27||||||For Hepatitis b the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.27|0.72|
91656125|NCT00366899|183205452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.54|0.96||||||For Hepatitis b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.54|
91722419|NCT00434434|183337366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.09
91722420|NCT00434434|183337366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.0028
91711844|NCT01243177|183315073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"The hypothesis was as follows:~H0: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] ≤ -12 % versus HA: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] \> -12 %, where S(t) (t= 182 days) is the cumulative rate of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months following stabilization at the last evaluated dose (also known as the survivorship function), and -12 % represents the noninferiority margin based on absolute difference."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.8|||Mantel Haenszel|The analysis was stratified based on the number of seizures in the 3 months preceding enrollment (≤ 2 and \>2).|The lower limit of the confidence interval was \>-12 %, noninferiority of LCM to CBZ-CR was demonstrated. Additionally, the lower confidence limit relative to the CBZ-CR seizure freedom rate was \>- 20 %.|This was a noninferiority assessment of Lacosamide versus Carbamazepine-CR for the proportion of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months at the last evaluated dose.||2.8|-5.5|
91711845|NCT01243177|183315074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"The hypothesis was as follows:~H0: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] ≤ -12 % versus HA: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] \> -12 %, where S(t) (t= 182 days) is the cumulative rate of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months following stabilization at the last evaluated dose (also known as the survivorship function), and -12 % represents the noninferiority margin based on absolute difference."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.7|||Mantel Haenszel|The analysis was stratified based on the number of seizures in the 3 months preceding enrollment (≤ 2 and \>2).|The lower limit of the confidence interval was \>-12 %, noninferiority of LCM to CBZ-CR was demonstrated. Additionally, the lower confidence limit relative to the CBZ-CR seizure freedom rate was \>- 20 %.|This was a noninferiority assessment of Lacosamide versus Carbamazepine-CR for the proportion of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months at the last evaluated dose.||2.7|-5.3|
91656126|NCT00366899|183205453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.99||||||95.0|0.75|1.3||||||or Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.30|0.75|
91656127|NCT00366899|183205453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.81|1.3||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.30|0.81|
91656128|NCT00366899|183205454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.78||||||95.0|0.65|0.94||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.94|0.65|
91722421|NCT03479905|183337410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0004
91791340|NCT01943474|183460401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91656129|NCT00366899|183205454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.67|1.08||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.67|
91656130|NCT00366899|183205454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.75||||||95.0|0.63|0.89||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.89|0.63|
91656131|NCT00366899|183205454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.25||||||95.0|0.88|1.79||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.79|0.88|
91791341|NCT01943474|183460402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91656132|NCT00366899|183205455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.7|1.08||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.70|
91656133|NCT00366899|183205455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.74|1.22||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.22|0.74|
91656134|NCT00366899|183205455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.68|1.13||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.68|
91711846|NCT00913081|183315087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that quercetin, at any dose, does not attenuate niacin-induced increases in dermal blood flow. Because quercetin has not been used to inhibit flushing from niacin in humans, sample size could not be determined statistically. A sample size of 8 men and 8 women was expected to allow separate estimates of effect size, variability, and shape of distribution for men and women.||||0.5
91711847|NCT00913081|183315087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that quercetin, at any dose, does not attenuate niacin-induced increases in dermal blood flow.||||0.8
91711848|NCT00913081|183315087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that quercetin, at any dose, does not attenuate niacin-induced increases in dermal blood flow.||||0.5
91711849|NCT03272347|183315111|OTHER|The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|18.3|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||18.3|-12.5|
91711850|NCT03272347|183315111|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|23.0|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||23.0|-3.8|
91711851|NCT03272347|183315111|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.3|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||16.3|-16.0|
91711852|NCT03272347|183315112|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|24.4|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||24.4|-12.2|
91711853|NCT03272347|183315112|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|24.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||24.6|-12.2|
91711854|NCT03272347|183315112|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|14.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||14.8|-27.1|
91711855|NCT03272347|183315113|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|20.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.5|-15.7|
91711856|NCT03272347|183315113|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|20.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.8|-15.0|
91711857|NCT03272347|183315113|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|10.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||10.1|-29.4|
91711858|NCT03272347|183315114|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in %|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||14.5|-13.4|
91711859|NCT03272347|183315114|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in %|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|8.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||8.5|-16.4|
91711860|NCT03272347|183315114|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in %|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|18.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||18.1|-10.8|
91722422|NCT01706328|183337413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.059|||ANCOVA|||||0.059|-0.008|0.137
91791342|NCT01943474|183460403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91711861|NCT03272347|183315115|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|6.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||6.6|-26.1|
91656135|NCT00366899|183205455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.69||||||95.0|0.55|0.86||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.86|0.55|
91656136|NCT00366899|183205455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.68|1.07||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.68|
91656137|NCT00366899|183205455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.65||||||95.0|0.51|0.83||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.83|0.51|
91656138|NCT00442936|183205548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.66|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.66|1.40|<0.001
91656139|NCT00442936|183205548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|6.0|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||6.00|2.42|<0.001
91656140|NCT00442936|183205549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.95|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.95|2.02|<0.001
91656141|NCT00442936|183205549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|4.79|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.79|2.47|<0.001
91711862|NCT03272347|183315115|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|9.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||9.1|-21.5|
91791343|NCT01943474|183460406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91711863|NCT03272347|183315115|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|8.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||8.8|-23.9|
91711864|NCT03272347|183315116|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|27.7|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||27.7|-23.4|
91711865|NCT03272347|183315116|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|22.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||22.1|-29.6|
91711866|NCT03272347|183315116|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|25.2|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||25.2|-27.7|
91711867|NCT03272347|183315118|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|78.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|138.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||138.1|18.8|
91711868|NCT03272347|183315118|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|50.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|133.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||133.1|-31.7|
91711869|NCT03272347|183315118|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|64.7|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||64.7|-63.0|
91656142|NCT00442936|183205550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.97|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.97|1.54|<0.001
91711870|NCT03272347|183315119|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|75.3|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||75.3|-74.1|
91711871|NCT03272347|183315119|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7|73.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||73.8|-70.7|
91656143|NCT00442936|183205550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.61|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.61|1.89|<0.001
91656144|NCT00442936|183205551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.82|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.82|1.49|<0.001
91656145|NCT00442936|183205551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|3.25|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.25|1.73|<0.001
91656146|NCT00442936|183205552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.39|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.39|1.25|<0.001
91711872|NCT03272347|183315119|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-80.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.6|4.0|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||4.0|-165.6|
91711873|NCT03272347|183315120|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.8|83.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||83.8|-134.8|
91711874|NCT03272347|183315120|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-107.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-212.1|-3.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||-3.1|-212.1|
91791344|NCT01943474|183460407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91656147|NCT00442936|183205552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.13|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.13|1.13|0.006
91656148|NCT00442936|183205553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.35|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.35|1.47|0.002
91656149|NCT00442936|183205553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.51|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||10.51|3.15|<0.001
91656150|NCT00442936|183205554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.97|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.97|1.07|0.026
91711875|NCT03272347|183315120|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-132.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.9|-21.9|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||-21.9|-242.9|
91656151|NCT00442936|183205554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.35|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.35|2.08|<0.001
91656152|NCT00442936|183205555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.47|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.47|1.13|0.021
91656153|NCT00442936|183205555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|9.76|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||9.76|2.78|<0.001
91656154|NCT02428699|183205558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|7.53|||ANCOVA|Subject as random effect,treatment and period as fixed effects,subject and period level baseline values for plasma total and free acids as covariates|Difference is test minus reference such that a positive difference favors the test treatment.|||7.53|2.79|<.0001
91656155|NCT03127137|183205570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated.|Fisher Exact|||||||.05
91711876|NCT03272347|183315121|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-65.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.3|64.0|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||64.0|-195.3|
91711877|NCT03272347|183315121|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-188.7|66.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||66.8|-188.7|
91711878|NCT03272347|183315121|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-107.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.2|16.9|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||16.9|-231.2|
91711879|NCT03272347|183315123|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|29.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||29.6|-20.3|
91656156|NCT03127137|183205571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.86||||||||2.86|.82|
91656157|NCT04424407|183205572|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Conscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Conscious Fear \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.008
91656158|NCT04424407|183205572|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Conscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Conscious Threat \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.08
91656159|NCT04424407|183205572|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Conscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Conscious Anger \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.49
91656160|NCT04424407|183205573|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Nonconscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Nonconscious Fear \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.99
91656161|NCT04424407|183205573|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Nonconscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Nonconscious Threat \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.99
91656162|NCT04424407|183205574|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (2) in the Emotion Regulation Scenes task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Emotion Regulation Scenes task Negative \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.65
91656163|NCT04424407|183205574|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (2) in the Emotion Regulation Scenes task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Emotion Regulation Scenes task Look Negative \> Decrease Negative amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.65
91656164|NCT04424407|183205575|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-dACC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.86
91656165|NCT04424407|183205575|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-dmPFC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.86
91656166|NCT04424407|183205575|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-pACC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.83
91656167|NCT04424407|183205575|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-sgACC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.23
91656168|NCT04424407|183205575|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-vmPFC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.83
91656169|NCT04424407|183205576|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in depression symptom severity score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
91656170|NCT04424407|183205577|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||P-values are from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in sleep efficiency was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.002
91656171|NCT04424407|183205578|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in suicidal ideation score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
91656172|NCT04424407|183205579|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-values are uncorrected from ordinal logistic regression model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|A significant p-value here means that treatment was associated with reduced odds of being in a higher risk category.||Analysis of change in suicidal risk was done by applying ordinal logistic regression (proportional odds model) testing the effect of treatment-time on the probability of being in a higher risk category. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.03
91656173|NCT04424407|183205585|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in sleep onset latency (PSG) was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.28
91711880|NCT03272347|183315123|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|33.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||33.5|-15.4|
91711881|NCT03272347|183315123|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|20.7|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.7|-30.6|
91711882|NCT03272347|183315124|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|8.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||8.5|-17.9|
91656174|NCT04424407|183205586|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in number of awakenings derived from PSG was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.33
91711883|NCT03272347|183315124|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|8.2|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||8.2|-17.9|
91711884|NCT03272347|183315124|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|20.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.6|-11.5|
91711885|NCT05076604|183315160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intraoperative packed red blood cell transfusion||||0.354
91711886|NCT05076604|183315160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Postoperative red blood cell transfusion||||0.314
91656175|NCT04424407|183205587|OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in wake after sleep onset (WASO) was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.013
91656176|NCT04424407|183205588|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG TST was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.66
91656177|NCT04424407|183205589|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Delta absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.96
91656178|NCT04424407|183205589|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Theta absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.23
91656179|NCT04424407|183205589|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Alpha absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.11
91656180|NCT04424407|183205589|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Sigma absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.44
91656181|NCT04424407|183205589|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Beta-1 absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.68
91656182|NCT04424407|183205589|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Beta-2 absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.74
91656183|NCT04424407|183205589|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Gamma absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.84
91656184|NCT04424407|183205590|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in insomnia symptom severity score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
91656185|NCT04424407|183205591|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in SF-36 Mental Component Score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
91711887|NCT00472732|183315161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of myoinositol in posterior cingulate gray matter will be the same in OTCD patients as in controls.||||0.003
91711888|NCT00472732|183315161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of myoinositol in parietal white matter will be the same in OTCD patients as in controls.||||<0.001
91711889|NCT00472732|183315161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of glutamine in posterior cingulate gray matter would be the same for OTCD patients as for controls.||||0.001
91711890|NCT00472732|183315161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of glutamine in parietal white matter would be the same for OTCD patients as for controls.||||<0.001
91656186|NCT04424407|183205591|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in SF-36 Physical Component Score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.94
91656187|NCT04424407|183205592|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in anxiety symptom severity score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
91656188|NCT01880073|183205603|OTHER||Proportion|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0||||||||1.00|0.74|
91656189|NCT01880073|183205604|OTHER||Proportion|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.26||||||||0.26|0.00|
91656190|NCT00755196|183205607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||2-sided sign test|||||||0.23
91711891|NCT00472732|183315162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is adjusted for family wise error rate correction.|t-test, 2 sided|||Two-way between-group t-tests restricted to the prefrontal cortex were performed to compare activation during for the 2-Back\> 1-Back contrast between OTCD patients and controls.||||<0.05
91656191|NCT01604850|183205611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-22.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-10.3||P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization stratification factor (ie, presence/absence of cirrhosis, genotype 2 or 3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|A sample size of 100 subjects in each group would provide over 97% power to detect at least 20% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed null rate of 25% using 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.025.||-10.3|-34.4|< 0.001
91711892|NCT00472732|183315163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that fractional anisotropy, a marker of white matter integrity, would be the same for OTCD patients as for controls.||||<0.001
91711893|NCT04846270|183315164|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to test if the number of manual checks has been reduced.||"POWER is a single arm investigation with cross-over design. Each participating subject will use the study device and act as its own control.~The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference in the mean number of checks performed during the investigation week compared to the baseline week.~The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that there is a reduction in the mean number of checks performed during the investigation week compared to the baseline week."||||0.0006
91656192|NCT01703832|183205617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1233||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOVAs.||||0.1233
91656193|NCT01703832|183205618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5153||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOVAs.||||0.5153
91656194|NCT00243932|183205630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||95.0|||||futility (non-superiority)|||Null hypothesis: 2,700mg CoQ10 is at least 20% superior to placebo.||||0.14
91656195|NCT01458405|183205637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6453||||||Repeated measures multivariable linear regression with Baseline as a covariate and unstructured covariance.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.6453
91656196|NCT01193608|183205731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|113.53||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-170.3|397.35|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||397.35|-170.30|0.599
91711894|NCT04846270|183315166|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to test if the number of leakages had been reduced.||||||0.0051
91711895|NCT04846270|183315169|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to test if the number of fecal incidents had been reduced.||||||0.76
91656197|NCT01193608|183205733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|48.85||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.79|109.48|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||109.48|-11.79|0.297
91656198|NCT01193608|183205735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|-15.26||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.54|23.02|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||23.02|-53.54|0.600
91656199|NCT01193608|183205737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|1.23||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.89|4.35|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||4.35|-1.89|0.603
91656200|NCT01249664|183205745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|17.4||No adjustment on P value, this is for the primary efficacy analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, including treatment groups and country (country designations) as fixed effects and baseline BCVA as a covariate.|The difference is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A positive value indicates Eylea showed a higher change in BCVA total score until week 24 compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis was equality in change from baseline to Week 24 in BCVA total letter score between Eylea and Sham.||17.4|10.8|<0.0001
91711896|NCT02915159|183315174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4421|||||||longitudinal repeated measures analysis|||||||0.4421
91711897|NCT02915159|183315175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3367|||||||longitudinal repeated measures analysis|||||||0.3367
91711898|NCT02915159|183315176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5841|||||||longitudinal repeated measures analysis|||||||.5841
91711899|NCT02418234|183315217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91791345|NCT03720652|183460429|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.18
91711900|NCT02418234|183315218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91656201|NCT01249664|183205746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|29.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|44.0||No adjustment on P value, since this test was only conducted formally under the primary efficacy evaluation was significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method at level 5% weight-adjusted by country (country designations) was used to conduct the superiority test.|Null hypothesis of difference of Eylea minus Sham of 0 was tested.||44.0|14.4|0.0001
91656202|NCT01249664|183205747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|16.7|||ANCOVA|||||16.7|9.4|<0.0001
91656203|NCT01249664|183205748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|66.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||66.0|35.0|<0.001
91656204|NCT01249664|183205749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.8|80.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.3|47.8|<0.001
91656205|NCT01249664|183205750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|21.0||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|1.9|0.0308
91656206|NCT01249664|183205751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|27.0||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.8|7.2|0.0075
91791346|NCT03720652|183460429|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.34|||||||McNemar|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.34
91656207|NCT01249664|183205752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|61.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.6|23.7|<.0001
91656208|NCT01249664|183205753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-6.5||||0.1478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3|-15.2|0.1478
91656209|NCT01249664|183205754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-25.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-11.0|-40.6|0.0006
91656210|NCT01249664|183205755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-16.3|-48.1|<0.0001
91656211|NCT01249664|183205756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-5.3||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.7|-14.4|0.2446
91656212|NCT01249664|183205757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-21.5||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-7.0|-35.9|0.0035
91656213|NCT01249664|183205758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-25.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-10.1|-41.3|0.0012
91656214|NCT01249664|183205759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-77.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.9|-46.9|||ANCOVA|||||-46.9|-108.9|<0.0001
91656215|NCT01249664|183205760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-29.3||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-60.4|0.0650
91656216|NCT01249664|183205761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.4808|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|-0.3626|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3626|-0.5990|<0.0001
91656217|NCT01249664|183205762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.1346||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2525|-0.0167|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0167|-0.2525|0.0256
91656218|NCT01249664|183205763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.0045||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0579|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.0490|-0.0579|0.8690
91656219|NCT01249664|183205764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least square means|5.21||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.18|||ANCOVA|||||9.18|1.25|0.0104
91656220|NCT01249664|183205766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.6648|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8056|-0.5239|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5239|-0.8056|<0.0001
91656221|NCT02674334|183205817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.82||P-values were not adjusted for multiple inferences|ANOVA|Continuous responses were tested using RCB ANOVA.||||2.82|-.49|0.165
91656222|NCT00235456|183205828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||Chi-squared|||||0.98|0.38|0.04
91656223|NCT00235456|183205829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91656224|NCT00235456|183205830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91656225|NCT00235456|183205831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91656226|NCT00235456|183205832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91656227|NCT00235456|183205833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91656228|NCT00860405|183205836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a coefficient of variation of 0.363 and a desired power of 90 % with a type I level of 2.5 %, N=11 patients per treatment group were needed. The power was calculated by means of the software SAS, version 9.1.3, PROC POWER. Nevertheless, more patients were required for the assessment of safety, therefore 2 × 30 patients were planned to be included in this study.|Ratio of LS-means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16||Null hypothesis tested by calculating a 2-sided 95% CI for ratio of LS-means μVoluven/μHSA based on ANOVA incl.treatment+centre as effects. If 95% CI was within equivalence range(0.55, 1.82), significant equivalence was concluded (Type I error: 2.5%)|ANOVA|Primary endpoint specified + analysed for PP and ITT population. Confirmatory analysis based on PP population only, no adjustment for multiplicity.|Considered ratio: μVoluven/μHSA = LS-mean of Voluven®/LS-mean of HSA 5%|The aim of the study was to prove equivalence, i.e. H0: μVoluven/μHSA ≤ 0.55 or μVoluven/μHSA ≥ 1.82 H1: 0.55 \< μVoluven/μHSA \< 1.82 where μVoluven was the mean infused volume of Voluven® and μHSA was the mean infused volume of HSA 5%.||1.16|0.84|
91656229|NCT00864097|183205845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.02|-0.81|0.039
91656230|NCT00864097|183205845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.12|-0.91|0.011
91656231|NCT00864097|183205845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.17|-0.97|0.005
91656232|NCT00864097|183205846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.12|-0.91|0.010
91656233|NCT00864097|183205846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.23|-1.03|0.002
91711901|NCT04534517|183315219|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 32 points|Mean Estimate|58.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|64.9|||Bayesian multivariate random-effects||Included Hyperope group only|It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean CLUE vision scores for each sphere stratum to be above the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||64.9|52.3|
91656234|NCT00864097|183205846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.30|-1.10|<0.001
91656235|NCT00864097|183205847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.03|-0.32|0.022
91656236|NCT00864097|183205847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.03|-0.33|0.020
91656237|NCT00864097|183205847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.09|-0.40|0.002
91656238|NCT00864097|183205848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.34|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.34|-0.32|0.957
91656239|NCT00864097|183205848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.35|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.35|-0.31|0.899
91656240|NCT00864097|183205848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.72|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.72|0.06|0.022
91656241|NCT00864097|183205848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.00|-0.70|0.052
91656242|NCT00864097|183205848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.34|-1.05|<0.001
91711902|NCT04534517|183315219|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 40 points for Myopes|Mean Estimate|63.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.9|69.6|||Bayesian multivariate random-effects||Included myope group only.|It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean CLUE vision scores for each sphere stratum to be above the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||69.6|57.9|
91656243|NCT00864097|183205848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.13|-0.84|0.008
91656244|NCT00864097|183205848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.01|-0.72|0.058
91656245|NCT00864097|183205848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.32|-1.05|<0.001
91656246|NCT00864097|183205848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.38|-1.12|<0.001
91791347|NCT03720652|183460429|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.13|||||||McNemar|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.13
91656247|NCT00864097|183205848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.15|-0.91|0.007
91656248|NCT00864097|183205848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.41|-1.18|<0.001
91656249|NCT00864097|183205848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.28|-1.05|<0.001
91656250|NCT00864097|183205849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.35|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.35|-0.25|0.754
91656251|NCT00864097|183205849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.25|-0.36|0.706
91656252|NCT00864097|183205849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.48|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.48|-0.13|0.266
91656253|NCT00864097|183205849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.12|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.12|-0.58|0.195
91656254|NCT00864097|183205849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.36|-1.07|<0.001
91711903|NCT04534517|183315220|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.10 logMAR for Distance|Mean estimate|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|-0.057|||Bayesian normal random-effects model|Repeated Measures||It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.057|-0.125|
91656255|NCT00864097|183205849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.07|-0.78|0.019
91656256|NCT00864097|183205849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.08|-0.64|0.126
91656257|NCT00864097|183205849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.37|-1.10|<0.001
91656258|NCT00864097|183205849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.25|-0.98|0.001
91656259|NCT00864097|183205849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.15|-0.90|0.007
91656260|NCT00864097|183205849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.44|-1.21|<0.001
91656261|NCT00864097|183205849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.25|-1.02|0.001
91656262|NCT00864097|183205850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.05|-0.22|0.200
91711904|NCT04534517|183315220|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Intermediate|Mean Estimate|-0.057|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|-0.024|||Bayesian normal random-effects model|Repeated Measures||It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.024|-0.091|
91656263|NCT00864097|183205850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.11|-0.15|0.754
91656264|NCT00864097|183205850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.18|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.18|-0.08|0.449
91656265|NCT00864097|183205850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.01|-0.27|0.062
91656266|NCT00864097|183205850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.08|-0.36|0.002
91656267|NCT00864097|183205850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.02|-0.30|0.026
91656268|NCT00864097|183205850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.01|-0.31|0.032
91656269|NCT00864097|183205850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.19|-0.48|<0.001
91656270|NCT00864097|183205850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.16|-0.45|<0.001
91656271|NCT00864097|183205850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.01|-0.30|0.038
91711905|NCT04534517|183315220|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Near|Mean Estimate|0.066|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.098|||Bayesian normal random-effects model|Repeated Measures||It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||0.098|0.031|
91711906|NCT04534517|183315221|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of 95% credible interval was compared to 5%.|Mean Proportion|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0012|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.004|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Correlated Binary Data||||0.004|0.000|
91711907|NCT04534517|183315222|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 5%|Mean Proportion|0.005|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.018|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Correlated Binary Data||||0.018|0.000|
91711908|NCT04534517|183315223|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 90% was used. Lower limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 90%|Mean Proportion|0.992|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|0.999|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Correlated Binary Data||||0.999|0.973|
91711909|NCT02121795|183315227|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was assessed using a conventional 95.002% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Percentage difference|1.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-2.5|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by third agent.|Difference in percentages of virologic success between treatment groups and its 95.002% CI were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by the third agent stratum.|||5.1|-2.5|0.5
91711910|NCT00823264|183315237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
91711911|NCT00856999|183315238|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric test equivalent to the dependent t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
91711912|NCT00856999|183315239|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric test equivalent to the dependent t-test|||||<|0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0004
91711913|NCT01065571|183315253|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric analysis of interval to relapse||||||0.046||||||result from log rank test|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier life table analysis was performed to compare the two groups. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in relapses between the two groups during the study.||||0.046
91656272|NCT00864097|183205850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.07|-0.37|0.003
91656273|NCT00864097|183205850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.03|-0.33|0.016
91656274|NCT00320112|183205880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||no differences between arms in baseline characteristics at \<0.1 level, further analyses adjusted for variables that could influence the outcome like insulin use, age, commodities. because no differences in results, unadjusted analyses are reported.|Regression, Linear|we used STATA 11's xtmixed command, which fits multi-level mixed-effects linear regression models, with clustering by assigned pairs.||||||0.004
91656275|NCT00320112|183205881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||this is a priori design|Regression, Linear|||||||.91
91656276|NCT00320112|183205882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.10
91656277|NCT00320112|183205883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
91656278|NCT02899338|183205884|EQUIVALENCE|The relative bioavailability of BI 695501 using AI (A) compared with BI 695501 using PFS (B) was estimated, in an exploratory manner, by the ratios of the geometric means (A/B) using the analysis of variance (ANOVA)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|101.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.31|113.29|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and baseline body weight.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Comparison AI versus PFS||113.29|91.31|
91656279|NCT02899338|183205885|EQUIVALENCE|The relative bioavailability of BI 695501 using AI (A) compared with BI 695501 using PFS (B) was estimated, in an exploratory manner, by the ratios of the geometric means (A/B) using ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|100.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.17|106.43|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and baseline body weight.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Inter-individual gCV|Comparison AI versus PFS||106.43|94.17|
91656280|NCT02899338|183205886|EQUIVALENCE|The relative bioavailability of BI 695501 using AI (A) compared with BI 695501 using PFS (B) was estimated, in an exploratory manner, by the ratios of the geometric means (A/B) using ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|103.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.38|116.53|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and baseline body weight.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Inter-individual gCV|Comparison AI versus PFS||116.53|91.38|
91656281|NCT06179108|183205888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Hochberg's step-down procedure was adopted to control type I error across the 50 and 75 mg arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline total PANSS score.||||||0.0009
91656282|NCT06179108|183205888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022||||||Hochberg's step-down procedure was adopted to control type I error across the 50 and 75 mg arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline total PANSS score.||||||0.0022
91656283|NCT06179108|183205888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline total PANSS score.||||||.0017
91656284|NCT06179108|183205889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline CGI-S score.||||||0.0008
91711914|NCT01065571|183315254|SUPERIORITY|fecal calprotectin (micrograms/gm stool)||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91656285|NCT06179108|183205889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline CGI-S score.||||||0.0048
91656286|NCT06179108|183205889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline CGI-S score.||||||0.0026
91656287|NCT01199861|183205948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|41.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/California/7/09 (H1N1) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo three weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
91656288|NCT01199861|183205948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|-35.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo three weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
91656289|NCT01199861|183205948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|44.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo three weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
91656290|NCT01199861|183205949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|38.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/California/7/09 (H1N1) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo six weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
91656291|NCT01199861|183205949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|-28.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo six weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
91656292|NCT01199861|183205949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|48.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo six weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
91711915|NCT01065571|183315255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||not adjusted for muliple comparisons, a priori threshold of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test comparing baseline and value at end of participation||||0.02
91656293|NCT04817891|183205951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91656294|NCT04817891|183205952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||p value for the Ventral Attention Network (network segregation)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
91656295|NCT04817891|183205952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944||||||p value for the Cingulo Opercular Network (network segregation)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
91900989|NCT03226275|183696656|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||0.00|-1.00|
91656296|NCT04817891|183205953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.239
91656297|NCT04817891|183205954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.168
91656298|NCT04533646|183205964|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Means testing||||comparison of means test was performed|||<0.01
91656299|NCT04256421|183205966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.38|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> upper limit of normal \[ULN\] vs. \</= ULN) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG; 0 vs. 1).||1.38|0.89|0.3504
91656300|NCT04256421|183205967|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.44|0.90|0.2859
91656301|NCT04256421|183205968|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.31|0.89|0.4440
91711916|NCT04391179|183315266|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation represents log-scale difference between average daily change in D-Dimer for Dipyridamole patients minus placebo average daily change. Negative estimates indicate that D-Dimer levels decline faster in Dipyridamole versus placebo patients.|||.023|-.089|0.24
91711917|NCT04391179|183315267|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|97.8|0.78|1.29|||Mantel Haenszel||win ratio= (the probability of a win for the dipyridamole patient)/(probability of a win for the placebo patient)|A win ratio analysis of the hierarchical composite outcome requiring direct comparison of outcomes between each dipyridamole patient and placebo patient. The patient with the superior outcome is adjudicated the 'winner' and receives a +1 score, while the 'loser' scores -1.||1.29|0.78|.98
91656302|NCT04256421|183205969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.35|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.35|0.88|0.4205
91656303|NCT04256421|183205970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|6.8||||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|15.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||15.99|-2.57|0.1418
91656304|NCT04256421|183205971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|5.19||||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|13.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||13.61|-3.33|0.2191
91656305|NCT04256421|183205976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.74||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.13|||Z-test|||Month 12||6.13|-13.60|0.4580
91656306|NCT04256421|183205976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-8.12||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.55|||Z-test|||Month 24||1.55|-17.80|0.0999
91656307|NCT04256421|183205977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.02||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|5.88|||Z-test|||Month 12||5.88|-11.92|0.5059
91656308|NCT04256421|183205977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-5.29||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.23|3.65|||Z-test|||Month 24||3.65|-14.23|0.2458
91656309|NCT04256421|183205978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.48|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.48|0.68|0.9819
91656310|NCT04256421|183205979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.55|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.55|0.81|0.5122
91656311|NCT04256421|183205980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.3614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.79|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.79|0.81|0.3614
91656312|NCT04256421|183205981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.84|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.84|0.90|0.1681
91656313|NCT02424188|183206005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|15.4||||||||15.4|2.3|
91656314|NCT02424188|183206006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.3||||||||12.3|1.2|
91656315|NCT02424188|183206007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|17.5||||||6 month comparison||17.5|1.3|
91656316|NCT02424188|183206007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|48.6||||||12 month||48.6|2.4|
91656317|NCT02424188|183206009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3||||||6 months||2.3|-1.7|
91656318|NCT02424188|183206009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.7||||||18 months||4.7|-1.5|
91656319|NCT02424188|183206010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||||||||1.5|-0.6|
91656320|NCT02424188|183206012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-2.3||||||||-2.3|-30.2|
91656321|NCT00453362|183206032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between FDG Responders and FDG Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG Responders would have prolonged PFS compared with FDG Non-Responders.||0.87|0.11|0.017
91656322|NCT00453362|183206034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.42||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Progressive Disease.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between FDG Responders and FDG Progressive Disease. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG Responders would have a prolonged PFS compared to FDG Progressive Disease.||1.42|0.06|0.076
91711918|NCT04391179|183315268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
91711919|NCT04391179|183315269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Log Rank|||||||.09
91711920|NCT04391179|183315270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.94|||regression, negative binomial||estimated ratio of days on mechanical ventilation for dipyridamole and placebo|||3.94|0.02|0.36
91711921|NCT04391179|183315271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.51|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of a 50 point drop in the dipyridamole group relative to the placebo group.|||2.51|0.43|.94
91711922|NCT04391179|183315272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.95
91711923|NCT02754518|183315289|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
91711924|NCT02754518|183315290|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
91711925|NCT02754518|183315291|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
91711926|NCT02754518|183315292|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
91791348|NCT03720652|183460430|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.70
91656323|NCT00453362|183206036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.73||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FLT Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between FLT Responders and FLT Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FLT Responders would have prolonged PFS compared with FLT Non-Responders.||0.73|0.04|0.008
91656324|NCT00453362|183206037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between FLT Responders and FLT Progressive Disease. Alternative hypothesis is that FLT responders would have prolonged PFS compared to FLT Progressive Disease.||||0.049
91656325|NCT00453362|183206038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.16||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in OS between FDG Responders and FDG Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG responders would have prolonged OS compared with FDG Non-Responders.||1.16|0.11|0.073
91711927|NCT02754518|183315293|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
91711928|NCT02754518|183315294|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
91711929|NCT02754518|183315295|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
91656326|NCT00453362|183206041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.21||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Progressive Disease.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Overall Survival between FDG Responders and FDG Progressive Disease. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG Responders would have prolonged OS compared with FDG Progressive Disease.||3.21|0.14|0.618
91656327|NCT00453362|183206042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.57||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FLT Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in OS between FLT Responders and FLT Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FLT Responders would have prolonged OS compared with FLT Non-Responders.||1.57|0.09|0.163
91656328|NCT00453362|183206043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.16||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FLT Progressive Disease.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in OS between FLT Responders and FLT Progressive Disease. The alternative hypothesis is that FLT Responders would have prolonged OS compared with FLT Progressive Disease.||3.16|0.04|0.327
91656329|NCT04885296|183206045|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference (Test - Control) was greater than -5. A 5-point increase in an average CLUE score translates into 10% shift in the distribution of scores for population of soft disposable contact lens wearers.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||3.0|-2.2|
91656330|NCT04885296|183206046|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference (Test - Control) was greater than -5. A 5-point increase in an average CLUE score translates into 10% shift in the distribution of scores for population of soft disposable contact lens wearers.|LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||2.3|-4.0|
91711930|NCT02754518|183315296|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.|paired t-test|||0.13
91711931|NCT02754518|183315297|OTHER|||||||0.95||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.95
91711932|NCT02754518|183315298|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
91656331|NCT04885296|183206047|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference (Test - Control) was greater than -5. A 5-point increase in an average CLUE score translates into 10% shift in the distribution of scores for population of soft disposable contact lens wearers.|LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.7|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||1.7|-4.7|
91656332|NCT01124149|183206074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.87|1.76|<0.001
91656333|NCT01124149|183206075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.44|<0.001
91656334|NCT00977106|183206082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.472
91656335|NCT00977106|183206083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377||||||Between-group test (equal variances)|Student t-test|||Change at Week 1||||0.377
91656336|NCT00977106|183206083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||Student t-test|Between-group test (unequal variances)||Change at Week 4||||0.276
91656337|NCT00977106|183206085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Student t-test|Between-group test (equal variances)||Change at Week 4||||0.502
91656338|NCT00977106|183206087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||||||Between placebo and TCZ groups test (Equal Variances) at week 4|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.434
91656339|NCT00977106|183206089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 1||||0.692
91656340|NCT00977106|183206089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 4||||0.019
91656341|NCT00977106|183206090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 1||||0.137
91656342|NCT00977106|183206090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 4||||0.043
91656343|NCT01644500|183206134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-0.76|<0.001
91656344|NCT01644500|183206134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.50|<0.001
91656345|NCT01644500|183206135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|1.8|4.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||4.1|1.8|<0.001
91656346|NCT01644500|183206135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||Treatment comparison for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||2.3|1.0|<0.001
91656347|NCT01644500|183206135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||4.5|1.8|<0.001
91656348|NCT01644500|183206135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||2.5|1.1|0.192
91656349|NCT01644500|183206136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-1.15|<0.001
91656350|NCT01644500|183206136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.70|0.022
91656351|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.45||Treatment comparison for morning (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-0.89|<0.001
91656352|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11||Treatment comparison for morning (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.34|0.304
91656353|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.92||Treatment comparison for morning (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.92|-1.80|<0.001
91656354|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.11||Treatment comparison for morning (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.99|0.015
91656355|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.36||Treatment comparison for midday (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-1.10|<0.001
91656356|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31||Treatment comparison for midday (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.43|0.740
91656357|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-1.13||Treatment comparison of midday (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.13|-1.99|<0.001
91656358|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.39||Treatment comparison of midday (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.24|<0.001
91656359|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.34||Treatment comparison for evening (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-1.00|<0.001
91656360|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.25||Treatment comparison for evening (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.41|0.638
91656361|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.87||Treatment comparison for evening (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-1.68|<0.001
91656362|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.04||Treatment comparison for evening (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.85|0.030
91656363|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.82||Treatment comparison for bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.82|-1.56|<0.001
91656364|NCT01644500|183206137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.29||Treatment comparison for bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-1.03|<0.001
91656365|NCT01644500|183206138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for all hypoglycemic episodes.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||<0.001
91656366|NCT01644500|183206138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for all hypoglycemic episodes.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||<0.001
91656367|NCT01644500|183206138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Treatment comparison for nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes. Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes are rounded off to 2 decimal places.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||0.008
91656368|NCT01644500|183206138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||||||Treatment comparison for nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes. Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes are rounded off to 2 decimal places.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||0.006
91656369|NCT01644500|183206139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91656370|NCT01644500|183206139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91656371|NCT01644500|183206140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.27|23.55|||ANCOVA|||Insulin HOMA2-%B||23.55|11.27|<0.001
91656372|NCT01644500|183206140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.92||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|14.06|||ANCOVA|||Insulin HOMA2%B||14.06|1.78|0.012
91656373|NCT01644500|183206140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.81|21.06|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%B||21.06|11.81|<0.001
91656374|NCT01644500|183206140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|14.62|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%B||14.62|5.36|<0.001
91656375|NCT01644500|183206141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|6.51|||ANCOVA|||Insulin-Based HOMA2%S||6.51|-5.83|0.913
91656376|NCT01644500|183206141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.14||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.03|||ANCOVA|||Insulin-Based HOMA2%S||3.03|-9.30|0.318
91656377|NCT01644500|183206141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|3.49|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%S||3.49|-6.27|0.576
91711933|NCT02754518|183315299|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
91711934|NCT02754518|183315300|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.65
91711935|NCT02754518|183315301|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.06
91711936|NCT02754518|183315302|OTHER|||||||0.76||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.76
91711937|NCT02754518|183315303|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as frequency and percentages based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with the Fisher exact test.||||0.07
91656378|NCT01644500|183206141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|-1.89|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%S||-1.89|-11.68|0.007
91711938|NCT02754518|183315304|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.001
91656379|NCT01644500|183206144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||||||Treatment comparison for SBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.180
91656380|NCT01644500|183206144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||||||Treatment comparison for SBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.245
91656381|NCT01644500|183206144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.717||||||Treatment comparison for DBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.717
91656382|NCT01644500|183206144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.619||||||Treatment comparison for DBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.619
91656383|NCT01644500|183206145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91711939|NCT02754518|183315307|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.03
91656384|NCT01644500|183206145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
91656385|NCT01644500|183206148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91656386|NCT01644500|183206148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91656387|NCT01644500|183206149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91656388|NCT01644500|183206149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91656389|NCT04084483|183206190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2175|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2175
91656390|NCT04084483|183206191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3852|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3852
91656391|NCT04084483|183206192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2980
91656392|NCT04084483|183206193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0634|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0634
91656393|NCT04084483|183206194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7388|||||||ANCOVA|||Corneal Sum||||0.7388
91656394|NCT04084483|183206194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3717|||||||ANCOVA|||Corneal Sum||||0.3717
91656395|NCT04084483|183206194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3164|||||||ANCOVA|||Conjunctival Sum||||0.3164
91656396|NCT04084483|183206194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1953|||||||ANCOVA|||Conjunctival Sum||||0.1953
91656397|NCT04084483|183206194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4645|||||||ANCOVA|||Total Eye Sum||||0.4645
91656398|NCT04084483|183206194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2135|||||||ANCOVA|||Total Eye Sum||||0.2135
91656399|NCT04084483|183206195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5990
91656400|NCT04084483|183206195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2122|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2122
91656401|NCT04084483|183206196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9146|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9146
91656402|NCT04084483|183206196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8494|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8494
91656403|NCT04084483|183206197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4747|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4747
91656404|NCT04084483|183206197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5619|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5619
91656405|NCT04084483|183206198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5985|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5985
91656406|NCT04084483|183206198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7626|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7626
91656407|NCT04084483|183206199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8330
91656408|NCT04084483|183206199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2777|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2777
91656409|NCT04084483|183206200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9829|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9829
91656410|NCT04084483|183206200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8675|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8675
91656411|NCT04084483|183206201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5836|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5836
91656412|NCT04084483|183206201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2352|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2352
91656413|NCT04084483|183206202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7367|||||||ANCOVA|||Ocular Discomfort||||0.7367
91656414|NCT04084483|183206202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3865|||||||ANCOVA|||Ocular Discomfort||||0.3865
91656415|NCT04084483|183206202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8796|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning||||0.8796
91656416|NCT04084483|183206202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3515|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning||||0.3515
91656417|NCT04084483|183206202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6338|||||||ANCOVA|||Dryness||||0.6338
91656418|NCT04084483|183206202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4685|||||||ANCOVA|||Dryness||||0.4685
91656419|NCT04084483|183206202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4757|||||||ANCOVA|||Grittiness||||0.4757
91656420|NCT04084483|183206202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8803|||||||ANCOVA|||Grittiness||||0.8803
91656421|NCT04084483|183206202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8529|||||||ANCOVA|||Stinging||||0.8529
91656422|NCT04084483|183206202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7713|||||||ANCOVA|||Stinging||||0.7713
91656423|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning/Stinging||||0.1380
91656424|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3334|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning/Stinging||||0.3334
91656425|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1008|||||||ANCOVA|||Itching||||0.1008
91656426|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4582|||||||ANCOVA|||Itching||||0.4582
91656427|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1511|||||||ANCOVA|||Foreign Body Sensation||||0.1511
91656428|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2555|||||||ANCOVA|||Foreign Body Sensation||||0.2555
91656429|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1546|||||||ANCOVA|||Blurry Vision||||0.1546
91656430|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0495|||||||ANCOVA|||Blurry Vision||||0.0495
91656431|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5791|||||||ANCOVA|||Eye Dryness||||0.5791
91656432|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANCOVA|||Eye Dryness||||0.0736
91656433|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||ANCOVA|||Photophobia||||0.3666
91656434|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||ANCOVA|||Photophobia||||0.0390
91656435|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0655|||||||ANCOVA|||Pain||||0.0655
91656436|NCT04084483|183206203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1947|||||||ANCOVA|||Pain||||0.1947
91656437|NCT04084483|183206204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9274|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9274
91656438|NCT04084483|183206204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0888|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0888
91656439|NCT00765648|183206205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-0.6|||Chi-squared|||||-0.6|-18.0|0.04
91656440|NCT00765648|183206206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91656441|NCT00765648|183206207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91656442|NCT00765648|183206208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
91656443|NCT00765648|183206209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
91656444|NCT00765648|183206210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91656445|NCT00486837|183206232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.197
91711940|NCT02754518|183315308|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
91711941|NCT02754518|183315309|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.02
91656446|NCT05630547|183206295|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio to Baseline|0.986||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.103|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed categorical effects of the treatment group, multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical subtype (relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis \[RRMS\], secondary progressive multiple sclerosis \[SPMS\], or primary progressive multiple sclerosis \[PPMS\]), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, log-transformed baseline sNfL levels and log-transformed baseline sNfL levels-by-visit interaction.||1.103|0.881|0.8042
91656447|NCT05065502|183206304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|0.206||Significance level is set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear||Between-arm difference at 13-18 months post-baseline, controlling for rates 1-6 months pre-baseline|Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of PIMs of post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for use in pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6), averaged across three studies.||0.206|-0.728|0.273
91656448|NCT05065502|183206305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.00138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0245|0.0272||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of PIMs for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.0272|-0.0245|
91711942|NCT02754518|183315310|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-Values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
91711943|NCT02754518|183315311|OTHER|||||||0.82||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.82
91711944|NCT02754518|183315312|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
91711945|NCT02754518|183315313|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.01
91711946|NCT02754518|183315314|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.11
91711947|NCT02754518|183315315|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.17
91711948|NCT02754518|183315316|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.035
91711949|NCT02754518|183315317|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.059
91656449|NCT05065502|183206306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|69.3|||||Statistical Assumptions for Valid Inference of a typical Difference-in-Difference model were not met, Estimate computed from modelling Post-period, and adjusting for Pre-period.|Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in medication costs from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18).||69.3|-23.3|
91711950|NCT02754518|183315318|OTHER|||||||0.054||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.054
91711951|NCT02754518|183315319|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.28
91900990|NCT03226275|183696656|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||0.50|-1.00|
91656450|NCT05065502|183206307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.599|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.122||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in count of medication note reviews from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18).|"Medication reviews per 1,000 patients (outcome multiplied by 1,000).~Statistical Assumptions for Valid Inference of a typical Difference-in-Difference model were not met, Estimate computed from modelling Post-period, and adjusting for Pre-period."|-0.122|-1.080|
91656451|NCT05065502|183206308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09073|0.01561||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in count of inappropriate use from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18)||0.01561|-0.09073|
91656452|NCT05065502|183206309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.2||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of high-risk DOAC use from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18).||1.20|-1.44|
91656453|NCT05065502|183206310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.42||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of of high-risk DOAC use attributable to chronic kidney disease for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6), ), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.42|-0.83|
91711952|NCT02754518|183315320|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||P-Values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.002
91656454|NCT05065502|183206311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.72||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of high-risk DOAC use attributable to weight for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.72|-0.08|
91656455|NCT05065502|183206312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.33||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of high-risk DOAC use attributable to mis-dosing for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.33|-0.70|
91656456|NCT05065502|183206313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02415|0.04429||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of CBTI receipt for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6)||0.04429|-0.02415|
91656457|NCT05065502|183206316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21014|0.04275||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of PIMs for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.04275|-0.21014|
91656458|NCT05065502|183206317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.42||||||||0.420|-0.216|
91656459|NCT05065502|183206318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0389|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.477||||||||0.477|-0.555|
91656460|NCT05065502|183206319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.452||||||||0.452|-0.250|
91656461|NCT05065502|183206320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.254||||||||0.254|-0.339|
91656462|NCT00117949|183206344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91656463|NCT00117949|183206344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median days to insufficient T response|84.0||||||95.0|35.0|112.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to meet insufficient testosterone (T) response.||112|35|
91656464|NCT00117949|183206344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median days to insufficient T response|98.0||||||95.0|70.0|126.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to meet insufficient testosterone (T) response||126|70|
91656465|NCT00117949|183206344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median days to insufficient T response|35.0||||||95.0|14.0|98.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to meet insufficient testosterone (T) response||98|14|
91656466|NCT00117949|183206345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Log Rank|Participants not castrated were censored as of the days from dosing for the last available observation.||||||0.003
91656467|NCT00117949|183206345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median time to castration (days)|3.0||||||95.0|3.0|7.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the median time to testosterone castration.||7|3|
91656468|NCT00117949|183206345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median time to castration (days)|3.0||||||95.0|1.0|3.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to testosterone castration.||3|1|
91656469|NCT00117949|183206346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||0|0|
91656470|NCT00117949|183206346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|42.7||||||95.0|22.0|63.4||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||63.4|22|
91656471|NCT00117949|183206346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|61.6||||||95.0|41.8|81.3||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||81.3|41.8|
91656472|NCT00117949|183206346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|35.6||||||95.0|15.8|55.5||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||55.5|15.8|
91656473|NCT00117949|183206347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test.|||||||0.181
91656474|NCT00117949|183206347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|10.0||||||95.0|0.3|44.5||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||44.5|0.3|
91656475|NCT00117949|183206347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|70.8||||||95.0|48.9|87.4||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||87.4|48.9|
91656476|NCT00117949|183206347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|79.2||||||95.0|57.8|92.9||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||92.9|57.8|
91900991|NCT03226275|183696656|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||0.50|-1.00|
91656477|NCT00117949|183206347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|54.2||||||95.0|32.8|74.4||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||74.4|32.8|
91656478|NCT00117949|183206348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.046
91656479|NCT00117949|183206348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|14.0||||||95.0|14.0|28.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 50% reduction in PSA||28|14|
91656480|NCT00117949|183206348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|14.0||||||95.0|14.0|28.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 50% reduction in PSA||28|14|
91656481|NCT00117949|183206348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|28.0||||||95.0|14.0|41.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 50% reduction in PSA||41|14|
91656482|NCT00117949|183206349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.926
91656483|NCT00117949|183206349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|56.0||||||95.0|35.0|56.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 90% reduction in PSA.||56|35|
91656484|NCT00117949|183206349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|56.0||||||95.0|35.0|84.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 90% reduction in PSA.||84|35|
91656485|NCT00117949|183206349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|56.0||||||95.0|35.0|100.0|||||The upper confidence interval limit could not be calculated. For technical reasons it has been entered as 100.|Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 90% reduction in PSA.||100|35|
91656486|NCT02099461|183206364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.15||||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.441|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.441|-0.136|0.2966
91656487|NCT02099461|183206364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.16||||0.2769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|0.13|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.130|-0.447|0.2769
91656488|NCT02099461|183206364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.09||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|0.191|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.191|-0.373|0.5238
91656489|NCT02099461|183206364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.098|||ANCOVA||Denosumab 60 mg - Placebo|An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to Baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.098|-0.720|0.1343
91656490|NCT02099461|183206364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.161|||ANCOVA||Denosumab 120 mg - Placebo|An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to Baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.161|-0.646|0.2345
91656491|NCT00406848|183206369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in changes from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13 on the HAMD-17 Maier subscale between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups.||||0.397
91656492|NCT00406848|183206370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo on change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.115
91656493|NCT00406848|183206370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo on change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.004
91656494|NCT00406848|183206371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773||95.0||||p-value is for HAMD-17 total score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.773
91711953|NCT02754518|183315321|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-Values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.008
91711954|NCT02754518|183315322|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.005
91711955|NCT02754518|183315323|OTHER|||||||0.056||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.056
91711956|NCT00872521|183315327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.09
91711957|NCT00872521|183315328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.23
91711958|NCT00872521|183315329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.23
91711959|NCT00872521|183315330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.56
91711960|NCT00872521|183315331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.01
91656495|NCT00406848|183206371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0||||p-value is for HAMD-17 total score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.084
91656496|NCT00406848|183206371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||p-value is for Maier subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.059
91656497|NCT00406848|183206371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||95.0||||p-value is for Bech subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.488
91656498|NCT00406848|183206371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||p-value is for HAMD-17 Bech subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.048
91656499|NCT00406848|183206371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.529||95.0||||p-value is for Core Mood subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.529
91656500|NCT00406848|183206371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||p-value is for Core Mood subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.027
91656501|NCT00406848|183206371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0||||p-value is for Anxiety/Somatization subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.749
91656502|NCT00406848|183206371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||p-value is for Anxiety/Somatization subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.296
91711961|NCT00872521|183315332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.28
91711962|NCT01411852|183315376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.25|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years), penetrating vs. blunt or no trauma (1 patient had neither blunt nor penetrating trauma), and Injury Severity Score (ISS). ISS multiply imputed for one patient.|||1.25|0.12|
91711963|NCT01411852|183315377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-5.5||||||||-5.5|-26.5|
91711964|NCT01411852|183315378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.4||||||||0.40|-2.76|
91711965|NCT01411852|183315379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.08||||||||0.08|-1.61|
91711966|NCT01411852|183315380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.2||||||||2.2|-1.8|
91711967|NCT01411852|183315381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||||||||1.0|-0.3|
91656503|NCT00406848|183206371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984||95.0||||p-value is for Sleep subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.984
91656504|NCT00406848|183206371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||p-value is for Sleep subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.930
91656505|NCT00406848|183206371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0||||p-value is for Retardation subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.934
91656506|NCT00406848|183206371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||p-value is for Retardation subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.123
91656507|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Worst Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.034
91656508|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Worst Pain - Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.100
91656509|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Least Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.009
91656510|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Least Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.126
91656511|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Average Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
91656512|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Average Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.013
91656513|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Pain Right Now Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.016
91656514|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Pain Right Now Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.058
91711968|NCT01411852|183315382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.5|1.6||||||||1.6|-42.5|
91656515|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with General Activity Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.011
91711969|NCT01411852|183315383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.06|
91711970|NCT01411852|183315384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|2.0||||||||2.0|-22.4|
91711971|NCT01411852|183315385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|1.4||||||||1.4|-39.2|
91711972|NCT01411852|183315386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|8.8||||||||8.8|-29.6|
91711973|NCT01411852|183315387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.8||||||||7.8|-16.6|
91711974|NCT01411852|183315388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.1||||||||2.1|-3.8|
91711975|NCT01411852|183315389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.4||||||||2.4|-3.6|
91656516|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with General Activity Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.060
91656517|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Mood Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
91656518|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Mood Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.002
91656519|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Walking Ability Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.019
91656520|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Walking Ability Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.040
91656521|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Normal Work Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.003
91656522|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Normal Work Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.014
91656523|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Relations with Other People Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.010
91656524|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Relations with Other People Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.010
91656525|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Sleep Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.015
91656526|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Sleep Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.005
91656527|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Enjoyment of Life Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
91656528|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Enjoyment of Life Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
91656529|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Average Interference Score Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
91656530|NCT00406848|183206372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Average Interference Score Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.001
91656531|NCT00406848|183206373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||p-value is for Overall Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||.005
91656532|NCT00406848|183206373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||p-value is for Overall Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.204
91711976|NCT01411852|183315390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.1||||||||3.1|-2.9|
91656533|NCT00406848|183206373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||p-value is for Headaches Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.078
91656534|NCT00406848|183206373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0||||p-value is for Headaches Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.147
91656535|NCT00406848|183206373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||p-value is for Back Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.007
91656536|NCT00406848|183206373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for Back Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.013
91656537|NCT00406848|183206373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||p-value is for Shoulder Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.124
91656538|NCT00406848|183206373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||95.0||||p-value is for Shoulder Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.231
91656539|NCT00406848|183206373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Daily Activities Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.006
91656540|NCT00406848|183206373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Daily Activities Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit||||||0.019
91656541|NCT00406848|183206373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for Time in Pain While Awake Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.002
91900992|NCT03226275|183696658|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|99.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.61|106.79||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting State||106.79|93.61|
91656542|NCT00406848|183206373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||p-value is for Time in Pain While Awake Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.036
91656543|NCT00406848|183206374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0||||p-value is for PGI-I at Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: PGI-I = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit||||||0.214
91656544|NCT00406848|183206374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||p-value is for PGI-I at Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: PGI-I = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit||||||.063
91656545|NCT00406848|183206375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||.162
91656546|NCT00406848|183206375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||.009
91656547|NCT00406848|183206376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||0.555
91711977|NCT01411852|183315391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.92|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years) and Injury Severity Score (ISS). ISS multiply imputed for one patient.|||0.92|0.03|
91656548|NCT00406848|183206376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||.785
91656549|NCT00406848|183206377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||0.255
91900993|NCT03226275|183696658|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|98.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.38|104.28||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||104.28|93.38|
91656550|NCT00406848|183206377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||0.038
91900994|NCT03226275|183696658|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|98.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.75|108.15||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||108.15|89.75|
91656551|NCT00406848|183206378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706||95.0||||p-values for Week 13 remission (HAMD17 ≤ 7).|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.706
91656552|NCT00406848|183206378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.694||95.0||||p-values for Week 25 Remission HAMD17 ≤ 7|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.694
91656553|NCT00406848|183206378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0||||p-values for Week 13 Remission - HAMD17 ≤ 10|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.864
91656554|NCT00406848|183206378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||p-values for Week 25 Remission - HAMD17 ≤ 10|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.817
91656555|NCT00406848|183206379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0||||p-value is for probability of response at Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Response = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.664
91656556|NCT00406848|183206379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||p-value is for probability of response at Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Response = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.310
91656557|NCT00406848|183206381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model: Onset = Treatment + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.036
91656558|NCT00406848|183206382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||p-value is for Systolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.637
91656559|NCT00406848|183206382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Diastolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.001
91656560|NCT00406848|183206382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0||||p-value is for Systolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.452
91656561|NCT00406848|183206382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||95.0||||p-value is for Diastolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.193
91656562|NCT00406848|183206383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.121
91656563|NCT00406848|183206383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.038
91656564|NCT00406848|183206384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value is for Weight change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.003
91656565|NCT00406848|183206384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||p-value is for Weight change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.127
91656566|NCT00406848|183206385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||p-value is for Diastolic Blood Pressure.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.135
91656567|NCT00406848|183206385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value is for Pulse.|Fisher Exact|||Pulse||||1.00
91656568|NCT00406848|183206385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||p-value is for Systolic Blood Pressure|Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
91656569|NCT00406848|183206385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0||||p-value is for Weight Change (gain)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.235
91656570|NCT00406848|183206385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0||||p-value is for Weight Change (loss)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.813
91656571|NCT00406848|183206386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||p-value is for Sustained Hypertension|Fisher Exact|||||||0.668
91656572|NCT00406848|183206386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0||||p-value is for Orthostatic Hypotension|Fisher Exact|||||||0.201
91656573|NCT00406848|183206388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value is for Platelet Count change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.003
91656574|NCT00406848|183206388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Platelet Count change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||<0.001
91656575|NCT00406848|183206389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Uric Acid change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||<0.001
91656576|NCT00406848|183206389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Uric Acid change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||<0.001
91656577|NCT00406848|183206390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||p-value is for Erythrocyte Count change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.014
91656578|NCT00406848|183206391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Hemoglobin change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.019
91656579|NCT00406848|183206391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||p-value is for Mean Cell Hemoglobin Concentration change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.048
91656580|NCT00406848|183206392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||p-value is for Chloride change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.040
91656581|NCT00406848|183206392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||p-value is for Fasting Glucose change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.036
91656582|NCT00406848|183206393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
91656583|NCT00406848|183206394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||p-value is for QT Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.815
91656584|NCT00406848|183206394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||95.0||||p-value is for QTcF Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.721
91656585|NCT00406848|183206394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||p-value is for QTcB Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.376
91656586|NCT00406848|183206394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||p-value is for PR Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.065
91656587|NCT00406848|183206394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||p-value is for QRS Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.110
91656588|NCT00406848|183206395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||p-value is for Successful Treatment Outcome defined with HAMD-17 ≤7 criteria.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.110
91656589|NCT00406848|183206395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||p-value is for Successful Treatment Outcome defined with HAMD-17 ≤10 criteria.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
91656590|NCT00406848|183206396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||p-value is for Composite Cognitive Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.511
91900995|NCT03226275|183696658|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|104.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|112.66||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||112.66|96.11|
91656591|NCT00406848|183206396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||p-value is for Composite Cognitive Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.300
91656592|NCT00406848|183206396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922||95.0||||p-value is for Learning Trials Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.922
91656593|NCT00406848|183206396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||p-value is for Learning Trials Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.190
91656594|NCT00406848|183206396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||p-value is for Delayed Recall Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.850
91656595|NCT00406848|183206396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||p-value is for Delayed Recall Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.158
91656596|NCT00406848|183206396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0||||p-value is for SDST Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.099
91656597|NCT00406848|183206396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0||||p-value is for SDST Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.141
91656598|NCT00406848|183206396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0||||p-value is for 2DCT Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.379
91656599|NCT00406848|183206396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858||95.0||||p-value is for 2DCT Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.858
91656600|NCT00406848|183206396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591||95.0||||p-value is for Trail Making Test Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.591
91656601|NCT00406848|183206396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||p-value is for Trail Making Test Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.242
91711978|NCT01411852|183315392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|19.11|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years) and Injury Severity Score (ISS).|||19.11|0.19|
91656602|NCT01046253|183206446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||114|97.4|
91656603|NCT01046253|183206447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|93.3|
91656604|NCT01046253|183206448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Slope|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.8|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|92.8|
91656605|NCT00860028|183206451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.36||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91656606|NCT00860028|183206452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||General Linear Model|||||||0.06
91656607|NCT00860028|183206453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91656608|NCT00936390|183206465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|This study was designed to detect an improvement in the 5-year overall survival rate from 90% (radiation alone arm) to 93.3% (radiation and androgen deprivation arm). Assuming an exponential survival distribution for each arm, this translates to a 34% relative reduction (hazard ratio 0.66) in the yearly death rate. At least 218 deaths provide 85% power with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 and 85% power.||1.11|0.65|0.22
91656609|NCT00936390|183206466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.7||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.70|0.39|<0.001
91656610|NCT00936390|183206466|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||<0.001
91656611|NCT00936390|183206467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.9||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.90|0.22|0.020
91656612|NCT00936390|183206467|SUPERIORITY|Cumulative incidence model||||||0.021||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||||||0.021
91656613|NCT00936390|183206469|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.57||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.57|0.11|<0.001
91656614|NCT00936390|183206469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||<0.001
91656615|NCT00936390|183206470|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.8||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.80|0.01|0.0073
91656616|NCT00936390|183206470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||0.007
91656617|NCT00936390|183206471|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||1.20|0.70|0.52
91656618|NCT00936390|183206471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||0.56
91656619|NCT00936390|183206472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.95||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.95|0.41|0.025
91656620|NCT00936390|183206472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||0.025
91656621|NCT00936390|183206474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91656622|NCT00936390|183206475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is one-sided)|Gray's test||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|||1.53|0.89|0.13
91656623|NCT00936390|183206476|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.7||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.70|0.39|<0.001
91656624|NCT00936390|183206476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||<0.001
91656625|NCT00936390|183206477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.38
91656626|NCT00936390|183206477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months post-RT||||0.032
91656627|NCT00936390|183206477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.87
91656628|NCT00936390|183206477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.67
91656629|NCT00936390|183206478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.58
91656630|NCT00936390|183206478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Six months post-RT||||0.31
91656631|NCT00936390|183206478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.36
91656632|NCT00936390|183206478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.88
91656633|NCT00936390|183206479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||<0.001
91656634|NCT00936390|183206479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Six months post-RT||||<0.001
91656635|NCT00936390|183206479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||<0.001
91656636|NCT00936390|183206479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.18
91656637|NCT00936390|183206480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||<0.001
91656638|NCT00936390|183206480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Six months post-RT||||<0.001
91656639|NCT00936390|183206480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.0014
91656640|NCT00936390|183206480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.90
91656641|NCT00936390|183206481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.046
91656642|NCT00936390|183206481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months post-RT||||0.82
91656643|NCT00936390|183206481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.82
91656644|NCT00936390|183206481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.79
91656645|NCT01566409|183206495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The required sample size was based on a projected treatment success in the PEG group of 60%. With a power in excess of 80% and a critical level of significance of 0.05, 45 children were needed in each group to detect a 50% reduction in treatment effect in the placebo group, corresponding to 30% recovers without active maintenance treatment. Because of an expected drop-out rate of 25%, we aimed at including 115 children.||||||0.024|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.024
91656646|NCT03309956|183206497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||McNemar|||||||0.23
91656647|NCT02768298|183206500|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-0.21|0.2327
91656648|NCT02768298|183206501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.6247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.41|||ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.68|0.6247
91656649|NCT02768298|183206502|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.52|||ANCOVA|||6 weeks||0.52|-2.98|0.1678
91656650|NCT02768298|183206502|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.809||0.3052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|2.43|||ANCOVA|||3 months||2.43|-0.77|0.3052
91656651|NCT02768298|183206503|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.744||0.6181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|4.32|||ANCOVA|||6 weeks||4.32|-2.58|0.6181
91656652|NCT02768298|183206503|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.124||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|7.48|||ANCOVA|||3 months||7.48|-0.93|0.1254
91656653|NCT02768298|183206504|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Borg value dyspnea||0.33|-0.93|0.3432
91656654|NCT02768298|183206504|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.5319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Borg value fatigue||0.65|-0.34|0.5319
91656655|NCT02518685|183206516|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean Difference|6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|8.81|||multiple imputations|||||8.81|4.54|<0.0001
91656656|NCT02518685|183206517|SUPERIORITY|Statistical success criterion for achieving the performance standard of (≥ 50%) of proportion of TPS subjects who have 5% or more TBL at the 12-Month Follow-up|Proportion of Subjects|66.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|74.3|||Wilson's Midpoint Estimate|||||74.3|59.3|<0.0001
91656657|NCT00336024|183206536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||The CR rates between these two groups will be compared at a significance level of 0.1 using one-sided Chi-square test.||||0.35
91656658|NCT00336024|183206538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||The difference in incidence for the two treatment regimens will be compared using a one-sided log-rank test with a significance level 0.1.||||0.2
91656659|NCT00336024|183206539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The two groups will be compared for patterns of failure to detect a statistically significant difference using Fisher exact test.||||1.00
91656660|NCT00336024|183206540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Log Rank|||Difference in incidence for the two treatment regimens will be compared using log-rank test.||||0.74
91656661|NCT00336024|183206541|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The rate of acute hearing loss between two treatment regimens will be be compared using Fisher exact test.||||1.00
91656662|NCT00336024|183206547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||The rate of chronic hearing loss between two treatment regimens will be be compared using Fisher exact test.||||0.8
91656663|NCT00336024|183206548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Induction Phase I. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.27
91656664|NCT00336024|183206548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Induction Phase II. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.07
91656665|NCT00336024|183206548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Induction Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.2
91656666|NCT00336024|183206548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Consolidation Phase 1. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.4
91656667|NCT00336024|183206548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Consolidation Phase 2. The difference in the number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.38
91656668|NCT00336024|183206548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Consolidation Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.7
91656669|NCT00336024|183206549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Induction Phase I. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.08
91900996|NCT03824639|183696664|OTHER|Cohen's d will be used to estimate the effect size for comparing change in outcome measurements over 6 months in the exercise group to the control group. This effect size will be used for sample size calculations.|Cohen's d|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91656670|NCT00336024|183206549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Induction Phase II. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.9
91656671|NCT00336024|183206549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Induction Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.17
91656672|NCT00336024|183206549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Consolidation Phase I. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.3
91656673|NCT00336024|183206549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Consolidation Phase II. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.26
91656674|NCT00336024|183206549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Consolidation Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.17
91656675|NCT02086188|183206585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1911|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1911
91656676|NCT02086188|183206586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4271|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4271
91656677|NCT02086188|183206587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1723|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1723
91656678|NCT02086188|183206588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6340
91656679|NCT02086188|183206589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0091
91656680|NCT01494506|183206591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28|||Log Rank|Unstratified logrank test.||||1.28|0.77|0.9416
91656681|NCT01494506|183206591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.92|||Log Rank|Unstratified logrank test.||||0.92|0.49|0.012
91656682|NCT01494506|183206592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.63|0.100
91656683|NCT01494506|183206592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.41|<0.001
91656684|NCT01494506|183206593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0264||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.058|||Fisher Exact|||||0.058|-0.005|0.214
91656685|NCT01494506|183206593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.12|||Fisher Exact|||||0.120|0.018|0.010
91656686|NCT01494506|183206594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03|||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test.||||1.03|0.65|0.1008
91656687|NCT01494506|183206594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78|||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test||||0.78|0.45|0.0002
91656688|NCT01494506|183206595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.82
91656689|NCT01494506|183206595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.80
91656690|NCT01494506|183206596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
91656691|NCT01494506|183206596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91656692|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Global Health Status||||0.6388
91656693|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8445||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Global Health Status||||0.8445
91656694|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Physical Functioning||||0.6388
91656695|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9435||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Physical Functioning||||0.9435
91656696|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2654||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Role functioning||||0.2654
91656697|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Role functioning||||0.7674
91656698|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1628||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Emotional Functioning||||0.1628
91656699|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Emotional Functioning||||0.6712
91656700|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7738||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Cognitive Functioning||||0.7738
91656701|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Cognitive Functioning||||0.6712
91656702|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3408||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Social Functioning||||0.3408
91656703|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Social Functioning||||0.6712
91656704|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6766||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Fatigue||||0.6766
91656705|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Fatigue||||0.6712
91656706|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting||||0.6388
91656707|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting||||0.7674
91656708|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4993||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Pain||||0.4993
91656709|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Pain||||0.6712
91656710|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2654||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Dyspnoea||||0.2654
91656711|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Dyspnoea||||0.6712
91656712|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7617||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Insomnia||||0.7617
91656713|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Insomnia||||0.6712
91711979|NCT01411852|183315393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.77|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years), penetrating mechanism (yes/no), and ISS (linear).|||1.77|0.22|
91711980|NCT03193047|183315397|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-30.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.502|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.324|-19.199|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|||-19.199|-41.324|<0.001
91656714|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9123||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Appetite loss||||0.9123
91656715|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Appetite loss||||0.6712
91656716|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7617||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Constipation||||0.7617
91656717|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Constipation||||0.6712
91656718|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1628||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Diarrhoea||||0.1628
91656719|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Diarrhoea||||0.6712
91656720|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Financial difficulties||||0.6388
91656721|NCT01494506|183206597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7308||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Financial difficulties||||0.7308
91656722|NCT02777528|183206604|OTHER|Performance goal tested using Exact method calculation to estimate the 95% one-sided lower confidence level (95% LCL) on the proportion of participants with primary endpoint success. If the 95% LCL exceeded 0.60, then the null hypothesis was to be rejected and the PG was met.|95% Exact Lower Confidence Limit|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Primary endpoint success was defined as the proportion of analysis-eligible participants without a primary endpoint event and with 1-Month imaging performed.~Results were tested against a performance goal (PG) of 0.60 (i.e. 60%), derived from outcomes from a systematic review of hybrid TEVAR repair literature.~Additionally, using a one-sided alpha of 0.05 and Exact Test, minimum power of 80%, the sample needed was 50 patients."||||
91656723|NCT01882647|183206623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data from the ITT population.||||||<0.001
91656724|NCT01882647|183206624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
91656725|NCT01882647|183206625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.01
91656726|NCT01882647|183206626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.01
91656727|NCT01108094|183206629|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Percent change in Ki67 tumor proliferation biomarker from baseline to 1 month, for Cohort A1 (vismodegib-naive patients, n = 8).~Paired analysis of tumors shows percent change between baseline (prior to treatment) and post-itraconazole treatment in individual patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Ki67 levels and the mean Ki67 levels after 1 month of treatment."||||0.04
91711981|NCT03193047|183315398|SUPERIORITY||Lease squares mean difference|-35.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.159|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.303|-25.466|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|||-25.466|-46.303|<0.001
91711982|NCT03193047|183315399|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-38.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.602|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.558|-26.944|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Month 1||-26.944|-49.558|<0.001
91656728|NCT01108094|183206629|OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"Percent change in Ki67 tumor proliferation biomarker - baseline vs 1 month - Cohort A, vismodegib-naive (n = 8) vs control patients Unpaired analysis shows percent change between individual tumors from control patients and itraconazole treated patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Ki67 levels and the mean Ki67 levels after 1 month of treatment."||||0.079
91656729|NCT01108094|183206629|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Percent change in Ki67 tumor proliferation biomarker - baseline vs 1 month - control patients Paired analysis of tumors shows percent change between baseline and after 1 month in individual patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Ki67 levels and the mean Ki67 levels after 1 month."||||0.652
91656730|NCT01108094|183206630|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Percentage change in GLI1 messenger RNA (mRNA) expression Paired analysis of tumors shows percent change between baseline (prior to treatment) and post itraconazole treatment in individual patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Gli levels and the mean Gli level after 1 month of treatment."|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||0.028
91656731|NCT01108094|183206631|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|30.0||||||Only tumors from 4 patients from cohort A (n = 42 BCCs) and all tumors from the 4 patients (n = 14 BCCs) in cohort B were observed for tumor size change. Percent change in tumor area from both cohorts (eight patients total with 57 tumors) was calculated only.||30|18.2|
91656732|NCT01108094|183206631|OTHER|||||||0.435|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Average tumor size reductions were compared between Cohort A1 and Cohort B.||||0.435
91656733|NCT02564263|183206667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW)|||0.96|0.63|0.00894
91656734|NCT02564263|183206668|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.00855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction \[EGJ\])|||0.94|0.52|0.00855
91711983|NCT03193047|183315399|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.606|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.176|-18.626|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Month 2||-18.626|-41.176|<0.001
91711984|NCT03193047|183315400|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-27.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.509|-16.553|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Apo B at Month 1||-16.553|-37.509|<0.001
91900997|NCT03824639|183696665|OTHER|Cohen's d will be used to estimate the effect size for comparing change in outcome measurements over 6 months in the exercise group to the control group. This effect size will be used for sample size calculations.|Cohen's d|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91656735|NCT02564263|183206669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||One-sided p-value based on stratified maximum weighted log rank test: the maximum of the log-rank test statistic \& a weighted log-rank Fleming-Harrington (0,1) test statistic|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction \[EGJ\])|||1.05|0.75|0.0531
91656736|NCT02564263|183206670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.31||One-sided p-value based on stratified maximum weighted log rank test: the maximum of the log-rank test statistic \& a weighted log-rank Fleming-Harrington (0,1) test statistic|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||1.31|0.94|0.287
91656737|NCT02564263|183206671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|6.4||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.2||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus; H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type I adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||11.2|1.7|0.0037
91656738|NCT02564263|183206672|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW)|||1.13|0.75|0.216
91656739|NCT02564263|183206673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.97||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||0.97|0.54|0.015
91711985|NCT03193047|183315400|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.225|-15.713|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Apo B at Month 2||-15.713|-33.225|<0.001
91900998|NCT01920594|183696694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2228.14||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-292.84|4749.11|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square (LS) mean difference (final values) of S-100B Protein \[test\] and S-100B Protein \[reference\].|||4749.11|-292.84|0.0820
91656740|NCT02564263|183206674|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.2||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.8||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW)|||15.8|3.0|0.0022
91656741|NCT02564263|183206675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|15.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|24.7||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type I adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||24.7|6.2|0.0006
91656742|NCT02906709|183206678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.66|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on a Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis model with terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior anti-hyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status and time by treatment by prior AHA status with the restriction of a common baseline mean between two treatment groups.|-0.66|-1.15|<0.001
91656743|NCT02906709|183206679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. Placebo|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|21.8|||||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|21.8|-8.4|
91656744|NCT02906709|183206681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.4|||||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.4|-12.8|
91656745|NCT02906709|183206683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-15.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-5.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on a Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis model with terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status and time by treatment by prior AHA status with the restriction of a common baseline mean between two treatment groups.|-5.4|-24.5|0.002
91656746|NCT02906709|183206684|SUPERIORITY||Percent Between-group Rate Difference|5.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||||The estimated response rates and effective sample sizes were used to obtain the confidence intervals (CIs) for within-group response rates via the Wilson score method. The CI were calculated via the stratified (non-combination prior AHA therapy status) Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|11.5|-0.7|0.065
91656747|NCT02906709|183206685|SUPERIORITY||Percent Between-group Rate Difference|1.6||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||||The estimated response rates and effective sample sizes were used to obtain the confidence intervals (CIs) for within-group response rates via the Wilson score method. The CI were calculated via the stratified (non-combination prior AHA therapy status) Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|5.8|-4.7|0.334
91656748|NCT02906709|183206686|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.0|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on a Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis model with terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status and time by treatment by prior AHA status with the restriction of a common baseline mean between two treatment groups.|4.0|2.3|<0.001
91656749|NCT02419313|183206691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0007
91656750|NCT02419313|183206692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
91656751|NCT02419313|183206693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0105
91656752|NCT00683020|183206695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||3.9|0.1|0.03
91656753|NCT00683020|183206696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||3.6|-0.9|0.23
91656754|NCT00683020|183206697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Days in comparison groups are not equal.|Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Negative Binomial Models|Adjusted for baseline values.||||1.4|0.3|0.25
91656755|NCT00683020|183206698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Proportions in comparison groups are not equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline values.||||1.4|0.2|0.18
91656756|NCT00683020|183206699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||0.5|0.1|0.008
91656757|NCT00683020|183206700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||0.2|-0.2|0.87
91656758|NCT00683020|183206701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||4.2|-2.1|0.49
91656759|NCT00683020|183206702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||5.6|-3.0|0.54
91656760|NCT00683020|183206703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||4.4|-0.4|0.11
91656761|NCT00683020|183206704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||0.1|-0.6|0.13
91656762|NCT00683020|183206705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||5.1|-3.8|0.78
91656763|NCT00683020|183206706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||4.9|-0.6|0.13
91656764|NCT02319148|183206744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|105.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|120.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||120.34|92.11|
91900999|NCT01920594|183696695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|777.95||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-424.04|1979.94|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final values) of GFAP \[test\] and GFAP \[reference\].|||1979.94|-424.04|0.1997
91656765|NCT02319148|183206744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.96|105.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||105.77|80.96|
91656766|NCT02319148|183206744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|116.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.86|132.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||132.92|101.86|
91656767|NCT02319148|183206745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|90.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.57|103.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||103.46|78.57|
91901000|NCT01920594|183696701|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of comparison (Ratio)|1.77||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.9|||ANOVA||The point estimate was calculated as Geometric mean ratio of S-100B\[test\] and S-100B\[reference\].|||3.90|0.80|0.1530
91656768|NCT02319148|183206745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|122.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||122.07|92.70|
91656769|NCT02319148|183206745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.68|116.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||116.66|88.68|
91656770|NCT02319148|183206746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.49|104.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||104.94|79.49|
91656771|NCT02319148|183206746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.1|122.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||122.91|93.10|
91656772|NCT02319148|183206746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.42|117.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||117.93|89.42|
91656773|NCT00048048|183206765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.425|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This regression was on the three conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb. This was not pre-specified.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1X/ Week||1.425|0.534|
91656774|NCT00048048|183206765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.307|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This regression was on the three conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb. This was not pre-specified.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1X/ 2Week||1.307|0.395|
91656775|NCT00048048|183206765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.377|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This regression was on the three conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb. This was not pre-specified.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1X /3 Week||1.377|0.488|
91656776|NCT00771537|183206811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Regression, Logistic||Women in the 1-sided message group accepted testing at a lower rate (79.4%) than those in the control group (87.4%).|||.96|.50|0.05
91656777|NCT00771537|183206811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||Women in the 2-sided trivial group were no different in their acceptance rate of HIV testing (81.3%) than women in the control group (87.4%).|||1.04|.54|.10
91656778|NCT00771537|183206811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||Women in the 2-sided major group were no different in rates of accepting HIV testing (83.9%) than women in the control group (87.4%)|||1.30|.65|.63
91656779|NCT00771537|183206812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Marginal Means|2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|2.56|||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom = (1,978)|There was no significant effect for the 1-sided message compared to the control group on Willingness to Participate in an HIV vaccine clinical trial.|One-way Analysis of Variance||2.56|2.42|<.60
91656780|NCT00771537|183206812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Marginal Means|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|2.58|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (1,1028)|There was no significant effect for the 2-sided trivial message compared to the control group on Willingness to Participate in an HIV vaccine clinical trial.|One-Way Analysis of Variance||2.58|2.44|<.25
91656781|NCT00771537|183206812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Marginal Means|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.54|||ANOVA||There was no significant effect for the 2-sided major message compared to the control group on Willingness to Participate in an HIV vaccine clinical trial.|One-Way Analysis of Variance||2.54|2.40|<.91
91656782|NCT02194998|183206813|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort A's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
91656783|NCT02194998|183206813|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.47||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort B's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||0.47
91656784|NCT02194998|183206813|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort C's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
91656785|NCT02194998|183206813|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.24||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort D's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||0.24
91656786|NCT02194998|183206826|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort A's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
91656787|NCT02194998|183206826|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.47||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort B's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||0.47
91656788|NCT02194998|183206826|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort C's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
91656789|NCT02194998|183206826|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.24||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort D's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||0.24
91656790|NCT00282256|183206829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for AUC0-24 was found to lie entirely within the 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.8|112.1|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance was used for the comparisons of AUC0-24. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (defined as Day 7) and for tacrolimus MR (defined as Day 14). The natural log (ln) was used to transform AUC0-24 prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||112.1|90.8|
91656791|NCT00282256|183206831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for Cmin was found to lie entirely within the 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.6|102.2|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance was used for the comparisons of Cmin. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (defined as Day 7) and for tacrolimus MR (defined as Day 14). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmin prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||102.2|82.6|
91901001|NCT01920594|183696702|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of comparison (Ratio)|3.13||||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|14.26|||ANOVA||The point estimate was calculated as Geometric mean ratio of GFAP\[test\] and GFAP\[reference\].|||14.26|0.69|0.1377
91711986|NCT03193047|183315400|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-31.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.689|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.116|-22.163|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|non-HDL-C at Month 1||-22.163|-41.116|<0.001
91656792|NCT01345019|183206847|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-stage approach was used for the non-inferiority test. First, the fixed margin approach was used to ensure denosumab has an effect greater than placebo (ie, the non-inferiority margin M1, ie, the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval 1.28, is ruled out). Next, a synthesis method was used for the non-inferiority test of the hypothesis that denosumab preserved at least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid (HR \[95% CI\] of 1.48 \[1.28, 1.71\] for placebo vs zoledronic acid.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|A hazard ratio (denosumab:zoledronic acid) \< 1 favors denosumab|||1.14|0.85|0.010
91711987|NCT03193047|183315400|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.838|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.987|-14.505|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|non-HDL-C at Month 2||-14.505|-33.987|<0.001
91656793|NCT01345019|183206850|SUPERIORITY|The statistical inferences of the treatment effect on secondary efficacy endpoints (time to the first on study SRE \[superiority\] and time to first and subsequent on study SRE \[superiority, multiple event analysis\]) were to be conducted if denosumab was determined to be non-inferior to zoledronic acid. To control the overall type I error for multiple comparisons at a significant level of 0.05, these secondary efficacy endpoints were tested simultaneously using the Hochberg procedure.||||||0.82|||||||Log Rank|Based on a log rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors.||||||0.82
91656794|NCT01345019|183206851|SUPERIORITY|The statistical inferences of the treatment effect on secondary efficacy endpoints (time to the first on study SRE \[superiority\] and time to first and subsequent on study SRE \[superiority, multiple event analysis\]) were to be conducted if denosumab was determined to be non-inferior to zoledronic acid. To control the overall type I error for multiple comparisons at a significant level of 0.05, these secondary efficacy endpoints were tested simultaneously using the Hochberg procedure.|Rate ratio|1.01||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||Andersen-Gill model|Based on an Andersen-Gill model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|A rate ratio (denosumab:zoledronic acid) \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.15|0.89|0.84
91656795|NCT01345019|183206853|SUPERIORITY|If superiority of denosumab over zoledronic acid was established for both time to first SRE and time to first and subsequent SRE, the additional secondary endpoint (overall survival) was to be tested at a significance level of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio (denosumab:zoledronic acid) \< 1 favors denosumab.|The survival function of time to death for each treatment group was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and the hazard ratio of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid and its 2-sided 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors and including treatment groups, age, race group, geographic region, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline risk per cytogenetic based prognosis, and baseline ECOG as independent variables.||1.16|0.70|0.41
91656796|NCT00497796|183206881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on the ICH guidance, the hypothesis of non-inferiority can be tested using a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval's (CI) upper bound comparing with the non-inferiority margin of 5% (0.05).|Rate difference|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.119|||||Rate difference is the rate of maribavir minus the rate of ganciclovir|||0.119|-0.038|
91656797|NCT00497796|183206881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.586||||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|3.69||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.690|0.682|0.2754
91656798|NCT00497796|183206882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.065|3.02||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of the pp65 antigenemia assay||3.020|1.065|0.0283
91656799|NCT00497796|183206882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.284||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.338|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||3.900|1.338|0.0024
91656800|NCT00497796|183206882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.177||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|3.767||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR assay||3.767|1.259|0.0053
91656801|NCT00497796|183206882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.388||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|2.377||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||2.377|0.811|0.2339
91656802|NCT00497796|183206883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.14|||Log Rank||Maribavir versus ganciclovir; Cox's proportional hazards regression model: time = receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe) + treatment.|Analysis of time to onset||3.14|1.62|<0.0001
91656803|NCT00497796|183206884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||||0.0008
91656804|NCT00497796|183206884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||||0.3742
91656805|NCT00497796|183206885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
91656806|NCT00497796|183206886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.179|7.494||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay||7.494|2.179|<0.0001
91656807|NCT00497796|183206886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.448|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.404|12.213||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||12.213|3.404|<0.0001
91656808|NCT00497796|183206886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.342|10.843||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR assay||10.843|3.342|<0.0001
91901002|NCT01920594|183696703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.95|47.17|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Erythropoietin\[test\] and Erythropoietin\[reference\].|||47.17|21.95|<.0001
91711988|NCT03193047|183315400|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.572|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.153|-14.729|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|TC at Month 1||-14.729|-29.153|<0.001
91901003|NCT01920594|183696704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.45|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Lactate Dehydrogenase\[test\] and Lactate Dehydrogenase\[reference\].|||1.45|-0.37|0.2404
91711989|NCT03193047|183315400|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-17.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.809|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.201|-9.839|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|TC at Month 2||-9.839|-25.201|<0.001
91901004|NCT01920594|183696705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|925.88||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|1862.49|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Tau Protein\[test\] and Tau Protein\[reference\].|||1862.49|-10.73|0.0526
91901005|NCT01920594|183696706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|8.87|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Neuron Specific Enolase\[test\] and Neuron Specific Enolase\[reference\].|||8.87|-0.65|0.0893
91656809|NCT00497796|183206886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.146|30.069||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||30.069|4.146|<0.0001
91656810|NCT00832377|183207033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 12 peak IOP vs. baseline|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91656811|NCT00832377|183207034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 12 trough IOP vs. baseline|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91656812|NCT00832377|183207035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 12 8-HR IOP vs. baseline|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91656813|NCT03661528|183207038|OTHER||Percentage proportion difference|13.4||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|4.6|0.0032
91656814|NCT03661528|183207039|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-185.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.93|-172.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis presented for ANCOVA based on ranks.||||-172.05|-199.93|<0.0001
91656815|NCT03249584|183207040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An improvement from baseline to 3 months post radiofrequency ablation in worst pain score will be demonstrated with an outcome which is statistically lower than zero.||||<0.0001
91656816|NCT03130699|183207078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment and language.||||0.95
91656817|NCT03130699|183207079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.37
91656818|NCT03130699|183207080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.26
91711990|NCT03193047|183315401|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-32.479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.395||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.524|-2.339|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||The median treatment difference (location shift) and the 95% confidence limits are from Hodges-Lehmann estimates.|hs-CRP at Month 1||-2.339|-70.524|0.046
91656819|NCT03130699|183207081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.90
91656820|NCT03130699|183207082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.21
91656821|NCT03130699|183207083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.30
91656822|NCT03130699|183207084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.90
91656823|NCT03130699|183207085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.72
91656824|NCT03130699|183207086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.61
91656825|NCT03130699|183207087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.49
91656826|NCT03130699|183207088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.96
91656827|NCT03130699|183207089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.64
91656828|NCT03130699|183207090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.87
91656829|NCT03130699|183207091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.58
91656830|NCT03130699|183207092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.25
91656831|NCT03130699|183207093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.11
91656832|NCT03130699|183207094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.76
91656833|NCT03130699|183207095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.05
91656834|NCT03130699|183207096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.63
91656835|NCT03130699|183207097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses is controlled for income.||||0.63
91656836|NCT03130699|183207098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.002
91656837|NCT03130699|183207099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.008
91656838|NCT00977470|183207133|EQUIVALENCE|All enrolled patients will be included in the intent-to-treat efficacy analyses. Based on historical patients with EGFR mutations treated with gefitinib, we expect median progression-free survival on the erlotinib-alone arm to be approximately 9 months. This trial can detect a difference in proportions alive without progression at 9 months from 50% in the erlotinib arm to 77% in the erlotinib plus HCQ arm, using an alpha of 0.15 and power of 85%, using the two-sided Likelihood Ratio test.||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.28
91656839|NCT00796822|183207145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was determined based on a two-sample, independent, two-tailed t-test with 5% type I error. Using the results from our pilot trial, we conservatively estimated a predicted absolute change in FMD of 3.5% with PTX (assuming no change with placebo) and we assumed a common standard deviation of 2.6%. A sample size of 10 per group was estimated to provide at least 80% power to detect this effect size. Allowing for a 20% dropout rate, we planned to recruit 13 subjects per group.||3.28|-1.53|0.44
91656840|NCT00796822|183207146|SUPERIORITY|There was no formal power calculation for this outcome measure as the study was powered on the primary outcome measure.|Median Difference (Net)|149.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|151.8||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|281.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||281.9|16.4|0.03
91711991|NCT03193047|183315401|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-28.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.124||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.455|-3.93|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||The median treatment difference (location shift) and the 95% confidence limits are from Hodges-Lehmann estimates.|hs-CRP at Month 2||-3.930|-51.455|0.029
91711992|NCT00996034|183315453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This is a comparison of scan 1 and scan 2||||<0.05
91656841|NCT02096718|183207147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|122.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.743|156.045|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for moderate vs. normal matched with moderate patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||156.045|95.743|
91711993|NCT02500719|183315482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1319||||0.029|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This test is to determine if the difference between engagement and disengagement of emotional arousal is increased by real-time neurofeedback guidance in PTSD participants.||||.029
91711994|NCT00792116|183315490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures||||||.05
91711995|NCT00792116|183315491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures||||||.05
91711996|NCT04776928|183315492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Two-part regression model|||||||0.010
91791349|NCT03720652|183460430|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.66
91901006|NCT01920594|183696711|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean|1.84||||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.32|||ANOVA|||For Troponin I||11.32|0.30|0.5012
91656842|NCT02096718|183207147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|149.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.266|213.671|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for severe vs. normal matched with severe patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||213.671|105.266|
91656843|NCT02096718|183207148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|101.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.931|140.309|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for moderate vs. normal matched with moderate patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||140.309|72.931|
91656844|NCT02096718|183207148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|121.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.79|163.162|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for severe vs. normal matched with severe patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||163.162|90.790|
91656845|NCT02096718|183207149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|122.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.141|155.928|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for moderate vs. normal matched with moderate patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||155.928|96.141|
91656846|NCT02096718|183207149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|150.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.626|213.25|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for severe vs. normal matched with severe patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||213.250|105.626|
91656847|NCT03682900|183207150|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0||||||A one tailed test was used, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group. The criterion for significance was p \<. 05.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments made for multiple comparisons.||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||= .000
91656848|NCT03682900|183207151|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0||||||"The a prior threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05; one tailed test, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition||||= .000
91656849|NCT03682900|183207152|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.044||||||"The a prior threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05; one tailed test, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||=.044
91656850|NCT03682900|183207153|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.033||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance is p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||=.033
91656851|NCT03682900|183207154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91656852|NCT03682900|183207155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91656853|NCT03682900|183207156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91656854|NCT03682900|183207157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"The a prior threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05; one tailed test, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91656855|NCT03682900|183207158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91656856|NCT03682900|183207159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91656857|NCT03682900|183207160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91711997|NCT00103285|183315495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|16.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratios in this Statistical Analysis corresponds to all four time points.|Physical Functioning: Parents of 160 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales (physical, emotional and social functioning) and Family Assessment Device-General Functioning (FAD-GF) at 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy.||16.63|1.61|
91656858|NCT03682900|183207161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91711998|NCT00103285|183315495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratios in this Statistical Analysis corresponds to all four time points|Social Functioning: Parents of 160 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales (physical, emotional and social functioning) and Family Assessment Device-General Functioning (FAD-GF) at 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy.||3.27|1.21|
91656859|NCT03682900|183207162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a gneral linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91656860|NCT03682900|183207163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlayzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools within condition.||||<.001
91656861|NCT03682900|183207164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. Apriori, a p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed uisng a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91656862|NCT03682900|183207165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is a priori considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91901007|NCT01920594|183696711|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean|0.75||||0.8053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.57|||ANOVA|||For Troponin T||8.57|0.07|0.8053
91791350|NCT03720652|183460430|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.84
91656863|NCT03682900|183207166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91656864|NCT03682900|183207167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91656865|NCT03682900|183207168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlyzed using a general linear model mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91656866|NCT03682900|183207169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91711999|NCT00103285|183315495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratios in this Statistical Analysis corresponds to all four time points|Parents of 160 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales (physical, emotional and social functioning) and Family Assessment Device-General Functioning (FAD-GF) at 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy.||3.34|1.03|
91712000|NCT00103285|183315496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.974|3.273|||Regression, Cox|||4981 eligible evaluable patients enrolled on AALL0331 had MRD evaluation at Day 29 of induction. MRD status defined as negative (\<0.1%) or positive (\>=0.1%). MRD status ( positive vs. negative) was correlated with EFS using Cox regression analysis.||3.273|1.974|
91712001|NCT00103285|183315498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.17|||Chi-squared|||MRD status ( positive vs. negative) was correlated with Early Marrow Status (M1 vs M2/M3) using Chi Square test.||0.17|0.101|
91712002|NCT00103285|183315499|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|12.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Parents of 159 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the BASC-2 Anxiety Scale at 1 month after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy. Of these 159 had data at 1 month after diagnosis and 96 at 3 months post therapy.||12.73|1.31|
91712003|NCT03654729|183315585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3842||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8172|2.3446|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk of moderate to severe CIPN.||2.3446|0.8172|0.2266
91656867|NCT03682900|183207170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schols and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91712004|NCT03654729|183315585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0951||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6356|1.887|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk of moderate to severe CIPN.||1.8870|0.6356|0.7434
91712005|NCT03569098|183315638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.7669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.19||One-sided P-value. The model includes the fixed categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the stratification factor as fixed categorical covariates and the Baseline value as a fixed continuous covariate.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Dysport 300 U versus Placebo.||1.19|-0.55|0.7669
91712006|NCT03569098|183315638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.51||One-sided P-value. The model includes the fixed categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the stratification factor as fixed categorical covariates and the Baseline value as a fixed continuous covariate.|MMRM|||Dysport 500 U versus Placebo.||0.51|-1.24|0.2085
91904144|NCT04667377|183703253|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.33|-7.67||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-7.67|-14.33|<.0001
91656868|NCT03682900|183207171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91712007|NCT04194489|183315672|OTHER|Effect size calculation|Cohen's d|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
91712008|NCT04194489|183315673|OTHER|Effect size|Cohen's d|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
91712009|NCT04194489|183315674|OTHER|Effect size calculation|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
91712010|NCT04194489|183315675|OTHER|Effect size calculation|Cohen's d|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
91712011|NCT02485483|183315678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.74||"Convergent Validity Criterion Correlation coefficient (ρ) \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 221||0.74|0.59|<0.001
91712012|NCT02485483|183315678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 222||0.76|0.62|<0.001
91712013|NCT02485483|183315679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.58||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.66||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 203||0.66|0.48|0.057
91712014|NCT02485483|183315679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 200||0.80|0.67|<0.001
91712015|NCT02485483|183315680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.79||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between BDI-II and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 258||0.79|0.67|<0.001
91712016|NCT02485483|183315681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.77||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between BDI-II and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 214||0.77|0.64|<0.001
91712017|NCT02485483|183315682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.59||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.49||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 222||-0.49|-0.67|0.034
91712018|NCT02485483|183315682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.52||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 223||-0.52|-0.68|0.010
91712019|NCT02485483|183315682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.66||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and PHQ-9|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 222||-0.66|-0.78|<0.001
91712020|NCT02485483|183315683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.54||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.43||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 202||-0.43|-0.63|0.219
91712021|NCT02485483|183315683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.6||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 199||-0.60|-0.75|<0.001
91712022|NCT02485483|183315683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.7||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and PHQ-9|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 205||-0.70|-0.82|<0.001
91712023|NCT00377637|183315689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Covariates included Treatment, Race, Geographical Region, and WHO Lupus Nephritis Class V and specified interaction terms.||||||0.478
91712024|NCT00377637|183315690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Testing at the alpha=0.05 level was applied with no adjustments made for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||The difference in Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups (MMF-AZA) was assessed using a log-rank test, which is a non-parametric test to compare the survival distributions of two groups commonly used to analyze time-to-event endpoints.||||0.003
91712025|NCT00522548|183315703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||.29
91712026|NCT00522548|183315704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.39
91712027|NCT00522548|183315705|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||1.0
91712028|NCT00522548|183315706|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||1.00
91712029|NCT00522548|183315707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||a p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.14
91712030|NCT00522548|183315708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.34
91904145|NCT04667377|183703253|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.39|-8.71||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-8.71|-15.39|<.0001
91712031|NCT00522548|183315709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||||||A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||.51
91712032|NCT00522548|183315710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.95
91712033|NCT00522548|183315711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.57
91712034|NCT00522548|183315712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This represents p value for week 4 data. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.45
91712035|NCT00522548|183315712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This represents p value for week 24 data. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.58
91712036|NCT00522548|183315713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||This p value is for data at week 4. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.012
91712037|NCT00522548|183315713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p value was for data at week 24. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic Group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.046
91712038|NCT00522548|183315714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||p value represents data for week 4. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.27
91656869|NCT06354270|183207172|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.85|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||-0.85|-1.29|<0.0001
91656870|NCT06354270|183207173|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|36.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.319|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.14|43.29|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||43.29|30.14|<0.0001
91904146|NCT04667377|183703254|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|0.35||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.35|-7.82|0.0733
91656871|NCT06354270|183207174|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.46|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||-0.46|-0.79|<0.0001
91712039|NCT00522548|183315714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value represents data for week 24. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.23
91712040|NCT02820870|183315735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|4.9|||Regression, Logistic|With clustering by provider and team.||||4.9|1.84|<0.01
91656872|NCT06354270|183207175|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|18.52|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||18.52|10.09|<0.0001
91656873|NCT06354270|183207176|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.17|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.17|-0.83|0.1960
91656874|NCT06354270|183207176|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.28|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.28|-1.08|0.2287
91656875|NCT06354270|183207176|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.22|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.22|-0.89|0.2350
91656876|NCT06354270|183207176|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.328||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.21|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.21|-1.09|0.1818
91656877|NCT06354270|183207176|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.17|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.17|-1.25|0.1316
91656878|NCT06354270|183207176|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.05|-1.60|0.0658
91656879|NCT06354270|183207177|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.862||0.8072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|10.83|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||10.83|-8.45|0.8072
91712041|NCT02820870|183315736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|With cluster by provider and team.||||2.77|0.99|0.06
91712042|NCT00313846|183315761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate mean|||||||.0026
91712043|NCT03428100|183315773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.95|0.071
91712044|NCT03428100|183315773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.30|1.07|0.031
91712045|NCT03428100|183315774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.77|0.65|0.427
91712046|NCT03428100|183315775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.35|0.55|0.513
91712047|NCT03428100|183315775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.53|0.73|0.242
91712048|NCT03428100|183315775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.90|1.09|0.030
91712049|NCT03428100|183315776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.83|0.45|0.611
91712050|NCT03428100|183315776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.99|0.63|0.325
91712051|NCT03428100|183315776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.14|0.85|0.100
91712052|NCT03428100|183315777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.627||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.71|-6.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.58|-28.71|0.002
91712053|NCT03428100|183315777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|-3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.87|-22.83|0.006
91712054|NCT03428100|183315777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.554||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.54|-9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.70|-31.54|0.0002
91712055|NCT03428100|183315778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|24.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.29|0.71|0.115
91712056|NCT03428100|183315778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|30.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.88|1.11|0.037
91712057|NCT03428100|183315778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|28.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.08|0.81|0.083
91712058|NCT03428100|183315779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.32|1.29|0.012
91712059|NCT03428100|183315779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|8.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.66|1.59|0.002
91712060|NCT03428100|183315779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|16.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.82|2.79|0.00002
91712061|NCT03428100|183315780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.82|0.039
91712062|NCT03428100|183315780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.56|0.23
91712063|NCT03428100|183315780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.18|0.0001
91712064|NCT03428100|183315781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-1.47|0.0714
91712065|NCT03428100|183315781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-1.50|0.0134
91712066|NCT03428100|183315781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-2.21|0.0002
91712067|NCT03428100|183315782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.75|0.78|0.183
91712068|NCT03428100|183315782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|0.76|0.235
91712069|NCT03428100|183315782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.43|0.991
91712070|NCT03428100|183315783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|0.77|0.263
91712071|NCT03428100|183315783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|1.13|0.016
91712072|NCT03428100|183315783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.52|1.06|0.031
91712073|NCT03428100|183315784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.96|0.98|0.058
91791351|NCT03720652|183460431|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.015
91656880|NCT06354270|183207177|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.175||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|12.52|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||12.52|-11.96|0.9641
91656881|NCT06354270|183207178|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.35|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.35|-0.63|0.2538
91656882|NCT06354270|183207178|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.51|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.51|-2.15|0.7311
91712074|NCT03428100|183315784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.95|0.072
91791352|NCT03720652|183460431|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.34
91656883|NCT06354270|183207179|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.162||0.7202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|5.06|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||5.06|-3.51|0.7202
91712075|NCT03428100|183315784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.18|0.76|0.224
91656884|NCT06354270|183207179|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.532||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|4.98|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||4.98|-5.06|0.9859
91656885|NCT06354270|183207180|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.09|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.09|-2.00|0.5586
91656886|NCT06354270|183207180|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.961||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.75|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.75|-2.06|0.8730
91712076|NCT03428100|183315785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|86.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||86.08|0.29|0.265
91656887|NCT06354270|183207181|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.383||0.6191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|2.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.05|-3.43|0.6191
91656888|NCT06354270|183207181|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|3.21|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||3.21|-3.41|0.9521
91656889|NCT06354270|183207182|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.795||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.26|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.26|-0.89|0.3887
91712077|NCT03428100|183315785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|43.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.09|0.15|0.520
91712078|NCT03428100|183315785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|0.45|0.164
91712079|NCT03428100|183315786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.948||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-11.88|0.040
91712080|NCT03428100|183315786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.533||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|-1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.58|-11.54|0.010
91656890|NCT06354270|183207182|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.84|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||2.84|-1.08|0.3730
91656891|NCT06354270|183207183|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.46|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.46|-0.08|0.1591
91656892|NCT06354270|183207183|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.3429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.42|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.42|-0.15|0.3429
91656893|NCT06354270|183207184|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.2|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.20|-1.43|0.1360
91656894|NCT06354270|183207184|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.4|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.40|-1.31|0.2914
91656895|NCT05097989|183207185|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-17.7||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.5|8.3|||ANCOVA|||||8.3|-37.5|0.2422
91656896|NCT05097989|183207185|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.0||||0.8701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.3|74.4|||ANCOVA|||||74.4|-49.3|0.8701
91656897|NCT02809183|183207200|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the Pooled Placebo treatment group = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.9|0.5547
91656898|NCT02809183|183207200|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.0||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the 1.5g TRC101 BID group = 0 mEq/L|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the 1.5g TRC101 BID treatment group = 0 mEq/L.||4.0|2.4|< 0.0001
91712081|NCT03428100|183315786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.919|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-4.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.03|-15.51|<0.001
91712082|NCT03428100|183315787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|73.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||73.93|0.31|0.265
91712083|NCT03428100|183315787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|38.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.40|0.16|0.511
91656899|NCT02809183|183207200|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.8||The null hypothesis is the 3g TRC101 BID treatment group mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|2.2|< 0.0001
91712084|NCT03428100|183315787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|77.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||77.11|0.32|0.253
91656900|NCT02809183|183207200|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.5||The null hypothesis is the 4.5g TRC101 BID treatment group mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.5|2.9|< 0.0001
91656901|NCT02809183|183207201|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.5||The null hypothesis is the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.5|2.3|< 0.0001
91656902|NCT02809183|183207201|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.3||The null hypothesis is the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|2.2|< 0.0001
91656903|NCT02809183|183207201|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|5.0||The null hypothesis is the difference between the treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0|2.9|< 0.0001
91656904|NCT02809183|183207202|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.7||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the Combined TRC101 treatment group = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|3.0|< 0.0001
91712085|NCT03428100|183315788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.078||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-12.26|0.044
91712086|NCT03428100|183315788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.632||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-10.67|0.037
91712087|NCT03428100|183315788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.45|-14.37|0.006
91712088|NCT03428100|183315789|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.999
91712089|NCT03428100|183315789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.797
91712090|NCT03428100|183315789|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.999
91712091|NCT03428100|183315790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|17.45|||ANCOVA|||||17.45|-0.22|0.056
91712092|NCT03428100|183315790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|13.19|||ANCOVA|||||13.19|-2.24|0.164
91656905|NCT02809183|183207203|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.4||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (Combined TRC101 - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|2.8|< 0.0001
91656906|NCT02809183|183207204|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
91656907|NCT02809183|183207204|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
91712093|NCT03428100|183315790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|16.15|||ANCOVA|||||16.15|-1.66|0.110
91712094|NCT03428100|183315791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.63||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|21.88|||ANOVA|||||21.88|-118.00|0.178
91712095|NCT03428100|183315791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.9||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.56|3.77|||ANOVA|||||3.77|-117.56|0.066
91656908|NCT02809183|183207204|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0074||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0074
91656909|NCT02809183|183207204|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0012||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0012
91656910|NCT02809183|183207204|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0032||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0032
91656911|NCT02809183|183207204|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0013||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0013
91656912|NCT02809183|183207204|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
91656913|NCT02809183|183207204|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
91656914|NCT02809183|183207204|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0006||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0006
91656915|NCT02809183|183207205|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.2||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the 6g TRC101 QD group = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|2.7|<0.0001
91656916|NCT02809183|183207206|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.7||The null hypothesis is the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|2.6|<0.0001
91656917|NCT02809183|183207207|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.4214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - 6g TRC101 QD) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.6|0.4214
91656918|NCT02809183|183207208|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
91656919|NCT02809183|183207208|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0003||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in the proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
91712096|NCT03428100|183315791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.57||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.24|-1.6|||ANOVA|||||-1.60|-141.24|0.045
91656920|NCT02809183|183207208|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0003||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in the proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
91656921|NCT02933866|183207209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2961|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2961
91656922|NCT00918567|183207210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects defined as p \< .10.|Mixed Models Analysis|Tukey-Kramer adjustments for post-hoc differences of least squares comparisons||||||<.05
91656923|NCT00918567|183207211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also examined marginal effects, defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91656924|NCT00918567|183207212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91656925|NCT00918567|183207213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also estimated marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91656926|NCT00918567|183207214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||also tested marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91656927|NCT00918567|183207215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91656928|NCT00918567|183207216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91656929|NCT00918567|183207217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91656930|NCT00918567|183207218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91656931|NCT00918567|183207219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effect (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91656932|NCT00918567|183207220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91712097|NCT03428100|183315792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.33|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.70|-24.33|0.088
91712098|NCT03428100|183315792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.725||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|-4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.16|-26.67|0.007
91712099|NCT03428100|183315792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.583||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.71|-6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.82|-32.71|0.003
91656933|NCT01988922|183207239|OTHER|Differences between CYP2B6\*1/\*1, CYP2B6\*1/\*6, and CYP2B6\*6/\*6 genotypes for pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test for multiple comparisons (Sigmaplot 12.5; Systat Software, Inc, USA). Nonnormal data were log transformed for analysis but reported as the nontransformed results.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test for multiple comparisons||||||<0.05
91656934|NCT01600495|183207244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91656935|NCT01600495|183207245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91656936|NCT01600495|183207247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test||||<0.01
91656937|NCT04349917|183207267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.532
91656938|NCT04349917|183207268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.579
91656939|NCT04349917|183207268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.034
91656940|NCT04349917|183207269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for reconfiguration between rest and GNG regular task||||0.296
91656941|NCT04349917|183207269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for reconfiguration between rest and GNG reward task||||0.169
91656942|NCT04349917|183207270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG regular commission rate||||0.118
91656943|NCT04349917|183207270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG regular omission rate||||0.022
91656944|NCT04349917|183207270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs Change in GNG regular RT Variability||||0.220
91656945|NCT04349917|183207270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG reward commission rate||||0.496
91656946|NCT04349917|183207270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG reward omission rate||||0.343
91656947|NCT04349917|183207270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG reward RT variability||||0.988
91656948|NCT04349917|183207270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG regular modularity vs change in GNG regular commission rate||||0.892
91656949|NCT04349917|183207270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG regular modularity vs change in GNG regular omission rate||||0.473
91656950|NCT04349917|183207270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG regular modularity vs Change in GNG regular RT Variability||||0.409
91712100|NCT03428100|183315793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.263||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-28.28|0.055
91656951|NCT04349917|183207270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG reward modularity vs change in GNG reward commission rate||||0.351
91656952|NCT04349917|183207270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG reward modularity vs change in GNG reward omission rate||||0.238
91656953|NCT04349917|183207270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG reward modularity vs Change in GNG reward RT Variability||||0.909
91656954|NCT04349917|183207271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.806
91656955|NCT04349917|183207271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.003
91656956|NCT04349917|183207272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.093
91656957|NCT04349917|183207272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.0001
91656958|NCT04349917|183207273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.075
91656959|NCT04349917|183207273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.0001
91712101|NCT03428100|183315793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.297||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.15|-2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.38|-27.15|0.020
91712102|NCT03428100|183315793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.216||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.01|-3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.62|-32.01|0.014
91712103|NCT03428100|183315794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-4.47|0.095
91712104|NCT03428100|183315794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.01|-5.16|0.004
91712105|NCT03428100|183315794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.216|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.70|-7.48|<0.001
91712106|NCT03428100|183315795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.53|0.097
91712107|NCT03428100|183315795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.52|0.033
91712108|NCT03428100|183315795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.86|<0.001
91712109|NCT03428100|183315796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.45|-1.58|0.272
91712110|NCT03428100|183315796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||-0.24|-1.99|0.013
91712111|NCT03428100|183315796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.16|-1.85|0.099
91656960|NCT02532764|183207314|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|12.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.53||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|26.35||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||26.35|-0.54|0.0592
91656961|NCT02532764|183207314|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|19.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|32.64||p-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||32.64|5.62|0.0074
91712112|NCT03428100|183315796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.519||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||0.74|-1.30|0.584
91712113|NCT03428100|183315796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||0.25|-1.51|0.162
91712114|NCT03428100|183315796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||-0.15|-2.18|0.024
91712115|NCT03428100|183315797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-3.23|0.228
91712116|NCT03428100|183315797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.876||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-3.35|0.065
91712117|NCT03428100|183315797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.02|-4.99|0.003
91712118|NCT03428100|183315798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.339||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline (CFB) Absenteeism||5.67|-7.50|0.784
91712119|NCT03428100|183315798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|7.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Absenteeism||7.34|-3.75|0.525
91712120|NCT03428100|183315798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.204||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|6.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Absenteeism||6.53|-6.11|0.947
91656962|NCT02532764|183207314|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|14.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|27.83||p-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||27.83|0.64|0.0408
91656963|NCT02532764|183207314|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|17.6||p-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||17.60|-10.69|0.6193
91656964|NCT02532764|183207316|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|23.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|44.04||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||44.04|2.29|0.0321
91656965|NCT02532764|183207316|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.64|46.96||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||46.96|7.64|0.0100
91712121|NCT03428100|183315798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.409||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|11.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Presenteeism||11.74|-5.62|0.488
91712122|NCT03428100|183315798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|7.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Presenteeism||7.62|-7.02|0.936
91712123|NCT03428100|183315798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.267||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|8.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Presenteeism||8.45|-8.35|0.991
91791353|NCT03720652|183460431|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Program Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.002
91712124|NCT03428100|183315798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.938||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|10.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Work Productivity Loss||10.88|-8.57|0.816
91712125|NCT03428100|183315798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.178||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Work Productivity Loss||8.38|-8.08|0.971
91712126|NCT03428100|183315798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.804||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Work Productivity Loss||8.56|-10.36|0.852
91712127|NCT03428100|183315798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.877||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Activity Impairment||5.63|-9.61|0.607
91656966|NCT02532764|183207316|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|20.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|38.64||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||38.64|1.68|0.0346
91656967|NCT02532764|183207316|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|30.16||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||30.16|-8.47|0.2485
91656968|NCT02532764|183207318|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.79||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariate||10.79|-2.30|0.1938
91712128|NCT03428100|183315798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.319||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Activity Impairment||2.12|-10.92|0.186
91712129|NCT03428100|183315798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Activity Impairment||0.06|-14.96|0.052
91712130|NCT03428100|183315799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB US Health State Index||0.08|-0.01|0.131
91712131|NCT03428100|183315799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB US Health State Index||0.08|0.01|0.017
91712132|NCT03428100|183315799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB US Health State Index||0.11|0.02|0.003
91791354|NCT03720652|183460432|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.022
91791355|NCT03720652|183460432|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.020
91656969|NCT02532764|183207318|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|9.29||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||9.29|-3.79|0.3943
91656970|NCT02532764|183207318|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|7.07||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||7.07|-6.01|0.8688
91712133|NCT03428100|183315799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB UK Health State Index||0.11|-0.01|0.102
91656971|NCT02532764|183207318|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.8813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|6.39||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||6.39|-7.41|0.8813
91712134|NCT03428100|183315799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB UK Health State Index||0.12|0.01|0.014
91712135|NCT03428100|183315799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB UK Health State Index||0.15|0.03|0.003
91712136|NCT03428100|183315800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.256||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|10.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.39|-2.41|0.221
91712137|NCT03428100|183315800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.807||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.65|-4.40|0.689
91712138|NCT03428100|183315800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.226||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|9.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.74|-2.95|0.294
91712139|NCT03428100|183315801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.54|0.70|0.382
91712140|NCT03428100|183315801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|0.65|0.638
91712141|NCT03428100|183315801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.96|0.83|0.169
91712142|NCT03428100|183315802|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.674||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|11.66|||Regression, Linear|||||11.66|-26.38|0.447
91712143|NCT03428100|183315802|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.454||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|12.74|||Regression, Linear|||||12.74|-20.50|0.646
91712144|NCT03428100|183315802|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.14|1.77|||Regression, Linear|||||1.77|-36.14|0.075
91656972|NCT02532764|183207320|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|19.25||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.25|1.13|0.0301
91656973|NCT02532764|183207320|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|16.37||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.37|-0.39|0.0601
91656974|NCT02532764|183207320|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|11.41||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.41|-4.40|0.3580
91656975|NCT02532764|183207320|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|11.55||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.55|-5.13|0.4224
91712145|NCT03990051|183315833|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline, Active - Placebo.||||||0.0197|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0197
91712146|NCT03990051|183315834|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0039
91712147|NCT03990051|183315835|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91712148|NCT03990051|183315836|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91712149|NCT03990051|183315837|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0138|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0138
91712150|NCT03990051|183315838|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
91712151|NCT03990051|183315839|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0849|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0849
91712152|NCT03990051|183315840|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0041|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0041
91712153|NCT03990051|183315841|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0006
91712154|NCT03990051|183315842|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0143|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0143
91712155|NCT03990051|183315843|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0398|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0398
91712156|NCT03990051|183315844|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||-3.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||-3.97
91712157|NCT03990051|183315845|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
91656976|NCT02252562|183207331|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized a potential 66% reduction from a baseline incidence of 0.16 on the basis of prior interventions, but we assumed for power considerations a more conservative reduction of 40% from a baseline incidence of 0.12 averaged across all patients in each arm. Assuming a 10% loss to follow-up, we required 1,600 patients per group for a power of 0.9 with a type 1 error of .05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4|||fixed effects univariable analysis|||||1.40|0.82|
91712158|NCT03990051|183315846|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
91712159|NCT03990051|183315847|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
91712160|NCT03990051|183315848|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0636|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0636
91712161|NCT03990051|183315849|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0028
91712162|NCT03990051|183315850|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
91712163|NCT03990051|183315851|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0105
91712164|NCT03990051|183315852|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0010
91712165|NCT03990051|183315853|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0155|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0155
91712166|NCT03990051|183315854|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0160
91712167|NCT03990051|183315855|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0117|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0117
91712168|NCT03990051|183315856|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.4649|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4649
91712169|NCT03990051|183315857|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0082
91712170|NCT03990051|183315858|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0225|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0225
91712171|NCT03990051|183315859|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.1822|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1822
91712172|NCT03990051|183315860|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0515|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0515
91712173|NCT03990051|183315861|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.044
91712174|NCT03990051|183315862|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes of score from baseline.||||||0.083|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.083
91712175|NCT03990051|183315863|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.7147|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7147
91712176|NCT03990051|183315864|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.8251|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8251
91712177|NCT03990051|183315865|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0435|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0435
91712178|NCT03990051|183315866|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
91712179|NCT03990051|183315867|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.3205|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3205
91712180|NCT03990051|183315868|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.1401|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1401
91712181|NCT03990051|183315869|SUPERIORITY|Comparison in changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0098|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0098
91712182|NCT03990051|183315870|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.1032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1032
91712183|NCT03990051|183315871|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0389|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0389
91712184|NCT03990051|183315872|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Score in 1 year compared to baseline||||<0.00001
91712185|NCT03990051|183315873|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91712186|NCT03990051|183315874|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91712187|NCT03990051|183315875|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91712188|NCT03990051|183315876|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91712189|NCT03990051|183315877|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91712190|NCT03990051|183315878|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91712191|NCT03990051|183315879|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91712192|NCT03990051|183315880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91712193|NCT03990051|183315881|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91712194|NCT03990051|183315882|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91712195|NCT03990051|183315883|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91712196|NCT03990051|183315884|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91712197|NCT03990051|183315885|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91656977|NCT04099888|183207365|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The HR was estimated using an unstratified cox-proportional hazards model using the Efron approach for handling ties (Efron 1977), together with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the HR based on the Wald method. The effect of treatment is summarized by the hazard ratio (HR) together with its corresponding 95% Wald CI for the mITT population. No p-value will be reported.|||
91656978|NCT04099888|183207366|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||OS was analyzed using the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) analysis set, which included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study treatment and had a RECIST assessment at baseline. Kaplan Meier Curve (KM) analysis of OS was completed for the mITT population, but the number of events was too small to draw any conclusions.|The HR was estimated using an unstratified cox-proportional hazards model using the Efron approach for handling ties (Efron 1977), together with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the HR based on the Wald method. The effect of treatment is summarized by the hazard ratio (HR) together with its corresponding 95% Wald CI for the mITT population. No p-value will be reported.|||
91656979|NCT04099888|183207367|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||BOR is summarized by randomized treatment group using the mITT analysis set.|The BOR is the best response recorded from the start of the treatment until disease progression or until the last evaluable assessment in the absence of progression. If a patient received subsequent anti-cancer therapy prior to progression, then BOR was calculated up to the point of starting the anti-cancer therapy.|||
91656980|NCT04099888|183207368|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The ORR is calculated as the proportion of patients who have at least one visit response with a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR). Objective responses do not require confirmation in a randomized study. Data obtained up until progression, or last evaluable assessment in the absence of progression, will be included in the analysis of ORR. Data obtained up until progression or subsequent therapy, or last evaluable assessment in the absence of progression or subsequent therapy, will be included in the analysis of ORR.|||
91712198|NCT03990051|183315886|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91712199|NCT03990051|183315887|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91712200|NCT03990051|183315888|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91712201|NCT03990051|183315889|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91712202|NCT01720524|183315890|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|-2.08|0.9850
91712203|NCT01720524|183315891|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.6||||0.4935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|29.3|||Chi-squared|||||29.3|-14.1|0.4935
91712204|NCT01720524|183315892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9885|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9885
91712205|NCT01720524|183315893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4910
91712206|NCT01720524|183315894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.8||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|22.9|||Fisher Exact|||Additional Treatment||22.9|-15.2|0.7065
91712207|NCT01720524|183315894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.3|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|18.5|||Fisher Exact|||ECMO||18.5|-18.5|>0.999
91712208|NCT01720524|183315894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.9||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|22.8|||Fisher Exact|||Death||22.8|-5.5|0.2373
91712209|NCT01720524|183315895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|15.3|||ANCOVA|||Hour 6||15.3|-7.5|0.4984
91712210|NCT01720524|183315895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|13.7|||ANCOVA|||Hour 12||13.7|-5.5|0.3956
91712211|NCT01720524|183315895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.4249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Hour 24||3.3|-7.6|0.4249
91712212|NCT01720524|183315896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.7686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.8|||ANCOVA|||Hour 6||5.8|-4.3|0.7686
91712213|NCT01720524|183315896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Hour 12||1.9|-17.8|0.1112
91712214|NCT01720524|183315896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.2089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|4.8|||ANCOVA|||Hour 24||4.8|-21.2|0.2089
91712215|NCT01720524|183315897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|37.2||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|79.5|||ANCOVA|||Hour 6||79.5|-5.0|0.0829
91712216|NCT01720524|183315897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.6||||0.1802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|65.9|||ANCOVA|||Hour 12||65.9|-12.7|0.1802
91712217|NCT01720524|183315897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|79.9||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|192.2|||ANCOVA|||Hour 24||192.2|-32.5|0.1576
91712218|NCT00158262|183315931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|16.7|||||Placebo-Propranolol|||16.7|-2.7|
91712219|NCT00158262|183315932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|15.3|||||Placebo-Propranolol|CAPS Total Score at Month 1||15.3|-15.5|
91712220|NCT00158262|183315932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|16.0||||||CAPS Total Score at Month 3||16.0|-20.3|
91712221|NCT00158262|183315933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.7|||||Placebo-Propranolol|||10.7|-4.8|
91712222|NCT00527826|183315934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations (per year) using the treatment duration as offset term and treatment, COPD severity (stratum) and interaction as fixed factors. This model took further into account a strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV according to the observed rates (SAS code: proc GENMOD).||||||0.73||95.0|||||Negative binomial model|Least square means adjusted for COPD severity (stratum), interaction of stratum with treatment, and strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV.||||||0.73
91712223|NCT00527826|183315936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Poisson model for the rate of exacerbations (per year) using the treatment duration as offset term and treatment, COPD severity (stratum) and interaction as fixed factors. This model took further into account a strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV according to the observed rates (SAS code: proc GENMOD).||||||0.66||95.0|||||Poisson model|Least square means adjusted for COPD severity (stratum), interaction of stratum with treatment, and strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV.||||||0.66
91712224|NCT01150903|183315960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.001
91712225|NCT01150903|183315961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.001
91656981|NCT04099888|183207369|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||The DoR was calculated only for those with a documented response of CR or PR and is defined as the time from the date of first documented tumor response until the first date of documented disease progression or death, whichever is earlier.|DoR is listed only. In Arm A, the duration of response was 169 days in 1 participant before radiological progression was seen. In the other 2 participants in Arm A, the events were censored at 260 and 264 days, respectively. In Arm B, the duration of response was 85 days in 1 participant before radiological progression was seen. In the other 2 participants in Arm B, the events were censored at 1 day due to the early termination of the study.|||
91656982|NCT04099888|183207370|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||DCR is reported and includes any patient with a best response of stable disease, PR or CR.|The DCR and associated exact 95% CI is summarized for the mITT population. This was repeated for DCR-6, defined as the proportion of patients with CR, PR or SD at 6 months (recorded at least 24 weeks (+/-1 week) after randomization of study treatment and prior to any PD event).|||
91656983|NCT04099888|183207371|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Change in tumor size in percentage was summarized for the subset of patients in the mITT analysis set who had measurable disease at baseline.|Tumor size is defined as the sum of the longest diameters (SoDs) of the RECIST 1.1 target lesions. Change in tumor size is defined as the best overall percentage change in tumor size from baseline. Percentage change in tumor size was determined for patients with measurable disease at baseline and was derived at each visit by the percentage change in the SoDs of target lesions compared to baseline.|||
91656984|NCT04099888|183207372|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Safety, including the incidence and characteristics of biliary/loco-regional tumour-related events leading to hospitalisation and/or interventions, will be summarised descriptively.|||
91656985|NCT04099888|183207373|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Safety events leading to hospitalisation and/or interventions, will be summarised descriptively.|||
91656986|NCT04099888|183207377|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||As this study was terminated early, a reduced statistical analysis was conducted, and the HRQoL analyses were not conducted.|||
91656987|NCT00023309|183207378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0294||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the treatment effect between the two groups||||0.0294
91656988|NCT00023309|183207379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0325||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0325
91656989|NCT00023309|183207380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0049
91656990|NCT00023309|183207381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0157
91656991|NCT00023309|183207382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0913||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0913
91656992|NCT01050647|183207386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91656993|NCT01050647|183207387|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91656994|NCT01050647|183207388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
91712226|NCT04501952|183315968|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.134||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.586|||Regression, Cox|P-value was estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.586|0.031|0.0076
91656995|NCT01050647|183207389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91656996|NCT01050647|183207390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91656997|NCT04276883|183207393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91656998|NCT04276883|183207393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91656999|NCT04276883|183207394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 120 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91657000|NCT04276883|183207394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 120 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91657001|NCT04276883|183207394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91657002|NCT04276883|183207394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91657003|NCT04276883|183207394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91657004|NCT04276883|183207394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91657005|NCT04276883|183207394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91657006|NCT04276883|183207394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91657007|NCT04276883|183207394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||0.0006
91657008|NCT04276883|183207394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||0.0028
91657009|NCT04276883|183207394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.0070
91657010|NCT04276883|183207394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.0092
91657011|NCT02458469|183207403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.019
91657012|NCT02458469|183207403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Student-Newman-Keuls Method|||||||0.015
91657013|NCT02458469|183207403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Student-Newman-Keuls Method|||||||0.231
91657014|NCT02458469|183207404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.749
91657015|NCT01430741|183207406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in service intensity among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.04
91657016|NCT01430741|183207407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in alcohol dependence among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.21
91657017|NCT01430741|183207407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in drug dependence among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.07
91657018|NCT01430741|183207408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared mental health inpatient hospitalizations among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.14
91657019|NCT01430741|183207408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared medical inpatient hospitalizations among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.19
91657020|NCT01430741|183207409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in mental health emergency department visits among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.24
91657021|NCT01430741|183207410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.481|||||||Regression, Cox|||We used Kaplan-Meier survival curves to estimate the extent and timing of negative housing exits over time and Cox proportional hazards regression to assess the relationship between membership in the GTO group and risk of experiencing a negative housing exit, adjusting for a set of relevant covariates.||||=.481
91657022|NCT03587207|183207449|OTHER|rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S is to be declared statistically inferior if the 2-sided 80% CIs of the between group ratio of the GMT with rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D as control is lower than 1 at 1 month after last vaccination. The following ANCOVA model is used: fixed-effect model including age strata, study group, strain and center as fixed effects. The pre vaccination (Baseline) log-transformed titer with centering at zero is included as a continuous covariate.|Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.1|||ANCOVA|An interaction between strain and pre-vaccination log transformed titer is included in the model to fit to the serogroup B test strain data only.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the pooled B strains, one month after last vaccination.||1.10|0.83|
91657023|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|M14459 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D groups|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.84|1.2|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.20|0.84|
91657024|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D groups|Geometric mean ratio|1.05||||||80.0|0.88|1.26|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.26|0.88|
91657025|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D groups|Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|0.95|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.95|0.64|
91657026|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain- Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|0.96|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.96|0.66|
91712227|NCT04501952|183315970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.191||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.555|||Regression, Cox|P-value was estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.555|0.065|0.0024
91712228|NCT04501952|183315973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.134||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.586|||Regression, Cox|P-value were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.586|0.031|0.0076
91712229|NCT04501952|183315974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.43|||Regression, Cox|P-value were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.430|0.023|0.0019
91712230|NCT04501952|183315975|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24|||ANCOVA|P-value were from an ANCOVA model with baseline viral load as a covariate.|Least squares Mean (LSM), standard error (SE) and 95% CI were from an ANCOVA model with baseline viral load as a covariate.|||0.24|-0.10|0.4318
91712231|NCT04501952|183315976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.405||||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|2.693|||Log Rank|p-value was based on stratified log-rank test with baseline stratification factor as strata.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||2.693|0.733|0.2987
91712232|NCT04501952|183315978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2163|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2163
91712233|NCT00086450|183315982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|7.9||||0.005||95.0|3.3|12.5|||Regression, Cox|||||12.5|3.3|0.005
91712234|NCT00086450|183315983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.74||||0.004||95.0|1.91|3.89|||Regression, Cox|||||3.89|1.91|0.004
91712235|NCT00086450|183315984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.4||||0.049||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.049
91712236|NCT00086450|183315985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.68
91712237|NCT04550364|183315989|OTHER|Semi-structured interview, background information, DSM 5 diagnosis and ED symptoms.||||||||||||||||23 of 24 women were used ideal type analysis as the methods. EDE-Q and DSM 5 diagnosis were measured.|Ideal type analysis as main method of analysis|||
91712238|NCT04550364|183315990|OTHER|Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)||||||||||||||||of the 24 mothers there were 7 of them that had undergone In vitro fertilization. These women were interviewed twice and IPA were used in analysis the material.|IPA|||
91712239|NCT04550364|183315991|OTHER|Grounded theory was used analysis method. 5 distinct ED trajectories into motherhood were identified based on the womens experiences from pregnancy to postpartum.||||||||||||||||This study was based on interviews conducted with 24 participants during pregnancy and postpartum. Semi-structured interview with 24 women at two time points: 1. During pregnancy and 2. 4-6 months after birth. DSM 5 diagnosis at both time points were also assessed and symptoms at eating disorders through EDE-Q.|Qualitative methods using Ground theory|||
91712240|NCT03138577|183316021|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Counts and percentages of cases with paralysis were calculated separately for each volume of local anesthetic.|||
91712241|NCT03138577|183316022|OTHER|||||||||||||||Counts and percentages of cases with paralysis were calculated separately for each volume of local anesthetic.|||Counts and percentages of cases with paralysis were calculated separately for each volume of local anesthetic.|||
91712242|NCT03138577|183316023|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||0.01
91712243|NCT03138577|183316023|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||1.00
91712244|NCT03138577|183316024|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose response data was fit with a non-parametric smoothing technique for locally weighted regression (lowess) to produce a dose response curve.|||
91712245|NCT03138577|183316025|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose response data was fit with a non-parametric smoothing technique for locally weighted regression (lowess) to produce a dose response curve.|||
91712246|NCT03138577|183316026|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||0.01
91712247|NCT03138577|183316026|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||1.00
91712248|NCT03138577|183316027|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91712249|NCT02716584|183316044|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.41||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of exercise sessions attended as a covariate.||||0.02
91712250|NCT02716584|183316045|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.35||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.06
91712251|NCT02716584|183316046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.13
91657027|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.14|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||1.14|0.74|
91791356|NCT03720652|183460432|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.090
91901008|NCT04498169|183696761|SUPERIORITY|With a sample size of up-to 20 subjects within a treatment group, the study had 80% power to demonstrate a statistically significant mean change from baseline, assuming the true effect size (mean change / SD) was 0.577 or larger (e.g. assuming the true mean change from baseline was 34.6 μm and the SD was 60 μm), a one sample t-test and a two-sided alpha = 0.10.||||||0.0021|||||||One-sample t-test (within group)|||The primary analysis used the mITT population with available data per subject at eye level (ie., ODO). Robustness analyses was also performed based on the MI methodology under different assumptions of missingness and intercurrent events (where missing data or withdrawal due to lack of efficacy or AEs were imputed using FCS regression method and missing data for all other reasons were imputed using worst within subject observation prior to the intercurrent event).||||0.0021
91901009|NCT04682977|183696774|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF-Control|||||0.04
91901010|NCT04682977|183696775|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF-Control|||||0.26
91901011|NCT04682977|183696776|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF-Control|||||0.51
91901012|NCT04682977|183696777|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.23
91712252|NCT02716584|183316047|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.19||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||The analyses for cohorts 1 and 2 utilized the a priori endpoint assessment conducted 1-2 weeks after completion of training.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.73
91712253|NCT02716584|183316047|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.73||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||For cohort 3, positive affect was measured at baseline and a midpoint assessment.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, midpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||.33
91712254|NCT02716584|183316048|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.21||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||The analyses for cohorts 1 and 2 utilized the a priori endpoint assessment conducted 1-2 weeks after completion of training.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.62
91712255|NCT02716584|183316048|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.77||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||For cohort 3, positive affect was measured at a baseline and midpoint assessment.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, midpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||.23
91712256|NCT02716584|183316049|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.57
91712257|NCT02716584|183316050|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.35||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.12
91712258|NCT02716584|183316051|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.72||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.07
91712259|NCT02716584|183316052|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.88
91712260|NCT02716584|183316053|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.86
91712261|NCT02497937|183316054|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.793|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|2.512|||||Difference estimate of DLco on Day 7 has been presented for Mayo site|||2.512|-0.925|
91901013|NCT04682977|183696778|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.44
91657028|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.78|1.27|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||1.27|0.78|
91657029|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|1.18|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||1.18|0.79|
91657030|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.19|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||1.19|0.69|
91657031|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|1.22|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.22|0.86|
91657032|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|0.95|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA)strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.95|0.66|
91657033|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|0.97|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.97|0.65|
91657034|NCT03587207|183207450|NON_INFERIORITY|M07-0241084 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|0.88|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.88|0.60|
91657035|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.69|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogrpoup A, one month after last vaccination.||0.69|0.45|
91657036|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.94|1.52|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||1.52|0.94|
91657037|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.29|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||1.29|0.87|
91657038|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|1.55|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||1.55|0.90|
91657039|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.22|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459(fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.22|0.85|
91657040|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.09|0.75|
91901014|NCT04682977|183696779|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.22
91901015|NCT04682977|183696780|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.91
91901016|NCT04682977|183696781|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.78
91901017|NCT04682977|183696782|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.83
91901018|NCT04682977|183696783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.67
91901019|NCT04682977|183696784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.77
91901020|NCT04682977|183696785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.79
91901021|NCT04682977|183696786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.44
91901022|NCT04682977|183696787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r||||||0.65
91901023|NCT04682977|183696788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.66
91901024|NCT04682977|183696789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.81
91901025|NCT04682977|183696790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.89
91901026|NCT00221195|183696804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxin signed-rank test was used to compare the frequency of bleeds between the prophylaxis and on-demand periods.||||<0.001
91901027|NCT01383161|183696810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.5
91901028|NCT01383161|183696810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91901029|NCT01383161|183696810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
91901030|NCT01383161|183696811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.08
91901031|NCT01383161|183696811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
91901032|NCT01383161|183696811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
91901033|NCT01383161|183696812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.05
91901034|NCT01383161|183696812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91901035|NCT01383161|183696812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
91901036|NCT01383161|183696813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.08
91901037|NCT01383161|183696813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
91901038|NCT01383161|183696813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91901039|NCT01383161|183696814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.04
91901040|NCT01383161|183696814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91901041|NCT01383161|183696814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
91901042|NCT01383161|183696815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.3
91901043|NCT01383161|183696815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91901044|NCT01383161|183696815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
91901045|NCT01423812|183696819|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p value||||<0.05
91901046|NCT01423812|183696820|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91901047|NCT02616614|183696824|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[0.80,1.25\] for the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.03||||||||1.03|0.88|
91901048|NCT02616614|183696824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91901049|NCT02616614|183696824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91901050|NCT02616614|183696825|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\] for the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.11||||||||1.11|0.90|
91712262|NCT03538691|183316108|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.669|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were derived from the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as fixed effect.|||1.669|0.776|0.5100
91712263|NCT03538691|183316109|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.23||||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.62||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||||0.62|-0.16|0.2393
91712264|NCT03538691|183316110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.177||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.615|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% CI were derived from the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as fixed effect.|||1.615|0.857|0.3086
91712265|NCT03538691|183316111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6030
91712266|NCT03538691|183316112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7081|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 21||||0.7081
91712267|NCT03538691|183316112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4589|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 23||||0.4589
91712268|NCT03538691|183316112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5314|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 25||||0.5314
91712269|NCT03538691|183316112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1433|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 29||||0.1433
91712270|NCT03538691|183316112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9636|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 33||||0.9636
91712271|NCT03538691|183316112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7596|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 37||||0.7596
91901051|NCT02616614|183696825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91712272|NCT03538691|183316112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 41||||0.2402
91712273|NCT03538691|183316112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8363|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 45||||0.8363
91712274|NCT03538691|183316112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8308|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 46||||0.8308
91712275|NCT03538691|183316113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.49|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.||||1.49|-1.73|0.8806
91712276|NCT03538691|183316114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.7956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.||||0.24|-0.18|0.7956
91712277|NCT03538691|183316115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.61||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||SDS Individual Item: Work/School||0.61|-0.31|0.5223
91712278|NCT03538691|183316115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.77||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||SDS Individual Item: Social Life||0.77|-0.06|0.0904
91712279|NCT03538691|183316115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.67||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||SDS Individual Item: Family Life||0.67|-0.16|0.2289
91712280|NCT00636636|183316132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-0.88|0.0125
91712281|NCT00636636|183316133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.092||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||Z test|||P-value (vs Placebo) for pairwise test of treatment effect between G-ER group and Placebo group is based on Z test for difference between the 2 groups in proportion of participants who were categorized as very much or much improved in PGIC at endpoint. Proportion in each group calculated from number of participants categorized as very much or much improved relative to total number of participants in ITT population.||0.18|-0.00|0.0434
91712282|NCT00636636|183316134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.102||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.19|||Z test|||P-value (vs Placebo) for pairwise test of treatment effect between G-ER group and Placebo group is based on Z test for difference between the 2 groups in proportion of participants who were categorized as very much or much improved in CGIC at endpoint. Proportion in each group calculated from number of participants categorized as very much or much improved relative to total number of participants in ITT population.||0.19|0.01|0.0268
91712283|NCT00636636|183316135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.35|||ANCOVA||P-value versus Placebo for pairwise test of difference of LS mean change from baseline between G-ER and Placebo groups is based on t-test of Type III analysis.|||-0.35|-1.07|0.0001
91712284|NCT00636636|183316136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.96|0.007
91791357|NCT03720652|183460433|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.051
91901052|NCT02616614|183696825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0006
91657041|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|0.96|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.96|0.64|
91657042|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|0.86|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.86|0.58|
91657043|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.9|4.47|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||4.47|2.90|
91657044|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.28|5.31|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||5.31|3.28|
91657045|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.52|3.73|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||3.73|2.52|
91657046|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.53|2.65|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||2.65|1.53|
91657047|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.22|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.22|0.85|
91657048|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.04|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.04|0.71|
91657049|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.82|1.24|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.24|0.82|
91657050|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.09|0.73|
91657051|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup A-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.15|4.88|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||4.88|3.15|
91657052|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.3|5.34|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||5.34|3.30|
91657053|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.6|3.87|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||3.87|2.60|
91791358|NCT03720652|183460433|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.044
91791359|NCT03720652|183460433|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||1.00
91901053|NCT02616614|183696826|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval (-0.20, +0.20).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.087|0.043|||||Equivalence was based on difference in the number of subjects with success. Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval (-0.20, +0.20).|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval (-0.20, +0.20).||0.043|-0.087|
91657054|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.68|2.92|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||2.92|1.68|
91657055|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|M14459- Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.25|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.25|0.87|
91791360|NCT03720652|183460434|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.023
91712285|NCT01972464|183316163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|6.52||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for age (18-25 years versus \>25 years) and pre-quit smoking level (\<10 versus \>10 cigarettes per day)|OR represents of odds of abstinence in progesterone group versus placebo group|Null hypothesis- odds of week 8 point prevalence abstinence were equal between placebo and progesterone group.||6.52|0.48|0.39
91712286|NCT01972464|183316164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.38||a priori threshold = 0.05|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age and pre-quit smoking level|Hazard ratio is placebo / progesterone|||3.38|0.66|0.41
91901054|NCT02748018|183696827|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.4||||||||-0.4||
91657056|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|0.86|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.86|0.59|
91657057|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|0.76|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.76|0.50|
91712287|NCT01972464|183316165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96|||general estimating equation|adjusted for age \& pre-quit smoking level; specified a gamma distribution, log link, autoregressive correlation structure|risk ratio is progesterone versus placebo|null hypothesis rate of change in QSU-brief scores were equal between treatment groups||0.96|0.86|<0.001
91712288|NCT00511173|183316172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in warfarin dose (mg/wk) between pharmacist dosing and algorithm dosing. In order to gather all SNP groups, the power analysis resulted in \> 100 patients enrolled into each group.||||< 0.05
91901055|NCT02748018|183696828|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.6||||||||-3.6||
91712289|NCT02922153|183316175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided, two-sample t-test.||||||0.0223
91712290|NCT02922153|183316176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided two-sample t-test.||||||0.6259
91712291|NCT02922153|183316176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon two-sample test.||||||0.518
91712292|NCT02922153|183316177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201||||||FEV1 one-sided, two-sample t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0201
91712293|NCT02922153|183316177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||FVC one-sided, two-sample t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.06
91712294|NCT02922153|183316177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||SVC one-sided, two-sample t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.09
91712295|NCT02922153|183316178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3085||||||72 Hours Post-Op|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||||0.3085
91712296|NCT02922153|183316178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8196||||||96 Hours Post-Op|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||0.8196
91712297|NCT02922153|183316178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7269||||||120 Hours Post-Op|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||0.7269
91901056|NCT02748018|183696829|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.3||||||||-0.3||
91901057|NCT02748018|183696830|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.1||||||||-3.1||
91712298|NCT02922153|183316180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4421|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Analysis is the time from end of procedure to oral endotracheal extubation||||0.4421
91712299|NCT02922153|183316181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4352||||||Total Post-Procedure for Hospital Stay|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||||||0.4352
91712300|NCT02922153|183316182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2939||||||ICU Length of Stay|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||||0.2939
91712301|NCT02922153|183316182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0998||||||Hospital Length of Stay|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||||0.0998
91712302|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2877|||||||Chi-squared|||48 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.2877
91712303|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5311|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.5311
91712304|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4908|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.4908
91712305|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8621|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.8621
91712306|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1
91712307|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0133|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.0133
91712308|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.0037
91712309|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1671|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.1671
91712310|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1.000
91712311|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1
91712312|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||1
91712313|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2757|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.2757
91712314|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9025|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.9025
91712315|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7942|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.7942
91712316|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1
91712317|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3492|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.3492
91712318|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2644|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.2644
91712319|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8258|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.8258
91712320|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.67
91712321|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5693|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.5693
91712322|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1189|||||||Chi-squared|||Discharge: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.1189
91712323|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Patient able to stand up||||1
91712324|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6992|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Patient able to walk||||0.6992
91712325|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4429|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.4429
91712326|NCT02922153|183316183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4563|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.4563
91712327|NCT03506438|183316184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.2|-12.2|0.018
91712328|NCT03506438|183316185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.5|0.48
91712329|NCT03506438|183316186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.4|0.73
91712330|NCT03506438|183316187|SUPERIORITY||estimated mean difference|0.6||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-1.0|0.47
91712331|NCT03506438|183316188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.2|0.6|0.29
91712332|NCT03506438|183316189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
91712333|NCT03506438|183316190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91712334|NCT03506438|183316191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
91901058|NCT02748018|183696831|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.3||||||||0.3||
91901059|NCT02748018|183696832|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.2||||||||-0.2||
91901060|NCT02748018|183696833|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 2%. Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.9||||||||-0.9||
91901061|NCT02748018|183696834|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%. Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.1||||||||-0.1||
91712335|NCT01053741|183316203|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in epithelial surface disruption when comparing the two interventions. Power calculation was based on identifying a median difference in histology grade of 0.83, using a two-sided alpha of 0.05 with 90% power in 10 subjects.||||<0.05
91712336|NCT01001520|183316224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase BOLD signal, meaning there would be an increase in brain activity, in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.88
91712337|NCT01001520|183316225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Accuracy was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that tolcapone (vs. placebo) would increase subject's accuracy during the N-back working memory task.||||0.017
91712338|NCT01001520|183316226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that tolcapone (vs. placebo) would reduce subject's reaction time during the N-back working memory task.||||0.88
91712339|NCT01001520|183316227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that smokers would smoke fewer cigarettes while taking tolcapone (vs. placebo).||||0.85
91712340|NCT01001520|183316228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that smokers, while taking tolcapone (vs. placebo), would experience less cigarette craving during their 24-hour abstinence period.||||0.40
91712341|NCT01001520|183316229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that smokers, while taking tolcapone (vs. placebo), would experience fewer withdrawal symptoms during their 24-hour abstinence period.||||0.43
91712342|NCT01001520|183316230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase BOLD signal, meaning there would be an increase in brain activity, in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.18
91712343|NCT01001520|183316231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase BOLD signal, meaning there would be an increase in brain activity, in the dorsal cingulate/medial prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.67
91901062|NCT02748018|183696835|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) During Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.7||||||||-3.7||
91901063|NCT02748018|183696836|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%) During Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|14.5||||||||||14.5|
91901064|NCT02748018|183696837|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|8.8||||||||||8.8|
91901065|NCT02748018|183696838|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.6||||||||-2.6||
91901066|NCT02748018|183696839|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.3||||||||-0.3||
91901067|NCT02748018|183696840|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 2%. Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-1.9||||||||-1.9||
91901068|NCT02748018|183696841|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%. Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.3||||||||0.3||
91712344|NCT01001520|183316232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase suppression of BOLD signal, meaning an increase in suppression of brain activity, in the posterior cingulate cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.98
91712345|NCT01001520|183316233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase suppression of BOLD signal, meaning an increase in suppression of brain activity, in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.002
91712346|NCT00875563|183316261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An exact test method (Sidik K. 2003, Statistics in Medicine 22: 265-278) for matched controls was used, at a type I error rate of 0.05 and a non-inferiority margin of 10%. 38 pairs of patients were determined necessary, and the power was calculated to be 0.92.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact test for matched pairs|||Patients treated with the Zenith® Fenestrated AAA Endovascular Graft were compared with matched patients treated with the Zenith® AAA Endovascular Graft.||||0.02
91712347|NCT01808261|183316292|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0809||0.713||95.0|-0.119|0.2||P-value presented is the posterior probability that the treatment difference (GSK249320 15mg/kg - placebo) is greater than 0 m/s at Month 3/Day 90.|Bayesian method|||Credible intervals are displayed as confidence intervals. Posterior means, standard deviations, and credible intervals are provided in the table.||0.2|-0.119|0.713
91712348|NCT01808261|183316293|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0857||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.247||P-value presented is the posterior probability that the treatment difference (GSK249320 15mg/kg - placebo) is greater than 0 m/s at Month 6/Day 180.|Bayesian method|||Credible intervals are displayed as confidence intervals. Posterior means, standard deviations, and credible intervals are provided in the table.||0.247|-0.093|0.828
91712349|NCT01808261|183316295|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.067|7.883||||||Statistical data for Day 30. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||7.883|-3.067|
91712350|NCT01808261|183316295|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.704|8.735||||||Statistical data for Day 60. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||8.735|-2.704|
91712351|NCT01808261|183316295|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5633|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.668|9.538||||||Statistical data for Day 90. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||9.538|-4.668|
91712352|NCT01808261|183316295|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5635|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|11.037||||||Statistical data for Day 180. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||11.037|-3.15|
91712353|NCT02585713|183316322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1316|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1316
91712354|NCT02609984|183316324|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8568||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5507|1.333||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||1.3330|0.5507|0.4900
91712355|NCT02609984|183316325|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2145||||0.4737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7131|2.0684||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||2.0684|0.7131|0.4737
91712356|NCT02609984|183316329|OTHER|||||||0.3645||||||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank|||||||0.3645
91712357|NCT02609984|183316330|OTHER|||||||0.3466||||||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank|||||||0.3466
91712358|NCT02609984|183316331|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7006||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4241|1.1574||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||1.1574|0.4241|0.1622
91712359|NCT02609984|183316332|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1849||||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5817|2.4134||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||2.4134|0.5817|0.6397
91901069|NCT02748018|183696842|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-4.7||||||||-4.7||
91712360|NCT02609984|183316333|OTHER|||||||0.1128|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||0.1128
91712361|NCT02609984|183316334|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
91901070|NCT02748018|183696843|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|11.1||||||||||11.1|
91901071|NCT02748018|183696844|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|9.9||||||||||9.9|
91657058|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.63|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.63|0.42|
91657059|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratios for comparison between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Geometric mean ratio|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.62|2.51|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||2.51|1.62|
91657060|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.92|6.35|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||6.35|3.92|
91657061|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Geometric mean ratio|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.66|3.96|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||3.96|2.66|
91657062|NCT03587207|183207450|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Geometric mean ratio|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.81|3.12|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||3.12|1.81|
91657063|NCT03587207|183207454|OTHER|Between group ratio is calculated as GMT for rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S Group over GMT for rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D Group. 80% CI are obtained from Analysis of Covariance model fitted to pooled Serogroup B Strains. The following ANCOVA model is used: fixed-effect model including age strata, study group, strain and center as fixed effects. The pre vaccination (Baseline) log-transformed titer with centering at zero is included as a continuous covariate.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|1.22|||ANCOVA|An interaction between strain and pre-vaccination log transformed titer is included in the model to fit to the serogroup B test strain data only.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the pooled B strains, one month after first vaccination.||1.22|0.86|
91657064|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.02|1.63|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.63|1.02|
91657065|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|1.15|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.15|0.75|
91712362|NCT02609984|183316335|OTHER|||||||0.405|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||0.4050
91712363|NCT02609984|183316336|OTHER|||||||0.0127|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||0.0127
91712364|NCT02080364|183316338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3386||||||p-value for comparison to Placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3386
91901072|NCT02748018|183696845|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.1||||||||-3.1||
91657066|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|1.29|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA)strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.29|0.80|
91657067|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.36|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.36|0.87|
91657068|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|1.03|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after first vaccination.||1.03|0.58|
91657069|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D Group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|1.13|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after first vaccination.||1.13|0.62|
91657070|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.13|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after first vaccination.||1.13|0.68|
91657071|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|1.08|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after first vaccination.||1.08|0.54|
91657072|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.09|0.69|
91657073|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|0.9|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||0.90|0.58|
91712365|NCT02080364|183316338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1992||||||p-value for compairons to Placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1992
91712366|NCT02080364|183316339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9394||||||p-value for comparison to Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9394
91657074|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.0|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.00|0.61|
91657075|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.07|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.07|0.68|
91657076|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.35|0.62|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after first vaccination.||0.62|0.35|
91657077|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.91|1.65|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after first vaccination.||1.65|0.91|
91712367|NCT02080364|183316339|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||MMRM model does not converge. LS Mean and p-value are NA.|||
91712368|NCT02256839|183316365|EQUIVALENCE|A 2x2 contingency table with 95% CI.|2 x 2 contingency table|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.3|99.3||||||||99.3|95.3|
91712369|NCT02256839|183316365|EQUIVALENCE|A 2x2 contingency table with 95% CI|2 x 2 contingency table|96.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.4|99.3||||||||99.3|85.4|
91901073|NCT02748018|183696846|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.0||||||||0.0||
91657078|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.04|1.72|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after first vaccination.||1.72|1.04|
91657079|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|1.38|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after first vaccination.||1.38|0.70|
91791361|NCT03720652|183460434|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.56
91791362|NCT03720652|183460434|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.16
91657080|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|M14459 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.32|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.32|0.83|
91657081|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.0|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.00|0.64|
91657082|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.13|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.13|0.69|
91712370|NCT01843803|183316366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||"P-Value = 0.029 after adjusting for clinical and demographic, and accounting for clustering of patients within providers.~Comparison of adjusted CARES score yielded a significant difference."|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model was ran with CARES as the dependent variable, adjusted for demographic and clinical measures , and provider as a random effect.||Mixed model adjusted for gender, race, education, marital status, mental health condition, substance disorder, COPD, heart failure, diabetes, coronary artery disease, study site and accounting for clustering of patients within providers.||||0.029
91791363|NCT03720652|183460435|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.15
91901074|NCT02748018|183696847|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 2%. Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.7||||||||0.7||
91657083|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.19|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.19|0.76|
91657084|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|M14459 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.03|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.03|0.64|
91657085|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|96217 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.09|0.69|
91657086|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometrical mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.12|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.12|0.68|
91657087|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometrical mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.10|0.70|
91657088|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|M14459 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.15|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp)strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.15|0.71|
91657089|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.73|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||0.73|0.47|
91657090|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.89|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||0.89|0.54|
91657091|NCT03587207|183207455|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|1.03|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.03|0.65|
91657092|NCT01347710|183207486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule|McNemar|Two-sided McNemar's (chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
91657093|NCT01347710|183207487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule in patients under going pharmacologic stress|McNemar|Two-sided McNemar's (chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
91657094|NCT01347710|183207487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule in females|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
91657095|NCT01347710|183207487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule in patients with BMI \>/=30|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
91657096|NCT01347710|183207488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule in patients undergoing pharmacologic stress|Z test|z test for non inferiority for specificity||||||0.891
91791364|NCT03720652|183460435|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.12
91712371|NCT01843803|183316368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.86||P-Value derived after adjusting model provider clustering and treating it as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assessed whether a person in the intervention group vs the attention control group was more likely to be probed at least once by their provider after adjusting for other measures and accounting for the provider clustering.||2.86|0.99|.065
91712372|NCT01843803|183316369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||chi-square||||<0.05
91712373|NCT01850394|183316370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|180.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|300.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91712374|NCT01850394|183316370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|150.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|200.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91712375|NCT01850394|183316371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91712376|NCT01850394|183316371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91712377|NCT01850394|183316372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91712378|NCT01850394|183316373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91712379|NCT01850394|183316374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91712380|NCT00436826|183316398|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.63|||Wald Chi-square|||||0.63|0.22|<0.001
91712381|NCT00121719|183316430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0146|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||This was a pilot study and a statistical sample size calculation was not performed.||||0.0146
91712382|NCT00784719|183316436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|57.0||Upper limit of 80% CI was not estimable as there were insufficient number of participants, who achieved \>=10 mm Schirmer test score in this reporting group, for the analysis.||||||||57.0|
91712383|NCT00784719|183316436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|58.0||Upper limit of 80% CI was not estimable as there were insufficient number of participants, who achieved \>=10 mm Schirmer test score in this reporting group, for the analysis.||||||||58.0|
91712384|NCT00784719|183316436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|29.0||Upper limit of 80% CI was not estimable as there were insufficient number of participants, who achieved \>=10 mm Schirmer test score in this reporting group, for the analysis.||||||||29.0|
91712385|NCT00784719|183316438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.0|28.0||||||||28.0|9.0|
91712386|NCT00784719|183316438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|27.0||||||||27.0|8.0|
91712387|NCT00784719|183316438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|15.0|27.0||||||||27.0|15.0|
91712388|NCT00784719|183316438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|15.0||||||||15.0|8.0|
91712389|NCT00784719|183316438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|15.0||||||||15.0|8.0|
91712390|NCT00784719|183316438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|43.0||||||||43.0|8.0|
91712391|NCT00784719|183316438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|15.0|30.0||||||||30.0|15.0|
91712392|NCT05568797|183316469|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is less than or equal (\<=) 1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.13|1.53|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.53|1.13|
91712393|NCT05568797|183316469|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.91|1.18|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 influenza strain included in the FLU vaccine, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.18|0.91|
91712394|NCT05568797|183316469|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.9|1.06|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 influenza strain included in the FLU vaccine, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.06|0.90|
91901075|NCT02748018|183696848|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%. Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.1||||||||0.1||
91712395|NCT05568797|183316469|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.95|1.13|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the Flu vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata influenza strain included in the FLU vaccine, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.13|0.95|
91712396|NCT05568797|183316470|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSV-A neutralizing antibody vaccine is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.87|1.12|||||The comparison is done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-A neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the Co-Ad Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.12|0.87|
91712397|NCT05568797|183316471|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSV-B neutralizing antibody vaccine is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.03|1.3|||||The comparison is done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-B neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the CoAd Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.30|1.03|
91657097|NCT01347710|183207488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule in female patients|z test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||.546
91657098|NCT01347710|183207488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule BMI \>/=30|z test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||.538
91712398|NCT05568797|183316472|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|10.25|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|3.5|16.9||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||16.90|3.50|
91712399|NCT05568797|183316472|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-5.16|8.47||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||8.47|-5.16|
91712400|NCT05568797|183316472|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.92|5.46||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 Victoria at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||5.46|-4.92|
91712401|NCT05568797|183316472|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.54|6.17||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||6.17|-4.54|
91712402|NCT02651337|183316483|OTHER|It is a one arm clinical study. No comparison between groups was made.|||||||||||||||||The study tested the hypothesis that the Alivio flusher could increase flow in occluded or sluggish flowing catheters. Analysis was made on the basis of the procedural results related to priming the flusher, connecting the flusher to the shunt, flushing the system by dome compression, the ability to refill the dome, and the ability to evacuate the dome.|||
91712403|NCT00869128|183316499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|The effect of Circadin was checked by means of 2 x 2 mixed design analysis of variance for repeated measurement.||ANOVA, The effect of Circadin was checked by means of 2 x 2 mixed design analysis of variance for repeated measurement.||||0.04
91712404|NCT03828214|183316521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.2||0.973|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||C2, C3, C4 were compared to C1 the comparison condition.||||0.973
91657099|NCT01347710|183207489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LAD|McNemar|Two-sided McNemar (chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; LAD||||||<0.001
91712405|NCT04388176|183316529|EQUIVALENCE|Differences in treatment groups in the primary endpoint (log (AUC)) was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Ratio in least square means|1.0146|||=|0.3801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9859|1.0442|||ANCOVA|||||1.0442|0.9859|=0.3801
91791365|NCT03720652|183460435|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.018
91791366|NCT03720652|183460436|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.33
91791367|NCT03720652|183460436|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.88
91791368|NCT03720652|183460436|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.67
91791369|NCT03720652|183460437|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
91791370|NCT03720652|183460437|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
91791371|NCT03720652|183460437|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
91712406|NCT04388176|183316530|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Ratio in least square means|1.0346|||=|0.0356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0086|1.0613|||ANCOVA|||||1.0613|1.0086|=0.0356
91901076|NCT02748018|183696849|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.2||||||||0.2||
91712407|NCT04388176|183316531|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Difference in least square means|-0.4991|||=|0.0154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8234|-0.1749|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at the 10 min point||-0.1749|-0.8234|=0.0154
91657100|NCT01347710|183207489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LCX|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; LCX||||||<0.001
91657101|NCT01347710|183207489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; RCA|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; RCA||||||<0.001
91657102|NCT01347710|183207489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; Non-LAD|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; Non-LAD||||||<0.001
91712408|NCT04388176|183316532|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Ratio in least square means|0.8301|||=|0.282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6206|1.1102|||ANCOVA|||||1.1102|0.6206|=0.282
91791372|NCT03720652|183460438|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.17
91791373|NCT03720652|183460438|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.020
91791374|NCT03720652|183460438|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.062
91791375|NCT03720652|183460439|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.013
91791376|NCT03720652|183460439|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.001
91791377|NCT03720652|183460439|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.003
91791378|NCT03720652|183460440|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.001
91901077|NCT02748018|183696850|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|8.3||||||||||8.3|
91901078|NCT02748018|183696851|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|3.3||||||||||3.3|
91712409|NCT04388176|183316533|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1|Difference in least square means|-0.3989|||=|0.3722|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1718|0.3739|||ANCOVA|||||0.3739|-1.1718|=0.3722
91712410|NCT04388176|183316534|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1|Difference in least square means|-0.109|||=|0.4982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4074|0.1895|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of capillaroscopy before cold||0.1895|-0.4074|=0.4982
91657103|NCT01347710|183207490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LAD|z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; LAD||||||.379
91901079|NCT02748018|183696852|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.1||||||||-0.1||
91657104|NCT01347710|183207490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LCX|Z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; LCX||||||.358
91712411|NCT04388176|183316534|EQUIVALENCE|A difference between treatment groups was detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1|Difference in least square means|-0.0637|||=|0.6219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3037|0.1763|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of capillaroscopy post recovery||0.1763|-0.3037|=0.6219
91712412|NCT01689441|183316535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91712413|NCT01689441|183316536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91712414|NCT01689441|183316537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91712415|NCT00534638|183316577|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|49.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|68.2||An objective was reached if the 2-sided p-value associated to the objective was below 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall efectiveness against HPV-16/18 Cervarix/Engerix-B B Group vs Engerix-B Group: The analysis of the overall effectiveness of GSK's HPV-16/18 vaccine against HPV-16/18 genital infection in Cervarix/Engerix-B B Group versus Engerix-B Group was based on stratified Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for clustering.||68.2|20.1|0.004
91901080|NCT02748018|183696853|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.1||||||||0.1||
91712416|NCT00534638|183316577|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|23.8||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|51.1||An objective was reached if the 2-sided p-value associated to the objective was below 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall efectiveness against HPV-16/18 Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group vs Engerix-B Group: The analysis of the overall effectiveness of GSK's HPV-16/18 vaccine against HPV-16/18 genital infection in Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group versus Engerix-B Group was based on stratified Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for clustering.||51.1|-19.0|0.232
91712417|NCT00534638|183316578|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-52.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.4|3.3||An objective was reached if the 2-sided p-value associated to the objective was below 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall efectiveness against HPV-16/18 Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group vs Cervarix/Engerix-B B Group: The analysis of the overall effectiveness of GSK's HPV-16/18 vaccine against HPV-16/18 genital infection in Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group versus Cervarix/Engerix-B B was based on stratified Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for clustering.||3.3|-139.4|0.069
91712418|NCT00282152|183316596|NON_INFERIORITY|Because the purpose of this trial was to provide preliminary safety and tolerability data, the primary hypothesis was that the DBS+ODT group would not worsen more quickly than the ODT group. The primary endpoint was defined as the time to reach a four-point worsening of the UPDRS-III score following a one week treatment washout as assessed by the blinded rater.||||||0.968|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.968
91712419|NCT00282152|183316597|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Study power was calculated based on the amount of PD medication consumed. We anticipated that the control group (ODT) would have a baseline value of 400 which would increase to 600, and that the treated group (DBS+ODT) would decrease from 400 to 300. A sample size of 12 patients per group (n=15, assuming 20% drop out) would have 80% power to detect a difference in means of 300 assuming that the common standard deviation is 250 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.40
91657105|NCT01347710|183207490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; RCA|z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; RCA||||||.442
91657106|NCT01347710|183207490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; Non-LAD|z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; non-LAD||||||.984
91657107|NCT01347710|183207491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value of sensitivity for flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule; multivessel disease|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
91712420|NCT01237327|183316622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7799||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.294|||Log Rank|||Overall survival compared using the hazard ratio; hazard ratio \<1.0 is in favor of exemestane.||1.294|0.47|0.3348
91712421|NCT01919164|183316635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.03|-0.01|
91712422|NCT01919164|183316635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.04|-0.01|
91712423|NCT01919164|183316635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.06|0.02|
91712424|NCT01919164|183316635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.07|0.03|
91712425|NCT03782987|183316649|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%) (T/ R)|649.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|541.29|779.29|||||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV).|Statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including 'subjects' as random effect and 'treatment' as fixed effect.||779.29|541.29|
91712426|NCT03782987|183316650|OTHER||gMean ratio (%) (T/ R)|166.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.42|187.64|||||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV).|Statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including 'subjects' as random effect and 'treatment' as fixed effect.||187.64|148.42|
91712427|NCT03782987|183316651|OTHER||gMean ratio (%) (T/ R)|931.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|785.19|1104.85|||||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV).|Statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including 'subjects' as random effect and 'treatment' as fixed effect.||1104.85|785.19|
91712428|NCT01116921|183316708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.13|0.006
91712429|NCT04155463|183316716|OTHER||Median Percent Change|-18.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|Two-tailed test for paired data|This calculation shows the median percent change in urinary glyphosate concentrations going from the conventional diet to organic diet for all participants. Interquartile range for this was -37.4 to 29.8.|Based on previous pesticide research, we calculated a sample size of 40 participants to provide a power of 0.80 at a 0.05 significance level in a two-sided test. We assumed a standard deviation of 0.5 µg/L.||||0.17
91712430|NCT04155463|183316716|OTHER||Median Percent Change|-24.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|Two-tailed test for paired data|This calculation shows the median percent change in urinary glyphosate concentrations going from the conventional diet to organic diet for far-field participants. Interquartile range for this was -37.4 to -8.8.|||||0.06
91712431|NCT04155463|183316716|OTHER||Median Percent Change|1.4||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed test for paired data|This calculation shows the median percent change in urinary glyphosate concentrations going from the conventional diet to organic diet for near-field participants. Interquartile range for this was -41.9 to 43.0.|||||0.83
91657108|NCT01347710|183207492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value of specificity for comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI in detecting multivessel disease|z test|p-Value based on one-sided z test for non-inferiority||||||0.827
91712432|NCT00113295|183316722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.05||||||No adjustment for multiple testing|t-test, 2 sided||This analysis applies to the additional reduction from phase 2 randomization to phase 2 endpoint in HAM-A scores.|In phase 2, comprising randomized double-blind quetiapine augmentation, change scores were examined with two-tailed, two-sample t tests, utilizing scores at phase 2 randomization as baseline. All analyses were intention to treat (ITT) with the last visit carried forward (LVCF) for subjects that did not complete the study.||||<0.05
91712433|NCT04878055|183316739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.626||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|3.514|||Two-sided regression, Logistic|||Analysis is based on logistic regression model with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables. Site is considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||3.514|0.752|0.216
91712434|NCT04878055|183316740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||||||0.377
91712435|NCT04878055|183316741|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on logistic regression model with proportion of patients died up to Date 28 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables. Site is considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.468||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|1.386|||Two-sided regression, Logistic|||||1.386|0.158|0.17
91712436|NCT04878055|183316742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|1.277|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.277|0.247|0.168
91657109|NCT01347710|183207493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule; image quality of excellent or good|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity||||||<0.001
91712437|NCT04878055|183316743|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. Estimates were calculated taking into account the following competing risks: Death, discontinuation for AEs and patient transferred to another institution.||||||0.167|||||||Gray's Test|||Until Day 28||||0.167
91712438|NCT04878055|183316744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||At Day 3 - please note that the number of subjects is 268 (180+88) and not 270.||||0.55
91712439|NCT04878055|183316744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared mean.||At Day 7 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 266 (n=179 in the Reparixin group and n=87 in the placebo group).||||0.128
91712440|NCT04878055|183316744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||At Day 14 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 256 (n=173 in the Reparixin group and n=83 in the placebo group).||||0.235
91657110|NCT01347710|183207494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study protocol number BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.945|ONE_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI|Z Test|one-sided z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||.945
91712441|NCT04878055|183316744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||At Day 21 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 255 (n=172 in the Reparixin group and n=83 in the placebo group).||||0.281
91712442|NCT04878055|183316744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||At Day 90 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 50 (n=33 in the Reparixin group and n=17 in the placebo group).||||0.273
91712443|NCT04878055|183316745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 255||||0.047
91712444|NCT04878055|183316745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.262
91712445|NCT04878055|183316745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At Day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 209||||0.367
91712446|NCT04878055|183316745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 176||||0.882
91712447|NCT04878055|183316745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At Day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 190||||0.19
91657111|NCT01347710|183207495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule; image quality excellent/good|z Test|p-Value based on on-sided z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||0.954
91657112|NCT01347710|183207496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91657113|NCT01347710|183207497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|p-Values are from 2-sided McNemar's test of comparison in proportion of patients with definitely diagnositic certainty between PET and SPECT||||||<0.001
91657114|NCT04591626|183207500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-1.14|<0.001
91657115|NCT04591626|183207501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|22.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.28|5.35|<0.001
91657116|NCT04591626|183207502|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.77|<0.001
91657117|NCT04591626|183207503|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57|-9.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.08|-20.57|<0.001
91657118|NCT04591626|183207504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.95|||Regression, Logistic||OR was determined using Logistic Regression model with Baseline HbA1c value + OAM use + Treatment as variables.|||7.95|2.64|<0.001
91657119|NCT04591626|183207505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|13.48|||Regression, Logistic||OR was determined using logistic regression model: Variable = Baseline HbA1c value + OAM use + Treatment as variables.|||13.48|4.27|<0.001
91657120|NCT04591626|183207506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.95|||Regression, Logistic||OR was determined using logistic regression model with Baseline HbA1c value + OAM use + Treatment as variables.|||7.95|2.64|<0.001
91657121|NCT04591626|183207507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.6|-33.0|<0.001
91657122|NCT04591626|183207508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.14|-6.86|0.006
91657123|NCT02003183|183207525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to the Amygdala.||||<0.02
91657124|NCT03676803|183207526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline changes in phylum Firmicutes abundance between groups.||||0.033
91657125|NCT03676803|183207526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline changes in phylum Bacteroidetes abundance between groups.||||0.097
91657126|NCT03676803|183207527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline in mixed spices intervention group||||0.49
91657127|NCT03676803|183207527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline in placebo group||||0.53
91657128|NCT01355081|183207547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.241||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.467|0.413|||ANCOVA|Change in MADRS total score as a dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||||0.413|-4.467|0.1031
91657129|NCT01355081|183207547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.233||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.461|1.387|||ANCOVA|Change in MADRS total score as a dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||||1.387|-3.461|0.4008
91712448|NCT04878055|183316745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||At Day 60 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 201||||0.161
91657130|NCT02719522|183207571|SUPERIORITY|The primary safety objective was to determine if the 2-sided 95% upper confidence interval of the primary safety endpoint was below the threshold of 15%|||||<|0.001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||The primary safety objective was to determine if the 2-sided 95% upper confidence interval of the primary safety endpoint was below the threshold of 15%. Missing safety data for subjects who were lost to FU without any evidence of a major stroke/death were imputed in the analysis using multiple imputation. Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to completion and had experienced a major stroke or death were counted towards the primary safety endpoint as having experienced the event.||||<0.001
91657131|NCT01868009|183207583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The response was analyzed and adjusted for study inhaler use sequence and preference question version. The method accounted for participants who indicated no preference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91712449|NCT04878055|183316745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At Day 90 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 18||||0.853
91712450|NCT04878055|183316745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 229||||0.068
91657132|NCT04603937|183207586|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin|Adjusted mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-6.65|-2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization stratification factors, and continuous baseline BCVA and OCT CST.||||-2.81|-6.65|> 0.9999
91712451|NCT04878055|183316745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At hospital discharge (HD) - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 195||||0.672
91712452|NCT04878055|183316745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At end of treatment (EoT) - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 241||||0.153
91712453|NCT04878055|183316746|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence functions are identical across treatment groups and estimates are calculated taking into consideration the following competing risks: Death, reasons for discontinuation for Adverse events and patient transferred to another institution.||||||0.07|||||||Grey's test|||||||0.07
91712454|NCT04878055|183316747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Gray's test|||number of patients included in the analysis=25||||0.07
91657133|NCT04603937|183207587|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e. the non-inferiority margin is 10%|Difference of weighted percentages|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-0.7|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by study identifier and randomization stratification variables.|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||2|-0.7|<0.0001
91901081|NCT03952585|183696871|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimated 9-month PFS = 96.5% and lower acceptable threshold = 91.8%, resulting in a non-inferiority margin of 4.7%. H0: HR = 2.4; alternative hypothesis (HA): HR=1.0. One-sided type I error rate of 10% (20% after Bonferroni adjustment for each experimental arm comparison), 80% power, 24 months of accrual with 1 year of additional follow-up, and 1% increasing yearly rate of drop-out up to 3%, a log rank test requires 22 events from 266 patients per comparison resulting in 133 patients per arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.42|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||19.46|||||Reference level = Arm 1|The null hypothesis (H0) for each comparison in phase II will be rejected if the 90% upper confidence of the hazard ratio (HR) (experimental arm / standard arm) is less than HR=2.4.||19.46||
91901082|NCT03952585|183696871|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimated 9-month PFS = 96.5% and lower acceptable threshold = 91.8%, resulting in a non-inferiority margin of 4.7%. H0: HR = 2.4; alternative hypothesis (HA): HR=1.0. One-sided type I error rate of 10% (20% after Bonferroni adjustment for each experimental arm comparison), 80% power, 24 months of accrual with 1 year of additional follow-up, and 1% increasing yearly rate of drop-out up to 3%, a log rank test requires 22 events from 266 patients per comparison resulting in 133 patients per arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.55|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||14.85|||||Reference level = Arm 1|The null hypothesis (H0) for each comparison in phase II will be rejected if the 90% upper confidence of the hazard ratio (HR) (experimental arm / standard arm) is less than HR=2.4.||14.85||
91901083|NCT03952585|183696874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|20.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|403.31|||||Cause-specific; reference level = Arm 1|||403.31|1.05|
91901084|NCT03952585|183696874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|287.93|||||Reference level = Arm 1|||287.93|0.58|
91901085|NCT03952585|183696875|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|9.46|||||Cause-specific; reference level = Arm 1|||9.46|0.34|
91901086|NCT03952585|183696875|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|8.45|||||Cause-specific; reference level = Arm 1|||8.45|0.24|
91901087|NCT03952585|183696876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|46.41|||||Reference level = Arm 1|||46.41|0.67|
91901088|NCT03952585|183696876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|41.74|||||Reference level = Arm 1|||41.74|0.57|
91901089|NCT02119325|183696903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-4.64||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-0.03||Statistical significance at the 5% level was required for both co-primary endpoints in order to progress to formal assessment of secondary endpoints.|ANOVA||Difference is test minus placebo such that a positive difference means the test has higher Cmax|"H0: There was no difference in the post prandial glucose peak for participants with IFG between the test and placebo.~The primary parameter was analysed using a mixed effects model with glucose as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect."||-0.03|-9.26|0.0487
91657134|NCT04603937|183207588|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e the non-inferiority margin is 10%|Difference of weighted percentages|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-1.4|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by randomization stratification variables.|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||3.9|-1.4|<0.0001
91901090|NCT02119325|183696904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-6.79||||0.6116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.02|20.44||Statistical significance at the 5% level was required for both co-primary endpoints in order to progress to formal assessment of secondary endpoints.|ANOVA||Difference is test minus placebo such that a positive difference means the test has higher Cmax|"H0: There was no difference in the post prandial triglyceride peak for participants with IFG between the test and placebo.~The primary parameter was analysed using a mixed effects model with triglyceride as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect."||20.44|-34.02|0.6116
91901091|NCT01372410|183696928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Day 8 analysis.|Wald Test|||||||<0.0001
91901092|NCT01372410|183696928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Pooled Day 7 and 8 analysis.|Wald Test|||||||<0.0001
91901093|NCT01372410|183696929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.168|0.058|<0.001
91901094|NCT01372410|183696929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.158|0.045|<0.001
91657135|NCT02585258|183207592|SUPERIORITY||mean difference over 2-years|-0.37|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.23||one-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis||placebo is reference. Negative difference is beneficial, means lower disease activity in prednisolone group.|mixed model reports the effect of treatment, adjusted for stratification factors||-0.23||<0.0001
91901095|NCT01372410|183696929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.179|0.068|<0.001
91901096|NCT01372410|183696929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.239|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.239|0.127|<0.001
91901097|NCT01372410|183696929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.182|0.069|<0.001
91901098|NCT01372410|183696929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.196|0.083|<0.001
91901099|NCT01372410|183696929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.157|0.045|<0.001
91901100|NCT00852592|183696966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.005
91901101|NCT00852592|183696967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.004
91901102|NCT01862640|183696969|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-3.77|||=|0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-0.17|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.17|-7.38|=0.0404
91712455|NCT04878055|183316748|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence functions are identical across treatment groups and estimates are calculated taking into consideration the following competing risks: Reasons for discontinuation for Adverse events and patient transferred to another institution.||||||0.668|||||||Gray's test|||Comparison at day 28||||0.668
91712456|NCT04878055|183316749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Gray's test|||Number of patients included in the analysis = 59||||0.668
91712457|NCT04878055|183316750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Gray's test|||Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence functions are identical across treatment groups and estimates are calculated taking into consideration the following competing risks: Reasons for discontinuation for Adverse events and patient transferred to another institution.||||0.23
91712458|NCT04878055|183316751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 3 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 255||||0.444
91712459|NCT04878055|183316751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 7 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 246||||0.357
91901103|NCT01862640|183696969|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.23|||=|0.9015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.86|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||3.86|-3.40|=0.9015
91657136|NCT02585258|183207593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.04|||one-sided|GEE||prednisolone/placebo|mixed model reports the effect of treatment, adjusted for stratification factors|||1.04|0.02
91657137|NCT02585258|183207594|SUPERIORITY||mean differences over 2 years|-1.67||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.68||one-sided|Regression, Linear||placebo is reference. Negative difference means less damage progression in prednisolone group.|mixed model reports the effect of treatment, adjusted for stratification factors||-0.68||0.003
91657138|NCT02848326|183207632|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.37||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.37|-1.93|0.0039
91657139|NCT02848326|183207632|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.27||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.27|-1.55|0.0056
91657140|NCT02848326|183207632|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.06||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.06|-1.35|0.0325
91657141|NCT02848326|183207632|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.56||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.56|-2.21|0.0010
91712460|NCT04878055|183316751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 14 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 209||||0.484
91712461|NCT04878055|183316751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 21 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 176||||0.753
91712462|NCT04878055|183316751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 28 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 190||||0.26
91712463|NCT04878055|183316751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 60 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 201||||0.19
91712464|NCT04878055|183316751|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 90 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 18||||1.000
91712465|NCT04878055|183316751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 229||||0.074
91901104|NCT01862640|183696970|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|||=|0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.06|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.06|-0.39|=0.1566
91901105|NCT01862640|183696970|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|||=|0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.32|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.32|-0.14|=0.4440
91657142|NCT02848326|183207632|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.49||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.49|-2.09|0.0016
91657143|NCT02848326|183207633|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.54||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.54|-2.23|0.0014
91657144|NCT02848326|183207633|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.55||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.55|-1.94|0.0005
91657145|NCT02848326|183207633|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.24||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.24|-1.64|0.0087
91657146|NCT02848326|183207633|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.41||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.41|-2.20|0.0044
91657147|NCT02848326|183207633|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.53||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.53|-2.26|0.0017
91657148|NCT02848326|183207634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.31||Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) for repeated measures with fixed factors(treatment group,visit), covariates(baseline migraine days), interactions(treatment group;baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.31|0.98|0.0617
91657149|NCT02848326|183207634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.08||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.08|1.02|0.0369
91657150|NCT02848326|183207634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.03||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.03|1.00|0.0512
91657151|NCT02848326|183207634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.91||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.91|1.15|0.0113
91657152|NCT02848326|183207634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.18||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measure|||||3.18|1.30|0.0019
91657153|NCT02848326|183207635|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.6||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.60|-1.99|0.0002
91657154|NCT02848326|183207635|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.87||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.87|-2.01|<0.0001
91657155|NCT02848326|183207635|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.54||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.54|-1.68|0.0001
91657156|NCT02848326|183207635|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.62||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.62|-2.08|0.0003
91657157|NCT02848326|183207635|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.52||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.52|-1.93|0.0007
91712466|NCT04878055|183316751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||EOT - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 241||||0.193
91901106|NCT02178553|183696971|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-0.1|0.142
91712467|NCT04878055|183316751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||Hospital discharge - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 195||||0.131
91712468|NCT04878055|183316752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 155.||||0.997
91712469|NCT04878055|183316752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 143.||||0.712
91712470|NCT04878055|183316752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 115.||||0.241
91712471|NCT04878055|183316752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 92.||||0.528
91901107|NCT02178553|183696972|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|0.4|0.101
91901108|NCT02178553|183696973|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|0.4|0.014
91657158|NCT00890981|183207637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.0766||95.0|-0.4|7.8|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear, quadratic and cubic time terms with treatment-by-time interaction||7.8|-0.4|0.0766
91712472|NCT04878055|183316752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 106.||||0.814
91901109|NCT02178553|183696974|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-0.3|0.375
91901110|NCT00448435|183696997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin + or - 15 L/min|Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.6383||95.0|-9.1|14.69||Confidence Interval|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between treatments \[(SLM + FP)- SFC\](SE) 2.8 (5.91)||14.69|-9.10|0.6383
91901111|NCT00412971|183697016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in recurrence rate|0.25||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
91657159|NCT00890981|183207638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1648||95.0|-0.6|3.5|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.5|-0.6|0.1648
91657160|NCT00890981|183207639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0228||95.0|0.1|1.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear, quadratic and cubic time terms but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.7|0.1|0.0228
91657161|NCT00890981|183207640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.656||95.0|-2.5|4.0|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model includes linear, quadratic and cubic time terms but without treatment-by-time interaction.||4.0|-2.5|0.6560
91657162|NCT00890981|183207641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.0594||95.0|-0.1|3.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.7|-0.1|0.0594
91657163|NCT00890981|183207642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.0032||95.0|0.9|4.3|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||4.3|0.9|0.0032
91712473|NCT04878055|183316752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at EOT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 115.||||0.242
91712474|NCT04878055|183316752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at hospital discharge (HD) - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 65.||||0.722
91712475|NCT04878055|183316753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 246.||||0.053
91712476|NCT04878055|183316753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 225.||||0.245
91712477|NCT04878055|183316753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 118.||||0.067
91712478|NCT04878055|183316753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 54.||||0.051
91901112|NCT01387230|183697019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.202|0.052|<0.001
91901113|NCT01387230|183697019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.229|0.076|<0.001
91712479|NCT04878055|183316753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 32.||||0.684
91712480|NCT04878055|183316753|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 246, but it is 14.||||1.00
91712481|NCT04878055|183316753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at Day 60 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 246, but it is 3.||||0.48
91712482|NCT04878055|183316753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||two-sample Mann-W hitney U test|||at Hospital discharge - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is 152.||||0.638
91712483|NCT04878055|183316753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||two-sample Mann-W hitney U test|||at EoT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is 212.||||0.137
91712484|NCT04878055|183316754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 157||||0.399
91712485|NCT04878055|183316754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 139||||0.07
91712486|NCT04878055|183316754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 73||||0.4
91712487|NCT04878055|183316754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.517|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 23||||0.517
91712488|NCT04878055|183316754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 17||||0.445
91657164|NCT00890981|183207643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.2897||95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear, quadratic and cubic time terms but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.2|-0.4|0.2897
91657165|NCT00890981|183207644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.0067||95.0|1.1|6.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||6.7|1.1|0.0067
91712489|NCT04878055|183316754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at EoT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 113||||0.324
91712490|NCT04878055|183316754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at Hospital discharge - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 67.||||0.752
91712491|NCT04878055|183316755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||Please note that the number of patients in this analysis is not 270 but 255, because patients who used supplement oxygen were 174 in the Reparixin group and 81 in the placebo group.||||0.447
91712492|NCT04878055|183316756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||At day 28 - Please note that the number of patients in this analysis is not 270 but 245, because patients requiring IMV or ECMO were 163 in the Reparixin group and 82 in the placebo group.||||0.065
91712493|NCT04878055|183316756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test||||||0.072
91712494|NCT04878055|183316757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485||||||Number of subjects included in analysis: 98|two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.485
91712495|NCT04878055|183316758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||Number of subjects included in analysis: 17||||0.267
91712496|NCT04878055|183316759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.137
91712497|NCT04878055|183316760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is 168||||0.002
91712498|NCT04878055|183316760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 146||||0.943
91712499|NCT04878055|183316760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 76||||0.88
91657166|NCT00890981|183207645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0184||95.0|0.4|3.8|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.8|0.4|0.0184
91657167|NCT00890981|183207646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.0911||95.0|-0.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.5|-0.3|0.0911
91657168|NCT00890981|183207647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0035||95.0|0.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.5|0.7|0.0035
91712500|NCT04878055|183316760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 38||||0.458
91712501|NCT04878055|183316760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 23.||||0.285
91712502|NCT04878055|183316760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 8||||0.885
91712503|NCT04878055|183316760|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.583|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at HD - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 74||||= 0.583
91712504|NCT04878055|183316760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at End of treatment - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 131.||||0.5
91712505|NCT04878055|183316761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 245||||0.005
91712506|NCT04878055|183316761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 221||||0.283
91657169|NCT00890981|183207648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Denosumab to Placebo|1.1||||0.0591||95.0|1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA based on the log transformed actual values with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.3|1.0|0.0591
91657170|NCT00890981|183207649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Denosumab to Placebo|1.2||||0.0079||95.0|1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA based on the log transformed actual values with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.3|1.0|0.0079
91712507|NCT04878055|183316761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 117||||0.512
91712508|NCT04878055|183316761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 51||||0.174
91712509|NCT04878055|183316761|SUPERIORITY|at EOT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 206||||||0.133|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.133
91791379|NCT03720652|183460440|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.010
91712510|NCT04878055|183316761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||at day 28 ± 2 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 29||||0.009
91791380|NCT03720652|183460440|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.085
91657171|NCT03290326|183207668|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of 40Hz tACS on EEG gamma-band spectral power. Power changes were expressed as percentage relative power variations, accordingly with the event-related synchronization/desynchronization (ERS/ERD) index.||||< 0.01
91657172|NCT03765502|183207722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|Crossover design: paired test||||||<.0001
91657173|NCT03765502|183207723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|Crossover design: paired test||||||<.0001
91657174|NCT00048568|183207729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|36.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 20 response.|The study had a 99% power to detect a difference of 20% in ACR 20 between the 2 groups at the 5% level.||36.7|19.8|<0.001
91657175|NCT00048568|183207730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|32.9||Based on the hierarchical testing procedure for the co-primary measures, the study had 98% power to detect 18% difference in HAQ response rate between the two arms at the 5% level.|Chi-squared, Corrected|This model includes treatment as the main factor and baseline value as a covariate.|Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving HAQ response at Day 365.|||32.9|15.9|<0.001
91657176|NCT00048568|183207731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Nonparametric ANCOVA|The rank of the change from baseline=dependent variable, treatment=the main factor, rank of baseline value as covariate.||||||0.029
91657177|NCT00048568|183207735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|41.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 20 response at Day 365.|||41.7|25.1|<0.001
91657178|NCT00048568|183207737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|31.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 50 response at Day 169.|||31.1|15.0|<0.001
91657179|NCT00048568|183207738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|38.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 50 response at Day 365.|||38.5|21.8|<0.001
91852349|NCT00961636|183587913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The closed ordered testing procedure was applied to the efficacy hypotheses. If statistical significance was achieved for the primary hypothesis, then the secondary hypothesis was tested. All tests were performed at significance level 0.05.|Unconditional Miettinen and Nurminen|||||||<0.001
91852350|NCT00688519|183587932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.058
91852351|NCT00688519|183587932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||Breslow-Day Test|Breslow-Day test of the homogeneity of the odds ratio using a 0.1 significance level.||Consistency of results across investigative centers was verified using the Breslow-Day test of homogeneity the odds ration using a significance level of 0.1||||0.313
91852352|NCT00688519|183587933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.029
91852353|NCT00688519|183587934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.013
91852354|NCT00688519|183587935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.008
91852355|NCT00688519|183587936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.018
91852356|NCT00688519|183587937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had mild disease at baseline||||0.167
91852357|NCT00688519|183587937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had moderate disease at baseline||||0.009
91657180|NCT00048568|183207740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|19.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 70 response at Day 169.|||19.5|7.0|<0.001
91657181|NCT00048568|183207741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|29.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||29.8|15.6|<0.001
91657182|NCT00048568|183207743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|17.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving MCR.|||17.2|7.3|<0.001
91657183|NCT00048568|183207744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference on Day 169|-1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.91|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA on Day 169.|||-0.91|-1.38|<0.001
91657184|NCT00048568|183207744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference on Day 365|-1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-1.16|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA on Day 365.|||-1.16|-1.63|<0.001
91657185|NCT00048568|183207748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference at Day 169|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|5.57|||ANCOVA|||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.57|2.64|<0.001
91657186|NCT00048568|183207748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference at Day 365|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|5.62|||ANCOVA|||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.62|2.69|<0.001
91657187|NCT00048568|183207749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|5.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving extended MCR.|||9.0|2.4|0.002
91657188|NCT03831048|183207880|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary analysis of this endpoint will be performed using a linear probability model, with the following terms in the model: (1) treatment; and (2) the known donor and recipient risk factors listed above. Variables that make the model fail to converge will be dropped from the model. The test will be conducted at the one-sided 0.05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.098|0.034||No multiple comparison adjustment.|Regression, Linear|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for the primary endpoint are as follows:~H0: pSOC - pDCD ≥ 0.20 vs. H1: pSOC - pDCD \< 0.20 where pDCD and pSOC represent the true survival proportions at the six months follow-up visit for DCD and SOC heart transplant patients, respectively."||0.034|-0.098|<0.0001
91657189|NCT03831048|183207881|OTHER|No hypothesis test.||||||||||||||||No null hypothesis test.|No statistical hypothesis testing. This endpoint will be summarized for the OCS Heart Population using counts and percentages and an exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for the true percentage based on the binomial distribution. It will also be summarized for the modified OCS Heart Population, defined as the number of DCD hearts that were successfully transplanted after preservation and assessment on the OCS divided by the total number of DCD donor hearts that were instrumented on the OCS.|||
91657190|NCT00324168|183207948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.068|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for enrollment BSCVA||||0.068|-0.085|0.82
91657191|NCT00324168|183207949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||||0.15|-0.09|0.40
91657192|NCT00324168|183207950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||||0.08|-0.07|0.873
91657193|NCT00324168|183207951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.76|0.44
91657194|NCT00324168|183207952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91657195|NCT00324168|183207953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Regression, Linear|||||0.05|-0.12|0.39
91657196|NCT00324168|183207954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.78||95.0|-0.09|0.07|||Regression, Linear|||||0.07|-0.09|0.78
91657197|NCT00324168|183207955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.35|||Regression, Linear|||Nocardia spp||0.35|-.011|0.30
91657198|NCT00324168|183207955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.86||95.0|-0.12|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Streptococcus pneumoniae||0.10|-0.12|0.86
91657199|NCT00324168|183207955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||Moraxella spp||0.55|-0.34|0.65
91657200|NCT00324168|183207955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||Pseudomonas aeruginosa||0.13|-0.20|0.67
91657201|NCT00324168|183207956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||\<20/40||0.25|-0.08|0.33
91657202|NCT00324168|183207956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||20/40 to 20/800||0.11|-0.09|0.85
91657203|NCT00324168|183207956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02|||Regression, Linear|||CF or worse||-0.02|-0.31|0.03
91657204|NCT00324168|183207957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17|||Regression, Linear|||\>0-33%||0.17|-0.05|0.31
91657205|NCT00324168|183207957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||\>33%-67%||0.14|-0.13|0.94
91657206|NCT00324168|183207957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||\>67%-100%||0.01|-0.31|0.07
91791381|NCT03720652|183460441|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
91657207|NCT00324168|183207958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||0-1.90 mm||0.20|-0.10|0.53
91657208|NCT00324168|183207958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||1.91-2.70 mm||0.16|-0.15|0.95
91657209|NCT00324168|183207958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||2.71-4.06 mm||0.18|-0.12|0.70
91712511|NCT04878055|183316761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to HD - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 144||||0.593
91712512|NCT04878055|183316761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to day 60 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 3||||0.540
91657210|NCT00324168|183207958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||4.07-8.90 mm||0.01|-0.31|0.07
91657211|NCT01682083|183207968|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio is obtained from the stratified Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Dabrafenib + Trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.58|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis, H0: λ = 1 or reject it in favor of the alternative hypothesis, HA: λ ≠ 1, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR) of combination therapy relative to placebo.||0.58|0.39|< 0.0001
91712513|NCT04878055|183316761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||0.224
91712514|NCT04878055|183316762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 15||||0.68
91657212|NCT01682083|183207969|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with dabrafenib + trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.79|||Log Rank|the two-sided threshold for significance at this first interim analysis was p=0.000019||Hazard ratio is obtained from the stratified Pike estimator.||0.79|0.42|0.006
91657213|NCT01682083|183207970|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Dabrafenib + Trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.65||||||Hazard ratio is estimated using Pike estimator.||0.65|0.40|
91657214|NCT01682083|183207971|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Dabrafenib + Trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.57||||||Hazard ratio is estimated using Pike estimator.||0.57|0.39|
91657215|NCT02731157|183207972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
91657216|NCT01014728|183207978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.937||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.937
91712515|NCT04878055|183316762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||0.272
91712516|NCT04878055|183316762|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||1.000
91712517|NCT04878055|183316762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 9||||0.903
91901114|NCT01163721|183697022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.13||P-value is from an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and baseline HbA1c value as covariate. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, there were no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.1%, 60 evaluable participants would provide 93% power to detect a statistically significant -1.0% difference in change from baseline HbA1c at Week 12 between ranolazine and placebo (2-sided alpha = 0.05). 80 participants were randomized to ensure at least 60 evaluable participants.||-0.13|-0.93|0.010
91657217|NCT01014728|183207979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91657218|NCT01014728|183207980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.461
91657219|NCT03657160|183207981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.27|<0.001
91657220|NCT03657160|183207982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.37|0.0043
91657221|NCT03657160|183207983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.39|0.0204
91657222|NCT03657160|183207984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.22|0.0668
91657223|NCT03657160|183207985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.34|0.1458
91657224|NCT03657160|183207986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.46|0.0105
91657225|NCT00686959|183207996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.79|0.831
91657226|NCT00686959|183207997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.71|0.130
91657227|NCT00686959|183207998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.458
91657228|NCT00686959|183208001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Relapsed within the radiation treatment field||||0.132
91657229|NCT00686959|183208001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Relapsed inside thorax, outside of radiation field||||0.337
91657230|NCT00686959|183208001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Relapsed distant disease||||0.457
91657231|NCT00686959|183208002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.150
91657232|NCT02724800|183208039|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 3.43|Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.6||a priori|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|-0.9|<0.05
91657233|NCT02724800|183208046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91657234|NCT02724800|183208049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91657235|NCT00262964|183208054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was no difference in hepatic insulin sensitivity between normal and high IHTG subjects||||<0.019
91657236|NCT00262964|183208055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that VLDL-TG production would not differ between the two groups.||||<0.001
91657237|NCT00262964|183208056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was set at p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was no difference in skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity between groups.||||<0.001
91657238|NCT00262964|183208057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in adipose tissue insulin sensitivity due to IHTG levels.||||<0.002
91657239|NCT00262964|183208058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Treatment effects determined by repeated-measures ANOVA. When significant interactions between time and group were found, a Student's t-test was used.||Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate any difference between the two groups. The null hypothesis was that the IHTG percentage would be the same before and after treatment for subjects receiving fenofibrate.||||.301
91712518|NCT04878055|183316762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to EOT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||0.432
91712519|NCT04878055|183316762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 6||||0.105
91657240|NCT00262964|183208058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Treatment effects determined by repeated-measures ANOVA. When significant interactions between time and group were found, a Student's t-test was used.||A Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate the effect of treatment. The null hypothesis was that the IHTG percentage for the NAFLD-niacin group at baseline and post-treatment would not change.||||.315
91712520|NCT04878055|183316762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to HD - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 8||||0.551
91712521|NCT04878055|183316763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|1.522||Analysis is based on logistic regression model with proportion of patients died up to Day 60 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables.|Regression, Logistic|||up to day 60||1.522|0.178|0.232
91712522|NCT04878055|183316763|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on logistic regression model with proportion of patients died up to Day 90 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.246||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|1.782|||Regression, Logistic|||Up to Day 90||1.782|0.034|0.158
91712523|NCT04878055|183316764|SUPERIORITY|Freedom from (time to) death or respiratory failure (need of invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO or admission to ICU linked to worsening of respiratory parameters compared to baseline) up to Day 90 was performed using the same Kaplan-Meier analysis and the one-sided log-rank test that were used to test for differences between groups||||||0.33607|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.33607
91712524|NCT01004978|183316785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||one-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4
91712525|NCT01004978|183316786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.76
91712526|NCT00814138|183316795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-488.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2443.4|1467.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||1467.3|-2443.4|0.26
91712527|NCT00814138|183316796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|5.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||5.8|-9.7|0.26
91657241|NCT00262964|183208059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||a Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate the effect of treatment. Null hypothesis was that VLDL-apoB would be the same before and after 16 weeks on niacin in subjects with NAFLD.||||0.708
91712528|NCT00814138|183316797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||1.5|-4.9|0.29
91657242|NCT00262964|183208059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||A Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate the effect of treatment. Null hypothesis was that VLDL-apoB would be the same before and after 8 weeks on fenofibrate in subjects with NAFLD.||||.022
91712529|NCT00814138|183316798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||1.8|-6.3|0.28
91712530|NCT00814138|183316799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||5.4|-7.2|0.82
91712531|NCT00814138|183316800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||0.8|-3.7|0.21
91712532|NCT00814138|183316801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||0.5|-7.1|0.09
91712533|NCT02372344|183316810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least square (LS) mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.77||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.77|0.54|
91712534|NCT02372344|183316810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.86||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.86|0.59|
91712535|NCT02372344|183316811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.47||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.47|0.27|
91712536|NCT02372344|183316811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.59||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.59|0.33|
91712537|NCT02372344|183316811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.57||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.57|0.36|
91657243|NCT00262964|183208060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not change the VLDL-Tg clearance rate||||.020
91657244|NCT00262964|183208060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis was that niacin would not change the VLDL-Tg clearance rate||||.358
91657245|NCT00262964|183208061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that fenofibrate would not effect VLDL-Tg production rates.||||0.758
91657246|NCT00262964|183208061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that niacin would not effect VLDL-Tg production rates.||||.023
91657247|NCT00262964|183208062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect VLDL-Tg concentration. We compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving an 8 week course of fenofibrate.||||.024
91657248|NCT00262964|183208062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect VLDL-Tg concentration. We compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving a 16 week course of niacin.||||<0.001
91657249|NCT00262964|183208063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance was set for p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect adipose tissue insulin sensitivity. We compare the baseline and post-treatment results for adipose tissue insulin sensitivity in the subjects who received fenofibrate.||||.768
91657250|NCT00262964|183208063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance was set for p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect adipose tissue insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the baseline and post-treatment adipose tissue insulin sensitivity results for subjects who received a 16 week course of niacin||||.019
91657251|NCT00262964|183208064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results in subjects receiving an 8 week course of fenofibrate.||||.318
91657252|NCT00262964|183208064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results for subjects receiving a 16 week course of niacin.||||.025
91657253|NCT00262964|183208065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect hepatic insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving an 8 week course of fenofibrate.||||.419
91657254|NCT00262964|183208065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving a 16 week course of niacin.||||.018
91657255|NCT01041781|183208072|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.076||||0.5346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.367|||Log Rank|||||1.367|0.853|0.5346
91657256|NCT01041781|183208076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0049
91657257|NCT01041781|183208077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0131
91657258|NCT01041781|183208078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0322|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0322
91657259|NCT04646109|183208094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.43
91657260|NCT04646109|183208095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91657261|NCT04646109|183208096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91657262|NCT04646109|183208097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91657263|NCT04646109|183208098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91657264|NCT04646109|183208099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91657265|NCT04646109|183208100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91657266|NCT04646109|183208103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.10
91657267|NCT04646109|183208104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
91657268|NCT04646109|183208105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91657269|NCT04646109|183208106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91657270|NCT04646109|183208107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91657271|NCT04646109|183208108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91657272|NCT04646109|183208109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91657273|NCT04646109|183208110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91657274|NCT04646109|183208111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91657275|NCT06176768|183208113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.4|0.3|0.316
91657276|NCT06176768|183208114|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.15|3.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||3.60|-17.15|0.175
91657277|NCT06176768|183208115|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|2.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||2.35|-7.06|0.311
91657278|NCT02672553|183208124|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91657279|NCT02672553|183208125|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.5||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2077
91901115|NCT01163721|183697023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in LSM|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.83||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|10.2||P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline HbA1c stratification as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||10.2|-41.0|0.234
91791382|NCT03720652|183460441|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
91791383|NCT03720652|183460441|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
91657280|NCT01606306|183208157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Rank-ordered logistic regression (ROLR) was used to model the probability of best response for each treatment and bootstrapping was used to calculate confidence intervals.|rank-order logistic regression|ROLR is in the class of Discrete Choice models, which seek to estimate the probability that an individual responds best to a specific treatments.||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis of all three treatments having equal probability to yield the best response as defined by the criteria defining the primary outcome. A sample size of 300 participants was selected to test the primary null hypothesis of all three treatments having equal probability (one-third) to yield the best response with statistical power of at least 0.90 if any one of the three treatments actually has probability of at least one-half to yield the best response.|The probabilistic construct of the Discrete Choice (DC) model does not reflect individual behavior that is intrinsically probabilistic, but rather population heterogeneity. DC models rely on stochastic assumptions to account for unobserved factors related to the treatments themselves and to characteristics of study participants. Specifically, that each treatment has an underlying utility that may differ from one individual to another. Mathematically, these utilities are represented by U\_t, where t denotes the treatment. Utility can be thought of as a latent variable quantifying treatment response where higher values indicate better response. The U\_t can be used to find the probability (P) of best response for each treatment by the following equation: P\_t = exp(U\_t) / \[exp(U\_A) + exp(U\_B) + exp(U\_C)\], where A, B, and C, denote the three study treatments. The primary analysis tested whether the three treatments have equal utility and, thus, equal probability of best response.|||<0.0001
91657281|NCT00970281|183208162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model that included treatment and site as a factor.|ANOVA|||Sample size of at least 45 participants per group was necessary to verify decreases in PANSS-EC total score were significantly greater in olanzapine group than placebo group using a t-test with a power of 90% and a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||||<0.001
91657282|NCT00970281|183208163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||This is the p-value for 0.25 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||0.009
91657283|NCT00970281|183208163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 0.50 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91657284|NCT00970281|183208163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91657285|NCT00970281|183208163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1.5 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91657286|NCT00970281|183208164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
91657287|NCT00970281|183208165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
91657288|NCT00970281|183208166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 0.5 hour after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.167
91657289|NCT00970281|183208166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1 hour after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.134
91657290|NCT00970281|183208166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1.5 hour after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
91791384|NCT03720652|183460442|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.046
91657291|NCT00970281|183208166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 2 hours after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
91657292|NCT00970281|183208166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 24 hours after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.204
91712538|NCT02372344|183316811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.71||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.71|0.45|
91712539|NCT02372344|183316812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.69||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.69|0.45|
91712540|NCT02372344|183316812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.55||||||95.0|0.44|0.69||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Before Meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.69|0.44|
91712541|NCT02372344|183316812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||1.04|0.73|
91712542|NCT02372344|183316812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||1.02|0.72|
91712543|NCT00249873|183316864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0133||95.0|0.81|0.98||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of any component of the primary event for the clopidogrel group compared with the Placebo group.|||0.98|0.81|0.0133
91712544|NCT00249873|183316865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001||95.0|0.62|0.83||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of stroke for the clopidogrel group compared with the Placebo group.|||0.83|0.62|<0.001
91712545|NCT00249873|183316866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.696||95.0|0.89|1.08||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of death from any cause for the clopidogrel group compared with the Placebo group.|||1.08|0.89|0.696
91712546|NCT00249873|183316867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91657293|NCT00970281|183208167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the p-value for Parkinsonism.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91657294|NCT00159965|183208168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|0.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|1.396|||Overdispersed Poisson Regression|||Between-group seizure change. The primary hypothesis of this pilot randomized control trial (RCT) was to assess the magnitude of seizure frequency reduction by treatment, comparing placbo to sertraline. The alternative hypothesis is that patients treated with sertraline will show a significant decrease in seizures from baseline to exit.||1.396|-0.051|0.29
91712547|NCT02762084|183316884|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 26||||0.030
91712548|NCT02762084|183316884|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.756|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 26||||0.756
91712549|NCT02762084|183316885|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 6||||0.500
91712550|NCT02762084|183316885|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.681|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 6||||0.681
91712551|NCT02762084|183316889|OTHER|One-sided comparison||||||0.048|||||||Mann Whitey U|||at Week 26||||0.048
91712552|NCT02762084|183316889|OTHER|Two-sided comparison||||||0.096|||||||Mann Whitey U|||at Week 26||||0.096
91712553|NCT02762084|183316890|OTHER|Two-sided comparison||||||0.008|||||||Mann Whitey U|||at Week 26||||0.008
91657295|NCT00159965|183208168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|-0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|-0.073|||Overdispersed Poisson Regression|||Within-group seizure change. The hypothesis is that patients treated with sertraline will show a significant decrease in seizures from baseline to exit.||-0.073|-1.139|0.03
91657296|NCT00159965|183208168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.571|||Overdispersed Poisson Regression|||Within-group seizure change. The hypothesis is that patients treated with placebo will not show a significant decrease in seizures from baseline to exit.||0.571|-0.431|0.78
91712554|NCT01096160|183316920|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|2.92|||Linear mixed effects model|||||2.92|-17.1|0.1194
91712555|NCT01096160|183316920|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|-2.48|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-2.48|-23.7|0.0224
91712556|NCT01096160|183316920|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|10.91|||Linear mixed effects model|||||10.91|-10.3|0.4791
91712557|NCT01096160|183316920|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.4|1.01|||Linear mixed effcts model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||1.01|-17.4|0.0705
91712558|NCT01096160|183316921|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|9.22|||Linear mixed effects model|||||9.22|-1.51|0.1161
91712559|NCT01096160|183316921|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.28||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|12.97|||Linear mixed effects model|||||12.97|1.60|0.0189
91712560|NCT01096160|183316921|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.4689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.42|5.95|||Linear mixed effects model|||||5.95|-5.42|0.4689
91712561|NCT01096160|183316921|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.06||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|9.01|||Linear mixed effects model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||9.01|-0.89|0.0869
91712562|NCT01096160|183316922|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.87||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.7|-4.09|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-4.09|-15.7|0.003
91712563|NCT01096160|183316922|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.3|-5.1|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-5.10|-17.3|0.002
91712564|NCT01096160|183316922|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|0.95|||Linear mixed effcts model|||||0.95|-11.3|0.080
91712565|NCT01096160|183316922|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in AIx (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.79||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|-1.46|||Linear mixed effcts model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||-1.46|-12.1|0.019
91712566|NCT01096160|183316923|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.28||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|3.05|||Linear mixed effects model|||||3.05|0.53|0.318
91712567|NCT01096160|183316923|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|4.17|||Linear mixed effects model|||||4.17|0.66|0.17
91712568|NCT01096160|183316923|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.41||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|1.02|||Linear mixed effcts model|||||1.02|0.16|0.054
91712569|NCT01096160|183316923|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.78||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.73|||Linear mixed effcts model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||1.73|0.35|0.297
91712570|NCT02028507|183316955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Global health status/quality of life scale||0.89|0.55|0.003
91712571|NCT02028507|183316955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Physical functioning scale||0.76|0.50|<0.001
91712572|NCT02028507|183316955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Role functioning scale||0.79|0.51|<0.001
91712573|NCT02028507|183316955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Emotional functioning scale||1.25|0.76|0.818
91712574|NCT02028507|183316955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Cognitive functioning scale||0.89|0.54|0.004
91712575|NCT02028507|183316955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Social functioning scale||0.78|0.49|<0.001
91712576|NCT02028507|183316956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Fatigue scale||0.86|0.57|0.001
91712577|NCT02028507|183316956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Nausea and vomiting scale||0.76|0.45|<0.001
91712578|NCT02028507|183316956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Pain scale||0.99|0.62|0.042
91657297|NCT00159965|183208169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91657298|NCT00159965|183208170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91657299|NCT00159965|183208171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91657300|NCT00159965|183208172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91712579|NCT02028507|183316956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Dyspnea scale||1.44|0.81|0.599
91712580|NCT02028507|183316956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Insomnia scale||1.10|0.64|0.196
91712581|NCT02028507|183316956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Appetite loss scale||0.92|0.54|0.011
91712582|NCT02028507|183316956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Constipation scale||1.41|0.83|0.564
91712583|NCT02028507|183316956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.55|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Diarrhea scale||0.55|0.32|<0.001
91712584|NCT02028507|183316956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Financial difficulties scale||1.07|0.56|0.118
91712585|NCT02028507|183316957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Body image scale||1.21|0.74|0.659
91712586|NCT02028507|183316957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Future perspective scale||1.39|0.74|0.928
91712587|NCT02028507|183316958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Systemic side-effects scale||0.98|0.64|0.029
91712588|NCT02028507|183316958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Breast symptoms scale||1.21|0.71|0.571
91712589|NCT02028507|183316958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Arm symptoms scale||1.09|0.66|0.187
91712590|NCT03361306|183316959|SUPERIORITY|Assuming the true VGPR+ rate is 40% under the null hypothesis, then this design will provide 90% power to detect a difference of 20% under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha=0.10 significance level. For the originally planned enrollment of 40 subjects, if at least 21 subjects achieved VGPR or better to induction, the null hypothesis would be rejected.|Response Rate|0.467||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|0.734||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment on the study. As enrollment was halted early, this p-value is descriptive in nature and cannot determine the success/failure of the trial.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.734|0.213|0.390
91712591|NCT01556932|183316966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2541|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91712592|NCT02038179|183316970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Intent-to-Treat Analysis using multiple imputation. Imputed Means and Imputed Standard Errors of the Mean.|paired t-test|||||||0.83
91712593|NCT02038179|183316971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91712594|NCT02038179|183316972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.84
91712595|NCT04767373|183316980|OTHER||Efficacy estimate|60.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|71.9|||Exact method|One-sided p-value was estimated using an exact method.|A modified Poisson regression with robust variance method was used to generate efficacy estimate (1- Relative Risk \[RR\]) \& 95% confidence interval (CI). The model included region, gestational age, and age at randomization as covariates.|||71.9|44.1|<0.001
91712596|NCT04767373|183316981|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5|||||Estimated percentage difference beteween Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||1.5|-2.6|
91712597|NCT04767373|183316982|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-0.0|-1.4|
91712598|NCT04767373|183316983|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.2|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||1.2|-5.0|
91712599|NCT04767373|183316984|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.2|-0.3|
91901116|NCT01163721|183697024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|16.2||P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline HbA1c stratification as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||16.2|-21.1|0.794
91712600|NCT04767373|183316985|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.5|-0.4|
91712601|NCT04767373|183316988|OTHER||Efficacy estimate|84.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|92.6||One-sided p-value was estimated using an exact method.|Exact method||A modified Poisson regression with robust variance method was used to generate efficacy estimate (1- RR) \& 95% CI. The model included region, gestational age, and age at randomization as covariates.|||92.6|66.6|<0.001
91712602|NCT04767373|183316989|OTHER||Efficacy estimate|59.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|71.1|||||A modified Poisson regression with robust variance method was used to generate efficacy estimate (1- RR) \& 95% CI. The model included region, gestational age, and age at randomization as covariates.|||71.1|43.3|
91712603|NCT04346199|183317014|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|1.722||P-value not generated.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||1.722|0.323|
91712604|NCT04346199|183317022|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.967||||||95.0|0.69|1.353|||Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||1.353|0.690|
91712605|NCT00099632|183317031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ARV regimen and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||Compare proportion of women with new NNRTI-resistant variants between treatment durations (7-day vs. 21 day), pooled over ARV regimens (3TC/ZDV, FTC/TDF, and LPV/r), stratified by ARV regimen and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||||0.37
91712606|NCT00099632|183317031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.091||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by treatment duration and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||Compare proportion of women with new NNRTI-resistant variants among ARV regimens (3TC/ZDV vs. FTC/TDF vs. LPV/r), pooled over treatment durations 7-day and 21-day, stratified by treatment duration and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||||0.091
91712607|NCT03131687|183317036|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91712608|NCT03131687|183317036|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91712609|NCT03131687|183317036|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91712610|NCT03131687|183317036|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91712611|NCT03131687|183317037|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91712612|NCT03131687|183317037|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91712613|NCT03131687|183317037|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91712614|NCT03131687|183317037|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91712615|NCT03131687|183317038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
91712616|NCT03131687|183317038|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-2.2|<0.001
91712617|NCT03131687|183317038|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-2.5|<0.001
91712618|NCT03131687|183317038|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.0|-2.9|<0.001
91712619|NCT03131687|183317039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91712620|NCT03131687|183317039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-2.0|<0.001
91712621|NCT03131687|183317039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-2.3|<0.001
91712622|NCT03131687|183317039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.7|-2.4|<0.001
91712623|NCT03131687|183317040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.7|0.655
91712624|NCT03131687|183317040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.3|-6.6|<0.001
91712625|NCT03131687|183317040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-10.5|<0.001
91712626|NCT03131687|183317040|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.6|-13.3|<0.001
91712627|NCT03131687|183317041|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.053
91712628|NCT03131687|183317041|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.002
91712629|NCT03131687|183317041|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91712630|NCT03131687|183317041|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91712631|NCT03131687|183317042|OTHER|||||||0.193|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.193
91712632|NCT03131687|183317042|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.036
91712633|NCT03131687|183317042|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
91712634|NCT03131687|183317042|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
91712635|NCT03131687|183317043|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.030
91712636|NCT03131687|183317043|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91712637|NCT03131687|183317043|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91852358|NCT02666742|183587956|SUPERIORITY|Continuous variables were compared by two-sample t-tests and categorical variables by chi-square test. All tests were two-tailed, and a P value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Bonferroni correction was not performed due to prespecified outcomes in the trial. Analyses were performed using GraphPad 6||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Due to lack of precedent robust clinical data, we performed exploratory study to evaluate safety and efficacy of DOAC vs. Aspirin (ASA) in patients undergoing left ventricular arrhythmia (LVA) ablation; therefore, sample size calculation was not undertaken.||||0.001
91852359|NCT01359371|183587968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bivariate relationships between a patient's participation in the program and smoking status were calculated.||||<.01
91712638|NCT03131687|183317043|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91712639|NCT03131687|183317044|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
91712640|NCT03131687|183317044|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91712641|NCT03131687|183317044|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91712642|NCT03131687|183317044|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91712643|NCT03131687|183317045|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-39.4|0.010
91712644|NCT03131687|183317045|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.9|-39.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-39.5|-72.9|<0.001
91712645|NCT03131687|183317045|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-76.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.3|-59.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-59.2|-93.3|<0.001
91852360|NCT01359371|183587969|OTHER|T-tests, chi squares and Fishers exact tests were used to compare groups.|||||<|0.05||||||This was just a sample description, so there was not adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||||T-tests, chi squares and Fishers exact tests were used to compare groups.|||<.05
91852361|NCT01359371|183587969|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||T-tests, chi squares and Fishers exact tests were used to compare groups.||||<.05
91657301|NCT00159965|183208173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91657302|NCT00159965|183208174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91657303|NCT00159965|183208175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91657304|NCT00159965|183208176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91657305|NCT00159965|183208177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91657306|NCT00159965|183208178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91657307|NCT00159965|183208179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91657308|NCT00159965|183208180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91657309|NCT00159965|183208181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91657310|NCT01993875|183208191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Treatment p-value is from an analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) using the SBM rate as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and baseline rate as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1290
91657311|NCT01993875|183208192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the SBM rate as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and baseline rate as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1290
91657312|NCT01993875|183208193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2177||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean stool consistency score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline consistency score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2177
91657313|NCT01993875|183208194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2177||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean stool consistency score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline consistency score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2177
91657314|NCT01993875|183208195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0664||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean straining score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline straining score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0664
91657315|NCT01993875|183208196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0664||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean straining score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline mean score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0664
91712646|NCT03131687|183317045|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.9|-55.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-55.2|-90.9|<0.001
91712647|NCT03131687|183317046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.1|0.396
91712648|NCT03131687|183317046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.1|0.903
91852362|NCT01113931|183588107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent Cure Rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.1||||||The planned sample size of 480 randomized subjects ensured that approximately 200 subjects per group were included in the primary efficacy analyses. The 20% rate of exclusion was to account for subjects who had a negative test for urogenital C. trachomatis at the Baseline visit.||5.1|-4.6|
91852363|NCT01113931|183588110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent Cure Rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.1||||||The planned sample size of 480 randomized subjects ensured that approximately 200 subjects per group were included in the primary efficacy analyses. The 20% rate of exclusion was to account for subjects who had a negative test for urogenital C. trachomatis at the Baseline visit.||5.1|-4.6|
91852364|NCT04956575|183588165|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.61|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||2.61|1.27|
91712649|NCT03131687|183317046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.1|0.536
91712650|NCT03131687|183317046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.0|0.325
91712651|NCT03131687|183317047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.4|0.565
91852365|NCT04956575|183588165|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.7|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||3.70|1.79|
91852366|NCT04956575|183588165|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|3.88|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||3.88|1.88|
91852367|NCT04956575|183588165|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.5|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||2.50|1.29|
91852368|NCT04956575|183588165|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.05|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||3.05|1.57|
91852369|NCT04956575|183588165|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.5|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||3.50|1.81|
91852370|NCT04956575|183588165|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.87|0.54|
91852371|NCT04956575|183588165|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||1.12|0.69|
91852372|NCT04956575|183588165|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||1.06|0.66|
91852373|NCT04956575|183588165|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.44|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.44|0.86|
91901117|NCT01786239|183697027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0493
91712652|NCT03131687|183317047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.010
91712653|NCT03131687|183317047|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
91712654|NCT03131687|183317047|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
91712655|NCT03131687|183317048|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.7|0.164
91712656|NCT03131687|183317048|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91712657|NCT03131687|183317048|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-1.4|<0.001
91712658|NCT03131687|183317048|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-1.5|<0.001
91712659|NCT03131687|183317049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.3|0.919
91712660|NCT03131687|183317049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|0.194
91852374|NCT04956575|183588165|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.54|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.54|0.93|
91712661|NCT03131687|183317049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|0.145
91712662|NCT03131687|183317049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.6|0.067
91712663|NCT03131687|183317050|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-3.1|0.539
91712664|NCT03131687|183317050|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-6.1|0.001
91712665|NCT03131687|183317050|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.7|-8.4|<0.001
91712666|NCT03131687|183317050|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-11.3|<0.001
91712667|NCT02137226|183317053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for ACR20 at Week 12, rounded to 1 decimal place, had to be entirely contained in the predefined equivalence region \[-12.0%, 15.0%\]|Difference in proportions|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|12.7|||Regression, Logistic||Results from logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes / no), Baseline DAS28 (ESR). Difference in ACR20 Response Rate (BI695501 - Humira, %) is presented.|The week 12 confidence interval for the estimated difference in proportion is produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve||12.7|-0.9|
91712668|NCT02137226|183317054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is not applicable|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference in least square means of BI 695501 - Humira is presented.|Results based on DAS28 (ESR) mean changes from Baseline after 12 weeks of treatment = overall mean + treatment group + Baseline DAS28 (ESR) + prior exposure to a biologic agent + random error.||0.05|-0.25|
91712669|NCT02137226|183317054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is not applicable|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.23|||ANCOVA||Difference in least square means of BI 695501 - Humira is presented.|Results based on DAS28 (ESR) mean changes from Baseline after 24 weeks of treatment = overall mean + treatment group + Baseline DAS28 (ESR) + prior exposure to a biologic agent + random error.||0.23|-0.17|
91722423|NCT04390750|183337442|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|0.0||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.11|-0.11|0.939
91852375|NCT04956575|183588165|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.55|0.93|
91852376|NCT04956575|183588166|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||1.44|0.57|
91852377|NCT04956575|183588166|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.0|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||2.00|0.78|
91852378|NCT04956575|183588166|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.99|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent. against H1N1 at Day 29.||2.99|1.16|
91852379|NCT04956575|183588166|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.21|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||2.21|0.91|
91852380|NCT04956575|183588166|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.97|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||2.97|1.21|
91852381|NCT04956575|183588166|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.14|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||4.14|1.68|
91852382|NCT04956575|183588166|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.5|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.50|0.26|
91852383|NCT04956575|183588166|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.64|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.64|0.33|
91852384|NCT04956575|183588166|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.76|0.38|
91712670|NCT02137226|183317056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for ACR20 at Week 24, rounded to 1 decimal place, had to be entirely contained in the predefined equivalence region \[-15.0%;+15.0%\]|Difference in proportions|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.5|||Regression, Logistic||Results from logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes / no), Baseline DAS28 (ESR). Difference in ACR20 Response Rate (BI695501 - Humira, %) is presented.|The week 24 confidence interval for the estimated difference in proportion is produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve||12.5|-3.4|
91712671|NCT00672633|183317096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.52||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||The study was designed with 80% power to detect a net improvement of Triglyceride elevles with a sample size of 60.||||0.52
91712672|NCT00672633|183317097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures||No power calculations done for this outcomes||||0.06
91712673|NCT00672633|183317098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.27||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures||No power calculations were conducted for this outcome||||0.27
91712674|NCT01868165|183317102|OTHER||Slope|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.77|||||"Linear regression slope and 95% confidence intervals for the association between calcium channel blocker use and cognitive change was 0.58 (-0.60:1.77).~Multiple adjustments including; age, sex, education."|||1.77|-0.60|
91712675|NCT01603407|183317113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3904|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3904
91712676|NCT01603407|183317113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5690
91657316|NCT02937701|183208219|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence for the primary endpoint was to be evaluated sequentially by first comparing the 2-sided 90% CI for RD of ACR20 at week 22 between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-15%, 15%). If the first test was successful, RD of ACR20 at week 22 was to be further evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-12%, 15%).|Response Difference|9.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|15.96||||||For the primary analysis of ACR20, the response difference (RD) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) estimate and the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of RD were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use for RA).||15.96|2.67|
91712677|NCT01603407|183317113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1518|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1518
91712678|NCT01603407|183317114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7365|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7365
91712679|NCT01603407|183317114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91712680|NCT01603407|183317114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91712681|NCT01603407|183317115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2456|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2456
91712682|NCT01603407|183317115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0369
91712683|NCT01603407|183317115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3589|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3589
91712684|NCT01603407|183317116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7335|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7335
91712685|NCT01603407|183317116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
91712686|NCT01603407|183317116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
91712687|NCT01603407|183317117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9532|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9532
91712688|NCT01603407|183317117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0040
91712689|NCT01603407|183317117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0046
91712690|NCT01603407|183317118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3320
91712691|NCT01603407|183317118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1248|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1248
91712692|NCT01603407|183317118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5854|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5854
91712693|NCT01603407|183317119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.30814|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30814
91712694|NCT01603407|183317119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1405|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1405
91712695|NCT01603407|183317119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6640
91712696|NCT01603407|183317121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8345|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8345
91712697|NCT01603407|183317121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3762
91712698|NCT01603407|183317121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5059
91712699|NCT01603407|183317122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5947|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5947
91712700|NCT01603407|183317122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1098
91712701|NCT01603407|183317122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2803|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2803
91712702|NCT01603407|183317123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3875|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3875
91712703|NCT01603407|183317123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4240
91712704|NCT01603407|183317123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9683|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9683
91712705|NCT01603407|183317124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6161|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6161
91712706|NCT01603407|183317124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7302|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7302
91712707|NCT01603407|183317124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9007
91712708|NCT01603407|183317125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8138|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8138
91712709|NCT01603407|183317125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5995
91712710|NCT01603407|183317125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7616|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7616
91657317|NCT02937701|183208219|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence for the primary endpoint was to be evaluated sequentially by first comparing the 2-sided 90% CI for RD of ACR20 at week 22 between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-15%, 15%). If the first test was successful, RD of ACR20 at week 22 was to be further evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-12%, 15%).|Response Difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|15.92|||||Response Difference is based on a generalized linear model with actual stratification variables (geographic region and prior biologic use for RA) as covariates in the model.|A sensitivity analysis with the RD estimate and CIs for RD of ACR20 estimated using a generalized linear model with geographic region and prior biologic use for RA as covariates was also conducted.||15.92|2.67|
91657318|NCT02937701|183208219|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence for the primary endpoint was to be evaluated sequentially by first comparing the 2-sided 90% CI for RD of ACR20 at week 22 between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-15%, 15%). If the first test was successful, RD of ACR20 at week 22 was to be further evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-12%, 15%).|Response Difference|7.184|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.748|13.62|||||The ACR core set includes tender joint count, swollen joint count, subject's global health assessment, investigator's global health assessment, subject's assessment of disease related pain, HAQ-DI, and CRP.|A post-hoc analysis was conducted to adjust for the impact of random imbalance in baseline demographic and disease characteristics between the 2 treatment groups. The MH estimate of RD and corresponding CIs were estimated using a nonparametric analysis of covariance method with stratification factors geographic region and prior biologic use, and adjustment for baseline covariates (ACR core set, age, use of oral corticosteroid, use of NSAID, body mass index categories, and methotrexate dose).||13.620|0.748|
91657319|NCT02937701|183208220|OTHER||Response Difference|8.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|14.81||||||The response difference at week 2 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||14.81|1.15|
91657320|NCT02937701|183208220|OTHER||Response Difference|4.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|11.64||||||The response difference at week 6 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.64|-1.80|
91657321|NCT02937701|183208220|OTHER||Response Difference|9.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|12.87||||||The response difference at week 14 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||12.87|-0.51|
91657322|NCT02937701|183208221|OTHER||Response Difference|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.26|11.73||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.73|-5.26|
91657323|NCT02937701|183208221|OTHER||Response Difference|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|17.97||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||17.97|-1.18|
91657324|NCT02937701|183208221|OTHER||Response Difference|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.61|11.7||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.70|-4.61|
91657325|NCT02937701|183208221|OTHER||Response Difference|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|13.4||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.40|-5.40|
91657326|NCT02937701|183208221|OTHER||Response Difference|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.34|9.4||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.40|-7.34|
91657327|NCT02937701|183208221|OTHER||Response Difference|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.86|12.34||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||12.34|-6.86|
91657328|NCT02937701|183208221|OTHER||Response Difference|-3.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.27|5.17||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||5.17|-12.27|
91657329|NCT02937701|183208221|OTHER||Response Difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.89|11.08||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.08|-8.89|
91657330|NCT02937701|183208221|OTHER||Response Difference|-5.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.24|3.29||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||3.29|-13.24|
91657331|NCT02937701|183208221|OTHER||Response Difference|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.01|8.04||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||8.04|-11.01|
91712711|NCT01603407|183317126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6800
91712712|NCT01603407|183317126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4365|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4365
91712713|NCT01603407|183317126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7281
91901118|NCT01295281|183697044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Two catheters were tested regarding subjects' perception when using them, in a cross over design. After using each catheter for 1 week the subjects were asked: Do you experience discomfort when using your catheter?, and the subjects were supposed to answer Yes or No. The hypothesis to be investigated was that the tolerability/perception was about the same for each type of catheter, i.e. the POBE 2.0 should be non-inferior compared to PVC. H0: p(disc. POBE - Yes) = p(disc. PVC - Yes)"||||||0.0066|||||||McNemar|||The size of the target population was estimated by calculating 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of a possible difference between the two catheter types. The width of the interval was decided on the proportion of patients who would prefer one or the other catheter. Max width was seen when both proportions were 0.5. A total of 90 evaluable subjects limited the maximum width to 0.41, which was considered narrow enough from a scientific point of view, why this sample size was used in the study.||||0.0066
91901119|NCT00292461|183697057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.240
91901120|NCT00292461|183697058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.460
91901121|NCT00292461|183697059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.079
91901122|NCT00292461|183697060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.860
91901123|NCT02708095|183697063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.27|0.73|0.392
91901124|NCT02708095|183697063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.29|1.02|0.041
91901125|NCT02708095|183697064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.71|0.440
91901126|NCT02708095|183697064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|1.15|0.015
91901127|NCT02708095|183697065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.26||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-1.23|0.600
91901128|NCT02708095|183697065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.58||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-1.55|0.243
91901129|NCT02708095|183697066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.16||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.45|0.285
91901130|NCT02708095|183697066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.33||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.62|0.026
91901131|NCT03049735|183697099|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|54.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.3|64.78||P-value was stratified by baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL or ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix + E2/NETA minus placebo.|The primary efficacy analysis was the comparison of the relugolix + E2/NETA group with the placebo group with respect to responder rate.||64.78|44.3|<0.0001
91901132|NCT03049735|183697100|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|46.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.31|56.35||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference was relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||56.35|37.31|<0.0001
91901133|NCT03049735|183697101|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.5|-48.6||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance. Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||-48.6|-73.5|<0.0001
91901134|NCT03049735|183697102|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|28.26|||=|0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|52.84||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||52.84|3.68|= 0.0377
91901135|NCT03049735|183697103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|47.56||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||47.56|18.36|<0.0001
91712714|NCT01603407|183317127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.545||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.6611|-0.2479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2479|-2.6611|0.0041
91712715|NCT01603407|183317127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9076||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.248|1.1331|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1331|-1.248|0.9076
91712716|NCT01603407|183317127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3971||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.2014|2.5927|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5927|0.2014|0.0054
91712717|NCT01603407|183317128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.3242|-0.6358|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6358|-2.3242|<0.0001
91712718|NCT01603407|183317128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|2.2222|3.8857|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8857|2.2222|<0.0001
91712719|NCT01603407|183317128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.534|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|3.6941|5.3738|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.3738|3.6941|<0.0001
91712720|NCT01603407|183317129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6205||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.4845|0.2434|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2434|-1.4845|0.0853
91657332|NCT02937701|183208222|OTHER||Response Difference|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|9.38||||||The response difference at week 2 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.38|-0.56|
91712721|NCT01603407|183317129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.876||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.7292|-0.0229|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0229|-1.7292|0.0143
91712722|NCT01603407|183317129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2555||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.1117|0.6007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6007|-1.1117|0.4731
91712723|NCT02358031|183317130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.21211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the control arm to address the sixth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.11|0.78|0.21211
91712724|NCT02358031|183317131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.03697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the fifth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.02|0.69|0.03697
91712725|NCT02358031|183317132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.02951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the fourth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||1.01|0.58|0.02951
91712726|NCT02358031|183317133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.00025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in all participants of the control arm to address the fourteenth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.87|0.60|0.00025
91712727|NCT02358031|183317134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.8||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the twelfth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.80|0.53|0.00002
91657333|NCT02937701|183208222|OTHER||Response Difference|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|7.94||||||The response difference at week 6 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.94|-4.71|
91657334|NCT02937701|183208222|OTHER||Response Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|9.03||||||The response difference at week 14 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.03|-4.45|
91657335|NCT02937701|183208222|OTHER||Response Difference|7.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|13.83||||||The response difference at week 22 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.83|0.27|
91712728|NCT02358031|183317135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.00044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the eleventh primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||0.82|0.45|0.00044
91791385|NCT03720652|183460442|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.14
91712729|NCT02358031|183317136|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.53||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in all participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the control arm to address the third primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.53|1.09|0.99830
91712730|NCT02358031|183317137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the second primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.36|0.94|0.89580
91712731|NCT02358031|183317138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.46791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the first primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||1.29|0.76|0.46791
91712732|NCT02358031|183317139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.01985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in all participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in all participants of the control arm to address the tenth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.99|0.70|0.01985
91712733|NCT02358031|183317140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the eighth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.90|0.61|0.00133
91712734|NCT02358031|183317141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.78||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the seventh primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||0.78|0.44|0.00010
91712735|NCT02358031|183317148|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-0.8||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|7.2||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in all participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||7.2|-8.7|0.5740
91712736|NCT02358031|183317149|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|0.5||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|9.1||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||9.1|-8.2|0.4586
91712737|NCT02358031|183317150|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|5.0||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|17.4||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1) and HPV status (Positive vs. Negative).||17.4|-7.5|0.2161
91712738|NCT02358031|183317151|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|4.26||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 15 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (ECOG \[0 vs. 1\], HPV status \[Positive vs. Negative\] and PD-L1 TPS status \[Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive\]) as covariates.||4.26|-3.46|0.839
91712739|NCT02358031|183317152|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.9497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.0||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||2.00|0.94|0.9497
91712740|NCT02358031|183317153|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.02||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Pain Score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||2.02|0.93|0.9476
91712741|NCT02358031|183317154|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.59||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Swallowing Score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||1.59|0.69|0.5836
91791386|NCT03720652|183460442|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.058
91657336|NCT02937701|183208223|OTHER||Response Difference|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|7.62||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.62|-10.40|
91791387|NCT03720652|183460443|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
91657337|NCT02937701|183208223|OTHER||Response Difference|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.28|13.67||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.67|-7.28|
91657338|NCT02937701|183208223|OTHER||Response Difference|6.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|15.48||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||15.48|-2.62|
91901136|NCT03049735|183697104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|2.0||Based on analysis of covariance model with treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume, geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate. Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||||2|-26.3|0.0921
91901137|NCT03049735|183697105|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.3||Based on analysis of covariance model with treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume, geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate. Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||||-7.3|-23|0.0002
91901138|NCT03049735|183697106|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-21.5||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level. LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||-21.5|-36.3|<0.0001
91901139|NCT03049735|183697109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91901140|NCT03049735|183697114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix + E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91657339|NCT02937701|183208223|OTHER||Response Difference|10.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|21.03||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||21.03|0.12|
91712742|NCT02358031|183317161|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-19.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-12.1||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in all participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in all participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive , Not Strongly Positive).||-12.1|-25.8|1.0000
91791388|NCT03720652|183460443|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
91901141|NCT03049735|183697115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing difference between relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91901142|NCT03049735|183697116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91657340|NCT02937701|183208223|OTHER||Response Difference|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.54|9.59||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.59|-8.54|
91791389|NCT03720652|183460443|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
91791390|NCT00167778|183460457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.99
91791391|NCT00167778|183460458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.09||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.09
91791392|NCT00167778|183460459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.09||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.09
91791393|NCT00167778|183460460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.7||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.7
91791394|NCT00167778|183460461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.99
91791395|NCT00167778|183460463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.8||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.8
91791396|NCT00167778|183460464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.7||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.7
91791397|NCT00167778|183460465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.4||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=.4
91791398|NCT00167778|183460466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
91791399|NCT00167778|183460467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
91791400|NCT00167778|183460468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
91791401|NCT00167778|183460469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
91791402|NCT00167778|183460470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
91852385|NCT04956575|183588166|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||0.90|0.43|
91852386|NCT04956575|183588166|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.35|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.35|0.63|
91852387|NCT04956575|183588166|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.09|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.09|0.51|
91852388|NCT04956575|183588169|OTHER||Percent difference|12.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.93|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||27.93|-2.00|
91852389|NCT04956575|183588169|OTHER||Percent difference|25.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.18|39.89|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||39.89|11.18|
91852390|NCT04956575|183588169|OTHER||Percent Difference|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.33|40.84|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||40.84|12.33|
91852391|NCT04956575|183588169|OTHER||Percent Difference|25.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.82|40.13|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||40.13|9.82|
91852392|NCT04956575|183588169|OTHER||Percent Difference|31.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.66|45.73|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||45.73|15.66|
91852393|NCT04956575|183588169|OTHER||Percent Difference|38.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.98|52.3|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||52.30|22.98|
91852394|NCT04956575|183588169|OTHER||Percent Difference|-9.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|3.79|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||3.79|-24.83|
91852395|NCT04956575|183588169|OTHER||Percent Difference|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|14.73|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||14.73|-14.91|
91852396|NCT04956575|183588169|OTHER||Percent Difference|4.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|18.59|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||18.59|-11.19|
91852397|NCT04956575|183588169|OTHER||Percent Difference|8.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|23.09|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||23.09|-6.72|
91852398|NCT04956575|183588169|OTHER||Percent Difference|15.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|29.37|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||29.37|-0.74|
91852399|NCT04956575|183588169|OTHER||Percent Difference|19.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|33.22|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent. against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||33.22|3.22|
91852400|NCT04956575|183588170|OTHER||Percent Difference|9.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|28.31|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||28.31|-10.62|
91852401|NCT04956575|183588170|OTHER||Percent Difference|18.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|36.61|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||36.61|-1.81|
91852402|NCT04956575|183588170|OTHER||Percent Difference|23.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|41.86|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||41.86|4.20|
91852403|NCT04956575|183588170|OTHER||Percent Difference|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|20.6|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||20.60|-18.41|
91852404|NCT04956575|183588170|OTHER||Percent Difference|22.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|40.6|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||40.60|2.09|
91852405|NCT04956575|183588170|OTHER||Percent Difference|36.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|53.36|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||53.36|17.38|
91852406|NCT04956575|183588170|OTHER||Percent Difference|-37.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.36|-20.45|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||-20.45|-53.36|
91852407|NCT04956575|183588170|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-26.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.66|-6.9|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||-6.90|-43.66|
91852408|NCT04956575|183588170|OTHER||Percent Difference|-19.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.95|0.11|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.11|-37.95|
91852409|NCT04956575|183588170|OTHER||Percent Difference|-23.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.09|-4.26|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||-4.26|-41.09|
91852410|NCT04956575|183588170|OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.09|15.59|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of against Afluria Quadrivalent Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||15.59|-24.09|
91852411|NCT04956575|183588170|OTHER||Percent Difference|-8.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.13|11.27|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||11.27|-28.13|
91722424|NCT04390750|183337442|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.09||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.02|-0.21|0.103
91852412|NCT00432458|183588176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|Model was stratified by beta-2 microglobulin (high vs low), lytic bone lesions (present vs not) and bone marrow labeling index (high vs low)||||||0.02
91852413|NCT00432458|183588177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0048
91852414|NCT00432458|183588178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91852415|NCT00854906|183588183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was a pilot study. Therefore, no formal power analyses were performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.666|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|1.401|||t-test, 2 sided|||The paired T-test was used to compare mean KTBUT and mean FTBUT.||1.401|-0.069|0.074
91852416|NCT00854906|183588184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis will evaluate the association between OSDI with KTBUT.|Pearson's Correlation, r|-0.34||||0.093|ONE_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||A correlation was performed between ODSI questionnaire results and each participant's KTBUT.||||0.093
91852417|NCT00854906|183588184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation, r|-0.26||||0.216|||||||Pearson's Correlation|||A correlation was performed between ODSI questionnaire results and each participant's FTBUT.||||0.216
91852418|NCT02739035|183588322|SUPERIORITY|A difference of 10 degrees in total mean range of motion between the control and the treatment group was considered a clinically significant improvement.||||||0.23||||||Using a standard alpha value of 0.05, p values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Outcomes were compared between the two study groups using two-sample t-tests. T-tests were two-sided and the standard alpha value of 0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.~The null hypothesis was that there were no significant differences between control group of MUA alone and the treatment group of MUA with dexamethasone and celecoxib."||||0.23
91852419|NCT02739035|183588323|SUPERIORITY|A difference of 10 degrees in total mean range of motion (ROM) between the control and the treatment group was considered a clinically significant improvement. To detect this difference, a previous study's mean and standard deviation were referenced in order to predict the variation of results. 54 patients per arm were required to have 90% power with a two-sided t-test and a type I error rate of 5%. 130 patients were targeted for recruitment to account for up to a 20% dropout rate.||||||0.81||||||Using a standard alpha value of 0.05, p values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Outcomes were compared between the two study groups using two-sample t-tests. T-tests were two-sided and the standard alpha value of 0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.~The null hypothesis was that there were no significant differences between control group of MUA alone and the treatment group of MUA with dexamethasone and celecoxib."||||0.81
91852420|NCT04446117|183588343|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.84||Stratification factors used: Liver metastasis, prior docetaxel use for locally advanced or metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and disease state at first NHT.|Log Rank||Stratification factors used: Liver metastasis, prior docetaxel use for locally advanced or mCSPC and disease state at first NHT.|||0.84|0.50|0.0007
91852421|NCT04446117|183588344|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1||Stratification factors used: Liver metastasis, prior docetaxel use for locally advanced or mCSPC and disease state at first NHT.|Log Rank|||||1.10|0.72|0.2956
91852422|NCT03165175|183588345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.72
91852423|NCT03165175|183588346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.598
91852424|NCT03165175|183588347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.954
91852425|NCT03165175|183588348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.167
91791403|NCT00167778|183460471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
91791404|NCT00167778|183460472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.13||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoon paired signed rank test for the differences between Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons||||||=0.13
91791405|NCT00167778|183460473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.92||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.92
91791406|NCT00167778|183460474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.37||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.37
91791407|NCT00167778|183460475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.27||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.27
91791408|NCT00167778|183460476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.20
91791409|NCT00167778|183460477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.59||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.59
91791410|NCT00167778|183460478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.057||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.057
91791411|NCT00167778|183460479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.78||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.78
91791412|NCT02519855|183460502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported a conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95|||Longitudinal regression model|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||0.95|0.80|<0.001
91791413|NCT02519855|183460503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR from Baseline|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.05||A lower bound of the 95% CI on the GMFR \> 1.4 indicated that the Concomitant Group induces an acceptable VZV antibody response. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported this conclusion.|Longitudinal regression||Estimated GMFR, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age.|||2.05|1.76|<0.001
91791414|NCT02519855|183460504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.18|0.88|<0.001
91791415|NCT02519855|183460505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.29|0.94|<0.001
91791416|NCT02519855|183460506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.14|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.14|0.88|<0.001
91791417|NCT02519855|183460507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.13|0.87|<0.001
91791418|NCT01842633|183460508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.42||||||||0.42|-1.36|
91791419|NCT02093351|183460522|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the tamoxifen treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, olaparib can be considered to have had an effect on tamoxifen exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.22|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. tamoxifen|Analysis of tamoxifen PK parameters.||1.22|1.06|
91657341|NCT02937701|183208223|OTHER||Response Difference|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.62|13.39||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.39|-7.62|
91657342|NCT02937701|183208223|OTHER||Response Difference|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.11|7.93||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.93|-10.11|
91791420|NCT02093351|183460523|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, tamoxifen can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.9|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||0.90|0.71|
91791421|NCT02093351|183460524|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the anastrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on anastrozole exposure.|Geometric Least Squares (GLS) Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.97|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. anastrozole|Analysis of anastrozole PK parameters.||0.97|0.84|
91791422|NCT02093351|183460525|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, anastrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.04|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||1.04|0.84|
91791423|NCT02093351|183460526|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the letrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on letrozole exposure.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.98|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. letrozole|Analysis of letrozole PK parameters.||0.98|0.91|
91791424|NCT02093351|183460527|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, letrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.21|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters||1.21|0.99|
91791425|NCT02093351|183460528|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the tamoxifen treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, olaparib can be considered to have had an effect on tamoxifen exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.21|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. tamoxifen|Analysis of tamoxifen PK parameters.||1.21|1.11|
91791426|NCT02093351|183460529|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, tamoxifen can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.84|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||0.84|0.63|
91791427|NCT02093351|183460530|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the anastrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on anastrozole exposure.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.93|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. anastrozole|Analysis of anastrozole PK parameters.||0.93|0.80|
91791428|NCT02093351|183460531|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, anastrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.05|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||1.05|0.76|
91791429|NCT02093351|183460532|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the letrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on letrozole exposure.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.99|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. letrozole|Analysis of letrozole PK parameters.||0.99|0.91|
91791430|NCT02093351|183460533|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, letrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.25|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||1.25|1.07|
91791431|NCT01099709|183460536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.06|108.51|||||Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval fell within 80%-125%.|||108.51|101.06|
91791432|NCT01099709|183460536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.06|108.51|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||108.51|101.06|
91791433|NCT01099709|183460537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.73|97.53|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.53|93.73|
91791434|NCT01099709|183460538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.85|97.68|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.68|93.85|
91791435|NCT00706849|183460539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤ 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C is approximately 22%. With 20 patients in the control group and 40 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 90% power to detect a 20% difference between the 2 treatment groups.||||<0.001
91791436|NCT00706849|183460541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91791437|NCT00706849|183460543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91657343|NCT02937701|183208223|OTHER||Response Difference|6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.44|16.54||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||16.54|-4.44|
91657344|NCT02937701|183208223|OTHER||Response Difference|-5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.39|3.71||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||3.71|-14.39|
91852426|NCT03165175|183588349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.022
91852427|NCT01579916|183588370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0 (null): Rate difference greater than or equal to 5 percentage points. This corresponds to a null hypothesis of: HA (alternative): rate difference \< 5 percentage points.|Rate difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.6|||Score statistic|||Comparison of the rate of fever between the 2 treatment groups was based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals (CIs) for the rate increase (trivalent influenza virus vaccine minus placebo) evaluated against the prespecified equivalence criterion of 5 percentage points||0.6|-8.9|
91852428|NCT00114101|183588402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This study was designed to have 80% power, with the use of the log-rank test at a one-sided significance level of 0.05, to detect a hazard ratio of 1.4, assuming proportional hazards and an exponential time to event distribution. Under the assumed framework, 309 events were expected. The expected drop out rate before randomization was 15%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.53||Participants were randomized with the use of a permuted-block design stratified by beta 2 microglobulin, prior use of thalidomide and prior use of lenalidomide. TTP was monitored with the use of a group sequential design for superiority and futility.|Log Rank|||||0.53|0.26|<0.001
91852429|NCT00114101|183588404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.26|0.70
91852430|NCT00114101|183588405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||Fisher Exact|||||0.69|0.41|<0.001
91852431|NCT01786564|183588418|OTHER|This is cross-sectional analysis in a single group.|Regression Coefficient|-0.075||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.023||Unadjusted association. A priori p value of .05 was selected for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||The cross-sectional association between habitual sleep duration and oral disposition index was analyzed.||.023|-.173|.13
91852432|NCT01786564|183588418|OTHER|This is cross-sectional analysis|Regression Coefficient|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.19||Unadjusted association. P value of .05 was selected a priori as statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Unadjusted.||The cross-sectional association between habitual sleep quality (sleep percentage) and oral disposition index was analyzed.||1.19|-0.95|.83
91852433|NCT01786564|183588418|OTHER|This is cross-sectional analysis in a single group.|Regression Coefficient|-0.05||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.66||Unadjusted association. A priori p value of .05 was selected for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|Unadjusted||The cross-sectional association between amount of Stage 3 sleep and oral disposition index was analyzed.||0.66|-.166|.39
91852434|NCT01786564|183588418|OTHER|Unadjusted association. P value of .05 was selected a priori as statistical significance|Regression Coefficient|-0.058||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.014||Unadjusted association. P value of .05 was selected a priori as statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Unadjusted association.||The cross-sectional association between amount of REM sleep and oral disposition index was analyzed.||.014|-.129|.11
91852435|NCT03034915|183588419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.089|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||0.089|0.043|<0.001
91852436|NCT03034915|183588419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.164|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.164|0.118|<0.001
91852437|NCT03034915|183588419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0119|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.098|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.098|0.051|<0.001
91852438|NCT03034915|183588420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.68|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||0.68|0.06|0.018
91852439|NCT03034915|183588420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.76|0.15|0.004
91657345|NCT02937701|183208223|OTHER||Response Difference|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|13.37||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.37|-7.51|
91791438|NCT00706849|183460545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91657346|NCT02937701|183208224|OTHER||Response Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.84|0.83||||||The response difference at week 2 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||0.83|-5.84|
91791439|NCT00706849|183460547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
91791440|NCT00706849|183460549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91791441|NCT00706849|183460551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
91791442|NCT00706849|183460553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91791443|NCT00706849|183460555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91791444|NCT00706849|183460557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.207
91791445|NCT01555957|183460582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||we hypothesized that among ≥ 34 weeks GA infants with GISDs, infants receiving 1g/kg/day S-ILE (lipid minimizing strategy) would have decreased incidence of IFALD compared to those receiving 2g/kg/day S-ILE. We also hypothesized that the rate of rise of DB would be lower among ≥ 34 weeks GA infants with GISDs receiving 1g/kg/day versus 2g/kg/day of S-ILE.||||0.94
91791446|NCT01555957|183460583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We also hypothesized that the rate of rise of direct bilirubin would be lower among ≥ 34 weeks GA infants with GISDs receiving 1g/kg/day versus 2g/kg/day of S-ILE.||||0.0005
91791447|NCT01198158|183460584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||Log Rank|OS was analyzed based on an intent-to-treat approach using the stratified log-rank statistic adjusting on the stratification factors.||||||0.739
91791448|NCT01198158|183460585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||Log Rank|PFS was analyzed based on an intent-to-treat approach using the stratified log-rank statistic adjusting on the stratification factors||||||0.832
91791449|NCT05478174|183460593|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is -8%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0411|0.0255||P-Value for non inferiority test|Farrington-Manning method|||||0.0255|-0.0411|<0.001
91791450|NCT05478174|183460594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0716||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1742|0.031|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.0310|-0.1742|0.171
91791451|NCT05478174|183460595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-1.31|||ANOVA|||||-1.31|-2.22|<0.001
91791452|NCT01545843|183460596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.202
91791453|NCT03390842|183460607|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of subjects|24.9|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|38.7|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects Who Met Endpoint (≥ 4 mEq/L Change from Baseline Serum Bicarbonate or Serum Bicarbonate in the Normal Range \[22 - 29 mEq/L\]): TRC101-Placebo||38.7|10.2|= 0.0015
91791454|NCT03390842|183460607|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|24.4|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|38.2|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with ≥ 4mEq/L Change from Baseline in Serum Bicarbonate: TRC101-Placebo||38.2|9.7|= 0.0015
91791455|NCT03390842|183460607|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|43.7|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with Serum Bicarbonate in Normal Range (22 - 29 mEq/L): TRC101-Placebo||43.7|15.6|< 0.0001
91791456|NCT03390842|183460608|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in LS means|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.03|||Mixed-effect repeated measures model||Standard error presented above is for the LS mean.|Least Squares Mean Change from Baseline: TRC101-Placebo||3.03|0.96|= 0.0002
91791457|NCT03390842|183460609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value based on analysis of covariance model with rank of change from baseline in total score as dependent variable; treatment (PBO or TRC101) as a fixed effect; and baseline total score, Baseline eGFR, Baseline Bicarbonate as continuous covariates.|ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in KDQOL-PFD: TRC101-Placebo||||< 0.0001
91791458|NCT03390842|183460610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline for Repeated Chair Stand Test: TRC101-Placebo||||< 0.0001
91791459|NCT00713310|183460621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||High-Low Dose Difference Success Rates|-1.1||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A total of about 100 subjects were to be enrolled in the study with the expectation that about 80 subjects (40/dose level) would complete. Minimum of 9 subjects in 5-8 year old range were to be enrolled, 4-5 per dose level (high/low). A 2-sided α=0.05 Fisher's Exact test has an estimated power of P=0.50 with 40 subjects per dose level.||20.5|-22.7|0.9240
91852440|NCT03034915|183588420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.39|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24|||0.39|-0.23|0.610
91852441|NCT03034915|183588421|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.75|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI vs UMEC at Week 24|||1.75|1.17|<0.001
91852442|NCT03034915|183588421|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.81|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24|||1.81|1.21|<0.001
91852443|NCT03034915|183588421|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.27|0.84|0.755
91852444|NCT03034915|183588422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.11|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24|||-0.11|-0.95|0.013
91852445|NCT03034915|183588422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.42|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24..|||-0.42|-1.25|<0.001
91852446|NCT03034915|183588422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.12|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24|||0.12|-0.72|0.159
91852447|NCT03034915|183588423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05||E-RS Breathlessness Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24.|||-0.05|-0.50|0.016
91852448|NCT03034915|183588423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.23||E-RS Breathlessness Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||-0.23|-0.68|<0.001
91852449|NCT03034915|183588423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04||E-RS Breathlessness Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.04|-0.41|0.115
91852450|NCT03034915|183588423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05||E-RS Cough and Sputum Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.05|-0.20|0.247
91852451|NCT03034915|183588423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.0||E-RS Cough and Sputum Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.00|-0.25|0.042
91852452|NCT03034915|183588423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07||E-RS Cough and Sputum Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.07|-0.18|0.391
91852453|NCT03034915|183588423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04||E-RS Chest Symptoms Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24|||-0.04|-0.31|0.014
91852454|NCT03034915|183588423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1||E-RS Chest Symptoms Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comapring UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
91852455|NCT03034915|183588423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07||E-RS Chest Symptoms Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.07|-0.20|0.340
91852456|NCT03034915|183588424|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.89|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI vs UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24|||1.89|1.22|<0.001
91852457|NCT03034915|183588424|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.9|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||1.90|1.23|<0.001
91852458|NCT03034915|183588424|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||1.26|0.80|0.969
91852459|NCT03034915|183588425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.672||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.57|||mixed model repeated measure||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||1.57|-1.07|0.709
91852460|NCT03034915|183588425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.39|||mixed model repeated measure||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||-0.39|-2.99|0.011
91852461|NCT03034915|183588425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.61|||mixed model repeated measure||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||-0.61|-3.27|0.004
91852462|NCT03034915|183588426|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.48|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||1.48|0.99|0.063
91852463|NCT03034915|183588426|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.83|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.83|1.22|<0.001
91852464|NCT03034915|183588426|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.51|1.00|0.045
91852465|NCT03034915|183588427|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||0.6|-0.6|0.891
91852466|NCT03034915|183588427|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.1|-1.1|0.074
91852467|NCT03034915|183588427|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.1|-1.1|0.107
91852468|NCT03034915|183588428|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.65|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||1.65|1.11|0.003
91852469|NCT03034915|183588428|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.50|1.01|0.037
91852470|NCT03034915|183588428|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.11|0.75|0.363
91852471|NCT02138006|183588430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.30
91852472|NCT03861767|183588432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.97||||||Low dose groups collapsed and compared to placebo||1.97|0.67|
91852473|NCT03861767|183588432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.25||||||Intermediate dose groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||1.25|0.42|
91901143|NCT03049735|183697117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix + E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91852474|NCT03861767|183588432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.84||||||High dose groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||1.84|0.61|
91852475|NCT03861767|183588433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||2.03|0.52|0.92
91852476|NCT03861767|183588434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||2.00|0.52|0.80
91852477|NCT03861767|183588435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||3.11|0.49|0.65
91852478|NCT03861767|183588436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||3.62|0.73|0.23
91852479|NCT03861767|183588437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||2.86|0.71|0.31
91852480|NCT03861767|183588438|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|0.0011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||||0.97
91852481|NCT03861767|183588439|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||||0.30
91852482|NCT03861767|183588440|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||||0.65
91901144|NCT03049735|183697118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0377||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0377
91852483|NCT03861767|183588442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.86|0.74|0.27
91852484|NCT03861767|183588443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.44|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||7.44|1.19|0.01
91852485|NCT03861767|183588444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|5.3|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||5.30|1.34|<0.01
91852486|NCT03861767|183588445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were collapsed into one group and compared with placebo. Patients were compared whether they were discharged home or other.||1.56|0.52|0.72
91852487|NCT01188499|183588447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Primary objective of safety and tolerability measured by percent participants experiencing at least one adverse event. No formal statistics performed.|||||
91852488|NCT01188499|183588448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percent patients overall across all five arms demonstrating complete or partial response by RECIST. No formal statistics performed.|||||
91852489|NCT00424762|183588450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||powered to detect at least 33% difference between groups||||>0.05
91852490|NCT00424762|183588451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||powered to detect difference of at least 10% between groups||||0.26
91657347|NCT02937701|183208224|OTHER||Response Difference|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.47|2.64||||||The response difference at week 6 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||2.64|-7.47|
91852491|NCT00424762|183588452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||comparative incidence||||0.03
91657348|NCT02937701|183208224|OTHER||Response Difference|5.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|10.91||||||The response difference at week 14 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||10.91|-0.01|
91657349|NCT02937701|183208224|OTHER||Response Difference|4.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|10.34||||||The response difference at week 22 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||10.34|-1.21|
91657350|NCT02937701|183208225|OTHER||Response Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.12|8.02||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||8.02|-8.12|
91657351|NCT02937701|183208225|OTHER||Response Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.39|9.28||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.28|-9.39|
91657352|NCT02937701|183208225|OTHER||Response Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|9.51||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.51|-7.00|
91657353|NCT02937701|183208225|OTHER||Response Difference|7.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|17.22||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||17.22|-2.39|
91657354|NCT02937701|183208225|OTHER||Response Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.03|7.59||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.59|-9.03|
91657355|NCT02937701|183208225|OTHER||Response Difference|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.41|13.14||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.14|-6.41|
91657356|NCT02937701|183208225|OTHER||Response Difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.98|7.66||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.66|-8.98|
91712743|NCT02358031|183317162|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-15.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-8.3||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||-8.3|-23.4|1.0000
91852492|NCT00723450|183588508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0717||95.0|||||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was performed where the stratification factor was the index mood state at Screen visit.||||||0.0717
91657357|NCT02937701|183208225|OTHER||Response Difference|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.13|17.68||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||17.68|-2.13|
91657358|NCT02937701|183208225|OTHER||Response Difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|10.29||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||10.29|-6.81|
91657359|NCT02937701|183208225|OTHER||Response Difference|12.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|22.04||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||22.04|1.74|
91657360|NCT02937701|183208226|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.007||||||Week 2 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.007|-0.20|
91852493|NCT00189202|183588530|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 8% plus or minus 4.||||||0.28|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.28
91852494|NCT00189202|183588531|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.70
91852495|NCT02326649|183588536|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.47
91852496|NCT02326649|183588536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.528||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.295|18.417|||Regression, Linear|||Intercept for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||18.417|-5.295|0.255
91901145|NCT03049735|183697119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0117||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||0.0117
91657361|NCT02937701|183208226|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.16||||||Week 6 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.16|-0.17|
91657362|NCT02937701|183208226|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.14||||||Week 14 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.14|-0.21|
91852497|NCT02326649|183588536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|1.395|||Regression, Linear|||Heart rate delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||1.395|-0.395|0.250
91852498|NCT02326649|183588536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.081|0.227|||Regression, Linear|||Diastolic BP delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||0.227|-1.081|0.183
91794621|NCT03981822|183468102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|-3.57||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-3.57|-9.89|<0.0001
91794622|NCT03981822|183468102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.99||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.94||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow up day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.94|-10.20|0.0005
91794623|NCT03981822|183468103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.31|-20.87||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-20.87|-51.31|<0.0001
91794624|NCT03981822|183468103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.95||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.18|-19.56||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-19.56|-66.18|0.0004
91794625|NCT03981822|183468103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.15|-35.87||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-35.87|-88.15|<0.0001
91794626|NCT03981822|183468103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-79.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.44|-49.77||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 End of Treatment Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-49.77|-111.44|<0.0001
91794627|NCT03981822|183468103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.17|-35.25||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-35.25|-103.17|0.0001
91794628|NCT03981822|183468103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.22||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.61|8.56||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||8.56|-90.61|0.1033
91794629|NCT03981822|183468103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.26|-39.39||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-39.39|-73.26|<0.0001
91794630|NCT03981822|183468103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.61|-28.8||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-28.80|-81.61|<0.0001
91794631|NCT03981822|183468103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-76.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.19|-45.61||P-value is based on MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-45.61|-107.19|<0.0001
91794632|NCT03981822|183468103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.29||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.96|-31.55||P-value is based on MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 End of Treatment Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-31.55|-102.96|0.0003
91794633|NCT03981822|183468103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-77.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.32|-32.78||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-32.78|-110.32|0.0004
91794634|NCT03981822|183468103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-77.52||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.82|-11.88||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-11.88|-120.82|0.0178
91794635|NCT03981822|183468104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0004
91794636|NCT03981822|183468104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0005
91657363|NCT02937701|183208226|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.17||||||Week 22 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.17|-0.20|
91657364|NCT02937701|183208227|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.4||||||Week 30 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.40|-0.08|
91794637|NCT03981822|183468104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0698||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0698
91794638|NCT03981822|183468104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0100
91794639|NCT03981822|183468104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0101
91794640|NCT03981822|183468104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0077
91794641|NCT03981822|183468104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0640
91794642|NCT03981822|183468104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0045
91794643|NCT03981822|183468104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.284||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.2840
91794644|NCT03981822|183468104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0132
91794645|NCT03981822|183468104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4668||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.4668
91794646|NCT03981822|183468104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0064
91794647|NCT03981822|183468105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by gender||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0364
91794648|NCT03981822|183468105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by gender||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0215
91794649|NCT03981822|183468106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.63||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.1|9.23||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||9.23|-76.10|0.1222
91794650|NCT03981822|183468106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.51||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.3|-1.9||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 112 (EOT: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.90|-81.30|0.0403
91794651|NCT03981822|183468106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.88||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.79|5.33||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||5.33|-77.79|0.0863
91794652|NCT03981822|183468106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.13||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.76|-1.73||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.73|-100.76|0.0428
91794653|NCT03981822|183468106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-71.93||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.46|-17.0||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-17.00|-110.46|0.0084
91794654|NCT03981822|183468106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-63.11||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.08|-6.35||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-6.35|-103.08|0.0273
91794655|NCT03981822|183468107|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on MMRM model|LS mean difference|-44.65||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.96|22.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||22.47|-69.96|0.3083
91794656|NCT03981822|183468107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.8||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.93|15.56||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||15.56|-86.93|0.1686
91794657|NCT03981822|183468107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.06||||0.2384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.04|22.1||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||22.10|-87.04|0.2384
91657365|NCT02937701|183208227|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.28||||||Week 30 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.28|-0.27|
91852499|NCT02326649|183588536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|1.526|||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||1.526|-0.411|0.238
91852500|NCT02311907|183588537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Generalized linear models (repeated measures analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]) will be used to compare the CIPN between GSH and placebo arms.||||0.21
91852501|NCT02311907|183588538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.63
91852502|NCT02950558|183588546|OTHER|||||||0.1269|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1269
91852503|NCT02950558|183588547|OTHER|||||||0.8808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8808
91852504|NCT02950558|183588548|OTHER|||||||0.0382|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0382
91852505|NCT02950558|183588549|OTHER|||||||0.4696|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4696
91852506|NCT02950558|183588550|OTHER|||||||0.1818|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1818
91852507|NCT04001517|183588558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.345||The comparison is of neflamapimod 40mg TID to placebo. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is of neflamapimod 40mg TID to placebo. The positive value represents a better outcome with neflamapimod 40mg treatment vs. placebo.|This was an exploratory trial and no explicit a priori hypothesis was established and contained in the protocol. As such, no formal power calculations were conducted. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the effects of neflamapimod on cognition, and accordingly the primary endpoint was change in combined z-score of the six tests in the NTB, analyzed by Linear Mixed Effects (LME) model for repeated measures.||0.345|0.001|0.049
91852508|NCT04001517|183588558|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of combined neflamapimod groups vs. placebo.|||||>|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.2
91852509|NCT04001517|183588559|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of combined neflamapimod 40mg TID vs. placebo. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.16||Comparison of combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo utilizing mixed model for repeated measures with baseline as a covariate. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is of neflamapimod 40mg TID to placebo. A negative value indicates improvement compared to placebo.|||-0.16|-0.96|0.007
91852510|NCT04001517|183588559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.06||Mixed model for repeated measures with baseline as a covariate. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo. Negative values represents a better outcome with neflamapimod relative to placebo.|A secondary analysis was conducted comparing the combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo.||-0.06|-0.83|0.023
91852511|NCT04001517|183588560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.2
91852512|NCT04001517|183588561|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.53||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.55|-3.61|0.15
91852513|NCT04001517|183588561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of combined neflamapimod groups (i.e., all neflamapimod) vs. placebo||2.34|-5.03|0.077
91852514|NCT04001517|183588562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of change from baseline over course of study for NFMD 40mg TID vs. placebo.|||1.91|-1.27|>0.2
91852515|NCT04001517|183588563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference for the comparison of 40 mg TID vs. placebo is reported.|||-0.2|-2.6|0.024
91852516|NCT04001517|183588563|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-2.69|0.044
91852517|NCT03506880|183588580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey's Post-Hoc||Estimation parameter used to determine significance between mean values in MADD, SG, and AC group.|It was hypothesized that drinking would increase from baseline to 12-month follow-up for those in the AC, but not for those in the SG and MADD conditions.||||>0.05
91852518|NCT03506880|183588581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey's Post-Hoc||Estimation parameter used to determine significance between mean values in MADD, SG, and AC group.|It was also hypothesized that teens in the SG and MADD conditions would report significantly more declining rides with impaired drivers than those in the AC group.||||<0.01
91852519|NCT03506880|183588582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey's Post-Hoc||Estimation parameter used to determine significance between mean values in MADD, SG, and AC group.|It was hypothesized that participants in the MADD and SG groups would be significantly less willing to ride in a car with an impaired driver than those in the AC group.||||>0.01
91852520|NCT02547922|183588583|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.031||||0.9052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|1.713||The p-values presented are unadjusted and was compared with the respective adjusted significance level (α). If α is not displayed, no formal testing can be performed and the corresponding p-value was nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio \>1 favours placebo.|The model includes fixed effects for treatment group, visit, stratification factors, log-transformed 24-hour UPCR at baseline, and treatment-by-visit interaction. All data up to and including the date of discontinuation of study treatment were included in the analysis.||1.713|0.621|0.9052
91852521|NCT02547922|183588584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in estimates|-0.08||||0.9929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|16.76||At Week 52, the p-values presented are unadjusted and will be compared to the respective adjusted significance level (α). If α is not displayed no formal testing can be performed and the corresponding p-value is nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The statistical analysis represents the estimated percentage of responders. The responder/non-responder rates (percentages), the difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach.||16.76|-16.92|0.9929
91901146|NCT03049735|183697120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World). Lower limit of normal is Hgb \< 11.6 g/dL.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0084
91852522|NCT02709655|183588589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||0.36|-4.54|0.0937
91852523|NCT02709655|183588589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||1.11|-4.56|0.2336
91852524|NCT02709655|183588589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||0.37|-5.29|0.0879
91852525|NCT02709655|183588589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||0.04|-6.65|0.0531
91852526|NCT00102063|183588610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91852527|NCT00102063|183588610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91852528|NCT00857649|183588618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|4.21|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||4.21|-1.75|0.418
91852529|NCT00857649|183588619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.34|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||1.34|-2.30|0.603
91852530|NCT00857649|183588620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.31|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||0.31|-0.22|0.734
91852531|NCT00857649|183588621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||-0.32|-3.29|0.017
91852532|NCT00857649|183588622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.83|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||2.83|-1.03|0.360
91852533|NCT04470193|183588638|SUPERIORITY|We approached 62 subjects to get a sample size of 50 participants, allowing up to 16% attrition, to estimate the proportions of patients satisfying dropout of 0.13 to within margins of error (half-widths of 90% Cis). The 50 evaluable subjects were used to estimate the SD of QoL, with a margin of error of ∼20%. The sample size also allowed us to provide provisional estimates of the effect size for the QoL outcome to within a margin of error of ±7.1 points, assuming a true SD of 15 points.|||||>|0.05|||||||generalized estimating equation model|||We used a generalized estimating equation model for repeated assessments, with a common unstructured residual covariance matrix to account for correlation in repeated measurements in the same patient, to compare QoL total score at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months between the groups. We hypothesized that MyChildCMC users would have better outcomes for the child (higher QoL, fewer ED and/or hospital use and hospital days) and parent (higher satisfaction with child's care).||||>0.05
91852534|NCT04470193|183588639|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.88|0.58|0.882
91852535|NCT04470193|183588640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|0.39|<0.001
91852536|NCT04470193|183588641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|1.01|0.035
91852537|NCT02517307|183588642|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the effects of intralipid on Rd in controls subjects versus subjects with a FAOD by mixed-effect models. Factors were group (control or FAOD) treatment (glycerol or intralipid) and the interaction of those factors. The hypothesis was intralipid would decrease Rd in controls but not in subjects with an FAOD.||||0.136
91852538|NCT02517307|183588643|OTHER|We analyzed the data with a mixed model looking at the effect of group (control vs FAOD) and treatment (glycerol vs intralipid) and their interaction.||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested if intralipid did not suppress endogenous glucose production or Ra as much as glycerol in controls compared to subjects with an FAOD.||||0.011
91852539|NCT00843882|183588644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91852540|NCT00843882|183588653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91852541|NCT02248480|183588657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
91852542|NCT01582269|183588674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9336|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.49|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||The Bayesian analyses below include credible intervals rather than confidence intervals for the hazard ratios.|The posterior probability treatment difference is 0.6158|1.49|0.58|
91852543|NCT01582269|183588674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.65|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||The Bayesian analyses below include credible intervals rather than confidence intervals for the hazard ratios.|The posterior probability treatment difference is 0.2628|1.65|0.78|
91901147|NCT03049735|183697121|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
91852544|NCT03360396|183588682|OTHER|Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.||||||||||||Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.||Study was closed early in all regions except for France. SAP was updated to include descriptive statistics only. French sites remain open.||Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.|Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.|||
91852545|NCT03360396|183588683|OTHER|Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.||||||||||||Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.||Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.||Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.|Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.|||
91852546|NCT00546871|183588716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.067|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.134||||||||0.134||
91852547|NCT04036058|183588737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
91852548|NCT04036058|183588738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0435
91852549|NCT04036058|183588739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1158
91852550|NCT04036058|183588740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0898
91852551|NCT04036058|183588741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.114
91852552|NCT06001177|183588748|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.63|0.1668
91852553|NCT03593876|183588758|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The a priori analysis plan was to defer statistical or hypothesis testing due to the focus on feasibility, and rather to assess mean participant-therapist communication scores across intervention sessions. The mean and standard deviation of these scores was 3.00 (1.00). The a priori criterion for feasibility was a mean score of 2.0 or greater.|||
91852554|NCT03593876|183588759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The a priori analysis plan was to defer statistical or hypothesis testing due to the focus on feasibility, and rather to assess change scores and effect size of the change scores to compare with previously published clinical trials.|The repeated measures effect size of change was Cohen's d(rm)=3.08.|||
91852555|NCT03593876|183588760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The a priori analysis plan was to defer statistical or hypothesis testing due to the focus on feasibility, and rather to assess change scores and effect size of the change scores to compare with previously published clinical trials.|The repeated measures effect size of change, Cohen's d(rm)=1.70|||
91852556|NCT02696707|183588789|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin between groups was set as 4%|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||||||||1.2|-2.5|
91852557|NCT00071799|183588793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.||"A 95% CI range value of 'does not exist' is not accommodated in the results table, so all the 95% CI range values are offered here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.9 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.8 and high range of 17.0 months."||||0.0001
91901148|NCT03049735|183697122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
91852558|NCT00071799|183588793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||0.77|0.43|0.0002
91852559|NCT00071799|183588794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3973||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Age \< 65 years The Kaplan-Meier median time to death was not reached due to a small number of events, so the KM 25th percentile survival time is presented.~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 7.1 months and high range of 15.6 months.~Conventional Care: low range of 4.4 and high range of 12.4 months."||||0.3973
91852560|NCT00071799|183588794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Age \>= 65 years~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.1 months and high range of 34.7 months.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.8 and high range of 16.4 months."||||<0.0001
91852561|NCT00071799|183588794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0707||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Age \>= 75 years. The Kaplan-Meier median time to death was not reached due to a small number of events, so the KM 25th percentile survival time is presented.~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 1.7 months and high range of 15.0 months.~Conventional Care: low range of 4.1 and high range of 7.6 months."||||0.0707
91901149|NCT03049735|183697123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
91852562|NCT00071799|183588794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0042||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Gender: Male~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.9 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 10.8 and high range of 17.2 months."||||0.0042
91852563|NCT00071799|183588794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0469||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Gender: Female~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 13.0 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.2 and high range of 17.6 months."||||0.0469
91852564|NCT00071799|183588794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0||||"95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 21.1 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.3 and high range of 21.9 months."|Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.||FAB: Refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB). All patients were stratified at randomization by FAB classification and IPSS score as determined by the investigator using centrally read bone marrow and cytogenetic data. Subsequently, the FAB classifications and IPSS scores were reviewed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). The subgroup analyses presented by FAB and IPSS represent the FAB classification and IPSS scores as determined by the IRC.||||0.0056
91901150|NCT03049735|183697124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
91712744|NCT02358031|183317163|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-12.8||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-1.5||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1) and HPV status (Positive vs. Negative).||-1.5|-23.8|0.9869
91852565|NCT00071799|183588794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0322||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"FAB: RAEB in transformation~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 11.7 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.4 and high range of 17.0 months."||||0.0322
91852566|NCT00071799|183588794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1679||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"WHO: RAEB 1. The Kaplan-Meier median time to death was not reached due to a small number of events, so the KM 25th percentile survival time is presented.~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 6.6 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 1.8 and high range of 9.8 months."||||0.1679
91852567|NCT00071799|183588794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"WHO: RAEB-2~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 15.9 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.8 and high range of 19.4 months."||||0.0692
91657366|NCT02937701|183208227|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.35||||||Week 34 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.35|-0.12|
91852568|NCT00071799|183588794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"WHO: Other~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 15.6 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 11.1 and high range of 17.5 months."||||0.0017
91852569|NCT00071799|183588794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.103||95.0||||"95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.1 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.7 and high range of 24.1 months."|Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.||IPSS: Intermediate 2 All patients were stratified at randomization by FAB classification and IPSS score as determined by the investigator using centrally read bone marrow and cytogenetic data. Subsequently, the FAB classifications and IPSS scores were reviewed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). The subgroup analyses presented by FAB and IPSS represent the FAB classification and IPSS scores as determined by the IRC.||||0.1030
91852570|NCT00071799|183588794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 15.0 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.0 and high range of 17.0 months."|Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification||IPSS: High All patients were stratified at randomization by FAB classification and IPSS score as determined by the investigator using centrally read bone marrow and cytogenetic data. Subsequently, the FAB classifications and IPSS scores were reviewed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). The subgroup analyses presented by FAB and IPSS represent the FAB classification and IPSS scores as determined by the IRC.||||0.0020
91852571|NCT00071799|183588795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0025||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.|Log Rank|||||||0.0025
91852572|NCT00071799|183588795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||0.87|0.53|0.0027
91852573|NCT00071799|183588796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2555||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||||||0.2555
91852574|NCT00071799|183588796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||1.15|0.60|0.2562
91852575|NCT00071799|183588797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline and transfusion independent during the on-treatment period.||||<0.0001
91852576|NCT00071799|183588798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion independent at baseline and remained transfusion independent during the on-treatment period.||||0.0005
91852577|NCT00071799|183588799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline and transfusion independent during the on-treatment period||||1.000
91657367|NCT02937701|183208227|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.24||||||Week 34 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.24|-0.30|
91657368|NCT02937701|183208227|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.3||||||Week 38 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.30|-0.18|
91852578|NCT00071799|183588800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion independent at baseline and remained transfusion independent during the on-treatment period.||||<0.0001
91852579|NCT00071799|183588801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Overall (Complete + Partial Remission)||||0.0001
91722425|NCT04390750|183337443|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|0.0||||0.995||95.0|-0.16|0.16|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.16|-0.16|0.995
91852580|NCT00071799|183588801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Complete remission||||0.0150
91852581|NCT00071799|183588801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0094||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Partial Remission||||0.0094
91852582|NCT00071799|183588801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3297||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Stable Disease||||0.3297
91852583|NCT00071799|183588802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Any Improvement||||<0.0001
91852584|NCT00071799|183588802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Erythroid Response - Major||||<0.0001
91852585|NCT00071799|183588802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6203||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Erythroid Response - Minor||||0.6203
91852586|NCT00071799|183588802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Platelet Response - Major||||0.0003
91852587|NCT00071799|183588802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7514||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Platelet Response - Minor||||0.7514
91852588|NCT00071799|183588802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8695||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Neutrophil Response - Major||||0.8695
91852589|NCT00071799|183588802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Neutrophil Response - Minor||||0.1760
91852590|NCT00071799|183588803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0466||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test which compares whether the azacitidine and control group follow the same duration curve.|Log Rank|||||||0.0466
91852591|NCT00071799|183588803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.53|0.0474
91852592|NCT00071799|183588804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test which compares whether the azacitidine and control group follow the same duration curve.|Log Rank|||||||0.0002
91852593|NCT00071799|183588805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.2|||exact binomial|||||1.20|0.35|0.1327
91852594|NCT00071799|183588807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91852595|NCT00071799|183588807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.7|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||0.70|0.35|<0.0001
91852596|NCT05764161|183588838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|2.143|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||2.143|0.651|0.5859
91852597|NCT05764161|183588838|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.966|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|17.46||||||||17.46|-9.84|
91852598|NCT05764161|183588839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|3.683|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||3.683|0.938|0.0741
91852599|NCT05764161|183588839|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|23.23||||||||23.23|-0.93|
91852600|NCT05764161|183588840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||5.740|0.750|0.1493
91852601|NCT05764161|183588840|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|14.51||||||||14.51|-2.18|
91852602|NCT05764161|183588841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.193|6.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||6.033|1.193|0.0142
91852603|NCT05764161|183588841|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.384|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|24.01||||||||24.01|2.90|
91852604|NCT05764161|183588842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|8.897|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||8.897|1.060|0.0387
91852605|NCT05764161|183588842|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|9.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|18.0||||||||18.00|0.98|
91852606|NCT05764161|183588844|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.39|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||-0.39|-1.35|0.0005
91852607|NCT05764161|183588844|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.45|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||-0.45|-1.64|0.0007
91852608|NCT05764161|183588844|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.36|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||-0.36|-1.81|0.0036
91852609|NCT05764161|183588844|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.09|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||-0.09|-1.65|0.0287
91852610|NCT05764161|183588846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.783||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.288|2.468|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.468|1.288|0.0005
91657369|NCT02937701|183208227|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.2||||||Week 38 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.20|-0.36|
91852611|NCT05764161|183588847|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.477||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|2.15|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.150|1.015|0.0399
91852612|NCT05764161|183588850|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||-0.31|-1.29|0.0016
91852613|NCT05764161|183588850|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||-0.24|-1.51|0.0071
91852614|NCT05764161|183588850|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||-0.14|-1.60|0.0198
91852615|NCT05764161|183588850|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||0.20|-1.40|0.1384
91852616|NCT05764161|183588856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||0.14|-2.80|0.0759
91852617|NCT05764161|183588856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.809||0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.41|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||0.41|-2.78|0.1447
91852618|NCT05764161|183588856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.91|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||0.91|-2.64|0.3395
91852619|NCT05764161|183588856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||1.19|-2.53|0.4794
91852620|NCT05764161|183588858|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.522||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|7.57|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||7.57|-2.38|0.3053
91657370|NCT02937701|183208227|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.37||||||Week 46 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.37|-0.14|
91657371|NCT02937701|183208227|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.25||||||Week 46 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.25|-0.34|
91657372|NCT02937701|183208227|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.24||||||Week 50 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.24|-0.24|
91852621|NCT05764161|183588858|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.3893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|6.95|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||6.95|-2.72|0.3893
91852622|NCT05764161|183588858|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.371||0.2357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|7.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||7.50|-1.86|0.2357
91852623|NCT05764161|183588858|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.567||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|6.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||6.47|-3.66|0.5839
91852624|NCT00346333|183588888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||"Primary Analysis:Proc mixed of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was used to compare annual rates of change by treatment group over 4 years.~Power Calculation:240 patients were estimated to be needed to provide sufficient power (i.e. alpha=0.05;beta=0.10)to observe a statistically significant difference between mean change in the 2 groups on the HFA 30-2 total point score over a 4-year interval."||||0.66
91901151|NCT03049735|183697125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing difference between Relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91901152|NCT03049735|183697126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
91852625|NCT00346333|183588888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Clustered Wilcoxon|||Secondary Analysis: As change distribution was non-normal, slope for each eye was calculated with least squares regression and converted to ranks. The Clustered Wilcoxon test was used to compare slope distributions between groups accounting for correlation between slopes for eyes within individuals.||||0.52
91852626|NCT00346333|183588889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Primary Analysis: Proc Mixed of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change by treatment group over four years.The unit of analysis was the eye. Each patient contributed 2, 1, or 0 eyes with non-missing data.||||0.05
91852627|NCT00346333|183588889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Clustered Wilcoxon|||Secondary Analysis: As change distribution was non-normal, slope for each eye was calculated with least squares regression and converted to ranks. The Clustered Wilcoxon test was used to compare slope distributions between groups accounting for correlation between slopes for eyes within individuals.||||0.03
91852628|NCT00346333|183588890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Primary analysis:Proc Mixed of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change by treatment group over four years.The unit of analysis was the eye.Each patient contributed 2,1,or 0 eyes with non-missing data.||||0.24
91852629|NCT00346333|183588890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Clustered Wilcoxon|||Secondary Analysis: As change distribution was non-normal, slope for each eye was calculated with least squares regression and converted to ranks. The Clustered Wilcoxon test was used to compare slope distributions between groups accounting for correlation between slopes for eyes within individuals.||||0.20
91657373|NCT02937701|183208227|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.08||||||Week 50 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.08|-0.47|
91657374|NCT01507051|183208228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio|2.793|||<|0.0001||90.0|2.633|2.962|||ANOVA|||||2.962|2.633|<0.0001
91657375|NCT01507051|183208229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio|6.151|||<|0.0001||90.0|5.598|6.759|||ANOVA|||||6.759|5.598|<0.0001
91657376|NCT01507051|183208256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|95.17||||0.5008||95.0|82.2|110.2|||ANOVA|||||110.2|82.20|0.5008
91657377|NCT01507051|183208257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|99.46||||0.9429||95.0|85.47|115.7|||ANOVA|||||115.7|85.47|0.9429
91657378|NCT01507051|183208258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|100.4||||0.9525||95.0|88.0|114.5|||ANOVA|||||114.5|88.00|0.9525
91657379|NCT01507051|183208259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|95.87||||0.4397||95.0|85.99|106.9|||ANOVA|||||106.9|85.99|0.4397
91657380|NCT01101022|183208270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||||-6.4|-15.9|<0.0001
91657381|NCT01101022|183208271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|29.7|||ANCOVA|||Performance and Daily Functioning||29.7|13.5|<0.0001
91712745|NCT02358031|183317164|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.24||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|3.82||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 15 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (ECOG \[0 vs. 1\], HPV status \[Positive vs. Negative\] and PD-L1 TPS status \[Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive\]) as covariates.||3.82|-3.34|0.893
91712746|NCT02358031|183317165|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.0||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||2.00|0.95|0.9530
91712747|NCT02358031|183317166|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.21||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Pain Score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||1.21|0.53|0.1501
91712748|NCT02358031|183317167|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.8751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.88||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Swallowing Score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||1.88|0.85|0.8751
91712749|NCT03442725|183317170|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.297|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|2.805||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparison of Cmax for telotristat ethyl between test group versus the control group.||2.805|0.600|
91712750|NCT03442725|183317170|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.423|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|2.247||||||ANOVA comparison of Cmax for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||2.247|0.901|
91712751|NCT03442725|183317171|OTHER|Estimate of the median difference and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) was determined by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|Median Difference|0.0||||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of tmax for telotristat ethyl between test group versus the control group.||0.950|-1.000|0.7452
91852630|NCT00346333|183588891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Proc MIXED of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change over four years between the treatment groups.||||0.59
91852631|NCT00346333|183588892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Proc MIXED of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change over 4 years between the 2 groups.||||0.80
91852632|NCT02498769|183588940|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.41|0.18
91852633|NCT02498769|183588941|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.31|0.19
91852634|NCT02498769|183588942|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ICU length of stay hours||||.16
91852635|NCT02498769|183588942|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hospital LOS||||.51
91852636|NCT02498769|183588943|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.97
91852637|NCT00588770|183588949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The P value was based on stratified log rank test, stratified by choice of chemotherapy combination, performance status, weight loss in the last 6 months, and prior radiation of the head and neck.|Log Rank|||The study hypothesis is that the addition of bevacizumab will improve the median survival by 35% from 8.5 months (based on E1395 and E5397) to 11.5 months.||||0.22
91852638|NCT04697628|183588954|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.7||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89||Two-sided p-value calculated from stratified log-rank test.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard Ratio (HR) was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model and Efron method was used in handling ties and computed using stratification factors at randomization.|||0.89|0.54|0.0038
91852639|NCT04697628|183588955|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82||Two-sided p-value calculated from stratified log-rank test.|Stratified log-rank test||HR was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model and Efron method was used in handling ties and computed using stratification factors at randomization.|||0.82|0.54|<0.0001
91852640|NCT04697628|183588956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method controlling for stratification factors at randomization.|||7.6|2.1|<0.0001
91852641|NCT01713946|183589010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.2|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||4.20|1.16|0.008
91852642|NCT01713946|183589010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.32|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||7.32|2.10|<0.001
91852643|NCT01713946|183589011|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|15.96||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|31.68|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||31.68|1.98|0.003
91852644|NCT01713946|183589011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.36|43.36|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||43.36|16.36|<0.001
91852645|NCT01713946|183589012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|55.73||||||||55.73|0.77|
91852646|NCT01713946|183589012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|44.03||||||||44.03|0.57|
91852647|NCT01713946|183589013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.97||||||||2.97|1.05|
91852648|NCT01713946|183589013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|6.48||||||||6.48|2.25|
91852649|NCT01713946|183589015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.1||||||||3.1|-0.4|
91852650|NCT01713946|183589015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.9||||||||5.9|2.5|
91852651|NCT01713946|183589016|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.07||||||||2.07|0.77|
91852652|NCT01713946|183589016|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.96||||||||1.96|0.74|
91852653|NCT01713946|183589017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1||||||||2.1|-4.4|
91852654|NCT01713946|183589017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3||||||||4.3|-2.2|
91852655|NCT01713946|183589018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.2||||||||6.2|-10.5|
91852656|NCT01713946|183589018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.6||||||||8.6|-7.8|
91852657|NCT01713946|183589019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|12.3||||||||12.3|-17.9|
91852658|NCT01713946|183589019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|6.6||||||||6.6|-22.0|
91852659|NCT05555082|183589036|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.398||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.236|-0.559||P-values reported for transparency; feasibility study not powered for hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.||-0.559|-6.236|0.021
91852660|NCT05555082|183589036|OTHER||Cohens d|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91852661|NCT05555082|183589037|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.328||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.013|1.357||P-values reported for transparency; study not powered for significance testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months;|"Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis."||1.357|-4.013|0.318
91852662|NCT05555082|183589037|OTHER||Cohens d|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91657382|NCT01101022|183208271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|22.0|||ANCOVA|||Daily Interference||22.0|7.8|<0.0001
91657383|NCT01101022|183208271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.7|||ANCOVA|||Bother/Concern||20.7|6.3|0.0003
91657384|NCT01101022|183208271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|14.9|||ANCOVA|||Relationships/Communication||14.9|0.8|0.0302
91657385|NCT01101022|183208272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||-1.9|-7.8|0.0016
91657386|NCT01101022|183208272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||-0.2|-6.0|0.0355
91852663|NCT05555082|183589038|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.453||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.174|1.268||P-values reported for transparency; study not powered for significance testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months|"Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis."||1.268|-4.174|0.28
91852664|NCT05555082|183589038|OTHER||Cohens d|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91852665|NCT05555082|183589039|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.122||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.917|-0.326||P-values reported for transparency; study not powered for significance testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months|"Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis."||-0.326|-3.917|0.023
91852666|NCT05555082|183589039|OTHER||Cohens d|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91852667|NCT05555082|183589040|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.876||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|41.092||P-values reported for transparency; study not powered for significance testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months|"Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis."||41.092|8.660|0.004
91852668|NCT05555082|183589040|OTHER||Cohens d|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91852669|NCT03142841|183589084|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.001|ONE_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.001
91657387|NCT01101022|183208272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||-2.7|-8.7|0.0003
91852670|NCT03142841|183589085|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.017
91852671|NCT03142841|183589086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.017
91852672|NCT03142841|183589087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91852673|NCT03142841|183589088|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.152|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.152
91852674|NCT03142841|183589089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.008
91852675|NCT03142841|183589090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.812|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.812
91852676|NCT03142841|183589091|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.229
91852677|NCT03142841|183589092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.968
91852678|NCT03142841|183589093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.196|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.196
91852679|NCT03142841|183589094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.067
91852680|NCT03142841|183589095|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.066
91852681|NCT03142841|183589096|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.225|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.225
91852682|NCT03142841|183589097|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.138
91852683|NCT03142841|183589098|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.002
91852684|NCT03142841|183589099|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.052
91852685|NCT03142841|183589100|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.981|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.981
91852686|NCT03142841|183589101|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.221
91852687|NCT03142841|183589102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.159|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.159
91852688|NCT03142841|183589103|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.103
91852689|NCT03142841|183589104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.247|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.247
91852690|NCT03142841|183589105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.174|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.174
91852691|NCT03142841|183589106|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.408|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.408
91852692|NCT03142841|183589107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.457|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.457
91852693|NCT03142841|183589108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.187|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.187
91852694|NCT03142841|183589109|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.315|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.315
91657388|NCT01101022|183208273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.0|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||-4.0|-12.7|0.0002
91657389|NCT01101022|183208273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||-7.0|-16.3|<0.0001
91657390|NCT01101022|183208274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-4.1|||ANCOVA|||Inhibit||-4.1|-12.6|0.0001
91657391|NCT01101022|183208274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Shift||-2.5|-10.8|0.0018
91657392|NCT01101022|183208274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Emotional control||-1.5|-8.8|0.0056
91852695|NCT03142841|183589110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.289|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.289
91852696|NCT03142841|183589111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.055|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.055
91852697|NCT03142841|183589112|OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.095
91852698|NCT03142841|183589113|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
91852699|NCT03142841|183589114|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.063
91852700|NCT03142841|183589115|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9
91852701|NCT03142841|183589116|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91852702|NCT03142841|183589117|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
91852703|NCT02189252|183589186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|160.05||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.71|395.82||The closed sequential testing procedure stopped at this step as the P Value is greater than 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the first test in the fixed testing sequence.||395.82|64.71|0.2702
91852704|NCT02189252|183589186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|121.61||||0.6367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.17|300.76||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the second test in the fixed testing sequence.||300.76|49.17|0.6367
91852705|NCT02189252|183589187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|193.91||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.61|377.47||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the third test in the fixed testing sequence.||377.47|99.61|0.0511
91901153|NCT03049735|183697127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91852706|NCT02189252|183589187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|133.32||||0.3543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.49|259.52||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the fourth test in the fixed testing sequence.||259.52|68.49|0.3543
91852707|NCT02189252|183589188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|259.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.75|560.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||560.99|119.75|0.0210
91852708|NCT02189252|183589188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|177.95||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.22|385.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||385.16|82.22|0.1256
91852709|NCT02189252|183589189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|298.91||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.32|543.74||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||||543.74|164.32|0.0025
91852710|NCT02189252|183589189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|187.28||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.95|340.66||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||||340.66|102.95|0.0418
91852711|NCT02189252|183589190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|79.36||||0.6833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.95|274.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||274.45|22.95|0.6833
91852712|NCT02189252|183589190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|69.39||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.07|239.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||239.98|20.07|0.5220
91852713|NCT02189252|183589191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|104.78||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.92|244.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||244.41|44.92|0.9034
91852714|NCT02189252|183589191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|80.58||||0.5782||95.0|34.55|187.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||187.95|34.55|0.5782
91852715|NCT02189252|183589192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|753.75||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.03|5071.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5071.6|112.03|0.0391
91657393|NCT01101022|183208274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-4.1|||ANCOVA|||Sef-monitor||-4.1|-12.3|0.0001
91852716|NCT02189252|183589192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|104.98||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|706.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||706.33|15.60|0.9578
91657394|NCT01101022|183208274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||Initiate||-5.4|-13.2|<0.0001
91852717|NCT02189252|183589193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|376.64||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|128.55|1103.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1103.5|128.55|0.0186
91852718|NCT02189252|183589193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|131.74||||0.5955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.97|386.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||386.00|44.97|0.5955
91657395|NCT01101022|183208274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-6.6|||ANCOVA|||Working memory||-6.6|-16.0|<0.0001
91657396|NCT01101022|183208274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||Plan/Organize||-6.4|-15.4|<0.0001
91852719|NCT04396860|183589194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.21|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank|Reference level = Arm 1|For the phase II endpoint, observation of 100 PFS events among the 150 randomized patients (from both arms) provides 95% statistical power to detect an improvement in median PFS from 5.7 months in the control arm to 9.7 months in the experimental arm, corresponding to a hazard reduction of 42% (hazard ratio 0.58) at one-sided significance level of 0.15 (and 87% power for hazard ratio of 0.65 at this same alpha).||2.21|0.98|0.96
91852720|NCT01040689|183589213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.145|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.224|0.145|<0.0001
91852721|NCT01040689|183589213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.167|<0.0001
91852722|NCT01040689|183589213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.133|<0.0001
91852723|NCT01040689|183589214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.090|<0.0001
91852724|NCT01040689|183589214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.136|<0.0001
91901154|NCT03049735|183697128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
91657397|NCT01101022|183208274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||Task monitor||-4.7|-14.0|0.0001
91657398|NCT01101022|183208274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-5.3|||ANCOVA|||Organization of materials||-5.3|-12.5|<0.0001
91852725|NCT01040689|183589214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|0.081|<0.0001
91657399|NCT01101022|183208275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Inhibit||-1.4|-7.4|0.0048
91657400|NCT01101022|183208275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Shift||-1.5|-8.0|0.0045
91657401|NCT01101022|183208275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Emotional control||1.5|-4.0|0.3605
91657402|NCT01101022|183208275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Self-monitor||0.8|-5.1|0.1468
91657403|NCT01101022|183208275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||Initiate||-2.7|-8.3|0.0002
91657404|NCT01101022|183208275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||Working memory||-2.9|-9.8|0.0004
91852726|NCT01040689|183589215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|0.121|<0.0001
91657405|NCT01101022|183208275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Plan/Organize||-1.9|-7.9|0.0015
91657406|NCT01101022|183208275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||Task monitor||-2.9|-9.7|0.0003
91657407|NCT01101022|183208275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Organization of materials||-0.4|-5.9|0.0234
91852727|NCT01040689|183589215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.230|0.155|<0.0001
91657408|NCT01101022|183208276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||||-7.3|-14.9|<0.0001
91657409|NCT01101022|183208279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91657410|NCT01101022|183208280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|12.7|||ANCOVA|||Living with ADHD||12.7|5.4|<0.0001
91852728|NCT01040689|183589215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.110|<0.0001
91657411|NCT01101022|183208280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|15.5|||ANCOVA|||General Well-being||15.5|6.0|<0.0001
91657412|NCT01101022|183208281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Question 1||1.0|0.1|0.0184
91657413|NCT01101022|183208281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Question 4||-0.3|-0.9|0.0004
91657414|NCT01101022|183208282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-9.0|0.0019
91657415|NCT01101022|183208283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Inattention/Memory Problems||-1.9|-8.2|0.0017
91657416|NCT01101022|183208283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Hyperactivity/Restlessness||-0.7|-7.5|0.0174
91657417|NCT01101022|183208283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Impulsivity/Emotional Liability||-1.1|-6.8|0.0063
91657418|NCT01101022|183208283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Problems with Self-concept||-1.3|-7.5|0.0059
91657419|NCT01101022|183208284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|33.6|||ANCOVA|||Life Productivity||33.6|8.4|0.0016
91657420|NCT01101022|183208284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|22.5|||ANCOVA|||Psychological Health||22.5|1.6|0.0242
91657421|NCT01101022|183208284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|20.8|||ANCOVA|||Life Outlook||20.8|4.2|0.0038
91657422|NCT01101022|183208284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.0|||ANCOVA|||Relationships||18.0|-3.4|0.1752
91657423|NCT01101022|183208284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.6|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||23.6|5.9|0.0015
91657424|NCT00581139|183208302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||.02
91657425|NCT00581139|183208304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
91657426|NCT00581139|183208305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
91657427|NCT00581139|183208306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
91657428|NCT00581139|183208307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||.02
91852729|NCT01040689|183589216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|0.147|<0.0001
91852730|NCT01040689|183589216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.178|<0.0001
91657429|NCT00581139|183208308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||.04
91657430|NCT00581139|183208309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||.04
91901155|NCT03049735|183697129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
91657431|NCT00420303|183208310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47||||0.029||95.0|-32.93|-2.01|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate||Comparison of adjusted means||-2.01|-32.93|0.029
91657432|NCT00420303|183208311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.02||95.0|1.44|69.26|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||||69.26|1.44|0.02
91657433|NCT00420303|183208312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||||||0.007
91657434|NCT04455633|183208335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.18|||MMRM model|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model included fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization stratum of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||-0.18|-1.16|0.007
91657435|NCT04455633|183208335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.05|||MMRM model|||MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization stratum of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||-0.05|-1.06|0.030
91657436|NCT04455633|183208336|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|9.6||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|20.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||20.76|-1.55|0.091
91657437|NCT04455633|183208336|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|-0.8||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.95|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the CMH test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% CI are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||9.40|-10.95|0.883
91657438|NCT04455633|183208337|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|4.8||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|13.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the CMH test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% CI are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||13.73|-4.11|0.289
91657439|NCT04455633|183208337|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|-0.8||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|7.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the CMH test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% CI are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||7.16|-8.85|0.837
91657440|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.15|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Worst: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its worst score as a covariate.||-0.15|-1.32|0.014
91657441|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.13|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Worst: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its worst score as a covariate.||-0.13|-1.27|0.017
91657442|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.15|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Least: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its least score as a covariate.||-0.15|-1.33|0.015
91657443|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.11|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Least: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its least score as a covariate.||-0.11|-1.27|0.020
91657444|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.27|||MMRM model|||Pain Right Now: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain right now score as a covariate.||-0.27|-1.48|0.005
91712752|NCT03442725|183317171|OTHER|Estimate of the median difference and 90% CIs was determined by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|Median Difference|0.0||||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of tmax for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||1.000|-1.000|0.7039
91712753|NCT03442725|183317173|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.506|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|2.48||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-inf for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||2.480|0.914|
91901156|NCT03049735|183697131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
91657445|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.11|||MMRM model|||Pain Right Now: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain right now score as a covariate.||0.11|-1.07|0.111
91657446|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.35|||MMRM model|||Interference score averaged Over Questions 9A - G: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain interference score as a covariate.||0.35|-0.87|0.399
91657447|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.36|||MMRM model|||Interference score averaged Over Questions 9A - G: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain interference score as a covariate.||0.36|-0.83|0.441
91712754|NCT03442725|183317174|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.512|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|2.498||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-tlast for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||2.498|0.915|
91712755|NCT03442725|183317178|OTHER||Arithmetic Mean Difference|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.068||||||ANOVA comparison of fu of LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||0.068|-0.030|
91901157|NCT03049735|183697138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
91901158|NCT03254485|183697144|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.95|=0.3681
91852731|NCT01040689|183589216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|0.097|<0.0001
91657448|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49|||MMRM model|||General Activity: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline general activity score as a covariate.||0.49|-0.87|0.575
91657449|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.61|||MMRM model|||General Activity: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline general activity score as a covariate.||0.61|-0.71|0.880
91657450|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.71|||MMRM model|||Mood: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline mood score as a covariate.||0.71|-0.73|0.978
91657451|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.76|||MMRM model|||Mood: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline mood score as a covariate.||0.76|-0.65|0.877
91657452|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.07|||MMRM model|||Walking Ability: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline walking ability score as a covariate.||0.07|-1.32|0.079
91657453|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.2|||MMRM model|||Walking Ability: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline walking ability score as a covariate.||0.20|-1.16|0.163
91657454|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.62|||MMRM model|||Normal Work: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline normal work score as a covariate.||0.62|-0.73|0.875
91657455|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.62|||MMRM model|||Normal Work: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline normal work score as a covariate.||0.62|-0.69|0.914
91657456|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.12|||MMRM model|||Relations with Other People: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline relations with other people score as a covariate.||1.12|-0.26|0.219
91657457|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.87|||MMRM model|||Relations with Other People: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline relations with other people score as a covariate.||0.87|-0.47|0.551
91657458|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.3|||MMRM model|||Sleep: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline sleep score as a covariate.||-0.30|-1.63|0.005
91852732|NCT01040689|183589217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.243|0.170|<0.0001
91852733|NCT01040689|183589217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.179|<0.0001
91657459|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.39|||MMRM model|||Sleep: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline sleep score as a covariate.||-0.39|-1.68|0.002
91852734|NCT01040689|183589217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.146|<0.0001
91852735|NCT01040689|183589218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.249|0.177|<0.0001
91712756|NCT03442725|183317179|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.727|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|3.443||||||ANOVA comparison of Cmaxu for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||3.443|0.866|
91852736|NCT01040689|183589218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.275|0.203|<0.0001
91657460|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.69|||MMRM model|||Enjoyment of Life: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline enjoyment of life score as a covariate.||0.69|-0.73|0.955
91657461|NCT04455633|183208338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.59|||MMRM model|||Enjoyment of Life: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline enjoyment of life score as a covariate.||0.59|-0.79|0.777
91657462|NCT04455633|183208340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.03|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for the analysis with treatment and the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe) as fixed covariates.||-0.03|-0.67|0.031
91657463|NCT04455633|183208340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.17|||ANOVA|||ANOVA model was used for the analysis with treatment and the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe) as fixed covariates.||0.17|-0.48|0.351
91657464|NCT01027780|183208389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Please note that this analysis tested the differences between groups following the intervention.|GEE|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach was used to assess robustness of population parameters, such as treatment effects.||||||.007
91657465|NCT01027780|183208390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Note that this is the p value for differences between groups immediately following the intervention|GEE|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach was used to assess robustness of population parameters, such as treatment effects.||||||.04
91657466|NCT01027780|183208391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Difference between groups following intervention|ANOVA|||||||.03
91657467|NCT00365300|183208398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91657468|NCT01029353|183208399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-operative diagnosis (Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) or Isolated Intestinal Perforation (IP)) as covariates.||1.14|0.87|
91852737|NCT01040689|183589218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.125|<0.0001
91852738|NCT01040689|183589219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.168|<0.0001
91657469|NCT01029353|183208399|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Pre-specified threshold = 0.05|Robust Poisson regression|||A frequentist analysis. Using Robust Poisson regression with log link and center as repeated measure, and effect coding, test for an interaction between treatment (Initial Laparotomy/Initial Peritoneal Drain) and pre-operative diagnosis (Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) or Isolated Intestinal Perforation (IP)) as covariates. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-operative diagnosis as covariates.||||0.03
91712757|NCT03442725|183317180|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|3.699||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-infu for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||3.699|0.903|
91712758|NCT03442725|183317181|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.835|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.904|3.726||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-tlastu for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||3.726|0.904|
91901159|NCT03254485|183697145|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.74|||=|0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.38|13.9|||ANCOVA|||||13.90|-47.38|=0.2817
91901160|NCT03254485|183697146|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.297|||=|0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.591|0.997|||ANCOVA|||||0.997|-1.591|=0.6508
91657470|NCT01029353|183208399|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.95, 95% credible interval of (0.82, 1.11).|||
91657471|NCT01029353|183208399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariate.|A frequentist analysis. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-operative diagnosis (Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) or Isolated Intestinal Perforation (IP)) covariates.||1.26|0.75|
91852739|NCT01040689|183589219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.189|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.279|0.189|<0.0001
91852740|NCT01040689|183589219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.156|<0.0001
91657472|NCT01029353|183208400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.45|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.45|0.69|
91657473|NCT01029353|183208400|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|||||||||||||||||Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.95, 95% credible interval of (0.69, 1.30).|||
91657474|NCT01029353|183208401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis. Estimate based on model fit using only data from study survivors.||1.34|0.78|
91657475|NCT01029353|183208401|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis among study survivors. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.99, 95% credible interval of (0.78, 1.25).|||
91657476|NCT01029353|183208402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.06|0.66|
91657477|NCT01029353|183208402|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.82, 95% credible interval of (0.65, 1.02).|||
91657478|NCT01029353|183208403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.18|0.89|
91722426|NCT04390750|183337443|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.12||||0.132||95.0|-0.28|0.04|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.04|-0.28|0.132
91852741|NCT01040689|183589220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.170|0.096|<0.0001
91852742|NCT01040689|183589220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.110|<0.0001
91852743|NCT01040689|183589220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.06|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.134|0.060|<0.0001
91852744|NCT01040689|183589221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.348|0.216|<0.0001
91852745|NCT01040689|183589221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.237|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.368|0.237|<0.0001
91852746|NCT01040689|183589221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.21|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.342|0.210|<0.0001
91852747|NCT01040689|183589222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.262|0.131|<0.0001
91852748|NCT01040689|183589222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.187|<0.0001
91852749|NCT01040689|183589222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.118|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.249|0.118|<0.0001
91657479|NCT01029353|183208403|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.98, 95% credible interval of (0.84, 1.15).|||
91852750|NCT01040689|183589223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.301|0.178|<0.0001
91852751|NCT01040689|183589223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.339|0.216|<0.0001
91852752|NCT01040689|183589223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.291|0.168|<0.0001
91852753|NCT01040689|183589224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.207|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.330|0.207|<0.0001
91852754|NCT01040689|183589224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.251|0.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.374|0.251|<0.0001
91852755|NCT01040689|183589224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.277|0.153|<0.0001
91852756|NCT01040689|183589225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.246|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.388|0.246|<0.0001
91852757|NCT01040689|183589225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.247|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.388|0.247|<0.0001
91657480|NCT01029353|183208404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.31|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.31|0.64|
91722427|NCT04390750|183337444|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.05||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.06|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||0.06|-0.16|0.402
91852758|NCT01040689|183589225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.231|0.373|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.373|0.231|<0.0001
91852759|NCT01040689|183589226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.222|0.378|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.378|0.222|<0.0001
91657481|NCT01029353|183208404|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.86, 95% credible interval of (0.64, 1.16).|||
91657482|NCT01029353|183208405|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.36|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.36|0.69|
91657483|NCT01029353|183208405|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.92, 95% credible interval of (0.68, 1.25).|||
91657484|NCT01029353|183208406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.63|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||0.63|0.35|
91657485|NCT01029353|183208406|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.51, 95% credible interval of (0.37, 0.69).|||
91657486|NCT01029353|183208407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.36|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||2.36|1.04|
91657487|NCT01029353|183208407|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.45, 95% credible interval of (0.92, 2.31).|||
91657488|NCT01029353|183208408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.5|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||3.50|0.71|
91712759|NCT02603211|183317221|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"We will obtain 20 tactile image data sets from the breast tumor patients. The tactile images will be converted to size and deformation index. Then these two parameters will be converted to the risk score. This is a small number of patients for statistically significance study. Therefore, we plan to use the Leave-One-Out-Cross-Validation (LOOCV) technique to validate the human test results to determine the performance of the device.~We obtain the Risk Score. Risk Score is a unit less numerical value, which can be used as a scale to classify the tumor as malignant and benign. Based on the calculated size of the tumor and measured deformation index, the breast tumors are classified as benign and malignant using scoring method. The risk score will range from 0 to 5, where 0 represents the benign and 5 represents the malignant tumor.~Comparing the Risk Score and the Pathology reports we obtain sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the system."|||
91712760|NCT00758498|183317226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.71|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a factor and baseline value was a co-variate||||3.71|2.07|<0.0001
91712761|NCT00758498|183317226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|7.69|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a factor and baseline value was a co-variate||||7.69|6.06|<0.0001
91712762|NCT00758498|183317227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.25|||ANOVA|||||0.25|-0.20|0.8341
91712763|NCT00758498|183317227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.50|0.0441
91712764|NCT00758498|183317228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91852760|NCT01040689|183589226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.375|0.220|<0.0001
91657489|NCT01029353|183208408|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.31, 95% credible interval of (0.66, 2.62).|||
91712765|NCT00758498|183317228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91712766|NCT00758498|183317229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons made use of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||0.0012
91712767|NCT00758498|183317229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91712768|NCT00758498|183317230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on an analysis of variance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91712769|NCT00758498|183317230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on an ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91852761|NCT01040689|183589226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.217|0.373|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.373|0.217|<0.0001
91852762|NCT01040689|183589227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.115|<0.0001
91852763|NCT01040689|183589227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.143|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.143|<0.0001
91852764|NCT01040689|183589227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0003||95.0|0.059|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.059|0.0003
91852765|NCT04147897|183589229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Difference|1.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.28|||.06
91852766|NCT04147897|183589229|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.19|||.25
91852767|NCT04147897|183589230|SUPERIORITY||difference in difference|0.7||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.13|||0.37
91712770|NCT00758498|183317231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||0.0022
91852768|NCT04147897|183589230|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.13|||.44
91852769|NCT04147897|183589231|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|-0.4||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: -0.07|||.619
91852770|NCT04147897|183589231|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.26|||0.10
91852771|NCT04147897|183589232|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.15|||.32
91852772|NCT04147897|183589232|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|3.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.23|||0.16
91852773|NCT04147897|183589233|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.15|||.31
91852774|NCT04147897|183589233|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.17|||.28
91852775|NCT04147897|183589234|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.5||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.07|||.63
91712771|NCT00758498|183317231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons was based on ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0033
91712772|NCT00758498|183317237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91712773|NCT00758498|183317237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91852776|NCT04147897|183589234|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.9||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.12|||.46
91852777|NCT04147897|183589235|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|-0.4||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: -0.07|||0.67
91852778|NCT04147897|183589235|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.10|||0.53
91852779|NCT02115282|183589277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13||The p value was based on stratified log rank test, the threshold for significance was two-sided p value of 0.2%.|Log Rank|||||1.13|0.67|0.30
91852780|NCT02115282|183589278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21||The p value was based on stratified log rank test, stratified on the four randomization factors. The threshold for statistical significance was two-sided p value of 3.7% after taking into account the five interim analyses of OS into account.|Log Rank|||||1.21|0.82|0.94
91852781|NCT05797155|183589323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.67|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 1-month.||2.67|1.04|.036
91657490|NCT01029353|183208409|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A frequentist analysis.|This analysis used model identical to other by treatment analyses for binary outcome. RR estimated from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates. However, adjusted RR estimates could not be calculated due to the iteration limit being excessed in PROC GENMOD.|||
91657491|NCT01029353|183208409|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.16, 95% credible interval of (0.50, 2.65).|||
91657492|NCT01029353|183208410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.2|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||2.20|0.34|
91657493|NCT01029353|183208410|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.93, 95% credible interval of (0.45, 1.91).|||
91657494|NCT01029353|183208411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.42|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.42|0.37|
91657495|NCT01029353|183208411|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.75, 95% credible interval of (0.48, 1.16).|||
91657496|NCT01029353|183208412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.15|0.70|
91712774|NCT00758498|183317238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91901161|NCT02146326|183697148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.80
91712775|NCT00758498|183317238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91712776|NCT00758498|183317239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91712777|NCT00758498|183317239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is from an ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91712778|NCT00758498|183317241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8262|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8262
91712779|NCT00758498|183317241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0040
91712780|NCT00758498|183317242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9595|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9595
91657497|NCT01029353|183208412|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.91, 95% credible interval of (0.65, 1.27).|||
91712781|NCT00758498|183317242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|||||0.3539|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3539
91712782|NCT00758498|183317243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1038
91712783|NCT00758498|183317243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8112|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8112
91712784|NCT01516736|183317252|EQUIVALENCE|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.08|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||"The primary objective of the study was to compare LA-EP2006 and Neulasta in terms of the DSN in Cycle 1. It was to be shown in a hierarchical way:~1. that LA-EP2006 is equivalent (margin: ±1 day) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 and, if this was successfully established,~2. that LA-EP2006 is non-inferior (margin: -0.6 days) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1."||0.08|-0.40|0.05
91852782|NCT05797155|183589323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 3-months||1.72|0.72|.632
91852783|NCT05797155|183589324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.437|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the condition by time interaction).|This is a longitudinal analysis from baseline to 3-month follow-up||||.437
91852784|NCT05797155|183589325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.42|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 1-month||2.42|0.94|.088
91852785|NCT05797155|183589325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.07|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 3-months||2.07|0.64|.646
91852786|NCT05797155|183589326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.72|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 1-month||2.72|1.15|.010
91852787|NCT05797155|183589326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.11|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 3-months||2.11|0.89|.158
91852788|NCT03617263|183589327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0613
91852789|NCT03617263|183589328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<.0001
91852790|NCT03617263|183589328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<.0001
91657498|NCT01029353|183208413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.36|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.36|0.44|
91657499|NCT01029353|183208413|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.82, 95% credible interval of (0.49, 1.33).|||
91657500|NCT01029353|183208414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.77|0.75|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||0.75|-12.77|
91657501|NCT01029353|183208414|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -2.68, 95% credible interval of (-7.11, 1.83).|||
91657502|NCT01029353|183208415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.05|-0.46|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||-0.46|-17.05|
91657503|NCT01029353|183208415|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -3.23, 95% credible interval of (-8.08, 1.68).|||
91657504|NCT01029353|183208416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|22.27|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||22.27|-9.09|
91657505|NCT01029353|183208416|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was 1.65, 95% credible interval of (-3.97, 7.23).|||
91657506|NCT01029353|183208417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|7.91|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||7.91|-13.02|
91657507|NCT01029353|183208417|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -0.71, 95% credible interval of (-5.89, 4.48).|||
91657508|NCT01029353|183208418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.54|2.63|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||2.63|-30.54|
91657509|NCT01029353|183208418|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -1.78, 95% credible interval of (-7.44, 3.87).|||
91657510|NCT01029353|183208419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.04|0.64|
91657511|NCT01029353|183208419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.31|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.31|0.95|
91657512|NCT01029353|183208419|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.81, 95% credible interval of (0.63, 1.00). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.09, 95% credible interval of (0.90, 1.33).|||
91657513|NCT01029353|183208420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.13|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.13|0.52|
91657514|NCT01029353|183208420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.06|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.06|0.79|
91657515|NCT01029353|183208420|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.82, 95% credible interval of (0.53, 1.20). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.18, 95% credible interval of (0.74, 1.87).|||
91657516|NCT01029353|183208421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.27|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.27|0.42|
91657517|NCT01029353|183208421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.45|0.85|
91712785|NCT01516736|183317252|NON_INFERIORITY|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.08|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||"The primary objective of the study was to compare LA-EP2006 and Neulasta in terms of the DSN in Cycle 1. It was to be shown in a hierarchical way:~1. that LA-EP2006 is equivalent (margin: ±1 day) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 and, if this was successfully established,~2. that LA-EP2006 is non-inferior (margin: -0.6 days) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1."||0.08|-0.40|0.05
91852791|NCT03617263|183589329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0142
91852792|NCT03617263|183589329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0077
91852793|NCT03617263|183589330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2893|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2893
91852794|NCT03617263|183589330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1989|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1989
91852795|NCT03617263|183589331|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<.0001
91852796|NCT03617263|183589331|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<.0001
91852797|NCT03617263|183589332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8664|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8664
91657518|NCT01029353|183208421|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Pre-operative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.76, 95% credible interval of (0.48, 1.18). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.08, 95% credible interval of (0.83, 1.42).|||
91852798|NCT03617263|183589332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1137|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1137
91852799|NCT03617263|183589333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0487|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0487
91852800|NCT03617263|183589333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7743|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7743
91852801|NCT03617263|183589334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1174
91852802|NCT03617263|183589334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1483|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1483
91852803|NCT03617263|183589335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0941|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0941
91852804|NCT03617263|183589335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2378|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2378
91852805|NCT03617263|183589336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1542|||||||ANCOVA|||CK-18 Fragment - M30||||0.1542
91852806|NCT03617263|183589336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2037|||||||ANCOVA|||CK-18 Fragment - M65||||0.2037
91852807|NCT03617263|183589337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4431|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4431
91852808|NCT03617263|183589338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2289|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2289
91852809|NCT03617263|183589339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0853|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0853
91852810|NCT03617263|183589340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2559|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2559
91852811|NCT03617263|183589341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6800
91852812|NCT03617263|183589341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4587|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.4587
91852813|NCT03617263|183589342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9230
91852814|NCT03617263|183589342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7115|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7115
91852815|NCT03617263|183589343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1983|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1983
91852816|NCT03617263|183589344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7576|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7576
91852817|NCT03617263|183589345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2784|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2784
91852818|NCT03617263|183589345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0091
91852819|NCT03617263|183589346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0941|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0941
91852820|NCT03617263|183589346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0009
91852821|NCT03617263|183589347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1363|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1363
91852822|NCT03617263|183589347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3057|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.3057
91852823|NCT03617263|183589348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3323|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3323
91852824|NCT03617263|183589348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0624|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0624
91852825|NCT03617263|183589349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5050
91852826|NCT03617263|183589349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0279|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0279
91852827|NCT03617263|183589350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3508|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3508
91852828|NCT03617263|183589350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0059
91852829|NCT03617263|183589351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6800
91852830|NCT03617263|183589351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7310
91852831|NCT03617263|183589352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0896|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0896
91657519|NCT01029353|183208422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.05|0.47|
91791460|NCT00713310|183460622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||High-Low Dose Difference Success Rates|1.4||||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A total of about 100 subjects were to be enrolled in the study with the expectation that about 80 subjects (40/dose level) would complete. Minimum of 9 subjects in 5-8 year old range were to be enrolled, 4-5 per dose level (high/low). A 2-sided α=0.05 Fisher's Exact test has an estimated power of P=0.50 with 40 subjects per dose level.||23.0|-20.2|0.8193
91791461|NCT05028361|183460623|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-5.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|4.0||The upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference was 4% with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting was used.||The null hypothesis is the Simultaneous group is inferior (i.e., Simultaneous group will have a higher proportion) to the Sequential group in regards to the proportion of participants with at least one moderate or severe fever, chills, myalgia, or arthralgia event after visits 1 and 2 using 10% non-inferiority margin.||4.0|-15.2|0.0007
91791462|NCT05028361|183460624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3851|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3851
91791463|NCT05028361|183460625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2886|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2886
91791464|NCT05028361|183460627|OTHER||Comparison of Frequencies|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.64||The comparison in number of participants with reported SAEs regardless of relationship to study product were made using a difference in proportions along with a 95% confidence interval of the difference.||||||1.64|-1.66|
91852832|NCT03617263|183589352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0053
91791465|NCT01993836|183460628|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||||||Correlation between 6-week change in Tau and continuous cognitive index||0.18|-0.23|
91791466|NCT01993836|183460628|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.13||||||Correlation between 6-week change in Abeta and continuous cognitive index||0.13|-0.29|
91791467|NCT01993836|183460628|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.32||||||Correlation between 6-week change in P-Tau and continuous cognitive index||0.32|-0.08|
91791468|NCT01993836|183460629|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.22||||||Correlation between 6-week change in Tau/Abeta ratio and continuous cognitive index||0.22|-0.19|
91791469|NCT01993836|183460629|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.34||||||Correlation between 6-week change in P-Tau/Abeta ratio and continuous cognitive index||0.34|-0.05|
91791470|NCT01993836|183460630|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.360
91791471|NCT01993836|183460631|OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week Tau Change between anesthetic groups||||0.532
91712786|NCT00524771|183317260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test of two exponential survival curves . These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α of 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; VTE incidence rate of 9.1 VTE/10.000 WY and 4) non-inferiority limit on hazard ratio of 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypothesis: VTE hazard ratio for NuvaRing vs. COCs is higher or equal to 2. This analysis represents the a priori defined primary statistical analysis.||1.5|0.5|
91712787|NCT00524771|183317260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypothesis: VTE hazard ratio for NuvaRing vs. COC2 is higher or equal to 2.||1.7|0.4|
91712788|NCT00524771|183317260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Like analysis 1 (see above) but restricted to exposure period of less than 6 months.||2.2|0.3|
91712789|NCT00524771|183317260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.6|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Like analysis 1 (see above) but restricted to exposure period of 6 - 12 months.||2.6|0.3|
91712790|NCT00524771|183317260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Like analysis 1 (see above) but restricted to exposure period of \> 12 months.||2.3|0.3|
91712791|NCT00524771|183317261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||||The hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, Smoking, and treated hypertension.|||2.3|0.2|
91712792|NCT00524771|183317261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, and treated hypertension.|||2.6|0.2|
91712793|NCT02781818|183317262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91712794|NCT02781818|183317262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
91712795|NCT02781818|183317263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
91712796|NCT02781818|183317263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
91712797|NCT02781818|183317264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
91712798|NCT02781818|183317264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
91712799|NCT01877668|183317265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|30.21|||Large sample approximation|Missing response (MR)=non-response (NR)||||30.21|4.06|0.0102
91712800|NCT01877668|183317265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.22|40.26|||Large sample approximation|MR=NR||||40.26|14.22|<0.0001
91712801|NCT01877668|183317265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|31.66|||Large sample approximation|MR=NR||||31.66|5.45|0.0055
91712802|NCT01877668|183317266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06173||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|-0.0483|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation.||||-0.0483|-0.2910|0.0062
91712803|NCT01877668|183317266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06184||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3411|-0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation.||||-0.0980|-0.3411|0.0004
91852833|NCT03617263|183589353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5962|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5962
91852834|NCT03617263|183589353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3035|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.3035
91852835|NCT03617263|183589354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3482|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3482
91852836|NCT03617263|183589354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4176|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.4176
91852837|NCT03617263|183589355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9930
91852838|NCT03617263|183589355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3612|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.3612
91852839|NCT03617263|183589356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4373|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4373
91852840|NCT03617263|183589356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6248|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.6248
91852841|NCT03617263|183589357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0994|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0994
91852842|NCT03617263|183589357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3527|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.3527
91852843|NCT03617263|183589358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7065|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7065
91852844|NCT03617263|183589358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4096|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.4096
91852845|NCT03617263|183589359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2475|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2475
91852846|NCT03617263|183589359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1621|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1621
91657520|NCT01029353|183208422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.19|0.76|
91657521|NCT01029353|183208422|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.73, 95% credible interval of (0.52, 0.96). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.95, 95% credible interval of (0.68, 1.32).|||
91657522|NCT01029353|183208423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.06|0.61|
91657523|NCT01029353|183208423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.37|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.37|1.01|
91657524|NCT01029353|183208423|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.80, 95% credible interval of (0.61, 1.01). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.15, 95% credible interval of (0.94, 1.42).|||
91657525|NCT01029353|183208424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.01|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.01|0.46|
91657526|NCT01029353|183208424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.01|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.01|0.74|
91852847|NCT03617263|183589360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5862|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5862
91852848|NCT03617263|183589360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2026|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2026
91901162|NCT02146326|183697149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.80
91712804|NCT01877668|183317266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06145||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3213|-0.0797|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation.||||-0.0797|-0.3213|0.0012
91852849|NCT03617263|183589361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6434|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6434
91852850|NCT03617263|183589361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9895|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.9895
91852851|NCT00762619|183589385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852852|NCT00762619|183589386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852853|NCT00762619|183589387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852854|NCT00762619|183589388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91712805|NCT00707057|183317316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null versus alternative hypothesis regarding the analgesic efficacy using the SPID 8-12 was compared between the 2 treatment groups using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)model with each subject's outcome being his/her SPID 8-12 as the dependent variable in the ANCOVA model with terms for gender, treatment, and baseline pain score categories (stratified as ≤7 and \>7).||||<0.0001
91712806|NCT00707057|183317317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0017||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null versus alternative hypothesis regarding the durability of analgesic efficacy using the PID scores at 24, 36, and 48 hours.An individual subject was to achieve the 2-point reduction at all 3 terminal time points in order to be defined as responder.||||<0.0017
91712807|NCT00707057|183317318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Time to confirmed first perceptible relief was defined as the time to first perceptible relief, provided that the subject also stopped the second stopwatch indicating meaningful relief. For those who failed to achieve confirmed first perceptible and/or meaningful relief, a censored time was assigned.||||<0.0001
91712808|NCT00707057|183317319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Time to confirmed first perceptible relief was defined as the time to first perceptible relief, provided that the subject also stopped the second stopwatch indicating meaningful relief. For those who failed to achieve confirmed first perceptible and/or meaningful relief, a censored time was assigned.||||<0.0001
91852855|NCT00762619|183589389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852856|NCT00762619|183589390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91712809|NCT00707057|183317320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91712810|NCT00707057|183317321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91712811|NCT00707057|183317321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Estimated Confidence Interval: 95%Method: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91712812|NCT00707057|183317322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|With terms for treatment, gender, and baseline pain score categories stratified as ≤7 and \>7.||The PID at each time point prior to dose 2 was derived by substracting the pain intensity from the base line pain intensity, so that a higher value was indicative of a greater improvement. Time weighted SPID for each specified interval was derived by first multiplying each PID score by the time from the previous time point, and adding them together for each scheduled time point within the time interval. Time weighted TOTPAR for ech specified interval was similarly derived.||||<0.0001
91712813|NCT00707057|183317323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91852857|NCT00762619|183589391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852858|NCT00762619|183589392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852859|NCT00762619|183589393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91657527|NCT01029353|183208424|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.72, 95% credible interval of (0.48, 1.05). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.12, 95% credible interval of (0.71, 1.76).|||
91657528|NCT01029353|183208425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.04|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.04|0.51|
91657529|NCT01029353|183208425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.93|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to infants with IP.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.93|0.82|
91657530|NCT01029353|183208425|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.77, 95% credible interval of (0.51, 1.14). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.17, 95% credible interval of (0.76, 1.81).|||
91712814|NCT00707057|183317324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportions of subjects who rescued at or prior to hour 8, hour 10, and hour 12 were reported and 95% confidence intervals for the corresponding parameters were calculated.||||<0.0001
91712815|NCT00707057|183317325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The pain relief and PID scores at individual time points were summarized by descriptive statistics. The test and reference were compared at each individual time point at 24, 36 and 48 hours.||||<0.0001
91712816|NCT00707057|183317326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Global evaluation for dose 1, either at the time of rescue or at dose 2 whichever came first were summarized by descriptive statistics based on non-missing data. The range went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS).||||<0.0001
91791472|NCT01993836|183460631|OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week Abeta Change between anesthetic groups||||0.565
91791473|NCT01993836|183460631|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week P-Tau Change between anesthetic groups||||0.110
91791474|NCT01993836|183460632|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week Tau/Abeta ratio Change between anesthetic groups||||0.439
91791475|NCT01993836|183460632|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week P-Tau/Abeta Change between anesthetic groups||||0.082
91791476|NCT01993836|183460633|OTHER|||||||0.801|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.801
91791477|NCT05072470|183460659|SUPERIORITY|When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Speech intelligibility will be better with hearing aids plus Roger device, than with hearing aids alone when tested using standardized speech test at 0 dB SNR||||<0.01
91657531|NCT01029353|183208426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.89|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||0.89|0.31|
91657532|NCT01029353|183208426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.66|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||0.66|0.29|
91712817|NCT00707057|183317327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P- value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||"Global evaluation scores for dose 2 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics.~The subjects were to provide global evaluation of dose 2 study medication using a range that went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief."||||<0.0001
91657533|NCT01029353|183208427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.57|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||3.57|0.58|
91657534|NCT01029353|183208427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.5|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.50|1.06|
91657535|NCT01029353|183208428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.55|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||7.55|0.84|
91657536|NCT01029353|183208428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.88|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.88|0.38|
91657537|NCT01029353|183208429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.86|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||3.86|0.82|
91852860|NCT00762619|183589394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91657538|NCT01029353|183208429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.2|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||3.20|0.42|
91657539|NCT01029353|183208430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|8.05|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||8.05|0.35|
91852861|NCT00762619|183589395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852862|NCT00762619|183589396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852863|NCT00762619|183589397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852864|NCT00762619|183589398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852865|NCT00762619|183589399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852866|NCT00762619|183589400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852867|NCT00762619|183589401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852868|NCT00762619|183589402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852869|NCT00762619|183589403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91657540|NCT01029353|183208430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.44|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.44|0.10|
91852870|NCT00762619|183589404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852871|NCT00762619|183589405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852872|NCT00762619|183589406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852873|NCT00762619|183589407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852874|NCT00762619|183589408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852875|NCT00762619|183589409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852876|NCT00762619|183589410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852877|NCT00762619|183589411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852878|NCT00762619|183589412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852879|NCT00762619|183589413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852880|NCT00762619|183589414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91657541|NCT01029353|183208431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.69|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||2.69|0.62|
91852881|NCT00762619|183589415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852882|NCT00762619|183589416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852883|NCT00762619|183589417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852884|NCT00762619|183589418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852885|NCT00762619|183589419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852886|NCT00762619|183589420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852887|NCT00762619|183589421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852888|NCT00762619|183589422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91712818|NCT00707057|183317327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain scores categories.|ANCOVA|||"Maximum relief scores for dose 2 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics.~The subjects were to provide maximum relief scores for dose 2 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief."||||<0.0001
91852889|NCT00762619|183589423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852890|NCT00762619|183589424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852891|NCT00762619|183589425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852892|NCT00762619|183589426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852893|NCT00762619|183589427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852894|NCT00762619|183589428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852895|NCT00762619|183589429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852896|NCT00762619|183589430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852897|NCT00762619|183589431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852898|NCT00762619|183589432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852899|NCT00762619|183589433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852900|NCT00762619|183589434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852901|NCT00762619|183589435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852902|NCT00762619|183589436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852903|NCT00762619|183589437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852904|NCT00762619|183589438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852905|NCT00762619|183589439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91657542|NCT01029353|183208431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.32|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.32|0.27|
91901163|NCT02146326|183697150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.54
91657543|NCT01029353|183208432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.36|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.36|0.41|
91852906|NCT00762619|183589440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852907|NCT00762619|183589441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852908|NCT00762619|183589442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852909|NCT00762619|183589443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852910|NCT00762619|183589444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91901164|NCT02146326|183697151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.94
91852911|NCT00762619|183589445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852912|NCT00762619|183589446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91657544|NCT01029353|183208432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.42|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.42|0.69|
91852913|NCT00762619|183589447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852914|NCT00762619|183589448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852915|NCT00762619|183589449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852916|NCT00762619|183589450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852917|NCT00762619|183589451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91657545|NCT01029353|183208433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.45|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||4.45|0.04|
91852918|NCT00762619|183589452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91852919|NCT01350804|183589455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.2|1.0|0.0458
91852920|NCT01350804|183589455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.1|0.0152
91852921|NCT05793112|183589467|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|57.57||||0.154|||||||Wilcoxon range sum test|||||||0.154
91852922|NCT05793112|183589468|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
91852923|NCT05793112|183589469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.471|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.471
91712819|NCT00707057|183317327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||"Overall relief scores for dose 2 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics.~The subjects were to provide overall relief scores for dose 2 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief."||||<0.0001
91852924|NCT05793112|183589470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 0 (Baseline)||||0.057
91852925|NCT05793112|183589470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.169
91657546|NCT01029353|183208433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.49|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.49|0.44|
91657547|NCT01029353|183208434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|11.6|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||11.60|-14.10|
91657548|NCT01029353|183208434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|0.13|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||0.13|-15.84|
91657549|NCT01029353|183208435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.15|4.01|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||4.01|-27.15|
91657550|NCT01029353|183208435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.46|2.2|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.20|-17.46|
91852926|NCT05793112|183589470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.168
91852927|NCT05793112|183589470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.139
91852928|NCT05793112|183589470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.348
91852929|NCT05850520|183589471|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin.|Difference in LS means|-0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9||1-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline BCVA measurement was used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and the stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM.|8q8/3 -2q4||1.9|-2.0|<0.0001
91791478|NCT05072470|183460659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||When p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||Speech intelligibility will be better with hearing aids plus Roger device, than with hearing aids alone when tested using standardized speech test at -5 dB SNR||||.031
91791479|NCT05072470|183460659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||When p-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||Speech intelligibility will be equal or better with hearing aids plus Roger device than with hearing aids alone when tested using standardized speech test at +5 dB SNR.||||.046
91791480|NCT02514473|183460690|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.75|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; and participant as a random effect with adjustments for baseline, weight (less than \[\<\] 25 kilogram \[kg\] versus greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 25 kg) and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity (\<90 versus \>=90) at screening.||-0.75|-1.43|< 0.0001
91791481|NCT02106923|183460711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.505|105.514|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||105.514|100.505|<0.0001
91791482|NCT02106923|183460711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.809|103.823|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||103.823|96.809|<0.0001
91791483|NCT02106923|183460711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.507|98.721|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||98.721|93.507|<0.0001
91791484|NCT02106923|183460712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|112.81|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||112.81|92.30|0.0011
91791485|NCT02106923|183460712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.45|102.53|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||102.53|95.45|<0.0001
91791486|NCT02106923|183460712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.59|110.52|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||110.52|93.59|0.0002
91791487|NCT02106923|183460713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.446|105.373|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||105.373|100.446|<0.0001
91791488|NCT02106923|183460713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.448|103.738|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||103.738|96.448|<0.0001
91791489|NCT02106923|183460713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.758|99.311|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||99.311|93.758|<0.0001
91791490|NCT02106923|183460714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|104.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.522|110.412|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||110.412|99.522|<0.0001
91852930|NCT05850520|183589471|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin.|Difference in LS means|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7||1-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline BCVA measurement was used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and the stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM.|8q8/5 -2q4||2.7|-1.1|<0.0001
91852931|NCT05850520|183589472|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-2.6||Nominal p-value based on a non-parametric rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline CST, and the stratification variables.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline CST, and the stratification variables.|Estimation based on composite strategy for premature treatment discontinuation due to treatment related AEs and hypothetical strategy for premature treatment discontinuation due to other reasons. Hypothetical values imputed using a MI model.|8q8/3 -2q4||-2.6|-2.8|<0.0001
91657551|NCT01029353|183208436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|26.83|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||26.83|-18.84|
91657552|NCT01029353|183208436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|31.38|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||31.38|-13.29|
91712820|NCT00707057|183317328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Global evaluation scores for dose 3 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide global evaluation of dose 3 study medication using a range that went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
91852932|NCT05850520|183589472|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.7||Nominal p-value based on a non-parametric rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline CST, and the stratification variables.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline CST, and the stratification variables.|Estimation based on composite strategy for premature treatment discontinuation due to treatment related AEs and hypothetical strategy for premature treatment discontinuation due to other reasons. Hypothetical values imputed using a MI model.|8q8/5 -2q4||-1.7|-1.9|<0.0001
91852933|NCT05850520|183589476|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.1||||0.9804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|9.8||Nominal p-value for the two-sided test.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline CST measurement was used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and the stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond ICE (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM.|8q8/3 - 2q4||9.8|-10.0|0.9804
91852934|NCT05850520|183589476|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|1.2||||0.7863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|10.2||Nominal p-value for the two-sided test.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline CST measurement was used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and the stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond ICE (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM.|8q8/5 - 2q4||10.2|-7.7|0.7863
91657553|NCT01029353|183208437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.62|18.36|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||18.36|-24.62|
91712821|NCT00707057|183317328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and basee pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Maximum relief scores for dose 3 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide maximum relief of dose 3 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
91852935|NCT05850520|183589477|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.36||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.4||Nominal p-value for the two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score measurement used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond ICE (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing active injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach.|8q8/3 - 2q4||1.40|-2.1|0.6869
91852936|NCT05850520|183589477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.45|||ANCOVA|Baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score measurement used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond ICE (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing active injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach.|8q8/5 - 2q4||2.45|-1.2|
91852937|NCT05777785|183589487|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis determined that a sample size of 90 participants will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 (Cohen's D) using a paired t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9789||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
91852938|NCT05777785|183589489|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis determined that a sample size of 90 participants will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 (Cohen's D) using a paired t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
91712822|NCT00707057|183317328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Overall relief scores for dose 3 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide overall relief of dose 3 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
91852939|NCT05777785|183589490|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis determined that a sample size of 90 participants will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 (Cohen's D) using a paired t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91852940|NCT00304031|183589491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2||One-sided|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|This study was looking for a 20% reduction in hazard rate: null hypothesis (conventional arm): Median survival time (MST) = 14.0 mo.; alternative hypothesis (dose-dense arm): MST= 17.5 mo. A one-sided log-rank test at a significance level of 0.025 would have 80% power to detect this difference with a sample size of 750 patients (647 deaths were required for the final analysis).||1.20|0.88|0.63
91657554|NCT01029353|183208437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|9.63|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to infants with IP.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||9.63|-14.42|
91712823|NCT00707057|183317329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Global evaluation scores for dose 4 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide global evaluation of dose 4 study medication using a range that went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
91657555|NCT01029353|183208438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.41|11.55|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||11.55|-48.41|
91657556|NCT01029353|183208438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.96|8.06|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||8.06|-31.96|
91657557|NCT04538170|183208440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||threshold for statistical significance|Fisher Exact|||Preliminary work showed that approximately 25% of patients report phantom pain after orchidectomy. A difference of 20% between the GAC and ORC groups was considered relevant. Power was set to 80% and the significance level to 5%, resulting in a minimum of 40 women to be recruited, which was fulfilled.||||0.013
91657558|NCT00637299|183208443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
91657559|NCT00637299|183208444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91657560|NCT00959660|183208451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analysis with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||<0.001
91657561|NCT00959660|183208451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analysis with Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||<0.001
91657562|NCT00959660|183208452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||0.004
91657563|NCT00959660|183208452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Main effects analysis for Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||0.43
91852941|NCT00304031|183589492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|||1.00|0.75|0.06
91657564|NCT00959660|183208453|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Body Fat Mass||||<0.001
91657565|NCT00959660|183208453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Main effects analysis of Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Body Fat Mass||||0.001
91657566|NCT00959660|183208453|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Non-Bone Lean Mass||||<0.001
91657567|NCT00959660|183208453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Main effects analysis for Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Non-Bone Lean Mass||||0.25
91657568|NCT00959660|183208454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Subcutaneous Fat||||<0.001
91657569|NCT00959660|183208454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Main effects analysis for Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Subcutaneous Fat||||0.26
91657570|NCT00959660|183208454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Skeletal Muscle||||<0.001
91657571|NCT00959660|183208454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Main effects analysis of Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Skeletal Muscle||||0.26
91657572|NCT00849901|183208457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
91657573|NCT00262223|183208469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.6||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.23|||Generalized Estimating Equations|Negative binomial models with log link were applied to the alcohol consumption measure.||Between group analyses were conducted of time-by-treatment interaction that included the four study time points (baseline, end-of-treatment, 6-mos and 12-mos).||4.23|0.61|0.34
91657574|NCT00262223|183208470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Parameter Estimate|-16.15||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.18|-1.13||A trend-level time-by-treatment interaction (p = .096) was probed for simple effects, which revealed a significantly greater reduction in CAPS scores at end-of-treatment in the SS+Sertraline group relative to the SS+Placebo group.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were utilized to model PTSD outcomes. This method is an extension of the generalized linear model that handles correlated data arising from repeated measurements, requires no parametric distribution assumption, and provides robust inference with respect to misspecification of the within-subject correlation. A temporal within-subjects autoregressive \[AR(1)\] correlation matrix was used to model participants across timepoints.||-1.13|-31.18|0.04
91657575|NCT03828734|183208471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.263
91657576|NCT03828734|183208472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-06|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.000001
91657577|NCT03828734|183208473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.399
91852942|NCT00304031|183589493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Unmethylated MGMT||1.19|0.82|0.44
91657578|NCT00437658|183208479|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|-0.3||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|12.7|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rate = elogolix - DMPA-SC|||12.7|-13.4|0.9630
91657579|NCT00437658|183208479|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|-12.4||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|1.8|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rate = elogolix - DMPA-SC|||1.8|-26.7|0.1010
91657580|NCT00437658|183208480|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|9.5||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|24.2|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rates = elagolix - DMPA-SC|||24.2|-5.2|0.2048
91657581|NCT00437658|183208480|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|0.5||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|16.0|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rates = elagolix - DMPA-SC|||16.0|-15.1|0.9544
91852943|NCT00304031|183589493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.62||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Methylated MGMT||1.62|0.87|0.86
91852944|NCT00304031|183589494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Unmethylated MGMT||1.05|0.73|0.15
91852945|NCT00304031|183589494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Methylated MGMT||1.15|0.66|0.33
91852946|NCT00304031|183589495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.012
91657582|NCT00437658|183208483|OTHER||Least squares mean|-5.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-4.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-4.8|-6.2|< 0.0001
91657583|NCT00437658|183208483|OTHER||Least squares mean|-5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-4.5||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-4.5|-5.8|< 0.0001
91657584|NCT00437658|183208483|OTHER||Least squares mean|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-4.6||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-4.6|-6.0|< 0.0001
91791491|NCT02106923|183460714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.03|109.134|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||109.134|95.030|<0.0001
91791492|NCT02106923|183460714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.217|102.211|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||102.211|90.217|<0.0001
91791493|NCT02106923|183460715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.071||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.925|111.329|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||111.329|87.925|0.0027
91791494|NCT02106923|183460715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.792|113.859|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||113.859|102.792|<0.0001
91791495|NCT02106923|183460715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.071||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.116|116.559|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||116.559|92.116|0.0060
91791496|NCT02106923|183460716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.13|108.47|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||108.47|89.13|0.0008
91791497|NCT02106923|183460716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.77|102.8|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||102.80|94.77|<0.0001
91791498|NCT02106923|183460716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.09|114.74|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||114.74|94.09|0.0021
91791499|NCT03485495|183460717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is split evenly between primary and secondary endpoints. α=0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.007
91791500|NCT03485495|183460718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0272||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is split evenly between primary and secondary endpoints. α=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0272
91791501|NCT03485495|183460719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.8762
91657585|NCT00437658|183208484|OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-4.0||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS excluding dyspareunia at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-4.0|-5.1|<0.0001
91657586|NCT00437658|183208484|OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-3.9||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS excluding dyspareunia at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-3.9|-5.0|<0.0001
91657587|NCT00437658|183208484|OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-3.9||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS excluding dyspareunia at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-3.9|-5.1|< 0.0001
91657588|NCT00437658|183208485|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dysmenorrhea at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-1.2|-1.7|< 0.0001
91657589|NCT00437658|183208485|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.2||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dysmenorrhea at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-1.2|-1.6|< 0.0001
91657590|NCT00437658|183208485|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.4||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dysmenorrhea at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-1.4|-1.9|< 0.0001
91657591|NCT00437658|183208486|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dyspareunia at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
91657592|NCT00437658|183208486|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|2.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dyspareunia at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
91852947|NCT00304031|183589496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level of 0.05||||||<0.001
91657593|NCT00437658|183208486|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dyspareunia at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.5|-1.1|< 0.0001
91852948|NCT00304031|183589497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Two-sided test|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91852949|NCT00304031|183589498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91657594|NCT00437658|183208487|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-1.0|-1.4|< 0.0001
91657595|NCT00437658|183208487|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-1.0|-1.4|< 0.0001
91852950|NCT00304031|183589499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91852951|NCT00304031|183589500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91852952|NCT00304031|183589501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91852953|NCT00304031|183589502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91852954|NCT00304031|183589503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
91712824|NCT00707057|183317329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Maximum relief scores for dose 4 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide maximum relief of dose 4 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
91712825|NCT00707057|183317329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Overall relief scores for dose 4 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide overall relief of dose 4 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
91712826|NCT01781208|183317352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||r=0.68, unadjusted for age, gender, and histologic inflammation.|Pearson Correlation|||Continuous data were summarized using means and standard deviations. The relationship between ARFI (VTQ) liver shear wave speed and liver histologic fibrosis score were assessed using Pearson correlation. No a priori power analysis was performed.||||<0.0001
91712827|NCT01781208|183317352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||r=0.73, unadjusted for age, gender, and histologic inflammation score|Pearson Correlation|||Continuous data were summarized using means and standard deviations. The relationship between ARFI (VTIQ) liver shear wave speed and liver histologic fibrosis score were assessed using Pearson correlation. No a priori power analysis was performed.||||<0.0001
91712828|NCT00823134|183317363|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91852955|NCT00304031|183589504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91901165|NCT02146326|183697152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.96
91712829|NCT00823134|183317364|OTHER|The number of events found per category (PSG and ApneaLink Plus recording) will be compared. Events are Apneas and Hypopneas per hour of sleep, measured as Apnea-Hypopnea-Index (AHI), Apnea-Index (AI), Obstructive AI, Central AI, Hypopnea-Index (HI) and Oxygen Desaturation Index (ODI).|Correlation coefficient (Bland-Altman)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Per recording, the number of events found per category with PSG and ApneaLink Plus will be compared. As a summary, all PSG values and all ApneaLink Plus values per category will be collected in one graph (Bland-Altmann Plot). The correlation coefficient will be calculated per category. A correlation of \>75% will be seen as threshold for validity.||||
91791502|NCT03485495|183460720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.2082
91791503|NCT03485495|183460721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to NO-3 data.||||0.0038
91791504|NCT03485495|183460721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to NO-2 data.||||0.0018
91791505|NCT03485495|183460721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to NO data.||||0.46
91791506|NCT03485495|183460722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to ADP-PA data.||||0.88
91657596|NCT00437658|183208487|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
91657597|NCT00437658|183208488|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic tenderness at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
91791507|NCT03485495|183460722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to ADR-PA data.||||0.93
91791508|NCT00924170|183460761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan Meier|||Published response duration of 15 patients with leukemic adult T cell leukemia treated with Alemtuzumab.||||<0.0001
91791509|NCT00579436|183460775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
91657598|NCT00437658|183208488|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic tenderness at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.8|-1.1|< 0.0001
91657599|NCT00437658|183208488|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic tenderness at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
91657600|NCT00437658|183208489|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic induration at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.0|< 0.0001
91657601|NCT00437658|183208489|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic induration at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
91657602|NCT00437658|183208489|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic induration at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.0001
91657603|NCT00437658|183208490|OTHER||Least squares mean|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-25.4||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-25.4|-39.2|< 0.0001
91852956|NCT00304031|183589505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2184|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10,12, 22, 24, and 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.2184
91852957|NCT00304031|183589505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0763|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10,12, 22, 24, and 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, RPA class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. RPA class is reported here.||||0.0763
91852958|NCT00304031|183589505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5235|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10,12, 22, 24, and 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, RPA class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. MGMT status is reported here.||||0.5235
91852959|NCT00304031|183589506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Z-test of two proportions|||||||0.03
91852960|NCT00304031|183589507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Z-test of two proportions|||||||0.03
91852961|NCT00304031|183589508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided test||||||0.0002
91852962|NCT00304031|183589509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.005
91852963|NCT00304031|183589510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.018
91657604|NCT00437658|183208490|OTHER||Least squares mean|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-26.4||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-26.4|-39.4|< 0.0001
91657605|NCT00437658|183208490|OTHER||Least squares mean|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|-28.6||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-28.6|-43.0|< 0.0001
91657606|NCT00437658|183208491|OTHER||Least squares mean|-18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-13.1||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in monthly mean VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-13.1|-23.3|< 0.0001
91852964|NCT00304031|183589511|SUPERIORITY|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||||||0.1702|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI Symptom Severity Score (baseline, 10, 12, 22, 24, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.1702
91657607|NCT00437658|183208491|OTHER||Least squares mean|-23.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-18.5||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in monthly mean VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-18.5|-28.3|< 0.0001
91657608|NCT00437658|183208491|OTHER||Least squares mean|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-12.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-12.7|-23.1|< 0.0001
91657609|NCT03952143|183208503|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.07|0.321
91657610|NCT03952143|183208504|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-7.4|||ANCOVA|||||-7.4|-21.9|<0.001
91712830|NCT00078403|183317370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||||||P-value is pre-specified 1-sided test that PEG slows liver fibrosis progression. Accrual and follow-up on Arms A and B were halted at interim review for lack of fibrosis progression in Arm B (control arm). P-value is unadjusted for interim analysis.|Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Accrual and follow-up on Arms A and B were halted for futility at the first independent interim review of the primary endpoint conducted on May 2, 2007.||||0.58
91712831|NCT00619827|183317405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.94|||ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-2.99|0.0003
91712832|NCT01111565|183317413|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.4|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-11.5|=0.079
91852965|NCT00304031|183589511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8159|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10, 12, 22, 24, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. RPA is reported here.||||0.8159
91852966|NCT00304031|183589511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2174|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10, 12, 22, 24, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. MGMT status is reported here.||||0.2174
91852967|NCT00304031|183589512|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was run with overall survival as the outcome of interest and baseline scores as continuous covariates. The final model was determined from stepwise selection. EORTC physical functioning, EORTC role functioning, standardized HVLT-R recognition, standardized HVLT-R recall, and standardized COWA were included in the initial model. EORTC physical functioning is reported here.||||0.023
91852968|NCT00304031|183589512|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was run with overall survival as the outcome of interest and baseline scores as continuous covariates. The final model was determined from stepwise selection. EORTC physical functioning, EORTC role functioning, standardized HVLT-R recognition, standardized HVLT-R recall, and standardized COWA were included in the initial model. Standardized HVLT-R recognition is reported here.||||0.043
91712833|NCT01111565|183317413|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.2|||=|0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-11.2|=0.085
91712834|NCT01111565|183317414|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.5|||=|0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.1|-1.1|=0.148
91712835|NCT01111565|183317414|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.4|||=|0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.3|-1.0|=0.242
91657611|NCT03952143|183208505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-12.6|||ANCOVA|||||-12.6|-30.9|<0.001
91657612|NCT03952143|183208506|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.86||||||||2.86|0.02|
91657613|NCT03952143|183208507|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.66||||||For ≤30 minutes post meal||1.66|0.49|
91657614|NCT03952143|183208507|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.31||||||For ≤ 1 hour post meal||2.31|0.79|
91657615|NCT03952143|183208507|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.42||||||For \>1 to ≤2 hours post meal||2.42|1.06|
91657616|NCT03952143|183208507|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.23||||||For ≤2 hours post meal||2.23|1.05|
91657617|NCT03952143|183208507|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||||||For \>2 to ≤4 hours post meal||1.39|0.69|
91657618|NCT03952143|183208507|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.57||||||For ≤4 hours post meal||1.57|0.84|
91657619|NCT03952143|183208508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.53||||||||0.53|-1.10|
91657620|NCT03952143|183208509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.2||||||For Morning Premeal||7.2|-2.8|
91657621|NCT03952143|183208509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.0||||||For Morning 1-hour Postmeal||2.0|-12.6|
91657622|NCT03952143|183208509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.7||||||For Morning 2-hour Postmeal||1.7|-12.5|
91712836|NCT01111565|183317415|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.1|-1.8|=0.910
91657623|NCT03952143|183208509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.1||||||For Midday Premeal||10.1|-1.8|
91657624|NCT03952143|183208509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.1||||||For Midday 1-hour Postmeal||8.1|-5.7|
91657625|NCT03952143|183208509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.9||||||For Midday 2-hour Postmeal||8.9|-5.1|
91657626|NCT03952143|183208509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.6||||||For Evening Premeal||20.6|7.6|
91657627|NCT03952143|183208509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.1||||||For Evening 1-hour Postmeal||9.1|-5.1|
91657628|NCT03952143|183208509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.8||||||For Evening 2-hour Postmeal||6.8|-7.3|
91657629|NCT03952143|183208509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.1||||||For Bedtime||8.1|-4.7|
91657630|NCT03952143|183208510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.4||||||For Total Daily Insulin Dose||5.4|0.1|
91657631|NCT03952143|183208510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||For Daily Basal Insulin Dose||1.5|0.0|
91657632|NCT03952143|183208510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.5||||||For Daily Prandial Insulin Dose||4.5|-0.5|
91657633|NCT03952143|183208511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c \< 7%||1.52|0.69|0.924
91657634|NCT03952143|183208511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c ≤6.5%||1.49|0.64|0.908
91712837|NCT01111565|183317415|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.0|||=|0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-3.0|=0.291
91791510|NCT00579436|183460776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91791511|NCT00579436|183460777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91791512|NCT00579436|183460778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91791513|NCT01203852|183460838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for one sided t-test of mean change in blood pressure before and after treatment with metoprolol and chlorthalidone were \<0.0001.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91791514|NCT01203852|183460839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for one sided t-test for mean glucose change before and after treatment with chlorthalidone was \<0.0001.|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean glucose change after treatment with chlorthalidone||||<0.0001
91791515|NCT01203852|183460839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for one sided t-test for mean glucose change before and after treatment with metoprolol was 0.049.|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean glucose change after treatment with metoprolol||||0.049
91791516|NCT00899392|183460840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Student's t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91791517|NCT00899392|183460841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann Whitney Test-non parametric||||>0.05
91791518|NCT00899392|183460842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||>0.05
91791519|NCT00899392|183460843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0053
91791520|NCT02589600|183460845|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|1.05||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22|||Negative binomial regression||Placebo group is the reference group||Negative binomial regression implemented in the SAS®️ GENMOD procedure with fracture outcome as the dependent variable; duration of follow-up as an offset to account for each participant's exposure; treatment arm as the main independent factor of interest.|1.22|.90|0.7251
91712838|NCT03150082|183317416|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.|Percent ratio|96.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.13|103.0|||||Percent ratio (GR37547 500 mg/ciprofloxacin 500 mg reference) has been presented.|||103.00|91.13|
91712839|NCT03150082|183317417|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.|Percent ratio|93.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.09|100.82|||||Percent ratio (GR37547 500 mg/ciprofloxacin 500 mg reference) has been presented.|||100.82|86.09|
91712840|NCT03150082|183317418|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.|Percent ratio|96.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.17|103.11|||||Percent ratio (GR37547 500 mg/ciprofloxacin 500 mg reference) has been presented.|||103.11|91.17|
91712841|NCT03150082|183317419|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.||||||0.3499||||||"P value was analyzed using a nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test."|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.3499
91852969|NCT00304031|183589512|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was run with overall survival as the outcome of interest and baseline scores as continuous covariates. The final model was determined from stepwise selection. EORTC physical functioning, EORTC role functioning, standardized HVLT-R recognition, standardized HVLT-R recall, and standardized COWA were included in the initial model. Standardized COWA is reported here.||||0.021
91852970|NCT00304031|183589513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2357|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with NCF Composite Score (baseline, 10, 22, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.2357
91852971|NCT00304031|183589513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with NCF Composite Score (baseline, 10, 22, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. RPA is reported here.||||0.0147
91852972|NCT00304031|183589513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with NCF Composite Score (baseline, 10, 22, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. MGMT Status is reported here.||||0.457
91852973|NCT00304031|183589514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided test||||||0.02
91712842|NCT02363387|183317441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|18.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.8|2.7|<0.001
91852974|NCT00304031|183589515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.99
91852975|NCT00304031|183589516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.33
91852976|NCT00566735|183589532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of freedom = 28||Independent t-test to assess differences between the placebo and galantamine groups in regard to pre- and post-ECT scores on the Delayed Memory Index (DMI).||||<0.05
91712843|NCT00357877|183317478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.11||No interim analyses were done and no adjustment made for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|The primary outcome analysis included treatment and site as class variables and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||We hypothesized a lower increment score for the active treatment group but carried out two-tailed hypothesis testing. Sample size was estimated with simulated data with rank normalized scores. We calculated that 832 participants would yield a power of 90% to detect a 20% reduction in caries incidence (from a hypothesized mean increment of 1.5), and adopted a target of 1000 randomized participants to allow for attrition.||1.11|-0.60|0.56
91712844|NCT00357877|183317479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.46||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALYZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|Model included treatment and site as class variables and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||hypothesized a reduced caries increment in active arm, though conducted two-tailed hypothesis test.||1.46|-0.77|0.54
91852977|NCT04603924|183589536|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"For the analysis of this efficacy endpoint, missing scores of the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement will be assumed to be \> 2 (i.e., no hospital discharge). Median time-to-clinical improvement and corresponding 95% confidence interval were estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curves. In some cases the 95% confidence interval was Not Evaluable (NE) by this method."|||
91901166|NCT02146326|183697153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.17
91852978|NCT04603924|183589537|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"For the analysis of this efficacy endpoint, missing scores of the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement were be assumed to be \> 2 (i.e., no hospital discharge). Median number of days to a 2-point improvement and corresponding 95% confidence interval were estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curves.~In some cases the 95% confidence interval was Not Evaluable (NE) by this method."|||
91852979|NCT03762668|183589543|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in VA was declared if the Upper Confidence Limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||mixed effects repeated measures model||test minus control|||0.01||
91852980|NCT02164240|183589545|OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.7||descriptive statistics only||||Clinical benefit rate of at least 30% at 16 weeks for the entire, combined population, was considered worthy of further study.||24.7|0|
91852981|NCT02544152|183589563|OTHER||||||=|0.987|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by sex and baseline stool consistency||||=0.9870
91852982|NCT00465816|183589574|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenA GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenA GMT of the Nimenrix + Twinrix group compared to Nimenrix one, two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.22|0.8|
91852983|NCT00465816|183589574|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenC GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenC GMT of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to Nimenrix one, Two-sided 95% CI from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.21|0.68|
91852984|NCT00465816|183589574|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenW-135 GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.19|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenW-135 GMT of the Nimenrix+Twinrixg roup compared to Nimenrix one, Two-sided 95% CI from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.19|0.87|
91657635|NCT01866319|183208513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.72|||Log Rank|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1)||0.72|0.46|<0.00001
91657636|NCT01866319|183208513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.72|||Log Rank|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1)||0.72|0.47|<0.00001
91852985|NCT00465816|183589574|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenY GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenY GMT of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to Nimenrix one, Two-sided 95% CI from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.19|0.85|
91657637|NCT01866319|183208513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.75869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||Log Rank|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1)||1.21|0.77|0.75869
91657638|NCT01866319|183208514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.00052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1).||0.83|0.47|0.00052
91657639|NCT01866319|183208514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.00358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1).||0.90|0.52|0.00358
91901167|NCT02146326|183697154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.47
91657640|NCT01866319|183208514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.51319||95.0|0.67|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1).||1.22|0.67|0.51319
91657641|NCT01866319|183208515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|16.1||||0.00013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|24.5|||Miettinen & Nurmimen|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1)||24.5|7.8|0.00013
91657642|NCT01866319|183208515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|17.2||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|25.6|||Miettinen & Nurmimen|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1)||25.6|9.5|0.00002
91657643|NCT01866319|183208515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-1.1||||0.82636||95.0|-10.6|8.6|||Miettinen & Nurmimen|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1)||8.6|-10.6|0.82636
91794658|NCT03981822|183468107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-61.96||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.37|2.27||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||2.27|-103.37|0.0603
91794659|NCT03981822|183468107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.87||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.71|-18.83||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-18.83|-138.71|0.0109
91657644|NCT01328093|183208530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||<0.001
91657645|NCT01328093|183208531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value is for ≥7% increase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.110
91657646|NCT01328093|183208531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ≥7% decrease.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91657647|NCT01328093|183208532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.353||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.353
91657648|NCT01328093|183208533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.698||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.698
91657649|NCT01328093|183208534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.924||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.924
91657650|NCT01328093|183208535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.045||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Total Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.045
91657651|NCT01328093|183208535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.032||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Positive Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.032
91791521|NCT01143701|183460857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Utilizing the full sample (n=577), an intent-to-treat analyses was conducted comparing patient outcomes across intervention and control groups using a three-level mixed model. Baseline ratings were entered as a covariate. Post-baseline ratings collected closest to 12-months post-baseline were entered as dependent variables.||-1.19|-5.89|<.05
91657652|NCT01328093|183208535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.509||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Negative Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.509
91852986|NCT00465816|183589575|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for group difference (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) in the percentage of subjects with vaccine seroconversion was ≥ pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|3.9||||||To assess the Non-inferiority of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to Twinrix one, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rates for hepatitis A (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) was computed.||3.9|-1.19|
91657653|NCT01328093|183208535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.04||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.040
91901168|NCT02146326|183697155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.60
91657654|NCT01328093|183208536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.601||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.601
91712845|NCT00357877|183317480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.23||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALYZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|treatment and site included as class variables and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||Hypothesized lower increment in active arm, though hypothesis testing was two-sided.||0.23|-1.25|0.18
91657655|NCT01328093|183208537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.322||95.0||||P-value is for ER/Facility (Psych) visits. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.322
91657656|NCT01328093|183208537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.099||95.0||||P-value is for ER/Facility (Non-Psych) visits. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.099
91852987|NCT00465816|183589576|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for group difference (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) in the percentage of subjects with vaccine seroconversion was ≥ pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Percentage difference|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|2.92||||||To assess the Non-inferiority of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to the Twinrix one, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in seroprotection rates for hepatitis B (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) was computed.||2.92|-2.64|
91852988|NCT02139046|183589599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|30.9||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the Cui, Hung, and Wang (CHW) Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||30.9|20.4|<0.001
91901169|NCT02146326|183697156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.37
91657657|NCT01328093|183208537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.787||95.0||||P-value is for Outpatient (Non-Psych or Dentist) visits. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.787
91657658|NCT01328093|183208538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.892||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.892
91657659|NCT01328093|183208539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.63||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.630
91657660|NCT01328093|183208540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.679||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.679
91657661|NCT01328093|183208541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.055||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.055
91657662|NCT01328093|183208542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.891||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.891
91852989|NCT02139046|183589599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|55.8||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||55.8|43.9|<0.001
91657663|NCT01328093|183208544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for Treatment-Emergent Suicidal Ideation.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.064
91901170|NCT02146326|183697157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.83
91657664|NCT01328093|183208544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.205||95.0||||P-value is for Treatment-Emergent Suicidal Behavior.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.205
91657665|NCT04421508|183208546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.6316
91657666|NCT04421508|183208546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.502||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|3.977||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value are from a logistic regression model modelling the response using the covariates treatment, age, number of co-morbidities and baseline oxygem level|Regression, Logistic|||||3.977|0.567|0.4127
91657667|NCT04421508|183208554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6635|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6635
91852990|NCT02139046|183589599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|10.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|17.0||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||17.0|3.5|0.001
91852991|NCT02139046|183589599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|7.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|15.9||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||15.9|-0.8|0.043
91852992|NCT02139046|183589600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|2.1||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.0||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||9.0|-4.9|0.503
91852993|NCT02139046|183589600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|5.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|13.0||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||13.0|-1.2|0.064
91852994|NCT02139046|183589600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|1.8||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.7||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||8.7|-5.1|0.561
91852995|NCT02139046|183589600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.5||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.9||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||6.9|-8.0|0.869
91852996|NCT02139046|183589601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|53.6||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||53.6|41.6|<0.001
91852997|NCT02139046|183589601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|60.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|66.3||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||66.3|54.6|<0.001
91657668|NCT03980483|183208556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.19|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||2.21|1.19|0.0023
91852998|NCT02139046|183589601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|7.8||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|16.1||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||16.1|-0.5|0.036
91852999|NCT02139046|183589601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|3.3||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|11.6||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||11.6|-4.9|0.364
91853000|NCT00818454|183589602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91853001|NCT00818454|183589603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91853002|NCT00818454|183589604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.159
91853003|NCT00818454|183589605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8278|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.8278
91853004|NCT00818454|183589606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5098|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.5098
91853005|NCT00818454|183589607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6591|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.6591
91853006|NCT00818454|183589608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3631|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.3631
91853007|NCT00818454|183589609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Enter additional comments here, if non-inferiority or equivalence analysis||||||0.6787|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.6787
91853008|NCT00818454|183589610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, period, week, and treatment by week interaction||||||0.0001
91901171|NCT02146326|183697158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.64
91853009|NCT00818454|183589611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, period, week, and treatment by week interaction||||||0.0003
91712846|NCT00357877|183317481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.45||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALYZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|Model included treatment and site as class variables, and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||Hypothesized a lower increment for active treatment arm, although hypothesis testing was two-sided.||0.45|-1.80|0.24
91853010|NCT00779870|183589616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91853011|NCT00779870|183589616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
91853012|NCT03593213|183589641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||=|0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.29||The significance level was 0.05 using the log rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (cariprazine 3.0 or 4.5 mg/day vs. placebo) was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable.|||1.29|0.25|=0.1576
91853013|NCT03593213|183589641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||=|0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.45||The significance level was 0.05 using the log rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (cariprazine 3.0 or 4.5 mg/day vs. placebo) was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable.|||1.45|0.26|=0.2066
91853014|NCT00566527|183589649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Measles Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.87||||||Measles difference||0.87|-2.82|
91657669|NCT03980483|183208556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.02|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||1.89|1.02|0.0362
91657670|NCT03980483|183208556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.62|3.37|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||3.37|1.62|<0.0001
91712847|NCT03570047|183317482|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.766|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.766|0.558|<0.0001
91657671|NCT03980483|183208556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.5|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.95|0.50|0.0230
91712848|NCT03570047|183317482|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|0.977|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.977|0.642|0.0291
91657672|NCT03980483|183208556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.43|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.82|0.43|0.0013
91657673|NCT03980483|183208559|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 97.5 % Confidence Interval (CI) in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|0.975|-18.6|-2.3|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 97.5% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-2.3|-18.6|
91657674|NCT03980483|183208559|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 97.5% CI in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.975|-21.2|-4.8|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 97.5% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-4.8|-21.2|
91657675|NCT05150964|183208654|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05, Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (NAL/National Acoustic Laboratory or DSL/Desired Sensation Level) and ASG (Adaptive Situational Gain) setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor.~Null hypothesis: The hearing aid fitting prescription will have no effect on the speech reception thresholds."||||<0.05
91657676|NCT05150964|183208654|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05, Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (NAL/National Acoustic Laboratory or DSL/Desired Sensation Level) and ASG (Adaptive Situational Gain) setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on the speech reception threshold."||||>0.05
91657677|NCT05150964|183208655|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null Hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on the Word Recognition Scores."||||<0.05
91657678|NCT05150964|183208655|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null Hypothesis: The presentation level will have no effect on the Word Recognition Scores."||||<0.05
91853015|NCT00566527|183589649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Mumps Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.32||||||Mumps difference||1.32|-1.20|
91853016|NCT00566527|183589649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Rubella Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.03||||||Rubella difference||1.03|-1.55|
91853017|NCT00566527|183589649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -10. Values are shown as percentages.|Varicella Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.1||||||Varicella difference||1.10|-1.28|
91853018|NCT00566527|183589650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Measles Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|-1.87||||||Measles difference||-1.87|-6.44|
91901172|NCT02146326|183697159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.37
91657679|NCT05150964|183208655|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null Hypothesis: Hearing aid prescription will have no effect on the Word Recognition Scores."||||<0.05
91657680|NCT05150964|183208656|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Presentation level will have no effect on multi-word recognition scores."||||<0.05
91657681|NCT05150964|183208656|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on multi-word recognition scores."||||>0.05
91853019|NCT00566527|183589650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Mumps Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.01||||||Mumps difference||1.01|-1.71|
91853020|NCT00566527|183589650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Rubella Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.09||||||Rubella difference||1.09|-1.34|
91853021|NCT00566527|183589650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -10. Values are shown as percentages.|Varicella Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.1||||||Varicella difference||1.10|-1.83|
91657682|NCT05150964|183208656|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Hearing aid prescription will have no effect on multi-word recognition scores."||||>0.05
91657683|NCT05150964|183208657|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Presentation level will have no effect on Nonword Detection scores."||||<0.05
91657684|NCT05150964|183208657|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Hearing aid prescription will have no effect on Nonword Detection scores."||||<0.05
91853022|NCT01152190|183589702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.121||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 between the tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.121
91853023|NCT01152190|183589703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.226||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 between the tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.226
91901173|NCT02146326|183697160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.13
91657685|NCT05150964|183208657|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on Nonword Detection scores."||||>0.05
91657686|NCT05150964|183208658|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on Rapid Word Learning scores."||||>0.05
91657687|NCT05150964|183208658|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Presentation level will have no effect on Rapid Word Learning scores."||||>0.05
91657688|NCT05150964|183208658|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Hearing aid prescripton will have no effect on Rapid Word Learning scores."||||>0.05
91853024|NCT01152190|183589704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.208||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the prostate peripheral zone RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.208
91657689|NCT01062256|183208674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 4-hour postdose period.||1.10|0.64|0.216
91712849|NCT03570047|183317482|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.842|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.842|0.592|0.0001
91712850|NCT03570047|183317482|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.879|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.879|0.591|0.0012
91657690|NCT01062256|183208674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.18||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 4-hour postdose period.||1.18|0.72|0.513
91657691|NCT01062256|183208674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 4-hour postdose period.||1.38|0.87|0.459
91657692|NCT01062256|183208675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 2-hour postdose period.||1.09|0.65|0.195
91657693|NCT01062256|183208675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 2-hour postdose period.||1.16|0.71|0.438
91657694|NCT01062256|183208675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 2-hour postdose period.||1.34|0.87|0.497
91657695|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.12||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts within 15 minutes postdose||1.12|0.64|0.250
91901174|NCT02146326|183697161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.93
91657696|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts within 15 minutes postdose||1.25|0.75|0.802
91657697|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts within 15 minutes postdose||1.39|0.94|0.188
91712851|NCT03570047|183317483|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.843|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.843|0.614|<0.0001
91712852|NCT03570047|183317483|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.825|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.825|0.529|0.0003
91657698|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.04||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 15 and 30 minutes postdose||1.04|0.58|0.091
91657699|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.19||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 15 and 30 minutes postdose||1.19|0.69|0.465
91657700|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.46||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 15 and 30 minutes postdose||1.46|0.92|0.207
91657701|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 30 and 45 minutes postdose||1.06|0.62|0.122
91657702|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 30 and 45 minutes postdose||1.07|0.66|0.165
91657703|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 30 and 45 minutes postdose||1.32|0.83|0.711
91657704|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 45 and 60 minutes postdose||1.11|0.64|0.215
91712853|NCT03570047|183317483|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.879|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.879|0.618|0.0007
91712854|NCT03570047|183317483|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.874|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.874|0.583|0.0011
91853025|NCT01152190|183589704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.066||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the prostate peripheral zone RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.066
91853026|NCT01152190|183589704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.195||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in bladder neck RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.195
91853027|NCT01152190|183589704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.625||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in bladder neck RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.625
91657705|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.16||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 45 and 60 minutes postdose||1.16|0.67|0.367
91657706|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 45 and 60 minutes postdose||1.35|0.82|0.687
91712855|NCT03570047|183317484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|0.984|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.984|0.872|0.0127
91712856|NCT03570047|183317484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.2893||95.0|0.881|1.039|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.039|0.881|0.2893
91712857|NCT03570047|183317484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.004|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.004|0.881|0.0640
91712858|NCT03570047|183317484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|1.103|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.103|0.958|0.4404
91712859|NCT01765296|183317500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"The SD for the primary efficacy outcome measure (WOMAC-Pain Subscale in the index joint) has been assumed to be 11 units. A 10% between-group difference was chosen as the non-inferiority margin for this study. The following parameters were used to calculate the sample size needed for this non-inferiority study.~* Level of significance, α = 0.025(one-sided)~* Statistical power, 1-β = 0.95~* Difference between test group and comparison group, Δ=0, δ (\>0) = non-inferiority margin"||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy outcome measure is the change in the WOMAC-Pain Subscale in the index joint at Week 6 vs. pre-dose Baseline and was analyzed using a mixed effect ANCOVA. Statistical tests to determine superiority between two treatment arms, CG100649 2 mg and placebo, are two-sided, and Non-inferiority between two treatment arms, CG100649 2 mg and celecoxib 200 mg is based on a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval of the difference.||||0.011
91657707|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.32||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 60 and 75 minutes postdose||1.32|0.67|0.730
91657708|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 60 and 75 minutes postdose||1.39|0.74|0.923
91657709|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 60 and 75 minutes postdose||1.40|0.83|0.573
91657710|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 75 and 90 minutes postdose||1.16|0.61|0.289
91657711|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 75 and 90 minutes postdose||1.18|0.64|0.379
91657712|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 75 and 90 minutes postdose||1.37|0.79|0.785
91657713|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.11||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 90 and 105 minutes postdose||1.11|0.60|0.194
91657714|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 90 and 105 minutes postdose||1.11|0.62|0.212
91657715|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.34||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 90 and 105 minutes postdose||1.34|0.77|0.901
91657716|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 105 and 120 minutes postdose||1.23|0.70|0.600
91657717|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 105 and 120 minutes postdose||1.29|0.74|0.853
91657718|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 105 and 120 minutes postdose||1.39|0.79|0.736
91657719|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 120 and 135 minutes postdose||1.30|0.70|0.744
91657720|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.33||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 120 and 135 minutes postdose||1.33|0.72|0.904
91657721|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 120 and 135 minutes postdose||1.39|0.77|0.828
91657722|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 135 and 150 minutes postdose||1.08|0.59|0.147
91657723|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.16||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 135 and 150 minutes postdose||1.16|0.65|0.345
91657724|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.44||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 135 and 150 minutes postdose||1.44|0.83|0.532
91657725|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 150 and 165 minutes postdose||1.15|0.61|0.261
91657726|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.24||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 150 and 165 minutes postdose||1.24|0.69|0.601
91657727|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.47||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 150 and 165 minutes postdose||1.47|0.84|0.470
91657728|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 165 and 180 minutes postdose||1.32|0.71|0.834
91657729|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 165 and 180 minutes postdose||1.43|0.81|0.628
91657730|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 165 and 180 minutes postdose||1.48|0.83|0.481
91657731|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 180 and 195 minutes postdose||1.37|0.65|0.749
91657732|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.35||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 180 and 195 minutes postdose||1.35|0.70|0.857
91657733|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.41||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 180 and 195 minutes postdose||1.41|0.76|0.847
91853028|NCT01152190|183589705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.439||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the prostate transition zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.439
91657734|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.09||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 195 and 210 minutes postdose||1.09|0.54|0.146
91657735|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.29||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 195 and 210 minutes postdose||1.29|0.69|0.702
91657736|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.69||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 195 and 210 minutes postdose||1.69|0.88|0.228
91657737|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.09||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 210 and 225 minutes postdose||1.09|0.51|0.130
91657738|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 210 and 225 minutes postdose||1.21|0.60|0.371
91657739|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.58||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 210 and 225 minutes postdose||1.58|0.82|0.430
91657740|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.13||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 225 and 240 minutes postdose||1.13|0.51|0.177
91657741|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.28||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 225 and 240 minutes postdose||1.28|0.64|0.580
91657742|NCT01062256|183208676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.7||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 225 and 240 minutes postdose||1.70|0.84|0.333
91657743|NCT01062256|183208677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.27||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 1 hour postdose||0.27|-0.08|0.264
91657744|NCT01062256|183208677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 1 hour postdose||0.14|-0.20|0.737
91657745|NCT01062256|183208677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 1 hour postdose||0.01|-0.27|0.078
91657746|NCT01062256|183208677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.36||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 2 hour postdose||0.36|-0.04|0.125
91657747|NCT01062256|183208677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 2 hour postdose||0.24|-0.16|0.688
91657748|NCT01062256|183208677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 2 hour postdose||0.05|-0.29|0.166
91657749|NCT01062256|183208677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.35||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 3 hour postdose||0.35|-0.09|0.233
91853029|NCT01152190|183589705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.867||0.86||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the prostate transition zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.860
91657750|NCT01062256|183208677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 3 hour postdose||0.19|-0.24|0.848
91657751|NCT01062256|183208677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 3 hour postdose||0.03|-0.33|0.093
91657752|NCT01062256|183208677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.34||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 4 hour postdose||0.34|-0.14|0.406
91657753|NCT01062256|183208677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.24||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 4 hour postdose||0.24|-0.24|0.991
91657754|NCT01062256|183208677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.09||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 4 hour postdose||0.09|-0.30|0.306
91657755|NCT01062256|183208678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma statistic|0.15||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.39||p-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores, controlling for gender, time stratum, and site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparison of global evaluation of study medication.||0.39|-0.09|0.254
91657756|NCT01062256|183208678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||weighted Goodman-Kruskal Gamma statistic|-0.01||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.23||p-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores, controlling for gender, time stratum, and site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparison of global evaluation of study medication.||0.23|-0.25|0.949
91853030|NCT01152190|183589705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.937||0.24||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the prostate peripheral zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.240
91853031|NCT01152190|183589705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.729||0.839||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the prostate peripheral zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.839
91657757|NCT01062256|183208678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||weighted Goodman-Kruskal Gamma statistic|-0.12||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.08||p-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores, controlling for gender, time stratum, and site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparison of global evaluation of study medication.||0.08|-0.32|0.256
91657758|NCT03561883|183208701|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.062||||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.146|||MMRM||Treatment difference (IW-3718 - placebo)|Treatment difference calculated as least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.146|-0.270|0.5566
91657759|NCT03561883|183208702|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.008||||0.9226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.159|||MMRM|||Treatment difference calculated as LSM change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an MMRM model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.159|-0.176|0.9226
91657760|NCT03561883|183208703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.5|||||95% confidence interval (CI) for Difference in Responder Rates is obtained using the Newcombe CI.|||9.5|-6.9|
91657761|NCT03561883|183208703|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio for Response (IW-3718 : placebo)|Treatment difference was calculated as the difference in the responder rates at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo. The 95% CI for the difference in the responder rates was obtained using the Newcombe CI. P value was based on the odds ratio for the response rate (IW-3718:placebo) obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for baseline esophagitis status and baseline heartburn severity level (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3).||1.48|0.76|0.7424
91657762|NCT03561883|183208704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion Ratio|1.171||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.714||Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion.|Negative binomial model||Difference in Proportion Ratio, (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI) - (Placebo + PPI)|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||1.714|0.800|0.4164
91657763|NCT03561883|183208704|OTHER|Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion|Difference in Proportion Ratio|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.123|||||Difference in Proportion Ratio, (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI) - (Placebo + PPI)|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||0.123|-0.054|
91657764|NCT03006978|183208731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
91657765|NCT03006978|183208732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
91657766|NCT03006978|183208733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
91657767|NCT03006978|183208734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
91657768|NCT03006978|183208735|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
91657769|NCT01395030|183208743|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Analysis was performed using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA version 19.0.24, Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA) implemented in GenePattern (Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA) by uploading expression array data to this cloud-computing genomics platform. The specific details of this statistical approach can be found in the following publicly available references:~Reich M, Liefeld T, Gould J, Lerner J, Tamayo P, Mesirov JP. GenePattern 2.0 Nature Genetics 38 no. 5 (2006): pp500-501~Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, Ebert BL, Gillette MA, Paulovich A, Pomeroy SL, Golub TR, Lander ES, Mesirov JP. Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. PNAS. 2005;102(43);15545-15550."|||
91853032|NCT01152190|183589705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.468||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the bladder neck CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.468
91657770|NCT01054599|183208812|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91657771|NCT01054599|183208815|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||>0.05
91657772|NCT00705536|183208871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0006
91657773|NCT00705536|183208871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91657774|NCT00705536|183208872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
91853033|NCT01152190|183589705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.199||0.131||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the bladder neck CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.131
91657775|NCT00705536|183208872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91657776|NCT00705536|183208873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0059
91657777|NCT00705536|183208873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0105
91657778|NCT00705536|183208874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91853034|NCT00026312|183589728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|2.6803||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.1016
91853035|NCT00026312|183589729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|2.6176||||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy for the subgroup of patients with INSS Stage 4 disease were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.1057
91657779|NCT00705536|183208874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91657780|NCT00705536|183208875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3019||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.3019
91657781|NCT00705536|183208876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0401
91657782|NCT00705536|183208876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0004
91657783|NCT00705536|183208877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog +rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91657784|NCT00705536|183208877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91657785|NCT00705536|183208879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5589||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.5589
91657786|NCT00705536|183208879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0067
91657787|NCT02289963|183208890|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-63.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.6|-55.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/ Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-55.2|-71.6|<0.0001
91853036|NCT00026312|183589732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The number of courses of therapy delivered or patients randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy and non-randomly assigned to Regimen B after halting of randomization, excluding patients with persistent disease, were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.0262
91657788|NCT02289963|183208891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-66.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.9|-58.4||Threshold for significance was at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-58.4|-73.9|<0.0001
91657789|NCT02289963|183208892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-62.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-56.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-56.3|-68.8|<0.0001
91657790|NCT02289963|183208893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.2|-57.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-57.0|-69.2|<0.0001
91657791|NCT02289963|183208894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-39.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.7|-53.0|<0.0001
91657792|NCT02289963|183208895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-43.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.1|-55.3|<0.0001
91657793|NCT02289963|183208896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-44.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.6|-58.4|<0.0001
91657794|NCT02289963|183208897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-47.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.8|-60.6|<0.0001
91657795|NCT02289963|183208898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-30.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.1|-40.3|<0.0001
91657796|NCT02289963|183208899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-41.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.0|-51.2|<0.0001
91657797|NCT02289963|183208900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-46.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-46.1|-56.4|<0.0001
91657798|NCT02289963|183208901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-31.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.||-31.9|-39.7|<0.0001
91853037|NCT00026312|183589733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|3.4471||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The overall survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.0634
91657799|NCT02289963|183208902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|46.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|119.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||119.4|18.4|<0.0001
91657800|NCT02289963|183208903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|210.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||210.8|23.3|<0.0001
91657801|NCT02289963|183208904|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.883|-25.338||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.338|-41.883|<0.0001
91657802|NCT02289963|183208905|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.5||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|12.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||12.4|2.6|0.0029
91657803|NCT02289963|183208906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.515||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|4.219||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.219|-13.250|0.3110
91657804|NCT00840632|183209012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|93.26||||||90.0|83.39|104.31|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.31|83.39|
91657805|NCT00840632|183209013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.35||||||90.0|92.08|109.36|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.36|92.08|
91657806|NCT00840632|183209014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.17||||||90.0|92.71|106.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.08|92.71|
91657807|NCT00840632|183209015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.93||||||90.0|99.8|106.15|||||Informational Purposes Only|||106.15|99.80|
91657808|NCT00840632|183209016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.24||||||90.0|98.11|102.43|||||Informational Purposes Only|||102.43|98.11|
91657809|NCT00840632|183209017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.1||||||90.0|98.12|102.12|||||Informational Purposes Only|||102.12|98.12|
91657810|NCT05628675|183209049|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.96||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 2 on MAAS||0.96|-0.33|
91657811|NCT05628675|183209049|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.42||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 3 on MAAS||1.42|0.02|
91657812|NCT05628675|183209050|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.01||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 2 on P-PRFQ||1.01|-0.29|
91657813|NCT05628675|183209050|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.17||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 3 on P-PRFQ||1.17|-0.20|
91657814|NCT05628675|183209051|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.21||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 2 on EPDS||2.21|0.75|
91657815|NCT05628675|183209051|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.88||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 3 on EPDS||2.88|1.28|
91657816|NCT02028715|183209067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.55501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96535||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3904|17.50042|||t-test for Equality of Means|||||17.50042|-6.39040|.356
91657817|NCT02028715|183209068|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.51818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98569||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49963|25.53599|||t-test for Equality of Means|||||25.53599|-2.49963|.105
91657818|NCT02028715|183209069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||.029
91657819|NCT02028715|183209070|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of time, sphericity assumed, was used for pain, nausea, bloating and pruritus.||||||0.643|||||||ANOVA|||||||.643
91657820|NCT02028715|183209071|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of time, sphericity assumed, was used for pain, nausea, bloating and pruritus.||||||0.217|||||||ANOVA|||||||.217
91657821|NCT02028715|183209072|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of time, sphericity assumed, was used for pain, nausea, bloating and pruritus.||||||0.647|||||||ANOVA|||||||.647
91657822|NCT02028715|183209073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.695||||||||.695|-.587|
91791522|NCT01143701|183460858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An intent-to-treat analyses was conducted comparing patient outcomes across intervention and control groups using a three-level mixed model. Baseline ratings were entered as a covariate. Post-baseline ratings collected closest to 12-months post-baseline were entered as dependent variables.||1.75|-4.71|<0.05
91657823|NCT01492361|183209074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.83||The 2-sided alpha level for the primary analysis was adjusted to 0.0437 from 0.05 to account for the two interim analyses based on a group sequential design with O'Brien-Fleming boundaries generated using the Lan-DeMets alpha-spending function.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region||||0.83|0.68|0.00000001
91853038|NCT00026312|183589733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log-Rank Test Statistic|4.1362||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The overall survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy for the subgroup of patients with INSS Stage 4 disease were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.042
91853039|NCT03785782|183589773|OTHER|||||||0.2988|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2988
91853040|NCT03785782|183589774|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.36
91853041|NCT03785782|183589775|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.43
91853042|NCT03785782|183589776|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
91853043|NCT03785782|183589777|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
91853044|NCT03785782|183589778|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.18
91657824|NCT01492361|183209075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||6e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.83||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.83|0.65|0.0000006
91853045|NCT03785782|183589779|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
91853046|NCT03785782|183589780|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
91853047|NCT03785782|183589781|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.34
91853048|NCT03785782|183589782|OTHER|||||||0.7465|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.7465
91853049|NCT03785782|183589783|OTHER|||||||0.0466|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0466
91853050|NCT03785782|183589784|OTHER|||||||0.1567|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1567
91853051|NCT03785782|183589785|OTHER|||||||0.1837|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1837
91853052|NCT03785782|183589786|OTHER|||||||0.7447|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.7447
91853053|NCT03785782|183589787|OTHER|||||||0.0739|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0739
91853054|NCT03785782|183589788|OTHER|||||||0.9995|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9995
91853055|NCT02396316|183589808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean change|-4.9||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Point estimate, 95% CI and P-value were based on treatment difference of the LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and stage of NVG for randomization as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate. The superiority of aflibercept injection to sham injection was to be established if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (the aflibercept group minus the sham group) is less than 0.||0.3|-10.2|0.0644
91853056|NCT02396316|183589809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MH adjusted difference|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|81.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The point estimate of the treatment difference (the aflibercept group minus the sham group) at Week 1 and its two-sided 95% confidence interval stratified by stage of NVG (as randomized) using Mantel-Haenszel weights.||81.2|37.0|
91853057|NCT02731755|183589813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between time points and treatments, calculated p value||||0.5
91657825|NCT01492361|183209076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.86|0.66|<0.0001
91657826|NCT01492361|183209077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.81|0.58|<0.0001
91853058|NCT02731755|183589814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ach-iAUC||||0.04
91853059|NCT02731755|183589814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SNP-IAUC||||0.007
91853060|NCT02731755|183589814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ach - AUC||||0.02
91657827|NCT01492361|183209078|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.78||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.78|0.55|<0.0001
91791523|NCT01402427|183460861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.033|||Fisher Exact|||||0.033|-0.011|0.28
91791524|NCT01402427|183460862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
91791525|NCT01402427|183460863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91791526|NCT01402427|183460864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91791527|NCT01402427|183460865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
91791528|NCT01402427|183460866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91791529|NCT01402427|183460867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
91791530|NCT01634191|183460879|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|135.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Elderly/Young) and 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of age on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||135|94.2|
91791531|NCT01634191|183460881|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|128.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.0|154.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Female/Male) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of sex on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||154|107|
91853061|NCT02731755|183589815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
91853062|NCT02731755|183589817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7
91657828|NCT01492361|183209079|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.98|0.66|0.0315
91657829|NCT01492361|183209080|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.87|0.53|0.0018
91657830|NCT01492361|183209081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.93|0.55|0.0129
91657831|NCT01492361|183209082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
91657832|NCT01492361|183209083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||1.02|0.74|0.0915
91657833|NCT01475838|183209084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the Stribild group was at least 12% worse than the PI+RTV+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the Stribild group was less than 12% worse than the PI+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in proportions|6.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|13.7|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was from unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic using StatXact.|||13.7|0.4|0.025
91657834|NCT03227445|183209121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|54.28|||stratified exact logistic model||Participants included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option was included in the exact statement and period included as fixed effects.||"There are three intercurrent events identified which could impact upon the estimand of interest:~* The participant could withdraw from randomised study device sequence and therefore withdraw from the study~* The participant could change their standard COPD maintenance medication device to one delivered via ELLIPTA, DISKUS or HANDIHALER; these subjects should have been withdrawn from the study according to the protocol.~* The participant could attend the visit without the device/s they were randomised to, in which case correct use cannot be assessed as described in the protocol.~Rescue Medication use and change to maintenance COPD medication which is not delivered via ELLIPTA, DISKUS or HANDIHALER are not considered intercurrent events"|54.28|1.97|<0.001
91657835|NCT03227445|183209123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Primary Estimand: Hypothetical)||||||<0.001
91853063|NCT00773370|183589841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference between slopes|8.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.17|<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope compared the time course (slopes) of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.|ANOVA|||||||<0.25
91853064|NCT00773370|183589841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|14.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.92|<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||<0.004
91853065|NCT00773370|183589841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13||0.218|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.218
91657836|NCT03227445|183209128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Participants included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option was included in the exact statement and period included as fixed effects.||||3.45|<0.001
91657837|NCT03227445|183209129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Supplementary Estimand: Composite)||||||<0.001
91657838|NCT03227445|183209130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Primary Estimand: Hypothetical)||||||<0.001
91657839|NCT03227445|183209131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Supplementary Composite Estimand)||||||<0.001
91657840|NCT03227445|183209132|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|24.55|||stratified exact logistic model||Participants included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option was included in the exact statement and period included as fixed effects.|||24.55|2.08|<0.001
91657841|NCT01629381|183209173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.4|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.4|-11.3|0.03
91657842|NCT01629381|183209175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-0.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.1|-11.7|0.03
91657843|NCT01629381|183209176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.7|||Fisher Exact|||||3.7|-8.0|0.53
91657844|NCT02158494|183209177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value for Sensory Organization Test results at 2 weeks||||0.41
91853066|NCT00773370|183589842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between slopes|0.186|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.256||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope compared the time course (slopes) of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.|ANOVA|||||||.47
91853067|NCT00773370|183589842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.215|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.175||0.225|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.225
91657845|NCT02158494|183209177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value for Sensory Organization Test results at 14 weeks||||0.47
91853068|NCT00773370|183589842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.029|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.187||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.88
91853069|NCT00773370|183589843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between slopes|0.002|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.078||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope compared the time course (slopes) of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.|ANOVA|||||||.98
91657846|NCT02158494|183209177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value for Sensory Organization Test results at 26 weeks||||0.99
91657847|NCT02545998|183209202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.510
91657848|NCT02545998|183209203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91657849|NCT02545998|183209204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91657850|NCT02545998|183209205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.589
91657851|NCT02545998|183209206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.471
91657852|NCT02545998|183209207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Sign test|||||||0.264
91657853|NCT04567342|183209230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 1|1.37|0.85|0.531
91657854|NCT04567342|183209230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.09|0.65|0.189
91657855|NCT04567342|183209230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 2|1.66|0.10|0.054
91712860|NCT01765296|183317500|NON_INFERIORITY|"The SD for the primary efficacy outcome measure (WOMAC-Pain Subscale in the index joint) has been assumed to be 11 units. A 10% between-group difference was chosen as the non-inferiority margin for this study. The following parameters were used to calculate the sample size needed for this non-inferiority study.~* Level of significance, α = 0.025(one-sided)~* Statistical power, 1-β = 0.95~* Difference between test group and comparison group, Δ=0, δ (\>0) = non-inferiority margin"||||||0.425|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.425
91853070|NCT00773370|183589843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.033|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.054||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.54
91657856|NCT04567342|183209230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 3|1.32|0.84|0.654
91657857|NCT04567342|183209230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 2|1.74|1.05|0.018
91657858|NCT04567342|183209230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 1|1.44|0.90|0.283
91657859|NCT04567342|183209231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.93|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.62|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 1|2.62|1.42|<0.01
91657860|NCT04567342|183209231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.21|0.56|0.318
91853071|NCT00773370|183589843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.031|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.057||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.59
91657861|NCT04567342|183209231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.34|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.26|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 2|3.26|1.68|<0.01
91657862|NCT04567342|183209231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 3|1.36|0.85|0.535
91853072|NCT00773370|183589844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.296|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.77||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope was used to compare the time course of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.||||.98
91657863|NCT04567342|183209231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.5|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs Arm 2|3.50|1.82|<0.01
91657864|NCT04567342|183209231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.8|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 1|2.80|1.53|<0.01
91657865|NCT04567342|183209232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.48|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 1|1.48|0.92|0.192
91657866|NCT04567342|183209232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.06|0.62|0.132
91657867|NCT04567342|183209232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.86|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 2|1.86|1.11|<0.01
91853073|NCT00773370|183589844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.19||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||||||.02
91901175|NCT02146326|183697162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.11
91657868|NCT04567342|183209232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 3|1.16|0.73|0.462
91657869|NCT04567342|183209232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 2|1.72|1.01|0.039
91657870|NCT04567342|183209232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 1|1.37|0.84|0.570
91657871|NCT01226797|183209233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5834||||0.6668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.51|||Fisher Exact||Odds-ratio and confidence interval obtained from logistic regression with treatment as fixed effect|||3.51|0.10|0.6668
91657872|NCT01226797|183209234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1591||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.73|||Fisher Exact||Odds-ratio and confidence interval obtained from logistic regression with treatment as fixed effect.|||1.73|0.01|0.1550
91657873|NCT01226797|183209235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.45||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|58.69||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 1||58.69|-7.79|0.1259
91657874|NCT01226797|183209235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.49||||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|41.66||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||41.66|-14.67|0.3297
91853074|NCT00773370|183589844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.193|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.553||0.051|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||||||.051
91657875|NCT01226797|183209235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.17||||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.04|51.39||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 3||51.39|-21.04|0.3925
91657876|NCT01226797|183209235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.62||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|64.09||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||64.09|-14.85|0.2080
91657877|NCT01226797|183209237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.87||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|44.53||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 1||44.53|-0.78|0.0577
91712861|NCT03257436|183317502|OTHER|"A power calculation using a sample size of 61 subjects as the non-responders with the LV MSP on was calculated based on a one-sided exact test for a single binomial proportion, using SAS Version 9.4 with the following assumptions:~* Performance goal = 90%~* Expected LV MSP feature-related CFR rate between 6 and 12 Month Visit = 98%~* Significance level = 5%~* Power = 80%"|Kaplan Meir Methodology|99.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.1|||||||"The LV MSP feature-related CFR between the 6 Month Visit and the 12 Month Visit was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology.~H0: LV MSP feature-related complication-free rate between 6 Month Visit and 12 Month Visit ≤ 90%.~The sample size of 61 subjects was required to evaluate the Primary Safety Endpoint using an exact test since a power calculation cannot be directly calculated for a one group Kaplan-Meier analysis."|||94.1|
91712862|NCT03257436|183317503|OTHER|Even though fewer subjects (78) were available for the effectiveness endpoint analysis than originally planned (110), the study was still powered at approximately 90%|Proportion|51.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|41.1|||||||"The effectiveness endpoint for SMART MSP PAS is the proportion of the LV MSP Group with an Improved CCS. For this endpoint, those subjects in the LV MSP Group that become responders will be defined as having an Improved CCS.~H0: Proportion of LV MSP Group subjects with Improved CCS from 6 Month Visit through 12 Month Visit ≤ 5%"|||41.1|
91712863|NCT01619852|183317504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.19
91853075|NCT01765543|183589845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.484|0.78||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric mean ratio (Period C/Period A) and confidence intervals.||0.780|0.484|
91853076|NCT01765543|183589846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.596|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.469|0.759||||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric mean ratio (Period C/Period A) and confidence intervals.||0.759|0.469|
91853077|NCT01765543|183589847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.36||||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric mean ratio (Period C/Period A) and confidence intervals.||1.36|0.908|
91853078|NCT01185561|183589853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|13.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in CES-D score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||13.76|4.03|.001
91657878|NCT01226797|183209237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.3669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|30.3||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||30.30|-11.71|0.3669
91657879|NCT01226797|183209237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.09||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|38.8||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 3||38.80|-10.62|0.2482
91657880|NCT01226797|183209237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.19||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|62.22||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||62.22|-3.84|0.0801
91657881|NCT01226797|183209245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.06||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.67|-8.44||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||-8.44|-35.67|0.0031
91657882|NCT01226797|183209245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.34||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.64|-7.04||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||-7.04|-25.64|0.0015
91657883|NCT00577460|183209248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors treatment and country and covariate OL baseline||PPX ER versus Placebo||||0.0039
91657884|NCT00577460|183209248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors treatment and country and covariate OL baseline||PPX IR versus Placebo||||0.0001
91657885|NCT00577460|183209251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.5590
91657886|NCT00577460|183209251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1289||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.1289
91657887|NCT00577460|183209253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1073||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.1073
91657888|NCT00577460|183209253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8694||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.8694
91712864|NCT01619852|183317505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91712865|NCT01619852|183317506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91853079|NCT01185561|183589854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|14.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the State Anxiety Sub-test score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||14.37|1.29|.02
91657889|NCT00577460|183209254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0009
91657890|NCT00577460|183209254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0573||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0573
91657891|NCT00577460|183209255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6434||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.6434
91657892|NCT00577460|183209255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2469||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.2469
91853080|NCT01185561|183589855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|14.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the State Trait Anxiety Sub-test score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||14.31|2.64|.005
91657893|NCT00577460|183209256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9741||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.9741
91657894|NCT00577460|183209256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.7620
91657895|NCT00577460|183209260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0831||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0831
91657896|NCT00577460|183209260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0759||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0759
91657897|NCT00577460|183209261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1713||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.1713
91657898|NCT00577460|183209261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0130
91657899|NCT00577460|183209262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0015
91657900|NCT00577460|183209262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0002
91657901|NCT00577460|183209263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.8760
91657902|NCT00577460|183209263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5113||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.5113
91853081|NCT01185561|183589856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|8.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the State Trait Anger Expression Sub-test score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||8.24|-6.77|.85
91853082|NCT02755805|183589864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|1.11||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|"F(3,74)=4.37~P-values were calculated using mixed model analyses and controlled for stoke severity as a covariate."|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||0.007
91657903|NCT00577460|183209264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0148
91657904|NCT00577460|183209264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0201||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0201
91657905|NCT02016170|183209284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean PRU between prasugrel and ticagrelor (two arms combined). Under the assumption of 0 difference in mean PRU between ticagrelor 90 mg bid MD and prasugrel 10 mg qd MD and a common standard deviation of 60 PRU, a sample size of 24 patients per group allowed for the 95% CI to stay within ± 45 PRU with a 90% power and alpha=0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|5.0||||||||5|-41|
91657906|NCT02016170|183209285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean PRU between prasugrel and ticagrelor (two arms combined).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-4.0||||||||-4|-18|
91657907|NCT01968382|183209314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3198|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3198
91657908|NCT01968382|183209317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8462|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8462
91657909|NCT03629249|183209369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.714
91657910|NCT03629249|183209369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.734
91657911|NCT03629249|183209370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.665
91657912|NCT03629249|183209370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.910
91657913|NCT03633721|183209390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis Being Tested in 2 way ANOVA is that the difference in the change from Baseline to the Average of 15 and 60 minutes post baseline while on cannabis Vs. the change while on placebo (i.e. the last row in the outcomes) is greater for HIV+ subjects than for HIV- subjects.||||0.17
91657914|NCT03633721|183209391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis Being Tested in 2 way ANOVA is that the difference in the change from Baseline to the Average of 15 and 60 minutes post baseline while on cannabis Vs. the change while on placebo (i.e. the last row in the outcomes) is greater for HIV+ subjects than for HIV- subjects.||||0.18
91657915|NCT03633721|183209392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis Being Tested in 2 way ANOVA is that the difference in the change from Baseline to the Average of 15 and 60 minutes post baseline while on cannabis Vs. the change while on placebo (i.e. the last row in the outcomes) is greater for HIV+ subjects than for HIV- subjects.||||0.72
91657916|NCT01475474|183209397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test used to evaluate median Percent Change-from-Baseline in ABL different from zero||||<0.001
91657917|NCT01475474|183209398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test used to evaluate median Percent Change-from-Baseline in Wexner score||||<0.001
91657918|NCT01691248|183209425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.2||||0.2778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.5||1-sided Wald test for a difference in proportions using an unpooled estimate of variance.|One-sided Wald p-value||Placebo minus Fidaxomicin|||9.5|-5.1|0.2778
91657919|NCT01691248|183209426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|0.6||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.2||1-sided Wald test for a difference in proportions using an unpooled estimate of variance.|One-sided Wald p-value||Placebo minus Fidaxomicin|||8.2|-7.1|0.4420
91712866|NCT01619852|183317506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||McGill Questionnaire-Sensory-discriminative dimension||||0.69
91853083|NCT02755805|183589865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|0.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,34)=2.55|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||0.09
91712867|NCT01619852|183317506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||McGill Questionnaire-affective dimension||||0.75
91712868|NCT01619852|183317506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Brief Pain Inventory||||0.81
91712869|NCT01619852|183317507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.19
91712870|NCT01619852|183317508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.29
91712871|NCT03877744|183317516|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 2.5 was set prior to study initiation with a Type I error of 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6873|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2558||0.0008|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.1894|||Mixed Models Analysis|Controls technician,site,seat type;Techn. nested in site modeled as random effect;Model allowed heterogeneous variances across arms w Kenward-Roger df|Mixed model allowed the arms to have unequal variance estimates. Degrees of freedom estimated using Kenward-Rogers.|||2.1894||0.0008
91712872|NCT00327717|183317529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
91712873|NCT00327717|183317530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.253
91712874|NCT00327717|183317531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.211
91712875|NCT00327717|183317532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.516
91712876|NCT00327717|183317533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||X^2 test|||||||0.044
91853084|NCT02755805|183589866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|1.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,34)=7.83|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||.002
91853085|NCT02755805|183589867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|0.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at \<0.05|repeated measures fixed effects model|F(2,28)=3.61|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||.04
91853086|NCT03718767|183589884|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.623|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.623
91853087|NCT03718767|183589884|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.073
91853088|NCT02658240|183589889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The study was powered to detect a mean difference of 1.5 in pain scores in favor of patients undergoing SFICB procedure assuming a standard deviation of 2.5. With a two sided alpha level of 0.05, a total of 52 patients would be needed to have 80% power using a repeated measures ANOVA F test with 6 observations on each subject. Correlation on the repeat observations was assumed to be 0.5. Assuming a 14% loss to follow-up, 60 patients were enrolled at 1:1 ratio.||||0.05
91853089|NCT02658240|183589890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91853090|NCT02658240|183589891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.149
91853091|NCT02658240|183589892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.584
91853092|NCT03691428|183589893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91853093|NCT03691428|183589894|SUPERIORITY|A multivariate dyadic linear growth curve model was used to predict the trajectories of psychological well-being (Raudenbush, Brennan, \& Barnett, 1995).|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91853094|NCT03691428|183589895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91712877|NCT00327717|183317534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.090
91712878|NCT00327717|183317535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.090
91712879|NCT00327717|183317536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.162
91853095|NCT03691428|183589896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91853096|NCT03691428|183589897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91853097|NCT04589689|183589950|OTHER|||||||0.777||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3 months.||||0.777
91853098|NCT04589689|183589950|OTHER|||||||0.247||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month.||||0.247
91853099|NCT04589689|183589951|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.160
91853100|NCT04589689|183589951|OTHER|||||||0.275||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.275
91853101|NCT04589689|183589952|OTHER|||||||0.509||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.509
91712880|NCT00327717|183317537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.678
91712881|NCT01630135|183317540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.76|||ANCOVA||The analysis was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a model adjusting for Treatment, Baseline, Age, and Sex.|||-0.76|-1.41|<0.001
91712882|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|7451.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5857.0|9045.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient services for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||9045|5857|
91712883|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|11545.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8827.0|14263.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient services for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||14263|8827|
91712884|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|63.0|||||The mean predicted cost for emergency department visits for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||63|58|
91853102|NCT04589689|183589952|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.610
91853103|NCT04589689|183589953|OTHER|||||||0.807||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.807
91853104|NCT04589689|183589953|OTHER|||||||0.826||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.826
91853105|NCT04589689|183589954|OTHER|||||||0.076||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.076
91853106|NCT04589689|183589954|OTHER|||||||0.747||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.747
91853107|NCT04589689|183589955|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.154
91853108|NCT04589689|183589955|OTHER|||||||0.107||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.107
91853109|NCT04589689|183589956|OTHER|||||||0.445||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.445
91853110|NCT04589689|183589956|OTHER|||||||0.543||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.543
91853111|NCT04589689|183589957|OTHER|||||||0.157||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.157
91853112|NCT01254019|183589976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.334||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.645|35.312||Statistical significance was assessed at the 5% level.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||35.312|-14.645|0.415
91853113|NCT01254019|183589977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|2.88||Statistical significance (SS) was only to be assessed if a statistically significant difference was observed for the primary and any secondary endpoints higher in the pre-defined hierarchy. Hence conclusions with regards to SS should not be made.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||2.88|-3.95|0.757
91853114|NCT01254019|183589978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.095||SS was only to be assessed if a statistically significant difference was observed for the primary and any secondary endpoints higher in the pre-defined hierarchy. Hence conclusions with regards to SS should not be made.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||0.095|-0.137|0.718
91853115|NCT01254019|183589979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.111||SS was only to be assessed if a statistically significant difference was observed for the primary and any secondary endpoints higher in the pre-defined hierarchy. Hence conclusions with regards to SS should not be made.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||0.111|-0.129|0.881
91853116|NCT01254019|183589980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.115||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.097|3.866||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||3.866|-6.097|0.658
91853117|NCT01254019|183589981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.164||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||0.164|-0.082|0.513
91853118|NCT01254019|183589982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.965||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.446|5.516||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||5.516|-7.446|0.769
91853119|NCT01254019|183589985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4044.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5232.21|-2857.77||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||-2857.77|-5232.21|0.000
91853120|NCT01254019|183589991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0288||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0161|0.0738||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo, HUI2 at Week 48||0.0738|-0.0161|0.207
91853121|NCT01254019|183589991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0048||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.0676||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo, HUI3 at Week 48||0.0676|-0.0580|0.880
91853122|NCT03061474|183590000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6096|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6096
91853123|NCT03061474|183590010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.648
91853124|NCT03061474|183590011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6833|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6833
91853125|NCT03061474|183590012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4438|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4438
91853126|NCT03061474|183590013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7158|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7158
91853127|NCT03061474|183590014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93428359|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.93428359
91853128|NCT03061474|183590015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9931|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9931
91853129|NCT03061474|183590016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3233|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3233
91853130|NCT03061474|183590017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1008
91853131|NCT03061474|183590018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0323
91853132|NCT01391130|183590038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2149||||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7462|1.9779|||Log Rank|||||1.9779|0.7462|0.4318
91853133|NCT03520413|183590047|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-1.12|0.02
91853134|NCT03520413|183590048|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.42|0.007
91712885|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|53.0|||||The mean predicted cost for emergency department visits for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||53|49|
91712886|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|231.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|227.0|234.0|||||The mean predicted cost for office visits for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||234|227|
91712887|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|295.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|290.0|299.0|||||The mean predicted cost for office visits for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||299|290|
91712888|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|873.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|827.0|919.0|||||The mean predicted cost for other outpatient and ancillary services for FSC participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||919|827|
91712889|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1080.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1022.0|1138.0|||||The mean predicted cost for other outpatient and ancillary services for TIO participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1138|1022|
91712890|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1267.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1251.0|1283.0|||||The mean predicted cost for pharmacy services for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1283|1251|
91712891|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1250.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1234.0|1266.0|||||The mean predicted cost for pharmacy services for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1266|1234|
91712892|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1175.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1083.0|1267.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient and emergency department services for FSC participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1267|1083|
91853135|NCT03520413|183590049|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|0.25|0.0002
91853136|NCT03520413|183590050|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.07|0.02
91853137|NCT03520413|183590051|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 6months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-0.24|0.39
91853138|NCT03520413|183590052|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-2.53|0.10
91853139|NCT03401112|183590087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0686|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0686
91853140|NCT03401112|183590087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0294
91853141|NCT03475316|183590091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.49|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the composite score pre and post intervention.||1.49|-1.14|
91853142|NCT03475316|183590092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|166.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-202.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.12|563.44|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (social dancing vs. treadmill walking).|Estimates with standard errors (SE) are from linear mixed effect models used to examine the difference in change in functional activation/deactivation covariance patterns during the Digit Symbol Substitution test at post intervention from pre intervention between the social dancing and treadmill walking group.||563.44|-231.12|
91712893|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1566.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1438.0|1695.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient and emergency department services for TIO participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1695|1438|
91712894|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|2991.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2922.0|3059.0|||||The mean predicted cost for total healthcare services for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||3059|2922|
91712895|NCT01387178|183317569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|3304.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3221.0|3386.0|||||The mean predicted cost for total healthcare services for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||3386|3221|
91712896|NCT01387178|183317570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.964||||0.2198||95.0|0.909|1.022||Risk of Moderate COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Cox|||||1.022|0.909|0.2198
91712897|NCT01387178|183317570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.0406||95.0|0.752|0.994||Risk of Severe COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Cox|||||0.994|0.752|0.0406
91853143|NCT03475316|183590092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|80.4|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (social dancing vs. treadmill walking).|Estimates with standard errors (SE) and p-values are from linear mixed effect models used to examine the difference in change in functional activation/deactivation covariance patterns during the Flanker interference test at post intervention from pre intervention between the social dancing and treadmill walking group.||80.40|-31.20|
91853144|NCT03475316|183590092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.14|158.58|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (social dancing vs. treadmill walking).|Estimates with standard errors (SE) are from linear mixed effect models used to examine the difference in functional activation/deactivation covariance patterns during the Imagery of Walking-While Talking task at post intervention from pre intervention between the social dancing and treadmill walking group.||158.58|-42.14|
91657920|NCT01691248|183209427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|1.9||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.2||1-sided Wald test for a difference in proportions using an unpooled estimate of variance.|One-sided Wald p-value||Placebo minus Fidaxomicin|||9.2|-5.5|0.3091
91853145|NCT03475316|183590093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.64|||||The Estimation Parameter is the difference in change at post from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the CHAMPS scores pre and post intervention.||6.64|-5.10|
91853146|NCT03475316|183590094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|26.14|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in gait speed pre and post intervention.||26.14|-11.60|
91853147|NCT03475316|183590095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.55|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in unipedal stance time pre and post intervention.||14.55|-13.40|
91853148|NCT03475316|183590097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.46|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the geriatric depression scale pre and post intervention.||3.46|-1.30|
91853149|NCT02476409|183590098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.094
91853150|NCT02476409|183590099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.166
91853151|NCT02476409|183590099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.491
91853152|NCT02476409|183590100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||P-value for Change in Dyspnea VAS - Baseline to Day 3 Tolvaptan versus placebo.||||0.543
91853153|NCT02476409|183590101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.050
91657921|NCT00993187|183209428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.0|<0.001
91657922|NCT00993187|183209431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-23.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-16.9|||ANCOVA|||||-16.9|-30.0|<0.001
91657923|NCT00993187|183209432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||||-7.0|-23.0|<0.001
91657924|NCT00993187|183209433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.25|||ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-2.20|<0.001
91657925|NCT00993187|183209434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|41.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|51.0|||ANCOVA|||||51.0|30.0|<0.001
91657926|NCT00549718|183209441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91657927|NCT00549718|183209442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91657928|NCT03422653|183209444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.3|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||4.30|1.72|<0.001
91853154|NCT02476409|183590102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
91853155|NCT02476409|183590103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.034
91853156|NCT02476409|183590104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.643
91853157|NCT00275392|183590105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction effect|RM ANOVA|||||||0.026
91853158|NCT00275392|183590105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of time|RM ANOVA|||||||<.001
91853159|NCT00275392|183590105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of group|RM ANOVA|||||||>.05
91853160|NCT00275392|183590106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction effect|RM ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
91853161|NCT00275392|183590106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of time|RM ANOVA|||||||.016
91853162|NCT00275392|183590106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect of Group|RM ANOVA|||||||>.05
91853163|NCT04975308|183590128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.039|||Log Rank|||||1.039|0.724|0.1158
91853164|NCT04975308|183590129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|0.733|||Log Rank|||||0.733|0.441|<0.0001
91853165|NCT04975308|183590130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.617||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|0.821|||Log Rank|||||0.821|0.464|0.0008
91853166|NCT03654768|183590149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
91853167|NCT03654768|183590150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.30
91853168|NCT03654768|183590151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.90
91853169|NCT02601170|183590237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91853170|NCT00732381|183590258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91853171|NCT00732381|183590259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91853172|NCT02582593|183590274|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.27||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|||||t = .581, only 1 comparison (2 groups) and thus multiple comparison correction not needed|t-test, 2 sided|||An independent sample t-test was used to examine difference in Pre-post intervention change scores for the Active and Sham groups;. Cohen's d was calculated to determine effect size.||||.575
91853173|NCT02582593|183590275|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|1.06||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||t = 1.574; only two comparisons, thus not necessary to adjust|t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-test, cohen's d effect size||||.160
91853174|NCT02582593|183590276|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.27||||0.424|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-test, Cohen's d effect size||||.424
91853175|NCT02582593|183590277|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-1.03||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustment necessary, only 1 comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-test, Cohen's d effect size||||0.099
91853176|NCT00414544|183590278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority was tested.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Confidence interval|The 90% lower confidence bound of the difference between CosmetaLife and Restylane were computed.|The confidence interval is built around the mean difference of the two reporting groups.|The a priori hypothesis for statistical analysis was based on predetermined clinical relevance being set to a difference score between CosmetaLife and Control (Restylane) of -0.5. This clinical relevance was set to -0.5 because the observation scale used is not accurate below 0.5 differences. That is CosmetaLife needed to be greater than 0.5 less than Control (Restylane) in the treatment difference scores to be considered inferior.||1.0|-2.0|
91657929|NCT03422653|183209445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.0|<0.001
91657930|NCT03422653|183209446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-8.0|<0.001
91712898|NCT01387178|183317570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.0962||95.0|0.901|1.009||Risk of Any COPD Exacerbation|Regression, Cox|||||1.009|0.901|0.0962
91853177|NCT04425863|183590299|OTHER|||||||0.0246|||||||Chi-squared|||A chi-squared test is used to find out whether there is a statistically significant decrease in mortality rate when the IDEA treatment protocol is used in hospitalized patients in comparison with other treatments in the same hospital in the same period of time (3 out of 12 inpatients died)||||0.0246
91853178|NCT04425863|183590299|OTHER|||||||0.0475|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall mortality rate of patients treated according to IDEA protocol is compared by a chi-squared test against overall mortality rate in Argentina (the same region where the hospital is located). Data used for overall mortality in Argentina correspond to June 30th according to the website of the Ministry of Health of Argentina||||0.0475
91853179|NCT04425863|183590299|OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||Chi-squared|||A chi-square test was applied to compare the mortality rate of patients treated with IDEA protocol as compared with data published (26.84 %) in Bertsimas D, Lukin G, Mingardi L, Nohadani O, Orfanoudaki A, Stellato B et al. (2020), COVID-19 Mortality Risk Assessment: An International Multi-Center Study doi: 10.1101/2020.07.07.20148304||||0.0025
91853180|NCT00463788|183590313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.126||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|5.591|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Randomization strata: first- or second line according to Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).||||5.591|0.809|0.1109
91853181|NCT00463788|183590314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.969|||Log Rank|||||0.969|0.470|0.0324
91853182|NCT00463788|183590315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.821||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.204|||Log Rank|||||1.204|0.561|0.3121
91853183|NCT00463788|183590316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.754||||0.5993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|2.17|||Log Rank|||||2.170|0.262|0.5993
91853184|NCT00360698|183590318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.68||||0.0499||95.0|0.01|28.37|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the percentage of patients with Glycosylated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) level \<7%. A sample size of 98 randomized (49/arm) patients would allow to demonstrate with 80% power that 40 % of patients in the Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group would achieve a HbA1c level \< 7 % compared to 15 % of patients in the Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group(5% alpha risk, 2-sided test).||28.37|0.01|0.0499
91853185|NCT00360698|183590320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.029||95.0|-0.49|-0.03||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|ANCOVA|The analysis is an ANCOVA analysis on the change with group as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as covariate|Difference between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the adjusted mean change from baseline in Glycosylated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) at the end of treatment.||-0.03|-0.49|0.029
91853186|NCT00360698|183590322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.987||0.0109||95.0|-22.83|-3.04||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|ANCOVA|The analysis is an ANCOVA analysis on the change with group as fixed effect and baseline daily mean plasma glucose as covariate|Difference between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the adjusted mean change from baseline in daily mean plasma glucose at the end of treatment.||-3.04|-22.83|0.0109
91853187|NCT00360698|183590323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.5762||95.0|-0.61|1.1||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|ANCOVA|The analysis is an ANCOVA analysis on the change with group as fixed effect and baseline weight as covariate|Difference between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the adjusted mean change from baseline in weight at the end of treatment.||1.1|-0.61|0.5762
91853188|NCT00360698|183590326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the rate of symptomatic hypoglycemia with plasma glucose \<70 mg/dL during the treatment period.||||0.958
91853189|NCT00360698|183590327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia with plasma glucose \<70 mg/dL during the treatment period.||||0.302
91853190|NCT00360698|183590328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the rate of severe symptomatic hypoglycemia during the treatment period.||||0.192
91853191|NCT02200770|183590335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.272|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1496|0.4961|||Regression, Cox|||||0.4961|0.1496|<0.0001
91853192|NCT02200770|183590336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.352||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1755|0.7059|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.7059|0.1755|0.0033
91853193|NCT02200770|183590337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.096||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0254|2.2941|||ANCOVA|||||2.2941|-2.0254|0.9026
91657931|NCT03422653|183209447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.76|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||4.76|1.75|<0.001
91657932|NCT01136382|183209460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.7||To address multiplicity, a step-down procedure was used. If the treatment difference for the primary variable, morning PEF, was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the key secondary variable, FEV1, was tested at the 0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||19.7|7.5|<0.0001
91853194|NCT02200770|183590338|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.566||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3866|0.8279|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.8279|0.3866|0.0034
91853195|NCT02200770|183590339|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.317||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1257|0.7972|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.7972|0.1257|0.0146
91853196|NCT00457743|183590411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Disease control Rate (percentage)|56.7||||||95.0|37.4|74.5|||||The disease control rate, defined as the percentage of subjects confirmed with CR, PR, and SD \>=10 weeks on study according to RECIST.|||74.5|37.4|
91853197|NCT00457743|183590413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate(percentage)|13.3||||||95.0|3.8|30.7|||||The subjects confirmed with complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).|||30.7|3.8|
91853198|NCT00457743|183590422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR rate (percentage)|40.0||||||95.0|22.7|59.4|||||The clinical benefit response (CBR) rate, defined as the percentage of the subjects confirmed with CR, PR, or SD\>=22 weeks on study according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).|||59.4|22.7|
91853199|NCT00468910|183590425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was powered to detect an attributable change in the aspirin group of 50% relative to baseline values - an approximate 50% increase in spectral slope.||||0.11
91853200|NCT00468910|183590426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91853201|NCT05323734|183590451|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.53||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.04|2.48|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum statistic is applied using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|The Hodges-Lehmann approach is applied for estimating 95% confidence interval.|||2.48|-32.04|0.0904
91853202|NCT05323734|183590452|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.4||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|20.1|||Fisher Exact|||||20.1|-6.4|0.3407
91853203|NCT05323734|183590453|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated odds ratio of the ganaxolone group compared to the placebo group based on proportional odds logistic regression with treatment as a factor.|||1.70|0.46|0.7069
91853204|NCT05323734|183590454|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated odds ratio of the ganaxolone group compared to the placebo group based on proportional odds logistic regression with treatment as a factor.|||1.72|0.42|0.6434
91853205|NCT04345913|183590496|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.5259|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5259
91853206|NCT04345913|183590501|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.706|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7060
91853207|NCT00357097|183590552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.6|-1.6|||ANCOVA||Mean difference = Ropinirole minus Placebo. Used adjusted change from baseline.|||-1.6|-5.6|<0.001
91853208|NCT00385801|183590588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||The effect of treatment on intensity of craving was assessed and the threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|F=0.03||Intensity of craving||||0.86
91853209|NCT03603717|183590590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91853210|NCT03603717|183590591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91712899|NCT01246895|183317574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||||||0.017
91853211|NCT03603717|183590592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91853212|NCT03603717|183590593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91853213|NCT03505099|183590595|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|76.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.95|92.21|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al, 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 19 out of 81 participants (23.46%) with 3 copies of SMN2 achieved standing alone for at least 3 seconds.|92.21|50.95|<0.0001
91853214|NCT03505099|183590596|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|73.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.67|91.61|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 6 out of 23 participants (26.09%) with 2 copies of SMN2 were alive and did not require permanent ventilation.|91.61|44.67|<0.0001
91853215|NCT03505099|183590598|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|72.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|90.11|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al, 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 17 out of 81 participants (20.99%) with 3 copies of SMN2 achieved the ability to walk alone.|90.11|44.90|<0.0001
91853216|NCT00457691|183590604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.095||||0.8072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.344||p-value from 1-sided log-rank test, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, organ sites with disease, primary tumor site, prior adjuvant treatment|Log Rank|||||1.344|0.892|0.8072
91853217|NCT00457691|183590605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.171||||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.466||p-value from 1-sided log-rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status, organ sites with disease, primary tumor site, prior adjuvant treatment|Log Rank|||||1.466|0.936|0.9163
91853218|NCT02527148|183590658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 6 weeks for the control cases||||<0.0001
91853219|NCT02527148|183590658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 6 weeks for the Shapematch cases||||<0.0001
91853220|NCT02527148|183590658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 6 weeks between both groups.||||0.0004
91853221|NCT02527148|183590658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 6 months for Control cases.||||<0.0001
91853222|NCT02527148|183590658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement form preoperative to 6 months for Shapematch cases.||||<0.0001
91853223|NCT02527148|183590658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 6 months between both groups.||||0.3894
91901176|NCT02146326|183697163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.21
91853224|NCT02527148|183590658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 12 months for the Control cases||||<0.0001
91853225|NCT02527148|183590658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 12 months for the Shapematch cases||||<0.0001
91853226|NCT02527148|183590658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-values from repeated ANOVA with change from preoperative variable/scores as dependent variable.||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 12 months between both groups.||||0.4387
91853227|NCT02527148|183590658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 2 years between both groups.||||0.2610
91853228|NCT02527148|183590658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 5 years between both groups.||||0.8458
91853229|NCT02527148|183590659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare mean duration of surgery between both groups.||||0.10
91853230|NCT02527148|183590660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare wound length between both groups.||||0.05
91853231|NCT02527148|183590662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare average length of hospital stay between both groups.||||0.07
91853232|NCT02527148|183590663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline differences||||0.55
91853233|NCT02527148|183590663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of QALY between each instrument platform at 12-months||||0.23
91853234|NCT02527148|183590664|EQUIVALENCE|To determine equivalence in baseline characteristics between the control and intervention group.||||||0.724|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest preoperatively between both groups.||||0.7240
91853235|NCT02527148|183590664|EQUIVALENCE|To determine equivalence in baseline characteristics between the control and intervention group.||||||0.7545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation preoperatively between both groups.||||0.7545
91853236|NCT02527148|183590664|NON_INFERIORITY|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.6921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 6 weeks between both groups.||||0.6921
91853237|NCT02527148|183590664|NON_INFERIORITY|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.9601|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 6 weeks between both groups.||||0.9601
91853238|NCT02527148|183590664|NON_INFERIORITY|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.0697|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 6 months between both groups.||||0.0697
91853239|NCT02527148|183590664|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.0342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 6 months between both groups.||||0.0342
91853240|NCT02527148|183590664|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.3487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 12 months between both groups.||||0.3487
91853241|NCT02527148|183590664|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.2201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 1 year between both groups.||||0.2201
91853242|NCT02527148|183590664|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.2291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 2 years between both groups.||||0.2291
91853243|NCT02527148|183590664|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.6436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 2 years between both groups.||||0.6436
91853244|NCT02527148|183590664|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.4344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 5 years between both groups.||||0.4344
91853245|NCT02527148|183590664|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.8732|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 5 years between both groups.||||0.8732
91853246|NCT02527148|183590665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC preoperatively between both groups.||||0.911
91853247|NCT02527148|183590665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.588
91853248|NCT02527148|183590665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 6-months between both groups.||||0.030
91853249|NCT02527148|183590665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 1-year between both groups.||||0.131
91853250|NCT02527148|183590665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 2-years between both groups.||||0.347
91853251|NCT02527148|183590665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 5-years between both groups.||||0.341
91853252|NCT02527148|183590666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index preoperatively between both groups.||||0.452
91853253|NCT02527148|183590666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS preoperatively between both groups.||||0.201
91853254|NCT02527148|183590666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.741
91853255|NCT02527148|183590666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.794
91853256|NCT02527148|183590666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 6-months between both groups.||||0.232
91853257|NCT02527148|183590666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 6-months between both groups.||||0.513
91853258|NCT02527148|183590666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 1-year between both groups.||||0.180
91853259|NCT02527148|183590666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 1-year between both groups.||||0.864
91853260|NCT02527148|183590666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 2-year between both groups.||||0.223
91853261|NCT02527148|183590666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 2-year between both groups.||||0.355
91853262|NCT02527148|183590666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 5-year between both groups.||||0.314
91853263|NCT02527148|183590666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 5-year between both groups.||||0.914
91853264|NCT02527148|183590667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.523
91853265|NCT02527148|183590667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 6-months between both groups.||||0.932
91712900|NCT01246895|183317575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||||||0.026
91853266|NCT02527148|183590667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 1-year between both groups.||||0.934
91853267|NCT02527148|183590667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.566|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 2-year between both groups.||||0.566
91853268|NCT02527148|183590667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 5-year between both groups.||||0.263
91853269|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3768|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain preoperatively between both groups.||||0.3768
91853270|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function preoperatively between both groups.||||0.6425
91853271|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM preoperatively between both groups.||||0.5041
91901177|NCT02146326|183697165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.17
91853272|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.2230
91853273|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.8209
91853274|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.6958
91853275|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0548|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 6-months between both groups.||||0.0548
91853276|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 6-months between both groups.||||0.1958
91853277|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 6-months between both groups.||||0.2786
91853278|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 1-year between both groups.||||0.2399
91853279|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 1-year between both groups.||||0.4135
91853280|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5278|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 1-year between both groups.||||0.5278
91853281|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 2-year between both groups.||||0.2992
91853282|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5462|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 2-year between both groups.||||0.5462
91853283|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5765|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 2-year between both groups.||||0.5765
91853284|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 5-year between both groups.||||0.5493
91853285|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 5-year between both groups.||||0.1705
91853286|NCT02527148|183590668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 5-year between both groups.||||0.2918
91853287|NCT02527148|183590669|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of coronal mechanical axis:hip knee ankle angle between both groups.||||0.6
91853288|NCT02527148|183590669|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of coronal angle fem comp and mech axis femur between both groups.||||0.002
91853289|NCT02527148|183590669|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of coronal angle tibial comp and mech axis tibia between both groups.||||<0.001
91853290|NCT02527148|183590669|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of sagital tibial component slope between both groups.||||<0.001
91853291|NCT02527148|183590669|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Fem comp rotation relative to surg epicond axis+=ER between both groups.||||<0.001
91853292|NCT02918279|183590670|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.22||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - Placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations was imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Responses at week 56 were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, sex, region, baseline glycaemic category, stratification factor for Tanner stage and interaction between baseline glycaemic category and stratification factor for Tanner stage as fixed effects, baseline BMI SDS, age as covariates.||-0.08|-0.37|0.0022
91712901|NCT01246895|183317576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||WOMAC subscale - Pain||||0.474
91853293|NCT01641198|183590754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.01||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SW estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.01|-0.59|<0.05
91853294|NCT01641198|183590754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.69||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.69|0.09|<0.05
91853295|NCT01641198|183590754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.39||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between SW and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||-0.39|-0.98|<0.05
91853296|NCT01641198|183590755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.13||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SW estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.13|-0.47|<0.05
91853297|NCT01641198|183590755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.85||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.85|0.26|<0.05
91853298|NCT01641198|183590755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.43||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between SW and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||-0.43|-1.02|<0.05
91853299|NCT01641198|183590756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.59||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SW estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.59|-0.19|<0.05
91853300|NCT01641198|183590756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.22||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||1.22|0.45|<0.05
91853301|NCT01641198|183590756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.26||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between SW and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI).||-0.26|-1.01|<0.05
91853302|NCT00346151|183590774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|60.0||||||95.0|15.0|95.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion of participant's cumulative incidence of acute rejection at 24 weeks with 95% exact binomial confidence interval. Local biopsy reads were used in determining primary endpoint.||95|15|
91901178|NCT02146326|183697166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
91853303|NCT00346151|183590775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|100.0||||||95.0|40.0|100.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||100|40|
91853304|NCT00346151|183590776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate|80.0||||||95.0|28.0|99.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||99|28|
91853305|NCT00346151|183590779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|100.0||||||95.0|40.0|100.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||100|40|
91853306|NCT00346151|183590781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
91853307|NCT00346151|183590782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|80.0||||||95.0|28.0|99.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||99|28|
91853308|NCT00346151|183590783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
91853309|NCT00346151|183590784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
91853310|NCT00346151|183590785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|100.0||||||95.0|47.8|100.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||100|47.8|
91853311|NCT00346151|183590786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
91853312|NCT00346151|183590787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
91853313|NCT00346151|183590788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|20.0||||||95.0|0.5|71.6|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||71.6|0.5|
91853314|NCT01075217|183590789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.5||P-value provided is for the difference in pain assessment between Isovue and Visipaque in Group 1, i.e., pain was not assessed separately from heat.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5|1.4|<0.0001
91853315|NCT01075217|183590789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.94||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4||P-value provided is for the difference in pain assessment between Isovue and Visipaque in Group 2, i.e., pain was assessed separately from heat.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-0.5|0.3244
91853316|NCT01075217|183590790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.35||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.7|0.5|0.0059
91853317|NCT03260140|183590794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.24|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average weight at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month weight between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||-0.61|-3.24|0.001
91853318|NCT03260140|183590795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.11|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 PCS score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the 12-month SF-12 PCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||2.49|-1.11|0.388
91853319|NCT03260140|183590796|SUPERIORITY||Sign test|1.76||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.66|||F test-ratio of 2 McNemar's Chi-Squares|||Group-specific McNemar's Chi-Square tests were applied to examine the change from baseline to follow-up in dichotomized IPAQ (\>=150 vs \<150) minutes of physical activity per week. To compare intervention vs. control at 12 months, we applied an F test. The intervention effect was an odds ratio of the ratios of discordant pairs in the intervention vs the control group.||3.66|0.85|0.308
91853320|NCT03260140|183590797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average weight at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||0.24|-0.61|0.396
91901179|NCT02146326|183697167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91853321|NCT03260140|183590798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||1.61|-1.02|0.657
91853322|NCT03260140|183590799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||0.68|-2.33|0.281
91901180|NCT02146326|183697168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.67
91901181|NCT02146326|183697169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.04
91901182|NCT02146326|183697170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.34
91901183|NCT02146326|183697171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.71
91901184|NCT02146326|183697172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.22
91901185|NCT02146326|183697173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.11
91901186|NCT02146326|183697174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.14
91901187|NCT02146326|183697175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.55
91901188|NCT02146326|183697176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.91
91901189|NCT02146326|183697177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.48
91901190|NCT02146326|183697178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.67
91901191|NCT02146326|183697179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.77
91657933|NCT01136382|183209461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.11||To address multiplicity, a step-down procedure was used. If the treatment difference for the primary variable, morning PEF, was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the key secondary variable, FEV1, was tested at the 0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||0.11|0.02|0.0047
91657934|NCT01136382|183209462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|16.7|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||16.7|4.9|0.0004
91657935|NCT01136382|183209463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||0.08|0.00|0.0673
91657936|NCT01136382|183209464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||0.19|0.01|0.0216
91901192|NCT02146326|183697180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.59
91853323|NCT03260140|183590800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rodgers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||0.23|-0.11|0.483
91853324|NCT03260140|183590801|SUPERIORITY||Mean percent change in HbA1c|0.02||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average HbA1c at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis on log-transformed HbA1c comparing the average HbA1c between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||2.69|-2.57|0.985
91853325|NCT03260140|183590802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 MCS score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month MCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||1.55|-1.99|0.806
91853326|NCT03260140|183590803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average DBP at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month DBP between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||1.05|-1.77|0.620
91853327|NCT03260140|183590804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SPB at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average SBP between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||2.28|-2.32|0.987
91853328|NCT01755949|183590805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline C-reactive protein vs day 28 C-reactive protein||||0.038
91853329|NCT01755949|183590805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline C-reactive protein vs day 28 C-reactive protein||||0.98
91853330|NCT01755949|183590805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between placebo and colchicine levels at day 28||||0.072
91853331|NCT01755949|183590806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||placebo vs colchicine||||0.08
91853332|NCT01667796|183590828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||univariate generalized estimating equati|||||||0.001
91853333|NCT01667796|183590828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for adherence, body mass index, and oral contraceptive use|Generalized estimating equation|||||||0.008
91853334|NCT01444417|183590837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0497||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.896|43.199|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group.||The incidence of durable platelet response was compared by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the baseline age group. The Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio (romiplostim vs placebo) was estimated along with its 95% confidence interval.||43.199|1.896|0.0018
91853335|NCT01444417|183590838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0443||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.535|32.265|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group.||The incidence of overall platelet response was compared by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the baseline age group. The Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio (romiplostim vs placebo) was estimated along with its 95% confidence interval.||32.265|2.535|0.0002
91853336|NCT01444417|183590839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|P-value from Analysis of Variance with main effects (treatment and age group) model after testing for non-significant interaction (p-value ≥ 0.10).||||||0.0004
91853337|NCT01444417|183590840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.813||||0.7103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|2.391|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group||||2.391|0.277|0.7103
91853338|NCT01214824|183590857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison is HbA1c at 6 months versus Baseline||||0.014
91853339|NCT01214824|183590859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5304||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Comparison is masked phase 2 versus masked phase 1||||0.5304
91853340|NCT02214160|183590861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0347|||||||Paired T-test|||||||0.0347
91853341|NCT02214160|183590862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0343|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0343
91853342|NCT02423798|183590878|OTHER||Mean|9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91853343|NCT01063972|183590881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
91853344|NCT01063972|183590882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
91853345|NCT01063972|183590883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
91853346|NCT01063972|183590884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91901193|NCT02146326|183697181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.64
91853347|NCT00392054|183590924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.9||Cox regression analysis, stratified by clinical site, was performed and presented as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and a two-sided p-value testing of less than or equal to 0.05 (two-sided) for the Wald test.|Regression, Cox|||Event rates were plotted over time using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Only events occurring after the 90-day treatment period were included in the final analysis. Treatment groups were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.||0.90|0.35|0.0016
91853348|NCT00392054|183590926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.33|0.03
91853349|NCT00392054|183590927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.3|0.017
91853350|NCT00392054|183590928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.4|||Regression, Cox|||||0.4|0.28|<0.0001
91853351|NCT00392054|183590929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.72|||Regression, Cox|||||1.72|0.42|0.66
91853352|NCT00442117|183590970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.074||||0.4982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.196|2.049|||ANOVA|||||2.049|-4.196|0.4982
91853353|NCT00442117|183590971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7601||||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.585|4.106|||ANOVA|||||4.106|-2.585|0.6544
91853354|NCT00442117|183590972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.704||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.528|2.115|||ANOVA|||||2.115|-5.528|0.3796
91853355|NCT00442117|183590973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.432||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|18.24|||ANOVA|||||18.240|-17.560|0.9622
91853356|NCT01499654|183590983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91853357|NCT01499654|183590983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
91853358|NCT01499654|183590984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91853359|NCT01499654|183590984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91853360|NCT01499654|183590985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91853361|NCT01499654|183590985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91853362|NCT01499654|183590986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91853363|NCT01499654|183590986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91853364|NCT02763319|183591007|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.351|||Inverse normal test|The Inverse Normal method combines information (p-value) from the interim analysis and information from the final analysis.|The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per the Interactive Web Response System (IWRS). Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|||1.351|0.837|0.468
91853365|NCT02763319|183591008|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.33|||Inverse normal test|The Inverse Normal method combines information (p-value) from the interim analysis and information from the final analysis.|The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per the Interactive Web Response System. Rituximab + bendamustine is the reference treatment group.|||1.330|0.586|0.568
91853366|NCT02763319|183591009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.779|||||||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|1.779|0.812|
91853367|NCT02763319|183591010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|3.041|||||||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|3.041|0.778|
91712902|NCT01246895|183317576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||WOMAC subscale - Stiffness||||0.236
91853368|NCT02763319|183591011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.745|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.745|0.938|
91853369|NCT02763319|183591012|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|2.035|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|2.035|0.673|
91853370|NCT02763319|183591013|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.452|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.452|0.875|
91853371|NCT02763319|183591014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.626|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.626|0.682|
91853372|NCT02763319|183591015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.985|||||||A CMH test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|1.985|0.829|
91853373|NCT02763319|183591016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|3.457|||||||A CMH test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|3.457|0.755|
91853374|NCT02763319|183591017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.416|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.416|0.831|
91853375|NCT02763319|183591018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.595|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.595|0.633|
91853376|NCT02763319|183591019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.244|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.244|0.794|
91853377|NCT02763319|183591020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.22|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.220|0.570|
91853378|NCT00722046|183591079|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||6.45|-3.68|0.6504
91853379|NCT00722046|183591079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||7.23|-3.20|0.5213
91853380|NCT00722046|183591079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.94|7.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||7.48|-2.94|0.4698
91853381|NCT00722046|183591079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.71|6.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||6.17|-2.71|0.5183
91853382|NCT00722046|183591079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.65|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||5.35|-3.65|0.7529
91853383|NCT00722046|183591081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.4688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.38|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||5.24|-13.38|0.4688
91853384|NCT00722046|183591081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.9743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.59|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||9.22|-9.59|0.9743
91853385|NCT00722046|183591081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.57|10.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||10.25|-8.57|0.8824
91853386|NCT00722046|183591081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.4831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.77|5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||5.58|-13.77|0.4831
91853387|NCT00722046|183591081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.9562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.48|10.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||10.13|-9.48|0.9562
91853388|NCT00516321|183591114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference in SVR|7.9||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.4||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test adjusted for the randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with SVR in the eltrombopag group minus the percentage of participants with SVR in the placebo group. Adjusted for the actual strata: HCV genotype, baseline platelet count, and HCV RNA.|||13.4|2.4|0.0064
91853389|NCT00373386|183591137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||compared with baseline||||0.644
91853390|NCT00373386|183591138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Versus baseline|t-test, 2 sided|paired||Compared with baseline||||0.018
91853391|NCT00373386|183591139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison to baseline||||0.04
91853392|NCT00373386|183591140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.004
91853393|NCT00373386|183591141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.804
91853394|NCT00373386|183591142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.095
91853395|NCT00373386|183591143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.648
91853396|NCT01925469|183591153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Differences in the median change in pain scores were assessed using Wilcoxon rank sum test.||An a priori sample size calculation determined at least 28 patients were needed to detect a clinically significant 13 mm difference in pain score (α=0.05, power =0.80) with a standard deviation of 12 mm. Intention to treat analysis was performed.||||0.43
91901194|NCT02146326|183697182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.05
91657937|NCT01136382|183209465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.09||Analysis for change in daytime asthma symptom score from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.31|0.0004
91853397|NCT01925469|183591154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used to assess differences in satisfaction scores by treatment group. Correlation between pain and satisfaction scores was assessed by Spearman's correlation coefficient.||||0.4
91853398|NCT01925469|183591155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
91901195|NCT02146326|183697183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.06
91901196|NCT02146326|183697184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.84
91901197|NCT02146326|183697185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.14
91901198|NCT02146326|183697186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.45
91901199|NCT03153111|183697187|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.02||||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.19|0.88|0.7923
91901200|NCT03153111|183697188|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.17|1.17|||ANCOVA|||||1.17|-8.17|0.2172
91901201|NCT03153111|183697189|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.05|0.3665
91901202|NCT02684357|183697207|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|72.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.8|78.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||78.2|66.8|< 0.001
91901203|NCT02684357|183697208|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|78.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.4|84.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||84.5|72.4|< 0.001
91901204|NCT02684357|183697209|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|47.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.9|54.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||54.2|40.9|< 0.001
91853399|NCT01308567|183591158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.16||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at time of randomization. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.0479|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.16|0.819|0.7574
91853400|NCT01308567|183591158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.009||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.197||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at time of randomization. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.0479|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.197|0.85|0.9967
91853401|NCT01308567|183591159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.152|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.152|0.849|
91853402|NCT01308567|183591159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|1.236|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.236|0.913|
91853403|NCT01308567|183591160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.17|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.17|0.785|
91853404|NCT01308567|183591160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.118|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.118|0.75|
91853405|NCT01308567|183591162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.123|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.123|0.8|
91853406|NCT01308567|183591162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.238|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.238|0.886|
91853407|NCT01308567|183591164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.434|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.434|0.986|
91853408|NCT01308567|183591164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.435|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.435|0.985|
91853409|NCT01308567|183591166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.417|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.417|0.886|
91853410|NCT01308567|183591166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.288|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.288|0.798|
91853411|NCT02512965|183591292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|6.69||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by stratification factor at randomization.|||6.69|1.79|0.0002
91853412|NCT02512965|183591293|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|||4.85|1.35|0.0036
91853413|NCT02512965|183591294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.24|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Estimate adjusted for stratification factors at randopmization.|||1.24|0.46|0.26
91853414|NCT02512965|183591295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.4||2-sided p-value adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Log Rank|||||1.40|0.48|0.47
91853415|NCT04303156|183591296|OTHER||GMR|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.68|2.88|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|2.88|1.68|
91853416|NCT04303156|183591297|OTHER||GMR|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|2.55|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|2.55|1.46|
91853417|NCT04303156|183591298|OTHER||GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.57|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.57|0.67|
91853418|NCT04303156|183591301|OTHER||GMR|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.6|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|0.60|0.35|
91853419|NCT04303156|183591302|OTHER||GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.14|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.14|0.56|
91853420|NCT04303156|183591303|OTHER||GMR|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.14|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|2.14|1.03|
91853421|NCT04303156|183591304|OTHER||GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.93|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.93|0.98|
91853422|NCT04303156|183591305|OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.39|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.39|0.64|
91853423|NCT04303156|183591307|OTHER||GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.35|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.35|0.69|
91853424|NCT04303156|183591308|OTHER||GMR|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|6.02|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|6.02|0.55|
91853425|NCT04303156|183591309|OTHER||GMR|2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|4.8|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|4.80|1.51|
91853426|NCT04283552|183591327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wildoxon signed-rank test|||This statistical analysis is for Reader 1.||||0.001
91853427|NCT04283552|183591327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||This statistical analysis is for Reader 2.||||0.28
91853428|NCT04283552|183591328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||0.22
91853429|NCT04283552|183591328|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 2.||||>0.05
91853430|NCT04283552|183591329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||0.009
91853431|NCT04283552|183591329|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This statistical analysis is for Reader 2.||||>0.05
91853432|NCT04283552|183591330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||<0.001
91853433|NCT04283552|183591330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 2.||||0.02
91853434|NCT04283552|183591331|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||<0.001
91853435|NCT04283552|183591331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 2.||||0.02
91853436|NCT04283552|183591334|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis comparing PS-Early Reader 1 to PS-Late Reader 1.||||<0.001
91853437|NCT04283552|183591334|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis comparing PS-Early Reader 2 and PS-Late Reader 2.||||<0.001
91853438|NCT01852071|183591348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|42.81||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||42.81|-5.40|
91853439|NCT01852071|183591348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||||
91853440|NCT01852071|183591348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|25.13||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||25.13|-10.08|
91853441|NCT01852071|183591349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|64.86||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||64.86|11.21|
91853442|NCT01852071|183591349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||||
91853443|NCT01852071|183591349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|39.35||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||39.35|0.71|
91853444|NCT01852071|183591350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|42.81||||||Percentage of patients alive at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||42.81|-5.40|
91853445|NCT01852071|183591350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|41.28||||||Percentage of patients alive at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||41.28|-9.55|
91853446|NCT01852071|183591350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|31.22||||||Percentage of patients alive at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||31.22|-5.62|
91853447|NCT01852071|183591351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.71|76.96||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||76.96|22.71|
91853448|NCT01852071|183591351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|36.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|69.21||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||69.21|9.80|
91853449|NCT01852071|183591351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.78|65.23||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||65.23|22.78|
91853450|NCT02755116|183591370|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted relative risk|0.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.2|||log-binomial regression|||||1.20|0.48|0.003
91853451|NCT00958633|183591375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.1|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio for time to any mood episode in the 52-week group relative to the 8-week group was 0.68 (95% confidence interval \[CI\], 0.43 to 1.10; P = 0.12 by log-rank test).|||1.10|0.43|0.12
91853452|NCT00958633|183591376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|6.08||||||Manic or Hypomanic events||6.08|.86|
91853453|NCT00958633|183591376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.75||||||Depressive Events||0.75|0.25|
91712903|NCT01246895|183317576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||WOMAC subscale - Physical function||||0.326
91853454|NCT03073941|183591409|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-Inferiority analysis was performed once the 1 year OKS of the first 216 patients were collected. A one-sided T-test, 90% power, SD=10 and with a non-inferiority margin of 4 OKS was used and the analysis was based on the difference of average OKS between Persona and NexGen 1 year postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|90% power, SD=10 and with a non-inferiority margin of 4 OKS||||||<0.05
91853455|NCT04250883|183591419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.54
91853456|NCT04250883|183591420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.97
91853457|NCT04250883|183591422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||At 12 days postoperative|Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.64
91853458|NCT04250883|183591422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||At 3 months postoperative|Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.38
91853459|NCT04250883|183591423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|For age||Count of patients with or without pain at 3 months postoperative||||0.84
91853460|NCT04250883|183591423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||Number of Words Chosen||||0.89
91853461|NCT04250883|183591423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||Pain Rating index||||0.98
91657938|NCT01136382|183209465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.13||Analysis for change in total asthma symptom score from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.55|0.0015
91657939|NCT01136382|183209466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.04|-0.26|0.0079
91657940|NCT01136382|183209467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.1||Analysis for change in nighttime awakenings from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-1.1|-8.2|0.0095
91657941|NCT01136382|183209467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.7||Analysis for change in nighttime awakenings with reliever medication use from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-1.7|-6.2|0.0007
91657942|NCT01136382|183209468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Analysis for change in daytime reliever medication use from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.1|-0.4|0.0001
91712904|NCT01246895|183317577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Physical count|||||||0.01
91853462|NCT04250883|183591424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.9
91853463|NCT04250883|183591425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 1 hour||||0.68
91853464|NCT04250883|183591425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 6 hours||||0.91
91853465|NCT04250883|183591425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.73
91853466|NCT04250883|183591425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.77
91853467|NCT04250883|183591426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 1 hour||||0.63
91853468|NCT04250883|183591426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At postoperative day 1||||0.19
91853469|NCT04250883|183591427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 1 hour||||0.89
91853470|NCT04250883|183591427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At postoperative day 1||||0.49
91853471|NCT04250883|183591428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.42
91853472|NCT04250883|183591429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||Of Total complications within 30 days postoperative||||0.92
91853473|NCT04250883|183591430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||Time to maximal intensity||||0.098
91853474|NCT04250883|183591430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||Angle from minimal to maximal intensity||||0.008
91853475|NCT04250883|183591430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||Delta between minimal and maximal intensity||||0.042
91853476|NCT04250883|183591431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||postoperative day 1||||0.35
91853477|NCT04250883|183591431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||at postoperative day 12||||0.52
91853478|NCT04250883|183591432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||at postoperative day 1||||0.99
91853479|NCT04250883|183591432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At postoperative day 12||||0.30
91853480|NCT04250883|183591433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.42
91853481|NCT04250883|183591434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.3
91853482|NCT04250883|183591435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.33
91853483|NCT04250883|183591436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.018
91853484|NCT00925587|183591449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin -0.5 g/dL|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.052|||||Darbepoetin alfa QM - Darbepoetin alfa Q2W|Power = 90% at sample size calculation||0.052|-0.427|
91853485|NCT00774397|183591504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0537||95.0||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0537
91853486|NCT00774397|183591504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0213||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0213
91853487|NCT00774397|183591504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91853488|NCT00774397|183591504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91853489|NCT00774397|183591504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91853490|NCT00774397|183591504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91853491|NCT01599793|183591535|EQUIVALENCE|Testing if the change of ktrans between 2 weeks and baseline = 0 (i.e testing if the difference of means between 2 weeks and baseline =0)||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square means of ktrans at different time points (baseline, 2 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks) are estimated by a linear mixed model. Comparison of means at different time points were performed. The primary result reported below is for the difference of means between 2 weeks and baseline.||||0.0016
91853492|NCT01599793|183591537|OTHER|We calculated Spearman Correlation Coefficient between the percent change in Ktrans (from week 0 to 12) and the bone scan response change. We tested if the coefficient = 0|Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.36853||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3291
91853493|NCT01599793|183591539|OTHER|We calculated Spearman Correlation Coefficient between the percent change in Ktrans (from week 0 to 12) and the PSA change. We tested if the coefficient = 0|Spearman Correlation Coefficients|-0.41818||||0.2006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2006
91853494|NCT01599793|183591541|OTHER|We calculated Spearman Correlation Coefficient between the percent change in Ktrans (from week 0 to 12) and the Change in pain scale. We tested if the coefficient = 0|Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.17669||||0.5828|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5828
91853495|NCT04040296|183591592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects with the primary outcome within 14 days of randomization.|||3.8|-1.1|0.28
91853496|NCT04040296|183591593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|11.0|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of implemented recommendations with 24 hours of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||11|8.1|<.001
91853497|NCT04040296|183591594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.5||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.6|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects with AKI progression within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||2.6|-1.6|.65
91853498|NCT04040296|183591595|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects who received inpatient dialysis within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||.8|-.7|.89
91853499|NCT04040296|183591596|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects with inpatient mortality within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||2.1|-1.5|.72
91853500|NCT04040296|183591597|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.9||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.1|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects who received a kidney consult within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||4.1|-.3|.31
91853501|NCT04040296|183591598|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects discharged to hospice care within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||.4|-2.3|.17
91853502|NCT02652442|183591643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test for change in SVV (measured in degrees)||Null hypothesis: The change in SVV (Post-OAR - Pre-OAR) will not be different for the off-axis distance of 3.5 cm and 7.0 cm.||||0.97
91853503|NCT02652442|183591643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test for change in SVV (measured in degrees)||Null hypothesis: The change in SVV (Post-OAR - Pre-OAR) will not be different for the centrifugation duration of 1 minute and 3 minutes.||||0.51
91853504|NCT02652442|183591643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test for change in SVV (measured in degrees)||Null hypothesis: The change in SVV (Post-OAR - Pre-OAR) will not be different for the centrifugation schedule of daily OAR and biweekly OAR for a total of 5 sessions.||||0.44
91853505|NCT02252042|183591644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.01|0.67|0.03160
91853506|NCT02252042|183591645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.01605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||Nominal p-value|Log Rank||Nominal HR. Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||0.98|0.65|0.01605
91853507|NCT02252042|183591646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||0.93|0.58|0.00493
91853508|NCT02252042|183591647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.32504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.16|0.79|0.32504
91853509|NCT02252042|183591648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.07736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a single covariate|||1.06|0.69|0.07736
91853510|NCT02252042|183591649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|4.6||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.6|||Log Rank|H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||10.6|-1.2|0.0610
91853511|NCT02252042|183591650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.5||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.6|||Log Rank|H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||14.6|0.6|0.0171
91853512|NCT02252042|183591653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.14545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12||p-value stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.12|0.70|0.14545
91853513|NCT02252042|183591654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.05851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06||p-value stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.06|0.62|0.05851
91712905|NCT01246895|183317578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||SF-36 v2 Physical component||||0.478
91853514|NCT02252042|183591655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.65759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.27|0.86|0.65759
91853515|NCT02252042|183591656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.51982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.26|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.26|0.81|0.51982
91853516|NCT01636687|183591676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.6|67.7|||Fisher Exact|||Response criterion: IGA 0/1||67.7|36.6|<0.0001
91853517|NCT01636687|183591676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|73.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.8|83.9|||Fisher Exact|||Response Criterion: IGA 0/1||83.9|58.8|<0.0001
91853518|NCT01636687|183591676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|79.8|||Fisher Exact|||Response criterion: PASI 75||79.8|53.1|<0.0001
91853519|NCT01636687|183591676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|83.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.7|91.7|||Fisher Exact|||Response criterion: PASI 75||91.7|70.7|<0.0001
91853520|NCT00666276|183591715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.712
91853521|NCT00666276|183591716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between over 65 and less than 65 in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.257
91853522|NCT00666276|183591717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic dysfunctions. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hepatic dysfunction and without Hepatic dysfunction in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.082
91853523|NCT00666276|183591718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal dysfunctions. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Renal dysfunction and without Renal dysfunction in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.462
91853524|NCT00666276|183591719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Duration of drug administration. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between over 15 days and less than 15 days in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||<0.001
91853525|NCT00666276|183591720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Route of administration. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between oral, injection and switch in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.018
91853526|NCT00666276|183591721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.311|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Weight. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between over 40kg and less than 40kg in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.311
91853527|NCT00666276|183591722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Concomitant drug and without Concomitant drug in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.044
91853528|NCT00666276|183591723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Non-drug therapies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Non-drug therapies and without Non-drug therapies in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.008
91853529|NCT01039688|183591725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.18||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison of CP-690,550 5 mg to be statistically significant versus MTX, the comparison of CP-690,550 10 mg versus MTX had to be statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.73|0.0014
91853530|NCT01039688|183591725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.23||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison of CP-690,550 5 mg to be statistically significant versus MTX, the comparison of CP-690,550 10 mg versus MTX had to be statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.77|0.0004
91853531|NCT01039688|183591726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.81|19.82||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to MTX in ACR70 and comparison of 5 mg to MTX in change from BL in mTSS had to be statistically significant|Normal approximation|||||19.82|6.81|<0.0001
91853532|NCT01039688|183591726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|31.99||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to MTX in ACR70 to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to MTX in change from BL in mTSS had to be statistically significant|Normal approximation|||||31.99|18.51|<0.0001
91853533|NCT02594735|183591815|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91901205|NCT02684357|183697210|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|48.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.9|54.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||54.6|41.9|< 0.001
91901206|NCT02684357|183697211|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|62.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.5|68.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||68.9|55.5|< 0.001
91901207|NCT02684357|183697212|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|36.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||36.6|25.7|< 0.001
91712906|NCT01246895|183317578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||SF-36 v2 Mental component||||0.125
91853534|NCT02594735|183591816|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91853535|NCT02594735|183591817|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91853536|NCT02594735|183591818|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91853537|NCT02594735|183591819|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91853538|NCT02594735|183591820|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.375
91853539|NCT02594735|183591821|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91853540|NCT02594735|183591822|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Sign test|Data was not normally distributed||||||0.044
91853541|NCT02594735|183591823|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91853542|NCT03844269|183591835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||EEG data excluded if excessive noise (rejection of more than 30% of target trials due to voltage fluctuations greater than ± 100 μV deflections within an epoch) at the pre- or post-intervention assessment||||<0.05
91853543|NCT00475319|183591849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.001
91853544|NCT00475319|183591850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.001
91853545|NCT03698708|183591855|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91853546|NCT03698708|183591856|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91853547|NCT03698708|183591857|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91853548|NCT03698708|183591858|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91853549|NCT03698708|183591859|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91853550|NCT03698708|183591860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|1.74|||ANOVA|||||1.74|-10.07|
91853551|NCT00364013|183591872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-2.27||||0.0234||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a significance level of 5%.||||0.0234
91853552|NCT00364013|183591872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|2.28||||0.0227||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|PFS in the Mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a significance level of 5% conditional on first demonstrating a significant treatment effect in PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.0227
91853553|NCT00364013|183591873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-1.8||||0.0723||||||cP-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|Overall survival comparisons in the wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was performed at a significance level of 4.99% conditional on a statistically significant difference for PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.0723
91657943|NCT01136382|183209468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||Analysis for change in total reliever medication use from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
91657944|NCT01136382|183209469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
91657945|NCT01136382|183209470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
91657946|NCT01287013|183209484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91901208|NCT02684357|183697213|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|38.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||38.5|16.7|< 0.001
91657947|NCT01287013|183209485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91657948|NCT01287013|183209486|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.04
91657949|NCT01287013|183209487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91657950|NCT01287013|183209488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.67
91853554|NCT00364013|183591873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|1.83||||0.0678||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|Overall survival comparisons in the mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was performed at an significance level of 4.99% conditional on a statistically significant difference for PFS in the Mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.0678
91853555|NCT00364013|183591874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.87|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for geographic region and ECOG score.|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFOX alone arm.|||1.87|0.98|0.0684
91853556|NCT00364013|183591874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.47|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for geographic region and ECOG score|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFOX alone arm.|||1.47|0.65|0.9822
91853557|NCT00891930|183591878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.0130
91853558|NCT03873337|183591900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 25||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in scores on the TASQ at one-month post target quit date (2-months after baseline assessment.||||<0.001
91853559|NCT03873337|183591900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 27||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in scores on the TASQ at 3-months post target quit date (4 months after baseline assessment.||||0.002
91853560|NCT03873337|183591901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 27||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in cigarettes smoked per day at one-month post target quit date (2-months after baseline assessment.||||<0.001
91657951|NCT01179048|183209492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of liraglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below 1.3 or if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: HR \>=1.3 against Ha: HR \<1.3 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% in two-sided test). If non-inferiority was established for the primary outcome, a test for superiority was to be performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.968||p-value is reported for one-sided (α-level 0.025) test for non-inferiority (hazard ratio \>=1.3).|Regression, Cox|||The primary endpoint was evaluated using the Cox regression model to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) (liraglutide/placebo) and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) including treatment group as factor. Non-inferiority of liraglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below 1.3 or if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: HR \>=1.3 against Ha: HR \<1.3 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% in two-sided test).||0.968|0.778|<0.001
91853561|NCT03873337|183591901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 27||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in cigarettes smoked per day at 3-months post target quit date (4-months after baseline assessment.||||<0.001
91853562|NCT01574807|183591905|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiple McNemar tests corrected with Step-down Bonferroni method of Holm. A priori threshold for significance was 0.05.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91853563|NCT01185782|183591922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The primary endpoint was to determine whether or not SJ-0021 is inferior to u-hFSH in inducing ovulation. The criterion for non-inferiority was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (= one-sided 97.5% CI) had to be greater than -15% for SJ-0021 to be considered not inferior to u-hFSH.)"|Delta|-3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|6.04|||Chi-squared|||||6.04|-13.05|
91853564|NCT01185782|183591923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.214
91853565|NCT01185782|183591924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
91853566|NCT01185782|183591925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
91853567|NCT01185782|183591926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.852
91853568|NCT01185782|183591927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.102
91853569|NCT01185782|183591928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.560
91853570|NCT01185782|183591929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.555
91853571|NCT01185782|183591930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.416
91853572|NCT02507752|183591934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical component score at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||||< 0.001
91853573|NCT02507752|183591934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental component score at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||||= 0.014
91853574|NCT02507752|183591936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in ESR at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.021
91853575|NCT02507752|183591936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in ESR at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.003
91853576|NCT02507752|183591937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in CRP at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.744
91853577|NCT02507752|183591937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in CRP at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.646
91853578|NCT02507752|183591938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in SJC at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
91853579|NCT02507752|183591938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in SJC at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
91853580|NCT02507752|183591939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in TJC at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
91853581|NCT02507752|183591939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in TJC at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
91853582|NCT02507752|183591940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in DAS28 at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
91853583|NCT02507752|183591940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in DAS28 at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
91853584|NCT02507752|183591941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in patient global assessment at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
91853585|NCT02507752|183591941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in patient global assessment at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
91853586|NCT02507752|183591942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in HAQ score from screening to Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.011
91853587|NCT02507752|183591942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in HAQ score from screening to Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.001
91853588|NCT02507752|183591943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in pain scale from screening to Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
91853589|NCT02507752|183591943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in pain scale from screening to Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
91853590|NCT02507752|183591944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical component score at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.001
91853591|NCT02507752|183591944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental component score at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.001
91657952|NCT01179048|183209492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.968||p-value is reported for one-sided (α-level 0.025) test for superiority (hazard ratio\>=1.0).|Regression, Cox|||If non-inferiority was established for the primary outcome, a test for superiority was performed. Superiority of liraglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below 1.0 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: HR \>=1.0 against Ha: HR \<1.0 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% in two-sided test).||0.968|0.778|0.005
91712907|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.11|0.37|
91657953|NCT01179048|183209493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|0.962|||Regression, Cox|The analysis was done using a Cox regression model with treatment as a fixed factor including all randomised subjects.||||0.962|0.807|
91657954|NCT01179048|183209494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.971|||Regression, Cox|The analysis was done using a Cox regression model with treatment as a fixed factor including all randomised subjects.||||0.971|0.739|
91657955|NCT01179048|183209495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|0.934|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing cardiovascular death was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.934|0.656|
91853592|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical functioning domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.102
91853593|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical functioning domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.008
91853594|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role physical domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.008
91853595|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role physical domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
91853596|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Bodily pain domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.002
91853597|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Bodily pain domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
91853598|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||General health domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.077
91853599|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||General health domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.068
91853600|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Vitality domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.018
91853601|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Vitality domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.053
91853602|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Social functioning domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.002
91853603|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Social functioning domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.003
91853604|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role emotional domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.015
91853605|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role emotional domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.154
91853606|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental health domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.024
91853607|NCT02507752|183591945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental health domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.029
91853608|NCT01240330|183591972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|21.59|||t-test, 1 sided|||The femoral venous peak flow velocity (PFV) compared to the subject's own resting baseline PFV.||21.59|16.30|<0.0001
91853609|NCT05082935|183591982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.104|||ANCOVA|||||0.104|-0.008|0.09
91853610|NCT05082935|183591983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|0.02|0.02
91853611|NCT05082935|183591984|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|-0.076||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|-0.007|||ANCOVA|||||-0.007|-0.145|0.03
91853612|NCT05082935|183591985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.04|0.38
91853613|NCT05082935|183591986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.096||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.04|0.002
91853614|NCT03292913|183591995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Risk ratio is adjusted for sex, age, race, site, viral load suppression at baseline, and new to care.||Outcome measure for this analysis is viral load suppression. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p-value less than 0.05.||1.21|0.96|0.220
91853615|NCT03292913|183591996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Risk ratio is adjusted for sex, age, race, site, and new to care.||Outcome measure for this analysis is retention in care. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p-value less than 0.05.||1.15|0.94|0.481
91853616|NCT03292913|183591997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Risk ratio is adjusted for sex, age, race, site, and new to care.||Outcome measure for this analysis is a 6-month visit gap defined ashaving at least 189 days between two sequentially kept visits, post-randomization. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p-value less than 0.05.||1.03|0.72|0.093
91853617|NCT03950622|183591998|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-2.4||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site redness/erythema||1.1|-5.8|0.175
91853618|NCT03950622|183591998|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|17.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site tenderness/pain||17.2|6.0|<0.001
91853619|NCT03950622|183591998|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.3||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||5.0|-2.4|0.488
91853620|NCT03950622|183591999|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.2||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Joint pain/arthralgia||2.4|-2.8|0.888
91853621|NCT03950622|183591999|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Tiredness/fatigue||4.4|-4.2|0.960
91853622|NCT03950622|183591999|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-1.4||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Headache||2.4|-5.1|0.469
91853623|NCT03950622|183591999|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|3.4||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Muscle pain/myalgia||7.4|-0.4|0.082
91853624|NCT03950622|183592000|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Vaccine-related SAEs||0.6|-0.6|
91853625|NCT03950622|183592001|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||Serotype 1 (Shared)||0.96|0.66|<0.001
91853626|NCT03950622|183592001|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.85|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.85|1.38|<0.001
91853627|NCT03950622|183592001|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.80|0.57|<0.001
91853628|NCT03950622|183592001|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 5 (Shared)||0.98|0.64|<0.001
91853629|NCT03950622|183592001|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.19|0.84|<0.001
91853630|NCT03950622|183592001|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.48|1.02|<0.001
91853631|NCT03950622|183592001|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.9|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 7F (Shared)||0.90|0.68|<0.001
91853632|NCT03950622|183592001|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.94|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 9V (Shared)||0.94|0.70|<0.001
91853633|NCT03950622|183592001|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.89|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 14 (Shared)||0.89|0.64|<0.001
91853634|NCT03950622|183592001|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.26|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.26|0.91|<0.001
91853635|NCT03950622|183592001|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.93|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19A (Shared)||0.93|0.70|<0.001
91853636|NCT03950622|183592001|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.02|0.76|<0.001
91853637|NCT03950622|183592001|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.44|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.44|0.96|<0.001
91853638|NCT03950622|183592001|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio \[V114/ Prevnar 13™\] to be greater than 2.0.|GMT Ratio|31.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.35|39.97|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||39.97|25.35|<0.001
91657956|NCT01179048|183209495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.107|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing non-fatal stroke was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.107|0.721|
91657957|NCT01179048|183209495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.031|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing non-fatal myocardial infarction was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.031|0.747|
91657958|NCT01179048|183209495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.258|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing hospitalisation for unstable angina pectoris was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.258|0.763|
91712908|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.31||||||Comparison of midazolam||2.31|0.77|
91712909|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.62||||||Comparison of midazolam||1.62|0.56|
91901209|NCT02684357|183697214|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||32.5|12.0|< 0.001
91657959|NCT01179048|183209495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.044|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing coronary revascularisation was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.044|0.797|
91657960|NCT01179048|183209495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.046|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing hospitalisation for heart failure was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.046|0.727|
91657961|NCT01179048|183209496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.841|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.969|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a first microvascular event was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.969|0.730|
91657962|NCT01179048|183209497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|0.918|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a composite nephropathy event was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.918|0.666|
91853639|NCT03950622|183592001|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio \[V114/ Prevnar 13™\] to be greater than 2.0.|GMT Ratio|7.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|8.32|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||8.32|6.07|<0.001
91657963|NCT01179048|183209497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.905|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a new onset of persistant macroalbuminaria event was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.905|0.602|
91853640|NCT03950622|183592002|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences \[V114 - Prevnar 13™\] between the proportions of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from prevaccination \[Day 1\] to 30 days postvaccination \[Day 30\] to be greater than 0.1.|Percentage Point Difference|57.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|61.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated difference, 95% CI, and p-value are based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||61.8|52.0|<0.001
91853641|NCT03950622|183592002|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences \[V114 - Prevnar 13™\] between the proportions of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from prevaccination \[Day 1\] to 30 days postvaccination \[Day 30\] to be greater than 0.1)|Percentage Point Difference|50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|54.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated difference, 95% CI, and p-value are based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||54.9|45.9|<0.001
91853642|NCT03950622|183592003|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio \[V114/ Prevnar 13™\] to be greater than 1.2.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.85|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.85|1.38|<0.001
91853643|NCT03950622|183592004|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference(V114 - Prevnar 13™) between the proportions of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from prevaccination (Day 1) to 30 days postvaccination (Day 30) to be greater than 0.|Percentage Point Difference|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|16.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated difference, 95% CI, and p-value are based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Serotype 3 (Shared) ≥4-Fold Rise in OPA||16.9|6.0|<0.001
91853644|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||0.83|0.62|
91657964|NCT01179048|183209497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.189|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing persistent doubling of serum creatinine was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.189|0.667|
91657965|NCT01179048|183209497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.244|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a need for continuous renal-replacement therapy was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.244|0.607|
91657966|NCT01179048|183209497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.593|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|4.869|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing death due to renal disease was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||4.869|0.521|
91657967|NCT01179048|183209497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.519|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing composite retinopathy was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.519|0.869|
91657968|NCT01179048|183209497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.546|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing treatment with photocoagulation or intravitreal agents was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.546|0.869|
91657969|NCT01179048|183209497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|30.847|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing development of diabetes-related blindness was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||30.847|0.004|
91657970|NCT01179048|183209497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|2.502|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing vitreous haemorrhage was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||2.502|0.845|
91657971|NCT03203447|183209501|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-7.1||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|3.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. Prior to evaluating the results of the CMH test, a Breslow-Day test with Tarone's adjustment was conducted to confirm the homogeneity of the odds ratios between RVO strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by the type of retinal vein occlusion, i.e., branch vs. central.|Estimated value was calculated as the percentage of subjects in the Active arm meeting the primary endpoint minus the percentage of subjects in the Control arm meeting the primary endpoint.|Based on a Pearson chi-square test, a total sample size of approximately 460 subjects provided 90% power to detect a difference of 15% between the Active and Control arms assuming the Control arm showed a proportion of 0.50 at 8 weeks. The primary analysis was a test of superiority of the Active arm over the Control arm, and was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by type of retinal vein occlusion.||3.6|-17.9|0.191
91657972|NCT00445003|183209513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.0||adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between two study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparison|||9.0|2.2|<.001
91657973|NCT00445003|183209513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.1||adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between two study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||10.1|3.2|<.001
91657974|NCT00445003|183209515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-6.0||Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-6|-64|<.01
91657975|NCT00445003|183209515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.0|-71.0||adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-71|-128|<.001
91657976|NCT00445003|183209517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.5||Adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||7.5|-3.7|0.44
91657977|NCT00445003|183209517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.8||Adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||6.8|-4.4|0.63
91853645|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.71||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.71|1.33|
91853646|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.83|0.62|
91853647|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||0.96|0.70|
91853648|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.21|0.87|
91853649|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.64||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.64|1.17|
91853650|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||0.89|0.66|
91853651|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.00|0.75|
91853652|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||0.89|0.65|
91853653|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.05|0.77|
91853654|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||0.97|0.73|
91853655|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.05|0.78|
91853656|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.28|0.92|
91853657|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|10.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.37|12.03||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||12.03|9.37|
91853658|NCT03950622|183592005|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|10.07||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||10.07|8.00|
91853659|NCT02928224|183592044|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
91853660|NCT02928224|183592045|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
91853661|NCT02928224|183592046|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91853662|NCT02928224|183592055|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
91853663|NCT02928224|183592056|OTHER|||||||0.5958|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.5958
91853664|NCT02928224|183592057|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
91853665|NCT02928224|183592058|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
91853666|NCT02928224|183592059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
91853667|NCT02928224|183592060|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
91853668|NCT02928224|183592061|OTHER|||||||0.1004|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.1004
91853669|NCT02928224|183592062|OTHER|||||||0.3724|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.3724
91853670|NCT02928224|183592063|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91853671|NCT02928224|183592064|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91853672|NCT02928224|183592065|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91853673|NCT02928224|183592066|OTHER|||||||0.1928|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1928
91853674|NCT02928224|183592067|OTHER|||||||0.0357|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0357
91853675|NCT00094575|183592141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.22|||Log Rank||The HR was estimated by comparing Endovascular repair arm vs the Open repair arm.|The primary outcome was long-term, all-cause mortality. The sample size would provide 80% power to detect a 25% relative reduction in mortality at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. The primary comparison was the main effects of Endovascular repair vs Open repair of AAA.||1.22|0.77|0.81
91853676|NCT00094575|183592142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
91853677|NCT00094575|183592143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
91853678|NCT00094575|183592144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
91853679|NCT00094575|183592145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
91853680|NCT00094575|183592146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Note: Since this is measuring change over time since baseline, values could be below 0.||||0.58
91853681|NCT00094575|183592147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
91853682|NCT00094575|183592148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
91853683|NCT03122886|183592261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.37|||Log Rank|||||6.37|0.12|0.90
91853684|NCT05938413|183592317|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test to compare viral suppression rate between month 3 and baseline.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91853685|NCT03312907|183592320|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.71|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||2.71|0.60|0.5342
91853686|NCT03312907|183592320|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.54|||||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, and Baseline prednisone equivalent dose. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||1.54|0.32|
91853687|NCT03312907|183592321|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.78|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||3.78|0.33|0.8582
91657978|NCT00445003|183209520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||adjusted for baseline retinal volume, optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-0.2|-1.0|0.001
91853688|NCT03312907|183592321|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.7|||||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm was excluded from model.|||1.70|0.17|
91657979|NCT00445003|183209520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.3||adjusted for baseline retinal volume, optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-1.3|-2.1|<.001
91657980|NCT00528606|183209524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing treatment groups, stratified by baseline severity group and joint type.||||<0.001
91657981|NCT01239121|183209766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.6||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||||1.5|-0.27|0.175
91657982|NCT01239121|183209767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|.49|0.964
91657983|NCT04006171|183209771|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91657984|NCT04006171|183209772|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Roc curve|||||||0.004
91657985|NCT04006171|183209773|OTHER|||||||0.171||||||p value for FSH|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for FSH||||||0.171
91657986|NCT04006171|183209773|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||p value for LH|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for LH||||||0.176
91657987|NCT04006171|183209774|OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.306
91657988|NCT04006171|183209775|OTHER|||||||0.795|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.795
91657989|NCT04006171|183209776|OTHER|||||||0.852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.852
91657990|NCT04006171|183209777|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91657991|NCT04006171|183209778|OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.277
91657992|NCT04006171|183209779|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91657993|NCT04006171|183209780|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91853689|NCT03312907|183592322|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.72|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||4.72|0.57|0.3613
91657994|NCT04006171|183209781|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91657995|NCT04006171|183209782|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91657996|NCT04006171|183209783|OTHER|||||||0.947||||||for serum glucose|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for serum glucose||||||0.947
91657997|NCT04006171|183209783|OTHER|||||||0.906||||||for total cholesterol|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for total cholesterol||||||0.906
91657998|NCT04006171|183209783|OTHER|||||||0.428||||||for triglycerides|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for triglycerides||||||0.428
91657999|NCT04006171|183209784|OTHER|||||||0.114||||||for high density lipoprotein|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.114
91658000|NCT04006171|183209784|OTHER|||||||0.504||||||for low density lipoprotein|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for low density lipoprotein||||||0.504
91658001|NCT04006171|183209785|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.713
91658002|NCT04006171|183209786|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.886
91658003|NCT00440557|183209799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a difference in the mean change in Hb from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment through Week 22 of -0.3 g/dL between standard-tx group (TIW) and test-tx group (QW), a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 g/dL, and a noninferiority margin of 1 g/dL, a sample size of approximately 250 participants (125 per group) will provide 90% power to demonstrate that the test treatment group is not inferior to the standard-treatment group for an overall 2-sided 0.05 significance level|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||||95.0|-0.38|0.037||This comparison between QW and TIW was performed prior to comparing Q2W with TIW in the statistical analysis 2 according to a planned stepdown procedure for controlling multiplicity.||||The null hypothesis is the mean change in Hb concentration from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment (tX) through Week 22 in the QW group is not lower than that of the TIW group by more than 1 g/dL.||0.037|-0.380|
91658004|NCT00440557|183209799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a difference in the mean change in Hb from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment through Week 22 of -0.3 g/dL between standard-tx group (TIW) and test-tx group (QW), a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 g/dL, and a noninferiority margin of 1 g/dL, a sample size of approximately 250 participants (125 per group) will provide 90% power to demonstrate that the test treatment group is not inferior to the standard-treatment group for an overall 2-sided 0.05 significance level|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||||95.0|-0.641|-0.221||Since the non-inferiority was declared in the statistical analysis 1, this comparison between Q2W and TIW was then performed according to a planned stepdown procedure for controlling multiplicity.||||The null hypothesis is the mean change in Hb concentration from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment through Week 22 in the Q2W group is not lower than that of the TIW group by more than 1 g/dL.||-0.221|-0.641|
91658005|NCT00440557|183209800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-7.8||||||95.0|-17.2|1.7||||||||1.7|-17.2|
91658006|NCT00440557|183209800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-15.0||||||95.0|-25.0|-5.0||||||||-5.0|-25.0|
91658007|NCT00440557|183209801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.26||||||95.0|-0.564|0.043|||ANOVA|||||0.043|-0.564|
91853690|NCT03312907|183592322|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.09|||||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||1.09|0.19|
91853691|NCT03312907|183592328|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.13|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||1.13|0.57|0.2150
91853692|NCT03312907|183592328|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.63|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||2.63|1.03|
91853693|NCT03312907|183592329|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.19|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||1.19|0.64|0.3757
91853694|NCT03312907|183592329|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.49|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||1.49|0.71|
91853695|NCT03312907|183592330|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.5127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.78|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||5.78|0.42|0.5127
91853696|NCT03312907|183592330|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.1|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||2.10|0.23|
91853697|NCT03312907|183592331|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.8436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.05|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||5.05|0.14|0.8436
91853698|NCT03312907|183592331|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.14|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||3.14|0.09|
91853699|NCT03312907|183592338|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.7102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|15.7|||Regression, Logistic|Week 52|Odds ratio at Week 52 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant,Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab+ Standard therapy arm was excluded from the model.|||15.70|0.15|0.7102
91901210|NCT02684357|183697215|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|37.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||37.0|17.0|< 0.001
91658008|NCT00440557|183209801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.45||||||95.0|-0.755|-0.147|||ANOVA|||||-0.147|-0.755|
91658009|NCT00440557|183209802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.9||||||95.0|-9.5|1.6||||||||1.6|-9.5|
91853700|NCT03312907|183592338|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|10.71|||||Odds ratio at Week 52 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm was excluded from the model.|||10.71|0.10|
91853701|NCT03312907|183592338|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|Week 104|Odds ratio at Week 104 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant,Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from the model.|||3.15|0.26|0.8641
91853702|NCT03312907|183592338|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.64|||||Odds ratio at Week 104 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant,Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm was excluded from the model.|||5.64|0.26|
91853703|NCT02576574|183592404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.54|0.0070
91853704|NCT02576574|183592405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.52|0.0196
91853705|NCT02576574|183592406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.67|0.1032
91853706|NCT02576574|183592407|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.59|0.0630
91853707|NCT02576574|183592408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.62|0.0147
91658010|NCT00440557|183209802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-5.5||||||95.0|-11.4|0.3||||||||0.3|-11.4|
91658011|NCT00440557|183209803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.7||||||95.0|-14.2|8.7||||||||8.7|-14.2|
91658012|NCT00440557|183209803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-9.9||||||95.0|-21.7|1.8||||||||1.8|-21.7|
91853708|NCT02576574|183592409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.67|0.1753
91853709|NCT02576574|183592410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.66|0.0257
91853710|NCT02576574|183592411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.66|0.0809
91853711|NCT02576574|183592412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.78|0.1294
91853712|NCT02576574|183592413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.79|0.2618
91901211|NCT02684357|183697216|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|36.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||36.4|16.1|< 0.001
91658013|NCT00440557|183209804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.6||||||95.0|-9.6|14.8||||||||14.8|-9.6|
91791532|NCT01634191|183460882|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.1|135.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Elderly/Young) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of age on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-∞. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||135|94.1|
91853713|NCT02576574|183592414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.18|0.91|0.0640
91853714|NCT02576574|183592415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.2217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.07|0.73|0.2217
91791533|NCT01634191|183460883|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|131.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|157.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Female/Male) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of sex on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way ANOVA model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-∞. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||157|109|
91791534|NCT01634191|183460884|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|123.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Elderly/Young) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of age on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of ANOVA model was performed on the log-transformed Cmax. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||123|90.5|
91791535|NCT01634191|183460885|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|126.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Female/Male) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of sex on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way ANOVA model was performed on the log-transformed Cmax. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||126|92.3|
91791536|NCT01634191|183460886|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median difference (Elderly - Young) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.000|0.153
91791537|NCT01634191|183460887|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median difference (Female - Male) and 90% CI of the difference calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.000|0.169
91791538|NCT01252732|183460914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population is greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin is concluded.|Difference in Proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.0||||||||2.0|-7.5|
91791539|NCT01252732|183460915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population is greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin is concluded.|Difference in Proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.0||||||||7.0|-2.6|
91791540|NCT01252732|183460916|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population is greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin is concluded.|Difference in Proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.0||||||||5.0|-3.7|
91791541|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156||||||Eye-opening, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.156
91791542|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||Eye-opening, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.395
91791543|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114||||||Eye-opening, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.114
91791544|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||Eye-opening, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.211
91853715|NCT02576574|183592416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.1912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.72|0.81|0.1912
91853716|NCT02576574|183592417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.4951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.57|0.64|0.4951
91658014|NCT00440557|183209804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.0||||||95.0|-15.0|9.0||||||||9.0|-15.0|
91658015|NCT00440557|183209805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|0.03||||||95.0|-0.21|0.27|||ANOVA|||||0.270|-0.210|
91853717|NCT01780298|183592483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.203|-30.352|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-30.352|-42.203|<0.0001
91853718|NCT01780298|183592483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.739|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.418|-27.06|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-27.060|-38.418|<0.0001
91853719|NCT01780298|183592483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.265|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.081|-19.449|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||-19.449|-31.081|<0.0001
91853720|NCT01780298|183592483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.538||||0.1504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.398|1.321|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1.321|-8.398|0.1504
91853721|NCT01780298|183592483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.474||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.207|-3.741|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-3.741|-11.207|0.0002
91853722|NCT01780298|183592483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.979|-6.046|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-6.046|-15.979|<0.0001
91853723|NCT01780298|183592484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.249|-22.973|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-22.973|-32.249|<0.0001
91853724|NCT01780298|183592484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.553|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.501|-19.604|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-19.604|-29.501|<0.0001
91853725|NCT01780298|183592484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.043|-9.17|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||-9.170|-19.043|<0.0001
91853726|NCT01780298|183592484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.058||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.702|0.585|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.585|-6.702|0.0983
91853727|NCT01780298|183592484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.446|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.845|-7.047|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-7.047|-13.845|<0.0001
91853728|NCT01780298|183592484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.504|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.302|-9.707|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-9.707|-17.302|<0.0001
91853729|NCT01780298|183592485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.448|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.374|52.521|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||52.521|28.374|<0.0001
91853730|NCT01780298|183592485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.538|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.89|38.185|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||38.185|14.890|<0.0001
91853731|NCT01780298|183592485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.661||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.997|33.324|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||33.324|7.997|0.0018
91853732|NCT01780298|183592485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.91||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.534|22.286|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||22.286|5.534|0.0015
91853733|NCT01780298|183592485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.877||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.886|14.639|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||14.639|-2.886|0.1847
91658016|NCT00440557|183209805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.07||||||95.0|-0.315|0.166|||ANOVA|||||0.166|-0.315|
91658017|NCT00440557|183209806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-8.8||||||95.0|-16.0|-1.9||||||||-1.9|-16|
91658018|NCT00440557|183209806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-10.0||||||95.0|-18.0|-3.2||||||||-3.2|-18.0|
91658019|NCT01939197|183209807|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoint was the non-inferiority of the percentage of participants in the GT1 Analysis Group in Part 2 achieving SVR12 compared to the historical SVR12 rate for sofosbuvir plus ribavirin (a non-inferiority threshold of the lower bound of the 95% CI of 74%).|||||||||||||||||"The historical SVR rate, as reported in the PHOTON-1 study, for sofosbuvir and RBV in HCV/HIV-1 coinfected adults is 76% (87/114) with a 95% confidence interval of (67%, 84%).~Reference: Sulkowski MS, Naggie S, Lalezari J, et al. Sofosbuvir and ribavirin for hepatitis C in patients with HIV coinfection. JAMA. 2014;312(4):353-61."|||
91658020|NCT01939197|183209808|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91658021|NCT01939197|183209809|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The Fisher exact test was performed as prespecified on the SAP but the p-value couldn't be calculated because SVR12 rates in both arms were 100%, hence p-value appeared as not available."|||
91658022|NCT04977336|183209840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3706|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3706
91658023|NCT04977336|183209840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5379|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5379
91658024|NCT04977336|183209840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3859|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3859
91658025|NCT04977336|183209840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0251
91658026|NCT04977336|183209841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2318|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2318
91658027|NCT04977336|183209841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7615|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7615
91658028|NCT04977336|183209841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3870
91658029|NCT04977336|183209841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0823|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0823
91658030|NCT04977336|183209842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9986|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9986
91658031|NCT04977336|183209842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4446|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4446
91658032|NCT04977336|183209842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5978|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5978
91658033|NCT04977336|183209842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0479
91658034|NCT04977336|183209843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9895|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9895
91658035|NCT04977336|183209843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2731|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2731
91658036|NCT04977336|183209843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6492|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6492
91658037|NCT04977336|183209843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5119|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5119
91658038|NCT04977336|183209844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3158
91658039|NCT04977336|183209844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3247|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3247
91658040|NCT04977336|183209844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8424
91658041|NCT04977336|183209844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2312
91658042|NCT02480764|183209862|NON_INFERIORITY|A test for noninferiority was done using a margin of 1.5 mm Hg. A test for significant difference was performed at 5% level.|Least Square Mean Difference|-1.932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4512||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.782|0.918||Change at Week 8: P-value was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic SBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.918|-4.782|0.184
91658043|NCT02480764|183209862|NON_INFERIORITY|A test for noninferiority was done using a margin of 1.5 mm Hg. A test for significant difference was performed at 5% level.|Least Square Mean Difference|-3.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4344||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.502|-0.868||Change at Week 8: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic SBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.868|-6.502|0.010
91658044|NCT02480764|183209863|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9455||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.316|0.397||Change at Week 8: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic DBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.397|-3.316|0.123
91658045|NCT02480764|183209863|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9354||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.659|-0.985||Change at 8 Week: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic DBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.985|-4.659|0.003
91791545|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332||||||Eye-opening, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.332
91853734|NCT01780298|183592485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.787||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.536|30.038|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||30.038|9.536|0.0003
91853735|NCT01780298|183592486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2979.725||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7560.258|1600.808|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1600.808|-7560.258|0.1981
91853736|NCT01780298|183592486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2317.131||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1224.786|5859.048|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||5859.048|-1224.786|0.1956
91853737|NCT01780298|183592486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2396.589||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1367.692|6160.87|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||6160.870|-1367.692|0.2077
91853738|NCT01780298|183592486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5296.856||||0.1154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11930.19|1336.478|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1336.478|-11930.190|0.1154
91712910|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.7|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.70|0.23|
91853739|NCT01780298|183592486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.458||||0.8095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-736.151|577.234|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||577.234|-736.151|0.8095
91853740|NCT01780298|183592486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5376.314||||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12030.714|1278.085|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1278.085|-12030.714|0.1113
91853741|NCT01780298|183592487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|7.521|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||7.521|4.510|<0.0001
91853742|NCT01780298|183592487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.845|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.379|6.31|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||6.310|3.379|<0.0001
91658046|NCT02480764|183209864|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.347||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.347|0.571|0.548
91658047|NCT02480764|183209864|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2136||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.501||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.501|0.638|0.921
91658048|NCT02480764|183209865|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2805||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.759||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.759|0.607|0.904
91658049|NCT02480764|183209865|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2897||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.823||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.823|0.633|0.790
91658050|NCT02480764|183209866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1916||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.367||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.367|0.594|0.624
91658051|NCT02480764|183209866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.674||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.674|0.726|0.647
91853743|NCT01780298|183592487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.454|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.923|4.984|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||4.984|1.923|<0.0001
91853744|NCT01780298|183592487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.171||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|2.296|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||2.296|0.045|0.0418
91658052|NCT02480764|183209867|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1846||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.284||Clinic SBP \<140 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.284|0.537|0.404
91658053|NCT02480764|183209867|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2078||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.447||Clinic SBP \<140 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.447|0.606|0.768
91791546|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||Eye-opening, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.318
91791547|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375||||||Eye-opening, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.375
91791548|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352||||||Eye-opening, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.352
91791549|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||Eye-opening, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.312
91791550|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134||||||Pre-blink, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.134
91791551|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315||||||Pre-blink, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.315
91901212|NCT02684357|183697217|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|40.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.9|19.6|< 0.001
91658054|NCT02480764|183209867|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2837||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.784||Clinic DBP \<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.784|0.620|0.852
91658055|NCT02480764|183209867|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2788||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.763||Clinic DBP \<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.763|0.620|0.868
91791552|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071||||||Pre-blink, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.071
91791553|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Pre-blink, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.260
91791554|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264||||||Pre-blink, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.264
91791555|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381||||||Pre-blink, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.381
91791556|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249||||||Pre-blink, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.249
91791557|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451||||||Pre-blink, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.451
91791558|NCT03274999|183460930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||Pre-blink, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.393
91791559|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Eye-opening, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.006
91791560|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||Eye-opening, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.063
91853745|NCT01780298|183592487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.391||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|2.686|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||2.686|0.096|0.0357
91901213|NCT02684357|183697218|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|40.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.1|18.9|< 0.001
91658056|NCT02480764|183209867|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2244||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.59||Clinic SBP\<140 mm Hg and DBP\<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.590|0.684|0.847
91853746|NCT01780298|183592487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.562||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.303|3.82|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||3.820|1.303|0.0001
91853747|NCT01780298|183592488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.633|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.964|45.302|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||45.302|33.964|<0.0001
91658057|NCT02480764|183209867|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2517||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.785||Clinic SBP\<140 mm Hg and DBP\<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.785|0.769|0.460
91658058|NCT02480764|183209868|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3333||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|2.307||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.307|0.958|0.077
91658059|NCT02480764|183209868|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4229||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|2.951||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.951|1.241|0.003
91658060|NCT02480764|183209868|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3414||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|2.28||Clinic DBP\<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.280|0.893|0.137
91658061|NCT02480764|183209868|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4816||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.263|3.22||Clinic DBP \<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.220|1.263|0.003
91658062|NCT02480764|183209868|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3407||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|2.276||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg and DBP\<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.276|0.891|0.140
91658063|NCT02480764|183209868|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4136||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.118|2.797||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg and DBP\<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.797|1.118|0.015
91658064|NCT03117569|183209869|NON_INFERIORITY|A total of 375 participants (2:1 randomisation) were planned for enrolment and evaluation as ITT population. Under the assumption that SVR12 rate would be 96% in both arms, the study had 80% power to show non-inferiority of the simplified monitoring strategy with a lower confidence bound for SVR12 in the simplified monitoring arm greater than 90% or with a lower confidence bound for the difference (simplified arm minus standard arm) in SVR12 greater than -6%.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-8.2|<0.05
91658065|NCT01030965|183209882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.229|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||||0.229|0.088|<0.001
91658066|NCT01030965|183209882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.238|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||||0.238|0.099|<0.001
91658067|NCT01030965|183209882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||||0.220|0.080|<0.001
91658068|NCT00824265|183209984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.51|0.0032
91658069|NCT00824265|183209985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.59|0.1427
91658070|NCT00824265|183209986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37|||Log Rank|||||1.37|0.85|0.4490
91658071|NCT00824265|183209987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.56|0.0878
91658072|NCT00824265|183209988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.45|0.0036
91658073|NCT00824265|183209989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Participants in the ITT population|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.55|0.1143
91658074|NCT00824265|183209989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Participants who took anti-cancer therapies|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.48|0.0109
91658075|NCT00824265|183209992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
91658076|NCT00824265|183209993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0166|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0166
91853748|NCT01780298|183592488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.761|41.822|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||41.822|29.761|<0.0001
91853749|NCT01780298|183592488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.445|34.888|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||34.888|23.445|<0.0001
91853750|NCT01780298|183592488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.842||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|7.536|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||7.536|0.147|0.0418
91658077|NCT01402947|183210042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.933|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.100|0.933|
91658078|NCT01402947|183210043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.893|1.117|||ANOVA|||||1.117|0.893|
91658079|NCT02405195|183210065|OTHER|||||||0.638||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons was used|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA throughout measurement period (before, during and after CPB).||||0.638
91658080|NCT02405195|183210066|OTHER|||||||0.972||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons was used|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.972
91658081|NCT02405195|183210067|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons was used|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.001
91658082|NCT02863575|183210071|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) means difference|2.68||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|7.82|||ANCOVA|||||7.82|-2.46|0.306
91658083|NCT02863575|183210072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.09||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.2|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-2||2.20|-0.03|0.056
91658084|NCT02863575|183210072|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|11.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|12.73|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-2||12.73|9.54|< 0.001
91658085|NCT02863575|183210072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.45|11.64|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-2||11.64|8.45|< 0.001
91658086|NCT02863575|183210072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.58||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.87|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-4||3.87|-0.72|0.177
91658087|NCT02863575|183210072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.76|27.32|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-4||27.32|20.76|< 0.001
91658088|NCT02863575|183210072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.18|25.75|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-4||25.75|19.18|< 0.001
91658089|NCT02863575|183210072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.39||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|6.06|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-6||6.06|-1.28|0.201
91658090|NCT02863575|183210072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|34.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.06|39.55|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-6||39.55|29.06|< 0.001
91658091|NCT02863575|183210072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|31.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.67|37.16|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-6||37.16|26.67|< 0.001
91658092|NCT02863575|183210072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|40.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.49|48.2|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-8||48.20|33.49|< 0.001
91658093|NCT02863575|183210072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|38.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.81|45.52|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-8||45.52|30.81|< 0.001
91853751|NCT01780298|183592488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.625||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.763|11.487|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||11.487|1.763|0.0084
91853752|NCT01780298|183592488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.467|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.888|15.045|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||15.045|5.888|<0.0001
91853753|NCT01780298|183592489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.929|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.203|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1.203|0.654|<0.0001
91901214|NCT02684357|183697219|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|40.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.1|18.9|< 0.001
91901215|NCT02684357|183697220|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|28.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||28.8|9.5|< 0.001
91853754|NCT01780298|183592489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.875|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.141|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||1.141|0.609|<0.0001
91853755|NCT01780298|183592489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.649|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.912|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||0.912|0.386|<0.0001
91853756|NCT01780298|183592489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.231|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.231|-0.093|0.3985
91853757|NCT01780298|183592489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.414|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.414|0.026|0.0267
91853758|NCT01780298|183592489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.305||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.506|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.506|0.104|0.0036
91853759|NCT01780298|183592490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.564|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.179|1.949|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1.949|1.179|<0.0001
91853760|NCT01780298|183592490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.658|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||1.658|0.924|<0.0001
91853761|NCT01780298|183592490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.073|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.421|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||1.421|0.724|<0.0001
91853762|NCT01780298|183592490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.521|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.521|0.031|0.0282
91853763|NCT01780298|183592490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.471|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.471|-0.057|0.1223
91853764|NCT01780298|183592490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.710|0.273|<0.0001
91853765|NCT01780298|183592491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.478|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.478|0.269|<0.0001
91853766|NCT01780298|183592491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.354|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.354|0.158|<0.0001
91853767|NCT01780298|183592491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.249|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||0.249|0.022|0.0199
91853768|NCT01780298|183592491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.218|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.218|0.015|0.0247
91853769|NCT01780298|183592491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.221|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.221|0.019|0.0204
91853770|NCT01780298|183592491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.347|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.347|0.127|<0.0001
91853771|NCT05286385|183592500|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.29||||||||0.29|-6.29|
91853772|NCT05286385|183592501|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|3.44||||||||3.44|-8.04|
91712911|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.93|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.93|0.53|
91712912|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.47|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.47|1.51|
91712913|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|9.48|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||9.48|2.62|
91712914|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|6.44|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||6.44|1.78|
91712915|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of pitavastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.31|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.31|0.76|
91712916|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.42|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.42|1.12|
91853773|NCT05286385|183592502|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|3.55||||||||3.55|-2.95|
91853774|NCT05930782|183592535|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of Cmax falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|73.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.32|113.02||||||||113.02|48.32|
91853775|NCT05930782|183592536|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratio (GMR)|75.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.46|100.71||||||||100.71|56.46|
91853776|NCT05930782|183592537|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|86.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.16|109.63||||||||109.63|68.16|
91853777|NCT05930782|183592538|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|77.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.49|101.39||||||||101.39|59.49|
91853778|NCT05930782|183592539|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|55.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.03|113.02|||||For AUC0-inf, the GMR and 90% CI values were unreliable as there was only 1 calculable value for the Test (Group 2) and 2 values for the Reference (Group 1) products.|||113.02|6.03|
91853779|NCT01693120|183592558|SUPERIORITY||rate|1.6||||0.175|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.9|||exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that the procedure or device related stroke rate within 30-days of a Phased RF ablation procedure was 3.5% or greater. The alternative hypothesis was that this rate was less than 3.5%. A sample size of 300 subjects provided 90% power to test the null hypothesis assuming the true stroke rate was 1.0% with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.05||4.9||0.175
91853780|NCT01693120|183592559|OTHER|The goal of the analysis was to compute a two-sided 95% confidence interval around the 6-month effectiveness rate. There was no pre-specified hypothesis.|rate|52.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.1|62.1||||||||62.1|43.1|
91853781|NCT01693120|183592560|OTHER|There was no prespecified hypothesis tested.|rate|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.3|95.1||||||There was no prespecified hypothesis tested.||95.1|84.3|
91853782|NCT01693120|183592561|OTHER|There was no pre-specified hypothesis to test|rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.1||||||There was no pre-specified hypothesis to test||6.1|0|
91853783|NCT01391832|183592584|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of differences between rTMS+CPT and sham+CPT groups in change Clinical Administered Post-Traumatic Scale Total Severity Scores from baseline to 1-month follow-up.|t-value on group differences in change|-1.51|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED|||||Predicted effects on symptom reduction were evaluated with α = 0.05 for one-tailed t-distributions, recommended for designs examining efficacy of therapeutic interventions (Overall, 1991).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators of variance components for fixed effects; Satterthwaite estimates of effective degrees of freedom.|degrees of freedom = 327|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators (ReML) of the variance components were used to compute the maximum likelihood estimators of the fixed effects parameters (i.e., group, time, therapist, all two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term). Thus, we did not exclude participants with missing time points.||||>0.05
91658094|NCT02863575|183210073|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.73||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.5|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-2||1.50|-0.05|0.066
91712917|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.13|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.13|0.73|
91658095|NCT02863575|183210073|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|8.66|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-2||8.66|6.44|< 0.001
91712918|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.27|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.27|0.74|
91712919|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.72|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.72|0.64|
91712920|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.38|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.38|0.88|
91658096|NCT02863575|183210073|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|7.93|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-2||7.93|5.71|< 0.001
91712921|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.76|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.76|0.68|
91712922|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.17|0.43|
91712923|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of atorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.41|0.53|
91712924|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of atorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.46|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||3.46|0.89|
91901216|NCT02684357|183697221|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|28.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||28.3|7.8|< 0.001
91658097|NCT02863575|183210073|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.14||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.74|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-4||2.74|-0.47|0.165
91658098|NCT02863575|183210073|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|16.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.05|18.64|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-4||18.64|14.05|< 0.001
91658099|NCT02863575|183210073|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|15.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.91|17.51|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-4||17.51|12.91|< 0.001
91658100|NCT02863575|183210073|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.78||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|4.34|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-6||4.34|-0.78|0.172
91658101|NCT02863575|183210073|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|23.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|27.03|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-6||27.03|19.71|< 0.001
91658102|NCT02863575|183210073|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|21.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.93|25.25|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-6||25.25|17.93|< 0.001
91658103|NCT02863575|183210073|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.1||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|5.67|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-8||5.67|-1.47|0.249
91658104|NCT02863575|183210073|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|27.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.78|32.99|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-8||32.99|22.78|< 0.001
91658105|NCT02863575|183210073|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|25.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.68|30.89|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-8||30.89|20.68|< 0.001
91658106|NCT02863575|183210074|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.36||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.71|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2||0.71|0.01|0.044
91658107|NCT02863575|183210074|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|4.09|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2||4.09|3.09|< 0.001
91712925|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.14|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.14|0.85|
91712926|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of atorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.22|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.22|0.57|
91853784|NCT01391832|183592584|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of differences between rTMS+CPT and sham+CPT groups in change Clinical Administered Post-Traumatic Scale Total Severity Scores from baseline to 3-month follow-up.|t-value on group differences in change|-2.05|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|||||Predicted effects on symptom reduction were evaluated with α = 0.05 for one-tailed t-distributions, recommended for designs examining efficacy of therapeutic interventions (Overall, 1991).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators of variance components for fixed effects; Satterthwaite estimates of effective degrees of freedom.|degrees of freedom = 327|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators (ReML) of the variance components were used to compute the maximum likelihood estimators of the fixed effects parameters (i.e., group, time, therapist, all two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term). Thus, we did not exclude participants with missing time points.||||<0.05
91853785|NCT01391832|183592584|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of differences between rTMS+CPT and sham+CPT groups in change Clinical Administered Post-Traumatic Scale Total Severity Scores from baseline to 6-month follow-up.|t-value on group differences in change|-2.01|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|||||Predicted effects on symptom reduction were evaluated with α = 0.05 for one-tailed t-distributions, recommended for designs examining efficacy of therapeutic interventions (Overall, 1991).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators of variance components for fixed effects; Satterthwaite estimates of effective degrees of freedom.|degrees of freedom = 327|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators (ReML) of the variance components were used to compute the maximum likelihood estimators of the fixed effects parameters (i.e., group, time, therapist, all two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term). Thus, we did not exclude participants with missing time points.||||<0.05
91853786|NCT01391832|183592585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.666|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7101||0.3422|TWO_SIDED|1.422|-0.7548|2.088||It is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 58|mean change from baseline to 6-month follow-up, rTMS Active - rTMS Sham|Null hypothesis test of differences in N2 micro-volt change from baseline to 6-month followup.||2.088|-0.7548|.3422
91853787|NCT01391832|183592585|OTHER|The analysis examined correlations in change in N2 and PTSD symptoms.|Slope|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted|Regression, Linear|||The analysis examined the association between change in PTSD symptoms from baseline to 6-month follow-up and the change in N2 amplitude to the threatening stimulus from baseline to 6-month follow-up.|Correlations for the individual groups were active rTMS r(28)=-.373 and sham rTMS r(32)=-.296.|||0.02
91901217|NCT02684357|183697222|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||31.4|9.1|< 0.001
91712927|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.49|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.49|0.76|
91712928|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.29|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.29|0.75|
91712929|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.81|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.81|0.65|
91901218|NCT02684357|183697223|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.375|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.102|-5.648|||van Elteren test|||P-value calculated by the van Elteren test stratified for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||-5.648|-7.102|< 0.001
91712930|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.33|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.33|0.46|
91712931|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.45|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.45|0.33|
91658108|NCT02863575|183210074|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.73|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2||3.73|2.73|< 0.001
91791561|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Eye-opening, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.005
91853788|NCT01154985|183592586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||Proportion of responders in the EPA-E 1800 mg and 2700 mg groups compared to the proportion of responders in the placebo group compared using the Cochran-Armitage trend test in the Efficacy Evaluable analysis set. P-value less than 5% 1-sided. A total sample size of 210 (70 per arm) was planned to give 80% power for detecting a positive dose-response slope among the 3 treatment arms at 12 months.||||0.57
91791562|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||Eye-opening, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.089
91791563|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||Eye-opening, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.112
91791564|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Eye-opening, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.16
91791565|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||Eye-opening, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.077
91791566|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157||||||Eye-opening, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.157
91791567|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||Eye-opening, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.111
91901219|NCT02684357|183697224|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|84.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.0|90.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||90.4|79.0|< 0.001
91658109|NCT02863575|183210074|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.44||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.15|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||1.15|-0.27|0.224
91791568|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Pre-blink, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.040
91791569|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241||||||Pre-blink, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.241
91791570|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.284||||||Pre-blink, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.284
91791571|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||Pre-blink, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.313
91791572|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433||||||Pre-blink, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.433
91791573|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406||||||Pre-blink, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.406
91853789|NCT01154985|183592587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.0137
91658110|NCT02863575|183210074|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|8.71|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||8.71|6.68|< 0.001
91658111|NCT02863575|183210074|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|8.27|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||8.27|6.23|< 0.001
91658112|NCT02863575|183210074|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.61||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.75|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6||1.75|-0.53|0.293
91658113|NCT02863575|183210074|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|10.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|12.56|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6||12.56|9.30|< 0.001
91853790|NCT01154985|183592587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|29.1||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||29.1|3.4|
91853791|NCT01154985|183592587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.0006
91853792|NCT01154985|183592587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|34.4||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||34.4|9.6|
91853793|NCT01154985|183592588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.1592
91853794|NCT01154985|183592588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|23.0||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||23.0|-3.8|
91853795|NCT01154985|183592588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.0153
91853796|NCT01154985|183592588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|28.9||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||28.9|3.1|
91853797|NCT00232180|183592605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.741||Using an adaptation of Haybittle-Peto stopping criterion adjusting for two interim analyses, p-value for final primary analysis will be compared to alpha=0.049. No adjustment in alpha will be made on parameters/endpoints other than primary endpoint.|Cox proportional hazard model|||Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, time from electrocardiogram Q wave to the end of the S wave corresponding to ventricle depolarization (QRS) and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.741|0.535|<0.0001
91853798|NCT00232180|183592607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.757||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.757|0.552|<0.0001
91853799|NCT00232180|183592608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.761||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.932||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.932|0.622|0.0081
91853800|NCT00232180|183592609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.941||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.941|0.609|0.0120
91853801|NCT00232180|183592610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|0.876||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.876|0.673|<0.0001
91658114|NCT02863575|183210074|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|10.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.69|11.95|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6||11.95|8.69|< 0.001
91658115|NCT02863575|183210074|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.58||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.19|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8||2.19|-1.03|0.476
91658116|NCT02863575|183210074|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|12.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.66|15.26|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8||15.26|10.66|< 0.001
91658117|NCT02863575|183210074|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.08|14.68|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8||14.68|10.08|< 0.001
91658118|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.25 hour||0.36|-0.35|0.975
91853802|NCT00232180|183592611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|0.702||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.702|0.473|<0.0001
91853803|NCT00232180|183592612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|0.849||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.849|0.664|<0.0001
91853804|NCT00232180|183592613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.577|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|0.701||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.701|0.475|<0.0001
91853805|NCT00232180|183592614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.694|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.806||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.806|0.598|<0.0001
91853806|NCT00232180|183592615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.316||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|2.064||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||2.064|0.839|0.2321
91853807|NCT00232180|183592616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|1.406||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.406|0.443|0.4213
91853808|NCT00232180|183592617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994||||0.9754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.424||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.424|0.694|0.9754
91658119|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.12||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.63|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.25 hour||0.63|-0.40|0.654
91853809|NCT00232180|183592618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.2652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.22||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.220|0.485|0.2652
91658120|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.11||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.62|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.25 hour||0.62|-0.40|0.670
91658121|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.04||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.63|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.5 hour||0.63|-0.70|0.917
91658122|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.2|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.5 hour||3.20|1.31|< 0.001
91658123|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.24|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.5 hour||3.24|1.35|< 0.001
91658124|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.73||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.42|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1 hour||1.42|0.04|0.039
91658125|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|7.1|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1 hour||7.10|5.12|< 0.001
91853810|NCT00232180|183592619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971||||0.9537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.578||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||2.578|0.366|0.9537
91853811|NCT00232180|183592620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.154||||0.8539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|5.312||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||5.312|0.251|0.8539
91853812|NCT00232180|183592621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.585||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.91||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.910|0.376|0.0175
91853813|NCT00232180|183592622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.885||||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.4||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.400|0.559|0.6009
91853814|NCT02748317|183592623|OTHER|1 group t-test no comparison group|||||=|0.219||||||P-value is not adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.219
91853815|NCT01424397|183592688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with FP alone compared to Placebo using Mixed Models Analysis was 1.0000|||
91658126|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|6.37|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1 hour||6.37|4.39|< 0.001
91853816|NCT01424397|183592688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with SB-705498 alone compared to Placebo using Mixed Models Analysis was 0.7127|||
91853817|NCT01424397|183592688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with SB-705498 + FP compared to Placebo using Mixed Models Analysis was 1.0000|||
91658127|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.84||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.52|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1.5 hour||1.52|0.16|0.015
91658128|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|8.33|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1.5 hour||8.33|6.39|< 0.001
91853818|NCT01424397|183592688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with SB-705498 + FP compared to FP alone using Mixed Models Analysis was 0.0160|||
91658129|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.55|7.49|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1.5 hour||7.49|5.55|< 0.001
91658130|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.62||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.3|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 2 hour||1.30|-0.05|0.071
91658131|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|8.58|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 2 hour||8.58|6.65|< 0.001
91658132|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|7.96|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 2 hour||7.96|6.03|< 0.001
91658133|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.41||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.09|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 3 hour||1.09|-0.28|0.243
91658134|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.85|7.8|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 3 hour||7.80|5.85|< 0.001
91658135|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|7.4|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 3 hour||7.40|5.44|< 0.001
91658136|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.08||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.82|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 4 hour||0.82|-0.65|0.823
91658137|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|7.14|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 4 hour||7.14|5.02|< 0.001
91658138|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.94|7.05|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 4 hour||7.05|4.94|< 0.001
91658139|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.31||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.11|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 5 hour||1.11|-0.48|0.438
91853819|NCT01424397|183592690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.54|102.15||||||Placebo versus FP 200 μg,Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM,0-4 hr||102.15|60.54|
91712932|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.14|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||5.14|0.75|
91712933|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.16|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||3.16|0.49|
91853820|NCT01424397|183592690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.548|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.7|25.05||||||Placebo versus FP 12 mg SB-705498 , Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM, 0-4 hr||25.05|-39.7|
91853821|NCT01424397|183592690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|72.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.567|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.28|96.52||||||Placebo versus SB-705498 + FP 12 mg, Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM, 0-4 hr||96.52|48.28|
91853822|NCT01424397|183592690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.592|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.1|15.22||||||FP 200 μg versus SB-705498 + FP 12 mg, Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM, 0-4 hr||15.22|-33.1|
91853823|NCT01424397|183592691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|-0.49||||||||-0.49|-0.87|
91853824|NCT01424397|183592691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.27||||||||0.27|-0.30|
91853825|NCT01424397|183592691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|-0.31||||||||-0.31|-0.74|
91853826|NCT01424397|183592691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.06|
91853827|NCT01149369|183592699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values, relative risk ratios, and 95% confidence limits (CI) for the primary ITT were calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by clinic||Either 1) improvement in mean of available nausea VAS scores over 28-day treatment period compared to means of VAS during the 7-day baseline (BL) period being ≤ -25 mm, or 2) mean VAS after 28-days of treatment was \< 25 mm.||1.7|0.8|0.43
91853828|NCT01149369|183592700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-2.8|0.03
91853829|NCT01149369|183592701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.94
91853830|NCT01149369|183592702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.73
91853831|NCT01149369|183592703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.22
91853832|NCT01149369|183592704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.6|0.06
91853833|NCT01149369|183592705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.24
91853834|NCT01149369|183592706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.01
91853835|NCT01149369|183592707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.22
91853836|NCT01149369|183592708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.1|0.51
91853837|NCT01149369|183592709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.12
91853838|NCT01149369|183592710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.02
91853839|NCT01149369|183592711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.1|0.17
91853840|NCT01149369|183592712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|12.2|||ANCOVA|||||12.2|-7.0|0.59
91853841|NCT01149369|183592713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.0|||ANCOVA|||||10.0|-5.9|0.61
91853842|NCT01149369|183592714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.1|0.23
91853843|NCT01149369|183592715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.97
91658140|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.33|6.6|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 5 hour||6.60|4.33|< 0.001
91658141|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|6.29|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 5 hour||6.29|4.01|< 0.001
91853844|NCT01149369|183592716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|24.2|||ANCOVA|||||24.2|-18.0|0.77
91853845|NCT01149369|183592717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.46
91853846|NCT01149369|183592718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.2|0.44
91853847|NCT01149369|183592719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.7|0.77
91853848|NCT01149369|183592720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.80
91658142|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.35|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 6 hour||1.35|-0.35|0.250
91658143|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|6.02|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 6 hour||6.02|3.58|< 0.001
91658144|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|5.52|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 6 hour||5.52|3.08|< 0.001
91853849|NCT01149369|183592721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.1|0.88
91853850|NCT01149369|183592722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.7|-26.5|0.17
91853851|NCT01149369|183592723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.5|0.07
91853852|NCT01149369|183592724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-0.7|0.53
91853853|NCT01149369|183592725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.9|0.93
91853854|NCT01149369|183592726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.52
91658145|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.11||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.01|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 7 hour||1.01|-0.80|0.818
91658146|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.82|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 7 hour||4.82|2.23|< 0.001
91658147|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.71|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 7 hour||4.71|2.12|< 0.001
91658148|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.18||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.11|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 8 hour||1.11|-0.74|0.698
91853855|NCT01149369|183592727|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.1|0.76
91853856|NCT01149369|183592728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-2.0|0.45
91853857|NCT01149369|183592729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|0.0|0.18
91853858|NCT01149369|183592730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0|-0.2|0.008
91853859|NCT01149369|183592731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.9|0.001
91853860|NCT01149369|183592732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
91658149|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|4.34|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 8 hour||4.34|1.69|< 0.001
91658150|NCT02863575|183210075|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.16|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 8 hour||4.16|1.51|< 0.001
91658151|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.04||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.09|0.16|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.25 hour||0.16|-0.09|0.575
91658152|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.07||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.25|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.25 hour||0.25|-0.11|0.426
91853861|NCT01149369|183592733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.13
91853862|NCT01149369|183592734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.2|0.004
91853863|NCT01149369|183592735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.08
91853864|NCT01149369|183592736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.007
91853865|NCT01149369|183592737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.005
91853866|NCT01149369|183592738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.1|0.001
91853867|NCT01149369|183592739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.3|0.003
91853868|NCT01149369|183592740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.03
91901220|NCT02684357|183697225|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|39.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||39.6|18.5|< 0.001
91791574|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||Pre-blink, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.318
91853869|NCT01149369|183592741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|0.16
91853870|NCT01149369|183592742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.05
91853871|NCT01149369|183592743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.72
91853872|NCT01149369|183592744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.2|0.001
91853873|NCT01149369|183592745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.04
91791575|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||Pre-blink, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.499
91853874|NCT01149369|183592746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.14
91853875|NCT01149369|183592747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.0|0.07
91658153|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.04||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.22|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.25 hour||0.22|-0.14|0.686
91658154|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.07||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.29|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.5 hour||0.29|-0.15|0.543
91853876|NCT01149369|183592748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.8|0.19
91853877|NCT01149369|183592749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.9|0.04
91853878|NCT01149369|183592750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.02
91853879|NCT01149369|183592751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.06
91853880|NCT01149369|183592752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|0.09
91658155|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.12|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.5 hour||1.12|0.49|< 0.001
91658156|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.5 hour||1.05|0.42|< 0.001
91658157|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.24||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.46|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1 hour||0.46|0.01|0.038
91658158|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.33|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1 hour||2.33|1.69|< 0.001
91658159|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.09|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1 hour||2.09|1.46|< 0.001
91658160|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.25||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.47|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1.5 hour||0.47|0.03|0.024
91658161|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.64|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1.5 hour||2.64|2.02|< 0.001
91658162|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.39|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1.5 hour||2.39|1.77|< 0.001
91658163|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.18||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.4|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 2 hour||0.40|-0.04|0.103
91658164|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|2.71|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 2 hour||2.71|2.09|< 0.001
91658165|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.53|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 2 hour||2.53|1.91|< 0.001
91658166|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.08||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.29|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 3 hour||0.29|-0.13|0.448
91658167|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.47|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 3 hour||2.47|1.86|< 0.001
91658168|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.38|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 3 hour||2.38|1.78|< 0.001
91658169|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.23|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 4 hour||0.23|-0.23|0.997
91658170|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.28|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 4 hour||2.28|1.61|< 0.001
91853881|NCT01149369|183592753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-7|0.17
91853882|NCT01149369|183592754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.1|0.009
91853883|NCT01149369|183592755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.2|0.004
91658171|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.28|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 4 hour||2.28|1.61|< 0.001
91658172|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.06||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 5 hour||0.31|-0.19|0.656
91658173|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.09|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 5 hour||2.09|1.36|< 0.001
91658174|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.03|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 5 hour||2.03|1.31|< 0.001
91658175|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.11||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.16|0.38|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 6 hour||0.38|-0.16|0.425
91658176|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.9|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 6 hour||1.90|1.12|< 0.001
91658177|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.79|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 6 hour||1.79|1.01|< 0.001
91658178|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.03||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.26|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 7 hour||0.26|-0.32|0.841
91658179|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 7 hour||1.52|0.69|< 0.001
91658180|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.55|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 7 hour||1.55|0.72|< 0.001
91658181|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.0||||0.98||95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 8 hour||0.30|-0.30|0.980
91658182|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.36|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 8 hour||1.36|0.50|< 0.001
91658183|NCT02863575|183210076|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.35|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 8 hour||1.35|0.50|< 0.001
91658184|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.03||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.21|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.25 hour||0.21|-0.27|0.808
91658185|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.04||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.39|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.25 hour||0.39|-0.30|0.804
91658186|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.07||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.42|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.25 hr||0.42|-0.27|0.676
91658187|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.1||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.35|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.5 hour||0.35|-0.55|0.654
91658188|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.1|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.5 hour||2.10|0.81|< 0.001
91658189|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.2|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.5 hour||2.20|0.91|< 0.001
91658190|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.49||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.97|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1 hour||0.97|0.01|0.045
91658191|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.1|||<|0.001||95.0|3.41|4.78|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1 hour||4.78|3.41|< 0.001
91658192|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.29|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1 hour||4.29|2.92|< 0.001
91658193|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.59||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.06|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1.5 hour||1.06|0.11|0.015
91658194|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|5.71|||ANOVA|||PID score at 1.5 hour||5.71|4.35|< 0.001
91658195|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|5.12|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1.5 hour||5.12|3.76|< 0.001
91658196|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.44||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.91|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 2 hour||0.91|-0.03|0.066
91658197|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|5.89|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 2 hour||5.89|4.54|< 0.001
91658198|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|5.45|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 2 hour||5.45|4.10|< 0.001
91853884|NCT01149369|183592756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|0.10
91658199|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.32||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.81|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 3 hour||0.81|-0.16|0.186
91658200|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|5.35|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 3 hour||5.35|3.98|< 0.001
91658201|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|5.03|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 3 hour||5.03|3.65|< 0.001
91658202|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.6|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 4 hour||0.60|-0.43|0.750
91658203|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.87|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 4 hour||4.87|3.40|< 0.001
91658204|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.79|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 4 hour||4.79|3.32|< 0.001
91658205|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.26||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.81|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 5 hour||0.81|-0.30|0.361
91658206|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|4.53|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 5 hour||4.53|2.95|< 0.001
91658207|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.27|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 5 hour||4.27|2.69|< 0.001
91658208|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.39||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.98|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 6 hour||0.98|-0.20|0.195
91658209|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|4.13|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 6 hour||4.13|2.44|< 0.001
91658210|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.74|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 6 hour||3.74|2.06|< 0.001
91658211|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.14||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.76|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 7 hour||0.76|-0.49|0.669
91658212|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.31|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 7 hour||3.31|1.53|< 0.001
91658213|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.18|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 7 hour||3.18|1.40|< 0.001
91658214|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.18||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.82|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 8 hour||0.82|-0.46|0.581
91658215|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.0|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 8 hour||3.00|1.18|< 0.001
91658216|NCT02863575|183210077|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 8 hour||2.82|1.00|< 0.001
91658217|NCT02863575|183210078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||0.028
91658218|NCT02863575|183210078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
91658219|NCT02863575|183210078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
91658220|NCT02863575|183210079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||0.861
91853885|NCT01149369|183592757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.13
91853886|NCT01149369|183592758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.5|0.98
91658221|NCT02863575|183210079|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
91853887|NCT01149369|183592759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.007
91658222|NCT02863575|183210079|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
91658223|NCT02863575|183210080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||0.838
91658224|NCT02863575|183210080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
91658225|NCT02863575|183210080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
91658226|NCT01706926|183210086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.31|||Repeated measures model|||Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||-0.31|-1.06|<0.001
91658227|NCT01706926|183210086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.58|||Repeated measures model|||Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||-0.58|-1.33|<0.001
91658228|NCT01706926|183210086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.84|||Repeated measures model|||Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||-0.84|-1.60|<0.001
91658229|NCT01706926|183210087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|40.3|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||40.3|11.5|<0.001
91658230|NCT01706926|183210087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|50.5|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||50.5|22.5|<0.001
91658231|NCT01706926|183210087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|48.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|62.3|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||62.3|35.2|<0.001
91658232|NCT01706926|183210094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|28.2|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||28.2|3.9|0.013
91853888|NCT01149369|183592760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.06
91791576|NCT03274999|183460931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Pre-blink, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.390
91658233|NCT01706926|183210094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|25.3|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||25.3|1.8|0.030
91658234|NCT01706926|183210094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|41.1|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||41.1|15.2|<0.001
91791577|NCT03274999|183460932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.053
91791578|NCT03274999|183460932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.206
91791579|NCT03274999|183460932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.221
91791580|NCT03274999|183460932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.126
91791581|NCT03274999|183460932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124||||||T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.124
91853889|NCT01149369|183592761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.001
91853890|NCT01149369|183592762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.6|0.28
91853891|NCT01149369|183592763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.0|0.05
91658235|NCT01706926|183210095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|16.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response). p-value estimated from fisher's exact test.|||16.9|0.4|0.079
91658236|NCT01706926|183210095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.9||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|14.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response). p-value estimated from fisher's exact test.|||14.6|-0.8|0.133
91658237|NCT01706926|183210095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.2||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|18.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response). p-value estimated from fisher's exact test.|||18.9|1.5|0.026
91658238|NCT01706926|183210096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|15.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.007||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|27.61|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||27.61|3.96|0.009
91658239|NCT01706926|183210096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|16.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.879||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.42|28.56|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||28.56|5.42|0.004
91658240|NCT01706926|183210096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|27.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.892|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.87|39.07|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||39.07|15.87|<0.001
91658241|NCT01706926|183210097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.8|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor. Odds ratios greater than (\>) one favored mavrilimumab.|||8.80|2.56|<0.001
91658242|NCT01706926|183210097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|8.92|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor. Odds ratios \>one favored mavrilimumab.|||8.92|2.64|<0.001
91658243|NCT01706926|183210097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|13.4|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor. Odds ratios \>one favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||13.40|3.85|<0.001
91658244|NCT01706926|183210098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|26.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of placebo or active responders was less than 5.||26.1|6.0|0.004
91658245|NCT01706926|183210098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|12.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|22.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of placebo or active responders was less than 5.||22.1|3.3|0.014
91658246|NCT01706926|183210098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|14.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|23.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of placebo or active responders was less than 5.||23.9|4.2|0.007
91658247|NCT01706926|183210098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|36.6|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||36.6|12.7|<0.001
91658248|NCT01706926|183210098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|34.8|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||34.8|11.5|<0.001
91658249|NCT01706926|183210098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|45.6|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||45.6|20.7|<0.001
91712934|NCT03311841|183317584|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.86|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.86|0.27|
91658250|NCT01706926|183210099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.237|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-3.24|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||-3.24|-8.12|<0.001
91791582|NCT03274999|183460932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.167
91791583|NCT03274999|183460932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377||||||T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.377
91791584|NCT03274999|183460932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397||||||T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.397
91791585|NCT03274999|183460932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.441
91712935|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.11|0.40|
91658251|NCT01706926|183210099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.211|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-3.82|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||-3.82|-8.60|<0.001
91658252|NCT01706926|183210099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-4.59|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||-4.59|-9.40|<0.001
91712936|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.09|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||2.09|0.76|
91658253|NCT01706926|183210099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.922|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-3.45|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in tender joint count at Day 169.||-3.45|-11.02|<0.001
91658254|NCT01706926|183210099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.884|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|-4.74|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in tender joint count at Day 169.||-4.74|-12.16|<0.001
91658255|NCT01706926|183210099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.901|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|-6.67|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in tender joint count at Day 169.||-6.67|-14.17|<0.001
91658256|NCT01706926|183210100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|-0.17|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.17|-15.72|0.045
91658257|NCT01706926|183210100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.876||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|-0.48|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.48|-15.73|0.037
91658258|NCT01706926|183210100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.899||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.65|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-3.65|-19.00|0.004
91658259|NCT01706926|183210101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.137||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|7.29|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||7.29|-8.99|0.837
91658260|NCT01706926|183210101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.058||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|5.79|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||5.79|-10.18|0.589
91658261|NCT01706926|183210101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.083||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|2.55|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||2.55|-13.52|0.180
91658262|NCT01706926|183210102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.63|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.63|-2.20|<0.001
91658263|NCT01706926|183210102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.69|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.69|-2.23|<0.001
91658264|NCT01706926|183210102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.79|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.79|-2.33|<0.001
91712937|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.52|0.57|
91712938|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.7|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.70|0.25|
91712939|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.73|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.73|0.53|
91712940|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.32|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||4.32|1.32|
91658265|NCT01706926|183210103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.14|-0.29|0.479
91658266|NCT01706926|183210103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.04|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.04|-0.37|0.124
91658267|NCT01706926|183210103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.05|-0.47|0.017
91658268|NCT01706926|183210104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.64||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.92|0.45|0.017
91658269|NCT01706926|183210104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.66|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.66|0.32|<0.001
91712941|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|5.48|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.48|1.75|
91712942|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.64|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||2.64|0.80|
91853892|NCT01149369|183592764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.08
91853893|NCT01149369|183592765|SUPERIORITY|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.1|0.53
91658270|NCT01706926|183210104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.63|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.63|0.31|<0.001
91658271|NCT01706926|183210105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.89|0.58|0.003
91658272|NCT01706926|183210105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.84|0.55|<0.001
91658273|NCT01706926|183210105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.75|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.75|0.49|<0.001
91658274|NCT01706926|183210106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||10.7|-0.8|0.210
91712943|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.2|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.20|0.78|
91712944|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.09|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.09|1.09|
91712945|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.09|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.09|0.77|
91901221|NCT02684357|183697226|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|14.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||23.5|5.9|0.001
91658275|NCT01706926|183210106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||5.1|-2.9|1.000
91901222|NCT03602261|183697329|OTHER|||||||0.5536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5536
91658276|NCT01706926|183210106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.8||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||9.2|-1.6|0.207
91658277|NCT01706926|183210107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||10.7|-0.8|0.210
91901223|NCT01436071|183697340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.213|||ANCOVA|||||0.213|0.026|0.012
91853894|NCT01149369|183592766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.3|0.38
91853895|NCT01149369|183592767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-4.7|0.09
91853896|NCT01149369|183592768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-5.2|0.28
91853897|NCT01149369|183592769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-4.6|0.30
91853898|NCT01149369|183592770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.5|28.1|||ANCOVA|||||28.1|-70.5|0.40
91853899|NCT01149369|183592771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-12.0|0.28
91853900|NCT01149369|183592772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|-4.1|0.47
91853901|NCT01149369|183592773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.9|||ANCOVA|||||6.9|-4.5|0.68
91853902|NCT01149369|183592774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.6|||ANCOVA|||||7.6|-3.6|0.48
91853903|NCT01149369|183592775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-2.2|0.43
91658278|NCT01706926|183210107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.3||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||6.9|-2.3|0.621
91658279|NCT01706926|183210107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.4||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|12.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||12.7|0.0|0.062
91853904|NCT01149369|183592776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-8.5|0.01
91853905|NCT01149369|183592777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.1|||ANCOVA|||||6.1|-3.4|0.57
91853906|NCT01149369|183592778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-2.6|0.34
91853907|NCT01951170|183592785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Change in mTSS scores from baseline to Week 24.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.83
91853908|NCT01546753|183592813|SUPERIORITY|The change from baseline OFC to week 38 OFC (primary outcome measure) was compared between the two groups using a Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91853909|NCT01546753|183592814|SUPERIORITY|Differences in dichotomous outcomes for the percentage of participants who reach the 5000 mg cumulative dose to the walnut at the week 38 desensitization OFC was analyzed using Fisher's exact test||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91853910|NCT01546753|183592815|SUPERIORITY|Differences in dichotomous outcomes including the percentage of subjects who reach the 2000 mg cumulative dose to the walnut at the week 38 desensitization OFC was analyzed using Fisher's exact test|||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91853911|NCT01546753|183592816|SUPERIORITY|Differences in dichotomous outcomes such as the percentage of subjects who reach the 2000 mg cumulative dose to the tree nut at the week 38 desensitization OFC was analyzed using Fisher's exact test|||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91853912|NCT01546753|183592818|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91658280|NCT01706926|183210108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.7||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||7.8|-0.4|0.245
91853913|NCT01102231|183592828|OTHER||Proportion difference|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.964||||||||0.964|0.846|
91853914|NCT01195883|183592838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23|||GEE model|||||1.23|0.65|0.51
91853915|NCT01195883|183592839|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.81|0.42
91658281|NCT01706926|183210108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||3.5|-1.1|1.000
91658282|NCT01706926|183210108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.3||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||3.7|-1.2|0.494
91658283|NCT01706926|183210109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.608||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|4.35|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||4.35|-1.99|0.463
91658284|NCT01706926|183210109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.574||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|5.37|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||5.37|-0.83|0.151
91658285|NCT01706926|183210109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.578||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.02|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||7.02|0.81|0.014
91658286|NCT00722124|183210121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 sided||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact test.||||0.615
91853916|NCT01195883|183592840|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.72|0.26
91658287|NCT00722124|183210121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 sided||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact test.||||0.826
91658288|NCT00358449|183210181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.44|0.04|0.865
91658289|NCT00358449|183210181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.01|0.190
91658290|NCT00358449|183210184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|0.56|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.560|-0.303|0.551
91658291|NCT00358449|183210184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.593||95.0|-0.331|0.572|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.572|-0.331|0.593
91658292|NCT00358449|183210184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.334||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.901|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.901|-0.232|0.239
91658293|NCT00358449|183210184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.401|0.823|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.823|-0.401|0.488
91658294|NCT00358449|183210185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.356||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.833|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.833|-0.121|0.139
91658295|NCT00358449|183210185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.371||||0.145||95.0|-0.133|0.874|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.874|-0.133|0.145
91658296|NCT00358449|183210185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.433||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.946|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.946|-0.080|0.095
91658297|NCT00358449|183210185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.343||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.899|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.899|-0.214|0.219
91658298|NCT00358449|183210186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|16.65|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||16.65|-13.47|0.832
91658299|NCT00358449|183210186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|19.84|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||19.84|-12.01|0.622
91658300|NCT00358449|183210186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.83||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|35.52|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||35.52|-11.86|0.317
91658301|NCT00358449|183210186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|41.11|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||41.11|-10.91|0.246
91658302|NCT00358449|183210187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.28||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|38.18|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||38.18|0.39|0.046
91658303|NCT00358449|183210187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|34.25|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||34.25|-5.83|0.160
91658304|NCT00358449|183210187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.69||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|37.48|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||37.48|-2.10|0.078
91658305|NCT00358449|183210187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.11||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|42.74|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||42.74|-0.51|0.055
91658306|NCT00358449|183210188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.873|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.873|-0.226|0.241
91658307|NCT00358449|183210188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.839|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.839|-0.320|0.371
91658308|NCT00358449|183210188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.353||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|1.023|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||1.023|-0.317|0.291
91853917|NCT01195883|183592841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.58|||Chi-squared|||||2.58|0.69|0.40
91853918|NCT04470375|183592863|OTHER|Paired samples pre-post t-test||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.137
91853919|NCT04470375|183592864|OTHER|Paired samples t-test (pre - post measure of group)||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.010
91853920|NCT04470375|183592865|OTHER|Paired samples t-test (pre post measure of group)||||||0.591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.591
91853921|NCT05714696|183592866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
91853922|NCT05714696|183592867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.049
91853923|NCT05714696|183592868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.029
91901224|NCT03808688|183697348|OTHER|Descriptive statistics included the number of subjects/eyes(n), mean, SD, median, minimum, and maximum for continuous variables, and frequency and percentages for categorical variables.||||||||||||||||Cohorts assessed versus baseline treatment|All efficacy data were summarized at each timepoint using appropriate descriptive statistics for the overall populations as well as separately for monotherapy and concomitant therapy groups.|||
91901225|NCT02137512|183697358|SUPERIORITY|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901226|NCT02137512|183697358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91853924|NCT05714696|183592869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.163
91853925|NCT05714696|183592870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.442
91853926|NCT05714696|183592872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.527
91853927|NCT05714696|183592873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.311
91853928|NCT05714696|183592874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
91853929|NCT05714696|183592875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.005
91791586|NCT03274999|183460933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.034
91901227|NCT02137512|183697358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91901228|NCT02137512|183697359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91901229|NCT02137512|183697359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91658309|NCT00358449|183210188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|0.614|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.614|-0.965|0.653
91658310|NCT00358449|183210189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.06||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|32.13|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||32.13|-4.00|0.123
91658311|NCT00358449|183210189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|24.54|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||24.54|-13.29|0.551
91658312|NCT00358449|183210189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.04||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|37.7|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||37.70|-5.61|0.141
91658313|NCT00358449|183210189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.74|19.9|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||19.90|-30.74|0.666
91658314|NCT00358449|183210190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.4|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.400|-0.224|0.572
91658315|NCT00358449|183210190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.326|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.326|-0.350|0.942
91658316|NCT00358449|183210190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.197|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.197|-0.188|0.960
91658317|NCT00358449|183210190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.315|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.315|-0.105|0.317
91658318|NCT00358449|183210191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|4.12|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||4.12|-6.39|0.666
91791587|NCT03274999|183460933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143||||||T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.143
91658319|NCT00358449|183210191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|3.56|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||3.56|-7.87|0.450
91658320|NCT00358449|183210191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|2.81|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||2.81|-12.00|0.215
91658321|NCT00358449|183210191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|7.58|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||7.58|-8.61|0.898
91658322|NCT00358449|183210192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.294|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.294|-0.217|0.762
91658323|NCT00358449|183210192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|0.108|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.108|-0.426|0.235
91658324|NCT00358449|183210192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.436|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.436|-0.259|0.607
91658325|NCT00358449|183210192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.443|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.443|-0.308|0.716
91658326|NCT00358449|183210193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|0.545|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.545|-0.365|0.691
91658327|NCT00358449|183210193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.639|0.317|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.317|-0.639|0.500
91658328|NCT00358449|183210193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.849|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.849|-0.474|0.568
91658329|NCT00358449|183210193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.643|0.794|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.794|-0.643|0.832
91658330|NCT00358449|183210194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|1.76|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||1.76|-3.45|0.515
91658331|NCT00358449|183210194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|3.54|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||3.54|-1.74|0.496
91791588|NCT03274999|183460933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
91791589|NCT03274999|183460933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.250
91791590|NCT03274999|183460933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
91853930|NCT04090190|183592889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||T-test of Wilcoxon rank sum was used to test this non-normal data. Null hypothesis is that the concentration of urine inflammatory markers is the same at baseline and follow-up. This p-value is the probability that the difference in the CRP Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) between baseline and follow-up.||||0.6497
91853931|NCT04090190|183592889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4281|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||T-test of Wilcoxon rank sum was used to test this non-normal data. Null hypothesis is that the concentration of urine inflammatory markers is the same at baseline and follow-up. This p-value is the probability that the difference in the IL-12/IL-23p40 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) between baseline and follow-up.||||0.4281
91853932|NCT04090190|183592889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of MCP-1 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.3157
91853933|NCT04090190|183592889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This p-value represents the probability that the difference between baseline and follow-up levels of GM-CSF Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.1463
91853934|NCT04090190|183592889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6091|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of IL-1β Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.6091
91658332|NCT00358449|183210194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|3.72|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||3.72|-5.82|0.657
91853935|NCT04090190|183592889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of IL-6 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.3011
91853936|NCT04090190|183592889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of IL-8 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.5009
91853937|NCT00940537|183592893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||a priori threshhold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|this was a paired t-test||As there was no a priori reason for the level of IHTG to impact this measurement we compared the pre and post-prandial results for all subjects whose data were of sufficient quality (N=12). These results are comparing the two categories of fasting and post-prandial. Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in IHTG before and after a high fat, high carbohydrate meal.||||.097
91853938|NCT00940537|183592894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||This p-value compares the low IHTG (\<5%) subjects to those with medium levels of IHTG (5 - 10%). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that the T2 ratio would not depend on level of intrahepatic triglyceride (IHTG) and would be equal for the low and medium IHTG categories.||||0.006
91853939|NCT00940537|183592894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that the T2 ratio would not depend on level of intra-hepatic triglyceride (IHTG) and would be equal for the low (\<5%) and high (\>10%) IHTG categories.||||<0.0001
91853940|NCT00940537|183592894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in T2 relaxation ratios for varying levels of intra-hepatic triglyceride (IHTG). Thus the medium (5 - 10%) and high (\<10%) IHTG groups would not be statistically different with regard to average T2 ratio.||||.93
91901230|NCT02137512|183697359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901231|NCT02137512|183697360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91658333|NCT00358449|183210194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|4.09|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||4.09|-6.11|0.691
91658334|NCT00358449|183210195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.704|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.704|-0.105|0.142
91658335|NCT00358449|183210195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.798|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.798|-0.090|0.115
91658336|NCT00358449|183210195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.319|0.683|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.683|-0.319|0.465
91658337|NCT00358449|183210195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.66|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.660|-0.417|0.649
91658338|NCT00358449|183210196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.782|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.782|-0.042|0.077
91712946|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.4|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.40|0.85|
91712947|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.56|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.56|0.68|
91712948|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.92|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.92|0.83|
91791591|NCT03274999|183460933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
91791592|NCT03274999|183460933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.055
91901232|NCT02137512|183697360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901233|NCT02137512|183697360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901234|NCT02137512|183697361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901235|NCT02137512|183697361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901236|NCT02137512|183697361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91658339|NCT00358449|183210196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.356||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.809|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.809|-0.097|0.120
91658340|NCT00358449|183210196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.906|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.906|-0.326|0.345
91658341|NCT00358449|183210196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|0.798|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.798|-0.541|0.700
91658342|NCT00358449|183210197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|5.22|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||5.22|-8.79|0.609
91658343|NCT00358449|183210197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|7.38|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||7.38|-8.55|0.882
91658344|NCT00358449|183210197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|4.47|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||4.47|-7.68|0.595
91658345|NCT00358449|183210197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|6.44|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||6.44|-7.34|0.895
91658346|NCT00358449|183210198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.513||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|1.055|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||1.055|-0.028|0.062
91658347|NCT00358449|183210198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.852|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.852|-0.369|0.425
91658348|NCT00358449|183210198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|1.516|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||1.516|-0.096|0.082
91658349|NCT00358449|183210198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.631|1.132|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||1.132|-0.631|0.564
91658350|NCT00358449|183210199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.45||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|26.67|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||26.67|-7.77|0.270
91658351|NCT00358449|183210199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.11|23.36|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||23.36|-15.11|0.664
91901237|NCT02137512|183697362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901238|NCT02137512|183697362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901239|NCT02137512|183697362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91901240|NCT02137512|183697363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91853941|NCT01212991|183592897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.706|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|0.837||A 2-stage group sequential method (Lan DeMets OBF) assigned the level of significance for the pre-specified interim overall survival analysis (p\<0.015) based on overall 2-sided type I error rate of 0.049. Final results based upon interim analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \<1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.837|0.596|<0.0001
91901241|NCT02137512|183697363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901242|NCT02137512|183697363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91901243|NCT02137512|183697364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91712949|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.63|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.63|0.73|
91658352|NCT00358449|183210199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.81|34.94|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||34.94|-13.81|0.381
91658353|NCT00358449|183210199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.49||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.87|31.86|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||31.86|-20.87|0.672
91658354|NCT00358449|183210200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.400
91658355|NCT00358449|183210200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.111
91658356|NCT00358449|183210201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|34.4|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 12|||34.4|-71.1|0.421
91658357|NCT00358449|183210201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|40.5|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 12|||40.5|-44.6|0.633
91658358|NCT00358449|183210201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|45.7|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 24|||45.7|-76.3|0.920
91658359|NCT00358449|183210201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.8||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.2|11.6|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 24|||11.6|-79.2|0.105
91658360|NCT00358449|183210202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.68|15.41|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline values at Week 12|||15.41|-20.68|0.747
91658361|NCT00358449|183210202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.41|11.01|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline values at Week 12|||11.01|-24.41|0.352
91658362|NCT00358449|183210202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.25||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|11.2|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline values at Week 24|||11.20|-29.69|0.525
91658363|NCT00358449|183210202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.79||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.21|-0.38|||Van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline at week 24|||-0.38|-35.21|0.071
91658364|NCT02334722|183210213|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7824
91712950|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.29|0.56|
91712951|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.23|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.23|0.55|
91901244|NCT02137512|183697364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91658365|NCT03988803|183210214|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R1)|94.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.14|103.14|||ANOVA||Standard error of the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||103.14|87.14|
91658366|NCT03988803|183210215|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R1)|99.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.22|108.18|||ANOVA||Standard error fo the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||108.18|91.22|
91658367|NCT03988803|183210216|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R2)|103.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.99|107.52|||ANOVA||Standard error fo the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||107.52|99.99|
91658368|NCT03988803|183210217|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R2)|107.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.66|112.45|||ANOVA||Standard error fo the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||112.45|102.66|
91658369|NCT01171690|183210232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Matched pairs t test|||Matched pairs||||0.01
91658370|NCT02087904|183210242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|2.53||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.53|-3.13|0.834
91901245|NCT02137512|183697364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91658371|NCT02087904|183210242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|0.01||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-5.73|0.05
91658372|NCT02087904|183210242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.66||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.66|-4.00|0.415
91658373|NCT02087904|183210243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.141||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.141|-0.021|0.145
91658374|NCT02087904|183210243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.056||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.11|0.52
91658375|NCT02087904|183210243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.139||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.139|-0.023|0.159
91658376|NCT02087904|183210244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.193|3.642||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||3.642|-3.193|0.897
91658377|NCT02087904|183210244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.515|2.377||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 dose group and Placebo at each post-baseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.377|-4.515|0.542
91658378|NCT02087904|183210244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.52||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|1.916||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 dose group and Placebo at each post-baseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.916|-4.95|0.385
91658379|NCT02087904|183210245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.096||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.096|-0.249|0.384
91658380|NCT02087904|183210245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.026||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.026|-0.324|0.095
91658381|NCT02087904|183210245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.03||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.314|0.106
91712952|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.11|0.89|
91712953|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.77|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.77|0.83|
91712954|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.71|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.71|0.78|
91712955|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.34|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.34|0.70|
91791593|NCT03274999|183460933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
91658382|NCT02087904|183210246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|8.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||8.08|-10.22|0.818
91658383|NCT02087904|183210246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|1.69||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.69|-16.83|0.109
91658384|NCT02087904|183210246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|5.76||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.76|-12.58|0.465
91658385|NCT02087904|183210247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|7.52||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||7.52|-11.76|0.666
91901246|NCT02137512|183697365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91901247|NCT02137512|183697365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91853942|NCT01212991|183592898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.231||The assigned 2-sided type I error rate was 0.001 for the analysis of radiographic progression-free survival.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.231|0.149|<0.0001
91853943|NCT01212991|183592899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.61|0.844||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.01 for this analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.844|0.610|<0.0001
91853944|NCT01212991|183592900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.349|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.303|0.403||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.0125 for this analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.403|0.303|<0.0001
91853945|NCT01212991|183592901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.169|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.195||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.0167 for this analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.195|0.147|<0.0001
91658386|NCT02087904|183210247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|0.56||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-18.95|0.065
91853946|NCT01212991|183592902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rates|74.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|71.45|77.57||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.025 for this analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.57|71.45|<0.0001
91853947|NCT01212991|183592903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in objective response rate|53.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|48.53|59.17||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.05 for this analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.17|48.53|<0.0001
91853948|NCT01285999|183592926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.21||p-value has not been adjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|No adjustment.||H0: μt - μc = 0 H1: μt - μc ≠ 0 where μt and μc are the mean 9-month in-stent late loss values for the subjects in the PROMUS Element test and TAXUS Liberté control treatment groups, respectively.||-0.21|-0.37|0.05
91853949|NCT04714320|183592956|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.135||||||The stratification factor (screening estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m\^2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in Seated Automated Office SBP to Day 85||||=0.135
91853950|NCT04714320|183592956|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.867||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in Seated Automated Office SBP to Day 85||||=0.867
91853951|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
91853952|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
91853953|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||<0.001
91853954|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||<0.001
91853955|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
91853956|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
91901248|NCT02137512|183697365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91658387|NCT02087904|183210247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|2.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.49|-16.84|0.145
91658388|NCT02087904|183210248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|7.59||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||7.59|-14.03|0.558
91658389|NCT02087904|183210248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.77|5.11||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.11|-16.77|0.295
91853957|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
91901249|NCT02137512|183697366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91901250|NCT02137512|183697366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91853958|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
91853959|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
91853960|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
91853961|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
91853962|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
91853963|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
91853964|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
91901251|NCT02137512|183697366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91658390|NCT02087904|183210248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.63|4.04||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||4.04|-17.63|0.218
91658391|NCT02087904|183210249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|2.28||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.28|-3.58|0.664
91658392|NCT02087904|183210249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|0.28||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-5.67|0.075
91658393|NCT02087904|183210249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|0.52||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.52|-5.33|0.107
91658394|NCT02087904|183210250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.08|-4.26|0.5
91658395|NCT02087904|183210250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|1.05||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.05|-5.39|0.186
91658396|NCT02087904|183210250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|0.88||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.88|-5.46|0.157
91853965|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
91853966|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
91853967|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
91853968|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
91853969|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||<0.001
91853970|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.002
91853971|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||<0.001
91901252|NCT02137512|183697367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91658397|NCT02087904|183210251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.69||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.23|0.319
91658398|NCT02087904|183210251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.33||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.6|0.564
91853972|NCT04714320|183592958|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.002
91853973|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
91853974|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
91658399|NCT02087904|183210251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.47||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-0.45|0.966
91658400|NCT02087904|183210252|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.7||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.41|0.602
91658401|NCT02087904|183210252|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.58||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.55|0.953
91658402|NCT02087904|183210252|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.61|0.83
91658403|NCT02087904|183210253|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.33||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||6.33|-4.91|0.804
91658404|NCT02087904|183210253|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.63||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||4.63|-6.9|0.699
91658405|NCT02087904|183210253|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|7.14||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||7.14|-4.37|0.636
91658406|NCT02087904|183210253|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.76||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||6.76|-4.91|0.756
91658407|NCT02087904|183210253|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|0.42||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||0.42|-11.55|0.068
91853975|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day at 29||||<0.001
91853976|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day at 29||||<0.001
91853977|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
91901253|NCT02137512|183697367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901254|NCT02137512|183697367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91901255|NCT02137512|183697368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91658408|NCT02087904|183210253|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|4.58||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||4.58|-7.34|0.649
91658409|NCT02087904|183210254|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|5.14||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||5.14|-7.14|0.75
91658410|NCT02087904|183210254|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|3.6||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||3.6|-8.82|0.409
91853978|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
91853979|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
91712956|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.28|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.28|0.78|
91712957|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.74|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.74|0.62|
91712958|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.82|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.82|0.62|
91853980|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
91853981|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
91853982|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
91712959|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.67|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.67|0.58|
91853983|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
91853984|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
91853985|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
91901256|NCT02137512|183697368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91853986|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
91853987|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
91853988|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
91901257|NCT02137512|183697368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91901258|NCT02137512|183697369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91901259|NCT02137512|183697369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901260|NCT02137512|183697369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901261|NCT02137512|183697370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91853989|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
91853990|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
91853991|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 148||||<0.001
91853992|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.005
91853993|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 169||||<0.001
91853994|NCT04714320|183592959|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.002
91853995|NCT04714320|183592960|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.094||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in 24-hour Mean SBP at Day 85||||=0.094
91853996|NCT04714320|183592960|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.842||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in 24-hour Mean SBP at Day 85||||=0.842
91658411|NCT02087904|183210254|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|3.18||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||3.18|-9.24|0.338
91658412|NCT02087904|183210254|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|7.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||7.08|-5.59|0.817
91658413|NCT02087904|183210254|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|4.43||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||4.43|-8.37|0.544
91853997|NCT04714320|183592960|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.066||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 24-hour Mean DBP at Day 85||||=0.066
91853998|NCT04714320|183592960|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.442||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 24-hour Mean DBP at Day 85||||=0.442
91853999|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.834||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.834
91854000|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.945||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.945
91854001|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.208||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.208
91901262|NCT02137512|183697370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91854002|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.74||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.740
91854003|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.019||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.019
91854004|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.56||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.560
91854005|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.903||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure are included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction will be applied if quasi-complete separation of data points is detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.903
91854006|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.268||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure are included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction will be applied if quasi-complete separation of data points is detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.268
91854007|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.702||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.702
91854008|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.885||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.885
91854009|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.066||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.066
91854010|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.783||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.783
91854011|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.456||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.456
91658414|NCT02087904|183210254|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|3.86||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||3.86|-8.91|0.437
91658415|NCT02087904|183210255|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|4.92||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||4.92|-9.31|0.545
91658416|NCT02087904|183210255|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|6.81||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||6.81|-7.65|0.909
91658417|NCT02087904|183210255|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|3.25||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||3.25|-11.23|0.278
91658418|NCT02087904|183210255|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|5.92||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||5.92|-8.42|0.732
91658419|NCT02087904|183210255|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|2.69||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||2.69|-11.86|0.216
91658420|NCT02087904|183210255|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|-1.88||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||-1.88|-16.42|0.014
91791594|NCT03274999|183460933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.233
91791595|NCT03274999|183460934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.072
91791596|NCT03274999|183460934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.297
91791597|NCT03274999|183460934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
91658421|NCT02087904|183210256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.66||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.66|-0.56|0.874
91901263|NCT02137512|183697370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91658422|NCT02087904|183210256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.38||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.38|-0.86|0.451
91658423|NCT02087904|183210256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.93||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.93|-0.31|0.331
91658424|NCT02087904|183210256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.67||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.67|-0.73|0.932
91658425|NCT02087904|183210256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.37||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.37|-1.07|0.344
91658426|NCT02087904|183210256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.97||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.97|-0.47|0.489
91658427|NCT02087904|183210256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.85||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.85|-0.42|0.498
91658428|NCT02087904|183210256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.49|-0.8|0.637
91658429|NCT02087904|183210256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.94||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.94|-0.35|0.367
91658430|NCT02087904|183210256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.79||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.79|-0.51|0.67
91712960|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.63|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||4.63|1.09|
91712961|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.93|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.93|0.72|
91854012|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.102||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.102
91712962|NCT03311841|183317586|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.19|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.19|0.51|
91712963|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.11|0.36|
91854013|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.668||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.668
91658431|NCT02087904|183210256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.57||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.57|-0.76|0.776
91658432|NCT02087904|183210256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.96||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.96|-0.37|0.387
91658433|NCT02087904|183210257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.54||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.54|-0.86|0.661
91658434|NCT02087904|183210257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.15||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.15|-1.26|0.122
91854014|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.454||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.454
91854015|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.044||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.044
91854016|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.704||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.704
91854017|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.878||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.878
91658435|NCT02087904|183210257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.47||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.47|-0.94|0.507
91658436|NCT02087904|183210257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.74||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.74|-0.85|0.892
91658437|NCT02087904|183210257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.48||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.48|-1.12|0.433
91901264|NCT02137512|183697371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901265|NCT02137512|183697371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901266|NCT02137512|183697371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91901267|NCT02137512|183697372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91658438|NCT02087904|183210257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.76||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.76|-0.84|0.92
91901268|NCT02137512|183697372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91658439|NCT02087904|183210257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.71||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.71|-0.68|0.957
91658440|NCT02087904|183210257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.26||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.26|-1.13|0.222
91658441|NCT02087904|183210257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.25||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.25|-1.15|0.209
91658442|NCT02087904|183210257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.79||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.79|-0.62|0.813
91658443|NCT02087904|183210257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.17||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.17|-1.25|0.135
91901269|NCT02137512|183697372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91658444|NCT02087904|183210257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.57||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.57|-0.85|0.679
91901270|NCT02137512|183697373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91658445|NCT02087904|183210258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.79||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.79|-0.76|0.978
91658446|NCT02087904|183210258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.82||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.82|-0.75|0.925
91658447|NCT02087904|183210258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.61||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.61|-0.96|0.659
91658448|NCT02087904|183210258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.67||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.67|-1.1|0.633
91901271|NCT02137512|183697373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91901272|NCT02137512|183697373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91901273|NCT02137512|183697374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901274|NCT02137512|183697374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901275|NCT02137512|183697374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91901276|NCT02137512|183697375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91901277|NCT02137512|183697375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91901278|NCT02137512|183697375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91901279|NCT02137512|183697376|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901280|NCT02137512|183697376|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901281|NCT02137512|183697376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91901282|NCT02137512|183697377|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901283|NCT02137512|183697377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91901284|NCT02137512|183697377|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.99
91901285|NCT02137512|183697378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91901286|NCT02137512|183697378|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901287|NCT02137512|183697378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91854018|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.681||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.681
91854019|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.199||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.199
91901288|NCT02137512|183697379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91658449|NCT02087904|183210258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.56||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.56|-1.23|0.46
91658450|NCT02087904|183210258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.7|-1.1|0.663
91712964|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.28|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||2.28|0.75|
91712965|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.61|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.61|0.55|
91854020|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.602||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.602
91854021|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.135||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.135
91854022|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.407||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.407
91854023|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.795||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.795
91854024|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.036||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.036
91854025|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.915||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.915
91854026|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.957||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.957
91854027|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.804||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.804
91712966|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.69|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.69|0.23|
91854028|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.775||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.775
91854029|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.801||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.801
91901289|NCT02137512|183697379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901290|NCT02137512|183697379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901291|NCT02137512|183697380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901292|NCT02137512|183697380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901293|NCT02137512|183697380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91901294|NCT02137512|183697381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91854030|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.329||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.329
91854031|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.882||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.882
91658451|NCT02087904|183210258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.59||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.59|-0.89|0.696
91854032|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.235||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.235
91901295|NCT02137512|183697381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901296|NCT02137512|183697381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901297|NCT02137512|183697382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91901298|NCT02137512|183697382|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901299|NCT02137512|183697382|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901300|NCT02137512|183697383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91901301|NCT02137512|183697383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901302|NCT02137512|183697383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91901303|NCT02137512|183697384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91901304|NCT02137512|183697384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91791598|NCT03274999|183460934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.447
91791599|NCT03274999|183460934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
91791600|NCT03274999|183460934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
91791601|NCT03274999|183460934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.055
91791602|NCT03274999|183460934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
91901305|NCT02137512|183697384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901306|NCT02137512|183697385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91791603|NCT03274999|183460934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.500
91791604|NCT01527357|183460941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
91901307|NCT02137512|183697385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901308|NCT02137512|183697385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901309|NCT02137512|183697386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901310|NCT02137512|183697386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901311|NCT02137512|183697386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91901312|NCT02137512|183697387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91901313|NCT02137512|183697387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901314|NCT02137512|183697387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901315|NCT02137512|183697388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901316|NCT02137512|183697388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91901317|NCT02137512|183697388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91901318|NCT02137512|183697389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901319|NCT02137512|183697389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901320|NCT02137512|183697389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91901321|NCT02137512|183697390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91658452|NCT02087904|183210258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.34||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.34|-1.16|0.278
91854033|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.505||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.505
91854034|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.436||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.436
91854035|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.637||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.637
91854036|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.254||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.254
91854037|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.848||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.848
91658453|NCT02087904|183210258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.4|-1.1|0.357
91658454|NCT02087904|183210258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.64||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.64|-0.87|0.761
91791605|NCT01527357|183460942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
91791606|NCT01527357|183460943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
91854038|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.240
91854039|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.382||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.382
91854040|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.935||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.935
91854041|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.278||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.278
91658455|NCT02087904|183210258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.51||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-1.02|0.218
91658456|NCT02087904|183210258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.51||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.51|-1.02|0.513
91658457|NCT02087904|183210259|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.75||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.75|-0.52|0.728
91791607|NCT01527357|183460944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
91791608|NCT02233946|183460949|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.02||||||Participants who reported past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.02|0.47|
91791609|NCT02233946|183460949|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.31||||||Participants who reported no past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.31|0.57|
91791610|NCT02233946|183460950|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1||||||Participants who reported past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.10|0.40|
91854042|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.211||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.211
91854043|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.562||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.562
91658458|NCT02087904|183210259|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.24||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-1.06|0.219
91658459|NCT02087904|183210259|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.51||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-0.79|0.673
91658460|NCT02087904|183210260|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.71||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.71|-0.73|0.984
91658461|NCT02087904|183210260|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.19||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.19|-1.26|0.145
91791611|NCT02233946|183460951|SUPERIORITY|Participants who reported past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.94||||||||0.94|0.41|
91791612|NCT02233946|183460951|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.32||||||Participants who reported no past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.32|0.44|
91791613|NCT02233946|183460952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.34||||||"Participants with riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 6 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.34|0.50|
91791614|NCT02233946|183460952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||||||"Participants with riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 9 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.19|0.44|
91791615|NCT02233946|183460952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91||||||"Participants with riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 12 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||0.91|0.37|
91791616|NCT02233946|183460952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.23||||||"Participants with no riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 6 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.23|0.43|
91791617|NCT02233946|183460952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.66||||||"Participants with no riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 9 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||2.66|0.67|
91791618|NCT02233946|183460952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.99||||||"Participants with no riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 12 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.99|0.50|
91791619|NCT02927067|183460970|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) margin of primary efficacy endpoint was 7%. If lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -7%, NI was assumed. Power calculation: Assuming 68% (maribavir), 60% (valganciclovir) participants achieve confirmed viremia clearance,494 participants (247 per group) would yield \>90% power to declare NI based on 2-group test of equivalence in proportions. Considering 10% dropout,550 participants (275 per group) were planned to be enrolled and randomized.|Difference in Percentage of Responders|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.98|-0.36|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), 95% CI, and p-value.|||-0.36|-14.98|
91791620|NCT02927067|183460971|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of the key secondary efficacy endpoint was 7%. If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -7%, then noninferiority (NI) was assumed. Because the NI of the primary efficacy endpoint was not established, the NI hypothesis of the key secondary endpoint was not tested formally.|Difference in Percentage of Responders|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|12.76|||||CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|||12.76|-3.91|
91791621|NCT02927067|183460972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|8.0|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|16.3||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.30|-0.38|=0.061
91658462|NCT02087904|183210260|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.96|0.527
91854044|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.250
91854045|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.114||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.114
91854046|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.55||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.550
91854047|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.423||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.423
91854048|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.422||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.422
91854049|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.073||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.073
91854050|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.278||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.278
91854051|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.338||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.338
91854052|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.969||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.969
91854053|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.489||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.489
91658463|NCT02087904|183210261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.87||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.87|-0.71|0.836
91658464|NCT02087904|183210261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.66||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-0.94|0.738
91658465|NCT02087904|183210261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.38||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-1.22|0.3
91658466|NCT02087904|183210262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.59|102.62||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||102.62|-101.59|0.992
91854054|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.156||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.156
91854055|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.389||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.389
91854056|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.775||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.775
91658467|NCT02087904|183210262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.95|111.1||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||111.10|-103.95|0.948
91854057|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.437||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.437
91854058|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.618|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.618
91854059|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.079||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.079
91854060|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.349||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.349
91901322|NCT02137512|183697390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91901323|NCT02137512|183697390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91901324|NCT02137512|183697391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91901325|NCT02137512|183697391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901326|NCT02137512|183697391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91854061|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.58||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.580
91854062|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.106||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.106
91658468|NCT02087904|183210262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.1||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.76|68.65||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||68.65|-134.76|0.523
91901327|NCT02137512|183697392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901328|NCT02137512|183697392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901329|NCT02137512|183697392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91901330|NCT02137512|183697393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91854063|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.955||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.955
91854064|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.134||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.134
91854065|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.933||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.933
91854066|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.502||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.502
91854067|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.653||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.653
91854068|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.816||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.816
91854069|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.184||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.184
91854070|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.765||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.765
91854071|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.009
91854072|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.578||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.578
91854073|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.725||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.725
91854074|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.287||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.287
91854075|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.705||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.705
91854076|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.975||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.975
91901331|NCT02137512|183697393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901332|NCT02137512|183697393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91712967|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.95|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.95|0.53|
91901333|NCT02137512|183697394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91901334|NCT02137512|183697394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91901335|NCT02137512|183697394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
91901336|NCT02137512|183697395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91854077|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.118||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.118
91854078|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.959||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.959
91854079|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.413||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.413
91854080|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.043||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.043
91854081|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.849||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.849
91854082|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.662||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.662
91854083|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.047||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.047
91854084|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.95||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.950
91854085|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.656||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.656
91854086|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.922||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.922
91854087|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.143||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.143
91854088|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.452||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.452
91854089|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.231||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.231
91854090|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.405||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.405
91854091|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.718||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.718
91901337|NCT02137512|183697395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901338|NCT02137512|183697395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
91901339|NCT02137512|183697396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91712968|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.74|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.74|1.57|
91901340|NCT02137512|183697396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901341|NCT02137512|183697396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91901342|NCT02137512|183697397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91901343|NCT02137512|183697397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91854092|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.053||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.053
91854093|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.893||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.893
91854094|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.662||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.662
91854095|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.688||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.688
91854096|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.611||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.611
91854097|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.907||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.907
91791622|NCT02927067|183460973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|8.0|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|16.3||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.30|-0.38|=0.061
91854098|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.699||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.699
91854099|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.802||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.802
91854100|NCT04714320|183592961|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.206||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.206
91854101|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.28||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.280
91854102|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.648||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.648
91854103|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.416||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.416
91854104|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.900
91854105|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.627||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.627
91901344|NCT02137512|183697397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
91901345|NCT02137512|183697398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91901346|NCT02137512|183697398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91791623|NCT02927067|183460973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|13.4|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|21.62||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||21.62|5.23|=0.001
91901347|NCT02137512|183697398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
91901348|NCT02137512|183697399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901349|NCT02137512|183697399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91901350|NCT02137512|183697399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91658469|NCT02087904|183210262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.47|36.95||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||36.95|-28.47|0.799
91854106|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.921||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.921
91854107|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.464||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.464
91854108|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.458||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.458
91854109|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.779||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.779
91854110|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.629||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.629
91791624|NCT02927067|183460973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.87||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||21.87|5.80|<0.001
91854111|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.242||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.242
91854112|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.29||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.290
91854113|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.349||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.349
91901351|NCT02137512|183697400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91901352|NCT02137512|183697400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91658470|NCT02087904|183210262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.0||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.62|43.64||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||43.64|-25.62|0.609
91854114|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.532||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.532
91854115|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.205||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.205
91901353|NCT02137512|183697400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91901354|NCT02137512|183697401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91901355|NCT02137512|183697402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91901356|NCT02137512|183697403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91854116|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.368||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.368
91854117|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.084||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.084
91854118|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.179||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.179
91854119|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.584||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.584
91854120|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.762||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.762
91854121|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.675||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.675
91854122|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.166||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.166
91854123|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.090
91854124|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.488||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.488
91658471|NCT02087904|183210262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.97|34.19||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||34.19|-30.97|0.923
91854125|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.218||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.218
91854126|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.232||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.232
91854127|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.421||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.421
91854128|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.815||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.815
91854129|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.711||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.711
91854130|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.514||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.514
91854131|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.479||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.479
91854132|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.292||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.292
91854133|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.528||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.528
91658472|NCT02087904|183210262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.88|54.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||54.08|-49.88|0.937
91658473|NCT02087904|183210262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.68|58.95||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||58.95|-50.68|0.882
91854134|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.946||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.946
91901357|NCT02137512|183697404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901358|NCT02137512|183697405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91658474|NCT02087904|183210262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.8||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.05|65.55||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||65.55|-38.05|0.602
91901359|NCT02137512|183697406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901360|NCT02137512|183697407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91901361|NCT02137512|183697408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91854135|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.552||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.552
91854136|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.598||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.598
91854137|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.184||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.184
91658475|NCT02087904|183210263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.7||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.49|97.04||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||97.04|-180.49|0.554
91658476|NCT02087904|183210263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.86|146.31||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||146.31|-140.86|0.97
91658477|NCT02087904|183210263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.1||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.47|113.32||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||113.32|-165.47|0.713
91854138|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.614||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.614
91658478|NCT02087904|183210263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.1||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.12|19.88||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||19.88|-70.12|0.272
91901362|NCT02137512|183697409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91854139|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.933||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.933
91854140|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.803||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.803
91658479|NCT02087904|183210263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.63|57.8||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||57.8|-35.63|0.64
91658480|NCT02087904|183210263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.94|33.38||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||33.38|-56.94|0.608
91658481|NCT02087904|183210263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.3||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.88|39.3||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||39.3|-119.88|0.319
91658482|NCT02087904|183210263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.4||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.05|106.91||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||106.91|-58.05|0.56
91658483|NCT02087904|183210263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.97|51.82||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||51.82|-107.97|0.489
91712969|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|9.87|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||9.87|2.83|
91712970|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.07|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.07|1.39|
91712971|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.34|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.34|0.76|
91712972|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.46|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.46|1.12|
91712973|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.15|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.15|0.72|
91658484|NCT02087904|183210264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.015||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.015|-0.015|0.972
91658485|NCT02087904|183210264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.015||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.015|-0.017|0.929
91854141|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.686||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.686
91854142|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.752||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.752
91901363|NCT01215175|183697413|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||||95.0|-7.4|28.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||28.3|-7.4|
91901364|NCT01215175|183697414|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||||95.0|-7.9|26.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||26.6|-7.9|
91658486|NCT02087904|183210264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.01|-0.02|0.543
91658487|NCT02087904|183210264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.008||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.059||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.059|-0.043|0.752
91658488|NCT02087904|183210264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.011||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.064||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.064|-0.042|0.691
91854143|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.106||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.106
91854144|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.779||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.779
91854145|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.323||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.323
91854146|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.991||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.991
91854147|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.973||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.973
91658489|NCT02087904|183210264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.06||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.06|-0.041|0.71
91658490|NCT02087904|183210264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.02||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.02|-0.019|0.965
91854148|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.230
91854149|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.792||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.792
91854150|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.744||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.744
91854151|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY|Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|||||=|0.925|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.925
91854152|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.991||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.991
91854153|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY|Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|||||=|0.53|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.530
91854154|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.849||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.849
91854155|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.953||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.953
91854156|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.884||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.884
91854157|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.230
91854158|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.589||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.589
91901365|NCT01215175|183697414|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||||95.0|-15.5|22.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||22.9|-15.5|
91658491|NCT02087904|183210264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.019||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.019|-0.022|0.885
91658492|NCT02087904|183210264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.001||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.021||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.021|-0.018|0.887
91658493|NCT02087904|183210265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.014||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.014|-0.024|0.619
91854159|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.919||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.919
91854160|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.753||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.753
91854161|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.747||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.747
91854162|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.764||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.764
91854163|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.527||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.527
91854164|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.639||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.639
91901366|NCT01215175|183697415|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-11.5|11.5|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||11.5|-11.5|
91901367|NCT01215175|183697416|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-12.2|10.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||10.6|-12.2|
91901368|NCT01215175|183697416|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-12.3|12.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||12.3|-12.3|
91658494|NCT02087904|183210265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.019||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.019|-0.02|0.952
91658495|NCT02087904|183210265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.003||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.016||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.016|-0.022|0.765
91658496|NCT02087904|183210265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.03|-0.11|0.258
91658497|NCT02087904|183210265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.023||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.094||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.094|-0.049|0.535
91658498|NCT02087904|183210265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.006||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.064||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.064|-0.076|0.866
91658499|NCT02087904|183210265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.012||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.017||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.017|-0.041|0.413
91658500|NCT02087904|183210265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.012||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.042||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.042|-0.018|0.445
91658501|NCT02087904|183210265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.003||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.026||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.026|-0.032|0.835
91658502|NCT02087904|183210266|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.0||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|21.4||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|-7.3|0.311
91658503|NCT02087904|183210266|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.5||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|19.9||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.9|-8.9|0.435
91658504|NCT02087904|183210266|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.5||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|19.9||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.9|-8.9|0.435
91712974|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.36|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.36|0.76|
91712975|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.65|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.65|0.64|
91712976|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.24|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.24|0.87|
91854165|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.744||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.744
91854166|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.539||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.539
91854167|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.417||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.417
91854168|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.466||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.466
91854169|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.38||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.380
91854170|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.73||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.730
91854171|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.595||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.595
91901369|NCT01215175|183697417|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||||95.0|-7.4|28.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||28.3|-7.4|
91901370|NCT01215175|183697418|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||||95.0|-10.6|30.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||30.9|-10.6|
91712977|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.71|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.71|0.68|
91712978|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.17|0.45|
91658505|NCT02087904|183210267|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.4||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|16.8||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|-11.9|0.744
91658506|NCT02087904|183210267|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|4.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|18.7||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.7|-10.1|0.581
91901371|NCT01215175|183697418|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||||95.0|-19.1|26.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||26.0|-19.1|
91854172|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.279||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.279
91854173|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.196||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.196
91854174|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.728||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.728
91854175|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.453||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.453
91658507|NCT02087904|183210267|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.4||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|24.3||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|-3.5|0.146
91658508|NCT02087904|183210268|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-1.3||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|12.4||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|-14.9|0.824
91658509|NCT02087904|183210268|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|0.8||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.5||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|-12.8|0.964
91658510|NCT02087904|183210268|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.1||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|15.6||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.6|-11.3|0.763
91658511|NCT00891293|183210280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.01||0.9999||95.0|-2.8|9.4|||ANOVA||Difference Between Percent Change from LOV111859/OM5 Baseline to LOV111860/OM5X End-of-Treatment and Percent Change from LOV111859/OM5 Baseline to LOV111821/OM5XX End-of-Treatment|For the MITT analysis, the method of last observation carried forward (LOCF) was applied. The LOCF is the value of a previous non-baseline visit (post-enrollment) carried forward to the subsequent visit, if missing.||9.4|-2.8|0.9999
91658512|NCT01973348|183210303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 12 subjects per group has been shown to be effective for estimating within-group means and variances when little prior data is available.(Julius, 2005) Based on collected data from 34 subjects and effective size difference of 0.1, we reestimate this study as a noninferiority trial with continuous outcome and power calculated as approximately 80%.||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.88
91658513|NCT00669864|183210408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|-1.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.414|-1.192||A significant mean HbA1c decrease was to be declared if H0 is rejected at a significance level of 2.5%.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis (H0): HbA1c after 16 weeks - HbA1c at baseline ≥ 0% against the alternative hypothesis (H1): HbA1c after 16 weeks - HbA1c at baseline \< 0%. If H0 rejected at a significance level of 2.5%, declare a significant mean HbA1c decrease||-1.192|-1.414|<0.0001
91658514|NCT01941030|183210420|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty reduction of calcium out of lumen gain.||||0.0220
91658515|NCT01941030|183210421|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.6228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty minimum lumen area stenosis.||||0.6228
91658516|NCT01941030|183210422|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.4528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty plaque area.||||0.4528
91658517|NCT01941030|183210423|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.3573|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty dense calcium area.||||0.3573
91658518|NCT01941030|183210424|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.6073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty necrotic core area.||||0.6073
91712979|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.52|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.52|0.53|
91712980|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.62|0.90|
91712981|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.23|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.23|0.84|
91712982|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.35|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.35|0.58|
91712983|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.97|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.97|0.71|
91854176|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.681||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.681
91854177|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.863||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.863
91854178|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.837||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.837
91854179|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.504||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.504
91901372|NCT03872453|183697428|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.2||||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.3|10.7||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.7|-2.3|0.1214
91901373|NCT03872453|183697428|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.0||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.4|13.7||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.7|0.4|0.0113
91712984|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.19|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||3.19|0.89|
91712985|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.14|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.14|0.63|
91854180|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.531||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.531
91854181|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.600
91854182|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.830
91854183|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.209||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.209
91854184|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.809||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.809
91854185|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.045||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.045
91854186|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.104||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.104
91712986|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.57|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.57|0.44|
91854187|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.69||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.690
91854188|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.59||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.590
91854189|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.538||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.538
91854190|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.407||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.407
91854191|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.398||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.398
91854192|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.930
91854193|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.111||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.111
91854194|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.196||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.196
91854195|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.816||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.816
91854196|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.473||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.473
91854197|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.615||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.615
91712987|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.91|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.91|0.56|
91712988|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.81|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||5.81|1.21|
91854198|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.214||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.214
91854199|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.575||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.575
91854200|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.276||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.276
91854201|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.573||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.573
91901374|NCT03872453|183697428|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.7||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.1|14.3||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.3|1.1|0.0055
91901375|NCT03872453|183697429|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|5.4||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.8|13.6||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.6|-2.8|0.1162
91712989|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.18|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||3.18|0.70|
91712990|NCT03311841|183317587|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.08|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.08|0.43|
91712991|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.48|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.48|0.63|
91712992|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.62|0.69|
91854202|NCT04714320|183592962|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.706||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.706
91854203|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.853||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.853
91854204|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.542||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.542
91901376|NCT03872453|183697429|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.3||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.1|16.5||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|0.1|0.0155
91712993|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.41|0.62|
91791625|NCT02927067|183460973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|9.7|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|17.5||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||17.50|1.98|=0.014
91712994|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.83|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.83|0.36|
91854205|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.43||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.430
91854206|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.587||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.587
91854207|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.91||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.910
91854208|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.846||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.846
91901377|NCT03872453|183697429|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.9||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.7|17.0||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.0|0.7|0.0094
91854209|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||0.634
91658519|NCT01941030|183210425|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.2149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty fibrous plaque area.||||0.2149
91658520|NCT01941030|183210426|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.0579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty fibrofatty plaque area.||||0.0579
91712995|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.61|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.61|0.44|
91658521|NCT01941030|183210427|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-final balloon FFR value with 600 mcg adenosine.||||0.076
91658522|NCT01941030|183210427|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.205|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-final balloon FFR value with 1200 mcg adenosine.||||0.205
91712996|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.27|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||3.27|0.89|
91712997|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.27|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||3.27|0.93|
91712998|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.38|0.38|
91712999|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.4|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.40|0.92|
91854210|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.767||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||=0.767
91854211|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.399||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.399
91854212|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.323||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.323
91854213|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.115||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.115
91854214|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.982||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.982
91854215|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.859||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.859
91854216|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.344||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.344
91854217|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.633||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.633
91854218|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.889||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.889
91854219|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.241||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.241
91854220|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.367||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.367
91854221|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.716||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.716
91854222|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.21||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.210
91854223|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.363||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.363
91854224|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.193||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.193
91854225|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.135||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.135
91854226|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.867||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.867
91854227|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.761||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.761
91854228|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.618||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.618
91854229|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.363||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received are included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.363
91854230|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.125||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received are included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.125
91854231|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.435||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.435
91854232|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.413||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.413
91854233|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.658||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.658
91658523|NCT04448678|183210431|OTHER|||||||0.0401|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0401
91854234|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.275||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.275
91854235|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.578||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.578
91658524|NCT04448678|183210432|OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0049
91658525|NCT04448678|183210433|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
91658526|NCT04166032|183210444|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.210
91713000|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.98|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.98|1.14|
91713001|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.11|0.84|
91854236|NCT04714320|183592963|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.114||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.114
91713002|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.38|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.38|0.91|
91713003|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.75|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.75|0.81|
91713004|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.76|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.76|0.82|
91854237|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.378||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.378
91658527|NCT02781727|183210445|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority comparison with a non-inferiority margin of 2 cm/year, followed by a test of superiority if non-inferiority is established.||||||0.0088||||||P-value is based on a test of superiority|ANCOVA with multiple imputation|two-sided||ANCOVA model with multiple imputation. For each imputed data set, an ANCOVA model with by visit AHV as the dependent variable; treatment and gender as factors; and baseline age, baseline peak GH levels (log transformed) at stimulation test, and baseline height SDS - average parental height SDS as covariates were fitted.||||0.0088
91658528|NCT00113425|183210451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in papule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.01
91713005|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.57|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.57|0.75|
91713006|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.31|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.31|0.61|
91854238|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.648||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.648
91658529|NCT00113425|183210452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in pustule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.43
91658530|NCT00113425|183210453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in cysts for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.79
91658531|NCT00113425|183210454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in closed comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.10
91658532|NCT00113425|183210455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in open comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.73
91854239|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.961||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.961
91854240|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.817||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.817
91854241|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.823||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.823
91854242|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.362||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.362
91854243|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||=0.660
91658533|NCT00113425|183210456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in erythematous macules for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.02
91658534|NCT00113425|183210457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in acne severity for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.003
91658535|NCT00113425|183210458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in papule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.62
91658536|NCT00113425|183210459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in pustule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.85
91658537|NCT00113425|183210460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in cysts for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.49
91854244|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.539||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||=0.539
91854245|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.43||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.430
91854246|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.594||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.594
91713007|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.75|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.75|0.58|
91713008|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.85|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||5.85|1.11|
91713009|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.81|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||4.81|0.97|
91854247|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.783||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.783
91854248|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.599||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.599
91658538|NCT00113425|183210461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in closed comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.21
91658539|NCT00113425|183210462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in open comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.27
91658540|NCT00113425|183210463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in erythematous macules for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.04
91658541|NCT00113425|183210464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in acne severity for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.01
91658542|NCT01569152|183210492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of percentages|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.52|63.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.28|24.52|<0.001
91658543|NCT01569152|183210493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.43|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.43|-1.53|<0.001
91658544|NCT01569152|183210494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.62|<0.001
91854249|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.454||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.454
91854250|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.394||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.394
91854251|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.930
91854252|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.313||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.313
91854253|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.276||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.276
91854254|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.168||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.168
91854255|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.199||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.199
91854256|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.506||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.506
91854257|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.32||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.320
91854258|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.250
91854259|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.373||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.373
91854260|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.597||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.597
91854261|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.867||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.867
91854262|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.500
91854263|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.863||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.863
91854264|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.681||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.681
91854265|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.262||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.262
91854266|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.645||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.645
91854267|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.947||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.947
91854268|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.665||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.665
91854269|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.498||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.498
91854270|NCT04714320|183592964|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.173||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.173
91854271|NCT04524390|183592996|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.182||0.7419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.97|||MMRM|||||1.97|-2.76|0.7419
91854272|NCT04524390|183592997|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.398||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.86|25.05|||MMRM|||||25.05|-116.86|0.2002
91854273|NCT04524390|183592998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8412|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.8412
91854274|NCT04524390|183592999|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||> 0.9999
91854275|NCT04524390|183593000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6658|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6658
91854276|NCT04524390|183593001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6236|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6236
91854277|NCT04524390|183593002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6658|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6658
91658545|NCT01569152|183210495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.63||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|28.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.44|0.83|0.044
91658546|NCT01569152|183210498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|31.71||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|52.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.13|11.29|0.004
91658547|NCT01569152|183210499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|29.27||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|49.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.63|8.90|0.007
91658548|NCT01569152|183210500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.76||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|18.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.84|0.67|0.039
91658549|NCT01569152|183210501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|12.2||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|22.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.21|2.18|0.018
91658550|NCT01569152|183210504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.75||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|-0.52|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.52|-8.99|0.028
91658551|NCT01569152|183210505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.65||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|0.62|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.62|-5.91|0.110
91854278|NCT04524390|183593003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6659|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6659
91658552|NCT01569152|183210506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-10.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.97|-4.15|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-4.15|-16.97|0.002
91658553|NCT01569152|183210509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.98|-11.71|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-11.71|-29.98|<0.001
91658554|NCT01569152|183210510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-19.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|-9.28|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-9.28|-29.69|<0.001
91854279|NCT02597920|183593048|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline CDS with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
91658555|NCT01569152|183210511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.29|-10.09|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-10.09|-31.29|<0.001
91658556|NCT01569152|183210512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.84|< 0.001
91854280|NCT02597920|183593048|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline CDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
91854281|NCT02597920|183593048|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline SDS with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
91854282|NCT02597920|183593048|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline SDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
91854283|NCT02597920|183593049|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 CDS||||0.0005
91658557|NCT01569152|183210513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.45|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.45|-2.73|0.007
91658558|NCT01569152|183210514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.9||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.54|4.74|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||4.74|-14.54|0.315
91658559|NCT01569152|183210516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|31.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.56|47.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.86|15.56|<0.001
91658560|NCT01523899|183210520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Pearson chi squared, Fisher exact, 2 sample t-tests||||||||
91658561|NCT01523899|183210521|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91658562|NCT00743197|183210526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|0|Other|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||0||||0||||
91658563|NCT00963482|183210557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.111||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons due to only two groups p\<.05, two-tailed|Chi-squared|||"H0: EG is equal in smoking quit rates compared to CG. H1: EG is superior in smoking quit rates compared to CG"||||=.111
91658564|NCT02653664|183210559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Statistical significance was set at p=.05|ANOVA|||Based on our prior work comparing similar interventions, assuming decreases in average pain intensity of 0.3 points (on a 0-10 scale) for ED, between 0.8 to 1.4 points for HYP, and between 0.6 to 1 for MM, with standard deviations (SD) ranging from 0.15 to 1, significance level of 0.05, and using ANOVA as the statistical method, we calculated that 80 participants per arm at immediate post-treatment would provide at least 80% power to detect between-groups differences as specified.||||.39
91658565|NCT02653664|183210560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Statistical significance was set at p=.05.|ANOVA|||||||.05
91658566|NCT02653664|183210561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p= .05|ANOVA|||||||<.001
91658567|NCT00485472|183210563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.36||||0.5438||95.0|-5.3|10.02|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||10.02|-5.30|0.5438
91658568|NCT00485472|183210564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.83||||0.2022||95.0|-2.62|12.28|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||12.28|-2.62|0.2022
91658569|NCT00485472|183210565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79||||0.665||95.0|-6.36|9.93|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||9.93|-6.36|0.6650
91658570|NCT00485472|183210566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.74||||0.3445||95.0|-11.65|33.13|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||33.13|-11.65|0.3445
91854284|NCT02597920|183593049|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 CDS||||0.0002
91854285|NCT02597920|183593049|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 SDS||||0.0002
91854286|NCT02597920|183593049|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 SDS||||0.0004
91854287|NCT02597920|183593054|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Visit 2 CDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
91854288|NCT02597920|183593054|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Visit 2 SDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
91854289|NCT01911169|183593072|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Effect size of primary outcome was calculated||||
91658571|NCT00485472|183210568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.488||||0.0418||95.0|0.245|0.974|||Likelihood ratio test|||Analysis of 'response' based on a likelihood ratio test with treatment and pooled site as factors.||0.974|0.245|0.0418
91658572|NCT02055963|183210576|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.98
91658573|NCT03247556|183210597|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-1.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.3|-8.9|0.0082
91658574|NCT03247556|183210597|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.3|-7.3|0.0712
91658575|NCT03247556|183210598|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.1|-0.8|0.0051
91854290|NCT01911169|183593072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This study was conducted to determine the effect size for in change in FMD at 16 weeks with 25(OH) therapy. For change in FMD at 16 weeks with 25(OH)D repletion, based on this effect size, to detect significant differences between 2 groups, assuming 1) normally distributed data, 2) the same effect size, 3) alpha= 0.05, and 4) a power of 0.8, 35 patients in each group would be required. Therefore, this was designed as a pilot to determine effect size.||||> 0.05
91854291|NCT02384070|183593074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Analysis of the variance was used and Chi-square test for categorical variables. A sample size was calculated for a 95% confidence level and a power of 80%, assuming a 10% difference between groups.|ANOVA|||||||1
91658576|NCT03247556|183210598|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||0.1|-0.6|0.0995
91713010|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.77|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||6.77|1.28|
91791626|NCT02927067|183460974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|-7.3|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|0.02||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||0.02|-14.64|=0.051
91791627|NCT02927067|183460974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|2.2|||=|0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|10.37||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||10.37|-6.05|=0.606
91854292|NCT02384070|183593074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The prior threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||||||1
91854293|NCT00546754|183593089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.153||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.153
91658577|NCT03247556|183210599|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-4.3|0.1377
91854294|NCT00546754|183593090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.343
91854295|NCT00546754|183593091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
91658578|NCT03247556|183210599|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.7|0.3130
91658579|NCT03247556|183210600|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.19|0.0698
91658580|NCT03247556|183210600|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.10|0.9756
91658581|NCT03247556|183210601|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|29.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.3|1.3|0.0349
91658582|NCT03247556|183210601|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|27.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.0|-0.9|0.0698
91658583|NCT03247556|183210602|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-16.6|0.1259
91658584|NCT03247556|183210602|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-7.8|0.7417
91658585|NCT03247556|183210603|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-0.0|-3.8|0.0484
91658586|NCT03247556|183210603|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||0.7|-3.1|0.2084
91854296|NCT00546754|183593092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.395||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.395
91658587|NCT03247556|183210603|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-1.0|-5.1|0.0042
91658588|NCT03247556|183210603|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.1392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||0.5|-3.6|0.1392
91658589|NCT03247556|183210604|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.0|0.3810
91658590|NCT03247556|183210604|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-4.3|0.0432
91854297|NCT00546754|183593093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.662||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
91854298|NCT00546754|183593094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.020
91854299|NCT00546754|183593095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91854300|NCT00546754|183593096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.935||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.935
91713011|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.07|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.07|0.59|
91713012|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.17|0.71|
91713013|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.62|0.55|
91713014|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.96|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.96|0.64|
91854301|NCT00546754|183593097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91854302|NCT00546754|183593098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.899||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.899
91854303|NCT00546754|183593099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.218
91854304|NCT00546754|183593100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.386
91854305|NCT00546754|183593101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.725||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.725
91854306|NCT05061693|183593133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|45.4|||Regression, Logistic|Exact Logistic regression: (response at Week 16 = treatment + stratification factor \[Day 1 Investigator's Global Assessment score (3 or 4)\])||||45.4|1.6|0.0061
91854307|NCT05061693|183593133|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rate|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The standard error of the difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
91713015|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.64|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.64|0.46|
91713016|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.32|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||4.32|0.81|
91713017|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.53|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.53|0.51|
91658591|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1433|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.1433
91658592|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.0114
91658593|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0008
91658594|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.0197
91658595|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0573|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.0573
91658596|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.0105
91658597|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7||||0.0004
91658598|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2573|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.2573
91658599|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.1650
91854308|NCT05061693|183593133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|65.6|||Regression, Logistic|Exact Logistic regression: (response at Week 16 = treatment + stratification factor \[Day 1 Investigator's Global Assessment score (3 or 4)\])||||65.6|2.3|0.0005
91854309|NCT05061693|183593133|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rate|36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The standard error of the difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
91658600|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0372|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0372
91658601|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1711|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.1711
91658602|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1428|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.1428
91658603|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2148|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.2148
91658604|NCT03247556|183210605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0662|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7||||0.0662
91658605|NCT01710657|183210610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Reduction over Placebo|39.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|47.6||Significant at the 0.05 level. This testing procedure is considered a closed testing procedure and no adjustment of the significance level was necessary.|ANCOVA|||"To avoid inflation of Type I error, hypothesis testing followed predefined hierarchical procedure starting LCM 400 mg/day treatment group versus the placebo group.~If the test was not statistically significant, the procedure stopped and no Groups were declared different from placebo. If the test was statistically significant, the treatment group was considered different from placebo and the procedure continued with the LCM 200 mg/day treatment group."||47.6|30.5|<0.001
91658606|NCT01710657|183210610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Reduction over Placebo|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|38.7||Significant at the 0.05 level. This testing procedure is considered a closed testing procedure and no adjustment of the significance level was necessary.|ANCOVA|||"To avoid inflation of Type I error, hypothesis testing followed predefined hierarchical procedure starting LCM 400 mg/day treatment group versus the placebo group.~If the test was not statistically significant, the procedure stopped and no Groups were declared different from placebo. If the test was statistically significant, the treatment group was considered different from placebo and the procedure continued with the LCM 200 mg/day treatment group."||38.7|18.7|< 0.001
91658607|NCT01297348|183210648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.29||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/EE-20) along with corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was reported for current users.||3.29|1.23|
91658608|NCT01297348|183210648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|22.8||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/EE-20) along with corresponding 95% CI was reported for past users.||22.80|0.39|
91658609|NCT01297348|183210648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.02||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/Levo-20) along with corresponding 95% CI was reported for current users.||6.02|2.02|
91658610|NCT01297348|183210648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|27.47||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/Levo-20) along with corresponding 95% CI was reported for past users.||27.47|0.34|
91658611|NCT01297348|183210649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.67||||||Current user, case and matched control: Odds ratio (Lybrel/EE-20) and 95% CI were estimated using conditional logistic regression, conditional on matching factors (age, calendar time, exposure status and database).||2.67|0.85|
91658612|NCT01297348|183210649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.54||||||Current user, case and matched control: Odds ratio (Lybrel/Levo-20) and 95% CI were estimated using conditional logistic regression, conditional on matching factors (age, calendar time, exposure status and database).||6.54|0.98|
91658613|NCT02495857|183210650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.25|62.11||||||||62.11|10.25|
91658614|NCT02495857|183210651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.25|62.11||||||||62.11|10.25|
91658615|NCT02495857|183210652|EQUIVALENCE|From baseline to week 26 visit, change in the WOMAC stiffness score was evaluated.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|8.49||||||||8.49|-13.61|
91658616|NCT02058498|183210675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91658617|NCT04605094|183210677|OTHER||Difference in response rate|-8.62||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.94|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in IGA responders~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on electronic case report form (eCRF) at screening (\>=12 to \<18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/microliters \[μL\]; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline value of IGA score."||0.71|-17.94|0.080
91658618|NCT04605094|183210678|OTHER||Difference in response rate|-5.15||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|6.36|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in EASI-75 responders~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on eCRF at screening (\>=12 to \< 18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/μL; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline EASI total score."||6.36|-16.67|0.384
91854310|NCT05061693|183593133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|107.5|||Regression, Logistic|Exact Logistic regression: (response at Week 16 = treatment + stratification factor \[Day 1 Investigator's Global Assessment score (3 or 4)\])||||107.5|3.9|<0.0001
91658619|NCT04605094|183210679|OTHER||Difference in response rate|-8.18||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in EASI-90 responders~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on eCRF at screening (\>=12 to \< 18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/μL; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline EASI total score."||0.59|-16.94|0.078
91658620|NCT04605094|183210680|OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.69||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|10.32|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in Peak Pruritus NRS~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on eCRF at screening (\>=12 to \< 18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/μL; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline Peak Pruritus score."||10.32|-8.93|0.889
91658621|NCT02724462|183210681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|1.22|<.001
91658622|NCT02724462|183210682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|1.14|.001
91658623|NCT02589808|183210698|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Kappa|||||||0.0005
91713018|NCT03311841|183317588|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.41|0.45|
91713019|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||3.62|0.78|
91713020|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.23|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.23|0.75|
91658624|NCT01969747|183210726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|76.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|93.59|||ANCOVA||The model includes baseline UGE as linear covariate(s) and treatment as fixed effect(s).|Comparison of Empagliflozin 2.5 mg with Placebo||93.59|58.60|<0.0001
91658625|NCT01969747|183210726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|106.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.73|124.05|||ANCOVA||The model includes baseline UGE as linear covariate(s) and treatment as fixed effect(s).|Comparison of Empagliflozin 10 mg with Placebo||124.05|88.73|<0.0001
91658626|NCT01969747|183210726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|104.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.88|122.74|||ANCOVA||The model includes baseline UGE as linear covariate(s) and treatment as fixed effect(s).|Comparison of Empagliflozin 25 mg with Placebo||122.74|86.88|<0.0001
91658627|NCT04000815|183210727|OTHER||||||<|0.017||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.017
91658628|NCT04000815|183210728|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Bi-variate correlation analysis|Bi-variate correlation analyses were performed in groups 1 and 2 between serum CNP and FSH and between serum CNP and LH using Spearman test.||||||<0.05
91658629|NCT04000815|183210729|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Bi-variate correlation|Spearman test was applied.||||||<0.05
91658630|NCT04000815|183210730|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Bi-variate correlation analyses|Bi-variate correlation analyses were performed for all subjects in groups 1 and 2 between serum CNP and E2 using Spearman test.||||||<0.05
91658631|NCT00377260|183210773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of clinical treatment failures by the on-therapy visit.||||< .001
91658632|NCT00377260|183210774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of clinical failures by the end of therapy.||||< .001
91658633|NCT00377260|183210775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the symptom burden as measured by the respective mean scores over time.||||.02
91658634|NCT00377260|183210776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children who develop worsening symptoms within the first 3 days of treatment.||||.24
91901378|NCT03872453|183697430|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.1||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.3|15.4||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If the coprimary endpoint tests were both significant for a zavegepant dose group versus placebo, the secondary endpoints were tested for that zavegepant dose group versus placebo using a hierarchical gate-keeping procedure in the order the endpoints are reported, with each test in the hierarchy conducted at alpha = 0.0167. If a test in the hierarchy was not significant, any further tests on endpoints in the sequence were not considered significant for any zavegepant dose group versus placebo.||15.4|-1.3|0.0439
91658635|NCT00377260|183210777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0||||A weighted regression model was used with weights equal to the number of days information regarding analgesic use was reported by the parents.|Regression, Linear|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the average number of doses of analgesic medication administered by parents.||||.35
91791628|NCT02927067|183460974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|1.0|||=|0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|9.31||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||9.31|-7.27|=0.809
91791629|NCT02057042|183461067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91791630|NCT02057042|183461068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91791631|NCT02057042|183461069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91791632|NCT02057042|183461070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91791633|NCT02057042|183461071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91791634|NCT02057042|183461072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91791635|NCT00920907|183461073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.916|1.114|||Least squared linear regression|||Biocomparability of ipilimumab Process C to ipilimumab Process B was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax were contained within 80% to 125%.||1.114|0.916|
91791636|NCT00920907|183461077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|1.156|||Least squared linear regression|||Biocomparability of ipilimumab Process C to ipilimumab Process B was to be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric means for ipilimumab Cmax were contained within 80% to 125%. Point estimates and 90% CIs were constructed for the ratio of geometric means (Process C/Process B) for ipilimumab Cmax.||1.156|0.922|
91791637|NCT00920907|183461082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||omnibus conditional F-test|0.4||||0.85||||||Not corrected for multiple testing|F-test|numerator 5 degrees freedom, denominator 782 degrees freedom||Time-by-process interaction. Null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same for both processes.||||0.85
91791638|NCT00920907|183461082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-statistic|4.35|||<|0.0001|||||||F-test|numerator 10 degrees freedom, denominator 782 degrees freedom||Overall time effect. Null hypothesis of no mean ALC changes over time in either process group (treatment arm).||||<0.0001
91794660|NCT03981822|183468107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.62||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.64|-0.99||Analysis is base on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-0.99|-127.64|0.0467
91658636|NCT00377260|183210778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with protocol-defined diarrhea.||||.04
91658637|NCT00377260|183210778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with diaper dermatitis.||||<.01
91658638|NCT00377260|183210778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with oral thrush.||||.07
91794661|NCT01617148|183468121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91658639|NCT00377260|183210778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with vomiting.||||>.99
91658640|NCT00377260|183210778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with rash.||||>.99
91794662|NCT01617148|183468122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91794663|NCT01617148|183468123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
91794664|NCT01617148|183468124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
91794665|NCT03463031|183468148|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
91658641|NCT00377260|183210778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with mastoiditis.||||.99
91658642|NCT00377260|183210778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with perforation of their tympanic membrane.||||.08
91658643|NCT00377260|183210779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with at least one AOM pathogen present.||||.002
91658644|NCT00377260|183210779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pneumoniae present.||||<.001
91854311|NCT05061693|183593133|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rate|48.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The standard error of the difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
91658645|NCT00377260|183210779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Haemophilus influenzae present.||||.85
91658646|NCT00377260|183210779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Moraxella catarrhalis present.||||<.001
91658647|NCT00377260|183210779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pyogenes present.||||.28
91854312|NCT00311363|183593142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.353||||0.0158||95.0|0.2|0.8||Model included terms for treatment group, randomization IRLS score (Week 24), and pooled study site|Regression, Logistic|||||0.8|0.2|0.0158
91854313|NCT00396084|183593180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Mean adjusted aAUC for all 4 treatment groups over the 7 days of study drug administration||||<0.001
91854314|NCT00396084|183593180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.041
91658648|NCT00377260|183210780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children colonized with penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae.||||< .001
91658649|NCT00377260|183210781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with at least one AOM pathogen present.||||.10
91658650|NCT00377260|183210781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pneumoniae present.||||.03
91658651|NCT00377260|183210781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Haemophilus influenzae present.||||.96
91658652|NCT00377260|183210781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Moraxella catarrhalis present.||||.79
91658653|NCT00377260|183210781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pyogenes present.||||.98
91658654|NCT00377260|183210782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children colonized with penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae.||||.04
91658655|NCT00377260|183210783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the probability of middle ear effusion at the on-therapy visit.||||.03
91658656|NCT00377260|183210784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the probability of middle ear effusion at the end-of-therapy visit.||||.006
91658657|NCT00377260|183210785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||The analysis was ITT. The number of participants equals the number of children for which at least one ear has an interpretable tympanogram at the follow-up visit.||||.04
91658658|NCT00377260|183210786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding visits to primary care provider.||||.20
91658659|NCT00377260|183210787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding visits to emergency room||||.90
91658660|NCT00377260|183210788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.14||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.|The Amoxicillin-Clavulanate arm represents the numerator and the Placebo arm represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the time to resolution of symptoms where resolution is defined as AOM-SOS score \<=1.||||.14
91658661|NCT00377260|183210789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.|The Amoxicillin-Clavulanate arm represents the numerator and the Placebo arm represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the time to resolution of symptoms where resolution is defined as AOM-SOS score \<=1 on two consecutive occasions.||||.04
91658662|NCT00377260|183210790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the number of antibiotic prescriptions, exclusive of the blinded study medication.||||<.001
91713021|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.41|1.15|
91713022|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.66|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||1.66|0.58|
91854315|NCT00396084|183593180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.008
91854316|NCT00396084|183593180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.012
91713023|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.03|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.03|0.52|
91713024|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.97|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.97|0.77|
91713025|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.05|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.05|0.56|
91794666|NCT03463031|183468149|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
91854317|NCT00396084|183593180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 4. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.01
91658663|NCT00377260|183210791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the visits at which family member reported missing work, i.e. number of such visits / total number of follow-up assessment visits.||||.93
91658664|NCT00377260|183210792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the visits at which family member reported making special daycare arrangements, i.e. number of such visits / total number of follow-up assessment visits.||||.66
91658665|NCT00377260|183210793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the groups regarding the mean parental satisfaction score at the on-therapy visit.||||.71
91658666|NCT00377260|183210794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the groups regarding the mean parental satisfaction score at the end-of-therapy visit.||||.04
91658667|NCT00377260|183210795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the groups regarding the mean parental satisfaction score at the follow-visit visit.||||.005
91794667|NCT03463031|183468150|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.5|< 0.001
91794668|NCT03463031|183468151|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.6|0.233
91794669|NCT02117414|183468199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.75|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|one-proportion binomial exact test|||The alternative hypothesis is that the MRI-related event-free rate between the MRI procedure and one month post-MRI is greater than 90%. The null hypothesis will be rejected if the one-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound is greater than 90% or, equivalently, if the p-value is less than 0.025. Assuming type I error rate 0.025, even-free rate under null hypothesis 90% and true even-free rate 0.995, the minimum required sample size is 54 MRI scanned subjects in order to obtain 90% power.|||97.75|<0.0001
91791639|NCT02616601|183461090|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval on the percentage difference between generic fluorouracil cream and Carac (fluorouracil) cream lesion clearance were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, and each of these percentages was greater than and statistically different (p\<0.05) from the vehicle cream percentage, then generic fluorouracil cream and Carac (fluorouracil) cream were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.03|11.11|||||90% Wald's confidence interval with a continuity correction for the difference (Generic Fluorouracil Cream - Carac \[Fluorouracil\] Cream) in complete clearance rates.|||11.11|-11.03|
91791640|NCT02616601|183461090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91854318|NCT00396084|183593180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 5. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.03
91854319|NCT00396084|183593180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 6. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.091
91658668|NCT00377260|183210796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the mean weighted average acute otitis media - severity of symptom (AOM-SOS) score (symptom burden), post-enrollment, over the first 7 days of therapy.||||.01
91658669|NCT01391793|183210828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for the stratification variable, duration of fever, and for age at baseline (\<24 months, \>=24 months).||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment arms regarding the proportion of children with renal scarring at the outcome DMSA renal scan.||||0.16
91658670|NCT01391793|183210829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Test of equality - 2 Poisson parameters|The method used is a conditional test.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment arms regarding the proportion of children with severe renal scarring at the outcome DMSA renal scan.||||0.25
91658671|NCT01391793|183210830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for the stratification variable, duration of fever, and for age at baseline (\<24 months, \>=24 months).||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment arms regarding the mean proportion of children with renal scarring at the outcome DMSA scan taken across the 3 radiologists.||||0.07
91658672|NCT01015625|183210831|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 5% was used.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.77||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.09|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with surgery vs no surgery fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter overall survival time for surgery relative to no surgery.|To determine the effect of local therapy (surgery, Arm A) compared to systemic therapy only (Arm B) in synchronous metastasized breast cancer patients in terms of overall survival. Overall survival is defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause. Participants last known to be alive were censored at their last contact date or at the data cut-off date whichever came first.||3.09|1.01|0.042
91658673|NCT01015625|183210832|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 5% was used.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.42|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with surgery vs no surgery fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter time to distant progression for surgery relative to no surgery.|To determine the effect of local therapy (surgery) compared to systemic therapy only in synchronous metastasized breast cancer patients in terms of time from randomization to distant progression. Distant progression is defined as detection of new lesions or progression of existing metastases in locations different then breast. Participants last known to be alive without a distant progression were censored at their last contact date or at the data cut-off date whichever came first.||2.42|0.87|0.147
91854320|NCT00396084|183593180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.354
91854321|NCT00396084|183593184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values of EBA Days 0 to 2 for the 4 treatment groups were compared.||||0.05
91854322|NCT00396084|183593184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against gatifloxacin using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||0.01
91854323|NCT00396084|183593184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against moxifloxacin using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||0.02
91658674|NCT01015625|183210833|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 5% was used.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.02|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with surgery vs no surgery fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter time to local progression for surgery relative to no surgery.|To determine the effect of local therapy (surgery) compared to systemic therapy only in synchronous metastasized breast cancer patients in terms of time from randomization to local progression. Local progression is defined as recurrence in breast with localization mamma, chest wall or axilla. Participants last known to be alive, who did not experience a local progression were censored at their last contact date or at the data cut-off date whichever came first.||2.02|0.45|0.890
91658675|NCT01212874|183210866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91658676|NCT01212874|183210867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91713026|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.17|0.30|
91854324|NCT00396084|183593184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against levofloxacin using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||0.14
91854325|NCT00396084|183593185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values of EBA Days 2 to 7 for the 4 treatment groups were compared.||||0.51
91658677|NCT00105196|183210896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.44|-2.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size for the study was based on the primary outcome measure. The study was powered at 90% to detect a treatment difference between adjunctive aripiprazole and adjunctive placebo of 3.75, assuming a standard deviation of 10.5 and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. The null-hypothesis was the lack of a treatment difference.||-2.02|-5.44|<0.001
91658678|NCT00105196|183210897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.075||95.0|-0.88|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||To protect the overall (primary and key secondary efficacy analysis) alpha level of 0.05, for this key secondary endpoint a hierarchical testing procedure was followed such that formal testing would take place conditional on the primary efficacy analysis showing a statistically significant difference.||0.04|-0.88|0.075
91713027|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.94|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atovastatin||2.94|0.84|
91713028|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.73|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atovastatin||2.73|0.81|
91713029|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.47|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.47|0.84|
91713030|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.78|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.78|0.63|
91713031|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.61|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||3.61|0.95|
91713032|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|5.86|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||5.86|1.64|
91713033|NCT03311841|183317589|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.24|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||3.24|0.95|
91713034|NCT05464420|183317603|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|8.6||||||Injection site erythema: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||8.6|3.0|
91791641|NCT02616601|183461090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91713035|NCT05464420|183317603|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|17.3||||||Injection site pain: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||17.3|8.0|
91713036|NCT05464420|183317603|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.2||||||Injection site swelling: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||8.2|2.6|
91791642|NCT00718081|183461095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91658679|NCT00105196|183210898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.052||95.0|-1.06|0.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.06|0.052
91713037|NCT05464420|183317605|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0||||||Fatigue: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||6.0|-3.2|
91713038|NCT05464420|183317605|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.7||||||Headache: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||9.7|1.6|
91791643|NCT00718081|183461095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91854326|NCT00396084|183593185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The rate of fall in sputum cfu for the 4 treatment groups between day 2 and day 7 of monotherapy was estimated by the slope of the linear regression obtained from fitting the 6 sputum cfu values corresponding to days 2 through 7.||||0.16
91854327|NCT00396084|183593185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EBA Days 2-7 for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolone groups were pooled and compared to bactericidal activity of patients in the INH arm.||||0.036
91658680|NCT00105196|183210899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.037||95.0|-1.1|-0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.03|-1.10|0.037
91791644|NCT01931670|183461131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91791645|NCT01931670|183461131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91854328|NCT00396084|183593186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Mean adjusted aAUC for all 3 treatment groups over the 7 days of study drug administration||||<0.001
91658681|NCT00105196|183210900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.792||95.0|-0.67|0.51||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.51|-0.67|0.792
91658682|NCT00105196|183210901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response|1.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.31|2.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|CMH General Association Test||aripiprazole/placebo|||2.32|1.31|<0.001
91658683|NCT00105196|183210902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response|1.43|||<|0.001||95.0|1.17|1.74||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA||aripiprazole/placebo|||1.74|1.17|<0.001
91658684|NCT00105196|183210903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of remission|1.95|||<|0.001||95.0|1.36|2.8||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|CMH General Association Test||aripiprazole/placebo|||2.80|1.36|<0.001
91658685|NCT01874951|183210944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An initial power analysis at the time of protocol development suggested that with 6 patients in each treatment group, we could expect a 79% chance of achieving significance (2-sided p \< 0.05) if the true response rate to low-dose naltrexone (LDN) was 80% and the true placebo response rate was 20%.||||||0.55||||||Threshold of statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared value was 1.5.||Response rates were based on attaining a reduction in the HAM-D-17 scale of 50% or greater compared to baseline. We hypothesized that naltrexone would produce a significantly greater response rate than placebo.||||0.55
91658686|NCT01375660|183210969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
91658687|NCT01375660|183210970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6
91658688|NCT01375660|183210971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.389
91658689|NCT01375660|183210972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||P Value for Insulinogenic Index-30 = 0.34|ANOVA|||||||0.34
91658690|NCT01375660|183210973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
91658691|NCT01375660|183210974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
91658692|NCT01375660|183210975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.869
91658693|NCT05327491|183210978|EQUIVALENCE|It was concluded that the test treatment is bioequivalent to the reference treatment if the 90% CI for the ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean (GLSM) was completely contained within the predefined interval of (0.8000, 1.2500).|Ratio of GLSM|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.053||||||||1.053|0.880|
91658694|NCT05327491|183210979|EQUIVALENCE|It was concluded that the test treatment is bioequivalent to the reference treatment if the 90% CI for the ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean (GLSM) was completely contained within the predefined interval of (0.8000, 1.2500).|Ratio of GLSM|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.033||||||||1.033|0.907|
91658695|NCT05327491|183210980|EQUIVALENCE|It was concluded that the test treatment is bioequivalent to the reference treatment if the 90% CI for the ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean (GLSM) was completely contained within the predefined interval of (0.8000, 1.2500).|Ratio of GLSM|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.029||||||||1.029|0.908|
91658696|NCT00615069|183211044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of freedom from major adverse events through 1 year, 31 mm GORE EXCLUDER® Test Subjects vs historical open surgical control Subjects.||||0.003
91658697|NCT00615069|183211045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|3.603||||||Estimation of Hazard ratio of the 31 mm GORE EXCLUDER® Test Subjects vs original GORE EXCLUDER® AAA Endoprosthesis Subjects (original PMA subjects) using Cox Regression, not a powered analysis.||3.603|0.428|
91658698|NCT00259012|183211078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.087
91658699|NCT00259012|183211078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.019
91658700|NCT00259012|183211079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.255
91658701|NCT00259012|183211079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline.||||0.031
91658702|NCT00259012|183211080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.099
91658703|NCT00259012|183211080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.016
91658704|NCT00259012|183211081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.347
91658705|NCT00259012|183211081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.012
91658706|NCT00259012|183211082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.339
91658707|NCT00259012|183211082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.003
91658708|NCT00259012|183211083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.982
91658709|NCT00259012|183211083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.534
91658710|NCT00259012|183211084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.166
91658711|NCT00259012|183211084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.119
91658712|NCT00259012|183211085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.387
91658713|NCT00259012|183211085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.021
91658714|NCT00819507|183211094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91658715|NCT00819507|183211095|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.35|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91658716|NCT02495467|183211120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.22|0.0132
91658717|NCT02495467|183211121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|0.09|0.0122
91658718|NCT02495467|183211122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.57|0.21|<0.0001
91658719|NCT02495467|183211123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|0.12|0.0055
91658720|NCT02495467|183211124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|0.20|0.001
91658721|NCT02495467|183211125|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|0.995||||0.7999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.032|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.032|0.960|0.7999
91658722|NCT02495467|183211126|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|0.989||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.043|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.043|0.937|0.6746
91658723|NCT02495467|183211127|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|1.075||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|1.17|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.170|0.987|0.0959
91658724|NCT02495467|183211128|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|1.522|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.267|1.829|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.829|1.267|<0.0001
91791646|NCT01931670|183461132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
91791647|NCT01931670|183461132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91791648|NCT01931670|183461133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||<0.001
91791649|NCT01931670|183461133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||< 0.001
91854329|NCT00396084|183593186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.023
91854330|NCT00396084|183593186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.018
91854331|NCT00396084|183593186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.03
91854332|NCT00396084|183593186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 4. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.012
91658725|NCT02495467|183211129|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|1.32||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|1.545|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.545|1.128|0.0005
91791650|NCT01931670|183461134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
91658726|NCT02495467|183211130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Prescott Test (Exact)|||||||<0.0001
91658727|NCT02495467|183211131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Prescott Test (Exact)|||||||0.0003
91854333|NCT00396084|183593186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 5. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.003
91854334|NCT00396084|183593186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 6. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.003
91658728|NCT00834756|183211132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.0||||||90.0|87.96|104.78|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.78|87.96|
91658729|NCT00834756|183211133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.63||||||90.0|92.34|105.35|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.35|92.34|
91658730|NCT00834756|183211134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.37||||||90.0|93.95|107.21|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||107.21|93.95|
91658731|NCT03611608|183211196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|263.54|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|207.86||||t-test, 1 sided||||||207.86|<0.001
91854335|NCT00396084|183593186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.004
91854336|NCT00396084|183593187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values of EBA Days 0 to 2 for the 3 treatments groups were compared.||||<0.01
91854337|NCT00396084|183593187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against Linezolid once daily using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||<0.01
91901379|NCT03872453|183697430|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.5||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.8|15.9||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If the coprimary endpoint tests were both significant for a zavegepant dose group versus placebo, the secondary endpoints were tested for that zavegepant dose group versus placebo using a hierarchical gate-keeping procedure in the order the endpoints are reported, with each test in the hierarchy conducted at alpha = 0.0167. If a test in the hierarchy was not significant, any further tests on endpoints in the sequence were not considered significant for any zavegepant dose group versus placebo.||15.9|-0.8|0.0302
91901380|NCT02960113|183697458|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value, calculated as two times the nominal p-value because there are two primary outcomes|Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: Percent experiencing nausea equal between groups||||0.98
91901381|NCT02960113|183697459|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value, calculated as two times the nominal p-value because there are two primary outcomes|Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: Percent experiencing vomiting equal across groups||||0.90
91713039|NCT05464420|183317605|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|10.5||||||Myalgia: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||10.5|4.5|
91713040|NCT05464420|183317605|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1||||||Pyrexia: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||2.1|-1.0|
91854338|NCT00396084|183593187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean EBA 0-2 of INH was compared to pooled Linezolid once daily and Linezolid twice daily results.||||<0.01
91854339|NCT00396084|183593190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values EBA Days 2-7 for the 3 treatment groups were compared.||||0.25
91713041|NCT05464420|183317607|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||||||Vaccine-related SAEs: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||0.2|-0.7|
91658732|NCT04625114|183211199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.183||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.511
91658733|NCT04625114|183211200|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.965||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.942|||Regression, Cox|||||1.942|0.480|0.921
91658734|NCT00986245|183211203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||The UPDRS-part3 was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.05
91658735|NCT00986245|183211204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||The Hoehn and Yahr stage was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.05
91658736|NCT00986245|183211205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||"The Overall quality of sleep was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
91658737|NCT00986245|183211206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||"The Nocturnal off-symptoms was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
91658738|NCT00986245|183211207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.05||||||80% power|Sign test|||"The Early morning off symptoms was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
91658739|NCT00986245|183211208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||"The Epworth sleep scale was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
91658740|NCT00986245|183211209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.05
91658741|NCT00854308|183211226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.086||||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.622|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox Regression and was stratified for smoking status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and histology. The hazard ratio is relative to Placebo + Erlotinib.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have prolonged PFS compared with Placebo + Erlotinib.||1.622|0.727|0.6873
91658742|NCT00854308|183211227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7101||95.0||||P-value was stratified for smoking status, ECOG performance status and histology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Objective Response between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have better Objective Response compared with Placebo + Erlotinib.||||0.7101
91658743|NCT00854308|183211228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3671||95.0||||P-value was stratified for smoking status, ECOG performance status and histology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Objective Response between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have better Objective Response compared with Placebo + Erlotinib||||0.3671
91854340|NCT00396084|183593190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||The rate of fall in sputum cfu for the 3 treatment groups between day 2 and day 7 of monotherapy was estimated by the slope of the linear regression obtained from fitting the 6 sputum cfu values corresponding to days 2 through 7.||||0.42
91854341|NCT00396084|183593190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EBA Days 2-7 for INH was compared to that of the pooled linezolid arms.||||0.14
91854342|NCT00696618|183593232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|multi-level|||Nine research participants provided the ability to detect an effect size of 1.25 standard deviation units relative to the mean with 80% power using two-sided, 5% alpha in a paired analysis. The Baseline condition (no intervention) was assigned a value of 1 and geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals for each intervention were calculated relative to baseline.||||<.05
91854343|NCT00696618|183593233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||multi-level|||||||<.05
91854344|NCT00696618|183593234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||mulit-level analysis|||||||<.05
91854345|NCT00028093|183593235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the outcome between the two groups||||0.54
91854346|NCT03473340|183593247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17697507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value provided is for net change only.||||0.17697507
91854347|NCT03473340|183593248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77367872|||||||Welch Two Sample t-test|||P-Value provided is for net change only.||||0.77367872
91901382|NCT02960113|183697460|OTHER|Null hypothesis: Mean scores equal across treatment groups||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
91901383|NCT02960113|183697461|OTHER|Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
91854348|NCT03473340|183593249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68595748|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value provided is for net change only.||||0.68595748
91854349|NCT03473340|183593250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00127634|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.00127634
91854350|NCT03473340|183593251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.80904544|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.80904544
91854351|NCT02079844|183593252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7313||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.269|1.733||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.733|-1.269|0.753
91901384|NCT02960113|183697462|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||0.80
91901385|NCT02960113|183697463|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||0.82
91901386|NCT02960113|183697464|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||0.93
91713042|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.24|0.96|<0.001
91713043|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.90|<0.001
91854352|NCT02079844|183593252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7417||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.389|1.655||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.655|-1.389|0.859
91854353|NCT02079844|183593253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.938|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2436||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|4.49||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.490|-0.614|0.131
91854354|NCT02079844|183593253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2545||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|4.951||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.951|-0.198|0.069
91901387|NCT02960113|183697465|OTHER|Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||||||0.55
91854355|NCT02079844|183593254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1757||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|0.106||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.106|-0.739|0.671
91854356|NCT02079844|183593254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1757||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.193|0.571||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.571|-1.193|0.345
91901388|NCT02960113|183697466|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||0.71
91901389|NCT02960113|183697467|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||0.55
91791651|NCT01931670|183461134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
91901390|NCT02960113|183697468|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||0.20
91658744|NCT00854308|183211229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.529||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.986|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox Regression and was stratified for smoking status, ECOG performance status and histology. The hazard ratio is relative to Placebo + Erlotinib.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have prolonged PFS compared with Placebo + Erlotinib.||0.986|0.284|0.0418
91658745|NCT01390844|183211231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|34.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.24|47.18|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||47.18|20.24|<0.0001
91658746|NCT01390844|183211232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.83||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.15|52.18|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||52.18|10.15|0.0063
91658747|NCT01390844|183211233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|35.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.51|47.72|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||47.72|20.51|<0.0001
91901391|NCT00863109|183697470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Within-group comparison of Worry domain between BL Visit and WK72 Visit||||0.027
91658748|NCT01390844|183211234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.18||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.96|51.83|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||51.83|8.96|0.0086
91658749|NCT01390844|183211235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|29.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|42.22|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Between-Group Comparison||42.22|15.26|<0.001
91658750|NCT01390844|183211236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.13||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.12|55.01|||Mittienen and Nurminen|||Between-Group Comparison||55.01|12.12|0.004
91901392|NCT00863109|183697471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in MCS||||0.038
91713044|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA Model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.06|0.83|<0.001
91658751|NCT02597101|183211260|OTHER|REML mixed model|REML mixed model|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Using REML mixed model analysis, differences between study arms resulting in a p\<0.05 would represent statistically-significant differences.|REML mixed model|||The primary efficacy endpoint is the improvement of insulin sensitivity by 40% or greater at 6 months compared to baseline, assessed by the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp method.||||<0.05
91658752|NCT02079766|183211269|OTHER|||||||0.2959||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons or multiplicity were made for this study. No a priori threshold for significance was chosen.|Fisher Exact|||Evaluated the association between the overall brain uptake and the study group||||0.2959
91713045|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.35||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.35|0.97|<0.001
91713046|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.22|0.88|<0.001
91713047|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.06|0.77|<0.001
91713048|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 7F: V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.34|1.01|<0.001
91713049|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.25|0.94|<0.001
91713050|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.81|<0.001
91854357|NCT01420549|183593269|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority assessment was analyzed by the bilateral confidence interval (95%) for the ratio of the mean LDLfinal/LDLbaseline of the R/E combination, compared to the mean LDLfinal/LDLbaseline of the S/E combination and the bilateral confidence interval (95%) for the difference between the two means of the percentage variation of LDL-C in the treatments (\[(LDLfinal - LDLbaseline)/LDLbaseline))\*100)R+E\] - \[(LDLfinal - LDLbaseline)/LDLbaseline))\*100)S+E\].|Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Estimates for treatment effect and their 95% confidence intervals were exponentiated to produce estimates of percentage change.|Mean Percentage Change LDL- C (%)|Rosuvastatin + Ezetimibe versus Simvastatin + Ezetimibe||-3.70|-16.94|0.0013
91658753|NCT02079766|183211270|OTHER|||||||0.5163||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons or multiplicity were made for this study. No a priori threshold for significance was chosen.|ANOVA|MMSE score as the response variable and flortaucipir uptake score (4 levels) as the fixed effect||Measured differences in clinical presentation using MMSE between subjects with no visual flortaucipir uptake, and those with mild uptake.||||0.5163
91658754|NCT03252353|183211271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079|||||||Regression, Logistic|The adjusted proportion of responders is 58.16 for Octreotide Capsule Treatment Group vs. 19.42 for the Placebo||The proportion of \[IGF-1/GH\] responders was compared between treatment groups using an exact logistic regression model with categorical covariates for treatment group, prior SRL dose, and baseline \[IGF-1/GH\] level||||0.0079
91713051|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 8 V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.16|0.92|<0.001
91713052|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.93|<0.001
91713053|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.14|0.90|<0.001
91854358|NCT03394885|183593270|OTHER||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|100.0||||||||100|66|
91854359|NCT01351272|183593292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||SPM two-sample t-test|||||||=0.09
91713054|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.26|0.94|<0.001
91854360|NCT01351272|183593293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.16
91791652|NCT01931670|183461135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||0.009
91791653|NCT01931670|183461135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||< 0.001
91791654|NCT01931670|183461136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||0.26
91901393|NCT00863109|183697472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in Emotional Function domain||||0.014
91901394|NCT00863109|183697472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in Worry domain||||0.009
91658755|NCT03252353|183211272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Regression, Logistic|The adjusted proportion of responders is 77.66 for Octreotide Capsule Treatment Group vs. 30.40 for the Placebo||The proportion of \[IGF-1/GH\] responders was compared between treatment groups using an exact logistic regression model with categorical covariates for treatment group, prior SRL dose, and baseline \[IGF-1/GH\] level||||0.0007
91658756|NCT03252353|183211273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0029
91658757|NCT01918800|183211280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for clinical significance was 7 point improvement.|paired t test|||||||.64
91658758|NCT01918800|183211281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|paired t test|||||||0.04
91658759|NCT01918800|183211282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Paired t test|||||||0.35
91658760|NCT01918800|183211283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The p value in this case is for the SF-36 Physical|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91658761|NCT01918800|183211283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The p value in this case refers to the SF-36 Mental||||.09
91658762|NCT01918800|183211284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||||||This p value applies to the RAPA Cardiovascular|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
91658763|NCT01918800|183211284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4199|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This p values is for the RAPA Strength||||0.4199
91658764|NCT01918800|183211284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.854
91658765|NCT01918800|183211285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91658766|NCT01918800|183211286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91658767|NCT03018249|183211287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91658768|NCT03018249|183211288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|30.0||||||||30|-25|
91658769|NCT03018249|183211289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|45.3||||||||45.3|-16.7|
91658770|NCT00323193|183211305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.720
91658771|NCT00323193|183211306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.710
91658772|NCT03929367|183211456|OTHER|Modeling of change of plasma oxytocin concentration over time using nonlinear canonical compartment model.|Bayesian information criterion|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91658773|NCT03929367|183211467|SUPERIORITY|Light touch detection frequency was compared over time in comparison to baseline using a one way analysis of variance for repeated measures. A power analysis was not performed for this secondary outcome measure.||||||0.89||||||No effect|ANOVA|||||||.89
91658774|NCT03929367|183211474|SUPERIORITY|Sustained heat score at the end of each 5 minute session was compared to baseline across time using a one-way analysis of variance for repeated measures. Power analysis was not performed for this secondary outcome measure.||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.014
91658775|NCT00515203|183211493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0019
91658776|NCT00515203|183211494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3651|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3651
91658777|NCT00515203|183211495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
91658778|NCT00515203|183211496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
91658779|NCT00515203|183211497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2098
91658780|NCT01706536|183211510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04055||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0369|0.1966|||Least squares mean (SE)|In order to control for Type I error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used.||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.1966|0.0369|0.0043
91854361|NCT01351272|183593294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.09
91854362|NCT03949335|183593295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91854363|NCT03949335|183593296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91658781|NCT01706536|183211510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04089||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0479|0.2089||In order to control for Type I error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used|Least squares mean (SE)|||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.2089|0.0479|0.0019
91658782|NCT01706536|183211510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04037||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0667|0.2257||in order to control for Type 1 error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used|Least squares mean (SE)|||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.2257|0.0667|0.0004
91658783|NCT01706536|183211510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03953|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0992|0.2548||in order to control for type I error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used|Least squares mean (SE)|||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.2548|0.0992|<0.0001
91658784|NCT04753437|183211524|EQUIVALENCE|Results were based on analysis of variance model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.81||||||||1.81|0.94|
91658785|NCT04753437|183211525|EQUIVALENCE|Results were based on analysis of variance model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.4||||||||1.40|0.82|
91658786|NCT03567174|183211563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.306||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.085|-0.697|0.125
91658787|NCT02158936|183211585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.65||One sided p value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS) stratification factors||||0.65|0.21|1.000
91854364|NCT03949335|183593297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91854365|NCT03949335|183593298|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin equals -0.1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|-0.01||Success criteria was evaluated using lower confidence interval. No P-Value was calculated.||||||-0.010|-0.053|
91854366|NCT03949335|183593300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91854367|NCT00801983|183593343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||GEE|||Subjects were compared across keyboard types - The percentage of subjects with MSD when using the alternative keyboard were compared to the % of subjects with MSD when they were using the typical keyboard||||>.05
91864003|NCT02844465|183616698|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test will be performed using a paired t-test, with a non-inferiority delta (δ) of one Reliable Change Index (RCI) of 5 points, to test the hypothesis of no reduction. A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 will be used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||"It is hypothesized that the Boston Naming Test score will not decrease from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: μ (V-BNT - BSL-BNT) + δ ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: μ (V-BNT - BSL-BNT) + δ \> 0 Where μ (V-BNT - BSL-BNT) = mean difference in the Boston Naming Test score from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
91901395|NCT00863109|183697472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in CLDQ-HCV Global domain||||0.022
91658788|NCT02158936|183211586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.08|||Log Rank|||Confidence Intervals estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with eltrombopag compared with Placebo. Log-rank test stratified by IVRS stratification factors||2.08|0.97|0.164
91658789|NCT02158936|183211603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.74|||ANOVA|||||1.74|0.990|
91658790|NCT02158936|183211604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.99|||ANOVA|||||1.99|0.970|
91658791|NCT03497897|183211629|OTHER|The effects included in the model are: log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count by visit interaction and type of center.|Posterior geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.34|||Bayesian analysis|Bayesian mixed effect model with repeated measures|90% credible intervals are reported on the geometric means ratio|||1.34|0.64|
91658792|NCT03497897|183211629|OTHER|The effects included in the model are: log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count by visit interaction and type of center.|P(Geometric Mean Ratio<1)|0.637|||||||||||Bayesian analysis|Bayesian mixed effect model with repeated measures|Posterior probability on geometric mean ratio is reported.|||||
91658793|NCT03497897|183211629|OTHER|The effects included in the model are: log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count by visit interaction and type of center.|P(Geometric Mean Ratio<0.75)|0.171|||||||||||Bayesian analysis|Bayesian mixed effect model with repeated measures|Posterior probability on geometric mean ratio is reported.|||||
91658794|NCT00723528|183211630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Fisher's exact test (using Holm's method)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91658795|NCT00723528|183211631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||2-sample t-test (using Holm's method)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91658796|NCT00723528|183211641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Fisher's exact test (using Holm's method)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91658797|NCT02627924|183211643|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
91658798|NCT02627924|183211644|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
91658799|NCT02627924|183211646|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
91713055|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.87|<0.001
91713056|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.80|<0.001
91854368|NCT03149991|183593346|SUPERIORITY|The unstructured covariance matrix structure was used to model nesting of observations within persons. Non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. Least squares means estimates of the linear fixed effects model on SDQ change scores, adjusting for baseline covariates was used to test the primary hypothesis via contrast statements.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Because sample sizes per site varied substantially, we used the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom method.|degrees of freedom = 44.5; t=-0.74|SDQ total was primary outcome \& Day 14 primary endpoint. Change from baseline was calculated for each person at each follow-up. Change score was the dependent variable in a linear fixed effects model, where a (-)number = less severe depression. For group comparison, treatment was coded as 1 \& placebo as 0, thus a (-)value means treatment doing better. Fixed effects: group(brex v placebo), day(1-28), site(6 sites). All 2-\& 3-way interactions were included, as well as a priori defined covariates.||||0.46
91658800|NCT02627924|183211646|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
91658801|NCT02627924|183211646|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 12||||0.0001
91713057|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.85|<0.001
91658802|NCT02627924|183211646|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
91658803|NCT02627924|183211647|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 12 weeks||||<0.0001
91658804|NCT02627924|183211647|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 24 weeks||||<0.0001
91658805|NCT02627924|183211648|OTHER|||||||0.0098|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 12||||0.0098
91658806|NCT02627924|183211648|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 24||||0.0015
91658807|NCT02627924|183211648|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 12||||<0.0001
91658808|NCT02627924|183211648|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 24||||<0.0001
91658809|NCT03979079|183211665|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.3||Estimation was performed using a Bayesian approach. As such, p-values are not estimated.|Two-stage model.||||Two-stage model within a Bayesian framework to assess the role of the prostate-specific antigens profile on clinical failure while accounting for a secondary treatment prescribed by indication. Prostatespecific antigens modeled using a hierarchical piecewise linear trajectory with a random changepoint. Residual prostate-specific antigens variability was expressed as a function of prostate-specific antigens concentration. Covariates in the survival model included hormone therapy, baseline characteristics, and individual predictions of the prostate-specific antigens nadir and timing and prostate-specific antigens slopes before and after the nadir as provided by the longitudinal process.|0.30|0.14|
91658810|NCT00667095|183211670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.024
91713058|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.91|<0.001
91658811|NCT00667095|183211670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.036
91658812|NCT00667095|183211671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.051
91658813|NCT00667095|183211671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.12
91658814|NCT00667095|183211672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.42
91713059|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.21|0.93|<0.001
91713060|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.84|<0.001
91854369|NCT03149991|183593346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Degrees of freedom = 41.3; t=2.07.|Secondary Aim: To evaluate the short-term effect of brexpiprazole, as measured by the Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (SDQ), on Day 2. We used the same model as in Aim 1 to test this hypothesis.||||0.04
91658815|NCT00667095|183211672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.15
91658816|NCT00667095|183211673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month||||0.18
91658817|NCT00667095|183211673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.77
91658818|NCT00667095|183211674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to one month||||0.67
91658819|NCT00667095|183211674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.20
91713061|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.16|0.87|<0.001
91713062|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.20|0.90|<0.001
91854370|NCT03149991|183593346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Degrees of freedom=38.2; t=0.10.|To evaluate the long-term effect of brexpiprazole as measured by the Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (SDQ) on Day 28. The same model as was used in Aim 1 was used to test this hypothesis.||||0.92
91854371|NCT03149991|183593347|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared test|0.51||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value was not adjusted, however there were adjustments when using a logistic regression in Statistical Analysis #2.|Chi-squared|||We used a Chi-squared test to assess differences between treatment and control in terms of percent of participants achieving a long-term sustained response, as measured by achieving a 50% or greater reduction on the MADRS on Day 28.||||0.47
91854372|NCT03149991|183593347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.44|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for a priori defined covariates also included in Aim 1.||Logistic regression was used to assess a difference in 50% reduction on the MADRS on Day 28 between groups.||6.44|0.52|0.35
91658820|NCT00667095|183211675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between baseline and one month||||0.31
91658821|NCT00667095|183211675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between baseline and 3 months||||0.038
91658822|NCT01520909|183211676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|140.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The proportion of participants achieving platelet counts \>=50 Gi/L for those participants receiving eltrombopag versus placebo was compared.||Indicated significance at the 5% (two-sided) level of significance||140.93|2.29|<0.001
91658823|NCT01520909|183211677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|78.73|||Repeated measures model for binary data|Repeated measures model for binary data using Generalized linear mixed model||||78.73|8.15|<0.001
91658824|NCT00840099|183211720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of Means x 100|100.91||||||90.0|95.82|106.26|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.26|95.82|
91658825|NCT00840099|183211721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|102.79||||||90.0|100.69|104.94|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.94|100.69|
91658826|NCT00840099|183211722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|102.75||||||90.0|100.62|104.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.93|100.62|
91658827|NCT00840099|183211723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the Mean x 100|100.47||||||90.0|93.28|108.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||108.20|93.28|
91658828|NCT00840099|183211724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Ratio of the mean|104.15||||||90.0|96.35|112.58|||||Bioequivalence is established when 80% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.58|96.35|
91658829|NCT00840099|183211725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.06||||||90.0|95.85|112.97|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.97|95.85|
91713063|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.26|0.96|<0.001
91658830|NCT02163837|183211759|SUPERIORITY|the study was exploratory, the number of patients included was not calculated|||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar|||Mc Nemar symetry test for repeated measures and paired t-tests as appropriated||||<0.05
91854373|NCT03149991|183593348|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Because tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||degrees of freedom = 41.0, t=2.13.|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the MADRS change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.04
91658831|NCT01171989|183211760|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.84||||||Difference in percentage anti-PRP ≥ 0.15 μg/mL||2.84|-3.27|
91658832|NCT01171989|183211761|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.86||||||Difference between groups for rSBA-MenC ≥1:8||2.86|-3.27|
91658833|NCT01171989|183211761|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|2.86||||||Difference between groups for rSBA-MenC ≥1:8||2.86|-3.02|
91658834|NCT03553823|183211830|SUPERIORITY||Difference secukinumab vs guselkumab|20.0||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|50.3|||Fisher Exact|The statistical model was the Fisher's exact test for the difference in proportions.||"Proportion of subjects whose plaque achieves clear or almost clear status (TCS = 0-2)"||50.3|-13.3|0.1715
91658835|NCT00813293|183211864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assuming the two trial arms were independent, the standard deviation was 0.5cm for both arms and a sample size of 16 evaluable patients (8 per arm), the study had an 84% power at a 5% (two-sided) significance level to detect 0.8cm difference in ablation zone size. In order to allow a 20% drop-out rate, a total of 20 subjects were accrued.||||.794
91658836|NCT02794974|183211869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.236
91658837|NCT02794974|183211870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
91658838|NCT02794974|183211871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio|4.5||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|32.2|||Odds Ratio|||||32.2|0.63|0.209
91658839|NCT02794974|183211872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio|2.5||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|12.77|||Odds Ratio|||||12.77|0.49|0.44
91713064|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.89|<0.001
91901396|NCT00440700|183697497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.5|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was used to determine if there were any differences in anxiety levels in patients who listen to music as compared to headphones only or usual ICU care.||||<0.05
91658840|NCT02794974|183211873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio|1.88||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|9.45|||Odds Ratio|||||9.45|0.37|0.695
91658841|NCT02870920|183211874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.54|0.07
91658842|NCT02870920|183211875|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.76|0.97
91658843|NCT00533273|183211877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.001
91658844|NCT00533273|183211878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.001
91658845|NCT00533273|183211879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91658846|NCT00533273|183211880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91658847|NCT00533273|183211882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.014
91658848|NCT00533273|183211883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91658849|NCT00533273|183211884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91658850|NCT00533273|183211885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91658851|NCT00454909|183211896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|19.18||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup A (hSBA-MenA) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||19.18|3.87|
91658852|NCT00454909|183211896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|0.4||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup C (hSBA-MenC) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||0.40|-5.08|
91658853|NCT00454909|183211896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.24|22.71||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup W-135 (hSBA-MenW -135) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||22.71|8.24|
91658854|NCT00454909|183211896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|20.1||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup Y (hSBA-MenY) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||20.10|7.90|
91658855|NCT02549092|183211919|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.91||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.98|11.55||P value is from the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with the model: change from Baseline=treatment, country, visit, Baseline, treatment-by-visit, and Baseline-by-visit. Unstructured variance-covariance structure was used in the MMRM analysis.|mixed model repeated measures|Adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure to control the family-wise error rate at a pre-specified significance level (alpha = 0.05).|Difference of LCIG - OMT|||11.55|-27.98|0.410
91854374|NCT03149991|183593348|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df = 44.2, t=-0.35|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the MADRS change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.73
91854375|NCT03149991|183593348|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df =44.8, t=-0.91|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the MADRS change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.37
91901397|NCT00440700|183697499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis||Usual care was the reference comparison group.|Length of mechanical ventilatory support was assessed among all 3 groups. Usual usual care was the reference group as compared to the experimental patient-directed music group.||||<0.05
91658856|NCT02549092|183211920|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|6.3||The P value is from the MMRM with the model: change from Baseline = treatment, country, visit, Baseline, treatment-by-visit, and Baseline-by-visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure was used in the MMRM analysis.|mixed model repeated measures|Adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure to control the family-wise error rate at a pre-specified significance level (alpha = 0.05).|Difference of LCIG - OMT|||6.30|-3.16|0.509
91658857|NCT02549092|183211921|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|3.34||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Statistical significance for the 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints (PDQ-8 index score, CGI-C score, and UPDRS Part II) could only be evaluated using the Hochberg procedure for multiplicity control if both primary endpoints had been statistically significant after multiplicity adjustment.||3.34|-10.96|0.291
91658858|NCT02549092|183211922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.82||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: FINAL = treatment, country.|ANCOVA||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Statistical significance for the 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints (PDQ-8 index score, CGI-C score, and UPDRS Part II) could only be evaluated using the Hochberg procedure for multiplicity control if both primary endpoints had been statistically significant after multiplicity adjustment.||-1.82|-2.84|< 0.001
91658859|NCT02549092|183211923|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-0.81||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Statistical significance for the 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints (PDQ-8 index score, CGI-C score, and UPDRS Part II) could only be evaluated using the Hochberg procedure for multiplicity control if both primary endpoints had been statistically significant after multiplicity adjustment.||-0.81|-4.77|0.006
91658860|NCT02549092|183211924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.06||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Cardiovascular including falls||2.06|-1.89|0.933
91658861|NCT02549092|183211924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.74||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Sleep/fatigue||5.74|-3.63|0.655
91901398|NCT00440700|183697500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|5.0|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cortisol levels were compared among all 3 groups.||||<0.05
91901399|NCT01008696|183697569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8849||||||Homozygous extensive metabolizer|Chi-squared|||||||0.8849
91901400|NCT01008696|183697569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||||||Heterozygous extensive metabolizer|Chi-squared|||||||0.8650
91901401|NCT01008696|183697569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||Poor metabolizer|Chi-squared|||||||0.2660
91658862|NCT02549092|183211924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|5.48||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Mood/cognition||5.48|-9.18|0.616
91901402|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7734||||||Change at Day 57: Heartburn|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7734
91901403|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6414||||||Change at Day 57: Regurgitation|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6414
91658863|NCT02549092|183211924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.08||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Perceptual problems/hallucinations||2.08|-1.30|0.645
91901404|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7809||||||Change at Day 57: Globus sensation|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7809
91901405|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8294||||||Change at Day 57: Chronic cough|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8294
91901406|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9874||||||Change at Day 57: Epigastric pain|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9874
91901407|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2776||||||Change at Day 57: Non cardiac chest pain|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2776
91658864|NCT02549092|183211924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.14||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Attention/memory||3.14|-5.03|0.645
91713065|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.81|<0.001
91791655|NCT01931670|183461136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||< 0.001
91791656|NCT01931670|183461137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||0.088
91658865|NCT02549092|183211924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|0.09||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Gastrointestinal tract||0.09|-5.25|0.058
91658866|NCT02549092|183211924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|3.15||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Urinary||3.15|-5.52|0.588
91791657|NCT01931670|183461137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||< 0.001
91791658|NCT01931670|183461138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.172|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||0.172
91791659|NCT01931670|183461138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||< 0.001
91791660|NCT01931670|183461139|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.968
91658867|NCT02549092|183211924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|1.33||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Sexual function||1.33|-2.88|0.464
91658868|NCT02549092|183211924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.23||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Miscellaneous||2.23|-4.80|0.468
91658869|NCT02549092|183211925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|1.92||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Motor symptoms at night||1.92|-3.09|0.643
91658870|NCT02549092|183211925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.87||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|PD symptoms at night||1.87|-1.39|0.769
91658871|NCT02549092|183211925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.66||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Disturbed sleep||3.66|0.32|0.020
91658872|NCT02549092|183211926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.1||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Part I score||1.10|-0.72|0.672
91658873|NCT02549092|183211926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|2.04||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Part III score||2.04|-6.47|0.302
91658874|NCT02549092|183211926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.48||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Part IV score||-0.48|-2.91|0.007
91658875|NCT02549092|183211927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|1.44||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|||1.44|-4.52|0.307
91658876|NCT02549092|183211928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.84||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|||0.84|-0.99|0.868
91791661|NCT01931670|183461139|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.007
91658877|NCT02549092|183211929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|5.39||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Total score||5.39|-7.68|0.728
91658878|NCT02549092|183211929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.35||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Musculoskeletal pain score||1.35|-1.50|0.916
91658879|NCT02549092|183211929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.42||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Chronic pain score||1.42|-1.28|0.919
91658880|NCT02549092|183211929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|3.68||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Fluctuation related pain score||3.68|-2.42|0.680
91658881|NCT02549092|183211929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|2.09||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Nocturnal pain score||2.09|-2.83|0.767
91658882|NCT02549092|183211929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.9||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Orofacial pain score||0.90|-1.15|0.804
91658883|NCT02549092|183211929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-0.23||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Discoloration and edema score||-0.23|-3.38|0.025
91791662|NCT01931670|183461140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.361|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.507|3.697|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||3.697|1.507|< 0.001
91791663|NCT01931670|183461140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.707|6.469|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||6.469|2.707|< 0.001
91713066|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.22|0.89|<0.001
91791664|NCT01931670|183461140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.811|4.312|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||4.312|1.811|< 0.001
91791665|NCT01931670|183461140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.378|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.615|16.282|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||16.282|6.615|< 0.001
91791666|NCT01931670|183461140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.178|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.084|4.845|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||4.845|2.084|< 0.001
91791667|NCT01931670|183461140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.429|24.554|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||24.554|9.429|< 0.001
91791668|NCT01931670|183461140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.548|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.683|3.859|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||3.859|1.683|< 0.001
91791669|NCT01931670|183461140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.055|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|8.716|22.664|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||22.664|8.716|< 0.001
91791670|NCT01931670|183461140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.536|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.685|3.816|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||3.816|1.685|< 0.001
91901408|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6295||||||Change at Day 57: Hoarseness|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6295
91901409|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5335||||||Change at Day 57: Dysphagia|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5335
91901410|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8068||||||Change at Day 57: Abdominal distension|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8068
91791671|NCT01931670|183461140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.434|15.874|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||15.874|6.434|< 0.001
91791672|NCT01931670|183461141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.191||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.765|1.855|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||1.855|0.765|0.376
91791673|NCT01931670|183461141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.376||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.89|2.127|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||2.127|0.890|0.101
91791674|NCT01931670|183461141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.358||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.909|2.029|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||2.029|0.909|0.088
91791675|NCT01931670|183461141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.488|3.278|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||3.278|1.488|< 0.001
91791676|NCT01931670|183461141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.678||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.136|2.477|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||2.477|1.136|0.003
91791677|NCT01931670|183461141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.722|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.832|4.044|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||4.044|1.832|< 0.001
91791678|NCT01931670|183461141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.537||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.042|2.267|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||2.267|1.042|0.013
91791679|NCT01931670|183461141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.598|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.75|3.857|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||3.857|1.750|< 0.001
91791680|NCT01931670|183461141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.565||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.062|2.306|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||2.306|1.062|0.01
91791681|NCT01931670|183461141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.412|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.63|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||3.570|1.630|< 0.001
91901411|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||||||Change at Day 57: Bloating|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5680
91901412|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5913||||||Change at Day 57: Post-prandial discomfort|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5913
91901413|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5566||||||Change at Day 57: Early satiety|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5566
91901414|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7047||||||Change at Day 57: Nausea|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7047
91901415|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3654||||||Change at Day 57: Vomitting|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3654
91901416|NCT01008696|183697570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||||||Change at Day 57: Belching|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5310
91901417|NCT01008696|183697571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5032|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5032
91901418|NCT03258554|183697583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.12||One-sided significance level = 0.2|Log Rank||Reference arm = radiation therapy + cetuximab|Sixty-nine progression-free survival (PFS) events provides 0.80 power for a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.20 to detect an improvement in PFS corresponding to a median of 2.35 years (RT+Durvalumab) compared to 1.53 years (RT+Cetuximab). A hazard ratio (RT+Durvalumab/RT+Cetuximab) ≤ 0.806 would indicate a rejection of the null hypothesis (no difference between the arms) and the study would continue to phase III; otherwise, the study would not continue to phase III.||2.12|0.84|0.8878
91901419|NCT03258554|183697584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.28||One-side significance level = 0.025|Log Rank|||||2.28|0.74|0.8175
91658884|NCT02549092|183211929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.9||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Radicular pain score||0.90|-0.99|0.930
91658885|NCT02549092|183211930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.87||ANCOVA model: FINAL = treatment, country.|ANCOVA||Difference of LCIG - OMT|||-1.87|-2.89|< 0.001
91658886|NCT00910663|183211931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.01||||||90.0|90.01|104.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.55|90.01|
91901420|NCT03258554|183697585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.28||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = RT+ Cetuximab|||3.28|0.89|0.1001
91658887|NCT00910663|183211932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.81||||||90.0|100.23|105.45|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.45|100.23|
91791682|NCT01931670|183461142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.028||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.624|1.693|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||1.693|0.624|0.901
91658888|NCT00910663|183211933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.35||||||90.0|100.51|106.27|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.27|100.51|
91658889|NCT01376167|183211939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|0.404||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.404|0.222|<0.001
91658890|NCT01376167|183211939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.262|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.387||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.387|0.178|<0.001
91791683|NCT01931670|183461142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.68|1.789|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||1.789|0.680|0.65
91791684|NCT01931670|183461142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.351||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.841|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||2.170|0.841|0.154
91791685|NCT01931670|183461142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.871||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.175|2.979|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||2.979|1.175|0.003
91791686|NCT01931670|183461142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.776|2.013|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||2.013|0.776|0.294
91791687|NCT01931670|183461142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.865||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.163|2.989|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||2.989|1.163|0.003
91791688|NCT01931670|183461142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.145||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.713|1.839|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||1.839|0.713|0.521
91791689|NCT01931670|183461142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.474|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.544|3.963|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||3.963|1.544|< 0.001
91791690|NCT01931670|183461142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.787|2.023|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||2.023|0.787|0.27
91791691|NCT01931670|183461142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.5|3.891|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||3.891|1.500|< 0.001
91791692|NCT01931670|183461142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.013||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.631|1.624|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||1.624|0.631|0.953
91791693|NCT01931670|183461142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.997|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.253|3.183|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||3.183|1.253|< 0.001
91791694|NCT01931670|183461143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.37|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.37|-0.69|< 0.001
91791695|NCT01931670|183461143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.94|-0.62|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.62|-0.94|< 0.001
91791696|NCT01931670|183461143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|-0.29|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.29|-0.6|< 0.001
91791697|NCT01931670|183461143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.43|-1.12|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-1.12|-1.43|< 0.001
91791698|NCT01931670|183461143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.37|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-0.37|-0.68|< 0.001
91658891|NCT01376167|183211939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.382||Logistic regression model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates. Participants with a zero P vivax asexual parasite count at Baseline were excluded from the analysis.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios \< 1 suggested a smaller chance of recurrence compared to CQ Only.|||0.382|0.152|<0.001
91658892|NCT01376167|183211939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.335||Logistic regression model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates. Participants with a zero P vivax asexual parasite count at Baseline were excluded from the analysis.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios \< 1 suggested a smaller chance of recurrence compared to CQ Only.|||0.335|0.117|<0.001
91658893|NCT01376167|183211940|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|0.376||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.376|0.195|<0.001
91854376|NCT03149991|183593348|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||degrees of freedom = 40.3, t=1.94.|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the HAMD6 change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.06
91901421|NCT03258554|183697586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.77||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = RT+ Cetuximab|||1.77|0.32|0.5197
91901422|NCT03258554|183697587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75||||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.38||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||5.38|0.57|0.3201
91901423|NCT03258554|183697588|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91658894|NCT01376167|183211940|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.255|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.39||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.390|0.167|<0.001
91658895|NCT02193165|183211966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. Baseline groups are balanced and baseline scores for each intervention group should not be significantly different. Significance will be determined by p\<0.5||||0.434
91658896|NCT02193165|183211967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between groups determined by P\<0.05||||<0.001
91658897|NCT02193165|183211968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between groups will be determined at P\<0.05||||<0.001
91658898|NCT02193165|183211969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. Differences will be noted at P\<0.05. Baseline groups are balanced and baseline scores for each intervention group should not be significantly different||||0.816
91658899|NCT02193165|183211970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between intervention groups will be determined @ P\<0.05||||<0.001
91901424|NCT03258554|183697589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0688||||||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0688
91901425|NCT03258554|183697592|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.97|||||Reference arm = RT + Cetuximab|CPS ≥ 1||1.97|0.62|
91901426|NCT03258554|183697592|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.06|||||Reference arm = RT + Cetuximab|CPS = 0||4.06|0.66|
91901427|NCT03258554|183697592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Testing the interaction of treatment arm and PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥ 1, CPS = 0)|Regression, Cox|||Interaction||||0.41
91901428|NCT03258554|183697593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.51|||||Reference arm = RT + cetuximab|p16-positive||2.51|0.57|
91658900|NCT02193165|183211971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between intervention groups will be determined @ P\<0.05||||<0.001
91658901|NCT01546545|183211982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation was performed. This was the first pilot and feasibility study. This data will be used to power future studies.||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91658902|NCT01546545|183211983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation was performed. This was a pilot and feasibility study.||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91658903|NCT01214850|183211984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.185||||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.737|||Regression, Logistic|||Vaccine Group Odds Ratios for carriage of virulent ST strain of N. meningitidis group B in 4CMenB group as compared to the control group at 1 month after receiving the 2nd rMenB+OMV NZ vaccination||1.737|0.809|0.3828
91658904|NCT01214850|183211985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.273|||Regression, Logistic|||Vaccine Group Odds Ratios for carriage of combined N. meningitidis serogroups A, C, W, Y in the MenACWY-CRM group compared to Control group at 1 month after receiving 1 injection of MenACWY vaccine||1.273|0.555|
91901429|NCT03258554|183697593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.89|||||Reference arm = RT + cetuximab|p16-negative||2.89|0.83|
91658905|NCT03221374|183212031|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model to test the overall BCI learning between MBSR and control groups||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91658906|NCT03221374|183212031|EQUIVALENCE|This independent t-test will test if the two groups (MBSR, control) exhibit a statistically significant difference in terms of BCI performance from baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.98||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||The difference between BCI performance improvement in MBSR cohort and control cohort.|||||0.024
91658907|NCT03221374|183212032|EQUIVALENCE|This WRS test will determine if the MBSR group breath counting accuracy was significantly greater than the postintervention levels of controls.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91658908|NCT03221374|183212033|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the FMI scores of the two groups have equal medians.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||significant if p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91658909|NCT03221374|183212033|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the MAAS scores of the two groups have equal medians.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91658910|NCT03221374|183212033|OTHER|This statistical test is about the correlation between baseline up-down BCI performance and the FMI score. A linear regression model is used to test if the slope is non-zero.|correlation coefficient|0.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||significant if p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91658911|NCT03221374|183212033|OTHER|This statistical test is about the correlation between baseline up-down BCI performance and the MAAS score. A linear regression model is used to test if the slope is non-zero.|correlation coefficient|0.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91658912|NCT03693430|183212053|SUPERIORITY|Week 104 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Missing observations were multiple (x1000) imputed from retrieved subjects of the same randomised treatment arm.|Treatment difference|-12.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|-9.77|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-9.77|-15.33|<.0001
91658913|NCT03693430|183212053|SUPERIORITY|All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in a mixed model for repeated measurements with randomised treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.|Treatment difference|-16.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.64|-13.45|||MMRM (Mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||-13.45|-18.64|<0.0001
91658914|NCT03693430|183212054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|8.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||8.42|2.95|<0.0001
91658915|NCT03693430|183212054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|32.49|||MMRM|||Hypothetical estimand||32.49|10.04|<0.0001
91658916|NCT02373098|183212094|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CCL5=RANTES||||0.000
91658917|NCT02373098|183212094|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL17A||||0.035
91658918|NCT02373098|183212094|OTHER|||||||0.911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCL13||||0.911
91658919|NCT02373098|183212094|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL6||||1.000
91658920|NCT02373098|183212094|OTHER|||||||0.934|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL8||||0.934
91658921|NCT02373098|183212094|OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL13||||0.727
91658922|NCT02373098|183212094|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL23||||0.179
91658923|NCT02373098|183212094|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VLA4||||0.208
91658924|NCT02373098|183212094|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCL10=IP-10 (CXCR3 ligand)||||0.730
91658925|NCT02373098|183212094|OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CCL2=MCP-1||||0.725
91658926|NCT02373098|183212094|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL4||||0.057
91658927|NCT02373098|183212094|OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||TNF alpha||||0.724
91658928|NCT02373098|183212094|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL22||||0.662
91658929|NCT02373098|183212095|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3 abs||||0.256
91901430|NCT03258554|183697593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Testing the interaction of treatment arm and p16 status (positive, negative)|Regression, Cox|||Interaction||||0.61
91658930|NCT02373098|183212095|OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD19 abs||||0.587
91658931|NCT02373098|183212095|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NK abs||||0.300
91658932|NCT02373098|183212095|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NKT abs||||0.096
91658933|NCT02373098|183212095|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hi CD16CD56 abs||||0.270
91658934|NCT02373098|183212095|OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4CD25||||0.902
91658935|NCT02373098|183212095|OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hi CD4CD25||||0.283
91658936|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3 %||||0.017
91658937|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD19 %||||0.300
91658938|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.657|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NK %||||0.657
91658939|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NKT %||||0.439
91658940|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hi CD16CD56 %||||0.449
91658941|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.356|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD4||||0.356
91658942|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD8||||0.787
91658943|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD4||||0.121
91658944|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD8||||0.209
91658945|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IFNg+ (in CD4+)||||0.069
91658946|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL17+ (in CD4+)||||0.402
91658947|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IFNg+ (in CD8+)||||0.017
91901431|NCT01214187|183697597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.2072|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA|Difference = (Change from baseline to Week 12 for Carbon monoxide group) minus (Change from baseline to Week 12 for Placebo group)|||||0.2072
91658948|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL17+ (in CD8+)||||0.017
91658949|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IFNg+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.026
91658950|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL17+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.168
91658951|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL10+ (in CD4+)||||0.004
91658952|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL4+ (in CD4+)||||0.013
91658953|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4-CD8-IL4+ (in CD4-CD8-)||||0.171
91658954|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL10+ (in CD8+)||||0.013
91658955|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL4+ (in CD8+)||||0.013
91658956|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL10+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.007
91658957|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL4+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.001
91658958|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+TNFa+ (in CD4+)||||0.002
91658959|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL9+ (in CD4+)||||0.107
91658960|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+TNFa+ (in CD8+)||||0.000
91658961|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL9+ (in CD8+)||||0.022
91658962|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||TNFa+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.001
91658963|NCT02373098|183212098|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL9+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.127
91658964|NCT00855738|183212122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91658965|NCT00855738|183212122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91658966|NCT00855738|183212123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3 \>=25% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91658967|NCT00855738|183212123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3 \>=75% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91658968|NCT00855738|183212123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: \>=25% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91658969|NCT00855738|183212123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: \>=75% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91658970|NCT00855738|183212124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0039
91658971|NCT00855738|183212124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91658972|NCT00855738|183212125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91658973|NCT00855738|183212136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression domain: P-value vs baseline.||||0.1797
91658974|NCT00855738|183212136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety domain: P-value vs baseline.||||0.0433
91658975|NCT00855738|183212137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.8284
91658976|NCT00855738|183212137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotions (mood): p-value versus baseline.||||0.6299
91658977|NCT00855738|183212137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6162|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Daily activities: p-value versus baseline.||||0.6162
91658978|NCT00855738|183212137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental function: p-value versus baseline.||||0.5609
91658979|NCT00855738|183212137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4635|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Medication effects (physical/ mental): p-value versus baseline.||||0.4635
91658980|NCT00855738|183212137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Worry about seizures (impact of seizures): p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91658981|NCT00855738|183212137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall quality of life: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0258
91658982|NCT00855738|183212138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 3: p-value versus baseline.||||0.7822
91658983|NCT00855738|183212138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||0.4471
91658984|NCT00855738|183212139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2452|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep disturbance: p-value versus baseline.||||0.2452
91658985|NCT00855738|183212139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Snoring: p-value verus baseline.||||1.0000
91658986|NCT00855738|183212139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Awake short of breath: p-value versus baseline.||||0.4253
91658987|NCT00855738|183212139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Quantity: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0572
91658988|NCT00855738|183212139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adequacy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0625
91658989|NCT00855738|183212139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Somnolence: p-value versus baseline.||||0.5540
91658990|NCT00855738|183212139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4204|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep problems (summary 6): p-value versus baseline.||||0.4204
91658991|NCT00855738|183212139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep problems (summary 9): p-value versus baseline.||||0.4869
91658992|NCT00855738|183212140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0863
91658993|NCT00855738|183212141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Number of visits to a specialist because of epilepsy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0226
91658994|NCT00855738|183212141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Number of visits to the emergency room because of epilepsy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0017
91658995|NCT00855738|183212142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value versus baseline.||||0.3141
91658996|NCT00855738|183212143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cessation of usual occupation: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0708
91658997|NCT00855738|183212143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Requirement of informal caregiver: p-value versus baseline.||||1.0000
91658998|NCT00855738|183212143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Required admission to ICU: p-value versus baseline.||||1.0000
91658999|NCT03966365|183212155|OTHER|||||||0.706|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.706
91659000|NCT03966365|183212156|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.622
91659001|NCT03966365|183212157|OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Green lissamine treatment groups||||0.081
91659002|NCT03966365|183212157|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Fluorescein treatment groups||||0.490
91659003|NCT03966365|183212158|OTHER|||||||0.253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.253
91659004|NCT03966365|183212159|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.031
91901432|NCT01214187|183697598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.5882|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measure ANOVA|Difference = (Change from baseline to week 12 for CO group) minus (Change from baseline to week 12 for placebo group)|||||0.5882
91659005|NCT03966365|183212161|OTHER|||||||0.651|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.651
91659006|NCT01149473|183212184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120|98.1|
91659007|NCT01149473|183212185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|98.8|
91713067|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.86|<0.001
91659008|NCT01149473|183212186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|98.6|
91791699|NCT01931670|183461143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|-1.09|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-1.09|-1.4|< 0.001
91659009|NCT01149473|183212187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108|98.8|
91659010|NCT01149473|183212188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.6|
91659011|NCT01149473|183212189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.7|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.7|
91659012|NCT00829530|183212234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|88.87||||||90.0|80.31|98.34|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.34|80.31|
91659013|NCT00829530|183212235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.96||||||90.0|89.77|100.45|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.45|89.77|
91791700|NCT01931670|183461143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.73|-0.42|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.42|-0.73|< 0.001
91713068|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.12|0.82|<0.001
91713069|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.38||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.38|0.95|<0.001
91659014|NCT00829530|183212236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.24||||||90.0|90.13|100.63|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.63|90.13|
91659015|NCT00829530|183212237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.85||||||90.0|91.95|106.27|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.27|91.95|
91659016|NCT00829530|183212238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.62||||||90.0|97.8|103.52|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.52|97.8|
91659017|NCT00840866|183212239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.0||||||90.0|99.0|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109|99|
91659018|NCT00840866|183212240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.9||||||90.0|98.6|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.6|
91659019|NCT00840866|183212241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.8||||||90.0|98.5|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.5|
91713070|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.42||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.42|0.97|<0.001
91713071|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.23|0.85|<0.001
91659020|NCT04638153|183212247|OTHER||least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Month 3|Results based on Mixed-Effect Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.2|
91659021|NCT04638153|183212247|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|0.1|
91659022|NCT04638153|183212247|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.7|
91659023|NCT04638153|183212247|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.4|
91791701|NCT01931670|183461143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.42|-1.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-1.11|-1.42|< 0.001
91901433|NCT01214187|183697599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.7401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measure ANOVA|difference=(change from baseline to week 12 for CO group) minus (change from baseline to week 12 for placebo group)|||||0.7401
91659024|NCT04638153|183212247|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|
91659025|NCT04638153|183212247|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|
91713072|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.84|<0.001
91713073|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.11|0.84|<0.001
91659026|NCT04638153|183212247|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
91659027|NCT04638153|183212247|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
91659028|NCT04638153|183212247|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
91659029|NCT04638153|183212247|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
91659030|NCT04638153|183212247|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.2|
91659031|NCT04638153|183212247|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.4|
91659032|NCT04638153|183212257|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.2|-0.5|
91659033|NCT04638153|183212257|OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.8|0.2|
91659034|NCT04638153|183212257|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.5|
91659035|NCT04638153|183212257|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-1.6|
91659036|NCT04638153|183212257|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.9|-0.4|
91659037|NCT04638153|183212257|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-2.3|
91713074|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.15|0.87|<0.001
91901434|NCT01214187|183697600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.14||0.0099|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA|Difference=(Change from baseline to week 12 for CO group) minus (Change from baseline to week 12 for placebo group)|||||0.0099
91659038|NCT04638153|183212257|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.8|
91659039|NCT04638153|183212257|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.5|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.5|-0.2|
91659040|NCT04638153|183212257|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.5|
91659041|NCT04638153|183212257|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.5|-1.3|
91659042|NCT04638153|183212257|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.8|-1.4|
91791702|NCT01931670|183461143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.33|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.33|-0.65|< 0.001
91659043|NCT04638153|183212257|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.4|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.4|-2.6|
91659044|NCT01389102|183212281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91659045|NCT01389102|183212281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0099
91659046|NCT01389102|183212281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
91659047|NCT01389102|183212282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91659048|NCT01389102|183212282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0406||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0406
91659049|NCT01389102|183212282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91659050|NCT00050778|183212283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.545||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0165.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression model using treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country) as covariates was used.||0.545|0.110|0.0006
91659051|NCT00050778|183212283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.658||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0165.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model using treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country) as covariates was used.||0.658|0.151|0.0021
91659052|NCT00050778|183212283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.515|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model using treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country) as covariates was used.||0.515|0.152|<0.0001
91713075|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.85|<0.001
91791703|NCT01931670|183461143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.42|-1.1|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-1.10|-1.42|< 0.001
91659053|NCT00050778|183212284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.552||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0040.|Andersen-Gill Model|||Treatment effects were estimated using an Anderson-Gill multiplicative intensity model with robust variance estimation. Covariates included treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country).||0.552|0.196|<0.0001
91659054|NCT00050778|183212284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.431||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0040.|Andersen-Gill Model|||Treatment effects were estimated using an Anderson-Gill multiplicative intensity model with robust variance estimation. Covariates included treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country).||0.431|0.126|<0.0001
91659055|NCT00050778|183212284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.441|||Andersen-Gill Model|||Treatment effects were estimated using an Anderson-Gill multiplicative intensity model with robust variance estimation. Covariates included treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country).||0.441|0.176|<0.0001
91659056|NCT00050778|183212285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|62.64||||0.0001|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with treatment group indicator, Baseline EDSS and country as covariates was used.||||0.0001
91659057|NCT00050778|183212285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|76.71|||<|0.0001|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with treatment group indicator, Baseline EDSS and country as covariates was used.||||<0.0001
91659058|NCT00050778|183212285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|70.13|||<|0.0001|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with treatment group indicator, Baseline EDSS and country as covariates was used.||||<0.0001
91659059|NCT00050778|183212286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0885|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using Baseline MRI-T1 brain volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.0885
91659060|NCT00050778|183212286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T1 brain volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.0195
91659061|NCT00050778|183212286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0215|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T1 brain volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.0215
91791704|NCT01931670|183461144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.669|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.55|-17.07|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-17.07|-33.55|< 0.001
91791705|NCT01931670|183461144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-39.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.53|-31.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-31.11|-47.53|< 0.001
91791706|NCT01931670|183461144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.355|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.44|-14.36|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-14.36|-29.44|< 0.001
91791707|NCT01931670|183461144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-63.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.365|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.87|-55.76|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-55.76|-70.87|< 0.001
91659062|NCT00050778|183212287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3077|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T2 lesion volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.3077
91659063|NCT00050778|183212287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3632|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T2 lesion volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.3632
91659064|NCT00050778|183212287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2758|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T2 lesion volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.2758
91901435|NCT01214187|183697601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.8124|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.8124
91659065|NCT02728102|183212405|SUPERIORITY||difference in the proportions|2.9||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.8|14.6||A one-sided significance level of 0.10 is used to assess whether the vaccine appears promising relative to control.|Z test|||The proportion of patients alive and in CR/sCR at 1 year post transplant will be described in the vaccine and no vaccine groups with 80% confidence intervals and compared between groups using a two-sample Z test comparing binomial proportions.||14.6|-8.8|0.3657
91659066|NCT02728102|183212405|EQUIVALENCE|The stratified odds ratio is estimated with 80% confidence intervals.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|2.03||P-value is provided by Breslow-Day Test for Homogeneity of the Odds Ratios.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio estimate is for the Stratification. Stratum 1 is sCR/CR at Randomization. Stratum 2 is VGPR/PR/Stable Response at Randomization.|A secondary analysis stratified on disease response prior to randomization between arms will be conducted using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, and a stratified odds ratio along with 80% confidence intervals will be estimated.||2.03|0.70|0.7461
91659067|NCT02728102|183212405|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of patients alive and in CR/sCR at 1 year post transplant will be compared in the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm with 80% confidence intervals using a two-sample Z test comparing binomial proportions.|difference in the proportions|7.2||||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.4|20.6|||Z test|||A secondary pairwise analysis of CR/sCR rates comparing the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 1 year post transplant.||20.6|-6.4|0.2429
91659068|NCT02728102|183212405|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of patients alive and in CR/sCR at 1 year post transplant will be compared in the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide alone arm with 80% confidence intervals using a two-sample Z test comparing binomial proportions.|difference in the proportions|-1.6||||0.4397|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.6|12.4|||Z test|||A secondary pairwise analysis of CR rates comparing the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide alone arm at 1 year post transplant.||12.4|-15.6|0.4397
91659069|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9376||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.9376
91659070|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4887||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.4887
91659071|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5176||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.5176
91659072|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2461||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.2461
91713076|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.89|<0.001
91901436|NCT00998426|183697606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the p value for the meter by time interaction|Random intercept model|||A random intercept model was used to fit the five subjects' glucose reading data over time. The fixed effect glucose meters, time effect and their interactions were included in the model.||||0.59
91659073|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.2530
91659074|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2213||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.2213
91659075|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.4930
91659076|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6591||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.6591
91659077|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.6790
91659078|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3124||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.3124
91659079|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7379||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.7379
91659080|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2379||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.2379
91659081|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5353||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.5353
91659082|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4417||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 12 months Post Transplant.||||0.4417
91659083|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 24 months Post Transplant.||||0.9450
91659084|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1599||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||A pairwise analysis of proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm is conducted at 1 year post transplant.||||0.1599
91713077|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.20|0.92|<0.001
91713078|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.15|0.91|<0.001
91713079|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.84|<0.001
91713080|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.04|0.82|<0.001
91713081|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.14|0.84|<0.001
91713082|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.24|0.92|<0.001
91791708|NCT01931670|183461144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.241|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.43|-17.88|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-17.88|-32.43|< 0.001
91901437|NCT02308007|183697608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.030
91901438|NCT02308007|183697608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.073
91791709|NCT01931670|183461144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-61.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.233|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-69.2|-54.68|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-54.68|-69.20|< 0.001
91791710|NCT01931670|183461144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-26.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.344|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-34.48|-19.46|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-19.46|-34.48|< 0.001
91901439|NCT02308007|183697608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0204|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by race (black, white, or other race)||||0.0204
91791711|NCT01931670|183461144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-62.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.346|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-69.89|-54.86|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-54.86|-69.89|< 0.001
91791712|NCT01931670|183461144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-23.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.428|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.06|-15.66|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-15.66|-31.06|< 0.001
91659085|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8984||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||A pairwise analysis of proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm is conducted at 1 year post transplant.||||0.8984
91659086|NCT02728102|183212406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1757||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||A pairwise analysis of proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm is conducted at 1 year post transplant.||||0.1757
91659087|NCT02728102|183212407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.161
91901440|NCT02308007|183697608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0493|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by race (black, white, or other race)||||0.0493
91901441|NCT02308007|183697609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.015
91659088|NCT02728102|183212408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.116
91659089|NCT02728102|183212408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.519
91713083|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.27||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.27|0.94|<0.001
91713084|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.29||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.29|0.93|<0.001
91713085|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.21|0.87|<0.001
91713086|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.10|0.80|<0.001
91713087|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cDLA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.17|0.85|<0.001
91713088|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.19|0.86|<0.001
91713089|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.19|0.87|<0.001
91713090|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.48||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.48|1.00|<0.001
91659090|NCT02728102|183212408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.387
91713091|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.19|0.80|<0.001
91854377|NCT03149991|183593348|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df = 44.2, t=-0.22|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the HAMD6 change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.83
91901442|NCT02308007|183697609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Difference for Terconazole/metronidazole vaginal gel cures minus metronidazole vaginal gel cures||||0.193
91901443|NCT02308007|183697610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.012
91901444|NCT02308007|183697610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.918
91659091|NCT02728102|183212410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.168
91659092|NCT02728102|183212411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.120
91659093|NCT02728102|183212411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.519
91713092|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||0.97|0.66|<0.001
91713093|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.18|0.88|<0.001
91713094|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.88|<0.001
91659094|NCT02728102|183212411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.387
91659095|NCT02728102|183212412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.563
91659096|NCT02728102|183212413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.308
91713095|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.16|0.87|<0.001
91713096|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.20|0.87|<0.001
91713097|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.20|0.87|<0.001
91713098|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.85|<0.001
91713099|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.33|0.93|<0.001
91713100|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.29|0.90|<0.001
91713101|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.16|0.81|<0.001
91659097|NCT02728102|183212413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.990
91791713|NCT01931670|183461144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-62.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.58|-55.22|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-55.22|-70.58|< 0.001
91659098|NCT02728102|183212413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.303
91659099|NCT02728102|183212415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of proportions of patients With Grade ≥ 3 Toxicities between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.189
91659100|NCT02728102|183212417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.82
91659101|NCT02728102|183212418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.21
91659102|NCT02728102|183212418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.40
91659103|NCT02728102|183212418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.08
91659104|NCT02728102|183212419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of proportions of patients without Minimal Residual Disease between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms||||0.80
91659105|NCT03834870|183212428|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|84.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.98|86.1||||||||86.10|81.98|
91659106|NCT03834870|183212429|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|99.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.4|99.6||||||||99.60|98.40|
91659107|NCT01544127|183212443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.12||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|Analysis adjusted for severity of worst TBI experience and used a robust standard error that was clustered on participants.|OR was calculated for number of participants with suicidal ideation. Analyses were one-sided, but two-sided confidence intervals for the OR are reported.|"MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone~A hurdle model was used to examine the effect of the experimental interventions on the presence of suicidal ideation and the severity of suicidal ideation among those with it. These analyses examined the presence of suicidal ideation in the combined MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU treatment group."||1.12|0.31|.054
91659108|NCT01544127|183212443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.4||A priori, analyses were proposed as one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|Analysis adjusted for severity of worst TBI experience and used a robust standard error that was clustered on participants.|OR was calculated for number of participants with suicidal ideation. Analyses were one-sided, but two-sided confidence intervals for the OR are reported.|MI-SI+TAU vs. TAU Alone||1.40|0.26|0.12
91659109|NCT01544127|183212443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.24||A priori, analyses were proposed as one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|Analysis adjusted for severity of worst TBI experience and used a robust standard error that was clustered on participants.|OR was calculated for number of participants with suicidal ideation. Analyses were one-sided, but two-sided confidence intervals for the OR are reported.|MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone||1.24|0.28|0.08
91659110|NCT01544127|183212444|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|A robust standard error clustered on participants was used.||"MI-SI + TAU vs. MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone~A hurdle model was used to examine the effect of the experimental interventions on the presence/absence of suicidal ideation and the severity of suicidal ideation among those with it. These analyses examined the severity of suicidal ideation among participants with suicidal ideation in the combined MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU treatment group."||||0.30
91713102|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.17|0.91|<0.001
91659111|NCT01544127|183212444|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|A robust standard error clustered on participants was used.||MI-SI vs. TAU Alone||||0.23
91713103|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.91|<0.001
91791714|NCT01931670|183461144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.528|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.81|-17.97|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-17.97|-33.81|< 0.001
91659112|NCT01544127|183212444|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|A robust standard error clustered on participants was used.||MI-SI-R vs. TAU Alone||||0.46
91659113|NCT01544127|183212445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.96|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.3|3.54||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||MI-SI + TAU vs. TAU Alone||3.54|0.30|0.96
91791715|NCT01931670|183461144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-56.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.522|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.53|-48.7|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-48.70|-64.53|< 0.001
91659114|NCT01544127|183212445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.06||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone||2.06|0.23|0.50
91659115|NCT01544127|183212446|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.88||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||MI-SI + TAU vs. TAU Alone||4.88|0.59|0.31
91791716|NCT01931670|183461145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.549|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.11|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.07|-0.11|0.549
91791717|NCT01931670|183461145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.0|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.00|-0.18|0.02
91791718|NCT01931670|183461145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.03|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||0.03|-0.17|0.11
91791719|NCT01931670|183461145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.11|-0.30|< 0.001
91791720|NCT01931670|183461145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.041|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.01|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||0.01|-0.22|0.041
91659116|NCT01544127|183212446|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.31||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||MI-SI-R vs. TAU Alone||2.31|0.10|0.24
91659117|NCT01544127|183212446|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.43||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||"MI-SI-R + TAU vs. MI-SI + TAU~Because the impact of MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU were in different directions when compared to TAU Alone, they were compared. For this analysis, the null hypothesis was that the revisions did not change the impact of MI-SI + TAU."||1.43|0.06|0.10
91659118|NCT02996682|183212461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of each treatment group over pre-specified rate of 1%.|2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||A sample size of 50 participants in each treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect at least 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
91659119|NCT02996682|183212461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of each treatment group over pre-specified rate of 1%.|2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||A sample size of 50 participants in each treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect at least 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
91659120|NCT02605395|183212489|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence intervals of logarithmically transformed ratio (Idiazole/Pariet) for Cmax to be within 80-125% to prove equivalency.|Ratio of means|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.12|101.65||||||||101.65|90.12|
91659121|NCT02605395|183212490|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence intervals of logarithmically transformed ratio (Idiazole/Pariet) for AUC(0-t) to be within 80-125% to prove equivalency.|Ratio of means|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.02|103.44||||||||103.44|90.02|
91659122|NCT02605395|183212491|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence intervals of logarithmically transformed ratio (Idiazole/Pariet) for AUC (0 to infinity) to be within 80-125% to prove equivalency.|Ratio of means|95.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.06|105.17||||||||105.17|87.06|
91659123|NCT00696020|183212499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.076||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.076|-0.029|0.3791
91659124|NCT00696020|183212499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.085||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.085|-0.019|0.2133
91659125|NCT00696020|183212499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.11||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.110|0.004|0.0337
91659126|NCT00696020|183212500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.093||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.093|-0.010|0.1163
91791721|NCT01931670|183461145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-0.18|-0.41|< 0.001
91659127|NCT00696020|183212500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.111||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.111|0.009|0.0224
91659128|NCT00696020|183212500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.107||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.107|0.003|0.0380
91659129|NCT00696020|183212501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.9573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.094|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.094|-0.089|0.9573
91791722|NCT01931670|183461145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.081|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|0.03|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||0.03|-0.21|0.081
91659130|NCT00696020|183212501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.189|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.189|0.009|0.0321
91659131|NCT00696020|183212501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.209|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.209|0.025|0.0125
91659132|NCT00696020|183212502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.145|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.145|0.026|0.0052
91659133|NCT00696020|183212502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.138|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.138|0.020|0.0086
91659134|NCT00696020|183212502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.185|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.185|0.066|<0.0001
91659135|NCT00696020|183212503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.225|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.225|0.006|0.0384
91659136|NCT00696020|183212503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.292|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.292|0.076|0.0009
91659137|NCT00696020|183212503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.349|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.349|0.130|<0.0001
91659138|NCT00696020|183212504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.057|35.657|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||35.657|9.057|0.0010
91713104|NCT05464420|183317608|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.14|0.89|<0.001
91659139|NCT00696020|183212504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.687||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.613|31.924|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||31.924|5.613|0.0053
91713105|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.84|
91659140|NCT00696020|183212504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.954|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.805|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.565|40.343|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||40.343|13.565|<0.0001
91713106|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|4.02|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.02|3.01|
91901445|NCT01233869|183697618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus pooled bosutinib.||5.74|2.02|<0.0001
91659141|NCT00696020|183212505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.149|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.149|0.027|0.0048
91659142|NCT00696020|183212505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.146|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.146|0.025|0.0056
91659143|NCT00696020|183212505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.189|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.189|0.066|<0.0001
91659144|NCT00696020|183212506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.230|0.010|0.0332
91659145|NCT00696020|183212506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.292|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.292|0.074|0.0011
91659146|NCT00696020|183212506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.349|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.349|0.128|<0.0001
91659147|NCT00696020|183212507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.813||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.462|36.272|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||36.272|9.462|0.0009
91659148|NCT00696020|183212507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.739||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.484|33.002|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||33.002|6.484|0.0036
91659149|NCT00696020|183212507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.793|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.859|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.298|41.287|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||41.287|14.298|<0.0001
91659150|NCT00696020|183212508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.152|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.152|0.023|0.0079
91659151|NCT00696020|183212508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.146|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.146|0.018|0.0120
91713107|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.49|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.49|1.18|
91713108|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.93|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 8: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.93|0.77|
91713109|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.85|
91713110|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.48|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.48|1.18|
91713111|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|1.95|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.95|1.56|
91713112|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.56|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.56|1.22|
91713113|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|4.56|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio v116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.56|3.56|
91713114|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|3.38|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|3.38|2.49|
91713115|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.17||||||Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.17|3.32|
91713116|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|1.91|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.91|1.53|
91713117|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.84|
91713118|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.67|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.67|1.30|
91713119|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.53|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.53|1.17|
91854378|NCT03149991|183593348|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df =44.0, t=-0.64|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the HAMD6 change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.52
91901446|NCT01233869|183697618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.1234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: bosutinib 200 mg/day versus bosutinib 400/200 mg/day.||4.22|-0.50|0.1234
91659152|NCT00696020|183212508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.209|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.209|0.080|<0.0001
91659153|NCT00696020|183212509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.249|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.249|0.013|0.0296
91713120|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|7.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.84|9.31|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|9.31|6.84|
91713121|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|23.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|28.55|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|28.55|19.71|
91713122|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|19.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|22.88|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|22.88|16.70|
91659154|NCT00696020|183212509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.32|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.320|0.087|0.0007
91659155|NCT00696020|183212509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.383|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.383|0.147|<0.0001
91713123|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|13.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.68|15.71|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|15.71|11.68|
91659156|NCT00696020|183212510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.057||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.529|37.3|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||37.300|9.529|0.0010
91659157|NCT00696020|183212510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.981||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.961|32.43|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||32.430|4.961|0.0078
91659158|NCT00696020|183212510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.105|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.379|43.335|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||43.335|15.379|<0.0001
91659159|NCT00696020|183212512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.138|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.138|-0.049|0.3517
91659160|NCT00696020|183212512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.143|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.143|-0.046|0.3171
91659161|NCT00696020|183212512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.130|-0.060|0.4654
91659162|NCT00696020|183212513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.704||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.055|28.267|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||28.267|-2.055|0.0899
91659163|NCT00696020|183212513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.759||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.549|35.084|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||35.084|4.549|0.0111
91713124|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97||||||Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.97|0.73|
91713125|NCT05464420|183317609|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|4.09|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.09|3.36|
91713126|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.09|0.88|
91713127|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.85|
91901447|NCT01233869|183697618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.06||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus bosutinib 200 mg/day.||5.23|0.93|0.0050
91901448|NCT01233869|183697618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.41||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|8.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 4 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus bosutinib 400 mg/day.||8.05|-1.03|0.1336
91659164|NCT00696020|183212513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.844||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.458|34.329|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||34.329|3.458|0.0166
91659165|NCT02511782|183212535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91659166|NCT02511782|183212536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91659167|NCT02514122|183212544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.9||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Score was lower in the Ketamine group.|||1.9|0.29|0.009
91659168|NCT02514122|183212545|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||||.54|.18|<0.001
91659169|NCT01472341|183212559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Multivariate regression analysis|HOMA %B was the response variable and other study parameters were independent variables.||||||0.24
91659170|NCT01472341|183212560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Multivariate regression analysis|PI/I ratio was the response variable and other study parameters were independent variables.||||||0.001
91659171|NCT01472341|183212561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Multivariate regression analysis|HOMA %B was the response variable and other study parameters were independent variables.||||||<0.0001
91659172|NCT00678639|183212567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median cost difference|588.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|336.0|811.0|||Hodges-Lehmann (median cost difference)|Distribution-free 95% CIs calculated using the method of Moses.|Results favored a reduced cost in the OU-CMR group.|H0: The median costs are not different among the study groups. HA: The median cost is different among groups. Power calculation was based on detecting a mean cost difference of $2000. Data was found to be non-normally distributed and therefore nonparametric comparisons were implemented.||811|336|
91659173|NCT00678639|183212568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"H0: There is no difference in correct cardiovascular admission decisions among groups.~Ha: A difference exists among study groups. Sample size was based upon 47 analyzable participants per study arm were required to provide 88% power to detect a 30% difference in the outcome."||||<0.001
91713128|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.87|
91791723|NCT01931670|183461145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|-0.22|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.22|-0.45|<0.001
91659174|NCT03506386|183212574|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical differences among eligible performed, eligible not performed and not eligible participants were estimated by Log Rank test.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
91659175|NCT05615935|183212577|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (ANCOVA)|2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, with a significance threshold of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Using G\*Power 3.1, the required sample size for ANCOVA with two groups was estimated with a significance level of 0.05, statistical power of 0.80, and an effect size of 0.35, based on Cohen's guidelines for a medium-to-large effect commonly applied in behavioral research (Cohen, 1988). Assuming up to two covariates, a minimum of 67 participants was required. Accounting for a 10% attrition rate, the final target was set at 74 participants.||||<0.001
91659176|NCT05615935|183212578|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (ANCOVA)|4.58||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, with a significance threshold of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.15
91659177|NCT05615935|183212578|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, with a significance threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91659178|NCT02567968|183212583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.002
91659179|NCT00048581|183212593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. Weighted. Diff: Day 169 ACR 20|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|41.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%. ACR 20 RR at 6 mos for PLA was expected to be \~25%. A sample of 256 in the ABA arm and 128 in PLA arm will yield a 96% power to detect a difference of 20% in ACR 20 at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|The first coprimary endpoint efficacy analysis tested for differences in ACR 20 response rate (RR) between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving placebo plus background DMARDs on Day 169. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||41.1|20.6|<0.001
91659180|NCT00048581|183212594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Weighted Diff: Day 169 HAQ|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|34.2||If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for HAQ response was not undertaken. If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared HAQ response between groups (5% level).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|All comparisons of changes from baseline and construction of confidence intervals for continuous measures were based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main factor and baseline value as covariate.|The two primary efficacy analyses tested first for differences in ACR 20 followed by testing HAQ response rates between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs on Day 169. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||34.2|13.8|<0.001
91659181|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 15 ACR 20|12.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||20.0|4.6|0.001
91659182|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 15 ACR 50|2.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||5.5|-0.8|0.001
91659183|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 15 ACR 70|0.8||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||2.9|-1.3|0.784
91659184|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 29 ACR 20|14.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||24.0|4.0|0.005
91659185|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 29 ACR 50|5.6||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||11.4|-0.2|0.06
91713129|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.32|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.32|0.95|
91713130|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.86|
91864004|NCT02844465|183616699|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test will be performed using a paired t-test, with a non-inferiority delta (δ) of one Reliable Change Index (RCI) of 15 points, to test the hypothesis of no reduction. A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 will be used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||"It is hypothesized that the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test 5-Trial Total score will not decrease from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: μ (V-RAVLT - BSL-RAVLT) + δ ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: μ (V-RAVLT - BSL-RAVLT) + δ \> 0 Where μ (V-RAVLT - BSL-RAVLT) = mean difference in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test 5-Trial Total score from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
91713131|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.77|
91854379|NCT03149991|183593348|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df = 31.0, t=1.67|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-S change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.11
91659186|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 29 ACR 70|1.6||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||4.9|-1.8|0.473
91659187|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 57 ACR 20|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||32.8|11.3|<0.001
91659188|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 57 ACR 50|6.5||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||13.7|-0.6|0.076
91659189|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 57 ACR 70|5.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||9.4|0.7|0.019
91901449|NCT01233869|183697618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 5 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus bosutinib 400/200 mg/day.||7.30|2.65|<0.0001
91659190|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 85 ACR 20|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||38.7|17.4|<0.001
91713132|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.85|
91713133|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.90|
91713134|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.93|
91659191|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 85 ACR 50|12.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||19.8|4.1|0.002
91713135|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.86|
91713136|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
91791724|NCT01931670|183461145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.062|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||0.02|-0.22|0.062
91659192|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 85 ACR 70|5.1||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||9.8|0.4|0.033
91659193|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 113 ACR 20|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||36.8|15.1|<0.001
91659194|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 113 ACR 50|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|21.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||21.9|6.6|<0.001
91659195|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 113 ACR 70|7.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||13.0|2.6|0.002
91659196|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 141 ACR 20|35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||46.5|24.6|<0.001
91692403|NCT03187301|183279684|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|9.7||||||60 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||9.7|2.7|
91791725|NCT01931670|183461145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.46|-0.22|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.22|-0.46|< 0.001
91791726|NCT01931670|183461146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.301|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.64|3.56|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||3.56|-9.64|0.301
91791727|NCT01931670|183461146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.99|0.13|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.13|-12.99|0.028
91713137|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.89|
91713138|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.91|
91713139|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.77|
91713140|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.98|0.74|
91713141|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.87|
91713142|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.83|
91713143|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.82|
91713144|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.90|
91713145|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.91|
91713146|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.90|
91713147|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.80|
91713148|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.84|
91713149|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.25|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.89|
91713150|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.91|
91713151|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.11|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.83|
91713152|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.80|
91713153|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.91|
91713154|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.89|
91713155|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.84|
91713156|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.03|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.78|
91713157|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.78|
91713158|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.88|
91713159|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.91|
91713160|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.23|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.93|
91713161|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.88|
91713162|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.85|
91713163|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.04|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.79|
91713164|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.82|
91713165|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.83|
91713166|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.84|
91713167|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.88|
91713168|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.87|
91713169|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.87|
91713170|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.86|
91713171|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.84|
91713172|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.83|
91791728|NCT01931670|183461146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.964||0.082|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.82|1.49|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||1.49|-11.82|0.082
91713173|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.85|
91713174|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.87|
91713175|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.79|
91713176|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.77|
91713177|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.80|
91713178|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.19|0.84|
91713179|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.88|
91713180|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.0|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.00|0.77|
91791729|NCT01931670|183461146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.956|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.83|-6.55|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-6.55|-19.83|< 0.001
91713181|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.14|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.88|
91713182|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.30|1.00|
91713183|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.89|
91713184|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.88|
91713185|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
91713186|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.90|
91791730|NCT01931670|183461146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.379||0.043|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.43|0.75|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||0.75|-14.43|0.043
91791731|NCT01931670|183461146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-19.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.364|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-26.61|-11.49|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-11.49|-26.61|< 0.001
91791732|NCT01931670|183461146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.473||0.072|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.05|1.55|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||1.55|-14.05|0.072
91791733|NCT01931670|183461146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.35|-13.81|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-13.81|-29.35|< 0.001
91791734|NCT01931670|183461146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.536||0.08|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.15|1.73|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||1.73|-14.15|0.08
91791735|NCT01931670|183461146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.56|-13.75|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-13.75|-29.56|< 0.001
91713187|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
91713188|NCT05464420|183317610|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.85|
91713189|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.21|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|1.01|
91713190|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|3.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|4.45|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.45|3.43|
91713191|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.72|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.72|1.38|
91713192|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.89|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.89|0.73|
91713193|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.91|
91713194|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.66|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.66|1.30|
91713195|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.52|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.52|1.26|
91713196|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.62|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.62|1.23|
91713197|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.08|7.65|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|7.65|6.08|
91791736|NCT01931670|183461146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.744||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.24|-2.43|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-2.43|-19.24|0.004
91713198|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|3.67|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|3.67|2.86|
91713199|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.83|7.19|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|7.19|5.83|
91713200|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.07|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|2.07|1.66|
91713201|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.98|
91791737|NCT01931670|183461146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.729|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.54|-12.79|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-12.79|-29.54|< 0.001
91713202|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.71|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.71|1.37|
91713203|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.49|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.49|1.17|
91713204|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|8.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|9.23|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|9.23|7.19|
91713205|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|5.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.08|6.48|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|6.48|5.08|
91713206|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|14.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.77|16.4|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|16.40|12.77|
91713207|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|9.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.61|10.59|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|10.59|8.61|
91713208|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.91|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.91|0.73|
91713209|NCT05464420|183317611|OTHER||GMC Ratio|7.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|7.77|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|7.77|6.41|
91713210|NCT00627926|183317631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|30.0||||||||30.0|15.9|
91713211|NCT00627926|183317631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|36.1||||||||36.1|22.4|
91713212|NCT00627926|183317632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|62.8||||||||62.8|51.4|
91713213|NCT00627926|183317632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|64.0||||||||64.0|52.7|
91713214|NCT00627926|183317633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|54.6||||||||54.6|43.0|
91713215|NCT00627926|183317633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|50.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|56.2||||||||56.2|44.6|
91713216|NCT00627926|183317634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|35.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|42.4||||||||42.4|29.0|
91713217|NCT00627926|183317634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|44.1||||||||44.1|30.9|
91713218|NCT00627926|183317635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|24.0||||||||24.0|11.2|
91713219|NCT00627926|183317635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.2||||||||29.2|17.0|
91713220|NCT00627926|183317636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|32.4||||||||32.4|18.5|
91791738|NCT01931670|183461147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.688|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.11|0.16|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.16|-0.11|0.688
91659197|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 141 ACR 50|20.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||29.5|12.2|<0.001
91659198|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 141 ACR 70|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||16.0|4.4|<0.001
91659199|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 169 ACR 20|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||41.7|20.0|<0.001
91713221|NCT00627926|183317636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|37.9||||||||37.9|24.4|
91791739|NCT01931670|183461147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.431|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.08|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.08|-0.18|0.431
91854380|NCT03149991|183593348|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=41.1, t=-0.03|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-S change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.98
91854381|NCT03149991|183593348|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=46.0, t=-0.76|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-S change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.45
91901450|NCT01324323|183697640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean (%)|179.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.3|200.7|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||200.7|160.3|
91659200|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 169 ACR 50|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||24.5|8.6|<0.001
91659201|NCT00048581|183212595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 169 ACR 70|8.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||14.6|2.7|0.003
91659202|NCT00048581|183212616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 PCS|3.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|5.38|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.38|1.89|<0.001
91659203|NCT00048581|183212616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 MCS|2.57||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.67|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.67|0.47|0.017
91659204|NCT00048581|183212616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Physical Function|1.7||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.41|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||3.41|-0.01|0.052
91659205|NCT00048581|183212616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Role-Physical|3.01||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.19|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.19|0.83|0.007
91659206|NCT00048581|183212616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Bodily Pain|5.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|7.47|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.47|3.77|<0.001
91659207|NCT00048581|183212616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: General Health|2.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.02|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.02|0.99|0.001
91659208|NCT00048581|183212616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Vitality|3.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.1|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.10|1.24|0.001
91713222|NCT00627926|183317637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|32.2||||||||32.2|18.2|
91713223|NCT00627926|183317637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|38.5||||||||38.5|24.9|
91901451|NCT01324323|183697641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|178.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.4|199.4|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||199.4|159.4|
91901452|NCT01324323|183697642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|179.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.5|201.0|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||201.0|160.5|
91659209|NCT00048581|183212616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Social Functioning|4.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|6.79|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.79|2.59|<0.001
91659210|NCT00048581|183212616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Role Emotional|0.97||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|3.77|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||3.77|-1.82|0.494
91659211|NCT00048581|183212616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Mental Health|2.59||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.54|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.54|0.65|0.009
91659212|NCT00048581|183212618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 PCS|5.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|7.29|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.29|3.64|<0.001
91659213|NCT00048581|183212618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 MCS|3.04||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.17|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.17|0.91|0.005
91659214|NCT00048581|183212618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Physical Function|4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.98|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.98|2.08|<0.001
91659215|NCT00048581|183212618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Role-Physical|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.35|||ANCOVA|||||7.35|3.10|<0.001
91659216|NCT00048581|183212618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Bodily Pain|6.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|8.11|||ANCOVA|||||8.11|4.37|<0.001
91791740|NCT01931670|183461147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.277|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||0.07|-0.20|0.277
91659217|NCT00048581|183212618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 General Health|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.9|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.90|1.64|<0.001
91659218|NCT00048581|183212618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Vitality|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|6.79|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.79|2.76|<0.001
91791741|NCT01931670|183461147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.37|-0.1|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.10|-0.37|< 0.001
91791742|NCT01931670|183461147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.494|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||0.11|-0.21|0.494
91791743|NCT01931670|183461147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.11|-0.43|< 0.001
91791744|NCT01931670|183461147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.765|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.14|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||0.14|-0.18|0.765
91791745|NCT01931670|183461147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.47|-0.15|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.15|-0.47|< 0.001
91791746|NCT01931670|183461147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.076||0.468|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.12|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||0.12|-0.23|0.468
91791747|NCT01931670|183461147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|-0.16|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-0.16|-0.50|< 0.001
91791748|NCT01931670|183461148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.029|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.0|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.00|-0.18|0.029
91791749|NCT01931670|183461148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.03|-0.20|0.004
91791750|NCT01931670|183461148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.076|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||0.02|-0.17|0.076
91791751|NCT01931670|183461148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|-0.09|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.09|-0.28|< 0.001
91864005|NCT02844465|183616700|OTHER|A sign test will be used to determine if the median categorical change is significantly greater than zero.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||"It is hypothesized that the QOLIE-31 score will increase (improve) from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: M (V-QOLIE-31 - BSL-QOLIE-31) ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: M (V-QOLIE-31 - BSL-QOLIE-31) \> 0 Where M (V-QOLIE-31 - BSL-QOLIE-31) = sign-test statistic (\[increases-decreases\]/2) in the Quality of Life in Epilepsy inventory from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
91659219|NCT00048581|183212618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Social Functioning|4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|7.12|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.12|2.71|<0.001
91659220|NCT00048581|183212618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Role Emotional|3.54||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.33|0.74|0.013
91713224|NCT00627926|183317642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|31.9||||||SVR Protocol Defined: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment without any confirmed detectable HCV RNA between end of treatment visit (up to Week 48) and 24 weeks after last planned dose (up to Week 72).||31.9|17.9|
91713225|NCT00627926|183317642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|37.7||||||SVR Protocol Defined: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment without any confirmed detectable HCV RNA between end of treatment visit (up to Week 48) and 24 weeks after last planned dose (up to Week 72).||37.7|24.1|
91713226|NCT00627926|183317642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|32.6||||||SVR FDA Guidance: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment. Analysis was based only on the HCV RNA assessment in visit window (+/-2 weeks); if there were more than 1 assessment in the window, the last measurement was used.||32.6|18.8|
91791752|NCT01931670|183461148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.058|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.19|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||0.02|-0.19|0.058
91659221|NCT00048581|183212618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Mental Health|2.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.60|0.79|0.006
91659222|NCT00048581|183212620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: HAQ-DI|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline = Adj M Chg From BL||-0.23|-0.44|<0.001
91659223|NCT00048581|183212620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Dressing and Grooming|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg From BL||-0.14|-0.49|<0.001
91791753|NCT01931670|183461148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|-0.12|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.12|-0.32|< 0.001
91659224|NCT00048581|183212620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Arising|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg From BL||-0.16|-0.47|<0.001
91659225|NCT00048581|183212620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Eating|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline = Adj M Chg From BL||-0.30|-0.65|<0.001
91791754|NCT01931670|183461148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.284|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.06|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||0.06|-0.16|0.284
91791755|NCT01931670|183461148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.33|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.11|-0.33|< 0.001
91713227|NCT00627926|183317642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|39.2||||||SVR FDA Guidance: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment. Analysis was based only on the HCV RNA assessment in visit window (+/-2 weeks); if there were more than 1 assessment in the window, the last measurement was used.||39.2|25.9|
91659226|NCT00048581|183212620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Walking|-0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.09|-0.44|0.003
91713228|NCT02797678|183317653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.061
91791756|NCT01931670|183461149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Month 1||-0.18|-0.56|< 0.001
91713229|NCT02797678|183317656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.301
91713230|NCT00656175|183317667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon sign-rank test used for statistical significance.||||0.52
91659227|NCT00048581|183212620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Hygiene|-0.22||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.05|-0.39|0.010
91659228|NCT00048581|183212620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Reaching|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.25|-0.61|<0.001
91713231|NCT04878120|183317668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||"The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. To test the hypothesis that HCL Control with Smart Bolus Calculator reduces exposure to hypoglycemia with respect to Standard HCL Control, a mixed ANOVA was performed with LBGI as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor."||||0.733
91713232|NCT04878120|183317669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.824
91713233|NCT04878120|183317670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with percentage of time spent in 70-180 mg/dL as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.402
91713234|NCT04878120|183317671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with percentage of time spent above 180 mg/dL as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.300
91713235|NCT04878120|183317672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168||||||For interaction between study arm and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with HBGI as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.168
91713236|NCT04878120|183317673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with CGM coefficient of variation as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.476
91713237|NCT04878120|183317674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with total amount of carbohydrate administered as rescue treatments as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.914
91659229|NCT00048581|183212620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Gripping|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.15|-0.49|<0.001
91659230|NCT00048581|183212620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Activities|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.22|-0.58|<0.001
91659231|NCT04320849|183212760|OTHER||Slope|0.0675|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.106||||||"The following set of hypotheses were used to evaluate the relationship between lead stiffness and curvature in the extravenous region:~H0: a ≥ 0 Ha: a \< 0 where a represents the coefficient for stiffness in the following model: log (curvature) = a\*stiffness + b + normally distributed error."||0.106||
91659232|NCT04320849|183212761|OTHER||Slope|0.199|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.397||||||"The following set of hypotheses will be used to evaluate the relationship between lead stiffness and curvature in the intracardiac region:~H0: a ≥ 0 Ha: a \< 0 where a represents the coefficient for stiffness in the following model: log (curvature) = a\*stiffness + b + normally distributed error."||0.397||
91659233|NCT04320849|183212762|OTHER||Slope|-0.015|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.0123||||||"The following set of hypotheses were used to evaluate the relationship between lead stiffness and curvature in the connector region:~H0: a ≥ 0 Ha: a \< 0 where a represents the coefficient for stiffness in the following model: log (curvature) = a\*stiffness + b + normally distributed error."||0.0123||
91659234|NCT02268500|183212874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
91659235|NCT02268500|183212875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.43
91659236|NCT02268500|183212876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91659237|NCT02268500|183212877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
91659238|NCT02268500|183212878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91659239|NCT01312922|183212885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.987||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||||2.140|0.456|1.000
91659240|NCT01312922|183212885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.031||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|2.233|||Fisher Exact|||||2.233|0.476|1.000
91659241|NCT02227121|183212896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|92.86|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|70.3|||||||Null Hypothesis: Percentage of Subjects with Successful VF Termination ≤ 65% Alternative Hypothesis: Percentage of Subjects with Successful VF Termination \> 65%|||70.3|
91659242|NCT02801877|183212933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|Chi square= 4.1 on 3 degrees of freedom||Log-rank test of adherence, defined as time to last engagement with mobile application suite.||||0.3
91791757|NCT01931670|183461149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.46|||ANOVA|||Month 1||-0.46|-0.84|< 0.001
91659243|NCT02801877|183212934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(3, 835)=0.19||Interactive effect of time and group, adjusting for baseline PHQ-9, randomization strata, main and interactive effects of time, coach, coach\*time, hub, and hub\*time.||||0.90
91659244|NCT02801877|183212935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(3, 835)=0.73||Interactive effect of time and group, adjusting for baseline GAD-7, randomization strata, main and interactive effects of time, coach, coach\*time, hub, and hub\*time.||||0.53
91659245|NCT00154102|183212936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.853||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.0|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The study was planned with 633 progression events, in order to provide 80% power to test the null hypothesis of no difference in PFS time between treatment groups, assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.8 of cetuximab + chemotherapy (CTX) over CTX alone. Significance level was fixed at 5%. The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and Karnovsky Performance Scale (KPS):\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.000|0.728|0.0479
91713238|NCT02499120|183317715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.253||1-sided p-value was from the log-rank test stratified by stratification factors ECOG(Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) per randomization.|Log Rank|||||1.253|0.536|0.1800
91791758|NCT01931670|183461149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.42|||ANOVA|||Month 2||-0.42|-0.82|< 0.001
91713239|NCT02499120|183317716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.4953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.495||1-sided p-value was from the log-rank test stratified by stratification factors ECOG per randomization.|Log Rank|||||1.495|0.669|0.4953
91659246|NCT00154102|183212937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.696||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.867|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||0.867|0.558|0.0012
91713240|NCT02692586|183317749|SUPERIORITY|To detect an RV/LV ratio change \> 0.12 with a power of 80% at one-sided alpha = 0.025, the necessary sample size was calculated to be ≥ 52, 31, or 21 patients (to detect RV/LV ratio changes of 0.20, 0.225, or 0.25, respectively).|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91713241|NCT02692586|183317750|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesized composite MAE rate was expected to be about 13%. The necessary sample size to detect a difference from an expected MAE rate of 13% with 80% power was calculated to be 103 patients (with a one-sided p value = 0.05).|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91713242|NCT01063855|183317768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.542||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, PDE5I stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as cofactors and baseline Average IELT as a covariate.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm minus PDE5I + Placebo arm difference.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observations carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- Difference at Week 12 LPOCF \>0.||2.542|0.837|<0.001
91713243|NCT01063855|183317769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|22.3||A hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type 1 error rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for type of PDE5I stratum, baseline average IELT stratum, and region.|Risk Difference (RD) = PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm - PDE5I + placebo arm.|Null hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF). Alternative hypothesis: Difference at Week 12 LPOCF \> 0.||22.3|4.9|0.001
91659247|NCT00154102|183212938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.171||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.544|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.544|0.887|0.2648
91659248|NCT00154102|183212939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|0.995|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||0.995|0.774|0.0419
91791759|NCT01931670|183461149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.89|||ANOVA|||Month 2||-0.89|-1.29|< 0.001
91722428|NCT04390750|183337444|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.1||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||0.01|-0.21|0.072
91791760|NCT01931670|183461149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.42|||ANOVA|||Month 3||-0.42|-0.84|< 0.001
91659249|NCT00154102|183212940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.946|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||0.946|0.670|0.0093
91659250|NCT00154102|183212941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.284|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.284|0.834|0.7549
91791761|NCT01931670|183461149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.93|||ANOVA|||Month 3||-0.93|-1.35|< 0.001
91791762|NCT01931670|183461149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.41|||ANOVA|||Month 4||-0.41|-0.84|< 0.001
91791763|NCT01931670|183461149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-1.0|||ANOVA|||Month 4||-1.00|-1.43|< 0.001
91791764|NCT01931670|183461149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.57|||ANOVA|||Month 5||-0.57|-1.01|< 0.001
91791765|NCT01931670|183461149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-1.02|||ANOVA|||Month 5||-1.02|-1.47|< 0.001
91791766|NCT01931670|183461149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.49|||ANOVA|||Month 6||-0.49|-0.95|< 0.001
91791767|NCT01931670|183461149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.04|||ANOVA|||Month 6||-1.04|-1.50|< 0.001
91791768|NCT01931670|183461150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.55|-0.01|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.01|-0.55|0.02
91791769|NCT01931670|183461150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.18|-0.72|< 0.001
91791770|NCT01931670|183461150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.85|-0.23|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.23|-0.85|< 0.001
91791771|NCT01931670|183461150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.27|-0.65|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.65|-1.27|< 0.001
91791772|NCT01931670|183461150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.95|-0.21|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.21|-0.95|< 0.001
91791773|NCT01931670|183461150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.72|-0.99|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.99|-1.72|< 0.001
91791774|NCT01931670|183461150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.99|-0.23|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.23|-0.99|< 0.001
91791775|NCT01931670|183461150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.75|-1.0|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-1.00|-1.75|< 0.001
91791776|NCT01931670|183461150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.08|-0.3|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-0.30|-1.08|< 0.001
91713244|NCT01063855|183317770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|17.2||A hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type 1 error rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for type of PDE5I stratum, baseline average IELT stratum, and region.|Risk Difference (RD) = PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm - PDE5I + Placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF).||17.2|1.1|0.013
91713245|NCT01063855|183317771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.204|2.619||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis: PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12 LPOCF.||2.619|1.204|0.002
91659251|NCT00154102|183212942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.77|||Stratified cochran-mantel haenszel test|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.77|1.12|0.0038
91659252|NCT00154102|183212943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.515|2.826|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||2.826|1.515|<0.0001
91713246|NCT01063855|183317772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|2.394||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carrried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12 LPOCF.||2.394|1.108|0.007
91791777|NCT01931670|183461150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.67|-0.89|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-0.89|-1.67|< 0.001
91791778|NCT01931670|183461151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|-1.16|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-1.16|-7.25|0.007
91659253|NCT00154102|183212944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.822||||0.3475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|1.242|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.242|0.544|0.3475
91791779|NCT01931670|183461151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-7.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-4.50|-10.6|< 0.001
91791780|NCT01931670|183461151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|-3.91|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-3.91|-10.75|< 0.001
91791781|NCT01931670|183461151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-15.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.87|-11.99|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-11.99|-18.87|< 0.001
91791782|NCT01931670|183461151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-4.60|-12.81|< 0.001
91791783|NCT01931670|183461151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|-12.86|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-12.86|-20.98|< 0.001
91791784|NCT01931670|183461152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.26|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||3.26|-4.40|0.77
91791785|NCT01931670|183461152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.61|-8.19|0.023
91791786|NCT01931670|183461152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||2.01|-7.50|0.257
91791787|NCT01931670|183461152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-10.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-6.01|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-6.01|-15.37|< 0.001
91791788|NCT01931670|183461152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.80|-8.66|0.315
91659254|NCT00154102|183212945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.26|||Stratified cochran-mantel haenszel test|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.26|0.67|0.6004
91791789|NCT01931670|183461152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.64|-8.55|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-8.55|-19.64|< 0.001
91659255|NCT00154102|183212947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|6.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.27|1.45|0.002
91791790|NCT01931670|183461153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.17|-1.86|0.019
91901453|NCT01324323|183697643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|159.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.8|186.5|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||186.5|135.8|
91659256|NCT04934722|183212969|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.34|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.34|0.24|
91659257|NCT04934722|183212970|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.01|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||6.01|0.30|
91659258|NCT04934722|183212971|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.63|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.63|0.50|
91659259|NCT04934722|183212973|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|30.29|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||30.29|0.33|
91659260|NCT04934722|183212974|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.07|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||4.07|0.11|
91659261|NCT04934722|183212975|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.9|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.90|0.73|
91659262|NCT04934722|183212976|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.34|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||7.34|0.42|
91659263|NCT04934722|183212977|OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.0|||||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.0|-12.6|
91659264|NCT04934722|183212978|OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|13.7|||||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||13.7|-15.0|
91659265|NCT04934722|183212979|OTHER||Percent difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|27.1|||||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||27.1|-12.5|
91659266|NCT06358820|183212983|SUPERIORITY|\>0.15 g/dL change in albumin from baseline to month 6 was anticipated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77|||<|0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|4.39||A 2-sided P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. However, the significance level (α) was adjusted to 0.0125 to account for multiple testing.|ANOVA||The main analysis was based on LOCF for missing value.|Outcome Measure were assessed at baseline and every month during the 6-month study.||4.39|3.15|<0.0125
91659267|NCT06358820|183212984|SUPERIORITY|\>60 mg/L change in prealbumin from baseline to month 6.|Mean Difference (Net)|39.77||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.66|56.87||A 2-sided P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. However, the significance level (α) was adjusted to 0.0125 to account for multiple testing.|ANOVA||The main analysis was based on LOCF for missing value.|||56.87|26.66|0.0125
91659268|NCT01124175|183212998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|111.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.84|123.06|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.06|101.84|
91659269|NCT01124175|183212999|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.61|108.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.39|103.61|
91659270|NCT01124175|183213000|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.32|108.07|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.07|103.32|
91659271|NCT01124175|183213001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.22|110.93|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110.93|101.22|
91659272|NCT01124175|183213002|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.9|105.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.28|100.90|
91659273|NCT01124175|183213003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.41|104.34|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.34|100.41|
91713247|NCT01063855|183317773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.642|3.568||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12.||3.568|1.642|<0.001
91791791|NCT01931670|183461153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.10|-1.80|0.028
91791792|NCT01931670|183461153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.20|-1.76|0.014
91659274|NCT00834535|183213025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.83||||||90.0|93.98|108.17|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.17|93.98|
91659275|NCT00834535|183213026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.1||||||90.0|92.14|100.22|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.22|92.14|
91659276|NCT00834535|183213027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.57||||||90.0|92.8|100.49|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.49|92.8|
91791793|NCT01931670|183461153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.65|-2.22|< 0.001
91791794|NCT01931670|183461153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.18|-1.52|0.121
91791795|NCT01931670|183461153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.56|-2.25|0.001
91659277|NCT01045096|183213060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||90.0|||||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An analysis of variance with covariates (ANCOVA) model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to Tmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||||0.809
91713248|NCT01063855|183317774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.897|1.965||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12 LPOCF.||1.965|0.897|>0.05
91791796|NCT01931670|183461153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.15|-2.35|0.026
91854382|NCT03149991|183593348|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest. This model contains an interaction effect with site, because the SITE\*DRUG effect was significant (p=0.03).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=49.2, t=2.39;|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-I change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.02
91901454|NCT01324323|183697644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.01|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||"Note: The median, median difference (romidepsin + rifampin minus romidepsin) and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodges-Lehmann Estimate. The P-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test."||1.01|-1.0|0.7910
91901455|NCT00537485|183697649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-3.7|0.002
91659278|NCT01045096|183213061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|2.183|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized Cmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.183|0.660|
91659279|NCT01045096|183213061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose proportionality Point Estimate|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.463|2.427|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized Cmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.427|0.463|
91791797|NCT01931670|183461153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.39|-2.57|0.008
91791798|NCT01931670|183461153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.08|-1.37|0.027
91791799|NCT01931670|183461153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.47|-1.75|< 0.001
91901456|NCT00537485|183697650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|44.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||44.6|16.7|<0.001
91854383|NCT03149991|183593348|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest. This model contains an interaction effect with site, because the SITE\*DRUG effect was significant (p=0.03).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=56.8, t=1.85|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-I change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.07
91901457|NCT00537485|183697650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|40.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||40.2|12.0|<0.001
91659280|NCT01045096|183213061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.493|1.579|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized Cmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.579|0.493|
91659281|NCT01045096|183213062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.693|1.848|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-tlqc\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.848|0.693|
91901458|NCT02967354|183697659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5875||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.5875
91901459|NCT02967354|183697660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0065
91901460|NCT02967354|183697661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0072
91659282|NCT01045096|183213062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.584|2.276|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-tlqc\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.276|0.584|
91659283|NCT01045096|183213062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.632|1.642|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-tlqc\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.642|0.632|
91659284|NCT01045096|183213063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.692|1.636|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-24\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.636|0.692|
91659285|NCT01045096|183213063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.691|2.314|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-24\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.314|0.691|
91659286|NCT01045096|183213063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.817|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-24\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.817|0.777|
91659287|NCT00909610|183213084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|92.3|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125|||111|92.3|
91659288|NCT00909610|183213085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Geometric Mean|106.0||||||90.0|101.0|112.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112|101|
91659289|NCT00909610|183213086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Geometric Mean|101.0||||||90.0|91.9|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|91.9|
91659290|NCT00909610|183213087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Geometric Mean|105.0||||||90.0|100.0|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|100|
91659291|NCT00909610|183213088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|101.0||||||90.0|92.5|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|92.5|
91659292|NCT00909610|183213089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|110.0||||||90.0|103.0|117.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||117|103|
91659293|NCT00909610|183213090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|101.0||||||90.0|92.2|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|92.2|
91659294|NCT00909610|183213091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|107.0||||||90.0|100.0|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||115|100|
91659295|NCT01032083|183213127|EQUIVALENCE|For the primary outcome, linear regression was used to determine mean difference between treatment groups. Differences between groups are presented as mean differences with associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Baseline values for variables were included as covariates in regression models and adjusted according to analysis of covariance. All analyses were conducted under the intention-to-treat principle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|1.8|||Regression, Linear|||||1.80|-4.91|0.36
91659296|NCT01032083|183213128|EQUIVALENCE|For the primary outcome, linear regression was used to determine mean difference between treatment groups. Differences between groups are presented as mean differences with associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Baseline values for variables were included as covariates in regression models and adjusted according to analysis of covariance. All analyses were conducted under the intention-to-treat principle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.0|||Regression, Linear|||||14|-9|0.68
91791800|NCT01931670|183461153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.20|-1.34|0.143
91659297|NCT03612960|183213146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided||||The mean percent change in BOLD signal used for this t-test was extracted from a brain cluster with significant group differences in changes in activation over time (voxel p\<.05, cluster p\<.05) identified using a whole-brain, voxel-wise two-way mixed effect ANOVA with FSL software.|0.43|0.14|<.001
91659298|NCT03612960|183213147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.48|-17.24|.063
91659299|NCT03612960|183213148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.57|18.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||18.82|-21.57|0.890
91659300|NCT00834249|183213149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.73||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
91659301|NCT00834249|183213150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.73||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
91659302|NCT00834249|183213151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.71||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
91659303|NCT00834249|183213152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|109.61||||||90.0|||||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||||
91659304|NCT00834249|183213153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|106.85||||||90.0|||||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational puposes only.|||||
91659305|NCT00834249|183213154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|106.38||||||90.0|||||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||||
91659306|NCT00834743|183213155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.49||||||90.0|90.65|109.18|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.18|90.65|
91659307|NCT00834743|183213156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.0||||||90.0|91.44|107.19|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.19|91.44|
91659308|NCT00834743|183213157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.05||||||90.0|90.57|108.32|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.32|90.57|
91659309|NCT01643707|183213173|SUPERIORITY|A chi-square test was performed to determine a difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2.|||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.00001
91659310|NCT01643707|183213174|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-Square test used to show any difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91659311|NCT01643707|183213175|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-Square test used to show any difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2|||||<|0.0001||||||This endpoint was covered in primary objective 2, so this analysis is the same as previously reported.|Chi-squared||||See Primary Objectives for additional details.|||<0.0001
91659312|NCT04112823|183213180|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|20.0||||||||20|-6|
91659313|NCT04112823|183213181|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|16.0||||||||16|-8|
91659314|NCT04112823|183213182|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.0||||||||14|-8|
91659315|NCT04112823|183213184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.3|
91659316|NCT04112823|183213185|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|18.0||||||||18|-9|
91659317|NCT03603314|183213194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3419|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.3419
91659318|NCT03603314|183213194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5181|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.5181
91659319|NCT03603314|183213195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.3666
91713249|NCT01063855|183317775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.425|3.423||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12.||3.423|1.425|<0.001
91659320|NCT03603314|183213195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5776|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.5776
91659321|NCT03603314|183213196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.4094
91659322|NCT03603314|183213196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4602|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.4602
91659323|NCT03603314|183213197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1269|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.1269
91659324|NCT03603314|183213197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2257|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.2257
91659325|NCT03603314|183213198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3121|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.3121
91659326|NCT03603314|183213198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4965|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.4965
91659327|NCT03603314|183213199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.0976
91659328|NCT03603314|183213199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.1762
91659329|NCT01382719|183213212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0215|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Van Elteren|||||1.0|0.0|<0.05
91854384|NCT03149991|183593348|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest. This model contains an interaction effect with site, because the SITE\*DRUG effect was significant (p=0.03).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=50.5, t=0.91|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-I change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.37
91713250|NCT02492802|183317776|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||The Wald Type III test|||||||0.77
91713251|NCT01165307|183317777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91901461|NCT02967354|183697662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9472||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9472
91659330|NCT01382719|183213212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0012|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0012|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||Van Elteren|||||0.06|0.00|<0.05
91854385|NCT03149991|183593352|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in terms of occurrence of abnormal ECGs.|Chi-squared test|0.28||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess group differences (drug vs. placebo) in terms of number of abnormal ECGs out of total ECGs assessed.||||0.60
91854386|NCT03149991|183593352|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at baseline.|Chi-squared test|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at baseline.||||0.33
91854387|NCT03149991|183593352|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 4.|Chi-squared test|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 4.||||1.00
91659331|NCT01382719|183213213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0496|||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91659332|NCT01382719|183213214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0079|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Van Elteren|||||1.00|0.00|<0.05
91659333|NCT01382719|183213215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0012|||<|0.05|||||||Van Elteren|||||||<0.05
91659334|NCT01382719|183213216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0013|||<|0.05|||||||Van Elteren|||||||<0.05
91659335|NCT01382719|183213217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1161|||<|0.05|||||||Van Elteren|||||||<0.05
91854388|NCT03149991|183593352|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 5.|Chi-squared test|0.08||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 5.||||0.78
91901462|NCT02967354|183697663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0048
91659336|NCT01382719|183213218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0133|||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91659337|NCT00064753|183213221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.84|0.93
91659338|NCT00064753|183213222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.15||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.43||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.93|0.19
91659339|NCT00064753|183213223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.86|0.67
91659340|NCT00064753|183213224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.80|0.61
91659341|NCT00064753|183213225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.81||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.81|0.69|0.64
91659342|NCT00064753|183213226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.15||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||2.15|0.30|0.66
91713252|NCT01165307|183317778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for the SF-12 Physical Scale.||||0.82
91713253|NCT01165307|183317778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for the SF-12 mental scale.||||0.11
91659343|NCT00064753|183213227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.62|0.28
91659344|NCT00064753|183213228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.23|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||1.23|0.73|0.70
91659345|NCT00064753|183213229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.65|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||1.65|0.79|0.49
91659346|NCT00064753|183213230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.8|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||2.80|0.46|0.78
91659347|NCT00064753|183213231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.57|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||2.57|0.15|0.50
91659348|NCT00064753|183213232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.5|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||3.50|0.48|0.60
91659349|NCT00624065|183213306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.968||||0.8822||95.0|0.63|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.63|0.8822
91659350|NCT01387022|183213308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91659351|NCT01387022|183213309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.481
91659352|NCT01387022|183213311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.267
91659353|NCT01536405|183213321|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 10 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||6.8|1.8|<0.001
91659354|NCT01536405|183213321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|97.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.6|98.4|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>76%||98.4|95.6|<0.001
91659355|NCT01536405|183213322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 5 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||-0.6|-4.0|0.003
91659356|NCT01536405|183213322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|96.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.9|97.9|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>90%||97.9|94.9|<0.001
91659357|NCT01536405|183213323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 5 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||2.8|-0.7|<0.001
91659358|NCT01536405|183213323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|98.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.8|99.1|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>90%||99.1|96.8|<0.001
91659359|NCT01536405|183213324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 5 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||0.7|-1.8|<0.001
91659360|NCT01536405|183213324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|98.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.6|99.5|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>90%||99.5|97.6|<0.001
91659361|NCT01536405|183213325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.3|1.1|<0.001
91659362|NCT01536405|183213326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.0|0.8|<0.001
91713254|NCT01165307|183317779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91713255|NCT01165307|183317780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91713256|NCT01165307|183317781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91713257|NCT01165307|183317782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91713258|NCT01165307|183317783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91713259|NCT01165307|183317787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91713260|NCT02683239|183317866|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.159|-0.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.293|-1.159|= 0.0010
91713261|NCT02683239|183317866|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.646|-0.793|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.793|-1.646|< 0.0001
91713262|NCT02683239|183317866|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.664|-0.793|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.793|-1.664|< 0.0001
91713263|NCT02683239|183317866|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.477|-0.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.606|-1.477|< 0.0001
91713264|NCT02683239|183317867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.163|-0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.309|-1.163|= 0.0007
91659363|NCT01536405|183213327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.1|0.9|<0.001
91659364|NCT01536405|183213328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.1|0.9|<0.001
91659365|NCT01536405|183213329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||1.3|-1.0|<0.001
91659366|NCT01844375|183213338|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence analysis||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.75
91659367|NCT02729714|183213395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91659368|NCT02729714|183213396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91659369|NCT02729714|183213397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
91659370|NCT02729714|183213398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91659371|NCT02729714|183213399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91659372|NCT02729714|183213400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.098
91659373|NCT02729714|183213401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91659374|NCT05093205|183213437|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 120 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 3).|Specified in comments|122.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.96|140.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||140.25|106.96|
91659375|NCT05093205|183213437|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 200 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 5).|Specified in comments|143.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.64|168.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||168.68|122.64|
91659376|NCT05093205|183213438|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 120 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 3).|Specified in comments|104.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.56|117.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||117.89|92.56|
91659377|NCT05093205|183213438|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 200 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 5).|Specified in comments|92.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.05|106.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||106.19|81.05|
91659378|NCT03897088|183213494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
91659379|NCT03897088|183213503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
91659380|NCT03897088|183213504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||||<0.00001
91659381|NCT03897088|183213505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
91659382|NCT03897088|183213506|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
91659383|NCT03897088|183213507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||||<0.00001
91659384|NCT03897088|183213508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05||||||Log Rank Test p-Value|Kaplan-Meier Estimates|||||||<0.00001
91659385|NCT03897088|183213509|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05||||||Log Rank Test p-Value|Kaplan-Meier Estimates|||||||<0.00001
91659386|NCT03897088|183213510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.00001
91659387|NCT03897088|183213511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI-75||||<0.00001
91659388|NCT03897088|183213511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI-90||||<0.00001
91659389|NCT03897088|183213511|SUPERIORITY|||||||4e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI-100||||0.00004
91659390|NCT03897088|183213512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
91659391|NCT03897088|183213513|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||||<0.00001
91659392|NCT03897088|183213514|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
91659393|NCT03897088|183213515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05||||||Week 16|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.00001
91659394|NCT03897088|183213516|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.00001
91659395|NCT03897088|183213517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.00001
91659396|NCT01811953|183213531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.531|105.653|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||105.653|99.531|<0.0001
91659397|NCT01811953|183213531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|98.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.879|103.059|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||103.059|94.879|<0.0001
91713265|NCT02683239|183317867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|-0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.768|-1.624|< 0.0001
91713266|NCT02683239|183317867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698|-0.822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.822|-1.698|< 0.0001
91713267|NCT02683239|183317867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.564|-0.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.695|-1.564|< 0.0001
91713268|NCT02683239|183317868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.028|-0.380|= 0.0230
91713269|NCT02683239|183317868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|-0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.093|-0.437|= 0.0025
91713270|NCT02683239|183317868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|-0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.145|-0.496|= 0.0003
91713271|NCT02683239|183317868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|-0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.118|-0.466|= 0.0010
91854389|NCT03149991|183593352|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 6.|Chi-squared test|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 6.||||0.90
91659398|NCT01811953|183213531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|106.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.728|109.386|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||109.386|102.728|<0.0001
91659399|NCT01811953|183213532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|96.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.25|101.26|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||101.26|91.25|<0.0001
91659400|NCT01811953|183213532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.56|106.62|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||106.62|92.56|<0.0001
91659401|NCT01811953|183213532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean difference|100.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.74|106.14|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||106.14|95.74|<0.0001
91659402|NCT01811953|183213533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.315|105.43|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||105.430|99.315|<0.0001
91659403|NCT01811953|183213533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|98.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.784|103.037|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||103.037|94.784|<0.0001
91659404|NCT01811953|183213533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|105.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.73|109.329|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||109.329|102.730|<0.0001
91659405|NCT01811953|183213534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.255|108.351|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||108.351|96.255|<0.0001
91659406|NCT01811953|183213534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|106.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.863|118.353|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||118.353|95.863|0.0082
91659407|NCT01811953|183213534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|104.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.152|110.224|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||110.224|99.152|<0.0001
91713272|NCT01718483|183317897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.01|-1.70|<0.001
91713273|NCT01718483|183317898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91659408|NCT01811953|183213535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|94.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.931|101.21|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||101.210|88.931|0.0001
91713274|NCT01718483|183317899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91713275|NCT01718483|183317900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-5.54|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-5.54|-7.17|<0.001
91713276|NCT01718483|183317901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-5.88|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-5.88|-8.93|<0.001
91713277|NCT01718483|183317902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.088|||ANCOVA|||||-0.088|-0.310|<0.001
91713278|NCT01718483|183317903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.211|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.092|||ANCOVA|||||-0.092|-0.330|<0.001
91713279|NCT01718483|183317904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.07|0.308
91854390|NCT03149991|183593352|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 7.|Chi-squared test|0.63||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 7.||||0.43
91713280|NCT01718483|183317905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91713281|NCT01718483|183317906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.3||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.30|-2.24|<0.001
91713282|NCT01718483|183317907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.57||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||2.57|0.72|<0.001
91713283|NCT01718483|183317907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-3.39||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Disinhibition of Eating||-3.39|-4.98|<0.001
91713284|NCT01718483|183317907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|-3.91||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Perceived Hunger||-3.91|-5.49|<0.001
91713285|NCT01718483|183317908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-10.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|-8.21||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-8.21|-12.43|<0.001
91713286|NCT01718483|183317909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.31||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.31||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|ANCOVA|||||1.31|-1.93|0.706
91713287|NCT03442088|183317929|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.272||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91713288|NCT03442088|183317930|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|95.98||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2324.0|2516.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2516|-2324|0.934
91713289|NCT03442088|183317931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6878||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.685|0.3097|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3097|-1.685|0.1632
91713290|NCT03442088|183317932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.344||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.248|0.5992|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5992|-5.248|0.1063
91713291|NCT03442088|183317933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24||||0.5611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.333|14.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.81|-8.333|0.5611
91713292|NCT02541422|183317938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||p-value calculated for the total hangover scale|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91659409|NCT01811953|183213535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|97.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.339|103.935|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||103.935|92.339|<0.0001
91659410|NCT01811953|183213535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.166|109.082|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||109.082|97.166|<0.0001
91659411|NCT01811953|183213536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|94.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.8|100.26|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||100.26|89.80|<0.0001
91713293|NCT02541422|183317938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p value calculated for symptom of headache|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
91713294|NCT02541422|183317938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||p value calculated for symptom of nausea|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91659412|NCT01811953|183213536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.14|107.03|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||107.03|92.14|<0.0001
91713295|NCT02541422|183317938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||p value calculated for symptom of weakness|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91713296|NCT02326272|183317986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.405|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.965|111.983||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose versus (vs) placebo (PBO).|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||111.983|9.965|<0.0001
91659413|NCT01811953|183213536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|100.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.77|105.96|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||105.96|95.77|<0.0001
91691902|NCT00380874|183278450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5757||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 2. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.5757
91692404|NCT03187301|183279684|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|8.3||||||2 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||8.3|1.3|
91713297|NCT02326272|183317986|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.12|82.36|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||82.36|57.12|
91713298|NCT02326272|183317986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.212|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.686|122.713||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||122.713|10.686|<0.0001
91791801|NCT01931670|183461153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.15|-1.67|0.019
91791802|NCT01931670|183461154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.19|-1.44|0.131
91791803|NCT01931670|183461154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.05|-1.65|0.037
91713299|NCT02326272|183317986|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.47|83.43|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||83.43|58.47|
91713300|NCT02326272|183317987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|106.225|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.572|1178.843||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||1178.843|9.572|<0.0001
91713301|NCT02326272|183317987|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|64.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.16|77.46|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||77.46|52.16|
91901463|NCT01158651|183697664|SUPERIORITY|The treatment regimen was considered promising for further study if after 48 weeks of treatment there was at least a 25% response rate compared to an expected response rate of 5% or less, which was considered evidence of an unpromising regimen. Assuming the true response rate is 5%, the binomial distribution was used to calculate Type I errors and power.|Proportion responding|0.682|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4872|0.8764|||Exact test|||||0.8764|0.4872|<0.001
91722429|NCT04390750|183337445|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.04|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||-0.04|-0.36|0.014
91713302|NCT02326272|183317987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|133.163|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.904|1489.578||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||1489.578|11.904|<0.0001
91659414|NCT01819597|183213537|OTHER|This is a phase II study design to determine the non-futility of proceeding to a phase III pivotal evaluation. The study group was planned to be compared to a propensity score matching (PSM) cohort from to the patients in the medical arms of the SAMMPRIS trial and to patients in the medical arm of COSS that had demonstrated angiographic intracranial atherosclerosis and occlusion.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.94||Pre-established α ≤ 0.10 for phase IIa|Regression, Cox|Alpha set at ≤ 0.1. for phase II study|ERSIAS/ Controls.|We derived the sample size required to power the trial to test the difference between two binomial event rates using the method of Farrington and Manning as implemented in R package gsDesign (Anderson, 2011). An estimated sample size of 52 patients will be necessary to detect a ∆ of 0.05, with a one-sided alpha of 0.10 and a beta of 0.10 - acceptable parameters for a non-definitive, non-futility study (Palesch et al., 2005, Levin, 2005).||0.94|0.14|0.08
91659415|NCT02440711|183213573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||A significance threshold for all analyses was set at α=0.05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were applied.|Multivariate regression|The multivariate regression included participants' biological masses and walking speeds as covariates.||Analysis of VO2 at slow walking speed||||.18
91659416|NCT02440711|183213573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||A significance threshold for all analyses was set at α=0.05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were applied.|Multivariate regression|The multivariate regression included participants' biological masses and walking speeds as covariates.||Analysis of VO2 at comfortable walking speed||||.21
91659417|NCT02440711|183213573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||A significance threshold for all analyses was set at α=0.05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were applied.|Multivariate regression|The multivariate regression included participants' biological masses and walking speeds as covariates.||Analysis of VO2 at fast walking speed||||.16
91659418|NCT02440711|183213575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
91659419|NCT02440711|183213577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91659420|NCT02440711|183213579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
91713303|NCT02326272|183317987|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|69.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.48|81.77|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||81.77|57.48|
91713304|NCT02326272|183317988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.386|134.432||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||134.432|4.386|<0.0001
91854391|NCT03149991|183593352|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 9.|Chi-squared test|0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 9.||||0.76
91854392|NCT03149991|183593354|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number of participants reporting adverse events.|Chi-squared test|0.009||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis assessed group differences (drug vs. placebo) in terms of number of participants reporting adverse events.||||0.92
91659421|NCT02440711|183213581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.86
91659422|NCT02440711|183213583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Prosthetic side step length results||||.14
91659423|NCT02440711|183213583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sound side step length results||||<0.001
91659424|NCT02440711|183213585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Prosthetic side step time results||||.61
91659425|NCT02440711|183213585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sound side step time results||||.40
91659426|NCT02440711|183213587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
91659427|NCT02440711|183213589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91659428|NCT02440711|183213591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91659429|NCT02440711|183213593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91659430|NCT02440711|183213595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||TAPES-AR results||||0.002
91713305|NCT02326272|183317988|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|48.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.04|61.26|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||61.26|35.04|
91713306|NCT02326272|183317988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.204|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.895|151.198||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||151.198|4.895|<0.0001
91713307|NCT02326272|183317988|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.75|64.19|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||64.19|37.75|
91659431|NCT02440711|183213595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||TAPES-FUN results||||<0.001
91659432|NCT02440711|183213595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||TAPES-AES results||||0.85
91659433|NCT00627016|183213616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance for the comparison of the primary endpoint was determined at 0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91713308|NCT02326272|183317991|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.88|-4.36||The P-value was obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-4.36|-8.88|<0.0001
91659434|NCT00627016|183213617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was only declared if the primary endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. The multiplicity between the two secondary endpoints was adjusted by Hommel-Simes method to maintain the overall 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91659435|NCT00627016|183213618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was only declared if the primary endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. The multiplicity between the two secondary endpoints was adjusted by Hommel-Simes method to maintain the overall 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91659436|NCT00234286|183213642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.76|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.76|1.09|.009
91659437|NCT00234286|183213643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.96|0.95|0.09
91659438|NCT00234286|183213644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.42|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.42|0.59|0.69
91659439|NCT00234286|183213645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.96|0.53|.03
91659440|NCT00234286|183213646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.16|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.16|0.38|0.15
91791804|NCT01931670|183461154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.29|-1.96|0.008
91791805|NCT01931670|183461154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.60|-2.27|< 0.001
91659441|NCT00234286|183213647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.62|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.62|0.67|0.86
91659442|NCT00234286|183213648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.96|0.95|0.09
91659443|NCT00234286|183213649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.36|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.36|1.17|0.01
91659444|NCT00234286|183213650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.35|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.35|0.73|0.36
91791806|NCT01931670|183461154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.06|-1.76|0.036
91791807|NCT01931670|183461154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.06|-1.76|0.035
91791808|NCT01931670|183461154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||0.55|-1.23|0.452
91713309|NCT02326272|183317991|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.46|-3.93||The P-value was obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-3.93|-8.46|<0.0001
91791809|NCT01931670|183461154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.48|-2.18|0.002
91659445|NCT00234286|183213651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.77|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.77|1.08|0.01
91659446|NCT00234286|183213652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.30|0.70|0.76
91713310|NCT00583908|183317995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.1|<|0.0001||95.0||||Paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided||mean difference was senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|Alternative Hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to balafilcon A toric by having less degrees of rotation||||<0.0001
91791810|NCT01931670|183461154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.25|-1.99|0.012
91659447|NCT00234286|183213653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.44|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||5.44|1.41|.004
91659448|NCT00234286|183213654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|11.28|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||11.28|1.51|0.007
91659449|NCT00234286|183213655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.2|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||3.20|0.84|0.14
91659450|NCT00234286|183213656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.88|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.88|1.15|.003
91659451|NCT00234286|183213657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|9.7|||Generalized Estimation Equations|||||9.70|0.62|0.19
91659452|NCT00286754|183213677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a Bonferroni adjustment of 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI versus UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for comparison of SMI vs. UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was an effectiveness trial of 2 active interventions, each compared with an active standard of care control group. We expected that 54% of patients on BP-lowering therapy would be properly controlled with HEI and 43% with UC, whereas we expected SMI to increase this to 69% control in 6 months. BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a 2.5% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons.||||0.001
91659453|NCT00286754|183213677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a Bonferroni adjustment of 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI versus UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for comparison of HEI vs. UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
91659454|NCT00286754|183213678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a 2.5% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI vs UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for SMI vs UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed as an effectiveness trial of 2 active interventions, each compared with an active standard of care control group. The study was not powered to test comparisons between the 2 active intervention arms.||||0.009
91659455|NCT00286754|183213678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a Bonferroni adjustment of 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI vs UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for comparison of HEI vs. UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
91659456|NCT00286754|183213679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|3e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in BP control were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (with Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each assessment of change in proportion with BP under control from baseline to 6 months by SMI, HEI or UC (3 tests).|McNemar|||||||<0.000003
91659457|NCT00286754|183213679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in BP control were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (with Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each assessment of change in proportion with BP under control from baseline to 6 months by SMI, HEI or UC (3 tests).|McNemar|||||||0.012
91659458|NCT00286754|183213679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in BP control were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (with Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each assessment of change in proportion with BP under control from baseline to 6 months by SMI, HEI or UC (3 tests).|McNemar|||||||0.89
91659459|NCT00286754|183213680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.009
91659460|NCT00286754|183213680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91659461|NCT00286754|183213680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9
91791811|NCT01931670|183461154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.78|-2.5|< 0.001
91791812|NCT01931670|183461154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.21|-1.67|0.13
91659462|NCT00286754|183213681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.880
91659463|NCT00286754|183213681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.318
91791813|NCT01931670|183461154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.56|-2.34|0.001
91791814|NCT01931670|183461155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.65|-3.32|0.186
91854393|NCT03149991|183593355|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the groups in terms of mean number of adverse events per person, among those who reported any adverse events.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis assessed group differences (drug vs. placebo) in terms of mean number of adverse events per person, among those who reported any adverse events.||||0.81
91659464|NCT00286754|183213682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.306
91659465|NCT00286754|183213682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.205
91791815|NCT01931670|183461155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-1.10|-5.08|0.002
91791816|NCT01931670|183461155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.67|-3.28|0.195
91791817|NCT01931670|183461155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-1.67|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-1.67|-5.63|< 0.001
91791818|NCT01931670|183461155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.02|-4.03|0.047
91791819|NCT01931670|183461155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|-1.19|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-1.19|-5.21|0.002
91854394|NCT03149991|183593356|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared test|0.43||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) throughout the trial.||||0.51
91854395|NCT03149991|183593356|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|2.85||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) at Screening.||||0.09
91854396|NCT03149991|183593356|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.004||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) at Baseline.||||0.95
91854397|NCT03149991|183593356|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.005||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 1.||||0.94
91854398|NCT03149991|183593356|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|1.97||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 2.||||0.16
91854399|NCT03149991|183593356|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.44||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 5.||||0.51
91854400|NCT03149991|183593356|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 8.||||0.33
91854401|NCT03149991|183593356|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.003||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 11.||||0.96
91659466|NCT00286754|183213683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.011
91659467|NCT00286754|183213683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.638
91659468|NCT00286754|183213684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.012
91659469|NCT00286754|183213684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.333
91791820|NCT01931670|183461155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||0.33|-3.59|0.103
91713311|NCT00583908|183317995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.8||0.0002||95.0||||paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided||mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|Hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to lotrafilcon B toric by having less degree of rotation||||0.0002
91791821|NCT01931670|183461155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-2.83|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-2.83|-6.72|< 0.001
91659470|NCT00286754|183213685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.581
91659471|NCT00286754|183213685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.502
91659472|NCT01054586|183213705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.1||||0.02||95.0|1.26|29.46||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for ART naïve. Not ART naïve is the reference group."|||29.46|1.26|0.02
91791822|NCT01931670|183461155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.38|-4.20|0.019
91791823|NCT01931670|183461155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.975|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-3.22|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-3.22|-7.06|< 0.001
91791824|NCT01931670|183461155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.22|-3.16|0.383
91791825|NCT01931670|183461155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.87|-5.17|0.006
91791826|NCT01931670|183461156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.84|-0.81|0.975
91659473|NCT01054586|183213706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.12||||0.05||95.0|1.03|16.5||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||16.50|1.03|0.05
91659474|NCT01054586|183213706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.68||95.0|0.16|16.27||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||16.27|0.16|0.68
91659475|NCT01054586|183213707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.83||||0.17||95.0|0.65|12.36||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||12.36|0.65|0.17
91791827|NCT01931670|183461156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.80|-0.83|0.969
91791828|NCT01931670|183461156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.54|-0.99|0.569
91791829|NCT01931670|183461156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.37|-1.17|0.311
91791830|NCT01931670|183461156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.42|-0.56|0.398
91854402|NCT03149991|183593356|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 14.||||0.48
91854403|NCT03149991|183593356|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.67||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 17.||||0.41
91854404|NCT03149991|183593356|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 21.||||0.68
91854405|NCT03149991|183593356|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.67||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 23.||||0.41
91854406|NCT03149991|183593356|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.67||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 28.||||0.41
91854407|NCT04928001|183593371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||60|0|.01
91854408|NCT00077675|183593412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was selected on the basis of clinical judgment and was deemed adequate to provide clinically meaningful descriptive results consistent with study objectives. This sample size was estimated to provide 91% power to test telavancin's non-inferiority to vancomycin with respect to clinical response using a non-inferiority margin of 20%||||||0.5318|||||||2-sided 95% confidence interval calculat|||95% Confidence Interval: -0.0527 to 0.1102 No estimated value Parameter that was estimated: Risk Difference||||0.5318
91854409|NCT02765100|183593424|EQUIVALENCE|Unless specified otherwise, each of the statistical tests above will use a two-tailed alpha-level of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a pilot proof of concept study and does not require formal sample size calculations. High and low CRP groups will be compared on demographic, clinical and biological variables using two-sample t-tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests for continuous variables (for nonparametric continuous variables, either Mann-Whitney tests or Kruskal-Wallis tests will be used) and chi-square tests or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables.||||<0.05
91854410|NCT04532528|183593430|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.9701|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9701
91659476|NCT01054586|183213707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.85||95.0|0.12|13.33||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||13.33|0.12|0.85
91854411|NCT04532528|183593431|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.7376|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months only||||0.7376
91854412|NCT04532528|183593431|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.1356|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months only||||0.1356
91713312|NCT00583908|183317995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|<|0.0001||95.0||||paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|Hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to omafilcon A toric by having less degree of rotation||||<0.0001
91854413|NCT04532528|183593431|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||At 9 months only||||0.6800
91854414|NCT04532528|183593432|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.5777|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months only||||0.5777
91854415|NCT04532528|183593432|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.3313|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months only||||0.3313
91854416|NCT04532528|183593432|OTHER|No formal hypotheses was tested.||||||0.5697|||||||Chi-squared|||At 9 months only||||0.5697
91854417|NCT04532528|183593432|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.5135|||||||Chi-squared|||At 12 months only||||0.5135
91854418|NCT04532528|183593433|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.8509|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months only||||0.8509
91791831|NCT01931670|183461156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.84|-1.15|0.761
91791832|NCT01931670|183461156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||1.04|-0.89|0.874
91791833|NCT01931670|183461156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.01|-1.85|0.048
91854419|NCT04532528|183593433|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.3302|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months only||||0.3302
91854420|NCT04532528|183593433|OTHER|No formal hypotheses was tested.||||||0.9005|||||||Chi-squared|||At 9 months only||||0.9005
91854421|NCT04532528|183593433|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.2789|||||||Chi-squared|||At 12 months only||||0.2789
91854422|NCT04532528|183593434|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.667|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 3 months only||||0.6670
91854423|NCT04532528|183593434|OTHER|||||||0.1285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 6 months only||||0.1285
91854424|NCT04532528|183593434|OTHER|No formal hypotheses was tested.||||||0.7151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 9 months only||||0.7151
91854425|NCT04532528|183593434|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested||||||0.803|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 12 months only||||0.8030
91854426|NCT01068743|183593452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|101.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.17|104.84|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries. LS=Least Squares.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||104.84|98.17|
91791834|NCT01931670|183461156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||0.35|-2.14|0.16
91791835|NCT01931670|183461156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||0.33|-2.14|0.152
91791836|NCT01931670|183461156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.15|-1.81|0.095
91791837|NCT01931670|183461156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.474||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.07|-1.79|0.071
91791838|NCT01931670|183461157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.106||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.34|-4.01|0.098
91791839|NCT01931670|183461157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-1.54|-5.91|< 0.001
91659477|NCT01054586|183213708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.2||||0.06||95.0|0.94|10.82||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||10.82|0.94|0.06
91659478|NCT01054586|183213708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.96||95.0|0.11|9.83||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||9.83|0.11|0.96
91713313|NCT00583908|183317996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.0083||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to balafilcon A toric by having a lower logMAR score||||0.0083
91854427|NCT01068743|183593452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.53|105.42|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf,respectively.||105.42|99.53|
91854428|NCT01068743|183593452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|49.23||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.||||
91854429|NCT01068743|183593452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|49.94||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
91854430|NCT01068743|183593452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|52.71||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
91854431|NCT01068743|183593452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|53.99||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
91854432|NCT01068743|183593455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.68|110.88|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||110.88|94.68|
91854433|NCT01068743|183593455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|106.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.43|114.66|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||114.66|98.43|
91854434|NCT01068743|183593455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|9.73||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.||||
91854435|NCT01068743|183593455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|9.97||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
91854436|NCT01068743|183593455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|10.33||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
91854437|NCT01068743|183593455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|10.97||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
91854438|NCT01068743|183593456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.26|107.18|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||107.18|97.26|
91659479|NCT01054586|183213709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.57||95.0|0.52|3.31||Variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. Gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin were also included, but p\>0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||3.31|0.52|0.57
91659480|NCT01054586|183213709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.22||95.0|0.04|2.14||Variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. Gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin were also included, but p\>0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||2.14|0.04|0.22
91713314|NCT00583908|183317996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.052||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to lotrafilcon B toric by having a lower logMAR score||||0.052
91854439|NCT01068743|183593456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.23|102.21|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||102.21|96.23|
91854440|NCT01068743|183593456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11998.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment A.||||
91659481|NCT01054586|183213709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.47||95.0|0.35|9.91||Variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. Gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin were also included, but p\>0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV, Other. LPV is the reference group."|||9.91|0.35|0.47
91854441|NCT01068743|183593456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|12250.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
91854442|NCT01068743|183593456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|12036.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
91854443|NCT01068743|183593456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11937.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
91854444|NCT01068743|183593457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.41|109.5|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||109.5|90.41|
91854445|NCT01068743|183593457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|98.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.28|102.32|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||102.32|94.28|
91659482|NCT01054586|183213710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.48||95.0|0.55|3.55||Only variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||3.55|0.55|0.48
91659483|NCT01054586|183213710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.23||95.0|0.03|2.18||Only variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||2.18|0.03|0.23
91659484|NCT01054586|183213710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.56||95.0|0.29|9.47||Only variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV, Other. LPV is the reference group."|||9.47|0.29|0.56
91659485|NCT01054586|183213712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.72||95.0|0.51|2.66||Only variables showing an imbalance between treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, use of non-ARV drug, baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||2.66|0.51|0.72
91713315|NCT00583908|183317996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to omafilcon A toric by having a lower logMAR score||||0.015
91713316|NCT00583908|183317997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.16
91713317|NCT00583908|183317997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.73
91854446|NCT01068743|183593457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL|1724.4||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.||||
91854447|NCT01068743|183593457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Means (ng/mL)|1715.8||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
91854448|NCT01068743|183593457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean (ng/mL)|1581.4||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
91854449|NCT01068743|183593457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1553.2||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
91659486|NCT01054586|183213712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.21||95.0|0.03|2.08||Only variables showing an imbalance between treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, use of non-ARV drug, baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||2.08|0.03|0.21
91659487|NCT01054586|183213712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26||||0.15||95.0|0.74|6.97|||Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|Only variables showing an imbalance between treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, use of non-ARV drug, baseline bilirubin.||6.97|0.74|0.15
91659488|NCT01054586|183213718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.77||||0.1||95.0|0.79|18.05|||Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||18.05|0.79|0.10
91659489|NCT01054586|183213719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.53||||0.02||95.0|1.16|5.54||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included, but p \> .05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||5.54|1.16|0.02
91713318|NCT00583908|183317997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4||0.044||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.044
91854450|NCT01068743|183593462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|101.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.07|104.9|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||104.90|98.07|
91659490|NCT01054586|183213719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.17||||0.05||95.0|1.54|11.27||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included, but p \> .05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||11.27|1.54|0.05
91659491|NCT01054586|183213719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.67||||0.06||95.0|0.97|13.9||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included, but p \> .05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|||13.90|0.97|0.06
91659492|NCT01054586|183213720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.68||||0.01||95.0|1.21|5.9||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||5.9|1.21|0.01
91659493|NCT01054586|183213720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.42||||0.0004||95.0|1.61|12.08||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||12.08|1.61|0.0004
91713319|NCT00583908|183317998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.044||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.044
91713320|NCT00583908|183317998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.31
91659494|NCT01054586|183213720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.07||||0.11||95.0|0.78|12.03||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|||12.03|0.78|0.11
91659495|NCT01054586|183213721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09||||0.03||95.0|1.06|4.15||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI-score, baseline use of non-ARV drug and baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||4.15|1.06|0.03
91659496|NCT01054586|183213721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.61||||0.05||95.0|1.48|8.81||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI-score, baseline use of non-ARV drug and baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||8.81|1.48|0.05
91659497|NCT01054586|183213721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.31||||0.1||95.0|0.85|6.32||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI-score, baseline use of non-ARV drug and baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|||6.32|0.85|0.10
91713321|NCT00583908|183317998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.44
91713322|NCT00583908|183317999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.78
91713323|NCT00583908|183317999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.68
91659498|NCT01054586|183213722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.12||||0.03||95.0|1.19|22.02|||Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||22.02|1.19|0.03
91659499|NCT02726581|183213730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.3||||||||1.30|0.62|
91659500|NCT02726581|183213731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19||||||||1.19|0.53|
91713324|NCT00583908|183317999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.78
91713325|NCT00583908|183318000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.11
91713326|NCT00583908|183318000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.31
91854451|NCT01068743|183593462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.56|105.57|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||105.57|99.56|
91854452|NCT01068743|183593462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|47.15|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.|||||
91854453|NCT01068743|183593462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|47.83|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.|||||
91854454|NCT01068743|183593462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|50.89|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.|||||
91659501|NCT02726581|183213732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.46||||||||1.46|0.39|
91659502|NCT02255097|183213782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|null hypothesis (H0): p ≤ 0.05 versus alternate hypothesis (H1): p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
91854455|NCT01068743|183593462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|52.17|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.|||||
91713327|NCT00583908|183318000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.16
91713328|NCT00583908|183318001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.8||0.061||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.061
91713329|NCT00583908|183318001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.47
91713330|NCT00583908|183318001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6||0.38||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.38
91713331|NCT00583908|183318002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.17
91713332|NCT00583908|183318002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.89||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.89
91713333|NCT00583908|183318002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.56
91713334|NCT00583908|183318003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.8||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.0080
91713335|NCT00583908|183318003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1||0.0049||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.0049
91713336|NCT00583908|183318003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6||0.0058||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.0058
91713337|NCT00583908|183318004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.27
91713338|NCT00583908|183318004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilocon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.85
91713339|NCT00583908|183318004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omifilcon A|||||0.73
91713340|NCT04033146|183318011|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|||"H1. Bilateral ankle exoskeletons that provide 'motor-like' assistance will result in lower net metabolic power than those providing 'spring-like' assistance for young adults.~H2. Bilateral ankle exoskeletons that provide 'motor-like' assistance will result in lower net metabolic power than those providing 'spring-like' assistance for older adults."||||<0.001
91713341|NCT00928434|183318030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined as a lower bound (LCL) of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the intermittent and pooled continuous treatments, CADT, (intermittent - continuous) of greater than -12.5%.|Percentage difference|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|3.33||||||||3.33|-0.19|
91791840|NCT01931670|183461157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.13|-4.16|0.065
91659503|NCT02255097|183213783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
91659504|NCT02255097|183213786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
91659505|NCT02255097|183213787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0027|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||0.0027
91791841|NCT01931670|183461157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.089|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-2.96|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-2.96|-7.24|< 0.001
91659506|NCT02255097|183213788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
91791842|NCT01931670|183461157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.41|-4.89|0.02
91791843|NCT01931670|183461157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-2.41|-6.87|< 0.001
91791844|NCT01931670|183461157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.138||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.48|-4.95|0.017
91791845|NCT01931670|183461157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-4.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-4.06|-8.48|< 0.001
91791846|NCT01931670|183461157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.34|-4.64|0.023
91791847|NCT01931670|183461157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-3.68|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-3.68|-7.98|< 0.001
91791848|NCT01931670|183461157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.264||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.20|-3.77|0.311
91791849|NCT01931670|183461157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.241||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|-1.53|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-1.53|-6.42|0.001
91791850|NCT01931670|183461158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.62|-1.81|0.335
91791851|NCT01931670|183461158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.48|-1.91|0.242
91791852|NCT01931670|183461158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.652||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.05|-2.61|0.042
91659507|NCT02255097|183213789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
91791853|NCT01931670|183461158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.656||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.48|-3.06|0.007
91791854|NCT01931670|183461158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.92|-1.87|0.503
91791855|NCT01931670|183461158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.41|-2.36|0.169
91791856|NCT01931670|183461158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||1.14|-1.76|0.675
91854456|NCT01068743|183593465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|100.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|105.68|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||105.68|95.40|
91854457|NCT01068743|183593465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.19|102.02|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||102.02|96.19|
91854458|NCT01068743|183593465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11827.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.|||||
91659508|NCT02255097|183213790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
91659509|NCT03956862|183213800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.9499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||7.1|-7.6|0.9499
91659510|NCT03956862|183213801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2|||ANCOVA||GB001 vs. Placebo|||1.2|-1.8|0.6778
91659511|NCT03956862|183213802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||0.9|-0.7|0.7914
91791857|NCT01931670|183461158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.703||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.79|-3.55|0.002
91791858|NCT01931670|183461158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.856||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.36|-3.72|0.017
91791859|NCT01931670|183461158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.87|-4.21|0.003
91791860|NCT01931670|183461158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.778||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.06|-3.12|0.042
91854459|NCT01068743|183593465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11875.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.|||||
91854460|NCT01068743|183593465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11845.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.|||||
91854461|NCT01068743|183593465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11734.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.|||||
91854462|NCT01061151|183593491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|-2.1|-0.4|||||The combination of Arm B and Arm C minus Arm A, based on a repeated confidence interval (Lan-DeMets approach with an O'Brien-Fleming type I error spending function to preserve an experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%).|Arm B and Arm C were combined and compared to Arm A. This comparison was an a priori planned comparison.||-0.4|-2.1|
91854463|NCT01061151|183593492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||Periods 1 and 2||||0.008
91659512|NCT03956862|183213803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.944||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.173|||Regression, Cox||GB001 vs Placebo|||2.173|0.410|0.8916
91659513|NCT03956862|183213804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.191||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.459|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||0.459|-0.077|0.1635
91659514|NCT03956862|183213805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.632||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.544|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||1.544|-0.280|0.1742
91659515|NCT03956862|183213806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.4851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.4|||ANCOVA||GB001 vs. Placebo|||3.4|-1.6|0.4851
91713342|NCT00447772|183318058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.322|||=|0.2552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.233|||ANCOVA||The comparative analysis is based on adjusted means data.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included the baseline total Tsui score (patient in sitting position) as covariate and the main type of CD as between-group factor (due to non-significance the interaction between baseline total Tsui score and the main type of CD was removed from the model).||0.233|-0.877|=0.2552
91854464|NCT01061151|183593492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.77
91854465|NCT01061151|183593492|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||>0.99
91904147|NCT04667377|183703254|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|1.53||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.53|-9.71|<.0072
91659516|NCT03956862|183213807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.3898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|2.178|||Regression, Cox||GB001 vs Placebo|||2.178|0.136|0.3898
91659517|NCT03965091|183213817|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average PI-NRS score over the past 24 hours at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 as the dependent variable, sex, age group at FM onset, week, treatment, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors, and baseline average of the daily average PI-NRS score as a covariate.||0.60|-0.46|0.7963
91659518|NCT03965091|183213817|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average PI-NRS score over the past 24 hours at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 as the dependent variable, sex, age group at FM onset, week, treatment, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors, and baseline average of the daily average PI-NRS score as a covariate.||0.58|-0.48|0.8629
91659519|NCT00565448|183213837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The Fisher's exact test was used to compare the CR proportions.|Fisher Exact|||There was no formal power calculation. A selection design was used to determine how many participants would be accrued to correctly select the treatment group with the best CR rate with 80% probability.||||1.0000
91659520|NCT00302952|183213843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79||||||Adjustments were made for baseline ln(CRP), baseline DAS28-CRP score, race, methotrexate use, anti-TNF use, and disease duration.|ANCOVA|||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group. Log transformed CRP was analyzed to meet the heterogeneity assumption for ANCOVA models.||||0.79
91659521|NCT00302952|183213845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||Adjustments were made for baseline DAS28-CRP score.|ANCOVA|ANOVA was performed on participants with a DAS28-CRP score at Day 84.||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||||0.91
91659522|NCT00302952|183213846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-11.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|14.0|||Chi-squared||The difference in percentages is calculated as Lovastatin - Placebo.|The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||14.0|-35.9|0.39
91722430|NCT04390750|183337445|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.23||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.07|||Linear mixed effects model.|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||-0.07|-0.39|0.005
91854466|NCT01061151|183593493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Periods 1 and 2||||0.30
91854467|NCT01061151|183593493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.64
91854468|NCT01061151|183593493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.06
91854469|NCT01061151|183593494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Periods 1 and 2||||<0.001
91659523|NCT00302952|183213847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||Adjustments were made for baseline serum IgM RF by ELISA test result. In the ANCOVA model, baseline value was a covariate; therefore, an adjustment was performed.|ANCOVA|||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||||0.19
91659524|NCT00302952|183213848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||Adjustments were made for baseline serum anti-CCP by ELISA|ANCOVA|||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||||0.35
91659525|NCT02979353|183213858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge timepoint (average 3 days after study enrollment)||||0.017
91659526|NCT02979353|183213858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to the Post-Acute Care Discharge time point (occurred on average 31 days after study enrollment)||||<0.0001
91659527|NCT02979353|183213858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to the 90 Day Follow-Up After PAC Discharge (occurred, on average, 122 days after study enrollment)||||<0.0001
91854470|NCT01061151|183593494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.04
91854471|NCT01061151|183593494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.46
91854472|NCT01061151|183593495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.3|3.1|||||The confidence interval was based on a repeated confidence interval.|||3.1|0.3|
91854473|NCT01061151|183593496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.98
91659528|NCT02979353|183213859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge time point (occurred, on average, 3 days after study enrollment)||||0.02
91659529|NCT02979353|183213859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to Post-Acute Care Discharge time point (occurred, on average, 31 days after study enrollment).||||<0.00001
91659530|NCT02979353|183213859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to 90-Day Follow Up After PAC Discharge time point (occurred, on average, 122 after study enrollment).||||0.01
91659531|NCT04185909|183213869|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
91713343|NCT02427841|183318067|SUPERIORITY|Tested against the standard R0 rate of 37%. Given all evaluable patients are included in the denominator, R0 of 56% was not achieved. Specifically, of the 19 evaluable patients, 11 proceeded to surgery. Of the 11 who underwent surgery, 8 \[42% of those enrolled, but 72.7% of those resected\] achieved R0 resection.|binomial|42.0||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|67.0||Study was underpowered.|2-sided exact binomial||Test for superiority over standard R0 resection rate of 37%. Study was closed due to slow enrollment, meaning the primary endpoint was underpowered with only 19 of an expected 44 patients enrolled.|Study closed early due to lack of enrollment. Study expected to enrolled 44 evaluable patients to achieve 83% power using the 2-sided binomial test at 10% significance. Study enrolled only 19 evaluable patients, meaning the study was underpowered at \< 62%||67|20|.404
91854474|NCT01061151|183593497|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.08|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio compares Arm A relative to Arm B.|||2.08|0.14|0.37
91854475|NCT01061151|183593499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival||||0.16
91659532|NCT03435081|183213895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|9.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.15|2.31|<0.001
91659533|NCT03435081|183213896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.83|1.08|0.033
91659534|NCT03435081|183213896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|11.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.68|2.40|<0.001
91901464|NCT01191541|183697666|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of DNR alone to DNR+ARA-C in the rate of DFS at 2 years. Assuming a 95% rate of DFS in the two groups, a margin of -15% , 5% type 1 error, 80% power, 30 evaluable patients per group were required to draw a noninferiority conclusion.|||||<|0.05||||||the p-value is not adjusted|Log Rank|||The characteristics of all of the included patients were summarized using cross-tabulations (for categorical variables) and quantiles. Nonparametric tests were used to analyse comparisons between groups .EFS、disease-free survival (DFS) and OS were estimated using the Kaplan -Meier method, and log-rank tests were used. All P values were two-sided, and those with values of 0.05 or less were considered to be statistically significant.||||<0.05
91659535|NCT03435081|183213897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.63|0.80|0.167
91659536|NCT03435081|183213898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.31|0.79|0.131
91659537|NCT03435081|183213898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|17.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.19|2.63|<0.001
91659538|NCT03435081|183213899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.079||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.54|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.36|-26.54|0.077
91713344|NCT01305811|183318087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||general estimating equations|||||||0.03
91854476|NCT01061151|183593499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival, period 2 group||||0.0156
91659539|NCT03435081|183213899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.875||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.85|-6.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.75|-33.85|0.004
91659540|NCT03435081|183213900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.36|0.36|0.733
91659541|NCT03435081|183213900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|15.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.22|1.93|0.002
91659542|NCT03435081|183213901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|7.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.36|1.29|0.012
91659543|NCT03435081|183213901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|12.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.28|2.31|<0.001
91659544|NCT03435081|183213902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.75|0.433
91659545|NCT03435081|183213902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.12|0.029
91659546|NCT03435081|183213903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-1.99|0.012
91659547|NCT03435081|183213903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.22|0.002
91659548|NCT03435081|183213904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|0.90|0.105
91659549|NCT03435081|183213904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.68|2.02|<0.001
91659550|NCT03435081|183213905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|22.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.85|0.63|0.144
91659551|NCT03435081|183213905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|19.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.40|0.50|0.227
91659552|NCT03435081|183213906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.921||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.79|-11.67|0.316
91659553|NCT03435081|183213906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.758||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.40|-19.23|0.002
91854477|NCT01061151|183593499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival, period 2 group||||0.31
91854478|NCT01061151|183593499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival, period 2 group||||0.0022
91854479|NCT01061151|183593499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival||||0.13
91854480|NCT01061151|183593499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival, period 2 group||||0.44
91659554|NCT03435081|183213907|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.78|0.29|0.683
91659555|NCT03435081|183213907|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|9.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.68|0.52|0.277
91659556|NCT03435081|183213908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.996||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-11.93|0.046
91659557|NCT03435081|183213908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.911||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|-1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.98|-13.46|0.009
91659558|NCT03435081|183213909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.598
91854481|NCT01061151|183593499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival, period 2 group||||0.24
91659559|NCT03435081|183213909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.785
91659560|NCT03435081|183213910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.562||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.21|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-25.21|0.063
91659561|NCT03435081|183213910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.437|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.54|-9.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.17|-34.54|<0.001
91659562|NCT03435081|183213911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|-4.93|0.217
91854482|NCT01061151|183593499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival, group 2||||0.26
91854483|NCT03740009|183593528|NON_INFERIORITY|For analyses the researchers used a paired T-test to compare baseline and post-treatment mean activation values across 3 regions of interest (ROIs): the caudate, putamen and nucleus accumbens.||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Ho\]: TSEC has no meaningful effect on activity within key nodes of the frontostriate in response to reward.||||0.53
91854484|NCT03740009|183593529|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis included MASQ-AD scores from all visits to characterize the change in scores from baseline to post-treatment.|GLM|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mixed models of 3 week TSEC administration for MASQ-AD scores assessed at each study visit from baseline to post-treatment.|GLM||F value=13.26|\[Ho\] No change in depressive symptoms from baseline throughout 3 weeks of TSEC administration||||<0.001
91854485|NCT03926039|183593541|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Analysis||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Both group of average difference (95% CI) in intervention group and control group||||0.05
91854486|NCT01266122|183593572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||log(Incident Risk Ratio)|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression||Intent to treat analysis||-.44|-1.47|<.001
91713345|NCT01305811|183318088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||In our original proposal to the funder, to protect our main outcome from possibly large attrition, we proposed to initially test mean differences between groups following 2 months of treatment or wait list using Student's t-tests at an alpha=0.05.||||=0.22
91854487|NCT01266122|183593573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square statistic|1.39|||=|0.239|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Intent to treat analysis.||||=.239
91854488|NCT03756571|183593575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91901465|NCT01601847|183697669|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.94|||Poisson|Poisson regression using GEE with robust variance estimation (e.g. Zou, American Journal Epidemiology, 2004)||||0.94|0.47|0.02
91854489|NCT03756571|183593576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91854490|NCT03756571|183593577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91854491|NCT03756571|183593578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91854492|NCT03756571|183593579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91854493|NCT03756571|183593580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91854494|NCT03756571|183593581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
91854495|NCT03756571|183593582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
91854496|NCT03756571|183593583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91854497|NCT03756571|183593584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91854498|NCT03756571|183593585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91854499|NCT03756571|183593586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
91901466|NCT01601847|183697669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.522||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|0.897|||logistic regression with GEE|||||0.897|0.304|0.0185
91901467|NCT01601847|183697670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For secondary outcomes, GEE is used to assess randomization arm association.||||0.228
91901468|NCT01601847|183697671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.798
91854500|NCT03752151|183593611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis was that the probability of meeting the endpoint (Atrioventricular synchrony \>70%) was the same in MARVEL 2 Monitor Mode and MARVEL 2 Adaptive Mode. A sample size of 35 participants with a predominant rhythm of 3rd degree atrioventricular block and normal sinus function provided \>90% power at a type I error rate of 0.05 assuming the proportion of patients meeting the endpoint in one mode, but not the other exceeded 50% and 90% of these pairs favored the Adaptive mode.||||<0.001
91659563|NCT03435081|183213911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.487||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.84|-7.70|0.002
91659564|NCT03435081|183213912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.60|0.155
91659565|NCT03435081|183213912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.76|0.017
91659566|NCT03435081|183213913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||1.65|-0.58|0.345
91854501|NCT03752151|183593612|SUPERIORITY||proportion expressed as a percentage|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.2|100.0|||Exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis is that 87% or fewer participants will achieve the endpoint. The alternative hypothesis is that more than 87% of participants will achieve the endpoint. A sample size of 70 participants provides at least 90% power to test the null hypothesis assuming the true rate of meeting the endpoint in the population is 98% at a type I error rate of 2.5%.||100|95.2|<0.001
91854502|NCT03752151|183593613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test since each participant had LVOT VTI measurements in MARVEL 2 Adaptive and Monitor modes||The null hypothesis is that the mean LVOT VTI during MARVEL 2 Adaptive mode equals the mean LVOT VTI during MARVEL 2 Monitor mode. A sample size of 35 participants with paired LVOT VTI measurements provides 89% power at a type I error rate of 5% to reject the null hypothesis assuming the true difference in LVOT VTI is 2.1 cm with a standard deviation of 3.8 cm.||2.7|0.7|0.002
91854503|NCT03224390|183593616|SUPERIORITY||Instrumental variables estimate|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.85||||||||.85|-.03|
91854504|NCT00703820|183593623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.41||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.0429 so that the overall level of the study is maintained at 0.05 across the 4 interim analyses and the final analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was computed using an exact, risk-group stratified, two-sided test.|The odds ratio is defined as the ratio of the odds that a Clofarabine+Cytarabine patient is MRD positive to the odds that a Cytarabine+Daunorubicin+Etoposide patient is MRD positive.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that Cytarabine+Daunorubicin+Etoposide and Clofarabine+Cytarabine result in the same proportion of patients with positive MRD after 22 days. Power calculations indicate that enrollment of a total of 240 MRD-evaluable patients in a 5-stage Haybittle-Peto group sequential design gives 80% power at the 5% level to detect an odds ratio of 2.5. The design was developed using East statistical software.||3.41|1.03|0.035
91854505|NCT03903822|183593648|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.04||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.1|4.3|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||4.3|-32.1|0.1040
91854506|NCT03903822|183593648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.3|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-2.1|-38.3|0.0334
91854507|NCT03903822|183593648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.3|-8.0|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-8.0|-43.3|0.0086
91854508|NCT03903822|183593648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.93||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.5|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-5.5|-41.5|0.0158
91854509|NCT03903822|183593648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|2.4|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||2.4|-24.3|0.0879
91854510|NCT03903822|183593648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.7|-14.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-14.1|-40.7|0.0004
91854511|NCT03903822|183593649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|34.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.7|2.4|0.0244
91854512|NCT03903822|183593649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|38.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.6|4.8|0.0113
91854513|NCT03903822|183593649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|45.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.7|11.0|0.0018
91659567|NCT03435081|183213913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.55|-1.59|0.336
91854514|NCT03903822|183593649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.7|49.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||49.9|13.7|0.0007
91713346|NCT02256696|183318106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.12|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth.||modified intention to treat (mITT) analysis||2.12|0.93|0.10
91854515|NCT03903822|183593649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|1.8|0.0289
91901469|NCT04464265|183697684|OTHER|Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The P-value below indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the brain activity in response to sensory stimuli.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = BOLD Response During Sedation - BOLD Response During Baseline|The null hypothesis is no difference in BOLD response between sedated state and baseline. For an fMRI study of cognitive function, Desmond and Glover (J. Neurosci. Methods., 2002) reported that about 25 subjects are necessary to achieve 80% power for a 0.5% increase of activity. We analyzed 27 subjects that fulfilled the suggested optimal group size for reliable statistics in functional MRI studies (also see Thirion et al., Neuroimage, 2007).||||<0.001
91713347|NCT02256696|183318106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.87|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth.||mITT analysis||2.87|1.24|0.003
91713348|NCT02256696|183318106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.15|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol||2.15|0.95|0.09
91854516|NCT03903822|183593649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|29.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||29.6|-2.9|0.1145
91854517|NCT03903822|183593650|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.61|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.01|-2.61|0.0488
91854518|NCT03903822|183593650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.66|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.07|-2.66|0.0413
91854519|NCT03903822|183593650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.773||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.32|-2.86|0.0200
91659568|NCT03435081|183213913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||1.35|-0.48|0.353
91659569|NCT03435081|183213913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||0.45|-1.31|0.340
91854520|NCT03903822|183593650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.758||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.58|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-1.08|-3.58|0.0011
91854521|NCT03903822|183593650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.535||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||0.10|-1.66|0.0727
91854522|NCT03903822|183593650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|-0.77|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.77|-2.52|0.0010
91854523|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|16.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.4|-14.7|0.5246
91854524|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|19.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||19.9|-12.5|0.3906
91659570|NCT03435081|183213914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|-3.92|0.224
91659571|NCT03435081|183213914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.184||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.16|-5.83|0.004
91854525|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.5||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|30.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.6|-3.2|0.1193
91854526|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.2||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.8|45.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.5|8.8|0.0048
91854527|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|31.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.1|-2.0|0.0777
91854528|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|28.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||28.0|-4.3|0.1245
91854529|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.2|24.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||24.4|-12.2|0.3322
91854530|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|-0.3|0.0535
91854531|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.3||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|41.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.9|4.5|0.0159
91854532|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.4|54.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||54.0|15.4|0.0008
91854533|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|38.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.8|1.5|0.0386
91854534|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|30.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.3|-6.4|0.1485
91854535|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|34.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.8|-0.8|0.0620
91854536|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.9||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|44.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||44.4|6.5|0.0089
91854537|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.8||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.5|54.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||54.7|17.5|0.0005
91854538|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.4|54.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||54.0|15.4|0.0007
91854539|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.1||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|37.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||37.5|-2.0|0.0711
91854540|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.8||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|42.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||42.5|2.7|0.0266
91854541|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|23.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||23.1|-15.3|0.4173
91854542|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3||||0.1096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|35.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.6|-4.3|0.1096
91713349|NCT02256696|183318106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.89|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol||2.89|1.21|0.005
91713350|NCT02256696|183318109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.44|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth.||mITT analysis||2.44|1.07|0.02
91854543|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|45.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.7|6.1|0.0133
91854544|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|41.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.7|2.6|0.0304
91854545|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
91854546|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
91854547|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.4966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.4|20.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||20.4|-18.4|0.4966
91713351|NCT02256696|183318109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.75|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||mITT analysis||2.75|1.18|0.006
91854548|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|30.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.1|-9.3|0.2753
91854549|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|35.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.7|-4.2|0.1036
91854550|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|39.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||39.6|0.4|0.0457
91854551|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
91854552|NCT03903822|183593651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
91854553|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|14.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.9|-5.4|0.2450
91854554|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|14.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.0|-5.3|0.2575
91854555|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.7|31.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.0|5.7|0.0087
91854556|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|25.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||25.4|0.8|0.0392
91713352|NCT02256696|183318109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.42|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol analysis||2.42|1.05|0.03
91901470|NCT04464265|183697685|OTHER|Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The P-value below indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the brain activity in response to sensory stimuli.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = Squeeze Pressure During Sedation - Squeeze Pressure During Baseline|||||<0.001
91659572|NCT03435081|183213915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.956||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|8.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||8.57|-15.30|0.575
91659573|NCT03435081|183213915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.664||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||10.30|-12.43|0.851
91659574|NCT03435081|183213915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.212||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||-1.45|-22.05|0.026
91659575|NCT03435081|183213915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.056||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.89|-5.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||-5.91|-25.89|0.002
91659576|NCT03435081|183213915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.237||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||-0.51|-25.18|0.041
91659577|NCT03435081|183213915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.034||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|-4.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||-4.34|-28.20|0.008
91659578|NCT03435081|183213915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.219||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-1.32|-17.95|0.023
91659579|NCT03435081|183213915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.115||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-5.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-5.17|-21.40|0.001
91659580|NCT03435081|183213916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.07|-0.03|0.482
91659581|NCT03435081|183213916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.10|0.00|0.043
91659582|NCT03435081|183213916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK algorithm)||0.09|-0.06|0.656
91659583|NCT03435081|183213916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK algorithm)||0.14|-0.00|0.057
91659584|NCT03435081|183213917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.597||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.79|-6.45|0.609
91659585|NCT03435081|183213917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.503||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.41|-1.46|0.166
91659586|NCT03435081|183213918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.26|0.61|0.258
91659587|NCT03435081|183213918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|8.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.97|0.99|0.052
91659588|NCT02601560|183213923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.095
91659589|NCT02601560|183213923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91659590|NCT02601560|183213923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91659591|NCT02601560|183213923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91659592|NCT02601560|183213923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.440
91659593|NCT02601560|183213923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91659594|NCT00420238|183213957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-1.51|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Comparison of least squares means. Primary analysis: analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and BASDAI baseline as a covariate.||-1.51|-16.5|0.019
91659595|NCT00420238|183213958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|10.42|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||10.42|0.82|0.098
91659596|NCT00420238|183213958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.88|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||5.88|0.69|0.197
91659597|NCT00420238|183213958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.95|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||5.95|0.89|0.087
91659598|NCT00420238|183213958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.29|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||7.29|1.10|0.031
91713353|NCT02256696|183318109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.85|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol analysis||2.85|1.18|0.007
91713354|NCT00382785|183318132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||univariate analysis|||Power calculation indicated that 60 subjects would be needed. Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in perceived social support based on type of online support group (moderated or peer-led).||||.315
91713355|NCT00382785|183318133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||univariate analysis|Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference between the moderated and peer-led groups based on type of online support (moderated; peer-led)||Power analysis indicated that 60 subjects were needed. Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in depressive symptoms based on type of online support group (moderated or peer-led).||||.23
91791861|NCT01931670|183461158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.83|-3.73|0.002
91659599|NCT00420238|183213959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.57|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||4.57|0.62|0.310
91659600|NCT00420238|183213959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.99|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||3.99|0.65|0.309
91659601|NCT00420238|183213959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|11.74|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||11.74|1.81|0.001
91659602|NCT00420238|183213959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.003||95.0|1.65|10.42|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||10.42|1.65|0.003
91659603|NCT00420238|183213961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|7.94|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||7.94|0.57|0.259
91659604|NCT00420238|183213961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.44||95.0|0.51|4.64|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||4.64|0.51|0.440
91659605|NCT00420238|183213961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.046||95.0|1.02|8.16|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||8.16|1.02|0.046
91659606|NCT00420238|183213961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.014||95.0|1.31|11.32|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||11.32|1.31|0.014
91713356|NCT00382785|183318134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Univariate Analysis|||Power analysis indicated that 60 subjects were needed. Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in quality of life (QOL) based on type of online support group (moderated or peer-led).||||.32
91713357|NCT03066830|183318174|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|-0.574|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.574|-0.946|< 0.0001
91854557|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|11.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||11.2|-11.2|1.0000
91901471|NCT01063829|183697686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91791862|NCT01249118|183461191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means|8.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.08|10.08|||||The 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI) of test group (oral dose) means relative to reference group (IV dose) means were obtained by taking antilog of corresponding 90% CI for the differences between the means on the log scale.|Least squares (LS) mean was calculated from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data for dose-normalized Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis.||10.08|7.08|
91791863|NCT01249118|183461195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.43|56.94|||||The 90% CI of the test group (oral dose) means relative to the reference group (IV dose) means were obtained by taking the antilog of the corresponding 90% CI for the differences between the means on the log scale.|LS means was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized AUC (0 - t) were natural log-transformed prior to analysis.||56.94|41.43|
91791864|NCT01249118|183461197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.74|53.06|||||The 90% CI of the test group (oral dose) means relative to the reference group (IV dose) means were obtained by taking the antilog of the corresponding 90% CI for the differences between the means on the log scale.|LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized AUC (0 - ∞) were natural log-transformed prior to analysis.||53.06|39.74|
91791865|NCT01063712|183461227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||percentage|||It is not a analysis of two groups. Only one group of patients was analyzed.||||<0.01
91791866|NCT01063712|183461228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||percentage|The analysis was made on the basis of the percentage of patients with completely regressed dilation.||It is a one arm clinical study. No comparison between groups was made.||||<0.01
91791867|NCT05033002|183461295|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||<.0001
91791868|NCT05033002|183461295|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.002|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||<.0001
91791869|NCT05033002|183461296|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.002
91791870|NCT05033002|183461296|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0003||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.010
91791871|NCT05033002|183461297|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.001
91791872|NCT05033002|183461297|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0002||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.032
91791873|NCT05033002|183461298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.506|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.506
91791874|NCT05033002|183461299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis|The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.||||||.441
91791875|NCT05033002|183461299|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0002||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.734
91854558|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|22.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||22.5|-4.9|0.1528
91791876|NCT00329901|183461314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus(Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|14.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-diphtheria immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY-CRM as compared to Tdap given with placebo saline||14|5|
91791877|NCT00329901|183461314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus(Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-tetanus immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY-CRM compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||2|-1|
91794335|NCT00591578|183467639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.99||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||1.99|1.07|0.018
91901472|NCT01063829|183697686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
91713358|NCT03066830|183318175|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1685|-1.0471|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-1.0471|-2.1685|< 0.0001
91854559|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.4989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|15.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||15.2|-12.7|0.4989
91854560|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|14.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.2|-13.6|0.5419
91854561|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|26.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||26.2|-5.0|0.1362
91659607|NCT00420238|183213963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|16.53|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||16.53|0.55|0.204
91659608|NCT00420238|183213963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.073||95.0|0.87|23.07|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||23.07|0.87|0.073
91659609|NCT00420238|183213963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.121||95.0|0.71|19.69|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||19.69|0.71|0.121
91659610|NCT00420238|183213963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.058||95.0|0.96|11.8|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||11.80|0.96|0.058
91659611|NCT00420238|183213965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.14|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||35.14|0.35|0.287
91659612|NCT00420238|183213965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.169||95.0|0.51|44.94|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||44.94|0.51|0.169
91659613|NCT00420238|183213965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.073||95.0|0.87|23.07|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||23.07|0.87|0.073
91659614|NCT00420238|183213965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.073||95.0|0.87|23.07|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||23.07|0.87|0.073
91659615|NCT00420238|183213967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.95||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|-1.72|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.72|-18.19|0.018
91659616|NCT00420238|183213968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.54||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|1.33|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||1.33|-18.40|0.089
91854562|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.9||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|33.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||33.9|-0.4|0.0541
91901473|NCT01063829|183697686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.321
91854563|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|19.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||19.5|-12.0|0.3945
91854564|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|41.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.8|3.9|0.0201
91854565|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.2||||0.1372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|28.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||28.2|-5.4|0.1372
91854566|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.6|19.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||19.1|-11.6|0.3924
91659617|NCT00420238|183213968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.02||||0.11||95.0|-17.89|1.85|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||1.85|-17.89|0.110
91854567|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|38.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.3|2.4|0.0311
91854568|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|38.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.1|0.8|0.0392
91722431|NCT04190225|183337487|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|18.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|37.28|||quantile regression||Median difference is not the difference in the two medians, but is the median of differences between groups (why it is 18.4 and not 23)|||37.28|4.67|0.04
91854569|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|26.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||26.4|-6.2|0.1541
91854570|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.8|45.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.4|6.8|0.0091
91854571|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|27.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.0|-9.5|0.2835
91854572|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|27.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.8|-8.7|0.2700
91659618|NCT00420238|183213968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.73||||0.004||95.0|-24.6|-4.86|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-4.86|-24.60|0.004
91659619|NCT00420238|183213968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.27||||0.065||95.0|-19.14|0.59|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||0.59|-19.14|0.065
91854573|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|36.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.2|-1.4|0.0662
91854574|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.2|50.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||50.4|9.2|0.0050
91854575|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|38.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.3|2.2|0.0302
91854576|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.8|45.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.4|6.8|0.0091
91854577|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|30.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.2|-6.5|0.1561
91854578|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|34.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.8|-2.7|0.0753
91713359|NCT03066830|183318176|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.272||0.5172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.316|1.669|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.669|-3.316|0.5172
91713360|NCT03066830|183318177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.983||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.946|0.907|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥ 30 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.907|-2.946|0.2994
91722432|NCT04190225|183337488|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.35|32.76|||quantile regression|||||32.76|8.35|0.03
91854579|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.7|46.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||46.0|5.7|0.0108
91854580|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.2|50.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||50.4|9.2|0.0050
91854581|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|35.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.7|-2.9|0.0775
91854582|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|43.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||43.4|3.4|0.0243
91854583|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.9||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.5|38.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.8|3.5|0.0234
91854584|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|29.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||29.3|-2.8|0.1134
91854585|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|26.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||26.2|-5.0|0.1362
91854586|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|29.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||29.8|-3.4|0.1029
91854587|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|17.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||17.9|-17.9|1.0000
91854588|NCT03903822|183593652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.6||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|3.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||3.5|-28.8|0.8972
91722433|NCT04190225|183337489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||quantile regression|||||||<.001
91854589|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|13.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||13.3|-14.2|0.4781
91659620|NCT00420238|183213970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.99||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-4.28|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.28|-17.70|0.002
91713361|NCT03066830|183318178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.932|-0.884|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-0.884|-1.932|< 0.0001
91713362|NCT03066830|183318179|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|6.7||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|10.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130,≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at the screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of non-responder in the analysis.||10.47|3.03|0.0004
91713363|NCT03066830|183318180|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.16|23.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of non-responder in the analysis.||23.73|11.16|< 0.0001
91713364|NCT03705286|183318217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|3.17|||Regression, Linear|||We evaluated whether there are differences in the Physical Component Score (PCS) for QOL between the PU-EVAC and PVC treatment groups by comparing their respective mean scores (i.e., mean\[PU-EVAC\] - mean\[PVC\] ). We modeled the data using linear regression and used robust standard error estimates to construct our statistical test and 95% confidence interval estimates. We also estimated the treatment groups' mean quality of life scores with standard error estimates and 95% confidence intervals.||3.17|-4.21|0.78
91713365|NCT03705286|183318217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|1.07|||Regression, Linear|||We evaluated whether there are differences in the Mental Component Score (MCS) for QOL between the PU-EVAC and PVC treatment groups by comparing their respective mean scores (i.e., mean\[PU-EVAC\] - mean\[PVC\] ). We modeled the data using linear regression and used robust standard error estimates to construct our statistical test and 95% confidence interval estimates. We also estimated the treatment groups' mean quality of life scores with standard error estimates and 95% confidence intervals.||1.07|-7.03|0.15
91713366|NCT03705286|183318218|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.07|0.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.17|-0.07|0.05
91713367|NCT03705286|183318219|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.126||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.26|||Regression, Logistic|||We evaluated whether there are differences in the risk of laryngeal injury between the PU-EVAC and PVC treatment groups, comparing their respective risk difference (i.e., probability\[PU-EVAC\] - probability \[PVC\]). We fit a logistic regression model and incorporated robust (i.e., Huber-White heteroskedastic consistent) standard error estimates for our hypothesis test and 95% confidence interval estimates.||0.26|-0.01|0.05
91713368|NCT00593450|183318222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-3.9|2.9||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin Monthly Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||2.9|-3.9|0.16
91713369|NCT00593450|183318222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-4.1|2.4||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis as Needed Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||2.4|-4.1|0.16
91722434|NCT00884065|183337490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|6.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.49|-9.93|>0.05
91854590|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||0.2|-27.8|0.0522
91854591|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.4|-3.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-3.7|-31.4|0.0187
91659621|NCT00420238|183213971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|0.15|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||0.15|-16.81|0.054
91901474|NCT01063829|183697687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
91659622|NCT00420238|183213971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.02||||0.011||95.0|-19.5|-2.54|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-2.54|-19.50|0.011
91659623|NCT00420238|183213971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.75||||0.003||95.0|-21.23|-4.27|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-4.27|-21.23|0.003
91659624|NCT00420238|183213971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.29|||<|0.001||95.0|-23.7|-6.82|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-6.82|-23.7|<0.001
91659625|NCT00420238|183213973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.59||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|-0.49|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.49|-18.69|0.039
91659626|NCT00420238|183213974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|4.57|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||4.57|-17.13|0.254
91659627|NCT00420238|183213974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17||||0.348||95.0|-16.02|5.68|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||5.68|-16.02|0.348
91659628|NCT00420238|183213974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.72||||0.014||95.0|-24.57|-2.88|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-2.88|-24.57|0.014
91901475|NCT01063829|183697687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.126
91901476|NCT01063829|183697687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.148
91901477|NCT01063829|183697688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91901478|NCT01063829|183697688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
91901479|NCT01063829|183697688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.321
91901480|NCT01603082|183697756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-159.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.7|-123.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|||-123.5|-194.7|<0.001
91659629|NCT00420238|183213974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.69|||<|0.001||95.0|-30.54|-8.84|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-8.84|-30.54|<0.001
91659630|NCT00420238|183213976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.49||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.73|0.75|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.75|-17.73|0.071
91659631|NCT00420238|183213977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|7.17|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||7.17|-14.31|0.511
91659632|NCT00420238|183213977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.57||||0.401||95.0|-15.31|6.17|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||6.17|-15.31|0.401
91659633|NCT00420238|183213977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.45||||0.023||95.0|-23.19|-1.71|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-1.71|-23.19|0.023
91659634|NCT00420238|183213977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.25||||0.01||95.0|-24.99|-3.51|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.51|-24.99|0.010
91901481|NCT01603082|183697757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.2||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|9.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at 0.5 hours after the loading dose||9.7|-50.5|0.182
91901482|NCT01603082|183697757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-158.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.4|-127.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at 8 hours after the loading dose.||-127.7|-189.4|<0.001
91901483|NCT01603082|183697757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.5|-10.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at end of PCI.||-10.7|-76.5|0.010
91722435|NCT00884065|183337491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.01||95.0|5.72|17.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.08|5.72|<0.01
91722436|NCT00884065|183337492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|12.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.45|2.03|<0.01
91722437|NCT00884065|183337493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|5.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.37|-1.53|>0.05
91722438|NCT00884065|183337494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|5.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.01|-3.81|>0.05
91722439|NCT00884065|183337495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|6.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.09|0.08|<0.01
91659635|NCT00420238|183213979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|1.53|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||1.53|-12.03|0.127
91659636|NCT00420238|183213980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|7.38|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||7.38|-8.23|0.914
91713370|NCT00593450|183318222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-4.7|1.3||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Lucentis as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||1.3|-4.7|0.16
91854592|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.5|-6.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-6.6|-34.5|0.0080
91854593|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.17||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.6|-1.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-1.5|-48.6|0.0401
91854594|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.25||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.2|-1.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-1.9|-49.2|0.0379
91854595|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.01||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|26.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit(Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and follow up), treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||26.3|-10.1|0.7678
91854596|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.94||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.9|-4.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-4.7|-40.9|0.0193
91854597|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.5|-10.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2:MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-10.2|-46.5|0.0052
91722440|NCT02239328|183337515|OTHER|Multilevel random coefficient models estimated the mean score of each PROMIS domain as a function of time elapsed between date of surgery and assessment (in years), and patient comorbidity. Statistical significance of estimated fixed effects were assessed by the F-test statistic for type 3 tests, p \< 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91722441|NCT03331562|183337527|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.31|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Fisher Exact||Lower bound cannot be estimated because there were 0 events in the comparison group.||||0|.31
91854598|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.0|-5.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-5.5|-42.0|0.0164
91854599|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.72||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.8|-15.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-15.6|-47.8|0.0008
91854600|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-40.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.0|-24.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-24.3|-57.0|<0.0001
91901484|NCT00846885|183697758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|110.0||||||90.0|103.0|117.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||117|103|
91659637|NCT00420238|183213980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.544||95.0|-10.21|5.41|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||5.41|-10.21|0.544
91854601|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.6269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|23.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||23.9|-16.1|0.6269
91854602|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.87||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.1|-13.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-13.8|-53.1|0.0027
91854603|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.5|-19.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-19.2|-58.5|0.0007
91854604|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.0||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.9|-12.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-12.3|-51.9|0.0041
91713371|NCT00593450|183318222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-5.7|1.6||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Avastin Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||1.6|-5.7|0.16
91854605|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.61||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.9|4.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||4.6|-33.9|0.1054
91713372|NCT00593450|183318222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-4.5|2.1||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Lucentis as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Avastin Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||2.1|-4.5|0.16
91713373|NCT00593450|183318222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-5.9|0.8||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||0.8|-5.9|0.16
91713374|NCT03877224|183318257|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|3.16||||0.07905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.01||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|The model includes rank-based baseline, weeks impacted by COVID-19 and treatment group as covariates and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization||For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-TSS, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.04990 • H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus • H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-TSS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||6.01|0.36|0.07905
91854606|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.62||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.1|0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||0.5|-38.1|0.0542
91854607|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.12||0.6847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|25.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||25.9|-14.2|0.6847
91854608|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.82||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.4|-10.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-10.3|-49.4|0.0062
91854609|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.6|-12.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-12.3|-51.6|0.0040
91854610|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.97||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.6|-11.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-11.0|-50.6|0.0054
91854611|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.2|3.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||3.9|-27.2|0.1076
91854612|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.6|-7.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-7.3|-38.6|0.0082
91854613|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.14||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.2|5.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||5.6|-41.2|0.1051
91713375|NCT03877224|183318258|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|3.12||||0.23215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|5.37||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|The model includes rank-based baseline, weeks impacted by COVID-19 and treatment group as covariates and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization||For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-PLS, the following hypothesis was tested at significant level of 0.00005 • H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus • H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-PLS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||5.37|-0.09|0.23215
91901485|NCT00846885|183697759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.0||||||90.0|102.0|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111|102|
91659638|NCT00420238|183213980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21||||0.039||95.0|-16.02|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-0.40|-16.02|0.039
91659639|NCT00420238|183213980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54||||0.004||95.0|-19.35|-3.73|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.73|-19.35|0.004
91659640|NCT00420238|183213983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.57|1.85|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||1.85|-15.57|0.122
91659641|NCT00420238|183213983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.45||||0.145||95.0|-15.16|2.26|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||2.26|-15.16|0.145
91659642|NCT00420238|183213983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.55||||0.005||95.0|-21.26|-3.84|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.84|-21.26|0.005
91659643|NCT00420238|183213983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.95||||0.008||95.0|-20.66|-3.24|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.24|-20.66|0.008
91659644|NCT00420238|183213987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|1.96|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||1.96|-13.84|0.139
91659645|NCT00420238|183213988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|10.67|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||10.67|-8.88|0.857
91659646|NCT00420238|183213988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.304||95.0|-14.88|4.67|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||4.67|-14.88|0.304
91659647|NCT00420238|183213988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.047||95.0|-19.68|-0.13|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-0.13|-19.68|0.047
91659648|NCT00420238|183213988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.65||||0.007||95.0|-23.43|-3.88|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.88|-23.43|0.007
91659649|NCT00420238|183213991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.31|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Vital Capacity: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.31|0.06|0.003
91659650|NCT00420238|183213991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Forced Vital Capacity: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.31|0.05|0.006
91659651|NCT00420238|183213991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Forced Expitatory Volume in 1 second: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-0.04|0.205
91854614|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-37.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.8||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.6|-15.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-15.0|-60.6|0.0034
91659652|NCT00420238|183213992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-0.26|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis oaf covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.26|-4.93|0.030
91659653|NCT00420238|183213993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||-0.02|-0.45|0.035
91659654|NCT00420238|183213994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.19|-0.38|0.515
91659655|NCT00420238|183213994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.316||95.0|-0.43|0.14|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.14|-0.43|0.316
91659656|NCT00420238|183213994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.008||95.0|-0.67|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-0.10|-0.67|0.008
91659657|NCT00420238|183213994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.011||95.0|-0.65|-0.08|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-0.08|-0.65|0.011
91659658|NCT00420238|183214006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.37|-0.22|0.613
91659659|NCT00420238|183214007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.47|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.47|-0.34|0.744
91659660|NCT00420238|183214007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.625||95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.30|-0.50|0.625
91659661|NCT00420238|183214007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.325||95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.60|-0.20|0.325
91659662|NCT00420238|183214007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.76||95.0|-0.34|0.46|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.46|-0.34|0.760
91659663|NCT00420238|183214009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.35|8.91|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||8.91|-18.35|0.490
91659664|NCT00420238|183214009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.651||95.0|-16.73|10.54|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||10.54|-16.73|0.651
91659665|NCT00420238|183214009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.84||95.0|-15.12|12.34|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||12.34|-15.12|0.840
91659666|NCT00420238|183214009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02||||0.562||95.0|-17.81|9.77|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||9.77|-17.81|0.562
91659667|NCT00420238|183214011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|-10.03|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)with treatment as a factor and baseline vlue as a covariate.||-10.03|-19.44|<0.0001
91659668|NCT00420238|183214012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|-6.58|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and atients as a random factor.||-6.58|-18.17|<0.0001
91854615|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-41.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.83||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.8|-19.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-19.0|-64.8|0.0014
91659669|NCT00420238|183214012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|-23.25|-11.65|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-11.65|-23.25|<0.0001
91659670|NCT00420238|183214012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.95|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.75|-11.15|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-11.15|-22.75|<0.0001
91659671|NCT00420238|183214012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||<|0.0001||95.0|-23.96|-12.36|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-12.36|-23.96|<0.0001
91659672|NCT00420238|183214014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.23|-8.25|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-8.25|-18.23|<0.0001
91659673|NCT00420238|183214015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|-8.1|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.10|-20.55|<0.0001
91713376|NCT03877224|183318259|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|1.6||||0.66801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.0||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|The model includes rank-based baseline, treatment group as covariates and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization||For the primary efficacy endpoint 6MWD, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.00005: H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, 6MWD, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||9.0|-5.9|0.66801
91713377|NCT03877224|183318260|SUPERIORITY|Total time spent in LVPA was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value is considered nominal because the test for 6MWD was not statistically significant.|Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|0.19||||0.12523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.48|||Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||For the secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, the testing hypothesis is • H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus • H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, from baseline to End of study among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||0.48|-0.06|0.12523
91713378|NCT00461097|183318261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|43.9||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Number of participants who successfully consumed 10,000 mg of egg white solid was compared using Barnard's statistic with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment groups.||43.9|4.3|0.025
91713379|NCT01466361|183318269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.23||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.89|0.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between nicotine 1.5mg lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings at 1 minute post dosing.||0.44|-14.89|0.0643
91713380|NCT01466361|183318269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.16||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.93|2.61|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between nicotine 1.5mg lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings at 3 minute post dosing.||2.61|-16.93|0.1489
91713381|NCT01466361|183318269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.33||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|3.9|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 1.5mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings at 5 minute post dosing.||3.90|-16.56|0.2225
91713382|NCT01466361|183318269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.11||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.87|5.66|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 1.5mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, 10 minutes post dosing.||5.66|-15.87|0.3491
91713383|NCT01466361|183318269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.0||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|6.59|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 1.5mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, 15 minutes post dosing.||6.59|-16.60|0.3936
91713384|NCT01466361|183318270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.58||||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|4.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, at 1 minute post dosing.||4.70|-11.85|0.3922
91659674|NCT00420238|183214015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|-21.2|-8.76|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.76|-21.20|<0.0001
91854616|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-38.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.6|-15.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-15.6|-61.6|0.0030
91854617|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.22||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.0|-2.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit(Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and follow up), treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-2.4|-33.0|0.0289
91854618|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.27||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.2|-18.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-18.4|-49.2|0.0002
91854619|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.88||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.9|22.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||22.0|-23.9|0.4739
91854620|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.43||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.3|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||3.2|-41.3|0.0789
91659675|NCT00420238|183214015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|-21.41|-8.96|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.96|-21.41|<0.0001
91659676|NCT00420238|183214015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-20.63|-8.19|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.19|-20.63|<0.0001
91659677|NCT00420238|183214018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.7|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||4.70|0.74|0.184
91659678|NCT00420238|183214018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.036||95.0|1.06|6.46|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||6.46|1.06|0.036
91659679|NCT00420238|183214018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.001||95.0|1.89|13.03|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||13.03|1.89|0.001
91659680|NCT00420238|183214018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.065||95.0|0.95|5.96|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||5.96|0.95|0.065
91659681|NCT00420238|183214020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|12.74|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||12.74|1.64|0.004
91659682|NCT00420238|183214020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.054||95.0|0.99|6.12|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||6.12|0.99|0.054
91659683|NCT00420238|183214020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26|||<|0.001||95.0|2.27|17.31|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||17.31|2.27|<0.001
91659684|NCT00420238|183214020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.025||95.0|1.14|7.27|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||7.27|1.14|0.025
91659685|NCT00486863|183214114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
91854621|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.5||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.7|8.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||8.9|-35.7|0.1611
91659686|NCT00486863|183214115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
91659687|NCT00486863|183214116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.926
91659688|NCT00486863|183214117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.502
91659689|NCT00486863|183214118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.439
91659690|NCT00486863|183214119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704
91659691|NCT00486863|183214120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.517
91659692|NCT00486863|183214121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis included the transferrin receptor: ferritin ratio from the cord blood.||||0.524
91659693|NCT00486863|183214121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis included the transferrin receptor: ferritin ratio from the heel stick.||||0.070
91659694|NCT00486863|183214122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91659695|NCT00486863|183214127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.991
91659696|NCT00830206|183214148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® Software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.62||||||90.0|94.84|111.05|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111.05|94.84|
91659697|NCT00830206|183214149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.85||||||90.0|94.48|107.65|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.65|94.48|
91659698|NCT00830206|183214150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pharmacokimetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.92||||||90.0|95.18|109.14|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.14|95.18|
91659699|NCT00905346|183214151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (Test/Ref x 100)|98.39||||||90.0|94.36|102.59|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.59|94.36|
91659700|NCT00905346|183214152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (Test/Ref x 100)|102.92||||||90.0|99.88|106.05|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.05|99.88|
91659701|NCT00905346|183214153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (Test/Ref x 100)|102.63||||||90.0|99.24|106.14|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.14|99.24|
91659702|NCT03585790|183214154|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin acceptable mean difference (Single Vision - Multifocal) = -5 rating units (0-100 scale, 0 = optimal)||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ho: Single Vision - Multifocal \>= M vs. Ho: Single Vision - Multifocal \< M. Alpha = 0.05, two sided beta = 0.80||||0.18
91659703|NCT00829673|183214175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.82||||||90.0|100.24|115.98|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115.98|100.24|
91659704|NCT00829673|183214176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.74||||||90.0|97.3|104.29|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.29|97.3|
91659705|NCT00829673|183214177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.5||||||90.0|97.09|104.03|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.03|97.09|
91659706|NCT00272779|183214178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.1||Assuming 70% response rate (70% of participants remain on treatment for 48 wks and HIV RNA \<50 copies/mL) on both regimens, sample size of 882 randomized participants (441/regimen) provided 90% power to demonstrate ATV/RTV is non-inferior to LPV/RTV|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The ATV/RTV regimen was deemed to be non-inferior to the lopinavir/ritonavir regimen if the lower CI for the difference in proportions \> -10%.||Treatment regimens compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (atazanavir/ritonavir- lopinavir/ritonavir) and 95% CI based on stratified normal approximation.Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region.The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 50 copies/mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size:Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting||7.1|-3.8|
91854622|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.94||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.7|-8.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-8.5|-54.7|0.0124
91854623|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.68||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.7|24.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||24.1|-34.7|0.3828
91854624|NCT03903822|183593653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.8||0.5383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.9|31.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||31.3|-27.9|0.5383
91854625|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4||||0.8964|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|2.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||2.0|-16.1|0.8964
91854626|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|28.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||28.2|1.0|0.0391
91854627|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|10.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||10.8|-10.8|1.0000
91901486|NCT00846885|183697760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0||||||90.0|101.0|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|101|
91659707|NCT00272779|183214179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment regimens were compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (ATV/RTV-LPV/RTV) and 95% CI based on a stratified normal approximation. Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-ie, HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region. The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 400 copies per mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting).||8.1|-1.5|
91659708|NCT00272779|183214182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|3.1|||95% CI comparison of difference|||Mean changes in CD4 cell counts from baseline at week 48 were compared between treatment regimens with 95% CIs based on stratified normal approximations and observed values.||3.1|-35.9|
91659709|NCT00272779|183214204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.0||Assuming 70% response rate (70% of participants remain on treatment for 96 wks and HIV RNA \<50 copies/mL) on both regimens, sample size of 882 randomized participants (441/regimen) provided 90% power to demonstrate ATV/RTV is non-inferior to LPV/RTV|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The ATV/RTV regimen was deemed to be non-inferior to the lopinavir/ritonavir regimen if the lower CI for the difference in proportions \> -10%.||Treatment regimens compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (atazanavir/ritonavir- lopinavir/ritonavir) and 95% CI based on stratified normal approximation.Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region.The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 50 copies/mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size:Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting||12.0|0.3|
91713385|NCT01466361|183318270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.7||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.59|0.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, 3 minutes post dosing.||0.20|-19.59|0.0547
91854628|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|25.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||25.0|-1.4|0.0708
91854629|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.7|27.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.0|4.7|0.0122
91854630|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|35.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.6|11.0|0.0016
91854631|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|16.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.1|-9.8|0.3950
91854632|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|35.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.6|4.2|0.0173
91854633|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|31.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.0|1.4|0.0327
91659710|NCT00272779|183214205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment regimens were compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (ATV/RTV-LPV/RTV) and 95% CI based on a stratified normal approximation. Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-ie, HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region. The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 400 copies per mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting).||10.6|-0.4|
91659711|NCT00272779|183214207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|0.9|||95% CI comparison of difference|||Mean changes in CD4 cell counts from baseline at week 48 were compared between treatment regimens with 95% CIs based on stratified normal approximations and observed values.||0.9|-43.3|
91722442|NCT04044690|183337601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.371008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|2.309||Threshold of significance at \<= 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Exact logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, region (Japan vs. non-Japan) and Baseline MMT-8 (≤ 142 points vs. \>142 points).|Rubin's rule applied following MI.|||2.309|0.551|0.371008
91854634|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.2|46.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||46.6|13.2|0.0011
91659712|NCT00272779|183214223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.507|1.142|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.142|0.507|
91854635|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|27.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.2|-5.0|0.1348
91854636|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|34.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.8|1.5|0.0328
91854637|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|24.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||24.4|-1.8|0.0769
91854638|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.2|46.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||46.0|13.2|0.0005
91854639|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.1|53.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||53.1|22.1|<0.0001
91854640|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.7|51.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||51.8|19.7|0.0001
91854641|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|16.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.5|-16.5|1.0000
91854642|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.8||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|41.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.5|4.5|0.0173
91854643|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.9|14.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.2|-19.9|0.5663
91659713|NCT00272779|183214224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.005|2.121|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||2.121|1.005|
91659714|NCT00272779|183214225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.839|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.612|1.151|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.151|0.612|
91659715|NCT00272779|183214226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.282|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.181|0.439|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||0.439|0.181|
91659716|NCT00272779|183214227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.699|1.223|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.223|0.699|
91854644|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.6||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|32.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||32.6|-3.8|0.1243
91854645|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|36.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.6|-0.5|0.0460
91854646|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|43.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||43.3|4.8|0.0130
91854647|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|31.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.4|-4.2|0.1194
91854648|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|44.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||44.4|6.5|0.0097
91854649|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|16.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.1|-21.0|0.5556
91854650|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|-2.5|0.0761
91854651|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|37.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||37.6|-0.8|0.0583
91854652|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|33.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||33.7|-5.0|0.1245
91854653|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|1.5|0.0382
91854654|NCT03903822|183593654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.7||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.2|51.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||51.4|13.2|0.0011
91854655|NCT00296036|183593675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.768
91854656|NCT01796236|183593680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.12
91854657|NCT01796236|183593681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Combined Endpoint is calculated as the sum of the following four events from 3 weeks to 3 years:~Holgers Index \>=2. Any Overgrowth \>=2. Pain (scar/neuropathic) \>=3. Any numbness \>=2.~Each event is counted only once"||||0.45
91854658|NCT01796236|183593682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||<0.0001
91854659|NCT01796236|183593683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 10||||0.020
91854660|NCT01796236|183593683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 3||||0.4
91854661|NCT01796236|183593683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 6||||1.00
91854662|NCT01796236|183593683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.97
91659717|NCT00272779|183214228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.626|1.161|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.161|0.626|
91659718|NCT00272779|183214229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.689|1.151|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.151|0.689|
91722443|NCT04044690|183337602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.46||||0.360939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.651|9.57||Descriptive p-value.|MMRM|||||9.570|-6.651|0.360939
91854663|NCT01796236|183593683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.00
91854664|NCT01796236|183593684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Maximum of Holgers at 12 Months||||0.40
91854665|NCT01796236|183593684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Maximum of Holgers at 36 Months||||0.14
91854666|NCT01796236|183593685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Day 10||||0.38
91854667|NCT01796236|183593685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 3||||0.17
91854668|NCT01796236|183593685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 6||||0.37
91854669|NCT01796236|183593685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 12||||0.73
91854670|NCT01796236|183593685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 24||||0.47
91854671|NCT01796236|183593685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Month 12||||0.73
91854672|NCT01796236|183593685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Month 24||||0.37
91854673|NCT01796236|183593685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Month 36||||0.75
91854674|NCT01796236|183593686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||maximum numbness at 12 months||||<0.0001
91854675|NCT01796236|183593686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||maximum numbness at 36 months||||<0.0001
91854676|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 10, Neuropathic pain||||0.74
91854677|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 10, Scar pain||||0.36
91854678|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 3, Neuropathic pain||||0.030
91854679|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 3, Scar pain||||0.92
91854680|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 6, Neuropathic pain||||0.15
91854681|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 6, Scar pain||||0.38
91854682|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12, Neuropathic pain||||0.015
91854683|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12, Scar pain||||0.72
91854684|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24, Neuropathic pain||||0.44
91854685|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24, Scar pain||||0.43
91854686|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12, Neuropathic pain||||0.21
91854687|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12, Scar pain||||0.97
91854688|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36, Neuropathic pain||||0.19
91854689|NCT01796236|183593687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36, Scar pain||||0.77
91854690|NCT01796236|183593688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Neuropathic Categorical Max Pain||||0.076
91854691|NCT01796236|183593688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Scar Categorical Max Pain||||0.49
91854692|NCT01796236|183593689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Neuropathic Categorical Max Pain 36 months||||0.076
91854693|NCT01796236|183593689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Scar Categorical Max Pain 36 months||||0.71
91854694|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 10: Neuropathic pain||||0.52
91854695|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 10: Scar pain||||0.44
91854696|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3: Neuropathic pain||||0.14
91854697|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3: Scar pain||||0.59
91854698|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Neuropathic pain||||0.17
91854699|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Scar pain||||0.44
91854700|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Neuropathic pain||||0.0087
91854701|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Scar pain||||0.84
91854702|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Neuropathic pain||||0.43
91854703|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Scar pain||||0.33
91854704|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 12 Neuropathic pain||||0.21
91854705|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 12 Scar pain||||0.82
91854706|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 36 Neuropathic pain||||0.19
91722444|NCT04044690|183337603|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.4||||0.730994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|5.33||Descriptive p-value.|MMRM|||||5.33|-10.15|0.730994
91854707|NCT01796236|183593690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 36 Scar pain||||0.77
91901487|NCT04884763|183697761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.35||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.35|-0.76|0.567
91854708|NCT01796236|183593691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Day 10 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.12
91854709|NCT01796236|183593691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 3 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.016
91854710|NCT01796236|183593691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 6 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.84
91854711|NCT01796236|183593691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.53
91854712|NCT01796236|183593691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.18
91854713|NCT01796236|183593691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 12 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.63
91854714|NCT01796236|183593691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 24 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.81
91854715|NCT01796236|183593691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 36 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||1.00
91854716|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Day 10||||0.0009
91854717|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 3||||0.0080
91854718|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 6||||0.46
91854719|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 12||||0.45
91854720|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 24||||0.18
91854721|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Month 12||||0.017
91854722|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Month 24||||0.15
91854723|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Month 36||||0.32
91854724|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 3 change from day 10||||0.74
91854725|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 6 change from day 10||||<0.0001
91854726|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 12 change from day 10||||0.041
91854727|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 24 change from day 10||||0.0065
91854728|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Month 12 change from day 10||||0.0003
91854729|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Month 24 change from day 10||||0.028
91854730|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Month 36 change from day 10||||0.037
91854731|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 3 change from day 10||||0.072
91854732|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 6 change from day 10||||0.034
91854733|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 12 change from day 10||||<0.0001
91901488|NCT04884763|183697762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.21||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.21|-0.91|0.778
91901489|NCT04884763|183697763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.96||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.96|-0.20|0.105
91901490|NCT04884763|183697764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|42.7||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||42.7|-7.6|0.163
91901491|NCT04884763|183697765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.01||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.01|-1.13|0.910
91901492|NCT04884763|183697766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.8||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||0.80|-0.83|0.972
91901493|NCT04884763|183697767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|5.43||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||5.43|0.18|0.037
91722445|NCT04044690|183337604|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.3||||0.001647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-1.82||Descriptive p-value.|MMRM|||||-1.82|-8.72|0.001647
91854734|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 24 change from day 10||||0.010
91854735|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0086|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Month 12 change from day 10||||0.0086
91854736|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Month 24 change from day 10||||0.0021
91854737|NCT01796236|183593692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Month 36 change from day 10||||0.0005
91854738|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Vascularity (observer)||||0.026
91854739|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Vascularity (observer)||||0.33
91854740|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Vascularity (observer)||||0.094
91854741|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Pigmentation (observer)||||0.30
91854742|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pigmentation (observer)||||0.23
91901494|NCT04884763|183697768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|3.43||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||3.43|-3.95|0.885
91901495|NCT04884763|183697769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.81||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.81|-0.87|0.474
91901496|NCT04884763|183697770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.56||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.56|-1.94|0.822
91901497|NCT04884763|183697771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.91||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.91|-0.88|0.455
91901498|NCT04884763|183697772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|27.0||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||27.0|-12.8|0.467
91901499|NCT04884763|183697773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.07||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.07|-0.79|0.755
91854743|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pigmentation (observer)||||0.48
91854744|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Thickness (observer)||||0.0003
91854745|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Thickness (observer)||||0.062
91854746|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Thickness (observer)||||0.11
91854747|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Relief (observer)||||0.0003
91854748|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Relief (observer)||||0.079
91854749|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Relief (observer)||||0.025
91854750|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Pliability (observer)||||0.0020
91854751|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pliability (observer)||||0.14
91854752|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pliability (observer)||||0.0014
91854753|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Surface Area (observer)||||0.0001
91854754|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Surface Area (observer)||||0.023
91854755|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Surface Area (observer)||||0.045
91854756|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Total Score (observer)||||0.0005
91854757|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Total Score (observer)||||0.085
91854758|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Total Score (observer)||||0.030
91854759|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Overall Opinion (observer)||||0.0015
91854760|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Overall Opinion (observer)||||0.076
91854761|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Overall Opinion (observer)||||0.15
91854762|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Painful (patient)||||0.72
91854763|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Painful (patient)||||0.97
91854764|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Painful (patient)||||0.82
91854765|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Itching (patient)||||0.86
91854766|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Itching (patient)||||0.84
91854767|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Itching (patient)||||0.76
91854768|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Color (patient)||||0.41
91854769|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Color (patient)||||0.98
91854770|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Color (patient)||||0.76
91854771|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Stiffness (patient)||||0.43
91854772|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Stiffness (patient)||||0.25
91854773|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Stiffness (patient)||||0.017
91854774|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Thickness (patient)||||0.13
91854775|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Thickness (patient)||||0.33
91854776|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Thickness (patient)||||0.65
91854777|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Irregularity (patient)||||0.18
91854778|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Irregularity (patient)||||0.38
91854779|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Irregularity (patient)||||0.080
91854780|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Total Score (patient)||||0.28
91854781|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Total Score (patient)||||0.44
91854782|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Total Score (patient)||||0.19
91854783|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Overall Opinion (patient)||||0.16
91854784|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Overall Opinion (patient)||||0.23
91854785|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Overall Opinion (patient)||||0.079
91854786|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Pain not within Scar (patient)||||0.0018
91854787|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pain not within Scar (patient)||||0.053
91854788|NCT01796236|183593693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pain not within Scar (patient)||||0.068
91854789|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.90
91854790|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.43
91854791|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.23
91854792|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.019
91854793|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Vision (HUI3)||||0.079
91854794|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Vision (HUI3)||||0.96
91854795|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Vision (HUI3)||||0.55
91854796|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Vision (HUI3)||||0.64
91854797|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.76
91854798|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.059
91854799|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.38
91659719|NCT00272779|183214253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0847||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting non-HDL cholesterol (phenotype) and the RETN\_097 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_097 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0847
91691903|NCT00380874|183278450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6065||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 3. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.6065
91854800|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.14
91854801|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Speech (HUI3)||||0.73
91854802|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Speech (HUI3)||||0.65
91854803|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Speech (HUI3)||||1.00
91854804|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Speech (HUI3)||||0.35
91854805|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.50
91854806|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.40
91854807|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.21
91854808|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.0010
91854809|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.13
91854810|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.96
91854811|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.75
91854812|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.20
91854813|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.95
91854814|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.31
91854815|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.15
91854816|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.19
91854817|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Pain (HUI3)||||0.41
91854818|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Pain (HUI3)||||0.30
91854819|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pain (HUI3)||||0.42
91854820|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pain (HUI3)||||0.040
91854821|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.99
91854822|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.88
91854823|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.32
91854824|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.0084
91854825|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.77
91854826|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.95
91854827|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.60
91854828|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.48
91854829|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.51
91854830|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.42
91854831|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.22
91854832|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.0018
91854833|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.30
91854834|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.52
91854835|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.47
91854836|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.18
91854837|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.82
91854838|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.41
91854839|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.14
91854840|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.25
91854841|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Self Care (HUI2)||||0.59
91854842|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Self Care (HUI2)||||1.00
91854843|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Self Care (HUI2)||||0.55
91854844|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Self Care (HUI2)||||0.14
91854845|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Pain (HUI2)||||0.75
91854846|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Pain (HUI2)||||0.63
91854847|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pain (HUI2)||||0.57
91854848|NCT01796236|183593694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pain (HUI2)||||0.019
91854849|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.047
91854850|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.23
91854851|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.015
91854852|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.13
91854853|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Global (Aided)||||0.041
91854854|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.071
91854855|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.75
91854856|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.32
91854857|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.24
91854858|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Global (Unaided)||||0.24
91854859|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.12
91854860|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.19
91854861|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.055
91854862|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.24
91854863|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Global (Benefit)||||0.042
91854864|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.19
91854865|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.99
91854866|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.24
91854867|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.73
91854868|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Global (Aided)||||0.39
91854869|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.24
91854870|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.81
91854871|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.34
91854872|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.038
91854873|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Global (Unaided)||||0.53
91854874|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.63
91854875|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.83
91854876|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.71
91854877|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.16
91854878|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Global (Benefit)||||0.81
91854879|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.51
91854880|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.47
91854881|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.93
91854882|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.62
91854883|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Global (Aided)||||0.63
91854884|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.18
91854885|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.76
91854886|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.17
91854887|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.29
91854888|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Global (Unaided)||||0.40
91854889|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.29
91854890|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.90
91854891|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.24
91854892|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.45
91854893|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Global (Benefit)||||0.37
91854894|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.84
91854895|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.57
91854896|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.71
91854897|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.99
91854898|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Global (Aided)||||0.78
91854899|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.50
91854900|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.48
91854901|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.64
91854902|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.041
91854903|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Global (Unaided)||||0.89
91854904|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.14
91854905|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.48
91854906|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.23
91854907|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.57
91854908|NCT01796236|183593695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Global (Benefit)||||0.21
91854909|NCT01796236|183593696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sound Processor Usage: Week 6||||0.46
91854910|NCT01796236|183593696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Week 12||||0.75
91854911|NCT01796236|183593696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Week 24||||0.83
91854912|NCT01796236|183593696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Month 12||||0.52
91854913|NCT01796236|183593696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Month 24||||0.67
91854914|NCT01796236|183593696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Month 36||||0.71
91854915|NCT01796236|183593698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Baseline: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.91
91854916|NCT01796236|183593698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 3: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.70
91854917|NCT01796236|183593698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.95
91854918|NCT01796236|183593698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 12: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.22
91854919|NCT01796236|183593698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 24: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.19
91854920|NCT01796236|183593698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 36: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.45
91854921|NCT01796236|183593699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Loss of Implant (safety population)||||0.989
91854922|NCT00736853|183593757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.377||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.641|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-rank test with the target disease as the stratification factor||||0.641|0.221|0.0001
91854923|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =1.51 in the 11Pn Group and N= 203 and Adjusted GMC= 1.36 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.75|1.07||||||ANTI-1 serotype test :to demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.07|0.75|
91854924|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =1.77 in the 11Pn Group and N= 203 and Adjusted GMC= 1.66 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.77|1.14||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.14|0.77|
91854925|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 2.46 in the 11Pn Group and N= 201 and Adjusted GMC= 2.16 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.75|1.03||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.03|0.75|
91854926|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =0.51 in the 11Pn Group and N= 200 and Adjusted GMC= 0.47 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.71|1.23||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.23|0.71|
91854927|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=219 and Adjusted GMC =2.30 in the 11Pn Group and N= 202 and Adjusted GMC= 2.17 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.81|1.1||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.10|0.81|
91854928|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =1.56 in the 11Pn Group and N= 200 and Adjusted GMC= 1.40 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.76|1.06||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.06|0.76|
91713386|NCT03101150|183318293|OTHER|A sample size of minimum 152 was calculated to be able to determine incidence of preeclampsia that is in the range of 8-17% with 80% power assuming an alpha of 5%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.163|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.32|||Chi-squared|||Eligible and consented study subjects were randomized according to permuted block design scheme to be allocated in 400 IU arm and 4000 IU arm.||1.32|0.02|<0.05
91713387|NCT03101150|183318294|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91713388|NCT03101150|183318295|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.94|||Chi-squared|||||0.94|0.19|<0.02
91659720|NCT00272779|183214254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_097 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_097 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0058
91659721|NCT00272779|183214255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_2265 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_2265 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0058
91659722|NCT00272779|183214256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_598 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_598 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0253
91854929|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 4.22 in the 11Pn Group and N= 201 and Adjusted GMC= 4.06 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.81|1.15||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.15|0.81|
91854930|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =2.81 in the 11Pn Group and N= 201 and Adjusted GMC= 2.57 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.74|1.14||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.14|0.74|
91901500|NCT04884763|183697774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.71||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||0.71|-1.18|0.613
91901501|NCT04884763|183697775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.22||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||4.22|0.94|0.003
91901502|NCT04884763|183697776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.08||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||5.08|-2.70|0.536
91901503|NCT04561765|183697837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge||||0.051
91659723|NCT00272779|183214257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the APOE\_C130R genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with APOE\_C130R reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1173
91864006|NCT02844465|183616701|OTHER|A sign test will be used to determine if the median categorical change is significantly greater than zero.||||||0.0004|||||||Sign test|||"It is hypothesized that the SF-36 Mental Component Score (MCS) will increase (improve) from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36 - BSL-SF-36-MCS) ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36 - BSL-SF-36-MCS) \> 0 Where M (V- SF-36-MCS - BSL- SF-36-MCS) = sign-test statistic (\[increases-decreases\]/2) in the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire MCS from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||0.0004
91659724|NCT00272779|183214258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_734 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_734 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1173
91901504|NCT04561765|183697837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge.||||0.206
91901505|NCT04561765|183697837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge||||0.765
91901506|NCT04561765|183697837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at follow-up.||||0.991
91864007|NCT02844465|183616702|OTHER|A sign test will be used to determine if the median categorical change is significantly greater than zero.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||"It's hypothesized that the SF-36 Physical Component Score (PCS) will increase (improve) from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36-PCS - BSL-SF-36-PCS) ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36-PCS - BSL-SF-36-PCS) \> 0 Where M (V-SF-36-PCS - BSL- SF-36-PCS) = sign-test statistic (\[increases-decreases\]/2) in the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire PCS from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
91901507|NCT04561765|183697837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge.||||0.963
91901508|NCT04561765|183697837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge.||||0.916
91901509|NCT04561765|183697838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.005
91901510|NCT04561765|183697838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.270
91659725|NCT00272779|183214259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1847||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting PAI-1 (phenotype) and the APOE\_R176C genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with APOE\_R176C reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1847
91659726|NCT00272779|183214260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1833||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis:There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting Tumor Necrosis Factor(TNF)-alpha (phenotype) and the IL6\_5309 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, wk48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (ie. an omnibus test on both marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with IL6\_5309 reported in Outcome Measure 16||||0.1833
91659727|NCT00272779|183214261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1833||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting TNF-alpha (phenotype) and the RS11030679 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_097 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1833
91854931|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 3.70 in the 11Pn Group and N= 202 and Adjusted GMC= 3.68 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.81|1.23||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.23|0.81|
91854932|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 0.62 in the 11Pn Group and N= 199 and Adjusted GMC= 0.71 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.89|1.48||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.48|0.89|
91901511|NCT04561765|183697838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.177
91901512|NCT04561765|183697838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P Value at follow-up.||||0.300
91901513|NCT04561765|183697838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.996
91713389|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5221||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5221
91901514|NCT04561765|183697838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.334
91854933|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations/titres, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=217 and Adjusted GMC =1.61 in the 11Pn Group and N= 206 and Adjusted GMC= 2.75 for the Prevnar13 Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|1.44|2.03||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.03|1.44|
91854934|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=207 and Adj. GMC =1.58 in 12Pn Group and N= 203 and Adj. GMC= 1.35 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.86||||||95.8|0.72|1.02||||||ANTI-1 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.02|0.72|
91864008|NCT02844465|183616703|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are:~Null Hypothesis: π V - 64% + δ ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: π V - 64% + δ \> 0 Where πV is the proportion of subjects treated with Visualase experiencing no seizures.~An exact 95% CI for the percentage of subjects who are seizure free will be calculated and its lower boundary compared to zero after subtraction of the historical open surgical resection percentage of 64% and the addition of the equivalence delta percentage of 10%."|Proportion of Participants|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.2|65.8||||||||65.8|46.2|
91901515|NCT04561765|183697840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.212
91901516|NCT04561765|183697840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.965
91901517|NCT04561765|183697840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.294
91901518|NCT04561765|183697840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.207
91659728|NCT00272779|183214262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1694||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in SAT-to-TAT Ratio (phenotype) and the CCDC122\_5980 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with CCDC122\_5980 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1694
91713390|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.25||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.25
91713391|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.50
91901519|NCT04561765|183697840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.158
91901520|NCT04561765|183697840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.988
91901521|NCT04561765|183697842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.295
91659729|NCT00272779|183214263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1335||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in VAT (phenotype) and the BRUNOL\_1842 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with BRUNOL\_1842 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1335
91659730|NCT00272779|183214264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1335||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in VAT (phenotype) and the RETN\_730 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_730 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1335
91659731|NCT00272779|183214265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1696||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in VAT-to-TAT Ratio (phenotype) and the CCDA122\_5980 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with CCDA122\_5980 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1696
91659732|NCT00376623|183214288|OTHER|A one-sided exact binomial test with a 2.5 % significance level was used to detect the difference between BI 2536 and historical placebo with objective response rate = 0.9 % (two out of 211) with a 95 % confidence interval of 0.2 % to 3 %.||||||0.0548|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|Null hypothesis H0: p \<= 0.009 Alternative hypothesis HA: p \> 0.009||Efficacy of BI 2536 was evaluated by comparing the tumour response rate of the present trial with the tumour response rate published for patients with the same stage of disease treated with placebo. For this, treatment groups 'BI 2536 200 mg' and 'combination of treatment group 50 mg BI 2536 (day 1 - day 3) and 60 mg BI 2536 (day 1 - day 3)' were pooled together and compared to historical placebo.||||0.0548
91713392|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.16||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.16
91794336|NCT00591578|183467639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.33||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.33|1.24|<0.001
91794337|NCT01369485|183467712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3636|||||||Chi-squared|||The sample size calculation was determined using the 2-sided Chi-square test with a significance level of 5% and 80% power based upon the following assumptions: (1) proportion of responders at end of 12 weeks of treatment would be 50% in the active (test) group and 25% in the inactive (control) group; (2) a responder was defined as a subject who experienced decrease of ≥50% in mean urgency urinary incontinence episodes (leaks) between baseline and Week 12 of the study; (3) 20 % dropout rate.||||0.3636
91794338|NCT01369485|183467712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4849|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4849
91794339|NCT01369485|183467713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2893|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2893
91794340|NCT01369485|183467713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3223
91794341|NCT01369485|183467714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3387
91794342|NCT01369485|183467715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6557
91659733|NCT00376623|183214289|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.55|||Log Rank||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.55|0.67|0.92
91659734|NCT00376623|183214290|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.78|||Log Rank||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.78|0.7|0.65
91659735|NCT00376623|183214293|OTHER|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.51|||Regression, Cox||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|||2.51|0.94|
91659736|NCT00376623|183214294|OTHER|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.49|||Regression, Cox||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|||1.49|0.59|
91659737|NCT00376623|183214295|OTHER|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.01|||Regression, Cox||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|||2.01|0.81|
91659738|NCT02331394|183214305|EQUIVALENCE|"The equivalence assumes that the true mean difference between the paired samples is zero. Under this model, all observable differences are explained by random variation.Equality margins are:~Upper Equivalence Margin=1.5 Lower Equivalence Margin=-1.5"|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of repeated measures were made using paired sample t test, which compared subjects data at 2 different times: baseline and end of the study. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||<0.05
91659739|NCT02331394|183214308|SUPERIORITY|Pared t-test was used to evaluate the significance of the change in scores||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91713393|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8665||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.8665
91794343|NCT01369485|183467716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4354|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4354
91794344|NCT01369485|183467717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9918
91794345|NCT01369485|183467717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3770
91794346|NCT01369485|183467718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4147|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4147
91794347|NCT01369485|183467718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0877|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0877
91794348|NCT01369485|183467719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2032
91901522|NCT04561765|183697842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.718
91901523|NCT04561765|183697842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.738
91659740|NCT01371786|183214309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|-4.09||No formal statistical testing was conducted. Only descriptive statistics were calculated and presented.|||Difference calculated as Mometasone minus Ciclesonide|No formal null hypothesis was stated or tested.Descriptive statistics only were calculated and presented. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations. The sample size of 10 subjects was sufficient to provide approximately 80% power to detect a difference of 25% between the two treatment groups in the percentage of nasal deposition approximately 2 minutes post dose, assuming a two-sided test evaluated at a significance level of 0.05, with a SD of the difference of 23.17%.||-4.09|-21.76|
91659741|NCT04459585|183214314|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|111.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.57|161.35|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Total Dabigatran.||161.35|77.57|
91794349|NCT01369485|183467720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4151||||||Calculated for only those patients who had prior OAB treatment only.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4151
91794350|NCT01369485|183467721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9814|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Endpoint defined as percentage of patients that much improved or very much improved following treatment."||||0.9814
91794351|NCT01369485|183467721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7305|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7305
91794352|NCT01369485|183467722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2191
91794353|NCT01369485|183467722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5357
91794354|NCT01306877|183467736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The objective is to reject H0 at the 0.05 significance level. A one-sided 95% confidence upper limit for PC - PE will be constructed by Newcombe's generalized Wilson score method (Newcombe 1998). H0 will be rejected at the 0.05 significance level if this upper limit is \<7%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.314||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.18||P-value calculated from per protocol analysis set|Chi-squared|||||-0.18||0.0001
91794355|NCT01306877|183467740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1844
91794356|NCT01306877|183467741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5647|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5647
91794357|NCT01306877|183467742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9062
91794358|NCT00586196|183467784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||GEE|||||2.3|0.4|
91794359|NCT00586196|183467785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||GEE|||||1.2|-1.5|
91794360|NCT02730208|183467811|OTHER|Treatment effect outcomes are estimates.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|4.52||||||||4.52|-7.47|
91794361|NCT00245219|183467835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
91794362|NCT00245219|183467835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
91794363|NCT00245219|183467835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
91794364|NCT00245219|183467835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
91794365|NCT00245219|183467835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 2, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
91794366|NCT00245219|183467835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 3, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
91854935|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =1.94 in 12Pn Group and N= 203 and Adj. GMC= 1.66 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.86||||||95.8|0.7|1.05||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.05|0.70|
91659742|NCT04459585|183214314|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|112.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.2|165.34|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Free Dabigatran.||165.34|77.20|
91659743|NCT04459585|183214315|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|111.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.51|157.97|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Total Dabigatran.||157.97|78.51|
91659744|NCT04459585|183214315|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|111.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.35|159.51|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Free Dabigatran.||159.51|77.35|
91659745|NCT04459585|183214316|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|112.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.38|160.79|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Total Dabigatran.||160.79|79.38|
91659746|NCT04459585|183214316|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|110.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.77|159.68|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Free Dabigatran.||159.68|76.77|
91659747|NCT01061866|183214332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p less than or equal to 0.05, repeated measures ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.02||||||p-value is non-adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Was adjusted the degrees of freedom for the averaged test of significance.|The frequency of seizures at the beginning of the study and after treatment with thalidomide was contrasted in the same group patients.|Power=0.02||||<0.02
91659748|NCT02459951|183214335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||"refer to cylinder A (.5 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.059
91864009|NCT01959607|183616745|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|103.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.94|126.11|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||126.11|84.94|
91659749|NCT02459951|183214335|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio B|||||0.465|||||||Regression, Logistic|"refer to cylinder B(1 diameter)"||||||0.465
91659750|NCT02459951|183214335|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio C|||||0.022||||||"refer to cylinder C (1.5 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.022
91659751|NCT02459951|183214335|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio D|||||0.004||||||"refer to cylinder D (2 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.004
91659752|NCT02459951|183214335|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio E|||||0.002||||||"refer to cylinder E (2.5 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.002
91659753|NCT04239872|183214365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.00778||||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09209|0.07653||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 11 pairs of data, DF=10|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.07653|-0.09209|0.8412
91659754|NCT04239872|183214366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06907||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3955|0.2573||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 12 pairs of data, DF=11|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.2573|-0.3955|0.6504
91864010|NCT01959607|183616746|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|96.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.1|109.07|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||109.07|85.10|
91659755|NCT04239872|183214367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5307||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2372|0.8243||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 11 pairs of data, DF=10|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.8243|0.2372|0.0024
91659756|NCT04239872|183214368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5643||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2938|0.8348||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 9 pairs of data, DF=8|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.8348|0.2938|0.0013
91659757|NCT04239872|183214369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1135||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2964|0.06929||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 15 pairs of data, DF=14|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.06929|-0.2964|0.2041
91659758|NCT04239872|183214370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.095|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7736|1.416||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.416|0.7736|<0.0001
91659759|NCT04239872|183214371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|1.825||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.825|1.112|<0.0001
91659760|NCT04239872|183214372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.549|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.081|2.017||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 14 pairs of data, DF=13|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||2.017|1.081|<0.0001
91659761|NCT04239872|183214373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-115.6||||0.5543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-584.8|353.6||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 6 pairs of data, DF=5|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||353.6|-584.8|0.5543
91659762|NCT04239872|183214374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.328||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.814||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 8 pairs of data, DF=7|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.814|0.8420|0.0003
91901524|NCT04561765|183697842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.797
91659763|NCT04239872|183214375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09023||||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2613|0.08082||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 19 pairs of data, DF=18|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.08082|-0.2613|0.2824
91659764|NCT04239872|183214376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6269||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3488|0.905||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.9050|0.3488|0.0002
91659765|NCT04239872|183214377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8946|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6671|1.122||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.122|0.6671|<0.0001
91659766|NCT04239872|183214378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.973|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7597|1.186||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 18 pairs of data, DF=17|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.186|0.7597|<0.0001
91659767|NCT04239872|183214379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9827|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7758|1.19||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 18 pairs of data, DF=17|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.19|0.7758|<0.0001
91713394|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
91901525|NCT04561765|183697842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.260
91854936|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =2.37 in 12Pn Group and N= 201 and Adj. GMC= 2.16 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.78|1.07||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.07|0.78|
91854937|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =0.56 in 12Pn Group and N= 200 and Adj. GMC= 0.47 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.84||||||95.8|0.64|1.11||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.11|0.64|
91854938|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=211 and Adj. GMC =2.42 in 12Pn Group and N= 202 and Adj. GMC= 2.17 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.76|1.06||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.06|0.76|
91854939|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =1.78 in 12Pn Group and N= 200 and Adj. GMC= 1.40 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.67|0.93||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||0.93|0.67|
91854940|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=209 and Adj. GMC =4.48 in 12Pn Group and N= 201 and Adj. GMC= 4.10 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.77|1.09||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.09|0.77|
91854941|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=209 and Adj. GMC =2.55 in 12Pn Group and N= 201 and Adj. GMC= 2.57 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.81|1.26||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.26|0.81|
91901526|NCT04561765|183697842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.616
91901527|NCT04561765|183697843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.333
91901528|NCT04561765|183697843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.003
91659768|NCT04239872|183214380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6573|1.179||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 19 pairs of data, DF=18|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.179|0.6573|<0.0001
91901529|NCT04561765|183697843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.106
91901530|NCT04561765|183697843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.541
91901531|NCT04561765|183697843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.202
91901532|NCT04561765|183697843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.791
91901533|NCT04561765|183697844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.026
91901534|NCT04561765|183697844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.15
91901535|NCT04561765|183697844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.745
91901536|NCT04561765|183697844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.021
91659769|NCT04239872|183214385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05652||||0.3283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1762|0.06829||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 15 pairs of data, DF=14|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.06829|-0.1762|0.3283
91659770|NCT04239872|183214386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3411||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1189|0.5633||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.5633|0.1189|0.0058
91901537|NCT04561765|183697844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.155
91901538|NCT04561765|183697844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.652
91901539|NCT04561765|183697845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.343
91901540|NCT04561765|183697845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.995
91901541|NCT04561765|183697845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.371
91901542|NCT04561765|183697845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.228
91901543|NCT04561765|183697845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.282
91901544|NCT04561765|183697845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.986
91901545|NCT04561765|183697846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.421
91901546|NCT04561765|183697846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.556|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.556
91901547|NCT01699789|183697847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.95|0.57|
91901548|NCT01699789|183697848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.26||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.26|0.48|
91901549|NCT01699789|183697849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.|In an analysis of change from baseline in likelihood of Poor Mental Health Quality of Life, CEP showed a significant advantage at 6 months, but not at 12 months.|0.97|0.61|
91901550|NCT01699789|183697850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients at 3 years to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.3|0.7|
91901551|NCT01699789|183697851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients at 3 years to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.7|0.6|
91659771|NCT04239872|183214387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2976||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05266|0.5426||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.5426|0.05266|0.0213
91659772|NCT04239872|183214388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.312||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07454|0.5495||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 14 pairs of data, DF=13|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.5495|0.07454|0.014
91659773|NCT04239872|183214389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2524||||0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09153|0.5962||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||0.5962|-0.09153|0.1393
91659774|NCT04239872|183214390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2921||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1414|0.4427||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 16 pairs of data, DF=15|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.4427|0.1414|0.0009
91713395|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.84||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.84
91713396|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.57||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.57
91713397|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3052||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all B cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3052
91713398|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 1.||||||>0.9999
91854942|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=211 and Adj. GMC =3.29 in 12Pn Group and N= 202 and Adj. GMC= 3.67 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.9|1.38||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.38|0.90|
91854943|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =0.68 in 12Pn Group and N= 199 and Adj. GMC= 0.71 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI..|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.81|1.37||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.37|0.81|
91659775|NCT04239872|183214391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2433||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1195|0.3671||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 16 pairs of data, DF=15|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.3671|0.1195|0.0008
91659776|NCT04239872|183214392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3306||||0.1515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1356|0.7969||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 16 pairs of data, DF=15|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||0.7969|-0.1356|0.1515
91659777|NCT04239872|183214393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04851||||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02327|0.1203||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.1203|-0.02327|0.1712
91713399|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
91713400|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.65||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.65
91854944|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=210 and Adj. GMC =1.09 in 12Pn Group and N= 214 and Adj. GMC= 2.07 for Prevnar13 Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|1.51|2.39||||||ANTI-6A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A\&19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.39|1.51|
91864011|NCT02589795|183616801|OTHER|Inequality test|||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The proportions of subjects with primary safety outcomes were compared in a pairwise manner between the three randomised groups, using Fisher's exact tests.||||>0.05
91864012|NCT02589795|183616802|OTHER|Inequality test|||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's correction for multiple comparisons||Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's correction for multiple comparisons to compare the levels of antigen-specific serum IgG in the three groups at Week 22.||||>0.05
91864013|NCT03511664|183616807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.29|0.57|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.57|0.29|< 0.001
91659778|NCT04239872|183214394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2789||||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07934|0.6371||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 18 pairs of data, DF=17|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||0.6371|-0.07934|0.1188
91864014|NCT03511664|183616808|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||Primary OS Analysis||0.74|0.52|<0.001
91659779|NCT04239872|183214395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8956|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7205|1.071||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 14 pairs of data, DF=13|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.071|0.7205|<0.0001
91854945|NCT01616459|183593788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =1.19 in 12Pn Group and N= 206 and Adj. GMC= 2.76 for Prevnar13 Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|1.94|2.77||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A\&19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.77|1.94|
91854946|NCT01616459|183593789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-3.89|1.36||||||ANTI-1 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.36|-3.89|
91854947|NCT01616459|183593789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-4.94|2.45||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.45|-4.94|
91854948|NCT01616459|183593789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-2.82|1.38||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.38|-2.82|
91854949|NCT01616459|183593789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-10.65|6.13||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||6.13|-10.65|
91854950|NCT01616459|183593789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-2.39|2.21||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.21|-2.39|
91659780|NCT04239872|183214397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3199||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004686|0.6351||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 8 pairs of data, DF=7|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.6351|0.004686|0.0475
91854951|NCT01616459|183593789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-2.36|3.22||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.22|-2.36|
91854952|NCT01616459|183593789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-1.51|2.66||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.66|-1.51|
91854953|NCT01616459|183593789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-4.18|1.7||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.70|-4.18|
91901552|NCT01699789|183697852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.59||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.59|1.19|
91901553|NCT01699789|183697853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.04||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.04|1.03|
91901554|NCT01699789|183697854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.98||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.98|1.14|
91659781|NCT04239872|183214398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|50.38||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.46|73.3||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||73.30|27.46|0.0004
91659782|NCT02819323|183214429|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
91659783|NCT02819323|183214429|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
91659784|NCT02819323|183214429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.046
91659785|NCT02819323|183214429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.089
91659786|NCT01975948|183214430|OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Adjusted for baseline depressive symptoms and unemployment as covariates (p=.016), and non-completers (missing one or more points of follow up data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||One hundred evaluable patients per arm were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a PHQ-9 between-group difference in mean change of 2 points, significance level (α) .05, a two-sided test, and a standard deviation of 5 points. An intra cluster correlation of 0.05 for patient outcomes was used (Murphey et al), and an average cluster size: 3 patients/practice resulted in compensatory increase to 110 patients per arm. Under the assumption that attrition would be 33 % we needed 166 patients per arm.||||.047
91659787|NCT01975948|183214431|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Our calculations indicated that 50 physicians in each of the two groups will provide \>80% power to detect clinically significant reductions in stigma as assessed by OMS-HC change scores. Clinically meaningful was defined as a change of 3 points, derived on the basis of this being slightly better than what is usually seen in brief interventions.||||0.15
91713401|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0698||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all NK cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0698
91854954|NCT01616459|183593789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-5.64|-0.52||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||-0.52|-5.64|
91854955|NCT01616459|183593789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-4.84|10.25||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||10.25|-4.84|
91854956|NCT01616459|183593790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-1.46|3.66||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.66|-1.46|
91854957|NCT01616459|183593791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-3.44|2.22||||||ANTI-1 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.22|-3.44|
91854958|NCT01616459|183593791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-4.03|3.86||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.86|-4.03|
91901555|NCT01699789|183697855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.96||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.96|0.38|
91901556|NCT01699789|183697856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.70|0.69|
91901557|NCT01699789|183697857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.09||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N= 249), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||1.09|0.32|
91901558|NCT01699789|183697858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.95||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.95|0.28|
91864015|NCT03511664|183616808|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||||Cox PH model stratified by LDH (≤260 vs. \>260 IU/L), liver metastases (yes/no), ECOG score (0-1 vs. 2), and NAAD inclusion in best supportive care at randomization (yes/no). IRT data used for stratification|Final OS analysis||0.81|0.58|
91864016|NCT03511664|183616810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|103.24|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||103.24|6.05|< 0.001
91659788|NCT01975948|183214431|OTHER||Cohen'd|0.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||OMS-HC analysis adjusted for practice size: P value applies to between group physicians reduction in one stigma domaine: preference for social distance|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Group Changes in subscale of the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) measures three different dimensions of stigma: attitudes towards people with a mental illness (6 items); health care professionals' attitudes about disclosure of a mental illness/willingness to seek help for a mental illness (4 items), and preference for social distance (5 items). Items are rated on a 5-point scale. Mean scores can range from one to five with lower scores indicating less stigma.||||.03
91659789|NCT01975948|183214432|OTHER|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.993
91659790|NCT01975948|183214433|OTHER||Cohen'd|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91659791|NCT01975948|183214433|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|We used the slope of a regression line fit using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure.||Correlation between increases in Physician Comfort and Confidence in managing mental illness and Stigma Score.||||.03
91901559|NCT01699789|183697859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.88||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.88|0.14|
91659792|NCT01975948|183214434|OTHER||Cohen'd|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91659793|NCT01975948|183214434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476||||||We used the slope of a regression line fit using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure.|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Correlation between increases in Physician Comfort and Confidence with non-program specific tools and Stigma Score.||||.476
91659794|NCT01975948|183214435|SUPERIORITY||Cohen'd|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91659795|NCT01975948|183214435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||We used the Spearman's correlation coefficient using the slope of a regression line fit using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure.|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Correlation between increases in Physician Comfort and Confidence with program specific tools and Stigma Score.||||.945
91659796|NCT01975948|183214436|OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.742
91659797|NCT01975948|183214437|OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.543
91659798|NCT01975948|183214438|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.009
91864017|NCT03511664|183616811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|10.55|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||10.55|3.18|< 0.001
91854959|NCT01616459|183593791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-2.37|2.3||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.30|-2.37|
91854960|NCT01616459|183593791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-12.94|3.6||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.60|-12.94|
91854961|NCT01616459|183593791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-1.93|3.06||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.06|-1.93|
91854962|NCT01616459|183593791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-2.72|2.64||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.64|-2.72|
91864018|NCT03511664|183616813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.62|||Log Rank|Two-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.62|0.40|< 0.001
91864019|NCT03511664|183616814|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.38|||Log Rank|Two-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.38|0.24|< 0.001
91864020|NCT03511664|183616816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.0|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||20.0|6.3|< 0.001
91864021|NCT03511664|183616817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|65.1|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||65.1|8.6|< 0.001
91864022|NCT01928394|183616888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||SCLC Arm N Expansion as compare to SCLC Arm N-I Dose Level 2- Expansion||4.26|1.06|0.0309
91659799|NCT01975948|183214439|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.213
91659800|NCT02008565|183214496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092||||||significance assessed at type 1 error alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The models were adjusted for baseline Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) status and clinical site.||||||0.092
91659801|NCT00617305|183214509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-248.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|241.978|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.7|-160.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-160.2|-337.7|
91659802|NCT00617305|183214509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-291.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|205.864|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-619.4|35.78||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||35.78|-619.4|
91659803|NCT00617305|183214509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-253.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|235.787|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-334.8|-172.8||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-172.8|-334.8|
91659804|NCT00617305|183214509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-291.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|205.864|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-619.4|35.78||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||35.78|-619.4|
91659805|NCT00617305|183214510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.954|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|-2.46||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-2.46|-8.29|
91659806|NCT00617305|183214510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.64|-1.86||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-1.86|-29.64|
91659807|NCT00617305|183214510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.589|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-3.61||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-3.61|-9.51|
91659808|NCT00617305|183214510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.64|-1.86||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-1.86|-29.64|
91659809|NCT00617305|183214511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.442|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.56||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.56|-1.69|
91659810|NCT00617305|183214511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.082|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||2.50|-10.50|
91659811|NCT00617305|183214511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.04||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.04|-2.07|
91659812|NCT00617305|183214511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.082|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||2.50|-10.50|
91659813|NCT00617305|183214512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.25||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.25|0.43|
91659814|NCT00617305|183214512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.685|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.42||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.42|-0.77|
91659815|NCT00617305|183214512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.15||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.15|0.41|
91659816|NCT00617305|183214512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.685|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.42||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.42|-0.77|
91659817|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|28.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||28.4|-3.9|
91659818|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|41.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||41.5|-26.0|
91659819|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|107.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
91659820|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|26.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||26.2|-2.7|
91659821|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|87.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||87.2|-32.0|
91659822|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|28.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||28.5|-1.4|
91659823|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.5|96.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||96.5|-91.5|
91854963|NCT01616459|183593791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-1.94|1.9||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.90|-1.94|
91854964|NCT01616459|183593791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-3.72|2.52||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.52|-3.72|
91659824|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|87.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
91864023|NCT01868997|183616890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.293|23.825||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value are obtained from a logistic regression model with treatment and smoking status as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.825|3.293|< 0.001
91659825|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|26.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||26.9|-2.1|
91713402|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NK cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
91659826|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.6|98.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||98.4|-59.6|
91659827|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|35.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||35.6|0.5|
91659828|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|37.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||37.5|-56.5|
91659829|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|87.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
91854965|NCT01616459|183593791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-4.38|2.1||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.10|-4.38|
91854966|NCT01616459|183593791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-5.07|10.06||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||10.06|-5.07|
91854967|NCT01616459|183593792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|11.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|7.22|16.49||||||ANTI-6A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \<10% for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||16.49|7.22|
91864024|NCT01868997|183616891|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.221||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.561|17.375|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||17.375|4.561|0.001
91864025|NCT01868997|183616892|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.843|-1.772|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.772|-2.843|< 0.001
91864026|NCT01868997|183616893|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.073|-1.098|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.098|-2.073|< 0.001
91864027|NCT01868997|183616894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|14.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.827|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.549|21.773|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||21.773|6.549|< 0.001
91864028|NCT01868997|183616895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.255|13.901|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||13.901|-1.255|0.101
91659830|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|31.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||31.1|-1.0|
91659831|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|72.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||72.1|-52.5|
91659832|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|30.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||30.1|-25.6|
91659833|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|93.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.2|114.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||114.2|-182.2|
91659834|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|67.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
91659835|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|24.8||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||24.8|-28.4|
91659836|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.6|101.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||101.0|-128.6|
91659837|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|82.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|44.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||44.2|-15.0|
91854968|NCT01616459|183593792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|1.03|7.57||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \<10% for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||7.57|1.03|
91864029|NCT03806790|183616904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|49.16|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis on the Full Analysis Set (FAS)||49.16|0.68|0.120
91659838|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|126.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-251.4|151.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||151.9|-251.4|
91659839|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|67.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
91659840|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|88.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|37.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||37.3|-22.4|
91854969|NCT05165485|183593827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|14.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence, stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were approximated by the Kenward and Roger (1997) method.|Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|14|-61|0.22
91659841|NCT00617305|183214513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|121.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.3|124.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||124.5|-177.3|
91659842|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||0.0|-1.1|
91659843|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||3.1|-1.6|
91659844|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
91659845|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||0.1|-0.9|
91659846|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||2.3|-1.5|
91659847|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.0|-1.1|
91659848|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||5.3|-2.3|
91659849|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
91659850|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.2|-0.9|
91854970|NCT05165485|183593828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|20.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The OTE is defined as the average of the Day 30, Day 60, and Day 85 Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean differences. The null hypothesis was that the OTE Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|20|-38|
91854971|NCT05165485|183593829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|32.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|32|-29|
91854972|NCT05165485|183593830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|29.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|29|-40|
91659851|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||3.9|-1.5|
91659852|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||-0.2|-1.5|
91854973|NCT05165485|183593831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|35.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference.|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FVC, screening FVC, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|35|-118|
91659853|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||0.6|-1.8|
91659854|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
91659855|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||-0.3|-1.4|
91864030|NCT03806790|183616905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.6|||Fisher Exact|||End of Week 1 (FAS)||4.60|1.36|0.004
91659856|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||0.4|-1.4|
91659857|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||0.1|-1.2|
91854974|NCT05165485|183593832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.92||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Regression, Logistic||The profile likelihood method was used to estimate the Revefenacin / Tiotropium responder OR.|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin / Tiotropium responder Odds Ratio was equal to 1 and the alternative hypothesis was that it was not equal to 1.|The Revefenacin / Tiotropium responder OR was estimated by fitting a logistic regression model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|0.92|0.39|
91854975|NCT05165485|183593833|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.45||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Regression, Cox||The profile likelihood method was used to estimate the Revefenacin / Tiotropium HR.|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin / Tiotropium CompEx Event Hazard Ratio was equal to 1 and the alternative hypothesis was that it was not equal to 1.|The Revefenacin / Tiotropium HR was estimated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|1.45|0.69|
91854976|NCT03237481|183593834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-81.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.592|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.83|-37.02|||ANOVA|||||-37.02|-125.83|= 0.0004
91659858|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||4.2|-2.2|
91659859|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
91659860|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||0.2|-1.0|
91659861|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||3.0|-1.4|
91659862|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||0.1|-1.4|
91659863|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||6.5|-4.5|
91659864|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
91659865|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||0.3|-1.3|
91659866|NCT00617305|183214514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||4.6|-3.0|
91659867|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.4|-2.7|
91659868|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||9.0|-6.5|
91659869|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
91659870|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.6|-2.3|
91659871|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||6.1|-4.9|
91659872|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||1.1|-2.7|
91659873|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||5.2|-7.7|
91659874|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
91659875|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||0.9|-2.6|
91659876|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||3.0|-5.8|
91659877|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.7||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||1.7|-2.3|
91659878|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|6.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||6.6|-8.1|
91659879|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
91659880|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||1.5|-2.2|
91659881|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||4.2|-5.8|
91659882|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||2.1|-2.8|
91659883|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|10.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||10.4|-11.4|
91659884|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
91659885|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||1.9|-2.7|
91659886|NCT00617305|183214515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.8||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||6.8|-8.0|
91659887|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
91659888|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
91659889|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
91659890|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
91659891|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
91659892|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
91854977|NCT03237481|183593835|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-72.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.32|-36.65|||ANOVA|||||-36.65|-108.32|< 0.0001
91659893|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
91659894|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
91659895|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
91659896|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
91659897|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
91659898|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
91659899|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
91659900|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
91659901|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
91659902|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
91659903|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
91659904|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
91659905|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
91659906|NCT00617305|183214517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
91713403|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.74||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NK cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.74
91713404|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NK cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
91854978|NCT03237481|183593836|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.0001
91854979|NCT03237481|183593837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.111|||=|0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.218|||Fisher Exact|||||0.218|0.003|= 0.0486
91854980|NCT03237481|183593838|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.024
91854981|NCT02566902|183593847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91854982|NCT02566902|183593848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91854983|NCT02566902|183593849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91659907|NCT01059903|183214529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric LS-Means is included within 0.8-1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|Ratio of geometric LS-Means|0.9028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8411|0.969|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS-Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||0.9690|0.8411|
91659908|NCT01059903|183214530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric LS-Means is included within 0.8-1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|Ratio of geometric LS-Means|0.9506|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8833|1.0231|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS-Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0231|0.8833|
91659909|NCT01059903|183214531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric LS-Means is included within 0.8-1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|Ratio of geometric LS-Means|0.9046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8437|0.9699|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS-Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||0.9699|0.8437|
91659910|NCT03555305|183214544|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effects model and participant as a random effect, with period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects. The estimate of the ratio of means of each PK/PD parameters between the 2 treatments and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were calculated. A typical bio-equivalence limit (0.8 to 1.25) was used as equivalence margin.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.04|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.04|0.886|
91659911|NCT03555305|183214545|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effects model and participant as a random effect, with period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects. The estimate of the ratio of means of each PK/PD parameters between the 2 treatments and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were calculated. A typical bio-equivalence limit (0.8 to 1.25) was used as equivalence margin.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.02|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.02|0.874|
91659912|NCT04544787|183214558|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe solicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c1 (combined Groups 1 and 2) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe solicited adverse events was 5 out of 100.||||0.7209
91854984|NCT02566902|183593850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
91854985|NCT02566902|183593851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
91854986|NCT02566902|183593852|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91854987|NCT02374463|183593863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||within group change was assessed||||<0.05
91659913|NCT04544787|183214558|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe solicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c2 (combined Groups 3 and 4) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe solicited adverse events was 5 out of 100.||||0.7209
91659914|NCT04544787|183214558|OTHER|||||||0.3769|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c1 (combined Groups 1 and 2) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events was 17 out of 100.||||0.3769
91854988|NCT02374463|183593864|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08||||||p value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||=0.08
91854989|NCT02374463|183593865|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6|||||||ANOVA|not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||||=0.6
91854990|NCT02374463|183593866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|exploratory aim prespecified.||||||0.84
91854991|NCT02374463|183593866|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.4
91854992|NCT02374463|183593867|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||=0.3
91854993|NCT02374463|183593868|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91854994|NCT03538717|183593869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.113
91854995|NCT03538717|183593870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.228
91854996|NCT03538717|183593871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.020
91854997|NCT03538717|183593872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.138
91659915|NCT04544787|183214558|OTHER|||||||0.3083|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c2 (combined Groups 3 and 4) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events was 17 out of 100.||||0.3083
91659916|NCT04544787|183214558|OTHER|||||||0.4975|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c1 (combined Groups 1 and 2) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events was 0 out of 100.||||0.4975
91659917|NCT04544787|183214558|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c2 (combined Groups 3 and 4) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events was 0 out of 100.||||1.0000
91659918|NCT04544787|183214558|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe solicited adverse events||||1.0000
91659919|NCT04544787|183214558|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe solicited adverse events||||1.0000
91659920|NCT04544787|183214558|OTHER|||||||0.1571|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe unsolicited adverse events||||0.1571
91659921|NCT04544787|183214558|OTHER|||||||0.296|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe unsolicited adverse events||||0.2960
91659922|NCT04544787|183214559|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary immunogenicity endpoint, seroprotection on Day 28 after a single dose of each vaccine candidate, was formally compared with the corresponding endpoint from UAM1 via a non-inferiority test of the difference of each of the novel candidates to the monovalent OPV2 control, mOPV2, each using one-sided α=0.025 and a non-inferiority margin of 10%, computed using two-sided α=0·05 Miettinen and Nurminen score-based CIs for inference.|Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.0||||||The primary immunogenicity endpoint, the seroprotection rate after one dose of either vaccine candidate in the OPV-vaccinated groups (nOPV2 combined groups 1 and 2, and combined groups 3 and 4), was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 (mOPV2) control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33). In the UAM1 study, the observed seroprotection rate after a single dose of mOPV2 was 98% (98 out of 100 participants), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 93-100%.||7.0|-1.9|
91854998|NCT03538717|183593873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.524
91659923|NCT04544787|183214559|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary immunogenicity endpoint, seroprotection on Day 28 after a single dose of each vaccine candidate, was formally compared with the corresponding endpoint from UAM1 via a non-inferiority test of the difference of each of the novel candidates to the monovalent OPV2 control, mOPV2, each using one-sided α=0.025 and a non-inferiority margin of 10%, computed using two-sided α=0·05 Miettinen and Nurminen score-based CIs for inference.|Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.0||||||The primary immunogenicity endpoint, the seroprotection rate after one dose of either vaccine candidate in the OPV-vaccinated groups (nOPV2 combined groups 1 and 2, and combined groups 3 and 4), was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33). In the UAM1 study, the observed seroprotection rate after a single dose of mOPV2 was 98% (98 out of 100 participants), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 93-100%.||7.0|-1.8|
91854999|NCT03538717|183593874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.265
91855000|NCT03538717|183593875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.035
91855001|NCT03538717|183593876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.123
91855002|NCT03538717|183593877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.327
91659924|NCT02100228|183214602|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6425||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||0.6425|0.0000|0.0151
91659925|NCT02100228|183214604|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4905||||0.3378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1046|2.0678||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||2.0678|0.1046|0.3378
91659926|NCT02100228|183214605|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3433|1.8916||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||1.8916|0.3433|0.6851
91855003|NCT03538717|183593878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.419
91855004|NCT03538717|183593879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.010
91855005|NCT03538717|183593880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Chi-squared|||100% clear cells||||0.446
91855006|NCT03538717|183593880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Chi-squared|||100% non-clear cells||||0.596
91855007|NCT03538717|183593880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Chi-squared|||Majority component of clear cells||||0.578
91855008|NCT03538717|183593880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||Fisher Exact|||Majority component of non-clear cells||||0.706
91855009|NCT03538717|183593881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.074
91901560|NCT01699789|183697860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||||Median cut point for baseline variable.|Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.25|0.52|
91659927|NCT02100228|183214606|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9841|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1866|53.9968||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||53.9968|0.1866|>0.9999
91855010|NCT03538717|183593882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.070
91855011|NCT03538717|183593883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.091
91855012|NCT03538717|183593884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Chi-squared|||Lymph nodes||||0.046
91855013|NCT03538717|183593884|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||CNS||||>0.999
91855014|NCT03538717|183593884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared|||Hepatic||||0.026
91713405|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0127||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all NKT cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0127
91855015|NCT03538717|183593884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Chi-squared|||Pulmonary||||0.327
91855016|NCT03538717|183593884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||Bone||||0.024
91855017|NCT03538717|183593884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Chi-squared|||Another site of metastasis||||0.045
91855018|NCT03538717|183593885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Chi-squared|||LDH level \>1.5\*ULN||||0.555
91855019|NCT03538717|183593885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Hgb levels \<=LLN||||<0.001
91855020|NCT03538717|183593885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Chi-squared|||Corrected Ca levels \>10 mg/dL||||0.344
91855021|NCT03538717|183593885|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||Neutrophil levels \>ULN||||>0.999
91855022|NCT03538717|183593885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795|||||||Chi-squared|||Platelet levels \>ULN||||0.795
91855023|NCT03538717|183593885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||Chi-squared|||Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio \<=3||||0.184
91855024|NCT03538717|183593886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.235
91855025|NCT01305252|183593906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91855026|NCT01305252|183593906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91855027|NCT01305252|183593909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91855028|NCT01305252|183593909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91855029|NCT04723394|183593923|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (100*[1-RR])|50.38||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.38|71.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by randomization factors||AZD7442 vs Placebo||71.25|14.38|0.010
91855030|NCT04723394|183593924|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (100*[1-RR])|49.24||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|69.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by randomization factors||AZD7442 vs Placebo||69.79|14.72|0.009
91855031|NCT00253890|183593925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.7||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in sleep quality was assessed by calculating gain scores. We used a 2-sided t-test to report mean change.||||.05
91855032|NCT01839331|183593936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
91855033|NCT01839331|183593936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||Adjusted for injection volume and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
91855034|NCT01839331|183593936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||Adjusted for injection volume and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.093
91659928|NCT00322465|183214629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for age (per 5 years) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||0.91|0.60|0.005
91659929|NCT00322465|183214629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for scant discharge (reference category is no discharge) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||2.30|0.33|0.780
91659930|NCT00322465|183214629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.33||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for moderate discharge amount (reference category is no discharge) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||5.33|0.75|0.164
91659931|NCT00322465|183214629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.17||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for large amount of discharge (reference category is no discharge) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multvariable logistic regression model.||5.17|0.23|0.919
91855035|NCT01839331|183593937|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline WOMAC score.||||||0.0442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0442
91855036|NCT01839331|183593938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4133||||||Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.4133
91713406|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NKT cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
91713407|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.41||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NKT cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.41
91855037|NCT01839331|183593939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0122||||||Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline PGA|ANOVA|||||||0.0122
91855038|NCT00174382|183593941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.182||95.0|-0.21|1.09||Baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Null hypothesis; change from baseline to the final visit = 0. Alternative hypothesis; change from baseline to final visit not = to 0. Sample of 260 participants was required for study to have 85% power to detect change from baseline to final visit of 0.73 in SMMSE total score, with a SD of 3.5. Fewer than 260 patients were enrolled, due to this loss in power the number of analyses specified in the protocol has been reduced and any analyses carried out will be exploratory in nature.||1.09|-0.21|0.182
91855039|NCT00174382|183593941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.067||95.0|-0.05|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Null hypothesis; change from baseline to the final visit = 0. Alternative hypothesis; change from baseline to final visit not = to 0. Sample of 260 participants was required for study to have 85% power to detect change from baseline to final visit of 0.73 in SMMSE total score, with a SD of 3.5. Fewer than 260 patients were enrolled, due to this loss in power the number of analyses specified in the protocol has been reduced and any analyses carried out will be exploratory in nature.||1.36|-0.05|0.067
91713408|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.07||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NKT cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.07
91713409|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0654||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all cDC cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0654
91855040|NCT00174382|183593941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 LOCF Null hypothesis; change from baseline to the final visit = 0. Alternative hypothesis; change from baseline to final visit not = to 0. Sample of 260 participants was required for study to have 85% power to detect change from baseline to final visit of 0.73 in SMMSE total score, with a SD of 3.5. Fewer than 260 patients were enrolled, due to this loss in power the number of analyses specified in the protocol has been reduced and any analyses carried out will be exploratory in nature.||||0.085
91659932|NCT00322465|183214629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for 2 or more sex partners in the last 3 months (reference category is 0-1 partners) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||3.30|1.00|0.051
91659933|NCT00322465|183214629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|22.74||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for 1 or more new sex partners in the last 30 days (reference category is 0) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||22.74|0.86|0.076
91659934|NCT00322465|183214629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.1||A priori threshold fors tatistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for ever having sex with a prostitute or sex for money, drugs, or other things (reference category is no) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||1.10|0.13|0.075
91659935|NCT00322465|183214629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|7.98||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for visit due to sexually transmitted disease contact (reference category is no) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||7.98|1.93|<0.001
91855041|NCT00174382|183593942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.218||95.0|-1.2|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-1.20|0.218
91855042|NCT00174382|183593942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.385||95.0|-6.03|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.34|-6.03|0.385
91855043|NCT00174382|183593942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.228
91855044|NCT00174382|183593943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.404||95.0|-2.51|6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.18|-2.51|0.404
91855045|NCT00174382|183593943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.826||95.0|-4.51|5.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.64|-4.51|0.826
91855046|NCT00174382|183593943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.494
91659936|NCT00322465|183214630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.66||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for 2 or more sex partners in the last 3 months (reference category is 0-1 partners) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||0.66|0.06|0.009
91855047|NCT00174382|183593944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.272||95.0|-1.42|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.99|-1.42|0.272
91855048|NCT00174382|183593944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.894||95.0|-4.21|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.68|-4.21|0.894
91855049|NCT00174382|183593944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.906
91855050|NCT00174382|183593945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.719||95.0|-0.56|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.56|0.719
91855051|NCT00174382|183593945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.006||95.0|0.29|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.71|0.29|0.006
91855052|NCT00174382|183593945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91855053|NCT00174382|183593946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.368||95.0|-0.38|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-0.38|0.368
91659937|NCT00322465|183214630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.22||A priori threshold for statistical signficance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for ever having sex with a prostitute or for money, drugs, or other things(reference category is no) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||6.22|0.92|0.074
91855054|NCT00174382|183593946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.03||95.0|0.07|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|0.07|0.030
91659938|NCT00322465|183214631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|No other independent variables were included in the model.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for age (per 5 years) is 1 versus the alternative that the odds ratio is greater than or less than 1.||0.98|0.66|0.032
91713410|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of cDC cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.38
91713411|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.21||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of cDC cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.21
91855055|NCT00174382|183593946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.060
91855056|NCT00174382|183593947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.516||95.0|-0.44|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|-0.44|0.516
91855057|NCT00174382|183593947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.297||95.0|-0.97|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.97|0.297
91855058|NCT00174382|183593947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
91855059|NCT00174382|183593948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.02||95.0|0.13|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|0.13|0.020
91659939|NCT01073657|183214637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.9||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|38.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||38|14|0.0059
91659940|NCT00854100|183214638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-2.4|0.746
91659941|NCT00854100|183214638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-4.8|0.227
91659942|NCT00854100|183214639|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.918
91659943|NCT00854100|183214639|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.167
91659944|NCT02242201|183214647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
91659945|NCT02242201|183214647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.662
91659946|NCT02242201|183214647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.103
91659947|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative||||0.948
91855060|NCT00174382|183593948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.018||95.0|0.16|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.59|0.16|0.018
91855061|NCT00174382|183593948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91855062|NCT00174382|183593949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.01||95.0|-1.93|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-1.93|0.010
91659948|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative||||0.880
91659949|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative||||0.802
91659950|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intraoperative||||0.179
91659951|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intraoperative||||0.837
91659952|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intraoperative||||0.142
91659953|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU||||0.010
91659954|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU||||0.516
91659955|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU||||0.052
91659956|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 0 post PACU||||0.840
91659957|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.744|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 0 post PACU||||0.744
91659958|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 0 post PACU||||0.501
91855063|NCT00174382|183593949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.018||95.0|-2.05|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-2.05|0.018
91855064|NCT00174382|183593949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91855065|NCT00174382|183593950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.182||95.0|-2.06|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-2.06|0.182
91855066|NCT00174382|183593950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.114||95.0|-2.44|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-2.44|0.114
91855067|NCT00174382|183593950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
91864031|NCT03806790|183616905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|14.97|||Fisher Exact|||End of Week 2 (FAS)||14.97|1.57|0.003
91659959|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 1||||0.358
91659960|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 1||||0.536
91659961|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 1||||0.110
91659962|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 2||||0.313
91659963|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 2||||0.893
91659964|NCT02242201|183214648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 2||||0.232
91659965|NCT02242201|183214649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.772
91659966|NCT02242201|183214650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline||||0.251
91659967|NCT02242201|183214650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Cox|||3 month follow-up||||0.300
91659968|NCT02242201|183214650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.113
91659969|NCT02242201|183214650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.147
91864032|NCT03806790|183616906|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.59|||ANOVA|||FAS||-0.59|-1.64|<0.001
91659970|NCT02242201|183214650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.216
91659971|NCT02242201|183214650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.968
91659972|NCT02242201|183214651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest||||0.776
91659973|NCT02242201|183214651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain with movement||||0.447
91659974|NCT02242201|183214652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.986
91659975|NCT02242201|183214652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||<0.001
91855068|NCT01943799|183593955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.059|||MMRM|||Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg (log10 IU/mL) titers in the respective GS-4774 group was not equal to that of the OAV group. Estimated least squares means (LSM) of treatment effects and estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the OAV group at Week 24 were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and unadjusted p-values.||0.059|-0.061|0.976
91659976|NCT02242201|183214652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||<0.001
91864033|NCT01236781|183616942|EQUIVALENCE|no margin is assumed.||||||0.46||||||1 degree of freedom;|McNemar|Exact test||"To account for the paired nature of the design, McNemar's test will be used to compare the call-back rates.~H0: assumes no difference between the tests (modalities)"||||0.46
91659977|NCT02242201|183214652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||<0.001
91659978|NCT02242201|183214653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.898
91659979|NCT02242201|183214653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.112
91659980|NCT02242201|183214653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.046
91659981|NCT02242201|183214653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.026
91659982|NCT02242201|183214654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||Fisher Exact|||Operative extremity neurologic changes||||0.843
91659983|NCT02242201|183214654|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Wound infection||||1.00
91659984|NCT02242201|183214654|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fall requiring medical attention||||1.00
91659985|NCT02242201|183214655|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain at rest||||1.00
91659986|NCT02242201|183214655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain with movement||||0.167
91659987|NCT01379664|183214667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.06||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.16|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.16|0.97|0.24
91659988|NCT01379664|183214668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.19|||Generalized estimating equation model|Generalized estimating equation model weighted by inverse propensity score||||0.19|-0.23|0.87
91659989|NCT01379664|183214669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.3|||Generalized estimating equation model|Generalized estimating equation model weighted by propensity score||||3.3|-4.7|0.74
91659990|NCT02298322|183214671|OTHER||sucess proportion|91.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|95.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||95.1|86.2|<0.0001
91855069|NCT01943799|183593955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.007||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.053|||MMRM|||Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg (log10 IU/mL) titers in the respective GS-4774 group was not equal to that of the OAV group. Estimated least squares means (LSM) of treatment effects and estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the OAV group at Week 24 were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and unadjusted p-values.||0.053|-0.067|0.828
91855070|NCT01943799|183593955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.029||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.031|||MMRM|||Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg (log10 IU/mL) titers in the respective GS-4774 group was not equal to that of the OAV group. Estimated least squares means (LSM) of treatment effects and estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the OAV group at Week 24 were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and unadjusted p-values.||0.031|-0.089|0.343
91855071|NCT03811574|183593966|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-7.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|-5.43|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-5.43|-9.62|<.0001
91855072|NCT03811574|183593966|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-11.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.88|-9.24|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-9.24|-12.88|<.0001
91855073|NCT03811574|183593967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.53|22.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||22.22|5.53|<.0001
91855074|NCT03811574|183593967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.27|41.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||41.86|11.27|<.0001
91855075|NCT06243796|183594042|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
91855076|NCT06243796|183594043|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91855077|NCT01395758|183594091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5017|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5017
91659991|NCT03880266|183214683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|0.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.60|-3.76|0.244
91659992|NCT03880266|183214683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|3.43|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.43|-0.65|0.168
91659993|NCT03880266|183214683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.72|-2.39|0.699
91659994|NCT03880266|183214683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.02|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.02|-1.94|0.833
91659995|NCT03880266|183214684|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91659996|NCT03880266|183214684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.589
91659997|NCT03880266|183214684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.154
91659998|NCT03880266|183214684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.646
91659999|NCT03880266|183214685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-206.5||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-451.9|38.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||38.9|-451.9|0.093
91660000|NCT03880266|183214685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|144.1||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.6|366.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||366.7|-78.6|0.186
91660001|NCT03880266|183214685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-151.7||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-309.0|5.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.7|-309.0|0.058
91660002|NCT03880266|183214685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|160.6||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-611.2|290.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||290.1|-611.2|0.186
91660003|NCT03880266|183214686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.62||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.42|11.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.17|-78.42|0.130
91660004|NCT03880266|183214686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.26||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.62|103.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||103.13|-54.62|0.518
91660005|NCT03880266|183214686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.14||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.32|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.03|-78.32|0.061
91660006|NCT03880266|183214686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.34||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.4|49.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||||49.72|-128.40|0.366
91660007|NCT03880266|183214687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
91660008|NCT03880266|183214687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.560
91660009|NCT03880266|183214687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
91660010|NCT03880266|183214687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.290
91660011|NCT05472038|183214715|SUPERIORITY|Superiority based on GMR was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 1.|Model-Based GMR|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|3.44||||||||3.44|2.45|
91660012|NCT05472038|183214716|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on seroresponse was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of participants with seroresponse is \>-5%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|26.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.59|33.95|||||Adjusted difference and 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by baseline NT category (\< median,\>= median) for difference in proportions. The median of baseline NT was calculated based on pooled data in 2 comparator groups.|||33.95|19.59|
91660013|NCT05472038|183214717|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on the GMR was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion) and the point estimate of the GMR was \>=0.8.|Model-Based GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means and corresponding CIs based on the regression model included terms for baseline neutralizing titer and comparison group.|||1.16|0.83|
91660014|NCT05472038|183214718|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on seroresponse was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of participants with seroresponse is \>-10%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|-3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|3.63|||||2-Sided CI based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by baseline NT category(\< median,\>= median)for difference in percentage(seroresponse rate).Median of baseline neutralizing titers was calculated based on pooled data in 2 comparator groups.|||3.63|-9.68|
91660015|NCT05472038|183214723|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on the GMR was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion) and the point estimate of the GMR was \>=0.8.|Model-Based GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.56|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means and corresponding CIs based on the regression model included terms for baseline neutralizing titer and comparison group.|||1.56|1.22|
91713412|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.16||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of cDC cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.16
91660016|NCT03785548|183214740|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.241|7.944|||ANCOVA|F(1, 140)=1.225||||7.944|-2.241|0.270
91660017|NCT03785548|183214741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.098||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.983|6.266|||ANCOVA|F(1, 140)=0.002||||6.266|-5.983|0.964
91855078|NCT01395758|183594092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4356|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4356
91855079|NCT03631550|183594105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.018
91855080|NCT03631550|183594106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0466|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0466
91855081|NCT03631550|183594107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0677|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0677
91855082|NCT03631550|183594108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91855083|NCT03631550|183594109|OTHER|||||||0.0968|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0968
91855084|NCT03631550|183594110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0121
91855085|NCT04515641|183594117|OTHER||GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.96|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|0.96|0.58|
91855086|NCT04515641|183594118|OTHER||GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.98|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|0.98|0.58|
91855087|NCT04515641|183594119|OTHER||GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.14|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.14|0.38|
91855088|NCT04515641|183594126|OTHER||GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.0|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.00|0.57|
91855089|NCT04515641|183594127|OTHER||GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.03|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.03|0.58|
91855090|NCT04515641|183594128|OTHER||GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.46|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.46|0.63|
91855091|NCT04515641|183594129|OTHER||GMR|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.71|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.71|0.65|
91855092|NCT04515641|183594130|OTHER||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.26|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.26|0.59|
91855093|NCT04515641|183594131|OTHER||GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.01|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.01|0.42|
91855094|NCT01415349|183594136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.966|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|0.966|
91855095|NCT01415349|183594137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.998|
91855096|NCT02918071|183594164|OTHER||percentage|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.63|99.46|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients successfully administered benralizumab with an AI at home (Week 12)|||99.46|92.63|
91855097|NCT02918071|183594164|OTHER||Percentage|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.41|99.05|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an AI at home (Week 16)|||99.05|91.41|
91660018|NCT01993030|183214742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|Fisher Exact|||"Two-sided Fisher's exact test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Number of Participants with Growth of Granulation Tissue between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.~This Statistical Analysis applies to the Participants with healthy granulation tissue and the Participants with unhealthy granulation tissue category."||||0.49
91855098|NCT02918071|183594164|OTHER||Percentage|93.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.86|96.98|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 and 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an AI at home (Week 12 and 16)|||96.98|86.86|
91855099|NCT02918071|183594165|OTHER||Percentage|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.69|99.47|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients returned functional AI administered at home (Week 12)|||99.47|92.69|
91855100|NCT02918071|183594165|OTHER||Percentage|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.48|99.06|||Clopper Pearson Exact CI|One sample confidence interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients returned functional AI administered at home (Week 16)|||99.06|91.48|
91722446|NCT04044690|183337605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.335347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.766||Descriptive p-value.|Regression, Logistic|Exact logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, region (Japan vs. non-Japan) and Baseline MMT-8 (≤ 142 points vs. \>142 points).|Rubin's rule for combination applied following MI.|||2.766|0.520|0.335347
91855101|NCT02918071|183594166|OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0)|Percentage of mulfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0)|||3.00|0.00|
91855102|NCT02918071|183594166|OTHER||Percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.52|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 4)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 4)|||4.52|0.02|
91855103|NCT02918071|183594166|OTHER||Percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.59|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 8)|||4.59|0.02|
91855104|NCT02918071|183594166|OTHER||Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|7.31|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12)|||7.31|0.53|
91855105|NCT02918071|183594166|OTHER||Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|8.52|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 16)|||8.52|0.94|
91855106|NCT02918071|183594166|OTHER||Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.99|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 8)|||1.99|0.07|
91855107|NCT02918071|183594166|OTHER||Percentage|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|6.07|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12 to 16)|||6.07|1.21|
91855108|NCT02918071|183594166|OTHER||Percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.85|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 16)|||2.85|0.69|
91855109|NCT06336629|183594239|SUPERIORITY||two-sided|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91855110|NCT06336629|183594240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91855111|NCT06336629|183594241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.007
91855112|NCT06336629|183594242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.009
91901561|NCT01699789|183697861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.41||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition||1.41|0.69|
91722447|NCT01932606|183337700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91855113|NCT06336629|183594243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||P-value from Baseline at Week 16|Wilcoxon signed rank|P-value from Baseline at Week 16||||||0.037
91855114|NCT06336629|183594245|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value from Baseline at Week 16|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||1
91855115|NCT06336629|183594246|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value from Baseline at Week 16|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||1
91855116|NCT04043455|183594255|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407|=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented.||0.62|-0.99|=0.650
91855117|NCT04043455|183594255|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409|=|0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.49|-1.12|=0.439
91660019|NCT01993030|183214743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|Fisher Exact|||"Two-sided Fisher's exact test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Number of Participants with Inflammatory Reaction between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.~This Statistical Analysis applies to the Participants with Inflammatory Reaction and the Participants without Inflammatory Reaction category."||||0.36
91722448|NCT01932606|183337701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in right atrial pressure.||||0.0003
91660020|NCT01993030|183214744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided t-test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the VAS score between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.||||0.11
91855118|NCT04043455|183594255|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401|=|0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.24|-1.34|=0.172
91722449|NCT01932606|183337701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in pulmonary artery systolic pressure.||||0.01
91855119|NCT04043455|183594262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.156||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|2.331|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using Odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.331|-0.019|0.659
91855120|NCT04043455|183594262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.248||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.535|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using Odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.535|-0.040|0.557
91855121|NCT04043455|183594262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.245||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|2.462|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using Odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.462|0.027|0.541
91855122|NCT04043455|183594263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.234||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|2.468|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using Odd's ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.468|-0.001|0.529
91660021|NCT01993030|183214745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|Fisher Exact|||"Two-sided Fisher's exact test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Number of Participants with Exudation between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.~This Statistical Analysis applies to No exudation and Little exudation category."||||0.11
91713413|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0457||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all pDC cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0457
91713414|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of pDC cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
91855123|NCT04043455|183594263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|2.232|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using Odd's ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.232|0.015|0.730
91855124|NCT04043455|183594263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.226||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|2.428|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using Odd's ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.428|0.025|0.548
91864034|NCT01236781|183616945|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin||||||0.2188||||||Due to the paired nature of the data an exact McNemar's Test is used|McNemar|Exact test||H0: no difference between the 2 modalities||||0.2188
91864035|NCT04028284|183616963|OTHER|Two-sided inferential test||||||0.02||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni correction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.05 for the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91864036|NCT04028284|183616964|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91864037|NCT04028284|183616965|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.01||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91855125|NCT04043455|183594264|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.189||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|9.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||9.76|-14.61|0.696
91855126|NCT04043455|183594264|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.222||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||9.00|-15.51|0.602
91855127|NCT04043455|183594264|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.088||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|8.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||8.03|-15.95|0.516
91855128|NCT04043455|183594265|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.68|-0.53|0.804
91713415|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.55||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of pDC cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.55
91855129|NCT04043455|183594265|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.45|-0.76|0.618
91855130|NCT04043455|183594265|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.71|-0.47|0.687
91855131|NCT03422276|183594269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t-test for independent samples, two-tailed, allocation ratio=1|Intervention mean minus control mean|It was calculated that 500 to 900 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two arms would have practically 100% power to detect an effect size of 0.5, and even a small sample size of 300 would have 80% power to detect a small effect size of 0.3 (800 to 900 would be 100% power).||||0.44
91855132|NCT03422276|183594270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91713416|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of pDC cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
91713417|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7114||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all MDSC cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7114
91855133|NCT04922021|183594283|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided hypotheses were tested based on the pre-specified primary analysis for the primary estimand. The primary estimand used a hypothetical strategy evaluating the treatment difference as if all subjects adhered to the treatment regimen, i.e. they did not discontinue IMP permanently, did not initiate rescue treatment, or did not have more than one missed treatment dose related to COVID-19.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-4.1||The type I error rate of the two-sided hypothesis test was controlled at the 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in EASI = Treatment + Region + Baseline EASI. Missing values and data 'treated as missing' were imputed using MI assuming MAR.|Estimates of difference in LS-means and associated standard errors from the analyses were combined using Rubin's rule to provide the overall pooled estimate and associated standard error. LS-means was estimated using the observed margins for the FAS.|||-4.1|-19.6|0.003
91855134|NCT04201834|183594306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.27
91713418|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of MDSC cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91855135|NCT04201834|183594307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.92
91660022|NCT01993030|183214746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided t-test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Time to Wound Healing between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.||||0.02
91855136|NCT04201834|183594308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.36
91855137|NCT04201834|183594309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.62
91855138|NCT04201834|183594312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.11
91660023|NCT01832259|183214750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.345
91660024|NCT01832259|183214752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.46
91660025|NCT02996591|183214775|OTHER||generalized estimating equations method|45.0||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.038
91660026|NCT02996591|183214775|OTHER|Bang blinding index|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang Blinding Index|95% confidence interval||||||<.001
91660027|NCT01980771|183214803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.43|1.03|0.04
91660028|NCT03450057|183214806|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
91660029|NCT03450057|183214807|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
91713419|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of MDSC cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.38
91660030|NCT03450057|183214808|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
91660031|NCT03450057|183214809|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and one-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
91660032|NCT03450057|183214810|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and one-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
91855139|NCT04201834|183594313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.02
91855140|NCT04201834|183594315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.86
91855141|NCT04201834|183594316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.27
91855142|NCT04201834|183594317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.61
91660033|NCT03450057|183214811|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and one-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
91660034|NCT00829790|183214823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|114.49||||||90.0|109.25|119.98|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||119.98|109.25|
91660035|NCT00829790|183214824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|117.16||||||90.0|110.44|124.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||124.28|110.44|
91855143|NCT04201834|183594318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.37
91855144|NCT04201834|183594319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.30
91855145|NCT04201834|183594320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.82
91855146|NCT01998984|183594333|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.97||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.74||P-value was adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR (relative risk) of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|"Treatment comparison based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.~Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel logit estimators were used for comparisons with vehicle due to absence of cleared participant in the vehicle group."||14.74|0.60|0.18
91864038|NCT04028284|183616966|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.03||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91864039|NCT04028284|183616967|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
91864040|NCT04028284|183616968|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91864041|NCT04028284|183616969|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91660036|NCT00829790|183214825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|116.7||||||90.0|109.89|123.92|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.92|109.89|
91855147|NCT01998984|183594333|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|3.51||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|12.41||P-value was adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR (relative risk) of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|"Treatment comparison based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.~Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel logit estimators were used for comparisons with vehicle due to absence of cleared subject in the vehicle group.~Type I error not controlled."||12.41|1.00|0.051
91864042|NCT05098158|183617056|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||<0.001
91660037|NCT02865850|183214842|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.1||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||-0.10|-0.53|
91660038|NCT02865850|183214843|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.30 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||=|0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.761|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||1.761|0.536|=0.9950
91660039|NCT02865850|183214843|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.113|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 355 and 377 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 46.14 (24.71, 77.14) weeks versus 47.00 (22.43, 74.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.113|0.833|=0.4877
91660040|NCT02865850|183214844|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.19||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.19|-0.34|
91855148|NCT01998984|183594333|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.47||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.68||P-value was adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR (relative risk) of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|Mantel Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|"Treatment comparison based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.~Type I error not controlled. Mantel-Haenszel estimators were used."||1.68|0.13|0.25
91855149|NCT01998984|183594334|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted mean|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.51||P-value was from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|Negative binomial regression||Estimation parameter and confidence interval were from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|||0.51|0.32|<0.001
91855150|NCT01998984|183594334|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted mean|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.45||P-value was from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|Negative binomial regression||Estimation parameter and confidence interval were from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|||0.45|0.29|<0.001
91855151|NCT01998984|183594334|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted mean|0.89||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.14||P-value was from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|Negative binomial regression||Estimation parameter and confidence interval were from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|||1.14|0.70|0.36
91855152|NCT01998984|183594335|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|32.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|236.8||P value adjusted for analysis site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site and were Mantel-Haenszel estimators. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|The treatment comparison was based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.||236.8|4.39|<0.001
91855153|NCT01998984|183594335|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|25.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|187.4||Adjusted for analysis site. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site and were Mantel-Haenszel estimators. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|The treatment comparison was based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.||187.4|3.39|0.002
91855154|NCT01998984|183594335|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.65||Adjusted for analysis site. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to 2-day group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site and were Mantel-Haenszel estimators. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|The treatment comparison was based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.||1.65|0.86|0.28
91855155|NCT02652260|183594336|OTHER|The Immediate Switch group will be considered statistically significantly smaller than the Delayed Switch group if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference is less than 0.|Estimated Difference|4.65||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|24.85|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|24.85|-15.92|0.331
91855156|NCT02652260|183594337|OTHER|The Immediate Switch group will be considered statistically significantly smaller than the Delayed Switch group if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference is less than 0.|Estimated Difference|-18.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|2.51||||||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% CI was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|2.51|-38.14|
91855157|NCT02652260|183594338|OTHER||Estimated Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.5||||||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% CI was based on a t-distribution.|6.5|-10.5|
91855158|NCT02652260|183594339|OTHER||Estimated Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.3||||||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% CI was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|11.3|-4.1|
91855159|NCT02652260|183594340|OTHER|The 95% CI was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|Difference in Percentage|-38.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-23.8||||||Change from time of switch to 24 weeks post-switch: Treatment difference in percent response|Week 24 Post-switch minus Time of switch|-23.8|-51.2|
91855160|NCT02652260|183594341|OTHER|The 95% CI was based on a t-distribution.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-10.1||||||Change from time of switch to 24 weeks post-switch: Treatment difference in score|Week 24 Post-switch minus Time of switch|-10.1|-16.8|
91855161|NCT02652260|183594342|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-9.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.69|-2.35||||||Difference Estimate: LDL Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-2.35|-15.69|
91855162|NCT02652260|183594342|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-13.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.79|-6.35||||||Difference Estimate: Non-HDL Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-6.35|-20.79|
91855163|NCT02652260|183594342|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-21.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.63|-13.21||||||Difference Estimate: Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-13.21|-29.63|
91855164|NCT02652260|183594342|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-8.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|-4.6||||||Difference Estimate: HDL Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-4.60|-11.76|
91855165|NCT02652260|183594342|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.52|-5.84||||||Difference Estimate: Triglyceride|ISG minus DSG|-5.84|-38.52|
91855166|NCT05857644|183594394|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.94|139.59|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||139.59|50.94|
91855167|NCT05857644|183594394|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.91|150.45|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||150.45|54.91|
91855168|NCT05857644|183594394|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|157.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.81|291.49|||||Severe Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||291.49|84.81|
91855169|NCT05857644|183594395|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|82.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.24|137.11|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||137.11|49.24|
91855170|NCT05857644|183594395|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|130.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.4|218.3|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||218.30|78.40|
91660041|NCT02865850|183214845|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|1.743|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||1.743|0.618|=0.8871
91855171|NCT05857644|183594395|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|385.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|205.92|721.77|||||Severe Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||721.77|205.92|
91855172|NCT05857644|183594396|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|82.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.53|136.28|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||136.28|50.53|
91660042|NCT02865850|183214845|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.096|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic event Excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 420 and 449 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.07 (21.50, 71.14) weeks versus 45.29 (22.29, 72.43) weeks, respectively.||1.096|0.840|=0.4096
91660043|NCT02865850|183214846|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||=|0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.771|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||2.771|0.670|=0.5210
91660044|NCT02865850|183214846|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.144|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 225 and 242 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.29 (21.71, 77.14) weeks versus 45.79 (21.14, 73.86) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.144|0.795|=0.5007
91855173|NCT05857644|183594396|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|131.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.09|215.99|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||215.99|80.09|
91660045|NCT02865850|183214847|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||=|0.9527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|2.666|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||2.666|0.452|=0.9527
91855174|NCT05857644|183594396|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|392.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|213.57|719.85|||||Severe Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||719.85|213.57|
91855175|NCT01631214|183594501|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoints were tested at the 5% level (2-sided), accounting for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. If the larger of the 2 p-values was significant at the 0.05 level (2-sided), the statistical testing continued to the secondary endpoint in the testing sequence.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.64|0.36|<0.001
91855176|NCT01631214|183594501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.66|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.66|0.38|
91660046|NCT02865850|183214847|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.195|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 150 and 160 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.71 (27.43, 77.14) weeks versus 49.29 (24.43, 74.07) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.195|0.766|=0.6284
91855177|NCT01631214|183594501|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.57||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||5.57|2.50|
91660047|NCT02865850|183214848|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.555|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||1.555|0.388|=0.5115
91660048|NCT02865850|183214848|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.4878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.118|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 291 and 310 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.00 (29.71, 79.00) weeks versus 49.57 (25.86, 77.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.118|0.812|=0.4878
91660049|NCT00552669|183214859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||We used One way annalysis of a variance for means and standard deviation.||||<0.05
91660050|NCT00552669|183214860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Based on our previous data the incidence of relevant clinical events was similar in both groups (ERACI III and ORAR II)||||0.05
91855178|NCT01631214|183594502|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoints were tested at the 5% level (2-sided), accounting for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. If the larger of the 2 p-values was significant at the 0.05 level (2-sided), the statistical testing continued to the secondary endpoint in the testing sequence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)|||0.88|0.61|<0.001
91660051|NCT00552669|183214861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"power calculation 80% Hypothesis: No significant diferences between Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR) between both groups.~All events will be recorded and an independent blind for groups clinical events committee will adjudicate each one."||||<0.05
91660052|NCT00252720|183214870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.8487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.312|||Log Rank|Generalized||||1.312|0.800|0.8487
91660053|NCT00102440|183214876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 80 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|32.0||||||97.5|23.1|41.3||||||||41.3|23.1|
91722450|NCT01932606|183337701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in mean pulmonary artery pressure.||||0.002
91855179|NCT01631214|183594503|SUPERIORITY|If the 2 primary endpoints and the specified BMD secondary endpoints were all significant, the nonvertebral fracture at the primary analysis was evaluated based on a 1-sided test (overall α=0.025) determined by the Lan-DeMets alpha spending function that approximates a Pocock boundary, 0.0233 (1-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99||The adjusted 2-sided p-value is reported.|Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.99|0.66|0.040
91855180|NCT01631214|183594504|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.76|0.56|<0.001
91855181|NCT01631214|183594505|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.64|0.37|<0.001
91855182|NCT01631214|183594505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.66|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.66|0.40|
91855183|NCT01631214|183594505|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.08||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||6.08|2.80|
91855184|NCT01631214|183594506|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.90|0.59|0.004
91855185|NCT01631214|183594507|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.92|0.42|0.015
91855186|NCT01631214|183594508|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.85|0.31|0.008
91901562|NCT01699789|183697862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.46||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.46|0.70|
91901563|NCT01699789|183697863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=298), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||4.94|1.40|<.01
91722451|NCT01932606|183337701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the 2 arms for change in PCWP.||||<0.0001
91855187|NCT01631214|183594508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.85|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.85|0.32|
91660054|NCT00102440|183214876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 120 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|41.0||||||97.5|31.5|49.5||||||||49.5|31.5|
91855188|NCT01631214|183594508|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.1||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||2.10|0.33|
91855189|NCT01631214|183594509|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.91|0.59|0.005
91855190|NCT01631214|183594510|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.02|0.64|0.074
91855191|NCT01631214|183594511|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.15|0.46|0.17
91855192|NCT01631214|183594512|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.71|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.71|0.24|<0.001
91855193|NCT01631214|183594513|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.96|0.54|0.027
91660055|NCT00102440|183214876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91660056|NCT00102440|183214876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91660057|NCT00102440|183214876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.072
91660058|NCT00102440|183214877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91660059|NCT00102440|183214877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91660060|NCT00102440|183214877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
91660061|NCT00102440|183214878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91855194|NCT01631214|183594514|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.89|0.44|0.008
91855195|NCT01631214|183594514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.89|0.46|
91855196|NCT01631214|183594514|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.17||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||3.17|0.51|
91855197|NCT01631214|183594515|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.88|0.57|0.002
91855198|NCT01631214|183594516|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.01|0.54|0.057
91855199|NCT01631214|183594517|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.26|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.26|0.33|0.19
91660062|NCT00102440|183214878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91660063|NCT00102440|183214878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.883
91660064|NCT00102440|183214879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91660065|NCT00102440|183214879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91660066|NCT00102440|183214879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.164
91660067|NCT00102440|183214880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91660068|NCT00102440|183214880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91864043|NCT05098158|183617057|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.003
91660069|NCT00102440|183214880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91660070|NCT00102440|183214881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91660071|NCT00102440|183214881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91660072|NCT00102440|183214881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.006
91660073|NCT00102440|183214882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91660074|NCT00102440|183214882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91660075|NCT00102440|183214882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91660076|NCT00102440|183214883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
91660077|NCT00102440|183214883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
91660078|NCT00102440|183214883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
91660079|NCT00102440|183214884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.083
91722452|NCT01932606|183337702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91713420|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.91||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of MDSC cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.91
91713421|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2666||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all Treg cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2666
91855200|NCT01631214|183594518|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.01|0.52|0.053
91660080|NCT00102440|183214884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.164
91660081|NCT00102440|183214884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.619
91660082|NCT00102440|183214885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.080
91660083|NCT00102440|183214885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
91660084|NCT00102440|183214885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.246
91713422|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of Treg cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
91864044|NCT05098158|183617058|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.011
91660085|NCT00102440|183214886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.674
91660086|NCT00102440|183214886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.320
91660087|NCT00102440|183214886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.411
91660088|NCT00102440|183214887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.507
91660089|NCT00102440|183214887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
91660090|NCT00102440|183214887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.362
91660091|NCT00102440|183214888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.657
91660092|NCT00102440|183214888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.444
91660093|NCT00102440|183214888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.719
91660094|NCT00102440|183214889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91660095|NCT00102440|183214889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.229
91660096|NCT00102440|183214889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.266
91660097|NCT04627038|183214890|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.67|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.67|-0.51|
91660098|NCT04627038|183214891|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.96|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.96|-0.07|
91660099|NCT04627038|183214892|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.72|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.72|-0.24|
91660100|NCT04627038|183214893|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.2|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||7.20|0.39|
91713423|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.45||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of Treg cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.45
91713424|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.36||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of Treg cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.36
91660101|NCT04627038|183214894|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.28|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.28|-0.48|
91855201|NCT01631214|183594519|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.22|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.22|0.26|0.14
91660102|NCT04627038|183214895|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.95|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.95|-0.32|
91660103|NCT04627038|183214896|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|13.56|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||13.56|-1.05|
91660104|NCT04627038|183214897|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.46|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.46|-0.14|
91660105|NCT04627038|183214898|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.74|165.52|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||165.52|-166.74|
91660106|NCT04627038|183214899|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.06|-0.09|
91855202|NCT01631214|183594520|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.58|8.57|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||8.57|7.58|<0.001
91660107|NCT00473330|183214950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|34.8||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||34.8|13.8|<0.0001
91660108|NCT00473330|183214950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|20.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|31.1||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||31.1|10.7|0.0002
91660109|NCT00473330|183214951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|13.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||13.0|6.1|<0.0001
91660110|NCT00473330|183214951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|12.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||12.6|6.2|<0.0001
91864045|NCT05098158|183617059|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.168
91691904|NCT00380874|183278450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4301||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 4. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.4301
91864046|NCT05098158|183617060|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.456
91864047|NCT05098158|183617061|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.517
91660111|NCT00473330|183214952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|35.4||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||35.4|13.4|<0.0001
91713425|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0076||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 EM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0076
91864048|NCT05098158|183617062|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.012
91855203|NCT01631214|183594521|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|4.1|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||4.10|3.42|<0.001
91855204|NCT01631214|183594522|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.14|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||4.14|3.40|<0.001
91855205|NCT01631214|183594523|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.31|9.09|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||9.09|8.31|<0.001
91855206|NCT01631214|183594524|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||3.60|3.03|<0.001
91855207|NCT01631214|183594525|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|3.54|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||3.54|2.90|<0.001
91864049|NCT05098158|183617063|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.811
91713426|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.38
91713427|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.22||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.22
91855208|NCT01631214|183594526|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|LS Mean Difference|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.84|7.89|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||7.89|6.84|<0.001
91713428|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.1||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.10
91713429|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7144||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 CM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7144
91691905|NCT00380874|183278450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3125||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 5. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.3125
91855209|NCT01631214|183594527|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|4.02|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||4.02|3.29|<0.001
91855210|NCT01631214|183594528|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|LS Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|3.97|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||3.97|3.18|<0.001
91855211|NCT01622868|183594541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||The study was designed to see if there is a signal in the 12-week CR rate with the addition of lapatinib to warrant a future phase III trial. Null hypothesis: the 12-week post-WBRT/SRS CR rate is ≤ 5%; alternative hypothesis: the addition of lapatinib will increase that CR rate to at least 20%. 114 eligible participants provide 86% power to detect a 15% absolute increase in CR rate at a significance level of 0.10, using a 1-sided Z-test for the difference of 2 proportions.||||0.97
91855212|NCT01622868|183594542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||||||0.78
91855213|NCT01622868|183594543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||4 weeks post-RT||||0.78
91855214|NCT01622868|183594543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||12 weeks post-RT||||0.97
91722453|NCT01932606|183337703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in systolic blood pressure.||||0.11
91855215|NCT01622868|183594549|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|z-test|||||||1.00
91855216|NCT01622868|183594551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.36||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.62|0.67
91855217|NCT03112174|183594598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.85||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||0.850|0.465|0.0024
91855218|NCT03112174|183594604|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.658||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.218||Estimate and p-value for rate ratio are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for two randomization stratification factors: number of prior lines of therapy (1-2 vs \>=3) and TLS category (low risk vs increased risk) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For rate ratio, numerator is Ibrutinib + Venetoclax arm and denominator is Ibrutinib + Placebo arm.|||2.218|1.240|0.0004
91855219|NCT03112174|183594605|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.101||||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|1.247||Estimate and p-value for rate ratio are based on CMH test adjusted for two randomization stratification factors: number of prior lines of therapy (1-2 vs \>=3) and TLS category (low risk vs increased risk) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For rate ratio, numerator is Ibrutinib + Venetoclax arm and denominator is Ibrutinib + Placebo arm.|||1.247|0.973|0.1279
91855220|NCT03112174|183594606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2028|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bone marrow aspirate||||0.2028
91855221|NCT03112174|183594606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Fisher Exact|||Peripheral blood||||0.0014
91855222|NCT03112174|183594607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.151||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.151|0.602|0.2669
91855223|NCT03112174|183594609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|0.792||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.792|0.369|0.0013
91855224|NCT03112174|183594624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.554||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.554|0.879|0.2861
91855225|NCT04425629|183594630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-0.52|= 0.0006
91855226|NCT04425629|183594630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.56|< 0.0001
91855227|NCT04425629|183594631|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0024|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.0024
91855228|NCT04425629|183594632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.0001
91660112|NCT00473330|183214952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|36.3||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||36.3|14.0|<0.0001
91660113|NCT00473330|183214953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|8.2||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|14.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||14.1|2.4|0.0086
91660114|NCT00473330|183214953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|7.8||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|13.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||13.6|2.0|0.0126
91660115|NCT00473330|183214954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|15.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||15.1|4.3|0.0005
91660116|NCT00473330|183214954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|13.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||13.0|3.3|0.0011
91660117|NCT00473330|183214955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-107.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.2|-66.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-66.6|-149.2|<0.0001
91660118|NCT00473330|183214955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-119.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.6|-78.5||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-78.5|-159.6|<0.0001
91855229|NCT04425629|183594638|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.1903
91855230|NCT04425629|183594638|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8431|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.8431
91855231|NCT04425629|183594694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.12||||||||16.12|0.06|
91855232|NCT04425629|183594695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.13||||||||3.13|0.03|
91855233|NCT03628885|183594783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05|ANOVA|||||||<.02
91713430|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 CM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
91855234|NCT03628885|183594783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.07||||||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05|ANOVA|||||||=.07
91855235|NCT03628885|183594783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05|ANOVA|||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05||||<.01
91660119|NCT00473330|183214956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-3.0||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||0.7|-6.7|0.1590
91660120|NCT00473330|183214956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-2.5||||0.2721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.4||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||1.4|-6.5|0.2721
91660121|NCT00473330|183214957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|38.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||38.0|21.1|<0.0001
91713431|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 CM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.06
91864050|NCT05098158|183617064|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest dat||||0.941
91864051|NCT05098158|183617065|OTHER|Descriptive statistics to report the percentage of offered telehealth sessions that were attended \[#attended/#offered = % attended\]|percentage|95.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91660122|NCT00473330|183214957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|31.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||31.7|16.7|<0.0001
91660123|NCT00473330|183214958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-0.7|-1.4|<0.0001
91660124|NCT00473330|183214958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-0.7|-1.5|<0.0001
91660125|NCT00336479|183215019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.985||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.525|5.842|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, weight, race and baseline HCV RNA as factors||||5.842|1.525|0.0014
91660126|NCT00336479|183215019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.127|4.178|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.178|1.127|0.0204
91660127|NCT00336479|183215020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.586||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.331|5.025|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.025|1.331|0.0051
91660128|NCT00336479|183215020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.976||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|3.807|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.807|1.026|0.0418
91660129|NCT01265056|183215032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91660130|NCT01265056|183215032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.04
91660131|NCT01265056|183215033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.8
91855236|NCT00106080|183594787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between groups after adjust|5.7||||0.03||||||No multiple comparisons, a priori threshold \< 0.05|GEE regression|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression, clustering for provider.||Power calculation: With 60 providers in each group, maintaining the probability of a type I error of 0.05, power of 0.90, provider level mean QOC score of 54.5 and provider level standard deviation in QOC score of 12.0, the minimal detectable difference in QOC score would be 7.5.||||0.03
91660132|NCT01265056|183215034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
91660133|NCT01416584|183215035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.83|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.83|0.40|0.60
91660134|NCT01416584|183215035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.73|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.73|0.32|0.88
91660135|NCT01416584|183215035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.46|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.46|0.36|0.64
91660136|NCT01416584|183215036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.41|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.41|0.38|0.02
91660137|NCT01416584|183215036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.57|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.57|0.34|0.39
91660138|NCT01416584|183215036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.26|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.26|1.53|0.10
91660139|NCT01416584|183215037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.38|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.38|0.36|0.02
91660140|NCT01416584|183215037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.41|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.41|0.38|0.02
91660141|NCT01416584|183215037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.66|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||5.66|0.20|0.85
91660142|NCT01416584|183215038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.35|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.35|0.34|0.01
91660143|NCT01416584|183215038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.44|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.44|0.39|0.03
91660144|NCT01416584|183215038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.69|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.69|0.42|0.63
91660145|NCT01416584|183215039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.4|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.40|0.39|0.01
91660146|NCT01416584|183215039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.55|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.55|0.36|0.37
91660147|NCT01416584|183215039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.0|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.00|0.28|0.05
91660148|NCT02612337|183215074|SUPERIORITY|The target sample size for each was 160 randomized subjects: 80 in each treatment group stratified by gender. The sample size estimate was chosen to achieve more than 90% power with a significance level of 0.05 2-sided to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment difference for the primary endpoint of DVD.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.907||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.339|||Regression, Linear|||The primary efficacy endpoint was compared between OTO-104 and placebo at the 2-tailed 0.05 alpha level using a generalized Poisson linear mixed model. The model included fixed effects for randomized treatment group, sex, study week, a treatment group by study week interaction, and the count of lead-in period DVD standardized to 28 days as a covariate.||1.339|0.615|0.623
91855237|NCT03074331|183594798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate was compared to the pre-specified performance goal of 85% by using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.009
91855238|NCT03283371|183594812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean logarithmic difference|-0.16||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis is based on MMRM and adjusted for natural log-transformed baseline seizure frequency, high seizure frequency category (\>=24 seizures and \<24 seizures), structural etiology category (yes and no), visit, treatment and treatment by visit interaction. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used in the model.||0.31|-0.62|0.5053
91855239|NCT03283371|183594813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.2231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Based on logistic regression with a term for treatment group and with adjustment for natural log-transformed baseline seizure frequency, high seizure frequency category (\>=24 seizures and \<24 seizures) and structural etiology category (yes and no).||6.85|0.64|0.2231
91855240|NCT03283371|183594816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Based on the logistic regression model with a term for treatment group and with adjustment for log-transformed baseline seizure frequency, high seizure frequency category (\>=24 seizures and \<24 seizures) and structural etiology category (yes and no) are considered as covariates.||4.57|0.10|0.6854
91855241|NCT01290341|183594820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||p-value|0.001|||<|0.025||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test statistic after stratification by site was used to compare subjects with complete cure between NAFT-600 and Placebo.||"In order to compare complete cure rate in the NAFT-600 group with that of the Placebo group, the following one-sided hypothesis test was carried out:~H0 (null): p1\<=p0 versus Ha (alternate): p1\>p0, where p0 and p1 are the proportions of subjects with complete cure in the placebo and NAFT-600 treatment groups respectively."||||<0.025
91855242|NCT02708108|183594840|OTHER|Multivariable analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.92||Reported as 1-sided p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Multivariable model includes age, BMI category, cytogenetic risk, ethnicity, sex|||0.92|0.09|0.02
91855243|NCT05113771|183594859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-1.3|||MMRM|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with imputation based on the missing at random (MAR) assumption was used.||||-1.3|-7.6|0.0056
91660149|NCT03616106|183215089|OTHER||Slope|-15.103||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.574|154.369||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||154.369|-184.574|0.859
91660150|NCT03616106|183215090|OTHER||Slope|28.243||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.694|73.179||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||73.179|-16.694|0.213
91660151|NCT03616106|183215091|OTHER||Slope|58.993||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.713|112.274||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||112.274|5.713|0.031
91855244|NCT05113771|183594860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0189|||||||MMRM|||||||0.0189
91660152|NCT03616106|183215092|OTHER||Slope|-0.0651||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.313|0.01||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Viral load variables were log transformed for regression analyses.||0.010|-1.313|0.053
91660153|NCT03616106|183215093|OTHER||Slope|-1.601||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.761|-0.442||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||-0.442|-2.761|0.008
91660154|NCT03616106|183215094|OTHER||Slope|-2.674||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.934|-1.415||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||-1.415|-3.934|0.000
91660155|NCT03616106|183215108|OTHER||Slope|2.172||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.448|2.895||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||2.895|1.448|0.000
91660156|NCT03616106|183215109|OTHER||Slope|2.872||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.643||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.643|2.100|0.000
91855245|NCT05113771|183594861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0026
91855246|NCT02574455|183594862|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.387|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.492||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, presence of known brain metastases at study entry, and region.|Log Rank|||||0.492|0.305|<0.0001
91855247|NCT02574455|183594863|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.517||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, presence of known brain metastases at study entry, and region.|Log Rank|||||0.517|0.330|<0.0001
91855248|NCT02574455|183594864|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.592||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||||0.592|0.390|<0.0001
91855249|NCT02574455|183594865|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.514|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.625||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||||0.625|0.422|<0.0001
91855250|NCT02574455|183594866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.859|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|21.095|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by IRC Assessment||21.095|5.590|<0.0001
91855251|NCT02574455|183594866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.363|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.063|13.341|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by Investigator Assessment||13.341|4.063|<0.0001
91855252|NCT02574455|183594869|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.407||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.107||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, and region.|Log Rank|||DOR by IRC Assessment||1.107|0.150|0.0683
91855253|NCT02574455|183594869|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.212|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.435||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, and region.|Log Rank|||DOR by Investigator Assessment||0.435|0.103|<0.0001
91855254|NCT02574455|183594870|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.317|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|0.404||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||TTP by Investigator Assessment||0.404|0.248|<0.0001
91855255|NCT02574455|183594871|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.406|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|0.525||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||TTP by IRC Assessment||0.525|0.315|<0.0001
91855256|NCT02574455|183594872|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.543|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.055|14.437|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by IRC Assessment||14.437|5.055|<0.0001
91855257|NCT02574455|183594872|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|12.364|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by Investigator Assessment||12.364|4.540|<0.0001
91855258|NCT05505045|183594907|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.05||||||||1.05|-.16|
91855259|NCT05505045|183594908|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.03||||||||1.03|-.19|
91855260|NCT05505045|183594909|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.93||||||||0.93|-.30|
91855261|NCT05505045|183594910|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-1.04|0.21||||||||0.21|-1.04|
91855262|NCT05505045|183594915|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.64||||||||.64|-.61|
91855263|NCT01643070|183594916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|6.501|||t-test, 1 sided|||||6.501|0.346|0.719
91855264|NCT02975505|183594922|SUPERIORITY||beta|11.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16|7.5|<0.05
91855265|NCT02975505|183594925|SUPERIORITY||beta|12.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16|8|0.05
91855266|NCT05540535|183594927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for a within-group comparison.||||||<0.05
91855267|NCT05540535|183594928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91855268|NCT05540535|183594929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for a within-group comparison.||||||<0.05
91855269|NCT05540535|183594930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91855270|NCT05540535|183594931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91855271|NCT05540535|183594932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91855272|NCT05540535|183594933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91855273|NCT02980276|183594943|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|1.4||The primary analysis, as per sample size calculation, was a two-sample comparison of reduction in the proportion of women needing insulin between treatment and control arms using an exact test for a binomial response.|Risk difference||Units are %|The primary analysis, as per sample size calculation, was a two-sample comparison of reduction in the proportion of women needing insulin between treatment and control arms using an exact test for a binomial response.||1.4|-15.1|0.13
91855274|NCT02980276|183594944|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-4.3|||Risk difference||Units are %|||-4.3|-21.2|0.004
91855275|NCT02980276|183594945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Median survival times could not be calculated; time to insulin initiation would be censored at delivery in \>50% of participants in treatment group.||||||0.001
91855276|NCT02980276|183594946|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio, log|0.61||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||0.86|0.43|0.005
91855277|NCT02980276|183594946|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||0.82|0.38|0.003
91855278|NCT02980276|183594947|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||Unadjusted|||1.12|0.55|0.178
91855279|NCT02980276|183594947|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.07||Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted|||1.07|0.48|0.105
91855280|NCT02980276|183594948|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-9.3|0.17
91660157|NCT03616106|183215110|OTHER||Slope|3.166||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.487|3.846||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.846|2.487|0.000
91660158|NCT03616106|183215111|OTHER||Z Score|3.25||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. Please see statistical analysis plan for further details.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0011
91855281|NCT02980276|183594949|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference ratio to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.42|-1.99|0.003
91660159|NCT03616106|183215112|OTHER||Z score|3.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. Please see statistical analysis plan for further details.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0001
91660160|NCT03616106|183215113|OTHER||Z score|4.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. Please see statistical analysis plan for further details.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.000
91660161|NCT03616106|183215114|OTHER||Slope|1.935||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.055|2.815||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The p-value threshold for statistical significance was, therefore, 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||2.815|1.055|0.000
91722454|NCT01932606|183337703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in mean blood pressure.||||0.2
91855282|NCT02980276|183594950|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.65|0.99
91855283|NCT02980276|183594951|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2|0.46|0.911
91855284|NCT02980276|183594952|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.51|0.44|0.519
91660162|NCT03616106|183215115|OTHER||Slope|2.123||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.184|3.062||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison, therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.062|1.184|0.000
91660163|NCT03616106|183215116|OTHER||Slope|2.552||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.612|3.492||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison, therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.492|1.612|0.000
91660164|NCT03616106|183215117|OTHER||Z score|-1.57||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. For more details please see the statistical plan.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.1167
91855285|NCT02980276|183594953|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.3|0.66
91855286|NCT02980276|183594954|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||1.85|0.8|0.367
91855287|NCT02980276|183594954|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||1.87|0.8|0.359
91855288|NCT02980276|183594955|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|12.9|||Risk difference||Units are %|||12.9|-13.9|1.0
91855289|NCT02980276|183594956|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||1.39|0.56|0.603
91855290|NCT02980276|183594956|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||1.4|0.57|0.621
91855291|NCT02980276|183594957|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||1.76|0.45|0.739
91855292|NCT02980276|183594957|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||1.84|0.46|0.812
91855293|NCT02980276|183594958|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.04|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|Unadjusted||6.04|0.63|0.282
91660165|NCT03616106|183215118|OTHER||Z score|-2.91||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. For more details please see the statistical plan.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0036
91660166|NCT03616106|183215119|OTHER||Z score|-3.54||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. For more details please see the statistical plan.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0004
91660167|NCT02779543|183215127|EQUIVALENCE|this trial compared the 2 devices to the polysomnography, which is the gold standard|Mean value|368.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
91660168|NCT02779543|183215128|EQUIVALENCE|This trial compared those 2 devices with the gold standard (polysomnography)|Mean value|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
91660169|NCT02779543|183215129|EQUIVALENCE|This trial compared those 2 devices with the gold standard (polysomnography)|Mean value|106.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
91855294|NCT02980276|183594958|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.38|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted|||7.38|0.7|0.196
91855295|NCT02980276|183594959|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted||||1.01|0.27|0.058
91855296|NCT02980276|183594959|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted||||1.02|0.27|0.061
91855297|NCT02980276|183594960|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|2.5|||Risk difference||Units are %|||2.5|-11.6|0.24
91855298|NCT02980276|183594960|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.81||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||Units are %|||1.12|0.59|0.24
91855299|NCT02980276|183594961|EQUIVALENCE|Regression model that adjusts for the infant's sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-113.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-201.0|-24.0|||Regression, Linear|P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.||||-24|-201|0.005
91855300|NCT02980276|183594962|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.3|0.82
91855301|NCT02980276|183594963|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.02
91855302|NCT02980276|183594964|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.5|0.72
91855303|NCT02980276|183594965|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.1|0.68
91855304|NCT02980276|183594966|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.8|||Regression, Logistic|P value derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex, gestational age at birth, and maternal height and weight at randomization.|P value derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex, gestational age at birth, and maternal height and weight at randomization.|||-1.8|-12.6|0.02
91855305|NCT02980276|183594967|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-3.2|||Risk difference|P value derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex and maternal height and weight at randomization|Units are %|||-3.2|-13.7|0.003
91855306|NCT02980276|183594968|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.3|||Risk difference|Units are %. P value derived from model adjusting for the gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|Units are %. P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|||6.3|-1|.012
91855307|NCT02980276|183594969|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.5||Units are %. P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|Regression, Logistic||Units are %. P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|||6.5|-0.4|0.13
91855308|NCT02980276|183594970|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|9.0|||Risk difference||Units are %.|||9|-2.9|0.38
91855309|NCT02980276|183594971|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.3|||Risk difference||Units are %|||7.3|-2.0|0.33
91855310|NCT02980276|183594972|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.9|||Risk difference||Units are %|||6.9|-2.4|0.42
91855311|NCT02980276|183594973|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||Risk difference||Units are %.|||1.1|-0.4|>0.99
91855312|NCT02980276|183594974|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.2|||Risk difference||Units are %|||4.2|-1.9|0.62
91855313|NCT02980276|183594975|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Risk difference||Units are %|||1|-1|>0.99
91855314|NCT02980276|183594976|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.6|||Risk difference||Units are %|||6.6|-5.1|0.9
91855315|NCT01643616|183594991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|33.0|||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact||For success rate without supplementation the difference between group US (94.9%) and group NS (61.9%) is 33%.|For sample size calculation we assumed a significance level of 0.05 and a success rate derived from clinical data of 75% in the nerve stimulation group and of 90% in the ultrasound group. With a group ratio of 1:1 and a power of 0.8, the required sample size was at least 226. For statistical analysis we used the exact Fisher test as a distribution-free, non-parametric test method.||||< 0.05
91855316|NCT01643616|183594992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|31.1|||Log Rank|||We used the log-rank test to compare the onset times. The significance level was defined with p\<0.05.||31.1|13.6|< 0.05
91855317|NCT01643616|183594993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|26.2||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact||For success rate with supplementation the difference between group US (98.2%) and group NS (72%) is 26.2%.|For sample size calculation we assumed a significance level of 0.05 and a success rate derived from clinical data of 75% in the nerve stimulation group and of 90% in the ultrasound group. With a group ratio of 1:1 and a power of 0.8, the required sample size was at least 226. For statistical analysis we used the exact Fisher test as a distribution-free, non-parametric test method.||||0.05
91855318|NCT04512482|183594994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||A power analysis determined that a sample size of forty-five (45) subjects would possess 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.5 between the intervention and control legs of the crossover design. With 43 total subjects the study had between 85 and 90% power.||||.044
91855319|NCT05119855|183594995|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is reported for Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.61|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 6||1.61|0.92|
91855320|NCT05119855|183594995|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.75|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 11||1.75|1.01|
91855321|NCT05119855|183594995|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.82|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 16||1.82|1.02|
91855322|NCT05119855|183594995|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.7|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 18||1.70|0.92|
91855323|NCT05119855|183594995|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.61|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 31||1.61|0.91|
91855324|NCT05119855|183594995|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.77|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 33||1.77|0.98|
91855325|NCT05119855|183594995|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.93|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 45||1.93|1.01|
91855326|NCT05119855|183594995|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.87|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 52||1.87|1.13|
91855327|NCT05119855|183594995|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.58|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 58||1.58|0.91|
91855328|NCT05119855|183594996|OTHER|Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-SARS-CoV-2 concentrations and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMC Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.4|||||GMC Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio||1.40|0.99|
91855329|NCT05489484|183595028|OTHER|Paired-sample t-test was used to assess the change in Constant-Murley Score from baseline to 3 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.124||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|16.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean change from baseline in CMS at 3 months. Higher scores represent better shoulder function. Positive difference indicates clinical improvement.|Statistical analysis was performed on 23 participants with valid Constant-Murley Score (CMS) data at both baseline and 3-month follow-up.||16.00|3.63|0.001
91855330|NCT00444600|183595052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in mean change|-55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-32.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between two study eyes.||Difference in central subfield thickness mean change from sham+prompt laser||-32|-78|<0.001
91864052|NCT03257410|183617067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.501|19.156|||||Method=ANCOVA|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference between Theranova 400 and Elisio-17H is \> 0 then superiority will be demonstrated.||19.156|10.501|
91864053|NCT03257410|183617068|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the mean estimated treatment difference between Theranova 400 and Elisio 17H is \> -0.1765 g/dL then non-inferiority can be claimed. If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is \> 0, then superiority may be concluded.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.069|||ANCOVA|||||0.069|-0.098|
91864054|NCT03257410|183617069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91864055|NCT03257410|183617069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.115|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91864056|NCT03257410|183617070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91855331|NCT00444600|183595052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in mean change|-49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-26.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between two study eyes.||Difference in optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness mean change from sham+prompt laser||-26|-72|<0.001
91855332|NCT00444600|183595052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in mean change|-52.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|-29.0||Confidence interval is adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between two study eyes.||Difference in optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness mean change from sham+prompt laser||-29|-75|<0.001
91855333|NCT00444600|183595054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.5||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||||8.5|3.2|<0.001
91855334|NCT00444600|183595054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|8.6||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||||8.6|3.4|<0.001
91660170|NCT02779543|183215130|EQUIVALENCE|This trial compared those 2 devices with the gold standard (polysomnography)|Mean value|74.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
91855335|NCT00444600|183595054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||||3.7|-1.5|0.31
91660171|NCT00939003|183215145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91660172|NCT00939003|183215146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91660173|NCT00939003|183215147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91660174|NCT00939003|183215148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.001
91855336|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|34.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter improvement for sham+prompt laser at 1 year||34|13|
91855337|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|29.0||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons|Binomial regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||29|9|
91855338|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.0||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons|Binomial regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||16|-4|
91855339|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.42||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.42|1.40|<0.001
91855340|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.21||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.21|1.27|<0.001
91855341|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.66||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.|Eyes were analyzed.|Relative risk for ≥10 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||1.66|0.88|0.16
91855342|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-5.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-5|-16|
91855343|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-4|-16|
91855344|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|9.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||9|-7|
91855345|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.65||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.65|0.09|<0.001
91855346|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.24||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.68||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.68|0.08|0.001
91855347|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.87||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||1.87|0.62|0.75
91855348|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|26.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between to study eyes.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||26|6|
91855349|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|22.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||22|4|
91855350|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||15|-2|
91855351|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.22|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||3.22|1.35|<0.001
91855352|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.87||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.87|1.25|<0.001
91855353|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.29||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.29|0.90|0.07
91855354|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-2|-11|
91855355|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-1|-10|
91855356|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||6|-6|
91855357|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.87|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.87|0.05|0.009
91660175|NCT00939003|183215149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.014
91660176|NCT00939003|183215152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91660177|NCT00939003|183215153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.027
91660178|NCT00939003|183215154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||<0.001
91660179|NCT00939003|183215155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.003
91660180|NCT00939003|183215156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.001
91660181|NCT03707912|183215184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91660182|NCT03707912|183215185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91660183|NCT03707912|183215186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
91660184|NCT03707912|183215186|OTHER|Test for assessing the homogeneity of the odds ratio in several 2 × 2 contingency tables.||||||0.98|||||||Breslow-Day test|||||||0.98
91660185|NCT03707912|183215187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91855358|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.97|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.97|0.08|0.01
91855359|NCT00444600|183595055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.2|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.20|0.47|0.95
91855360|NCT00444600|183595056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.64||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for comparison with sham+prompt laser||2.64|1.52|<0.001
91713432|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 CM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
91855361|NCT00444600|183595056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.13||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for comparison with sham+prompt laser||2.13|1.13|0.001
91722455|NCT01932606|183337704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PVR.||||0.7
91722456|NCT01932606|183337705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in pulmonary artery compliance.||||0.1
91864057|NCT03257410|183617070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91660186|NCT03707912|183215188|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91660187|NCT03707912|183215188|OTHER|Test for assessing the homogeneity of the odds ratio in several 2 × 2 contingency tables.||||||0.75|||||||Breslow-Day test|||||||0.75
91660188|NCT03707912|183215189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 comparison.||||0.89
91660189|NCT03707912|183215189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 comparison.||||0.75
91660190|NCT03707912|183215189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3 comparison.||||0.34
91660191|NCT03707912|183215190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
91722457|NCT01932606|183337706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in SVR.||||0.3
91722458|NCT01932606|183337707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in LVSW.||||0.3
91864058|NCT03257410|183617071|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91864059|NCT03257410|183617071|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91855362|NCT00444600|183595056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.76|||<|0.001||95.0|1.31|2.36||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for comparison with sham+prompt laser||2.36|1.31|<0.001
91855363|NCT00444600|183595066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.08
91855364|NCT00444600|183595066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.17
91855365|NCT00444600|183595067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.03
91660192|NCT02934347|183215191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Grades analysed were 1, 2 and then 3 and 4 combined because of low frequencies in the latter two grades|Chi-squared, Corrected|Chi-squared for trend||Null hypothesis: no difference in frequency of grade of glottic view between the supine and back-up positions||||>0.05
91660193|NCT02934347|183215192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||||||<0.01
91660194|NCT02934347|183215193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91855366|NCT00444600|183595067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.17
91855367|NCT00444600|183595071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.44||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal volume, OCT retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||Difference in mean change from sham+prompt laser||-0.44|-1.01|<0.001
91855368|NCT00444600|183595071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.41||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal volume, OCT retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||Difference in mean change from sham+prompt laser||-0.41|-0.96|<0.001
91660195|NCT02934347|183215194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91855369|NCT00444600|183595071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.34||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal volume, OCT retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||Difference in mean change from sham+prompt laser||-0.34|-0.91|<0.001
91855370|NCT05132478|183595073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.720
91855371|NCT05132478|183595074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
91855372|NCT05132478|183595075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.228
91855373|NCT05132478|183595075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Intervention||||0.176
91660196|NCT03235739|183215208|SUPERIORITY|multiple imputation for longitudinal data was conducted to impute the missing data for the primary outcome. The final results were obtained from pooling results from 10 imputed complete case data set.|geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|0.32|0.84
91660197|NCT03235739|183215208|SUPERIORITY|A sensitivity analysis using complete case analysis|geometric mean ratio|0.82||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.56|0.26|0.73
91660198|NCT03235739|183215209|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.63|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|0.63|0.91
91660199|NCT03235739|183215210|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.58||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.98|6.8|||Chi-squared|||||6.80|0.98|0.012
91660200|NCT03235739|183215211|SUPERIORITY||median of differences|-5.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-12.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-12|0.08
91660201|NCT02847650|183215212|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-8.6|0.0407
91660202|NCT00467896|183215236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.55|60.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in inhalation-times rate from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||60.15|39.55|<0.0001
91660203|NCT03818581|183215241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||SPCD analysis|||||||0.15
91855374|NCT05132478|183595076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.410
91855375|NCT05132478|183595076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||ANOVA|||Post-Intervention||||0.351
91855376|NCT05132478|183595077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91855377|NCT05132478|183595078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91855378|NCT02549170|183595079|SUPERIORITY||Newcombe confidence interval|-21.8|||=|0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.45|-7.94|||Chi-squared|||||-7.94|-34.45|=0.0045
91855379|NCT02549170|183595081|SUPERIORITY||Newcombe confidence interval|-16.9|||=|0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.02|0.69||The treatment groups were compared using a continuity-corrected chi-square test.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.69|-33.02|=0.0896
91855380|NCT02549170|183595082|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Survival Test|||||||=0.002
91713433|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3741||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 EMRA cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3741
91791878|NCT00329901|183461314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus (Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-PT antigen immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY as compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||1|-12|
91855381|NCT02549170|183595083|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|5.2|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.9|||ANCOVA|||||9.9|0.5|=0.030
91660204|NCT00355797|183215244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.9||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|15.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||The endpoint will compare the composite percent change in ADL performance for patients while their devices are programmed to CLS and accelerometer pacing modes, using the no rate adaptive pacing mode as the baseline. Null hypothesis: mean composite of percent change for patients with their device programmed to CLS is less than or equal to the mean composite of percent change for the same patients with their device in accelerometer.||15.11|3.24|0.004
91855382|NCT00818246|183595195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess statistical differences between the LED-treated and untreated sides taking into account Age.||Sample sizes and power calculations were generated according to the primary outcome measures of the study. In order to have a 98% chance of detecting as significant (at the two sided 5% level) a 10% difference between the treated and untreated/control sides in the Ra and Rz post-treatment improvement, with an assumed standard deviation of 10, 33 subjects were required. To account for an 80% per protocol completion rate, the planned number of patients to be enrolled was 40.||||<0.0001
91855383|NCT00818246|183595196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91660205|NCT00355797|183215251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.74||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|3.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||The purpose of endpoint was to evaluate the percent change in pulse pressure during test. The null hypothesis was the mean percent change for patients with their device programmed to CLS is greater or equal to the mean percent change for the same patients with their device in accelerometer.||3.33|-6.17|0.552
91855384|NCT00818246|183595197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess statistical differences between the LED-treated and untreated sides taking into account Age.||Sample sizes and power calculations were generated according to the primary outcome measures of the study. In order to have a 98% chance of detecting as significant (at the two sided 5% level) a 10% difference between the treated and untreated/control sides in the Ra and Rz post-treatment improvement, with an assumed standard deviation of 10, 33 subjects were required. To account for an 80% per protocol completion rate, the planned number of patients to be enrolled was 40.||||<0.0001
91660206|NCT00355797|183215251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.34||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||The purpose of endpoint was to evaluate the percent change in pulse pressure during test. The null hypothesis was the mean percent change for patients with their device programmed to CLS is greater or equal to the mean percent change for the same patients with their device without rate adaptative pacing.||7.63|-3.80|0.505
91855385|NCT03684044|183595202|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.4666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|25.9|||Gehan Wilcoxon|The Gehan Wilcoxon test was used to analyze the TTCI data because the proportional hazards assumption was violated||||25.9|-53.4|0.4666
91855386|NCT03684044|183595203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6326|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistic was stratified by region, NEWS2 at baseline (≤7, \>7), and time from symptom onset to study treatment (≤48 hours, \>48 hours)||||||0.6326
91864060|NCT03257410|183617072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.583||0.0684|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 4||||0.0684
91864061|NCT03257410|183617072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.937||0.0806|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 24||||0.0806
91864062|NCT03257410|183617077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||0.0347
91713434|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EMRA cells at dose level 1.||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
91713435|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EMRA cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
91722459|NCT01932606|183337708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in VO\_2.||||0.8
91855387|NCT03684044|183595204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|17.7|||Gehan Wilcoxon|The Gehan Wilcoxon test was used to analyze the TTCI data because the proportional hazards assumption was violated||||17.7|-50.9|0.3272
91855388|NCT03703336|183595231|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMCs between the ROTAVIN and ROTAVIN-M1 groups were to be larger than 1/2, ROTAVIN was considered to be non-inferior to the licensed frozen formulation of the vaccine (ROTAVIN-M1).|GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.86|||||Log10-transformed IgA concentrations were used to construct a 2-sided 95% CI for the mean difference between the arms using t-distribution. The mean difference and 95% CI were exponentiated to obtain the GMC ratio and corresponding 95% CI.|||1.86|1.02|
91855389|NCT03703336|183595233|OTHER||Percentage Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|15.87||||||||15.87|-3.57|
91855390|NCT03703336|183595234|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.09||||||Percentage Difference on Day 1||2.09|-2.40|
91855391|NCT03703336|183595234|OTHER||Percentage Difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|16.23||||||Percentage Difference on Day 85||16.23|-3.19|
91660207|NCT02262377|183215266|SUPERIORITY|The ITT analysis was done for 21 week average pain.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||Statistical significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||Intention to Treat Analysis for average chronic pain.||1.15|0.92|0.68
91855392|NCT04629950|183595251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.395
91855393|NCT04629950|183595251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.410
91855394|NCT04629950|183595252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.691
91855395|NCT04629950|183595252|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
91855396|NCT04629950|183595253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,||||||0.758
91855397|NCT04629950|183595253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Data represent change values.||||0.247
91855398|NCT04629950|183595254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||P values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.316
91855399|NCT04629950|183595254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Data represent change values.||||0.605
91855400|NCT04629950|183595255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Average Itch||||0.192
91660208|NCT02262377|183215266|SUPERIORITY|The ITT analysis was done for 21 week BPI Interference.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08||Statistical significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.08|0.88|0.36
91855401|NCT04629950|183595255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Average Itch. Data represent change values.||||0.392
91855402|NCT04629950|183595255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Maximum Itch||||0.347
91855403|NCT04629950|183595255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Maximum Itch. Data represent change values.||||0.572
91855404|NCT04629950|183595256|OTHER|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.359
91855405|NCT04629950|183595257|OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.141
91855406|NCT04629950|183595258|OTHER|||||||0.582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.582
91660209|NCT02262377|183215266|SUPERIORITY|The ITT analysis was done for 21 week BPI Severity.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||Statistical significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.16|0.86|0.996
91660210|NCT02262377|183215267|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.37|||Regression, Poisson|||||1.37|0.99|0.054
91855407|NCT04629950|183595259|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.713
91855408|NCT04629950|183595260|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.346
91855409|NCT04629950|183595261|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
91855410|NCT04629950|183595262|OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Average Itch Over the Preceding 3 Days||||0.221
91855411|NCT04629950|183595262|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis is for the Maximum Itch of the Preceding 7 Days||||0.286
91855412|NCT04629950|183595263|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Average Itch Over the Preceding 3 Days||||1
91855413|NCT04629950|183595263|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis is for the Maximum Itch of the Preceding 7 Days||||1
91855419|NCT00891436|183595280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test was used for the data analysis||||>0.1
91855420|NCT00891436|183595280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test showed no different between the 2 groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.1
91855421|NCT03887650|183595331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.127
91855422|NCT03887650|183595332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.975
91855423|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852||||||PACU pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.852
91855424|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||For (PACU-24) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.661
91855425|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747||||||For (PACU-24 hr.) maximum pain score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.747
91855426|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||For (PACU-24 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.604
91855427|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||(24-48 hr) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.002
91855428|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||For (24-48 hr) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91901564|NCT01699789|183697864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression model adjusted for covariates, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.21|0.66|
91855429|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||For (24-48 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91855430|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||(48-72 hr) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.011
91855431|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||(48-72 hr) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
91855432|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||(48-72 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
91901565|NCT01699789|183697865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.40|0.61|
91855433|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||For (72-96 hr) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.230
91855434|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||For (72-96 hr) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.007
91855435|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||For (72-96 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.011
91855436|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378||||||For (postoperative day 60) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.378
91660211|NCT02262377|183215268|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||Regression, Poisson|||||1.13|0.89|0.98
91855437|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||For (postoperative day 60) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
91660212|NCT02262377|183215269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.98|||Odds Ratio|||||0.98|0.18|
91660213|NCT02262377|183215270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||Odds Ratio|||||1.14|0.90|
91660214|NCT01591785|183215276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
91660215|NCT01591785|183215277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91660216|NCT01591785|183215278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0495
91660217|NCT01591785|183215279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
91660218|NCT01049334|183215280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-151.5||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.9|-24.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustments for statistical multiplicity were required.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline STPIS as a covariate.||||-24.0|-278.9|0.0201
91660219|NCT01049334|183215281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-9.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-9.9|-29.2|<.0001
91660220|NCT01049334|183215282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-12.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-12.9|-31.7|<0.0001
91660221|NCT01049334|183215283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-181.7||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-313.7|-50.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-50.0|-313.7|0.0071
91660222|NCT01049334|183215284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-11.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-11.2|-30.2|<0.0001
91855438|NCT03887650|183595333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403||||||For (postoperative day 60) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.403
91855439|NCT03887650|183595334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.112
91855440|NCT03887650|183595335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||P-Value for POD4|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact for POD4||||||0.096
91855441|NCT03887650|183595335|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||For POD60|Chi-squared|Chi-squared for POD60||||||1.0
91855442|NCT03887650|183595336|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Any distress on PACU|Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91855443|NCT03887650|183595336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947||||||Postoperative day 2|Chi-squared|||||||.947
91855444|NCT03887650|183595337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||Full sensation|Fishers Freeman Halton|||||||.441
91855445|NCT03887650|183595337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691||||||First sensation|Fishers Freeman Halton|||||||.691
91855446|NCT03887650|183595338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.876
91855447|NCT03887650|183595339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Any movement|Fisher' Freeman Halton|||||||.011
91713436|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EMRA cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91855448|NCT03887650|183595339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536||||||Full movement|Fishers Freeman Halton|||||||.536
91855449|NCT03887650|183595340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648||||||MME 0-24|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.648
91855450|NCT03887650|183595340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||MME24-48|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.285
91855451|NCT03887650|183595340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122||||||MME48-72|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.122
91855452|NCT03887650|183595340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367||||||MME 72-120|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.367
91855453|NCT01199705|183595397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||1.39||||||||1.390||
91855454|NCT01199705|183595397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.953||||||||0.953||
91855455|NCT01199705|183595397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.914||||||||0.914||
91855456|NCT01199705|183595399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||1.204||||||||1.204||
91855457|NCT01199705|183595399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.834||||||||0.834||
91855458|NCT01199705|183595399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.802||||||||0.802||
91855459|NCT01849055|183595429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.98|2.54||||||SBP||2.54|-4.98|
91855460|NCT01849055|183595429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.53||||||SBP||2.53|-4.70|
91855461|NCT01849055|183595429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|2.22||||||SBP||2.22|-5.30|
91855462|NCT01849055|183595429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.16|2.1||||||SBP||2.10|-5.16|
91855463|NCT01849055|183595429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.74|0.07||||||SBP||0.07|-7.74|
91855464|NCT01849055|183595429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|2.18||||||DBP||2.18|-2.95|
91855465|NCT01849055|183595429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.69|1.48||||||DBP||1.48|-3.69|
91855466|NCT01849055|183595429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.75|1.85||||||DBP||1.85|-3.75|
91855467|NCT01849055|183595429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.09|1.1||||||DBP||1.10|-4.09|
91855468|NCT01849055|183595429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|0.2||||||DBP||0.20|-5.23|
91855469|NCT00933400|183595436|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0|Percent Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.7||||||Difference in AMI rate. NULL: equal rates of AMI in both Groups.||5.7|-5.6|
91855470|NCT00933400|183595437|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0|Difference (rates)|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|32.2||||||Difference in Discharge rates. H0: equal rates of Discharge in both Groups.||32.2|21.4|
91855471|NCT00933400|183595437|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0|Difference (percents)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.2|||||exact procedures were used to estimate and compare rates of detection for significant coronary disease|Difference in diagnosis rate of Significant coronary disease at index visit. H0: equal rates in both Groups.||11.2|0.0|
91855472|NCT00933400|183595439|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|32.2|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|H0: no difference in Patient disposition (Discharge) rates between arms||32.2|21.4|
91855473|NCT00933400|183595441|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.2|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare all cause mortality between groups||5.2|-6.0|
91855474|NCT00933400|183595441|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.7|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare Cardiac Death between groups||5.7|-5.5|
91855475|NCT00933400|183595441|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.9|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare AMI between groups||5.9|-5.6|
91855476|NCT00933400|183595441|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.0|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare MACE between groups||6.0|-5.5|
91855477|NCT00933400|183595441|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.0|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare Revascularization between groups||7.0|-4.4|
91855478|NCT00475501|183595443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|18.0||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis||mean difference is for subjects reveiving testosterone (groups T and T/F) vs. subjects not receiving testosterone (F and Placebo)|The studies was powered for 1-RM strength based on a 1.18-alpha increase reported in the literature||18.0|7.86|<0.001
91855479|NCT00475501|183595444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.311||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.31||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered on grip strength. We employed 2x2 analysis to determine effects of testosterone, finasteride and interaction.||1.31|0.16|0.015
91864063|NCT03257410|183617077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||||0.0036
91660223|NCT01049334|183215285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-137.6||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.5|-6.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-6.8|-268.5|0.0393
91660224|NCT01049334|183215286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0459||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0459
91660225|NCT01049334|183215287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8383||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8383
91660226|NCT01049334|183215288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91660227|NCT01049334|183215289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91855480|NCT00475501|183595445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.142|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.43||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered on lumbar spine bone mineral density. We employed a 2x2 analysis for effects ot testosterone, finasteride and interaction||6.43|1.95|<0.001
91660228|NCT01049334|183215290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91660229|NCT01049334|183215291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-156.3||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.9|-4.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|||||-4.6|-307.9|0.0435
91660230|NCT01049334|183215292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
91855481|NCT00475501|183595446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.737|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.064||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study is was not powered for score on Geriatric Depression Scale||-0.064|-1.41|0.037
91864064|NCT03257410|183617077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.129
91660231|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.1||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 2||0.1|-0.0|0.1448
91660232|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.1||||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 4||0.3|-0.0|0.1538
91660233|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.2||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 6||0.5|-0.1|0.1407
91660234|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.2||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 8||0.7|-0.2|0.2906
91660235|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.2||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 10||0.8|-0.4|0.4758
91660236|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.1||||0.6975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 12||0.9|-0.6|0.6975
91864065|NCT03257410|183617077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.1149|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 16||||0.1149
91660237|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.0||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 14||0.9|-0.8|0.9370
91660238|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.1||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 16||0.9|-1.1|0.8493
91660239|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.3||||0.6732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 18||0.9|-1.4|0.6732
91660240|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.4||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 20||0.9|-1.8|0.5414
91660241|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.6||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 22||0.9|-2.1|0.4313
91660242|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.8||||0.3501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 24||0.9|-2.4|0.3501
91660243|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.0||||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.8|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 26||0.8|-2.8|0.2679
91660244|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.2||||0.2137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 28||0.7|-3.2|0.2137
91722460|NCT01932606|183337709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for arteriovenous oxygen content difference.||||0.1
91660245|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.5||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.6|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 30||0.6|-3.6|0.1715
91660246|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.8||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 32||0.5|-4.1|0.1340
91713437|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3386||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 naive cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3386
91855482|NCT00475501|183595447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|5.04||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for 30-minute recall on Rey figure test||5.04|0.699|0.012
91855483|NCT00475501|183595448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.272||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.095|3.811||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for score on Trials A test||3.811|-5.095|0.779
91855484|NCT00475501|183595449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|2.043||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for score on Benton test||2.043|-0.869|0.433
91660247|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-2.0||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 34||0.4|-4.5|0.1030
91660248|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-2.4||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.3|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 36||0.3|-5.0|0.0788
91660249|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-2.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.1|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 38||0.1|-5.5|0.0620
91660250|NCT01049334|183215293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-3.0||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 40||-0.0|-6.0|0.0476
91660251|NCT01049334|183215294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0273
91660252|NCT01049334|183215295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0098
91660253|NCT02393417|183215312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5706||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0184|2.4223|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.4223|1.0184|0.0329
91660254|NCT02393417|183215312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8926||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2722|2.8156|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.8156|1.2722|0.0007
91660255|NCT02393417|183215312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7319||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1602|2.5854|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.5854|1.1602|0.0052
91660256|NCT02393417|183215313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3828||||0.4307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6191|3.0883|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.0883|0.6191|0.4307
91660257|NCT02393417|183215313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.8908||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4169|5.8978|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8978|1.4169|0.0014
91660258|NCT02393417|183215313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9281|9.6975|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.6975|0.9281|0.0451
91660259|NCT02393417|183215315|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.7553||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4211|5.3419|||Regression, Cox|||||5.3419|1.4211|0.0027
91722461|NCT01932606|183337710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in cardiac output.||||0.4
91855485|NCT00475501|183595450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|5.18||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This study was powered for hematocrit based on literature report that testosterone \> 2 alpha increase in hematocrit||5.18|3.07|<0.001
91855486|NCT00475501|183595451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2529||0.6219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|6.37||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for dietary protein intake||6.37|-0.353|0.6219
91855487|NCT00475501|183595452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.83||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|8.94||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was powered for prostate volume based on a literature report that testosterone increases prostate volume 1.85 alpha per year. We employed a 2x2 analysis for effects of testosterone, finasteride and interaction.||8.94|1.73|0.0051
91855488|NCT00475501|183595453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.434|1.698||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for score on Lif Satisfaction A test||1.698|-3.434|0.196
91855489|NCT02409667|183595473|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical null-hypothesis to be rejected in the primary analysis was that the odds ratio of maintaining a PASI 90 response for patients with secukinumab 4-weekly dosing versus patients on secukinumab 6-weekly dosing exceeds the non-inferiority margin of 1+δ.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|1.44|0.1499
91855490|NCT02409667|183595474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.35|0.1013
91855491|NCT02409667|183595477|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) estimate|-0.09||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 28||-0.00|-0.18|0.0489
91855492|NCT02409667|183595477|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.09||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.02|-0.19|0.1073
91855493|NCT02409667|183595477|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 36||-0.12|-0.37|0.0001
91660260|NCT02393417|183215315|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.1516||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6148|6.1509|||Regression, Cox|||||6.1509|1.6148|0.0008
91855494|NCT02409667|183595477|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.11|-0.38|0.0005
91855495|NCT02409667|183595477|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 44||-0.15|-0.45|0.0001
91855496|NCT02409667|183595477|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.49||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.27|-0.70|0.0000
91660261|NCT02393417|183215315|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.3257||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7263|6.407|||Regression, Cox|||||6.4070|1.7263|0.0003
91660262|NCT02393417|183215321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.4824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.001|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||1.001|0.997|0.4824
91855497|NCT02409667|183595477|SUPERIORITY||LSM mean|-0.59||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-0.81|0.0000
91855498|NCT02409667|183595478|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Week 28||0.99|-0.18|0.1740
91855499|NCT02409667|183595478|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.79||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 32||1.50|0.08|0.0287
91855500|NCT02409667|183595478|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.62||||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 36||1.41|-0.16|0.1202
91713438|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 naive cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
91713439|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0215||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 naive cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0215
91855501|NCT02409667|183595478|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.75||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 40||1.68|-0.19|0.1157
91855502|NCT02409667|183595478|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.54||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 44||1.59|-0.52|0.3189
91855503|NCT02409667|183595478|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.17||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.18|0.16|0.0240
91855504|NCT02409667|183595478|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.47||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||2.57|0.37|0.0090
91855505|NCT02409667|183595479|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.93|0.0001
91855506|NCT02409667|183595480|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.17||||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.42|||ANCOVA|||||2.42|-0.09|0.0675
91855507|NCT02409667|183595481|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.97||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism||0.55|-2.48|0.2101
91855508|NCT02409667|183595481|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.67||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||0.59|-1.93|0.2971
91855509|NCT02409667|183595481|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.61||||0.5499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Total activity impairment||1.38|-2.59|0.5499
91855510|NCT02409667|183595481|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-1.08||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-2.28|0.0758
91855511|NCT02409667|183595482|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.2||||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|4.11|||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism||4.11|-1.71|0.4156
91855512|NCT02409667|183595482|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.63||||0.8619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|7.85|||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||7.85|-6.59|0.8619
91855513|NCT02409667|183595482|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.61||||0.6139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|10.61|||ANCOVA|||Total activity impairment||10.61|-6.31|0.6139
91855514|NCT02409667|183595482|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.7||||0.5674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|7.56|||ANCOVA|||Work productivity loss||7.56|-4.16|0.5674
91855515|NCT02409667|183595483|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.13||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Pain||0.04|-0.30|0.1219
91855516|NCT02409667|183595483|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.38||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Itching||-0.18|-0.57|0.0001
91855517|NCT02409667|183595483|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.31||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Scaling||-0.14|-0.48|0.0003
91855518|NCT02409667|183595484|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.17||||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Pain||0.92|-0.57|0.6457
91660263|NCT02393417|183215321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001||||0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.004|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||1.004|0.998|0.5007
91855519|NCT02409667|183595484|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.19||||0.6136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Itching||0.94|-0.56|0.6136
91855520|NCT02409667|183595484|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.75||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.39|||ANCOVA|||Scaling||1.39|0.12|0.0203
91855521|NCT02409667|183595485|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|2.22||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.68|||ANCOVA|||||3.68|0.77|0.0027
91855522|NCT02409667|183595486|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-2.31||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|1.92|||ANCOVA|||||1.92|-6.55|0.2823
91855523|NCT02409667|183595487|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.01||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Germany||0.02|-0.00|0.0861
91855524|NCT02409667|183595487|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.02||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.04|0.00|0.0117
91855525|NCT02409667|183595488|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.02||||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Germany||0.01|-0.05|0.1852
91855526|NCT02409667|183595488|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.03||||0.2203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.02|-0.07|0.2203
91855527|NCT05057897|183595642|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.01|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||3.01|0.18|
91855528|NCT05057897|183595643|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|-30.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.82|3.69||||The 2-sided 95% CI was calculated using the Newcombe score without continuity correction.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 2 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||3.69|-62.82|
91855529|NCT05057897|183595644|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.86|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||3.86|0.06|
91855530|NCT05057897|183595645|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.07|2.97||||The 2-sided 95% CI was calculated using the Newcombe score without continuity correction.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 2 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||2.97|-59.07|
91864066|NCT03257410|183617077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0688|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 20||||0.0688
91660264|NCT02393417|183215321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|0.999|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||0.999|0.987|0.0219
91660265|NCT02393417|183215321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.004|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||1.004|0.995|0.8267
91660266|NCT02393417|183215322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.964||||0.1657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.015|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.015|0.915|0.1657
91660267|NCT02393417|183215322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.003|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.003|0.997|0.8168
91660268|NCT02393417|183215322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.998||||0.4183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.003|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.003|0.993|0.4183
91660269|NCT02393417|183215322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.006|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.006|0.997|0.5572
91660270|NCT02246166|183215340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.83|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||0.83|-0.77|0.9473
91660271|NCT02246166|183215341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.86|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatme|||0.86|-1.23|0.7210
91660272|NCT02246166|183215342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.49|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.||||1.49|-1.07|0.7445
91855531|NCT05057897|183595646|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||0.80|0.12|
91855532|NCT05057897|183595647|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|0.0||||||||||||Due to everyone in both cohorts being a seroresponder, the confidence interval (CI) around the difference is not estimable.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 3 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||||
91855533|NCT05057897|183595648|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.25|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||1.25|0.25|
91660273|NCT02246166|183215343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.78|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate||||1.78|-1.32|0.7662
91660274|NCT02246166|183215344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.5208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|2.29|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||2.29|-1.18|0.5208
91713440|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.65||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 naive cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.65
91713441|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5076||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 EM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5076
91660275|NCT02246166|183215345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.94|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||1.94|-1.71|0.8993
91660276|NCT05025345|183215392|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin equals -0.1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.036|0.011||Success criteria was evaluated using lower confidence interval. No P-Value was calculated.||||||0.011|-0.036|
91660277|NCT05025345|183215393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91660278|NCT00984022|183215406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The percentages achieving 30% or greater reduction in the surface area of the abscess were compared with Fisher's exact test.||||.0003
91713442|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
91855534|NCT05057897|183595649|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|0.0||||||||||||Due to everyone in both cohorts being a seroresponder, the confidence interval (CI) around the difference is not estimable.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 3 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||||
91855535|NCT04188379|183595719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.884||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|43.591|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.591|1.007|0.0316
91855536|NCT04188379|183595720|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.000|0.000|0.0009
91855537|NCT04188379|183595721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.224||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.268|26.268|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.268|1.268|0.0108
91855538|NCT04188379|183595722|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.958||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.41|||Wald Test|||||1.41|0.651|0.8287
91713443|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.68||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.68
91713444|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.73||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.73
91855539|NCT04188379|183595723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.354||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|22.865|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.865|1.0480|0.0265
91855540|NCT01164098|183595759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Using Natural Log Transformed Data||T-test of the natural logarithmic transformed data||||0.18
91855541|NCT01164098|183595760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test of Natural Log Transformed Data.||||0.49
91855542|NCT01164098|183595761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test||||0.37
91855543|NCT03990649|183595768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||The p-values were estimated using a two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.540
91855544|NCT03050814|183595770|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.061||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.966|||Kaplan Meier|Kaplan-Meier curves and a two-tailed log-rank test||||2.966|0.380|0.91
91855545|NCT02706717|183595797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-51.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-246.0|143.9|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||143.9|-246|0.60
91660279|NCT00984022|183215407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||Main effect for type of dressing.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA using 2 X 2 factorial design, with one between-subjects factor (Group) and one within-subjects factor (Time). Null hypothesis is: The type of dressing does not affect patient pain ratings.||||.043
91855546|NCT02706717|183595803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||0.17|-0.09|0.51
91660280|NCT00984022|183215408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the percentage of individuals achieving a 30% or greater reduction in cellulitis surface area between the Iodoform and Aquacel groups.||||.847
91855547|NCT02706717|183595804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|71.0|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance|"The estimation parameter is the percent difference between the geometric mean fold changes.~With d-dimer data log10 transformed, this is (exp(Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean) - 1)\*100."|||71.0|-3.6|0.09
91855548|NCT02706717|183595807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.5|28.2|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||28.2|-93.5|0.29
91855549|NCT02706717|183595808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||0.04|-0.08|0.41
91855550|NCT02706717|183595825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
91855551|NCT02590432|183595853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.5|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg versus (vs) LINZESS® 290 μg||5.5|0.3|1.0000
91855552|NCT02590432|183595853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||1.1|0.1|0.0844
91855553|NCT02590432|183595853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||2.5|0.3|1.0000
91855554|NCT02590432|183595854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.1|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||5.1|0.3|1.0000
91855555|NCT02590432|183595854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||1.0|0.1|0.0799
91722462|NCT01932606|183337711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in stroke volume.||||0.4
91855556|NCT02590432|183595854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||2.2|0.3|0.7871
91855557|NCT02590432|183595856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.19|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||2.19|0.42|0.9930
91855558|NCT02590432|183595856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.89|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||0.89|0.11|0.0247
91713445|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6577||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 CM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6577
91855559|NCT02590432|183595856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.5149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.5|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||1.50|0.41|0.5149
91855560|NCT02590432|183595857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.18|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||2.18|0.39|0.9519
91855561|NCT02590432|183595857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.87|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||0.87|0.08|0.0234
91855562|NCT02590432|183595857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.4518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.47|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||1.47|0.39|0.4518
91855563|NCT04788641|183595886|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.44|77.24|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||77.24|65.44|
91855564|NCT04788641|183595886|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|102.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|110.1|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||110.1|96.11|
91660281|NCT00573443|183215409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of episode-rate reduction ratios|0.5312|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4939|0.5714|||Regression, Longitudinal neg. binomial|||Analysis of PBA episode rates used longitudinal negative binomial regression with treatment, period, diagnosis and study site to estimate pre-post changes in log mean episode rate for each treatment group. Null hypothesis of equal pre-post episode rate reductions were tested: AVP-923-30/placebo = 1.||0.5714|0.4939|<0.0001
91660282|NCT00573443|183215409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of episode-rate reduction ratios|0.5103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4755|0.5477|||Regression, Longitudinal neg. binomial|||Analysis of PBA episode rates used longitudinal negative binomial regression with treatment, period, diagnosis and study site to estimate pre-post changes in log mean episode rate for each treatment group. Null hypothesis of equal pre-post episode rate reductions were tested: AVP-923-20/placebo = 1.||0.5477|0.4755|<0.0001
91660283|NCT04567186|183215427|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.00 logMAR.|Least-square mean|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0105|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.057|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom|Distance (4 meter)|It was calculated that 70 participants would have at least 90% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.057|-0.099|
91660284|NCT04567186|183215427|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold + 0.17 logMAR.|Least-square mean|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|-0.039|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom|Intermediate (64cm)|It was calculated that 70 participants would have at least 90% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.039|-0.079|
91660285|NCT04567186|183215427|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR.|Least-square Mean|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.084|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|Near (40cm)|It was calculated that 70 participants would have at least 90% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||0.084|0.040|
91660286|NCT04567186|183215428|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower confidence limit of the least-square mean was above the threshold of 32 points.|Least-square Mean|55.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.25|62.61|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom||This study was powered to only test primary hypotheses.||62.61|49.25|
91660287|NCT04567186|183215428|NON_INFERIORITY|A Non-Inferiority margin of 5 points was used.|Least-square mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.893|-0.073|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|This study was powered for only the primary hypotheses.||-0.073|-5.893|
91660288|NCT02924883|183215429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3332||95.0|0.55|1.23|||Log Rank|The 2-sided log-rank test, was stratified by world region (Western Europe vs U.S. vs Rest of World) and PD-L1 status (IC 0 vs IC 1/2/3).||||1.23|0.55|0.3332
91660289|NCT02924883|183215431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2934||95.0|0.42|1.3|||Log Rank|The 2-sided log-rank test was stratified by world region (Western Europe vs U.S. vs Rest of World) and PD-L1 status (IC 0 vs IC 1/2/3).||||1.30|0.42|0.2934
91660290|NCT02924883|183215433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.6099||95.0|0.52|3.03|||Log Rank|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model was stratified by world region (Western Europe, U.S., Rest of World) and PD-L1 status (IC 0, IC 1/2/3).||||3.03|0.52|0.6099
91660291|NCT00904345|183215442|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion event-free at 1 and 2 years calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals were calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
91660292|NCT00904345|183215443|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Survival proportion estimates at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
91660293|NCT00904345|183215447|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion LRP event-free at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
91660294|NCT02481830|183215448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin|||1.04|0.72|0.1144
91660295|NCT02481830|183215449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.66|||||Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin using Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.66|1.16|
91855565|NCT04788641|183595887|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|62.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.64|71.13|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||71.13|55.64|
91660296|NCT02481830|183215450|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.24|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio (Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin) using Mantel-Haenszel method|||1.24|0.49|
91660297|NCT02481830|183215451|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin|||1.04|0.73|
91660298|NCT00772941|183215452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Male and Female in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
91660299|NCT00772941|183215453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
91660300|NCT00772941|183215454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a complication. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a complication in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
91660301|NCT00772941|183215455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drugs. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without concomitant drugs in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
91660302|NCT00772941|183215456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant therapies. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without concomitant therapies in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
91660303|NCT00772941|183215457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Weight at Baseline. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between Weight at Baseline and the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
91855566|NCT04788641|183595887|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|101.7|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||101.7|92.93|
91855567|NCT04788641|183595888|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|65.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.69|73.24|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||73.24|58.69|
91855568|NCT04788641|183595888|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|101.6|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||101.6|92.70|
91855569|NCT04788641|183595889|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|83.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.38|95.84|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||95.84|73.38|
91855570|NCT04788641|183595889|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.16|109.2|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||109.2|87.16|
91855571|NCT04788641|183595890|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|98.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.62|102.4|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||102.4|94.62|
91855572|NCT04788641|183595890|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|94.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.74|103.3|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||103.3|85.74|
91855573|NCT04247074|183595898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660304|NCT00772941|183215457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The risk factor tested was Weight at Baseline. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events across increasing levels of Weight at Baseline."||||<0.001
91722463|NCT01932606|183337712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in right atrial pressure (exercise).||||0.0002
91855574|NCT04247074|183595899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91855575|NCT04247074|183595900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91855576|NCT04247074|183595901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91864067|NCT03257410|183617077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.6097|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.6097
91864068|NCT03257410|183617078|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.336||0.1472|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.1472
91864069|NCT03257410|183617078|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.154||0.1207|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.1207
91864070|NCT03257410|183617079|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.488||0.9775|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.9775
91864071|NCT03257410|183617079|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.5538|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.5538
91855577|NCT03951805|183595902|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.76||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|5.8|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during the last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values are imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.||5.80|-4.28|0.7675
91855578|NCT03951805|183595902|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.08||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|12.04|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during the last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values are imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.||12.04|2.12|0.0051
91855579|NCT03951805|183595902|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.01||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|10.05|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during the last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values are imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.||10.05|-0.04|0.0519
91855580|NCT03337399|183595911|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of stepped PC was established if the lower one-sided 95% confidence limit for the estimated difference in means was greater than the pre-specified margin of -4.5 points, which corresponds to the one-sided 5% significance level test against this margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.01||||Regression, Linear|||The difference in week 24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model adjusted for baseline FACT-L score.|||-.01|<0.05
91855581|NCT03337399|183595912|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified margin of -10%.|Estimated Proportions|-2.6|||<|0.15|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|||We used a false discovery rate (FDR) control approach to interpret the results of significance tests of the three secondary outcomes with an FDR of 0.15.|Regression, Linear|||Non-inferiority of stepped PC in the proportion reporting patient-clinician communication about end-of-life care at each patient's final follow-up assessment was evaluated using a binomial generalized linear model with identity link and a one-sided test against the pre-specified margin of -10%.|||-10.4|<0.15
91855582|NCT03337399|183595913|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified margin of -7 days|Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.15|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|||We used a false discovery rate (FDR) control approach to interpret the results of significance tests of the three secondary outcomes with an FDR of 0.15.|Regression, Linear|||Among patients who died, non-inferiority of stepped PC in the mean length of stay in hospice was assessed using linear regression and a one-sided test against the pre-specified margin of -7 days, based upon published quality metrics.|||-25.1|0.15
91855583|NCT03337399|183595914|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.8||We used a false discovery rate (FDR) control approach to interpret the results of significance tests of the three secondary outcomes with an FDR of 0.15|Regression, Linear|||The difference between groups in the mean number of outpatient PC visits per patient by week 24 was assessed using linear regression and a two-sided superiority test.||-1.8|-2.7|0.15
91660305|NCT00772941|183215458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Tobacco consumption per day. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between Tobacco consumption per day and the efficacy of Varenicline."||||<0.001
91855584|NCT01198145|183595918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91855585|NCT01198145|183595919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing Tenesmus During RT||||0.23
91660306|NCT00772941|183215458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The risk factor tested was Tobacco consumption per day. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the efficacy of Varenicline across increasing levels of tobacco consumption per day."||||<0.001
91855586|NCT01198145|183595919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing Tenesmus after RT||||0.64
91855587|NCT01198145|183595919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing abdominal pain during RT.||||0.30
91855588|NCT01198145|183595919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing abdominal pain after RT||||0.02
91855589|NCT01198145|183595919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing constipation during RT||||0.70
91855590|NCT01198145|183595919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing constipation after RT||||0.63
91660307|NCT00772941|183215459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was prolonged administration after 12 weeks. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between administration prolonged after 12 weeks and administration not prolonged after 12 weeks in the efficacy of Varenicline."||||<0.001
91722464|NCT01932606|183337712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in pulmonary artery systolic pressure (exercise).||||0.01
91660308|NCT00772941|183215460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was antipsychotics as a concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without antipsychotics as a concomitant drug in the efficacy of Varenicline."||||<0.001
91855591|NCT01198145|183595919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing diarrhea during RT||||0.44
91855592|NCT01198145|183595919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing diarrhea after RT||||0.48
91855593|NCT01198145|183595919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing rectal bleeding during RT||||0.38
91855594|NCT01198145|183595919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91722465|NCT01932606|183337712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in mean pulmonary artery pressure (exercise).||||0.0002
91855595|NCT01198145|183595920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Result comparing Arm I and Arm II during RT.||||0.56
91855596|NCT01198145|183595920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Result comparing Arm I and Arm II after RT.||||0.74
91855597|NCT02528188|183595926|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.39||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.68|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||4.68|0.58|0.0123
91855598|NCT02528188|183595926|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|8.14|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||8.14|3.55|<0.0001
91855599|NCT02528188|183595927|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|23.5||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|37.7|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||37.7|9.3|0.0012
91855600|NCT02528188|183595927|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|74.9|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||74.9|38.4|<0.0001
91855601|NCT02528188|183595928|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.46|0.0148
91855602|NCT02528188|183595928|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.36|0.1597
91855603|NCT02528188|183595929|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.11||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.52|0.0030
91855604|NCT02528188|183595929|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.40|0.0691
91660309|NCT00467363|183215483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22||Only one outcome for primary outcome, so no adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons was done. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were done. Treatment groups were similar with respect to the assessed demographic and baseline characteristics||The study was designed to detect a 10% absolute difference in livebirth rate with 80% power and a type I error rate of 5%, on the assumption that participants taking placebo who achieved pregnancy would have a livebirth rate of 75%.||1.22|0.98|0.0984
91660310|NCT00467363|183215484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.19|||Fisher Exact|||||1.19|1.02|.0165
91864072|NCT03257410|183617080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||0.1100
91864073|NCT03257410|183617080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.4607|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.4607
91864074|NCT03257410|183617081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04454||0.0791|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||0.0791
91864075|NCT03257410|183617081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04302||0.9505|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||||0.9505
91660311|NCT00467363|183215485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.19|||Fisher Exact|||||1.19|1.01|.0329
91855605|NCT02528188|183595930|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.11|0.3431
91660312|NCT00467363|183215486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.78|||Fisher Exact|||||1.78|.64|.8902
91660313|NCT00467363|183215487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.55|||Fisher Exact|||||1.55|.76|.6869
91660314|NCT00467363|183215488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.41|||Fisher Exact|||||2.41|.19|.7530
91660315|NCT00467363|183215489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.26|||Fisher Exact|||||7.26|.15|1.000
91660316|NCT00467363|183215490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.06|||Fisher Exact|||||5.06|.21|1.000
91660317|NCT00467363|183215491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.06|||Fisher Exact|||||5.06|.21|1.000
91660318|NCT00467363|183215492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.76|||Fisher Exact|||||1.76|.67|.7943
91660319|NCT00467363|183215493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.7802
91660320|NCT00467363|183215494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.23|||Fisher Exact|||||1.23|.42|.2603
91660321|NCT00467363|183215497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||Fisher Exact|||||1.4|-0.8|0.77
91660322|NCT03181594|183215498|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline for the rTNSS would be 0 (no effect). Assumptions included an alpha level of 0.5 (2-tailed), 90% power, and a standard deviation of 2.5 for the mean change from baseline. A total of 68 participants was deemed adequate to test the hypothesis.||||<0.001
91660323|NCT03181594|183215500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91660324|NCT03181594|183215501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p\<0.001 at all time periods. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||<0.001
91660325|NCT02834663|183215503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.521|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.928|-3.592||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Patients were evaluated for changes in BCVA of the treated eye, from the start of the study till 6 months, until trial completion. After administration of each injection, measurements of BCVA were compared to their respective baseline results. The paired t-test and repeated measures ANOVA was performed for comparative analysis, as all showed normality.||-3.592|-13.928|<0.0001
91660326|NCT02834663|183215504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|110.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.919||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.79|137.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||137.210|82.790|0.0001
91855606|NCT02528188|183595930|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.09|0.6332
91855607|NCT02528188|183595931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.28|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||2.28|-0.75|0.4082
91855608|NCT02528188|183595931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.63|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||3.63|0.31|0.0238
91660327|NCT02834663|183215505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.932||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.884|5.956||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.956|1.884|0.001
91660328|NCT02834663|183215506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.15|1.30|0.0001
91855609|NCT02528188|183595932|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.8||||0.2035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|12.2|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||12.2|-2.6|0.2035
91855610|NCT02528188|183595932|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|16.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|27.0|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||27.0|6.8|0.0010
91901566|NCT01699789|183697866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.25||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.25|0.34|
91660329|NCT02834663|183215507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|8.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.62|2.67|0.0001
91660330|NCT02834663|183215508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|8.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.62|2.67|0.0001
91660331|NCT02834663|183215509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.795||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.795|-0.751|0.221
91660332|NCT00904215|183215517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91660333|NCT00904215|183215518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91660334|NCT00904215|183215519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91660335|NCT00904215|183215520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91660336|NCT00982397|183215524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.9|99.0|||||Therapy rates were analyzed using competing risks survival analysis methods, accounting for death as a competing risk.Therapy incidence rates were estimated using cumulative incidence functions and reported with 95% confidence interval.|The study was designed to include at least 1,131 patients with DR/CRT-D ICD devices in order to estimate the inappropriate shock free rate at 1 year post-implant with 1% precision.||99.0|97.9|
91660337|NCT00982397|183215524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.1|98.5|||||Therapy rates were analyzed using competing risks survival analysis methods, accounting for death as a competing risk.Therapy incidence rates were estimated using cumulative incidence functions and reported with 95% confidence interval.|This study was designed to include at least 610 patients with VR-ICD devices in order to estimate the inappropriate shock free rate at 1 year post-implant with a precision of 2%.||98.5|96.1|
91855611|NCT02528188|183595933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|1.99||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.17|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly progressive OA Type 1 or 2||4.17|0.31|0.0248
91855612|NCT02528188|183595933|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|5.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|7.54|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2||7.54|3.16|<0.0001
91855613|NCT02528188|183595933|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|1.79||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.92|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||3.92|0.16|0.0366
91855614|NCT02528188|183595933|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|3.81||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.12|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||6.12|1.99|0.0001
91855615|NCT02528188|183595933|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.2||||0.6168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.71|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||1.71|-0.76|0.6168
91660338|NCT00982397|183215525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is for comparison against a performance criterion of 10%.|Exact Binomial|||Using the one-sided one proportion Exact Test in PASS sample size software, a sample size of 76 subjects with 1-month follow-up was calculated to be required for the evaluation of this objective. To ensure adequate testing of the Protecta XT CRT-D device, the 76 subjects must have included at least 34 CRT-D subjects. Assuming an attrition rate of 10%, a sample size of 85 subjects enrolled was calculated to be required.||||<0.0001
91660339|NCT00982397|183215526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is for comparison of the observed proportion of successes against a protocol-specified performance criterion of 95%.|Confidence interval and hypothesis test|||P, the expected proportion of successes under the null hypothesis, was 95%. α, the Type I error rate, is 0.025. Power is 90%. Pa, the assumed true proportion of successes, is 99%. Based on the above assumptions, at least 173 subjects with a useable time to VF detection testing were required for this objective. Assuming a 5% rate for the potential non-adherence to the testing protocol, the required enrollment sample size was 183.||||<0.0001
91855616|NCT02528188|183595933|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|1.3||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.97|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||2.97|0.17|0.0388
91901567|NCT01699789|183697867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.82||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=553), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||0.82|0.30|
91901568|NCT01699789|183697868|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.8||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=588), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline status of the dependent variable and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||5.80|1.39|
91855617|NCT02528188|183595933|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.1||||0.7245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.51|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Primary osteonecrosis||1.51|-0.74|0.7245
91855618|NCT02528188|183595933|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.1||||0.7182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.52|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Primary osteonecrosis||1.52|-0.74|0.7182
91855619|NCT02528188|183595933|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.2||||0.6824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.9|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Subchondral insufficiency fracture||1.90|-0.96|0.6824
91855620|NCT02528188|183595933|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.3||||0.5632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.03|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Subchondral insufficiency fracture||2.03|-0.86|0.5632
91855621|NCT02528188|183595934|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|19.56||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|32.35|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2||32.35|6.78|0.0027
91855622|NCT02528188|183595934|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|51.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.47|68.5|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2||68.50|34.47|<0.0001
91660340|NCT00982397|183215527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ho: p1 ≤ p2 - 0.05 Ha: p1 \> p2 - 0.05 Where p1 was the syncopal event free rate at one year post implant by programming VF NID 30/40 and p2 for NID = 18/24. If the null-hypothesis was rejected it was concluded that NID = 30/40 did not decrease the syncope free rate by more than 5% compared to NID = 18/24 and hence was non-inferior.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|2.7||P-Value is for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning||The 90% Confidence Interval is for the difference (p1-p2), where p1=syncope free rate 30/40 arm and p2=syncope free rate 18/24 arm. Estimated value and confidence interval reflect percentages.|The expected syncopal event free rate was 0.984 in both programming groups. alpha, Type I error was 0.05. Power, 1-beta, was 80%. Non-inferiority margin 5% Based on the above assumptions and Farrington-Manning test, a total of 230 subjects was required. By further assuming 15% attrition rate and 5 % of crossover rate, a total of 300 subjects were needed.||2.7|-2.7|0.0013
91855623|NCT02528188|183595934|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|17.58||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|29.76|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||29.76|5.39|0.0047
91855624|NCT02528188|183595934|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|38.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.05|53.4|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||53.40|23.05|<0.0001
91660341|NCT00838630|183215528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed for the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.27||||||90.0|92.32|104.61|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.61|92.32|
91660342|NCT00838630|183215529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed for log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf, and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.37||||||90.0|90.47|98.43|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.43|90.47|
91660343|NCT00838630|183215530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.7||||||90.0|91.52|100.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.08|91.52|
91855625|NCT02528188|183595934|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.94||||0.3214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|5.76|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||5.76|-1.89|0.3214
91660344|NCT00578552|183215542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-tailed||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.77
91855626|NCT02528188|183595934|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|12.88||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|20.39|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||20.39|5.36|0.0008
91855627|NCT02528188|183595934|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.9||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|7.96|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Subchondral Insufficiency Fracture||7.96|-4.17|0.5394
91855628|NCT02528188|183595934|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.98||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|9.39|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Subchondral Insufficiency Fracture||9.39|-3.44|0.3636
91855629|NCT02528188|183595934|SUPERIORITY||Poisson model for rate difference|1.0|||||||||||||95% CI was not estimable since there were less number of participants with events.|Primary osteonecrosis||||
91855630|NCT02528188|183595934|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.0|||||||||||||95% CI was not estimable since there were less number of participants with events.|Primary osteonecrosis||||
91855631|NCT02528188|183595935|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.87||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|7.74||The event of adjudicated primary osteonecrosis in the tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group is not included in this analysis. Conclusions for this analysis do not change as the comparison to NSAID is already statistically significant in favor of NSAID.|Exact methods for risk difference|||||7.74|2.43|0.0002
91660345|NCT00578552|183215542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-tailed||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||1.00
91660346|NCT00833937|183215612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|99.7||||||90.0|93.9|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|93.9|
91660347|NCT00833937|183215613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.8||||||90.0|92.6|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|92.6|
91855632|NCT02528188|183595935|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.73|12.52|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||12.52|6.73|<0.0001
91660348|NCT00833937|183215614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.9||||||90.0|92.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|92.7|
91660349|NCT01985308|183215615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91660350|NCT04115293|183215618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.95|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-3.24|<0.001
91660351|NCT04115293|183215619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.49|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-1.49|-4.39|<0.001
91660352|NCT04115293|183215620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-1.16|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-1.16|-5.24|0.0023
91660353|NCT04115293|183215621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.49||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|-0.54|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-4.45|0.0128
91660354|NCT04115293|183215623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.608||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|7.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.860|0.866|0.0885
91660355|NCT04115293|183215624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.184|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.662|6.101|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.101|1.662|<0.001
91660356|NCT04115293|183215625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.865||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.518|5.409|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.409|1.518|0.0012
91855633|NCT02528188|183595936|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|48.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.76|69.74||The event of adjudicated primary osteonecrosis in the tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group is not included in this analysis. Conclusions for this analysis do not change as the comparison to NSAID is already statistically significant in favor of NSAID.|Poisson model for rate difference|||||69.74|26.76|<0.0001
91855634|NCT02528188|183595936|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|95.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.25|121.42|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||121.42|70.25|<0.0001
91855635|NCT02528188|183595937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW width at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.15|0.0979
91660357|NCT03772522|183215632|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.384||||0.428|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks).||||0.428
91660358|NCT03772522|183215632|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.46||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.058
91855636|NCT02528188|183595937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
91855637|NCT02528188|183595937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.17|0.1162
91864076|NCT03257410|183617081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04271||0.1521|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.1521
91660359|NCT03772522|183215632|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.4||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-month post-intervention.||||0.095
91660360|NCT03772522|183215632|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.005
91660361|NCT03772522|183215632|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.022
91660362|NCT03772522|183215633|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|1.792||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks) for the physical component of the CIS.||||0.002
91660363|NCT03772522|183215633|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.047||||0.923|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks) for the psychological component of the CIS.||||0.923
91660364|NCT03772522|183215633|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.18
91660365|NCT03772522|183215633|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.2||||0.388|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.388
91660366|NCT03772522|183215633|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.52||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.037
91660367|NCT03772522|183215633|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.09||||0.688|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.688
91855638|NCT02528188|183595937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.22|0.0128
91855639|NCT02528188|183595937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.17|0.8885
91855640|NCT02528188|183595937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.24|0.6345
91855641|NCT02528188|183595937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.32|0.4406
91855642|NCT02528188|183595937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.19|0.7109
91855643|NCT02528188|183595938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.30|0.1020
91855644|NCT02528188|183595938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.0230
91855645|NCT02528188|183595938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.37|0.0645
91855646|NCT02528188|183595938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.26|0.5005
91855647|NCT02528188|183595939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||3.29|1.04|0.0358
91855648|NCT02528188|183595939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||4.12|1.37|0.0021
91855649|NCT02528188|183595939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||3.77|1.07|0.0301
91855650|NCT02528188|183595939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||4.85|1.45|0.0016
91855651|NCT02528188|183595939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||1.70|0.18|0.3002
91855652|NCT02528188|183595939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||2.89|0.39|0.8997
91855653|NCT02528188|183595939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.4559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||4.18|0.53|0.4559
91855654|NCT02528188|183595939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||2.54|0.20|0.5996
91855655|NCT02528188|183595940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||12.65|0.90|0.0714
91855656|NCT02528188|183595940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|12.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||12.84|0.91|0.0681
91855657|NCT02528188|183595940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|11.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||11.95|0.81|0.0967
91855658|NCT02528188|183595940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|11.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||11.90|0.81|0.0976
91855659|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.27|0.2212
91855660|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.10|0.4557
91855661|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.45|0.0029
91855662|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.50|0.0005
91855663|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.33|0.1273
91660368|NCT03772522|183215633|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.51||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.038
91660369|NCT03772522|183215633|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.01||||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.956
91660370|NCT03772522|183215633|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.32||||0.197|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.197
91855664|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.57|<0.0001
91660371|NCT03772522|183215633|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.07||||0.762|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.762
91660372|NCT03772522|183215634|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.101||||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks).||||0.834
91660373|NCT03772522|183215634|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.19||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.417
91660374|NCT03772522|183215634|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.42||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.087
91864077|NCT03257410|183617081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0538|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04652||0.2489|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 16||||0.2489
91864078|NCT03257410|183617081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05025||0.4936|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 20||||0.4936
91864079|NCT03257410|183617081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0458||0.1497|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.1497
91660375|NCT03772522|183215634|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.33||||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.168
91855665|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.31|0.6349
91660376|NCT03772522|183215634|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.37||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.133
91864080|NCT03257410|183617082|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.012||0.9001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.9001
91660377|NCT03772522|183215635|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|1.161||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks).||||0.026
91660378|NCT03772522|183215635|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.014
91864081|NCT03257410|183617082|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.372||0.3279|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.3279
91660379|NCT03772522|183215635|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.29||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.217
91855666|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.44|0.1339
91660380|NCT03772522|183215635|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.71||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.006
91660381|NCT03772522|183215635|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.53||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.039
91660382|NCT02883452|183215688|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of CT-P13 SC to CT-P13 IV was to be concluded if the lower bound of two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of geometric least square means was higher than 80%.|Ratio of Geometric LS means|1154.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|786.37|1694.0|||||The geometric lease square (LS) means, ratio of geometric LS means (CT-P13 SC 120/240 mg to CT-P13 IV 5 mg/kg), and 2-sided 90% CI were obtained from the ANCOVA model.|Primary PK analysis was analyzed using an ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and current use of treatment with azathioprine (AZA) or 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) or methotrexate (MTX) (used or not used), disease (CD or UC), clinical response at Week 6 (responder or non-responder by Clinical Disease Activity Index \[CDAI\]-70 for CD or partial Mayo score for UC), body weight at Week 6 (\<80 kg or ≥80 kg) fitted as covariates.||1694.00|786.37|
91660383|NCT01281501|183215695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the treatment with pantoprazole arm is not different in immediate relief of acute, severe dyspeptic pain compared with conventional arm.||7.4|-12.7|0.6
91660384|NCT00905840|183215701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis of the primary outcome variable, was based on a confirmatory non-inferiority test with a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval. The non-inferiority margin for a clinically relevant difference was set at 0.1 mm. For a sample size of st least 73, a paired t-test with a 0.0025 one-sided significant level was calculated to have 80% power to reject the hypothesis that the test is inferior to the standard.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|0.3|||Student's t-test|||"Null hypothesis: Change of functional bone level at the test implant 12 month after surgery is more than 0.1 lower (inferior) than change of functional crestal bone level at the control implant 12 month after surgery.~H-1: Change of functional bone level at the tst implant 12 month after surgery is up to 0.1 lower, equal, or higher (not inferior) than change of functional crestal bone level at the control implant 12 month after surgery."||0.3|0.1|0.025
91660385|NCT00905840|183215702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||This analysis is up to 12 month.||||0.1573
91660386|NCT00905840|183215703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|||||12 month data Plaque index|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3617
91660387|NCT00905840|183215703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7068|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|24 month data Plaque index||||||0.7068
91660388|NCT00905840|183215703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4312|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|36 month data Plaque Index||||||0.4312
91660389|NCT00905840|183215703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|12 month data Sulcus Bleeding Index||||||0.9933
91660390|NCT00905840|183215703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|24 month data Sulcus Bleeding Index||||||0.3667
91660391|NCT00905840|183215703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|36 month data Sulcus Bleeding Index||||||1.0000
91864082|NCT03257410|183617083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.6576|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6576
91660392|NCT02251886|183215707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.76|||Chi-squared|||||1.76|0.77|0.48
91660393|NCT02251886|183215707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|0.69|1.00
91660394|NCT01593852|183215709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical dose observations, a sample size of 68 patients per study group (i.e. 62 evaluable patients for 10% dropout rate) for a total of 136 patient randomized will allow for 80% power to detect for approximately 40% reduction in dose area product (DAP). This sample size will allow for detection of approximately 40% reduction in air kerma (AK). No adjustment for multiple endpoints was performed as both endpoints are assessing radiation dose.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91660395|NCT01593852|183215717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical dose observations, a sample size of 68 patients per study group (i.e. 62 evaluable patients for 10% dropout rate) for a total of 136 patient randomized will allow for 80% power to detect for approximately 40% reduction in dose area product (DAP). This sample size will allow for detection of approximately 40% reduction in air kerma (AK). No adjustment for multiple endpoints was performed as both endpoints are assessing radiation dose.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91660396|NCT05169710|183215725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.857||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.75|-9.64|0.1718
91660397|NCT05169710|183215725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.837||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-11.99|0.028600
91660398|NCT05169710|183215726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.7314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-0.72|0.7314
91660399|NCT05169710|183215726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.91|0.3169
91713446|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 CM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
91864083|NCT03257410|183617084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0058
91864084|NCT03257410|183617085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.034
91855667|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.33|0.6237
91855668|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.37|0.4224
91855669|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.31|0.7526
91855670|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.31|0.7328
91855671|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.33|0.5888
91901569|NCT01699789|183697869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|24.9||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=410), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||24.9|1.5|
91660400|NCT01864174|183215742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study provided 90% power to demonstrate noninferiority in change from baseline mean HbA1c at Week 24, with an assumed standard deviation (SD) of 1.0%, a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%, and 2-sided alpha of 0.05 for the primary comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0687|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||||METFORMIN XR VS METFORMIN IR|||0.17|-0.10|
91660401|NCT03273153|183215780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.2954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.50|0.88|0.2954
91660402|NCT01237054|183215799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Ang2 in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.024
91660403|NCT01237054|183215799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of G-CSF in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.055
91660404|NCT01237054|183215799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Follistatin in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.055
91660405|NCT01237054|183215799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of HGF in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0098
91660406|NCT01237054|183215799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of VEGF-A in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.02
91660407|NCT01237054|183215800|OTHER|Other, trend test.||||||0.008|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend|||||||0.008
91864085|NCT03257410|183617086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0285
91864086|NCT03257410|183617087|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.9069|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9069
91660408|NCT01237054|183215801|OTHER|Other, trend test.||||||0.15||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Kep between MGUS and SMM+MM.|Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend|||||||0.15
91660409|NCT01237054|183215801|OTHER|Other, trend test.||||||0.33||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Ktrans between MGUS and SMM+MM.|Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend|||||||0.33
91660410|NCT01237054|183215802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.08
91660411|NCT01237054|183215803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.011
91660412|NCT05323396|183215824|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.19
91660413|NCT05323396|183215825|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.85
91660414|NCT05323396|183215826|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.77
91660415|NCT05323396|183215827|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.12
91660416|NCT05323396|183215828|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.81
91660417|NCT05323396|183215829|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.65
91864087|NCT03257410|183617088|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.8413|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8413
91660418|NCT01790581|183215865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|TWO_SIDED||||||MANOVA|||This analysis examined the change in balance scores from baseline to 1-day post intervention for all three reach distances (Anterior, Posteriomedial, Posteriolateral) using a MANOVA.||||.904
91660419|NCT01790581|183215867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||MANOVA|||This analysis examined the change in disability scores from baseline to 1-day post intervention for both disability scores (FAAM, FAAM-S) using a MANOVA.||||.5
91660420|NCT02305758|183215910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.48||||||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model, stratified by planned bevacizumab use (planned use versus no planned use).||1.480|0.596|
91660421|NCT02305758|183215911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.261|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|2.156||||||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model, stratified by planned bevacizumab use (planned use versus no planned use).||2.156|0.738|
91660422|NCT02305758|183215912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|12.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by planned bevacizumab use (planned use versus no planned use).||12.1|-21.4|
91660423|NCT01424644|183215929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to diphtheria toxin for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of the Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in seroprotection rates \[(MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV) minus (Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than -10%, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|17.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of anti-diphtheria immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo||17|9|
91713447|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.74||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 CM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.74
91722466|NCT01932606|183337712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PCWP (exercise).||||0.0002
91660424|NCT01424644|183215929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to tetanus toxin for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in seroprotection rates \[(MenACWY-CRM+ Tdap+HPV) minus (Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than -10%, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of anti-tetanus immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||2|-2|
91855672|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.26|-0.28|0.9345
91855673|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.29|0.8782
91855674|NCT02528188|183595941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-0.22|0.7076
91855675|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.37|0.0150
91855676|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.25|0.3286
91855677|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.50|0.0004
91855678|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.53|0.0001
91855679|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.37|0.0517
91864088|NCT03257410|183617089|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.0125|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0125
91864089|NCT03257410|183617090|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561||0.6891|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6891
91660425|NCT01424644|183215930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to PT antigen for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of the Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the GMCs of the MenACWY-CRM +Tdap+HPV group to the Placebo+Tdap + HPV group was greater than 0.5, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination.|Vaccine group ratio-Geometric mean conc|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of anti-PT immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||1.14|0.89|
91713448|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 CM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.20
91713449|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6295||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 EMRA cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6295
91864090|NCT03257410|183617091|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.6043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6043
91864091|NCT03257410|183617092|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.5067|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5067
91864092|NCT03257410|183617093|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0297|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0297
91864093|NCT03257410|183617094|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.1325|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1325
91864094|NCT03257410|183617095|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2304|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2304
91855680|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-0.61|<0.0001
91855681|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.37|0.3621
91864095|NCT03257410|183617096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.846||0.5785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5785
91864096|NCT03257410|183617097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.918||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0067
91660426|NCT01424644|183215930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to FHA antigen for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(MenACWY-CRM +Tdap+HPV) minus(Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than 0.5, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination.|Vaccine group ratio- Geometric mean conc|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of anti-FHA immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||0.93|0.76|
91660427|NCT01424644|183215930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to PRN antigen for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV) minus(Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than 0.5, at 1 month after vaccination.|Vaccine group ratio-Geometric mean conc|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of anti-PRN immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||0.93|0.72|
91660428|NCT00440297|183215941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|48.5||||||95.0|38.4|58.7|||||Exact binomial confidence interval.|No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the primary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose among subjects who were seronegative at baseline||58.7|38.4|
91660429|NCT00440297|183215941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|57.7||||||95.0|47.9|67.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval.|||67.0|47.9|
91660430|NCT00440297|183215942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|66.7||||||95.0|56.5|75.8|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||75.8|56.5|
91660431|NCT00440297|183215942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|69.2||||||95.0|59.4|77.9|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||77.9|59.4|
91660432|NCT02024932|183215963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geo-mean ratio|1.037||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.009|1.065|||ANCOVA|||||1.065|1.009|0.0164
91660433|NCT03020641|183215989|OTHER|t-test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2347||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.1276||the threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Interleukin 1 (IL1)||0.1276|- 0.8077|0.058
91660434|NCT03020641|183215989|OTHER|Interleukin 6 (IL6)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.44|-1.60|0.001
91660435|NCT03020641|183215989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Interleukin 10||0.81|-0.76|0.052
91855682|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.47|0.0832
91660436|NCT03020641|183215989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Vascular Endotelial Grow Factor A||0.22|-0.50|0.815
91660437|NCT03020641|183215989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||TNF alfa||0.36|-0.42|0.742
91660438|NCT03020641|183215989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Chemokine CXC ligand 2||0.44|-0.36|0.603
91660439|NCT03020641|183215990|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Matrix metalloproteinase-9||0.65|-0.47|0.600
91660440|NCT03020641|183215990|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1||0.97|0.030|0.028
91660441|NCT03020641|183215990|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||E-selectin||0.82|-0.64|0.807
91660442|NCT03020641|183215992|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|10.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.21|-7.49|0.862
91660443|NCT03238781|183216000|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.26||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.4||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||1.40|-0.88|0.66
91660444|NCT03238781|183216000|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.27||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.43||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||1.43|-0.89|0.65
91660445|NCT03238781|183216001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.62||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values are obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine).||1.62|0.41|0.57
91660446|NCT03238781|183216001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.54||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values are obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine).||1.54|0.37|0.45
91713450|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EMRA cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
91722467|NCT01932606|183337713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in heart rate.||||0.3
91660447|NCT03238781|183216002|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.81||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (CM versus EM), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||0.81|-0.87|0.94
91660448|NCT03238781|183216002|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.77||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-0.94|0.84
91660449|NCT03238781|183216003|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.28||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.01||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||2.01|-2.56|0.81
91722468|NCT01932606|183337714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in systolic blood pressure.||||0.2
91855683|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.38|0.4072
91855684|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.39|0.3404
91660450|NCT03238781|183216003|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.31||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|2.63||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||2.63|-2.01|0.79
91713451|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EMRA cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.999
91855685|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.34|0.6344
91855686|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.35|0.5756
91855687|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.38|0.4394
91660451|NCT03238781|183216004|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.86||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|1.44||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||1.44|-3.15|0.46
91660452|NCT03238781|183216004|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.56||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.89||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||2.89|-1.77|0.64
91864097|NCT03257410|183617098|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.314||0.0434|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0434
91864098|NCT03257410|183617099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3281|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3281
91864099|NCT03257410|183617100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.0463|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0463
91855688|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.31|0.7747
91855689|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.32|0.7305
91855690|NCT02528188|183595943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-0.22|0.7330
91855691|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.10|0.2159
91855692|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.10|0.2049
91855693|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.19|0.0002
91855694|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.21|<0.0001
91855695|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.08|0.7799
91660453|NCT03161405|183216014|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.9827|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6446|2.3904||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The mean difference and its 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||2.3904|1.6446|
91864100|NCT03257410|183617101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1925|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1925
91864101|NCT03257410|183617102|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.2569|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2569
91660454|NCT03161405|183216015|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1199|1.4891||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The mean difference and its 90% CI for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||1.4891|1.1199|
91660455|NCT03161405|183216016|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2783|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0965|1.4904||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The mean difference and its 90% CI for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||1.4904|1.0965|
91864102|NCT03257410|183617103|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104||0.5709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5709
91864103|NCT03257410|183617104|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.217
91855696|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.16|0.0061
91855697|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.10|0.9718
91855698|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.14|0.3292
91855699|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.10|0.9830
91855700|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.09|0.9137
91855701|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.11|0.8784
91855702|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.10|0.9995
91855703|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.13|0.6648
91855704|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.09|0.7280
91864104|NCT03257410|183617105|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.292||0.2386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2386
91864105|NCT03257410|183617106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.1769|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1769
91864106|NCT03257410|183617107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.8102|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8102
91864107|NCT03257410|183617108|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.501||0.9672|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9672
91864108|NCT03257410|183617109|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.623||0.2697|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2697
91855705|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.09|0.8856
91855706|NCT02528188|183595945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.05|0.2814
91855707|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2||1.28|0.89|0.4691
91855708|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2||1.13|0.79|0.5451
91855709|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.54|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4||1.54|1.08|0.0059
91855710|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.55|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4||1.55|1.08|0.0057
91660456|NCT01597245|183216023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91855711|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8||1.38|0.95|0.1584
91855712|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.006||95.0|1.08|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8||1.58|1.08|0.0060
91660457|NCT01597245|183216023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660458|NCT01597245|183216023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660459|NCT01597245|183216024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660460|NCT01597245|183216024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660461|NCT01597245|183216024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660462|NCT01597245|183216025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
91660463|NCT01597245|183216025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660464|NCT01597245|183216025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660465|NCT01597245|183216026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660466|NCT01597245|183216026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91855713|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16||1.46|0.96|0.1117
91855714|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16||1.47|0.97|0.1004
91855715|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24||1.25|0.87|0.6258
91855716|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.1154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24||1.39|0.96|0.1154
91855717|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32||1.22|0.86|0.8018
91864109|NCT03257410|183617112|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.7189|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7189
91864110|NCT03257410|183617113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.097
91864111|NCT03257410|183617114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.4513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4513
91864112|NCT03257410|183617115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0733|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0733
91660467|NCT01597245|183216026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660468|NCT01597245|183216027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.008
91660469|NCT01597245|183216027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660470|NCT01597245|183216027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660471|NCT01597245|183216028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91660472|NCT01597245|183216028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91660473|NCT01597245|183216029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91864113|NCT03257410|183617116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.467||0.5326|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5326
91660474|NCT01597245|183216029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660475|NCT01597245|183216029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91660476|NCT01597245|183216030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660477|NCT01597245|183216030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660478|NCT01597245|183216030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660479|NCT01597245|183216031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91660480|NCT01597245|183216031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660481|NCT01597245|183216031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660482|NCT01597245|183216032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660483|NCT01597245|183216032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660484|NCT01597245|183216032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660485|NCT01597245|183216033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660486|NCT01597245|183216033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660487|NCT01597245|183216033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660488|NCT01597245|183216034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.150
91660489|NCT01597245|183216034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91660490|NCT01597245|183216034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91855718|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32||1.26|0.88|0.5697
91660491|NCT01597245|183216035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Score||||0.026
91660492|NCT01597245|183216035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Score||||0.076
91660493|NCT01597245|183216035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Score||||0.016
91660494|NCT01597245|183216035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Score||||<0.001
91660495|NCT01597245|183216035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Score||||<0.001
91660496|NCT01597245|183216035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Score||||<0.001
91660497|NCT01597245|183216035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Score||||<0.001
91660498|NCT01597245|183216035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Score||||<0.001
91660499|NCT01597245|183216035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Score||||<0.001
91660500|NCT01597245|183216035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Score||||<0.001
91660501|NCT01597245|183216035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Score||||<0.001
91660502|NCT01597245|183216035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Score||||<0.001
91660503|NCT01597245|183216036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Summary Score||||<0.001
91660504|NCT01597245|183216036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Summary Score||||<0.001
91660505|NCT01597245|183216036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Summary Score||||<0.001
91660506|NCT01597245|183216036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Summary Score||||<0.001
91660507|NCT01597245|183216036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Summary Score||||<0.001
91660508|NCT01597245|183216036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Summary Score||||<0.001
91660509|NCT01597245|183216037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660510|NCT01597245|183216037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660511|NCT01597245|183216037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660512|NCT01597245|183216038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 50||||<0.001
91660513|NCT01597245|183216038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 50||||<0.001
91660514|NCT01597245|183216038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 50||||<0.001
91660515|NCT01597245|183216038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 75||||<0.001
91660516|NCT01597245|183216038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 75||||<0.001
91660517|NCT01597245|183216038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 75||||<0.001
91660518|NCT01597245|183216038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 100||||0.002
91660519|NCT01597245|183216038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 100||||<0.001
91855719|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40||1.20|0.84|0.9557
91855720|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40||1.22|0.85|0.8553
91855721|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48||1.20|0.84|0.9901
91855722|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48||1.14|0.80|0.5870
91855723|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56||1.22|0.85|0.8302
91855724|NCT02528188|183595947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56||1.12|0.79|0.4823
91855725|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.33|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.33|0.92|0.2938
91855726|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.10|0.75|0.3146
91855727|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.58|0.98|0.0748
91855728|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.45|0.89|0.3000
91855729|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||1.74|0.86|0.2550
91855730|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.62|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||1.62|0.80|0.4780
91660520|NCT01597245|183216038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 100||||<0.001
91660521|NCT00731783|183216040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||1.97|0.54|1.00
91660522|NCT00731783|183216041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.55|||Fisher Exact|||||4.55|1.03|0.05
91660523|NCT00731783|183216042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.52|||Fisher Exact|||||1.52|0.39|0.49
91855731|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||2.42|0.70|0.4006
91855732|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||2.54|0.74|0.3089
91864114|NCT03257410|183617117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076||0.3042|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3042
91855733|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.50|1.05|0.0114
91660524|NCT00731783|183216043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.28|||Fisher Exact|||||3.28|0.77|0.28
91855734|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.47|1.03|0.0239
91855735|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.6|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.60|1.07|0.0079
91864115|NCT03257410|183617118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.5534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5534
91660525|NCT00731783|183216044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.16|||Fisher Exact|||||1.16|0.23|0.12
91660526|NCT00731783|183216045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||||0.85|0.21|0.02
91660527|NCT00731783|183216046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.77|||Fisher Exact|||||0.77|0.20|0.008
91660528|NCT00731783|183216047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.86|||Fisher Exact|||||0.86|0.22|0.02
91660529|NCT02571907|183216048|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A Bayesian beta-binomial model with a Uniform(0, 1) prior was used to compute a 95% credible interval for the proportion of patients meeting the primary endpoint. The lower bound of this credible interval (2.5th percentile of the posterior distribution) was 91.2%, which was greater than the performance goal of 55%.|||
91660530|NCT02571907|183216049|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A Bayesian beta-binomial model with a Uniform(0, 1) prior was used to compute a 95% credible interval for the proportion of patients meeting the secondary endpoint. The lower bound of this credible interval (2.5th percentile of the posterior distribution) was 70.8%, which was greater than the performance goal of 46%.|||
91660531|NCT03666026|183216058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03||||||||1.03|1.00|
91660532|NCT03666026|183216058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04||||||||1.04|1.00|
91864116|NCT03257410|183617119|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181||0.2958|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2958
91660533|NCT03666026|183216058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04||||||||1.04|1.00|
91660534|NCT00579345|183216069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the postvaccination (Day 22) Geometric Mean Titers (FLU+PV/FLU vaccine alone) was greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||||A/H1N1(Day22)|The non-inferiority null hypothesis stated that the FLU+PV vaccine group was non-inferior to the FLU alone group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between vaccines (FLU+PV/FLU alone) on day 22 was greater than 0.5 for all three vaccine strains.||0.98|0.45|
91864117|NCT03257410|183617120|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.0998|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0998
91864118|NCT03257410|183617121|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176||0.9952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9952
91864119|NCT03257410|183617122|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.3063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3063
91864120|NCT03257410|183617123|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.529||0.1098|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1098
91864121|NCT03257410|183617124|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.797||0.0766|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0766
91864122|NCT03257410|183617125|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.2886|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2886
91864123|NCT03257410|183617126|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.4513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4513
91864124|NCT03257410|183617127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.5992|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5992
91660535|NCT00579345|183216069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the postvaccination (Day 22) Geometric Mean Titers (FLU+PV/FLU vaccine alone) was greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.19|||||A/H3N2 (Day 22)-criterion was met|The non-inferiority null hypothesis stated that the FLU+PV vaccine group was non-inferior to the FLU alone group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between vaccines (FLU+PV/FLU alone) on day 22 was greater than 0.5 for all three vaccine strains.||1.19|0.55|
91660536|NCT00579345|183216069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the postvaccination (Day 22) Geometric Mean Titers (FLU+PV/FLU vaccine alone) was greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.02|||||B (Day 22)|The non-inferiority null hypothesis stated that the FLU+PV vaccine group was non-inferior to the FLU alone group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between vaccines (FLU+PV/FLU alone) on day 22 was greater than 0.5 for all three vaccine strains.||1.02|0.46|
91660537|NCT01343004|183216070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91660538|NCT01343004|183216070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91660539|NCT01343004|183216071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
91713452|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.36||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EMRA cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.36
91855736|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.6|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.60|1.08|0.0068
91855737|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.62|0.96|0.1037
91722469|NCT01932606|183337714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.05
91855738|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.88|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.88|1.12|0.0046
91855739|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||2.19|0.85|0.1971
91855740|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.52|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||2.52|1.00|0.0480
91855741|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.28|0.89|0.4744
91864125|NCT03257410|183617128|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3836|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3836
91660540|NCT01343004|183216071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
91660541|NCT01343004|183216071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8155|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||0.8155
91660542|NCT01343004|183216072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
91660543|NCT01343004|183216072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
91660544|NCT01343004|183216072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
91660545|NCT01343004|183216073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
91660546|NCT01343004|183216073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
91660547|NCT01343004|183216073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||0.0004
91660548|NCT01343004|183216074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0318|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0318
91660549|NCT01343004|183216074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2304|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2304
91660550|NCT01343004|183216074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3361
91660551|NCT00834067|183216098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.7||||||90.0|90.1|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|90.1|
91722470|NCT01932606|183337715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PVR after study drug (exercise)||||0.3
91855742|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.45|1.02|0.0336
91855743|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.44|1.00|0.0559
91864126|NCT03257410|183617129|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.284||0.0769|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0769
91855744|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.61|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.61|1.11|0.0021
91660552|NCT00834067|183216099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.0||||||90.0|99.9|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108|99.9|
91660553|NCT00834067|183216100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|99.7|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107|99.7|
91660554|NCT00834067|183216101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|96.0|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|96|
91660555|NCT00834067|183216102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|99.1|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|99.1|
91713453|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8314||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 naive cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.8314
91660556|NCT00834067|183216103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|99.4|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|99.4|
91660557|NCT00834067|183216104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0||||||90.0|99.8|114.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||114|99.8|
91713454|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 naive cells at dose level 1.||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
91855745|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.59|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||1.59|1.00|0.0535
91864127|NCT03257410|183617130|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91713455|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.64||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 naive cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.64
91864128|NCT03257410|183617131|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.039||0.1825|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1825
91864129|NCT03257410|183617132|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.0957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0957
91660558|NCT00834067|183216105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0||||||90.0|99.0|106.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106|99|
91855746|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.92|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||1.92|1.22|0.0003
91855747|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.6421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||1.70|0.72|0.6421
91660559|NCT00834067|183216106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|98.1|108.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||108|98.1|
91660560|NCT00418561|183216108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|||||Test for no difference between cohorts.|ANOVA|||The comparisons of the three doses were done using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||0.0737
91855748|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||2.38|1.07|0.0207
91855749|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.39|0.95|0.1635
91901570|NCT01699789|183697870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.57||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.57|0.59|
91660561|NCT00418561|183216109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|||||Test for no difference between cohorts.|ANOVA|||The comparisons of the three doses were done using ANOVA model including the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||0.1115
91713456|NCT01519817|183318383|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 naive cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.30
91660562|NCT00418561|183216111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|||||Test for no difference between cohorts.|ANOVA|||The comparisons of the three doses were done using ANOVA model including the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||0.1268
91855750|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.47|1.00|0.0529
91855751|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY|The two key secondary comparisons for 'Participants with \>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus NSAID and tanezumab 5 mg treatment group versus NSAID) could not be considered significant since preceding tests in the graphical testing procedure were not significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.37|0.96|0.1322
91855752|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY|The two key secondary comparisons for 'Participants with \>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus NSAID and tanezumab 5 mg treatment group versus NSAID) could not be considered significant since preceding tests in the graphical testing procedure were not significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.46|1.02|0.0262
91855753|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.22|0.83|0.9805
91660563|NCT00829309|183216131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.45||||||90.0|80.08|121.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||121.03|80.08|
91660564|NCT00829309|183216132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.98||||||90.0|85.23|97.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.12|85.23|
91713457|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.375||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNg cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.375
91855754|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.61|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.61|1.10|0.0033
91660565|NCT00829309|183216133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.3||||||90.0|85.34|108.66|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.66|85.34|
91660566|NCT03020615|183216167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
91660567|NCT03020615|183216170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitley), two-sided|||||||0.0005
91660568|NCT03020615|183216172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.011
91660569|NCT03020615|183216173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
91660570|NCT03020615|183216176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.0009
91660571|NCT03020615|183216178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.0004
91660572|NCT03020615|183216180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.75
91660573|NCT03020615|183216182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.0013
91660574|NCT03020615|183216183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
91660575|NCT00089661|183216199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.8|6.3|||ANCOVA|||||6.3|4.8|<0.0001
91660576|NCT02760368|183216205|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.378|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.248|0.489|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rates for 64 q2w treatment group at Week 12 are expected to be at least 55%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 30 percentage points between respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis.||0.489|0.248|<0.0001
91713458|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4808||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IFNg cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4808
91855755|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.69|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||1.69|0.92|0.1590
91855756|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.11|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||2.11|1.17|0.0024
91855757|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.20|0.83|0.9932
91660577|NCT02760368|183216205|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.318|0.552|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rates for 64 q4w treatment group at Week 12 are expected to be at least 50%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 25 percentage points between respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis.||0.552|0.318|<0.0001
91660578|NCT02760368|183216206|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.294|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.197|0.389|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 30% in 64 q2w OKZ treatment groups respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 20 percentage points between OKZ q2w treatment group and placebo.||0.389|0.197|<0.0001
91660579|NCT02760368|183216206|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.352|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.251|0.449|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 22% in 64 mg q4w OKZ treatment group respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 12 percentage points between OKZ q4w treatment group and placebo.||0.449|0.251|<0.0001
91713459|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7334||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNg cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7334
91713460|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7109||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNg cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon|||||||0.7109
91855758|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.29|0.90|0.4374
91660580|NCT02760368|183216207|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.47|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||||-0.21|-0.47|<0.0001
91660581|NCT02760368|183216207|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.49|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.49|<0.0001
91660582|NCT02760368|183216208|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.239|0.45|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.450|0.239|<0.0001
91660583|NCT02760368|183216208|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.409|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.296|0.509|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.509|0.296|<0.0001
91660584|NCT02760368|183216209|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.084|||<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.032|0.151||2x2 chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||0.151|0.032|<0.0002
91660585|NCT02760368|183216209|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.077|||<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.027|0.143||2x2 chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||0.143|0.027|<0.0003
91660586|NCT02129426|183216263|OTHER|t-test comparison of the two groups||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.96
91855759|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.28|0.90|0.4406
91660587|NCT02129426|183216264|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.52
91660588|NCT00850174|183216266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.48||||||90.0|88.98|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.00|88.98|
91660589|NCT00850174|183216267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.54||||||90.0|99.19|106.01|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.01|99.19|
91660590|NCT00850174|183216268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.19||||||90.0|98.78|105.71|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.71|98.78|
91660591|NCT00850174|183216269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.77||||||90.0|97.03|104.65|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to Bioequivalence criteria.|||104.65|97.03|
91660592|NCT00850174|183216270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.94||||||90.0|97.75|102.18|||||Results presented for informational purposes only, metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||102.18|97.75|
91660593|NCT00850174|183216271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.8||||||90.0|97.5|102.15|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||102.15|97.50|
91660594|NCT00635492|183216273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Body Mass Index (BMI) - 1kg/m² higher||1.19|1.13|<0.0001
91660595|NCT00635492|183216274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Most recent HbA1c at baseline - 1% higher.||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
91660596|NCT00635492|183216275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Age - 1 year older||0.97|0.95|<0.0001
91855760|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.29|0.90|0.4078
91660597|NCT00635492|183216276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Diabetes Health Profile - 18 (DHP-18) subscale disinhibited eating - Yes vs. No||1.10|1.01|0.0083
91660598|NCT00635492|183216277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Random blood glucose - 1 mmol/L higher||0.99|0.90|0.0141
91660599|NCT00635492|183216278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Blood glucose self-monitoring - 1 test/week more||0.99|0.96|0.0107
91660600|NCT00635492|183216279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Receipt of diet/exercise advice - Yes vs. No||2.46|1.13|0.0193
91660601|NCT00635492|183216280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||LDL cholesterol - 1 mmol/L higher at baseline||0.96|0.72|0.0138
91660602|NCT00635492|183216288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.177|||Regression, Cox|||HbA1c (%) at baseline||1.177|1.062|<0.0001
91660603|NCT00635492|183216288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|0.985|||Regression, Cox|||DHP barriers to activity subscale at baseline||0.985|0.937|0.001
91864130|NCT03257410|183617133|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0012
91660604|NCT00635492|183216288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.532|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.698|3.777|||Regression, Cox|||Gastrointestinal symptoms: yes vs. no at baseline||3.777|1.698|<0.001
91660605|NCT00635492|183216288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.437|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.63|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: basal/bolus vs. long-acting only||0.630|0.303|<0.001
91660606|NCT00635492|183216288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.676||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|0.874|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: mixtures vs. long-acting only||0.874|0.523|0.003
91660607|NCT00635492|183216288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|1.718|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: other vs. long-acting only||1.718|0.175|0.303
91660608|NCT00635492|183216288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.681|2.785|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: short-acting only vs. long-acting only||2.785|1.681|<0.001
91660609|NCT00635492|183216289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.463||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|2.053|||Regression, Cox|||GI symptoms: yes vs. no at baseline||2.053|1.043|0.028
91660610|NCT00635492|183216289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.834|||Regression, Cox|||EQ-5D index value at baseline||0.834|0.432|0.002
91660611|NCT02757105|183216296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.036
91660612|NCT02757105|183216297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.410
91660613|NCT02757105|183216298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.081
91660614|NCT02757105|183216299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.042
91660615|NCT02757105|183216300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.009
91660616|NCT02757105|183216301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.919
91660617|NCT02757105|183216302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|30.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||30.6|-7.7|0.278
91660618|NCT02757105|183216303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|32.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||32.5|-3.4|0.135
91660619|NCT02937870|183216308|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.66||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.47||p-values for treatment comparison of test adhesive 1 vs. no adhesive were adjusted using the Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||1.47|-0.14|0.1770
91722471|NCT01932606|183337716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PA compliance after study drug (exercise)||||0.3
91660620|NCT02937870|183216309|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.8321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.59||p-values for treatment comparison of test adhesive 1 vs. no adhesive were adjusted using the Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.59|-0.98|0.8321
91660621|NCT02937870|183216310|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.8566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.87|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.87|-0.72|0.8566
91660622|NCT02937870|183216311|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.79||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.00|-1.58|0.0488
91660623|NCT02937870|183216312|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.86||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||1.66|0.06|0.0352
91660624|NCT00836056|183216334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.75||||||90.0|91.5|104.42|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.42|91.50|
91660625|NCT00836056|183216335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.77||||||90.0|91.4|102.46|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.46|91.40|
91864131|NCT03257410|183617134|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.1824|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1824
91660626|NCT00836056|183216336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.96||||||90.0|90.77|101.46|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.46|90.77|
91660627|NCT03226522|183216337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
91660628|NCT03226522|183216337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91660629|NCT01001208|183216338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||<0.0001
91660630|NCT01001208|183216339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
91660631|NCT01001208|183216340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
91794367|NCT00245219|183467835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage at Time 2. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
91660632|NCT01001208|183216341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
91794368|NCT00245219|183467835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage at Time 3. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
91794369|NCT00245219|183467836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
91794370|NCT00245219|183467836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
91794371|NCT00245219|183467836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
91660633|NCT01001208|183216342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
91660634|NCT01001208|183216343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
91660635|NCT01001208|183216344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0348||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0348
91864132|NCT03526887|183617163|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|19.1|||Log Rank|||||19.1|9.4|0.016
91660636|NCT01001208|183216345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
91660637|NCT01001208|183216346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1995||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|2-sided van Elteren test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.1995
91660638|NCT01001208|183216347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1995||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|2-sided van Elteren test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.1995
91855761|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.31|0.89|0.4071
91855762|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.50|1.03|0.0248
91660639|NCT02648347|183216348|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.15||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.15|-0.04|
91713461|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4347||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL10 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4347
91713462|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon|||||||>0.9999
91864133|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.66|15.65|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||15.65|-10.66|0.75
91713463|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.748||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.748
91713464|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8203|||||||Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 cytokines at dose level 4.||||||0.8203
91864134|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.37||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.49|7.76|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||7.76|-18.49|0.50
91864135|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.48|14.84|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||14.84|-11.48|0.83
91864136|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.91|6.15|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||6.15|-7.91|0.84
91864137|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.13|8.9|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||8.90|-5.13|0.66
91855763|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.16|0.66|0.3641
91855764|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.53|0.89|0.2497
91855765|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.8682
91855766|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.16|0.81|0.7317
91855767|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.24|0.87|0.6493
91713465|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5625||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL12p70 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5625
91713466|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12p70 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91855768|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.17|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.17|0.82|0.7973
91855769|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.45|0.98|0.0757
91855770|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.47|0.99|0.0578
91855771|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.37|0.76|0.9010
91855772|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.74|0.99|0.0548
91855773|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7331
91855774|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.18|0.82|0.8632
91855775|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.25|0.88|0.6262
91855776|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.15|0.81|0.6817
91855777|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.24|0.85|0.7990
91855778|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.86|0.6786
91855779|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.38|0.78|0.8069
91855780|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.54|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.54|0.88|0.2951
91855781|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.9093
91855782|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.5032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.12|0.79|0.5032
91855783|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.28|0.90|0.4382
91855784|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.5638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.13|0.79|0.5638
91660640|NCT02648347|183216349|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.3 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.412|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.412|0.955|=0.2050
91722472|NCT01932606|183337717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in SVR after study drug (exercise).||||0.007
91864138|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.38|7.68|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||7.68|-6.38|0.88
91864139|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.83||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-200.7|93.05|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3% Type: ROI||93.05|-200.70|0.54
91864140|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.51||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-187.01|105.98|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3% Type: ROI||105.98|-187.01|0.65
91855785|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.6436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.27|0.86|0.6436
91855786|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.85|0.7060
91855787|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.28|0.72|0.7729
91855788|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.42|0.81|0.6405
91855789|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.9046
91855790|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.11|0.78|0.4491
91855791|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7429
91855792|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.10|0.77|0.3467
91901571|NCT01699789|183697871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.22|||||When analyzed as change from baseline, CEP showed significant reductions in likelihood of behavioral health hospitalizations at 6 months (P \< 0.01) and 12 months (P \< 0.01).|Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression model adjusted for covariates, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.22|.40|
91660641|NCT02648347|183216349|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||=|0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.355|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 382 and 344 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.07 (23.00, 82.86) weeks versus 51.93 (27.79, 91.00) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.355|1.012|=0.0725
91855793|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.85|0.7624
91855794|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.7686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.18|0.80|0.7686
91855795|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.33|0.74|0.9384
91855796|NCT02528188|183595948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.38|0.77|0.8495
91713467|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12p70 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91855797|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.44|0.99|0.0651
91855798|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.84|0.9032
91855799|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.72|1.08|0.0100
91855800|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.42|0.88|0.3728
91855801|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.04|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||2.04|1.01|0.0434
91855802|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.04|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||2.04|1.01|0.0425
91855803|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.34|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||2.34|0.64|0.5442
91855804|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||3.45|1.05|0.0349
91855805|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.51|1.05|0.0108
91855806|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.52|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.52|1.07|0.0080
91855807|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.83|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.83|1.22|<0.0001
91855808|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.85|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.85|1.24|<0.0001
91855809|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.88|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.88|1.11|0.0060
91855810|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.93|1.14|0.0031
91855811|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.88|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||2.88|1.08|0.0235
91855812|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||3.42|1.31|0.0021
91864141|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.99||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-199.87|93.88|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3% Type: ROI||93.88|-199.87|0.55
91855813|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7613
91660642|NCT02648347|183216350|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.14|-0.06|
91660643|NCT02648347|183216351|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.382|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.382|0.966|=0.1743
91660644|NCT02648347|183216351|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.267|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic events excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 451 and 424 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.86 (19.71, 73.43) weeks versus 43.86 (21.36, 80.43) weeks, respectively.||1.267|0.972|=0.2305
91855814|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.43|1.00|0.0548
91864142|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.85|8.56|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||8.56|-81.85|0.18
91855815|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.51|1.04|0.0196
91713468|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12p70 cytokines at dose level 14|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5
91713469|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6846||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL1b cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6846
91713470|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL1b cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91713471|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL1b cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5
91713472|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL1b cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91713473|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4375||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL-2 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4375
91713474|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-2 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91713475|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-2 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91713476|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.75||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-2 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.75
91713477|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4525||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL-6 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 1.||||||0.4525
91713478|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.875||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.875
91713479|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 3.||||||0.4316|||||||Wilcoxon test|||Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||0.4316
91713480|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91713481|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.9906||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL-8 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.9906
91713482|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-8 cytokines at dose level 1.||||||0.625
91713483|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.791||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-8 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.791
91713484|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8203||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-8 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.8203
91713485|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all TNF cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91855816|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.75|1.20|<0.0001
91855817|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.0077||95.0|1.09|1.77|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||1.77|1.09|0.0077
91864143|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.49||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.58|22.59|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||22.59|-67.58|0.41
91713486|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.875||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNF cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.875
91855818|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.09|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||2.09|1.30|<0.0001
91855819|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.96|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||1.96|0.87|0.1942
91855820|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.43|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||2.43|1.11|0.0122
91855821|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.43|0.97|0.0977
91855822|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.44|0.98|0.0806
91855823|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.34|0.94|0.2097
91855824|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.49|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.49|1.05|0.0135
91713487|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.9658||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNF cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.9658
91855825|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.33|0.90|0.3571
91713488|NCT01519817|183318384|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6523||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNF cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6523
91713489|NCT01519817|183318385|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2901||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all sCD27 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2901
91713490|NCT01519817|183318385|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.375||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD27 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.375
91855826|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.63|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.63|1.11|0.0025
91855827|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.49|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||1.49|0.83|0.4658
91855828|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.9|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||1.90|1.09|0.0108
91855829|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.85|0.8393
91855830|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.32|0.92|0.2977
91855831|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.34|0.94|0.1944
91713491|NCT01519817|183318385|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2036||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD27 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2036
91855832|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.26|0.88|0.5714
91855833|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.36|0.92|0.2472
91855834|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.51|1.03|0.0235
91855835|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.4074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.51|0.85|0.4074
91855836|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.81|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.81|1.03|0.0296
91855837|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7607
91855838|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.7979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.86|0.7979
91855839|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.2964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.31|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.31|0.92|0.2964
91855840|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.24|0.87|0.6950
91855841|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.38|0.93|0.1985
91855842|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.1239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.42|0.96|0.1239
91855843|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.58|0.88|0.2762
91855844|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.91|1.08|0.0121
91660645|NCT02648347|183216352|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||=|0.3154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.564|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.564|0.901|=0.3154
91713492|NCT01519817|183318385|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0742||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD27 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0742
91855845|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.85|0.8443
91855846|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.85|0.8472
91855847|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.8980
91864144|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.86||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.06|11.34|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||11.34|-79.06|0.22
91864145|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.66||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-183.08|121.76|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||121.76|-183.08|0.74
91864146|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-98.77||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-250.79|53.25|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||53.25|-250.79|0.28
91855848|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.19|0.83|0.9385
91855849|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.32|0.89|0.4261
91855850|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.30|0.88|0.5250
91855851|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.45|0.80|0.6273
91855852|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.9|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.90|1.08|0.0132
91855853|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.18|0.83|0.9095
91855854|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.5098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.12|0.79|0.5098
91855855|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.28|0.90|0.4488
91855856|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.19|0.83|0.9757
91855857|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.39|0.94|0.1843
91855858|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.32|0.89|0.4356
91855859|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.45|0.80|0.6342
91855860|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.73|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.73|0.97|0.0810
91855861|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.15|0.80|0.6527
91855862|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.10|0.77|0.3857
91855863|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.06||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.27|0.89|0.5280
91855864|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.13|0.79|0.5355
91722473|NCT01932606|183337718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in LVSW after study drug (exercise)||||0.0003
91855865|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.84|0.7732
91855866|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.23|0.82|0.9397
91855867|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.39|0.75|0.9044
91855868|NCT02528188|183595950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.57|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.57|0.86|0.3193
91855869|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.62|0.91|0.1772
91855870|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.89|1.07|0.0154
91855871|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.81|1.08|0.0105
91855872|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||2.10|1.26|0.0002
91855873|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.43|0.87|0.4007
91855874|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.75|1.07|0.0116
91855875|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.6279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.18|0.76|0.6279
91855876|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.35|0.87|0.4674
91855877|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.12|0.71|0.3135
91855878|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.30|0.83|0.7581
91855879|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.15|0.73|0.4504
91855880|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.10|0.70|0.2629
91855881|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.20|0.75|0.6763
91855882|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.27|0.80|0.9456
91855883|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.22|0.76|0.7520
91855884|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.26|0.79|0.9981
91855885|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.17|0.74|0.5284
91855886|NCT02528188|183595952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.12|0.70|0.3220
91855887|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.02|0.1120
91855888|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.11|0.9686
91855889|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.25|0.1589
91855890|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.20|0.4720
91855891|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.33|0.0320
91855892|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.3336
91660646|NCT02648347|183216352|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.42|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 198 and 178 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 45.57 (21.71, 73.29) weeks versus 47.36 (20.00, 88.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.420|0.947|=0.2531
91855893|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.47|0.0005
91855894|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.50|0.0001
91864147|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-214.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-367.31|-62.48|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||-62.48|-367.31|0.02
91864148|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.44|73.66|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% , Type: Entire Image||73.66|-81.44|0.93
91855895|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.0001
91855896|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.66|<0.0001
91855897|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.42|0.0115
91855898|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.63|<0.0001
91855899|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.56|0.0002
91855900|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.67|<0.0001
91855901|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.57|0.0002
91855902|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.64|<0.0001
91855903|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.44|0.0238
91855904|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.55|0.0011
91855905|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.51|0.0064
91864149|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-191.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-268.37|-113.67|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% , Type: Entire Image||-113.67|-268.37|<.0001
91864150|NCT04183283|183617192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-252.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-329.79|-174.68|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: Entire Image||-174.68|-329.79|<.0001
91722474|NCT01932606|183337719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in oxygen consumption (VO\_2) after study drug (exercise).||||0.02
91855906|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.54|0.0025
91855907|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.48|0.0589
91855908|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.53|0.0180
91855909|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.47|0.0944
91855910|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.45|0.1198
91855911|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.43|0.1837
91855912|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.39|0.3170
91855913|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.43|0.1873
91855914|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.33|0.5719
91855915|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.39|0.3571
91864151|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.28|8.15|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||8.15|-8.28|0.99
91864152|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.78|7.6|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||7.60|-8.78|0.91
91864153|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.69|10.74|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||10.74|-5.69|0.61
91864154|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.58|7.0|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||7.00|-9.58|0.80
91864155|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.83|9.72|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||9.72|-6.83|0.77
91864156|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|10.14|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||10.14|-6.45|0.71
91864157|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.38||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.27|16.51|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: ROI||16.51|-53.27|0.38
91864158|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.76|31.83|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: ROI||31.83|-37.76|0.89
91864159|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.12||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.0|24.77|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: ROI||24.77|-45.00|0.63
91864160|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.31||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.21|3.58|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||3.58|-26.21|0.21
91855916|NCT02528188|183595953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.25|0.9072
91855917|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.49|0.0004
91855918|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.40|0.0134
91855919|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.56|<0.0001
91855920|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.67|<0.0001
91855921|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.49|0.0031
91855922|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-0.82|<0.0001
91901572|NCT01699789|183697872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.66|.66|
91722475|NCT01932606|183337720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in arteriovenous oxygen difference after study drug (exercise).||||0.6
91855923|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.43|0.0425
91855924|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-0.65|<0.0001
91855925|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.40|0.2980
91855926|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.58|0.0179
91855927|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.42|0.2328
91855928|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.49|0.1019
91855929|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.38|0.4002
91660647|NCT02648347|183216353|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.5991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.594|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.594|0.808|=0.5991
91660648|NCT02648347|183216353|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||=|0.8613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.293|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 127 and 131 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 48.29 (28.86, 76.14) weeks versus 48.43 (21.29, 92.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.293|0.792|=0.8613
91660649|NCT02648347|183216354|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.375|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.375|0.902|=0.4388
91660650|NCT02648347|183216354|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.274|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 319 and 307 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 52.14 (28.71, 84.71) weeks versus 53.00 (30.71, 94.14) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.274|0.930|=0.4577
91855930|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.45|0.2149
91722476|NCT01932606|183337721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in cardiac output after study drug (exercise).||||0.002
91864161|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.04|11.67|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||11.67|-18.04|0.72
91864162|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.46||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.35|4.44|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||4.44|-25.35|0.25
91864163|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.27||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.71|37.25|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||37.25|-22.71|0.69
91864164|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.6|9.2|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||9.2|-50.60|0.25
91864165|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.79||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.77|-4.81|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||-4.81|-64.77|0.06
91864166|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.01||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.4|35.42|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% Type: Entire Image||35.42|-15.4|0.51
91864167|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-78.98|-28.29|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% Type: Entire Image||-28.29|-78.98|<0.001
91855931|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.43|0.2442
91855932|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.37|0.4609
91864168|NCT04183283|183617193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.91|-54.09|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% Type: Entire Image||-54.09|-104.91|<.0001
91660651|NCT01639222|183216365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Calcium-Vitamin D/Reference (%)|179.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|157.16|205.52|||||Point estimates and 95% CIs for the treatment difference ratio (Calcium-Vitamin D/reference treatment) are provided on the original scale as a ratio \* 100%.|The primary parameters were analysed in a mixed effects general linear model of the logtransformed values, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The objective of the trial was met if the treatment contrast was statistically significantly different from 0 in the appropriate direction in a 2-sided test on a 5% significance level for both parameters. The 5% significance level for both primary parameters was not adjusted for multiple testing.||205.52|157.16|
91660652|NCT01639222|183216366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Calcium-Vitamin D/Reference (%)|71.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.83|74.84|||||Point estimate and 95% CI for the treatment difference ratio (Calcium-Vitamin D /reference treatment) are provided on the original scale as a ratio \* 100%.|||74.84|68.83|
91660653|NCT01639222|183216367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Calcium-Vitamin D/Reference (%)|156.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|121.66|201.93|||||Point estimates and 95% CIs for the treatment difference ratio (Calcium-Vitamin D / reference treatment) are provided on the original scale as a ratio \* 100%.|||201.93|121.66|
91660654|NCT01723397|183216374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.8
91855933|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.31|0.8129
91855934|NCT02528188|183595955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.32|0.7883
91855935|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.37|0.0119
91855936|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.3073
91855937|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.50|0.0002
91855938|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.56|<0.0001
91855939|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.39|0.0251
91855940|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.66|<0.0001
91855941|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.39|0.0625
91660655|NCT03686033|183216426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|3.22||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. Least Square (LS) Mean Difference was calculated for 2.5 mg versus (vs) Placebo only.||3.22|-0.98|
91722477|NCT01932606|183337722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in stroke volume after study drug (exercise).||||0.0002
91713493|NCT01519817|183318386|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.1004||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all ratio sCD27:sCD40AL cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.1004
91855942|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.54|0.0010
91855943|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.36|0.4005
91855944|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.50|0.0530
91855945|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.37|0.4074
91855946|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.41|0.2629
91855947|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.34|0.5582
91855948|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.35|0.4907
91855949|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.38|0.4043
91855950|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.31|0.7663
91855951|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.31|0.7415
91855952|NCT02528188|183595957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.24|0.8688
91855953|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.25|0.3622
91713494|NCT01519817|183318386|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.625||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of ratio sCD27:sCD40L cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.625
91855954|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.09|0.3894
91855955|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.42|0.0137
91855956|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.43|0.0106
91660656|NCT03686033|183216426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.35|-1.99||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. LS Mean Difference was calculated for 25 mg vs Placebo only.||-1.99|-6.35|
91660657|NCT01302548|183216446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0833|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8609||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5738|0.7405||This is unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 28||"Ho: There is not a significant difference between the use of IRRISEPT solution and the usual care methods on abscess healing.~This study did not enroll an adequate number of patients to meet sufficient power."||.7405|-.5738|.7970
91660658|NCT01302548|183216447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2364||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0239|2.3394||This is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|Cell (1,1) Frequency (F) = 13||"Ho: There is not a significant difference between the proportion of patients requiring antibiotics after the use of IRRISEPT solution vs. the usual care methods on abscess healing.~This study did not enroll an adequate number of patients to meet sufficient power."||2.3394|.0239|.3575
91660659|NCT01302548|183216448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5477||0.5415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0659|1.2659||This is unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 4||"Ho: There is not a significant difference between the use of IRRISEPT solution and the usual care methods on abscess healing in patients that are MRSA positive.~This study did not enroll an adequate number of patients to meet sufficient power."||1.2659|-2.0659|.5415
91713495|NCT01519817|183318386|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6772||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of ratio sCD27:sCD40L cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6772
91855957|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.23|0.7179
91660660|NCT00913627|183216451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.13|20.19||p-value adjusted for baseline pain severity rating (PSR) and gender|ANOVA|||||20.19|12.13|<0.001
91660661|NCT00913627|183216451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.02|20.99||p-value adjusted for baseline pain severity rating (PSR) and gender|ANOVA|||||20.99|13.02|<0.001
91660662|NCT00913627|183216451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|16.26||p-value adjusted for baseline pain severity rating (PSR) and gender|ANOVA|||||16.26|8.33|<0.001
91660663|NCT00913627|183216452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|8.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||8.38|4.30|<0.001
91660664|NCT00913627|183216452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|9.08||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||9.08|5.05|<0.001
91660665|NCT00913627|183216452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|7.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||7.06|3.04|<0.001
91660666|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-72.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.56|-55.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|8 hours||-55.83|-88.56|<0.001
91660667|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-70.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.14|-54.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|8 hours||-54.30|-87.14|<0.001
91660668|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-59.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.94|-42.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|8 hours||-42.27|-76.94|<0.001
91660669|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-72.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.56|-55.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|9 hours||-55.83|-88.56|<0.001
91660670|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-70.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.14|-54.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|9 hours||-54.30|-87.14|<0.001
91660671|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-57.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.43|-40.16||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|9 hours||-40.16|-75.43|<0.001
91660672|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-66.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.98|-49.6||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|10 hours||-49.60|-83.98|<0.001
91855958|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.44|0.0120
91855959|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.5372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.28|0.5372
91901573|NCT01699789|183697873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression model adjusted for covariates, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.42|0.74|
91660673|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-70.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.14|-54.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|10 hours||-54.30|-87.14|<0.001
91660674|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-55.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.85|-38.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|10 hours||-38.11|-73.85|<0.001
91855960|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.40|0.0899
91855961|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.30|0.7646
91660675|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-63.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.82|-46.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours||-46.06|-80.82|<0.001
91660676|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-68.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.63|-54.14||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours||-54.14|-85.63|<0.001
91660677|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-55.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.85|-38.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours||-38.11|-73.85|<0.001
91660678|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-63.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.82|-46.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours||-46.06|-80.82|<0.001
91660679|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-65.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.49|-48.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours||-48.07|-82.49|<0.001
91660680|NCT00913627|183216455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-50.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.09|-32.45||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours||-32.45|-69.09|<0.001
91660681|NCT00913627|183216456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|6.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 0-4||6.51|4.18|<0.001
91660682|NCT00913627|183216456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|6.4||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 0-4||6.40|4.09|<0.001
91660683|NCT00913627|183216456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|5.12||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 0-4||5.12|2.83|<0.001
91660684|NCT00913627|183216456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|9.43||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 4-8||9.43|5.63|<0.001
91855962|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.41|0.2547
91855963|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.29|0.8806
91855964|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.30|0.8416
91855965|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.28|0.9981
91901574|NCT01699789|183697874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.05||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.05|.60|
91901575|NCT01699789|183697875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.32||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.32|0.72|
91901576|NCT01699789|183697876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.39||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.39|0.55|
91901577|NCT01699789|183697877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.29||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a log link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.29|0.65|
91791879|NCT00329901|183461314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus (Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-FHA antigen immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY as compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||3|-9|
91855966|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.34|-0.21|0.6485
91855967|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.30|0.8317
91855968|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-0.19|0.5819
91855969|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.31|-0.26|0.8538
91855970|NCT02528188|183595959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.47|-0.10|0.1981
91855971|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.33|0.0846
91855972|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.18|0.9749
91855973|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.45|0.0076
91855974|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.54|0.0003
91855975|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.27|0.4402
91855976|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.61|<0.0001
91855977|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.38|0.1543
91855978|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.53|0.0053
91855979|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.33|0.6445
91855980|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.47|0.1439
91855981|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.30|0.8402
91901578|NCT01699789|183697878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a linear regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.0|0.2|
91901579|NCT01699789|183697879|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.8|0.1|
91901580|NCT01699789|183697880|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||3.7|0.4|
91901581|NCT01699789|183697881|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.5|0.8|
91855982|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.38|0.4439
91855983|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.27|0.9376
91855984|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.33|0.7614
91855985|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.32|0.8081
91855986|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.33|-0.25|0.8078
91660685|NCT00913627|183216456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|9.56||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 4-8||9.56|5.80|<0.001
91855987|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.28|0.9705
91855988|NCT02528188|183595961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.38|-0.21|0.5785
91855989|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.4303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.04|-0.87|0.4303
91855990|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.04|-1.90|0.5656
91660686|NCT00913627|183216456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|7.36||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 4-8||7.36|3.62|<0.001
91713496|NCT01519817|183318386|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of ratio sCD27:sCD40L cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3008
91713497|NCT01519817|183318387|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0621||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all sCD40L cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0621
91713498|NCT01519817|183318387|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.875||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD40L cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.875
91713499|NCT01519817|183318387|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2402||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD40L cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2402
91713500|NCT01519817|183318387|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD40L cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3008
91713501|NCT03143257|183318406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91713502|NCT03143257|183318406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|43.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91855991|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.83|-1.78|0.9760
91855992|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.36|-1.30|0.5678
91855993|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|4.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.14|-2.77|0.6974
91713503|NCT03143257|183318406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
91713504|NCT03143257|183318409|SUPERIORITY||Overall Benefit Score|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The overall benefit can be determined by subtracting the aided and unaided scores of Ease of Communication, Reverberation, Background Noise \& Aversiveness. A negative score in overall benefit indicates a positive benefit to the subject.|||||
91713505|NCT04547140|183318423|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Dying||||
91713506|NCT04547140|183318423|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Requiring ICU Admission||||
91713507|NCT04547140|183318424|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Who are Dependent on High Flow Oxygen Devices||||
91713508|NCT04547140|183318424|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Who are Dependent on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation||||
91713509|NCT04547140|183318425|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.22||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|2.87||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 15||2.87|-0.43|0.1453
91713510|NCT04547140|183318425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.86||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 29||1.86|-1.44|0.8015
91713511|NCT04547140|183318427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|1.48||||0.5135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|6.0||P-value was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including the length of hospital stay (days) as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||6.00|-3.04|0.5135
91713512|NCT04547140|183318428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|3.41||||0.1221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|7.76||P-value was calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days in the ICU as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||7.76|-0.94|0.1221
91713513|NCT04547140|183318429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|2.78||||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|8.48||P-value was calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days on oxygen as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||8.48|-2.92|0.3329
91713514|NCT04547140|183318430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|3.48||||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|7.77||P-value was calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days on mechanical ventilation as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||7.77|-0.81|0.1092
91660687|NCT00913627|183216457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|16.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-4||16.27|10.68|<0.001
91660688|NCT00913627|183216457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|16.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-4||16.01|10.48|<0.001
91660689|NCT00913627|183216457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.33|12.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-4||12.83|7.33|<0.001
91713515|NCT04547140|183318431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.17||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 15||0.17|-1.43|0.1189
91713516|NCT04547140|183318431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.07||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 29||-0.07|-1.64|0.0341
91855994|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|6.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||6.04|-0.75|0.1261
91855995|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.01|-4.96|0.4060
91855996|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.15|-3.84|0.8480
91855997|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.63|-4.00|0.9230
91660690|NCT00913627|183216457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.71|23.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 4-8||23.71|14.71|<0.001
91660691|NCT00913627|183216457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.86|23.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 4-8||23.78|14.86|<0.001
91660692|NCT00913627|183216457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.44|18.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 4-8||18.30|9.44|<0.001
91660693|NCT00913627|183216457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|21.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 8-12||21.07|11.29|<0.001
91660694|NCT00913627|183216457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.81|22.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 8-12||22.49|12.81|<0.001
91660695|NCT00913627|183216457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.97|17.59||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 8-12||17.59|7.97|<0.001
91713517|NCT04547140|183318435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.9||||0.8809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|28.3||P-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentages of participants experiencing sustained normalization of fever.|Chi-squared|||||28.3|-24.1|0.8809
91713518|NCT00048035|183318442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.42|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen dose conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This was a regression on the three different conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1 X / Week||0.42|0.32|
91660696|NCT00913627|183216457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.48|50.69||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-12||50.69|31.48|<0.001
91855998|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|2.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.34|-5.36|0.4421
91855999|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||7.91|-1.70|0.2049
91856000|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|9.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||9.41|-0.05|0.0527
91856001|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.3699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|1.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.94|-5.21|0.3699
91660697|NCT00913627|183216457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.15|52.17||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-12||52.17|33.15|<0.001
91856002|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|3.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.11|-4.06|0.7945
91660698|NCT00913627|183216457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|40.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-12||40.53|21.63|<0.001
91660699|NCT00913627|183216458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.45|9.8||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||9.80|6.45|<0.001
91791880|NCT00329901|183461314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus (Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group Difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-PRN antigen immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY as compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||-2|-13|
91660700|NCT00913627|183216458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|9.65||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||9.65|6.34|<0.001
91660701|NCT00913627|183216458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|7.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||7.75|4.46|<0.001
91660702|NCT00913627|183216458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.02|14.34||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 4-8||14.34|9.02|<0.001
91660703|NCT00913627|183216458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.01|14.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 4-8||14.27|9.01|<0.001
91660704|NCT00913627|183216458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|11.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 4-8||11.00|5.76|<0.001
91660705|NCT00913627|183216458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|12.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 8-12||12.75|6.93|<0.001
91660706|NCT00913627|183216458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.71|13.46||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 8-12||13.46|7.71|<0.001
91660707|NCT00913627|183216458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|10.59||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 8-12||10.59|4.87|<0.001
91660708|NCT00913627|183216458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.24|30.61||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-12||30.61|19.24|<0.001
91856003|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|3.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.83|-4.13|0.9410
91856004|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.59|-5.44|0.4860
91660709|NCT00913627|183216458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.03|31.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-12||31.28|20.03|<0.001
91660710|NCT00913627|183216458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.19|24.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-12||24.38|13.19|<0.001
91856005|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||8.20|-2.10|0.2448
91660711|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.31||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|25.36||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||25.36|1.26|0.080
91660712|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|16.39||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|29.04||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||29.04|3.73|0.043
91660713|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|5.39||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|15.4||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||15.40|-4.62|0.354
91660714|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|48.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.34|63.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||63.96|33.34|<0.001
91660715|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.15|66.73||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||66.73|37.15|<0.001
91660716|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.62|50.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||50.98|22.62|<0.001
91660717|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|57.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|73.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||73.57|41.20|<0.001
91856006|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|10.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||10.04|-0.11|0.0551
91856007|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.84|-3.26|0.2470
91856008|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-4.01|0.0570
91856009|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|2.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.12|-2.36|0.9170
91856010|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.4991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.46|-3.00|0.4991
91856011|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.52|-1.12|0.2377
91856012|NCT02528188|183595963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||6.08|0.43|0.0238
91856013|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.78|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.78|0.53|0.0142
91856014|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|6.78|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||6.78|2.56|<0.0001
91856015|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|4.99|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.99|-0.69|0.1371
91856016|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.14|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.14|-2.60|0.8524
91856017|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.5253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|5.09|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||5.09|-9.93|0.5253
91856018|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.5381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|9.62|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||9.62|-5.04|0.5381
91856019|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|20.54|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||20.54|-5.99|0.2694
91856020|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|3.11|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.11|-21.80|0.1349
91660718|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|66.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.56|81.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||81.78|51.56|<0.001
91856021|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.38|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.38|0.21|0.0264
91856022|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.65|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.65|0.50|0.0098
91856023|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|4.01|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.01|-0.31|0.0937
91856024|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.67|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.67|-0.70|0.1838
91856025|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.25|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||5.25|1.12|0.0025
91856026|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.6|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||5.60|1.51|0.0007
91660719|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|66.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||66.21|34.20|<0.001
91660720|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|67.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.36|83.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||83.93|51.36|<0.001
91660721|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|70.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.16|86.05||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||86.05|55.16|<0.001
91856027|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|4.51|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.51|-0.62|0.1373
91660722|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.32|69.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||69.38|34.32|<0.001
91660723|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
91856028|NCT02528188|183595971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|2.6|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.60|-2.59|0.9960
91856029|NCT02528188|183595973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0823|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0823
91856030|NCT02528188|183595973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0049
91856031|NCT02528188|183595973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0718|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0718
91856032|NCT02528188|183595973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1947|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1947
91856033|NCT02528188|183595974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0229
91660724|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|74.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.29|89.14||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||89.14|59.29|<0.001
91660725|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
91660726|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
91660727|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
91660728|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
91660729|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
91856034|NCT02528188|183595974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0029
91856035|NCT02528188|183595974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0266
91856036|NCT02528188|183595974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1835|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1835
91856037|NCT02528188|183595975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||0.88|0.45|0.0076
91856038|NCT02528188|183595975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||0.94|0.48|0.0187
91856039|NCT02528188|183595976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0074
91856040|NCT02528188|183595976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0162
91856041|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.38|0.97|0.1136
91856042|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.29|0.90|0.3910
91856043|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.22|0.86|0.7691
91856044|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.05|0.73|0.1430
91856045|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.25|0.87|0.6454
91856046|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.00|0.70|0.0561
91856047|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.19|0.82|0.9056
91856048|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.2919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.09|0.75|0.2919
91856049|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.13|0.78|0.4976
91856050|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.08|0.75|0.2425
91856051|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.19|0.83|0.9242
91856052|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.15|0.80|0.6621
91856053|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.20|0.83|0.9977
91856054|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.20|0.84|0.9762
91901582|NCT01699789|183697882|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.1|0.5|
91856055|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.19|0.83|0.9718
91856056|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.22|0.85|0.8219
91856057|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.16|0.80|0.6936
91713519|NCT00048035|183318442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.76|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen dose conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This was a regression on the three different conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb change.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1 X /2 Week||0.76|0.53|
91791881|NCT00481507|183461428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.43||Reply: Only one test was performed for the primary outcome. No covariates were entered into this model and p-value is unadjusted.|Chi-squared|The results obtained from the logistic regression are equivalent to the chi-square test with one degree of freedom.||Reply: The null hypothesis was the rates of diarrhea for Kefir vs. Placebo are not different. Post power calculation was not performed because the difference observed (21.9% vs. 18%) was less than a difference that which would be considered clinically important.||1.43|0.54|>.05
91856058|NCT02528188|183595977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.5769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.26|0.88|0.5769
91856059|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.89|0.7746
91856060|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.8441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.89|0.8441
91713520|NCT02619617|183318465|OTHER|1.5mg SOM230 s.c. vs. Placebo s.c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.308||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.419|4.082|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.082|0.419|0.698
91713521|NCT02619617|183318466|OTHER|1.5mg SOM230 s.c. vs. Placebo s.c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.033||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|7.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.790|0.530|0.385
91856061|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.83|0.6580
91856062|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.06|0.78|0.2279
91713522|NCT03064113|183318534|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|173.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.4|235.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||235.3|112.4|<0.001
91713523|NCT03064113|183318534|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|169.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.8|230.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||230.8|107.8|<0.001
91713524|NCT03064113|183318534|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|175.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.1|237.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||237.2|114.1|<0.001
91713525|NCT03064113|183318535|SUPERIORITY||Slope|112.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.5|180.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 12 hr||180.5|44.5|0.001
91660730|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
91660731|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
91791882|NCT04711837|183461447|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin equals to -8%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.042||Non-inferiority margin equals to -8%: 95% CI; (-5.4%, 4.2%)|Farrington-Manning method|||||0.042|-0.054|
91791883|NCT00814801|183461521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-0.34|||Least Square Means|||||-0.34|-2.64|0.0113
91856063|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.18|0.84|0.9986
91791884|NCT00814801|183461521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-1.44|||Least Square Means|||||-1.44|-3.74|<0.0001
91660732|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
91660733|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
91713526|NCT03064113|183318535|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|123.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|192.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 12 hr||192.3|54.6|<0.001
91713527|NCT03064113|183318535|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|15.3||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|94.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 12 hr||94.1|-53.5|0.659
91713528|NCT03064113|183318535|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|102.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.1|151.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 24 hr||151.5|54.1|<0.001
91713529|NCT03064113|183318535|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|136.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.8|185.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 24 hr||185.3|87.8|<0.001
91713530|NCT03064113|183318535|SUPERIORITY|Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 24 hr|Difference of LS Mean|-24.2||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.9|24.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.6|-72.9|0.327
91713531|NCT03064113|183318536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|34.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-12 hrs||34.8|18.0|<0.001
91713532|NCT03064113|183318536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|37.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-12 hrs||37.4|20.8|<0.001
91713533|NCT03064113|183318536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|33.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-12 hrs||33.9|17.3|<0.001
91713534|NCT03064113|183318536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|28.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-24 hrs||28.2|12.1|<0.001
91713535|NCT03064113|183318536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|33.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-24 hrs||33.4|17.4|<0.001
91791885|NCT00814801|183461523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.7|||Least Square Means|||||3.7|-0.2|0.0774
91791886|NCT00814801|183461523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.4|||Least Square Means|||||2.4|-1.5|0.6207
91856064|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.02|0.72|0.0771
91660734|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
91791887|NCT00814801|183461524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Least Square Means|||||0.8|-0.6|0.8419
91660735|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
91660736|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
91791888|NCT00814801|183461524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||Least Square Means|||||0.6|-0.8|0.7942
91791889|NCT00814801|183461525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Least Square Means|||||0.5|-1.6|0.3141
91791890|NCT00814801|183461525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Least Square Means|||||0.8|-1.3|0.6089
91713536|NCT03064113|183318536|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|10.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-24 hr||18.6|2.5|0.010
91791891|NCT02081248|183461547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test comparing mean QuIC-A scores performed using 150 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in comprehension of the parent clinical trial, as measured by the QuIC-A, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Mean QuIC-A scores were compared between arms, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.37
91856065|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.77|0.4485
91856066|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.09|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.09|0.74|0.2817
91856067|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.79|0.5426
91713537|NCT03064113|183318537|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.003
91713538|NCT03064113|183318537|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.046
91713539|NCT03064113|183318537|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.003
91660737|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
91660738|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
91660739|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
91660740|NCT00913627|183216459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
91660741|NCT00913627|183216460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|13.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|37.89||p-value adjusted for gender and categorical baseline pain severity|Proportional hazards regression|||||37.89|4.85|<0.001
91660742|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|2.03||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|6.02||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||6.02|-1.95|0.434
91713540|NCT03064113|183318537|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.2|0.0|0.003
91856068|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.79|0.5385
91856069|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.12|0.79|0.5041
91660743|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||0.00|0.00|
91660744|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.78||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|5.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||5.27|-1.71|0.469
91660745|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.13||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|16.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||16.93|1.33|0.101
91856070|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.11|0.78|0.4410
91660746|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|10.73||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|18.91||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||18.91|2.54|0.069
91660747|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|3.59||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|8.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||8.57|-1.39|0.303
91660748|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|24.58||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|38.47||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||38.47|10.68|0.008
91660749|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|25.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.35|39.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||39.28|11.35|0.007
91660750|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|10.62||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|21.92||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||21.92|-0.68|0.129
91660751|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|47.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.25|63.19||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||63.19|32.25|<0.001
91660752|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|36.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.24|50.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||50.78|21.24|<0.001
91660753|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|27.87||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.93|41.81||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||41.81|13.93|0.003
91660754|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|61.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.12|75.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||75.89|46.12|<0.001
91660755|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.85|68.8||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||68.80|38.85|<0.001
91660756|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|46.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.89|61.58||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||61.58|31.89|<0.001
91660757|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|64.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.37|80.18||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||80.18|49.37|<0.001
91660758|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|64.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.01|79.59||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||79.59|50.01|<0.001
91660759|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.27|66.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||66.11|34.27|<0.001
91660760|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|68.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.81|84.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||84.38|52.81|<0.001
91713541|NCT03064113|183318537|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.2|0.0|0.048
91713542|NCT03064113|183318537|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.2|0.0|0.007
91660761|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|72.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.05|87.26||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||87.26|57.05|<0.001
91856071|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.81|0.7426
91660762|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.57|70.37||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||70.37|36.57|<0.001
91660763|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|72.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.48|87.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||87.84|57.48|<0.001
91856072|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.81|0.7469
91660764|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|79.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.68|93.05||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||93.05|65.68|<0.001
91660765|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|57.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.46|73.6||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||73.60|40.46|<0.001
91660766|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|72.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.48|87.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||87.84|57.48|<0.001
91660767|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|81.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.91|94.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||94.49|67.91|<0.001
91660768|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.34|75.35||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||75.35|42.34|<0.001
91856073|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.15|0.81|0.6784
91856074|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.21|0.85|0.8822
91856075|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.18|0.83|0.9119
91856076|NCT02528188|183595979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.26|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.26|0.89|0.5148
91856077|NCT02528188|183595981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.15|0.66|0.3348
91856078|NCT02528188|183595981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.66|0.3595
91856079|NCT02528188|183595981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.04|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.04|0.54|0.0854
91856080|NCT02528188|183595981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||0.96|0.50|0.0281
91856081|NCT02528188|183595981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.01|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.01|0.49|0.0595
91856082|NCT02528188|183595981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.83|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||0.83|0.40|0.0030
91856083|NCT02528188|183595981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.11|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.11|0.48|0.1389
91856084|NCT02528188|183595981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.03|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.03|0.45|0.0709
91856085|NCT02528188|183595990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.6037
91856086|NCT02528188|183595990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1928|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1928
91856087|NCT02528188|183595990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7204|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7204
91856088|NCT02528188|183595990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7969|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7969
91856089|NCT02528188|183595990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7857|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7857
91856090|NCT02528188|183595990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6627|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.6627
91856091|NCT02528188|183595990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9867|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.9867
91856092|NCT02528188|183595990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.8190
91856093|NCT02528188|183595990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7284|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7284
91856094|NCT02528188|183595990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1545|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1545
91856095|NCT02299375|183596008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted median|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.73|||||Data presented above are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals. The estimated posterior probability that the true ratio losmapimod/placebo is \<1 assuming noninformative priors is 0.44.The estimated posterior probability that the true ratio losmapi|||1.73|0.63|
91856096|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.084||Analysis performed using a Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 2|||0.084|-0.031|0.371
91856097|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.093||Analysis performed using a Mixed-effect Repeated Measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 4|||0.093|-0.024|0.244
91856098|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.119||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 8|||0.119|-0.000|0.050
91856099|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.058||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 12|||0.058|-0.063|0.942
91856100|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.114||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 18|||0.114|-0.014|0.127
91856101|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.148||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 26|||0.148|0.011|0.024
91856102|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.086||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.174||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 39|||0.174|-0.003|0.057
91856103|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.191||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 52|||0.191|-0.090|0.481
91856104|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.014||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.059||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 2|||0.059|-0.030|0.521
91856105|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.086||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 4|||0.086|-0.005|0.084
91856106|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.09||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 8|||0.090|-0.025|0.266
91856107|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.042||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 12|||0.042|-0.066|0.665
91856108|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.09||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 18|||0.090|-0.043|0.489
91856109|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.17||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 26|||0.170|0.028|0.007
91856110|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.055||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.148||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 39|||0.148|-0.039|0.248
91856111|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.172||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 52|||0.172|-0.087|0.506
91856112|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.051||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.134||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 2|||0.134|-0.032|0.223
91856113|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.129||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 4|||0.129|-0.037|0.276
91856114|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.173||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 8|||0.173|-0.023|0.131
91856115|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.09||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 12|||0.090|-0.084|0.949
91856116|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.163||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 18|||0.163|-0.044|0.259
91856117|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.172||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 26|||0.172|-0.027|0.152
91856118|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.114||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.241||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 39|||0.241|-0.012|0.076
91660769|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
91660770|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
91713543|NCT03064113|183318538|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.054
91660771|NCT00913627|183216461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
91660772|NCT00913627|183216462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.85|<0.001
91856119|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.171||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.381||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 52|||0.381|-0.038|0.107
91856120|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.097||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 2|||0.097|-0.046|0.484
91856121|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.1||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 4|||0.100|-0.027|0.256
91856122|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.128||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 8|||0.128|-0.025|0.184
91856123|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.074||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 12|||0.074|-0.077|0.970
91856124|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 18|||0.120|-0.070|0.608
91660773|NCT00913627|183216462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.02||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.02|0.88|<0.001
91856125|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.175||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 26|||0.175|-0.007|0.071
91856126|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.028||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.141||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 39|||0.141|-0.085|0.622
91856127|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.102||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.291||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 52|||0.291|-0.086|0.277
91660774|NCT00913627|183216462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.98|0.70|<0.001
91660775|NCT00913627|183216463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.85|<0.001
91660776|NCT00913627|183216463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.01||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.91|<0.001
91660777|NCT00913627|183216463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.99|0.79|<0.001
91660778|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.38|0.06|0.008
91660779|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.38|0.06|0.007
91660780|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.34|0.02|0.024
91660781|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.78|0.24|<0.001
91660782|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.73||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.73|0.20|<0.001
91660783|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.68|0.16|0.002
91660784|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.17||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.17|0.52|<0.001
91660785|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.11|0.47|<0.001
91660786|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.94||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||0.94|0.30|<0.001
91660787|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.37|0.65|<0.001
91791892|NCT02081248|183461548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Testing performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' perception of their comprehension of the parent clinical trial, as measured by the QuIC-B, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median QuIC-B scores were compared between arms, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.39
91791893|NCT02081248|183461549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' comprehension of the parent clinical trial, as measured by the DICCT, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median DICCT scores were compared between arms, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.17
91791894|NCT02081248|183461552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' state anxiety, as measured by the STAI, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median state anxiety subscores of the STAI were compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.21
91791895|NCT02081248|183461552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' trait anxiety, as measured by the STAI, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median trait anxiety subscores of the STAI were compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.25
91791896|NCT02081248|183461553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in satisfaction with the consent process, as measured by a study-specific questionnaire, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median participant satisfaction scores were compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.80
91791897|NCT02081248|183461554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find the main goal of the study between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find the main goal of the study was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.73
91791898|NCT02081248|183461554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find who to contact for questions between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find who to contact for questions was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.26
91791899|NCT02081248|183461554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find the risks and benefits section between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find the risks and benefits section was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.74
91791900|NCT02081248|183461554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find how to leave the study between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find how to leave the study was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.56
91791901|NCT02081248|183461554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find study procedures between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find study procedures was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.79
91791902|NCT02081248|183461555|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 0901 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 0901 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||1.00
91791903|NCT02081248|183461555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 1101 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 1101 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.77
91791904|NCT02081248|183461555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 1203 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 1203 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.69
91856128|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.15||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 2|||0.150|-0.038|0.241
91856129|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.14|||MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 4|||0.140|-0.049|0.348
91856130|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.169||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 8|||0.169|-0.024|0.138
91660788|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.44||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.44|0.73|<0.001
91713544|NCT03064113|183318538|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.045
91856131|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.087||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 12|||0.087|-0.111|0.813
91856132|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.177||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 18|||0.177|-0.032|0.172
91856133|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.18||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 26|||0.180|-0.045|0.242
91856134|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.228||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 39|||0.228|-0.063|0.267
91856135|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.309||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 52|||0.309|-0.143|0.471
91856136|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.132||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 2|||0.132|-0.043|0.315
91856137|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.126||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 4|||0.126|-0.018|0.143
91856138|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.072||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.16||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 8|||0.160|-0.017|0.111
91856139|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.1||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 12|||0.100|-0.075|0.783
91856140|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.167||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 18|||0.167|-0.049|0.283
91856141|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.138||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.267||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 26|||0.267|0.008|0.038
91856142|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.048||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.18||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 39|||0.180|-0.083|0.467
91856143|NCT02299375|183596011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.222||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 52|||0.222|-0.138|0.640
91856144|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|3.27||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 2|||3.27|-2.08|0.661
91856145|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|5.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 6|||5.12|-0.24|0.074
91856146|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|6.46||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 8|||6.46|-1.43|0.210
91856147|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 12|||3.12|-3.40|0.933
91856148|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|5.82||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 18|||5.82|-0.43|0.091
91856149|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.69||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.56||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 26|||8.56|0.82|0.018
91856150|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|7.29||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 39|||7.29|-0.69|0.103
91856151|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.16||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.82||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 52|||7.82|-3.50|0.448
91660789|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.25|0.54|<0.001
91660790|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.63||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||1.63|0.90|<0.001
91856152|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|3.77||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 2|||3.77|-0.27|0.089
91856153|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.76||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|3.84||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 4|||3.84|-0.31|0.095
91856154|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.58||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 8|||4.58|-0.20|0.073
91856155|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|2.51||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 12|||2.51|-2.08|0.853
91856156|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.17||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 18|||4.17|-1.43|0.334
91856157|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.33||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.05||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 26|||6.05|0.61|0.017
91660791|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.69||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||1.69|0.97|<0.001
91660792|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.45||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||1.45|0.74|<0.001
91660793|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||1.82|1.09|<0.001
91660794|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||1.82|1.10|<0.001
91660795|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||1.38|0.67|<0.001
91660796|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||2.00|1.26|<0.001
91660797|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||1.98|1.25|<0.001
91660798|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||1.57|0.85|<0.001
91856158|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|6.59||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 39|||6.59|-0.34|0.077
91856159|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.34||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.38||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 52|||7.38|-2.70|0.355
91856160|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.82||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|5.55||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 2|||5.55|0.08|0.044
91856161|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.87||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|5.49||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 4|||5.49|0.25|0.032
91856162|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.75||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.01||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 8|||7.01|0.49|0.025
91856163|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.29||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 12|||3.29|-2.50|0.785
91856164|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|6.7||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 18|||6.70|-0.03|0.052
91856165|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.53||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|6.92||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 26|||6.92|0.14|0.041
91856166|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.25||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 39|||8.25|0.13|0.043
91856167|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|11.92||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 52|||11.92|-6.58|0.562
91856168|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.52||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 2|||1.52|-1.09|0.746
91856169|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.79||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 4|||1.79|-1.53|0.878
91856170|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.85||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 8|||1.85|-1.15|0.644
91856171|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.28||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 12|||1.28|-1.86|0.715
91713545|NCT03064113|183318538|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.503
91856172|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.1||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 18|||2.10|-1.62|0.803
91856173|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|3.27||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 26|||3.27|-0.63|0.184
91856174|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.05||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|4.52||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 39|||4.52|-0.42|0.102
91856175|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|4.73||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 52|||4.73|-1.85|0.383
91856176|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.06||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 2|||2.06|-1.20|0.607
91856177|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.08||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 4|||2.08|-0.74|0.348
91856178|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.65||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 8|||1.65|-1.32|0.826
91856179|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.21||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 12|||1.21|-2.13|0.588
91856180|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.91||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 18|||1.91|-1.08|0.585
91856181|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.82||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|10.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 26|||10.12|-2.48|0.231
91856182|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.45||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|3.89||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 39|||3.89|-0.99|0.240
91856183|NCT02299375|183596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.84||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 52|||4.84|-2.49|0.517
91856184|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.85||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 12|||2.85|-4.20|0.706
91856185|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|5.36||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 26|||5.36|-3.58|0.694
91856186|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.83||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|3.58||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 39|||3.58|-9.23|0.382
91856187|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|7.57||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 52|||7.57|-8.54|0.903
91713546|NCT03064113|183318538|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.183
91856188|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|2.99||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 12|||2.99|-6.33|0.481
91856189|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|6.25||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 26|||6.25|-4.79|0.793
91856190|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|5.26||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 39|||5.26|-12.45|0.421
91856191|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.98||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.35|3.4||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 52|||3.40|-19.35|0.162
91856192|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|5.78||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 12|||5.78|-3.31|0.592
91660799|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.08||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||2.08|1.33|<0.001
91660800|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.97||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||1.97|1.23|<0.001
91660801|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.54||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||1.54|0.81|<0.001
91660802|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||2.00|1.20|<0.001
91660803|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||1.98|1.19|<0.001
91660804|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||1.52|0.73|<0.001
91660805|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.9||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||1.90|1.08|<0.001
91660806|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.97||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||1.97|1.16|<0.001
91660807|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||1.53|0.72|<0.001
91660808|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||1.79|0.97|<0.001
91660809|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.95||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||1.95|1.14|<0.001
91660810|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||1.43|0.62|<0.001
91856193|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|6.36||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 26|||6.36|-4.31|0.704
91856194|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|5.5||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 39|||5.50|-10.32|0.546
91856195|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|13.84||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 52|||13.84|-5.06|0.350
91856196|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|2.37||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 12|||2.37|-5.75|0.411
91856197|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|4.97||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 26|||4.97|-5.67|0.896
91856198|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|5.3||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 39|||5.30|-9.73|0.559
91856199|NCT02299375|183596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|9.6||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 52|||9.60|-12.19|0.809
91713547|NCT03064113|183318538|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.422
91713548|NCT03064113|183318538|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.0|-0.1|0.287
91856200|NCT00704184|183596054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|69.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|86.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||86.7|40.3|<0.001
91713549|NCT03064113|183318540|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|3975.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2007.3|5943.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5943.7|2007.3|<0.001
91856201|NCT00704184|183596054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|88.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||88.6|46.0|<0.001
91856202|NCT00704184|183596054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|63.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|82.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||82.7|32.8|<0.001
91856203|NCT00704184|183596054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|77.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|91.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||91.3|49.2|<0.001
91856204|NCT00704184|183596057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|33.8|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||33.8|-9.7|
91856205|NCT00704184|183596057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|33.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||33.2|-7.6|
91856206|NCT00704184|183596057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|33.8|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||33.8|-9.7|
91713550|NCT03064113|183318540|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|5888.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3924.4|7853.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7853.4|3924.4|<0.001
91713551|NCT03064113|183318540|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2654.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|689.7|4619.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4619.6|689.7|0.009
91713552|NCT02389959|183318610|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 1.||0.26|-2.47|0.111
91713553|NCT02389959|183318610|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.26||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.38|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 2.||0.38|-2.9|0.131
91713554|NCT02389959|183318610|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 4.||0.88|-2.57|0.332
91713555|NCT02389959|183318610|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 6.||1.3|-2.25|0.597
91713556|NCT02389959|183318611|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|2.85||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|7.13|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 1.||7.13|-1.44|0.191
91856207|NCT00704184|183596057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|28.4|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||28.4|-16.5|
91856208|NCT00704184|183596058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|40.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||40.2|-4.0|
91856209|NCT00704184|183596058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|39.5|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||39.5|-2.2|
91713557|NCT02389959|183318611|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|5.61|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 2||5.61|-5.02|0.914
91713558|NCT02389959|183318611|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.55||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|7.28|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 4.||7.28|-4.17|0.592
91856210|NCT00704184|183596058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|40.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||40.2|-4.0|
91856211|NCT00704184|183596058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|34.6|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||34.6|-11.4|
91856212|NCT00704184|183596059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LC) Means|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-1.8|-3.2|
91856213|NCT00704184|183596059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-2.0|-3.4|
91856214|NCT00704184|183596059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-2.0|-3.4|
91856215|NCT00704184|183596059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.0|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-2.0|-3.3|
91660811|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.77||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||1.77|0.93|<0.001
91660812|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.81||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||1.81|0.97|<0.001
91660813|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.46||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||1.46|0.63|<0.001
91660814|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||1.71|0.87|<0.001
91713559|NCT02389959|183318611|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|9.12|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 6||9.12|-2.92|0.31
91713560|NCT02389959|183318612|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|3.11|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 1.||3.11|-8.38|0.366
91713561|NCT02389959|183318612|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|7.76|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 2||7.76|-6.12|0.816
91660815|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.81||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||1.81|0.97|<0.001
91660816|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.39||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||1.39|0.56|<0.001
91660817|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.68||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||1.68|0.82|<0.001
91660818|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||1.89|1.03|<0.001
91660819|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||1.45|0.60|<0.001
91660820|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.64||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||1.64|0.77|<0.001
91660821|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||1.87|1.00|<0.001
91660822|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||1.48|0.61|<0.001
91713562|NCT02389959|183318612|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.61|3.02|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 4.||3.02|-11.61|0.247
91660823|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.68||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||1.68|0.81|<0.001
91660824|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||1.82|0.96|<0.001
91660825|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.39||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||1.39|0.53|<0.001
91660826|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.64||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||1.64|0.75|<0.001
91660827|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.65||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||1.65|0.77|<0.001
91660828|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.36||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||1.36|0.49|<0.001
91660829|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||1.53|0.60|<0.001
91660830|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.58||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||1.58|0.66|<0.001
91660831|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||1.33|0.42|<0.001
91713563|NCT02389959|183318612|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.18||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.76|-0.6|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 6||-0.6|-15.76|0.035
91713564|NCT02389959|183318613|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sided|||Analysis of intergroup difference at baseline.||||0.030
91713565|NCT02389959|183318613|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sided|||Analysis of intergroup difference at month 2.||||0.719
91713566|NCT02389959|183318613|OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sided|||Analysis of intergroup difference at month 6.||||0.467
91660832|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||1.51|0.61|<0.001
91660833|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||1.48|0.58|<0.001
91660834|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.4||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||1.40|0.52|<0.001
91660835|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.24||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.24|0.31|0.001
91713567|NCT01401543|183318634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.01|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.01|0.91|
91660836|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.28|0.36|<0.001
91660837|NCT00913627|183216464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.33|0.42|<0.001
91660838|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.57|0.02|0.034
91713568|NCT01401543|183318634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.93|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.93|0.85|
91856216|NCT00716859|183596064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference is above non-inferiority margin, then non-inferiority concluded. If lower limit of 95% CI for treatment difference is above non-inferiority margin and above zero, then superiority concluded. The difference and 95% CI of the difference in IOP reduction (Week 12) was computed from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and baseline diagnosis as factors and baseline IOP as covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.74||||||Null hypothesis: latanoprost inferior to timolol (0.5 percent \[%\] optionally 0.25% for participants younger than 3 years). Power calculation: assuming common standard deviation (7 mmHg), 110 participants have 84% power to demonstrate latanoprost not inferior to timolol within 3 mmHg margin, assuming latanoprost has 1 mmHg reduction more than timolol in mean change from baseline IOP.||3.74|-0.81|
91660839|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.49|-0.05|0.111
91660840|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.48|-0.06|0.125
91660841|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.22||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.22|0.41|<0.001
91660842|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.01|0.22|0.003
91660843|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.98|0.19|0.004
91660844|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.91||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.91|0.91|<0.001
91660845|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.74||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.74|0.75|<0.001
91660846|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.39|0.41|<0.001
91660847|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.16||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||2.16|1.11|<0.001
91660848|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.09||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||2.09|1.05|<0.001
91660849|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.78|0.75|<0.001
91660850|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||2.52|1.46|<0.001
91660851|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.61||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||2.61|1.57|<0.001
91660852|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.2||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||2.20|1.16|<0.001
91660853|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.64||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||2.64|1.59|<0.001
91660854|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.74||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||2.74|1.70|<0.001
91660855|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||2.21|1.18|<0.001
91660856|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||3.01|1.98|<0.001
91713569|NCT01401543|183318634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.97|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.97|0.88|
91856217|NCT00716859|183596065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|3.02||||||||3.02|-1.66|
91660857|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|2.99||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||2.99|1.97|<0.001
91660858|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||2.38|1.37|<0.001
91660859|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||3.07|2.01|<0.001
91660860|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.97||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||2.97|1.92|<0.001
91660861|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||2.33|1.29|<0.001
91660862|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.03||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||3.03|1.92|<0.001
91660863|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||2.96|1.87|<0.001
91660864|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.25||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||2.25|1.16|<0.001
91660865|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||2.83|1.69|<0.001
91660866|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||2.93|1.80|<0.001
91660867|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.23||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||2.23|1.11|<0.001
91660868|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||2.79|1.66|<0.001
91856218|NCT00716859|183596066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.25||||||||4.25|-1.00|
91856219|NCT00716859|183596067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.67||||||||2.67|-1.10|
91901583|NCT01699789|183697883|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.6|0.7|
91856220|NCT00716859|183596072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3315|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline diagnosis (PCG vs non-PCG).||||||0.3315
91660869|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.85||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||2.85|1.74|<0.001
91660870|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.13||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||2.13|1.02|<0.001
91660871|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||2.78|1.59|<0.001
91660872|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.7||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||2.70|1.53|<0.001
91660873|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||2.21|1.04|<0.001
91660874|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||2.52|1.30|<0.001
91660875|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.72||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||2.72|1.52|<0.001
91660876|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||2.11|0.91|<0.001
91660877|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.55||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||2.55|1.34|<0.001
91660878|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||2.79|1.59|<0.001
91660879|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.16||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||2.16|0.97|<0.001
91660880|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||2.52|1.28|<0.001
91660881|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||2.75|1.52|<0.001
91660882|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.2||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||2.20|0.98|<0.001
91660883|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.54||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||2.54|1.26|<0.001
91660884|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.66||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||2.66|1.39|<0.001
91660885|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||2.07|0.81|<0.001
91660886|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||2.49|1.17|<0.001
91660887|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.43||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||2.43|1.13|<0.001
91713570|NCT01401543|183318634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.95|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.95|0.86|
91856221|NCT02178098|183596074|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-18.15|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-18.15|-30.33|<0.0001
91660888|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||2.07|0.78|<0.001
91660889|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.32||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||2.32|0.95|<0.001
91660890|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.29||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||2.29|0.94|<0.001
91660891|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||2.06|0.71|<0.001
91660892|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||2.27|0.88|<0.001
91660893|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.1||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||2.10|0.73|<0.001
91660894|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.08||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||2.08|0.72|<0.001
91660895|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.96|0.53|<0.001
91660896|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.79|0.38|0.003
91660897|NCT00913627|183216465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||2.02|0.61|<0.001
91660898|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.91||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.91|0.12|0.011
91660899|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.83|0.05|0.028
91660900|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.78|0.00|0.048
91660901|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.96|0.69|<0.001
91660902|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.71|0.45|<0.001
91856222|NCT02178098|183596075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.511||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|1.35|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.35|-4.62|0.2808
91660903|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.63||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.63|0.38|0.002
91660904|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||3.06|1.46|<0.001
91660905|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||2.82|1.24|<0.001
91660906|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.31||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||2.31|0.74|<0.001
91660907|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.5||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||3.50|1.78|<0.001
91660908|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||3.51|1.81|<0.001
91660909|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||3.00|1.32|<0.001
91660910|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|4.12||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||4.12|2.39|<0.001
91660911|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||4.28|2.57|<0.001
91660912|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.63||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||3.63|1.92|<0.001
91660913|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.44||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||4.44|2.70|<0.001
91660914|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|4.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||4.53|2.82|<0.001
91660915|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||3.57|1.87|<0.001
91660916|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|4.99||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||4.99|3.27|<0.001
91660917|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|4.95||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||4.95|3.24|<0.001
91660918|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||3.93|2.24|<0.001
91660919|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|5.13||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||5.13|3.36|<0.001
91660920|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|4.92||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||4.92|3.17|<0.001
91713571|NCT01401543|183318634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|0.99|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.99|0.90|
91713572|NCT01401543|183318634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.07|0.97|
91660921|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.85||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||3.85|2.11|<0.001
91660922|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|5.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||5.01|3.14|<0.001
91660923|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|4.92||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||4.92|3.07|<0.001
91713573|NCT01401543|183318635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.91|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.91|0.77|
91713574|NCT01401543|183318635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.85|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.85|0.71|
91713575|NCT01401543|183318635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.01|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.01|0.85|
91713576|NCT01401543|183318635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|0.84|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.84|0.70|
91713577|NCT01401543|183318635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.0|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.00|0.84|
91660924|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||3.75|1.91|<0.001
91660925|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|4.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||4.71|2.78|<0.001
91713578|NCT01401543|183318635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.08|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.08|0.91|
91713579|NCT01401543|183318636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.05||||||||1.05|0.93|
91713580|NCT01401543|183318636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0||||||||1.00|0.89|
91713581|NCT01401543|183318636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02||||||||1.02|0.90|
91901584|NCT01699789|183697884|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||4.0|0.3|
91660926|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|4.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||4.89|2.98|<0.001
91660927|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||3.75|1.85|<0.001
91660928|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.56||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||4.56|2.65|<0.001
91660929|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|4.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||4.79|2.89|<0.001
91660930|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.54||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||3.54|1.65|<0.001
91660931|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|4.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||4.53|2.54|<0.001
91660932|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|4.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||4.49|2.52|<0.001
91856223|NCT02178098|183596076|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.15|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.15|-3.25|0.3461
91856224|NCT02178098|183596077|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.734||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|1.12|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.12|-5.74|0.1852
91660933|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.65||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||3.65|1.69|<0.001
91660934|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||4.21|2.19|<0.001
91660935|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|4.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||4.51|2.51|<0.001
91660936|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||3.48|1.49|<0.001
91660937|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||4.21|2.17|<0.001
91660938|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.66||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||4.66|2.64|<0.001
91660939|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.6||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||3.60|1.58|<0.001
91660940|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.15||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||4.15|2.06|<0.001
91660941|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|4.61||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||4.61|2.53|<0.001
91660942|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.67||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||3.67|1.61|<0.001
91660943|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||4.21|2.09|<0.001
91660944|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|4.46||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||4.46|2.36|<0.001
91713582|NCT01401543|183318636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02||||||||1.02|0.90|
91660945|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.44||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||3.44|1.36|<0.001
91660946|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|4.12||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||4.12|1.94|<0.001
91660947|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|4.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||4.07|1.91|<0.001
91713583|NCT01401543|183318636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.03||||||||1.03|0.91|
91713584|NCT01401543|183318636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.08||||||||1.08|0.95|
91856225|NCT02178098|183596078|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.253||0.2481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|1.03|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.03|-3.93|0.2481
91856226|NCT02178098|183596079|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.684||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|2.94|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||2.94|-3.72|0.8181
91856227|NCT02178098|183596080|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.274||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.71|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||2.71|-2.33|0.8817
91856228|NCT02178098|183596081|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.829||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|5.15|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||5.15|-2.09|0.4040
91856229|NCT02178098|183596082|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.178||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.11|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||3.11|-1.54|0.5061
91660948|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.42||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||3.42|1.28|<0.001
91660949|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||3.83|1.57|<0.001
91660950|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.85||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||3.85|1.62|<0.001
91660951|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.37||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||3.37|1.14|<0.001
91660952|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.76||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||3.76|1.51|<0.001
91660953|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.56||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||3.56|1.33|<0.001
91660954|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.47||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||3.47|1.25|<0.001
91660955|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.19||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||3.19|0.86|<0.001
91856230|NCT02178098|183596083|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-43.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.8|-25.21|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann analysis.|||-25.21|-62.80|<0.0001
91660956|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.05||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||3.05|0.75|0.001
91660957|NCT00913627|183216466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.34||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||3.34|1.05|<0.001
91660958|NCT00913627|183216467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|2.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||2.89|1.94|<0.001
91660959|NCT00913627|183216467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.86||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||2.86|1.92|<0.001
91660960|NCT00913627|183216467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||2.52|1.58|<0.001
91660961|NCT00095212|183216484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||longitudinal linear mixed effects model|||||||0.04
91660962|NCT00095212|183216485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Longitudinal linear mixed effects model|||The study was powered at 80% to detect a significant treatment difference of 2.7 kg in lean body mass between the two groups with 25 randomized patients and a 15% assumed dropout rate, using a two sided 5.0 percent significance level.||||0.02
91660963|NCT00095212|183216486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Longitudinal mixed methods model|||The study was powered at 80% to detect a significant treatment difference of 2.7 kg in lean body mass between the two groups with 25 randomized patients and a 15% assumed dropout rate, using a two sided 5.0 percent significance level.||||0.02
91660964|NCT00095212|183216487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Longitudinal mixed methods model|||The study was powered at 80% to detect a significant treatment difference of 2.7 kg in lean body mass between the two groups with 25 randomized patients and a 15% assumed dropout rate, using a two sided 5.0 percent significance level.||||0.01
91660965|NCT00095212|183216488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91660966|NCT00095212|183216489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
91660967|NCT00095212|183216490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.75
91660968|NCT00095212|183216491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91660969|NCT00095212|183216492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91660970|NCT00095212|183216493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91713585|NCT01401543|183318637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.77|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.77|0.68|
91660971|NCT00095212|183216494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91660972|NCT00017953|183216495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.83|0.51
91660973|NCT00017953|183216496|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.79|0.42
91660974|NCT00017953|183216497|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.82|0.23
91660975|NCT00017953|183216498|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.84|0.29
91660976|NCT02374853|183216499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91856231|NCT02178098|183596084|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.006|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.63|-12.7|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-12.70|-20.63|<0.0001
91660977|NCT02374853|183216500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
91660978|NCT02374853|183216501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.054
91660979|NCT00762307|183216513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|22.4||||||||22.4|14.9|
91660980|NCT00762307|183216515|OTHER||sucess percentage|91.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
91660981|NCT00837486|183216535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.53||||||"one-sided P-value~per protocol responder rates: Active Group = 20.0%, Control Group = 14.3%"|Fisher Exact|||The study originally required a sample size of 208 subjects in order to have 90% power to detect a statistically significant difference between the responder rate of the active and control groups. With this 30-subject cohort, and only 29 subjects completing the blinded-treatment phase per protocol, the comparison of response rates was not adequately powered. The P-value is presented only to describe the outcomes of the two groups.||||=0.53
91660982|NCT01754597|183216573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.714
91660983|NCT01754597|183216574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.492
91660984|NCT01754597|183216575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.183
91660985|NCT02635750|183216581|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|99.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.502|111.62|||||"Ratio of BI 409306 25mg with donepezil 10mg and BI 409306 25mg alone (BI 409306+ don / BI 409306).~Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 18.6."|"The statistical model used for the analysis of those endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale (natural logarithm). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the other effect was considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||111.62|89.502|
91660986|NCT02635750|183216582|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|100.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.861|124.17|||||Ratio of BI 409306 25mg with donepezil 10mg and BI 409306 25mg alone (BI 409306+don / BI 409306). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 35.8.|"The statistical model used for the analysis of those endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale (natural logarithm). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the other effect was considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||124.17|81.861|
91660987|NCT02635750|183216583|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (%)|100.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.584|104.19|||||Ratio of donepezil 5mg with BI 409306 100mg and donepezil 5mg alone (BI 409306+don / don). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 4.9.|The PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'periods' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)||104.19|97.584|
91660988|NCT02635750|183216584|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|113.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.41|120.15|||||Ratio of donepezil 5mg with BI 409306 100mg and donepezil 5mg alone. (BI 409306+don / don) Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 9.0.|"The PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'periods' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||120.15|106.41|
91660989|NCT02635750|183216585|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.549|111.68|||||Ratio of BI 409306 25mg with donepezil 10mg and BI 409306 25mg alone (BI 409306+don/ BI 409306). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV(%)) = 18.6.|The statistical model used for the analysis of those endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale (natural logarithm). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the other effect was considered as fixed. Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)||111.68|89.549|
91660990|NCT02635750|183216586|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|98.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.413|103.6|||||Ratio of donepezil 5mg with BI 409306 100mg and donepezil 5mg alone (BI 409306+don / don). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 7.7.|"The PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'periods' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||103.60|93.413|
91660991|NCT00461786|183216689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|21.0||||||95.0|10.5|35.0||||||Overall Response Rate is the total percentage of participants with either a complete response or a partial response (CR+PR)/48 X 100.||35.0|10.5|
91660992|NCT00834418|183216722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|107.0||||||90.0|99.6|116.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||116|99.6|
91660993|NCT00834418|183216723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0||||||90.0|95.2|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109|95.2|
91660994|NCT01705574|183216724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis was that the STB group was at least 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+TVD group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm). The alternative hypothesis was that the STB group was less than 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+TVD group.|Difference in proportions|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|0.4|12.6|||||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.2% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|||12.6|0.4|
91713586|NCT01401543|183318637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.76|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.76|0.66|
91660995|NCT01705574|183216724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|6.5||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.2|0.4|12.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value comparing virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and race strata.|Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.2% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted MH proportion. If the lower bound of the CI was \> 0, superiority of STB over ATV+RTV+TVD was established.|If noninferiority of STB versus ATV+RTV+TVD was established, the same 95.2% CI used in evaluating noninferiority was used to evaluate superiority. The baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-stratified, 2-sided CMH test was also used to assess superiority as a secondary assessment.||12.6|0.4|0.034
91713587|NCT01401543|183318637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.05|0.92|
91856232|NCT02178098|183596085|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.624|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.09|-13.71|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.71|-24.09|<0.0001
91713588|NCT01401543|183318637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.74|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.74|0.65|
91856233|NCT02178098|183596086|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.62|-13.77|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.77|-23.62|<0.0001
91660996|NCT00777023|183216729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|-0.42||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.42|-2.80|0.0024
91660997|NCT00777023|183216729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.69|-0.33||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.33|-2.69|0.0040
91713589|NCT01401543|183318637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.02|0.90|
91713590|NCT01401543|183318637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.04|0.91|
91713591|NCT00069823|183318638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|1.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||2.0|0.8|0.35
91713592|NCT00069823|183318639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.5|0.6|0.79
91713593|NCT00069823|183318640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|1.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||The rates of EPACs were compared using incidence-rate ratios (IRR). IRR and P value were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.5|0.8|0.66
91856234|NCT02178098|183596087|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.25||||0.3689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|16.42|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The 95% CI was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann analysis.|||16.42|-6.78|0.3689
91856235|NCT02178098|183596088|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.319||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-3.59|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-3.59|-12.76|0.0006
91856236|NCT02178098|183596089|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|24.02|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The 95% CI was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann analysis.|||24.02|-8.21|0.3093
91856237|NCT02515305|183596154|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|97.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.6|104.7||No p-value calculated, just a T/R ratio and 90% confidence interval for the bioequivalence analysis|Fieller's method|||||104.7|94.6|
91856238|NCT02515305|183596155|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|100.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.0|109.3|||Fieller's method|||||109.3|96|
91856239|NCT03087708|183596165|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Hematologic 3+ vs Hematologic \<3||||<1
91856240|NCT03087708|183596165|OTHER||||||<|0.7051|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<0.7051
91856241|NCT03087708|183596165|OTHER||||||<|0.6546|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Hematologic 3+ vs Hematologic \<3||||<0.6546
91856242|NCT03087708|183596165|OTHER||||||<|0.7051|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<0.7051
91856243|NCT03087708|183596165|OTHER||||||<|0.2262|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<0.2262
91856244|NCT03087708|183596165|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Hematologic 3+ vs Hematologic \<3||||<1
91856245|NCT03087708|183596165|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<1
91856246|NCT03087708|183596169|OTHER||||||<|0.68182|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.68182
91660998|NCT00777023|183216730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.72|-0.41||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||-0.41|-2.72|0.0024
91660999|NCT00777023|183216730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.26|0.02||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||0.02|-2.26|0.0281
91661000|NCT00777023|183216731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|-0.03||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.03|-0.32|0.0608
91661001|NCT00777023|183216731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|-0.11||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.11|-0.45|0.0003
91661002|NCT00777023|183216732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.0||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||0.00|-0.43|0.0280
91661003|NCT00777023|183216732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|-0.07||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||-0.07|-0.51|0.0026
91661004|NCT02678286|183216738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0145
91661005|NCT02678286|183216739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1841||||||Row 1 (SPID6)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1841
91661006|NCT02678286|183216739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434||||||Row 2 (SPID12)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0434
91661007|NCT02678286|183216739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Row 3 (SPID48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0040
91661008|NCT02678286|183216739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||Row 4 (SPID24-48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0028
91661009|NCT02678286|183216740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7572|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7572
91661010|NCT02678286|183216741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6559||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6559
91661011|NCT02678286|183216741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0014
91661012|NCT02678286|183216741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4994||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4994
91661013|NCT02678286|183216742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||0.0275
91661014|NCT02678286|183216742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||0.0009
91661015|NCT02678286|183216742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||0.0027
91661016|NCT02678286|183216743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0050
91661017|NCT02678286|183216744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5096|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5096
91661018|NCT02678286|183216745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3890
91661019|NCT02678286|183216746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0178|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0178
91661020|NCT02678286|183216747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1888|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1888
91661021|NCT02678286|183216748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0788
91661022|NCT02678286|183216749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0607|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.0607
91661023|NCT02678286|183216750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.0027
91661024|NCT04274686|183216751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.7|||Paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in percent air leakage||10.7|-7.0|0.667
91661025|NCT04274686|183216752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.9|||Paired t-test|||||2.90|-0.70|0.218
91661026|NCT04274686|183216753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Paired t-test|||||0.2|-0.5|0.455
91661027|NCT02647944|183216769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91661028|NCT02647944|183216770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91661029|NCT02647944|183216771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91661030|NCT02647944|183216772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.069
91661031|NCT02647944|183216773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.054
91661032|NCT02647944|183216774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91661033|NCT02647944|183216775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91661034|NCT02647944|183216776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91661035|NCT01860521|183216836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91661036|NCT01860521|183216837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91661037|NCT01860521|183216838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
91661038|NCT01860521|183216839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
91661039|NCT01513174|183216856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.92|||Log Rank||||The initial hypothesis estimated that the median PFS for the gefitinib group would be 10 months, while the median PFS for the gefitinib/olaparib group would be 16 months, which implied a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.6.|1.92|1.00|0.124
91661040|NCT01513174|183216857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.845|||Log Rank|||||1.845|0.806|0.3455
91713594|NCT00069823|183318641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.3|0.6|0.62
91661041|NCT02576938|183216889|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.065
91661042|NCT02576938|183216889|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.027
91661043|NCT00244764|183216933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|34.7||||||95.0|28.4|40.9|||||The estimated value provided is the response rate.|||40.9|28.4|
91713595|NCT00069823|183318642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|1.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.3|0.8|0.87
91661044|NCT00244764|183216934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|42.0||||||95.0|29.0|54.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of the first 60 participants who had stable disease at Week 12, as assessed by the investigator.|||54|29|
91661045|NCT00575159|183216952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.728||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.219|-1.236|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-1.236|-4.219|0.0008
91661046|NCT00575159|183216952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.325||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.735|-0.916|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo toGSK189075 150mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-0.916|-3.735|0.0021
91661047|NCT00575159|183216952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.402||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.862|-0.942|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-0.942|-3.862|0.0021
91661048|NCT00575159|183216952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.556||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.021|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||3.021|0.090|0.0382
91661049|NCT00575159|183216952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.958||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|3.477|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 150mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||3.477|0.439|0.0132
91661050|NCT00575159|183216952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.881||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|3.389|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||3.389|0.373|0.0161
91661051|NCT00575159|183216952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.592||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.162|-2.022|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-2.022|-5.162|0.0001
91661052|NCT00575159|183216952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.304|-2.337|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 150mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-2.337|-5.304|0.0000
91661053|NCT00575159|183216952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.887||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.424|-1.35|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-1.350|-4.424|0.0006
91661054|NCT00575159|183216952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.953||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.411|4.496|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||4.496|1.411|0.0005
91661055|NCT00575159|183216952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.725||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|4.324|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 150mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||4.324|1.126|0.0015
91661056|NCT00575159|183216952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.659||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.071|5.246|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||5.246|2.071|0.0001
91661057|NCT02648438|183217007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|62.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.01|73.94|||||Ratio (%)|Statistical Assessment of AZD7594 Pharmacokinetic Parameter (AUC0-t) Following Inhalation Administration ofAZD7594 via DPI Device 2 Versus DPI Device 1.||73.94|53.01|
91713596|NCT00069823|183318643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.62||95.0|0.7|1.3||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Incidence-rate ratios and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.3|0.7|0.62
91856247|NCT03087708|183596169|OTHER||||||<|0.1091|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.1091
91856248|NCT03087708|183596170|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<1.0
91661058|NCT02648438|183217008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|101.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.21|120.06|||||Ratio (%)|Statistical Assessment of AZD7594 Pharmacokinetic Parameter (AUC0-t) Following Inhalation Administration ofAZD7594 via DPI Device 2 Versus DPI Device 1.||120.06|85.21|
91661059|NCT04405570|183217027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5551|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5551
91661060|NCT04405570|183217027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7270
91661061|NCT04405570|183217027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0128|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0128
91856249|NCT03087708|183596170|OTHER||||||<|0.3339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.3339
91856250|NCT03087708|183596171|OTHER||||||<|0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.5930
91856251|NCT03087708|183596171|OTHER||||||<|0.3105|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.3105
91856252|NCT03087708|183596172|OTHER|||||||0.6024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at Baseline||||0.6024
91856253|NCT03087708|183596172|OTHER||||||<|0.3116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at Baseline||||<0.3116
91856254|NCT03087708|183596172|OTHER||||||<|0.7712|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at 6 Months||||<0.7712
91856255|NCT03087708|183596172|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at 6 Months||||<1.0
91856256|NCT03087708|183596173|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic Use at 6 Months||||<1.0000
91856257|NCT03087708|183596173|OTHER||||||<|0.5758|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic Use at 6 Months||||<0.5758
91661062|NCT04499963|183217031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We compared he ALSFRS-R slope (not the actual score) of the patients in our open label treatment versus the historical controls.||||0.984
91661063|NCT04499963|183217036|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91661064|NCT04499963|183217037|OTHER||||||>|0.5||||||Alpha Diversity|Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.5
91856258|NCT03087708|183596173|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic use at Baseline||||<1.0000
91856259|NCT03087708|183596173|OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic use at Baseline||||0.5930
91661065|NCT04499963|183217038|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91661066|NCT04499963|183217039|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91661067|NCT04499963|183217040|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91661068|NCT04499963|183217041|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91661069|NCT04499963|183217042|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91856260|NCT01827787|183596178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Using a one sample binomial design, with 45 patients there was 90% power to detect a null hypothesis 30% overall response rate (historical control) versus an alternative hypothesis of 53% overall response rate assuming a two-sided 10% alpha.~Of note, cohort 2: TNBC did not fully accrue 45 patients so a testing was not done."||||0.42
91856261|NCT02769858|183596187|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91856262|NCT02769858|183596188|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
91856263|NCT02769858|183596189|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.502
91856264|NCT01853748|183596206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0012
91856265|NCT01853748|183596211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
91856266|NCT01853748|183596214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
91856267|NCT03088813|183596240|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Stratified log-rank test|From stratified log-rank test, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|The associated HR and two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|||1.37|0.90|0.3094
91856268|NCT03088813|183596244|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.2||From stratified log-rank test, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity|Stratified log-rank test||The associated HR and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|||1.20|0.77|0.7053
91661070|NCT04499963|183217043|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91661071|NCT03117296|183217046|OTHER||Rank-Sum|0.05|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Univariate 2-group comparisons were performed using χ2 and Fisher's exact tests (when expected cell counts are \<5) for categorical variables, using 2-group t tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests (when normality distributions were violated) for continuous variables. Statistical significance was set at P \< .05. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina).||||<0.01
91661072|NCT00838279|183217058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.31||||||90.0|97.82|102.85|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.85|97.82|
91661073|NCT00838279|183217059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.78||||||90.0|99.09|104.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.55|99.09|
91661074|NCT00838279|183217060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.94||||||90.0|97.4|102.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.55|97.40|
91661075|NCT04608188|183217061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91661076|NCT04608188|183217062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91661077|NCT04608188|183217063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91661078|NCT04608188|183217064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91661079|NCT01045161|183217085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.051||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|0.01|0.019
91661080|NCT01045161|183217085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.072||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|0.03|0.0012
91661081|NCT01045161|183217087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.051||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|0.01|0.0192
91856269|NCT03088813|183596245|OTHER||Difference in ORR|22.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.97|30.61||ORR difference, 95% CI and P-value are obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.61|13.97|<0.0001
91661082|NCT01045161|183217087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|0.072||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|0.03|0.0012
91661083|NCT01854047|183217089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.21||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.36||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) approach including available FEV1 data from baseline to Week 12 and treatment group as a factor. A step-down procedure was used to strongly control the overall type I error rate for testing multiple doses against placebo. The hierarchy was 300 mg q2w, 200 mg q2w, 300 mg q4w, and 200 mg q4w.||0.36|0.06|0.0063
91661084|NCT01854047|183217089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.40|0.11|0.0008
91661085|NCT01854047|183217089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.32|0.03|0.0212
91661086|NCT01854047|183217089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.23|-0.07|0.2774
91661087|NCT01854047|183217090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.25||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM approach including available FEV1 data from baseline to Week 12 and treatment group as a factor. A step-down procedure was used to strongly control the overall type I error rate for testing multiple doses against placebo. The hierarchy was 300 mg q2w, 200 mg q2w, 300 mg q4w and 200 mg q4w.||0.25|0.08|0.0002
91661088|NCT01854047|183217090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.28|0.011|<0.0001
91661089|NCT01854047|183217090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.21||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.21|0.04|0.0048
91661090|NCT01854047|183217090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.18|0.01|0.0304
91661091|NCT02444715|183217112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.96
91661092|NCT02444715|183217112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.03
91661093|NCT02444715|183217113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.53
91661094|NCT02444715|183217113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.44
91661095|NCT02444715|183217114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.76
91661096|NCT02444715|183217114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
91661097|NCT02444715|183217115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.39
91661098|NCT02444715|183217115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
91661099|NCT02444715|183217116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.92
91661100|NCT02444715|183217116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.37
91661101|NCT02444715|183217117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.78
91661102|NCT02444715|183217117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.19
91713597|NCT00069823|183318644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Incidence-rate ratios and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.4|0.6|0.70
91661103|NCT02444715|183217118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.9
91661104|NCT02444715|183217118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.43
91661105|NCT02444715|183217119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.67
91661106|NCT02444715|183217119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
91661107|NCT02444715|183217120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.26
91661108|NCT02444715|183217120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.07
91661109|NCT02444715|183217121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.06
91661110|NCT02444715|183217121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
91661111|NCT02444715|183217122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Medium intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.37
91661112|NCT02444715|183217122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Medium intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.34
91661113|NCT02444715|183217122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"High intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.37
91661114|NCT02444715|183217122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"High intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.59
91661115|NCT02444715|183217123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.64
91661116|NCT02444715|183217123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.14
91661117|NCT00819741|183217180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"If non-inferiority was shown (that was if H0 was rejected), then superiority of repaglinide and metformin combination therapy compared to repaglinide monotherapy would be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference was lower than 0%.~The non-inferiority margin for HbA1c was set to 0.4%."|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0096||||95.0|-0.491|-0.114|||ANCOVA|||"The non-inferiority margin for HbA1c was set to 0.4%.~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: HbA1c of repaglinide + metformin therapy after 16 weeks of treatment - HbA1c of repaglinide monotherapy after 16 weeks of treatment ≥0.4%~Against the alternative hypothesis (H1):~H1: HbA1c of repaglinide + metformin therapy after 16 weeks of treatment - HbA1c of repaglinide monotherapy after 16 weeks of treatment \<0.4%"||-0.114|-0.491|
91713598|NCT00069823|183318645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||P values were calculated with the use of linear regression.|Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group, e.g. 0.00 - (-0.02) = -0.03 (rounding)|The treatment effect is the mean change in the Esomeprazole group - mean change in placebo group||0.08|-0.03|0.36
91661118|NCT02222818|183217195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to demonstrate that CAFRPlus is no less effective than CAFR by a non-inferiority margin of 2%, assuming a true paired difference of 6% and a standard deviation of 15% for the paired differences, a sample size of 39 subjects with paired data is required to achieve 90% statistical power using the one-sample t-test for non-inferiority, while controlling the one-sided type I error rate at 0.025.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.86|4.5|9.5||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0207, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function accounting for one interim analysis.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis (Ho): μd ≤ -2% Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): μd \> -2% where μd is the paired difference in percent effective CRT pacing during AF between when CAFRPlus is applied and when CAFR is applied, based on subjects' paired measurements from the two cross-over follow-up periods, and -2% is the non-inferiority margin selected based upon clinical judgment.||9.5|4.5|<0.0001
91661119|NCT02222818|183217196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.86|4.5|9.5||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0207, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function accounting for one interim analysis.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis (Ho): μd ≤ 0% Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): μd \> 0% where μd is the paired difference in percent effective CRT pacing during AF between when CAFRPlus is applied and when CAFR is applied, based on subjects' paired measurements from the two cross-over follow-up periods.||9.5|4.5|<0.0001
91661120|NCT00834717|183217197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.86||||||90.0|92.36|103.69|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.69|92.36|
91661121|NCT00834717|183217198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.57||||||90.0|82.8|103.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.48|82.80|
91713599|NCT00069823|183318646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.09|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.09|-0.03|0.30
91713600|NCT00069823|183318647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.0|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||16.0|-4.0|0.24
91713601|NCT00069823|183318648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|-1.8||||0.04||95.0|-3.6|-0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.1|-3.6|0.04
91713602|NCT00069823|183318649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.2|0.0|0.11
91713603|NCT00069823|183318650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||-0.02|-0.05|0.11
91713604|NCT00069823|183318651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.1|-0.2|0.33
91856270|NCT04878354|183596255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||2.00|0.58|0.0004
91856271|NCT04878354|183596256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||1.35|0.34|0.0010
91856272|NCT04878354|183596257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||0.71|0.03|0.0354
91856273|NCT04878354|183596258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||0.50|-0.02|0.0734
91661122|NCT00834717|183217199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.95||||||90.0|83.11|103.97|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.97|83.11|
91661123|NCT00795821|183217212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
91661124|NCT00795821|183217214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control for multiple comparisons, the analysis of this secondary outcome measure was pre-specified as a gated secondary objective. As the primary hypothesis was statistically significant, this hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
91661125|NCT00795821|183217216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
91713605|NCT00069823|183318652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.4|-2.0|0.16
91661126|NCT00795821|183217218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.002
91661127|NCT00795821|183217220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model terms included treatment, investigator, and baseline score.||||||0.007
91661128|NCT00795821|183217222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model terms included treatment, investigator, and baseline score.||||||0.056
91661129|NCT00795821|183217224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.002
91661130|NCT00795821|183217226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
91661131|NCT00795821|183217228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.003
91661132|NCT00795821|183217230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model terms included treatment, investigator, and baseline score.||||||0.009
91661133|NCT00795821|183217232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Severity of Overall Fatigue|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.008
91856274|NCT04878354|183596259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||1.28|0.45|<0.0001
91661134|NCT00795821|183217232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue Interference with Daily Activities|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.024
91661135|NCT00795821|183217234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting use of primary doctor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.261
91856275|NCT04878354|183596260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.82|0.26|0.0002
91661136|NCT00795821|183217234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting use of specialist|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.868
91661137|NCT00795821|183217234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting other diagnostic tests|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.495
91661138|NCT00795821|183217234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting prescribed medication|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.189
91661139|NCT00795821|183217236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||P-value for suicidal ideation|Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
91661140|NCT00795821|183217238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for change in supine systolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.002
91661141|NCT00795821|183217238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change in supine diastolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
91661142|NCT00795821|183217240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
91661143|NCT01285713|183217243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0003
91661144|NCT01415232|183217250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Balki et al found a Pearson's correlation coefficient between the UD and ND depth of 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.91). We believe EDE + US would result in a correlation coefficient of approximately 0.91. To keep the lower bound estimate within 0.04 of a correlation of 0.91, and to maintain a 95% confidence level, 140 patients would need to be sampled. To allow for patients who may not complete the study, 160 patients were enrolled.|correlation coefficient|0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.93|||longitudinal correlation coefficient|||Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated for epidural distance measurements which included actual clinical epidural needle depth (ND) and the epidural depth equation (EDE), ND and prior EDE + US midline longitudinal plane view, ND and prior EDE + US transverse plane view.||0.93|0.87|< 0.05
91661145|NCT01415232|183217250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|correlation coefficient|transverse plane correlation coefficient|0.9|||>|0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.93|||transverse plane correlation coefficient|||Transverse plane correlation coefficient||0.93|0.87|>0.85
91856276|NCT04878354|183596261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.76|-0.11|0.1516
91661146|NCT01415232|183217250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Clinical epidural needle depth||6.8|6.5|>0.05
91856277|NCT04878354|183596262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.25|-0.24|0.9709
91856278|NCT04878354|183596263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.41|0.00|0.0499
91661147|NCT01415232|183217250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Formula calculation|6.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|6.65|||Formula calculation||Estimated epidural depth equation depth (cm)|Estimated epidural depth equation depth (cm)||6.65|6.44|>0.05
91661148|NCT03570749|183217256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|12.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.02|2.75|<0.001
91661149|NCT03570749|183217256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|23.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.62|5.89|<0.001
91661150|NCT03570749|183217257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|8.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.51|1.81|<0.001
91661151|NCT03570749|183217257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|20.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.87|5.05|<0.001
91856279|NCT04878354|183596264|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||2.18|0.73|<0.0001
91661152|NCT03570749|183217258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|15.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.83|1.97|0.001
91661153|NCT03570749|183217258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|38.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.83|5.30|<0.001
91661154|NCT03570749|183217259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|39.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||39.30|2.72|<0.001
91661155|NCT03570749|183217259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.04|67.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.68|5.04|<0.001
91661156|NCT03570749|183217260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|18.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.62|2.34|<0.001
91661157|NCT03570749|183217260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|36.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.81|5.01|<0.001
91661158|NCT03570749|183217261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|15.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.27|1.41|0.012
91661159|NCT03570749|183217261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|43.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.93|4.73|<0.001
91661160|NCT03570749|183217262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.57|-15.63|||ANCOVA|||||-15.63|-30.57|<0.001
91661161|NCT03570749|183217262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.24|-30.89|||ANCOVA|||||-30.89|-44.24|<0.001
91661162|NCT03570749|183217263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.29|1.01|0.047
91661163|NCT03570749|183217263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|12.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.51|2.91|<0.001
91661164|NCT03570749|183217265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-1.38|0.005
91661165|NCT03570749|183217265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.05|0.040
91661166|NCT03570749|183217266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.93|0.107
91661167|NCT03570749|183217266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.78|0.174
91661168|NCT03086460|183217289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.171|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~The primary endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, period, and patient as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate. The confidence intervals (CIs) and the p-values of the comparisons between each dose of CHF 1531 pMDI and Placebo at Day 14 were adjusted for multiplicity, based on the parametric simulation method of Edwards and Berry."||0.171|0.050|<0.001
91661169|NCT03086460|183217289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.22|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.220|0.095|<0.001
91661170|NCT03086460|183217289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.194|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.194|0.072|<0.001
91661171|NCT03086460|183217289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.225|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.225|0.109|<0.001
91661172|NCT03086460|183217289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.19|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~The statistical analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, period, and patient as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate."||0.190|0.098|<0.001
91661173|NCT03086460|183217289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~The statistical analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, period, and patient as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate."||0.095|-0.002|0.059
91713606|NCT00069823|183318653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||2.2|-1.1|0.56
91661174|NCT03086460|183217289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.07|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.070|-0.026|0.361
91713607|NCT00069823|183318654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.07|-0.05|0.76
91713608|NCT00069823|183318655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.3|-0.8|0.39
91713609|NCT01801111|183318658|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Exact Clopper-Pearson CI|||Tests null hypothesis that the objective response rate (ORR) is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the objective response rate was not equal to 35%.||||0.0005
91713610|NCT01801111|183318659|OTHER|||||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact Clopper-Pearson CI|||Tests null hypothesis that the ORR is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the objective response rate was not equal to 35%.||||0.0599
91856280|NCT04878354|183596265|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.83|0.13|0.0075
91713611|NCT01801111|183318661|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Exact Clopper-Pearson CI|||Tests null hypothesis that the ORR is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the objective response rate was not equal to 35%.||||0.0001
91661175|NCT03086460|183217289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.102|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.102|0.011|0.016
91661176|NCT03086460|183217289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.026|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.026|-0.075|0.340
91661177|NCT03086460|183217289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.058|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.058|-0.038|0.690
91661178|NCT03086460|183217289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.082|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.082|-0.013|0.155
91856281|NCT04878354|183596266|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||1.29|0.44|<0.0001
91856282|NCT04878354|183596267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.32|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a severe day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of severe days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||1.32|1.10|<0.0001
91856283|NCT04878354|183596268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ration is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a severe day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of severe days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||1.08|0.93|0.9124
91713612|NCT01223937|183318696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.02||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with treatment, visit (including a treatment-by-visit interaction term), and age stratification (\<65, ≥65 years) as factors.||"The trial was to be declared positive only if the 25 μg desmopressin group had a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primary outcomes.~A summary of mean change in nocturnal voids, assessed longitudinally during 3 months of treatment, is presented below for the FAS using LOCF."||-0.02|-0.42|0.0280
91661179|NCT03086460|183217290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.175|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. CIs and p-values for CHF 1531 pMDI vs Placebo are adjusted for multiplicity (parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry). Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the primary efficacy model with only data from the first instance of each treatment."||0.175|0.049|<0.001
91856284|NCT04878354|183596269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.81|||Generalised linear fixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a well day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of well days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.81|0.71|<0.0001
91661180|NCT03086460|183217290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.23|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.230|0.101|<0.001
91661181|NCT03086460|183217290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.203|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.203|0.074|<0.001
91713613|NCT01223937|183318697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.86||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE Method with treatment, visit (including a treatment-by-visit interaction term), and age stratification (\<65, ≥65 years) as factors.||The trial was to be declared positive only if the 25 μg desmopressin group had a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primary outcomes.||2.86|1.19|0.0061
91661182|NCT03086460|183217290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.235|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.235|0.113|<0.001
91661183|NCT03086460|183217290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.197|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the primary efficacy model with only data from the first instance of each treatment."||0.197|0.101|<0.001
91661184|NCT03086460|183217290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.104|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the primary efficacy model with only data from the first instance of each treatment."||0.104|0.004|0.035
91661185|NCT03086460|183217290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.076|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.076|-0.024|0.301
91661186|NCT03086460|183217290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.11|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.110|0.014|0.011
91661187|NCT03086460|183217290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.024|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.024|-0.080|0.294
91713614|NCT01223937|183318698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.07||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids, using last observation carried forward.||Change from baseline in the adjusted mean number of nocturnal voids in the FAS using LOCF.||-0.07|-0.54|0.0104
91713615|NCT01223937|183318699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.05||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistical regression of 33% responder status adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||||3.05|0.98|0.0586
91713616|NCT01223937|183318700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.03||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.35|81.7||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline time to first nocturnal void, using last observation carried forward.||||81.70|16.35|0.0034
91713617|NCT01223937|183318701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.56||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.74|-28.38||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal urine volume, using last observation carried forward.||||-28.38|-138.74|0.0031
91661188|NCT03086460|183217290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.058|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.058|-0.042|0.747
91661189|NCT03086460|183217290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.014|0.155
91856285|NCT04878354|183596270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.93|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a well day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of well days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.93|0.85|<0.0001
91856286|NCT04878354|183596271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.84|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a symptom-free day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of symptom-free days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.84|0.72|<0.0001
91661190|NCT03086460|183217291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.207|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. CIs and p-values for CHF 1531 pMDI vs Placebo are adjusted for multiplicity (parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry). Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the model with only data for the instance of each treatment, which occurred after the randomization error."||0.207|0.065|<0.001
91661191|NCT03086460|183217291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.258|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.258|0.113|<0.001
91661192|NCT03086460|183217291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.238|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.238|0.092|<0.001
91661193|NCT03086460|183217291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.252|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.252|0.118|<0.001
91661194|NCT03086460|183217291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.231|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the model with only data for the instance of each treatment which occurred after the randomization error."||0.231|0.121|<0.001
91661195|NCT03086460|183217291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.108|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the model with only data for the instance of each treatment which occurred after the randomization error."||0.108|-0.008|0.088
91713618|NCT01223937|183318702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.91||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.42|34.6||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline 24-hour urine volume, using last observation carried forward.||||34.60|-180.42|0.1829
91661196|NCT03086460|183217291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.088|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.088|-0.029|0.323
91661197|NCT03086460|183217291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.103|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.005|0.073
91661198|NCT03086460|183217291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.039|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.039|-0.080|0.489
91661199|NCT03086460|183217291|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.056|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.056|-0.057|0.978
91661200|NCT03086460|183217291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.077|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.037|0.484
91661201|NCT03086460|183217292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.166|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline FEV1 value as covariate. CIs and p-values for CHF 1531 pMDI vs Placebo are adjusted for multiplicity (parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry). Patients receiving the same treatment during two periods are considered twice in the ANCOVA model (once for each period attended)."||0.166|0.048|<0.001
91661202|NCT03086460|183217292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.217|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.217|0.096|<0.001
91661203|NCT03086460|183217292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.193|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.193|0.073|<0.001
91661204|NCT03086460|183217292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.217|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.217|0.103|<0.001
91661205|NCT03086460|183217292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.192|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline FEV1 value as covariate. Patients receiving the same treatment during two periods are considered twice in the ANCOVA model (once for each period attended)."||0.192|0.102|<0.001
91661206|NCT03086460|183217292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.098|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline FEV1 value as covariate. Patients receiving the same treatment during two periods are considered twice in the ANCOVA model (once for each period attended)."||0.098|0.002|0.041
91661207|NCT03086460|183217292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.073|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.073|-0.021|0.275
91661208|NCT03086460|183217292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.098|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.098|0.008|0.021
91661209|NCT03086460|183217292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.026|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.026|-0.073|0.350
91661210|NCT03086460|183217292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.051|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.044|0.886
91713619|NCT03284853|183318705|OTHER|The primary analysis was performed on the ITT population with imputation by Markov Chain Monte Carlo method.|||||<|0.05||||||Linear model with IOP at the given visit and time point as the response, baseline IOP as a covariate, and treatment as a main effect factor at each time point (08:00, 10:00, and 16:00 hours at the Week 2, Week 6, and Month 3 Visits).|Regression, Linear|Non-inferiority for PG324 was concluded if the UL of the 95% CI was ≤ l.5 mmHg at all 9 time points and ≤ l.0 mmHg at the majority of time points||Assuming no difference between PG324 and Ganfort, a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 (2-sided 95% CI) at each of 9 time points, a common SD of 3.5 mmHg, and a correlation between time points of ≤ 0.60, 200 ITT subjects per arm were necessary to have 85% power to show clinical non-inferiority of PG324 to Ganfort in the mean change from baseline IOP.||||<0.05
91713620|NCT00765817|183318741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91713621|NCT00765817|183318742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91713622|NCT00765817|183318743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91713623|NCT00765817|183318744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.174
91713624|NCT00765817|183318746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.203
91661211|NCT03086460|183217292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.020|0.254
91661212|NCT03086460|183217293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.169|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.169|0.060|<0.001
91661213|NCT03086460|183217293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.208|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.208|0.099|<0.001
91661214|NCT03086460|183217293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.193|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.247|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.247|0.138|<0.001
91713625|NCT00765817|183318747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.063
91713626|NCT00765817|183318748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.745
91713627|NCT00765817|183318749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.933
91713628|NCT00765817|183318750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91713629|NCT00765817|183318751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.226
91661215|NCT03086460|183217293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.268|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.268|0.163|<0.001
91661216|NCT03086460|183217293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.224|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.224|0.120|<0.001
91661217|NCT03086460|183217293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.016|0.165
91713630|NCT00765817|183318752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.026
91713631|NCT00765817|183318753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.070
91713632|NCT00765817|183318754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91856287|NCT04878354|183596272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.95|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a symptom-free day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of symptom-free days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.95|0.86|0.0001
91856288|NCT04878354|183596275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in an LME model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.29|0.07|0.0015
91856289|NCT04878354|183596276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.20|0.04|0.0032
91856290|NCT04878354|183596277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The endpoint was analysed in each dataset in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment and cohort as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect. Each treatment group was allowed different residual errors. Observed p-value.||0.23|-0.21|0.9277
91856291|NCT04878354|183596278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The endpoint was analysed in each dataset in a linear mixed effect (LME) model with treatment and cohort as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect. Each treatment group was allowed different residual errors. Observed p-value.||0.18|-0.19|0.9643
91856292|NCT04878354|183596279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The endpoint was analysed in each dataset in a linear mixed effect (LME) model with treatment and cohort as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect. Each treatment group was allowed different residual errors. Observed p-value.||0.34|0.02|0.0287
91901585|NCT01699789|183697885|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.7|0.4|
91661218|NCT03086460|183217293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.132|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.132|0.024|0.005
91713633|NCT00765817|183318755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91856293|NCT04878354|183596281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.58|||Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet/ odds tree SLIT-tablet)|"Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy.~The odds of having an improved treatment efficacy according to patient-rated global evaluation was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model with a logit link function. The model includes patient-rated global evaluation of treatment efficacy (improvement/no improvement) as the response variable and treatment, cohort and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effects. Observed p-value."||0.58|0.30|<0.0001
91901586|NCT01699789|183697886|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.6||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||8.6|0.2|
91661219|NCT03086460|183217293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.153|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|0.049|<0.001
91713634|NCT00765817|183318756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0|||||Negative binomial regression model|||||||0.666
91661220|NCT03086460|183217293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.097|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.097|-0.019|0.187
91856294|NCT04878354|183596282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 4|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 4 (pre-TPS). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analyzed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.48|0.38|<0.0001
91856295|NCT04878354|183596282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 6|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 6 (end of treatment). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.01|-0.09|0.1038
91661221|NCT03086460|183217293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.116|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|0.007|0.028
91661222|NCT03086460|183217293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.076|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.076|-0.031|0.406
91713635|NCT00765817|183318757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.486
91661223|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.23|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.230|0.116|<0.001
91661224|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.26|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.260|0.146|<0.001
91713636|NCT06597084|183318768|OTHER||Percentiles of time to first US|92.0||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|95.0|||Log Rank|||||95|25|0.2081
91713637|NCT06597084|183318774|OTHER||Overall Survival|||||0.0542|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0542
91713638|NCT01043133|183318784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||log-binomial|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|11.79|||log-binomial regression||Robust Huber-White standard errors account for clustering|||11.79|1.34|.01
91661225|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.28|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.280|0.166|<0.001
91661226|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.325|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.325|0.216|<0.001
91661227|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.295|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.295|0.187|<0.001
91661228|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.089|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.089|-0.028|0.308
91661229|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.107|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.107|-0.006|0.082
91713639|NCT01043133|183318785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.78||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-.03|-2.48|.05
91661230|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.152|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.152|0.043|<0.001
91661231|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.08|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.080|-0.041|0.520
91661232|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.124|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.124|0.010|0.022
91661233|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.103|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.009|0.098
91661234|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.21|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.210|0.095|<0.001
91661235|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.249|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.249|0.131|<0.001
91661236|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.228|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.228|0.113|<0.001
91661237|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.272|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.272|0.162|<0.001
91661238|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.252|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.252|0.144|<0.001
91661239|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.020|0.203
91661240|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.039|0.542
91661241|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.119|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|0.010|0.021
91661242|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.040|-0.080|0.510
91661243|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.084|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.084|-0.030|0.352
91661244|NCT03086460|183217294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.103|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.009|0.098
91661245|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.241|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.241|0.122|<0.001
91661246|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.251|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.251|0.133|<0.001
91661247|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.275|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.275|0.156|<0.001
91661248|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|0.309|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.309|0.195|<0.001
91661249|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.295|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.295|0.182|<0.001
91713640|NCT00490971|183318800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||The two treatment groups were compared using a weighted z-statistic based on rho-family of alpha spending function at information fraction of 85.0% at interim analysis analysis (rho=2.5) at 0.025 (1-sided) level. One-sided alpha at final was 0.0195.|Weighted Z- test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between Pali/Pali and Pali/Placebo in the time to recurrence of any mood symptoms related to bipolar I disorder. An interim analysis was performed when approximately 85% of the required number of recurrences were reported in Pali/Pali and Pali/Placebo treatment groups. A flexible group-sequential approach was adopted. The general family of alpha spending function based on the rho-family with rho=2.5 at overall type I error of 0.025 (1-sided) was employed.||||0.017
91713641|NCT00490971|183318801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The two treatment groups were compared using a weighted z-statistic based on rho-family of alpha spending function at information fraction of 81.9% at interim analysis analysis (rho=2.5) at 0.025 (1-sided) level. One-sided alpha at final was 0.0198.|Weighted z-test|||At the time of interim analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, the proportion of recurrence of manic symptoms was 81.9% of the number of recurrence of manic symptoms at final analysis. A flexible group-sequential approach was adopted. The general family of alpha spending function based on the rho-family with rho=2.5 at overall type I error of 0.025 (1-sided) was employed.||||<0.001
91661250|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.071|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.071|-0.049|0.723
91661251|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.093|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.093|-0.025|0.257
91661252|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.128|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|0.014|0.016
91713642|NCT00490971|183318802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.46||Cox proportional hazards regression was performed with treatment (Pali/Placebo, Pali/Pali) as a factor. The 2 treatment groups were compared by means of a hazard ratio (Pali/Placebo: Pali/Pali)|Regression, Cox|The percent of participants who reported recurrence of depressive symptoms was: 18% Pali/Placebo, 24% Pali/Pali.|Hazard ratio was estimated with Pali/Placebo in the numerator and Pali/Pali in the denominator|||1.46|0.53|
91713643|NCT00490971|183318803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|-1.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||-1.98|-6.92|<0.001
91856296|NCT04878354|183596283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 4|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 4 (pre-TPS). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.57|0.48|<0.0001
91856297|NCT04878354|183596283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 6|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 6 (end of treatment). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.53|0.45|<0.0001
91856298|NCT04878354|183596284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 4|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 4 (pre-TPS). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analyzed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.33|0.24|<0.0001
91856299|NCT04878354|183596284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 6|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 6 (end of treatment). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.36|0.26|<0.0001
91856300|NCT03599648|183596288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.361
91856301|NCT03599648|183596288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||baseline versus 6 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.126
91661253|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.039|0.464
91661254|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.120|0.000|0.048
91661255|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.022|0.219
91713644|NCT00490971|183318804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model with treatment (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||2.55|-1.87|0.763
91856302|NCT03599648|183596288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 12 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91856303|NCT03599648|183596288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus immediately after 16 week BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91856304|NCT03599648|183596288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 6 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91856305|NCT03599648|183596288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 12 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91856306|NCT03599648|183596289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Baseline versus immediately following 16-week BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.035
91856307|NCT03599648|183596289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Baseline versus 6-months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91856308|NCT03599648|183596289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 12 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91856309|NCT03599648|183596289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91856310|NCT03599648|183596289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 6 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91856311|NCT03599648|183596289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 12 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91856312|NCT03599648|183596290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91856313|NCT03599648|183596290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 6 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91856314|NCT03599648|183596290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 12 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91856315|NCT03599648|183596290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91856316|NCT03599648|183596290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 6 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91856317|NCT03599648|183596290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 12 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91661256|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.226|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.226|0.100|<0.001
91661257|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.254|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.254|0.126|<0.001
91661258|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.229|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.229|0.103|<0.001
91661259|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.266|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.266|0.146|<0.001
91661260|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.243|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.243|0.125|<0.001
91856318|NCT03363854|183596291|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|21.9||The primary endpoints were tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants who achieved IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16 were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their IGA value at Week 16. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab Q2W+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.||21.9|2.9|0.015
91713645|NCT00490971|183318805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|10.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model with treatment (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||10.09|1.40|0.010
91713646|NCT00490971|183318806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model on ranks with treatment (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||||0.007
91864169|NCT00104676|183617199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0|||Log Rank|Adjusted on the stratification factor (treatment centers)||To detect an absolute difference of 20% in progression-free survival at 3-years between Arm I and Unfav-Dose-Dense Arm II (46% versus 66%) with the possibility that 80 events (progressive disease and death) may be observed during this period, a total of 196 participants, 98 per group needed to be included, with an additional 25% of patients for a total of 260 participants required.||1.00|0.44|0.05
91661261|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.09|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.090|-0.036|0.400
91661262|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.064|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.064|-0.059|0.931
91856319|NCT03363854|183596292|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|30.6||The primary endpoints were tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants who achieved at least 75% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their EASI value at Week 16. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab Q2W+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.||30.6|9.8|<0.001
91864170|NCT00104676|183617200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31|||Log Rank|Adjusted on the stratification factor (treatment centers)||||1.31|0.46|0.34
91661263|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.102|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.102|-0.017|0.160
91661264|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.041|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.041|-0.090|0.464
91661265|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.078|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.078|-0.047|0.623
91661266|NCT03086460|183217295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.101|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.101|-0.021|0.197
91661267|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.113|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.113|-0.010|0.098
91661268|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.159|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.159|0.035|0.002
91661269|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.163|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.163|0.039|0.002
91713647|NCT00255164|183318823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
91864171|NCT04228042|183617216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91864172|NCT04228042|183617216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91864173|NCT04228042|183617216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91661270|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.182|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.182|0.063|<0.001
91661271|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.171|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.171|0.054|<0.001
91856320|NCT03363854|183596293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|21.6||This secondary endpoint was tested after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints, if these showed statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their Worst daily Pruritus NRS value at Week 16.||21.6|0.9|0.037
91713648|NCT00255164|183318823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
91713649|NCT00255164|183318823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.80473||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.80473
91856321|NCT03363854|183596294|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-6.6||This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-6.6|-15.2|<0.001
91856322|NCT03363854|183596295|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.6||This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after sequential testing of the primary endpoints and the first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-1.6|-4.3|<0.001
91856323|NCT03363854|183596297|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-3.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|4.9||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 1-2 are reported below.||4.9|-11.9|0.41
91856324|NCT03363854|183596297|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.9||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-0.6||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 3-4 are reported below.||-0.6|-13.3|0.033
91856325|NCT03363854|183596297|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 5-6 are reported below.||1.2|-10.6|0.12
91864174|NCT04228042|183617216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91713650|NCT00255164|183318824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91713651|NCT00255164|183318824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91713652|NCT00255164|183318824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76046||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76046
91713653|NCT00255164|183318826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
91713654|NCT00255164|183318826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
91856326|NCT03363854|183596297|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-0.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 7-8 are reported below.||-0.2|-14.3|0.043
91856327|NCT03363854|183596297|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-3.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 9-10 are reported below.||-3.4|-14.8|0.002
91856328|NCT03363854|183596297|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-3.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 11-12 are reported below.||-3.2|-12.8|0.001
91856329|NCT03363854|183596297|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-4.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 13-14 are reported below.||-4.7|-15.8|<0.001
91856330|NCT03363854|183596297|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-3.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 15-16 are reported below.||-3.2|-14.1|0.002
91856331|NCT03363854|183596298|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|11.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 1-2 are reported below.||11.0|-11.0|1.00
91661272|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.108|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.108|-0.018|0.162
91856332|NCT03363854|183596298|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|11.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 3-4 are reported below.||11.4|-9.1|0.83
91661273|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.11|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.110|-0.012|0.117
91661274|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.13|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.130|0.011|0.020
91901587|NCT01699789|183697887|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.8|0.4|
91713655|NCT00255164|183318826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37161||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.37161
91661275|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.07|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.070|-0.062|0.909
91661276|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.088|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.088|-0.037|0.419
91661277|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.083|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.083|-0.039|0.483
91661278|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.099|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.099|-0.012|0.126
91661279|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.131|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.131|0.017|0.012
91661280|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.116|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|0.004|0.037
91661281|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.136|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.136|0.028|0.003
91661282|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.127|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.127|0.021|0.006
91661283|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.087|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.087|-0.025|0.282
91661284|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.072|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.072|-0.039|0.554
91661285|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.091|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|-0.014|0.149
91856333|NCT03363854|183596298|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.4||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|8.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 5-6 are reported below.||8.5|-11.3|0.78
91713656|NCT00255164|183318827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91713657|NCT00255164|183318827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91856334|NCT03363854|183596298|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 7-8 are reported below.||5.1|-14.8|0.34
91661286|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.044|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.044|-0.072|0.636
91661287|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.063|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.063|-0.047|0.775
91661288|NCT03086460|183217296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.077|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.032|0.425
91661289|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.187|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.187|0.058|<0.001
91661290|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.215|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.215|0.085|<0.001
91661291|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.189|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.059|<0.001
91856335|NCT03363854|183596298|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|4.6||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 9-10 are reported below.||4.6|-13.4|0.34
91856336|NCT03363854|183596298|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 11-12 are reported below.||1.5|-13.9|0.11
91661292|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.242|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.242|0.118|<0.001
91661293|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.238|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.238|0.115|<0.001
91661294|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.094|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.094|-0.039|0.410
91661295|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.066|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.066|-0.063|0.961
91661296|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.119|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|-0.005|0.070
91661297|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.043|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.043|-0.095|0.454
91661298|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.035|0.370
91713658|NCT00255164|183318827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59700
91856337|NCT03363854|183596298|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-1.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 13-14 are reported below.||-1.2|-16.6|0.024
91661299|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.12|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.120|-0.008|0.086
91661300|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.151|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.151|0.020|0.011
91713659|NCT02359110|183318837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 Analysis||1.3|-1.2|0.89
91661301|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.164|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.164|0.029|0.005
91713660|NCT02359110|183318837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 Analysis||1.5|-1.6|0.94
91713661|NCT02359110|183318837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 6 Analysis||1.3|-2.2|0.64
91713662|NCT02359110|183318837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 Analysis||2.8|-1.6|0.59
91856338|NCT03363854|183596298|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.5||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-1.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 15-16 are reported below.||-1.7|-17.3|0.017
91661302|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.153|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|0.021|0.010
91661303|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.208|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.208|0.081|<0.001
91661304|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.189|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.065|<0.001
91713663|NCT02359110|183318838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 Analysis||15.8|-8.1|0.52
91713664|NCT02359110|183318838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 6 Analysis||15.3|-11.9|0.80
91661305|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.078|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.078|-0.055|0.740
91713665|NCT02359110|183318839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91713666|NCT03934216|183318866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.5935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.4|0.3|0.5935
91713667|NCT03934216|183318867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.7|0.6|0.3051
91661306|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.066|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.066|-0.064|0.973
91661307|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.122|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.122|-0.003|0.064
91713668|NCT03934216|183318868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.8764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.4|0.3|0.8764
91856339|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 1 are reported below.||0.7|-0.5|0.64
91661308|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.059|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.059|-0.079|0.774
91661309|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.113|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.113|-0.018|0.151
91661310|NCT03086460|183217297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.122|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.122|-0.006|0.076
91661311|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.19|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.190|0.039|0.003
91661312|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.206|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.206|0.055|<0.001
91661313|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.213|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.213|0.061|<0.001
91661314|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.223|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.223|0.078|<0.001
91661315|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.24|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.240|0.097|<0.001
91661316|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.093|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.093|-0.061|0.679
91661317|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.098|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.098|-0.052|0.549
91661318|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.109|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.109|-0.036|0.323
91713669|NCT03934216|183318869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.8|0.5|0.2235
91713670|NCT00735709|183318870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|-2.86||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-2.86|-6.99|<0.001
91713671|NCT00735709|183318870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|-2.08||Hierarchical testing stopped at SDS total score at Week 8 in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-2.08|-6.17|<0.001
91713672|NCT00735709|183318870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.47||This treatment arm is not in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.47|-5.57|<0.001
91713673|NCT00735709|183318871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.54||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.48||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||0.48|-3.56|0.135
91713674|NCT00735709|183318871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.11||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.84|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||0.84|-3.07|0.263
91713675|NCT00735709|183318871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.94|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||1.94|-2.03|0.963
91713676|NCT00735709|183318872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.30|-0.80|<0.001
91856340|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 2 are reported below.||1.0|-0.3|0.26
91713677|NCT00735709|183318872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.22|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.22|-0.71|<0.001
91713678|NCT00735709|183318872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.23|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.23|-0.72|<0.001
91713679|NCT00735709|183318873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.995|5.618|||Regression, Logistic|Regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-D24 score.|Odds ratio versus placebo.|||5.618|1.995|<0.001
91713680|NCT00735709|183318873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.631|4.598|||Regression, Logistic|Regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-D24 score.|Odds ratio versus placebo|||4.598|1.631|<0.001
91856341|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 3 are reported below.||0.8|-0.4|0.46
91713681|NCT00735709|183318873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.018|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.799|5.063|||Regression, Logistic|Regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-D24 score.|Odds ratio versus placebo|||5.063|1.799|<0.001
91713682|NCT00735709|183318874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-1.84|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.84|-7.34|0.001
91713683|NCT00735709|183318874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-1.62|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.62|-7.32|0.002
91856342|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 4 are reported below.||1.0|-0.2|0.16
91713684|NCT00735709|183318874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.13||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.37|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.37|-6.90|0.004
91713685|NCT00735709|183318875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.951||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.082|3.517|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.517|1.082|0.026
91713686|NCT00735709|183318875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.056||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.673|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.673|1.150|0.015
91713687|NCT00735709|183318875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.753||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.158|0.973|0.062
91713688|NCT00873730|183318924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6031|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6031
91713689|NCT00873730|183318925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9166|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9166
91713690|NCT00873730|183318926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7564|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7564
91713691|NCT00873730|183318927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3266|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3266
91713692|NCT00873730|183318928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7481|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7481
91713693|NCT00873730|183318929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7721|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7721
91856343|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 5 are reported below.||1.1|-0.1|0.13
91713694|NCT00873730|183318930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Nocturnal Back Pain.||||0.6660
91713695|NCT00873730|183318930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5364|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Overall Spinal Pain.||||0.5364
91713696|NCT00873730|183318931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9426|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for the Physician Global Assessment.||||0.9426
91713697|NCT00873730|183318931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4969|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for the Patient Global Assessment.||||0.4969
91713698|NCT00873730|183318932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6687
91713699|NCT00873730|183318933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6739|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6739
91713700|NCT00873730|183318934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2772
91713701|NCT00873730|183318935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1560
91713702|NCT00873730|183318936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2099|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Mobility.||||0.2099
91713703|NCT00873730|183318936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8009|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Self-care.||||0.8009
91713704|NCT00873730|183318936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Usual activities.||||0.4290
91713705|NCT00873730|183318936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0461|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Pain/Discomfort.||||0.0461
91713706|NCT00873730|183318936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Anxiety/Depression.||||0.5620
91713707|NCT00873730|183318937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Physical functioning.||||0.3476
91713708|NCT00873730|183318937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Physical role limitations.||||0.9045
91661319|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.087|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.087|-0.073|0.866
91661320|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.096|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.055|0.596
91661321|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY|"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.088|||ANCOVA|||||0.088|-0.061|0.720
91661322|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.185|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.185|0.038|0.003
91661323|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.209|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.209|0.057|<0.001
91856344|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 6 are reported below.||0.9|-0.3|0.38
91661324|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.18|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.180|0.032|0.005
91856345|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 7 are reported below.||1.2|0.0|0.040
91661325|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.223|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.223|0.081|<0.001
91661326|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.212|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.212|0.072|<0.001
91661327|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.096|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.053|0.573
91661328|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.067|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.067|-0.078|0.881
91661329|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.11|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.110|-0.030|0.261
91661330|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.051|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.104|0.493
91661331|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.092|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.092|-0.055|0.616
91661332|NCT03086460|183217298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.118|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.118|-0.026|0.212
91661333|NCT03086460|183217299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.106|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.106|-0.039|0.361
91713709|NCT00873730|183318937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8558|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Bodily pain.||||0.8558
91864175|NCT05196919|183617228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.693||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.57|30.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||30.97|-22.57|1.00
91661334|NCT03086460|183217299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.138|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.138|-0.009|0.085
91661335|NCT03086460|183217299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.109|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.109|-0.037|0.328
91713710|NCT00873730|183318937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3123|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for General health.||||0.3123
91713711|NCT00873730|183318937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Vitality.||||0.3327
91713712|NCT00873730|183318937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8334|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Social functioning.||||0.8334
91856346|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 8 are reported below.||1.0|-0.3|0.31
91661336|NCT03086460|183217299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.182|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.182|0.042|0.002
91856347|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 9 are reported below.||1.6|0.4|0.001
91856348|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 10 are reported below.||1.3|0.1|0.026
91856349|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model]|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 11 are reported below.||1.5|0.2|0.006
91856350|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 12 are reported below.||1.3|0.0|0.043
91856351|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 13 are reported below.||1.4|0.2|0.010
91856352|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 14 are reported below.||1.3|0.0|0.037
91856353|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 15 are reported below.||1.3|0.0|0.045
91856354|NCT03363854|183596300|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 16 are reported below.||1.1|-0.2|0.17
91856355|NCT03363854|183596301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|31.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their EASI value at Week 16.||31.3|11.3|<0.001
91856356|NCT03363854|183596302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|20.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their EASI value at Week 16.||20.7|2.1|0.022
91856357|NCT03363854|183596303|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurement model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-3.1|-7.7|<0.001
91856358|NCT03363854|183596304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|33.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Partcipants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their SCORAD value at Week 16.||33.3|12.4|<0.001
91856359|NCT03363854|183596305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their SCORAD value at Week 16.||19.0|3.2|0.012
91856360|NCT03363854|183596306|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-0.7|-1.7|<0.001
91856361|NCT03363854|183596307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|27.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their DLQI value at Week 16.||27.1|8.0|<0.001
91661337|NCT03086460|183217299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.158|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.158|0.020|0.011
91661338|NCT03086460|183217299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.104|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.104|-0.042|0.404
91713713|NCT00873730|183318937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7998|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Emotional role limitations.||||0.7998
91661339|NCT03086460|183217299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.069|0.942
91713714|NCT00873730|183318937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Mental health.||||0.7125
91713715|NCT00873730|183318939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7404
91661340|NCT03086460|183217299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.147|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.147|0.009|0.027
91661341|NCT03086460|183217299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.048|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.048|-0.104|0.463
91661342|NCT03086460|183217299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.119|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|-0.025|0.200
91661343|NCT03086460|183217299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.146|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.146|0.005|0.037
91661344|NCT03086460|183217300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.073|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.073|-0.083|0.896
91661345|NCT03086460|183217300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.07|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.070|-0.089|0.810
91661346|NCT03086460|183217300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.073|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.073|-0.084|0.882
91713716|NCT04110314|183318948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.03|1.00|
91661347|NCT03086460|183217300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.136|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.136|-0.015|0.115
91661348|NCT03086460|183217300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.134|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.134|-0.014|0.111
91661349|NCT03086460|183217300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.083|0.911
91661350|NCT03086460|183217300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.077|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.078|0.985
91661351|NCT03086460|183217300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.14|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.140|-0.009|0.084
91661352|NCT03086460|183217300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.078|0.928
91661353|NCT03086460|183217300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.148|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.148|-0.008|0.078
91661354|NCT03086460|183217300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.143|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.143|-0.010|0.089
91713717|NCT04110314|183318948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.01|0.99|
91713718|NCT04110314|183318948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.03|0.99|
91661355|NCT03086460|183217301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|18.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|76.37|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Time to onset of action was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by patient, including treatment and period as a factor, and baseline FEV1 as covariate.~For patients receiving the same treatment twice, the analysis includes only data from the first instance of each treatment."||76.37|4.25|<0.001
91661356|NCT03086460|183217301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|31.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.52|133.47|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||133.47|7.52|<0.001
91661357|NCT03086460|183217301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|44.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.23|191.34|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||191.34|10.23|<0.001
91856362|NCT02217904|183596310|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
91856363|NCT02217904|183596310|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.32|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
91856364|NCT02217904|183596310|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.57|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
91856365|NCT02217904|183596310|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.28|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
91661358|NCT03086460|183217301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|40.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|170.45|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||170.45|9.54|<0.001
91661359|NCT03086460|183217301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|22.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|92.06|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||92.06|5.70|<0.001
91713719|NCT04110314|183318948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.04|1.00|
91661360|NCT03086460|183217301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.13|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||4.13|0.75|0.195
91661361|NCT03086460|183217301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.46||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.72|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||5.72|1.06|0.037
91661362|NCT03086460|183217301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.24||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.86|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||4.86|1.03|0.042
91713720|NCT04110314|183318948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.01|0.98|
91713721|NCT04110314|183318948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.97|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.97|
91661363|NCT03086460|183217301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.23|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||3.23|0.60|0.435
91856366|NCT02217904|183596310|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.18|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
91856367|NCT01903811|183596332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.061||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.821|1.37||Stratified by pre-specified randomization stratification factors: 1 - 3 prior therapies vs. 4-6 prior therapies and refractory to bortezomib vs. not refractory to bortezomib.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log rank test||||1.370|0.821|0.384
91856368|NCT01903811|183596333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.149||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.841|1.571||Stratified by pre-specified randomization stratification factors: 1 - 3 prior therapies vs. 4-6 prior therapies and refractory to bortezomib vs. not refractory to bortezomib.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log rank test||||1.571|0.841|0.284
91856369|NCT01903811|183596334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Compare the rate of confirmed PR or better between treatment arms.||||0.1130
91856370|NCT05332340|183596390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.683
91856371|NCT05773313|183596438|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Food Insecurity||||>0.999
91856372|NCT05773313|183596438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Financial Insecurity||||0.250
91856373|NCT05773313|183596438|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Isolation||||>0.999
91856374|NCT05773313|183596438|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical Inactivity||||>0.999
91713722|NCT04110314|183318948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.01|0.97|
91856375|NCT05773313|183596438|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Disability||||>0.999
91856376|NCT05773313|183596439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.461
91856377|NCT05773313|183596440|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
91661364|NCT03086460|183217301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.89|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||2.89|0.56|0.564
91713723|NCT04110314|183318948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.05|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.05|0.98|
91856378|NCT05773313|183596441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.438
91856379|NCT05773313|183596442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.080
91856380|NCT01534494|183596463|OTHER|Paired t-test||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test for significance of change. t(8) = 3.477. P(2-sided) = 0.008||Single-group pre-post contrast||||0.008
91856381|NCT00802464|183596464|OTHER||Fold increase|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|6.98||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||6.98|3.89|
91856382|NCT00802464|183596464|OTHER||Fold increase|4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.4||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||5.4|3|
91856383|NCT00802464|183596464|OTHER||Fold increase|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.58||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.58|1.07|
91856384|NCT00802464|183596465|OTHER||Fold increase|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.69||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||2.69|1.67|
91856385|NCT00802464|183596465|OTHER||Fold increase|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.07||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||2.07|1.28|
91864176|NCT05196919|183617228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.142||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.12|33.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||33.03|-17.12|0.99
91856386|NCT00802464|183596465|OTHER||Fold increase|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.56||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.56|1.09|
91856387|NCT00802464|183596466|OTHER||Fold increase|4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|5.85||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||5.85|3.81|
91856388|NCT00802464|183596466|OTHER||Fold increase|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.17||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||4.17|2.72|
91856389|NCT00802464|183596466|OTHER||Fold increase|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.68||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.68|1.17|
91661365|NCT03086460|183217301|SUPERIORITY|"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.01|||Regression, Cox|||||2.01|0.41|0.818
91661366|NCT02545283|183217313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.81|0.5752
91856390|NCT00802464|183596467|OTHER||Fold increase|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|36.0|2.64|3.9||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||3.9|2.64|
91856391|NCT00802464|183596467|OTHER||Fold increase|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.97||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||2.97|2.02|
91856392|NCT00802464|183596467|OTHER||Fold increase|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.54||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.54|1.12|
91661367|NCT00583453|183217377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||||||Treatment x day interaction|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.674
91661368|NCT00583453|183217378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Treatment x day interaction reported as 0.018.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
91661369|NCT00583453|183217379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||||||Treatment x day interaction = 0.214|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.214
91856393|NCT00402246|183596484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the time from a clinical event to a clinical decision for patients followed through the remote management system is greater than and equal to that of patients receiving only in-office care.||||<0.001
91661370|NCT00583453|183217381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||||||treatment x day interaction P = 0.036 Treatment main effect (average day 1 to 10) P = 0.003|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
91661371|NCT00905606|183217382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA guidelines.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|93.91||||||90.0|85.42|103.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.25|85.42|
91661372|NCT00905606|183217383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA guidelines.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|98.27||||||90.0|94.63|102.05|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.05|94.63|
91661373|NCT00905606|183217384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA guidelines.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|98.19||||||90.0|94.64|101.87|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.87|94.64|
91661374|NCT02659150|183217395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-test comparing values obtained during the follow-up imaging (at 13-18 weeks)minus the baseline values||||0.26
91661375|NCT02659150|183217396|OTHER||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|0.76||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman|||correlation coefficient||||0.036
91661376|NCT02659150|183217397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The carotid artery plaque with highest FDG uptake is located using Positron Emission Tomography/ Magnetic Resonance Imaging images. Thereafter Paired T- Test is used to compare baseline vs follow-up values of FDG uptake (before vs after 12 weeks of tocilizumab treatment). FDG uptake is assessed as a Target to background values (TBR) , which is calculated as the mean arterial standardized uptake value (SUV) divided by background blood pool SUV.||||0.14
91661377|NCT02659150|183217398|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|-0.66||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Method|||||||0.076
91661378|NCT02659150|183217399|SUPERIORITY||Correlation coefficient|0.67||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Method|||||||0.07
91661379|NCT01363765|183217432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||notification rate ratio|1.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.87||NR were calculated using an aggregated database consisting of 896 strata for laboratory (n=14), study month (n=8), sex (n=2) and age group (n=4: \<15, 15-39, 40-59, and \>=60 years). Poisson regression modeling was used to analyze changes in TB TB NR|Clustered Avareged|Adjustment for municipality, age, sex, and baseline proportion of samples with a positive smear was by a population-averaged quasi-likelihood approach|"The numbers reported in the CONSORT flowchart refer to the diagnostic samples. NR were obtained crosslinking lab and notification databases, denominator was population/year."|cluster-averaged NNR=1.59 (CI95% 1.31-1.88) Absolute numbers informed in table do not allow calculation of notification rates; they are based on population size, not in total numbers and percentages||1.87|1.32|<0.01
91661380|NCT01363765|183217432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||notification rate ratio|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed multi-level model, time-adjusted||Secondary analysis: Mixed multi-level model||1.92|1.51|<0.001
91661381|NCT01363765|183217433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|-84.07||||||95.0||||||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per case detected||||||
91661382|NCT01363765|183217434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NRR|0.98||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||cluster-averaged adjusted NRR (notification rate ratio, not calculable from number shown, which are a proportion of tests. NRR calculated over a population/year denominator.|Agregated cluster-averaged|||||1.32|0.64|0.923
91661383|NCT01363765|183217435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NRR|0.52||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.84||cluster-averaged adjusted NRR|Agregated cluster-averaged|||||0.84|0.21|0.004
91661384|NCT00609674|183217438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91661385|NCT00571064|183217461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6 (Visit 3)||||0.6593
91713724|NCT04110314|183318948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.99|
91856394|NCT00402246|183596485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.524|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.21||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple hospitalization events per subject.||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the CV hospitalization hazard rates for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||1.21||0.524
91661386|NCT00571064|183217461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6048|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.6048
91661387|NCT00571064|183217461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||0.5924
91661388|NCT00571064|183217462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6 (Visit 3)||||<0.0001
91661389|NCT00571064|183217462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||<0.0001
91661390|NCT00571064|183217462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||<0.0001
91661391|NCT00571064|183217464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.0431
91661392|NCT00571064|183217464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||0.0431
91661393|NCT00571064|183217466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.1285
91661394|NCT00571064|183217466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||0.1285
91661395|NCT00571064|183217468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6 (Visit 3)||||0.2327
91661396|NCT00571064|183217468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.4724
91661397|NCT00571064|183217468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF - Study Endpoint||||0.4724
91661398|NCT02363803|183217470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.03
91661399|NCT03140631|183217475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91661400|NCT03140631|183217476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||number of participants who experienced a vascular access site complication at 90 days||||0.74
91661401|NCT02169115|183217477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91661402|NCT02169115|183217477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
91661403|NCT02169115|183217477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91661404|NCT03872128|183217505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
91661405|NCT03872128|183217506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
91661406|NCT03872128|183217507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.044
91661407|NCT03872128|183217508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||OCDS: Total||||<0.001
91661408|NCT03872128|183217508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||OCDS: Obsessive||||<0.001
91661409|NCT03872128|183217508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||OCDS: Compulsive||||0.003
91661410|NCT03872128|183217510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
91661411|NCT03872128|183217511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||HADS-Depression||||<0.001
91661412|NCT03872128|183217511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Fisher Exact|||HADS-Anxiety||||0.089
91661413|NCT03285594|183217516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.271|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.271|-0.638|<0.0001
91661414|NCT03285594|183217516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.387|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.387|-0.706|<0.0001
91856395|NCT00402246|183596485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.325|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.43||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple ED visits per subject.||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the ED hazard rates for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||1.43||0.325
91661415|NCT03285594|183217517|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-15.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6056||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8845|-6.8309|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-6.8309|-24.8845|0.0006
91856396|NCT00402246|183596485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.099|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.31||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple unscheduled clinic visits per subject.||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the hazard rates of the CV unscheduled clinic or urgent care visits for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||1.31||0.099
91713725|NCT04110314|183318948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.98|
91864177|NCT05196919|183617229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.676||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|3.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||3.19|-15.49|0.1933
91661416|NCT03285594|183217517|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-21.832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0514|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7725|-13.8911|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-13.8911|-29.7725|<0.0001
91661417|NCT03285594|183217518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.716|-0.462|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.462|-1.716|0.0007
91661418|NCT03285594|183217518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.274|-1.183|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.183|-2.274|<0.0001
91661419|NCT03285594|183217519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.904||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.642|-0.178|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.178|-7.642|0.04
91661420|NCT03285594|183217519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.697||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.161|-0.507|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.507|-7.161|0.0239
91661421|NCT03285594|183217520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.425|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-2.142||||||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-2.142|-7.73|
91661422|NCT03285594|183217520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.246||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.333|-1.448|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.448|-6.333|0.0018
91661423|NCT03285594|183217521|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|0.147|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.147|-1.185|0.1265
91661424|NCT03285594|183217521|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|0.055|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.055|-1.199|0.074
91661425|NCT03285594|183217522|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.868||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.707|0.696|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||0.696|-2.707|0.2466
91661426|NCT03285594|183217522|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.672||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.969|0.665|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||0.665|-1.969|0.332
91661427|NCT00834431|183217525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.0||||||90.0|85.9|98.6|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.6|85.9|
91661428|NCT00834431|183217526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.6||||||90.0|96.2|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|96.2|
91661429|NCT00834431|183217527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.7||||||90.0|96.3|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|96.3|
91661430|NCT00556322|183217540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.78|0.7299
91661431|NCT00556322|183217543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR positive populations||1.21|0.72|0.6198
91661432|NCT00556322|183217543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.95||||0.8398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.62|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR negative populations||1.62|0.55|0.8398
91661433|NCT00556322|183217546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.97|0.0885
91661434|NCT00556322|183217549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.61|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR positive populations||1.61|0.98|0.0662
91661435|NCT00556322|183217549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.69|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR negative populations||1.69|0.61|0.9403
91661436|NCT00556322|183217551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|1.55||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.7||p-values are based on non-stratified analysis|Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using Hauck-Anderson Method|||6.7|-3.6|0.5349
91661437|NCT00556322|183217553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.93|0.1498
91661438|NCT00556322|183217556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.57|||Log Rank|||||1.57|0.90|0.2202
91661439|NCT00556322|183217559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.66|||Log Rank|||||1.66|0.95|0.1063
91661440|NCT03733444|183217561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.29||0.9123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|52.4||P-value was based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from mixed model.||||52.4|-46.9|0.9123
91661441|NCT03733444|183217561|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.01||0.9456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|50.8||P-value was based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from mixed model.||||50.8|-47.4|0.9456
91856397|NCT00402246|183596486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.29|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.56||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the hazard rate of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) taken for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||2.56||0.29
91856398|NCT00402246|183596489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.23||||||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|A GEE model was utilized to account for multiple events within same patient in estimating the probability of an AT/AF alert event being symptomatic.||||||
91856399|NCT00402246|183596491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||The a priori threshold for significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the time from event onset to clinical decision for symptom-driven device interrogations for patients followed through the remote management system is greater than and equal to that of patients receiving only in-office care.||1.0|-0.8|0.779
91856400|NCT00402246|183596492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-6.9||The a priori threshold for significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is the time from event onset to clinical decision for both device events and symptom-driven device interrogations for patients followed through the remote management system is greater than and equal to that of patients receiving only in-office care.||-6.9|-13.1|<0.001
91661442|NCT03733444|183217562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.76|0.5162
91661443|NCT03733444|183217562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.71|0.7566
91661444|NCT03733444|183217563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.85|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first respiratory-related hospitalization.|||3.85|1.20|
91661445|NCT03733444|183217563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.1|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first respiratory-related hospitalization.|||3.10|0.93|
91661446|NCT03733444|183217564|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.0||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-3.2|0.9370
91661447|NCT03733444|183217564|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.4||||0.8064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.7||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|-3.4|0.8064
91661448|NCT03733444|183217565|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|46.8|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||46.8|-41.1|
91661449|NCT03733444|183217565|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|51.5|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||51.5|-35.5|
91661450|NCT03733444|183217566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.94|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||1.94|0.90|
91661451|NCT03733444|183217566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.56|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||1.56|0.72|
91661452|NCT03733444|183217567|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|14.1|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||14.1|-12.4|
91661453|NCT03733444|183217567|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|17.6|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||17.6|-10.4|
91661454|NCT03733444|183217568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.35|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause hospitalization.|||2.35|1.01|
91661455|NCT03733444|183217568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.16|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to all cause hospitalization.|||2.16|0.91|
91661456|NCT03733444|183217571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|8.14|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||8.14|1.04|
91661457|NCT03733444|183217571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.13|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||5.13|0.55|
91661458|NCT03733444|183217572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.82|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||4.82|1.06|
91856401|NCT00402246|183596493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The threshold was met, and the null hypothesis was rejected.|negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis was that the mean LOS per hospitalization visit for patients in the remote arm was equal to that for similar patients in the in-office arm.||0.9|0.7|0.002
91661459|NCT03733444|183217572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.06|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||4.06|0.86|
91661460|NCT03733444|183217573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.82|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||4.82|1.06|
91661461|NCT03733444|183217573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.06|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||4.06|0.86|
91661462|NCT03733444|183217574|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.31|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||3.31|1.20|
91661463|NCT03733444|183217574|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.54|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||2.54|0.88|
91713726|NCT04110314|183318948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.97|
91713727|NCT04110314|183318948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.04|1.00|
91856402|NCT00402246|183596494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.761|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.737||||Binomial Exact Test|||3-month compliance rate|||0.737|
91856403|NCT00402246|183596494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.815|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.793||||Binomial Exact Test|||6-month compliance rate|||0.793|
91856404|NCT00402246|183596494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.815|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.792||||Binomial Exact Test|||9-month compliance rate|||0.792|
91856405|NCT00402246|183596494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.814|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.79||||Binomial Exact Test|||12-month compliance rate|||0.79|
91856406|NCT00402246|183596496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0||||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was fit with randomization arm, device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD), and follow-up visit as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||A mixed model was fit to test whether patients followed through the remote management system will experience less anxiety than patients followed through in-office care.||||0.217
91856407|NCT00402246|183596497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was fit with randomization arm, device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD), and follow-up visit as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||A mixed model was fit to test whether patients followed through the remote management system will experience less anxiety than patients followed through in-office care.||||0.154
91661464|NCT03733444|183217575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.31|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||3.31|1.20|
91856408|NCT00431834|183596504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportions|37.7|||<|0.0041|ONE_SIDED|97.5|25.6|||The percent of patients off Class I and III AADs and successfully converted out of AF following treatment (ptest) will exceed the percenter of patients off Class I and III AADs and convereted out of AF, as reported in literature (pcontrol=22.1%)|Fisher Exact|||"The specific test hypothesis is as follows:~H0: ptest ≤ 22.1% Ha: ptest \> 22.1%"|||25.6|<0.0041
91661465|NCT03733444|183217575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.54|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||2.54|0.88|
91661466|NCT05446870|183217639|OTHER||Posterior probability (%)|100.0|||||||||||||||Posterior probability (based on 20000 sets of model parameters) ctDNA fold change (square root scale) coefficient less than zero in the multivariable logistic regression model of pCR, adjusted for baseline ctDNA and treatment assignment.|||
91661467|NCT05446870|183217641|OTHER||Posterior probability (%)|90.99|||||||||||||||Posterior probability (based on 20000 sets of model parameters) ctDNA fold change (square root scale) coefficient less than zero in the multivariable logistic regression model of CRS (CRS3 coded as 1 and CRS1 or 2 coded as 0), adjusted for baseline ctDNA and treatment assignment.|||
91856409|NCT00431834|183596507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportions|5.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||13.1||The percent of subjects following treatment, p, who experience any of the MAEs during the first 30 days following surgery, or hospital discharge, whichever is longer will be less than 23.6%.|Fisher Exact|||"The specific test hypothesis is as follows:~H0: p ≥ 23.6% Ha: p \< 23.6%"||13.1||<0.0001
91661468|NCT05446870|183217642|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC + MK-4830 arm - % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|12.9||||||||12.9|-10.0|
91661469|NCT05446870|183217643|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC + MK-4830 arm - % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|37.0||||||||37.0|3.5|
91722478|NCT06525727|183337723|OTHER||Sensitivity|97.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.15|99.95|||Diagnostic accuracy|Diagnostic performance was analyzed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV and likelihood ratios, all reported with 95% confidence interval||The primary objective of the study was to assess the external validation of the Falls Decision Rule. In this evaluation, patients were categorized into two groups based on the rule: those for whom a CT scan was recommended and those for whom it was not.||99.95|89.15|
91722479|NCT06525727|183337723|OTHER||Specificity|31.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.63|35.42|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||35.42|28.63|
91722480|NCT06525727|183337723|OTHER||Negative predictive value|99.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.17|99.94|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||99.94|97.17|
91856410|NCT02622568|183596535|NON_INFERIORITY|Veregen alone has efficacy compared to Veregen + cryotherapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.556||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison at week 12|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
91856411|NCT02622568|183596535|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison at week 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
91864178|NCT05196919|183617229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.434||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||14.00|-3.73|0.2511
91864179|NCT03687086|183617241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.70|1.03|.039
91856412|NCT00324350|183596547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27||Analyses were by intention to treat. All analyses adjusted for baseline cardiovascular disease, assignment to blood pressure (BP) trial or lipid trial, assignment to intensive BP intervention in BP trial, and assignment to fibrate in lipid trial.|Regression, Cox|||The BONE ancillary study was designed to have 80% power to detect a relative reduction in risk of non-spine clinical fractures of 22-29%. This was based on an estimated total number of fractures between 259-494, calculated with the following assumptions: rate of clinical non-spine fracture among women in the standard glycemia therapy group between 15 and 25/1000 person yrs, fracture rates for men between 35-40% of the rates for women of the same age, and an avg follow-up time of 4.6 yrs.||1.27|0.86|0.678
91661470|NCT05446870|183217646|OTHER||Posterior probability (%)|38.75|||||||||||||||Posterior probability (based on 20000 sets of model parameters) coefficient for treatment assignment (MK-4830 containing vs. not) less than zero in Bayesian parametrization of the constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model, modeling ctDNA value at Cycle 3 and ctDNA value at baseline as bivariate normal.|||
91661471|NCT01686438|183217661|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean change in ISI score from baseline in Veterans receiving CBT-I by video teleconferencing will be no more than 1.67 smaller than the reference treatment, i.e., Veterans receiving in-person CBT-I.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.33||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|1.57|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.57|-4.63|0.138
91661472|NCT00984126|183217675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.4||||||A one-sided 95% upper confidence limit was based on an exact calculation for a binomial distribution.||1.4||
91661473|NCT02009163|183217712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on a log-rank test, stratified by 4-week cessation status (Yes, No). 4-week cessation was defined as a subject having no binge days during the 4 weeks prior to randomization.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91856413|NCT00324350|183596548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||Number of participants with falls reported at each annual visit were compared by treatment assignment using a repeated-measures negative binomial model, with robust standard errors to account for clustering of the repeated outcomes within participants; the log of the length of the reporting period varied slightly and was included as an offset||1.43|0.84|0.490
91856414|NCT00324350|183596549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||The rate of height loss did not differ between groups (p = 0.573). Height loss of \>2 cm during ACCORD was experienced by 678 (19.5%) participants in the intensive and 686 (19.6%) in the standard glycemia group (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.88, 1.11).|Height loss was compared by treatment assignment using linear mixed models with random intercepts and slopes. The proportions losing \>2 cm of height during follow-up were compared using logistic models. Based on previous research by Siminoski et al., this degree of height loss is associated with incident vertebral fracture with 94% specificity but only 28% sensitivity.(Siminoski K, Jiang G, Adachi JD, et al. Osteoporos Int 2005;16:403-410)||1.11|0.88|0.854
91856415|NCT02015520|183596552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
91856416|NCT02015520|183596552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91856417|NCT02015520|183596552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91856418|NCT01854385|183596564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.079
91661474|NCT02009163|183217713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS mean|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.42||Nominal P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|mixed- effects model for repeated measur|MMRM over all post-randomization visits during the randomized-withdrawal phase. Value for change from baseline = outcome variable.||||-0.42|-0.81|<0.001
91661475|NCT02009163|183217714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted P-value for the difference in distribution between treatment groups in CGI-S.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with a modified ridit score, adjusting for Visit 8 (Week 12) CGI-S as the covariate.||||||<0.001
91661476|NCT02009163|183217715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS mean|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-3.9||Nominal P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|MMRM over all post-randomization visits during the randomized-withdrawal phase. Value for change from baseline = outcome variable.||||-3.9|-7.2|<0.001
91661477|NCT00833586|183217746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.1||||||90.0|85.8|105.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.4|85.8|
91661478|NCT00833586|183217747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.9||||||90.0|82.7|118.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||118.4|82.7|
91661479|NCT00833586|183217748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|102.4||||||90.0|95.0|110.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.5|95.0|
91661480|NCT00304187|183217751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91661481|NCT01141374|183217763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.28||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|23.0||The test of hypothesis was conducted with repeated measures ANOVA with Post hoc. It was performed parametric test to compare data and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there was no statistical difference among 3 groups (control, needles and seeds) after 4 auriculotherapy sessions.||23.00|-76.00|0.352
91722481|NCT06525727|183337723|OTHER||Positive predictive value|8.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|9.1|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||9.1|8.1|
91722482|NCT06525727|183337723|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.42|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||0.42|0.01|
91856419|NCT02932579|183596568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
91856420|NCT02932579|183596569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.21|||Fisher Exact|||||4.21|0.45|0.740
91856421|NCT04059042|183596570|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session pain measures were assessed with related-samples Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (Audio minus Silence). Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|39.0||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0051
91856422|NCT04059042|183596570|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session change scores were calculated per participant as Audio minus Silence and compared between groups with independent samples Mann-Whitney U-tests. Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|19.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91856423|NCT04059042|183596571|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session pain measures were assessed with related-samples Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (Audio minus Silence). Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|18.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91856424|NCT04059042|183596571|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session change scores were calculated per participant as Audio minus Silence and compared between groups with independent samples Mann-Whitney U-tests. Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|14.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91856425|NCT01985334|183596593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||linear mixed model|||||||0.0180
91856426|NCT01985334|183596594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"H0: Glycopyrronium (50 μg o.d.) \[randomized group B2\] was inferior to LABA or LAMA (random group B1) with respect to mean trough FEV1 after 12 weeks of treatment.~H0: μFEV1, NVA237 - μFEV1, LABA and/or LAMA \< -40 mL Ha: Glycopyrronium (50 μg o.d.) \[randomized group B2\] is non-inferior to LABA or LAMA (random group B1) with respect to mean trough FEV1 after 12 weeks of treatment.~Ha: μFEV1, NVA237 - μFEV1, LABA and/or LAMA ≥ -40 mL"|||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
91856427|NCT01985334|183596595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
91856428|NCT01985334|183596596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
91722483|NCT06525727|183337723|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.53|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||1.53|1.35|
91856429|NCT01985334|183596597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
91856430|NCT01985334|183596598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A difference of 0.6 points in TDI was adopted as boundary for non-inferiority|||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
91856431|NCT01985334|183596599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
91856432|NCT01985334|183596600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
91856433|NCT00093015|183596609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.41||95.0|0.94|1.17||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented. The primary cardiovascular composite endpoint was tested at the 0.04056 significance level at final analysis after accounting for 4 planned interim analyses (overall alpha = 0.048).|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.17|0.94|0.41
91661482|NCT01141374|183217764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9067|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.21||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|37.0||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|As for the comparison between the scores, we used ANOVA for repeated measures.It was made post hoc to find the differences among groups.||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups in the 3rd assessment (after 60 days and 8 sessions). The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||37.00|-67.00|0.023
91661483|NCT03769025|183217765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1
91661484|NCT03769025|183217766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.959
91661485|NCT03374176|183217767|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||chi-square|||<0.05
91661486|NCT02911701|183217771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||maxim|||||||0.3
91661487|NCT01110005|183217803|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||Regression, log binomial|The regression model adjusted for site of recruitment as a covariate.|D5LR vs. LR|||2.3|0.7|0.34
91661488|NCT01110005|183217804|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Regression, log binomial|The regression model adjusted for site of recruitment as a covariate.|D5LR vs. LR|||1.3|0.9|0.40
91856434|NCT00093015|183596610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.29||95.0|0.95|1.19||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented. The primary renal composite endpoint was tested at the 0.002 significance level at final analysis.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.19|0.95|0.29
91661489|NCT01110005|183217805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This method was used to control for site of recruitment||||||0.69
91661490|NCT03290781|183217830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.451|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.572||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.572|0.296|<0.001
91661491|NCT03290781|183217830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.401||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.401|0.142|<0.001
91864180|NCT03687086|183617242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (9 Weeks vs. baseline)||||3.29|-0.52|0.155
91661492|NCT03290781|183217831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.463|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.585||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.585|0.310|<0.001
91661493|NCT03290781|183217831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.339|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.197|0.463||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.463|0.197|<0.001
91661494|NCT03290781|183217832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.497|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.62||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.620|0.337|<0.001
91661495|NCT03290781|183217832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.294|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.425||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.425|0.148|<0.001
91661496|NCT03290781|183217833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.398||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.398|0.129|<0.001
91661497|NCT03290781|183217833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.305||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.305|0.067|<0.001
91661498|NCT03290781|183217834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.488|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.613||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.613|0.329|<0.001
91661499|NCT03290781|183217834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.343|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.471||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.471|0.194|<0.001
91661500|NCT03290781|183217835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.431|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.554||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.554|0.280|<0.001
91713728|NCT01711983|183318990|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin based on 1) the lower 95% confidence bound (= 0.82) for estimated 6-month composite Clinical Success for the historical device (219/253=0.866), and 2) a worst-case analysis of 6-month composite Clinical Success for the historical device (0.81, assuming the 18 subjects with missing echo evaluations were failures).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0366|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.007||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.05.|2-sample binomial proportions test||Difference is control - test. Confidence interval is the upper one-sided 95% Wald confidence interval.|"Test null hypothesis of inferiority of test device (test) compared to historical device (control).~H0: Pc - Pt ≥ Δ vs H1: Pc - Pt \< Δ, where Pt and Pc are true proportions of 6-month clinical success for test and control, respectively, and Δ is the non-inferiority margin.~Given Nc = 253, then Nt = 135 test subjects provides 86% power to reject H0 with 95% confidence if Δ = 0.10 and Pc = Pt = 0.866 under H0."||0.007||<0.0001
91856435|NCT00093015|183596611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.48||95.0|0.92|1.21||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.21|0.92|0.48
91856436|NCT00093015|183596612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.61||95.0|0.88|1.25||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.25|0.88|0.61
91856437|NCT00093015|183596613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.73||95.0|0.75|1.23||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.23|0.75|0.73
91661501|NCT03290781|183217835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.227|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.349||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.349|0.094|<0.001
91856438|NCT00093015|183596614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.92|||<|0.001||95.0|1.38|2.68||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||2.68|1.38|<0.001
91661502|NCT03290781|183217836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.287||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.287|0.049|<0.001
91661503|NCT03290781|183217836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.111|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.208||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.208|0.006|<0.005
91661504|NCT03290781|183217837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91661505|NCT03290781|183217837|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647- 303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.005
91661506|NCT01077596|183217847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.1|1.3||||||||1.3|1.1|
91856439|NCT00093015|183596615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.24||95.0|0.74|1.08||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.08|0.74|0.24
91864181|NCT03687086|183617243|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (6 months vs. baseline)||||2.20|-1.88|0.880
91661507|NCT01077596|183217847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|1.0|
91864182|NCT03687086|183617244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (9 weeks vs. baseline)||||0.30|-1.25|0.228
91661508|NCT01077596|183217847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.1|1.3||||||||1.3|1.1|
91661509|NCT01077596|183217847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|1.0|
91661510|NCT01077596|183217847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.3||||||||1.3|1.0|
91661511|NCT01077596|183217847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|1.0|
91661512|NCT01077596|183217847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.1|1.4||||||||1.4|1.1|
91713729|NCT00737100|183318997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.001||95.0|1.19|4.7||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||4.70|1.19|0.001
91661513|NCT01077596|183217847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.3|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.3|1.0|
91661514|NCT01077596|183217848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.4||||||95.0|0.9|2.2||||||||2.2|0.9|
91661515|NCT01077596|183217848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|0.8|2.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||2.0|0.8|
91661516|NCT01077596|183217848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|0.8|2.0||||||||2.0|0.8|
91661517|NCT01077596|183217848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.7|1.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.9|0.7|
91713730|NCT00737100|183318997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39||||0.0001||95.0|1.67|5.12||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||5.12|1.67|0.0001
91713731|NCT00737100|183318998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.0184||95.0|0.38|4.11||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||4.11|0.38|0.0184
91856440|NCT00093015|183596616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.83||95.0|0.87|1.18||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.18|0.87|0.83
91856441|NCT00093015|183596617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.12||||0.54||95.0|-0.51|0.26||Nominal p-value is from the term treatment group\*visit in the mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline eGFR and the stratification factors of proteinuria and CVD history.|Estimated difference in rate of decline in eGFR per year between darbepoetin alfa and placebo.|||0.26|-0.51|0.54
91856442|NCT00093015|183596618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|<|0.001||95.0|0.64|2.02||Nominal p-value is presented.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference (darbepoetin alfa - placebo)|||2.02|0.64|<0.001
91864183|NCT03687086|183617245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (6 months vs. baseline)||||0.78|-0.96|0.843
91864184|NCT03687086|183617246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|8.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.12|1.67|0.001
91661518|NCT01077596|183217848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.3||||||95.0|0.8|2.1||||||||2.1|0.8|
91661519|NCT01077596|183217848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.7|1.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.9|0.7|
91661520|NCT01077596|183217848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.2||||||95.0|1.2|3.9||||||||3.9|1.2|
91661521|NCT01077596|183217848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.0||||||95.0|1.1|3.6|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.6|1.1|
91661522|NCT01077596|183217849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.5||||||95.0|3.2|6.3||||||||6.3|3.2|
91661523|NCT01077596|183217849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.0||||||95.0|2.0|4.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||4.4|2.0|
91661524|NCT01077596|183217849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.0||||||95.0|2.8|5.8||||||||5.8|2.8|
91661525|NCT01077596|183217849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.9||||||95.0|1.9|4.5|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||4.5|1.9|
91661526|NCT01077596|183217849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.4||||||95.0|3.1|6.3||||||||6.3|3.1|
91661527|NCT01077596|183217849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.0||||||95.0|1.9|4.5|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||4.5|1.9|
91661528|NCT01077596|183217849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.5||||||95.0|2.8|7.2||||||||7.2|2.8|
91661529|NCT01077596|183217849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.5||||||95.0|2.1|5.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||5.9|2.1|
91661530|NCT01077596|183217850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.6||||||95.0|1.7|4.1||||||||4.1|1.7|
91661531|NCT01077596|183217850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.1||||||95.0|1.3|3.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.4|1.3|
91661532|NCT01077596|183217850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.3||||||95.0|1.4|3.6||||||||3.6|1.4|
91856443|NCT00093015|183596619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.4||95.0|0.55|1.27||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.27|0.55|0.40
91713732|NCT00737100|183318998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.0179||95.0|0.38|4.06||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||4.06|0.38|0.0179
91713733|NCT00737100|183318999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.0756||95.0|-0.19|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||3.86|-0.19|0.0756
91713734|NCT00737100|183318999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.0023||95.0|1.12|5.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||5.12|1.12|0.0023
91713735|NCT00737100|183319000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.3857||95.0|-1.08|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||2.79|-1.08|0.3857
91856444|NCT04191499|183596625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. Hazard ratios and log-rank p-values are using stratified methods by stratifying Visceral Disease, Endocrine Resistance, and Region.||0.59|0.32|<0.0001
91856445|NCT02253537|183596649|EQUIVALENCE|2 x 2 contingency table with 95% CI.|2 x 2 contingency table|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|96.3||||||||96.3|62.1|
91856446|NCT05999435|183596653|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis of no difference; statistical results of observed PCS and change from baseline PCS are identical."||||0.4463
91713736|NCT00737100|183319000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.2199||95.0|-0.72|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||3.11|-0.72|0.2199
91713737|NCT00737100|183319001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.19||||0.0363||95.0|0.27|8.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||8.11|0.27|0.0363
91713738|NCT00737100|183319001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.34||||0.0073||95.0|1.45|9.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||9.23|1.45|0.0073
91856447|NCT05999435|183596653|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis of no difference; statistical results of observed PCS and change from baseline PCS are identical."||||0.8707
91856448|NCT05999435|183596653|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis of no difference; statistical results of observed PCS and change from baseline PCS are identical."||||0.3600
91856449|NCT05999435|183596656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1618||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1618
91856450|NCT05999435|183596656|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856451|NCT05999435|183596656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1027|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1027
91856452|NCT05999435|183596656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0229
91856453|NCT05999435|183596656|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856454|NCT05999435|183596656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0296|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0296
91856455|NCT05999435|183596656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8448|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8448
91856456|NCT05999435|183596656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0307|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0307
91856457|NCT05999435|183596656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0105
91856458|NCT05999435|183596657|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.2217|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2217
91856459|NCT05999435|183596657|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.6834|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6834
91856460|NCT05999435|183596657|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1061
91901588|NCT01699789|183697888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.6|1.2|
91661533|NCT01077596|183217850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||||95.0|1.1|3.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.0|1.1|
91661534|NCT01077596|183217850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.3||||||95.0|1.5|3.7||||||||3.7|1.5|
91661535|NCT01077596|183217850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||||95.0|1.1|3.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.0|1.1|
91661536|NCT01077596|183217850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.6||||||95.0|1.5|4.5||||||||4.5|1.5|
91661537|NCT01077596|183217850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.2||||||95.0|1.3|3.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.9|1.3|
91856461|NCT05999435|183596657|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0854
91661538|NCT01077596|183217851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.5|1.3||||||||1.3|0.5|
91661539|NCT01077596|183217851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||||95.0|0.4|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|0.4|
91661540|NCT01077596|183217851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.6||||||95.0|0.4|1.1||||||||1.1|0.4|
91661541|NCT01077596|183217851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||||95.0|0.3|1.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.0|0.3|
91856462|NCT05999435|183596657|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.6686|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6686
91856463|NCT05999435|183596657|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0331
91661542|NCT01077596|183217851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.5|1.4||||||||1.4|0.5|
91661543|NCT01077596|183217851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.4|1.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.4|0.4|
91661544|NCT01077596|183217851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.6|2.0||||||||2.0|0.6|
91661545|NCT01077596|183217851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.6|1.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status†, previous depression dx, previous IBD‡ diagnosis, OC§ use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.9|0.6|
91661546|NCT01077596|183217852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
91661547|NCT01077596|183217852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.8|1.1|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.1|0.8|
91661548|NCT01077596|183217852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
91661549|NCT01077596|183217852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.1|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.1|0.8|
91661550|NCT01077596|183217852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
91661551|NCT01077596|183217852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.8|1.1|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.1|0.8|
91661552|NCT01077596|183217852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.3||||||||1.3|0.9|
91661553|NCT01077596|183217852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|0.9|
91661554|NCT01077596|183217853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.3||||||||1.3|1.0|
91856464|NCT05999435|183596657|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4327
91856465|NCT05999435|183596657|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1247
91856466|NCT05999435|183596657|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4606
91661555|NCT01077596|183217853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.3|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.3|1.0|
91661556|NCT01077596|183217853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.4||||||||1.4|1.0|
91661557|NCT01077596|183217853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.4|1.0|
91661558|NCT01077596|183217853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
91661559|NCT01077596|183217853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.3|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.3|0.9|
91661560|NCT01077596|183217853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
91713739|NCT00737100|183319002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.7414||95.0|-0.06|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||0.08|-0.06|0.7414
91661561|NCT01077596|183217853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|0.8|
91661562|NCT02538523|183217854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fischer's Exact Test for two independent proportions was conducted to compare the statistical significance of the 44.8% difference in proportion of successes between procedure groups at two-months post-procedure (study endpoint) relative to baseline evaluation.||||<0.005
91661563|NCT02538523|183217855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Differences is the statistical significance of change scores in ODI total score from study baseline to endpoint (two-months post-procedure) were evaluated by Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with change from baseline to endpoint in ODI total score as the dependent variable, baseline ODI total score as the covariate and procedure group (Erchonia FX-635 or placebo laser) as a main effect.||||<0.05
91661564|NCT03697109|183217874|EQUIVALENCE|Log odds is equal to 0 (null hypothesis) vs log odds not equal to 0 (alternative hypothesis).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.77|||Chi-squared||An odds ratio (OR) \<1 represents lower odds of loss of response under treatment with relacorilant compared with treatment with placebo.|A logistic regression model with logit link function was used in order to detect if there was a significant difference in total number of patients with a loss of response with respect to HTN under treatment with relacorilant compared with treatment with placebo in the RW Phase.||0.77|0.04|0.0215
91661565|NCT02301975|183217900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between mean change from Baseline in clinic visit PM FEV1 for FF/VI and FP/S was more than -100 milliliter (mL)|Least square mean change difference|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.049||||||||0.049|-0.011|
91661566|NCT02301975|183217900|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|0.093|<0.001
91661567|NCT02301975|183217900|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.104|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.134|0.074|<0.001
91661568|NCT02301975|183217901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between mean change from Baseline in clinic visit for FF/VI and FP/S was more than -100 mL|Least square mean change difference|0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.04||||||||0.040|-0.027|
91661569|NCT02301975|183217901|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|0.086|<0.001
91661570|NCT02301975|183217901|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.147|0.080|<0.001
91661571|NCT02301975|183217902|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0||||||||3.0|-0.5|
91661572|NCT02301975|183217902|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|2.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|0.9|0.002
91661573|NCT02301975|183217902|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.4||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-0.3|0.106
91856467|NCT05999435|183596658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7807||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7807
91661574|NCT02301975|183217903|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1||||||||3.1|-0.7|
91661575|NCT02301975|183217903|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|2.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|0.8|0.004
91661576|NCT02301975|183217903|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.5||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|-0.4|0.115
91661577|NCT02301975|183217904|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|9.4||||||||9.4|1.1|
91661578|NCT02301975|183217904|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|25.6|||ANCOVA|||||25.6|17.4|<0.001
91661579|NCT02301975|183217904|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|20.4|||ANCOVA|||||20.4|12.2|<0.001
91661580|NCT02301975|183217905|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.54||||||||1.54|0.53|
91661581|NCT02301975|183217905|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|0.69|0.595
91661582|NCT02301975|183217905|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.12|0.75|0.372
91661583|NCT02301975|183217906|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.3||||||||9.3|0.7|
91661584|NCT02301975|183217906|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|23.5|||ANCOVA|||||23.5|14.9|<0.001
91661585|NCT02301975|183217906|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|18.5|||ANCOVA|||||18.5|9.9|<0.001
91661586|NCT00835991|183217907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|114.05||||||90.0|107.26|121.27|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||121.27|107.26|
91661587|NCT00835991|183217908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.63||||||90.0|97.59|103.76|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.76|97.59|
91661588|NCT00835991|183217909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.36||||||90.0|98.32|104.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.48|98.32|
91661589|NCT00835991|183217910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.05||||||90.0|94.31|104.02|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.02|94.31|
91661590|NCT00835991|183217911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.55||||||90.0|93.85|99.32|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.32|93.85|
91856468|NCT05999435|183596658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4965||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4965
91661591|NCT00835991|183217912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.44||||||90.0|93.71|99.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.25|93.71|
91661592|NCT02149420|183217913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.058||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.007|3.18|||repeated measures Bayesian analysis|with baseline as a covariate||Per protocol the primary analysis was between placebo and the combined VAY736 groups at Week 12.||3.180|-5.007|0.678
91661593|NCT04278560|183217927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|385.3||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Repeated Measures Two-Way ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled by Baseline Step Counts|ANOVA|||||||0.009
91661594|NCT04278560|183217928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.03
91661595|NCT04278560|183217929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for the analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.4
91661596|NCT04278560|183217930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.016
91856469|NCT05999435|183596658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2093||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2093
91661597|NCT04278560|183217931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.94||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.17
91856470|NCT05999435|183596658|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856471|NCT05999435|183596658|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91901589|NCT01699789|183697889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.5|0.5|
91661598|NCT04278560|183217932|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.1
91661599|NCT04278560|183217933|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline||||||0.7
91661600|NCT04278560|183217934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
91661601|NCT04278560|183217935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91661602|NCT03635320|183217981|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of -10%|95%CI|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|4.42|||Newcombe-Wilson scoring method|Using the Newcombe-Wilson scoring method, the difference of fracture union rate between the TFNA group and the PFNA-II group was 0.|If the lower limit of 95% CI of the difference in the rates of the study group and the control group is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -10%, then the investigational product is considered non-inferior to the control product.|||4.42|-4.53|
91661603|NCT02322593|183217990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.69|0.039
91661604|NCT02322593|183217991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.66|0.0045
91661605|NCT02322593|183217992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.70|0.011
91661606|NCT02322593|183217993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91661607|NCT02322593|183217994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
91661608|NCT03868891|183217995|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||inflation test at 2 months compared with baseline; EMST150 + Eustachi not included because visit 2 measurements only available for 1 participant (2 ears)||||1.00
91661609|NCT03868891|183217995|OTHER|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||deflation test at 2 months compared with baseline; EMST150 + Eustachi not included because visit 2 measurements only available for 1 participant (2 ears)||||0.734
91661610|NCT03868891|183217996|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||inflation test at 4 months compared with baseline||||0.25
91661611|NCT03868891|183217996|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||deflation test at 4 months compared with baseline||||0.75
91661612|NCT03868891|183217997|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||inflation test at 4 months compared with 2 months||||0.25
91661613|NCT03868891|183217997|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||deflation test at 4 months compared with 2 months||||0.75
91661614|NCT04994535|183218029|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|37.4||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.4|24.5|<.0001
91661615|NCT04994535|183218030|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|46.4||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.4|31.3|<0.0001
91661616|NCT04994535|183218031|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|44.7||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.7|29.1|<0.0001
91856472|NCT05999435|183596658|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856473|NCT05999435|183596659|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.7052|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7052
91856474|NCT05999435|183596659|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.115|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1150
91856475|NCT05999435|183596659|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.2296|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2296
91856476|NCT05999435|183596659|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7761
91856477|NCT05999435|183596659|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8544
91856478|NCT05999435|183596659|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.9197
91856479|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.6269|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Vitality domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6269
91856480|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Leat Square Means difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Vitality domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4427
91856481|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.7783|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Vitality domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7783
91901590|NCT01699789|183697890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.3||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||8.3|1.0|
91661617|NCT04994535|183218034|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|50.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|58.3||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.3|42.0|<.0001
91661618|NCT04994535|183218035|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|36.1||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.1|18.1|<.0001
91661619|NCT04994535|183218036|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|44.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.2|27.4|<.0001
91856482|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7488
91856483|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.5557|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.5557
91856484|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3679
91856485|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Squre Means difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bodily Pain domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0044
91856486|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bodily Pain domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0158
91856487|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bodily Pain domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6682
91661620|NCT04994535|183218037|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-3.4||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-3.4|-5.4|<.0001
91661621|NCT04994535|183218040|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|42.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|51.0||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.0|34.8|<0.0001
91661622|NCT04994535|183218041|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|49.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|58.1||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.1|40.8|<0.0001
91661623|NCT04994535|183218042|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|38.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.2|19.4|<0.0001
91661624|NCT04994535|183218043|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|35.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|44.6||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.6|27.2|<0.0001
91661625|NCT04994535|183218044|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.7||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-3.7|-5.8|<0.0001
91661626|NCT04994535|183218045|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.7||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 30||-3.7|-6.0|<0.0001
91661627|NCT04994535|183218045|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.6||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 60||-3.6|-5.9|<0.0001
91661628|NCT04994535|183218045|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.8||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 90||-2.8|-4.9|<0.0001
91661629|NCT02246920|183218057|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval is contained within 80.00-125.00%.|T/R Ls Mean Ratio|108.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.09|124.4||||||||124.40|94.09|
91661630|NCT02246920|183218058|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated when the 90% confidence interval is contained within 80.00-125.00%.|T/R LS Mean Ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|124.09||||||||124.09|92.42|
91661631|NCT02246920|183218059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0028
91661632|NCT02246920|183218059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0169|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0169
91661633|NCT00968812|183218101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and glimepiride of 0.0% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.0125, and assuming a drop-out rate of 35% in 52 weeks, it was estimated that approximately 427 patients per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with the non-inferiority margin of 0.3, comparing canagliflozin with glimepiride.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.085|||ANCOVA|||If the hypothesis of non-inferiority of canagliflozin to glimepiride at Week 52 was demonstrated (ie, upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the treatment difference \[canagliflozin minus glimepiride\] was less than 0.3) and the upper bound was less than 0.0, the superiority of the canagliflozin dose relative to glimepiride would be concluded.||0.085|-0.109|
91661634|NCT00968812|183218101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and glimepiride of 0.0% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.0125, and assuming a drop-out rate of 35% in 52 weeks, it was estimated that approximately 427 patients per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with the non-inferiority margin of 0.3, comparing canagliflozin with glimepiride|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||If the hypothesis of non-inferiority of canagliflozin to glimepiride at Week 52 was demonstrated (ie, upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the treatment difference \[canagliflozin minus glimepiride\] was less than 0.3) and the upper bound was less than 0.0, the superiority of the canagliflozin dose relative to glimepiride would be concluded.||-0.023|-0.217|
91661635|NCT00968812|183218102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.16|0.06|<0.001
91661636|NCT00968812|183218102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.14|0.05|<0.001
91661637|NCT00968812|183218103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||||-4.7|-5.7|<0.001
91661638|NCT00968812|183218103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||||-5.1|-6.2|<0.001
91661639|NCT00968812|183218104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.010|-0.200|
91661640|NCT00968812|183218104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|-0.078|||ANCOVA|||||-0.078|-0.289|
91661641|NCT00834340|183218105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|92.2|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|92.2|
91661642|NCT00834340|183218106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5||||||90.0|94.0|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|94.0|
91661643|NCT00834340|183218107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0||||||90.0|98.7|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105|98.7|
91661644|NCT00395694|183218108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with rash events.|||11.1|1.6|
91691906|NCT00380874|183278450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8169||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 6.Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.8169
91713740|NCT00737100|183319002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1418||95.0|-0.02|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||0.12|-0.02|0.1418
91661645|NCT01940341|183218135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample sizes of 130 and 260 participants in the TDF group and TAF groups, respectively were planned to give 90% power to rule out the noninferiority margin of 10% at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. This sample size was based on the assumption that the expected difference (TAF-TDF) in proportion of participants with HBV DNA\<29 IU/mL was 0 and the proportion of participants with HBV DNA\<29 IU/mL in the TDF group was 91%. All missing data were treated as not achieving the primary endpoint.|Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.2|||||Difference in the proportion between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HBV DNA categories and oral antiviral treatment status strata.|The null hypothesis was that the TAF group is at least 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAF group is less than 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. Noninferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.||7.2|-3.6|
91661646|NCT01935934|183218141|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Trial design discriminated between co-primary endpoints of objective RR of 30% (vs 10%) and 12-week PFS of 55% (vs 30%). The design had 86% power to detect a true objective RR of at least 30% and at least 90% power to detect a true 12-week PFS rate of atleast 55% (or a median PFS of 3.4 months).~The parallel exploratory cohort of uncommon histology cancers was analyzed independently."|||
91856488|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2448
91661647|NCT03134222|183218194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed-effect repeated measures model|||||||0.7500
91661648|NCT03134222|183218194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3047|||||||Mixed-effect repeated measures model|||||||0.3047
91661649|NCT03134222|183218195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8869|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8869
91661650|NCT03134222|183218195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3293|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3293
91661651|NCT03134222|183218196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7456|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7456
91856489|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4702
91856490|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.6627|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6627
91856491|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2774
91661652|NCT03134222|183218196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6407|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6407
91661653|NCT03134222|183218197|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91661654|NCT03134222|183218197|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91661655|NCT03134222|183218198|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91661656|NCT03134222|183218198|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91661657|NCT03482882|183218208|OTHER||LSM|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-9.5|||Mixed-effect model repeated measures|||||-9.5|-12.0|<0.0001
91661658|NCT00520234|183218216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|APACHE II Stratified||||||0.14
91661659|NCT01085825|183218227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.13
91661660|NCT05152576|183218239|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|41.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|59.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline investigator-rated FWS-FHL at maximum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confidence interval for responder rate is calculated using normal approximation.||59.3|23.5|<0.001
91661661|NCT05152576|183218239|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|38.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|57.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline investigator-rated FWS-FHL at maximum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confidence interval for responder rate is calculated using normal approximation.||57.1|19.2|<0.001
91661662|NCT05152576|183218239|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|41.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|59.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline investigator-rated FWS-FHL at maximum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confidence interval for responder rate is calculated using normal approximation.||59.3|23.5|<0.001
91661663|NCT00859430|183218240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|105.0||||||90.0|98.6|112.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112|98.6|
91661664|NCT00859430|183218241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.6||||||90.0|96.2|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|96.2|
91661665|NCT00859430|183218242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.4||||||90.0|95.9|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|95.9|
91661666|NCT00834795|183218247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.16||||||90.0|85.69|105.67|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.67|85.69|
91661667|NCT00834795|183218248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.27||||||90.0|90.34|102.59|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.59|90.34|
91661668|NCT00834795|183218249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.36||||||90.0|90.2|102.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.93|90.20|
91661669|NCT00238615|183218259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability of survival at 2 years|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.9||The primary endpoint of 2 year overall survival was (0.72) = 72%||||2-year overall survival (OS) Our null hypothesis was a probability of survival at 2 years of 0.30. The study was powered at 80% (with α 5% two-tailed) to detect a probability of survival at 2 years of 0.55. This would require 30 patients assuming accrual over 2 years with 1 year of additional follow-up. The probability of survival at 2 years of 0.55 is based on previous studies of neoadjuvant approaches with reported 2 year survival in the 40-60% range.||0.90|0.36|
91661670|NCT02718326|183218267|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|52.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|59.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.5|45.2|<0.0001
91661671|NCT02718326|183218268|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|50.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|60.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.1|40.1|<0.0001
91661672|NCT02718326|183218268|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.8|73.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.9|55.8|< 0.0001
91661673|NCT02718326|183218269|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-9.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-9.9|-24.7|<0.0001
91661674|NCT02718326|183218269|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-9.1|-24.2|<0.0001
91661675|NCT02718326|183218270|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-17.3|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-8.5|-26.2|= 0.0002
91661676|NCT02718326|183218270|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-10.4|-27.5|<0.0001
91856492|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.1537|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1537
91661677|NCT02718326|183218273|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-6.0||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.5|-10.5|0.0096
91661678|NCT02718326|183218273|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-6.0||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.6|-10.5|0.0089
91661679|NCT02718326|183218274|SUPERIORITY||Estimate for contrast|0.8||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.6|||ANOVA|||||1.60|-0.01|0.0529
91661680|NCT02718326|183218274|SUPERIORITY||Estimate for contrast|1.14||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.94|||ANOVA|||||1.94|0.33|0.0057
91661681|NCT00761813|183218281|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.09||||||||1.09|.63|
91661682|NCT00761813|183218282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91661683|NCT03049748|183218283|OTHER|This is a pilot randomized trial with a purpose of establishing preliminary efficacy data to inform future studies.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91661684|NCT03049748|183218284|OTHER|Same rationale as the primary outcome.|||||>|0.05||||||All p-values across time periods, between groups, were \> .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
91661685|NCT03049748|183218285|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||All p values between groups across time periods were \> .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
91661686|NCT03049748|183218286|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||All p-values between groups across time periods were \>.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
91661687|NCT03049748|183218287|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||All p-values between group differences across time periods were \> .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
91856493|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7355
91661688|NCT03049748|183218288|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Differences in group hospitalization rates p-values: T1 = .093; T2 = .008; T3 = .029|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91691907|NCT00380874|183278450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9359|||||||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 7. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.9359
91856494|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Emotional Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1757
91661689|NCT01011413|183218297|NON_INFERIORITY|"Only the primary endpoint is assessed in terms of non-inferiority. All other comparisons are tests for superiority and are considered statistically significant at a two-sided alpha=0.05.~Non-inferiority of EFV 400 mg was defined as the lower 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between groups in the proportion of viral load below 200 copies/mL at week 48 lying above -10%."||||||0.05||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons|Pearson's chi-squared|Pearson's chi-squared or Fisher's exact test derived p value was used||Sample size calculation assumes 85% of participants randomised to 600mg EFV arm will have plasma HIV RNA \<200 copies/ml at 48 weeks. Assuming no difference between randomised treatments in proportion with plasma HIV RNA \<200 copies/mL, to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority in the intention to treat (ITT) analysis using a 10% non-inferiority margin will require 286 participants per arm, making a total of 572 participants. Power for modified ITT analysis was 93%.||||0.05
91661690|NCT01011413|183218297|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be defined as the lower 95% confidence limit of the difference in percentages of patients with undetectable viral load lying above -10% (i.e. a non-inferiority margin of 10%).||||||0.05||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||To ensure the per protocol (PP) analysis has 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority, the sample size was inflated for patients who switch treatment for toxicity. This is estimated to be no more than 10% randomised patients. To ensure 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority in the ITT and PP analyses, a total of 630 (315 per arm) patients will be randomised giving 93% power for the ITT analysis. Null hypothesis: no statistically significant difference between the 600mg and 400mg EFV regimens.||||0.05
91661691|NCT01011413|183218298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference between proportions|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91661692|NCT00462228|183218324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||0.55
91661693|NCT00462228|183218324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis:The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||1.00
91661694|NCT00462228|183218324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||0.45
91661695|NCT00462228|183218324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis:The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||0.43
91661696|NCT00462228|183218325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0||||6 week comparison,alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores||||0.23
91661697|NCT00462228|183218325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.022
91661698|NCT00462228|183218325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.06
91661699|NCT00462228|183218325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.027
91661700|NCT00462228|183218326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||1.0
91661701|NCT00462228|183218326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||0.55
91856495|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Rome Emotional Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0649
91856496|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Emotional Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6262
91856497|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.9709|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social Role Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.9709
91856498|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social Role Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3201
91856499|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social Role Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3065
91856500|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.2891|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2891
91856501|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.8714|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8714
91661702|NCT00462228|183218326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||0.81
91661703|NCT00462228|183218326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||0.57
91661704|NCT00462228|183218327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||0.55
91661705|NCT00462228|183218327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||1.0
91661706|NCT00462228|183218327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||0.17
91661707|NCT00462228|183218327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||0.64
91856502|NCT05999435|183596660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2260
91856503|NCT05999435|183596661|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference|No comparison possible since zero count in both groups|||
91661708|NCT00462228|183218328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for BVMT-R total recall scores.||||0.34
91661709|NCT00462228|183218328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVLT-R total recall scores.||||1.0
91661710|NCT00462228|183218328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R total recall scores.||||0.54
91661711|NCT00462228|183218328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVLT-R total recall scores.||||0.91
91661712|NCT00462228|183218329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.34
91661713|NCT00462228|183218329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.55
91856504|NCT05999435|183596661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2459||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2459
91856505|NCT05999435|183596661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2459||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2459
91856506|NCT05999435|183596661|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856507|NCT05999435|183596661|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856508|NCT05999435|183596661|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference|No comparison possible since zero count in both groups|||
91856509|NCT05999435|183596661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4972||||||Alpha set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4972
91856510|NCT05999435|183596661|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856511|NCT05999435|183596661|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856512|NCT05999435|183596662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3081||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3081
91856513|NCT05999435|183596662|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91661714|NCT00462228|183218329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.37
91856514|NCT05999435|183596662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3081|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3081
91856515|NCT05999435|183596662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.066
91856516|NCT05999435|183596662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0297||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0297
91856517|NCT05999435|183596662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8471||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8471
91856518|NCT05999435|183596662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7009||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7009
91856519|NCT05999435|183596662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7064||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7064
91713741|NCT00737100|183319003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.8515||95.0|0.37|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|Covariates of treatment and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||1.72|0.37|0.8515
91713742|NCT00737100|183319003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5565||95.0|0.33|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||1.59|0.33|0.5565
91713743|NCT03113968|183319072|NON_INFERIORITY|The Farrington-Manning score test was used to assess the noninferiority of KET.|||||<|0.001|||||||The Farrington-Manning score test|||||||<.001
91856520|NCT05999435|183596662|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856521|NCT05999435|183596663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1686|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1686
91713744|NCT03113968|183319073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||P-values not reported|||
91713745|NCT04805671|183319074|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.7||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|-2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-2.67|-14.71|0.0047
91713746|NCT04805671|183319079|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-4.81|-17.86|0.0007
91713747|NCT04805671|183319080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.7||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|-2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-2.67|-14.71|0.0047
91856522|NCT05999435|183596663|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856523|NCT05999435|183596663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0643||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0643
91856524|NCT05999435|183596663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1531|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1531
91856525|NCT05999435|183596663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7187|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7187
91856526|NCT05999435|183596663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0720
91856527|NCT05999435|183596663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6117||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6117
91856528|NCT05999435|183596663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0479||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0479
91856529|NCT05999435|183596663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2042||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2042
91856530|NCT05999435|183596664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2458||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2458
91856531|NCT05999435|183596664|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference|Comparison not possible since zero counts in both groups|||
91856532|NCT05999435|183596664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2458|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2458
91856533|NCT05999435|183596664|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91661715|NCT00462228|183218329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.95
91661716|NCT00462228|183218330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.75
91856534|NCT05999435|183596664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4944||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4944
91856535|NCT05999435|183596664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4798|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4798
91856536|NCT05999435|183596664|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856537|NCT05999435|183596664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4972||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4972
91856538|NCT05999435|183596664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4885||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4885
91661717|NCT00462228|183218330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.51
91722484|NCT03881371|183337726|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.643|-0.555||"Analysis was based on a covariance model (ANCOVA) with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline mean total daily OFF time measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable."|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-0.555|-1.643|<.0001
91856539|NCT05999435|183596665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4156
91856540|NCT05999435|183596665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7088
91856541|NCT05999435|183596665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.661|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6610
91856542|NCT05999435|183596665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.758|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7580
91856543|NCT05999435|183596665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4974
91856544|NCT05999435|183596665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3289
91856545|NCT05999435|183596665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1700
91856546|NCT05999435|183596665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0557
91661718|NCT00462228|183218330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.31
91661719|NCT00462228|183218330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.46
91661720|NCT00462228|183218331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.34
91661721|NCT00462228|183218331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.75
91856547|NCT05999435|183596665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.6008|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6008
91661722|NCT00462228|183218331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.37
91661723|NCT00462228|183218331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.45
91661724|NCT00567320|183218332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM analysis of % of Cocaine Positive Urines per week over 12 weeks. Subjects were used as a Random variable, with medication dosing set to 'Fixed'.||||0.84
91661725|NCT01299454|183218333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.166|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.776|1.751|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.751|0.776|
91661726|NCT01299454|183218333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|2.066|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.066|0.915|
91661727|NCT01299454|183218333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.581|1.488|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.488|0.581|
91856548|NCT05999435|183596666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8046||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8046
91856549|NCT05999435|183596666|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856550|NCT05999435|183596666|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856551|NCT05999435|183596668|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis of no difference|Sustained recovery was not achieved in any participant, no possible statistical analysis|||
91856552|NCT05999435|183596669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7699||||||Treatment group effect, alpha set at 0.05|ANOVA|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7699
91856553|NCT05999435|183596669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9928||||||Treatment group effect, alpha set at 0.05|ANOVA|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.9928
91856554|NCT05999435|183596669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8363||||||Treatment group effect, alpha set at 0.05|ANOVA|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8363
91856555|NCT05999435|183596669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693||||||Treatment group effect, alpha set at 0.05|ANOVA|||Week 24 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6930
91856556|NCT05999435|183596670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2780
91856557|NCT05999435|183596670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4967||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4967
91901591|NCT01699789|183697891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.7|0.7|
91856558|NCT05999435|183596670|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
91856559|NCT03811535|183596709|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -1.8 cm/year.|Treatment difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Height velocity at week 52 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, gender, age group, region, growth hormone (GH) peak group and gender by age group by region interaction term as factors, and baseline height as covariate.||0.2|-1.1|
91856560|NCT03811535|183596710|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -1.8 cm/year.|Treatment difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Height velocity at 52 weeks was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, gender, age group, region, GH peak group and gender by age group by region interaction terms as factors and baseline height as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||0.2|-1.1|
91856561|NCT05364684|183596738|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Change in IHL over 6-months in absolute % IHL: Ibutamoren open-label 3.9 ± 6.7% versus historical placebo group 6.6 ± 6.1%, p=0.4.|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects treated with open-label ibutamoren (n=7) were compared to historical placebo control subjects studied under identical inclusion criteria and procedures (n=10). The hypothesis is that open-label ibutamoren treatment would lead to a significant decrease in intrahepatic lipid content (IHL) as assessed by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS, absolute %IHL).||||0.4
91661728|NCT01299454|183218334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometic Mean Ratio|1.255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.702|2.244|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.244|0.702|
91864185|NCT03687086|183617247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (9 weeks vs. baseline)||||0.50|-1.14|0.443
91713748|NCT04805671|183319081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-4.81|-17.86|0.0007
91713749|NCT04805671|183319082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.586|||Regression, Cox|||ADG20 vs. Placebo||1.586|0.964|0.0938
91713750|NCT04805671|183319083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.137||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|1.162|||Regression, Cox|||ADG20 vs Placebo||1.162|0.016|0.0361
91713751|NCT04805671|183319084|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.255||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.617|||Regression, Cox|||ADG20 vs Placebo||1.617|0.974|0.0781
91713752|NCT04805671|183319085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.32|||ANCOVA|||ADG20 vs. Placebo||0.32|-0.66|0.4976
91713753|NCT04805671|183319086|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.048||||0.7239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.364|||Regression, Cox|||||1.364|0.806|0.7239
91713754|NCT04805671|183319087|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.1||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.42|-0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.70|-21.42|0.0364
91864186|NCT03687086|183617248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (6 months vs. baseline)||||0.58|-1.41|0.409
91661729|NCT01299454|183218334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.727|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.977|3.052|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||3.052|0.977|
91661730|NCT01299454|183218334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometic Mean Ratio|1.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.506|2.142|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||2.142|0.506|
91661731|NCT01299454|183218335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.707|1.156|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||1.156|0.707|
91661732|NCT01299454|183218335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.665|1.087|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||1.087|0.665|
91661733|NCT01299454|183218335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.531||||||90.0|0.399|0.705|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||0.705|0.399|
91713755|NCT04805671|183319088|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|15.31||The p-value and risk difference reported was calculated based on the Day 5 timepoint.|Regression, Logistic|||||15.31|1.15|0.0227
91713756|NCT04805671|183319089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.93||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|-15.49|0.1124
91713757|NCT03804268|183319096|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|30.8||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||30.8|14.3|<0.0001
91713758|NCT03804268|183319097|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|9.7||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|17.0||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||17.0|2.3|0.0114
91713759|NCT03804268|183319098|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|2.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.5||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||8.5|-4.4|1.0000
91713760|NCT03804268|183319099|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.5||MMRM with fixed effects: study intervention group,visit,visit by study intervention group interaction,age group,Baseline binocular DCNVA severity,iris color,emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction was used.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||6.5|3.7|0.0114
91713761|NCT03804268|183319100|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|18.7||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|26.7||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||26.7|10.6|0.0114
91661734|NCT01299454|183218336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.103|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.774|1.573|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.573|0.774|
91661735|NCT01299454|183218336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|1.71|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.710|0.841|
91661736|NCT01299454|183218336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.524|1.189|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.189|0.524|
91713762|NCT03804268|183319101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||1.1|0.6|0.0114
91713763|NCT03804268|183319102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.6||MMRM with fixed effects: study intervention group,visit,visit by study intervention group interaction,age group,Baseline binocular DCNVA severity,iris color,emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction was used.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||4.6|2.4|0.0114
91713764|NCT03804268|183319103|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.0||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||5.0|-7.1|1.0000
91856562|NCT05364684|183596739|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||Change in cT1 over 6-months (ms): Ibutamoren open-label 39 ± 44 ms versus historical placebo group 44 ± 31 ms, p=0.9.|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects treated with open-label ibutamoren (n=7) were compared to historical placebo control subjects studied under identical inclusion criteria and procedures (n=10). The hypothesis is that open-label ibutamoren treatment would lead to a significant decrease in hepatic inflammation and fibrosis as assessed by LiverMultiScan corrected T1 (cT1) score. There was no power calculation for this small pilot study.||||0.9
91856563|NCT05364684|183596740|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Change in ALT over 6-months (U/L): Ibutamoren open-label 8 ± 18 U/L versus historical placebo group 4 ± 8 U/L, p=0.6.|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects treated with open-label ibutamoren (n=7) were compared to historical placebo control subjects studied under identical inclusion criteria and procedures (n=10). The hypothesis is that open-label ibutamoren treatment would lead to a significant decrease in alanine aminotransferase (ALT). There was no power calculation for this small pilot study.||||0.6
91856564|NCT00603954|183596751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Multivariate Cox models|||||||0.508
91856565|NCT00603954|183596751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At day 180||||0.02
91856566|NCT00603954|183596751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 365||||0.002
91856567|NCT00603954|183596752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At day 100||||0.09
91722485|NCT03881371|183337727|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.382||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline NRS measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||0.382|-0.440|0.8901
91722486|NCT03881371|183337728|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|1.515||"ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline mean total daily ON time measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable."|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||1.515|0.274|0.0049
91856568|NCT00603954|183596752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 40||||0.03
91856569|NCT00603954|183596752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 180||||0.01
91713765|NCT03804268|183319104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.9||MMRM with fixed effects: study intervention group,visit,visit by study intervention group interaction,age group,Baseline binocular DCNVA severity,iris color,emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction was used.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||3.9|1.3|0.0114
91856570|NCT00603954|183596753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165|||||||Multivariate Cox models|||||||0.0165
91856571|NCT00603954|183596753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mutivariate|||||||0.010
91856572|NCT00603954|183596753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Multivariate|||||||0.0495
91856573|NCT00603954|183596753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Multivariate|||||||0.001
91691908|NCT00380874|183278450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.6233|||||||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 8. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.6233
91661737|NCT01299454|183218337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.241|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.719|2.143|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.143|0.719|
91661738|NCT01299454|183218337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.604|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|2.732|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.732|0.942|
91661739|NCT01299454|183218337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.077|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.146|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.146|0.540|
91661740|NCT01299454|183218338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric mean ratio|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.691|1.059|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.059|0.691|
91661741|NCT01299454|183218338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.742|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.599|0.918|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.918|0.599|
91661742|NCT01299454|183218338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.451|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.352|0.577|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.577|0.352|
91856574|NCT00603954|183596754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||19 of 49 Flu-TBI patients (39%) versus 25 of 45 TLI ATG patients (56%) had a least one episode of bacterial infection the first 100 days after transplantation (P = 0.15).||||0.15
91856575|NCT00603954|183596754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||For fungal infections, the figures were 3 of 45 (6%) and 7 of 45 (16%), respectively (P = 0.19)||||0.19
91856576|NCT00603954|183596754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Among CMV-seropositive patients and/or donors, the 100-day cumulative incidence of CMV reactivation was 31% in Flu-TBI patients versus 47% in TLI-ATG patient||||0.12
91856577|NCT00603954|183596755|SUPERIORITY||Multivariate Cox models|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.7|||Cumulative incidence curves|||Four-year cumulative incidences of relapse/progression were 22% and 50% in Flu-TBI and TLI-ATG patients, respectively||4.7|1.1|0.017
91856578|NCT00603954|183596756|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This statistical analysis applies to median ATG serum levels at day 0||||
91856579|NCT00603954|183596756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This statistical analysis applies to median ATG serum levels at day 3||||
91856580|NCT00603954|183596756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This statistical analysis applies to median ATG serum levels at day 10||||
91661743|NCT01299454|183218347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.509|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.346|0.748|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.748|0.346|
91661744|NCT01299454|183218347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.586|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.399|0.861|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.861|0.399|
91661745|NCT01299454|183218347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.214|0.521|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.521|0.214|
91713766|NCT03804268|183319105|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.6||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|21.6||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||21.6|3.5|0.0171
91856581|NCT00603954|183596757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Cumulative incidence curve|||||||0.5
91856582|NCT00603954|183596758|SUPERIORITY||multivariate analyses|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.1|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||4.1|1|0.14
91856583|NCT00603954|183596760|SUPERIORITY||multivariate analyses|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||1.4|1|0.9
91856584|NCT00603954|183596761|SUPERIORITY||multivariate analyses|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||1.4|1|0.96
91864187|NCT02038777|183617296|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||An exact test for a single proportion (1-sided significance level: 0.05) was used.|Exact test for a single proportion|||||||<.0001
91856585|NCT04705480|183596762|OTHER|The study sought to assess if adding multiple doses of pregabalin or gabapentin upon admission will reduce opioid usage in trauma patients. No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.||||||0.687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.687
91856586|NCT04705480|183596762|OTHER|The study sought to assess if adding multiple doses of pregabalin or gabapentin upon admission will reduce opioid usage in trauma patients. No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.557
91856587|NCT04705480|183596762|OTHER|The study sought to assess if adding multiple doses of pregabalin or gabapentin upon admission will reduce opioid usage in trauma patients. No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.||||||0.601|||||||ANCOVA|Rank transformation was applied to account this for nonparametric outcome while adjusting for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||0.601
91856588|NCT04705480|183596763|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.346
91856589|NCT04705480|183596763|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.233
91856590|NCT04705480|183596763|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.145
91856591|NCT04705480|183596764|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91856592|NCT04705480|183596764|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91856593|NCT04705480|183596764|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|This was applied to adjust for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||<0.05
91856594|NCT04705480|183596765|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91856595|NCT04705480|183596765|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91713767|NCT03804268|183319106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1||ANCOVA was used with study intervention group, age group, baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||1.1|0.5|0.0114
91713768|NCT03804268|183319107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||ANCOVA was used with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.3|-0.6|0.0114
91856596|NCT04705480|183596765|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Rank transformation was applied to account this for nonparametric outcome while adjusting for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||<0.05
91856597|NCT04705480|183596766|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91856598|NCT04705480|183596766|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91856599|NCT04705480|183596766|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Rank transformation was applied to account this for nonparametric outcome while adjusting for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||<0.05
91856600|NCT04705480|183596767|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91856601|NCT04705480|183596767|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91856602|NCT04705480|183596767|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|This was applied to adjust for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||<0.05
91856603|NCT04970654|183596768|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was higher than the margin of -2.0 cm/year.|Treatment difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3||||||Hypothetical strategy estimand. Height velocity at 52 weeks was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, gender, age group, growth hormone (GH) peak group and gender by age group interaction term as factors and baseline height as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||1.3|-0.2|
91856604|NCT01996605|183596797|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||T|ANOVA|A one-way ANOVA was performed on the single primary outcome datapoint comparing the three groups.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in area of hyperalgesia 105 minutes after study drug injection among the three groups.||||<0.05
91856605|NCT03546608|183596798|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|94.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.75|139.35||||||||139.35|64.75|
91856606|NCT03546608|183596798|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|87.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.93|128.98||||||||128.98|59.93|
91856607|NCT03546608|183596799|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|94.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.09|140.26||||||||140.26|64.09|
91856608|NCT03546608|183596799|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.94|129.0||||||||129.00|58.94|
91856609|NCT03546608|183596800|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|102.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.9|129.73||||||||129.73|80.90|
91856610|NCT03546608|183596800|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|71.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.08|89.93||||||||89.93|56.08|
91661746|NCT01299454|183218348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|1.153|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.153|0.445|
91661747|NCT01299454|183218348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.378|0.934|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.934|0.378|
91661748|NCT01299454|183218348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.308|1.022|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.022|0.308|
91856611|NCT03546608|183596811|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|82.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.67|149.47|||||For MSC2571109|||149.47|45.67|
91856612|NCT03546608|183596811|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|136.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.5|247.12|||||For MSC2571109|||247.12|75.50|
91856613|NCT03546608|183596811|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|100.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.53|185.1|||||For MSC2571107|||185.10|54.53|
91661749|NCT01299454|183218349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.558|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.368|0.845|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.845|0.368|
91713769|NCT03804268|183319108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||ANCOVA was used with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.1|-0.4|0.0114
91713770|NCT02849587|183319109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||<0.001
91856614|NCT03546608|183596811|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|94.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.28|174.07|||||For MSC2571107|||174.07|51.28|
91856615|NCT03546608|183596812|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|82.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.56|148.84|||||For MSC2571109|||148.84|45.56|
91713771|NCT02849587|183319110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Generalized least squares model|Raw data converted to z-score based on pre-smoking performance of entire sample.||||||0.022
91713772|NCT02849587|183319111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||0.283
91856616|NCT03546608|183596812|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|137.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.08|248.54|||||For MSC2571109|||248.54|76.08|
91856617|NCT03546608|183596812|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|100.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.16|184.23|||||For MSC2571107|||184.23|55.16|
91856618|NCT03546608|183596812|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|96.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.63|175.78|||||For MSC2571107|||175.78|52.63|
91856619|NCT03546608|183596813|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.52|136.26|||||For MSC2571109|||136.26|62.52|
91856620|NCT03546608|183596813|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|114.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.76|169.48|||||For MSC2571109|||169.48|77.76|
91856621|NCT03546608|183596813|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|106.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.25|161.49|||||For MSC2571107|||161.49|70.25|
91856622|NCT03546608|183596813|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|72.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.87|110.04|||||For MSC2571107|||110.04|47.87|
91864188|NCT04731129|183617379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Abnormal tissular architecture||||0.023
91901592|NCT01699789|183697892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.0|0.5|
91661750|NCT01299454|183218349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.341|0.781|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.781|0.341|
91713773|NCT02849587|183319112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503|||||||Generalized estimating equations model|||||||0.0503
91864189|NCT04731129|183617379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Homogeneous cell size||||0.01
91864190|NCT04731129|183617379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Homogeneous cell shape||||0.01
91864191|NCT04731129|183617379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Homogeneous cell fluorescence||||0.013
91856623|NCT04992390|183596821|SUPERIORITY|Poisson regression was performed with baseline measure and binary arm status included as fixed effect covariates. Various regression models for count data were compared to find the best fitting model. Visual exploratory data and model evaluation showed that the Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression model provided the best fit and was used as the model for the ITT analysis of the primary outcome.|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.31|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.48||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||For more information on analysis models see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|See also Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|0.48|0.20|<= 0.001
91856624|NCT04992390|183596822|SUPERIORITY|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories in the delayed intervention arm, comparing pre-intervention (week 4) to post-intervention (week 8).|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.31|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.45||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories pre- to post-intervention.||Within the comparator arm, where participants had delayed access to the intervention (i.e., delayed arm crossover), the number of intrusive memories in week 8 was compared to week 4. For full information about statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|For full results see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|0.45|0.21|<= 0.001
91856625|NCT04992390|183596822|SUPERIORITY|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories in the immediate intervention arm, comparing pre-intervention (run-in/screening week) to post-intervention (week 4).|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories pre- to post-intervention.||Within the immediate intervention arm, where participants had immediate access to the intervention, the number of intrusive memories in Week 4 was compared to the run-in/screening week. For full information about statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0||0.45|0.10|<0.001
91864192|NCT04731129|183617379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Blood vessel dysplasia||||0.16
91864193|NCT04731129|183617379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Organized conjunctive fibers||||0.17
91661751|NCT01299454|183218349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.314|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.195|0.507|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.507|0.195|
91661752|NCT03437265|183218368|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
91864194|NCT04731129|183617379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Full chia seed sign||||0.049
91864195|NCT04731129|183617379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||General physician conclusion||||0.0041
91661753|NCT03437265|183218369|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
91661754|NCT03437265|183218370|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
91661755|NCT03437265|183218371|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
91661756|NCT03437265|183218372|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
91661757|NCT03437265|183218373|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented. The Geometric CV for glycolic acid was Not Calculated (appears as 0%).|||
91661758|NCT03437265|183218374|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Summary of the number of bowel movements per time period for the PD analysis set|||
91661759|NCT03437265|183218375|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The time (in minutes) to achieve clear effluent/time to turbid contents is presented for the PD analysis set.|||
91661760|NCT01667679|183218397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.824|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.01|||ANCOVA|||||5.01|1.76|<0.0001
91713774|NCT02849587|183319113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||0.024
91661761|NCT01667679|183218398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.105||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.85|||ANCOVA||mild attacks|||5.85|1.47|0.0013
91661762|NCT01667679|183218398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.971||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|5.68|||ANCOVA||moderate/severe attacks|||5.68|1.84|0.0002
91661763|NCT01667679|183218399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.6|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||1.60|0.85|0.3549
91661764|NCT01667679|183218399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.9|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||1.90|1.20|0.0005
91661765|NCT01667679|183218399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.21|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||2.21|1.45|<0.0001
91661766|NCT01667679|183218399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.96|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||1.96|1.24|0.0002
91661767|NCT01667679|183218399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.71|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||1.71|1.10|0.0057
91661768|NCT01667679|183218399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.61|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||1.61|0.99|0.0654
91661769|NCT01667679|183218399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||1.49|0.89|0.2894
91661770|NCT01667679|183218400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.54|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||4.54|0.76|0.1771
91661771|NCT01667679|183218400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.42|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||3.42|1.21|0.0077
91661772|NCT01667679|183218400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.5|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||2.50|1.32|0.0003
91661773|NCT01667679|183218400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.09|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||2.09|1.29|<0.0001
91661774|NCT01667679|183218400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.74|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||1.74|1.14|0.0016
91661775|NCT01667679|183218400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.69|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||1.69|1.09|0.0059
91661776|NCT01667679|183218400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.42|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||1.42|0.91|0.2717
91661777|NCT01667679|183218401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.2426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.77|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||1.77|0.87|0.2426
91661778|NCT01667679|183218401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.99|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||1.99|1.12|0.0069
91661779|NCT01667679|183218401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.56|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||2.56|1.47|<0.0001
91661780|NCT01667679|183218401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.23|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||2.23|1.26|0.0004
91661781|NCT01667679|183218401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.11|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||2.11|1.22|0.0008
91661782|NCT01667679|183218401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.83|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||1.83|1.04|0.0272
91661783|NCT01667679|183218401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.62|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||1.62|0.90|0.2085
91661784|NCT01667679|183218403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||0.02|-0.06|0.3562
91661785|NCT01667679|183218403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.14|-0.02|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||-0.02|-0.14|0.0063
91661786|NCT01667679|183218403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||-0.11|-0.26|< 0.0001
91661787|NCT01667679|183218403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||-0.07|-0.26|0.0005
91661788|NCT01667679|183218403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||-0.05|-0.24|0.0040
91661789|NCT01667679|183218403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||-0.01|-0.21|0.0333
91661790|NCT01667679|183218403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.06|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||0.06|-0.15|0.4031
91661791|NCT01667679|183218404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.01|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||-0.01|-0.08|0.0181
91661792|NCT01667679|183218404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||-0.04|-0.14|0.0003
91661793|NCT01667679|183218404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.09|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||-0.09|-0.23|< 0.0001
91661794|NCT01667679|183218404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.08|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||-0.08|-0.25|0.0001
91661795|NCT01667679|183218404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||-0.07|-0.26|0.0006
91661796|NCT01667679|183218404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||-0.02|-0.21|0.0189
91713775|NCT02849587|183319114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Generalized least squares model|The outcome was standardized prior to analyses.||||||0.716
91661797|NCT01667679|183218404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.03|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||0.03|-0.17|0.1704
91713776|NCT02849587|183319115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Generalized least squares model|The outcome was standardized prior to analysis.||||||0.005
91856626|NCT04992390|183596823|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.54||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How distressing were your intrusive memories?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.54|-3.72|<= 0.001
91856627|NCT04992390|183596823|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-2.15||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did they disrupt your concentration?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-2.15|-4.28|<= 0.001
91856628|NCT04992390|183596823|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.95||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did they interfere with what you were doing?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.95|-3.90|<= 0.001
91856629|NCT04992390|183596823|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-1.08||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did your intrusive memories affect your work functioning?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.08|-3.22|<= 0.001
91864196|NCT03386578|183617391|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.94||||||The incidence rate ratio of cumulative maternal adverse events was calculated between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and the PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 1) reference group based on incidence per person-time follow-up. Maternal participants in Cohort 2/Step 2 contributed person-time to both Cohort 2/Step 1 and Step 2.||2.94|0.89|
91661798|NCT01175018|183218426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91661799|NCT01175018|183218427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91713777|NCT02849587|183319116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||||.366
91713778|NCT02849587|183319117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Generalized least squares model|Outcome was log10 transformed prior to analyses.||||||.225
91713779|NCT02849587|183319118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||Generalized least squares model|The outcome was transformed using logit function prior to analyses. Model included treatment (3 groups), time (5 times), and their interaction.||||||.592
91713780|NCT02849587|183319119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||.294
91713781|NCT02849587|183319120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||.144
91713782|NCT02849587|183319121|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.09|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.090
91713783|NCT02849587|183319121|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.0006|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||.0006
91713784|NCT02849587|183319121|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.053|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.053
91713785|NCT02849587|183319122|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.3|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.300
91713786|NCT02849587|183319122|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.038|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.038
91661800|NCT01175018|183218428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91661801|NCT01175018|183218429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91661802|NCT01175018|183218430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91661803|NCT01175018|183218431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91661804|NCT01175018|183218432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91661805|NCT01175018|183218433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91661806|NCT01175018|183218434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91661807|NCT01175018|183218435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91661808|NCT01175018|183218436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91856630|NCT04992390|183596823|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.51||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did your intrusive memories affect your functioning in other areas of your life?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.51|-3.67|<= 0.001
91661809|NCT01175018|183218437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91661810|NCT01175018|183218438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91661811|NCT01175018|183218439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91661812|NCT01175018|183218440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91661813|NCT01175018|183218441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91661814|NCT00840073|183218454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|96.0||||||90.0|85.13|108.27|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.27|85.13|
91661815|NCT00840073|183218455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|103.81||||||90.0|96.72|111.41|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111.41|96.72|
91661816|NCT00840073|183218456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|102.37||||||90.0|97.34|107.65|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.65|97.34|
91661817|NCT00840073|183218457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|103.76||||||90.0|100.08|107.57|||||Informational Purposes Only|||107.57|100.08|
91661818|NCT00840073|183218458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.34||||||90.0|100.84|105.92|||||Informational Purposes Only|||105.92|100.84|
91661819|NCT00835263|183218470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|103.23||||||90.0|100.78|105.73|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.73|100.78|
91661820|NCT00835263|183218471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|103.31||||||90.0|100.75|105.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.93|100.75|
91661821|NCT00835263|183218472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|102.14||||||90.0|100.06|104.26|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.26|100.06|
91661822|NCT01020474|183218487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.18||Missing data for week 15 mean pain score are imputed based on distribution of baseline pain scores if participants discontinue due to adverse events/ abnormal laboratory test results or lack of efficacy.|ANCOVA|Based on LS Means using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (including Treatment, Center, Baseline value as covariate).||||0.18|-1.51|0.121
91661823|NCT01020474|183218488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.63|||ANCOVA|Based on LS Means using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (including Treatment, Center, Baseline value as covariate).||||0.63|-1.00|0.655
91661824|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 1.||0.61|-0.75|0.842
91661825|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 2||0.05|-1.32|0.070
91661826|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 3.||-0.14|-1.51|0.019
91661827|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 4.||-0.21|-1.59|0.011
91661828|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 5.||0.02|-1.38|0.056
91713787|NCT02849587|183319122|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.175|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.175
91661829|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 6.||-0.26|-1.66|0.008
91661830|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 7.||-0.19|-1.60|0.013
91661831|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 8.||-0.35|-1.77|0.004
91661832|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 9.||-0.24|-1.67|0.009
91856631|NCT04992390|183596826|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.53||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Total Score (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.53|-1.08|<= 0.001
91661833|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 10.||-0.25|-1.69|0.008
91661834|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 11.||-0.13|-1.59|0.021
91713788|NCT03421379|183319156|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin is (10%)|Treatment Difference Wald's Method|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.47||||||||1.47|-1.47|
91856632|NCT04992390|183596826|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.62||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Intrusion Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.62|-1.27|<= 0.001
91661835|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 12.||-0.23|-1.71|0.010
91661836|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 13.||0.00|-1.49|0.051
91661837|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 14.||-0.14|-1.66|0.020
91661838|NCT01020474|183218489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 15.||0.03|-1.51|0.060
91661839|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 1.||0.47|-0.90|0.540
91661840|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 2||0.50|-0.87|0.593
91661841|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 3.||0.25|-1.13|0.206
91661842|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 4.||0.21|-1.18|0.168
91661843|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 5.||0.32|-1.08|0.280
91661844|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 6.||0.06|-1.34|0.075
91661845|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 7.||0.21|-1.21|0.168
91661846|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 8.||-0.30|-1.73|0.006
91661847|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 9.||0.15|-1.29|0.120
91661848|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 10.||-0.05|-1.49|0.037
91661849|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 11.||0.30|-1.16|0.246
91661850|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 12.||0.13|-1.36|0.105
91661851|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 13.||0.41|-1.09|0.376
91661852|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 14.||0.35|-1.18|0.285
91661853|NCT01020474|183218490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 15.||0.61|-0.95|0.663
91661854|NCT01020474|183218491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Based on LS Means using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (including Treatment, Center, Baseline value as covariate).||||-0.05|-1.68|0.037
91661855|NCT01020474|183218492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis at Week 15.||2.58|0.53|0.694
91661856|NCT01020474|183218493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis at Week 15.||7.02|0.72|0.162
91661857|NCT01020474|183218494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value uses the row mean score statistic based on Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit transformation.||Statistical analysis at Week 15.||||0.013
91661858|NCT02964039|183218530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|ANOVA|0.047 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.77) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.047
91661859|NCT02964039|183218531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|ANOVA|0.16 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.023) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.16
91661860|NCT02964039|183218532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|ANOVA|0.64 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.024) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.64
91661861|NCT02964039|183218533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||A priori threshold: 0.92|ANOVA|0.92 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.076) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.92
91661862|NCT02964039|183218534|SUPERIORITY||||||>=|0.22||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|We compared incident rates assuming a negative binomial distribution with leas squares means estimates predicted via generalized linear model.||||||>=0.22
91661863|NCT02964039|183218535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91661864|NCT00840411|183218585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.0||||||90.0|93.3|107.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.1|93.3|
91661865|NCT00840411|183218586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|86.5||||||90.0|80.1|93.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||93.4|80.1|
91661866|NCT00840411|183218587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|87.2||||||90.0|81.0|93.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||93.8|81.0|
91661867|NCT00651820|183218607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Paired-Prentice Wilcoxon (PPW)|Time to complete wound closure Drug(T1)and Vehicle(T2)Hypothesis, Ho: T1=T2,using paired Prentice-Wilcoxon at significant level of 5%, 2-sided.||Each subject served as their own control, each receiving duplicate dermatome-induced wounds with 1 wound treated with active drug and the other treated with vehicle. Mean time to wound closure was calculated for the wounds treated with drug, the wounds treated with vehicle, and an over-all mean time to wound closure||||<0.05
91661868|NCT00651820|183218608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Stiffness: Paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used for testing any significant differences (Sig. diff.) between the two treatments||||<0.05
91661869|NCT00651820|183218608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy Absorption: Paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used for testing any significant differences (Sig. diff.) between the two treatments||||<0.05
91661870|NCT00119015|183218667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91661871|NCT00119015|183218668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
91661872|NCT00119015|183218669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91661873|NCT00119015|183218670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91661874|NCT00119015|183218671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
91661875|NCT00787254|183218680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.251|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.4499|||Log Rank|||||0.4499|0.1400|<0.0001
91661876|NCT00787254|183218681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91661877|NCT00787254|183218682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0041
91661878|NCT00787254|183218683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0652||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0652
91661879|NCT00787254|183218684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9836||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9836
91661880|NCT00787254|183218686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91661881|NCT00787254|183218687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0161
91661882|NCT00787254|183218688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0068
91661883|NCT00787254|183218689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2363||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2363
91661884|NCT00787254|183218691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91661885|NCT00787254|183218692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4788||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4788
91661886|NCT00787254|183218693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6607||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6607
91661887|NCT00787254|183218694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8811||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8811
91661888|NCT00787254|183218695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91661889|NCT00787254|183218697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2060
91661890|NCT00787254|183218698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5099||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5099
91661891|NCT00787254|183218699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7794||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7794
91661892|NCT00787254|183218700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91661893|NCT00787254|183218702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6980
91661894|NCT00787254|183218703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4599||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4599
91661895|NCT00787254|183218704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0355
91661896|NCT00787254|183218705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7325||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7325
91661897|NCT00787254|183218707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8262||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8262
91661898|NCT00787254|183218708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7244||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7244
91661899|NCT00787254|183218709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9566||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9566
91661900|NCT00787254|183218710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2008
91661901|NCT00787254|183218712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0703||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0703
91661902|NCT00787254|183218713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3046||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3046
91661903|NCT00787254|183218714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7121
91661904|NCT00787254|183218715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1522||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1522
91661905|NCT00787254|183218717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5328||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5328
91661906|NCT00787254|183218718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7223||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7223
91661907|NCT00787254|183218719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3117||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3117
91661908|NCT00787254|183218720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4344||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4344
91661909|NCT00787254|183218722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1571||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1571
91661910|NCT00787254|183218723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2503||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2503
91661911|NCT00787254|183218724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4028
91661912|NCT00787254|183218725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91661913|NCT00526188|183218741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.46||||||95.0|6.0|12.93|||Test performed based on the 95% CI||Comparison was post-contrast MRI minus pre-contrast MRI|Difference in sensitivity of lesion detection between post- and pre-contrast MRI image set was calculated. Null hypothesis: No difference between post- and pre-contrast MRI image set. Test was performed based on a normal-approximated confidence interval (CI) for the average blinded reader difference. This CI had a confidence level of 95% and was two-sided. The study was planned with a power of 80%.||12.93|6.00|
91661914|NCT00526188|183218742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81||||||95.0|1.84|7.78|||Test performed based on the 95% CI||Comparison was post-contrast MRI minus pre-contrast MRI (for investigator's result)|Difference in sensitivity of lesion detection between post- and pre-contrast MRI image sets, based on investigators assessments was calculated. Null hypothesis: No difference between post and pre contrast MRI image set. Test was performed based on a normal-approximated confidence interval (CI) for the investigators difference. This CI had a confidence level of 95% and was two-sided.||7.78|1.84|
91661915|NCT00526188|183218743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.36||||||95.0|7.45|15.28|||Test performed based on the 95% CI||Comparison was combined pre- and post-contrast MRI minus pre-contrast MRI|Difference in precision of lesion characterization between combined pre and post contrast MRI and pre contrast MRI image set was calculated. Null hypothesis: No difference between combined pre- and post-contrast MRI and pre contrast MRI image set. Test was performed based on a normal-approximated confidence interval (CI) for the average blinded reader difference. This CI had a confidence level of 95% and was two-sided.||15.28|7.45|
91864197|NCT03386578|183617392|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.5||||||Odds ratio comparing the proportion of mothers with adverse pregnancy outcomes between the PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 1) reference group.||1.50|0.52|
91864198|NCT03386578|183617392|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test the differences in the proportion of mothers with adverse pregnancy outcomes between PrEP-exposed (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 2) groups.||||0.68
91864199|NCT03386578|183617393|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.38||||||The incidence rate ratio of cumulative infant AEs between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 1) reference group was based on incidence per person-time follow-up. Cohort 2/Step 2 infants contributed person-time to both Cohort 2/Step 1 and Step 2.||2.38|0.70|
91856633|NCT04992390|183596826|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.42||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Avoidance Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.42|-1.09|<= 0.001
91864200|NCT03386578|183617394|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant whole-body bone mineral content (WB-BMC) at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.18
91661916|NCT00373256|183218860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6299||||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1793|2.2527||p-value from 1-sided log-rank stratified for prior adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment. Stratification factors from Interactive Voice Randomization System.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor Bevacizumab + Paclitaxel.|||2.2527|1.1793|0.9986
91864201|NCT03386578|183617395|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant lumbar-spine bone mineral content (WB-BMC) at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.39
91864202|NCT03386578|183617396|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant lumbar-spine bone mineral content (WB-BMC) at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.12
91661917|NCT00373256|183218861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|38.5||||||||38.5|26.4|
91661918|NCT00373256|183218861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|32.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|38.4||||||||38.4|26.3|
91661919|NCT00373256|183218864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|83.0||||||1 year||83.0|68.7|
91661920|NCT00373256|183218864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|35.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|50.3||||||2 years||50.3|20.9|
91661921|NCT00373256|183218864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.0|89.1||||||1 year||89.1|76.0|
91661922|NCT00373256|183218864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|74.7||||||2 years||74.7|43.2|
91661923|NCT02925884|183218903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Decreased Cognitive Functions.||||0.011
91661924|NCT02925884|183218903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Eyestrain.||||<0.001
91661925|NCT02925884|183218903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Physical Discomfort.||||0.009
91661926|NCT02925884|183218903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Deceased Visual Function.||||<0.001
91901593|NCT01699789|183697893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.0|1.0|
91661927|NCT02925884|183218903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Poor Balance.||||0.28
91661928|NCT02925884|183218904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.903
91661929|NCT02925884|183218905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunna OTC Glasses condition and the Control condition on Red Color Perception.||||0.009
91661930|NCT02925884|183218905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunna OTC Glasses condition and the Control condition on Green Color Perception.||||0.446
91661931|NCT02925884|183218905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunna OTC Glasses condition and the Control condition on Blue Color Perception.||||0.953
91661932|NCT02925884|183218906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
91661933|NCT02925884|183218907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.424
91661934|NCT02925884|183218908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.343
91661935|NCT02925884|183218909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.489
91661936|NCT02925884|183218910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.885
91661937|NCT02925884|183218911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91661938|NCT02925884|183218912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.359
91661939|NCT04516434|183218913|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
91661940|NCT04516434|183218913|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.99
91661941|NCT04516434|183218914|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.08
91661942|NCT04516434|183218914|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.045
91661943|NCT04516434|183218916|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||First sensation of bladder filling - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||1
91661944|NCT04516434|183218916|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||First sensation of bladder filling - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||0.41
91661945|NCT04516434|183218916|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum cystometric capacity - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||1
91661946|NCT04516434|183218916|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum cystometric capacity - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||0.01
91661947|NCT04516434|183218917|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
91661948|NCT04516434|183218917|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
91661949|NCT04516434|183218918|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
91856634|NCT04992390|183596826|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.44||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Hyperarousal Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.44|-0.97|<= 0.001
91856635|NCT04992390|183596827|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.07||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) 4-item version (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons.(Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.07|-3.52|<= 0.001
91856636|NCT04992390|183596828|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.38|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.2||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Sleep Condition Indicator (SCI) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|8.20|2.56|<= 0.001
91856637|NCT04992390|183596829|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.17||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Generalised Anxiety Disorder 2-item scale (GAD-2) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.17|-1.68|<=0.05
91856638|NCT04992390|183596830|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.19||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Patient Health Questionnaire 2-item version (PHQ-2) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons.(Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|0.19|-1.23|> .05
91661950|NCT04516434|183218918|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.99
91661951|NCT00834522|183218925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.79||||||90.0|99.4|108.37|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.37|99.40|
91661952|NCT00834522|183218926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|104.37||||||90.0|97.04|112.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112.25|97.04|
91661953|NCT00834522|183218927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|104.22||||||90.0|96.9|112.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112.08|96.90|
91661954|NCT00804856|183219012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|8.58|||Regression, Logistic||Ratio calculated as Phase II Schedule A Volasertib 350mg+LDAC divided by Phase II Schedule C LDAC.|Analysis for Objective Response||8.58|0.99|0.0523
91661955|NCT00804856|183219016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.92|||Log Rank||Ratio calculated as Phase II Schedule A Volasertib 350mg+LDAC divided by Phase II Schedule C LDAC.|An exploratory (non-stratified) logrank test was used to compare the different treatment arms.||0.92|0.35|0.0208
91713789|NCT04010461|183319162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.355|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 35 Note: 1 subject was excluded from analysis as extraction of FPN eigenvalues failed due to technical deficiencies with image data||Analysis used standard, open-source methods for pre-processing . First-level analysis used the general framework of the modified General Linear Model, implemented in SPM12 with temporal convolution. For the n-back activation task, the first-level design matrix included regressors for 2-back and 1-back conditions, as well as 24 movement parameters. Statistical testing was done to establish whether more or less BOLD (neural activity) change occurred between two conditions.||0.355|-0.037|=0.11
91713790|NCT04010461|183319162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.227|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 35 Note: 1 subject excluded from analysis as FPN extraction of eigenvalues failed due to technical issues with image data||Analysis used standard, open-source routes for slice timing correction, field map correction, realignment, smoothing (6 mm Gaussian kernel) and spatial normalization (MNI-152). First-level analysis used the general framework of the modified General Linear Model, implemented in SPM12 with temporal convolution. For the n-back activation task, the first-level design matrix included regressors for 2-back and 1-back conditions, as well as 24 movement parameters.||0.227|-0.245|0.94
91864203|NCT03386578|183617397|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine levels at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.70
91722487|NCT03881371|183337729|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|1.753||"ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline mean total daily ON time with no/non-troublesome Dyskinesia measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable."|ANCOVA|||||1.753|0.392|0.0021
91864204|NCT03386578|183617398|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine levels at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.58
91864205|NCT03386578|183617399|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine clearance rate at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.08
91661956|NCT00804856|183219017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Log Rank||Ratio calculated as Phase II Schedule A Volasertib 350mg+LDAC divided by Phase II Schedule C LDAC.|An exploratory (non-stratified) logrank test was used to compare the different treatment arms.||1.00|0.40|0.0465
91661957|NCT00834132|183219046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.81||||||90.0|84.77|106.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.04|84.77|
91661958|NCT00834132|183219047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.89||||||90.0|96.0|106.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.03|96.00|
91661959|NCT00834132|183219048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.14||||||90.0|96.05|106.49|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.49|96.05|
91661960|NCT00835484|183219053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.15||||||90.0|91.77|102.83|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.83|91.77|
91661961|NCT00835484|183219054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.8||||||90.0|95.1|106.84|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.84|95.1|
91661962|NCT00835484|183219055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.39||||||90.0|95.89|107.2|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.2|95.89|
91661963|NCT04383587|183219062|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||Participants were grouped by age (18-35 vs. 36-50 vs. 51-65 vs. \>65), Sex at birth (Female vs. Male). and Occupational Role (Technician vs Anesthesiologist vs Advanced Practice Provider vs. Attendant Aide vs. CRNA vs. OR nurse vs Perfusionist vs Surgeon).||||>0.18
91722488|NCT03881371|183337730|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.842|-3.141||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline UPDRS score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-3.141|-8.842|<.0001
91791905|NCT02081248|183461555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 1301 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 1501 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.26
91661964|NCT03123094|183219065|OTHER||Slope|0.9533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0803|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.1256|||||Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of spesolimab was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter AUC0-∞, determined for the 3 intravenous dose levels (perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1).||1.1256|0.7810|
91661965|NCT03123094|183219066|OTHER||Slope|1.0014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0568|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8809|1.1219|||||Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of spesolimab was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter Cmax, determined for the 3 intravenous dose levels (perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1).||1.1219|0.8809|
91722489|NCT03881371|183337731|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|-0.511||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline UPDRS part II (ADL) score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-0.511|-2.521|0.0033
91864206|NCT03386578|183617400|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine clearance rate at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1)||||0.52
91791906|NCT01037088|183461557|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||not significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 1 after Administration of Cannabis||||>.05
91791907|NCT01037088|183461557|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 after Administration of Cannabis||||=.0002
91722490|NCT03881371|183337732|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.988||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.749|-1.856||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline UPDRS part III (motor function) score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-1.856|-5.749|0.0002
91722491|NCT03881371|183337733|SUPERIORITY||Median|0.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Analysis was based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by centre.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Non-parametric 95% confidence interval was presented for the treatment difference in CGI-S at each post-baseline visit as reported by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||0.000|0.000|0.0150
91856639|NCT04992390|183596831|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.49|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-4.51||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Psychological Outcome Profiles (PSYCHLOPS) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-4.51|-8.48|<= 0.001
91856640|NCT04992390|183596832|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.78|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-4.5||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 12-item version (WHODAS 2.0) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-4.50|-15.06|<= 0.001
91661966|NCT04859517|183219069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-1.08|||Regression, Logistic||||A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-1.08|-8.87|0.0123
91661967|NCT04859517|183219070|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||-2.01|-5.75|<0.0001
91661968|NCT04859517|183219073|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Risk Difference|-7.6||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-1.46|||Regression, Logistic||||A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-1.46|-13.74|0.0153
91661969|NCT04859517|183219074|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|0.21|||Regression, Logistic||||A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|0.21|-9.03|0.0612
91661970|NCT04859517|183219093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.06|0.0077
91661971|NCT04859517|183219094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.49|||Log Rank|||||0.49|0.14|<0.0001
91661972|NCT00465270|183219221|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.22|0.08
91661973|NCT00465270|183219223|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.999|||Log Rank|||||0.999|0.31|0.046
91791908|NCT01037088|183461557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 3 after Administration of Cannabis (after the second inhalation of cannabis)||||<.0001
91864207|NCT03386578|183617401|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant length-for-age z-score at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.30
91661974|NCT01249651|183219281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilocoxon signed-rank test|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to check whether the change in the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to the 8 week visit (Visit 3) compared to the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to baseline (Visit 1) was statistically significant or not.||||<0.001
91864208|NCT03386578|183617402|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant length-for-age z-score at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.06
91864209|NCT03386578|183617403|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91864210|NCT03987022|183617438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.16
91661975|NCT01581658|183219286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|128.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.962|156.604|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||156.604|105.962|
91661976|NCT01581658|183219286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|143.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.306|174.848|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||174.848|118.306|
91661977|NCT01581658|183219286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|152.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.287|185.166|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||185.166|125.287|
91713791|NCT04010461|183319163|OTHER|Group-level analyses were performed using a General Linear Model (GLM). For each individual voxel, a separate GLM was estimated, with first-level connectivity measures at this voxel as dependent variables, and groups or other subject-level identifiers as independent variables. Voxel-level hypotheses were evaluated using multivariate parametric statistics with random effects across subjects and sample covariance estimation across multiple measurements.|random field theory|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferences were performed at the level of individual clusters (groups of contiguous voxels). Cluster-level inferences were based on parametric statistics from Gaussian Random Field theory.|random field theory|Results were thresholded using a combination of a cluster-forming p \< 0.001 voxel-level threshold, and cluster-size threshold of 25 voxels|Number indicates the number of clusters above the threshold of significance for the contrast between two arms (passive vs active)|The contrast reflects the difference in connectivity between the conditions/sessions, at the level of each subject, then spatially averaged across all subjects. Functional connectivity strength for the dlPFC seed was represented by Fisher-transformed bivariate correlation coefficients from a weighted general linear model (weighted-GLM), defined separately for each pair of seed and target areas, modeling the association between their BOLD signal time series.||||1
91791909|NCT01037088|183461557|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 after Administration of Cannabis||||=.0004
91864211|NCT03987022|183617439|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91661978|NCT01581658|183219287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|93.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.236|121.015|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||121.015|72.236|
91661979|NCT01581658|183219287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.216|119.305|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||119.305|71.216|
91791910|NCT01037088|183461557|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 5 after Administration of Cannabis||||=.0018
91864212|NCT03987022|183617440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
91864213|NCT03987022|183617441|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91661980|NCT01581658|183219287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.63|121.674|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||121.674|72.630|
91661981|NCT00199901|183219357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.568||||||||1.568|0.532|
91661982|NCT00199901|183219359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.455||||||||1.455|0.532|
91661983|NCT00199901|183219360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.614||||||||1.614|0.514|
91661984|NCT05776901|183219368|OTHER|Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency, including mean, median, and standard deviation of the System Usability Scores collected from the baseline and week 3 were computed. Then, a two-sided, paired sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the change in mean System Usability Scores from baseline at week 3.|Mean diff in SUS from baseline at week 3|34.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.04|96.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||96.37|-28.04|<0.05
91661985|NCT04517604|183219373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.984||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|6.47||no adjustment for multiple comparisons as was a pilot|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.47|-16.52|.343
91661986|NCT04517604|183219374|SUPERIORITY|This was a pilot study funded under a pilot funding mechanism which specifically did not require a power analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-0.77||no test for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was an open-label, single group study using a within subject design. We compared pre-treatment values to post-treatment values.||-.77|-2.63|.0026
91661987|NCT04523168|183219419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, 120 days||||0.0137
91661988|NCT04523168|183219421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91864214|NCT03987022|183617442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.58
91864215|NCT03987022|183617443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.47
91864216|NCT03987022|183617444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
91864217|NCT03987022|183617445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.02
91864218|NCT03987022|183617446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91856641|NCT04992390|183596833|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.32|||<=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|20.04||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for 5-level European Quality of Life 5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 for EQ-5D-5L subscale comparisons and Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|20.04|4.61|<= 0.01
91856642|NCT04992390|183596834|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.71||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Scale of Work Engagement and Burnout (SWEBO) - Work Engagement Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|0.71|0.20|<= 0.001
91856643|NCT04992390|183596834|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Scale of Work Engagement and Burnout (SWEBO) - Work Burnout Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.34|-0.87|<= 0.001
91856644|NCT04992390|183596835|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.5|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.51||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Poisson|||ITT analysis for Sickness absence (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|3.51|0.64|> .05
91864219|NCT01627574|183617448|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|1.42|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.42|.056|>.05
91864220|NCT03625115|183617493|EQUIVALENCE|A two-tailed t-test was done to compare the mean Bayley cognitive scores between the groups.||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
91864221|NCT03625115|183617494|SUPERIORITY||Pearson chi square (1)|8.51||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test of independence to determine if there was a significant difference between intervention arms for those who completed a multidisciplinary evaluation (referral completed).||||.004
91864222|NCT03625115|183617495|SUPERIORITY||Pearson chi square (1)|0.05||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test of independence to determine if there was a significant difference between intervention arms for those who began early intervention services.||||.82
91661989|NCT00075478|183219456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||Reference arm is Arm 2.||1.1|0.3|.09
91661990|NCT00075478|183219457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0|||Regression, Cox|||||3.0|0.1|0.59
91661991|NCT00075478|183219458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.0|0.3|0.06
91661992|NCT00075478|183219459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.1|0.3|0.09
91661993|NCT00075478|183219460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.1|||Regression, Cox|||||3.1|0.8|0.16
91856645|NCT04992390|183596836|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.49||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intention to leave job (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|0.49|-2.20|> .05
91661994|NCT00075478|183219461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.7|||Regression, Cox|||||2.7|0.9|0.14
91661995|NCT00075478|183219463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.0|0.3|0.05
91661996|NCT00824291|183219486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.46|||ANCOVA|||||3.46|0.78|0.002
91661997|NCT00824291|183219487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.76|||ANCOVA|||||2.76|-0.09|0.067
91661998|NCT00824291|183219488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91661999|NCT00824291|183219489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
91662000|NCT00824291|183219490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|0.01|0.040
91662001|NCT00824291|183219491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|4.37|||ANCOVA|||||4.37|0.16|0.035
91662002|NCT00824291|183219492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.78|||ANCOVA|||||4.78|0.10|0.041
91662003|NCT00824291|183219493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.91|||ANCOVA|||||0.91|-0.13|0.145
91662004|NCT02115347|183219495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|87.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.01|112.08|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||112.08|68.01|
91662005|NCT02115347|183219496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|87.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.11|112.22|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||112.22|68.11|
91662006|NCT02115347|183219497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|95.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.4|126.79|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||126.79|72.40|
91662007|NCT02115347|183219498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|95.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.46|126.97|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||126.97|72.46|
91662008|NCT02115347|183219499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.74|94.23|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||94.23|65.74|
91662009|NCT02115347|183219500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|86.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.49|106.2|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||106.20|70.49|
91662010|NCT02849457|183219511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9332||0.8681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5567|7.2436|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age (\<=7 vs \>7 months) at randomization and sex. Unstructured covariance used among 12 and 24 month outcomes.|Parameter represents estimated amount difference in group means. Negative value represents higher mean in placebo group.|||7.2436|-8.5567|0.8681
91662011|NCT02849457|183219512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7375|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7375
91662012|NCT02849457|183219513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.593||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age (\<=7 vs \>7 months) at randomization and sex.||||1.140|0.309|0.1174
91662013|NCT02849457|183219514|OTHER|Two-sided test of non-equivalence||||||0.4653|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4653
91662014|NCT02849457|183219515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4392|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1889||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8346|1.9562|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age at randomization (\<=7 vs \>7 months) and sex. Unstructured covariance used among 12, 24, and 36 month outcomes.|Pertains to the estimated difference in mean score between groups at study visit corresponding to 24 months of age.|||1.9562|-10.8346|0.1697
91662015|NCT01068821|183219525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculations (yielding 25 patients per group): two-sided 5% significance level and a power of 80% for detection of a 2 cm (SD 2.5 cm) difference. Continuous variables analyzed by Student's T-test and One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with statistical significance: p value ≤ 0.05 or 95% Confidence Interval excluding one. Confirmation by Wilcoxon Rank-Sum/Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Categorical variables by Chi Square Test, confirmed by Fisher's Exact test.||||0.1
91864223|NCT03625115|183617496|EQUIVALENCE|A two-tailed t-test was done to compare the mean Bayley language scores between the groups.||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
91662016|NCT01068821|183219526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fischer's exact test, significance defined as p\<0.05||||0.5
91662017|NCT02558491|183219538|OTHER|||||||0.045||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Primary statistical analysis was performed using the repeated measure ANOVA, with the treatment mode as within subject factor, and type of insulin treatment (pump vs. MDI) as between subject factor. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.045
91662018|NCT02558491|183219538|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Primary statistical analysis was performed using the repeated measure ANOVA, with the treatment mode as within subject factor, and type of insulin treatment (pump vs. MDI) as between subject factor. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.07
91662019|NCT02558491|183219538|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Primary statistical analysis was performed using the repeated measure ANOVA, with the treatment mode as within subject factor, and type of insulin treatment (pump vs. MDI) as between subject factor. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.177
91662020|NCT02558491|183219539|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) \& w2 statistics was used with expected counts given by standard of care. Based on achieved recruitment, moderate effect size (0.3) was detectable with 80% power, or large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.042
91713792|NCT04010461|183319163|OTHER|The applied test with random field theory uses a metric of spatial dispersion, testing against the null hypothesis that spatial clusters of difference across the analyzed region are no different from chance clustering.|random field theory|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||random field theory||Number indicates the number of clusters above the threshold of significance for the contrast between two arms (passive vs control)|Results were thresholded using a combination of a cluster-forming p \< 0.001 voxel-level threshold, and a corrected false discovery rate (FDR) p \< 0.05 cluster-size threshold.||||1
91713793|NCT04010461|183319164|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
91864224|NCT03625115|183617498|EQUIVALENCE|two tailed t-test to compare the means of factor 1 between groups||||||0.858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of factor 1 items from the parent engagement questionnaire. Factor 1 (Buy-in) I am open to getting EI for my child. EI can help my child. EI can teach me new ways to help my child.||||.858
91856646|NCT04992390|183596837|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.07||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Poisson|||ITT analysis for number of days worked (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|1.07|0.60|>.05
91713794|NCT04010461|183319165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
91864225|NCT03625115|183617498|EQUIVALENCE|two tailed t-test to compare the means of factor 2 between groups||||||0.995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of factor 2 items from the parent engagement questionnaire.~Factor 2 (early intervention consequences):~EI could have negative consequences for my child. Getting EI for my child reflects negatively on me as a parent."||||.995
91713795|NCT04010461|183319165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||||||.65
91722492|NCT03881371|183337734|SUPERIORITY||Median|0.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||Analysis was based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by centre.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Non-parametric 95% confidence interval was presented for the treatment difference in CGI-C score at each post-baseline visit as reported by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||1.000|0.000|0.0007
91662021|NCT02558491|183219539|OTHER|||||||0.276||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.276
91722493|NCT03881371|183337735|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.589|-1.128||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factor, baseline Summary Index score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-1.128|-5.589|0.0033
91662022|NCT02558491|183219540|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.026
91864226|NCT03625115|183617498|EQUIVALENCE|two tailed t-test to compare the means of factor 3 between groups||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of factor 3 items from the parent engagement questionnaire.~Factor 3 (Knowledge/Self-Efficacy):~I know how to get EI for my child. I understand how the EI process works. If I have questions about EI, I know who to call. 12. I know my child's rights to EI under the law."||||.049
91864227|NCT03625115|183617499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression was run to determine if the intervention arm, adjusted for child sex, income, maternal education, and primary care site, was associated with the completion of early intervention referrals for families with an adverse childhood experience survey score of greater than 2.||3.21|1.09|.02
91722494|NCT04225832|183337785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.26||a-priori threshold was p\<.05 for two-sided p-value Regression employed nonresponse weights to account for any bias associated with completing any follow-up survey.|Regression, Logistic|Regression results control for immigration status and length of time in U.S.|Odds ratio is for indicator of intervention arm||Regression results control for immigration status and length of time in U.S.|6.26|1.01|.049
91864228|NCT03655028|183617511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The co-variate used in the analysis was the 6 minute walk distance at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.85
91662023|NCT02558491|183219540|OTHER|||||||0.173||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.173
91662024|NCT02558491|183219540|OTHER|||||||0.715||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.715
91662025|NCT02558491|183219541|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.036
91662026|NCT02558491|183219541|OTHER|||||||0.213||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.213
91662027|NCT02558491|183219541|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.110
91856647|NCT04992390|183596838|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.09||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Poisson|||ITT analysis for number of nights worked (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|2.09|0.57|<.05
91662028|NCT02558491|183219542|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.018
91662029|NCT02558491|183219542|OTHER|||||||0.149||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.149
91662030|NCT02558491|183219542|OTHER|||||||0.109||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.109
91722495|NCT04225832|183337786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.81||a-priori threshold was p\<.05 for two-sided p-value Regression employed nonresponse weights to account for any bias associated with completing any follow-up survey.|Regression, Logistic|Regression results control for immigration status and length of time in U.S.|Odds ratio is for indicator of intervention arm|||1.81|0.62|.83
91856648|NCT00130117|183596845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
91856649|NCT00130117|183596845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.049
91856650|NCT00130117|183596846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||"p value reflects treatment of leptin for on-treatment, n=4"|ANOVA|||||||0.02
91662031|NCT02558491|183219543|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.78
91713796|NCT04010461|183319166|OTHER||cluster size|42.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value above represents the lowest (most significant) value of the largest cluster, for the contrast of Passive \> Active, testing whether the cluster size is greater than chance.|random field theory||The estimated parameter is the size, in voxels, of the largest cluster. The applied test with random field theory tests whether the size of cluster difference across are no different from chance clustering.|Statistical thresholding using a random field model adjusted for multiple comparisons, with initial voxel magnitude/height threshold set at p \< 0.001 and peak and cluster-corrected significance levels obtained (false discovery rate \[FDR\]corrected), across the entire brain.||||0.54
91662032|NCT02558491|183219543|OTHER|||||||0.399||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.399
91662033|NCT02558491|183219543|OTHER|||||||0.824||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.824
91662034|NCT02558491|183219544|OTHER|||||||0.863||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.863
91662035|NCT02558491|183219544|OTHER|||||||0.965||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.965
91662036|NCT02558491|183219544|OTHER|||||||0.742||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.742
91662037|NCT02558491|183219545|OTHER|||||||0.158||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.158
91662038|NCT02558491|183219545|OTHER|||||||0.085||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.085
91662039|NCT02558491|183219545|OTHER|||||||0.055||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.055
91662040|NCT02558491|183219546|OTHER|||||||0.744||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.744
91791911|NCT00604214|183461558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.088||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.283||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||The study was planned to have 80% power to detect a 20% relative risk reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality in drotrecogin alpha (activated) compared to placebo. The final power was 75% because of the lower than anticipated placebo mortality.||1.283|0.923|0.313
91791912|NCT00604214|183461559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.173||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||1.173|0.737|0.540
91856651|NCT03358875|183596854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|0.778||OS in the ITT population was tested at one-sided p value boundary of 0.0120.|1-sided Log Rank Test|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous), line of therapy (second vs third), and PDL1 expression (≥25% vs \<25% TC).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).|||0.778|0.527|<0.0001
91856652|NCT03358875|183596855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|0.702||OS in the PD-L1 positive analysis set was tested at the one-sided p-value boundary of 0.025.|1-sided Log Rank Test|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and line of therapy (second vs third).||||0.702|0.407|<0.0001
91856653|NCT03358875|183596856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.336|6.393|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by histology, line of therapy, and PDL1 expression.||||6.393|2.336|<0.0001
91856654|NCT03358875|183596857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.721|17.379|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by histology and line of therapy.||||17.379|3.721|<0.0001
91662041|NCT02558491|183219546|OTHER|||||||0.248||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.248
91662042|NCT02558491|183219546|OTHER|||||||0.225||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.225
91662043|NCT02558491|183219547|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.86
91662044|NCT02558491|183219547|OTHER|||||||0.522||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.522
91662045|NCT02558491|183219547|OTHER|||||||0.522||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.522
91662046|NCT02558491|183219548|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.301
91662047|NCT02558491|183219549|OTHER|||||||0.189||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.189
91662048|NCT02558491|183219550|OTHER|||||||0.271||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.271
91791913|NCT00604214|183461560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.181
91662049|NCT02825680|183219554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis compares reach within the pre-intervention timeframe versus the post-intervention timeframe for each LEAP (intervention) and control case. Intention to treat analysis was used; all participating facilities randomized to the LEAP (intervention) arm were included whether or not they completed the intervention.||||.011
91791914|NCT00604214|183461561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.733
91791915|NCT00604214|183461562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.122
91791916|NCT00604214|183461563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.042||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.193||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||1.193|0.909|0.556
91713797|NCT04010461|183319166|SUPERIORITY||cluster size|16.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value above represents the lowest (most significant) value of the largest cluster, for the contrast of Passive \> Control, testing whether the size of this cluster is greater than one would expect by chance alone.|random field theory||The estimated parameter is the size, in voxels, of the largest cluster. The applied test with random field theory tests whether the size of cluster difference across are no different from chance clustering.|Statistical thresholding using a random field model adjusted for multiple comparisons, with initial voxel magnitude/height threshold set at p \< 0.001 and peak and cluster-corrected significance levels obtained (false discovery rate \[FDR\]corrected), across the entire brain..||||0.93
91713798|NCT04010461|183319167|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|0.22||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in cerebral blood flow (perfusion) in the frontoparietal network||||0.8
91713799|NCT04010461|183319168|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|3.96||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91713800|NCT04010461|183319168|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.68
91713801|NCT04010461|183319169|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA for 1- and 2-back conditions|F-ratio|0.72||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
91713802|NCT04010461|183319169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
91856655|NCT03358875|183596858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.536|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous), line of therapy (second vs third), and PDL1 expression (≥25% vs \<25% TC).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI.|||0.536|0.176|<0.0001
91713803|NCT01462110|183319242|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0211|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|-0.192|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.192|-0.276|<0.001
91713804|NCT01462110|183319243|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.392|-1.071|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-1.071|-1.392|<0.001
91713805|NCT01462110|183319244|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0173|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.071|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.071|-0.140|<0.001
91791917|NCT00604214|183461564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.16||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||1.160|0.898|0.758
91856656|NCT03358875|183596859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.37|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and line of therapy (second vs third).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI.|||0.370|0.066|<0.0001
91856657|NCT03358875|183596860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|0.745|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous), line of therapy (second vs third), and PDL1 expression (≥25% vs \<25% TC).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI.|||0.745|0.528|<0.0001
91864229|NCT03655028|183617512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||The co-variant used to adjust the ANCOVA was the baseline step count/day.|ANCOVA|||||||.307
91864230|NCT03655028|183617513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||this comparison is made between distance walked during 6MW at 12 weeks and distance walked during 6MW at 24 weeks|ANCOVA|||||||0.106
91662050|NCT05630885|183219555|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.984||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.056||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the TBR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel, adjusting for statin-use. The study was powered to detect a between-group difference of 0.046 in log10 MDS TBR (10% relative fold-change), assuming a null difference of 0 in log10 MDS TBR (a ratio of 1 in absolute-scale), a standard deviation of 0.065 of change in log10 TBR, and 75 evaluable participants.||1.056|0.916|0.65
91713806|NCT01462110|183319245|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.639|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.639|-1.020|<0.001
91791918|NCT00604214|183461566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.788
91791919|NCT00604214|183461566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value is for Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.730
91856658|NCT03358875|183596861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.494|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and line of therapy (second vs third).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).|||0.494|0.285|<0.0001
91856659|NCT03358875|183596862|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|5.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|9.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||9.07|2.38|0.0008
91856660|NCT03358875|183596863|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|-3.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Coughing Scale. The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||-3.51|-13.02|0.0007
91662051|NCT05630885|183219555|OTHER|Statistical test for interaction.||||||0.4||||||P-value for modification of the CVC treatment effect by subgroups defined by statin-use is presented. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use and its interaction with treatment. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.||Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel differently by statin-use at study entry (use versus no-use).||||0.40
91662052|NCT05630885|183219555|OTHER|Statistical test for interaction.||||||0.63||||||P-value for modification of the CVC treatment effect by subgroups defined by sex is presented. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for sex (F vs M) and its interaction with treatment. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.||Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel differently by sex (female versus male).||||0.63
91713807|NCT01462110|183319246|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|-0.029|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.029|-0.059|<0.001
91713808|NCT01462110|183319247|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|-0.043|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.043|-0.078|<0.001
91791920|NCT00604214|183461566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0||||P-value is for Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.662
91856661|NCT03358875|183596863|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Dyspnoea Scale. The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||0.11|-6.52|0.0579
91856662|NCT03358875|183596863|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Chest Pain Scale. The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||1.56|-6.05|0.2472
91856663|NCT06375421|183596868|SUPERIORITY|For preliminary efficacy, we used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare free recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 17|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Free Recall - Blocked Free Recall|||||<0.001
91856664|NCT06375421|183596868|SUPERIORITY|For preliminary efficacy, we used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare free recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 19|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Free Recall - Blocked Free Recall|||||<0.001
91856665|NCT06375421|183596869|SUPERIORITY|We used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare cued word recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 17|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Cued Word Recall - Blocked Cued Word Recall|||||<0.001
91856666|NCT06375421|183596869|SUPERIORITY|We used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare cued word recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 19|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Cued Word Recall - Blocked Cued Word Recall|||||<0.001
91901594|NCT01699789|183697894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.7|0.6|
91901595|NCT01699789|183697895|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||1.50|0.83|>.05
91901596|NCT01699789|183697896|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.23|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||1.52|0.99|>0.05
91901597|NCT01699789|183697897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.99||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||2.99|1.00|
91901598|NCT01699789|183697898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.54||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||5.54|1.24|
91901599|NCT02511678|183697901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0746||||||The 1-sided p-value was based on a t-test against a performance goal of -2.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0746
91901600|NCT00702845|183698000|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margins of -3 and +5 were applied for the difference in the mean number of oocytes between the treatment groups. Org 36286 treatment was considered equivalent to the reference treatment (recFSH) if the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was between -3 and +5 oocytes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.9|||ANOVA|||||3.9|1.2|<0.001
91901601|NCT04697264|183698019|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.026||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R' and represented in the text as adjusted p-value.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on adiponectin levels was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60 years and \>/= 60 years) to facilitate comparison.||||0.026
91901602|NCT04697264|183698019|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.496||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on adiponectin levels was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||0.496
91901603|NCT04697264|183698019|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on leptin levels was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
91901604|NCT04697264|183698019|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on IGF1 and 2 levels were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
91901605|NCT04697264|183698019|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on IGF1 and 2 levels were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
91901606|NCT04697264|183698019|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of adiponectin, leptin, IGF1 and 2 were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
91662053|NCT05630885|183219555|OTHER|Statistical test for interaction.||||||0.71||||||P-value for modification of the CVC treatment effect by subgroups defined by race is presented. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for race and its interaction with treatment. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.||Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel differently by race (Black/African-American versus Non-Black/African-American).||||0.71
91791921|NCT00604214|183461566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0||||P-value is for Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.846
91791922|NCT00604214|183461567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.697
91791923|NCT00604214|183461567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0||||P-value is for Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.306
91791924|NCT00604214|183461567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||P-value is for Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.645
91662054|NCT05630885|183219556|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.996||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.067||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the TBR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the aorta adjusting for statin-use.||1.067|0.930|0.91
91662055|NCT05630885|183219556|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.98||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.066||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the TBR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the right and left carotid arteries adjusting for statin-use.||1.066|0.901|0.64
91791925|NCT00604214|183461567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||P-value is for Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.690
91856667|NCT06375421|183596870|SUPERIORITY|We used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare cued definition recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 17|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Cued Definition Recall - Blocked Cued Definition Recall|||||0.003
91856668|NCT06375421|183596870|SUPERIORITY|We used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare cued definition recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 19|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Cued Definition Recall - Blocked Cued Definition Recall|||||0.002
91856669|NCT03702725|183596872|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimate value DL 3|||
91791926|NCT00604214|183461568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.482
91864231|NCT03655028|183617514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Baseline PCS score was used at the co-variate|ANCOVA|||||||0.26
91864232|NCT03655028|183617515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Covariate was baseline MCS score|ANCOVA|||||||0.85
91864233|NCT03655028|183617516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
91662056|NCT05630885|183219557|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|1.087||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the SUV from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the aorta adjusting for statin-use.||1.087|0.939|0.79
91662057|NCT05630885|183219557|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.017||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.106||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the SUV from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the right and left carotid arteries adjusting for statin-use.||1.106|0.935|0.69
91662058|NCT05630885|183219558|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.5||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.6||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate reflects the relative mean change in fasting glucose from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of fasting glucose adjusting for statin-use.||9.6|-4.6|0.49
91791927|NCT00604214|183461568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.584
91791928|NCT00604214|183461568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.164
91791929|NCT00604214|183461568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.666
91791930|NCT00604214|183461568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.786||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.786
91713809|NCT02106351|183319295|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|-0.4||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|||||The 2-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA is performed on the ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the ranked changes from baseline. The model included treatment group, the baseline value, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the pooled centre as fixed effects. The derived least squares (LS) means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||0.0118
91713810|NCT02106351|183319295|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The 2-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA is performed on the ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an ANCOVA on the ranked changes from baseline. The model included treatment group, the baseline value, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the pooled centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||<0.0001
91713811|NCT02106351|183319296|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|0.2||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|||||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA was performed on ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the rank of the PGA score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||0.2043
91713812|NCT02106351|183319296|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|0.2||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|||||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA was performed on ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an ANOVA on the rank of the PGA score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||0.1880
91791931|NCT00604214|183461568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.160
91864234|NCT05256654|183617544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (Triglycerides (TG) \<250 milligram per deciliter (mg/dL) or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||11.9|-15.5|0.691
91662059|NCT05630885|183219559|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.07||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in fasting insulin from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of fasting insulin adjusting for statin-use.||1.43|0.81|0.62
91662060|NCT05630885|183219559|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.09||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.54||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in HOMA-IR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of HOMA-IR adjusting for statin-use.||1.54|0.78|0.61
91662061|NCT05630885|183219560|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.52||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in hsCRP from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of hsCRP adjusting for statin-use.||1.52|0.62|0.91
91662062|NCT05630885|183219560|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.33||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in IL-6 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of IL-6 adjusted for statin-use.||1.33|0.77|0.94
91901607|NCT04697264|183698019|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.014||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of adiponectin was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||0.014
91791932|NCT00604214|183461568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.696
91662063|NCT05630885|183219560|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|5.77||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in MCP-1 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of MCP-1 adjusting for statin-use.||5.77|3.89|<0.001
91662064|NCT05630885|183219561|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-49.0||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.0|60.0||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate reflects the relative mean change in sCD14 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of sCD14 adjusting for statin-use.||60|-158|0.38
91713813|NCT02106351|183319297|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.7||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|||The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using ANOVA on the GAS Total score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects.||3.7|-2.7|0.7648
91713814|NCT02106351|183319297|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.7||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|||The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using ANOVA on the GAS Total score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects.||3.7|-2.6|0.7429
91662065|NCT05630885|183219561|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.3||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|75.0||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate reflects the relative mean change in sCD163 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of sCD163 adjusting for statin-use.||75|-87|0.88
91713815|NCT04754542|183319323|NON_INFERIORITY|We performed a non-inferiority test for the proportions of the drug continuation and drug discontinuation arms experiencing a new MS relapse and/or MRI Brain Lesion over the course of the study duration. The non-inferiority margin used was 8%.|Difference in proportion|0.0121||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1321|0.1287|||Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test fr difference in two proportions||We tested the null hypothesis of inferiority with the proportion of disease events (i.e., new MS relapse and/or MRI brain lesion) for the drug discontinuation group being 8% greater than the proportion for the drug continuation group under the alternative that the two rates are equal.||0.1287|-0.1321|0.124
91713816|NCT04754542|183319324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.639
91662066|NCT05630885|183219562|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.12||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in MIP-1 beta from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of MIP-1 beta adjusting for statin-use.||2.12|1.28|<0.001
91662067|NCT05630885|183219562|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.28||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in RANTES from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of RANTES adjusting for statin-use.||1.28|0.82|0.85
91856670|NCT00956007|183596884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.08||One-sided significance level = 0.0183|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status. Reference level = IMRT.|This trial was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.74 with 80% statistical power and overall one-sided alpha of 0.025 (372 deaths) using a stratified log-rank test, assuming a control arm 3-year survival rate of 60.1%. The amended protocol based on ≥ 5 years potential follow-up projected 169 events, providing 55%, 66%, and 79% power to detect HRs of 0.71, 0.68, and 0.64, respectively, using the original one-sided alpha of 0.0183 the final analysis.||1.08|0.60|0.0747
91662068|NCT02354339|183219579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.240
91713817|NCT04754542|183319325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.964
91662069|NCT02354339|183219579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on placebo group||||0.850
91713818|NCT04754542|183319326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.819
91713819|NCT04754542|183319327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.515
91713820|NCT04754542|183319328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.388
91713821|NCT04754542|183319329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.183
91662070|NCT02354339|183219580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.012
91662071|NCT02354339|183219580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on placebo group||||0.391
91662072|NCT02354339|183219581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.206
91662073|NCT02354339|183219581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on placebo group||||0.721
91662074|NCT02354339|183219582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.371
91662075|NCT02354339|183219582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on placebo group||||0.238
91662076|NCT02354339|183219583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.452
91662077|NCT02354339|183219583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure on placebo group||||0.801
91662078|NCT02354339|183219584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of waist circumference on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.005
91662079|NCT02354339|183219584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of waist circumference on placebo group||||0.752
91662080|NCT02354339|183219585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.791
91856671|NCT00956007|183596885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dysphagia||||0.0075
91856672|NCT00956007|183596885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2955|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dry mouth||||0.2955
91662081|NCT02354339|183219585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on placebo group||||0.910
91662082|NCT02354339|183219586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.458
91713822|NCT04754542|183319330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.414
91662083|NCT02354339|183219586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on placebo group||||0.953
91662084|NCT02354339|183219587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.470
91713823|NCT04754542|183319331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998
91856673|NCT00956007|183596885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dermatitis radiation||||0.0001
91856674|NCT00956007|183596885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Rach acneiform||||<0.0001
91856675|NCT00956007|183596886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91856676|NCT00956007|183596887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1641|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dysphagia||||0.1641
91856677|NCT00956007|183596887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2623|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dry mouth||||0.2623
91856678|NCT00956007|183596887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5378|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dermatitis radiation||||0.5378
91856679|NCT00956007|183596887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Fisher Exact|||Rash acneiform||||0.0570
91856680|NCT00956007|183596888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1575|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1575
91856681|NCT00956007|183596889|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.98||One-sided|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status. Reference level = IMRT.|||0.98|0.57|0.0168
91662085|NCT02354339|183219587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on placebo group||||0.807
91662086|NCT02354339|183219588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of body weight on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.604
91662087|NCT02354339|183219588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of body weight on placebo group||||0.350
91662088|NCT02354339|183219589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.727
91713824|NCT04754542|183319332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.320
91713825|NCT04754542|183319333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.061
91713826|NCT04754542|183319334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
91713827|NCT04754542|183319335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.514
91713828|NCT04754542|183319336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
91856682|NCT05228470|183596899|OTHER|Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR was 30%.||||||0.0076|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0076
91856683|NCT06511076|183596957|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of Treatment ZLP-AI (test \[T\]) / Treatment ZLP-PFS (Reference \[R\]) were included in the range from 0.80 - 1.25.|GLSM ratio|0.9809||||||90.0|0.9529|1.0097|||Mixed Effects model||The GLSM ratio was calculated: ZLP-AI/ZLP-PFS|||1.0097|0.9529|
91856684|NCT06511076|183596958|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of Treatment ZLP-AI (test \[T\]) / Treatment ZLP-PFS (Reference \[R\]) were included in the range from 0.80 - 1.25.|GLSM Ratio|0.9819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9543|1.0102|||Mixed Effects model||The GLSM ratio was calculated: ZLP-AI/ZLP-PFS|||1.0102|0.9543|
91856685|NCT06511076|183596959|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of Treatment ZLP-AI (test \[T\]) / Treatment ZLP-PFS (Reference \[R\]) were included in the range from 0.80 - 1.25.|GLSM ratio|0.9996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9594|1.0416|||Mixed Effects model||The GLSM ratio was calculated: ZLP-AI/ZLP-PFS|||1.0416|0.9594|
91662089|NCT02354339|183219589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on placebo group||||0.229
91662090|NCT02354339|183219590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.151
91662091|NCT02354339|183219590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on placebo group||||0.955
91662092|NCT02354339|183219591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of LDL-c on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.350
91662093|NCT02354339|183219591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of LDL-c on placebo group||||0.470
91713829|NCT04754542|183319337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.155
91662094|NCT02354339|183219592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.910
91713830|NCT04754542|183319338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.358
91713831|NCT04754542|183319339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.151
91713832|NCT04754542|183319340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
91856686|NCT00895531|183596973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91856687|NCT04982315|183597003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||||-0.1|-1.9|.024
91662095|NCT02354339|183219592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on placebo group||||0.436
91856688|NCT04982315|183597003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||||-0.6|-2.5|.001
91856689|NCT04982315|183597003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||||0.5|-1.5|.286
91856690|NCT04982315|183597004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||-0.7|-2.1|0
91856691|NCT04982315|183597004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-0.3|-2.1|.008
91856692|NCT04982315|183597004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-0.7|-2.6|0
91856693|NCT04982315|183597004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.4|-1.4|.27
91856694|NCT04982315|183597005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.72|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||1.72|1.15|<.001
91856695|NCT04982315|183597005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.70|1.04|.022
91856696|NCT04982315|183597005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.86|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.86|1.19|<.001
91856697|NCT04982315|183597005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.43|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.43|.88|.36
91856698|NCT04982315|183597005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.66|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.66|1.06|.012
91901608|NCT04697264|183698019|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.006||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of leptin was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||0.006
91856699|NCT04982315|183597005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.91|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.91|1.25|<.001
91901609|NCT04697264|183698019|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.019||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of IGF1 and IGF2 were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||0.019
91713833|NCT04754542|183319341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.656
91713834|NCT04754542|183319342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.892
91856700|NCT04982315|183597005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.37|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.37|.98|.076
91856701|NCT04982315|183597006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||-0.5|-1.1|0
91856702|NCT04982315|183597006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-0.1|-0.8|.019
91856703|NCT04982315|183597006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-0.6|-1.3|0
91713835|NCT04754542|183319343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test for ordinal-nominal association was used||||||0.063
91856704|NCT04982315|183597006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-0.1|-0.9|.02
91856705|NCT04982315|183597006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-0.1|-0.8|.02
91856706|NCT04982315|183597006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-0.3|-1|0
91856707|NCT04982315|183597006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||0.1|-0.6|.22
91856708|NCT04982315|183597007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.76||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.24|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||2.24|1.39|0
91662096|NCT02354339|183219593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.989
91662097|NCT02354339|183219593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on placebo group||||0.949
91662098|NCT02354339|183219594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.095
91662099|NCT02354339|183219594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on placebo group||||0.401
91662100|NCT02354339|183219595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.910
91662101|NCT02354339|183219595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on placebo group||||0.791
91662102|NCT00730691|183219612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.843||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|0.69||This treatment arm is not in the pre-specified testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||P-values were tested at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05) comparing each of the 3 doses of vortioxetine to placebo.||0.69|-2.62|0.255
91713836|NCT04428385|183319360|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.16||||||||2.16|0.34|
91856709|NCT04982315|183597007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.50|.94|.14
91856710|NCT04982315|183597007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.73|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.73|1.10|.006
91713837|NCT04428385|183319361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.78||||||||1.78|0.47|
91713838|NCT04428385|183319362|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.62||||||||1.62|0.36|
91856711|NCT04982315|183597007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.42|.94|.167
91856712|NCT04982315|183597007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.52|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.52|.97|.089
91856713|NCT04982315|183597007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.55|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.55|.95|.12
91856714|NCT04982315|183597007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.25|.80|.99
91856715|NCT04982315|183597008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||1.7|.1|.025
91856716|NCT04982315|183597008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.1|-0.8|.747
91856717|NCT04982315|183597008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.7|-.1|.1
91856718|NCT04982315|183597008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.6|-.4|.22
91856719|NCT04982315|183597008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.6|-.3|.162
91856720|NCT04982315|183597008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.4|-.4|.277
91713839|NCT04428385|183319363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.33||||||||1.33|0.33|
91713840|NCT04428385|183319364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.9||||||||1.90|0.62|
91713841|NCT01064414|183319407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.529|-0.066|||ANCOVA|||||-0.066|-0.529|0.012
91713842|NCT01064414|183319407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|-0.174|||ANCOVA|||||-0.174|-0.635|<0.001
91856721|NCT04982315|183597008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.7|-1|.68
91856722|NCT04982315|183597009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||1.4|0.9|0
91856723|NCT04982315|183597009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1|.4|0
91856724|NCT04982315|183597009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.5|1|0
91856725|NCT04982315|183597009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.9|.3|0
91901610|NCT04697264|183698020|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.033||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||Effects of LVSI on adiponectin levels were assessed using multivariate linear regression, with binary categorisations (presence and absence of LVSI) to facilitate comparisons.||||0.033
91901611|NCT04697264|183698020|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.015||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||Effects of MELF on TNF levels were assessed using multivariate linear regression, with binary categorisations (presence and absence of MELF) to facilitate comparisons.||||0.015
91901612|NCT04697264|183698020|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||Effects of tumour grade (Grade 1/2), stage (Stage 1/ \>/=1), histology (type 1 and type 2), and MSI (presence or absence) on the biomarker levels (adiponectin, leptin, IGF 1 and 2, IL6 and TNF) were assessed using multivariate linear regression, with binary categorisations to facilitate comparisons.||||>0.05
91901613|NCT04697264|183698021|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using the Benjamini and Hochberg approach in 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||To compare biomarker levels between study and control populations, a linear regression model was used, adjusting for BMI, diabetes, and parity, which are the unmatched factors between the study and control groups. This adjustment aimed to mitigate the confounding impact of these factors, considering their individual influence on the risk of endometrial cancer.||||<0.0001
91901614|NCT04697264|183698022|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using the Benjamini and Hochberg approach in 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||To compare biomarker levels between study and control populations, a linear regression model was used, adjusting for BMI, diabetes, and parity, which are the unmatched factors between the study and control groups. This adjustment aimed to mitigate the confounding impact of these factors, considering their individual influence on the risk of endometrial cancer.||||>0.05
91713843|NCT01064414|183319408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.77|0.73|0.227
91856726|NCT04982315|183597009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.8|.2|0
91856727|NCT04982315|183597009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.1|.5|0
91856728|NCT04982315|183597009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||0.5|0|.06
91856729|NCT04982315|183597011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||-0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.08|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.08|-1.7|-.06
91856730|NCT04982315|183597011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||-0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.3|-2.4|-.15
91856731|NCT04982315|183597011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.7|-1.9|.387
91662103|NCT00730691|183219612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.843||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.35||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||1.35|-1.96|0.719
91713844|NCT01064414|183319408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|6.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.04|1.19|0.017
91856732|NCT04982315|183597012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||.02|-.02|.967
91856733|NCT04982315|183597012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.3|-.1|.272
91713845|NCT01064414|183319409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.638||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.45|-2.307|||ANCOVA|||||-2.307|-28.45|0.021
91713846|NCT01064414|183319409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.683||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|0.962|||ANCOVA|||||0.962|-25.36|0.069
91856734|NCT04982315|183597012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||0.4|0|.049
91662104|NCT00730691|183219612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.27||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||1.27|-2.06|0.642
91662105|NCT00730691|183219612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.869||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.89|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.89|-4.30|0.003
91662106|NCT00730691|183219613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.11|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||1.11|-0.89|0.830
91662107|NCT00730691|183219613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.77||Hierarchical testing stopped at the primary endpoint in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.77|-1.24|0.643
91662108|NCT00730691|183219613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.07||Hierarchical testing stopped at the primary endpoint in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.07|-2.10|0.036
91662109|NCT00730691|183219613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.50|-2.58|0.004
91662110|NCT00730691|183219614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.15|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.15|-0.36|0.407
91662111|NCT00730691|183219614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.17|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.17|-0.33|0.533
91662112|NCT00730691|183219614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.17|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.17|-0.34|0.491
91856735|NCT04982315|183597012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.3|-.1|.409
91662113|NCT00730691|183219614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.17|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.17|-0.70|0.001
91856736|NCT04982315|183597012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.2|-.1|.62
91856737|NCT04982315|183597012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.3|0|.121
91856738|NCT04982315|183597012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.2|-.1|.27
91856739|NCT04982315|183597013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||.02|-.4|.069
91856740|NCT04982315|183597013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-.1|-.6|.013
91856741|NCT04982315|183597013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-.1|-.5|.043
91856742|NCT04982315|183597013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.3|-.2|.629
91856743|NCT04982315|183597013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-.2|-.6|.001
91856744|NCT04982315|183597013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-.05|-.5|.019
91856745|NCT04982315|183597013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.3|-.1|.271
91662114|NCT00730691|183219615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.85|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||1.85|-1.16|0.652
91662115|NCT00730691|183219615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.754||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.98|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.98|-1.98|0.511
91662116|NCT00730691|183219615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.51|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.51|-2.38|0.204
91662117|NCT00730691|183219615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.781||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.03|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-1.03|-4.10|0.001
91791933|NCT00604214|183461568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.966
91662118|NCT00730691|183219616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.114||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.750|0.709|0.641
91856746|NCT04982315|183597014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||.1|-.3|.191
91856747|NCT04982315|183597014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.01|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-.01|-.5|.038
91662119|NCT00730691|183219616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.016||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.605|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.605|0.643|0.945
91662120|NCT00730691|183219616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.114||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.749|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.749|0.709|0.641
91662121|NCT00730691|183219616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.427||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|2.246|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||2.246|0.907|0.124
91662122|NCT00730691|183219617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|0.14|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.14|-5.15|0.064
91662123|NCT00730691|183219617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.353||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.40|-4.92|0.096
91662124|NCT00730691|183219617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.397||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|1.14|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||1.14|-4.36|0.250
91662125|NCT00730691|183219617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.425||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-1.73|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-1.73|-7.34|0.002
91662126|NCT01521780|183219648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Within subject coefficient of variation|0.0803|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.1163||||||||0.1163||
91662127|NCT01521780|183219649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Within subject coefficient of variation|0.0555|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.0733||||||||0.0733||
91713847|NCT00974311|183319410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.75|||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.75|0.53|<0.0001
91662128|NCT04870606|183219654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.0181|ONE_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0181
91662129|NCT04870606|183219655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.1223|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1223
91662130|NCT04870606|183219656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.0038|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0038
91662131|NCT06298396|183219703|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 10% was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.81|||||Treatment difference = LP1 - Default Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was above -10% (i.e. LP1 - Default \> -10%).|||2.81|-2.92|
91662132|NCT06298396|183219704|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 1 dB was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.24|||||The non-inferiority margin is 1 dB. Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is \< 1 dB.|||0.24|-0.87|
91662133|NCT06298396|183219705|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 10% was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.75|||||Treatment difference = LP2 - LP1 Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was above -10% (i.e. LP2 - LP1 \> -10%).|||0.75|-0.55|
91662134|NCT06298396|183219706|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 1 dB was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.75|||||Treatment difference = LP2 - LP1 Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was \< 1 dB (i.e. LP2- LP1 \< 1 dB)|||0.75|-0.55|
91662135|NCT06298396|183219707|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 10% was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|1.95|||||||Treatment difference = LP3 - LP1 Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was \< 1 dB (i.e. LP3 - LP1 \< 1 dB)|1.95|-5.15|
91713848|NCT00974311|183319411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.47|||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.47|0.35|<0.0001
91856748|NCT04982315|183597014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-.05|-.5|.019
91856749|NCT04982315|183597014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.2|-.2|.803
91856750|NCT04982315|183597014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.1|-.4|.163
91856751|NCT04982315|183597014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.1|-.2|.625
91856752|NCT04982315|183597014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.3|-.1|.198
91856753|NCT04982315|183597015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||.4|-2.1|.194
91662136|NCT06298396|183219708|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 1 dB was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.32|||||Treatment difference = LP3 - LP1 Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was \< 1 dB (i.e. LP3- LP1 \< 1 dB)|||0.32|-1.10|
91662137|NCT00836004|183219710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.69||||||90.0|93.88|105.85|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.85|93.88|
91662138|NCT00836004|183219711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.23||||||90.0|90.62|102.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.19|90.62|
91662139|NCT00836004|183219712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.17||||||90.0|92.14|102.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.48|92.14|
91713849|NCT00974311|183319412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|0.835|||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.835|0.566|0.0001
91856754|NCT04982315|183597015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1|-2|.51
91856755|NCT04982315|183597015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.6|-2.5|.218
91856756|NCT04982315|183597015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.4|-2.3|.62
91856757|NCT04982315|183597015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.1|-2.7|.07
91713850|NCT00974311|183319413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Confidence Interval based on standard normal approximation.|||30.9|18.8|<0.0001
91791934|NCT00604214|183461569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||P-value is for participants with ≥1 event. No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
91856758|NCT04982315|183597015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.0|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-1|-3.6|0
91662140|NCT02718963|183219716|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the Videofluoroscopic swallowing study(VFSS) kinematic variables, VDS, PAS, and high resolution manometry (HRM) variables between the neuromuscular electrical stimulation session and the control session in swallowing thin fluid and thick fluid for healthy, dysphagic and whole participants. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the differences of VFSS variables, VDS, PAS, and HRM variables between the healthy participants and dysphagic participants.||||< 0.05
91662141|NCT00836472|183219721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.41||||||90.0|88.43|105.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.10|88.43|
91662142|NCT00836472|183219722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.78||||||90.0|95.14|102.57|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.57|95.14|
91856759|NCT04982315|183597015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.1|-2.2|.086
91856760|NCT04982315|183597016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||2.3|.2|.023
91662143|NCT00836472|183219723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.52||||||90.0|94.44|102.78|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.78|94.44|
91662144|NCT00836472|183219724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.08||||||90.0|89.6|98.77|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.77|89.60|
91662145|NCT00836472|183219725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.33||||||90.0|92.6|100.21|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.21|92.60|
91662146|NCT00836472|183219726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.01||||||90.0|92.18|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.00|92.18|
91713851|NCT00974311|183319414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.248|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|0.303||Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.303|0.204|<0.0001
91713852|NCT00974311|183319415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Rate of Pain Palliation|38.2||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|57.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 vs. 2).|Confidence Interval based on standard normal approximation.|||57.0|19.4|0.0079
91901615|NCT04697264|183698023|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using the Benjamini and Hochberg approach in 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||To compare biomarker levels between study and control populations, a linear regression model was used, adjusting for BMI, diabetes, and parity, which are the unmatched factors between the study and control groups. This adjustment aimed to mitigate the confounding impact of these factors, considering their individual influence on the risk of endometrial cancer.||||<0.05
91662147|NCT01695239|183219727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91662148|NCT01695239|183219727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91662149|NCT01695239|183219727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91662150|NCT03246503|183219790|OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.87||statistical significance of Pearson correlation coefficient|Pearson correlation coefficient||Bootstrapping with 1000 replications was used to estimate 95% confidence intervals.|Bootstrapping with 1000 replications was used to estimate 95% confidence intervals.||.87|0.77|<.001
91662151|NCT03246503|183219791|OTHER|t-statistic from regression analysis|intercept of regression line|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|4.91|||Regression, Linear|||||4.91|3.35|<.001
91662152|NCT03246503|183219792|OTHER|t-statistic from regression analysis|Slope|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76|||Regression, Linear|||||0.76|0.60|<.001
91713853|NCT00458003|183319425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.38
91713854|NCT00458003|183319426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.10
91713855|NCT03286218|183319427|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 14 mm.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.4|36.4||||||||36.4|28.4|
91713856|NCT03286218|183319427|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses vs Placebo is 14 mm.|LS Mean Difference|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.7|19.6||||||||19.6|11.7|
91713857|NCT03286218|183319427|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses vs Placebo is 14 mm.|LS Mean Difference|20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.3|24.3||||||||24.3|16.3|
91856761|NCT04982315|183597016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||2|-.4|.186
91856762|NCT04982315|183597016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||2.5|-.2|.107
91662153|NCT03673670|183219806|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.021||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|1.052|||ANCOVA|||||1.052|0.991|0.168
91662154|NCT03673670|183219806|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|0.995||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.025|||ANCOVA|||||1.025|0.966|0.731
91662155|NCT03673670|183219807|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.024||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.055|||ANCOVA|||||1.055|0.994|0.115
91662156|NCT03673670|183219807|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.024||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.055|||ANCOVA|||||1.055|0.994|0.111
91856763|NCT04982315|183597016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.7|-1|.651
91856764|NCT04982315|183597016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||2.9|.7|.001
91662157|NCT03673670|183219808|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.014||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|1.043|||ANCOVA|||||1.043|0.987|0.303
91662158|NCT03673670|183219809|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.027||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.057|||ANCOVA|||||1.057|0.998|0.067
91662159|NCT03673670|183219809|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.012||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.042|||ANCOVA|||||1.042|0.984|0.395
91662160|NCT03673670|183219810|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.012||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.039|||ANCOVA|||||1.039|0.984|0.404
91713858|NCT03286218|183319427|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses vs Placebo is 14 mm.|LS Mean Difference|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.6|27.6||||||||27.6|19.6|
91856765|NCT04982315|183597016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||2.7|.4|.007
91856766|NCT04982315|183597016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.8|-1.2|.656
91856767|NCT00957242|183597024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.32||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.47|||Regression, Cox|Prespecified covariates in the model included an indicator variable for the treatment group and the DLCO measurement from the baseline assessment.|Warfarin vs. Placebo|The study was designed to have 90% power to detect a difference in 48-week event free rates of 70% for the warfarin group versus 50% for the placebo group. A total of at least 95 adjudicated primary endpoints were required to achieve 90% power with 2-sided, type I error rate of 0.05 and a 1:1 randomization ratio. These calculations yielded a requisite total sample size of 256.||2.47|0.70|0.27
91713859|NCT03286218|183319427|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Alprazolam and Lasmiditan 100 mg dose is 5 mm.|LS Mean Difference|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.8|20.8||||||||20.8|12.8|
91713860|NCT03286218|183319427|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Alprazolam and Lasmiditan 200 mg dose is 5 mm.|LS Mean Difference|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.1|16.1||||||||16.1|8.10|
91856768|NCT00957242|183597025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.03||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|17.54|||Cox Proportional|||||17.54|1.44|0.005
91856769|NCT00957242|183597026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|0.08||||0.083||95.0|-0.01|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.01|0.083
91856770|NCT00957242|183597027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.31|||Cox Proportional|||||4.31|0.99|0.054
91856771|NCT00957242|183597028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.47||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|9.56|||Cox Proportional|||||9.56|0.64|0.19
91856772|NCT00957242|183597029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|12.34|||Cox Proportional|||||12.34|0.41|0.35
91856773|NCT00957242|183597030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.24||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|16.1|||Cox Proportional|||||16.10|0.65|0.15
91856774|NCT00957242|183597031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.39|||Cox Proportional|||||3.39|0.24|0.88
91856775|NCT00957242|183597032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|10.88||||0.7222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.57|71.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||71.34|-49.57|0.7222
91662161|NCT03673670|183219811|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.082||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.123|||ANCOVA|||||1.123|1.043|0.001
91662162|NCT03673670|183219811|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.061||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.023|1.101|||ANCOVA|||||1.101|1.023|0.002
91662163|NCT03673670|183219812|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.02||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.043|||ANCOVA|||||1.043|0.997|0.096
91713861|NCT03286218|183319427|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Alprazolam and Lasmiditan 400 mg dose is 5 mm.|LS Mean Difference|8.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|12.8||||||||12.8|4.8|
91856776|NCT00957242|183597033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|-1.78||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3048.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3048|-7.04|0.27
91856777|NCT00957242|183597034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|0.05||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1076.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1076|-1.67|0.957
91856778|NCT00957242|183597035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|-0.48||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.84|0.009
91856779|NCT01381406|183597043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.772||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|0.93||COPD-Related Adjusted Multivariate Outcomes in the Follow-Up Period by Cohort (reference cohort = TIO) for Any COPD Exacerbation|Regression, Logistic|||||0.930|0.641|0.007
91856780|NCT01381406|183597043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.622||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|1.18||COPD-Related Adjusted Multivariate Outcomes in the Follow-Up Period by Cohort (reference cohort = TIO) for Severe COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Logistic|||||1.180|0.328|0.146
91856781|NCT01381406|183597043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|0.949||COPD-Related Adjusted Multivariate Outcomes in the Follow-Up Period by Cohort (reference cohort = TIO) for Moderate COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Logistic|||||0.949|0.646|0.013
91856782|NCT04929483|183597060|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|34.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|59.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with missing outcome measures handled by multiple imputation method.||||59.26|10.04|<0.0001
91713862|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.5|37.7||||||Overall Drug Liking||37.7|28.5|
91713863|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|23.2||||||Overall Drug Liking||23.2|14.0|
91713864|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.5|23.8||||||Overall Drug Liking||23.8|14.5|
91856783|NCT04929483|183597060|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|20.89||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.05|32.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with missing outcome measures handled by multiple imputation method.||||32.72|9.05|0.0009
91856784|NCT04929483|183597060|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|23.61||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|37.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with missing outcome measures handled by multiple imputation method.||||37.18|10.04|0.0005
91856785|NCT04929483|183597061|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|14.45||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|37.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.62|-8.71|0.1039
91856786|NCT04929483|183597061|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|18.87||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.50|5.24|0.0085
91856787|NCT04929483|183597061|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|20.33||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.40|5.26|0.0077
91864235|NCT05256654|183617544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-3.9|-23.6|0.008
91864236|NCT05256654|183617544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.9|-18.3|0.140
91856788|NCT04083781|183597091|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of count endpoints were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with the logarithm of the length of the observation period included (in years) as an offset with randomised treatment regimen, type of haemophilia (HAwI or HBwI) and bleeding frequency (less than 9 or greater than or equal to 9 bleeding episodes during the past 24 weeks prior to screening) as factors comparing arm 1 (on-demand treatment) and arm 2.|Annualised bleeding rate ratio|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||Two-sided test of no difference from 1|||||0.29|0.07|<0.001
91856789|NCT01061671|183597122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||negative binomial regression|Adjustments of confidence intervals for between-participant variation (overdispersion).||||||0.54
91856790|NCT01061671|183597123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.34
91856791|NCT01061671|183597124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1461
91856792|NCT02468128|183597126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.68|-12.71|||ANOVA|||||-12.71|-71.68|<0.01
91856793|NCT02468128|183597127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91856794|NCT02468128|183597128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91856795|NCT02468128|183597129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log-rank tests|Log-rank tests were used to compare SDE and placebo with respect to the distribution of time to first post-surgical usage of ketorolac medication.||||||<0.05
91856796|NCT02468128|183597130|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA with Treatment, Center effect (and Treatment\*Center effect if p-value ≤ 0.1 in non-reduced model)|||||<|0.05||||||ANOVA with Treatment, Center effect (and Treatment\*Center effect if p-value ≤ 0.1 in non-reduced model)|ANOVA|ANOVA with Treatment, Center effect (and Treatment\*Center effect if p-value ≤ 0.1 in non-reduced model)||ANOVA with Treatment, Center effect (and Treatment\*Center effect if p-value ≤ 0.1 in non-reduced model)||||<0.05
91856797|NCT02468128|183597131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91856798|NCT02468128|183597132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|At the final visit, each subject was asked the questions for evaluation of satisfaction and a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used in comparison of subjects' satisfaction with post-surgical analgesic between treatment groups.|||||>|0.05||||||Satisfaction was evaluated using a patient-reported rating scale to assess the subject's overall satisfaction with postoperative analgesia. More participants indicate greater satisfaction with that treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At the final visit, each subject was asked the questions for evaluation of satisfaction and a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used in comparison of subjects' satisfaction with post-surgical analgesic between treatment groups.||||>0.05
91856799|NCT02468128|183597133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-115.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-209.153|-21.26|||ANOVA|||||-21.26|-209.153|<0.05
91856800|NCT00440011|183597134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.024
91856801|NCT01503749|183597137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91856802|NCT01172418|183597139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
91856803|NCT01172418|183597140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.37
91856804|NCT01172418|183597141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
91856805|NCT01172418|183597142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.25
91856806|NCT02998528|183597149|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|97.38|0.43|0.91|||Log Rank|Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)||||0.91|0.43|0.0052
91856807|NCT02998528|183597150|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|13.0|30.3|||||Strata adjusted difference (Arm C - Concurrent Arm B) based on the CMH method of weighting. Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||30.3|13.0|
91856808|NCT02998528|183597150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|3.49|55.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm C over Concurrent Arm B) the Mantel-Haenszel method. Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||55.75|3.49|<0.0001
91856809|NCT02998528|183597151|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91||||Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)||||0.91|0.51|
91713865|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.7|28.9||||||Overall Drug Liking||28.9|19.7|
91713866|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.1|38.9||||||Take drug again||38.9|29.1|
91856810|NCT02998528|183597152|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|36.1|||||Strata adjusted difference (Arm C - Concurrent Arm B) based on the CMH method of weighting. Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||36.1|19.6|
91856811|NCT02998528|183597152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|10.26|||||Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||10.26|3.16|
91856812|NCT02998528|183597154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||||Stratified by: PD-L1 status (≥ 1% vs \<1%/not evaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||0.90|0.49|
91856813|NCT03671811|183597201|SUPERIORITY|The planned sample size was 36 evaluable participants, with 18 per treatment arm. Based on a one-sided t-test at α = 0.05, the study was designed to provide 90% power to detect a difference of at least 10 percentage points in the mean reduction of Ki-67 between arms, assuming a standard deviation of 10%. The difference was expected to favor the Pterostilbene + Megestrol Acetate arm.||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.9
91856814|NCT03671811|183597206|SUPERIORITY|This was a one-sided t-test at α = 0.05. The difference was expected to favor the Pterostilbene + Megestrol Acetate arm.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.6
91856815|NCT03671811|183597207|SUPERIORITY|This was a one-sided t-test at α = 0.05. The difference was expected to favor the Pterostilbene + Megestrol Acetate arm.||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2
91856816|NCT04337372|183597251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||F(2, 58) = 7.19|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of infant's attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and infant's proportion of attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.002
91662164|NCT03673670|183219812|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.002||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.025|||ANCOVA|||||1.025|0.979|0.862
91662165|NCT03673670|183219813|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.945
91662166|NCT03673670|183219813|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.501
91856817|NCT04337372|183597251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09||||||F(1.78, 103.37) = 2.48|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of infant's attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and infant's proportion of attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.09
91856818|NCT04337372|183597251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||F(3.56, 103.37) = 2.55|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of infant's attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and infant's proportion of attention to the book was the dependent variable. The interaction between age and condition is reported here.||||<.05
91856819|NCT04337372|183597252|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.557||||||F(2,47) = .592|MANOVA|||EEG power, as measured by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was modulated by label condition across age, data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster of Oz and its 6 nearest neighbors (channels 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83) for each of the conditions. SNR data were then submitted to a two-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, Control/No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 months, 9 months, 12 months) as a between-subjects factor. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.557
91856820|NCT04337372|183597252|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47||||||F(2,47) = .767|MANOVA|||EEG power, as measured by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was modulated by label condition across age, data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster of Oz and its 6 nearest neighbors (channels 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83) for each of the conditions. SNR data were then submitted to a two-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, Control/No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 months, 9 months, 12 months) as a between-subjects factor. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.470
91856821|NCT04337372|183597252|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.046||||||F(4,94) = 2.524|MANOVA|||EEG power, as measured by signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was modulated by label condition across age, data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster of Oz and its 6 nearest neighbors (channels 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83) for each condition. SNR data were then submitted to a two-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, Control/No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 months, 9 months, 12 months) as a between-subjects factor. The interaction of age and condition is reported here.||||=.046
91856822|NCT04337372|183597253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.664||||||F(2,45) = .413|MANOVA|||EEG Data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster for each conditions for parents \& infants. Data were entered into a 2-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 mo, 9 mo, 12 mo) as a between-subjects factor. The phase-locking index measures the extent to which the parent \& infant oscillatory response is in the same phase across time (bounded between 0 and 1, 1 being perfect synchrony. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.664
91856823|NCT04337372|183597253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.768||||||F(2,45) = .266|MANOVA|||EEG Data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster for each conditions for parents \& infants. Data were entered into a 2-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 mo, 9 mo, 12 mo) as a between-subjects factor. The phase-locking index measures the extent to which the parent \& infant oscillatory response is in the same phase across time (bounded between 0 and 1, 1 being perfect synchrony. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.768
91856824|NCT04337372|183597253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2||||||F(4,90) = 1.531|MANOVA|||EEG Data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster for each conditions for parents \& infants. Data were entered into a 2-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 mo, 9 mo, 12 mo) as a between-subjects factor. The phase-locking index measures the extent to which the parent \& infant oscillatory response is in the same phase across time (bounded between 0 and 1, 1 being perfect synchrony. The interaction of age and condition is reported.||||=.200
91662167|NCT01058668|183219820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (3-6 mg/day) - placebo|||-3.8|-8.4|<0.001
91713867|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.2|24.0||||||Take drug again||24.0|14.2|
91713868|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|25.6||||||Take drug again||25.6|15.7|
91662168|NCT01058668|183219820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (6-12 mg/day) - placebo|||-3.6|-8.2|<0.001
91713869|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.3|30.2||||||Take drug again||30.2|20.3|
91662169|NCT01058668|183219821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (3-6 mg/day) - placebo|||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
91662170|NCT01058668|183219821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (6-12 mg/day) - placebo|||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
91662171|NCT02294786|183219831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-4.8||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|20.0|||Chi-squared|||Cycle 1-3 (up to 9 weeks)||20.0|-29.2|0.775
91713870|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.1|77.4||||||Good effects||77.4|62.1|
91901616|NCT04697264|183698024|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between adiponectin and the BMI of the study population at baseline."||||>0.05
91856825|NCT04337372|183597254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022||||||F(2, 57) = 4.11|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of joint attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and the proportion of joint attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.022
91713871|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.9|43.2||||||Good effects||43.2|27.9|
91662172|NCT00841698|183219914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.34||||||90.0|91.67|103.35|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.35|91.67|
91662173|NCT00841698|183219915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.46||||||90.0|90.22|98.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.89|90.22|
91713872|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.4|59.7||||||Good effects||59.7|44.4|
91856826|NCT04337372|183597254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||F(2, 114) = 5.69|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of joint attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and the proportion of joint attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.004
91662174|NCT00841698|183219916|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.83||||||90.0|89.96|99.96|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.96|89.96|
91662175|NCT00838136|183219917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.23||||||90.0|99.88|102.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.60|99.88|
91662176|NCT00838136|183219918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.87||||||90.0|99.18|104.63|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.63|99.18|
91662177|NCT00838136|183219919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.76||||||90.0|98.6|102.97|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.97|98.60|
91662178|NCT01149733|183219920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|105.32|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.32|91.00|
91662179|NCT01149733|183219921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Geometric Means|91.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.72|96.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||96.10|87.72|
91662180|NCT01149733|183219922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Geometric Means|90.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.59|94.89|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||94.89|86.59|
91856827|NCT04337372|183597254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.168||||||F(4, 114) = 1.64|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of joint attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and the proportion of joint attention to the book was the dependent variable. The interaction of age and condition is reported here.||||=.168
91662181|NCT01929863|183219954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.4|-5.86|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Fasting Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Fasting Value.||-5.86|-50.40|
91662182|NCT01929863|183219954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.68|-6.64|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-4 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-4 h) Value.||-6.64|-51.68|
91662183|NCT01929863|183219954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.25|-10.9|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (4-10 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (4-10 h) Value.||-10.90|-62.25|
91662184|NCT01929863|183219954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-18.03|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (10-14 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (10-14 h) Value.||-18.03|-72.80|
91662185|NCT01929863|183219954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.84|-7.86|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-24 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-24 h) Value.||-7.86|-50.84|
91662186|NCT01929863|183219954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-6.49|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-4 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-4 h) Weighted Mean||-6.49|-45.80|
91713873|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.4|60.6||||||Good effects||60.6|45.4|
91713874|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.6|27.2||||||Bad effects||27.2|13.6|
91856828|NCT03494504|183597256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.84||||||||3.84|1.46|
91856829|NCT03494504|183597256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.94||||||||2.94|1.11|
91901617|NCT04697264|183698024|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between leptin and the BMI of the study population at baseline."||||0.09
91662187|NCT01929863|183219954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.41|-8.58|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (4-10 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (4-10 h) Weighted Mean.||-8.58|-55.41|
91662188|NCT01929863|183219954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.64|-15.29|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (10-14 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (10-14 h) Weighted Mean.||-15.29|-66.64|
91662189|NCT01929863|183219954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.67|-14.85|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-24 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-24 h) Weighted Mean.||-14.85|-54.67|
91662190|NCT01929863|183219955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|1.125|||||The point estimate was calculated as geometric least square mean ratio of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-10 h).|||1.125|0.912|
91662191|NCT01929863|183219956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.145|||||The point estimate was calculated as geometric least square mean ratio of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Cmax.|||1.145|0.937|
91856830|NCT04500301|183597306|OTHER|No statistical test was performed.|Proportion|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.219|||||The Wald 95% confidence interval for the binomial proportion was estimated.|No hypothesis was tested with regard to the primary outcome. The study planned to enroll 80 eligible subjects such that at least 65 would be evaluable for the primary outcome and the width of the 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval for the proportion would be less than or equal to .25.||0.219|0.054|
91662192|NCT01304641|183219981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91662193|NCT01304641|183219982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.192|||Regression, Cox|||||1.192|0.976|0.140
91662194|NCT01304641|183219983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91662195|NCT01304641|183219984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91662196|NCT01304641|183219985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91662197|NCT01304641|183219986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91662198|NCT01304641|183219987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91662199|NCT00099047|183219988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||SAS version 8||36 evaluable patients randomized 1:1 to each treatment was planned in order to have \>77% power to detect differences in above parameters equal to or greater than one standard deviation, based on a 2-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test with .05 Type I error.|||||.23
91662200|NCT03123471|183220072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|39.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||39.7|19.5|< 0.0001
91713875|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|11.8||||||Bad effects||11.8|-1.76|
91901618|NCT04697264|183698024|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the association between IL6, TNFα, IGF1, and IGF2 and the BMI of the study population at baseline."||||>0.05
91713876|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.487|14.1||||||Bad effects||14.1|0.487|
91713877|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.69|19.3||||||Bad effects||19.3|5.69|
91856831|NCT01443845|183597315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.04|||negative binomial regression||p-values are based on a negative binomial regression with factors Treatment and LAMA use.|Rate ratio (Roflumilast/Placebo). A rate ratio \< 1 represents a favorable outcome for the test treatment.||1.04|0.81|0.1634
91856832|NCT01443845|183597315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup Analysis - By Sex - Male||0.97|0.71|0.0195
91856833|NCT01443845|183597315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.35|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup Analysis - By Sex - Female||1.35|0.91|0.3164
91856834|NCT01443845|183597315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup analysis between patients taking Advair verses patients taking Symbicort as LABA/ICS therapy.||0.99|0.74|0.0385
91856835|NCT01443845|183597315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.6475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup analysis between patients taking Advair verses patients taking Symbicort as LABA/ICS therapy.||1.32|0.84|0.6475
91856836|NCT01443845|183597316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.19|||negative binomial regression|||||1.19|0.75|0.6354
91856837|NCT01443845|183597317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||negative binomial regression|||||1.02|0.8|0.0884
91856838|NCT01443845|183597318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.0664||The MMRM analysis is based on all postbaseline observed data using a mixed model with terms for treatment, baseline, visit, LAMA use, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interactions.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.0664|0.04|< 0.0001
91856839|NCT01808339|183597329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.077|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.001|0.152|||||The estimated value represents the difference in Least Squares Means between FF 100 µg AM and Placebo (FF 100 µg AM minus Placebo).|||0.152|0.001|
91856840|NCT01808339|183597329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.029|0.18|||||The estimated value represents the difference in Least Squares Means between FF 100 µg PM and Placebo (FF 100 µg PM minus Placebo).|||0.180|0.029|
91856841|NCT01808339|183597329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.102|0.045|||||The estimated value represents the difference in Least Squares Means between FF 100 µg AM and FF 100 µg PM (FF 100 µg AM minus FF 100 µg PM).|||0.045|-0.102|
91856842|NCT00520546|183597380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|97.0||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|100.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||100|86|0.0526
91713878|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|75.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.2|83.5||||||Any effects||83.5|67.2|
91856843|NCT00520546|183597380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|0.0||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|98.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||98|0|0.0526
91662201|NCT03123471|183220073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||34.6|11.5|< 0.0001
91713879|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.8|53.0||||||Any effects||53.0|36.8|
91713880|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.7|64.9||||||Any effects||64.9|48.7|
91662202|NCT03123471|183220074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|38.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||38.5|13.9|< 0.0001
91856844|NCT00520546|183597380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|95.0||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|99.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||99|82|0.0526
91856845|NCT00520546|183597380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|84.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||84|53|<0.0001
91856846|NCT00520546|183597380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|98.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||98|0|<0.0001
91856847|NCT00520546|183597380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|83.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||83|51|<0.0001
91856848|NCT00520546|183597380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|95.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|99.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||99|82|0.0043
91856849|NCT00520546|183597380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|100.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|100.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||100|3|0.0043
91856850|NCT00520546|183597380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|95.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|99.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||99|82|0.0043
91856851|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|69.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
91901619|NCT04697264|183698025|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between adiponectin and the BMI of the control population at baseline."||||0.004
91856852|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|44.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
91856853|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|71.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
91856854|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|42.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
91856855|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|61.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
91856856|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|60.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
91856857|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|30.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
91856858|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|48.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
91856859|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|40.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
91856860|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|45.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
91856861|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|87.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856862|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|57.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856863|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|66.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91662203|NCT03123471|183220075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 2; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||24.2|9.8|<0.0001
91856864|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|82.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856865|NCT00520546|183597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|72.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856866|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|84.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856867|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|73.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856868|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|90.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856869|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|84.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856870|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|82.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856871|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|71.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
91856872|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|33.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
91901620|NCT04697264|183698025|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between leptin and the BMI of the control population at baseline."||||0.0002
91856873|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|73.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
91856874|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|31.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
91713881|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.7|73.0||||||Any effects||73.0|56.7|
91856875|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|60.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
91856876|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|96.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91713882|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.6|76.6||||||High||76.6|60.6|
91713883|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.4|42.4||||||High||42.4|26.4|
91856877|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|73.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856878|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|87.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856879|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|92.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91662204|NCT03123471|183220075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 4. The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||31.4|12.9|<0.0001
91662205|NCT03123471|183220075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|20.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 8; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||31.0|9.1|0.0003
91662206|NCT03123471|183220075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|20.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 12; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and SE using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||32.4|8.7|0.0007
91713884|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.5|55.5||||||High||55.5|39.5|
91713885|NCT03286218|183319430|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.4|66.3||||||High||66.3|50.4|
91901621|NCT04697264|183698025|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between IL6, TNFα, IGF1, and IGF2 and the BMI of the control population at baseline."||||>0.05
91901622|NCT04697264|183698026|OTHER|||||||0.0007||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0007
91713886|NCT03286218|183319431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91856880|NCT00520546|183597382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|88.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91662207|NCT03123471|183220076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|14.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|24.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 2; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||24.1|5.1|0.0025
91856881|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|67.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
91856882|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|69.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
91856883|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|86.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
91856884|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|43.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
91856885|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|67.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
91856886|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|59.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
91901623|NCT04697264|183698027|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Leptin levels were compared between the day 0 and 6 months post-operative bloods.||||>0.05
91662208|NCT03123471|183220076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 4; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||31.9|10.6|<0.0001
91713887|NCT03286218|183319431|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0781
91713888|NCT03286218|183319431|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
91856887|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|46.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
91856888|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|66.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
91856889|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|38.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
91856890|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|54.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
91856891|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|86.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91901624|NCT04697264|183698027|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||IGF1 levels were compared between the day 0 and 6 months post-operative bloods.||||0.004
91901625|NCT04697264|183698027|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||IGF2 levels were compared between the day 0 and 6 months post-operative bloods.||||<0.0001
91662209|NCT03123471|183220076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|22.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 8; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||33.9|10.2|0.0003
91901626|NCT04697264|183698029|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of adiponectin was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and fat tissue using qRT-PCR.||||<0.0001
91901627|NCT04697264|183698029|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of leptin and their receptors were studied in endometrial cancer tissue and fat tissue using qRT-PCR.||||<0.05
91901628|NCT04697264|183698029|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of adiponectin receptors were studied in endometrial cancer tissue and fat tissue using qRT-PCR.||||>0.05
91662210|NCT03123471|183220076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|38.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 12; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and SE using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||38.9|15.1|<0.0001
91662211|NCT03123471|183220077|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-1.73|||ANCOVA|Treatment and stratification factor (Baseline ScPGA moderate or severe) as independent variables and baseline value as a covariate variable.||||-1.73|-4.17|<0.0001
91901629|NCT04697264|183698030|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of adiponectin was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymph node tissue using qRT-PCR.||||0.0002
91901630|NCT04697264|183698030|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of leptin was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymphnode tissue using qRT-PCR.||||0.011
91901631|NCT04697264|183698030|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The expression of IL6 receptor (IL6R) was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymphnode tissue using qRT-PCR.||||0.009
91901632|NCT04697264|183698030|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The expression of adiponectin receptor, leptin receptor, IGF1 and IGF 2 receptors, IL6, TNF, IGF1 and IGF2 were studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymphnode tissue using qRT-PCR.||||>0.05
91856892|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|76.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856893|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|83.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856894|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|80.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91856895|NCT00520546|183597383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|82.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91901633|NCT04697264|183698031|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||Circulating adiponectin levels and the expression of these markers and their receptors in endometrial tissue were compared using correlation studies.||||>0.05
91856896|NCT02088853|183597384|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon test|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91856897|NCT02088853|183597385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91856898|NCT02088853|183597386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91856899|NCT03351699|183597390|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.53|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 78%.|||||
91856900|NCT03351699|183597390|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.73|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 95%.|||||
91856901|NCT03351699|183597390|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.52|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 75%.|||||
91901634|NCT04697264|183698032|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||Circulating leptin, IGF1 and IGF2 levels and the expression of these markers and their receptors in endometrial tissue were compared using Pearson's correlation studies.||||>0.05
91901635|NCT04697264|183698033|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||Circulating IL6 and TNF levels and the expression of these markers and their receptors in endometrial tissue were compared using Pearson's correlation studies.||||>0.05
91662212|NCT01641380|183220081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||We also evaluated the difference between the number of days after the scheduled appointment patients returned.||.06|-1.4|<.05
91662213|NCT01641380|183220081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of proportions|0.417||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3307|24.8818|||Chi-squared||Intervention 34/50; Control : 28/50|On time for 1st follow-up visit||24.8818|-13.3307|0.5187
91662214|NCT01641380|183220084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||[Proportion of Eligible Patients Enrolle|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91856902|NCT03351699|183597390|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.75|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 96%.|||||
91901636|NCT00813319|183698040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is for participants in the Girls OnGuard/HPV Awareness condition compared to the General Health Promotion condition||||>.05
91901637|NCT00813319|183698041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.52
91662215|NCT04189848|183220130|OTHER|Treatment comparison|Treatment difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-3.6|||ANOVA|||Intensity of injection site pain was analysed by a fixed analysis of variance model with VAS pain score as the dependent variable, and product, injection side (right side, left side), injection number (first injection, second injection), and participant as fixed effects.||-3.6|-8.2|<0.0001
91662216|NCT01588236|183220131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value for multiple comparison among 3 arms and comparison between investigational drug and placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91662217|NCT01588236|183220132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||p value for multiple comparison among 3 arms and comparison between investigational drug and placebo||||>0.05
91713889|NCT03286218|183319431|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0098
91662218|NCT01588236|183220133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value for comparison between overall drug group vs placebo, and between high dose vs placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91856903|NCT00567489|183597434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Month 3||0.9|0.2|<0.001
91856904|NCT00567489|183597434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Month 6||0.8|0.1|0.006
91856905|NCT00567489|183597435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|14.7|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 3||14.7|-4.7|0.312
91901638|NCT00813319|183698042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.12|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 2||This comparison is for total doses received (26 in Girls OnGuard/HPV Awareness condition compared to 17 in General Health Promotion condition)||||=.12
91901639|NCT03434353|183698043|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|26.4|||||The percentage difference (Group 1 - Group 2) \& corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status (positive,negative).|||26.4|-30.4|
91662219|NCT01588236|183220134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value for comparison between overall drug group vs placebo, and between low dose vs placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91713890|NCT03286218|183319432|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.0|-25.9||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-25.9|-34.0|
91713891|NCT03286218|183319432|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|-12.8||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-12.8|-20.9|
91856906|NCT00567489|183597435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.4|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 6||14.4|-5.0|0.342
91856907|NCT00567489|183597437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 3||0.9|0.1|0.010
91856908|NCT00567489|183597437|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 6||0.7|0|0.073
91901640|NCT03434353|183698043|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|-0.2|||||The percentage difference (Group 3 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||-0.2|-49.2|
91662220|NCT01030133|183220151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|0.75||||||0.05
91713892|NCT03286218|183319432|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.6|-15.5||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-15.5|-23.6|
91713893|NCT03286218|183319432|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|-20.8||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-20.8|-28.8|
91713894|NCT03286218|183319432|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.0|-26.5||||||Agitation/relaxation||-26.5|-35.0|
91713895|NCT03286218|183319432|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|-15.3||||||Agitation/relaxation||-15.3|-23.7|
91856909|NCT00567489|183597437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 3||0.5|-0.1|0.181
91856910|NCT00567489|183597437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 6||0.4|-0.2|0.593
91856911|NCT00567489|183597437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 3||0|-0.2|0.198
91856912|NCT00567489|183597437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 6||0|-0.1|0.298
91713896|NCT03286218|183319432|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|-17.5||||||Agitation/relaxation||-17.5|-25.9|
91856913|NCT00567489|183597437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 3||0.6|0.2|<0.001
91856914|NCT00567489|183597437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 6||0.5|0.1|0.003
91856915|NCT00567489|183597437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 3||1.3|0.4|<0.001
91856916|NCT00567489|183597437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 6||1.1|0.3|0.002
91856917|NCT00567489|183597438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 3||4.1|-8.6|0.485
91856918|NCT00567489|183597438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 6||4.4|-8.2|0.556
91856919|NCT00567489|183597438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|12.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 3||12.2|-1.1|0.101
91856920|NCT00567489|183597438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 6||11.5|-1.5|0.134
91713897|NCT03286218|183319432|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.0|-24.5||||||Agitation/relaxation||-24.5|-33.0|
91791935|NCT00604214|183461570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||Unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.154
91791936|NCT01879579|183461592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91901641|NCT03434353|183698043|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|8.2|||||The percentage difference (Group 5 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||8.2|-43.7|
91662221|NCT01097577|183220153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||This study was designed to determine if pregabalin is an effective regimen for postoperative pain control following PRK. We hypothesized that there will be at least a 10% improvement in pain after PRK using a scheduled pregabalin dosing regimen compared to placebo. A power analysis was completed to determine the number of patients necessary.||||0.180
91662222|NCT01097577|183220154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.207
91662223|NCT01097577|183220155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.283
91662224|NCT01097577|183220156|SUPERIORITY|Question 1: Pain at its worst||||||0.223|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.223
91791937|NCT01879579|183461593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Interval-censoring survival analysis|||||||0.007
91791938|NCT01879579|183461594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.99
91662225|NCT01097577|183220157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.311
91662226|NCT01097577|183220158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Days to Heal, OD||||0.581
91713898|NCT00643201|183319438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical Testing: non-inferiority tested at 1-sided α=0.025 with margin of 1.8. Demonstration of non-inferiority using both relative risk (RR) (margin = 1.8) and risk difference (RD) (margin = 0.035) were required to achieve the primary objective.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.839|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5965|1.1802||This is the first test in a sequential testing sequence. p-value calculated based on the Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima test stratified by index event strata for non-inferiority. Tested at 1-sided α=0.025|Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima|For a successful trial; rejection of the null hypotheses for both RR and RD was required.||Hypothesis that apixaban was non-inferior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy in preventing the recurrence of VTE (nonfatal DVT or nonfatal PE)/VTE-related death.||1.1802|0.5965|<0.0001
91713899|NCT00643201|183319438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical Testing; non-inferiority tested at 1-sided α=0.025. If non-inferiority demonstrated for both RR and RD, the primary objective was achieved.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0128|0.004||Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima test statistic for risk difference (RD).|Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima|||Hypothesis that apixaban was non-inferior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy in preventing the recurrence of VTE (nonfatal DVT or nonfatalPE)/VTE-related death as measured by risk difference.||0.0040|-0.0128|<0.0001
91856921|NCT00567489|183597438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|19.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 3||19.2|3.6|0.004
91662227|NCT01097577|183220158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Days to Heal, OS||||0.307
91662228|NCT04493684|183220229|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|2.462|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.823|3.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-24). Analysis was performed using fed/ fasted state and tablet/ PiB as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||3.323|1.823|
91662229|NCT04493684|183220229|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|1.381|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.223|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Tablet vs. PiB effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-24). Analysis was performed using the independent variables included a fixed effect for treatment (PiB or Tablet) and period, and participant as a random effect.||1.56|1.223|
91662230|NCT04493684|183220230|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|2.103|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.629|2.717|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-inf). Analysis was performed using fed/ fasted state and tablet/ PiB as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||2.717|1.629|
91856922|NCT00567489|183597438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 6||15.9|0.8|0.030
91662231|NCT04493684|183220230|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|1.351|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.497|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Tablet vs. PiB effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-inf). Analysis was performed using the independent variables included a fixed effect for treatment (PiB or Tablet) and period, and participant as a random effect.||1.497|1.22|
91662232|NCT04493684|183220231|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|2.307|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.668|3.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Food Effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Analysis was performed using fed/ fasted state and tablet/ PiB as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||3.19|1.668|
91662233|NCT04493684|183220231|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|1.372|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.582|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Tablet vs. PiB effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Analysis was performed using the independent variables included a fixed effect for treatment (PiB or Tablet) and period, and participant as a random effect.||1.582|1.19|
91856923|NCT00567489|183597439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-304.6|191.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 3||191.7|-304.6|0.655
91856924|NCT00567489|183597439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.9|210.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 6||210.5|-268.9|0.811
91662234|NCT00128219|183220312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|36.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|58.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Cox|The study was multi-center, and the Cox model was stratified by geographic region of the participating clinical sites.|Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as one minus the relative risk (RR), which was estimated by exponentiating the treatment parameter (ß) from the Cox model fit.|Time to first acquisition of vaginal type III GBS was analyzed by fitting a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by region to the data. The null hypothesis of no vaccine efficacy was tested by the stratified log-rank test (score test). The point and interval estimates for vaccine efficacy were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in the model.||58|1|0.044
91662235|NCT00128219|183220337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|2.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for the analysis of secondary endpoints was set at .05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test no difference in proportions always vaginal GBS-III negative by arm to a two-sided alternative of a difference.|The OR was calculated from the 2x2 contingency table, and the 95% CI was obtained by inverting the 2-sided 5% level Fisher's exact, with GBS III-TT arm in the numerator and Td arm in the denominator so \<1 favors the GBS III-TT arm.|A two-sided 5% level Fisher's exact test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in proportion of participants who were vaginal type III GBS negative throughout the study between treatment arms. The two-sided 5% Fisher's exact test was inverted to obtain a 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.||2.34|0.917|0.120
91662236|NCT00128219|183220338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|36.0||||0.089||95.0|-7.0|61.0||Significance was set at .05 without adjustment for multiplicity. Exchangeable correlation structure and GEE were used for repeated measures.|Binomial regression, log-linear link|The Wald test of treatment effect was used to test no difference in proportion of GBS III pos. by arm against a 2-sided alternative of a difference.|Estimate of vaccine efficacy and 95% CI were obtained by transforming the estimate of log relative risk for treatment effect and the robust Wald CI in the log-linear binomial regression model fit to the proportion of vaginal type III GBS swabs.|The proportion of vaginal swabs that were GBS III culture positive was estimated from a GEE model fit with binomial family, log-link, and exchangeable correlation. Point and robust interval estimates for vaccine efficacy, were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in this model, and used to test the hypothesis of no efficacy.||61|-7|0.089
91662237|NCT00128219|183220339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for the analysis of secondary endpoints was set at .05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test no difference in proportion persistently colonized by arm against a two-sided alternative of a difference.|The OR was calculated from the 2x2 contingency table, and the 95% CI was obtained by inverting the two-sided 5% level Fisher's exact test. The GBS III-TT arm is in the numerator and Td arm in the denominator, so a value \<1 favors the GBS III-TT arm.|A two-sided 5% level Fisher's exact test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in proportion of participants who were vaginal type III GBS negative throughout the study between treatment arms. The two-sided 5% Fisher's exact test was inverted to obtain a 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.||1.45|0.18|0.256
91713900|NCT00643201|183319438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.839||||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5965|1.1802||Tested at 2-sided α=0.05 significance. Further inferential statistical testing halted due to failure to reject the null hypothesis of equivalence for VTE/VTE-related death.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relative risk, CI, and p-value were calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.||Hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint. Inferential testing required demonstration of non-inferiority using both RR and RD plus demonstration of superiority for major bleeding.||1.1802|0.5965|0.3128
91713901|NCT00643201|183319439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8151||||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6146|1.0812||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. Analysis was performed on the secondary efficacy dataset; there was no imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.0812|0.6146|0.1554
91791939|NCT01879579|183461595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.78
91856925|NCT00567489|183597439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|441.3||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-630.4|1513.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 3||1513.1|-630.4|0.419
91662238|NCT05710718|183220351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||paired T-test|No formal hypothesis test was planned for this pilot study. P-values are provided for exploratory purposes and are unadjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.076
91662239|NCT02591420|183220363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test using 10,000 bootstrapped samples.||||.645
91662240|NCT02591420|183220363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.007
91662241|NCT02591420|183220363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
91662242|NCT02591420|183220364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||Log Rank|||||||.347
91662243|NCT02591420|183220365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.369
91662244|NCT02591420|183220366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 7 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 2 for data from day 7||||.645
91662245|NCT02591420|183220366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 7 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups 1 and 3 for data from day 7||||0.028
91662246|NCT02591420|183220366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 14 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 2 for data from day 14||||0.798
91662247|NCT02591420|183220366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 14 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 3 for data from day 14||||.505
91662248|NCT02591420|183220366|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 168 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 2 at study day 168 (week 24)||||>.999
91662249|NCT02591420|183220366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 168 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 3 at study day 168||||0.497
91662250|NCT02591420|183220371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.999
91662251|NCT02591420|183220371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Barnard's test|||This test compares group 1 to groups 2 and 3 combined (1 vs. 2 \& 3)||||0.390
91662252|NCT02591420|183220372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694||||||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from baseline to Nadir p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from baseline to Nadir||||0.694
91662253|NCT02591420|183220372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from baseline to Nadir p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from baseline to Nadir||||0.729
91662254|NCT02591420|183220372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from Nadir to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from Nadir to Day 168||||0.694
91662255|NCT02591420|183220372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from Nadir to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from Nadir to Day 168||||0.393
91791940|NCT01879579|183461596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.04
91856926|NCT00567489|183597439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|121.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.9|1171.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 6||1171.5|-927.9|0.820
91856927|NCT00567489|183597440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|19.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 3||19|-27.5|0.721
91662256|NCT02591420|183220372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from Baseline to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from Baseline to Day 168||||>.999
91662257|NCT02591420|183220372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from Baseline to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from Baseline to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||||>.999
91662258|NCT02591420|183220373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8629||||||Multiple comparisons are not required|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8629
91662259|NCT05056376|183220419|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined a priori as the lower bound of the one-sided 95% CI for the risk difference being greater than or equal to -15%.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The primary analysis was conducted in all randomized participants. Those who did not attend the 12-month study visit were classified as not achieving the primary composite outcome, providing a conservative estimate of intervention effectiveness. The risk difference was estimated using binomial regression.||||<0.05
91662260|NCT04742491|183220436|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|73.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.89|80.3|||Chi-squared||||The estimates and C.I. (In percentage) are derived using Chi-squared test.|80.30|65.89|0.80
91662261|NCT04742491|183220436|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|71.81||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.59|79.04|||Chi-squared||The estimates and C.I. (In percentage) are derived using Chi-squared test.|||79.04|64.59|0.80
91662262|NCT04742491|183220441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Binomial Distribution|||||||0.59
91662263|NCT04742491|183220443|OTHER||Percentage|85.23||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.54|90.93|||Binomial Distribution||The estimates and C.I. (In percentage) are derived using binomial distribution.|||90.93|79.54|0.6381
91662264|NCT04742491|183220443|OTHER||Percentage|87.1||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.82|92.37|||Binomial Distribution||The estimates and C.I. (In percentage) are derived using binomial distribution.|||92.37|81.82|0.6381
91662265|NCT04742491|183220448|OTHER|The odds ratio was calculated with the deferred intervention arm as the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Calculating the odds of Gonorrhea.||2.03|0.45|0.91
91662266|NCT04742491|183220448|OTHER|The odds ratio was calculated with the deferred intervention arm as the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Calculating the odds of Chlamydia Trachomatis.||2.03|0.45|0.91
91791941|NCT01879579|183461597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.13
91856928|NCT00567489|183597440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|36.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 6||36.4|-9.4|0.247
91856929|NCT00567489|183597441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||ANOVA|||Estimates of Ratio-Month 6||1.43|0.55|0.624
91662267|NCT04742491|183220448|OTHER|The odds ratio was calculated with the deferred intervention arm as the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Calculating the odds of a syphilis positive/reactive test.||1.30|0.45|0.32
91662268|NCT04742491|183220449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|8.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression results of Hepatitis C infection at baseline.||8.81|0.24|0.69
91662269|NCT04742491|183220456|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.12||||||Poisson regression models with person time were used to estimate HIV incidence for the immediate intervention arm.||5.12|0.72|
91662270|NCT04742491|183220456|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.39||||||Poisson regression models with person time was used to estimate HIV incidence for the deferred intervention arm.||3.39|0.07|
91662271|NCT04742491|183220457|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate|31.47||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.86|41.51|||Poisson Regression||Incidence Rate of any STI Incidence per Person-Years using Poisson Regression was calculated.|Incidence rate of STIs for immediate intervention arm||41.51|23.86|0.93
91662272|NCT04742491|183220457|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate|32.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.92|42.83|||Poisson Regression||Incidence Rate of any STI Incidence per Person-Years using Poisson Regression was calculated.|Incidence rate of STIs for deferred intervention arm||42.83|23.92|0.93
91662273|NCT04742491|183220457|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Regression|31.74||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.96|38.8|||Poisson Regression||Incidence Rate of any STI Incidence per Person-Years using Poisson Regression was calculated.|Poisson regression was used to compare the incidence rate of STIs by arm.||38.80|25.96|0.93
91662274|NCT04742491|183220458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.69|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for age group 26+ compared to 25 or less.|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304). This section presents p-values and odds ratios for age.||6.69|0.89|0.08
91662275|NCT04742491|183220458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.16|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for comparison of highest level of education primary school vs. college.|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for education.||3.16|0.05|0.37
91791942|NCT01879579|183461602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equation modeling|||||||0.008
91856930|NCT00567489|183597442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 3||1.8|-0.6|0.338
91856931|NCT00567489|183597442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 6||2.5|0.1|0.029
91901642|NCT03434353|183698045|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|4.4|||||The percentage difference (Group 1 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||4.4|-37.7|
91791943|NCT01879579|183461603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.003
91856932|NCT00567489|183597442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 3||1.5|-1.9|0.817
91856933|NCT00567489|183597442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 6||2.9|-0.2|0.091
91662276|NCT04742491|183220458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for comparison of highest level of education high school vs. college|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for education.||0.98|0.17|0.04
91713902|NCT00643201|183319440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7994||||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5737|1.1137||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. . Nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis was performed on the secondary efficacy dataset; there was no imputation of missing data.||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.1137|0.5737|0.1848
91713903|NCT00643201|183319441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6236||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4682|0.8306||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. Nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.8306|0.4682|0.0011
91713904|NCT00643201|183319442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4658|0.6569||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. Nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.6569|0.4658|<0.0001
91713905|NCT00643201|183319443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6347|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3735|1.0787|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.0787|0.3735|
91856934|NCT00567489|183597443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 3||2.9|-23.3|0.127
91856935|NCT00567489|183597443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 6||-4.3|-16.4|<0.001
91856936|NCT00567489|183597443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.012
91856937|NCT00567489|183597443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 6||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
91856938|NCT00567489|183597444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 3||5.8|0.5|0.019
91856939|NCT00567489|183597444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 6||5.6|0.5|0.019
91662277|NCT04742491|183220458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.28|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for comparison of physical violence yes vs. no|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for physical violence.||5.28|0.98|0.07
91713906|NCT00643201|183319444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6363|1.8793|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.8793|0.6363|
91713907|NCT00643201|183319445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|1.5889|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.5889|0.3560|
91713908|NCT00643201|183319446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3419|1.2508|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.2508|0.3419|
91856940|NCT00567489|183597445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 3||3.4|-3.9|0.884
91856941|NCT00567489|183597445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 6||4.3|-3|0.716
91856942|NCT00567489|183597446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 3||1.1|-1.2|0.961
91856943|NCT00567489|183597446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 6||1.5|-0.8|0.581
91856944|NCT00567489|183597447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Waist Circumference-Month 6||3.1|-3.7|0.871
91856945|NCT00567489|183597448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|25.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 3||25|-14.7|0.608
91856946|NCT00567489|183597448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 6||8.1|-11.5|0.731
91856947|NCT00567489|183597448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.5|598.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 3||598.1|-227.5|0.377
91856948|NCT00567489|183597448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.4|177.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 6||177.8|-214.4|0.854
91856949|NCT00567489|183597449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 3||0.07|-0.03|0.412
91662278|NCT04742491|183220458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|999.99|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for comparison of physical violence prefer not answer vs. no (not estimable)|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304).This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for physical violence.||999.99|0.001|0.97
91662279|NCT04742491|183220459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.4|||GEE||Estimates are for group emotional violence yes vs. no.|Multivariable GEE modeling the probability of high PrEP adherence with predictor emotional violence adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to visits with complete data (1518 of 1533 visits). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for emotional violence.||1.40|0.64|0.8
91662280|NCT04742491|183220459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.92|||GEE||Estimates are for group emotional violence prefer not to answer vs. no.|Multivariable GEE modeling the probability of high PrEP adherence with predictor emotional violence adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to visits with complete data (1518 of 1533 visits). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for emotional violence.||4.92|1.35|0.004
91662281|NCT04742491|183220460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.02|||Regression, Linear||Estimates are for highest level of education primary school vs. college.|Multivariable linear regression of PrEP persistence with predictors highest level of education and emotional violence adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 252 of 268). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for highest level of education.||0.02|-0.39|0.08
91662282|NCT04742491|183220460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.003|||Regression, Linear||Estimates are for highest level of education high school vs. college.|Multivariable linear regression of PrEP persistence with predictors highest level of education, and emotional violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 252 of 268). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for the highest level of education.||0.003|-0.22|0.06
91662283|NCT04742491|183220460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable linear regression of PrEP persistence with predictors highest level of education, and emotional violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 252 of 268). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for emotional violence.|Estimates are for group emotional violence yes vs. no.|0.09|-0.12|0.76
91662284|NCT04742491|183220460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.78|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable linear regression of PrEP persistence with predictors highest level of education, and emotional violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 252 of 268). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for emotional violence.|Estimates are for group emotional violence prefer not to answer vs. no.|0.78|-0.06|0.09
91662285|NCT04742491|183220461|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Multivariable logistic regression was pre-specified but not performed because there were too few participants with the outcome absent (i.e., very few 'No' responses), leading to separation and non-estimable/unstable adjusted effect estimates. Results for Yes responses are presented descriptively (counts and percentages) by arm in the outcome measure data table."|||
91662286|NCT03317899|183220462|NON_INFERIORITY|Weibull accelerated failure time model; adjusted for disease type and stem cell collection days; non-inferiority declared if 90% CI upper bound for acceleration factor \< 1.133 (≤13.3% increase in discharge readiness time); one-sided α = 0.05; sample size for \~80% power; O'Brien-Fleming futility boundary applied.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91662287|NCT03317899|183220463|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91662288|NCT03317899|183220464|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
91662289|NCT03317899|183220465|OTHER|||||||0.337|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.337
91662290|NCT03317899|183220467|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91662291|NCT03317899|183220468|OTHER|||||||0.936|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.936
91662292|NCT03317899|183220469|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91662293|NCT03317899|183220470|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.089
91662294|NCT03317899|183220471|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.645
91713909|NCT00643201|183319447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5287|1.1906|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.1906|0.5287|
91856950|NCT00567489|183597449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 6||0.03|-0.07|0.485
91662295|NCT00446966|183220472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91856951|NCT00567489|183597450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|8.93|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 3||8.93|-4.56|0.525
91856952|NCT00567489|183597450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|6.83|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 6||6.83|-6.79|0.995
91856953|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.91|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 3||3.91|-7.64|0.526
91856954|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 6||6.68|-5.01|0.779
91856955|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 3||2.04|-7.95|0.246
91856956|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|4.34|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 6||4.34|-5.78|0.780
91856957|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|6.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 3||6.04|-5.22|0.885
91856958|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|10.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 6||10.10|-1.28|0.128
91856959|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.54|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 3||6.54|-4.40|0.701
91856960|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.73|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 6||12.73|1.70|0.010
91901643|NCT03434353|183698045|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|4.3|||||The percentage difference (Group 3 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||4.3|-38.1|
91901644|NCT03434353|183698045|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|4.4|||||The percentage difference (Group 5 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||4.4|-37.9|
91662296|NCT03913377|183220477|EQUIVALENCE|A statistically significant difference in NIBUT/NIKBUT between Test lens and Spectacles was concluded if the upper confidence limit of the 95% CI is below zero or the lower limit is above zero.|LS Mean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.44|||Mixed Model Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|The null and alternative hypotheses for testing significant difference between Test lens and Spectacles among habitual lens users with respect to NIBUT/NIKBUT.||-1.44|-4.14|
91856961|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|5.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 3||5.03|-4.63|0.934
91856962|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|8.01|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 6||8.01|-1.75|0.209
91856963|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 3||8.68|-4.90|0.585
91856964|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|8.47|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 6||8.47|-5.22|0.641
91856965|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|3.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 3||3.90|-6.89|0.586
91856966|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|5.14|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 6||5.14|-5.79|0.906
91856967|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|4.75|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 3||4.75|-4.93|0.970
91662297|NCT03913377|183220478|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Test and Control|Mean Proportion|85.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|97.89|||Mixed Model Analysis|||Point estimates for Test and Control with 95% confidence intervals||97.89|43.2|
91856968|NCT00567489|183597451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|7.28|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 6||7.28|-2.52|0.340
91856969|NCT00567489|183597452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|96.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Subcutaneous Fat Volume-Month 6||96|-46.9|0.495
91856970|NCT00567489|183597452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|117.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Visceral Fat Volume-Month 6||117.8|-7|0.081
91856971|NCT00567489|183597453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Diastolic Volume-Month 6||31.9|-19.3|0.626
91856972|NCT00567489|183597453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|30.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Systolic Volume-Month 6||30.1|-14.5|0.486
91856973|NCT00567489|183597454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|23.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass with Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.4|-18.9|0.832
91662298|NCT03913377|183220478|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Test and Control|Mean Proportion|84.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.67|96.75|||Mixed Model Analysis|||Point estimates for Test and Control with 95% confidence intervals||96.75|48.67|
91662299|NCT03913377|183220479|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of test.|Mean|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.65|||Mixed Model Analysis|Kenward and Rogers Metod was used for degrees of freedom|||Point estimate was calculated for Test.|0.65|0.40|
91856974|NCT00567489|183597454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass without Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.1|-18.3|0.820
91856975|NCT00567489|183597455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Ejection Fraction-Month 6||6.5|-6.9|0.955
91856976|NCT02570022|183597463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||This analysis corresponds to the visual analog scale and morphine equivalent data.|Our hypothesis was that in patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty, treatment with LB would lead to no significant differences in average daily pain scores. A power analysis was performed prior to the study to assess the primary hypothesis that a significant difference in average daily pain of 13mm on VAS will not be found between the INB and LB groups. With a power of 80% (beta level = 0.80, alpha level = 0.05), a sample size of 25 patients per group was obtained||||<0.05
91856977|NCT00262730|183597469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|study design has 85% power to detect 25% deduction in hazard rate compared to EORTC Phase 3 results.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.025|>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.8|>.1
91856978|NCT00419341|183597471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of SCIG:IVIG treatment was concluded if the lower GMR confidence limit was 0.8 or more. With 18 evaluable subjects, the power to show this non-inferiority was calculated to be 85% based on the assumptions of an intra-individual variability with a coefficient of variation (CV) = 25% and a GMR equal to or greater than 1.|Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.055||No P-value is provided as non-inferiority was assessed by the CI of the GMR.|t-test, 2 sided|Based on log-transformed individual differences.|Geometric mean ratio SCIG:IVIG non-inferiority was concluded if the lower GMR confidence limit was 0.8 or more|Individual sAUC values (standardized to a 7-day period) of the IV and adjusted SC sampling periods in each individual subject were log transformed and a parametric 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean of the individual differences was obtained. Back-transformation of the mean and its CI produced the geometric mean ratio (GMR) and its respective 90% CI.||1.055|0.951|
91856979|NCT02692417|183597497|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.109
91856980|NCT02692417|183597497|OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.225
91856981|NCT02692417|183597498|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.109
91856982|NCT02692417|183597498|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.046
91662300|NCT03913377|183220479|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Control.|Mean|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.44|||Mixed Model Analysis|Kenward and Rogers Metod was used for degrees of freedom|||Point estimates were calculated for Control.|0.44|-0.19|
91662301|NCT03913377|183220480|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Test.|Mean Proportion|30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|73.8|||Mixed Model Analysis||Point estimates were calculated for Test|||73.8|6.5|
91662302|NCT03913377|183220480|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Control.|Mean Proportion|27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|69.8|||Mixed Model Analysis||Point estimates were calculated for Control.|||69.8|6.1|
91856983|NCT02692417|183597499|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.109
91856984|NCT02692417|183597499|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
91856985|NCT02020252|183597500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||This is for the receptivity sub-scale, and the comparison between pre and post-test scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||.307
91856986|NCT02020252|183597500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||This is for the willingness sub-scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||.009
91856987|NCT02020252|183597500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for knowledge sub scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test.||||||<.001
91856988|NCT02020252|183597500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||This is for the positive attitudes sub scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||.004
91856989|NCT02020252|183597500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This was for the self-efficacy sub scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||<.001
91856990|NCT04690556|183597573|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was assessed based on the two-sided 90% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in least squares mean changes in BCVA from baseline at month 12 between LUBT010 and Lucentis for the pre-defined equivalence margin of (-4 letters, 4 letters).|Least squares mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.945|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|1.58|||||Therapeutic equivalence met|LUBT010 (Proposed Ranibizumab Biosimilar) - Lucentis||1.58|-1.52|
91856991|NCT04310735|183597675|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the mean contrast of parameter estimate (COPE) values, derived from the contrast of smoking-related versus neutral cue activation, between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex region of interest.||||||0.13||||||Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||0.13
91856992|NCT04310735|183597675|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the mean contrast of parameter estimate (COPE) values, derived from the contrast of smoking-related versus neutral cue activation, between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex region of interest.||||||0.25||||||Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||.25
91856993|NCT04310735|183597676|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare mean valence values during smoking-related cues between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups.||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||.80
91856994|NCT04310735|183597676|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare mean valence values during neutral cues between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups.||||||0.87||||||Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||.87
91856995|NCT03012841|183597684|SUPERIORITY|The formal alternative hypothesis test for the primary effectiveness objective was that the Kaplan-Meier estimator of treatment success at 12 months (365 days) was greater than 40%, against the null hypothesis that it was less than or equal to 40%.|Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|54.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.7|62.1|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||62.1|46.7|<0.001
91856996|NCT03012841|183597685|SUPERIORITY|The formal alternative hypothesis tested for the primary safety objective was that the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the proportion of subjects with primary safety events at 12 months (365 days) was less than 13%, against the null hypothesis that it was greater than or equal to 13%.|Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.4|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||4.4|0.1|0.002
91901645|NCT03739762|183698056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.91|-10.79|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||The sample size of 284 ensured 90% power to detect a 41-minute difference in sitting time between I-STAND and the attention control from baseline to 6 months, assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 97 minutes/day for change in sitting time (based on our pilot data), and 15% loss to follow-up. Sample and power calculations were performed using R software version 3.5 \[39\] via simulation, assuming specified SDs and differences between means.||-10.79|-52.91|0.003
91901646|NCT03739762|183698057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.48||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-0.28|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||-0.28|-6.68|.033
91901647|NCT03739762|183698058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.16|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||2.16|-1.63|.784
91662303|NCT00673660|183220550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total cholesterol||||<0.001
91901648|NCT03739762|183698059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.38|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||2.38|-2.61|.927
91901649|NCT03739762|183698060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.47|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||0.47|-0.42|.916
91901650|NCT03739762|183698061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.36|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||0.36|-1.09|.325
91791944|NCT01992159|183461639|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|7.5|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|6.5|||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential test procedure and Hochberg's method to control type 1 error for the primary endpoint.|Repeated Measures Model|||The primary analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||6.5|< 0.0001
91791945|NCT01992159|183461639|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|12.4|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|11.1|||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential test procedure and Hochberg's method to control type 1 error for the primary endpoint.|Repeated Measures Model|||The primary analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||11.1|< 0.0001
91791946|NCT01992159|183461639|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|16.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|14.6|||One-sided p-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential test procedure and Hochberg's method to control type 1 error for the primary endpoint.|Repeated Measures Model|||The primary analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||14.6|< 0.0001
91791947|NCT01992159|183461640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|5.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|4.4||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||4.4|< 0.0001
91791948|NCT01992159|183461640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|9.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|8.0||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||8.0|< 0.0001
91791949|NCT01992159|183461640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.9|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|10.6||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||10.6|< 0.0001
91791950|NCT01992159|183461641|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.6||||0.125|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||-0.3|0.1250
91791951|NCT01992159|183461641|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.7||||0.0002|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.9||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.9|0.0002
91791952|NCT01992159|183461641|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.7||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.7|< 0.0001
91791953|NCT01992159|183461642|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.5||||0.0012|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.7||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.7|0.0012
91791954|NCT01992159|183461642|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.8||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.8|< 0.0001
91791955|NCT01992159|183461642|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|4.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|3.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||3.3|< 0.0001
91901651|NCT02645760|183698098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 2.26 points in mean 11-point NRS pain score between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||<0.001
91856997|NCT03012841|183597686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|29.5||A Hommel multiple testing procedure was utilized to maintain overall alpha of 0.025 for the 3 hypotheses tested for the secondary objective.|t-test, 1 sided|||The formal alternative hypothesis tested was that the mean 12-month change in AFEQT composite scores was greater than 0, against the null the hypothesis that it was equal to 0.||29.5|22.1|<0.001
91856998|NCT03012841|183597687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|6.5||A Hommel multiple testing procedure was utilized to maintain overall alpha of 0.025 for the 3 hypotheses tested for the secondary objective.|t-test, 1 sided|||The formal alternative hypothesis tested was that the mean 12-month change in SF-12 physical composite scores was greater than 0, against the null the hypothesis that it was equal to 0.||6.5|3.5|<0.001
91856999|NCT03012841|183597688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|6.6||A Hommel multiple testing procedure was utilized to maintain overall alpha of 0.025 for the 3 hypotheses tested for the secondary objective.|t-test, 1 sided|||The formal alternative hypothesis tested was that the mean 12-month change in SF-12 mental composite scores was greater than 0, against the null the hypothesis that it was equal to 0.||6.6|3.2|<0.001
91857000|NCT03398200|183597698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.89
91857001|NCT03398200|183597699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.03
91857002|NCT03398200|183597700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.35
91857003|NCT03398200|183597701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.77
91857004|NCT03398200|183597702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.50
91857005|NCT03398200|183597703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.76
91662304|NCT00673660|183220550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||LDL cholesterol||||<0.001
91662305|NCT00673660|183220550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||HDL cholesterol||||0.972
91662306|NCT00673660|183220550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Triglycerides||||0.034
91662307|NCT05919823|183220614|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.835||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-3.6|||Mixed model repeated measure|MMRM includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline.|Numerator=KarXT/KarXT, denominator =Placebo/KarXT|||-3.6|-14.8|0.0014
91857006|NCT04065048|183597704|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.469
91901652|NCT02645760|183698099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 2.68 points in mean disability score (RMDQ score) between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||0.009
91662308|NCT05919823|183220615|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.0|||Mixed model for Repeated measures|includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.|Numerator=KarXT/KarXT, denominator =Placebo/KarXT|||0|-3.8|0.0474
91857007|NCT04065048|183597705|OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0093
91857008|NCT04065048|183597707|OTHER|||||||0.2487|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2487
91857009|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The a priori threshold of significance was set at 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk TNF levels at EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and women with IBD. Our hypothesis was that women with IBD have higher TNF in milk due to the underlying inflammatory condition (IBD).||||0.89
91857010|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk TNF at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.024
91857011|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold of significance was set at 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk MCP1 levels (TNF dependent chemokine) at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and IBD group to see if there is a difference.||||0.70
91857012|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk levels of MIP-1 beta (TNF dependent chemokine) at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and IBD group to see if there is a difference.||||0.93
91857013|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||The a priori threshold of significance was set at 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk IP10 levels (one of the TNF dependent chemokines) at EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and IBD group to see if there is a difference.||||0.12
91857014|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Milk levels of TNF-dependent chemokine, MCP1, at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control and the 2 IBD subgroups. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF and TNF-dependent chemokine including MCP1. Nonparametric comparison of the 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test.||||0.12
91857015|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk MIP-1beta at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF and TNF-dependent chemokine including MIP-1beta. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.051
91857016|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk IP10 at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF and TNF-dependent chemokine including IP10. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.0046
91662309|NCT05919823|183220616|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.7|||Mixed model for Repeated measures|includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.||||-0.7|-4.2|0.0062
91857017|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of milk TNF level at the MID LACTATION POINT between non-IBD control and IBD group. The same analytical framework as the early lactation, but this is based on data at the mid-lactation point (13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.35
91662310|NCT05919823|183220617|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.906||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.8|||Mixed model for Repeated measures|includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.||||-0.8|-4.3|0.0056
91857018|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk TNF at MID LACTATION POINT was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. Hypothesis is the same as for the early lactation point. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.11
91857019|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk MCP1 level comparison between non-IBD control and IBD group at the MID LACTATION POINT(13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.26
91857020|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk MIP-1beta level comparison between non-IBD control and IBD group at the MID LACTATION POINT (13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.15
91857021|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk IP10 level comparison between non-IBD control and IBD group at the MID LACTATION POINT (13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.31
91857022|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk MCP-1 at the MID LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. The hypothesis is the same as that for the early-lactation period. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.21
91857023|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk MIP-1beta at the MID LACTATION POINT was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. The hypothesis is the same as that for the early-lactation period. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.12
91857024|NCT03397108|183597708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk IP10 at the MID LACTATION POINT was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. The same hypothesis as that for the early-lactation period. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.29
91857025|NCT03397108|183597708|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.7232|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5647|0.8303||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the EARLY LACTATION, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and chemokine MCP1 to see if they are positively correlated. This is to show supportive evidence for TNF dependency of chemokine MCP1.||0.8303|0.5647|<0.0001
91857026|NCT03397108|183597708|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.6835|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5088|0.8042||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the EARLY LACTATION, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and chemokine MIP-1beta to see if they are positively correlated. This is to show supportive evidence for TNF dependency of chemokine MIP-1beta.||0.8042|0.5088|<0.0001
91857027|NCT03397108|183597708|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.6316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4377|0.7693||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the EARLY LACTATION, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and chemokine IP10 to see if they are positively correlated. This is to show supportive evidence for TNF dependency of chemokine IP10.||0.7693|0.4377|<0.0001
91857028|NCT03397108|183597708|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3445|0.736||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the MID LACTATION POINT, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and MCP1 to see of they are positively correlated.||0.7360|0.3445|<0.0001
91857029|NCT03397108|183597708|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.7564|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6022|0.8562||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the MID LACTATION POINT, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and MIP-1beta to see of they are positively correlated.||0.8562|0.6022|<0.0001
91857030|NCT03397108|183597708|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.32||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03869|0.552||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the MID LACTATION POINT, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and IP10 to see of they are positively correlated.||0.5520|0.03869|0.0227
91857031|NCT03397108|183597708|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.52||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2727|0.6975||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk TNF between early and mid-lactation points.||0.6975|0.2727|0.0001
91857032|NCT03397108|183597708|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.4722||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2181|0.6664||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk MCP1 between early and mid-lactation points.||0.6664|0.2181|0.0005
91662311|NCT05919823|183220618|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|ncludes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.||||-0.1|-0.7|0.0208
91857033|NCT03397108|183597708|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0802|0.5803||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk MIP-1beta between early and mid-lactation points.||0.5803|0.0802|0.01
91857034|NCT03397108|183597708|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|0.7964||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|Spearman r = 0.66 (95%CI: 0.4670 - 0.7964). Number of XY pairs: 51||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk IP10 between early and mid-lactation points.||0.7964|0.4670|<0.0001
91857035|NCT03397108|183597709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cognitive development at 12 months of age. Animal data suggested that pups receiving milk with lower TNF and TNF-dependent chemokines showed enhanced cognitive development. Because there was no guiding information in humans regarding milk TNF level differences between women with and without IBD, our main goal was to measure milk TNF levels. The infant cognitive/language assessment, therefore, had to be designed as a pilot and exploratory in nature.||||0.12
91857036|NCT03397108|183597709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language development at 12 months of age.||||0.56
91857037|NCT03397108|183597709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cognitive development at 18 months of age.||||0.16
91857038|NCT03397108|183597709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language development at 18 months of age||||0.75
91857039|NCT03397108|183597709|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.2655||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.5307|||Spearman rank correlation|||Using pooled data of all participants at the early-lactation sample point, correlation between milk TNF levels and 12 month cognitive development was examined to investigate if they were inversely correlated.||0.5307|-0.047|0.0853
91857040|NCT03397108|183597709|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.3705||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07385|0.6921|||Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, correlation analysis between milk TNF at early lactation and 12 month language score was done to see if they were inversely correlated.||0.6921|-0.07385|0.090
91857041|NCT03397108|183597711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is to confirm that the 2 groups are not different for their sampling time points in the early lactation period.||||0.97
91857042|NCT03397108|183597711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.96
91857043|NCT03397108|183597712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is to confirm that there is no difference in the second sampling time points in the mid-lactation period between the groups.||||0.56
91857044|NCT03397108|183597712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.51
91857045|NCT02488863|183597752|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.0561|||||||ANOVA|||H0: mean(SPPB\_older\_pain) = mean(SPPB\_older\_no pain) = mean(SPPB\_younger)||||0.0561
91857046|NCT01704079|183597753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91857047|NCT01704079|183597754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91857048|NCT01704079|183597755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91857049|NCT01704079|183597756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91857050|NCT00914589|183597817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0482||||0.8648||95.0|0.6095|1.8029||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.8029|0.6095|0.8648
91857051|NCT00914589|183597817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9871||||0.9634||95.0|0.5673|1.7176||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7176|0.5673|0.9634
91857052|NCT05052996|183597845|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|11.6|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||11.6|-6.8|
91901653|NCT02645760|183698100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.79 centimeter in mean range of motion between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||0.013
91662312|NCT05919823|183220619|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|15.8||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|29.9|||Chi-squared|||||29.9|0.7|0.0402
91662313|NCT01648582|183220639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.4||||||||-0.40|-0.74|
91662314|NCT01648582|183220639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-0.35|
91857053|NCT05052996|183597846|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.6|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||8.6|-12.4|
91857054|NCT05052996|183597847|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.4|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||12.4|-8.6|
91857055|NCT05052996|183597848|OTHER||difference in least squares means|-68.0||||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-226.0|91.0|||ANOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were from ANOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect in the model.|||91|-226|0.3859
91857056|NCT05052996|183597848|OTHER||difference in least squares means|13.0||||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|82.0|||ANCOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a fixed effect in the model.|||82|-56|0.7085
91662315|NCT01648582|183220640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.38||||||||-0.38|-0.77|
91662316|NCT01648582|183220640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-0.33|
91662317|NCT01648582|183220641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0% Week 26||||<0.001
91662318|NCT01648582|183220641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0 Week 26||||0.004
91662319|NCT01648582|183220641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 26||||<0.001
91857057|NCT05052996|183597849|OTHER||difference in least squares means|33.0||||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|103.0|||ANCOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a fixed effect in the model.|||103|-37|0.3477
91857058|NCT05052996|183597850|OTHER||difference in least squares means|-5.0||||0.8849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|66.0|||ANCOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a fixed effect in the model.|||66|-76|0.8849
91857059|NCT03201562|183597894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.436||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.262|235.936|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE model includes 3-line improvement as response variable with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effect, subject within sequence as random effect.||||235.936|6.262|0.0009
91857060|NCT03201562|183597894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.893||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.936|229.31|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE model includes 3-line improvement as response variable with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effect, subject within sequence as random effect.||||229.310|5.936|0.0012
91857061|NCT03201562|183597894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.042||||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.485|2.239|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE model includes 3-line improvement as response variable with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effect, subject within sequence as random effect||||2.239|0.485|0.9298
91857062|NCT01803555|183597895|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of BF Spiromax to Symbicort Turbohaler was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -15 L/min.|Least Square (LS) mean difference|-2.957||||0.3387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis included effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough AM PEF, gender, age, treatment, time, and treatment-by-time interaction.||||3.11|-9.02|0.3387
91857063|NCT00780234|183597904|OTHER||Regression model parameter (α1)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.89|||Regression, Linear|The estimates of treatment effect were adjusted for baseline histology values.||"The hypotheses tested were:~H0: α1 = 0 vs H1: α1 \~= 0"|The hypothesis test was a 2-sided t-test of the effect of group (i.e. the difference between the pioglitazone and placebo groups). The general form of the model is Y = α0 + α1GROUP + α2BASELINE. Y represents the 6-month value of the dependent variable (summary of the histology), GROUP represents a classification variable for the treatment group (1=pioglitazone, 2=placebo), BASELINE represents the value of the outcome measure at baseline, and α0, α1 and α2 represent the parameter estimates from the general linear model. The test of the difference between groups will be the formal test of significance of the α1 parameter.|0.89|-1.68|0.53
91857064|NCT03570892|183597942|SUPERIORITY||Unadjusted stratified cox model hazard r|1.07|||=|0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4|||Stratified log-rank test one-sided|||||1.40|0.82|= 0.694
91857065|NCT05028582|183597954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.9|9.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|S-IGA Success at Week 8||9.31|2.90|<0.0001
91857066|NCT05028582|183597955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.75|5.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|B-IGA Success at Week 8||5.73|1.75|<0.0001
91857067|NCT05028582|183597956|OTHER|SI-NRS Success at Week 4|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.6|13.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||13.62|1.60|0.0005
91857068|NCT05028582|183597957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.01|9.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|SI-NRS Success at Week 4||9.55|2.01|<0.0001
91857069|NCT05028582|183597958|OTHER|SI-NRS Success at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.49|11.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||11.78|2.49|<0.0001
91857070|NCT05028582|183597959|SUPERIORITY|SI-NRS Change from Baseline Day 1|LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|||-0.02|-0.68|0.0164
91662320|NCT01648582|183220641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 26||||<0.001
91662321|NCT01648582|183220641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0% Week 52||||<0.001
91662322|NCT01648582|183220641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0% Week 52||||0.002
91662323|NCT01648582|183220641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 52||||<0.001
91662324|NCT01648582|183220641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 52||||<0.001
91662325|NCT01648582|183220642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.59|-0.11|0.177
91662326|NCT01648582|183220642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||1.23|0.53|<0.001
91857071|NCT05028582|183597960|SUPERIORITY|SI-NRS Change from Baseline Day 1|LS Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.12|-0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|||-0.39|-1.12|<0.0001
91857072|NCT05028582|183597961|SUPERIORITY|Change from Baseline in Weekly SI-NRS at Week 1|LS Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.87|-0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|||-0.22|-0.87|0.0002
91857073|NCT05028582|183597962|OTHER|WI-NRS Success at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.01|8.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|||8.52|2.01|<0.0001
91857074|NCT05028582|183597963|SUPERIORITY|PASI-75 at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.73|10.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||10.75|2.73|<0.0001
91857075|NCT05028582|183597964|SUPERIORITY|PSD Aggregate Score Change at Week 8|LS Mean Difference|-5.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.64|-3.6|||ANCOVA|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA and baseline PSD aggregate score \& multiple imputation of missing data|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA and baseline PSD aggregate score \& multiple imputation of missing data|||-3.60|-6.64|<0.0001
91857076|NCT05028582|183597965|SUPERIORITY|PSD Itching Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.1|10.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||10.04|2.10|<0.0001
91857077|NCT05028582|183597966|SUPERIORITY|PSD Pain Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.83|5.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||5.68|1.83|<0.0001
91662327|NCT01648582|183220642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||0.50|-0.25|0.518
91857078|NCT05028582|183597967|SUPERIORITY|PSD Scaling Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.28|9.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||9.08|2.28|<0.0001
91857079|NCT05028582|183597968|OTHER|PSD Total Score 0 at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.39|7.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|||7.68|1.39|0.0012
91791956|NCT01992159|183461643|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.3||||0.2846|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.6||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||-0.6|0.2846
91662328|NCT01648582|183220642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||1.20|0.45|<0.001
91662329|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 26||0.88|0.42|<0.001
91791957|NCT01992159|183461643|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.3||||0.0151|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.3|0.0151
91791958|NCT01992159|183461643|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.5||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.5|0.0001
91791959|NCT01992159|183461644|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.6||||0.0067|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.5||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.5|0.0067
91791960|NCT01992159|183461644|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.6||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.6|< 0.0001
91791961|NCT01992159|183461644|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|2.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||2.3|< 0.0001
91791962|NCT01992159|183461649|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-15.3||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|30.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the AUC of P1NP at month 12 as the dependent variable, and baseline P1NP and treatment (categorical) as the independent variables.||||30.2|-60.8|0.5084
91662330|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 26||1.17|0.71|<0.001
91662331|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.07|-0.92|0.024
91662332|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||0.32|-0.53|0.617
91662333|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 26||0.01|-0.70|0.055
91662334|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 26||0.39|-0.32|0.855
91662335|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.64|-1.46|<0.001
91857080|NCT05028582|183597969|SUPERIORITY|PSSI-75 at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.98|9.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||9.77|2.98|<0.0001
91662336|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.19|-1.01|0.004
91662337|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 26||-0.29|-0.97|<0.001
91662338|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 26||0.22|-0.45|0.489
91662339|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.48|-1.30|<0.001
91662340|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.06|-0.88|0.024
91662341|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 26||-0.41|-1.17|<0.001
91662342|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 26||-0.03|-0.73|0.067
91662343|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 52||1.01|0.52|<0.001
91662344|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 52||1.31|0.82|<0.001
91662345|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.07|-1.00|0.025
91662346|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||0.26|-0.67|0.384
91662347|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 52||-0.06|-0.80|0.024
91662348|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 52||0.42|-0.32|0.783
91857081|NCT05028582|183597970|SUPERIORITY|S-IGA Clear at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.04|15.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||15.05|3.04|<0.0001
91857082|NCT05028582|183597971|SUPERIORITY|S-IGA Success Week 2|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.84|9.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||9.13|1.84|<0.0001
91662349|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.20|-1.07|0.004
91662350|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.05|-0.92|0.029
91662351|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 52||-0.27|-1.01|<0.001
91662352|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 52||0.27|-0.47|0.603
91662353|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.41|-1.26|<0.001
91662354|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.02|-0.87|0.039
91662355|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 52||-0.60|-1.39|<0.001
91662356|NCT01648582|183220643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 52||-0.20|-0.98|0.003
91662357|NCT01648582|183220644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.831||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 1.5 mg, Week 26||||0.352
91662358|NCT01648582|183220644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.761||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 26||||0.352
91662359|NCT01648582|183220644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.147||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 1.5, Week 52||||0.025
91662360|NCT01648582|183220644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.061||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 52||||0.025
91662361|NCT01648582|183220645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.977||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 1.5 mg, Week 26||||0.025
91662362|NCT01648582|183220645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 26||||0.025
91857083|NCT05028582|183597972|SUPERIORITY|S-IGA Success at Week 4|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.62|8.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||8.84|2.62|<0.0001
91857084|NCT05028582|183597973|SUPERIORITY|Change from Baseline in PASI Week 2|LS Mean Difference|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.71|-0.85|||ANCOVA|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline PASI score \& multiple imputation to handle missing data|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline PASI score \& multiple imputation to handle missing data|||-0.85|-1.71|<0.0001
91857085|NCT04869982|183598024|OTHER|VE was defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR was defined as the ratio of the incidence rates of the RZV Group over the Placebo Group. The VE of RZV against HZ was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 25%.|VE (1-RR)|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.82|100.0||All p-values reported were related to the null hypothesis test VE = 0.|Poisson|The CI for VE is derived from the exact CI from RR.||To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy (VE) of RZV against HZ, the analysis considered the exact inference on the relative risk adjusted for age strata conditionally to the total number of confirmed HZ cases observed and time at risk. This method computed an exact confidence interval (CI) around the rate ratio (ratio of the event rates in the RZV Group versus Placebo Group) and accounted for the sum of the time at risk of the participants within each group.||100|89.82|<0.0001
91857086|NCT05215847|183598052|OTHER|Adverse event subject incidence and event frequency.|||||||||||||||||Adverse event subject incidence and event frequency.|||
91857087|NCT03830177|183598090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91662363|NCT01648582|183220645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|41.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 1.5 mg, Week 52||||0.029
91662364|NCT01648582|183220645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.864||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 52||||0.029
91857088|NCT03830177|183598091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91857089|NCT03830177|183598092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91857090|NCT03830177|183598093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91662365|NCT01648582|183220648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 SBP||||0.008
91662366|NCT01648582|183220648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.584||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 DBP||||0.584
91791963|NCT01992159|183461649|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|84.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|128.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the AUC of P1NP at month 12 as the dependent variable, and baseline P1NP and treatment (categorical) as the independent variables.||||128.0|40.1|0.0002
91857091|NCT03830177|183598095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91857092|NCT06023082|183598116|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91662367|NCT01648582|183220648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 SBP||||0.169
91662368|NCT01648582|183220648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 DBP||||0.110
91662369|NCT01648582|183220649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||||<0.001
91662370|NCT01648582|183220649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||||<0.001
91662371|NCT01648582|183220656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 26|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91662372|NCT01648582|183220656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||||<0.001
91662373|NCT01648582|183220657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||||<0.001
91662374|NCT01648582|183220657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||||<0.001
91857093|NCT06023082|183598117|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857094|NCT06023082|183598118|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857095|NCT06023082|183598119|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857096|NCT06023082|183598120|OTHER|||||||0.4907||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.4907
91857097|NCT06023082|183598121|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857098|NCT06023082|183598122|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857099|NCT06023082|183598123|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857100|NCT06023082|183598124|OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.0016
91857101|NCT06023082|183598125|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857102|NCT06023082|183598126|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857103|NCT06023082|183598127|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857104|NCT06023082|183598128|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91857105|NCT06023082|183598129|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91791964|NCT01992159|183461649|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|153.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.2|198.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the AUC of P1NP at months 12 as the dependent variable, and baseline P1NP and treatment (categorical) as the independent variables.||||198.4|109.2|< 0.0001
91662375|NCT04614168|183220661|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
91857106|NCT06023082|183598130|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91662376|NCT04614168|183220661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91662377|NCT04614168|183220662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
91662378|NCT04614168|183220662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91662379|NCT04614168|183220663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.20
91662380|NCT04614168|183220663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
91662381|NCT04614168|183220664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
91662382|NCT04614168|183220664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91662383|NCT04614168|183220665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91662384|NCT04614168|183220665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91662385|NCT04614168|183220666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91662386|NCT04614168|183220666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91662387|NCT04614168|183220667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91662388|NCT04614168|183220667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91662389|NCT04614168|183220668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91662390|NCT04614168|183220668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91662391|NCT04614168|183220669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0094
91791965|NCT00095238|183461652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|baseline score used as covariate; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, \& baseline angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors used as predictors||Comparison of 2 treatment arms at Month 6 (first 2 columns)||1.3|-0.8|
91662392|NCT04614168|183220670|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
91662393|NCT04614168|183220670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91662394|NCT04614168|183220671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91662395|NCT04614168|183220671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91662396|NCT04614168|183220672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Behaviour subscale||||0.25
91662397|NCT04614168|183220672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Worry subscale||||0.63
91662398|NCT04614168|183220672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Behaviour subscale||||0.35
91662399|NCT04614168|183220672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Worry subscale||||0.09
91662400|NCT04614168|183220673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91662401|NCT04614168|183220673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91662402|NCT04614168|183220674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Column factor p-value.|ANOVA|||||||0.77
91662403|NCT04614168|183220674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
91662404|NCT04614168|183220675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail making A delta clamp 1 compared to clamp 2||||0.88
91662405|NCT04614168|183220675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making B delta clamp 1 compared to clamp 2||||0.69
91662406|NCT04614168|183220675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail making A delta clamp 1 compared to clamp 2||||0.41
91662407|NCT04614168|183220675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Trail making B delta clamp 1 compared to clamp 2||||0.49
91662408|NCT04614168|183220676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit span forwards||||0.5
91662409|NCT04614168|183220676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit span backwards||||0.5
91662410|NCT04614168|183220676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit span forwards||||0.53
91662411|NCT04614168|183220676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
91662412|NCT04614168|183220677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91662413|NCT04614168|183220677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91662414|NCT04614168|183220678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91662415|NCT04614168|183220678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
91662416|NCT02777580|183220679|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91662417|NCT02777580|183220680|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.48||||||||1.48|0.62|
91662418|NCT02777580|183220681|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|35.8||||||||35.8|0.58|
91662419|NCT02777580|183220682|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|6.48||||||||6.48|0.25|
91662420|NCT00840476|183220685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.26||||||90.0|93.12|107.95|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.95|93.12|
91662421|NCT00840476|183220686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|105.14||||||90.0|100.27|110.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.25|100.27|
91662422|NCT00840476|183220687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.33||||||90.0|99.16|109.76|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.76|99.16|
91662423|NCT00908128|183220688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on lon-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.96||||||90.0|82.4|100.41|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.41|82.40|
91857107|NCT06023082|183598131|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857108|NCT06023082|183598132|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91662424|NCT00908128|183220689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.16||||||90.0|96.24|102.16|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.16|96.24|
91662425|NCT00908128|183220690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.78||||||90.0|95.76|101.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.89|95.76|
91662426|NCT03261167|183220691|OTHER||Difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|35.0||||||||35.0|1.1|
91662427|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.2|||||Week 2, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||49.2|17.0|
91662428|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|38.5|||||Week 4, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||38.5|4.9|
91662429|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|35.5|||||Week 6, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||35.5|1.3|
91662430|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|30.1|||||Week 12, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||30.1|-4.2|
91857109|NCT06023082|183598133|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.||||<0.0001
91857110|NCT06023082|183598134|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 10 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91662431|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|9.8|||||Week 2, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||9.8|-20.9|
91662432|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|5.9|||||Week 4, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||5.9|-23.0|
91662433|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|3.2|||||Week 6, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||3.2|-27.5|
91662434|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|7.9|||||Week 12, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||7.9|-27.2|
91662435|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|4.7|||||Week 2, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||4.7|-21.9|
91901654|NCT02645760|183698101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.30 centimeter in mean repositioning error between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||0.012
91662436|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|3.4|||||Week 4, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||3.4|-24.3|
91662437|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|6.0|||||Week 6, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||6.0|-23.8|
91662438|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|17.4|||||Week 12, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||17.4|-17.7|
91662439|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|6.5|||||Week 2, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||6.5|-26.4|
91662440|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|10.3|||||Week 4, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||10.3|-23.6|
91662441|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|15.7|||||Week 6, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||15.7|-18.8|
91662442|NCT03261167|183220692|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|17.9|||||Week 12, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||17.9|-18.8|
91662443|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22|||||Week 2, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.22|-0.75|
91662444|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13|||||Week 4, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.13|-0.71|
91857111|NCT06023082|183598135|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857112|NCT06023082|183598136|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857113|NCT06023082|183598137|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857114|NCT06023082|183598138|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91857115|NCT05986565|183598140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.587|||||||RMANOVA|1||||||0.587
91857116|NCT05986565|183598141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||RMANOVA|1||||||0.874
91857117|NCT05986565|183598142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||RMANOVA|1||||||0.946
91857118|NCT05986565|183598143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24||||||0.267
91857119|NCT05986565|183598144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=25||||||0.187
91857120|NCT05986565|183598145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=24||||||0.765
91857121|NCT05986565|183598146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=25||||||0.060
91857122|NCT05986565|183598147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=24||||||0.608
91857123|NCT05986565|183598148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=25||||||0.638
91857124|NCT02058108|183598200|OTHER|Missing assessment imputed using the closest available assessment|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.03|36.75|||Fisher Exact|||HBV DNA level of \<300 copies/mL (51 IU/mL) at Week 24|Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage|36.75|-37.03|1.0000
91857125|NCT02058108|183598202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.43||||0.2984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|74.6|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|ALT levels at Week 24||74.60|-14.62|0.2984
91662445|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.04|||||Week 6, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.04|-0.71|
91662446|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.02|||||Week 12, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.02|-0.51|
91662447|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.42|||||Week 2, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.42|-0.27|
91662448|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.46|||||Week 4, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.46|-0.25|
91662449|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33|||||Week 6, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.33|-0.37|
91662450|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.38|||||Week 12, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.38|-0.19|
91662451|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.43|||||Week 2, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.43|-0.23|
91857126|NCT02058108|183598203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|60.2|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|HBeAg loss at Week 24||60.20|-53.70|1.0000
91857127|NCT02058108|183598203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|60.2|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|HBeAg seroconversion at Week 24||60.20|-53.70|1.0000
91857128|NCT02058108|183598204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|42.17|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|HBsAg loss at Week 24||42.17|-37.54|1.0000
91857129|NCT02058108|183598207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|41.83|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|Treatment emergent genotypic resistance at Week 24||41.83|-37.05|1.0000
91857130|NCT06459401|183598252|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.525|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.07|-0.01|0.131
91662452|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.52|||||Week 4, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.52|-0.17|
91662453|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.48|||||Week 6, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.48|-0.20|
91662454|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||||Week 12, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.34|-0.25|
91662455|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.63|||||Week 2, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.63|-0.08|
91662456|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.51|||||Week 4, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.51|-0.23|
91662457|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.38|||||Week 6, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.38|-0.33|
91662458|NCT03261167|183220693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.47|||||Week 12, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.47|-0.31|
91662459|NCT03261167|183220694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0|||||Week 2. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.00|-0.48|
91857131|NCT06459401|183598253|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.56||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 1.623|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||2.56|0.99|0.001
91857132|NCT06459401|183598254|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.89||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.923|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||5.89|0.75|0.017
91864237|NCT05256654|183617545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-43.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-43.1|-63.3|<.001
91662460|NCT03261167|183220694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09|||||Week 4. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.09|-0.42|
91662461|NCT03261167|183220694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||||Week 6. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.08|-0.37|
91662462|NCT03261167|183220694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.04|||||Week 12. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.04|-0.52|
91662463|NCT00835146|183220704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.9||||||90.0|91.8|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105|91.8|
91662464|NCT00835146|183220705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.3||||||90.0|93.3|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|93.3|
91791966|NCT00095238|183461652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|baseline score used as covariate; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, \& baseline angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors used as predictors||comparison of 2 treatment arms at Month 14 (columns 3 and 4)||1.7|-0.5|
91904148|NCT04667377|183703254|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-2.17||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-2.17|-10.23|0.0027
91662465|NCT04813354|183220719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.4|||Exact conditional logistic regression||Odds ratio between ELLIPTA DPI and BREEZHALER DPI was calculated using an exact conditional logistic regression model with participant as fixed strata, inhaler and period as fixed effects.|||0.40|0.01|<0.001
91857133|NCT06459401|183598255|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.039||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.052|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.039|-0.034|0.874
91857134|NCT06459401|183598256|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.46||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.315|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.46|-1.18|0.345
91857135|NCT06459401|183598257|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.36||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.859|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||-0.36|-3.90|0.024
91857136|NCT06459401|183598258|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.739|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.06|0.00|0.044
91904149|NCT04667377|183703254|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.25|-2.06||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-2.06|-10.25|0.0033
91662466|NCT04813354|183220721|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.74|||Exact conditional logistic regression||Odds ratio between ELLIPTA DPI and BREEZHALER DPI was calculated using an exact conditional logistic regression model with participant as fixed strata, inhaler and period as fixed effects.|||0.74|0.03|0.005
91662467|NCT04813354|183220730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.31|33.96|||Paired samples t-test|||||33.96|21.31|<0.001
91662468|NCT00318461|183220741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.8 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin.~Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%."|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.3|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.88|-1.30|<0.0001
91662469|NCT00318461|183220741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.19|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.15|-0.19|<0.0001
91662470|NCT00318461|183220741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.2 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.06|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.27|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.85|-1.27|<0.0001
91662471|NCT00318461|183220741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.01|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.16|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.18|-0.16|<0.0001
91662472|NCT00318461|183220741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 0.6 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.78|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.57|-0.99|<0.0001
91662473|NCT00318461|183220741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.29||||0.1026||95.0|0.12|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.46|0.12|0.1026
91662474|NCT00318461|183220741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of glimepiride+metformin to metformin was performed to verify assay sensitivity. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.07|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.28|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.86|-1.28|<0.0001
91662475|NCT00318461|183220742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.29||||0.0016||95.0|-2.16|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.41|-2.16|0.0016
91662476|NCT00318461|183220742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.48|-3.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-3.01|-4.48|<0.0001
91857137|NCT06459401|183598259|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.5||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.928|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||2.50|0.32|0.017
91857138|NCT06459401|183598260|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.04||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.297|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||4.04|-1.67|0.372
91857139|NCT06459401|183598261|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.2||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 1.508|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.20|0.07|0.001
91857140|NCT06459401|183598262|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.39||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.746|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||4.39|0.09|0.043
91857141|NCT06459401|183598263|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|8.83||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.752|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||8.83|0.22|0.041
91857142|NCT06459401|183598264|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.983|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.21|0.03|0.013
91857143|NCT06459401|183598265|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.78||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.985|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||2.78|0.44|0.012
91857144|NCT06459401|183598266|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|9.11||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.779|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||9.11|0.39|0.036
91857145|NCT06459401|183598271|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.19||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.015|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||1.19|-1.24|0.962
91901655|NCT02267603|183698102|OTHER|The null hypothesis will be rejected if 3 or more responses are observed in 24 patients. This design yields a type I error rate of 0.10 and power of 0.90 when the true response rate is 25%. Progression-free survival (PFS) at 16 months will be estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Unless otherwise stated, all statistical tests will be conducted at the α=0.05 (1-sided) level.||||||||||||||||The protocol was designed w/ a standard Simon 2 stage design. Null hypothesis that true response rate is 5% was tested against a 1-sided alternative. In stage 1, 9 patients were accrued. If no responses in these 9 patients, study was to stop. Otherwise,15 more patients were to be accrued for a total of 24 patients. Study was amended to increase number of patients to 50, following discussion w/ pharmaceutical collaborator and FDA.|ORR will be estimated as the # of responders as a % of the # of eligible participants who received at least 1 dose of treatment. If a substantial amount of primary endpoint data are missing (at least 1 value missing from more than 20% of participants), using nonparametric estimation to estimate the ORR requires the missing completely at random assumption may give misleading results. In this case, analyses of the primary endpoint will be performed using parametric generalized linear models fit by maximum likelihood. These methods provide unbiased estimation and inferences under the parametric modeling assumptions and the assumption that the missing data are missing at random (MAR). MAR assumes that the probability of an observation being missing may depend upon the observed responses and upon observed covariates. A generalized linear model for the ORR will use a binomial error distribution. The model will include as covariates all available baseline predictors of the missing outcomes.|||
91901656|NCT01346488|183698121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
91857146|NCT06459401|183598272|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.35||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.504|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.35|-0.06|0.146
91857147|NCT06459401|183598273|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.63||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.495|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||3.63|-0.66|0.152
91662477|NCT00318461|183220742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.07||||0.0117||95.0|-1.94|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.19|-1.94|0.0117
91791967|NCT06460493|183461691|OTHER|The proportion of subjects classified as responders at week 12, standard errors, and corresponding 95% CI was estimated by negative binomial regression with background therapy (LABA/LAMA or LABA/LAMA/ICS) included as a fixed effect, and with baseline CAT score included as a covariate. The scale parameter in the negative binomial model was held fixed by specifying a noscale option.|Negative binomial regression|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|100.0|||||A two-sided unadjusted 95% confidence interval for the proportion was used to determine study success with the lower bound of the CI \> 0 indicating success.|||100.0|38.0|
91857148|NCT06459401|183598274|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.31||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.494|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.31|-0.06|0.153
91857149|NCT06459401|183598275|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|3.58||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.491|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||3.58|-0.67|0.155
91662478|NCT00318461|183220742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.53|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.27|-2.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.79|-4.27|<0.0001
91662479|NCT00318461|183220742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.8198||95.0|-1.15|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.60|-1.15|0.8198
91662480|NCT00318461|183220742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.73|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.47|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.00|-3.47|<0.0001
91662481|NCT00318461|183220743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.11||||0.0378||95.0|-2.18|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.05|-2.18|0.0378
91662482|NCT00318461|183220743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.51|-2.72|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.72|-4.51|<0.0001
91662483|NCT00318461|183220743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.23||||0.0185||95.0|-2.3|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.16|-2.30|0.0185
91662484|NCT00318461|183220743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.73|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.64|-2.83|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.83|-4.64|<0.0001
91662485|NCT00318461|183220743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.27||||0.9069||95.0|-1.33|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.80|-1.33|0.9069
91662486|NCT00318461|183220743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.77|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.67|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-1.87|-3.67|<0.0001
91791968|NCT06460493|183461692|OTHER|The proportion of subjects classified as responders at week 6, standard errors, and corresponding 95% CI was estimated by negative binomial regression with background therapy (LABA/LAMA or LABA/LAMA/ICS) included as a fixed effect, and with baseline CAT score included as a covariate. The scale parameter in the negative binomial model was held fixed by specifying a noscale option.|Negative binomial regression|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|89.5|||||A two-sided unadjusted 95% confidence interval for the proportion was used to determine study success with the lower bound of the CI \> 0 indicating success.|||89.5|22.0|
91857150|NCT06459401|183598276|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.43||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 1.199|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.43|0.11|0.004
91901657|NCT01346488|183698121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
91857151|NCT06459401|183598277|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.56||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.962|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||-0.56|-3.82|0.014
91662487|NCT00318461|183220744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.68|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.50|-2.68|<0.0001
91857152|NCT06459401|183598278|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.66||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.312|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.66|-0.26|0.350
91791969|NCT05204381|183461704|OTHER|||||||0.783|||||||ANOVA|F-statistic is 0.077||Mixed-factors ANOVA for the interaction between stimulation frequency (theta or alpha) and synchrony (in-phase or anti-phase).||||0.783
91791970|NCT05204381|183461705|OTHER|||||||0.965|||||||ANOVA|F-statistic is 0.002||Mixed-factors ANOVA for the interaction between stimulation frequency (theta or alpha) and synchrony (in-phase or anti-phase).||||0.965
91864238|NCT05256654|183617545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-69.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|-63.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-63.9|-74.8|<.001
91864239|NCT05256654|183617545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-76.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.4|-72.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-72.0|-80.4|<.001
91857153|NCT06459401|183598279|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.02||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.706|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.02|-3.63|0.052
91857154|NCT06459401|183598280|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.416|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.39|-0.10|0.221
91857155|NCT02740231|183598289|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-9.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.38||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.21|3.23||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA||Difference between groups JTA-004 100 (2mL) minus Reference - adjusted mean change|The primary endpoint is the WOMAC® VA3.1 Pain Subscale (subscale A): the individual changes in WOMAC® VA3.1 Pain Subscale Score between Baseline and Month 6 were calculated and compared by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline value, to the Reference group.||3.23|-22.21|0.141
91857156|NCT02740231|183598290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-11.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-0.66||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA||Difference between groups JTA-004 100 (2mL) minus Reference|||-0.66|-22.60|0.038
91857157|NCT02740231|183598291|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|9.74||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.74|-12.70|0.997
91857158|NCT02740231|183598292|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|10.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.65|-16.52|0.972
91857159|NCT02740231|183598293|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.96||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.28|7.94||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.94|-22.28|0.599
91713910|NCT00643201|183319448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.307|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1728|0.5452||p-value calculated on the CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and CI were calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Hypothesis: apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint. As per the hierarchical statistical testing cascade, inferential testing for adjudicated major bleeding occurred because non-inferiority for VTE/VTE-related death (Primary efficacy endpoint) was demonstrated earlier. Rejection of the null hypothesis for equivalence for major bleeding allowed inferential testing for superiority of VTE/VTE-related death.||0.5452|0.1728|<0.0001
91857160|NCT02740231|183598294|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-6.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.126
91857161|NCT02740231|183598295|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-8.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.76||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.064
91857162|NCT02740231|183598296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-10.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.014
91857163|NCT02740231|183598297|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-10.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.81||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
91901658|NCT01346488|183698121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
91791971|NCT05204381|183461706|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|F-statistic is 3.046||Mixed-factors ANOVA for the interaction between stimulation frequency (theta or alpha) and synchrony (in-phase or anti-phase).||||0.089
91857164|NCT04110054|183598310|EQUIVALENCE|Placebo (N = 102) vs S-600918 50 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg||||||0.9334||||||P-value was evaluated at the 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The null hypotheses of equality between the treatment and placebo effects were tested using a mixed model, containing treatment group, week, and interaction between treatment groups and week as fixed effects; participant as random effect; and region and the common logarithm of the frequency of coughs per hour at baseline as covariates. Covariance structure was given as unstructured.||||0.9334
91857165|NCT01000480|183598322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645||95.0||||P-value for H0 which compared the investigational regimen to historical data.|maximum likelihood estimate|||Null hypothesis (H0): 1-year PFS ≤45% and the alternative hypothesis (H1): 1-year PFS ≥60%, at a 2-sided alpha level of 5%, assuming that PFS time followed an exponential distribution.||||0.0645
91857166|NCT03988023|183598325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||MMRM|||||||0.32
91857167|NCT03988023|183598326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||MMRM|||||||0.30
91857168|NCT02554786|183598418|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean (LS Mean)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0223|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.176|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.176|0.088|<0.001
91901659|NCT01346488|183698121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
91857169|NCT02554786|183598418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.255|||MMRM|||||0.255|0.167|<0.001
91857170|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|-0.091|||MMRM|||Week 4||-0.091|-0.254|<0.001
91857171|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0416|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|-0.115|||MMRM|||Week 4||-0.115|-0.278|<0.001
91857172|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.026|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.026|-0.136|0.186
91857173|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0294|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|-0.127|||MMRM|||Week 4: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.127|-0.242|<0.001
91857174|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0431||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|-0.044|||MMRM|||Week 12||-0.044|-0.214|0.003
91857175|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0435|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|-0.162|||MMRM|||Week 12||-0.162|-0.333|<0.001
91857176|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0431||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.033|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.033|-0.136|0.232
91857177|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0307|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|-0.128|||MMRM|||Week 12: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.128|-0.248|<0.001
91662488|NCT00318461|183220744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.38||||0.1845||95.0|-0.87|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.11|-0.87|0.1845
91791972|NCT00075270|183461718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.87||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05||P-value from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for stage of disease and site of disease at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on the log-rank test.|||1.05|0.72|0.142
91857178|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0437|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|-0.086|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.086|-0.257|<0.001
91857179|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0439|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.334|-0.162|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.162|-0.334|<0.001
91857180|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0437||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.031|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.031|-0.140|0.214
91662489|NCT00318461|183220744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.63|-1.44|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.44|-2.63|<0.0001
91662490|NCT00318461|183220744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33||||0.3047||95.0|-0.82|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose t as covariate.||0.17|-0.82|0.3047
91662491|NCT00318461|183220744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.53|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.12|-0.94|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-0.94|-2.12|<0.0001
91662492|NCT00318461|183220744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.18||||0.8079||95.0|-0.32|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.67|-0.32|0.8079
91662493|NCT00318461|183220745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.93|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.58|-1.28|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.28|-2.58|<0.0001
91662494|NCT00318461|183220745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.53||||0.0542||95.0|-1.08|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.01|-1.08|0.0542
91662495|NCT00318461|183220745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.95|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.30|-2.60|<0.0001
91662496|NCT00318461|183220745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.55||||0.0451||95.0|-1.1|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose t as covariate.||-0.01|-1.10|0.0451
91662497|NCT00318461|183220745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-0.90|-2.20|<0.0001
91857181|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.149|||MMRM|||Week 26: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.149|-0.270|<0.001
91857182|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0449||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.053|||MMRM|||Week 52||-0.053|-0.229|0.002
91857183|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|-0.177|||MMRM|||Week 52||-0.177|-0.354|<0.001
91857184|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0447||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.098|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.098|-0.078|0.824
91662498|NCT00318461|183220745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.15||||0.9006||95.0|-0.7|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.39|-0.70|0.9006
91662499|NCT00318461|183220746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.13||||0.8871||95.0|-0.62|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.36|-0.62|0.8871
91662500|NCT00318461|183220746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.12||||0.8695||95.0|-0.51|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.27|-0.51|0.8695
91662501|NCT00318461|183220746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.03||||0.9994||95.0|-0.46|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.52|-0.46|0.9994
91662502|NCT00318461|183220746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.04||||0.9984||95.0|-0.35|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.43|-0.35|0.9984
91662503|NCT00318461|183220746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.21||||0.6201||95.0|-0.28|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.70|-0.28|0.6201
91662504|NCT00318461|183220746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.21||||0.4831||95.0|-0.18|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.60|-0.18|0.4831
91662505|NCT00318461|183220747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.8 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.83|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.07|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.59|-1.07|<0.0001
91662506|NCT00318461|183220747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.28|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.12|-0.28|<0.0001
91857185|NCT02554786|183598419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0318|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.141|||MMRM|||Week 52: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.141|-0.266|<0.001
91857186|NCT02554786|183598420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.183|||MMRM|||||0.183|0.090|<0.001
91857187|NCT02554786|183598420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.255|||MMRM|||||0.255|0.163|<0.001
91857188|NCT02554786|183598420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0234||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.094|||MMRM|||||0.094|0.002|0.04
91857189|NCT02554786|183598421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.17|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.170|0.094|<0.001
91857190|NCT02554786|183598421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.234|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.234|0.158|<0.001
91857191|NCT02554786|183598421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0192||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.073|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.073|-0.002|0.064
91857192|NCT02554786|183598421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0201|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.162|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.162|0.083|<0.001
91857193|NCT02554786|183598421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.224|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.224|0.144|<0.001
91791973|NCT00075270|183461719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.82||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04||P-value from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for stage of disease and site of disease at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio was based on the log-rank test.|||1.04|0.65|0.094
91857194|NCT02554786|183598421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.076|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.076|-0.002|0.063
91901660|NCT01346488|183698121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||1.0000
91901661|NCT01346488|183698121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
91791974|NCT00246571|183461738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.203||||0.8885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8889|1.628||One-sided log-rank test stratified for the number of prior chemotherapy regiments (1 versus more than 1), which is from the interactive voice response system (IVRS).|Log Rank|||For core radiology laboratory assessment||1.6280|0.8889|0.8885
91857195|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.164|||MMRM|||Day 1: 5 minutes||0.164|0.119|<0.001
91857196|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.175|||MMRM|||Day 1: 5 minutes||0.175|0.129|<0.001
91857197|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.078|||MMRM|||Day 1: 5 minutes||0.078|0.032|<0.001
91857198|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.186|||MMRM|||Day 1: 15 minutes||0.186|0.138|<0.001
91857199|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0123|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.198|||MMRM|||Day 1: 15 minutes||0.198|0.150|<.001
91857200|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.068|||MMRM|||Day1: 15 minutes||0.068|0.02|<0.001
91857201|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.201|||MMRM|||Day 1: 30 minutes||0.201|0.149|<0.001
91857202|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.211|||MMRM|||Day 1: 30 minutes||0.211|0.159|<0.001
91857203|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.053|||MMRM|||Day 1: 30 minutes||0.053|0.001|0.038
91857204|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.205|||MMRM|||Day 1: 1 hour||0.205|0.150|<0.001
91901662|NCT01346488|183698122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
91901663|NCT01346488|183698122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
91713911|NCT00643201|183319449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.441|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3566|0.5453||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint. Inferential testing was not conducted because the null hypothesis pertaining to superiority for VTE/VTE-related death was not rejected.||0.5453|0.3566|<0.0001
91791975|NCT00246571|183461738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1598||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8703|1.5457||One-sided log-rank test stratified for the number of prior chemotherapy regiments (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Log Rank|||For investigator's assessment||1.5457|0.8703|0.8472
91713912|NCT00643201|183319450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4793|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3815|0.6022||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.6022|0.3815|<0.0001
91857205|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|0.232|||MMRM|||Day 1: 1hour||0.232|0.177|<0.001
91857206|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.034|||MMRM|||Day 1: 1hour||0.034|-0.021|0.632
91857207|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0192|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.226|||MMRM|||Day 30: 5 minutes||0.226|0.151|<0.001
91857208|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.27|||MMRM|||Day 30: 5 minutes||0.270|0.194|<0.001
91857209|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.091|||MMRM|||Day 30: 5 minutes||0.091|0.016|0.005
91857210|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.232|||MMRM|||Day 30: 30 minutes||0.232|0.156|<0.001
91713913|NCT00643201|183319451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6182|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5432|0.7034||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.7034|0.5432|<0.0001
91791976|NCT00246571|183461739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.71||The stratified analysis was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factor, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Core radiology laboratory assessment||1.71|0.06|0.9624
91901664|NCT01346488|183698122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
91662507|NCT00318461|183220747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.2 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.05|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment was at 104 weeks analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.57|-1.05|<0.0001
91857211|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.291|||MMRM|||Day 30: 30 minutes||0.291|0.214|<0.001
91791977|NCT00246571|183461739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.98||The stratified analysis was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factor, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Investigator's assessment||1.98|0.27|0.8140
91857212|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0192||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.08|||MMRM|||Day 30: 30 minutes||0.08|0.005|0.026
91857213|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.229|||MMRM|||Day 30: 1 hour||0.229|0.152|<0.001
91662508|NCT00318461|183220747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.27|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.13|-0.27|<0.0001
91857214|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.296|||MMRM|||Day 30: 1 hour||0.296|0.219|<0.001
91713914|NCT00643201|183319452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5937|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5318|0.6629||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.6629|0.5318|<0.0001
91857215|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.075|||MMRM|||Day 30: 1 hour||0.075|-0.001|0.059
91857216|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0204|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.203|||MMRM|||Day 86: 5 minutes||0.203|0.123|<0.001
91857217|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.271|||MMRM|||Day 86: 5 minutes||0.271|0.191|<0.001
91857218|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0203||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.095|||MMRM|||Day 86: 5minutes||0.095|0.015|0.007
91901665|NCT01346488|183698122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
91901666|NCT01346488|183698122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||0.0054
91901667|NCT01346488|183698122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
91857219|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0203|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.219|||MMRM|||Day 86: 30 minutes||0.219|0.140|<0.001
91901668|NCT01346488|183698123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91857220|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0205|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.292|||MMRM|||Day 86: 30 minutes||0.292|0.211|<0.001
91857221|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.078|||MMRM|||Day 86: 30 minutes||0.078|-0.001|0.057
91857222|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0205|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.227|||MMRM|||Day 86: 1 hour||0.227|0.147|<0.001
91857223|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0208|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.289|||MMRM|||Day 86: 1 hour||0.289|0.208|<0.001
91901669|NCT01346488|183698123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91901670|NCT01346488|183698123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
91901671|NCT01346488|183698123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91901672|NCT01346488|183698123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0592||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||0.0592
91901673|NCT01346488|183698123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
91901674|NCT01346488|183698124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
91901675|NCT01346488|183698124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91901676|NCT01346488|183698124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||<0.0001
91901677|NCT01346488|183698124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91857224|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0205||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.083|||MMRM|||Day 86: 1hour||0.083|0.003|0.037
91857225|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.206|||MMRM|||Day 183: 5 minutes||0.206|0.121|<0.001
91901678|NCT01346488|183698124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
91662509|NCT00318461|183220747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 0.6 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin.~Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%."|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.85|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.37|-0.85|<0.0001
91662510|NCT00318461|183220747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.14||||0.0052||95.0|-0.06|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.34|-0.06|0.0052
91857226|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.286|||MMRM|||Day 183: 5 minutes||0.286|0.200|<0.001
91857227|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.087|||MMRM|||Day 183: 5 minutes||0.087|0.002|0.041
91857228|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.22|||MMRM|||Day 183: 30 minutes||0.220|0.133|<0.001
91857229|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.303|||MMRM|||Day 183: 30 minutes||0.303|0.215|<0.001
91901679|NCT01346488|183698124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
91901680|NCT01346488|183698125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
91901681|NCT01346488|183698125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
91662511|NCT00318461|183220747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of glimepiride+metformin to placebo metformin was performed to verify assay sensitivity. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.51|-0.99|<0.0001
91662512|NCT00318461|183220748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.24||||0.5282||95.0|-0.74|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.26|-0.74|0.5282
91662513|NCT00318461|183220748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.15||||0.7644||95.0|-0.55|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.25|-0.55|0.7644
91662514|NCT00318461|183220748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.36||||0.2063||95.0|-0.86|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.14|-0.86|0.2063
91662515|NCT00318461|183220748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.2678||95.0|-0.68|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.12|-0.68|0.2678
91662516|NCT00318461|183220748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07||||0.9887||95.0|-0.57|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.43|-0.57|0.9887
91662517|NCT00318461|183220748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.02||||0.9998||95.0|-0.38|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.42|-0.38|0.9998
91662518|NCT00318461|183220749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.95|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-1.30|-2.60|<0.0001
91662519|NCT00318461|183220749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.11||||0.967||95.0|-0.62|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.41|-0.62|0.9670
91662520|NCT00318461|183220749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.36|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-1.07|-2.36|<0.0001
91857230|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.083|||MMRM|||Day 183: 30 minutes||0.083|-0.003|0.071
91857231|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.223|||MMRM|||Day 183: 1 hour||0.223|0.137|<0.001
91857232|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.302|||MMRM|||Day 183: 1 hour||0.302|0.215|<0.001
91662521|NCT00318461|183220749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.13||||0.9368||95.0|-0.39|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.64|-0.39|0.9368
91662522|NCT00318461|183220749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.06||||0.0003||95.0|-1.71|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-0.42|-1.71|0.0003
91662523|NCT00318461|183220749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.78||||0.0008||95.0|0.27|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.29|0.27|0.0008
91662524|NCT00318461|183220750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.66|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.37|-0.96|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-0.96|-2.37|<0.0001
91662525|NCT00318461|183220750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.3||||0.5048||95.0|-0.86|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.26|-0.86|0.5048
91857233|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0218||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.082|||MMRM|||Day 183: 1 hour||0.082|-0.003|0.071
91662526|NCT00318461|183220750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.79|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.49|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-1.08|-2.49|<0.0001
91662527|NCT00318461|183220750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.42||||0.2005||95.0|-0.98|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.14|-0.98|0.2005
91791978|NCT00246571|183461742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1599||||0.8394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8648|1.5558||One-sided log rank test stratified for the number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for sunitinib versus standard of care.|||1.5558|0.8648|0.8394
91857234|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0229|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.184|||MMRM|||Day 364: 5 minutes||0.184|0.094|<0.001
91857235|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.294|||MMRM|||Day 364: 5 minutes||0.294|0.205|<0.001
91857236|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0227||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.071|||MMRM|||Day 364: 5 minutes||0.071|-0.018|0.244
91857237|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2|||MMRM|||Day 364: 30 minutes||0.200|0.110|<0.001
91901682|NCT01346488|183698125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
91857238|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0227|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.308|||MMRM|||Day 364: 30 minutes||0.308|0.219|<0.001
91857239|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.076|||MMRM|||Day 364: 30 minutes||0.076|-0.013|0.162
91901683|NCT01346488|183698125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
91901684|NCT01346488|183698125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
91662528|NCT00318461|183220750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.16||||0.0003||95.0|-1.86|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-0.46|-1.86|0.0003
91662529|NCT00318461|183220750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.21||||0.7871||95.0|-0.35|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.76|-0.35|0.7871
91662530|NCT00318461|183220751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|27.75||||0.0031||95.0|7.83|47.67|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||47.67|7.83|0.0031
91662531|NCT00318461|183220751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|1.44||||0.9987||95.0|-15.03|17.9|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||17.90|-15.03|0.9987
91662532|NCT00318461|183220751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|21.96||||0.0263||95.0|2.04|41.87|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||41.87|2.04|0.0263
91662533|NCT00318461|183220751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-4.36||||0.9227||95.0|-20.94|12.22|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||12.22|-20.94|0.9227
91662534|NCT00318461|183220751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|22.08||||0.0253||95.0|2.15|42.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||42.01|2.15|0.0253
91662535|NCT00318461|183220751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-4.23||||0.9293||95.0|-20.78|12.31|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||12.31|-20.78|0.9293
91791979|NCT00775203|183461758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and study center as categorical factors and HAMD-17 baseline as covariate.||The primary null hypothesis for the HAMD-17 total score is that there is no difference between the Trazodone Contramid® OAD group and the placebo group at Week 8. A sample size of 133 in each group will have 90% power to detect a difference in the absolute mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) change from baseline of 3.0 units assuming that the common standard deviation is 7.5 using a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.0119
91662536|NCT00318461|183220752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|25.71||||0.8821||95.0|-69.84|121.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||121.26|-69.84|0.8821
91662537|NCT00318461|183220752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|6.56||||0.9989||95.0|-72.66|85.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||85.79|-72.66|0.9989
91662538|NCT00318461|183220752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|35.2||||0.7292||95.0|-60.33|130.72|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||130.72|-60.33|0.7292
91857240|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0234|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.209|||MMRM|||Day 364: 1 hour||0.209|0.117|<0.001
91662539|NCT00318461|183220752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|16.05||||0.9689||95.0|-63.69|95.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||95.79|-63.69|0.9689
91662540|NCT00318461|183220752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|72.38||||0.1818||95.0|-23.15|167.9|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||167.90|-23.15|0.1818
91662541|NCT00318461|183220752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|53.23||||0.2978||95.0|-26.3|132.76|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||132.76|-26.30|0.2978
91662542|NCT00796653|183220759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|0.091|<0.0001
91662543|NCT00796653|183220759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.116|<0.0001
91662544|NCT00796653|183220759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.188|0.112|<0.0001
91662545|NCT00796653|183220760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0055||95.0|0.015|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.090|0.015|0.0055
91662546|NCT00796653|183220760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0003||95.0|0.032|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.032|0.0003
91791980|NCT05171816|183461782|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.48||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||2.48|0.83|0.2592
91791981|NCT05171816|183461783|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.29||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||2.29|0.57|0.7251
91857241|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0232|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.308|||MMRM|||Day 364: 1 hour||0.308|0.216|<0.001
91662547|NCT00796653|183220760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.027||95.0|0.005|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.080|0.005|0.0270
91662548|NCT00796653|183220761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.1999||95.0|-0.213|1.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.018|-0.213|0.1999
91662549|NCT00796653|183220761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.1818||95.0|-0.196|1.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.035|-0.196|0.1818
91857242|NCT02554786|183598422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0231||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.076|||MMRM|||Day 364: 1 hour||0.076|-0.014|0.182
91857243|NCT02554786|183598423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.133|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.133|0.040|<0.001
91857244|NCT02554786|183598423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.185|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.185|0.093|<0.001
91857245|NCT02554786|183598423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.044|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.044|-0.049|0.927
91662550|NCT00796653|183220761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.0572||95.0|-0.019|1.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.222|-0.019|0.0572
91662551|NCT00796653|183220762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.349||0.0197||95.0|-5.796|-0.503|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.503|-5.796|0.0197
91662552|NCT00796653|183220762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.354||0.0094||95.0|-6.18|-0.867|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.867|-6.180|0.0094
91662553|NCT00796653|183220762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.365||0.2995||95.0|-4.093|1.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.261|-4.093|0.2995
91662554|NCT00796653|183220763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.385||0.7995||95.0|-3.068|2.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.365|-3.068|0.7995
91857246|NCT02554786|183598423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.098|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.098|0.001|0.044
91901685|NCT01346488|183698125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
91662555|NCT00796653|183220763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.391||0.4336||95.0|-3.818|1.639|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.639|-3.818|0.4336
91662556|NCT00796653|183220763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.395||0.9365||95.0|-2.625|2.848|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||2.848|-2.625|0.9365
91662557|NCT00796653|183220764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.333||0.0491||95.0|-5.241|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.010|-5.241|0.0491
91662558|NCT00796653|183220764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.341||0.0636||95.0|-5.119|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|-5.119|0.0636
91857247|NCT02554786|183598423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.19|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.190|0.093|<0.001
91857248|NCT02554786|183598423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0244||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.065|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.065|-0.031|0.490
91857249|NCT02554786|183598423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.125|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.125|0.027|0.002
91901686|NCT01346488|183698126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||<0.0001
91662559|NCT00796653|183220764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0194||95.0|-5.806|-0.511|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.511|-5.806|0.0194
91662560|NCT00796653|183220765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.751|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect||Olo 5 mcg minus placebo||-0.940|-4.751|0.0034
91662561|NCT00796653|183220765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.973||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.343|-1.525|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect||Olo 10 mcg minus placebo||-1.525|-5.343|0.0004
91662562|NCT00796653|183220765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.161|0.665|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect||Form 12 mcg minus placebo||0.665|-3.161|0.2009
91857250|NCT02554786|183598423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0248|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.195|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.195|0.098|<0.001
91857251|NCT02554786|183598423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0248||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.085|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.085|-0.012|0.143
91857252|NCT02554786|183598424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0253|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|0.238|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.238|0.139|<0.001
91662563|NCT00796653|183220766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|0.123|<0.0001
91662564|NCT00796653|183220766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.157|<0.0001
91901687|NCT01346488|183698126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91662565|NCT00796653|183220766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.199|0.126|<0.0001
91662566|NCT00796653|183220767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.136|<0.0001
91662567|NCT00796653|183220767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.155|<0.0001
91901688|NCT01346488|183698126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91901689|NCT01346488|183698126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91662568|NCT00796653|183220767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.221|0.148|<0.0001
91662569|NCT00796653|183220768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.108|<0.0001
91662570|NCT00796653|183220768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.138|<0.0001
91662571|NCT00796653|183220768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.208|0.133|<0.0001
91662572|NCT00796653|183220769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.156|0.080|<0.0001
91662573|NCT00796653|183220769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.103|<0.0001
91857253|NCT02554786|183598424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.259|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.259|0.161|<0.001
91857254|NCT02554786|183598424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.031|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.031|-0.067|0.475
91857255|NCT02554786|183598424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0345|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.296|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.296|0.161|<0.001
91857256|NCT02554786|183598424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0346|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.197|0.333|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.333|0.197|<0.001
91857257|NCT02554786|183598424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0343||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.151|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.151|0.016|0.015
91662574|NCT00796653|183220769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.168|0.091|<0.0001
91713915|NCT02346708|183319460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.42||We determined whether there was a significant group difference between the real and sham treated PD-MCI patients on the DRS-2 change following rTMS using mixed model regression (MMR) to fit longitudinal models.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom: 46||We estimated a sample size of 20 per group would provide at least 80% power at a significance level of 0.05 to detect a between-group difference of 10 on the Matthis Dementia Rating Scale-2, an effect size similar to prior studies of rivastigmine.||0.42|-4.56|0.1
91662575|NCT00796653|183220770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0002||95.0|0.033|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.105|0.033|0.0002
91662576|NCT00796653|183220770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.083|<0.0001
91662577|NCT00796653|183220770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0071||95.0|0.013|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.085|0.013|0.0071
91662578|NCT00796653|183220771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.048|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.120|0.048|<0.0001
91857258|NCT02554786|183598424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0358|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.285|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.285|0.145|<0.001
91857259|NCT02554786|183598424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0357|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.316|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.316|0.176|<0.001
91857260|NCT02554786|183598424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0356||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.122|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.122|-0.017|0.139
91857261|NCT02554786|183598425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|35.4|||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|||Week 26: Mean morning PEF||35.4|23.8|<0.001
91901690|NCT01346488|183698126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0005||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||= 0.0005
91901691|NCT01346488|183698126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91662579|NCT00796653|183220771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|0.068|<0.0001
91857262|NCT02554786|183598425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|32.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|38.1|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean morning PEF||38.1|26.4|<0.001
91857263|NCT02554786|183598425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.1|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean morning PEF||19.1|7.5|<0.001
91857264|NCT02554786|183598425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|30.3|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean evening PEF||30.3|19.3|<0.001
91857265|NCT02554786|183598425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|35.9|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean evening PEF||35.9|24.8|<0.001
91857266|NCT02554786|183598425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|14.2|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean evening PEF||14.2|3.1|0.002
91857267|NCT02554786|183598425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|34.8|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean morning PEF||34.8|22.7|<0.001
91901692|NCT01346488|183698127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
91662580|NCT00796653|183220771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0001||95.0|0.034|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.106|0.034|0.0001
91857268|NCT02554786|183598425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|36.3|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean morning PEF||36.3|24.2|<0.001
91901693|NCT01346488|183698127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
91901694|NCT01346488|183698127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
91791982|NCT05171816|183461784|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.64||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.64|0.60|0.9715
91857269|NCT02554786|183598425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|19.8|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean morning PEF||19.8|7.7|<0.001
91857270|NCT02554786|183598425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|29.5|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean evening PEF||29.5|18.0|<0.001
91857271|NCT02554786|183598425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|34.8|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean evening PEF||34.8|23.3|<0.001
91857272|NCT02554786|183598425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|14.9|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean evening PEF||14.9|3.3|0.002
91857273|NCT02554786|183598426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.81|||Logistic regression model|||Day 183||1.81|0.95|0.094
91857274|NCT02554786|183598426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.37|||Logistic regression model|||Day 183||2.37|1.26|<0.001
91857275|NCT02554786|183598426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.46|||Logistic regression model|||Day 183||1.46|0.76|0.746
91857276|NCT02554786|183598426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.87|||Logistic regression model|||Day 364||1.87|0.96|0.088
91662581|NCT00796653|183220772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0017||95.0|0.022|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.095|0.022|0.0017
91662582|NCT00796653|183220772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.057|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|0.057|<0.0001
91713916|NCT02976519|183319462|OTHER||Slope|1.2705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1067|1.4343|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|Cmax. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.4343|1.1067|
91713917|NCT02976519|183319462|OTHER||Slope|1.1361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0859|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9598|1.3123|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|Cmax,13. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.3123|0.9598|
91857277|NCT02554786|183598426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.17|||Logistic regression model|||Day 364||3.17|1.58|<0.001
91662583|NCT00796653|183220772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0005||95.0|0.028|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.101|0.028|0.0005
91857278|NCT02554786|183598426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.49|||Logistic regression model|||Day 364||1.49|0.75|0.771
91662584|NCT00796653|183220773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0085||95.0|0.013|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.087|0.013|0.0085
91662585|NCT00796653|183220773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.122|0.049|<0.0001
91662586|NCT00796653|183220773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0067||95.0|0.014|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.088|0.014|0.0067
91713918|NCT02976519|183319463|OTHER||Slope|1.2743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0739|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1231|1.4255|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|AUC0-12. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.4255|1.1231|
91713919|NCT02976519|183319463|OTHER||Slope|1.0924|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0793|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9296|1.2551|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|AUC0-12,13. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.2551|0.9296|
91713920|NCT03416270|183319464|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91713921|NCT03416270|183319464|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||1 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91857279|NCT02554786|183598427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.2|||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|||||10.2|1.3|0.012
91857280|NCT02554786|183598427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|13.6|||LMM|||||13.6|4.6|<0.001
91857281|NCT02554786|183598427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.9|||LMM|||||7.9|-1.1|0.135
91857282|NCT02554786|183598428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.4|||LMM|||||9.4|0.6|0.026
91857283|NCT02554786|183598428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.5|||LMM|||||12.5|3.7|<0.001
91662587|NCT00796653|183220774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0012||95.0|0.025|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.100|0.025|0.0012
91662588|NCT00796653|183220774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.035|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.110|0.035|0.0002
91662589|NCT00796653|183220774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0117||95.0|0.011|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.086|0.011|0.0117
91662590|NCT00796653|183220775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0014||95.0|0.024|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.099|0.024|0.0014
91662591|NCT00796653|183220775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.122|0.047|<0.0001
91662592|NCT00796653|183220775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0035||95.0|0.019|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.094|0.019|0.0035
91662593|NCT00796653|183220776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0228||95.0|0.006|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.082|0.006|0.0228
91662594|NCT00796653|183220776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0024||95.0|0.021|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.097|0.021|0.0024
91901695|NCT01346488|183698127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
91662595|NCT00796653|183220776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0664||95.0|-0.002|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.074|-0.002|0.0664
91662596|NCT00796653|183220777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.122|<0.0001
91662597|NCT00796653|183220777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|0.140|<0.0001
91662598|NCT00796653|183220777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.191|0.115|<0.0001
91662599|NCT00796653|183220778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.130|<0.0001
91662600|NCT00796653|183220778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.143|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.220|0.143|<0.0001
91662601|NCT00796653|183220778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.214|0.137|<0.0001
91901696|NCT01346488|183698127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
91662602|NCT00796653|183220779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.103|<0.0001
91662603|NCT00796653|183220779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.129|<0.0001
91662604|NCT00796653|183220779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.203|0.125|<0.0001
91713922|NCT03416270|183319465|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.303
91901697|NCT01346488|183698127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
91901698|NCT01346488|183698128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91901699|NCT01346488|183698128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91857284|NCT02554786|183598428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.7|||LMM|||||7.7|-1.2|0.151
91662605|NCT00796653|183220780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.163|0.084|<0.0001
91857285|NCT02554786|183598429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.2|||LMM|||||6.2|-0.6|0.104
91857286|NCT02554786|183598429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.3|||LMM|||||7.3|0.5|0.024
91713923|NCT03416270|183319466|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.438
91713924|NCT03416270|183319467|OTHER|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.599
91857287|NCT02554786|183598429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.3|||LMM|||||4.3|-2.5|0.588
91857288|NCT02554786|183598430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|10.7|||LMM|||||10.7|2.1|0.003
91857289|NCT02554786|183598430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|13.2|||LMM|||||13.2|4.6|<0.001
91857290|NCT02554786|183598430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.1|||LMM|||||9.1|0.5|0.029
91857291|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.05|||LMM|||Week1-26 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.05|-0.2|0.001
91662606|NCT00796653|183220780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.112|<0.0001
91662607|NCT00796653|183220780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.104|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.183|0.104|<0.0001
91857292|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.01|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.01|-0.16|0.035
91713925|NCT03416270|183319468|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91713926|NCT03416270|183319469|OTHER|||||||0.405|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.405
91713927|NCT03416270|183319470|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.536
91857293|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean night-time number of puffs||0.03|-0.12|0.261
91857294|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.09|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.09|-0.28|<0.001
91857295|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.03|-0.21|0.011
91857296|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.047||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.06|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daytime number of puffs||0.06|-0.13|0.425
91857297|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.15|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.15|-0.46|<0.001
91662608|NCT00796653|183220781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.071|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.152|0.071|<0.0001
91662609|NCT00796653|183220781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.086|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.086|<0.0001
91662610|NCT00796653|183220781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.158|0.078|<0.0001
91662611|NCT00796653|183220782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.299|0.162|<0.0001
91662612|NCT00796653|183220782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.182|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.182|<0.0001
91662613|NCT00796653|183220782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.198|0.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.334|0.198|<0.0001
91662614|NCT00796653|183220783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.182|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.320|0.182|<0.0001
91662615|NCT00796653|183220783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.180|<0.0001
91662616|NCT00796653|183220783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.212|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.350|0.212|<0.0001
91662617|NCT00796653|183220784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.299|0.159|<0.0001
91662618|NCT00796653|183220784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.317|0.177|<0.0001
91662619|NCT00796653|183220784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.345|0.205|<0.0001
91662620|NCT00796653|183220785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.270|0.128|<0.0001
91662621|NCT00796653|183220785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.283|0.142|<0.0001
91662622|NCT00796653|183220785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.312|0.170|<0.0001
91662623|NCT00796653|183220786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.290|0.146|<0.0001
91662624|NCT00796653|183220786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.166|<0.0001
91662625|NCT00796653|183220786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.292|0.148|<0.0001
91857298|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.03|-0.35|0.017
91662626|NCT00796653|183220787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0133||95.0|0.018|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.157|0.018|0.0133
91857299|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.07|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.07|-0.24|0.29
91662627|NCT00796653|183220787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.073|<0.0001
91662628|NCT00796653|183220787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0212||95.0|0.012|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.151|0.012|0.0212
91713928|NCT03416270|183319471|OTHER|||||||0.443|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.443
91713929|NCT03416270|183319472|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.849
91713930|NCT03416270|183319473|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91713931|NCT03416270|183319474|OTHER|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.844
91713932|NCT03416270|183319475|OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.262
91662629|NCT00796653|183220788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0004||95.0|0.057|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.057|0.0004
91662630|NCT00796653|183220788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0012||95.0|0.045|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.045|0.0012
91713933|NCT03416270|183319476|OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.802
91713934|NCT03416270|183319477|OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
91713935|NCT03416270|183319478|OTHER|||||||0.618|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.618
91791983|NCT05171816|183461785|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.06||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||2.06|0.20|0.4937
91662631|NCT00796653|183220788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0056||95.0|0.029|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.169|0.029|0.0056
91857300|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.04|-0.19|0.004
91713936|NCT03416270|183319479|OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
91713937|NCT03416270|183319480|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||12 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91713938|NCT03416270|183319480|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||1 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91713939|NCT03416270|183319481|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91713940|NCT03416270|183319481|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||1 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91713941|NCT04556760|183319542|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-132.9528||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.5082|-9.3973|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-9.3973|-256.5082|0.036
91713942|NCT04556760|183319542|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-142.033||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-554.8722|270.8061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||270.8061|-554.8722|0.432
91713943|NCT04556760|183319542|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-126.8829||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-236.0426|-17.7233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||-17.7233|-236.0426|0.030
91713944|NCT04556760|183319543|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5067|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.082|-0.9314|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-0.9314|-2.0820|<0.001
91713945|NCT04556760|183319543|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1099|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7257|-0.4941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||-0.4941|-1.7257|<0.001
91713946|NCT04556760|183319543|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1601||||0.547||95.0|-0.693|0.3729|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.3729|-0.6930|0.547
91713947|NCT04556760|183319544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5015|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2258|-0.7773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg \[00 to 24 h\])||-0.7773|-2.2258|<0.001
91713948|NCT04556760|183319544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8643|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.5611|-1.1674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg \[24 to 48 h\])||-1.1674|-2.5611|<0.001
91713949|NCT04556760|183319544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5998|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3025|-0.8971|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg \[48 to 72 h\])||-0.8971|-2.3025|<0.001
91713950|NCT04556760|183319544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8474||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4465|-0.2484|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg \[00 to 24 h\])||-0.2484|-1.4465|0.013
91857301|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.02|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.02|-0.17|0.019
91857302|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean night-time number of puffs||0.03|-0.12|0.226
91662632|NCT00796653|183220789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0045||95.0|0.032|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.032|0.0045
91662633|NCT00796653|183220789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0046||95.0|0.032|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.032|0.0046
91857303|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.07|-0.26|<0.001
91857304|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.05|-0.24|0.002
91857305|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.05|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daytime number of puffs||0.05|-0.14|0.384
91857306|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.12|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.12|-0.44|< 0.001
91857307|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.07|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.07|-0.39|0.004
91857308|NCT02554786|183598431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.06|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daily number of puffs||0.06|-0.25|0.245
91857309|NCT02554786|183598432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.72|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.72|0.39|<0.001
91857310|NCT02554786|183598432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.6|0.34|<0.001
91857311|NCT02554786|183598432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.12|0.59|0.209
91901700|NCT01346488|183698128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91713951|NCT04556760|183319544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7778||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6022|0.0466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg \[24 to 48 h\])||0.0466|-1.6022|0.061
91857312|NCT02554786|183598432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.81|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.81|0.36|0.003
91901701|NCT01346488|183698128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91713952|NCT04556760|183319544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.143||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7622|-0.5238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg \[48 to 72 h\])||-0.5238|-1.7622|0.003
91713953|NCT04556760|183319544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8338|0.1138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5 mg \[00 to 24 h\])||0.1138|-0.8338|0.125
91857313|NCT02554786|183598432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.63|0.3|<0.001
91857314|NCT02554786|183598432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.09|0.47|0.115
91857315|NCT02554786|183598432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82|||Regression, Cox|||All asthma exacerbation||0.82|0.51|<0.001
91857316|NCT02554786|183598432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.6|||Regression, Cox|||All asthma exacerbation||0.6|0.38|<0.001
91713954|NCT04556760|183319544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0845||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9706|0.8016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5 mg \[24 to 48 h\])||0.8016|-0.9706|0.840
91713955|NCT04556760|183319544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1298||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.3864|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5 mg \[48 to 72 h\])||0.3864|-0.6460|0.571
91857317|NCT02554786|183598432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||All asthma exacerbation||1.08|0.66|0.185
91713956|NCT04556760|183319545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.40|-0.55|0.753
91713957|NCT04556760|183319545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||0.37|-0.46|0.802
91713958|NCT04556760|183319545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.37|-0.37|0.985
91713959|NCT04556760|183319546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20498.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10819.2|30178.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||30178.2|10819.2|<0.001
91857318|NCT02554786|183598433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.03|||Regression, Cox|||||2.03|0.13|0.337
91857319|NCT02554786|183598433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.02|0.063
91857320|NCT02554786|183598433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|9.7|||Regression, Cox|||||9.7|0.27|0.599
91857321|NCT02554786|183598434|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.65||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.89|0.48|0.008
91857322|NCT02554786|183598434|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.64|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.64|0.35|<0.001
91791984|NCT05171816|183461786|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.87||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||4.87|0.61|0.4923
91662634|NCT00796653|183220789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0023||95.0|0.039|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.181|0.039|0.0023
91662635|NCT00796653|183220790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0077||95.0|0.026|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.169|0.026|0.0077
91857323|NCT02554786|183598434|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.29|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.29|0.67|0.669
91857324|NCT02554786|183598434|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.71||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.08|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.08|0.47|0.108
91901702|NCT01346488|183698128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91901703|NCT01346488|183698128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91901704|NCT01346488|183698129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
91662636|NCT00796653|183220790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0009||95.0|0.05|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.050|0.0009
91662637|NCT00796653|183220790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0339||95.0|0.006|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.149|0.006|0.0339
91662638|NCT00796653|183220791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0718||95.0|-0.006|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.139|-0.006|0.0718
91662639|NCT00796653|183220791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0863||95.0|-0.009|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|-0.009|0.0863
91713960|NCT04556760|183319546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3321.4||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12975.8|19618.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||19618.6|-12975.8|0.659
91713961|NCT04556760|183319546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2698.8||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14849.0|9451.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||9451.3|-14849.0|0.521
91713962|NCT04556760|183319547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1002.5864||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1620.215|-384.9577|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-384.9577|-1620.2150|0.003
91901705|NCT01346488|183698129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
91713963|NCT04556760|183319547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.9836||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.6968|608.664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||608.6640|-526.6968|0.865
91901706|NCT01346488|183698129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
91901707|NCT01346488|183698129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
91901708|NCT01346488|183698129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
91901709|NCT01346488|183698129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
91901710|NCT01346488|183698130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91901711|NCT01346488|183698130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91901712|NCT01346488|183698130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91901713|NCT01346488|183698130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91901714|NCT01346488|183698130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91901715|NCT01346488|183698130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91857325|NCT02554786|183598434|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.67|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.67|0.31|<0.001
91662640|NCT00796653|183220791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.2982||95.0|-0.034|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.111|-0.034|0.2982
91662641|NCT00796653|183220792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.019||95.0|0.014|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.014|0.0190
91662642|NCT00796653|183220792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0601||95.0|-0.003|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.003|0.0601
91662643|NCT00796653|183220792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.2573||95.0|-0.031|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.115|-0.031|0.2573
91662644|NCT00796653|183220793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.02||95.0|0.014|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.014|0.0200
91857326|NCT02554786|183598434|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.37|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.37|0.58|0.597
91857327|NCT02554786|183598434|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.87|0.52|0.002
91901716|NCT01346488|183698131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
91662645|NCT00796653|183220793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0013||95.0|0.047|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.194|0.047|0.0013
91662646|NCT00796653|183220793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1598||95.0|-0.021|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.126|-0.021|0.1598
91662647|NCT00796653|183220794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0307||95.0|0.008|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.008|0.0307
91662648|NCT00796653|183220794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0073||95.0|0.027|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.027|0.0073
91901717|NCT01346488|183698131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
91662649|NCT00796653|183220794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.3147||95.0|-0.036|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.112|-0.036|0.3147
91662650|NCT00796653|183220795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.16|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.306|0.160|<0.0001
91713964|NCT04556760|183319547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|101.4137||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-628.8097|831.637|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||831.6370|-628.8097|0.754
91857328|NCT02554786|183598434|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.59|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.59|0.36|<0.001
91857329|NCT02554786|183598434|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.23|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.23|0.72|0.681
91857330|NCT02554786|183598435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
91901718|NCT01346488|183698131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
91901719|NCT01346488|183698131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
91901720|NCT01346488|183698131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
91901721|NCT01346488|183698131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
91901722|NCT01346488|183698132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91857331|NCT02554786|183598435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
91857332|NCT02554786|183598435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.059
91857333|NCT02554786|183598435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Van Elteren Test|||Severe Asthma Exacerbation||||0.004
91857334|NCT02554786|183598435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||Severe Asthma Exacerbation||||<0.001
91857335|NCT02554786|183598435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.025
91857336|NCT02554786|183598435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Van Elteren Test|||All(mild, moderate, severe) Asthma Exacerbation||||0.002
91857337|NCT02554786|183598435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) Asthma Exacerbation||||<0.001
91857338|NCT02554786|183598435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||0.074
91662651|NCT00796653|183220795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.156|<0.0001
91662652|NCT00796653|183220795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.175|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.321|0.175|<0.0001
91662653|NCT00796653|183220796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.321|0.174|<0.0001
91662654|NCT00796653|183220796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.295|0.148|<0.0001
91662655|NCT00796653|183220796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.328|0.180|<0.0001
91662656|NCT00796653|183220797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.289|0.141|<0.0001
91662657|NCT00796653|183220797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.300|0.151|<0.0001
91662658|NCT00796653|183220797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.340|0.191|<0.0001
91662659|NCT00796653|183220798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.106|<0.0001
91662660|NCT00796653|183220798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.256|0.105|<0.0001
91713965|NCT04556760|183319548|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1225.905||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2007.2241|-444.5859|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-444.5859|-2007.2241|0.004
91857339|NCT02554786|183598437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.29|||Regression, Cox|||||2.29|0.03|0.222
91857340|NCT02554786|183598437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of CI could not be calculated due to low number of participants with asthma exacerbation.||Regression, Cox||||||0|0.992
91662661|NCT00796653|183220798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.283|0.132|<0.0001
91662662|NCT00796653|183220799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.265|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.265|0.111|<0.0001
91662663|NCT00796653|183220799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.291|0.138|<0.0001
91662664|NCT00796653|183220799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.269|0.115|<0.0001
91857341|NCT02554786|183598437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.01|||Regression, Cox|||||6.01|0.05|0.618
91662665|NCT00796653|183220800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.435||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.004|22.411|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||22.411|5.004|0.0021
91662666|NCT00796653|183220800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.158|29.584|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||29.584|12.158|<0.0001
91857342|NCT02554786|183598440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|14.1|||LMM|||Weeks 1-26||14.1|6.2|< 0.001
91857343|NCT02554786|183598440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|12.3|||LMM|||Weeks 1-26||12.3|4.3|<0.001
91857344|NCT02554786|183598440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.0|||LMM|||Weeks 1-26||8|0.1|0.045
91857345|NCT02554786|183598440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.6|||LMM|||Weeks 1-52||13.6|5.7|<0.001
91857346|NCT02554786|183598440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|12.6|||LMM|||Weeks 1-52||12.6|4.7|<0.001
91857347|NCT02554786|183598440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.3|||LMM|||Weeks 1-52||8.3|0.3|0.034
91857348|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0462||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.237|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.237|0.056|0.002
91857349|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0464||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.214|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.214|0.032|0.008
91857350|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.135|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.135|-0.045|0.33
91857351|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0503||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.153|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.153|-0.044|0.28
91901723|NCT01346488|183698132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91857352|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0507||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.217|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.217|0.019|0.02
91713966|NCT04556760|183319548|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-466.9802||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1521.5088|587.5485|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||587.5485|-1521.5088|0.313
91901724|NCT01346488|183698132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91857353|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0501||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.125|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.125|-0.072|0.598
91857354|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0526||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.23|||MMRM|||Day 183||0.23|0.023|0.016
91857355|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0529||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.26|||MMRM|||Day 183||0.26|0.053|0.003
91857356|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0525||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.188|||MMRM|||Day 183||0.188|-0.017|0.103
91857357|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0542||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.178|||MMRM|||Day 254||0.178|-0.035|0.188
91901725|NCT01346488|183698132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91857358|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.274|||MMRM|||Day 254||0.274|0.061|0.002
91857359|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0538||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.166|||MMRM|||Day 254||0.166|-0.045|0.258
91857360|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0552||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.187|||MMRM|||Day 364||0.187|-0.030|0.154
91901726|NCT01346488|183698132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91857361|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0553|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.299|||MMRM|||Day 364||0.299|0.082|<0.001
91857362|NCT02554786|183598441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0548||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.148|||MMRM|||Day 364||0.148|-0.067|0.455
91857363|NCT02554786|183598442|NON_INFERIORITY|QMF 150/320 was considered non-inferior to S/F 50/500 if the lower bound of the 95% CI was above the non-inferiority margin of -90 mL and was considered superior if the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> 0. The p-value is for null-hypothesis testing.|LS Mean|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.08|||MMRM|||||0.080|-0.007|0.101
91857364|NCT01828554|183598445|OTHER|||||||0.4882||||||A paired t-test will be used to compare the PK parameters between the full weight and limited weight based dosing.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the AUC from cycle 1 day 1 (based on ideal body weight) is equal to the AUC from cycle 1 day 9 (based on actual body weight) was tested against the alternative hypothesis that the AUCs are not equal. A linear mixed effect model with patient specific random effects was conducted||||0.4882
91901727|NCT01346488|183698132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91901728|NCT01346488|183698133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
91662667|NCT00796653|183220800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.454||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.506|22.991|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||22.991|5.506|0.0014
91662668|NCT00796653|183220800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.463||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|26.16|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||26.160|8.640|0.0001
91857365|NCT01828554|183598446|OTHER|||||||0.7497||||||A paired t-test will be used to compare the PK parameters between the full weight and limited weight based dosing.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7497
91857366|NCT02395978|183598449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.393
91857367|NCT04583423|183598460|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.4||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|35.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 50-mg MK-3655 minus % placebo|||35.1|-13.4|0.3504
91901729|NCT01346488|183698133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
91662669|NCT00796653|183220800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.444|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.153|31.596|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||31.596|14.153|<0.0001
91662670|NCT00796653|183220800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.475||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.032|24.599|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||24.599|7.032|0.0004
91662671|NCT00796653|183220801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|-0.084|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.084|-0.391|0.2057
91662672|NCT00796653|183220801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|-0.028|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.028|-0.504|0.0284
91713967|NCT04556760|183319548|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-375.3161||||0.404||95.0|-1433.6265|682.9943|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||682.9943|-1433.6265|0.404
91662673|NCT00796653|183220801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.017|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||0.017|-0.461|0.0685
91791985|NCT05171816|183461788|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.39||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||3.39|0.63|0.3407
91901730|NCT01346488|183698133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
91662674|NCT00796653|183220801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.576|0.02|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||0.020|-0.576|0.0674
91713968|NCT04556760|183319549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|365.6323||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1097.7973|1829.0618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||1829.0618|-1097.7973|0.608
91662675|NCT00796653|183220801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0163||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.662|-0.067|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.067|-0.662|0.0163
91662676|NCT00796653|183220801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.02|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.020|-0.620|0.0364
91662677|NCT00796653|183220801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.922|0.075|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||0.075|-0.922|0.0959
91713969|NCT04556760|183319549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|188.236||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3214.3323|3590.8043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||3590.8043|-3214.3323|0.897
91901731|NCT01346488|183698133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
91857368|NCT04583423|183598460|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|9.2||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|32.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 100-mg MK-3655 minus % placebo|||32.1|-15.6|0.3730
91857369|NCT04583423|183598460|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|15.4||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|42.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 300-mg MK-3655 minus % placebo|||42.3|-8.5|0.1428
91901732|NCT01346488|183698133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
91662678|NCT00796653|183220801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.115|-0.117|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.117|-1.115|0.0155
91662679|NCT00796653|183220801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.042|-0.039|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.039|-1.042|0.0347
91662680|NCT00796653|183220802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0164||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0164
91662681|NCT00796653|183220802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0196||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0196
91662682|NCT00796653|183220802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0041||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0041
91662683|NCT00796653|183220803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0388||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0388
91857370|NCT04583423|183598463|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|36.4|||||Difference=LS Mean 50 mg minus LS Mean Placebo|||36.4|1.7|
91857371|NCT04583423|183598463|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|35.8|||||Difference=LS Mean 100 mg minus LS Mean Placebo|||35.8|2.2|
91901733|NCT01346488|183698133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
91662684|NCT00796653|183220803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0038||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0038
91662685|NCT00796653|183220803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0053||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0053
91662686|NCT00796653|183220804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0555||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.0555
91662687|NCT00796653|183220804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0122||95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.4|0.0122
91662688|NCT00796653|183220804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0144||95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.4|0.0144
91662689|NCT00796653|183220805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5707||95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.1|-0.3|0.5707
91662690|NCT00796653|183220805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0814||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.0814
91662691|NCT00796653|183220805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7413||95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.2|-0.2|0.7413
91857372|NCT04583423|183598463|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|42.8|||||Difference=LS Mean 300 mg minus LS Mean Placebo|||42.8|9.5|
91857373|NCT04583423|183598464|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.6||||0.8978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|30.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 50 mg minus % Placebo|||30.3|-26.5|0.8978
91857374|NCT04583423|183598464|OTHER||Difference in Parentages|20.0||||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|46.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 100 mg minus % Placebo|||46.4|-10.6|0.1869
91662692|NCT00796653|183220806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.1524||95.0|-0.162|1.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.036|-0.162|0.1524
91857375|NCT04583423|183598464|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|8.5||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|38.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 300 mg minus % Placebo|||38.5|-22.1|0.5636
91857376|NCT04583423|183598465|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.6||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|32.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 50 mg minus % Placebo|||32.6|-28.6|0.9174
91662693|NCT00796653|183220806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.706|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.0211||95.0|0.106|1.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.307|0.106|0.0211
91791986|NCT04902326|183461792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of HbA1c of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.78
91791987|NCT04902326|183461793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of HbA1c of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.64
91857377|NCT04583423|183598465|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|18.5||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|47.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 100 mg minus % Placebo|||47.1|-14.5|0.2720
91857378|NCT04583423|183598465|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|5.3||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|37.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference= % 300 mg minus % Placebo|||37.3|-26.7|0.7586
91901734|NCT01621230|183698152|OTHER|The median (first and third quartile) lengths of the second stage of labor were estimated at 28min (15, 58) in women without epidural analgesia. Assuming a one-third increase in the length of the second stage to 37min due to epidural bupivacaine, a sample size of 155 per arm (310 total) was required for 80% power to detect such a difference using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91662694|NCT00796653|183220806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.1314||95.0|-0.139|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.066|-0.139|0.1314
91662695|NCT00796653|183220807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.0319||95.0|0.057|1.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.267|0.057|0.0319
91864240|NCT05256654|183617546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||14.0|-14.6|0.854
91662696|NCT00796653|183220807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0312||95.0|0.06|1.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.274|0.060|0.0312
91662697|NCT00796653|183220807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.1777||95.0|-0.191|1.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.029|-0.191|0.1777
91662698|NCT00796653|183220808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.1714||95.0|-0.184|1.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.035|-0.184|0.1714
91662699|NCT00796653|183220808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.1142||95.0|-0.119|1.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.103|-0.119|0.1142
91864241|NCT05256654|183617546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-6.4|-26.0|0.002
91857379|NCT02214550|183598494|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time x group interaction (OCP vs. No OCP). PBS participants are included in the OCP group|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting bladder pain at first urge ratings (0-100 visual analog scale) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||.02
91864242|NCT05256654|183617546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-1.1|-21.9|0.033
91901735|NCT01621230|183698155|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.55
91713970|NCT04556760|183319549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1061.4494||||0.381||95.0|-3588.2233|1465.3244|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||1465.3244|-3588.2233|0.381
91864243|NCT05256654|183617547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.2|-13.8|0.143
91901736|NCT01621230|183698156|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.57
91662700|NCT00796653|183220808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0888||95.0|-0.081|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.150|-0.081|0.0888
91662701|NCT00796653|183220809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318||0.1235||95.0|-0.134|1.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.113|-0.134|0.1235
91662702|NCT00796653|183220809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318||0.2666||95.0|-0.271|0.978|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.978|-0.271|0.2666
91662703|NCT00796653|183220809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.3335||95.0|-0.317|0.934|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.934|-0.317|0.3335
91662704|NCT00796653|183220810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.3287||95.0|-0.315|0.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.941|-0.315|0.3287
91662705|NCT00796653|183220810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.1341||95.0|-0.148|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.109|-0.148|0.1341
91662706|NCT00796653|183220810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.722||95.0|-0.516|0.745|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.745|-0.516|0.7220
91662707|NCT00796653|183220811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.2176||95.0|-0.234|1.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.027|-0.234|0.2176
91713971|NCT04556760|183319550|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.4211|||<|0.001||95.0|29.4904|91.3518|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||91.3518|29.4904|<0.001
91864244|NCT05256654|183617547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-10.5|-22.0|<.001
91662708|NCT00796653|183220811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.0258||95.0|0.087|1.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.348|0.087|0.0258
91662709|NCT00796653|183220811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.6044||95.0|-0.466|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.800|-0.466|0.6044
91662710|NCT00796653|183220812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.1946||95.0|0.58|1.111|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.111|0.580|0.1946
91662711|NCT00796653|183220812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4071||95.0|0.634|1.198|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.198|0.634|0.4071
91662712|NCT00796653|183220812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6404||95.0|0.67|1.267|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.267|0.670|0.6404
91662713|NCT00796653|183220813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.2942||95.0|0.336|1.399|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.399|0.336|0.2942
91662714|NCT00796653|183220813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.8594||95.0|0.493|1.82|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.820|0.493|0.8594
91662715|NCT00796653|183220813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.5466||95.0|0.405|1.593|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.593|0.405|0.5466
91662716|NCT00796653|183220814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.2494||95.0|0.566|1.15|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.150|0.566|0.2494
91662717|NCT00796653|183220814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.2006||95.0|0.555|1.126|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.126|0.555|0.2006
91662718|NCT00796653|183220814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.903|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5795||95.0|0.637|1.279|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.279|0.637|0.5795
91662719|NCT00796653|183220815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1342||0.1571||95.0|0.5613|1.0979|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.0979|0.5613|0.1571
91662720|NCT00796653|183220815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1451||0.3814||95.0|0.6205|1.2005|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.2005|0.6205|0.3814
91662721|NCT00796653|183220815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1748||0.7098||95.0|0.7699|1.468|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.4680|0.7699|0.7098
91662722|NCT00796653|183220816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.7925|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2952||0.5326||95.0|0.3814|1.6464|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.6464|0.3814|0.5326
91662723|NCT00796653|183220816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.9824||95.0|0.5038|2.016|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.0160|0.5038|0.9824
91662724|NCT00796653|183220816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3681||0.9112||95.0|0.5194|2.0832|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||2.0832|0.5194|0.9112
91662725|NCT00796653|183220817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1389||0.1136||95.0|0.5158|1.0733|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.0733|0.5158|0.1136
91713972|NCT04556760|183319550|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.4529||||0.432||95.0|-44.9414|97.8471|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||97.8471|-44.9414|0.432
91713973|NCT04556760|183319550|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0243||||0.282||95.0|-74.0731|26.0245|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||26.0245|-74.0731|0.282
91662726|NCT00796653|183220817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.7842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1449||0.1887||95.0|0.5456|1.1271|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.1271|0.5456|0.1887
91662727|NCT00796653|183220817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.9761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1747||0.8925||95.0|0.6869|1.387|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.3870|0.6869|0.8925
91662728|NCT00796653|183220820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.96|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 5mcg minus placebo||0.960|0.058|0.0270
91713974|NCT04556760|183319551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6023||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5463|1.3416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||1.3416|-2.5463|0.531
91713975|NCT04556760|183319551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4621||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0933|3.0176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||3.0176|-2.0933|0.682
91713976|NCT04556760|183319552|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0679||||0.526||95.0|-0.152|0.2866|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.2866|-0.1520|0.526
91713977|NCT04556760|183319552|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0882||||0.569||95.0|-0.2653|0.4416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg||0.4416|-0.2653|0.569
91713978|NCT04556760|183319552|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1257||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0677|0.3191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.3191|-0.0677|0.166
91713979|NCT04556760|183319553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0072|0.0271|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.0271|-0.0072|0.226
91857380|NCT02214550|183598494|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8245||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimated indicates the time x group (Continuous vs. Cyclic OCP) interaction. PBS participants are included in the continuous OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting bladder pain at first urge ratings (0-100 visual analog scale) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||.08
91857381|NCT02214550|183598494|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.9186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8121||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates a time x group interaction (D+COS-continuous microgestin vs. PBS-continuous microgestin).|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting bladder pain at first urge ratings (0-100 visual analog scale) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||.023
91662729|NCT00796653|183220820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.967|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 10 mcg minus placebo||0.967|0.082|0.0203
91662730|NCT00796653|183220820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.799|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Form 12mcg minus placebo||0.799|-0.088|0.1166
91662731|NCT00835692|183220825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Mean x 100|98.4||||||90.0|91.5|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|91.5|
91662732|NCT00835692|183220826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.5||||||90.0|89.6|97.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.6|89.6|
91662733|NCT00835692|183220827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.5||||||90.0|89.5|97.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.7|89.5|
91662734|NCT04970810|183220873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8
91791988|NCT04902326|183461794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of weight of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.87
91662735|NCT04970810|183220873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3
91662736|NCT04970810|183220873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
91662737|NCT04970810|183220874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Documented goals at baseline for all three arms.||||0.2
91662738|NCT04970810|183220874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Documented goals after Baseline in all three arms.||||<0.001
91662739|NCT04970810|183220875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Initial goal at baseline.||||0.7
91857382|NCT02214550|183598495|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3056||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time\*group interaction (OCP vs. No OCP). PBS participants are included in the OCP group|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting pressure pain thresholds (in Newtons of force transvaginally measured anteriorly against the bladder) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||0.2315
91857383|NCT02214550|183598495|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3244||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimated indicates the time x group (Continuous vs. Cyclic OCP) interaction. PBS participants are included in the continuous OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting pressure pain thresholds (in Newtons of force transvaginally measured anteriorly against the bladder) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||0.4097
91857384|NCT02214550|183598495|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3283||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimated indicates the time x group (continuous microgestin: D+COS-vs. PBS) interaction.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting pressure pain thresholds (in Newtons of force transvaginally measured anteriorly against the bladder) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||0.6341
91857385|NCT02214550|183598496|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.393|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time x group interaction (OCP vs. No OCP). PBS participants are included in the OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated for parieto-occipital peak alpha (Hz) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The OCP vs No OCP contrast was estimated here:||||.393
91857386|NCT02214550|183598496|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.941|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameters reported indicates time x group (Continuous vs. Cyclic OCP) interaction. PBS participants are included in the continuous OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated for parieto-occipital peak alpha (Hz) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The cyclic vs. continuous microgestin contrast was run here||||0.941
91864245|NCT05256654|183617547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-17.2|-27.9|<.001
91864246|NCT05256654|183617548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||0.9|-21.1|0.068
91662740|NCT04970810|183220875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Modified goal after Month 1 call with nurse.||||0.6
91857387|NCT02214550|183598496|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time x group interaction (D+COS-continuous microgestin vs. PBS-continuous microgestin).|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated for parieto-occipital peak alpha (Hz) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin contrast was evaluated here||||0.005
91662741|NCT04970810|183220876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Achieved goal at baseline across three arms.||||0.2
91662742|NCT04970810|183220876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||Achieved goal at 12 months across all three arms.||||0.9
91662743|NCT04970810|183220877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
91662744|NCT04970810|183220877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
91662745|NCT04970810|183220877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1
91662746|NCT01492439|183220904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||This applies to Semester 1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.029
91662747|NCT01492439|183220904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||||||This applies to semester 2.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.225
91662748|NCT01492439|183220905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||||||This applies to the 'positive' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.247
91857388|NCT01736215|183598498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.343||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|2.261||The binary logistic regression analysis was performed using a crude model between predictor variable endogenous EPO (EPO less than or equal to 45.2 and EPO greater than 45.3)|Regression, Logistic|||||2.261|0.052|0.266
91857389|NCT01736215|183598499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.125||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.999||The binary logistic regression analysis was performed using a crude model between predictor variable CRP (CRP less than or equal to 10.3 and CRP greater than 10.4)|Regression, Logistic|||||0.999|0.016|0.05
91662749|NCT01492439|183220905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747||||||This applies to the 'negative' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.747
91662750|NCT01492439|183220905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||||||This applies to the 'general psychopathology' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.582
91662751|NCT01492439|183220906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.000
91662752|NCT01492439|183220907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||This applies to the 'positive' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.950
91662753|NCT01492439|183220907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||||||This applies to the 'negative' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.027
91662754|NCT01492439|183220907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||||||This applies to the 'general psychopathology' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.639
91662755|NCT01492439|183220908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
91662756|NCT01492439|183220909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||||||This applies to Trial 1 on the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.314
91662757|NCT01492439|183220909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||||||This applies to the total score of trials 1-4 (total free recall) of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.242
91662758|NCT01492439|183220909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669||||||This applies to the 'long delay free recall' subtest of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.669
91662759|NCT01492439|183220910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||||||This applies to the 'trial 1' subtest of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.139
91662760|NCT01492439|183220910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||This applies to the total of trials 1-4 (total free recall) of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.269
91662761|NCT01492439|183220910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||||||This applies to the 'long delay free recall' subtest of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.666
91662762|NCT01492439|183220911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.391
91662763|NCT01492439|183220912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.958
91662764|NCT01492439|183220913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||||||This applies to the 'forward' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.754
91662765|NCT01492439|183220913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||||||This applies to the 'backward' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.518
91662766|NCT01492439|183220913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||||||This applies to the total score (forward+backwards) on the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.531
91662767|NCT01492439|183220914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||||||This applies to the 'forward' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.802
91662768|NCT01492439|183220914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||||||This applies to the 'backwards' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.091
91662769|NCT01492439|183220914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||||||This applies to the total score (forward + backwards) on the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.171
91662770|NCT01492439|183220915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.267
91662771|NCT01492439|183220916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.527
91662772|NCT01492439|183220917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||||||This applies to the percentage of perseverative errors on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.852
91662773|NCT01492439|183220917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||||||This applies to the percentage of conceptual level responses on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.637
91662774|NCT01492439|183220918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||||||This applies to the total number of correct categories on the WCST|ANCOVA|||||||0.612
91662775|NCT01492439|183220919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||This applies to the percentage of perseverative errors on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.156
91662776|NCT01492439|183220919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||||||This applies to the percentage of conceptual level responses on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.926
91662777|NCT01492439|183220920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|||||||ANCOVA|||This applies to the total number of categories on the WCST.||||0.843
91662778|NCT01492439|183220921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||||||This applies to the total number of errors made on the DVT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.129
91662779|NCT01492439|183220922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||This applies to the total time taken to complete the DVT.||||0.004
91662780|NCT01492439|183220923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853|||||||ANCOVA|This applies to the total number of errors on the DVT.||||||0.853
91662781|NCT01492439|183220924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|||||||ANCOVA|||This applies to the total time taken to complete the DVT.||||0.468
91662782|NCT04618211|183220948|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.423|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.52|-11.97||Nominal p-value|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-11.97|-21.52|< 0.0001
91662783|NCT04618211|183220948|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-9.81|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-9.81|-20.22|< 0.0001
91662784|NCT04618211|183220948|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-11.29|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-11.29|-21.27|< 0.0001
91662785|NCT04618211|183220949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.2||Nominal p-value|Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||7.2|2.01|< 0.0001
91857390|NCT03447249|183598506|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|15.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||The data presented for Primary endpoint was based on interim analysis at Week 4.||15.7|12.4|<0.0001
91857391|NCT03447249|183598507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|15.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||15.7|12.6|<0.0001
91857392|NCT03447249|183598508|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.24|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.24|0.09|<0.0001
91857393|NCT03447249|183598509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|-41.9|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-41.9|-47.2|<0.0001
91662786|NCT04618211|183220949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.08||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.3|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||6.3|1.5|0.0021
91791989|NCT04902326|183461795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of weight of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.87
91857394|NCT03447249|183598510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|23.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.0|17.2|<0.0001
91857395|NCT03447249|183598511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.31|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||1.31|0.91|<0.0001
91857396|NCT03447249|183598512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-40.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-40.5|-46.3|<0.0001
91662787|NCT04618211|183220949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.19|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||6.19|2.1|< 0.0001
91662788|NCT04618211|183220950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|9.22||Nominal p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||9.22|2.81|< 0.0001
91662789|NCT04618211|183220950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.27|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||4.27|1.19|0.0127
91662790|NCT04618211|183220950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.65||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.38|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||4.38|1.61|0.0001
91857397|NCT03447249|183598513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|21.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||21.3|14.5|<0.0001
91857398|NCT03447249|183598515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.54||||||||0.54|0.24|
91857399|NCT03447249|183598516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|3.8||||||||3.8|2.7|
91857400|NCT02376790|183598519|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|22.0||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The primary hypothesis of this study is that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with psoriatic arthritis achieving ACR 20 response at week 24.||22.0|5.8|0.005
91864247|NCT05256654|183617548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-17.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-17.6|-32.6|<.001
91864248|NCT05256654|183617548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-15.7|-31.1|<.001
91662791|NCT04618211|183220951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|8.59||Nominal p-value|Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||8.59|2.41|< 0.0001
91662792|NCT04618211|183220951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.65||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.38|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||7.38|1.8|0.0003
91662793|NCT04618211|183220951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|6.63|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||6.63|2.26|< 0.0001
91662794|NCT04618211|183220952|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.46||Nominal p-value|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.46|-1.11|< 0.0001
91662795|NCT04618211|183220952|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.26|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.26|-0.97|0.0008
91662796|NCT04618211|183220952|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.04|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.04|-0.73|0.0291
91662797|NCT04618211|183220953|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|64.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.35|87.91||Nominal p-value|Mixed model repeated measures|||||87.91|40.35|< 0.0001
91857401|NCT02376790|183598519|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|9.2||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|17.3||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The primary hypothesis of this study is that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with psoriatic arthritis achieving ACR 20 response at week 24.||17.3|1.0|0.029
91857402|NCT02376790|183598520|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|12.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|19.6||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The secondary hypothesis of this study was that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with PsA achieving MDA response at week 24.||19.6|4.9|0.005
91857403|NCT02376790|183598520|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.9||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The secondary hypothesis of this study was that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with PsA achieving MDA response at week 24.||18.9|4.2|0.005
91857404|NCT02376790|183598522|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|23.0||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR50 response at week 24.||23.0|6.4|<0.001
91857405|NCT02376790|183598522|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|20.2||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR50 response at week 24.||20.2|3.4|0.006
91662798|NCT04618211|183220953|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|62.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.71|88.67|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||88.67|36.71|< 0.0001
91662799|NCT04618211|183220953|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|71.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.613|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.09|96.03|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||96.03|46.09|< 0.0001
91662800|NCT00466167|183220976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.4|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||7.4|2.4|0.0001
91857406|NCT02376790|183598523|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|20.4||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR70 response at week 24.||20.4|6.5|<0.001
91791990|NCT04902326|183461796|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean months engaged (with DPP or metformin) of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||<0.0001
91791991|NCT00461331|183461801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5||0.52||95.0|87.9|100.0|||Regression, Linear|7 patients underwent early termination of either one or both of their test period due to loss of glycemic control||Glucose levels for patients when they were on each insulin were analyzed. All data was analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Repeated measures, paired t-test and Pearson's correlation on SPSS 14.0 for windows and statistical R-package were used to compare the various variables. This was a pilot study.||100.0|87.9|0.52
91791992|NCT00461331|183461802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.165||0.15||95.0|0.97|9.23|||Regression, Linear||This was between days 3 and 5 after the last pump infusion line change using Insulin Aspart and Insulin Lispro. Adequate samples were not available to do the analysis for day 2.|All data was analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Repeated measures, paired t-test and Pearson's correlation on SPSS 14.0 for windows and statistical R-package were used to compare the various variables.||9.23|0.97|0.15
91791993|NCT00461331|183461803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.35||0.55||95.0|4.4|9.4|||Regression, Linear||This was for test period 1 between days 3 and 5 after the last pump infusion line change.|All data was analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Repeated measures, paired t-test and Pearson's correlation on SPSS 14.0 for windows and statistical R-package were used to compare the various variables.||9.4|4.4|0.55
91791994|NCT01155479|183461804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|2.6||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.3|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 2 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||4.30|0.86|0.0033
91791995|NCT01155479|183461804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|1.3||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.94|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 5 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||2.94|-0.41|0.1382
91791996|NCT01155479|183461804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.4||||0.6378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.11|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 10 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||2.11|-1.29|0.6378
91791997|NCT01155479|183461804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.3||||0.6923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|2.03|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Rasagiline (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||2.03|-1.35|0.6923
91791998|NCT01155479|183461805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-9.7||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|1.82||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Preladenant 2 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||1.82|-21.0|0.0785
91791999|NCT01155479|183461805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-6.3||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|5.05||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Preladenant 5 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||5.05|-17.6|0.2735
91792000|NCT01155479|183461805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-3.7||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|7.99||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Preladenant 10 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||7.99|-15.2|0.4823
91792001|NCT01155479|183461805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-2.3||||0.6827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|9.24||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Rasagiline (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||9.24|-13.9|0.6827
91792002|NCT01155479|183461806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.7||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.27|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 2 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||1.27|0.09|0.0235
91792003|NCT01155479|183461806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.5||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.04|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 5 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||1.04|-0.11|0.1093
91792004|NCT01155479|183461806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.2||||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.75|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 10 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||0.75|-0.42|0.5756
91792005|NCT01155479|183461806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.1||||0.6657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.7|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Rasagiline (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||0.70|-0.45|0.6657
91792006|NCT01857310|183461811|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.8|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Live birth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.8|-4.7|
91662801|NCT00466167|183220976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|9.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||9.1|4.2|<.0001
91662802|NCT00466167|183220977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from Placebo|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.9|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||7.9|1.0|0.0122
91662803|NCT00466167|183220977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.5|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||10.5|3.7|<.0001
91662804|NCT03930732|183220993|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and a few secondary endpoint analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.049. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported (till OM 9). The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.049 level.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.324||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|-0.14|||Negative binomial model||Derived using delta method.|Derived using negative binomial model with the total number of the events occurring during the 52-week treatment period as the response variable, and treatment group, region (pooled country), inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose, smoking status at screening, baseline disease severity, and number of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation events within one year prior to the study as covariates, and log-transformed treatment duration as an offset variable.||-0.140|-0.508|0.0005
91662805|NCT03930732|183220994|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.083|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.125||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model with the change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 up to Week 12 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.125|0.042|<0.0001
91662806|NCT03930732|183220995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.083||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.128||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-BDFEV1 up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.128|0.038|0.0003
91662807|NCT03930732|183220996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.124||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.203||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 up to Week 12 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.203|0.045|0.0022
91662808|NCT03930732|183220997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.127||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.212||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.212|0.042|0.0034
91662809|NCT03930732|183220998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.363||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.459|-1.266||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in SGRQ total score up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline SGRQ total score, and SGRQ baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.266|-5.459|0.0017
91662810|NCT03930732|183220999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.439||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.096|1.89||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Derived from logistic regression model which includes treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, and baseline SGRQ total score as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.890|1.096|0.0089
91713980|NCT04556760|183319553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0033||||0.619||95.0|-0.0128|0.0195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||0.0195|-0.0128|0.619
91792007|NCT01857310|183461811|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Live birth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.09|0.88|
91662811|NCT03930732|183221000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.137||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.823|-0.45||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in E-RS: COPD RS-Total Score to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline E-RS: COPD RS-Total Score, and baseline E-RS: COPD RS-Total Score-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.450|-1.823|0.0012
91662812|NCT03930732|183221001|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.418||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|-0.109||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|Negative binomial model||Derived using delta method.|Derived using negative binomial model with the total number of the events occurring during the 52-week treatment period as the response variable, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, baseline disease severity, and number of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation events within one year prior to the study as covariates, and log-transformed treatment duration as an offset variable.||-0.109|-0.728|0.0052
91662813|NCT04708028|183221010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||0.379
91662814|NCT04708028|183221010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes Post intervention (Dog exposure or no dog exposure)||||0.646
91662815|NCT04708028|183221010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after starting dental procedure||||0.219
91857407|NCT02376790|183598523|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|20.7||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR70 response at week 24.||20.7|6.7|<0.001
91857408|NCT02376790|183598532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.34||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in PASDAS at week 24||-0.34|-0.91|<0.001
91662816|NCT04708028|183221010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after completion of dental procedure||||0.223
91662817|NCT04708028|183221011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||0.410
91662818|NCT04708028|183221011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes Post intervention (Dog exposure or no dog exposure)||||0.127
91662819|NCT04708028|183221011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after starting dental procedure||||0.268
91662820|NCT04708028|183221011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after completion of dental procedure||||0.353
91662821|NCT04128761|183221033|OTHER|Mechanistic study examining the influence of scarcity narratives on delay discounting||||||0.6||||||The reported p-value is for the Scarcity and Session interaction.|ANOVA|||The effects of narrative type on delay discounting rates were evaluated using a two-way (Scarcity vs. Session) repeated-measures ANOVA.||||.60
91662822|NCT04128761|183221034|OTHER|Mechanistic study examining the influence of scarcity narratives on intensity of demand (i.e., consumption at $0)||||||0.54||||||The p-value reported is for the Scarcity and Session interaction term of the two-way repeated-measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The effects of narrative type on intensity of alcohol demand were evaluated using a two-way (Scarcity vs. Session) repeated-measures ANOVA.||||.54
91662823|NCT04128761|183221035|OTHER|Mechanistic study examining the influence of scarcity narratives on alcohol craving||||||0.88||||||The p-value reported is for the Scarcity and Session interaction term of the two-way repeated-measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The effects of narrative type alcohol craving were evaluated using a two-way (Scarcity vs. Session) repeated-measures ANOVA.||||.88
91662824|NCT04128761|183221036|OTHER|Mechanistic study examining the influence of scarcity narratives on stress|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||The effects of narrative type on stress was evaluated using a one-way ANOVA.||||<.001
91662825|NCT03393208|183221041|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LeastSquare(LS) Mean%|99.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.84|107.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||107.20|92.84|
91662826|NCT03393208|183221041|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.67||||||90.0|91.25|106.69||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||106.69|91.25|
91662827|NCT03393208|183221042|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|99.62||||||90.0|92.69|106.77||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||106.77|92.69|
91662828|NCT03393208|183221042|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|101.5||||||90.0|93.72|109.92||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||109.92|93.72|
91662829|NCT03393208|183221043|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.25||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||0.25|-0.25|
91662830|NCT03393208|183221043|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Median Difference|0.25||||||90.0|-0.25|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||0.50|-0.25|
91662831|NCT03393208|183221045|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|101.26||||||90.0|94.33|108.69||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||108.69|94.33|
91662832|NCT03393208|183221045|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.61|105.21||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||105.21|91.61|
91662833|NCT00207090|183221063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Point estimate|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.106||||||Two-way analyses of variance were performed on log-transformed values of Cmax. The factors in the analyses were participant and day. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale.||1.106|0.751|
91662834|NCT00207090|183221064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Point estimate|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.482|0.664||||||Two-way analyses of variance were performed on log-transformed values of (AUC \[INF\]). The factors in the analyses were participant and day. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale.||0.664|0.482|
91662835|NCT03480763|183221084|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site redness/erythema||8.5|0.1|0.043
91662836|NCT03480763|183221084|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|21.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site tenderness/pain||21.2|6.0|<0.001
91662837|NCT03480763|183221084|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|10.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||10.2|-0.5|0.077
91662838|NCT03480763|183221085|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.6||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site redness/erythema||6.6|-5.5|0.855
91662839|NCT03480763|183221085|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|3.5||||0.385||95.0|-4.4|11.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site tenderness/pain||11.3|-4.4|0.385
91662840|NCT03480763|183221085|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|2.0||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||9.2|-5.1|0.577
91662841|NCT03480763|183221086|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Joint pain/arthralgia||4.9|-2.5|0.523
91662842|NCT03480763|183221086|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|9.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|15.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Tiredness/fatigue||15.6|3.7|0.002
91662843|NCT03480763|183221086|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.4||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Headache||6.7|-3.9|0.597
91662844|NCT03480763|183221086|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|6.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Muscle pain/myalgia||12.1|1.2|0.016
91662845|NCT03480763|183221087|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.1||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Joint pain/arthralgia||4.7|-4.4|0.961
91662846|NCT03480763|183221087|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.0||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Tiredness/fatigue||10.8|-2.8|0.252
91857409|NCT02376790|183598532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in PASDAS at week 24||-0.34|-0.92|<0.001
91662847|NCT03480763|183221087|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.5||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Headache||4.8|-5.8|0.852
91662848|NCT03480763|183221087|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.9||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Muscle pain/myalgia||11.2|-1.4|0.125
91662849|NCT03480763|183221088|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.2||||||Vaccine-related SAEs following V114 or Prevnar 13™||1.2|-1.2|
91662850|NCT03480763|183221089|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||Vaccine-related SAEs following PNEUMOVAX™23||1.3|-1.3|
91662851|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.74||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.74|1.10|
91662852|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model|GMT Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.29|0.90|
91662853|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||1.32|0.85|
91662854|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model|GMT Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.56||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.56|0.94|
91662855|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.43|0.95|
91662856|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.35||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.35|0.93|
91662857|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.25|0.90|
91662858|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.33||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.33|0.91|
91662859|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.53||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.53|1.05|
91662860|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.34|0.95|
91662861|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.38||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.38|0.96|
91662862|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.20|0.89|
91662863|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.61||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.61|1.01|
91662864|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.06||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||2.06|1.29|
91662865|NCT03480763|183221090|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||1.17|0.77|
91662866|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.07|0.79|
91662867|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.16|0.87|
91857410|NCT02376790|183598533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|1.68||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in CDAI at week 24||1.68|-2.93|0.59
91662868|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||1.02|0.74|
91662869|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.18|0.84|
91662870|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.41||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.41|0.96|
91662871|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.4||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.40|0.96|
91662872|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.16|0.85|
91662873|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.22|0.89|
91662874|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.39||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.39|0.98|
91662875|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.36||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.36|1.00|
91857411|NCT02376790|183598533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.99||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in CDAI at week 24||0.99|-3.63|0.26
91662876|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.29||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.29|0.95|
91662877|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.27||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.27|0.93|
91662878|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.35||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.35|0.96|
91662879|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.77||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||1.77|1.16|
91662880|NCT03480763|183221091|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||0.95|0.67|
91662881|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.58||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.58|0.94|
91662882|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.3||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||2.30|1.56|
91662883|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.97|0.60|
91662884|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.4||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.40|0.81|
91662885|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.53||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.53|0.92|
91857412|NCT02376790|183598534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.38||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in SDAI at week 24||1.38|-3.35|0.41
91662886|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.06||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||2.06|1.31|
91662887|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.14|0.80|
91713981|NCT04556760|183319553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0009||||0.917||95.0|-0.0189|0.0207|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.0207|-0.0189|0.917
91857413|NCT02376790|183598534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|0.65||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in SDAI at week 24||0.65|-4.09|0.15
91857414|NCT02376790|183598535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.07||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in DAS28 at week 24||-0.07|-0.52|0.010
91662888|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.24|0.83|
91662889|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.37||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.37|0.87|
91662890|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.84||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.84|1.20|
91662891|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.55||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.55|1.06|
91662892|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.32|0.92|
91662893|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.0||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||2.00|1.18|
91662894|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|34.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.13|46.5||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||46.50|26.13|
91662895|NCT03480763|183221092|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|9.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|11.2||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||11.20|7.48|
91662896|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.09|0.72|
91662897|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.07||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||2.07|1.46|
91662898|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.99||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.99|0.64|
91662899|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.3||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.30|0.84|
91662900|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.77||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.77|1.10|
91662901|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.1||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||2.10|1.28|
91662902|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.13||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.13|0.74|
91662903|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.41||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.41|0.91|
91662904|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.38|0.87|
91662905|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.92||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.92|1.27|
91662906|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.39||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.39|0.91|
91713982|NCT04556760|183319554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0007||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0008|0.0022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.0022|-0.0008|0.357
91713983|NCT04556760|183319554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0003||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0012|0.0017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||0.0017|-0.0012|0.676
91662907|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.41||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.41|0.92|
91662908|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.04||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||2.04|1.27|
91662909|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|16.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.78|19.86||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||19.86|13.78|
91662910|NCT03480763|183221093|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|12.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.82|15.19||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||15.19|10.82|
91662911|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.53||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.53|0.92|
91662912|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.9||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.90|1.29|
91662913|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.9||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.90|0.57|
91662914|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.33||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.33|0.78|
91662915|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.41||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.41|0.93|
91662916|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.77||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.77|1.16|
91662917|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.11|0.80|
91662918|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.18|0.81|
91662919|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.36||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.36|0.90|
91713984|NCT04556760|183319554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0012||||0.096||95.0|-0.0002|0.0026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.0026|-0.0002|0.096
91662920|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.55||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.55|1.05|
91662921|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.31||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.31|0.91|
91662922|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.29||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.29|0.91|
91662923|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.76||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.76|1.06|
91713985|NCT04556760|183319555|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|5.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||5.95|-9.40|0.646
91662924|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|12.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.44|17.34||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||17.34|9.44|
91662925|NCT03480763|183221098|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.84||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||3.84|2.73|
91662926|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.92||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||0.92|0.65|
91662927|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.63||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.63|1.24|
91662928|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.91|0.64|
91662929|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.05|0.75|
91662930|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.67||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.67|1.12|
91662931|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.81||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.81|1.21|
91662932|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.02|0.72|
91662933|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.23||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.23|0.88|
91662934|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.26|0.88|
91662935|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.64||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.64|1.17|
91662936|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.33||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.33|0.97|
91662937|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.32||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.32|0.96|
91662938|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.62||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.62|1.12|
91713986|NCT04556760|183319555|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.97||||0.11||95.0|-25.39|3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||3.44|-25.39|0.110
91713987|NCT04556760|183319555|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.932||95.0|-10.32|9.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||9.61|-10.32|0.932
91713988|NCT04556760|183319556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|32.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||32.7|-17.4|0.533
91713989|NCT04556760|183319556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.3||||0.311||95.0|-26.7|71.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||71.3|-26.7|0.311
91662939|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.33|7.21||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||7.21|5.33|
91662940|NCT03480763|183221099|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|5.73||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||5.73|4.38|
91662941|NCT00115063|183221134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91662942|NCT00115063|183221135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91662943|NCT00115063|183221136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value for systolic blood pressure mean.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91662944|NCT00115063|183221136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-value for dystolic blood pressure mean.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91662945|NCT00115063|183221137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value for LDL cholesterol|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91662946|NCT00115063|183221137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for HDL cholesterol|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91662947|NCT00115063|183221137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-value for triglycerides|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
91662948|NCT00115063|183221137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for uric acid|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91713990|NCT04556760|183319556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0||||0.204||95.0|-21.9|83.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||83.9|-21.9|0.204
91662949|NCT00115063|183221138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91662950|NCT00115063|183221139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91662951|NCT00185458|183221144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||Time effect tested with Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the reference period tested.||||0.128
91662952|NCT00185458|183221145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||Time effect tested with Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the reference period tested.||||0.296
91662953|NCT00185458|183221147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91662954|NCT00185458|183221149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.027
91662955|NCT00185458|183221150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91662956|NCT00185458|183221151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91662957|NCT00185458|183221152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91662958|NCT00185458|183221153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.054
91662959|NCT00185458|183221154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91662960|NCT00185458|183221155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91662961|NCT00185458|183221156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91662962|NCT00185458|183221157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91662963|NCT00185458|183221158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91662964|NCT00185458|183221159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91662965|NCT00185458|183221160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.175
91662966|NCT00185458|183221161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.062
91662967|NCT00185458|183221162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91662968|NCT00830024|183221163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.75||||||90.0|93.35|104.47|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.47|93.35|
91713991|NCT04556760|183319566|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0066||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.888|0.8748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.8748|-8.8880|0.103
91857415|NCT02376790|183598535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.17||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in DAS28 at week 24||-0.17|-0.62|<0.001
91662969|NCT00830024|183221164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.94||||||90.0|91.76|100.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.3|91.76|
91662970|NCT00830024|183221165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.89||||||90.0|91.67|100.31|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.31|91.67|
91662971|NCT02554890|183221166|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|0.7143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6315|0.808||ANCOVA model for a log-scaled response with treatment group as a class variable and biomarker baseline value in logarithmic scale as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||0.8080|0.6315|<.0001
91662972|NCT02554890|183221170|OTHER||exponentially back transformed from LS m|0.8487||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7694|0.9361|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||0.9361|0.7694|0.0011
91662973|NCT02554890|183221171|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|1.6487|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4559|1.8669|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||1.8669|1.4559|<.0001
91857416|NCT02376790|183598536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.05||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.05|-0.15|0.34
91662974|NCT02554890|183221172|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|1.4186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3248|1.519|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||1.5190|1.3248|<.0001
91662975|NCT02554890|183221173|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|1.4745|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3752|1.581|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||1.5810|1.3752|<.0001
91662976|NCT02554890|183221174|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|0.7133|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6171|0.8245||ANCOVA model for a log-scaled response with treatment group as a class variable and biomarker baseline value in logarithmic scale as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||0.8245|0.6171|<.0001
91662977|NCT00834275|183221175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.0||||||90.0|94.0|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||104|94|
91662978|NCT00834275|183221176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.3|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||105|98.3|
91662979|NCT00834275|183221177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.3|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||104|98.3|
91662980|NCT03649477|183221178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.202||||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.729|1.324||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.324|-3.729|0.3493
91857417|NCT02376790|183598536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.08|-0.12|0.67
91857418|NCT02376790|183598537|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.51||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Physical Component Summary at week 24||3.51|0.37|0.015
91857419|NCT02376790|183598537|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.28||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Physical Component Summary at week 24||3.28|0.13|0.033
91662981|NCT03649477|183221178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.136||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.685|-0.586||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.586|-5.685|0.0162
91662982|NCT03649477|183221179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.608||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.674||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.674|-2.890|0.6001
91857420|NCT02376790|183598537|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.63||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Mental Component Summary at week 24||1.63|-1.69|0.97
91857421|NCT02376790|183598537|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.16||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Mental Component Summary at week 24||1.16|-2.16|0.56
91662983|NCT03649477|183221179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.764||||0.5143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.068|1.541||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.541|-3.068|0.5143
91662984|NCT03649477|183221180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.183||||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.175|3.541||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.541|-3.175|0.9144
91662985|NCT03649477|183221180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.812||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.177|-0.446||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.446|-7.177|0.0266
91662986|NCT03649477|183221181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312||||0.1598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.748|0.125||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.125|-0.748|0.1598
91857422|NCT02376790|183598538|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.09||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||-0.09|-1.03|0.020
91662987|NCT03649477|183221181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.498||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.937|-0.059||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.059|-0.937|0.0266
91662988|NCT03649477|183221182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.085||||0.2479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.932|0.761||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.761|-2.932|0.2479
91713992|NCT04556760|183319566|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7535||||0.005||95.0|2.6034|8.9036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||8.9036|2.6034|0.005
91662989|NCT03649477|183221182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.412||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.276|-0.548||0.05 for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.548|-4.276|0.0114
91713993|NCT04556760|183319566|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0619||||0.023||95.0|1.674|16.4499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||16.4499|1.6740|0.023
91713994|NCT02513550|183319570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.005
91713995|NCT02513550|183319570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||=|0.522|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.522
91662990|NCT00748072|183221187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||Chi-squared|||The sample size was calculated by the difference in post-biopsy bleeding complications. Since the presence of bleeding was demonstrated in about 30-40 % in our previous observational study, we hypothesized a reduction risk of 0.50 and an absolute reduction of risk from 0.40 to 0.20. The sample size of the study for a power of 0.80 and a significance level \<0.05 was calculated in 158 patients.||0.85|0.24|0.01
91662991|NCT01750294|183221191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91713996|NCT02513550|183319571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.006
91713997|NCT02513550|183319571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|||=|0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.118
91857423|NCT02376790|183598538|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.08||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.08|-0.88|0.10
91857424|NCT02376790|183598540|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|13.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.23||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.52|79.36||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||79.36|-51.52|0.68
91857425|NCT02376790|183598540|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.05||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.75|71.42||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||71.42|-58.75|0.85
91857426|NCT02376790|183598541|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|12.9||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|26.2||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||26.2|-0.4|0.057
91857427|NCT02376790|183598541|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|10.9||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|24.4||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||24.4|-2.5|0.12
91857428|NCT02376790|183598542|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.98||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.98|-0.66|0.70
91857429|NCT02376790|183598542|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.86||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.86|-0.79|0.93
91857430|NCT02376790|183598543|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.2||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|13.7||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||13.7|-7.3|0.55
91857431|NCT02376790|183598543|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|8.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|19.4||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||19.4|-1.9|0.11
91857432|NCT02376790|183598544|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|17.87||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||17.87|0.85|0.031
91857433|NCT02376790|183598544|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|11.54||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||11.54|-5.49|0.49
91857434|NCT02376790|183598545|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|15.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.99|24.9||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of percent improvement from baseline in the percentage of BSA involved in psoriasis in the subgroup of participants with ≥ 10% BSA involvement at baseline.||24.90|6.99|<0.001
91904150|NCT04667377|183703255|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|1.05||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.05|-3.92|0.2569
91713998|NCT02849743|183319589|OTHER||Least Means Square|-0.5||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.92
91713999|NCT02849743|183319590|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-15784.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
91857435|NCT02376790|183598545|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|15.83||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of percent improvement from baseline in the percentage of BSA involved in psoriasis in the subgroup of participants with ≥ 10% BSA involvement at baseline.||15.83|-1.89|0.12
91857436|NCT02376790|183598550|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|20.8||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||20.8|2.0|0.019
91714000|NCT02849743|183319591|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|48.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91714001|NCT02849743|183319592|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-2.8||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
91714002|NCT02849743|183319593|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|1.2||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.86
91714003|NCT02849743|183319594|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|2.4||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.88
91714004|NCT02849743|183319595|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.02||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.50
91662992|NCT02832063|183221226|EQUIVALENCE|Primary efficacy power calculations assume a \>25% difference between B244 treatment and placebo and a 15% dropout. Each of the endpoints comprising the co-primary endpoint will be tested at an alpha level of p\<0.05. In order to achieve 90% power with a 5% Type I error rate, a total of 372 participants is required.||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.034
91662993|NCT00772603|183221241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-18.3|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-5.8||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(T) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 31% to 42% between placebo and 2400mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||-5.80|-30.40|=0.003
91662994|NCT00772603|183221241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.3|||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|1.2||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(T) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 24% to 32% between placebo and 1200mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||1.20|-22.30|=0.078
91662995|NCT00772603|183221242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-33.0|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-6.3||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(M) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 31% to 42% between placebo and 2400mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||-6.30|-33.00|=0.003
91662996|NCT00772603|183221242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-3.3|||=|0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|9.7||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(M) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 24% to 32% between placebo and 1200mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||9.70|-16.20|=0.589
91662997|NCT00772603|183221243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.983|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|3.494|||Regression, Logistic|||The treatment response was analyzed using a logistic regression model with treatment group as a factor and country (or cluster), age, sex, and baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as explanatory variables.||3.494|1.126|=0.018
91662998|NCT00772603|183221243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||=|0.075||95.0|0.95|2.937|||Regression, Logistic|||The treatment response was analyzed using a logistic regression model with treatment group as a factor and country (or cluster), age, sex, and baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as explanatory variables.||2.937|0.950|=0.075
91662999|NCT00772603|183221244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 2400mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Treatment Phase were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.013
91663000|NCT00772603|183221244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.528||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 1200mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Treatment Phase were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.528
91663001|NCT00772603|183221245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 2400mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Maintenance Period were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.008
91663002|NCT00772603|183221245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0546||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 1200mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Maintenance Period were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.0546
91663003|NCT00835575|183221246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.52||||||90.0|92.84|106.69|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.69|92.84|
91663004|NCT00835575|183221247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.59||||||90.0|99.13|108.25|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.25|99.13|
91663005|NCT00835575|183221248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.87||||||90.0|99.47|108.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.46|99.47|
91663006|NCT00859521|183221254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|96.7||||||90.0|92.4|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|92.4|
91663007|NCT00859521|183221255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.4||||||90.0|96.9|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100|96.9|
91714005|NCT02849743|183319596|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.02||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.49
91714006|NCT02849743|183319598|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.68
91714007|NCT02849743|183319599|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.52
91792008|NCT01857310|183461812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Semen volume will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.2|-0.2|
91792009|NCT01857310|183461812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Semen volume will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.2|-0.1|
91714008|NCT02849743|183319600|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Anxiety||||0.91
91714009|NCT02849743|183319600|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Depression||||0.91
91714010|NCT02849743|183319600|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|4.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Cognition||||0.04
91857437|NCT02376790|183598550|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|4.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|14.0||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||14.0|-5.6|0.40
91663008|NCT00859521|183221256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.8||||||90.0|97.2|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100|97.2|
91663009|NCT01609257|183221257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||||||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.674
91663010|NCT01609257|183221264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Statistically significant at p\<0.05. No multiplicity adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91663011|NCT01609257|183221265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Statistically significant at p\<0.05. No multiplicity adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Score 1||||0.008
91663012|NCT01609257|183221265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||||||Statistically significant at p\<0.05. No multiplicity adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Score 2||||0.037
91663013|NCT01609257|183221266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.199
91663014|NCT01609257|183221267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||||||Comparison of % Positive|Fisher Exact|||Any Day 1 to 30||||0.562
91663015|NCT02125461|183221290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.65|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.65|0.42|<0.0001
91663016|NCT02125461|183221291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.00251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.87|0.53|0.00251
91663017|NCT02125461|183221292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis performed using Fisher's exact test with mid p-value modification by subtracting half of the probability of the observed table from Fisher's p-value.||||<0.001
91663018|NCT02125461|183221296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.68|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.68|0.41|<0.0001
91663019|NCT02125461|183221297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P-value generated based on z-test where z-test statistic is the ratio of the log-transformed ratio of the cumulative hazards in the 2 treatment arms divided by the square root of the variance.|z-test|The variance was estimated using the delta method and Greenwood's formula.||||||0.005
91663020|NCT02125461|183221298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.73|0.46|<0.0001
91663021|NCT02125461|183221299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.18||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.18|0.77|0.664
91663022|NCT02125461|183221300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.29||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for dyspnea. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.29|0.88|0.522
91663023|NCT02125461|183221300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for cough. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.12|0.74|0.380
91663024|NCT02125461|183221300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.0||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for hemoptysis. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.00|0.56|0.048
91663025|NCT02125461|183221300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.19||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for chest pain. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.19|0.75|0.626
91663026|NCT02645253|183221311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0785|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.882|1.15|||Linear Model|||||1.15|0.882|
91864249|NCT05256654|183617549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-25.1|-45.8|<.001
91663027|NCT02645253|183221313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.23|||Linear Model|||||1.23|1.06|
91663028|NCT02645253|183221315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|1.31|||Linear Model|||||1.31|0.801|
91663029|NCT02645253|183221325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0633|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.09|||Linear Model|||||1.09|0.870|
91663030|NCT02645253|183221330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0552|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.14|||Linear Model|||||1.14|0.951|
91663031|NCT02645253|183221342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|102.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.88|122.09|||ANCOVA||Day 1/ Day -1|||122.09|86.88|
91663032|NCT02645253|183221342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|91.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.32|109.04|||ANCOVA||Day 16 / Day -1|||109.04|77.32|
91663033|NCT02645253|183221342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|105.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|125.49|||ANCOVA||Day 1 / Day -1|||125.49|89.40|
91663034|NCT02645253|183221342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|89.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.35|106.16|||ANCOVA||Day 16 / Day -1|||106.16|75.35|
91663035|NCT02645253|183221342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|99.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.12|118.46|||ANCOVA||Day 1 / Day -1|||118.46|84.12|
91663036|NCT02645253|183221342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|75.38||||||95.0|63.4|89.61|||ANCOVA||Day 16 / Day -1|||89.61|63.40|
91663037|NCT03552484|183221355|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within-group paired t-tests and between-group paired t-tests||||0.59
91663038|NCT03552484|183221356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Between-group comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91663039|NCT03552484|183221357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||Between-group comparison of change in Multidimensional Caregiver Strain Index|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
91663040|NCT00862563|183221438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups. Means used for the analysis are least means squares from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.06
91663041|NCT00862563|183221438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 was considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.008
91663042|NCT00862563|183221438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 was considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Week 12 mean for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.07
91663043|NCT00862563|183221438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means.|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered as being significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 mean for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates,||||0.003
91864250|NCT05256654|183617549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-43.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-43.3|-56.4|<.001
91663044|NCT00862563|183221438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates. .||||0.0002
91663045|NCT00862563|183221438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0007
91714011|NCT02849743|183319600|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|2.3||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Social Function||||0.36
91714012|NCT02849743|183319601|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|0.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.64
91857438|NCT02376790|183598551|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|20.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|33.3||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of percentage of participants with an sPGA of 0 or 1 at Week 24 in participants with baseline BSA involvement with psoriasis ≥ 10%.||33.3|6.8|0.004
91864251|NCT05256654|183617549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-52.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-45.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-45.9|-58.4|<.001
91864252|NCT05256654|183617550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-21.2|-52.2|<.001
91857439|NCT02376790|183598551|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|17.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|30.2||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of percentage of participants with an sPGA of 0 or 1 at Week 24 in participants with baseline BSA involvement with psoriasis ≥ 10%.||30.2|4.0|0.012
91901737|NCT02856893|183698176|OTHER|The decision rule is based on confidence intervals. The treatment strategy will be considered feasible (H0 is rejected) if the lower bound of the 84% two-sided confidence interval of the PFS rate at 18 months is greater than 40%.|Kaplan-Meier survival rate|67.2|||||TWO_SIDED|84.0|56.4|75.9|||||"The population parameter is PFS Rate at 18 months in the Gefitinib till + blood test/progression then Osimertinib arm. The decision rule is based on the lower bound of the estimated confidence interval around the point estimate."|Each arm will be assessed individually against a historical control with a single proportion test. The test is designed to reject a PFS rate at 18 months of 40% (null hypothesis) at the 0.08 significance level. Under the alternative hypothesis of a PFS rate at 18 months of 60%, 49 patients are required to reach a power of 84%.||75.9|56.4|
91663046|NCT00862563|183221438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.15
91663047|NCT00862563|183221438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariate values.||||0.014
91663048|NCT00862563|183221438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means s from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.1
91663049|NCT00862563|183221439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference Week 12|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison between mean values obtained for the topiramate and placebo groups for Week 12. Model generated least mean squares were used for this analysis.||||0.015
91663050|NCT00862563|183221439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference Week 12|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of means for the zonisamide and placebo group for Week 12. Mixed models generated means were used in this analysis.||||0.784
91663051|NCT00862563|183221439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference Week 12|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.264|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of means for the levetiracetam and placebo groups for Week 12. Model generated least mean squares were used for this analysis.||||0.264
91663052|NCT00862563|183221440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.013
91714013|NCT02849743|183319602|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.83
91714014|NCT03677635|183319605|OTHER||Standardised Effect Size|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.86|||Standardised Effect Size|||||.86|.21|
91857440|NCT02238483|183598565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.4|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|H0: Hazard Ratio (AZD7624/placebo) equals 1 vs. H1: Hazard Ratio does not equal 1.||2.40|0.81|0.2371
91857441|NCT02238483|183598566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.16|||regression, negative binomial||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||2.16|0.82|0.249
91857442|NCT02238483|183598567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.5|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||2.50|0.89|0.1261
91857443|NCT02238483|183598568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.21|||regression, negative binomial|||||2.21|0.88|0.157
91714015|NCT03677635|183319606|OTHER|Cohen's d was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.48|||Standardised Effect Size|||||.48|-.59|
91857444|NCT02238483|183598569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.76|||Regression, Cox|||||2.76|0.85|0.1529
91714016|NCT02168491|183319607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|||||||paired t test|||||||<0.02
91857445|NCT02238483|183598570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.52|||regression, negative binomial|||||2.52|0.89|0.129
91857446|NCT02238483|183598571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.01|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||2.01|0.43|0.8543
91857447|NCT02238483|183598572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.29|||regression, negative binomial|||||2.29|0.55|0.751
91857448|NCT02238483|183598573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.5381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||1.38|0.54|0.5381
91857449|NCT02238483|183598574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.3|||regression, negative binomial|||||1.30|0.55|0.440
91857450|NCT02238483|183598575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Negative values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.85|-1.60|0.5474
91857451|NCT02238483|183598576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.6352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||4.29|-2.62|0.6352
91857452|NCT02238483|183598577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.10|-0.34|0.2694
91714017|NCT02168491|183319608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||paired t test|||||||0.24
91714018|NCT02168491|183319609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||paired t test|||||||0.28
91857453|NCT02238483|183598578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.5144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.07|-0.03|0.5144
91857454|NCT02238483|183598579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.05|-0.10|0.5416
91792010|NCT01857310|183461813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-12.5|3.9|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm concentration represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||3.9|-12.5|
91792011|NCT01857310|183461813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-13.6|3.1|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for fertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm concentration represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||3.1|-13.6|
91792012|NCT01857310|183461814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.5|1.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm motility represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||1.5|-2.5|
91792013|NCT01857310|183461814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.7|1.4|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm motility represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||1.4|-2.7|
91792014|NCT01857310|183461815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.8|0.1|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm morphology represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||0.1|-0.8|
91792015|NCT01857310|183461815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.9|0.0|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm morphology represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||0|-0.9|
91792016|NCT01857310|183461816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.4|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. DNA fragmentation will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||4.4|0.5|
91792017|NCT01857310|183461816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.3|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. DNA fragmentation will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||4.3|0.3|
91792018|NCT01857310|183461817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|22.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Total motile sperm count will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||22.5|-19.7|
91792019|NCT01857310|183461817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|21.4|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Total motile sperm count will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||21.4|-20.9|
91792020|NCT01857310|183461818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.0|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. hCG detected pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.0|-4.7|
91792021|NCT01857310|183461818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. hCG detected pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.09|0.91|
91792022|NCT01857310|183461819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.8|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Clinical intrauterine pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.8|-4.9|
91857455|NCT02238483|183598580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.02|0.00|0.1965
91864253|NCT05256654|183617550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-43.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-43.8|-62.4|<.001
91663053|NCT00862563|183221440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.036
91663054|NCT00862563|183221440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.24
91792023|NCT01857310|183461819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Clinical intrauterine pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.08|0.89|
91792024|NCT01857310|183461820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Ectopic pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.6|-0.5|
91864254|NCT05256654|183617550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-63.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.3|55.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||55.5|-70.3|<.001
91857456|NCT02538341|183598581|OTHER|||||||0.0023||||||p values, from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.|a generalized linear model|p value,from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.||Study protocol defined measure for immunogenicity samples. Participants must have at least 1 post vaccine immunogenicity measure to determine the GMFR (a priori analysis)||||0.0023
91857457|NCT02538341|183598582|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||p values, from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.|a generalized linear model|p values, from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.||Study protocol defined measure for immunogenicity samples. Participants must have at least 1 post vaccine immunogenicity measure to determine the GMFR (a priori analysis)||||0.31
91857458|NCT00393484|183598588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in proportion along with its standard error and 90% confidence interval was computed. If the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) was great than -10%, noninferiority was established. Provided that noninferiority was established, a test for superiority was planned to check that the lower limit of the 90% CI was greater than zero.|Difference in proportion|25.67||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.48|36.86||There was no adjustment for the prior test of noninferiority because the test for superiority could succeed only if noninferiority was first established.|Chi-squared|||A sample size of 60 per group provides 80% power for testing superiority of entecavir compared to lamivudine, assuming a response rate of 62% for lamivudine and 83% for entecavir.||36.86|14.48|0.0006
91857459|NCT00393484|183598589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.45|34.66||Treatment comparisons were assessed using the same method used in the primary endpoint.|Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^3 copies/mL at 24 Weeks||34.66|14.45|0.0003
91857460|NCT00393484|183598589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.62||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.85|22.38||Treatment comparisons were assessed using the same method as the primary endpoint.|Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^4 copies/mL at 24 Weeks||22.38|4.85|0.0167
91857461|NCT00393484|183598589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24||||0.4467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|11.1|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^5 at 24 Weeks||11.10|-2.62|0.4467
91901738|NCT02856893|183698176|OTHER|The decision rule is based on confidence intervals. The treatment strategy will be considered feasible (H0 is rejected) if the lower bound of the 84% two-sided confidence interval of the PFS rate at 18 months is greater than 40%.|Kaplan-Meier survival rate|53.5|||||TWO_SIDED|84.0|42.3|63.5|||||"The population parameter is PFS Rate at 18 months in the Gefitinib till progression than Osimertinib arm. The decision rule is based on the lower bound of the estimated confidence interval around the point estimate."|Each arm will be assessed individually against a historical control with a single proportion test. The test is designed to reject a PFS rate at 18 months of 40% (null hypothesis) at the 0.08 significance level. Under the alternative hypothesis of a PFS rate at 18 months of 60%, 49 patients are required to reach a power of 84%.||63.5|42.3|
91901739|NCT01284062|183698185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.225|0.766|||||LS mean and confidence interval (CI) were based on back log-transformation of those from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||0.766|0.225|
91901740|NCT01284062|183698185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.187|0.446|||||LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|||0.446|0.187|
91901741|NCT01284062|183698185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.517|1.203|||||LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|||1.203|0.517|
91901742|NCT01284062|183698185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.794|1.949|||||LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|||1.949|0.794|
91857462|NCT00393484|183598589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.87|36.36|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^3 copies/mL at 48 Weeks||36.36|15.87|0.0002
91857463|NCT00393484|183598589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.09||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.1|29.07|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^4 copies/mL at 48 Weeks||29.07|11.10|0.0009
91857464|NCT00393484|183598589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|16.96||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.43|25.5|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^5 at 48 Weeks||25.50|8.43|0.0029
91857465|NCT00393484|183598589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|35.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.02|46.51|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^3 copies/mL at 96 Weeks||46.51|24.02|<0.0001
91857466|NCT00393484|183598589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|29.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.07|39.97|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^4 copies/mL at 96 Weeks||39.97|18.07|<0.0001
91857467|NCT00393484|183598589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.33||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.71|34.95|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^5 copies/mL at 96 Weeks||34.95|13.71|0.0006
91901743|NCT01284062|183698185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.7||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.329|1.472|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.472|0.329|0.5320
91663055|NCT00862563|183221440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-33.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0004
91901744|NCT01284062|183698185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|4.013|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||4.013|0.900|0.2700
91663056|NCT00862563|183221440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0015
91663057|NCT00862563|183221440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||<0.0001
91714019|NCT00809445|183319610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.57|5.72||a-prior threshold for statistical significance is .025|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The numerator is the two HIV rapid testing arms The denominator is the HIV testing referral arm|Hypothesis: The HIV rapid testing arms would have a higher rate of HIV testing than the HIV testing referral arm. Thus there is one comparison: HIV rapid test \& counseling+HIV rapid test and info versus HIV testing referral.||5.72|3.57|<0.001
91792025|NCT01857310|183461820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.97|||||Adjusted for fertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Ectopic pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.97|0.37|
91792026|NCT01857310|183461821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Early pregnancy loss will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.5|-3.7|
91792027|NCT01857310|183461821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Early pregnancy loss will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.15|0.75|
91792028|NCT01857310|183461822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preeclampsia/gestational hypertension will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.3|-1.9|
91792029|NCT01857310|183461822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.36|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preeclampsia/gestational hypertension will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.36|0.63|
91792030|NCT01857310|183461823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Gestational diabetes will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.6|-1.9|
91663058|NCT00862563|183221440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.04
91663059|NCT00862563|183221440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.025
91663060|NCT00862563|183221440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.018
91663061|NCT00862563|183221441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.005
91663062|NCT00862563|183221441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.003
91714020|NCT00809445|183319611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate raios (IRR)|1.04||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.14||a-priori threshold for statistical significance is .025|generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Numerator includes the two HIV rapid testing groups Denominator is the HIV testing referral group|Hypothesis: The HIV rapid testing arms would have a lower rate of unprotected sexual episodes than the HIV testing referral arm. Thus there is one comparison: HIV rapid test \& counseling+HIV rapid test and info versus HIV testing referral.||1.14|0.95|0.39
91857468|NCT00393484|183598590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariates of treatment and baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and Week 24.||||<0.0001
91663063|NCT00862563|183221441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least square means|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.044
91714021|NCT00809445|183319611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|1.03||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.26||a-priori threshold for statistical significance is .025|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Numerator is the HIV rapid test and counseling arm Denominator is the HIV rapid test and info arm|"The data analysis information presented is for the comparison of the 2 on-site testing groups.~Hypothesis: HIV rapid test and counseling group will have fewer unprotected sexual acts than will HIV rapid test and info group"||1.26|0.84|0.81
91714022|NCT00809445|183319612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||a priori threshold for significance was .05|Chi-squared|Note that this is a 3 by 3 chi-square: the 3 conditions by discontinued sharing needles /no change in sharing needles/initiated sharing needles||||||0.044
91714023|NCT00809445|183319613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||a-priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|Chi-squared|chi-square = 428.2466, Df=2||||||<0.0001
91714024|NCT02221648|183319686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4470
91714025|NCT02221648|183319687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0293|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0293
91663064|NCT00862563|183221441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factors. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||<0.0001
91663065|NCT00862563|183221441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-47.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||<0.0001
91663066|NCT00862563|183221441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-34.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Week 12.Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0004
91663067|NCT00862563|183221441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-19.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.017
91663068|NCT00862563|183221441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0002
91714026|NCT02221648|183319688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0448|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0448
91714027|NCT00810069|183319692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy.|Kaplan-Meier Analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies.||Kaplan-Meier Estimates (weeks): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||||0.213
91714028|NCT00810069|183319693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survival rate difference|0.02||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1||P-value is for comparison of early intervention versus delayed intervention as a function of survival rate over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16).|Kaplan Meier analysis|P-value for comparison of rates is based on normal approximation using Greenwood's estimation for standard error.||Survival function estimated over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||0.10|-0.06|0.653
91714029|NCT00810069|183319694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0||||P-value is for early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy.|Kaplan Meier analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies.||Analysis of early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy||||0.947
91901745|NCT01284062|183698185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|3.0||||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.403|6.409|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||6.409|1.403|0.0666
91714030|NCT00810069|183319695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||P-value is for early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies||Analysis of early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy||||0.597
91714031|NCT00810069|183319696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.13||P-value for Week 6: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 6||0.13|-0.22|0.624
91792031|NCT01857310|183461823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.27|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Gestational diabetes will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.27|0.47|
91901746|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.466|1.048||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.048|0.466|
91857469|NCT00393484|183598590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 48.||||<0.0001
91663069|NCT00862563|183221441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||.Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis.Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.026
91663070|NCT00862563|183221442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for the group x time interaction term.'||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Letter Fluency scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||<0.0001
91714032|NCT00810069|183319696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||0.06|-0.29|0.208
91901747|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.552|1.185||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.185|0.552|
91714033|NCT00810069|183319696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.0||P-value for Week 10: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 10||-0.00|-0.37|0.044
91714034|NCT00810069|183319696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.02||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interactions, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.02|-0.35|0.086
91663071|NCT00862563|183221442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for group x time interaction term for the comparison of data for the topiramate and placebo group.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Letter Fluency scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in a significant treatment x time interaction.||||<0.0001
91663072|NCT00862563|183221442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for interaction effect for the comparison of data for the levetiracetam and placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Letter Fluency scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in a significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.30
91901748|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.488|1.027||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.027|0.488|
91857470|NCT00393484|183598590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at 96 Weeks.||||<0.0001
91857471|NCT00393484|183598590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 144.||||<0.0001
91901749|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.195||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.195|0.500|
91663073|NCT00862563|183221443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for the group x time interaction effect for the paired comparison of COWAT-category data for the zonisamide and placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Category scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.003
91663074|NCT00862563|183221443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect for the comparison of data from the topiramate and the placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Category scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction||||0.01
91663075|NCT00862563|183221443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value is for the group x time interaction effect for the comparison of the levetiracetam and placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Category scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction||||0.36
91663076|NCT00862563|183221444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for the group x time interaction effect||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.07
91663077|NCT00862563|183221444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group X time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that age adjusted Digit Span scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||<0.0001
91663078|NCT00862563|183221444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.95
91663079|NCT00862563|183221445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Spatial Span scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.038
91663080|NCT00862563|183221445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.0025
91663081|NCT00862563|183221445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.3
91857472|NCT00393484|183598590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 192.||||<0.0001
91901750|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.631|1.328||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.328|0.631|
91901751|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.339|0.655||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.655|0.339|
91901752|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.669|1.269||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.269|0.669|
91901753|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.388|0.779||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.779|0.388|
91901754|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.454|1.331||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.331|0.454|
91901755|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.236|0.553||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.553|0.236|
91663082|NCT02663349|183221454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Within sample analysis of change between baseline and 3 month assessment.||||.08
91663083|NCT02663349|183221455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within sample change between baseline and 6 month assessment.||||.69
91663084|NCT02663349|183221456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||Within sample change assessed between baseline and 3-month assessment||||.02
91663085|NCT02663349|183221457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Change between baseline and 6 month assessment||||.34
91792032|NCT01857310|183461824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.8|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Cesarean delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.8|-1.4|
91663086|NCT02663349|183221458|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||completer analysis of change between baseline and 3-month assessment on the AIHQ Hostility scale||||>.05
91663087|NCT02663349|183221458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Completer analysis to examine within group change between baseline and 3-month assessment on the AIHQ Aggression scale||||.04
91663088|NCT02663349|183221459|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||completer analysis of within group change on the AIHQ Hostility scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||>.05
91663089|NCT02663349|183221459|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||completer analysis of within group change on the AIHQ Aggression scale between baseline and the 6 month assessment||||> .05
91663090|NCT02663349|183221460|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||Change within group between baseline and 3 month assessment on the TASIT total score for part 3||||> .05
91663091|NCT02663349|183221461|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||within group change on the TASIT total score for Part 3 between baseline and the 6 month assessment||||> .05
91663092|NCT02663349|183221462|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Within group change on SSPA Total Score between baseline and 3-month assessment||||>.05
91663093|NCT02663349|183221463|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Within group change on the SSPA total score between baseline and 6 month assessment||||> .05
91663094|NCT02663349|183221464|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||Within group change on the First Episode Social Functioning Scale Performance Total score on scales 1-7 between baseline and 3-month follow-up||||> .05
91663095|NCT02663349|183221465|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||Within group change between baseline and 6-month assessment on the First Episode Social Functioning Scale Performance total score on scales 1-7||||> .05
91663096|NCT02663349|183221466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Collegial Support scale between Baseline and 3-Month assessments||||.15
91663097|NCT02663349|183221466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Task Support scale between baseline and 3-month assessments||||.10
91663098|NCT02663349|183221466|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Mentor scale between baseline and the 3-month assessment||||>.05
91663099|NCT02663349|183221466|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Coach scale between baseline and the 3 month assessment||||> .05
91663100|NCT02663349|183221467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Collegial Support scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||.01
91663101|NCT02663349|183221467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Task Support scale between baseline and 6-month assessment||||.03
91663102|NCT02663349|183221467|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Mentor scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||> .05
91663103|NCT02663349|183221467|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Coach scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||> .05
91663104|NCT02663349|183221468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the VETSS Self Disclosure scale between Baseline and 3-Month Assessment||||.09
91663105|NCT02663349|183221468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the VETSS Workplace Coping scale between Baseline and 3-Month Assessment||||.12
91663106|NCT02663349|183221469|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on VETSS Self Disclosure scale between Baseline and 6 month assessment||||> .05
91663107|NCT02663349|183221469|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on VETSS Workplace Coping scale between baseline and the 6 month assessment||||> .05
91663108|NCT00848536|183221529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 mmHg.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Treatment group differences were calculated as the mean IOP in the Travoprost APS group minus the mean IOP in the Travatan group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% CL of the between treatment difference in mean IOP was \< 1.5 mmHg.|A hypothesis test was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model. For the test of non-inferiority, a two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the treatment group difference in mean IOP at each visit and time point was constructed based on analysis of variance.||0.5|-0.9|
91663109|NCT00848536|183221530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 mmHg.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||||Treatment group differences were calculated as the mean IOP in the Travoprost APS group minus the mean IOP in the Travatan group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% CL of the between treatment difference in mean IOP was \< 1.5 mmHg.|A hypothesis test was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model. For the test of non-inferiority, a two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the treatment group difference in mean IOP at each visit and time point was constructed based on analysis of variance.||00.6|-0.8|
91663110|NCT00848536|183221531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 mmHg.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Treatment group differences were calculated as the mean IOP in the Travoprost APS group minus the mean IOP in the Travatan group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% CL of the between treatment difference in mean IOP was \< 1.5 mmHg.|A hypothesis test was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model. For the test of non-inferiority, a two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the treatment group difference in mean IOP at each visit and time point was constructed based on analysis of variance.||0.5|-0.9|
91901756|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.757|1.722||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.722|0.757|
91792033|NCT01857310|183461824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.39|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Cesarean delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.39|0.89|
91792034|NCT01857310|183461825|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.6|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preterm delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.6|0.2|
91792035|NCT01857310|183461825|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.16|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preterm delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.16|1.04|
91857473|NCT00393484|183598590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 240.||||<0.0001
91663111|NCT01175135|183221532|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.683||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.66|1.24||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS total score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS total score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.24|-5.66|0.2053
91663112|NCT01175135|183221532|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.698||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.14|2.8||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS total score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS total score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.80|-4.14|0.4024
91663113|NCT01175135|183221532|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.453||0.009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.68|-3.8||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS total score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS total score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.80|-12.68|0.0090
91663114|NCT01175135|183221533|OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.01|||||The adjusted 80% Confidence Interval (CI) equals 88.6% CI, adjusted due to 1 interim look.|||0.01|-0.07|
91714035|NCT00810069|183319696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06||P-value for Week 14: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 14||0.06|-0.33|0.181
91663115|NCT01175135|183221533|OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.1|||||The adjusted 80% CI equals 88.6% CI, adjusted due to 1 interim look.|||0.10|-0.02|
91663116|NCT01175135|183221533|OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.0|||||The adjusted 80% CI equals 88.6% CI, adjusted due to 1 interim look.|||-0.00|-0.08|
91663117|NCT01175135|183221534|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.5|0.68||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS positive subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS positive subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.68|-1.50|0.3144
91663118|NCT01175135|183221534|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.854||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|1.25||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS positive subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS positive subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.25|-0.95|0.5700
91857474|NCT00393484|183598592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|18.97||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.22|32.73|||Chi-squared||At 24 Weeks|||32.73|5.22|0.0278
91663119|NCT01175135|183221534|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.4|-1.59||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS positive subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS positive subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.59|-4.40|0.0034
91663120|NCT01175135|183221534|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.9|-0.02||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS negative subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS negative subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.02|-1.90|0.0942
91663121|NCT01175135|183221534|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.735||0.203|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.56|0.33||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS negative subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS negative subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.33|-1.56|0.2030
91663122|NCT01175135|183221534|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.944||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-0.05||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS negative subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS negative subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.05|-2.48|0.0907
91663123|NCT01175135|183221534|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.45|0.97||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS general subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS general subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.97|-2.45|0.2904
91663124|NCT01175135|183221534|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339||0.471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.82|1.62||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS general subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS general subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.62|-1.82|0.4710
91663125|NCT01175135|183221534|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.718||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.86|-1.45||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS general subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS general subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.45|-5.86|0.0172
91663126|NCT01175135|183221535|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.07||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline CGI-S, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, a baseline CGI-S by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.07|-0.33|0.1970
91792036|NCT01857310|183461826|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Small for gestational age will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.0|-1.5|
91857475|NCT00393484|183598592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.34||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.65|39.03|||Chi-squared||At 48 Weeks|||39.03|13.65|0.0014
91857476|NCT00393484|183598592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|35.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.35|48.52|||Chi-squared||At 96 Weeks|||48.52|23.35|<0.0001
91857477|NCT00393484|183598598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|33.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.52|44.89|||Chi-squared||At 48 Weeks|||44.89|22.52|<0.0001
91901757|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.338|0.788||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.788|0.338|
91663127|NCT01175135|183221535|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.3835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|0.15||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline CGI-S, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, a baseline CGI-S by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.15|-0.24|0.3835
91663128|NCT01175135|183221535|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.61|-0.1||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline CGI-S, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, a baseline CGI-S by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.10|-0.61|0.0395
91663129|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.84|0.38||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder positive score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder positive score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-1.84|0.1999
91663130|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.48|0.76||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder positive score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder positive score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.76|-1.48|0.3399
91857478|NCT00393484|183598598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.8|57.61|||Chi-squared||At 96 Weeks|||57.61|34.80|<0.0001
91857479|NCT00393484|183598598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|33.48||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.31|47.65|||Chi-squared||At 144 Weeks|||47.65|19.31|0.0003
91663131|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.117||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.06|-1.18||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder positive score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder positive score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.18|-4.06|0.0100
91663132|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.778||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.77|0.23||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder negative score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder negative score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.23|-1.77|0.1625
91792037|NCT01857310|183461826|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.49|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Small for gestational age will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.49|0.75|
91792038|NCT01857310|183461827|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Gestational age will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.1|-0.5|
91792039|NCT01857310|183461828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.0|26.4|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Birth weight will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||26.4|-156|
91857480|NCT00393484|183598598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|44.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.17|58.11|||Chi-squared||At 192 Weeks|||58.11|31.17|<0.0001
91857481|NCT00393484|183598598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|52.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.54|64.93|||Chi-squared||At 240 Weeks|||64.93|39.54|<0.0001
91663133|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.783||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.57|0.44||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder negative score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder negative score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-1.57|0.2354
91857482|NCT00393484|183598599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Viral rebound at 96 weeks||||<0.0001
91714036|NCT00810069|183319696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.20|-0.20|0.994
91714037|NCT00810069|183319697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.25||P-value for Week 6: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 6||-0.25|-0.98|0.001
91857483|NCT02382744|183598606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between proportions (%)|10.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|31.9||One-sided P-value based on the lack of plausibility that additional nerve stimulation would worsen sensory blockade rates.|Fisher Exact|||We sought to detect an increase in the rate of complete absence of sensation to pinprick 30 min following ultrasound-guided subsartorial saphenous nerve blockade to 90% from an assumed baseline of 64% as extrapolated from our previous study (cf. Head SJ et al. 2015) at β = 0.2. The required minimum sample size at α = 0.05 (one-sided) was 30 patients in each group. To be conservative, we aimed to enroll a total of 80 patients.||31.9|-11.9|0.25
91714038|NCT00810069|183319697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||-0.12|-0.87|0.010
91714039|NCT00810069|183319697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24||P-value for Week 10: analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 10||0.24|-0.55|0.445
91857484|NCT02382744|183598607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||"This contingency-table type analysis (Fisher Exact test) compares the two groups, Ultrasound Guidance and Ultrasound Guidance and Nerve Stimulation, as far as the two categorical outcomes are concerned, block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block versus no block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block."||||0.62
91857485|NCT02382744|183598608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
91901758|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.374|1.084||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.084|0.374|
91901759|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.122|0.297||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.297|0.122|
91714040|NCT00810069|183319697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.12||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.12|-0.71|0.169
91857486|NCT02382744|183598609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||"This contingency-table type analysis (Fisher Exact test) compares the two groups, Ultrasound Guidance and Ultrasound Guidance and Nerve Stimulation, as far as the two categorical outcomes are concerned, incomplete block at 30 minutes post nerve block versus no incomplete block at 30 minutes post nerve block."||||0.26
91857487|NCT02382744|183598610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||"Median survival ratio"|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.31|||Log Rank||"Numerator, group Ultrasound Guidance; denominator, group, Ultrasound Guidance + Nerve Stimulation"|"To assess speed of onset, sensation to pinprick in the distribution of the saphenous nerve was assessed for each patient every 5 min until complete sensory loss was noted, or until 30 min had elapsed. To compare the two groups in speed of onset on the basis of these data, we constructed Kaplan-Meyer survival curves for the times to onset of sensory blockade and compared the underlying time-to-event data with the log-rank test."||1.31|0.38|0.12
91857488|NCT02382744|183598614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between means (s)|107.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|153.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||153|61|<0.0001
91857489|NCT02382744|183598617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||"Median survival ratio"|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.93|||Log Rank||"Numerator, group Ultrasound Guidance; denominator, group, Ultrasound Guidance + Nerve Stimulation"|||0.93|0.37|0.02
91857490|NCT02382744|183598620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0057|||||||Fisher Exact|||"This contingency-table type analysis (Fisher Exact test) compares the two arms, Patients with response to nerve stimulation and Patients with lack response to nerve stimulation, as far as the two categorical outcomes are concerned, block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block versus no block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block."||||0.0057
91857491|NCT01551355|183598647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|6.16|||t-test, 2 sided|The intervention was evaluated using generalized estimating equation models, controlling for cluster effect, sex, age, weight, and education level.||||6.16|1.64|<.001
91857492|NCT01551355|183598648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|6.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.12|2.03|<.001
91663134|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.002||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.08|0.5||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder negative score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder negative score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.50|-2.08|0.2161
91663135|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.627||0.248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.23|0.38||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Disorganized Thought Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-1.23|0.2480
91857493|NCT01551355|183598649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.36|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|11.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.01|-0.29|=.06
91857494|NCT03010631|183598655|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.441|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.166|1.782||||||||1.782|1.166|
91857495|NCT03010631|183598656|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|2.045|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.615|2.589||||||||2.589|1.615|
91857496|NCT03010631|183598657|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.675|1.168||||||||1.168|0.675|
91857497|NCT03010631|183598658|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.339|0.502||||||||0.502|0.339|
91857498|NCT01255670|183598664|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
91857499|NCT01255670|183598665|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test||||0.05
91857500|NCT02576509|183598721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.02||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.0419|Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by the stratification factors as entered into the IVRS|Nivolumab over Sorafenib; Stratified Cox proportional hazard model||95.81% CI ADJUSTED FOR MULTIPLICITY: (0.72 to 1.02)|1.02|0.71|0.0752
91857501|NCT02576509|183598722|OTHER|no test was performed due to OS p-value result above the prior threshold|Difference of ORRs|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.7|||||Estimate of (Nivolumab - Sorafenib) is based on CMH method of weighting, stratified by stratification factors|||12.7|3.9|
91857502|NCT02576509|183598722|OTHER|no test was performed due to OS p-value result above the prior threshold|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.92|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib; Mantel-Haenszel estimator|||3.92|1.48|
91857503|NCT02576509|183598723|OTHER|no test was performed due to OS p-value result above the prior threshold|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib; Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.10|0.79|
91663136|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.632||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.71||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Disorganized Thought Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.71|-0.92|0.4345
91857504|NCT02576509|183598724|OTHER|PD-L1 \>= 1%, OS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.19|0.54|
91857505|NCT02576509|183598724|OTHER|PD-L1 \>=1%, PFS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.03|0.48|
91714041|NCT00810069|183319697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.25||P-value for Week 14: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 14||0.25|-0.63|0.393
91857506|NCT02576509|183598724|OTHER|PD-L1 \<1%, OS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.02|0.69|
91857507|NCT02576509|183598724|OTHER|PD-L1 \<1%, PFS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.17|0.81|
91857508|NCT02576509|183598724|OTHER|without PD-L1 quantifiable, OS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.74|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||4.74|0.34|
91857509|NCT02576509|183598724|OTHER|without PD-L1 quantifiable, PFS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.52|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||3.52|0.27|
91857510|NCT02576509|183598725|OTHER|PD-L1 \>=1%, ORR; no test was performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|10.17|||||Odds ratio (Nivolumab over Sorafenib) and associated unstratified 95% exact CI.|||10.17|1.41|
91857511|NCT02576509|183598725|OTHER|PD-L1 \<1%, ORR; no test was performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.45|||||Odds ratio (Nivolumab over Sorafenib) and associated unstratified 95% exact CI|||3.45|1.10|
91857512|NCT06546657|183598740|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||Medium GI vs low GI breakfast meals||4.0|-0.6|0.14
91857513|NCT06546657|183598740|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.5|||Linear Mixed Model|||Medium vs high GI breakfast meals||7.5|1.2|0.01
91663137|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.813||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|-0.44||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Disorganized Thought Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.44|-2.53|0.0346
91663138|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.4685|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.68|0.6||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.60|-0.68|0.4685
91663139|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|0.8||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.80|-0.49|0.6214
91663140|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.641||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-0.84||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.84|-2.48|0.0052
91663141|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|0.79||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety/Depression Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.79|-0.55|0.5894
91857514|NCT06546657|183598740|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||High GI vs low GI breakfast meals||0.7|-6.0|0.12
91857515|NCT06546657|183598741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1815||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Mixed Model|||High GI breakfast meals vs low and medium GI breakfast meals||||0.65
91901760|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.623|1.465||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.465|0.623|
91901761|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.411|1.076||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.076|0.411|
91857516|NCT06546657|183598742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.431||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||Linear Mixed Model|||High glycaemic load breakfast meals vs low and medium glycaemic load meals||1.2|-0.3|0.25
91857517|NCT06546657|183598743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|44.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||High glycaemic load breakfast meals vs low and medium glycaemic load meals||44|0.6|0.04
91857518|NCT06546657|183598744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||Linear Mixed Model|||Breakfast cereals meals vs added protein meals||2.1|0.4|0.01
91857519|NCT06546657|183598746|OTHER|Comparison of diurnal and nocturnal glucose variability (CV%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91901762|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.16||||0.7352|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.663|2.021|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 2: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.021|0.663|0.7352
91663142|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|1.15||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety/Depression Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.15|-0.20|0.8155
91714042|NCT00810069|183319697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.3||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline scores and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.30|-0.61|0.510
91857520|NCT03725722|183598763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||"P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models with adjusted p-value of \<0.025 were stat. sign. diff. from a flat dose-response model.~Model selected: Sigmoid Emax model"|Multiple contrast test|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline to Week 8 in EASI score and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) likely to present the true underlying dose-response curve.||||<0.0001
91792040|NCT01857310|183461829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Stillbirth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.1|-0.6|
91857521|NCT03725722|183598763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.3||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-1.3|-5.0|<0.01
91857522|NCT03725722|183598763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.2||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-1.2|-4.8|<0.05
91663143|NCT01175135|183221536|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.677||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.55|-0.81||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety/Depression Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.81|-2.55|0.0069
91663144|NCT01175135|183221537|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.06|0.38||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-1.06|0.2727
91792041|NCT01857310|183461829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.24|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Stillbirth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.24|0.03|
91663145|NCT01175135|183221537|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.562||0.4747|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|0.69||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.69|-0.76|0.4747
91663146|NCT01175135|183221537|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.723||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.93|-1.07||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.07|-2.93|0.0031
91663147|NCT01175135|183221538|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.32|0.18||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.18|-0.32|0.3598
91663148|NCT01175135|183221538|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.37||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.37|-0.13|0.7275
91663149|NCT01175135|183221538|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.07|-0.42||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.42|-1.07|0.0019
91714043|NCT00810069|183319698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.47||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||0.47|-0.19|0.401
91663150|NCT01175135|183221539|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.478||0.5429|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.06|1.74||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline GAF score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline GAF score by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.74|-2.06|0.5429
91663151|NCT01175135|183221539|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.492||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.68|2.16||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline GAF score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline GAF score by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.16|-1.68|0.4354
91663152|NCT01175135|183221539|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.907||0.093|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|4.99||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline GAF score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline GAF score by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.99|0.08|0.0930
91792042|NCT01857310|183461830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Neonatal mortality will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.5|-0.3|
91663153|NCT02284867|183221551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Multivariable binary logistic regression was done to examine the relation between CD16+ NK and preterm labor as adjusted for other confounding factors the enter method was used to build the regression model.~A two-sided p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant."|Odds Ratio (OR)|65.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.96|606.76||To our best of known , no previous human studies was analyzing this issue|Regression, Logistic|||"Categorical data were presented as number and percentage and differences were compared using the Pearson chi-squared test. Ordinal data were compared using the chi-squared test for trend~A two-sided p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant."||606.76|6.96|<0.0002
91691909|NCT00380874|183278450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1569||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 9.Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.1569
91864255|NCT05256654|183617551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||8.5|-15.2|0.506
91901763|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.01||||0.9754|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.586|1.753|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 2: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.753|0.586|0.9754
91691910|NCT00380874|183278451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.7207||95.0|-0.25|0.17||Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|ANCOVA|Cycle 1. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 1.||0.17|-0.25|0.7207
91901764|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.11||||0.8277|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.609|2.008|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 2: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.008|0.609|0.8277
91691911|NCT00380874|183278451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3111||95.0|-0.36|1.1||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 2.||1.10|-0.36|0.3111
91857523|NCT03725722|183598763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.1||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-2.1|-5.8|<0.0001
91663154|NCT02927639|183221556|SUPERIORITY|"A subject was considered completed if they completed all 3 SCI (as indicated in participant flow section) - 13 control, 10 intervention.~However, the mixed model took in to account ALL available data. As such, there were 70 control, 65 intervention that completed at least 1 SCI. Their data was analyzed by the model and used to predict later outcomes so they were considered to be included in the analysis."||||||0.035||||||The mixed model may provide a significantly different change in SCI score from baseline to the 6 month using a per-protocol analysis in the intervention group as compared to the control group. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A multilevel mixed effects linear regression model was used to analyze this data. This analysis allowed for an estimation of missing data. This explains the discrepancy in the number of participant study completion vs participant data analyzed (see below).||||0.035
91663155|NCT02699463|183221562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The calculated p-value was \<0.01|ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91663156|NCT02488239|183221563|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial rate|||||||<0.001
91901765|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.51||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.313|0.846|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 4: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||0.846|0.313|0.0885
91663157|NCT02488239|183221564|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91663158|NCT05283148|183221565|OTHER|Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used.||||||0.321||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (full range) for each group, measured by DXA at the lumbar spine. Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.321
91663159|NCT05283148|183221566|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.714||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median ± full range for each group, derived from DXA lumbar spine scans. Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.714
91663160|NCT05283148|183221567|OTHER|Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used.||||||0.09||||||p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (full range) for each group, measured by DXA at the total hip. Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.09
91663161|NCT05283148|183221568|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.604||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test (two sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median ± full range for each group, derived from DXA total hip scans. Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.604
91663162|NCT05283148|183221569|OTHER|Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used.||||||0.013||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (full range) for each group, measured by DXA at the femoral neck. Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.013
91663163|NCT05283148|183221570|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.166||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median ± full range for each group, derived from DXA femoral neck scans. Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.166
91663164|NCT05283148|183221571|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.23||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test (two sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (interquartile range) for each group, based on the ASCQ-Me Pain Impact instrument (lower scores indicate worse pain impact). Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.23
91663165|NCT04414930|183221573|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.28
91663166|NCT04414930|183221574|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.05
91663167|NCT04414930|183221575|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.93||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.93
91663168|NCT04414930|183221576|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.43||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.43
91663169|NCT04414930|183221577|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.77||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.77
91714044|NCT00810069|183319698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.46||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.46|-0.27|0.618
91663170|NCT04414930|183221578|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.5||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.50
91663171|NCT04414930|183221579|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.636||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.636
91663172|NCT04414930|183221580|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.19||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.19
91857524|NCT03725722|183598763|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.9||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-3.9|-7.5|<0.0001
91857525|NCT03725722|183598764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Multiple contrast test|"P-values adj. for multiple comparisons. Models with adj. p-value \<0.025 were stat. sign. diff. from a flat dose-response model.~Model: Linear model"||This endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the vIGA-AD response rate at Week 8 and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response.||||<0.0001
91864256|NCT05256654|183617551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-11.3|-27.2|<.001
91663173|NCT03325881|183221592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Number of participants with SHP465 was compared with placebo using the linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) that included treatment group, nominal visit, age group, interaction of the treatment group with the visits as factors, baseline ADHD-RS5 total score as a covariate and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline ADHD-RS-5 Total Score with the visit.||3.1|-6.8|0.451
91663174|NCT03325881|183221593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Number of participants with SHP465 was compared with placebo using the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) that includes treatment group, nominal visit, age group,interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline CGI-S as a covariate and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline CGI-S with the visit.||0.3|-0.5|0.597
91663175|NCT03676634|183221603|OTHER||single proportion|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.947|||||Values listed in table are for Type A. Estimated Value for the Estimation Parameter for type B = 0.875. Lower limit = 0.710, upper limit = 0.965|Consider increase from baseline to post-dose values. Parameter is proportion achieving desired increase (≥ 3x or 4x increase in Type A and Type B NAC).|Proportion of participants achieving ≥ 3x or 4x increase in NAC values was calculated for both Type A and Type B. Primary endpoint was achieved if both Type A and Type B had proportion ≥50%.|.947|.672|
91663176|NCT00829712|183221607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.95||||||90.0|94.02|108.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.39|94.02|
91663177|NCT00829712|183221608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.05||||||90.0|95.08|103.19|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.19|95.08|
91663178|NCT00829712|183221609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.94||||||90.0|96.08|103.95|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.95|96.08|
91663179|NCT03466866|183221628|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.67||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.07|||Poisson regression|We adjusted for stratification variables, sex, baseline MOCA, number of medical conditions, PSQ Communication, and PSQ General satisfaction.||We used Poisson regression to model the number of outcome events as a function of randomization assignment, adjusting for the stratification variables and using follow-up time as the offset term. We calculated estimates of annual rates of the primary outcome and the adjusted estimate of the rate ratio. We evaluated the primary hypothesis by testing the null hypothesis that the rate ratio for randomization assignment equals 1.||1.07|.42|.12
91691912|NCT00380874|183278451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.5925||95.0|-0.7|1.22||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 3.||1.22|-0.70|0.5925
91691913|NCT00380874|183278451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.5812||95.0|-0.8|1.41||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 4.||1.41|-0.80|0.5812
91691914|NCT00380874|183278451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.2925||95.0|-0.67|2.16||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 5.||2.16|-0.67|0.2925
91663180|NCT03466866|183221629|SUPERIORITY|General Satisfaction|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.45|||Regression, Linear|||We modeled PSQ- scores as continuous variables to estimate average change over time by treatment group. We used mixed effects linear regression with fixed effects for time (baseline, and months 6 and 12), randomization assignment, and time by randomization interaction. A random intercept term and an appropriate covariance structure was used to account for correlation among repeated measurements.||.45|-.22|.502
91663181|NCT03466866|183221630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was performed with Number of Quality Metrics as the dependent variable, treatment arm as the main independent variable of interest and the stratification variables as adjusting variables.||.69|.16|.23
91663182|NCT03466866|183221631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.45||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|9.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used mixed effects linear regression. Fixed effects included time (baseline, and months 6 and 12), randomization assignment, time by randomization interaction, and the three stratification variables. From the results of this model, we estimated the mean change from baseline to 6 months, 6 months to 12 months and baseline to 12 months within each treatment group. We then compared the change from baseline to 12 months between the two groups.||9.66|-.76|.094
91663183|NCT01172145|183221632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.40|-16.86|0.181
91663184|NCT04134091|183221640|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91663185|NCT04134091|183221640|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91663186|NCT04134091|183221641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91663187|NCT04134091|183221641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91663188|NCT04134091|183221642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91663189|NCT04134091|183221642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91663190|NCT04134091|183221643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91663191|NCT04134091|183221643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91663192|NCT04134091|183221644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91663193|NCT04134091|183221644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91663194|NCT04134091|183221645|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning Score||||>0.05
91663195|NCT04134091|183221645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning Score||||<0.05
91663196|NCT04134091|183221645|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Lobular Inflammation Score||||>0.05
91663197|NCT04134091|183221645|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Lobular Inflammation Score||||>0.05
91663198|NCT04134091|183221645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis Score||||<0.01
91663199|NCT04134091|183221645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis Score||||<0.001
91663200|NCT04134091|183221646|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91663201|NCT04134091|183221646|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91663202|NCT04134091|183221647|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91663203|NCT04134091|183221647|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91663204|NCT04134091|183221648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91663205|NCT04134091|183221648|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91663206|NCT04134091|183221649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91663207|NCT04134091|183221649|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91663208|NCT04134091|183221650|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91663209|NCT04134091|183221650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91663210|NCT04134091|183221651|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: AST||||>0.05
91663211|NCT04134091|183221651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: AST||||<0.01
91663212|NCT04134091|183221651|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALT||||>0.05
91663213|NCT04134091|183221651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALT||||< 0.01
91663214|NCT04134091|183221651|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALP||||>0.05
91663215|NCT04134091|183221651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALP||||<0.05
91663216|NCT04134091|183221651|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: GGT||||>0.05
91663217|NCT04134091|183221651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: GGT||||<0.05
91663218|NCT04134091|183221652|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: Total cholesterol||||>0.05
91663219|NCT04134091|183221652|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: Total cholesterol||||>0.05
91663220|NCT04134091|183221652|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: LDL||||>0.05
91663221|NCT04134091|183221652|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: LDL||||>0.05
91663222|NCT04134091|183221652|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: HDL||||>0.05
91663223|NCT04134091|183221652|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: HDL||||>0.05
91663224|NCT04134091|183221652|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: triglycerides||||>0.05
91663225|NCT04134091|183221652|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: triglycerides||||>0.05
91663226|NCT01848938|183221653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Linear Mixed Models analysis|||analysis between groups||||<0.001
91663227|NCT01848938|183221654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Linear Mixed Models analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.005
91663228|NCT01848938|183221655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.023
91663229|NCT01848938|183221657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.001
91663230|NCT01848938|183221658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||<0.001
91663231|NCT01640197|183221659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91792043|NCT01857310|183461830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.95|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Neonatal mortality will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||8.95|0.25|
91663232|NCT01640197|183221660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91663233|NCT01640197|183221661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91663234|NCT01640197|183221662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91663235|NCT01640197|183221663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91663236|NCT01640197|183221664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91663237|NCT01640197|183221665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91663238|NCT00909753|183221666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.5||||||90.0|85.8|99.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.7|85.8|
91663239|NCT00909753|183221667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.5||||||90.0|92.2|98.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.9|92.2|
91663240|NCT00909753|183221668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.4||||||90.0|83.1|98.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.3|83.1|
91663241|NCT00909753|183221669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.5||||||90.0|85.5|95.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||95.9|85.5|
91663242|NCT00909753|183221670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.2||||||90.0|85.5|99.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.5|85.5|
91663243|NCT00909753|183221671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.0||||||90.0|91.3|98.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.7|91.3|
91663244|NCT00909753|183221672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.4||||||90.0|83.1|98.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% COnfidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.3|83.1|
91663245|NCT00909753|183221673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.5||||||90.0|85.0|96.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||96.3|85.0|
91663246|NCT00835536|183221674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|93.1|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108|93.1|
91663247|NCT00835536|183221675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.5||||||90.0|92.1|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|92.1|
91663248|NCT03527485|183221685|EQUIVALENCE|Between-group comparisons of binding potential non displaceable (BPND) in ventral striatum (VS).||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
91663249|NCT03527485|183221685|EQUIVALENCE|Between-group comparisons of binding potential non displaceable (BPND) in Prefrontal cortex (PFC).||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.044
91663250|NCT06041256|183221712|OTHER||Difference in response rates|30.2||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|58.3|||Fisher Exact|||||58.3|0.8|0.0722
91663251|NCT06041256|183221712|OTHER||Difference in response rates|-3.8|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|20.6|||Fisher Exact|||||20.6|-28.1|>0.9999
91663252|NCT06041256|183221712|OTHER||Difference in response rates|22.6||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|50.6|||Fisher Exact|||||50.6|-5.5|0.1482
91663253|NCT06041256|183221712|OTHER||Difference in response rates|35.7||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|61.6|||Fisher Exact|||||61.6|5.9|0.0203
91663254|NCT06041256|183221712|OTHER||Difference in response rates|-33.9||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.3|-4.6|||Fisher Exact|||||-4.6|-60.3|0.0293
91663255|NCT06041256|183221712|OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.6||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|25.3|||Fisher Exact|||||25.3|-38.9|0.7431
91663256|NCT06041256|183221712|OTHER||Difference in response rates|5.6||||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|37.3|||Fisher Exact|||||37.3|-26.8|0.7568
91663257|NCT06041256|183221713|OTHER||Least square mean difference|20.4||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|38.0|||ANCOVA|||||38.0|2.9|0.0232
91663258|NCT06041256|183221713|OTHER||Least square mean difference|9.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|27.1|||ANCOVA|||||27.1|-7.4|0.2600
91663259|NCT06041256|183221713|OTHER||Least square mean difference|22.5||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|39.9|||ANCOVA|||||39.9|5.2|0.0115
91663260|NCT06041256|183221713|OTHER||Least square mean difference|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|53.4|||ANCOVA|||||53.4|18.5|<0.0001
91663261|NCT06041256|183221713|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-10.6||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|7.2|||ANCOVA|||||7.2|-28.4|0.2403
91663262|NCT06041256|183221713|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.1||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|19.9|||ANCOVA|||||19.9|-15.7|0.8138
91663263|NCT06041256|183221713|OTHER||Least square mean difference|15.5||||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|33.2|||ANCOVA|||||33.2|-2.1|0.0834
91663264|NCT06041256|183221714|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-75.1||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.2|-15.1|||ANCOVA|||||-15.1|-135.2|0.0147
91663265|NCT06041256|183221714|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-81.3||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.5|-22.0|||ANCOVA|||||-22.0|-140.5|0.0077
91663266|NCT06041256|183221714|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-73.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.6|-13.7|||ANCOVA|||||-13.7|-132.6|0.0165
91663267|NCT06041256|183221714|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-81.7||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.4|-22.0|||ANCOVA|||||-22.0|-141.4|0.0079
91663268|NCT06041256|183221714|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.1||||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.8|55.6|||ANCOVA|||||55.6|-67.8|0.8443
91663269|NCT06041256|183221714|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.0||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|64.1|||ANCOVA|||||64.1|-60.1|0.9490
91663270|NCT06041256|183221714|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.6||||0.8324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|55.0|||ANCOVA|||||55.0|-68.1|0.8324
91663271|NCT00835705|183221733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.03||||||90.0|98.4|107.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||107.88|98.40|
91663272|NCT00835705|183221734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.43||||||90.0|96.71|100.18|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.18|96.71|
91663273|NCT00835705|183221735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.29||||||90.0|96.58|100.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.03|96.58|
91663274|NCT00835705|183221736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.16||||||90.0|95.33|111.64|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||111.64|95.33|
91663275|NCT00835705|183221737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.79||||||90.0|95.75|112.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.50|95.75|
91663276|NCT00835705|183221738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|104.26||||||90.0|95.76|113.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||113.52|95.76|
91663277|NCT05090839|183221747|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval is used to assess the difference between the means of the 2 x 2 (English vs. Spanish) and (Trauma vs. Non-trauma) writing groups.|variance explained by the IV.|0.072|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.234|||ANOVA|||||.234|.0000|<0.05
91714045|NCT00810069|183319698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.36||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.36|-0.43|0.856
91663278|NCT05090839|183221749|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval is used to assess the difference between the means of the 2 x 2 (English vs. Spanish) and (Trauma vs. Non-trauma) writing groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.554|||ANOVA|||This is a comparison that is specific to the contrast of visualizing traumatic versus stressful events.||.554|0|<0.05
91663279|NCT05090839|183221750|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval is used to assess the difference between the means of the 2 x 2 (English vs. Spanish) and (Trauma vs. Non-trauma) writing groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.676|||ANOVA|||||.676|.000|<0.05
91663280|NCT00834964|183221762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.0||||||90.0|92.72|101.49|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.49|92.72|
91663281|NCT00834964|183221763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.7||||||90.0|94.74|104.92|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.92|94.74|
91663282|NCT00834964|183221764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.6||||||90.0|93.46|104.02|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.02|93.46|
91663283|NCT00834964|183221765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.29||||||90.0|91.96|100.82|||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria; results are presented for informational purposes only.|||100.82|91.96|
91663284|NCT00834964|183221766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.1||||||90.0|100.08|108.29|||||Metaboite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||108.29|100.08|
91857526|NCT03725722|183598764|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|21.9||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference.||21.9|-5.6|>0.05
91663285|NCT00834964|183221767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.52||||||90.0|97.3|103.84|||||Metabolite results were not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||103.84|97.30|
91663286|NCT02826694|183221770|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||linear mixed effect model|||T3||||0.168
91663287|NCT02826694|183221770|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||linear mixed effect model|||T4||||0.026
91864257|NCT05256654|183617551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-11.0|-27.0|<.001
91663288|NCT03364192|183221802|OTHER|Multilevel modeling adapted for multiple-baseline design comparing participant goal attainment before, during, and after peer-delivered Whole Health Coaching.|||||<|0.05|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||||||<0.05
91663289|NCT04547192|183221812|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for TIF introduction and time periods as fixed effects and hospitals and time periods as random effects.|generalized linear mixed regression mode|||For mobility on EU arrival assessed,||||0.504
91663290|NCT04547192|183221812|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression mode|||Respiratory rate at EU assessed||||0.169
91663291|NCT04547192|183221812|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|25.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Airway assessed||||0.006
91663292|NCT04547192|183221812|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|38.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Chest examined||||0.001
91663293|NCT04547192|183221812|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|93.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||For Intra-abdominal bleeding evaluated||||0.001
91663294|NCT04547192|183221812|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|354.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||For Spine Immobilized for RTI or Fall Victims||||0.001
91663295|NCT04547192|183221812|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Splinting of Fractures Considered||||0.001
91663296|NCT04547192|183221812|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Tetanus Considered for bites, burns, lacerations, and abrasions||||0.006
91663297|NCT04547192|183221812|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.03||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Date of Injury Recorded||||0.047
91663298|NCT04547192|183221812|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Death||||0.166
91663299|NCT04547192|183221812|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Important Clinical Data Document||||0.013
91663300|NCT04547192|183221813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||||||0.166
91663301|NCT01108445|183221886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.157|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.157
91663302|NCT01108445|183221888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The 95% CI for the HC was (4,6). If the median PFS for RAD001 is within the 95% CI for the HC, it is determined that there is not enough statistical evidence to say that the median PFS is different than the HC.|A comparison of the median PFS for RAD001 arm was compared to the 95% confidence interval(CI) of the median PFS of the historical control (HC). The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the median PFS between the treatment arms and the historical control. If the median PFS is outside the 95%CI for the HC,it is determined there is statistical evidence that median PFS is different from the HC.||||
91663303|NCT01108445|183221888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||95% CI for HC was(4,6). If the median PFS for Sunitinib is within the 95% CI for the HC,it is determined that there is not enough statistical evidence to say that the median PFS is different than the HC.|A comparison of the median PFS for Sunitinib arm was compared to the 95% confidence interval(CI) of the median PFS of the historical control (HC). The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the median PFS between the treatment arms and the historical control. If the median PFS is outside the 95%CI for the HC,it is determined there is statistical evidence that median PFS is different from the HC.||||
91663304|NCT01108445|183221890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.589
91663305|NCT01108445|183221891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.066
91691915|NCT00380874|183278451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.9276||95.0|-1.15|1.05||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 6.||1.05|-1.15|0.9276
91663306|NCT01484912|183221911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The superiority testing was conducted one sided with 0.025 significance level. If H0 was rejected one-sided 0.025 significance level, STA-2 was concluded to be statistically superior to Placebo.All hypothesis testing except for the primary efficacy endpoint was conducted two sides at 0.05 significance level and 95% Confidence Interval (C.I.) was adopted if needed.||||||0.025||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-test was used to compare the change in total exercise time between the treatment groups. The change in total exercise time (△) was defined as the total exercise time at end-point visit minus the total exercise time at baseline. Let △T be the change in total exercise time for treatment group (STA-2) and △C be the change in total exercise time for control group (Placebo). The hypothesis testing for the superiority of STA-2 to Placebo was H0：△T-△C≦0 with H1：△T-△C﹥0.||||0.025
91663307|NCT01484912|183221912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||All hypothesis testing was conducted with T-tests, two sides at 0.05 significance level and 95% Confidence Interval (C.I.) was adopted if needed.||||0.005
91663308|NCT00911274|183221919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.41||||||90.0|82.77|103.18|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.18|82.77|
91663309|NCT00911274|183221920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.3||||||90.0|97.84|104.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.88|97.84|
91663310|NCT00911274|183221921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|97.77|104.34|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.34|97.77|
91714046|NCT00810069|183319699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.01||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||-0.01|-0.10|0.021
91714047|NCT00810069|183319699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.0||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.00|-0.09|0.071
91714048|NCT00810069|183319699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.06||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.06|-0.05|0.792
91864258|NCT05256654|183617552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||5.2|-11.2|0.428
91864259|NCT05256654|183617552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-2.3|-14.7|0.009
91663311|NCT04603495|183221922|OTHER|The response rate between the 2 treatment groups was compared using CMH test.|Difference in proportion|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH 95% CI adjusted by strata; Mehrotra-Railkar test used if Breslow-Day significant; DIPSS High merged with Int-2 due to low counts.|The proportion difference = experimental group (Pela + RUX) - control group (placebo + RUX).|Splenic Response Rate at Week 24||39.3|21.6|<0.001
91663312|NCT04603495|183221923|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Absolute Change from Baseline in Total Symptom Score (TSS) at Week 24||0.04|-3.92|0.0545
91663313|NCT04603495|183221924|OTHER|The response rate between the 2 treatment groups was compared using CMH test.|Difference in proportions|6.0||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|15.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH 95% CI adjusted by strata; Mehrotra-Railkar test used if Breslow-Day significant; DIPSS High merged with Int-2 due to low counts.|Proportion Difference = Experimental Group (Pela + RUX) - Control Group (placebo + RUX).|Percentage of TSS50 at Week 24||15.5|-3.4|0.216
91663314|NCT04603495|183221926|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.63||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH 95% CI adjusted across the strata including baseline DIPSS, platelet count, and spleen volume.|Proportion Difference = Experimental Group (Pela + RUX) - Control Group (placebo + RUX).|≥1 Grade improvement From Baseline in Bone Marrow Fibrosis at Week 24||14.73|0.52|0.037
91663315|NCT04603495|183221945|OTHER||Difference in Proportions|7.8||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH 95% CI adjusted by strata; Mehrotra-Railkar test used if Breslow-Day significant; DIPSS High merged with Int-2 due to low counts.|The proportion difference = experimental group (Pela + RUX) - control group (placebo + RUX). Wald 95% CIs were applied.|Modified Total Symptom Score (mTSS) Response at Week 24||17.2|-1.7|0.107
91792044|NCT01857310|183461831|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Major neonatal complications will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.4|-0.2|
91792045|NCT01857310|183461831|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|21.9|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Major neonatal complications will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||21.9|0.18|
91663316|NCT02709018|183221962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
91663317|NCT02709018|183221963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
91663318|NCT00950989|183221987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|3.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|15.4||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.4|-9.0|0.598
91663319|NCT00950989|183221987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
91663320|NCT00950989|183221987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|3.2||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|15.4||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.4|-9.0|0.635
91663321|NCT00950989|183221987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.740
91663322|NCT00950989|183221987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|-3.2||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|7.8||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.8|-14.1|0.572
91663323|NCT00950989|183221987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.572
91663324|NCT00950989|183221988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.2||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|14.0||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.0|-20.4|0.728
91663325|NCT00950989|183221988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
91663326|NCT00950989|183221988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-6.3||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|10.7||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.7|-23.4|0.412
91864260|NCT05256654|183617552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-6.0|-18.0|<.001
91663327|NCT00950989|183221988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedures|||||||0.740
91663328|NCT00950989|183221988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|20.5||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-14.2|0.740
91857527|NCT03725722|183598764|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|34.6||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference.||34.6|3.9|<0.05
91864261|NCT05256654|183617553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|23.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||23.7|-8.4|0.412
91663329|NCT00950989|183221988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
91663330|NCT00950989|183221989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.1||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.1|-6.1|0.984
91857528|NCT03725722|183598764|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|35.2||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||35.2|5.4|<0.05
91663331|NCT00950989|183221989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
91663332|NCT00950989|183221989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.1||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.1|-6.1|0.993
91663333|NCT00950989|183221989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
91663334|NCT00950989|183221989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.2||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.2||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.2|-7.5|0.159
91663335|NCT00950989|183221989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.797
91663336|NCT00950989|183221990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||P-value is nominal without multiplicity adjustment based on ANCOVA model adjusting for sex and baseline DAS28 score.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.459
91663337|NCT00950989|183221990|SUPERIORITY||LS mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||P-value is nominal without multiplicity adjustment based on ANCOVA model adjusting for sex and baseline DAS28 score.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.906
91663338|NCT00950989|183221990|SUPERIORITY||LS mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||P-value is nominal without multiplicity adjustment based on ANCOVA model adjusting for sex and baseline DAS28 score.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.849
91663339|NCT03804983|183221995|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.178||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.178
91663340|NCT03804983|183221996|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.145||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.145
91663341|NCT03804983|183221997|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.304||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.304
91663342|NCT03804983|183221998|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.131||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.131
91663343|NCT03804983|183222000|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.206||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.206
91663344|NCT03804983|183222001|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.335||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.335
91663345|NCT03804983|183222002|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.637||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.637
91864262|NCT05256654|183617553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.1|-19.7|0.104
91663346|NCT03804983|183222003|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.347||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.347
91663347|NCT03804983|183222004|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.057||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.057
91663348|NCT03804983|183222005|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.435||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.435
91663349|NCT03804983|183222006|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.135||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.135
91663350|NCT03804983|183222007|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.271||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.271
91663351|NCT03804983|183222008|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||1||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
91663352|NCT03804983|183222010|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||1||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
91691916|NCT00380874|183278451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9952||95.0|-1.06|1.07|||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.||Cycle 7.||1.07|-1.06|0.9952
91691917|NCT00380874|183278451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6265||95.0|-0.85|1.38|||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 8.||1.38|-0.85|0.6265
91663353|NCT03804983|183222011|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.294||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.294
91663354|NCT03804983|183222012|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.584||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.584
91663355|NCT03804983|183222013|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.69||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.69
91663356|NCT03804983|183222014|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.066||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.066
91663357|NCT03804983|183222015|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.904||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.904
91663358|NCT00424047|183222066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.324|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.438|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (Lenalidomide/Dex:Placebo/Dexamethasone)|||0.438|0.240|<0.001
91714049|NCT00810069|183319700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.0||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||1.00|-1.74|0.597
91714050|NCT00810069|183319700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.78||P-value for Week 12: Analysis for early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.78|-2.13|0.360
91714051|NCT00810069|183319700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.65||P-value for Week 16: Analysis for early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||1.65|-1.52|0.937
91714052|NCT00810069|183319701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0||||P-value is for early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies||Kaplan-Meier estimates (weeks): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||||0.075
91663359|NCT00424047|183222067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.07|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone:Placebo/Dexamethasone)|||1.070|0.498|0.105
91663360|NCT00424047|183222068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.143|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||1.143|0.651|0.302
91864263|NCT05256654|183617553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||6.7|-16.2|0.363
91663361|NCT00424047|183222069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Probability from Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<0.001
91663362|NCT00424047|183222070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Probability from Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<0.001
91663363|NCT00424047|183222073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.558||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.921|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (lenalidomide/dexamethasone : placebo/dexamethasone).|||0.921|0.338|0.021
91663364|NCT00424047|183222074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.362|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.478||The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||0.478|0.27|<0.001
91663365|NCT00424047|183222075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.166||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.532||The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (lenalidomide/dexamethasone: placebo/dexamethasone)|||1.532|0.887|0.271
91663366|NCT00424047|183222076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.135||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.486||The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||1.486|0.866|0.359
91663367|NCT00424047|183222077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.964|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||0.964|0.398|0.032
91663368|NCT01229150|183222086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.24
91663369|NCT01229150|183222086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.75
91663370|NCT01229150|183222090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.51
91663371|NCT01229150|183222090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.81
91864264|NCT05256654|183617554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.3|-22.2|0.101
91663372|NCT01229150|183222092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0007||||||P-value was determined by comparison by the level of p-ERK at cycle 1 day 1 to cycle 1 day 2.|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||<0.0007
91663373|NCT01229150|183222092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was determined by comparison by the level of p-ERK at cycle 1 day 1 to cycle 1 day 14.|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91663374|NCT01229150|183222092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209||||||P-value was determined by comparison by the level of p-ERK at cycle 1 day 2 and cycle 1 day 14.|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||4 patients in this group; statistically underpowered.||||0.0209
91663375|NCT03100344|183222111|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)|mean difference of percentage changes|-13.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|0.0|||Kenward-Rogers|||||0.0|-27.3|0.051
91663376|NCT03100344|183222111|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)|mean difference of percentage changes|-16.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-3.2|||Kenward Roger|||||-3.2|-30.2|0.016
91663377|NCT03100344|183222111|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)|mean difference of percentage changes|-6.8||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|6.8|||Kenward Roger|||||6.8|-20.5|0.322
91663378|NCT03100344|183222112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.8|2.0|0.034
91663379|NCT03100344|183222112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.2|14.7|<0.001
91663380|NCT03100344|183222112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.6|-4.2|0.154
91663381|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||22.2|-0.4|0.062
91663382|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||23.6|0.8|0.042
91663383|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||15.0|-4.7|0.307
91663384|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||38.7|9.3|0.003
91663385|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|40.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||40.9|11.4|0.001
91663386|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||33.1|4.9|0.011
91663387|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||41.7|13.5|<0.001
91663388|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||54.8|25.7|<0.001
91663389|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|45.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||45.8|17.4|<0.001
91663390|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|37.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||37.1|4.2|0.018
91663391|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.7|||<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||59.9|27.6|<0001
91663392|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|42.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||42.6|9.7|0.003
91663393|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||41.4|7.3|0.007
91663394|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||59.9|27.4|<0.001
91663395|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.9|2.4|0.030
91663396|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|50.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||50.2|16.4|<0.001
91663397|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|63.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||63.2|31.2|<0.001
91663398|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||39.4|6.1|0.010
91663399|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|43.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||43.5|9.2|0.004
91663400|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||53.3|20.1|<0.001
91663401|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||41.4|7.6|0.007
91663402|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||38.1|3.6|0.022
91663403|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|41.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||41.3|7.4|0.007
91663404|NCT03100344|183222113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||34.4|0.4|0.050
91663405|NCT03100344|183222114|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-14.4||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-2.7|||Kenward Roger|||||-2.7|-26.2|0.017
91663406|NCT03100344|183222114|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-11.3||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|0.4|||Kenward Roger|||||0.4|-23.1|0.058
91663407|NCT03100344|183222114|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-8.3|||Kenward Roger|||||-8.3|-31.6|<0.001
91663408|NCT03100344|183222115|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-9.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-1.8|||Kenward Roger|||||-1.8|-17.5|0.016
91663409|NCT03100344|183222115|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-12.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-5.1|||Kenward Roger|||||-5.1|-20.6|0.001
91663410|NCT03100344|183222115|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-7.6||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.3|||Kenward Roger|||||0.3|-15.4|0.058
91663411|NCT03100344|183222116|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-11.2|||Kenward Roger|||||-11.2|-37.8|<0.001
91663412|NCT03100344|183222116|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-31.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-18.6|||Kenward Roger|||||-18.6|-44.9|<0.001
91663413|NCT03100344|183222116|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-11.8|||Kenward Roger|||||-11.8|-38.4|<0.001
91663414|NCT03100344|183222117|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0|||Kenward Roger|||||-1.0|-3.1|<0.001
91663415|NCT03100344|183222117|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.3|||Kenward Roger|||||-1.3|-3.4|<0.001
91663416|NCT03100344|183222117|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||Kenward Roger|||||-0.9|-3.0|<0.001
91663417|NCT03100344|183222118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 1||5.1|-4.9|0.970
91663418|NCT03100344|183222118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 1||7.5|-4.1|0.574
91663419|NCT03100344|183222118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 1||1.7|-5.2|0.311
91663420|NCT03100344|183222118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 24||19.8|-11.3|0.598
91663421|NCT03100344|183222118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 24||31.4|-0.4|0.066
91663422|NCT03100344|183222118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 24||16.9|-13.5|0.826
91663423|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.1|-7.7|0.558
91663424|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||11.6|-4.7|0.413
91663425|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.0|-7.7|0.543
91663426|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||4.2|-7.6|0.583
91663427|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|22.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.5|1.8|0.028
91663428|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.3|-0.9|0.087
91663429|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||9.4|-5.6|0.632
91663430|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||24.8|3.1|0.016
91663431|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.0|4.5|0.009
91663432|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||11.6|-11.2|0.974
91663433|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.3|1.8|0.031
91864265|NCT05256654|183617554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-1.0|-20.6|0.033
91864266|NCT05256654|183617554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-0.6|-20.3|0.040
91663434|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.2|-0.3|0.032
91663435|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||16.9|-9.0|0.553
91714053|NCT00810069|183319702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Survival rate difference|-0.07||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.02||P-value is for comparison of early intervention versus delayed intervention as a function of survival rate over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16).|Kaplan-Meier analysis|P-value for comparison of rates is based on normal approximation using Greenwood's estimation for standard error.||Survival function estimated over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||0.02|-0.16|0.116
91714054|NCT00186485|183319717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated Measures ANOVAs over the course of the TMS treatments, by severity of depression on the HAM-D rating scale: total scores (F (4,96) = 19.88, p \< .001) over the 4 week treatment period.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures Anova||ANOVA with partial eta accounts for multiple repeated measures over the course of treatment.||||<0.001
91864267|NCT05256654|183617555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-13.6|-40.5|<.001
91864268|NCT05256654|183617555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-33.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-33.2|-50.5|<.001
91901766|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.01||||0.9856|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.617|1.644|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 4: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.644|0.617|0.9856
91663436|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||35.8|6.1|0.008
91663437|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||28.2|-0.3|0.061
91663438|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||18.0|-10.1|0.585
91663439|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||32.8|2.0|0.032
91663440|NCT03100344|183222118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||23.1|-5.9|0.254
91714055|NCT00186485|183319718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Repeated Measures ANOVAs over the course of the TMS treatments, by severity of depression on the BDI total scores (F (4,96) = 19.35, p \< .001) over the 4 week treatment period.,|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA with partial eta; accounts for multiple repeated measures over the course of treatment.||||<0.01
91714056|NCT00186485|183319719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Repeated Measures ANOVAs over the course of the TMS treatments, by severity of depression on the CGI scores (F (4,88) = 5.31, p \< .01) over the 4 week treatment period.|ANOVA|||Repeated Measures ANOVA with partial eta; p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons over the course of treatment||||<0.01
91663441|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|14.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||14.3|-6.8|0.487
91663442|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|26.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||26.5|1.6|0.033
91663443|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||23.8|0.2|0.053
91663444|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||33.8|3.2|0.021
91663445|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|32.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||32.3|2.4|0.027
91663446|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||38.1|7.3|0.006
91663447|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||32.2|-1.7|0.086
91663448|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||43.1|9.3|0.004
91663449|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|34.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||34.2|0.5|0.050
91663450|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||38.1|3.3|0.023
91663451|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|45.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.0|10.7|0.002
91714057|NCT01922258|183319727|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.34|||=|0.1454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|0.82|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.82|-5.49|=0.1454
91864269|NCT05256654|183617555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-35.9|-52.5|<.001
91864270|NCT02709161|183617558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91864271|NCT02709161|183617559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91714058|NCT01261390|183319736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.915|0.561|||||Presented average of the treatment effects on 24hr SBP at 6months and 12months: (6mo + 12mo)/ 2; Comparison: ActivePAP Control. Adjusted for randomization factors (CVD; site; sleepstudy type) with subjectspecific slopes and intercepts.|"We conducted a linear mixed effects regression (LMER) to estimate the treatment effect of CPAP on mean 24hour Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP). Timepoint, treatment, and the timepoint\* treatment interaction were included as fixed effects, as were randomization stratification factors. Subject was included as a random effect. Let: y = observed SBP; β = fixed effects; u = random effects; X = known design matrix; Z = vector of subjects~Then our model is:~y = Xβ + Zu + ε"||0.561|-5.915|
91857529|NCT03725722|183598764|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|54.3||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||54.3|22.3|<0.0001
91864272|NCT04089059|183617572|SUPERIORITY|Poisson regression for comparison of incidence rate against performance goal (0.43)|||||<|0.0001|||||||Poisson Regression|||||||<0.0001
91714059|NCT01261390|183319737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for intervention and study duration (number of nights), and randomization (CVD; site; diagnostic sleep study type; PAP device type).|Estimated value is minutes of use per night.|We performed a mixed effects analysis of the effect of Motivational Enhancement (ME) on nightly CPAP adherence. Our model included every night of data and adjusted for intervention and study duration (number of nights), as well as randomization stratification factors (CVD; site; diagnostic sleepstudy type; PAP device type).||||0.003
91714060|NCT02782741|183319779|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference of avalglucosidase alfa minus alglucosidase alfa was greater than (\>) -1.1.|LS mean difference|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.99|||mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis performed using MMRM model with baseline FVC (% predicted, as continuous), sex, age (in years at baseline), treatment group, visit, interaction term between treatment group and visit as fixed effects.||4.99|-0.13|0.0074
91864273|NCT04089059|183617575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HF Hospitalization events 6 months before implant vs 6 months after implant||||<0.0001
91864274|NCT04089059|183617576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of the incidence rate of HF hospitalizations or emergency department / hospital outpatient IV diuretic visits of Former Control Arm versus Modified Intent to Treat Arm at 6 months post-implant/Subgroup Analysis||||||0.0697|||||||Poisson Regression|||||||0.0697
91857530|NCT03725722|183598765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Multiple contrast test|"P-values were adj. for multiple comparisons. Models with adj. p-value \<0.025 were stat. sign. diff. from a flat dose-response model.~Model:Emax model"||This endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between EASI75 at Week 8 and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response||||<0.0001
91663452|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|45.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.0|10.7|0.002
91663453|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||37.3|1.3|0.041
91663454|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|45.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||45.4|10.4|0.003
91857531|NCT03725722|183598765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|37.6||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||37.6|1.8|<0.05
91864275|NCT04089059|183617579|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mPAP values at baseline to values at 6 months.||||||0.0952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0952
91864276|NCT04089059|183617579|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mPAP values at baseline to values at 6 months.||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0090
91864277|NCT04089059|183617579|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mPAP values at baseline to values at 6 months.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91901767|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.6||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.361|1.0|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 4: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.000|0.361|0.1996
91663455|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.2|-0.5|0.063
91663456|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||35.6|-0.4|0.064
91663457|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|40.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||40.3|4.9|0.016
91663458|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|36.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||36.9|1.3|0.041
91663459|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||35.6|-0.4|0.064
91663460|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|43.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||43.4|8.6|0.005
91663461|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||35.0|-0.6|0.064
91663462|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.9||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||33.8|-2.0|0.094
91857532|NCT03725722|183598765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|41.2||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||41.2|5.8|<0.05
91901768|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.46||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.233|0.926|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 8: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||0.926|0.233|0.1553
91663463|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||39.6|5.1|0.014
91663464|NCT03100344|183222119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||28.0|-7.7|0.273
91663465|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||7.0|-6.8|0.979
91663466|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||9.0|-5.8|0.668
91663467|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||9.2|-5.8|0.658
91663468|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||12.2|-8.0|0.690
91663469|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||13.7|-6.9|0.521
91663470|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|26.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||26.5|1.5|0.033
91663471|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.0|-3.1|0.172
91663472|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||27.7|3.7|0.014
91663473|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||33.9|8.2|0.002
91663474|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||18.8|-7.5|0.404
91663475|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||39.6|9.4|0.003
91663476|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.1||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||28.2|-0.1|0.059
91663477|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||25.0|-5.6|0.222
91663478|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|42.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||42.3|10.0|0.003
91663479|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.0|3.3|0.22
91663480|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||29.3|-2.8|0.111
91663481|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||46.0|13.2|<0.001
91663482|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||33.6|1.3|0.040
91663483|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|27.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||27.4|-7.3|0.262
91663484|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||25.7|-8.4|0.327
91663485|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||33.1|-1.7|0.083
91663486|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||27.2|-7.0|0.255
91663487|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||35.9|2.2|0.034
91663488|NCT03100344|183222120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||34.6|0.3|0.053
91663489|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||5.1|-4.9|0.970
91714061|NCT02782741|183319779|SUPERIORITY|A test for superiority of avalglucosidase alfa versus alglucosidase alfa was performed with an overall 5% level of significance.||||||0.0626||||||Threshold for significance at \<0.05 level.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis performed using MMRM model with baseline FVC (% predicted, as continuous), sex, age (in years at baseline), treatment group, visit, interaction term between treatment group and visit as fixed effects.||||0.0626
91857533|NCT03725722|183598765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.3|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|53.2||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||53.2|17.5|<0.0005
91663490|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||7.5|-4.1|0.574
91663491|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||4.8|-4.8|0.985
91663492|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||1.2|-8.4|0.154
91663493|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||6.6|-6.8|0.978
91663494|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||6.6|-6.8|0.978
91663495|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||4.3|-7.5|0.602
91663496|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||11.4|-4.5|0.413
91663497|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||9.1|-5.7|0.658
91663498|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||10.3|-3.2|0.307
91663499|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.8|6.9|0.002
91663500|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||17.4|0.1|0.054
91663501|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.5|-5.4|0.325
91663502|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.1|3.1|0.019
91663503|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||30.5|4.5|0.011
91663504|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||21.7|-3.2|0.153
91663505|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||38.4|10.3|0.001
91663506|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||25.1|-0.7|0.069
91663507|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||26.6|-0.8|0.070
91663508|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||35.3|6.5|0.006
91663509|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||27.7|0.3|0.052
91663510|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|26.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||26.3|-0.7|0.069
91663511|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||33.3|4.9|0.011
91663512|NCT03100344|183222121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||25.7|-1.3|0.083
91663513|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||5.1|-4.9|0.970
91663514|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||7.5|-4.1|0.574
91663515|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||1.7|-5.2|0.311
91663516|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.1|-7.7|0.558
91663517|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||11.6|-4.7|0.413
91663518|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.0|-7.7|0.543
91663519|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||4.2|-7.6|0.583
91792046|NCT01857310|183461832|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Structural malformations will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.0|-0.8|
91663520|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|22.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.5|1.8|0.028
91663521|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.3|-0.9|0.087
91663522|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||9.4|-5.6|0.632
91792047|NCT01857310|183461832|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.21|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Structural malformations will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.21|0.53|
91792048|NCT01857310|183461833|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Severe maternal morbidity will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.3|-0.4|
91663523|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||24.8|3.1|0.016
91663524|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.0|4.5|0.009
91663525|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||11.6|-11.2|0.974
91663526|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.3|1.8|0.031
91663527|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.5|1.8|0.032
91663528|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||16.9|-9.0|0.553
91663529|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||35.8|6.1|0.008
91663530|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||28.2|-0.3|0.061
91663531|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||18.0|-10.1|0.585
91864278|NCT04089059|183617581|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of KCCQ at baseline and at 6 months||||||0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0026
91857534|NCT03725722|183598765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|45.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|62.8||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||62.8|28.1|<0.0001
91857535|NCT03725722|183598766|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD.|||||>|0.05||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner.||||>0.05
91901769|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.47||||0.4633|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.748|2.882|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 8: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.882|0.748|0.4633
91663532|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||32.8|2.0|0.032
91663533|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||23.1|-5.9|0.254
91663534|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||19.8|-11.3|0.598
91663535|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||31.4|-0.4|0.066
91663536|NCT03100344|183222122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||16.9|-13.5|0.826
91663537|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-10.0||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|0.0|||Kenward-Rogers|||Week 1||0.0|-20.0|0.049
91901770|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.66||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.335|1.316|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 8: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.316|0.335|0.4409
91663538|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-7.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-7.0|-26.7|<0.001
91663539|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-5.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-5.8|-25.6|0.002
91901771|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.3||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.15|0.598|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 12: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||0.598|0.150|0.0283
91663540|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-9.8||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|1.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||1.3|-20.9|0.084
91663541|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-16.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-5.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-5.2|-27.2|0.004
91663542|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-3.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-3.8|-25.8|0.008
91663543|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-0.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-0.4|-27.5|0.044
91857536|NCT03725722|183598766|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD.|||||>|0.05||||||"vIGA-AD was reached in less than 50% of participants, therefore the median time was not estimable.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner.||||>0.05
91857537|NCT03725722|183598766|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD.|||||>|0.05||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner||||>0.05
91857538|NCT03725722|183598766|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD|||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner||||<0.001
91857539|NCT01600014|183598767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.51||Chi-square test for stratified data with a significance level of 5%. No adjustment for multiple tests was needed, due to the analyses were based on distinct subject groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and country||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||4.51|1.32|0.001
91663544|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|-7.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-7.6|-34.7|0.002
91663545|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-1.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-1.8|-28.8|0.026
91663546|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.8||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|0.7|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||0.7|-30.2|0.062
91663547|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-7.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-7.9|-38.9|0.003
91663548|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-20.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-5.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-5.2|-36.0|0.009
91663549|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-2.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-2.3|-29.4|0.022
91663550|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-10.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-10.2|-37.1|<0.001
91663551|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-1.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-1.3|-28.1|0.032
91663552|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-13.7||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|1.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||1.1|-28.6|0.070
91714062|NCT02782741|183319780|SUPERIORITY|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|30.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.43||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|58.69|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model with baseline FVC (% predicted) and baseline 6MWT (distance walked in meter), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||58.69|1.33|0.0405
91663553|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-8.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-8.9|-38.5|0.002
91663554|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-10.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|4.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||4.1|-25.6|0.154
91663555|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-12.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|1.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||1.9|-26.0|0.090
91663556|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-2.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-2.1|-29.7|0.024
91663557|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-9.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|4.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||4.4|-23.4|0.180
91663558|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-13.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|0.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||0.0|-27.3|0.051
91663559|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-16.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-3.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-3.2|-30.2|0.016
91663560|NCT03100344|183222123|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-6.8||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|6.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||6.8|-20.5|0.322
91663561|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-10.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-2.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-2.4|-19.4|0.012
91663562|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-7.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-7.1|-23.8|<0.001
91663563|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-9.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-0.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-0.9|-17.8|0.029
91663564|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-11.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-11.6|-32.0|<0.001
91663565|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-19.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-19.1|-39.1|<0.001
91663566|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-13.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-13.6|-34.0|<0.001
91663567|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-10.5|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-10.5|-32.1|<0.001
91663568|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-24.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-24.2|-45.5|<0.001
91663569|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-19.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-19.9|-41.6|<0.001
91663570|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-12.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-12.6|-33.2|<0.001
91792049|NCT01857310|183461833|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.32|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Severe maternal morbidity will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.32|0.68|
91901772|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.5||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.758|2.97|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 12: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.970|0.758|0.4434
91663571|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|-27.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-27.2|-47.4|<0.001
91663572|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-34.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-23.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-23.8|-44.4|<0.001
91792050|NCT01857310|183461834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.23||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Fertilization rate will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||3.23|-7.90|
91857540|NCT01600014|183598767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.37||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|5.25||Chi-square test for stratified data with a significance level of 5%. No adjustment for multiple tests was needed, due to the analyses were based on distinct subject groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and week of randomisation||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 62 subjects were included||5.25|1.07|0.013
91857541|NCT01600014|183598768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.41||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|17.62||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and country||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||17.62|1.10|0.016
91857542|NCT01600014|183598768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.24||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|6.47||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and country||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 62 subjects were included||6.47|0.78|0.10
91857543|NCT01600014|183598768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent cleared subjects|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|56.1|||||Estimation based on completers only.|Subjects randomised to vehicle were not included in the estimate of the overall clearance rate for the repeat-use regimen, from last treatment throught to Month 12. Instead, the subjects randomised to ingenol mebutate were given higher weights to reflect the hypothetical scenario where all randomised subjects were given active treatment during the repeat use cycle||56.1|44.0|
91857544|NCT01600014|183598769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.38||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|ANCOVA|Analysed using ANCOVA adjusted for anatomical location, country and AK count at randomisation|Using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) as the imputation method.|The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||-0.38|-1.38|<0.001
91857545|NCT01600014|183598769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.51||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|ANCOVA|Sensitivity analysis using complete cases|Sensitivity analysis using complete cases|The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||-0.51|-1.52|<0.001
91857546|NCT01600014|183598769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.19||Formal statistical significance could not be established because of the closed test procedure where the first secondary endpoint tested (12 months clearance) did not reach statistical significance in the recurrent subgroup|ANCOVA|Analysed using ANCOVA adjusted for anatomical location, country and AK count at randomisation|Using BOCF as the imputation method, the difference in the adjusted mean AK count between the ingenol mebutate and vehicle groups|The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 62 subjects were included||-0.19|-1.19|0.008
91857547|NCT03481660|183598771|NON_INFERIORITY|(4-letter margin) (1-sided)|LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.1|||ANOVA|||BCVA at Week 52||3.1|-0.6|<0.001
91663573|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-12.5|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-12.5|-35.6|<0.001
91857548|NCT03481660|183598772|NON_INFERIORITY|(4-letter margin) (1-sided)|LS mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.6|||ANOVA|||BCVA over period Week 40 through Week 52||2.6|-0.9|<0.001
91857549|NCT03481660|183598772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||BCVA over period Week 40 through Week 52||||0.164
91857550|NCT03481660|183598779|OTHER|Treatment Difference|LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.1||||||BCVA at Week 52||3.1|-0.6|
91857551|NCT03481660|183598779|OTHER|Treatment Difference|LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.9||||||BCVA at Week 100||4.9|0.2|
91857552|NCT03481660|183598780|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1||||||BCVA over period Week 4 through Week 52||2.1|-0.6|
91857553|NCT03481660|183598780|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.6||||||BCVA over period Week 4 through Week 100||2.6|-0.4|
91663574|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-38.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-27.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-27.2|-49.7|<0.001
91857554|NCT03481660|183598781|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.4||||||BCVA over period Week 20 through Week 52||2.4|-0.9|
91857555|NCT03481660|183598781|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||||||BCVA over period Week 28 through Week 52||2.5|-0.9|
91857556|NCT03481660|183598781|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9||||||BCVA over period Week 20 through Week 100||2.9|-0.5|
91857557|NCT03481660|183598781|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0||||||BCVA over period Week 28 through Week 100||3.0|-0.5|
91857558|NCT03481660|183598782|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.3||||||BCVA over period Week 88 through Week 100||4.3|-0.1|
91663575|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-18.7|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-18.7|-41.7|<0.001
91663576|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-20.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-8.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-8.9|-32.8|<0.001
91857559|NCT03481660|183598783|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.9||||||Gain of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 52||8.9|-7.6|
91792051|NCT01857310|183461835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.11||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of good quality embryos will be compared using Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||0.11|-0.33|
91663577|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-34.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-22.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-22.6|-46.0|<0.001
91663578|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-28.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-16.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-16.8|-40.7|<0.001
91663579|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-8.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-8.4|-33.7|0.001
91663580|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-17.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-17.3|-42.1|<0.001
91663581|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-15.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-15.2|-40.6|<0.001
91663582|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-22.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-8.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-8.6|-36.1|0.002
91663583|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-18.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-18.0|-44.9|<0.001
91663584|NCT03100344|183222124|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|-16.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-16.2|-43.8|<0.001
91663585|NCT03100344|183222126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91663586|NCT03100344|183222126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.8|-3.8|<0.001
91663587|NCT03100344|183222126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.3|-3.3|<0.001
91663588|NCT03100344|183222127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-0.9|-3.0|<0.001
91663589|NCT03100344|183222127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.6|-3.6|<0.001
91663590|NCT03100344|183222127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.1|-3.1|<0.001
91663591|NCT03100344|183222128|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-9.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-9.9|-37.7|<0.001
91792052|NCT01857310|183461836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|4.05||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Proportion of good quality embryos on day 5 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||4.05|-6.66|
91857560|NCT03481660|183598783|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|14.5||||||Gain of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 100||14.5|-3.9|
91857561|NCT03481660|183598784|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|14.7||||||Gain of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 52||14.7|-3.9|
91663592|NCT03100344|183222128|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-17.7|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-17.7|-45.0|<0.001
91663593|NCT03100344|183222128|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-29.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.2|-15.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-15.2|-43.2|<0.001
91663594|NCT04406194|183222162|EQUIVALENCE|0.80-1.25 margins for equivalence|Mean Ratio|0.9684||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|0.9977|||ANOVA|||||0.9977|0.9400|0.0000
91663595|NCT04406194|183222163|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is required.|Mean Ratio|1.0555||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9292|1.1989|||ANOVA|||||1.1989|0.9292|0.0155
91663596|NCT04406194|183222164|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is not required.|Mean Ratio|0.9719||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.0006|||ANOVA|||||1.0006|0.9440|0.0000
91663597|NCT02888756|183222167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed for week 6, to provide statistical information for decision on execution of intracellular cytokine staining (ICS).||||0.14
91857562|NCT03481660|183598784|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|19.4||||||Gain of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 100||19.4|-0.4|
91857563|NCT03481660|183598785|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|20.2||||||Gain of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 52||20.2|-0.4|
91663598|NCT03264092|183222178|OTHER|This was just a comparative study. No superiority, equivalence or non inferiority analysis was performed.||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
91663599|NCT03264092|183222179|OTHER|This was just a comparative study. No superiority, equivalence or non inferiority analysis was performed.||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
91663600|NCT03264092|183222180|OTHER|This was just a comparative study. No superiority, equivalence or non inferiority analysis was performed.||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
91663601|NCT00928057|183222186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To conclude equivalence for glycemic control, the average absolute percent change in fructosamine and 95% confidence interval had to be within 20%.~80 subjects were required to be in each insulin dose group (40 per PN arm) to provide 90% power for an equivalence with alpha=0.05."||||||0.506||||||The threshold for statistical significance, or alpha, is 0.05.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has effects for subject, insulin dose group, investigator site and order of pen needle use.||"The effects of pen needle type on glycemic control were tested for statistical significance using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The ANOVA model was used to calculate the absolute percent (%)change in fructosamine (% \|∆ Fru\|), with 95 % confidence intervals."||||0.506
91792053|NCT01857310|183461837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of embryos transferred will be compared using Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||0.10|-0.11|
91857564|NCT03481660|183598785|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|23.5||||||Gain of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 100||23.5|3.3|
91663602|NCT00928057|183222186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To conclude equivalence for glycemic control, the average absolute percent change in fructosamine and 95% confidence interval had to be within 20%.~80 subjects were required to be in each insulin dose group (40 per PN arm) to provide 90% power for an equivalence with alpha=0.05."||||||0.878||||||The threshold for significance, or alpha, is 0.05.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has effects for subject, insulin dose group, investigator site and order of pen needle use.||"The effects of pen needle type on glycemic control were tested for statistical significance using ANOVA. The ANOVA model was used to calculate the % \|∆ Fru\|, with 95% confidence intervals."||||0.878
91663603|NCT00928057|183222191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||The threshold for statistical significance, or alpha, is 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the pain from the 4mm is the same or greater than the pain for the reference. The alternative hypothesis is that the pain from the 4mm is less than the pain for the reference.||||0.019
91663604|NCT00928057|183222191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||As described for the 4 vs. 5mm statistical analysis.||||<0.001
91857565|NCT03481660|183598786|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.9||||||Loss of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 52||2.9|-4.2|
91857566|NCT03481660|183598786|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.7||||||Loss of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 100||-1.7|-10.8|
91857567|NCT03481660|183598787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.4||||||Loss of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 52||2.4|-3.2|
91792054|NCT01857310|183461838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of embryos cryopreserved will be compared using Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||0.18|-0.23|
91792055|NCT01857310|183461839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|21.2||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Sperm penetration percentage will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||21.2|-45.4|
91792056|NCT01857310|183461840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.03||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of cells on day 3 will be compared with Poisson regression using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||0.03|-0.16|
91792057|NCT01857310|183461841|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.61|||||Fewer than 4 cells|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of cells on day 3 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.61|0.88|
91792058|NCT01857310|183461842|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43|||||Fewer than 8 cells|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of cells on day 5 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.43|0.77|
91792059|NCT01857310|183461843|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||||Excellent or good morphology|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Embryo morphology on day 3 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.09|0.87|
91792060|NCT01857310|183461844|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.06|||||Excellent or good morphology|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Embryo morphology on day 5 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.06|0.63|
91792061|NCT01857310|183461845|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||||ICSI|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Method of fertilization will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.09|0.80|
91792062|NCT01857310|183461846|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21|||||Excellent or good quality|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Quality of embryos transferred will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.21|0.88|
91792063|NCT01857310|183461847|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.43|||||Abnormal|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Chromosomal complement will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||7.43|0.74|
91901773|NCT01284062|183698192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.04||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|2.141|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 12: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.141|0.510|0.9372
91901774|NCT01284062|183698197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.53|59.81|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||59.81|25.53|
91901775|NCT01284062|183698197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|43.59|74.43|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||74.43|43.59|
91901776|NCT01284062|183698197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|34.74|65.26|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||65.26|34.74|
91901777|NCT01284062|183698197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|15.38|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.58|31.96|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||31.96|6.58|
91901778|NCT01284062|183698197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|18.33||||0.4495|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.13|39.98|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||39.98|-6.13|0.4495
91901779|NCT01284062|183698197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|8.33||||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.37|30.54|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||30.54|-15.37|0.7177
91901780|NCT01284062|183698197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-26.28||||0.2016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-46.45|-3.15|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||-3.15|-46.45|0.2016
91901781|NCT01284062|183698198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.14|34.22|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||34.22|7.14|
91901782|NCT01284062|183698198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|20.08|49.88|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||49.88|20.08|
91901783|NCT01284062|183698198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|18.75|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.4|33.92|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||33.92|9.40|
91901784|NCT01284062|183698198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|11.22|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||11.22|0.00|
91901785|NCT01284062|183698198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|16.67||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.33|35.76|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||35.76|-5.33|0.4082
91901786|NCT01284062|183698198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|2.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.8|19.99|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||19.99|-17.80|1.0000
91663605|NCT03206749|183222193|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.61|42.4|||ANCOVA|||||42.40|16.61|<0.0001
91663606|NCT03206749|183222194|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|28.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.18|40.88|||ANCOVA|||||40.88|16.18|<0.0001
91663607|NCT03206749|183222195|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|62.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|89.27|||ANCOVA|||||89.27|36.30|<0.0001
91901787|NCT01284062|183698198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-16.67||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-34.22|-1.95|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||-1.95|-34.22|0.2200
91901788|NCT01284062|183698199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.332|-0.3||||||||-0.300|-2.332|
91901789|NCT01284062|183698199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.19|-1.374||||||||-1.374|-3.190|
91663608|NCT03206749|183222196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.16|||Regression, Cox|||||2.16|1.01|0.0469
91663609|NCT03206749|183222197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||||2.00|0.79|0.3294
91663610|NCT03206749|183222198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2341|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.2341
91663611|NCT03206749|183222199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3358||||||0 - 24 hours|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3358
91663612|NCT03206749|183222199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849||||||Greater than (\>) 24 - 48 hours|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0849
91663613|NCT03206749|183222200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||0 - 24 hours|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0004
91663614|NCT03206749|183222200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||\>24 - 48 hours|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0035
91857568|NCT03481660|183598787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.1||||||Loss of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 100||-0.1|-8.4|
91901790|NCT01284062|183698199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.178|-1.419||||||||-1.419|-3.178|
91901791|NCT01284062|183698199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.761|0.19||||||||0.190|-1.761|
91901792|NCT01284062|183698199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.3639|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.335|0.403|||ANCOVA|||P-value was analyzed from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and baseline.||0.403|-2.335|0.3639
91901793|NCT01284062|183698199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.98||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.32|0.355|||ANCOVA|||P-value was analyzed from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and baseline.||0.355|-2.320|0.3446
91901794|NCT01284062|183698199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.884|1.945|||ANCOVA|||P-value was analyzed from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and baseline.||1.945|-0.884|0.6285
91901795|NCT03829319|183698287|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.07976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.05|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.05|0.74|0.07976
91663615|NCT00205777|183222227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.302|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).||1.302|0.322|0.22
91663616|NCT00205777|183222227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.301|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.301|0.322|0.24
91663617|NCT00205777|183222227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|2.405|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.405|0.501|0.83
91663618|NCT00205777|183222227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.074||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.356|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.356|0.490|0.87
91663619|NCT00205777|183222227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|2.131|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.131|0.458|0.96
91663620|NCT00205777|183222227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.592||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|1.212|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.212|0.289|0.16
91663621|NCT00205777|183222227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.937|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.937|0.324|0.035
91663622|NCT00205777|183222227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.624||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.045|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.045|0.373|0.070
91663623|NCT00205777|183222227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.085||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.947|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.947|0.605|0.79
91857569|NCT03481660|183598788|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.6||||||Loss of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 52||1.6|-3.2|
91857570|NCT03481660|183598788|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.0||||||Loss of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 100||2.0|-4.8|
91857571|NCT03481660|183598789|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|12.0||||||Absolute BCVA \>= 73 letters at Week 52||12.0|-4.9|
91857572|NCT03481660|183598789|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|12.6||||||Absolute BCVA \>= 73 letters at Week 100||12.6|-5.4|
91857573|NCT03481660|183598791|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76|<|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-10.2|||ANOVA|||CSFT over period Week 40 through Week 52||-10.2|-48.6|<0.003
91857574|NCT03481660|183598791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||CSFT over period Week 40 through Week 52||||0.001
91857575|NCT03481660|183598791|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.5|-3.0||||||CSFT over period Week 88 through Week 100||-3.0|-43.5|
91901796|NCT03829319|183698288|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.70818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.26|0.88|0.70818
91663624|NCT00205777|183222227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.959||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|1.743|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.743|0.527|0.99
91663625|NCT00205777|183222227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.593|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.593|0.488|0.78
91663626|NCT00205777|183222227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.968|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.968|0.340|0.036
91663627|NCT00205777|183222228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.099|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.099|0.339|0.097
91663628|NCT00205777|183222228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|1.151|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.151|0.361|0.15
91663629|NCT00205777|183222228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.793|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.793|0.493|0.83
91663630|NCT00205777|183222228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.666||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|1.019|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.019|0.435|0.067
91663631|NCT00205777|183222228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.896|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.896|0.367|0.014
91663632|NCT00205777|183222228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.157||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.885|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.885|0.710|0.50
91663633|NCT00205777|183222229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.052|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.052|0.440|0.085
91663634|NCT00205777|183222229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.857|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.857|0.434|0.004
91663635|NCT00205777|183222230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.621||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.903|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||1.903|0.203|0.40
91663636|NCT00205777|183222230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.504||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|1.676|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||1.676|0.151|0.26
91663637|NCT00205777|183222230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||1.860|0.157|0.33
91663638|NCT00205777|183222230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.661||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|2.118|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||2.118|0.206|0.49
91663639|NCT00205777|183222230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|2.37|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||2.370|0.305|0.76
91663640|NCT00205777|183222230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.238||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|4.616|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||4.616|0.332|0.75
91663641|NCT00205777|183222231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.15||||||Relative risk versus placebo was provided together with 95% CIs.||2.15|0.38|
91663642|NCT00205777|183222231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.21||||||Relative risk versus placebo was provided together with 95% CIs.||2.21|0.39|
91663643|NCT00205777|183222232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.06||||||Relative risk versus placebo was provided together with 95% CIs.||2.06|0.5|
91663644|NCT00205777|183222233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.57
91663645|NCT00205777|183222233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.62
91663646|NCT00205777|183222233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.72
91663647|NCT00205777|183222233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
91663648|NCT00205777|183222233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.89
91663649|NCT00205777|183222233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.95
91663650|NCT00205777|183222234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.29
91663651|NCT00205777|183222234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.31
91663652|NCT00205777|183222234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.94
91663653|NCT00205777|183222235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.18
91663654|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.46
91663655|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.90
91663656|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.93
91663657|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.84
91857576|NCT03481660|183598792|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-9.0||||||CSFT over period Week 4 through Week 52||-9.0|-45.8|
91663658|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.39
91663659|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.52
91663660|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.28
91663661|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.31
91663662|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.17
91663663|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.72
91663664|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.97
91663665|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.76
91663666|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.29
91663667|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.43
91663668|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.59
91857577|NCT03481660|183598792|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-7.5||||||CSFT over period Week 4 through Week 100||-7.5|-44.0|
91663669|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.19
91663670|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.80
91663671|NCT00205777|183222239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.11
91663672|NCT00205777|183222240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.012||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.296|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.296|0.790|0.968
91663673|NCT00205777|183222240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.097|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.097|0.652|0.211
91663674|NCT00205777|183222240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.556|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.556|0.925|0.191
91663675|NCT00205777|183222240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|3.497|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||3.497|0.566|0.493
91663676|NCT00205777|183222240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|2.405|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.405|0.316|0.820
91663677|NCT00205777|183222240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.612||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|4.161|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||4.161|0.624|0.371
91663678|NCT00205777|183222240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.861|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.861|0.776|0.423
91663679|NCT00205777|183222240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.491|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.491|0.587|0.799
91857578|NCT03481660|183598793|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.9||||||CSFT thickness (\<280 micrometers) at Week 52||25.9|5.7|
91857579|NCT03481660|183598793|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|24.9||||||CSFT thickness (\<280 micrometers) at Week 100||24.9|4.2|
91857580|NCT03481660|183598794|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson exact method|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.1||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) at Week 52||2.1|-4.5|
91857581|NCT03481660|183598794|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) at Week 100||3.4|-3.4|
91663680|NCT00205777|183222240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|2.002|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.002|0.818|0.298
91857582|NCT03481660|183598795|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-9.2||||||Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 52||-9.2|-28.9|
91663681|NCT00205777|183222241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.19|0.78|0.73
91857583|NCT03481660|183598795|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-5.7||||||Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 100||-5.7|-26.3|
91857584|NCT03481660|183598796|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-8.3||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) and/or Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 52||-8.3|-28.5|
91857585|NCT03481660|183598796|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-5.9||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) and/or Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 100||-5.9|-26.4|
91857586|NCT03481660|183598797|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-16.3||||||Fluorescein Angiography (FA) at Week 52||-16.3|-34.4|
91857587|NCT03481660|183598797|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-8.2||||||Fluorescein Angiography (FA) at Week 100||-8.2|-29.1|
91857588|NCT03481660|183598798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.8||||||\>=2-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||7.8|-5.6|
91663682|NCT00205777|183222241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.83|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.83|0.41|0.71
91663683|NCT00205777|183222241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.66|0.80|0.45
91663684|NCT00205777|183222242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
91663685|NCT00205777|183222242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.039
91663686|NCT00205777|183222242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
91663687|NCT00205777|183222242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
91663688|NCT00205777|183222242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91663689|NCT00205777|183222243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
91663690|NCT00205777|183222243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
91663691|NCT00205777|183222244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.26
91663692|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||||<0.001
91714063|NCT02782741|183319781|OTHER|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|13.57|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model for MIP % predicted adjusted for MIP % predicted at baseline, age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||13.57|-7.31|0.5522
91663693|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663694|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663695|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663696|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663697|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.018
91663698|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663699|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663700|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663701|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663702|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663703|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663704|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663705|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663706|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663707|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.036
91663708|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.003
91663709|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.019
91663710|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663711|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
91663712|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91857589|NCT03481660|183598798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.8||||||\>=2-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||10.8|-1.7|
91857590|NCT03481660|183598799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.7||||||\>=3-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||5.7|-7.1|
91857591|NCT03481660|183598799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.0||||||\>=3-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||10.0|-2.3|
91857592|NCT03481660|183598800|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.6||||||\>=2-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||3.6|-1.0|
91857593|NCT03481660|183598800|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.9||||||\>=2-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||6.9|-0.5|
91857594|NCT03481660|183598801|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||||||\>=3-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||2.1|0.5|
91857595|NCT03481660|183598801|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.3||||||\>=3-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||1.3|-2.6|
91857596|NCT03481660|183598802|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) of at least 61 by Week 100||1.9|-2.1|
91857597|NCT05075408|183598831|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.|Strata adjusted percentage difference|7.0||||0.3696|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.6|24.6||Threshold of significance at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo||24.6|-10.6|0.3696
91857598|NCT05075408|183598831|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.|Strata adjusted percentage difference|14.5||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.1|32.2||Threshold of significance at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nemolizumab 60 mg versus Placebo||32.2|-3.1|0.0686
91857599|NCT05075408|183598832|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|4.3||||0.5909|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.8|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||22.3|-13.8|0.5909
91901797|NCT03829319|183698289|OTHER||Percent Difference|6.3||||0.08643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|15.4|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percent = 0 versus H1: difference in percent \> 0.||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50% ).||15.4|-2.8|0.08643
91663713|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91857600|NCT05075408|183598832|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|12.9||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.5|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||31.4|-5.5|0.1112
91857601|NCT05075408|183598833|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|17.3||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.3|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||30.4|4.3|0.0034
91901798|NCT03829319|183698293|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.01||||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||1.80|-3.83|0.4805
91901799|NCT03829319|183698294|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.29||||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|3.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||3.36|-3.95|0.8747
91663714|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91857602|NCT05075408|183598833|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|17.1||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.5|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||29.8|4.5|0.0025
91857603|NCT05075408|183598834|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|3.7||||0.5788|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.5|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||19.8|-12.5|0.5788
91857604|NCT05075408|183598834|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|16.5||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||33.9|-0.8|0.0303
91901800|NCT03829319|183698295|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.91||||0.5941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||2.43|-4.24|0.5941
91663715|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663716|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663717|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663718|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663719|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663720|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663721|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663722|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663723|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663724|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663725|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663726|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663727|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663728|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663729|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663730|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663731|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663732|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.008
91663733|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.007
91663734|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
91663735|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
91663736|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.006
91857605|NCT05075408|183598835|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|24.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|8.8|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||39.6|8.8|0.0006
91663737|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663738|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663739|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663740|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663741|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663742|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663743|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663744|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663745|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663746|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663747|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.47
91663748|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.005
91663749|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
91857606|NCT05075408|183598835|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|20.8||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.0|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||35.7|6.0|0.0021
91857607|NCT05075408|183598836|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|14.0||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.8|24.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||24.1|3.8|0.0028
91857608|NCT05075408|183598836|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|19.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.6|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||30.5|7.6|0.0003
91857609|NCT02380612|183598862|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4575|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91663750|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663751|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.004
91663752|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663753|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663754|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663755|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663756|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663757|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.39
91663758|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.17
91663759|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.34
91663760|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.016
91663761|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.47
91663762|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663763|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663764|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663765|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663766|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663767|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663768|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663769|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91857610|NCT02721381|183598866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||<.001
91857611|NCT02721381|183598867|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||<.001
91857612|NCT02721381|183598868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.85
91663770|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663771|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663772|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.01
91663773|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
91663774|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663775|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663776|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663777|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663778|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663779|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663780|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663781|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663782|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.048
91663783|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.038
91857613|NCT02721381|183598869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.85
91857614|NCT02721381|183598870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.98
91857615|NCT02721381|183598871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.69
91857616|NCT02721381|183598872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.038
91857617|NCT02721381|183598873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.45
91857618|NCT02721381|183598874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for T1 measure||||.92
91663784|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663785|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663786|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663787|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663788|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663789|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663790|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663791|NCT00205777|183222245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663792|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663793|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.010
91663794|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663795|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.023
91663796|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663797|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663798|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663799|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663800|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663801|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663802|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663803|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663804|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663805|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663806|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663807|NCT00205777|183222246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663808|NCT00205777|183222247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.34
91663809|NCT00205777|183222247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.15
91663810|NCT00205777|183222247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91857619|NCT02721381|183598875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for T1 measure||||.42
91663811|NCT00205777|183222247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663812|NCT00205777|183222247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663813|NCT00205777|183222247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663814|NCT00205777|183222247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.003
91663815|NCT00205777|183222247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
91663816|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663817|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663818|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663819|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.93
91663820|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663821|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91857620|NCT02721381|183598876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for T1 measure||||.65
91663822|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663823|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663824|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.30
91663825|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663826|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663827|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663828|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91714064|NCT02782741|183319782|OTHER|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.7321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|9.29|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model for MEP % predicted adjusted for MEP % predicted at baseline, age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||9.29|-13.17|0.7321
91857621|NCT02721381|183598877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent samples t-test||||.001
91857622|NCT05687903|183598957|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.983|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.74|19.57||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.|LS in LS Mean Difference denotes least squares.|||19.57|7.74|=0.001
91663829|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663830|NCT00205777|183222248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663831|NCT00205777|183222249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663832|NCT00205777|183222249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663833|NCT00205777|183222249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663834|NCT00205777|183222249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663835|NCT00205777|183222250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.037
91663836|NCT00205777|183222250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.16
91663837|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663838|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91857623|NCT05687903|183598957|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|24.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.921|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.87|30.46||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||30.46|18.87|<0.001
91857624|NCT05687903|183598957|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|26.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.81|32.35||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||32.35|20.81|<0.001
91663839|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663840|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.40
91663841|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663842|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663843|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663844|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663845|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.004
91663846|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663847|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663848|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663849|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663850|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663851|NCT00205777|183222251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663852|NCT00205777|183222252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663853|NCT00205777|183222252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.001
91663854|NCT00205777|183222252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663855|NCT00205777|183222252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.009
91663856|NCT00205777|183222253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.034
91663857|NCT00205777|183222253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.77
91663858|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663859|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663860|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663861|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663862|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663863|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663864|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663865|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
91663866|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91792064|NCT02360605|183461849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||p-values control for age (in years), race (African American vs Caucasian and Hispanic), gender, and literacy (2 categories) The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||FIT completion rates were defined as the percentage of FIT tests returned. Screening ratios were defined as the PC to AC ratio of FIT completion rates. Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and literacy level were done using generalized linear models. Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and literacy level were done using generalized linear models. A test for interaction between literacy level and study arm were assessed.||||0.61
91663867|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663868|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663869|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663870|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.009
91663871|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663872|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.055
91663873|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.004
91663874|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663875|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663876|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663877|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663878|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663879|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663880|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663881|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663882|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663883|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663884|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663885|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91857625|NCT05687903|183598957|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|16.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.842|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.49|21.76||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||21.76|10.49|<0.001
91663886|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663887|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663888|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663889|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663890|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.012
91792065|NCT02360605|183461850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||p-values control for age (in years), race (African American vs Caucasian and Hispanic), gender, and literacy (2 categories) The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and health literacy level were done using generalized linear models. A test for interaction between study arm and each of literacy level, age, gender and race was performed to determine whether treatment effect differed by levels of these factors. An unadjusted test for the main effect of each of health literacy level, age, gender, race and study arm was performed to determine whether screening rates differed by levels of these factors.||||0.30
91857626|NCT05687903|183598958|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.564|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|-3.32||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-3.32|-9.53|=0.004
91663891|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663892|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.031
91663893|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.008
91663894|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663895|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663896|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663897|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663898|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
91663899|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663900|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
91663901|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663902|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.10
91663903|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.89
91663904|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.60
91663905|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.82
91663906|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
91663907|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663908|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.012
91663909|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663910|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.083
91663911|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.96
91663912|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.84
91663913|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.15
91663914|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.13
91663915|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663916|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.007
91663917|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663918|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.28
91663919|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA||||0.10
91857627|NCT05687903|183598958|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.581|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|-8.16||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-8.16|-14.44|<0.001
91857628|NCT05687903|183598958|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-10.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.35|-7.27||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-7.27|-13.35|<0.001
91663920|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.94
91663921|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.46
91663922|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.63
91663923|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.70
91663924|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.58
91663925|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.29
91663926|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.59
91663927|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.036
91663928|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.57
91663929|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.49
91663930|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.038
91663931|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.93
91663932|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.96
91663933|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.72
91663934|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.12
91663935|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.043
91857629|NCT05687903|183598958|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-8.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.535|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-5.75||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-5.75|-11.84|<0.001
91663936|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.53
91663937|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.75
91663938|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663939|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663940|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663941|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663942|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.46
91663943|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.64
91663944|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.47
91663945|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.75
91663946|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.003
91663947|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663948|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663949|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663950|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.81
91663951|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.98
91663952|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.87
91663953|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.40
91663954|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
91663955|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663956|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663957|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91663958|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.85
91663959|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.26
91663960|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.33
91663961|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.22
91663962|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.86
91857630|NCT05687903|183598959|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.48|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.93||GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where incidence rate was exponentiated LS mean \& incidence rate ratio (IRR) was exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||0.93|0.25|=0.250
91663963|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.65
91663964|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||1.00
91663965|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.44
91857631|NCT05687903|183598959|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.36|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.79||The GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where the incidence rate was the exponentiated LS mean and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||0.79|0.16|=0.034
91857632|NCT05687903|183598959|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.28|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.6||The GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where the incidence rate was the exponentiated LS mean and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||0.60|0.13|=0.003
91663966|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.058
91663967|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.55
91663968|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.34
91663969|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.96
91663970|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.058
91663971|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.031
91663972|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.054
91663973|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.62
91663974|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.99
91663975|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.11
91663976|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.33
91663977|NCT00205777|183222254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.65
91663978|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||||0.97
91663979|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.19
91663980|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.74
91663981|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.79
91663982|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
91663983|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
91663984|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.90
91663985|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.33
91663986|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.51
91663987|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.28
91857633|NCT05687903|183598959|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.67|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.29||The GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where the incidence rate was the exponentiated LS mean and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||1.29|0.35|=0.250
91857634|NCT04840199|183598979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.018||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear||Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in mean change in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between arms).|||0.018|-0.080|0.20
91857635|NCT04840199|183598980|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.172||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.438||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Chan/Zhang exact test diff. proportions||An exact 95% confidence interval around the observed difference in proportions (and the associated p-value) was constructed based on the standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests (Chan-Zhang method).|||0.438|-0.073|0.19
91857636|NCT04840199|183598982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the early treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the odds ratio of weekly rate of change (slope) in odds of CMV DNA detection with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Early treatment phase comparison||1.03|0.80|0.12
91857637|NCT04840199|183598982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the late treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the odds ratio of weekly rate of change (slope) in odds of CMV DNA detection with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Late treatment phase comparison||0.98|0.87|0.009
91857638|NCT04840199|183598982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.53||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the post treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the odds ratio of weekly rate of change (slope) in odds of CMV DNA detection with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Post treatment phase comparison||1.53|0.90|0.24
91857639|NCT04840199|183598985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0002||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0062|0.0066||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the early treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sCD163 with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Early treatment phase comparison||0.0066|-0.0062|0.95
91857640|NCT04840199|183598985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0007||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0019|0.0005||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the late treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sCD163 with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Late treatment phase comparison||0.0005|-0.0019|0.28
91901801|NCT03829319|183698296|OTHER||covariate|-2.16||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||2.03|-6.36|0.3115
91857641|NCT04840199|183598985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0056||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0006|0.0118||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the post treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sCD163 with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Post treatment phase comparison||0.0118|-0.0006|0.077
91857642|NCT04840199|183598986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0009||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.0058||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the early treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Early treatment phase comparison||0.0058|-0.0040|0.72
91663988|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.86
91663989|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.60
91663990|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.84
91663991|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
91663992|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.47
91857643|NCT04840199|183598986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0009||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0022|0.0003||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the late treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Late treatment phase comparison||0.0003|-0.0022|0.13
91857644|NCT04840199|183598986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0023||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.0055||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the post treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Post treatment phase comparison||0.0055|-0.0010|0.17
91857645|NCT02879448|183598987|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was developed based on reported rates for other devices. Therefore, the expected rate of the safety endpoint was assumed to be 15%. A non-inferiority margin of 5.8% represents a relative risk of 1.39.||||||0.0002|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||"The following hypothesis was tested:~H0: p1(Amulet) - p1 (Watchman) ≥ Δ1~H1: p1(Amulet) - p1(Watchman) \< Δ1;~where Δ1 is the absolute value of the non-inferiority margin for the safety endpoint and p1 is the probability of a primary safety endpoint event."||||0.0002
91663993|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.59
91663994|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.13
91663995|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.65
91663996|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.33
91663997|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.053
91663998|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.51
91663999|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.50
91664000|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.27
91664001|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.091
91664002|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.087
91664003|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.82
91664004|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.82
91664005|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
91664006|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.085
91714065|NCT02782741|183319783|OTHER|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|106.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.17||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.56|240.5|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model for HHD lower extremity muscle strength composite score adjusted for summary HHD lower extremity score at baseline, baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||240.50|-26.56|0.1150
91664007|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.080
91664008|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.24
91664009|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.035
91664010|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.024
91792066|NCT02360605|183461851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||p-values control for age (in years), race (African American vs Caucasian and Hispanic), gender, and literacy (2 categories) The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and health literacy level were done using generalized linear models. A test for interaction between study arm and each of literacy level, age, gender and race was performed to determine whether treatment effect differed by levels of these factors. An unadjusted test for the main effect of each of health literacy level, age, gender, race and study arm was performed to determine whether screening rates differed by levels of these factors.||||0.97
91901802|NCT03829319|183698297|OTHER||covariate|-0.37||||0.8134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|2.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||2.72|-3.47|0.8134
91664011|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.30
91664012|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.89
91664013|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.80
91664014|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.75
91664015|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.060
91664016|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
91664017|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.13
91664018|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
91664019|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.70
91664020|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
91664021|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
91664022|NCT00205777|183222255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.73
91664023|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.70
91664024|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.65
91664025|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.006
91664026|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.010
91664027|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.050
91664028|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.045
91664029|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
91664030|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.56
91664031|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
91664032|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.22
91664033|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
91664034|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.055
91664035|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.069
91664036|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.28
91664037|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.62
91792067|NCT02757950|183461854|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.548||||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.157||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||1.157|0.259|0.1147
91664038|NCT00205777|183222256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.96
91664039|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.22
91664040|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.087
91664041|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.37
91664042|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.73
91664043|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.41
91664044|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.085
91664045|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.15
91664046|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.71
91664047|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.042
91664048|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.077
91664049|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
91664050|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
91664051|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.41
91664052|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.90
91664053|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.46
91664054|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
91857646|NCT02879448|183598988|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for this endpoint was developed based on the reported rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism for the Watchman. The 18-month rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism for the Watchman device has been reported in the literature as 4.2%. A non-inferiority margin of 3.2%, which represents a relative risk of 1.76, ensured that the rate observed was at most twice the rate expected with oral anticoagulant therapy.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||"The following hypothesis was tested:~H0: p2(Amulet) - p2(Watchman) ≥ Δ2~H1: p2(Amulet) - p2(Watchman) \< Δ2;~where Δ2 is the absolute value of the non-inferiority margin for the effectiveness endpoint and p2 is the probability of a subject experiencing a primary effectiveness endpoint event."||||<0.0001
91857647|NCT02879448|183598989|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for this endpoint was developed based on the reported closure rate for the Watchman device. The rate of device closure for the Watchman device has been reported in the literature as 95% (i.e., 5% had a residual jet \> 5mm). A non-inferiority margin of -3%, which represents a relative risk of 1.60, allows for trial to trial variability and implanter learning associated with implantation of a new device (Amulet).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Farrington Manning test|||"The following hypothesis was tested:~H0: p3(Amulet) - p3(Watchman) ≤ -Δ3~H1: p3(Amulet) - p3(Watchman) \> -Δ3;~where Δ3 is the absolute value of the non-inferiority margin and p3 is the 45-day closure probability."||||<0.0001
91857648|NCT02879448|183598990|NON_INFERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p4(Amulet) - p4(Watchman) \< 4.5%"|||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||<0.0001
91857649|NCT02879448|183598991|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p5(Amulet) - p5(Watchman) \< 0"||||||0.3229|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||0.3229
91857650|NCT02879448|183598992|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p1(Amulet) - p1(Watchman) \< 0"||||||0.466|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||0.4660
91901803|NCT03829319|183698298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.47|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.47|0.92|0.2133
91664055|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.75
91714066|NCT02782741|183319784|OTHER|No formal testing of additional secondary endpoint of QMFT.|LS mean difference|2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.95||Nominal p-value.|mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM models adjust for total QMFT score at baseline, baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.95|0.22|0.0288
91857651|NCT02879448|183598993|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p2(Amulet) - p2(Watchman) \< 0"||||||0.5017|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||0.5017
91857652|NCT02879448|183598994|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p3(Amulet) - p3(Watchman) \> 0"||||||0.0025|||||||Farrington Manning test|||||||0.0025
91857653|NCT03433339|183598998|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04||||||p-value threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model considering all available data.||||||=0.040
91857654|NCT04970407|183599015|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.16||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|13.93|||MMRM model|||The adjusted mean, standard error (SE) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted mean as well as difference in % relative to baseline and p-value were obtained from a MMRM with Fisher scoring with treatment, time (corresponding to all study visits when CMAP was measured), treatment by time interaction and baseline CMAP amplitude as factors and an unstructured variance covariance matrix.||13.93|-16.25|0.8769
91857655|NCT04970407|183599015|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-10.61||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|4.47|||MMRM model|||The adjusted mean, SE and 95% CI of the adjusted mean as well as difference in % relative to baseline and p-value were obtained from a MMRM with Fisher scoring with treatment, time (corresponding to all study visits when CMAP was measured), treatment by time interaction and baseline CMAP amplitude as factors and an unstructured variance covariance matrix.||4.47|-25.69|0.1620
91857656|NCT04732494|183599044|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint ORR was tested at a 2-sided alpha of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|25.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||25.3|-5.4|0.2114
91664056|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.10
91664057|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.79
91664058|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.057
91664059|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.17
91664060|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.46
91664061|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.83
91714067|NCT02782741|183319785|OTHER|No formal testing of additional secondary endpoint of SF-12.|Score difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.67|||mixed model for repeated measures|||The MMRM models adjust for baseline score (PCS), baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.67|-2.13|0.5996
91857657|NCT04732494|183599045|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.45|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and the number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||1.45|0.58|
91664062|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.25
91857658|NCT04732494|183599046|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|22.5|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||22.5|-9.2|
91664063|NCT00205777|183222257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
91664064|NCT00205777|183222258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.018
91857659|NCT04732494|183599047|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.59|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and the number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||1.59|0.64|
91664065|NCT00205777|183222258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.29
91664066|NCT00205777|183222258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.049
91664067|NCT00205777|183222258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.37
91664068|NCT00205777|183222258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.97
91664069|NCT00205777|183222258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
91664070|NCT00205777|183222258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.43
91664071|NCT00205777|183222258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.32
91664072|NCT00205777|183222259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
91664073|NCT00205777|183222259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
91857660|NCT04732494|183599048|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and the number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||1.61|0.71|
91857661|NCT04732494|183599051|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|19.9|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Disease Control Rate Assessed by the Investigator||19.9|-14.4|
91664074|NCT00205777|183222259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
91664075|NCT00205777|183222259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
91664076|NCT00205777|183222259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
91664077|NCT00205777|183222260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||1.00
91714068|NCT02782741|183319785|OTHER|No formal testing of additional secondary endpoint of SF-12.|Score difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|5.69|||mixed model for repeated measures|||The MMRM models adjust for baseline score (MCS), baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||5.69|-1.46|0.2427
91714069|NCT01275144|183319799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.94|||||Ratio of LY2216684 to Placebo|||0.94|0.86|
91857662|NCT04732494|183599051|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|21.8|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Disease Control Rate Assessed by the Independent Review Committee||21.8|-11.7|
91857663|NCT04732494|183599052|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|20.4|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Clinical Benefit Rate Assessed by the Investigator||20.4|-12.7|
91857664|NCT04732494|183599052|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|21.0|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Clinical Benefit Rate Assessed by the Independent Review Committee||21.0|-11.0|
91664078|NCT00205777|183222260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.40
91664079|NCT00205777|183222261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.71
91664080|NCT00205777|183222261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
91664081|NCT00205777|183222261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
91664082|NCT00205777|183222261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.92
91664083|NCT00205777|183222261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
91664084|NCT00205777|183222262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.73
91664085|NCT00205777|183222262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
91664086|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.81
91664087|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.96
91664088|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.005
91664089|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.013
91664090|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.006
91664091|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.70
91664092|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.44
91664093|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.47
91664094|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.28
91664095|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
91664096|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.93
91664097|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.85
91664098|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.010
91664099|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.015
91664100|NCT00205777|183222263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.006
91664101|NCT00205777|183222264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.60
91664102|NCT00205777|183222264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.53
91664103|NCT00205777|183222264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||1.00
91664104|NCT00205777|183222264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.43
91664105|NCT00205777|183222264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.60
91664106|NCT00205777|183222264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.52
91714070|NCT01275144|183319800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median of paired differences|0.5||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Ratio of LY2216684 to Placebo|||1.00|0.50|0.0021
91714071|NCT01275144|183319801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.08|||||Ratio of LY2216684 to Placebo|||1.08|1.01|
91714072|NCT05116202|183319823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|27.7||||||||27.70|-22.25|
91714073|NCT05116202|183319823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-32.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.01|0.46||||||||0.46|-65.01|
91714074|NCT05116202|183319823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-17.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|15.21||||||||15.21|-49.75|
91714075|NCT05116202|183319825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.31|17.68||||||||17.68|-31.31|
91714076|NCT05116202|183319825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-31.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.79|0.16||||||||0.16|-63.79|
91714077|NCT05116202|183319825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-21.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.44|9.8||||||||9.80|-53.44|
91664107|NCT00205777|183222265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
91664108|NCT00205777|183222265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
91664109|NCT00205777|183222265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
91664110|NCT00205777|183222265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
91664111|NCT00205777|183222265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
91664112|NCT00205777|183222266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
91664113|NCT00205777|183222266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
91664114|NCT00205777|183222267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.68
91664115|NCT00205777|183222267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
91664116|NCT00205777|183222267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
91664117|NCT00205777|183222267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.088
91664118|NCT00205777|183222267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.17
91857665|NCT04732494|183599053|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|11.9||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||11.9|-8.4|
91664119|NCT00205777|183222268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
91664120|NCT00205777|183222268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
91664121|NCT00205777|183222269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
91664122|NCT00205777|183222269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.74
91664123|NCT00205777|183222269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
91857666|NCT04732494|183599053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.2||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||11.2|-5.0|
91664124|NCT00205777|183222269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
91664125|NCT00205777|183222269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
91664126|NCT00205777|183222270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
91664127|NCT00205777|183222270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.070
91664128|NCT00205777|183222271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.77
91664129|NCT00205777|183222271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
91664130|NCT00205777|183222271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
91664131|NCT00205777|183222271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
91664132|NCT00205777|183222271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.012
91664133|NCT00205777|183222272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
91664134|NCT00205777|183222272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
91664135|NCT00205777|183222273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
91664136|NCT00205777|183222273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.62
91664137|NCT00205777|183222273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.28
91664138|NCT00205777|183222273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.041
91664139|NCT00205777|183222273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
91664140|NCT00205777|183222274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.70
91664141|NCT00205777|183222274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
91664142|NCT00205777|183222275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
91664143|NCT00205777|183222275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
91664144|NCT00205777|183222275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
91664145|NCT00205777|183222275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
91664146|NCT00205777|183222275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.17
91664147|NCT00205777|183222276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
91664148|NCT00205777|183222276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
91664149|NCT00205777|183222277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
91664150|NCT00205777|183222277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
91664151|NCT00205777|183222277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.050
91664152|NCT00205777|183222277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.061
91664153|NCT00205777|183222277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
91664154|NCT00205777|183222278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
91664155|NCT00205777|183222278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.056
91664156|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.20
91664157|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
91664158|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.17
91664159|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.92
91664160|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.86
91664161|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
91664162|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
91664163|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.096
91664164|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
91664165|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.93
91664166|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.36
91664167|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.34
91664168|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
91664169|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
91664170|NCT00205777|183222280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
91664171|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.080
91664172|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.41
91664173|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.65
91664174|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
91664175|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.36
91664176|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.27
91664177|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.25
91664178|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.053
91664179|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.40
91664180|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.45
91664181|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.012
91664182|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.54
91664183|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
91664184|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
91664185|NCT00205777|183222282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.34
91664186|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.21
91664187|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.058
91664188|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
91664189|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.34
91664190|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.51
91664191|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
91664192|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.57
91664193|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
91714078|NCT05116202|183319826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|10.42||||||||10.42|0.42|
91664194|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.24
91664195|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
91664196|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.62
91664197|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.72
91857667|NCT04732494|183599053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.7||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||3.7|-7.1|
91857668|NCT04732494|183599053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.3||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||9.3|-10.3|
91857669|NCT04732494|183599054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|1.6||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Dysphagia at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.6|-21.5|
91664198|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.16
91664199|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.059
91664200|NCT00205777|183222284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.30
91714079|NCT05116202|183319826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|19.7||||||||19.70|0.79|
91857670|NCT04732494|183599054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|6.3||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Dysphagia at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.3|-27.8|
91857671|NCT04732494|183599054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.6||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Eating at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.6|-7.3|
91857672|NCT04732494|183599054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-0.3||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Eating at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.3|-18.5|
91857673|NCT04732494|183599054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.2||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Reflux at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||11.2|-6.7|
91857674|NCT04732494|183599054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|9.0||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Reflux at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||9.0|-11.8|
91857675|NCT04732494|183599054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|8.5||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Pain at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||8.5|-7.0|
91857676|NCT04732494|183599054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.7||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Pain at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.7|-12.3|
91857677|NCT02728557|183599059|OTHER|MLM models||||||0.016|||||||MLM|MLM||A model with two three-way interactions of time by treatment condition by attachment orientation (Time Å\~ Treatment condition Å\~ Attachment anxiety, Time Å\~ Treatment condition Å\~ Attachment avoidance) along the lower-level effects to predict differences in the slope of change in outcome. The threshold for statistical significance was p\>0.05.||||.016
91857678|NCT03416010|183599065|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There was no significant difference in Health Beliefs across those 4 time points.||||<0.001
91664201|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.72
91857679|NCT03416010|183599065|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the full intervention group, COPE-P, and the attention-control group, Preg+, in Health Beliefs, as measured by the Healthy Lifestyle Beliefs measure, at T0 baseline, as well as at time points 1, immediately following the intervention, 2, 6 weeks after the infants' birth, and 3, 6 months after the infants' birth||||<0.001
91664202|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
91664203|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.84
91664204|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.88
91664205|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.86
91792068|NCT02757950|183461855|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.428||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.851||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||0.851|0.215|0.0155
91794266|NCT02821910|183467548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.23|110.91|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.91|90.23|
91857680|NCT03416010|183599065|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||0.009
91664206|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.82
91664207|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
91664208|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
91664209|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.22
91664210|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.88
91664211|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.96
91664212|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
91664213|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.92
91664214|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.89
91664215|NCT00205777|183222286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.83
91664216|NCT04428307|183222287|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02||||||||2.02|0.61|
91664217|NCT04428307|183222287|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.71||||||||1.71|0.49|
91664218|NCT04428307|183222288|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.8||||||||1.80|0.83|
91664219|NCT04428307|183222288|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.62||||||||1.62|0.81|
91664220|NCT04428307|183222289|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09||||||||1.09|0.80|
91664221|NCT04428307|183222289|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||||||||1.16|0.85|
91664222|NCT04428307|183222290|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.73||||||||1.73|0.75|
91664223|NCT04428307|183222290|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.74||||||||1.74|0.77|
91664224|NCT04428307|183222291|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||||||||1.11|0.95|
91664225|NCT04428307|183222291|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.04||||||||1.04|0.89|
91664226|NCT04667338|183222311|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5061|||||||Chi-squared|||Pharmacological||||=0.5061
91664227|NCT04667338|183222311|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2053|||||||Chi-squared|||Non-pharmacological||||=0.2053
91664228|NCT04667338|183222312|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4016|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.4016
91664229|NCT04667338|183222315|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5274|||||||Chi-squared|||Educational level ongoing or completed level of education||||=0.5274
91664230|NCT04667338|183222315|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7051|||||||Chi-squared|||Occupational status and occupation||||=0.7051
91664231|NCT04667338|183222315|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3543|||||||Chi-squared|||Civil status||||=0.3543
91664232|NCT04667338|183222315|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0368|||||||Chi-squared|||Living conditions||||=0.0368
91664233|NCT04667338|183222315|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3512|||||||Chi-squared|||Smoking status||||=0.3512
91664234|NCT04667338|183222315|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.104|||||||Chi-squared|||Alcohol intake||||=0.1040
91664235|NCT04667338|183222315|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0202|||||||Chi-squared|||Exercise status||||=0.0202
91664236|NCT04667338|183222315|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3503|||||||Chi-squared|||Family history of narcolepsy||||=0.3503
91664237|NCT04667338|183222320|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0715|||||||Chi-squared|||General practitioner||||=0.0715
91664238|NCT04667338|183222320|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0929|||||||Chi-squared|||Neurologist||||=0.0929
91664239|NCT04667338|183222320|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3092|||||||Chi-squared|||Neuropediatrician||||=0.3092
91664240|NCT04667338|183222320|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4528|||||||Chi-squared|||Neurophysiologist||||=0.4528
91664241|NCT04667338|183222320|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Pneumologist||||<0.0001
91664242|NCT04667338|183222320|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1785|||||||Chi-squared|||Somnologist||||=0.1785
91664243|NCT04667338|183222320|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1474|||||||Chi-squared|||Somnologist-unit||||=0.1474
91664244|NCT04667338|183222321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2042|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinical history||||=0.2042
91664245|NCT04667338|183222321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5818|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinical assessment: ESS||||=0.5818
91664246|NCT04667338|183222321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0368|||||||Chi-squared|||Neurological assessment||||=0.0368
91664247|NCT04667338|183222321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1128|||||||Chi-squared|||MSLT||||=0.1128
91664248|NCT04667338|183222321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3396|||||||Chi-squared|||AHI||||=0.3396
91664249|NCT04667338|183222321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6794|||||||Chi-squared|||Other procedures||||=0.6794
91664250|NCT04667338|183222321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0138|||||||Chi-squared|||HLA typing||||=0.0138
91664251|NCT04667338|183222321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0597|||||||Chi-squared|||Hypocretin-1 CSF or Orexin||||=0.0597
91664252|NCT04667338|183222322|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.1171
91664253|NCT04667338|183222323|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3834|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.3834
91664254|NCT04667338|183222328|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0531|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0531
91664255|NCT04667338|183222329|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0005|||||||Chi-squared|||Take short naps||||=0.0005
91664256|NCT04667338|183222329|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8221|||||||Chi-squared|||Maintain a regular sleep schedule||||=0.8221
91664257|NCT04667338|183222329|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2291|||||||Chi-squared|||Avoid caffeine or alcohol before bedtime||||=0.2291
91664258|NCT04667338|183222329|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9177|||||||Chi-squared|||Avoid smoking, especially at night||||=0.9177
91664259|NCT04667338|183222329|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4188|||||||Chi-squared|||Exercise daily||||=0.4188
91857681|NCT03416010|183599066|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance: p \<0.01|two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there was no significant difference in anxiety across the 4 time points.||||<0.001
91664260|NCT04667338|183222329|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5818|||||||Chi-squared|||Avoid large, heavy meals right before bedtime||||=0.5818
91857682|NCT03416010|183599066|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the two groups in anxiety at T0 baseline, as well as at timepoint 1(immediately following the intervention), timepoint 2 (6 weeks after the infants' birth), and timepoint 3 (6 months after the infants' birth).||||<0.001
91857683|NCT03416010|183599066|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
91664261|NCT04667338|183222329|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5432|||||||Chi-squared|||Other||||=0.5432
91664262|NCT04667338|183222330|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5432|||||||Chi-squared|||Treatment||||=0.5432
91664263|NCT04667338|183222330|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0397|||||||Chi-squared|||Routine monitoring visits||||=0.0397
91664264|NCT04667338|183222330|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0306|||||||Chi-squared|||Tests||||=0.0306
91664265|NCT04667338|183222330|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7451|||||||Chi-squared|||Emergency visits||||=0.7451
91664266|NCT04667338|183222330|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0845|||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalizations||||=0.0845
91664267|NCT04667338|183222330|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3813|||||||Chi-squared|||Complications||||=0.3813
91664268|NCT04667338|183222332|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Absenteeism||||=0.0034
91664269|NCT04667338|183222332|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2178|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Presenteeism||||=0.2178
91664270|NCT04667338|183222332|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Work productivity loss||||=0.1758
91664271|NCT04667338|183222332|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1789|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity Impairment / disability||||=0.1789
91664272|NCT04667338|183222333|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5806|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.5806
91664273|NCT04667338|183222335|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1602|||||||Chi-squared|||Mobility||||=0.1602
91664274|NCT04667338|183222335|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5249|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-Care||||=0.5249
91664275|NCT04667338|183222335|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1095|||||||Chi-squared|||Usual activities||||=0.1095
91664276|NCT04667338|183222335|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3528|||||||Chi-squared|||Pain / Discomfort||||=0.3528
91664277|NCT04667338|183222335|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7434|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety / Depression||||=0.7434
91792069|NCT02757950|183461856|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.254||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.746||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||0.746|0.086|0.0127
91857684|NCT03416010|183599067|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference in health behaviors across those 4 time points.||||<0.001
91664278|NCT04667338|183222336|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0396
91664279|NCT04667338|183222337|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Effectiveness||||=0.0394
91664280|NCT04667338|183222337|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Convenience||||=0.3093
91664281|NCT04667338|183222337|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global satisfaction||||=0.2296
91664282|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1817|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||=0.1817
91664283|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0885|||||||Chi-squared|||Bipolar disorder||||=0.0885
91664284|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3043|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety disorders||||=0.3043
91664285|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0885|||||||Chi-squared|||Panic disorder||||=0.0885
91664286|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Phobia disorder||||=0.5603
91664287|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Obsessive compulsive disorder||||=0.5603
91714080|NCT05116202|183319826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|53.7||||||||53.70|0.73|
91664288|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3646|||||||Chi-squared|||Diagnosis of ADHD||||=0.3646
91664289|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2615|||||||Chi-squared|||Obesity||||=0.2615
91664290|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3076|||||||Chi-squared|||Endocrine Disorders||||=0.3076
91664291|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.409|||||||Chi-squared|||Peripheral vascular disease||||=0.4090
91664292|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular accident or transient ischemic attack (TIA)||||=0.5603
91664293|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||=0.5603
91664294|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Connective tissue disease||||=0.5603
91664295|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7451|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver Disease||||=0.7451
91664296|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3108|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes Mellitus||||=0.3108
91857685|NCT03416010|183599067|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91664297|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2407|||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor||||=0.2407
91664298|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||AIDS||||=0.5603
91664299|NCT04667338|183222338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1739|||||||Chi-squared|||Others||||=0.1739
91664300|NCT04667338|183222339|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.3585
91664301|NCT05604209|183222347|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.14|0.67|<0.001
91664302|NCT05604209|183222347|SUPERIORITY||median log2 fold change|1.15||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||2.59|0.09|0.008
91714081|NCT05116202|183319827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|7.75||||||||7.75|0.25|
91714082|NCT05116202|183319827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|12.62||||||||12.62|0.35|
91714083|NCT05116202|183319827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|26.32||||||||26.32|0.22|
91714084|NCT05116202|183319828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|12.39||||||||12.39|0.05|
91857686|NCT03416010|183599067|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
91664303|NCT05604209|183222347|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-am log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 within the C1C62-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||4.59|0.93|0.008
91664304|NCT05604209|183222347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from pre-vaccination to day 35 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.279
91664305|NCT05604209|183222348|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.33|1.09|<0.001
91664306|NCT05604209|183222348|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.79||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.40|0.59|0.008
91792070|NCT02757950|183461857|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.638||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.863||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||0.863|0.471|0.0036
91792071|NCT02757950|183461858|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|1.342||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.89||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||1.890|0.952|0.0931
91792072|NCT02216812|183461891|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Linear|||We tested the null hypothesis that there is no difference in DPC six weeks after fracture of the distal radius between patients taking vitamin C and placebo.||||0.63
91792073|NCT03036800|183461913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|12.88|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||12.88|2.09|<0.001
91857687|NCT03416010|183599068|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference in depressive symptoms across those 4 timepoints.||||<0.001
91857688|NCT03416010|183599068|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the two groups in depressive symptoms at T0 baseline, as well as at time points 1, immediately following the intervention, 2, 6 weeks after the infants' birth, and 3, 6 months after the infants' birth.||||<0.001
91857689|NCT03416010|183599068|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
91691918|NCT00380874|183278451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.4209||95.0|-1.77|0.76||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 9.||0.76|-1.77|0.4209
91691919|NCT00380874|183278451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.9657||95.0|-1.06|1.11||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)endpoint.||1.11|-1.06|0.9657
91691920|NCT00380874|183278452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5392||95.0|-0.24|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 1.||0.12|-0.24|0.5392
91691921|NCT00380874|183278452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5412||95.0|-0.3|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 2.||0.57|-0.30|0.5412
91691922|NCT00380874|183278452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.5358||95.0|-0.48|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 3.||0.90|-0.48|0.5358
91691923|NCT00380874|183278452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.4059||95.0|-0.48|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 4.||1.17|-0.48|0.4059
91691924|NCT00380874|183278452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2712||95.0|-0.44|1.52|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 5.||1.52|-0.44|0.2712
91691925|NCT00380874|183278452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9181||95.0|-0.81|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 6.||0.73|-0.81|0.9181
91691926|NCT00380874|183278452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.4357||95.0|-0.52|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 7.||1.17|-0.52|0.4357
91691927|NCT00380874|183278452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.5103||95.0|-0.67|1.33|||ANCOVA|||||1.33|-0.67|0.5103
91691928|NCT00380874|183278452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8499||95.0|-1.29|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 9.||1.07|-1.29|0.8499
91857690|NCT03416010|183599069|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference in stress across those 4 time points.||||<0.001
91857691|NCT03416010|183599069|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the two groups in stress, as measured by the GAD-7, at T0 baseline, as well as at timepoint 1 (immediately following the intervention), timepoint 2 (6 weeks after the infants' birth) and timepoint 3 (6 months after the infants' birth).||||<0.001
91857692|NCT03416010|183599069|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
91857693|NCT05136404|183599109|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.937|
91857694|NCT05136404|183599109|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.968|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.968|
91857695|NCT05136404|183599110|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.953|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.953|
91857696|NCT05136404|183599110|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.982|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.982|
91857697|NCT05136404|183599111|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.972|
91664307|NCT05604209|183222348|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 within the C1C62-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.09|0.94|0.008
91857698|NCT05136404|183599111|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.992|
91857699|NCT05136404|183599112|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.4728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0|||Sign test|||||0.00|-0.50|0.4728
91857700|NCT05136404|183599112|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0|||Sign test|||||0.00|-0.50|0.0142
91664308|NCT05604209|183222348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from pre-vaccination to day 35 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.878
91857701|NCT05568004|183599118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.|||Statistical analysis was conducted by a researcher using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26.0. The Shapiro-Wilk test and histograms evaluated the data for normal distribution, and the Levene test confirmed homogeneous variances between groups (p \> 0.05). Continuous data following a normal distribution are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The independent samples t test or Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare independent continuous data between groups, while the chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical data. Friedman two-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables, while the two-way mixed ANOVA was used to examine the changes between groups over time. Before the two-way mixed ANOVA, boxplot evaluation confirmed no outliers. Mauchly's sphericity test showed that the assumption of sphericity for two-way interaction was met. Tukey's correction was used for pairwise subgroup comparisons.|||0.001
91857702|NCT05568004|183599118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.||||0.001
91857703|NCT05568004|183599118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.166
91857704|NCT05568004|183599119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.074
91857705|NCT05568004|183599119|SUPERIORITY|A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.||||||0.074|||||||ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.074
91857706|NCT05568004|183599119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.311
91857707|NCT05568004|183599120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.018
91664309|NCT05604209|183222349|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.63|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.63|0.54|<0.001
91714085|NCT05116202|183319828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|28.65||||||||28.65|0.23|
91792074|NCT03036800|183461914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|14.4|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.4|2.45|<0.001
91792075|NCT03036800|183461915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|14.01|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.01|1.81|0.002
91714086|NCT05116202|183319828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|18.58||||||||18.58|0.07|
91714087|NCT05116202|183319829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-21.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.55|7.37||||||||7.37|-50.55|
91714088|NCT05116202|183319829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-24.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.17|9.99||||||||9.99|-58.17|
91714089|NCT05116202|183319829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.58|35.4||||||||35.40|-33.58|
91714090|NCT01852513|183319841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
91792076|NCT03036800|183461916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.24||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|14.64|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.64|1.88|0.002
91792077|NCT03036800|183461933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|19.48|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||19.48|5.26|<0.001
91792078|NCT03036800|183461934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|9.36|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 32 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||9.36|2.86|<0.001
91857708|NCT05568004|183599120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.152
91857709|NCT05568004|183599120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||||||0.438
91857710|NCT05568004|183599121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.135
91857711|NCT05568004|183599121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||||||0.203
91857712|NCT05568004|183599121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||||||0.593
91664310|NCT05604209|183222349|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.09||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.61|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.61|0.39|0.008
91857713|NCT05568004|183599122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.001
91857714|NCT05568004|183599122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.021
91857715|NCT05568004|183599122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.081
91857716|NCT05568004|183599123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||<0.001
91664311|NCT05604209|183222349|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|2.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.37|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 within the C1C62-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||4.37|0.43|0.016
91691929|NCT00380874|183278452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7359||95.0|-0.9|0.64|||ANCOVA|||LOCF endpoint.||0.64|-0.90|0.7359
91857717|NCT05568004|183599123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||<0.001
91857718|NCT05568004|183599123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.747
91857719|NCT05568004|183599124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.001
91857720|NCT05568004|183599124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||<0.001
91857721|NCT05568004|183599124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.05
91664312|NCT05604209|183222349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from pre-vaccination to day 42 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.189
91664313|NCT05604209|183222350|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.51|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.51|0.81|<0.001
91714091|NCT01852513|183319842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.789
91792079|NCT03036800|183461935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|7.22|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||7.22|2.39|<0.001
91857722|NCT01820260|183599130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||To account for multiple testing, the 4 pairwise tests with corresponding vehicle group were performed using Bonferroni method testing at a 1.25% significance level, securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5%|Fisher Exact|||Complete clearance of AKs at Week 8 was to be analysed by log binomial regression with factors treatment group, anatomical location (face/chest or scalp) and analysis site. Due to the low numbers of subjects obtaining complete clearance in the vehicle groups,the proposed model did not converge and Fisher's exact test was used instead to compare active treatments with the respective vehicle arm.||||0.0002
91664314|NCT05604209|183222350|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.57||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.89|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.89|0.63|0.008
91691930|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2034||95.0|-0.06|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 3||0.29|-0.06|0.2034
91691931|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3062||95.0|-0.4|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 4||0.13|-0.40|0.3062
91691932|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2787||95.0|-0.37|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 5||0.11|-0.37|0.2787
91691933|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4124||95.0|-0.2|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 6||0.47|-0.20|0.4124
91691934|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9541||95.0|-0.68|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 7||0.73|-0.68|0.9541
91691935|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3383||95.0|-0.33|0.92|||ANOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 8||0.92|-0.33|0.3383
91691936|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.8918||95.0|-0.84|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain||0.74|-0.84|0.8918
91857723|NCT01820260|183599130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|||||see comments in analysis 1|Fisher Exact|||See comment in analysis 1||||0.0037
91857724|NCT01820260|183599130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|||||See comments in analysis 1|Fisher Exact|||See comments in analysis 1||||0.0171
91857725|NCT01820260|183599130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
91857726|NCT01820260|183599131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||To account for multiple testing among the secondary endpoints, a hierarchical order of testing was determined, where the following evaluation was done separately for each of the four active groups: Provided the primary endpoint was significant at a 1.25% level, the comparison to vehicle in terms of reduction in AK count from baseline to week 8 was tested at a 1.25% level. Provided this test was significant, the second secondary endpoint,partial clearance, was tested(vs. vehicle) at a 1.25% level||||< 0.001
91857727|NCT01820260|183599131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||See comment in analysis 1||||< 0.001
91857728|NCT01820260|183599131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||See comment analysis 1||||< 0.001
91857729|NCT01820260|183599131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||z-test|||See comment in analysis 1||||< 0.001
91857730|NCT01820260|183599132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of partial clearance of AK's at Week 8 was done in the same way as for the primary outcome (endpoint)||||<0.001
91857731|NCT01820260|183599132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91901804|NCT03829319|183698299|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.94|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.94|1.02|0.0377
91901805|NCT03829319|183698300|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.21|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.21|0.62|0.4084
91857732|NCT01820260|183599132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91691937|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9614||95.0|-0.54|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain LOCF endpoint||0.51|-0.54|0.9614
91857733|NCT01820260|183599132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91714092|NCT01852513|183319843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.778
91857734|NCT04424927|183599162|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.04||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.52|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.52|-0.43|0.8543
91857735|NCT04424927|183599162|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.59|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.59|-0.37|0.6552
91857736|NCT04424927|183599162|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.53|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.53|-0.45|0.8705
91857737|NCT04424927|183599163|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.65|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.65|-0.42|0.6757
91857738|NCT04424927|183599163|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.3645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.29|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.29|-0.78|0.3645
91857739|NCT04424927|183599163|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.2791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.24|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.24|-0.84|0.2791
91857740|NCT04424927|183599164|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.7829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.42|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.42|-0.32|0.7829
91857741|NCT04424927|183599164|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.38|-0.36|0.9503
91857742|NCT04424927|183599164|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.22|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.22|-0.54|0.4107
91691938|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3022||95.0|-0.17|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 2||0.05|-0.17|0.3022
91857743|NCT04424927|183599165|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.94||||0.4397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.87|||ANCOVA|||Estimates/p-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect. Continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio are included as covariates.||6.87|-3.00|0.4397
91857744|NCT04424927|183599165|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.72||||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Estimates/p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio are included as covariates.||1.15|-8.58|0.1337
91664315|NCT05604209|183222350|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.78||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.79|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 within the C162-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.79|0.70|0.016
91857745|NCT04424927|183599165|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.14||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Estimates/p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio are included as covariates.||0.83|-9.11|0.1021
91857746|NCT01046136|183599186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0096|||||||Regression, Logistic|p-value is from a logistic regression model with terms for treatment group and center||Investigator's End-of-Study Assessment NOTE: All assessments of efficacy were considered exploratory and were given equal consideration, and were carried out on both the MITT and PP populations. LOCF method was applied to missing post baseline measurements in analyses of the MITT population.||||0.0096
91857747|NCT01046136|183599188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0293|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from a Wilcoxon rank sum test comparing the two treatment groups.||||||0.0293
91857748|NCT05623345|183599189|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.43||0.0377|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0377
91664316|NCT05604209|183222350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from pre-vaccination to day 42 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.955
91714093|NCT01871077|183319844|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.890
91857749|NCT05623345|183599189|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91857750|NCT05623345|183599189|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91714094|NCT01871077|183319845|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.078
91664317|NCT05604209|183222351|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group changes in breadth from baseline to day 56 were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median change in breadth of T-cell response to HIV-1 subpools from baseline to day 56 within all vaccinees is zero.||4|-1|0.125
91664318|NCT02597049|183222366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-0.97|<.001
91664319|NCT02597049|183222366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-0.84|< .001
91664320|NCT02597049|183222367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-1.00|<.001
91664321|NCT02597049|183222367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-0.86|<.001
91664322|NCT02597049|183222368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||||< .001
91664323|NCT02597049|183222368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||||< .001
91664324|NCT02597049|183222368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Efficacy Estimand||||< .001
91664325|NCT02597049|183222368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Efficacy Estimand||||< .001
91664326|NCT02597049|183222369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-0.1|-1.8|0.027
91664327|NCT02597049|183222369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||0.4|-1.3|0.264
91664328|NCT02597049|183222369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Efficacy Estimand||0.0|-1.7|0.059
91664329|NCT02597049|183222369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Efficacy Estimand||0.5|-1.2|0.435
91664330|NCT02597049|183222370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-18.6|||ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-18.6|-30.8|< .001
91664331|NCT02597049|183222370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-13.5||Test was not controlled for type I error.|ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-13.5|-25.7|<0.001
91664332|NCT02597049|183222370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-20.6||Test was not controlled for type I error.|ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||-20.6|-32.7|<0.001
91664333|NCT02597049|183222370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-14.6||Test was not controlled for type I error.|ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||-14.6|-26.7|<0.001
91714095|NCT01871077|183319846|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Friedman test|||||||1.000
91664334|NCT02597049|183222371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-morning meal.||-13.8|-25.7|< .001
91664335|NCT02597049|183222371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-morning meal||-9.2|-21.2|< .001
91664336|NCT02597049|183222371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial||-15.3|-33.8|< .001
91664337|NCT02597049|183222371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial||-11.8|-30.3|< .001
91664338|NCT02597049|183222371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-midday meal||-10.2|-26.4|< .001
91664339|NCT02597049|183222371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-midday meal||-6.2|-22.5|< .001
91664340|NCT02597049|183222371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after midday meal||-9.3|-28.8|< .001
91714096|NCT01871077|183319847|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.497
91714097|NCT02864407|183319866|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91857751|NCT05623345|183599190|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.14||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0483
91857752|NCT05623345|183599190|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91857753|NCT05623345|183599190|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|52.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91857754|NCT05623345|183599191|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.93||0.0883|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0883
91857755|NCT05623345|183599191|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.2713|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2713
91857756|NCT05623345|183599191|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.8872|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8872
91857757|NCT05623345|183599192|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9||0.1654|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1654
91857758|NCT05623345|183599192|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91857759|NCT05623345|183599192|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91857760|NCT05623345|183599193|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.85||0.0106|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0106
91857761|NCT05623345|183599193|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91857762|NCT05623345|183599193|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
91857763|NCT05623345|183599194|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.11||0.1147|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1147
91664341|NCT02597049|183222371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after midday meal||-3.1|-22.5|0.010
91664342|NCT02597049|183222371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-evening meal||-14.7|-30.7|< .001
91664343|NCT02597049|183222371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-evening meal||-14.4|-30.7|< .001
91714098|NCT02864407|183319867|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 52 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91792080|NCT03036800|183461936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||4.84|1.23|0.010
91714099|NCT02864407|183319868|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91714100|NCT02864407|183319869|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 52 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91664344|NCT02597049|183222371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after evening meal||-12.9|-31.4|< .001
91664345|NCT02597049|183222371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after evening meal||-7.4|-26.0|< .001
91714101|NCT02864407|183319870|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91857764|NCT05623345|183599194|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91664346|NCT02597049|183222372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-0.1|-2.3|0.032
91714102|NCT02864407|183319871|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 52 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91857765|NCT05623345|183599194|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91857766|NCT05623345|183599195|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.44|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.44|-0.22|0.514
91857767|NCT05623345|183599195|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.04|-0.28|0.010
91857768|NCT05623345|183599195|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
91857769|NCT00595790|183599199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of non-inferiority of IC51 1x12 mcg vs. IC51 2x6 mcg at Day 56 based on the difference (IC51 1x12 mcg - IC51 2x6 mcg) in SCRs in the PP population. Non-inferiority of IC51 1 x 12 mcg compared to IC51 2 x 6 mcg was accepted if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the adjusted for center SCR difference (IC51 1 x 12 mcg - IC51 2 x 6 mcg) was higher than the noninferiority margin at -10%.|||||>|0.99|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||>0.99
91857770|NCT00262301|183599215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
91857771|NCT00262301|183599216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
91857772|NCT02539225|183599218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||Stratified Log Rank|||||||0.698
91664347|NCT02597049|183222372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||0.5|-1.7|0.273
91664348|NCT02597049|183222372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||-0.2|-2.4|0.023
91664349|NCT02597049|183222372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||0.6|-1.7|0.320
91664350|NCT04050735|183222377|OTHER|None of the above apply to this study|F-test|1.125||||0.343|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model testing the three-way interaction of HIV serostatus (positive/negative), beverage condition (alcohol/placebo), and time (hour 0, 1, 2, 3).||||.343
91664351|NCT04050735|183222378|OTHER|None of the above options apply to this study.|F-test|3.236||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model testing the three-way interaction of HIV serostatus (positive/negative), beverage condition (alcohol/placebo), and time (hour 0, 1, 2, 3).||||.026
91664352|NCT04050735|183222379|OTHER|The above categories do not apply to this type of study.||||||0.987||||||The p-value for the interaction of HIV serostatus by beverage condition.|ANOVA|||Test of group by condition interaction on choline.||||.987
91857773|NCT02539225|183599219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||Log Rank Stratified|||||||0.549
91857774|NCT02539225|183599220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||Log Rank Stratified|||||||0.548
91664353|NCT04050735|183222379|OTHER|The above types of tests do not apply to this study.||||||0.836|||||||ANOVA|||Test of group by condition interaction on summed peak of glutamate plus glutamine||||.836
91792081|NCT03036800|183461937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|12.39|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||12.39|2.14|<0.001
91857775|NCT02539225|183599221|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.374||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.844|2.236|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.236|0.844|0.402
91664354|NCT04050735|183222380|OTHER|The above types of tests do not apply to this study.||||||0.846|||||||ANOVA|||Test of group by condition interaction on fractional anisotropy (FA).||||.846
91664355|NCT04050735|183222381|OTHER|The above types of tests do not apply to this study.||||||0.894|||||||ANOVA|||Test of interaction of group by beverage condition.||||.894
91664356|NCT01248728|183222407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
91664357|NCT01248728|183222408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91714103|NCT02864407|183319872|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91857776|NCT02539225|183599222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.527||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|3.433|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.433|0.680|0.501
91857777|NCT00212134|183599228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91857778|NCT00212134|183599229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91857779|NCT00212134|183599230|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.82
91857780|NCT00212134|183599231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91664358|NCT01248728|183222410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91714104|NCT02864407|183319873|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 52 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91857781|NCT00212134|183599232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
91857782|NCT00212134|183599233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ITT analyses comparing parents of children randomized to receive an IOL to those left aphakic.||||<0.05
91714105|NCT02864407|183319874|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 24 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91664359|NCT01248728|183222411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6
91714106|NCT02864407|183319875|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of 52±2 weeks versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91857783|NCT00212134|183599235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.295|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ITT comparison of mean PSI scores||||>0.05
91664360|NCT01838681|183222420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|Model included MADRS total score at the randomisation visit, treatment group, country, and the randomisation criteria used||||1.15|0.60|0.2641
91664361|NCT00902538|183222449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1187||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1187
91664362|NCT00902538|183222449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91664363|NCT00902538|183222450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0425||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0425
91664364|NCT00902538|183222450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91664365|NCT00902538|183222451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1939||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1939
91714107|NCT02864407|183319876|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 24 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91714108|NCT02864407|183319877|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 52 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91857784|NCT01553058|183599243|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.795|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.795
91857785|NCT01553058|183599243|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.647|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.647
91714109|NCT02686164|183319890|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.983||||||AUC(0-24) of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam Versus (vs.) Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||0.983|0.850|
91714110|NCT02686164|183319890|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.404||||||AUC(0-24) of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady state) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.404|0.938|
91857786|NCT01553058|183599244|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.386|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.386
91857787|NCT01553058|183599244|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.280
91857788|NCT01553058|183599251|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.357|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.357
91714111|NCT02686164|183319890|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.335||||||AUC(0-24) of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.335|0.940|
91857789|NCT01553058|183599251|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.496|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.496
91857790|NCT01553058|183599252|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.897|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.897
91857791|NCT01553058|183599252|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.467|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.467
91857792|NCT01553058|183599253|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.089|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.089
91857793|NCT01553058|183599253|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.030
91857794|NCT01553058|183599254|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.934|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.934
91857795|NCT01553058|183599254|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.679|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.679
91664366|NCT00902538|183222451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91664367|NCT00902538|183222452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0009
91857796|NCT01553058|183599255|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.672|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.672
91664368|NCT00902538|183222452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91664369|NCT00902538|183222453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91664370|NCT00902538|183222453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91664371|NCT00902538|183222454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1611||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1611
91664372|NCT00902538|183222455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0451||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0451
91664373|NCT00902538|183222456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0412
91664374|NCT00902538|183222457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0253
91857797|NCT01553058|183599255|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.655|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.655
91664375|NCT00902538|183222458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0063
91857798|NCT01553058|183599256|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.504|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.504
91857799|NCT01553058|183599256|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.695|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.695
91857800|NCT01553058|183599257|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
91664376|NCT03215706|183222485|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.86|||Log-rank test stratified|||||0.86|0.56|0.0006
91857801|NCT01553058|183599257|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.009
91664377|NCT03215706|183222486|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.82|||Log-rank test stratified|||||0.82|0.59|
91664378|NCT03215706|183222487|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|19.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||19.4|6.0|
91664379|NCT03215706|183222493|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.87|0.63|
91664380|NCT02433977|183222497|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91664381|NCT02433977|183222498|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91664382|NCT02433977|183222499|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91664383|NCT02433977|183222500|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91664384|NCT02433977|183222502|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91664385|NCT02433977|183222504|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91664386|NCT02433977|183222505|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91664387|NCT02433977|183222506|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91664388|NCT03247686|183222519|SUPERIORITY|||||||4.96e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M1.2 Placebo versus RSLV-132 All||||0.0000496
91664389|NCT03247686|183222519|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.03e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M3.4 Placebo versus RSLV-132 All||||0.0000103
91664390|NCT03247686|183222519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M5.12 Placebo versus RSLV-132 All||||0.0004398
91664391|NCT03247686|183222519|SUPERIORITY|||||||6.8e-06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module 1.2 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Responders||||0.0000068
91664392|NCT03247686|183222519|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M3.4 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Responders||||0.0000002
91664393|NCT03247686|183222519|SUPERIORITY|||||||9.26e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module 5.12 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Responders||||0.0000926
91664394|NCT03247686|183222519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M1.2 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Non-responders||||0.0015450
91664395|NCT03247686|183222519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M3.4 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Non-responders||||0.0004632
91664396|NCT03247686|183222519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009696|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M5.12||||0.0096960
91664397|NCT03247686|183222520|EQUIVALENCE|Two sample t-test with Satterthwaite approximation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|1.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean difference in change from baseline (95% CI)||1.34|-6.34|0.180
91857802|NCT01553058|183599258|OTHER|Difference of Differences|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91857803|NCT01553058|183599258|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.065|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.065
91857804|NCT01553058|183599259|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
91857805|NCT01553058|183599259|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.019|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.019
91857806|NCT01553058|183599260|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
91857807|NCT01553058|183599260|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.628|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.628
91664398|NCT02302716|183222521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary treatment comparison was to compare LY2963016 versus Lantus at the non-inferiority margin of +0.4%. If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval on the change from baseline to 24-week HbA1c level for LY2963016 versus Lantus was below +0.4%, then LY2963016 would be declared non-inferior to Lantus.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.22|0.693
91664399|NCT00830258|183222532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.76||||||90.0|98.17|113.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||113.93|98.17|
91664400|NCT00830258|183222533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|110.45||||||90.0|104.31|116.96|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||116.96|104.31|
91664401|NCT00830258|183222534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|110.61||||||90.0|104.39|117.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||117.20|104.39|
91664402|NCT01127087|183222552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Urinary oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the RYGB Calcium oxalate (CaOx) Stone Formers arm.||||0.027
91664403|NCT01127087|183222552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Urinary oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the Idiopathic Hyperoxaluria CaOx Stone Formers arm.||||0.14
91664404|NCT01127087|183222553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the RYGB CaOx Stone Formers arm.||||0.018
91664405|NCT01127087|183222553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the Idiopathic Hyperoxaluria CaOx Stone Formers arm.||||0.06
91664406|NCT02997176|183222558|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|142.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.92|252.98||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||252.98|79.92|
91664407|NCT02997176|183222558|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|110.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.58|223.85||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||223.85|54.58|
91664408|NCT02997176|183222559|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|109.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.93|169.84||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||169.84|70.93|
91857808|NCT01976312|183599405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91857809|NCT02807779|183599426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Power calculations were performed based on an expected reproducibility variance of 8% and an effect size of 7% was assumed based on data from pilot studies. It was estimated that 22 subjects/treatment assignment were needed to detect a 7% difference in PWV at a power level of 80%. Assigning a 20% attrition rate due to loss to follow up or index lesion revascularization, the goal enrollment was 27 subjects per arm.~No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis."||||0.22
91857810|NCT02807779|183599427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis.||||0.64
91857811|NCT02807779|183599428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had complete MCP-1 data for analysis.||||0.95
91857812|NCT02807779|183599429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had complete CRP data for analysis.||||0.88
91857813|NCT02807779|183599431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis.||||.055
91857814|NCT02807779|183599432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis.||||.22
91857815|NCT02807779|183599433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.81
91857816|NCT02791230|183599435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6202||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4865|0.7906|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, Transthyretin (TTR) genotype (variant and wild-type) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.7906|0.4865|0.0001
91857817|NCT02791230|183599438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio|0.6133||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4666|0.8062|||Cox Proportional Hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type) and NYHA baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.8062|0.4666|0.0005
91857818|NCT05769595|183599465|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.24|2.82|||||Geometric mean ratio is MK-2060/placebo|||2.82|2.24|
91857819|NCT04605198|183599466|SUPERIORITY|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|||5.29|-6.46|.846
91664409|NCT02997176|183222559|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|131.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.14|224.74||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||224.74|77.14|
91664410|NCT02997176|183222560|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|149.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.49|243.93||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||243.93|91.49|
91857820|NCT04605198|183599467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||0.60|-4.36|.139
91864279|NCT04089059|183617582|OTHER|Test of difference in distribution of NYHA class from baseline (all patients were class III at baseline).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The New York Heart Association (NYHA) Classification is a system used to evaluate and classify the severity of heart failure based on symptoms, patient's physical activity, and quality of life. Its scale ranges from class 1 to 4 with class 1 indicating the least severe heart failure symptoms (i.e., the best functionality) and class 4 indicating the most severe heart failure symptoms (i.e., the poorest functionality), with higher classes indicating poorer functioning as relates to heart failure.||||<0.0001
91857821|NCT04605198|183599468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||0.97|-1.21|.222
91857822|NCT04605198|183599469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-1.76||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed using a logit distribution. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified. Final models were random-intercept only.||0.73|-4.26|0.166
91857823|NCT04605198|183599470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||2.53|-3.57|.737
91857824|NCT04605198|183599471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2391.98||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4471.46|-312.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||-312.49|-4471.46|.024
91857825|NCT05307978|183599488|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|68.729|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.74|89.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed to the ln-transformed PK parameter and the independent variables.||||89.56|52.74|
91857826|NCT05307978|183599489|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|120.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.2|214.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed with ethnicity as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||||214.43|67.20|
91857827|NCT05307978|183599490|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|118.142|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.93|188.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed with ethnicity as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||||188.80|73.93|
91857828|NCT05307978|183599491|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|93.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.17|139.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed with ethnicity as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||||139.56|63.17|
91857829|NCT03857620|183599548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||Combined Arm II (OPTI-Surg) \& Arm III (OPTI-Surg plus Coach) vs. Arm I (Usual Care)||0.45|-0.85|0.53
91857830|NCT03857620|183599548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||||0.81|-0.67|0.84
91857831|NCT03857620|183599548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||||0.26|-1.21|0.19
91714112|NCT02686164|183319890|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.057|1.36||||||AUC(0-24) of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady-state) + Midazolam vs.Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.360|1.057|
91857832|NCT03857620|183599548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||||1.29|-0.19|0.14
91857833|NCT03857620|183599549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||Combined Arm II (OPTI-Surg) \& Arm III (OPTI-Surg plus Coach) vs. Arm I (Usual Care)||2.09|0.23|0.50
91857834|NCT03857620|183599549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||||1.62|0.13|0.21
91864280|NCT04089059|183617583|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of baseline 6MWT vs 6 month 6MWT.||||||0.1086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1086
91714113|NCT02686164|183319891|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.753|0.988||||||Cmax of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||0.988|0.753|
91857835|NCT03857620|183599549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||||3.54|0.30|0.96
91857836|NCT03857620|183599549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||||1.54|0.13|0.19
91857837|NCT05145257|183599560|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857838|NCT05145257|183599561|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857839|NCT05145257|183599562|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857840|NCT05145257|183599563|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857841|NCT05145257|183599564|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91714114|NCT02686164|183319891|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.852|1.238||||||Cmax of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady state) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.238|0.852|
91857842|NCT05145257|183599565|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857843|NCT05145257|183599566|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857844|NCT05145257|183599567|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857845|NCT05145257|183599568|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857846|NCT05145257|183599569|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857847|NCT05145257|183599570|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91901806|NCT03829319|183698301|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.36|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.36|0.79|0.7955
91857848|NCT05145257|183599571|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857849|NCT05145257|183599572|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857850|NCT05145257|183599573|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857851|NCT05145257|183599574|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857852|NCT05145257|183599575|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91857853|NCT04995484|183599576|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|2.43|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment/Healthy|||2.43|0.95|
91857854|NCT04995484|183599577|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.42|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment/Healthy|||1.42|0.84|
91857855|NCT04995484|183599578|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.26|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment/Healthy|||1.26|0.76|
91857856|NCT05384730|183599668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Light physical activity compared overtime||||0.10
91857857|NCT05384730|183599668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Moderate-vigorous physical activity compared overtime||||0.30
91857858|NCT05384730|183599668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Inactive/sedentary time compared overtime||||0.18
91857859|NCT05384730|183599669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91857860|NCT05384730|183599670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91857861|NCT05384730|183599671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
91857862|NCT05384730|183599672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing depression scores overtime||||0.03
91857863|NCT05384730|183599672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing anxiety scores overtime||||0.96
91857864|NCT05384730|183599673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91857865|NCT05384730|183599674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
91857866|NCT05384730|183599675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||PASE analysis over time||||0.01
91857867|NCT01619410|183599678|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91857868|NCT02885636|183599714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91857869|NCT02885636|183599715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
91857870|NCT02885636|183599716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
91857871|NCT02885636|183599717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91857872|NCT02885636|183599718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91857873|NCT02885636|183599719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
91857874|NCT02885636|183599720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91857875|NCT02885636|183599721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91857876|NCT02885636|183599722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
91857877|NCT02885636|183599723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91857878|NCT02885636|183599724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91857879|NCT02885636|183599725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
91857880|NCT02885636|183599726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91857881|NCT02885636|183599727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91857882|NCT02252172|183599885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.43|<0.0001
91857883|NCT02252172|183599886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.30|1.80|<0.0001
91857884|NCT02252172|183599887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.77|2.42|<0.0001
91857885|NCT02252172|183599888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|5.59|||Fisher Exact|||||5.59|2.55|<0.0001
91857886|NCT02252172|183599889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.24|2.09|<0.0001
91664411|NCT02997176|183222560|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|111.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.91|202.43||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||202.43|60.91|
91664412|NCT02997176|183222561|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|115.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.95|170.6||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||170.6|77.95|
91857887|NCT02252172|183599890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.86|1.85|<0.0001
91857888|NCT02252172|183599891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.55|<0.0001
91857889|NCT02252172|183599892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62|||Log Rank|||||0.62|0.39|<0.0001
91857890|NCT02252172|183599895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.41|<0.0001
91901807|NCT03829319|183698303|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.28|0.84|0.7191
91714115|NCT02686164|183319891|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.879|1.268||||||Cmax of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.268|0.879|
91857891|NCT02252172|183599896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.49|<0.0001
91857892|NCT02252172|183599897|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.4|||=|0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Cycle 3 Day 1||5.2|-0.4|=0.0986
91857893|NCT02252172|183599897|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.5|||=|0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1||4.4|-1.4|=0.3042
91857894|NCT02252172|183599897|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.8|||=|0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1||4.9|-1.2|=0.2339
91857895|NCT02252172|183599897|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.3|||=|0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1||6.3|0.2|=0.0365
91857896|NCT02252172|183599897|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.7|||=|0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.9||Cycle 24 Day 1|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1||4.9|-1.6|=0.3093
91857897|NCT02252172|183599897|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6|||=|0.3481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 24 Day 1||5|-1.8|=0.3481
91857898|NCT02252172|183599897|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.0|||=|0.5825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 30 Day 1||4.6|-2.6|=0.5825
91857899|NCT02252172|183599897|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.7|||=|0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 36 Day 1||6.4|-1|=0.1566
91857900|NCT02252172|183599897|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.8|||=|0.3858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 42 Day 1||5.7|-2.2|=0.3858
91857901|NCT02252172|183599897|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.8|||=|0.7296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.0|||Least Square Mean Difference|||Cycle 48 Day 1||5|-3.5|=0.7296
91857902|NCT02252172|183599897|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|||=|0.5793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 54 Day 1||3.3|-6|=0.5793
91857903|NCT02252172|183599897|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|||=|0.7756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 60 Day 1||4.5|-6.1|=0.7756
91857904|NCT02252172|183599897|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|||=|0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 66 Day 1||7.4|-6|=0.8458
91857905|NCT02252172|183599898|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.0|||=|0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1||4.5|-0.5|=0.1176
91857906|NCT02252172|183599898|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.8|||=|0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1||5.4|0.2|=0.0336
91857907|NCT02252172|183599898|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.6|||=|0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1||5.3|-0.2|=0.0653
91857908|NCT02252172|183599898|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.8|||=|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1||8.5|3|=0.0000
91857909|NCT02252172|183599898|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.0|||=|0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1||4.8|-0.9|=0.1805
91857910|NCT02252172|183599898|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.7|||=|0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 24 Day 1||5.7|-0.3|=0.0783
91857911|NCT02252172|183599898|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.4|||=|0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 30 Day 1||5.5|-0.8|=0.1422
91901808|NCT04484259|183698304|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin 45 PRU|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|38.0||||||The primary end point was non-inferiority of Ticagrelor 60 mg monotherapy vs. aspirin plus Ticagrelor 60 mg||38|-23|
91664413|NCT02997176|183222561|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|132.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.87|213.67||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||213.67|81.87|
91664414|NCT02997176|183222562|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|124.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.19|181.66||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||181.66|85.19|
91857912|NCT02252172|183599898|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|3.2|||=|0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.5|||Least Square Mean Difference|||Cycle 36 Day 1||6.5|-0.1|=0.0575
91857913|NCT02252172|183599898|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.1|||=|0.5339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 42 Day 1||4.5|-2.4|=0.5339
91857914|NCT02252172|183599898|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3|||=|0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 48 Day 1||5|-2.4|=0.5015
91857915|NCT02252172|183599898|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.3|||=|0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 54 Day 1||6.3|-1.7|=0.2512
91857916|NCT02252172|183599898|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.8246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 60 Day 1||4.1|-5.1|=0.8246
91857917|NCT02252172|183599898|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|||=|0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 66 Day 1||4.5|-7|=0.6640
91857918|NCT02252172|183599899|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.016|||=|0.3069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1||0.046|-0.015|=0.3069
91857919|NCT02252172|183599899|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.019|||=|0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1||0.05|-0.013|=0.2472
91857920|NCT02252172|183599899|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011|||=|0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1||0.044|-0.021|=0.4972
91857921|NCT02252172|183599899|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.029|||=|0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1||0.062|-0.004|=0.0841
91857922|NCT02252172|183599899|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.027|||=|0.1296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1||0.062|-0.008|=0.1296
91857923|NCT02252172|183599899|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.033|||=|0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 24 Day 1||0.07|-0.003|=0.0762
91857924|NCT02252172|183599899|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.014|||=|0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 30 Day 1||0.052|-0.025|=0.4859
91857925|NCT02252172|183599899|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011|||=|0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 36 Day 1||0.051|-0.029|=0.6031
91857926|NCT02252172|183599899|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.051|||=|0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 42 Day 1||0.093|0.009|=0.0178
91857927|NCT02252172|183599899|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.007|||=|0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 48 Day 1||0.053|-0.038|=0.7460
91857928|NCT02252172|183599899|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.037|||=|0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 54 Day 1||0.086|-0.012|=0.1394
91857929|NCT02252172|183599899|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011|||=|0.6982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 60 Day 1||0.068|-0.045|=0.6982
91857930|NCT02252172|183599899|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.069|||=|0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 66 Day 1||0.14|-0.001|=0.0543
91857931|NCT03830866|183599902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.65|0.174
91857932|NCT03830866|183599903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.64|0.203
91857933|NCT03830866|183599905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.60|0.091
91857934|NCT03830866|183599906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.657|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.657|0.794|0.465
91857935|NCT03830866|183599907|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.487|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.487|0.833|0.469
91664415|NCT02997176|183222562|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|113.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.9|174.07||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||174.07|73.90|
91664416|NCT02997176|183222562|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|95.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.9|134.83||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||134.83|67.90|
91664417|NCT02997176|183222563|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|99.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.74|170.8||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||170.80|57.74|
91664418|NCT02997176|183222563|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|96.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.22|178.14||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||178.14|52.22|
91664419|NCT02997176|183222563|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|64.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.65|103.46||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||103.46|39.65|
91857936|NCT00041938|183599915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1||The primary null hypotheses was tested at two-tailed alpha=0.05. A Haybittle-Peto interim monitoring procedure was performed with stopping boundaries for the interim analyses corresponding to a nominal two-tailed P value of 0.001.|Regression, Cox|Cox models stratified by site, New York Heart Association class (I vs. II-IV), and status w/ respect to recent stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|The primary null hypothesis: time to first event in the composite primary endpoint does not differ significantly between warfarin and aspirin. The original target sample size was 2860, providing 89% power for a log-rank test with two-sided alpha .05, assuming a hazard rate reduction of 17.82% in either group compared with the other, after adjustment for use of beta-blockers and allowance for discontinuation of therapy, dropout, and crossover. The final sample of 2305 patients yielded 69% power.||1.10|0.79|0.40
91857937|NCT00041938|183599916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.23||Secondary null hypothesis was tested at two-tailed alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Cox models stratified by site, New York Heart Association class (I vs. II-IV), and status w/ respect to recent stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Secondary null hypothesis: time to first event in the composite secondary endpoint does not differ significantly between warfarin and aspirin. This was tested at prespecified alpha = 0.05 level, two-tailed.||1.23|0.93|0.33
91864281|NCT04089059|183617586|SUPERIORITY|Compare NTproBNP at baseline with 6 months||||||0.0628|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0628
91864282|NCT03728608|183617596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.92
91864283|NCT03728608|183617597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.65
91864284|NCT03728608|183617598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.96
91864285|NCT03728608|183617599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.77
91864286|NCT03728608|183617600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.43
91864287|NCT03728608|183617601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.97
91864288|NCT03728608|183617602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.97
91864289|NCT03728608|183617603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.79
91664420|NCT02997176|183222566|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|118.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.81|167.47||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||167.47|83.81|
91664421|NCT02997176|183222566|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|108.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.25|160.3||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||160.30|73.25|
91664422|NCT02997176|183222566|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|117.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.29|162.83||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||162.83|85.29|
91857938|NCT00041938|183599917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to ischemic stroke, adjusting for competing risks of death and intracerebral hemorrhage.||0.82|0.33|0.005
91901809|NCT04498832|183698308|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs was greater than (\>) 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|3.2|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|A/H1N1||3.20|2.46|
91901810|NCT04498832|183698308|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the ratio of GMTs was \>1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|2.5|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|A/H3N2-like||2.50|2.03|
91664423|NCT02997176|183222567|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|94.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.74|157.64||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||157.64|56.74|
91664424|NCT02997176|183222567|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|92.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.69|164.26||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||164.26|51.69|
91714116|NCT02686164|183319891|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.845|1.046||||||Cmax of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady state) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.046|0.845|
91664425|NCT02997176|183222567|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|84.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.14|134.1||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||134.10|53.14|
91664426|NCT05511935|183222590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|9.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.06|-5.57|0.64
91664427|NCT05511935|183222591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.89|-2.28|0.47
91664428|NCT05511935|183222592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|6.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.11|-10.77|0.59
91664429|NCT05511935|183222593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|9.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.38|-12.61|0.77
91857939|NCT00041938|183599918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.22||||0.35||95.0|0.43|11.66|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to intracerebral hemorrhage, adjusting for competing risks of death and ischemic stroke.||11.66|0.43|0.35
91857940|NCT00041938|183599919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.2|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|||1.20|0.85|0.91
91857941|NCT00041938|183599920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.64|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to myocardial infarction, adjusting for competing risks of heart failure hospitalization, ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and death.||1.64|0.58|0.93
91857942|NCT00041938|183599921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.47|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to heart failure hospitalization, adjusting for competing risks of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and death.||1.47|0.998|0.053
91714117|NCT02731300|183319900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups|ANOVA|||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups||||<0.05
91714118|NCT02731300|183319901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups|ANOVA|||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups||||<0.05
91714119|NCT02465164|183319902|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.208
91714120|NCT01481558|183319915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
91857943|NCT00041938|183599922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to ischemic stroke, adjusting for competing risks of myocardial infarction, heart failure hospitalization, death and intracerebral hemorrhage.||0.96|0.32|0.03
91857944|NCT00041938|183599923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|9.88|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to intracerebral hemorrhage, adjusting for competing risks of myocardial infarction, heart failure hospitalization, ischemic stroke, and death.||9.88|0.32|0.51
91857945|NCT00041938|183599924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.83||95.0|0.81|1.3|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||||1.30|0.81|0.83
91857946|NCT00041938|183599925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.12|||Regression, Poisson||The warfarin arm represents the numerator and the aspirin arm represents the denominator of the rate ratio.|||3.12|1.36|<0.001
91857947|NCT00041938|183599926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.56|||<|0.001||95.0|1.34|1.81|||Regression, Poisson||Warfarin group represents the numerator and aspirin group represents denominator of rate ratio.|||1.81|1.34|<0.001
91857948|NCT01017146|183599927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for ILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91857949|NCT01017146|183599927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for NILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91857950|NCT01017146|183599927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for TLs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91857951|NCT01017146|183599928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|35.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|40.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||40.5|30.7|<0.001
91857952|NCT01017146|183599928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|28.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||28.3|19.6|
91664430|NCT05511935|183222594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|-6.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-6.47|-17.95|<0.001
91664431|NCT05511935|183222595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.34|-2.10|0.39
91857953|NCT01017146|183599929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|33.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||33.5|24.2|<0.001
91857954|NCT01017146|183599929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|19.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||19.9|12.4|
91857955|NCT00976495|183599946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7177|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|-2.49|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||-2.49|-13.34|
91901811|NCT04498832|183698308|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the ratio of GMTs was \>1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|2.81|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|B/Victoria-like||2.81|2.31|
91664432|NCT05511935|183222596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|-3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.24|-14.52|<0.01
91901812|NCT04498832|183698308|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the ratio of GMTs was \>1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|3.42|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|B/Yamagata||3.42|2.85|
91664433|NCT05511935|183222597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|5.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.23|-10.90|0.49
91664434|NCT05511935|183222599|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|18.35|||Regression, Linear|||||18.35|-2.92|0.15
91664435|NCT05511935|183222600|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|8.99|||Regression, Linear|||||8.99|-8.13|0.92
91664436|NCT05511935|183222601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|19.49|||Regression, Linear|||||19.49|-4.17|0.20
91664437|NCT05511935|183222602|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-9.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.15|12.56|||Regression, Linear|||||12.56|-31.15|0.39
91691939|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3747||95.0|-0.04|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 3||0.12|-0.04|0.3747
91714121|NCT03110133|183319925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0488
91857956|NCT00976495|183599946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.87|-2.06|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||-2.06|-12.87|
91857957|NCT00976495|183599947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|2.31|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||2.31|-7.11|
91857958|NCT00976495|183599947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|8.08|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||8.08|-1.55|
91857959|NCT00976495|183599948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|0.63|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||0.63|-9.38|
91857960|NCT00976495|183599948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|5.99|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||5.99|-4.18|
91857961|NCT00976495|183599949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7812|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|5.71|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||5.71|-5.39|
91857962|NCT00976495|183599949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8135|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.93|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||12.93|1.70|
91857963|NCT04154384|183599951|SUPERIORITY|A comparison of the proportion of participants in each arm reporting an improvement in average pain score on the Numeric Rating Scale from baseline to 3 months follow-up.||||||0.035||||||A comparison of the proportion of participants in each arm reporting an improvement in average pain score on the Numeric Rating Scale from baseline to 12 weeks follow-up.|Chi-squared|||||||0.035
91901813|NCT04498832|183698309|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|33.5|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|A/H1N1||33.5|25.7|
91664438|NCT01662960|183222650|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|2.2||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.443
91664439|NCT01662960|183222651|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|0.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.80
91691940|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.163||95.0|-0.4|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 4||0.07|-0.40|0.1630
91857964|NCT04048382|183600013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.88
91857965|NCT04048382|183600014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.49
91857966|NCT04048382|183600015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.91
91857967|NCT04048382|183600016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.65
91857968|NCT04048382|183600017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.17
91857969|NCT04048382|183600018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.19
91857970|NCT02119650|183600047|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877||||0.7562|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.509|1.51|||Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test and stratified by modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS).||||1.51|0.509|0.7562
91857971|NCT02269475|183600052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1875.3|100.0||"No statistical tests were used, instead the confidence interval was used for showing superiority.~If lower bound of the 95% CI is greater than 0%, the efficacy of MEDI3250 is demonstrated."|Exact conditional method|Estimated by an exact conditional method in total number of cases which follows a Poisson assumption.|Vaccine efficacy (%) = (1-RR)\*100 where RR = Risk Reduction.|||100.0|-1875.3|
91857972|NCT02269475|183600053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (%)|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|43.0||"No statistical tests were used, instead the confidence interval was used for showing superiority.~If lower bound of the 95% CI is greater than 0%, the efficacy of MEDI3250 is demonstrated."|Exact conditional method|Estimated by an exact conditional method in total number of cases which follows a Poisson assumption.|Vaccine efficacy (%) = (1-RR)\*100 where RR = Risk Reduction.|||43.0|7.4|
91857973|NCT02730871|183600065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-2.8|<0.001
91857974|NCT02730871|183600066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-2.8|<0.001
91857975|NCT02730871|183600067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.572|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-6.9|||ANCOVA|||||-6.9|-13.1|<0.001
91857976|NCT02730871|183600068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Baseline in IOP at 9:00||-0.2|-2.5|0.022
91664440|NCT01662960|183222652|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|-0.002||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.93
91857977|NCT02730871|183600068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.9|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Baseline in IOP at 11:00||-1.9|-3.9|<0.001
91857978|NCT02730871|183600069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.567||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-1.1|||Repeated measures model|||Percentage Change from Baseline in IOP at 09:00||-1.1|-11.2|0.018
91857979|NCT02730871|183600069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-8.6|||Repeated measures model|||Percentage Change from Baseline in IOP at 11:00||-8.6|-17.8|<0.001
91857980|NCT05368558|183600071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|23.1||||||||23.1|-4.0|
91857981|NCT05368558|183600071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-1.4||||||||-1.4|-28.7|
91857982|NCT05368558|183600072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.7|
91901814|NCT04498832|183698309|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|32.0|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|A/H3N2-like||32.0|24.0|
91901815|NCT04498832|183698309|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|31.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|35.2|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|B/Victoria-like||35.2|27.4|
91664441|NCT01662960|183222654|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|10.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.28
91664442|NCT01662960|183222655|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|-0.36||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.86
91664443|NCT02727192|183222658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.3||A two-sided significance level of 5% was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||||1.3|-2.6|0.520
91664444|NCT02727192|183222659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||||1.5|-3.3|0.440
91857983|NCT05368558|183600072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||||||||0.3|-1.7|
91857984|NCT05368558|183600073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.5||||||||7.5|-2.5|
91857985|NCT05368558|183600073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0||||||||0.0|-8.0|
91857986|NCT05368558|183600074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|9.7||||||||9.7|-8.9|
91857987|NCT05368558|183600074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-4.1||||||||-4.1|-18.5|
91857988|NCT05368558|183600075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.5||||||||7.5|-1.0|
91857989|NCT05368558|183600075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.4||||||||-0.4|-8.9|
91857990|NCT05368558|183600076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.7||||||||7.7|-0.9|
91857991|NCT05368558|183600076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.3||||||||-0.3|-10.2|
91857992|NCT01303445|183600083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|92.03||||||90.0|86.95|97.4||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||97.40|86.95|
91857993|NCT01303445|183600083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|92.3||||||90.0|87.76|97.08||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||97.08|87.76|
91857994|NCT01303445|183600084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|96.38||||||90.0|90.96|102.13||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||102.13|90.96|
91857995|NCT01303445|183600084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|97.03||||||95.0|93.26|100.95||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||100.95|93.26|
91857996|NCT01303445|183600085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|99.02||||||90.0|98.32|99.72||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||99.72|98.32|
91857997|NCT01303445|183600085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|98.42||||||90.0|97.66|99.18||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||99.18|97.66|
91857998|NCT01303445|183600086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|105.55||||||90.0|97.09|114.74||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||114.74|97.09|
91857999|NCT01303445|183600086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|106.09||||||90.0|98.64|114.09||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||114.09|98.64|
91858000|NCT01303445|183600087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|99.38||||||90.0|98.8|99.95||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||99.95|98.80|
91858001|NCT01303445|183600087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|99.02||||||90.0|98.46|99.59||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||99.59|98.46|
91858002|NCT03398148|183600115|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.6||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|17.0||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (≤ 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo)|||17.0|2.2|0.0324
91858003|NCT03398148|183600115|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.4||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|15.3||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (≤ 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo)|||15.3|1.5|0.0460
91858004|NCT03398148|183600115|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.7||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|15.6||P-value ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (≤ 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||15.6|1.7|0.0397
91858005|NCT03398148|183600116|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|18.0||Type I error rate control.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Advanced Therapy-IR status (yes vs no), Baseline steroid use (yes vs. no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo Score (≤ 7, \> 7).||||18.0|10.0|<0.0001
91858006|NCT03398148|183600117|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|29.0||P-value ≤ 0.01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||29.0|8.4|0.0028
91714122|NCT03110133|183319928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0347|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0347
91858007|NCT03398148|183600117|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.4||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|16.7||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||16.7|0.1|0.0968
91858008|NCT03398148|183600117|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|10.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|19.3||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||19.3|1.6|0.0512
91858009|NCT03398148|183600119|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|36.7||P-value ≤ 0.01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||36.7|11.0|0.0022
91858010|NCT03398148|183600119|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|41.1||P-value ≤ 0.001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||41.1|15.7|0.0002
91858011|NCT03398148|183600119|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.7|46.9||P-value ≤ 0.001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||46.9|20.7|<0.0001
91858012|NCT03398148|183600120|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|10.2||||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||22.9|-2.4|0.1842
91858013|NCT03398148|183600120|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.2||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.9|36.4||P-value ≤ 0.01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||36.4|9.9|0.0041
91858014|NCT03398148|183600120|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.1||||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||26.6|-0.4|0.1117
91858015|NCT03398148|183600121|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.3||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|14.1||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||14.1|2.5|0.0192
91664445|NCT02727192|183222660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||0.9|-2.1|0.410
91664446|NCT02727192|183222661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-9.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91664447|NCT02727192|183222664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.8|||Regression, Linear|||Mental Component Summary score||5.8|-0.1|0.058
91901816|NCT04498832|183698309|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|39.3|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|B/Yamagata||39.3|31.4|
91664448|NCT02727192|183222664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||Physical Component Summary score||0.8|-5.1|0.160
91664449|NCT02727192|183222665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-2.0|0.110
91664450|NCT02727192|183222667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.6|-0.5|0.850
91664451|NCT02727192|183222669|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||||1.6|-1.0|0.650
91664452|NCT02727192|183222670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5|||Regression, Linear|||||4.5|0.8|0.006
91664453|NCT02727192|183222671|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-31.4||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.4|40.7|||Regression, Linear|||||40.7|-103.4|0.389
91664454|NCT02727192|183222674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.5|-0.3|0.697
91664455|NCT05497557|183222680|OTHER|Drug-drug Interaction Assessment|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.677|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.547|0.839||||||Ratios of geometric least squares means, and corresponding confidence intervals were obtained by taking the exponential of the least square means (LSMs), differences in LSMs, and corresponding confidence intervals on the natural log (ln) scale.||0.839|0.547|
91714123|NCT01386606|183319991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value of treatment group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||||0.056
91858016|NCT03398148|183600121|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|4.8||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|9.1||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||9.1|0.4|0.0706
91858017|NCT03398148|183600121|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|14.6||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||14.6|2.7|0.0170
91858018|NCT03398148|183600122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7737|||||||Chi-squared|P value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.||||||0.7737
91858019|NCT03398148|183600122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7432|||||||Fisher Exact|P value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.||||||0.7432
91858020|NCT03398148|183600122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7172|||||||Fisher Exact|P value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.||||||0.7172
91858021|NCT03398148|183600123|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|4.7||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|9.0||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||9.0|0.4|0.0722
91858022|NCT03398148|183600123|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|3.1||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||6.6|-0.4|0.1480
91858023|NCT03398148|183600123|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|1.7||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||4.5|-1.0|0.3042
91858024|NCT03398148|183600124|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.94|-2.89||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||-2.89|-9.94|0.0030
91858025|NCT03398148|183600124|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.67|-4.71||P-value ≤ 0.001|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||-4.71|-11.67|0.0001
91858026|NCT03398148|183600124|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.27|-4.19||P-value ≤ 0.001|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||-4.19|-11.27|0.0004
91858027|NCT03398148|183600125|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.61|28.0||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||28|6.61|0.0081
91858028|NCT03398148|183600125|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.74|30.79||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||30.79|9.74|0.0017
91858029|NCT03398148|183600125|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.22|30.67||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||30.67|9.22|0.0024
91858030|NCT03398148|183600126|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.208||||0.3315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8429|3.2596|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||3.2596|-0.8429|0.3315
91858031|NCT03398148|183600126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.447||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4415|4.4519||P-value ≤ 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||4.4519|0.4415|0.0451
91858032|NCT03398148|183600126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.392||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3498|4.4352||P-value ≤ 0.1|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||4.4352|0.3498|0.0543
91858033|NCT03398148|183600127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.662||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7841|6.5402||P-value \<= 0.1|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||P-value for test of difference between each Risankizumab dose group and placebo for mean change from baseline using the mixed-effect repeated measure model The unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate within subject errors.|||6.5402|0.7841|0.0367
91858034|NCT03398148|183600127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|4.19||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3656|7.0144||P-value \<= 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||P-value for test of difference between each Risankizumab dose group and placebo for mean change from baseline using the mixed-effect repeated measure model The unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate within subject errors.|||7.0144|1.3656|0.0151
91858035|NCT03398148|183600127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.348||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5322|5.2281|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||P-value for test of difference between each Risankizumab dose group and placebo for mean change from baseline using the mixed-effect repeated measure model The unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate within subject errors.|||5.2281|-0.5322|0.1795
91858036|NCT03398148|183600128|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|7.06||P-value ≤ 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||7.06|0.75|0.0422
91858037|NCT03398148|183600128|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.23|8.42||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||8.42|2.23|0.0049
91858038|NCT03398148|183600128|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|7.8||P-value ≤ 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||7.80|1.50|0.0156
91858039|NCT03398148|183600129|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Note: ITT1A includes all randomized subjects who received at least one dose of study drug during Induction Period 1 from Sub-Study 1.||||1
91901817|NCT01313650|183698321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.115|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.155|0.076|<0.001
91858040|NCT03398148|183600130|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|34.8||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference.|||34.8|22.3|<0.0001
91901818|NCT01313650|183698321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.112|0.032|<0.001
91664456|NCT05497557|183222681|OTHER|Drug-drug Interaction Assessment|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.771|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.628|0.948||||||Ratios of geometric least squares means, and corresponding confidence intervals were obtained by taking the exponential of the least square means (LSMs), differences in LSMs, and corresponding confidence intervals on the natural log (ln) scale.||0.948|0.628|
91664457|NCT05497557|183222682|OTHER|Drug-drug Interaction Assessment|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.619|0.948||||||Ratios of geometric least squares means, and corresponding confidence intervals were obtained by taking the exponential of the least square means (LSMs), differences in LSMs, and corresponding confidence intervals on the natural log (ln) scale.||0.948|0.619|
91664458|NCT04590027|183222687|NON_INFERIORITY|power calculation was not recorded Definition of non inferiority: two point difference of pain score at the measurement times|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|To rule out confounders due to an age difference, the ANCOVA test was applied to compare the differences in pain scores age-unrelatedly.|||Fisher Yates Test to compare the requirement of resue medication|||<0.05
91901819|NCT01313650|183698321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.207|0.128|<0.001
91664459|NCT04590027|183222688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91664460|NCT00907907|183222741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (PROC MIXED) were performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|93.97||||||90.0|80.25|110.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.04|80.25|
91714124|NCT01386606|183319991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-45.77||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.5|51.98||P-value for Androxal 25 mg treatment group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||51.98|-143.5|0.436
91901820|NCT01313650|183698321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.052||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||0.087|0.017|0.004
91858041|NCT03398148|183600131|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|29.4||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||29.4|19.3|<0.0001
91858042|NCT03398148|183600132|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|21.0||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||21.0|12.3|<0.0001
91858043|NCT03398148|183600133|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|10.2||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||10.2|4.2|<0.0001
91858044|NCT03398148|183600134|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|28.1||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||28.1|15.6|<0.0001
91858045|NCT03398148|183600135|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|22.4||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||22.4|10.3|<0.0001
91858046|NCT03398148|183600136|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.3||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|15.3||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||15.3|3.4|0.0021
91858047|NCT03398148|183600137|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.7||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||7.7|3.5|<0.0001
91664461|NCT00907907|183222742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) were performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.01||||||90.0|98.74|105.39|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.39|98.74|
91664462|NCT00907907|183222743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) were performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.91||||||90.0|95.99|103.98|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.98|95.99|
91664463|NCT00841542|183222780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.19||||||90.0|94.2|102.34|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls withing 80 - 125|||102.34|94.20|
91858048|NCT03398148|183600138|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.97||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||5.97|3.13|<0.0001
91858049|NCT03398148|183600139|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.38|23.25||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||23.25|13.38|<0.0001
91858050|NCT03398148|183600140|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.2||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Chi-squared||95% CI for treatment differences is based on normal approximation of the binomial proportions.|||-2.2|-7.3|<0.0001
91858051|NCT03398148|183600141|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|30.5||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||30.5|17.9|<0.0001
91901821|NCT01313650|183698321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 minus VI 25 µg.|||0.130|0.060|<0.001
91901822|NCT04029480|183698325|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Bayesian Means|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.29||||||This analysis is based on a Bayesian ANCOVA model including terms for Baseline A1C, treatment, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), and insulin use (yes/no) at Screening and calculated by Rubin's Rule. The 95% confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval.||-0.29|-1.06|
91901823|NCT04029480|183698326|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|9.3||||||This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||9.3|-22.2|
91901824|NCT04029480|183698327|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|2.8||||||This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||2.8|-25.9|
91901825|NCT04029480|183698328|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||||||||||No confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. CIs were computed only for those endpoints where at least ≥8 participants in the combined ertugliflozin group or ≥2 participants in the placebo group had events.|This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||||
91901826|NCT04029480|183698329|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.8|||||||||||||No confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. CIs were computed only for those endpoints where at least ≥8 participants in the combined ertugliflozin group or ≥2 participants in the placebo group had events.|This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||||
91901827|NCT04029480|183698330|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.66||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is based on an ANCOVA model including terms for Baseline A1C, treatment, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), and insulin use (yes/no) at Screening and calculated by Rubin's Rule.||-0.10|-1.23|0.021
91858052|NCT03398148|183600142|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|24.8||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference.|||24.8|12.4|<0.0001
91858053|NCT03398148|183600143|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.627|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3846|-0.8689||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||-0.8689|-2.3846|<0.0001
91901828|NCT04029480|183698331|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is based on an ANCOVA model including terms for Baseline A1C, treatment, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), and insulin use (yes/no) at Screening and calculated by Rubin's Rule.||-0.33|-1.39|0.001
91901829|NCT04029480|183698332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-13.6|||cLDA|||This analysis is based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), insulin use (yes/no), interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the model estimated a single baseline mean (applicable to all treatment groups).||-13.6|-44.4|0.001
91858054|NCT03398148|183600144|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.981|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3285|-0.6326||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||-0.6326|-1.3285|<0.0001
91901830|NCT04029480|183698333|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.03||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.35|||cLDA|||This analysis is a based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), insulin use (yes/no), interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the model estimated a single baseline mean (applicable to all treatment groups).||-0.35|-1.70|0.003
91901831|NCT04029480|183698334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-33.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-13.1|||cLDA|||This analysis is based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), insulin use (yes/no), interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the model estimated a single baseline mean (applicable to all treatment groups).||-13.1|-53.0|0.001
91858055|NCT01259401|183600145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
91901832|NCT01839487|183698358|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.01|0.54|0.058
91691941|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9568||95.0|-0.12|0.11|||ANOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 5||0.11|-0.12|0.9568
91691942|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9793||95.0|-0.13|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 6||0.13|-0.13|0.9793
91691943|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||0.885||95.0|-0.54|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 7||0.47|-0.54|0.8850
91858056|NCT01259401|183600146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.061
91664464|NCT00841542|183222781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.86||||||90.0|93.38|104.66|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.66|93.38|
91664465|NCT00841542|183222782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.22||||||90.0|93.87|104.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.88|93.87|
91691944|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2199||95.0|-0.17|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 8||0.70|-0.17|0.2199
91858057|NCT03661359|183600150|OTHER|||||||0.727||||||correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed)|pearson correlation|||Correlation between patient satisfaction and domains at risk.||||.727
91858058|NCT03661359|183600152|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||correlation is significant at the 0.01 level 2 tailed|pearson correlation|||correlation between physical quality of life and mental of life||||0.002
91858059|NCT03661359|183600154|OTHER|||||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|0.05|||||pearson correlation|||||||0.727
91858060|NCT03089125|183600155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.05||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||-0.05|-0.61|0.038
91858061|NCT03089125|183600156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||1.10|-2.20|>0.99
91858062|NCT03089125|183600157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||5.18|-1.98|0.380
91858063|NCT03089125|183600158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||0.82|-0.83|0.990
91858064|NCT03089125|183600159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-1.34|0.251
91858065|NCT03089125|183600160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||4.92|-7.90|0.647
91858066|NCT03089125|183600161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|5.71||ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||||5.71|-2.45|0.431
91858067|NCT03089125|183600162|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|-0.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||0.26|-0.38|0.710
91858068|NCT03089125|183600163|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.38||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||2.16|-1.40|0.677
91858069|NCT03089125|183600164|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|-1.95||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||1.97|-5.87|0.330
91858070|NCT03089125|183600165|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.73||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||1.59|-0.13|0.098
91858071|NCT03089125|183600166|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.08||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||0.93|-0.76|0.845
91858072|NCT03089125|183600167|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.74||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|7.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||7.77|-6.33|0.837
91858073|NCT03683069|183600176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||Regression, Linear|||adjusted to medication dose, sex, age, race||||0.823
91858074|NCT03683069|183600176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839|||||||Regression, Linear|||diastolic bp adjusted for medication dose sex,age, race||||.8390
91858075|NCT03683069|183600177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0101
91858076|NCT03683069|183600178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.59
91858077|NCT03683069|183600179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.7022||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier using Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxo|||||||.09
91858078|NCT05644002|183600182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|13.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Omax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||13.21|-9.09|.71
91858079|NCT05644002|183600182|OTHER||t-statistic|0.369|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction Omax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858080|NCT05644002|183600182|OTHER||Hedge's g|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Omax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858081|NCT05644002|183600183|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.543|1.046||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ cigarette satisfaction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||1.046|-.543|.530
91858082|NCT05644002|183600183|OTHER||t-statistic|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 73||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ cigarette satisfaction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858083|NCT05644002|183600183|OTHER||Hedge's g|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction mCEQ cigarette satisfaction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858084|NCT05644002|183600184|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.889||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.149|4.927||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress intensity between the PTBT and Control conditions.||4.927|-3.149|.66
91858085|NCT05644002|183600184|OTHER||t-statistic|0.439|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction intensity between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858086|NCT05644002|183600184|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction intensity between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858087|NCT05644002|183600185|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.698||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.443|4.046||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Pmax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||4.046|-5.443|.77
91858088|NCT05644002|183600185|OTHER||t-statistic|-0.294|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction Pmax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858089|NCT05644002|183600185|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.071|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Pmax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858090|NCT05644002|183600186|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.354||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.009|5.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction breakpoint between the PTBT and Control conditions.||5.300|-6.009|.90
91858091|NCT05644002|183600186|OTHER||t-statistic|-0.125|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction breakpoint between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858092|NCT05644002|183600186|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction breakpoint between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858093|NCT05644002|183600187|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.748||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.601|0.105||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ craving reduction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||.105|-1.601|.09
91858094|NCT05644002|183600187|OTHER||t-statistic|-1.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 65.261||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ craving reduction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858095|NCT05644002|183600187|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.405|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction mCEQ craving reduction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858096|NCT05644002|183600188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.663|1.031||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ psychological reward between the PTBT and Control conditions.||1.031|-.663|.666
91858097|NCT05644002|183600188|OTHER||t-statistic|0.184|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 73||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ psychological reward between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858098|NCT05644002|183600188|OTHER||Hedge's g|0.099|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction mCEQ psychological reward between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858099|NCT05644002|183600189|OTHER||β|0.026||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|0.507||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Coding: Control=0, PTBT=1.||A multiple linear regression test was conducted to examine whether the PTBT intervention (versus control) significantly predicted post-stress-induction respiratory sinus arrhythmia during smoking, while controlling for average baseline respiratory sinus arrhythmia at step 1 of the model.||.507|-.358|.73
91901833|NCT01839487|183698360|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG for HA-high was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the KPS category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.10|0.30|0.092
91858100|NCT05644002|183600189|OTHER||t-statistic|0.345|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|degrees freedom = (2, 73)|Condition (0=control; 1=PTBT)|A multiple linear regression test was conducted to examine whether the PTBT intervention (versus control) significantly predicted post-stress induction respiratory sinus arrhythmia during smoking, while controlling for average baseline respiratory sinus arrythmia at step 1 of the model.||||
91858101|NCT05644002|183600190|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.543||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|-0.314||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \< .05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction average puff duration between PTBT and Control conditions.||-.314|-.772|.001
91858102|NCT05644002|183600190|OTHER||t-statistic|-4.739|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 66.03||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction average puff duration between PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858103|NCT05644002|183600190|OTHER||Hedge's g|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction average puff duration between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91858104|NCT03821844|183600243|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.03|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effects: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, corporation, time from Minimum Data Set (MDS) collection to Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline Agitation and Reactive Behavior Scale (ARBS) (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS and ARBS-CMAI model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of baseline/follow-up measure, and treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, random intercept for data collector (exclusive to CMAI model), and random intercept for individual."|4.03|-1.37|< 0.05
91858105|NCT03821844|183600244|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09|||Differences-in-Differences regression||Reported estimation details pertain to the None category.||"The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates, an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. The reference category for the multinomial model for each outcome is None. To address baseline differences in the proportion of individuals at each level of the ordinal outcomes between treatment and control groups, we report the marginal time by intervention interaction."|0.09|0.03|< 0.05
91864290|NCT04587453|183617605|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. Confidence intervals (CIs) are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|22.5|||||Mantel-Haenzel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Responders were considered those meeting an IGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear). Subjects with missing data or subjects who had received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.||22.5|-11.2|
91901834|NCT01839487|183698360|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.31||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG for HA-low was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the KPS category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.31|0.59|0.514
91901835|NCT01839487|183698361|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.68||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-Value and relative risk were based on a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method using KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||1.68|0.88|0.225
91901836|NCT01839487|183698362|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the KPS category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.19|0.70|0.495
91901837|NCT03714425|183698372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The primary research objective to measure perceived improvement in pain at three months was assessed using a two-sample t-test of PGIC scores between the two treatment groups using a type I error rate of 0.05 (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|Most of the analyses involved delta scores reflecting changes within subjects, though we compared PGIC raw scores rather than change scores.||||||<0.05
91901838|NCT03877432|183698374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 1T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.012
91901839|NCT03877432|183698374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 2T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.017
91664466|NCT03214588|183222787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000746|>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00179|0.0007||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.00070|-0.00179|>0.999
91664467|NCT03214588|183222787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000616|>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00172|0.00033||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.00033|-0.00172|>0.999
91664468|NCT03214588|183222788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.782||0.135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|0.44||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.44|-2.18|0.135
91664469|NCT03214588|183222788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|1.66||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.66|-0.48|0.818
91664470|NCT03214588|183222788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.47||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||1.47|-1.11|0.591
91664471|NCT03214588|183222788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.643||0.713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|1.44||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||1.44|-0.71|0.713
91664472|NCT03214588|183222788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.822||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.62||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.62|-1.13|0.616
91664473|NCT03214588|183222788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.51||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.51|-0.76|0.708
91864291|NCT04587453|183617606|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|33.0|||||Mantel-Haenzel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with 75% reduction in EASI were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who had received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.||33.0|-2.9|
91901840|NCT03877432|183698374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 3T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.003
91901841|NCT03877432|183698374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 4T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.004
91901842|NCT01474863|183698392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.86
91664474|NCT03214588|183222789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000604||0.741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0014|0.00062||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.00062|-0.00140|0.741
91664475|NCT03214588|183222789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000505||0.964|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00177|-0.00008||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-0.00008|-0.00177|0.964
91691945|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4017||95.0|-0.14|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 9||0.35|-0.14|0.4017
91664476|NCT03214588|183222789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000772||0.573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00143|0.00115||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.00115|-0.00143|0.573
91664477|NCT03214588|183222789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000646||0.749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00152|0.00064||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.00064|-0.00152|0.749
91664478|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.29||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.29|-0.23|0.571
91901843|NCT02038920|183698393|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|3.958|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MLN0002 group/placebo group. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used for analysis. Prior tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||3.958|0.816|0.1448
91664479|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.44||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.44|0.02|0.963
91664480|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.28||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.28|-0.27|0.515
91858106|NCT03821844|183600245|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Interaction Effect|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, nursing home corporation, time from Minimum Data Set (MDS) collection to Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline Agitation and Reactive Behavior Score (ARBS) (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS and ARBS-CMAI model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of baseline/follow-up measure, and treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, random intercept for data collector (exclusive to CMAI model), and random intercept for individual."|0.08|-0.30|< 0.05
91858107|NCT03821844|183600246|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|0.0|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Variables included in the model: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, agitation and reactive behavior (ARBS) score, date of assessment, treatment group, and facility-level random effect.|0.00|-7.22|< 0.05
91858108|NCT03821844|183600247|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|0.06|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Variables included in the model: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, agitation and reactive behavior (ARBS) score, date of assessment, treatment group, and facility-level random effect.|0.06|-7.55|< 0.05
91858109|NCT03821844|183600248|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|2.76|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Variables included in the model: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, agitation and reactive behavior (ARBS) score, date of assessment, treatment group, and facility-level random effect.|2.76|-5.28|< 0.05
91858110|NCT03821844|183600250|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.7|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Multilevel regression with covariates' adjustments was used to estimate the impact of the resident being in a treatment versus control nursing home on depressive symptoms.|0.70|-1.14|< 0.05
91858111|NCT03821844|183600251|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Differences-in-Differences regression||Reported estimation details pertain to the None category.||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the behaviors of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. To address baseline differences in the proportion of individuals at each level of the ordinal outcomes between treatment and control groups, we report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.02|-0.03|< 0.05
91858112|NCT03821844|183600252|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.07|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.07|0.02|< 0.05
91901844|NCT02038920|183698394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|23.953|||Pearson's Chi-square Test||MLN0002 group/placebo group|||23.953|0.532|0.1779
91664481|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.54||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.54|0.08|0.986
91691946|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4113||95.0|-0.1|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain LOCF Endpoint||0.24|-0.10|0.4113
91858113|NCT03821844|183600253|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.01|-0.03|< 0.05
91664482|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.37||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.37|-0.18|0.718
91691947|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3011||95.0|-0.06|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 3||0.02|-0.06|0.3011
91691948|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4482||95.0|-0.26|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 4||0.12|-0.26|0.4482
91691949|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3058||95.0|-0.31|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 5||0.10|-0.31|0.3058
91691950|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3035||95.0|-0.38|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 6||0.12|-0.38|0.3035
91691951|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9636||95.0|-0.46|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 7||0.48|-0.46|0.9636
91691952|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.366||95.0|-0.38|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 8||1.02|-0.38|0.3660
91691953|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4093||95.0|-0.69|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 9||0.29|-0.69|0.4093
91792082|NCT03036800|183461938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|12.86|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 32 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||12.86|3.32|<0.001
91792083|NCT03036800|183461939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|17.16|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||17.16|3.80|<0.001
91901845|NCT02038920|183698400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.673|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MLN0002 group/placebo group. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used for analysis. Prior tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||4.673|0.720|0.1963
91792084|NCT03036800|183461940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.47|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||5.47|0.95|0.065
91901846|NCT02038920|183698402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.4||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|160.972|||Pearson's Chi-square Test|||||160.972|1.473|0.0094
91901847|NCT02038920|183698403|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|8.844|||Pearson's Chi-square Test||MLN0002 group/placebo group.|||8.844|0.254|0.6534
91858114|NCT03821844|183600254|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.01|-0.04|< 0.05
91858115|NCT03821844|183600255|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.03|-0.02|< 0.05
91858116|NCT03821844|183600256|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|-0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment vs. control NH had on the behaviors and moods of NH residents. The models were implemented separately for each mood. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. To address baseline differences in the proportion of individuals at each level of the ordinal outcomes between treatment and control groups, we report the marginal time by intervention interaction. We will refer to this estimand as the marginal interaction effect (MIE), which is sometimes known as the Difference in Differences estimand.|0.01|-0.05|< 0.05
91858117|NCT03913195|183600261|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limits for the 90% confidence interval are 0.80 to 1.25. If the 90% CIs were within the equivalence limits (0.8, 1.25), it demonstrated a PK bridge between the two routes of administration.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8299|1.2049||H0: P1 is not different from P2.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects with an average Ctrough ≥ 300 ng/mL is compared between the 30-second IV push and the 15-minute IV infusion.||1.2049|0.8299|1.0
91858118|NCT03913195|183600262|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limits for the 90% confidence interval (CI) are 0.80 to 1.25. If the 90% CIs were within the equivalence limits (0.8, 1.25), it demonstrated a PK bridge between the two routes of administration.|mean geometric ratio|1.0315||||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9478|1.1226|||SAS PROC MIXED|||The log transform of the ratio of the geometric means of the Area Under the Curve (AUC) for 30 second IV Push and 15 minute IV infusion is compared.||1.1226|0.9478|0.5389
91858119|NCT03913195|183600264|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limits for the 90% confidence interval are 0.80 to 1.25. If the 90% CIs were within the equivalence limits (0.8, 1.25), it demonstrated a PK bridge between the two routes of administration.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects with an average Ctrough ≥ 300 ng/mL is compared between IM and IV infusion.||1.08|0.69|0.34
91901848|NCT02038920|183698404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2059|||||||Pearson's Chi-square Test|||||||0.2059
91901849|NCT00866697|183698413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.911||The P-value from the stratified log-rank test was adjusted for the two stratification factors.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio was estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.911|0.643|0.0021
91901850|NCT00866697|183698414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.145|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank P-Value.|"The HR was estimated using a Pike estimator.~CIs were estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method."|||1.145|0.805|0.6431
91858120|NCT03899961|183600265|SUPERIORITY|Median regression model for the change from baseline, model was adjusted for treatment, bootstrap was used for the confidence interval|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.09||Median regression model for the change from baseline, model was adjusted for treatment, bootstrap was used for the confidence interval|Median regression model for the change f|||Median regression model for the change from baseline, model was adjusted for treatment, bootstrap was used for the confidence interval||1.09|-1.09|0.05
91858121|NCT05107401|183600269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.30|-4.90|0.083
91858122|NCT05107401|183600270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||-0.18|-1.16|0.032
91858123|NCT05107401|183600271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.29|-0.72|0.48
91858124|NCT05107401|183600272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.29|-1.49|0.48
91858125|NCT05107401|183600273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.51|-2.60|0.37
91858126|NCT05107401|183600274|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||The statistical values presented are the relative risk between study arms at the three-month follow-up.|We used a generalized linear model using a binomial distribution to examine whether the intervention was associated with increased HIV self-testing uptake in the follow-up period. The model was adjusted for history of HIV testing (pre-intervention testing and testing prior to the study), whether the participant had submitted content to the JasSpark contest, and if the participant had a main intimate partner (e.g., girlfriend/boyfriend, spouse).||1.32|0.98|0.099
91901851|NCT01703663|183698440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||absolute difference|-5.73||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|2.97|||ANOVA|||||2.97|-14.4|0.183
91664483|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.52||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.52|0.08|0.986
91691954|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5208||95.0|-0.39|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain LOCF Endpoint||0.20|-0.39|0.5208
91858127|NCT05107401|183600275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-1.58||To account for multiple comparisons arising from analyses of moderating effects, the false discovery rate (FDR) was controlled using Benjamini-Hochberg procedures in a tiered approach.|Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference in females between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Sex was marginally significant in the initial multilevel mixed models, therefore, we examined potential moderation effects of sex on stigma changes. Fixed effects corresponding to the two-way interactions involving sex, time, and/or arm, as well as the three-way interaction of sex, time, and arm, were added to the models.||-1.58|-8.59|0.012
91664484|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.09||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Dressing||0.09|-0.40|0.153
91664485|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.861|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.33||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Dressing||0.33|-0.07|0.861
91664486|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.18||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Dressing||0.18|-0.22|0.443
91664487|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.13||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Dressing||0.13|-0.20|0.359
91664488|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.268|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.17||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Dressing||0.17|-0.36|0.268
91664489|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.19||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Dressing||0.19|-0.24|0.411
91664490|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.2||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Personal Hygiene||0.20|-0.31|0.358
91664491|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.41||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Personal Hygiene||0.41|0.00|0.946
91691955|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9931||95.0|-0.17|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 2||0.17|-0.17|0.9931
91691956|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.5867||95.0|-0.25|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 3||0.44|-0.25|0.5867
91691957|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2748||95.0|-0.37|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 4||0.11|-0.37|0.2748
91691958|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5521||95.0|-0.51|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 5||0.28|-0.51|0.5521
91858128|NCT05107401|183600275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|5.42||To account for multiple comparisons arising from analyses of moderating effects, the false discovery rate (FDR) was controlled using Benjamini-Hochberg procedures in a tiered approach.|Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference in males between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Sex was marginally significant in the initial multilevel mixed models, therefore, we examined potential moderation effects of sex on stigma changes. Fixed effects corresponding to the two-way interactions involving sex, time, and/or arm, as well as the three-way interaction of sex, time, and arm, were added to the models.||5.42|-2.26|0.56
91858129|NCT05952076|183600296|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.11||||0.6863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|See Estimation Comments|The mixed model included treatment and visit as factors, including the interaction term, and was adjusted by baseline WAZ and baseline age (days). A random intercept for participant was included.|||0.67|-0.44|0.6863
91714125|NCT01386606|183319991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-110.9||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.6|-11.23||P-value for Androxal 12.5 mg group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||-11.23|-210.6|0.068
91714126|NCT01386606|183319991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-148.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.9|-54.05||P-value for Androxal 6.25 mg group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||-54.05|-242.9|0.011
91714127|NCT01386606|183319991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.79||P-value for morning total testosterone (adjusted for treatment effect if treatment group is significant).|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||0.79|0.37|<0.001
91714128|NCT01386606|183319992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning LH at Week 2. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
91714129|NCT01386606|183319992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning LH at Week 4. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
91714130|NCT01386606|183319992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning LH at Week 6. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
91858130|NCT05952076|183600297|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|109.3||||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-259.76|478.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|See Estimation Comments|The mixed model included treatment and visit as factors, including the interaction term, and was adjusted by baseline weight (grams) and baseline age (days). A random intercept for participant was included.|||478.36|-259.76|0.5567
91858131|NCT05952076|183600298|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1||||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|See Estimation Comments|The mixed model included treatment and visit as factors, including the interaction term, and was adjusted by baseline WAZ, baseline age (days) and study intervention compliance. A random intercept for participant was included.|||0.66|-0.46|0.7275
91714131|NCT01386606|183319993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation|0.90993|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pearson correlation between 9 am morning testosterone and serial testosterone Cavg at Week 6.||||<0.0001
91714132|NCT01386606|183319993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation|0.86541|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pearson correlation between 9 am morning testosterone and serial testosterone Cmin at Week 6.||||<0.0001
91714133|NCT01386606|183319993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation|0.89643|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pearson correlation between 9 am morning testosterone and serial testosterone Cmax at Week 6.||||<0.0001
91714134|NCT01386606|183319995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning FSH at Week 2. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
91858132|NCT03289039|183600304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.12|||Log Rank|||||4.12|0.27|0.98
91858133|NCT03289039|183600305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.81|||Log Rank|||||2.81|0.24|0.89
91858134|NCT04761302|183600313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.215
91858135|NCT04761302|183600313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.445
91858136|NCT04761302|183600314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
91858137|NCT04761302|183600314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
91858138|NCT04761302|183600315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91792085|NCT03036800|183461941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|14.34|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.34|0.56|0.206
91792086|NCT03036800|183461942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|8.9|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥32% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||8.90|1.17|0.023
91664492|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.33||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Personal Hygiene||0.33|-0.32|0.505
91664493|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.33||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Personal Hygiene||0.33|-0.20|0.658
91664494|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.38||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Personal Hygiene||0.38|-0.24|0.649
91664495|NCT03214588|183222790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.32||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Personal Hygiene||0.32|-0.19|0.661
91664496|NCT03214588|183222791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|4.47||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||4.47|0.86|0.992
91664497|NCT03214588|183222791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.892||0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|4.28||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||4.28|1.29|0.999
91664498|NCT03214588|183222791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|2.64||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||2.64|-1.84|0.616
91664499|NCT03214588|183222791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.131||0.823|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|2.95||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||2.95|-0.83|0.823
91691959|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.6734||95.0|-0.96|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 6||0.62|-0.96|0.6734
91691960|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1214||95.0|-0.16|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 7||1.33|-0.16|0.1214
91691961|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1845||95.0|-0.34|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 8||1.72|-0.34|0.1845
91691962|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.6863||95.0|-0.6|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 9||0.90|-0.60|0.6863
91691963|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9273||95.0|-0.51|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain LOCF Endpoint||0.56|-0.51|0.9273
91858139|NCT04761302|183600315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.359
91858140|NCT04761302|183600316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
91664500|NCT03214588|183222791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.266||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|4.13||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||4.13|-0.10|0.942
91664501|NCT03214588|183222791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|3.87||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||3.87|0.35|0.975
91858141|NCT04761302|183600316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.152
91858142|NCT04761302|183600317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91858143|NCT04761302|183600317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91858144|NCT04761302|183600318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91858145|NCT04761302|183600318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91858146|NCT04761302|183600319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91858147|NCT04761302|183600319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91858148|NCT04761302|183600320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91714135|NCT01386606|183319995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning FSH at Week 4. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
91714136|NCT01386606|183319995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning FSH at Week 6. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
91714137|NCT00593814|183320006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91714138|NCT03429348|183320036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||9e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|We are comparing the log transformed values.||||||0.0000009
91714139|NCT03429348|183320036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||1.8e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|We are comparing the log transformed values||||||0.000018
91714140|NCT01307787|183320068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.002
91714141|NCT01307787|183320069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.47
91714142|NCT01307787|183320070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.24
91714143|NCT01307787|183320071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.16
91858149|NCT04761302|183600320|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91714144|NCT01307787|183320072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.21
91714145|NCT01307787|183320073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.07
91858150|NCT04761302|183600321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.354
91858151|NCT04761302|183600321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.455
91858152|NCT04899115|183600346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91858153|NCT04899115|183600347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon was used because data was not normal.||||||0.48
91664502|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.29||||||Change at Week 2, Bulbar||0.29|-0.15|
91664503|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.25||||||Change at Week 2, Bulbar||0.25|-0.12|
91664504|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.11||||||Change at Week 7, Bulbar||0.11|-0.30|
91664505|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.33||||||Change at Week 7, Bulbar||0.33|-0.02|
91664506|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.28||||||Change at Week 12, Bulbar||0.28|-0.19|
91664507|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, Bulbar||0.40|0.00|
91664508|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.689|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|3.14||||||Change at Week 2, Upper Limb Coordination||3.14|0.83|
91664509|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|1.97||||||Change at Week 2, Upper Limb Coordination||1.97|0.06|
91664510|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|2.55||||||Change at Week 7, Upper Limb Coordination||2.55|-0.40|
91858154|NCT00894543|183600353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P values from comparison of Escitalopram vs placebo in a linear model of the outcome as a function of intervention group and adjusted for race, clinical center, baseline outcome, and visit (week 4 or week 8).|Regression, Linear|Natural log transformations applied to hot flash frequencies for modeling assumptions.||Based on data from the Herbal Alternatives for Menopause (HALT) study, MsFLASH estimated that 90 women in each treatment group provide 90% power to detect a difference between drug and placebo with a 2-sided alpha of 0.025 to account for two primary outcomes of hot flash frequency and severity.||||<0.001
91664511|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|1.43||||||Change at Week 7, Upper Limb Coordination||1.43|-1.06|
91664512|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|2.91||||||Change at Week 12, Upper Limb Coordination||2.91|-0.48|
91664513|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.94||||||Change at Week 12, Upper Limb Coordination||1.94|-0.87|
91664514|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|1.2||||||Change at Week 2, Lower Limb Coordination||1.20|-0.41|
91664515|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|1.45||||||Change at Week 2, Lower Limb Coordination||1.45|0.12|
91664516|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|1.36||||||Change at Week 7, Lower Limb Coordination||1.36|-1.44|
91664517|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|1.36||||||Change at Week 7, Lower Limb Coordination||1.36|-1.01|
91901889|NCT00726622|183698514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Assuming a baseline rate of 90% oncologic success for the open resection arm, the sample size provided 80% power to declare non-inferiority if oncologic success rates were truly identical, using a 1-sided z score with α = .10 for falsely declaring non-inferiority when the true oncologic success rate for laparoscopic resection was 84%. Calculations were based on a 2-sample binomial non-inferiority calculation with a 90% success rate for the control group and a 6% non-inferiority margin.||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91664518|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|2.25||||||Change at Week 12, Lower Limb Coordination||2.25|-0.27|
91664519|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.626|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|2.0||||||Change at Week 12, Lower Limb Coordination||2.00|-0.09|
91664520|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.3||||||Change at Week 2, Upright Stability||1.3|-0.8|
91664521|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|1.9||||||Change at Week 2, Upright Stability||1.9|0.1|
91664522|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Upright Stability||0.2|-1.3|
91664523|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.2||||||Change at Week 7, Upright Stability||1.2|0.0|
91664524|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.7||||||Change at Week 12, Upright Stability||0.7|-1.2|
91664525|NCT03214588|183222792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.3||||||Change at Week 12, Upright Stability||1.3|-0.3|
91664526|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.15||||||Change at Week 2, Cough||0.15|-0.13|
91664527|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.12||||||Change at Week 2, Cough||0.12|-0.11|
91664528|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.11||||||Change at Week 7, Cough||0.11|-0.24|
91664529|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.25||||||Change at Week 7, Cough||0.25|-0.05|
91664530|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.25||||||Change at Week 12, Cough||0.25|-0.11|
91664531|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.26||||||Change at Week 12, Cough||0.26|-0.03|
91664532|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.25||||||Change at Week 2, Speech||0.25|-0.09|
91664533|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.24||||||Change at Week 2, Speech||0.24|-0.04|
91664534|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.08||||||Change at Week 7, Speech||0.08|-0.16|
91714146|NCT01307787|183320074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.4
91714147|NCT01307787|183320075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.6
91858155|NCT00894543|183600357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P values from comparison of Escitalopram vs placebo in a linear model of the outcome as a function of intervention group and adjusted for race, clinical center, baseline outcome, and visit (week 4 or week 8).|Regression, Linear|Natural log transformations applied to hot flash frequencies for modeling assumptions.||Based on data from the Herbal Alternatives for Menopause (HALT) study, MsFLASH estimated that 90 women in each treatment group provide 90% power to detect a difference between drug and placebo with a 2-sided alpha of 0.025 to account for two primary outcomes of hot flash frequency and severity.||||<0.001
91858156|NCT00894543|183600358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
91858157|NCT04452318|183600393|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.332|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.332|0.090|< 0.0001
91901890|NCT02462928|183698530|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of 95.1% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab was greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar was established.|Percentage Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-8.2|0.3|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||0.3|-8.2|
91714148|NCT01965327|183320104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Missing data were imputed by last observation carried forward.||||||0.027
91858158|NCT04452318|183600394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||=|0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.966|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.966|0.298|= 0.0380
91858159|NCT04452318|183600396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.236|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.236|0.069|< 0.0001
91858160|NCT04452318|183600396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||=|0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|0.728|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.728|0.228|= 0.0024
91858161|NCT04452318|183600397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
91858162|NCT04452318|183600398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
91858163|NCT04452318|183600398|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0010
91858164|NCT04452318|183600399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
91858165|NCT04452318|183600400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.456|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||0.456|0.208|< 0.0001
91858166|NCT04452318|183600402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.286|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.286|0.051|< 0.0001
91858167|NCT04452318|183600403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
91664535|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.17||||||Change at Week 7, Speech||0.17|-0.03|
91858168|NCT04452318|183600404|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.370|0.020|= 0.0010
91858169|NCT04452318|183600405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
91858170|NCT04452318|183600408|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.707|-1.539|||ANOVA|||||-1.539|-2.707|< 0.0001
91858171|NCT04452318|183600409|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.161|-1.806|||ANOVA|||||-1.806|-3.161|< 0.0001
91858172|NCT04452318|183600410|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-2.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.196|-1.659|||ANOVA|||||-1.659|-3.196|< 0.0001
91664536|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.16||||||Change at Week 12, Speech||0.16|-0.16|
91664537|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.22||||||Change at Week 12, Speech||0.22|-0.04|
91664538|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.29||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.29|-0.14|
91664539|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.14||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.14|-0.22|
91664540|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.28||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.28|-0.13|
91664541|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.11||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.11|-0.24|
91664542|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.12||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.12|-0.30|
91664543|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.03||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.03|-0.32|
91664544|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.33||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.33|-0.15|
91664545|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.23||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.23|-0.16|
91664546|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.23||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.23|-0.18|
91858173|NCT04452318|183600411|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-2.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.194|-1.688|||ANOVA|||||-1.688|-3.194|< 0.0001
91901891|NCT02462928|183698530|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of 95.1% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab was greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar was established.|Percentage Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-8.7|0.0|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||0.0|-8.7|
91664547|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.20|-0.15|
91664548|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.36||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.36|-0.17|
91664549|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.13||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.13|-0.30|
91664550|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.53||||||Change at Week 2, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.53|0.04|
91664551|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.33||||||Change at Week 2, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.33|-0.06|
91664552|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.37||||||Change at Week 7, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.37|-0.22|
91664553|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.16||||||Change at Week 7, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.16|-0.32|
91664554|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.12||||||Change at Week 12, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.12|-0.43|
91664555|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.23||||||Change at Week 12, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.23|-0.23|
91664556|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.40|-0.14|
91664557|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.33||||||Change at Week 2, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.33|-0.12|
91664558|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.43||||||Change at Week 7, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.43|-0.09|
91664559|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.09||||||Change at Week 7, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.09|-0.36|
91664560|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.27||||||Change at Week 12, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.27|-0.29|
91664561|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.27||||||Change at Week 12, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.27|-0.21|
91664562|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.26||||||Change at Week 2, Right Dysmetria Test||0.26|-0.33|
91664563|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.36||||||Change at Week 2, Right Dysmetria Test||0.36|-0.12|
91664564|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.48||||||Change at Week 7, Right Dysmetria Test||0.48|-0.25|
91714149|NCT01965327|183320105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0078
91858174|NCT04452318|183600414|OTHER||||||=|0.0621|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received||||= 0.0621
91858175|NCT04452318|183600415|OTHER||||||=|0.0038|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received'||||= 0.0038
91858176|NCT04452318|183600418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
91858177|NCT04452318|183600426|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0273|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0273
91901892|NCT02462928|183698531|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.7|-0.1|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.1|-4.7|
91664565|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.47||||||Change at Week 7, Right Dysmetria Test||0.47|-0.14|
91664566|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.48||||||Change at Week 12, Right Dysmetria Test||0.48|-0.26|
91664567|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.25||||||Change at Week 12, Right Dysmetria Test||0.25|-0.36|
91664568|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.6||||||Change at Week 2, Left Dysmetria Test||0.60|-0.02|
91664569|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.41||||||Change at Week 2, Left Dysmetria Test||0.41|-0.10|
91714150|NCT02452047|183320107|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FOR %|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.5|21.4|||||Stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method by infection type|||21.4|-27.5|
91664570|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|0.13||||||Change at Week 7, Left Dysmetria Test||0.13|-0.63|
91664571|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.18||||||Change at Week 7, Left Dysmetria Test||0.18|-0.47|
91664572|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.48||||||Change at Week 12, Left Dysmetria Test||0.48|-0.37|
91664573|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.58||||||Change at Week 12, Left Dysmetria Test||0.58|-0.11|
91664574|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.51||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Right Hands||0.51|-0.06|
91664575|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.35||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Right Hands||0.35|-0.12|
91664576|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.28||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Right Hands||0.28|-0.41|
91664577|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.29||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Right Hands||0.29|-0.29|
91664578|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.51||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Right Hands||0.51|-0.12|
91664579|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.21||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Right Hands||0.21|-0.31|
91664580|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.32||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Left Hands||0.32|-0.15|
91664581|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.27||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Left Hands||0.27|-0.12|
91664582|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.43||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Left Hands||0.43|-0.27|
91664583|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.42||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Left Hands||0.42|-0.17|
91664584|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.58||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Left Hand||0.58|0.04|
91664585|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.43||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Left Hand||0.43|-0.01|
91714151|NCT02452047|183320108|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in AE %|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|18.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||18.0|-33.1|
91664586|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.77||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger Taps||0.77|0.10|
91664587|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.44||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger Taps||0.44|-0.12|
91664588|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.6||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger Taps||0.60|-0.16|
91664589|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.31||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger Taps||0.31|-0.33|
91664590|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.56||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger Taps||0.56|-0.22|
91664591|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.26||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger Taps||0.26|-0.39|
91664592|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.87||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger Taps||0.87|0.12|
91858178|NCT04452318|183600427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.989|0.299|= 0.0460
91858179|NCT04452318|183600428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||=|0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.070|0.207|= 0.0721
91858180|NCT04452318|183600429|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.026|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0260
91664593|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.36||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger Taps||0.36|-0.25|
91664594|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.95||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger Taps||0.95|0.22|
91664595|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.47||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger Taps||0.47|-0.15|
91664596|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.02||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger Taps||1.02|0.11|
91664597|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.71||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger Taps||0.71|-0.04|
91858181|NCT04452318|183600430|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0614|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0614
91858182|NCT04452318|183600431|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.461|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.127|-0.795|||ANCOVA|||||-0.795|-2.127|< 0.0001
91858183|NCT04452318|183600432|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279|=|0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.300|-1.400|= 0.0026
91858184|NCT04452318|183600433|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.321|-0.559|||ANCOVA|||||-0.559|-1.321|< 0.0001
91858185|NCT04452318|183600434|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-26.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.973|-14.117|||ANCOVA|||||-14.117|-37.973|< 0.0001
91858186|NCT04452318|183600435|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-1.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.063|-0.727|||ANCOVA|||||-0.727|-2.063|< 0.0001
91858187|NCT04452318|183600436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0138|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0138
91858188|NCT04452318|183600437|OTHER||||||=|0.0292|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received||||= 0.0292
91858189|NCT04452318|183600438|OTHER||||||=|0.2466|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received||||= 0.2466
91858190|NCT04452318|183600439|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7861|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||= 0.7861
91858191|NCT04452318|183600440|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0842|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||= 0.0842
91858192|NCT02638337|183600450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-18.0|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||For the percentage of parabasal cells a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with repeated measurements of the change from baseline as the response variable; treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||-18.0|-25.7|<0.0001
91858193|NCT02638337|183600451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.1|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||||9.1|5.2|<0.0001
91858194|NCT02638337|183600452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.59|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||||-0.59|-0.84|<0.0001
91858195|NCT02638337|183600453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.06|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|For the MBS of vaginal dryness a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model was used to fit a marginal proportional odds model to the longitudinal ordered categorical data, with repeated measurements of the change from baseline as the response variable; treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline severity of dryness modeled as a covariate.||3.06|1.62|<0.0001
91858196|NCT02638337|183600455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-18.0|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 4||-18.0|-25.2|<0.0001
91901893|NCT02462928|183698531|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-6.0|-1.3|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.3|-6.0|
91664598|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.53||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.53|-0.12|
91664599|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.27||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.27|-0.26|
91664600|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.28||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.28|-0.56|
91664601|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.19||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.19|-0.53|
91664602|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.78||||||Change at Week 12,Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.78|-0.12|
91664603|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.51||||||Change at Week 12,Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.51|-0.25|
91664604|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.18||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.18|-0.51|
91664605|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.31||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.31|-0.25|
91664606|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.07||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.07|-0.68|
91664607|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.15||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.15|-0.48|
91664608|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.40|-0.45|
91664609|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.36||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.36|-0.34|
91664610|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.53||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.53|-0.10|
91664611|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.69||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.69|0.17|
91664612|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.19||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.19|-0.72|
91664613|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.39||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.39|-0.38|
91858197|NCT02638337|183600455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-18.1|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 8||-18.1|-25.4|<0.0001
91858198|NCT02638337|183600456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|7.3|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 4||7.3|4.2|<0.0001
91858199|NCT02638337|183600456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|9.0|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 8||9.0|5.5|<0.0001
91858200|NCT02638337|183600457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.46|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.46|-0.69|<0.0001
91714152|NCT02452047|183320109|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in SAE %|-21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|1.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||1.3|-47.8|
91664614|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.51||||||Change at Week 12, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.51|-0.23|
91664615|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.64||||||Change at Week 12, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.64|0.02|
91714153|NCT02452047|183320110|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in drug-related AE %|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|9.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||9.2|-42.3|
91714154|NCT02452047|183320111|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in drug-related SAE %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|11.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||11.2|-19.7|
91858201|NCT02638337|183600457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.51|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 8||-0.51|-0.75|<0.0001
91714155|NCT02452047|183320112|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in discontinuation %|-18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-6.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-6.2|-43.3|
91664616|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.5||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.50|-0.17|
91664617|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.61||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.61|0.06|
91664618|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.84||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.84|-0.09|
91664619|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.6||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.60|-0.19|
91664620|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.82||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.82|-0.20|
91664621|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.67||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.67|-0.17|
91664622|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.5||||||Change at Week 2, Siting Posture||0.5|-0.1|
91714156|NCT02452047|183320113|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in drug-related discon %|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-0.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-0.3|-36.3|
91714157|NCT02452047|183320114|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in pyrexia %|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|19.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||19.7|-25.2|
91714158|NCT02452047|183320114|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference blood creatinine inc %|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-10.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-10.1|-49.8|
91714159|NCT02452047|183320115|OTHER|Difference in Category 1 ECI %|Difference in Category 1 ECI %|-12.5||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-0.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||-0.3|-36.3|0.047
91714160|NCT02452047|183320115|OTHER|Difference in Category 2 ECI %|Difference in Category 2 ECI %|-12.5||||0.047||95.0|-36.3|-0.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||-0.3|-36.3|0.047
91858202|NCT02638337|183600458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.36|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||2.36|1.27|0.0005
91664623|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, Siting Posture||0.4|-0.1|
91858203|NCT02638337|183600458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.74|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||2.74|1.47|<0.0001
91664624|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Siting Posture||0.2|-0.4|
91664625|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5||||||Change at Week 7, Siting Posture||0.5|0.0|
91664626|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, Siting Posture||0.2|-0.5|
91858204|NCT02638337|183600459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||1.43|0.55|0.6263
91858205|NCT02638337|183600459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.75|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||1.75|0.66|0.7869
91664627|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Change at Week 12, Siting Posture||0.3|-0.2|
91664628|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, SFA - TTA||0.4|-0.4|
91664629|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Change at Week 2, SFA - TTA||0.3|-0.3|
91664630|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFA - TTA||0.2|-0.4|
91664631|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, SFA - TTA||0.1|-0.5|
91664632|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, SFA - TTA||0.4|-0.3|
91664633|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, SFA - TTA||0.4|-0.2|
91858206|NCT02638337|183600459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.64|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||1.64|0.65|0.8894
91901894|NCT02462928|183698532|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.8|20.9|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||20.9|-3.8|
91664634|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Change at Week 2, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.3|-0.1|
91664635|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
91664636|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.4|
91664637|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.4|
91664638|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.4|-0.3|
91664639|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Change at Week 12, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.5|
91664640|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.2||||||Change at Week 2, SFT - TTA||0.2|-0.8|
91664641|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.8||||||Change at Week 2, SFT - TTA||0.8|0.0|
91664642|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 7, SFT - TTA||0.4|-0.3|
91664643|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.7||||||Change at Week 7, SFT - TTA||0.7|0.2|
91664644|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, SFT - TTA||0.2|-0.5|
91664645|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.7||||||Change at Week 12, SFT - TTA||0.7|0.0|
91664646|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
91664647|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
91664648|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.2|
91664649|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.1|
91664650|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.2|
91664651|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.0||||||Change at Week 12, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.0|-0.3|
91901895|NCT02462928|183698532|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-10.1|14.7|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||14.7|-10.1|
91664652|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
91664653|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.1|-0.1|
91664654|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.0||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.0|-0.2|
91664655|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.2|-0.1|
91664656|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
91664657|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.2|-0.1|
91858207|NCT02638337|183600460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||2.10|0.40|0.8369
91664658|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.1|
91664659|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.1|
91664660|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.2|
91664661|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.1|
91858208|NCT02638337|183600460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.95|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||3.95|0.58|0.3970
91858209|NCT02638337|183600460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.26|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||3.26|0.54|0.5391
91901896|NCT02462928|183698533|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-11.5|2.1|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||2.1|-11.5|
91901897|NCT02462928|183698533|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-14.7|-1.5|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||-1.5|-14.7|
91664662|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.0||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Walk||0.0|-0.3|
91664663|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.2|
91664664|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, Gait||0.4|-0.2|
91664665|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.7||||||Change at Week 2, Gait||0.7|0.1|
91664666|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Gait||0.2|-0.4|
91664667|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.6||||||Change at Week 7, Gait||0.6|0.1|
91664668|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, Gait||0.2|-0.4|
91664669|NCT03214588|183222793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5||||||Change at Week 12, Gait||0.5|0.0|
91664670|NCT03214588|183222794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|1.76||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.76|-1.31|0.599
91664671|NCT03214588|183222794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.625||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|2.42||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||2.42|0.26|0.978
91664672|NCT03214588|183222794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|2.06||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||2.06|-1.87|0.533
91664673|NCT03214588|183222794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.83|1.23||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||1.23|-1.83|0.370
91664674|NCT03214588|183222794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|4.04||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||4.04|0.32|0.972
91664675|NCT03214588|183222794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.819||0.825|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|2.19||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||2.19|-0.63|0.825
91714161|NCT02452047|183320116|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in nephrotoxicity %|-45.9||||0.002||95.0|-69.1|-18.4|||Fisher Exact||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-18.4|-69.1|0.002
91858210|NCT02638337|183600461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.4|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||2.40|1.13|0.0095
91858211|NCT02638337|183600461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.11|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||2.11|0.99|0.0542
91714162|NCT02452047|183320117|OTHER|Difference in Day 28 FCR %|Difference in Day 28 FCR %|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|51.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||51.5|1.3|
91858212|NCT02638337|183600461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.88|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||2.88|1.35|0.0004
91714163|NCT02452047|183320118|OTHER|Difference in mortality %|Difference in mortality %|-17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.4|6.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||6.7|-46.4|
91901898|NCT02462928|183698534|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.7|0.0|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, visual function questionnaire (VFQ) score, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.0|-3.7|
91858213|NCT02638337|183600462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.67|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||1.67|0.30|0.4336
91901899|NCT02462928|183698534|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.7|1.0|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, visual function questionnaire (VFQ) score, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.0|-2.7|
91664676|NCT03214588|183222795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23858||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3665|0.4565||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.4565|-0.3665|0.426
91664677|NCT03214588|183222795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15794||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6005|-0.0557||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-0.0557|-0.6005|0.975
91664678|NCT03214588|183222795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31186||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3931|0.6826||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.6826|-0.3931|0.324
91664679|NCT03214588|183222795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23213||0.481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3891|0.4117||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.4117|-0.3891|0.481
91664680|NCT03214588|183222795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28088||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6911|0.2778||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.2778|-0.6911|0.765
91664681|NCT03214588|183222795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19778||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2238|0.4585||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.4585|-0.2238|0.280
91664682|NCT03214588|183222796|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|4.4||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||4.4|-9.9|0.735
91858214|NCT02638337|183600462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.08|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||2.08|0.37|0.7672
91714164|NCT02452047|183320119|OTHER|Adjusted difference in OTX FCR %|Adjusted difference in OTX FCR %|33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.4|61.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||61.1|7.4|
91714165|NCT02452047|183320120|OTHER|Adjusted difference in EOT FCR %|Adjusted difference in EOT FCR %|25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|53.6|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||53.6|3.1|
91714166|NCT02452047|183320121|OTHER|Adjusted difference in EFU FCR %|Difference in EFU FCR %|24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|51.4|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||51.4|3.8|
91714167|NCT02452047|183320122|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FMR %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|36.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||36.6|-20.8|
91714168|NCT02452047|183320123|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FMR %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|36.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||36.6|-20.8|
91714169|NCT02452047|183320124|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FMR %|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.8|12.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||12.8|-52.8|
91714170|NCT02185417|183320133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16|||Log Rank|||Primary analyses were performed with the use of unadjusted log-rank tests that were stratified according to VA health care system.||1.16|0.94|0.45
91714171|NCT03843372|183320161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The AHI was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare AHI between CPAP and HFNC||||<0.001
91714172|NCT03843372|183320162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The oxygen desaturation index was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare oxygen desaturation index between CPAP and HFNC||||<0.001
91858215|NCT02638337|183600462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.89|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||1.89|0.39|0.7101
91858216|NCT02638337|183600463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|16.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||16.12|11.85|<0.0001
91664683|NCT03214588|183222796|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51||0.182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|9.1||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||9.1|-2.7|0.182
91858217|NCT02638337|183600463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|16.96|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||16.96|12.50|<0.0001
91858218|NCT02638337|183600463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.55|17.28|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||17.28|12.55|<0.0001
91858219|NCT02638337|183600464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91858220|NCT02638337|183600464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91858221|NCT02638337|183600464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91858222|NCT02638337|183600465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||3.0|2.0|<0.0001
91901900|NCT00395863|183698535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 1|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
91664684|NCT03214588|183222796|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|-0.9||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||-0.9|-12.9|0.970
91664685|NCT03214588|183222796|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|6.4||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||6.4|-3.6|0.321
91664686|NCT03214588|183222796|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.905|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|1.5||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.5|-13.0|0.905
91664687|NCT03214588|183222796|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|9.0||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||9.0|-2.9|0.199
91664688|NCT03214588|183222797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.974
91664689|NCT03214588|183222797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.893
91664690|NCT03214588|183222797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.954
91664691|NCT03214588|183222797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.793
91664692|NCT03214588|183222797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.845
91664693|NCT03214588|183222797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.816
91664694|NCT03214588|183222798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.840
91664695|NCT03214588|183222798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.854
91664696|NCT03214588|183222798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.922
91664697|NCT03214588|183222798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.794
91664698|NCT03214588|183222798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.830
91664699|NCT03214588|183222798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.998
91901901|NCT00395863|183698535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 2|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
91664700|NCT03214588|183222799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.987
91664701|NCT03214588|183222799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.771
91664702|NCT03214588|183222799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.526
91664703|NCT03214588|183222799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.665
91664704|NCT03214588|183222799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.576
91664705|NCT03214588|183222799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.865||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.865
91901902|NCT00395863|183698535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 3|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
91664706|NCT03214588|183222800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.966
91664707|NCT03214588|183222800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.983
91858223|NCT02638337|183600465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||3.4|2.4|<0.0001
91858224|NCT02638337|183600465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||3.4|2.2|<0.0001
91901903|NCT00395863|183698536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||Reader 1|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0001
91858225|NCT02638337|183600466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.4|-1.3|0.0002
91664708|NCT03214588|183222800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.953
91664709|NCT03214588|183222800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.781
91664710|NCT03214588|183222800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.948
91664711|NCT03214588|183222800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.998
91664712|NCT03214588|183222801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.666
91664713|NCT03214588|183222801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.812
91664714|NCT03214588|183222801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.834
91664715|NCT03214588|183222801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.841
91664716|NCT03214588|183222801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.893
91664717|NCT03214588|183222801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.907
91664718|NCT03214588|183222802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.032
91664719|NCT03214588|183222802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.216
91664720|NCT03214588|183222802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.215
91664721|NCT03214588|183222802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.411
91714173|NCT03843372|183320163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The total sleep time was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare total sleep time between CPAP and HFNC||||<0.001
91664722|NCT03214588|183222802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.194
91664723|NCT03214588|183222802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.408
91664724|NCT03214588|183222803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.406
91664725|NCT03214588|183222803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.235
91664726|NCT03214588|183222803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.225
91664727|NCT03214588|183222803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.434
91664728|NCT03214588|183222803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.249
91664729|NCT03214588|183222803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.380
91664730|NCT03214588|183222804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.422
91664731|NCT03214588|183222804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.226
91664732|NCT03214588|183222804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.639
91664733|NCT03214588|183222804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.094
91858226|NCT02638337|183600466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||-0.6|-1.5|<0.0001
91858227|NCT02638337|183600466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||-0.7|-1.6|<0.0001
91858228|NCT02638337|183600467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.2|-1.8|0.0118
91664734|NCT03214588|183222804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.516
91664735|NCT03214588|183222804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.266
91664736|NCT03214588|183222805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.41||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.41|-0.80|0.299
91664737|NCT03214588|183222805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.967|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|1.04||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.04|0.06|0.967
91664738|NCT03214588|183222805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.59||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.59|-0.54|0.529
91664739|NCT03214588|183222805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.8||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.80|-0.13|0.880
91664740|NCT03214588|183222805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.79||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.79|-0.58|0.599
91664741|NCT03214588|183222805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.846|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.9||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.90|-0.21|0.846
91664742|NCT03214588|183222806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 15% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
91664743|NCT03214588|183222806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 15% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
91664744|NCT03214588|183222806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 20% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
91664745|NCT03214588|183222806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 20% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
91664746|NCT03503318|183222827|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.367||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using the stratified Cox proportional hazard model, with treatment (placebo, TV-46000 q1m and TV-46000 q2m or placebo and TV-46000 overall \[including q1m and q2m\]) as explanatory variable and sex-dose as a stratification factor, and the stratified log rank test p-value (sex-dose as a stratification factor) referred to (TV-46000/placebo) comparison.||0.367|0.109|<0.0001
91664747|NCT03503318|183222827|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.375|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.618||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using the stratified Cox proportional hazard model, with treatment (placebo, TV-46000 q1m and TV-46000 q2m or placebo and TV-46000 overall \[including q1m and q2m\]) as explanatory variable and sex-dose as a stratification factor, and the stratified log rank test p-value (sex-dose as a stratification factor) referred to (TV-46000/placebo) comparison.||0.618|0.227|<0.0001
91664748|NCT00112437|183222872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|4.45||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||4.45|2.54|<=0.001
91664749|NCT00112437|183222872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.78|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.73||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.73|1.82|<=0.001
91664750|NCT00112437|183222872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.59||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.59|0.68|0.003
91691964|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0416||95.0|0.01|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 2||0.50|0.01|0.0416
91691965|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1819||95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 3||0.50|-0.10|0.1819
91858229|NCT02638337|183600468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.9748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.2|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||1.20|-1.17|0.9748
91858230|NCT02638337|183600468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.7865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.56|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||1.56|-1.18|0.7865
91858231|NCT02638337|183600468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.59||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|3.09|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||3.09|0.08|0.0392
91858232|NCT02638337|183600469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.34|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Desire||0.34|-0.02|0.0752
91858233|NCT02638337|183600469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.49|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Arousal||0.49|-0.10|0.1867
91858234|NCT02638337|183600469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Lubrication||0.73|0.07|0.0161
91901904|NCT00395863|183698536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||||||Reader 2|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
91858235|NCT02638337|183600469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Orgasm||0.48|-0.16|0.3400
91901905|NCT00395863|183698536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||||||Reader 3|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0002
91901906|NCT00395863|183698537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Reader 1|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
91664751|NCT00112437|183222872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.49||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.46||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.46|-1.44|0.343
91664752|NCT00112437|183222873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.67|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|7.02||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||7.02|4.32|<=0.001
91858236|NCT02638337|183600469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.2195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.41|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Satisfaction||0.41|-0.10|0.2195
91858237|NCT02638337|183600469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Pain||0.80|0.11|0.0103
91901907|NCT00395863|183698537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 2|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
91901908|NCT00395863|183698537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 3|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
91901909|NCT00395863|183698538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.3||Mean difference of MultiHance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|0.14|<0.0001
91858238|NCT02638337|183600470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||0.6|-0.4|0.7230
91858239|NCT02638337|183600470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||0.9|-0.1|0.1104
91858240|NCT02638337|183600470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||0.9|-0.2|0.2448
91901910|NCT00395863|183698539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.38||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|0.22|<0.0001
91901911|NCT00395863|183698540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.33||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|0.18|<0.0001
91901912|NCT00395863|183698541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.78||0.0062||95.0|20.72|61.26||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||61.26|20.72|0.0062
91901913|NCT00395863|183698542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.64||0.0027||95.0|16.57|45.33||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||45.33|16.57|0.0027
91901914|NCT00395863|183698543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|25.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.37||0.02||95.0|12.41|37.67||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||37.67|12.41|0.02
91664753|NCT00112437|183222873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.45|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|5.76||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||5.76|3.15|<=0.001
91858241|NCT02638337|183600471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4388.3||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15214.8|6438.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||6438.3|-15214.8|0.4263
91858242|NCT02638337|183600472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.049|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|-0.027|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.027|-0.071|<0.0001
91858243|NCT02638337|183600473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.5159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.29|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.29|-0.58|0.5159
91858244|NCT02638337|183600474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.10|-1.39|0.0227
91858245|NCT02638337|183600475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.10|-0.34|0.0003
91858246|NCT02638337|183600476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-4.3|-8.1|<0.0001
91858247|NCT02638337|183600477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.35|-2.35|0.0084
91901915|NCT00395863|183698544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.51||0.0019||95.0|14.28|51.25||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist|t-test, 2 sided|||||51.25|14.28|0.0019
91691966|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0331||95.0|0.03|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 4||0.70|0.03|0.0331
91691967|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0608||95.0|-0.02|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 5||0.83|-0.02|0.0608
91901916|NCT00395863|183698545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.16||0.0008||95.0|16.75|50.47||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist|t-test, 2 sided|||||50.47|16.75|0.0008
91664754|NCT00112437|183222873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.39|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.73||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.73|2.06|<=0.001
91691968|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.2809||95.0|-0.31|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 6||1.03|-0.31|0.2809
91901917|NCT00395863|183698546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.5||0.0026||95.0|14.63|52.81||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist|t-test, 2 sided|||||52.81|14.63|0.0026
91691969|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.3445||95.0|-0.34|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 7||0.95|-0.34|0.3445
91901918|NCT00733304|183698678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.31||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus screening visit||2.31|-3.18|
91691970|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2806||95.0|-0.44|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 8||1.46|-0.44|0.2806
91691971|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.5217||95.0|-0.68|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 9||1.33|-0.68|0.5217
91858248|NCT02638337|183600478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-1.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.19|-2.92|<0.0001
91664755|NCT00112437|183222873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.84||||0.218||95.0|-2.19|0.51||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||0.51|-2.19|0.218
91664756|NCT00112437|183222874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.49|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.35||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.35|1.62|<=0.001
91664757|NCT00112437|183222874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.06|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.93||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.93|1.20|<=0.001
91664758|NCT00112437|183222874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.67|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.53||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.53|0.80|<=0.001
91691972|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.3628||95.0|-0.37|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain LOCF Endpoint||1.00|-0.37|0.3628
91858249|NCT02638337|183600479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|-2.89|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.89|-7.64|<0.0001
91858250|NCT02638337|183600480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9575|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.9575
91858251|NCT02638337|183600481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8772|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.8772
91858252|NCT02638337|183600482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0007
91664759|NCT00112437|183222874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.75||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.11||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.11|-1.61|0.135
91664760|NCT00112437|183222875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.66|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|3.61||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.61|1.71|<=0.001
91664761|NCT00112437|183222875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.89|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.84||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.84|0.93|<=0.001
91664762|NCT00112437|183222875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.87||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.82||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.82|-0.09|0.095
91858253|NCT06647238|183600496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91858254|NCT02272816|183600525|OTHER||Percentage|95.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||98.6||||||||98.6||
91858255|NCT02272816|183600526|OTHER||Percentage|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|59.9||||||||59.9|30.2|
91664763|NCT00112437|183222875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.75|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.75|-1.14|
91664764|NCT00112437|183222876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.94|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.24||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||4.24|1.64|<=0.001
91664765|NCT00112437|183222876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.65|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.94||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.94|1.35|<=0.001
91664766|NCT00112437|183222876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.38|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.69||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.69|1.08|<=0.001
91664767|NCT00112437|183222876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.29||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.0||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.00|-1.58|0.731
91664768|NCT00112437|183222877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.29||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.35||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.35|-0.77|0.112
91691973|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.3557||95.0|0.0|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 2||0.01|-0.00|0.3557
91691974|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.2824||95.0|0.0|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 3||0.01|-0.00|0.2824
91691975|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5931||95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 4||0.01|-0.01|0.5931
91691976|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.9865||95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 5||0.01|-0.01|0.9865
91858256|NCT02272816|183600527|OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.6|100.0||||||||100|92.6|
91858257|NCT05321069|183600566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|44.89||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|83.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nera 9 mg bid group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) in milliliters at each visit. Patients were treated as a random effect. Visit was treated as the repeated measure, and an unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||83.33|6.44|0.0222
91864292|NCT04587453|183617607|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|2.3|||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Worst observation carried forward for all subjects who prior to Week 16 had received rescue medication. Multiple imputation of missing values for subjects who had not received rescue medication.|||2.3|-12.4|
91864293|NCT04587453|183617608|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5|||||ANCOVA. Worst observation carried forward for all subjects who prior to Week 16 had received rescue medication. Multiple imputation of missing values for subjects who had not received rescue medication.|||0.5|-2.7|
91864294|NCT04587453|183617609|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|14.2|||||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with at least a reduction of 4 in the worst daily pruritus NRS score were considered responders. Subjects who had received rescue medication were considered non-responders. Subjects with missing data at Week 16 were imputed as non-responders.||14.2|-21.7|
91901919|NCT00733304|183698678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.659|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|-0.46||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus screening visit||-0.46|-7.13|
91664769|NCT00112437|183222877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.95||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.95|-1.13|
91664770|NCT00112437|183222877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.42|-1.69|
91664771|NCT00112437|183222877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||-0.42|-2.53|
91664772|NCT00112437|183222878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.23|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.24||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.24|0.22|<=0.001
91664773|NCT00112437|183222878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.11||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.11|0.09|0.005
91901920|NCT00733304|183698678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.672|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|-0.78||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus screening visit||-0.78|-7.52|
91664774|NCT00112437|183222878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.27||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.29||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.29|-0.74|0.630
91664775|NCT00112437|183222878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.27||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||-0.27|-2.28|
91691977|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9854||95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 6||0.02|-0.02|0.9854
91691978|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3403||95.0|-0.01|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 7||0.04|-0.01|0.3403
91691979|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2226||95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 8||0.05|-0.01|0.2226
91664776|NCT00112437|183222879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-57.86|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.33|-43.38||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||-43.38|-72.33|<=0.001
91664777|NCT00112437|183222879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-45.92|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.93|-30.91||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||-30.91|-60.93|<=0.001
91664778|NCT00112437|183222879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-31.84|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.11|-15.58||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||-15.58|-48.11|<=0.001
91664779|NCT00112437|183222879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|11.17||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|43.24||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||43.24|-0.94|0.249
91664780|NCT00112437|183222880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-56.33|||<=|0.001||95.0|-75.86|-36.81||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||-36.81|-75.86|<=0.001
91664781|NCT00112437|183222880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-35.57|||<=|0.001||95.0|-56.63|-14.51||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||-14.51|-56.63|<=0.001
91664782|NCT00112437|183222880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.66||||0.08||95.0|-44.54|1.23||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||1.23|-44.54|0.080
91901921|NCT00733304|183698678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|0.53||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus screening visit||0.53|-7.53|
91691980|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9694||95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 9||0.03|-0.03|0.9694
91691981|NCT00380874|183278453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.8957||95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Total Score LOCF Endpoint||0.02|-0.02|0.8957
91664783|NCT00112437|183222880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|47.88||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||47.88|-8.48|
91664784|NCT00112437|183222881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-18.28||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.82|-0.74||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||-0.74|-35.82|0.004
91664785|NCT00112437|183222881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.26||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|17.39||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||17.39|-19.90|0.344
91858258|NCT05321069|183600566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|68.83||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.26|107.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nera 18 mg bid group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) in milliliters at each visit. Patients were treated as a random effect. Visit was treated as the repeated measure, and an unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||107.39|30.26|0.0005
91858259|NCT05321069|183600567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group, baseline antifibrotic therapy use, age (continuous), baseline FVC % predicted, and baseline DLCO % predicted (hemoglobin-corrected) as covariates. Breslow's method was applied for tied event times. A two-sided p-value from the Wald test assessed the treatment effect. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.22|0.69|0.5443
91858260|NCT05321069|183600567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||Based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, baseline antifibrotic therapy, age, baseline Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) percent predicted, and baseline Diffusing Capacity of the Lungs for Carbon Monoxide (DLCO) percent predicted (corrected for haemoglobin) as covariates. p-values not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.31|0.75|0.9512
91858261|NCT05321069|183600568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.67|0.76|0.5583
91858262|NCT05321069|183600568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.65|0.75|0.5896
91858263|NCT05321069|183600569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.36|0.70|0.9038
91864295|NCT04587453|183617610|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|33.2|||||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with a reduction of 90% in EASI were considered responders. Subjects who had received rescue medication were considered non-responders. Subjects with missing data were imputed as non-responders.||33.2|-3.0|
91864296|NCT04587453|183617611|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|20.3|||||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with at least 50% reduction in EASI were considered responders. Subjects who had received rescue medication were considered non-responders. Subjects with missing data were imputed as non-responders.||20.3|-9.0|
91714174|NCT03843372|183320164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The sleep efficiency was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare sleep efficiency between CPAP and HFNC||||0.008
91858264|NCT05321069|183600569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.56|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.56|0.82|0.4687
91901922|NCT00733304|183698679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.899|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|42.29||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||For Month 1 versus Screening visit||42.29|-25.72|
91858265|NCT05321069|183600570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.25|0.74|0.7695
91901923|NCT00733304|183698679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.177|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.73|33.31||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus Screening visit||33.31|-35.73|
91692405|NCT03187301|183279684|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|5.3||||||3 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||5.3|-1.7|
91858266|NCT05321069|183600570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.10|0.64|0.2068
91664786|NCT00112437|183222881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|17.89||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||17.89|-20.55|
91858267|NCT05321069|183600571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.41|0.69|0.9251
91901924|NCT00733304|183698679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.958|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.08|30.86||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 3 versus Screening visit||30.86|-41.08|
91901925|NCT00733304|183698679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.996|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|28.0||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 4 versus Screening visit||28.00|-47.83|
91664787|NCT00112437|183222881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|28.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|50.46||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||50.46|5.84|
91664788|NCT00112437|183222882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.57|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.11|-5.04||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||-5.04|-26.11|<=0.001
91664789|NCT00112437|183222882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.43||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|16.89||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||16.89|-6.02|0.645
91664790|NCT00112437|183222882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|23.92||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||23.92|-0.47|
91664791|NCT00112437|183222882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|44.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.55|59.16||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||59.16|30.55|
91664792|NCT00112437|183222883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-35.74|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.14|-19.33||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||-19.33|-52.14|<=0.001
91664793|NCT00112437|183222883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.68||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|17.23||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||17.23|-20.58|0.161
91722496|NCT04225832|183337787|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||a-priori threshold was p\<.05 for two-sided p-value Regression employed nonresponse weights to account for any bias associated with completing any follow-up survey.|Regression, Linear|Regression results control for immigration status, length of time in U.S., and baseline value of the outcome|Slope is adjusted regression coefficient for indicator of intervention arm|"Unlike the observed at any FU primary outcomes which have a single value for each participant, for this outcome we employed a repeated measures style structure with one record for each of up to 3 FU observations. A sandwich estimator (SAS Proc Surveyreg) was employed to account for clustering of observations within participant."||||.14
91901926|NCT00733304|183698679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.996|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|40.33||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus Screening visit||40.33|-35.50|
91901927|NCT00733304|183698679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.931|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.09|51.2||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 1 versus Screening visit||51.20|-33.09|
91714175|NCT00243919|183320169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.831||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.391||The trial tested the superiority of LTP delivered early or late, compared to HEP, using a two-sided significance level of 0.05. The study-wide error rate was controlled by applying the Hochberg step-up procedure to the two primary comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between Early-LTP and HEP adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression). Assuming that 30% of HEP participants would improve functional level of walking, we derived a sample size of 400 to detect a clinically relevant 20% effect size with 85% power, adjusting for an loss-to-follow-up rate of 15%.||1.391|0.497|0.481
91858268|NCT05321069|183600571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.26|0.62|0.4988
91864297|NCT04587453|183617612|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|6.3|||||Repeated measurements Model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 2 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||6.3|-14.9|
91792087|NCT03036800|183461943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|18.93|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||18.93|0.89|0.070
91792088|NCT03036800|183461944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||4.24|0.08|0.601
91792089|NCT03036800|183461945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|-3.4|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 16 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-3.4|-5.85|<0.001
91858269|NCT05321069|183600572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.76|0.60|0.9084
91714176|NCT00243919|183320169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.192||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.985|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between Late-LTP and HEP adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression).||1.985|0.715|0.501
91714177|NCT00243919|183320170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.242||95.0||||We did not formally conduct statistical inference on the timing effect because the first primary null hypotheses is accepted. The p-value provided is the smallest alpha level that one would claim significant difference between early- and late-LTP.|Regression, Linear||Even though there was no formal inference of timing effect, we still provided descriptive statistics for the 6-month and 12-month changes. In addition, paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements.|The second primary analysis assessed the timing effect and its interaction with initial severity of gait impairment on walking speed change from baseline to 1 year after stroke.||||0.242
91714178|NCT00243919|183320171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|Pairwise comparisons were conducted: Early-LTP versus Late-LTP, which had received only usual care in the 2- to 6-month post-stroke period.||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between early-LTP and Late-LTP (Usual Care) adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression).||3.21|1.18|0.010
91714179|NCT00243919|183320171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.42|||Regression, Logistic|Pairwise comparisons were conducted: HEP versus Late-LTP, which had received only usual care in the 2- to 6-month post-stroke period.||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between HEP and Late-LTP (Usual Care) adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression).||3.42|1.22|0.007
91714180|NCT00243919|183320172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.16||Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing was used in the pair-wise comparisons of the secondary outcomes. A difference is claimed to be statistically significant when p\<0.0014.|t-test, 2 sided|||6 month secondary analysis. Following the overall ANOVA test, pairwise comparison was conducted to assess differences in walking speed changes between early-LTP and late-LTP.||0.16|0.08|<0.0001
91714181|NCT00243919|183320172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.14||Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing was used in the pair-wise comparisons of the secondary outcomes. A difference is claimed to be statistically significant when p\<0.0014.|t-test, 2 sided|||6 month secondary analysis. Following the overall ANOVA test, pairwise comparison was conducted to assess differences in walking speed changes between HEP and late-LTP.||0.14|0.05|<.0001
91714182|NCT00243919|183320173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||Test differences across the three groups in change of 6 minute walking distance from baseline to 12-month post stroke.|ANOVA|||Primary 12 month analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.45
91714183|NCT00243919|183320173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of 6 minute walking distance from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||<0.001
91858270|NCT05321069|183600572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.43|0.46|0.4682
91901928|NCT00733304|183698679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.05|41.57||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus Screening visit||41.57|-44.05|
91714184|NCT00243919|183320174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Test differences across the three groups in change of number of steps from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. The Kruskal-Wallis procedure was used to assess differences across the three groups in number of steps taken in the community. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare within-group improvements.||||0.10
91714185|NCT00243919|183320174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Test differences across the three groups in change of number of steps from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis procedure was used to assess differences across the three groups in number of steps taken in the community. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare within-group improvements.||||0.04
91714186|NCT00243919|183320175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Participation from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.48
91714187|NCT00243919|183320175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Participation from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.06
91714188|NCT00243919|183320176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS ADL/iADL from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.07
91901929|NCT00733304|183698679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.757|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|59.06||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 3 versus Screening visit||59.06|-28.28|
91664794|NCT00112437|183222883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.99|17.82||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||17.82|-20.99|
91664795|NCT00112437|183222883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.35|71.44||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||71.44|22.35|
91664796|NCT00112437|183222884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.1|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|5.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||5.42|2.77|<=0.001
91664797|NCT00112437|183222884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.48|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.77||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.77|2.20|<=0.001
91664798|NCT00112437|183222884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.75|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.07||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.07|1.43|<=0.001
91664799|NCT00112437|183222884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.51||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.83||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||0.83|-1.84|0.536
91714189|NCT00243919|183320176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS ADL/iADL from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.03
91714190|NCT00243919|183320177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Mobility from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.69
91792090|NCT03036800|183461946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-4.02|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 32 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-4.02|-7.76|<0.001
91792091|NCT03036800|183461947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-4.71|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-4.71|-9.03|<0.001
91792092|NCT03036800|183461948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|-2.53|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-2.53|-8.34|<0.001
91901930|NCT00733304|183698679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.183|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.28|27.63||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 4 versus Screening visit||27.63|-61.28|
91792093|NCT03036800|183461949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.8|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 16 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-2.80|-4.63|<0.001
91901931|NCT00733304|183698679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.757|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.83|41.51||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus Screening visit||41.51|-45.83|
91901932|NCT00528567|183698682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.||||1.07|0.72|0.1810
91664800|NCT00112437|183222885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.69|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|6.12||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||6.12|3.25|<=0.001
91664801|NCT00112437|183222885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.57|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.97||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.97|2.18|<=0.001
91858271|NCT05321069|183600573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.3697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nera 9mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis used a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment group and baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Dyspnea domain score. An unstructured covariance structure accounted for within-patient correlations. Baseline antifibrotic use, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.19|-3.20|0.3697
91901933|NCT00528567|183698684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Log Rank|Stratification factors are Axillary nodal status, Choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, Hormone receptor status, Surgery||||1.17|0.74|0.5247
91664802|NCT00112437|183222885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.82|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.25||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.25|1.39|<=0.001
91901934|NCT00528567|183698686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.07|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.07|0.71|0.1966
91901935|NCT00528567|183698687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.64|0.2318
91664803|NCT00112437|183222885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.41||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.04||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||1.04|-1.85|0.585
91664804|NCT00112437|183222886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.09|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|7.01||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||7.01|3.18|<=0.001
91664805|NCT00112437|183222886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.56|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||6.42|2.70|<=0.001
91858272|NCT05321069|183600573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.5734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nera 18mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis used a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment group and baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Dyspnea domain score. An unstructured covariance structure accounted for within-patient correlations. Baseline antifibrotic use, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.57|-2.83|0.5734
91901936|NCT00528567|183698690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.10|0.72|0.2792
91692406|NCT03187301|183279684|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Sqaure (LS) Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||||90.0|-4.2|2.8||||||4 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||2.8|-4.2|
91664806|NCT00112437|183222886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.43|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|6.33||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||6.33|2.52|<=0.001
91664807|NCT00112437|183222886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.89||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||1.89|-1.97|0.981
91714191|NCT00243919|183320177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Mobility from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||<.0001
91714192|NCT00243919|183320178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of FM-LE from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.13
91714193|NCT00243919|183320178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of FM-LE from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.04
91714194|NCT00243919|183320179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of Berg Balance Score from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.06
91714195|NCT00243919|183320179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of Berg Balance Score from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.001
91714196|NCT00243919|183320180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of ABC score from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.62
91901937|NCT00528567|183698692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.07|0.72|0.1832
91664808|NCT00112437|183222887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|1.73|||<=|0.001||95.0|0.46|3.01||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||3.01|0.46|<=0.001
91901938|NCT00528567|183698694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.12|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.12|0.72|0.3309
91714197|NCT00243919|183320180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of ABC score from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||<0.001
91714198|NCT02157519|183320211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.33||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline MMAS-4 scores (dichotomous) and change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the number of participants who self-reported adherence problems (i.e., dichotomous MMAS-4 scores) at post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline self-reported adherence (i.e., dichotomous MMAS-4 scores) and change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||1.33|0.23|0.186
91901939|NCT05696236|183698744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
91901940|NCT05696236|183698745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91901941|NCT05696236|183698746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91901942|NCT05341700|183698748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of PINP between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.246
91858273|NCT05321069|183600574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|2.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Cough domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.77|-2.98|0.9442
91664809|NCT00112437|183222887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|1.11||||0.028||95.0|-0.12|2.34||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||2.34|-0.12|0.028
91901943|NCT05341700|183698749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of CTX between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.714
91664810|NCT00112437|183222887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|0.2||||0.804||95.0|-1.1|1.49||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||1.49|-1.10|0.804
91901944|NCT05341700|183698750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.309
91901945|NCT05341700|183698751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of IGF1 between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.308
91664811|NCT00112437|183222887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|0.15||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||0.15|-2.46|
91664812|NCT00112437|183222888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|2.9|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.46||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.46|1.34|<=0.001
91664813|NCT00112437|183222888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|2.09|||<=|0.001||95.0|0.59|3.6||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||3.60|0.59|<=0.001
91714199|NCT02157519|183320212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|5.68||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the percentage of medication taken (as recorded by MEMS) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||5.68|-10.35|0.57
91714200|NCT02157519|183320213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.53||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in symptom severity (MDASI-severity) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.53|-0.31|0.603
91714201|NCT02157519|183320213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.65||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in symptom interference (MDASI-interference) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post assessment.||0.65|-0.64|0.982
91858274|NCT05321069|183600574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.6862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Cough domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.28|-3.47|0.6862
91901946|NCT05341700|183698752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ferritin between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.207
91664814|NCT00112437|183222888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|1.53||||0.094||95.0|-0.01|3.07||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||3.07|-0.01|0.094
91664815|NCT00112437|183222888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-2.95||||||95.0|-4.5|-1.4||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||-1.40|-4.50|
91664816|NCT00112437|183222889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-47.21|||<=|0.001||95.0|-64.51|-29.9||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||-29.90|-64.51|<=0.001
91664817|NCT00112437|183222889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-33.67|||<=|0.001||95.0|-51.44|-15.91||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||-15.91|-51.44|<=0.001
91664818|NCT00112437|183222889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-35.94|||<=|0.001||95.0|-54.15|-17.74||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||-17.74|-54.15|<=0.001
91692407|NCT03187301|183279689|NON_INFERIORITY|15 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|8.6||||||||8.6|0.3|
91714202|NCT02157519|183320214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.83||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in overall QOL (FACT-G) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.83|-5.66|0.144
91792094|NCT03036800|183461950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-3.25|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 32 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-3.25|-6.14|<0.001
91901947|NCT01829360|183698753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The significance of fixed effects (e.g.,treatment) was evaluated using Wald tests||||||<0.05
91901948|NCT01829360|183698753|OTHER|A secondary analysis was performed to examine individual differences in treatment outcomes. This was done collapsed across all arms because the difference between the arms/treatments was not significant in the primary analysis. This was done by adding predictors to the primary analysis model to determine if learner characteristics were significantly related to growth in word defining. All continuous learner characteristics were grand mean centered.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91691982|NCT00380874|183278455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7489||95.0||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was necessary.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|Least squares (LS) means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|LOCF cycle endpoint. Sample size based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent symptoms (developing in 35% of pregabalin subjects \& 60% of placebo subjects). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. Original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of persistent paresthetic symptom emergence.||||0.7489
91901949|NCT01829360|183698754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The interim definition data were analyzed with the primary pre-/post-definition data to capture growth across the entire treatment period.||||<0.05
91714203|NCT02157519|183320214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.61||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in physical QOL (FACT-Physical Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) baseline from baseline to post-assessment.||0.61|-2.00|0.294
91901950|NCT01026142|183698756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02||The primary endpoint, IRF-assessed PFS, is tested at a two-sided 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Two-sided and stratified by: prior CNS disease present/absent, measurable disease at baseline, and response to trastuzumab in 1L metastatic setting.|The stratified Cox proportional hazard model will be used to estimate the HR between the two treatment arms and its 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is that the survival distributions of IRF-assessed PFS in the two treatment groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the survival distributions of IRF-assessed PFS in the treatment and the control arms are different:~H0: IRF PFS\<pertuzumab\> = IRF PFS\<control\> vs. H1: IRF PFS\<pertuzumab\> ≠ IRF PFS\<control\>"||1.02|0.65|0.0731
91664819|NCT00112437|183222889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|17.51||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|41.8||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||41.80|-6.78|0.101
91691983|NCT03380429|183278456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|18.8||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||18.8|5.2|<0.001
91691984|NCT03380429|183278457|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.9||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||14.9|1.6|0.016
91691985|NCT03380429|183278457|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|16.0||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||16.0|2.7|0.006
91691986|NCT03380429|183278457|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|14.8||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||14.8|1.4|0.018
91691987|NCT03380429|183278458|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|15.3||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||15.3|3.2|0.003
91691988|NCT03380429|183278458|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.7||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||13.7|1.8|0.011
91858275|NCT05321069|183600575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Fatigue domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.63|-2.25|0.8759
91664820|NCT00112437|183222890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-63.34|||<=|0.001||95.0|-88.32|-38.36||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||-38.36|-88.32|<=0.001
91664821|NCT00112437|183222890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-39.29|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|-13.18||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||-13.18|-65.40|<=0.001
91664822|NCT00112437|183222890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-23.98||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.04|5.09||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||5.09|-53.04|0.124
91664823|NCT00112437|183222890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|56.73|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||56.73|-12.38|
91664824|NCT00112437|183222891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-16.71||||0.015||95.0|-36.03|2.61||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||2.61|-36.03|0.015
91714204|NCT02157519|183320214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.21||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in social QOL (FACT-Social Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||-0.21|-3.12|0.025
91714205|NCT02157519|183320214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.63||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in emotional QOL (FACT-Emotional Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||1.63|-0.64|0.392
91901951|NCT04722250|183698771|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint is designed to test whether the Medtronic SE TAV is non-inferior to Edwards BE TAV in the composite event rate of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke or heart failure rehospitalization at 12 months post-procedure with an absolute non-inferiority margin of 8.0%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|2.5|||z-test on Kaplan-Meier percentages|||||2.5|-4.9|<0.001
91858276|NCT05321069|183600575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Fatigue domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.87|-2.02|0.7320
91664825|NCT00112437|183222891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.51||||0.246||95.0|-27.31|10.29||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||10.29|-27.31|0.246
91664826|NCT00112437|183222891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.79||||||95.0|-22.66|19.08|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||19.08|-22.66|
91664827|NCT00112437|183222891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|21.74||||||95.0|-1.32|44.81|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||44.81|-1.32|
91664828|NCT00112437|183222892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-16.64||||0.002||95.0|-28.84|-4.44||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||-4.44|-28.84|0.002
91691989|NCT03380429|183278458|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|11.4||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||11.4|-0.4|0.066
91858277|NCT05321069|183600576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted Forced Vital Capacity between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF) page, was included as a covariate."||2.22|0.13|0.0280
91901952|NCT04722250|183698772|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|-25.6|||z-test on Kaplan-Meier percentages|||||-25.6|-38.7|<0.001
91901953|NCT04908189|183698847|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08735|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6455|-0.3031|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||-0.3031|-0.6455|<0.0001
91691990|NCT03380429|183278458|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.7||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||8.7|-3.1|0.359
91901954|NCT04908189|183698848|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03511||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1814|-0.0438|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||-0.0438|-0.1814|0.0013
91858278|NCT05321069|183600576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted Forced Vital Capacity between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF) page, was included as a covariate."||2.78|0.68|0.0013
91901955|NCT04908189|183698850|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5421||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.105|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||3.105|0.980|0.0002
91901956|NCT04908189|183698853|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||2.0|-0.4|0.2017
91714206|NCT02157519|183320214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.44||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in functional QOL (FACT-Functional Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.44|-1.94|0.216
91714207|NCT02157519|183320215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.17||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with clinician explanations (FACIT-TS-PS-Clinician Explanations) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.17|-0.93|0.170
91901957|NCT04908189|183698857|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02831||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0088|0.1198|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.1198|0.0088|0.0231
91901958|NCT04908189|183698857|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03126||0.7865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0528|0.0697|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.0697|-0.0528|0.7865
91901959|NCT04908189|183698857|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03386||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1179|0.0148|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||0.0148|-0.1179|0.1280
91901960|NCT04908189|183698857|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean differnce|-0.0541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0346||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1219|0.0137|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||0.0137|-0.1219|0.1180
91664829|NCT00112437|183222892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|7.24||||0.852||95.0|-5.73|20.21||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||20.21|-5.73|0.852
91664830|NCT00112437|183222892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.39||||||95.0|-13.69|12.92|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||12.92|-13.69|
91664831|NCT00112437|183222892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|36.79||||||95.0|21.19|52.38|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||52.38|21.19|
91691991|NCT03380429|183278459|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.3||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||16.3|3.1|0.004
91664832|NCT00112437|183222893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.49||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.55|-3.43||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||-3.43|-39.55|0.011
91664833|NCT00112437|183222893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|13.31||||0.618||95.0|-7.1|33.71||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least square means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||33.71|-7.10|0.618
91664834|NCT00112437|183222893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|29.01|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||29.01|-13.46|
91664835|NCT00112437|183222893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|49.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.86|74.59|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||74.59|23.86|
91664836|NCT00112437|183222894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|9.53||||||In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis assess the time course of resolution of effect on lumbar spine BMD during the 12 month extension following 24 months of treatment with odanacatib once weekly. The primary objective was to assess the resolution of effect, on lumbar spine BMD, for the participants who received odanacatib 50 mg for 3 years compared to those who received odanacatib 50 mg in the 2nd year and switched to placebo for the 3rd year extension.||9.53|3.38|
91664837|NCT00112437|183222895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|6.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|9.17||||||||9.17|3.44|
91664838|NCT00112437|183222896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|5.57||||||||5.57|-0.16|
91664839|NCT00112437|183222897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|8.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|12.46||||||||12.46|3.80|
91664840|NCT00112437|183222898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|4.46||||||||4.46|-1.54|
91664841|NCT00112437|183222899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|5.88||||||||5.88|-0.93|
91664842|NCT00112437|183222900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-78.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.2|-36.92||||||||-36.92|-119.20|
91664843|NCT00112437|183222901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-34.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.7|10.2||||||||10.20|-78.70|
91664844|NCT00112437|183222902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-39.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.17|8.68||||||||8.68|-87.17|
91664845|NCT00112437|183222903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|16.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|38.85||||||||38.85|-5.67|
91901961|NCT04908189|183698857|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03511||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1814|-0.0438|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.0438|-0.1814|0.0013
91664846|NCT00112437|183222904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.04|31.18||||||||31.18|-42.04|
91714208|NCT02157519|183320215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post assessment||Analysis comparing change in satisfaction with interpersonal treatment (FACIT-TS-PS Interpersonal Treatment) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.01|-0.72|0.057
91664847|NCT00112437|183222905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|49.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.37|84.83||||||||84.83|13.37|
91664848|NCT00112437|183222906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|209.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.14|291.73||||||||291.73|127.14|
91664849|NCT03703258|183222923|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.60
91664850|NCT03703258|183222923|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
91664851|NCT03703258|183222924|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.94
91664852|NCT03703258|183222924|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
91664853|NCT03703258|183222925|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.38
91714209|NCT02157519|183320215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.45||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with comprehensive care (FACIT-TS-PS Comprehensive Care) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.45|-2.39|0.178
91714210|NCT02157519|183320215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.75||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with nursing care (FACIT-TS-PS Nursing Care) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.75|-0.35|0.481
91901962|NCT04908189|183698862|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4384||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|1.551|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||1.551|-0.168|0.1147
91664854|NCT03703258|183222925|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
91664855|NCT03703258|183222926|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.04
91664856|NCT03703258|183222926|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
91664857|NCT03703258|183222927|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.51
91664858|NCT03703258|183222927|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.64
91664859|NCT03703258|183222927|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
91664860|NCT03703258|183222927|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
91664861|NCT03703258|183222928|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.04
91664862|NCT03703258|183222928|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.34
91664863|NCT03703258|183222928|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Positive values favor intervention and negative values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
91664864|NCT03703258|183222928|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Positive values favor intervention and negative values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
91664865|NCT03703258|183222929|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.13
91714211|NCT02157519|183320215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.35||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with trust in clinicians (FACIT-TS-PS Trust in Clinicians) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.35|-0.34|0.970
91714212|NCT02157519|183320216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the number of emergency department (ED) visits over the study period between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.10|-0.15|0.682
91714213|NCT02157519|183320217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the number of hospitalizations over they study period between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||0.15|-0.24|0.640
91792095|NCT03036800|183461951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-3.71|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-3.71|-7.02|<0.001
91858279|NCT05321069|183600577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.49||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted DLCO between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication CRF page, was included as a covariate."||4.19|0.79|0.0042
91901963|NCT04908189|183698862|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5147||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|3.008|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||3.008|0.991|0.0001
91664866|NCT03703258|183222929|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.24
91792096|NCT03036800|183461952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|-1.77|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-1.77|-6.42|0.001
91858280|NCT05321069|183600577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted DLCO between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication CRF page, was included as a covariate."||3.37|-0.02|0.0530
91858281|NCT05048186|183600585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.236|||t-test, 2 sided|||we tested to see whether SDM Process scores were different between patients who received the Decision Aid Arm vs the control arm||0.236|-0.116|0.503
91664867|NCT03703258|183222929|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
91664868|NCT03703258|183222929|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
91664869|NCT03703258|183222930|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.85
91664870|NCT03703258|183222930|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.96
91664871|NCT03703258|183222930|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
91664872|NCT03703258|183222930|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
91664873|NCT03703258|183222931|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.75
91664874|NCT03703258|183222931|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.64
91664875|NCT03703258|183222931|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
91664876|NCT03703258|183222931|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
91664877|NCT03703258|183222932|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.86
91664878|NCT03703258|183222932|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.55
91664879|NCT03703258|183222932|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
91691992|NCT03380429|183278459|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.5||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||13.5|0.6|0.032
91691993|NCT03380429|183278459|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.4||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||12.4|-0.5|0.070
91691994|NCT03380429|183278459|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.9||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||9.9|-3.0|0.294
91691995|NCT03380429|183278460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.8||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||10.8|-1.2|0.118
91858282|NCT02412748|183600594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.962
91858283|NCT02412748|183600595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.982
91858284|NCT02412748|183600596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.534
91664880|NCT03703258|183222932|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
91664881|NCT01125163|183222933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All infants were analyzed according to their assigned groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A non-parametric rank sum analysis was performed as follows so that infants who died before 36 wks and infants who were transfused could be included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Infants were ranked by death (lowest rank) then by number of transfusions (next lowest ranks). For infants who survived and were not transfused, the 36 wks PMA Hct was used as the primary outcome.||||0.59
91691996|NCT03380429|183278460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|10.7||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||10.7|-1.0|0.105
91691997|NCT03380429|183278460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|15.1||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||15.1|3.3|0.002
91664882|NCT01125163|183222934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A non-parametric rank sum analysis was performed as follows so that infants who died before 36 wks and infants who were transfused could be included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Infants were ranked by death (lowest rank) then by number of transfusions (next lowest ranks). For infants who survived and were not transfused, the 36 wks PMA Hct was used as the primary outcome.||||0.64
91664883|NCT02463487|183222956|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.87
91858285|NCT02412748|183600597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.730
91858286|NCT02412748|183600598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.927
91858287|NCT02412748|183600599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.841
91858288|NCT02412748|183600600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.722
91664884|NCT02463487|183222958|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91664885|NCT01120028|183222959|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.64|||Log Rank|||||0.64|0.28|<0.0001
91664886|NCT01120028|183222960|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5
91664887|NCT01120028|183222961|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.55|||Regression, Cox|||||2.55|0.59|0.58
91664888|NCT01120028|183222962|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.99||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.18|||Log Rank|||||6.18|0.64|0.23
91664889|NCT01120028|183222963|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||||1.29|0.80|0.88
91864298|NCT04587453|183617613|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Repeated measurements Model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 2 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||0.8|-0.7|
91664890|NCT01120028|183222964|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.51||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.06|||Log Rank|||||2.06|1.11|0.008
91664891|NCT01120028|183222965|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.51|0.99
91664892|NCT01120028|183222966|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.73|||Log Rank|||||1.73|0.34|0.52
91664893|NCT04633564|183223003|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence region is (0.73, 1.36).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.12||||||||1.12|0.83|
91664894|NCT04198363|183223005|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of vonoprazan to esomeprazole was evaluated by Farrington and Manning test using a noninferiority margin of 10% for analysis.|Difference in Proportions|0.1|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|6.17|||Farrington and Manning Test||Difference in proportions for vonoprazan versus esomeprazole was analyzed and the 2-sided Wald confidence interval was used for determining the 95% confidence interval.|||6.17|-5.95|=0.0009
91664895|NCT03442322|183223016|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.25||||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.492
91664896|NCT03442322|183223017|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-0.73||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.765
91664897|NCT03442322|183223018|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|0.77||||0.808|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.808
91792097|NCT03036800|183461953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.91|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-1.91|-3.5|<0.001
91792098|NCT03036800|183461954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.86|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-0.86|-2.91|<0.001
91714214|NCT01656395|183320218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.127|||cLDA model|||Difference in least squares (LS) means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.127|-0.084|0.685
91714215|NCT01656395|183320218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.07|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.07|-0.149|0.477
91714216|NCT01656395|183320218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.13|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.13|-0.092|0.733
91714217|NCT01656395|183320218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.1|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.1|-0.115|0.89
91714218|NCT01656395|183320218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.1|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.1|-0.109|0.935
91714219|NCT01656395|183320221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|3.08|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||3.08|-17.48|0.169
91714220|NCT01656395|183320221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.092||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|1.485|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||1.485|-19.67|0.092
91714221|NCT01656395|183320221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.469||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|1.25|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||1.25|-20.19|0.083
91714222|NCT01656395|183320221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.666||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|5.501|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||5.501|-14.83|0.367
91714223|NCT01656395|183320221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.247||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.36|4.871|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: Montelukast vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||4.871|-15.36|0.308
91714224|NCT01656395|183320222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.182|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.182|-0.427|0.429
91714225|NCT01656395|183320222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.454|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.454|-0.169|0.370
91714226|NCT01656395|183320222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.402|0.225|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK- 1029 or Montelukast).||0.225|-0.402|0.579
91714227|NCT01656395|183320222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.454|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.454|-0.142|0.305
91714228|NCT01656395|183320222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.163|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.163|-0.434|0.372
91901964|NCT04908189|183698862|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5421||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.105|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||3.105|0.980|0.0002
91858289|NCT02412748|183600601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.715
91714229|NCT01656395|183320223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.528||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.184|0.128|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use(Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.128|-1.184|0.114
91901965|NCT04908189|183698866|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.6159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.396|0.827|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.827|-1.396|0.6159
91858290|NCT02412748|183600602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.900
91901966|NCT04908189|183698866|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.625||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.396|2.054|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||2.054|-0.396|0.1847
91664898|NCT03442322|183223019|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|3.86||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.108
91664899|NCT03442322|183223020|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|2.59||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.411
91858291|NCT02412748|183600603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.271
91858292|NCT02412748|183600604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.987
91858293|NCT02412748|183600605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.967
91664900|NCT03442322|183223021|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-0.08||||0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.981
91664901|NCT03442322|183223022|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|3.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.020
91664902|NCT03442322|183223023|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.62||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.299
91664903|NCT03442322|183223024|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.68||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.389
91664904|NCT03442322|183223025|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-2.14||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.389
91664905|NCT03442322|183223026|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-5.95||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.043
91664906|NCT03442322|183223027|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-3.91||||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.279
91664907|NCT03442322|183223028|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|0.92||||0.728|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.728
91664908|NCT03442322|183223029|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-1.75||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.490
91858294|NCT02412748|183600606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.693
91901967|NCT04908189|183698866|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|2.464|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||2.464|-0.174|0.0888
91664909|NCT03442322|183223030|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|4.44||||0.232|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.232
91664910|NCT03442322|183223031|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.11||||0.708|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.708
91664911|NCT03442322|183223032|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.0||||0.775|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.775
91664912|NCT03442322|183223033|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.77||||0.584|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.584
91664913|NCT03442322|183223034|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-0.25||||0.898|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.898
91664914|NCT03442322|183223035|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-2.79||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.217
91858295|NCT02412748|183600607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.557
91901968|NCT04908189|183698867|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.3|-1.6|0.1924
91664915|NCT03442322|183223036|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-1.39||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.560
91664916|NCT03442322|183223037|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-3.08||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.277
91664917|NCT03442322|183223038|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-2.53||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.400
91901969|NCT04908189|183698867|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.7601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.8|-1.20|0.7601
91664918|NCT03442322|183223039|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-3.18||||0.303|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.303
91664919|NCT00521586|183223045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.1 or -10%|percent difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.4||||||A/H1N1 strain: Exact 2-sided, 95 percent (%) confidence intervals was computed based on the methodology by Chan and Zhang||7.4|-1.8|
91664920|NCT00521586|183223045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.1 or -10%|percent difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.2||||||A/H3N2 strain: Exact 2-sided, 95 % confidence intervals was computed based on the methodology by Chan and Zhang.||7.2|-3.9|
91664921|NCT00521586|183223045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.1 or -10%|percent difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.2||||||B strain: Exact 2-sided, 95 % confidence intervals was computed based on the methodology by Chan and Zhang.||6.2|-5.6|
91664922|NCT00521586|183223046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95||||||Serotype 1: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.95|0.58|
91664923|NCT00521586|183223046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93||||||Serotype 3: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.93|0.66|
91664924|NCT00521586|183223046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.87||||||Serotype 4: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.87|0.55|
91664925|NCT00521586|183223046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05||||||Serotype 5: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.05|0.67|
91664926|NCT00521586|183223046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06||||||Serotype 6A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.06|0.70|
91664927|NCT00521586|183223046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93||||||Serotype 6B: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.93|0.60|
91714230|NCT01656395|183320223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.6|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.6|-0.75|0.827
91858296|NCT02412748|183600608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.681
91664928|NCT00521586|183223046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.95||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.95|0.63|
91664929|NCT00521586|183223046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.86||||||Serotype 9V: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||0.86|0.59|
91664930|NCT00521586|183223046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98||||||Serotype 14: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||0.98|0.60|
91664931|NCT00521586|183223046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||||||Serotype 18C: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||0.88|0.58|
91714231|NCT01656395|183320223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|0.569|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.569|-0.789|0.75
91664932|NCT00521586|183223046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08||||||Serotype 19A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||1.08|0.74|
91664933|NCT00521586|183223046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||1.10|0.67|
91792099|NCT03036800|183461955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|-0.8|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-0.80|-5.77|0.01
91691998|NCT03380429|183278460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.2||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||13.2|1.5|0.015
91664934|NCT00521586|183223046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08||||||Serotype 23F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||1.08|0.66|
91664935|NCT00521586|183223047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.34||||||Serotype 1: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.34|0.83|
91664936|NCT00521586|183223047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08||||||Serotype 3: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.08|0.75|
91792100|NCT03036800|183461956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.51||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|-1.94|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-1.94|-9.09|0.003
91792101|NCT03036800|183461976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|28.97|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||28.97|3.83|<0.001
91664937|NCT00521586|183223047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28||||||Serotype 4: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.28|0.92|
91664938|NCT00521586|183223047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08||||||Serotype 5: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.08|0.68|
91901970|NCT04908189|183698867|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||2.4|0.1|0.0303
91664939|NCT00521586|183223047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3||||||Serotype 6A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.30|0.88|
91792102|NCT03036800|183461977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|70.67|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||70.67|7.55|<0.001
91792103|NCT03036800|183461980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|21.6|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||21.60|2.75|<0.001
91664940|NCT00521586|183223047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21||||||Serotype 6B: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.21|0.84|
91664941|NCT00521586|183223047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.06|0.78|
91664942|NCT00521586|183223047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.48||||||Serotype 9V: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.48|0.93|
91664943|NCT00521586|183223047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17||||||Serotype 14: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.17|0.86|
91664944|NCT00521586|183223047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27||||||Serotype 18C: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.27|0.84|
91664945|NCT00521586|183223047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||||||Serotype 19A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.21|0.87|
91664946|NCT00521586|183223047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.31||||||Serotype 19F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.31|0.85|
91858297|NCT02412748|183600609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.389
91664947|NCT00521586|183223047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27||||||Serotype 23F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.27|0.80|
91664948|NCT00521586|183223056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||||||Serotype 1: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.18|0.87|
91664949|NCT00521586|183223056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1||||||Serotype 3: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.10|0.82|
91664950|NCT00521586|183223056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21||||||Serotype 4: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.21|0.88|
91664951|NCT00521586|183223056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09||||||Serotype 5: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.09|0.80|
91714232|NCT01656395|183320223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.921|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.921|-0.371|0.403
91714233|NCT01656395|183320223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.389||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.035|0.257|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.257|-1.035|0.237
91714234|NCT01656395|183320224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.066|0.583|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.583|-1.066|0.565
91714235|NCT01656395|183320224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.983|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.983|-0.713|0.754
91792104|NCT03036800|183461981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|32.32|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||32.32|1.16|0.032
91858298|NCT02412748|183600610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.846
91858299|NCT02412748|183600611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.871
91858300|NCT02412748|183600612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.986
91714236|NCT01656395|183320224|SUPERIORITY||cLDA model|-0.251||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.104|0.603|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.603|-1.104|0.563
91792105|NCT03036800|183461982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|34.67|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 32 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||34.67|3.80|<0.001
91714237|NCT01656395|183320224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.053|0.571|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.571|-1.053|0.559
91792106|NCT03036800|183461984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|75.09|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||75.09|2.47|0.003
91858301|NCT02412748|183600613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.791
91858302|NCT02412748|183600614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.583|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.583
91858303|NCT02412748|183600615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.851
91858304|NCT04218266|183600657|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.67||||||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in all bleeding||0.67|0.26|
91858305|NCT04218266|183600659|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.97||||||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in ISTH CRNM bleeding||0.97|0.09|
91858306|NCT04218266|183600660|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.83||||||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in ISTH minor bleeding||0.83|0.28|
91664952|NCT00521586|183223056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.22||||||Serotype 6A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.22|0.84|
91664953|NCT00521586|183223056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||Serotype 6B: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.12|0.77|
91664954|NCT00521586|183223056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.11|0.85|
91664955|NCT00521586|183223056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||||||Serotype 9V: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.07|0.81|
91664956|NCT00521586|183223056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11||||||Serotype 14: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.11|0.81|
91664957|NCT00521586|183223056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06||||||Serotype 18C: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.06|0.79|
91664958|NCT00521586|183223056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.08||||||Serotype 19A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.08|0.80|
91664959|NCT00521586|183223056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||Serotype 19F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.12|0.77|
91664960|NCT00521586|183223056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.09||||||Serotype 23F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.09|0.74|
91664961|NCT00828321|183223094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.16||||||90.0|85.08|104.21|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.21|85.08|
91664962|NCT00828321|183223095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.22||||||90.0|96.21|108.6|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.6|96.21|
91664963|NCT00828321|183223096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.22||||||90.0|96.34|108.58|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.58|96.34|
91664964|NCT00828321|183223097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.52||||||90.0|92.63|104.79|||||This analysis was for informational purposes and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.79|92.63|
91664965|NCT00828321|183223098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.45||||||90.0|94.66|100.32|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.32|94.66|
91664966|NCT01592240|183223110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-34.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.06|-23.5|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-23.50|-45.06|<0.001
91792107|NCT03036800|183461985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of maintenance of weight loss of ≥15% at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||4.24|0.08|0.601
91664967|NCT01592240|183223110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-45.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.93|-34.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-34.21|-55.93|<0.001
91664968|NCT01592240|183223110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-53.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.14|-42.7|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-42.70|-64.14|<0.001
91664969|NCT01592240|183223110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.49|-14.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-14.67|-40.49|<0.001
91664970|NCT01592240|183223110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-44.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.65|-32.05|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-32.05|-57.65|<0.001
91664971|NCT01592240|183223111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.15|-17.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-17.67|-39.15|<0.001
91858307|NCT04218266|183600661|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.97|||Other|||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in ISTH major bleeding or CRNM bleeding||0.97|0.09|
91664972|NCT01592240|183223111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-43.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-32.51|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-32.51|-53.90|<0.001
91664973|NCT01592240|183223111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-41.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.66|-30.41|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-30.41|-51.66|<0.001
91664974|NCT01592240|183223111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-13.84|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-13.84|-33.70|<0.001
91901971|NCT04908189|183698867|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.4747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||1.7|-0.8|0.4747
91664975|NCT01592240|183223111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.24|-20.49|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-20.49|-40.24|<0.001
91664976|NCT01592240|183223112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.91|-25.1|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-25.10|-44.91|<0.001
91664977|NCT01592240|183223112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-42.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-32.33|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-32.33|-52.30|<0.001
91664978|NCT01592240|183223112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-53.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.97|-43.27|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-43.27|-62.97|<0.001
91858308|NCT00879060|183600671|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare continuous variable PINP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups at baseline.||||1.0
91664979|NCT01592240|183223112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-26.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.25|-15.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-15.67|-38.25|<0.001
91664980|NCT01592240|183223112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-41.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.32|-29.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-29.94|-52.32|<0.001
91664981|NCT01592240|183223112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-29.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.42|-19.77|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-19.77|-38.42|<0.001
91664982|NCT01592240|183223112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-40.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.43|-30.86|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-30.86|-49.43|<0.001
91664983|NCT01592240|183223112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-39.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.37|-29.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-29.94|-48.37|<0.001
91664984|NCT01592240|183223112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.88|-14.7|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-14.70|-32.88|<0.001
91664985|NCT01592240|183223112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-29.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.13|-20.04|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-20.04|-38.13|<0.001
91664986|NCT01592240|183223113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.64||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.63|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||4.63|-1.35|0.281
91901972|NCT04908189|183698867|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||2.0|-0.4|0.2017
91901973|NCT04908189|183698869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1015||0.4459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.122|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.122|-0.276|0.4459
91664987|NCT01592240|183223113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.73||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|4.71|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||4.71|-1.24|0.251
91792108|NCT03036800|183461986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-5.29|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 16 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-5.29|-7.81|<0.001
91664988|NCT01592240|183223113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.53||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|3.5|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||3.50|-2.43|0.724
91664989|NCT01592240|183223113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.45||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|7.7|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.70|1.21|0.007
91664990|NCT01592240|183223113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.86||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.09|0.63|0.019
91664991|NCT01592240|183223113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.72||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|4.51|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||4.51|-1.07|0.225
91664992|NCT01592240|183223113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.79||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.56|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.56|-1.97|0.571
91664993|NCT01592240|183223113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.49||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.24|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.24|-2.25|0.725
91664994|NCT01592240|183223113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.01||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.57|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.57|-1.56|0.268
91664995|NCT01592240|183223113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|3.54|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.54|-3.55|0.996
91664996|NCT01592240|183223114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.41||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|9.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||9.21|-2.38|0.246
91664997|NCT01592240|183223114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.62||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|8.38|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||8.38|-3.14|0.371
91664998|NCT01592240|183223114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.35||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.1|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.10|-4.40|0.643
91664999|NCT01592240|183223114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.66||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|13.99|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||13.99|1.33|0.018
91665000|NCT01592240|183223114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|6.52||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|12.83|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||12.83|0.22|0.043
91665001|NCT01592240|183223114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|9.36|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||9.36|-1.56|0.160
91665002|NCT01592240|183223114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.85||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|6.25|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||6.25|-4.56|0.758
91665003|NCT01592240|183223114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.57||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|7.95|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||7.95|-2.81|0.347
91665004|NCT01592240|183223114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.99||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|9.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||9.21|-3.22|0.343
91665005|NCT01592240|183223114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|5.48|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.48|-6.87|0.824
91665006|NCT01592240|183223115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.44|-11.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-11.67|-25.44|<0.001
91665007|NCT01592240|183223115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.55|-20.79|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-20.79|-34.55|<0.001
91665008|NCT01592240|183223115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-32.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.95|-25.22|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-25.22|-38.95|<0.001
91901974|NCT04908189|183698869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1164||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.004|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||-0.004|-0.460|0.0461
91714238|NCT01656395|183320224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.071||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.883|0.741|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.741|-0.883|0.863
91901975|NCT04908189|183698869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1321|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|-0.339|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-0.339|-0.857|<0.0001
91665009|NCT01592240|183223115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-14.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.89|-6.24|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-6.24|-22.89|<0.001
91665010|NCT01592240|183223115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.83|-20.16|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-20.16|-36.83|<0.001
91665011|NCT01592240|183223115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-12.27|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-12.27|-27.07|<0.001
91665012|NCT01592240|183223115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.52|-20.82|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-20.82|-35.52|<0.001
91665013|NCT01592240|183223115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.73|-18.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-18.09|-32.73|<0.001
91858309|NCT00879060|183600671|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare continuous variable PIIINP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups at baseline.||||0.8
91858310|NCT00879060|183600671|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.aseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare continuous variable ICTP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups at baseline.||||0.3
91665014|NCT01592240|183223115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-12.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.35|-6.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-6.09|-19.35|<0.001
91665015|NCT01592240|183223115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-16.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.47|-10.23|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-10.23|-23.47|<0.001
91665016|NCT01592240|183223116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-21.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.23|-13.92|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-13.92|-29.23|<0.001
91665017|NCT01592240|183223116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.19|-22.89|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-22.89|-38.19|<0.001
91665018|NCT01592240|183223116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-35.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.59|-28.31|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-28.31|-43.59|<0.001
91665019|NCT01592240|183223116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.87|-8.41|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-8.41|-25.87|<0.001
91665020|NCT01592240|183223116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.45|-21.98|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-21.98|-39.45|<0.001
91665021|NCT01592240|183223116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-22.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|-13.86|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-13.86|-30.32|<0.001
91665022|NCT01592240|183223116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.13|-22.77|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-22.77|-39.13|<0.001
91665023|NCT01592240|183223116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.38|-19.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-19.09|-35.38|<0.001
91665024|NCT01592240|183223116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-15.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-7.78|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-7.78|-22.90|<0.001
91665025|NCT01592240|183223116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-11.59|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-11.59|-26.70|<0.001
91665026|NCT01592240|183223117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.77||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|9.88|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||9.88|-6.33|0.667
91665027|NCT01592240|183223117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.44||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|13.54|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||13.54|-2.66|0.187
91858311|NCT00879060|183600671|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable PINP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||1.0
91901976|NCT04908189|183698869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1416|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.882|-0.327|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.327|-0.882|<0.0001
91714239|NCT01656395|183320225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.544||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.92|21.007|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||21.007|-19.92|0.958
91714240|NCT01656395|183320225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.251||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|27.307|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK- 1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||27.307|-14.81|0.559
91714241|NCT01656395|183320225|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.575||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|30.766|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||30.766|-11.62|0.374
91714242|NCT01656395|183320225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.114||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.04|25.272|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||25.272|-15.04|0.618
91714243|NCT01656395|183320225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.604||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|18.554|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||18.554|-21.76|0.876
91792109|NCT03036800|183461987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-7.88|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 32 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-7.88|-11.30|<0.001
91901977|NCT04908189|183698869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1455|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.071|-0.501|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.501|-1.071|<0.0001
91665028|NCT01592240|183223117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.82||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|11.9|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||11.90|-4.25|0.352
91665029|NCT01592240|183223117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|12.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||12.09|-0.89|0.090
91665030|NCT01592240|183223117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.36||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|10.82|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||10.82|-2.10|0.184
91665031|NCT01592240|183223117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.59||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|8.28|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||8.28|-7.09|0.879
91665032|NCT01592240|183223117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.43||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|8.02|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||8.02|-7.17|0.911
91665033|NCT01592240|183223117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.12||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|11.69|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||11.69|-3.44|0.283
91665034|NCT01592240|183223117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.41||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|6.59|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||6.59|-9.41|0.728
91665035|NCT01592240|183223117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|5.75|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.75|-10.13|0.587
91665036|NCT01592240|183223118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.66||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|8.74|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||8.74|-10.05|0.890
91665037|NCT01592240|183223118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.32||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|11.68|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||11.68|-7.04|0.625
91665038|NCT01592240|183223118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|6.54||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|15.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||15.94|-2.86|0.172
91665039|NCT01592240|183223118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.5||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|7.8|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.80|-0.79|0.109
91665040|NCT01592240|183223118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.67||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||6.94|-1.60|0.218
91858312|NCT00879060|183600672|OTHER||Absolute difference|1.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable peak oxygen consumption with exercise (peak VO2) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.7
91665041|NCT01592240|183223118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.86||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|6.29|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||6.29|-8.01|0.812
91665042|NCT01592240|183223118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.15||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|5.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.94|-8.24|0.749
91665043|NCT01592240|183223118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.82||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|12.93|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||12.93|-1.29|0.108
91665044|NCT01592240|183223118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.83||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|4.34|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||4.34|-5.99|0.752
91665045|NCT01592240|183223118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.55||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|3.57|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.57|-6.68|0.550
91665046|NCT01592240|183223119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|3.0|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||3.00|-2.62|0.893
91792110|NCT03036800|183461988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-11.51|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-11.51|-15.51|<0.001
91665047|NCT01592240|183223119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.33||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|4.15|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||4.15|-1.49|0.355
91665048|NCT01592240|183223119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.64||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|2.17|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||2.17|-3.45|0.655
91665049|NCT01592240|183223119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.49||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||2.21|-3.20|0.719
91665050|NCT01592240|183223119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.41||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|3.12|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||3.12|-2.31|0.768
91665051|NCT01592240|183223119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.66||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|4.2|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||4.20|-0.88|0.199
91665052|NCT01592240|183223119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.9||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.41|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.41|-1.62|0.483
91665053|NCT01592240|183223119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.03||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.56|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.56|-1.49|0.420
91665054|NCT01592240|183223119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.28|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||1.28|-2.67|0.488
91665055|NCT01592240|183223119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.58|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||1.58|-2.36|0.694
91665056|NCT01592240|183223120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|10.29||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.73|42.3|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||42.30|-21.73|0.527
91665057|NCT01592240|183223120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.39||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.49|32.26|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||32.26|-31.49|0.981
91665058|NCT01592240|183223120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.54||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.72|32.8|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||32.80|-31.72|0.974
91665059|NCT01592240|183223120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.58||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|5.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||5.09|-8.25|0.640
91665060|NCT01592240|183223120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|7.77|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.77|-5.61|0.750
91665061|NCT01592240|183223120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|9.8||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.41|39.01|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||39.01|-19.41|0.509
91665062|NCT01592240|183223120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.69||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.76|26.38|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||26.38|-31.76|0.855
91665063|NCT01592240|183223120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.04||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.39|32.47|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||32.47|-26.39|0.839
91901978|NCT04908189|183698870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.3525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9227||0.7025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.456|2.1609|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||2.1609|-1.4560|0.7025
91901979|NCT04908189|183698870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93331||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2023|0.4562|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.4562|-3.2023|0.1413
91665064|NCT01592240|183223120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.99||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|2.59|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||2.59|-6.57|0.392
91665065|NCT01592240|183223120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.33||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|3.24|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.24|-5.91|0.565
91665066|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.964|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.997|56.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||56.020|3.997|<0.001
91665067|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.615|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.984|308.328|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||308.328|7.984|<0.001
91665068|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.842|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.674|44.892|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||44.892|3.674|<0.001
91665069|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.107||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.304|7.401|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||7.401|1.304|0.010
91714244|NCT01656395|183320226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.44|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.440|-0.288|0.682
91901980|NCT04908189|183698870|SUPERIORITY||Adjused mean difference|-3.7522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.10374||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9155|-1.589|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-1.5890|-5.9155|0.0007
91665070|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.048|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.402|15.225|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||15.225|2.402|<0.001
91665071|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.773|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.932|41.495|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||41.495|3.932|<0.001
91665072|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.886|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|163.335|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||163.335|8.330|<0.001
91665073|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.741|75.006|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||75.006|5.741|<0.001
91665074|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.219||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.061|18.764|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||18.764|2.061|0.001
91665075|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.205||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|18.693|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||18.693|2.060|0.001
91665076|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.752|133.423|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL||133.423|5.752|<0.001
91665077|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.177|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.783|367.564|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL||367.564|13.783|<0.001
91665078|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.667|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.855|510.387|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL||510.387|19.855|<0.001
91665079|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91901981|NCT04908189|183698870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.8072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13857|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0388|-2.5757|||ANOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-2.5757|-7.0388|<0.0001
91858313|NCT00879060|183600673|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Class between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.8
91665080|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.941|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.336|98.169|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||98.169|6.336|<0.001
91665081|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|80.004|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.094|353.742|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||353.742|18.094|<0.001
91665082|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.621|166.894|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||166.894|10.621|<0.001
91665083|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.396|98.075|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||98.075|1.396|0.023
91665084|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.841|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.527|299.817|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL||299.817|4.527|<0.001
91665085|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91665086|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91665087|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91665088|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91665089|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91665090|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91665091|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91665092|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91858314|NCT00879060|183600674|OTHER||Absolute difference|1.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable Septal E/e' between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||1.0
91665093|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91665094|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.587||||1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 25 mg/dL||||1.000
91901982|NCT04908189|183698870|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-6.2006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6082|-3.793|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-3.7930|-8.6082|<0.0001
91665095|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91665096|NCT01592240|183223134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.925||||1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 25 mg/dL||||1.000
91665097|NCT00488774|183223135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.467
91665098|NCT00488774|183223135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.081
91665099|NCT00488774|183223135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.145
91665100|NCT00488774|183223136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.832
91665101|NCT00488774|183223136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.370
91665102|NCT00488774|183223136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.702|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.702
91665103|NCT05523895|183223137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-4.6|0.2986
91665104|NCT05523895|183223137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-4.5|0.2859
91665105|NCT05099380|183223151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was above -5.|Least-square Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.7|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a two independent sample t test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05, there would be enough power (i.e., 80%) for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 286 subjects (143 for each lens group) competing the study assuming the Test was 2 points higher than the Control.||6.7|-0.6|
91665106|NCT05099380|183223152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was below 0.05.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a linear mixed model-based method with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05, there would be enough power (i.e., at least 80%) for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 16 subjects (8 for each lens group) competing the study assuming no difference between the Test and the Control.||0.01|-0.02|
91665107|NCT05099380|183223153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% central posterior credible interval of proportion difference was below 0.05.|Mean Proportion Difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.002|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.004|||Bayesian hierarchical model||Proportion difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a simulation approach and Bayesian analysis with the 95% central posterior credible interval, there would be enough power (i.e., at least 80%) for assessing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 240 subjects (120 for each lens group) competing the study assuming no difference between the Test and the Control.||0.004|-0.004|
91665108|NCT05099380|183223154|NON_INFERIORITY|Non- inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% central posterior credible interval of proportion difference was below 0.1.|Mean Proportion Difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.002|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.004|||Bayesian hierarchical model||Proportion difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a simulation approach and Bayesian analysis with the 95% central posterior credible interval, there would be enough power (i.e., at least 80%) for assessing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 140 subjects (70 for each lens group) competing the study assuming no difference between the Test and the Control.||0.004|-0.004|
91665109|NCT05099380|183223155|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was above -5.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the Test was 2 points higher than the Control, the estimated statistical power for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control was 73% for CLUE comfort using a two independent sample t test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||4.5|-4.8|
91665110|NCT05099380|183223156|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was above -5.|Least-square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the Test was 2 points lower than the Control, the estimated statistical power for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control was 23% for CLUE handling using a two independent sample t test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||2.3|-6.0|
91665111|NCT05099380|183223157|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio was greater than 0.67.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.16|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control|"Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the percentage of Excellent rating for the Test was 10% higher than the Control, the estimated statistical power for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control was 93% using a Pearson chi-square test for two proportions with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05."||2.16|0.83|
91691999|NCT03380429|183278462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||p-value was calculated using Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||0.6|-1.6|0.400
91901983|NCT04908189|183698874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05613||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0782|0.1419|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.1419|-0.0782|0.5707
91792111|NCT03036800|183461989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|-6.26|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-6.26|-12.35|<0.001
91665112|NCT05099380|183223158|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the preference ratio was greater than 1.|Preference Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.1|||Linear Mixed Model||Preference ratio was calculated as Study lens over Habitual lens within the Test lens group.|Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the percentage of subjects preferring Study lens was 20% higher than preferring Habitual lens in the Test lens group, the estimated statistical power for testing superiority of the Test relative to the Habitual was 88% using a simulation approach with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||4.10|1.40|
91665113|NCT00545792|183223169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Single point estiamte of 1-yr PFS|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.94|||||The reported 1-year PFS rate 80% (Exact 95% CI: 56% - 94%) was the proportion of the patients remained progression free after 12 months.|Single-arm feasibility study; Kaplan Meier analysis was applied to estimate one-year PFS distribution as well as to calculate proportion of patients remain progression free by month 12.||0.94|0.56|
91901984|NCT04908189|183698874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06303||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2069|0.0402|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.0402|-0.2069|0.1862
91858315|NCT00879060|183600675|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable percentage of left ventricular mass (%LV) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.7
91858316|NCT00879060|183600676|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.9||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable maximum left ventricular wall thickness (Max LV) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.4
91665114|NCT01642277|183223174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.94||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For symptom-severity score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size and non-normal distributions of symptom severity scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in symptom severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) symptom severity than the other group.||||.052
91665115|NCT01642277|183223174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.06||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For coping score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of coping scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in coping, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) coping than the other group.||||.04
91665116|NCT01642277|183223174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.176||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the concern score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outlier of the concern scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in their concern, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) concern than the other group.||||.03
91665117|NCT01642277|183223174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|0.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the sleep score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of sleep scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in sleep scores, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) sleep scores than the other group.||||.37
91665118|NCT01642277|183223174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.02||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For social score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of social scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in social scores, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) social scores than the other group.||||.04
91665119|NCT01642277|183223174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.03||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the overall health related quality of life (HRQL) score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of HRQL scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in health related quality of life, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) health realted quality of life than the other group.||||.04
91665120|NCT01642277|183223175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-0.74||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the obstructive discomfort score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in obstructive discomfort, and and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) obstructive discomfort than the other group.||||.46
91665121|NCT01642277|183223175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the irritative score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in irritation, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) irritation than the other group.||||.07
91858317|NCT00879060|183600677|OTHER||Absolute difference|5.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable left ventricular end-diastolic (LVED) cavity size between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.7
91665122|NCT01642277|183223175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.59||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the stress score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in stress, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) stress than the other group.||||.11
91665123|NCT01642277|183223175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.69||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the urinary distress inventory score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in urinary distress, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) urinary distress than the other group.||||.09
91858318|NCT00879060|183600678|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable left atrial dimension between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.8
91858319|NCT01424670|183600700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0562||||||For testing the null hypothesis, the distribution of the time to SCC within the 6-month Intensive Period were compared between the 2 treatment groups using the stratified modified Peto-Peto modification of Gehan's Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Modified Peto-Peto test|||Comparison of distributions of time to SCC using the MGIT culture system during the 6-month (26-week) Intensive Period.||||0.0562
91858320|NCT01424670|183600701|SUPERIORITY|For testing the homogeneity of proportions, 2 samples were compared using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Ratio of Probability|1.096||||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.352|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test statistics were used for estimation.|Statistical comparison of proportion of participants with SCC at 2 months.||1.352|0.889|0.3818
91665124|NCT01642277|183223175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.68||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the general score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in general pelvic floor disease severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) general pelvic floor disease severity than the other group.||||.09
91665125|NCT01642277|183223175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-0.23||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the anterior score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in anterior pelvic floor disease severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) anterior pelvic floor disease severity than the other group.||||.82
91665126|NCT01642277|183223175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.92||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the posterior score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in posterior pelvic floor disease severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) posterior pelvic floor disease severity than the other group.||||.06
91714245|NCT01656395|183320226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.329|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.329|-0.422|0.807
91858321|NCT01424670|183600701|SUPERIORITY|For testing the homogeneity of proportions, 2 samples were compared using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Ratio of Probability|1.017||||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.115|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test statistics were used for estimation.|Statistical comparison of proportion of participants with SCC at 6 months.||1.115|0.927|0.7131
91858322|NCT01424670|183600702|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.969||||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.084|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with sustained SCC at Month 18.||1.084|0.866|0.5945
91858323|NCT01424670|183600702|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.97||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|1.089|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with sustained SCC at Month 24.||1.089|0.864|0.6164
91858324|NCT01424670|183600702|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.991||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.127|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with sustained SCC at Month 30.||1.127|0.872|0.8951
91901985|NCT04908189|183698874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2958|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07854||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4497|-0.1418|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-0.1418|-0.4497|0.0002
91858325|NCT01424670|183600703|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.965||||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.073|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportions with favorable treatment outcomes assessed by the Principal Investigator.||1.073|0.869|0.5269
91858326|NCT01424670|183600705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Statistical comparison of mean AUC of change from Baseline.||1.3|-1.9|0.6986
91858327|NCT01424670|183600706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6825|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 1.||||0.6825
91858328|NCT01424670|183600706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 2.||||0.807
91858329|NCT01424670|183600706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 3.||||0.269
91858330|NCT01424670|183600706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2333|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 24.||||0.2333
91858331|NCT01424670|183600706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9397|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Month 6.||||0.9397
91665127|NCT01642277|183223175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.85||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the pelvic organ prolapse distress score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in pelvic organ prolapse distress, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) pelvic organ prolapse distress than the other group.||||.07
91665128|NCT02842853|183223189|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|1.03||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.03|0.751|
91665129|NCT02842853|183223189|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.15||||||Serogroup A: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.15|0.843|
91665130|NCT02842853|183223189|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.02|0.740|
91665131|NCT02842853|183223189|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.29||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.29|0.888|
91665132|NCT02842853|183223189|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.05||||||Serogroup C: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.05|0.714|
91665133|NCT02842853|183223189|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.12||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.12|0.766|
91665134|NCT02842853|183223189|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.19||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.19|0.869|
91665135|NCT02842853|183223189|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.13||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.13|0.816|
91665136|NCT02842853|183223189|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.15||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.15|0.829|
91665137|NCT02842853|183223189|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|1.22||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.22|0.878|
91665138|NCT02842853|183223189|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.11||||||Serogroup W: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.11|0.791|
91665139|NCT02842853|183223189|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.15||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.15|0.818|
91665140|NCT02842853|183223190|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|23.5||||||Serogroup A||23.5|14.8|
91665141|NCT02842853|183223190|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|45.0||||||Serogroup C||45|36.7|
91665142|NCT02842853|183223190|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|21.9||||||Serogroup Y||21.9|14.5|
91665143|NCT02842853|183223190|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|23.3||||||Serogroup W||23.3|14.9|
91665144|NCT02842853|183223191|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|25.8||||||Serogroup A||25.8|13.5|
91665145|NCT02842853|183223191|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|41.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|46.9||||||Serogroup C||46.9|35.0|
91665146|NCT02842853|183223191|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|33.3||||||Serogroup Y||33.3|21.7|
91665147|NCT02842853|183223191|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|32.9||||||Serogroup W||32.9|20.7|
91665148|NCT02842853|183223192|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|24.9||||||Serogroup A||24.9|12.5|
91665149|NCT02842853|183223192|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|42.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.6|48.0||||||Serogroup C||48.0|36.6|
91665150|NCT02842853|183223192|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|14.5||||||Serogroup Y||14.5|6.18|
91665151|NCT02842853|183223192|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.22|18.2||||||Serogroup W||18.2|7.22|
91665152|NCT02842853|183223193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|-1.16||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||-1.16|-9.59|
91665153|NCT02842853|183223193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.01||||||Serogroup A: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||7.01|-1.3|
91665154|NCT02842853|183223193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|1.74||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.74|-6.78|
91665155|NCT02842853|183223193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.28||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||4.28|-1.58|
91665156|NCT02842853|183223193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|5.54||||||Serogroup C: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||5.54|-0.740|
91665157|NCT02842853|183223193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|6.79||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||6.79|0.708|
91665158|NCT02842853|183223193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.07||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||3.07|-2.14|
91665159|NCT02842853|183223193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|4.79||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||4.79|-0.763|
91665160|NCT02842853|183223193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|5.2||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||5.20|-0.248|
91665161|NCT02842853|183223193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.54||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||4.54|-3.00|
91665162|NCT02842853|183223193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|5.89||||||Serogroup W: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||5.89|-1.84|
91714246|NCT01656395|183320226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.552|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.552|-0.222|0.403
91665163|NCT02842853|183223193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|6.61||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||6.61|-1.02|
91665164|NCT02842853|183223194|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.24||||||Serogroup A||2.24|1.67|
91665165|NCT02842853|183223194|OTHER||GMT Ratio|8.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|9.84||||||Serogroup C||9.84|6.58|
91665166|NCT02842853|183223194|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|3.84||||||Serogroup Y||3.84|2.71|
91665167|NCT02842853|183223194|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.24||||||Serogroup W||2.24|1.61|
91665168|NCT03317444|183223200|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|36.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|48.9|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects Who Met Endpoint (≥ 4 mEq/L Change from Baseline Serum Bicarbonate or Serum Bicarbonate in the Normal Range \[22 - 29 mEq/L\]): TRC101-Placebo||48.9|23.5|< 0.0001
91665169|NCT03317444|183223200|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|46.8|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with ≥ 4 mEq/L Change from Baseline in Serum Bicarbonate: TRC101-Placebo||46.8|21.2|< 0.0001
91665170|NCT03317444|183223200|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|45.6|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with Serum Bicarbonate in the Normal Range (22 - 29 mEq/L): TRC101-Placebo||45.6|19.7|< 0.0001
91665171|NCT03317444|183223201|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in LS means|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.5|||Mixed-effect repeated measures model||Standard error presented above is for the LS mean.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Change from Baseline: TRC101-Placebo||3.5|1.77|< 0.0001
91665172|NCT05133180|183223212|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis is defined on this endpoint: the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anaesthesia) \>10mm/5min at week 4 in cenegermin (rhNGF) is lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis is rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value is lower than 0.025.|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.946|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.412|84.165||P-value of treatment variable from logistic regression model on the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anaesthesia) \>10mm/5min|Regression, Logistic|||It was analyzed by means of a logistic regression model adjusting by pre-defined baseline factors (treatment, gender, age class, baseline Schirmer I test value as fixed effects and site as random effect). For the imputation of missing data at week 4, a Multiple Imputation approach is adopted by performing a regression model with the baseline Schirmer I test value, gender, age class, and Schirmer I test at week 2 as explanatory variables and generating 200 datasets.||84.165|3.412|<0.001
91858332|NCT01424670|183600707|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.991||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.127|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with treatment success at Month 30.||1.127|0.872|0.8951
91665173|NCT05133180|183223213|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis is defined on this endpoint: the change from baseline (reduction) in the global SANDE score at week 12 in cenegermin is lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis is rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value is lower than 0.025.|adjusted mean difference|-4.561||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.581|4.459||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in the global SANDE score.|ANCOVA|||This endpoint was analyzed by means of an Analysis of Covariance with change from baseline in global SANDE Score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class, baseline global SANDE score as fixed effects and site as random effect. For missing data, Multiple Imputation approach is adopted by performing a regression model with the baseline global SANDE score, gender, age class, and intermediate global SANDE scores up to week 12 as explanatory variables and generating 200 datasets||4.459|-13.581|0.322
91665174|NCT05133180|183223214|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was based on a logistic regression with the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10mm/5min at week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|15.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.091|82.31|||Regression, Logistic|||This key secondary endpoint was analyzed by means of a logistic regression model with the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10mm/5min at Week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as fixed effects and site as random effect.||82.310|3.091|<0.001
91665175|NCT05133180|183223215|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|-2.753||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.303|6.798||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for frequency at Week 12.|ANCOVA regression model|||This endpoint was analyzed by means of an ANCOVA adjusting by pre-defined baseline factors (treatment, gender, age class, baseline SANDE score for severity as fixed effects and site as random effect).||6.798|-12.303|0.572
91665176|NCT05133180|183223216|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|-4.732||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.819|4.354||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for severity at Week 12.|ANCOVA regression model|||This endpoint was analyzed by means of an ANCOVA adjusting by pre-defined baseline factors (treatment, gender, age class, baseline SANDE score for severity as fixed effects and site as random effect).||4.354|-13.819|0.307
91665177|NCT05133180|183223217|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|2.16||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.668|7.988||P-value of Least Square (LS) means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 4|MMRM|||Impact on daily activities at week 4.||7.988|-3.668|0.468
91665178|NCT05133180|183223217|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|2.431||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.362||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Emotional Impact) at Week 4.|MMRM|||Emotional Impact due to Dry eye at week 4.||9.362|-4.500|0.492
91665179|NCT05133180|183223217|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall. Missing data will be imputed according to the questionnaire manuals"|LS means difference|3.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.511|13.111||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Impact on Work) at Week 4.|MMRM|||Impact on Work due to Dry Eye at week 4.||13.111|-6.511|0.510
91665180|NCT05133180|183223217|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|Least square mean difference|4.078||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.142|11.299||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 12.|MMRM|||Quality of life - Impact on daily activities - Week 12||11.299|-3.142|0.268
91665181|NCT05133180|183223217|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall"|least square mean difference|5.55||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.462|14.562||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Emotional Impact) at Week 12.|MMRM|||Quality of life - Emotional Impact due to Dry eye - Week 12||14.562|-3.462|0.227
91714247|NCT01656395|183320226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.375||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.751|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.751|-0.001|0.051
91864299|NCT04587453|183617614|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||||Repeated measurements model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 1 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||0.6|-0.9|
91864300|NCT04587453|183617615|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.9|||||Repeated measurements model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 2 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||-0.9|-5.6|
91665182|NCT05133180|183223217|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|3.475||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.651|13.601||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Impact on Work) at Week 12.|MMRM|||Quality of life - Impact on Work due to Dry Eye - Week 12||13.601|-6.651|0.501
91792112|NCT03036800|183461990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|-5.28|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-5.28|-7.03|<0.001
91792113|NCT03036800|183461991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-2.89|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-2.89|-5.56|<0.001
91864301|NCT03295721|183617689|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-122.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.76|-80.34|||ANOVA|||||-80.34|-163.76|< 0.0001
91901986|NCT04908189|183698874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4889|-0.1635|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.1635|-0.4889|<0.0001
91665183|NCT05133180|183223218|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-0.549||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|10.723||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 4.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - week 4||10.723|-11.820|0.924
91692000|NCT03380429|183278462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||p-value was calculated using MMRM.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||1.5|-0.7|0.441
91792114|NCT03036800|183461992|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-5.64|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-5.64|-11.96|<0.001
91864302|NCT03295721|183617690|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-70.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.777|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.07|-33.25|||ANOVA|||||-33.25|-107.07|= 0.0002
91864303|NCT03295721|183617691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
91864304|NCT03295721|183617692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.177||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.265|||Fisher Exact|||||.265|.085|0.0001
91864305|NCT03295721|183617693|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.0022
91858333|NCT02891915|183600752|SUPERIORITY|DOOR is a composite endpoint created using clinical outcomes from the first 5 days and at Outcome Assessment Visit #1 (OAV #1). It is based on adequate clinical response at OAV #1, solicited symptoms from first 5 days and number of days of antibiotics use for worsening pneumonia from the first 5 days of the study.|Pr (Higher DOOR in Short-Course)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.75||Missing DOOR values at OAV #1 were first imputed using linear regression using baseline covariates and available DOOR components as covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was run on the multiple imputed datasets to generate estimates of DOOR probability and p-value||Null: the sum of the probability that a subject assigned to the 5-day arm will have a higher DOOR (higher DOOR is a lower value and is superior) than if assigned to the 10-day arm plus one-half the probability of equal DOORs is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR).||0.75|0.63|<0.001
91864306|NCT04231331|183617694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Based on our previous study, we assumed a common baseline mean EROA of 0.21 cm2 with a common standard deviation of 0.11 cm2. Given these assumptions, we calculated that a sample size of 204 patients randomly assigned to two groups, would provide 90% power to detect a difference of 0.05 cm2 in the EROA between the ertugliflozin and placebo groups, using a two-sided t test with an alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91665184|NCT05133180|183223218|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|1.072||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.398|7.542||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience) at Week 4.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - week 4||7.542|-5.398|0.745
91792115|NCT03036800|183461993|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-9.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|-4.27|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-4.27|-14.91|0.001
91792116|NCT01986933|183461994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.25|-7.53||Since a hierarchical decision procedure can be regarded as a closed testing procedure, no inflation of the alpha level due to multiple comparisons was necessary, and the global 1-sided significance alpha level of 0.025 was maintained.|ANCOVA|||||-7.53|-35.25|0.0027
91858334|NCT02891915|183600753|SUPERIORITY|Testing whether Short course is superior to Standard course based on DOOR at OAV #2|Pr (Higher DOOR in Short-Course)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.69||Missing DOOR values at OAV #2 were first imputed using linear regression using baseline covariates and available DOOR components as covariates|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was run on the multiple imputed datasets to generate estimates of DOOR probability and p-value.||Null: the sum of the probability that a subject assigned to the 5-day arm will have a higher DOOR (higher DOOR is a lower numerical value and is superior) than if assigned to the 10-day arm plus one-half the probability of equal DOORs is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR).||0.69|0.57|<0.001
91858335|NCT00709098|183600768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean group difference|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.1|-7.0|<0.0001
91858336|NCT01037985|183600769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within participant treatment difference was assessed between the treatment regimens each participant received (EXC 001 minus placebo).||1.9|-10.4|0.168
91858337|NCT01037985|183600770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within participant treatment difference was assessed between the treatment regimens each participant received (EXC 001 minus placebo).||4.2|-3.5|0.858
91901987|NCT04908189|183698874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08735|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6455|-0.3031|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.3031|-0.6455|<0.0001
91665185|NCT05133180|183223218|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-4.206||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.53|7.118||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 12.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module - Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - week 12||7.118|-15.530|0.467
91692001|NCT03380429|183278462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||p-value was calculated using MMRM.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||1.9|-0.3|0.164
91692002|NCT03380429|183278462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4||p-value was calculated using MMRM.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||1.4|-0.9|0.661
91692003|NCT03380429|183278463|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.44||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.44|0.39|0.385
91692004|NCT03380429|183278463|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.42||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.42|0.64|0.517
91692005|NCT03380429|183278463|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.85||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.85|0.51|0.921
91692006|NCT03380429|183278463|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.38|0.38|0.321
91692007|NCT03380429|183278464|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.98||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.98|0.54|0.911
91692008|NCT03380429|183278464|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.54||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.54|0.70|0.383
91692009|NCT03380429|183278464|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.04||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.04|0.57|0.814
91692010|NCT03380429|183278464|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.89||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.89|0.53|0.986
91692011|NCT03380429|183278465|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.81||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.81|0.48|0.833
91665186|NCT05133180|183223218|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|2.244||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.387|9.874||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience) at Week 12.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - week 12||9.874|-5.387|0.564
91665187|NCT05133180|183223219|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-0.805||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.086|5.476||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Symptom Bother Module at Week 4.|MMRM|||IDEEL - Symptom Bother module - week 4||5.476|-7.086|0.802
91665188|NCT05133180|183223219|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-8.789||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|-1.418||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Symptom Bother Module at Week 12.|MMRM|||IDEEL - Symptom Bother module - week 12||-1.418|-16.160|0.019
91665189|NCT05133180|183223220|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.518||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.005|-0.031||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale at Week 4.|MMRM|||Herein Week 4 was considered. The change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale was analyzed by means of an MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, NEI scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||-0.031|-3.005|0.045
91665190|NCT05133180|183223220|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.773||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.446|-0.101||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale at Week 8.|MMRM|||Herein Week 8 was considered. The change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale was analyzed by means of an MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, NEI scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||-0.101|-3.446|0.038
91665191|NCT05133180|183223220|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.224||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.096|0.649||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale at Week 12|MMRM|||Herein Week 12 was considered. The change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale was analyzed by means of an MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, NEI scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||0.649|-3.096|0.200
91665192|NCT05133180|183223221|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.64||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.98||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in TFBUT at Week 4.|MMRM|||Herein week 4 was considered. The change from baseline in TFBUT values was analyzed by means of a MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, TFBUT baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||2.980|0.300|0.016
91665193|NCT05133180|183223221|SUPERIORITY||least ssquare mean difference|1.133||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|2.596||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in TFBUT at Week 8.|MMRM|||Herein week 8 was considered. The change from baseline in TFBUT values was analyzed by means of a MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, TFBUT baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||2.596|-0.329|0.129
91665194|NCT05133180|183223221|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|2.722||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in TFBUT at Week 12.|MMRM|||Herein week 12 was considered. The change from baseline in TFBUT values was analyzed by means of a MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, TFBUT baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||2.722|-0.002|0.050
91665195|NCT05133180|183223222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 4 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||<0.001
91665196|NCT05133180|183223222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.009
91665197|NCT05133180|183223222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.020
91665198|NCT05133180|183223222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.022
91901988|NCT04908189|183698877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07069||0.2836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2144|0.0627|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.0627|-0.2144|0.2836
91692012|NCT03380429|183278465|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.67||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.67|0.69|0.383
91692013|NCT03380429|183278465|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.63||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.63|0.44|0.628
91665199|NCT05133180|183223223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.065
91665200|NCT05133180|183223224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.125
91665201|NCT05133180|183223225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.005
91665202|NCT05133180|183223225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.116
91665203|NCT05133180|183223225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.864
91665204|NCT05133180|183223226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.011
91665205|NCT05133180|183223226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.316
91792117|NCT01986933|183461994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.17|-27.15||Since a hierarchical decision procedure can be regarded as a closed testing procedure, no inflation of the alpha level due to multiple comparisons was necessary, and the global 1-sided significance alpha level of 0.025 was maintained.|ANCOVA|||||-27.15|-55.17|<0.0001
91665206|NCT05133180|183223226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.685
91665207|NCT05133180|183223227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.016
91665208|NCT05133180|183223227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.160
91665209|NCT05133180|183223227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.839
91665210|NCT05133180|183223228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0455|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0455
91665211|NCT05133180|183223229|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.06||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on daily activities - Week 8||||0.060
91665212|NCT05133180|183223229|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.079||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Emotional impact due to Dry eye - Week 8||||0.079
91665213|NCT05133180|183223229|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.251||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on work due to Dry Eye - Week 8||||0.251
91792118|NCT01986933|183461994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.11|-26.67||Since a hierarchical decision procedure can be regarded as a closed testing procedure, no inflation of the alpha level due to multiple comparisons was necessary, and the global 1-sided significance alpha level of 0.025 was maintained.|ANCOVA|||||-26.67|-54.11|<0.0001
91665214|NCT05133180|183223229|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.203||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on daily activities - Week 16||||0.203
91665215|NCT05133180|183223229|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.114||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Emotional impact due to Dry eye - Week 16||||0.114
91665216|NCT05133180|183223229|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.112||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on work due to Dry Eye - Week 16||||0.112
91665217|NCT05133180|183223230|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.002||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom bother module - Week 8||||0.002
91665218|NCT05133180|183223230|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.076||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom bother module - Week 16||||0.076
91665219|NCT05133180|183223231|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.16||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - Week 8||||0.160
91665220|NCT05133180|183223231|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.009||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - Week 8||||0.009
91665221|NCT05133180|183223231|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.076||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - Week 16||||0.076
91665222|NCT05133180|183223231|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.128||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - Week 16||||0.128
91665223|NCT04723693|183223235|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a qualitative interview study and as such no statistical analysis was carried out.|||
91665224|NCT04723693|183223236|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a qualitative interview study and as such no statistical analysis was carried out.|||
91665225|NCT04188392|183223245|OTHER|Rate of subjects enrolled per month of recruitment; based on 6 subjects enrolled over 5.8 months of recruitment.|Rate (per month)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.25|||||Based on 6 subjects enrolled over 5.8 months of recruitment|Recruitment goal of 6 subjects total.||2.25|0.38|
91864307|NCT04909801|183617737|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.6|0.9026
91665226|NCT04188392|183223246|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed protocol: yes = 6, no = 0|Point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate = 100% (95% C.I. 54%,100%)|Binary outcome (completed protocol yes vs. no); goal of 75% of subjects completing protocol|Point estimate of completion rate and 95% confidence interval|1|0.54|
91665227|NCT04188392|183223247|OTHER|paired t-test|Mean of the differences|21.7||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|70.8||A priori significance threshold of p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.2263, df=4||alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0||70.8|-27.4|0.2873
91665228|NCT04188392|183223248|OTHER|Total participants = 6; discontinued due to adverse effects: yes = 0, no =6|Point estimate, 95% confidence interval|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.46|||||Discontinuation rates due to adverse effects: Point estimate 0% (95% C.I. 0%, 45.9%)|Binary outcome: Discontinued due to adverse effects yes vs. no||0.46|0|
91665229|NCT04188392|183223249|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed sleep study 1: yes = 6, no=0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of completion rate for sleep study 1 = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: Completed sleep study 1 yes vs. no||1|0.54|
91665230|NCT04188392|183223249|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed sleep study 2: yes = 6, no=0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of completion rate for sleep study 2 = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: completed sleep study 2 yes vs. no||1|0.54|
91665231|NCT04188392|183223249|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed sleep study 3: yes = 5, no=1|point estimate|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.996|||||Point estimate of completion rate for sleep study 3 = 83.3% (95% C.I. 36%, 99.6%)|Binary outcome: completed sleep study 3 yes vs. no||0.996|0.36|
91665232|NCT04188392|183223249|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of actigraphy data: yes = 6, no=0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of completion rate for at least 4 days of actigraphy pre-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%).|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of actigraphy data pre-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
91665233|NCT04188392|183223249|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of actigraphy post-treatment: yes = 6, no =0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of at least 4 days of actigraphy post-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of actigraphy post-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
91665234|NCT04188392|183223249|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of sleep diary pre-treatment: yes = 6, no = 0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of at least 4 days of sleep diary pre-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of sleep diary pre-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
91665235|NCT04188392|183223249|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of sleep diary post-treatment: yes = 6, no = 0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of at least 4 days of sleep diary post-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of sleep diary post-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
91665236|NCT01906372|183223290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Frequency of achieving primary endpoint|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Open label single arm pilot trial without control group.||||||||
91665237|NCT01906372|183223291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91665238|NCT03629054|183223292|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (gMean) (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|100.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.17|102.72|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||102.72|98.17|<0.0001
91665239|NCT03629054|183223293|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|95.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.58|99.24|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||99.24|91.58|<0.0001
91665240|NCT03629054|183223294|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|100.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.17|104.31|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||104.31|96.17|<0.0001
91665241|NCT03629054|183223295|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|92.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.21|100.57|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||100.57|85.21|0.0029
91665242|NCT03629054|183223296|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|97.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.99|105.26|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||105.26|89.99|0.0001
91901989|NCT04908189|183698877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09431|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7396|-0.3699|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.3699|-0.7396|<0.0001
91665243|NCT03629054|183223297|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|104.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.56|111.5|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||111.50|98.56|<0.0001
91665244|NCT03629054|183223298|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|100.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.33|103.18|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||103.18|98.33|<0.0001
91665245|NCT03629054|183223299|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|103.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.9|110.71|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||110.71|96.90|<0.0001
91901990|NCT04908189|183698877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.10162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7826|-0.3843|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.3843|-0.7826|<0.0001
91665246|NCT03629054|183223300|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|95.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.29|99.32|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||99.32|92.29|<0.0001
91858338|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.4|-1.6|0.003
91858339|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-1.1|0.067
91858340|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.7|-2.1|<0.001
91665247|NCT00924638|183223315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|21.7|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \> 1 indicates that Continuous Monitoring is superior to Control in detecting AF.|||21.7|1.9|0.0006
91665248|NCT00924638|183223316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|20.8|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \> 1 indicates that Continuous Monitoring is superior to Control in detecting AF.|||20.8|2.6|<0.0001
91665249|NCT00924638|183223317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.32|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \< 1 indicates that the incidence rate of recurrent stroke or TIA is lower in the Continuous Monitoring arm compared to the Control arm.|||1.32|0.35|0.25
91665250|NCT00924638|183223318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.8|||||A difference of greater than 0 means that a higher percentage of subjects in the Continuous Monitoring arm were using the OAC drugs at the 12 months visit compared to the Control arm.|||14.8|2.8|
91665251|NCT00924638|183223319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.1|||||A difference of greater than 0 means that a higher percentage of subjects in the Continuous Monitoring arm were using the anti-arrhythmic drugs at the 12 months visit compared to the Control arm.|||3.1|-2.3|
91665252|NCT00924638|183223320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91665253|NCT00924638|183223321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.6|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \< 1 indicates that the incidence rate of cardiovascular or stroke/TIA related hospitalization is lower in the Continuous Monitoring arm compared to the Control arm.|||2.60|0.73|0.33
91665254|NCT02679729|183223328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|0.853||||||Statistical Analysis for Part A||0.853|0.396|
91665255|NCT02679729|183223329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.49||||||Statistical Analysis for Part A||1.49|0.905|
91665256|NCT02679729|183223330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.76||||||Statistical Analysis for Part A||1.76|1.34|
91665257|NCT00989950|183223369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|233.0|||ANOVA|||||233|0|0.588
91665258|NCT01124786|183223370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994|||<|0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.326|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and confidence interval presented above, so parameter dispersion not indicated in standard deviation field directly above.|If the median Overall Survival (OS) for the CO-1.01-treated patients is 7.7 months and the median OS for gemcitabine-treated patients with hENT1-low status is 4 months (hazard ratio of 0.53), then a total of 144 events of death in the hENT1-low subgroup will provide over 90% power at a 0.05 (2 sided) significance level for the comparison of CO-1.01 to gemcitabine in the hENT1-low patients.||1.326|0.746|<0.973
91665259|NCT03488108|183223399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.009
91665260|NCT03488108|183223400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.90
91665261|NCT03488108|183223401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
91665262|NCT03488108|183223402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.005
91665263|NCT01665508|183223408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables were reported as the mean ± (SD) and categorical data presented as frequency and percentage of the sample. Comparisons between baseline and post-treatment SAQ scores, SF-36v2 scores, and CPET variables were performed using a paired t-test for normally distributed variables or a Wilcoxon signed-rank test for non-normally distributed variables. Normality was defined by the Shapiro-Wilk test. For categorical variables, data were compared using a chi-squared test.||||< 0.05
91665264|NCT02054715|183223412|OTHER||Mean Difference (MP - PE)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.9|||F-Test|||Two-sided F-Test as a statistical comparing MP and PE means.||3.9|-4.1|0.9621
91665265|NCT02054715|183223413|OTHER||Mean Difference (MP - PE)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|3.26|||F-test|||Two-sided F-Test comparing the MP and PE means.||3.26|-2.89|0.9065
91665266|NCT02054715|183223414|OTHER||Mean Difference (MP - PE)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.9709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.69|||F-Test|||Two-sided F-Test comparing the MP and PE means.||2.69|-2.79|0.9709
91665267|NCT02054715|183223415|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test between MP and PE. 69% of subjects that got the Multimedia Psychoeducation intervention chose to participate in a clinical trial, compared with 62% in the Print Education group||||0.014
91665268|NCT01442376|183223417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 15% at an alpha level of 2.5% in a 1-sided test (equivalent to 5.0% 2-sided test) to reject the null hypothesis that the study drug was inferior to the active control drug by more than the non-inferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.7|12.4||||||The stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method was used to compute the confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportion. If the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of either the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 20 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) or the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 10 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) was strictly superior to the non-inferiority margin (δ=-0.15) then the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected. A power of 80% was used for sample size computation.||12.4|-11.7|
91665269|NCT01442376|183223417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 15% at an alpha level of 2.5% in a 1-sided test (equivalent to 5.0% 2-sided test) to reject the null hypothesis that the study drug was inferior to the active control drug by more than the non-inferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.4|7.6||||||The stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method was used to compute the confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportion. If the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of either the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 20 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) or the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 10 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) was strictly superior to the non-inferiority margin (δ=-0.15) then the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected. A power of 80% was used for sample size computation.||7.6|-16.4|
91864308|NCT04909801|183617738|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.5|0.5824
91864309|NCT04909801|183617739|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3534||95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3|0.5|0.3534
91792119|NCT01077154|183462003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.14|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.14|0.82|0.70
91792120|NCT01077154|183462004|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hzard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.19|0.91|0.57
91665270|NCT01075516|183223420|OTHER|Continuous data summarized as mean ± Standard Deviation (SD). For cost data Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare costs across groups. The analysis evaluated HCS perspective of group membership impact (SC vs RM) on total health care cost, adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. Differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals)|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91665271|NCT01075516|183223421|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. For cost data the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare costs across groups. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on cardiovascular hospitalization timeframe (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. Differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91665272|NCT01075516|183223422|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on total health care cost (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. However, as the arithmetic mean is the most informative measurement for policy decisions, differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.8||||||Comparison of utility at baseline from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.|t-test, 2 sided|||For the patient perspective, the quality of life associated with the 2 strategies was assessed. Quality of life is reported as utility values from the EuroQoL Group 5-Dimension 3-Level Self-Report (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on utility (patients' preferences). The EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was administered to each patient at baseline and at 12 months in order to calculate utility values (from 0 to 1).||||0.80
91665273|NCT01075516|183223422|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on total health care cost (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. However, as the arithmetic mean is the most informative measurement for policy decisions, differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.38||||||Comparison of utility at 12 months from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.|t-test, 2 sided|||For the patient perspective, the quality of life associated with the 2 strategies was assessed. Quality of life is reported as utility values from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on utility (patients' preferences). The EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was administered to each patient at baseline and at 12 months in order to calculate utility values (from 0 to 1).||||0.38
91665274|NCT01075516|183223422|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on total health care cost (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. However, as the arithmetic mean is the most informative measurement for policy decisions, differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the patient perspective, the quality of life associated with the 2 strategies was assessed. Quality of life is reported as utility values from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on utility (patients' preferences). The EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was administered to each patient at baseline and at 12 months in order to calculate utility values (from 0 to 1).||||0.53
91665275|NCT02252016|183223424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|23.3||||||The estimated difference (± 95% confidence interval \[CI\]) in percentage of participants experiencing an AE in the Immediate versus Deferred arms was determined.||23.3|-7.3|
91665276|NCT02252016|183223425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||The estimated difference (± 95% CI) in percentage of participants withdrawing from study treatment due to an AE(s) in the Immediate versus Deferred arms was determined.||1.6|-10.2|0.155
91665277|NCT00834873|183223506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.77||||||90.0|85.04|105.61|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.61|85.04|
91665278|NCT00834873|183223507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.23||||||90.0|90.59|102.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.23|90.59|
91858341|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.4|-1.4|0.002
91858342|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.2|-1.3|0.007
91665279|NCT00834873|183223508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.11||||||90.0|90.45|102.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.12|90.45|
91858343|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-1.1|0.214
91858344|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.3|-1.5|0.003
91858345|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-2.2|-7.8|<0.001
91858346|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-0.5|0.673
91858347|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||1.1|-0.3|0.276
91665280|NCT03966911|183223512|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|88.0|||<|0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|86.05|89.95|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||89.95|86.05|<0.041
91665281|NCT03966911|183223512|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|87.96|||<|0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|86.13|89.8|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||89.80|86.13|<0.041
91665282|NCT03966911|183223512|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|84.59||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|82.02|87.17|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||87.17|82.02|0.041
91665283|NCT03966911|183223512|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|81.05|||<|0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|77.58|84.53|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||84.53|77.58|<0.041
91665284|NCT00985751|183223513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The 95% CI for the difference between groups in the percentage of subjects with rectal temperature \> 40.0°C within the 7-day follow-up period following primary vaccination was computed for the Synflorix/GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group. No statistically significant difference between groups in rectal temperature \>40.0°C would be detected if the 95% CIs included 0 and non-inferiority would|Difference in percentage|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.32||||||Fever \>40°C-non-inferiority: To compare the 2 formulations of GSK Biologicals' S. pneumoniae protein containing vaccine (GSK 2189242A) combined with Synflorix™ vaccine (pooled groups) versus Synflorix™ vaccine (Synflorix/GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group) with respect to the percentage of subjects reporting fever \> 40.0°C (rectal temperature) within 7 days after at least 1 dose of primary vaccination.||5.32|-6.1|
91665285|NCT00985751|183223514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The 95% CI for the difference between groups in the percentage of subjects with rectal temperature \> 40.0°C within the 7-day follow-up period following primary vaccination was computed for the GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group. No statistically significant difference between groups in rectal temperature \>40.0°C would be detected if the 95% CIs included 0 and non-inferiority would be express|Difference in percentage|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.32||||||Fever \>40°C-non-inferiority: To compare the 2 formulations of GSK Biologicals' S. pneumoniae protein containing vaccine GSK 2189242A (pooled groups) versus Synflorix™ vaccine (GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group) with respect to the percentage of subjects reporting fever \> 40.0°C (rectal temperature) within 7 days after at least 1 dose of primary vaccination.||5.32|-6.1|
91665286|NCT00926887|183223554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91665287|NCT00926887|183223557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t=-2.711; df=102; p\<0.01||||||<0.01
91665288|NCT00926887|183223561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=102, t=-3.44||||||<0.001
91665289|NCT01251393|183223584|EQUIVALENCE|"The comparisons between the placebo and the biperiden groups at baseline were performed by means of the independent t-Test. We evaluated the normality (Kolmogorov's test) and homogeneity (Levene's test) of the sample.~We used an ANOVA for repeated measures, followed by Bonferroni's post-hoc test to evaluate the efficacy of biperiden in reducing consumption of cocaine/crack."|||||<|0.05||||||We used an ANOVA for repeated measures, followed by Bonferroni's post-hoc test to evaluate the efficacy of biperiden in reducing consumption of cocaine/crack.|ANOVA|||We evaluated the normality (Kolmogorov's test) and homogeneity (Levene's test) of the sample.||||<0.05
91665290|NCT01541215|183223585|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c~Superiority of liraglutide over placebo was to be concluded if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 26 weeks of randomised treatment was entirely below 0%, implying that the two sided p-value was less than 5%."|Treatment difference|-1.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.653|-0.464|||Pattern Mixture Model|||Analysis using a pattern mixture model of observed data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on multiple (x10.000) imputations. The data for week 26 were then analysed with an ANCOVA model containing treatment, sex and age group as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. The estimated treatment differences and confidence intervals were combined using Rubins formula.||-0.464|-1.653|<0.001
91665291|NCT01541215|183223586|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: Change from baseline in FPG after 26 weeks of treatment"|Treatment difference|-1.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.093|-0.662|||Pattern Mixture Model|||Analysis using a pattern mixture model of observed data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on multiple (x10.000) imputations. The data for weeks 26 were then analysed with an ANCOVA model containing treatment, sex and age group as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. The estimated treatment differences and confidence intervals were combined using Rubins formula.||-0.662|-3.093|0.002
91665292|NCT01541215|183223587|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 3: HbA1c \< 7.0% after 26 weeks of treatment"|Treatment odds ratio|5.353|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.105|13.615|||logistic regression model|||Missing data was imputed using pattern mixture model. For each imputed data set the binary response was analysed in a logistic regression model using a logit link with treatment and stratification group (gender\*age group) as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.The estimated treatment effects and confidence intervals were combined using Rubin´s formula.||13.615|2.105|<0.001
91665293|NCT01541215|183223588|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 4: Change from baseline in BMI SDS after 26 weeks of treatment"|Treatment difference|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.06|||Pattern Mixture Model|||Analysis using a pattern mixture model of observed data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on multiple (x10.000) imputations. The data for weeks 26 were then analysed with an ANCOVA model containing treatment, sex and age group as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. The estimated treatment differences and confidence intervals were combined using Rubins formula.||0.060|-0.153|0.392
91858348|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-0.7|0.670
91858349|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-0.5|1.000
91858350|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.5|0.909
91665294|NCT03234907|183223685|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2|||=|0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|6.8||P-value was based on CHW test, based on weighted CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: (1)previous failure of TNF-α antagonist therapy/concomitant use of immunomodulators(Yes/No);(2)concomitant use of oral corticosteroids(Yes/No).|Cui-Hung-Wang (CHW) test||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the treatment difference and its variance was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference. Adjustment to the stratification factors was implemented.|||6.8|-17.2|=0.347
91692014|NCT03380429|183278465|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.8||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.80|0.49|0.844
91858351|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.8|-0.6|0.852
91858352|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.5|0.906
91858353|NCT01037985|183600771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||3.8|-2.8|0.768
91858354|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-0.4|0.773
91858355|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.4|-0.4|1.000
91858356|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.1|-1.4|0.072
91864310|NCT04909801|183617740|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.5|0.6140
91665295|NCT03234907|183223686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7|||=|0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.0||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel, weighted CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to:(1)previous failure of TNF-α antagonist therapy/concomitant use of immunomodulators(Yes/No);(2)concomitant use of oral corticosteroids(Yes/No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the treatment difference and its variance was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference. Adjustment to the stratification factors was implemented.|||6.0|-11.5|=0.531
91665296|NCT01472432|183223687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."|t-test, 2 sided|"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."||||<0.05
91665297|NCT01472432|183223688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months"|t-test, 2 sided|"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months"||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."||||<0.05
91665298|NCT01472432|183223689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P-values from multiple comparisons: placebo at baseline vs. placebo at 3 months; placebo at 3 months vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months; Vildagliptin at baseline vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months. P\< 0.05 versus control patients. P \< 0.05 versus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||p-values from multiple comparisons: placebo at baseline vs. placebo at 3 months; placebo at 3 months vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months; Vildagliptin at baseline vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months.||||<0.05
91665299|NCT01472432|183223690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P\< 0.05 versus control patients. P \< 0.05 versus baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91665300|NCT02986139|183223693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Mixed effects analysis of variance model|||A mixed effects analysis of variance model was used to assess injection site pain with the new formulation of etanercept as the test treatment and the commercial formulation of etanercept as the reference treatment. Treatment, study period, sequence, and disease indication were evaluated as fixed effect covariates, and subject within sequence was included as a random effect.||-0.0|-8.0|0.048
91665301|NCT02583048|183223696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|2.0|14.8|||||Arm 3 minus Arm 1 difference in change from baseline estimated from ANOVA model. Interim analysis conducted when week 24 QT data was available for ≥12 participants stipulated 99.9% confidence interval; original coverage of 95% was widened to 95.1%.|||14.8|2.0|
91858357|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.7|0.851
91858358|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.2|-1.2|0.184
91858359|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-1.3|0.059
91858360|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.0|-1.5|0.040
91858361|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-4.1|0.120
91858362|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-4.0|0.094
91901991|NCT04908189|183698878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.1|-0.4|0.2143
91665302|NCT02583048|183223696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|5.7|18.6|||||Arm 3 minus Arm 2 difference in change from baseline estimated from ANOVA model. Interim analysis conducted when week 24 QT data was available for ≥12 participants stipulated 99.9% confidence interval; original coverage of 95% was widened to 95.1%.|||18.6|5.7|
91858363|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 24, Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.2|0.243
91858364|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.2|0.339
91858365|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||1.2|-0.3|0.250
91858366|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.2|-1.3|0.164
91858367|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.8|-0.8|1.000
91858368|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-0.8|0.928
91858369|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-0.8|0.865
91665303|NCT02583048|183223703|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.117|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.884|1.411|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.411|0.884|
91858370|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||3.0|-2.3|0.804
91858371|NCT01037985|183600772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||2.4|-2.6|0.937
91665304|NCT02583048|183223703|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.461|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.461|0.989|
91665305|NCT02583048|183223703|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.774|1.187|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.187|0.774|
91792121|NCT01077154|183462005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.36|0.92|0.26
91792122|NCT01077154|183462006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.22|0.83|0.94
91665306|NCT02583048|183223704|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|1.215|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.215|0.801|
91792123|NCT01077154|183462007|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.21|0.92|0.41
91792124|NCT04030026|183462016|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.431||Mixed-effects model: unstructured, heterogeneous toeplitz and autoregressive covariance matrices. Dependent variable: change from baseline in log-transformed scale of Daytime Cough Frequency. Fixed effects: sequence (arm), period and treatment.|Mixed-effects model|||||0.431|0.208|< 0.0001
91792125|NCT04030026|183462018|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.431||Mixed-effects model: unstructured, heterogeneous toeplitz and autoregressive covariance matrices. Dependent variable: change from baseline in log-transformed scale of Daytime Cough Frequency. Fixed effects: sequence (arm), period and treatment.|Mixed-effects model|||||0.431|0.208|<0.0001
91858372|NCT00774852|183600788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.85
91858373|NCT00774852|183600789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.99
91858374|NCT00774852|183600790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.54
91665307|NCT02583048|183223704|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.764|1.251|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.251|0.764|
91665308|NCT02583048|183223704|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.859|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.667|1.108|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.108|0.667|
91665309|NCT02583048|183223705|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.847|1.267|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.267|0.847|
91665310|NCT02583048|183223705|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.037|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.843|1.276|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.276|0.843|
91665311|NCT02583048|183223705|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|1.151|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.151|0.727|
91665312|NCT02583048|183223706|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.258|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.258|0.864|
91665313|NCT02583048|183223706|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.235|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.235|0.858|
91665314|NCT02583048|183223706|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.657|0.993|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||0.993|0.657|
91665315|NCT02583048|183223707|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.263|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.263|0.903|
91665316|NCT02583048|183223707|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.155|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.155|0.820|
91665317|NCT02583048|183223707|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.656|0.983|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||0.983|0.656|
91665318|NCT02583048|183223708|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.881|1.248|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.248|0.881|
91665319|NCT02583048|183223708|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.165|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.165|0.823|
91665320|NCT02583048|183223708|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.638|1.025|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.025|0.638|
91665321|NCT02583048|183223709|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.049|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.049|0.778|
91665322|NCT02583048|183223709|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.114|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.315|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.315|0.944|
91665323|NCT02583048|183223709|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.639|1.012|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.012|0.639|
91665324|NCT02583048|183223710|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.084|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.084|0.810|
91665325|NCT02583048|183223710|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.107|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.318|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.318|0.929|
91665326|NCT02583048|183223710|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.703|1.043|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.043|0.703|
91858375|NCT00774852|183600790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.72
91858376|NCT00774852|183600791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.54
91858377|NCT00774852|183600796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test||Comparison of Participants across groups who had negative anti-dsDNA at Week 104. Baseline is defined as the last measurement taken on or prior to the first day of dosing. Analysis is performed on participants with available data.||||>0.99
91665327|NCT02583048|183223711|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.096|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.096|0.825|
91665328|NCT02583048|183223711|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.136|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.362|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.362|0.948|
91665329|NCT02583048|183223711|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|1.109|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.109|0.727|
91792126|NCT04030026|183462019|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.47||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.717||Mixed-effects model: unstructured, heterogeneous toeplitz and autoregressive covariance matrices. Dependent variable: change from baseline in log-transformed scale of Daytime Cough Frequency. Fixed effects: sequence (arm), period and treatment.|Mixed-effects model|||||0.717|0.230|0.0087
91665330|NCT02583048|183223712|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.806|1.094|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.094|0.806|
91665331|NCT02583048|183223712|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.352|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.352|0.864|
91665332|NCT02583048|183223712|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.597|1.253|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.253|0.597|
91665333|NCT02583048|183223713|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.095|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.095|0.825|
91665334|NCT02583048|183223713|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.862|1.354|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.354|0.862|
91665335|NCT02583048|183223713|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.605|1.239|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.239|0.605|
91665336|NCT02583048|183223714|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.851|1.138|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.138|0.851|
91792127|NCT04030026|183462020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 9||||0.0014
91792128|NCT04030026|183462020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 16||||0.0001
91665337|NCT02583048|183223714|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.086|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|1.361|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.361|0.866|
91665338|NCT02583048|183223714|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.322|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.322|0.650|
91665339|NCT02155257|183223718|OTHER||Slope|0.19||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||Regression, Linear|||Interaction between resting pupil diameter and correlation of cognitive-affective style to pain reporting. Note that this analysis is an INTERACTION between the primary outcome of this measure (pupil diameter) to that of the primary outcome measure of cognitive-affective style.||.76|-.39|0.540
91665340|NCT00414726|183223721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We used the Van-Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon rank sum test; ajustments made for baseline NIHSS categories (4-11)(12-20)(\>20).||Subjects were analyzed using an intention to treat approach. All subjects were analyzed at 24 hours. For four subjects missing 24-hour NIHSS scores, the change score was given the highest possible value.||||0.91
91665341|NCT00414726|183223722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We used the Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxin rank sum test that adjusts for stratified randomization.||||||0.68
91665342|NCT01993186|183223734|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|13.45||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.63|80.95|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-parametric post-hoc analysis: Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 90% confidence interval (CI) and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value, based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test||80.95|-38.63|0.5812
91858378|NCT00774852|183600797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test||Comparison of Participants across groups who had negative anti-dsDNA at Week 104. Baseline is defined as the last measurement taken on or prior to the first day of dosing. Analysis is performed on participants with available data.||||>0.99
91858379|NCT00774852|183600799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with renal flare||||0.23
91665343|NCT01993186|183223737|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.8197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.23|84.25|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-parametric post-hoc analysis: Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 90% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value, based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test||84.25|-51.23|0.8197
91665344|NCT01993186|183223738|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|37.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-parametric post-hoc analysis: Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 90% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value, based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test||37.5|0|0.7276
91665345|NCT01993186|183223742|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.1231||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-114.44|109.67||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||RTISRTSD||109.67|-114.44|0.486
91665346|NCT01993186|183223742|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|63.669|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.0537||0.8849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.6|150.94||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||RTIMDSRT||150.94|-23.6|0.8849
91665347|NCT01993186|183223742|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-63.835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.6496||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-163.59|35.93||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||RTIMDFRT||35.93|-163.59|0.1463
91665348|NCT01993186|183223743|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|17.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5659||0.9378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|36.79||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||PALTEA||36.79|-1.26|0.9378
91665349|NCT01993186|183223743|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1853||0.5959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.13|3.06||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||PALFTMS||3.06|-4.13|0.5959
91665350|NCT01993186|183223744|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4988||0.4522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.88||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||SSPSLF||0.88|-0.76|0.4522
91665351|NCT01993186|183223745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.381||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.15|2.68||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||SWMBE48||2.68|-5.15|0.3017
91665352|NCT01993186|183223745|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6495||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|1.11||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||SWMS68||1.11|-1.03|0.5235
91665353|NCT01993186|183223746|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.897|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.4806||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.874|30.08||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline value, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||6MWT distance traveled||30.08|-43.874|0.6205
91858380|NCT00774852|183600799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with renal flare||||0.61
91858381|NCT00774852|183600799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with at least one non-renal flare||||>0.99
91858382|NCT00774852|183600799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with at least one non-renal flare||||>0.99
91858383|NCT00774852|183600804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value compares actual values between experimental and control groups at Week 52 and is derived from two-sided t-test from and ANCOVA model that adjusts for baseline values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.79
91858384|NCT00774852|183600804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value compares actual values between experimental and control groups at Week 52 and is derived from two-sided t-test from and ANCOVA model that adjusts for baseline values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.74
91858385|NCT00774852|183600805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups for Pneumococcal vaccines||||0.43
91665354|NCT01993186|183223747|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5759||0.6476|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.236|4.527||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline value, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||6MWT distance traveled (percent predicted)||4.527|-7.236|0.6476
91665355|NCT01993186|183223749|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8899||0.3435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.83|7.97||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include baseline GMFM-88 total score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||GMFM-88 UX007-Placebo||7.97|-4.83|0.3435
91665356|NCT02752074|183223765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.51711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.21||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.21|0.83|0.51711
91665357|NCT02752074|183223766|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.80666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.49||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.49|0.86|0.80666
91665358|NCT00840216|183223775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|106.9||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of the mean falls within 80-125.|||||
91665359|NCT00840216|183223776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|92.7||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of the mean falls within 80-125.|||||
91665360|NCT00840216|183223777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.0||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of the mean falls within 80-125.|||||
91858386|NCT00774852|183600805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups for Tetanus Toxoid vaccines||||0.99
91665361|NCT01604941|183223814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.2960
91665362|NCT01604941|183223814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0400
91665363|NCT01604941|183223814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6303|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.6303
91665364|NCT01604941|183223815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.0365
91665365|NCT01604941|183223815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0019
91665366|NCT01604941|183223815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.1695
91665367|NCT01604941|183223816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.0394
91665368|NCT01604941|183223816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0004
91665369|NCT01604941|183223816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0332
91665370|NCT01604941|183223817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.3202
91665371|NCT01604941|183223817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4549|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.4549
91665372|NCT01604941|183223817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.3291
91665373|NCT01604941|183223818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6703|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 8 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.6703
91665374|NCT01604941|183223818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 8 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.2618
91665375|NCT01604941|183223818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7679|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 16 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.7679
91665376|NCT01604941|183223819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.1683
91665377|NCT01604941|183223819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0123
91665378|NCT01604941|183223819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2334|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.2334
91858387|NCT04870645|183600820|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Statistical Significance|||||||< 0.05
91858388|NCT04924062|183600821|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08|||||HR=Arm A/Arm B|||1.08|0.51|
91858389|NCT04924062|183600822|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.19|||||HR=Arm A/Arm B|||1.19|0.58|
91858390|NCT04924062|183600823|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|21.6|||||Difference=Arm A minus Arm B|||21.6|-7.5|
91792129|NCT04030026|183462020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 22||||0.001
91792130|NCT04030026|183462021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0198||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 9||||0.0198
91858391|NCT05768373|183600827|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.0|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||4.0|-3.4|
91665379|NCT01410227|183223825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis of the rate of subjects with a treatment success of \<= 0.65 (H0: p \<= 0.65) versus an alternative hypothesis of \> 0.65 (HA: p \> 0.65) was tested at the 5% one-sided level of significance. The proportion of subjects with treatment success under the alternative hypothesis was expected to be approximately 0.90. If 20 subjects were treated, the study provided 86% power to reject the null hypothesis.|Clopper-Pearson|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.7|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson|||||100|84.7|
91901992|NCT04908189|183698878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-0.2|-0.8|0.0001
91665380|NCT00606281|183223892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||||-2.7|-9.4|<0.001
91858392|NCT05768373|183600828|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.3|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||5.3|-2.6|
91665381|NCT00606281|183223893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
91665382|NCT00540423|183223895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|60.0||||||95.0|35.21|84.79|||||The units of risk difference is percentage.|||84.79|35.21|
91665383|NCT00540423|183223897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of 75% responders|43.5||||||95.0|23.19|65.51|||||Confidence interval of the percentage of participants for whom at least 75% of their assessments during the course of 26 weeks of SB-494115-GR treatment met the definition of responders.|||65.51|23.19|
91858393|NCT05768373|183600829|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.7|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||6.7|-3.2|
91858394|NCT05768373|183600830|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.4|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||7.4|-3.0|
91665384|NCT03131895|183223919|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) on the original scale.|Least square (LS) mean ratio|1.0436||||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9453|1.1521|||ANOVA|||||1.1521|0.9453|0.5535
91665385|NCT03131895|183223919|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0185||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9334|1.1113|||ANOVA|||||1.1113|0.9334|0.8920
91665386|NCT03131895|183223920|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.039||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9792|1.1024|||ANOVA|||||1.1024|0.9792|0.3209
91665387|NCT03131895|183223920|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0353||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9719|1.1029|||ANOVA|||||1.1029|0.9719|0.3896
91665388|NCT03131895|183223921|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0335||||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9733|1.0975|||ANOVA|||||1.0975|0.9733|0.4163
91792131|NCT04030026|183462021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0374||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 16||||0.0374
91792132|NCT04030026|183462021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2982||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 22||||0.2982
91901993|NCT04908189|183698878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.4|-1.0|<0.0001
91665389|NCT03131895|183223921|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0031||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9458|1.0638|||ANOVA|||||1.0638|0.9458|0.9778
91792133|NCT04030026|183462022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo)|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 8||||0.0054
91665390|NCT01339247|183223922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon a manufacturing site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|1.0886|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0011|1.177|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||1.1770|1.0011|
91665391|NCT01339247|183223923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon a manufacturing site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|1.0246|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9676|1.0849|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||1.0849|0.9676|
91665392|NCT01339247|183223924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon a manufacturing site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|1.0317|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9716|1.0956|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||1.0956|0.9716|
91665393|NCT02213263|183223945|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was tested within the pre-specified margins of (-16%, 16%) 95% confidence interval.|Difference in ORR|4.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|13.47||||||Difference in ORR between PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU was computed using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method. The 95% confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the asymptotic stratified method proposed by Miettinen and Nurminen.||13.47|-4.16|
91714248|NCT01656395|183320226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.319||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.683|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK- 1029 or Montelukast).||0.683|-0.045|0.086
91858395|NCT05768373|183600831|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.2|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||8.2|-4.4|
91858396|NCT05478525|183600833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-35.05||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.35|-15.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Week 2||-15.75|-54.35|0.0007
91714249|NCT01656395|183320227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|21.3|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen (MN) method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||21.3|-16.0|0.7687
91858397|NCT05478525|183600833|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.14||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.32|-3.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Week 2||-3.97|-42.32|0.0193
91858398|NCT05478525|183600833|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.64||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.33|-2.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Week 2||-2.96|-40.33|0.0243
91901994|NCT04908189|183698878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
91714250|NCT01656395|183320227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.4943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|12.2|||MN Method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||12.2|-24.9|0.4943
91714251|NCT01656395|183320227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|29.6|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||29.6|-9.4|0.3003
91714252|NCT01656395|183320227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|35.7|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||35.7|-1.9|0.0774
91714253|NCT01656395|183320227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.5|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: Montelukast vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||35.5|-0.4|0.0555
91792134|NCT04030026|183462022|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 15||||<0.0001
91858399|NCT05478525|183600835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-155.68||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.35|-16.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||-16.01|-295.35|0.0298
91858400|NCT05478525|183600835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-143.74||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-282.92|-4.55|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||-4.55|-282.92|0.0433
91858401|NCT05478525|183600835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-178.33||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-327.16|-29.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||-29.50|-327.16|0.0201
91858402|NCT05478525|183600836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.07||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.94|25.81|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||25.81|-119.94|0.1992
91858403|NCT05478525|183600836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.32||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.26|3.61|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||3.61|-144.26|0.0617
91858404|NCT05478525|183600836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.84||||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.22|36.53|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||36.53|-116.22|0.2981
91858405|NCT04038957|183600867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||A p-value of p\<0.05 will be considered as significant.|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||To examine the primary outcome, the effects of SEP-363856 on the striatum, a repeated measures ANOVA model will be build using the baseline and on-treatment kicer values of each striatal subregion.||||0.0072
91858406|NCT02605837|183600869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of responders|0.52|||<|0.001||95.0|0.433|0.591|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted difference in proportion with corresponding Newcombe confidence interval (CI) and odds ratio with corresponding CI were based on CMH test stratified by age group and diet restriction.||0.591|0.433|<0.001
91858407|NCT02605837|183600870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of responders|0.13||||0.024||95.0|0.016|0.243|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The CMH adjusted difference in proportion with corresponding Newcombe confidence interval (CI) and odds ratio with corresponding CI were based on CMH test stratified by age group and diet restriction.||0.243|0.016|0.024
91858408|NCT02605837|183600871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-3.92||||0.015||95.0|-7.073|-0.774|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline DSQ combined score as a continuous covariate.||-0.774|-7.073|0.015
91665394|NCT02213263|183223951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.163||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.72||A log-rank test stratified by follicular lymphoma international prognostic index 2 (FLIPI2) risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to TTF at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.|||1.720|0.786|0.450
91665395|NCT02213263|183223952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.393||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|2.291|||Log Rank|A log-rank test stratified by FLIPI2 risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to PFS at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Hazard ratio and its CIs were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.|||2.291|0.847|0.189
91665396|NCT02213263|183223953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|6.5||||||Difference in CR between PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU was computed using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method. The 95% confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the asymptotic stratified method proposed by Miettinen and Nurminen.||6.50|-11.09|
91665397|NCT02213263|183223954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.492||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|2.704||A log-rank test stratified by FLIPI2 risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to DOR at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its CIs were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.|||2.704|0.823|0.185
91665398|NCT02213263|183223955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.94||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Due to smaller number of participants with an event, upper limit of 95% CI could not be calculated.|A log-rank test stratified by FLIPI2 risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to overall survival at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its CIs were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.||||0.000|0.319
91858409|NCT02605837|183600872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-1.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline. Total EREFS (endoscopy score) as a continuous covariate.||-1.1|-2.6|<0.001
91665399|NCT02960295|183224046|OTHER|There was no comparison group and no test of statistical significance.||||||||||||||||In this interventional study the number of glucose checks per patient per day was calculated as stated above. There was no comparison group and no test of statistical significance.|This is a simple calculation of the mean (sd) of the number of glucose checks per pt per day|||
91665400|NCT02960295|183224047|OTHER|This is an observational study|||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson correlation (r)|||||||<0.05
91714254|NCT01656395|183320228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.104||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.288|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.288|-0.495|0.603
91665401|NCT02960295|183224047|OTHER|This is an observational study|||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson correlation coefficient (r)|||||||<0.05
91665402|NCT02960295|183224047|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson correlation coefficient (r)|||||||<0.05
91665403|NCT01075282|183224050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.29||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||The study was designed with 90% power to detect non-inferiority of LY2189265 1.5 mg vs insulin glargine on HbA1c change from baseline at the 52-week primary endpoint with a margin of 0.4%, a standard deviation of 1.3%, and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 assuming no true difference between treatments. This corresponds to 223 participants per arm, with an assumed drop-out rate of 20%.||-0.29|-0.60|<0.001
91665404|NCT01075282|183224050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.02||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||0.02|-0.29|<0.001
91665405|NCT01075282|183224050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.29||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.29|-0.60|<0.001
91665406|NCT01075282|183224050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.02||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||0.02|-0.29|0.05
91665407|NCT01075282|183224051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.37||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.37|-0.65|<0.001
91714255|NCT01656395|183320228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.436|0.372|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.372|-0.436|0.875
91858410|NCT02605837|183600873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|169.74|||<|0.001||95.0|23.235|1239.979|||Regression, Logistic|||Peak eosinophil count (\<15/HPF) was performed based on logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||1239.979|23.235|<0.001
91864311|NCT04909801|183617742|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.4|0.5|0.4996
91864312|NCT04909801|183617742|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.5|0.4490
91864313|NCT04909801|183617742|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.7|0.5|0.8090
91714256|NCT01656395|183320228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.151||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.265|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.265|-0.568|0.476
91792135|NCT04030026|183462022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 21||||0.0001
91665408|NCT01075282|183224051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.1||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.10|-0.38|<0.001
91665409|NCT01075282|183224051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.37||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.37|-0.65|<0.001
91665410|NCT01075282|183224051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.1||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.10|-0.38|<0.001
91665411|NCT01075282|183224051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.13|-0.50|<0.001
91665412|NCT01075282|183224051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||0.15|-0.21|<0.001
91665413|NCT01075282|183224051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.13|-0.50|<0.001
91665414|NCT01075282|183224051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||0.15|-0.21|0.378
91665415|NCT01075282|183224052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|7.11||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.11|2.98|<0.001
91792136|NCT04030026|183462023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 9||||0.0107
91665416|NCT01075282|183224052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.24||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.24|1.41|<0.001
91665417|NCT01075282|183224052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|5.75||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.75|2.45|<0.001
91665418|NCT01075282|183224052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.15||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.94|0.098
91665419|NCT01075282|183224052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.14||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.14|1.85|<0.001
91665420|NCT01075282|183224052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.82||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.82|0.334
91665421|NCT01075282|183224053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.63||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.63|2.90|<0.001
91665422|NCT01075282|183224053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|4.11||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.11|1.57|<0.001
91665423|NCT01075282|183224053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.85||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.85|1.81|<0.001
91665424|NCT01075282|183224053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.39||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|1.26|0.004
91792137|NCT04030026|183462023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change for baseline at Day 16||||0.0051
91792138|NCT04030026|183462023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1513||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 22||||0.1513
91665425|NCT01075282|183224053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.57||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.||||3.57|1.44|<0.001
91665426|NCT01075282|183224053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.42||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.42|0.96|0.073
91665427|NCT01075282|183224054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.109
91665428|NCT01075282|183224054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.335
91858411|NCT02605837|183600873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.69||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.294|1610.749|||Firth logistic regression|||Peak eosinophil count (\<=1/HPF) was performed based on firth logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||1610.749|6.294|0.001
91858412|NCT02605837|183600874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-28.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-35.0|-21.8|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of proximal eosinophil count was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-21.8|-35.0|<0.001
91858413|NCT02605837|183600874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-30.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-38.1|-22.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of mid eosinophil count was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-22.7|-38.1|<0.001
91665429|NCT01075282|183224054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.091
91665430|NCT01075282|183224054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.400
91665431|NCT01075282|183224054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641||||||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.641
91665432|NCT01075282|183224054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.055
91665433|NCT01075282|183224057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|3.33||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.33|2.33|<0.001
91665434|NCT01075282|183224057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.99||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.99|1.99|<0.001
91665435|NCT01075282|183224057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|3.9||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.90|2.71|<0.001
91665436|NCT01075282|183224057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.36||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.36|2.17|<0.001
91665437|NCT01075282|183224057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|3.89||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.89|2.59|<0.001
91665438|NCT01075282|183224057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.46||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.46|2.17|<0.001
91665439|NCT00367133|183224076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and prior photocoagulation; Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes||P values for two group comparisons for difference in mean change.||||0.02
91665440|NCT00367133|183224076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and prior photocoagulation; Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes||P Values for 2 group comparisons of difference in mean change||||0.002
91792139|NCT04030026|183462024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3601||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||||||0.3601
91665441|NCT00367133|183224076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and prior photocoagulation; Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes||P Values for 2 group comparisons of difference in mean change||||0.49
91665442|NCT00367133|183224079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Hochberg procedure used to determine statistical significance.||Proportion with 15-letter or more worsening||||0.03
91858414|NCT02605837|183600874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-33.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-40.7|-25.5|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of distal eosinophil count was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate||-25.5|-40.7|<0.001
91858415|NCT02605837|183600874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-38.8|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of maximum eosinophil count was from the ANCOVA model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak eosinophil count as a continuous covariate.||-38.8|-56.4|<0.001
91665443|NCT00367133|183224079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Hochberg procedure used to determine statistical significance.||Proportion with 15-letter or more worsening||||0.01
91665444|NCT00367133|183224079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Hochberg procedure used to determine statistical significance.||Proportion with 15-letter or more worsening||||0.82
91665445|NCT00367133|183224080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
91714257|NCT01656395|183320228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.362||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|0.042|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.042|-0.767|0.079
91714258|NCT01656395|183320228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.227||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|0.166|||cLDA model|||"Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: Montelukast vs. Placebo.~cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast)."||0.166|-0.621|0.257
91714259|NCT01656395|183320229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|21.1|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||21.1|-15.1|0.742
91714260|NCT01656395|183320229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|15.4|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||15.4|-22.1|0.7248
91714261|NCT01656395|183320229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|22.6|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||22.6|-15.6|0.6991
91714262|NCT01656395|183320229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|26.2|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||26.2|-10.6|0.3934
91858416|NCT02605837|183600875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.22|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of histopathologic epithelial features combined grade TSR was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-0.16|-0.22|<0.001
91714263|NCT01656395|183320229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|20.5|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: Montelukast vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||20.5|-16.0|0.8032
91714264|NCT01656395|183320230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.004|0.853|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 10 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK- 1029 or Montelukast).||0.853|-1.004|0.873
91792140|NCT06372782|183462059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within-Subject Difference in VAS Score at the End of Injection (FAS)||||<0.0001
91792141|NCT00562627|183462073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
91792142|NCT00562627|183462074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91858417|NCT02605837|183600875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of histopathologic epithelial features combined stage TSR was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-0.2|-0.2|<0.001
91665446|NCT00367133|183224080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
91665447|NCT00367133|183224080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||0.91
91665448|NCT00367133|183224082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
91665449|NCT00367133|183224082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
91665450|NCT00367133|183224082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||0.60
91665451|NCT00367133|183224083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
91665452|NCT00367133|183224083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for statistical analysis||||<0.001
91665453|NCT00367133|183224083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for statistical analysis||||0.55
91665454|NCT00906399|183224096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.725||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.93|||Negative Binomial Regression|Based on negative binomial regression, with adjustment for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), baseline relapse rate, age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40 years).||||0.930|0.565|0.0114
91665455|NCT00906399|183224096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.644||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.831|||Negative Binomial Regression|Based on negative binomial regression, with adjustment for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), baseline relapse rate, age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40).||||0.831|0.500|0.0007
91665456|NCT00906399|183224097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion Mean Ratio|0.72||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87|||Negative Binomial Regression|Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions.||||0.87|0.60|0.0008
91665457|NCT00906399|183224097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion Mean Ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.4|||Negative Binomial Regression|Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions.||||0.40|0.27|<0.0001
91792143|NCT00562627|183462075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91792144|NCT04948866|183462083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.522
91792145|NCT04948866|183462084|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91792146|NCT04948866|183462085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.402
91792147|NCT04948866|183462086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
91858418|NCT02605837|183600876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|2.333|||Regression, Logistic|||Dysphagia symptom response (binary response) at the final treatment period was performed based on logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||2.333|0.866|0.164
91665458|NCT00906399|183224098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95||Based on Cox proportion hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), age (\<40 versus ≥ 40 years), baseline relapse rate, and baseline Gd enhancing lesions (presence versus absence).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.95|0.57|0.0200
91665459|NCT00906399|183224098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8||Based on Cox proportion hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), age (\<40 versus ≥ 40 years), baseline relapse rate, and baseline Gd enhancing lesions (presence versus absence).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.80|0.47|0.0003
91665460|NCT00906399|183224099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.97||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4) and age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40 years).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.97|0.40|0.0380
91665461|NCT00906399|183224099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.97||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4) and age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40 years).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.97|0.40|0.0383
91665462|NCT02055547|183224146|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - placebo) of the slope of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of the slope of ISR/G for MK-8521 125μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.69|5.76|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|5.76|3.69|<0.001
91792148|NCT04948866|183462087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
91792149|NCT04948866|183462088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.977
91665463|NCT02055547|183224146|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) of the slope of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of the slope of ISR/G for MK-8521 35μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.12|3.36|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|3.36|2.12|<0.001
91665464|NCT02055547|183224146|OTHER|"Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - MK-8521 35μg) of the slope of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of the slope of ISR/G for MK-8521 125μg vs.~MK-8521 35μg was calculated from the model."|Geometric mean ratio|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.16|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|2.16|1.38|<0.001
91665465|NCT02055547|183224147|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - placebo) of the ratio of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of TWA120-160min of ratio (ISR/G) for MK-8521 125μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|3.53|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|3.53|2.62|<0.001
91665466|NCT02055547|183224147|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) of the ratio of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of TWA120-160min of ratio (ISR/G) for MK-8521 35μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|2.26|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|2.26|1.67|<0.001
91665467|NCT02055547|183224147|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - 35μg) of the ratio of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of TWA120-160min of ratio (ISR/G) for MK-8521 125μg - 35μg was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|1.82|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|1.82|1.35|<0.001
91665468|NCT02055547|183224148|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125mcg - placebo) in glucose (TWA0-160min) after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.7|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.7|0.6|<0.001
91792150|NCT04948866|183462089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
91792151|NCT04948866|183462090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.935
91792152|NCT04948866|183462091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91792153|NCT04948866|183462092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91792154|NCT04948866|183462093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.417
91792155|NCT04948866|183462094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.531
91792156|NCT04948866|183462095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91792157|NCT04948866|183462096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.876
91792158|NCT04251156|183462111|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment and type 2 diabetes status as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.|Treatment difference|-8.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|-6.76|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-6.76|-10.17|<0.0001
91792159|NCT04251156|183462112|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomized treatment and type 2 diabetes status as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|13.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|23.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||23.10|7.40|<0.0001
91665469|NCT02055547|183224148|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) in glucose (TWA0-160min) after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.87|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.87|0.74|<0.001
91792160|NCT02397564|183462158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
91792161|NCT01848782|183462171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.4|0.5
91665470|NCT02055547|183224148|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125μg - MK-8521 35μg) in glucose (TWA0-160min) after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.87|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.87|0.75|<0.001
91665471|NCT02055547|183224149|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125μg vs. placebo) in Gmax after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.63|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.63|0.49|<0.001
91665472|NCT02055547|183224149|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) in Gmax after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.81|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.81|0.62|<0.001
91665473|NCT02055547|183224149|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125μg - MK-8521 35μg) in Gmax after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.89|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.89|0.69|0.004
91665474|NCT01986647|183224161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2691|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.2691
91665475|NCT01986647|183224162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6087|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.6087
91714265|NCT01656395|183320230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.376||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.326|0.575|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 30 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.575|-1.326|0.437
91714266|NCT01656395|183320230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|0.423|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 60 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.423|-1.504|0.270
91665476|NCT01986647|183224163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.0022
91665477|NCT01986647|183224164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0344|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.0344
91665478|NCT01986647|183224165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.49|0.6879
91665479|NCT01986647|183224166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.88||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.56|0.5719
91665480|NCT01986647|183224167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.53|0.44|0.489
91665481|NCT01986647|183224168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|26.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.6|0.37|0.2981
91665482|NCT01986647|183224169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|0.30|0.9279
91665483|NCT01986647|183224170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.06|0.67|0.5835
91665484|NCT01986647|183224171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
91665485|NCT01986647|183224172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
91665486|NCT01986647|183224173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
91665487|NCT01986647|183224174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91665488|NCT01986647|183224175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
91665489|NCT01986647|183224176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.95|0.29|0.0324
91665490|NCT02003391|183224185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6191|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-3.8503|||ANCOVA|||||-3.8503||<0.0001
91665491|NCT03930849|183224269|OTHER||F-value for Type 3 Fixed, df=4|2.01||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for F-value reported below of group x time term in a mixed methods analysis.||||||0.10
91665492|NCT03930849|183224270|SUPERIORITY||F statistic GroupxTime, df=4|0.025||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for F-value reported below of group x time analysis in a mixed methods analysis.||||||0.90
91665493|NCT03930849|183224271|SUPERIORITY||F Value Group x Time, DF=4|2.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value of F statistic reported below for mixed methods analysis group\*time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91665494|NCT02488109|183224272|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Changes in rates of clinical remission by group over time in the mITT model.|Regression, Linear|Clinical remission was modeled as a nominal multinomial outcome (yes, no, or missing)||The study was powered to detect a difference in 12-months clinical remission rates between groups. N = 60 per arm with 85% retention would provide 80% power on a 2-sided 0.05-level test to detect a 20% difference between groups in 12-months clinical remission rates. A generalized linear mixed-effects regression model was used to compare study arms with respect to achievement and maintenance of clinical remission.||||0.42
91858419|NCT02605837|183600877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|91.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.687|1483.68|||Firth logistic regression|||Overall binary response I at the final treatment period was performed based on firth logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||1483.680|5.687|0.001
91665495|NCT02488109|183224273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.53||Survival analysis of time to medical stability by log-rank test, which does not assume proportional hazards. Those who did not reach medical stability before hospital discharge were censored; analyses accounted for the site effect by stratification.|Survival analysis with log rank test|Compared time to achieve medical stability by arm; participants who did not meet stability criteria by hospital discharge were right-censored||This trial was powered at 0.80 to detect a 12% to 20% difference in restored medical stability at 0.05 type I error and correlation between time points from 0.1 to 1.||2.53|1.10|0.01
91665496|NCT02488109|183224274|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|19.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cost outcomes of group differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated.||28,819|9,293|0.002
91792162|NCT01848782|183462172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.5|0.8
91792163|NCT01848782|183462173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.4|0.6
91858420|NCT02605837|183600878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|61.68||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.836|991.858|||Firth logistic regression|||Overall binary response II at the final treatment period was perfomed based on based on firth logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||991.858|3.836|0.004
91665497|NCT03969641|183224278|NON_INFERIORITY|This objective will be assessed using a one-sided noninferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 (1-sided) and a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Proportions (RIV4 - IIV4)|-0.0214|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.0406|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The upper bound of a Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used, stratified by site.|The directional comparison was the upper bound of the confidence interval using a 10% noninferiority margin.|The null hypothesis assumes that RIV4 is inferior (i.e., RIV4 will have a higher proportion) to IIV4 in regards to the proportion of pregnant women with adverse birth outcomes.||0.0406||<0.0001
91665498|NCT03969641|183224279|SUPERIORITY|This proportion was compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level. The site adjusted odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the proportion of preterm birth was also calculated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.48|||Mantel Haenszel|||Preterm birth||1.48|0.35|0.4645
91665499|NCT03969641|183224280|SUPERIORITY|These proportions were compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level. The site adjusted odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the proportions of combined fetal death and neonatal death was also calculated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.00000031||||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of this CI is infinity, thus no numeric value can be provided.||Mantel Haenszel|||Fetal or neonatal death|||0.00|0.2447
91665500|NCT03969641|183224281|SUPERIORITY|This proportion was compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level. The site adjusted odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the proportion of spontaneous abortion after vaccination was also calculated. This was a subgroup analysis of only those participants vaccinated at less than 20 weeks gestational age.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.6235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.47|||Mantel Haenszel|||Spontaneous abortion||5.47|0.04|0.6235
91665501|NCT03969641|183224282|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.5|||Mantel Haenszel|||Injection Site Pain||2.50|0.55|0.7029
91901995|NCT04908189|183698881|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.801||0.8316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|3.15|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Absenteeism||3.15|-3.91|0.8316
91665502|NCT03969641|183224282|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.6217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.52|||Mantel Haenszel|||Injection Site Redness||22.52|0.18|0.6217
91665503|NCT03969641|183224282|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.3848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.39|||Mantel Haenszel|||Injection Site Tenderness||1.39|0.35|0.3848
91665504|NCT03969641|183224282|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.35|||Mantel Haenszel|||Nausea||1.35|0.21|0.2504
91665505|NCT03969641|183224282|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.93|||Mantel Haenszel|||Vomiting||1.93|0.20|0.5751
91858421|NCT02605837|183600879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-6.41||||0.004||95.0|-10.757|-2.063|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline DSQ + Pain score as a continuous covariate.||-2.063|-10.757|0.004
91665506|NCT03969641|183224282|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.19|||Mantel Haenszel|||Diarrhea||3.19|0.32|1.0000
91665507|NCT03969641|183224282|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.04|||Mantel Haenszel|||Abdominal Pain||3.04|0.21|1.0000
91901996|NCT04908189|183698881|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.827||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|0.63|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Presenteeism||0.63|-6.54|0.1060
91858422|NCT02605837|183600880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-2.46||||0.002||95.0|-4.018|-0.909|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline DSQ Pain score as a continuous covariate.||-0.909|-4.018|0.002
91858423|NCT04491968|183600897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||proportional hazard regression|||||.90|.37|.02
91665508|NCT03969641|183224282|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.13|||Mantel Haenszel|||Headache||1.13|0.25|0.1326
91792164|NCT01848782|183462174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.6|0.8
91792165|NCT01848782|183462175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.0|0.2
91665509|NCT03969641|183224282|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.04|||Mantel Haenszel|||Chills/Shivering||5.04|0.20|1.0000
91665510|NCT03969641|183224282|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of this CI is infinity, thus no numeric value can be provided.||Mantel Haenszel|||Body Rash|||0.00|1.0000
91665511|NCT03969641|183224282|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.15|||Mantel Haenszel|||Malaise (Fatigue)||2.15|0.39|1.0000
91665512|NCT03969641|183224282|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.48|||Mantel Haenszel|||Myalgia (Body Aches)||2.48|0.31|1.0000
91665513|NCT03969641|183224282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.29|||Mantel Haenszel|||Joint Pain||2.29|0.22|0.7704
91665514|NCT02906813|183224308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|0.631||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.411|0.969|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 Cmax with fixed factors of sequence, period and regimen, and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative bioavailability (BA) of TAK-935 tablet to solution. Point estimate and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||0.969|0.411|0.079
91665515|NCT02906813|183224308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.403||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.262|0.618|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 Cmax with fixed factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 administered after high-fat meal versus fasted. Point estimate and its 90% confidence interval in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||0.618|0.262|0.002
91665516|NCT02906813|183224309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.85||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.706|1.024|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUCt with fixed factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 tablet to solution. Point estimate and 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.024|0.706|0.146
91665517|NCT02906813|183224309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.889||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.738|1.07|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUCt with factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 administered after high-fat meal versus fasted. Point estimate and its 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.070|0.738|0.281
91665518|NCT02906813|183224310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.842||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.676|1.05|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUC∞ with fixed factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 tablet to solution. Point estimate and 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.050|0.676|0.191
91665519|NCT02906813|183224310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.894||||0.355||90.0|0.726|1.1|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUC∞ with factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 administered after high-fat meal versus fasted. Point estimate and its 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.100|0.726|0.355
91665520|NCT02466087|183224319|OTHER||diiference in differences|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||
91665521|NCT00557245|183224322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.56||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Placebo arm is the reference group.|We used Cox regression stratified according to site, to estimate the relative rates of time to first positive HIV-1 serologic test.||0.56|0.19|<0.001
91665522|NCT00557245|183224322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.45||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Placebo arm is the reference group.|We used Cox regression stratified according to site, to estimate the relative rates of time to first positive HIV-1 serologic test.||0.45|0.13|<0.001
91665523|NCT00557245|183224323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91665524|NCT00557245|183224323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.89
91665525|NCT00557245|183224327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, with logistic link and robust standard errors to adjust for individual correlation over time.||||||0.24
91665526|NCT00557245|183224327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, with logistic link and robust standard errors to adjust for individual correlation over time.||||||0.49
91792166|NCT00708201|183462178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.773|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.359|2.311|||Wald's Chi-Square|||||2.311|1.359|<0.0001
91858424|NCT04491968|183600898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.96|||proportional hazard regression|||||.96|.18|.04
91858425|NCT05656911|183600915|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|18.0|||||Posterior probability is 34.0%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||18.0|-29.0|
91864314|NCT04909801|183617742|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.9||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||3.6|0.9|0.0739
91858426|NCT05656911|183600916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.31||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|30.87||two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||LS mean (%)|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment group as fixed effect and the EASI baseline value as covariate.||30.87|-8.26|0.257
91665527|NCT00557245|183224328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, logistic link, with robust standard errors.||||||0.32
91665528|NCT00557245|183224328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, logistic link, with robust standard errors.||||||0.66
91665529|NCT00557245|183224329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations with logistic link to account for multiple pregnancies and multiple births||||||0.51
91665530|NCT00557245|183224329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|generalized estimating equations with logistic link to account for multiple pregnancies and multiple births||||||0.86
91665531|NCT00557245|183224330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed-effects model||||||0.42
91665532|NCT00557245|183224330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope Difference over time|0.07||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model|Placebo arm is the reference group.|||||0.08
91665533|NCT00557245|183224331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||0.02
91665534|NCT00557245|183224331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||<0.001
91665535|NCT00557245|183224332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||0.35
91665536|NCT00557245|183224332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||0.008
91665537|NCT01851876|183224345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
91665538|NCT01630616|183224417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Adolescents/adults)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.26||||||||1.26|0.62|
91665539|NCT01630616|183224418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Adolescents/Adults)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.23||||||||1.23|0.62|
91665540|NCT01630616|183224419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Adolescents/Adults)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.16||||||||1.16|0.57|
91665541|NCT02725515|183224422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|32.6|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test P-val|||||32.6|-6.6|0.1830
91858427|NCT05656911|183600917|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|22.1|||||Posterior probability is 41.7%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||22.1|-27.0|
91665542|NCT02725515|183224423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|37.3|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test P-val|||||37.3|-3.7|0.1075
91665543|NCT02725515|183224424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.30|0.0252
91665544|NCT03428750|183224469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.006
91665545|NCT03428750|183224470|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91665546|NCT03428750|183224471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.001
91665547|NCT03428750|183224472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91665548|NCT03428750|183224473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91665549|NCT03428750|183224474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91665550|NCT03428750|183224475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|With factors of treatment group and analysis center adjusted for baseline values in the model||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91665551|NCT03428750|183224476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91665552|NCT03428750|183224477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91665553|NCT01919112|183224493|OTHER|Regression models using interaction terms will used to assess for heterogeneity of intervention effects across the novel radiological variable corticobulbar tract (CBT)-lesion load, a combined measure of lesion size and location. For purposes of the analysis, the CBT-lesion load was dichotomized into 2 groups based on the median CBT-lesion load volume.||||||0.116||||||Interaction p-values will be considered statistically significant at the 0.15 level of significance given the relatively low power for tests of interaction to detect a true interaction.|2-way analysis of variance with interact|The tDCS intervention was the main variable of interest, PAS score the main outcome and CBT-lesion load was the interaction term used.||The aim for this analysis was to assess for effect modification of the trial intervention across the novel radiological variable corticobulbar tract-lesion load.||||0.116
91665554|NCT02944617|183224495|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91665555|NCT02944617|183224497|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.077
91665556|NCT00835666|183224498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5||||||90.0|92.6|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105|92.6|
91665557|NCT00835666|183224499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.2||||||90.0|94.7|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|94.7|
91665558|NCT00835666|183224500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.4||||||90.0|94.9|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|94.9|
91792167|NCT00708201|183462179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-11.5|||Log Rank|||||-11.5|-37.8|<0.001
91864315|NCT04909801|183617742|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.4201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.6|0.7|0.4201
91665559|NCT00506831|183224577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the mRSS is not significantly different at month 6 compared with baseline. Paired t-test was used to compare the mean mRSS at month 6 compared with baseline.||||0.005
91665560|NCT00095784|183224596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|5 degrees of freedom test over six time points: day 1 (pre-treatment) and days 5, 12, 43, 47, and 54 post treatment.||Mixed effects regression analysis of change over time in CD34+ cell levels. Analysis performed on log scale.||||<0.0001
91665561|NCT00095784|183224602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|5 degrees of freedom test over six time points: day 1 (pre-treatment) and days 5, 12, 43, 47, and 54 post treatment.||Mixed effects regression analysis of change over time in CXCR4 levels. Analysis performed on log scale.||||0.29
91665562|NCT00095784|183224608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|5 degrees of freedom test over six time points: day 1 (pre-treatment) and days 5, 12, 43, 47, and 54 post treatment.||Mixed effects regression analysis of change over time in hemoglobin F levels.||||0.99
91665563|NCT00608322|183224618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91665564|NCT00835614|183224665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|90.9||||||90.0|87.5|94.4|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||94.4|87.5|
91665565|NCT00835614|183224666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.1||||||90.0|90.3|93.9|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||93.9|90.3|
91792168|NCT00708201|183462180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-9.9|||Log Rank|||||-9.9|-35.0|<0.001
91665566|NCT00835614|183224667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.2||||||90.0|90.4|94.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||94|90.4|
91858428|NCT05656911|183600918|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|13.4|||||Posterior probability is 31.5%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||13.4|-25.6|
91665567|NCT00985439|183224737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.643|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.195|16.619|||ANCOVA|||||16.619|6.195|<0.001
91665568|NCT05143801|183224776|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental conditions.||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.003
91665569|NCT05143801|183224776|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.933||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.933
91665570|NCT05143801|183224776|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.|No Method of Estimation was used|||||0.344||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.344
91665571|NCT05143801|183224777|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental conditions.||||||0.117||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed to investigate statistical differences for all variables across the four conditions. Both main and interaction effects were calculated along with effect size, reported as partial ⴄ2 as provided by the statistical software JASP (version 0.14.1.0).||||0.117
91665572|NCT05143801|183224777|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition||||||0.832||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.832
91665573|NCT05143801|183224777|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.879||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.879
91714267|NCT01656395|183320230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.839|0.997|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 150 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.997|-0.839|0.865
91665574|NCT05143801|183224778|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.749||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.749
91665575|NCT05143801|183224778|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.311||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.311
91665576|NCT05143801|183224778|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.368||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.368
91792169|NCT00708201|183462181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91665577|NCT05143801|183224779|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.789||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.789
91665578|NCT05143801|183224779|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.739||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.739
91665579|NCT05143801|183224779|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.158||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.158
91665580|NCT05143801|183224780|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.394||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.394
91665581|NCT05143801|183224780|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition||||||0.157||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.157
91665582|NCT05143801|183224780|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.015||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.015
91792170|NCT00708201|183462182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.71|||Fisher Exact||This is the relative risk for being a responder (alvimopan/placebo).|||1.71|1.12|<0.01
91665583|NCT05143801|183224781|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.96||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.960
91665584|NCT05143801|183224781|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.073||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.073
91665585|NCT05143801|183224781|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.503||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.503
91665586|NCT05143801|183224782|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.786||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.786
91665587|NCT05143801|183224782|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.18||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.180
91665588|NCT05143801|183224782|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.239||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.239
91665589|NCT05143801|183224783|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.134||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.134
91665590|NCT05143801|183224783|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.621||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.621
91665591|NCT05143801|183224783|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.553||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.553
91665592|NCT05143801|183224784|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.461||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.461
91665593|NCT05143801|183224784|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.877||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.877
91665594|NCT05143801|183224784|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.919||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.919
91665595|NCT05143801|183224785|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.466||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.466
91665596|NCT05143801|183224785|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.186||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.186
91665597|NCT05143801|183224785|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.08||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.080
91665598|NCT05143801|183224786|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.375||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.375
91665599|NCT05143801|183224786|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.178||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.178
91665600|NCT05143801|183224786|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.533||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.533
91665601|NCT05143801|183224787|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.29||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.290
91714268|NCT01656395|183320230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.309||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.219|0.6|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: Montelukast vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.600|-1.219|0.503
91665602|NCT05143801|183224787|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.527||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.527
91665603|NCT05143801|183224787|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.045||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.045
91665604|NCT05143801|183224788|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.018||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2x3 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.018
91665605|NCT05143801|183224788|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2x3 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91665606|NCT05143801|183224788|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.035||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2x3 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.035
91792171|NCT00708201|183462183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-20.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo|Statistical analysis for overall POM is presented.||||<0.001
91665607|NCT05143801|183224789|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91665608|NCT05143801|183224789|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.678||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.678
91665609|NCT05143801|183224789|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect||||||0.678|||||||2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.678
91665610|NCT05143801|183224790|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91665611|NCT05143801|183224790|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.487||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.487
91665612|NCT05143801|183224790|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.79||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.790
91665613|NCT05143801|183224791|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.089||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.089
91665614|NCT05143801|183224791|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.297||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.297
91665615|NCT05143801|183224791|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.111||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.111
91665616|NCT05143801|183224792|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.024||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.024
91665617|NCT05143801|183224792|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.002||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.002
91858429|NCT05656911|183600919|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|7.0|||||Posterior probability is 10.8%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||7.0|-34.1|
91858430|NCT05656911|183600920|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.06||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|17.03||two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment group as fixed effect and the EASI baseline value as covariate.||17.03|-2.92|0.166
91858431|NCT05656911|183600921|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|11.0|||||Posterior probability is 20.5%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||11.0|-30.4|
91858432|NCT05656911|183600923|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.68||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|22.11||two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment group as fixed effect and the EASI baseline value as covariate.||22.11|-8.75|0.396
91858433|NCT03547908|183600925|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 240 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2 treatment groups, achieved 90% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 12% between the 2 treatment groups. For the sample size and power computation, it is assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 91% (based on Gilead Studies GS-US-380-1489 and GS-US-380-1490), that the non-inferiority margin is 12%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.5|10.8|||||The difference in percentages of participants between groups and their 95.001% confidence intervals (CI)s were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||10.8|-2.5|
91665618|NCT05143801|183224792|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.014||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.014
91665619|NCT05143801|183224793|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.012||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.012
91858434|NCT03547908|183600925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2113|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).||||||0.2113
91858435|NCT03547908|183600926|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 240 participants provided 81% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 12% between the 2 treatment groups. This assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 88% (based on Gilead Studies GS-US-320-0108 and GS-US-320-0110), that the non-inferiority margin is 12%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|5.9|27.3|||||||The difference in percentages of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL between treatment groups and its 95.001% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|27.3|5.9|
91858436|NCT03547908|183600926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was from CMH test stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).||||||0.0023
91858437|NCT03547908|183600927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-0.3||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|8.3||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||8.3|-8.9|0.9427
91864316|NCT04909801|183617742|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||2.0|0.6|0.7928
91665620|NCT05143801|183224793|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.893||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.893
91714269|NCT02318849|183320235|SUPERIORITY||Change in percentage|0.09||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The anaylsis was adjusted for student characteristics.||The null hypothesis was that the of number students who report being a donor (or talking to parents about organ donation) both before and after exposure to the intervention would be equivalent. A secondary null hypothesis would be that longer expsosures to the intervention over time would not increase the number who report becoming a donor at the final assessment.||||0.009
91665621|NCT05143801|183224793|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.969||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.969
91665622|NCT01252953|183224794|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.85|0.004
91665623|NCT01252953|183224795|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1|0.86|0.052
91665624|NCT01252953|183224796|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12||In accordance with the data analysis plan, if the outcome of a major atherosclerotic event did not reach significance, there was no hypothesis testing for presumed ischemic stroke, so no P value is given.||||||1.12|0.87|
91665625|NCT01252953|183224797|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.88|0.02
91665626|NCT00101439|183224804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.89||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.08||Data were back-transformed from the log scale and adjusted for treatment|ANOVA||GMR=Ezetimibe divided by placebo|||1.08|0.73|0.241
91665627|NCT00101439|183224805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.02||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||Data were back-transformed from the log scale and adjusted for treatment|ANOVA||GMR=Ezetimibe divided by placebo|||1.20|0.87|0.812
91665628|NCT02272803|183224825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.67|||||Hazard Ratio of E-Ld to Ld. Stratified by stage of disease (International Staging System 1 - 2 vs 3)|||1.67|0.41|
91665629|NCT03067987|183224828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.007
91665630|NCT03067987|183224829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0006
91665631|NCT00829764|183224847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|93.52||||||90.0|88.49|98.83|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.83|88.49|
91665632|NCT00829764|183224848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.75||||||90.0|93.98|101.67|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.67|93.98|
91665633|NCT00829764|183224849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.46||||||90.0|94.78|102.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.28|94.78|
91665634|NCT00183196|183224859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|0.997|||Regression, Cox|||||.997|.281|
91665635|NCT00183196|183224859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Cox|percent heavy drinking days at baseline was used as a covariate in the analysis as it was a predictor of overall survival independent of group.||||||0.04
91665636|NCT00385736|183224860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||The primary endpoint analysis was carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues induced by the two adalimumab groups being compared to placebo and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.031
91665637|NCT00385736|183224860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||The primary endpoint analysis was carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues induced by the two adalimumab groups being compared to placebo and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.833
91665638|NCT00385736|183224861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.107
91665639|NCT00385736|183224862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.382
91714270|NCT02318849|183320236|SUPERIORITY||Change in percentage|0.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.10
91665640|NCT00385736|183224863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.038
91665641|NCT00385736|183224864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.035
91665642|NCT00385736|183224865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.080
91665643|NCT00385736|183224866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.264
91665644|NCT00385736|183224867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.526
91665645|NCT00385736|183224868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.506
91665646|NCT00385736|183224869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.264
91665647|NCT00385736|183224870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.797
91665648|NCT00385736|183224871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.614||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.614
91665649|NCT00385736|183224872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.532
91665650|NCT06078501|183224893|OTHER|||||||0.695||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.695
91665651|NCT06078501|183224894|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.||||||0.91
91864317|NCT04909801|183617743|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.3|0.4|0.2701
91665652|NCT06078501|183224895|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91665653|NCT06078501|183224896|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91665654|NCT06078501|183224897|OTHER|||||||0.887||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.887
91665655|NCT06078501|183224898|OTHER|||||||0.887||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.887
91665656|NCT06078501|183224900|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91665657|NCT06078501|183224901|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||1.0
91665658|NCT06078501|183224902|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91665659|NCT03602339|183224903|NON_INFERIORITY|"The score to evaluate the non-inferiority is calculated for each subject as (combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced - unenhanced) - 0.8\*(combined unenhanced/gadoterate-enhanced - unenhanced). The 95% CI is based on a t-distribution. The non-inferiority for gadobutrol is achieved if the one-sided p-value for H0: (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - 0.8\*(gadoterate minus unenhanced) ≤ 0 is lower than 0.025."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.455|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|0.562||No type I error adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed because tests on all 3 primary efficacy variables must be significant to demonstrate primary efficacy.|Paired t-test|||Difference (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - (gadoterate minus unenhanced)||0.562|0.347|< 0.0001
91665660|NCT03602339|183224904|NON_INFERIORITY|"The score to evaluate the non-inferiority is calculated for each subject as (combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced - unenhanced) - 0.8\*(combined unenhanced/gadoterate-enhanced - unenhanced). The 95% CI is based on a t-distribution. The non-inferiority for gadobutrol is achieved if the one-sided p-value for H0: (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - 0.8\*(gadoterate minus unenhanced) ≤ 0 is lower than 0.025."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||=|0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.342||No type I error adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed because tests on all 3 primary efficacy variables must be significant to demonstrate primary efficacy.|Paired t-test|||Difference (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - (gadoterate minus unenhanced)||0.342|0.017|= 0.0151
91665661|NCT03602339|183224905|NON_INFERIORITY|"The score to evaluate the non-inferiority is calculated for each subject as (combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced - unenhanced) - 0.8\*(combined unenhanced/gadoterate-enhanced - unenhanced). The 95% CI is based on a t-distribution. The non-inferiority for gadobutrol is achieved if the one-sided p-value for H0: (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - 0.8\*(gadoterate minus unenhanced) ≤ 0 is lower than 0.025."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.275||No type I error adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed because tests on all 3 primary efficacy variables must be significant to demonstrate primary efficacy.|Paired t-test|||Difference (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - (gadoterate minus unenhanced)||0.275|0.024|= 0.0100
91665662|NCT03602339|183224906|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.35. If the lower limit of the 95% CI is \> -0.35, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.176||||||Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||0.176|-0.030|
91665663|NCT03602339|183224907|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%, if the lower limit of the confidence interval \> -10%, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||||The 95% confidence intervals are based on McNemar's test.|Accuracy Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||3.40|-3.40|
91864318|NCT04909801|183617743|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.5|0.4863
91665664|NCT03602339|183224907|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%, if the lower limit of the confidence interval \> -10%, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|5.22|||||The 95% confidence intervals are based on McNemar's test.|Sensitivity Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||5.22|-5.22|
91665665|NCT03602339|183224907|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%, if the lower limit of the confidence interval \> -10%, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The 95% confidence intervals are based on McNemar's test. No continuity correction for calculation of the confidence interval was included. Zero cells lead to degenerated confidence interval.|Specificity Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||0.00|0.00|
91665666|NCT03602339|183224908|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.14||||||Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||0.140|0.011|
91665667|NCT03602339|183224909|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Comparison of image quality between gadobutrol and gadoterate||0.11|-0.10|0.9149
91665668|NCT03602339|183224910|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03491|-0.00445||||||Difference (Gadobutrol-Gadoterate) for Relative score||-0.00445|-0.03491|
91665669|NCT03602339|183224910|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00586|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00589|0.01762||||||Difference (Gadobutrol-Gadoterate) for Full image score||0.01762|-0.00589|
91665670|NCT03602339|183224910|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00471|0.00749||||||Difference (Gadobutrol-Gadoterate) for Dice score||0.00749|-0.00471|
91665671|NCT03602339|183224912|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was calculated using the two one-sided t-tests (TOST) procedure with null hypotheses H01: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≤ -0.05 \* (gadoterate), and H02: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≥ +0.05 \* (gadoterate).||||||0.0049||||||The overall p-value was calculated as max(p1, p2) where p1 and p2 are the results of null hypotheses H01 and H02 respectively.|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST)|||||||0.0049
91665672|NCT03602339|183224913|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was calculated using the two one-sided t-tests (TOST) procedure with null hypotheses H01: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≤ -0.05 \* (gadoterate) and H02: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≥ +0.05 \* (gadoterate).||||||0.0013||||||The overall p-value was calculated as max(p1, p2) where p1 and p2 are the results of null hypotheses H01 and H02 respectively.|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST)|||||||0.0013
91665673|NCT03602339|183224914|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was calculated using the two one-sided t-tests (TOST) procedure with null hypotheses H01: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≤ -0.05 \* (gadoterate) and H02: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≥ +0.05 \* (gadoterate).||||||0.0065||||||The overall p-value was calculated as max(p1, p2) where p1 and p2 are the results of null hypotheses H01 and H02 respectively.|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST)|||||||0.0065
91858438|NCT03547908|183600928|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|24.0||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|58.0|||ANOVA|The p-value was calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||58|-10|0.1701
91858439|NCT03547908|183600929|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|30.0||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|74.0||P-value was from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||74|-14|0.1853
91665674|NCT00829452|183224924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.03||||||90.0|89.11|103.49|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.49|89.11|
91792172|NCT00708201|183462184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|27.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo|Statistical analysis for day of surgery (Day 0) through PSD 7 is presented.||||<0.0001
91665675|NCT00829452|183224925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.34||||||90.0|90.82|100.09|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.09|90.82|
91665676|NCT00829452|183224926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.98||||||90.0|92.73|101.42|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.42|92.73|
91665677|NCT00829452|183224927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.78||||||90.0|89.34|109.23|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||109.23|89.34|
91665678|NCT00829452|183224928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.59||||||90.0|94.62|100.66|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.66|94.62|
91665679|NCT02615249|183224929|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.58||||||Comparison between 0.12 mg/cm2 copper sulfate and copper sulfate 2% in petrolatum||0.58|-0.01|
91665680|NCT02615249|183224929|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.66||||||Comparison between 0.24 mg/cm2 manganese chloride and manganese chloride 2% in petrolatum||0.66|0.24|
91665681|NCT02615249|183224929|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.38|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.33 mg/cm2 tin chloride vs 1% tin chloride in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison between 0.33 mg/cm2 tin chloride and tin chloride 1% in petrolatum||0.38|0.07|
91665682|NCT02615249|183224929|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.65|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.22 mg Ti/cm2 ammonium titanium oxide oxalate vs 19% ammonium titanium oxide oxalate in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison between 0.22 mg Ti/cm2 ammonium titanium oxide oxalate and ammnium titanium oxide oxalate 19% in petrolatum||0.65|0.15|
91665683|NCT02615249|183224929|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.73|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.050 mg V/cm2 vanadium sulfate vs 1.5% vanadium sulfate in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison between 0.050 mg/cm2 vanadium sulfate and vanadium sulfate 1.5% in petrolatum||0.73|0.30|
91665684|NCT02615249|183224929|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.38|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.24 mg/cm2 zinc chloride vs 2% zinc chloride in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison betweenm 0.24 mg/cm2 zinc chloride and zinc chloride 2% in petrolatum||0.38|0.07|
91665685|NCT01087502|183224976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.60|<0.0001
91665686|NCT01087502|183224978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.1602||95.0|-22.28|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-22.28|0.1602
91792173|NCT00708201|183462185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo|Statistical analysis for day of surgery (Day 0) through PSD 7 is presented.||||<0.0001
91665687|NCT01151618|183224984|OTHER|"Sensitivity and Specificity of values with respect to the Mead Whittenberger method were computed as follows (FL=flow limited and NFL = Non Flow limited):~Sensitivity = (# of FL breaths detected by FOT / # of FL breaths detected by M\&W) \* 100 Specificity =(# of NFL breaths detected by FOT / # of NFL breaths detected by M\&W) \* 100"|DeltaXrs (cmH2O*s/L)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|100.0|||||DeltaXrs equals average inspiratory reactance minus average expiratory reactance.|||100|0|
91665688|NCT03105297|183225079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147||95.0||||p-value for comparing between treatments (strip/no strip) were computed from mixed models with treatment \& period as fixed effects, participants as random effects \& time as repeated measures effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0147
91665689|NCT03105297|183225080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-values are from a one sample t-test using SAS UNIVARIATE on change from baseline.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91665690|NCT03105297|183225081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-values are from a one sample t-test using SAS UNIVARIATE on change from baseline.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91665691|NCT03105297|183225082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073||95.0||||p-values are from a one sample t-test using SAS (Statistical Analysis System) UNIVARIATE on change from baseline.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0073
91665692|NCT00714051|183225105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The number of participants who fell on the tripping trial in each group were compared using Chi-square analysis||||0.45
91665693|NCT01390948|183225130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||Log Rank|||||2.30|0.90|0.1292
91665694|NCT05740098|183225161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.378|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.278|12.689|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effects of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||12.689|2.278|<0.001
91792174|NCT00708201|183462186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-6.94||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|0.62|||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo.|||0.62|-14.5|0.0946
91665695|NCT05740098|183225161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.668||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.538|8.747|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effects of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||8.747|1.538|0.003
91665696|NCT05740098|183225161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.682||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|1.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effects of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||1.321|0.352|0.256
91665697|NCT05740098|183225161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of time on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||||<0.001
91665698|NCT05740098|183225162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.287|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.287
91665699|NCT05740098|183225162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.108
91665700|NCT05740098|183225162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.007
91665701|NCT05740098|183225162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of time on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.878
91665702|NCT05740098|183225163|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|6.909||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on continuous abstinence at 24 weeks following quit date||||0.009
91665703|NCT05740098|183225163|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|4.287||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on continuous abstinence at 24 weeks following quit date||||0.038
91665704|NCT05740098|183225163|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.392||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on continuous abstinence at 24 weeks following quit date||||0.531
91665705|NCT05740098|183225164|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|3.859||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 2||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 48-week follow-up||||0.145
91665706|NCT05740098|183225165|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|1.454||||0.228|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 6-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.228
91665707|NCT05740098|183225165|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|2.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 12-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.10
91864319|NCT04909801|183617743|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.7|0.6|0.9513
91864320|NCT04909801|183617743|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.8|0.6|0.8536
91665708|NCT05740098|183225165|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|3.202||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 24-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.074
91665709|NCT05740098|183225165|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.491||||0.484|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 48-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.484
91665710|NCT05740098|183225166|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|1.063||||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 6-weeks following quit date||||0.302
91665711|NCT05740098|183225166|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.788||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 12-weeks following quit date||||0.375
91858440|NCT03547908|183600930|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|0.59||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.67|||ANOVA|The p-value was calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||1.67|-0.49|0.2839
91858441|NCT03547908|183600931|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.13||||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.46||P-value was from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||1.46|-1.20|0.8456
91858442|NCT03547908|183600932|SUPERIORITY|P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL between treatment groups was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|Difference in Percentages|2.6||||0.6367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in percentages of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).||13.4|-8.3|0.6367
91858443|NCT03547908|183600933|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|17.1||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated from CMH tests stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|The difference in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|||35.7|-1.5|0.0655
91858444|NCT03547908|183600934|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.1||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs \>= 8 log10 IU/mL).|Difference in the proportion between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs \>= 8 log10 IU/mL).|||32.6|-4.3|0.1253
91858445|NCT03547908|183600935|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.1||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative)and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|Difference in the percentages between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|||15.0|-0.8|0.0591
91858446|NCT03547908|183600936|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|9.3||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|19.2||P value was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL). Statistically significant values are shown in bold.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|||19.2|-0.7|0.0655
91665712|NCT05740098|183225166|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.08||||0.777|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 24-weeks following quit date||||0.777
91665713|NCT05740098|183225166|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.006||||0.937|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 48-weeks following quit date||||0.937
91858447|NCT02349412|183600950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|7.13|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline FACT-G score||||7.13|-0.67|0.104
91858448|NCT02349412|183600951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|7.77|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline FACT-G score||||7.77|-1.54|0.188
91858449|NCT02349412|183600952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.09|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline HADS-Depression score||||2.09|-0.94|0.884
91858450|NCT02349412|183600953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.07|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline HADS-Anxiety score||||-0.07|-1.54|0.033
91858451|NCT02349412|183600954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91858452|NCT00567398|183600962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Month 3||0.9|0.2|<0.001
91858453|NCT00567398|183600962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Month 6||0.8|0.1|0.006
91858454|NCT00567398|183600963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|14.7|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 3||14.7|-4.7|0.312
91858455|NCT00567398|183600963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.4|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 6||14.4|-5.0|0.342
91858456|NCT00567398|183600965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 3||0.9|0.1|0.010
91858457|NCT00567398|183600965|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 6||0.7|0|0.073
91858458|NCT00567398|183600965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 3||0.5|-0.1|0.181
91858459|NCT00567398|183600965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 6||0.4|-0.2|0.593
91858460|NCT00567398|183600965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 3||0|-0.2|0.198
91858461|NCT00567398|183600965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 6||0|-0.1|0.298
91858462|NCT00567398|183600965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 3||0.6|0.2|<0.001
91858463|NCT00567398|183600965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 6||0.5|0.1|0.003
91858464|NCT00567398|183600965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 3||1.3|0.4|<0.001
91858465|NCT00567398|183600965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 6||1.1|0.3|0.002
91858466|NCT00567398|183600966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 3||4.1|-8.6|0.485
91858467|NCT00567398|183600966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 6||4.4|-8.2|0.556
91858468|NCT00567398|183600966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|12.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 3||12.2|-1.1|0.101
91858469|NCT00567398|183600966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 6||11.5|-1.5|0.134
91858470|NCT00567398|183600966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|19.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 3||19.2|3.6|0.004
91858471|NCT00567398|183600966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 6||15.9|0.8|0.030
91858472|NCT00567398|183600967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-304.6|191.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 3||191.7|-304.6|0.655
91858473|NCT00567398|183600967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.9|210.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 6||210.5|-268.9|0.811
91858474|NCT00567398|183600967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|441.3||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-630.4|1513.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 3||1513.1|-630.4|0.419
91858475|NCT00567398|183600967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|121.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.9|1171.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 6||1171.5|-927.9|0.820
91858476|NCT00567398|183600968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|19.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 3||19|-27.5|0.721
91858477|NCT00567398|183600968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|36.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 6||36.4|-9.4|0.247
91858478|NCT00567398|183600969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||ANOVA|||Estimates of Ratio-Month 6||1.43|0.55|0.624
91858479|NCT00567398|183600970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 3||1.8|-0.6|0.338
91858480|NCT00567398|183600970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 6||2.5|0.1|0.029
91792175|NCT01933789|183462200|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|1.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.446||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Bivariate model; there were no confounders.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.446|0.844|<0.001
91792176|NCT01933789|183462201|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|1.251|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.583||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Bivariate model; there were no confounders.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.583|0.920|<0.001
91792177|NCT01933789|183462202|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|1.381|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|1.715||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Bivariate model; there were no confounders.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.715|1.046|<0.001
91792178|NCT01933789|183462204|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.334||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.699||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the patient's treatment preference (focus on life extension vs. comfort care).|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Occurrence of goal-concordant care||0.699|-0.031|0.073
91792179|NCT01933789|183462205|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.481||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.877||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the patient's treatment preference (focus on life extension vs. comfort care).|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.877|0.085|0.017
91792180|NCT01933789|183462206|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|2.022||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|3.569||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the latent variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||3.569|0.476|0.010
91792181|NCT01933789|183462207|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.209||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|3.479||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about patient's feelings about getting sicker.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||3.479|0.939|0.001
91792182|NCT01933789|183462207|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|1.237||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.804||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about details of getting sicker.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||2.804|-0.330|0.122
91792183|NCT01933789|183462207|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.329||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|5.083||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline and clinician specialty.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about how long the patient might have to live.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||5.083|-0.426|0.098
91792184|NCT01933789|183462207|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|1.573||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.742|4.887||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Pts clustered under clins. Adjusted for outcome variable as measured at baseline: pt. minority status, education, income; clinician type \& specialty.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about what dying might be like.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||4.887|-1.742|0.352
91792185|NCT01933789|183462207|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|4.625|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|7.19||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about patient's involvement in end-of-life treatment decisions.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||7.190|2.060|<0.001
91792186|NCT01933789|183462207|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.404||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|3.909||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about things in life that are important to the patient.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||3.909|0.898|0.002
91792187|NCT01933789|183462207|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.455||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|5.159||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline and clinician type.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about patient's religious/spiritual beliefs.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||5.159|-0.250|0.075
91792188|NCT01933789|183462208|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|-0.103||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.122||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent depression variable and for the patient racial/ethnic minority status.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression - Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time.||0.122|-0.327|0.369
91858481|NCT00567398|183600970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 3||1.5|-1.9|0.817
91792189|NCT01933789|183462209|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.263||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.571|1.097||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered robust linear regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the PHQ-8 composite score.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression: standard PHQ-8 composite score.||1.097|-0.571|0.536
91792190|NCT01933789|183462210|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.208||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.461||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Pts clustered under clins. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent depression var; pt age, minority status, education, health status; clin specialty|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression: Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time||0.461|-0.044|0.106
91792191|NCT01933789|183462211|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.446||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|1.368||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered robust linear regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the PHQ-8 composite score and clinician specialty.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression: Standard PHQ-8 composite score||1.368|-0.476|0.343
91792192|NCT01933789|183462212|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|-0.034||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.163||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent anxiety variable.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of anxiety: Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time||0.163|-0.232|0.734
91858482|NCT00567398|183600970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 6||2.9|-0.2|0.091
91864321|NCT04909801|183617743|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.7|0.6|0.9223
91714271|NCT00676403|183320239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|37.3||||||95.0|0.1|157.7|||ED-50: Bootstrap Method||Non-convergence for the non-liner model occurred in some bootstrap samples which were not included in summarizing the ED50 distribution or confidence interval.|Dose response analysis ED 50: dose providing 50% of the maximal effect. Statistics were obtained from three parameter model Y = D + G\*exp(B\*dose) by bootstrapping 2000 data sets, where D = expected response of saturation (maximal effect), B = related to slope of the dose response mechanism (change in response relative to the change in dose), and D+G = expected response at zero dose.||157.7|0.1|
91858483|NCT00567398|183600971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 3||2.9|-23.3|0.127
91858484|NCT00567398|183600971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 6||-4.3|-16.4|<0.001
91858485|NCT00567398|183600971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.012
91858486|NCT00567398|183600971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 6||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
91858487|NCT00567398|183600972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 3||5.8|0.5|0.019
91858488|NCT00567398|183600972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 6||5.6|0.5|0.019
91858489|NCT00567398|183600973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 3||3.4|-3.9|0.884
91792193|NCT01933789|183462213|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|0.041||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|1.028||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Pts clustered under clins. Clustered Tobit regression because strong floor effect on composite score. Adjusted for baseline level of composite score.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of anxiety: Standard GAD-7 composite score||1.028|-0.946|0.935
91858490|NCT00567398|183600973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 6||4.3|-3|0.716
91858491|NCT00567398|183600974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 3||1.1|-1.2|0.961
91858492|NCT00567398|183600974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 6||1.5|-0.8|0.581
91858493|NCT00567398|183600975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Waist Circumference-Month 6||3.1|-3.7|0.871
91858494|NCT00567398|183600976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|25.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 3||25|-14.7|0.608
91858495|NCT00567398|183600976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 6||8.1|-11.5|0.731
91858496|NCT00567398|183600976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.5|598.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 3||598.1|-227.5|0.377
91858497|NCT00567398|183600976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.4|177.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 6||177.8|-214.4|0.854
91858498|NCT00567398|183600977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 3||0.07|-0.03|0.412
91858499|NCT00567398|183600977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 6||0.03|-0.07|0.485
91858500|NCT00567398|183600978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|8.93|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 3||8.93|-4.56|0.525
91858501|NCT00567398|183600978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|6.83|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 6||6.83|-6.79|0.995
91858502|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.91|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 3||3.91|-7.64|0.526
91858503|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 6||6.68|-5.01|0.779
91858504|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 3||2.04|-7.95|0.246
91858505|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|4.34|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 6||4.34|-5.78|0.780
91858506|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|6.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 3||6.04|-5.22|0.885
91858507|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|10.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 6||10.10|-1.28|0.128
91858508|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.54|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 3||6.54|-4.40|0.701
91858509|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.73|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 6||12.73|1.70|0.010
91901997|NCT04908189|183698881|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|1.05|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Work Productivity||1.05|-6.47|0.1578
91858510|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|5.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 3||5.03|-4.63|0.934
91858511|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|8.01|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 6||8.01|-1.75|0.209
91858512|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 3||8.68|-4.90|0.585
91858513|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|8.47|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 6||8.47|-5.22|0.641
91858514|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|3.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 3||3.90|-6.89|0.586
91858515|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|5.14|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 6||5.14|-5.79|0.906
91858516|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|4.75|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 3||4.75|-4.93|0.970
91858517|NCT00567398|183600979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|7.28|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 6||7.28|-2.52|0.340
91858518|NCT00567398|183600980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|96.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Subcutaneous Fat Volume-Month 6||96|-46.9|0.495
91858519|NCT00567398|183600980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|117.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Visceral Fat Volume-Month 6||117.8|-7|0.081
91858520|NCT00567398|183600981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Diastolic Volume-Month 6||31.9|-19.3|0.626
91858521|NCT00567398|183600981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|30.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Systolic Volume-Month 6||30.1|-14.5|0.486
91858522|NCT00567398|183600982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|23.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass with Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.4|-18.9|0.832
91858523|NCT00567398|183600982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass without Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.1|-18.3|0.820
91858524|NCT00567398|183600983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Ejection Fraction-Month 6||6.5|-6.9|0.955
91858525|NCT03517553|183600984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.999
91858526|NCT03517553|183600984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.768
91858527|NCT03517553|183600985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.869
91858528|NCT03517553|183600985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.813
91858529|NCT03517553|183600985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.978
91858530|NCT03517553|183600985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.731
91858531|NCT03517553|183600985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.703
91858532|NCT03517553|183600985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.909
91858533|NCT02201108|183600989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.2949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.113||Threshold for significance was \< 0.05.|Stratified Log-Rank test|P-value derived from log-rank test with stratification of region and pubertal status.|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional-hazards model with factors for treatment group, region, pubertal status, age, and number of relapses in the year prior to randomization as covariates and with robust variance estimation.|||1.113|0.388|0.2949
91858534|NCT02201108|183600991|OTHER||Relative risk ratio|0.511|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.762||||||||0.762|0.343|
91858535|NCT02201108|183600992|OTHER||Relative risk ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.983||||||||0.983|0.331|
91858536|NCT02201108|183600995|OTHER||Relative risk ratio|0.498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.836||||||||0.836|0.296|
91858537|NCT02201108|183601009|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.296|||||Hazard ratio estimated using a Cox proportional-hazards model using treatment group, region, pubertal status, age, and number of relapses in the year prior to randomisation as covariates and with robust variance estimation.|||1.296|0.37|
91858538|NCT04143061|183601019|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|6.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|11.08||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||11.08|2.03|
91858539|NCT04143061|183601019|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|21.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.82|25.8||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||25.80|17.82|
91858540|NCT04143061|183601019|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.43|14.89||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||14.89|7.43|
91858541|NCT04143061|183601019|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|14.47||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||14.47|7.86|
91665714|NCT05740098|183225166|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.172||||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 6-weeks following quit date||||0.678
91665715|NCT05740098|183225166|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|7.99||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant interaction between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and treatment condition for 6-week abstinence outcome||||0.018
91665716|NCT05740098|183225166|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.177||||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 12-weeks following quit date||||0.674
91792194|NCT01933789|183462214|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|-0.042||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|0.163||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent anxiety variable.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of anxiety: Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time||0.163|-0.247|0.689
91858542|NCT02991534|183601031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.152|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.152|1.030|.003
91901998|NCT04908189|183698881|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.719|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.22|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Activity Impairment||-4.22|-10.96|<0.0001
91665717|NCT05740098|183225166|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.646||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 24-weeks following quit date||||0.422
91858543|NCT02991534|183601032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.022|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.022|0.976|0.91
91858544|NCT02991534|183601033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.165|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.165|.959|.265
91714272|NCT00676403|183320239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|123.9||||||95.0|0.4|523.9|||ED 90: Bootstrap Method||Non-convergence for the non-liner model occurred in some bootstrap samples which were not included in summarizing the ED90 distribution or confidence interval.|Dose response analysis ED 90: dose providing 90% of the maximal effect. Statistics were obtained from three parameter model Y = D + G\*exp(B\*dose) by bootstrapping 2000 data sets, where D = expected response of saturation (maximal effect), B = related to slope of the dose response mechanism (change in response relative to the change in dose), and D+G = expected response at zero dose.||523.9|0.4|
91858545|NCT02991534|183601034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|1.022|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.022|1.002|0.015
91858546|NCT03144518|183601054|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.079||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.014|0.173||ANCOVA, controlling for pre-intervention levels|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, controlling for pre-intervention levels||VAS-Valence Scores||.173|.014|.005
91858547|NCT03144518|183601054|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta-Squared|0.04||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-intervention scores||VAS-Arousal Scores||.120|.000|.047
91858548|NCT03144518|183601054|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.096||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.022|0.196|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-intervention levels||Pictorial Scale||.196|.022|.002
91858549|NCT03144518|183601054|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.002||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.036|||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline levels||PANAS Positive Affect Scores||.036|.000|.697
91858550|NCT03144518|183601054|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.005||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.053|||ANCOVA|||PANAS Negative Affect Scores||.053|.000|.462
91858551|NCT03144518|183601057|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.001||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.031|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-intervention levels||||.031|.000|.806
91858552|NCT03144518|183601058|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.006||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.055|||ANCOVA|Controlling for Pre-Vaccination levels||4 Weeks A/Hong-Kong||.055|.000|.438
91858553|NCT03144518|183601058|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.004||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.051|||ANCOVA|controlling for pre-vaccination levels||A/Hong-Kong 16 Weeks Post-Vaccination||.051|.000|.516
91858554|NCT03144518|183601058|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.002||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.038|||ANCOVA|controlling for pre-vaccination levels||A/Michigan 4 weeks post-vaccination||.038|.000|.671
91858555|NCT03144518|183601058|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||A/Michigan 16 weeks post-vaccination||.000|.000|.980
91858556|NCT03144518|183601058|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.007||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.057|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||B/Brisbane 4 weeks post-vaccination||.057|.000|.409
91858557|NCT03144518|183601058|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.008||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.062|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||B/Brisbane 16 weeks post-vaccination||.062|.000|.377
91858558|NCT03144518|183601058|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.0||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.008|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||B/Phuket 4 weeks post-vaccination||.008|.000|.892
91858559|NCT03144518|183601058|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.007||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.058|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||||.058|.000|.426
91858560|NCT01989455|183601078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent ratio|73.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.83|77.56||||||||77.56|68.83|
91858561|NCT00632203|183601080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6995|||||||2-sided Exact Pearson Chi-square Test|||||||0.6995
91858562|NCT00999167|183601088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression adjusting for country|||||||0.0354
91858563|NCT00999167|183601089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0214||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0214
91858564|NCT00999167|183601090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.047||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.047
91858565|NCT00999167|183601091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Changes in the Total Index Score from Baseline and Day 56.||||0.0713
91858566|NCT00999167|183601091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Changes in the Total Index Score from Baseline and the Final Visit.||||0.2520
91858567|NCT00448669|183601092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Safety analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat cohort. Primary safety end points included the frequency of adverse clinical or laboratory events.||||0.003
91864322|NCT04909801|183617743|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.6|0.6|0.9026
91665718|NCT05740098|183225166|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.038||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 48-weeks following quit date||||0.846
91665719|NCT02452463|183225171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.107
91665720|NCT02452463|183225173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypotheses: OS distributions are equal||||0.75
91665721|NCT02452463|183225174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypotheses: PFS distributions are equal||||0.25
91665722|NCT02452463|183225175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.131
91665723|NCT02452463|183225176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.073
91665724|NCT02452463|183225177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.616
91665725|NCT02452463|183225177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Paired T-test|||Comparing change relative to baseline.||||0.183
91665726|NCT02452463|183225177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||paired T-test|||Evaluating change relative to baseline.||||0.203
91792195|NCT01933789|183462215|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|-0.105||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|0.995||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians. Clustered Tobit regression because of strong floor effect on composite score."|Clustered Tobit regression|Adjusted for baseline level of the GAD-7 composite score.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.995|-1.204|0.852
91858568|NCT00448669|183601093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Efficacy|62.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|83.4|||Regression, Cox|||The primary efficacy end point was the difference in the rates of HIV infection between participants assigned to receive TDF-FTC and those assigned to receive placebo. The primary hypothesis was that TDF-FTC, as compared with placebo, would reduce the rate of HIV infection by at least 65%, with a predefined lower boundary for the 95% confidence interval of 10%.||83.4|21.5|0.03
91665727|NCT02452463|183225178|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
91665728|NCT01073631|183225180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy rate (percent)|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.07|82.73|||Normal approximation to binomial||Confidence Interval (CI) by normal approximation to binomial.|Efficacy Rate (treatment effective) = Percentage of evaluable participants with clinical response of cure or improvement||82.73|75.07|
91665729|NCT01131260|183225188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.98|||Chi-squared|||Analysis on primary composite outcome as a whole.||1.98|0.87|0.20
91858569|NCT00448669|183601094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|In this univariate model with the analysis of number of condomless sex acts, our model estimates the odds of reporting no condomless sex acts.||"A logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of reporting zero condomless sex acts. The longitudinal dependent variable (number of condomless sex acts) was defined as:~Number of condomless vaginal sexual acts with both casual and main partners among those who reported having had at least one sexual partner in the previous 30 days."||1.28|1.05|0.004
91858570|NCT00448669|183601095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test was performed to test for differences between the treatment groups in terms of adherence based on pill count.||||0.79
91858571|NCT01340066|183601119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.92|ONE_SIDED|80.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.92
91864323|NCT04909801|183617744|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.3411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.6|0.2|0.3411
91864324|NCT04909801|183617744|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.3|0.4|0.2546
91665730|NCT01131260|183225190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.02||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|29.1|||Fisher Exact|||||29.1|0.31|0.37
91665731|NCT01131260|183225191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.86||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.24|||Chi-squared|||||7.24|1.13|0.02
91665732|NCT01131260|183225192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.38|||Fisher Exact|||||3.38|0.17|1.0
91665733|NCT01131260|183225193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.37||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.41|||Chi-squared|||||1.41|0.10|0.13
91665734|NCT01131260|183225194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.57||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.54|||Chi-squared|||||2.54|0.97|0.07
91665735|NCT01131260|183225195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.0|||Fisher Exact|||||3.00|0.22|1.0
91665736|NCT01131260|183225196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.17
91665737|NCT01131260|183225197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||The p value was calculated based on the entire study cohort.|Chi-squared|||||||0.45
91665738|NCT01131260|183225199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.32
91665739|NCT01131260|183225200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91665740|NCT01131260|183225201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
91665741|NCT01131260|183225202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
91665742|NCT01131260|183225203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.19
91665743|NCT01131260|183225204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91665744|NCT01131260|183225205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91665745|NCT01131260|183225206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91665746|NCT01131260|183225207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.98
91665747|NCT01131260|183225208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.05
91665748|NCT03544216|183225209|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"Results of post-hoc analyses comparing scores of each lens type to one another:~Habitual lens and multifocal contact lens: p \<0.001 Habitual lens and single vision lens: p \<0.001 Multifocal lens and single vision lens: p = 0.08"|Generalized linear models|||Generalized linear models (controlling for repeated measures) of crossover analyses was run to compare mean CLDEQ-8 scores with habitual, multifocal, and single vision contact lenses (controlling for order)||||<0.001
91665749|NCT03544216|183225209|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures.|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between lens type (single vision or multifocal) and refractive error (continuous, mean binocular spherical equivalent)||||0.5
91901999|NCT04908189|183698882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01224||0.8487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0291|0.0239|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Utility Score||0.0239|-0.0291|0.8487
91902000|NCT04908189|183698882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01531||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0065|0.0665|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Utility Score||0.0665|0.0065|0.0171
91902001|NCT04908189|183698882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Mobility||0.1|-0.1|0.9254
91902002|NCT04908189|183698882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Mobility||0.0|-0.2|0.0566
91902003|NCT04908189|183698882|SUPERIORITY||Ajudted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Self-Care||0.1|-0.1|0.8933
91902004|NCT04908189|183698882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Self-Care||0.0|-0.2|0.0738
91665750|NCT03544216|183225209|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures.|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between magnitude in accommodative lag (measured in diopters with a 2 diopter visual target) and lens type (single vision or multifocal)||||0.7
91792196|NCT01933789|183462216|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.221||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.923|0.482||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|Adjusted for confounding by patient race and health status and by clinician type and specialty|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.482|-0.923|0.418
91665751|NCT03544216|183225209|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures.|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between lens type (single vision or multifocal) and age (continuous, measured in self-reported years)||||0.3
91902005|NCT04908189|183698882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Usual Activities||0.1|-0.1|0.6176
91902006|NCT04908189|183698882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Usual Activities||0.0|-0.2|0.1544
91902007|NCT04908189|183698882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Pain/Discomfort||0.1|-0.2|0.4707
91902008|NCT04908189|183698882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Pain/Discomfort||0.0|-0.3|0.0114
91902009|NCT04908189|183698882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Anxiety/Depression||0.1|-0.1|0.6594
91902010|NCT04908189|183698882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.7123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Anxiety/Depression||0.1|-0.1|0.7123
91902011|NCT04908189|183698883|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.97|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.97|-0.99|0.9834
91792197|NCT01933789|183462217|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|0.175||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.962||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.962|-0.613|0.568
91858572|NCT04238247|183601126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.876119||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.193531|2.949084||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|We conducted logistic regression adjusted for randomization strata (recommended CRS and reason for eligibility).||We hypothesized the intervention group would have greater child passenger safety guideline adherence at 6 months compared with enhanced usual care group. In planning the trial, we assumed 75% of TCBD caregivers would be re-randomized. Baseline randomization was stratified by recommended CRS (rear-facing seat, forward-facing seat, booster seat) and reason for eligibility (not using the recommended CRS at baseline or planning a premature transition in the next 6 months).||2.949084|1.193531|0.006
91858573|NCT04238247|183601127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8686678||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4535589|1.663695||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||This analysis is limited to the Phase 2 participants who were re-randomized at 6 months to test the hypothesis that the enhanced intervention (with booster MI session) would have greater guideline adherent child passenger safety behaviors at 12 month follow-up than the group that continued in the basic intervention (mHealth components).||1.663695|0.4535589|0.671
91858574|NCT04238247|183601127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.859599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.173121|14.82896|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.82896|3.173121|<0.001
91858575|NCT04238247|183601130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74029||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.049169|2.886676||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.886676|1.049169|0.032
91858576|NCT04238247|183601131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112874||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5735782|2.159233||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.159233|0.5735782|0.752
91858577|NCT04238247|183601131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.959981|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.321933|19.07362|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.07362|3.321933|<0.001
91858578|NCT04315181|183601138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=6.89, df=8, 72||Peak scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||<0.0001
91792198|NCT01933789|183462218|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|0.14||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.815||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.815|-0.534|0.592
91858579|NCT04315181|183601139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=5.51, df=8, 72||Peak scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||<0.0001
91858580|NCT04315181|183601140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.61, df=8, 72||Trough scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||0.138
91858581|NCT04315181|183601141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=8.15, df=8, 72||Peak scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||<0.0001
91858582|NCT04315181|183601142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.58, df=8, 72||Trough scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||0.0002
91858583|NCT01066026|183601163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|pilot study.|descritive variables|50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|95.0|||McNemar||50 was the percentage of hematomas expected for standard needle group.|||95|5|<0.0001
91858584|NCT02140645|183601167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.624|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858585|NCT02140645|183601168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistcs|0.597|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858586|NCT02140645|183601169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-squared|0.0858|||||||||||||The R-squared can be between 0 and 1 and a value of 0 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858587|NCT02140645|183601170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.623|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858588|NCT02140645|183601171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-squared|0.1753|||||||||||||The R-squared can be between 0 and 1 and a value of 0 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858589|NCT02140645|183601172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.699|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858590|NCT02140645|183601173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.683|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858591|NCT02140645|183601174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.757|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858592|NCT02140645|183601175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.618|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858593|NCT02140645|183601176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.618|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858594|NCT02140645|183601177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.733|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858595|NCT02140645|183601178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.827|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858596|NCT02140645|183601179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.801|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858597|NCT02140645|183601180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.836|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91858598|NCT01101451|183601182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6976||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|1.192||the pre\_specified nominal significance level was 0.0451 (one sided).|Log Rank||The RFS hazard ratio estimate is for reporting group 2 vs reporting group 1.|||1.192|0.408|0.0927
91858599|NCT01101451|183601183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.586|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.199|||||The OS hazard ratio estimate is for reporting group 2 vs reporting group 1.|||1.199|0.286|
91858600|NCT00390299|183601212|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (x 10^7 TCID50)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91858601|NCT00390299|183601212|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (x 10^7 TCID50)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91858602|NCT00390299|183601216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|4.11|||Log Rank|||||4.11|0.67|0.28
91858603|NCT00539734|183601230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing pre-operative data with postoperative data in terms of changes in amplitude height and implicit time.||||<0.05
91858604|NCT02794480|183601233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||ELLIPTA versus GSK MDI|Mainland-Gart test||||Mainland-Gart test is favorable over the McNemar test for matched pairs as the latter is only valid in case of no period effects.|||<0.001
91858605|NCT02794480|183601233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||ELLIPTA versus AZ MDI|Mainland-Gart test||||Mainland-Gart test is favorable over the McNemar test for matched pairs as the latter is only valid in case of no period effects.|||0.007
91858606|NCT02794480|183601238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42||The upper limit is infinity.|Exact odds ratio calculated using exact conditional logistic regression adjusted for treatment and treatment period.|Conditional Logistic Regression||ELLIPTA versus GSK MDI||||2.42|<0.001
91858607|NCT02794480|183601238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59||The upper limit is infinity.|Exact odds ratio calculated using exact conditional logistic regression adjusted for treatment and treatment period.|Conditional Logistic Regression||ELLIPTA versus AZ MDI||||1.59|0.011
91858608|NCT02814838|183601256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.42|||Student's t test for unpaired samples|||Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.||0.42|-0.14|0.3303
91858609|NCT02814838|183601257|SUPERIORITY|The comparisons between groups on 2-hour AUC C-peptide efficacy endpoint was carried-out using a mixed linear model where the log(x+1) transformed 2-hour AUC C-peptide was the dependent variable, while treatment group, visit, treatment by visit interaction were the fixed factors of the model and patient will be the random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix for each patient is considered and the Kenward-Roger adjustment is used for the degrees of freedom.|adjusted mean difference|0.0984||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2028|0.3995|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at FUP week 26||0.3995|-0.2028|0.517
91858610|NCT02814838|183601257|SUPERIORITY|The comparisons between groups on 2-hour AUC C-peptide efficacy endpoint was carried-out using a mixed linear model where the log(x+1) transformed 2-hour AUC C-peptide was the dependent variable, while treatment group, visit, treatment by visit interaction were the fixed factors of the model and patient will be the random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix for each patient is considered and the Kenward-Roger adjustment is used for the degrees of freedom.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0486||||0.7999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4294|0.3322|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At FUP week 52||0.3322|-0.4294|0.7999
91792199|NCT01933789|183462221|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.179||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.398|1.04||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.040|-1.398|0.705
91858611|NCT02814838|183601258|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|12.0411||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3823|31.4644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||31.4644|-7.3823|0.2224
91858612|NCT02814838|183601258|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|8.4803||||0.3931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0935|28.0541|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 26||28.0541|-11.0935|0.3931
91858613|NCT02814838|183601258|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|-2.9502||||0.7664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5476|16.6473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 52||16.6473|-22.5476|0.7664
91858614|NCT02814838|183601259|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Daily Insulin Requirement (IU/kg/day) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.048||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1257|0.0298|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||0.0298|-0.1257|0.2225
91858615|NCT02814838|183601259|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Daily Insulin Requirement (IU/kg/day) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0369||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1596|0.0858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 26||0.0858|-0.1596|0.551
91858616|NCT02814838|183601259|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Daily Insulin Requirement (IU/kg/day) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.063||||0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1712|0.0453|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 52||0.0453|-0.1712|0.2501
91858617|NCT02814838|183601260|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with HbA1c (%) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.1494||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7514|0.4526|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at FU week 13||0.4526|-0.7514|0.6252
91858618|NCT02814838|183601260|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with HbA1c (%) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.2804||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8904|0.3297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At FU week 26||0.3297|-0.8904|0.366
91858619|NCT02814838|183601260|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with HbA1c (%) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.2063||||0.5026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3992|0.8118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At FU week 52||0.8118|-0.3992|0.5026
91858620|NCT02814838|183601261|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with C-peptide (nmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|0.0242||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0174|0.0658|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||0.0658|-0.0174|0.2527
91858621|NCT02814838|183601261|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with C-peptide (nmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|0.0236||||0.2743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0188|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 26||0.066|-0.0188|0.2743
91858622|NCT02814838|183601261|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with C-peptide (nmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0059||||0.7856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0485|0.0367|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 52||0.0367|-0.0485|0.7856
91858623|NCT02814838|183601262|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Glucose (mmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0253||||0.9307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5986|0.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||0.548|-0.5986|0.9307
91858624|NCT02814838|183601262|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Glucose (mmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.7236||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2989|-0.1483|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 26||-0.1483|-1.2989|0.0139
91858625|NCT02814838|183601262|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Glucose (mmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.5979||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1775|-0.0184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 52||-0.0184|-1.1775|0.0432
91858626|NCT02814838|183601264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1171|||||||Fisher Exact|||at week 13||||0.1171
91858627|NCT02814838|183601264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6586|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 26||||0.6586
91858628|NCT02814838|183601264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5056|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 52||||0.5056
91858629|NCT02814838|183601265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0779|||||||Fisher Exact|||at week 13||||0.0779
91858630|NCT02814838|183601265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 26||||0.0248
91858631|NCT02814838|183601265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4504|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 52||||0.4504
91692015|NCT01139775|183278478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Posterior Probability|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pemetrexed + cisplatin + LY2603618 was considered superior to pemetrexed + cisplatin if the posterior probability of superiority exceeded 0.85.|The analysis for comparing progression-free survival time between the treatment arms used a Bayesian Augmented Control model with a hierarchical random-effects distribution on treatment effects. The final model incorporated historical data from a completed Phase 3 study (NCT00789373) to augment the prospective control arm data.||||
91858632|NCT02814838|183601266|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|0.1402||||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2015|0.4819|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 13||0.4819|-0.2015|0.4163
91858633|NCT02814838|183601266|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|0.177||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2039|0.558|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 26||0.558|-0.2039|0.3575
91858634|NCT02814838|183601266|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|0.0451||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3948|0.4851|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 52||0.4851|-0.3948|0.8386
91858635|NCT02814838|183601267|SUPERIORITY|Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|||=|0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||At week 13||0.75|-0.09|= 0.1114
91858636|NCT02814838|183601267|SUPERIORITY|Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.502|||=|0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||At week 26||0.98|0.02|= 0.0411
91858637|NCT02814838|183601267|SUPERIORITY|Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|||=|0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||At week 52||0.82|-0.37|= 0.4506
91858638|NCT02814838|183601268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.3631||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1817|0.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 13 Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction||0.908|-0.1817|0.1847
91858639|NCT02814838|183601268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.6304||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0609|1.1998|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction||1.1998|0.0609|0.031
91858640|NCT02814838|183601268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.1639||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5202|0.8479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction||0.8479|-0.5202|0.6299
91692016|NCT01139775|183278480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Log Rank|||||||0.2294
91858641|NCT02814838|183601269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13||||0.163
91858642|NCT02814838|183601269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 26||||0.0074
91665752|NCT03544216|183225209|OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between lens type (single vision or multifocal) and age (measured categorically as 30 to \<35 years old and 35 to 40 years old, by self report)|"Post-Hoc Testing comparing CLDEQ-8 scores and the interaction between lens type and age group (denoted by lens type\*age group) produced the following results:~p = 0.01 for MF\*\<35 age group compared to Single Vision (SV)\*\<35 age group p = 0.07 for MF\*\<35 age group compared to MF\*\>35 age group p \> 0.05 for MF\*\<35 age group compared to Single Vision (SV)\*\>35 age group p \> 0.05 for SV\*\<35 age group compared to SV\*\>35 age group p \>0.05 for SV\*\<35 age group compared to MF\*\>35 age group p \> 0.05 for MF\*\>35 age group compared to SV\*\>25 age group"|||0.047
91858643|NCT02814838|183601269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4437|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.4437
91858644|NCT04402294|183601334|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.71||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA (Optimal vs Suboptimal vs No Stimulation)||||0.50
91692017|NCT01139775|183278481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0824
91858645|NCT04402294|183601335|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA (Optimal vs Suboptimal vs No Stimulation)||||0.975
91692018|NCT01139775|183278482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4924|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4924
91858646|NCT04402294|183601336|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|2.05||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA, with neuromodulation stimulation type (optimal vs. suboptimal), stimulation days (1 to 3), and delay (0, 4, or 12 seconds) as within-subject variables.||||0.097
91665753|NCT01935674|183225210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|22.5||P-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test; significance threshold set at α = 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test; analysis based on intention-to-treat population.||Comparison of percentage change in fasting total cholesterol from baseline to week 12 between rosuvastatin and PI/r switch groups. Wilcoxon rank-sum test used. Study powered to detect a 15% difference with 80% power and α = 0.05. All participants included in intention-to-treat analysis.||22.5|2.9|0.003
91858647|NCT04402294|183601337|OTHER|Parametric Inferential Statistical Test|Group mean difference|0.63||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA, with neuromodulation stimulation type (optimal vs. suboptimal), stimulation days (1 to 3), and delay (0, 4, or 12 seconds) as within-subject variables.||||0.644
91665754|NCT01494532|183225218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||4mg/day vs Placebo||||0.814
91858648|NCT04402294|183601338|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.84||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA, with neuromodulation stimulation type (optimal vs. suboptimal), and stimulation days (1 to 3) as within-subject variables.||||0.439
91858649|NCT04402294|183601339|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.59||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||Optimal Neuromodulation Day-1, Optimal Neuromodulation Day-2, Optimal Neuromodulation Day-3, Suboptimal Neuromodulation Day-1, Suboptimal Neuromodulation Day-2, Suboptimal Neuromodulation Day-3||||0.563
91858650|NCT03611153|183601353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.040
91858651|NCT03611153|183601355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777
91858652|NCT03611153|183601356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right atrial pressure||||0.805
91858653|NCT03611153|183601356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||pulmonary artery systolic pressure||||0.148
91858654|NCT03611153|183601356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean pulmonary artery pressure||||0.090
91858655|NCT03611153|183601357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right atrial pressure||||0.786
91858656|NCT03611153|183601357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pulmonary artery systolic pressure||||0.796
91858657|NCT03611153|183601357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean pulmonary artery pressure||||0.703
91858658|NCT03611153|183601358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
91858659|NCT03611153|183601359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.669
91858660|NCT05338086|183601360|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated mean difference in %CfB lumbar spine BMD at Month 12 was presented with 95% CI and equivalence was concluded if this fell within the predefined equivalence margin of \[-1.45%, 1.45%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.91||Mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, with stratification variables as classification factors and baseline BMD as a continuous covariate.||||0.91|-0.51|
91665755|NCT01494532|183225218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||8 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.013
91858661|NCT05338086|183601361|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated mean difference in %CfB lumbar spine BMD at Month 12 was presented with 95% CI and equivalence was concluded if this fell within the predefined equivalence margin of \[-1.45%, 1.45%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included terms for treatment, with stratification variables as classification factors and baseline BMD included as a continuous covariate.|The estimated mean difference in %CfB lumbar spine BMD results was pooled using Rubin's methods and presented with 95% CI.|||0.74|-0.69|
91858662|NCT05338086|183601364|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set mFAS): 95% CI for ratio of geometric LS mean ratios contained in acceptance limits (80.00%, 125.00%).|Ratio of Geometric means|99.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.99|108.52|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including log-transformed baseline sCTX as a continuous covariate with treatment and stratification variables as fixed effects.||||108.52|91.99|
91858663|NCT05338086|183601365|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity with respect to PD was concluded if the 95% CI for the test (MB09) to reference (EU-Prolia) ratios of the geometric LS means was contained within the \[80.00%, 125.00%\] interval.|Ratio of Geometric means|99.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.31|102.02|||ANCOVA|||||102.02|96.31|
91858664|NCT05338086|183601366|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (on Pharmacokinetic Parameter Analysis Set): the 95% CIs around the geometric LS mean contained in the acceptance limits (80.00%, 125.00%)|LS Geometric Mean Ratio|104.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.83|109.71|||ANCOVA|Cmax was analysed on the log scale by ANCOVA. The model included treatment and stratification variables as fixed effects.||||109.71|98.83|
91858665|NCT05338086|183601367|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (on Pharmacokinetic Parameter Analysis Set): the 95% CIs around the geometric LS mean contained in the acceptance limits (80.00%, 125.00%)|LS Geometric Mean Ratio|106.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.84|112.66|||ANCOVA|AUC0-6 months was analysed on the log scale by ANCOVA. The model included treatment and stratification variables as fixed effects.||||112.66|99.84|
91858666|NCT05141903|183601386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||(Dose group \* Time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Dfn, Dfd = 11, 369 F Value = 24.31||Dose Group 2 B. infantis levels compared to control group (antibiotic only) with changes over time||||<0.0001
91858667|NCT05141903|183601386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dose group \* Time|Mixed Models Analysis|Dfn, Dfd = 11, 370 F value = 14.87||Dose Group 3 B. infantis levels compared to control group (antibiotic only) with changes over time||||<0.0001
91858668|NCT05141903|183601386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dose Group \* Time|Mixed Models Analysis|Dfn, Dfd = 11, 351 F value = 8.606||Dose Group 2 (with HMO) B. infantis levels compared to dose Group 3 (without HMO) with changes over time||||<0.0001
91858669|NCT03467542|183601392|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The total number evaluated, the percent, and the Clopper-Pearson two-sided 95% confidence limits on the percent.|||
91858670|NCT05387447|183601395|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
91858671|NCT05387447|183601396|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
91665756|NCT01494532|183225218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.287
91665757|NCT01494532|183225218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||16 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.027
91665758|NCT01494532|183225218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.390
91665759|NCT01494532|183225218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||4mg/day vs Placebo||||0.844
91858672|NCT05387447|183601398|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
91858673|NCT05387447|183601399|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
91858674|NCT03655132|183601417|OTHER|Regression of baseline score on intrinsic motivation to use VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.12||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.62
91858675|NCT03655132|183601417|OTHER|Regression of baseline score on perceived ease of use of the VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.19||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.45
91858676|NCT03655132|183601417|OTHER|Regression of baseline score on perceived usefulness of the VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.93
91858677|NCT03655132|183601417|OTHER|Regression of post-intervention score of intrinsic motivation to use VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.04
91858678|NCT03655132|183601417|OTHER|Regression of post-intervention score of perceived ease of use of the VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
91858679|NCT03655132|183601417|OTHER|Regression of post-intervention score of perceived usefulness of VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.58||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.01
91858680|NCT03655132|183601418|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8) for waitlist control group participants only (n=22).|Median Difference (Net)|-5.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.54
91665760|NCT01494532|183225218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||8 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.030
91665761|NCT01494532|183225218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||12 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.437
91665762|NCT01494532|183225218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||16 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.034
91665763|NCT01494532|183225218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||24 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.808
91858681|NCT03655132|183601418|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8) for VACT-CP group.||||.59
91858682|NCT03655132|183601419|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.78
91858683|NCT03655132|183601419|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
91858684|NCT03655132|183601420|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.13
91858685|NCT03655132|183601420|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.07
91858686|NCT03655132|183601421|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.64
91858687|NCT03655132|183601421|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.30
91858688|NCT03655132|183601422|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.75
91858689|NCT03655132|183601422|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.60
91858690|NCT05919082|183601433|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and p-value are obtained by logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline PGA. Wald CI was presented.|||1.99|1.01|0.0438
91858691|NCT05919082|183601434|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.12|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and p-value were obtained by logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline mPASI score. Wald CI was presented.|||2.12|1.10|0.0108
91858692|NCT05919082|183601435|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and p-value were obtained by logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline mPASI score. Wald CI was presented.|||2.19|1.07|0.0199
91858693|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MontgomeryÅsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.03|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Left||-0.03|-0.14|0.0105
91858694|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.03|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Right||-0.03|-0.14|0.0134
91858695|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3495|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||0.02|-0.08|0.3495
91858696|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex right||0.04|-0.07|0.7008
91858697|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||0.05|-0.08|0.6635
91858698|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.07|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.07|-0.09|0.8792
91858699|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||-0.02|-0.15|0.0419
91864325|NCT04909801|183617744|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.4|0.5|0.4558
91864326|NCT04909801|183617744|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.7|0.6|0.9544
91858700|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||0.01|-0.12|0.1658
91858701|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6673|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD Signal % change/ Amygdala Left||0.05|-0.08|0.6673
91858702|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD Signal % Change/ Amygdala Right||-0.01|-0.14|0.0778
91858703|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||0.02|-0.08|0.3258
91858704|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right||0.04|-0.07|0.5954
91858705|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||0.04|-0.08|0.5911
91858706|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.08|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.08|-0.11|0.8283
91864327|NCT04909801|183617744|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.4|0.5|0.5450
91902012|NCT04908189|183698883|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.6099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.82|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||0.82|-1.39|0.6099
91902013|NCT04908189|183698883|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||0.40|-1.71|0.2205
91902014|NCT00607022|183698884|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis values between each loading group and for Wilcoxon Signed Rank for measures on the mesial vs buccal side of the implant.|||||>|0.05||||||0.0501 \< p \< 0.9797|Kruskal-Wallis|Kruskal-Wallis test evaluated ISQ at each time point..||Comparison between loading groups at 16 weeks - loading at baseline, Loading at 6 weeks, and loading at 12 weeks. Scores for all groups were compared at 16 weeks from implant placement..||||>0.05
91902015|NCT03622619|183698917|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
91902016|NCT03622619|183698918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91902017|NCT03622619|183698919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.055
91902018|NCT03622619|183698920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Burning/stinging||||||0.90
91902019|NCT03622619|183698920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Grittiness/foreign body sensation||||||0.30
91902020|NCT03622619|183698920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Dryness|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
91792200|NCT01933789|183462222|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|0.123||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.805||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.805|-0.560|0.644
91792201|NCT01933789|183462223|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.165||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.833|3.503||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|Adjusted for confounding by patient education and health status and by clinician gender.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||3.503|-3.833|0.908
91792202|NCT01933789|183462224|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.121||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.403||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.403|-0.646|0.552
91902021|NCT03622619|183698920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Blurred vision|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91902022|NCT03622619|183698920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Overall discomfort|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
91902023|NCT01658826|183698928|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||non-linear mixed effects model|||||0.63|0.30|<0.0001
91902024|NCT03610165|183698936|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.04|-0.03|0.757
91902025|NCT03610165|183698937|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|7.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||7|-12|0.715
91902026|NCT03610165|183698938|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-3.3|0.328
91902027|NCT03610165|183698939|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.011|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.011|-0.001|0.376
91902028|NCT03610165|183698940|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.226
91902029|NCT03610165|183698941|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.00|-0.67|0.610
91902030|NCT03610165|183698942|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.302
91902031|NCT03610165|183698943|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.67|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.67|-0.67|0.889
91902032|NCT03610165|183698944|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.403
91902033|NCT02383589|183698951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|45.15||The analysis was stratified by the stratification factors applied at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.15|14.70|<0.0001
91902034|NCT02383589|183698952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91902035|NCT02383589|183698953|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29||The model was adjusted for the following covariates in addition to log (each participant's duration in study) as an offset: treatment, region, duration of illness, baseline PDAI activity score, and baseline prednisone dose.|Negative Binominal Regression|||||0.29|0.05|<0.0001
91902036|NCT02383589|183698954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.83||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|11.81||P-value is from a stratified log-rank test used to test the time to first disease flare between the RTX and MMF treatment arms over the 52-week treatment period, adjusting for the stratification factors applied at randomization|Log Rank|||||11.81|1.97|0.0003
91902037|NCT02383589|183698955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.39||P-value is from a stratified log-rank test used to test the time to first disease flare between the RTX and MMF treatment arms over the 52-week treatment period, adjusting for the stratification factors applied at randomization|Log Rank|||||0.39|0.06|<0.0001
91902038|NCT02383589|183698956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Estimated Means|-2.872||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.577|-1.167||P-value is from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with unstructured covariance matrix, adjusting for treatment, region, duration of illness, baseline DLQI score, visit, and an interaction terms for visit × baseline DLQI score and visit × treatment|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.167|-4.577|0.0012
91904151|NCT04667377|183703255|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|0.0||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.00|-4.97|0.0495
91858707|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||0.01|-0.12|0.1797
91858708|NCT03854578|183601445|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||0.04|-0.08|0.5772
91858709|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.03|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Left||-0.03|-0.14|0.0147
91858710|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|-0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Right||-0.01|-0.13|0.0480
91858711|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||-0.02|-0.12|0.0294
91858712|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right||-0.02|-0.13|0.0359
91858713|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|-0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||-0.06|-0.19|0.0022
91858714|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.0|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.00|-0.15|0.1040
91858715|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|-0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||-0.06|-0.18|0.0022
91858716|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||-0.02|-0.14|0.0331
91858717|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Left||0.02|-0.11|0.2149
91858718|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Right||0.05|-0.08|0.6896
91858719|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||0.02|-0.06|0.4769
91858720|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right||0.05|-0.07|0.7680
91858721|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||0.06|-0.08|0.7997
91858722|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.8334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.06|-0.08|0.8334
91858723|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||0.05|-0.07|0.7402
91858724|NCT03854578|183601446|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||0.08|-0.06|0.8120
91858725|NCT04549168|183601484|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.795||||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.008||Data was analyzed using mixed effect model repeated measurement analysis (MMRM), and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR).|MMRM|||||1.008|0.627|0.0585
91665764|NCT01494532|183225219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|3.166|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.166|0.398|0.826
91665765|NCT01494532|183225219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.622||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|3.593|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.593|0.732|0.233
91858726|NCT04549168|183601485|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|9.81||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||9.81|4.39|<0.0001
91665766|NCT01494532|183225219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.953||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|2.065|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.065|0.439|0.902
91665767|NCT01494532|183225219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.866||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|4.158|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.158|0.837|0.127
91665768|NCT01494532|183225219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.362||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|3.888|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.888|0.477|0.564
91858727|NCT04549168|183601486|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-17.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.16|-8.51||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||-8.51|-27.16|0.0002
91858728|NCT04549168|183601487|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.776||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|0.93||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||0.930|0.647|0.0063
91858729|NCT04549168|183601488|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|4.49||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|8.39||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||8.39|0.59|0.0242
91858730|NCT04549168|183601489|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-10.36||||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.95|4.22||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||4.22|-24.95|0.1625
91858731|NCT04549168|183601490|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.815||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.001||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||1.001|0.663|0.0515
91858732|NCT04549168|183601491|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.61|9.86||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||9.86|5.61|<0.0001
91858733|NCT04549168|183601492|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-21.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|-14.35||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||-14.35|-28.15|<0.0001
91858734|NCT04549168|183601494|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.811||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|-1.25||Based on Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with factors of age group, site, treatment, and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-4.45|0.0006
91714273|NCT00676403|183320239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.472||0.0983||95.0|-8.97|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.77|-8.97|0.0983
91714274|NCT00676403|183320239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.415||0.0966||95.0|-8.78|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.73|-8.78|0.0966
91714275|NCT00676403|183320239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.0013||95.0|-13.31|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-3.28|-13.31|0.0013
91792203|NCT01933789|183462225|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.293||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|0.553||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.553|-1.139|0.372
91714276|NCT00676403|183320239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.437||0.0353||95.0|-9.96|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.36|-9.96|0.0353
91858735|NCT04549168|183601495|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.78||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, site, treatment, and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-2.70|0.0005
91858736|NCT04549168|183601497|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.34||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.65||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||First 7 mornings of treatment period|||0.65|0.03|0.0312
91858737|NCT04549168|183601497|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.32||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.76||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||Last 7 mornings of treatment period|||0.76|-0.11|0.1460
91858738|NCT04549168|183601497|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.29||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.7||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||First 7 mornings of follow-up period|||0.70|-0.12|0.1613
91858739|NCT04549168|183601497|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.23||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.65||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||Last 7 mornings of follow-up period|||0.65|-0.19|0.2852
91858740|NCT03732820|183601603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81||A multiple testing procedure is employed across primary (rPFS) and key secondary endpoints (OS) to strongly control overall type 1 error at 2.5% one-sided.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.81|0.54|<0.0001
91858741|NCT03732820|183601604|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0||A multiple testing procedure is employed across primary (rPFS) and key secondary endpoints (OS) to strongly control overall type 1 error at 2.5% one-sided. Alpha spend for OS will not exceed 0.02135.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.00|0.67|0.0544
91864328|NCT04909801|183617744|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.2|0.4|0.2227
91864329|NCT04909801|183617745|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.4|0.3|0.3200
91864330|NCT04909801|183617745|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.5|0.5|0.4992
91864331|NCT04909801|183617745|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.8963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.7|0.6|0.8963
91858742|NCT03732820|183601605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.9|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.90|0.64|0.0025
91858743|NCT03732820|183601606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.50|0.75|0.7456
91858744|NCT03732820|183601607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.79|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.79|0.82|0.3099
91858745|NCT03732820|183601608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.22|0.55|0.3212
91858746|NCT03732820|183601609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.99|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.99|0.59|0.0534
91858747|NCT02641912|183601680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure (LS) mean difference|0.63||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.1|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with factors for treatment and confirmed Sjögren's syndrome status stratification using Observed Margins option.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||1.10|0.17|0.0084
91858748|NCT00274469|183601761|NON_INFERIORITY|Study is powered basing on 20% deficiency in benefit rate for Fulvestrant compared to Anastrozole.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.302||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|2.38||Null hypothesis: Fulvestrant has no difference with Anastrozole|Regression, Logistic||OR\>1 favours Fulvestrant|||2.380|0.717|0.386
91858749|NCT00274469|183601762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.021||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.874|||Regression, Logistic||OR\>1 favours Fulvestrant|||1.874|0.556|0.947
91858750|NCT00274469|183601763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6266||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3929|0.9991|||Log Rank||HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.9991|0.3929|0.0496
91858751|NCT00274469|183601764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||Log Rank||HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||1.00|0.54|0.05
91858752|NCT00274469|183601764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression analysis of TTTF controlling for baseline covariates.|HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.98|0.52|0.04
91858753|NCT00274469|183601765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.92|||Log Rank||HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.92|0.47|0.01
91858754|NCT00274469|183601765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression analysis of TTP (investigator assessed) controlling for baseline covariates.|HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.90|0.46|0.01
91858755|NCT00274469|183601766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.50|0.041
91858756|NCT00274469|183601766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.08|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression analysis of OS controlling for baseline covariates|HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||1.08|0.54|0.126
91858757|NCT03338816|183601767|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.41||P=6.040E-09|Negative binomial regression model|||Negative binomial regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (prior hemin prophylaxis status and historical attack rates) as fixed effects and the logarithm of the follow-up time as an offset variable.||0.41|0.16|<0.0001
91858758|NCT04950127|183601779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Monthly Itch score (MIS), Visit\*Baseline MIS interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.28|-1.15|0.001
91858759|NCT04950127|183601780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.34||Adjusted for multiplicity as per Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Week, Week\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Weekly Itch score (WIS), Visit\*Baseline WIS interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.34|-1.07|<0.001
91864332|NCT04909801|183617745|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.4|0.5|0.4544
91864333|NCT04909801|183617745|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.8985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.8|0.6|0.8985
91864334|NCT04909801|183617745|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.5|0.5|0.5824
91864335|NCT04909801|183617746|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.5||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||4.1|0.6|0.4152
91864336|NCT04909801|183617746|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||2.5|0.6|0.5917
91864337|NCT04909801|183617746|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.4||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||2.6|0.7|0.3348
91864338|NCT04909801|183617746|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.4|0.4|0.3959
91864339|NCT04909801|183617746|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.0|0.7|0.6225
91858760|NCT04950127|183601781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.07||Adjusted for multiplicity as per Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Monthly sleep score (MSS), Visit\*Baseline MSS interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.07|-0.98|0.024
91858761|NCT04950127|183601782|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|4.0||||0.539||95.0|-9.0|17.0||Adjusted for multiplicity as per Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified analysis adjusted for baseline factors: Baseline Itch Severity (Moderate: \>=4 and less than \[\<\]7, Severe: \>=7); Concomitant cholestatic pruritus treatment regimen (Regimen contains Bile Acid Binding Resin \[BABR\], Regimen does not contain BABR, No defined treatment). Multiple imputation of missing Monthly itch scores was done before deriving responder definitions. Imputed datasets were analyzed using the CMH method and combined.||17.0|-9.0|0.539
91858762|NCT04950127|183601783|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|13.0||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|27.0||Adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p-values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified analysis adjusted for baseline factors: Baseline Itch Severity (Moderate: \>=4 and \<7, Severe: \>=7); Concomitant cholestatic pruritus treatment regimen (Regimen contains BABR, Regimen does not contain BABR, No defined treatment). Multiple imputation of missing Monthly itch scores was done before deriving responder definitions. Imputed datasets were analyzed using the CMH method and combined.||27.0|0.0|0.043
91858763|NCT04950127|183601784|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.0||Adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p-values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified analysis adjusted for baseline factors: Baseline Itch Severity (Moderate: \>=4 and \<7, Severe: \>=7); Concomitant cholestatic pruritus treatment regimen (Regimen contains BABR, Regimen does not contain BABR, No defined treatment). Multiple imputation of missing Monthly itch scores was done before deriving responder definitions. Imputed datasets were analyzed using the CMH method and combined.||24.0|-0.0|0.058
91858764|NCT04950127|183601785|SUPERIORITY|Cognitive|Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.86||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||1.86|-0.34|0.176
91858765|NCT04950127|183601785|SUPERIORITY|Emotional|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.89||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||0.89|-0.36|0.403
91665769|NCT01494532|183225220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.908||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.659|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.659|0.310|0.861
91665770|NCT01494532|183225220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.608||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|3.782|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.782|0.684|0.277
91665771|NCT01494532|183225220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|2.5|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.500|0.461|0.869
91665772|NCT01494532|183225220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.916||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|4.545|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.545|0.808|0.140
91792204|NCT01933789|183462226|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.13||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.369||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.369|-0.630|0.501
91792205|NCT01933789|183462227|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.39||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.38||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.380|-1.160|0.192
91858766|NCT04950127|183601785|SUPERIORITY|Fatigue|Mean Difference (Net)|1.59||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.67||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||3.67|-0.48|0.132
91858767|NCT04950127|183601785|SUPERIORITY|Itch|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.18||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||0.18|-1.34|0.132
91858768|NCT04950127|183601785|SUPERIORITY|Social|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.27||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||1.27|-1.57|0.836
91864340|NCT04909801|183617746|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.5|0.5|0.6140
91864341|NCT04909801|183617747|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||2.9|0.4|0.8084
91864342|NCT04909801|183617747|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||2.3|0.5|0.7470
91864343|NCT04909801|183617747|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||2.3|0.7|0.5233
91864344|NCT04909801|183617747|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.6|0.5|0.7295
91858769|NCT04950127|183601785|SUPERIORITY|Symptoms|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.34||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||1.34|-0.44|0.318
91858770|NCT04950127|183601786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.2||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PGI-S score, Visit\*Baseline PGI-S score interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.20|-0.55|<0.001
91858771|NCT04950127|183601787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.21||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.21|-0.76|<0.001
91858772|NCT00522951|183601831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||||95.0|-0.87|-0.29|||||Averaged blinded reader (primary analysis)|H01: μG1 - μPr ≤ -1||-0.29|-0.87|
91858773|NCT00522951|183601831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||95.0|-0.23|0.36|||||Averaged blinded reader (primary analysis)|H02: μG2 - μPr ≤ -1||0.36|-0.23|
91858774|NCT00522951|183601831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||||Investigator (secondary analysis)|H01: μG1 - μPr ≤ -1||-0.1|-0.5|
91858775|NCT00522951|183601831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||||95.0|0.02|0.41|||||Investigator (secondary analysis)|H02: μG2 - μPr ≤ -1||0.41|0.02|
91792206|NCT01933789|183462228|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.014||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|0.461||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.461|-0.489|0.940
91858776|NCT02713126|183601847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.770
91858777|NCT02713126|183601848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
91858778|NCT02713126|183601849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.538
91858779|NCT02713126|183601850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.708
91858780|NCT02713126|183601851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.496
91858781|NCT05450458|183601852|OTHER|This study assessed longitudinal effects within a single patient group. Statistical power was calculated using a significance level of 0.05, 80% power, and 60 patients, accounting for KOOS score variability over time. The Friedman test was applied with post hoc analyses (Conover and Bonferroni). Since treatments were not compared, no non-inferiority or equivalence margin was defined|Median Change Baseline to month 6|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23||P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Friedman Test|Post hoc pairwise comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni method, and the a priori significance level was set at 0.05|The value represents the intra-individual median KOOS improvement from baseline to month 6 after treatment. Changes were evaluated across time points within a single cohort.|The statistical analysis will use the Friedman test, as the Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a non-normal distribution. Conover's post hoc test with Bonferroni correction will adjust for multiple comparisons. The null hypothesis states that hyaluronic acid injections with sorbitol do not significantly improve KOOS function and pain scores over time. A power analysis was performed to ensure an adequate sample size for detecting clinically meaningful differences.||0.23|0.15|<0.001
91858782|NCT05450458|183601853|OTHER|This study assessed longitudinal effects within a single patient group. Statistical power was calculated using a significance level of 0.05, 80% power, and 60 patients, accounting for IKDC score variability over time. The Friedman test was applied with post hoc analyses (Conover and Bonferroni). Since treatments were not compared, no non-inferiority or equivalence margin was defined|Median Baseline to Month 6|0.18||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.24||P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Friedman Test|The overall p-value is unadjusted. The a priori significance level was set at 0.05 to robustly control the Type I error|This value represents the intra-individual median IKDC improvement from baseline to 6 months after treatment. The analysis was conducted within a single cohort without comparator arms.|The statistical analysis will use the Friedman test, as the Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a non-normal distribution. Conover's post hoc test with Bonferroni correction will adjust for multiple comparisons. The null hypothesis states that hyaluronic acid injections with sorbitol do not significantly improve IKDC function and pain scores over time. A power analysis was performed to ensure an adequate sample size for detecting clinically meaningful differences.||0.24|0.12|0.01
91864345|NCT04909801|183617747|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.7621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.9|0.6|0.7621
91864346|NCT04909801|183617747|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.6861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.6|0.5|0.6861
91864347|NCT04909801|183617748|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.2|0.5|0.3117
91904152|NCT04667377|183703255|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.01||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 -placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.01|-4.90|0.0506
91792207|NCT01933789|183462229|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.229||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.587||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.587|-1.044|0.470
91858783|NCT05450458|183601855|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority analysis. Data normality was first assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and due to non-normal distributions, a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was applied to compare paired baseline and six-month IKDC score|Baseline to month 6|0.18||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.21||P-values from pairwise comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni method to control for multiple testing. The global p-value from the Friedman test was not adjusted. An a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|Friedman test conducted with 3 degrees of freedom. Bonferroni correction applied in pairwise Wilcoxon post hoc comparisons.|Median IKDC improvement from baseline to 6 months in 22 athletes with elevated BMI (≥25). No comparator group was used. Confidence interval calculated via bootstrap (resampling with 1,000 iterations).|The analysis was conducted under the null hypothesis of no change in knee function across time. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Changes across the four time points (baseline, 15 days, 3 months, and 6 months) were evaluated using the Friedman test. Pairwise comparisons were performed post hoc using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test with Bonferroni correction at a 5% significance threshold.||0.21|0.14|0.001
91858784|NCT05450458|183601855|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority analysis. Data normality was first assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and due to non-normal distributions, a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was applied to compare paired baseline and six-month KOOS score|Baseline to Month 6|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|22.0||The p-values reported were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|Friedman test conducted with 3 degrees of freedom. Bonferroni correction applied in pairwise Wilcoxon post hoc comparisons.|Median KOOS improvement from baseline to 6 months in 22 athletes with elevated BMI. CI calculated via bootstrap resampling (1,000 iterations). No comparator group was involved.|The analysis was conducted under the null hypothesis of no change in knee function between baseline and six months. The study was designed with sufficient power to detect clinically meaningful improvements, with significance determined at a conventional level||22|13|<0.001
91858785|NCT00976937|183601914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.1696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|11.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 or \>=8.0%) and randomization strata of screening BMI (\<35 or \>=35 kg/m\^2) was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To demonstrate the superiority of lixisenatide over sitagliptin, 150 patients in each arm would provide a power of 90% with a 2-sided test at the 5% significance level, assuming the percentage of patients defined as responders on HbA1c (\<7%) and weight (at least 5% loss) is 25% with lixisenatide and 10% with sitagliptin.||11.00|-1.84|0.1696
91858786|NCT01227265|183601940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|-0.2||||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.35|||cLDA|||||0.35|-0.72|0.4933
91858787|NCT01227265|183601940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|-0.3||||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.21|||cLDA|||||0.21|-0.86|0.2364
91858788|NCT01227265|183601941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|18.05||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline average OFF time (hours/day) as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.05|-4.17|0.244
91858789|NCT01227265|183601941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|17.61||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline average OFF time (hours/day) as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.61|-4.63|0.262
91858790|NCT01227265|183601942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.63|||cLDA|||||0.63|-0.47|0.776
91858791|NCT01227265|183601942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.1||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.67|||cLDA|||||0.67|-0.44|0.683
91858792|NCT01227265|183601946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|-0.2||||0.6968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61|||cLDA|||||0.61|-0.92|0.6968
91858793|NCT01227265|183601946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.2||||0.6142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.97|||cLDA|||||0.97|-0.57|0.6142
91858794|NCT02910713|183601947|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.999|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.31|-9.4||One-sided p-value for the difference between Intranasal and Extranasal.|ANOVA|||||-9.40|-17.31|<0.0001
91858795|NCT02910713|183601948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||One-sided p-value for the difference between Intranasal and Extranasal.|ANOVA|||||-0.40|-0.80|<0.0001
91858796|NCT04994509|183601997|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.042||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from likelihood ratio test.|Likelihood ratio test||Confidence Interval (CI) for rate ratio vs bHIV is from a likelihood-based method.|Null Hypothesis 01: LEN/bHIV\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly lower than bHIV.||0.042|0.000|<0.0001
91858797|NCT04994509|183601997|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.042||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from likelihood ratio test.|Likelihood ratio test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on a likelihood-based method.|Null Hypothesis 02: LEN/bHIV\>= 0.8; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly and at least 20% lower than bHIV.||0.042|0.000|<0.0001
91792208|NCT01933789|183462230|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.454||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.454|-0.474|0.955
91792209|NCT01933789|183462231|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.287||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.005|0.431||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.431|-1.005|0.303
91858798|NCT04994509|183601997|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.839||||0.20697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.279||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 03: F/TAF/bHIV\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in F/TAF was significantly lower than bHIV.||1.279|0.550|0.20697
91858799|NCT04994509|183601997|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.839||||0.58674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.279||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 04: F/TAF/bHIV\>= 0.8; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in F/TAF was significantly and at least 20% lower than bHIV.||1.279|0.550|0.58674
91792210|NCT03102190|183462243|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the safety endpoints will be presented with means and standard deviations of their occurrence within the study population. The safety of the drug will be determined by analyzing the rate of adverse events in both phases of the trial. An occurrence of 10% within the study population will be considered significant.|||
91792211|NCT01150474|183462276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91792212|NCT01150474|183462277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
91792213|NCT01150474|183462278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91792214|NCT01150474|183462279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91792215|NCT01150474|183462280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
91792216|NCT01150474|183462281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91792217|NCT01150474|183462282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91792218|NCT01150474|183462283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91792219|NCT01150474|183462284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91792220|NCT02581943|183462293|OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.366
91665773|NCT01494532|183225220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.689||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|5.218|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||5.218|0.547|0.362
91792221|NCT02581943|183462294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|test for CD4+FoxP3||||||0.327
91792222|NCT02581943|183462294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|test for MDSC||||||0.142
91792223|NCT02581943|183462294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.462||||||test for CD4+ICOS+|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.462
91792224|NCT02581943|183462294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.87||||||test for CD8+ICOS+|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.870
91792225|NCT02581943|183462294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.414||||||test for Plamacytoid DC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.414
91792226|NCT02581943|183462294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.121||||||test for Monocytes|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.121
91792227|NCT02581943|183462294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.624||||||test for T cells (CD3+)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.624
91792228|NCT02581943|183462295|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.348
91792229|NCT02581943|183462296|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.63
91792230|NCT02581943|183462297|OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.692
91792231|NCT02581943|183462298|OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.345
91792232|NCT02581943|183462299|OTHER|||||||0.917|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Test for CD8+ICOS||||||0.917
91792233|NCT02581943|183462299|OTHER|||||||0.746|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|test for MDSC||||||0.746
91792234|NCT02581943|183462299|OTHER|||||||0.302||||||test for CD4+ICOS|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.302
91792235|NCT02581943|183462299|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|test for CD8+ICOS+||||||0.130
91792236|NCT02581943|183462299|OTHER|||||||0.628||||||test for Plamacytoid DC|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.628
91792237|NCT02581943|183462299|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||test for Monocytes|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.567
91792238|NCT02581943|183462299|OTHER|||||||0.311||||||test for T cells (CD3+)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.311
91792239|NCT02197234|183462309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%.|Geometric mean ratio|77.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.41|93.7|||||Simvastatin + AZD9291 / Simvastatin alone. Based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AUC9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 45%. No change in exposure was also assumed.||93.70|63.41|
91858800|NCT04994509|183601998|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.101||p-value for rate ratio vs F/TDF is from an exact conditional Poisson model.|Poisson model||CI is from an exact conditional Poisson model.|||0.101|0.000|< 0.0001
91858801|NCT04994509|183601998|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.198||||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|2.143||p-value for rate ratio vs F/TDF is from a Poisson model.|Poisson model||CI is from a Poisson model.|||2.143|0.669|0.72820
91858802|NCT04994509|183601998|OTHER|Comparability to F/TDF is defined as the HIV-1 incidence in the LEN group at most 0.8/100 PY higher than in the F/TDF group.|Rate Difference|-1.685|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.737|-0.939||p-value for rate difference vs F/TDF is based on a hybrid approach.|Hybrid approach||Exact CI is based on a hybrid approach.|||-0.939|-2.737|<0.0001
91902039|NCT02113579|183698987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Success rate difference (%)|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse was significantly better than placebo (p\<0.05) with estimated difference of \>= 20%, testing proceeded to Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Week 4. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Study center and mean baseline cold air stimulus VAS score as covariate. For subjects with no score at Week 4, non-response was imputed.|Estimated by calculating the model predicted success probabilities assuming all subjects received 12027-033 and then assuming all subjects received placebo, and then calculating mean of subjects' differences between these predicted probabilities.|The null hypothesis was no difference in success rates between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in success rates between treatment groups.||||<0.001
91902040|NCT02113579|183698988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.239|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.68|-9.87||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse was significantly better than placebo (p\<0.05), testing proceeded to Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Week 4. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-9.87|-18.68|<0.001
91902041|NCT02113579|183698989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.844|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.83|17.08||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse was significantly better than placebo (p\<0.05), testing proceeded to Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Week 2 and Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Week 2. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||17.08|9.83|<0.001
91665774|NCT01494532|183225221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.723||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|1.965|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||1.965|0.266|0.525
91858803|NCT04994509|183601998|OTHER|Comparability to F/TDF is defined as the HIV-1 incidence in the F/TAF group at most 0.8/100 PY higher than in the F/TDF group.|Rate Difference|0.333||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|1.367||p-value for rate difference vs F/TDF is based on a hybrid approach.|Hybrid approach||Exact CI is based on a hybrid approach.|||1.367|-0.869|0.20900
91858804|NCT04994509|183602000|SUPERIORITY||Exact Odds Ratio|9.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|83.36||p-value is from exact conditional logistic regression model.|ExactConditionalLogisticRegressionModel||Exact odds ratio and and CI are from exact conditional logistic regression model.|||83.36|2.06|0.0006
91858805|NCT05161715|183602041|OTHER|||||||0.425||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.425
91858806|NCT05161715|183602042|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91858807|NCT05161715|183602043|OTHER|||||||0.0424||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0424
91858808|NCT05161715|183602044|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91858809|NCT05161715|183602049|OTHER|||||||0.556||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.556
91858810|NCT04690673|183602053|EQUIVALENCE|Based on previous reports on the pharmacokinetics of oral paracetamol, the standard deviation of the within-subject difference in the Cmax for paracetamol was estimated to be 35% of the mean Cmax. Using this standard deviation, 10 participants were estimated to be sufficient, with a power of at least 80% (at 5% significance level). We recruited 12 volunteers to account for potential protocol violations or dropouts.|Geometric mean ratio|1.03||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons as the analysis was exploratory|t-test, 2 sided||Adhering|Highest paracetamol concentrations (Cmax) measured from capillary with the electrochemical method compared with measurements with mass-spectrometry.||1.13|0.94|0.05
91858811|NCT03743636|183602055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.57||||0.0775|ONE_SIDED|90.0|1.77||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||1.77|0.0775
91858812|NCT03743636|183602056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.3762|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-11.24||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||-11.24|0.3762
91858813|NCT03743636|183602057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.42||||0.0294|ONE_SIDED|90.0|7.31||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||7.31|0.0294
91858814|NCT03743636|183602058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.63||||0.0336|ONE_SIDED|90.0|6.26||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||6.26|0.0336
91858815|NCT03743636|183602059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||0.562|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-16.51||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||-16.51|0.5620
91858816|NCT03743636|183602060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93||||0.8797|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-29.15||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||-29.15|0.8797
91858817|NCT03743636|183602061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.0752|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.24||||ANCOVA||||||0.24|0.0752
91858818|NCT03743636|183602062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.8703|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-15.19||||ANCOVA||||||-15.19|0.8703
91858819|NCT03743636|183602063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10995.0||||0.1402|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2078.0||||ANCOVA||||||-2078|0.1402
91858820|NCT03743636|183602064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.1249|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.21||||ANCOVA||||||-0.21|0.1249
91858821|NCT03743636|183602065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.05||||0.8039|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-12.62||||ANCOVA||||||-12.62|0.8039
91858822|NCT03743636|183602066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-842.0||||0.5352|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-13125.0||||ANCOVA||||||-13125|0.5352
91858823|NCT03743636|183602067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.5777|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.46||||ANCOVA||||||-2.46|0.5777
91858824|NCT03743636|183602068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.3662|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-5.69||||ANCOVA||||||-5.69|0.3662
91858825|NCT03743636|183602069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11837.0||||0.8866|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-24396.0||||ANCOVA||||||-24396|0.8866
91858826|NCT03743636|183602070|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.25||||0.0153|ONE_SIDED|90.0|10.43|||The a priori statistical analysis plan defined a one-sided P value of \< 0.10 to define statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models for repeated measures were used to compare 3-month change in 6MW distance between the NR/resveratrol vs placebo groups and between the NR alone vs placebo groups using baseline, 3-month, and 6-month values, adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline 6MW.|||10.43|0.0153
91858827|NCT03743636|183602071|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.05||||0.1195|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.25||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models for repeated measures were used to compare 6-month change in 6MW distance between the NR/resveratrol vs placebo groups and between the NR alone vs placebo groups using baseline, 3-month, and 6-month values, adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline 6MW.|||-1.25|0.1195
91858828|NCT03743636|183602072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.0752|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.24|||The a priori statistical analysis plan defined a one-sided P value of \< 0.10 to define statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||0.24|0.0752
91858829|NCT03743636|183602073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.8703|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-15.19||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-15.19|0.8703
91665775|NCT01494532|183225221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.851||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|4.109|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.109|0.834|0.130
91858830|NCT03743636|183602074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10995.0||||0.1402|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2078.0||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-2078|0.1402
91858831|NCT03743636|183602075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.13||||0.8401|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-81.2||||ANCOVA||||||-81.20|0.8401
91864348|NCT04909801|183617748|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.6|0.6120
91864349|NCT04909801|183617748|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.3|0.5|0.4339
91864350|NCT04909801|183617748|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.5||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||2.6|0.8|0.1963
91864351|NCT04909801|183617748|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.3|0.8|0.3275
91864352|NCT04909801|183617748|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.7|0.6|0.9113
91864353|NCT04909801|183617749|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.1|0.4|0.1247
91864354|NCT04909801|183617749|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.6|0.5656
91864355|NCT04909801|183617749|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.5|0.6|0.8970
91864356|NCT04909801|183617749|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.6|0.7|0.9175
91864357|NCT04909801|183617749|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.7|0.7|0.5996
91864358|NCT04909801|183617749|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.3|0.5|0.3534
91864359|NCT04909801|183617750|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.3|0.2|0.1641
91864360|NCT04909801|183617750|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.5|0.5|0.5905
91864361|NCT04909801|183617750|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.5|0.6|0.7146
91864362|NCT04909801|183617750|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.7416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.7|0.7|0.7416
91864363|NCT04909801|183617750|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.5|0.6|0.9026
91864364|NCT04909801|183617750|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.2605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.2|0.5|0.2605
91864365|NCT04909801|183617751|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.1|0.3|0.1078
91858832|NCT03743636|183602076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14||||0.0602|ONE_SIDED|90.0|2.16||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||2.16|0.0602
91858833|NCT03743636|183602077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21||||0.2378|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-4.47||||ANCOVA||||||-4.47|0.2378
91858834|NCT03743636|183602078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.05||||0.1589|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.86||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-1.86|0.1589
91858835|NCT03743636|183602078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14||||0.0602|ONE_SIDED|90.0|2.16||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||2.16|0.0602
91858836|NCT03743636|183602079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.25||||0.3724|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-31.79||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-31.79|0.3724
91858837|NCT03743636|183602079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.13||||0.8401|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-81.2||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-81.20|0.8401
91858838|NCT03743636|183602080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.5558|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-9.52||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-9.52|0.5558
91665776|NCT01494532|183225221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.996||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|2.232|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.232|0.444|0.992
91858839|NCT03743636|183602080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21||||0.2378|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-4.47||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-4.47|0.2378
91858840|NCT03743636|183602081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.7112|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.97||||ANCOVA||||||-8.97|0.7112
91858841|NCT03743636|183602082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.9449|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-13.31||||ANCOVA||||||-13.31|0.9449
91858842|NCT03743636|183602083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.5409|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.57||||ANCOVA||||||-6.57|0.5409
91858843|NCT03743636|183602084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.35||||0.7814|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.89||||ANCOVA||||||-8.89|0.7814
91858844|NCT03743636|183602085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.5884|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-7.07||||ANCOVA||||||-7.07|0.5884
91858845|NCT03743636|183602086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05||||0.1787|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.6||||ANCOVA||||||-1.60|0.1787
91858846|NCT03743636|183602087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.7112|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.97||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-8.97|0.7112
91858847|NCT03743636|183602088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.9449|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-13.31||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-13.31|0.9449
91858848|NCT05485922|183602089|SUPERIORITY|Number of flow-stop episodes will be analysed, in a generalized linier mixed model, with subject included as a random component. Evidence of superior effect will be concluded, if the lower 95% confidence limit of the risk ratio between comparator and investigational device, is more than 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|0.05|<0.05
91858849|NCT05485922|183602090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.69|53.91||The pass criteria were based on results analysing the 2 primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the H0 on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||53.91|14.69|0.05
91858850|NCT05485922|183602091|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||0.44|0.05|0.05
91858851|NCT05485922|183602092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-95.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.69|-53.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The intra-catheter pressure at flow stop was analysed in a general linear mixed model with subject included as a random component.||-53.70|-137.69|0.05
91858852|NCT05485922|183602093|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|13.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.51|-11.10|0.05
91858853|NCT05485922|183602094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model, modelling the probability of a positive outcome. Evidence of effect in favour of the MHZC was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit (CL) of the odds ratio, O.R. was less than 1.||0.96|0.07|0.05
91858854|NCT04850807|183602127|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.0|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, alzheimer's diagnosis, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, history of heart failure, baseline ARBS (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of treatment group and baseline/follow-up score.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, and random intercept for individual.~Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up (Both CMAI and ARBS), 37 Treatment Follow-Up (ABRS), 35 Treatment Follow-Up (CMAI)"|6.0|-6.9|<0.05
91858855|NCT04850807|183602128|SUPERIORITY||Average Marginal Effect|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.26|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, alzheimer's diagnosis, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, history of heart failure, baseline ARBS (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of treatment group and baseline/follow-up score.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, and random intercept for individual.~Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up (Both CMAI and ARBS), 37 Treatment Follow-Up (ABRS), 35 Treatment Follow-Up (CMAI)"|0.26|-0.06|<0.05
91858856|NCT04850807|183602129|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.2|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, ARBS score, treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up , 35 Treatment Follow-Up"|10.2|-2.3|<0.05
91665777|NCT01494532|183225221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|3.248|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.248|0.674|0.329
91665778|NCT01494532|183225221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.907||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|2.61|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.610|0.315|0.856
91858857|NCT04850807|183602130|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.6|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Results are adjusted for baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, ARBS score, treatment group.~The model includes a random intercept for nursing home."|5.6|-8.5|<0.05
91858858|NCT04850807|183602131|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.1|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, ARBS score, treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up , 35 Treatment Follow-Up"|0.1|-9.8|<0.05
91858859|NCT04850807|183602133|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.41|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, alzheimer's diagnosis, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, history of heart failure, baseline ARBS (exclusive to CMAI/PHQ-9 model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS/PHQ-9 model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of treatment group and baseline/follow-up score.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, and random intercept for individual.~Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up (Both CMAI and ARBS), 37 Treatment Follow-Up (ABRS), 35 Treatment Follow-Up (CMAI)"|0.41|-1.03|<0.05
91858860|NCT02549339|183602165|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|25.31|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|||25.31|2.26|0.001
91864366|NCT04909801|183617751|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.2|0.4|0.1855
91864367|NCT04909801|183617751|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.4|0.6|0.5223
91864368|NCT04909801|183617751|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.3|0.5|0.4078
91864369|NCT04909801|183617751|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.8|0.7|0.5238
91792240|NCT02197234|183462310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%.|Geometric mean ratio|91.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.16|108.41|||||Simvastatin + AZD9291 / Simvastatin alone. Based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AUC9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 45%. No change in exposure was also assumed.||108.41|77.16|
91858861|NCT02549339|183602166|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.54|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.54|3.30|<0.001
91858862|NCT02549339|183602167|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|10.2|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.20|3.24|<0.001
91858863|NCT02549339|183602168|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.35||Negative binominal regression with treatment group and pooled site as factors and log baseline count as offset variable.|Mantel Haenszel||0.018% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.35|0.25|<0.001
91858864|NCT01095796|183602300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total of 700 HIV-1 infected participants, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2 groups would achieve at least 95% power to establish noninferiority in Week 48 response (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL per the FDA-defined snapshot analysis) rate difference between the 2 groups. For sample size and power computation, it was assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 0.795, a noninferiority margin of 0.12, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided, 0.025 level.|Difference in response rates|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-1.6|8.8|||||To preserve the overall alpha level: 0.05, accounting for 2 interim analyses for Independent Data Monitoring Committee meetings, the 95.2% CI was computed using normal approximation stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48 in the Stribild group is at least 12% worse than the response rate in the Atripla group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the Stribild group is less than 12% worse than that in the Atripla Group.||8.8|-1.6|
91858865|NCT04349072|183602308|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|58.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.989|73.868|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.868|43.989|<0.0001
91858866|NCT04349072|183602309|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|41.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.481|57.662|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.662|24.481|<0.0001
91858867|NCT04349072|183602310|SUPERIORITY||Leat Square Mean of Treatment Difference|9.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.868|14.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measure (MMRM)||||14.041|4.868|<0.0001
91665779|NCT01494532|183225223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.376
91858868|NCT04349072|183602311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measure (MMRM)||||0.421|0.266|<0.0001
91858869|NCT04349072|183602312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measure (MMRM)||||0.700|0.406|<0.0001
91858870|NCT04349072|183602313|SUPERIORITY||Leat Square Mean of Treatment Difference|-37.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.08|-26.24|||ANCOVA|||||-26.24|-48.08|<0.0001
91858871|NCT00100698|183602338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-0.5|||repeated measures mixed effects ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-38|0.049
91858872|NCT05480943|183602357|OTHER|chi-square tested correlation between CRP and thiamine deficiency.||||||0.6097||||||P\<=0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared|||For the subset of 123 participants with both C-reactive protein level and plasma thiamine levels (125 had C-reactive protein results but 2 were missing plasma thiamine levels), we used Chi-Square to test for association between those who were thiamine deficient and had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. A priori hypothesis was that inflammation would cause thiamine deficiency due to increased metabolic demands.||||0.6097
91858873|NCT03069313|183602371|OTHER|Paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91858874|NCT03069313|183602372|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
91858875|NCT03069313|183602373|OTHER|This analysis is comparing SWB before and after treatment.||||||0.133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.133
91858876|NCT03069313|183602373|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing EWB before and after treatment.||||0.056
91858877|NCT03069313|183602373|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing PWB before and after treatment.||||<0.0001
91858878|NCT03069313|183602373|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing FWB before and after treatment.||||0.09
91858879|NCT03069313|183602373|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing ESS before and after treatment.||||<0.0001
91858880|NCT04623775|183602389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|3.0||||||||3.0|-16.0|
91858881|NCT04623775|183602390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|2.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.05|0.94|
91858882|NCT02396199|183602448|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of participants|0.917||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.827|||One-sided test|Fisher Exact||Exact test, One-sided 95%, with lower limit (0.827)||||0.827|0.006
91858883|NCT04455035|183602466|OTHER|ttest||||||0.0088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0088
91858884|NCT04455035|183602467|OTHER|ttest||||||1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00001
91864370|NCT04909801|183617751|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.3|0.5|0.4740
91858885|NCT03897686|183602528|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|LS-means difference|-179.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.38||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-274.96|-83.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||"It was determined that 144 participants randomized into 2 groups (1:1) would have at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was calculated based on analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline value with fixed factors of group assuming α = 0.05 and 10% discontinuation rate.~The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between treatment groups in mean change from baseline to Week 25 in the total WOMAC score."||-83.65|-274.96|0.00030
91858886|NCT03897686|183602528|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|LS-means difference|-179.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.38||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.11|-53.5||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~1\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade II versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade II"||-53.50|-305.11|0.0017
91858887|NCT03897686|183602528|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-37.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.85||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.83|123.82||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~2\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade II versus Group A (NOLTREX™) ОА grade III"||123.82|-197.83|0.9324
91858888|NCT03897686|183602528|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-216.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.01||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.37|-21.25||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~3\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade II versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade III"||-21.25|-411.37|0.0233
91858889|NCT03897686|183602528|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|142.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|81.89||0.3082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.63|355.22||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~4\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade III versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade II"||355.22|-70.63|0.3082
91858890|NCT03897686|183602528|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-37.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.85||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.83|123.82||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~5\) versus Group B (Placebo) OA grade II versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade III"||123.82|-197.83|0.9324
91904153|NCT04667377|183703255|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.46||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.46|-5.40|0.0202
91665780|NCT01494532|183225223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
91665781|NCT01494532|183225223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.362
91665782|NCT01494532|183225223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
91792241|NCT02119676|183462341|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.49||1-sided|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) and geographical region.|Estimated using a Cox regression model with Efron's method used for ties, stratified by mGPS score and geographical region|||1.49|0.73|0.588
91858891|NCT03897686|183602528|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-179.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.38||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.11|-53.5||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~6\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade III versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade III"||-53.50|-305.11|0.0017
91858892|NCT03897686|183602529|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|S-means difference|-143.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.88||0.00267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-236.09|-50.69||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||It was determined that 144 participants randomized into 2 groups (1:1) would have at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was calculated based on analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline value with fixed factors of group assuming α = 0.05 and 10% discontinuation rate.||-50.69|-236.09|0.00267
91858893|NCT03897686|183602530|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-13.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.995||0.16786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.096|5.638||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 3 (week 6)||5.638|-32.096|0.16786
91858894|NCT03897686|183602530|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-26.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.995||0.00847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.46|-6.93||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 4 (week 13)||-6.93|-46.46|0.00847
91858895|NCT03897686|183602530|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-33.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.29||0.00123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.31|-13.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 5 (week 25)||-13.62|-54.31|0.00123
91902042|NCT02113579|183698990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.809|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|-4.11||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate secondary outcomes Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Wk 2 and Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Wk 2. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-4.11|-11.23|<0.001
91792242|NCT02119676|183462341|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.23||1-sided|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by geographical region.|Estimated using Cox regression model with Efron's method used for ties, stratified by geographical region|||1.23|0.48|0.136
91665783|NCT01494532|183225223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.403
91792243|NCT00219544|183462347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0018||95.0|-1.27|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Difference = pregabalin minus placebo|The study is powered to detect clinically significant difference of 1.2 between treatment groups in mean pain score at end of treatment. The statistical sample size calculation requires a total of 144 subjects to complete the Double-Blind phase of the study: a sample size of 72 in each treatment group will have 90% power to detect a difference in treatment mean pain scores of 1.2 assuming that the common standard deviation is 2.2 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||-0.30|-1.27|0.0018
91792244|NCT00219544|183462350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001||95.0|-1.15|-0.3|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 5||-0.30|-1.15|0.0010
91792245|NCT00219544|183462350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.41|-0.53|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 6||-0.53|-1.41|<.0001
91792246|NCT00219544|183462350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.47|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 7||-0.47|-1.39|<.0001
91792247|NCT00219544|183462350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.47|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 8||-0.47|-1.39|<.0001
91792248|NCT00219544|183462350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0022||95.0|-1.14|-0.25|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 9||-0.25|-1.14|0.0022
91792249|NCT00219544|183462356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0031||95.0|-1.18|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-1.18|0.0031
91792250|NCT00219544|183462359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0177||95.0|-0.94|-0.09|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 5||-0.09|-0.94|0.0177
91792251|NCT00219544|183462359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.31|-0.44|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 6||-0.44|-1.31|<.0001
91792252|NCT00219544|183462359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0005||95.0|-1.28|-0.36|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 7||-0.36|-1.28|0.0005
91792253|NCT00219544|183462359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003||95.0|-1.31|-0.39|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 8||-0.39|-1.31|0.0003
91792254|NCT00219544|183462359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0011||95.0|-1.18|-0.3|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 9||-0.30|-1.18|0.0011
91792255|NCT00219544|183462360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0069||95.0|-15.5|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-15.5|0.0069
91792256|NCT00219544|183462361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0023||95.0|-2.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|HADS-A||-0.5|-2.1|0.0023
91792257|NCT00219544|183462361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0013||95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|HADS-D||-0.5|-1.9|0.0013
91792258|NCT00219544|183462362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.0828||95.0|-0.79|12.75|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Impact||12.75|-0.79|0.0828
91792259|NCT00219544|183462362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.0197||95.0|1.05|11.94|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Satisfaction||11.94|1.05|0.0197
91792260|NCT00219544|183462363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0278||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||The distribution of the responses to the PGIC at EOT was compared between the 2 treatment groups using the 7 categories of the PGIC.||||0.0278
91792261|NCT00219544|183462364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0049||95.0|-1.28|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Pain interference||-0.23|-1.28|0.0049
91792262|NCT00219544|183462364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0037||95.0|-1.29|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Pain severity||-0.25|-1.29|0.0037
91792263|NCT00219544|183462365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0719||95.0|0.0|0.11|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Health State Profile||0.11|-0.00|0.0719
91792264|NCT00219544|183462365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.418||95.0|-2.96|7.1|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Visual Analog Scale||7.10|-2.96|0.4180
91858896|NCT03897686|183602531|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.121||0.97733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.271|9.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in stiffness WOMAC score, visit 3||9.980|-10.271|0.97733
91858897|NCT03897686|183602531|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29||0.00693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.95|-4.04||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in stiffness WOMAC score, visit 4||-4.04|-24.95|0.00693
91858898|NCT03897686|183602531|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-16.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.00073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.44|-6.92||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 5 (week 25)||-6.92|-25.44|0.00073
91858899|NCT03897686|183602531|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-57.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.1||0.07725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.62|6.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in functionality WOMAC score, visit 3||6.33|-120.62|0.07725
91858900|NCT03897686|183602531|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-103.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.92||0.00279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.35|-36.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in functionality WOMAC score, visit 4||-36.20|-170.35|0.00279
91858901|NCT03897686|183602531|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-133.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.26||0.00023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.03|-63.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in functionality WOMAC score, visit 5||-63.55|-203.03|0.00023
91858902|NCT03897686|183602532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||The level of significance was set to p \<0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value generated by Chi-squared test was ≤0.005 for each time point.||The Chi-Square test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in disposition of results between two groups.||||<0.005
91858903|NCT03897686|183602533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||The level of significance was set to p \<0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value generated by Chi-squared test was ≤0.005 for each time point.||The Chi-Square test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in disposition of results between two groups.||||<0.005
91665784|NCT01494532|183225224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.419
91792265|NCT05038904|183462370|SUPERIORITY|We estimated that 10 subjects allowed for 80% power to detect a 3-fold increase (1.1 natural log units; i.e. 1 food dose escalation) in the threshold food dose using a paired t test with p\<0.05. For this sample size determination, the primary endpoint was assumed to be normally distributed with a standard deviation of 1.1 natural log units.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91792266|NCT05038904|183462371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0014
91858904|NCT03897686|183602535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||The mean number of paracetamol tablets was calculated taking into account only patients who had received paracetamol. ANCOVA was used to detect a difference in means of 2 groups at visit 3 (week 6).||||0.050
91858905|NCT03897686|183602535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||The mean number of paracetamol tablets was calculated taking into account only patients who had received paracetamol. ANCOVA was used to detect a difference in means of 2 groups at visit 4 (week 13).||||0.004
91858906|NCT04505774|183602550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6778
91858907|NCT04505774|183602550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6292|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6292
91858908|NCT04505774|183602550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6858
91858909|NCT04505774|183602550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1351
91858910|NCT04505774|183602551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1959|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1959
91858911|NCT04505774|183602551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9496|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9496
91858912|NCT04505774|183602551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9902|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9902
91858913|NCT04505774|183602551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0814
91858914|NCT04505774|183602552|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91858915|NCT04505774|183602552|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91858916|NCT04505774|183602552|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91858917|NCT04505774|183602553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0577|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0577
91858918|NCT04505774|183602553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5015|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5015
91858919|NCT04505774|183602553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5892|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5892
91858920|NCT04505774|183602553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1714|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1714
91858921|NCT04505774|183602554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0732|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0732
91858922|NCT04505774|183602554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9018
91858923|NCT04505774|183602554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5075|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5075
91858924|NCT04505774|183602554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1450
91858925|NCT04505774|183602555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8837|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.8837
91858926|NCT04505774|183602555|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91858927|NCT04505774|183602555|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91858928|NCT04505774|183602555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5343|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5343
91858929|NCT04505774|183602556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6636
91858930|NCT04505774|183602556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5878
91858931|NCT04505774|183602556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.7148
91858932|NCT04505774|183602556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1117|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1117
91858933|NCT04505774|183602557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6780
91858934|NCT04505774|183602557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6638
91858935|NCT04505774|183602557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.7645
91792267|NCT05038904|183462372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91792268|NCT05038904|183462373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants' ex vivo basophil activation during acalabrutinib treatment was compared to their own baseline level.||||0.002
91792269|NCT00873873|183462381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Is there a difference in airway wall thickness among the 4 groups?||||0.2
91792270|NCT02207946|183462383|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) means are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and site included as fixed factors and baseline included as covariate.||0.16|-1.02|0.144
91792271|NCT04035486|183462425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.79|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.79|0.49|<0.0001
91792272|NCT04035486|183462426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.8|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.80|0.48|0.0002
91792273|NCT04035486|183462431|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.43|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson|||A 95% CI was calculated on the percentage of participants with a Response or Stable Disease using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.||100.00|88.43|
91792274|NCT04035486|183462432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).|An adjusted CI of (0.54, 1.51) was computed at the 2-sided 99.84% level, considering a 2-sided significance level of 0.00158 for the overall survival interim analysis, based on the O'Brien and Fleming spending function, assuming 334 deaths for the final overall survival analysis.|1.24|0.65|0.5238
91792275|NCT04035486|183462434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.44|||Regression, Logistic||And odds ratio of greater than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||2.44|1.06|0.0261
91792276|NCT04035486|183462436|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.36||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|0.72|||ANCOVA||A difference in least square means less than 0 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using analysis of covariance with baseline tumor size and time from baseline scan to randomization as covariates and with factors race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.72|-7.44|0.1067
91792277|NCT04035486|183462437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.4483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.81|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio greater than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||2.81|0.63|0.4483
91792278|NCT04035486|183462438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.93|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.93|0.52|0.0132
91792279|NCT04035486|183462439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.94|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.94|0.56|0.0159
91792280|NCT04035486|183462440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.93|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.93|0.51|0.0157
91792281|NCT04035486|183462447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.83|||Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|Subgroup analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, subgroup and a treatment-by subgroup interaction term.||0.83|0.44|
91792282|NCT04035486|183462448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.9|||||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|Subgroup analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, subgroup and a treatment-by subgroup interaction term.||0.90|0.44|
91792283|NCT01730937|183462456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.01|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Sorafenib Alone|Original design: Hypothesized 28% reduction (HR=0.72) with SBRT (corresponds to median OS = 14.5 months). Assuming an exponential distribution and constant hazards, 292 patients were required to reach 238 OS events, with 80% statistical power, a 1-sided α of 0.05. Revised design (see limitations/caveats): For same above hypotheses, at least 155 OS events from 193 randomized patients provided 65% statistical power, with a 1-sided α of 0.05.||1.01|0.59|0.0554
91792284|NCT01730937|183462457|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.99||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test||Reference arm = Sorafenib Alone|||0.99|0.48|0.034
91792285|NCT01730937|183462458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.75||Two-sided significance level=0.05|Log Rank||Reference arm = Sorafenib Alone|||0.75|0.40|0.0001
91792286|NCT03947684|183462463|OTHER|Generalized linear model (GLM) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||F-test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05.||||>0.05
91792287|NCT03947684|183462464|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
91858936|NCT04505774|183602557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0987
91858937|NCT04505774|183602558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.4016
91858938|NCT04505774|183602558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5815
91858939|NCT04505774|183602558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.9085
91858940|NCT04505774|183602558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0820
91858941|NCT04505774|183602559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3135|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3135
91858942|NCT04505774|183602559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9581|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9581
91858943|NCT04505774|183602559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9661|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9661
91858944|NCT04505774|183602559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1073|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1073
91904154|NCT03861936|183703256|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|83.1||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.1|54.5|<.0001
91665785|NCT01494532|183225224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
91858945|NCT04505774|183602560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3575|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3575
91858946|NCT04505774|183602560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5910
91858947|NCT04505774|183602560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.8670
91858948|NCT04505774|183602560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0645
91858949|NCT05386355|183602561|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.35|||||The General Health App is the reference group.|A mixed-effect Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used report the adjusted RR with 95% CI accounting for the clinic-specific random intercepts. Given the small number of COVID-19 vaccination completion, we were unable to account for children nested with parent/caregiver or adjusting for covariates.||5.35|0.59|
91858950|NCT05386355|183602562|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.65|||||The General Health App is the reference group.|A mixed-effect Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used report the adjusted RR with 95% CI accounting for the clinic-specific random intercepts. Given the small number of COVID-19 vaccination completion, we were unable to account for children nested with parent/caregiver or adjusting for covariates.||1.65|0.42|
91858951|NCT05386355|183602563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|The analytical method was based on a linear mixed model adjusting for baseline SAGE vaccine hesitancy composite scores and random clinic effect.||||0.73|-1.19|0.638
91858952|NCT04788537|183602564|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model regression|Slope|-1.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope reported is for Time x Group Interaction|||||.006
91858953|NCT03775109|183602580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|44.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Chi-squared||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|It is estimated that improvement of histological alcoholic steatohepatitis will occur in 40% of patients treated with placebo and 80% of patients treated with Canakinumab. A trial with 80% power to detect a difference at the P \< 0.05 threshold would require 23 patients in each arm, 46 in total. Assuming a drop-out rate of 10%, we will recruit 52 patients in total (26 patients per group).||44.5|-11.2|0.248
91858954|NCT03775109|183602581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.322|||||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|||0.322|-0.235|
91858955|NCT03775109|183602582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|81.004||||||||81.004|0.121|
91858956|NCT03775109|183602583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.887|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|9.965||||||||9.965|0.357|
91858957|NCT03775109|183602586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|Change in log-transformed serum bilirubin from baseline to day 28. 49 participants were included in this analysis.||||||0.270
91858958|NCT03775109|183602587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0349|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: MELD score at Day 28 = intercept + treatment group indicator + baseline MELD score. 49 patients have data at Day 28 and baseline.||||||0.03490
91858959|NCT03775109|183602588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.558|16.624|||||Ordinal logistic regression (proportional odds) model. GAHS at day 28 = intercept + treatment group indicator + baseline GAHS measurement. 48 participants have GAHS data at baseline and day 28.|||16.624|1.558|
91858960|NCT03775109|183602589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: mDF score at day 28 = intercept + treatment group indicator + baseline mDF score.||Natural log transformation used for both baseline and day 28 measurements. 49 participants have mDF measurements at baseline and day 28.||||0.343
91858961|NCT03775109|183602590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.529|0.696|||||difference = canakinumab - placebo. natural log transformation used.|||0.696|-0.529|
91858962|NCT03775109|183602591|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91858963|NCT03775109|183602592|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91858964|NCT03775109|183602593|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|7.424||||||||7.424|0.147|
91858965|NCT03775109|183602601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.322|||||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|||0.322|-0.235|
91858966|NCT03775109|183602602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.127|||||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|||0.127|-0.388|
91858967|NCT03775109|183602603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|23.219||||||||23.219|0.693|
91858968|NCT03775109|183602604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|38.043||||||||38.043|0.543|
91858969|NCT03775109|183602605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|6.558||||||||6.558|0.456|
91858970|NCT03775109|183602606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|3.397||||||||3.397|0.281|
91858971|NCT03775109|183602607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|2.479||||||||2.479|0.238|
91858972|NCT05691452|183602613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.05||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.68|90.78||Generalized linear models generated estimated mean differences in the post-intervention values controlling for the baseline assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||90.78|-50.68|0.578
91858973|NCT05691452|183602614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.2||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.9|59.5|||Regression, Linear|||||59.5|-101.9|0.61
91858974|NCT05691452|183602615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.55||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|8.78|||Regression, Linear|||||8.78|-5.68|0.674
91665786|NCT01494532|183225224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.230
91665787|NCT01494532|183225224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.033
91858975|NCT05691452|183602616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-4.59|||Regression, Linear|||||-4.59|-38.5|.013
91858976|NCT05691452|183602617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.387||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|1.109|||Regression, Linear|||||1.109|-0.335|0.29
91858977|NCT05691452|183602618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.203||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.833|||Regression, Linear|||||0.833|-1.24|0.701
91858978|NCT05691452|183602619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.45||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.99|26.08|||Regression, Linear|||||26.08|-68.99|0.376
91858979|NCT02278562|183602692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Prior data indicate that LDR is normally distributed with standard deviation ranging from 0.16 to 0.23 in hemodialysis and control patients, respectively. If the true difference in the experimental and control means is 0.21, we will be able to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of the experimental and control groups are equal with probability (power) 0.933. The Type I error probability associated with this test of this null hypothesis is 0.05.||||0.37
91858980|NCT02278562|183602692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Prior data indicate that LDR is normally distributed with standard deviation ranging from 0.16 to 0.23 in hemodialysis and control patients, respectively. If the true difference in the experimental and control means is 0.21, we will be able to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of the experimental and control groups are equal with probability (power) 0.933.||||0.955
91858981|NCT05374837|183602728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9585||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4276|2.1485||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic||Odds of consuming a minimum acceptable diet in control group at endline.|||2.1485|0.4276|0.145
91858982|NCT05374837|183602728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9669||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.1742||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic||Odds of consuming a minimum acceptable diet in intervention group at endline.|||2.1742|0.43|0.145
91858983|NCT05374837|183602729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3084||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1977|0.481||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.481|0.1977|0.179
91858984|NCT05374837|183602729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2983|0.6431||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.6431|0.2983|0.179
91858985|NCT05374837|183602735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.054
91858986|NCT05374837|183602736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.65
91858987|NCT05406921|183602766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This was a feasibility study and not powered to detect significant differences pre-/post-intervention.||||<0.05
91858988|NCT04299009|183602768|OTHER|multilevel linear models with Epworth sleepiness score scores as the dependent variable; treatment block (BLT vs sBLT) as a fixed effect; treatment sequence as a covariate; and participant intercept as a random effect.|regression coefficient|2.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-0.30|<0.05
91665788|NCT01494532|183225224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
91665789|NCT01494532|183225225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.073
91665790|NCT01494532|183225225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
91665791|NCT01494532|183225225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.791
91858989|NCT03580369|183602814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.313|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.576|-5.428|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||-5.428|-10.576|<.0001
91858990|NCT03580369|183602814|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.7628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.169|2.513|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||2.513|-1.169|0.7628
91858991|NCT03580369|183602814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.522|-5.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||-5.047|-10.522|<.0001
91858992|NCT03580369|183602814|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933||0.7768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.118|2.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||2.538|-1.118|0.7768
91858993|NCT03580369|183602816|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.667|12.095|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||12.095|2.667|<.0001
91858994|NCT03580369|183602816|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.180|0.598|0.8430
91858995|NCT03580369|183602816|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.734|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.694|12.207|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||12.207|2.694|<.0001
91858996|NCT03580369|183602816|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio, log|0.848||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.188|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.188|0.605|0.8312
91858997|NCT03580369|183602817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.597|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.271|-1.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults||-1.929|-4.271|<.0001
91858998|NCT03580369|183602817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|1.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults||1.258|-0.419|0.8366
91858999|NCT03580369|183602817|SUPERIORITY|Adults|LS Mean|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.594|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.295|-1.966|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||||-1.966|-4.295|<.0001
91792288|NCT03947684|183462464|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||<0.05
91859000|NCT03580369|183602817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.8201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|1.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults||1.222|-0.444|0.8201
91859001|NCT03580369|183602819|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.747|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.621|4.656|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||4.656|1.621|<.0001
91859002|NCT03580369|183602819|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.836||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.159|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.159|0.603|0.8586
91859003|NCT03580369|183602819|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.261|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.929|5.513|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||5.513|1.929|<.0001
91859004|NCT03580369|183602819|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.992||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.373|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.373|0.717|0.5190
91859005|NCT03580369|183602820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.323|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.48|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.480|1.183|<.0001
91859006|NCT03580369|183602820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.975||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.051|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.051|0.904|0.7469
91714277|NCT00676403|183320239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.469||0.0006||95.0|-13.4|-3.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-3.67|-13.40|0.0006
91859007|NCT03580369|183602820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.54|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.540|1.230|<.0001
91859008|NCT03580369|183602820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.014||||0.3586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.092|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.092|0.941|0.3586
91859009|NCT06143670|183602830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
91859010|NCT06143670|183602831|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-14.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-14.1|-19.6|<0.0001
91859011|NCT06143670|183602832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-13.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-13.1|-18.9|<0.0001
91859012|NCT06143670|183602832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-15.3|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-15.3|-19.9|<0.0001
91859013|NCT06143670|183602833|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.2|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.20|-0.35|<0.0001
91859014|NCT06143670|183602833|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.13|-0.26|<0.0001
91859015|NCT06143670|183602833|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.22|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.22|-0.36|<0.0001
91859016|NCT06143670|183602834|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.16|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.16|-0.28|<0.0001
91859017|NCT06143670|183602834|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.10|-0.21|<0.0001
91859018|NCT06143670|183602834|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.18|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.18|-0.30|<0.0001
91859019|NCT06143670|183602835|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.10|-0.15|<0.0001
91859020|NCT06143670|183602835|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.13|-0.17|<0.0001
91859021|NCT06143670|183602835|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.11|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.11|-0.16|<0.0001
91859022|NCT06143670|183602836|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.53|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.53|-0.74|<0.0001
91859023|NCT06143670|183602836|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.56|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.56|-0.74|<0.0001
91859024|NCT06143670|183602836|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.58|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.58|-0.77|<0.0001
91859025|NCT00837369|183602842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Compare the differences in sensitivity between myocardial perfusion and wall motion for detecting stenosis.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91665792|NCT01494532|183225225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.747
91859026|NCT00837369|183602842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Compare the sensitivity of myocardial perfusion in detecting stenosis within the first 4 minutes after regadenoson bolus injection to that of wall motion|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91859027|NCT05059262|183602969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|49.6||Stratified by tumor location (lower limb/all other) and region (U.S./non-U.S.) based on Interactive Response Technology (IRT).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel with stratification factors based on IRT|||49.6|28.4|<0.0001
91859028|NCT05059262|183602970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|67.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|77.3||Stratified by tumor location (lower limb/all other) and region (U.S./non-U.S.) based on IRT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel with stratification factors based on IRT.|||77.3|57.0|<0.0001
91859029|NCT05059262|183602971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.6||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.3||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.)+joint type (knee, ankle, or other)+the most impaired ROM baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||25.3|4.0|0.0077
91859030|NCT05059262|183602972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.2||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.) and tumor location (lower limb/all other) based on IRT+PROMIS-PF baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||5.2|1.4|0.0007
91859031|NCT05059262|183602973|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.) and tumor location (lower limb/all other) based on IRT+Worst Stiffness NRS baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-1.1|-2.5|<0.0001
91859032|NCT05059262|183602974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.4||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.4||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.) and tumor location (lower limb/all other) based on IRT+VAS baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||13.4|1.4|0.0155
91665793|NCT01494532|183225225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.600
91859033|NCT05059262|183602975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in responder rate|26.2||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|42.8||Stratified by tumor location (lower limb/all other) and region (U.S./non-U.S.) based on IRT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel with stratification factors based on IRT.|||42.8|9.5|0.0056
91859034|NCT03131648|183602988|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|13.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||13.1|4.1|0.002
91904155|NCT03861936|183703256|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|69.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.1|84.0||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||84.0|55.1|<.0001
91904156|NCT03861936|183703262|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.1|63.7||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.7|33.1|<.0001
91665794|NCT01494532|183225226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.998
91665795|NCT01494532|183225226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
91665796|NCT01494532|183225226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.312
91665797|NCT01494532|183225226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91665798|NCT01494532|183225226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.659
91864371|NCT04909801|183617752|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.6565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||2.9|0.5|0.6565
91665799|NCT01494532|183225227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.337
91665800|NCT01494532|183225227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.126
91665801|NCT01494532|183225227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.283
91665802|NCT01494532|183225227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.148
91665803|NCT01494532|183225227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.581
91864372|NCT04909801|183617752|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||2.1|0.6|0.7010
91864373|NCT04909801|183617752|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||2.1|0.8|0.3683
91864374|NCT04909801|183617752|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.6372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.8|0.7|0.6372
91864375|NCT04909801|183617752|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.0|0.8|0.2922
91864376|NCT04909801|183617752|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.8178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.7|0.7|0.8178
91864377|NCT04909801|183617753|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||2.2|0.4|0.9599
91864378|NCT04909801|183617753|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.7|0.5|0.7899
91864379|NCT04909801|183617753|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.6305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.9|0.7|0.6305
91864380|NCT04909801|183617753|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||2.0|0.8|0.3491
91864381|NCT04909801|183617753|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.4916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.9|0.7|0.4916
91864382|NCT04909801|183617753|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.8|0.7|0.5697
91864383|NCT04909801|183617754|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 29||0.5|-0.0|0.0977
91864384|NCT04909801|183617754|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.2889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 57||0.5|-0.1|0.2889
91864385|NCT04909801|183617754|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.7676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||longitudinal|||Day 85||0.4|-0.3|0.7676
91864386|NCT04909801|183617754|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 113||0.2|-0.3|0.6157
91864387|NCT04909801|183617754|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.2|-0.4|0.3904
91864388|NCT04909801|183617754|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.8359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.3|-0.4|0.8359
91864389|NCT04909801|183617755|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.1|||longitudinal|||Day 29||3.1|-2.3|0.7852
91864390|NCT04909801|183617755|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.3|||longitudinal|||Day 57||3.3|-2.0|0.6336
91864391|NCT04909801|183617755|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.4879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.7|||longitudinal|||Day 85||1.7|-3.5|0.4879
91864392|NCT04909801|183617755|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||longitudinal|||Day 113||1.0|-3.5|0.2812
91864393|NCT04909801|183617755|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.5|-3.9|0.1205
91864394|NCT04909801|183617755|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.3|||longitudinal|||Day 169||1.3|-4.1|0.3001
91864395|NCT04909801|183617756|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.0|||longitudinal|||Day 29||4.0|-1.6|0.4107
91864396|NCT04909801|183617756|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.5||||0.6824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.2|||longitudinal|||Day 57||3.2|-2.1|0.6824
91864397|NCT04909801|183617756|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9|||longitudinal|||Day 85||1.9|-3.4|0.5793
91864398|NCT04909801|183617756|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||longitudinal|||Day 113||1.2|-4.2|0.2883
91864399|NCT04909801|183617756|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.5|-3.9|0.1285
91864400|NCT04909801|183617756|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.2815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||longitudinal|||Day 169||1.2|-4.2|0.2815
91864401|NCT04909801|183617761|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 29||0.5|0.1|0.0099
91864402|NCT04909801|183617761|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||longitudinal|||Day 57||0.4|-0.1|0.1519
91902043|NCT02113579|183698991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.975|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|6.62||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate secondary outcomes Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Wk 2 and Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Wk 2. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.62|2.78|<0.001
91902044|NCT02113579|183698992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Success rate difference (%)|15.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Study center and mean baseline cold air stimulus VAS score as covariate. For subjects with no score at Week 2, non-response was imputed.|Estimated by calculating the model predicted success probabilities assuming all subjects received 12027-033 and then assuming all subjects received placebo, and then calculating mean of subjects' differences between these predicted probabilities.|The null hypothesis was no difference in success rates between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in success rates between treatment groups.||||0.002
91902045|NCT02113579|183698993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-3.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-3.43|-9.92|<0.001
91902046|NCT02113579|183698994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-7.75||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-7.75|-15.30|<0.001
91902047|NCT02113579|183698995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.422||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-0.45||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.45|-6.04|0.023
91902048|NCT02113579|183698996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|-3.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups||-3.93|-11.29|<0.001
91902049|NCT00789867|183698997|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0002
91902050|NCT00789867|183698998|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.22
91902051|NCT00789867|183698999|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
91902052|NCT00789867|183699000|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
91902053|NCT00789867|183699001|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.22
91665804|NCT01494532|183225228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.486
91902054|NCT00789867|183699002|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91902055|NCT00594516|183699003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of (-2, 2). A prespecified equivalence margin of (-2,2) was used for equivalence analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||||95.0|-0.09|0.28||||||Comparison of Tapentadol IR to ER analysis of variance model with factors for treatment, double blind cross-over period and subject.||0.28|-0.09|
91902056|NCT01493557|183699008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.31||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|29.49|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||29.49|-6.54|0.2554
91665805|NCT01494532|183225228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
91902057|NCT01493557|183699009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.3165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|24.58|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||24.58|-11.24|0.3165
91902058|NCT01493557|183699010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.41||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|35.98|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||35.98|0.71|0.0273
91859035|NCT03131648|183602989|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|12.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|17.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||17.7|6.5|<0.001
91859036|NCT03131648|183602990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'Composite', subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Reduction of Worst Daily Pruritus NRS weekly average ≥4 at Week 16 was tested after the sequential testing of IGA 0/1 and EASI75 if these tests showed statistical significance.||15|4.4|0.002
91859037|NCT03131648|183602991|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using the Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-6.5||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after initiation of rescue medication were not included in the analysis.||-6.5|-14.4|<0.001
91859038|NCT03131648|183602992|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-2.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.8||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included.||-0.8|-3.4|0.002
91864403|NCT04909801|183617761|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1||||0.2505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||longitudinal|||Day 85||0.4|-0.1|0.2505
91665806|NCT01494532|183225228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.121
91864404|NCT04909801|183617761|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 113||0.2|-0.3|0.5248
91864405|NCT04909801|183617761|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.2|-0.3|0.1778
91665807|NCT01494532|183225228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.081
91665808|NCT01494532|183225228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.187
91864406|NCT04909801|183617761|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.2|-0.3|0.8510
91864407|NCT04909801|183617762|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.3||||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.5|||longitudinal|||Day 29||3.5|-0.9|0.2319
91864408|NCT04909801|183617762|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7|||longitudinal|||Day 57||2.7|-1.5|0.5572
91864409|NCT04909801|183617762|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1|||longitudinal|||Day 85||2.1|-2.0|0.9366
91864410|NCT04909801|183617762|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.1508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||longitudinal|||Day 113||1.0|-3.5|0.1508
91864411|NCT04909801|183617762|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||-0.2|-3.6|0.0303
91864412|NCT04909801|183617762|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.8|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.8|-3.3|0.2333
91665809|NCT01494532|183225229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.134
91665810|NCT01494532|183225229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.768
91864413|NCT04909801|183617763|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.2|||longitudinal|||Day 29||4.2|-0.3|0.0938
91864414|NCT04909801|183617763|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7|||longitudinal|||Day 57||2.7|-1.6|0.6053
91864415|NCT04909801|183617763|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||longitudinal|||Day 85||2.3|-1.9|0.8570
91864416|NCT04909801|183617763|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 113||0.5|-3.0|0.1592
91864417|NCT04909801|183617763|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||-0.2|-3.7|0.0319
91859039|NCT03131648|183602993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|33.7||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.~P value was considered non-significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This test was not statistically significant and hence next maintenance endpoint in the sequential testing procedure was not evaluated.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||33.7|-21.8|0.68
91864418|NCT04909801|183617763|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.7|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.7|-3.4|0.2059
91864419|NCT05274074|183617778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.2|||Regression, Linear|||||6.2|-3.4|0.57
91665811|NCT01494532|183225229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.859
91665812|NCT01494532|183225229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.903
91864420|NCT05274074|183617779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.5|0.53
91665813|NCT01494532|183225229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.470
91665814|NCT01494532|183225230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
91665815|NCT01494532|183225230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
91665816|NCT01494532|183225230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.267
91665817|NCT01494532|183225230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
91864421|NCT05274074|183617780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||||1.4|-3.3|0.41
91864422|NCT05274074|183617781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||||1.6|-3.5|0.45
91864423|NCT05274074|183617782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.2|||Regression, Linear|||||6.2|0.5|0.02
91864424|NCT05274074|183617783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3|||Regression, Linear|||||3.3|-4.9|0.69
91864425|NCT04117347|183617784|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0861723|0.1309519|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy B (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for left amygdala.||0.1309519|-0.0861723|
91792289|NCT03947684|183462465|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
91859040|NCT03131648|183602993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|18.0||Test not evaluated for significance. Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||18.0|-37.1|0.50
91859041|NCT03131648|183602994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|42.6||Test not evaluated for significance. Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment are considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||42.6|-0.2|0.056
91859042|NCT03131648|183602994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|32.0||Test not evaluated for significance. Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||32.0|-8.7|0.27
91859043|NCT03131648|183602997|SUPERIORITY|"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||26.8|13.3|<0.001
91864426|NCT04117347|183617784|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0363877|0.1730965|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy C (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for left amygdala.||0.1730965|-0.0363877|
91792290|NCT03947684|183462465|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||>0.05
91859044|NCT03131648|183602998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|14.1||"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||14.1|6.4|<0.001
91859045|NCT03131648|183602999|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change will be imputed as 0.||-4.1|-8.8|<0.001
91859046|NCT03131648|183603000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|8.9||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered nonresponders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||8.9|2.5|0.007
91859047|NCT03131648|183603001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|19.6||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by region and disease severity.|||19.6|8.6|<0.001
91904157|NCT03861936|183703262|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|61.8||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.8|29.5|<.0001
91665818|NCT01494532|183225230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.458
91864427|NCT04117347|183617784|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0676154|0.1545869|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy B (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for right amygdala.||0.1545869|-0.0676154|
91864428|NCT04117347|183617784|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0888691|0.1255146|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy C (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for right amygdala.||0.1255146|-0.0888691|
91859048|NCT03131648|183603002|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 1 change will be imputed as 0.||-0.4|-1.4|<0.001
91902059|NCT01493557|183699011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.22|28.4|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||28.40|-44.22|0.7104
91902060|NCT01493557|183699012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.94|40.44|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||40.44|-32.94|1.0000
91902061|NCT01493557|183699013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.25|28.77|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||28.77|-41.25|1.0000
91859049|NCT03131648|183603003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|21.3||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||21.3|9.2|<0.001
91902062|NCT01493557|183699017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|8.9|||||Mean difference = (Mean number of days for Pradaxa w/meal) - (Mean number of days for pantoprazole).|Mean difference for the Duration of gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS).||8.9|-9.9|
91665819|NCT01494532|183225231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.734
91665820|NCT01494532|183225231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
91665821|NCT01494532|183225231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.443
91665822|NCT01494532|183225231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.123
91902063|NCT01493557|183699017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.3|||||Mean difference = (Mean number of days for Pradaxa w/meal) - (Mean number of days for pantoprazole).|Mean difference for Time to first complete effectiveness. Complete effectiveness of a gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS) management strategy can only be measured at a point in time. Because the same or a different GIS could occur after a time of effective GIS management, the patients who indicated some degree of effectiveness at one visit may not be the same patients who experience effectiveness at a subsequent visit.||6.3|-3.5|
91902064|NCT01493557|183699017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|48.5|||||Mean difference = (Mean number of days for Pradaxa w/meal) - (Mean number of days for pantoprazole).|Mean difference for Time to first complete effectiveness. Partial effectiveness of a gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS) management strategy can only be measured at a point in time. Because the same or a different GIS could occur after a time of effective GIS management, the patients who indicated some degree of effectiveness at one visit may not be the same patients who experience effectiveness at a subsequent visit.||48.5|-8.2|
91902065|NCT02973425|183699020|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.68||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.6|||Regression, Cox|||The primary hypothesis was tested through a time-to-event analysis implemented using Cox proportional hazards models||2.60|1.09|0.02
91902066|NCT02973425|183699021|OTHER||Linear regression|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||For hypothesis 3, we compared the mean score on the SEQ-12 and its subscales at 6 months, adjusting for baseline.||||0.03
91902067|NCT02973425|183699022|OTHER|Six-month OR, 95%CI, and P value were calculated from generalized estimating equation marginal models with a logit link and an exchangeable correlation matrix.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.68||Analysis models were adjusted by study site, having quit attempts in the past 12 months measured at baseline, cigarettes per day measured at baseline, quit attempts in the past 12 months measured at baseline.|Chi-squared|||||3.68|1.01|0.048
91902068|NCT02973425|183699023|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||During the first 3 weeks from randomization, both the Take a Break and comparison groups reported the number of cigarettes smoked daily (by texting); texting response rate (responded on at least 1 day).||||0.01
91902069|NCT01448213|183699030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
91902070|NCT01448213|183699031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0005
91902071|NCT03503513|183699032|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.2|||differences in incidence rate ratio|An incidence rate ratio per person/month was determined by comparing the total number of UTIs in relation to time points.||comparison between pre and during treatment rates of UTI||0.20|0.03|<0.0001
91902072|NCT03503513|183699033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.13|<|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.3||a priori threshold p value of \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Baseline to end of 6 month treatment score comparisons; (higher numbers represent more symptoms or complications)|NBSS Domain score for incontinence pre-post comparison; small sample size did not allow for power calculation.||0.3|-7.9|<0.06
91902073|NCT03503513|183699033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|<|0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7||a priori threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided||(higher numbers represent more symptoms or complications)|NBSS Domain score for storage and voiding; pre-post comparison. Due to small sample size (n=11) no power calculations were conducted.||1.7|-3.8|<0.39
91902074|NCT03503513|183699033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.99|<|0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Higher numbers represent more symptoms or complications referred as consequences.|Pre and post test comparisons of mean NBSS scores for the consequences domain. Power calculations were not conducted due to small sample size.||0.8|-4.6|<0.14
91902075|NCT03503513|183699034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.99|<|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-6.8|<0.34
91902076|NCT03823404|183699038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0455||||||The interim analysis was conducted at significance level of 0.05 and the significance level was adjusted for final analysis.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0455
91859050|NCT03131648|183603004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.5||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||20.5|5.4|0.001
91859051|NCT02724878|183603005|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.0|42.0||||||A sample size of 60 would provide 95% power to distinguish the ORR rate of 25% from 10% (historical control) with 1-sided alpha of 0.07. The treatment would be considered effective if 10 or more responses are observed out of 60 patients.||42|25|
91859052|NCT04838262|183603035|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
91859053|NCT04838262|183603035|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.85
91859054|NCT00792636|183603090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.3|-3.2|
91859055|NCT00792636|183603090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.3|||||Diastolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||0.3|-2.2|
91859056|NCT00792636|183603090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.4|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.4|-3.4|
91859057|NCT00792636|183603090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||0.6|-2.0|
91859058|NCT00792636|183603091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.8|||||Systolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.8|-3.4|
91859059|NCT00792636|183603091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.3|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.3|-2.6|
91859060|NCT00792636|183603092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.4|-1.6|
91859061|NCT00792636|183603092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.2|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.2|-1.2|
91859062|NCT00792636|183603093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.2|-1.7|
91859063|NCT00792636|183603093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.5|-0.9|
91859064|NCT00792636|183603098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6||||||||2.6|0.9|
91859065|NCT00792636|183603098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6||||||||2.6|0.9|
91859066|NCT00792636|183603099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||||1.7|0.6|
91859067|NCT00792636|183603099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2||||||||2.2|0.7|
91859068|NCT00792636|183603100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.6||||||||13.6|0.1|
91859069|NCT00792636|183603100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|25.6||||||||25.6|0.3|
91792291|NCT03947684|183462466|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA|||||>|0.05|||||||F-test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05.||||>0.05
91859070|NCT00792636|183603101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.7||||||||3.7|0.5|
91859071|NCT00792636|183603101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.2||||||||4.2|0.6|
91859072|NCT00792636|183603102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54||||||||1.54|0.84|
91859073|NCT00792636|183603102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.83||||||||1.83|1.01|
91859074|NCT00792636|183603103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21||||||||1.21|0.65|
91859075|NCT00792636|183603103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.6||||||||1.60|0.88|
91859076|NCT04757610|183603163|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023||0.284421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.91|||MMRM|||||0.91|-3.10|0.284421
91859077|NCT04757610|183603163|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.066678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.13|||MMRM|||||0.13|-3.90|0.066678
91859078|NCT00593489|183603189|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24|||Poisson Regression|||The IPR was analyzed using Poisson regression with the intervention group as a class effect and the mean HbA1c at baseline as a covariate||1.24|0.8|0.96
91859079|NCT03690206|183603277|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-2.28||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.73|-3.83|0.0039
91859080|NCT03690206|183603277|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-0.91||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-2.52|0.2700
91859081|NCT03690206|183603278|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|26.6||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|48.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.9|4.3|0.0243
91859082|NCT03690206|183603278|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|5.5||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|-16.2|0.6255
91859083|NCT03690206|183603279|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|31.7||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|51.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.9|11.4|0.0043
91859084|NCT03690206|183603279|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|13.3||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.0|-5.4|0.1675
91859085|NCT03690206|183603281|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|14.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|2.5|0.0160
91859086|NCT03690206|183603281|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|11.2||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.6|0.7|0.0424
91902077|NCT03823404|183699039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|455|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0455
91665823|NCT01494532|183225231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.641
91665824|NCT01494532|183225232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
91859087|NCT05343390|183603335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|25.1|||Regression, Linear|A linear model fit using generalized estimating equations to account for correlated observations within clusters.||||25.1|16.1|<0.001
91859088|NCT05343390|183603336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|16.4|||Regression, Linear|A linear model fit using generalized estimating equations to account for correlated observations within clusters.||||16.4|5.9|<0.001
91859089|NCT05343390|183603337|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.22||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.60|0.93|0.14
91859090|NCT05343390|183603338|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.37||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.71|1.10|0.006
91859091|NCT05343390|183603339|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|2.29||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||4.40|1.19|0.013
91859092|NCT05343390|183603340|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.92|1.10|0.01
91859093|NCT05343390|183603341|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.28||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.76|0.94|0.12
91859094|NCT00739648|183603348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.39|||Regression, Linear|negative binomial regression model||||1.39|0.86|0.7282
91859095|NCT00739648|183603350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.9768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|-2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.66|-27.8|0.9768
91859096|NCT00739648|183603351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.9|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-24.9|0.9464
91859097|NCT04173663|183603358|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.27||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the parental empowerment scale.||||||.092
91859098|NCT04173663|183603359|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.62||||1.54e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||.0000154
91859099|NCT04173663|183603360|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||.014
91859100|NCT04173663|183603361|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.883|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||0.883
91859101|NCT04173663|183603362|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of services family applied for (6 month post intervention)||||.308
91859102|NCT04173663|183603362|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11||||0.355|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of services family applied for (12 month post intervention)||||.355
91859103|NCT04173663|183603363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of government services family is receiving (6 month post intervention)||||.699
91859104|NCT04173663|183603363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of government services the family is receiving (12 month post intervention)||||.573
91859105|NCT04173663|183603363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of direct services the family is receiving (6 month post intervention)||||.430
91859106|NCT04173663|183603363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.27||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of direct services the family is receiving (12 month post intervention)||||.391
91859107|NCT04173663|183603364|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.44||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Whether participants were engaged or not engaged in vocational/educational activities (6 month post intervention)||||.510
91665825|NCT01494532|183225232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
91665826|NCT01494532|183225232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.267
91665827|NCT01494532|183225232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
91665828|NCT01494532|183225232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.458
91859108|NCT04173663|183603364|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.64||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Whether participants were engaged or not engaged in vocational/educational activities (12 month post intervention)||||.296
91859109|NCT04173663|183603365|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.66||||0.361|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||.361
91665829|NCT01494532|183225233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.814
91665830|NCT01494532|183225233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91859110|NCT04173663|183603366|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of unmet service needs (6 month post intervention)||||.810
91859111|NCT04173663|183603366|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of unmet service needs (12 month post intervention)||||.678
91792292|NCT03947684|183462467|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
91792293|NCT03947684|183462467|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data obtained during inactive pill phase.||||<0.05
91792294|NCT03947684|183462468|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
91792295|NCT03947684|183462468|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||<0.05
91792296|NCT03947684|183462469|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
91792297|NCT03947684|183462469|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||>0.05
91792298|NCT03947684|183462470|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
91792299|NCT03947684|183462470|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||>0.05
91792300|NCT03947684|183462471|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
91792301|NCT03947684|183462471|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||<0.05
91792302|NCT03947684|183462472|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
91792303|NCT03947684|183462472|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
91665831|NCT01494532|183225233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.287
91665832|NCT01494532|183225233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.027
91792304|NCT03947684|183462473|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
91792305|NCT03947684|183462473|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||<0.05
91792306|NCT03947684|183462474|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
91792307|NCT03947684|183462474|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||<0.05
91792308|NCT03947684|183462475|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from follicular phase.||||>0.05
91792309|NCT03947684|183462475|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from luteal phase.||||>0.05
91859112|NCT04173663|183603367|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03||||0.924|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site and cohort,||||||.924
91859113|NCT04833777|183603381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91859114|NCT04833777|183603382|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91859115|NCT04833777|183603383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91859116|NCT04833777|183603384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91859117|NCT04833777|183603385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91859118|NCT04833777|183603386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91859119|NCT04833777|183603387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91859120|NCT04833777|183603388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91859121|NCT04833777|183603389|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91902078|NCT00698451|183699066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|72.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.4|83.5|||Exact Binomial Distribution|||||83.5|58.4|0.05
91665833|NCT01494532|183225233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.390
91859122|NCT04833777|183603390|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91859123|NCT04833777|183603391|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91665834|NCT01494532|183225234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.376
91859124|NCT04833777|183603392|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91859125|NCT04833777|183603393|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91859126|NCT04833777|183603394|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91859127|NCT04833777|183603396|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91665835|NCT01494532|183225234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
91665836|NCT01494532|183225234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.362
91859128|NCT04833777|183603397|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91859129|NCT05418296|183603427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.46|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.46
91859130|NCT05418296|183603428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.00314|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00314
91859131|NCT05418296|183603429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.066|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.066
91859132|NCT05418296|183603430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.085|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0850
91859133|NCT05418296|183603431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0716|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0716
91859134|NCT04419168|183603447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.37|-1.30|.57
91859135|NCT04419168|183603448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-0.46|0.79
91859136|NCT04419168|183603449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|-1.55|0.75
91859137|NCT04419168|183603450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.87|-0.60|0.31
91859138|NCT04419168|183603451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Social Functioning Impact only.||1.99|-1.77|0.91
91859139|NCT04419168|183603451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Emotional Impact only.||3.46|-0.03|0.05
91859140|NCT04419168|183603452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.56|-0.31|0.12
91859141|NCT04419168|183603453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0024||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0443|0.0395|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0395|-0.0443|0.91
91859142|NCT04419168|183603454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.48|-1.61|0.68
91859143|NCT04419168|183603455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-0.46|0.75
91859144|NCT04419168|183603456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.35|-2.56|0.14
91859145|NCT04419168|183603457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-1.69|0.75
91859146|NCT04419168|183603458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Social Functioning Impact only.||2.71|-1.30|0.49
91859147|NCT04419168|183603458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Emotional Impact only.||3.88|0.12|0.037
91859148|NCT04419168|183603459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.71|0.56|0.008
91859149|NCT04419168|183603460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-1.51|0.56
91904158|NCT03861936|183703263|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.6|70.8||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||70.8|39.6|<.0001
91665837|NCT01494532|183225234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
91665838|NCT01494532|183225234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.403
91665839|NCT01494532|183225235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.419
91665840|NCT01494532|183225235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
91665841|NCT01494532|183225235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.230
91792310|NCT03947684|183462477|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from follicular phase.||||>0.05
91904159|NCT03861936|183703263|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|60.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|76.7||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||76.7|45.1|<.0001
91792311|NCT03947684|183462477|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from luteal phase.||||>0.05
91792312|NCT03947684|183462478|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from follicular phase.||||>0.05
91792313|NCT03947684|183462478|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from luteal phase.||||<0.05
91792314|NCT03947684|183462479|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
91792315|NCT03947684|183462479|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
91792316|NCT03947684|183462480|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
91792317|NCT03947684|183462480|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
91792318|NCT03947684|183462481|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
91792319|NCT03947684|183462481|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
91792320|NCT03947684|183462482|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
91792321|NCT03947684|183462482|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
91792322|NCT06661954|183462483|OTHER|paired t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences|||||<|0.05||||||Paired t-tests compared pressure of Bed A and Bed B at each time at each head of bed position (4 tests, two-tailed test, alpha=0.05). A Holm-Bonferroni correction was used to control type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Peak sacral pressure (mmHg) was collected for every minute of the 10 minute recording. Two averages for each test condition were analyzed (Minutes 1-3 (Min1-3) and 6-8 (Min6-8)). These averages capture pressure during two different 5 minute cycles, when conceivably, sacral pressure would differ. Paired t-tests compared pressure of Bed A and Bed B at each time at each head of bed position (4 tests, two-tailed test, alpha=0.05). A Holm-Bonferroni correction controlled type 1 error.||||<0.05
91665842|NCT01494532|183225235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.033
91665843|NCT01494532|183225235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
91665844|NCT01494532|183225236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.073
91665845|NCT01494532|183225236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
91665846|NCT01494532|183225236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.791
91665847|NCT01494532|183225236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.747
91665848|NCT01494532|183225236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.600
91665849|NCT01494532|183225237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91665850|NCT01494532|183225237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
91792323|NCT05772702|183462486|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HDRS-17 change score were submitted to a t-test to estimate the group difference from 0 (i.e., no change in depression symptoms from D1 to FU2). Null hypothesis: D1 == FU2||||<0.0005
91792324|NCT05772702|183462487|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HDRS-17 change score were submitted to a t-test to estimate the group difference from 0 (i.e., no change in depression symptoms from D1 to D5). Note: D5 HDRS-17 were determined prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 == D5||||<0.0005
91904160|NCT03861936|183703264|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|70.5||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||70.5|37.9|<.0001
91792325|NCT05772702|183462489|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||QIDS change score were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 QIDS surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
91792326|NCT05772702|183462490|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||ASRM scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 ASRM surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
91859150|NCT04419168|183603461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0013||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0464|0.0437|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0437|-0.0464|0.95
91665851|NCT01494532|183225237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
91665852|NCT01494532|183225237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91665853|NCT01494532|183225237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91859151|NCT04419168|183603462|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.11||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjustments were made for clinic site, baseline depression (high vs low), and corresponding health care use in the 12 months prior to study entry.||||1.48|0.83|0.49
91665854|NCT01494532|183225238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.047
91665855|NCT01494532|183225238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91665856|NCT01494532|183225238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.172
91665857|NCT01494532|183225238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
91665858|NCT01494532|183225238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
91665859|NCT01494532|183225239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.292
91792327|NCT05772702|183462491|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||SHAPS scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 SHAPS surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
91792328|NCT05772702|183462492|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||DASS-42 OVERALL scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
91792329|NCT05772702|183462492|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|This subscale did not require sphericity corrections.||DASS-42 DEPRESSION SUBSCORES were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
91792330|NCT05772702|183462492|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||DASS-42 ANXIETY SUBSCORES were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
91904161|NCT03861936|183703264|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|65.6||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.6|30.1|<.0001
91859152|NCT04419168|183603463|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.43||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.18|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjustments were made for clinic site, baseline depression (high vs low), and corresponding health care use in the 12 months prior to study entry.||||2.18|0.93|0.10
91665860|NCT01494532|183225239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
91665861|NCT01494532|183225239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.170
91665862|NCT01494532|183225239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91665863|NCT01494532|183225239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.153
91665864|NCT01494532|183225240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.409
91665865|NCT01494532|183225240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.598
91665866|NCT01494532|183225240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.992
91665867|NCT01494532|183225240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.169
91665868|NCT01494532|183225240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.348
91665869|NCT01404988|183225252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, the Type 1 error was set at 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1
91665870|NCT01404988|183225252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91665871|NCT01404988|183225253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, the type 1 error was set at 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3
91859153|NCT04419168|183603464|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.31||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.03|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjustments were made for clinic site, baseline depression (high vs low), and corresponding health care use in the 12 months prior to study entry.||||2.03|0.85|0.22
91665872|NCT01404988|183225253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.77
91665873|NCT01404988|183225254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, the type 1 error was set at 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91665874|NCT01404988|183225254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
91904162|NCT03861936|183703265|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|83.1||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.1|54.5|<.0001
91904163|NCT03861936|183703265|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|69.6||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||69.6|34.8|<.0001
91665875|NCT01404988|183225255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, type 1 error was set at 5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
91665876|NCT01404988|183225255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
91665877|NCT04158687|183225402|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.6|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||2.6|-4.5|0.6003
91665878|NCT04158687|183225402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.0|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||5.0|-2.0|0.3920
91665879|NCT04158687|183225402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.0|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||6.0|-0.9|0.1444
91665880|NCT04158687|183225403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.2|-0.3|0.8065
91665881|NCT04158687|183225403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.4|-0.1|0.2121
91665882|NCT04158687|183225403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.5|0.0|0.0264
91665883|NCT04158687|183225404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.5|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||3.5|-2.1|0.6101
91665884|NCT04158687|183225404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.1|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||2.1|-3.4|0.6237
91665885|NCT04158687|183225404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.8|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.8|-4.6|0.1764
91665886|NCT02856594|183225405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.83|0.10|0.029
91665887|NCT02856594|183225407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.03|||Regression, Linear|||||1.03|0.89|0.24
91692019|NCT01139775|183278493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0946
91692020|NCT03197389|183278500|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91714278|NCT00676403|183320240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8784||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.8784
91859154|NCT04640961|183603465|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91859155|NCT04640961|183603466|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91859156|NCT04640961|183603467|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91904164|NCT03861936|183703266|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.54||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-4.54|-7.10|<.0001
91692021|NCT04129125|183278505|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|83.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|88.0||The p-value a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025|Fisher Exact|||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary efficacy endpoint was for the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI to be \>69%||88|78|<0.0001
91714279|NCT00676403|183320240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6767||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6767
91792331|NCT05772702|183462492|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||DASS-42 STRESS SUBSCORES were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
91792332|NCT05772702|183462493|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||STAI scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 STAI surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||0.021
91792333|NCT05772702|183462494|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||QIDS scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 QIDS surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
91792334|NCT05772702|183462495|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||CGI severity scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 CGI assessments were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU2||||<0.0005
91792335|NCT05772702|183462495|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CGI improvement scores were submitted to a paired t-test to measure difference between the improvement assessment on D5 and the assessment at FU2. Note: D5 CGI assessments were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D5 = FU2||||0.006
91792336|NCT05710185|183462521|OTHER||||||||||||||||||It was a descriptive study|||
91692022|NCT04129125|183278506|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.4||||||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary safety endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤6.0%||4.4|0.6|
91792337|NCT04972630|183462537|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Baseline control vs. intervention||||
91792338|NCT04972630|183462537|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 4 control vs. intervention||||
91792339|NCT04972630|183462537|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 12, control vs. intervention||||
91792340|NCT04972630|183462537|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 24, control vs. intervention||||
91792341|NCT04972630|183462538|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91714280|NCT00676403|183320240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8955||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.8955
91692023|NCT04129125|183278507|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|84.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|89.0||The p-value a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025|Fisher Exact|||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary efficacy endpoint was for the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI to be \>69%||89|78|0.0001
91859157|NCT05009251|183603476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compared groups that were informed they were high risk (High Risk Only, High Risk Based on Medical Records, High Risk Based on Algorithm) to Reminder Control patients who were sent messages that did not disclose their risk status. Null hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk do not increase flu vaccination rate vs. messages that do not disclose risk status; Alternative hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk increase flu vaccination rate.||||.054
91902079|NCT00778622|183699123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0806||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline HbA1c was covariate.||"Standard deviation assumed for changes from baseline in HbA1c maximally was 1.0 across the baseline BMI subgroups. 97 participants in a single subgroup would be sufficient to estimate mean change in HbA1c with precision of 0.20% within the subgroup. Given number of baseline BMI subgroups and no correction for reason of multiplicity was made to the 95% CI within each BMI subgroup, total sample size calculated as 291. Sample size used the method CI for mean for one group in nQuery Advisor v6.0."||||0.0806
91692024|NCT04129125|183278508|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4||||||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary safety endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤6.0%||3.4|0.1|
91792342|NCT04972630|183462539|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91665888|NCT02906917|183225422|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDegAsp OD versus IGlar OD + IAsp OD was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the mean treatment difference was entirely below 0.40%.|Treatment contrast|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21||One-sided p-value for test of non-inferiority.|ANCOVA|Treatment, region, sex, previous insulin treatment and previous OAD treatment as categorical fixed effects and baseline response and age as covariate.||The response and change from baseline in response are analysed on 1000 complete, imputed data sets after multiple imputation for each treatment arm separately. A penalty of 0.4% is added to the week 26 values for all premature treatment discontinued subjects, and subject with missing HbA1c values at week 26 in the IDegAsp arm. Each of the imputed data sets are analysed through an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||0.21|-0.06|<0.0001
91665889|NCT00687739|183225434|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis compared the GnRHAG + E2 and GnRHAG + PL groups, pooled across exercise status. It was acknowledged that the inclusion of exercisers could minimize the effects of GnRHAG but would be reflective of the effects of ovarian hormone suppression on sedentary and active women. Differences in changes across time between groups were tested using an analysis of covariance model conditioned on baseline.|||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was the effect of PL vs E2 collapsed across exercise (2-group comparison). The analysis of effects of exercise was exploratory (evaluated within-group changes only).||||<0.05
91665890|NCT00687739|183225435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was the comparison of within-group changes in the E2 and placebo groups for cortisol AUC in response to Dex/CRH and between-group differences in the changes. Within-group changes and between-group differences in changes were evaluated by linear contrast using an ANCOVA model with adjustment for pre-intervention values of outcomes.||||<0.05
91665891|NCT00687739|183225436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis compared the GnRHag+E2 and GnRHag+PL groups, pooled across exercise status. Differences in change over time between groups were tested by using an ANCOVA model, first with treatment group alone, and again adding FM and FFM to the model.||||<0.05
91665892|NCT02542462|183225439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||P value for the number of subjects with an increase of 1 mm or more of terminal ileum from pre to post was 0.2|Fisher Exact|||The test is to see a difference among the four groups and the pre to post change of the primary outcomes||||0.2
91665893|NCT02542462|183225439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||P value for change in the number of subjects with an increase in number of lymph nodes from pre to post was 0.3.|Fisher Exact|||The test is to see a difference among the four groups and the pre to post change of the primary outcomes||||0.3
91665894|NCT02554877|183225450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.48||Two (2)-sided p-values were from mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-0.48|-1.34|<0.0001
91665895|NCT02554877|183225450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-0.73|-1.59|<0.0001
91902080|NCT00778622|183699123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1984||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1984
91902081|NCT00778622|183699123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0232||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0232
91665896|NCT02554877|183225450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.74||Two (2)-sided p-values were from mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||-0.74|-1.60|<0.0001
91792343|NCT04972630|183462540|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91902082|NCT00778622|183699123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3589||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3589
91714281|NCT00676403|183320240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9505||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.9505
91792344|NCT04972630|183462541|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91792345|NCT04972630|183462542|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91792346|NCT04972630|183462543|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91792347|NCT04972630|183462544|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91792348|NCT04972630|183462545|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91792349|NCT04972630|183462546|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91792350|NCT04972630|183462547|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91902083|NCT00778622|183699124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4614||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in FPG at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline FPG was covariate.||||||0.4614
91792351|NCT04972630|183462548|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91792352|NCT04972630|183462549|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91792353|NCT04972630|183462550|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Baseline, control vs. intervention||||
91792354|NCT04972630|183462550|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 4, control vs. intervention||||
91859158|NCT05009251|183603476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compared groups that were informed they were high risk (High Risk Only, High Risk Based on Medical Records, High Risk Based on Algorithm) to No-Contact Control patients who were not sent messages. Null hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk do not increase flu vaccination rate relative to no messages; Alternative hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk increase flu vaccination rate.||||<.001
91665897|NCT02554877|183225451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects|ANCOVA|Least squares mean (LS mean) difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-0.26|-0.52|<0.0001
91665898|NCT02554877|183225451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-0.26|-0.52|<0.0001
91792355|NCT04972630|183462550|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 12, control vs. intervention||||
91859159|NCT05009251|183603476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compared groups who received messages including risk reasons (High Risk Based on Medical Records, High Risk Based on Algorithm) to messages that mentioned patients' risk status but do not include reasons (High Risk Only). Null hypothesis: messages that include risk reasons do not increase flu vaccination rate relative to high-risk messages that do not include risk reasons; Alternative hypothesis: messages including risk reasons are more effective at increasing vaccination rates.||||.240
91859160|NCT05009251|183603476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: flu-shot messages that do not mention high-risk status do not increase vaccination relative to no messages; Alternative hypothesis: flu shot messages that do not mention high-risk status increase flu shots relative to no messages.||||.047
91665899|NCT02554877|183225451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.3||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-0.30|-0.57|<0.0001
91692025|NCT04129125|183278517|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|16.7|||||Event and CI estimated using Kaplan-Meier method|The FDA agreed performance goal for the all-cause mortality endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤20.3%||16.7|8.5|
91859161|NCT05009251|183603476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781||||||Pairwise comparisons between high-risk messages (Analyses 5, 6 and 7) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Medical Records messages are equally effective at promoting flu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Medical Records.||||.781
91902084|NCT00778622|183699124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4696||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4696
91792356|NCT04972630|183462550|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 24, control vs. intervention||||
91792357|NCT04972630|183462551|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Baseline, control vs. intervention||||
91792358|NCT04972630|183462551|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 4, control vs. intervention||||
91792359|NCT04972630|183462551|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 12, control vs. intervention||||
91902085|NCT00778622|183699124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5305||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5305
91792360|NCT04972630|183462551|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 24, control vs. intervention||||
91792361|NCT04214288|183462553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0167||90.0|0.42|0.82|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD9833 to be associated with a longer progression-free survival than fulvestrant.|||0.82|0.42|0.0167
91792362|NCT04214288|183462553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.009||90.0|0.46|0.89|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD9833 to be associated with a longer progression-free survival than fulvestrant.|||0.89|0.46|0.0090
91902086|NCT00778622|183699124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9145||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9145
91665900|NCT02554877|183225451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.42||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.42|-0.76|<0.0001
91902087|NCT00778622|183699125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0305||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in TC at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline TC was covariate.||||||0.0305
91714282|NCT00676403|183320240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0466||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0466
91792363|NCT04214288|183462554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4828||90.0|0.63|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||3.31|0.63|0.4828
91902088|NCT00778622|183699125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0080
91792364|NCT04214288|183462554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3691||90.0|0.69|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||3.67|0.69|0.3691
91792365|NCT04214288|183462558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||2.64|0.84|0.2554
91792366|NCT04214288|183462558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1658||90.0|0.91|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||2.89|0.91|0.1658
91792367|NCT02278341|183462568|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority, Margin = -0.75|LSM Difference|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.339||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline Hb by visit as continuous variable.||0.339|0.132|<0.001
91792368|NCT02278341|183462569|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, Margin = -0.75|LSM Difference|0.171|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.261||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|ANCOVA|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable. Statistical analysis used was ANCOVA model with multiple imputations (MI). Missing hemoglobin data was imputed for each treatment relying on non-missing data from all participants within each treatment group using the MCMC imputation model.||0.261|0.082|<0.001
91792369|NCT02278341|183462570|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus ESA (the non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups is -15%).|Difference of Percentages|2.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.6||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||A generalized linear model was used to estimate the difference in response rates between the arms, as an approximation for the Miettinen and Nurminen method, adjusting for following covariates: region, previous ESA treatment, cardiovascular history and baseline Hb as categorical variables.||7.6|-2.9|<0.05
91792370|NCT02278341|183462571|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.377|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|-0.304||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline LDL, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||-0.304|-0.451|<0.001
91792371|NCT02278341|183462572|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-31.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-22.4||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|ANCOVA|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||-22.4|-41.4|<0.001
91792372|NCT02278341|183462573|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin for non-inferiority was -3.|LSM Difference|0.205|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|1.059||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits (week 8, week 12, week 28) and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline SF-36 PF, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||1.059|-0.649|<0.05
91792373|NCT02278341|183462574|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin for non-inferiority was -3.|LSM Difference|0.856|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|1.828|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits (week 8, week 12, week 28) and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline SF-36 VT, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||1.828|-0.115|<0.05
91792374|NCT02278341|183462575|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin for non-inferiority was 1.|LSM Difference|-0.849|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.971|0.273||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline MAP, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||0.273|-1.971|<0.05
91902089|NCT00778622|183699125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0422||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0422
91902090|NCT00778622|183699126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4508||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline LDL-C was covariate.||||||0.4508
91792375|NCT02278341|183462576|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (hazard ratio margin of 1.3).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.276||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment, and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.3.||1.276|0.669|<0.05
91902091|NCT00778622|183699126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0526||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0526
91792376|NCT02278341|183462577|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.579|||=|0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.694|0.536||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline MAP, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||0.536|-1.694|=0.308
91792377|NCT02278341|183462578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915|||=|0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.254||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment, and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is lower than 1.||1.254|0.668|=0.582
91792378|NCT02278341|183462579|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentages|1.4|||=|0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.5||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear model was used to estimate the difference in response rates between the arms, as an approximation for the Miettinen and Nurminen method, adjusting for following covariates: region, previous ESA treatment, cardiovascular history and baseline Hb as categorical variables.||6.5|-3.8|=0.609
91792379|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.256||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.256|0.072|<0.001
91665901|NCT02554877|183225451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.46||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.46|-0.80|<0.0001
91902092|NCT00778622|183699126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1295||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1295
91902093|NCT00778622|183699127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1431||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline HDL-C was covariate.||||||0.1431
91714283|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3876||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3876
91665902|NCT02554877|183225451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.46||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.46|-0.79|<0.0001
91665903|NCT02554877|183225451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.49||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-0.49|-0.93|<0.0001
91665904|NCT02554877|183225451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.74||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects..|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-0.74|-1.17|<0.0001
91665905|NCT02554877|183225451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.76||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-0.76|-1.20|<0.0001
91665906|NCT02554877|183225452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-37.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.96|-27.7||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-27.70|-47.96|<0.0001
91665907|NCT02554877|183225452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-44.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.98|-34.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-34.72|-54.98|<0.0001
91859162|NCT05009251|183603476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||Pairwise comparisons between high-risk messages (Analyses 5, 6 and 7) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting flu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Algorithm.||||.361
91665908|NCT02554877|183225452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-48.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.81|-38.37||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-38.37|-58.81|<0.0001
91665909|NCT02554877|183225452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-30.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.52|-18.74||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-18.74|-42.52|<0.0001
91665910|NCT02554877|183225452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-39.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.13|-27.35||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-27.35|-51.13|<0.0001
91665911|NCT02554877|183225452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.22|-26.38||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-26.38|-50.22|<0.0001
91692026|NCT04129125|183278528|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.2|||||Event and CI estimated using Kaplan-Meier method|The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary safety endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤20.3%||17.2|8.1|
91859163|NCT05009251|183603476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Pairwise comparisons between high-risk messages (Analyses 5, 6 and 7) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: High Risk Based on Medical Records and High Risk Based on Algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting flu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High Risk Based on Medical Records and High Risk Based on Algorithm.||||.770
91859164|NCT04204278|183603484|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91859165|NCT04204278|183603485|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|P-Value was calculated||||||<0.0001
91792380|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.546||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.546|0.339|<0.001
91859166|NCT04204278|183603486|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91859167|NCT00676715|183603497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|||Van Elteren test is stratified by region and presence of baseline gadolinium-enhancing lesions (absent or present).||||<0.0001
91859168|NCT00676715|183603497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|||Van Elteren test is stratified by region and presence of baseline gadolinium-enhancing lesions (absent or present).||||<0.0001
91859169|NCT00676715|183603497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7496|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|||Van Elteren test is stratified by region and presence of baseline gadolinium-enhancing lesions (absent or present).||||0.7496
91859170|NCT00676715|183603498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|||||||Poisson model|||Poisson model was fitted for adjusting for geographic region only.||||0.0019
91859171|NCT00676715|183603498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0136|||||||Poisson model|||Poisson model was fitted for adjusting for geographic region only.||||0.0136
91859172|NCT00676715|183603498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1814|||||||Poisson model|||Poisson model was fitted for adjusting for geographic region only.||||0.1814
91859173|NCT00676715|183603499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (RR)|0.6||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by geographical region only.||||1.34|0.27|0.1978
91859174|NCT00676715|183603499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (RR)|0.53||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.22|||CMH chi-square test|CMH chi-square test stratified by geographical region only.||||1.22|0.23|0.1310
91859175|NCT00676715|183603499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (RR)|0.92||||0.8206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.84|||CMH chi-square tes|CMH chi-square test stratified by geographical region only.||||1.84|0.46|0.8206
91859176|NCT00676715|183603500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1391|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.1391
91859177|NCT00676715|183603500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1596|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.1596
91859178|NCT00676715|183603500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.474|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.4740
91859179|NCT00676715|183603501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||<0.0001
91859180|NCT00676715|183603501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||<0.0001
91859181|NCT00676715|183603501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4985|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.4985
91859182|NCT00676715|183603502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.0004
91859183|NCT00676715|183603502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||<0.0001
91714284|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7959||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.7959
91714285|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2032||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.2032
91714286|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7032||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.7032
91714287|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0551||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0551
91714288|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4100
91714289|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6524||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6524
91792381|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.561|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.672||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.672|0.451|<0.001
91792382|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.708|||<|0.001||95.0|0.588|0.828||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.828|0.588|<0.001
91792383|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.768|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.89||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.890|0.645|<0.001
91792384|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|0.855||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.855|0.604|<0.001
91792385|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|0.856||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 7 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.856|0.603|<0.001
91792386|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.826||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.826|0.574|<0.001
91792387|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.659|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.788||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 10 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.788|0.530|<0.001
91792388|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.593|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|0.727||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.727|0.459|<0.001
91792389|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.503|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.64||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.640|0.366|<0.001
91665912|NCT02554877|183225452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-19.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.88|-7.05||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-7.05|-31.88|0.0023
91792390|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.369|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.51||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.510|0.229|<0.001
91792391|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.363|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.496||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.496|0.230|<0.001
91692027|NCT00204490|183278556|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||(FGBT% at 1 year of treatment minus FGBT% at baseline) divided by FGBT% at baseline.||||0.071
91692028|NCT00204490|183278556|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||(FGBT% at 2 year of treatment minus FGBT% at baseline) divided by FGBT% at baseline.||||0.080
91859184|NCT00676715|183603502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2725|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.2725
91859185|NCT05249439|183603503|OTHER|Paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||I-SatPro starting weight Vs 52 week weight (kg)||||<0.0001
91859186|NCT00616967|183603512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Pathological complete response rate|0.274|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.402|||||The Estimation Parameter provided above is for overall pCR for both arms combined. We estimated pCR for each arm separately as well.|Patients were stratified by hormone receptor status and randomly assigned to either arm 1 or 2. This study was designed using Simon's two-stage design for each arm in parallel. Interim analysis of early stopping for futility was conducted for the first 32 patients (16 patients per arm) and the study proceeded as more than 2 patients achieved a pCR in each arm (31 patients per arm). This design had 80% power to detect a 25% pCR rate versus a null rate of 10% with a type I error rate of 0.10.||0.402|0.169|
91665913|NCT02554877|183225452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-36.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.27|-24.69||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-24.69|-49.27|<0.0001
91665914|NCT02554877|183225452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-35.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55|-22.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-22.72|-47.55|<0.0001
91692029|NCT00204490|183278556|OTHER||Slope|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed model|slope for interaction of treatment and time, placebo was the reference group; square root transformed outcome.|Intention to treat||||0.019
91792392|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.284|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|0.414||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.414|0.154|<0.001
91859187|NCT00616967|183603512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||pCR in placebo arm (arm 1)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.48||||||||0.48|0.142|
91859188|NCT00616967|183603512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||pCR in vorinostat arm (arm 2)|0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.446||||||||0.446|0.119|
91665915|NCT02554877|183225452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-19.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.81|-7.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||-7.73|-31.81|0.0014
91665916|NCT02554877|183225452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-35.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.17|-23.35||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-23.35|-47.17|<0.0001
91665917|NCT02554877|183225452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-36.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.43|-24.46||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-24.46|-48.43|<0.0001
91859189|NCT00616967|183603515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|22.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The estimates provided are based upon a multivariate analysis using a logistic regression adjusting for hormone receptor status. Patients with ≥50% reduction in SULmax were more likely to achieve a pCR.||22.7|1.3|0.023
91859190|NCT02384317|183603529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|141.77||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.6|128.7|||Random coefficients regression|||||128.7|-133.6|0.965
91859191|NCT03661840|183603606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.0||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|39.0||Unadjusted model comparing the mean difference (change from 12 weeks - baseline) in outcome by intervention group.|Regression, Linear|||Sample size was estimated using d= 0.61, with power at 0.80 and α = .05, two-tailed. It is assumed that the correlation between pre and post-test measures will be high at .5. With these parameters and using repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate treatment difference, sample size is powered for clinical outcomes at 92 participants; with an estimated 30% attrition and conservatively including the possibility of screening failures, a maximum sample of 140 participants will be targeted for enrollment.||39|-31|0.82
91859192|NCT03661840|183603607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|25.0||Unadjusted model comparing the change in outcome by intervention group|Regression, Linear|||||25|-0.7|0.06
91859193|NCT03661840|183603607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Sample size was estimated using d= 0.61, with power at 0.80 and α = .05, two-tailed. It is assumed that the correlation between pre and post-test measures will be high at .5. With these parameters and using repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate treatment difference, sample size is powered for clinical outcomes at 92 participants; with an estimated 30% attrition and conservatively including the possibility of screening failures, a maximum sample of 140 participants will be targeted for enrollment.||||0.05
91859194|NCT05873751|183603651|OTHER||Calibrated VE|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|15.59|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||15.59|-10.35|
91859195|NCT05873751|183603652|OTHER||Calibrated VE|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|13.85|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||13.85|-23.50|
91665918|NCT02554877|183225453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.057||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|21.82||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<7%)||21.82|1.68|0.0059
91665919|NCT02554877|183225453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.927||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|31.96||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<7%)||31.96|2.49|0.0008
91859196|NCT05873751|183603653|OTHER||Calibrated VE|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|15.59|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||15.59|-10.35|
91859197|NCT05873751|183603654|OTHER||Calibrated VE|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|13.85|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||13.85|-23.50|
91859198|NCT01772472|183603655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.44|<0.0001
91859199|NCT01772472|183603656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.44|<0.0001
91859200|NCT01772472|183603657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.44|<.0001
91859201|NCT01772472|183603658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.46|<.0001
91859202|NCT01772472|183603659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.46|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.46|<0.0001
91859203|NCT01772472|183603660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.46|<.0001
91859204|NCT01772472|183603661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.48|<0.0001
91859205|NCT01772472|183603662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.48|<0.0001
91665920|NCT02554877|183225453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|52.67||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<7%)||52.67|4.34|<0.0001
91692030|NCT03477006|183278560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.91
91859206|NCT01772472|183603663|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.48|<.0001
91859207|NCT01772472|183603664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.53|0.0082
91692031|NCT03477006|183278561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
91859208|NCT01772472|183603665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0082||95.0|0.53|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.53|0.0082
91859209|NCT01772472|183603666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.53|0.0082
91859210|NCT01772472|183603667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
91859211|NCT01772472|183603668|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
91859212|NCT01772472|183603669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<.0001
91859213|NCT02697136|183603684|OTHER|Linear mixed model to test for superiority and non-inferiority. Equivalence was defined as a difference of less than 6.7% in MVWA, based on a pilot study. Using an assumed standard deviation of 4.5% and a 2:1 randomization scheme to maximize exposure to active drug, 16 completing patients in the CER-001 group and 8 in the placebo group (24 total completers for mITT) would yield 90% power to detect a difference from baseline versus placebo of 6.7%, using two-tailed testing with α=0.05.|Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.9|0.185
91859214|NCT02697136|183603685|OTHER|Linear mixed model to test for superiority and non-inferiority. Equivalence was defined as a difference of less than 6.7% in MVWA, based on a pilot study.|Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.4|0.217
91859215|NCT02697136|183603686|OTHER|Linear mixed model to test for superiority and non-inferiority. Equivalence was defined as a difference of less than 6.7% in MVWA, based on a pilot study.|Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.6|0.832
91859216|NCT04391894|183603689|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-5.0|0.585
91665921|NCT02554877|183225453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|17.47||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<6.5%)||17.47|0.64|0.1532
91859217|NCT04391894|183603689|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-7.01|0.107
91859218|NCT04391894|183603689|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.3|0.3|0.033
91859219|NCT04391894|183603690|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.8|0.605
91859220|NCT04391894|183603690|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.646
91859221|NCT04391894|183603690|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.5|0.847
91859222|NCT04391894|183603691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
91859223|NCT04391894|183603691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.3|
91859224|NCT04391894|183603691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
91859225|NCT04391894|183603692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
91859226|NCT04391894|183603692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.3|
91859227|NCT04391894|183603692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||||||||0.6|0.1|
91859228|NCT01889199|183603694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Only PCOS women were randomized to flutamide versus placebo; controls were not randomized A sample size of 11 per group (PCOS women versus controls) provided adequate power (approximately 80%) to detect effect sizes as small as 1.25 using a two-sample t-test (alpha=0.05, 2 tailed). A sample size of 5 per group (flutamide-treated versus placebo-treated PCOS women) also gave adequate power (approximately 80%) to detect effect sizes as small as 2 using a two-sample t-test (alpha=0.05, 2 tailed).||||0.004
91859229|NCT01889199|183603695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||6-month changes from baseline were compared between placebo- and flutamide-treated PCOS women using an unpaired Student's t-test to determine whether one group changed more than the other over this time interval.||||
91859230|NCT01889199|183603697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6-month changes from baseline were compared between placebo- and flutamide-treated PCOS women using an unpaired Student's t-test to determine whether one group changed more than the other over this time interval.||||0.040
91859231|NCT01889199|183603698|OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6-month changes from baseline were compared between placebo- and flutamide-treated PCOS women using an unpaired Student's t-test to determine whether one group changed more than the other over this time interval.||||0.034
91859232|NCT02323321|183603701|OTHER|The primary hypothesis for this study is that the true (success) proportion of transplanted patients meeting the primary effectiveness endpoint, patient survival at day 30 post-transplantation and absence of severe PGD (left or right ventricle) in the first 24 hours post-transplantation, is greater than the Performance Goal value of 0.65.|Proportion|88.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|94.4|||one-sided exact binomial test|||||94.4|78.4|<0.0001
91859233|NCT00446225|183603702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.64|||Log Rank|||||0.64|0.27|0.0001
91859234|NCT00446225|183603704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.36|0.043
91859235|NCT00220740|183603722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of the Responder rates in the ITT population. Treatment group differences were tested by a Chi-square test. Subjects who did not complete the 24 week Efficacy Period and entered Rescue treatment with the alternative treatment were counted as Nonresponders.||||<0.001
91859236|NCT00220740|183603723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.542
91859237|NCT00220740|183603724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Dominant hand||||<0.001
91859238|NCT00220740|183603724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Non-dominant hand||||0.005
91792393|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.197|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.329||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.329|0.065|=0.003
91792394|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.187|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.316||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.316|0.059|=0.004
91792395|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.243|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.373||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.373|0.113|<0.001
91792396|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.207|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.34||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.340|0.074|=0.002
91902094|NCT00778622|183699127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4066||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4066
91792397|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.227|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.358||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 30 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.358|0.096|<0.001
91665922|NCT02554877|183225453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.198||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|21.22||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<6.5%)||21.22|0.83|0.0826
91692032|NCT03477006|183278562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
91792398|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.199|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.||Week 32 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.334|0.064|=0.004
91792399|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.279|||<|0.001||95.0|0.15|0.409||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 34 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.409|0.150|<0.001
91792400|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.256|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.391||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.391|0.121|<0.001
91792401|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.136|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.277||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.277|-0.006|=0.060
91792402|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.082|||=|0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.236||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 44 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.236|-0.071|=0.293
91792403|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.027|||=|0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.177||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.177|-0.123|=0.723
91792404|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.199|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.348||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.348|0.049|=0.009
91792405|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.147|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.298||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 56 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.298|-0.004|=0.056
91792406|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.196|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.346||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.346|0.047|=0.010
91792407|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.275|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.427||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 64 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.427|0.123|<0.001
91902095|NCT00778622|183699127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4071||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4071
91792408|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.206|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.353||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 68 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.353|0.059|=0.006
91902096|NCT00778622|183699128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in TG at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline TG was covariate.||||||0.0210
91665923|NCT02554877|183225453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.588||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|25.73||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<6.5%)||25.73|1.21|0.0272
91665924|NCT02554877|183225458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.7618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.66|4.59||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||4.59|-6.66|0.7618
91792409|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.118|||=|0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.269||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.269|-0.033|=0.127
91714290|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3219||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3219
91902097|NCT00778622|183699128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2507||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2507
91792410|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.211|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.371||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 76 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.371|0.051|=0.010
91792411|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.102|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.255||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 80 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.255|-0.051|=0.191
91792412|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.192|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.351||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.351|0.033|=0.018
91859239|NCT00715884|183603734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null inferiority hypothesis was that the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is equal or greater than the non-inferiority margin 5%. The alternative non-inferiority hypothesis for this study assumed that the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval would be less than the non-inferiority margin 5%.|Difference between TLF rates|2.58|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.55||In the CYPHER® ELITE™ arm the TLF rate was 5.36% (23/429) compared with 2.78% (6/216) in the CYPHER® Bx VELOCITY® arm, a difference in rates of 2.58%, upper limit of 95% two sided confidence interval of 5.55%.||||Sample sizes of 1,061 from the ELITE™ group and 531 from the CYPHER® group were planned to achieve 90 percent power at a 2.5 percent significance level using an one-sided equivalence test, assuming a 10 percent TLF rate in each group and the maximum allowable rate difference between the groups being 5 percent. The total sample size was increased to 1,770 patients to account for an approximately 90 percent compliance to clinical follow-up.||5.55||
91859240|NCT00715884|183603735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|-0.4||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||||1.0|-1.3|0.549
91714291|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3509||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3509
91792413|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.044|||=|0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.2||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 88 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.200|-0.111|=0.576
91859241|NCT00715884|183603736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|18.9|||Fisher Exact|||||18.9|9.2|<.001
91859242|NCT00715884|183603737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.7||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2|||Fisher Exact|||||4.2|-2.2|0.724
91792414|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.203|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.369||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 92 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.369|0.037|=0.017
91859243|NCT00715884|183603738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|-1.3||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||Fisher Exact|||||1.4|-3.5|0.407
91859244|NCT00715884|183603739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.11||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|4.48|||Fisher Exact|||||4.48|-0.84|0.203
91902098|NCT00778622|183699128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6546||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6546
91792415|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.184|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.338||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.338|0.031|=0.019
91859245|NCT00715884|183603740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.35||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|5.28|||Fisher Exact|||||5.28|-1.24|0.22
91859246|NCT00715884|183603741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.83||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|6.26|||Fisher Exact|||||6.26|-1.28|0.166
91859247|NCT00715884|183603742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.59||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|5.85|||Fisher Exact|||||5.85|-1.35|0.200
91859248|NCT00715884|183603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|11.56||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|24.64|||Fisher Exact|||||24.64|-3.73|0.140
91859249|NCT00715884|183603744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|5.17||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|10.83|||Fisher Exact|||||10.83|-2.03|0.170
91859250|NCT00715884|183603745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.24||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|5.43|||Fisher Exact|||||5.43|-5.61|1.0
91859251|NCT00715884|183603746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.24||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|1.63|||Fisher Exact|||||1.63|-1.92|1.0
91859252|NCT00715884|183603747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.49||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|2.91|||Fisher Exact|||||2.91|-2.73|0.801
91859253|NCT00715884|183603748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|-0.92||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.6|||Fisher Exact|||||0.60|-3.56|0.341
91859254|NCT00715884|183603749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.28|||Fisher Exact|||||1.28|-2.14|1.00
91859255|NCT00715884|183603750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.47||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.96|||Fisher Exact|||||1.96|-1.72|0.668
91902099|NCT02469896|183699183|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.875||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.377|||Fisher Exact|||||1.377|0.556|0.602
91902100|NCT02469896|183699184|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||No statistical data was obtain because no patients died during the trial.|||
91902101|NCT02469896|183699185|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.099||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.902|2.099||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.099|-1.902|0.922
91902102|NCT02469896|183699186|SUPERIORITY||Difference of slopes|-0.008||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.761|0.745|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.745|-0.761|0.983
91902103|NCT02469896|183699188|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.15||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|2.337|||t-test, 2 sided|||PBMC IL-6 fold-change||2.337|0.566|0.684
91902104|NCT02469896|183699188|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.344||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.080|0.331|0.663
91792416|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.164|||=|0.056||95.0|-0.004|0.333||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 100 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.333|-0.004|=0.056
91792417|NCT02278341|183462580|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.099|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.273||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 104 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.273|-0.076|=0.267
91792418|NCT02278341|183462581|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.347||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.347|0.127|<0.001
91859256|NCT03930342|183603753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|Used marginal standardization to estimate relative risk from logistic regression||Results here reflect analysis of the relative risk for AEP that is a combination of risk from baseline to the 3 month timepoint and risk between the 3 month timepoint and 6 month timepoint. This reflects changes in AEP risk across the course of exposure to the intervention (baseline to 3 month) and enduring change post-exposure (3 months to 6 months)||1.07|0.83|
91859257|NCT02742519|183603757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2121
91859258|NCT01872078|183603766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|87.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.52|129.47||||||The null hypothesis is that the ratio of Active to Control in LH AUC(0-8) ratio to baseline at day 7= 100%||129.47|58.52|
91902105|NCT02469896|183699188|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.198||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.080|0.691|0.500
91902106|NCT02469896|183699189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.217|0.010|<0.001
91902107|NCT02469896|183699189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.306||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.059|0.828|0.247
91665925|NCT02554877|183225458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.25|4.96||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||4.96|-6.25|0.8489
91902108|NCT02469896|183699189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|19.591|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.143|34.446|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.446|11.143|<0.001
91902109|NCT02469896|183699189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.264||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.791|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.791|0.892|0.185
91902110|NCT02469896|183699189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.396||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|3.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.206|0.608|0.427
91902111|NCT02469896|183699189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.893||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.100|0.725|0.285
91902112|NCT02469896|183699190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.167||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.643|0.043|0.011
91902113|NCT02469896|183699190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.741||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|2.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.405|0.228|0.604
91902114|NCT02469896|183699190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|2.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.823|4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.740|1.823|<0.001
91902115|NCT02469896|183699190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.078||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.431|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.431|0.813|0.587
91902116|NCT02469896|183699190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.078||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.595|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.595|0.728|0.697
91902117|NCT02469896|183699191|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.502|2.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.121|1.502|<0.001
91902118|NCT02019420|183699193|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in ITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid). Noninferiority is declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI \> -10.|Difference in all-cause mortality|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.7|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||4.7|-8.2|
91859259|NCT01872078|183603766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|78.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.41|116.16||||||The null hypothesis is that the ratio of Active to Control in LH AUC(0-8) ratio to baseline at day 7= 100%||116.16|53.41|
91859260|NCT01872078|183603766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|47.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.73|70.36||||||The null hypothesis is that the ratio of Active to Control in LH AUC(0-8) ratio to baseline at day 7= 100%||70.36|32.73|
91859261|NCT01091168|183603767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Kaplan-Meier curves and life tables by treatment arm were provided. Confidence intervals on the median were calculated using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals were reported. A stratified Cox proportional model was performed to compare the two treatment arms taking into account the stratification factors (except centre) used at the time of randomisation.||1.25|0.86|0.673
91714292|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0053||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0053
91665926|NCT02554877|183225458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.4699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|8.12||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||8.12|-3.17|0.4699
91665927|NCT02554877|183225458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.63|3.19||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||3.19|-7.63|0.4979
91665928|NCT02554877|183225458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.2927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.85|1.95||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||1.95|-8.85|0.2927
91665929|NCT02554877|183225458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.26|0.6||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||0.60|-10.26|0.1430
91665930|NCT02554877|183225458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.7373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|4.92||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||4.92|-7.42|0.7373
91665931|NCT02554877|183225458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.5075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.57|3.66||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||3.66|-8.57|0.5075
91665932|NCT02554877|183225458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.6295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.99|4.37||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||4.37|-7.99|0.6295
91792419|NCT02278341|183462581|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.105|||=|0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.225||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.225|-0.015|=0.086
91859262|NCT01091168|183603768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0424|||||||Log Rank|||The disease control rate (DCR) were compared in the ITT population and in the population evaluable for response between the 2 arms with a cochran Mantel Haenszel, stratified on WHO performance status at baseline, number of prior chemotherapy lines for the treatment of disease and disease measurability at Baseline.||||0.0424
91665933|NCT02554877|183225458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.4266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|9.69||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.69|-3.39|0.4266
91665934|NCT02554877|183225458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|11.4||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||11.40|-1.47|0.2038
91665935|NCT02554877|183225458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.19|8.78||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||8.78|-4.19|0.5592
91665936|NCT02554877|183225459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|16.05||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||16.05|-5.86|
91859263|NCT01091168|183603769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||Log Rank|||PFS was compared between the 2 treatment arms by the log-rank test procedure with the 5 % significant level, stratified on the stratification factors (except study site) as specified at the time of randomisation. Os was analysed using Kaplan-Meir method and summarized with median and 95% CI of the median||1.12|0.8|0.4927
91665937|NCT02554877|183225459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.76|15.48||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||15.48|-9.76|
91665938|NCT02554877|183225459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.91|30.34||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||30.34|3.91|
91665939|NCT02554877|183225459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|16.22||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||16.22|-10.80|
91665940|NCT02554877|183225459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.61|16.45||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||16.45|-10.61|
91859264|NCT04052516|183603786|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszal test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.63|0.62|0.2991
91665941|NCT02554877|183225459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.08|9.94||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||9.94|-15.08|
91859265|NCT04052516|183603786|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.08|0.80|0.1386
91859266|NCT04172441|183603841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-5.21||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|-2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model was used, with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|The comparison was in the direction of dasiglucagon minus placebo.|Null hypothesis: weighted mean IV GIR in the last 12 hours of treatment with dasiglucagon = weighted mean IV GIR in the last 12 hours of treatment with placebo||-2.13|-8.29|0.0037
91859267|NCT04172441|183603842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-30.93||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.8|-5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model was used, with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|The comparison was in the direction of dasiglucagon minus placebo.|Null hypothesis: Total amount of carbohydrates administered (regardless of route) per day in patients treated with dasiglucagon = total amount of carbohydrates administered (regardless of route) per day in patients treated with placebo||-5.05|-56.80|0.0238
91665942|NCT02554877|183225459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.29|13.03||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||13.03|-16.29|
91665943|NCT02554877|183225459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.4|11.22||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||11.22|-20.40|
91859268|NCT01180634|183603885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.84||P-value is determined using a log-rank test stratified by region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||1.84|0.96|0.0715
91859269|NCT01180634|183603886|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.41||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.6|||Repeared Measures Model||Estimates are determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||2.60|0.21|0.0213
91859270|NCT01180634|183603887|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.3|||Repeated Measures Model||Estimates are determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline organism log density.|||-0.30|-0.95|0.0002
91859271|NCT01180634|183603888|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.28||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.85|||Repeated Measures Model||Estimates were determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region (US, non-US), age (12 to 18 years, \> 18 years), Baseline FEV1 (\<55%, ≥ 55%), and Baseline value.|||2.85|-2.30|0.8335
91665944|NCT02554877|183225459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.66|19.16||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||19.16|-13.66|
91665945|NCT02554877|183225459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|19.02||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||19.02|-3.30|
91859272|NCT01180634|183603889|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.42||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.31|||Repeated Measures Model|||||4.31|0.53|0.0122
91859273|NCT01180634|183603890|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12||P-value is determined using a log-rank test stratified by region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||1.12|0.60|0.3000
91665946|NCT02554877|183225459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.13|13.87||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||13.87|-16.13|
91665947|NCT02554877|183225459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|19.04||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||19.04|-7.07|
91665948|NCT02554877|183225460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.12|5.2||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||5.20|-3.12|0.6800
91665949|NCT02554877|183225460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|5.8||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||5.80|-2.52|0.5150
91665950|NCT02554877|183225460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|8.85||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||8.85|0.47|0.0676
91665951|NCT02554877|183225460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|3.48||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||3.48|-4.73|0.8021
91902119|NCT02019420|183699194|OTHER|Difference in mITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid)|Difference in all-cause mortality|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|7.1|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||7.1|-10.3|
91665952|NCT02554877|183225460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.4346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.06|2.16||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.16|-6.06|0.4346
91665953|NCT02554877|183225460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.15|2.09||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.09|-6.15|0.4173
91665954|NCT02554877|183225460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.7036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.21|3.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||3.26|-5.21|0.7036
91665955|NCT02554877|183225460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.84|1.56||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.56|-6.84|0.2993
91665956|NCT02554877|183225460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.16|4.32||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||4.32|-4.16|0.9751
91665957|NCT02554877|183225460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|8.96||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||8.96|-0.50|0.1408
91665958|NCT02554877|183225460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|9.38||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.38|0.02|0.0986
91665959|NCT02554877|183225460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.1851|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|8.5||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||8.50|-0.92|0.1851
91665960|NCT02554877|183225461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.8559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.19|3.98||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||3.98|-3.19|0.8559
91665961|NCT02554877|183225461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|6.55||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||6.55|-0.62|0.1729
91859274|NCT01180634|183603891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.04||P-value is determined using a log-rank test stratified by region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||2.04|0.47|0.8670
91859275|NCT02662062|183603893|OTHER|This is a single arm study looking at a binary value with the hypothesis suggesting it falls within a certain range.||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis is that the addition of pembrolizumab to chemoradiation is not unsafe (percentage of the population experiencing unacceptable toxicity is not \>50%)|A Clopper-Pearson method was used to determine the unacceptable toxicity rate and a 95% confidence interval for this binary outcome measure.|||
91859276|NCT02662062|183603894|OTHER|Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||||||||||||||||Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||
91859277|NCT02662062|183603895|OTHER|Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||||||||||||||||Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||
91665962|NCT02554877|183225461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|8.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.84|12.06||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||12.06|4.84|0.0002
91665963|NCT02554877|183225461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.8837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|4.59||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||4.59|-3.85|0.8837
91665964|NCT02554877|183225461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|7.84||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||7.84|-0.60|0.1573
91665965|NCT02554877|183225461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|7.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.65|12.11||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||12.11|3.65|0.0024
91665966|NCT02554877|183225461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|7.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||7.73|-0.55|0.1538
91665967|NCT02554877|183225461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|8.49||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||8.49|0.28|0.0789
91665968|NCT02554877|183225461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.98|14.3||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||14.30|5.98|<0.0001
91859278|NCT02662062|183603896|OTHER|Non comparative trial with a single arm|Kaplan Meier Estimate|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0||missing upper limit of 95% confidence interval on the survival estimate from Kaplan-Meier estimator due to small number events||||||||17|
91665969|NCT02554877|183225461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|6.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.36|11.56||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||11.56|2.36|0.0132
91665970|NCT02554877|183225461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|7.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.85|11.96||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||11.96|2.85|0.0079
91665971|NCT02554877|183225461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.24|15.42||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||15.42|6.24|0.0001
91665972|NCT02554877|183225462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.6597|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.01|6.92||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||6.92|-4.01|0.6597
91665973|NCT02554877|183225462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.7583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|6.49||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||6.49|-4.45|0.7583
91665974|NCT02554877|183225462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|8.61||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||8.61|-2.39|0.3516
91859279|NCT02662062|183603897|OTHER|Kaplan Meier Estimate performed for a 12 month timepoint in a single arm non comparative study|Kaplan Meier Estimate|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|98.0||||||||98|72|
91859280|NCT02662062|183603898|OTHER|Kaplan Meier Estimate of single arm non comparative study|Kaplan Meier Estimate|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|94.0||||||||94|64|
91859281|NCT02662062|183603899|OTHER|Kaplan Meier estimate at a 12 month timepoint for a single arm non comparative study|Kaplan Meier Estimate|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|98.0||||||||98|68|
91859282|NCT02910583|183603908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|4.7||||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.9||P-value is from Z test for the difference of two proportions based on Kaplan-Meier estimates with standard error of each arm computed using Greenwood's formula.|Z test||comparison: ibrutininb vs. placebo|||10.9|-1.6|0.1475
91665975|NCT02554877|183225462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|3.75||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||3.75|-7.42|0.5877
91859283|NCT02910583|183603909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided P-value from asymptotic test for the binomial proportion (CRR \<= 37% vs CRR \> 37%).|asymptotic test for binomial proportion|||||||< 0.0001
91859284|NCT03779204|183603971|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-5.0|0.18
91859285|NCT03779204|183603972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-5.0|0.44
91859286|NCT03779204|183603973|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|24.4|||ANCOVA|||||24.4|-9.7|.38
91859287|NCT03779204|183603974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|-3.3|0.76
91859288|NCT03779204|183603975|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.68
91665976|NCT02554877|183225462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.2016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.92|1.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||1.26|-9.92|0.2016
91859289|NCT03779204|183603976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-16.4|0.12
91859290|NCT03779204|183603977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|5.0|||ANCOVA|||||5.0|-13.7|0.34
91859291|NCT03779204|183603979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-6.6|0.62
91859292|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent an Active Control message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending an Active Control message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.003
91859293|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent an Ease message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending an Ease message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||<.001
91859294|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent an Waiting for You message message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending a Waiting for You message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||<.001
91714293|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9835||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.9835
91714294|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6668||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6668
91859295|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent a Protect Yourself - Rare message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending a Protect Yourself - Rare Message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.003
91714295|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2823||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.2823
91902120|NCT02019420|183699195|OTHER|Difference in ITT clinical success (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-0.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-0.5|-14.7|
91714296|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5687||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.5687
91714297|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0043||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0043
91714298|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8662||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.8662
91714299|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3656
91792420|NCT02278341|183462581|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.149|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.284||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.284|0.014|=0.031
91859296|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent a Protect Yourself - Frequent message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending a Protect Yourself - Frequent message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.035
91859297|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Ease messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Ease messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.593
91665977|NCT02554877|183225462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.08|-0.89||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.89|-12.08|0.0568
91665978|NCT02554877|183225462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.48|2.61||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||2.61|-8.48|0.3827
91859298|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Waiting for You messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.052
91665979|NCT02554877|183225462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.81|0.2||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||0.20|-10.81|0.1126
91665980|NCT02554877|183225462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.73|1.38||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.38|-9.73|0.2160
91714300|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0806||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0806
91792421|NCT02278341|183462582|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.346|0.125|<0.001
91902121|NCT02019420|183699196|OTHER|Difference in CE clinical success (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|2.1|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||2.1|-15.1|
91665981|NCT02554877|183225462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|9.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.72|-2.64|0.3443
91665982|NCT02554877|183225462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|9.94||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.94|-2.30|0.3031
91665983|NCT02554877|183225462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.27|7.04||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||7.04|-5.27|0.8129
91714301|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5381||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.5381
91714302|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0090
91714303|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9748||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.9748
91902122|NCT02019420|183699197|OTHER|Difference in MSSA mITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid)|Difference in all-cause mortality|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|9.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||9.5|-12.5|
91902123|NCT02019420|183699198|OTHER|Difference in MRSA mITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid)|Difference in all-cause mortality|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|18.9|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||18.9|-12.8|
91714304|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3936||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3936
91714305|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1563||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.1563
91714306|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6357||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6357
91714307|NCT00676403|183320241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0133
91792422|NCT02278341|183462582|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.104|||=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.232|-0.024|=0.110
91665984|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.01||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||1.01|-0.33|0.4020
91902124|NCT02019420|183699199|OTHER|Difference in mITT favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-4.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-4.5|-21.7|
91859299|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Protect Yourself - Rare messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Rare messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.952
91859300|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.386
91792423|NCT02278341|183462582|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.149|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.288|0.010|=0.036
91665985|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||0.73|-0.61|0.8789
91665986|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.54||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||1.54|0.19|0.0345
91665987|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|2.08||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.08|0.48|0.0087
91665988|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.88||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||1.88|0.28|0.0268
91665989|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|2.19||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.19|0.58|0.0047
91714308|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05||0.4133||95.0|-22.4|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.3|-22.4|0.4133
91665990|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.76||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.76|0.38|0.0116
91665991|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.66||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.66|0.27|0.0220
91665992|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|2.01||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||2.01|0.62|0.0021
91665993|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|2.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||2.26|0.56|0.0067
91859301|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Ease messages and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Ease and Waiting for You messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.498
91864429|NCT05194956|183617785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|13.15|||Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA|P-values are calculated taking sequence and period effects into account.|This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)||13.15|3.75|0.0006
91665994|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|2.02||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||2.02|0.33|0.0225
91665995|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|2.25||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||2.25|0.55|0.0073
91714309|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.6676||95.0|-19.0|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Conrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.2|-19.0|0.6676
91864430|NCT05194956|183617785|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.1984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1984
91864431|NCT05194956|183617785|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.7494|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7494
91864432|NCT05194956|183617785|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects modelling|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.29|-5.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.33|-21.29|0.001
91859302|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Ease messages and Protect Yourself - Rare messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Ease and Protect Yourself - Rare messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.935
91859303|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Ease messages and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Ease and Protect Yourself - Frequent message messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.504
91859304|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Rare and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Protect Yourself - Rare and Waiting for You messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.190
91665996|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||0.73|-0.12|0.2391
91665997|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.43||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||0.43|-0.42|0.9912
91714310|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.04||0.9355||95.0|-16.5|15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.2|-16.5|0.9355
91859305|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Frequent messages and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Protect Yourself - Frequent and Waiting for You messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.027
91665998|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.77||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||0.77|-0.09|0.1930
91859306|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Rare and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Protect Yourself - Rare and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.854
91665999|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.25||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||1.25|0.35|0.0038
91692033|NCT02174627|183278563|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MAR-based multiple imputation ANCOVA model.||1.43|1.27|<0.001
91666000|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|1.02||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.02|0.12|0.0394
91666001|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.93||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||0.93|0.02|0.0862
91666002|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.61||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.61|0.48|0.0024
91666003|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.48||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.48|0.37|0.0068
91666004|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|1.42||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.42|0.29|0.0132
91666005|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.14||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||2.14|0.65|0.0024
91859307|NCT05493787|183604012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||The reported p-value (2-tailed) is for the interaction term between message send date (November, December) and message (any message arm no message)|Regression, Linear|||"Null Hypothesis: Messages sent in November and December are equally effective at promoting flu-shot self-scheduling. Alternative hypothesis: Messages sent in November and December are differentially effective.~To test the alternative hypothesis, all message arms (Active control, Ease, Waiting for you, Protect yourself - rare, Protect yourself - frequent) were combined and compared with Passive control."||||.637
91864433|NCT05194956|183617786|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|0.91||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||0.91|-7.71|0.1230
91666006|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.89||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.89|0.40|0.0115
91666007|NCT02554877|183225463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.72|0.22|0.0344
91666008|NCT00538031|183225482|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.61
91666009|NCT00538031|183225483|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.95
91666010|NCT02450539|183225484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.765||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.165|2.672|||Stratified log-rank test.||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), number of Prior Therapies (received only platinum-based therapy vs Received platinum-based Therapy plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor), and time since initiation of first line therapy (\<=9 months vs \>9 months).||2.672|1.165|0.0068
91792424|NCT02278341|183462587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.154|||=|0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.411||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.411|0.943|=0.164
91666011|NCT02450539|183225487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.333||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|2.022|||Stratified log-rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), number of Prior Therapies (received only platinum-based therapy vs Received platinum-based Therapy plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor), and time since initiation of first line therapy (\<=9 months vs \>9 months).\]||2.022|0.879|0.1746
91666012|NCT02450539|183225488|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-6.6|||||Confidence intervals are based on the normal approximation to the binomial.|||-6.6|-29.3|
91666013|NCT02450539|183225489|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|2.8|||||Confidence intervals are based on the normal approximation to the binomial.|||2.8|-29.2|
91666014|NCT02450539|183225490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.184||||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|2.792|||Stratified Log Rank||Stratified Cox regression model.|Stratification factors are baseline ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), Number of Prior Therapies (received only platinum-based therapy vs Received platinum-based Therapy plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor), and time since initiation of first line therapy (\<=9 months vs \>9 months).||2.792|0.502|0.7039
91666015|NCT02450539|183225491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Headache||||
91666016|NCT02450539|183225491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Diarrhea||||
91666017|NCT02450539|183225491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean core symptom severity||||
91666018|NCT02450539|183225491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean interference||||
91859308|NCT03526861|183604043|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||22.3|5.3|0.002
91859309|NCT03526861|183604043|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|26.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||26.6|8.4|<0.001
91666019|NCT02450539|183225491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean lung cancer symptom severity||||
91666020|NCT02450539|183225491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean core plus lung cancer symptom severity||||
91666021|NCT02450539|183225491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean brain tumor symptom severity||||
91666022|NCT02450539|183225491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean core plus lung worst 5 symptoms severity||||
91666023|NCT02450539|183225491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Rash||||
91714311|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.97||0.9355||95.0|-15.1|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.4|-15.1|0.9355
91864434|NCT05194956|183617786|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.8423|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8423
91864435|NCT05194956|183617786|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.9544|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9544
91666024|NCT02450539|183225492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||EQ VAS Overall Self-rated Health Score||||
91666025|NCT02450539|183225493|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||EQ-5D-5L Index Value||||
91666026|NCT03060486|183225498|OTHER||Signed Rank Score Difference|-60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<.0001
91666027|NCT05143047|183225505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91666028|NCT05143047|183225506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91666029|NCT05143047|183225507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
91666030|NCT05143047|183225508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
91666031|NCT05143047|183225509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91666032|NCT05143047|183225510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
91666033|NCT05143047|183225511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
91666034|NCT05143047|183225512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91666035|NCT05143047|183225513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91666036|NCT02704091|183225527|SUPERIORITY|"The following Null-hypothesis was tested:~H0: λA(t) = λB (t) versus H1: λA(t) ≠ λB (t), where λ(t) represents the hazard at time t, A=diosmectite and B=placebo."|||||=|0.2524|||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test|||The primary analysis tested the equality of time to recovery between the 2 treatment groups, applying the 2-sided Gehan-Wilcoxon test (α=5%).||||=0.2524
91666037|NCT02704091|183225528|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3511|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for time from diarrhoea onset to recovery, analysed using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test.||||=0.3511
91666038|NCT02704091|183225529|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7285|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for time from diarrhoea onset to first formed stool, analysed using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test.||||=0.7285
91666039|NCT02704091|183225530|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1807|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for time from first study treatment intake to last watery stool, analysed using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test.||||=0.1807
91666040|NCT02704091|183225531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.4294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for number of stools for the overall time period, based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method for repeated measurements. The model included the number of stools 24 hours before randomisation (baseline) as covariate, treatment, time point (12-hour period), the treatment by time point interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.07|-0.15|0.4294
91859310|NCT03526861|183604044|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||32.0|12.0|<0.001
91902125|NCT02019420|183699200|OTHER|Difference in ME-1 favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-4.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-4.5|-21.7|
91666041|NCT02704091|183225532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for number of watery stools for the overall time period, based on an ANCOVA method for repeated measurements. The model included the number of watery stools 24 hours before randomisation (baseline) as covariate, treatment, time point (12-hour period), the treatment by time point interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||-0.00|-0.24|0.0465
91666042|NCT02412852|183225536|OTHER||||||||||||||||||\]The pharmacokinetics data are particularly sparse, and therefore substantial interpolations and imputations were required to produce an analyzable data set. Consequently, while not ideal, the Last Observation Carried Forward method was used for these data. There was a large amount of missing data which required imputation to determine results. The large amount of interpolations and imputations required for the pharmacokinetic analysis means that the pharmacokinetic results will need to be interpreted with caution. 3 X 3 Analysis of Variance used to compare Placebo to the two active groups. Missing data required imputation of available data.|||
91666043|NCT02412852|183225538|OTHER|ANOVA on only those subjects who completed testing.||||||0.05||||||The results were analyzed using an ANOVA with one between-subjects factor (Group: both placebo groups combined, 40 mg TV1001sr, and 80 mg TV1001sr); and one within-subjects factor (Visit: Visit 1, Visit 2, and Visit 3).|ANOVA|The means of the three groups were further analyzed using a post hoc comparison procedure (the Scheffé test).||||||0.05
91859311|NCT03526861|183604044|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|32.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||32.6|12.4|<0.001
91666044|NCT02412852|183225539|OTHER|The composite conduction measure and the composite velocity measure were analyzed using an Analysis of Variance with one between-subjects factor (Group: combined placebo, 40 mg TV1001, and 80 mg TV1001); and one within-subjects factor (Visit: Visit 1, Visit 2, and Visit 3).||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||||||.15
91666045|NCT02412852|183225540|OTHER|A 3 by 3 Analysis of Variance with one between-subjects factor (Combined placebo, 40 mg TV1001, or 80 mg TV1001) and one within-subjects factor (Visit 1, Visit 2, or Visit 3) was performed for HbA1c values.||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||||||.36
91666046|NCT02412852|183225541|OTHER|ANOVA to compare differences from baseline to completion of testing.||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||.93
91902126|NCT02019420|183699201|OTHER|Difference in mITT favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-3.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-3.5|-21.5|
91666047|NCT01447511|183225561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean S-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under control conditions is the same.||||<0.0001
91666048|NCT01447511|183225561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean S-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under fluconazole conditions is the same.||||=0.0001
91666049|NCT01447511|183225561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean S-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under rifampin conditions is the same.||||<0.0001
91666050|NCT01447511|183225561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3058|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean R-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under control conditions is the same.||||=0.3058
91666051|NCT01447511|183225561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3278|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean R-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under fluconazole conditions is the same.||||=0.3278
91666052|NCT01447511|183225561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.6155|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean R-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under rifampin conditions is the same.||||=0.6155
91666053|NCT02336074|183225562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Treatment arms were compared in terms of absolute total HIV DNA levels (on a log10-scale) at post-randomization weeks 16 and 18 adjusted for the baseline (i.e. randomization) level and by stratum.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
91666054|NCT02336074|183225564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of the proportion of patients with undetectable viral outgrowth using logistic regression.~The analysis was adjusted for stratum and baseline viral outgrowth. Missing baseline values were imputed."||||0.145
91666055|NCT05604014|183225569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91666056|NCT05604014|183225570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91666057|NCT05604014|183225571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91666058|NCT05604014|183225572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91666059|NCT00840203|183225582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.6||||||90.0|88.6|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|88.6|
91666060|NCT00840203|183225583|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.3||||||90.0|82.8|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|82.8|
91666061|NCT00840203|183225584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.0||||||90.0|83.0|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|83.0|
91666062|NCT00840203|183225585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.3||||||90.0|91.5|106.0|||||Metabolite results presented for informational purposes only.|||106|91.5|
91666063|NCT00840203|183225586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.6||||||90.0|86.7|110.0|||||Metabolite results presented for informational purposes only.|||110|86.7|
91666064|NCT00840203|183225587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.6||||||90.0|86.1|106.0|||||Metabolite results presented for informational purposes only.|||106|86.1|
91666065|NCT03349567|183225588|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|0.99||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Segmented regression analysis was conducted using generalized linear models to estimate change in monthly antimicrobial prescription rates.||||1.01|0.98|0.35
91666066|NCT03349567|183225589|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.35||||||||1.35|0.93|
91666067|NCT03349567|183225590|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27||||||||1.27|0.81|
91902127|NCT02019420|183699202|OTHER|Difference in ME-2 favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-1.2|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-1.2|-26.2|
91666068|NCT03349567|183225591|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.34||||||||1.34|0.58|
91666069|NCT03349567|183225592|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.29||||||||1.29|0.53|
91666070|NCT03349567|183225593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91666071|NCT03349567|183225593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
91666072|NCT03349567|183225594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Logistic|Segmented regression analysis was conducted using generalized linear models to estimate change in monthly antibiotic prescription rates.||||||0.46
91666073|NCT01438060|183225602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.49||Baseline data was evaluated by analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and study center as main effects.|ANOVA||Model based estimate.|Analysis at Baseline (Day 0)||1.49|-1.15|0.802
91859312|NCT03526861|183604045|SUPERIORITY|Secondary endpoint tested sequentially at a 2.5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|31.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with at least 4-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||31.1|12.3|<0.001
91859313|NCT03526861|183604045|SUPERIORITY|Secondary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|29.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with at least 4-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||29.2|10.6|<0.001
91902128|NCT02510560|183699205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.115
91666074|NCT01438060|183225602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.44||ANCOVA model for LOCF data set included the baseline measure as covariate and the study center and treatment as main effects.|ANCOVA||Model based estimate|Analysis at Week 10||0.44|-2.49|0.169
91666075|NCT01438060|183225605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.79||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with controlling for treatment and study center||Analysis at Week 1||1.35|0.47|0.391
91666076|NCT01438060|183225605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.95||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center||Analysis at Week 2||1.31|0.69|0.766
91666077|NCT01438060|183225605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.01||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 3||1.32|0.76|0.967
91666078|NCT01438060|183225605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.92||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 4||1.19|0.71|0.505
91666079|NCT01438060|183225605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.07||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.36||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 6||1.36|0.84|0.590
91666080|NCT01438060|183225605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.1||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.37||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 8||1.37|0.89|0.374
91666081|NCT01438060|183225605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.15||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.41||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 10||1.41|0.94|0.175
91666082|NCT01438060|183225606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.88||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.92||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 1||1.92|0.41|0.753
91666083|NCT01438060|183225606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.9||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.32||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 2||1.32|0.62|0.600
91666084|NCT01438060|183225606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.93||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.31||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 3||1.31|0.65|0.673
91666085|NCT01438060|183225606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.83||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.14||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 4||1.14|0.60|0.255
91666086|NCT01438060|183225606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.99||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 6||1.33|0.74|0.958
91666087|NCT01438060|183225606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.92||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 8||1.19|0.71|0.525
91859314|NCT03526861|183604046|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 2.5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-12.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-12.2|-27.1|<0.001
91666088|NCT01438060|183225606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.07||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 10||1.40|0.82|0.602
91666089|NCT01438060|183225610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 1||||0.133
91666090|NCT01438060|183225610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 2||||0.282
91666091|NCT01438060|183225610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 3||||0.571
91666092|NCT01438060|183225610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 4||||0.895
91666093|NCT01438060|183225610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 6||||0.817
91666094|NCT01438060|183225610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 8||||0.795
91864436|NCT05194956|183617787|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-0.12||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-0.12|-6.69|0.0439
91666095|NCT01438060|183225610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 10||||0.564
91666096|NCT01438060|183225612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at baseline||1.54|-1.08|0.733
91666097|NCT01438060|183225612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.54|||ANOVA|||Analysis at Week 10||-0.54|-2.16|0.001
91666098|NCT00834405|183225650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|106.0||||||90.0|98.0|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|98.0|
91666099|NCT00834405|183225651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|107.0||||||90.0|100.0|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||115|100|
91666100|NCT00840281|183225652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|94.9|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||105|94.9|
91864437|NCT05194956|183617787|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.3878|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3878
91666101|NCT00840281|183225653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.6|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||103|98.6|
91666102|NCT00840281|183225654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|98.7|
91666103|NCT01296841|183225668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|We performed t-test statistics for univariate comparisons for continuous variables.||||||<0.05
91859315|NCT03526861|183604046|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-10.4||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-10.4|-25.6|<0.001
91864438|NCT05194956|183617787|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.9772|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9772
91902129|NCT02510560|183699205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.243
91666104|NCT00957021|183225688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||KSS Pain/Motion and Function Score comparison from pre-op to 1, 2 and 5 year||||<.0001
91666105|NCT00957021|183225689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Physical score comparison from pre-op to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years||||<.0001
91666106|NCT00957021|183225689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 1 year||||<.0001
91902130|NCT02510560|183699206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.714
91666107|NCT00957021|183225689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 2 year||||0.0017
91666108|NCT00957021|183225689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 3 year||||0.0055
91859316|NCT03526861|183604047|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 2.5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-2.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.7|-4.5|0.007
91666109|NCT00957021|183225689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 4 year||||0.0050
91666110|NCT00957021|183225689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 5 year||||0.0018
91666111|NCT00957021|183225691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LEAS score comparison from pre-op to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years||||<.0001
91666112|NCT02442687|183225693|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.034
91666113|NCT02442687|183225693|OTHER|||||||0.1731||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.1731
91666114|NCT02442687|183225694|OTHER|||||||0.5276||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.5276
91666115|NCT02442687|183225694|OTHER|||||||0.4968||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.4968
91666116|NCT02442687|183225695|OTHER|||||||0.2591||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.2591
91666117|NCT02442687|183225695|OTHER|||||||0.1806||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.1806
91666118|NCT02442687|183225696|OTHER|||||||0.0882||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.0882
91666119|NCT02442687|183225696|OTHER|||||||0.253||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.2530
91666120|NCT00431041|183225721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91666121|NCT00431041|183225722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value represents overall comparison of severity of dry mouth.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0010
91902131|NCT02510560|183699206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.243
91902132|NCT03684642|183699216|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Efpeglenatide vs. Dulaglutide was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was \<=0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14||||||A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type 1 error. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with the treatment groups, randomization strata, and geographical region as fixed classification effects, and baseline HbA1c value as a continuous covariate.||0.14|-0.20|
91904165|NCT03861936|183703266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|-4.47||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-4.47|-7.15|<.0001
91666122|NCT01822119|183225725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation|||||||<0.0001
91666123|NCT01822119|183225726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation|||||||<0.0001
91666124|NCT01822119|183225727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Statistically significant changes with the same value at 500 to 4000Hz||||<0.0001
91666125|NCT01822119|183225727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Change at 6000Hz||||0.0499
91666126|NCT01822119|183225727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Change at 8000Hz||||0.0632
91666127|NCT01822119|183225728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||||0.39
91666128|NCT01822119|183225729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz||||0.79
91666129|NCT01822119|183225729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz||||0.26
91666130|NCT01822119|183225729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz||||0.24
91666131|NCT01822119|183225729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz||||0.83
91666132|NCT01822119|183225729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz||||0.026
91666133|NCT01822119|183225729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz||||0.0085
91666134|NCT01822119|183225729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||8000Hz||||0.13
91666135|NCT01822119|183225730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Statistically significant improvement with the same value at all presentation levels.||||<0.0001
91666136|NCT01822119|183225731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||50dB||||0.55
91792425|NCT02278341|183462588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979|||=|0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.462|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.462|0.656|=0.917
91666137|NCT01822119|183225731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||60dB||||0.72
91666138|NCT01822119|183225731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||80dB||||0.28
91792426|NCT02278341|183462589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867|||=|0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|1.313||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment, and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.313|0.573|=0.501
91904166|NCT03861936|183703267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-6.13||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-6.13|-9.12|<.0001
91666139|NCT01822119|183225732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||||<0.0001
91666140|NCT01822119|183225733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||||0.0092
91666141|NCT01822119|183225734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Aversiveness||||0.59
91666142|NCT01822119|183225734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Ease of Communication||||0.71
91859317|NCT03526861|183604047|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.1|-3.9|0.040
91666143|NCT01822119|183225734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Reverberation||||0.59
91902133|NCT03684642|183699216|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Efpeglenatide vs. Dulaglutide was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between groups was \<=0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.09||||||A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type 1 error. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with the treatment groups, randomization strata, and geographical region as fixed classification effects, and baseline HbA1c value as a continuous covariate.||0.09|-0.25|
91666144|NCT01822119|183225734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Background noise||||0.40
91666145|NCT01822119|183225734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Global score||||0.50
91666146|NCT02637141|183225745|SUPERIORITY|P-values smaller than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.82|11.83|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||11.83|-16.82|0.7271
91666147|NCT02637141|183225745|SUPERIORITY|P-values smaller than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|19.85|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||19.85|-7.07|0.3438
91666148|NCT02637141|183225746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.85||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.39|25.74|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||25.74|-54.39|0.4746
91666149|NCT02637141|183225746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.85||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.28|-3.2|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||-3.2|-79.28|0.0343
91666150|NCT02637141|183225748|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4402.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1717.4||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|936.39|7868.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||7868.10|936.39|0.0140
91666151|NCT02637141|183225748|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|944.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1167.22||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1410.65|3300.44|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||3300.44|-1410.65|0.4228
91666152|NCT02637141|183225749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.09||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|52.29|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP-IgA||52.29|-16.68|0.3034
91666153|NCT02637141|183225749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.46||0.6569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.11|24.28|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP-IgA||24.28|-38.11|0.6569
91666154|NCT02637141|183225749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.77||0.6254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.86|67.2|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP-IgG||67.20|-40.86|0.6254
91666155|NCT02637141|183225749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.66||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.84|46.57|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP IgG||46.57|-40.84|0.8955
91666156|NCT02637141|183225750|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.08|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model with treatment group, site, sex, time (week), and time point-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Analysis of Total Weekly Bowel Movements at Week 12||1.08|0.63|0.1610
91666157|NCT02637141|183225750|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model with treatment group, site, sex, time (week), and time point-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||||1.32|0.81|0.7810
91666158|NCT02637141|183225752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.33||0.2761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.66|10.77|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||10.77|-37.66|0.2761
91666159|NCT02637141|183225752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.66||0.8221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|20.27|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||20.27|-25.51|0.8221
91666160|NCT02637141|183225753|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.1908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|1.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||1.3|-6.89|0.1908
91666161|NCT02637141|183225753|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|2.25|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||2.25|-5.53|0.4088
91666162|NCT03031795|183225754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \< 0.05 for each row comparison with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"A 2 point difference was used to power the study. This is consistent with previous definitions of a clinically meaningful reductions in pain and provides a visually meaningful change on the 0-10 numerical rating scale with anchors at every other point, for example moving from very severe (8) to severe pain (6) or from moderate pain (4) to mild pain (2)."||||< 0.05
91666163|NCT02705716|183225759|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.497|0.252|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA Model, Response: change from baseline in Schiff sensitivity score Factors: treatment \& site Covariates: baseline Schiff sensitivity score|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favors first named dentifrice.|||0.252|-0.497|0.5191
91666164|NCT02670551|183225777|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.4||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||-0.4|-4.6|0.0331
91692034|NCT02174627|183278564|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|9.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.63|10.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of the percentage of responders for roxadustat versus placebo was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR, geographic region and CV history.||10.89|7.63|<0.001
91902134|NCT03684642|183699216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7064||||||Threshold for significance at the level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7064
91666165|NCT02670551|183225777|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.9||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||-0.9|-5.1|0.0103
91792427|NCT02278341|183462590|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.006|||=|0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|ANCOVA|||The model included treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.01|-0.02|=0.507
91666166|NCT02670551|183225778|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||0.0|-0.5|0.0714
91902135|NCT03684642|183699216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3427||||||Threshold for significance at the level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3427
91666167|NCT02670551|183225778|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||-0.0|-0.5|0.0662
91666168|NCT04476277|183225779|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91666169|NCT04476277|183225781|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91666170|NCT04476277|183225782|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91666171|NCT04476277|183225783|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91666172|NCT04476277|183225784|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91666173|NCT04476277|183225785|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91666174|NCT04476277|183225786|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91666175|NCT04476277|183225787|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
91666176|NCT04476277|183225788|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91666177|NCT04476277|183225789|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91666178|NCT04476277|183225790|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91666179|NCT04476277|183225791|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
91666180|NCT04476277|183225792|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91666181|NCT00849797|183225793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|90.86||||||90.0|85.47|96.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||96.60|85.47|
91666182|NCT00849797|183225794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.6||||||90.0|96.59|100.66|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.66|96.59|
91859318|NCT03526861|183604050|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|38.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|50.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||50.2|26.8|<0.001
91864439|NCT05194956|183617788|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|9.6||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|17.79||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||17.79|1.50|0.0213
91666183|NCT00849797|183225795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.74||||||90.0|96.71|100.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.80|96.71|
91666184|NCT00849797|183225796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.5||||||90.0|95.66|100.48|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||100.48|95.66|
91666185|NCT00849797|183225797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.29||||||90.0|98.96|101.64|||||Results presented for informational purposes only, metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||101.64|98.96|
91666186|NCT00849797|183225798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.08||||||90.0|98.91|101.27|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||101.27|98.91|
91666187|NCT02153645|183225799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-13.9|0.179
91666188|NCT02153645|183225799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-11.2|0.458
91666189|NCT01139762|183225801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.55|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.55|-2.27|0.001
91666190|NCT01139762|183225803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.14||P-value is for IPSS storage (irritative) subscore - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.14|-0.87|0.007
91692035|NCT02174627|183278565|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.35|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MAR-based multiple imputation ANCOVA model.||1.35|0.91|<0.001
91859319|NCT03526861|183604050|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|32.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|44.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||44.1|20.6|<0.001
91859320|NCT03526861|183604051|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 90% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||22.2|5.2|0.002
91666191|NCT01139762|183225803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.02||P-value is for IPSS storage (irritative) subscore - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.02|-0.80|0.040
91666192|NCT01139762|183225803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.07||P-value is for IPSS storage (irritative) subscore - 26 weeks|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.07|-0.75|0.107
91666193|NCT01139762|183225803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.68||P-value is for IPSS voiding (obstructive) subscore - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.68|-1.69|<0.001
91666194|NCT01139762|183225803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.46||P-value is for IPSS voiding (obstructive) subscore - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.46|-1.62|<0.001
91666195|NCT01139762|183225803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.14||P-value is IPSS voiding (obstructive) subscore - 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.14|-1.32|0.015
91666196|NCT01139762|183225804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.14||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.14|-0.50|<0.001
91666197|NCT01139762|183225804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.0||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.00|-0.38|0.051
91666198|NCT01139762|183225804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.04|-0.38|0.107
91666199|NCT01139762|183225805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|6.21||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||6.21|3.49|<0.001
91864440|NCT05194956|183617788|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.1583|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1583
91864441|NCT05194956|183617788|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.4709|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4709
91902136|NCT04556396|183699222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||Chi-squared|||||0.4|0.1|<0.01
91902137|NCT05118204|183699239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|16.54|||Fisher Exact|||||16.540|0.050|1.00
91666200|NCT01139762|183225805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|5.6||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||5.60|2.55|<0.001
91666201|NCT01139762|183225805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|6.31||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||6.31|3.15|<0.001
91666202|NCT01139762|183225806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.40|0.61|<0.001
91666203|NCT01139762|183225806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.51|0.61|<0.001
91666204|NCT01139762|183225806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.69||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.69|0.74|<0.001
91859321|NCT03526861|183604051|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 90% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||24.1|6.5|<0.001
91904167|NCT03861936|183703267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-6.69||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-6.69|-9.83|<.0001
91666205|NCT01139762|183225807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.47||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.47|1.18|<0.001
91666206|NCT01139762|183225807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.31||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.31|0.88|<0.001
91666207|NCT01139762|183225807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.73||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.73|1.23|<0.001
91904168|NCT01312038|183703275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.93|||||||Paired T-test|df=34||Comparison of the simethicone and placebo groups with respect to the difference between the pre-post treatment FGE at ME-pressure chamber gradient of -200 daPa.||||=0.93
91666208|NCT01139762|183225808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.13||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.13|0.92|<0.001
91666209|NCT01139762|183225808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.54||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.54|0.27|0.006
91792428|NCT02278341|183462591|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.132|||=|0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.16|||ANCOVA|||The model included treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||4.16|-3.90|=0.949
91904169|NCT01312038|183703275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.39|||||||Paired T-test|df = 31||Comparison of the simethicone and placebo groups with respect to the difference between the pre-post treatment FGE at ME-pressure chamber gradient of 200 daPa.||||=0.39
91859322|NCT03526861|183604052|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-5.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-5.3|-13.5|<0.001
91859323|NCT03526861|183604052|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-5.3|-13.6|<0.001
91666210|NCT01139762|183225808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.74||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.74|0.41|0.002
91864442|NCT05194956|183617789|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.3||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|9.46||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||9.46|1.09|0.0146
91864443|NCT05194956|183617789|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.5911|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5911
91864444|NCT05194956|183617789|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.5825|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5825
91714312|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.1895||95.0|-26.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-26.1|0.1895
91666211|NCT01139762|183225809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.25||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.25|0.61|<0.001
91902138|NCT04409353|183699269|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 30, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.47||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.81||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The primary analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 7, 15, 21, and 30, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.81|-0.87|0.4884
91666212|NCT01139762|183225809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.14||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.14|0.44|<0.001
91666213|NCT01139762|183225809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.13||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.13|0.39|<0.001
91666214|NCT01139762|183225810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-value is for overall distribution of responses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) severity.||||||0.034
91666215|NCT01139762|183225811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Van Elteren test|Van Elteren test was stratified by region.||||||0.031
91666216|NCT01139762|183225812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328||95.0||||P-value is for overall distribution of responses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) severity.||||||0.328
91666217|NCT01139762|183225813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||0.157
91666218|NCT01139762|183225814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.98||P-value is for Question 3 - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.98|0.49|<0.001
91904170|NCT02665052|183703302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||The primary analysis was a two sample t-test (alpha=0.05) of the mean WMFT log-time change at 6 weeks. The threshold for statistical significance was p-value = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||78 participants were needed to generate a sample size of 22 per group and provide 80% power to detect a between group difference in mean Wolf time change (6 week - baseline) based on an a priori assumption of a mean change of 0 and 7.4 seconds respectively for the delayed entry usual care control and home-based BATRAC group; a SD of 7.6 and discontinuation rate of 15%.||||0.64
91666219|NCT01139762|183225814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.93||P-value is for Question 3 - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.93|0.43|<0.001
91666220|NCT01139762|183225814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.02||P-value is for Question 3 - 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.02|0.48|<0.001
91666221|NCT01139762|183225814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||P-value is for Question 4 - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.95|0.46|<0.001
91666222|NCT01139762|183225814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.85||P-value is for Question 4 - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.85|0.36|<0.001
91666223|NCT01139762|183225814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.89||P-value is for Question 4 - 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.89|0.35|<0.001
91666224|NCT00840879|183225843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.15||||||90.0|90.96|105.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.90|90.96|
91666225|NCT00840879|183225844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.34||||||90.0|91.82|101.07|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.07|91.82|
91666226|NCT00840879|183225845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.76||||||90.0|93.31|102.42|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.42|93.31|
91666227|NCT01894230|183225874|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-0.0189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3986||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.96
91666228|NCT01894230|183225874|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|-0.2468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4315||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
91666229|NCT01894230|183225875|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0482
91859324|NCT03526861|183604053|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|18.4||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||18.4|4.5|0.002
91666230|NCT01894230|183225875|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.333||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
91666231|NCT01894230|183225876|EQUIVALENCE|MPR calculated from baseline to last patient follow-up (3 months or 8 months)|Slope|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.6692|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6692
91666232|NCT01894230|183225877|EQUIVALENCE|Baseline to Month 3|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.025||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|3.929|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.929|1.043|0.0371
91666233|NCT01894230|183225877|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3 to Month 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.115||||0.8815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|4.687|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.687|0.265|0.8815
91666234|NCT01894230|183225878|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.5965|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5965
91666235|NCT01894230|183225878|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.4579|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4579
91666236|NCT01894230|183225879|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.5477|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5477
91666237|NCT01894230|183225879|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.0429|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0429
91666238|NCT01894230|183225880|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881||0.8106|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8106
91666239|NCT01894230|183225880|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.5233|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5233
91666240|NCT01894230|183225881|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-0.6001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.472||0.6841|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6841
91666241|NCT01894230|183225881|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|-0.771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.781||0.6658|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6658
91666242|NCT01894230|183225882|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.085||||0.8384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal Logistic||||2.380|0.495|0.8384
91666243|NCT01894230|183225883|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3 BMQ Necessity|Slope|1.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584||0.0486|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0486
91666244|NCT01894230|183225883|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8, BMQ Necessity|Slope|0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.7235|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7235
91666245|NCT01894230|183225883|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3, BMQ Concerns|Slope|-0.862|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.2113|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2113
91666246|NCT01894230|183225883|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8, BMQ Concerns|Slope|-1.0083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.1739|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1739
91666247|NCT00642993|183225897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in means|0.41||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.03|||ANOVA|Mean and standard error are least squares means and corresponding standard errors based on an ANOVA model with main effects for treatment.||||1.03|-0.20|0.187
91666248|NCT00642993|183225898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test adjusting for gender.||||1.20|0.28|0.140
91666249|NCT00642993|183225899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|9.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test adjusting for gender.||||9.93|0.24|0.515
91666250|NCT00642993|183225900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.63|||ANOVA|Mean and standard error are least squares means and corresponding standard errors based on an ANOVA model with main effects for treatment.||||0.63|-1.20|0.543
91666251|NCT00642993|183225901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.35|||ANOVA|Mean and standard error are least squares means and corresponding standard errors based on an ANOVA model with main effects for treatment.||||0.35|-0.09|0.231
91666252|NCT02664415|183225903|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|This is to confirm that the p-value from Fisher's Exact test was 1.000.||||||1.000
91666253|NCT02664415|183225904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Log Rank|||A comparison of time from ATI to HIV-1 RNA \>= 20 copies/mL between arms.||||0.051
91666254|NCT02664415|183225904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||A comparison of time from ATI to HIV-1 RNA \>= 1000 copies/mL between arms.||||0.01
91666255|NCT02664415|183225905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||This is a p-value, comparing HIV-1 RNA levels at first detection between arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
91666256|NCT02664415|183225905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588||||||This is p-value, comparing HIV-1 RNA levels at ART resumption between arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.588
91666257|NCT02664415|183225906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.031
91666258|NCT02664415|183225908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.693
91666259|NCT02664415|183225909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at baseline ATI and ART resumption within the VRC01 arm.||||0.15
91666260|NCT02664415|183225909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at baseline ATI and ART resumption within the placebo arm.||||0.04
91666261|NCT02664415|183225909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at ART resumption and 6 months after ART resumption within the VRC01 arm.||||0.002
91666262|NCT02664415|183225909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at ART resumption and 6 months after ART resumption within the placebo arm.||||0.22
91666263|NCT02664415|183225909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA atbaseline ATI and 6 months after ART resumption within the VRC01 arm.||||0.05
91666264|NCT02664415|183225909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at baeline ATI versus 6 months after ART resumption in the placebo arm||||0.22
91666265|NCT02664415|183225912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at baseline ATI||||0.961
91666266|NCT02664415|183225912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at ART resumption||||0.805
91666267|NCT02664415|183225912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Comparison between Baseline and ART resumption within VRC01 arm.||||0.221
91666268|NCT02664415|183225912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Comparison between Baseline and ART resumption within Placebo arm.||||0.500
91666269|NCT02664415|183225913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups at baseline ATI.||||0.522
91666270|NCT02664415|183225913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A comparison between groups at ART resumption.||||0.961
91666271|NCT02664415|183225913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison between baseline ATI and ART resumption within VRC01 group.||||0.002
91666272|NCT02664415|183225913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison between baseline ATI and ART resumption within Placebo group.||||0.043
91666273|NCT02034513|183225914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was ≤1.10 or equivalently if the p-value for the 1-sided test of H0: RR \>1.10 against HA: RR ≤1.10 was less than 2.5%, where RR is the estimated rate ratio IDeg/IGlar.|Treatment ratio|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.94|||Poisson||If non-inferiority was confirmed the superiority of IDeg/IGlar was investigated outside of the test hierarchy. Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was \<1.00.|Statistical analysis was performed on the FAS. Number of subjects analysed=subjects in the FAS, who were exposed in at least one maintenance period. Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints: Step 1: Number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period.||0.94|0.85|<0.0001
91666274|NCT02034513|183225915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was ≤1.10 or equivalently if the p-value for the 1-sided test of H0: RR \>1.10 against HA: RR ≤1.10 was less than 2.5%, where RR is the estimated rate ratio IDeg/IGlar.|Treatment ratio|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.73|||Poisson||If non-inferiority was confirmed the superiority of IDeg/IGlar was investigated outside of the test hierarchy. Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was \<1.00.|Statistical analysis was performed on the FAS. Number of subjects analysed=subjects in the FAS, who were exposed in at least one maintenance period. Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints: Step 2: Number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period.||0.73|0.56|<0.0001
91666275|NCT02034513|183225916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||Superiority was confirmed if the p-value was less than 0.025.|McNemar|||Statistical analysis was performed on the FAS. Number of subjects analysed=subjects in the FAS, who were exposed in both the maintenance periods. Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints: Step 3: Proportion of subjects with one or more severe hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period.||||0.0016
91666276|NCT02034513|183225918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%. Comparison groups: IDeg versus IGlar. Number of subjects included in analysis is 437 (n=220 for IDeg and n=217 for IGlar).|Treatment contrast|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 32 (treatment period 1). Before testing the primary endpoint, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as a prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurement (MMRM); treatment, sex, region, pre-trial insulin treatment regimen, visit and dosing time were fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c were covariates."||0.15|-0.10|
91714313|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.1443||95.0|-27.8|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.1|-27.8|0.1443
91714314|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.2946||95.0|-24.0|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-24.0|0.2946
91792429|NCT02278341|183462592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.368|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.465|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||0.465|0.291|<0.001
91864445|NCT05194956|183617790|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|0.69||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||0.69|-11.12|0.0817
91666277|NCT02034513|183225918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%. Comparison groups: IDeg versus IGlar. Number of subjects included in analysis is 410 (n=202 for IDeg and n=208 for IGlar).|Treatment contrast|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.23||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 64 (treatment period 2). The baseline values are week 32 values. Before the primary endpoint was tested, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was based on MMRM; treatment, sex, region, pre-trial insulin treatment regimen, visit and dosing time were fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c were covariates"||0.23|-0.00|
91666278|NCT02218541|183225959|OTHER|||||||1||||||threshold for significance will be p-value \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91666279|NCT02218541|183225960|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||This statistical analysis applies to Yes bleeding|Binomial|The statistical analysis was changed during the analysis phase but the protocol was not amended to reflect this change||||||0.039
91792430|NCT02278341|183462593|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-18.4|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 37-52 - Participants with no or missing medication records of IV Iron had their monthly IV Iron use set to 0 mg. The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||-18.4|-51.8|<0.001
91714315|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.3686||95.0|-23.6|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.8|-23.6|0.3686
91859325|NCT03526861|183604053|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|23.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||23.3|7.8|<0.001
91714316|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.6079||95.0|-19.9|11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.7|-19.9|0.6079
91859326|NCT03526861|183604054|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|26.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|36.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||36.3|16.1|<0.001
91792431|NCT02278341|183462593|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-48.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.3|-27.0|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 53-104 - Participants with no or missing medication records of IV Iron had their monthly IV Iron use set to 0 mg. The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||-27.0|-70.3|<0.001
91864446|NCT05194956|183617790|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.091|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0910
91864447|NCT05194956|183617790|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.2278|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2278
91864448|NCT05194956|183617791|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|0.69|||Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA|From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||0.69|-5.17|0.1347
91864449|NCT05194956|183617791|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.9259|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9259
91864450|NCT05194956|183617791|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.8225|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8225
91859327|NCT03526861|183604054|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|35.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||35.7|15.3|<0.001
91859328|NCT03526861|183604055|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.6|-2.4|<0.001
91859329|NCT03526861|183604055|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-1.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.3|-2.1|0.007
91666280|NCT02218541|183225961|EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was done as this was a pilot study.||||||1||||||This statistical analysis applies to Yes Provisional Crown fit|Binomial|The statistical analysis was changed during the analysis phase but the protocol was not amended to reflect this change||||||1.0
91666281|NCT00856349|183225962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (LIA)|13.6|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||LIA (Lead Integrity Alert): Uploadable algorithm with the ability to increase the time between a lead fracture and potential delivery of an unnecessary shock.||||<0.0001
91666282|NCT00856349|183225962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (SVT Limit)|6.8|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||SVT (Supraventricular Tachycardia) Limit: The maximum cycle length that Wavelet and PR logic will be applied to arrhythmias.||||<0.0001
91666283|NCT00856349|183225962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (VF NID PP)|9.0|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||VF NID PP: Number of intervals to detect (NID) an arrhythmia in the VF zone for primary prevention (PP) patients.||||<0.0001
91666284|NCT00856349|183225962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (VF NID SP)|3.5||||0.0116|||||||McNemar|||VF NID SP: Number of intervals to detect (NID) an arrhythmia in the VF zone for secondary prevention (SP) patients.||||0.0116
91666285|NCT00856349|183225962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (Wavelet)|9.5|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Wavelet: Discriminator to help determine if arrhythmia is ventricular or supraventricular in single chamber ICDs.||||<0.0001
91666286|NCT00856349|183225962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (PR Logic)|3.2|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||PR Logic: Discriminator to help determine if arrhythmia is ventricular or supraventricular in dual chamber ICDs and CRT-Ds.||||<0.0001
91692036|NCT02174627|183278566|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; ANCOVA model.||0.52|0.47|<0.001
91859330|NCT03526861|183604056|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|31.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects with at least 3-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||31.0|9.7|<0.001
91864451|NCT05194956|183617792|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Median Difference (Net)|-11.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.47|-1.83||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-1.83|-20.47|0.0200
91864452|NCT05194956|183617792|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.9104|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9104
91864453|NCT05194956|183617792|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.5194|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5194
91864454|NCT05194956|183617793|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.71|-15.75||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-15.75|-30.71|<0.00005
91666287|NCT03809000|183225971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|0.96|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.10|Reference level = standard ADT|After protocol amendments, the 3-year PFS rate of the standard arm was expected to be 24%. Assuming a hazard ratio of 0.65 (treatment/control) results in a hypothesized 3-year PFS rate of 39.5% on the enhanced ADT arm. A one-sided log-rank test with alpha=0.10 at 80% statistical power was calculated to require 101 events from 170 patients, taking into account expected accrual rate and follow-up time.||0.96|0.61|0.0671
91666288|NCT03809000|183225972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.07|||Gray's||Reference level = SRT + Standard ADT|||1.07|0.53|0.1160
91666289|NCT03809000|183225973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.12|||Gray's||Reference level = SRT + Standard ADT|||1.12|0.50|0.1618
91666290|NCT03809000|183225978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7184
91666291|NCT03809000|183225979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5934
91864455|NCT05194956|183617793|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.1369|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1369
91864456|NCT05194956|183617793|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.3366|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3366
91864457|NCT05194956|183617794|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-120.0|||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.54|-90.38|||Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA|From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-90.38|-149.54|<0.00005
91864458|NCT05194956|183617794|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.8509|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8509
91864459|NCT05194956|183617794|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.0355|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0355
91864460|NCT05452460|183617796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in RT as the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in RT as the covariate.||||||> 0.05
91666292|NCT03809000|183225980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7129|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7129
91666293|NCT03809000|183225981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006258
91666294|NCT03809000|183225982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0263|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0263
91666295|NCT03809000|183225983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4599|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4599
91666296|NCT03809000|183225985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.41|||Regression, Logistic||Reference level = SRT + Standard ADT|||4.41|0.62|0.3138
91666297|NCT03809000|183225986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3889|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3889
91666298|NCT03809000|183225987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0461|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hot Flashes Frequency||||0.0461
91666299|NCT03809000|183225987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hot Flashes Severity||||0.0181
91666300|NCT03809000|183225988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.91||one-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.42|0.10
91666301|NCT02312154|183226151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
91864461|NCT05452460|183617797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in ACC the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in ACC as the covariate.||||||> .05
91666302|NCT02312154|183226152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
91666303|NCT02312154|183226153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
91666304|NCT02312154|183226154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
91666305|NCT02312154|183226155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The therapeutic outcome was assessed by patient self-assessment using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, which rates outcome on the following 5-point scale: 3, very much improved; 2, much improved; 1, improved; 0, no change; and -1, worse. Two independent investigators also individually assessed every patient's improvement, and the values of the two scores were averaged for each patient. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the pre-by-posttreatment changes in treated side.||||<0.05
91666306|NCT02312154|183226156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The therapeutic outcome was assessed by patient self-assessment using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, which rates outcome on the following 5-point scale: 3, very much improved; 2, much improved; 1, improved; 0, no change; and -1, worse. Two independent investigators also individually assessed every patient's improvement, and the values of the two scores were averaged for each patient. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the pre-by-posttreatment changes in treated side.||||<0.05
91859331|NCT03526861|183604056|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|32.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects with at least 3-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||32.7|10.9|<0.001
91859332|NCT03526861|183604057|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-3.6|-8.4|<0.001
91859333|NCT03526861|183604057|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-3.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-3.0|-7.9|<0.001
91904171|NCT02665052|183703303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The lab-based group had significant within group mean Fugl-Meyer (FM) change at week 6.|ANOVA|Dunnett's adjustments were used to compare the active intervention changes to the delayed-entry usual care control group.||Within group changes from baseline to week 6 were assessed using analysis of variance.||||0.01
91666307|NCT02052895|183226163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of ROC-AUC|0.0317||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0409|0.1043|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.1043|-0.0409|0.3924
91666308|NCT01694563|183226209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary effectiveness hypothesis for this study was to demonstrate a superiority success rate at 36-months follow-up in patients treated with the AtriCure Synergy Ablation System compared to a pre-established performance goal.||||0.05
91666309|NCT01694563|183226210|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||||90% confidence interval calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|Secondary success was defined as freedom from AF regardless of antiarrhythmic drug usage at 12 months post-operatively.||||
91666310|NCT01694563|183226210|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||||90% confidence interval calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|Secondary success was defined as freedom from AF regardless of antiarrhythmic drug usage at 24 months post-operatively.||||
91666311|NCT01694563|183226210|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||||||Secondary success was defined as freedom from AF regardless of antiarrhythmic drug usage at 36 months post-operatively.|90% confidence interval using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||
91666312|NCT01026402|183226211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|50.0|||||||||||||50mg twice daily continuous dosing 20 evaluable patients|||||
91666313|NCT01026402|183226211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|100.0|||||||||||||100mg once daily continuous dosing 16 evaluable patients|||||
91666314|NCT01026402|183226211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|125.0|||||||||||||125mg twice daily intermittent dosing (2 days on, 5 days off) 29 evaluable patients|||||
91666315|NCT00836758|183226227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91904172|NCT02665052|183703303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||FM change was analyzed using analysis of variance followed by Dunnett's adjustment for between group comparisons in the home-based BATRAC group compared to the delayed-entry control.||||0.97
91904173|NCT02665052|183703304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Within group SIS hand changes from baseline to week 6 were assessed using analysis of variance followed by comparisons to the delayed-entry usual care control using Dunnett's adjustment.||||0.31
91666316|NCT01945580|183226249|NON_INFERIORITY|With type I error of 0.05 and type II error of 0.20 (power 80%), 362 subjects (181 subjects per arm) are needed to detect non-inferiority of transvaginal biologic to native tissue repair, using a margin of 12.0%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|5.9|||||The propensity adjusted treatment difference of Xenform transvaginal mesh (TVM) minus NTR was estimated and missing data was handled using multiple imputation method.|||5.9|-5.6|
91792432|NCT02278341|183462603|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.521|||=|0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|1.25||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, as continuous covariates.||1.250|-0.208|=0.161
91859334|NCT03940963|183604074|NON_INFERIORITY|The visual analog scale (VAS, 0-100 scale) pain score change from baseline value to 12 months was tested for non-inferiority of neurectomy with Axoguard Nerve Cap to standard neurectomy alone using closed testing procedures.||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91859335|NCT03940963|183604077|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.485||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.485
91859336|NCT03940963|183604078|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.259||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.259
91859337|NCT03940963|183604079|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140
91859338|NCT03940963|183604080|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.544||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.544
91859339|NCT03940963|183604082|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.049||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
91859340|NCT03336333|183604143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.63||One-sided|Log Rank|||||0.63|0.28|<0.0001
91859341|NCT04401800|183604166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Binomial exact test|||||||0.0002
91859342|NCT04401800|183604168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||||||< 0.0001
91859343|NCT04401800|183604169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by the Investigator||||< 0.0001
91666317|NCT01945580|183226250|NON_INFERIORITY|With type I error of 0.05 and type II error of 0.10 (power 90%), 308 subjects (154 subjects per arm) are needed to detect non-inferiority with a margin of 11.6%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|4.7|||||The propensity score adjusted difference in SAE rate of Xenform transvaginal mesh (TVM) vs. NTR was estimated.|||4.7|-0.8|
91666318|NCT00073307|183226274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.146||95.0|0.74|1.04||According to O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and total actual deaths at final analysis, threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.037 (two-sided).|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using log-rank test (Sorafenib over Placebo) stratified by country and Motzer category|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 33.3% improvement in median OS (i.e. HR of 0.75, Sorafenib over Placebo). With overall two-sided alpha of 0.04, 90% power and randomization of 1:1, two formal interim analyses and one final analysis were planned using O'Brien-Fleming type error spending function, and a total of approximately 540 events (deaths) were required for the final analysis.||1.04|0.74|0.146
91859344|NCT04401800|183604169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by Central Site Imaging Facility||||< 0.0001
91666319|NCT00073307|183226275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0287||95.0|0.62|0.97||According to O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and total actual deaths at final analysis, threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.037 (two-sided).|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using log-rank test (Sorafenib over Placebo) stratified by country and Motzer category|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 33.3% improvement in median OS (i.e. HR of 0.75, Sorafenib over Placebo). With overall two-sided alpha of 0.04, 90% power and randomization of 1:1, two formal interim analyses and one final analysis were planned using O'Brien-Fleming type error spending function, and a total of approximately 540 events (deaths) were required for the final analysis.||0.97|0.62|0.0287
91859345|NCT04401800|183604170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by the Investigator||||< 0.0001
91859346|NCT04401800|183604170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by Central Site Imaging Facility||||0.0002
91859347|NCT04927065|183604189|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAB: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||3.0|2.0|
91859348|NCT04927065|183604189|OTHER||GMR|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.3|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||2.3|1.7|
91859349|NCT04927065|183604190|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|8.9|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||8.9|4.5|
91859350|NCT04927065|183604190|OTHER||GMR|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.6|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||3.6|2.1|
91714317|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.0016||95.0|-41.2|-9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-9.7|-41.2|0.0016
91792433|NCT02278341|183462604|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.126|||=|0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.135|1.387||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Ans, baseline Hb, as continuous covariates.||1.387|-1.135|=0.845
91792434|NCT02278341|183462605|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.128|||=|0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.703|2.447||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Ans, baseline Hb, as continuous covariates.||2.447|-2.703|=0.922
91794372|NCT00245219|183467836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
91859351|NCT04927065|183604191|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.6|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||5.6|-3.1|
91859352|NCT04927065|183604191|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||||
91859353|NCT04927065|183604192|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.3|||||Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||4.3|-6.9|
91859354|NCT04927065|183604192|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||4.5|-9.6|
91859355|NCT04927065|183604193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|21.6|||||Omicron BA.1 variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||21.6|4.1|
91859356|NCT04927065|183604193|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||||
91859357|NCT04927065|183604194|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|17.1|||||Omicron BA.1 variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||17.1|-11.4|
91859358|NCT04927065|183604194|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|7.3|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||7.3|-21.6|
91859359|NCT04927065|183604195|OTHER||GMR|1.777|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.523|2.073|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb - Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.073|1.523|
91859360|NCT04927065|183604196|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb - Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||3.0|-1.7|
91859361|NCT04927065|183604197|OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|26.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb - Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||26.0|9.8|
91859362|NCT04927065|183604198|OTHER||GMR|1.744|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.492|2.04|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.040|1.492|
91859363|NCT04927065|183604198|OTHER||GMR|1.211|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.074|1.366|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||1.366|1.074|
91859364|NCT04927065|183604199|OTHER||GMR|1.676|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.396|2.013|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.013|1.396|
91859365|NCT04927065|183604199|OTHER||GMR|1.105|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.26|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||1.260|0.970|
91692037|NCT02174627|183278567|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; ANCOVA model.||0.45|0.40|<0.001
91859366|NCT04927065|183604200|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|4.1|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||4.1|-1.1|
91859367|NCT04927065|183604201|OTHER||Percentage Difference|21.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.8|30.2|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||30.2|12.8|
91859368|NCT04927065|183604202|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|5.6|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||5.6|-1.9|
91859369|NCT04927065|183604203|OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.4|28.7|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||28.7|12.4|
91859370|NCT04927065|183604204|OTHER||GMR|6.412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.369|7.658|||||Omicron Variant (BA.4/BA.5) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||7.658|5.369|
91859371|NCT04927065|183604204|OTHER||GMR|1.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.708|2.265|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.265|1.708|
91859372|NCT04927065|183604205|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|17.4|||||Omicron Variant (BA.4/BA.5) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||17.4|6.9|
91859373|NCT04927065|183604205|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||||
91859374|NCT04927065|183604206|OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|61.8|||||Omicron Variant (BA.4/BA.5) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||61.8|47.5|
91859375|NCT04927065|183604206|OTHER||Percentage Difference|37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|45.9|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||45.9|29.3|
91859376|NCT04927065|183604215|OTHER||GMR|0.836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.938|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||0.938|0.745|
91859377|NCT04927065|183604216|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg 95% CI could not be calculated due to the SRR difference is 0.|||||
91859378|NCT04927065|183604217|OTHER||SRR Difference|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-5.0|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||-5.0|-21.2|
91859379|NCT04927065|183604218|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 29: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273 95% CI could not be calculated due to the SRR difference is 0.|||||
91859380|NCT04927065|183604218|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|3.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 91: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||3.5|-1.6|
91859381|NCT04927065|183604218|OTHER||SRR Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.1|-2.3|
91859382|NCT04927065|183604218|OTHER||SRR Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.5|-5.3|
91859383|NCT04927065|183604219|OTHER||SRR Difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.7|20.1|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 29: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||20.1|1.7|
91859384|NCT04927065|183604219|OTHER||SRR Difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.4|17.0|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 91: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||17.0|1.4|
91859385|NCT04927065|183604219|OTHER||SRR Difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.2|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||17.2|3.0|
91666320|NCT00073307|183226276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|1e-06||95.0|0.35|0.55|||Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using log-rank test (Sorafenib over Placebo) stratified by country and Motzer category|The planned final PFS analysis was to be performed when approximately 363 progressions or deaths (if death occurred before progression) were observed. The analysis had power of 90% to detect a 50% increase in PFS using a two-sided alpha of 0.01||0.55|0.35|<0.000001
91792435|NCT02047318|183462625|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-94.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|98.915||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.26|-43.55||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in sBA levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||-43.55|-145.26|0.0012
91666321|NCT00073307|183226277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates (CR+PR)|-2.1||||||95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjustments for country and Motzer category|difference in response rates (CR+PR) = Placebo - Sorafenib|||-0.6|-3.7|
91859386|NCT04927065|183604219|OTHER||SRR Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|13.6|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||13.6|-5.0|
91666322|NCT00073307|183226278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||random coefficient model|Random coefficient model adjusted for baseline Motzer score, baseline FKSI-10 score and relative day of FKSI-10 completion.||Approximately 200 subjects per group, assuming a 10% drop out rate, were required to detect a 2 point difference between sorafenib and placebo at approximately 80% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||0.98
91666323|NCT00073307|183226279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||random coefficient model|Random coefficient model adjusted for baseline Motzer score, baseline PWB score and relative day of PWB completion.||Approximately 200 subjects per group, assuming a 10% drop out rate, were required to detect a 2 point difference between sorafenib and placebo at approximately 80% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||0.83
91666324|NCT00858780|183226280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|29.82|||GEE Model|||Analysis was performed using a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, their interaction, and the stratification factor as factors in the model.||29.82|1.72|0.007
91666325|NCT00858780|183226280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.41|||GEE Model|||Analysis was performed using a GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, their interaction, and the stratification factor as factors in the model.||5.41|0.54|0.362
91666326|NCT00858780|183226280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|16.99|||GEE Model|||Analysis was performed using a GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, their interaction, and the stratification factor as factors in the model.||16.99|1.04|0.044
91666327|NCT03306277|183226319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||This comparison is made to an assumed rate of zero 0 (or as low as 0.1%). By definition, children with spinal muscular atrophy Type 1 are never able to sit independently.||||<0.0001
91666328|NCT03306277|183226320|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||This comparison is made against the results from the age and gender-matched control participants selected from existing natural history data sets (PNCR) \[Neurol. 2014; 83(9):810-817\].|Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al,2014 - PubMed 25080519) where event-free survival was 6 out of 23 participants (26.1%) at 14 months of age.|||<0.0001
91859387|NCT04927065|183604221|OTHER||GMR|1.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.469|2.249|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.249|1.469|
91859388|NCT04927065|183604223|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.5|-2.6|
91859389|NCT04927065|183604225|OTHER||SRR Difference|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|34.1|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||34.1|16.9|
91859390|NCT04927065|183604226|OTHER||SRR Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.8|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||9.8|0.3|
91859391|NCT04927065|183604226|OTHER||SRR Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|11.5|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||11.5|-0.3|
91859392|NCT04927065|183604227|OTHER||SRR Difference|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|22.3|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||22.3|6.7|
91859393|NCT04927065|183604227|OTHER||SRR Difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|18.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||18.0|-2.1|
91792436|NCT02047318|183462626|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-141.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|117.992||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-265.77|-18.12||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in sBA levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point, as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||-18.12|-265.77|0.032
91666329|NCT02227238|183226376|SUPERIORITY|Non-inferiority of DTG plus 2 NRTI's was to be declared if the lower bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in snapshot response rates (DTG - LPV/RTV) is greater than - 12%. This was also performed using the Per-Protocol (PP) Population. If both analyses show non-inferiority, the hypothesis of antiviral effect of DTG + 2 NRTI's was superior to LPV/RTV + 2 NRTIs was to be tested.|Proportion difference|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted proportion difference, calculated as proportion on DTG minus that on LPV/RTV and based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA and number of fully active background NRTIs, has been presented.||Superiority would be declared if the lower end of the confidence interval was above 0%|20.3|7.3|<.001
91666330|NCT02227238|183226379|OTHER||Proportion difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.3|||||Proportion difference, calculated as proportion on DTG minus proportion on LPV/RTV, at Week 24 has been presented.|||9.3|2.2|
91859394|NCT04927065|183604228|OTHER||GMR|1.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|2.155|||||SARS-CoV-2 (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.155|1.243|
91666331|NCT02227238|183226379|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|14.4|||||Proportion difference, calculated as proportion on DTG minus proportion on LPV/RTV, at Week 48 has been presented.|||14.4|5.3|
91666332|NCT02227238|183226406|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|-0.069|||Multiple imputation||Mean difference at Week 24 was calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline LDL cholesterol, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age|||-0.069|-0.272|0.0010
91666333|NCT02227238|183226406|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.147||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|-0.035|||'Multiple imputation||Mean difference at Week 48 was calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline LDL cholesterol, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age|||-0.035|-0.259|0.0100
91859395|NCT04927065|183604228|OTHER||GMR|1.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.976|||||SARS-CoV-2 (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.976|0.953|
91859396|NCT04927065|183604228|OTHER||GMR|1.271|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.051|1.537|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.537|1.051|
91859397|NCT04927065|183604228|OTHER||GMR|1.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.461|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.461|0.830|
91859398|NCT05671029|183604236|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: difference to placebo of change from baseline QTcF ≥ 10 ms.|Prediction @ mean max concentration|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-1.3|<0.05
91859399|NCT05767437|183604253|EQUIVALENCE|effect size of 0.02, α \< 0.05, power = 0.02|Mean Difference (Net)|1.63||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.79|59.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||59.05|-55.79|0.98
91859400|NCT05767437|183604254|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.00, α \< 0.05, power = 0.00|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.25|0.99
91859401|NCT05767437|183604255|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.56 , α \< 0.05, power = 32.5|Mean Difference (Net)|6.71||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.12|10.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.71|-24.12|0.68
91859402|NCT05767437|183604256|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis population description: patients were randomly assigned to either Group A or Group B|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||an effect size of 0.24, α \< 0.05, power = 24.5||0.87|-0.48|0.56
91859403|NCT05767437|183604257|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.56, α \< 0.05, power = 57.9|Mean Difference (Net)|-250.35||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-614.88|114.18||Interaction of Assessment and Group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||114.18|-614.88|0.42
91859404|NCT05767437|183604258|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.29, α \< 0.05, power = 88.9|Mean Difference (Net)|12.25||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|43.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||43.17|-18.67|0.45
91859405|NCT05767437|183604259|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.18, α \< 0.05, power =6.5|mean rank (Z)|0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.96||MAS of Biceps|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.96|-0.61|0.67
91859406|NCT05767437|183604260|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.39, α \< 0.05, power = 16.2|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.63||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|6.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.12|-19.38|0.38
91859407|NCT05592418|183604289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0288||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0397|3.0972|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||3.0972|-3.0397|0.9851
91859408|NCT05592418|183604290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9076||||0.3095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6279|1.8128|||ANCOVA|||||1.8128|-5.6279|0.3095
91859409|NCT05592418|183604291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6086||||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4656|4.6829|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||4.6829|-3.4656|0.7663
91859410|NCT05592418|183604292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.7749||||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2463|70.7962|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||70.7962|-23.2463|0.3162
91859411|NCT05592418|183604293|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||P-value is from The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) stratified by stratification factors|Since all patients analyzed achieved MCID, there are no comparison results|||
91859412|NCT05592418|183604294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2342||||0.4232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2586|4.7901|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||4.7901|-11.2586|0.4232
91859413|NCT05592418|183604295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5161||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2356|3.2035|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||3.2035|-4.2356|0.7823
91666334|NCT02227238|183226407|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|-0.356|||Multiple imputation||Estimates at Week 24 are calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline total cholesterol/HDL ratio, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age.|||-0.356|-0.729|<0.0001
91666335|NCT02227238|183226407|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.358||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|-0.161|||Multiple imputation||Estimates at Week 48 are calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline total cholesterol/HDL ratio, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age.|||-0.161|-0.555|0.0004
91859414|NCT05592418|183604297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2779||||0.5185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5775|1.1333|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo.|||1.1333|-0.5775|0.5185
91666336|NCT00380588|183226414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0||||P-value for response (Complete Response + Partial Response).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.380
91859415|NCT05592418|183604298|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No patients were hospitalized.|||
91859416|NCT05592418|183604300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|169.389||||0.2175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.892|444.6702|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo.|444.6702|-105.892|0.2175
91859417|NCT05592418|183604301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.9984||||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-147.021|33.0241|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|33.0241|-147.021|0.2086
91859418|NCT05592418|183604302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1733||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0327|0.3792|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|0.3792|-0.0327|0.0975
91666337|NCT00380588|183226415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.074
91666338|NCT00380588|183226416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.136
91666339|NCT02096705|183226417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0968|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.71||P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Longitudinal repeated measure analysis||Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-0.71|-1.09|<0.0001
91859419|NCT05592418|183604304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7131||||0.4545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4079|75.8341|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference - LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||75.8341|-34.4079|0.4545
91859420|NCT05592418|183604305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.1231||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6338|83.6123|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference - LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||83.6123|4.6338|0.0333
91859421|NCT05198310|183604383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.01||Analyzed using ANCOVA model with baseline value and stratification factor (≤1 vs. ≥2 classes of advanced targeted therapies) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-1.13|0.0470
91859422|NCT05198310|183604383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.21||Analyzed using ANCOVA model with baseline value and stratification factor (≤1 vs. ≥2 classes of advanced targeted therapies) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.92|0.2124
91859423|NCT05198310|183604383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.13||Analyzed using ANCOVA model with baseline value and stratification factor (≤1 vs. ≥2 classes of advanced targeted therapies) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-1.28|0.1091
91859424|NCT05198310|183604384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||t-test|||||||0.0312
91859425|NCT05198310|183604384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||t-test|||||||0.0338
91859426|NCT05198310|183604388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.0333
91859427|NCT05198310|183604388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1905|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.1905
91859428|NCT05198310|183604388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.65|0.90|0.0716
91859429|NCT05198310|183604388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.67|0.50|0.4710
91859430|NCT05198310|183604388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|22.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.88|1.62|0.0057
91859431|NCT05198310|183604389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0762|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.0762
91859432|NCT05198310|183604389|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||1.000
91859433|NCT05198310|183604389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.62|0.49|0.4172
91859434|NCT05198310|183604389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|6.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.45|0.55|0.3144
91859435|NCT05198310|183604389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.28|0.9560
91859436|NCT05198310|183604390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4667|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.4667
91859437|NCT05198310|183604390|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||1.0000
91859438|NCT05198310|183604390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.30|0.17|0.5789
91859439|NCT05198310|183604390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|60.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.10|0.62|0.0799
91859440|NCT05198310|183604390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.35|0.06|0.1034
91859441|NCT04093752|183604446|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% noninferiority (NI) boundary, 0.45% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin glargine, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common standard deviation (SD) of 1.2%, one-sided significance level of 0.0125 and a dropout rate of 25%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-1.29||||||||-1.29|-1.69|
91859442|NCT04093752|183604446|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% NI boundary, 0.45% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin glargine, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.2%, one-sided significance level of 0.0125 and a dropout rate of 25%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.34||||||||-1.34|-1.74|
91859443|NCT04093752|183604447|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% NI boundary, 0.45% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin glargine, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.2%, one-sided significance level of 0.0125 and a dropout rate of 25%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-1.09||||||||-1.09|-1.49|
91859444|NCT04093752|183604448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.6|-7.4|<0.001
91859445|NCT04093752|183604448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.6|-9.5|<0.001
91859446|NCT04093752|183604448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.7|-9.6|<0.001
91859447|NCT04093752|183604449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.94|23.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.64|8.94|<0.001
91859448|NCT04093752|183604449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.72|49.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.49|16.72|<0.001
91859449|NCT04093752|183604449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.88|42.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.95|14.88|<0.001
91859450|NCT04093752|183604450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|82.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.13|1327.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||1327.81|5.13|0.002
91859451|NCT04093752|183604450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|124.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|1997.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||1997.01|7.79|<0.001
91859452|NCT04093752|183604450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|184.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.59|2950.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||2950.73|11.59|<0.001
91859453|NCT04093752|183604451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.3|-18.3|<0.001
91859454|NCT04093752|183604451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.9|-26.1|<0.001
91859455|NCT04093752|183604451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.5|-24.6|<0.001
91859456|NCT04093752|183604452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|-28.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.3|-40.1|<0.001
91859457|NCT04093752|183604452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-34.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.6|-46.7|<0.001
91859458|NCT04093752|183604452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-35.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.8|-47.9|<0.001
91859459|NCT04093752|183604453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.63|41.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.20|11.63|<0.001
91859460|NCT04093752|183604453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.96|83.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.50|22.96|<0.001
91859461|NCT04093752|183604453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|48.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.34|92.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||92.49|25.34|<0.001
91859462|NCT04093752|183604454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.13|-0.81|0.007
91859463|NCT04093752|183604454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.43|-1.11|<0.001
91859464|NCT04093752|183604454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.36|-1.05|<0.001
91859465|NCT04093752|183604454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.18|-0.46|0.384
91859466|NCT04093752|183604454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.16|-0.49|0.307
91859467|NCT04093752|183604454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.11|-0.55|0.184
91859468|NCT04093752|183604454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||2.59|1.03|<0.001
91859469|NCT04093752|183604454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.41|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||2.41|0.84|<0.001
91859470|NCT04093752|183604454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.47|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||2.47|0.89|<0.001
91859471|NCT04521478|183604478|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||4.3|-3.0|0.7636
91859472|NCT04521478|183604478|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.9|-1.4|0.3040
91859473|NCT04521478|183604478|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.7|-1.4|0.3090
91859474|NCT04521478|183604478|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.3694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||4.4|-1.3|0.3694
91859475|NCT04521478|183604478|OTHER|||||||0.9158|||||||MCPMod Linear model|No parameter assumptions required. Corresponding dose response is linear||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9158
91859476|NCT04521478|183604478|OTHER|||||||0.8676|||||||MCPMod Exponential model|Assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg; corresponding to a drug effect achieved mainly at higher doses||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.8676
91859477|NCT04521478|183604478|OTHER|||||||0.9552|||||||MCPMod Emax1 model|Assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg; corresponding to the assumed true median effective dose (ED50) = 25 mg||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9552
91859478|NCT04521478|183604478|OTHER|||||||0.9619|||||||MCPMod Emax2 model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg; corresponding to a drug effect achieved mainly with low doses, ED50 = 2.14 mg||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9619
91864462|NCT05452460|183617798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in N2 the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in N2 as the covariate.||||||> 0.05
91666340|NCT02096705|183226418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.605|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.76|-21.61|||Longitudinal repeated measure analysis|P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-21.61|-39.76|<0.0001
91864463|NCT05452460|183617799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in P3 the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in P3 as the covariate.||||||> 0.05
91714318|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.5976||95.0|-20.5|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.8|-20.5|0.5976
91714319|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.8527||95.0|-14.3|17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.3|-14.3|0.8527
91792437|NCT02047318|183462627|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.095|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7173|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.464|-0.726||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Obs) scores was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||-0.726|-1.464|< 0.0001
91859479|NCT04521478|183604478|OTHER|||||||0.9507|||||||MCPMod Sigmoid Emax model|Assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg, 90% 75 mg; corresponding to a more flexible model of the assumed true ED50 = 25 mg||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9507
91714320|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.6973||95.0|-19.6|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.1|-19.6|0.6973
91794373|NCT00245219|183467836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 2, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
91859480|NCT04521478|183604479|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9427||||0.8889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4709|1.8873|||Regression, Logistic||5 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||1.8873|0.4709|0.8889
91666341|NCT02096705|183226419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.77||P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Longitudinal repeated measure analysis||Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-0.77|-1.98|<0.0001
91666342|NCT02096705|183226420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5171||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.42||P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Longitudinal repeated measure analysis||Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-0.42|-2.45|0.0059
91666343|NCT02377349|183226438|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio \[dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother\] for anti-PT antibodies was greater than or equal to (≥) 1.5.|GMC ratio|8.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.02|10.2|||2-sample t-test|The CI of the group GMC ratio were computed using two-sample t-test assuming heterogeneity of variance.||GMC ratio between groups (dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother) to demonstrate that maternally transferred antibodies against pertussis in the dTpa Group-Mother was superior to that in the Control Group-mother, in the cord blood sample at the time of delivery.||10.2|7.02|
91859481|NCT04521478|183604479|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6581||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3255|1.3307|||Regression, Logistic||25 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||1.3307|0.3255|0.3284
91859482|NCT04521478|183604479|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1026||||0.8048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5757|2.1114|||Regression, Logistic||75 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||2.1114|0.5757|0.8048
91859483|NCT04521478|183604479|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0072||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5968|1.6999|||Regression, Logistic||125 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||1.6999|0.5968|0.9820
91864464|NCT05452460|183617800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.35|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in TTE the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in TTE as the covariate.|\[F(1, 52) = 13.35, p = .001, ηp2 = .211\]|||||< 0.01
91859484|NCT04521478|183604480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||8.6|0.0|0.1013
91859485|NCT04521478|183604480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.6|-1.9|0.3596
91859486|NCT04521478|183604480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.6745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||3.1|-5.2|0.6745
91859487|NCT04521478|183604480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.0|-0.7|0.1870
91859488|NCT04521478|183604480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||8.1|0.1|0.0921
91859489|NCT04521478|183604480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.7395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||4.8|-3.2|0.7395
91859490|NCT04521478|183604480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.0|-2.7|0.6296
91859491|NCT04521478|183604480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.9|0.7|0.0429
91859492|NCT04521478|183604481|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.5|-0.3|0.6211
91859493|NCT04521478|183604481|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.6|-0.2|0.5158
91864465|NCT05452460|183617801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in VO2max Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in VO2max||||||> 0.05
91864466|NCT05452460|183617802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.76|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Four-way mixed-design ANOVA: 2 (GROUP) × 2 (CONDITION) × 3 (ASSESSMENT TIME) × 2 (Experiment Phase)||||||< 0.01
91864467|NCT05452460|183617803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.21|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The main effect of the Stroop block on accuracy showed a decrease from the first block to the fifth block.|ANOVA|Four-way mixed-design ANOVA: 2 (GROUP) × 2 (CONDITION) × 5 (BLOCK) × 2 (Phase)||||||< 0.01
91666344|NCT02377349|183226438|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio \[dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother\] for anti-FHA antibodies was greater than or equal to (≥) 1.5.|GMC ratio|16.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.48|19.24|||2-sample t-test|The CI of the group GMC ratio were computed using two-sample t-test assuming heterogeneity of variance.||GMC ratio between groups (dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother) to demonstrate that maternally transferred antibodies against pertussis in the dTpa Group-Mother was superior to that in the Control Group-mother, in the cord blood sample at the time of delivery.||19.24|13.48|
91666345|NCT02377349|183226438|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio \[dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother\] for anti-PRN antibodies was greater than or equal to (≥) 1.5.|GMC ratio|20.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.86|26.88|||2-sample t-test|The CI of the group GMC ratio were computed using two-sample t-test assuming heterogeneity of variance.||GMC ratio between groups (dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother) to demonstrate that maternally transferred antibodies against pertussis in the dTpa Group-Mother was superior to that in the Control Group-mother, in the cord blood sample at the time of delivery.||26.88|15.86|
91666346|NCT01395017|183226480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.65||The log-rank test was used to test OS. As a sensitivity analysis, HR and its confidence interval was also provided for OS using the Cox proportional hazard model.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusting for baseline factors - treatment, ECOG PS, region, CA19-9 level (\< 1000 IU/mL or \>/=1000 IU/mL), and RT during trial (yes or no).||Using a 1-sided alpha=0.2, a population of 200 participants (100 GEM plus dasatinib and 100 GEM plus placebo) has 79% power to show an increase in median OS from 10 to 13.3 months (hazard ratio \[HR\] =0.75, assuming analysis of 135 deaths).||1.65|0.85|0.3864
91692038|NCT02174627|183278568|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; ANCOVA model.||-0.29|-0.42|<0.001
91864468|NCT05452460|183617804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test mean score Covariate: Pre-test mean score||||||< 0.05
91864469|NCT05452460|183617805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed anger Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed anger||||||> 0.05
91864470|NCT05452460|183617806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed confusion Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed confusion||||||> 0.05
91859494|NCT04521478|183604481|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.6|-0.2|0.4518
91859495|NCT04521478|183604481|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.6|-0.1|0.2347
91904174|NCT02234284|183703305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.43|-.15|.35
91666347|NCT01395017|183226481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.34||The log-rank test was used to test PFS. As a sensitivity analysis, HR and its confidence interval was also provided for PFS using the Cox proportional hazard model.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusting for baseline factors: treatment, ECOG PS, region, CA19-9 level (\< 1000 IU/mL or \>/=1000 IU/mL), and RT during trial (yes or no).||Trial has 88% power to show a median PFS increase from 5 to 7 months (with 1-sided alpha=0.15, total 176 events, HR=0.714).||1.34|0.73|0.6761
91666348|NCT02235870|183226484|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean Difference|3.28||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|4.32|||ANCOVA|||||4.32|2.24|0.0261
91666349|NCT02235870|183226485|SUPERIORITY||Exact Confidence Interval|64.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.5|71.7|||Exact Test|||Subjects in the Obalon Treatment group with at least 2 Balloons and balloon therapy for at least 18 weeks.||71.7|57.5|<0.0001
91666350|NCT02235870|183226486|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|42.5|||Chi-squared|||||42.5|23.1|<0.0001
91666351|NCT02286466|183226600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.87||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in anxiety symptoms (HAM-A) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||3.87|-1.60|0.412
91859496|NCT04521478|183604482|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||7.6|-0.7|0.1723
91859497|NCT04521478|183604482|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||8.5|0.3|0.0757
91859498|NCT04521478|183604482|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.6864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.0|-3.0|0.6864
91666352|NCT02286466|183226601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|4.96||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in quality of life (FACT-G) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||4.96|-4.99|0.997
91666353|NCT02286466|183226602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.02||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in self-report anxiety symptoms on the HADS-Anxiety Subscale from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||2.02|-0.46|0.215
91666354|NCT02286466|183226602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.57||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in self-report depression symptoms on the HADS-Depression Subscale from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||1.57|-0.60|0.379
91859499|NCT04521478|183604482|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.1585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.0|-0.5|0.1585
91666355|NCT02286466|183226603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.75||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in depression symptoms on the PHQ-9 from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||1.75|-1.45|0.852
91859500|NCT06311084|183604492|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859501|NCT06311084|183604493|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91666356|NCT00835081|183226604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|95.9|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||110|95.9|
91666357|NCT00835081|183226605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|97.5|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||103|97.5|
91859502|NCT06311084|183604494|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859503|NCT06311084|183604495|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859504|NCT06311084|183604496|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859505|NCT06311084|183604497|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859506|NCT06311084|183604498|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859507|NCT06311084|183604499|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859508|NCT06311084|183604500|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859509|NCT06311084|183604501|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859510|NCT06311084|183604502|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859511|NCT06311084|183604503|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859512|NCT06311084|183604504|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859513|NCT06311084|183604505|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859514|NCT06311084|183604506|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91859515|NCT04725240|183604507|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91859516|NCT04725240|183604508|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91859517|NCT04725240|183604509|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91859518|NCT04725240|183604510|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91859519|NCT04501861|183604578|EQUIVALENCE|Compare mPAP-to-MAP ratio between patients who received norepinephrine versus vasopressin intraoperatively. Post intervention measurements will be recorded after protamine administration until end of chest closure.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.022|-0.043|0.53
91859520|NCT04501861|183604578|EQUIVALENCE|Compare mPAP-to-MAP ratio between patients who with preop PH received norepinephrine versus vasopressin intraoperatively. Post intervention measurements will be recorded after protamine administration until end of chest closure. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 52 and in vasopressin group is 40. The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mPAP-to-MAP ratio was compared between patients with pre-existing pulmonary hypertension of use of vasopressin and norepinephrine. Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension.||0.016|-0.061|0.26
91864471|NCT05452460|183617807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed depression Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed depression||||||> 0.05
91864472|NCT05452460|183617808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed fatigue Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed fatigue||||||> 0.05
91666358|NCT00835081|183226606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.8||||||90.0|97.4|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||102|97.4|
91666359|NCT00874276|183226607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau-B|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.85||This is the primary outcome, and there is no adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We used a Wilcoxon test (and accompanying Kendal's Tau B) because these outcomes are outlier prone.||0.85|0.35|0.023
91666360|NCT00874276|183226608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau B|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.69|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the same analysis as the previous, except we use the day 5 pharmacogenetics on the amount of time needed to clear one-half of dose of the drug. This is for the environmental dose. A positive (negative) Kendall's Tau is associated with the EGT allele being faster (slower) than lacking EGT in terms of metabolization of DCA.||0.69|-0.23|0.42
91859521|NCT04501861|183604578|EQUIVALENCE|Compare mPAP-to-MAP ratio between patients who without preop PH received norepinephrine versus vasopressin intraoperatively. Post intervention measurements will be recorded after protamine administration until end of chest closure. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 31 and in vasopressin group is 29. The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0035||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mPAP-to-MAP ratio was compared between patients without pre-existing pulmonary hypertension of use of vasopressin and norepinephrine. Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension.||0.043|-0.05|0.88
91859522|NCT04501861|183604579|EQUIVALENCE|Imbalanced confounders such as female, coronary artery disease, preoperative ejection fraction, surgery type, primary or repeat surgery, and bypass time were additionally adjusted. A different inverse probability of treatment weighting was fit for secondary analysis and a linear mixed regression model with random intercept to account for intra-week correlation to estimate the effect of norepinephrine on right ventricular free wall strain using the new obtained stabilized weights|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-6.0|0.37
91864473|NCT05452460|183617809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed confusion Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed confusion||||||> 0.05
91666361|NCT05330975|183226631|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of GMR \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.002|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group compared mRNA-1345 alone group|||1.002|0.728|
91666362|NCT05330975|183226632|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-6.9|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group compared mRNA-1345 alone group|||-6.9|-21.5|
91864474|NCT05452460|183617810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed confusion Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed confusion||||||> 0.05
91666363|NCT05330975|183226640|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of GMR \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|0.995|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared with mRNA-1345 alone|||0.995|0.791|
91666364|NCT05330975|183226641|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|0.3|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared with mRNA-1345 alone|||0.3|-11.9|
91666365|NCT05330975|183226664|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of geometric mean ratio (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|0.974|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group compared mRNA-1345 alone group|||0.974|0.668|
91666366|NCT05330975|183226665|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-4.1|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group compared mRNA-1345 alone group|||-4.1|-17.9|
91859523|NCT04501861|183604579|EQUIVALENCE|We examined the effect of norepinephrine versus vasopressin on right ventricular free wall strain by considering patients who have preoperative pulmonary hypertension. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 34 and in vasopressin group is 28. The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. The significance levels of subgroup analyses were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||RV free wall strain compare between patients with pre-existing pulmonary hypertension of use of vasopressin and norepinephrine. Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension;||2.8|-7.1|0.39
91864475|NCT04447040|183617813|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|31.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.379|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|42.07|||ANOVA|||||42.07|20.90|<0.001
91864476|NCT04447040|183617813|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|41.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.267|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.02|51.75|||ANOVA|||||51.75|31.02|<0.001
91666367|NCT05330975|183226666|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of GMR \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.893|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.032|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group at Day 29 compared with the GMT of anti-HA Ab in the Afluria alone group|Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.032|0.772|
91864477|NCT04447040|183617813|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|46.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.292|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.44|57.27|||ANOVA|||||57.27|36.44|<0.001
91864478|NCT04447040|183617813|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|54.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.321|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.57|64.51|||ANOVA|||||64.51|43.57|<0.001
91864479|NCT04447040|183617813|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|59.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.468|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.16|70.68|||ANOVA|||||70.68|49.16|<0.001
91666368|NCT05330975|183226666|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of geometric mean ratio (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.091|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group at Day 29 compared with the GMT of anti-HA Ab in the Afluria alone group|Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.091|0.861|
91666369|NCT05330975|183226666|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of geometric mean ratio (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.045|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group at Day 29 compared with the GMT of anti-HA Ab in the Afluria alone group|Influenza B Washington Antibody||1.045|0.822|
91859524|NCT04501861|183604579|EQUIVALENCE|We're going to explore the interaction between preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension status and treatment group by equivalence analysis. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 22 and in vasopressin group is 18.The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. The significance levels of subgroup analyses were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"We examined the effect of norepinephrine versus vasopressin on right ventricular free wall strain by separately considering patients who did not have preoperative pulmonary hypertension.~Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension."||4.6|-7.6|0.63
91666370|NCT05330975|183226666|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of geometric mean ratio (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.02|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group at Day 29 compared with the GMT of anti-HA Ab in the Afluria alone group|Influenza B Phuket Antibody||1.020|0.809|
91666371|NCT05330975|183226672|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.796|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|0.901|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1345 alone|||0.901|0.702|
91666372|NCT05330975|183226673|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.0|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1345 alone|||1.0|-9.9|
91859525|NCT01007591|183604616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.02||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|31.7|||ANOVA|Treatment comparison using an ANOVA model with age group and treatment as design variables.||||31.7|-43.7|0.75
91859526|NCT04258709|183604653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1200
91859527|NCT04258709|183604653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.593||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.9907|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted for race, Iowa Infant Feeding Attitudes Score at baseline, infant gestational age, NICU admission, maternal age at enrollment, WIC enrollment at baseline, maternal pre-pregnancy BMI. This is an adjusted odds ratio.|||.9907|.352|.0474
91859528|NCT04258709|183604654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5201|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.5201
91859529|NCT04258709|183604654|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1399||||0.9178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5299|2.8098|||Regression, Linear|||||2.8098|-2.5299|.9178
91902139|NCT04409353|183699269|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 30, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.16||||0.8095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.43||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The primary analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 7, 15, 21, and 30, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.43|-1.12|0.8095
91666373|NCT05330975|183226674|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.056|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273.214 alone|GMR for Wuhan-Hu-1||1.056|0.872|
91859530|NCT04258709|183604655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8614|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.8614
91859531|NCT04258709|183604655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0763||||0.7836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6364|1.8216|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8216|.6364|.7836
91859532|NCT04258709|183604656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9788|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9788
91859533|NCT04258709|183604656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0307||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.7067|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7067|.603|.9119
91859534|NCT04258709|183604657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7157||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4192|1.216|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.216|.4192|.2173
91859535|NCT04258709|183604658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7157||||0.5209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4192|1.216|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.216|.4192|.5209
91859536|NCT04258709|183604661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4258|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.4258
91859537|NCT04258709|183604661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8882||||0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5523|1.4283|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4283|.5523|.6246
91666374|NCT05330975|183226674|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.137|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273.214 alone|GMR for B.1.1.529||1.137|0.888|
91666375|NCT05330975|183226675|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.3|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273.214 alone|SRR difference for Wuhan-Hu-1||6.3|-6.0|
91859538|NCT04258709|183604662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5613|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5613
91859539|NCT04258709|183604662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7157||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4206|1.2178|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.2178|.4206|.2173
91859540|NCT04258709|183604663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6291|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.6291
91859541|NCT04258709|183604663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1955||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8745|1.3931|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3931|.8745|.5426
91859542|NCT04258709|183604664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9071|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9071
91859543|NCT04258709|183604664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0233||||0.9328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7751|1.2084|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.2084|.7751|.9328
91859544|NCT04258709|183604665|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.8213||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9161|3.5588|||Regression, Linear|||||3.5588|-1.9161|.5548
91859545|NCT04258709|183604666|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.2412||||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5771|4.0594|||Regression, Linear|||||4.0594|-1.5771|.3861
91859546|NCT04258709|183604667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4779|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.4779
91859547|NCT04258709|183604668|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91859548|NCT04258709|183604668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9508||||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3669|2.4621|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4621|.3669|.9163
91859549|NCT04258709|183604669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1084||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4937|2.4882|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4882|.4937|.8031
91859550|NCT04258709|183604670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1346||||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3882|3.3161|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3161|.3882|.8175
91859551|NCT04258709|183604671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6964||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2813|1.7241|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7241|.2813|.434
91859552|NCT04258709|183604672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2533||||0.4968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6534|2.4041|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4041|.6534|.4968
91859553|NCT04258709|183604673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0288||||0.9005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.6062|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6062|.659|.9005
91859554|NCT04258709|183604674|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4018||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2052|0.4015|||Regression, Linear|||||.4015|-3.2052|.127
91859555|NCT04258709|183604675|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.8958||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9475|0.1559|||Regression, Linear|||||.1559|-3.9475|.07
91859556|NCT04258709|183604676|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.506||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.574|1.562|||Regression, Linear|||||1.562|-2.574|.6299
91666376|NCT05330975|183226675|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.7|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273.214 alone|SRR difference for B.1.1.529||4.7|-6.6|
91666377|NCT05330975|183226680|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|1.077|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.166|||||The 95% CI for the GMR is based on t-distribution of the log-transformed values then back transformed to the original scale for presentation.|GMR of RSV-A. GMR was calculated by back transforming the mean of paired difference of antibody levels on the logarithmic scale between revaccination Day 29 and primary vaccination Day 29.||1.166|0.995|
91859557|NCT04258709|183604677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7573||||0.3835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4029|1.4138|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4138|.4029|.3835
91859558|NCT04258709|183604678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.784||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|1.4912|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4912|.409|.459
91666378|NCT05330975|183226680|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|0.984|||||The 95% CI for the GMR is based on t-distribution of the log-transformed values then back transformed to the original scale for presentation.|GMR of RSV-B. GMR was calculated by back transforming the mean of paired difference of antibody levels on the logarithmic scale between revaccination Day 29 and primary vaccination Day 29.||0.984|0.839|
91859559|NCT04258709|183604679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9338||||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.9039|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.9039|.458|.8499
91859560|NCT03958955|183604696|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|-0.14||||0.4531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success of delgocitinib compared to vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test. Success is defined as having an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at Week 6.|||0.09|-0.37|0.4531
91859561|NCT03958955|183604699|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|0.07||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.17||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success (i.e. no lesion-specific treatment-related AEs) of delgocitinib compared to vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|||0.17|-0.02|0.5000
91859562|NCT03958955|183604700|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|-0.14||||0.4531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success of delgocitinib vs vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test. Success is defined as having at least a 2-point reduction in IGA score from baseline to Week 6.|||0.09|-0.37|0.4531
91859563|NCT03958955|183604701|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.22||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success of delgocitinib compared to vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test. Success is defined as having at least a 2-point reduction in IGA score from baseline to Week 6.|0.22|-0.22|1.0000
91859564|NCT03958955|183604702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5797||||||P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|Erythema is scored as 0=absent, 1=pink, faint, 2=red, 3=dark red, purple/violaceous/crusted/haemorrhagic. P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.5797
91859565|NCT03958955|183604703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7862||||||P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||Total skin disease activity score is the sum of the scores for erythema, scaling/hyperkeratosis, and oedema/infiltration. Total skin disease activity score ranges from 0 to 7 with lower score indicating better state.||||0.7862
91859566|NCT04638829|183604710|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91859567|NCT04638829|183604711|OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0093
91859568|NCT04638829|183604712|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
91859569|NCT04638829|183604713|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91859570|NCT02807636|183604719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||inverse normal combination|Log Rank|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||0.96|0.70|0.0073
91859571|NCT02807636|183604720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0||one-sided, inverse normal combination|Regression, Cox|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.0|0.73|0.0230
91859572|NCT02807636|183604721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||Log Rank|one-sided||Stratification factors: PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.16|0.82|0.3968
91859573|NCT02807636|183604726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.01||inverse normal combination|Regression, Cox|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.01|0.73|0.0373
91859574|NCT02807636|183604727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.0||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|11.81|||Z-test|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||11.81|-1.82|0.1509
91859575|NCT02807636|183604728|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.36||||0.3761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|10.79|||Z-test|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||10.79|-4.08|0.3761
91859576|NCT02807636|183604729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-8.29||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.45|-2.13|||Z-test|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||-2.13|-14.45|0.0083
91859577|NCT02807636|183604730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0|||Log Rank|||Strata are: Enrollment Stage, PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.00|0.64|0.0542
91859578|NCT02807636|183604731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Log Rank|||Strata are: PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.19|0.74|0.6139
91859579|NCT02807636|183604732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||Log Rank|||Strata are: Enrollment Stage, PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.32|0.86|0.5540
91859580|NCT02807636|183604733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.62|||Log Rank|||Strata are: Enrollment Stage, PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.62|1.03|0.0241
91859581|NCT02807636|183604737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.69|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors: PD-L1 status and Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.69|1.19|1.0000
91859582|NCT04088630|183604747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0427||||||p\<0.05 considered significant. Between group pairwise comparisons performed with Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of subjects with cardiac events up to 30 days post-ictus tested between three groups.||||0.0427
91859583|NCT04088630|183604748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of subjects with nosocomial infections up to 90 days post-ictus tested between three groups. No pairwise comparisons performed.||||0.19
91859584|NCT04088630|183604749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of subjects with neurologic decline up to 30 days post-ictus tested between three groups. No pairwise comparisons performed.||||0.30
91859585|NCT03175029|183604769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.552|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.514|15.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BCI in the TAC-302 group||15.590|5.514|<0.001
91666379|NCT01167829|183226706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|183.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91666380|NCT00834444|183226716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.9||||||90.0|87.8|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107|87.8|
91666381|NCT00834444|183226717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|97.9|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|97.9|
91666382|NCT00834444|183226718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|97.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|97.7|
91859586|NCT03175029|183604769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.676|7.023|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BCI in the Placebo group||7.023|-8.676|0.819
91859587|NCT03175029|183604769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.454||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.345|20.411|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BCI from baseline to Week 12||20.411|2.345|0.015
91859588|NCT03175029|183604770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.604|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.753|15.455|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean PIP1 in the TAC-302 group||15.455|5.753|<0.001
91859589|NCT03175029|183604770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.926|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.121|11.973|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean PIP1 in the Placebo group||11.973|-2.121|0.138
91859590|NCT03175029|183604770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.678|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.861||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.375|13.731|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean PIP1 from baseline to Week 12||13.731|-2.375|0.157
91859591|NCT03175029|183604771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.48||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|18.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the TAC-302 group||18.59|3.22|0.006
91859592|NCT03175029|183604771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.09||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the Placebo group||11.10|-6.27|0.570
91666383|NCT00841659|183226744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.96||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
91859593|NCT03175029|183604771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.24||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|20.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BVE from baseline to Week 12||20.95|-3.96|0.178
91859594|NCT03175029|183604772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|27.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the TAC-302 group||27.69|9.13|<0.001
91859595|NCT03175029|183604772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|11.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the Placebo group||11.58|-5.81|0.489
91859596|NCT03175029|183604772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|29.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BVE from baseline to Week 12||29.58|1.48|0.031
91859597|NCT03175029|183604773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.26|35.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the TAC-302 group||35.88|11.26|<0.001
91859598|NCT03175029|183604773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.18||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|14.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the Placebo group||14.40|-10.19|0.708
91859599|NCT03175029|183604773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|39.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BVE from baseline to Week 12||39.98|2.96|0.025
91864480|NCT04447040|183617814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|35.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.542|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.79|48.54|||ANOVA|||||48.54|22.79|<0.001
91864481|NCT04447040|183617814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|49.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.407|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.44|61.65|||ANOVA|||||61.65|36.44|<0.001
91864482|NCT04447040|183617814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|53.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.437|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.97|66.31|||ANOVA|||||66.31|40.97|<0.001
91864483|NCT04447040|183617814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|60.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.472|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.19|73.67|||ANOVA|||||73.67|48.19|<0.001
91864484|NCT04447040|183617814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|67.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.49|80.67|||ANOVA|||||80.67|54.49|<0.001
91864485|NCT04447040|183617815|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|18.63|||ANOVA|||||18.63|6.44|<0.001
91864486|NCT04447040|183617815|SUPERIORITY||LS MEAN Difference|17.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.76|23.7|||ANOVA|||||23.70|11.76|<0.001
91864487|NCT04447040|183617815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.89|27.88|||ANOVA|||||27.88|15.89|<0.001
91864488|NCT04447040|183617815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|25.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.98|31.03|||ANOVA|||||31.03|18.98|<0.001
91859600|NCT03381261|183604783|OTHER|While descriptive statistics were presented in the original mRNA units using median and interquartile range (25th, 75th), statistical group comparison and effect sizes were reported as the ratio of the geometric means.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91859601|NCT05634226|183604784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
91859602|NCT05634226|183604785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91859603|NCT05324124|183604786|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.03||||||||1.03|0.876|
91859604|NCT05324124|183604787|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.869|1.04||||||||1.04|0.869|
91859605|NCT05324124|183604788|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.744|0.925||||||||0.925|0.744|
91859606|NCT04382898|183604819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1041|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1041
91859607|NCT04382898|183604825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0541|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.0541
91859608|NCT05229120|183604826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.124|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 10.||A single-sided paired-samples t-test comparing k-values at baseline to k-values at follow-up (approximately 4 weeks after baseline assessment) was examined. Given that k-values are typically skewed (and to be consistent with the existing literature) we used a log-k as our outcome variable.||||.124
91859609|NCT05229120|183604827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 14.||Changes in consideration of future consequences (parenting) was evaluated using one-sided paired samples t-tests.||||.219
91859610|NCT05229120|183604828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 5||Performed a one-sided paired samples t-test examining changes in both positive parenting.||||.50
91859611|NCT05229120|183604828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in negative parenting.||||.187
91859612|NCT05229120|183604829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in parental involvement using a paired-samples t-test.||||.498
91859613|NCT05229120|183604829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.301||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in positive parenting using paired samples t-tests||||.108
91859614|NCT05229120|183604829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in parental monitoring using a paired samples t-test||||.145
91859615|NCT05229120|183604829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.688||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in inconsistent parenting using a paired samples one-sided t-test||||.252
91859616|NCT05229120|183604829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.306||||0.382|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in corporal punishment using a paired samples one-tailed t-test||||.382
91859617|NCT03932682|183604838|OTHER|The primary objective would be achieved if efficacy was demonstrated for at least one of the two primary efficacy endpoints, that is, if the interim analysis-adjusted lower limit of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) for absolute vaccine efficacy (aVE) of QIVc versus the comparator vaccine was greater than 0%.|Cox Proportional Hazard|41.26|||||TWO_SIDED|97.98|21.55|56.02||||||||56.02|21.55|
91859618|NCT03932682|183604839|OTHER|The primary objective would be achieved if efficacy was demonstrated for at least one of the two primary efficacy endpoints, that is, if the interim analysis-adjusted lower limit of the two-sided CI for aVE of QIVc versus the comparator vaccine was greater than 0%.|Cox Proportional Hazard|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.19|65.11||||||||65.11|19.19|
91859619|NCT03932682|183604840|OTHER|The secondary efficacy objectives were not associated with any hypothesis testing|Cox Proportional Hazard|54.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.55|73.26||||||||73.26|22.55|
91859620|NCT03932682|183604841|OTHER|The secondary efficacy objectives were not associated with any hypothesis testing|Cox Proportional Hazard|50.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.83|63.77||||||||63.77|32.83|
91859621|NCT03932682|183604842|OTHER|The secondary efficacy objectives were not associated with any hypothesis testing|Cox Proportional Hazard|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||"The 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated with a lower limit of not estimable and an upper limit of 100."|||||
91859622|NCT04321031|183604853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.2|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||0.20|-0.02|
91859623|NCT04321031|183604853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.24|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.24|-0.03|
91666384|NCT00841659|183226745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.58||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
91666385|NCT00841659|183226746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.29||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
91666386|NCT03499873|183226748|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI on the Test-to-Reference difference for the proportion of subjects with cure should be contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\]|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.124|0.073||||||||0.073|-0.124|
91859624|NCT04321031|183604853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.26|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.26|-0.03|
91859625|NCT04321031|183604853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.28|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.28|-0.04|
91859626|NCT04321031|183604854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.32||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.32|-0.04|
91859627|NCT04321031|183604854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.27||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.27|-0.11|
91859628|NCT04321031|183604854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.3||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.30|-0.07|
91859629|NCT04321031|183604854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.43||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.43|0.07|
91666387|NCT03499873|183226748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
91666388|NCT03499873|183226748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0003
91666389|NCT00577655|183226762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.496||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|6.262||In order to control the overall alpha level at the 0.05 value, each of the primary endpoints were tested separately at the 0.025 level of significance.|ANCOVA|Baseline as covariate and fixed effects of treatment and pooled investigator site.|Active - Placebo|Efficacy was declared if the test for either primary efficacy endpoint was significant at the 0.025 level.||6.262|0.729|0.0138
91859630|NCT04321031|183604854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.27||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.27|-0.12|
91864489|NCT04447040|183617815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.148|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.11|35.5|||ANOVA|||||35.50|23.11|<0.001
91859631|NCT04321031|183604854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.42||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.42|0.04|
91859632|NCT04321031|183604854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.08|0.23||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.23|0.08|
91859633|NCT04321031|183604854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.31||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.31|-0.03|
91859634|NCT04321031|183604854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.09|0.26||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.26|0.09|
91859635|NCT04321031|183604854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.35||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.35|-0.03|
91714321|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.6895||95.0|-19.2|12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.7|-19.2|0.6895
91859636|NCT04321031|183604855|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-25.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.42|-2.57||||||||-2.57|-58.42|
91859637|NCT04321031|183604855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-35.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.41|-5.42||||||||-5.42|-69.41|
91859638|NCT04321031|183604855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-40.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-75.55|-7.32||||||||-7.32|-75.55|
91859639|NCT04321031|183604855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-44.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.72|-8.42||||||||-8.42|-81.72|
91859640|NCT04321031|183604856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-41.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.57|-9.57||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-9.57|-62.57|
91859641|NCT04321031|183604856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-43.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.37|-14.64||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-14.64|-62.37|
91859642|NCT04321031|183604856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-59.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-73.95|-36.55||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-36.55|-73.95|
91859643|NCT04321031|183604856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-68.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.72|-50.15||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-50.15|-79.72|
91859644|NCT04321031|183604856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-50.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.53|-19.44||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-19.44|-69.53|
91859645|NCT04321031|183604856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-69.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.08|-50.07||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-50.07|-81.08|
91864490|NCT04447040|183617816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91864491|NCT04447040|183617816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91864492|NCT04447040|183617816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91864493|NCT04447040|183617816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91864494|NCT04447040|183617816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91864495|NCT04447040|183617817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wald method|||||||0.014
91864496|NCT04447040|183617817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wald method|||||||0.002
91792438|NCT02047318|183462628|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ItchRO(Obs) scores from baseline over time (to Week 158) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.958|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7868||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.784|-0.132||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 158 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Obs) scores was observed over time (with Week 158 chosen as the end point, as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||-0.132|-1.784|0.0307
91714322|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.21||0.0209||95.0|-35.2|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-2.9|-35.2|0.0209
91859646|NCT04321031|183604856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-34.02|-7.32||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-7.32|-34.02|
91859647|NCT04321031|183604856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.51|18.76||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||18.76|-48.51|
91859648|NCT04321031|183604856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-37.97|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-49.4|-23.95||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-23.95|-49.40|
91859649|NCT04321031|183604856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-37.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.41|2.37||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||2.37|-62.41|
91859650|NCT04321031|183604857|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.32|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.32|0.09|
91859651|NCT04321031|183604857|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.37|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.37|0.15|
91666390|NCT00577655|183226763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.431||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|10.618||In order to control the overall alpha level at the 0.05 value, each of the primary endpoints were tested separately at the 0.025 level of significance.|ANCOVA|Baseline as covariate and fixed effects of treatment and pooled investigator site.|Active - Placebo|Efficacy was declared if the test for either primary efficacy endpoint was significant at the 0.025 level.||10.618|0.244|0.0403
91859652|NCT04321031|183604857|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.39|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.39|0.18|
91859653|NCT04321031|183604857|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.42|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.42|0.19|
91859654|NCT04321031|183604858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.51||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.51|0.04|
91859655|NCT04321031|183604858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.63||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.63|0.13|
91864497|NCT04447040|183617817|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald method|||||||<0.001
91864498|NCT04447040|183617817|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald method|||||||<0.001
91864499|NCT04447040|183617817|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald method|||||||<0.001
91864500|NCT01208662|183617818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.91|||Log Rank|Observed Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided p-value)||||1.91|1.23|<0.001
91864501|NCT01208662|183617819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||||0.55
91864502|NCT01208662|183617820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||||0.99
91864503|NCT01208662|183617821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||||0.99
91859656|NCT04321031|183604858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.49||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.49|0.04|
91859657|NCT04321031|183604858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.75||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.75|0.26|
91859658|NCT04321031|183604858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.61||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.61|0.10|
91859659|NCT04321031|183604858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.72||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.72|0.20|
91859660|NCT04321031|183604858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.24|0.39||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.39|0.24|
91859661|NCT04321031|183604858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.48||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.48|0.12|
91714323|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.18||0.4084||95.0|-22.9|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.3|-22.9|0.4084
91859662|NCT04321031|183604858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.06|0.23||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.23|0.06|
91859663|NCT04321031|183604858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.33||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.33|-0.06|
91859664|NCT04321031|183604859|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.02|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.02|-0.16|
91859665|NCT04321031|183604859|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.03|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.03|-0.20|
91859666|NCT04321031|183604859|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.04|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.04|-0.23|
91859667|NCT04321031|183604859|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.05|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.05|-0.26|
91859668|NCT04321031|183604860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.13||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.13|-0.21|
91859669|NCT04321031|183604860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.02||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.02|-0.25|
91859670|NCT04321031|183604860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.17||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.17|-0.17|
91859671|NCT04321031|183604860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.22||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.22|-0.15|
91859672|NCT04321031|183604860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.05||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||-0.05|-0.30|
91714324|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.3958||95.0|-22.5|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.9|-22.5|0.3958
91859673|NCT04321031|183604860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.26||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.26|-0.13|
91859674|NCT04321031|183604860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-0.03|0.12||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.12|-0.03|
91859675|NCT04321031|183604860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.23||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.23|-0.12|
91859676|NCT04321031|183604860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.17|0.38||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.38|0.17|
91666391|NCT00577655|183226764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.536||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.567|7.505||significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active - Placebo|"Day 1~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to FEV1max%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||7.505|1.567|0.0031
91666392|NCT00577655|183226764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.067||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|6.094||significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active - Placebo|"Day 22~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to FEV1max%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||6.094|0.041|0.0470
91859677|NCT04321031|183604860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.53||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.53|0.06|
91859678|NCT04321031|183604861|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.08|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.08|-0.01|
91859679|NCT04321031|183604861|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.09|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.09|-0.02|
91859680|NCT04321031|183604861|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.11|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.11|-0.02|
91859681|NCT04321031|183604861|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.12|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.12|-0.02|
91859682|NCT04321031|183604862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.43||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.43|-0.01|
91859683|NCT04321031|183604862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.29||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.29|-0.02|
91859684|NCT04321031|183604862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.43||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.43|-0.01|
91859685|NCT04321031|183604862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.57||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.57|0.01|
91859686|NCT04321031|183604862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.33||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.33|-0.02|
91859687|NCT04321031|183604862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.58||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.58|0.01|
91859688|NCT04321031|183604862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.02|0.16||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.16|0.02|
91859689|NCT04321031|183604862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.3||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.30|-0.04|
91859690|NCT04321031|183604862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.06|0.24||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.24|0.06|
91859691|NCT04321031|183604862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.44||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.44|-0.01|
91859692|NCT04321031|183604863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.31|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.31|0.05|
91859693|NCT04321031|183604863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.36|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.36|0.09|
91859694|NCT04321031|183604863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.38|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.38|0.10|
91859695|NCT04321031|183604863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.4|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.40|0.11|
91666393|NCT00577655|183226765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.572||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|13.067||significance level of 0.05.|repeated measures ANOVA||Active - Placebo|"Day 1~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to PEFmax%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||13.067|2.077|0.0074
91666394|NCT00577655|183226765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.782||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.832|9.397||significance level of 0.05.|repeated measures ANOVA||Active - Placebo|"Day 22~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to PEFmax%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||9.397|-1.832|0.1843
91859696|NCT04321031|183604864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.36||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.36|-0.04|
91666395|NCT00577655|183226766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.707||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|19.445||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment and center, baseline as a covariate|Active - Placebo|Day 22 Baseline||19.445|-0.030|0.0507
91666396|NCT00577655|183226766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.892||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.634|19.419||significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|terms for treatment and center|Active - Placebo|Day 1 Baseline||19.419|-17.634|0.9240
91666397|NCT00577655|183226767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.124||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.169|78.417||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment and center, baseline as a covariate|Active - Placebo|Day 22 Baseline||78.417|-18.169|0.2186
91666398|NCT00577655|183226767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.578||||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.541|113.7||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment and center, baseline as a covariate|Active - Placebo|Day 1 Baseline||113.70|-28.541|0.2375
91666399|NCT00577655|183226768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.524||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.524|10.523||significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|terms for treatment, center, time, time x treatment, subject as a random|Active - Placebo|Day 1||10.523|2.524|0.0017
91859697|NCT04321031|183604864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.53||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.53|0.15|
91859698|NCT04321031|183604864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.46||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.46|0.06|
91859699|NCT04321031|183604864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.63||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.63|0.27|
91859700|NCT04321031|183604864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.38||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.38|-0.03|
91666400|NCT00577655|183226768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.998||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|8.032||significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|terms for treatment, center, time, time x treatment, subject as a random|Active - Placebo|Day 22||8.032|-0.037|0.0521
91666401|NCT00577655|183226769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.477||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.23||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 1||2.23|0.98|0.0647
91666402|NCT00577655|183226769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.088||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.15||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 22||3.15|1.38|0.0005
91666403|NCT00577655|183226770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.141||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.69||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 1||1.69|0.77|0.5059
91666404|NCT00577655|183226770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.533||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.27||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 22||2.27|1.03|0.0333
91666405|NCT00577655|183226771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3888||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.3888
91666406|NCT00577655|183226771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1249||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.1249
91666407|NCT00577655|183226772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0343||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.0343
91666408|NCT00577655|183226772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0962||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.0962
91666409|NCT00577655|183226773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0109||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.0109
91666410|NCT00577655|183226773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0845||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.0845
91666411|NCT00577655|183226774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.0013
91666412|NCT00577655|183226774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0085||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.0085
91666413|NCT00577655|183226775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.072||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.122||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 1||0.122|-0.265|0.4674
91714325|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.5776||95.0|-20.9|11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.7|-20.9|0.5776
91666414|NCT00577655|183226775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|0.023||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as covariate, subject as random|Active - Placebo|Week 2||0.023|-0.365|0.0840
91666415|NCT00577655|183226775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138||||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.059||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as covariate, subject as random|Active - Placebo|Week 3||0.059|-0.335|0.1699
91666416|NCT00577655|183226777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.926||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.256|23.108||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 1||23.108|-3.256|0.1391
91666417|NCT00577655|183226777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.923||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.278|24.124||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 2||24.124|-2.278|0.1043
91666418|NCT00577655|183226777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.546||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.705|22.798||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 3||22.798|-3.705|0.1570
91666419|NCT00577655|183226778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of Active to Placebo|0.989||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|2.099||significance level of 0.05.|mixed poisson regression model|||"Week 1~P-value, mean and confidence interval calculated from a 0 inflated mixed poisson regression model with fixed effect terms for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline as a covariate and a random term for subject. The null hypothesis is that the ratio equals 1. Estimated means are conditional upon the random effect, assume a random effect of 0 and a covariate value at the average."||2.099|-0.121|0.9846
91666420|NCT00577655|183226778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of Active to Placebo|0.961||||0.9447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|2.039||significance level of 0.05.|mixed poisson regression model|||"Week 2~P-value, mean and confidence interval calculated from a 0 inflated mixed poisson regression model with fixed effect terms for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline as a covariate and a random term for subject. The null hypothesis is that the ratio equals 1. Estimated means are conditional upon the random effect, assume a random effect of 0 and a covariate value at the average."||2.039|-0.116|0.9447
91666421|NCT00577655|183226778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of Active to Placebo|0.887||||0.8326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|1.885||significance level of 0.05.|mixed poisson regression model|||"Week 3~P-value, mean and confidence interval calculated from a 0 inflated mixed poisson regression model with fixed effect terms for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline as a covariate and a random term for subject. The null hypothesis is that the ratio equals 1. Estimated means are conditional upon the random effect, assume a random effect of 0 and a covariate value at the average."||1.885|-0.111|0.8326
91666422|NCT01370863|183226779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.452||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.054|16.149|||ANCOVA|||||16.149|-19.054|0.869
91666423|NCT01370863|183226780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Diference in LS means|0.264||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|1.024|||ANCOVA|||||1.024|-0.495|0.487
91666424|NCT01370863|183226781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-0.087||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.501|0.326|||ANCOVA|||||0.326|-0.501|0.637
91666425|NCT05004649|183226791|OTHER|||||||0.024356||||||When Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons the significance level across conditions is p \< 0.0167. This is the Bonferonni corrected level for three tests applied to a baseline significance value of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.024356
91666426|NCT05004649|183226791|OTHER|||||||0.040382||||||When Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons the significance level across conditions is p \< 0.0167. This is the Bonferonni corrected level for three tests applied to a baseline significance value of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.040382
91666427|NCT05004649|183226791|OTHER|||||||0.90161||||||When Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons the significance level across conditions is p \< 0.0167. This is the Bonferonni corrected level for three tests applied to a baseline significance value of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.90161
91666428|NCT01852799|183226799|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||bALP changes from baseline to cycle 1||||0.002
91666429|NCT01852799|183226799|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||b-ALP changes from baseline to cycle 4||||<0.001
91666430|NCT01852799|183226799|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DKK-1 changes from baseline to cycle 1||||0.005
91666431|NCT01852799|183226799|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DKK-1 changes from baseline to cycle 4||||<0.001
91666432|NCT02654145|183226832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.66||p-value is for Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.55 (Standard Error: 0.05), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01000506 and NCT01691521 using all Placebo participants.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.55 (Standard Error: 0.05), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01000506 and NCT01691521 using all Placebo participants.|||-0.66|-1.13|<0.001
91666433|NCT02654145|183226832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-1.0||p- value for Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.11 (Standard Error: 0.14), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01691521 and NCT02281318 using Placebo participants who previously used|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.11 (Standard Error: 0.14), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01691521 and NCT02281318 using Placebo participants who previously used Xolair.|||-1.00|-1.68|<0.001
91859701|NCT04321031|183604864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.58||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.58|0.18|
91859702|NCT04321031|183604864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.15|0.28||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.28|0.15|
91859703|NCT04321031|183604864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.35||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.35|0.03|
91859704|NCT04321031|183604864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.16|0.32||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.32|0.16|
91859705|NCT04321031|183604864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.42||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.42|0.03|
91864504|NCT01208662|183617823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.29|1.21|2.27|||Log Rank|Stratified||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||2.27|1.21|<0.001
91864505|NCT01208662|183617824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.65|||Log Rank|||||1.65|0.73|>0.99
91859706|NCT05285618|183604874|OTHER|A linear mixed model accounted for repeated measures ('subject\_id' as a random factor). No power calculation was performed, but the sample size (1,485 observations, 6 subjects) supports robust estimation.||||||0.002||||||P-values are unadjusted for multiple comparisons, as the analysis focused on a limited number of predictors. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model tested whether stimulation delay ('abs\_delay'), retinal distance ('dist\_ret'), and their interaction ('abs\_delay:dist\_ret') affect the number of elicited phosphenes ('num\_phosphenes').|We hypothesize that the parameter 'dist\_ret' may influence the number of phosphenes perceived ('num\_phosphenes'), while the roles of 'abs\_delay' and its interaction with 'dist\_ret' may be less pronounced. Further evaluation of these parameters will be conducted in the Results section|||0.002
91859707|NCT04556656|183604881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), change from baseline in TFC score was the dependent variable, and independent variables included treatment arm, baseline TFC, region, neuroleptic use or no use, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), categorical week, and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. The unstructured covariance matrix was used for repeated measurements at patient level.||0.09|-0.54|0.1670
91859708|NCT04556656|183604882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.1598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), change from baseline in TFC score was the dependent variable, and independent variables included treatment arm, baseline TFC, region, neuroleptic use or no use, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), categorical week, and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. The unstructured covariance matrix was used for repeated measurements at patient level.||0.09|-0.55|0.1598
91859709|NCT04556656|183604883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the MMRM, change in cUHDRS score from baseline was the dependent variable, while independent variables included treatment arm, baseline cUHDRS, region, neuroleptic use or no use, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), categorical week, and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. The unstructured covariance matrix was used for repeated measurements at patient level. No imputation was performed on missing data.||0.18|-0.4|0.4544
91666434|NCT02654145|183226834|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.47|||Generalised Estimating Equations||Analysis performed using generalized estimating equation (GEE) model assuming a negative binomial distribution with a covariate of treatment period (pre-treatment , on- and off-treatment), logarithm of time as an offset variable|||0.47|0.28|<0.001
91864506|NCT01208662|183617826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|99.29|0.73|1.65|||Log Rank|Stratified||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||1.65|0.73|0.99
91864507|NCT01208662|183617833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.01||||||||1.01|0.30|
91864508|NCT04433208|183617835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91864509|NCT05485779|183617858|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.17||||0.6358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.27|||Lack of fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 30.4. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.27|1.07|0.6358
91859710|NCT04556656|183604884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"From baseline to Week 26.~In the MMRM model, change in cUHDRS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline cUHDRS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data."||0.76|0.15|0.0038
91859711|NCT04556656|183604884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39||0.80|0.09|0.0135
91859712|NCT04556656|183604884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52||0.79|0.03|0.0351
91859713|NCT04556656|183604884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||0.66|-0.12|0.1683
91859714|NCT04556656|183604884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.5315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78||0.58|-0.30|0.5315
91859715|NCT04556656|183604885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.406||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.66|-2.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Negative change = improvement.|From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in Q-Motor Finger Tapping IOI Mean from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline Finger Tapping IOI Mean, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed.||-2.64|-39.66|0.0253
91859716|NCT04556656|183604885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.853||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.71|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||5.08|-33.71|0.1474
91859717|NCT04556656|183604885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.185||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.76|-4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||-4.67|-44.76|0.0159
91859718|NCT04556656|183604885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.38||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.34|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||-2.45|-43.34|0.0283
91859719|NCT04556656|183604886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.999||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.74|-16.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In MMRM model, change in Q-Motor Pronation/Supination ITI Mean from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline Q-Motor Pronation/Supination ITI Mean, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||-16.37|-59.74|0.0007
91859720|NCT04556656|183604886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.547||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|4.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||4.53|-44.95|0.1087
91859721|NCT04556656|183604886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.541||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||-1.16|-46.68|0.0395
91859722|NCT04556656|183604886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.587||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.08|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||4.61|-49.08|0.1038
91859723|NCT04556656|183604887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.902||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.78|-4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in Pronation/Supination IOI Mean from BL was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, BL Pronation/Supination IOI Mean, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), treatment by categorical week interaction, conc. use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||-4.98|-55.78|0.0193
91859724|NCT04556656|183604887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.17||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.69|13.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||13.02|-46.69|0.2680
91859725|NCT04556656|183604887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.829||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.97|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||6.4|-51.97|0.1255
91859726|NCT04556656|183604887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.777||0.2024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.72|12.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||12.28|-57.72|0.2024
91859727|NCT04556656|183604888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"From baseline to Week 26.~In the MMRM model, change in UHDRS-TFC score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, Baseline UHDRS-TFC, region, categorical week, Baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data."||0.58|-0.13|0.2088
91859728|NCT04556656|183604888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39.||0.57|-0.17|0.2991
91859729|NCT04556656|183604888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||0.66|-0.15|0.2116
91859730|NCT04556656|183604888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.8242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||0.47|-0.38|0.8242
91859731|NCT04556656|183604888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||0.58|-0.33|0.5918
91859732|NCT04556656|183604889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in SWR score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SWR, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||5.77|0.55|0.0178
91859733|NCT04556656|183604889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.518||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39.||5.88|-0.09|0.0576
91859734|NCT04556656|183604889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.493||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|5.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||5.99|0.11|0.0418
91859735|NCT04556656|183604889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.719||0.1775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|5.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||5.71|-1.06|0.1775
91902140|NCT04409353|183699270|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 60, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.79||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.32||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.32|-0.74|0.3101
91714326|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.5665||95.0|-20.5|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.3|-20.5|0.5665
91859736|NCT04556656|183604889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.772||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||5.48|-1.50|0.2627
91859737|NCT04556656|183604890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.712||0.1586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||2.41|-0.4|0.1586
91859738|NCT04556656|183604890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.701||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||2.25|-0.51|0.2144
91859739|NCT04556656|183604890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.48|-1.65|0.9119
91859740|NCT04556656|183604890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.95|-1.38|0.7339
91859741|NCT04556656|183604890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.6213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||2.12|-1.27|0.6213
91859742|NCT04556656|183604891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.36|-1.71|0.8205
91859743|NCT04556656|183604891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.067||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.21|-3.0|0.4028
91859744|NCT04556656|183604891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.7577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.75|-2.4|0.7577
91859745|NCT04556656|183604891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.7605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.93|-2.64|0.7605
91859746|NCT04556656|183604891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.323||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||3.18|-2.05|0.6694
91859747|NCT01566695|183604924|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|18.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|29.6||2 sided|Stratified Mantel-Haenszel Chi-squared|Stratified by average baseline (BL) RBC tfx needs: ≤4 vs \>4 units of RBC per 28 days; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or ind. \&ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||29.6|8.3|0.0005
91859748|NCT01566695|183604928|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|31.3||2 sided|Stratified Mantel-Haenszel; Chi-squared|Stratified by average baseline (BL) RBC tfx needs: ≤4 vs \>4 units of RBC per 28 days; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or ind. \&ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||31.3|11.9|<0.0001
91859749|NCT01566695|183604929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4347|||||||Two-Sided Unstratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.4347
91859750|NCT01566695|183604931|SUPERIORITY|HI-E|Rate Difference|10.9||||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.7|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||23.7|-2.0|0.1467
91859751|NCT01566695|183604931|SUPERIORITY|≥ 1.5 g/dL Hemoglobin Increase|Rate Diffrence|17.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|26.9|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||26.9|8.8|0.0002
91859752|NCT01566695|183604931|SUPERIORITY|RBC Transfusion Reduction|Rate Difference|10.9||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|23.6|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||23.6|-1.9|0.1431
91859753|NCT01566695|183604932|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|17.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|26.4|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||26.4|7.5|0.0007
91859754|NCT01566695|183604935|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.49|||Log Rank||||Cox proportional hazards model with stratifies factors|1.49|0.79|0.6257
91859755|NCT01566695|183604941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.214
91859756|NCT01566695|183604942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.446
91859757|NCT01566695|183604943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.248
91859758|NCT01566695|183604944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.058
91859759|NCT01566695|183604945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.130
91859760|NCT01566695|183604946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.123
91714327|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.13||0.0041||95.0|-39.6|-7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-7.5|-39.6|0.0041
91859761|NCT01566695|183604947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.069
91859762|NCT01566695|183604948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.078
91666435|NCT00354835|183226843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of anemia|0.2613|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.31||||||Compare incidence of Anemia to historical rate of 0.40 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. Comparing the incidence of anemia with VAC on ARST0531 to the historical rate of 0.40 with VAC on D9803. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of anemia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.40.||0.31||
91666436|NCT00354835|183226843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of nausea or hepatopathy|0.027|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0449||||||Compare incidence of Nausea or Hepatopathy to historical rate of 0.05 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of nausea or hepatopathy will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.05.||0.0449||
91666437|NCT00354835|183226843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of febrile neutropenia|0.1351|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1729||||||Compare incidence of Febrile Neutropenia to historical rate of 0.50 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of febrile neutropenia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.50.||0.1729||
91666438|NCT00354835|183226843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of platelet count decrease|0.1216|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1577||||||Compare incidence of Platelet Count Decreased to historical rate of 0.70 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of platelet count decreased will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.70.||0.1577||
91666439|NCT00354835|183226843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of vomiting|0.0405|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0623||||||Compare incidence of Vomiting to historical rate of 0.15 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of vomiting will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.15.||0.0623||
91666440|NCT00354835|183226843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of anemia|0.2798|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.3329||||||Compare incidence of Anemia to historical rate of 0.40 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of anemia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.40.||0.3329||
91666441|NCT00354835|183226843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of nausea or hepatopathy|0.0052|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0137||||||Compare incidence of Nausea or Hepatopathy to historical rate of 0.05 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of nausea or hepatopathy will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.05.||0.0137||
91859763|NCT01566695|183604949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.073
91859764|NCT01566695|183604950|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Raatio|0.77||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|1.30|0.54|0.560
91666442|NCT00354835|183226843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of febrile neutropenia|0.0881|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1216||||||Compare incidence of Febrile Neutropenia to historical rate of 0.50 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of febrile neutropenia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.50.||0.1216||
91666443|NCT00354835|183226843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of platelet count decrease|0.3264|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.3819||||||Compare incidence of Platelet Count Decreased to historical rate of 0.70 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of platelet count decreased will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.70.||0.3819||
91666444|NCT00354835|183226843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of vomiting|0.0104|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0224||||||Compare incidence of Vomiting to historical rate of 0.15 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of vomiting will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.15.||0.0224||
91666445|NCT00354835|183226846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The incidences of grade 3 or higher neutropenia, with or without fever between UGT1A1 Genotypes (6/6, 6/7, 7/7) were compared by the Fisher's exact test.||||0.99
91666446|NCT00354835|183226846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The incidences of grade 3 or higher diarrhea between UGT1A1 Genotypes (6/6, 6/7, 7/7) were compared by Fisher's exact test.||||0.036
91666447|NCT01968551|183226851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV was at least 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24. Alternative Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV is less than 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA\<50 copies/mL at Week 24.|Difference in proportion|5.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.001|-3.4|17.4|||Fisher Exact||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.001% confidence interval (CI) calculation was based on exact method. The exact CI was estimated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with standardized statistic.|||17.4|-3.4|0.23
91666448|NCT01968551|183226852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV was at least 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48. Alternative Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV is less than 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48.|Difference in proportion|18.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.001|3.5|33.0|||Fisher Exact||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.001% CI were calculated based on exact method. The exact CI was estimated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic.|||33.0|3.5|0.004
91666449|NCT06475729|183226855|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameters were analyzed using a fixed-effects model. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 2-sided 90% Confidence Interval is completely contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9853|1.0956||||||||1.0956|0.9853|
91666450|NCT06475729|183226856|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameters were analyzed using a fixed-effects model. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 2-sided 90% Confidence Interval is completely contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9564|1.0685||||||||1.0685|0.9564|
91859765|NCT01566695|183604951|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Raatio|0.72||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|1.78|0.29|0.480
91859766|NCT01566695|183604952|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.67||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|3.65|0.76|0.197
91859767|NCT01566695|183604953|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|2.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|5.57|0.82|0.121
91859768|NCT01566695|183604954|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|2.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|4.30|0.93|0.075
91859769|NCT01566695|183604955|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.58||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|3.29|0.76|0.222
91859770|NCT01566695|183604956|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|3.83|0.71|0.249
91904175|NCT02234284|183703306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.65|-.13|.20
91666451|NCT06475729|183226857|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameters were analyzed using a fixed-effects model. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 2-sided 90% Confidence Interval is completely contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9568|1.0678||||||||1.0678|0.9568|
91666452|NCT03922750|183226861|OTHER||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.01||||0.7542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.35|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, pre-trial insulin treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values were imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset was analysed separately and estimates were combined using Rubin's rules.||7.35|-5.33|0.7542
91859771|NCT01566695|183604957|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|2.03||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|4.48|0.92|0.082
91859772|NCT01566695|183604958|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.86||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|4.34|0.79|0.153
91859773|NCT01566695|183604959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91666453|NCT03922750|183226861|OTHER||Estimated mean treatment difference|7.88||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.93|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, pre-trial insulin treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values were imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset was analysed separately and estimates were combined using Rubin's rules.||13.93|1.83|0.0107
91666454|NCT01046084|183226888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|123.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123|86.5|
91666455|NCT01046084|183226889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.3|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120|89.3|
91666456|NCT01046084|183226890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|123.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123|92.5|
91666457|NCT03868631|183226914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||multilevel models for change|||Between-group differences at baseline were compared using independent t-tests. Multilevel models for change (MLM) were used to determine differences between groups over time for study outcomes. Age, sex, and number of sessions missed were included as covariates. Time and time by group interactions were examined. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23. Significance was set at p\<0.05.||||<0.05
91859774|NCT01566695|183604960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.046
91859775|NCT01566695|183604961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.134
91666458|NCT03867760|183226918|SUPERIORITY|The study was designed to detect a difference in pain intensity of at least 0.85 points corresponding to an effect size of 0.57 based on results from our pilot study. The sample size needed was 50 per group based on power of .80, alpha of .05.||||||0.809||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in addition to baseline pain medications in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in pain intensity than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.809
91666459|NCT03867760|183226919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in addition to baseline pain medications in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in pain interference than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.369
91859776|NCT01566695|183604962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.324
91859777|NCT01566695|183604963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.442
91859778|NCT01566695|183604964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.063
91859779|NCT01566695|183604965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.198
91859780|NCT01566695|183604966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.972
91859781|NCT01566695|183604967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.601
91859782|NCT01566695|183604968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.070
91859783|NCT01566695|183604969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.436
91859784|NCT01566695|183604970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.683|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.683
91859785|NCT05956002|183604990|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with applesauce (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.33|98.12|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2mg mini tablets in applesauce vs etrasimod 2mg clinical IR tablet mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||98.12|91.33|
91859786|NCT05956002|183604990|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with chocolate pudding (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.69|98.34|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in chocolate pudding vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||98.34|91.69|
91859787|NCT05956002|183604990|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with water (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|85.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.9|88.92|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in water vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||88.92|82.90|
91859788|NCT05956002|183604990|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with yogurt (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.76|96.84|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in yogurt vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||96.84|89.76|
91904176|NCT02234284|183703307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of exacerbations for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.07|-0.49|.13
91666460|NCT03867760|183226920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in anxiety than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.029
91666461|NCT03867760|183226921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in depression than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.236
91666462|NCT03867760|183226922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in fatigue than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.904
91666463|NCT03867760|183226923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in sleep disturbance than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.936
91666464|NCT03867760|183226924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention who experience a clinically meaningful improvement in pain intensity will not have a significantly higher pre-treatment treatment credibility and expectancy score than non-improvers.||||0.02
91859789|NCT05956002|183604991|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with applesauce (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.97|97.89|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in applesauce vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.89|90.97|
91859790|NCT05956002|183604991|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with chocolate pudding (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.41|98.2|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in chocolate pudding vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||98.20|91.41|
91859791|NCT05956002|183604991|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with water (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|85.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.43|88.55|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in water vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||88.55|82.43|
91859792|NCT05956002|183604991|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with yogurt (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.61|97.1|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in yogurt vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.10|89.61|
91859793|NCT05956002|183604992|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with applesauce (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.38|99.22|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in applesauce vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||99.22|90.38|
91859794|NCT05956002|183604992|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with chocolate pudding (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.59|97.04|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in chocolate pudding vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.04|88.59|
91859795|NCT05956002|183604992|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with water (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.35|91.31|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in water vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||91.31|83.35|
91859796|NCT05956002|183604992|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with yogurt (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.24|97.17|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in yogurt vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.17|88.24|
91859797|NCT04784559|183605003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.53||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors,|Plitidepsin 2.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.53|0.727|0.8751
91666465|NCT03395197|183226956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.627|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|0.777||1-sided|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, if hazard ratio \< 1, it indicates reduction in hazard rate in favor of Talazoparib+Enzalutamide compared to Placebo+Enzalutamide.|The following statistical hypotheses was tested to address the primary objectives: H01: HRrPFS ≥1 vs H11: HRrPFS \<1, where HRrPFS and HRrPFS+ are the hazard ratios (talazoparib in combination with enzalutamide vs. placebo in combination with enzalutamide) of rPFS based on BICR assessment in the all-comers population for Part 2 Cohort 1.||0.777|0.506|<0.0001
91859798|NCT04784559|183605003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.96||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 1.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.96|0.960|0.0625
91859799|NCT04784559|183605004|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.37||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 2.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.37|0.655|0.5945
91666466|NCT03395197|183226957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.447|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.61||1-sided|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, hazard ratio \< 1 indicates reduction in hazard rate in favor of Talazoparib+Enzalutamide compared to Placebo+Enzalutamide.|The following statistical hypotheses was tested to address the primary objectives: H02: HRrPFS+ ≥1 vs H12: HRrPFS+ \<1, where HRrPFS and HRrPFS+ are the hazard ratios (talazoparib in combination with enzalutamide vs. placebo in combination with enzalutamide) of rPFS based on BICR assessment in the DDR deficient population for Part 2 Cohort 2.||0.610|0.328|<0.0001
91666467|NCT03123874|183226975|OTHER|Linear mixed effects models testing the effect of pump set-up on the number of live aerobic bacterial counts. The fixed effect of interest will be pump set-up. Model will also be adjusted for infant feeding status (human milk only vs. human milk and complementary foods) and randomization schedule (which pump set-up went first).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.827||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Results were considered statistically significant at p\<0.05. No adjustments were made to p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of mean bacterial taxa in milk collected with own / sterile pump set-ups.|||||0.9
91666468|NCT03123874|183226976|OTHER|Linear mixed effects models testing the effect of pump set-up on the number of live aerobic bacterial counts. The fixed effect of interest will be pump set-up. Model will also be adjusted for infant feeding status (human milk only vs. human milk and complementary foods) and randomization schedule (which pump set-up went first).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||Results were considered statistically significant at p\<0.05. No adjustments were made to p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of mean Shannon Diversity Index in milk collected with own / sterile pump set-ups|||||0.3
91666469|NCT03123874|183226977|OTHER|Linear mixed effects models testing the effect of pump set-up on the number of live aerobic bacterial counts. The fixed effect of interest will be pump set-up. Model will also be adjusted for infant feeding status (human milk only vs. human milk and complementary foods) and randomization schedule (which pump set-up went first). Random effect was participant ID to account for multiple samples for each participant.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.95||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Results were considered statistically significant at p\<0.05. No adjustments were made to p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of mean bacterial counts in milk collected with own / sterile pump set-ups.|||||0.0003
91666470|NCT02578641|183226985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.56||Between-treatment comparisons were assessed using stratified log-rank test stratified by country and disease stage per randomization stratification.|Log Rank|Log-rank test of Hazards Ration equals 1, using Cox proportional hazards regression.|Hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression.|||1.56|0.91|0.1942
91666471|NCT02655224|183226999|SUPERIORITY|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|42.071|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.113|346.181|||Fisher's Exact Test||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo|||346.181|5.113|<0.0001
91666472|NCT02655224|183227000|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|29.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.555|239.478|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo|||239.478|3.555|
91666473|NCT02655224|183227001|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.069|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|||0.069|-1.050|
91859800|NCT04784559|183605004|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.7||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 1.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.70|0.827|0.3358
91859801|NCT04784559|183605005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.06||2-sided|p-value based on proportional odds model|Proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Adjusted Odds Ratio and 95% CI based on a proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 2.5 mg arm versus Control arm||2.06|0.604|0.7252
91859802|NCT04784559|183605005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.11||2-sided|p-value based on proportional odds model|Proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Adjusted Odds Ratio and 95% CI based on a proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 1.5 mg arm versus Control arm||3.11|0.920|0.0910
91666474|NCT02655224|183227002|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.201|27.112|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|||27.112|-3.201|
91666475|NCT02655224|183227003|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.605|19.709|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 29 to 56||19.709|1.605|
91666476|NCT02655224|183227003|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.784|34.955|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 57 to 84||34.955|2.784|
91666477|NCT02655224|183227004|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|27.609|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 29 to 56||27.609|1.071|
91859803|NCT03665597|183605016|OTHER|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio (GMR) = GM of Pembrolizumab 130 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.78||||||||0.78|0.68|
91714328|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.1842||95.0|-27.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-27.1|0.1842
91859804|NCT03665597|183605016|OTHER|GMR = GM of Pembrolizumab 165 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|GMR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.74||||||||0.74|0.64|
91859805|NCT03665597|183605017|OTHER|GMR = GM of Pembrolizumab 130 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.44||||||||0.44|0.36|
91859806|NCT03665597|183605017|OTHER|GMR = GM of Pembrolizumab 165 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.41||||||||0.41|0.34|
91666478|NCT02655224|183227004|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.794|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.603|62.88|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 57 to 84||62.880|2.603|
91666479|NCT02655224|183227005|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.574|0.745|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 1 to 28||0.745|-0.574|
91666480|NCT02655224|183227005|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.049|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 29 to 56||0.049|-1.190|
91859807|NCT05516147|183605039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Constructive Engagement mean of 0.85 for standard programming.|t-test, 2 sided|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Constructive Engagement mean of 0.85 for standard programming.||||<.01
91666481|NCT02655224|183227005|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.074|-0.012|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 57 to 84||-0.012|-1.074|
91666482|NCT02655224|183227006|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.507|19.839|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 1 to 28||19.839|-11.507|
91666483|NCT02655224|183227006|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.098|28.494|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 29 to 56||28.494|-3.098|
91666484|NCT02655224|183227006|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.554|26.745|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 57 to 84||26.745|-3.554|
91792439|NCT02047318|183462631|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALP levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|210.32||0.8863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.7|115.6||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALP levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||115.6|-100.7|0.8863
91859808|NCT05516147|183605040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Passive Engagement mean of 1.06 for standard programming.|t-test, 2 sided|A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Passive Engagement mean of 1.06 for standard programming.||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Passive Engagement mean of 1.06 for standard programming.||||<.01
91859809|NCT05516147|183605041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Other Engagement mean of 0.42 for standard programming.|t-test, 2 sided|A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Other Engagement mean of 0.42 for standard programming.||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Other Engagement mean of 0.42 for standard programming.||||0.06
91859810|NCT05516147|183605042|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Non Engagement mean of 0.40 for standard programming.||||<.01
91859811|NCT05516147|183605044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline score vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.81
91859812|NCT05516147|183605045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.20
91859813|NCT05516147|183605046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.83
91859814|NCT05516147|183605047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.320
91859815|NCT03811366|183605124|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||significance when p\<0;05|generalized estimated equation|generalized estimated equation with normal distribution and logarithmic link function||||||<0.001
91859816|NCT03811366|183605127|OTHER|||||||0.054||||||significance when p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Recurrence or worsening of cells in anterior chamber in ERG-stable and ERG worsening group.||||0.054
91859817|NCT03811366|183605128|OTHER|||||||0.478||||||17 eyes presented dark dots fluctuation during follow up in stable ERG group when compared to 5 eyes in worsening ERG group.|generalized estimated equation|Generalized estimated equation with Poisson distribution and identity link function supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes||||||0.478
91859818|NCT03811366|183605130|OTHER|9 (52.9%) eyes in ERG stable group x 4 (57.1%)eyes presented change in perivascular leakage during follow up (p=0.936).||||||0.936|||||||Generalized estimated equation|Generalized estimated equation with binomial distribution and logit link function, supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes;||Change in perivascular leakage in ERG-stable and ERG- worsening groups.||||0.936
91859819|NCT03811366|183605131|OTHER|||||||0.853||||||significance when p\<0.05|Generalized estimated equation|Generalized estimated equation with binomial distribution and logit link function, supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes;||||||0.853
91859820|NCT03811366|183605132|OTHER|||||||0.272||||||significance when p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.272
91859821|NCT03811366|183605133|OTHER|||||||0.983||||||significance when p\<0.05|Generalized estimated equation with bino|Generalized estimated equation with binomial distribution and logit link function, supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes||||||0.983
91859822|NCT02520063|183605144|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The primary analysis was of safety and included all patients who received at least one dose of the investigational regimen. The rate of adverse events was be estimated at the end of the study along with two-sided 95% exact CIs (Clopper-Pearson intervals).|||
91666485|NCT04227899|183227026|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
91859823|NCT05902793|183605167|NON_INFERIORITY|the non-inferiority margin is 20%|least square means difference|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|16.07|||||To establish non-inferiority the lower limit of the least square mean difference had to be \> -20%.|||16.07|-14.30|
91859824|NCT05902793|183605169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model had fixed effects of treatment arm, center and wound size||||||0.24
91859825|NCT03328702|183605235|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Repeated measures ANOVA, N=4|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in total pharyngeal transit time with the use of CPAP||||<0.05
91859826|NCT04674358|183605260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.14||||||||4.14|1.67|
91859827|NCT03703700|183605265|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5|||Chi-squared|||||1.50|1.01|0.042
91859828|NCT03703700|183605266|OTHER|||||||0.781|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.781
91859829|NCT03703700|183605267|OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.609
91859830|NCT03703700|183605268|OTHER|||||||0.528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.528
91859831|NCT03703700|183605269|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.880
91859832|NCT03703700|183605270|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.289
91859833|NCT03703700|183605271|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.860
91859834|NCT03703700|183605272|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.163
91859835|NCT03703700|183605273|OTHER|||||||0.197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.197
91859836|NCT03703700|183605274|OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.178
91859837|NCT03703700|183605275|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.549
91859838|NCT03703700|183605276|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.4|||Chi-squared|||||1.40|1.01|0.035
91859839|NCT03703700|183605277|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.37|||Chi-squared|||||1.37|1.01|0.034
91859840|NCT03703700|183605278|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.45|||Chi-squared|||||1.45|1.03|0.022
91859841|NCT03703700|183605279|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.68|0.707
91666486|NCT04227899|183227027|OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Farrington-Manning non-inferiority (NI)|||||||0.0019
91666487|NCT04227899|183227028|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91666488|NCT04227899|183227029|OTHER|||||||0.0081|||||||One-sided Chi-square test|||||||0.0081
91666489|NCT05151471|183227030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
91859842|NCT03703700|183605280|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.66|0.878
91859843|NCT03703700|183605281|OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Singleton||||0.564
91859844|NCT03703700|183605281|OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Twin||||0.417
91859845|NCT03703700|183605282|OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Singleton||||0.985
91859846|NCT03703700|183605282|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Twin||||0.157
91859847|NCT03703700|183605283|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||Chi-squared|||||1.78|0.65|0.789
91859848|NCT03703700|183605284|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.94|||Chi-squared|||||1.94|0.61|0.769
91859849|NCT03703700|183605285|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.45|||Fisher Exact|||||4.45|0.04|0.590
91859850|NCT03703700|183605286|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.04||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.39|||Fisher Exact|||||10.39|0.40|0.465
91859851|NCT03988634|183605345|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8546||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7307|0.9994|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: sac/val vs valsartan|||0.9994|0.7307|0.0492
91859852|NCT03988634|183605346|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.193||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.524|||unmatched pairwise win-ratio||A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of sacubitril/valsartan arm|||1.524|0.934|0.1578
91859853|NCT03988634|183605347|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.8346||||0.3563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5684|1.2255|||LWYY model||A rate ratio \< 1 indicates an effect in favor of LCZ696|||1.2255|0.5684|0.3563
91859854|NCT03988634|183605348|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.6249||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2496|1.5649|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.5649|0.2496|0.3155
91859855|NCT03988634|183605349|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the change|0.9316||||0.4766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7661|1.1329|||ANCOVA|||||1.1329|0.7661|0.4766
91859856|NCT03988634|183605350|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the change|0.8268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.91|0.76|<.0001
91859857|NCT03988634|183605350|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the change|0.8103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.89|0.74|<.0001
91859858|NCT03205800|183605360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.05
91859859|NCT04083235|183605361|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Stratified log-rank test||The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, region and liver metastases as per IWRS.|||0.99|0.70|0.04
91859860|NCT04083235|183605362|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.83|||Stratified log-rank test||The HR and 95% CI was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by baseline ECOG performance status, region and liver metastases as per IWRS.|||0.83|0.58|<0.0001
91859861|NCT04083235|183605363|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR, 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting by baseline ECOG performance status, region and liver metastases as per IWRS.|||1.69|0.95|0.11
91859862|NCT05034952|183605395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3914|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3914
91859863|NCT05034952|183605395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1266|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1266
91859864|NCT05034952|183605395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0097
91859865|NCT05034952|183605396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5476|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5476
91859866|NCT05034952|183605396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0825|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0825
91859867|NCT05034952|183605396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0036
91859868|NCT05034952|183605397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4712
91859869|NCT05034952|183605397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1635|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1635
91859870|NCT05034952|183605397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1158
91859871|NCT05034952|183605398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2882
91859872|NCT05034952|183605398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2344|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2344
91859873|NCT05034952|183605398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1724|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1724
91859874|NCT05034952|183605399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1343|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1343
91859875|NCT05034952|183605399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4501|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4501
91859876|NCT05034952|183605399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1009
91859877|NCT03761537|183605435|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|25.7||This endpoint was the first endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||25.7|2.5|0.018
91864510|NCT05485779|183617858|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.13||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.31|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 32.9. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.31|0.963|0.5506
91666490|NCT05151471|183227031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 72||||0.704
91859878|NCT03761537|183605436|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|21.4||This endpoint was the second endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||21.4|-2.0|0.106
91859879|NCT03761537|183605437|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.2||This was the third endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Treatment effect at each visit adjusted for baseline SCORAD interacting with each visit, prior CSA, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4).||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-4.2|-13.0|<0.001
91859880|NCT03761537|183605438|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-1.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4||This was the fourth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Treatment effect at each visit adjusted for baseline DLQI interacting with each visit, prior CSA, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4).||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-0.4|-2.6|0.009
91859881|NCT03761537|183605439|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|26.3||This endpoint was the fifth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||26.3|4.8|0.005
91859882|NCT03761537|183605440|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.3||This endpoint was the sixth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||25.3|2.9|0.014
91666491|NCT05151471|183227031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 96||||0.131
91666492|NCT05151471|183227032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 72||||0.954
91666493|NCT05151471|183227032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 96||||0.591
91666494|NCT05151471|183227033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 72||||0.513
91666495|NCT05151471|183227033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 84||||0.344
91666496|NCT05151471|183227033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 96||||0.142
91666497|NCT04230174|183227037|OTHER|Paired-t test baseline vs follow-up SUVR in white matter lesions of multiple sclerosis patients.||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91666498|NCT04230174|183227037|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired-t test baseline vs follow-up SUVR in perilesional white matter multiple sclerosis patients.||||0.018
91859883|NCT03761537|183605441|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|19.2||This endpoint was the seventh endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|HaenszMantelel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||19.2|-4.6|0.228
91666499|NCT04230174|183227037|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired-t test baseline vs follow-up SUVR in the thalamus of multiple sclerosis patients.|A general linear model using the FreeSurfer software was used to assess, vertex-wise, significant paired-wise SUVR differences in post vs pre ocrelizumab treatment in patients across the cortex. A clusterwise correction for multiple comparisons was also applied using a Monte-Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations (corrected P ≤ 0.05). The surface-based analysis disclosed three clusters of decreased 11C-PBR28 uptake in the right hemisphere (Fig. 4), including insula (p=0.0009), lateral orbitofrontal (p=0.03), and opercular/frontal inferior (p=0.02) areas after adjusting for multiple comparisons.|||0.047
91859884|NCT03761537|183605442|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-4.6||This endpoint was the eighth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted for baseline SCORAD in interaction with each visit, prior CSA use, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4)||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-4.6|-13.2|<0.001
91859885|NCT03761537|183605443|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-1.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||This endpoint was the ninth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted for baseline DLQI in interaction with each visit, prior CSA use, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4)||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-0.5|-2.7|0.005
91666500|NCT04230174|183227038|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs follow-up MTR in NAWM||||0.07
91666501|NCT04230174|183227038|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs follow-up MTR in cortex||||0.024
91666502|NCT04230174|183227039|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in cortical thickness after 1-year ocrelizumab treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis||||0.69
91666503|NCT04230174|183227040|OTHER|Wilcoxon related samples test||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon related samples test comparing baseline vs follow-up changes in white matter lesion volume of multiple sclerosis patients.||||0.64
91666504|NCT04998136|183227041|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|-10.7|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy Estimand. The primary endpoint was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from in-trial observation period.||-10.70|-15.28|<0.0001
91666505|NCT04998136|183227042|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-11.11|||MMRM|||Hypothetical Estimand. The primary endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM). All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or dose reduction, or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in MMRM with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from on-treatment observation period.||-11.11|-15.70|<0.0001
91666506|NCT04998136|183227043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|88.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.96|359.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand. The primary endpoint was analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from in-trial period.||359.61|21.96|<0.0001
91666507|NCT04998136|183227044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|253.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.41|1672.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothetical estimand. MMRM was used with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. The MMRM was performed on body weight (kg) and individual missing week 44 responses were predicted from the MMRM, each participant was then classified for body weight loss \>= 5% and analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from on-treatment observation period.||1672.57|38.41|<0.0001
91792440|NCT02047318|183462632|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALP levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-184.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|322.22||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-522.5|153.8||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALP levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||153.8|-522.5|0.22
91792441|NCT02047318|183462633|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALT levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|51.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.77||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|97.7||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALT levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||97.7|5.4|0.0307
91792442|NCT02047318|183462634|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALT levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|42.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|140.41||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.0|189.7||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALT levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point, as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||189.7|-105|0.4934
91792443|NCT02047318|183462635|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in AST levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant|Mean Difference (Net)|21.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.98||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|51.6||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in AST levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||51.6|-9.1|0.1571
91859886|NCT03761537|183605444|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.6||This endpoint was the tenth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||25.6|2.9|0.014
91666508|NCT03292458|183227074|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy outcome was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based linear mixed-effect model. The analysis included group, treatment, and treatment period as interacting fixed effects and subject as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient errors.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91792444|NCT02047318|183462636|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in AST levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|101.84||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.7|119.0||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in AST levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||119|-94.7|0.7815
91666509|NCT03292458|183227075|OTHER|The minimum and average efficacy (in % symptom change) of sodium oxybate versus placebo in improving symptoms compared to the baseline was determined using binomial logistic regression.||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Regression, Logistic|||The minimum and average efficacy of sodium oxybate vs. placebo in improving symptoms compared to the baseline were determined using binomial logistic regression.||||0.05
91666510|NCT03292458|183227076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|98.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91666511|NCT03292458|183227077|OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91666512|NCT03292458|183227078|OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.01
91859887|NCT02167867|183605482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t=+7.76||||<0.0001
91859888|NCT03420833|183605483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91666513|NCT03292458|183227079|OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.01
91666514|NCT01513239|183227080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-5.1||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-5.1|-16.4|<0.0001
91666515|NCT01513239|183227080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-9.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-4.3||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-4.3|-15.5|0.0003
91859889|NCT03420833|183605483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91859890|NCT03420833|183605486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
91859891|NCT03420833|183605488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91666516|NCT01513239|183227080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.8||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus MK-6072 + SOC|||4.2|-5.9|0.3718
91666517|NCT01513239|183227081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|5.2||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||12.2|-1.8|0.0722
91666518|NCT01513239|183227081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|21.4||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||21.4|7.7|<0.0001
91859892|NCT03420833|183605488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91859893|NCT05687916|183605490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.277|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|6.18||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||6.18|-6.67|=0.989
91666519|NCT01513239|183227081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-9.4||||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-2.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus MK-6072 + SOC|||-2.7|-16.1|0.9969
91666520|NCT01513239|183227082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-11.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-4.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-4.7|-19.0|0.0006
91859894|NCT05687916|183605490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.227|=|0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|8.72||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||8.72|-3.93|=0.916
91666521|NCT01513239|183227082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-6.9||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-6.9|-20.4|<0.0001
91666522|NCT01513239|183227082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|1.6||||0.6962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|8.0||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus MK-6072 + SOC|||8.0|-4.6|0.6962
91666523|NCT01513239|183227083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.9||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo +SOC|||4.0|-9.8|0.408
91666524|NCT01513239|183227083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||4.6|-9.2|0.517
91666525|NCT01513239|183227084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.2||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||3.5|-3.8|0.931
91666526|NCT01513239|183227084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||3.6|-3.7|0.997
91792445|NCT02047318|183462637|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in GGT levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|257.78||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.4|128.7||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in GGT levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||128.7|-136.4|0.9513
91792446|NCT02047318|183462638|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in GGT levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-56.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|356.88||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-431.2|317.9||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in GGT levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||317.9|-431.2|0.7133
91859895|NCT05687916|183605491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.656|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|2.92||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.|LS in LS Mean Difference denotes least squares.|||2.92|-3.57|=0.989
91792447|NCT02047318|183462639|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in total bilirubin levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.348||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.37||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in total bilirubin levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||1.37|-1.05|0.7839
91859896|NCT05687916|183605491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|=|0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|0.06||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||0.06|-6.18|=0.216
91859897|NCT03892616|183605524|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.3|115.3|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||115.3|82.3|
91859898|NCT03892616|183605524|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|183.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.0|217.4|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||217.4|154.0|
91859899|NCT03892616|183605524|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|114.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.5|136.6|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||136.6|96.5|
91859900|NCT03892616|183605524|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|66.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.5|79.5|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||79.5|55.5|
91859901|NCT03892616|183605525|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|60.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.3|65.5|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||65.5|55.3|
91859902|NCT03892616|183605525|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|71.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.6|78.0|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||78.0|65.6|
91666527|NCT01513239|183227085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||2.0|-0.8|0.328
91859903|NCT03892616|183605525|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|177.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.8|194.3|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||194.3|162.8|
91666528|NCT01513239|183227085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.3||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||0.7|-1.5|0.308
91666529|NCT01513239|183227086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||1.0|-1.0|>0.999
91859904|NCT03892616|183605525|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|152.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.5|167.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||167.7|139.5|
91859905|NCT03892616|183605526|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|60.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.4|65.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||65.7|55.4|
91859906|NCT03892616|183605526|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.2|77.6|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||77.6|65.2|
91859907|NCT03892616|183605526|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|175.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.8|192.2|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||192.2|160.8|
91859908|NCT03892616|183605526|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|150.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.9|164.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||164.7|136.9|
91859909|NCT03892616|183605527|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.8|61.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||61.7|51.8|
91666530|NCT01513239|183227086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||1.0|-1.0|>0.999
91666531|NCT01513239|183227087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.3|||||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||3.3|-4.2|
91666532|NCT01513239|183227087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.2|||||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||5.2|-2.7|
91666533|NCT00396162|183227094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91666534|NCT00396162|183227095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.31
91666535|NCT01911429|183227113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-8.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.7|||LS mean difference (SE)|||"The sample size was estimated to provide at least 85% power to reject at least one of the null hypotheses of no difference between placebo and lurasidone doses.~LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)."||-3.7|-12.4|0.0003
91666536|NCT01911429|183227113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-7.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-3.4|||LS mean difference (SE)|||"The sample size was estimated to provide at least 85% power to reject at least one of the null hypotheses of no difference between placebo and lurasidone doses.~LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)."||-3.4|-12.1|0.0006
91859910|NCT03892616|183605527|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|70.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.4|77.1|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||77.1|64.4|
91859911|NCT03892616|183605527|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|185.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|169.4|202.8|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||202.8|169.4|
91666537|NCT01911429|183227114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-0.47||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.22|||LS mean difference (SE)|||LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||-0.22|-0.73|0.0003
91666538|NCT01911429|183227114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-0.42||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16|||LS mean difference (SE)|||LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||-0.16|-0.67|0.0015
91666539|NCT05908162|183227173|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91666540|NCT05908162|183227174|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91666541|NCT05908162|183227174|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91666542|NCT05908162|183227174|OTHER||||||<|0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.02
91666543|NCT04442503|183227209|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.7|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-1.7|-6.3|0.0007
91666544|NCT04442503|183227210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.4|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-1.4|-5.4|0.0008
91666545|NCT04442503|183227210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.244||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.5|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 28||-0.5|-5.4|0.0203
91666546|NCT04442503|183227210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.277||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.0|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 45||-1.0|-6.0|0.0067
91666547|NCT04442503|183227211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-0.2|-0.9|0.0052
91666548|NCT04442503|183227212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|3.67||P-value are from a generalized estimating equation (GEE) for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 15||3.670|1.112|0.0209
91666549|NCT04442503|183227212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.534||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.812||P-value are from a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 45||2.812|0.837|0.1661
91859912|NCT03892616|183605527|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|158.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.3|173.9|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||173.9|144.3|
91859913|NCT03683719|183605572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models with an adjusted p-value \<0.025 were statistically sign. different from a flat dose-response model. Model: IGA-CHE TS = Treatment + Region + Baseline IGA-CHE.~Model selected: Emax model"|Multiple contrast test|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the IGA-CHE response rate at Week 16 and the dose administered, using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response curve.||||<0.001
91859914|NCT03683719|183605572|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.29|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|26.24||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||26.24|0.34|>0.05
91859915|NCT03683719|183605572|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|10.39||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||10.39|-10.44|>0.05
91859916|NCT03683719|183605572|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|42.64||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||42.64|13.8|<0.001
91666550|NCT04442503|183227213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.781||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|3.621||P-value are from a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 15||3.621|0.876|0.1110
91666551|NCT04442503|183227213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.083||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|3.915||P-value are from a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 45||3.915|1.108|0.0226
91666552|NCT04442503|183227214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.223|4.072|||MMRM|||Day 15||4.072|1.223|0.0089
91666553|NCT04442503|183227215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.3|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-0.3|-4.2|0.0235
91666554|NCT04442503|183227216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-1.7|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-1.7|-8.4|0.0034
91666555|NCT04442503|183227217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-1.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Core Subscale at Day 15||-1.2|-10.6|0.0151
91666556|NCT04442503|183227217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-1.3|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Anxiety Subscale at Day 15||-1.3|-10.2|0.0123
91666557|NCT04442503|183227217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-2.8|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Bech-6 Subscale at Day 15||-2.8|-14.5|0.0040
91666558|NCT04442503|183227217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-2.4|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Meier Subscale at Day 15||-2.4|-12.7|0.0041
91666559|NCT04442503|183227219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.649||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.5|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||1.5|-1.0|0.6912
91666560|NCT04442503|183227219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.874||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||-0.1|-3.5|0.0410
91666561|NCT04442503|183227219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.0|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||0.0|-3.7|0.0444
91666562|NCT04442503|183227219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 21||0.2|-3.4|0.0811
91666563|NCT04442503|183227219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.6|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.6|-3.3|0.1846
91666564|NCT04442503|183227219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 45||0.1|-4.0|0.0625
91666565|NCT00474058|183227249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55||||0.0002||95.0|-5.37|-1.73||No p-value adjustment was necessary, since a multiple test procedure in a hierarchical sequentially rejective manner for the primary variable was applied.|ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||-1.73|-5.37|0.0002
91666566|NCT00474058|183227250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.08|-2.45||No p-value adjustment was necessary, since a multiple testing in a hierarchical sequentially rejective manner for the primary variable was applied.|ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||-2.45|-6.08|<0.0001
91666567|NCT00474058|183227251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0301||95.0|-0.79|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||-0.04|-0.79|0.0301
91666568|NCT00474058|183227252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8842||95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||0.25|-0.29|0.8842
91666569|NCT02640235|183227257|NON_INFERIORITY|The logistic regression estimates are generated from predicted values of the fitted logistic regression model. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is greater than -10, Celstat is non-inferior to Surgicel. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is greater than 0, Celstat will be declared superior to Surgicel.|Difference in avg predicted proportion|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||-1.4|-15.6|
91859917|NCT03683719|183605572|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.56|44.67||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||44.67|14.56|<0.001
91859918|NCT03683719|183605573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||"P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models with an adj. p-value \<0.025 were statistically sign. different from a flat dose-response model. Model: Change = Treatment + Baseline + Region + Baseline IGA-CHE.~Model selected: Emax model"|Multiple contrast test|||"The secondary endpoint Change from baseline to Week 16 in HECSI score was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline in HECSI score at Week 16 and the dose administered, using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response curve."||||<0.0001
91666570|NCT02640235|183227260|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|13.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.1|-3.6|
91666571|NCT02640235|183227261|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.5|-12|
91666572|NCT02640235|183227262|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.3|-5.7|
91666573|NCT02640235|183227263|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.4|-3.9|
91666574|NCT02426918|183227265|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the low dose was confirmed if the upper bound of the CI was \< 15% and if non-inferiority was confirmed for the high dose.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|3.0||||||Treatment difference estimates and 95% CIs are calculated accounting for the randomization strata infection type \[cellulitis, noncellulitis\] according to a Mantel-Haenszel type risk difference estimator.||3.00|-11.42|
91666575|NCT02426918|183227265|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the high dose was confirmed if the upper bound of the CI was \< 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|8.38||||||Treatment difference estimates and 95% CIs are calculated accounting for the randomization strata infection type \[cellulitis, noncellulitis\] according to a Mantel-Haenszel type risk difference estimator.||8.38|-8.32|
91666576|NCT01322633|183227270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.93||||||Analysis was based on hazard ratio using Cox proportional hazard regression method adjusted for sex, age, cumulative PPI dose, total years of PPI treatment, diabetes, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and year of index date.||1.93|0.24|
91666577|NCT01322633|183227271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.4||||||Analysis was based on hazard ratio using Cox proportional hazard regression method adjusted for sex, age, cumulative PPI dose, total years of PPI treatment, diabetes, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and year of index date.||1.40|0.65|
91666578|NCT01322633|183227272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21||||||Analysis was based on hazard ratio using Cox proportional hazard regression method adjusted for sex, age, cumulative PPI dose, total years of PPI treatment, diabetes, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and year of index date.||1.21|0.93|
91666579|NCT02420353|183227273|OTHER|||||||0.0498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model||||0.0498
91666580|NCT02420353|183227274|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.7024|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7024
91666581|NCT02420353|183227275|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.135|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.135
91666582|NCT02420353|183227276|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.6836|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6836
91666583|NCT02420353|183227277|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.9271|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9271
91666584|NCT02420353|183227278|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.1576|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1576
91666585|NCT02420353|183227279|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.5586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5586
91666586|NCT02420353|183227280|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
91666587|NCT02420353|183227281|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.8573|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8573
91666588|NCT02420353|183227282|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0564
91666589|NCT02420353|183227283|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.7883|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7883
91666590|NCT02420353|183227284|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0901|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0901
91666591|NCT02420353|183227285|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.6292|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6292
91666592|NCT02420353|183227286|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.161|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
91666593|NCT02420353|183227287|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.4437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4437
91666594|NCT02420353|183227288|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.7325|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7325
91859919|NCT03683719|183605573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.41|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.82|-4.01||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-4.01|-22.82|<0.01
91859920|NCT03683719|183605573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.53|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|-0.02||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-0.02|-19.04|<0.05
91666595|NCT02420353|183227289|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.6291|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6291
91666596|NCT02420353|183227290|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.3332|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3332
91666597|NCT02420353|183227291|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
91666598|NCT02420353|183227292|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.4965|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4965
91666599|NCT02420353|183227293|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.1331|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1331
91666600|NCT02420353|183227294|OTHER|Mixed-model analysis||||||0.5251|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5251
91666601|NCT02420353|183227295|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.1064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1064
91666602|NCT02420353|183227296|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.4852|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4852
91666603|NCT02420353|183227297|OTHER|||||||0.7943|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7943
91666604|NCT02420353|183227298|OTHER|||||||0.0894|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0894
91666605|NCT02420353|183227299|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.0673|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0673
91666606|NCT02420353|183227300|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.0185|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0185
91666607|NCT02420353|183227301|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.6094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6094
91666608|NCT02420353|183227302|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.3279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3279
91666609|NCT02420353|183227303|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.2802|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2802
91666610|NCT02420353|183227304|OTHER|||||||0.1064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1064
91666611|NCT02420353|183227305|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0509|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0509
91666612|NCT02420353|183227306|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.1605|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1605
91666613|NCT02420353|183227307|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0357|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0357
91666614|NCT02420353|183227308|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0122|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0122
91666615|NCT02420353|183227309|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.5853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5853
91666616|NCT02420353|183227310|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.6288|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6288
91666617|NCT02420353|183227311|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.5022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5022
91666618|NCT02420353|183227312|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.7507|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7507
91666619|NCT02420353|183227313|OTHER|mixed effects model|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
91666620|NCT02420353|183227314|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.8581|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8581
91666621|NCT02420353|183227315|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0208|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0208
91714329|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.8269||95.0|-17.5|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.0|-17.5|0.8269
91864511|NCT05485779|183617859|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.13||||0.3653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.22|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 25.7. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.22|1.04|0.3653
91666622|NCT02420353|183227316|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.8581|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8581
91666623|NCT01149057|183227322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||Analysis was performed using paired sample t-test for change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91666624|NCT01149057|183227323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of L1-L4 T-scores||||0.3778
91666625|NCT01149057|183227323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by ANCOVA for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Total spine T-score||||0.1541
91666626|NCT01149057|183227323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by ANCOVA for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Total hip - left T-score||||0.7890
91666627|NCT01149057|183227323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7094|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by ANCOVA for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Femoral neck - left T-scores.||||0.7094
91666628|NCT01149057|183227329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91666629|NCT01149057|183227329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91666630|NCT01149057|183227329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 72||||<0.0001
91864512|NCT05485779|183617859|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.16||||0.2933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.31|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 27.7. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.31|1.01|0.2933
91666631|NCT01149057|183227329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 96||||<0.0001
91666632|NCT01149057|183227330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
91666633|NCT01149057|183227331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
91666634|NCT01149057|183227332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
91666635|NCT01149057|183227333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||Analysis was performed using paired sample t-test for change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91666636|NCT01149057|183227334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
91666637|NCT01149057|183227335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
91666638|NCT01149057|183227336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
91666639|NCT01149057|183227337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91666640|NCT01149057|183227337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91666641|NCT01149057|183227337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 72||||<0.0001
91666642|NCT01149057|183227337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 96||||<0.0001
91666643|NCT03790137|183227363|OTHER|The frequency of HWE for each patient was reported as episodes/day, as determined by dividing the total number of seizures experienced over a given time period by the number of days for which seizures were recorded. Paired t-tests were performed to compare each patient's baseline seizure frequency to their seizure frequency in the last month of treatment. Change in seizure frequency is reported as percent change from baseline. An alpha of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91666644|NCT03921554|183227392|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|0.9|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with AGS score as outcome and an indicator variable for 52 weeks. An exchangeable correlation structure was used to model intra-participant association of AGS scores. The model allowed for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis is that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in AGS is zero.~45 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 6 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants were included in the analysis."||1.2|0.5|<0.0005
91859921|NCT03683719|183605573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.56|-11.02||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-11.02|-29.56|<0.0001
91859922|NCT03683719|183605573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.82|-6.36||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-6.36|-24.82|<0.01
91859923|NCT03683719|183605574|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||<|0.05||||||"IGA-CHE TS was reached in less than 50% of participants, therefore the median time was not estimable.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||<0.05
91666645|NCT03921554|183227393|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (Day 673 - Day 0)|1.09|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model of AGS on day of treatment (modeled with cubic splines with knots at days 0, 84, 168, 336, 506, 673, and 1006). Goodness of fit criteria were used to select GEE model with AR(1) correlation structure.|We estimate change from Day 0 to Day 673 of treatment (Day 673 minus Day 0) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All participants are included in the analysis.||1.62|0.57|<0.0005
91666646|NCT03921554|183227394|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|2.2||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with GMFM-88 as outcome, with indicator variables for 52 weeks (vs. baseline) and cohorts B and C (vs. A); in addition, time by cohort interaction terms are included. The model allow for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in GMFM-88 is zero within cohorts.~35 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 15 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants are included in the analysis."||6.4|-1.9|0.295
91666647|NCT03921554|183227394|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|7.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|12.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with GMFM-88 as outcome, with indicator variables for 52 weeks (vs. baseline) and cohorts B and C (vs. A); in addition, time by cohort interaction terms are included. The model allow for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in GMFM-88 is zero within cohorts.~35 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 15 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants are included in the analysis."||12.0|1.9|0.007
91714330|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34||0.3319||95.0|-24.5|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.3|-24.5|0.3319
91859924|NCT03683719|183605574|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||>|0.1||||||"IGA-CHE TS was reached in less than 50% of participants, therefore the median time was not estimable.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||>0.1
91859925|NCT03683719|183605574|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||<0.0001
91666648|NCT03921554|183227394|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|0.26||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with GMFM-88 as outcome, with indicator variables for 52 weeks (vs. baseline) and cohorts B and C (vs. A); in addition, time by cohort interaction terms are included. The model allow for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in GMFM-88 is zero within cohorts.~35 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 15 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants are included in the analysis."||6.2|-5.7|0.932
91666649|NCT03921554|183227395|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (Day 3 - Day 0)|-8.76|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-5.81||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a QLS model of ISG on day of treatment and indicator variable for post-treatment. Goodness of fit criteria were used to select QLS model with exchangeable correlation structure.|We estimate change from pre to post treatment (Day 3 minus Day 0) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All participants are included in the analysis.||-5.81|-11.7|<0.0005
91666650|NCT03921554|183227396|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (day 335 minus day 0)|-0.11||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model of diary average score on day of treatment and indicator variable for post-treatment. Goodness of fit criteria were used to select GEE model with exchangeable correlation structure.|We estimate change from Day 0 to Day 335 (Day 335 - Day 0) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All participants are included in the analysis.||-0.04|-0.18|0.002
91666651|NCT02005562|183227464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.479
91666652|NCT02005562|183227465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6736|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6736
91666653|NCT02005562|183227466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2172|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2172
91666654|NCT02005562|183227467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4770
91666655|NCT02005562|183227469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0764|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0764
91859926|NCT03683719|183605574|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||<|0.01||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||<0.01
91902141|NCT04409353|183699270|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 60, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.42||||0.6328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.3||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.30|-2.13|0.6328
91666656|NCT02005562|183227470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.418
91666657|NCT02005562|183227470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.841
91666658|NCT02005562|183227471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.245
91666659|NCT02005562|183227471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.637
91666660|NCT02005562|183227472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||||||Mycophenolate Mofetil, Adapted Dose vs. Mycophenolate Mofetil, Fixed Dose at protocol biopsy at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.512
91666661|NCT02005562|183227472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718||||||Mycophenolate Mofetil, Adapted Dose vs. Mycophenolate Mofetil, Fixed Dose at protocol biopsy at Week 52.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.718
91666662|NCT02005562|183227474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.860
91859927|NCT05081583|183605575|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|0.96||||||The predefined no effect range was 0.80-1.25; that is, if the geometric mean ratio lay outside this range, a pharmacokinetic interaction was evident.||0.96|0.82|
91666663|NCT01863186|183227517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166|||||||Pattern Mixture Model|||Due to the amount of missing data a pattern mixture model (or Jump to Reference) was utilized. The SOWS-Gossop total scores were log transformed. Each subjects available data Days 1-7 were included. The datasets created by the pattern mixture model were analyzed using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures model that included fixed effects for treatment group, baseline, sex, study day (1-7), and treatment group-by-day interaction. The overall estimate for each treatment group were compared.||||0.0166
91666664|NCT01863186|183227517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Pattern Mixture Model|||Due to the amount of missing data a pattern mixture model (or Jump to Reference) was utilized. The SOWS-Gossop total scores were log transformed. Each subjects available data Days 1-7 were included. The datasets created by the pattern mixture model were analyzed using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures model that included fixed effects for treatment group, baseline, sex, study day (1-7), and treatment group-by-day interaction. The overall estimate for each treatment group were compared.||||0.0033
91666665|NCT04402489|183227550|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.35||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|38.12|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||Change from BL at Week 26 (DBT EOT) - lower dose||38.12|-18.52|0.496
91666666|NCT04402489|183227550|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.38||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|51.09|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||Change from BL at Week 26 (DBT EOT) - higher dose||51.09|-5.68|0.116
91666667|NCT04402489|183227551|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.44|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-0.44|-1.23|< 0.001
91666668|NCT04402489|183227551|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.03|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-1.03|-1.83|< 0.001
91714331|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.7552||95.0|-13.4|18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.5|-13.4|0.7552
91859928|NCT05081583|183605576|OTHER|The predefined no effect range was 0.80-1.25; that is, if the geometric mean ratio lay outside this range, a pharmacokinetic interaction was evident.|Cmax ratio (geometric mean)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.01||||||||1.01|0.85|
91859929|NCT05081583|183605577|OTHER||Half-life ratio (geometric mean)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.07||||||||1.07|0.93|
91859930|NCT05081583|183605578|OTHER||Renal clearance ratio (geometric mean)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.12||||||||1.12|0.84|
91859931|NCT05081583|183605579|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.15||||||||1.15|0.81|
91714332|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.0137||95.0|-36.3|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-4.2|-36.3|0.0137
91714333|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.1157||95.0|-29.2|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.2|-29.2|0.1157
91714334|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.04||0.3791||95.0|-22.9|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.7|-22.9|0.3791
91714335|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.39||0.1329||95.0|-29.2|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.9|-29.2|0.1329
91714336|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.7723||95.0|-13.6|18.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.3|-13.6|0.7723
91714337|NCT00676403|183320242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.0063||95.0|-38.6|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-6.4|-38.6|0.0063
91714338|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.1715||95.0|-0.15|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.85|-0.15|0.1715
91714339|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.7944||95.0|-0.43|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.56|-0.43|0.7944
91714340|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.1994||95.0|-0.17|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.83|-0.17|0.1994
91714341|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.3652||95.0|-0.27|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.72|-0.27|0.3652
91714342|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.0481||95.0|0.0|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.99|0.00|0.0481
91714343|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.2501||95.0|-0.21|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.80|-0.21|0.2501
91859932|NCT03924986|183605590|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.73|||||Estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method for tied events, with Arm B as the reference group. The analysis was stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|The null hypothesis to be tested is that progression-free survival (PFS) in Arm A is less than or equal to PFS in Arm B. This is compared against the alternative hypothesis, which posits that PFS in Arm A is greater than PFS in Arm B.||0.73|0.38|
91859933|NCT03924986|183605591|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.07|||||||Arm B was the reference group, and the odds ratio between arms was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|3.07|1.11|
91859934|NCT03924986|183605593|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.05|||||Estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method for tied events, with Arm B as the reference group. The analysis was stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|||1.05|0.51|
91859935|NCT03924986|183605594|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||||Estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method for tied events, with Arm B as the reference group. The analysis was stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|The null hypothesis to be tested is that progression-free survival (PFS) in Arm A is less than or equal to PFS in Arm B. This is compared against the alternative hypothesis, which posits that PFS in Arm A is greater than PFS in Arm B.||0.76|0.38|
91859936|NCT02907099|183605636|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91859937|NCT02907099|183605637|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91859938|NCT02815813|183605735|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GLMM|||||||<0.01
91859939|NCT02815813|183605736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GLMM|||||||<0.01
91859940|NCT02187003|183605740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.22|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards regression model with age group and genotype group as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio (Placebo/Rivipansel) and the corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI). A stratified log-rank test with age group and genotype group as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.||1.22|0.77|0.7944
91859941|NCT02187003|183605741|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards regression model with age group and genotype group as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio (Placebo/Rivipansel) and the corresponding 95% CI. A stratified log-rank test with age group and genotype group as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P- value.||1.19|0.77|0.7156
91859942|NCT02187003|183605742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.88|||ANCOVA|||The difference in medians (Rivipansel- Placebo) was estimated by the difference of treatment medians from summary statistics. The corresponding 95% CI was estimated by a bootstrap method with stratification for age and genotype groups. P-value was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on rank-transformed values using age group and genotype group as the stratification covariates.||0.88|-1.27|0.8520
91859943|NCT02187003|183605743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards regression model with age group and genotype group as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio (Placebo/Rivipansel) and the corresponding 95% CI. A stratified log-rank test with age group and genotype group as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P- value.||1.26|0.82|0.8593
91859944|NCT02187003|183605744|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.16|||ANCOVA|||The difference in medians (Rivipansel- Placebo) was estimated by the difference of treatment medians from summary statistics. The corresponding 95% CI was estimated by a bootstrap method with stratification for age and genotype groups. P value was from ANCOVA model based on rank-transformed values using age group and genotype group as the stratification covariates.||0.16|-0.13|0.9332
91859945|NCT02187003|183605745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-1.17||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|2.46|||Chan and Zhang|||P values and 95% CI for the difference in percentages were based on the exact method by Chan and Zhang.||2.46|-5.19|0.5349
91859946|NCT02187003|183605752|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.336||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.024|2.968|||Chan and Zhang|||||2.968|-10.024|0.3020
91859947|NCT02187003|183605753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.203||||0.5429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.379|5.104|||Chan and Zhang|||||5.104|-2.379|0.5429
91859948|NCT03648840|183605761|OTHER||||||<|0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-tailed, unpaired T-test||||<0.2
91859949|NCT05063994|183605762|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Chronocort to Cortef was declared if the 95% CI for the difference in biochemical response rates between the 2 treatment arms (Chronocort minus Cortef) was wholly above minus 15 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|48.9||One-sided non-inferiority. The Ge et al (2011) method was used to calculate the estimate, standard error, confidence interval and P-value for the treatment difference from the results of a logistic regression analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||||48.9|2.5|0.0003
91859950|NCT05063994|183605763|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of Chronocort to Cortef with respect to the dose response after 28 weeks of randomized treatment was declared if the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the 2 treatment arms (Chronocort minus Cortef) was wholly above zero, provided that non-inferiority of Chronocort to Cortef with respect to the biochemical response had been declared under the primary efficacy objective.|Treatment Difference|25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|47.3||One-sided superiority. The Ge et al (2011) method was used to calculate the estimate, standard error, confidence interval and P-value for the treatment difference from the results of a logistic regression analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||||47.3|3.3|0.012
91859951|NCT05063994|183605764|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of Chronocort to Cortef (with respect to the total daily dose after 28 weeks of randomized treatment) was declared if the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in means between the 2 treatment arms (Chronocort minus Cortef) was wholly below zero, provided that non-inferiority of Chronocort to Cortef in terms of biochemical response had been declared under the primary efficacy objective, and superiority of Chronocort to Cortef in terms of dose response has been declared.|Treatment Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-2.5||One-sided superiority.|MMRM|||||-2.5|-9.2|0.0005
91859952|NCT04490915|183605781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.433|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.802|-10.243|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference of Crinecerfont - Placebo|||-10.243|-23.802|<0.0001
91859953|NCT03149315|183605793|SUPERIORITY|Values for grouped data were reported as mean ± SD and were calculated using Graphpad Prism 7 software (La Jolla, CA), which was also used for generating figures and for statistical analyses. Changes in skin test area (wheal and flare) were analyzed at each time point (after 2 doses, 4 doses, etc) using Friedman tests for grouped analysis and Wilcoxon signed rank tests between pairs.|||||<|0.0001||||||The above p value reflects the statistical analysis of skin test area between baseline and 2 doses of ibrutinib.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Changes in skin test area at each time point were analyzed using Friedman tests for grouped analysis and Wilcoxon signed rank tests between pairs.||||||<0.0001
91859954|NCT03149315|183605794|SUPERIORITY|Changes in BAT were analyzed at each time point (after 2 doses, 4 doses, etc) using repeated measures ANOVA for grouped analysis and paired Students t tests between pairs. A p value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|||||<|0.001||||||The above p value reflects the statistical analysis of BAT between baseline and 2 doses of ibrutinib.|ANOVA|Changes in BAT were analyzed at each time point using repeated measures ANOVA for grouped analysis and paired Students t tests between pairs.||||||<0.001
91859955|NCT00667251|183605796|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|1.648|||Log Rank|||PFS at the time of Primary Analysis (IIT population)||1.648|1.133|0.0010
91859956|NCT00667251|183605796|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.484||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.204|1.829|||Log Rank|||PFS at the time of Primary Analysis (Central HER2+ population)||1.829|1.204|0.0002
91859957|NCT00667251|183605797|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1466|1.6422|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|PFS at the time of Final Analysis (IIT population)||1.6422|1.1466|
91859958|NCT00667251|183605797|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2251|1.8288|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|PFS at the time of Final Analysis (Central HER2+ population)||1.8288|1.2251|
91859959|NCT00667251|183605798|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0246|1.8549|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Overall Survival (OS) (IIT population)||1.8549|1.0246|
91859960|NCT00667251|183605799|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1181|2.2379|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Overall Survival (OS) (Central HER2+ population)||2.2379|1.1181|
91859961|NCT00667251|183605802|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7271|1.6389|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Central Nervous System (CNS) metastasis (IIT population)||1.6389|0.7271|
91859962|NCT00667251|183605803|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7144|1.6787|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Central Nervous System (CNS) metastasis (Central HER2+ population)||1.6787|0.7144|
91859963|NCT00667251|183605808|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.2586|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Response (TTR) (IIT population)||1.2586|0.8090|
91859964|NCT00667251|183605809|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9573|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7544|1.2148|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Response (TTR) (Central HER2+ population)||1.2148|0.7544|
91859965|NCT00667251|183605810|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1479|1.9251|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Duration of Response (DoR) (IIT population)||1.9251|1.1479|
91859966|NCT00667251|183605811|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1767|2.0666|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Duration of Response (DoR) (Central HER2+ population)||2.0666|1.1767|
91859967|NCT02995434|183605833|EQUIVALENCE|As reliable estimates of expected effect size were unknown, the study was powered to detect a medium effect (0.5 SD change), considered a reasonable clinically meaningful impact to obtain 80% power based on a repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA) with 2-tailed alpha of .05 model.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.3|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the reported daily pain experiences of participants during, or after exposure to VR immersive environments, overall and within four different VR immersive environments, compared to the equivalent applications experienced on a 2D computer screen.||-0.30|-3.86|
91859968|NCT02995434|183605833|EQUIVALENCE|As reliable estimates of expected effect size were unknown, the study was powered to detect a medium effect (0.5 SD change), considered a reasonable clinically meaningful impact to obtain 80% power based on a repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA) with 2-tailed alpha of .05 model|Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.37|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||2.37|-1.24|
91859969|NCT02995434|183605834|EQUIVALENCE|See section for primary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|3.95|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||3.95|-1.59|
91859970|NCT02995434|183605834|EQUIVALENCE|See section on primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|5.08|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||5.08|-0.55|
91859971|NCT02995434|183605834|EQUIVALENCE|See section on primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.42|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||3.42|-2.64|
91666669|NCT04402489|183227552|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used.|Incident rate ratio|0.76||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.16|||Refer to comments below:|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used for other method.||||1.16|0.49|0.199
91666670|NCT04402489|183227552|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used.|Incident rate ratio|0.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.84|||Refer to comments below:|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used for other method.||||0.84|0.36|0.006
91666671|NCT04402489|183227553|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.33|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.33|-0.62|0.55
91666672|NCT04402489|183227553|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.25|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.25|-0.72|0.343
91666673|NCT04402489|183227554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|2.007|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.007|0.323|0.642
91666674|NCT04402489|183227554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|3.336|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.336|0.598|0.431
91666675|NCT04402489|183227555|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.82|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.82|-0.08|0.072
91666676|NCT04402489|183227555|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.51|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.51|-0.4|0.252
91666677|NCT05223868|183227561|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose versus (vs) placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.002
91666678|NCT05223868|183227561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91859972|NCT02995434|183605834|EQUIVALENCE|See section on primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|5.48|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||5.48|-0.08|
91666679|NCT05223868|183227561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666680|NCT05223868|183227561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666681|NCT05223868|183227561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91859973|NCT02995434|183605835|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.5|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.5|-0.71|
91666682|NCT05223868|183227562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666683|NCT05223868|183227562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666684|NCT05223868|183227562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666685|NCT05223868|183227562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91904177|NCT02234284|183703308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.53||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|25.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.||Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.|Value is for mean distance (in meters) of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean distance in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|25.26|-8.18|.32
91666686|NCT05223868|183227562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666687|NCT05223868|183227563|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.002
91666688|NCT05223868|183227563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666689|NCT05223868|183227563|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.001
91666690|NCT05223868|183227563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666691|NCT05223868|183227563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666692|NCT05223868|183227564|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.021||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.021
91666693|NCT05223868|183227564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666694|NCT05223868|183227564|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.038||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.038
91666695|NCT05223868|183227564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666696|NCT05223868|183227564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666697|NCT05223868|183227565|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.003
91666698|NCT05223868|183227565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666699|NCT05223868|183227565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666700|NCT05223868|183227565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666701|NCT05223868|183227565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666702|NCT05223868|183227566|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.006
91666703|NCT05223868|183227566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666704|NCT05223868|183227566|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.009
91666705|NCT05223868|183227566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666706|NCT05223868|183227566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666707|NCT05223868|183227567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666708|NCT05223868|183227567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666709|NCT05223868|183227567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666710|NCT05223868|183227567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666711|NCT05223868|183227567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91859974|NCT02995434|183605835|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.89|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.89|-0.49|
91666712|NCT05223868|183227568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666713|NCT05223868|183227568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666714|NCT05223868|183227568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666715|NCT05223868|183227568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666716|NCT05223868|183227568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666717|NCT05223868|183227569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666718|NCT05223868|183227569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666719|NCT05223868|183227569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666720|NCT05223868|183227569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91666721|NCT05223868|183227569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91859975|NCT02995434|183605835|EQUIVALENCE|See comments in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.09|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.09|-1.19|
91859976|NCT02995434|183605835|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.57|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.57|-0.88|
91859977|NCT02995434|183605836|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.7|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||4.70|0.02|
91666722|NCT05223868|183227570|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.006
91666723|NCT05223868|183227570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666724|NCT05223868|183227570|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.005
91666725|NCT05223868|183227570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91859978|NCT02995434|183605836|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|4.39|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||4.39|-0.42|
91859979|NCT02995434|183605836|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.08|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||6.08|1.02|
91859980|NCT02995434|183605836|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.69|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||5.69|0.68|
91792448|NCT02047318|183462639|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in direct bilirubin levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.982||0.5298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in direct bilirubin levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||0.35|-0.66|0.5298
91666726|NCT05223868|183227570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666727|NCT05223868|183227571|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.317||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.317
91666728|NCT05223868|183227571|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.012||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.012
91666729|NCT05223868|183227571|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.038||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.038
91666730|NCT05223868|183227571|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.006
91666731|NCT05223868|183227571|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.011
91666732|NCT05223868|183227572|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.001
91666733|NCT05223868|183227572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666734|NCT05223868|183227572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666735|NCT05223868|183227572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666736|NCT05223868|183227572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91666737|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||=0.002
91666738|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||<0.001
91666739|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||=0.002
91666740|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||<0.001
91666741|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||<0.001
91666742|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.251||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.251
91666743|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.087||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.087
91666744|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.205||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.205
91666745|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.082||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.082
91666746|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.010
91666747|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.357||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.357
91666748|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.222||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.222
91666749|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.987||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.987
91666750|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.39||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.390
91666751|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.38||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.380
91666752|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.349||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.349
91666753|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.553||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.553
91859981|NCT02995434|183605837|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|0.98|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||0.98|-5.63|
91859982|NCT02995434|183605837|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|-0.48|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||-0.48|-7.35|
91859983|NCT02995434|183605837|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|2.62|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||2.62|-4.11|
91859984|NCT02995434|183605837|EQUIVALENCE|See comments in primary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.41|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method.|||0.41|-6.10|
91666754|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.318||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.318
91666755|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.207||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.207
91666756|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.117||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.117
91859985|NCT03400059|183605839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-0.49||"analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.~Group-sequential analysis using updated boundaries from interim analysis"|ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-4.11|0.0132
91859986|NCT03400059|183605840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.68||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse||||-1.04|-4.32|0.0014
91859987|NCT03400059|183605841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse||||-0.73|-4.06|0.0048
91859988|NCT03400059|183605842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.||||-1.20|-4.54|0.0008
91859989|NCT03400059|183605843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.||||0.06|-3.12|0.0598
91859990|NCT03400059|183605844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.||||-0.17|-3.63|0.0310
91859991|NCT03400059|183605845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0102
91859992|NCT03400059|183605846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1615
91859993|NCT03400059|183605847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0798|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0798
91859994|NCT03400059|183605848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1300
91666757|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.156||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.156
91666758|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.019||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.019
91666759|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.004
91666760|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.228||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.228
91666761|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.034||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.034
91666762|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.197||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.197
91666763|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.107||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.107
91666764|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.606||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.606
91666765|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.004
91666766|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.005
91666767|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
91666768|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
91666769|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||=0.005
91666770|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||=0.010
91666771|NCT05223868|183227573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
91666772|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.16||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.160
91666773|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.001
91666774|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.008||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.008
91666775|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.006
91666776|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.003
91666777|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.818||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.818
91666778|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.179||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.179
91666779|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.03||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.030
91666780|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.267||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.267
91666781|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.022
91666782|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.62||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.620
91666783|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.240
91666784|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.71||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.710
91666785|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.341||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.341
91666786|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.204||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.204
91666787|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.786||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.786
91859995|NCT03400059|183605849|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||posthoc|Van-Elteren|||||||0.0660
91859996|NCT03400059|183605850|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|||||posthoc|Van-Elteren|||||||0.0152
91859997|NCT04150718|183605857|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at \<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA, main effect of time, F(1,35) =4.73||||||<0.05
91666788|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.597||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.597
91666789|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.023||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.023
91666790|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.438||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.438
91666791|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.017||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.017
91666792|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.419||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.419
91666793|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.080
91666794|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.006
91666795|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.421||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.421
91666796|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.025||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.025
91859998|NCT04150718|183605858|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA, main effect of time, F(1,39) = 4.20||||||<0.05
91666797|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.470
91666798|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.023||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.023
91666799|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.002
91666800|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.040
91666801|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.001
91666802|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||=0.013
91666803|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
91859999|NCT04150718|183605859|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA interaction, F(1,48) = 61.849||||||<0.001
91666804|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||=0.004
91666805|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.038||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||=0.038
91666806|NCT05223868|183227574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
91666807|NCT05029687|183227576|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.337|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d1)||||
91860000|NCT02437318|183605860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.00065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85||(one-sided)|Log Rank|||||0.85|0.50|0.00065
91860001|NCT06074523|183605882|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing three conditions in a basic science experiment in healthy adults.|partial eta squared|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparing Cued Suppression Task; Positive, Negative, and Neutral Cue condtions||||<.001
91860002|NCT06074523|183605883|EQUIVALENCE|P\<.05 criterion|cohen's d|0.24||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing performance on target absent and target present trials||||.08
91860003|NCT06074523|183605884|OTHER||Slope|-0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5803|-0.1135|||correlation|||Relationship between Cued Attention Negative Cue Benefit (Neutral Cue RT- Negative Cue RT) and working memory capacity.||-0.1135|-0.5803|.007
91860004|NCT06074523|183605885|OTHER||Slope|-0.27||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5015|-0.002414|||correlation|||Correlation of Inattentive Traits subscale and learned suppression (difference in RT between target absent and target present trials)||-0.002414|-0.5015|.046
91860005|NCT04382404|183605911|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.15|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Maximum concentration of Velpatasvir in plasma was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean concentration (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 449.39 (77.12).||1.15|0.63|
91860006|NCT04382404|183605912|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.6|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Maximum concentration of Sofosbuvir in plasma was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean concentration (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 1226.16 (59.46).||1.60|0.88|
91860007|NCT04382404|183605913|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.67|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Maximum concentration of GS-331007 in plasma was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean concentration (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 1312.17 (32.55).||0.67|0.49|
91860008|NCT04382404|183605914|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.23|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Area under the plasma concentration versus time curve tau of Velpatasvir was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 3570.65 (72.04).||1.23|0.67|
91666808|NCT05029687|183227576|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.337|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d2)||||
91666809|NCT05029687|183227576|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d1)||||
91666810|NCT05029687|183227576|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d2)||||
91860009|NCT04382404|183605915|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.78||||||Area under the plasma concentration versus time curve tau of Sofosbuvir was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 1483.83 (66.43).|The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|1.78|1.06|
91666811|NCT05029687|183227576|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.065|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d1)||||
91666812|NCT05029687|183227576|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d2)||||
91666813|NCT05029687|183227576|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d1)||||
91666814|NCT05029687|183227576|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d2)||||
91666815|NCT05029687|183227579|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.846|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Teach an adult how to lower their high BP. (d1)"||||
91666816|NCT05029687|183227579|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Teach an adult how to lower their high BP. (d2)"||||
91666817|NCT05029687|183227579|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Teach an adult how to lower their high BP. (d1)"||||
91666818|NCT05029687|183227579|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.782|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Teach an adult how to lower their high BP. (d2)"||||
91666819|NCT05029687|183227579|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.643|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Encourage an adult to lower their high BP. (d1)"||||
91666820|NCT05029687|183227579|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Encourage an adult to lower their high BP. (d2)"||||
91666821|NCT05029687|183227579|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.724|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Encourage an adult to lower their high BP. (d1)"||||
91714344|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.5191||95.0|-0.33|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.66|-0.33|0.5191
91860010|NCT04382404|183605916|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.71||||||Area under the plasma concentration versus time curve tau of Sofosbuvir was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 15361.31 (22.35).|The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|0.71|0.55|
91860011|NCT04382404|183605917|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.25||||||The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 1474 (488, 4453) fmol /10\^6 cells in the nonpregnant cohort.|The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|2.25|0.91|
91666822|NCT05029687|183227579|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.683|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Encourage an adult to lower their high BP. (d2)"||||
91666823|NCT05029687|183227579|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Help an adult lower their BP. (d1)"||||
91666824|NCT05029687|183227579|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Help an adult lower their BP. (d2)"||||
91860012|NCT04382404|183605918|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.19|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 1474 (488, 4453) fmol /10\^6 cells in the nonpregnant cohort.||3.19|1.14|
91860013|NCT04382404|183605919|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.6|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 1474 (488, 4453) fmol /10\^6 cells in the nonpregnant cohort.||2.60|0.87|
91860014|NCT04382404|183605920|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.56|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in dried blood spots was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 647 (571, 723) fmol/punch in the nonpregnant cohort.||.56|.50|
91860015|NCT04382404|183605921|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.58|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in dried blood spots was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 647 (571, 723) fmol/punch in the nonpregnant cohort.||.58|.49|
91860016|NCT04382404|183605922|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.64|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in dried blood spots was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 647 (571, 723) fmol/punch in the nonpregnant cohort.||.64|.48|
91666825|NCT05029687|183227579|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Help an adult lower their BP. (d1)"||||
91860017|NCT03519581|183605989|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcome was analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test because the data was non-parametric.||||||0.76|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The target sample size for the study was 30 eyes, based on power calculations to achieve 80% power assuming 40% of sham-treated eyes will reach the vision loss threshold within 2 years, while SML treatment will reduce that value to 15%, using a 2:1 ratio for randomization (2 treatment : 1 sham).||||.76
91666826|NCT05029687|183227579|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.627|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Help an adult lower their BP. (d2)"||||
91666827|NCT05029687|183227581|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.457|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d1)||||
91860018|NCT03519581|183605990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.16
91666828|NCT05029687|183227581|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.691|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d2)||||
91666829|NCT05029687|183227581|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.841|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d1)||||
91666830|NCT05029687|183227581|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.451|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d2)||||
91666831|NCT05029687|183227583|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.763|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d1)||||
91666832|NCT05029687|183227583|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.266|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d2)||||
91860019|NCT03519581|183605991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.12
91666833|NCT05029687|183227583|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d1)||||
91860020|NCT03519581|183605992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.68
91860021|NCT03519581|183605993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.96
91860022|NCT03519581|183605994|SUPERIORITY|Two-tailed t-tests and mixed effects regression models||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.50
91860023|NCT01781468|183606003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9601|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9601
91860024|NCT01781468|183606004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7877|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7877
91860025|NCT01781468|183606005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3272|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3272
91860026|NCT01781468|183606006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9122|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline to Week 4||||0.9122
91860027|NCT01781468|183606006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8559|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline to Week 8||||0.8559
91860028|NCT04410042|183606040|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4000
91666834|NCT05029687|183227583|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d2)||||
91666835|NCT00874822|183227597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|24.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||"Ho: The Prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea in patients planning hip or knee arthroplasty will be no different using current screening techniques than it was in a historical control group.~The prevalence of OSA in the study population is hypothesized to be at least 10% higher than the best previous estimate of 6.7%. Employing a two-sided hypothesis test with α of 0.05 and power of 0.85 yields a sample size of 163."||24.4|13.6|<0.0001
91794267|NCT02821910|183467548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|101.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.58|108.38|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||108.38|94.58|
91666836|NCT02854800|183227599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A separate t-test for each row was used to compare dropouts and completers.||||<0.05
91666837|NCT02854800|183227601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||One-way ANOVA was used to compare mean medication side effect ratings across the three arms/groups to determine whether one group had more severe symptoms that may have been related to study dropout.||||<0.05
91666838|NCT02854800|183227604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||Mixed ANOVA was used with Study Week (1-12) as the within-subjects, repeated-measures factor and Group as the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
91666839|NCT02854800|183227605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||One-way ANOVA was used for each side effect rating with Group as the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
91666840|NCT02854800|183227606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||Data were analyzed via mixed ANOVA whereby Study Visit (1-4) was the repeated-measures factor and Group (weekly, biweekly, monthly) was the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
91666841|NCT02854800|183227608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||Data were analyzed via mixed ANOVA whereby Study Visit (1-4) was the repeated-measures factor and Group (weekly, biweekly, monthly) was the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
91666842|NCT01634139|183227617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.231|0.108|<0.0001
91666843|NCT01634139|183227617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.255|0.103|<0.0001
91666844|NCT01634139|183227618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.186|0.046|0.0012
91666845|NCT01634139|183227618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.188|0.048|0.0010
91666846|NCT01634139|183227618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.142|0.001|0.0477
91666847|NCT01634139|183227618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.170|0.029|0.0059
91666848|NCT01634139|183227619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.185|0.062|<0.0001
91666849|NCT01634139|183227619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.188|0.065|<0.0001
91666850|NCT01634139|183227620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.212|0.095|<0.0001
91666851|NCT01634139|183227620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.215|0.098|<0.0001
91666852|NCT01634139|183227621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose (Week 24)||0.186|0.046|0.0012
91666853|NCT01634139|183227621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose (Week 24)||0.188|0.048|0.0010
91666854|NCT01634139|183227621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.201|0.076|<0.0001
91666855|NCT01634139|183227621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.213|0.088|<0.0001
91666856|NCT01634139|183227621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (Week 24)||0.211|0.084|<0.0001
91666857|NCT01634139|183227621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (Week 24)||0.210|0.084|<0.0001
91666858|NCT01634139|183227621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.226|0.101|<0.0001
91666859|NCT01634139|183227621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.231|0.106|<0.0001
91860029|NCT04410042|183606041|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.4286|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4286
91666860|NCT01634139|183227621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.240|0.116|<0.0001
91666861|NCT01634139|183227621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.238|0.114|<0.0001
91666862|NCT01634139|183227622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.184|0.036|0.0036
91666863|NCT01634139|183227622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.165|0.018|0.0152
91666864|NCT01634139|183227622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.143|-0.005|0.0687
91666865|NCT01634139|183227622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.126|-0.022|0.1666
91860030|NCT04410042|183606042|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.9307|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.9307
91860031|NCT04410042|183606043|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.0714|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0714
91860032|NCT04410042|183606044|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.9004|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.9004
91860033|NCT05486078|183606068|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Hip abduction strength was analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. The assumption of sphericity was tested and Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons. A p-value \< 0.001 was considered statistically significant.||||0.001
91860034|NCT05486078|183606069|OTHER|McNemar Exact Test|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value derived from McNemar exact test comparing binary outcome (improved vs. unchanged). Statistical significance threshold set at p \< 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar Exact Test||MRI improvement was assessed using paired evaluation of inflammatory signs (edema) at baseline and Week 24. McNemar exact test was used for within-subject categorical comparison.||||< 0.0001
91860035|NCT05486078|183606070|OTHER|Friedman Test Within-group||||||0.992|||||||Friedman Test Within-group|||Analgesic use (units/week) was analyzed over time using the Friedman test for repeated measures. No significant variation across follow-up visits was found.||||0.992
91666866|NCT01634139|183227623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.171|0.013|0.0228
91666867|NCT01634139|183227623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.131|-0.027|0.1980
91666868|NCT01634139|183227623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.141|-0.017|0.1256
91666869|NCT01634139|183227623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.133|-0.026|0.1880
91666870|NCT01634139|183227624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.172|0.037|0.0023
91714345|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.0817||95.0|-0.06|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.97|-0.06|0.0817
91860036|NCT03978871|183606077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||<0.001
91666871|NCT01634139|183227624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.143|0.009|0.0255
91714346|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.1146||95.0|-0.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.90|-0.10|0.1146
91666872|NCT01634139|183227625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose (Week 24)||0.171|0.013|0.0228
91666873|NCT01634139|183227625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose.(Week 24)||0.131|-0.027|0.1980
91666874|NCT01634139|183227625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.150|0.006|0.0344
91666875|NCT01634139|183227625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.139|-0.005|0.0696
91666876|NCT01634139|183227625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (week 24)||0.182|0.037|0.0032
91666877|NCT01634139|183227625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (week 24)||0.132|-0.012|0.1044
91860037|NCT03978871|183606078|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.023
91860038|NCT03978871|183606078|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.034
91666878|NCT01634139|183227625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (week 24)||0.186|0.039|0.0027
91666879|NCT01634139|183227625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (week 24)||0.166|0.020|0.0130
91666880|NCT01634139|183227625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (week 24)||0.190|0.041|0.0025
91792449|NCT02047318|183462640|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in total bilirubin levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.505||0.8218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|5.24||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in total bilirubin levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||5.24|-6.31|0.8218
91666881|NCT01634139|183227625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.166|0.017|0.0156
91666882|NCT01634139|183227626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.051|-0.382|0.1349
91666883|NCT01634139|183227626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.008|-0.425|0.0588
91666884|NCT01634139|183227626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.065|-0.372|0.1675
91714347|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.0054||95.0|0.21|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.21|0.21|0.0054
91792450|NCT02047318|183462640|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in direct bilirubin levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.001||0.5549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.58||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in direct bilirubin levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||1.58|-2.62|0.5549
91860039|NCT03978871|183606079|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.0.5|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||<.001
91860040|NCT03978871|183606079|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.002
91860041|NCT03978871|183606080|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.227|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education). This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.227
91860042|NCT03978871|183606081|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.272|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect for accuracy (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education). This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.272
91860043|NCT03978871|183606082|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.217|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation involuntary dysregulation subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.217
91860044|NCT03978871|183606082|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.458|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation involuntary dysregulation subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.458
91860045|NCT03978871|183606082|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation proactive engagement subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.037
91860046|NCT03978871|183606082|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.107|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation proactive engagement subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.107
91860047|NCT03978871|183606082|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.369|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation cognitive avoidance subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects test.||||0.369
91860048|NCT03978871|183606083|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. An ROI mask was generated from left and right amygdala of the AAL1.V4 atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) for each voxel within the ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce a single value for each person. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.265||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = -1.12||||||0.265
91666885|NCT01634139|183227626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.017|-0.419|0.0709
91860049|NCT03978871|183606084|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. An ROI mask was generated from left and right amygdala of the AAL1.V4 atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative \> neutral) for each voxel within the ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce a single value for each person. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.96||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = -0.53||||||0.96
91860050|NCT03978871|183606085|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative reframe \> negative immerse) were extracted with MarsBaR from 15 ROIs in the FPN of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 30 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.76||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = -.3047||||||0.76
91860051|NCT03978871|183606086|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative \> neutral) were extracted with MarsBaR from 15 ROIs in the FPN of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 30 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.048||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = 1.998, p = .048||||||.048
91714348|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.3389||95.0|-0.26|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.76|-0.26|0.3389
91666886|NCT01634139|183227627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.012|-0.245|0.0749
91666887|NCT01634139|183227627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.013|-0.269|0.0305
91714349|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.5079||95.0|-0.33|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.67|-0.33|0.5079
91714350|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.0453||95.0|0.01|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.05|0.01|0.0453
91666888|NCT01634139|183227627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.004|-0.255|0.0581
91666889|NCT01634139|183227627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||-0.002|-0.260|0.0464
91666890|NCT01634139|183227628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.025|-0.217|0.1182
91666891|NCT01634139|183227628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.006|-0.246|0.0404
91666892|NCT01634139|183227628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.023|-0.221|0.1105
91666893|NCT01634139|183227628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.019|-0.224|0.0983
91666894|NCT01634139|183227629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.063|19.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||19.077|-2.063|0.1146
91666895|NCT01634139|183227629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.365||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.034|18.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||18.020|-3.034|0.1628
91792451|NCT02554279|183462651|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had at least 80% power, to demonstrate the non-inferiority of menotropin to recombinant FSH at 1-sided significance level of 0.025 with a -12% non-inferiority margin.|Absolute difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.1||||||Null hypothesis was defined as the difference between ongoing pregnancy rate of participants randomized and treated with menotropin and recombinant FSH, as ≤-12%.||12.1|-2.7|
91860052|NCT03978871|183606087|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.833|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.833
91666896|NCT01634139|183227629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.538|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.435||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.127|16.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||16.203|-5.127|0.3085
91666897|NCT01634139|183227629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.413||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.847|19.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||19.394|-1.847|0.1053
91666898|NCT01634139|183227630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.451||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.663|23.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||23.056|1.663|0.0236
91666899|NCT01634139|183227630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.427||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.497|24.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||24.794|3.497|0.0093
91666900|NCT01634139|183227630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.497||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.667|8.904|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||8.904|-12.667|0.7322
91792452|NCT02554279|183462652|OTHER||Absolute difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.9||||||||8.9|-6.6|
91792453|NCT02554279|183462653|OTHER||Absolute difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|11.3||||||||11.3|-3.8|
91792454|NCT02554279|183462654|OTHER||Absolute difference|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-19.2|
91792455|NCT00998764|183462674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 13||2.23|-0.74|0.324
91666901|NCT01634139|183227630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.481||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.578|14.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||14.929|-6.578|0.4463
91666902|NCT01634139|183227631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.039||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.775|2.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||2.299|-1.775|0.8008
91666903|NCT01634139|183227631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.875|2.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||2.208|-1.875|0.8731
91666904|NCT01634139|183227631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.058||0.7975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.803|2.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||2.346|-1.803|0.7975
91666905|NCT01634139|183227631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.656|1.498|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||1.498|-2.656|0.5845
91666906|NCT01634139|183227632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.113|-0.075|0.6932
91666907|NCT01634139|183227632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.029|-0.158|0.1741
91666908|NCT01634139|183227632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.118|-0.071|0.6250
91666909|NCT01634139|183227632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.080|-0.109|0.7597
91860053|NCT03978871|183606088|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.321|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) across self-reported affect on the SET task. This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.321
91666910|NCT01634139|183227633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.073|-0.122|0.6166
91666911|NCT01634139|183227633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.021|-0.173|0.1267
91666912|NCT01634139|183227633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.105|-0.092|0.9000
91666913|NCT01634139|183227633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.055|-0.141|0.3897
91666914|NCT01634139|183227634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.022|-0.262|0.0975
91666915|NCT01634139|183227634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|-0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.041|-0.323|0.0116
91666916|NCT01634139|183227634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.078|-0.208|0.3732
91666917|NCT01634139|183227634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.049|-0.236|0.1985
91666918|NCT01634139|183227636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.316|0.035|0.0144
91666919|NCT01634139|183227636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.267|-0.013|0.0747
91666920|NCT01634139|183227636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.7654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.120|-0.163|0.7654
91666921|NCT01634139|183227636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.158|-0.124|0.8082
91666922|NCT01634139|183227637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.341|0.009|0.0392
91666923|NCT01634139|183227637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.292|-0.039|0.1351
91666924|NCT01634139|183227637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.149|-0.185|0.8291
91666925|NCT01634139|183227637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.9655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.171|-0.163|0.9655
91666926|NCT01634139|183227638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.343|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.343|0.039|0.0139
91666927|NCT01634139|183227638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.276|-0.026|0.1043
91666928|NCT01634139|183227638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.187|-0.118|0.6547
91666929|NCT01634139|183227638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.222|-0.082|0.3648
91714351|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.1622||95.0|-0.15|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.86|-0.15|0.1622
91714352|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.0003||95.0|0.45|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.48|0.45|0.0003
91714353|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0383||95.0|0.03|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.05|0.03|0.0383
91714354|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.4495||95.0|-0.31|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.69|-0.31|0.4495
91860054|NCT03978871|183606089|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) for fixed emotion mindset scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.002
91792456|NCT00998764|183462674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 26||1.92|-1.33|0.723
91792457|NCT00998764|183462674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 39||1.89|-1.81|0.966
91666930|NCT01634139|183227639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.312|0.020|0.0256
91666931|NCT01634139|183227639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.286|-0.004|0.0561
91666932|NCT01634139|183227639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.085|-0.208|0.4127
91666933|NCT01634139|183227639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.156|-0.136|0.8922
91666934|NCT01634139|183227641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.7931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.061|-0.080|0.7931
91666935|NCT01634139|183227641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.005|-0.145|0.0369
91666936|NCT01634139|183227641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.041|-0.101|0.4086
91666937|NCT01634139|183227641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.4714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.045|-0.097|0.4714
91792458|NCT00998764|183462674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 52||1.92|-1.93|0.996
91792459|NCT00998764|183462674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 78||1.26|-3.67|0.336
91666938|NCT01634139|183227642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.092|-0.091|0.9880
91666939|NCT01634139|183227642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.010|-0.173|0.0794
91666940|NCT01634139|183227642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.2623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.040|-0.145|0.2623
91666941|NCT01634139|183227642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.040|-0.136|0.3552
91714355|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.0135||95.0|0.14|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.17|0.14|0.0135
91714356|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.1423||95.0|-0.13|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.87|-0.13|0.1423
91714357|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0035||95.0|0.25|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.27|0.25|0.0035
91714358|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0125||95.0|0.14|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.17|0.14|0.0125
91714359|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.8021||95.0|-0.44|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.56|-0.44|0.8021
91860055|NCT03978871|183606089|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on fixed emotion mindset scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons included as a covariate.||||0.005
91860056|NCT03978871|183606090|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.033|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on fixed emotion mindset scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||.033
91714360|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0249||95.0|0.08|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.13|0.08|0.0249
91714361|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.3383||95.0|-0.26|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.75|-0.26|0.3383
91792460|NCT00998764|183462675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 13||0.79|-1.11|0.737
91860057|NCT03978871|183606091|SUPERIORITY|Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.403|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.403
91792461|NCT00998764|183462675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 26||0.40|-1.76|0.213
91860058|NCT03978871|183606091|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.190
91792462|NCT00998764|183462675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 39||0.38|-2.19|0.168
91792463|NCT00998764|183462675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 52||0.48|-2.30|0.197
91792464|NCT00998764|183462675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 78||0.06|-4.21|0.044
91714362|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0001||95.0|0.55|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.57|0.55|0.0001
91714363|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0133||95.0|0.14|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.17|0.14|0.0133
91714364|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.382||95.0|-0.28|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.73|-0.28|0.3820
91666942|NCT01634139|183227643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.4359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.058|-0.135|0.4359
91666943|NCT01634139|183227643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.037|-0.155|0.2293
91666944|NCT01634139|183227643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.088|-0.108|0.8372
91714365|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0053||95.0|0.23|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.28|0.23|0.0053
91714366|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.3258||95.0|-0.25|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.76|-0.25|0.3258
91714367|NCT00676403|183320243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0005||95.0|0.41|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.43|0.41|0.0005
91714368|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1429||95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.0|0.1429
91792465|NCT00998764|183462676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 13||0.33|-6.30|0.077
91666945|NCT01634139|183227643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.046|-0.148|0.3022
91666946|NCT01634139|183227644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.060|-0.122|0.5004
91666947|NCT01634139|183227644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.1982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.031|-0.149|0.1982
91666948|NCT01634139|183227644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.8019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.080|-0.103|0.8019
91792466|NCT00998764|183462676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 26||0.67|-6.02|0.117
91792467|NCT00998764|183462676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 39||0.19|-7.38|0.063
91792468|NCT00998764|183462676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 52||2.44|-5.95|0.412
91792469|NCT00998764|183462676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|2.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 78||2.73|-8.28|0.321
91860059|NCT03978871|183606092|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.784||||||degrees of freedom = 1.|ANOVA|||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.784
91860060|NCT03978871|183606092|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.586|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.586
91860061|NCT03978871|183606093|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.916|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.916
91860062|NCT03978871|183606093|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.343|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.343
91666949|NCT01634139|183227644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.4872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.059|-0.123|0.4872
91666950|NCT01634139|183227645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.048|-0.135|0.3498
91666951|NCT01634139|183227645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.015|-0.196|0.0222
91666952|NCT01634139|183227645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.080|-0.104|0.7990
91666953|NCT01634139|183227645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.057|-0.126|0.4586
91666954|NCT01634139|183227646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.065|-0.156|0.4221
91860063|NCT03978871|183606094|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.048
91666955|NCT01634139|183227646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.017|-0.204|0.0959
91666956|NCT01634139|183227646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.9627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.114|-0.109|0.9627
91666957|NCT01634139|183227646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.058|-0.165|0.3457
91666958|NCT01634139|183227647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.3375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.125|-0.043|0.3375
91666959|NCT01634139|183227647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.121|-0.047|0.3880
91666960|NCT01634139|183227647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.104|-0.066|0.6541
91666961|NCT01634139|183227647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.5089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.133|-0.056|0.5089
91860064|NCT03978871|183606094|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.153|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lesson was included as a covariate.||||0.153
91860065|NCT03978871|183606095|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.566|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD proactive engagement scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.566
91666962|NCT02627963|183227661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.94||A one-sided, log-rank test stratified for IMDC risk category and prior therapy (two VEGFR TKIs vs. a checkpoint inhibitor plus a VEGFR TKI vs. a VEGFR TKI plus any other systemic agent) at a significance level of α = 0.025 was used.|Log Rank|||||0.94|0.56|0.0165
91666963|NCT02627963|183227662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.75|0.8174
91666964|NCT03068780|183227746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.3||P-value adjusted with CHW method using CMH test statistics based on a test stratified by EB subtype and target wound size class estimated separately before and after the interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.Threshold of superiority p\<0.05.|Cui, Hung, Wang (CHW) approach|Primary efficacy endpoint was first assessed with the CMH test, but the final statistical analysis was performed based on the CHW approach.|The CMH test statistic from the data until the interim analysis (IA) and the CMH test statistic of the data after the IA must be calculated separately. The results are then combined using the CHW weighted approach to one test-statistic.|||3.30|1.02|0.013
91666965|NCT03068780|183227747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302||||||Threshold of superiority is p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.302
91666966|NCT00840658|183227793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for the Ciudad Juarez site and it corresponds to the interaction between group (Intervention vs. Control) and study visit (12-months vs. baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the intervention and the control group with respect to the change in the odds of higher receptive needle sharing. (i.e., The interaction between study visit (baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-months) and intervention group will be significant at 0.05 significance level. Over time, the intervention group will experience a significant decline in receptive needle sharing but the control group will not.)|To examine the receptive needle sharing outcome, we used ordinal logistic regression for correlated data via GEE with the correlation matrix estimated empirically from the data. The final analyses were stratified by site. The final ordinal logistic regression models included the following main effects: Group, Visit, and Visit\*Group interaction, with our primary interest in the Visit\*Group interaction, as a significant p-value would be indicative of an intervention effect.|||0.036
91692039|NCT02174627|183278569|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the HR was ≤1.0.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.31|||Regression, Cox|||Treatments were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model, with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables used as covariates, and treatment group, CV history and geographic region as fixed effects. The Efron method was used for ties and p-values were calculated using the Wald test.||0.31|0.23|<0.001
91714369|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0547||95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.0|-1.2|0.0547
91792470|NCT00998764|183462677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 13||1.09|-3.24|0.329
91860066|NCT03978871|183606095|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.048
91792471|NCT00998764|183462677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 26||1.92|-3.31|0.601
91792472|NCT00998764|183462677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 39||1.56|-4.67|0.328
91792473|NCT00998764|183462677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 52||4.13|-2.70|0.680
91860067|NCT03978871|183606095|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.266|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.266
91666967|NCT00840658|183227794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for the Ciudad Juarez site and it corresponds to the interaction between group (Intervention vs. Control) and study visit (12-months vs. baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the intervention and the control group with respect to the change in the mean score IRI (i.e., The interaction between study visit (baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-months) and intervention group will be significant at 0.05 significance level. Over time, the intervention group will experience a significant decline in the IRI but the control group will not.)|We used gamma regression for correlated data via GEE, with the correlation matrix estimated empirically from the data. The final analyses were stratified by site. The final gamma regression models included the following main effects: Group, Visit, and Visit\*Group interaction, with our primary interest in the Visit\*Group interaction, as a significant p-value would be indicative of an intervention effect.|||0.013
91666968|NCT05109104|183227805|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|Labeled SPF|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91666969|NCT05109104|183227805|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|Labeled SPF|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91666970|NCT05109104|183227805|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|Labeled SPF|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91792474|NCT00998764|183462677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 78||4.77|-5.05|0.954
91792475|NCT00998764|183462678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in NPI score at week 26.||2.62|-2.40|0.931
91792476|NCT00998764|183462678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in NPI score at week 52.||1.67|-3.26|0.524
91792477|NCT00998764|183462678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in NPI score at week 78.||2.27|-6.32|0.353
91792478|NCT00998764|183462679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at week 26.||1.51|-2.92|0.531
91792479|NCT00998764|183462679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at week 52.||0.59|-4.28|0.137
91792480|NCT00998764|183462679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at week 78.||0.96|-7.60|0.128
91714370|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0095||95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.2|-1.4|0.0095
91666971|NCT00834561|183227848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.14||||||90.0|99.99|108.47|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.47|99.99|
91666972|NCT00834561|183227849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.07||||||90.0|101.33|106.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.89|101.33|
91666973|NCT00834561|183227850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|103.68||||||90.0|101.42|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.00|101.42|
91860068|NCT03978871|183606095|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.402|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD disengagement scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.402
91792481|NCT00998764|183462680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.||0.63|-0.49|0.811
91860069|NCT03978871|183606096|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.363|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD proactive engagement from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.363
91860070|NCT03978871|183606096|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.363|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.363
91666974|NCT00672984|183227858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||||90.0|-4.52|-0.34||||||||-0.34|-4.52|
91666975|NCT00672984|183227858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.87||||||90.0|11.45|16.29||||||||16.29|11.45|
91666976|NCT00672984|183227859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.08||||||90.0|-11.37|-4.78||||||||-4.78|-11.37|
91666977|NCT00672984|183227859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.13||||||90.0|9.33|16.93||||||||16.93|9.33|
91666978|NCT00672984|183227860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||||90.0|-1.07|3.03||||||||3.03|-1.07|
91666979|NCT00672984|183227860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11||||||90.0|8.97|13.24||||||||13.24|8.97|
91666980|NCT00672984|183227861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64||||||90.0|-0.99|4.27||||||||4.27|-0.99|
91666981|NCT00672984|183227861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8||||||90.0|7.63|13.97||||||||13.97|7.63|
91666982|NCT00672984|183227862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76||||||90.0|-8.01|-5.51||||||||-5.51|-8.01|
91666983|NCT00672984|183227862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.73||||||90.0|3.08|6.38||||||||6.38|3.08|
91666984|NCT00672984|183227863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.85||||||90.0|-21.92|-17.78||||||||-17.78|-21.92|
91666985|NCT00672984|183227863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.44||||||90.0|1.77|5.11||||||||5.11|1.77|
91666986|NCT00672984|183227864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.32||||||90.0|11.75|18.89||||||||18.89|11.75|
91666987|NCT00672984|183227864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||||90.0|-2.77|4.63||||||||4.63|-2.77|
91666988|NCT00672984|183227865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.85||||||90.0|44.71|54.98||||||||54.98|44.71|
91666989|NCT00672984|183227865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||||90.0|-0.41|7.66||||||||7.66|-0.41|
91792482|NCT00998764|183462680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.||0.69|-0.45|0.681
91792483|NCT00998764|183462680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.||0.72|-0.51|0.742
91792484|NCT00998764|183462680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.||0.83|-0.48|0.598
91792485|NCT00998764|183462680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.||0.77|-0.85|0.922
91792486|NCT00998764|183462681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.||0.90|-0.08|0.099
91792487|NCT00998764|183462681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.||1.01|-0.07|0.089
91792488|NCT00998764|183462681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.||1.08|-0.17|0.152
91692040|NCT02174627|183278570|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the HR was ≤1.0.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.44|||Regression, Cox|||Treatments were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model, with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables used as covariates, and treatment group, CV history and geographic region as fixed effects. The Efron method was used for ties and p-values were calculated using the Wald test.||0.44|0.30|<0.001
91792489|NCT00998764|183462681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.||1.25|-0.21|0.160
91792490|NCT00998764|183462681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.||1.26|-0.73|0.603
91860071|NCT03978871|183606096|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.583|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.583
91666990|NCT00270634|183227877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined holding the probability of a type-I error at a = 0.05, and the power at 0.76. The rate of BPAR at 6 months posttransplant was assumed to be 0.20 in the control arm, and the noninferiority margin was chosen to be -0.15. A sample size for this phase-2b trial is determined to be 76 subjects in each dose group or a total of 304 patients. Assuming a 10% dropout rate during the study, ∼332 subjects were to be proportionally randomized in this study.|Weighted Average Difference|-3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.3|||t-test, 1 sided||The upper bound of the confidence interval was a measure of non-inferiority of VCS to TAC. VCS was considered non-inferior to TAC if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound was less than 15%.|The 6-month BPAR rate was used to calculate an estimate of the difference in rates between each VCS group and TAC, combining across pooled investigative center strata, weighted by the number of patients in each of the pooled center strata. The overall standard error was estimated for the linear combination of proportions. Using this statistic and its standard error, the upper bound one-sided 95% C.I. was constructed for the difference in BPAR rates between groups (VCS - TAC).||1.3||
91666991|NCT00270634|183227877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined holding the probability of a type-I error at a = 0.05, and the power at 0.76. The rate of BPAR at 6 months posttransplant was assumed to be 0.20 in the control arm, and the noninferiority margin was chosen to be -0.15. A sample size for this phase-2b trial is determined to be 76 subjects in each dose group or a total of 304 patients. Assuming a 10% dropout rate during the study, ∼332 subjects were to be proportionally randomized in this study.|Weighted Average Difference|4.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.8|||t-test, 1 sided||The upper bound of the confidence interval was a measure of non-inferiority of VCS to TAC. VCS was considered non-inferior to TAC if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound was less than 15%.|||10.8||
91666992|NCT00270634|183227877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined holding the probability of a type-I error at a = 0.05, and the power at 0.76. The rate of BPAR at 6 months posttransplant was assumed to be 0.20 in the control arm, and the noninferiority margin was chosen to be -0.15. A sample size for this phase-2b trial is determined to be 76 subjects in each dose group or a total of 304 patients. Assuming a 10% dropout rate during the study, ∼332 subjects were to be proportionally randomized in this study.|Weighted Average Difference|4.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.4|||t-test, 1 sided||The upper bound of the confidence interval was a measure of non-inferiority of VCS to TAC. VCS was considered non-inferior to TAC if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound was less than 15%.|||11.4||
91692041|NCT02174627|183278571|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MMRM analysis.||0.99|-0.11|0.120
91666993|NCT00573313|183227885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means at 24 weeks.|0.1505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1615||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1853|0.4863||The data provided here are for changes in serum AST levels as representative of all clinical laboratory parameters measured.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance controlled for baseline data, e.g. AST.|Obtained median values and ranges and log transformations of SD.|Power calculation indicated that a sample size of 20 subjects per treatment arm would detect differences between groups of 0.9 within-subject standard deviations or higher at 80% power and 5% level of significance.||0.4863|-0.1853|0.36
91666994|NCT00835588|183227886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|88.8||||||90.0|82.7|95.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||95.4|82.7|
91666995|NCT00835588|183227887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.3||||||90.0|93.4|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|93.4|
91666996|NCT00835588|183227888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.6||||||90.0|91.6|99.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.8|91.6|
91666997|NCT01597791|183227906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Calculated.|Fisher Exact|||||||.05
91666998|NCT00354159|183227913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-month survival rate|90.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.7|||The survival estimate at 6-months post-implant was compared to 80%. The comparison was made using the cumulative hazard \[e.g. log survival estimate\] for the variance.|Survival estimate at 6-months|The survival estimate at 6-months post-implant was compared to 80%.||"Null hypothesis: Freedom from Chronicle system-related complications at 6-months post-implant is less than or equal to 80%.~Alternative hypothesis: Freedom from Chronicle system-related complications at 6-months is greater than 80%."|||87.7|<0.001
91666999|NCT00354159|183227915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.61||The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model for multiple events.|Andersen-Gill||Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm.|"The study was originally powered at 80% to detect a 25% risk reduction between the treatment arm and control arm with a type I error rate of 0.05. Under these assumptions 648 HF-related events from approximately 1300 subjects were required. The study stopped after 400 were randomized.~Null Hypothesis: The HF-related event rate is the same between the treatment arm and control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The HF-related event rate between the treatment arm and control arm is different."||1.61|0.61|0.978
91667000|NCT00354159|183227916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null Hypothesis: mu(Treatment) = mu(Control) Alternative Hypothesis: mu(Treatment) ne mu(Control)~where mu is the percentage of hospitalized days for heart failure."||||0.574
91667001|NCT00354159|183227917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.28||The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model for multiple events.|Andersen-Gill Model||Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm.|"Null Hypothesis: The CV-related event rate is the same between the treatment arm and control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The CV-related event rate between the treatment arm and control arm is different."||1.28|0.62|0.527
91667002|NCT00354159|183227918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.32|||Regression, Cox|The treatment and control hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated using a univariate cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm|"Null Hypothesis: Freedom from death or HF-related hospitalization is the same between the treatment arm and the control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: Freedom from death or HF-related hospitalization is different between the treatment arm and the control arm."||1.32|0.57|0.505
91667003|NCT00354159|183227919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.04|||Andersen-Gill Model|The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model for multiple events.|Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm.|"Null Hypothesis: The all cause event rate is the same between the treatment arm and control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The all cause event rate between the treatment arm and control arm is different."||1.04|0.56|0.088
91860072|NCT03978871|183606096|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.379|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD disengagement scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.379
91860073|NCT03978871|183606096|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.246|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD disengagement scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.246
91667004|NCT00354159|183227920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.54||P-value is from a proportional odds model comparing the distribution of composite endpoint response between the treatment arm and control arm.|Proportional odds model||Odds ratio represents the odds of improved score in the treatment group relative to the control group.|"Null Hypothesis: Distribution of composite response endpoint is the same between the treatment arm and the control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: Distribution of composite response endpoint is different between the treatment arm and the control arm."||1.54|0.73|0.758
91667005|NCT00354159|183227923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.06|||Regression, Cox|The treatment to control hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated using a univariate Cox Regression Model|Hazard ratio estimates the hazard of death in the treatment group relative to the control group.|"Null hypothesis: Survival during the 12-month randomized follow-up period is the same between the treatment and control groups.~Alternative hypothesis: Survival during the 12-month randomized period is different between the treatment and control groups."||2.06|0.29|0.599
91667006|NCT00354159|183227924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Negative-Binomial Regression|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of cardiovascular medication changes is the same between the Treatment Arm and Control Arm.||||0.145
91667007|NCT00354159|183227925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Average daily median ePAD is the same between the Treatment and Control arms.~Alternative hypothesis: Average daily median ePAD is the different between the Treatment and Control arms."||||0.033
91667008|NCT00354159|183227926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis: The average daily median ePAD is not different among Control Arm subjects that have and that do not have a heart failure related event during the 12-month follow-up period.~Alternative Hypothesis: The average daily median ePAD is different among Control Arm subjects that have and that do not have a heart failure related event during the 12-month follow-up period."||||0.002
91667009|NCT00354159|183227927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.96|||Proportional odds regression model||Direction for odds ratio is the odds of improvement in the Treatment arm versus the odds of improvement in the Control arm.|"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the change in NYHA functional class between the Treatment and Control Arms.~Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in the change in NYHA functional class between the Treatment and Control Arms."||1.96|0.82|0.292
91714371|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3676||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3676
91714372|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2959||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.2959
91714373|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3435||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3435
91714374|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0895||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.0895
91714375|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0844||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.0844
91714376|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0675||95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.0|-1.1|0.0675
91714377|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.225||95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.2|-1.0|0.2250
91667010|NCT00354159|183227928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null Hypothesis: The change in 6-minute hall walk distance is not different between the Treatment and Control Arms.~Alternative Hypothesis: The change in 6-minute hall walk distance is different between the Treatment and Control Arms."||||0.996
91667011|NCT00354159|183227929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null Hypothesis: The change from baseline to the 12-month follow-up visit in eGFR values is the same between the Treatment arm and Control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The change from baseline to the 12-month follow-up visit in eGFR values is different between the Treatment arm and Control arm."||||0.154
91667012|NCT00354159|183227932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Response was change in MNLWHF score from baseline. Model adjusted for baseline MNLWHF score. Negative changes mean an improvement in MNLWHF score.||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the change in MNLWHF score from baseline to 12-months between the Treatment Arm and Control Arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in the change in MNLWHF score from baseline to 12-months between the Treatment Arm and Control Arm."||||0.583
91714378|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3728||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3728
91904178|NCT02234284|183703309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.83|-.23|.27
91667013|NCT00354159|183227933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.5||The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model which adjusts for multiple VT/VF episodes per subject.|Andersen-Gill Model|Andersen-Gill model included a term for Treatment Arm. This model adjusts for multiple events per subject.||"Null Hypothesis: Rate of VT/VF episodes during the 12-month randomized period is the same between the Treatment Arm and the Control Arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: Rate of VT/VF episodes during the 12-month randomized period is different between the Treatment Arm and the Control Arm."||3.5|0.63|0.368
91667014|NCT01451541|183227989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means with adjusted pvalues|0.59|||<|0.05||||||Multiple comparisons were adjusted for the primary and key secondary endpoints|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparison adjustment.||Using an estimate of the standard deviation of 2.2 for the change from baseline in daily average subject-reported AM and PM rTNSS averaged over the first 6 weeks of double-blind treatment, 284 subjects per treatment group would have provided 90% power to detect a mean difference between treatment groups of 0.6 in the change from baseline with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Approx. 852 subjects were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio (ie, approximately 284 subjects per treatment group).||||<0.05
91860074|NCT03978871|183606097|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. 12 ROI masks were generated from the CON network of a modified Schaefer atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative reframe \> negative immerse) for each voxel within each ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce 12 values for each person. These were then averaged to produce a single value each.A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control)||||||0.455||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = .75||||||0.455
91902142|NCT04409353|183699270|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.16||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.64||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.64|-0.33|0.1260
91667015|NCT01451541|183227989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means with adjusted p-values.|0.47|||<|0.05||||||Multiple comparisons were adjusted for the primary and key secondary endpoints|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparison adjustment.||Using an estimate of the standard deviation of 2.2 for the change from baseline in daily average subject-reported AM and PM rTNSS averaged over the first 6 weeks of double-blind treatment, 284 subjects per treatment group would have provided 90% power to detect a mean difference between treatment groups of 0.6 in the change from baseline with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Approx. 852 subjects were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio (ie, approximately 284 subjects per treatment group).||||<0.05
91667016|NCT00006436|183228020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Two-tailed log rank test||||Compared the PFS of interim PET positive participants to the PFS of interim PET negative.|||0.10
91860075|NCT03978871|183606098|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. 12 ROI masks were generated from the CON network of a modified Schaefer atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative \> neutral) for each voxel within each ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce 12 values for each person. These were subsequently averaged to produce a single value per person. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = 0.80||||||0.43
91860076|NCT03978871|183606099|SUPERIORITY|BOLD signals were spatially averaged within ROIs to produce a single time series for each ROI. Timeseries were averaged to produce a single value representing each ROI's mean activity. Values for each ROI were then averaged to produce a single value per person representing mean network activity. These values were then submitted to a two-sample t-test to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(142) = -1.057||||||0.29
91860077|NCT03978871|183606100|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative reframe \> negative immerse) were extracted with MarsBaR from 12 ROIs in the CON of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 24 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.88||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = 0.148||||||0.88
91667017|NCT05194202|183228034|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||one-sample test of proportions|Hypothesis was evaluated using a one-tailed, one-proportion z-test.||Our null hypothesis for the acceptability was P0 great than or equal to 85% vs. the alternative P0 less than 85%. Acceptability responses were dichotomized to include neutral with strongly disagree/disagree.||||.622
91667018|NCT05194202|183228035|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||one sample test of proportions|Hypothesis was evaluated using a one-tailed, one-proportion z-test||Our null hypothesis for the acceptabnility of the ED-Heart was P0 great than or equal to 85% vs. the alternative P0 less than 85%. Acceptability responses were dichotomized to include neutral with strongly disagree/disagree.||||.038
91667019|NCT00660387|183228038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.76||Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline and the natural logarithm of the mean daily dose of rescue medication on valid symptom diary days as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-3.05|0.0015
91792491|NCT04761627|183462686|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.9325|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8874|0.9799|||||Switching group vs Continued-use group.|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the actual stratification factors if prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region, and PK trough concentration at week 28.||0.9799|0.8874|
91860078|NCT03978871|183606101|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative \> neutral) were extracted with MarsBaR from 12 ROIs in the CON of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 24 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.11||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = 1.631||||||.11
91667020|NCT00660387|183228039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.17|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||3.17|0.56|0.0059
91692042|NCT02174627|183278572|OTHER||Rate of Change Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.01||Nominal p-value (as prior sequential outcome measure p-value did not meet \< 0.05.|Random Effects Analysis|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in rate of change in eGFR; random effects analysis.||-0.01|-1.00|0.046
91692043|NCT02174627|183278573|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.05||Nominal p-value (as prior sequential outcome measure p-value did not meet \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MMRM analysis.||1.05|0.00|0.051
91692044|NCT02166333|183278574|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.15||The P value is nominal and two-sided.|Log Rank||The Experience on Best Dose versus 200 IU/day hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were derived from a Cox regression model with dose group as the single model variable.|The Experience on Best Dose group includes all participants assigned or switched to best dose (1000 IU/day) and excludes 41 participants randomized to 2000 or 4000 IU/day who were never issued a bottle of best dose. For those randomized to 2000 or 4000 IU/day, at-risk time and events are measured from the date of their switch to best dose. 150 Experience on Best Dose participants (median follow-up, 10.2 mos) and 125 200 IU/day participants (median follow-up, 20.3 mos) were censored.||1.15|0.76|0.54
91692045|NCT02166333|183278574|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25|||||The comparison of the Pooled Higher Doses group versus the 200 IU/d group is a sensitivity analysis.|||1.25|0.86|
91692046|NCT02166333|183278575|SUPERIORITY|The overall P tests for difference between groups in differential change from baseline over time and is from a 3 degree of freedom test of the combined 3 treatment-by-time interaction terms from the longitudinal mixed effects model.||||||0.15||||||The P value is nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|3 degree of freedom interaction test||The two groups were assessed for differential change over time in change from baseline using a longitudinal mixed effects regression model with gait speed as the outcome and fixed effects including a single treatment term, 3 time point terms and 3 treatment-by-time interaction terms and a random intercept for participant.||||0.15
91692047|NCT00503698|183278576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Time to all-cause death analysed using stratified Cox regression model with treatment and sex as fixed factors, age and time in dialysis as covariates||||1.57|0.60|0.91
91692048|NCT00503698|183278577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.4977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.28|||Regression, Cox|Time to all-cause death analysed using stratified Cox regression model with treatment and sex as fixed factors, age and time in dialysis as covariates||||1.28|0.60|0.4977
91692049|NCT00503698|183278578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.13||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.53|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.53|0.83|0.4409
91667021|NCT00660387|183228040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.4||Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the CGI-Severity (CGI-S, see Baseline Characteristics module) as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-1.4|-12.6|0.0155
91667022|NCT00660387|183228041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the baseline CGI-S as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.1|-1.4|0.0258
91692050|NCT01766076|183278586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann Whitney test was used for nonparametric variables||||||<0.05
91692051|NCT04955691|183278646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91667023|NCT00660387|183228042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.8|-5.3|0.0086
91667024|NCT00660387|183228043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||5.6|-2.8|0.5020
91667025|NCT00660387|183228044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.146|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding Baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||0.146|-0.005|0.0670
91667026|NCT00660387|183228045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||1.7|-10.7|0.1501
91692052|NCT04955691|183278647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||\<54 mg/dL||||0.57
91692053|NCT04955691|183278647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||54-69 mg/dL||||0.43
91667027|NCT00660387|183228046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.82|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.82|-0.98|0.8574
91792492|NCT04761627|183462687|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric LS Means Ratio|0.9483|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8977|1.0018|||||Switching group vs Continued-use group.|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% CIs were estimated using the ANCOVA model adjusted for the actual stratification factors if prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region, and PK trough concentration at week 28.||1.0018|0.8977|
91667028|NCT00660387|183228047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-1.8|-19.1|0.0184
91667029|NCT00660387|183228048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-2.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-2.5|-20.6|0.0129
91667030|NCT00660387|183228049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.6|-9.0|0.5246
91667031|NCT00660387|183228050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||3.1|-12.0|0.2423
91667032|NCT00660387|183228051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.4|-9.9|0.2243
91667033|NCT00660387|183228052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.8|-10.8|0.2407
91692054|NCT04955691|183278648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||181-250 mg/dL||||0.006
91667034|NCT00660387|183228053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-6.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-6.8|-20.8|0.0002
91667035|NCT00660387|183228054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||6.9|-13.6|0.5213
91667036|NCT00660387|183228055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.9|-0.4|0.3741
91667037|NCT00660387|183228056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-0.1|-2.4|0.0361
91667038|NCT00660387|183228057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.1|0.3578
91667039|NCT00660387|183228058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.4|-7.4|0.6088
91667040|NCT00660387|183228059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|18.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||18.9|4.0|0.0033
91667041|NCT03086135|183228062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1||||<0.0001
91667042|NCT03086135|183228063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in noise at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1||||<0.0001
91667043|NCT03086135|183228064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91860079|NCT03978871|183606102|SUPERIORITY|BOLD signals were spatially averaged within ROIs to produce a single time series for each ROI. Pearson correlations were calculated between each mean BOLD signal in the CON and each amygdala ROI to produce 24 connectivity values. These were averaged to produce a single value representing the strength of coupling of the CON network to the amygdala for each participant. These values were then submitted to a two-sample t-test to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.92||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(142) = 0.101||A two-sample t-test was conducted to compare average connectivity (between the amygdala and the CON network) during resting state between the mindset and control groups.||||0.92
91667044|NCT03086135|183228064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667045|NCT03086135|183228064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667046|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry 250Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667047|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667048|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667049|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667050|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667051|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667052|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667053|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667054|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667055|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667056|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 250Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667057|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667058|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667059|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667060|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91692055|NCT04955691|183278648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||\>250 mg/dL||||<0.001
91667061|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667062|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667063|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667064|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667065|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667066|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 250Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667067|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667068|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667069|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91714379|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2686||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.2686
91714380|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0753||95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.2|0.0753
91860080|NCT03978871|183606103|OTHER|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||2.22e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Superior/Middle Temporal Gyrus (Right). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000222
91667070|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667071|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667072|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667073|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667074|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667075|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667076|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 250Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667077|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667078|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667079|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667080|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667081|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667082|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667083|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667084|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667085|NCT03086135|183228065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667086|NCT03086135|183228066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667087|NCT03086135|183228066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667088|NCT03086135|183228066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667089|NCT03086135|183228066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667090|NCT03086135|183228066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91714381|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1335||95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.0|0.1335
91714382|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.022||95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-1.3|0.0220
91714383|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.5754||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.4|-0.8|0.5754
91792493|NCT04761627|183462689|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric LS Means Ratio|0.9617|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8319|1.1119|||||Ctrough,ss at Week 28: Switching group vs Continued-use group|The ratio of Geometric LS means, and 90% CI for Ctrough,ss at week 28 were estimated based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline body weight group, and geographic region.||1.1119|0.8319|
91792494|NCT04761627|183462689|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric LS Means Ratio|0.9662|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8879|1.0515|||||Ctrough,ss at Week 40: Switching group vs Continued-use group|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% CI for Ctrough,ss at week 40 between the 2 treatment groups were estimated using an ANCOVA model adjusting for stratification factors and PK trough concentration at week 28.||1.0515|0.8879|
91860081|NCT03978871|183606103|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||1.17e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Middle Temporal Gyrus (Left). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000117
91860082|NCT03978871|183606103|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||0||||||"Reported result for cluster localized in the Anterior Cingulate/Medial Frontal Gyrus.~FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels."|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000000000
91667091|NCT03086135|183228066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667092|NCT03086135|183228066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667093|NCT03086135|183228066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667094|NCT03086135|183228066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667095|NCT03086135|183228066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667096|NCT03086135|183228066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667097|NCT03086135|183228066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667098|NCT03086135|183228067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive speech recognition in noise at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667099|NCT03086135|183228067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive speech recognition in noise at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667100|NCT03086135|183228067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive speech recognition in noise at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667101|NCT03086135|183228068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Ease of communication, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667102|NCT03086135|183228068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Background noise, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667103|NCT03086135|183228068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Reverberation, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667104|NCT03086135|183228068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Aversiveness, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.51
91667105|NCT03086135|183228068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Global score, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667106|NCT03086135|183228068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Ease of communication, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91714384|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.348||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3480
91860083|NCT03978871|183606103|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||1.86e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Middle Frontal Gyrus (Right). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000186
91667107|NCT03086135|183228068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Background noise, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667108|NCT03086135|183228068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Reverberation, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667109|NCT03086135|183228068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Aversiveness, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.32
91667110|NCT03086135|183228068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Global score, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667111|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Comprehensive health state at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.026
91667112|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Vision attribute at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.50
91714385|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0554||95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.0|-1.2|0.0554
91714386|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4362||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.4|-0.8|0.4362
91714387|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3631||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3631
91667113|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Hearing attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.0008
91667114|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Speech attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.082
91667115|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Ambulation attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.13
91667116|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||HUI Dexterity attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.9
91714388|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1152||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.1152
91714389|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4741||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.4|-0.8|0.4741
91714390|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0091||95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.2|-1.4|0.0091
91714391|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1721||95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.2|-1.0|0.1721
91860084|NCT03978871|183606103|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||0||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Middle Frontal Gyrus (Left). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000000000
91860085|NCT03978871|183606103|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||1.61e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Posterior Cingulate/Cingulate. FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000161
91667117|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Emotion attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.43
91667118|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Cognition attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.31
91667119|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||HUI Pain attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.72
91667120|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Comprehensive Health State attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.13
91667121|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||HUI Vision attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.23
91667122|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Hearing attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.0026
91714392|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0262||95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-1.3|0.0262
91860086|NCT03978871|183606103|OTHER|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative reframe \> negative immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005.|||||>|0.001||||||pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 298 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.001
91860087|NCT03978871|183606104|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on depression levels from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.560
91860088|NCT03978871|183606105|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.327|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on depression levels from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.327
91667123|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Speech attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.0024
91667124|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Ambulation attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.16
91667125|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Dexterity attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.16
91667126|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Emotion attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.85
91667127|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Cognition attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||1.0
91667128|NCT03086135|183228069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Pain attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.56
91667129|NCT03086135|183228070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Total score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667130|NCT03086135|183228070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Speech score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667131|NCT03086135|183228070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Spatial score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91860089|NCT03978871|183606106|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.439|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on anxiety levels from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.439
91792495|NCT04761627|183462689|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geomtric LS Means Ratio|0.9806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8916|1.0785|||||Ctrough,ss at Week 52: Switching group vs Continued-use group|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% CI for Ctrough,ss at week 52 between the 2 treatment groups were estimated using an ANCOVA model adjusting for stratification factors and PK trough concentration at week 28.||1.0785|0.8916|
91792496|NCT04761627|183462690|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|2.77|||||Mean difference in PASI percent improvement from baseline at Week 64: Switching group - Continued-use group|Multiple imputation was applied for the point estimate and CI of the mean difference between the switching and continued-use groups. Missing PASI scores at the week 64 visit were imputed by MI.||2.77|-2.62|
91792497|NCT04761627|183462691|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Response difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|6.2|||||Response difference in PASI 75 Response at Week 64: Switching group - Continued-use group|Response difference was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 90% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for the prior biologic use of psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region. Missing post-baseline binary response data were imputed by NRI.||6.2|-5.7|
91860090|NCT03978871|183606106|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.545|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on anxiety levels from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.545
91860091|NCT03978871|183606107|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on anxiety levels from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.740
91860092|NCT04166773|183606115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|24.44|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, Confidence Interval (CI), and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||24.44|2.27|<0.001
91860093|NCT04166773|183606115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|39.11|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||39.11|3.59|<0.001
91860094|NCT04166773|183606115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.73|67.25|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||67.25|5.73|<0.001
91860095|NCT04166773|183606116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|7.9|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||7.90|1.15|0.025
91860096|NCT04166773|183606116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.13|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors|||6.13|0.92|0.074
91860097|NCT04166773|183606116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||6.40|0.95|0.063
91860098|NCT04166773|183606117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||3.40|0.25|0.893
91860099|NCT04166773|183606117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.87|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||2.87|0.18|0.647
91860100|NCT04166773|183606117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||1.91|0.08|0.246
91860101|NCT04166773|183606118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|20.0|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||20.00|2.41|<0.001
91860102|NCT04166773|183606118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|32.61|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||32.61|3.36|<0.001
91860103|NCT04166773|183606118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|42.65|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||42.65|3.87|<0.001
91860104|NCT04166773|183606119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.632|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.58|-12.04|<0.001
91714393|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.9505||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.6|-0.6|0.9505
91860105|NCT04166773|183606119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|-5.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.73|-11.93|<0.001
91860106|NCT04166773|183606119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-6.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.87|-13.17|<0.001
91860107|NCT04166773|183606120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|-6.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.52|-14.32|<0.001
91860108|NCT04166773|183606120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.05|-9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.32|-17.05|<0.001
91860109|NCT04166773|183606120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.71|-12.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.98|-20.71|<0.001
91860110|NCT02515773|183606188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a calculated p-value less than 0.001|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91860111|NCT02515773|183606189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
91860112|NCT02515773|183606190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a calculated p-value less than 0.001|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91860113|NCT02515773|183606191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.041
91860114|NCT04072380|183606199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||||0.024
91860115|NCT04072380|183606200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||||0.009
91714394|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6877||95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.5|-0.7|0.6877
91714395|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1271||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.1271
91714396|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9136||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.6|-0.6|0.9136
91714397|NCT00676403|183320244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4072||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.4072
91714398|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.68||0.186||95.0|-35.2|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.9|-35.2|0.1860
91714399|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.653||95.0|-25.5|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.0|-25.5|0.6530
91792498|NCT04761627|183462692|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Response difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|7.8|||||Response difference in PASI 100 Response at Week 64: Switching group - Continued-use group|Response difference was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 90% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for the prior biologic use of psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region. Missing post-baseline binary response data were imputed by NRI.||7.8|-7.4|
91860116|NCT04072380|183606201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||||0.734
91860117|NCT04072380|183606202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91792499|NCT04761627|183462694|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.17|3.1|||||Switching group - continued-use group|Risk difference for any EOI: risk difference and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.||3.10|-4.17|
91860118|NCT04072380|183606203|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91860119|NCT01552473|183606210|OTHER|This is a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging analysis. We aimed to determine whether functional brain network connectivity was equivalent between the two intervention arms prior to the interventions beginning. This was computed in significant numbers of connections between the two groups.|pNBS|0.0001||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a p-value that is used in Network Based Statistics analysis for resting-state functional brain network data.|Network Based Statistics analysis|This is a type of statistical analysis used to test for group differences among functional connectivity levels between two or more groups.|This analysis evaluated monotonic changes from time point 1 (pre-intervention) to time points 2 (immediate post-intervention) and 3 (12 weeks post-intervention) that may have occurred between the SMART and BHW groups.|A network-based statistics analysis was carried out to determine brain connectivity differences observed at time points two (initial post-intervention testing phase) and three (the final post-intervention phase) occurring three months post-intervention.||||0.01
91860120|NCT03033576|183606224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.97||Pre-specified one-sided alpha=0.1|Log Rank|||The statistical design assumed exponential PFS with a median of 3.0 months on the ipilimumab group (null hypothesis). The study was powered to detect a change in median PFS to 6.0 months in the combination therapy group (corresponding to an HR of 0.50). A total of 84 participants (63 randomized to combination group and 21 to ipilimumab group) with 78 events (across both groups) would provide 89% power for a one-sided alpha of 10% using a log-rank test.||0.97|0.41|0.04
91714400|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.79||0.6263||95.0|-26.5|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.0|-26.5|0.6263
91714401|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.63||0.4266||95.0|-29.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.5|-29.4|0.4266
91860121|NCT03033576|183606227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.50|0.28
91714402|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.4023||95.0|-29.6|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.9|-29.6|0.4023
91860122|NCT03526874|183606264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
91860123|NCT03526874|183606265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91860124|NCT03526874|183606266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test sex interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.0162
91860125|NCT03526874|183606267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Two-way Anova to test sex interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.|ANOVA|||||||0.04
91860126|NCT03526874|183606268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test ethnicity interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.0098
91860127|NCT03526874|183606269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test ethnicity interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.02
91860128|NCT03526874|183606270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test race interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.01
91860129|NCT03526874|183606271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0329|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test race interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.0329
91860130|NCT03526874|183606272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.294
91667132|NCT03086135|183228070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Quality score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667133|NCT03086135|183228070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Total score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667134|NCT03086135|183228070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Speech score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667135|NCT03086135|183228070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Spatial score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91860131|NCT03526874|183606273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
91860132|NCT03526874|183606274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.182
91860133|NCT03526874|183606275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.423
91667136|NCT03086135|183228070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Quality score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667137|NCT03086135|183228071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667138|NCT03086135|183228071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667139|NCT03086135|183228071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91860134|NCT03526874|183606276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.030
91860135|NCT03526874|183606277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.112
91860136|NCT03526874|183606278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.052
91860137|NCT03526874|183606279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
91860138|NCT02132936|183606280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.46|||Mantel Haenszel|||"Mantel-Haenszel odds of treatment success in LEO 90100 group relative to calcipotriol BDP gel group, adjusted for pooled centre and baseline PGA.~Multiple imputation was used to handle missing PGA values."||4.46|1.46|<0.001
91860139|NCT02132936|183606281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.47|||Mantel Haenszel|||"Mantel-Haenszel odds of having PASI 75 in LEO 90100 group relative to calcipotriol BDP gel group, adjusted for pooled centre and baseline PGA.~Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data."||3.47|1.37|=0.001
91860140|NCT02132936|183606282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91667140|NCT03086135|183228071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91860141|NCT02132936|183606283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Mean change in itch adjusted for pooled centre, baseline PGA and baseline itch. Multiple imputation used for missing data.||||<0.001
91667141|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.025
91667142|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.096
91667143|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.015
91667144|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.67
91667145|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.73
91667146|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.019
91667147|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0046
91714403|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.1041||95.0|-38.8|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.6|-38.8|0.1041
91860142|NCT02132936|183606284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean change in itch adjusted for pooled centre, baseline PGA and baseline itch. Multiple imputation used for missing data.||||=0.33
91860143|NCT02596126|183606325|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI). If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.6|< 0.025
91860144|NCT02596126|183606325|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
91904179|NCT02234284|183703310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.68|.07|.02
91667148|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667149|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667150|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667151|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.019
91667152|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.040
91667153|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.037
91667154|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.67
91667155|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.34
91667156|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0048
91667157|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0008
91667158|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667159|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667160|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667161|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.10
91667162|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0007
91667163|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0003
91667164|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.11
91667165|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667166|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0001
91667167|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667168|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667169|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667170|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667171|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.80
91860145|NCT02596126|183606326|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment adherence is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (24 months) using the Morisky-Medication Adherence Scale (8 item) Questionnaire (MMAS-8). The number and percentage of patients with low (0-5), medium (6-7) and high (8) adherence will be reported by treatment group. The distributions of the MMAS-8 score at 6 months and 24 months will be compared between treatment groups using an ordinal logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.2|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis title - Treatment adherence at 6 months||1.2|1.06|< 0.005
91667172|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667173|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667174|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0010
91667175|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667176|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667177|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667178|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667179|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667180|NCT03086135|183228072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667181|NCT03086135|183228073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.51
91667182|NCT03086135|183228073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.021
91667183|NCT03086135|183228073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.29
91667184|NCT03086135|183228073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.18
91667185|NCT03086135|183228073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.017
91860146|NCT02596126|183606327|SUPERIORITY|Time to first event will be investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals will be obtained from the Cox proportional hazards model. P-values will be obtained using the log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis title - All-cause death||1.25|0.75|< 0.05
91860147|NCT02596126|183606328|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment adherence is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (24 months) using the Morisky- Medication Adherence Scale (8 item) Questionnaire (MMAS-8). The number and percentage of patients with low (0-5), medium (6-7) and high(8) adherence will be reported by treatment group. The distributions of the MMAS-8 score at 6 months and 24 months will be compared between treatment groups using an ordinal logistic regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.25|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis title - Treatment adherence at 24 months||1.25|1.1|< 0.005
91667186|NCT03086135|183228073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.16
91860148|NCT02596126|183606329|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - SBP - 6 months||1.2|-1.8|< 0.05
91667187|NCT03086135|183228073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.0051
91667188|NCT03086135|183228073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.021
91667189|NCT03086135|183228073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.56
91667190|NCT03086135|183228073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667191|NCT03086135|183228073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667192|NCT03086135|183228073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.041
91667193|NCT03086135|183228074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667194|NCT03086135|183228074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667195|NCT03086135|183228074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667196|NCT03086135|183228074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91667197|NCT01023061|183228086|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.01
91667198|NCT00202839|183228149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1651||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1651
91667199|NCT01456962|183228257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
91864513|NCT05485779|183617860|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.16||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|1.41|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 64.3. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.41|0.908|0.4600
91667200|NCT01456962|183228257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% change in CD4+:CD8+ T cells ratio|-9.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|12.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment group and time on antiretroviral therapy|Change based on a 1 log unit increase in genital:plasma drug ratio|Null hypothesis: Higher genital to plasma antiretroviral drug ratios are not associated with higher cervical CD4+:CD8+ T cell ratios.||12|-27.3|0.4
91667201|NCT04684485|183228303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1966|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1966
91667202|NCT04684485|183228303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5438|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5438
91667203|NCT04684485|183228303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3713|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3713
91667204|NCT04684485|183228304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4564|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4564
91667205|NCT04684485|183228304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2515|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2515
91667206|NCT04684485|183228304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5055
91667207|NCT03405363|183228357|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.47|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|||1.47|0.98|
91667208|NCT03405363|183228358|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.74|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||3.74|0.90|
91667209|NCT03405363|183228359|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.36|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||2.36|0.71|
91667210|NCT03405363|183228360|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.87|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.87|0.79|
91667211|NCT03405363|183228361|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.56|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.56|0.64|
91667212|NCT03405363|183228362|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.84|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|Analysis was based on Propensity score-trimmed population of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) derived from the Danish Patient Registry.||1.84|1.44|
91667213|NCT03405363|183228362|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.78|||Poisson regression model||Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|"Analysis based on post-hoc population 1.~Adjustments: propensity score decile, previous use of: LAMA, oxygen, inhaled glucocorticoid, respiratory medications, fixed-dose combinations of Short-Acting Beta2- Agonist and Short-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist and systemic antibacterials. COPD severity, number of: all-cause hospitalisations 365 and 180 days, COPD exacerbations 180 and 90 days, COPD hospitalisations 180 and 90 days, and COPD exacerbations 90 days before index date."||1.78|1.23|
91667214|NCT03405363|183228362|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidende Rate Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.64|||Poisson regression model||Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|Analysis based on post-hoc population 2. Adjustments: propensity score decile, previous use of: LAMA, oxygen, inhaled glucocorticoid, respiratory medications. COPD severity, number of all-cause hospitalisations 180 days, COPD exacerbations 180 days before cohort entry.||1.64|0.97|
91667215|NCT01328782|183228368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.074||95.0|1.4|2.94|||ANOVA|||||2.94|1.40|0.074
91667216|NCT01328782|183228368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.556||||0.556||95.0|-1.12|2.08|||ANOVA|||||2.08|-1.12|0.556
91667217|NCT01328782|183228368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.244||95.0|-0.64|2.49|||ANOVA|||||2.49|-0.64|0.244
91667218|NCT01328782|183228369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.25|||ANOVA|||||3.25|0.38|0.014
91667219|NCT01328782|183228369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.832||95.0|-1.3|1.61|||ANOVA|||||1.61|-1.30|0.832
91667220|NCT01328782|183228369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66||||0.027||95.0|0.2|3.12|||ANOVA|||||3.12|0.20|0.027
91667221|NCT01328782|183228370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
91667222|NCT01328782|183228370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3767||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.3767
91667223|NCT01328782|183228370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.039
91667224|NCT01328782|183228371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.008||95.0|0.008|0.076|||ANOVA|||||0.076|0.008|0.008
91667225|NCT01328782|183228371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.078||95.0|-0.004|0.066|||ANOVA|||||0.066|-0.004|0.078
91667226|NCT01328782|183228371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.5321||95.0|-0.024|0.045|||ANOVA|||||0.045|-0.024|0.5321
91667227|NCT01328782|183228372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91667228|NCT01328782|183228372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91667229|NCT01328782|183228372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.499
91667230|NCT01559116|183228373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.309|0.252|<0.0001
91667231|NCT01559116|183228373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.143|0.087|<0.0001
91667232|NCT01559116|183228373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.139|0.082|<0.0001
91667233|NCT01559116|183228373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||0.306|0.249|<0.0001
91667234|NCT01559116|183228373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.140|0.083|<0.0001
91860149|NCT02596126|183606330|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.0||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - SBP - 12 months||3|-0.1|< 0.05
91667235|NCT01559116|183228373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.152|0.096|<0.0001
91714404|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.5084||95.0|-27.9|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.8|-27.9|0.5084
91792500|NCT01634178|183462696|OTHER|Food was considered to have no effect on the PK of apremilast if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric least squares (LS) mean ratios for AUC0-t and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|106.6|||||Ratio of the geometric LS means (Fed/Fasted), reported as percentages.|To assess the food effect, an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||106.6|90.7|
91792501|NCT01634178|183462698|OTHER||Median Difference|0.75||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.25|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Fed - Fasted) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.25|0.25|0.0077
91792502|NCT01634178|183462699|OTHER|Food was considered to have no effect on the PK of apremilast if the 90% CI of the geometric LS mean ratios for AUC0-t and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|112.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.3|115.6|||||Ratio of the geometric LS means (Fed/Fasted), reported as percentages.|To assess the food effect, an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||115.6|109.3|
91792503|NCT01634178|183462700|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|112.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.9|115.1|||||Ratio of the geometric LS means (Fed/Fasted), reported as percentages.|To assess the food effect, an ANOVA with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||115.1|108.9|
91864514|NCT05485779|183617860|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.12||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.45|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 65.6. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.45|0.795|0.3157
91667236|NCT01559116|183228373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.136|0.079|<0.0001
91792504|NCT05867342|183462705|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
91792505|NCT05867342|183462706|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91792506|NCT05867342|183462707|OTHER|||||||0.126||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.126
91792507|NCT05867342|183462709|OTHER|||||||0.213||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213
91792508|NCT05867342|183462710|OTHER|||||||0.418||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
91667237|NCT01559116|183228374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.289|0.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.349|0.289|<0.0001
91667238|NCT01559116|183228374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.156|0.096|<0.0001
91667239|NCT01559116|183228374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.149|0.089|<0.0001
91667240|NCT01559116|183228374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.354|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.354|0.293|<0.0001
91667241|NCT01559116|183228374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.161|0.101|<0.0001
91667242|NCT01559116|183228374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.169|0.109|<0.0001
91667243|NCT01559116|183228374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.154|0.093|<0.0001
91667244|NCT01559116|183228375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.273|0.212|<0.0001
91667245|NCT01559116|183228375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.133|0.074|<0.0001
91667246|NCT01559116|183228375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.132|0.072|<0.0001
91667247|NCT01559116|183228375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.262|0.201|<0.0001
91792509|NCT05867342|183462711|OTHER|||||||0.756||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.756
91667248|NCT01559116|183228375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.123|0.063|<0.0001
91667249|NCT01559116|183228375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.140|0.080|<0.0001
91667250|NCT01559116|183228375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.121|0.061|<0.0001
91667251|NCT01559116|183228376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.241|0.173|<0.0001
91792510|NCT02524977|183462715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91792511|NCT03935399|183462731|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures one factor ANOVA||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.83
91667252|NCT01559116|183228376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.126|0.059|<0.0001
91792512|NCT03935399|183462732|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|One factor repeated measures ANOVA||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.92
91792513|NCT03935399|183462733|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|One factor repeated measures ANOVA||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.79
91792514|NCT03935399|183462734|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.93||||||Exploratory analysis without power calculation|ANOVA|One factor repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.93
91792515|NCT03935399|183462735|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.89||||||Exploratory analysis without power calculation|ANOVA|Two factor repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.89
91792516|NCT03935399|183462736|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.83||||||Exploratory analysis without power calculation|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.83
91792517|NCT03935399|183462737|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power caclulation||||||0.57||||||Exploratory analysis without power caclulation|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.57
91667253|NCT01559116|183228376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.113|0.045|<0.0001
91667254|NCT01559116|183228376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.235|0.167|<0.0001
91667255|NCT01559116|183228376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.120|0.052|<0.0001
91667256|NCT01559116|183228376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.135|0.067|<0.0001
91667257|NCT01559116|183228376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.107|0.039|<0.0001
91667258|NCT01559116|183228377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.371|0.305|<0.0001
91667259|NCT01559116|183228377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.153|0.087|<0.0001
91667260|NCT01559116|183228377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.143|0.078|<0.0001
91792518|NCT01112683|183462738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|ONE_SIDED|90.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|An alpha level of 0.05 or lower represents statistical significance, no correction was made for multiple comparisons to minimize type II errors.||20 subjects per group were expected to provide 60% power to detect a between-group mean difference of 1.2 correct patterns (change from baseline to week 16) on the Paired Associates Learning and to provide 40% power to detect a between-group mean difference of 1.2 patterns recognized on the Pattern Recognition Memory. A two-sided test at type I error rate of 5% was used. Sample size incorporated an inflation factor of 20% to account for ineligibility of 10% of randomized participants.||||0.403
91792519|NCT01112683|183462739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|ONE_SIDED|90.0||||This P-Value refers to the SIB-R Broad independence score.|Mixed Models Analysis|An alpha level of 0.05 or lower represents statistical significance, no correction was made for multiple comparisons to minimize type II errors.||No power calculations were performed for the secondary measures.||||0.371
91792520|NCT02129777|183462741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.008||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.179|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.179|-0.162|0.925
91667261|NCT01559116|183228377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|0.383|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.383|0.317|<0.0001
91860150|NCT02596126|183606331|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - SBP - 24 months||1.4|-1.7|< 0.05
91667262|NCT01559116|183228377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.164|0.098|<0.0001
91667263|NCT01559116|183228377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.165|0.099|<0.0001
91667264|NCT01559116|183228377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.155|0.089|<0.0001
91667265|NCT01559116|183228378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|0.477|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.477|0.389|<0.0001
91667266|NCT01559116|183228378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.253|0.166|<0.0001
91667267|NCT01559116|183228378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.221|0.133|<0.0001
91667268|NCT01559116|183228378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.441|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.441|0.352|<0.0001
91667269|NCT01559116|183228378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.217|0.129|<0.0001
91667270|NCT01559116|183228378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated. is calculated.|||0.203|0.115|<0.0001
91714405|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.262||95.0|-34.3|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.4|-34.3|0.2620
91714406|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.3347||95.0|-31.4|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.7|-31.4|0.3347
91792521|NCT02129777|183462741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.028|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.028|-0.202|0.162
91792522|NCT02129777|183462741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.034||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.118|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.118|-0.187|0.671
91792523|NCT02129777|183462741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.028|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.028|-0.202|0.182
91714407|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.61||0.1142||95.0|-37.7|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.1|-37.7|0.1142
91714408|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.06||0.1237||95.0|-38.8|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.7|-38.8|0.1237
91714409|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.8302||95.0|-18.7|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.3|-18.7|0.8302
91792524|NCT02129777|183462743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.9|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||4.9|-2.1|0.435
91792525|NCT02129777|183462743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.4|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||5.4|-1.6|0.279
91792526|NCT02129777|183462743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.5|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.5|-0.4|0.085
91864515|NCT05485779|183617861|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.2||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.37|||Lack of fit 1-sided p-value|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 54.2. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.37|1.02|0.2350
91792527|NCT02129777|183462743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.3|-0.7|0.110
91792528|NCT02129777|183462744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.027||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.211|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.211|-0.265|0.827
91792529|NCT02129777|183462744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.198|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.198|-0.269|0.768
91667271|NCT01559116|183228378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.184|0.096|<0.0001
91667272|NCT01559116|183228379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|0.509|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||0.509|0.417|<0.0001
91667273|NCT01559116|183228379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.246|0.154|<0.0001
91667274|NCT01559116|183228379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.225|0.133|<0.0001
91714410|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.22||0.3039||95.0|-33.6|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.5|-33.6|0.3039
91714411|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.4595||95.0|-29.2|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.2|-29.2|0.4595
91792530|NCT02129777|183462744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.112||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.106|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.106|-0.330|0.338
91792531|NCT02129777|183462744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.017||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|0.226|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.226|-0.261|0.890
91792532|NCT02129777|183462745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.048||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.139|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12:CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.139|-0.043|0.295
91667275|NCT01559116|183228379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.490|0.396|<0.0001
91792533|NCT02129777|183462746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.216|-0.191|0.906
91792534|NCT02129777|183462746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.143|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.143|-0.222|0.677
91792535|NCT02129777|183462746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.007|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.007|-0.268|0.107
91792536|NCT02129777|183462746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.087|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.087|-0.248|0.371
91864516|NCT05485779|183617861|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.19||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.5|||Lack of fit 1-sided p-value|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 58.5. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.50|0.880|0.1632
91667276|NCT01559116|183228379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.227|0.134|<0.0001
91667277|NCT01559116|183228379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.218|0.125|<0.0001
91667278|NCT01559116|183228379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.206|0.113|<0.0001
91667279|NCT01559116|183228380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|0.453|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.453|0.355|<0.0001
91667280|NCT01559116|183228380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.267|0.170|<0.0001
91667281|NCT01559116|183228380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.223|0.126|<0.0001
91792537|NCT02129777|183462747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.095||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.221|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.221|-0.030|0.134
91792538|NCT02129777|183462748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.2|-0.6|0.258
91792539|NCT02129777|183462748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.2|-0.5|0.365
91667282|NCT01559116|183228380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.400|0.301|<0.0001
91667283|NCT01559116|183228380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.214|0.117|<0.0001
91667284|NCT01559116|183228380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.197|0.099|<0.0001
91667285|NCT01559116|183228380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.170|0.072|<0.0001
91667286|NCT01559116|183228381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.385|0.274|<0.0001
91667287|NCT01559116|183228381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.225|0.115|<0.0001
91792540|NCT02129777|183462748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.4|-0.3|0.757
91667288|NCT01559116|183228381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.176|0.066|<0.0001
91792541|NCT02129777|183462748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.3|-0.4|0.825
91667289|NCT01559116|183228381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.363|0.251|<0.0001
91667290|NCT01559116|183228381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.203|0.092|<0.0001
91667291|NCT01559116|183228381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.222|0.111|<0.0001
91667292|NCT01559116|183228381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.154|0.043|<0.0001
91667293|NCT01559116|183228382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.516|0.408|<0.0001
91667294|NCT01559116|183228382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.212|0.105|<0.0001
91667295|NCT01559116|183228382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.205|0.098|<0.0001
91667296|NCT01559116|183228382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.507|0.398|<0.0001
91667297|NCT01559116|183228382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.203|0.095|<0.0001
91667298|NCT01559116|183228382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.216|0.107|<0.0001
91667299|NCT01559116|183228382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.196|0.087|<0.0001
91667300|NCT04610580|183228385|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.1|110.0||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||110.0|82.1|
91667301|NCT04610580|183228386|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|96.243|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.384|107.227||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||107.227|86.384|
91667302|NCT04610580|183228387|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.6|110.5||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||110.5|81.6|
91667303|NCT04610580|183228388|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|101.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.6|145.1||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||145.1|70.6|
91667304|NCT04610580|183228389|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.3|109.9||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||109.9|89.3|
91667305|NCT01942135|183228455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.56||The overall Type-I error rate was persevered at 1-sided 0.025 level for the analysis of the primary endpoint PFS by the Haybittle-Peto efficacy boundary. The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.00135.|Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided)|The log rank test stratified by sensitivity to prior hormonal therapy and the presence of visceral metastases based on the randomization information.|Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ≥1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus fulvestrant: placebo plus fulvestrant hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Fulvestrant. The study was planned to have 90% power and control the type-I error rate at 0.025.||0.560|0.318|<0.000001
91667306|NCT01942135|183228457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814|||=|0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|1.029||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by the presence of visceral metastases and sensitivity to prior endocrine therapy per randomization.|Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided)|The log rank test stratified by sensitivity to prior hormonal therapy and the presence of visceral metastases based on the randomization information.|Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant.|The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ≥1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus fulvestrant: placebo plus fulvestrant hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Fulvestrant. The study was planned to have 90% power and control the type-I error rate at 0.025.||1.029|0.644|=0.0429
91667307|NCT01942135|183228459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.783||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.563|5.603||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The priori threshold for statistical significance is 1-sided, alpha=0.025.|Exact test (1-sided)|The 1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test.|An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|The exact test is testing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is less than or equal to 1 vs. the alternative hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is greater than 1. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.||5.603|1.563|0.0001
91667308|NCT01942135|183228461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.016|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.046|4.565||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The priori threshold for statistical significance is 1-sided, alpha=0.025.|Exact test (1-sided)|The 1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test.|An odds ratio \> 1 means better clinical benefit response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|The exact test is testing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is less than or equal to 1 vs. the alternative hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is greater than 1. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.||4.565|2.046|<0.0001
91667309|NCT01942135|183228465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.0||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for Global health status/ QoL||6.0|0.3|0.0313
91667310|NCT01942135|183228465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for physical functioning||3.5|-1.4|0.4000
91667311|NCT01942135|183228465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.3||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for role functioning||5.3|-1.5|0.2615
91667312|NCT01942135|183228465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.4||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for emotional functioning||7.4|1.7|0.0016
91794374|NCT00245219|183467836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 2. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
91667313|NCT01942135|183228465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.8||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for cognitive functioning||3.8|-1.4|0.3650
91667314|NCT01942135|183228465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for social functioning||3.5|-3.4|0.9615
91667315|NCT01942135|183228466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for fatigue||1.5|-4.5|0.3200
91667316|NCT01942135|183228466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.2||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for nausea and vomiting||-0.2|-4.8|0.0369
91792542|NCT02129777|183462749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.163||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.1|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.10|-4.48|0.931
91860151|NCT02596126|183606332|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - DBP - 6 months||1|-0.7|< 0.05
91860152|NCT02596126|183606333|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - DBP - 12 months||1.6|-0.1|< 0.05
91667317|NCT01942135|183228466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-2.1||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for pain||-2.1|-8.5|0.0011
91667318|NCT01942135|183228466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.8||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for dyspnoea||2.8|-3.7|0.7699
91667319|NCT01942135|183228466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.2721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for insomnia||1.6|-5.5|0.2721
91667320|NCT01942135|183228466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.7334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for appetite loss||2.9|-4.1|0.7334
91667321|NCT01942135|183228466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.6491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.9||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for constipation||3.9|-2.5|0.6491
91667322|NCT01942135|183228466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.6293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.7||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for diarrhoea||1.7|-2.8|0.6293
91667323|NCT01942135|183228466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for financial difficulties||3.6|-3.1|0.8812
91667324|NCT01942135|183228467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.2||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for body image||5.2|-0.7|0.1386
91667325|NCT01942135|183228467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for sexual functioning||1.6|-3.1|0.5235
91860153|NCT02596126|183606334|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - DBP - 24 months||1|-0.9|< 0.05
91860154|NCT02596126|183606335|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - LDL cholesterol - 12 months||4.4|-0.2|< 0.05
91860155|NCT02596126|183606336|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - LDL cholesterol - 24 months||2.4|-2.5|< 0.05
91860156|NCT02596126|183606337|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.54|< 0.025
91860157|NCT02596126|183606337|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
91667326|NCT01942135|183228467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.6271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.3||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for sexual enjoyment||7.3|-4.4|0.6271
91667327|NCT01942135|183228467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for future perspective||7.6|-0.5|0.0845
91860158|NCT02596126|183606338|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.47|< 0.025
91860159|NCT02596126|183606338|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
91860160|NCT02596126|183606339|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.48|< 0.025
91860161|NCT02596126|183606339|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
91860162|NCT02596126|183606340|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.39|< 0.025
91667328|NCT01942135|183228468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.3||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for systemic therapy side effects||2.3|-1.6|0.7273
91860163|NCT02596126|183606340|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
91667329|NCT01942135|183228468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.7||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for breast symptoms||0.7|-2.6|0.2671
91667330|NCT01942135|183228468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.2||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for arm symptoms||2.2|-2.6|0.8750
91667331|NCT01942135|183228468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|16.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for upset by hair loss||16.6|1.1|0.0255
91667332|NCT01942135|183228469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.07|0.00|0.0308
91860164|NCT02596126|183606341|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.63|||Regression, Cox|||||1.63|0.57|< 0.025
91667333|NCT01942135|183228470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.5523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||3.5|-1.9|0.5523
91667334|NCT01942135|183228471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.642|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|0.846||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 1-sided alpha=0.025. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Unstratified log-rank test (1-sided)|1-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test.|Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|Treatment with palbociclib plus fulvestrant significantly delayed TTD in pain symptom compared with placebo plus fulvestrant for unstratified analysis.||0.846|0.487|<0.001
91667335|NCT06588530|183228478|OTHER|Log₂ transformed fold change in IgG concentration from baseline to Day 30 was compared between High and Low PFNA exposure groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. A two-tailed significance level of 0.05 was used.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tetanus||||.85
91667336|NCT06588530|183228478|OTHER|Log₂ transformed fold change in IgG concentration from baseline to Day 30 was compared between High and Low PFNA exposure groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. A two-tailed significance level of 0.05 was used.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Diphtheria||||.85
91667337|NCT04569084|183228500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.777
91794375|NCT00245219|183467836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 3, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
91667338|NCT04569084|183228501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||0.169
91667339|NCT04729101|183228572|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature.|Least-squares mean difference|38.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.94|46.02||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 1 of each treatment period.||46.02|31.94|
91860165|NCT02596126|183606341|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
91860166|NCT02596126|183606342|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||4.79|1.38|< 0.05
91667340|NCT04729101|183228572|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature|Least-squares mean difference|44.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.55|51.69||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 7 of each treatment period.||51.69|37.55|
91667341|NCT04729101|183228573|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature.|Least-squares mean difference|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.04||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 1 of each treatment period.||2.04|1.40|
91667342|NCT04729101|183228573|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature.|Least-squares mean difference|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.44||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 7 of each treatment period.||2.44|1.74|
91667343|NCT00762411|183228581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.560
91667344|NCT00762411|183228582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.959
91667345|NCT00762411|183228583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.567
91667346|NCT00762411|183228584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.199
91667347|NCT00762411|183228585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.294
91667348|NCT00762411|183228586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.477
91667349|NCT00762411|183228587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.673
91667350|NCT00762411|183228588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.622
91667351|NCT00762411|183228589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.178
91667352|NCT00762411|183228590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.632
91667353|NCT00762411|183228591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91667354|NCT00762411|183228592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.426
91667355|NCT00762411|183228593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume.|ANCOVA|||||||0.101
91667356|NCT00762411|183228593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume.|ANCOVA|||||||0.772
91667357|NCT00762411|183228594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.326
91667358|NCT00762411|183228595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.117
91667359|NCT00762411|183228604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.929
91667360|NCT00762411|183228605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.437
91667361|NCT00762411|183228606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.318
91667362|NCT00762411|183228607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.417
91667363|NCT00762411|183228608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.805
91667364|NCT00762411|183228609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.893
91667365|NCT02959840|183228610|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.|||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.00001
91667366|NCT02959840|183228610|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||5e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00005
91667367|NCT02959840|183228610|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1
91667368|NCT02959840|183228611|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91667369|NCT02959840|183228611|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
91667370|NCT02959840|183228611|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
91667371|NCT02959840|183228612|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||4e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00004
91667372|NCT02959840|183228612|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
91667373|NCT02959840|183228612|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
91667374|NCT02959840|183228613|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1
91667375|NCT02959840|183228613|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91667376|NCT02959840|183228613|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91667377|NCT02959840|183228614|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91667378|NCT02959840|183228614|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91667379|NCT02959840|183228614|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2
91667380|NCT02959840|183228615|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91667381|NCT02959840|183228615|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2
91667382|NCT02959840|183228615|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1
91864517|NCT05485779|183617862|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.04|||||Within-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 5.66. Data analyzed using a mixed model included treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. ln(parameter)=treatment+subject+random error, with subject fitted as a random effect.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess the Effect of Food on Single Oral Doses of 16 mg AQ280||1.04|0.915|
91667383|NCT02959840|183228616|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91667384|NCT02959840|183228616|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
91667385|NCT02959840|183228616|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91667386|NCT02959840|183228617|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91667387|NCT02959840|183228617|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91667388|NCT02959840|183228617|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
91667389|NCT02959840|183228618|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2
91667390|NCT02959840|183228618|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91667391|NCT02959840|183228618|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91667392|NCT02959840|183228619|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91667393|NCT02959840|183228619|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91667394|NCT02959840|183228619|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91667395|NCT02959840|183228620|SUPERIORITY|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91667396|NCT02959840|183228620|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
91667397|NCT02959840|183228620|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3
91667398|NCT02959840|183228621|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
91667399|NCT02959840|183228621|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
91667400|NCT02959840|183228621|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
91667401|NCT04556734|183228622|OTHER|F-test|LS Mean Difference|-14.14||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.933|10.648|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||10.648|-38.933|0.2579
91667402|NCT04556734|183228622|OTHER|F-test|LS Mean Difference|-21.79||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.446|0.871|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||0.871|-44.446|0.0592
91667403|NCT04556734|183228623|OTHER|F-test|Least square (LS) Mean Difference|-9.23||||0.1283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.217|2.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||2.748|-21.217|0.1283
91667404|NCT04556734|183228623|OTHER|F-test|LS Mean Difference|-8.99||||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.936|1.962|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||1.962|-19.936|0.1057
91667405|NCT04556734|183228624|OTHER||Response rate difference|11.5||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|37.31||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 30% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 2 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||37.31|-14.22|0.4067
91667406|NCT04556734|183228624|OTHER||Response rate difference|17.5||||0.2171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|43.19||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 30% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 3 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||43.19|-8.23|0.2171
91667407|NCT04556734|183228624|OTHER||Response rate difference|-0.8||||0.9425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.18|21.48||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 50% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 2 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||21.48|-23.18|0.9425
91667408|NCT04556734|183228624|OTHER||Response rate difference|8.9||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|32.94||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 50% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 3 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||32.94|-15.19|0.4959
91667409|NCT04556734|183228624|OTHER||Response rate difference|5.6||||0.3576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|16.59||P-values are based on the comparison of Etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 75% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 2 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||16.59|-5.39|0.3576
91667410|NCT04556734|183228624|OTHER||Response rate difference|8.3||||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|20.12||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 75% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 3 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo.||20.12|-3.43|0.2904
91667411|NCT01435824|183228637|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.5|115.4||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||115.4|97.5|
91667412|NCT01435824|183228638|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|106.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.5|115.7||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||115.7|97.5|
91692408|NCT03187301|183279689|NON_INFERIORITY|30 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|6.7||||||||6.7|-1.6|
91792543|NCT02129777|183462749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.143||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|5.84|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.84|-2.65|0.459
91667413|NCT01435824|183228639|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|101.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.4|114.9||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||114.9|89.4|
91792544|NCT02129777|183462749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|7.93|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.93|-0.63|0.094
91860167|NCT02596126|183606343|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|2.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||2.35|-12.73|< 0.05
91860168|NCT02596126|183606344|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|8.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||8.62|5.57|< 0.05
91667414|NCT01435824|183228640|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|107.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.5|137.8||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||137.8|84.5|
91667415|NCT00117806|183228650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91667416|NCT01765751|183228652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.6|||||High vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||5.6|-0.1|
91667417|NCT01765751|183228652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.9|||||Medium vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||5.9|0.1|
91860169|NCT02596126|183606345|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||5.55|2.04|< 0.05
91864518|NCT05485779|183617863|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.805|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.635|1.02|||||Within-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 20.5. Data analyzed using a mixed model included treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. ln(parameter)=treatment+subject+random error, with subject fitted as a random effect.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess the Effect of Food on Single Oral Doses of 16 mg AQ280||1.02|0.635|
91714412|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.97||0.4338||95.0|-30.2|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.0|-30.2|0.4338
91667418|NCT01765751|183228652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.7|||||High vs Medium group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||2.7|-3.2|
91667419|NCT01765751|183228653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|29.7|||||High vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||29.7|1.6|
91667420|NCT01765751|183228653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|23.3|||||Medium vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||23.3|-3.7|
91667421|NCT01765751|183228653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|20.3|||||High vs Medium group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||20.3|-8.6|
91667422|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.4|||||Pain Interference - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Pain Interference||0.4|-8.1|
91667423|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.6|||||Pain Interference - Medium vs Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Pain Interference||5.6|-2.6|
91714413|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.0647||95.0|-42.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-42.0|0.0647
91667424|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.0|||||Pain Interference - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Pain Interference||1.0|-9.8|
91667425|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.8|||||Physical Function - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Physical Function||3.8|-2.2|
91667426|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.2|||||Physical Function - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Physical Funtion||3.2|-2.9|
91667427|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Physical Function- High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population|Physical Function||3.7|-2.4|
91860170|NCT02596126|183606346|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|6.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||6.94|3.59|< 0.05
91864519|NCT05485779|183617865|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.15||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.34|||Lack of fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 28.0. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 QD for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.34|0.954|0.1558
91792545|NCT02129777|183462749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|7.09|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.09|-1.52|0.203
91714414|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.61||0.5651||95.0|-27.0|14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.8|-27.0|0.5651
91667428|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.5|||||Fatigue - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Fatigue||10.5|1.1|
91667429|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.2|||||Fatigue - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Fatigue||8.2|-1.5|
91667430|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||||Fatigue - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Fatigue||7.3|-2.3|
91714415|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.1634||95.0|-37.6|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.4|-37.6|0.1634
91714416|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.2209||95.0|-34.4|8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.0|-34.4|0.2209
91794376|NCT00245219|183467836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 3. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
91667431|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.5|||||Sleep Disturbance - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Sleep Disturbance||3.5|-0.9|
91667432|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.9|||||Sleep Disturbance - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Sleep Disturbance||0.9|-3.6|
91667433|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.0|||||Sleep Disturbance - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Sleep Disturbance||5.0|0.4|
91667434|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9|||||Anxiety - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Anxiety||3.9|-4.5|
91667435|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.1|||||Anxiety - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Anxiety||5.1|-2.9|
91667436|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.9|||||Anxiety - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Anxiety||2.9|-5.7|
91667437|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.6|||||Depression - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Depression||0.6|-6.7|
91667438|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.6|||||Depression - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Depression||2.6|-4.1|
91667439|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.4|||||Depression - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Depression||1.4|-5.4|
91667440|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.9|||||Satisfaction with Social Role - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Satisfaction with Social Role||4.9|-4.5|
91667441|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7|||||Satisfaction with Social Role - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Satisfaction with Social Role||7.7|-1.8|
91667442|NCT01765751|183228654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.0|||||Satisfaction with Social Role - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Satisfaction with Social Role||2.0|-7.6|
91667443|NCT00452348|183228677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.04||||0.09||95.0|-0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.01|0.090
91667444|NCT01390415|183228682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0374||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison of Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.0374
91667445|NCT01390415|183228683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0566||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison of Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.0566
91667446|NCT02898740|183228709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|models were adjusted for age|treatment difference = Exercise - Health Education|||-0.0|-6.8|<0.05
91667447|NCT01710358|183228710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
91667448|NCT00880334|183228730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.49|||Log Rank|||The study was designed with 80% power to detect 60% improvement in median PFS from 18 to 28.8 weeks (Vandetanib+docetaxel/Placebo+docetaxel hazard ratio of 0.625) with the addition of Vandetanib while maintaining an overall significance level of 5% in a one-sided test. This assumed exponential distribution of events, accrual of 1.75 patients per week (7-8 patients per month) for 78 weeks with 34 weeks of additional follow-up (112 weeks total). Full information was 118 PFS events.||1.49|0.69|0.939
91667449|NCT00880334|183228732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.79|||Log Rank|||||1.79|0.81|.873
91667450|NCT00880334|183228733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
91667451|NCT00880334|183228734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
91667452|NCT02951195|183228781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.4||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.6|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||12.6|0.3|0.0207
91667453|NCT02951195|183228781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||15.9|5.0|0.0002
91667454|NCT02951195|183228781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.5|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||14.5|3.0|0.0019
91667455|NCT02951195|183228781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.3||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|18.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||18.7|-2.1|0.0540
91667456|NCT02951195|183228782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|13.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||13.8|3.7|0.0007
91667457|NCT02951195|183228783|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-19.5||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-6.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-6.8|-32.2|0.0018
91667458|NCT02951195|183228783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.6||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-2.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.1|-25.0|0.0106
91667459|NCT02951195|183228783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-16.3|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-16.3|-38.6|<0.0001
91667460|NCT02951195|183228783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-9.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-9.7|-40.0|0.0017
91667461|NCT02951195|183228784|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-14.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-14.1|-33.7|<0.0001
91667462|NCT02951195|183228785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.5||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|24.0|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||24.0|1.1|0.0166
91667463|NCT02951195|183228785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|31.4|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||31.4|11.2|<0.0001
91667464|NCT02951195|183228785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.1||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|27.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||27.8|6.3|0.0013
91667465|NCT02951195|183228785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.5||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|32.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||32.9|-3.8|0.0563
91667466|NCT02951195|183228786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.6||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|21.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||21.9|5.3|0.0012
91667467|NCT02951195|183228787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.1||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|30.9|||ANCOVA|||||30.9|-2.6|0.0476
91667468|NCT02951195|183228787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|44.0|||ANCOVA|||||44.0|14.8|0.0001
91667469|NCT02951195|183228787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|41.1|||ANCOVA|||||41.1|11.3|0.0006
91667470|NCT02951195|183228787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.8||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|21.2|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||21.2|-11.6|0.2714
91667471|NCT02951195|183228788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.3||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|21.2|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||21.2|1.3|0.0138
91667472|NCT04281472|183228851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.253|0.614||||||||0.614|0.253|
91667473|NCT05053360|183228907|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|6.93|||Regression, Logistic|||HIGH PAIN = score over 6 on a 0-10 pain scale (higher number indicating higher pain)||6.93|1.19|.019
91667474|NCT05053360|183228908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.09|||ANCOVA|||||-1.09|-3.47|.0002
91667475|NCT03277248|183228915|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.509||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.784||GEE (Generalized Estimating Equation) model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.784|0.330|0.0022
91792546|NCT02129777|183462750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.86|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.86|-1.92|0.448
91792547|NCT02129777|183462750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.22|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.22|-2.53|0.099
91794377|NCT00245219|183467837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
91860171|NCT02596126|183606347|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|13.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||13.46|-4.35|< 0.05
91792548|NCT02129777|183462750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.78|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.78|-1.96|0.396
91667476|NCT03277248|183228916|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.064||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.064|0.019|<.0001
91667477|NCT03277248|183228917|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.136||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.136|0.073|<.0001
91667478|NCT03277248|183228919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|7.946|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.917|12.841||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata and log transformed baseline MRI lesion counts (T1-unenhancing, T2, Gd-enhancing) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||12.841|4.917|<.0001
91667479|NCT03277248|183228920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.862||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.246||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata and log transformed baseline MRI lesion counts (T1 unenhancing, T2, Gd enhancing) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.246|0.596|0.4290
91667480|NCT03277248|183228921|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.018||||0.3108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.017||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model includes treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline volume (cube root transformed) as covariates and an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.017|-0.053|0.3108
91667481|NCT01993940|183228923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|27.0||To control the overall type I error rate to be ≤ 0.05 for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, a fixed-sequence (hierarchical) testing approach was applied.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by the opioid dose strata.||||27.0|10.8|<0.0001
91667482|NCT01993940|183228924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.88|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.88|0.92|<0.0001
91667483|NCT01993940|183228925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.71|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||2.71|1.63|<0.0001
91667484|NCT01993940|183228926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.61|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.61|0.70|<0.0001
91792549|NCT02129777|183462750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.23|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.23|-2.54|0.102
91860172|NCT02596126|183606348|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.55|8.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||8.67|5.55|< 0.05
91667485|NCT01993940|183228927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.19|0.30|0.0011
91667486|NCT01949532|183228928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|132.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.6|249.63|||||The point estimates of the geometric mean ratios for the PK parameters were calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least-squares means between the renal impairment group (test) and participants with normal renal function (reference).|||249.63|70.60|
91667487|NCT01949532|183228929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|133.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.93|251.73||||||||251.73|70.93|
91667488|NCT01277510|183229021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference (Cinacalcet - Placebo)|35.5||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.76|62.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline age group (6 -\<12 years old or 12 - \<18 years old).||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to test the primary and biochemical secondary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1-5). The primary endpoint was tested at a significance level of 0.05. The four biochemical secondary endpoints were to be tested using Holm's method at 0.05 should the primary endpoint achieve a significant result.||62.24|8.76|0.017
91667489|NCT01277510|183229022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference (Cinacalcet - Placebo)|3.46||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.58|29.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline age group (6 -\<12 years old or 12 - \<18 years old).||The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||29.51|-22.58|0.826
91692409|NCT03187301|183279689|NON_INFERIORITY|45 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|7.4||||||||7.4|-0.9|
91860173|NCT02596126|183606349|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|8.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||8.27|4.93|< 0.05
91714417|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.84||0.1293||95.0|-37.8|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.8|-37.8|0.1293
91860174|NCT02596126|183606350|SUPERIORITY|Time to first event will be investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals will be obtained from the Cox proportional hazards model. P-values will be obtained using the log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.07|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis title - Non-cardiovascular death||2.07|0.97|< 0.05
91667490|NCT01277510|183229023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||1.3|-8.6|0.147
91860175|NCT05529966|183606373|OTHER|||||||0.45490734||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45490734
91860176|NCT05529966|183606374|OTHER|||||||0.9237611||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92376110
91860177|NCT05529966|183606375|OTHER|||||||0.94342221||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94342221
91860178|NCT05529966|183606376|OTHER|||||||0.38902793||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38902793
91860179|NCT05529966|183606377|OTHER|||||||0.0042494||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of comfort score||||0.00424940
91860180|NCT05529966|183606377|OTHER|||||||0.00223547||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Visibility score||||.00223547
91860181|NCT05529966|183606377|OTHER|||||||1.858e-05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Image Quality score||||.00001858
91860182|NCT05529966|183606377|OTHER|||||||0.03003194||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Focus score||||.03003194
91860183|NCT05529966|183606377|OTHER|||||||2.8e-07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Depth Perception score||||.00000028
91860184|NCT05529966|183606377|OTHER|||||||0.00112148||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Staff Engagement score||||.00112148
91860185|NCT05529966|183606377|OTHER|||||||951||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Teaching score||||00000951
91860186|NCT05529966|183606377|OTHER|||||||0.03493564||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of En Face Confidence score||||.03493564
91860187|NCT05529966|183606377|OTHER|||||||0.12895248||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Hydrus Placement Confidence score||||.12895248
91860188|NCT05529966|183606377|OTHER|||||||0.00279611||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Scope Preference score||||.00279611
91860189|NCT05529966|183606378|OTHER|||||||0.959638658||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Comfort score||||.959638658
91860190|NCT05529966|183606378|OTHER|||||||0.213464715||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Visibility score||||.213464715
91860191|NCT05529966|183606378|OTHER|||||||0.213464715||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Image Quality score||||.213464715
91860192|NCT05529966|183606378|OTHER|||||||0.155899777||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Focus score||||.155899777
91860193|NCT05529966|183606378|OTHER|||||||0.055960023||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Depth Perception score||||.055960023
91860194|NCT05529966|183606378|OTHER|||||||0.000685499||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Staff Engagement score||||.000685499
91860195|NCT05529966|183606378|OTHER|||||||0.004526118||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Teaching score||||.004526118
91860196|NCT05529966|183606378|OTHER|||||||0.299921137||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of En Face Confidence score||||.299921137
91860197|NCT05529966|183606378|OTHER|||||||0.368082084||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Hydrus Placement Confidence score||||.368082084
91860198|NCT05529966|183606378|OTHER|||||||0.015036417||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Scope Preference score||||.015036417
91792550|NCT02129777|183462751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.626||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||-0.20|-2.29|0.099
91667491|NCT01277510|183229024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|8.9|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate|Cinacalcet-Placebo|The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||8.9|-19.4|0.454
91860199|NCT05493423|183606395|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the difference between the rates of completed hemodialysis sessions for the test and control groups is less than or equal to the non-inferiority margin (indicating inferior success rate). Rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the data supports the alternative hypothesis that the difference between the rates of successfully completed HD sessions for the test and control groups is at least the non-inferiority margin (indicating non-inferior success rate).||||||0.008|||||||Farrington-Manning|non-inferiority margin = 0.08||||||.008
91860200|NCT05493423|183606395|EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = 0.08||||||0.002|||||||Equivalence Test with paired data|||||||.002
91860201|NCT05493423|183606396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
91860202|NCT05493423|183606397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91860203|NCT05493423|183606398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
91692410|NCT03187301|183279689|NON_INFERIORITY|60 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|7.5||||||||7.5|-0.9|
91860204|NCT05493423|183606399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91860205|NCT05493423|183606400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.197
91860206|NCT05493423|183606401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
91860207|NCT05493423|183606402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
91860208|NCT05493423|183606403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to as 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
91667492|NCT01277510|183229025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.0||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||2.6|-22.5|0.117
91667493|NCT01277510|183229026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|||3.6|-3.1|0.896
91667494|NCT01277510|183229028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|7.9|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|||7.9|-9.4|0.854
91667495|NCT03555695|183229060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91667496|NCT01426854|183229071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91667497|NCT02940522|183229134|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
91667498|NCT02940522|183229135|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
91667499|NCT02940522|183229136|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
91667500|NCT02940522|183229137|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
91667501|NCT02940522|183229138|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
91860209|NCT05493423|183606404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91667502|NCT02940522|183229139|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
91667503|NCT00274625|183229140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
91667504|NCT01680016|183229170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of GMCs between the groups (GMCGroup Zagreb / GMCGroup Essen) was greater than 0.5|Ratio of GMCs between two groups(Day 15)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate noninferiority in immune response of the Zagreb post-exposure schedule of Rabipur to that of the conventional Essen post-exposure schedule at day 15 in children aged ≥6 to ≤17 years||1.02|0.69|
91667505|NCT01680016|183229171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of GMCs between the groups (GMCGroup Zagreb / GMCGroup Essen) was greater than 0.5|Ratio of GMCs between two groups(Day 15)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate noninferiority in immune response of the Zagreb post-exposure schedule of Rabipur to that of the conventional Essen post-exposure schedule at day 15 in older adults aged ≥51 years||1.35|0.87|
91667506|NCT03460990|183229190|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||12.5|7.4|< 0.0001
91667507|NCT03460990|183229191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-43.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-43.5|-53.9|<0.0001
91667508|NCT03460990|183229192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|18.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||18.3|8.8|<0.0001
91667509|NCT01958060|183229196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0337|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9901|1.1308|||||Dose proportionality was explored using linear regression model (ANOVA).The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually the SE of the slope.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 1034020 following iv administration of single rising doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 50 mg for Cmax was analysed.||1.1308|0.9901|
91860210|NCT05493423|183606405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
91667510|NCT01958060|183229198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.5629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3426|1.7833|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the linear regression model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.Standard error of the mean is actually the standard error of the slope.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 1034020 following iv administration of single rising doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 50 mg for AUClast was analysed.||1.7833|1.3426|
91860211|NCT05493423|183606406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
91860212|NCT05493423|183606407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.804
91860213|NCT05493423|183606408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.307
91714418|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.06||0.0161||95.0|-48.5|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-5.0|-48.5|0.0161
91714419|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.8506||95.0|-23.0|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.0|-23.0|0.8506
91714420|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.31||0.0067||95.0|-53.2|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-8.6|-53.2|0.0067
91714421|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.76||0.1997||95.0|-35.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.4|-35.0|0.1997
91714422|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0159||95.0|-47.9|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-5.0|-47.9|0.0159
91792551|NCT02129777|183462751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.619||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.03|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||-0.03|-2.49|0.045
91860214|NCT05493423|183606409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.315
91860215|NCT01426425|183606423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chronic effectiveness prob at 6 months|0.926|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|0.948|||Kaplan-Meier log-log 95% CI||The chronic effectiveness success probability at 6 months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The standard error was approximated using Greenwood's formula. A two-sided 95% log-log confidence interval for the probability was constructed.|"The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 significance level.~Ho: PE ≤ 0.83~Ha: PE \> 0.83~Where PE is the probability of a subject achieving chronic effectiveness success at the 6-month follow-up and 0.83 (83%) is the pre-specified performance goal."||0.948|0.895|<0.0001
91860216|NCT01426425|183606424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Safety failure probability at 6 months|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.027|||Kaplan-Meier log-log 95% CI||The chronic safety failure probability at 6 months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The standard error was approximated using Greenwood's formula. A two-sided 95% log-log confidence interval for the probability was constructed.|"The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 significance level.~Ho: Ps ≥ 0.07~Ha: Ps \< 0.07~Where Ps is the probability of a subject experiencing at least one safety event through 6 months with a 0.07 pre-specified performance goal."||0.027|0.004|<0.0001
91714423|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.0388||95.0|-44.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.2|-44.4|0.0388
91714424|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.9962||95.0|-21.2|21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.1|-21.2|0.9962
91714425|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.41||0.0839||95.0|-42.3|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.7|-42.3|0.0839
91860217|NCT01426425|183606425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chronic effectiveness prob at 6 months|0.973|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.985|||Kaplan-Meier log-log 95% CI||The chronic effectiveness success probability at 6 months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The standard error was approximated using Greenwood's formula. A two-sided 95% log-log confidence interval for the probability was constructed.|"The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 significance level.~Ho: PE ≤ 0.80~Ha: PE \> 0.80~Where PE is the probability of a subject achieving chronic effectiveness success at 6-month follow-up, and 0.80 is the pre-specified performance goal. As pre-defined in the study protocol, this hypothesis is tested if the primary effectiveness objective null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected."||0.985|0.950|<0.0001
91860218|NCT03281291|183606432|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|42.1|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus the Hazard Ratio (HR). HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||42.1|14.7|
91860219|NCT03281291|183606432|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|43.3|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||43.3|16.4|
91860220|NCT03281291|183606432|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|37.6|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||37.6|9.0|
91667511|NCT00377572|183229199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Maximum Symptom Day Comparison||||<0.001
91667512|NCT00377572|183229200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||||||0.04
91667513|NCT00377572|183229201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1111||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept (to account for within-subject correlation) and visit and group as fixed effects.||||||0.1111
91667514|NCT00377572|183229202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Childhood Asthma Control Test comparison||||0.007
91667515|NCT00377572|183229203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Asthma Control Test comparison||||0.54
91667516|NCT00377572|183229204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||FEV1 % of predicted value comparison||||0.30
91860221|NCT03281291|183606432|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|41.1|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||41.1|13.9|
91667517|NCT00377572|183229205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||FEV1:FVC ×100 comparison||||0.81
91714426|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.83||0.5216||95.0|-28.3|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.4|-28.3|0.5216
91860222|NCT03281291|183606433|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|52.8|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 14, for R012-20 + R012-14-mD Pooled Group vs Control Group.||52.8|30.7|
91667518|NCT00377572|183229206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||||||<0.0001
91667519|NCT00377572|183229207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Percent Adherence Comparison||||0.12
91667520|NCT00377572|183229208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Step level 1- 2 (mild asthma) Percent Comparison||||0.001
91667521|NCT00377572|183229209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Step level 4 - 6 (severe asthma)percent comparison||||<0.001
91667522|NCT00377572|183229210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Inhaled glucocorticoids prescribed - mcg per day comparison||||<0.001
91667523|NCT00377572|183229211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Comparison percent prescribed long-acting beta 2 agonists||||0.003
91667524|NCT00377572|183229212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Hospitalizations were summed over the course of the double-blind \& analyzed with logistic regression (LR) of 'any' vs. 'none'. The LR was unadjusted.||||||0.02
91667525|NCT00377572|183229213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Exacerbations were summed over the course of the double-blind and analyzed with an LR of 'any' versus 'none'. LR adjusted for study site and dosing.||||||<0.001
91667526|NCT00377572|183229214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91667527|NCT00377572|183229215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91667528|NCT00769314|183229216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0685||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0025|0.1339||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared||Treatment difference was the proportion of patients with aborted lesions in the acyclovir Lauriad group minus the proportion of patients with aborted lesions in the placebo group.|||0.1339|0.0025|0.0419
91667529|NCT00769314|183229217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0683||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0683
91667530|NCT00769314|183229218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0033
91667531|NCT00769314|183229219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0098
91667532|NCT00769314|183229220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8005||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.8005
91667533|NCT00769314|183229221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.015
91667534|NCT00769314|183229222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0412
91667535|NCT00769314|183229223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.0271
91667536|NCT00769314|183229224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5695||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at Day 1 timepoint.||||0.5695
91667537|NCT00769314|183229224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1824||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at Day 3 timepoint||||0.1824
91667538|NCT00769314|183229224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at the Day 5 timepoint||||0.0078
91667539|NCT00769314|183229224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3303||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at the Day 7 timepoint||||0.3303
91667540|NCT00769314|183229224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6045||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at the Day 14 timepoint||||0.6045
91792552|NCT02129777|183462751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.25|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.25|-2.21|0.118
91667541|NCT00769314|183229225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.0022
91692411|NCT03187301|183279689|NON_INFERIORITY|2 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|9.2||||||||9.2|0.8|
91860223|NCT03281291|183606433|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|49.2|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 14, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||49.2|21.2|
91692412|NCT03187301|183279689|NON_INFERIORITY|3 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|8.8||||||||8.8|0.4|
91714427|NCT00676403|183320245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.0534||95.0|-42.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-42.9|0.0534
91714428|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.0199||95.0|2.2|25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.4|2.2|0.0199
91714429|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.0768||95.0|-1.1|21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.7|-1.1|0.0768
91714430|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.0642||95.0|-0.7|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.6|-0.7|0.0642
91714431|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.2643||95.0|-5.0|18.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.2|-5.0|0.2643
91714432|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.0358||95.0|0.8|23.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.7|0.8|0.0358
91860224|NCT03281291|183606433|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|41.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|53.1|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 7.5 and 19, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||53.1|26.7|
91714433|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.0428||95.0|0.4|23.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.8|0.4|0.0428
91714434|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.1993||95.0|-4.0|18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.9|-4.0|0.1993
91792553|NCT02129777|183462751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.0|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.00|-2.44|0.050
91860225|NCT03281291|183606434|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|29.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|41.5|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||41.5|15.4|
91667542|NCT02846883|183229235|SUPERIORITY|These power estimates are based on linear regression of regulatory T-cell counts at each time point. These data will be summarized with the mean, median, standard deviation, standard error, minimum and maximum.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox|See above|Estimates for the differences in the secondary endpoints will be used to perform a power estimation using a Monte Carlo simulation method.|The primary statistical evaluation for Aim 1 will focus on the chronologically increasing counts of T-regulatory cells over time following MSC administration in both delivery groups. Using the pattern of increased counts with time and the standard deviation reported by Ito and colleagues in healthy subjects, 36 subjects provides 81.0% power to detect such a change.A p value of \<0.05 will be considered significant.||||<0.05
91667543|NCT00500318|183229267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|116.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.113||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.28|195.61|||ANCOVA|||||195.610|37.280|0.0042
91667544|NCT02435433|183229276|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|0.949|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||0.949|0.531|0.0199
91667545|NCT02435433|183229277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.603|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||0.603|0.339|<0.0001
91667546|NCT02435433|183229278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.427|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|0.582|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||0.582|0.313|<0.0001
91667547|NCT02435433|183229279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified analysis|||37.3|0.6|0.1697
91667548|NCT02435433|183229283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799||||0.2382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.171|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||1.171|0.545|0.2382
91667549|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-54.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.37|-37.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-37.99|-71.37|<0.0001
91667550|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.28|-27.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.08|-61.28|<0.0001
91714435|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.0331||95.0|1.1|24.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||24.8|1.1|0.0331
91714436|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.0415||95.0|0.5|23.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.8|0.5|0.0415
91860226|NCT03281291|183606434|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|42.2|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||42.2|16.6|
91714437|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.0295||95.0|1.3|24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||24.3|1.3|0.0295
91667551|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.433|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.35|-47.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-47.53|-81.35|<0.0001
91667552|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.282|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.36|-45.15|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-45.15|-78.36|<0.0001
91667553|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-72.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.4|-51.92|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-51.92|-92.40|<0.0001
91667554|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.328|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.59|-43.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.19|-84.59|<0.0001
91667555|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-88.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.327|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.39|-68.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-68.00|-109.39|<0.0001
91667556|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-84.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.76|-64.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-64.54|-104.76|<0.0001
91667557|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.854|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.22|-60.71|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-60.71|-96.22|<0.0001
91667558|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-84.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.998|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.51|-66.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-66.40|-102.51|<0.0001
91792554|NCT02129777|183462752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.36|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.36|-1.63|0.211
91860227|NCT03281291|183606434|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|39.4|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||39.4|13.1|
91667559|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-96.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.994|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.12|-78.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-78.03|-114.12|<0.0001
91667560|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-92.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.703|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.8|-74.86|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-74.86|-109.80|<0.0001
91667561|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.534|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.51|-52.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-52.30|-90.51|<0.0001
91667562|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-76.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.659|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.37|-56.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-56.65|-95.37|<0.0001
91667563|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-93.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.678|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.18|-74.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-74.38|-113.18|<0.0001
91667564|NCT01243151|183229300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-89.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.362|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.35|-70.81|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-70.81|-108.35|<0.0001
91714438|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.1267||95.0|-2.6|21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.1|-2.6|0.1267
91714439|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.4175||95.0|-6.8|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.2|-6.8|0.4175
91860228|NCT03281291|183606434|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|38.3|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||38.3|11.9|
91860229|NCT03281291|183606435|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|52.5|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 26, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||52.5|28.6|
91860230|NCT03281291|183606435|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|39.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|50.6|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 26, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||50.6|26.8|
91667565|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.99|-23.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-23.65|-43.99|<0.0001
91714440|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.0342||95.0|1.0|25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.0|1.0|0.0342
91860231|NCT03281291|183606435|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|33.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|45.3|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 26, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||45.3|19.3|
91860232|NCT03281291|183606435|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|51.5|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 7.5 and 31, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||51.5|27.2|
91667566|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.35|-17.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-17.51|-38.35|<0.0001
91860233|NCT03281291|183606436|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.979|-1.022|||Wald Test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||-1.022|-1.979|
91667567|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.143|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.89|-29.28|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.28|-49.89|<0.0001
91667568|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.75|-27.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.51|-47.75|<0.0001
91667569|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.384|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.78|-33.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-33.20|-58.78|<0.0001
91667570|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.527|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-28.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-28.74|-54.90|<0.0001
91667571|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.531|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.43|-43.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.27|-69.43|<0.0001
91714441|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.1038||95.0|-2.0|21.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.5|-2.0|0.1038
91667572|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.344|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.17|-40.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-40.74|-66.17|<0.0001
91667573|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.498|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-38.64|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-38.64|-60.70|<0.0001
91667574|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.592|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.14|-42.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-42.70|-65.14|<0.0001
91667575|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.81|-49.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-49.38|-71.81|<0.0001
91860234|NCT03281291|183606436|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.544|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.027|-1.061|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||-1.061|-2.027|
91860235|NCT03281291|183606436|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.575|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.065|-1.085|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-1.085|-2.065|
91667576|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.413|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.53|-46.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-46.80|-68.53|<0.0001
91667577|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.8|-32.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.57|-55.80|<0.0001
91667578|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.881|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.06|-35.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-35.50|-59.06|<0.0001
91667579|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.891|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.53|-45.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-45.94|-69.53|<0.0001
91667580|NCT01243151|183229301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.701|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.38|-43.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.54|-66.38|<0.0001
91667581|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.972||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|599.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||599.65|1.04|0.0472
91667582|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.815||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|305.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||305.54|0.46|0.1368
91667583|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.527||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|1198.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1198.29|1.89|0.0190
91667584|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.328||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|1103.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1103.73|1.86|0.0192
91667585|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|74.273||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|2014.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2014.67|2.74|0.0105
91667586|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|86.088||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|2389.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2389.27|3.10|0.0086
91667587|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|87.733||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|2449.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2449.11|3.14|0.0084
91667588|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|112.272||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|3097.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3097.22|4.07|0.0053
91860236|NCT03281291|183606436|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.635|-0.586|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-0.586|-1.635|
91667589|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.697||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|662.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||662.20|1.16|0.0403
91667590|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.247||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|733.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||733.32|1.25|0.0361
91667591|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|89.341||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|2326.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2326.44|3.43|0.0069
91667592|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|76.034||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|1875.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1875.15|3.08|0.0081
91667593|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.018||||0.9931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|64.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||64.41|0.02|0.9931
91667594|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.943||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|975.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||975.84|1.55|0.0259
91667595|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|57.766||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|1477.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1477.88|2.26|0.0142
91667596|NCT01243151|183229302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|48.734||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|1216.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1216.90|1.95|0.0179
91667597|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|353.058||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|12528.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||12528.19|9.95|0.0013
91667598|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|129.984||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|3808.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3808.21|4.44|0.0047
91667599|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|300.099||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.35|10787.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||10787.45|8.35|0.0018
91667600|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|190.835||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|5743.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||5743.12|6.34|0.0025
91667601|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|255.421||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.87|8290.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||8290.22|7.87|0.0018
91714442|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.0537||95.0|-0.2|23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.4|-0.2|0.0537
91860237|NCT03281291|183606437|OTHER||Additive difference|-0.769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|-0.469|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 14, for R012-20 + R012-14-mD Pooled Group vs Control Group.||-0.469|-1.068|
91667602|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|150.547||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|4291.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||4291.89|5.28|0.0034
91667603|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|745.542||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|47929.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||47929.45|11.60|0.0018
91667604|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|146.296||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|3963.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3963.01|5.40|0.0031
91667605|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|213.512||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|6396.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||6396.64|7.13|0.0020
91667606|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|124.439||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|3277.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3277.13|4.73|0.0038
91667607|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|622.309||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.51|36846.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||36846.03|10.51|0.0020
91667608|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|224.427||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.63|6598.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||6598.00|7.63|0.0017
91667609|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.158||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|161.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||161.08|0.24|0.2751
91667610|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|152.977||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|4633.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||4633.92|5.05|0.0038
91860238|NCT03281291|183606437|OTHER||Additive difference|-0.786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.133|-0.439|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 14, for Fx012-14-mFxD groups vs Control Group.||-0.439|-1.133|
91860239|NCT03281291|183606437|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.592|-0.959|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 7.5 to 19, for Fx017-mFxD groups vs Control Group.||-0.959|-1.592|
91860240|NCT03281291|183606438|OTHER||Additive difference|-2.686|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.448|-1.924|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||-1.924|-3.448|
91860241|NCT03281291|183606438|OTHER||Additive difference|-2.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.217|-1.686|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||-1.686|-3.217|
91667611|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|756.203||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.18|51133.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||51133.53|11.18|0.0020
91667612|NCT01243151|183229303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|258.938||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.53|8902.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||8902.61|7.53|0.0021
91667613|NCT01243151|183229304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.896||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|52.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||52.79|0.02|0.9580
91860242|NCT03281291|183606438|OTHER||Additive difference|-2.585|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.345|-1.824|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-1.824|-3.345|
91667614|NCT01243151|183229304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.375||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|394.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||394.65|0.76|0.0732
91667615|NCT01243151|183229304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.86||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|1109.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1109.11|2.07|0.0159
91714443|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.0772||95.0|-1.2|22.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.4|-1.2|0.0772
91714444|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.1296||95.0|-2.6|20.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.3|-2.6|0.1296
91714445|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.014||95.0|3.1|27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||27.0|3.1|0.0140
91667616|NCT01243151|183229304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.246||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|733.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||733.62|1.51|0.0264
91667617|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.131||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|15.77|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.77|-4.77|0.2883
91667618|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.277||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|16.61|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.61|-4.51|0.2563
91667619|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.225||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|12.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.37|-8.54|0.7149
91667620|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.174||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.30|-6.40|0.4480
91667621|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.214||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|26.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.94|2.06|0.0231
91667622|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.369||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|23.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.87|-1.62|0.0858
91667623|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.431||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|20.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.44|-5.30|0.2440
91667624|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.249||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|24.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||24.03|-0.98|0.0702
91667625|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.878||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|19.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.41|-0.13|0.0531
91667626|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|18.83|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||18.83|-0.96|0.0758
91860243|NCT03281291|183606438|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.726|-1.067|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-1.067|-2.726|
91860244|NCT03281291|183606439|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.633|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.252|-1.015|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 26, for R012-20 group vs Control Group.||-1.015|-2.252|
91860245|NCT03281291|183606439|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.601|-1.393|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 26, for R012-14 group vs Control Group.||-1.393|-2.601|
91860246|NCT03281291|183606439|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.399|-1.153|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 26, for Fx012-14-mFxD group vs Control Group.||-1.153|-2.399|
91860247|NCT03281291|183606439|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.843|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.527|-1.158|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 7.5 to 31, for Fx017-mFxD group vs Control Group.||-1.158|-2.527|
91860248|NCT05862870|183606474|OTHER|Frequency count|exact count|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0|20.0|20.0|||count|||Frequency count of patients retained in treatment.|Threshold for frequency count|20|20|.05
91860249|NCT03143153|183606481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.6|0.46|0.9||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy.||0.90|0.46|0.0010
91860250|NCT03143153|183606481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy.||0.84|0.49|0.0010
91860251|NCT03143153|183606481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.37|0.8||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.80|0.37|<0.0001
91860252|NCT03143153|183606481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.71||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.71|0.41|<0.0001
91667627|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.975||0.6965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|11.92|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.92|-8.01|0.6965
91667628|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.842||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|23.22|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.22|3.83|0.0071
91860253|NCT03143153|183606482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8958|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.73|1.43||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.43|0.73|0.8958
91860254|NCT03143153|183606482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.34|0.78|0.8958
91860255|NCT03143153|183606482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.46|0.92||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.92|0.46|0.0023
91860256|NCT03143153|183606482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.86|0.49|0.0023
91667629|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.155||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|21.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||21.52|0.88|0.0339
91667630|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.235||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|19.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.03|-1.92|0.1075
91667631|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.258||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|16.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.50|-4.54|0.2601
91667632|NCT01243151|183229305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.132||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|20.24|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.24|-0.31|0.0570
91667633|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.93|-22.84|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.84|-42.93|<0.0001
91667634|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.34|-20.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-20.26|-41.34|<0.0001
91667635|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.18|-29.77|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.77|-50.18|<0.0001
91667636|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.54|-28.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-28.20|-48.54|<0.0001
91792555|NCT02129777|183462752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.13|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.13|-1.85|0.087
91667637|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.73|-29.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.63|-54.73|<0.0001
91667638|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.512|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.72|-29.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.67|-55.72|<0.0001
91667639|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.445|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.45|-41.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-41.67|-67.45|<0.0001
91792556|NCT02129777|183462752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.71|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.71|-1.26|0.580
91860257|NCT03143153|183606483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.011||95.0|0.65|0.95||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.95|0.65|0.0110
91667640|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.321|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.54|-39.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.25|-64.54|<0.0001
91667641|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.359||95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-36.59|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.59|-58.10|95
91667642|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.566|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.24|-39.91|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.91|-62.24|<0.0001
91667643|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.482|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.89|-48.89|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-48.89|-70.89|<0.0001
91860258|NCT03143153|183606483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.011||98.2|0.62|0.98||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.98|0.62|0.0110
91860259|NCT03143153|183606483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0021||99.1|0.58|0.96||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.96|0.58|0.0021
91860260|NCT03143153|183606483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.90|0.61|0.0021
91860261|NCT03143153|183606484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.52|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.52|1.04|
91667644|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.377|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.83|-46.24|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-46.24|-67.83|<0.0001
91667645|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.767|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.61|-37.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-37.51|-60.61|<0.0001
91667646|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.974|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.48|-39.56|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.56|-63.48|<0.0001
91667647|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.901|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.04|-52.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-52.40|-76.04|<0.0001
91667648|NCT01243151|183229306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.59|-48.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-48.42|-71.59|<0.0001
91714446|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.0642||95.0|-0.7|22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.7|-0.7|0.0642
91667649|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.392|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.54|-34.29|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-34.29|-75.54|<0.0001
91667650|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.21|-22.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.94|-65.21|<0.0001
91667651|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-67.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.547|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.92|-47.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-47.05|-88.92|<0.0001
91667652|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.11|-39.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.90|-81.11|<0.0001
91667653|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-68.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.392|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.02|-47.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-47.76|-89.02|<0.0001
91667654|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.54|-39.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.27|-81.54|<0.0001
91667655|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-86.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.656|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.74|-65.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-65.46|-107.74|<0.0001
91667656|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-81.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.73|-60.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-60.52|-101.73|<0.0001
91860262|NCT03143153|183606484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.99||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.99|0.67|0.0355
91667657|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-80.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.96|-59.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-59.37|-100.96|<0.0001
91667658|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.14|-61.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-61.87|-104.14|<0.0001
91667659|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-104.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.656|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.91|-83.62|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-83.62|-125.91|<0.0001
91667660|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-90.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.84|-69.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-69.63|-110.84|<0.0001
91667661|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.34|-50.75|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-50.75|-92.34|<0.0001
91667662|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-74.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.59|-53.32|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-53.32|-95.59|<0.0001
91667663|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-102.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.656|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.49|-81.21|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-81.21|-123.49|<0.0001
91667664|NCT01243151|183229307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-87.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.76|-66.55|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-66.55|-107.76|<0.0001
91860263|NCT03143153|183606484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.64|1.04||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.04|0.64|0.0355
91667665|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.945||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.90|-1.89|0.3064
91667666|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.025||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.73|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.73|-1.38|0.1922
91667667|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.984||0.6827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.79|-3.16|0.6827
91667668|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.981||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|6.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.42|-1.52|0.2211
91667669|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.158||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|10.97|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.97|2.31|0.0033
91667670|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.237||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.57|0.60|0.0269
91667671|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.232||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|8.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.34|-0.61|0.0890
91667672|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|9.47|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.47|0.69|0.0242
91714447|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.073||95.0|-1.0|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.3|-1.0|0.0730
91667673|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.101||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|7.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.46|-0.95|0.1270
91667674|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.151||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|7.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.70|-0.91|0.1199
91714448|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0215||95.0|2.1|25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.8|2.1|0.0215
91792557|NCT02129777|183462752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.9|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.90|-1.06|0.873
91860264|NCT02736409|183606491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.19||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|0.082|||Fisher Exact|||||0.082|-0.452|0.131
91714449|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.3785||95.0|-6.4|16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.7|-6.4|0.3785
91714450|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.12||0.0089||95.0|4.1|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||28.2|4.1|0.0089
91714451|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.0609||95.0|-0.5|23.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.0|-0.5|0.0609
91714452|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.0064||95.0|4.7|28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||28.1|4.7|0.0064
91714453|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0241||95.0|1.8|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.5|1.8|0.0241
91864520|NCT05485779|183617866|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.1||||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.26|||Lack of Fit 2-sided model|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 24.0. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 QD for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.26|0.946|0.5458
91667675|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.82|-3.79|0.8123
91667676|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.106||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.87|1.44|0.0095
91667677|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|8.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.99|-0.99|0.1141
91667678|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.536||0.1552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|8.73|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.73|-1.42|0.1552
91667679|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.547||0.5407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.67|-3.53|0.5407
91667680|NCT01243151|183229308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.485||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|11.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.53|1.58|0.0107
91667681|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.74|-43.97|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.97|-76.74|<0.0001
91864521|NCT05485779|183617867|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.941||||0.4856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.28||Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Lack of fit 2-sided||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 54.7. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 once daily for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.28|0.602|0.4856
91714454|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.1032||95.0|-2.0|21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.1|-2.0|0.1032
91667682|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.422|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.45|-35.61|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-35.61|-69.45|<0.0001
91667683|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-69.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.06|-52.86|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-52.86|-86.06|<0.0001
91667684|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-66.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.55|-49.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-49.94|-82.55|<0.0001
91667685|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.766|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.05|-56.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-56.87|-100.05|<0.0001
91794378|NCT00245219|183467837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
91794379|NCT00245219|183467837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
91902143|NCT04409353|183699270|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.51||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.03||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.03|-2.05|0.5150
91902144|NCT04409353|183699271|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.43||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.61||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PCS SF-6 score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PCS SF-6 t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.61|0.25|.0180
91902145|NCT04409353|183699271|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.33||||0.5742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.82||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PCS SF-6 score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PCS SF-6 t-score as a continuous covariate.||0.82|-1.48|0.5742
91902146|NCT04409353|183699272|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.39||||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.62||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS- Anxiety score obtained at Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Anxiety t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.62|-1.85|0.7338
91667686|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.43|-49.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-49.13|-93.43|<0.0001
91667687|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-91.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.92|-69.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-69.74|-113.92|<0.0001
91667688|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-89.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.736|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.03|-67.97|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-67.97|-111.03|<0.0001
91667689|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-86.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.452|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.73|-69.72|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-69.72|-103.73|<0.0001
91667690|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-92.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.57|-74.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-74.80|-109.57|<0.0001
91667691|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-106.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.585|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.34|-88.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-88.78|-123.34|<0.0001
91667692|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-99.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.334|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.95|-82.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-82.40|-115.95|<0.0001
91667693|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-79.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.557|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.22|-61.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-61.93|-96.22|<0.0001
91667694|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.736|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.4|-66.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-66.39|-101.40|<0.0001
91667695|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-104.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.679|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.13|-87.35|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-87.35|-122.13|<0.0001
91667696|NCT01243151|183229309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-97.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.426|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.89|-80.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-80.11|-113.89|<0.0001
91904180|NCT02234284|183703311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||1.12|-2.78|.40
91667697|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.336||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.08|35.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||35.49|-80.08|0.4480
91667698|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|26.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.76|-91.80|0.2809
91667699|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.942||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.9|27.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.07|-90.90|0.2875
91667700|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.38|41.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||41.33|-74.38|0.5743
91667701|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.336||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.62|37.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||37.96|-77.62|0.4997
91667702|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.4756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.78|37.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||37.78|-80.78|0.4756
91860265|NCT03498651|183606562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||1.16|1.04|
91667703|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.458||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.73|42.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||42.26|-77.73|0.5610
91667704|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.27|36.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||36.44|-79.27|0.4667
91667705|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.828||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.45|28.06|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||28.06|-89.45|0.3045
91667706|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.4301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.06|35.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||35.50|-83.06|0.4301
91667707|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.458||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.15|7.85|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.85|-112.15|0.0881
91667708|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.36|26.35|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.35|-89.36|0.2844
91667709|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.828||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.32|32.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||32.19|-85.32|0.3741
91714455|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0076||95.0|4.4|28.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||28.7|4.4|0.0076
91667710|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.4283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.16|35.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||35.40|-83.16|0.4283
91714456|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.1257||95.0|-2.6|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.9|-2.6|0.1257
91667711|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.458||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.31|3.68|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.68|-116.31|0.0657
91667712|NCT01243151|183229310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.2586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.11|24.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||24.60|-91.11|0.2586
91667713|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.404||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|10.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.14|-3.49|0.3326
91667714|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.502||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|10.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.70|-3.32|0.2967
91667715|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.466||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|7.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.46|-6.42|0.8812
91667716|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.433||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|10.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.30|-3.45|0.3227
91667717|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.221||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|18.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||18.46|1.56|0.0210
91667718|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.326||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|15.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.49|-1.82|0.1192
91667719|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.367||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|13.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.78|-3.69|0.2529
91667720|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.244||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|16.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.25|-0.73|0.0725
91667721|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.214||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.18|0.30|0.0405
91667722|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.258||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|12.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.80|-0.25|0.0593
91667723|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.279||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|8.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.33|-4.81|0.5936
91792558|NCT02129777|183462753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|11.8|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||11.8|-15.2|0.803
91667724|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.192||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|16.17|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.17|3.38|0.0034
91667725|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.428||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|14.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.46|0.74|0.0305
91860266|NCT03498651|183606562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.20|-0.43|
91667726|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.479||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|12.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.37|-1.55|0.1252
91667727|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.495||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|10.71|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.71|-3.28|0.2923
91667728|NCT01243151|183229311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.411||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|14.43|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.43|0.78|0.0297
91667729|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.117|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.59|-18.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-18.10|-34.59|<0.0001
91667730|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.325|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.95|-15.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-15.63|-32.95|<0.0001
91667731|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.182|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.58|-22.83|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.83|-39.58|<0.0001
91667732|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.169|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.78|-22.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.08|-38.78|<0.0001
91667733|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.42|-23.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-23.19|-43.42|<0.0001
91667734|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.65|-23.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-23.63|-44.65|<0.0001
91667735|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.96|-32.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.18|-52.96|<0.0001
91667736|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.07|-31.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-31.67|-52.07|<0.0001
91714457|NCT00676403|183320246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.0131||95.0|3.2|26.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.6|3.2|0.0131
91714458|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.1824||95.0|-23.0|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.4|-23.0|0.1824
91714459|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0767||95.0|-25.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|-25.5|0.0767
91860267|NCT03498651|183606563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.57|-0.69|
91714460|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0492||95.0|-28.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-28.1|0.0492
91714461|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.2023||95.0|-22.2|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.7|-22.2|0.2023
91714462|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0116||95.0|-30.9|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-3.9|-30.9|0.0116
91714463|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.1819||95.0|-23.2|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.4|-23.2|0.1819
91714464|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.2806||95.0|-20.6|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.0|-20.6|0.2806
91714465|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.1465||95.0|-24.4|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.7|-24.4|0.1465
91714466|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85||0.0046||95.0|-33.1|-6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-6.1|-33.1|0.0046
91667737|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.343|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.46|-29.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.05|-46.46|<0.0001
91667738|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.519|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.04|-31.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-31.93|-50.04|<0.0001
91667739|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.88|-38.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-38.08|-55.88|<0.0001
91667740|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.363|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.52|-37.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-37.03|-54.52|<0.0001
91667741|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.85|-29.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.37|-47.85|<0.0001
91667742|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.795|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.78|-31.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-31.60|-50.78|<0.0001
91667743|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.722|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|-40.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-40.30|-59.20|<0.0001
91667744|NCT01243151|183229312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.639|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.33|-38.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-38.76|-57.33|<0.0001
91667745|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.06|-14.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-14.34|-31.06|<0.0001
91667746|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.17|-10.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-10.03|-27.17|<0.0001
91667747|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.46|-19.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-19.49|-36.46|<0.0001
91667748|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.24|-16.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-16.54|-33.24|<0.0001
91667749|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.25|-20.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-20.53|-37.25|<0.0001
91667750|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.92|-17.79|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-17.79|-34.92|<0.0001
91667751|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.46|-27.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.33|-44.46|<0.0001
91667752|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.58|-25.88|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-25.88|-42.58|<0.0001
91667753|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.246|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.39|-25.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-25.53|-42.39|<0.0001
91667754|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.98|-26.85|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-26.85|-43.98|<0.0001
91667755|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.85|-34.71|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-34.71|-51.85|<0.0001
91667756|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.35|-29.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.65|-46.35|<0.0001
91667757|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.246|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.19|-21.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-21.34|-38.19|<0.0001
91667758|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.79|-22.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.65|-39.79|<0.0001
91667759|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.91|-32.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.78|-49.91|<0.0001
91860268|NCT03498651|183606563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.39|-0.26|
91667760|NCT01243151|183229313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.39|-27.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.69|-44.39|<0.0001
91667761|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.975||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|12.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.41|-3.53|0.2690
91667762|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.133||0.2122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|13.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.50|-3.07|0.2122
91667763|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.054||0.8953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|8.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.67|-7.59|0.8953
91667764|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.045||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|13.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.70|-2.51|0.1723
91667765|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.293||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|23.56|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.56|6.34|0.0010
91667766|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.451||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|19.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.78|1.95|0.0179
91667767|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|17.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||17.96|0.16|0.0462
91667768|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.358||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|20.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.52|3.05|0.0091
91714467|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.0187||95.0|-30.0|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-2.8|-30.0|0.0187
91667769|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.064||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|15.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.45|-0.83|0.0774
91667770|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.165||0.0909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|15.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.50|-1.18|0.0909
91667771|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.157||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|10.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.45|-6.20|0.6107
91667772|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.076||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|19.75|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.75|3.42|0.0062
91667773|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.712||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|18.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||18.13|-0.74|0.0702
91667774|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.807||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|16.32|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.32|-2.93|0.1692
91667775|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.819||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|13.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.96|-5.34|0.3751
91714468|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.6128||95.0|-10.2|17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.3|-10.2|0.6128
91714469|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.3488||95.0|-19.7|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.0|-19.7|0.3488
91714470|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.1472||95.0|-24.5|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.7|-24.5|0.1472
91860269|NCT03498651|183606564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.||"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|0.54|0.42|
91667776|NCT01243151|183229314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.709||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|23.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.08|4.23|0.0053
91667777|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.951|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.56|-22.72|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.72|-38.56|<0.0001
91667778|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.084|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-18.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-18.44|-34.80|<0.0001
91667779|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.003|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.29|-27.24|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.24|-43.29|<0.0001
91667780|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.931|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-25.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-25.54|-41.30|<0.0001
91667781|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.34|-30.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-30.42|-52.34|<0.0001
91667782|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.36|-26.88|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-26.88|-49.36|<0.0001
91714471|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.89||0.0791||95.0|-25.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.4|-25.7|0.0791
91860270|NCT03498651|183606564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.39|-0.23|
91792559|NCT02129777|183462753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|21.4|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||21.4|-5.7|0.248
91860271|NCT03498651|183606565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.51|-0.60|
91792560|NCT02129777|183462753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|14.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||14.2|-12.7|0.914
91792561|NCT02129777|183462753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|17.9|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||17.9|-9.2|0.523
91792562|NCT02129777|183462754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.8|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||2.8|-2.7|0.978
91860272|NCT03498651|183606565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.27|-0.23|
91792563|NCT02129777|183462754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.5|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||1.5|-3.9|0.389
91792564|NCT02129777|183462754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||1.4|-4.2|0.316
91714472|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97||0.0282||95.0|-29.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.7|-29.1|0.0282
91667783|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.599|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.64|-36.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.20|-58.64|<0.0001
91667784|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.453|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.87|-36.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.00|-57.87|<0.0001
91667785|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.275|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.96|-36.77|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.77|-53.96|<0.0001
91667786|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.374|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.58|-39.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.99|-57.58|<0.0001
91667787|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.346|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.23|-45.75|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-45.75|-63.23|<0.0001
91714473|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.1623||95.0|-23.9|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.0|-23.9|0.1623
91667788|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.25|-43.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.26|-60.25|<0.0001
91667789|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.373|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.58|-32.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.07|-49.58|<0.0001
91667790|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.464|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.68|-34.81|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-34.81|-52.68|<0.0001
91667791|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.437|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.25|-43.48|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.48|-61.25|<0.0001
91667792|NCT01243151|183229315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.312|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.58|-41.31|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-41.31|-58.58|<0.0001
91667793|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.581||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.08|38.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||38.04|-39.08|0.9789
91667794|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.46|27.59|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.59|-51.46|0.5525
91667795|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.979||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.73|25.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||25.96|-52.73|0.5035
91667796|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.81|34.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||34.39|-42.81|0.8302
91714474|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.3739||95.0|-19.6|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.4|-19.6|0.3739
91667797|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.581||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.01|27.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.10|-50.01|0.5590
91667798|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.36|27.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.69|-51.36|0.5558
91667799|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.332||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.34|31.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||31.74|-48.34|0.6835
91667800|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|27.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.45|-49.75|0.5699
91667801|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.918||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.64|21.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||21.80|-56.64|0.3826
91667802|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.35|26.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.70|-52.35|0.5233
91667803|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.332||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.51|20.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.57|-59.51|0.3391
91667804|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.55|20.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.65|-56.55|0.3606
91667805|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.918||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.55|26.89|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.89|-51.55|0.5364
91667806|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.08|27.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.96|-51.08|0.5651
91667807|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.332||0.4719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.69|25.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||25.39|-54.69|0.4719
91714475|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.0517||95.0|-28.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-28.5|0.0517
91864522|NCT05485779|183617868|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.971||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|1.28|||Lack of fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 45.5. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 once daily for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.28|0.666|0.1455
91667808|NCT01243151|183229316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.13|22.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||22.07|-55.13|0.3999
91667809|NCT01579006|183229381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91667810|NCT01579006|183229382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91667811|NCT01579006|183229383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91864523|NCT02010242|183617869|SUPERIORITY|All statistical analyses were performed on a comparison-wise basis without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||Primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed using ANCOVA comparing GKT137831 vs placebo after controlling for the baseline UACR level. The UACR were log-transformed prior to analysis. The model included treatment group and log-transformed baseline UACR value as predicted variables. The results were back-transformed exponentially to calculate geo. mean values and associated 90% CIs and 1-sided p-values. The null hypothesis was that the difference in the adjusted mean logarithm of UACR was equal to 0||||1.000
91667812|NCT01579006|183229385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91667813|NCT01579006|183229386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91667814|NCT01579006|183229392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91667815|NCT01579006|183229393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91667816|NCT01579006|183229394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91667817|NCT01579006|183229395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91667818|NCT01579006|183229396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91667819|NCT01579006|183229398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91667820|NCT00799708|183229405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.345
91667821|NCT00799708|183229405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.166
91667822|NCT00799708|183229406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.92|||ANCOVA|||||0.92|-0.16|0.120
91667823|NCT01192776|183229426|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.98||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.98|0.76|
91667824|NCT01192776|183229426|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.87||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.87|0.78|
91667825|NCT01192776|183229426|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.35||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.35|0.53|
91667826|NCT01192776|183229427|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|8.49||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||8.49|0.55|
91667827|NCT01192776|183229427|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.95||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||5.95|1.06|
91667828|NCT01192776|183229427|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.31||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||4.31|0.79|
91667829|NCT01192776|183229432|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.38||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.38|0.64|
91860273|NCT03498651|183606566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.37|-0.46|
91667830|NCT01192776|183229432|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.9||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.90|0.36|
91667831|NCT01192776|183229432|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.57||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.57|0.26|
91667832|NCT01192776|183229434|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.77||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.77|0.63|
91667833|NCT01192776|183229434|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.04||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.04|0.09|
91667834|NCT01192776|183229434|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.99||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.99|0.20|
91667835|NCT01192776|183229435|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.01||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||3.01|0.14|
91667836|NCT01192776|183229435|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.91||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||3.91|0.44|
91667837|NCT01192776|183229435|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.89||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.89|0.03|
91667838|NCT01192776|183229436|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.07||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.07|0.37|
91667839|NCT01192776|183229436|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.35||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.35|0.30|
91667840|NCT01192776|183229436|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.64||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.64|0.13|
91667841|NCT01586039|183229454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 90 lux intensity|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 90 lux intensity. Melatonin suppression is measured as the percentage of melatonin AUC relative to the AUC measured in dim light on the previous day. Higher values indicate more light-induced melatonin suppression.||||0.73
91667842|NCT01586039|183229454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 50 lux intensity|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 50 lux intensity||||0.001
91667843|NCT01586039|183229455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.19
91667844|NCT01586039|183229457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||||0.17
91667845|NCT01586039|183229457|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired test.||||||1.0
91667846|NCT01943435|183229464|SUPERIORITY|For this superiority study, sample size estimation was based upon hypothesized changes in our primary outcome measure, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) questionnaire. We calculated that a total sample size of 180 subjects (n=60 per group) would give us 80% power to detect a difference as small as 3.6 points on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire score. Sample size was increased at the request of the funding agency without any interim analysis performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||The primary analysis was a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SSS total score as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||2.2|-1.5|0.73
91667847|NCT01943435|183229464|SUPERIORITY|For this superiority study, sample size estimation was based upon hypothesized changes in our primary outcome measure, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) questionnaire. We calculated that a total sample size of 180 subjects (n=60 per group) would give us 80% power to detect a difference as small as 3.6 points on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire score. Sample size was increased at the request of the funding agency without any interim analysis performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||The primary analysis was a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SSS total score as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||-0.3|-3.9|0.02
91667848|NCT01943435|183229464|SUPERIORITY|For this superiority study, sample size estimation was based upon hypothesized changes in our primary outcome measure, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) questionnaire. We calculated that a total sample size of 180 subjects (n=60 per group) would give us 80% power to detect a difference as small as 3.6 points on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire score. Sample size was increased at the request of the funding agency without any interim analysis performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||The primary analysis was a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SSS total score as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||4.3|0.6|0.01
91667849|NCT01943435|183229465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.2|249.2|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SPWT as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||249.2|-75.2|0.29
91667850|NCT01943435|183229465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|129.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|286.6|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SPWT as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||286.6|-27.2|0.10
91667851|NCT01943435|183229465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.7||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.4|120.0|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SPWT as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||120.0|-205.4|0.61
91667852|NCT01943435|183229466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|57.9|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This secondary analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear regression with physical activity as the dependent variable (average number of minutes spent daily in activities \>1.5 METs), while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||57.9|3.1|0.03
91792565|NCT02129777|183462754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.7|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.7|-4.9|0.142
91667853|NCT01943435|183229466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|45.0|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This secondary analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear regression with physical activity as the dependent variable (average number of minutes spent daily in activities \>1.5 METs), while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||45.0|-7.6|0.16
91667854|NCT01943435|183229466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|39.1|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This secondary analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear regression with physical activity as the dependent variable (average number of minutes spent daily in activities \>1.5 METs), while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||39.1|-15.6|0.40
91667855|NCT04535986|183229469|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0551|0.1185||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to average FEV1 AUC0-12h with treatment, region, background medication strata and smoking strata as fixed effects and baseline FEV1 as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1185|0.0551|<0.0001
91667856|NCT01632215|183229486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91667857|NCT04561115|183229499|EQUIVALENCE|The relative alpha level for statistical significance was 0.1 (alpha=0.05 for one-sided test), or a 90% CI was used for the bioequivalence test.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|0.972||||||||0.972|0.926|
91667858|NCT04561115|183229500|EQUIVALENCE|The relative alpha level for statistical significance was 0.1 (alpha=0.05 for one-sided test), or a 90% CI was used for the bioequivalence test.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.021||||||||1.021|0.937|
91667859|NCT00784095|183229556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||5.7|.04|.047
91667860|NCT00784095|183229556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.7||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks||4.7|-1.1|
91667861|NCT00784095|183229557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.6||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||5.6|-3.2|
91667862|NCT00784095|183229557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.3||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks||3.3|-5.6|
91667863|NCT00784095|183229558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.9||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||2.9|-6.2|
91667864|NCT00784095|183229558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.0||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks||1.0|-8.2|
91667865|NCT00784095|183229559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.4||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||3.4|-4.5|
91667866|NCT00784095|183229559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.0||||||Intervention versus Attention Control at 8 weeks.||3.0|-5.1|
91667867|NCT00784095|183229560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.7||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||3.7|-4.8|
91667868|NCT00784095|183229560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.7||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks.||6.7|-1.9|
91667869|NCT01874535|183229561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.009|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91667870|NCT02616380|183229563|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
91667871|NCT02616380|183229564|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
91667872|NCT02616380|183229564|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
91667873|NCT02616380|183229564|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
91667874|NCT02616380|183229564|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
91667875|NCT02616380|183229565|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 12 weeks||||<0.0001
91667876|NCT02616380|183229565|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 24 weeks||||<0.0001
91860274|NCT03498651|183606566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.32|-0.23|
91667877|NCT02616380|183229566|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 12||||<0.0001
91667878|NCT02616380|183229566|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 24||||<0.0001
91667879|NCT02616380|183229566|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 12||||<0.0001
91667880|NCT02616380|183229566|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 24||||<0.0001
91667881|NCT02616380|183229567|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
91667882|NCT01929681|183229591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.049|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.049
91667883|NCT01929681|183229592|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.182|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.182
91667884|NCT01929681|183229593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.449|||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed effects analysis||||||<0.449
91667885|NCT01929681|183229594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.444|||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed effects analysis||||||<0.444
91667886|NCT01929681|183229595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.182|||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed effects analysis||||||<0.182
91667887|NCT00421304|183229606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.218
91667888|NCT00421304|183229606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.643
91714476|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.0815||95.0|-25.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.5|-25.8|0.0815
91714477|NCT00676403|183320247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.0031||95.0|-34.7|-7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-7.1|-34.7|0.0031
91667889|NCT00421304|183229606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.677
91714478|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88||0.3368||95.0|-8.0|23.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.1|-8.0|0.3368
91667890|NCT00421304|183229607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.257
91714479|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.4232||95.0|-21.5|9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.1|-21.5|0.4232
91714480|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.7082||95.0|-12.9|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.0|-12.9|0.7082
91714481|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.9466||95.0|-15.7|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.7|-15.7|0.9466
91714482|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||0.3746||95.0|-22.1|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.4|-22.1|0.3746
91667891|NCT00421304|183229607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.726
91667892|NCT00421304|183229607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.551
91667893|NCT00421304|183229608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.591
91667894|NCT00421304|183229608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.393
91667895|NCT00421304|183229608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.586
91667896|NCT00421304|183229609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.894
91667897|NCT00421304|183229609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.674
91667898|NCT00421304|183229609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.636
91667899|NCT00421304|183229610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.397
91667900|NCT00421304|183229610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.238
91667901|NCT00421304|183229610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.461
91667902|NCT00421304|183229611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.322
91667903|NCT00421304|183229611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.747
91667904|NCT00421304|183229611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.717
91667905|NCT00421304|183229612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.847
91667906|NCT00421304|183229612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
91667907|NCT00421304|183229612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
91667908|NCT00421304|183229613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.653
91667909|NCT00421304|183229613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.283
91667910|NCT00421304|183229613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.411
91667911|NCT00421304|183229614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.988
91667912|NCT00421304|183229614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.832
91667913|NCT00421304|183229614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.748
91667914|NCT00421304|183229615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.280
91667915|NCT00421304|183229615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.108
91667916|NCT00421304|183229615|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
91667917|NCT00421304|183229616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.742
91667918|NCT00421304|183229616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.486
91667919|NCT00421304|183229616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.490
91667920|NCT00421304|183229617|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
91667921|NCT00421304|183229618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.050
91667922|NCT00421304|183229619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.008
91667923|NCT00421304|183229620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.012
91667924|NCT00421304|183229621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||<0.001
91667925|NCT00919711|183229641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Risedronate|||2.0|1.2|<0.0001
91667926|NCT00919711|183229642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91667927|NCT00919711|183229643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Risedronate|||1.8|0.9|<0.0001
91667928|NCT00919711|183229644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.8|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Risedronate|||2.8|1.8|<0.0001
91667929|NCT04980456|183229696|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if the least squares means difference upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, and sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = TOTAL30 minus Biofinity|||0.01||
91667930|NCT00122447|183229707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.435|1.552||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in hsCRP from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, and race.|Regression, Linear|||||1.552|-3.435|0.449
91667931|NCT00122447|183229707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.211||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.133|-0.221||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in hsCRP from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, and race.|Regression, Linear|||||-0.221|-5.133|0.034
91667932|NCT00122447|183229707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.367|2.542||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in hsCRP from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, and race.|Regression, Linear|||||2.542|-2.367|0.943
91667933|NCT00122447|183229708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.023||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in FMD from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, race, and LDL-cholesterol.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: no difference between active treatment group compared to placebo.||0.023|-0.025|0.943
91667934|NCT00122447|183229708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.039||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in FMD from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, race, and LDL-cholesterol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.039|-0.012|0.280
91667935|NCT00122447|183229708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.037||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in FMD from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, race, and LDL-cholesterol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.037|-0.012|0.313
91667936|NCT04284553|183229711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.49|||||"The Odds Ratio compares having open encounter as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having an open encounter alert in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering.||1.49|0.97|
91667937|NCT04284553|183229711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.59|||||"The OR compares between having boostering as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having boostering in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.59|0.83|
91667938|NCT04284553|183229711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16|||||"The OR compares between having cold-state priming as an intervention factor in the arm the patient's primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having cold-state priming in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.16|0.61|
91692413|NCT03187301|183279689|NON_INFERIORITY|4 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Differeence|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|6.9||||||||6.9|-1.6|
91860275|NCT03498651|183606567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.27|-0.39|
91864529|NCT03676192|183617882|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity criterion had been set such that the confidence limits of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference of ORR from each treatment group was entirely bounded by the interval (-12.5, 12.5).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|7.83||||||Logistic regression model including treatment groups (CT-P16 and EU-approved Avastin) as a fixed effect and region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as covariates was used.||7.83|-7.02|
91667939|NCT04284553|183229711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.64|||||"The OR compares between having simplification as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having simplification in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.64|0.88|
91667940|NCT04284553|183229711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98|||||"The OR compares between having sign-off approval as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having sign-off approval in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||0.98|0.52|
91667941|NCT04284553|183229711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.64|||||"The OR compares between having pre-commitment as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having pre-commitment in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.64|0.89|
91904181|NCT02234284|183703312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean percent predicted of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean percent predicted in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||3|-3|.98
91714483|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.95||0.9336||95.0|-15.0|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.3|-15.0|0.9336
91714484|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.2029||95.0|-25.0|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.4|-25.0|0.2029
91714485|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.18||0.3833||95.0|-23.3|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.0|-23.3|0.3833
91667942|NCT04284553|183229711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.19|||||"The OR compares patients having risk framing as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having risk framing in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.19|0.55|
91667943|NCT04284553|183229713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|21.2|||||"The estimate compares having open encounter as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having open encounter in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||21.2|-17.6|
91667944|NCT04284553|183229713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|17.5|||||"The estimate compares having boostering as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having boostering in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||17.5|-41.8|
91667945|NCT04284553|183229713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|67.4|||||"The estimate compares having cold-state priming as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having cold-state priming in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||67.4|11.6|
91714486|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||0.8152||95.0|-17.0|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.4|-17.0|0.8152
91860276|NCT03498651|183606567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.48|-0.14|
91667946|NCT04284553|183229713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|26.9|||||"The estimate compares having simplification as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having simplification in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||26.9|-30.4|
91667947|NCT04284553|183229713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|17.4|||||"The estimate compares having sign-off approval as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having sign-off approval in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||17.4|-37.6|
91667948|NCT04284553|183229713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|32.5|||||"The estimate compares having pre-commitment as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having pre-commitment in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||32.5|-24.1|
91667949|NCT04284553|183229713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|21.5|||||"The estimate compares having risk framing as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having risk framing in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||21.5|-45.5|
91667950|NCT00578968|183229714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91667951|NCT00578968|183229715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91667952|NCT00578968|183229716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91667953|NCT00578968|183229717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91667954|NCT00578968|183229718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison between the two groups at baseline resting.||||0.13
91667955|NCT00578968|183229718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison was made between the two groups at baseline peak exercise||||<0.01
91667956|NCT00578968|183229719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91667957|NCT00578968|183229720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91667958|NCT00578968|183229721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
91667959|NCT00578968|183229722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91860277|NCT03332017|183606596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was stratified by rituximab-refractory status, number of prior lines of therapy, and geographic region per interactive response technology.||||||0.0017
91667960|NCT00578968|183229723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
91667961|NCT00578968|183229724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
91667962|NCT00578968|183229725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
91667963|NCT00578968|183229726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
91667964|NCT00578968|183229727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91667965|NCT00578968|183229728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91667966|NCT00578968|183229729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.60
91667967|NCT00578968|183229730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
91667968|NCT00578968|183229731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.65
91667969|NCT00578968|183229732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
91667970|NCT00578968|183229733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison was made between groups at pretreatment resting time period.||||0.73
91667971|NCT00578968|183229733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison was made between groups at pretreatment peak exercise time period.||||0.11
91667972|NCT00578968|183229734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
91667973|NCT00578968|183229735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91667974|NCT00578968|183229736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
91667975|NCT00578968|183229737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91667976|NCT00578968|183229738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91667977|NCT00578968|183229739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
91667978|NCT00578968|183229740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
91667979|NCT00578968|183229741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91667980|NCT00603564|183229744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||endpoint was analyzed in terms of time by comparison of mean +- SD||||<0.001
91667981|NCT00603564|183229745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7e-06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.000007
91667982|NCT01350934|183229746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|||||3.1|0.8|<0.001
91667983|NCT01350934|183229747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated Difference|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|||||4.1|1.8|<0.001
91667984|NCT01350934|183229748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-42.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.16|-36.67|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-36.67|-48.16|<0.001
91667985|NCT01350934|183229749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-52.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.04|-45.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-45.30|-59.04|<0.001
91667986|NCT01350934|183229750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-51.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.29|-44.99|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-44.99|-57.29|<0.001
91667987|NCT01350934|183229751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-51.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.77|-45.39|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-45.39|-58.77|<0.001
91667988|NCT01350934|183229752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0074|0.1048|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio comparison of percentage of participants with \<20 ng/mL of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin (OH) D between Fosamax Plus group and Calcitriol group.||0.1048|0.0074|<0.001
91860278|NCT02243709|183606633|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91860279|NCT05178316|183606638|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.175|=|0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.60|-3.98|=0.8862
91860280|NCT05178316|183606638|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.817|=|0.6832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.84|-4.32|=0.6832
91860281|NCT05178316|183606639|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|=|0.4522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.55|=0.4522
91860282|NCT05178316|183606639|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|=|0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.55|=0.2032
91860283|NCT05178316|183606640|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|=|0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-0.38|=0.7170
91860284|NCT05178316|183606640|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|=|0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.43|=0.2423
91860285|NCT04610892|183606643|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-8.3797||||0.065||90.0|-17.498|0.7387||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||0.7387|-17.4980|0.065
91860286|NCT04610892|183606643|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|2.3915||||0.747||90.0|-3.5338|8.3167||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||8.3167|-3.5338|0.747
91860287|NCT04610892|183606643|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.5766||||0.563||90.0|-5.4389|6.5921||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||6.5921|-5.4389|0.563
91860288|NCT04610892|183606643|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|1.5204||||0.685||90.0|-3.6657|6.7064||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||6.7064|-3.6657|0.685
91714487|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.1739||95.0|-26.1|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.7|-26.1|0.1739
91714488|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.3392||95.0|-8.0|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.3|-8.0|0.3392
91714489|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.913||95.0|-16.0|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.4|-16.0|0.9130
91792566|NCT02129777|183462755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||1.4|-5.6|0.229
91860289|NCT04610892|183606644|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.12||||0.854||90.0|0.94|1.33||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.33|0.94|0.854
91860290|NCT04610892|183606644|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.06||||0.79||90.0|0.94|1.18||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.18|0.94|0.790
91667989|NCT02733627|183229761|OTHER||Slope|3.8266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2967|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2155|4.4376||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|4.4376|3.2155|
91667990|NCT02733627|183229762|OTHER||Slope|4.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5094|4.8527||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|4.8527|3.5094|
91667991|NCT02733627|183229763|OTHER||Slope|1.8868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2503|2.5234||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|2.5234|1.2503|
91667992|NCT02733627|183229764|OTHER||Slope|3.0677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4844|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0631|4.0723||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|4.0723|2.0631|
91667993|NCT02048813|183229796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.22|<.001
91667994|NCT02048813|183229797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.54|||Log Rank|||||0.54|0.05|<.001
91667995|NCT01708954|183229808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.25|0.53|||||Hazard ratio of Arm C/Arm A|||0.53|0.25|
91667996|NCT01708954|183229808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|0.55|||||Hazard ratio of Arm B/Arm A|||0.55|0.27|
91667997|NCT01721772|183229866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||0.60|0.30|<0.0001
91860291|NCT04610892|183606644|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.0||||0.498||90.0|0.89|1.12||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.12|0.89|0.498
91667998|NCT01721772|183229867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.56|||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||0.56|0.34|<0.0001
91667999|NCT01721772|183229869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|7.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.13|2.75|<0.0001
91668000|NCT01721772|183229870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.56|||||PD-L1 positive group|||0.56|0.24|
91668001|NCT01721772|183229870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.8|||||PD-L1 negative group|||0.80|0.45|
91668002|NCT01721772|183229873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.65||||||||0.65|0.41|
91668003|NCT02754492|183229875|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for the single platelet product group. The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0107|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.95|||||||Up to 350 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.950|
91668004|NCT02754492|183229875|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 8.0 × 10\^6 for the double platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
91714490|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.6||95.0|-20.5|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.9|-20.5|0.6000
91860292|NCT04610892|183606644|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.03||||0.678||90.0|0.93|1.13||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.13|0.93|0.678
91714491|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.4445||95.0|-9.3|21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.2|-9.3|0.4445
91714492|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.85||0.9656||95.0|-15.8|15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.1|-15.8|0.9656
91714493|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.5679||95.0|-11.2|20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.4|-11.2|0.5679
91792567|NCT02129777|183462755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.0|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||3.0|-3.6|0.863
91860293|NCT04610892|183606645|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.44||||0.99||90.0|-2.44|-0.43||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.43|-2.44|0.990
91860294|NCT04610892|183606645|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.21||||0.697||90.0|-0.87|0.45||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.45|-0.87|0.697
91668005|NCT02754492|183229875|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 12.0 × 10\^6 for the triple platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
91902147|NCT04409353|183699272|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.63||||0.5279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.6||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Anxiety score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Anxiety t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.60|-1.34|0.5279
91668006|NCT02754492|183229876|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 3.0 × 10\^11 for the single platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0107|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.95|||||||Up to 350 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.950|
91668007|NCT02754492|183229876|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 6.2 × 10\^11 for the double platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
91668008|NCT02754492|183229876|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 9.3 × 10\^11 for the triple platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
91668009|NCT04542694|183229883|SUPERIORITY||The difference in proportions|0.1313||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0004|0.2367|||Chi-squared|||A comparative analysis of the rate of clinical status improvement by 2 or more categories. The difference in percentages between the AREPLIVIR arm and the standard therapy arm (pa-pb)||0.2367|-0.0004|0.0372
91668010|NCT04542694|183229884|SUPERIORITY||The difference in days|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparative analysis of time to clinical status improvement by categorical ordinal clinical improvement scale between the AREPLIVIR arm and the standard therapy arm||||<0.0001
91668011|NCT04542694|183229885|SUPERIORITY||The difference in percentages|22.5||||0.00016|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00016
91668012|NCT04542694|183229886|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.55||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.052
91668013|NCT04542694|183229887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1953|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1953
91668014|NCT04542694|183229888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4975|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4975
91668015|NCT04633642|183229897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significances was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91668016|NCT04633642|183229898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91668017|NCT04633642|183229899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91860295|NCT04610892|183606645|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.42||||0.849||90.0|-1.08|0.25||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.25|-1.08|0.849
91860296|NCT04610892|183606645|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.31||||0.811||90.0|-0.89|0.27||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.27|-0.89|0.811
91860297|NCT04610892|183606646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-3.5||||0.972||90.0|-6.49|-0.5||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.50|-6.49|0.972
91668018|NCT04633642|183229900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed 51 patients (24 in surgical group and 27 in UAW group) with a statistical power of 0.80 and an alpha of 0.05, with a power of the clinical di↵erence of 37% to detect a statistically significant between groups.||||0.01
91668019|NCT04633642|183229901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistics significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91668020|NCT04633642|183229902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.711|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed 51 patients (24 in surgical group and 27 in UAW group) with a statistical power of 0.80 and an alpha of 0.05, with a power of the clinical difference of 37% to detect a statistically significant between groups.||||0.711
91668021|NCT01207752|183229910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.550
91668022|NCT01717313|183229911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status, interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-0.19|-0.59|<0.001
91668023|NCT01717313|183229912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in percentages vs. placebo|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|2.6||||||||2.6|-18.8|
91668024|NCT01717313|183229913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages vs. placebo|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.5||||||||4.5|-3.1|
91668025|NCT01717313|183229914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages vs. placebo|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|4.9||||||||4.9|-16.4|
91668026|NCT01717313|183229915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages vs. placebo|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.8||||||||4.8|-3.5|
91668027|NCT01717313|183229916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|29.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||29.8|10.5|<0.001
91668028|NCT01717313|183229917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|11.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|18.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||18.6|4.8|0.001
91668029|NCT01717313|183229918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-10.3||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-0.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-0.7|-19.9|0.036
91668030|NCT01717313|183229919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-11.6||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|5.3|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||5.3|-28.6|0.177
91668031|NCT01717313|183229924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.32|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-0.32|-0.75|<0.001
91668032|NCT01717313|183229925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-13.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-2.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-2.7|-23.7|0.014
91668033|NCT01717313|183229926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-20.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-1.9|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-1.9|-39.0|0.031
91668034|NCT02533466|183229936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product."|||0.0|-1.0|0.2673
91668035|NCT02533466|183229937|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0||P-value was calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product."|||0.0|-1.8|0.0690
91668036|NCT02533466|183229938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.0||P-value was calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product."|||0.0|-2.7|0.0680
91668037|NCT02533466|183229939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||P-value is calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product"|||0.0|-3.0|0.0654
91668038|NCT02533466|183229940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|4.1||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||4.1|-6.8|0.6061
91668039|NCT02533466|183229941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.3||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product|||3.3|-7.9|0.4080
91668040|NCT02533466|183229942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||0.8|-0.4|0.4611
91668041|NCT02533466|183229943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.1|0.3939
91668042|NCT02533466|183229944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.7829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.8||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||2.8|-2.2|0.7829
91668043|NCT02533466|183229945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.4||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||1.4|-1.6|0.9121
91668044|NCT01196390|183229952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.36|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation arm|Assuming a median DFS time of 15 months (Arm 2), hypothesized increase in DFS corresponding to median DFS time of 25 months (Arm 1). Assuming an exponential distribution and constant hazards, 183 HER2-positive participants accrued over 5 years and followed for 3 years would result in 162 disease-free survival events and provide 90% statistical power to detect this difference with a 2-sided α of 0.05 and 2 interim analyses. See Limitations and Caveats section.||1.36|0.69|0.85
91668045|NCT01196390|183229953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.71
91668046|NCT01196390|183229954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.47|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation arm|||1.47|0.69|0.95
91668047|NCT01196390|183229956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||One-side significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||6-8 weeks||||0.39
91714494|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.79||0.5619||95.0|-19.9|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.8|-19.9|0.5619
91714495|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31||0.993||95.0|-16.3|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.4|-16.3|0.9930
91714496|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.79||0.6892||95.0|-12.2|18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.5|-12.2|0.6892
91668048|NCT01196390|183229956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-side significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||1 year||||0.78
91668049|NCT01196390|183229956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||One-side significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||2 years||||0.28
91668050|NCT01196390|183229959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to model the association of treatment arm (Arm 1 vs. 2 \[reference level(RL)\]), T stage (T3 vs.T1,T2 \[RL\]), Zubrod (1,2 vs. 0 \[RL\]), gender (male vs. female \[RL\]), presence of adenopathy (yes vs. no \[RL\]), and age (≥ 60 vs. \<60 \[RL\]) with the occurrence of any cardiac AE, using backwards step-wise model selection requiring p≤0.05 for a covariate to remain in the model. Final model covariates are reported. Age is reported here. No other covariates reported.||4.86|1.13|0.021
91714497|NCT00676403|183320248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.4928||95.0|-21.0|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.1|-21.0|0.4928
91792568|NCT02129777|183462755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.7|-1.9|0.403
91668051|NCT03480022|183229964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.002
91668052|NCT03480022|183229965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.006
91668053|NCT03480022|183229966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures nested design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.001
91668054|NCT03480022|183229967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002|||||||ANOVA|one-way ANOVA||||||<0.002
91668055|NCT03480022|183229968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.007
91668056|NCT03480022|183229969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.049
91668057|NCT03480022|183229970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.011|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.011
91668058|NCT03480022|183229971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.038|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.038
91668059|NCT03480022|183229972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.048|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.048
91668060|NCT03480022|183229973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.018|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.018
91668061|NCT03480022|183229974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.028
91668062|NCT03480022|183229975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.034|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.034
91668063|NCT03480022|183229976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
91668064|NCT03480022|183229977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
91668065|NCT03480022|183229978|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
91668066|NCT03480022|183229979|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
91668067|NCT03480022|183229980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.021|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.021
91860298|NCT04610892|183606646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.1||||0.777||90.0|-3.49|1.3||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.30|-3.49|0.777
91668068|NCT03480022|183229981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.009|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.009
91668069|NCT03480022|183229982|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
91668070|NCT03480022|183229983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.028
91668071|NCT03480022|183229984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.042|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.042
91668072|NCT03480022|183229985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.033|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.033
91668073|NCT03480022|183229986|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
91668074|NCT03480022|183229987|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
91668075|NCT03480022|183229988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.016
91714498|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.2719||95.0|-4.4|15.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.6|-4.4|0.2719
91668076|NCT03480022|183229989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.028
91668077|NCT03480022|183229990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.01
91668078|NCT03480022|183229991|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
91668079|NCT03480022|183229992|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
91668080|NCT03980522|183230026|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|19.1908|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and standard deviation (SD) from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91714499|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.693||95.0|-7.9|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.8|-7.9|0.6930
91714500|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.7178||95.0|-12.2|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.4|-12.2|0.7178
91714501|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.8037||95.0|-11.0|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.5|-11.0|0.8037
91714502|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.0832||95.0|-1.2|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.6|-1.2|0.0832
91714503|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.3554||95.0|-5.4|14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.9|-5.4|0.3554
91714504|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.9538||95.0|-9.5|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.0|-9.5|0.9538
91860299|NCT04610892|183606646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.32||||0.596||90.0|-2.54|1.89||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.89|-2.54|0.596
91860300|NCT04610892|183606646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.63||||0.698||90.0|-2.64|1.38||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.38|-2.64|0.698
91860301|NCT04610892|183606647|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.29||||0.981||90.0|-2.32|-0.27||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.27|-2.32|0.981
91668081|NCT03980522|183230026|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0018|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91668082|NCT03980522|183230026|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91668083|NCT03980522|183230026|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|12.6852|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91668084|NCT03980522|183230026|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.1842|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91668085|NCT03980522|183230026|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91792569|NCT02129777|183462755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.4|-2.5|0.597
91792570|NCT02129777|183462755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.5|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||6.5|-2.7|0.416
91668086|NCT03980522|183230027|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|34.1446|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91792571|NCT02129777|183462755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.1|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.1|-3.8|0.770
91668087|NCT03980522|183230027|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.1326|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91668088|NCT03980522|183230027|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91860302|NCT04610892|183606647|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.8||||0.974||90.0|-1.47|-0.12||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.12|-1.47|0.974
91860303|NCT04610892|183606647|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.86||||0.983||90.0|-1.53|-0.2||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.20|-1.53|0.983
91668089|NCT03980522|183230027|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.0548|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91668090|NCT03980522|183230027|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.0134|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91860304|NCT04610892|183606647|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.83||||0.99||90.0|-1.42|-0.25||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.25|-1.42|0.990
91860305|NCT04610892|183606648|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-2.14||||0.959||90.0|-4.16|-0.12||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.12|-4.16|0.959
91860306|NCT04610892|183606648|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-2.92||||0.998||90.0|-4.53|-1.31||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-1.31|-4.53|0.998
91860307|NCT04610892|183606648|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.35||||0.939||90.0|-2.79|0.09||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.09|-2.79|0.939
91668091|NCT03980522|183230027|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91792572|NCT02129777|183462755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.2|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.2|-4.0|0.798
91860308|NCT04610892|183606648|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.94||||0.991||90.0|-3.27|-0.62||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.62|-3.27|0.991
91860309|NCT04610892|183606649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-16.137||||0.077||90.0|-34.7829|2.5089||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||2.5089|-34.7829|0.077
91860310|NCT04610892|183606649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.5927||||0.468||90.0|-12.7267|11.5413||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||11.5413|-12.7267|0.468
91860311|NCT04610892|183606649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.1767||||0.491||90.0|-12.4678|12.1144||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||12.1144|-12.4678|0.491
91860312|NCT04610892|183606649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.393||||0.476||90.0|-11.0022|10.2162||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||10.2162|-11.0022|0.476
91860313|NCT04610892|183606650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-4.3435||||0.136||90.0|-10.8637|2.1768||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||2.1768|-10.8637|0.136
91860314|NCT04610892|183606650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.2369||||0.316||90.0|-5.4796|3.0059||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||3.0059|-5.4796|0.316
91860315|NCT04610892|183606650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.7015||||0.394||90.0|-5.0096|3.6065||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||3.6065|-5.0096|0.394
91860316|NCT04610892|183606650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.9799||||0.332||90.0|-4.6927|2.7329||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||2.7329|-4.6927|0.332
91668092|NCT03980522|183230028|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|2.8139|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91668093|NCT03980522|183230028|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|6.9999|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91668094|NCT03980522|183230028|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91668095|NCT03980522|183230028|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.9693|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91668096|NCT03980522|183230028|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91668097|NCT03980522|183230028|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91668098|NCT03980522|183230029|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|1.9968|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91668099|NCT03980522|183230029|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.9047|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91668100|NCT03980522|183230029|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91668101|NCT03980522|183230029|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.7598|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91668102|NCT03980522|183230029|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|2.849|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91668103|NCT03980522|183230029|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91668104|NCT01320722|183230032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8||||0.72
91668105|NCT01320722|183230033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.77
91668106|NCT01320722|183230034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.57
91668107|NCT01320722|183230035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.8
91668108|NCT01320722|183230035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.6
91668109|NCT01320722|183230036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.6
91668110|NCT01320722|183230036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.7
91668111|NCT01320722|183230037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.3
91668112|NCT01320722|183230037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.1
91668113|NCT01320722|183230038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance was set for a 2-tailed P \<0.05.||Week 8||||0.35
91668114|NCT01320722|183230038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Statistical significance was set for a 2-tailed P \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.7
91792573|NCT02129777|183462755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|5.5|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.5|-4.1|0.767
91860317|NCT01748448|183606727|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||=|0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.03|||Fisher Exact|||||2.03|0.79|= 0.324
91860318|NCT02226276|183606733|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91668115|NCT01320722|183230038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance was set for a 2-tailed P \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.06
91668116|NCT01320722|183230039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall SBP||||0.92
91668117|NCT01320722|183230039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall DBP||||0.64
91668118|NCT01320722|183230039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Awake SBP||||0.80
91668119|NCT01320722|183230039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Asleep SBP at Week 8||||0.97
91668120|NCT01320722|183230039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall SBP||||0.34
91668121|NCT01320722|183230039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Repeated Measures Analysi|||Overall DBP||||0.59
91668122|NCT01320722|183230039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Awake SBF||||0.57
91668123|NCT01320722|183230039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Asleep SBP||||0.08
91668124|NCT01320722|183230039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall SBP||||0.59
91668125|NCT01320722|183230039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.53
91668126|NCT01320722|183230039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Awake SBP||||0.55
91668127|NCT01320722|183230039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Asleep SBP||||0.80
91668128|NCT01320722|183230040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.98
91668129|NCT01320722|183230040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.07
91668130|NCT01320722|183230040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.97
91668131|NCT01091363|183230041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|12.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.99|1.67|<0.01
91668132|NCT01091363|183230042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Hayes' PROCESS computation tool for a serial multiple mediator model predicting a binary logistic outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.92||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.32|||Mediation Analysis|||Mediation analyses were performed to examine the effect of the intervention on abstinence via the three theoretic variables (attitudes, perceived family norms, and self-efficacy), using the Hayes' PROCESS computation tool for a serial multiple mediator model with a binary outcome variable (quitting vs. smoking).||6.32|0.34|0.02
91668133|NCT00021541|183230054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.012
91668134|NCT00021541|183230054|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Post hoc test: tipifarnib group F=7.40||||0.015
91668135|NCT00021541|183230054|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Post hoc test: placebo group F=0.19||||0.66
91668136|NCT04892147|183230057|OTHER|"Mean value of Enjoyment (8-item summed scale) tested against the value of a Neutral Likert response (Neutral value = 3)."|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. The reported value is a calculated -p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91668137|NCT04892147|183230058|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.259||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.259
91860319|NCT02226276|183606734|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91668138|NCT04892147|183230059|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.711||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.711
91668139|NCT04892147|183230060|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.214||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.214
91668140|NCT04892147|183230061|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.317||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.317
91668141|NCT04892147|183230062|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.056||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.056
91668142|NCT04892147|183230063|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.562||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.562
91668143|NCT00556673|183230094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.51||"Linear mixed effect model fitting treatment, sequence and period as fixed factors, patient within sequence as a random factor and pre-dose FEV1 as covariate.~A significance level of 5% was used to determine statistical significance."|1-sided|||The primary hypothesis tested was that the change from period baseline of trough FEV1 for placebo and indacaterol/mometasone was equal. The one-sided alternative was that the increase from period baseline of trough FEV1 for indacaterol/mometasone was higher than for placebo.||0.51|0.28|< 0.0001
91668144|NCT01971554|183230109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|50.3|||||A constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||50.3|11.3|
91668145|NCT01971554|183230109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.0|51.9|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||51.9|20.0|
91668146|NCT01971554|183230109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.1|70.0|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||70.0|38.1|
91668147|NCT01971554|183230115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2|38.4|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||38.4|6.2|
91668148|NCT01971554|183230115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.4|43.8|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||43.8|17.4|
91668149|NCT01971554|183230115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.6|62.0|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||62.0|35.6|
91668150|NCT03505151|183230116|OTHER||Ratio T/R|44.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.9||||90.0|32.62|61.06|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) of the mean|Absolute bioavailability was evaluated using an Analysis of variance model (ANOVA) on BI 409306 AUC0-inf versus 0.1 mg BI 409306 C-13/N-15 i.v. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas 'formulation' was considered as fixed. The dose normalised PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||61.06|32.62|
91668151|NCT03505151|183230117|OTHER||Ratio T/R|47.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.8||||90.0|27.38|81.55|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) of the mean|Ratios of BI 409306 for Cmax versus 0.1 mg BI 409306 C-13/N-15 i.v. was evaluated using ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas 'formulation' was considered as fixed. The dose normalised PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||81.55|27.38|
91668152|NCT00087529|183230131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.1442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.093||Stratified using the following variables: Baseline EDSS (less than or equal to \[≤\] 4.0 versus \>4.0 points) and prior treatment with interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate.|Log Rank|||||1.093|0.546|0.1442
91668153|NCT00087529|183230133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-718.24||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1504.48|68.0|||Friedman ranked ANOVA test|||Treatment difference in least-squares (LS) means and the associated 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, which included the following factors: Baseline EDSS (≤ 4.0 versus \>4.0 points), prior treatment with interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate, and treatment group.||68.00|-1504.48|0.0008
91668154|NCT00087529|183230134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.08||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|7.34|||Friedman ranked ANOVA test|||Treatment difference in LS means and the associated 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the ANOVA model, which included the following factors: Baseline EDSS (≤ 4.0 versus \>4.0 points), prior treatment with interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate, and treatment group.||7.34|-9.49|0.6237
91668155|NCT02535923|183230135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
91668156|NCT02535923|183230135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.83
91668157|NCT02535923|183230136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.83
91668158|NCT02535923|183230137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.003
91668159|NCT02535923|183230138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.16
91902148|NCT04409353|183699273|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.19||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.94||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.94|-0.56|0.1833
91860320|NCT03562377|183606735|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in response rates was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the risk difference stratified by baseline disease severity together with the 2-sided 95% CI. Non-inferiority of tralokinumab was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -25%. Power calculation assumed 160 subjects in the per protocol analysis set, providing 98% power to establish non-inferiority, assuming response rates of 80% in both treatment groups and a non-inferiority margin of -25%|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|3.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.1|-11.3|
91860321|NCT03562377|183606736|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in response rates was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the risk difference stratified by baseline disease severity together with the 2-sided 95% CI. Non-inferiority of tralokinumab was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -25%. Power calculation assumed 160 subjects in the per protocol analysis set, providing 98% power to establish non-inferiority, assuming response rates of 80% in both treatment groups and a non-inferiority margin of -25%|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|12.8|||Mantel Haenszel|||||12.8|-9.2|
91860322|NCT03562377|183606737|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.6||The p-value was adjusted for multiplicity by a pre-specified testing hierarchy. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline disease severity (moderate or severe).||||22.6|0.2|0.049
91860323|NCT03562377|183606738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|25.7||The p-value was adjusted for multiplicity by a pre-specified testing hierarchy. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline disease severity (moderate or severe).||||25.7|-0.2|0.057
91668160|NCT02535923|183230139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.82
91668161|NCT04388787|183230141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91668162|NCT04388787|183230142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
91668163|NCT04662710|183230155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type|||1.00|0.71|.0244
91668164|NCT04662710|183230156|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, ECOG performance status and chemotherapy type.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy|||1.01|0.75|0.0330
91668165|NCT04662710|183230157|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, performance status, and chemotherapy type|Log Rank||HR Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type.|||0.90|0.62|.0012
91714505|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.5593||95.0|-13.4|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-13.4|0.5593
91860324|NCT04650087|183606770|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.95||||||||1.95|0.44|
91860325|NCT04650087|183606771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.31||||||||1.31|0.83|
91860326|NCT04650087|183606772|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.24||||||||1.24|0.78|
91860327|NCT04650087|183606773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.74||||||||1.74|0.44|
91860328|NCT04650087|183606774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.12||||||||2.12|0.58|
91860329|NCT04650087|183606775|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.42||||||||3.42|0.29|
91668166|NCT04662710|183230158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type.|||0.92|0.66|0.0019
91668167|NCT04662710|183230159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|21.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||ORR comparison between groups is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and type of chemotherapy||21.5|6.9|<0.0001
91668168|NCT04662710|183230160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|20.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||ORR comparison between groups is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and type of chemotherapy||20.6|7.7|<0.0001
91668169|NCT01453153|183230237|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0||||||||60|0|
91668170|NCT01453153|183230237|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|93.0||||||||93|7|
91668171|NCT01453153|183230237|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|64.0||||||||64|19|
91668172|NCT01453153|183230238|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|81.0||||||||81|1|
91668173|NCT01453153|183230238|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|100.0||||||||100|40|
91792574|NCT02129777|183462756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.06|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.06|-0.11|0.570
91860330|NCT04650087|183606776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.18||||||||3.18|0.03|
91668174|NCT01453153|183230238|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|88.0||||||||88|46|
91668175|NCT01196117|183230245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0009
91668176|NCT01196117|183230246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8938
91668177|NCT01196117|183230247|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.014
91668178|NCT01196117|183230248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0200
91668179|NCT01196117|183230249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1321|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1321
91668180|NCT01196117|183230250|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.249|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.2490
91668181|NCT01196117|183230251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5139
91668182|NCT01196117|183230252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0597|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0597
91668183|NCT01196117|183230253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2134|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2134
91668184|NCT02274558|183230303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||"Control for multiplicity was accomplished through the a fixed-sequence testing procedure for Week 6 outcomes:~* AIMS dyskinesia total score mean change from baseline (CFB): valbenazine 80 mg vs. placebo.~* CGI-TD mean score: VBZ 80 mg vs. PBO.~* AIMS: VBZ 40 mg vs. PBO.~* CGI-TD: VBZ 40 mg vs. PBO.~For a test result in the above list to be considered statistically significant, all of the test results higher in the list must have been significant at the 0.05 level of significance."||-2.0|-4.2|<0.0001
91668185|NCT02274558|183230303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.7||Nominal P-value, not adjusted for multiplicity. See comments in above statistical analysis overview regarding the fixed-sequence testing procedure to control for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.7|-3.0|0.0021
91668186|NCT02274558|183230304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||0.0|-0.5|0.0742
91668187|NCT02274558|183230304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||0.0|-0.5|0.0560
91668188|NCT02274558|183230305|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0200
91668189|NCT02274558|183230305|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91860331|NCT04650087|183606777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.28||||||||2.28|0.34|
91792575|NCT02129777|183462756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.06|-0.10|0.619
91860332|NCT03001414|183606780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.69||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.08|47.48|||ANOVA|Global test of difference between the arms analyzed as absolute change from baseline.||Due to sample size restriction, the primary analysis plan was modified to analyze change from baseline to each time point using repeated measures of ANOVA.||47.48|-20.08|0.42
91860333|NCT03001414|183606780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculation of raw change from baseline in meters using non-parametric Wilcoxon test.||||0.57
91860334|NCT03001414|183606780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.55||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Secondary analysis of primary outcome using non-parametric Wilcoxon test of percent change from baseline.||||||0.53
91792576|NCT02129777|183462756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.11|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.11|-0.06|0.597
91668190|NCT00323258|183230346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in proportion of participants adherent to triple therapy in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample size of 286 patients(143 patients per group).Based on an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15% in the intervention group (eg, 85% in the intervention group, 70% in the control group), a 2-sided test with α level of .05, a 15% dropout rate, and power of 0.80.||||.50
91668191|NCT00323258|183230347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in the proportion of participants who are \>/= 75% adherent to combined beta-blocker and statin therapy in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."|||||=|0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample Size calculated as 286 total or 143 patient per treatment group. Based on a baseline adherence rate of 70%, an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15.0% in the intervention group, we would require 122 patients per group assuming a 2-sided test with alpha-level of .05 and power of .80. To sustain a 15% dropout/ loss to follow-up rate, about 143 patients per group (286 patients total) would need to be consented.||||=0.11
91860335|NCT03001414|183606781|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline calculated in meters using non-parametric analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.97||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of these arms is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.10
91860336|NCT03001414|183606782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The selected arm for this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.50
91860337|NCT03001414|183606783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.92||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change from baseline in meters at 6 and 12 months.||Selection of the arm for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.88
91668192|NCT00323258|183230348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in the proportion of participants who are \>/= 75% adherent to beta-blockers in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample Size calculated as 286 total or 143 patient per treatment group. Based on a baseline adherence rate of 70%, an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15.0% in the intervention group, we would require 122 patients per group assuming a 2-sided test with alpha-level of .05 and power of .80. To sustain a 15% dropout/ loss to follow-up rate, about 143 patients per group (286 patients total) would need to be consented.||||0.03
91668193|NCT00323258|183230349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in the proportion of participants who are \>/= 75% adherent to statins in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample Size calculated as 286 total or 143 patient per treatment group. Based on a baseline adherence rate of 70%, an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15.0% in the intervention group, we would require 122 patients per group assuming a 2-sided test with alpha-level of .05 and power of .80. To sustain a 15% dropout/ loss to follow-up rate, about 143 patients per group (286 patients total) would need to be consented.||||0.34
91668194|NCT01728636|183230351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
91668195|NCT01097694|183230387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Our null hypothesis was that the mean of this ratio will be 0 after log2-transformed.~The target enrollment was 60 assuming 10% drop-out for 54 completions which gave us 80% power to detect a doubling-dose change in PC20."||||<0.05
91668196|NCT01097694|183230388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||<0.05
91668197|NCT01097694|183230389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.12
91668198|NCT01097694|183230390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.10
91860338|NCT03001414|183606784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.81
91860339|NCT03001414|183606785|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.63
91860340|NCT03001414|183606786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91668199|NCT01097694|183230391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Poisson regression model|||||||0.36
91668200|NCT01097694|183230392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline values||For FEV1 we used a linear mixed-effects model to assess the between-group difference in the change from baseline over weeks 8-24.||||<0.05
91668201|NCT01097694|183230393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline.||For FEV1% we used a linear mixed-effects model to assess the between-group difference in the change from baseline over weeks 8-24.||||0.06
91668202|NCT01097694|183230394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.38
91668203|NCT01097694|183230395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.31
91668204|NCT01097694|183230396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.11
91668205|NCT01097694|183230397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.31
91668206|NCT01097694|183230398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.11
91668207|NCT01097694|183230399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.62
91668208|NCT01097694|183230400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.57
91668209|NCT01097694|183230401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.15
91860341|NCT03001414|183606787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis represents the results for the Physical Component score of the questionnaire.||Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.0
91860342|NCT03001414|183606787|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This analysis represents the difference in score for the mental component of the questionnaire.|Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.64
91860343|NCT03001414|183606788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This analysis represents the difference in score for the physical component of the questionnaire.|Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.40
91668210|NCT01097694|183230402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.33
91668211|NCT01097694|183230403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.11
91792577|NCT02129777|183462756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.12|-0.06|0.509
91792578|NCT02129777|183462757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|9.6|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||9.6|-11.7|0.845
91668212|NCT01097694|183230404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.07
91668213|NCT01097694|183230405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.94
91668214|NCT01097694|183230406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.13
91668215|NCT01097694|183230407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.25
91668216|NCT01097694|183230408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.54
91668217|NCT01097694|183230409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.18
91668218|NCT01097694|183230410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.56
91668219|NCT01097694|183230411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.47
91860344|NCT03001414|183606788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||This analysis represents the change in score for the mental component of the questionnaire.|||0.23
91860345|NCT05177848|183606829|OTHER|||||||0.9793||||||"A linear mixed effects model tested the interaction between group and condition on the rate of substitution~Results:~Condition: X2(6) = 4.30, p = 0.64 Group: X2(1) 0.22, p = 0.64 Condition:Group: X2(6) = 1.15, p = 0.98"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9793
91860346|NCT05177848|183606830|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||"A linear mixed effects model tested the interaction between group and condition on Q0 (derived intensity).~Results:~Condition: X2(6) = 6.59, p = 0.36 Group: X2(1) = 0.07, p = 0.79 Condition:Group: X2(6) = 7.38, p = 0.29"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
91860347|NCT05177848|183606830|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||"A linear mixed effects model tested the interaction between group and condition on Alpha (demand elasticity).~Results:~Condition: X2(6) = 0.0001, p = 1.00 Group: X2(1) = 0.00, p = 0.99 Condition:Group: X2(6) = 5.65, p = 0.46"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
91902149|NCT04409353|183699273|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.33||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.37||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.37|-2.04|0.7006
91668220|NCT05068661|183230451|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.40|0.486
91668221|NCT05068661|183230452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06||This is adjusted P value for hypotension|Chi-squared|||||1.06|0.69|0.148
91668222|NCT05068661|183230453|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.1||This is adjusted P value|Chi-squared|||||1.10|0.98|>0.999
91792579|NCT02129777|183462757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|14.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||14.4|-4.8|0.323
91860348|NCT05386758|183606840|OTHER||Gemetric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.64||||||||1.64|0.94|
91860349|NCT05386758|183606841|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.62||||||||1.62|0.90|
91668223|NCT05068661|183230454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|1.9||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.18||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||3.18|1.14|0.128
91860350|NCT01573442|183606846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4952
91860351|NCT01573442|183606847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2116|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2116
91860352|NCT01573442|183606848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6760
91860353|NCT01573442|183606849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 1||||0.029
91860354|NCT01573442|183606849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8214|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 2||||0.8214
91860355|NCT01573442|183606849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 3||||0.4952
91860356|NCT01573442|183606849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5232|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 4||||0.5232
91860357|NCT01573442|183606849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5522|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 5||||0.5522
91860358|NCT01573442|183606849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 6||||0.7005
91860359|NCT01573442|183606853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
91860360|NCT01573442|183606854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8761|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8761
91860361|NCT01573442|183606855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0176
91860362|NCT01573442|183606856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7077
91860363|NCT01573442|183606857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8748
91860364|NCT01573442|183606858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4335
91860365|NCT01573442|183606859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.286
91668224|NCT05068661|183230455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|1.04|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||1.35|0.80|>0.999
91668225|NCT05068661|183230456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.97|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.3||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||1.30|0.93|>0.999
91668226|NCT05068661|183230457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25||Adjusted P value|Chi-squared|||||1.25|0.52|>0.999
91668227|NCT05068661|183230458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.24||Adjusted P value|Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.58|>0.999
91668228|NCT05068661|183230459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|1.03|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||1.22|0.86|>0.999
91668229|NCT01567527|183230460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.678|||Log Rank||"Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.~HR is estimated for Aripiprazole IM depot relative to Placebo."|Significance level 0.05.||0.678|0.299|< 0.0001
91668230|NCT01567527|183230460|SUPERIORITY|Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.475|3.34|||||HR is estimated for Placebo relative to Aripiprazole IM depot.|||3.34|1.475|
91668231|NCT01567527|183230461|SUPERIORITY|Using a hierarchical procedure to preserve the overall Type I error rate at 0.05, after testing the primary outcome.|Percentage Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-12.5|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for any mood episode||-12.5|-36.7|< 0.0001
91668232|NCT01567527|183230462|SUPERIORITY|Using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach. Analyses included the categorically fixed effects of treatment, region, trial week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuously fixed covariates of baseline-score-by-week interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-subject errors and Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.17|||Mixed model repeated measure analysis|||||-0.17|-0.69|= 0.0011
91714506|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.8663||95.0|-8.9|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.6|-8.9|0.8663
91714507|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.119||95.0|-2.1|18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.1|-2.1|0.1190
91668233|NCT01567527|183230463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.137|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.465|||Log Rank||"Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.~HR is estimated for Aripiprazole IM depot relative to Placebo."|||0.465|0.04|= 0.0002
91668234|NCT01567527|183230463|SUPERIORITY|Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.313|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.151|24.865|||||HR is estimated for Placebo relative to Aripiprazole IM depot.|||24.865|2.151|
91668235|NCT02004691|183230465|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7576|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.319|28.696||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and p-values were based on mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Derived % Predicted DLco adjusted for Hb and pressure, age, treatment group, visit, and study visit by treatment group as covariates.|||28.696|9.319|=0.0004
91668236|NCT02004691|183230467|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4957|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.051|-32.803||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values were based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Spleen Volume (MN), Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|||-32.803|-47.051|<.0001
91668237|NCT02004691|183230469|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3877|=|0.6364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.302|8.538||Threshold for significance was 0.15.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Splenomegaly Related Score, Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|||8.538|-5.302|=0.6364
91668238|NCT02004691|183230474|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5862|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.911|-19.281||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Liver Volume (MN), Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in an order the outcome measure were reported and continued when previous endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-19.281|-33.911|<.0001
91860366|NCT01573442|183606860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7694
91860367|NCT01573442|183606861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9609
91860368|NCT03649659|183606862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|2.54|6.48|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.||||6.48|2.54|<0.0001
91860369|NCT03649659|183606863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|2.84|8.05||Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.05|2.84|<0.0001
91860370|NCT03649659|183606864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|3.59|9.51||Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.51|3.59|<0.0001
91860371|NCT03649659|183606865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.25|3.54||Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.54|0.25|0.8942
91668239|NCT02004691|183230475|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7822|=|0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.564|26.099||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Platelets, Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in an order the outcome measure were reported and continued when previous endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||26.099|2.564|=0.0185
91668240|NCT02004691|183230476|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7384|=|0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.566|1.454||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline BFI item 3 (Worst Fatigue), Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in an order the outcome measure were reported and continued when previous endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||1.454|-1.566|=0.9400
91668241|NCT03407729|183230497|OTHER|Using seed-based analysis with a 1) Left Thalamus seed and 2) Left Middle Temporal Gyrus seed, cluster size was set at 50 voxels and p-value was thresholded at p\<0.05. This was used to compare the differences between the two study groups in terms of number of activated voxels during during cognitive testing using the N-back.|||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05 and statistical power was set at a minimum of 0.80.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91668242|NCT01849458|183230500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.0||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|40.0|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (6M-Baseline)||40|25.2|0.0001
91668243|NCT01849458|183230501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.6||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|42.7|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (12M-Baseline)||42.7|28.7|0.0001
91668244|NCT01849458|183230502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|50.1|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (6M-Baseline)||50.1|37.4|0.0001
91668245|NCT01849458|183230503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|55.2|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (12M-Baseline)||55.2|43.2|0.0001
91668246|NCT04387617|183230506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-0.8|0.5
91668247|NCT03950674|183230516|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.12511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.42||One-sided p-value based on unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||1.42|0.27|0.12511
91668248|NCT03950674|183230517|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.03127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.15||One-sided p-value based on unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||1.15|0.07|0.03127
91668249|NCT00830167|183230525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.11||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025. Actual significance level was calculated based on O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function of Lan and DeMets (1983).|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.11|-0.78|0.0046
91668250|NCT00830167|183230526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was conducted using 2-sided test with the significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that there was a difference between the pregabalin and the placebo groups.||||0.0078
91668251|NCT00830167|183230527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-5.85||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-5.85|-13.12|<0.0001
91860372|NCT05908344|183606890|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM1 minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design||||
91860373|NCT05908344|183606890|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM2 minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
91860374|NCT05908344|183606890|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM3 minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
91860375|NCT05908344|183606890|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for REM minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
91860376|NCT05908344|183606891|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM1 percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
91860377|NCT05908344|183606891|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM2 percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
91668252|NCT00830167|183230528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.68||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||8.68|1.29|0.9958
91668253|NCT00830167|183230529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.21||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-1.21|-8.77|0.0049
91668254|NCT00830167|183230530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.47||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.47|0.11|0.0007
91668255|NCT00830167|183230531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|11.38||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||11.38|3.58|<0.0001
91668256|NCT00830167|183230532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.74|14.87||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||14.87|7.74|1.0000
91668257|NCT00830167|183230533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-0.33||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.33|-5.65|0.0137
91860378|NCT05908344|183606891|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM3 percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
91860379|NCT05908344|183606891|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for REM percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
91860380|NCT05908344|183606892|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
91860381|NCT04856163|183606917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
91860382|NCT04856163|183606918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||discrete-time survival model|||||||0.21
91668258|NCT00830167|183230534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.35||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||2.35|0.90|0.0687
91860383|NCT04856163|183606919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.28
91668259|NCT00830167|183230535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.4||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.40|-1.06|<0.0001
91668260|NCT00830167|183230536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-0.35||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.35|-6.31|0.0144
91668261|NCT00830167|183230537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.03||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.03|-0.59|0.0376
91668262|NCT00830167|183230538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.15||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.15|-1.12|0.0052
91714508|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.1544||95.0|-2.8|17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.5|-2.8|0.1544
91860384|NCT04856163|183606920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91860385|NCT02111798|183606939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons were conducted as a function of medication condition, collapsed across abstinence initiation and relapse prevention groups, according to a priori-stated statistical analysis.||||0.889
91860386|NCT02111798|183606940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons were conducted as a function of medication condition, collapsed across abstinence initiation and relapse prevention groups, according to a priori-stated statistical analysis.||||0.605
91860387|NCT05722704|183606982|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.986
91860388|NCT05722704|183606983|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.118
91668263|NCT00830167|183230539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.40|-0.42|0.4768
91668264|NCT00830167|183230540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.11|-0.74|0.0729
91860389|NCT05722704|183606984|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|95.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.225
91860390|NCT05722704|183606985|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|95.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.424
91860391|NCT04323137|183606992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis compared all groups that were informed they were high risk (High risk only, High risk based on medical records, High risk based on algorithm) to control patients who were not sent a message.~Null hypothesis: informing patients they are high risk for flu and flu-related complications does not increase flu vaccination rate; Alternative hypothesis: informing patients they are high risk for flu and flu-related complications increases flu vaccination rate"||||0.0035
91860392|NCT04323137|183606992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||The p-value reported is uncorrected, but the Holm method was used to determine whether the p-value reached statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: the High risk only and High risk based on medical records messages are equally effective at promoting ﬂu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High risk only and High risk based on medical records. Separate regressions were run to assess pairwise differences between the high-risk arms (analyses 2, 3, and 4). The Holm method was used to test whether each comparison reached significance.||||.613
91860393|NCT04323137|183606992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889||||||The p-value reported is uncorrected, but the Holm method was used to determine whether the p-value reached statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: the High risk only and High risk based on algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting ﬂu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High risk only and High risk based on algorithm messages. Separate regressions were run to assess pairwise differences between the high-risk arms (analyses 2, 3, and 4). The Holm method was used to test whether each comparison reached significance.||||0.889
91860394|NCT04323137|183606992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714||||||The p-value reported is uncorrected, but the Holm method was used to determine whether the p-value reached statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: the High risk based on medical records and High risk based on algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting ﬂu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High risk based on medical records and High risk based on algorithm messages. Separate regressions were run to assess pairwise differences between the high-risk arms (analyses 2, 3, and 4). The Holm method was used to test whether each comparison reached significance.||||.714
91860395|NCT04323137|183606993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181||||||This p-value is from the same regression as the top 10% risk vs. top 3% risk contrast (analysis 2).|Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis tested whether vaccination differed in patients with the same risk level who were sent messages with a vague verbal (high risk) vs. specific numeric (top 10%) risk framing.~This analysis was limited to those informed they were high risk (High risk only, High risk based on medical records, High risk based on algorithm)."||||.181
91860396|NCT04323137|183606993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||This p-value is from the same regression as the high risk vs. top 10% risk contrast (analysis 1).|Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis tested whether vaccination differed in patients with the same numeric risk phrasing are differentially affected due to different specific risk levels (3% vs. 10%).~This analysis was limited to those informed they were high risk (High risk only, High risk based on medical records, High risk based on algorithm)."||||.301
91860397|NCT05563246|183607010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.68|-35.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.14|-57.68|<.001
91860398|NCT05563246|183607010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.62|-78.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-78.13|-84.62|<.001
91860399|NCT05563246|183607010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.03|-83.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-83.09|-88.03|<.001
91860400|NCT05563246|183607011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-28.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.27|-50.45|<.001
91860401|NCT05563246|183607011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.23|-64.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-64.96|-74.23|<.001
91860402|NCT05563246|183607011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.27|-63.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-63.81|-73.27|<.001
91860403|NCT05563246|183607012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|75.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||75.99|40.30|<.001
91860404|NCT05563246|183607012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|89.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.54|98.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.20|81.54|<.001
91860405|NCT05563246|183607012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|90.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.8|98.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.62|82.80|<.001
91860406|NCT05563246|183607013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|51.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.46|18.90|<.001
91860407|NCT05563246|183607013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|78.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.7|88.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||88.65|67.70|<.001
91860408|NCT05563246|183607013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.65|83.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.58|63.65|<.001
91860409|NCT05563246|183607014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.94||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.17|-18.84|0.110
91860410|NCT05563246|183607014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.05||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.40|-20.92|0.004
91860411|NCT05563246|183607014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|-7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.84|-23.69|<.001
91860412|NCT05563246|183607015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.27||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|100.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||100.27|-8.63|0.131
91860413|NCT05563246|183607015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.32||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|49.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||49.70|-21.62|0.627
91860414|NCT05563246|183607015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.89|29.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.51|-31.89|0.701
91860415|NCT03138512|183607034|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.6676||95.0|0.75|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.75|0.6676
91860416|NCT03138512|183607034|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.6556||95.0|0.67|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.67|0.6556
91860417|NCT03138512|183607035|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.26||||0.2436||95.0|0.85|1.85|||Log Rank|||Treatment Part A||1.85|0.85|0.2436
91860418|NCT03138512|183607035|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.36||||0.45||95.0|0.61|3.07|||Log Rank|||Treatment Part B||3.07|0.61|0.4500
91860419|NCT03138512|183607037|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.67||||||||1.67|0.89|
91860420|NCT03138512|183607038|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||||95.0|0.33|1.68||||||||1.68|0.33|
91860421|NCT04005716|183607073|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test with ECOG performance status, and investigator chosen platinum as stratification factors.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method for ties, stratified by ECOG performance status and investigator-selected platinum agents, with Arm B as the reference group.|The null hypothesis stated that the overall survival in Arm A (Tislelizumab + Chemotherapy) is less than or equal to that in Arm B (the placebo group), while the alternative hypothesis posits that the overall survival in Arm A is greater than that in Arm B.||0.93|0.61|0.0040
91860422|NCT04005716|183607074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test p-value, stratified by ECOG performance status (1 vs 0) and type of platinum therapy (carboplatin vs cisplatin).|The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method for ties, stratified by ECOG performance status and investigator-selected platinum agents, with Arm B as the reference group.|||0.78|0.52|<0.0001
91860423|NCT04005716|183607075|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.96|||||Odds ratio was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimates and stratified by ECOG performance (1 vs 0) and platinum (Carboplatin vs Cisplatin)|||1.96|0.90|
91860424|NCT04005716|183607082|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|1.33|||||Hazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Analyses of Time to Deterioration of EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Score||1.330|0.642|
91860425|NCT04005716|183607082|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|1.123|||||Hazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Analyses of Time to Deterioration of EORTC QLQ-LC13 Coughing Score||1.123|0.473|
91860426|NCT04005716|183607082|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.057|||||Hazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Analyses of Time to Deterioration of EORTC QLQ-LC13 Chest Pain Score||1.057|0.485|
91860427|NCT03378570|183607174|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.945|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||0.945
91860428|NCT03378570|183607175|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.828|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||0.828
91860429|NCT03378570|183607176|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||0.252
91860430|NCT03378570|183607177|OTHER|||||||0.505||||||p value for response rate|Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.505
91860431|NCT03378570|183607177|OTHER|||||||0.888||||||p value for remission rate|Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.888
91860432|NCT03378570|183607178|OTHER|||||||0.994|||||||Chi-squared|p value for response rates||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.994
91860433|NCT03378570|183607178|OTHER|||||||0.911|||||||Chi-squared|p value for remission rates||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.911
91860434|NCT03378570|183607179|OTHER|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.778
91860435|NCT03378570|183607180|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||.951
91860436|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.278|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Positive Affect.||||.278
91860437|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, General Life Satisfaction.||||.024
91860438|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.439|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Meaning \& Purpose.||||.439
91860439|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Emotional Support.||||.025
91860440|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Instrumental Support.||||.007
91860441|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Friendship.||||.014
91860442|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Loneliness.||||.398
91860443|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Perceived Rejection.||||.064
91860444|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Perceived Hostility.||||.368
91860445|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.504|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Self-Efficacy.||||.504
91860446|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Perceived Stress.||||.371
91860447|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.438|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Fear-Affect.||||.438
91860448|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Fear-Somatic Arousal.||||.096
91668265|NCT00830167|183230541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.0||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.00|-0.81|0.0238
91860449|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Sadness.||||.132
91860450|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Anger-Affect.||||.951
91860451|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Anger-Hostility.||||.852
91860452|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Anger-Physical Aggression.||||.083
91860453|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Negative Affect.||||.391
91860454|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Social Satisfaction.||||.014
91860455|NCT03378570|183607181|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Psychological Well Being.||||.109
91860456|NCT03378570|183607182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||Week 6 timepoint p-value listed above|Mixed Models Analysis|"Other timepoint p-values below:~First Visit p = 0.875 Week 1 p = 0.084 Week 2 p = 0.277 Week 3 p = 0.686 Week 4 p = 0.369 Week 5 p = 0.806"||||||0.231
91860457|NCT03378570|183607183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963||||||Week 6-7 Follow-up p-value listed above|Mixed Models Analysis|"Other timepoint p-values below:~Evaluation p = 0.570 Week 2-3 Follow-up p = 0.063 Week 4-5 Follow-up p = 0.792"||||||0.963
91860458|NCT03378570|183607184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||Week 6 timepoint p-value listed above|Mixed Models Analysis|"Other timepoint p-values below:~First Visit p = 0.772 Week 1 p = 0.194 Week 2 p = 0.127 Week 3 p = 0.196 Week 4 p = 0.079 Week 5 p = 0.187"||||||0.051
91860459|NCT03843151|183607190|OTHER||Ratio|192.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|175.19|211.89|||||"The effect of itraconazole on BI 1358894 is estimated by the ratio of geometric mean (BI 1358894 + itraconazole / BI 1358894).~geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 14.9."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'treatment'. The 'subject' effect was considered as random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||211.89|175.19|
91860460|NCT03843151|183607191|OTHER||Ratio|120.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.69|137.87|||||"The effect of itraconazole on BI 1358894 is estimated by the ratio of geometric mean (BI 1358894 + itraconazole / BI 1358894).~geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 21.7."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'treatment'. The 'subject' effect was considered as random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||137.87|105.69|
91860461|NCT03843151|183607192|OTHER||Ratio|120.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.69|137.87|||||"The effect of itraconazole on BI 1358894 is estimated by the ratio of geometric mean (BI 1358894 + itraconazole / BI 1358894).~geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.3."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'treatment'. The 'subject' effect was considered as random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||137.87|105.69|
91860462|NCT01787383|183607193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91860463|NCT01787383|183607194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.34
91860464|NCT01787383|183607195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.088
91860465|NCT01787383|183607196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
91860466|NCT01787383|183607197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91860467|NCT01787383|183607198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
91860468|NCT01787383|183607199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91860469|NCT01787383|183607200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
91860470|NCT03443323|183607201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (OTMP skills \[COSS-P, COSS-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91860471|NCT03443323|183607202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (OTMP skills \[COSS-P, COSS-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91860472|NCT03443323|183607203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (homework performance \[HPC, HPQ-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91902150|NCT04409353|183699274|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.76||||0.1913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance without the continuity correction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used to compare the association between time (baseline and day 90) and response (yes or no) while stratifying for the treatment groups. The null hypothesis is that the common odds ratio of the association between time and response across the treatment groups is equal to 1, versus the alternative hypothesis that the common odds ratio is not equal to 1.||1.15|0.50|0.1913
91902151|NCT04409353|183699274|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.83||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.24||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance without the continuity correction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used to compare the association between time (baseline and day 90) and response (yes or no) while stratifying for the treatment groups. The null hypothesis is that the common odds ratio of the association between time and response across the treatment groups is equal to 1, versus the alternative hypothesis that the common odds ratio is not equal to 1.||1.24|0.55|0.3670
91902152|NCT04409353|183699275|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.83||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.33||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS- PF score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PF t-score as a continuous covariate.||0.33|-1.98|0.1619
91902153|NCT04409353|183699275|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.24||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS- PF score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PF t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.24|-1.31|0.9569
91902154|NCT04409353|183699276|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.03||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.86||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Depression score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Depression t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.86|-1.80|0.9727
91668266|NCT00830167|183230542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.1||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.10|-0.89|0.0075
91668267|NCT00830167|183230543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.18||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.18|-1.01|0.0023
91860473|NCT03443323|183607204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (homework performance \[HPC, HPQ-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91860474|NCT03443323|183607205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.06||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (academic performance \[ACES, APS\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.06
91860475|NCT03443323|183607206|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.0083||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (academic performance \[ACES, APS\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.0083
91860476|NCT03443323|183607207|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91668268|NCT00830167|183230544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.29||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.29|-0.57|0.2568
91668269|NCT00830167|183230545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.15||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.15|-0.72|0.1011
91668270|NCT00830167|183230546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.35||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.35|-0.44|0.4165
91668271|NCT00830167|183230547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.88||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||6.88|1.70|0.0006
91714509|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.8439||95.0|-8.8|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.7|-8.8|0.8439
91714510|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.9925||95.0|-10.5|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.4|-10.5|0.9925
91860477|NCT03443323|183607208|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91668272|NCT00830167|183230548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|5.29||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.29|-1.93|0.1805
91668273|NCT00830167|183230549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|5.1||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.10|-0.81|0.0770
91714511|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.8784||95.0|-9.1|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.6|-9.1|0.8784
91714512|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.8948||95.0|-9.5|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.8|-9.5|0.8948
91714513|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.2197||95.0|-3.9|16.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.8|-3.9|0.2197
91860478|NCT04229992|183607230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear mode adjusted for age, sex, BMI and baseline level||"1. GG genotype and magnesium treatment vs GG genotype and placebo;~2. GA/AA genotype and magnesium treatment vs GA/AA genotype and Placebo."||||<0.05
91860479|NCT04229992|183607231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear mode adjusted for age, sex, BMI and baseline level||"1. GG genotype and magnesium treatment vs GG genotype and placebo;~2. GA/AA genotype and magnesium treatment vs GA/AA genotype and Placebo"||||<0.05
91860480|NCT03770273|183607232|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7740
91860481|NCT03770273|183607234|OTHER|||||||0.1071|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1071
91860482|NCT03770273|183607235|OTHER|||||||0.4904|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4904
91860483|NCT03770273|183607236|OTHER|||||||0.1399|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1399
91668274|NCT00830167|183230550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|4.19||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||4.19|-0.54|0.0648
91668275|NCT00830167|183230551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|5.41||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.41|-2.23|0.2068
91668276|NCT00830167|183230552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.54||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||3.54|-4.00|0.5480
91668277|NCT00830167|183230553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.8||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||7.80|1.04|0.0052
91668278|NCT00830167|183230554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|5.37||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.37|-0.08|0.0287
91668279|NCT00830167|183230555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.01||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.01|-0.97|0.0262
91668280|NCT00830167|183230556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.27||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.27|-0.83|0.1561
91668281|NCT00830167|183230557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.18||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-2.18|-10.20|0.0013
91668282|NCT00360490|183230579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis: the absolute change from Baseline MBL to End of Study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||||<0.001
91714514|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.6183||95.0|-7.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.5|-7.4|0.6183
91860484|NCT04169373|183607247|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|Efficacy analyses and hypothesis testing including multiplicity adjustment were performed independently for Study 1 and Study 2.||34.9|17.9|<0.0001
91864530|NCT03676192|183617882|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity criterion had been set such that the confidence limits of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of ORR from each treatment group was entirely bounded by the interval (0.7368, 1.3572).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0136|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8767|1.1719||||||Log-binomial regression model including treatment groups (CT-P16 and EU-approved Avastin) as a fixed effect and region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as covariates was used.||1.1719|0.8767|
91668283|NCT00360490|183230580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|62.59|||<|0.001||95.0|50.56|74.61|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects with successful treatment is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||74.61|50.56|<0.001
91668284|NCT00360490|183230581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-70.2|-28.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the percent change from Baseline MBL to End of Study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||-28.3|-70.2|<0.001
91668285|NCT00360490|183230582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis: the absolute change from Baseline MBL to Mid-study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||||<0.001
91668286|NCT00360490|183230583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-63.8|-37.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the percent change from Baseline MBL to Mid-study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||-37.4|-63.8|<0.001
91668287|NCT00360490|183230593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.06||||||95.0|14.75|37.36||||||A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the improvement rate will be provided for cycle 6||37.36|14.75|
91668288|NCT00950300|183230621|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) was greater than or equal to (≥) 0.8 for the geometric mean ratio.|Geometric mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.44|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|PK sample size calculations based on percentage of coefficient of variation (CV%) for Ctrough of trastuzumab from previous metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and early breast cancer (EBC) studies. Because pre-surgery situation was comparable to MBC setting, interpatient CV% of 60 percent (%) was assumed and 130 participants per arm (260 participants total) were needed to demonstrate Ctrough comparability with 80% power if the true means of the two formulations did not differ by greater than (\>) 5%.||1.44|1.24|
91668289|NCT00950300|183230622|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the one-sided 97.5% CI was above -12.5% for the difference in response (pCR) rates.|Difference in response rates|4.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.0||||||The one-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in response (pCR) rates was calculated using the Anderson-Hauck continuity correction.|Assuming pCR rates of at least 40% in both arms, 552 participants were necessary to conclude non-inferiority in pCR rate with a power of 80% using a one-sided 97.5% CI for the difference of the response rates and a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|||-4.0|
91668290|NCT00950300|183230623|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|1.63|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|Additional supportive analysis.||1.63|1.40|
91668291|NCT00950300|183230624|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|1.64|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|Additional supportive analysis.||1.64|1.46|
91668292|NCT00950300|183230625|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.45|1.64|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|Additional supportive analysis.||1.64|1.45|
91860485|NCT04169373|183607248|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|32.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|"Efficacy analyses and hypothesis testing including multiplicity adjustment were performed independently for Study 1 and Study 2.~Binary endpoints in Study 2 were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the main stratification factor of positivity for MRI inflammation in the sacroiliac joints and screening hsCRP status (MRI-positive and hsCRP \> ULN vs MRI-positive and hsCRP ≤ ULN vs MRI-negative and hsCRP \> ULN)."||32.3|12.1|<0.0001
91714515|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.4484||95.0|-14.8|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.5|-14.8|0.4484
91860486|NCT04169373|183607248|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.5|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||4.5|1.7|
91864531|NCT03676192|183617885|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1||||||Adjusted stratified Cox regression model is used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CI for receiving CT-P16 compared with receiving EU-approved Avastin using region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as stratification factors.||1.10|0.77|
91668293|NCT00950300|183230634|OTHER||Difference in response rates|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|13.5|||||The 95% CI for the difference in response (tpCR) rates was calculated using the Anderson-Hauck continuity correction.|||13.5|-3.5|
91668294|NCT00950300|183230635|OTHER||Difference in response rates|-1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.2|||||The 95% CI for the difference in response (CR+PR) rates was calculated using the Anderson-Hauck continuity correction.|||4.2|-7.4|
91668295|NCT00950300|183230635|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.46|||||OR of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|||1.46|0.50|
91668296|NCT00950300|183230638|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29|||Log Rank||HR of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|||1.29|0.74|0.8651
91668297|NCT00950300|183230640|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.45|||Log Rank||HR of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|||1.45|0.61|0.7767
91668298|NCT00834613|183230650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.45||||||90.0|99.87|107.15|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.15|99.87|
91668299|NCT00834613|183230651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.63||||||90.0|95.21|100.11|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.11|95.21|
91714516|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.3857||95.0|-5.6|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.4|-5.6|0.3857
91668300|NCT00834613|183230652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.63||||||90.0|95.22|100.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.1|95.22|
91668301|NCT00840840|183230672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|101.45||||||90.0|97.71|105.33|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.33|97.71|
91668302|NCT00840840|183230673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|103.05||||||90.0|101.25|104.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.88|101.25|
91860487|NCT04169373|183607249|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.85|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.85|-1.20|<0.0001
91860488|NCT04169373|183607250|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-2.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.33|-5.47|<0.0001
91860489|NCT04169373|183607251|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|34.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||34.8|18.0|<0.0001
91668303|NCT00840840|183230674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|102.94||||||90.0|101.08|104.83|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.83|101.08|
91668304|NCT00840840|183230675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|99.68||||||90.0|92.41|107.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||107.52|92.41|
91668305|NCT00840840|183230676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|101.48||||||90.0|94.73|108.71|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||108.71|94.73|
91668306|NCT00840840|183230677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|100.17||||||90.0|91.95|109.13|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||109.13|91.95|
91668307|NCT05186415|183230737|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-diastolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
91668308|NCT05186415|183230737|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-diastolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
91668309|NCT05186415|183230737|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-systolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
91668310|NCT05186415|183230737|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.685|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-systolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
91668311|NCT05186415|183230738|OTHER||Intraclass Coefficient|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular ejection fraction were compared between non-contrast echocardiogram and cardiac MRI using an intraclass coefficient||||
91668312|NCT05186415|183230738|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular ejection fraction were compared between contrast echocardiogram and cardiac MRI using an intraclass coefficient||||
91668313|NCT05186415|183230740|OTHER|Intraclass coefficient used to assess agreement between non-contrast echocardiographic values and cardiac MRI global longitudinal strain|Intraclass coefficient|0.419|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|||||
91668314|NCT05186415|183230740|OTHER|Intraclass coefficient used to assess agreement between contrast echocardiographic values and cardiac MRI global longitudinal strain|Intraclass coefficient|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|||||
91668315|NCT03403439|183230741|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|222.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|203.47|242.49|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 14.2.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.||242.49|203.47|
91668316|NCT03403439|183230742|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|127.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.65|139.17|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 13.6.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.||139.17|117.65|
91668317|NCT03403439|183230743|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|229.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|207.82|252.93|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 15.9.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.||252.93|207.82|
91668318|NCT00288704|183230748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison of p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<.0001
91668319|NCT00288704|183230749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison of p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||"Subjects received rilonacept 160 mg for 9 weeks (weeks 6-15), and then were re-randomized 1:1 into either Placebo or rilonacept 160 mg. The endpoint for the period was 9 weeks later (week 24).~The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used."||||<0.001
91668320|NCT00288704|183230750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison of p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<.0001
91792580|NCT02129777|183462757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|7.8|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.8|-11.7|0.697
91860490|NCT04169373|183607252|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.3|17.9|<0.0001
91860491|NCT04169373|183607253|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|15.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||15.8|6.0|<0.0001
91864532|NCT03676192|183617886|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||||||Adjusted stratified Cox regression model is used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CI for receiving CT-P16 compared with receiving EU-approved Avastin using region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as stratification factors.||1.19|0.77|
91668321|NCT00288704|183230751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison P-Value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
91668322|NCT00288704|183230752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison p-value is a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<.0001
91668323|NCT00288704|183230753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||"Please note that the changes are medians (not means).~The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used."||||<0.0001
91668324|NCT00288704|183230754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||"Please note that the changes are medians (not means).~The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used."||||<0.01
91668325|NCT00288704|183230755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
91860492|NCT04169373|183607254|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.11|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.11|-1.96|<0.0001
91668326|NCT00288704|183230756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
91668327|NCT00288704|183230757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
91668328|NCT00676650|183230761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.097||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and Disease Progression Base.|||1.097|0.762|0.1678
91668329|NCT00676650|183230762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.89||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model stratified by ECOG and Disease Progression Base.|||0.890|0.591|<0.001
91668330|NCT00676650|183230763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.561||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.0||p-value from 2-sided Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||19.0|1.0|0.040
91668331|NCT05061992|183230770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in SF-8||||0.6
91668332|NCT05061992|183230770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||End of trial SF-8||||0.2
91668333|NCT05061992|183230771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in ANT||||0.001
91668334|NCT05061992|183230771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of trial ANT||||0.09
91668335|NCT05061992|183230772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91668336|NCT05061992|183230773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91668337|NCT05061992|183230774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
91668338|NCT05061992|183230775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
91668339|NCT02153723|183230784|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|21.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91668340|NCT02153723|183230785|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91668341|NCT02153723|183230786|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91668342|NCT02153723|183230787|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|15.9||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91668343|NCT02153723|183230788|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91668344|NCT02153723|183230789|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91860493|NCT04169373|183607255|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-1.24|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.24|-2.14|<0.0001
91860494|NCT04169373|183607256|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|41.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.8|26.2|<0.0001
91860495|NCT04169373|183607257|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.8|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.80|-1.55|<0.0001
91860496|NCT04169373|183607258|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|19.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.0|7.4|<0.0001
91860497|NCT04169373|183607259|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-3.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.24|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.24|-3.90|<0.0001
91860498|NCT04169373|183607260|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.24|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.24|-2.47|<0.0001
91668345|NCT01157234|183230801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|28.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|55.53||||||||55.53|1.93|
91668346|NCT01157234|183230802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|29.12||||||||29.12|-12.58|
91668347|NCT01157234|183230803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|9.2||||||||9.20|-6.74|
91668348|NCT01157234|183230807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|23.4||||||||23.40|0.48|
91668349|NCT01157234|183230808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|69.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.83|||TWO_SIDED|99.7|12.71|126.37||||||||126.37|12.71|
91668350|NCT01157234|183230809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|68.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24|||TWO_SIDED|99.17|13.02|123.36||||||||123.36|13.02|
91668351|NCT01157234|183230810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.32|||TWO_SIDED|99.17|-48.25|51.03||||||||51.03|-48.25|
91668352|NCT01157234|183230811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.96|||TWO_SIDED|99.17|-48.74|54.22||||||||54.22|-48.74|
91668353|NCT00059332|183230848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|ONE_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the primary efficacy analysis, data were analyzed to test the null hypothesis that the distribution of scores over all 7 levels of the modified Rankin Scale at Day 90 was identical in the magnesium sulfate and placebo groups, vs. the one-sided alternative that the distribution of scores is shifted lower in the active magnesium sulfate therapy group. The statistic used to test the primary hypothesis was the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test statistic stratified by transport vehicle.||||0.28
91668354|NCT00059332|183230849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2|||Chi-squared|||||1.20|0.81|0.87
91668355|NCT00059332|183230850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.81|0.87
91668356|NCT00059332|183230851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2760
91668357|NCT00059332|183230852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3912|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3912
91792581|NCT02129777|183462757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|7.7|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.7|-12.6|0.633
91860499|NCT04169373|183607261|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.18|-0.46|<0.0001
91860500|NCT04169373|183607262|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.9|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.9|-2.0|<0.0001
91860501|NCT04169373|183607263|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.12||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.12|-4.50|<0.0001
91668358|NCT00059332|183230853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3230
91668359|NCT00059332|183230854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.87|0.95
91668360|NCT00059332|183230855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.14|||Chi-squared|||||1.14|0.34|0.12
91668361|NCT00059332|183230856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.76|0.95
91668362|NCT00487695|183230862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Our hypothesis was that the yield for neoplasia would be higher using confocal laser endomicroscopy compared to standard endoscopy. The null hypothesis would be that there is no difference in yield for neoplasia when CLE is used compared to standard endoscopy. We estimated that the yield for neoplasia would increase from 10% to 40% using CLE and the calculated sample size was 37. We planned to enroll 48 patients to allow for possible dropouts.||||0.01
91668363|NCT00487695|183230863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||The number of biopsies showing neoplasia was determined for each procedure (confocal laser endomicroscopy, standard EGD). These were compared.||||0.89
91668364|NCT00487695|183230864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis would be that CLE does not decrease the number of biopsies needed to make a diagnosis compared to standard endoscopy||||0.002
91668365|NCT00487695|183230866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||The number of biopsies showing neoplasia was determined for each procedure (confocal laser endomicroscopy, standard EGD). These were compared. This analysis looks at the patients referred for Barrett's surveillance EGD (no suspected neoplasia).||||1.0
91668366|NCT00487695|183230867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||The null hypothesis would be that CLE does not decrease the number of biopsies needed to make a diagnosis compared to standard endoscopy||||<0.0001
91668367|NCT01358877|183230869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||0.99|0.68|0.0430
91668368|NCT01358877|183230872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||0.98|0.67|0.0327
91668369|NCT01358877|183230875|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21||The O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary of the Lan-DeMets alpha-spending function for the first interim OS analysis was HR\<0.52; p\<0.00001.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.21|0.66|0.4673
91668370|NCT01358877|183230876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||The p-value threshold according to the alpha-spending function at this final analysis was 0.0496.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.00|0.69|0.0441
91668371|NCT01358877|183230879|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||0.99|0.63|0.0430
91668372|NCT01358877|183230882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.04|0.64|0.1007
91668373|NCT01358877|183230885|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||||The difference in percentage of participants with a primary cardiac event between the pertuzumab and placebo arms. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.8|0.0|
91668374|NCT01358877|183230886|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||||The difference in percentage of participants with a primary cardiac event between the pertuzumab and placebo arms. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.9|-0.1|
91668375|NCT01358877|183230887|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.9|-1.0|
91668376|NCT01358877|183230888|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.9|-1.1|
91668377|NCT01358877|183230889|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.5|-0.3|
91668378|NCT01358877|183230890|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.4|-0.4|
91668379|NCT01358877|183230906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.00|0.66|0.0446
91714517|NCT00676403|183320249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.8824||95.0|-11.0|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.5|-11.0|0.8824
91792582|NCT02129777|183462758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.3|-2.2|0.537
91860502|NCT04169373|183607264|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.45|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.45|-0.85|<0.0001
91860503|NCT04169373|183607265|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-2.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment, main stratification factor, treatment and stratification factor interaction and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.04|-4.08|<0.0001
91668380|NCT01742208|183230930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.14||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.78|-7.49||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Difference is sotagliflozin - placebo|Between-group comparison of the 2 Expansion Groups was based on an ANCOVA model with covariates of baseline mean total daily bolus insulin, treatment group, factor used to stratify the randomization (screening A1C \<= 8%, \> 8%), and random effect of participant\*treatment group.||-7.49|-42.78|0.007
91668381|NCT00766493|183230938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.077||Reject H0 if z\<-1.96, or 1-sided p\<0.025.|One Sample Binomial|Significance test was based on a one-sample normal approximation to the binomial test.|The 2-sided 95% CI is reported for descriptive purposes; the statistical hypothesis test is 1-sided.|"This study is designed to test the primary null hypothesis that the composite MAE outcome of all death, stroke, and/or MI when using the GORE Embolic Filter is equal to or higher than a Performance Goal (PG) of 6.4% established from published carotid stenting studies utilizing distal embolic protection, versus the alternative hypothesis that the composite MAE outcome is less than the performance goal.~The sample size was calculated based on 80% power and a 1-sided Type I error rate of 0.025."||0.077|0.021|0.0001
91668382|NCT02707276|183230943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|<|0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|repeated measures ANCOVA|mean raw change active-sham; pooled standard deviation|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline MADRS scores as covariate for treatment and order effects of difference in MADRS scores.||||<0.76
91668383|NCT02707276|183230943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.96|<|0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Baseline covariate|Pooled deviation|ANCOVA: Analysis of group differences in change scores with baseline as a covariate||||<0.33
91668384|NCT02707276|183230944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1|<|0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|repeated measures ANCOVA|raw change active-sham mean; pooled standard deviation|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline HARS scores as covariate for treatment and order effects of difference in HARS scores.||||<0.61
91668385|NCT02707276|183230944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0|<|0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|baseline as covariate|pooled deviation|ANCOVA: Analysis of group differences in change scores with baseline as a covariate||||<0.32
91668386|NCT02707276|183230945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|<|0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|repeated measures ANCOVA|raw active-sham mean; pooled standard deviation|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline PANAS (Positive sub scale) scores as covariate for treatment and order effects of difference in PANAS (Positive sub scale) scores.||||<0.78
91668387|NCT02707276|183230945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42|<|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|baseline as covariate|pooled deviation|ANCOVA: Analysis of group differences in change scores with baseline as a covariate||||<0.99
91668388|NCT02786927|183230961|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91668389|NCT02786927|183230962|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91668390|NCT02786927|183230963|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91668391|NCT01801917|183230964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.586||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. For this table the value is the posterior probability of achieving an increase in MMT24 and a decrease in CK in 2mg group vs. placebo||||
91668392|NCT01801917|183230964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.022||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. . For this table the value is the PP of achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK in 2mg group vs. placebo||||
91668393|NCT01801917|183230964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.963||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. For this table the value is the posterior probability of achieving an increase in MMT24 and a decrease in CK in 10mg group vs. placebo||||
91792583|NCT02129777|183462758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.6|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.6|-0.8|0.142
91668394|NCT01801917|183230964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.837||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. . For this table the value is the PP of achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK in 10mg group vs. placebo||||
91668395|NCT03919695|183230975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.73|||GEE model specifying a logistic distribu||time x arm effect for the comparison at 6-month follow-up|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model specifying a logistic distribution examining the time x arm interaction||.73|.11|.002
91668396|NCT02416934|183230987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5392|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7176||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9761|-0.1022|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing DSQ between Dexamethasone and Saline at Day 1 post-op||-.1022|-2.9761|0.036
91668397|NCT02416934|183230987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2543|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1151|-0.093|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing Bazaz between Dexamethasone and Saline at 6 months post-op||-.0930|-1.1151|<.05
91668398|NCT02416934|183230988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1273|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5153|8.0902|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the changes in VNDI between Dexamethasone and Saline from baseline to last visit||8.0902|-4.5153|<.05
91668399|NCT02416934|183230989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375||||||Fisher's Exact Test|Fisher Exact|||||||.375
91668400|NCT00494013|183230990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.026||95.0|-0.39|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Determir).|Hypothesis: Basal analog insulin lispro protamine suspension, injected once or twice daily is noninferior to basal analog insulin determir, injected once or twice daily, with regard to glycemic control as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint (last observation carried forward).||-0.03|-0.39|0.026
91668401|NCT00494013|183230991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.213||95.0|-0.28|0.06||P-value for 12 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||0.06|-0.28|0.213
91668402|NCT00494013|183230991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.213||95.0|-0.28|0.06||P-value for 12 Week HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||0.06|-0.28|0.213
91668403|NCT00494013|183230991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.038||95.0|-0.38|-0.01||P-value for 24 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||-0.01|-0.38|0.038
91668404|NCT00494013|183230991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.038||95.0|-0.38|-0.01||P-value for Week 24 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||-0.01|-0.38|0.038
91860504|NCT04169373|183607266|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|20.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.1|10.1|0.0001
91860505|NCT04169373|183607266|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.2|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||4.2|1.6|
91860506|NCT04169373|183607267|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|8.8||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||15.2|2.5|0.0063
91860507|NCT04169373|183607267|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.0|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||7.0|1.3|
91860508|NCT04169373|183607268|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.41|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.41|-1.42|0.0004
91860509|NCT04169373|183607269|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.55|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.55|-1.68|0.0001
91860510|NCT04169373|183607270|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|33.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.4|14.2|<0.0001
91860511|NCT04169373|183607270|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.4|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||5.4|1.9|
91792584|NCT02129777|183462758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.3|0.8|0.015
91860512|NCT04169373|183607271|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|10.9||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||18.3|3.6|0.0035
91860513|NCT04169373|183607271|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.6|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||5.6|1.3|
91668405|NCT00494013|183230992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.463
91792585|NCT02129777|183462758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.8|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.8|-0.7|0.121
91792586|NCT02915874|183462759|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91668406|NCT00494013|183230992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.135
91792587|NCT02915874|183462760|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
91792588|NCT02915874|183462761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
91860514|NCT04169373|183607272|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.68|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.68|-1.60|<0.0001
91668407|NCT00494013|183230993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 0.8 millimoles per Liter (mmol/L).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.107||95.0|-0.02|0.23|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Determir).|The first gatekeeping hypothesis was that Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension was noninferior to determir.||0.23|-0.02|0.107
91668408|NCT00494013|183230994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0||||P-value for Average 7-Point SMBG.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.952
91668409|NCT00494013|183230994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856||95.0||||P-value for Average Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.856
91668410|NCT00494013|183230994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||P-value for Average Post-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.790
91668411|NCT00494013|183230994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0||||P-value for Average Morning+Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.632
91668412|NCT00494013|183230995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-value for All Hypoglycemic Events.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.472
91668413|NCT00494013|183230995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Events.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
91792589|NCT02915874|183462762|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.3||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
91792590|NCT02915874|183462763|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
91792591|NCT02915874|183462764|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
91792592|NCT02915874|183462765|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91792593|NCT04973137|183462791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|1.649|||Log Rank|||||1.649|.508|0.7680
91668414|NCT00494013|183230995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Events.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.450
91668415|NCT00494013|183230996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.001
91668416|NCT00494013|183230996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.001
91668417|NCT00494013|183230996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.226
91668418|NCT00494013|183230998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 1.5 kilograms (kg).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.001||95.0|0.93|2.06||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Determir).|The second gatekeeping hypothesis was that Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension was noninferior to detemir with regard to change in absolute body weight from baseline to endpoint (last observation carried forward).||2.06|0.93|<0.001
91668419|NCT00494013|183230999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.074
91668420|NCT00494013|183231000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.039
91668421|NCT00494013|183231001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
91668422|NCT02614196|183231010|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.48|-2.55|<.001
91668423|NCT02614196|183231010|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.36|-2.44|<.001
91668424|NCT02614196|183231011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.32||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||3.32|2.03|
91668425|NCT02614196|183231011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.96||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||2.96|1.81|
91668426|NCT02614196|183231011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.06||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.06|1.78|
91668427|NCT02614196|183231011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|3.17||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.17|1.84|
91668428|NCT02614196|183231011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.12||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||3.12|1.50|
91668429|NCT02614196|183231011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.81||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||3.81|1.87|
91668430|NCT02614196|183231012|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|11.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.31|6.33|<.001
91668431|NCT02614196|183231012|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.90|4.88|<.001
91668432|NCT02614196|183231013|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.36|-2.29|<.001
91668433|NCT02614196|183231013|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.31|-2.25|<.001
91668434|NCT02614196|183231014|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.47|.002
91668435|NCT02614196|183231014|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.41|.012
91668436|NCT02614196|183231015|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.27|-10.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.11|-20.27|<.001
91668437|NCT02614196|183231015|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-8.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.44|-18.67|<.001
91668438|NCT02614196|183231016|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.69|-12.61|<.001
91668439|NCT02614196|183231016|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.72|-11.71|<.001
91668440|NCT02614196|183231017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive.||||<.001
91668441|NCT02614196|183231017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive||||<.001
91668442|NCT00633022|183231035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.4519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term,|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg twice daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID versus Placebo||0.06|-0.14|0.4519
91668443|NCT00633022|183231035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily versus Placebo||0.06|-0.11|0.5789
91668444|NCT00633022|183231036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg twice daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg twice daily versus placebo||0.10|-0.15|0.6986
91792594|NCT04973137|183462792|SUPERIORITY||Hodge-Lehmann Median Difference (Net)|-8.5||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.47|18.46|||Rank ANCOVA|||||18.46|-35.47|0.5288
91792595|NCT04973137|183462793|SUPERIORITY||Hodge-Lehmann Median Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.9597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|3.37|||Rank ANCOVA|||||3.37|-2.68|0.9597
91860515|NCT04169373|183607273|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.21|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.21|-3.26|<0.0001
91860516|NCT04169373|183607274|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-1.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.00|-2.56|<0.0001
91668445|NCT00633022|183231036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily versus Placebo||0.12|-0.13|0.9486
91668446|NCT01374451|183231081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.543|||Log Rank|||||1.543|0.636|0.488
91668447|NCT04640194|183231098|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.61|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||2.61|0.39|
91668448|NCT04640194|183231098|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.27|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Adjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment,ventilation status at baseline and age. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||3.27|0.46|
91668449|NCT04640194|183231098|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.15|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||4.15|0.73|
91668450|NCT04640194|183231098|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.01|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Adjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment,ventilation status at baseline and age. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||5.01|0.83|
91668451|NCT04640194|183231098|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.66|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||3.66|0.35|
91668452|NCT04640194|183231098|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.22|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Adjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment,ventilation status at baseline and age. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||4.22|0.33|
91668453|NCT04640194|183231099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.892|24.8734|||||Chan and Zhang exact confidence interval.|||24.8734|-10.892|
91668454|NCT04640194|183231099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3075|43.6615|||||Chan and Zhang exact confidence interval.|||43.6615|2.3075|
91668455|NCT04640194|183231099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.127|36.9012|||||Chan and Zhang exact confidence interval.|||36.9012|-24.127|
91668456|NCT04640194|183231100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|5.5|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||5.5|-38.6|
91668457|NCT04640194|183231100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|11.6|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||11.6|-35.1|
91668458|NCT04640194|183231100|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.1||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|12.9|||The delta method and average marginal.||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Unadjusted risk difference and 95% CI is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for treatment.||12.9|-51.1|0.2419
91792596|NCT04391569|183462827|OTHER|||||||0||||||P-value from logistic regression is used for interim data, and Boschloo's test p-value is used for post interim data.|fixed weight combination test|P-value is derived by fixed weight (2/3 for interim and 1/3 for post interim) combination test.||||||0.0000
91668459|NCT04640194|183231101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|19.1|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||19.1|-37.1|
91668460|NCT04640194|183231101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|19.0|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||19.0|-37.2|
91668461|NCT04640194|183231101|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|39.3|||The delta method and average marginal.||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% CI is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline D-dimer status, age, days of NIV support and treatment.||39.3|-10.3|0.2523
91668462|NCT04640194|183231102|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.6|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Parameters included in model: treatment,ventilation status at baseline, and age.||10.6|-4.4|
91668463|NCT04640194|183231102|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|11.8|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Parameters included in model: treatment,ventilation status at baseline, and age.||11.8|-3.2|
91668464|NCT04640194|183231103|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|19.2|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||19.2|-29.0|
91668465|NCT04640194|183231103|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|6.3|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||6.3|-36.8|
91668466|NCT04640194|183231104|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.193|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.45|52.33|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Based upon Hedges-Lehmann estimator handling deaths as failure and Wilcoxon rank sum test methodology.||52.33|-28.45|
91668467|NCT04640194|183231104|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|54.436|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|110.36|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Based upon Hedges-Lehmann estimator handling deaths as failure and Wilcoxon rank sum test methodology.||110.36|0.49|
91860517|NCT04169373|183607275|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|33.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.4|12.2|<0.0001
91668468|NCT04640194|183231106|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.9856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.6|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Unadjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment.||7.6|-7.5|0.9856
91668469|NCT04640194|183231106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.8729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|7.3|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment, the number of days under NIV support, baseline D-Dimer level and age.||7.3|-8.5|0.8729
91668470|NCT04640194|183231107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|70.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.8||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|145.1|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Unadjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment.||145.1|-3.3|0.0603
91668471|NCT04640194|183231107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.5||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|168.0|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment, the number of days under NIV support, baseline D-Dimer level, baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio and age.||168.0|6.3|0.0362
91792597|NCT04391569|183462828|OTHER|||||||0.1619||||||P-value from logistics regression is used for interim data, and Boschloo's test p-value is used for post interim data.|fixed weight combination test|P-value is derive by fixed weight (2/3 for interim and 1/3 for post interim) combination test.||||||0.1619
91860518|NCT04169373|183607275|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||4.0|1.6|
91668472|NCT03201003|183231131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|65.2|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment difference at 1000 mg||65.2|44.1|<0.0001
91792598|NCT04391569|183462830|OTHER|||||||0.2097|||||||fixed weight combination test|||||||0.2097
91792599|NCT04391569|183462831|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0000
91668473|NCT03201003|183231132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|69.3|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment difference at 600 mg||69.3|44.2|<0.0001
91668474|NCT03201003|183231133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|57.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|69.1|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment difference at 300 mg||69.1|41.2|<0.0001
91864533|NCT04778397|183617908|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.132||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.637|||Stratified log-rank test|P-value from stratified log-rank test.|||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy vs intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside the US sites)).|1.637|0.783|0.5070
91668475|NCT03201003|183231134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic (with equally spaced scores) stratified by country||Treatment difference in Maximum Severity||||<0.0001
91668476|NCT01994980|183231135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||This is a calculated p value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91668477|NCT00096460|183231157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Survival Probability|62.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|89.6||||||||89.6|43.8|
91668478|NCT00096460|183231157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Survival Probability|85.7||||||95.0|63.3|100.0||||||||100|63.3|
91668479|NCT00697619|183231186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.370
91668480|NCT00697619|183231186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91668481|NCT00697619|183231186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91668482|NCT01705717|183231199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.034
91668483|NCT01705717|183231200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
91792600|NCT04391569|183462832|OTHER|||||||0.0075||||||P-value is derived by fixed weight (2/3 for interim and 1/3 for post interim) combination test. P-value from logistics regression is used for interim data, and Boschloo's test p-value is used for post interim data.|fixed weight combination test|||||||0.0075
91668484|NCT02293460|183231205|SUPERIORITY|The response rate was tested against the historical response rate of 33.3%.|Responder rate|76.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.5|87.9||One-sided test at nominal level of significance alpha = 2.5 %|exact binomial Clopper-Pearson|||"For this single-arm study, the response rate was tested against the historical response rate of 33.3% with a 1-sided Clopper-Pearson exact test at the nominal level of significance of 2.5% on the Full Analysis Set. The null and alternative hypotheses were as follows:~H0: pI10E \<= 33.3% H1: pI10E \> 33.3%"||87.9|60.5|<0.0001
91668485|NCT00706719|183231206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.118
91668486|NCT00706719|183231206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.006
91860519|NCT04169373|183607276|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and main stratification factor MRI and hsCRP status as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||0.05|-0.25|0.1781
91668487|NCT00706719|183231206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.009
91714518|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.1673||95.0|-4.6|26.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.4|-4.6|0.1673
91714519|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.9839||95.0|-15.0|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.3|-15.0|0.9839
91714520|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.2905||95.0|-7.3|24.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||24.4|-7.3|0.2905
91714521|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69||0.5513||95.0|-10.6|19.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.7|-10.6|0.5513
91668488|NCT00706719|183231206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.0024
91668489|NCT00706719|183231207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.15
91860520|NCT04169373|183607277|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.1|-1.3|0.0193
91668490|NCT00706719|183231207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.0067
91668491|NCT00706719|183231207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.10
91668492|NCT00706719|183231207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.26
91714522|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.1589||95.0|-4.3|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.3|-4.3|0.1589
91860521|NCT04169373|183607278|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.9|9.3|0.0003
91668493|NCT00706719|183231208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.880
91714523|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.95||0.0541||95.0|-0.3|31.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||31.0|-0.3|0.0541
91714524|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.5987||95.0|-11.0|19.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.1|-11.0|0.5987
91714525|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.4372||95.0|-9.6|22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.2|-9.6|0.4372
91792601|NCT04641221|183462837|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|1.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.18||main effect for one-on-one sessions.|zero-inflated negative-binomial (ZINB)|We specified a multilevel (week nested within participant) model which included terms for each main effect and each interaction effect and covariates.|Main effect for One-one sessions.|There were four potential intervention components. This study used a 2x2x2x2 factorial design. Thus, we analyzed main and interaction effects for the four potential intervention components.||1.18|1.02|0.028
91668494|NCT00706719|183231208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.612
91668495|NCT00706719|183231208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.488
91860522|NCT04169373|183607279|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.13||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.17||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and main stratification factors MRI and hsCRP status as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.17|-2.08|0.0206
91668496|NCT00706719|183231208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.054
91668497|NCT00706719|183231209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.705
91668498|NCT00706719|183231209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.013
91668499|NCT00706719|183231209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.004
91668500|NCT00706719|183231209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.808
91668501|NCT00706719|183231210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.008
91668502|NCT00706719|183231210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.015
91668503|NCT00706719|183231210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.003
91714526|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.8336||95.0|-16.8|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.6|-16.8|0.8336
91668504|NCT00706719|183231210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.109
91668505|NCT01074008|183231213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-450/r group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide \> 95% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.5 log10 IU/mL using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91668506|NCT01074008|183231213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-450/r group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide \> 95% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.5 log10 IU/mL using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91668507|NCT01074008|183231213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-450/r group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide \> 95% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.5 log10 IU/mL using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91668508|NCT01074008|183231213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-072 and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 92% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a standard deviation of 0.6 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.009
91668509|NCT01074008|183231213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-072 and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 92% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a standard deviation of 0.6 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.012
91668510|NCT01074008|183231213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-072 and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 92% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a standard deviation of 0.6 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91668511|NCT01074008|183231213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, 2-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight subjects per ABT-333 group and 11 subjects in the placebo group would provide 82% power to detect a 1.0 log10 IU/mL difference with a standard deviation of 0.7 log10 IU/mL and a 2-sided 2-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.032
91860523|NCT04169373|183607281|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|17.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|27.3||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.3|7.9|0.0004
91668512|NCT01074008|183231213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 82% power to detect a 1.0 log10 IU/mL difference with a standard deviation of 0.7 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.053
91668513|NCT01074008|183231214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91668514|NCT01074008|183231214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91668515|NCT01074008|183231214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91668516|NCT01074008|183231214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.262
91860524|NCT04169373|183607282|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.6||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.6|13.2|<0.0001
91668517|NCT01074008|183231214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91668518|NCT01074008|183231214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
91668519|NCT01074008|183231214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.111
91668520|NCT01074008|183231214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.111
91668521|NCT01074008|183231215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91902155|NCT04409353|183699276|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.43||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.26||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Depression score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Depression t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.26|-1.40|0.6427
91860525|NCT04169373|183607283|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|33.7||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.7|12.4|<0.0001
91860526|NCT04760678|183607309|OTHER|Fisher's exact test||||||0.107|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
91860527|NCT03675282|183607341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.8||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.66
91860528|NCT03675282|183607341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.63
91860529|NCT03675282|183607341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.99
91860530|NCT03675282|183607341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.67
91902156|NCT04409353|183699277|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly steps between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|691.58||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-602.98|1986.14||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly steps obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline average weekly steps as a continuous covariate.||1986.14|-602.98|0.2910
91860531|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.625||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.40
91860532|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.453||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part II (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.40
91860533|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.15||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part III (Baseline vs. 24 months)|paired t-test|||||||0.04
91860534|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.94
91860535|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.414||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.53
91860536|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.779||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part II (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.38
91860537|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part III (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.24
91860538|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.376||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.73
91860539|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.187||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.16
91860540|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part II (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.75
91860541|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.829||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part III (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.28
91860542|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.85
91860543|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.78
91860544|NCT03675282|183607342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.381||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.03
91860545|NCT03675282|183607343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.30
91860546|NCT03675282|183607343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.94
91860547|NCT03675282|183607343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.45
91860548|NCT03675282|183607343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.80
91860549|NCT03232138|183607351|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.41||Hypothesis: sulforaphane treatment slows or reverse the progression of lung histological lesions or lower the dysplasia score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores,age,sex,cigarettes per day,years of smoking, years since quit smoking.||Derived from ANCOVA model with adjustment for baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores, age, sex, cigarettes per day, years of smoking, and years since quit smoking.||0.41|0.03|0.452
91860550|NCT03232138|183607351|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.28||Hypothesis: sulforaphane treatment slows or reverse the progression of lung histological lesions or lower the dysplasia score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores,age,sex,cigarettes per day,years of smoking, years since quit smoking||Derived from ANCOVA model with adjustment for baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores, age, sex, cigarettes per day, years of smoking, and years since quit smoking.||0.28|-0.04|0.452
91860551|NCT03232138|183607352|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.738||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes in baseline.||||0.738
91860552|NCT03232138|183607352|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.78||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Weak-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.780
91860553|NCT03232138|183607352|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.733||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Moderate intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes in baseline.||||0.733
91860554|NCT03232138|183607352|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.751||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Strong-Intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes in baseline.||||0.751
91860555|NCT03232138|183607352|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.014||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of Ki-67 positive nuclei||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.014
91860556|NCT03232138|183607352|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.056|||||||Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking,baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||Week intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.056
91860557|NCT03232138|183607352|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.028|||||||Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking,baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||Moderate Intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.028
91860558|NCT03232138|183607352|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.004|||||||Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking,baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||Strong intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.004
91668522|NCT01074008|183231215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
91668523|NCT01074008|183231215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91668524|NCT01074008|183231215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91860559|NCT03232138|183607353|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) at baseline for positive cells. TUNEL positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.377||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies compared with the place|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.377
91668525|NCT01074008|183231215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.370
91668526|NCT01074008|183231215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91860560|NCT03232138|183607353|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.413||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Weak-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.413
91860561|NCT03232138|183607353|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) at baseline Moderate-intensity positive nuclei. TUNEL positive (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.338||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies compared with the place|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Moderate Intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.338
91860562|NCT03232138|183607353|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) at baseline for positive cells. TUNEL positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.547||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Strong-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.547
91860563|NCT03232138|183607353|EQUIVALENCE|used 2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for all positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.291||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.291
91860564|NCT03232138|183607353|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.552||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Weak-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.552
91860565|NCT03232138|183607353|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.205||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Moderate-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.205
91860566|NCT03232138|183607353|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.295||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Strong-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.295
91902157|NCT04409353|183699277|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly steps between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|405.68||||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-741.79|1553.15||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly steps obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline average weekly steps as a continuous covariate.||1553.15|-741.79|0.4842
91860567|NCT03232138|183607354|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.295||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.295
91860568|NCT03232138|183607354|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.242||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||weak intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.242
91860569|NCT03232138|183607354|EQUIVALENCE|-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.985||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Moderate intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.985
91668527|NCT01074008|183231215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91860570|NCT03232138|183607354|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.547||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Strong intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.547
91860571|NCT03232138|183607354|EQUIVALENCE|used 2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for all positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.778||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.778
91902158|NCT04409353|183699278|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly sleep scores between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.49||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly sleep scores obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline sleep score as a continuous covariate.||3.49|-1.48|0.4228
91902159|NCT04409353|183699278|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly sleep scores between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.28||||0.8363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.37||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly sleep scores obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline sleep score as a continuous covariate.||2.37|-2.92|0.8363
91902160|NCT04409353|183699279|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.44||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic||Sham VR as the reference group.|"Responder status (Yes vs. No) will be analyzed as the dependent variable using logistic regression, with terms for treatment groups and baseline PROMIS-PI as predictors. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the treatment groups, versus the alternative hypothesis that there a difference exists between the treatment groups."||1.44|0.48|0.514
91902161|NCT04409353|183699279|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.36||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic||Sham VR as the reference group.|"Responder status (Yes vs. No) will be analyzed as the dependent variable using logistic regression, with terms for treatment groups and baseline PROMIS-PI as predictors. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the treatment groups, versus the alternative hypothesis that there a difference exists between the treatment groups."||2.36|0.78|0.280
91902162|NCT04252287|183699306|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.8|0.8|0.016
91902163|NCT04252287|183699307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|29.8||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.4|344.1|||ANCOVA|||||344.1|-284.4|0.852
91902164|NCT02564926|183699320|OTHER||LS mean difference (kg)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.346|-1.819|||ANCOVA|||||-1.819|-3.346|<0.001
91902165|NCT02564926|183699321|OTHER||LS mean difference (%)|-0.46||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|-0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.094|-0.821|0.014
91902166|NCT02564926|183699322|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|3.113|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.113|0.673|0.343
91902167|NCT02564926|183699323|OTHER||LS mean difference (mg/dL)|-18.25||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.14|-5.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.351|-31.140|0.006
91902168|NCT02564926|183699324|OTHER||LS mean difference (kg)|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.667|-2.631|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.631|-4.667|<0.001
91902169|NCT02564926|183699325|OTHER||LS mean difference (cm)|-2.21||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.785|-0.635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.635|-3.785|0.006
91902170|NCT02564926|183699326|OTHER||LS mean difference (kg/m2)|-1.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.742|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.990|-1.742|<0.001
91902171|NCT02564926|183699327|OTHER||LS mean difference (mmHg)|-6.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.969|-2.641|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.641|-10.969|0.002
91902172|NCT02564926|183699328|OTHER||LS mean difference (mmHg)|-2.61||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.829|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.600|-5.829|0.110
91902173|NCT02564926|183699329|OTHER||LS mean difference (cm2)|-17.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.603|-6.489|||ANCOVA|||||-6.489|-28.603|0.002
91668528|NCT01074008|183231215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91668529|NCT01074008|183231228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
91668530|NCT01074008|183231228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
91668531|NCT01074008|183231228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91860572|NCT03232138|183607354|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||||||0.685||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Weak intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.685
91860573|NCT03232138|183607354|EQUIVALENCE|-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||||||0.469||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Moderate intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.469
91860574|NCT03232138|183607354|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarke||||||0.052||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||strong intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.052
91860575|NCT03232138|183607355|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung cancer. the objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated upregulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RNA integrity number or RIN.|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment downregulate these genes whose over-expressions are associated with risk of lung cancer.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.82
91860576|NCT03232138|183607356|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be down-regulated in lung cancer. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated down-regulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate these genes whose down-expressions are associated with lung cancer risk.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.50
91864534|NCT04778397|183617909|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.183||||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.654|||Stratified Log-rank test|P-value from stratified log-rank test.|||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy vs intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside the US sites)).|1.654|0.845|0.3237
91902174|NCT02564926|183699330|OTHER||LS mean difference (cm2)|-18.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.561|-9.218|||ANCOVA|||||-9.218|-27.561|<0.001
91902175|NCT02564926|183699331|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.063|||ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.127|0.503
91902176|NCT02564926|183699332|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.992|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.540|-1.992|<0.001
91668532|NCT01074008|183231228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
91668533|NCT01074008|183231228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.319
91668534|NCT01074008|183231228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91668535|NCT01074008|183231228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
91860577|NCT03232138|183607357|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung pre-malignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months would have any significant impact on the expression of these pre-malignant lesions associated upregulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would downregulate these genes whose over-expressions are associated with risk of lung pre-malignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.32
91668536|NCT01074008|183231228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.074
91860578|NCT03232138|183607358|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be downregulated in lung pre-malignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months would have any significant impact on the expression of these pre-malignant lesions associated downregulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate these genes whose down-regulated expressions are associated with risk of lung pre-malignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.5
91860579|NCT03232138|183607359|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung cancer. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated upregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Sulforaphane treatment would downregulate the expression of these genes whose upregulated expressions in bronchial epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung cancer.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.012
91860580|NCT03232138|183607360|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be downregulated in lung cancer. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated upregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate the expression of these genes whose downregulated expressions in nasal epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung cancer.|Mixed Models Analysis||Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.0045
91902177|NCT02564926|183699333|OTHER||LS mean difference (ng/mL)|657.71||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.325|1297.101|||ANCOVA|||||1297.101|18.325|0.044
91902178|NCT02564926|183699334|OTHER||LS mean difference (mg/L)|-0.12||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.858|0.625|||ANCOVA|||||0.625|-0.858|0.756
91668537|NCT03239496|183231252|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
91860581|NCT03232138|183607361|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung premalignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these premalignant lesion-associated upregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would downregulate the expression of these genes whose upregulated expressions in bronchial epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung premalignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.32
91860582|NCT03232138|183607362|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be downregulated in lung premalignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these premalignant lesion-associated downregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate the expression of these genes whose downregulated expressions in bronchial epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung premalignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.27
91860583|NCT03232138|183607363|EQUIVALENCE|Total number of adverse events by attrition and severity by treatment group during the study period, The Pittsburgh Clinical Trial of Sulforaphane (SFN) on Risk Markers of Lung Cancer||||||0.59||||||For severity by treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.590
91860584|NCT03232138|183607363|EQUIVALENCE|Total number of adverse events by attrition and severity by treatment group during the study period, The Pittsburgh Clinical Trial of Sulforaphane (SFN) on Risk Markers of Lung Cancer||||||0.131||||||For attribution by treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.131
91860585|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||0.02
91860586|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.22
91860587|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.017
91860588|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.98
91860589|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.014
91860590|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
91860591|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
91860592|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.156
91860593|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||0.541|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.541
91860594|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
91860595|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.10"|||
91860596|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.00"|||
91860597|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.88"|||
91860598|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -1.6"|||
91860599|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = N/A \*~\* N/A for Argus Vision test because subject did not successfully reach intended destination for any trial using this mode."|||
91860600|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -1.10"|||
91860601|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.45"|||
91860602|NCT04359108|183607398|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.02"|||
91860603|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||0.30
91860604|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
91860605|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
91860606|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.01
91860607|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.93
91860608|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
91860609|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.27"|||
91860610|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.00"|||
91860611|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 2.75"|||
91902179|NCT02564926|183699335|OTHER||LS mean difference (%)|-1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|-1.082|||ANCOVA|||||-1.082|-2.807|<0.001
91860612|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.60"|||
91860613|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = N/A\*~\* N/A for Argus Vision test because subject did not successfully reach intended destination for any trial using this mode."|||
91860614|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.72"|||
91860615|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 2.47"|||
91902180|NCT01554488|183699338|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.92||||||All of the comparisons were based on mixed effects linear regression models with visit and group\*visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect. Confidence intervals for the treatment difference (group\*visit interaction) were constructed using the Wald method.||2.92|-5.03|
91860616|NCT04359108|183607399|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 3.81"|||
91714527|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.0804||95.0|-1.7|29.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||29.4|-1.7|0.0804
91860617|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|navigation system mode and test block as factors||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
91860618|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|within-participant, 2 sided t-test||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
91860619|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||within-participant, 2 sided t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.037
91860620|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|within-participant, 2 sided t-test||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.34
91860621|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|within-participant, 2 sided t-test||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.10
91860622|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
91860623|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
91860624|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.67
91902181|NCT00447382|183699356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Ratio|1.04||||0.649||95.0|0.86|1.26|||ANOVA|Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. (Log transformed data).|The treatment ratio calculated is the NN729-NN304 ratio for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this ratio was also calculated.|"Null hypothesis:Treatment with detemir produced with the NN729 process result in a similar change in cross reacting antibody levels as the NN304 process. Alternative hypothesis: change in antibody levels differ after treatment with detemir produced by the two manufacturing processes.~The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA."||1.26|0.86|0.649
91668538|NCT03239496|183231253|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
91668539|NCT03239496|183231254|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
91792602|NCT04641221|183462837|SUPERIORITY|Interaction effect for one-on-one sessions and incentives for participation|incidence rate ratio|1.09||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.17|||zero-inflated negative binomial||Interaction effect for one-on-one sessions and incentives for participation|There were four potential intervention components. This study used a 2x2x2x2 factorial design. Thus, we analyzed main and interaction effects for the four potential intervention components.||1.17|1.02|0.039
91860625|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.23
91860626|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
91860627|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.79"|||
91860628|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.38"|||
91860629|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 2.24"|||
91860630|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.85"|||
91860631|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = N/A\*~\* N/A for Argus Vision test because subject did not successfully reach intended destination for any trial using this mode."|||
91902182|NCT00447382|183699358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|-0.03||||0.758||95.0|-0.21|0.15|||ANOVA|Adjustments: Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate.|The estimated treatment difference calculated is the NN729-NN304 treatment difference for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this difference was also calculated.|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA.||0.15|-0.21|0.758
91902183|NCT00447382|183699359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|-0.1||||0.812||95.0|-0.89|0.7|||ANOVA|Adjustments: Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate.|The estimated treatment difference calculated is the NN729-NN304 treatment difference for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this difference was also calculated|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA.||0.7|-0.89|0.812
91902184|NCT00447382|183699361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Ratio|0.93||||0.15||95.0|0.84|1.03|||ANOVA|Adjustments:Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. (Log transformed data)|The treatment ratio calculated is the NN729-NN304 ratio for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this ratio was also calculated.|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA. The analysis was based on an assumption of a log-normal distribution for antibody data and was thus built on log-transformed data.||1.03|0.84|0.15
91902185|NCT00447382|183699362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Ratio|1.0||||0.966||95.0|0.87|1.15|||ANOVA|Adjustments: Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. (Log transformed data)|The treatment ratio calculated is the NN729-NN304 ratio for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this ratio was also calculated.|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA. The analysis was based on an assumption of a log-normal distribution for antibody data and was thus built on log-transformed data.||1.15|0.87|0.966
91902186|NCT04600336|183699380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.11||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.76|-4.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.46|-13.76|0.0019
91714528|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.2985||95.0|-7.4|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.9|-7.4|0.2985
91902187|NCT04600336|183699380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|-0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.48|-9.70|0.0732
91902188|NCT04600336|183699383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0120
91902189|NCT04600336|183699386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0057
91792603|NCT04641221|183462837|SUPERIORITY||incident rate ratio|0.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.93||3-way interaction: study videos X one-on-one X incentives for class attendance|Zero-inflated negative binomial||3-way interaction: study videos X one-on-one X incentives for class attendance|There were four potential intervention components. This study used a 2x2x2x2 factorial design. Thus, we analyzed main and interaction effects for the four potential intervention components.||0.93|0.80|0.001
91902190|NCT04223791|183699391|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL (DOR/ISL-BIC/FTC/TAF) is less than 4 percentage points.|Estimated difference|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.96||p-value for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen||Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group-BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||1.96|-1.19|<.001
91902191|NCT04223791|183699392|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups|Difference in % (DOR/ISL- BIC/FTC/TAF)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.4|||||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method|||3.4|-10.4|
91792604|NCT01903252|183462838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority, pre-defined non-inferiority margin 10% A two-sided 95% confidence interval about the difference in proportions was constructed. If the lower limit of the confidence interval was no less than -10% it would be concluded that the test product is non-inferior to the comparator.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.8|||Non-inferiority|||If the lower limit of the confidence interval was no less than -10% it would be concluded that the test product is non-inferior to the comparator.||3.8|-8.1|0.005
91792605|NCT01903252|183462839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentag|75.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.4|80.6||||||||80.6|69.4|
91792606|NCT01903252|183462841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|2.2|||Non-inferiority|||||2.2|-6.5|<0.001
91792607|NCT01903252|183462842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.9|||Non-inferiority|||||3.9|-10.1|0.026
91792608|NCT01903252|183462843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.4|||Non-inferiority|||||1.4|-10.9|0.048
91792609|NCT01903252|183462844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.1|||Non-inferiortiy|||||3.1|-10.8|0.042
91792610|NCT01903252|183462845|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.7|||Non-inferiority|||||2.7|-11.0|0.048
91860632|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.18"|||
91860633|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.97"|||
91902192|NCT04223791|183699393|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups|Difference in % (DOR/ISL- BIC/FTC/TAF)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.6|||||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method|||2.6|-2.7|
91902193|NCT04223791|183699406|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.39|||ANCOVA|Model included terms for baseline weight, sex, race, and treatment.|Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group-BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||0.39|-0.99|0.392
91902194|NCT03829241|183699413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect.||1.30|-1.45|0.917
91668540|NCT03239496|183231255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.0001
91668541|NCT03239496|183231256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.0001
91792611|NCT01903252|183462846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.9|||Non-inferiority|||||0.9|-11.5|0.068
91792612|NCT01903252|183462847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0|||Non-inferiortiy|||||4.0|-9.8|0.021
91860634|NCT04359108|183607400|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -1.23"|||
91860635|NCT04359108|183607401|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Single-factor test on navigation system mode||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
91860636|NCT04359108|183607401|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.17
91902195|NCT05178134|183699422|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set to -15% (on an absolute scale)|Difference in response rates|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|0.069||||||||0.069|-0.108|
91902196|NCT03239483|183699445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Fisher Exact|||two-sided Fisher's Exact Test||||0.072
91902197|NCT03239483|183699450|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||This is a calculated p-value. P-values of 1.0 are possible when using the Fisher Exact test method.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91902198|NCT03239483|183699451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.591
91860637|NCT04359108|183607401|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
91860638|NCT04359108|183607401|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.33
91860639|NCT04359108|183607401|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
91860640|NCT04359108|183607402|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|2X2 within-participant test with factors of resolution and field-of-view||Significance of Resolution: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance between low and high resolution vision modes||||0.023
91860641|NCT04359108|183607402|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||ANOVA|2X2 within-participant test with factors of resolution and field-of-view||Significance of Resolution: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance between low and high field-of-view vision modes||||0.039
91860642|NCT04359108|183607402|OTHER|||||||0.801|||||||ANOVA|2x2 within-participant test with factors of resolution and field-of-view||Significance of Interaction between Resolution and Field-of-View: test for null hypothesis of no interaction||||.801
91860643|NCT06393088|183607403|SUPERIORITY|It was calculated that 24 participants randomized 1:1 between 2 arms would have at least an 85% power to detect a difference in pain relief of 30 points as measured using a Visual Analog Device. The actual difference in the mean of the change in pain level, as measured using a Visual Analog Scale, between the two independent groups is 41.67. Results of the post trial calculation was a 95.7% power to detect the difference in pain relief using 29 randomized participants.|Mean Difference (Net)|41.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.15|61.67||The threshold is P-value \<.0.05 for statistical significance A bootstrap N=20,000 was used for all estimates|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis:~There is not a statistically significant difference in nociceptive musculoskeletal pain when using an IR REHAB device when compared with a sham (placebo) device as a therapy in an approved and standardized clinical protocol."||61.67|20.15|<0.01
91902199|NCT00056862|183699500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: first phase decline in HCV RNA are the same for the two groups||||0.002
91668542|NCT03239496|183231257|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
91668543|NCT03239496|183231258|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
91714529|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.4991||95.0|-9.9|20.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.3|-9.9|0.4991
91902200|NCT00056862|183699502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: the second phase slopes of HCV RNA are the same for the two groups||||0.2
91860644|NCT04176965|183607404|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority based on the observed 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the difference in means between the 2 groups (FINEVISION HP - AcrySof SN60AT). Non-inferiority margin = 0.10 logMAR.|Mean difference|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0084|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0316|0.0592|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.0592|0.0316|<0.0001
91860645|NCT04176965|183607405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91860646|NCT04176965|183607406|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of FINEVISION HP compared to control in percentages of first operative eyes with secondary surgical interventions related to the optical properties of the IOL was evaluated using two-sided 90% Farrington method confidence intervals around the difference in percentages between the 2 groups. If the upper limit of the confidence interval is less than 1.4%, the FINEVISION HP IOL will be considered statistically non-inferior to the control IOL.|Difference in percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.36||||||||1.36|-0.76|
91860647|NCT04176965|183607411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91860648|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Cystoid macular oedema. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860649|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Cystoid macular oedema. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860650|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Hypopyon. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91902201|NCT00056862|183699503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: the time to negativity for the two groups are same||||0.047
91860651|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Hypopyon. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91714530|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.2675||95.0|-7.0|25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.1|-7.0|0.2675
91860652|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Endophthalmitis. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91714531|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.1593||95.0|-4.3|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.3|-4.3|0.1593
91714532|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.0179||95.0|3.3|34.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||34.6|3.3|0.0179
91860653|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Endophthalmitis. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860654|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Lens dislocated from posterior chamber. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860655|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Lens dislocated from posterior chamber. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860656|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Pupillary block.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91714533|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.0281||95.0|1.9|33.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||33.7|1.9|0.0281
91792613|NCT01903252|183462848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.7|||Non-inferiortiy|||||3.7|-10.3|0.031
91792614|NCT01903252|183462849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.8|||Non-inferiority|||||1.8|-9.2|0.013
91860657|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Pupillary block.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860658|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Retinal detachment.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860659|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Retinal detachment.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860660|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Secondary surgical intervention.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860661|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Secondary surgical intervention.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860662|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Corneal stroma oedema.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860663|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Corneal stroma oedema.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860664|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Cystoid macular oedema.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860665|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Cystoid macular oedema.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860666|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Iritis.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860667|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Iritis.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860668|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Raised Intraocular Pressure (IOP) requiring treatment.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860669|NCT04176965|183607412|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Raised Intraocular Pressure (IOP) requiring treatment.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
91860670|NCT03652688|183607429|SUPERIORITY||F|14.463|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The unit of analyses was the individual, nested within groups.||||<0.001
91860671|NCT03652688|183607430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.08
91860672|NCT03652688|183607431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.954
91860673|NCT03652688|183607432|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|4.436||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.035
91860674|NCT03652688|183607433|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|2.615||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.106
91792615|NCT01903252|183462850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.0|||Non-inferiority|||||3.0|-10.8|0.042
91792616|NCT01903252|183462851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.5|0.557
91714534|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.1883||95.0|-5.0|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.5|-5.0|0.1883
91714535|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.23||95.0|-6.3|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.3|-6.3|0.2300
91714536|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.7575||95.0|-13.0|17.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.8|-13.0|0.7575
91860675|NCT03652688|183607434|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|11.636|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91714537|NCT00676403|183320250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.0757||95.0|-1.5|30.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||30.1|-1.5|0.0757
91714538|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.2817||95.0|-18.0|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-18.0|0.2817
91714539|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76||0.6796||95.0|-13.7|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.0|-13.7|0.6796
91714540|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.2505||95.0|-18.8|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.9|-18.8|0.2505
91792617|NCT01903252|183462852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.3|0.987
91792618|NCT01903252|183462853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||The result of the mean difference is not corresponding to the values in the table due to rounding as specified in the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP).|||0.2|-0.1|0.455
91792619|NCT01903252|183462854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The apparent difference between the values in the table and the mean difference is due to rounding as defined in the SAP.|||0.1|-0.1|0.937
91792620|NCT01903252|183462855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.2|0.357
91714541|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.5102||95.0|-15.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.5|-15.1|0.5102
91792621|NCT01903252|183462856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-0.2|0.099
91792622|NCT01903252|183462857|OTHER||Percentage|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|27.5||||||||27.5|16.8|
91792623|NCT01903252|183462858|OTHER||Percentage|60.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.6|66.3||||||||66.3|53.6|
91792624|NCT01903252|183462859|OTHER||Percentage|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|32.3||||||||32.3|20.9|
91792625|NCT01903252|183462860|OTHER||Percentage|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|51.3||||||||51.3|38.5|
91792626|NCT01903252|183462861|OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||||1.5|0.0|
91860676|NCT05026320|183607445|EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy hypothesis to be tested was the equality of tenderness (algometry) over the initial 72 hours (algometry AUC 0-72).||||||0.0221|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0221
91864535|NCT04778397|183617910|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.389||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.848|||Stratified Log-rank test|P-value for comparing the event free survival functions from the two treatment groups was from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization.|||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors: therapy appropriateness, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside the US sites).|1.848|1.043|0.0661
91864536|NCT04778397|183617911|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.506|||||||Odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy versus intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside US sites)).|0.506|0.123|
91714542|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.5706||95.0|-14.7|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.1|-14.7|0.5706
91714543|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.4708||95.0|-16.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.4|-16.0|0.4708
91714544|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.6202||95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.1|-8.4|0.6202
91714545|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.4177||95.0|-16.8|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.0|-16.8|0.4177
91714546|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.75||0.6509||95.0|-8.7|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.9|-8.7|0.6509
91714547|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.8273||95.0|-10.3|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.8|-10.3|0.8273
91714548|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.2842||95.0|-18.1|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.3|-18.1|0.2842
91714549|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.7041||95.0|-9.1|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.5|-9.1|0.7041
91860677|NCT03721952|183607491|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.764|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average depression score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average depression score, over 3 follow-up points for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.764|-0.505|0.688
91860678|NCT03721952|183607491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.510
91902202|NCT00729781|183699520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with improvement|57.8||||0.19|ONE_SIDED|97.5|42.2||||One-sided, binomial exact test|||This study had two independent primary endpoints (cosmetic and functional improvement). Therefore, the assumed type I error rate for each was 2.5% in order to maintain an overall 5% type I error rate. For each endpoint, the percent of subjects with improvement of the total number implanted was to be compared to a rate of 50% using a one-sided, binomial exact test. If the p-value was \< 0.025, the objective would have been met.|||42.2|0.19
91714550|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.7216||95.0|-14.1|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.8|-14.1|0.7216
91714551|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.6188||95.0|-14.3|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.5|-14.3|0.6188
91714552|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.8096||95.0|-10.2|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.0|-10.2|0.8096
91902203|NCT00729781|183699521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with improvement|15.6|||>|0.99|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.05||||One-sided, binomial exact test||||||0.05|>0.99
91902204|NCT00006392|183699548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.95|1.35||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Per study design, with a sample size of 32,400 men, using a 1-sided alpha=.005 level (equivalent to a 2-sided alpha=.01 level) there was 96% power to detect a 25% reduction in prostate cancer for either agent vs. Placebo.||1.35|0.95|< .01
91902205|NCT00006392|183699548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.24||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Per study design, with a sample size of 32,400 men, using a 1-sided alpha=.005 level (equivalent to a 2-sided alpha=.01 level) there was 96% power to detect a 25% reduction in prostate cancer for either agent vs. Placebo.||1.24|0.87|< .01
91902206|NCT00006392|183699548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||<|0.01||99.0|0.88|1.25||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Per study design, with a sample size of 32,400 men, using a 1-sided alpha=.005 level (equivalent to a 2-sided alpha=.01 level) there was 99% power to detect a 44% reduction in prostate cancer for combination vs. Placebo.||1.25|.88|< .01
91902207|NCT00006392|183699549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||>|0.05||99.0|0.64|1.55||The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and lung cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at lung cancer incidence. A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.55|.64|> .05
91902208|NCT00006392|183699549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.73|1.72||The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and lung cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at lung cancer incidence. A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.72|0.73|> .01
91902209|NCT00006392|183699549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.9|1.16||The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and lung cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at lung cancer incidence. A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.16|0.90|>.01
91902210|NCT00006392|183699550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.69|1.73||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and colorectal cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at colorectal cancer incidence.||1.73|0.69|> .05
91668544|NCT03239496|183231259|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
91668545|NCT02339415|183231263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|included predictors: treatment, assigned treatment sequence and pre-treatment biomarker level.|because biomarkers were analyzed on natural log scale, the estimated parameter is the log-transformed mean percent difference in treatment effect on Edoxaban vs. Placebo.|||0.21|-0.06|0.26
91668546|NCT02339415|183231264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|included predictors: treatment, assigned treatment sequence and pre-treatment biomarker level.|because biomarkers were analyzed on natural log scale, the estimated parameter is the log-transformed mean percent difference in treatment effect on Edoxaban vs. Placebo.|||-0.20|-0.88|0.002
91668547|NCT00003404|183231269|OTHER||rate of occurance|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||||The local recurrence rate was estimated by dividing the number of recurrences by the total sample size. An exact 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for this rate was determined by binomial distribution.|||8|0|
91668548|NCT05480800|183231291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.44||||||95.0|0.06|3.43|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 29||3.43|0.06|
91668549|NCT05480800|183231291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.66||||||95.0|0.25|1.7|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 29||1.70|0.25|
91792627|NCT00997113|183462887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the change in serum catecholamines from one minute before the procedure to one minute after. In order to detect a 20% difference in mean catecholamine values between groups, assuming a 30% standard deviation, with an alpha of 0.05 and a beta of 0.2 (80% power), power analysis indicated that 10 patients per group were required.||||0.940
91714553|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0157||95.0|-26.5|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-2.8|-26.5|0.0157
91668550|NCT05480800|183231291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.43||||||95.0|0.06|2.94|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 57||2.94|0.06|
91714554|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.6007||95.0|-14.4|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.4|-14.4|0.6007
91714555|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.1057||95.0|-22.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.1|-22.1|0.1057
91714556|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.7764||95.0|-13.1|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.8|-13.1|0.7764
91714557|NCT00676403|183320251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.7146||95.0|-13.9|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.5|-13.9|0.7146
91714558|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.2978||95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.3|0.2978
91714559|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7242||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7242
91714560|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0773||95.0|-0.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-0.1|0.0773
91714561|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7831||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7831
91714562|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3291||95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.3|0.3291
91714563|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3692||95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.3|0.3692
91860679|NCT03721952|183607492|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.491|0.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average anxiety score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average anxiety score, over 3 follow-up points for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.777|-0.491|0.658
91668551|NCT05480800|183231291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.51||||||95.0|0.19|1.37|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 57||1.37|0.19|
91860680|NCT03721952|183607492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.268
91714564|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7614||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7614
91792628|NCT00645788|183462890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||ANCOVA|||"Ho: \|Cipro 32.5 mg - matching placebo\|=0 and \|Cipro 48.75 mg - matching placebo\|=0"||||0.076
91668552|NCT05480800|183231291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.59||||||95.0|0.13|2.65|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 85||2.65|0.13|
91668553|NCT05480800|183231291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.66||||||95.0|0.3|1.43|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 85||1.43|0.30|
91668554|NCT05480800|183231291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.96||||||95.0|0.18|5.12|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 169||5.12|0.18|
91668555|NCT05480800|183231291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.76||||||95.0|0.36|1.6|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 169||1.60|0.36|
91668556|NCT05480800|183231291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.16||||||95.0|0.23|5.79|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 197||5.79|0.23|
91668557|NCT05480800|183231291|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.9||||||95.0|0.44|1.84|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 197||1.84|0.44|
91668558|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|2.92||||||95.0|0.48|17.8|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 29||17.80|0.48|
91668559|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.95||||||95.0|0.41|2.19|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 29||2.19|0.41|
91668560|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|3.03||||||95.0|0.43|21.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 57||21.45|0.43|
91668561|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.89||||||95.0|0.33|2.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 57||2.45|0.33|
91714565|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0355||95.0|0.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|0.0|0.0355
91792629|NCT00645788|183462892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANCOVA|||"At visit 7 (End of treatment) Ho: \|Cipro 32.5 - matching placebo\| =0 and~\|Cipro 48.75 - matching placebo\| =0"||||0.068
91792630|NCT04268823|183462931|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1938||0.298|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.524|0.119|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.119|-0.524|0.298
91792631|NCT04268823|183462932|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.651|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.5|-0.9|0.651
91792632|NCT04268823|183462933|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.288|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.55|0.78|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.78|-3.55|0.288
91668562|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.69||||||95.0|0.26|10.96|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 85||10.96|0.26|
91902211|NCT00006392|183699550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.66|1.67||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and colorectal cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at colorectal cancer incidence.||1.67|0.66|> .05
91902212|NCT00006392|183699550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.82|2.0||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and colorectal cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at colorectal cancer incidence.||2.00|0.82|> .05
91902213|NCT00006392|183699551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.91|1.17||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The power to look at all cancer incidence is greater than 90%.||1.17|0.91|> .05
91902214|NCT00006392|183699551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.89|1.15||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The power to look at all cancer incidence is greater than 90%.||1.15|0.89|> .05
91902215|NCT00006392|183699551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||>|0.05||99.0|0.9|1.16||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The power to look at all cancer incidence is greater than 90%.||1.16|0.90|> .05
91902216|NCT00006392|183699552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||>|0.05||99.0|0.77|1.13||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo is the denominator.|Only results from overall survival are presented as the number of cancer-specific deaths is too few to be meaningful.||1.13|0.77|> .05
91902217|NCT00006392|183699552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.82|1.19||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|Only results from overall survival are presented as the number of cancer-specific deaths is too few to be meaningful.||1.19|0.82|> .05
91902218|NCT00006392|183699552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.77|1.13||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Only results from overall survival are presented as the number of cancer-specific deaths is too few to be meaningful.||1.13|0.77|> .05
91902219|NCT00006392|183699553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.88|1.09||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.09|0.88|> .05
91902220|NCT00006392|183699553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.92|1.13||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.13|0.92|> .05
91902221|NCT00006392|183699553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.89|1.1||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.10|0.89|> .05
91668563|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.76||||||95.0|0.29|2.0|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 85||2.00|0.29|
91668564|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|2.49||||||95.0|0.24|26.3|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 169||26.30|0.24|
91668565|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.74||||||95.0|0.26|2.11|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 169||2.11|0.26|
91668566|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.53||||||95.0|0.19|12.41|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 197||12.41|0.19|
91792633|NCT04268823|183462934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.336||0.338|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.09|11.48|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||11.48|-3.09|0.338
91792634|NCT04268823|183462935|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147||0.795|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.05|4.42|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Total score||4.42|-6.05|0.795
91902222|NCT01186796|183699566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91902223|NCT01186796|183699567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
91902224|NCT01186796|183699568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"Unit of mass secreted per burst is in ug/L. An automated deconvolution method was used and mathematically verified by direct statistical proof and empirically validated using hypothalamopituitary sampling and a simulated pulsatile time series."|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
91902225|NCT01186796|183699569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
91902226|NCT01186796|183699570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
91902227|NCT01936909|183699577|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||This test reflects a comparison between baseline and 2 weeks (both rows).||||>0.20
91902228|NCT01936909|183699578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired analysis versus baseline||||<0.01
91902229|NCT01936909|183699579|SUPERIORITY|Log-rank test||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.12
91860681|NCT03721952|183607493|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|-0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average quality-of-relationship score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average quality-of-relationship score over 3 follow-up points for intervention vs control groups.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||-0.048|-0.353|0.010
91792635|NCT04268823|183462935|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|5.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155||0.17|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.16|12.66|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Symptoms score||12.66|-1.16|0.170
91860682|NCT03721952|183607493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.175
91792636|NCT04268823|183462935|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.259||0.851|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.02|4.8|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Activity score||4.80|-6.02|0.851
91792637|NCT04268823|183462935|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.035||0.61|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.78|4.65|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Impact score||4.65|-8.78|0.610
91792638|NCT04268823|183462936|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.557||0.956|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.3|7.8|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Cough symptom score||7.80|-7.30|0.956
91792639|NCT04268823|183462936|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.671||0.369|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.55|11.99|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Sputum symptom score||11.99|-3.55|0.369
91860683|NCT03721952|183607494|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average quality-of-relationship score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average quality-of-relationship score, over 3 follow-up points for intervention vs control group.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.160|-0.203|0.817
91860684|NCT03721952|183607494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.949
91860685|NCT03721952|183607495|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.919|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average preparation score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average preparation score, over 3 follow-up points for intervention vs control group.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.020|-0.919|0.060
91902230|NCT02378220|183699580|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.28||P-value for 30 days measure.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.28|0.32|0.21
91902231|NCT02378220|183699580|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.82||P-Value for 60 days measure|Regression, Poisson|||||0.82|0.27|0.007
91792640|NCT04268823|183462936|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.001||0.613|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.61|8.68|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Cough impact score||8.68|-4.61|0.613
91860686|NCT03721952|183607495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.701
91792641|NCT04268823|183462936|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.518||0.835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.58|8.47|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Sputum impact score||8.47|-6.58|0.835
91792642|NCT04268823|183462938|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.1|0.0|0.335
91792643|NCT04268823|183462939|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.1|-0.1|0.645
91792644|NCT04268823|183462940|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|3.4|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||3.4|0.8|0.010
91792645|NCT02186301|183462955|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier Median|274.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.0||Upper Confidence Limit is not available because it cannot be calculated||||||||109|
91792646|NCT02186301|183462955|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier Median|207.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.0|260.0||||||||260.0|112.0|
91792647|NCT02186301|183462955|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|390.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.0|499.0||||||||499.0|282.0|
91792648|NCT02186301|183462956|OTHER||Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|49.1||||||||49.1|8.7|
91792649|NCT02186301|183462956|OTHER||Percentage|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|59.4||||||||59.4|22.7|
91792650|NCT02186301|183462956|OTHER||Percentage|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|88.5||||||||88.5|64.0|
91792651|NCT02186301|183462957|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|225.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.0||Upper Confidence Limit is not available because it cannot be calculated.||||||||113|
91792652|NCT02186301|183462957|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|195.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|143.0|617.0||||||||617.0|143.0|
91792653|NCT02186301|183462957|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|335.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.0|480.0||||||||480.0|282.0|
91792654|NCT00749580|183462958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.935
91860687|NCT03721952|183607496|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.393||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.791|0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average goal-concordant care \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average goal-concordant care, over 3 follow-up points for intervention group vs. control group.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.005|-0.791|0.053
91902232|NCT02378220|183699581|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.21||P-Value for 30 days measure|Regression, Poisson|||||1.21|0.31|0.16
91902233|NCT02378220|183699581|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.99|||Regression, Poisson|||||0.99|0.34|0.045
91902234|NCT02378220|183699582|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.31|0.10
91902235|NCT02378220|183699583|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.33|0.09
91714566|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5068||95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.8|-0.4|0.5068
91714567|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0561||95.0|0.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-0.0|0.0561
91714568|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.2223||95.0|-0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.0|-0.2|0.2223
91714569|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6791||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.6791
91714570|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0188||95.0|0.1|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.4|0.1|0.0188
91714571|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1314||95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.1|-0.1|0.1314
91714572|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.09||95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.1|-0.1|0.0900
91714573|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4144||95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.4|0.4144
91714574|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7699||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7699
91714575|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0406||95.0|0.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|0.0|0.0406
91714576|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7574||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7574
91792655|NCT05128929|183462960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.614||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||"Null: There is no significant difference in the mean primary endpoint (PVR) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.~The following analysis utilizes PVR determined by TD."||2.79|-1.47|0.541
91860688|NCT03721952|183607496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.039
91860689|NCT03721952|183607497|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|0.636||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.||Superior outcome for Group2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||1.700|-0.425|0.239
91860690|NCT03721952|183607497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.170
91864537|NCT04778397|183617912|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.559|||||||Odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy versus intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside US sites)).|0.559|0.009|
91902236|NCT00578786|183699596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|53.3|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||53.3|22.7|
91902237|NCT00578786|183699596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|43.8|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||43.8|21.1|
91902238|NCT00578786|183699596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.1|55.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||55.7|26.1|
91714577|NCT00676403|183320252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0554||95.0|0.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-0.0|0.0554
91714578|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.5409||95.0|-13.8|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-13.8|0.5409
91792656|NCT05128929|183462962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (mPAP) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||7.27|-4.34|0.599
91792657|NCT05128929|183462963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.26||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.43|115.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (6MWT distance) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||115.95|-21.43|0.166
91902239|NCT00578786|183699596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|43.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||43.7|28.3|
91902240|NCT00578786|183699597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|44.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||44.7|5.1|
91714579|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.823||95.0|-11.5|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.2|-11.5|0.8230
91714580|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.2958||95.0|-16.5|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.1|-16.5|0.2958
91714581|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.3708||95.0|-15.1|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.7|-15.1|0.3708
91714582|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.1853||95.0|-17.4|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.4|-17.4|0.1853
91714583|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.1834||95.0|-17.9|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.4|-17.9|0.1834
91714584|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.8711||95.0|-11.1|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.4|-11.1|0.8711
91714585|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.3252||95.0|-16.3|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.4|-16.3|0.3252
91714586|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.3205||95.0|-15.7|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.1|-15.7|0.3205
91714587|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.0837||95.0|-19.8|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-19.8|0.0837
91714588|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.8895||95.0|-11.4|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.9|-11.4|0.8895
91714589|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.6469||95.0|-12.7|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.9|-12.7|0.6469
91714590|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.2687||95.0|-17.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.8|-17.0|0.2687
91792658|NCT05128929|183462964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|7.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (emPHasis-10 score) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||7.98|-8.22|0.975
91792659|NCT05128929|183462965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (SGRQ Score) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||1.4|-19.40|0.086
91668567|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.85||||||95.0|0.34|2.15|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 197||2.15|0.34|
91668568|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|5.43||||||95.0|0.61|48.17|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 29||48.17|0.61|
91668569|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.19||||||95.0|0.43|3.26|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 29||3.26|0.43|
91714591|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31||0.1757||95.0|-17.7|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.3|-17.7|0.1757
91860691|NCT03721952|183607498|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.169|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher proportion of readmissions \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower proportion of readmissions, for the intervention group vs. the control group|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||0.169|0.009|0.029
91860692|NCT03721952|183607499|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|2.666|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of hospital free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of hospital free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||2.666|-0.511|0.183
91668570|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|5.88||||||95.0|0.58|59.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 57||59.45|0.58|
91668571|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.35||||||95.0|0.41|4.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 57||4.45|0.41|
91668572|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|4.22||||||95.0|0.48|37.19|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 85||37.19|0.48|
91668573|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.13||||||95.0|0.37|3.48|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 85||3.48|0.37|
91668574|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|13.24||||||95.0|1.02|172.55|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 169||172.55|1.02|
91668575|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.24||||||95.0|0.4|3.88|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 169||3.88|0.40|
91792660|NCT05128929|183462966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.92||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|193.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (serum HA) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||193.46|-45.61|0.215
91714592|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.0306||95.0|-22.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.1|-22.3|0.0306
91714593|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47||0.0857||95.0|-20.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|-20.2|0.0857
91714594|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.2932||95.0|-16.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.8|-16.0|0.2932
91714595|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0613||95.0|-21.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.5|-21.6|0.0613
91714596|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.5431||95.0|-13.8|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-13.8|0.5431
91714597|NCT00676403|183320253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.0262||95.0|-22.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.4|-22.7|0.0262
91668576|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|5.56||||||95.0|0.53|58.61|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 197||58.61|0.53|
91668577|NCT05480800|183231292|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.37||||||95.0|0.48|3.86|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 197||3.86|0.48|
91668578|NCT05480800|183231296|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.92||||||95.0|0.54|1.58|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 29||1.58|0.54|
91860693|NCT03721952|183607500|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.687|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.157||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.518|7.892|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of hospital free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of hospital free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||7.892|-4.518|0.593
91864538|NCT04778397|183617913|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.428|||||||Odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy versus intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside US sites)).|0.428|0.108|
91668579|NCT05480800|183231296|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.93||||||95.0|0.54|1.59|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 57||1.59|0.54|
91860694|NCT03721952|183607501|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.987||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.367|18.097|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of hospital free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of hospital free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||18.097|-9.367|0.533
91860695|NCT03721952|183607502|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.032|3.173|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of ICU free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of ICU free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||3.173|-1.032|0.318
91860696|NCT03721952|183607503|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.506||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.773|11.007|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of ICU free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of ICU free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||11.007|-2.773|0.241
91860697|NCT03721952|183607504|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.466||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.479|22.868|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of ICU free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of ICU free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||22.868|-6.479|0.273
91668580|NCT05480800|183231296|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.95||||||95.0|0.61|1.49|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 85||1.49|0.61|
91668581|NCT05480800|183231296|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.78||||||95.0|0.45|1.34|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 169||1.34|0.45|
91714598|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.44||0.1547||95.0|-18.5|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.0|-18.5|0.1547
91792661|NCT05128929|183462967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|231.47||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-377.26|840.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (NT-proBNP) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||840.20|-377.26|0.442
91714599|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.2532||95.0|-16.6|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.4|-16.6|0.2532
91714600|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.0848||95.0|-20.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|-20.6|0.0848
91714601|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.2424||95.0|-16.8|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.3|-16.8|0.2424
91714602|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.047||95.0|-21.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-21.2|0.0470
91714603|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.1494||95.0|-18.8|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.9|-18.8|0.1494
91714604|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.5081||95.0|-13.9|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.9|-13.9|0.5081
91714605|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.2141||95.0|-17.9|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.0|-17.9|0.2141
91714606|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.1484||95.0|-18.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.8|-18.4|0.1484
91714607|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.0963||95.0|-19.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.6|-19.7|0.0963
91792662|NCT03553836|183462977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.00046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by melanoma T Stage (T3b, T4a, T4b).|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by melanoma T Stage (T3b, T4a, T4b).|||0.82|0.45|0.00046
91792663|NCT03553836|183462980|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.3||||||||7.3|1.0|
91792664|NCT03553836|183462981|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|16.9||||||||16.9|9.1|
91792665|NCT02604017|183462989|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of SVR12 for the 12-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with SVR12 must exceed 91% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.1|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥97% in the 12-week arm, 270 participants provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the 12-week arm to the historical control rate for HCV GT1 subjects who are treatment-naïve or treated with pegIFN/RBV (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|99.1|
91792666|NCT02604017|183462990|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of SVR12 for the 8-week treatment group as compared with the 12-week treatment group was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in percentage of participants with SVR12 (8-week group minus 12-week group) must be above -5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an -5% noninferiority margin and an underlying rate of ≥97% in the 8-week arm (270 participants) and ≥97% in the 12-week arm (270 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the 8-week arm to the 12-week arm.||1.1|-1.1|
91860698|NCT03721952|183607505|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0000009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000248||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000057|0.0000039|||other type of regression|Regression \[gamma family, link function g(u)=u-0.9\], outcome on random group (0=control, 1=intervention), adjusted for hospital, robust SEs.||Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||0.0000039|-0.0000057|0.710
91860699|NCT03721952|183607506|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00000113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000215||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000003|0.0000053|||other type of regression|Regression \[inverse Gaussian family, link function g(u)=u-0.9\], outcome on random group (0=control,1=intervention), adjusted for hospital, robust SEs.||Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||0.0000053|-0.0000030|0.599
91860700|NCT03476460|183607521|NON_INFERIORITY|"We considered a priori a difference of no more than 5% in the incidence of CA-AKI in the oral compared to the intravenous arm (non-inferiority margin) to be acceptable.~The non-inferiority of oral hydration would be shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the absolute risk difference between the groups was less than 5% (non-inferiority margin, indicated by the black dashed line)"|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.0|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two independent proportions was calculated according to Wilson's method.|Sample size was calculated to assess the non-inferiority of oral compared to intravenous hydration. We expected a primary outcome rate of 7% in the intravenous arm. We considered a priori a difference of no more than 5% in the incidence of CA-AKI in the oral compared to the intravenous arm (non-inferiority margin) to be acceptable. Thus, 266 participants, 133 per arm, were required to ensure at least 80% power at a significance level of α = 2.5% (one-sided).||7.0|-4.8|
91860701|NCT03476460|183607522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||0.299
91860702|NCT03476460|183607523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||0.477
91860703|NCT03476460|183607524|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.042||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
91860704|NCT03476460|183607525|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.121||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.121
91860705|NCT03476460|183607526|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.418||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
91860706|NCT03476460|183607527|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.901||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.901
91860707|NCT03476460|183607528|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.72||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.720
91902241|NCT00578786|183699597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|94.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|41.6|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5.0 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||41.6|14.2|
91668582|NCT05480800|183231296|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.94||||||95.0|0.63|1.4|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 197||1.40|0.63|
91668583|NCT05480800|183231297|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|0.95||||||95.0|0.69|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 29|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.32|0.69|
91860708|NCT03476460|183607529|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.688||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.688
91860709|NCT03476460|183607530|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.535||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.535
91860710|NCT03476460|183607531|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.338||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.338
91860711|NCT03476460|183607532|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.764||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.764
91860712|NCT03476460|183607533|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.458||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.458
91860713|NCT03476460|183607534|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.893||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.893
91860714|NCT03476460|183607535|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.645||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.645
91860715|NCT05480124|183607561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
91860716|NCT05480124|183607563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
91860717|NCT05480124|183607564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
91860718|NCT05480124|183607565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
91714608|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.8519||95.0|-11.8|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.8|-11.8|0.8519
91714609|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.477||95.0|-14.2|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.7|-14.2|0.4770
91714610|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61||0.2166||95.0|-18.0|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.1|-18.0|0.2166
91714611|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.1062||95.0|-19.4|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.9|-19.4|0.1062
91714612|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.0475||95.0|-21.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-21.6|0.0475
91792667|NCT02604017|183462991|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of SVR12 for the 8-week treatment group as compared with the 12-week treatment group was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in percentage of participants with SVR12 must be above -5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and a -5% noninferiority margin, and an underlying rate of ≥97% in the 8-week arm (270 participants) and ≥97% in the 12-week arm (270 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the 8-week arm to the 12-week arm.||0.6|-1.8|
91792668|NCT01277081|183463039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.86|||Repeated Measure Analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment|Null Hypothesis considered no difference in treatments being compared for breathing score over the first 15 minutes compared to baseline.||0.86|0.58|<0.0001
91714613|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54||0.0537||95.0|-21.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.2|-21.7|0.0537
91714614|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.3153||95.0|-15.9|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-15.9|0.3153
91714615|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.0424||95.0|-22.8|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.4|-22.8|0.0424
91714616|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.3077||95.0|-16.2|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.1|-16.2|0.3077
91792669|NCT01277081|183463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in treatments being compared for breathing score over 60 minutes.||0.72|0.44|<0.0001
91792670|NCT01277081|183463041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.65|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null Hypothesis considered no difference in treatments being compared for cold symptoms score after 60 minutes.||0.65|0.36|<0.0001
91860719|NCT05480124|183607566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.201
91714617|NCT00676403|183320254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.0224||95.0|-23.4|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.8|-23.4|0.0224
91668584|NCT05480800|183231297|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|1.01||||||95.0|0.74|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 57|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.37|0.74|
91668585|NCT05480800|183231297|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|1.04||||||95.0|0.77|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 85|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.41|0.77|
91668586|NCT05480800|183231297|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|1.2||||||95.0|0.81|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 169|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.77|0.81|
91668587|NCT05480800|183231297|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|0.97||||||95.0|0.65|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 197|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.44|0.65|
91668588|NCT05480800|183231297|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.82||||||95.0|0.49|1.37|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 29||1.37|0.49|
91668589|NCT05480800|183231297|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.97||||||95.0|0.59|1.59|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 57||1.59|0.59|
91668590|NCT05480800|183231297|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.03||||||95.0|0.64|1.67|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 85||1.67|0.64|
91668591|NCT05480800|183231297|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.93||||||95.0|0.56|1.54|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 169||1.54|0.56|
91668592|NCT05480800|183231297|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.82||||||95.0|0.51|1.33|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 197||1.33|0.51|
91668593|NCT00377156|183231348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.9|-14.4|||Fisher Exact||Cognitive deterioration, the primary end point in evaluable patients at 3 months, was less frequent after Arm I than Arm II (40/63 \[63.5%\] vs 44/48 \[91.7%\],\> respectively. The percent difference was -28.2%; 90% CI, -41.9% to -14.4%; P \< .001).|||-14.4|-41.9|<0.001
91668594|NCT00377156|183231349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-7.8|||Fisher Exact|||||-7.8|-29.0|<0.001
91668595|NCT00377156|183231350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|19.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.0|4.8|0.001
91668596|NCT00377156|183231351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|5.5|||Fisher Exact||The incidence of cognitive deterioration was less in Arm I than Arm II at 12 months (6/10 \[60%\] vs 17/18 \[94.4%\]. The percent difference was -34.4% (95% CI: -74.4% to 5.5%; P = .04)|||5.5|-74.4|0.04
91668597|NCT00377156|183231352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.75|0.92
91668598|NCT02459418|183231357|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected AUC(0-last) were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|164.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.82|197.45||||||A mixed-effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. Least squares (LS) means and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||197.45|137.82|
91668599|NCT02459418|183231358|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected Cmax were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|123.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.12|140.28||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||140.28|108.12|
91860720|NCT03640312|183607580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|1.18||Adjusting for baseline systolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in Least Squared Means (LSM). Random participant effect, fixed baseline, study arm, and time effects.||||1.18|-10.74|0.114
91668600|NCT02459418|183231359|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected AUC(0-∞) were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS mean ratio|133.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.42|174.49||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||174.49|102.42|
91668601|NCT02459418|183231360|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|11.5||||||Non-transformed Tmax was tested using the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test to assess the differences between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA. Median differences and corresponding 90% CIs were calculated using an exact Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||11.5|4.5|
91668602|NCT02459418|183231362|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected AUC(0-last) were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|163.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|282.67||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||282.67|94|
91792671|NCT01277081|183463042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered two treatments being compared to be equal for cold symptom score after 60 minutes.||0.67|0.38|<0.0001
91860721|NCT03640312|183607581|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline systolic blood pressure.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|-10.74|0.114
91668603|NCT02459418|183231363|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected Cmax were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|177.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.65|249.81||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||249.81|125.65|
91668604|NCT02459418|183231364|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.91|12.29||||||Non-transformed Tmax was tested using the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test to assess the differences between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA. Median difference and corresponding 90% CIs were was calculated using an Exact Hodges-Lehmann estimate with an exact confidence interval.||12.29|-9.91|
91668605|NCT03978598|183231365|NON_INFERIORITY|We used a 15% difference in our primary outcome for the non-inferiority margin as this is the upper end of the estimated prevalence of lactation failure in the literature and is consistent with previous studies (Neifert 2001, Gurtcheff 2011, Turok 2017).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|||||||To achieve 80% power with a 1-sided type 1 error of 5% utilizing the Z-test (unpooled), 62 participants would be required in each group, for a total of 124 participants. Accounting for expected loss to follow-up of 20%, we aimed to recruit 149 participants and rounded up to final recruitment goal of 150.|The risk-difference between immediate and standard placement in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (mITT) was -0.6% with a -12.8% lower limit of the 95% confidence interval. In the mITT analysis, 78.3% (54/69) and 78.9% (45/57) of participants were breastfeeding at 8 weeks in the immediate and delayed groups, respectively.||-16.7|
91668606|NCT03978598|183231367|OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baby had trouble sucking or latching||||0.221
91668607|NCT03978598|183231367|OTHER|||||||0.786|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baby got sick||||0.786
91860722|NCT03640312|183607582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-1.11||Adjusted Least Squares Mean.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline diastolic blood pressure.||-1.11|-8.62|0.012
91860723|NCT03640312|183607583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.11|-8.62|0.012
91668608|NCT03978598|183231367|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||I was sick||||0.064
91668609|NCT03978598|183231367|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Provider said baby was underweight||||0.044
91668610|NCT03978598|183231367|OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insufficient milk||||0.666
91668611|NCT03978598|183231367|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||I had trouble; breast issues||||0.006
91668612|NCT03978598|183231367|OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||I quit breastfeeding; life issues||||0.476
91668613|NCT03978598|183231368|OTHER|||||||0.717|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Respecting me as a person||||0.717
91792672|NCT01673282|183463052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Based on an ANCOVA model for absolute change in ratio of dose and DDD with group as a fixed effect and the ratio of dose and DDD at Baseline as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.36|=0.0003
91860724|NCT03640312|183607584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model (binomial distribution assumption with logit link).||||6.35|0.91|0.077
91668614|NCT03978598|183231368|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Letting me say what mattered to me about my birth control method||||0.808
91668615|NCT03978598|183231368|OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Taking my preferences about my birth control seriously||||0.967
91668616|NCT03978598|183231368|OTHER|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Giving me enough information to make the best decision about my birth control method||||0.826
91668617|NCT03978598|183231369|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks postpartum||||0.264
91668618|NCT03978598|183231369|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 weeks postpartum||||0.414
91668619|NCT03978598|183231369|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks postpartum||||0.482
91668620|NCT03978598|183231370|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 weeks postpartum||||0.583
91668621|NCT03978598|183231370|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks postpartum||||0.062
91668622|NCT03978598|183231370|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 weeks postpartum||||0.705
91668623|NCT03978598|183231371|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks postpartum||||0.60
91668624|NCT03978598|183231371|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 weeks postpartum||||0.07
91668625|NCT03978598|183231371|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks postpartum||||0.36
91714618|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.0646||95.0|0.9|15.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||15.0|0.9|0.0646
91860725|NCT03640312|183607585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model adjusting for baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure.||0.48|0.03|0.003
91668626|NCT03978598|183231372|OTHER|||||||0.0376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0376
91668627|NCT00683592|183231374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Change|-2.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||The model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for treatment group and center, adjusting for baseline MADRS total score. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.6|-4.4|0.009
91668628|NCT00683592|183231375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Change|-1.6||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||The model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for treatment group and center, adjusting for baseline HAM-D 17 total score. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.2|-3.1|0.026
91668629|NCT00683592|183231376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Improve|-0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||The model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with terms for treatment group and center. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.1|-0.5|0.004
91668630|NCT00683592|183231377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Change|-1.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||The model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for treatment group and center, adjusting for baseline HAM-A total score. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.1|-2.4|0.037
91668631|NCT00683592|183231378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.134||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.221|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests were used to compare MADRS response rates between the treatment groups, stratifying by center. The asymptotic confidence interval of the risk difference was estimated by the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||0.221|0.047|0.002
91668632|NCT00683592|183231379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.147|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests were used to compare MADRS remission rates between the treatment groups, stratifying by center. The asymptotic confidence interval of the risk difference was estimated by the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||0.147|-0.008|0.066
91668633|NCT02697617|183231390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|Paired t-test|||||||0.024
91668634|NCT02697617|183231391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|Paired t-test|||||||0.14
91668635|NCT02697617|183231393|OTHER||||||||||||||||||comparison by paired t-test|||
91668636|NCT02697617|183231394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|Paired t-test|||||||0.15
91668637|NCT02697617|183231395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|paired t test|||||||0.4
91668638|NCT05661344|183231406|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|104.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.89|118.98|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of mild hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to mild hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.7"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||118.98|91.89|
91860726|NCT03640312|183607586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model adjusting for baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, diastolic, study arm, and time effects.||2.69|0.24|0.710
91668639|NCT05661344|183231406|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|130.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.34|191.75|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to moderate hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 42.0"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||191.75|89.34|
91792673|NCT05040971|183463064|SUPERIORITY|Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) with randomised treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.|Treatment difference|-11.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|-9.42|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-9.42|-12.97|<0.0001
91714619|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.2947||95.0|0.5|9.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||9.1|0.5|0.2947
91714620|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0249||95.0|1.2|17.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||17.2|1.2|0.0249
91714621|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.7671||95.0|0.3|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||5.9|0.3|0.7671
91714622|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.0169||95.0|1.3|15.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||15.9|1.3|0.0169
91902242|NCT00578786|183699597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|52.0|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||52.0|22.4|
91714623|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.9569||95.0|0.2|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||4.3|0.2|0.9569
91902243|NCT00578786|183699597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|29.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|38.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||38.7|20.4|
91902244|NCT00578786|183699598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|97.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|26.8|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||26.8|-13.4|
91902245|NCT00578786|183699598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|100.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|37.8|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||37.8|8.7|
91668640|NCT05661344|183231407|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|83.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.47|114.71|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of mild hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to mild hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 34.8"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||114.71|60.47|
91668641|NCT05661344|183231407|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|68.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.48|101.41|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to moderate hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 43.0"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||101.41|46.48|
91668642|NCT05661344|183231408|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.36|120.38|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of mild hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to mild hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 14.1"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||120.38|92.36|
91668643|NCT05661344|183231408|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|131.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.96|191.05|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to moderate hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 41.4"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||191.05|89.96|
91668644|NCT05212948|183231409|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy|Efficacy|34.2||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|44.6||One-sided P-value was calculated to test the null hypothesis, vaccine efficacy ≤30%.|Poisson Regression Model|Robust Error Variance||Vaccine efficacy was calculated with its 95% confidence interval and defined as 1 minus the relative risk (S-268019-b versus placebo), which included the intervention group, baseline age (continuous) as factors as well as the log of the follow-up time as an offset.||44.6|21.9|0.2409
91668645|NCT05347693|183231426|EQUIVALENCE|"Prespecified estimates for sample size calculation~* Equivalence margin: 0.29~* Sample size estimate parameters:~  * Two-group χ² test~ * Significance level (α): 5% (two-sided)~ * Power: 80%~* Assumed proportions with NK (K+ between 3.5 and 5.0 mmol/L, inclusive) at 180 days post-discharge:~  * Arm A: 0.88~ * Arm B: 0.59~Note: Assumed proportions for statistical planning; not actual results."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|Model included response as the dependent variable, and randomised treatment and participant recruitment country as independent factors.|OR \>1 indicated increased odds of K+ between 3.5 and 5.0 mmol/L on SZC compared to SoC.|||1.66|0.39|0.558
91668646|NCT05347693|183231427|EQUIVALENCE|"Prespecified estimates for sample size calculation~* Equivalence margin: 0.262~* Sample size estimate parameters:~  * Log-Rank Test for Equality of Survival Curves~ * α: 5%~ * Power: 80%~* HR (SZC/SoC): 0.329~* Assumed proportions without the main secondary composite outcome (event-free) at 180 days post-discharge~  * Arm A: 83% (17% with the outcome/event of interest)~ * Arm B: 56.8% (43.2% with the outcome/event of interest)~Note: Assumed proportions for statistical planning; not actual results"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.51|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||1.51|0.56|0.743
91714624|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.0711||95.0|0.9|11.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means.Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||11.4|0.9|0.0711
91714625|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.1073||95.0|0.8|10.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||10.2|0.8|0.1073
91668647|NCT05347693|183231428|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.79|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||1.79|0.58|0.951
91668648|NCT05347693|183231429|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Incidence rate ratio|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.53|||Negative binomial regression model|Model included the randomised treatment group as the independent variable and duration of time in study as an offset.|A rate ratio \<1 favours SZC compared to SoC.|||2.53|0.86|0.152
91792674|NCT05040971|183463065|SUPERIORITY|Week 52 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) as covariates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|19.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|45.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||45.21|8.68|<0.0001
91860727|NCT03640312|183607587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model adjusting for baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure.||1.98|0.21|0.437
91714626|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.1583||95.0|0.7|8.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||8.1|0.7|0.1583
91714627|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0385||95.0|1.1|15.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||15.6|1.1|0.0385
91668649|NCT05347693|183231430|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.35|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||4.35|0.50|0.515
91668650|NCT05347693|183231431|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.83|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||1.83|0.07|0.258
91668651|NCT05347693|183231432|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Incidence risk ratio|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.81|||Negative binomial regression model|Model included the randomised treatment group as the independent variable and duration of time in study as an offset.|A rate ratio \<1 favours SZC compared to SoC.|||1.81|0.10|0.239
91668652|NCT01884844|183231452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.89
91668653|NCT03653026|183231471|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|34.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||34.7|23.2|<0.001
91668654|NCT03653026|183231472|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|41.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||41.6|28.6|<0.001
91668655|NCT03653026|183231473|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||20.3|11.4|<0.001
91668656|NCT03653026|183231474|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.7|57.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||57.1|41.7|<0.001
91668657|NCT03653026|183231475|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.8|45.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||45.1|28.8|<0.001
91668658|NCT03653026|183231476|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|36.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - placebo|||36.2|24.1|<0.001
91668659|NCT03653026|183231477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|35.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||35.3|19.0|<0.001
91714628|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4923||95.0|0.4|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.1|0.4|0.4923
91714629|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7169||95.0|0.4|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||4.4|0.4|0.7169
91714630|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.4156||95.0|0.5|6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.2|0.5|0.4156
91714631|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.4165||95.0|0.5|5.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||5.6|0.5|0.4165
91714632|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.4673||95.0|0.4|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.0|0.4|0.4673
91714633|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.9855||95.0|0.2|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||4.1|0.2|0.9855
91860728|NCT03640312|183607588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|0.59||Adjusted for baseline T score|ANCOVA|||Statistical test for difference in Physical Health T Score||0.59|-7.49|0.09
91668660|NCT03653026|183231478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|37.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||37.4|20.9|<0.001
91668661|NCT03653026|183231479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|46.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||46.1|29.8|<0.001
91668662|NCT03653026|183231480|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.98|37.36||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||37.36|24.98|<0.001
91668663|NCT03653026|183231481|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|15.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||15.3|7.2|<0.001
91668664|NCT03653026|183231482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|7.73||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||7.73|4.19|<0.001
91668665|NCT02104817|183231517|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.90|0.837
91668666|NCT02104817|183231518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.84|0.269
91668667|NCT02104817|183231519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.93|0.402
91668668|NCT02104817|183231520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.87|0.940
91902246|NCT00578786|183699598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|45.1|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||45.1|10.9|
91668669|NCT02104817|183231521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.81|0.092
91668670|NCT02104817|183231522|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.75|0.016
91902247|NCT00578786|183699598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|20.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|30.1|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||30.1|10.6|
91668671|NCT02104817|183231523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.90|0.372
91668672|NCT02104817|183231524|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.41||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.89|0.336
91902248|NCT00578786|183699599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|20.3|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||20.3|-18.9|
91714634|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.9566||95.0|0.3|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||3.3|0.3|0.9566
91714635|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.4632||95.0|0.4|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.6|0.4|0.4632
91714636|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2042||95.0|0.1|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||1.6|0.1|0.2042
91714637|NCT00676403|183320255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.3382||95.0|0.5|7.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||7.5|0.5|0.3382
91714638|NCT00676403|183320256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.3932||95.0|-6.0|15.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.2|-6.0|0.3932
91714639|NCT00676403|183320256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.1585||95.0|-2.9|17.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.5|-2.9|0.1585
91714640|NCT00676403|183320256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.285||95.0|-4.9|16.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||16.5|-4.9|0.2850
91714641|NCT00676403|183320256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8645||95.0|-9.4|11.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.1|-9.4|0.8645
91792675|NCT01293799|183463090|SUPERIORITY|Patients who stopped PD treatment due to causes other than peritonitis were managed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Patients were censored when the PD treatment was stopped.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||The threshold for statistical significance was P = 0.05|Log Rank|Log-rank follow-up was used to compare the peritonitis-free survival curves in the two arms.|Hazard ratio was the ratio between the hazard rate of the retraining group (nominator) and the hazard rate of the control group (denominator).|Time to the first peritonitis episode was analyzed as the cumulative time without peritonitis (peritonitis-free survival) using the Cox proportional hazards regression model from which unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated. Actuarial survival curves showing proportions of of peritonitis-free participants over time in the two groups were estimated by means of the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank follow-up was used to compare the two peritonitis-free survival curves.||1.19|0.71|0.51
91714642|NCT00676403|183320256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.3031||95.0|-5.0|15.8|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.8|-5.0|0.3031
91714643|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.5384||95.0|-13.2|7.0|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||7.0|-13.2|0.5384
91860729|NCT03640312|183607588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.32||Adjusted for baseline mental health T score|ANCOVA|||Statistical test for difference in Mental Health T Score||4.32|-3.22|0.77
91860730|NCT03640312|183607589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|1.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.||1.182|-10.74|0.114
91860731|NCT03640312|183607590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.02|||Fisher Exact|||||0.02|-0.15|0.49
91860732|NCT03640312|183607591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03|||Chi-squared|||||0.03|-0.33|0.21
91860733|NCT03640312|183607592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.08|||Chi-squared|||||0.08|-0.41|0.18
91668673|NCT02104817|183231525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.97|0.112
91860734|NCT03640312|183607593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.24|0.56
91860735|NCT03640312|183607594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.19||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-1.61|0.12
91668674|NCT02104817|183231526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.42||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.97|0.091
91668675|NCT02104817|183231527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.08||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.83|0.408
91668676|NCT02104817|183231528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.63|0.233
91668677|NCT02104817|183231529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.81|0.770
91668678|NCT02104817|183231530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.45||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.90|0.278
91668679|NCT00715676|183231610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641||||||The Hochberg method was used to compare dose groups to placebo and control the Type 1 error rate.|ANOVA|||A sample size of 49 per treatment group was calculated to have at least 90% power to detect a 2% or greater increase over placebo assuming the following: (1) a standard deviation of the percent change of 2.75% (2) a dropout rate of 30%, and (3) one-sided 0.05 level of significance||||0.641
91668680|NCT00715676|183231610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||The Hochberg method was used to compare dose groups to placebo and control the Type 1 error rate.|ANOVA|||A sample size of 49 per treatment group was calculated to have at least 90% power to detect a 2% or greater increase over placebo assuming the following: (1) a standard deviation of the percent change of 2.75% (2) a dropout rate of 30%, and (3) one-sided 0.05 level of significance||||0.243
91668681|NCT00715676|183231611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.778
91668682|NCT00715676|183231611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.173
91668683|NCT00715676|183231612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.395
91668684|NCT00715676|183231612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.523
91668685|NCT00715676|183231613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.928
91668686|NCT00715676|183231613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.124
91668687|NCT00715676|183231614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.173||||||90.0|0.164|0.181||||||||0.181|0.164|
91714644|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.8015||95.0|-10.9|8.5|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||8.5|-10.9|0.8015
91902249|NCT00578786|183699599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|101.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|33.5|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||33.5|4.2|
91714645|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.4429||95.0|-14.5|6.4|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||6.4|-14.5|0.4429
91902250|NCT00578786|183699599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|45.4|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||45.4|10.1|
91668688|NCT00715676|183231614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.582||||||90.0|0.573|0.591||||||||0.591|0.573|
91668689|NCT03828539|183231617|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.27|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||||0.27|0.13|<.001
91668690|NCT03828539|183231618|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||||3.71|2.06|<.001
91668691|NCT03828539|183231619|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||||3.12|1.70|<.001
91668692|NCT03828539|183231620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||2.43|1.26|<0.001
91668693|NCT03828539|183231620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||2.69|1.29|0.005
91668694|NCT00608634|183231622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
91668695|NCT00608634|183231622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91668696|NCT00608634|183231623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91668697|NCT01841736|183231631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.69|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||0.69|0.42|0.0005
91668698|NCT01841736|183231633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.84|1.51|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank||||1.51|0.84|0.7
91668699|NCT00653159|183231639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4003|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject completed the final study visit at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, study completion rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.4003
91668700|NCT00653159|183231640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4136|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject experienced heavy bleeding. Under the null hypothesis, heavy bleeding rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.4136
91668701|NCT00653159|183231641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4783|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject became pregnant within 6 months of IUD insertion. Under the null hypothesis, pregnancy rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.4783
91902251|NCT00578786|183699599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|26.4|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||26.4|6.8|
91902252|NCT00578786|183699601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.38|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.38|-0.55|
91668702|NCT00653159|183231642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2174|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject experienced expulsion of the IUD. Under the null hypothesis, expulsion rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.2174
91668703|NCT00653159|183231643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||"Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject reported being satisfied (happy or very happy) at the 6 month study visit. Under the null hypothesis, satisfaction rates are similar for both IUD types."||||1.0000
91668704|NCT01848210|183231648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.65||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.81|10.51|||Regression, Linear|||||10.51|-19.81|0.531
91668705|NCT00381849|183231652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.32
91668706|NCT00381849|183231652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.23
91668707|NCT00381849|183231652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between six weeks' treatment on cystone and 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.41
91714646|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.886||95.0|-10.5|9.1|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.1|-10.5|0.8860
91714647|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9963||95.0|-10.0|9.9|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.9|-10.0|0.9963
91792676|NCT01293799|183463091|OTHER|The number of peritonitis events between the two groups was tested by assuming a Poisson distribution of the number of events per follow-up time, log (follow-up time) as offset time, by using generalized linear models.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19||P-value \<0.05 is regarded as significant.|Generalized linear methods||In calculation of the Risk Ratio, data for the Retraining group represents the nominator and data for the Control group represents the denominator.|||1.19|0.70|0.51
91902253|NCT00578786|183699601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.23|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.23|-0.94|
91714648|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.3421||95.0|-6.3|18.1|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||18.1|-6.3|0.3421
91714649|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.2849||95.0|-5.4|18.1|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||18.1|-5.4|0.2849
91902254|NCT00578786|183699601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.03|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.03|-1.00|
91668708|NCT00381849|183231652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between baseline and after 46 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.32
91668709|NCT00381849|183231653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.49
91668710|NCT00381849|183231653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.64
91668711|NCT00381849|183231653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between six weeks' treatment on cystone and 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.72
91668712|NCT00381849|183231653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between baseline and after 46 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.84
91668713|NCT00381849|183231656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.69
91668714|NCT00381849|183231656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.25
91860736|NCT03640312|183607595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.99||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.|Mixed Models Analysis||The model estimated mean differences, adjusted for covariates, will not be equal to the raw mean differences observed.|||1.99|-1.84|0.94
91860737|NCT03640312|183607596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.07|0.55
91860738|NCT03536754|183607597|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.6||≤ 0.1924|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.6|0.95|0.1924
91668715|NCT00381849|183231656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between six weeks' treatment on cystone and 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.15
91668716|NCT00381849|183231656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between baseline and after 46 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.20
91668717|NCT00381849|183231657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.85
91668718|NCT00381849|183231657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.63
91668719|NCT00381849|183231657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.97
91668720|NCT00381849|183231657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.15
91668721|NCT00381849|183231658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.81
91668722|NCT00381849|183231658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.78
91668723|NCT00381849|183231658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.96
91668724|NCT00381849|183231658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.13
91668725|NCT02003222|183231779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.76|||Log Rank||hazard ratio: blinatumomab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone|||0.76|0.25|0.003
91668726|NCT02003222|183231780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.89|||Log Rank||hazard ratio: Blinatumomab + Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy alone|||0.89|0.31|0.015
91668727|NCT02003222|183231781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.65|||Log Rank|||||2.65|0.22|0.67
91668728|NCT02003222|183231782|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.63|||Log Rank|||||3.63|0.28|1.00
91860739|NCT03536754|183607597|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.76||≤ 0.0612|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.76|1.04|0.0612
91668729|NCT02003222|183231783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.11|||Log Rank||hazard ratio: blinatumomab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone|||2.11|0.17|0.41
91668730|NCT03302078|183231837|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|102.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.31|107.15|||||To get geometric mean ratio and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 5.5|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||107.15|98.31|
91668731|NCT03302078|183231838|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|79.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.96|89.4|||||To get geometric mean ratio and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 16.0|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||89.40|69.96|
91668732|NCT03302078|183231839|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|102.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8|107.3|||||To get geometric mean ratio and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 5.9|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||107.30|97.80|
91668733|NCT01886872|183231840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.58||(1-sided)|Log Rank|||Arm B (Ibrutinib) versus Arm A (Rituximab, Bendamustine Hydrochloride)||0.58|0.26|<0.001
91668734|NCT01886872|183231840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.59||(1-sided)|Log Rank|||Arm C (Ibrutinib, Rituximab) versus Arm A (Rituximab, Bendamustine Hydrochloride)||0.59|0.25|<0.001
91668735|NCT01886872|183231840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.62||(1-sided)|Log Rank|||Arm C (Ibrutinib, Rituximab) versus Arm B (Ibrutinib)||1.62|0.62|0.49
91668736|NCT01957150|183231890|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the overall treatment difference change from Baseline between FF/VI and VI was greater than -1 % year|Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.06|||||Treatment comparison for overall weeks|||0.06|-0.97|
91668737|NCT01957150|183231891|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI for the overall treatment difference change from Baseline between FF/VI and VI was greater than -1 % year|Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.24|||||Overall Weeks for Male|||0.24|-1.17|
91668738|NCT01957150|183231892|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI for the overall treatment difference change from Baseline between FF/VI and VI was greater than -1 % year|Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.36|||||Overall Weeks for female|||0.36|-1.16|
91668739|NCT01957150|183231893|OTHER||Percentage Change from Baseline|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.13|||||Overall Weeks for Male|||-0.13|-1.90|
91668740|NCT01957150|183231894|OTHER||Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.78|||||Overall Weeks for female|||0.78|-0.87|
91668741|NCT01957150|183231895|OTHER||Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.1|||||Overall week|||0.10|-1.11|
91668742|NCT01856192|183231896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test||||||0.03
91668743|NCT00098475|183231902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The low-dose response would be considered unacceptable if the difference in response rates was 15% or greater (the upper confidence limit exceeds the 15% acceptable difference) regardless of a decrease in toxicity rate.|Difference in response rate between arms|0.107|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.052|0.162||||||The study was designed to determine if a reduced dose of dexamethasone in combination with CC-5013 reduced toxicity rate without reducing response rate. The standard-dose response was expected to be 70%. The low dose would be deemed unacceptable if the difference in response rate between arms was \>=15%. The null hypothesis was that response rates were equal and the alternative was that the low-dose response was no worse than 55%. The design had a 1-sided 0.10 type I error rate and 95% power.||0.162|0.052|
91668744|NCT01405469|183231911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.66|<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||this pilot study was created ro evaluate sample size for the following multicenter study, based on manometric outcomes. Mean values between baseline and follow-up were compared using Student ' s t -test for paired samples. P values less then 0.05, two-sided, were considered significant.R 2.13.1(R Development Core Team (2011). Subgroups (partial vs. complete myotomy) were compared using an analysis of variance test adjusted for initial values.||||<0.001
91668745|NCT01841073|183231918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91668746|NCT01841073|183231919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.027
91668747|NCT01841073|183231920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
91668748|NCT04404907|183231925|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||feel more attractive||||0.02
91668749|NCT04404907|183231925|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||tanning helps relax||||0.001
91668750|NCT04404907|183231925|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||confident with a tan||||0.34
91668751|NCT04404907|183231925|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Social activity||||0.0004
91668752|NCT04404907|183231925|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||Important to protect skin from the sun||||0.66
91792677|NCT01293799|183463092|OTHER|The number of recurrent peritonitis events between the two groups was tested by assuming a Poisson distribution of the number of events per follow-up time, log (follow-up time) as offset time, by using generalized linear models.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||P-value \<0.05 was significant.|Generalized linear methods|The analysis includes all peritonitis events in the study.|In the calculation of the relative risk, data for the retraining group represents the nominator and data for the control group represents the denominator.|||1.16|0.75|0.54
91668753|NCT04404907|183231925|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Concern about develop skin cancer||||0.16
91794268|NCT02821910|183467549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|97.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.94|105.71|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.71|89.94|
91860740|NCT03536754|183607597|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169||0.7653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.36||≤ 0.7653|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.36|0.81|0.7653
91860741|NCT03536754|183607597|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.48||≤ 0.1537|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.48|0.97|0.1537
91668754|NCT04404907|183231925|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Chances of getting skin cancer are high||||0.29
91668755|NCT01653405|183231926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Difference in differences|||||||<0.001
91668756|NCT01653405|183231927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||test of differences|||||||0.43
91668757|NCT01653405|183231928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||difference in differences|||||||<0.001
91668758|NCT01653405|183231929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Difference in differences|||||||<0.001
91668759|NCT01653405|183231930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||difference in differences|||||||0.002
91668760|NCT03174158|183231931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||a priori p value threshold \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91668761|NCT03174158|183231931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|a priori threshold p\<0.05||||||0.18
91668762|NCT03174158|183231931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||a priori threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.21
91668763|NCT00283842|183231940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 50mg.||||0.084
91668764|NCT00283842|183231940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 100mg.||||0.084
91668765|NCT00283842|183231940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 200mg.||||0.001
91668766|NCT00283842|183231940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 400mg.||||0.027
91668767|NCT00283842|183231941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 50mg.||||0.375
91668768|NCT00283842|183231941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 100mg.||||0.342
91668769|NCT00283842|183231941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 200mg.||||0.342
91668770|NCT00283842|183231941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 400mg.||||0.375
91668771|NCT00550147|183231942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1933|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.72|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-0.72|-1.52|<0.05
91714650|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.3058||95.0|-6.1|19.2|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||19.2|-6.1|0.3058
91714651|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.9604||95.0|-12.1|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.5|-12.1|0.9604
91714652|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.1661||95.0|-3.6|20.6|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||20.6|-3.6|0.1661
91860742|NCT05492318|183607694|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the geometric least square mean|105.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.72|121.74||||||"Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV.~Cmax"||121.74|91.72|
91714653|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.1441||95.0|-3.1|20.9|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||20.9|-3.1|0.1441
91714654|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.3076||95.0|-5.6|17.5|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.5|-5.6|0.3076
91714655|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.1209||95.0|-2.7|22.7|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||22.7|-2.7|0.1209
91714656|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.2791||95.0|-5.3|18.0|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||18.0|-5.3|0.2791
91668772|NCT00550147|183231943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2056|<|0.05||95.0|-1.75|-0.91|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-0.91|-1.75|<0.05
91668773|NCT00550147|183231944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06|<|0.05||95.0|-74.3|-20.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-20.2|-74.3|<0.05
91668774|NCT00550147|183231945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-1.29|-7.04|<0.05
91668775|NCT00550147|183231946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.05||95.0|-17.76|-8.82|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-8.82|-17.76|<0.05
91668776|NCT01321177|183232006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0145
91668777|NCT01540045|183232025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.013
91668778|NCT01540045|183232026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||we evaluated body fat before and after 2 cycles of cisplatin/paclitaxel based chemotheprapy||||0.671
91714657|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.0644||95.0|-0.7|23.0|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||23.0|-0.7|0.0644
91714658|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.7544||95.0|-9.5|6.9|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||6.9|-9.5|0.7544
91714659|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5142||95.0|-10.3|5.2|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||5.2|-10.3|0.5142
91714660|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.8158||95.0|-7.4|9.4|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.4|-7.4|0.8158
91668779|NCT01540045|183232026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.694|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||we evaluated lean body mass before and after 2 cycles of cisplatin/paclitaxel based chemotheprapy||||0.694
91668780|NCT01540045|183232027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.118
91714661|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.4599||95.0|-10.8|4.9|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||4.9|-10.8|0.4599
91668781|NCT01540045|183232028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) was used to assess and classify patients as having severe or moderate malnourishment (B or C) or as being well nourished (A).||||0.607
91668782|NCT01540045|183232029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||protein consumption was estimated by questionnaire SNUT difference between ≥ Sweet perception thresholds compared to \< Sweet perception thresholds after chemotherapy||||0.015
91668783|NCT01540045|183232029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||animal protein consumption was estimated by questionnaire SNUT difference between ≥ Sweet perception thresholds vs \< Sweet perception thresholds after chemotherapy||||0.010
91714662|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.8636||95.0|-8.7|7.3|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||7.3|-8.7|0.8636
91714663|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.5281||95.0|-7.8|15.1|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.1|-7.8|0.5281
91714664|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.6566||95.0|-8.5|13.5|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||13.5|-8.5|0.6566
91860743|NCT05492318|183607694|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the geometric least square mean|91.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.16|97.31||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - Cmax||97.31|86.16|
91668784|NCT01540045|183232029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAT consumption was estimated by questionnaire SNUT difference between ≥ Sweet perception thresholds vs \< Sweet perception thresholds after chemotherapy||||0.004
91668785|NCT01540045|183232031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.28
91668786|NCT01540045|183232032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in status global of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.889
91668787|NCT01540045|183232032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in functional role of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.293
91668788|NCT01540045|183232032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in emotional functioning of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.009
91668789|NCT01540045|183232032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in fatigue scale of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.213
91668790|NCT01540045|183232032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in appetite loss of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.595
91668791|NCT01540045|183232032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in constipation scale of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.068
91668792|NCT01540045|183232033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91714665|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.0677||95.0|-0.8|23.0|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||23.0|-0.8|0.0677
91714666|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.4443||95.0|-6.8|15.4|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.4|-6.8|0.4443
91668793|NCT01540045|183232034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in peripheral neuropathy scale of quality of life between \> ó = compared to \< umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.240
91668794|NCT01540045|183232035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in status global of quality of life between \> ó = compared to \< umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.036
91668795|NCT01540045|183232036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.312
91668796|NCT01540045|183232037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.608|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.608
91668797|NCT01540045|183232038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.035
91668798|NCT01540045|183232039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.402
91668799|NCT01540045|183232040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||for the paired analysis of taste acuity, we used Mc Nemar test for dividing into high and low sensibility to umami, bitter and sweet tastes.||||0.109
91668800|NCT01540045|183232041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||for the paired analysis of taste acuity, we used Mc Nemar test for dividing into high and low sensibility to umami, bitter and sweet tastes.||||0.092
91668801|NCT01540045|183232042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||We divide dilutions in two groups and dichotomized the patients into high and low sensibility to bitter taste. (PERCEPTION)||||0.022
91668802|NCT02760433|183232047|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.03|0.337|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The ACR20 response rate at Week 12 for the placebo group is estimated to be 20% in this study population. The OKZ ACR20 response rate for 64 mg q4w treatment group at Week 12 are expected to be at least 45%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 25 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.337|0.030|0.004
91668803|NCT02760433|183232047|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.203||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.038|0.353|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The ACR20 response rate at Week 12 for the placebo group is estimated to be 20% in this study population .The OKZ ACR20 response rate for 64 mg q2w treatment group at Week 12 is expected to be at least 50%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 30 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.353|0.038|0.0029
91668804|NCT02760433|183232048|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.176||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.041|0.281|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 5% in the placebo group and 18% and 21% in 64 mg q4w and q2w OKZ groups, respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 13 and 16 percentage points between respective OKZ groups and placebo.||0.281|0.041|0.0021
91668805|NCT02760433|183232048|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.139|0.396|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 5% in the placebo group and 18% and 21% in 64 mg q4w and q2w OKZ groups, respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 13 and 16 percentage points between respective OKZ groups and placebo.||0.396|0.139|<0.0001
91668806|NCT02760433|183232049|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|=|0.1814|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.26|0.11||p-value was greater than the threshold p-value of 0.0125|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.26|=0.1814
91668807|NCT02760433|183232049|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|=|0.0227|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|0.02||p-value was greater than the threshold p-value of 0.0125|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.35|=0.0227
91668808|NCT02760433|183232050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.164|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|0.278||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made||||||0.278|0.020|
91668809|NCT02760433|183232050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.027|0.294||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made||||||0.294|0.027|
91668810|NCT02760433|183232051|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.052|0.083||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made|||means continuity correction applied because expected cell counts \< 5|||0.083|-0.052|
91714667|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.2543||95.0|-4.7|17.7|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.7|-4.7|0.2543
91792678|NCT01293799|183463093|OTHER|The association of factors associated with time to first peritonitis was analysed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Subjects were censored for various reasons to leave the study. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using the backward elimination procedure, stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.27||Unit of measure: Age (hazard ratio per 10 years). The threshold for statistical significance was P = 0.05|Regression, Cox|The association of a age (HR per 10 years) and time to first peritonitis episode by univariable Cox regression.||The association of age and time to first peritonitis episode is analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||1.27|1.04|0.0052
91714668|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9416||95.0|-11.0|11.9|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.9|-11.0|0.9416
91668811|NCT02760433|183232051|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.023|0.134||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made|||means continuity correction applied because expected cell counts \< 5|||0.134|-0.023|
91668812|NCT02151149|183232052|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma).||||1.21|0.84|0.9258
91668813|NCT02151149|183232059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.81|||Stratified Log Rank|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma).||||0.81|0.33|0.0036
91668814|NCT02151149|183232060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25|||Stratified log-rank test|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma).||||1.25|0.54|0.3537
91668815|NCT02151149|183232061|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|2.511|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma)..||||2.511|0.971|0.0597
91668816|NCT02224053|183232079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|106.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.26|113.46|||||AZD9291+omeprazole / AZD9291 alone|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 80% to 125% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within subject CV assumed to be 23%. 5% change in exposure also assumed.||113.46|100.26|
91668817|NCT02224053|183232080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|101.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.65|109.16|||||AZD9291+omeprazole / AZD9291 alone|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 80% to 125% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within subject CV assumed to be 23%. 5% change in exposure also assumed.||109.16|94.65|
91668818|NCT02224053|183232089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|94.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.77|101.21||||||AZ5104||101.21|88.77|
91668819|NCT02224053|183232089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geomteric mean ratio|89.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.89|95.91||||||AZ7550||95.91|83.89|
91668820|NCT02224053|183232090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|102.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.87|108.07|||||AZD9291+omeprazole / AZD9291 alone|AZ5104||108.07|96.87|
91668821|NCT02224053|183232090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|94.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.92|98.33||||||AZ7550||98.33|89.92|
91668822|NCT01898598|183232103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Clinical Response Rates|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.6|32.1||||||The 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates was computed using the exact unconditional confidence limits method.||32.1|-71.6|
91668823|NCT01898598|183232104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.3|14.2||||||||14.2|-85.3|
91668824|NCT01499160|183232121|OTHER|Not done due to low accrual||||||||||||Not done due to low accrual|Not done due to low accrual|Not done due to low accrual||Not done due to low accrual|Not done due to low accrual|||
91668825|NCT02033317|183232136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||= 0.14
91668826|NCT02033317|183232137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||= 0.02
91668827|NCT02911935|183232150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.34||unadjusted P-value. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Log Rank|||The primary analysis tested the statistical null hypothesis of equal recurrent wheeze rates between the azithromycin and placebo groups.||2.34|0.95|0.08
91668828|NCT02911935|183232150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||p-value is adjusted for race, parental history of asthma, ever exposed to smoke and ever exposed to pets. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||2.29|0.92|0.11
91668829|NCT02911935|183232151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.95||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.61||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Log Rank|||||4.61|0.83|0.12
91668830|NCT02911935|183232152|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.18||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.62||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||1.62|0.86|0.31
91860744|NCT05492318|183607694|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|92.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.97|111.73||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - Cmax||111.73|75.97|
91668831|NCT02911935|183232153|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.22||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.48||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||2.48|0.6|0.57
91668832|NCT02911935|183232154|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.34||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.57||unadjusted P-value. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||2.57|0.70|0.38
91668833|NCT02911935|183232155|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.92||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.22||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||1.22|0.7|0.56
91668834|NCT04979858|183232184|OTHER|The statistical analysis involved the use of a single-factor ANOVA test to assess the importance of the various factors associated with the design of the Focal Mask (the Treatment) that would impact its performance in reducing the spread of COVID-19, which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The Bonferroni t-test was conducted post hoc to assess the statistical significance of the various factors.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91668835|NCT02063217|183232213|SUPERIORITY|Mixed linear models|Mean Difference (Net)|17.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (standard error), units = %. 17(7.2) increase in overnight amyloid-beta 40 concentrations over waking baseline between the sleep deprivation group and controls.|Mixed linear modeling of change in overnight amyloid beta concentrations from waking baseline between 01:00 and 11:00. Data provided for amyloid beta-40.||||0.07
91668836|NCT02063217|183232213|SUPERIORITY|Mixed linear models|Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean= 7%, standard error = 7.6%. 7% increase in overnight amyloid beta 40 concentrations over the waking baseline between the sleep induction group and control group.|Mixed linear modeling of change in overnight amyloid beta concentrations from waking baseline between 01:00 and 11:00. Data provided for amyloid beta-40.||||1.0
91668837|NCT04291508|183232214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-1.6|0.65
91668838|NCT04291508|183232214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-3.5|0.464
91668839|NCT04291508|183232215|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.3|||Chi-squared|||||3.3|-12.0|0.26
91668840|NCT04291508|183232215|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|8.7|||Fisher Exact|||||8.7|-35.8|0.31
91668841|NCT04291508|183232216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9|-1.0|0.35
91668842|NCT04291508|183232216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-3.4|0.45
91668843|NCT04291508|183232217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-1.9|0.83
91668844|NCT04291508|183232217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-0.8|0.10
91668845|NCT04291508|183232218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-1.2|0.55
91668846|NCT04291508|183232218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.7|-1.6|0.18
91668847|NCT04291508|183232219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.6|-0.8|0.21
91668848|NCT04291508|183232219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.5|-3.4|0.40
91668849|NCT04291508|183232220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|-0.8|0.23
91668850|NCT04291508|183232220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|9.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.4|-2.2|0.22
91668851|NCT04291508|183232221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|-1.6|0.58
91668852|NCT04291508|183232221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.5|-1.4|0.13
91668853|NCT04291508|183232222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.2|||Chi-squared|||||3.2|-11.8|0.26
91668854|NCT04291508|183232222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|8.7|||Fisher Exact|||||8.7|-35.8|0.31
91668855|NCT04291508|183232223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.2|-1.6|0.76
91668856|NCT04291508|183232223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.5|-4.9|0.78
91668857|NCT04291508|183232224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|-2.3|0.84
91668858|NCT04291508|183232224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.0|-0.9|0.10
91668859|NCT04291508|183232225|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.3|||Chi-squared|||||8.3|-10.9|0.79
91668860|NCT04291508|183232225|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|27.3|||Fisher Exact|||||27.3|-17.5|1.00
91668861|NCT04291508|183232226|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.2|||Chi-squared|||||7.2|-3.7|0.53
91714669|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.5824||95.0|-14.1|7.9|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||7.9|-14.1|0.5824
91714670|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.5668||95.0|-15.3|8.4|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||8.4|-15.3|0.5668
91714671|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.7769||95.0|-9.6|12.8|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.8|-9.6|0.7769
91714672|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.1753||95.0|-3.5|19.1|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||19.1|-3.5|0.1753
91714673|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.1508||95.0|-3.2|20.7|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||20.7|-3.2|0.1508
91714674|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.0916||95.0|-1.6|21.4|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||21.4|-1.6|0.0916
91714675|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.6222||95.0|-9.2|15.4|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.4|-9.2|0.6222
91714676|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.085||95.0|-1.4|21.8|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||21.8|-1.4|0.0850
91714677|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8||||0.0154||95.0|2.9|26.7|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||26.7|2.9|0.0154
91714678|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.7201||95.0|-11.9|8.2|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||8.2|-11.9|0.7201
91714679|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.8875||95.0|-9.1|10.5|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||10.5|-9.1|0.8875
91714680|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.3735||95.0|-5.7|15.1|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.1|-5.7|0.3735
91714681|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8621||95.0|-8.9|10.6|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||10.6|-8.9|0.8621
91714682|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.1203||95.0|-2.1|17.8|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.8|-2.1|0.1203
91902255|NCT00578786|183699601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.393|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.2|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.20|-0.69|
91668862|NCT04291508|183232226|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|13.0|||Fisher Exact|||||13.0|-17.0|1.00
91668863|NCT04291508|183232227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.9|0.70
91668864|NCT04291508|183232227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-2.7|0.96
91668865|NCT04291508|183232228|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Fisher Exact|||||7.3|-2.3|1.00
91668866|NCT04291508|183232229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|4.2|||Chi-squared|||||4.2|-13.1|0.31
91668867|NCT04291508|183232229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-4.0|||Chi-squared|||||-4.0|-51.7|0.02
91668868|NCT04291508|183232230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|7.5|||Chi-squared|||||7.5|-8.5|0.90
91668869|NCT04291508|183232230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-4.0|||Chi-squared|||||-4.0|-51.7|0.02
91668870|NCT04291508|183232231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-2.4|||Chi-squared|||||-2.4|-12.2|0.003
91668871|NCT04291508|183232231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|15.6|||Fisher Exact|||||15.6|-2.3|0.52
91668872|NCT04291508|183232232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.2|0.68
91668873|NCT04291508|183232232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Fisher Exact|||||0.4|-0.7|0.62
91668874|NCT04291508|183232233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.8|||Chi-squared|||||8.8|-7.8|0.90
91668875|NCT04291508|183232233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|8.9|||Chi-squared|||||8.9|-40.1|0.2
91668876|NCT04291508|183232234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-1.1|0.88
91668877|NCT04291508|183232234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.6|-0.6|0.10
91668878|NCT03566238|183232235|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|0.435||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2195|0.6551|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis was based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusting PFIC type. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."||0.6551|0.2195|0.0015
91668879|NCT03566238|183232235|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|0.211||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.4557|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis was based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusting PFIC type. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."||0.4557|0.021|0.0174
91668880|NCT03566238|183232236|SUPERIORITY|"Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline pruritus score at AM and PM, PFIC type, and age category was used for treatment comparisons. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."|Least Square (LS) mean difference|28.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.182||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.83|46.64|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the Proportion of Positive Pruritus Assessments at Participant Level over the 24-Week Treatment Period - Albireo ObsRO Instrument (AM and PM Scores).||46.64|9.83|0.0019
91668881|NCT03566238|183232236|SUPERIORITY|"An ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline pruritus score at AM and PM, PFIC type, and age category was used for treatment comparisons. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."|LS mean difference|21.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.892||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|41.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the Proportion of Positive Pruritus Assessments at Participant Level over the 24-Week Treatment Period - Albireo ObsRO Instrument (AM and PM Scores).||41.54|1.87|0.0163
91668882|NCT00593827|183232258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
91668883|NCT00593827|183232259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.05
91668884|NCT00593827|183232262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
91668885|NCT02627001|183232277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||<0.001
91668886|NCT01049581|183232278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA was used and the result reveled (F1, 17 = 7.565, η2= 0.308, p = 0.007)||||||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||null hypothesis : there is no difference in gross motor performance in pediatric aquatic therapy group and conventional therapy group||||0.007
91668887|NCT01049581|183232279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA : p value 0.393|Mean Difference (Net)|1.762||||0.393|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||"Effect Size η2~0.023"|ANCOVA|F1,17= 0.380||We hypothesize that Children with CP receiving PAT would have better outcomes in motor function and translate to ADL||||0.393
91668888|NCT01049581|183232280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||null hypothesis : there is no difference in social participation between pediatric aquatic therapy group and conventional therapy group||||0.332
91668889|NCT04592419|183232281|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept among BRVO participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4.5 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-3.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment × visit interaction, baseline BCVA, disease duration, and geographical location as covariates.||||0.30|-3.11|.0004
91668890|NCT04592419|183232282|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept among BRVO participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4.5 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-4.24|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model treatment, visit, treatment × visit interaction, RVO subtype, baseline BCVA, disease duration, and geographical location as covariates.||||-0.71|-4.24|.0243
91668891|NCT04241133|183232301|OTHER|The experimental and control groups were not compared due to the inability to collect post data with the control group because of stay at home orders during the COVID-19 pandemic.|||||<|0.05||||||The reported P-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.||The experimental group was tested for significant difference in Healthy Eating Index 2015 (HEI-2015) scores at baseline and 12 weeks. SAS macros provided by the National Cancer Institute were used to compute HEI-2015 scores for each dietary recall at pre- (baseline) and post-intervention (12 weeks) using the Simple HEI Scoring Algorithm.||||<0.05
91668892|NCT01503333|183232302|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed-effect models were applied to examine the intervention effect on MVPA at post-intervention. Models included the group variable, cluster random effect of school, and the following fixed effects: age, BMI z-score, race, SES, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year. Baseline MVPA was included when evaluating the intervention effect at post-intervention.|parameter estimate|-0.08||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypotheses: Post-intervention, weighted mean minutes of MVPA/week will be greater by 16 minutes among girls in intervention than control schools. Mean minutes per week is determined by multiplying mean minutes/hour by 90 hours that girls are awake in a week (10 hours awake on each weekend day; 14 hours awake on each weekday).||0.05|-0.21|.207
91668893|NCT01503333|183232303|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed models were used to analyze intervention effect on CV fitness according to intention-to-treat, with school pairs treated as random effect and students nested within school and treatment condition. Models included main intervention predictor (control or intervention), incorporated cluster random effect, specified school pairs (random intercept), and controlled for baseline CV fitness, physical activity, race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year cohort.|parameter estimate|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Immediately post-intervention, cardiovascular (CV) fitness will be higher among girls in the intervention than control schools.||0.36|0.03|.018
91668894|NCT01503333|183232304|OTHER|Linear mixed models were used to analyze intervention effect on BMI-z according to intention-to-treat, with school pairs treated as random effect and students nested within school and treatment condition. Models for BMI-z included main intervention predictor (control or intervention), incorporated cluster random effect, specified school pairs (random intercept), and controlled for baseline BMI-z, physical activity, race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year cohort.|parameter estimate|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Immediately post-intervention, BMI z-score will be significantly lower among girls in the intervention than control schools.||0.01|-0.05|.191
91668895|NCT01503333|183232305|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed models were used to analyze intervention effect on % body fat according to intention-to-treat, with school pairs treated as random effect and students nested within school and treatment condition. Models included main intervention predictor (control or intervention), incorporated cluster random effect, specified school pairs (random intercept), and controlled for baseline % body fat, age, physical activity, race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and year cohort.|parameter estimate|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Immediately post-intervention, percent body fat will be significantly lower among girls in the intervention than control schools.||-0.10|-0.64|.007
91668896|NCT01503333|183232306|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed-effect models were applied to examine the intervention effect on MVPA at 9-month follow up. Models included the group variable, cluster random effect of school, and the following fixed effects: age, BMI z-score, race, SES, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year. Baseline MVPA was included when evaluating the intervention effect at follow up.|parameter estimate|-0.09||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.21|.118
91668897|NCT01503333|183232307|OTHER||parameter estimate|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-square test p\>.05.26.||||
91668898|NCT01503333|183232308|OTHER||parameter estimate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||
91668899|NCT01503333|183232309|OTHER||parameter estimate|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||
91668900|NCT01503333|183232310|OTHER||parameter estimate|30.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Path analysis|||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||<.001
91668901|NCT01503333|183232311|OTHER||parameter estimate|24.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Path analysis|||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||<.001
91714683|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.4966||95.0|-5.4|11.0|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.0|-5.4|0.4966
91714684|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.5776||95.0|-5.6|10.1|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||10.1|-5.6|0.5776
91860745|NCT05492318|183607694|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|93.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.72|104.63||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - Cmax||104.63|83.72|
91668902|NCT01503333|183232312|OTHER||parameter estimate|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||
91668903|NCT04254198|183232315|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.0474|0.509||To adjust for multiplicity due to three primary outcomes, the p-value should be compared to a Bonferroni-corrected type-I error level of 0.05/3 = 0.017.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for cohort, site, marital status, and overall health status.|The beta coefficient (0.231) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on log-transformed CES-D scores. Delta method used for calculating confidence intervals for the Least Squares (LS) Mean changes over time per arm with cov=compound symmetry.|||0.509|-0.0474|0.0473
91668904|NCT04254198|183232316|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.0464|0.72||To adjust for multiplicity due to three primary outcomes, the p-value should be compared to a Bonferroni-corrected type-I error level of 0.05/3 = 0.017.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for cohort, site, overall health status and the interaction between cohort and site.|The beta coefficient (0.383) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on log-transformed CD-RISC scores. Delta method used for calculating confidence intervals for the LS Mean changes over time per arm with cov=compound symmetry.|||0.720|0.0464|0.0067
91668905|NCT04254198|183232317|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.215|-0.28||To adjust for multiplicity due to three primary outcomes, the p-value should be compared to a Bonferroni-corrected type-I error level of 0.05/3 = 0.017.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model with beta distribution, adjusted for cohort, site, overall health status and interaction between arm and cohort.|The beta coefficient (-0.747) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on MOS-SS scores on a logit scale. The CIs for the LS Mean changes over time per arm were estimated via the delta method and are reported on the original MOS-SS scale.|||-0.280|-1.215|0.0002
91668906|NCT04254198|183232318|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.0||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for cohort and site.|The beta coefficient (-0.913) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on non-transformed PSS scores.|||2.00|-3.82|0.4510
91668907|NCT02152982|183232319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1673|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1673
91668908|NCT02152982|183232320|OTHER|Interaction test|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.6659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||Type 3 likelihood-ratio p-value|||||1.50|0.53|0.6659
91668909|NCT02152982|183232321|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.29|0.86|0.3164
91668910|NCT02152982|183232322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7018
91792679|NCT01293799|183463093|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.29||Unit of measure: Age (hazard ratio per 10 years) and time to first peritonitis episode by multivariable Cox regression. The threshold for statistical significance was P = 005.|Regression, Cox|Multivariable Cox regression||Univariable Cox regression was used to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode (see statistical analysis 1). Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||1.29|1.05|0.0041
91714685|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.3955||95.0|-4.9|12.3|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.3|-4.9|0.3955
91668911|NCT02152982|183232323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0003
91668912|NCT04968925|183232331|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.54|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|Phase I was not powered to test for non-inferiority for any endpoints. The data collected from this Phase was used to estimate the sample size required to achieve the primary endpoints for Phase II of the study.||22.54|0.80|
91668913|NCT04968925|183232332|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|10.16|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|Phase I was not powered to test for non-inferiority for any endpoints. The data collected from this Phase was used to estimate the sample size required to achieve the primary endpoints for Phase II of the study.||10.16|1.16|
91668914|NCT04968925|183232333|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.76|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|Phase I was not powered to test for non-inferiority for any endpoints. The data collected from this Phase was used to estimate the sample size required to achieve the primary endpoints for Phase II of the study.||6.76|1.05|
91902256|NCT00578786|183699602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.76|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.76|-0.31|
91668915|NCT04968925|183232334|SUPERIORITY|"The Fallback Method was used to test primary hypotheses in Phase II. An alpha of 0.167 was allocated for each test. Every successful test passed the unused alpha to the next."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.09|2.83|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|It was calculated based on Phase I using Stroup's Method that 200 subjects were required to test superiority for each endpoint in Phase II.||2.83|1.09|
91714686|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.7994||95.0|-6.9|9.0|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.0|-6.9|0.7994
91714687|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.2073||95.0|-2.9|13.2|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||13.2|-2.9|0.2073
91714688|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.5148||95.0|-6.4|12.8|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.8|-6.4|0.5148
91668916|NCT04968925|183232335|SUPERIORITY|"The Fallback Method was used to test primary hypotheses in Phase II. An alpha of 0.167 was allocated for each test. Every successful test passed the unused alpha to the next."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|96.66|1.02|2.28|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|It was calculated based on Phase I using Stroup's Method that 200 subjects were required to test superiority for each endpoint in Phase II.||2.28|1.02|
91714689|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.5255||95.0|-6.3|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.2|-6.3|0.5255
91668917|NCT04968925|183232336|SUPERIORITY|"The Fallback Method was used to test primary hypotheses in Phase II. An alpha of 0.167 was allocated for each test. Every successful test passed the unused alpha to the next."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.03|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|It was calculated based on Phase I using Stroup's Method that 200 subjects were required to test superiority for each endpoint in Phase II.||2.03|0.77|
91668918|NCT00835796|183232349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|94.2|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109|94.2|
91668919|NCT00835796|183232350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.7||||||90.0|94.0|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|94.0|
91792680|NCT01293799|183463094|OTHER|The association of factors associated with time to first peritonitis was analysed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Subjects were censored for various reasons to leave the study. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using the backward elimination procedure, stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.66||Unit of measure: Gender (male vs. female). P \<0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression was used.||The association of gender (male vs. female) and time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression.||1.66|0.93|0.13
91902257|NCT00578786|183699602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.477|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.03|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.03|-0.68|
91668920|NCT00835796|183232351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.8||||||90.0|94.5|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|94.5|
91714690|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.3793||95.0|-5.5|14.4|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||14.4|-5.5|0.3793
91668921|NCT00876265|183232361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 95% CI or the difference between LS mean (Belotero) and LS mean (Zyplast) lies entirely above -Δ, noninferiority of Belotero will be concluded (first step). If, in addition, the CI lies entirely above 0, superiority of Belotero over Zyplast will be concluded (second step).|Adjusted (LS) mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|0.323||Treatment term and all significant (p ≤ 0.10) covariate and covariate by treatment interactions will be retained in the final ANCOVA model. From the final ANCOVA model, adjusted (LS) means for Belotero and Zyplast was computed.|ANCOVA|||"The null, H0, and the alternative hypothesis, H1, are as follows:~H0(1): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) ≤ -Δ versus H1(1): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) \> -Δ H0(2): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) ≤ 0 versus H1(2): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) \> 0 The sample size calculation was based on the following assumptions: Type I error α = 0.025 (one sided); Power = 90%; Non-inferiority margin Δ = 0.25; Estimated common standard deviation (SD) = 0.75. Under these assumptions, a total of 100 evaluable subjects were needed."||0.323|-0.228|0.733
91902258|NCT00578786|183699602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.18|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.18|-1.12|
91668922|NCT02327325|183232362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.94||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between physical activity only and the wait list group. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the physical activity group had greater improvement than the wait list group.||0.35|-6.24|0.08
91668923|NCT02327325|183232362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.26||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA \& CBT group to the wait list group. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA + CBT group was superior on this outcome to the wait list group.||0.06|-6.69|0.06
91860746|NCT05492318|183607694|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|124.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.38|134.47||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Cmax||134.47|114.38|
91668924|NCT02327325|183232363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.11||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||0.64|-12.85|0.07
91668925|NCT02327325|183232363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|3.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA + CBT only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA + CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||3.48|-11.69|0.28
91668926|NCT02327325|183232364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.64||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|7.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||7.96|-0.69|0.097
91668927|NCT02327325|183232364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|7.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA+CBT group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA+CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||7.39|-1.55|0.196
91668928|NCT02327325|183232365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||-1.34|-6.85|<0.01
91668929|NCT02327325|183232365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA + CBT only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA + CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||0.86|-4.85|0.17
91668930|NCT02327325|183232366|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||5.19|-4.86|0.95
91668931|NCT02327325|183232366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA+CBT group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA+CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||1.07|-7.07|0.97
91668932|NCT01118026|183232415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9669|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9669
91860747|NCT05492318|183607694|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|117.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.78|131.69||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Max||131.69|104.78|
91668933|NCT00108082|183232443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.7651||95.0|-1.83|2.49|||ANCOVA|||The null hypotheses (tested hierarchically) were that the effect of carvedilol CR + lisinopril on LV mass regression was no different than the effect of atenolol + lisinopril, and that the effect of carvedilol CR + lisinopril was no different than the effect of lisinopril + lisinopril. The primary analysis was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a model adjusting for treatment, stratification by hypertension class, region, and baseline value, at a 0.05 level of significance.||2.49|-1.83|0.7651
91668934|NCT00108082|183232443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.1711||95.0|-0.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.90|-0.70|0.1711
91668935|NCT01091103|183232465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9427
91668936|NCT01091103|183232466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3370
91668937|NCT02780167|183232477|OTHER||Estimate difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.4|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 10 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||4.4|-0.7|0.1210
91668938|NCT02780167|183232477|OTHER||Estimate difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|13.8|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 30 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||13.8|-1.8|0.1065
91668939|NCT02780167|183232477|OTHER||Estimate difference|21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|37.6|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 100 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||37.6|5.5|0.0184
91668940|NCT02780167|183232477|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|56.6|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 200 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||56.6|19.7|0.0032
91668941|NCT02780167|183232478|OTHER||LS mean difference|4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.667||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.88|20.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with observed cases (OC)|Test group: PF-04965842 10 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||20.05|-11.88|0.6731
91668942|NCT02780167|183232478|OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.474||0.561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.16|10.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with OC|Test group: PF-04965842 30 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||10.13|-21.16|0.5610
91668943|NCT02780167|183232478|OTHER||LS mean difference|-23.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.043||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.76|-8.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with OC|Test group: PF-04965842 100 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||-8.88|-38.76|0.0091
91668944|NCT02780167|183232478|OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.23|-32.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with OC|Test group: PF-04965842 200 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||-32.47|-62.23|<0.0001
91668945|NCT01067521|183232558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.799||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|Negative Binomial Regression||GA 40 mg vs. placebo|"Relapses were estimated by a baseline-adjusted, Negative Binomial Regression with an offset based on the log of subject's exposure to treatment. The model included the following covariates: - Baseline EDSS score. - Log of the prior 2-year number of relapses. - Volume of T2 lesions at baseliner. - Status of Gd-enhancing T1 activity at baseline (=0 no Gd-enhancing T1 at baseline; =1 at least one Gd-enhancing T1 at baseline). - CGR."||0.799|0.539|<0.0001
91668946|NCT01067521|183232559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.653|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.78||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|Negative binomial regression||GA 40 mg vs. placebo|Negative binomial regression||0.780|0.546|<.0001
91668947|NCT01067521|183232560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|0.699||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|Negative Binomial Regression||GA 40 mg vs. placebo|||0.699|0.436|<0.0001
91668948|NCT01067521|183232561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.154|0.033||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|ANCOVA||GA 40 mg vs Placebo|||0.033|-0.154|0.2058
91860748|NCT05492318|183607694|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of geometric LS means|139.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.71|150.67||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Cmax||150.67|128.71|
91902259|NCT00578786|183699602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.02|-0.52|
91668949|NCT01067521|183232562|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0744||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6995|0.9925||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative Binomial Regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Entire Study The Negative Binomial Regression model covariates: • treatment group • PCBL (Placebo-Controlled Baseline) Kurtzke's Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score as 1 degree of freedom variable • Log of the # of relapses in the 2 years prior to PCBL • Volume of T2 lesions at PCBL • Status of Gd-enhancing T1 lesion activity at PCBL (=0 if no Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at PCBL; =1 if at least one Gd-enhancing T1 lesion at PCBL) • Country or Geographical Region (CGR)||0.9925|0.6995|0.0409
91668950|NCT01067521|183232563|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.914||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 6 Negative binomial regression||0.914|0.592|0.0056
91668951|NCT01067521|183232563|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.765||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 12 Negative binomial regression||0.765|0.524|<0.0001
91668952|NCT01067521|183232563|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|0.797||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 36 Negative binomial regression||0.797|0.557|<0.0001
91668953|NCT01067521|183232564|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.773||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative Binomial Regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 6||0.773|0.4|0.0005
91860749|NCT05492318|183607694|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of geometric LS means|141.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.36|163.88||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Cmax||163.88|122.36|
91902260|NCT00578786|183699603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.593|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.74|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.74|-0.33|
91668954|NCT01067521|183232564|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.679||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 12||0.679|0.388|<0.0001
91668955|NCT01067521|183232564|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.854||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 36||0.854|0.514|0.0015
91668956|NCT01067521|183232565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|-0.003||not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 6||-0.003|-0.166|0.0425
91668957|NCT01067521|183232565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.012||not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 12||0.012|-0.184|0.0844
91668958|NCT01067521|183232565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.8701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.225||not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 36||0.225|-0.91|0.8701
91668959|NCT00936351|183232569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
91668960|NCT02413008|183232584|OTHER|The primary endpoint, the variation of FSH between week 12 and baseline and also comparing by arm will be analyzed using a non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test).||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The variations of the levels of FSH after treatment was studied in each women at baseline, week 3 and week12 weeks, the variation of levels between two arms were analysed using a non-parametric test Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon.~The intra individual variation (differences between the pre study determinations screening and baseline) was compared to the variation between baseline and the values obtained at every study visit."||||0.10
91668961|NCT02413008|183232584|OTHER|The primary endpoint, the variation of FSH between week 12 and baseline and also comparing by arm will be analyzed using a non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test).||||||0.413|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The variations in the intensities for each one of the symptoms and signs of the vaginal atrophy, after 3 and 12 weeks, in each treatment arm, will be compared using the non-parametric test Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon.||||0.413
91902261|NCT00578786|183699603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.514|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.22|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.22|-0.51|
91668962|NCT02413008|183232584|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91668963|NCT02413008|183232585|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Variation in serum levels of FSH at week 1||||<0.05
91668964|NCT02413008|183232585|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Variation in serum levels of FSH at week 3||||<0.05
91668965|NCT02413008|183232585|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Variation in serum levels of FSH at week 8||||>0.05
91668966|NCT02413008|183232586|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 1||||>0.05
91668967|NCT02413008|183232586|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 3||||>0.05
91668968|NCT02413008|183232586|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 8||||>0.05
91668969|NCT02413008|183232586|OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 12||||0.135
91668970|NCT02413008|183232587|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 1 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.043
91668971|NCT02413008|183232587|OTHER|||||||0.649|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.649
91668972|NCT02413008|183232587|OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 8 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.588
91668973|NCT02413008|183232587|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 12 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.67
91792681|NCT01293799|183463095|OTHER|The association of factors associated with time to first peritonitis was analysed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Subjects were censored for various reasons to leave the study. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with with time to first peritonitis episode.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||Unit of measure: Body weight (hazard ratio per 10 kg). The threshold for statistical significance was P = 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression was used.||The association of body weight (HR per 10 kg) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression (Statistical analysis 1) and multivariable Cox regression (Statistical analysis 2)||1.21|1.03|0.0068
91668974|NCT02413008|183232588|OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 1 in plasma levels of estradiol.||||0.342
91668975|NCT02413008|183232588|OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3 in plasma levels of estradiol.||||0.523
91668976|NCT02413008|183232588|OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estradiol from baseline to week 8||||0.523
91792682|NCT01293799|183463095|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.19||Unit of measure: Body weight (hazard ratio per 10 kg). P \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Multivariable Cox regression||The association of body weight (HR per 10 kg) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression (Statistical analysis 1) and multivariable Cox regression (Statistical analysis 2)||1.19|1.01|0.03
91860750|NCT05492318|183607695|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|73.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.77|89.33||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - Cmax||89.33|60.77|
91902262|NCT00578786|183699603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.03|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.03|-0.93|
91668977|NCT02413008|183232588|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estradiol from baseline to week 12||||0.163
91668978|NCT02413008|183232589|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 1||||0.418
91668979|NCT02413008|183232589|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 3||||0.642
91668980|NCT02413008|183232589|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 8||||0.175
91668981|NCT02413008|183232589|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 12||||0.084
91668982|NCT02413008|183232590|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pH between baseline and week 3||||<0.01
91668983|NCT02413008|183232590|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pH between baseline and week 12||||0.057
91668984|NCT02413008|183232591|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dyspareunia from baseline to week 3||||0.14
91668985|NCT02413008|183232591|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dyspareunia from baseline to week 12||||0.25
91668986|NCT02413008|183232592|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3||||0.28
91668987|NCT02413008|183232592|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 12||||0.34
91668988|NCT02413008|183232593|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in vaginal dryness from baseline to week 3||||0.14
91668989|NCT02413008|183232593|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in vaginal dryness from baseline to week 12||||<0.01
91668990|NCT02413008|183232594|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in total score of symptoms of vaginal atrophy from baseline to week 3||||0.03
91668991|NCT02413008|183232594|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in total score of symptoms of vaginal atrophy from baseline to week 12||||0.04
91668992|NCT02413008|183232595|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa between baseline and week 3||||<0.001
91668993|NCT02413008|183232595|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa betweeen baseline and week 12||||<0.01
91668994|NCT02413008|183232596|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa between baseline and week 3||||0.13
91668995|NCT02413008|183232596|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa between baseline and week 12||||<0.01
91668996|NCT02413008|183232597|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3||||<0.001
91668997|NCT02413008|183232597|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 12||||<0.001
91668998|NCT02413008|183232598|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total score of signs between week 3 and baseline||||<0.001
91668999|NCT02413008|183232598|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total score of signs between week 12 and baseline||||<0.001
91669000|NCT02413008|183232599|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in maturation value from baseline to week 3||||<0.0001
91669001|NCT02413008|183232599|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in maturation value from baseline to week 12||||0.006
91669002|NCT03538262|183232613|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.006
91714691|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.312||95.0|-4.5|14.1|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||14.1|-4.5|0.3120
91714692|NCT00676403|183320257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.0442||95.0|0.3|19.2|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||19.2|0.3|0.0442
91714693|NCT00676403|183320258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4452||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4452
91669003|NCT03538262|183232613|OTHER|Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91669004|NCT03538262|183232614|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.011
91714694|NCT00676403|183320258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4342||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4342
91714695|NCT00676403|183320258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0942||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0942
91902263|NCT00578786|183699603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.467|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.11|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.11|-0.39|
91714696|NCT00676403|183320258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1873||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.1873
91714697|NCT00676403|183320258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4709||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4709
91669005|NCT03538262|183232614|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
91669006|NCT03538262|183232615|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.007
91669007|NCT03538262|183232615|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||<0.001
91669008|NCT03538262|183232615|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||0.004
91669009|NCT03538262|183232615|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<0.001
91669010|NCT03538262|183232615|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||<0.001
91669011|NCT03538262|183232615|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||<0.001
91669012|NCT03538262|183232615|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||<0.001
91669013|NCT03538262|183232615|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
91669014|NCT03538262|183232616|OTHER|||||||0.996|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||0.996
91669015|NCT03538262|183232616|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.054
91669016|NCT03538262|183232616|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||0.025
91669017|NCT03538262|183232616|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.006
91714698|NCT01272908|183320290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.293||||0.253|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR20: Week 12 versus (vs) Week 4||||0.253
91714699|NCT01272908|183320290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.019||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR20: Week 24 vs Week 4||||0.005
91714700|NCT01272908|183320290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.552||||0.023|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR50: Week 12 vs Week 4||||0.023
91714701|NCT01272908|183320290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.861||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR50: Week 24 vs. Week 4||||0.001
91714702|NCT01272908|183320294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.099||||0.667|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good vs Moderate vs None: Week 12 vs Week 4||||0.667
91860751|NCT05492318|183607695|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|70.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.94|85.5||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - Cmax||85.50|57.94|
91860752|NCT05492318|183607695|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|65.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.33|79.98||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - Cmax||79.98|53.33|
91669018|NCT03538262|183232617|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.145
91669019|NCT03538262|183232617|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.029
91669020|NCT03538262|183232618|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<.001
91669021|NCT03538262|183232618|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
91669022|NCT03538262|183232619|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.382
91669023|NCT03538262|183232619|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
91669024|NCT03538262|183232620|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Secondary analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.688
91669025|NCT03538262|183232620|OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Secondary analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.293
91669026|NCT03538262|183232621|OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.446
91669027|NCT03538262|183232621|OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.565
91669028|NCT03538262|183232622|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.006
91669029|NCT03538262|183232622|OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.937
91669030|NCT03538262|183232623|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.041
91669031|NCT03538262|183232623|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||<0.001
91669032|NCT03538262|183232623|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||<0.001
91669033|NCT03538262|183232623|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<0.001
91669034|NCT03538262|183232623|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||<0.001
91669035|NCT03538262|183232623|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||<0.001
91902264|NCT00312221|183699616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8562|0.1054|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 20 and BTDS 5 during the 12-week double-blind phase|||0.1054|-0.8562|0.126
91902265|NCT00312221|183699616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.14||95.0|-0.8455|0.1189|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||0.1189|-0.8455|0.140
91669036|NCT03538262|183232623|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||<0.001
91669037|NCT03538262|183232623|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
91669038|NCT03538262|183232624|OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||0.595
91669039|NCT03538262|183232624|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.440
91669040|NCT03538262|183232624|OTHER|||||||0.909|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||0.909
91669041|NCT03538262|183232624|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.068
91669042|NCT03538262|183232625|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.074
91669043|NCT03538262|183232625|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||<0.001
91669044|NCT03538262|183232625|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||<0.001
91669045|NCT03538262|183232625|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<0.001
91669046|NCT03538262|183232625|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||<0.001
91669047|NCT03538262|183232625|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||<0.001
91669048|NCT03538262|183232625|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||<0.001
91669049|NCT03538262|183232625|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
91669050|NCT03538262|183232626|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.200
91669051|NCT03538262|183232626|OTHER|||||||0.888|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||0.888
91669052|NCT03538262|183232626|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||0.837
91902266|NCT00312221|183699617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and BTDS 20 during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||-0.20|-1.47|0.007
91669053|NCT03538262|183232626|OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.394
91669054|NCT03538262|183232626|OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||0.268
91669055|NCT03538262|183232626|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||0.039
91669056|NCT03538262|183232626|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||0.979
91669057|NCT03538262|183232626|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.014
91669058|NCT03538262|183232627|OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.285
91669059|NCT03538262|183232627|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||0.267
91669060|NCT03538262|183232627|OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||0.564
91669061|NCT03538262|183232627|OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||0.034
91669062|NCT03538262|183232628|OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.409
91669063|NCT03538262|183232628|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 0.149||||0.149
91669064|NCT01294449|183232636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.161|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio was calculated as the hazard rate of mortality in the CRT-D group over the hazard rate of mortality in the ICD group. A hazard ratio lower than 1 represents a reduction in relative risk of mortality for CRT-D compared to ICD.|The sample size for the analysis included subjects from the original MADIT-CRT IDE (NCT00180271) that did not participate in the Registry portion, these subjects are censored at the time of study conclusion, withdrawal or death during the IDE. This was done as the Registry is a post approval continuation of the follow-up from the MADIT-CRT IDE trial. This is not a pooled analysis from separate studies.||1.161|0.670|0.370
91794380|NCT00245219|183467837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
91669065|NCT01294449|183232636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.96|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio was calculated as the hazard rate of mortality in the CRT-D arm over the hazard rate of mortality in the ICD arm. A hazard ratio lower than 1 represents a reduction in relative risk of mortality for CRT-D compared to ICD.|These data represent the indicated sub population of left bundle branch block subjects only. (Left bundle branch block N= 110 ICD group: 181 CRT-D group)||0.960|0.484|0.028
91669066|NCT03259789|183232654|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-0.32|-0.74|< 0.0001
91669067|NCT03259789|183232656|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.86|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-0.86|-1.83|< 0.0001
91669068|NCT03259789|183232658|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-7.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-4.32|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-4.32|-9.83|< 0.0001
91669069|NCT03259789|183232659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.95||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 6 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||12.95|1.70|0.0014
91669070|NCT03259789|183232659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|8.92||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 12 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||8.92|1.96|0.0001
91669071|NCT03259789|183232659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|5.04||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 18 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||5.04|1.31|0.0030
91714703|NCT01272908|183320294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.589|||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good vs Moderate vs None: Week 24 vs Week 4||||<0.001
91714704|NCT01272908|183320294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.138||||0.44|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good/Moderate vs None: Week 12 vs Week 4||||0.440
91714705|NCT01272908|183320294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.009||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good/Moderate vs None: Week 24 vs Week 4||||0.012
91714706|NCT01272908|183320296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4||||<0.001
91714707|NCT01272908|183320296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12||||<0.001
91714708|NCT01272908|183320296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 24||||<0.001
91714709|NCT01272908|183320296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 36||||<0.001
91714710|NCT01272908|183320296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 48||||<0.001
91714711|NCT01272908|183320298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91669072|NCT03259789|183232659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|7.58||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 24 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||7.58|1.99|< 0.0001
91669073|NCT03259789|183232661|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.57|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-1.57|-3.45|< 0.0001
91669074|NCT03259789|183232663|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.38||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 6 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.38|-0.74|< 0.0001
91669075|NCT03259789|183232663|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.46||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 12 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.46|-0.86|< 0.0001
91669076|NCT03259789|183232663|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.3||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 18 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.30|-0.69|< 0.0001
91669077|NCT03259789|183232663|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 24 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.32|-0.74|< 0.0001
91669078|NCT04718129|183232710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.085|||Regression, Linear|||||.085|.003|.048
91669079|NCT02212457|183232711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain M14459 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||1.02|0.53|
91669080|NCT02212457|183232711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain M07-0241084 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||0.94|0.54|
91669081|NCT02212457|183232711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain 96217 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||0.85|0.51|
91714712|NCT01272908|183320300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91669082|NCT02212457|183232711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain NZ98/254 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||0.66|0.37|
91669083|NCT00688844|183232758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.655574|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.060658||0.692782|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate BMI across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.692782
91669084|NCT00688844|183232759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005401|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0243|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate total body bone mineral density (BMD) one year via DXA in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||<0.001
91714713|NCT01272908|183320302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91669085|NCT00688844|183232760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.419224|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4666||0.017941|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate % lean mass across one year via DXA in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.017941
91669086|NCT00688844|183232761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.208889|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51967||0.026009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate % fat mass across one year via DXA in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.026009
91714714|NCT01272908|183320304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91714715|NCT01272908|183320306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91669087|NCT00688844|183232762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.5187|STANDARD_DEVIATION|362.9412||0.303864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate plasma phenylalanine across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.303864
91669088|NCT00688844|183232763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9549|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.10814||0.00088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate protein intake (grams per day) across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.00088
91669089|NCT00688844|183232764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131676|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.797247||0.3811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate dietary phenylalanine intake across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.3811
91669090|NCT01745952|183232793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED||||||negative binomial model + overdispersion|||||||0.9819
91669091|NCT00493792|183232814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.77|||Regression, Cox|||||1.77|0.29|0.47
91669092|NCT00493792|183232815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.23|0.06
91714716|NCT01272908|183320308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91714717|NCT01272908|183320310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91860753|NCT05492318|183607695|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric Lsmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|62.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.86|75.95||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Induction Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate. Cmax||75.95|50.86|
91669093|NCT00493792|183232816|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|.45|0.193
91669094|NCT00685035|183232822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.02
91669095|NCT02426541|183232829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.3794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|5.54|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for sex and baseline||||5.54|-2.18|0.3794
91714718|NCT01272908|183320312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91669096|NCT02426541|183232830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.96|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for sex and baseline||||2.96|-5.60|0.5317
91669097|NCT02426541|183232831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.9984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|3.07|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for sex and baseline||||3.07|-3.07|0.9984
91669098|NCT00745134|183232834|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.33
91669099|NCT02344745|183232898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91669100|NCT02344745|183232899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
91669101|NCT02344745|183232900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91669102|NCT02344745|183232901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
91669103|NCT02788513|183232902|OTHER|||||||0.9931||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Beta model fit.|Model assumption: 75% of max effect is achieved at 2 mg, 87.5% at 5 mg, 25% at 25 mg, max effect achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809, scalar parameter = 26||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9931
91669104|NCT02788513|183232902|OTHER|||||||0.9225||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Emax model fit.|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 2 mg||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9225
91669105|NCT02788513|183232902|OTHER|||||||0.9287||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|Model assumption: 25% of max effect achieved at 5 mg and 75% of max effect achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9287
91669106|NCT02788513|183232902|OTHER|||||||0.7646||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod linear model fit.|No assumption needed.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.7646
91714719|NCT01272908|183320316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 12||||<0.001
91714720|NCT01272908|183320316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91669107|NCT02788513|183232902|OTHER|||||||0.9335||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod linear in log model fit.|No assumption needed.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9335
91669108|NCT02788513|183232902|OTHER|||||||0.8199||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod logistic model fit.|Model assumption: 10% of max effect achieved at 5 mg and 50% of max effect achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.8199
91669109|NCT02788513|183232902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.18||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.18|-1.09|0.9340
91669110|NCT02788513|183232902|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.6041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.44||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.44|-0.84|0.6041
91669111|NCT02788513|183232902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.9||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.90|-0.38|0.1926
91669112|NCT02788513|183232902|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.12||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.12|-1.16|0.9739
91669113|NCT02788513|183232903|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.52||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||1.52|-1.48|0.979
91669114|NCT02788513|183232903|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.0||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||2.00|-1.01|0.521
91669115|NCT02788513|183232903|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-0.02||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||-0.02|-3.04|0.047
91669116|NCT02788513|183232903|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-0.67||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||-0.67|-3.65|0.005
91669117|NCT02788513|183232904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.11||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.11|-0.32|0.343
91714721|NCT00905424|183320333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-4.5|0.0902
91714722|NCT00905424|183320334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|0.6||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-2.4|0.3091
91669118|NCT02788513|183232904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.16|-0.26|0.645
91669119|NCT02788513|183232904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.3||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.30|-0.13|0.448
91669120|NCT02788513|183232904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.32|-0.11|0.340
91669121|NCT04443569|183232918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 1||||0.3
91669122|NCT04443569|183232918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 2||||0.9
91669123|NCT04443569|183232918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 3||||0.07
91669124|NCT04443569|183232918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 4||||0.09
91902267|NCT00312221|183699617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.17|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||-0.17|-1.47|0.011
91669125|NCT04443569|183232919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91669126|NCT01933919|183232928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Fluvoxamine-Placebo)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline JCY-BOCS (10-item) total score and age as covariates and treatment as fixed effect.|The model included the fixed effects of treatment, with baseline JCY-BOCS (10-item) total score and age as covariates.|||-0.1|-8.5|0.044
91669127|NCT00809965|183232989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.97|0.72|0.020
91714723|NCT00905424|183320335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|-0.3||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-3.7|0.0573
91714724|NCT00905424|183320336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2368||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2368
91714725|NCT00905424|183320339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|-0.5||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||-0.5|-5.4|0.0463
91714726|NCT00905424|183320339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|0.3||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||0.3|-4.3|0.1431
91902268|NCT00312221|183699618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0054|2.0397|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and BTDS 20 during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||2.0397|-3.0054|0.707
91669128|NCT00809965|183232989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.98|0.73|0.028
91669129|NCT00809965|183232990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.97|0.72|0.016
91669130|NCT00809965|183232990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.98|0.73|0.025
91669131|NCT00809965|183232991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.07|0.81|0.320
91669132|NCT00809965|183232991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.10|0.83|0.508
91669133|NCT00809965|183232992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.04|0.80|0.185
91669134|NCT00809965|183232992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.01|0.78|0.081
91669135|NCT00809965|183232993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.96|0.73|0.011
91669136|NCT00809965|183232993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.01|0.78|0.070
91669137|NCT05552261|183232999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.5158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.2|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||1.2|-6.7|0.5158
91669138|NCT05552261|183232999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-0.6|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||-0.6|-9.2|0.0670
91669139|NCT05552261|183232999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.6307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.8|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||2.8|-4.4|0.6307
91669140|NCT05552261|183232999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.6|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||-0.6|-5.6|0.0357
91669141|NCT05552261|183233000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.695||||0.2836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|1.743|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||1.743|-0.353|0.2836
91669142|NCT05552261|183233000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.539||||0.5153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.628|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||1.628|-0.550|0.5153
91669143|NCT05552261|183233000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.384||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.295|0.527|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.527|-1.295|0.2530
91669144|NCT05552261|183233000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.561||||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.574|0.451|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.451|-1.574|0.3828
91669145|NCT05552261|183233002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.064|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.064|-0.110|0.7450
91669146|NCT05552261|183233002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.177|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.177|0.071|<0.0001
91669147|NCT05552261|183233002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.021|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.021|-0.134|0.1619
91669148|NCT05552261|183233002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.154|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.154|0.020|0.0100
91669149|NCT04269993|183233007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.04
91669150|NCT01628549|183233009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.53||||0.4344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|5.38|||ANCOVA|||||5.38|-2.32|0.4344
91669151|NCT01628549|183233009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.46||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|8.4|||ANCOVA|||||8.40|0.52|0.0266
91669152|NCT01628549|183233009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.37||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.36|||ANCOVA|||||8.36|0.39|0.0317
91669153|NCT01628549|183233010|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo in success rate|3.4||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|14.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.38|-7.82|0.3300
91669154|NCT01628549|183233010|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo in success rate|13.2||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.60|0.54|0.0159
91669155|NCT01628549|183233010|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo in success rate|4.1||||0.4834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|15.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.87|-7.44|0.4834
91669156|NCT03807440|183233028|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
91860754|NCT05492318|183607700|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the geometric LS means|107.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.35|111.49||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||111.49|103.35|
91860755|NCT05492318|183607700|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|106.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.84|111.8||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||111.80|100.84|
91902269|NCT00312221|183699618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4459|0.8706|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||0.8706|-4.4459|0.187
91902270|NCT00312221|183699619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6177|3.693|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and BTDS 20 during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||3.6930|-5.6177|0.685
91669157|NCT03807440|183233029|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91669158|NCT03807440|183233030|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
91669159|NCT03807440|183233031|OTHER|||||||0.8071|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8071
91669160|NCT03807440|183233031|OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7640
91669161|NCT03807440|183233032|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
91669162|NCT03807440|183233033|OTHER|||||||0.0042|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0042
91669163|NCT03807440|183233034|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
91669164|NCT03807440|183233035|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3990
91669165|NCT03807440|183233035|OTHER|||||||0.3842|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3842
91669166|NCT03807440|183233036|OTHER|||||||0.0605|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0605
91669167|NCT03807440|183233037|OTHER|||||||0.6329|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6329
91669168|NCT03807440|183233037|OTHER|||||||0.7181|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7181
91669169|NCT03807440|183233038|OTHER|||||||0.5233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5233
91669170|NCT03807440|183233040|OTHER|||||||0.3662|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3662
91669171|NCT03807440|183233041|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5110
91669172|NCT03807440|183233042|OTHER|||||||0.0921|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0921
91669173|NCT03807440|183233043|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
91669174|NCT03807440|183233044|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91669175|NCT03807440|183233045|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
91669176|NCT03807440|183233046|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91669177|NCT03807440|183233047|OTHER|||||||0.3201|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3201
91669178|NCT03807440|183233048|OTHER|||||||0.3288|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3288
91669179|NCT03807440|183233048|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1710
91669180|NCT03807440|183233049|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0130
91669181|NCT03807440|183233050|OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0026
91669182|NCT03807440|183233051|OTHER|||||||0.3978|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3978
91669183|NCT03807440|183233052|OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0055
91669184|NCT03807440|183233052|OTHER|||||||0.0041|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0041
91669185|NCT03807440|183233053|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91669186|NCT03807440|183233054|OTHER|||||||0.0399|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0399
91669187|NCT03807440|183233054|OTHER|||||||0.0401|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0401
91669188|NCT03807440|183233072|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91669189|NCT03807440|183233073|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91669190|NCT03807440|183233074|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0008
91669191|NCT03807440|183233076|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91669192|NCT03807440|183233077|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91669193|NCT03807440|183233078|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91669194|NCT03807440|183233079|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91669195|NCT03807440|183233080|OTHER|||||||0.9184|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9184
91669196|NCT03807440|183233080|OTHER|||||||0.9911|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9911
91669197|NCT03807440|183233081|OTHER|||||||0.6967|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6967
91669198|NCT03807440|183233081|OTHER|||||||0.6439|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6439
91669199|NCT03807440|183233082|OTHER|||||||0.9414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9414
91669200|NCT03807440|183233082|OTHER|||||||0.8142|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8142
91669201|NCT03807440|183233083|OTHER|||||||0.7837|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7837
91669202|NCT03807440|183233083|OTHER|||||||0.7538|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7538
91669203|NCT03807440|183233084|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
91669204|NCT03807440|183233085|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91669205|NCT03807440|183233086|OTHER|||||||0.1906|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1906
91669206|NCT03807440|183233087|OTHER|||||||0.6198|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6198
91669207|NCT03807440|183233087|OTHER|||||||0.7297|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7297
91669208|NCT03807440|183233089|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91669209|NCT03807440|183233090|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
91669210|NCT03807440|183233090|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0002
91669211|NCT03807440|183233091|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91669212|NCT03807440|183233094|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0030
91669213|NCT01332968|183233136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||Log Rank|Stratified by chemotherapy regimen and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) risk group.||||0.85|0.51|0.0012
91714727|NCT00905424|183320339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|-0.8||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||-0.8|-5.8|0.0281
91714728|NCT00905424|183320340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-6.0|0.0920
91669214|NCT01332968|183233137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Log Rank|Stratified by chemotherapy regimen and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) risk group.||||0.93|0.64|0.0055
91669215|NCT01332968|183233138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.65|0.0028
91669216|NCT01332968|183233139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.56|0.0118
91669217|NCT01332968|183233140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0038||95.0|0.57|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.57|0.0038
91669218|NCT01332968|183233141|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|1.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|5.68|||Log Rank|||Without PET||5.68|-2.02|0.30
91669219|NCT01332968|183233141|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|4.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.5|||Log Rank|||With PET||10.5|-1.8|0.17
91669220|NCT01332968|183233142|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|1.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.3|||Log Rank|||Without PET||5.3|-2.0|0.33
91669221|NCT01332968|183233142|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.5||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.4|||Log Rank|||With PET||9.4|-2.3|0.17
91669222|NCT01332968|183233143|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|-5.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.78|||Log Rank|||Without PET||-0.78|-10.2|0.02
91669223|NCT01332968|183233143|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|5.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.3|||Log Rank|||With PET||13.3|-2.8|0.32
91669224|NCT01332968|183233144|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|-4.9||||0.02||95.0|-9.3|0.6|||Log Rank|||Without PET||0.6|-9.3|0.02
91669225|NCT01332968|183233144|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|4.1||||0.33||95.0|-3.6|11.8|||Log Rank|||With PET||11.8|-3.6|0.33
91669226|NCT01332968|183233145|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|6.85|||Log Rank|||Without PET||6.85|-0.19|0.052
91669227|NCT01332968|183233145|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|8.9|||Log Rank|||With PET||8.9|-2.3|0.30
91669228|NCT01332968|183233146|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.6|||Log Rank|||Without PET||6.6|-0.3|0.049
91669229|NCT01332968|183233146|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.9||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.5|||Log Rank|||With PET||9.5|-1.7|0.22
91669230|NCT01332968|183233147|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|1.7||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.8|||Log Rank|||Without PET||6.8|-3.5|0.58
91669231|NCT01332968|183233147|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|11.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|19.4|||Log Rank|||||19.4|3.9|0.006
91669232|NCT01332968|183233148|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|0.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.5|||Log Rank|||Without PET||5.5|-4.0|0.80
91669233|NCT01332968|183233148|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|10.1||||0.009||95.0|2.6|17.6|||Log Rank|||With PET||17.6|2.6|0.009
91669234|NCT01332968|183233149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3577||95.0|0.63|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.63|0.3577
91669235|NCT01332968|183233150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.25||95.0|0.58|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.58|0.25
91669236|NCT01332968|183233151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.62|0.0015
91669237|NCT01332968|183233152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0004||95.0|0.56|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.56|0.0004
91792683|NCT01293799|183463096|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.38||Unit of measure: Body mass index (hazard ratio per 5 kg/m2). P \< 0,05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression.||"The association of Diabetic nephropathy as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||1.38|1.04|0.012
91669238|NCT01332968|183233153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.71|
91669239|NCT01332968|183233154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.19||||||||1.19|0.50|
91669240|NCT01332968|183233155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.63|
91669241|NCT01332968|183233156|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||||95.0|0.55|0.88||||||||0.88|0.55|
91669242|NCT01332968|183233157|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.58|0.001
91860756|NCT05492318|183607700|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|121.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.56|126.12||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||126.12|117.56|
91669243|NCT01332968|183233158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.004||95.0|0.54|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.54|0.004
91669244|NCT00721955|183233167|SUPERIORITY|LS mean was used in the primary efficacy analysis|||||<|0.0001||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91669245|NCT00721955|183233167|SUPERIORITY|p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|||||<|0.0001||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91669246|NCT00721955|183233168|SUPERIORITY|LS mean was used in the primary efficacy analysis|||||<|0.0001||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91669247|NCT00721955|183233168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91669248|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.308||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.60
91669249|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.367||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.56
91669250|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear regression||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.44
91669251|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.55||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.15
91669252|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.39|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.947||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.39
91669253|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.004||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.95
91669254|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regulation||||||0.53|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.483||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.53
91669255|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.543||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.19
91902271|NCT00312221|183699619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4415|2.8255|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||2.8255|-6.4415|0.443
91669256|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|F=3.430||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.32
91669257|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|F=32.844||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.11
91669258|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|F=3.559||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.31
91669259|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Linear|F=14362.699||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.005
91669260|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.056||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.84
91669261|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.008||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.94
91669262|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.01||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.29
91669263|NCT03702816|183233170|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.173||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.72
91669264|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.424||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.54
91669265|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.53|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.447||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.53
91669266|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.23|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.773||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.23
91669267|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|F=3.615||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.01
91669268|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.039|||||||Regression, Linear|F=9.204||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.039
91669269|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.209||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.33
91669270|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|F=5.801||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.07
91669271|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|F=10.374||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.03
91669272|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|F=5.024||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.27
91669273|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|F=15.568||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.16
91669274|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.262|||||||Regression, Linear|F=5.238||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.262
91669275|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|F=221.308||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.043
91669276|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.430||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.26
91669277|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.38|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.269||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.38
91669278|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|F=13.164||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.07
91669279|NCT03702816|183233171|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.312||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.37
91669280|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.233||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.64
91669281|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.92|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.011||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.92
91669282|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.790||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.22
91669283|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.720||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.42
91669284|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.305||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.61
91669285|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.005||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.95
91714729|NCT00905424|183320341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-2.2|0.0774
91714730|NCT00905424|183320342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|4.0||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||4.0|-1.6|0.4726
91714731|NCT00905424|183320343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||3.1|-1.4|0.5182
91714732|NCT00905424|183320344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|1.2||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.1|0.4630
91714733|NCT00905424|183320345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.523||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5230
91714734|NCT00905424|183320348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.7||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||4.7|-1.0|0.2876
91714735|NCT00905424|183320348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|4.4||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||4.4|-2.1|0.5590
91714736|NCT00905424|183320348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|5.2||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||5.2|-0.7|0.2079
91714737|NCT00905424|183320349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|0.5||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-8.0|0.1489
91714738|NCT00905424|183320350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-2.8|0.0852
91714739|NCT00379899|183320357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor (≥ 30 to 399, ≥ 400 to 999, and ≥ 1000)||||||0.073
91714740|NCT00379899|183320358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.094||95.0|0.36|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Logit estimates (Cinacalcet:Control)|||1.08|0.36|0.094
91714741|NCT00379899|183320359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.018
91792684|NCT01293799|183463097|OTHER|The association of factors associated with time to first peritonitis was analysed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Subjects were censored for various reasons to leave the study. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with with time to first peritonitis episode.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25||Unit of measure: Diabetic nephropathy as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Diabetic nephropathy as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.25|0.66|0.56
91792685|NCT01293799|183463098|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.42||Unit of measure: Glomerulonephritis as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Glomerulonephritis as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.42|0.78|0.74
91669286|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.435||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.55
91669287|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.787||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.43
91669288|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|F=316.379||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.036
91714742|NCT00379899|183320361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.258
91714743|NCT00379899|183320362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.011
91714744|NCT00379899|183320363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
91669289|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.39|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.032||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.39
91669290|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.031|||||||Regression, Linear|F=425.337||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.031
91669291|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.274|||||||Regression, Linear|F=4.739||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.274
91669292|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.263||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.66
91669293|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|F=12.244||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.07
91669294|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.762||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.48
91669295|NCT03702816|183233172|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|F=7.107||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.12
91669296|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.038||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.85
91714745|NCT00379899|183320364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
91714746|NCT00379899|183320365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.025
91714747|NCT00379899|183320366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.021
91714748|NCT00379899|183320367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
91669297|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.042||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.84
91669298|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.021||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.35
91669299|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.610||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.25
91669300|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.779||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.25
91714749|NCT00379899|183320368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
91714750|NCT01156805|183320386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects linear regression, adjusted for clustering within schools and children to assess the effect of intervention on changes in BMI over time||||||0.05
91714751|NCT01431339|183320390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the ITT population is greater than -10% the NI of dalbavancin to vancomycin/linezolid will be concluded.|Difference in Proportions|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.4|4.6|||||Confidence intervals were adjusted for fever at baseline|||4.6|-7.4|
91902272|NCT05105789|183699633|SUPERIORITY|"One-sample binomial test. Null hypothesis: NPV of BinaxNOW at Home testing is at most 91%.~Alternative hypothesis: NPV of BinaxNOW at Home testing is greater than 91%."|Kappa Co-efficient|100.0||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||one-sample binomial test||binary outcome|Negative Predictive Value||100|95|0.0015
91669301|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.455||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.54
91669302|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.650||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.47
91669303|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.131||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.74
91669304|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.075||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.83
91669305|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.831||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.41
91669306|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.079||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.83
91669307|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.879||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.52
91669308|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.001||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.98
91714752|NCT00520039|183320523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.03|||Chi-squared|df = 1|The denominator of the Odds ratio represents the odds of improvement for the Standard Care Only (SCO) group.|Test of the null hypothesis that there is no improvement in MEE at Visit 3 using tympanogram.||2.03|0.15|0.02
91714753|NCT00520039|183320524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.62|||Chi-squared|df = 1|The odds of Resolution of MEE before OMT is represented in the denominator of the odds ratio|||1.62|-1.00|0.32
91714754|NCT00520039|183320525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.28|||Chi-squared|df = 1||||1.28|-0.78|.31
91714755|NCT02493517|183320537|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is defined as 0.6 SDS for the upper limit of 95% CI of the LS mean difference of the log-transformed IGF-1 SDS without back-transformation.|Treatment difference|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11||||||"The Least Square (LS) Means and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were based on the generalised linear model (GLM) with IGF-1 SDS change from baseline values as dependent variable, with treatment group and previous pituitary surgery as independent factors, and the baseline value of IGF-1 SDS as independent covariate. A log-transformation with base e was applied to the IGF-1 SDS data before analysing.~The treatment difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) is presented."||0.11|-0.74|
91714756|NCT02493517|183320537|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the back-transformed LS Mean ratio of IGF-1 SDS of lanreotide Autogel versus lanreotide PR is exp (0.6) = 1.822.|LS Mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.11||||||"The LS Means and 95% CIs were based on the GLM with IGF-1 SDS change from baseline values as dependent variable, with treatment group and previous pituitary surgery as independent factors, and the baseline value of IGF-1 SDS as independent covariate. A log-transformation with base e was applied to the IGF-1 SDS data before analysing.~The LS Mean ratio (lanreotide Autogel versus lanreotide PR) is presented."||1.11|0.48|
91714757|NCT02493517|183320538|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|17.7||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of normal IGF-1 SDS values at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||17.7|-5.2|
91714758|NCT02493517|183320539|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|14.4||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of GH levels ≤2.5 mcg/L at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||14.4|-17.5|
91714759|NCT02493517|183320540|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|12.0||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of GH levels ≤1 mcg/L at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||12.0|-8.9|
91669309|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.005||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.95
91669310|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.733||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.32
91792686|NCT01293799|183463099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.15||Unit of measure: Tubulointerstitial nephritis as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Tubulointerstitial Nephritis as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||2.15|0.73|0.42
91669311|NCT03702816|183233173|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.249||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.67
91902273|NCT05105789|183699633|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR of 99%||||||0.3308|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Sensitivity H0: Sens-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Sens-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.3308
91669312|NCT03702816|183233174|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.098||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.76
91669313|NCT03702816|183233174|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.513||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.49
91669314|NCT03702816|183233174|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.008||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.93
91714760|NCT02493517|183320541|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.5||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage subjects with normal IGF-1 levels and who have GH levels \>1 mcg/L and ≤2.5 mcg/L at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||12.5|-3.1|
91714761|NCT02493517|183320542|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|11.25||||||Treatment difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) is presented.||11.25|-3.98|
91669315|NCT03702816|183233174|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.430||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.54
91669316|NCT03702816|183233174|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.142||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.77
91669317|NCT03702816|183233174|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.496||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.61
91669318|NCT03702816|183233174|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|F=8.046||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.11
91669319|NCT03702816|183233174|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.051||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.84
91669320|NCT02522780|183233223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.54||The p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by controlling pathway of randomization, at a 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups at Month 6.||2.54|0.96|>0.05
91669321|NCT02522780|183233224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.03||The p-value was based on Generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach with binary outcomes (clinical remission) and an unstructured working correlation matrix, at a 0.05 significance level.|Generalised estimating equation approach|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups over 6 months.||2.03|0.76|>0.05
91669322|NCT02522780|183233225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.44||The p-value was based on log-rank test using pathway of randomization as the stratification factor, at a 0.05 significance level.|Log Rank|||Times to relapse were compared between treatment groups up to 6 months.||1.44|0.25|>0.05
91669323|NCT02522780|183233226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.79||The p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by controlling pathway of randomization, at a 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups at Month 6.||0.79|0.19|<0.05
91669324|NCT02522780|183233227|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-1.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.7||The p-value was based on a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with an unstructured correlation matrix , at a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean treatment difference in CRP levels over 6 months was reported.||0.7|-2.7|>0.05
91669325|NCT02522780|183233228|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-66.92|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.2|6.36||The p-value was based on a repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix, at a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean treatment difference in fecal calprotectin levels over 6 months was reported.||6.36|-140.2|>0.05
91669326|NCT02522780|183233229|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.32|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|3.77||The p-value was based on a repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix, at a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean treatment difference in IBDQ total scores over 6 months was reported.||3.77|-4.41|>0.05
91669327|NCT00926367|183233235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|A two-tailed p≤ 0.05 was taken as the level of significance for all comparisons.||||||>0.05
91669328|NCT00926367|183233237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||A two-tailed p≤ 0.05 was taken as the level of significance for all comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||>0.05
91669329|NCT00860262|183233257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-8.3|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus Telmisartan 80 mg|||-8.3|-12.9|<0.0001
91669330|NCT00860262|183233257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.1|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.1|-6.7|0.0002
91669331|NCT00860262|183233258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-8.2|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-8.2|-13.1|<0.0001
91714762|NCT02493517|183320543|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|13.3||||||Risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of subjects with at least 20% reduction in the solid component of tumour volume compared to Baseline is presented.||13.3|-24.3|
91669332|NCT00860262|183233258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.4|-7.3|0.0001
91669333|NCT00860262|183233259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-7.7|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-7.7|-12.6|<0.0001
91669334|NCT00860262|183233259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.4|-7.2|0.0001
91794381|NCT00245219|183467837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 2, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
91669335|NCT00860262|183233260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-5.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-5.4|-10.2|<0.0001
91669336|NCT00860262|183233260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.3|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.3|-7.0|0.0001
91902274|NCT05105789|183699633|NON_INFERIORITY|a non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR of 99%||||||0.0536|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Specificity H0: Spec-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Spec-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.0536
91902275|NCT05105789|183699634|EQUIVALENCE|Concordance between the PCR test results will be evaluated by calculating the Kappa statistic which will be reported along with corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval. The nonparametric bootstrap technique will be used to construct the confidence interval. A kappa statistic of \>0.95 will be considered as sufficient to define lollipop swab test non-inferior to the gold-standard PCR testing of nasal swabs.|Kappa Co-efficient|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||Kappa statistics for Nasal Swab PCR vs Lollipop Swab PCR||1.00|0.78|
91669337|NCT00860262|183233261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.0|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-4.0|-8.8|<0.0001
91669338|NCT00860262|183233261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.9|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-0.9|-5.7|0.0077
91669339|NCT00420095|183233300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority hypothesis testing where paired t-test for equivalence of means was used to estimate the sample size.~Pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.3%."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.497||95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. Adjusted means were presented.||Mixed model where period, sequence, treatment are fixed effects and patient within sequence are random effects.||0.10|-0.20|0.497
91902276|NCT05105789|183699635|NON_INFERIORITY|a non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR testing of 99%||||||0.201|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Sensitivity H0: Sens-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Sens-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.2010
91669340|NCT00420095|183233301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.497||95.0|-0.1|0.2||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.20|-0.10|0.497
91669341|NCT00420095|183233302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.419||95.0|-0.48|0.2||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.20|-0.48|0.419
91669342|NCT00420095|183233303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.741||95.0|-1.09|0.78||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.78|-1.09|0.741
91669343|NCT00420095|183233304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644||95.0||||P-value for the HbA1c Percentage Criteria (7%)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.644
91669344|NCT00420095|183233304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0||||P-value for the HbA1c Percentage Criteria (6.5%)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.672
91669345|NCT00420095|183233306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.67||95.0|-0.16|0.11||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.11|-0.16|0.670
91669346|NCT00393705|183233307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2519||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.2519
91669347|NCT00393705|183233308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0287||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c \<7%. Additional statistically significant terms from the model below were baseline HbA1c and treatment by lead-in interaction.|Regression, Logistic|Model: Logit(p(response)/1-p(response)) = U + r' X, where u = intercept parameter, X = vector of parameters (treatment, baseline value, lead-in).||||||0.0287
91669348|NCT00393705|183233308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0471||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c ≤6.5%. Additional statistically significant term from the model below was baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|Model: Logit(p(response)/1-p(response)) = U + r' X, where u = intercept parameter, X = vector of parameters (treatment, baseline value, lead-in).||||||0.0471
91669349|NCT00393705|183233310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0077
91669350|NCT00393705|183233311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0002
91669351|NCT00393705|183233312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129||95.0||||P-value for Fasting.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0129
91669352|NCT00393705|183233312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||P-value for 2-Hours After Breakfast.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0027
91669353|NCT00393705|183233312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1947||95.0||||P-value for Pre-Lunch.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.1947
91669354|NCT00393705|183233312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0||||P-value for 2-Hours After Lunch.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0077
91669355|NCT00393705|183233312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1885||95.0||||P-value for Pre-Dinner.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.1885
91714763|NCT03718429|183320548|SUPERIORITY|In line with recommendations for pilot investigations, since there were no preliminary data exploring the pharmacodynamic effects of vascular dose rivaroxaban in addition to antiplatelet therapy, we arbitrarily chose a sample size of 20 patients per treatment cohort.||||||0.275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.275
91714764|NCT03718429|183320549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.488
91714765|NCT03718429|183320550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91714766|NCT05404711|183320553|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
91714767|NCT05404711|183320554|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
91714768|NCT05404711|183320555|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
91714769|NCT05404711|183320556|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
91714770|NCT05404711|183320557|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
91714771|NCT05404711|183320558|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
91714772|NCT05404711|183320559|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
91669356|NCT00393705|183233312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5525||95.0||||P-value for 2-Hours After Dinner.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.5525
91669357|NCT00393705|183233312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4994||95.0||||P-value for 3:00 A.M.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.4994
91669358|NCT00393705|183233314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||P-value for Total Hypoglycemic Episodes/30 Days.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.7230
91669359|NCT00393705|183233314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes/30 Days.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0063
91669360|NCT00393705|183233314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8876||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes/30 Days.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.8876
91669361|NCT00393705|183233315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0009
91669362|NCT00393705|183233316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056||95.0||||P-value for Week 4|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0056
91669363|NCT00393705|183233316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0421||95.0||||P-value for Week 12|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0421
91714773|NCT05404711|183320560|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
91714774|NCT05404711|183320561|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT fasting glucose and HbA1c.||||0.3
91714775|NCT05404711|183320561|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT 2-hour glucose and HbA1c.||||0.005
91714776|NCT05404711|183320561|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between delta (difference between fasting and postprandial) home-OGTT glucose and HbA1c.||||0.01
91714777|NCT05404711|183320561|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.23||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT peak glucose and HbA1c.||||0.2
91714778|NCT05404711|183320561|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.14||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between time of home-OGTT peak glucose and HbA1c.||||0.5
91714779|NCT05404711|183320561|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.29||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM mean glucose (mg/dL) and HbA1c.||||0.1
91714780|NCT05404711|183320561|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.15||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM correlation of variability (CV) and HbA1c.||||0.4
91714781|NCT05404711|183320561|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.06||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM standard deviation and HbA1c.||||0.7
91714782|NCT05404711|183320562|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT fasting glucose and laboratory-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.2
91714783|NCT05404711|183320562|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.19||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT 2-hour glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.3
91714784|NCT05404711|183320562|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between delta (difference between fasting and postprandial) home-OGTT and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.6
91714785|NCT05404711|183320562|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.19||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.3
91714786|NCT05404711|183320562|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.09||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between time of home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.6
91714787|NCT05404711|183320562|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.35||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM mean glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.05
91714788|NCT05404711|183320562|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM coefficient of variability (CV) and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.3
91902277|NCT05105789|183699635|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR testing of 99%||||||0.0705|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Specificity H0: Spec-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Spec-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.0705
91714789|NCT05404711|183320562|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM standard deviation (SD) and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.7
91714790|NCT05404711|183320563|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT fasting glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.6
91714791|NCT05404711|183320563|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.31||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT 2-hour glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.1
91902278|NCT00728481|183699638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between arms for a histologic response||||1.00
91860757|NCT05492318|183607700|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|122.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.08|131.41||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||131.41|115.08|
91669364|NCT00178711|183233343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||=|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary hypothesis was a two-sided test assessing whether the induction of hypothermia modified the percentage of subjects with poor outcomes at 6 months after injury. Percentages in each group were compared using a generalized linear model with a binomial distribution and log link function, logistic regression model with admission age and baseline GCS as covariates.||1.53|0.76|=0.67
91669365|NCT02367872|183233357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|51.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.22|74.08||||||TAK-272F: Least square mean (LS) mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model for natural log-transformed data.||74.08|35.22|
91669366|NCT02367872|183233357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|117.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.32|171.07||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||171.07|81.32|
91902279|NCT00728481|183699643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between arms for a symptomatic response||||0.76
91669367|NCT02367872|183233357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|272.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|188.14|395.76||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||395.76|188.14|
91669368|NCT02367872|183233357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|183.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.36|265.81||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||265.81|126.36|
91714792|NCT05404711|183320563|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between delta (difference between fasting and postprandial) home-OGTT glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.2
91714793|NCT05404711|183320563|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.26||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.2
91714794|NCT05404711|183320563|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.27||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between time of home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.2
91714795|NCT05404711|183320563|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.31||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM mean glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.08
91714796|NCT05404711|183320563|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.15||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM coefficient of variability (CV) and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.4
91860758|NCT05492318|183607700|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|137.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.09|147.43||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-t||147.43|128.09|
91860759|NCT05492318|183607700|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|131.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.47|140.59||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-t||140.59|122.47|
91902280|NCT01505010|183699646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for the baseline 24-h systolic blood pressure|Difference at 6 months in 24-h systolic blood pressure (control minus intervention)|We used mixed models to compare blood pressure changes between randomized groups at 6 months, while adjusting for the baseline blood pressure; statistical significance was a P-value less than 0.05 on two-sided tests.||||0.018
91669369|NCT02367872|183233357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|101.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.95|149.9||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||149.90|68.95|
91714797|NCT05404711|183320563|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM standard deviation (SD) and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.1
91714798|NCT00325819|183320564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.01|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||The study sample size of 1000 children was selected to have 80% power to detect a 30% reduction in risk of the primary outcome of rectal temperature \>=38 following vaccination. In 2009, during the enrollment period of our trial, another paper reported the results of a randomized trial of acetaminophen prophylaxis in infants which found significantly lower immune responses to various vaccines in the acetaminophen group. In light of thse findings we elected to stop enrollment in our trial.||1.01|0.41|0.053
91714799|NCT00325819|183320565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91669370|NCT02367872|183233357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|135.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.23|200.5||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||200.50|92.23|
91860760|NCT05492318|183607700|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|157.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.49|168.76||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam. - AUC0-t||168.76|147.49|
91714800|NCT00325819|183320566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.31||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.84|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||0.84|0.12|0.02
91669371|NCT02367872|183233357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|62.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.17|107.45||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||107.45|36.17|
91714801|NCT00325819|183320567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.28|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||1.28|0.16|0.14
91714802|NCT00325819|183320568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.7|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||0.70|0.25|0.001
91714803|NCT00325819|183320569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.88|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||1.88|0.21|0.40
91714804|NCT00325819|183320570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.94|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||3.94|0.25|1.00
91714805|NCT00325819|183320571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.94||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.34|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||14.34|0.60|0.18
91714806|NCT01548599|183320593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.028||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|3.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.289|0.766|0.002
91714807|NCT01548599|183320594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91714808|NCT01548599|183320595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91714809|NCT01548599|183320596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|5.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.165|0.013|0.378
91714810|NCT01548599|183320597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91669372|NCT02367872|183233357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|93.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.08|160.64||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||160.64|54.08|
91669373|NCT02367872|183233357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|274.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|159.1|472.63||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||472.63|159.10|
91669374|NCT02367872|183233357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|261.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|151.5|450.05||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||450.05|151.50|
91714811|NCT01548599|183320598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.398
91714812|NCT02674503|183320605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Linear fixed effect models adjusted for time in months|Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
91714813|NCT02674503|183320609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear effects model adjusted for time (in months)||||||0.13
91714814|NCT02674503|183320611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed effects models adjusted for time (in months)||||||0.02
91714815|NCT01022203|183320618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Used Intent to Treat Analysis. General linear mixed models (GLMMs) with main effects of treatment (SAT and PFE), time (baseline, end of treatment, and 12 week follow-up), and treatment by time interactions to model the longitudinal trajectories of the outcomes, for veterans and their partners. Time was flexibly modeled. All available observations from each subject were utilized in the GLMM modeling.||||<0.0001
91714816|NCT01022203|183320619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.004|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Used Intent to Treat Analysis. General linear mixed models (GLMMs) with main effects of treatment (SAT and PFE), time (baseline, end of treatment, and 12 week follow-up), and treatment by time interactions to model the longitudinal trajectories of the outcomes for veterans. Time was flexibly modeled. All available observations from each subject were utilized in the GLMM modeling.||||<0.001
91714817|NCT01022203|183320620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models with main effects of treatment, time (baseline, end of treatment, and 12 week follow-up), and treatment by time interactions as described for previous analyses.||||<0.0001
91714818|NCT03163446|183320632|OTHER|Statistics considered descriptive as study designed to provide proof of concept and initial assessment of efficacy; not considered confirmatory.|Risk Difference (RD)|10.4||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.35|27.19|||Fisher Exact|||||27.19|-6.35|0.3137
91902281|NCT01505010|183699647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between control and intervention group at 6 months||||0.86
91669375|NCT02367872|183233357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|112.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.34|182.41||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||182.41|69.34|
91669376|NCT02367872|183233357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|176.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.97|286.67||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||286.67|108.97|
91669377|NCT02367872|183233358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|57.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.76|87.14||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||87.14|37.76|
91669378|NCT02367872|183233358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|77.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.72|117.03||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||117.03|50.72|
91714819|NCT03163446|183320642|OTHER|P-value was ad hoc. Statistics considered descriptive as study designed to provide proof of concept and initial assessment of efficacy; not considered confirmatory.|Risk Difference (RD)|42.8||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.3|71.4|||Fisher Exact|||||71.4|14.3|0.0101
91714820|NCT03163446|183320643|OTHER|P value was ad hoc. Descriptive statistics were performed.||||||0.0646|||||||Fisher Exact||||Descriptive statistics were performed.|||0.0646
91714821|NCT03163446|183320645|OTHER|P-value was ad hoc. Statistics considered descriptive as study designed to provide proof of concept and initial assessment of efficacy; not considered confirmatory.|Risk Difference (RD)|-21.3||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.1|2.5|||Fisher Exact|||||2.5|-45.1|0.0556
91714822|NCT00754741|183320695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.763
91714823|NCT00754741|183320695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.285
91714824|NCT00754741|183320696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.380
91714825|NCT00754741|183320696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.084
91714826|NCT00754741|183320697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.667
91714827|NCT00754741|183320697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.530
91714828|NCT00754741|183320698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.881
91714829|NCT00754741|183320698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.849
91714830|NCT00754741|183320699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.134
91902282|NCT01505010|183699648|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcocon rank sum test||||0.032
91714831|NCT00754741|183320699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.714
91714832|NCT00754741|183320700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.291
91714833|NCT00754741|183320700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.968
91714834|NCT00754741|183320701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.671
91714835|NCT00754741|183320701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.399
91714836|NCT00754741|183320702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.829
91714837|NCT00754741|183320702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.283
91714838|NCT00754741|183320703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.971
91714839|NCT00754741|183320703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.115
91669379|NCT02367872|183233358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|206.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.88|313.54||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||313.54|135.88|
91669380|NCT02367872|183233358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|143.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.21|217.39||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||217.39|94.21|
91669381|NCT02367872|183233358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|85.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.03|142.61||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||142.61|51.03|
91669382|NCT02367872|183233358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|131.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.74|220.04||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||220.04|78.74|
91669383|NCT02367872|183233358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|70.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.42|122.53||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||122.53|40.42|
91669384|NCT02367872|183233358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|55.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.61|95.81||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||95.81|31.61|
91669385|NCT02367872|183233358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|125.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.35|219.3||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||219.30|72.35|
91714840|NCT00754741|183320704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.573
91714841|NCT00754741|183320704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.443
91714842|NCT00754741|183320705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.469|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.469
91714843|NCT00754741|183320705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.369
91860761|NCT05492318|183607700|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|158.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.23|172.54||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam: - AUC0-t||172.54|145.23|
91669386|NCT02367872|183233358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|103.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.7|180.95||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||180.95|59.70|
91669387|NCT02367872|183233358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|91.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.45|171.06||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||171.06|49.45|
91669388|NCT02367872|183233358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|139.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.91|259.15||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||259.15|74.91|
91669389|NCT02367872|183233359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|51.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.45|74.49||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||74.49|35.45|
91669390|NCT02367872|183233359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|118.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|171.68||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||171.68|81.70|
91792687|NCT01293799|183463100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.97||Unit of measure: Polycystic kidney disease as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Cox regression||"The association of Diabetic nephropathy as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||0.97|0.33|0.038
91669391|NCT02367872|183233359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|272.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|188.21|395.5||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||395.50|188.21|
91714844|NCT00754741|183320706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.779
91714845|NCT00754741|183320706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.733
91714846|NCT00754741|183320707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.952
91714847|NCT00754741|183320707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.856
91714848|NCT00754741|183320708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.419
91860762|NCT05492318|183607701|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.43|83.64||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics - AUC0-t||83.64|58.43|
91902283|NCT01505010|183699648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91714849|NCT00754741|183320708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.998
91714850|NCT04152200|183320709|OTHER|Not applied|Least Squares (LS) Mean|-33.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.82|15.16|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to test against the null hypothesis of mean change from baseline outcome being equal to 0. The model includes scheduled visits and baseline plasma oxalate (μmol/L) as fixed effects and patient as a random factor. Autoregressive (1) was used to model the within-patient variability.||15.16|-81.82|
91714851|NCT04152200|183320710|OTHER|Not applied|Least Squares (LS) Mean|-42.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.71|-34.15|||MMRM|||REML based Mixed Model Repeated Measures MMRM was used to test against the null hypothesis of mean change from baseline outcome being equal to 0. The model includes scheduled visits and baseline plasma oxalate (μmol/L) as fixed effects and patient as a random factor. Autoregressive (1) was used to model the within-patient variability.||-34.15|-50.71|
91714852|NCT02699996|183320757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||RTQ-Survivor Adolescent Responsibility Score||0.86|0.17|<.01
91714853|NCT02699996|183320757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||RTQ-Overall Readiness Score||1.07|0.27|<.01
91714854|NCT02699996|183320758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI-total Score||0.42|0.05|0.02
91714855|NCT02699996|183320758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Knowledge score||0.73|0.26|<.01
91714856|NCT02699996|183320758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0044|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Skills/Self-Efficacy Score||0.60|-0.0044|0.053
91714857|NCT02699996|183320758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Beliefs/Expectations score||0.24|0.02|0.03
91792688|NCT01293799|183463101|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|13.68||Unit of measure: Ischemic kidney disease as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Ischemic kidney disease as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||13.68|0.27|0.52
91669392|NCT02367872|183233359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|184.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.02|266.91||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||266.91|127.02|
91669393|NCT02367872|183233359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|101.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.04|149.64||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||149.64|69.04|
91669394|NCT02367872|183233359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|136.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.78|201.09||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||201.09|92.78|
91669395|NCT02367872|183233359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|59.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.99|102.99||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||102.99|33.99|
91669396|NCT02367872|183233359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.75|168.9||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||168.90|55.75|
91669397|NCT02367872|183233359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|260.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|149.39|452.6||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||452.60|149.39|
91669398|NCT02367872|183233359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|319.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|183.31|555.34||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||555.34|183.31|
91669399|NCT02367872|183233359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|130.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.66|207.18||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||207.18|81.66|
91669400|NCT02367872|183233359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|192.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.94|306.83||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||306.83|120.94|
91669401|NCT02367872|183233360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|60.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.05|90.56||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||90.56|40.05|
91860763|NCT05492318|183607701|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|71.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.67|86.98||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-t||86.98|58.67|
91669402|NCT02367872|183233360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|97.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.77|146.46||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||146.46|64.77|
91669403|NCT02367872|183233360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|111.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.21|167.82||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||167.82|74.21|
91669404|NCT02367872|183233360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|138.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.29|208.7||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||208.70|92.29|
91669405|NCT02367872|183233360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|135.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.91|207.87||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||207.87|87.91|
91669406|NCT02367872|183233360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|323.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|210.54|497.85||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||497.85|210.54|
91669407|NCT02367872|183233361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|67.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.17|108.39||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||108.39|42.17|
91669408|NCT02367872|183233361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.73|102.12||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||102.12|39.73|
91669409|NCT02367872|183233361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|84.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.67|135.38||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||135.38|52.67|
91669410|NCT02367872|183233361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|108.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.7|174.01||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||174.01|67.70|
91714858|NCT02699996|183320758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Goals/Motivation score||0.69|0.11|<.01
91669411|NCT02367872|183233361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|113.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.62|184.24||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||184.24|69.62|
91669412|NCT02367872|183233361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|312.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|192.34|509.0||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||509.00|192.34|
91669413|NCT02367872|183233362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|60.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.35|91.27||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||91.27|40.35|
91669414|NCT02367872|183233362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.17|147.41||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||147.41|65.17|
91669415|NCT02367872|183233362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|111.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.25|167.96||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||167.96|74.25|
91669416|NCT02367872|183233362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|139.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.88|210.11||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||210.11|92.88|
91714859|NCT02699996|183320758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||Relationship/Communication Score||0.26|-0.16|0.61
91714860|NCT02699996|183320758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Psychosocial/Emotional Score||0.57|-0.37|0.65
91714861|NCT02699996|183320759|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|4.34|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||||4.34|-7.62|.56
91714862|NCT02699996|183320760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|2.75|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||2.75|-6.23|.42
91714863|NCT02699996|183320761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||0.23|-0.80|.26
91792689|NCT01293799|183463102|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.71||Unit of measure: Nephrosclerosis/Hypertension as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Nephrosclerosis/Hypertension as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.71|0.93|0.13
91902284|NCT01807923|183699671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|5.44|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (less than (\<)18 versus greater than equal to (\>=18) years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||5.44|2.62|<0.0001
91669417|NCT02367872|183233362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|135.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.75|207.92||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||207.92|87.75|
91669418|NCT02367872|183233362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|325.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|211.32|500.7||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||500.70|211.32|
91669419|NCT05718648|183233374|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|129.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.62|182.31|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 37.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||182.31|91.62|
91714864|NCT02699996|183320762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||0.52|0.03|.03
91714865|NCT02699996|183320763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Body Health Subscale||0.52|-0.12|.20
91714866|NCT02699996|183320763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Personal Growth Subscale||0.20|-0.46|.40
91714867|NCT02699996|183320763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Memory Subscale||0.29|-0.09|.29
91714868|NCT02699996|183320764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||0.03|-0.40|.08
91714869|NCT00871624|183320777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A difference in the mean four-point NIV intolerance score of 1 over the course of the study or between groups was considered through investigator consensus to be clinically meaningful. Assuming that the SD of NIV intolerance scores was 1 and that an alpha of 0.05 would be used for testing, it was determined that 18 subjects were needed in each group to achieve an 80% power.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.7|||Chi-squared|||||4.7|0.44|0.54
91714870|NCT00871624|183320778|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
91714871|NCT01294423|183320805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0853|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||significant at alpha=0.027 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and gender as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.18|-0.52|<0.0001
91860764|NCT05492318|183607701|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|69.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.82|83.15||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-t||83.15|58.82|
91860765|NCT05492318|183607701|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric Lsmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|72.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.92|87.25||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Induction Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-t||87.25|59.92|
91714872|NCT01294423|183320805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0851|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.23||significant at alpha=0.027 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and gender as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.23|-0.56|<0.0001
91669420|NCT05718648|183233374|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|137.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.06|212.12|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 52.4|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||212.12|89.06|
91669421|NCT05718648|183233375|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|131.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|186.22|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 37.7|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||186.22|93.32|
91714873|NCT01294423|183320806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.902|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-8.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-8.7|-20.1|<0.0001
91714874|NCT01294423|183320806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.892|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-13.8||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-13.8|-25.2|<0.0001
91714875|NCT01294423|183320807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3533||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.59||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.59|-1.98|0.0003
91860766|NCT05492318|183607702|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|107.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.35|111.49||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV: AUC0-inf||111.49|103.35|
91669422|NCT05718648|183233375|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|127.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.92|188.99|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 43.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||188.99|85.92|
91902285|NCT01807923|183699671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.01|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.01|1.18|0.0003
91669423|NCT05718648|183233376|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|86.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.88|114.15|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 30.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||114.15|64.88|
91669424|NCT05718648|183233376|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.8|164.16|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 66.2|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||164.16|56.80|
91669425|NCT05718648|183233377|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|83.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.91|113.51|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 33.8|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||113.51|60.91|
91669426|NCT05718648|183233377|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|90.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.4|156.26|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 68.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||156.26|52.40|
91714876|NCT01294423|183320807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.69||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.69|-2.08|0.0001
91714877|NCT02026141|183320814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91714878|NCT01248455|183320825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No patients obtained a 50% reduction in M-protein concentration and the study did not continue to the second stage of enrollment due to the lack of efficacy as defined by out criteria. This statistical analysis includes all participants (i.e., stable disease (SD), minimal response (MR), biochemical progression (BP), and progressive disease (PD)).||||0.56
91714879|NCT00917124|183320844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||"Hypothesis: intraoperative monitoring of cerebral oxigenation with INVOS system will improve cognitive outcome of patients undergoing CABG procedure.~Sample size was determined assuming 50% incidence of cognitive impairment after cardiac surgery and possibility of decreasing that incidence to 30% using cerebral oximetry. Based on 0.8 power to detect a significant difference (p=0.05), 90 patients were required for each study group."||||0.002
91714880|NCT02937623|183320926|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.591|-0.297|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: change from baseline in Schiff sensitivity score as response and treatment as factors and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariate|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-0.297|-0.591|<.0001
91714881|NCT03675360|183320930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.14|||linear mixed effects model|||||-0.14|-0.32|<0.05
91669427|NCT05718648|183233378|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|128.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.42|189.02|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.8|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||189.02|87.42|
91714882|NCT03675360|183320931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-4.9|||linear mixed effects model|||||-4.9|-15.6|<0.05
91714883|NCT03675360|183320932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.9|||linear mixed effects model|||||0.9|-7.3|<0.05
91714884|NCT03675360|183320933|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.05|||linear mixed effects model|||||0.05|-0.31|<0.05
91714885|NCT03675360|183320934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-4.4|||linear mixed effects model|||||-4.4|-7.4|<0.05
91714886|NCT03675360|183320935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-2.0|||linear mixed effects model|||||-2.0|-10.5|<0.05
91714887|NCT03675360|183320936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.1|||linear mixed effects model|||||-1.1|-3.7|<0.05
91902286|NCT01807923|183699672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|9.19|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||9.19|4.27|<0.0001
91860767|NCT05492318|183607702|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|112.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.21|118.46||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-inf||118.46|106.21|
91714888|NCT03675360|183320937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.0|||linear mixed effects model|||||0|-5.2|<0.05
91669428|NCT05718648|183233378|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|136.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.41|209.69|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 52.1|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||209.69|88.41|
91669429|NCT05718648|183233379|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|125.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.27|183.4|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.6|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||183.40|85.27|
91669430|NCT05718648|183233379|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.3|187.92|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 43.6|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||187.92|85.30|
91669431|NCT05707403|183233434|OTHER||Ratio (T/R) [%]|73.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.32|79.48|||||Ratio \[%\] is calculated as Test / Reference Intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variation (gCV) = 8.8 %.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model and then then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the 'formulation' effect was considered as fixed.||79.48|67.32|
91669432|NCT05707403|183233435|OTHER||Ratio (T/R) [%]|33.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.4|38.36|||||Ratio \[%\] is calculated as Test / Reference Intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variation (gCV) = 14.1 %|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model and then then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the 'formulation' effect was considered as fixed.||38.36|29.40|
91714889|NCT03675360|183320938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.6|||linear mixed effects model|||||-2.6|-6.7|<0.05
91714890|NCT03675360|183320939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3|||linear mixed effects model|||||0.3|-1.8|<0.05
91714891|NCT02533934|183320942|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||APRI change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
91714892|NCT02533934|183320942|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||APRI change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
91714893|NCT02533934|183320942|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||FIB4 change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
91902287|NCT01807923|183699672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.33||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|6.8|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||6.80|1.86|0.0006
91714894|NCT02533934|183320942|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||FIB4 change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
91714895|NCT02533934|183320944|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Signed Rank Test)|||||||<0.001
91714896|NCT01569126|183320953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.026||||||95.0|||||||The correlation of time-matched change from baseline QTcF interval (dependent variable) to the time-matched plasma concentration of total fluoxetine and norfluoxetine (covariate) and participant (random effect).|||||
91714897|NCT01585246|183320956|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD)|960.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM) was used The TITE-CRM incorporated a decision rule for the allocation of next participant to a dose of SP based on the current estimate of toxicity. The first men were allocated to lowest dose (320 mg); when no adverse event was reported during 12 weeks, the dose was increased to 640 mg for next men, and then to 960 mg in the absence of advert event.||||
91860768|NCT05492318|183607702|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|124.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.44|128.76||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-inf||128.76|119.44|
91714898|NCT00196105|183321073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.057
91714899|NCT00196105|183321074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.04
91669433|NCT00979212|183233575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96||||||One-sided test at significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis (H0) was that the experimental treatment was not effective vs the alternative hypothesis (HA) that it was. H0: OR ≤ 1 vs. HA: OR \> 1, where odds ratio (OR)= \[p2\*(1- p1)\]/ \[p1\*(1- p2)\], p1 denotes the mediastinal clearance rate (MCR) on Induction chemoradiation; p2 denotes the MCR on Induction chemoradiation + panitumumab. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the MCRs; the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method. 97 patients were required.||||0.96
91669434|NCT00337428|183233594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91669435|NCT00337428|183233595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91714900|NCT00196105|183321074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Death is censored for Kaplan-Meier analysis.|Log Rank|||||||.007
91714901|NCT00196105|183321074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.69
91714902|NCT00196105|183321074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||6 mm Zilver vs. 10 mm Zilver and 10 mm Wallstent combined||||.02
91714903|NCT00196105|183321075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.16
91714904|NCT00196105|183321077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.32
91714905|NCT00196105|183321077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.69
91714906|NCT02227784|183321079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-23.3|||ANCOVA|||||-23.3|-44.4|<0.001
91714907|NCT02227784|183321079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||||-18.5|-36.6|<0.001
91860769|NCT05492318|183607702|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|134.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.15|142.96||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV. AUC0-inf||142.96|126.15|
91714908|NCT02227784|183321079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.14||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-12.2|0.045
91714909|NCT02227784|183321080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|125.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.1|133.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||133.6|117.1|<0.001
91714910|NCT02227784|183321080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|131.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.5|139.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||139.5|123.5|<0.001
91714911|NCT02227784|183321080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|127.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.1|135.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||135.0|120.1|<0.001
91714912|NCT02227784|183321081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|46.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.79|51.98|||ANCOVA|||||51.98|40.79|<0.001
91714913|NCT02227784|183321081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|52.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.12|57.33|||ANCOVA|||||57.33|47.12|<0.001
91714914|NCT02227784|183321081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|48.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.82|52.86|||ANCOVA|||||52.86|43.82|<0.001
91714915|NCT02227784|183321082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-26.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.0|-33.4|<0.001
91714916|NCT02227784|183321082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-22.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.9|-28.4|<0.001
91714917|NCT02227784|183321082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.68|-11.5|<0.001
91714918|NCT02227784|183321083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-16.5|||ANCOVA|||||-16.5|-30.00|<0.001
91669436|NCT00337428|183233596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91669437|NCT00337428|183233597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91714919|NCT02227784|183321083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-10.6|||ANCOVA|||||-10.6|-22.3|<0.001
91714920|NCT02227784|183321083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.11||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-8.47|0.062
91714921|NCT02227784|183321084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|38.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.17|45.88|||ANCOVA|||||45.88|30.17|<0.001
91714922|NCT02227784|183321084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|42.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.29|49.76|||ANCOVA|||||49.76|34.29|<0.001
91714923|NCT02227784|183321084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|39.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|46.08|||ANCOVA|||||46.08|33.20|<0.001
91714924|NCT02227784|183321085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-22.3|||ANCOVA|||||-22.3|-44.9|<0.001
91714925|NCT02227784|183321085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-32.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-21.8|||ANCOVA|||||-21.8|-44.0|<0.001
91714926|NCT02227784|183321085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-42.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|-33.4|||ANCOVA|||||-33.4|-50.9|<0.001
91714927|NCT01705977|183321113|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.51|||||95% Confidence Interval was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.51|-0.31|
91860770|NCT05492318|183607702|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|138.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.05|149.18||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-inf||149.18|129.05|
91669438|NCT00337428|183233598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91669439|NCT00337428|183233599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91669440|NCT00337428|183233600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91669441|NCT00337428|183233601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91669442|NCT00337428|183233602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91669443|NCT00337428|183233603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91669444|NCT00337428|183233604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91669445|NCT00337428|183233605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91669446|NCT00337428|183233606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91669447|NCT00337428|183233607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91860771|NCT05492318|183607702|OTHER||GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geom|134.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.19|144.97||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam: AUC0-inf||144.97|124.19|
91669448|NCT00337428|183233608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91669449|NCT00337428|183233609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91669450|NCT00337428|183233610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91669451|NCT02618382|183233612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The P values for differences among time point means were determined by ANOVA for continuous variables|ANOVA|||Nonparametric tests were used for statistical comparison, including the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test for multiple groups and the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 groups. P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data tabulation and analysis were performed using R statistical software version 3.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).||||<0.05
91669452|NCT02618382|183233613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Paired comparison of hematoma thickness at defined time point means determined by ANOVA for continuous variables.|ANOVA|||Nonparametric tests were used for statistical comparison, including the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test for multiple groups and the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 groups. P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data tabulation and analysis were performed using R statistical software version 3.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).||||<0.05
91669453|NCT02618382|183233614|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The P values for differences among time point means were determined by ANOVA for continuous variables and by chi-squared test for categorical values in grouped mRS scores.|ANOVA|||Nonparametric tests were used for statistical comparison, including the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test for multiple groups and the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 groups. P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data tabulation and analysis were performed using R statistical software version 3.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).||||<0.05
91669454|NCT03223909|183233615|NON_INFERIORITY|"it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%~Statistical analysis of groups in the baseline visit versus final visit"||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.080
91669455|NCT03223909|183233615|NON_INFERIORITY|"it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%~Statistical analysis between groups in the final visit"||||||0.848|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.848
91669456|NCT03223909|183233616|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.468|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.468
91669457|NCT03223909|183233617|NON_INFERIORITY|population analysis was per protocol||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91669458|NCT03223909|183233617|NON_INFERIORITY|population analysis was per protocol||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.650
91860772|NCT05492318|183607702|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|162.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.13|175.28||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam: AUC0-inf||175.28|151.13|
91669459|NCT03223909|183233618|NON_INFERIORITY|"It was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%~Statistical analysis of Humylub® Ofteno (PRO-087) versus Systane® Ultra PF at the final visit."||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91669460|NCT03223909|183233618|NON_INFERIORITY|It was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20% Statistical analysis of Humylub® Ofteno (PRO-087) versus Systane® Ultra PF at the final visit.||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91669461|NCT03223909|183233619|NON_INFERIORITY|"the statistical analysis was carried out by intention to treat~It was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%"||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.930
91669462|NCT03223909|183233620|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.548|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.548
91669463|NCT03223909|183233621|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.170
91669464|NCT03223909|183233622|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.085|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.085
91669465|NCT00974350|183233645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.44|||ANOVA|LS Mean difference from SABER-Placebo||Pain Intensity on Movement AUCs1-72 hours Including Pain Assessed Upon Taking Opioid Rescue - ITT||-0.44|-1.84|0.0031
91669466|NCT00974350|183233646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study sites||Proportion of Patients Not Taking Any Supplemental Opioid Analgesic Medication||||0.0909
91669467|NCT01344018|183233651|SUPERIORITY|"Time assessment biases were taken into account for the primary endpoint:~* Surgery alone arm: abdominal recurrence occurring prior to week 14 assessment was counted as occurring at week 14; progression occurring after the week 14 was counted as occurring at week 24.~* Preoperative RT arm: abdominal recurrence occurring was counted as occurring at week 14; and any abdominal recurrence occurring after and prior to or during the week 24 will be counted as occurring at week 24."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.44||A 5% significance level was considered as a threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|The time assessment biases correction described before was not applied to patients for whom death was the first event.|The arm having surgery alone was the reference arm.|Sample size was determined to provide 90% power for detecting a Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.52 (which corresponds to a 20% difference in ARFS rate at 5 years, from 50% in the surgery arm to 70% in the experimental arm) at a global 2-sided 5% significance level assuming ARFS followed an exponential distribution in both arms. This test required 102 events at the time of the statistical analysis.||1.44|0.71|0.955
91669468|NCT01344018|183233656|SUPERIORITY|ARFI was described using cumulative incidence curves. ARFI was compared between the two treatment arms using a Fine and Gray model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.6||A 5% significance level was considered as a threshold for statistical significance.|Fine and Gray model|||||1.60|0.74|0.658
91669469|NCT01344018|183233657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.36||A 5% significance level was considered as a threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|||||1.36|0.58|0.595
91669470|NCT01344018|183233658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.65|0.615
91669471|NCT04010227|183233670|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.4||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. multiply imputed data were used in analyses.||||0.40|-0.23|0.60
91669472|NCT04010227|183233671|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.34||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.34|-0.29|0.96
91669473|NCT04010227|183233672|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.38|-0.25|0.75
91669474|NCT04010227|183233673|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.09||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.4||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 144. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.40|-0.23|0.33
91669475|NCT04010227|183233674|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.34||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 144. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.34|-0.29|0.91
91669476|NCT04010227|183233675|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient physical quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.38|-0.25|0.74
91669477|NCT04010227|183233675|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.14||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.45||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient psychological quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.45|-0.18|0.24
91669478|NCT04010227|183233675|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.37||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient existential quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.37|-0.26|0.78
91669479|NCT04010227|183233675|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.13||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.44||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient social quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.44|-0.19|0.29
91669480|NCT04010227|183233676|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35||P-value for study group x time interaction for caregiver physical quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.35|-0.28|0.92
91669481|NCT04010227|183233676|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.37||P-value for study group x time interaction for caregiver psychological quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.37|-0.26|0.79
91669482|NCT04010227|183233677|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.34||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 144. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.34|-0.30|0.94
91669483|NCT00702507|183233693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|36.7|||||Percentage of participants with overall cure at the test-of-cure visit (Day 14) of the initial episode for participants in the MITT Population|||36.7|22.4|
91669484|NCT00781079|183233732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Models included site, age, race, ethnicity.|Regression, Linear|||comparisons between the PS and Usual Care groups were completed with a regression testing the interaction of group (PS vs Usual Care) and time (baseline vs follow-up) for the outcome measure. The measure was analyzed with mixed effect hierarchical regressions which accounted for the nesting of site under treatment, subjects within sites, and subjects over time.||||.5
91669485|NCT00781079|183233733|SUPERIORITY||Z tests if Reg coeff are diff from 0|-0.58||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
91669486|NCT00781079|183233734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Models included site, age, race, ethnicity. This is the calculated p value.|Regression, Linear|||comparisons between the PS and Usual Care groups were completed with a regression testing the interaction of group (PS vs Usual Care) and time (baseline vs follow-up) for the outcome measure. The measure was analyzed with mixed effect hierarchical regressions which accounted for the nesting of site under treatment, subjects within sites, and subjects over time.||||.05
91669487|NCT00781079|183233735|SUPERIORITY||Z test if reg coeff is diff from 0|0.56||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.58
91669488|NCT00781079|183233736|SUPERIORITY||Z test if reg coeff is diff than 0|-0.16||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.87
91669489|NCT00781079|183233737|SUPERIORITY||Z test if ref coeff is diff than 0|0.03||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.98
91714928|NCT01705977|183321114|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.85|||||95% CI for serious infections was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.85|-1.55|
91669490|NCT04254809|183233738|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.25||Threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|Regression, Linear||REST coded as 0, HSL coded as 1; negative slope reflects greater standardized reductions in outcome among REST compared to HSL|Intention to treat analyses carried last observation forward for all participants enrolled at baseline. Standardized residual change score calculated by regressing scores at one-week follow-up onto scores at baseline.||-0.25|-1.02|.001
91669491|NCT04254809|183233739|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.23||Threshold for significance was p = .05|Regression, Linear||REST coded as 0, HSL coded as 1; negative slope reflects greater standardized reductions in outcome among REST compared to HSL|Intention to treat analyses carried last observation forward for all participants enrolled at baseline. Standardized residual change score calculated by regression scores at one-month follow-up onto scores at baseline.||-0.23|-0.99|.002
91669492|NCT04254809|183233740|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.05||Threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|Regression, Linear||REST coded as -, HSL coded as 1; negative slope reflects greater standardized reductions in outcome among REST compared to HSL.|Intention to treat analyses carried last observation forward for all participants enrolled at baseline. Standardized residual change score calculated by regression scores at one-week follow-up onto scores at baseline.||-.05|-0.86|.03
91669493|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.35||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-0.38|
91902288|NCT01807923|183699673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI.||0.35|-0.04|0.1122
91669494|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.13||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.60|
91669495|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.15||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.70|
91669496|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.07||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.93|
91669497|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.33|-0.69|
91669498|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.06||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-1.09|
91669499|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.27||||||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.27|-0.94|
91669500|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.0||||||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-1.21|
91669501|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.03||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-1.24|
91669502|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.38||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.38|-0.84|
91669503|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.01||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-1.53|
91669504|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.47||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.47|-1.07|
91669505|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.08||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.65|
91669506|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.55||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-1.06|
91714929|NCT01705977|183321114|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||||95% CI for opportunistic infections and other infections of interest (serious and non-serious) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.20|-1.60|
91860773|NCT05492318|183607702|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|161.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.8|175.82||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-inf||175.82|147.80|
91902289|NCT01807923|183699673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.32|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.32|-0.07|0.1938
91669507|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.15||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.72|
91669508|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.54||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.54|-1.05|
91669509|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.15||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.80|
91669510|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.61||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.61|-1.04|
91669511|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.05||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-1.65|
91669512|NCT02725411|183233786|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.71||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.71|-0.88|
91669513|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.04||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-1.77|
91669514|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.14||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.96|
91902290|NCT01807923|183699674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.88||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.05||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline CFQ-R respiratory domain score.||7.05|0.70|0.0168
91669515|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.43||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.43|-1.48|
91669516|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.51||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.51|-1.43|
91669517|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.91||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.91|-1.04|
91669518|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.44||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.44|-1.53|
91669519|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.05||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.05|-1.06|
91669520|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.53||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.53|-1.60|
91669521|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.88||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.88|-1.71|
91669522|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.14||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.14|-1.47|
91669523|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.71||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.71|-1.90|
91669524|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.25||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.25|-1.44|
91669525|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.28||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-2.43|
91669526|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.32||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.32|-1.41|
91669527|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.57||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.57|-2.17|
91669528|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.64||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.64|-1.16|
91714930|NCT01705977|183321114|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.31|||||95% CI for malignancies (excluding NMSC) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.31|-0.31|
91714931|NCT01705977|183321114|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.31|||||95% CI for NMSC was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.31|-0.21|
91714932|NCT01705977|183321114|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.58|||||95% CI for psychiatric events suggesting serious mood disorders and anxiety (serious depression) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.58|0.02|
91714933|NCT01705977|183321114|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.96|||||95% CI for suicidality (C-SSRS) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.96|-0.44|
91669529|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.35||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-2.37|
91669530|NCT02725411|183233788|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.42||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.42|-1.35|
91669531|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|26.3||||||Week 16: \>=30%||26.3|-0.8|
91669532|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|12.4||||||Week 16: \>=30%||12.4|-15.8|
91669533|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|32.0||||||Week 16: \>=50%||32.0|4.2|
91669534|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|16.3||||||Week 16: \>=50%||16.3|-10.7|
91669535|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|20.7||||||Week 16: \>=70%||20.7|0.6|
91669536|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|18.1||||||Week 16: \>=70%||18.1|-1.4|
91669537|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.5||||||Week 16: \>=90%||6.5|-4.3|
91714934|NCT01705977|183321114|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.61|||||95% CI for SIHR was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.61|-0.01|
91714935|NCT01705977|183321116|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.13|||||95% CI was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.13|-1.03|
91714936|NCT01705977|183321117|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.51|||||95% CI for serious infections was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.51|-2.02|
91714937|NCT01705977|183321117|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.04|||||95% CI for opportunistic infections and other infections of interest (serious and non-serious) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||-0.04|-1.96|
91714938|NCT01705977|183321117|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||||95% CI for malignancies (excluding NMSC) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.24|-0.44|
91714939|NCT01705977|183321117|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.31|||||95% CI for NMSC was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.31|-0.21|
91714940|NCT01705977|183321117|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.58|||||95% CI for psychiatric events suggesting serious mood disorders and anxiety (serious depression) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.58|0.02|
91669538|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.8||||||Week 16: \>=90%||7.8|-3.7|
91669539|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|25.7||||||Week 24: \>=30%||25.7|-2.3|
91669540|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|12.6||||||Week 24: \>=30%||12.6|-15.9|
91669541|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|25.8||||||Week 24: \>=50%||25.8|-2.4|
91669542|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|18.9||||||Week 24: \>=50%||18.9|-9.1|
91669543|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|24.8||||||Week 24: \>=70%||24.8|2.9|
91669544|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|21.0||||||Week 24: \>=70%||21.0|-0.2|
91669545|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.4||||||Week 24: \>=90%||11.4|-0.7|
91669546|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.5||||||Week 24: \>=90%||8.5|-2.2|
91669547|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|30.9||||||Week 40: \>=30%||30.9|3.1|
91669548|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|13.7||||||Week 40: \>=30%||13.7|-14.8|
91669549|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|31.0||||||Week 40: \>=50%||31.0|3.0|
91860774|NCT05492318|183607703|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|69.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.83|83.2||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-inf||83.20|58.83|
91792690|NCT01293799|183463103|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.45||"Unit of measure: Other Diagnosis as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Other Diagnosis as primary cause of kidney failure (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.45|0.58|0.71
91860775|NCT05492318|183607703|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|71.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.08|86.88||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-inf||86.88|59.08|
91714941|NCT01705977|183321117|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.05|||||95% CI for suicidality (C-SSRS) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||1.05|-0.42|
91714942|NCT01705977|183321117|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.61|||||95% CI for SIHR was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.61|-0.01|
91714943|NCT01705977|183321119|OTHER||Odds ratio versus placebo|1.3||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.65|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI and P-value was calculated from a logistic regression model for the comparison between belimumab and placebo including treatment group, Baseline prednisone dose, screening SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 versus \>=10) and region|||1.65|1.03|0.0284
91714944|NCT00248651|183321127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment effect from logistic regression model incorporating balancing factors. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.05
91792691|NCT01293799|183463104|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.91||Unit of measure: Unknown cause as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Unknown Primary Cause of Kidney Failure as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.91|0.57|0.89
91669550|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|18.7||||||Week 40: \>=50%||18.7|-9.0|
91669551|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|29.4||||||Week 40: \>=70%||29.4|4.6|
91669552|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|18.9||||||Week 40: \>=70%||18.9|-4.5|
91669553|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.5||||||Week 40: \>=90%||13.5|1.4|
91669554|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|10.6||||||Week 40: \>=90%||10.6|-0.1|
91669555|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|25.8||||||Week 56: \>=30%||25.8|-2.4|
91669556|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|10.5||||||Week 56: \>=30%||10.5|-17.9|
91669557|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|25.9||||||Week 56: \>=50%||25.9|-2.5|
91669558|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|11.4||||||Week 56: \>=50%||11.4|-16.5|
91669559|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|30.5||||||Week 56: \>=70%||30.5|5.6|
91669560|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|20.0||||||Week 56: \>=70%||20.0|-3.6|
91669561|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|15.4||||||Week 56: \>=90%||15.4|1.6|
91669562|NCT02725411|183233792|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.5||||||Week 56: \>=90%||8.5|-2.2|
91669563|NCT02725411|183233808|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.1||||||95% CI of proportion is the Agresti-Coull confidence limit.||4.1|-4.1|
91669564|NCT02725411|183233808|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in proportion|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.5||||||95% CI of proportion is the Agresti-Coull confidence limit.||8.5|-2.2|
91669565|NCT02418754|183233859|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurements as covariate and treatment group, baseline angiographic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) subtype (predominantly or minimally classic versus occult versus occult with no classic lesions) as fixed factors.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.58||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|1.22||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|||To control for the family-wise type I error rate of 5%, for each of the 2 REGN2176-3 groups the 2-sided hypothesis comparing REGN2176-3 (1 mg: 2 mg) vs. Intravitreal Aflibercept Injection (IAI) 2 mg was tested at a significance level of α = 2.5%.||1.22|-4.37|0.2052
91669566|NCT02418754|183233859|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and treatment group, baseline angiographic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) subtype (predominantly or minimally classic versus occult versus occult with no classic lesions) as fixed factors.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.61||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|||To control for the family-wise type I error rate of 5%, for each of the 2 REGN2176-3 groups the 2-sided hypothesis comparing REGN2176-3 (1 mg: 2 mg) vs. Intravitreal Aflibercept Injection (IAI) 2 mg was tested at a significance level of α = 2.5%.||0.61|-4.00|0.0982
91669567|NCT00462839|183233867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Post-hoc comparison of 500ml, 1000ml and 2000ml volumes were greater in the non-calibrated drape first group. Post-hoc comparisons made using Bonferroni correct t-test for 8 comparisons.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA comparing all levels of blood estimation (P=0.0002). Post-hoc comparisons using Bonferroni corrects t-tests.||||<0.05
91669568|NCT00462839|183233868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.76
91669569|NCT00462839|183233869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.72
91669570|NCT00462839|183233870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.89
91669571|NCT04784637|183233872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.064
91669572|NCT04784637|183233872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91669573|NCT04784637|183233873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91669574|NCT04784637|183233873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91669575|NCT05103657|183233892|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.43|||Mixed Models for repeated measures||"Least Squares mean of BI 1358894 125 mg - Least Square mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) means differences and confidence intervals were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, and the stratification indicator of presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CAPS-5 total severity score, time since index event (in years) and the treatment-by-visit interaction. Patient is considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.43|-3.31|0.9726
91669576|NCT05103657|183233893|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.002||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.65|||Regression, Logistic||BI 1358894 125 mg vs. Placebo|Logistic regression was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment and presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no).||1.650|0.608|0.9945
91669577|NCT05103657|183233894|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.912||||0.7167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.504|||Regression, Logistic||BI 1358894 125 mg vs. Placebo|Logistic regression was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment and presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no).||1.504|0.552|0.7167
91669578|NCT05103657|183233895|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.32|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures||"Least Square mean of BI 1358894 125 mg - Least Square mean of Placebo."|Least Square (LS) means differences and confidence intervals were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, and the stratification indicator of presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CAPS-5 total severity score, time since index event (in years) and the treatment-by-visit interaction. Patient is considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.32|-3.00|0.7230
91669579|NCT02020967|183233900|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|39.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Predictor variable: Lips enlargement||39.11|1.38|0.0196
91669580|NCT01160640|183233915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||P-value for proportion of women who had clearance of anaerobic organisms from the endometrium at the 30-day visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.046
91669581|NCT01160640|183233917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-value for proportion of women who did not have M. genitalium detected in the cervix or endometrium at the 30-day visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
91902291|NCT01807923|183699674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.3569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|4.69|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.69|-1.69|0.3569
91669582|NCT01160640|183233918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||||||P-value for proportion of women who experienced resolution of clinical signs and symptoms of PID at the 3-day visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.74
91669583|NCT01525628|183233928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|251.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.0||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|205.54|307.43|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||307.43|205.54|1.0000
91669584|NCT01525628|183233928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|131.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.5||0.6514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.4|163.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||163.57|105.40|0.6514
91669585|NCT01525628|183233929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|381.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|317.01|458.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||458.19|317.01|1.0000
91669586|NCT01525628|183233929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|123.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.0||0.4718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.66|161.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||161.51|94.66|0.4718
91669587|NCT01525628|183233930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|306.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|250.93|374.26|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||374.26|250.93|1.0000
91714945|NCT00248651|183321130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for overall quality of life. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.02
91902292|NCT01807923|183699675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9378|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8786|4.5941||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||4.5941|1.8786|<0.0001
91714946|NCT00248651|183321130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Eat/Drink subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.06
91714947|NCT00248651|183321130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Interference subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.06
91902293|NCT01807923|183699675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0592||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.292|3.2819||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||3.2819|1.2920|0.0023
91792692|NCT01293799|183463105|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53||Unit of measure: Comorbidity at PD start according to Stoke comorbidity score (1-2 vs. 0) i.e. 1-2 comorbidities vs. no comorbidity. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Comorbidity according to Stoke comorbidity score with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.53|0.88|0.28
91792693|NCT01293799|183463105|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.45||Unit of measure: Comorbidity at PD start according to Stoke comorbidity score (\>2 vs. 0) i.e. more than 2 comorbidities vs. no comorbidity. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Comorbidity according to Stoke comorbidity score with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||2.45|0.68|0.44
91792694|NCT01293799|183463106|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.87||Unit of measure: Ischemic heart disease as comorbidity at baseline (yes vs. no). P \< 0.5 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Ischemic Heart Disease as Comorbidity with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.87|0.97|0.07
91792695|NCT01293799|183463107|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.63||"Unit of measure: Peripheral vascular disease or stroke as comorbidity at PD start (yes vs. no). P-value \<0.05 regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Peripheral Vascular Disease or Stroke as Comorbidity with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.63|0.69|0.80
91792696|NCT01293799|183463108|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.77||"Unit of measure: Left ventricular dysfunction as comorbidity (yes vs. no). P-value \<0.05 is significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Left ventricular dysfunction as comorbidity (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||1.77|0.75|0.53
91792697|NCT01293799|183463109|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.22||"Unit of measure: Diabetes Mellitus as Comorbidity (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Diabetes Mellitus as Comorbidity (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||2.22|0.93|0.099
91792698|NCT01293799|183463110|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.32||"Unit of measure: System Collagen Vascular Disease as Comorbidity (yes vs. no). P-value \<0.05 is regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of System Collagen Vascular Disease as Comorbidity (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.32|0.29|0.22
91792699|NCT01293799|183463111|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46||"Unit of measure: Other Significant Pathology as Comorbidity (yes vs. no). P \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Other Significant Pathology as Comorbidity (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.46|0.61|0.79
91792700|NCT01293799|183463112|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4||"Unit of measure: Diabetes Mellitus as Comorbidity or Main Cause of Kidney Failure (yes vs. no. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as significantly significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Diabetes Mellitus as Comorbidity or Main Cause of Kidney Failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.40|0.80|0.69
91792701|NCT01293799|183463113|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42||"Unit of measure: Previous Kidney Replacement Therapy (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Previous Kidney Replacement Therapy (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.42|0.74|0.86
91860776|NCT05492318|183607703|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|70.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.64|83.03||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-inf||83.03|59.64|
91669588|NCT01525628|183233930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|129.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.5||0.6185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.26|161.71|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||161.71|104.26|0.6185
91669589|NCT01525628|183233931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|286.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|228.51|357.97|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||357.97|228.51|1.0000
91669590|NCT01525628|183233931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|150.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.1||0.821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.81|211.91|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||211.91|106.81|0.8210
91669591|NCT01525628|183233932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|349.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|269.12|454.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||454.93|269.12|1.0000
91669592|NCT01525628|183233932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|176.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.1||0.9533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.95|247.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||247.50|125.95|0.9533
91714948|NCT00248651|183321130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Sleep Disturbance subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.01
91714949|NCT00248651|183321130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Work/Study subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.04
91669593|NCT01525628|183233933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|322.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|256.24|406.34|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||406.34|256.24|1.0000
91860777|NCT05492318|183607703|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric Lsmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|73.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.79|88.75||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Induction Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate. AUC0-inf||88.75|60.79|
91669594|NCT01525628|183233933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|145.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.2||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.83|217.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||217.69|97.83|0.7461
91669595|NCT01525628|183233934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|355.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|298.13|422.83|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||422.83|298.13|1.0000
91669596|NCT01525628|183233934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|120.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.3||0.4337|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.68|174.01|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||174.01|83.68|0.4337
91669597|NCT01525628|183233935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|397.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|330.79|478.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||478.22|330.79|1.0000
91669598|NCT01525628|183233935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|142.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.1||0.7346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.49|203.44|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||203.44|99.49|0.7346
91669599|NCT01525628|183233936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|403.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.6||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|332.19|490.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||490.99|332.19|1.0000
91669600|NCT01525628|183233936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|116.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.1||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.38|181.47|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||181.47|75.38|0.3968
91669601|NCT01525628|183233937|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|408.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|315.15|529.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||529.90|315.15|1.0000
91669602|NCT01525628|183233937|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|301.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.1||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|204.61|443.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||443.35|204.61|0.9993
91669603|NCT01525628|183233938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|450.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.0||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|343.67|590.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||590.57|343.67|1.0000
91669604|NCT01525628|183233938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|341.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.1||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|229.22|510.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||510.13|229.22|0.9996
91860778|NCT03964350|183607713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91669605|NCT01525628|183233939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|466.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.6||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|357.02|610.66|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||610.66|357.02|1.0000
91669606|NCT01525628|183233939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|298.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|79.2||0.9972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.22|476.15|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||476.15|187.22|0.9972
91669607|NCT01525628|183233940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|528.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.0||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|415.88|672.75|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||672.75|415.88|1.0000
91669608|NCT01525628|183233940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|384.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|69.2||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|251.56|586.16|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||586.16|251.56|0.9998
91669609|NCT01525628|183233941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|569.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.2||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|447.49|725.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||725.57|447.49|1.0000
91669610|NCT01525628|183233941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|441.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.9||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|286.81|680.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||680.82|286.81|0.9999
91669611|NCT01525628|183233942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|606.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.2||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|471.42|779.74|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||779.74|471.42|1.0000
91669612|NCT01525628|183233942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|377.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|82.0||0.9994|TWO_SIDED|90.0|233.48|611.91|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||611.91|233.48|0.9994
91669613|NCT01525628|183233943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|97.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|117.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||117.69|80.00|0.0500
91669614|NCT01525628|183233943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|97.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.2||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.37|118.79|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||118.79|79.37|0.0564
91669615|NCT01525628|183233943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|114.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.9||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.36|141.66|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||141.66|92.36|0.2375
91669616|NCT01525628|183233943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|139.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8||0.9082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.63|159.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||159.00|121.63|0.9082
91669617|NCT01525628|183233943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|122.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.3||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.11|143.84|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||143.84|104.11|0.4111
91669618|NCT01525628|183233943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|121.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.7||0.3719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.24|141.45|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||141.45|104.24|0.3719
91714950|NCT05607576|183321137|OTHER|Clarke error grid analyses (EGA) were performed to compare CGM values to glucometer glucose values blood glucose readings (mg/dL) were grouped based on radiation exposure (\>0-500 µGy and \>500 µGy). A p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models with random effects were used to assess absolute differences in BG mg/dL by cumulative scatter||||||<0.05
91669619|NCT01525628|183233944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|88.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.8||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.39|100.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||100.89|77.39|0.1037
91714951|NCT05607576|183321138|OTHER|Clarke error grid analyses (EGA) were performed to compare CGM values to glucometer glucose values. A p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models with random effects over time were used to assess absolute differences in BG mg/dL by time||||||<0.05
91714952|NCT00870467|183321139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91669620|NCT01525628|183233944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|159.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.8||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.06|227.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||227.93|111.06|0.8723
91669621|NCT01525628|183233944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|259.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.5||0.983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.65|447.21|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||447.21|150.65|0.9830
91669622|NCT01525628|183233944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|163.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.1||0.9689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.52|207.52|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||207.52|129.52|0.9689
91792702|NCT01293799|183463114|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||Unit of measure: Functional status (Karnofsky score). Functional status was estimated by the Karnofsky Performance Scale. Scores from 100 (Normal, no complaints) to 0 = (dead). 90 = Able to carry on normal activity. 80 = Normal activity with effort.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Functional status (Karnofsky score) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.01|0.98|0.60
91860779|NCT02379156|183607714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group differences in the change in core body temperature (Tcore) from baseline (BL) values to after cold exposure (Cold) were analyzed using a Mixed Model ANOVA. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a greater decrease in Tcore when exposed to cool ambient temperature than control participants exposed to the same cool ambient temperature.||||<0.001
91902294|NCT01807923|183699676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.7186||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.9987|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using regression analysis for a negative binomial distribution with sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70) as covariates with the logarithm of time on study as the offset.||0.9987|0.5170|0.0491
91669623|NCT01525628|183233944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|219.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.4||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|153.84|314.26|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||314.26|153.84|0.9933
91669624|NCT01525628|183233944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|214.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.8||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.88|315.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||315.09|145.88|0.9865
91669625|NCT01525628|183233945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|96.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.77|105.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||105.13|87.77|0.0015
91669626|NCT01525628|183233945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|85.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.2||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.32|95.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||95.57|76.32|0.1617
91669627|NCT01525628|183233945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|73.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.5||0.893|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.03|82.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||82.54|65.03|0.8930
91669628|NCT01525628|183233945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|92.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.67|98.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||98.13|86.67|0.0005
91860780|NCT02379156|183607714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group differences in the change in (Tcore) in the participants with tetraplegia from BL values to Cold, with and without a dose of 10 mg of midodrine (two separate visits), were analyzed using a Repeated Measures ANOVA .||||0.006
91714953|NCT00870467|183321140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91714954|NCT00870467|183321141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91669629|NCT01525628|183233945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|73.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.6||0.8646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.55|83.39|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||83.39|65.55|0.8646
91669630|NCT01525628|183233945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|75.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.15|83.45|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||83.45|68.15|0.8378
91669631|NCT01525628|183233946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|98.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.15|106.91|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||106.91|90.15|0.0005
91669632|NCT01525628|183233946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|81.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.19|87.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||87.82|75.19|0.3638
91669633|NCT01525628|183233946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|70.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.6||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.44|83.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||83.22|60.44|0.8975
91714955|NCT00870467|183321142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91714956|NCT00870467|183321143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91860781|NCT02379156|183607715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group differences in the percent change in total WAIS IV scores from BL to after cold ambient exposure were analyzed using an independent samples T-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a greater percent change in total WAIS IV scores due to impaired cognitive function post cool ambient exposure.||||.042
91860782|NCT02379156|183607715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group differences in the percent change in total WAIS IV scores from BL to after cold ambient exposure were analyzed using a paired samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia in the No Drug condition would have a greater percent change in total WAIS IV scores than the same participants in the With drug condition."||||0.149
91669634|NCT01525628|183233946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|86.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.1||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.62|96.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||96.11|77.62|0.1144
91860783|NCT02379156|183607716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group differences in the change in distal skin temperature temperature (Tsk) from baseline (BL) values to after ambient cold exposure (Cold) were analyzed using a mixed-model ANOVA for the AB vs Tetra comparison. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a smaller change in Tsk due to being in a constant state of vasodilation.||||<0.001
91714957|NCT00870467|183321144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91669635|NCT01525628|183233946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|64.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.42|69.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||69.20|60.42|1.0000
91669636|NCT01525628|183233946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|63.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.3||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.19|71.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||71.07|57.19|0.9988
91669637|NCT01525628|183233947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|144.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.3|163.36|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||163.36|128.30|0.9749
91669638|NCT01525628|183233947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|152.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.8||0.9703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.6|181.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||181.89|128.60|0.9703
91669639|NCT01525628|183233947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|102.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.85|124.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||124.99|84.85|0.0500
91669640|NCT01525628|183233947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|124.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.1||0.4697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.91|142.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||142.99|107.91|0.4697
91669641|NCT01525628|183233947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|120.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.2||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.47|134.38|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||134.38|108.47|0.2906
91669642|NCT01525628|183233947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|93.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.2||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.33|109.86|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||109.86|80.33|0.0460
91669643|NCT01525628|183233948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|151.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.5||0.9941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.79|170.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||170.64|134.79|0.9941
91864539|NCT03308877|183617920|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||Covariates include education \& percent days abstinent at baseline.|Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis 1: Affective psychopathy scores will moderate response to a BMI such that individuals with lower scores will benefit relative to controls, but individuals with higher psychopathy scores will not benefit from the intervention in terms of percent days abstinent.||||.07
91669644|NCT01525628|183233948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|163.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.0||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.91|193.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||193.64|137.91|0.9926
91669645|NCT01525628|183233948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|98.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.2|118.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||118.63|81.20|0.0392
91669646|NCT01525628|183233948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|122.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.2||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.15|151.55|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||151.55|99.15|0.4374
91669647|NCT01525628|183233948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|130.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.3||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.57|158.18|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||158.18|107.57|0.6470
91669648|NCT01525628|183233948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|87.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.9||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.32|109.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||109.54|70.32|0.2372
91714958|NCT03430856|183321185|NON_INFERIORITY|Change from baseline in HbA1c at 24 weeks of treatment, was analyzed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) where all available post-baseline HbA1c measurements obtained up to Week 24 was entered as the dependent variables; visit and treatment were included as fixed factors, with Baseline HbA1c and stratification factor variables as covariates. Furthermore, the interaction terms of visit by treatment, visit by stratification factors and visit by Baseline HbA1c were included in the model.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.47|||||Insulin Tregopil 45 mg - Insulin Aspart|||1.470|0.502|
91714959|NCT03430856|183321185|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.37|||||Insulin Tregopil 30mg - Insulin Aspart|||1.370|0.414|
91714960|NCT02357459|183321198|SUPERIORITY|The analysis included all study weeks of data, and was not confined to only that at Baseline and Week 12. Descriptive statistics included number of observations, unadjusted mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum, and baseline adjusted means from the mixed model. Treatment differences from control was presented, and estimated via least squares means from the analysis model along with 95% confidence intervals and associated 2-sided p-values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.49||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|longitudinal mixed repeated measures|||||-0.49|-1.47|<0.0001
91669649|NCT01525628|183233949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|117.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.49|130.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||130.00|106.49|0.1519
91714961|NCT03246347|183321212|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.6111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4346|0.7686|||One-sided test for binomial proportions|||The 12-month PSA CR rate with ADT + docetaxel is 27.7% (Sweeney 2015); we estimated that the lower limit of the 95% CI was 23.4%. We sought to test the null hypothesis that the 52-week PSA CR rate for subjects treated with study therapy was \<=25%. We anticipated enrolling 39 subjects and this design would provide 90% power with a 1-sided alpha =0.10 significance level, assuming the true 52-week PSA CR rate was 45%. An improvement from 25% to 45% in 52-week PSA CR rate was considered important.||.7686|.4346|<0.001
91714962|NCT01228591|183321229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0044|0.0187|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is defined by: Test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) - control lens (Acuvue Advance)|"For Low Luminance/ High Contrast grouping (Monocular):~Ho: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be non-inferior to the control lens (Acuvue Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Acuvue Advance)."||0.0187|-0.0044|
91714963|NCT01228591|183321229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0086|0.0146|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is defined by: Test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) - control lens (Acuvue Advance)|"High Luminance/ Low Contrast grouping (Binocular):~Ho: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be non-inferior to the control lens (Acuvue Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Acuvue Advance)."||0.0146|-0.0086|
91714964|NCT01228591|183321230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0041|0.0282|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference represents: Test lens (Advance Plus) - Control lens (Advance).|"For Low Luminance/ High Contrast Grouping (Monocular):~Ho: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be non-inferior to the control lens (Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Advance)."||0.0282|0.0041|
91714965|NCT01228591|183321230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.3305|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference is defined to be: test lens (Advance Plus) - control lens (Advance).|"For High Luminance/ Low Contrast Grouping (Binocular):~Ho: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be non-inferior from the control lens (Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Advance)."||0.3305|0.0090|
91864540|NCT03308877|183617920|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||Sensitivity analysis: proximal follow-up (3 months following BMI or SC)||||.02
91864541|NCT03308877|183617920|OTHER||B|0.063|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.156|||Regression, Linear|bias corrected bootstrap||Increased readiness to change will be associated with decreased substance use.||.156|.007|<.01
91864542|NCT03308877|183617921|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.74
91864543|NCT03308877|183617922|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.88
91864544|NCT04685135|183617933|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Log Rank|HR and CI are from stratified Cox proportional hazard model||||0.76|0.45|<0.0001
91864545|NCT04685135|183617935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.56|||Cochran Mantel Haenszel chi-square test|||||8.56|2.56|<0.0001
91864546|NCT02724969|183617970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.272
91864547|NCT02724969|183617971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.082
91864548|NCT02724969|183617972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.355
91864549|NCT02724969|183617973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.780
91669650|NCT01525628|183233949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|117.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.9||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.06|142.52|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day17 vs. Day 1||142.52|96.06|0.2827
91669651|NCT01525628|183233949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|92.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.6||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.38|114.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||114.07|74.38|0.1326
91669652|NCT01525628|183233949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|95.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.2||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.63|113.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||113.24|80.63|0.0432
91669653|NCT01525628|183233949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|75.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.3||0.7367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.64|88.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||88.82|63.64|0.7367
91722497|NCT00311168|183337788|SUPERIORITY|A target of an 80% reduction in percentage of ventricular pacing with VIP™ is proposed in this study. In order to achieve an 80% power of detecting an 80% reduction in the percentage of ventricular paced events and using a two group two-sided t-test of equal means, a minimum sample size of 39 patients per group was required. To account for possible withdrawal or loss to follow-up, this study targeted to enroll 100 patients (50 per group).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|-52.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in the percentage of intrinsic ventricular events is presented as, VIP Off - VIP On.|||-52.9|-67.5|<0.0001
91669654|NCT01525628|183233949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|70.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.3||0.8547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.84|86.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||86.56|56.84|0.8547
91669655|NCT01525628|183233950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|102.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.89|135.39|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||135.39|77.89|0.1159
91669656|NCT01525628|183233950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|99.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.7||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.33|127.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||127.64|78.33|0.0651
91714966|NCT02371616|183321255|NON_INFERIORITY|Inferences: upper end of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the estimated effect of Test relative to Comparator, for success, should be \<=6mm. (i.e., Test is no more than 6mm inferior to Comparator).|Least square (LS) mean difference|2.67||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|7.4||From ANCOVA model: change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group, baseline Schiff stratum and study site as fixed effects, with baseline VAS score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Statistical analysis applies to change from baseline at week 8 for test and comparator dentifrice.||7.40|-2.06|0.2678
91714967|NCT01921517|183321263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0481
91714968|NCT03205150|183321264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.075|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.8|-3.78|||ANCOVA|||||-3.78|-22.80|0.075
91714969|NCT03205150|183321264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.33|-11.94|||ANCOVA|||||-11.94|-31.33|0.005
91714970|NCT03205150|183321264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.178|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|16.29|||ANCOVA|||||16.29|0.41|0.178
91902295|NCT01807923|183699676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.6643||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4749|0.9291||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.9291|0.4749|0.0169
91714971|NCT03205150|183321265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.235|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.6|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-3.60|0.235
91714972|NCT03205150|183321265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.14|-2.37|||ANCOVA|||||-2.37|-6.14|0.004
91714973|NCT03205150|183321265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.037|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.98|4.07|||ANCOVA|||||4.07|0.98|0.037
91714974|NCT03205150|183321266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.22|-2.08|||ANCOVA|||||-2.08|-4.22|<.001
91714975|NCT03205150|183321266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.28|-3.08|||ANCOVA|||||-3.08|-5.28|<.001
91714976|NCT03205150|183321266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.148|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|1.94|||ANCOVA|||||1.94|0.12|0.148
91864550|NCT02724969|183617974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.588
91714977|NCT03205150|183321274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.79|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||||-5.50|-16.79|0.013
91714978|NCT03205150|183321274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.43|-8.98|||ANCOVA|||||-8.98|-20.43|0.001
91792703|NCT01293799|183463114|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.57||Unit of measure: Functional status (Karnofsky score 80 - 90 vs. 100). Functional status was estimated by the Karnofsky Performance Scale (see Statistical analysis 1). P \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Functional status (Karnofsky score 80 - 90 vs. 100) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.57|0.81|0.48
91714979|NCT03205150|183321274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.15|8.28|||ANCOVA|||||8.28|-1.15|0.332
91714980|NCT01095835|183321275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
91714981|NCT03028142|183321286|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.05||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|1.02|0.0022
91714982|NCT03028142|183321286|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|1.05|<0.0001
91714983|NCT03028142|183321287|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.03||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.99|0.0988
91864551|NCT04911296|183617993|OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.935
91864552|NCT04911296|183617994|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.536
91714984|NCT03028142|183321287|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.06||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|1.02|0.0009
91714985|NCT03028142|183321288|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.02||||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.98|0.2496
91714986|NCT03028142|183321288|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.06||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|1.02|0.0039
91714987|NCT03028142|183321289|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.03||||0.1404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.99|0.1404
91792704|NCT01293799|183463114|OTHER|Univariable Cox regression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.85||Unit of measure: Functional status (Karnofsky score \< 80 vs. 100). Functional status was estimated by the Karnofsky Performance Scale (see Statistical analysis 1). P \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|||"The association of Functional status (Karnofsky score \< 80 vs. 100) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.85|0.69|0.63
91714988|NCT03028142|183321289|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.04||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|1.01|0.0228
91714989|NCT01298700|183321333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.9||P-value was stratified by baseline prostaglandin analogue (PGA) treatment(yes/no) and by baseline active ocular surface finding (present/absent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||bimatoprost 0.01% ophthalmic solution - bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution|||1.9|-11|0.148
91714990|NCT00129441|183321335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
91714991|NCT00129441|183321336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.162
91792705|NCT01293799|183463115|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.53||Unit of measure: Visual impairment (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|||"The association of the Social Factor Visual Impairment (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.53|0.54|0.71
91714992|NCT00129441|183321337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
91714993|NCT00129441|183321338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91714994|NCT00129441|183321339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.249
91714995|NCT00129441|183321340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||At week 4, mean BPRS total scores were nearly the same for the placebo group and L-830982 group as a result of a significant reduction in positive symptoms reported for the placebo group (F=9.12, df=1,13, p=0.01). For the L-830982-treated group, neither total BPRS scores nor any of the factor scores changed over the course of the trial.||||0.01
91714996|NCT00129441|183321341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91714997|NCT00129441|183321342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91669657|NCT01525628|183233950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|78.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.3||0.5658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.5|98.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||98.07|62.50|0.5658
91669658|NCT01525628|183233950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|108.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.2||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.46|133.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||133.99|87.46|0.1286
91669659|NCT01525628|183233950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|87.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.8||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.56|104.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||104.30|73.56|0.1898
91669660|NCT01525628|183233950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|78.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.3||0.5575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.81|99.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||99.51|61.81|0.5575
91669661|NCT00243152|183233993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Visual analog scale (VAS) ratings in the scanner. Measures of pain ratings to evoked stimuli during scanning for heat applied to the affected side.||||<0.05
91669662|NCT00243152|183233993|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for heat applied to the unaffected side.||||>0.05
91669663|NCT00243152|183233993|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for cold applied to the affected side.||||>0.05
91669664|NCT00243152|183233993|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for cold applied to the unaffected side.||||>0.05
91714998|NCT04006145|183321343|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in serum LDL-C at Week 16 was analyzed using ANCOVA after the missing data imputation, with treatment group as a factor, baseline serum LDL-C, baseline LDL-C-by-treatment interaction values, and baseline lipid-lowering medications (Yes or No) as covariates. Missing data for serum LDL-C was imputed through multiple imputation method as described in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||-0.04|-0.76|0.029
91714999|NCT01001429|183321344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.04
91715000|NCT01001429|183321344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||UMSS scores with subjects propofol vs. Dexmetomidine group||||0.68
91792706|NCT01293799|183463116|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.06||"Unit of measure: Impaired Hand Function (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Impaired Hand Function (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||2.06|0.80|0.29
91669665|NCT00243152|183233993|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for brush applied to the affected side.||||>0.05
91669666|NCT00243152|183233993|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for brush applied to the unaffected side.||||>0.05
91715001|NCT02812186|183321365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91669667|NCT00401245|183233995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Overall comparison was made between each titration regimen and the control regimen (100 mg).||||0.024
91669668|NCT00401245|183233996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg QOD, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||< 0.001
91669669|NCT00401245|183233996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50/25 mg, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||<0.001
91669670|NCT00401245|183233996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg/Placebo, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||<0.001
91715002|NCT02812186|183321366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
91715003|NCT02812186|183321367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91792707|NCT01293799|183463117|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.93||"Units of measure: Working full or part time (yes vs no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Working Full or Part Time (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||0.93|0.50|0.016
91902296|NCT01807923|183699677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.96|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline weight.||0.96|-0.16|0.1565
91669671|NCT00401245|183233997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg QOD, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor||||0.092
91669672|NCT00401245|183233997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50/25 mg, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor||||0.997
91669673|NCT00401245|183233997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg/Placebo, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor||||0.009
91669674|NCT00401245|183233998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg QOD, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||0.078
91669675|NCT00401245|183233998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50/25 mg, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||0.005
91669676|NCT00401245|183233998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50mg/Placebo, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||0.929
91669677|NCT00401245|183234000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Overall comparison was made between each titration regimen and the control regimen (100 mg).||||0.017
91669678|NCT00401245|183234007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the baseline value and post-baseline (Week 4) value with 0.||||<0.001
91669679|NCT00401245|183234007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the baseline value and post-baseline (Week 8) value with 0.||||< 0.001
91669680|NCT00401245|183234007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the base value and post-baseline (Week 12) value with 0.||||<0.001
91669681|NCT00401245|183234007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the baseline value and post-baseline (Week 16) value with 0.||||<0.001
91669682|NCT00951093|183234046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P value adjusted for multiple comparisons|Friedman´s test|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||<0.001
91669683|NCT00951093|183234047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Friedman´s test|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||0.002
91669684|NCT00951093|183234048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman´s test|||||||< 0.001
91669685|NCT00951093|183234049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||< 0.020
91669686|NCT00951093|183234050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||< 0.001
91669687|NCT00951093|183234051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||0.001
91669688|NCT00951093|183234052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman´s test|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||< 0.001
91669689|NCT00996437|183234053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference in Cumulative Prob|4.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|13.0|||Log Rank|After adjusting for potential confounding factors, time to vitrectomy remained similar between treatment groups.||The cumulative probabilities of vitrectomy by 16 weeks in each group were computed using the life-table method. Treatment group comparisons were performed using the log-rank test. The treatment difference in cumulative probabilities and 95% confidence interval were reported.||13|-4|0.37
91669690|NCT00996437|183234054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value corresponds with recurrent vitreous hemorrhage evaluated on clinical exam between the two treatment arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91669691|NCT00996437|183234055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.3|||Log Rank|||||2.30|1.03|0.05
91669692|NCT00996437|183234056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||P-value corresponds to the 12 week visit treatment comparison.|GLM with GEE method|Number of subjects with baseline OCT ss=0 and OCT ss\>0 and no vitrectomy at follow up. A generalized GLM with GEE was used for treatment comparisons.||Signal strength was analyzed as a composite outcome defined as OCT signal strength \> = and no vitrectomy vs. OCT signal strength = 0.||||0.87
91669693|NCT00996437|183234057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value corresponds to the 12 week visit treatment comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment comparisons were performed using a longitudinal mixed model adjusting for baseline visual acuity.||||||.04
91669694|NCT00996437|183234059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value corresponds with the 12 week visit treatment comparison|Fisher Exact|At the each time point, treatment comparison analysis was performed using a Fisher Exact test.||||||.023
91669695|NCT00996437|183234060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|At each time point, treatment comparison analysis was performed using a Fisher Exact Test.||||||0.27
91669696|NCT02156154|183234135|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11||significance criterion of P \< .044.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference = IV Acetaminophen - Placebo group|A total of 28 patients (5%) were missing monitoring data (14 patients in each group). Values for these patients were obtained using multivariable imputation with 5 imputation data sets. The imputation regression model included all of the baseline, intraoperative, surgical, and postanesthesia care unit variables and all of the secondary outcomes||0.11|-0.18|0.29
91669697|NCT02156154|183234136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.71|0.15||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|||0.15|-0.71|0.07
91669698|NCT02156154|183234137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.51|0.29||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|||0.29|-0.51|0.46
91669699|NCT02156154|183234138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.49|0.76||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as differences in means between the study groups, assessed using a 2-sample t test.|||0.76|-0.49|0.56
91669700|NCT02156154|183234139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.29|0.13||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as differences in means between the study groups, assessed using a 2-sample t test.|||0.13|-0.29|0.30
91669701|NCT02156154|183234140|SUPERIORITY||Ratios of geometric means|0.94||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.63|1.39||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as ratios of geometric means, assessed using a 2-sample t test after logarithmic transformation of outcomes.|||1.39|0.63|0.65
91669702|NCT02156154|183234141|SUPERIORITY||Ratios of geometric means|0.86||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.61|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as ratios of geometric means, assessed using a 2-sample t test after logarithmic transformation of outcomes.|||1.21|0.61|0.22
91902297|NCT01807923|183699677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.86|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.86|-0.26|0.2992
91792708|NCT01293799|183463118|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.73||"Unit of measure: Retired (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of being retired (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||1.73|1.01|0.041
91792709|NCT01293799|183463119|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.76||"Unit of measure: Living alone (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Living alone (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.76|0.98|0.064
91792710|NCT01293799|183463120|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.29||"Unit of measure: Need for translation/interpreter (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Need for translation/interpreter with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.29|0.18|0.14
91902298|NCT01807923|183699678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.098||||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.233|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI z-score.||0.2330|-0.0370|0.1539
91669703|NCT02156154|183234142|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.88|1.45||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|Chi-squared||Risk ratio = Treatment/Placebo|||1.45|0.88|0.18
91669704|NCT02156154|183234143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.57|1.43||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|Chi-squared||RR = Treatment/Placebo|||1.43|0.57|0.53
91669705|NCT02156154|183234144|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.39|0.36||Adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment effect is reported as median difference, estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift.|||0.36|-0.39|0.99
91669706|NCT02051595|183234145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate (beta) from mixed model|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|-0.039||A priori threshold was set to p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses modeled change in vancomycin concentrations (independent variable defined by time). Analyses were adjusted for covariates.|Negative beta value indicates that vancomycin concentration decreased following cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).|||-0.039|-0.098|<0.0001
91669707|NCT01729026|183234177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.75||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.35||Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, subjects in the Adoption group had a mean improvement of 15.20 points on the PCL-5 compared to 7.77 points in the Wait-list group.|Mixed effects regression models|||The analyses were mixed effect regression models with repeated measures at randomization (baseline) and at the 3-month post-randomization follow-up using a 2 x 2 design. Treatment (Adoption group vs Wait-list group), time (baseline and 3-month follow-up) and their interaction were the fixed design effects. The treatment by time interaction tests the significance of the difference between baseline and 3-month follow-up between the Adoption and Wait-list groups.||0.35|-1.85|0.141
91669708|NCT01729026|183234178|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||||0.982
91669709|NCT01729026|183234179|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.5||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||||0.160
91669710|NCT01729026|183234180|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.36||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.23|||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||-0.23|-2.49|0.015
91669711|NCT01729026|183234181|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91669712|NCT01729026|183234182|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects regression models|-1.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.31|||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||-0.31|-2.50|0.010
91669713|NCT01729026|183234183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.13
91669714|NCT01729026|183234184|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.9||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||||0.188
91669715|NCT01729026|183234186|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|1.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects regression models|||||||0.031
91669716|NCT01729026|183234187|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.3||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||1.40|-0.80|0.541
91669717|NCT01729026|183234188|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.6||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||Please note that a minus number indicates an increase in pain ratings.||||0.139
91669718|NCT00407745|183234198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.2||Significance was declared if the 2-tailed test for the difference between treatment groups was significant at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis - the mean DAAC for the pregabalin group is equal to the mean DAAC for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean DAAC for the placebo group differs from the mean DAAC for the pregabalin group.~ANCOVA model included baseline severity of pain and Baseline Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) Total Score as covariates and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors."||-0.20|-0.98|0.0032
91669719|NCT00407745|183234199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing procedure was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in a hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value was significant at 0.05 level (\<=0.05).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline severity (pain) and baseline PCS as covariates and effects for treatment and pooled center as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.20|-1.20|0.0066
91669720|NCT00407745|183234200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|3.328||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model used terms for baseline pain score and baseline PCS total score as covariate, and pooled center and treatment as cofactor.||Null hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group||3.328|1.032|0.0390
91669721|NCT00407745|183234201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||95.0||||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test was used with adjusting for pooled center.||Null hypothesis - The raw mean score for the pregabain group was equal to the raw mean score for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The raw mean score for the pregabain group was not equal to the raw mean score for the placebo group.||||0.0006
91669722|NCT00407745|183234202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.56||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline sleep interference score as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.56|-1.60|<0.0001
91669723|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.05||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 1~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.05|-0.94|0.0295
91669724|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.22||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 2~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.22|-1.11|0.0033
91669725|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.09||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.09|-0.98|0.0185
91669726|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.21||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.21|-1.10|0.0040
91902299|NCT01807923|183699678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0781||||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0615|0.2176|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.2176|-0.0615|0.2713
91669727|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.36||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 5~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.36|-1.26|0.0004
91669728|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.27||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.27|-1.17|0.0018
91669729|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.24||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 7~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.24|-1.14|0.0027
91669730|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.21||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.21|-1.11|0.0041
91669731|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.18||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 9~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.18|-1.09|0.0058
91669732|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.23||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 10~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.23|-1.14|0.0031
91669733|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.17||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 11~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.17|-1.08|0.0076
91669734|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.04||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 12~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.04|-0.95|0.0328
91669735|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.11||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 13~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.11|-1.02|0.0150
91669736|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.2||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 14~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.20|-1.11|0.0048
91669737|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.24||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 15~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.24|-1.15|0.0030
91669738|NCT00407745|183234203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.3||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 16~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.30|-1.22|0.0011
91669739|NCT00407745|183234204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.103|4.546||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression used terms for treatment, baseline pain score as covariate, baseline PCS total score, and pooled center as cofactor.||Null hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group.||4.546|1.103|0.0256
91669740|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.35||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 1.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.35|-1.23|0.0004
91669741|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.43||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week2~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.43|-1.31|<0.0001
91669742|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.36||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.36|-1.24|0.0004
91669743|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.32||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.32|-1.20|0.0008
91669744|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.49||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 5.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.49|-1.38|<0.0001
91669745|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.48||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.48|-1.37|<0.0001
91669746|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.47||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 7.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.47|-1.35|<0.0001
91669747|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.46||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.46|-1.35|<0.0001
91792711|NCT01293799|183463121|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||"Unit of measure: Current smoking (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Current smoking (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.65|0.75|0.60
91669748|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.5||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 9.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.50|-1.39|<0.0001
91669749|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.63||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 10.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.63|-1.53|<0.0001
91792712|NCT01293799|183463122|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.02||"Unit of measure: Serum creatinine (HR per 100 micromol/L. P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Serum creatinine (Hazard ratio per 100 micromol/L with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.02|0.90|0.18
91669750|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.49||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 11.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.49|-1.39|<0.0001
91669751|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.47||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 12.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.47|-1.37|<0.0001
91669752|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.47||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 13.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.47|-1.38|<0.0001
91669753|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.51||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 14.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.51|-1.41|<0.0001
91669754|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.63||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 15.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.63|-1.53|<0.0001
91669755|NCT00407745|183234205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.61||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 16.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.61|-1.51|<0.0001
91669756|NCT00407745|183234206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.02||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline mBPI-10 Total Score as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.02|-1.08|0.0438
91669757|NCT00407745|183234207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.7103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.72||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Static Mechanical Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/above level: within 2 dermatomes above or below the neurological level of injury (NLI).~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.72|-1.06|0.7103
91669758|NCT00407745|183234207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.06||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Static Mechanical Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level: more than 2 dermatomes below the NLI.~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.06|-1.28|0.0747
91792713|NCT01293799|183463123|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.04||Unit of measure: Serum urea (Hazard ratio per 5 mmol/L). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Serum urea (Hazard ratio per 5 mmol/l) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.04|0.90|0.34
91902300|NCT01807923|183699679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard regression, time is the time-to-first event or censoring, with adjustment for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||||0.0396
91902301|NCT01807923|183699679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||||0.0385
91715004|NCT00643760|183321379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.35||||0.295||95.0|-1.02|0.31||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||0.31|-1.02|0.295
91669759|NCT00407745|183234208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.379||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.54||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.54|-0.97|0.5689
91715005|NCT00643760|183321379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.02||||0.946||95.0|-0.71|0.66||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with BMI, baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||0.66|-0.71|0.946
91715006|NCT00643760|183321379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.55||||0.105||95.0|-1.1|0.01||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with BMI, baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||0.01|-1.10|0.105
91669760|NCT00407745|183234208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.41||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.41|-0.87|0.4764
91669761|NCT00407745|183234209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.474||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.48||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Punctate Hyperalgesia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.48|-1.40|0.3362
91715007|NCT00643760|183321379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|0.43||||||95.0|-0.22|1.08||||||||1.08|-0.22|
91715008|NCT00789321|183321404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-11.7||||0.001||90.0|-18.1|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in systolic blood pressure included as covariate||||-5.4|-18.1|0.001
91715009|NCT00789321|183321405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|39.0||||0.001||95.0|17.9|60.1|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in systolic blood pressure included as covariate||||60.1|17.9|0.001
91715010|NCT00104052|183321406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal approximation to the binomial|0.654||||||95.0|0.564|0.744||||||||0.744|0.564|
91902302|NCT01807923|183699680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6565||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4266|1.0103|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||1.0103|0.4266|0.0552
91715011|NCT05556148|183321413|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|1.37|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||1.37|-4.44|0.2968
91715012|NCT05556148|183321413|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.77|-10.95|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-10.95|-19.77|<.0001
91715013|NCT05556148|183321413|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.06|-21.49|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-21.49|-33.06|<.0001
91715014|NCT05556148|183321413|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.69|-28.41|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-28.41|-41.69|<.0001
91715015|NCT05556148|183321413|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.87|-31.11|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-31.11|-45.87|<.0001
91715016|NCT05556148|183321413|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.46|-30.88|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-30.88|-48.46|<.0001
91715017|NCT05556148|183321413|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.69|-41.51|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-41.51|-63.69|<.0001
91715018|NCT05556148|183321414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.86|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||1.86|-1.27|0.7112
91715019|NCT05556148|183321414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|-3.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-3.92|-8.51|<.0001
91715020|NCT05556148|183321414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.22|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-9.22|-15.00|<.0001
91715021|NCT05556148|183321414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|-12.71|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-12.71|-19.24|<.0001
91715022|NCT05556148|183321414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.29|-15.59|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-15.59|-23.29|<.0001
91715023|NCT05556148|183321414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|-14.69|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-14.69|-24.03|<.0001
91715024|NCT05556148|183321414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.87|-18.93|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-18.93|-31.87|<.0001
91715025|NCT05556148|183321415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||0.0481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.02|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||-0.02|-3.64|0.0481
91902303|NCT01807923|183699680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6438||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4142|1.0005|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||1.0005|0.4142|0.0512
91669762|NCT00407745|183234209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.31||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Punctate Hyperalgesia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.31|-0.96|0.3113
91669763|NCT00407745|183234210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.2721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.48||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Temporal Summation to stimuli as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.48|-1.67|0.2721
91669764|NCT00407745|183234210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.4906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.9||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Temporal Summation to stimuli as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.90|-0.43|0.4906
91669765|NCT00407745|183234211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.3123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.46||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.46|-1.42|0.3123
91715026|NCT05556148|183321415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|-6.55|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-6.55|-11.74|<.0001
91669766|NCT00407745|183234211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.18||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.18|-1.28|0.1360
91715027|NCT05556148|183321415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-11.88|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-11.88|-18.44|<.0001
91902304|NCT01807923|183699681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.006||||0.5604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0142|0.0262|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L index score.||0.0262|-0.0142|0.5604
91669767|NCT00407745|183234212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.4257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.65||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Hyperalgesia Subscales as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.65|-1.53|0.4257
91669768|NCT00407745|183234212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.28||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Hyperalgesia Subscales as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.28|-1.34|0.2005
91669769|NCT00407745|183234213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - 12 Items Total Intensity Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.01|-0.09|0.1377
91669770|NCT00407745|183234214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.3312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Burning Spontaneous Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.04|-0.11|0.3312
91669771|NCT00407745|183234215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Pressing Spontaneous Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.00|-0.13|0.0440
91669772|NCT00407745|183234216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.02||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Paroxysmal Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.02|-0.12|0.1370
91669773|NCT00407745|183234217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.8911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Evoked pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.05|-0.06|0.8911
91669774|NCT00407745|183234218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.04||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Paresthesia/Dysesthesia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.04|-0.10|0.3731
91715028|NCT05556148|183321415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.84|-15.3|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-15.30|-22.84|<.0001
91715029|NCT05556148|183321415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.35|-14.75|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-14.75|-23.35|<.0001
91669775|NCT00407745|183234219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.3312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.38||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 1 - Burning pain~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.38|-1.13|0.3312
91669776|NCT00407745|183234219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.12||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 2 - Squeezing pain~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.12|-1.37|0.0976
91669777|NCT00407745|183234219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.01||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 3 - Pain like pressure~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.01|-1.54|0.0538
91669778|NCT00407745|183234219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.38||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 5 - Electric shocks~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.38|-1.15|0.3239
91669779|NCT00407745|183234219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.1912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.25||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 6 - Stabbing pain~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.25|-1.23|0.1912
91669780|NCT00407745|183234219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.85||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 8 - By light touching~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.85|-0.55|0.6720
91669781|NCT00407745|183234219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.56||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 9 - By pressure~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.56|-0.74|0.7821
91669782|NCT00407745|183234219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.55||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 10 - By something cold~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.55|-0.84|0.6851
91669783|NCT00407745|183234219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 11 - Pins and needles~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.41|-1.12|0.3610
91669784|NCT00407745|183234219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.52||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 12 - Tingling~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.52|-1.07|0.4915
91715030|NCT05556148|183321415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-14.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-14.92|-25.70|<.0001
91860784|NCT02379156|183607716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group differences in the change in distal skin temperature temperature (Tsk) from baseline (BL) values to after ambient cold exposure (Cold) were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA for the within-group comparison of drug vs no drug in the tetraplegia group. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia with drug would have a larger decrease in Tsk due to enhanced peripheral vasoconstriction due to the drug's effects.||||<.001
91902305|NCT01807923|183699681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0095||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0109|0.0298|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.0298|-0.0109|0.3613
91669785|NCT00407745|183234220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0536||95.0||||p-values are adjusted for baseline score. Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group.||||0.0536
91669786|NCT00407745|183234221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3107||95.0||||p-values are adjusted for baseline score. Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group.||||0.3107
91669787|NCT00407745|183234222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.182||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-0.59||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS 9-item Sleep Problems Index as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.59|-9.19|0.0262
91669788|NCT00407745|183234223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.985||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|-2.78||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep disturbance as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-2.78|-14.55|0.0041
91669789|NCT00407745|183234224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.492||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|12.66||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep Adequacy as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||12.66|-1.11|0.0998
91669790|NCT00407745|183234225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.501||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.61||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Snoring as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||12.61|-1.20|0.1048
91669791|NCT00407745|183234226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.417||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-0.37||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline MOS - Awaken Short of Breath or with headache as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.37|-9.91|0.0347
91669792|NCT00407745|183234227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.76||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep Quantity as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.76|0.01|0.0436
91669793|NCT00407745|183234228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.2761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|8.49||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Somnolence as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||8.49|-2.44|0.2761
91669794|NCT00407745|183234229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.443|5.491||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model included Pooled Center and Treatment as the categorical factors, and Optimal Sleep Score at Baseline as the covariate.||Null hypothesis - The rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the placebo group.||5.491|1.443|0.0024
91669795|NCT00407745|183234230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.17||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline HADS - Anxiety as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.17|-1.54|0.1164
91860785|NCT02379156|183607717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group differences in the percent change in microvascular perfusion from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using independent samples T-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a smaller percent change in microvascular perfusion due impaired vasomotor control which causes a constant state of vasodilation.||||<0.001
91669796|NCT00407745|183234231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.11||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline HADS - Depression as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.11|-1.87|0.0279
91669797|NCT00955552|183234232|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test of Ártico vs Cosamin DS® regarding the decrease of pain scale (VAS) in the PP population (N = 86).|||||<|0.05||||||For numeric variables Test -t student or ANOVA will be used. It will be considered statistically significant P-value less than 0,05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91669798|NCT02960438|183234238|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|2.2||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|24.46|||Regression, Logistic||Estimate was calculated based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.46|-19.96|0.374
91669799|NCT02960438|183234238|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|11.1||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|29.64|||Regression, Logistic||Estimate was calculated based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||29.64|-7.42|0.102
91669800|NCT02960438|183234238|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|9.3||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|27.77|||Regression, Logistic||Estimate was calculated based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||27.77|-9.25|0.188
91669801|NCT03449199|183234276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in log-transformed UACR was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with randomized treatment, and randomization strata of sUA and UACR as independent variables. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data. In this study, multiplicity was not considered since the study objective is exploratory.||0.34|-0.44|0.7953
91715031|NCT05556148|183321415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|-21.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-21.92|-32.48|<.0001
91715032|NCT05556148|183321416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.31|-0.31|1.0000
91715033|NCT05556148|183321416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.3|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.30|-0.97|0.0003
91715034|NCT05556148|183321416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.70|-1.50|<.0001
91715035|NCT05556148|183321416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.24|-2.20|<.0001
91715036|NCT05556148|183321416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.16|-2.33|<.0001
91715037|NCT05556148|183321416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.28|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.28|-2.51|<.0001
91715038|NCT05556148|183321416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.64|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.64|-3.29|<.0001
91715039|NCT05556148|183321417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.14|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||-0.14|-0.64|0.0023
91715040|NCT05556148|183321417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-1.12|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-1.12|-1.82|<.0001
91860786|NCT02379156|183607717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group differences in the percent change in microvascular perfusion from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using a paired samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia in the No Drug condition would have a smaller percent change in microvascular perfusion due impaired vasomotor control which causes a constant state of vasodilation."||||0.066
91860787|NCT02379156|183607718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group differences in the percent change in VO2 from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using independent samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a smaller percent change in VO2 consumption.||||0.127
91715041|NCT05556148|183321417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.58|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-1.58|-2.40|<.0001
91715042|NCT05556148|183321417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-2.0|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-2.00|-2.86|<.0001
91715043|NCT05556148|183321417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-2.49|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-2.49|-3.51|<.0001
91715044|NCT05556148|183321417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-2.18|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-2.18|-3.36|<.0001
91860788|NCT02379156|183607718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group differences in the percent change in VO2 consumption from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using a paired samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia in the No Drug condition would have a greater percent change in VO2 consumption due to impaired vasoconstriction and greater heat loss compared to the With Drug condition, in response to cool ambient exposure."||||0.964
91860789|NCT02754882|183607740|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined equivalence margin was \[0.737, 1.357\]|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.269|||||SB8 vs. Avastin|||1.269|0.975|
91715045|NCT05556148|183321417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.57|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.57|-4.10|<.0001
91715046|NCT05556148|183321418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.4495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.18|-0.40|0.4495
91715047|NCT05556148|183321418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.54|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.54|-1.19|<.0001
91715048|NCT05556148|183321418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.82|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.82|-1.59|<.0001
91715049|NCT05556148|183321418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-1.12|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.12|-2.05|<.0001
91669802|NCT03449199|183234276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in log-transformed UACR was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with randomized treatment, and randomization strata of sUA and UACR as independent variables. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data. In this study, multiplicity was not considered since the study objective is exploratory.||-0.04|-0.82|0.0311
91669803|NCT03449199|183234277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.71||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|5.78|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of sUA and UACR levels as independent variables, Baseline eGFR as covariate is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||5.78|-2.35|0.4055
91669804|NCT03449199|183234277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.42||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|7.46|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of sUA and UACR levels as independent variables, Baseline eGFR as covariate is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||7.46|-0.62|0.0960
91669805|NCT03449199|183234278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.74|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||-1.74|-3.13|<0.0001
91669806|NCT03449199|183234278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-2.54|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||-2.54|-3.91|<0.0001
91669807|NCT03449199|183234279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-102.02||||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-338.81|134.78|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||134.78|-338.81|0.3955
91669808|NCT03449199|183234279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-197.49||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-432.73|37.75|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||37.75|-432.73|0.0991
91669809|NCT03449199|183234280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.2791|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Missing observations at Study Week 12 are imputed as nonresponse.|Odds ratio, 95% CLs, and p-values are obtained from logistic regression model adjusting for treatment group, randomization strata of Baseline sUA (\<6.0 vs ≥6.0 mg/dL) and Baseline UACR (200 to \<300 mg/g vs 300 to ≤3000 mg/g), Baseline UACR and Baseline sUA levels. Odds ratio for a baseline covariate is the ratio of odds over one unit increase of the covariate and it is assumed constant. P-value represents the statistical significance level of odds ratio differing from 1.||||0.2791
91669810|NCT03449199|183234280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CLs, and p-values are obtained from logistic regression model adjusting for treatment group, randomization strata of Baseline sUA (\<6.0 vs ≥6.0 mg/dL) and Baseline UACR (200 to \<300 mg/g vs 300 to ≤3000 mg/g), Baseline UACR and Baseline sUA levels. Odds ratio for a baseline covariate is the ratio of odds over one unit increase of the covariate and it is assumed constant. P-value represents the statistical significance level of odds ratio differing from 1.||||0.0507
91669811|NCT02744755|183234290|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.27||||||Therapeutic equivalence in terms of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 12 will be concluded if the 95% confidence interval for the LS mean difference between GP2017 and Humira is contained within the interval \[-0.6; 0.6\]. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis was performed for DAS28-CRP change from baseline including treatment, stratification factors, time, the interaction between time (visits) and treatment all as categorical variables, and baseline DAS28-CRP as a continuous variable.||0.27|-0.24|
91669812|NCT02744755|183234290|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.23||||||Therapeutic equivalence in terms of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 12 will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the LS mean difference between GP2017 and Humira is contained within the interval \[-0.6; 0.6\]. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis was performed for DAS28-CRP change from baseline including treatment, stratification factors, time, the interaction between time (visits) and treatment all as categorical variables, and baseline DAS28-CRP as a continuous variable.||0.23|-0.19|
91669813|NCT02744755|183234291|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, body weight as per CRF, prior therapy as per CRF, region as per CRF as fixed effects and baseline DAS28-CRP values as covariate.||0.27|-0.11|
91715050|NCT05556148|183321418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.33|-2.40|<.0001
91860790|NCT01212029|183607750|OTHER|One sample t-tests of standardized regression coefficients of RMSSD predicting O2Hb during baseline||||||0.008||||||t-test was performed 16 times for 16 fNIRS channels. The reported p-value is an uncorrected value for channel 10.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant correlation between RMSSD and O2Hb levels during baseline||||0.008
91715051|NCT05556148|183321418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.24|-2.45|<.0001
91715052|NCT05556148|183321418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.75|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.75|-3.19|<.0001
91715053|NCT05556148|183321419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.42|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.42|-0.20|0.4758
91715054|NCT05556148|183321419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.24|-0.99|0.0016
91860791|NCT01212029|183607751|OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Tukey method|||||||0.0105
91669814|NCT02744755|183234291|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.24|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, body weight as per CRF, prior therapy as per CRF, region as per CRF as fixed effects and baseline DAS28-CRP values as covariate.||0.24|-0.08|
91669815|NCT01652729|183234313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2167||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.3|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-0.30|-1.15|0.0010
91669816|NCT01652729|183234313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1638||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.06|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-0.06|-0.70|0.0209
91669817|NCT01652729|183234313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2278||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.11|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||0.11|-0.79|0.1347
91669818|NCT01652729|183234314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0489|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Subjects Achieving HbA1c \<7% at Week 28.||||0.0489
91669819|NCT01652729|183234314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Subjects Achieving HbA1c \<7% at Week 28.||||0.0103
91669820|NCT01652729|183234315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|1.7|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||1.7|-21.8|0.0924
91669821|NCT01652729|183234315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.037||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-15.1|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-15.1|-46.7|0.0001
91669822|NCT01652729|183234316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4058||0.8625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.87||Nominal p-value|mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||0.87|-0.73|0.8625
91669823|NCT01652729|183234316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5419||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.2||Nominal p-value|mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-0.20|-2.34|0.0198
91669824|NCT01652729|183234317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.71||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.23|-4.68||Nominal p-value|general linear model|Includes treatment and baseline HbA1c (\< 9% or ≥ 9%) as fixed factors, and baseline 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose concentrations as a covariate.||||-4.68|-67.23|0.0248
91715055|NCT05556148|183321419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.79|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.79|-1.67|<.0001
91715056|NCT05556148|183321419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.16|-2.18|<.0001
91715057|NCT05556148|183321419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.51|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.51|-2.46|<.0001
91715058|NCT05556148|183321419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.39|-2.77|<.0001
91792714|NCT01293799|183463124|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||Unit of measure: Serum albumin (Hazard ratio per 5g/L). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||The association of Serum albumin (Hazard ratio per 5 g/L) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||0.98|0.79|0.019
91860792|NCT02671903|183607754|SUPERIORITY||Fixed Effect for Treatment|0.25||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in treatment effect taken from mixed-model output||0.73|-0.23|0.3
91669825|NCT01652729|183234317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.02|18.25||Nominal p-value|general linear model|Includes treatment and baseline HbA1c (\< 9% or ≥ 9%) as fixed factors, and baseline 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose concentrations as a covariate.||||18.25|-60.02|0.2914
91669826|NCT00483548|183234318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.7921||95.0|-3.07|2.34||Due to planned interim analysis of primary endpoint, to control type I error at 2-sided alpha=0.05, a nominal 2-sided p-value ≤0.0476 needed at final analysis to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment effect.|ANCOVA Mixed-effects repeated-measures|No other adjustment made for multiple comparisons since all comparisons, except for single primary comparison, are considered secondary.|Mixed-effects repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model: fixed categorical effects of treatment, country, mood stabilizer type, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, fixed continuous effect of baseline value and subject as random effect.|N=141 per arm (282 total) needed for 85% power for 2-sided alpha=0.05 based on true mean difference=4.0 and standard deviation (SD)=11.0 for primary endpoint. Interim Analysis (IA) planned when 60% of subjects had completed study or discontinued prematurely to assess efficacy (nominal 2-sided p-value less than or equal to \[≤\] 0.0076) or futility (nominal 2-sided p-value greater than or equal to \[≥\] 0.5099).||2.34|-3.07|0.7921
91715059|NCT05556148|183321419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-2.08|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.08|-3.65|<.0001
91715060|NCT05556148|183321420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.28|-0.36|0.8017
91715061|NCT05556148|183321420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.3|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.30|-1.05|0.0005
91669827|NCT00483548|183234319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7223||95.0|-0.25|0.36|||ANCOVA Mixed-effects repeated-measures|||Week 6; MMRM analysis of covariance model with fixed categorical effects of treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, fixed continuous effect of baseline value and subject as random effect.||0.36|-0.25|0.7223
91669828|NCT00483548|183234320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.846||||0.5029||95.0|0.52|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio measures the odds of achieving remission (MADRS total score ≤ 12) from ziprasidone treated subjects versus placebo; a value \> 1 favors ziprasidone.|Week 6; LOCF; Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.||1.38|0.52|0.5029
91669829|NCT00483548|183234321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.949||||0.8266||95.0|0.59|1.52|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio measures the odds of achieving response (≥ 50 % reduction in MADRS total score) from ziprasidone treated subjects versus placebo; a value \> 1 favors ziprasidone.|Week 6; LOCF; Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.||1.52|0.59|0.8266
91669830|NCT00483548|183234322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.939||||0.7924||95.0|0.59|1.5||Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6; LOCF; Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.||1.50|0.59|0.7924
91669831|NCT00483548|183234323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0594||95.0|-3.42|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.07|-3.42|0.0594
91669832|NCT00483548|183234323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.223||95.0|-3.27|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.77|-3.27|0.2230
91669833|NCT00483548|183234323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.6971||95.0|-2.57|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.72|-2.57|0.6971
91669834|NCT00483548|183234323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.5485||95.0|-2.89|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.54|-2.89|0.5485
91669835|NCT00483548|183234323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.8322||95.0|-2.6|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||2.10|-2.60|0.8322
91669836|NCT00483548|183234324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1771||95.0|-0.29|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.05|-0.29|0.1771
91715062|NCT05556148|183321420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.89|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.89|-1.69|<.0001
91715063|NCT05556148|183321420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.97|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.97|-1.86|<.0001
91715064|NCT05556148|183321420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.47|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.47|-2.50|<.0001
91715065|NCT05556148|183321420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.29|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.29|-2.61|<.0001
91860793|NCT05481216|183607823|OTHER|Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) will be calculated using a proportional Cox regression model. The adjusted variables were body mass index (BMI), dementia, peripheral vascular disease, history of pneumonia, connective tissue disease, liver disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and anti-IL6 inhibitors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.29||||||||2.29|0.73|
91669837|NCT00483548|183234324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1765||95.0|-0.37|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.07|-0.37|0.1765
91669838|NCT00483548|183234324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6765||95.0|-0.27|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.18|-0.27|0.6765
91669839|NCT00483548|183234324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.977||95.0|-0.24|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.25|-0.24|0.9770
91715066|NCT05556148|183321420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.54|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.54|-3.26|<.0001
91715067|NCT05556148|183321421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.31|-0.25|0.8311
91715068|NCT05556148|183321421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.04|-0.78|0.0313
91715069|NCT05556148|183321421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.39|-1.28|0.0003
91715070|NCT05556148|183321421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.59|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.59|-1.51|<.0001
91715071|NCT05556148|183321421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.66|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-0.66|-1.74|<.0001
91715072|NCT05556148|183321421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.42|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-0.42|-1.69|0.0018
91715073|NCT05556148|183321421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-0.43|-2.10|0.0041
91715074|NCT05556148|183321422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.27|-0.25|0.9380
91669840|NCT00483548|183234324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7907||95.0|-0.3|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.23|-0.30|0.7907
91669841|NCT00483548|183234325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0392||95.0|-0.43|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.43|0.0392
91669842|NCT00483548|183234325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2803||95.0|-0.38|0.11|||ANOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.38|0.2803
91669843|NCT00483548|183234325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.9835||95.0|-0.26|0.26|||ANOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.26|0.9835
91669844|NCT00483548|183234325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7062||95.0|-0.34|0.23|||ANOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.34|0.7062
91669845|NCT00483548|183234325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.9518||95.0|-0.31|0.29|||ANOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.31|0.9518
91669846|NCT00483548|183234325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4757||95.0|-0.2|0.42||Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.|ANOVA|||Week 6; LOCF||0.42|-0.20|0.4757
91669847|NCT00483548|183234326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6362||95.0|-1.12|1.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.82|-1.12|0.6362
91669848|NCT00483548|183234326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.4565||95.0|-0.98|2.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||2.17|-0.98|0.4565
91669849|NCT00483548|183234326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.477||95.0|-1.08|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||2.30|-1.08|0.4770
91792715|NCT01293799|183463125|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.82||Unit of measure: Serum albumin (\<35 g/L vs. 35 g/L or more). P-value \<0.05 is regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||Analysis of the association of serum albumin (\<35 g/L vs. 35 g/l or more) with time to first peritonitis episode by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||1.82|1.08|0.013
91669850|NCT00483548|183234327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1277||95.0|-0.2|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.60|-0.20|0.1277
91792716|NCT01293799|183463125|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.82||Unit of measure: Serum albumin (\<35 g/l vs. 35 g/l or more). P-value \<0.05 is regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Multivariable Cox regression||Analysis of the association of serum albumin (\<35 g/L vs. 35 g/L or more) with time to first peritonitis episode by multivariable Cox regression.||1.82|1.06|0.015
91715075|NCT05556148|183321422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.01|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.01|-0.72|0.0416
91669851|NCT00483548|183234327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.2345||95.0|-0.41|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.68|-0.41|0.2345
91669852|NCT00483548|183234327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8337||95.0|-1.05|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.30|-1.05|0.8337
91669853|NCT00483548|183234327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4646||95.0|-0.73|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.59|-0.73|0.4646
91669854|NCT00483548|183234327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3993||95.0|-0.67|1.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.67|-0.67|0.3993
91669855|NCT00483548|183234327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.7647||95.0|-1.08|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.46|-1.08|0.7647
91669856|NCT00483548|183234328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.0108||95.0|0.99|7.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||7.50|0.99|0.0108
91669857|NCT00483548|183234329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.001||95.0|-7.24|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||Total SDS: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||-1.87|-7.24|0.0010
91669858|NCT00483548|183234330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Days Lost: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.12|-1.00|0.1230
91715076|NCT05556148|183321422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.62|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.62|-1.29|<.0001
91669859|NCT00483548|183234330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.6232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Days Unproductive: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.50|-0.84|0.6232
91669860|NCT00483548|183234331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0096||95.0|0.04|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.31|0.04|0.0096
91669861|NCT00483548|183234331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.8134||95.0|-0.13|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.16|-0.13|0.8134
91669862|NCT00483548|183234331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0226||95.0|0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.29|0.02|0.0226
91669863|NCT00483548|183234332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0193||95.0|0.02|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.23|0.02|0.0193
91669864|NCT00483548|183234332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4745||0.16|-0.07|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.16|-0.07|0.4745
91669865|NCT00483548|183234332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2613||95.0|-0.05|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.19|-0.05|0.2613
91669866|NCT00483548|183234333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0271||95.0|0.01|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.21|0.01|0.0271
91669867|NCT00483548|183234333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7462||95.0|-0.07|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.05|-0.07|0.7462
91669868|NCT00483548|183234333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.9574||95.0|-0.08|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.08|-0.08|0.9574
91792717|NCT01293799|183463126|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.17||Unit of measure: Haemoglobin (HR per 10 g/L). P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||The association of Haemoglobin (Hazard ratio per 10 g/L) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression.||2.17|0.27|0.61
91669869|NCT00483548|183234333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0844||95.0|-0.01|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Global severity score: Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.10|-0.01|0.0844
91669870|NCT00483548|183234333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.5779||95.0|-0.04|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Global severity score: Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.04|0.5779
91669871|NCT00483548|183234333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7455||95.0|-0.05|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Global severity score: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.05|0.7455
91669872|NCT00483548|183234333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3278||95.0|-0.02|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Incapacitation score: Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.05|-0.02|0.3278
91669873|NCT00483548|183234333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9097||95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Incapacitation score: Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.03|-0.03|0.9097
91669874|NCT00483548|183234333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.9864||95.0|-0.04|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Incapacitation score: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.04|-0.04|0.9864
91669875|NCT00483548|183234334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.5519||95.0|-3.5|6.53|||ANCOVA|||Total Q-LES-Q: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||6.53|-3.50|0.5519
91669876|NCT00483548|183234334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5238||95.0|-0.35|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Medications: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.18|-0.35|0.5238
91669877|NCT00483548|183234334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.536||95.0|-0.19|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Overall life satisfaction: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.36|-0.19|0.5360
91692414|NCT03187301|183279693|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.3|14.8||||||60 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||14.8|5.3|
91669878|NCT00112294|183234354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.069||Since only 1 primary comparison was conducted, no adjustment for multiple comparisons was needed.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio of C/T/C to T/C was estimated by means of a stratified Cox's proportional hazard model, with treatment as the single covariate.|Confidence intervals calculated using Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Primary analysis was comparison of PFS between arms performed by 2-sided alpha=0.05 level, log-rank test, stratified by ECOG PS (0/1) and intended on-study taxane (docetaxel or paclitaxel). Null hypothesis was that PFS was equal in both groups. Power calculations indicated that \>=510 events (IRRC progressions/deaths) would lead to \>=90% power at the 5% level for rejecting the null hypothesis, given a true hazard ratio of 0.75.||1.069|0.761|0.2358
91669879|NCT00112294|183234355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.675||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.436|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio is presented for C/T/C to T/C.|The 2 groups were compared by means of a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) (alpha = 0.05 level) test stratified by ECOG PS (0 or 1) and intended on-study taxane (paclitaxel, docetaxel), as recorded at the time of randomization.||2.436|1.152|0.0066
91669880|NCT00112294|183234356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.265||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.741|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio is presented for C/T/C to T/C.|The 2 groups were compared by means of a CMH (alpha = 0.05 level) test stratified by ECOG PS (0 or 1) and intended on-study taxane (paclitaxel, docetaxel), as recorded at the time of randomization.||1.741|0.918|0.1501
91669881|NCT00112294|183234359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.051||An interim analysis on survival was performed. Final p-value was adjusted using an alpha spending function. At the interim analysis (data not reported here) the type 1 error was 0.0001, and the rest is for the final look.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio of C/T/C to T/C was estimated by means of a stratified Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment as the single covariate.|Confidence intervals were calculated using Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Analysis was a comparison of survival between groups by means of a 2-sided, alpha=0.05 level, log-rank test, stratified by ECOG PS (0/1) and intended on-study taxane (docetaxel or paclitaxel). Null hypothesis was that survival was equal in both treatment arms. Power calculations indicated that \>= 558 events would lead to at \>=75% power at the 5% level for rejecting the null hypothesis, given a true hazard ratio of 0.8.||1.051|0.754|0.1685
91669882|NCT00112294|183234360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement of symptoms was compared between groups by means of a CMH (alpha = 0.05 level) test stratified by ECOG PS (0 or 1) and intended on-study taxane (paclitaxel, docetaxel), as recorded at the time of randomization.||||0.26
91669883|NCT03440424|183234371|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|157.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.18|210.87|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||210.87|118.18|
91669884|NCT03440424|183234371|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|122.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.49|163.24|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||163.24|91.49|
91669885|NCT03440424|183234372|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|122.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.95|151.17|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||151.17|98.95|
91715077|NCT05556148|183321422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.76|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.76|-1.60|<.0001
91715078|NCT05556148|183321422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.27|-2.25|<.0001
91715079|NCT05556148|183321422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.05|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.05|-2.33|<.0001
91669886|NCT03440424|183234372|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|103.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.53|127.61|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||127.61|83.53|
91669887|NCT03440424|183234373|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|125.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.76|162.16|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||162.16|96.76|
91669888|NCT03440424|183234373|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|115.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.98|149.13|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||149.13|88.98|
91669889|NCT03440424|183234374|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|131.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|180.4|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||180.40|96.46|
91669890|NCT03440424|183234374|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|149.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.34|204.47|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||204.47|109.34|
91715080|NCT05556148|183321422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-1.52|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.52|-3.08|<.0001
91715081|NCT05556148|183321423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.33|-0.25|0.7821
91715082|NCT05556148|183321423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.39|-1.14|<.0001
91715083|NCT05556148|183321423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-1.19|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-1.19|-2.05|<.0001
91715084|NCT05556148|183321423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.86|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.86|-2.73|<.0001
91715085|NCT05556148|183321423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.94|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.94|-2.98|<.0001
91715086|NCT05556148|183321423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-1.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.92|-3.36|<.0001
91715087|NCT05556148|183321423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.21|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.21|-4.19|<.0001
91669891|NCT03440424|183234375|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|125.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.96|177.74|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||177.74|87.96|
91669892|NCT03440424|183234375|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|153.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.39|221.66|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||221.66|106.39|
91669893|NCT03440424|183234376|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|128.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.35|188.02|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||188.02|88.35|
91669894|NCT03440424|183234376|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|166.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.31|246.99|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||246.99|112.31|
91669895|NCT03440424|183234377|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|96.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.15|134.06|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||134.06|70.15|
91669896|NCT03440424|183234377|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|72.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.12|99.6|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||99.60|52.12|
91669897|NCT03440424|183234377|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|84.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.21|118.19|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||118.19|60.21|
91669898|NCT03440424|183234377|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|65.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.89|92.05|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||92.05|46.89|
91669899|NCT03440424|183234377|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|94.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.37|131.3|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||131.30|68.37|
91669900|NCT03440424|183234377|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|76.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.24|106.09|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||106.09|55.24|
91669901|NCT03440424|183234379|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|99.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.91|127.81|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||127.81|76.91|
91669902|NCT03440424|183234379|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|69.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.03|89.79|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||89.79|54.03|
91715088|NCT05556148|183321424|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.68|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.68|0.21|0.0003
91669903|NCT03440424|183234379|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|78.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.88|99.21|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||99.21|62.88|
91669904|NCT03440424|183234379|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.31|79.38|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||79.38|50.31|
91669905|NCT03440424|183234379|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|94.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.5|130.51|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||130.51|68.50|
91669906|NCT03440424|183234379|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|71.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.03|99.12|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||99.12|52.03|
91669907|NCT03440424|183234380|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|106.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.95|135.62|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||135.62|83.95|
91669908|NCT03440424|183234380|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|85.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.41|108.9|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||108.90|67.41|
91669909|NCT03440424|183234380|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|75.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.28|91.31|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||91.31|62.28|
91669910|NCT03440424|183234380|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.76|92.02|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||92.02|62.76|
91715089|NCT05556148|183321424|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||0.24|-0.38|0.6460
91792718|NCT01293799|183463127|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.23||"Unit of measure. The time-dependent variable Corticosteroid treatment (yes vs. no). Time-updated data were used. P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Time-dependent univariable Cox regression||"The association of the time-dependent variable Corticosteroid treatment (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by time-dependent univariable Cox regression."||1.23|0.54|0.33
91669911|NCT03440424|183234380|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|95.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.92|126.94|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||126.94|71.92|
91669912|NCT03440424|183234380|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|74.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.06|98.94|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||98.94|56.06|
91715090|NCT05556148|183321424|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.22|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.22|-0.95|0.0021
91669913|NCT03440424|183234381|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|113.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.16|150.05|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||150.05|85.16|
91669914|NCT03440424|183234381|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|103.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.16|137.7|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||137.70|78.16|
91669915|NCT03440424|183234381|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|78.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.57|98.78|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||98.78|62.57|
91669916|NCT03440424|183234381|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.38|126.9|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||126.90|80.38|
91669917|NCT03440424|183234381|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|109.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.07|147.88|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||147.88|81.07|
91669918|NCT03440424|183234381|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.89|142.08|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||142.08|77.89|
91669919|NCT03440424|183234382|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|115.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.51|159.42|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||159.42|83.51|
91669920|NCT03440424|183234382|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|116.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.66|161.62|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||161.62|84.66|
91669921|NCT03440424|183234382|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|78.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.06|100.81|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||100.81|61.06|
91669922|NCT03440424|183234382|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|116.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.95|151.56|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||151.56|89.95|
91715091|NCT05556148|183321424|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.41|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.41|-1.25|0.0002
91669923|NCT03440424|183234382|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|94.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.31|128.28|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||128.28|70.31|
91669924|NCT03440424|183234382|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|103.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.43|142.28|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||142.28|75.43|
91669925|NCT05070754|183234440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||Chi-squared|||Outcome measures 1-3 were all tested together. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the degree of lesion resolution between the two treatment methods.||||0.534
91669926|NCT05070754|183234441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||Chi-squared|||Outcome measures 1-3 were all tested together. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the degree of lesion resolution between the two treatment methods.||||0.534
91669927|NCT05070754|183234442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||Chi-squared|||Outcome measures 1-3 were all tested together. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the degree of lesion resolution between the two treatment methods.||||0.534
91669928|NCT05070754|183234443|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91669929|NCT05070754|183234444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in median pain levels between SOC and NTAP treated lesions.||||0.142
91715092|NCT05556148|183321424|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.73|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-0.73|-1.68|<.0001
91715093|NCT05556148|183321424|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.68|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-0.68|-2.04|0.0003
91669930|NCT02958319|183234455|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|GENERAL LINEAL MODEL|GENERAL LINEAL MODEL OF REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.82
91669931|NCT00372996|183234456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.744|1.118|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value from an unstratified log-rank text|Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.118|0.744|0.560
91669932|NCT00372996|183234457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.572|1.02||2-sided p-value from unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.020|0.572|0.331
91669933|NCT00372996|183234458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.79||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|17.6|||Pearson chi-square test|||||17.6|-8.0|0.463
91669934|NCT01881737|183234515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||Paired t test|||Effect Size Cohen's d = -0.05||||0.848
91669935|NCT01881737|183234516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Paired t test|Effect Size Cohen's d = 0.53||||||0.009
91669936|NCT01881737|183234517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||paired t test|Effect size Cohen's d = 0.38||||||0.38
91669937|NCT01881737|183234519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91669938|NCT00345033|183234520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in total cholesterol is over 99%.||||||0.125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.125
91669939|NCT00345033|183234521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in weight will be over 99%.||||||0.109||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.109
91715094|NCT05556148|183321424|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.32|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.32|-2.95|<.0001
91715095|NCT05556148|183321425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.45|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.45|-0.04|0.1074
91792719|NCT01293799|183463128|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.84||Unit of measure: Cytotoxic treatment (yes vs. no). Time-updated data was used. P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Time-updated univariable Cox regression||"The association of the time-dependent variable Cytotoxic treatment (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable time-dependent Cox regression."||1.84|0.70|0.60
91669940|NCT00345033|183234522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in Body Mass Index (BMI) will be over 99%.||||||0.229||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.229
91669941|NCT00345033|183234523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in glucose metabolism to be 90%.||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.010
91669942|NCT00345033|183234524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in triglycerides will be 81%.||||||0.982||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.982
91669943|NCT00345033|183234525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in Insulin Resistance will be 90%.||||||0.082||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.082
91669944|NCT03496298|183234526|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of efpeglenatide 4 mg+6 mg versus placebo was to be claimed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio for the incidence of both 1.8 and less and 1.3 or less.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.918||One-sided p-value based on log rank test of hazard ratio for the incidence of both 1.8 and less and 1.3 or less.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.918|0.583|<.0001
91669945|NCT03496298|183234527|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was claimed when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of hazard ratio was less than 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.918||Two-sided p-values based on log rank test of hazard ratio.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.918|0.583|0.0069
91669946|NCT03496298|183234528|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was claimed when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of hazard ratio was less than 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96||Two-sided p-values based on log rank test of hazard ratio.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.96|0.65|0.02
91669947|NCT03496298|183234529|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was claimed when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of hazard ratio was less than 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.794||Two-sided p-values based on log rank test of hazard ratio.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.794|0.574|<.0001
91669948|NCT01658995|183234530|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|11.6|||Chi-squared|||||11.6|-31.4|0.37
91669949|NCT01658995|183234531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
91669950|NCT02058160|183234545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|-0.397||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Analysis was performed using Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as covariates. A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple endpoint analyses.||-0.397|-0.633|<0.0001
91669951|NCT02058160|183234546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.94|32.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|"HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of metformin use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||32.10|18.94|<0.0001
91715096|NCT05556148|183321425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.02|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.02|-0.67|0.0364
91792720|NCT01293799|183463129|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.57||Unit of measure: Type of PD start (planned vs. acute). P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Type of PD start with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.57|0.73|0.72
91792721|NCT01293799|183463130|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.76||Unit of measure: Antibiotics prior to PD catheter insertion (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Antibiotics prior to PD catheter insertion (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.76|0.66|0.77
91792722|NCT01293799|183463131|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||Unit of measure: Type of PD-catheter (straight vs. coiled). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Type of PD catheter used (straight vs. coiled) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.28|0.68|0.68
91669952|NCT02058160|183234546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|25.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|"HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of metformin use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||25.62|13.90|<0.0001
91715097|NCT05556148|183321425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.91|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.91|-1.68|<.0001
91794382|NCT00245219|183467837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 2. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
91715098|NCT05556148|183321425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.36|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.36|-2.25|<.0001
91715099|NCT05556148|183321425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.69|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.69|-2.78|<.0001
91669953|NCT02058160|183234547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.925|-2.939||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening and country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour plasma glucose excursion value as a covariate.||-2.939|-3.925|<0.0001
91669954|NCT02058160|183234548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.808|-0.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, scheduled visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.93|-1.808|<0.0001
91669955|NCT02058160|183234549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.154|-0.64||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, scheduled visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline average SMPG value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.64|-1.154|<0.0001
91669956|NCT02058160|183234550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage|20.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.98|26.66||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of metformin use at screening.||26.66|14.98|<0.0001
91669957|NCT02058160|183234551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.7362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|1.246||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, scheduled visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline daily insulin glargine dose-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||1.246|-1.762|0.7362
91669958|NCT03604549|183234643|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.44||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.25|||Chi-squared||Lipiodol UF is the numerator and Saline is the denominator for RR|||1.25|0.16|0.10
91669959|NCT03604549|183234644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference reported as Lipiodol UF - Saline|||1.68|-1.59|0.96
91669960|NCT03298880|183234682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.3|||mixed linear regression|||||5.3|2.1|<0.001
91669961|NCT03298880|183234682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.8|||mixed linear regression|||||3.8|0.8|0.003
91715100|NCT05556148|183321425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.45|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.45|-2.70|<.0001
91669962|NCT01488448|183234685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91669963|NCT01488448|183234686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.77
91669964|NCT01488448|183234687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.97
91669965|NCT01488448|183234688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
91669966|NCT01488448|183234689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91669967|NCT01488448|183234690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91715101|NCT05556148|183321425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-2.1|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.10|-3.84|<.0001
91715102|NCT05556148|183321426|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.43|-2.33|<.0001
91794383|NCT00245219|183467837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 3, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
91669968|NCT01488448|183234693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91669969|NCT01992094|183234694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain H1N1||1.1|0.9|
91715103|NCT05556148|183321426|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.01|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.01|-2.90|<.0001
91715104|NCT05556148|183321426|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-2.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.39|-3.41|<.0001
91715105|NCT05556148|183321426|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-2.77|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.77|-3.82|<.0001
91715106|NCT05556148|183321426|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-2.37|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.37|-3.53|<.0001
91715107|NCT05556148|183321426|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-2.53|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.53|-3.98|<.0001
91715108|NCT05556148|183321426|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-2.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.16|-4.08|<.0001
91669970|NCT01992094|183234694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain H3N2||1.1|0.9|
91669971|NCT01992094|183234694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1||1.0|0.8|
91669972|NCT01992094|183234694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV2c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2||1.0|0.9|
91669973|NCT01992094|183234695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain H1N1||4.2|-5.3|
91669974|NCT01992094|183234695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strainH3N2||1.9|-7.2|
91669975|NCT01992094|183234695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1||2.8|-6.2|
91669976|NCT01992094|183234695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV2c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2||0.2|-8.9|
91715109|NCT05556148|183321427|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-1.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.31|-2.14|<.0001
91715110|NCT05556148|183321427|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.7|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-1.70|-2.55|<.0001
91860794|NCT05481216|183607823|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.29||||||The adjusted variables were body mass index (BMI), dementia, peripheral vascular disease, history of pneumonia, connective tissue disease, liver disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and anti-IL6 inhibitors.||2.29|0.73|
91669977|NCT01992094|183234701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c or TIV2c /GMT QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1.|Ratios of GMT|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.7||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2||0.7|0.6|
91669978|NCT01992094|183234702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c or TIV2c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points.|Difference between seroconversion rates|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-15.5||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2||-15.5|-23.2|
91715111|NCT05556148|183321427|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.9|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-1.90|-2.71|<.0001
91715112|NCT05556148|183321427|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-2.29|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.29|-3.23|<.0001
91715113|NCT05556148|183321427|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-2.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.39|-3.31|<.0001
91860795|NCT05481216|183607827|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19.||||0.009
91902306|NCT01807923|183699682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.9|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L VAS score.||4.9|-0.7|0.1342
91715114|NCT05556148|183321427|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-2.64|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.64|-3.72|<.0001
91715115|NCT05556148|183321427|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.43|-3.90|<.0001
91715116|NCT05556148|183321428|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.57|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.57|-2.39|<.0001
91860796|NCT05481216|183607848|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||0.99|0.74|0.033
91902307|NCT01807923|183699682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.3071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.2|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.2|-1.3|0.3071
91669979|NCT01992094|183234703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c or TIV2c /GMT QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1.|Ratios of GMT|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.5||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1||0.5|0.5|
91669980|NCT01992094|183234704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c or TIV2c - %seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points.|Difference between seroconversion rates|-21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-17.7||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1||-17.7|-25.5|
91669981|NCT01475487|183234707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 21 participants per group was required to detect a 40% absolute difference in the complication rate between DP and US guided techniques assuming a 45% complication rate in the DP (control) group and using the Fisher's exact test for the comparison of independent proportions. A total of 23 and 24 participants were recruited in the DP and US group, respectively.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91669982|NCT01475487|183234708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.94|||Fisher Exact||Risk of injury ( none-mild vs moderate -severe) for all participants|||5.94|1.39|0.001
91669983|NCT01475487|183234708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Grade 3-4 comparison of None-mild and moderate-severe||||<0.001
91669984|NCT01475487|183234709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.72|||Fisher Exact||This is the risk ratio for 1 vs 2 attempts|||2.72|0.12|0.701
91669985|NCT01475487|183234710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|39.48|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Grade 3-4||39.48|0.79|0.043
91669986|NCT03429049|183234749|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.1904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The NRS least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.17|-0.84|0.1904
91669987|NCT03429049|183234750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The WOMAC A least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.33|-5.07|0.0257
91669988|NCT03429049|183234751|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The WOMAC B least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.13|-2.01|0.0855
91669989|NCT03429049|183234752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.096||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.86|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The WOMAC C least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.26|-15.86|0.0550
91669990|NCT04412057|183234771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|7.88|||Regression, Logistic|||The sample size provided greater than 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 in the proportion of subjects alive and free of respiratory failure using a Chi-square exact test at a one-sided significance level of 0.05. This calculation assumed that the proportion alive and free of respiratory failure will be 0.60 in the placebo group and 0.85 in the CERC-002 group.||7.88|1.04|0.0440
91860797|NCT05481216|183607849|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||3.22|1.16|0.012
91669991|NCT04412057|183234772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|6.82|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of subjects alive at Day 28/ET in the CERC-002 group was compared to that in the placebo group using logistic regression methods. The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group. Model based point estimate (i.e., odds ratio \[OR\]), 90% confidence interval \[CI\], and one-sided p-value were reported.||6.82|0.59|0.1762
91669992|NCT00513617|183234802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0705||0.08||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo was subtracted from the Low dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.080
91669993|NCT00513617|183234802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0713||0.133||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo was subtracted from High dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.133
91715117|NCT05556148|183321428|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.81|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-1.81|-2.66|<.0001
91715118|NCT05556148|183321428|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-2.32|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.32|-3.14|<.0001
91792723|NCT01293799|183463132|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.66||Unit of measure: PD modality (CAPD, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis vs. APD, automated peritoneal dialysis). Time-updated data were used. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable time-dependent Cox regression||The PD modality (CAPD or APD) may vary with time and is thus time-dependent. Data were included as time-varying covariates in a time-dependent Cox regression. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||1.66|0.96|0.10
91792724|NCT01293799|183463133|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.57||Unit of measure: Number of PD bags used/24h. Time-updated data was used. P-value \<0.05 was regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable time-dependent Cox regression. (The result of multivariable Cox regression is presented in Statistical analysis 2)||The data regarding the number of PD bags used/24h were included as time-varying covariates in a time-dependent Cox regression. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity was found. The risk (hazard ratio) associated with the studied variable is reported.||1.57|1.17|< 0.0001
91669994|NCT00513617|183234804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0713||0.915||||||Alpha was set at 0.5|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from Low dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.915
91669995|NCT00513617|183234804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1047||0.918||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from High dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.918
91669996|NCT00513617|183234805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1101||0.015||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from Low dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.015
91669997|NCT00513617|183234805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1553||0.557||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from High dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.557
91669998|NCT02418455|183234841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.409|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.56|-48.44||P-values are from generalized estimating equation (GEE) model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||||-48.44|-73.56|< 0.0001
91669999|NCT02418455|183234849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2655|||||||t-test|||||||0.2655
91670000|NCT02418455|183234850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.22||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 12||-0.22|-1.77|0.0122
91670001|NCT02418455|183234850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.31||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 24||-0.31|-2.12|0.0086
91670002|NCT02418455|183234850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.37||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 48||-0.37|-1.58|0.0016
91670003|NCT02418455|183234850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.26||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 96||0.26|-1.41|0.1792
91670004|NCT02418455|183234850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.15||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 144||0.15|-0.85|0.1731
91670005|NCT02418455|183234851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.05||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 12||0.05|-0.78|0.0843
91670006|NCT02418455|183234851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.9618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.98||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 24||0.98|-1.03|0.9618
91670007|NCT02418455|183234851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Change at Week 48||0.61|-0.92|0.6954
91670008|NCT02418455|183234851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.93||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 96||0.93|-0.50|0.5492
91670009|NCT02418455|183234851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.42||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 144||0.42|-1.55|0.2618
91670010|NCT02445287|183234852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.920
91670011|NCT02445287|183234853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
91670012|NCT02445287|183234854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence interval = (-0.25, 0.25)||||||0||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|Equivalence test|||||||0.000
91792725|NCT01293799|183463133|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.54||Unit of measure: Number of PD bags used /24h. Time-updated data was used. P-value \< 0.05 was regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Multivariable time-dependent Cox regression||"Analysis of the association of Number of PD bags used per 24 hours with time to first peritonitis episode by multivariable time-dependent Cox regression. The multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the factors affecting the backward elimination procedure was found. The risk (hazard ratio) associated with the studied variable is reported."||1.54|1.13|<0.0005
91670013|NCT02445287|183234855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.012
91670014|NCT04205162|183234868|OTHER|||||||0.331|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of etafilcon A||||0.331
91670015|NCT04205162|183234868|OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of verofilcon A||||0.122
91670016|NCT04205162|183234869|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of etafilcon A||||0.130
91670017|NCT04205162|183234869|OTHER|||||||0.924|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of verofilcon A||||0.924
91860798|NCT05481216|183607850|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||1.02|0.95|0.458
91670018|NCT01546519|183234873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.78||||||Cmax Mild HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.78|0.95|
91670019|NCT01546519|183234873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.83||||||Cmax Moderate HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.83|0.92|
91670020|NCT01546519|183234873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.37||||||Cmax Severe HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.37|0.55|
91670021|NCT01546519|183234873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.71||||||Css Mild HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.71|0.90|
91670022|NCT01546519|183234873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.8||||||Css Moderate HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.80|0.89|
91670023|NCT01546519|183234873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.41||||||Css Severe HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.41|0.55|
91670024|NCT01546519|183234874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.73||||||AUC0-24hr Mild HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.73|0.89|
91670025|NCT01546519|183234874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.89||||||AUC0-24hr Moderate HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.89|0.91|
91670026|NCT01546519|183234874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.39||||||AUC0-24hr Severe HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.39|0.53|
91670027|NCT00779402|183234882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.433|||Log Rank|Log Rank Test (two sided) stratified by Gleason Score and Radiation Therapy||||1.433|0.693|0.65
91670028|NCT00693225|183234890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91670029|NCT01186016|183234894|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||A priori threshold for the P-Value was.05 or less.|ANOVA|||The scores on the Genetic Knowledge Test for both groups between baseline and the end of the educational sessions were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA.||||<0.01
91670030|NCT01186016|183234895|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of .05 or less.|ANOVA|||Data for Self-Efficacy for Quitting/Resisting Smoking were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA using three time points: baseline, end of the educational sessions, and end of the smoking cessation sessions.||||0.44
91670031|NCT01186016|183234896|OTHER|Nominal data were analyzed with Chi Square.||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold P-Value for statistical significance was .05 or less.|Chi-squared|||||||.88
91670032|NCT03750695|183234899|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Repeated measures linear regression||||<0.05
91670033|NCT03173560|183234900|NON_INFERIORITY|Odd ratio for ORR24W was analyzed along with 90% CI for each treatment arm using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method, stratified by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic group and prior programmed cell death protein 1/ programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) treatment from IxRS data. Non-inferiority would be claimed if 1-sided P value is \<=0.045 at the final analysis for the non-inferiority test with the non-inferiority margin of the odd ratio =0.76.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.2676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.32|0.59|0.2676
91670034|NCT03173560|183234901|SUPERIORITY|Percentage of participants with intolerable Grade 2 or any Grade \>=Grade 3 TEAEs within 24 weeks was tested using CMH method at 2-sided α=0.05, stratified by MSKCC prognostic group and prior PD-1/PD-L1 treatment from IxRS data. The treatment difference and 95% CI were also calculated based on asymptotic normal approximation.|Difference|3.2||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.9|-5.5|0.4763
91670035|NCT03173560|183234902|OTHER|The hazard ratio and the corresponding 90% CIs were estimated using the Cox regression model with Efron's method for ties, stratified by MSKCC prognostic group and prior PD-1/PD-L1 treatment.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.86||||||||1.86|1.08|
91670036|NCT03173560|183234903|OTHER|Odd ratio for ORR was analyzed along with 90% CI for each treatment arm using CMH method stratified by MSKCC prognostic group and PD-1/PD-L1 treatment from IxRS data.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.14||||||||1.14|0.52|
91670037|NCT02174276|183234918|SUPERIORITY|Estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the TDF only group at Week 24 are presented with the 95% CIs and unadjusted P-values.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.12|||Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||The null hypotheses was that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in each of the TDF + GS-4774 groups was equal to the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in the TDF only group. Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative hypothesis that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg was not equal between each of the respective GS-4774 dose groups and the TDF only group.||0.120|-0.155|0.805
91670038|NCT02174276|183234918|SUPERIORITY|Estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the TDF only group at Week 24 are presented with the 95% CIs and unadjusted P-values.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.063||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.202|||Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||The null hypotheses was that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in each of the TDF + GS-4774 groups was equal to the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in the TDF only group. Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative hypothesis that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg was not equal between each of the respective GS-4774 dose groups and the TDF only group.||0.202|-0.075|0.370
91670039|NCT02174276|183234918|SUPERIORITY|Estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the TDF only group at Week 24 are presented with the 95% CIs and unadjusted P-values.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.056||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.082|||Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||The null hypotheses was that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in each of the TDF + GS-4774 groups was equal to the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in the TDF only group. Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative hypothesis that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg was not equal between each of the respective GS-4774 dose groups and the TDF only group.||0.082|-0.194|0.426
91670040|NCT00216060|183234937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.08||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|8.4|||Regression, Cox|||||8.40|0.51|0.3
91670041|NCT00216060|183234938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||univariate analysis|||||||0.12
91670042|NCT00216060|183234940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91670043|NCT00216060|183234942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91670044|NCT00216060|183234943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.010
91670045|NCT00216060|183234944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91670046|NCT04480307|183234972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.031||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.063|||ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.124|0.5084
91670047|NCT04480307|183234972|SUPERIORITY||Difference of change from Baseline|-0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.057|||Bayesian|Difference of change from baseline a posteriori||Bayesian analysis is done using a non-informative prior on the mean observed difference.||0.057|-0.121|
91670048|NCT04480307|183234973|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|-0.052|0.9472
91670049|NCT04480307|183234973|SUPERIORITY||Difference of change from Baseline|0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.059|||Bayesian|Difference of change from Baseline a posteriori.||Bayesian analysis is done using a non-informative prior on the mean observed difference.||0.059|-0.036|
91670050|NCT04480307|183234974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.154||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.524|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for T1 lesion volume parameter||0.524|-0.216|0.4027
91670051|NCT04480307|183234974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.071|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for T2 lesion volume parameter||0.071|-0.051|0.7428
91670052|NCT04480307|183234975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.003||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.018|||ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.013|0.7314
91670053|NCT04480307|183234975|SUPERIORITY||Difference of change from Baseline|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.023|||Bayesian|Difference of change from Baseline a posteriori||Bayesian analysis is done using a non-informative prior on the mean observed difference.||0.023|-0.010|
91670054|NCT04480307|183234976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|0|0.7662
91670055|NCT01589601|183234978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8719||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0289|11.7728|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline||||11.7728|-2.0289|0.1641
91670056|NCT01589601|183234978|SUPERIORITY|6 Months|Mean Difference (Net)|9.4938||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9406|18.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.0470|0.9406|0.0299
91670057|NCT01589601|183234979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7157||||0.5531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3054|11.7368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline||||11.7368|-6.3054|0.5531
91670058|NCT01589601|183234979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.773||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8409|22.7052|||Mixed Models Analysis|6 Months||||22.7052|0.8409|0.0350
91670059|NCT01589601|183234980|SUPERIORITY|HADS Anxiety 2 weeks|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2436||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9817|0.4945|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4945|-2.9817|0.1592
91670060|NCT01589601|183234980|SUPERIORITY|HADS Anxiety 3 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7946||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5285|0.9393|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9393|-2.5285|0.3657
91670061|NCT01589601|183234980|SUPERIORITY|HADS Anxiety 6 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8269||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6375|-0.0164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0164|-3.6375|0.0480
91670062|NCT01589601|183234980|SUPERIORITY|HADS Depression at 2 weeks|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9097||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4253|0.6058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6058|-2.4253|0.2372
91792726|NCT01293799|183463134|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.08||Unit of measure: Volume of dialysis fluid/24h (L). Time-updated data was used. P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable time-dependent Cox regression||"Data regarding Volume of dialysis fluid used/24h was included as time-varying covariates in a time-dependent Cox regression. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity was found. The risk (hazard ratio) associated with the studied variable is reported."||1.08|0.99|0.13
91902308|NCT01807923|183699683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.49||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|9.96|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM effectiveness score.||9.96|1.03|0.0160
91670063|NCT01589601|183234980|SUPERIORITY|HADS Depression 3 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6592||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2862|0.9678|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9678|-2.2862|0.4237
91670064|NCT01589601|183234980|SUPERIORITY|HADS Depression at 6 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9379||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5672|-0.3085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3085|-3.5672|0.0202
91670065|NCT01589601|183234982|SUPERIORITY|FACIT-Sp at 2 weeks|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9413||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4666|4.3493|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3493|-2.4666|0.5857
91902309|NCT01807923|183699683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.8||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|10.35|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||10.35|1.25|0.0126
91860799|NCT05481216|183607851|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||4.57|1.61|<0.001
91860800|NCT05481216|183607852|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||2.25|1.34|<0.001
91860801|NCT02120456|183607867|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.58|||Negative binominal regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.58|0.34|<0.001
91860802|NCT02120456|183607867|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.73|||Negative binominal regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.73|0.44|<0.001
91860803|NCT02120456|183607867|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.26||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.6|||Negative binominal regression|||||1.60|0.99|0.058
91860804|NCT02120456|183607868|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.05||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.73|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||4.73|0.30|0.94
91860805|NCT02120456|183607868|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.51|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||4.51|0.28|1.00
91860806|NCT02120456|183607868|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|0.95||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.89|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||2.89|0.31|0.93
91860807|NCT02120456|183607869|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|7.85|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||7.85|1.36|0.003
91860808|NCT02120456|183607869|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.84||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|7.74|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||7.74|1.35|0.004
91860809|NCT02120456|183607869|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.47|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||1.47|0.66|0.95
91860810|NCT01999075|183607887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was a two-sided p-value of 0.05.|ANCOVA||"The mean difference between the intervention and the control group in the change from baseline to 2 years was estimated.~Estimates presented here are based on multiple imputation of missing values."|||10.7|-6.9|0.68
91860811|NCT01999075|183607891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.18||||||Difference in change in peak cough flow (L/min) from baseline to 2 years, between conventional treatment and intervention group.||2.18|-1.92|
91860812|NCT01999075|183607892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
91860813|NCT01999075|183607893|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.00
91860814|NCT01999075|183607894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
91860815|NCT05521308|183607901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in preference count per participant between Variation #1, Variation #2 and Same counts.||1.00|0.20|<0.001
91860816|NCT05521308|183607901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is to see if there is a difference between Variation #1 and Variation #2 preference counts per participant.||6.05|0.41|0.02
91860817|NCT05521308|183607901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in preference count per participant between Variation #1, Variation #3 and Same counts.||1.00|0.18|<0.001
91860818|NCT05521308|183607901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|3.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is to see if there is a difference between Variation #1 and Variation #3 preference counts per participant.||3.55|-1.36|.54
91860819|NCT05521308|183607901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in preference count per participant between Variation #2, Variation #3, and Same counts.||1.00|0|.231
91860820|NCT05521308|183607903|SUPERIORITY||Cramer's V|0.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|This is to see if there is a difference in preference counts between standard curve, variation #4, and # of times they were rated as the same. -Indoor||||||.13
91860821|NCT05521308|183607903|SUPERIORITY||Cramer's V|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||This is to see if there is a difference in preference counts between standard curve, variation #4, and # of time they were rated as the same. -Outdoor|Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91860822|NCT05521308|183607903|SUPERIORITY||Cramer's V|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The number of participants that showed overall preference toward variation #4 vs. the standard curve vs. no preference. - Outdoors.||||0.04
91670066|NCT01589601|183234982|SUPERIORITY|FACIT-Sp at 3 months|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1174||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7246|4.9594|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9594|-2.7246|0.5655
91670067|NCT01589601|183234982|SUPERIORITY|FACIT-Sp at 6 months|Mean Difference (Net)|3.9809||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4581|7.5036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.5036|0.4581|0.0271
91670068|NCT01589601|183234984|SUPERIORITY|All-cause readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.56|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.56
91670069|NCT01589601|183234984|SUPERIORITY|Cardiovascular readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.8|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.80
91670070|NCT01589601|183234984|SUPERIORITY|Heart failure readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.92|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.92
91670071|NCT01589601|183234984|SUPERIORITY|Non-cardiovascular readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.12|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.12
91670072|NCT00434837|183234985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 3-year analysis.||||.27
91670073|NCT00434837|183234986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 7-year analysis.||||.08
91792727|NCT01293799|183463135|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||Unit of measure: Help needed with exit-site care (yes vs. no). Time-updated data was used. P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable time-dependent Cox regression||"Data regarding the variable Help needed with exit-site care (yes vs. no) were included as time-varying covariates in a univariable time-dependent Cox regression in order to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode. The risk (hazard ratio) associated with the studied variable is reported.."||1.41|0.77|0.79
91792728|NCT01293799|183463136|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||Unit of measure: Study group (retraining group vs. control group). P-value \<0.05 is regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|||Association ot the Retraining group vs. the Control group with time to first peritonitis episode by univariable Cox regression||1.19|0.71|0.52
91792729|NCT03044574|183463151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91792730|NCT03044574|183463152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91792731|NCT03044574|183463153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91860823|NCT05521308|183607904|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANOVA|Initally this is to see if there is a differnce between Unaided, Aided #1 and Aided #2.||Standard Curve vs Variation #4||1.00|0.10|<0.001
91670074|NCT00434837|183234987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.22
91670075|NCT00434837|183234988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.0078
91715119|NCT05556148|183321428|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.43|-3.40|<.0001
91860824|NCT05521308|183607904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|2.35||Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparison|t-test, 2 sided|Standard Curve vs Variation #4||||2.35|-2.83|0.855
91860825|NCT03056040|183607921|NON_INFERIORITY|A difference in percent change in LDH between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups at Day 183 along with a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Noninferiority margin (NIM) was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. NIM was 15%.|Treatment Difference|-9.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|0.42|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|Adjusting for a possible 10% dropout rate, a minimum of 192 participants were estimated to provide 90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ravulizumab to eculizumab.||0.42|-18.84|
91670076|NCT00434837|183234989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.0018
91670077|NCT00434837|183234990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.015
91715120|NCT05556148|183321428|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-2.66|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.66|-3.68|<.0001
91670078|NCT00434837|183234991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.003
91670079|NCT00434837|183234992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.0006
91670080|NCT00434837|183234993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.15
91670081|NCT00434837|183234994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.34
91670082|NCT00434837|183234995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.17
91670083|NCT00434837|183234996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.25
91715121|NCT05556148|183321428|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-2.54|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.54|-4.02|<.0001
91715122|NCT05556148|183321428|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-2.7|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.70|-4.24|<.0001
91792732|NCT03044574|183463154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91792733|NCT03044574|183463155|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91792734|NCT03044574|183463156|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91792735|NCT03044574|183463157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91792736|NCT03044574|183463159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91792737|NCT02635646|183463164|OTHER|T test for mean comparisons between independent groups||||||0.844||||||Significant p value less than 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.844
91792738|NCT02635646|183463165|OTHER|||||||0.624|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.624
91792739|NCT02635646|183463166|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91792740|NCT02635646|183463167|OTHER|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516
91792741|NCT02635646|183463168|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91792742|NCT02387476|183463171|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.9||The p-value to test non-inferiority of FRESCA Mask compared with CPAP Mask (FRESCA-CPAP\<5 units) assumes a 1-sided test using a level of significance of 2.5% and NI margin of 5 units.|t-test, 1 sided||The mean AHI is rounded to a single decimal point in the text of the report (3.0 and 2.4, respectively), in order to be consistent with standard reporting of AHI.|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.||2.9|-1.7|<0.001
91794384|NCT00245219|183467837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 3. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
91670084|NCT00434837|183234997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.61
91670085|NCT00434837|183234998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.15
91670086|NCT00434837|183234999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.53
91670087|NCT00434837|183235000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.82
91670088|NCT00434837|183235001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.03
91670089|NCT00434837|183235002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.67
91670090|NCT00434837|183235004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.051
91670091|NCT00434837|183235005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||These results were from the 15-year analysis.||||.14
91670092|NCT00434837|183235006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.067
91670093|NCT00434837|183235007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||These results were from the 7-year analysis.||||.54
91670094|NCT00434837|183235008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.08
91670095|NCT02102932|183235032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.92|108.78||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||108.78|101.92|0.0000
91670096|NCT02102932|183235032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.91|106.65||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.65|99.91|0.0000
91670097|NCT02102932|183235032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.73|107.54||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||107.54|99.73|0.0000
91670098|NCT02102932|183235032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|102.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.36|106.37||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.37|99.36|0.0000
91670099|NCT02102932|183235033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|104.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.56|112.07||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.07|97.56|0.0001
91670100|NCT02102932|183235033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.32|112.7||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.70|99.32|0.0001
91715123|NCT05556148|183321429|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.55|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.55|-2.37|<.0001
91715124|NCT05556148|183321429|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-2.01|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.01|-2.83|<.0001
91670101|NCT02102932|183235033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.18|109.63||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||109.63|98.18|0.0000
91670102|NCT02102932|183235033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|95.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.88|102.03||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||102.03|89.88|0.0000
91670103|NCT02102932|183235034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|106.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.44|112.8||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.80|100.44|0.0000
91670104|NCT02102932|183235034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|110.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.8|118.24||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||118.24|103.80|0.0021
91670105|NCT02102932|183235034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|101.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.82|108.39||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||108.39|94.82|0.0000
91670106|NCT02102932|183235034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.3||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.08|111.63||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||111.63|95.08|0.0002
91670107|NCT02102932|183235035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|104.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.29|110.86||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||110.86|99.29|0.0000
91715125|NCT05556148|183321429|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-2.53|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.53|-3.41|<.0001
91715126|NCT05556148|183321429|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-2.87|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.87|-3.81|<.0001
91670108|NCT02102932|183235035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|106.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.39|114.88||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||114.88|98.39|0.0008
91670109|NCT02102932|183235035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|104.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.68|112.82||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.82|96.68|0.0003
91670110|NCT02102932|183235035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|96.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.9||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|104.99||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||104.99|88.90|0.0004
91670111|NCT02102932|183235036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.97|108.45||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||108.45|101.97|0.0000
91670112|NCT02102932|183235036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.75|106.5||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.50|99.75|0.0000
91670113|NCT02102932|183235036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.37|107.04||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||107.04|99.37|0.0000
91670114|NCT02102932|183235036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|102.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.1|106.25||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.25|99.10|0.0000
91670115|NCT02102932|183235037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.34|111.68||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||111.68|99.34|0.0000
91670116|NCT02102932|183235037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.09|112.85||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.85|99.09|0.0001
91670117|NCT02102932|183235037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|102.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|109.03||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||109.03|97.11|0.0000
91715127|NCT05556148|183321429|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-2.87|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.87|-3.84|<.0001
91715128|NCT05556148|183321429|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-2.56|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-2.56|-3.91|<.0001
91670118|NCT02102932|183235037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|93.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.74|100.36||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||100.36|87.74|0.0002
91670119|NCT01263561|183235102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size calculation determined that 52 eyes were required to detect a 2.0 mmHg IOP difference with a power of 80%.||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.85
91902310|NCT01807923|183699683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.18||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-1.13|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM side effects score.||-1.13|-7.23|0.0074
91670120|NCT01263561|183235103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation only for main outcome measure of IOP.||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||.24
91670121|NCT01263561|183235104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation only performed for main outcome measure of IOP.||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||Above p is for number of subjects with any complication. P values above 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant in this study.|Chi-squared|||||||0.80
91670122|NCT04728620|183235116|SUPERIORITY|single group|mean|79.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"One-sample t-test comparing the sample mean to the threshold value of 71 indicative of good usability. The null hypothesis: true mean is 71 or less."||||0.001
91670123|NCT04728620|183235118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91670124|NCT04728620|183235119|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91670125|NCT04728620|183235120|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended A1c monitoring frequency||||1
91670126|NCT04728620|183235120|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended urine microalbumin screening frequency||||1
91670127|NCT04728620|183235120|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended pneumonia vaccination frequency||||1
91670128|NCT04728620|183235120|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended diabetes eye exam frequency||||1
91670129|NCT00749658|183235132|OTHER|Two tailed testing||||||0.07|||||||SAS|||||||0.07
91715129|NCT05556148|183321429|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-2.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.92|-4.48|<.0001
91670130|NCT01214239|183235139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||||-0.28|-0.71|<0.0001
91670131|NCT01214239|183235140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.527|-0.238|||ANCOVA|||||-0.238|-0.527|<0.0001
91670132|NCT01214239|183235141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.677|-0.323|||ANCOVA|||||-0.323|-0.677|<0.0001
91670133|NCT01214239|183235142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.705|-0.318|||ANCOVA|||||-0.318|-0.705|<0.0001
91670134|NCT01214239|183235143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001||95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.69|0.0001
91715130|NCT05556148|183321430|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.34|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.34|-2.17|<.0001
91860826|NCT03056040|183607922|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. NIM was 20%.|Treatment Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|8.89|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A difference in the percentages of participants with BTH was calculated between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups, along with a 95% CI for the difference using the stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factor observed was transfusion history within 1 year prior to first dose of study drug.||8.89|-18.99|
91670135|NCT01214239|183235144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0003||95.0|-17.2|-5.2|||ANCOVA|||||-5.2|-17.2|0.0003
91670136|NCT01214239|183235145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0086||95.0|-15.4|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-15.4|0.0086
91670137|NCT01214239|183235146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0135||95.0|-17.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-17.0|0.0135
91670138|NCT01214239|183235147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0113||95.0|-17.1|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-17.1|0.0113
91670139|NCT01214239|183235149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.552||||0.0021||95.0|1.407|4.629|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>= 7.0%||4.629|1.407|0.0021
91860827|NCT03056040|183607923|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. NIM margin was -3.|Treatment Difference|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|3.15|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|||3.15|-0.21|
91670140|NCT01214239|183235151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.583||||0.25||95.0|0.724|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>= 6.5%||3.46|0.724|0.2500
91902311|NCT01807923|183699683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.74||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|-1.63|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||-1.63|-7.85|0.0029
91902312|NCT01807923|183699683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.7721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.71|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM convenience score.||4.71|-3.50|0.7721
91670141|NCT01214239|183235152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.527||||0.0005||95.0|1.494|4.276|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||||4.276|1.494|0.0005
91670142|NCT00810602|183235153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Cumulative Incidence of GVHD|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|36.0||||||Hypothesis: The addition of vorinostat will reduce the incidence of grade 2-4 acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) to 25% or lower by day 100.||36|13|
91670143|NCT00810602|183235155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Cumulative Incidence of GVHD|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|30.0||||||||30|8|
91670144|NCT02625298|183235169|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91670145|NCT04773600|183235202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.962|5.183|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA Success at Week 4||5.183|1.962|<0.0001
91670146|NCT04773600|183235203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.996|5.687|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site|Stratified by pooled study site|vIGA Success at Week 4 in Participants with Baseline vIGA = 'Moderate'||5.687|1.996|<0.0001
91670147|NCT04773600|183235204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.281|8.658|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Success at Week 2||8.658|2.281|<0.0001
91670148|NCT04773600|183235205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|4.782|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Success at Week 1||4.782|0.832|0.1156
91670149|NCT04773600|183235206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.448|5.066|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|≥4-Point Reduction in WI-NRS at Week 4||5.066|1.448|0.0014
91902313|NCT01807923|183699683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.08||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|7.25|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||7.25|-1.09|0.1472
91670150|NCT04773600|183235207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.591|7.927|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|≥4-Point Reduction in WI-NRS at Week 2||7.927|1.591|0.0015
91670151|NCT04773600|183235208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.717|35.764|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|≥4-Point Reduction in WI-NRS at Week 1||35.764|1.717|0.0020
91670152|NCT04773600|183235209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.108|4.964|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|EASI-75 at Week 4||4.964|2.108|<0.0001
91670153|NCT04773600|183235210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.191|5.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 4||5.240|2.191|<0.0001
91670154|NCT04773600|183235211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.097|5.854|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 2||5.854|2.097|<0.0001
91670155|NCT04773600|183235212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.312|4.993|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 1||4.993|1.312|0.0050
91715131|NCT05556148|183321430|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.67|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-1.67|-2.51|<.0001
91670156|NCT01923311|183235219|EQUIVALENCE|A total of 12 test study participants compared to 334 HIV-infected reference study participants will provide at least 90% power to conclude exposure equivalence of EVG AUCtau in test study vs reference study, assuming the expected geometric mean ratio is 1, equivalency boundary is 70% to 143%, 2 one-sided tests are each performed at an alpha level of 0.05, and the standard deviation of EVG AUCtau is 0.36 ng•h/mL (natural log scale, estimated from EVG population PK modeling).|GLSM Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|135.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.24|158.49||||||To determine whether the proposed EVG dose in children achieved similar systemic exposure to adults, statistical comparisons were performed with PK data from the current study (test) and adult data from population PK modeling in study GS-US-183-0145 (NCT00708162) (reference).||158.49|116.24|
91670157|NCT01923311|183235220|EQUIVALENCE|A total of 12 test study participants compared to 334 HIV-infected reference study participants will provide at least 90% power to conclude exposure equivalence of EVG Cmax in test study vs reference study, assuming the expected geometric mean ratio is 1, equivalency boundary is 70% to 143%, 2 one-sided tests are each performed at an alpha level of 0.05, and the standard deviation of EVG Cmax is 0.28 ng•h/mL (natural log scale, estimated from EVG population PK modeling).|GLSM Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|146.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.35|168.94||||||To determine whether the proposed EVG dose in children achieves similar systemic exposure to adults, statistical comparisons were performed with PK data from the current study (test) and adult data from population PK modeling in study GS-US-183-0145 (NCT00708162) (reference).||168.94|127.35|
91670158|NCT02304406|183235242|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.1304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.77|0.80|0.1304
91670159|NCT02304406|183235243|OTHER|||||||0.6422|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6422
91670160|NCT02304406|183235244|OTHER|||||||0.4524|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4524
91670161|NCT02304406|183235245|OTHER|||||||0.901|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9010
91670162|NCT02304406|183235246|OTHER|||||||0.9067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9067
91715132|NCT05556148|183321430|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-1.97|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-1.97|-2.86|<.0001
91860828|NCT03056040|183607924|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. NIM was -20%.|Treatment Difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|15.68|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A difference in the percentages of participants achieving transfusion avoidance was calculated between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups, along with a 95% CI for the difference using the stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factor observed was transfusion history within 1 year prior to first dose of study drug||15.68|-4.27|
91670163|NCT02304406|183235247|OTHER|||||||0.8785|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8785
91670164|NCT02304406|183235248|OTHER|||||||0.9231|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9231
91670165|NCT02304406|183235249|OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9780
91670166|NCT02304406|183235250|OTHER|||||||0.1144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1144
91670167|NCT02304406|183235251|OTHER|||||||0.0862|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0862
91670168|NCT02304406|183235252|OTHER|||||||0.0294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0294
91670169|NCT02304406|183235253|OTHER|||||||0.6877|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6877
91670170|NCT01560819|183235261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||A power calculation was not done for this pilot study. Changes in PUCAI post-treatment were compared with baseline using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. P value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.03
91715133|NCT05556148|183321430|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-2.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.27|-3.22|<.0001
91670171|NCT04403399|183235285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.62||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91670172|NCT04403399|183235286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
91670173|NCT04403399|183235287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91670174|NCT00831233|183235295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The trial was positive if the treatment contrast of degarelix versus goserelin plus bicalutamide in adjusted (for baseline total IPSS, age, and country) mean change from baseline in total IPSS was statistically significantly smaller (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ=3 points in both the FAS and the PP analysis set.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of IPSS was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the IPSS closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|1.61||FAS.|ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||1.61|-7.51|0.1973
91670175|NCT00831233|183235295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The trial was positive if the treatment contrast of degarelix versus goserelin plus bicalutamide in adjusted (for baseline total IPSS, age, and country) mean change from baseline in total IPSS was statistically significantly smaller (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ=3 points in both the FAS and the PP analysis set.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of IPSS was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the IPSS closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.291||PP analysis set.|ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||-0.291|-11.5|0.0398
91670176|NCT00831233|183235296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|1.64|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 4. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||1.64|-6.58|0.2298
91715134|NCT05556148|183321430|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.16|-3.30|<.0001
91715135|NCT05556148|183321430|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-2.19|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.19|-3.56|<.0001
91902314|NCT01807923|183699683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.49||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.58|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM global satisfaction score.||10.58|0.40|0.0345
91902315|NCT01807923|183699683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.72||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|11.89|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||11.89|1.55|0.0109
91670177|NCT00831233|183235296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.983||||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|4.02|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 8. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||4.02|-5.98|0.6917
91670178|NCT00831233|183235297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.553||||0.8151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|4.22|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 4. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||4.22|-5.33|0.8151
91902316|NCT02558231|183699688|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|0.96||||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|0.86|0.4239
91670179|NCT00831233|183235297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.38|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 8. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||5.38|-2.46|0.455
91670180|NCT00831233|183235297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|6.08|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 12. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||6.08|-2.04|0.3186
91670181|NCT00831233|183235298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|68.2|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 4. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||68.2|-37.8|0.5627
91670182|NCT00831233|183235298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|60.9|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 8. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||60.9|-49.1|0.8284
91670183|NCT00831233|183235298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|58.8|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 12. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||58.8|-34.4|0.5984
91670184|NCT00831233|183235299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.83||||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|1.64|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||1.64|-17.3|0.1018
91670185|NCT00991510|183235305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.865|0.984|||ANOVA|||A total of 100 subjects were planned to be enrolled, allowing for 10% drop-out rate. Based on previous single dose studies, the intra-subject coefficients of variation were 14% and 50% for AUC and Cmax, respectively. Based on the literature similar intra subject coefficients of variation were observed in steady-state patients. With these expected CV(%) and an expected ratio of Cmax within 0.95 and 1.05, the study should have a power of at least 80 % to show bioequivalence with 80 subjects.||0.984|0.865|
91670186|NCT00991510|183235306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|1.023|||ANOVA|||||1.023|0.899|
91670187|NCT00991510|183235307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.787|0.968|||ANOVA|||||0.968|0.787|
91670188|NCT00991510|183235308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.877|1.106|||ANOVA|||||1.106|0.877|
91670189|NCT01976728|183235330|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.012||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||The primary efficacy analysis compared the pooled ovulation rate of the LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group to placebo.||||0.0120
91670190|NCT01976728|183235331|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0553||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||P4 levels of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0553
91715136|NCT05556148|183321430|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-2.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.39|-4.01|<.0001
91715137|NCT05556148|183321431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.51|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.51|-2.35|<.0001
91715138|NCT05556148|183321431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-2.2|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.20|-3.00|<.0001
91794269|NCT02821910|183467549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|117.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.41|133.07|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||133.07|103.41|
91715139|NCT05556148|183321431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-2.22|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.22|-3.09|<.0001
91715140|NCT05556148|183321431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-2.62|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.62|-3.53|<.0001
91794270|NCT02821910|183467549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|102.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.56|107.1|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||107.10|98.56|
91715141|NCT05556148|183321431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-2.75|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.75|-3.76|<.0001
91715142|NCT05556148|183321431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-2.78|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.78|-4.04|<.0001
91715143|NCT05556148|183321431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.64|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.64|-4.30|<.0001
91670191|NCT01976728|183235332|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses was tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0383||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||Clinical pregnancy rates of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0383
91670192|NCT01976728|183235333|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0246||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||Biochemical pregnancy rates of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0246
91715144|NCT05556148|183321432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.66|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.66|-2.49|<.0001
91715145|NCT05556148|183321432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-2.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.33|-3.20|<.0001
91670193|NCT01976728|183235334|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0011||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||LH surge detection of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0011
91670194|NCT01976728|183235335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 10: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1344
91670195|NCT01976728|183235335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2726||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 10: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2726
91670196|NCT01976728|183235335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 10: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3173
91670197|NCT01976728|183235335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1275||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1275
91670198|NCT01976728|183235335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1088||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1088
91715146|NCT05556148|183321432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-2.78|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.78|-3.63|<.0001
91670199|NCT01976728|183235335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2374||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2374
91715147|NCT05556148|183321432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-3.0|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-3.00|-3.98|<.0001
91715148|NCT05556148|183321432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-3.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-3.33|-4.33|<.0001
91715149|NCT05556148|183321432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-3.46|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-3.46|-4.65|<.0001
91670200|NCT01976728|183235335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0796||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test||||0.0796
91670201|NCT01976728|183235335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1757||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test||||0.1757
91715150|NCT05556148|183321432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|-3.46|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-3.46|-4.81|<.0001
91715151|NCT05556148|183321433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.77|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.77|-2.66|<.0001
91715152|NCT05556148|183321433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-2.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.31|-3.15|<.0001
91715153|NCT05556148|183321433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.73|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.73|-3.60|<.0001
91715154|NCT05556148|183321433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-3.05|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-3.05|-4.00|<.0001
91715155|NCT05556148|183321433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-3.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-3.27|-4.19|<.0001
91670202|NCT01976728|183235335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0584||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0584
91670203|NCT01976728|183235335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3711||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3711
91670204|NCT01976728|183235335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0143||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0143
91670205|NCT01976728|183235335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0060
91670206|NCT01976728|183235335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1573||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 21: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1573
91670207|NCT01976728|183235336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.4142
91670208|NCT01976728|183235336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2374||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2374
91715156|NCT05556148|183321433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-3.45|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-3.45|-4.55|<.0001
91715157|NCT05556148|183321433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|-3.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-3.39|-4.74|<.0001
91902317|NCT02558231|183699689|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-1.43||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.393|16.538|||ANCOVA|||||16.538|-19.393|0.8758
91670209|NCT01976728|183235336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2636||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2636
91670210|NCT01976728|183235336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4795||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.4795
91670211|NCT01976728|183235336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3173
91670212|NCT01976728|183235336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3711||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3711
91670213|NCT01976728|183235336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.4142
91715158|NCT03191799|183321452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715159|NCT03191799|183321452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715160|NCT03191799|183321452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91902318|NCT02558231|183699690|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.03||||0.8529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.371|||ANCOVA|||||1.371|0.770|0.8529
91902319|NCT02558231|183699692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.834|1.386|||ANCOVA|||||1.386|-2.834|0.4998
91670214|NCT01976728|183235336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0838||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0838
91670215|NCT01976728|183235336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 21: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3173
91670216|NCT01976728|183235336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3778||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 21: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3778
91670217|NCT01976728|183235337|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) difference|1.35||||0.6732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|7.87||p-value for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Maximum P4 levels in the LutrePulse 10 µg group were compared to placebo using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||7.87|-5.16|0.6732
91715161|NCT03191799|183321452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715162|NCT03191799|183321452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715163|NCT03191799|183321454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715164|NCT03191799|183321454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715165|NCT03191799|183321454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715166|NCT03191799|183321454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91670218|NCT01976728|183235337|SUPERIORITY||LSM|5.7||||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|12.15||p-value for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Maximum P4 levels in the LutrePulse 15 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||12.15|-0.76|0.0814
91670219|NCT01976728|183235337|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.55||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|13.93||p-value for the LutrePulse 20 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 20 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Maximum P4 levels in the LutrePulse 20 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||13.93|1.16|0.0223
91670220|NCT01976728|183235338|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.679||||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.404|4.762||p-value for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Mean P4 levels in the LutrePulse 10 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||4.762|-3.404|0.7355
91670221|NCT01976728|183235338|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.602||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.444|6.648||p-value for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Mean P4 levels in the LutrePulse 15 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||6.648|-1.444|0.1980
91670222|NCT01976728|183235338|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|4.88||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|8.882||p-value for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 20 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Mean P4 levels in the LutrePulse 20 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||8.882|0.878|0.0187
91670223|NCT01976728|183235339|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.03||||0.8772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.46||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in FSH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 10 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||0.46|-0.39|0.8772
91670224|NCT01976728|183235339|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.07||||0.7805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.58||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in FSH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 15 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||0.58|-0.44|0.7805
91670225|NCT01976728|183235339|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.12||||0.6095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.58||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in FSH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 20 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||0.58|-0.35|0.6095
91670226|NCT01976728|183235340|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.51||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.22||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in LH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 10 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.22|-0.20|0.1520
91670227|NCT01976728|183235340|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.93||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.72||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in LH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 15 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.72|0.14|0.0221
91670228|NCT01976728|183235340|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.76||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.44||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in LH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 20 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.44|0.07|0.0316
91715167|NCT03191799|183321454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715168|NCT03191799|183321465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||0.0001
91715169|NCT03191799|183321465|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91670229|NCT01976728|183235342|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|73.0||||0.3147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.66|218.65||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in E2 levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 10 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||218.65|-72.66|0.3147
91670230|NCT01976728|183235342|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|95.18||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.01|253.36||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in E2 levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 15 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||253.36|-63.01|0.2290
91715170|NCT03191799|183321465|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715171|NCT03191799|183321465|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715172|NCT03191799|183321465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||0.0004
91670231|NCT01976728|183235342|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|46.99||||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.64|189.61||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in E2 levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 20 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||189.61|-95.64|0.5066
91670232|NCT03180801|183235360|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower MMID rate than placebo.||||0.03
91670233|NCT03180801|183235360|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower MMID rate than placebo.||||0.07
91670234|NCT03180801|183235361|OTHER|One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rates of vaccine group is higher than the placebo group.||||||0.647|||||||Fisher Exact|||One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if the TEAE rates pre-inoculation recorded for the treatment group are higher than for placebo.||||0.647
91670235|NCT03180801|183235361|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rate of vaccine group recorded pre-inoculation is higher than placebo.||||1.00
91670236|NCT03180801|183235361|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rate of vaccine group post-inoculation is higher than the placebo group.||||0.0240
91670237|NCT03180801|183235361|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||Fisher Exact|||One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rate of vaccine group post-inoculation is higher than the placebo group.||||0.186
91670238|NCT03180801|183235363|OTHER|||||||0.465|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least one symptom||||0.465
91670239|NCT03180801|183235363|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least one symptom||||0.074
91670240|NCT03180801|183235363|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least two symptoms||||0.024
91670241|NCT03180801|183235363|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least two symptoms.||||0.230
91670242|NCT03180801|183235363|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects with detectable virus shedding||||0.09
91670243|NCT03180801|183235363|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects with detectable virus shedding||||0.22
91670244|NCT03180801|183235363|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects asymptomatic with detectable virus shedding||||0.23
91670245|NCT03180801|183235363|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects asymptomatic with detectable virus shedding||||0.12
91670246|NCT03180801|183235364|OTHER|||||||0.0501|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter shedding duration than placebo.||||0.0501
91670247|NCT03180801|183235364|OTHER|||||||0.3139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter shedding duration than placebo.||||0.3139
91670248|NCT03180801|183235365|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has smaller shedding AUC than placebo.||||0.102
91670249|NCT03180801|183235365|OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has a smaller shedding AUC than placebo.||||0.481
91670250|NCT03180801|183235366|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower peak viral shedding than placebo.||||0.128
91670251|NCT03180801|183235366|OTHER|||||||0.601|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower peak viral shedding than placebo.||||0.601
91670252|NCT03180801|183235367|OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter duration of symptoms than placebo.||||0.142
91670253|NCT03180801|183235367|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter duration of symptoms than placebo.||||0.147
91670254|NCT03180801|183235368|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer average number of symptoms than placebo.||||0.080
91670255|NCT03180801|183235368|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer average number of symptoms than placebo.||||0.271
91670256|NCT03180801|183235369|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer peak symptoms than placebo.||||0.099
91670257|NCT03180801|183235369|OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer peak symptoms than placebo.||||0.178
91670258|NCT03180801|183235370|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower FLU-PRO scores than placebo.||||0.064
91670259|NCT03180801|183235370|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower FLU-PRO scores than placebo.||||0.201
91670260|NCT03180801|183235371|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison on day -2||||<0.001
91670261|NCT03180801|183235371|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparion on day -2||||<0.001
91670262|NCT03180801|183235371|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 35||||<0.001
91670263|NCT03180801|183235371|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 35||||<0.001
91670264|NCT03180801|183235371|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 63||||<0.001
91670265|NCT03180801|183235371|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 63||||<0.001
91670266|NCT03173170|183235376|OTHER||Mean ratio|1.0622|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9569|1.1792||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The means and difference of means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs).||1.1792|0.9569|
91715173|NCT03191799|183321467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91670267|NCT03173170|183235377|OTHER||Mean ratio|1.4892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3851|1.6012||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The means and difference of means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||1.6012|1.3851|
91670268|NCT00573170|183235378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5||Compares odds ratio.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||||2.5|0.7|0.378
91670269|NCT05966090|183235401|NON_INFERIORITY|Non - Inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2 sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio between the Control group (at Day 91) versus Co-administration group (at Day 91) for anti-gE Ab 1-month after the second HZ/su vaccine dose was \<=1.5.|Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.42|||||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, for logarithm-transformed concentration, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as a covariate.|To demonstrate non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to 2 doses of HZ/su vaccine when the first dose of HZ/su vaccine was co-administered with RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine, compared to 2 doses of HZ/su vaccine administered alone.||1.42|1.08|
91670270|NCT05966090|183235402|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if upper limit of the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-A neutralizing titer 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine dose was \<=1.5|ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.35|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as a covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine when co-administered with the first dose of HZ/su vaccine, compared to RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administered alone.||1.35|0.97|
91670271|NCT05966090|183235403|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-B neutralizing titer 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine dose was \<=1.5.|ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as a covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine when co-administered with the first dose of HZ/su vaccine, compared to RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administered alone.||1.15|0.84|
91715174|NCT03191799|183321467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91670272|NCT01077817|183235442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to alendronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||1.5|0.7|
91670273|NCT01077817|183235442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to etidronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||2.0|0.9|
91670274|NCT01077817|183235442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|16.7|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to ibandronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||16.7|1.4|
91670275|NCT01077817|183235442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.5|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to risedronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||2.5|1.0|
91670276|NCT01077817|183235442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to raloxifene treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||2.2|0.2|
91670277|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of alendronate~compared to non-initiators of alendronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||1.3|0.7|
91670278|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of etidronate~compared to non-initiators of etidronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||2.0|0.8|
91670279|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.4|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of ibandronate~compared to non-initiators of ibandronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||3.4|0.5|
91670280|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of risendronate~compared to non-initiators of risendronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||2.0|0.9|
91902320|NCT02558231|183699693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.003|0.83|||ANCOVA|||||0.830|-1.003|0.8528
91670281|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of raloxifene~compared to non-initiators of raloxifene. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||2.3|0.3|
91670282|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~alendronate compared to non-initiators of alendronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||1.5|0.7|
91670283|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~etidronate compared to non-initiators of etidronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios, only~esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||1.9|0.7|
91670284|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.1|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~ibandronate compared to non-initiators of ibandronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios,~only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||11.1|0.8|
91670285|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.0|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~risedronate compared to non-initiators of risedronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios,~only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||3.0|1.1|
91715175|NCT03191799|183321467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715176|NCT03191799|183321467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715177|NCT03191799|183321467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91902321|NCT02558231|183699694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.368|74.178|||ANCOVA|||||74.178|-69.368|0.9474
91794385|NCT02021656|183467838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial Exact Test|||A sample size of 100 Chinese participants in the treatment naive group provided at least 90% power to detect a 17% improvement in SVR12 rate from the historical control rate of 57% using 2-sided exact one-sample binomial test at significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91670286|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~raloxifene compared to non-initiators of raloxifene. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios, only~esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||2.7|0.1|
91715178|NCT03191799|183321477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715179|NCT03191799|183321477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715180|NCT03191799|183321477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715181|NCT03191799|183321477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91902322|NCT02558231|183699695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.328|||ANCOVA|||||0.328|-0.066|0.1902
91902323|NCT02558231|183699696|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.737|0.327|||ANCOVA|||||0.327|-2.737|0.1227
91670287|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of alendronate~compared to non-initiators of alendronate. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||1.6|0.5|
91670288|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.|Proportional hazards regression model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of etidronate~compared to non-initiators of etidronate. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||2.0|0.6|
91670289|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.5|||Proportional hazards regression model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of risedronate~compared to non-initiators of risedronate. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||2.5|0.4|
91715182|NCT03191799|183321477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715183|NCT03191799|183321478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715184|NCT03191799|183321478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91794386|NCT01827358|183467847|OTHER|For strong control of the family-wise error rate at the 0.05 confidence level, the Holm procedure (Holm 1979) is used. Under this procedure, the p-values from the two tests are sorted as p\_((1)) (smaller p-value) and p\_((2)) (larger p-value). If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))=0.05, then the null hypotheses for both tests are rejected. If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))\>0.05, then only the null hypothesis associated with the smaller p-value is rejected. In any other case, neither null hypothesis is rejected|Odds Ratio (OR)|315.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|49.6|2698.8|||Fisher Exact|||||2698.8|49.6|<0.001
91670290|NCT01077817|183235443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.9|||Proportional hazards regression model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of raloxifene~compared to non-initiators of raloxifene. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||3.9|0.2|
91902324|NCT02558231|183699697|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.32|0.0867
91670291|NCT01386125|183235444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.14||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.22|0.0007
91670292|NCT01386125|183235445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference is LS Means|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.15|-0.45|<0.0001
91670293|NCT01098539|183235446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value was from a 1-sided t test to test whether the difference of LS means (albiglutide - sitagliptin) was less than or equal to the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.4%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.15|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-0.15|-0.49|<0.0001
91715185|NCT03191799|183321478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715186|NCT03191799|183321478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715187|NCT03191799|183321478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91715188|NCT01239797|183321482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.89|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value for stratified log rank test||Hazard Ratio of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab to Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone||0.89|0.60|0.0014
91902325|NCT03933397|183699701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.909
91902326|NCT04721821|183699714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.44||||||||1.44|0.82|
91670294|NCT00108550|183235565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.105||There was no need for multiple comparisons adjustment for the primary outcome, since there was only one. However, secondary analyses were adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of covariates (age, gender, etc) was evaluated (modeled as fixed effects) in secondary analyses.|The analysis was performed on transformed (rather than raw) Descriptor Differential Score Pain Intensity scores.|The null hypothesis was that Gabapentin is no better than placebo in reducing back pain. A mean-matching variance stabilizing transformation was applied to Descriptor Differential Scale Pain intensity (DDS) scores. Scores were modeled as a function of time (week) and group (gabapentin, placebo) in a mixed effects model. Random (subject-specific)intercept and slopes were fitted to the data. With alpha = .05 and N = 65 per group power is .8 to detect effect size =.4 standard deviations (SD).||0.105|-0.044|0.4237
91670295|NCT00108550|183235566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7174||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.872||Primary analyses was multivariable linear regression with fixed and random effects. After the Bonferroni adjustment a p-value would have been considered significant at 0.05 level if \<0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a secondary analysis; the null hypothesis is that Gabapentin performs no better than placebo in reducing the Roland and Morris score.||0.872|-1.940|0.458
91670296|NCT03222037|183235593|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval was below 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.09|-0.02|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model with Kenward and Roger method for degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test- SCR. This comparison is for high lumniance low contrast|Comparison between the Test and the SCR treatments was carried out using 97.5% confidence intervals for the least-square mean differences.||-0.02|-0.09|
91670297|NCT03222037|183235593|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval was below 0.05|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.06|-0.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model with Kenward and Roger method for denominator degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test- SCR. This comparison is for Low luminance high contrast|||-0.01|-0.06|
91670298|NCT03222037|183235594|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance is declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is above 0 or if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is below 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear Mixed Model with Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - SCR.|Comparison between the Test and SCR treatments was carried out using least-square mean differences||0.08|0.01|0.0066
91715189|NCT01239797|183321483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value for stratified log rank test||Hazard Ratio of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab to Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone||0.87|0.60|0.0005
91670299|NCT04974580|183235595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.84||A priori threshold was 0.10|Regression, Logistic||Reported OR is NRT receipt vs. not, so values \>1 indicate higher odds of abstinence among those receiving NRT.|Comparison of NRT vs. no-NRT in model adjusted for receipt of digital component||1.84|0.91|0.14
91670300|NCT04974580|183235595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47||A priori threshold was 0.10|Regression, Logistic||Reported OR is Digital receipt vs. not, so values \>1 indicate higher odds of abstinence among those receiving the Digital component.|Comparison of Digital vs. no Digital in model adjusted for receipt of NRT component||1.47|0.73|0.84
91670301|NCT04511208|183235757|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.7|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-1.7|-2.7|<0.001
91670302|NCT04511208|183235758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.26||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.08|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-0.08|-0.44|0.006
91902327|NCT04721821|183699715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.16||||||||1.16|0.44|
91670303|NCT04511208|183235759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.23||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.005|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-0.005|-0.45|0.046
91670304|NCT04511208|183235760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.07||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.38|||Repeated measures linear model|||C3B PST Score||2.38|-2.51|0.955
91670305|NCT04511208|183235760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.62||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.71|||Repeated measures linear model|||C3B VMT Score||3.71|-2.48|0.686
91670306|NCT04511208|183235761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.68|||Generalized linear mixed effects model|||||4.68|1.28|0.007
91670307|NCT04511208|183235761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.28|||Repeated measures linear model|||Sensitivity analysis||-0.28|-1.82|0.009
91670308|NCT04511208|183235762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.38|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-0.38|-1.75|0.004
91670309|NCT04511208|183235763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-2.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.13|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-2.13|-3.80|<0.001
91670310|NCT00987831|183235768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.2738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|95.0||Definition of Moderate Disease was \</= 3 BILAG B (moderate) organ scores, no A (severe) scores and SLEDAI \</=10. Severe disease was \> 3 BILAG B or \>/= BILAG A or SLEDAI \> 10 or meets definition for severe flare on the SELENA SLEDAI Flare Index|Log Rank|||||95|5|0.2738
91715190|NCT01239797|183321484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by B2 microglobulin (\<3.5 mg/L vs \>=3.5 mg/L), number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>=2), and immunomodulatory drug use at randomization||Ratio of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab to Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone||2.78|1.36|0.0002
91715191|NCT01239797|183321484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|19.3||||||Difference of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab minus Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone computed using the method of DerSimonian and Laird (weighted average over the strata)||19.3|6.2|
91670311|NCT02413294|183235778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||This t-test analyzes the change in mean between the midpoint interview immediately prior to the start of the intervention and the follow-up interview at the conclusion of the intervention.|Paired T test, 2-sided|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||0.37
91670312|NCT02413294|183235779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||0.42
91670313|NCT02413294|183235780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||0.65
91670314|NCT02413294|183235781|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||1.0
91670315|NCT02413294|183235782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.65
91670316|NCT02413294|183235783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.65
91670317|NCT02413294|183235784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.94
91860829|NCT03056040|183607925|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. NIM was -20%.|Treatment Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|13.31|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A difference in the percentages of participants with stabilized hemoglobin was calculated between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups, along with a 95% CI for the difference using the stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factor observed was transfusion history within 1 year prior to first dose of study drug.||13.31|-10.41|
91670318|NCT02413294|183235785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.81
91670319|NCT02413294|183235786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.40
91860830|NCT05260684|183607955|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.65|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Dabrafenib+Trametinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.65|1.05|0.02
91670320|NCT02413294|183235787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.46
91670321|NCT02413294|183235788|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||<0.01
91670322|NCT02413294|183235789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.28
91670323|NCT02413294|183235790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.67
91670324|NCT02413294|183235791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.56
91670325|NCT02413294|183235792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.82
91670326|NCT02625974|183235793|OTHER|A direct comparison|Difference in cure rate|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|24.2||||||||24.2|3.7|
91670327|NCT02625974|183235794|OTHER|Incidence rate and 95% CI of seronegative conversion|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.45|||||Person-year = 754|||3.45|1.21|
91902328|NCT04721821|183699716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.27||||||||1.27|0.73|
91902329|NCT04721821|183699717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.88||||||||1.88|0.79|
91670328|NCT02625974|183235799|OTHER|Incidence rate and 95% CI of seronegative conversion|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.16|||||Person-year = 379|||4.16|0.91|
91670329|NCT03941834|183235835|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2||||||Analysis were performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline NPRS as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||1.2|0.1|
91670330|NCT03941834|183235840|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|11.5||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline Penn-FPS-R as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||11.5|-6.8|
91670331|NCT03941834|183235841|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.9||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline pain disability index as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.9|-3.8|
91670332|NCT03941834|183235842|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; and participant as a random effect.||0.5|-0.7|
91670333|NCT03941834|183235843|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline NPRS as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||1.4|0.1|
91670334|NCT03941834|183235844|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|229.6||||||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and baseline NPRS score as a covariate.||229.6|0.7|
91670335|NCT01316419|183235898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean SBP change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||<0.0001
91670336|NCT01316419|183235901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean DBP change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||<0.0001
91670337|NCT01316419|183235903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.1099
91670338|NCT01316419|183235904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0197
91860831|NCT05260684|183607955|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.79|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.79|0.76|0.47
91670339|NCT01316419|183235905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.4543
91670340|NCT01316419|183235906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0152
91670341|NCT01316419|183235907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0013
91670342|NCT01316419|183235908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the EQ VAS is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||<0.0001
91670343|NCT01316419|183235910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean LDL-C change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0006
91670344|NCT01316419|183235911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4248|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean HDL-C change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.4248
91670345|NCT01316419|183235912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean Triglyceride change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.5579
91670346|NCT01316419|183235913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean total cholesterol change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t-test|||||||0.0006
91670347|NCT00412737|183235924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.283||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.1|||Fisher Exact||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|The null hypothesis tested was that there was no difference between the proportions of participants who met the primary endpoint in the two treatment groups.||4.1|-2.3|0.772
91670348|NCT00412737|183235925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.37||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.5|||Fisher Exact||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||4.5|-2.1|0.534
91670349|NCT00412737|183235926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.431||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.6|||Fisher Exact||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||4.6|-1.7|0.381
91670350|NCT00412737|183235927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.713|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.2|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||5.2|-0.6|
91670351|NCT00412737|183235928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.7|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||5.7|0.1|
91670352|NCT00412737|183235929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.6|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||4.6|-1.9|
91670353|NCT00412737|183235930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.502|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.1|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||5.1|-1.4|
91670354|NCT03244475|183235932|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2||The corrected p-value of 0.01 was chosen after the standard cluster analysis for correcting family-wise error across different voxels.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||The analysis was performed for the voxel-wise delta-band activity from the frontal pole and inferior frontal gyri. Spatial smoothing and logarithm transformation (e-based) were performed. Resting-state MEG activity differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||2.2|1.1|0.01
91670355|NCT03244475|183235933|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91902330|NCT04721821|183699718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.67||||||||1.67|0.79|
91902331|NCT04721821|183699719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.76||||||||1.76|0.94|
91715192|NCT02631941|183321494|EQUIVALENCE|For budesonide AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80% - 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|100.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.82|105.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||105.69|95.82|<0.001
91670356|NCT03244475|183235934|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91715193|NCT02631941|183321494|EQUIVALENCE|For budesonide AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80% - 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|102.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.55|109.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||109.13|95.55|<0.001
91715194|NCT02631941|183321495|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|87.96||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.31|92.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||92.86|83.31|0.002
91715195|NCT02631941|183321495|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|91.17||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.94|99.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||99.04|83.94|0.005
91715196|NCT02631941|183321496|EQUIVALENCE|For Budesonide Cmax, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal do not lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of ( 73.74%, 135.62%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|157.86||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.12|172.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||172.91|144.12|1.00
91860832|NCT05260684|183607956|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.87|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Dabrafenib+Trametinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.87|1.20|<0.001
91670357|NCT03244475|183235935|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91670358|NCT03244475|183235936|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91670359|NCT03244475|183235937|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91860833|NCT05260684|183607956|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.82|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.82|0.79|0.40
91670360|NCT03244475|183235938|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91670361|NCT03244475|183235939|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91670362|NCT03244475|183235940|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91670363|NCT03244475|183235941|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91670364|NCT03244475|183235942|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91670365|NCT03244475|183235943|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91670366|NCT02285634|183235957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
91670367|NCT02285634|183235957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.52
91670368|NCT02285634|183235957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.93
91670369|NCT02285634|183235958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
91902332|NCT04721821|183699720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.89||||||||1.89|0.70|
91670370|NCT02285634|183235958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
91670371|NCT02285634|183235958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
91670372|NCT02285634|183235959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.27
91902333|NCT04721821|183699721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.32||||||||1.32|0.69|
91902334|NCT04721821|183699722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.16||||||||2.16|0.81|
91670373|NCT02285634|183235959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
91670374|NCT02285634|183235959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
91670375|NCT02285634|183235960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
91670376|NCT02285634|183235960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
91670377|NCT02285634|183235960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
91902335|NCT04721821|183699723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.87||||||||1.87|0.81|
91902336|NCT04721821|183699724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.66|0.80|
91715197|NCT02631941|183321496|EQUIVALENCE|For Budesonide Cmax, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal do not lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of ( 73.74%, 135.62%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|166.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.35|187.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||187.57|148.35|1.00
91902337|NCT04721821|183699724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.65|0.75|
91902338|NCT04721821|183699725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.99||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.99|0.57|
91670378|NCT01049412|183235973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|-0.29||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.81|<0.001
91670379|NCT01049412|183235974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|-0.29||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.83|<0.001
91670380|NCT01049412|183235975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.05||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.28|0.242
91670381|NCT01049412|183235976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.276
91670382|NCT01049412|183235976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.119
91670383|NCT01049412|183235978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.88||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for 0300 hour BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-0.28|0.392
91670384|NCT01049412|183235978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.3||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for morning FBG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.79|0.464
91715198|NCT02631941|183321497|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol Cmax, the 90% Cl for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (77.65%, 128.79%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|85.22||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.66|91.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||91.17|79.66|0.012
91670385|NCT01049412|183235978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|0.07||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-1.04|0.151
91670386|NCT01049412|183235978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.03||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-1.05|0.079
91670387|NCT01049412|183235978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|-0.05||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.99|0.070
91715199|NCT02631941|183321497|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol Cmax, the 90% Cl for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (77.65%, 128.79%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|87.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.48|94.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||94.47|81.48|0.020
91902339|NCT04721821|183699725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.75||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.75|0.49|
91670388|NCT01049412|183235978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.34||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-1.39|0.008
91670389|NCT01049412|183235978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.41||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.38|0.003
91670390|NCT01049412|183235978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|-0.55||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-1.64|0.001
91670391|NCT01049412|183235983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.037
91670392|NCT01049412|183235984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|-0.25||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.69|<0.001
91670393|NCT01142908|183235989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||3.1|-2.8|0.93
91670394|NCT01142908|183235990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||4.3|-1.5|0.34
91670395|NCT01142908|183235992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||1.8|-2.0|0.91
91715200|NCT00731822|183321515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.1||||||||5.1|-3.9|
91670396|NCT01142908|183235993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||2.2|-1.5|0.70
91670397|NCT01142908|183235994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.3|-3.9|0.1
91670398|NCT01142908|183235995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months||1.7|-2.4|0.74
91670399|NCT01142908|183235997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||logit-difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Gen. Est. Equation with a Logit Link|Method Used Expanded: Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.3|-0.4|0.87
91670400|NCT01142908|183235998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||logit-difference (Net)|0.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Gen. Est. Equation with a Logit Link|Method Used Expanded: Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||0.5|-0.2|0.36
91670401|NCT01142908|183236000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.6|-10.3|0.08
91670402|NCT01142908|183236001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||5.0|-6.6|0.79
91670403|NCT01142908|183236003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.2|-0.2|0.83
91670404|NCT01142908|183236004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||0.2|-0.4|0.54
91902340|NCT04721821|183699726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.58|0.79|
91670405|NCT01142908|183236006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.2|-0.6|0.29
91670406|NCT01142908|183236007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months||0.4|-0.5|0.72
91670407|NCT03235479|183236011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.3|0.5|0.0298
91670408|NCT03235479|183236012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.4|3.4|0.0016
91670409|NCT03235479|183236013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|4.4|0.0005
91670410|NCT03235479|183236014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.6|0.8|0.0299
91670411|NCT03235479|183236015|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.2|4.4|0.0006
91670412|NCT03235479|183236016|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.9||P-value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.9|-2.4|0.1815
91670413|NCT03110380|183236027|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 260 participants per treatment group would provide at least 90% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 4% in difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 between the two treatment groups. This was based on the assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 (based on Gilead Genvoya and Stribild studies) and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.8|1.0|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.001% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the B/F/TAF group is at least 4% higher than the DTG + F/TAF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL as determined by the US FDA-defined snapshot algorithm at Week 48; the alternative hypothesis was that the B/F/TAF group is less than 4% higher than the DTG + F/TAF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48.||1.0|-2.8|
91670414|NCT03110380|183236027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
91670415|NCT03110380|183236028|NON_INFERIORITY|It would be concluded that B/F/TAF is noninferior to DTG+F/TAF if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.001% CI of the difference between treatment groups (B/F/TAF group -DTG+F/TAF group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.3|6.8|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.001% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||6.8|-2.3|
91670416|NCT03110380|183236029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-18.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|11.0|||ANOVA|P-value, difference in least squares means (LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect in the model.||||11|-46|0.23
91902341|NCT04721821|183699726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.35||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.35|0.60|
91902342|NCT04721821|183699727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.29||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.29|0.77|
91860834|NCT00999804|183607967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of pCR|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||No comparison is required between the 24 weeks arm and 12 weeks arm. The study is designed as the 24 weeks arm ran as a single arm, using an admissible Simon-like two-stage design and required 20 or more responses in the first 55 evaluable patients.|"The study was planned to enroll 136 patients if the original cohort (n=90) was deemed successful. The 24 weeks arm ran as a single arm, using an admissible Simon-like two-stage design. The 12 weeks arm accrued as long as the 24 weeks arm is open.~The analysis of the first cohort indicated that 15 pCR were observed , which did not meet the required 20 or more responses. The accrual was closed early and the study has a total of 128 participants."||||
91692151|NCT01262872|183279149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE (see above)|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|26.2||||||VE-10PP-HD 2+1d vs Synflorix 2+1d - 1M post-Dose 2. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, one month (M) post-dose 2 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||26.2|-18.2|
91715201|NCT04073303|183321519|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|54.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.1|40.1|<0.0001
91715202|NCT04073303|183321520|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|71.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.7|76.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||76.3|60.7|<0.0001
91715203|NCT04073303|183321521|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.6|64.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||64.5|45.6|<0.0001
91670417|NCT00452543|183236031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was a test of non-inferiority between the effects of acamprosate vs. placebo. Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups. Results would be used to estimate effect size to set the stage for an adequately powered larger study in the future.|||||<|0.05||95.0||||Threshold for significance was set a priori at p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinking days.Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups.||||<0.05
91670418|NCT00452543|183236032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was a test of non-inferiority between the effects of acamprosate vs. placebo.|||||<|0.05||95.0||||This p \<0.05 was set a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinks consumed per week.Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups.||||<0.05
91670419|NCT00452543|183236033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"This was a test of non-inferiority between the effects of acamprosate vs. placebo. Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinks consumed per drinking day.~Power analysis is discussed above."|||||<|0.05||95.0||||This p\<0.05 was set a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinks consumed per drinking day.~Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups."||||<0.05
91670420|NCT02795676|183236045|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be declared if the lower bound of the confidence interval for the treatment difference is above the non-inferiority margin, which was met. No p-value was calculated as this is not relevant for non-inferiority.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.359|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.444|1.726|||Regression, Linear|The primary efficacy analysis compared eGFR slope between the treatment arms using a 2-stage model with quantile regression.||||1.726|-2.444|
91670421|NCT01201486|183236053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Sensitivity|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Percentage Sensitivity|||||||
91670422|NCT00496262|183236105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.0001||90.0|||||2-sided, 1-sample t-test||The entire ITT population was used for a conservative analysis of the mean change in MCF. The mean change was set to 0 for any subject with missing MCF data.|This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between MCF pre-infusion and 1 hour post-infusion.||||<0.0001
91670423|NCT02010996|183236118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91670424|NCT04381481|183236119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91670425|NCT04381481|183236120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||snacks with warning compared to control snack||||<0.001
91715204|NCT04073303|183321522|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|49.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.4|40.6|<0.0001
91860835|NCT00999804|183607968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of patients with AE|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||61 out of 85 patients (72%) in the 24-week arm had at least 1 adverse events.|This outcome is to establish the safety and tolerability of an extended regimen of lapatinib + trastuzumab, with or without endocrine therapy. No comparison between the 2 arms is required.||||
91860836|NCT00999804|183607969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of tpCR in 24 weeks arm|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||No comparison between the two arms is required.||||
91860837|NCT00999804|183607970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of CR+PR in 24 weeks arm|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||No comparison between the 2 arm is required for this study.||||
91860838|NCT05229146|183607971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|t-statistic = .913, df = 10||One-sided paired-samples t-test comparing baseline to responses immediately following the intervention (approximately one week after baseline).||||.191
91902343|NCT04721821|183699727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.71||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.71|0.82|
91670426|NCT04381481|183236121|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91670427|NCT04381481|183236122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91670428|NCT04381481|183236123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.01
91670429|NCT04381481|183236124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91670430|NCT04381481|183236125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91670431|NCT04381481|183236126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91670432|NCT04381481|183236127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91670433|NCT04381481|183236128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.01
91670434|NCT04381481|183236129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.01
91715205|NCT04073303|183321523|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|70.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.6|77.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.5|59.6|<0.0001
91902344|NCT04721821|183699728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.24||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.24|0.81|
91715206|NCT04073303|183321524|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|-4.75|||ANCOVA|||||-4.75|-5.64|<0.0001
91670435|NCT04381481|183236130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91670436|NCT04381481|183236131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91860839|NCT05229146|183607971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|t-statistic = 1.92, df = 9||One-sided paired-samples t-test comparing baseline to responses at two week follow-up (approximately four weeks after baseline).||||.043
91860840|NCT05229146|183607972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made. DF = 15.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is between future orientation subscale pre- and post-subscale scores.||||.319
91670437|NCT04381481|183236132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91860841|NCT05229146|183607972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.711||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 15.||Comparison between immediate-orientation subscales.||||.488
91902345|NCT04721821|183699728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.62|0.50|
91670438|NCT04381481|183236133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670439|NCT04381481|183236134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670440|NCT04381481|183236135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670441|NCT04381481|183236136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670442|NCT04381481|183236137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670443|NCT04381481|183236138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670444|NCT04381481|183236139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670445|NCT04381481|183236140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670446|NCT04381481|183236141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670447|NCT04381481|183236142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670448|NCT04381481|183236143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670449|NCT04381481|183236144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670450|NCT04381481|183236145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670451|NCT04381481|183236146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91670452|NCT00476593|183236152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Hypothesis: the use of diclofenac/dexamethasone does not influence macular thickness in treated eyes compared with untreated eyes of same subject.|t-test, 2 sided|The possible effect of both anti-inflammatory medications was tested in relation to participants' age and gender||Subjects who received diclofenac or dexamethasone eye drops in one eye. Macular thickness in both were compared between same subjects' eyes after 3 day's treatment. Diclofenac and dexamethasone treated eyes were not compared with each other, but with the contralateral eye of same subject by a paired Student's t-test in each medication group||||0.018
91670453|NCT00476593|183236152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient's healthy eyes were compared with sex and age matched healthy controls with Two Sample Student't t-test. Null hypothesis was that quiet, currently unaffected eyes of patients had same macular thickness as age and sex matched controls.||||0.024
91670454|NCT00559364|183236184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using treatment group and pooled site as fixed effects and wash-out phase CFA% value as covariate was used.||||<0.0001
91670455|NCT01235442|183236206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.87||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI(=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure(Yes or no).||||2.87|1.46|<0.001
91670456|NCT01235442|183236207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.75||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||2.75|1.40|<0.001
91670457|NCT01235442|183236208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.64||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||2.64|1.21|0.009
91670458|NCT01235442|183236209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No) with with modified ridit scores.||||||0.006
91670459|NCT01235442|183236210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|van Elteren test|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||||<0.001
91670460|NCT01235442|183236211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.85||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is adjusted for baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF (Yes or No).||||1.85|0.92|0.135
91670461|NCT01235442|183236212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.87||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||1.87|0.96|0.135
91670462|NCT02663882|183236233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.503
91670463|NCT02663882|183236234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.765
91670464|NCT02663882|183236235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.717
91670465|NCT02663882|183236236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.302
91670466|NCT03712124|183236237|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-6.44||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.18|103.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline at Day 14 as the dependent variable and baseline maximum tolerated volume and treatment as covariates.||103.31|-116.18|0.9030
91670467|NCT03712124|183236238|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|98.45||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.81|161.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Day 28 as the dependent variable and baseline maximum tolerated volume and treatment as covariates.||161.08|35.81|0.0042
91670468|NCT03581188|183236280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.0||||||Odds ratios report differences between groups at follow-up.||14|0.9|
91670469|NCT03581188|183236281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.7||||||||5.7|0.8|
91670470|NCT03581188|183236283|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.1||||||||2.1|1.1|
91670471|NCT03581188|183236284|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||||||||2|0.6|
91670472|NCT03581188|183236285|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.0||||||For new melanoma diagnoses, we calculated the difference in proportions and confidence intervals using the χ2 method without continuity correction. We included baseline measurement of the outcome in the models as a covariate to estimate between group difference in change from baseline.||23|-2|
91670473|NCT03581188|183236286|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|19.0||||||New melanoma diagnoses prompted at unscheduled visit||19|2|
91670474|NCT03581188|183236286|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|10.0||||||New melanoma diagnoses prompted at scheduled visit||10|-9|
91670475|NCT03581188|183236287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.0||||||||3|-5.8|
91670476|NCT00109837|183236299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion in 1-year CCR|0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.25|||||||The regimen would be of no further interest if the true 1-year continuous complete remission (CCR) rate was less than 45% (null). Sample size was chosen for an alternative of 65%, power of 92% and type-1 error of 4.6%.|||0.25|
91670477|NCT01989676|183236301|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis to be tested in this study was that the risk ratio of ORR of PF-05280014 versus that of trastuzumab-EU by Week 25 (+/-14 days) was within a pre-specified margin of 0.80 to 1.25.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.049||||||Risk Ratio and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are unstratified and based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.049|0.842|
91670478|NCT01989676|183236302|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26||1-sided log-rank test was used to compare the PFS distribution between the two treatment groups and was stratified by prior trastuzumab exposure (Yes/No) and estrogen receptor (ER) status (ER positive vs. ER negative).|Log Rank||The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was based on the Cox's proportional hazard model.|||1.26|0.80|0.505
91670479|NCT01989676|183236303|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.27||1-sided log-rank test was used to compare the DOR distribution between the two treatment groups and was stratified by prior trastuzumab exposure (Yes/No) and ER status (ER positive vs. ER negative).|Log Rank||The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was based on the Cox's proportional hazard model.|||1.27|0.67|0.304
91670480|NCT01989676|183236304|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.929||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.316||1-sided log-rank test was used to compare the OS distribution between the two treatment groups and was stratified by prior trastuzumab exposure (Yes/No) and ER status (ER positive vs. ER negative).|Log Rank||The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was based on the Cox's proportional hazard model.|||1.316|0.656|0.339
91715207|NCT03143101|183321528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|30.9||p-value is calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the prior influenza vaccination status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.9|4.8|0.006
91860842|NCT05229146|183607973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.438||||0.34|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 10.||Performed a paired-samples one-sided t-test comparing positive parenting before the intervention to after the intervention.||||.34
91670481|NCT02190279|183236347|OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||ANOVA|||At 1 hour post injection.||||0.0033
91670482|NCT02190279|183236347|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||At 2 hour post injection.||||0.012
91670483|NCT02190279|183236348|EQUIVALENCE|One way analysis variance.|||||<|0.05|||||||variance|||||||<0.05
91670484|NCT02688387|183236357|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0667|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9657|1.1784|||||X1 Vs R1, ambrisentan|||1.1784|0.9657|
91670485|NCT02688387|183236357|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0353|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9293|1.1534|||||X2 Vs R2, ambrisentan|||1.1534|0.9293|
91715208|NCT03143101|183321532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|47.8||p-value is calculated from the CMH test adjusting for the prior influenza vaccination status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.8|14.4|<0.001
91860843|NCT05229146|183607973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363||||0.362|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 10.||Performed a one-sided paired-samples t-test to compare negative parenting before and after the intervention.||||.362
91860844|NCT05229146|183607974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments, DF = 15||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the parental involvement subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||<.001
91860845|NCT05229146|183607974|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.137|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the positive parenting subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.137
91860846|NCT05229146|183607974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.018|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments; DF = 15.||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the inconsistent discipline subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.018
91860847|NCT05229146|183607974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39||||0.015|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments; DF = 15.||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the use of corporal punishment subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.015
91860848|NCT05229146|183607974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23||||0.021|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the poor parental monitoring/supervision subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.021
91860849|NCT05229146|183607975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.878||||0.197|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments; DF = 15||Used a one-sided paired-samples t-test to examine changes in emotion regulation subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention.||||.197
91860850|NCT05229146|183607975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.857||||0.203|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments, DF = 15.||Used a one-sided paired-samples t-test to examine changes in lability/negativity subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention.||||.203
91860851|NCT03850678|183608009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined Q10 for those participants who completed the compression speed experiment (instant, fast, slow).||||.774
91860852|NCT03850678|183608009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined Q10 for those participants who completed the compression channel conditions (4, 8, 16).||||<.001
91860853|NCT03850678|183608009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compared Q10 for those participants who completed the unaided and aided conditions.||||.167
91860854|NCT03850678|183608010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of number of compression channels (unaided, 4 channel, 16 channels)||||.741
91860855|NCT03850678|183608010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||Due to Levene's Test for Equality of Variances, equal variances were not assumed.|t-test, 1 sided|||Spatial Release from Masking, unaided.||||.062
91902346|NCT04721821|183699729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.31||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.31|-0.88|
91902347|NCT04721821|183699729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.27||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||-0.27|-2.73|
91902348|NCT04721821|183699730|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.02||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.02|-1.24|
91902349|NCT04721821|183699730|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.84||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.84|-0.92|
91670486|NCT02688387|183236357|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9839|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9288|1.0423|||||X1 Vs R1, tadalafil|||1.0423|0.9288|
91670487|NCT02688387|183236357|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9151|1.0188|||||X2 Vs R2, tadalafil|||1.0188|0.9151|
91670488|NCT02688387|183236358|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9965|1.0646|||||X1 Vs R1, ambrisentan|||1.0646|0.9965|
91670489|NCT02688387|183236358|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.982|1.0473|||||X2 Vs R2, ambrisentan|||1.0473|0.9820|
91670490|NCT02688387|183236358|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9693|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.0092|||||X1 Vs R1, tadalafil|||1.0092|0.9310|
91670491|NCT02688387|183236358|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9553|1.0799|||||X2 Vs R2, tadalafil|||1.0799|0.9553|
91902350|NCT04721821|183699731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.56||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.56|-1.68|
91670492|NCT02688387|183236359|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0278|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9943|1.0623|||||X1 Vs R1, ambrisentan|||1.0623|0.9943|
91670493|NCT02688387|183236359|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0144|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9832|1.0466|||||X2 Vs R2, ambrisentan|||1.0466|0.9832|
91670494|NCT02688387|183236359|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9612|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9265|0.9972|||||X1 Vs R1, tadalafil|||0.9972|0.9265|
91670495|NCT02688387|183236359|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9562|1.0715|||||X2 Vs R2, tadalafil|||1.0715|0.9562|
91670496|NCT02688387|183236360|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0153|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9348|1.1027|||||Y1 Vs R3, ambrisentan|||1.1027|0.9348|
91670497|NCT02688387|183236360|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|0.9758|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9044|1.0529|||||Y1 Vs R3, tadalafil|||1.0529|0.9044|
91670498|NCT02688387|183236361|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0168|1.0617|||||Y1 Vs R3, ambrisentan|||1.0617|1.0168|
91670499|NCT02688387|183236361|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|0.9806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9106|1.056|||||Y1 Vs R3, tadalafil|||1.0560|0.9106|
91670500|NCT02688387|183236362|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0365|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0138|1.0596|||||Y1 Vs R3, ambrisentan|||1.0596|1.0138|
91670501|NCT02688387|183236362|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|0.9821|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9145|1.0547|||||Y1 Vs R3, tadalafil|||1.0547|0.9145|
91670502|NCT02688387|183236363|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.1176|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0166|1.2287|||||Y2 Vs R4, ambrisentan|||1.2287|1.0166|
91670503|NCT02688387|183236363|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.1196|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0429|1.2019|||||Y2 Vs R4, tadalafil|||1.2019|1.0429|
91670504|NCT02688387|183236364|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0353|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0009|1.071|||||Y2 Vs R4, ambrisentan|||1.0710|1.0009|
91902351|NCT04721821|183699731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.99||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.99|-0.51|
91902352|NCT04721821|183699732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.45|-2.66|
91902353|NCT04721821|183699732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.05||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-3.52|
91670505|NCT02688387|183236364|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0362|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.0834|||||Y2 Vs R4, tadalafil|||1.0834|0.9910|
91670506|NCT02688387|183236365|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0351|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0002|1.0713|||||Y2 Vs R4, ambrisentan|||1.0713|1.0002|
91670507|NCT02688387|183236365|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9929|1.0734|||||Y2 Vs R4, tadalafil|||1.0734|0.9929|
91670508|NCT01115855|183236446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.36||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.36|0.53|
91670509|NCT01115855|183236447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.31||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.31|0.56|
91670510|NCT01115855|183236448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.87||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||3.87|0.81|
91670511|NCT01115855|183236449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.24||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||6.24|0.92|
91670512|NCT01115855|183236450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||0.97|0.44|
91722535|NCT02629159|183337901|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|28.8||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.8|19.4|<0.001
91794387|NCT01827358|183467848|OTHER|For strong control of the family-wise error rate at the 0.05 confidence level, the Holm procedure (Holm 1979) is used. Under this procedure, the p-values from the two tests are sorted as p\_((1)) (smaller p-value) and p\_((2)) (larger p-value). If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))=0.05, then the null hypotheses for both tests are rejected. If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))\>0.05, then only the null hypothesis associated with the smaller p-value is rejected. In any other case, neither null hypothesis is rejected|Odds Ratio (OR)|39.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|1666.3|||Fisher Exact|||||1666.3|5.5|<0.001
91902354|NCT04721821|183699733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.44||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.44|-2.30|
91670513|NCT01115855|183236451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.25||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.25|0.45|
91670514|NCT01115855|183236452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.97||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||0.97|0.45|
91670515|NCT01115855|183236453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.33||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=-50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.33|0.49|
91670516|NCT01115855|183236454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.1||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.10|0.45|
91670517|NCT01115855|183236455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.28||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.28|0.53|
91670518|NCT01115855|183236456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.53||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||3.53|0.18|
91670519|NCT01115855|183236457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|17.85||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||17.85|0.07|
91670520|NCT01115855|183236458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|11.56||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||11.56|0.39|
91670521|NCT01115855|183236459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.66||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||5.66|0.05|
91670522|NCT01115855|183236460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.04||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||8.04|0.16|
91902355|NCT04721821|183699733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.62||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.62|-2.60|
91670523|NCT01115855|183236462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-102.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.92|-9.94||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-9.94|-195.92|
91902356|NCT04721821|183699734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.35|0.80|
91670524|NCT01115855|183236462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-95.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.51|-7.04||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-7.04|-184.51|
91670525|NCT01115855|183236462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-125.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.5|-54.68||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-54.68|-195.50|
91670526|NCT01115855|183236462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.77|-31.11||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-31.11|-232.77|
91722536|NCT02629159|183337901|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|16.7||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||16.7|4.2|0.001
91860856|NCT03850678|183608011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of score for the reading span (independent variable) to Q10 (dependent variable, 16 channel compression condition) for the participants who completed the compression channel experiment.||||.805
91670527|NCT01115855|183236462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-132.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-240.94|-23.84||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-23.84|-240.94|
91860857|NCT04640298|183608016|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91860858|NCT04640298|183608017|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91860859|NCT04640298|183608018|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91902357|NCT04721821|183699734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.67||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.67|0.86|
91902358|NCT04721821|183699734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.54||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.54|0.57|
91670528|NCT01115855|183236462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-117.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.49|-12.87||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-12.87|-221.49|
91670529|NCT01115855|183236462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-101.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-267.36|64.36||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||64.36|-267.36|
91670530|NCT01115855|183236462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-110.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.49|85.93||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||85.93|-307.49|
91794271|NCT02821910|183467550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.13|100.75|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.75|92.13|
91670531|NCT01115855|183236462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-119.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|158.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2137.82|1898.59||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1898.59|-2137.82|
91670532|NCT01115855|183236462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-144.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|200.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2692.95|2403.76||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||2403.76|-2692.95|
91670533|NCT01115855|183236462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-77.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|966.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2131.88|1977.37||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1977.37|-2131.88|
91670534|NCT01115855|183236462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-102.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.61|-32.0||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-32.00|-172.61|
91670535|NCT01115855|183236463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-364.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|763.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1863.06|1133.76||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1133.76|-1863.06|
91670536|NCT01115855|183236463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-247.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|711.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1642.43|1148.14||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1148.14|-1642.43|
91670537|NCT01115855|183236463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-370.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|699.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1742.51|1002.22||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1002.22|-1742.51|
91722537|NCT02629159|183337902|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-44.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.39|-32.69||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-32.69|-55.39|<0.001
91902359|NCT04721821|183699734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.41|0.77|
91670538|NCT01115855|183236463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-664.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11059.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141189.93|139861.75||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||139861.75|-141189.93|
91670539|NCT01115855|183236463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-414.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3071.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39445.52|38615.54||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||38615.54|-39445.52|
91670540|NCT01115855|183236463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|23.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10794.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21649.89|21697.6||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||21697.60|-21649.89|
91670541|NCT01115855|183236463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-245.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6698.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85358.69|84868.22||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||84868.22|-85358.69|
91902360|NCT04721821|183699734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.95||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.95|0.89|
91902361|NCT04721821|183699734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.6||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||2.60|0.85|
91902362|NCT04721821|183699735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.34||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.34|0.59|
91902363|NCT04721821|183699735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.15||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.15|0.39|
91715209|NCT03126786|183321557|SUPERIORITY|The sample size was determined such that the difference in visual acuity between the ACTIVE treatment group and CONTROL treatment group could be estimated within +/- five ETDRS letters. Week 24 data from the Eylea prescribing information was used to estimate a pooled standard deviation of 9.17 letters. With 28 subjects per arm, a two-sided 90% confidence interval with a distance from the mean difference to the limits (half of interval width) will be less than 5 letters.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|1.4||There was a single primary outcome tested at a single primary endpoint, therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed. The primary endpoint was assess with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.100.|Mixed model for repeat measures|The covariance structure was assumed to be unstructured.|Estimated Value calculated as Active minus Control.|The primary efficacy analysis comparing ACTIVE with CONTROL on the mean change from baseline (Visit 2, Day 0) BCVA at Week 12 was be performed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM). This model included treatment (ACTIVE or CONTROL), visit (Visit 3 (Week 4), Visit 4 (Week 8), and Visit 5 (Week 12), Visit 6 (Week 16), Visit 7 (Week 20) and Visit 8 (Week 24), and the 2-way interactions of treatment and visit, and the BCVA baseline included as the covariate.||1.4|-6.2|0.288
91715210|NCT03243305|183321564|OTHER||Seven-cycle Pregnancy Percentage|13.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.91|17.39|||Kaplan-Meier|||The primary hypothesis to be tested is whether subjects using Amphora vaginal gel have a 7-cycle cumulative pregnancy percentage less than or equal to 21%||17.39|9.91|
91715211|NCT02689804|183321566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91715212|NCT02689804|183321567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91715213|NCT04552132|183321590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
91715214|NCT04552132|183321591|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91715215|NCT04552132|183321592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
91715216|NCT04552132|183321593|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91715217|NCT04552132|183321594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
91715218|NCT04552132|183321595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
91902364|NCT04721821|183699735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.83||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.83|0.34|
91715219|NCT04552132|183321596|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91715220|NCT04552132|183321597|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91715221|NCT04552132|183321598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
91715222|NCT04552132|183321599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4993|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.4993
91715223|NCT04552132|183321600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91715224|NCT04552132|183321601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
91715225|NCT05616013|183321619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-11.0|||ANCOVA|||Bima 30mg/kg + Sema 2.4mg vs Placebo||-11.0|-18.0|<0.001
91715226|NCT05616013|183321619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-7.09|||ANCOVA|||Bima 30mg/kg + Sema 1.0mg vs Placebo||-7.09|-14.0|<0.001
91715227|NCT05616013|183321619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-7.55|||ANCOVA|||Bima 10mg/kg + Sema 2.4mg vs Placebo||-7.55|-14.4|<0.001
91715228|NCT05616013|183321619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-9.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-5.93|||ANCOVA|||Bima 10mg/kg + Sema 1.0mg vs Placebo||-5.93|-12.9|<.001
91715229|NCT05616013|183321619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-7.46|||ANCOVA|||Sema 2.4mg vs Placebo||-7.46|-14.4|<0.001
91715230|NCT05616013|183321619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-6.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|-2.94|||ANCOVA|||Sema 1.0mg vs Placebo||-2.94|-9.96|<0.001
91715231|NCT05616013|183321619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||Bima 30mg/kg vs Placebo||-2.41|-9.47|<0.001
91715232|NCT05616013|183321619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-2.68||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Bima 10mg/kg vs Placebo||0.82|-6.18|0.133
91715233|NCT04391842|183321676|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91715234|NCT04391842|183321677|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91715235|NCT00810199|183321678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.799||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.799|0.882|0.2055
91715236|NCT00810199|183321678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.814||Logistic regression including treatment , region and baseline DAS28.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is for Tocilizumab + Methotrexate relative to Tocilizumab + Placebo.||||1.814|0.889|0.1894
91902365|NCT04721821|183699735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.42||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.42|0.56|
91902366|NCT04721821|183699735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.8||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.80|0.46|
91902367|NCT04721821|183699735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.48||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.48|0.19|
91715237|NCT00810199|183321679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8742||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.8742
91902368|NCT04721821|183699736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.45|0.86|
91902369|NCT04721821|183699736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.26||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.26|0.67|
91794272|NCT02821910|183467550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|105.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.95|110.45|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.45|99.95|
91670542|NCT01115855|183236463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|170.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10730.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21375.69|21716.66||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||21716.66|-21375.69|
91670543|NCT01115855|183236463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-58.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12765.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30160.25|30042.7||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||30042.70|-30160.25|
91670544|NCT01115855|183236463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-212.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11073.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22723.82|22299.33||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||22299.33|-22723.82|
91670545|NCT01115855|183236463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-80.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11486.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-146026.28|145865.96||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||145865.96|-146026.28|
91670546|NCT01115855|183236463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-187.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|240.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-662.67|287.23||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||287.23|-662.67|
91670547|NCT01115855|183236464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.96||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||3.96|-0.55|
91670548|NCT01115855|183236464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|5.42||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||5.42|0.07|
91670549|NCT01115855|183236464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.6||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||6.60|1.11|
91670550|NCT01115855|183236464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|7.9||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||7.90|1.81|
91670551|NCT01115855|183236464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|8.94||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||8.94|2.36|
91715238|NCT00810199|183321679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6212||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.6212
91715239|NCT00810199|183321679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.0963
91670552|NCT01115855|183236464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.75||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||6.75|0.12|
91670553|NCT01115855|183236464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|7.25||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||7.25|-0.06|
91670554|NCT01115855|183236464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.44||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||8.44|0.86|
91670555|NCT01115855|183236464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|7.68||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||7.68|0.02|
91670556|NCT01115855|183236464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|9.25||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||9.25|0.08|
91670557|NCT01115855|183236464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|10.07||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||10.07|-1.82|
91670558|NCT01115855|183236464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|5.8||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||5.80|0.56|
91670559|NCT01115855|183236465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-61.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.44|63.37||||||Change from baseline at Month 5: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||63.37|-186.44|
91670560|NCT01115855|183236465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.27|81.39||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||81.39|-131.27|
91794388|NCT01827358|183467849|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.28|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The association between mupirocin treatment and non-clinical SA Infection on or before Day 85 was assessed via a Cox Proportional Hazards Model. Onset time was defined as the first day of non-SA infection. Infants were right-censored at the time of discharge from the hospital or at Day 85, whichever came first.||3.28|0.30|0.997
91670561|NCT01115855|183236465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.28|72.13||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||72.13|-97.28|
91670562|NCT01115855|183236465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-78.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.25|64.31||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||64.31|-221.25|
91670563|NCT01115855|183236465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-79.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.88|52.63||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||52.63|-211.88|
91670564|NCT01115855|183236465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|19.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-230.01|268.71||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||268.71|-230.01|
91670565|NCT01115855|183236465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-21.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.21|152.11||||||Change from baseline at Month 29: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||152.11|-194.21|
91670566|NCT01115855|183236465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-40.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.55|115.97||||||Change from baseline at Month 33: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||115.97|-197.55|
91715240|NCT00810199|183321680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2969||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.2969
91715241|NCT00810199|183321680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2215||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.2215
91670567|NCT01115855|183236465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-44.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-247.11|158.15||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||158.15|-247.11|
91670568|NCT01115855|183236465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-238.31|182.93||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||182.93|-238.31|
91670569|NCT01115855|183236465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.17|158.24||||||Change from baseline at Month 48: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||158.24|-221.17|
91670570|NCT01115855|183236465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.91|54.83||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 :ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||54.83|-58.91|
91670571|NCT01115855|183236467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.37||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.37|-0.21|
91670572|NCT01115855|183236467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.3||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.30|-0.34|
91794273|NCT02821910|183467550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.41|104.38|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.38|96.41|
91670573|NCT01115855|183236467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.39||||||Change from baseline at Month 13: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.39|-0.27|
91670574|NCT01115855|183236467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.45||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.45|-0.41|
91715242|NCT00810199|183321680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1243||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.1243
91670575|NCT01115855|183236467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.24||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.24|-0.56|
91670576|NCT01115855|183236467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.25||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.25|-0.55|
91670577|NCT01115855|183236467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.31||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.31|-0.49|
91670578|NCT01115855|183236467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.44||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.44|-0.57|
91670579|NCT01115855|183236467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.54||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.54|-0.50|
91715243|NCT00810199|183321681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6775||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.6775
91715244|NCT00810199|183321681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9976||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.9976
91715245|NCT00810199|183321681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2168||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.2168
91715246|NCT00810199|183321682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8369||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.8369
91902370|NCT04721821|183699736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.09||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.09|0.44|
91794274|NCT02821910|183467551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.86|100.54|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.54|92.86|
91902371|NCT04721821|183699736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.38||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.38|0.74|
91902372|NCT04721821|183699736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.52|0.69|
91670580|NCT01115855|183236467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.83||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.83|-0.44|
91860860|NCT05590403|183608089|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-A GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-HA-RSV Group) is less than (\<) 1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-HA-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||1.09|0.83|
91860861|NCT05590403|183608090|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group minus Adults-HA-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|3.28|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-HA-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||3.28|-8.54|
91860862|NCT05590403|183608091|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-B GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-HA-RSV Group) is \<1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-HA-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||1.02|0.79|
91902373|NCT04721821|183699736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.33||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.33|0.46|
91902374|NCT04721821|183699737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.77||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.77|0.78|
91902375|NCT04721821|183699737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.95||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.95|0.71|
91902376|NCT04721821|183699737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.39||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||2.39|0.45|
91902377|NCT04721821|183699737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.40|0.50|
91715247|NCT00810199|183321682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6528||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.6528
91670581|NCT01115855|183236467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.89||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.89|-0.63|
91670582|NCT01115855|183236467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11||||||Change from baseline at Week 4 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.11|-0.36|
91715248|NCT00810199|183321682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2546||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.2546
91715249|NCT00810199|183321683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1018|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1018
91670583|NCT04100096|183236468|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.02||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.7||Comparison was carried out using MMRM, with study center (pooled), treatment group (TG), visit, ADT status, and TG by visit interaction (BVI), gender BVI, age BVI as factors and baseline BVI as covariate. An unstructured covariance was used.|MMRM|||||0.70|-2.75|0.2430
91670584|NCT04100096|183236469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.27||Comparison was carried out using MMRM, with study center (pooled), TG, visit, ADT status, and TG BVI, gender BVI, age BVI as factors and baseline BVI as covariate. An unstructured covariance was used.|MMRM|||||0.27|-0.35|0.7759
91670585|NCT04100096|183236470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 2||0.20|-0.32|0.6585
91715250|NCT00810199|183321684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7176|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7176
91715251|NCT00810199|183321685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8526|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8526
91715252|NCT00810199|183321686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2217|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2217
91715253|NCT00810199|183321687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|Baseline DAS28 as a covariate.||||-0.11|-0.41|0.0008
91715254|NCT00810199|183321688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|2.109|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression including treatment, region and baseline DAS28.|Odds ratio is for Tocilizumab + Methotrexate relative to Tocilizumab + Placebo.|||2.109|1.053|0.0245
91860863|NCT05590403|183608092|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group minus Adults-HA-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.39|2.53|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-HA-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||2.53|-10.39|
91715255|NCT00810199|183321688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.482||||0.0258||95.0|1.048|2.095||Stratified by region and baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.095|1.048|0.0258
91715256|NCT00810199|183321689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0287||95.0|||||Wald Chi-square|Asymptotic test; parameter estimate is zero.||Week 24||||0.0287
91715257|NCT00810199|183321689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||Wald Chi-square|Asymptotic test; parameter estimate is zero.||Week 52||||0.2240
91715258|NCT00810199|183321690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0497||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.0497
91715259|NCT00810199|183321690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.3918
91715260|NCT00810199|183321691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.0019
91902378|NCT04721821|183699737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.83||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.83|0.49|
91902379|NCT04721821|183699737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.95||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.95|0.33|
91902380|NCT04721821|183699738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.49||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.49|0.76|
91902381|NCT04721821|183699738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.37||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.37|0.55|
91902382|NCT04721821|183699738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.2||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.20|0.32|
91902383|NCT04721821|183699738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.30|0.59|
91902384|NCT04721821|183699738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.86||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.86|0.65|
91670586|NCT04100096|183236470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.06||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 4||0.06|-0.57|0.1181
91670587|NCT04100096|183236470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 6||0.13|-0.51|0.2431
91670588|NCT04100096|183236470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.02||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 8||0.02|-0.61|0.0638
91902385|NCT04721821|183699738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||||95.0|0.62|3.28||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||3.28|0.62|
91902386|NCT04721821|183699739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.15||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.15|0.94|
91902387|NCT04721821|183699739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.84||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.84|0.68|
91902388|NCT04721821|183699740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.67||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.67|0.41|
91902389|NCT04721821|183699740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.07||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||3.07|0.62|
91670589|NCT04100096|183236470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.22||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 10||0.22|-0.44|0.5050
91715261|NCT00810199|183321691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1181|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.1181
91902390|NCT04721821|183699741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.52|0.66|
91902391|NCT04721821|183699741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.74||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.74|0.64|
91902392|NCT04721821|183699742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.94||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.94|0.80|
91902393|NCT04721821|183699742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.87||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||3.87|0.76|
91902394|NCT04721821|183699743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.27||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.27|0.73|
91902395|NCT04721821|183699743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.23||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.23|0.63|
91902396|NCT04721821|183699744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.06|
91902397|NCT04721821|183699744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.09|-0.01|
91902398|NCT04721821|183699745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.08|
91902399|NCT04721821|183699745|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-0.11|
91902400|NCT04721821|183699746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.03|-0.07|
91902401|NCT04721821|183699746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.07|-0.05|
91902402|NCT04721821|183699747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.07|-0.06|
91902403|NCT04721821|183699747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.12|
91902404|NCT04721821|183699748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.09|
91902405|NCT04721821|183699748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.09|-0.06|
91902406|NCT04721821|183699749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.45|0.90|
91902407|NCT04721821|183699749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.94||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.94|0.54|
91902408|NCT04721821|183699750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.11|0.53|
91902409|NCT04721821|183699750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.61||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.61|0.72|
91902410|NCT04721821|183699751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.21||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.21|0.73|
91902411|NCT04721821|183699751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.39|0.77|
91902412|NCT04721821|183699752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.32|0.64|
91902413|NCT04721821|183699752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.64||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.64|0.69|
91902414|NCT04721821|183699753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.59||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.59|0.84|
91902415|NCT04721821|183699753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.32||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.32|0.65|
91902416|NCT04721821|183699754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.03|
91902417|NCT04721821|183699754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-0.04|
91902418|NCT04721821|183699755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-0.05|
91902419|NCT04721821|183699755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.07|
91902420|NCT04721821|183699756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.02|-0.06|
91902421|NCT04721821|183699756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.04|
91902422|NCT04721821|183699757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.06|
91902423|NCT04721821|183699757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.03||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.03|-0.10|
91670590|NCT04100096|183236470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.4277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.21||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 12||0.21|-0.48|0.4277
91670591|NCT04100096|183236471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.3||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 2||0.30|-0.18|0.6225
91670592|NCT04100096|183236471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 4||0.31|-0.35|0.9145
91670593|NCT04100096|183236471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 6||0.08|-0.52|0.1535
91902424|NCT04721821|183699758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.05|
91902425|NCT04721821|183699758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.06|
91902426|NCT04721821|183699759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.45|-2.65|
91902427|NCT04721821|183699759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.11||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||3.11|-2.59|
91902428|NCT04721821|183699760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|4.38||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||4.38|-2.71|
91902429|NCT04721821|183699760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|2.95||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.95|-5.12|
91902430|NCT04721821|183699761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.45|-3.94|
91902431|NCT04721821|183699761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|2.42||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.42|-3.61|
91902432|NCT04721821|183699762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|3.05||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||3.05|-4.39|
91902433|NCT04721821|183699762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-0.48||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||-0.48|-9.19|
91902434|NCT04721821|183699763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|2.82||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.82|-3.59|
91902435|NCT04721821|183699763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.49||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||4.49|-2.97|
91902436|NCT04721821|183699764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.34||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.34|0.73|
91902437|NCT04721821|183699764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.34||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.34|0.66|
91902438|NCT04721821|183699765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.73||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.73|0.62|
91902439|NCT04721821|183699765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.60|0.50|
91902440|NCT04721821|183699766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.19||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.19|0.64|
91902441|NCT04721821|183699766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.26|0.60|
91902442|NCT04721821|183699767|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.46||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.46|0.55|
91902443|NCT04721821|183699767|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.51|0.47|
91902444|NCT04721821|183699768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.38||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.38|0.60|
91902445|NCT04721821|183699768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.50|0.56|
91902446|NCT04721821|183699769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|4.11||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||4.11|-0.69|
91902447|NCT04721821|183699769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.77||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.77|-2.79|
91902448|NCT04721821|183699770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|1.6||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.60|-5.02|
91902449|NCT04721821|183699770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|4.96||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||4.96|-2.85|
91902450|NCT04721821|183699771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.45|-3.75|
91902451|NCT04721821|183699771|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|2.47||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.47|-3.54|
91902452|NCT04721821|183699772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|4.73||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||4.73|-2.36|
91902453|NCT04721821|183699772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|1.07||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.07|-7.36|
91902454|NCT04721821|183699773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|5.41||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||5.41|-0.66|
91902455|NCT04721821|183699773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|4.71||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||4.71|-2.69|
91902456|NCT04721821|183699774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.4||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.40|-0.16|
91902457|NCT04721821|183699774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.45||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.45|-0.21|
91902458|NCT04721821|183699775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.43||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.43|-0.40|
91902459|NCT04721821|183699775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.29||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.29|-0.74|
91902460|NCT04721821|183699776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.10|-0.51|
91902461|NCT04721821|183699776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.31||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.31|-0.42|
91670594|NCT04100096|183236471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 8||0.10|-0.50|0.1922
91902462|NCT04721821|183699777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.32||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.32|-0.34|
91902463|NCT04721821|183699777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.31||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.31|-0.69|
91902464|NCT04721821|183699778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.32||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.32|-0.37|
91902465|NCT04721821|183699778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.59||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.59|-0.30|
91902466|NCT03836807|183699793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.020
91902467|NCT03836807|183699794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
91902468|NCT03836807|183699795|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-0.3||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at Baseline (at 0')||5.0|-5.5|0.914
91902469|NCT03836807|183699795|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|1.3||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.4|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5'||7.4|-4.9|0.685
91902470|NCT03836807|183699795|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-0.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.8|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 10'||6.8|-7.4|0.930
91902471|NCT03836807|183699795|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-2.1||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|6.1|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 15'||6.1|-10.3|0.615
91902472|NCT03836807|183699795|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-8.5||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|0.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 30'||0|-17.0|0.051
91902473|NCT03836807|183699795|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-8.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-0.3|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 45'||-0.3|-16.6|0.043
91902474|NCT03836807|183699795|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-9.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-1.3|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1h||-1.3|-16.7|0.023
91902475|NCT03836807|183699795|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-10.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-2.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1.5h||-2.7|-18.2|0.009
91902476|NCT03836807|183699795|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-9.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 2h||-1.7|-17.0|0.018
91902477|NCT03836807|183699795|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-5.5||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|2.6|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 3h||2.6|-13.6|0.182
91902478|NCT03836807|183699795|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-4.8||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|3.2|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 4h||3.2|-12.9|0.236
91902479|NCT03836807|183699795|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-3.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.5|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5h||3.5|-10.6|0.320
91902480|NCT03836807|183699795|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-2.2||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.6|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 6h||5.6|-10.0|0.572
91902481|NCT03836807|183699796|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|2.7||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.4|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5'||8.4|-3.1|0.361
91902482|NCT03836807|183699796|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|4.2||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|12.3|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 10'||12.3|-3.8|0.298
91902483|NCT03836807|183699796|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|8.9||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|19.8|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 15'||19.8|-2.1|0.112
91902484|NCT03836807|183699796|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|22.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|36.8|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 30'||36.8|7.8|0.003
91902485|NCT03836807|183699796|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|21.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|36.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 45'||36.7|5.6|0.008
91902486|NCT03836807|183699796|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|18.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|34.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1h||34.0|3.3|0.018
91902487|NCT03836807|183699796|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|22.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|37.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1.5h||37.0|7.7|0.003
91902488|NCT03836807|183699796|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|22.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|36.1|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 2h||36.1|8.0|0.003
91902489|NCT03836807|183699796|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|16.7||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|30.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 3h||30.0|3.4|0.015
91902490|NCT03836807|183699796|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|10.8||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|23.9|||ANOVA|||at 4h||23.9|-2.2|0.103
91902491|NCT03836807|183699796|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|5.9||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.5|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5'||17.5|-5.6|0.311
91902492|NCT03836807|183699796|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|2.8||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.5|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 6h||14.5|-9.0|0.638
91902493|NCT03836807|183699797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||in the ITT population||||0.007
91902494|NCT03836807|183699797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||in the PP population||||0.009
91902495|NCT03836807|183699798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.004
91902496|NCT03836807|183699799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
91902497|NCT03836807|183699800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.480
91902498|NCT03531788|183699804|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Activity counts from the ActiGraph GT9x activity monitor provide data per participant during testing of upper extremity activities/tasks and were collected while wearing the device (Kinova and WREX) and without the device (Kinova and WREX). For each upper extremity task, we summed all activity count data for all tasks completed. We then computed means and standard deviations. Data presented are within group data change and not between group data comparisons.|Due to the small sample size, we utilized change in activity count data when comparing two upper limb testing sessions: one without the use of an arm support device (Kinova or WREX) and one while using the arm support device. For each upper extremity task, we summed all activity count data for all tasks completed. We then computed means and standard deviations. Data presented are within group data change and not between group data comparisons.|||
91902499|NCT03531788|183699805|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Activity counts from the ActiGraph GT9x activity monitor were collected during baseline (without a device) and throughout the 4 week device trial (with the device). For each time period, activity count data were averaged across the day. We then compared the baseline time period to the device trial period to understand the difference in movement and upper extremity positioning during the device trial. Data presented are within group change scores and not between group data comparisons.|Counts from each axis (x, y, z) were measured across baseline and during the 4-week trial to explore arm movement and positioning during the use of an upper extremity arm device. Counts (within each participant) were summed. A change score from trial minus baseline was calculated for each axis. We provide an average change score and standard deviation across participants with Kinova and participants with WREX.|||
91902500|NCT03531788|183699806|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Three goals were identified for each participant and scored without using an arm support device to serve as a baseline measure of abilities. These scores were compared to the scores achieved on the same goals using the arm support device.|We compared the change in GAS scores when using an arm support device on three goal areas identified as important for each participant. For each goal, we measured abilities at baseline and with the device (Kinova and WREX). We calculated the change in score for each goal and averaged these change scores across all participants. While our groups are too small to complete statistical tests to estimate the significance of the differences participants noted in activity and independence while using both arm supports, our results quantify the amount of increased success participants noted with the use of the arm support device.|||
91902501|NCT01294150|183699811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Assuming unequal variances comparing mean improvement in the UL group to 125% of the mean improvement in the Control group. A p-value of 0.025 or less associated with UL is considered evidence of statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91902502|NCT00698932|183699824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.65|-0.34|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||-0.34|-0.65|<0.0001
91902503|NCT00698932|183699825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.06|-0.39|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline FPG||||-0.39|-1.06|<0.0001
91902504|NCT00698932|183699826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-19.12|-7.13|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline FPG||||-7.13|-19.12|<0.0001
91902505|NCT00698932|183699827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-182.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.4||0.001||95.0|-289.0|-74.0|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline PPG AUC||||-74|-289|0.001
91902506|NCT00698932|183699828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3280.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|980.0||0.001||95.0|-5214.0|-1345.0|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline PPG AUC||||-1345|-5214|0.001
91902507|NCT00698932|183699829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|8.9|24.9|||ANCOVA|||||24.9|8.9|<0.0001
91902508|NCT01621542|183699832|OTHER|None specified||||||||||||||||The MTD could not be established for this study as no DLTs occurred at doses up to and including 27.0 mg|The MTD could not be established for this study as no DLTs occurred at doses up to and including 27.0 mg|||
91902509|NCT03739437|183699881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.384
91902510|NCT02012296|183700030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
91902511|NCT02012296|183700031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.21
91902512|NCT02012296|183700034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0012
91902513|NCT02012296|183700035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91902514|NCT02012296|183700036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91902515|NCT01681810|183700055|OTHER|Paired t-test comparing insulin stimulated glucose disposal at end of 12 weeks on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) insulin stimulated glucose disposal.||||||0.2068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2068
91902516|NCT01681810|183700056|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing blood pressure over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) blood pressure.||||||0.0074||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.0074
91902517|NCT01681810|183700057|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing blood pressure over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) blood pressure.|||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91902518|NCT01681810|183700058|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing blood pressure over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) blood pressure.|||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91902519|NCT01681810|183700059|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing methemoglobin percent over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) methemoglobin percent.||||||0.0127||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.0127
91902520|NCT03627767|183700068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.424||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.424|0.286|< 0.0001
91902521|NCT03627767|183700068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.27||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.270|0.176|< 0.0001
91902522|NCT03627767|183700068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.78||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.780|0.503|< 0.0001
91670595|NCT04100096|183236471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 10||0.25|-0.40|0.6488
91670596|NCT04100096|183236471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.23||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 12||0.23|-0.40|0.5992
91670597|NCT04100096|183236472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.19||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 2||0.19|-0.29|0.6579
91670598|NCT04100096|183236472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.16||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 4||0.16|-0.43|0.3728
91670599|NCT04100096|183236472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.09||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 6||0.09|-0.50|0.1684
91670600|NCT04100096|183236472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.13||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 8||-0.13|-0.74|0.0046
91670601|NCT04100096|183236472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 10||0.11|-0.51|0.2087
91670602|NCT04100096|183236472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 12||-0.02|-0.64|0.0389
91670603|NCT04100096|183236477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.5||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.50|-0.14|0.2720
91670604|NCT04100096|183236477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.56||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.56|0.63|0
91670605|NCT04100096|183236477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.73||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons|ANCOVA|||Week 6||1.73|0.63|0
91670606|NCT04100096|183236477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.21||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||2.21|0.92|0
91670607|NCT04100096|183236477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.45||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||2.45|0.99|0
91670608|NCT04100096|183236477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.19||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.19|0.68|0.0002
91670609|NCT04100096|183236478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.68|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.||Week 12||2.68|-0.07|0.0620
91670610|NCT04100096|183236479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.||Week 2||0.17|-0.08|0.4613
91670611|NCT04100096|183236479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.55|0.21|0
91670612|NCT04100096|183236479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.61|0.21|0.0001
91670613|NCT04100096|183236479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.8||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.80|0.33|0
91670614|NCT04100096|183236479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.88||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||0.88|0.34|0
91670615|NCT04100096|183236479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.8||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.80|0.23|0.0004
91670616|NCT04100096|183236481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.25|-0.04|0.1687
91670617|NCT04100096|183236481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.29||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.29|-0.06|0.1874
91670618|NCT04100096|183236482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.02|-0.25|0.0974
91902523|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||=|0.9495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.1|-1.0|= 0.9495
91902524|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||=|0.5717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.9|-1.6|= 0.5717
91902525|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.9|-1.7|
91902526|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.1|47.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.8|33.1|< 0.0001
91902527|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|62.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.1|69.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.2|56.1|< 0.0001
91902528|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|29.9||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.9|14.3|
91902529|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|35.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|42.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.0|28.1|< 0.0001
91902530|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|51.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|58.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.4|44.6|< 0.0001
91902531|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|24.8||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.8|8.1|
91902532|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|39.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.2|25.2|< 0.0001
91902533|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|53.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.8|39.9|< 0.0001
91902534|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|22.6||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.6|5.9|
91902535|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|32.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.5|18.5|< 0.0001
91670619|NCT04100096|183236482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.08|-0.20|0.3910
91670620|NCT04100096|183236483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|9.0|0.04|0.26||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.26|0.04|0.0063
91670621|NCT04100096|183236483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.19||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.19|-0.01|0.0670
91670622|NCT00784134|183236537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.027||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.115|||Chi-squared|||||0.115|-0.062|0.554
91902536|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|49.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.7|35.3|< 0.0001
91902537|NCT03627767|183700069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|25.5||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|8.6|
91902538|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.0|0.0|
91902539|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.||0.0|0.0|
91902540|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.0|0.0|
91902541|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|50.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.1|35.3|< 0.0001
91902542|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|55.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|61.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.7|49.1|< 0.0001
91902543|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|17.9||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|7.9|
91902544|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|53.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.0|37.9|< 0.0001
91670623|NCT00784134|183236537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.87||Multivariable logit model adjusted for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume.|Multivariable Logit Model|||||1.87|0.75|0.465
91670624|NCT00784134|183236538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.25||Generalized ordered logit model adjusted for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical) compares odds ratio for mRS score \> K v. \<= K for K = 1 - 4; Alt v. Sal.|Generalized ordered Logit Model|||||1.25|0.63|0.484
91670625|NCT00784134|183236538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.71||The same generalized ordered logit model, adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical), compares odds ratio for mRS score greater than 5 versus mRS score equal or less than 5 (dead versus alive).|Generalized ordered Logit Model|||||0.71|0.28|<0.001
91670626|NCT00784134|183236539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.111|||Chi-squared|||||0.111|-0.059|0.552
91670627|NCT00784134|183236539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||Multivariable logit model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).|Multivariable Logit Model|||||1.90|0.80|0.350
91670628|NCT00784134|183236540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.8||Random effects model with site as random effect adjusted for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).|Random Effects Model|||||1.80|0.78|0.428
91670629|NCT00784134|183236541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.1|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|Generalized estimating equation model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).||Logit mRS scores 0-3 at 30 days||2.10|0.75|0.384
91670630|NCT00784134|183236541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.64|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|Generalized estimating equation model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).||Logit mRS scores 0-3 at 180 days||1.64|0.62|0.964
91670631|NCT00784134|183236542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0056
91902545|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|69.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.5|56.4|< 0.0001
91670632|NCT00784134|183236543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||AUC/ Logit Model|||||||<0.001
91670633|NCT00784134|183236544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.771
91670634|NCT00784134|183236545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.098
91670635|NCT00784134|183236546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Generalized Linear Models|||||||0.450
91670636|NCT00784134|183236547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.501
91670637|NCT00784134|183236548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.795
91670638|NCT00784134|183236549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.784
91670639|NCT00784134|183236550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.592
91670640|NCT00784134|183236551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.105
91670641|NCT00784134|183236552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.152
91670642|NCT00784134|183236553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.055||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.008|||Fisher Exact|||||0.008|-0.111|0.055
91670643|NCT00784134|183236554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.035||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.014|||Fisher Exact|||||0.014|-0.084|0.202
91670644|NCT00784134|183236555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.03|||Fisher Exact|||||0.030|-0.022|0.771
91670645|NCT00784134|183236556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.036|||Fisher Exact|||||0.036|-0.028|0.811
91670646|NCT00784134|183236557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.144||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.057|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.057|-0.230|0.0017
91670647|NCT00784134|183236558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.86|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Adjusted Cox Proportional Hazards Model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).||||0.86|0.41|0.006
91670648|NCT00784134|183236559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.064||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.217|||Chi-squared|||||0.217|-0.088|0.410
91670649|NCT00784134|183236560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.128|||Chi-squared|||||0.128|-0.096|0.781
91670650|NCT00784134|183236561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.152|||Chi-squared|||||0.152|-0.113|0.773
91670651|NCT00784134|183236562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.032||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.151|||Chi-squared|||||0.151|-0.085|0.587
91670652|NCT00784134|183236563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.015||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.121|||Chi-squared|||||0.121|-0.09|0.775
91670653|NCT00784134|183236564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.019||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.169|||Chi-squared|||||0.169|-0.132|0.808
91670654|NCT00784134|183236565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.033||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.099|||Chi-squared|||||0.099|-0.165|0.625
91670655|NCT00784134|183236566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.087||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.218|||Chi-squared|||||0.218|-0.043|0.191
91670656|NCT00784134|183236567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0066||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.211|||Chi-squared|||||0.211|-0.197|0.949
91670657|NCT00784134|183236568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.014||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.126|||Chi-squared|||||0.126|-0.098|0.812
91670658|NCT00784134|183236569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.059||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.194|||Chi-squared|||||0.194|-0.076|0.394
91670659|NCT00784134|183236570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.312
91670660|NCT00784134|183236571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.075||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.16||Analysis of dichotomous eGOS, comparing Upper Severe Disability scores to Lower Severe Disability scores|Chi-squared|||||0.160|-0.011|0.087
91670661|NCT00784134|183236571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.43||Adjusted Multivariable Logit Model comparing eGOS scores of Upper Severe Disability or greater versus Lower Severe Disability and worse; Alteplase versus Saline|Multivariable Logit Model|||||2.43|0.98|0.064
91670662|NCT00784134|183236571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.89||Adjusted generalized ordered logit model odds ratios for eGOS scores of Moderate Disability or worse versus Good Recovery; Alteplase versus Saline|Generalized Ordered Logit Model|||||2.89|0.70|0.336
91670663|NCT00784134|183236571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52||Adjusted generalized ordered logit model odds ratios for eGOS scores of Upper Severe Disability or worse versus Moderate Disability + Good Recovery; Alteplase versus Saline|Generalized Ordered Logit Model|||||1.52|0.57|0.783
91670664|NCT00784134|183236572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91670665|NCT00784134|183236573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.312
91670666|NCT00784134|183236574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91670667|NCT00784134|183236575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
91670668|NCT00784134|183236576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.634
91670669|NCT00784134|183236577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.255
91670670|NCT00784134|183236578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
91670671|NCT00784134|183236579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882
91670672|NCT00784134|183236580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.551
91670673|NCT00784134|183236581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
91860864|NCT05590403|183608093|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-A GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) is \<1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-AIR-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||0.96|0.73|
91670674|NCT00784134|183236582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.376
91670675|NCT01796964|183236604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority at week 12 is concluded at one-sided alpha level of 0.10 if the lower limit of the corresponding two-sided 80% confidence interval for the treatment difference (ESBA 1008 - EYLEA) is greater than -5 letters.|Treatment difference (ESBA - Eylea)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.19|1.93|||||Treatment differences were based on least squares estimates.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories (\< 55 and ≥ 55 letters) as class variables was used to estimate the treatment group differences (ESBA1008 - EYLEA) in the primary efficacy endpoint, BCVA Change from baseline to Week 12.||1.93|-4.19|
91670676|NCT01796964|183236605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority at week 16 is concluded at one-sided alpha level of 0.10 if the lower limit of the corresponding two-sided 80% confidence interval for the treatment difference (ESBA 1008 - EYLEA) is greater than -5 letters.|Treatment difference (ESBA - Eylea)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.72|2.56|||||Treatment differences were based on least squares estimates.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories (\< 55 and ≥ 55 letters) as class variables was used to estimate the treatment group differences (ESBA1008 - EYLEA) in the primary efficacy endpoint, BCVA Change from baseline to Week 16.||2.56|-3.72|
91670677|NCT04025684|183236613|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.08||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA Model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.08|-0.11|<.0001
91670678|NCT04025684|183236613|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.1||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.10|-0.14|<0.0001
91670679|NCT04025684|183236613|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.08||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.08|-0.12|<0.0001
91670680|NCT04025684|183236613|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.08||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.08|-0.12|<0.0001
91670681|NCT04025684|183236614|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.37||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.37|-0.62|<0.0001
91670682|NCT04025684|183236614|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.49||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.49|-0.75|<0.0001
91715262|NCT00810199|183321692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7776||||||P-value is from a 2-sided, Wilcoxon rank-sum test of no difference between the 2 treatment groups in change from baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.7776
91715263|NCT00810199|183321692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8843|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.8843
91670683|NCT04025684|183236614|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.42||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.42|-0.68|<0.0001
91670684|NCT04025684|183236614|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.44||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.44|-0.70|<0.0001
91670685|NCT01239472|183236643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91670686|NCT01239472|183236644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91715264|NCT00810199|183321693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9095||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.9095
91715265|NCT00810199|183321693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.7179
91715266|NCT00810199|183321694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3113||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.3113
91670687|NCT03662308|183236645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91670688|NCT00418522|183236652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test utilized a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.38|0.0|||ANCOVA||A confidence interval (CI) approach was presented with a two-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment and control.|The null hypothesis was that the inhaled human insulin group was inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, while the alternate hypothesis is that the inhaled human insulin group was not inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, given the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.||0|-0.38|<0.0001
91670689|NCT00418522|183236652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0516||95.0|-0.38|0.0|||ANCOVA||The superiority test used a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|With an established non-inferiority claim, an additional test for superiority was conducted (ie, the margin was 0.0%).||0|-0.38|0.0516
91670690|NCT00418522|183236653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0052||95.0|1.22|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.22|0.0052
91715267|NCT00810199|183321694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2931||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.2931
91715268|NCT00810199|183321695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2451||95.0||||P-value is from a 2-sided, Wilcoxon rank-sum test of no difference between the 2 treatment groups in change from baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.2451
91715269|NCT00810199|183321695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8841||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.8841
91794275|NCT02821910|183467551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.96|103.86|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.86|97.96|
91670691|NCT00418522|183236654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0022||95.0|1.29|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|1.29|0.0022
91670692|NCT00418522|183236655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.248||95.0|0.4|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.40|0.2480
91670693|NCT00418522|183236656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57||||0.6091||95.0|-7.31|12.46|||ANCOVA|||||12.46|-7.31|0.6091
91670694|NCT00418522|183236657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.96|||<|0.0001||95.0|22.66|43.25|||ANCOVA|||Time 0 (fasting) at Week 26.||43.25|22.66|<0.0001
91670695|NCT00418522|183236657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.55|40.59|||ANCOVA|||Time 30 at Week 26.||40.59|16.55|<0.0001
91670696|NCT00418522|183236657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.96||||0.0044||95.0|5.96|31.96|||ANCOVA|||Time 60 at Week 26.||31.96|5.96|0.0044
91670697|NCT00418522|183236657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.69||||0.3168||95.0|-6.45|19.83|||ANCOVA|||Time 90 at Week 26.||19.83|-6.45|0.3168
91670698|NCT00418522|183236657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.9222||95.0|-12.12|13.39|||ANCOVA|||Time 120 at Week 26.||13.39|-12.12|0.9222
91670699|NCT00418522|183236657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.695||95.0|-14.51|9.69|||ANCOVA|||Time 180 at Week 26.||9.69|-14.51|0.6950
91670700|NCT00418522|183236658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.61||||0.1207||95.0|-21.76|2.54|||ANCOVA|||Post-Breakfast, Week 26.||2.54|-21.76|0.1207
91670701|NCT00418522|183236658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.11|||<|0.0001||95.0|-39.77|-18.44|||ANCOVA|||Post-Lunch, Week 26.||-18.44|-39.77|<0.0001
91670702|NCT00418522|183236658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|-44.17|-23.35|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dinner, Week 26.||-23.35|-44.17|<0.0001
91670703|NCT00418522|183236659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21||||0.0735||95.0|-0.5|10.91|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol at Week 26.||10.91|-0.50|0.0735
91670704|NCT00418522|183236659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.0017||95.0|0.79|3.39|||ANCOVA|||HDL-c at Week 26.||3.39|0.79|0.0017
91670705|NCT00418522|183236659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43||||0.1369||95.0|-1.1|7.96|||ANCOVA|||LDL-c at Week 26.||7.96|-1.10|0.1369
91670706|NCT00418522|183236659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26||||0.5684||95.0|-10.4|18.92|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides at Week 26.||18.92|-10.40|0.5684
91670707|NCT00418522|183236660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.5673||95.0|-0.58|1.06|||ANCOVA|||hs-CRP at Week 26.||1.06|-0.58|0.5673
91670708|NCT00418522|183236660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.6099||95.0|-2.97|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Leptin at Week 26.||1.75|-2.97|0.6099
91670709|NCT00418522|183236660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.28||||0.7684||95.0|-12.94|17.51|||ANCOVA|||Spot urine microalbumin at Week 26.||17.51|-12.94|0.7684
91670710|NCT00418522|183236661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.5005||95.0|-0.69|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Adiponectin at Week 26.||1.42|-0.69|0.5005
91715270|NCT00810199|183321696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9655||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.9655
91715271|NCT00810199|183321696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.0308
91715272|NCT00810199|183321697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5186||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.5186
91715273|NCT00810199|183321697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7706||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.7706
91715274|NCT00810199|183321698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6067||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.6067
91715275|NCT00810199|183321698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.6810
91715276|NCT00810199|183321699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9323||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.9323
91715277|NCT00810199|183321699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1448||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.1448
91715278|NCT00810199|183321700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.09|-0.43|0.2034
91670711|NCT00418522|183236661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.685||95.0|-0.03|0.04|||ANCOVA|||ApoB at Week 26.||0.04|-0.03|0.6850
91670712|NCT00418522|183236662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.7||||0.1856||95.0|-43.37|160.77|||ANCOVA|||||160.77|-43.37|0.1856
91715279|NCT00810199|183321700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.32||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.32|-0.88|0.3611
91715280|NCT00810199|183321700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.05||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||-0.05|-1.16|0.0342
91715281|NCT00810199|183321701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.16|-0.23|0.7095
91715282|NCT00810199|183321701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.8147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.57||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.57|-0.45|0.8147
91715283|NCT00810199|183321701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.04||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||0.04|-0.67|0.0778
91715284|NCT00810199|183321702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.0||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||-0.00|-0.25|0.0441
91715285|NCT00810199|183321702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.13||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||-0.13|-0.54|0.0012
91715286|NCT00810199|183321702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.02||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||-0.02|-0.56|0.0372
91794389|NCT01827358|183467850|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.76|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The association between mupirocin treatment and non-clinical SA Infection on or before Day 85 was assessed via a Cox Proportional Hazards Model. Onset time was defined as the first day of non-SA infection. Infants were right-censored at the time of discharge from the hospital or at Day 85, whichever came first.||4.76|0.37|0.656
91670713|NCT00418522|183236663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.72||||0.1862||95.0|-51.34|13.89|||ANCOVA|||||13.89|-51.34|0.1862
91670714|NCT00418522|183236669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.0055||95.0|0.35|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|0.35|0.0055
91670715|NCT00418522|183236670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0053||95.0|0.12|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|0.12|0.0053
91670716|NCT00418522|183236672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test utilized a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.47|-0.08|||ANCOVA||A CI approach was presented with a two-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment and control.|The null hypothesis was that the inhaled human insulin group was inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, while the alternate hypothesis is that the inhaled human insulin group was not inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, given the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.||-0.08|-0.47|<0.0001
91670717|NCT00418522|183236672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0062||95.0|-0.47|-0.08|||ANCOVA||The superiority test used a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|With an established non-inferiority claim, an additional test for superiority was conducted (ie, the margin was 0.0%).||-0.08|-0.47|0.0062
91715287|NCT00810199|183321703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.75||||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|14.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and categorical baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).||Week 52||14.52|-1.02|0.0694
91715288|NCT00810199|183321703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Week 104||||0.1695
91715289|NCT00810199|183321704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.91||||0.0496||95.0|-5.86|0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and categorical baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).||||0.05|-5.86|0.0496
91715290|NCT00810199|183321705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.48||||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|3.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and categorical baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).||||3.62|-6.59|0.5188
91715291|NCT00810199|183321706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2652|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.2652
91715292|NCT00810199|183321706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.1970
91715293|NCT00810199|183321706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1671|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1671
91715294|NCT00810199|183321708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Wald CI)|5.22||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.64|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model included treatment group, region and baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5) as fixed factors.||||11.64|-1.20|0.1110
91715295|NCT00810199|183321709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Wald CI)|-2.11||||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|5.85|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model included treatment group, region and baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5) as fixed factors.||||5.85|-10.07|0.6027
91715296|NCT00810199|183321710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1695|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1695
91715297|NCT00810199|183321711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0096
91715298|NCT00810199|183321712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0734|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0734
91715299|NCT01691378|183321724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|8.3|||ANCOVA|||"Analyses 2-sided test w/ sig level .05. N=35 analyzed w/ α .05 provided 80% power to detect effect size d=1. T1 variables compared using Wilcoxon rank sum \& Fisher exact tests. Per protocol analysis, all participants required T2 BHS.~T2 BHS compared bet arms controlling for T1 BHS. No confounders significant at .10, not included in model. Analysis of covariance modeled T2 BHS as function of arm \& T1 BHS. Estimated mean difference in T2 scores calculated, no adjustment for multiple comparisons."||8.3|.52|.03
91722538|NCT02629159|183337902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.92||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.89|4.05||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||4.05|-23.89|0.164
91670718|NCT02695719|183236673|SUPERIORITY||Median Values of CI|1.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||No adjustment was made as there was only one primary comparison.|Van Elteren Test|The Van Elteren test is a stratified version of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test which provides approximate sample size for the van Elteren analysis.|CI was estimated by inverting the hypothesis test.|Assuming equal allocation, a power of 90%, an alpha level of 0.05 for a 2-sided test, a placebo mean of 4 (standard deviation of 2.7), and a treatment mean of 5.9 (standard deviation of 4) for SBM frequency at Week 1 and using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, a total sample size of 146 is required. Analysis was conducted using van Elteren test.||1.9|0.1|0.007
91670719|NCT00868296|183236689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.857||||||Analysis with treatment as factor; baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||Between group comparison for change from baseline in length z-score.||||0.857
91670720|NCT00868296|183236689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||||||Analysis with treatment as factor; baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||Between group comparison for change from baseline in weight z-score.||||0.901
91670721|NCT00868296|183236689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||||||Analysis with treatment as factor; baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||Between group comparison for change from baseline in head circumference z-score.||||0.807
91670722|NCT00868296|183236689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for length z-score.||||0.595
91670723|NCT00868296|183236689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for length z-score.||||0.016
91670724|NCT00868296|183236689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for weight z-score.||||0.347
91670725|NCT00868296|183236689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for weight z-score.||||0.040
91670726|NCT00868296|183236689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for head circumference z-score.||||0.892
91670727|NCT00868296|183236689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for head circumference z-score.||||0.006
91670728|NCT02250651|183236723|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.44|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.44|-1.17|0.3738
91670729|NCT02250651|183236723|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.73|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.73|-0.88|0.8514
91670730|NCT02250651|183236723|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.04|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||-0.04|-1.57|0.0401
91670731|NCT02250651|183236723|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.41|-1.12|0.3621
91670732|NCT02250651|183236724|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0382||95.0|-1.48|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.48|0.0382
91670733|NCT02250651|183236724|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1133||95.0|-1.29|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.14|-1.29|0.1133
91670734|NCT02250651|183236725|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0013||95.0|-1.76|-0.43|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.43|-1.76|0.0013
91670735|NCT02250651|183236725|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0364||95.0|-1.38|-0.05|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.05|-1.38|0.0364
91670736|NCT02250651|183236726|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2304||95.0|-1.22|0.29|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.29|-1.22|0.2304
91670737|NCT02250651|183236726|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.1272||95.0|-1.34|0.17|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.17|-1.34|0.1272
91670738|NCT02250651|183236727|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0038||95.0|-1.76|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.76|0.0038
91670739|NCT02250651|183236727|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0741||95.0|-1.36|0.06|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.06|-1.36|0.0741
91670740|NCT02250651|183236728|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3738||95.0|-1.17|0.44|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.44|-1.17|0.3738
91670741|NCT02250651|183236728|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8514||95.0|-0.88|0.73|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.73|-0.88|0.8514
91792743|NCT02387476|183463172|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||The p-value to test non-inferiority of FRESCA Mask compared with CPAP Mask (FRESCA-CPAP\<5 units) assumes a 1-sided test using a level of significance of 2.5% and NI margin of 5 units.|t-test, 1 sided||The mean ODI values are rounded to a single decimal point value in the text of the table (1.4 and 1.1, respectively) to ensure consistency with ODI reporting standards.|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.||1.0|-0.4|<0.001
91792744|NCT00829985|183463191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|1.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the ratio of baseline-to-post-baseline change in the placebo group (denominator = 1.12) vs. the extract group (numerator = 2.16).|||2.45|1.51|<0.0001
91670742|NCT02250651|183236729|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0401||95.0|-1.57|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.57|0.0401
91715300|NCT01691378|183321724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-1.3|||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis contrasted T1 to T2 change with T2 to T3 change in Waitlist arm only. Waitlist participants serve as their own control \& only variable controlled for was change in Waitlist period (if participants improved greatly during Waitlist period, they would no longer have enough room to change in Intervention period). Linear regression used with difference in change as dependent variable \& Waitlist period change as only predictor. Estimated mean difference in change calculated from this model."||-1.3|-7.9|.01
91670743|NCT02250651|183236729|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.41|-1.12|0.3621
91670744|NCT02250651|183236730|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.04|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.48|0.0382
91670745|NCT02250651|183236730|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.14|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.14|-1.29|0.1133
91670746|NCT02250651|183236730|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.43|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.43|-1.76|0.0013
91670747|NCT02250651|183236730|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.05|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.05|-1.38|0.0364
91715301|NCT01691378|183321724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.2|||one-sample t-test|||Analysis investigated change from T1 to T3 within the WtoH Intervention first arm only. This difference was calculated and a 1-sample t test was used to determine whether the estimate was different from zero. As this change was not compared with a control group change, baseline values were not accounted for.||-3.2|-9.3|.0007
91715302|NCT01691378|183321725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|8.0|||ANCOVA|||"Analyses 2-sided test w/ sig level .05. N=35 analyzed w/ α .05 provided 80% power to detect effect size d=1. T1 variables compared using Wilcoxon rank sum \& Fisher exact tests. Per protocol analysis, all participants required T2 BHS.~T2 BSS compared bet arms controlling for T1 BSS. No confounders significant at .10, not included in model. Analysis of covariance modeled T2 BSS as function of arm \& T1 BSS. Estimated mean difference in T2 scores calculated, no adjustment for multiple comparisons."||8.0|-.29|.07
91715303|NCT01691378|183321725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.1|||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis contrasted T1 to T2 change with T2 to T3 change in Waitlist arm only. Waitlist participants serve as their own control \& only variable controlled for was change in Waitlist period (if participants improved greatly during Waitlist period, they would no longer have enough room to change in Intervention period). Linear regression used with difference in change as dependent variable \& Waitlist period change as only predictor. Estimated mean difference in change calculated from this model."||3.1|-3.3|.94
91792745|NCT00829985|183463192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|1.13||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the ratio of baseline-to-post-baseline change in the placebo group (denominator = 0.93) vs. the extract group (numerator = 1.06).|||1.32|0.98|0.088
91792746|NCT00829985|183463193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.37||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|12.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the treatment effect: change in the extract group (4.7) minus change in the placebo group (0.7).|||12.99|-4.89|0.37
91792747|NCT00829985|183463194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|5.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|11.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the treatment effect: change in the extract group (4.0) minus change in the placebo group (-1.3).|||11.51|-0.77|0.09
91715304|NCT01691378|183321725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.12|||one-sample t-test|||Analysis investigated change from T1 to T3 within the WtoH Intervention first arm only. This difference was calculated and a 1-sample t test was used to determine whether the estimate was different from zero. As this change was not compared with a control group change, baseline values were not accounted for.||.12|-7.0|.06
91670748|NCT02250651|183236730|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.29|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.29|-1.22|0.2304
91670749|NCT02250651|183236730|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.17|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.17|-1.34|0.1272
91670750|NCT02250651|183236730|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.34|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.76|0.0038
91670751|NCT02250651|183236730|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.06|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.06|-1.36|0.0741
91670752|NCT01557920|183236738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||pathological swallows under anesthesia vs. wakefulness: 25.9% vs. 4.9%|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91670753|NCT01557920|183236738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of pathological swallow-rate increase by carbon-dioxide during anesthesia and wakefulness||||<0.001
91670754|NCT01557920|183236743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The number of swallows per hour: 1.7±3.3 during anesthesia vs. 28.0±22.3 during wakefulness|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91670755|NCT02690935|183236756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.642||||||No adjustment of the p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: The efficacy of 2LALERG and placebo are similar H1: The efficacy of 2LALERG and placebo are different||||0.642
91670756|NCT02690935|183236757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829||||||No adjustment for multiplicity|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: 2LALERG and placebo have the same effect on the quality of life H1: 2LALERG and placebo do not have the same effect on the quality of life||||0.829
91670757|NCT01493596|183236763|OTHER|Comparison of event rates across dose groups.|percentage|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||There were a total of 5 non-serious adverse events for an AE rate of 14.3%|Descriptive statistics for evaluation of AEs|Descriptive statistics of adverse events|||
91670758|NCT01175473|183236764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-154.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.3|-128.54||Linear fixed effects model with fixed terms for treatment, study site and GLU-AUC(0:30-4:30h) at baseline as covariate was used (using Statistical Analysis System \[SAS®\] PROC MIXED procedure).|Linear fixed effects model|No alpha adjustment was performed.||To detect a difference of 100 or 150 h\*mg/dL in change from baseline to Day 28 in GLU-AUC(0:30-4:30h) between lixisenatide and liraglutide, 60 patients per group would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 170 or 250 h\*mg/dL, respectively, with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-128.54|-180.30|<0.0001
91670759|NCT02630316|183236774|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|21.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|37.0||p-value is obtained from nonparametric ANCOVA adjusted for Baseline 6MWD category.|ANCOVA|||||37.0|7.0|0.0043
91670760|NCT02630316|183236775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91670761|NCT02630316|183236776|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.92||p-value is calculated with log-rank test stratified by baseline 6MWD category.|Log Rank||p-value was 0.0202 for the proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values are calculated with proportional hazards model with treatment and Baseline 6MWD (continuous) as explanatory variables.|||0.92|0.40|0.0410
91670762|NCT02630316|183236777|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|20.0||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.0||p-value is obtained from nonparametric ANCOVA adjusted for Baseline 6MWD category|ANCOVA|||||34.0|7.0|0.0041
91670763|NCT02630316|183236778|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|15.0||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|29.0||p-value is obtained from nonparametric ANCOVA adjusted for Baseline 6MWD category.|ANCOVA|||||29.0|0.0|0.0432
91670764|NCT02508116|183236779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||The sample size calculation was based on two factors: 1) the rate of pre-study prasugrel/ticagrelor use (\~20%) and 2) anticipated increase in prasugrel/ticagrelor prescribing based on the frequency CYP2C19 LOF variants (\~30-35%). We estimated a 15% difference in the use of prasugrel/ticagrelor in the two groups (35% in the genotyped group and 20% in the control group). A sample size of 138 per group (a total of 276) would provide 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05 to detect this difference.||2.42|1.07|0.03
91670765|NCT02508116|183236781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|||The incidence of first MACE between the groups were compared by use of Kaplan-Meier estimators; statistical tests were based on log-rank tests.||||0.27
91670766|NCT04234464|183236792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|16.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum percentage fall in post-dose pre-exercise FEV₁ up to 60 minutes post-exercise challenge is analyzed using a mixed effects model adjusted for treatment, treatment period, treatment sequence as categorical fixed effects, period-specific pre-dose baseline FEV₁ and average pre-dose baseline FEV₁ as continuous covariates, and a random subject within treatment sequence effect.||16.94|10.09|<0.001
91670767|NCT04234464|183236793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.548|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.311|25.805|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized linear mixed model with logit link adjusted for treatment, treatment period and treatment sequence as fixed effects, pre-dose baseline FEV₁ and average pre-dose baseline FEV₁ as continuous covariates, and a random subject within treatment sequence effect.||25.805|4.311|<0.001
91670768|NCT03635983|183236794|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.96|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|two-sided|Strata adjusted odds ratio (NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab over Nivolumab||0.96|0.45|0.0311
91670769|NCT03635983|183236795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3988||95.0|0.89|1.33||Log-rank stratified 2-sided. Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.03|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab|||1.33|0.89|0.3988
91670770|NCT03635983|183236796|SUPERIORITY|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab over Nivolumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.22|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value. Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.00071|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab.|||1.22|0.72|0.6361
91670771|NCT03635983|183236800|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.02|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|two-sided|Strata adjusted odds ratio (NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab over Nivolumab||1.02|0.48|0.0626
91670772|NCT03635983|183236801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3713||95.0|0.9|1.33||Log-rank stratified 2-sided. Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.03|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab|||1.33|0.90|0.3713
91670773|NCT03635983|183236805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||||95.0|0.32|1.24|||||Logistic regression model with treatment, PD-L1 Status and treatment by PD-L1 Status interaction. Responders includes CR+PR|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivolumab (PD-L1 Negative: \<1%)||1.24|0.32|
91670774|NCT03635983|183236805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.02|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Interaction P-value|Logistic regression model with treatment, PD-L1 Status and treatment by PD-L1 Status interaction. Responders includes CR+PR|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivolumab (PD-L1 Positive: \>=1%)||1.02|0.39|0.9939
91670775|NCT03635983|183236806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 negative: \<1%)||1.43|0.81|
91792748|NCT02751931|183463224|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|72.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.28|98.89||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||98.89|45.28|<0.001
91670776|NCT03635983|183236806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||||95.0|0.83|1.51|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 positive: \>=1%)||1.51|0.83|
91670777|NCT03635983|183236807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.4|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 negative: \<1%)||1.40|0.66|
91670778|NCT03635983|183236807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.58|1.33|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 positive: \>=1%)||1.33|0.58|
91670779|NCT02578745|183236814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.67||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.67|||Chi-squared|||||6.67|.42|0.72
91670780|NCT02578745|183236815|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.67||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.67|||Chi-squared|||||6.67|.42|0.72
91670781|NCT02578745|183236816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91670782|NCT02578745|183236817|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91670783|NCT02578745|183236818|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91670784|NCT02578745|183236819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.50
91670785|NCT00330460|183236820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -1.22%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.7|<0.0001
91670786|NCT00330460|183236821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -2.29%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.7|1.4||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||1.4|0.7|<0.0001
91670787|NCT00330460|183236822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -1.65%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.6|1.4||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||1.4|0.6|<0.0001
91670788|NCT00330460|183236823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -1.04%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.3|1.0||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||1|0.3|<0.0001
91670789|NCT00330460|183236824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0001||95.0|0.3|0.9||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||0.9|0.3|0.0001
91670790|NCT04458467|183236833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
91670791|NCT04458467|183236834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91670792|NCT00104247|183236939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91670793|NCT02030535|183237000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.252||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment and period; patient baseline and period baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect|Mixed models repeated measures analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom. Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation|Tio+Olo 5/5μg minus Placebo.|||0.252|0.187|<0.0001
91670794|NCT02030535|183237000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.284||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment and period; patient baseline and period baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect|Mixed models repeated measures analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom. Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.|Tiotropium 5μg + Olodaterol 5μg minus Placebo.|||0.284|0.220|<0.0001
91670795|NCT02030535|183237000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|-0.001|||||Tio+Olo 5/5μg minus Tiotropium 5μg + Olodaterol 5μg.|Descriptive comparison. Statistical Analyses 1 \& 2 were included in the hierarchical testing sequence (alpha protected), and analysis 3 was not included in the hierarchical testing sequence (not alpha protected)||-0.001|-0.065|
91902546|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|24.7||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions||24.7|10.7|
91902547|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|48.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.5|33.6|< 0.0001
91902548|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|58.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|65.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||65.2|51.3|< 0.0001
91902549|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|25.5||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|9.6|
91670796|NCT01634854|183237018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91670797|NCT00966381|183237040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91670798|NCT00966381|183237041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91902550|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|42.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.8|27.8|< 0.0001
91670799|NCT00966381|183237042|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91670800|NCT03686150|183237049|OTHER|This was a population PK analysis of 25(OH)D after oral administration of Vitamin D.||||||||||||||||Part 1 of this study was to perform a population PK analysis of 25(OH)D after oral administration of Vitamin D in children who are overweight or obese and have asthma. Based on the interim analysis of the VDORA study, the PK of 25(OH)D after Vitamin D supplementation in children was well characterized by a 2-compartment population PK model with linear absorption and elimination kinetics. A loading dose of 50,000 IU followed by a daily dose of 8,000 IU was recommended.|Based on the interim analysis of the VDORA study, the PK of 25(OH)D after Vitamin D supplementation in children was well characterized by a 2-compartment population PK model with linear absorption and elimination kinetics. A loading dose of 50,000 IU followed by a daily dose of 8,000 IU was recommended.|||
91670801|NCT03686150|183237050|OTHER|This is one-sample test of proportion testing the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants with 25(OH)D level \>= 40 ng/mL is 50%.||||||0.0001|||||||z-test|||This is a one-sample test of proportion.||||0.0001
91670802|NCT03346070|183237061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.1|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||3.10|1.18|0.0075
91670803|NCT03346070|183237061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|69.03|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||69.03|9.72|<0.0001
91670804|NCT03346070|183237061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|61.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|266.77|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||266.77|14.13|<0.0001
91670805|NCT03346070|183237061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.38||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.93|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||3.93|1.44|0.0005
91792749|NCT02751931|183463224|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|113.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.95|147.47||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||147.47|78.95|<0.001
91792750|NCT02751931|183463225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|12.38||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||12.38|-20.55|0.618
91670806|NCT03346070|183237061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.01|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||3.01|1.50|<0.0001
91670807|NCT03346070|183237062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.3||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.0|-9.6|0.602
91792751|NCT02751931|183463225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.16||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|25.22||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||25.22|5.10|0.005
91670808|NCT03346070|183237062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.5|-13.4|0.969
91670809|NCT03346070|183237062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.0|-8.7|0.567
91670810|NCT03346070|183237062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.0|-8.8|0.571
91670811|NCT03346070|183237062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.2||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|10.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||10.9|-11.6|0.950
91670812|NCT03346070|183237062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.9||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|15.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.9|-8.4|0.528
91670813|NCT03346070|183237062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|9.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.6|-6.8|0.709
91670814|NCT03346070|183237063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|17.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||17.4|-12.3|0.738
91670815|NCT03346070|183237063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.1||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|26.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||26.3|-1.7|0.077
91670816|NCT03346070|183237063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.4||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|16.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||16.4|-12.0|0.717
91670817|NCT03346070|183237063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|19.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||19.7|-9.9|0.486
91670818|NCT03346070|183237063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.2||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|12.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||12.4|-16.2|0.849
91670819|NCT03346070|183237063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-4.9||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|6.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||6.7|-18.2|0.339
91670820|NCT03346070|183237063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.6||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|16.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||16.8|-2.6|0.149
91670821|NCT03346070|183237064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|6.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||6.7|-13.9|0.299
91670822|NCT03346070|183237064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.4|-9.9|>0.999
91670823|NCT03346070|183237064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||7.0|-13.7|0.326
91670824|NCT03346070|183237064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.5||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||7.1|-13.6|0.335
91670825|NCT03346070|183237064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.3||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|11.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||11.9|-11.1|0.935
91670826|NCT03346070|183237064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|7.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||7.3|-13.8|0.326
91670827|NCT03346070|183237064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.4||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||3.5|-7.5|0.299
91670828|NCT03346070|183237065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|13.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||13.1|-12.7|
91670829|NCT03346070|183237065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|12.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||12.2|-19.6|
91670830|NCT03346070|183237065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|19.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||19.7|-8.1|
91670831|NCT03346070|183237065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|13.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||13.1|-18.0|
91792752|NCT02751931|183463225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.62||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|29.54||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||29.54|-0.31|0.055
91670832|NCT03346070|183237065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|19.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||19.2|-9.6|
91670833|NCT03346070|183237065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|17.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||17.0|-12.5|
91670834|NCT03346070|183237065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|7.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||7.8|-11.4|
91670835|NCT03346070|183237066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|9.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||9.1|-15.2|
91670836|NCT03346070|183237066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|1.3|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||1.3|-22.3|
91670837|NCT03346070|183237066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|6.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||6.8|-18.8|
91670838|NCT03346070|183237066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|1.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||1.8|-21.2|
91670839|NCT03346070|183237066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|10.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||10.5|-17.0|
91670840|NCT03346070|183237066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|15.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||15.5|-14.0|
91670841|NCT03346070|183237066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||1.2|-13.9|
91670842|NCT03346070|183237067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.3|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||7.3|-13.4|
91670843|NCT03346070|183237067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|10.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||10.8|-12.3|
91670844|NCT03346070|183237067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||7.0|-13.7|
91670845|NCT03346070|183237067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||11.7|-11.2|
91670846|NCT03346070|183237067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|11.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||11.0|-11.5|
91670847|NCT03346070|183237067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|12.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||12.0|-11.0|
91670848|NCT03346070|183237068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|16.9|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||16.9|-10.8|
91670849|NCT03346070|183237068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.2|-57.6|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||-57.6|-87.2|
91670850|NCT03346070|183237068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.8|-61.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||-61.1|-88.8|
91670851|NCT03346070|183237068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|14.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||14.2|-7.2|
91670852|NCT03346070|183237068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|11.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||11.0|-4.8|
91670853|NCT03346070|183237069|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.86|0.48|
91670854|NCT03346070|183237069|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.12|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.12|0.06|
91670855|NCT03346070|183237069|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.19|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.19|0.10|
91670856|NCT03346070|183237069|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.71|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.71|0.40|
91670857|NCT03346070|183237069|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.72|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.72|0.48|
91670858|NCT03346070|183237070|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.80|0.50|
91670859|NCT03346070|183237070|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.13|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.13|0.07|
91670860|NCT03346070|183237070|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.20|0.11|
91670861|NCT03346070|183237070|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.72|0.44|
91670862|NCT03346070|183237070|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.7|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.70|0.51|
91670863|NCT03346070|183237071|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.81|0.54|
91670864|NCT03346070|183237071|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.17|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.17|0.09|
91670865|NCT03346070|183237071|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.27|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.27|0.14|
91670866|NCT03346070|183237071|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.83|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.83|0.52|
91670867|NCT03346070|183237071|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.77|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.77|0.57|
91670868|NCT03404401|183237072|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91670869|NCT01844531|183237077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|97.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.529|102.52||Model included effects:sequence;subjects within sequences;period and treatment with subjects within sequences as random effect.|ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA). The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||102.520|93.529|0.0000
91670870|NCT01844531|183237077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|98.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.57|102.65||Model included effects:sequence;subjects within sequences;period and treatment with all effects as fixed.|ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA). The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||102.65|93.57|<.0001
91902551|NCT03627767|183700070|OTHER||Difference in percentage|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|62.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.4|48.3|< 0.0001
91902552|NCT03627767|183700070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|28.5||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.5|12.1|
91902553|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.7|||=|0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.7|-0.3|= 0.1848
91902554|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.3|||=|0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.6|-0.9|= 0.5971
91902555|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.4|-1.1|
91902556|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|49.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|56.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||56.8|42.0|< 0.0001
91902557|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|65.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|71.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||71.7|59.3|< 0.0001
91902558|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|22.3||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.3|10.3|
91902559|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|50.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.2|35.2|< 0.0001
91902560|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|62.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|69.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.2|56.0|< 0.0001
91902561|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|27.4||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.4|12.3|
91902562|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|46.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.9|32.1|< 0.0001
91902563|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.8|63.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.7|49.8|< 0.0001
91902564|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|25.5||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|9.3|
91902565|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|40.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.4|25.7|< 0.0001
91902566|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|51.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|58.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.8|44.6|< 0.0001
91902567|NCT03627767|183700071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|27.6||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.6|10.8|
91902568|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6|||=|0.3994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.4|-3.3|= 0.3994
91902569|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.8|||=|0.5542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||7.8|-4.1|= 0.5542
91902570|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.0|-6.5|
91792753|NCT02751931|183463225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.75|20.42||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||20.42|6.75|<0.001
91792754|NCT02751931|183463226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.75|63.97||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at week 4 - Children.||63.97|18.75|<0.001
91670871|NCT01844531|183237077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.077|106.633||Model included effects:sequence;subjects within sequences;period and treatment with subjects within sequences as random effect.|ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500 , PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA). The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||106.633|99.077|0.0000
91670872|NCT01844531|183237077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.78|106.36|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 (T2) : Empa5 + Met500 (R2), PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||106.36|98.78|<.0001
91670873|NCT01844531|183237078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.542|104.628|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||104.628|88.542|0.0006
91670874|NCT01844531|183237078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|97.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.41|105.68|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 (T1) : Empa12.5 + Met500 (R1), PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||105.68|89.41|0.0004
91670875|NCT01844531|183237078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.772|102.093|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.093|91.772|0.0000
91670876|NCT01844531|183237078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.79|102.32|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.32|91.79|<.0001
91670877|NCT01844531|183237079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|98.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.53|102.686|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.686|93.530|0.0000
91670878|NCT01844531|183237079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|98.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.55|102.81|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.81|93.55|<.0001
91670879|NCT01844531|183237079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.146|106.522|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||106.522|99.146|0.0000
91670880|NCT01844531|183237079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.85|106.25|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||106.25|98.85|<.0001
91670881|NCT01844531|183237080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|104.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.882|109.555|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||109.555|99.882|0.0000
91670882|NCT01844531|183237080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|104.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.76|109.53|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||109.53|99.76|<.0001
91670883|NCT01844531|183237080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.917|108.258|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||108.258|97.917|0.0000
91670884|NCT01844531|183237080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.72|108.14|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||108.14|97.72|<.0001
91670885|NCT01844531|183237081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|94.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.056|100.819|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.819|89.056|0.0001
91670886|NCT01844531|183237081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|94.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.64|100.54|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.54|88.64|0.0001
91670887|NCT01844531|183237081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|93.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.9||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.006|100.034|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.034|88.006|0.0002
91670888|NCT01844531|183237081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|93.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.0||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.94|100.43|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.43|87.94|0.0003
91670889|NCT01844531|183237082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|95.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|104.256|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||104.256|88.000|0.0008
91670890|NCT01844531|183237082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.78|105.41|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||105.41|88.78|0.0006
91670891|NCT01844531|183237082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|95.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.199|100.934|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.934|91.199|0.0000
91670892|NCT01844531|183237082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.28|101.19|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||101.19|91.28|<.0001
91670893|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT) - Immediate memory||||0.861
91670894|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||RBMT - Delayed memory||||0.668
91670895|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||RBMT-Delayed corrected for immediate memory||||0.713
91670896|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Short-term memory||||0.028
91670897|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Total immediate memory||||0.227
91670898|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Learning Score||||0.130
91670899|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test- Delayed memory||||0.106
91670900|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Delayed corrected for total memory||||0.350
91670901|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Recognition||||0.093
91670902|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.614||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit Span forward - Short-term memory||||0.614
91670903|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rey Complex Figure - Immediate memory||||0.111
91670904|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rey Complex Figure - Delayed memory||||0.451
91670905|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Reaction time auditory response||||0.905
91670906|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Reaction time visual response||||0.502
91670907|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Number of omission errors||||0.531
91670908|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Number of commission errors||||0.681
91670909|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visual scanning - Reaction time for target stimuli||||0.713
91670910|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visual scanning - Number of omission errors||||0.229
91670911|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visual scanning - Number of commission errors||||0.329
91670912|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Alertness - Reaction time tonic alertness||||0.192
91670913|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Alertness - Reaction time phasic alertness||||0.164
91670914|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Semantic fluency||||0.536
91670915|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phonemic fluency||||0.572
91670916|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit span backward - Working memory||||0.632
91670917|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making Test - Time condition A||||0.512
91670918|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making Test - Time condition B||||0.861
91670919|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making Test - Condition B/A||||0.958
91670920|NCT01546922|183237083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social cognition||||0.819
91670921|NCT04894084|183237089|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.49|||Poisson loglinear model|||||0.49|0.07|<0.001
91670922|NCT04894084|183237090|OTHER||Exact test in the binomial distribution|91.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|99.0||"Low degree + Very low degree / Not at all were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."||99|72|<0.0001
91670923|NCT04894084|183237091|OTHER||Exact test in the binomial distribution|78.3||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|93.0||"Some degree, High degree and Very high degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||For secondary endpoints an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For reliability answered on a 5-point scale the answers some, high, or very high degree was considered acceptable and grouped against answers of 'low or very low' degree of reliability.||93|56|0.0106
91670924|NCT04894084|183237092|OTHER||Exact test in the binomial distribution|95.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|100.0||"Same, Better and Much better were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||For secondary endpoints an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. For ability to move with test product it was tested if the proportion evaluating same or better was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. The answers of 'same, better or much better' was grouped against the answers of 'worse or much worse' ability to move.||100|78|<0.0001
91670925|NCT04894084|183237093|OTHER|Users worry of leakage given on a 5-point scale was analyzed by a proportional odds ratio model taken the paired design into consideration to compare the results from V1 and V2.|||||<|0.001|||||||Proportional odds ratio model|||||||<0.001
91670926|NCT04894084|183237094|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|78.3||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|93.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||93|56|0.0106
91670927|NCT04894084|183237095|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|65.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|84.0||"Higher degree and Much higher degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||84|43|0.21
91670928|NCT04894084|183237096|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|78.3||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|93.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||93|56|0.0106
91902571|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|44.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.9|30.2|< 0.0001
91902572|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|63.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.8|69.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.8|56.8|< 0.0001
91902573|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|33.4||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||33.4|17.7|
91902574|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|44.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.0|29.9|< 0.0001
91902575|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|61.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.0|47.3|< 0.0001
91902576|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|25.5||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|8.9|
91902577|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|37.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.0|22.7|< 0.0001
91902578|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.6|53.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.8|39.6|< 0.0001
91902579|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|25.3||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.3|8.5|
91902580|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|34.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.3|20.4|< 0.0001
91902581|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|43.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|50.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.9|36.7|< 0.0001
91670929|NCT04894084|183237097|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|69.6||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|87.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||87|47|0.093
91670930|NCT04894084|183237098|OTHER|By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion with a positive response was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level.|Exact test in the binomial distribution|95.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|100.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||100|78|<0.0001
91902582|NCT03627767|183700072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|25.2||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.2|8.4|
91902583|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.3|||=|0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|8.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.1|-7.5|= 0.9313
91902584|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.1|||=|0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.7|-9.8|= 0.6043
91670931|NCT04894084|183237099|OTHER|By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion answering I felt more confident was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level.|Exact test in the binomial distribution|91.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|99.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||99|72|<0.0001
91670932|NCT04894084|183237100|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|34.8||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|57.0||"Yes, to the better was tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||57|16|0.21
91670933|NCT04894084|183237101|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|47.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|69.0||"Higher degree and Much higher degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||69|27|1.00
91670934|NCT04894084|183237102|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|56.5||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|77.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||77|34|0.678
91670935|NCT04894084|183237104|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|69.6||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|87.0||"High degree and Very high degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||87|47|0.0931
91902585|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.4||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.4|-10.0|
91670936|NCT04894084|183237105|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|87.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|97.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||97|66|0.0005
91670937|NCT02551679|183237108|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.046||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|7.255|||ANCOVA|||The primary hypothesis of this study is that ACP-01 is superior to placebo in terms of the earlier time from treatment with Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) to either de-novo gangrene, or doubling of wound size, or major amputation, or death.||7.255|0.577|0.258
91670938|NCT01573533|183237116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs 12 months||||0.49
91902586|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|16.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.5|6.6|< 0.0001
91670939|NCT01573533|183237117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs 12 months||||0.41
91670940|NCT01573533|183237118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs 12 months||||0.06
91670941|NCT00317642|183237122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.28|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population||1.28|0.78|0.9951
91670942|NCT00317642|183237122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.57|||Log Rank|||Participants stratified by calculated strata remission after first pre-study induction regimen (CR1) \< 6 months||1.57|0.81|0.4674
91670943|NCT00317642|183237122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.24|||Log Rank|||Participants stratified by calculated strata CR1\>= 6 months||1.24|0.58|0.3963
91792755|NCT02751931|183463226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|80.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.2|122.36||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||122.36|39.20|<0.001
91792756|NCT02751931|183463227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.28||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||2.28|-1.40|0.632
91902587|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|31.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.2|19.4|< 0.0001
91902588|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|20.4||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.4|6.6|
91902589|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.0|7.7|< 0.0001
91902590|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|32.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.0|19.9|< 0.0001
91902591|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.6||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.6|6.3|
91902592|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|16.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.8|6.5|< 0.0001
91902593|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|31.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.8|19.6|< 0.0001
91902594|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|21.2||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.2|7.0|
91902595|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|20.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.0|9.2|< 0.0001
91902596|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|30.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.5|18.4|< 0.0001
91902597|NCT03627767|183700073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|17.2||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.2|2.7|
91902598|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.8|||=|0.6082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.5|-5.0|= 0.6082
91670944|NCT00317642|183237123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population - overall remission (OR)||||<0.0001
91670945|NCT00317642|183237123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population - Complete Remission (CR)||||0.0005
91670946|NCT00317642|183237123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \<6 months \[Overall Remission (CR+CRi)\]||||0.0022
91670947|NCT00317642|183237123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \>=6 months \[Overall Remission (CR+CRi)\]||||0.0019
91670948|NCT00317642|183237123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0353||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \<6 months \[Complete Remission (CR)\]||||0.0353
91792757|NCT02751931|183463227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||0.67|-1.94|0.321
91670949|NCT00317642|183237123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \>=6 months \[Complete Remission (CR)\]||||0.0096
91670950|NCT00317642|183237128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.8|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population.||0.80|0.49|0.0001
91902599|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2|||=|0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|7.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||7.0|-6.7|= 0.9640
91902600|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.4||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||4.4|-9.1|
91902601|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|46.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.5|31.2|< 0.0001
91902602|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|59.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|66.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||66.7|52.7|< 0.0001
91902603|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|29.0||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.0|12.7|
91902604|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|33.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|41.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||41.2|26.6|< 0.0001
91902605|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|62.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.3|48.2|< 0.0001
91902606|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.2||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.2|13.2|
91902607|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|36.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.7|22.7|< 0.0001
91902608|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|52.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||52.7|38.4|< 0.0001
91902609|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|24.6||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.6|7.4|
91902610|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|26.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.8|13.0|< 0.0001
91902611|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|48.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.1|32.8|< 0.0001
91902612|NCT03627767|183700074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|30.0||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.0|11.8|
91670951|NCT00317642|183237128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.93|||Log Rank|Comparison P-value is from a log-rank test with no strata||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \<6 months||0.93|0.49|0.0131
91670952|NCT00317642|183237128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0022||95.0|0.4|0.83|||Log Rank|Comparison p-value is from a log-rank test with no strata.||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \>=6 months||0.83|0.40|0.0022
91670953|NCT00317642|183237129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population||1.23|0.77|0.8209
91670954|NCT00317642|183237129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.81|0.5071
91902613|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 12: The least squares mean (LSM) differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.3|= 0.9207
91902614|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.3|= 0.9998
91902615|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.3|
91902616|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-2.5|< 0.0001
91902617|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.8|-3.6|< 0.0001
91902618|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-1.4|
91902619|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-2.0|< 0.0001
91902620|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-2.5|< 0.0001
91902621|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.9|
91902622|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||=|0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.7|= 0.0039
91902623|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.5|< 0.0001
91902624|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.3|
91670955|NCT00317642|183237129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.59|0.2906
91670956|NCT00317642|183237130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.79|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population.||0.79|0.49|<.0001
91670957|NCT00317642|183237130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.53|0.0486
91670958|NCT00317642|183237130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank|||||0.74|0.37|0.0002
91860865|NCT05590403|183608094|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-1.12|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-AIR-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||-1.12|-12.26|
91860866|NCT05590403|183608095|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-B GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) is \<1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-AIR-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||0.91|0.71|
91792758|NCT02751931|183463227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.86||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.45||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||-0.45|-3.27|0.011
91860867|NCT05590403|183608096|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-7.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|-1.09|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-AIR-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||-1.09|-13.52|
91860868|NCT04717492|183608129|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.54||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with inverse probability of treatment weighting as described in primary manuscript.||Time to death, or first hospitalization or revascularization event was analyzed using cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to reduce confounding. Missing data were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching.||1.54|0.66|0.962
91860869|NCT04717492|183608131|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.92||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with inverse probability of treatment weighting as described in primary manuscript.||Time to CVD-related death or hospitalization/revascularization was analyzed using cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to reduce confounding. Missing data were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching.||1.92|0.65|0.694
91860870|NCT04717492|183608133|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.66||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with inverse probability of treatment weighting as described in primary manuscript.||Time to respiratory/COPD-related death or hospitalization was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to reduce confounding. Missing data were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching.||1.66|0.34|0.476
91860871|NCT05071807|183608143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.33|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and BMI (kg/m2)||To detect a 1.2 percentage point (standard deviation 2.4; effect size 0.5) between-group difference in the change in FMD with 80% power (α=0.05), it was estimated that a sample size of 128 participants was needed (64 per group)||1.33|-1.17|
91860872|NCT05071807|183608144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.1|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||-2.1|-12.3|
91860873|NCT05071807|183608145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.9|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||2.9|-0.8|
91860874|NCT05071807|183608146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-2.9|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||-2.9|-30.0|
91860875|NCT05071807|183608147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.0|-6.93|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Total LDL particle mean difference||-6.93|-144|
91670959|NCT00317642|183237131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population||||<0.0001
91860876|NCT05071807|183608147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|13.4|||Regression, Linear|adjustment for the baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2)||For Large LDL particle subclass||13.4|-69.3|
91860877|NCT05071807|183608148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.75|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||Results for total HDL particle count||0.75|-0.56|
91860878|NCT05071807|183608148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.8||||Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, and BMI||Results for Small HDL particles||0.80|-0.75|
91860879|NCT05071807|183608148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.19|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, and BMI||Results for Medium HDL||0.19|-0.85|
91860880|NCT05071807|183608149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.13|||Regression, Linear|were adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Results from brachial systolic blood pressure are reported below||3.13|-3.09|
91860881|NCT05071807|183608149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.07|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI||Results for Brachial Diastolic Blood pressure||2.07|-1.67|
91860882|NCT05071807|183608150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|2.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI||Results for central systolic blood pressure||2.28|-3.24|
91902625|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||=|0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.2|= 0.1488
91902626|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.0|= 0.0003
91902627|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.2|
91902628|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|= 0.9294
91902629|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.3|= 0.4081
91902630|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.3|
91902631|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.1|< 0.0001
91902632|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.0|-2.7|< 0.0001
91902633|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.9|
91670960|NCT00317642|183237131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0088||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \<6 months.||||0.0088
91670961|NCT00317642|183237131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \>=6 months||||0.0017
91670962|NCT00317642|183237132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91902634|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|||=|0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.2|= 0.0035
91902635|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-1.6|< 0.0001
91902636|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.8|
91902637|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|||=|0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.2|= 0.0136
91670963|NCT00317642|183237132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0506||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0506
91670964|NCT00317642|183237132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91670965|NCT00880087|183237145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||9.2|-14.5|0.63
91670966|NCT00880087|183237146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||13.7|-8.0|0.56
91670967|NCT00880087|183237147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney Test|Test stratified by age category (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years), for continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) 1-year change in VABS-II|||As the (nonparametric) comparison treated 1-year deaths as worst possible outcomes and worst possible 1-year VABS-II as next worst possible outcomes, using change in VABS-II for other participants alive at 1 year, no relevant estimation of effect size is possible for this secondary outcome.|||0.70
91792759|NCT02751931|183463227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.94||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||0.94|-2.49|0.359
91792760|NCT02751931|183463228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.56|-6.21||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||-6.21|-18.56|<0.001
91902638|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.6|< 0.0001
91902639|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.0|-0.8|
91902640|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||=|0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.0|= 0.2887
91902641|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.6|= 0.0025
91902642|NCT03627767|183700077|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.0|
91902643|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.0|||=|0.4244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.4|-1.4|= 0.4244
91902644|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||=|0.8092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||2.4|-3.1|= 0.8092
91902645|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.0|-4.1|
91902646|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.2|54.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||54.2|39.2|< 0.0001
91902647|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|63.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|70.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||70.0|57.2|< 0.0001
91902648|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|23.5||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.5|10.4|
91902649|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|48.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.7|33.9|< 0.0001
91902650|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|59.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|66.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||66.7|53.1|< 0.0001
91902651|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|26.6||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.6|10.8|
91670968|NCT00880087|183237148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"Test used the continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) neuropsychological scores, with Lowest Possible Score treated as lowest possible value."||||||0.46
91792761|NCT02751931|183463228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.48||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.09|7.13||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||7.13|-20.09|0.334
91715305|NCT01691378|183321726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|12.9|||ANCOVA|||"Analyses 2-sided test w/ sig level .05. N=35 analyzed w/ α .05 provided 80% power to detect effect size d=1. T1 variables compared using Wilcoxon rank sum \& Fisher exact tests. Per protocol analysis, all participants required T2 BHS.~T2 BDI compared bet arms controlling for T1 BDI. No confounders significant at .10, not included in model. Analysis of covariance modeled T2 BDI as function of arm \& T1 BDI. Estimated mean difference in T2 scores calculated, no adjustment for multiple comparisons."||12.9|-1.7|.13
91715306|NCT01691378|183321726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-3.6|||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis contrasted T1 to T2 change with T2 to T3 change in Waitlist arm only. Waitlist participants serve as their own control \& only variable controlled for was change in Waitlist period (if participants improved greatly during Waitlist period, they would no longer have enough room to change in Intervention period). Linear regression used with difference in change as dependent variable \& Waitlist period change as only predictor. Estimated mean difference in change calculated from this model."||-3.6|-13.8|.003
91715307|NCT01691378|183321726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-5.3|||one-sample t-test|||Analysis investigated change from T1 to T3 within the WtoH Intervention first arm only. This difference was calculated and a 1-sample t test was used to determine whether the estimate was different from zero. As this change was not compared with a control group change, baseline values were not accounted for.||-5.3|-18.0|.002
91715308|NCT04235504|183321754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.1|||linear mixed model|||||-1.10|-1.74|<0.0001
91715309|NCT04235504|183321755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.59|33.6|||linear mixed model|||||33.60|21.59|<0.0001
91715310|NCT04235504|183321756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.16|-21.55|||linear mixed model|||||-21.55|-34.16|<0.0001
91715311|NCT04235504|183321757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.61|||linear mixed model|||||0.61|-0.37|0.6227
91860883|NCT05071807|183608150|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI||Results for central diastolic blood pressure||2.10|-1.69|
91715312|NCT04235504|183321758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.0||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||0.00|-2.17|
91792762|NCT02751931|183463228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.87|-11.35||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||-11.35|-24.87|<0.001
91715313|NCT04235504|183321759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.34|45.28||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||45.28|12.34|
91715314|NCT04235504|183321760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.27|-11.64||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||-11.64|-45.27|
91715315|NCT04235504|183321761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.59||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||0.59|-1.32|
91715316|NCT02002871|183321772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis was performed on the difference of the change from baseline of the Blue light treated plaque versus the Control plaque.||||0.0152
91715317|NCT03652818|183321795|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-25.2868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1594|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-4.421|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group D vs. Group B||-4.4210||
91715318|NCT03652818|183321795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.3283|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||20.8083|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group C vs. Group B||20.8083||
91715319|NCT03652818|183321795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.9241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.2146|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-43.6959|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group C vs. Group A||-43.6959||
91715320|NCT03652818|183321795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.6486|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.8753|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-43.8584|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group B vs. Group A||-43.8584||
91715321|NCT03652818|183321795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-90.9353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1044|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-68.8494|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group D vs. Group A||-68.8494||
91715322|NCT03652818|183321795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.0112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.5376|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-3.6571|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group D vs. Group C||-3.6571||
91860884|NCT05071807|183608151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.24|||Regression, Linear|were adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||0.24|-0.26|
91860885|NCT05071807|183608152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|0.95|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||0.95|-4.25|
91860886|NCT05071807|183608153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.0|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||3.0|-0.6|
91670969|NCT01002794|183237150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: The sample size calculation was based on the change in KOOS4 from baseline to two year follow-up. To detect a 10 point difference with a standard deviation of 15, with a level of power of 90%, level of significance of 0.05, and an estimated 15% dropout rate at two years, we determined that we would need 56 participants in each group. To allow for a 20% crossover rate, we randomised 140 participants.||||<0.05
91670970|NCT01005329|183237186|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The rate of the acute specified AEs (adverse events) from previous (and prior to ClinicalTrials.gov requirements) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 9708 of RT + cisplatin was 44% and the hypothesis is that the addition of bevacizumab to IMRT + cisplatin will not increase this rate beyond 60%. This study was designed with a 1-sided, upper bound confidence interval to estimate this AE rate. Twenty-seven evaluable patients were required to have 95% confidence that the true grade 3+ non-hematologic treatment-related AE rate is not greater than 60%. Please note that this is a 95% ONE-SIDED confidence bound which is equivalent to the upper bound of a two-sided 90% confidence interval.|||
91670971|NCT00572039|183237200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29|||ANCOVA|||To test the efficacy of PST to improve TVF functional reserve measures at 3 months, we used an analysis of covariance in which group differences (PST vs ST) in 3-month average TVF scores were examined, adjusting for baseline TVF score and the vision severity stratification variable. To approximate an interval scale and compensate for ceiling and floor effects, we linearized TVF scores using a logit transform. 106 PST and 112 ST participants provided data at 3 months.||0.29|-0.14|.47
91670972|NCT00572039|183237201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|2.77|||ANCOVA|||To test the efficacy of PST to improve NE-VFQ scores at 3 months, we used an analysis of covariance in which group differences (PST vs ST) in 3-month average NEI-VFQ scores were examined, adjusting for baseline score and the vision severity stratification variable.||2.77|-1.96|.7
91670973|NCT02147587|183237204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMFR|1.213|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.033|1.424|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMFRs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMFRs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMFRs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 4|Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 4)||1.424|1.033|
91670974|NCT02147587|183237205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMFR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.877|1.209|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMFRs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMFRs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMFRs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Day 1|GMFR for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Day 1)||1.209|0.877|
91670975|NCT02147587|183237205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMFR|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.924|1.294|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMFRs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMFRs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMFRs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 12|GMFR for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 12)||1.294|0.924|
91670976|NCT02147587|183237206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.821|1.375|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMTs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMTs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMTs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Day 1|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Day 1)||1.375|0.821|
91670977|NCT02147587|183237206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.251|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.967|1.618|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMTs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMTs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMTs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 4|GMT for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 4)||1.618|0.967|
91670978|NCT02147587|183237206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.862|1.459|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMTs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMTs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMTs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 12|GMT for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 12)||1.459|0.862|
91670979|NCT02147587|183237207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.39|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.05|20.56|||80% CI based on Chan and Zhang method|||Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Day 1)||20.56|-4.05|
91670980|NCT02147587|183237207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.57|26.03|||80% CI based on Chan and Zhang method|||Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 4)||26.03|1.57|
91670981|NCT02147587|183237207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.66|15.83|||80% CI based on Chan and Zhang method|||Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 12)||15.83|-10.66|
91670982|NCT01315028|183237222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91670983|NCT01315028|183237223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Parametric and non-parametric descriptive data were summarised and presented. All data analyses were based on the Intention to Treat (ITT) principle. For the main analysis, Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance was performed to identify signals suggesting treatment effects on the outcome measures. Effect sizes were also calculated in order to further examine suggestive trends in the data indicating appropriate outcomes for further research.||||0.996
91670984|NCT01315028|183237224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91670985|NCT01315028|183237225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91670986|NCT00436917|183237251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||A sample of 60 participants was estimated to provide percentage statistics accuracy to within 13% with 95% confidence.||||0.01
91670987|NCT02438540|183237267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91670988|NCT02438540|183237268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91670989|NCT02438540|183237269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91670990|NCT02438540|183237270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91670991|NCT02438540|183237271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91670992|NCT02438540|183237272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|multiple comparatives||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||CRP is known to be an independent parameter|ANOVA|||||||0.082
91670993|NCT02438540|183237272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|from 0.60±0.03 mg/dl before treatment to 0.57±0.03 mg/dl after treatment, P=0.082||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||CRP is known to be an independent parameter|ANOVA|||||||0.082
91670994|NCT02438540|183237272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|from 0.59±0.03 mg/dl before treatment to 0.57±0.03 mg/dl after treatment, P=0.082||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||CRP is known to be an independent parameter|ANOVA|||||||0.082
91670995|NCT02438540|183237273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91902652|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|44.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.4|29.6|< 0.0001
91670996|NCT02438540|183237274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91670997|NCT02438540|183237275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91670998|NCT02438540|183237276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91670999|NCT02438540|183237277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91902653|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|61.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.7|47.6|< 0.0001
91671000|NCT02438540|183237278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91671001|NCT02438540|183237279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91671002|NCT02438540|183237280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91671003|NCT02438540|183237281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91671004|NCT02438540|183237282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91671005|NCT02438540|183237283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91671006|NCT02438540|183237284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91671007|NCT00373425|183237297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.104||If the primary analysis of DFS was not statistically significant, the hierarchical testing procedure would stop and all key secondary efficacy analyses would be nonsignificant; any further analysis of these outcomes would be considered exploratory.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio: erlotinib to placebo|The null hypothesis that DFS distributions of the 2 arms were equivalent was tested using an unstratified 2-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level. The primary analysis of DFS was performed when at least 410 events had accrued. If the result of the primary analysis of DFS was statistically significant favoring the erlotinib treatment arm, the null hypothesis of no treatment difference of key secondary efficacy variables was tested under a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.104|0.741|0.3235
91671008|NCT00373425|183237302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.144|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis that DFS distributions of the 2 arms were equivalent was tested using an unstratified 2-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level.||1.144|0.780|0.5620
91671009|NCT00551616|183237320|OTHER||% of observed pregnancies|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.98|||Chi-squared||Expected pregnancy rate = 5.58%|Comparison of % of observed pregnancies vs % of expected pregnancies based on Trussell 1998||2.98|1.04|<0.001
91671010|NCT00551616|183237320|OTHER||% of observed pregnancies|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.94|||Chi-squared||Expected pregnancy rate = 5.43%|Comparison of % of observed pregnancies vs % of expected pregnancies based on Trussell 1998||3.94|1.68|<0.001
91671011|NCT03297294|183237339|SUPERIORITY|at week 12|least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.4|0.101
91671012|NCT03297294|183237340|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||At week 12||0.2|-1.3|0.168
91671013|NCT03297294|183237344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.9|0.7|0.255
91671014|NCT03297294|183237345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.6|0.8|0.100
91902654|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|26.0||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.0|9.4|
91671015|NCT03314662|183237414|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5|GMT ratio (aTIV/aQIV)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.27|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aTIV/aQIV - for strain A/H1N1||1.27|1.05|
91671016|NCT03314662|183237414|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5|GMT ratio: (aTIV/aQIV|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log 10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aTIV/aQIV - performed for strain A/H3N2||1.09|0.90|
91671017|NCT03314662|183237414|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio: aTIV/aQIV|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aQIV/aTIV - performed for strain B/Yamagata||1.08|0.90|
91671018|NCT03314662|183237414|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio: (aTIV/aQIV)]|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aQIV/aTIV - performed for strain B/Victoria||1.08|0.89|
91671019|NCT03314662|183237415|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.76||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain A/H1N1||7.76|-1.30|
91671020|NCT03314662|183237415|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.96||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain A/H3N2||4.96|-4.23|
91671021|NCT03314662|183237415|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)]|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|3.27||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain B-Yamagata||3.27|-5.13|
91671022|NCT03314662|183237415|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|Other [SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)]|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|2.55||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain B-Victoria||2.55|-5.07|
91860887|NCT05071807|183608154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||1.6|-2.3|
91860888|NCT05071807|183608155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||0.1|0.0|
91860889|NCT05071807|183608156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|13.7||When a significant group by time point interaction was detected, post hoc testing was conducted and the Tukey-Kramer method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||13.7|5.0|
91860890|NCT05071807|183608157|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-1.7|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||-1.7|-14.5|
91860891|NCT05071807|183608158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.6|47.5|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Results for medium subclass; Measure Description: LDL particle size classifications are as follows: 22-25.5 nm is small, 25.6-26.5 nm medium, and 26.6-28.5 nm large. Typically, smaller LDL is associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared to larger.||47.5|-98.6|
91860892|NCT05071807|183608158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|95.5|||Regression, Linear|adjustment for the baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2)||Results for Small LDL particles; Measure Description: LDL particle size classifications are as follows: 22-25.5 nm is small, 25.6-26.5 nm medium, and 26.6-28.5 nm large. Typically, smaller LDL is associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared to larger.||95.5|-91.8|
91860893|NCT05071807|183608159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.63|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||0.63|0.07|
91860894|NCT05409183|183608240|OTHER||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|26.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.216||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.847|45.099|||ANCOVA|||||45.099|7.847|0.0032
91860895|NCT03241459|183608252|NON_INFERIORITY|15.0% is the absolute noninferiority margin (50% of the difference in primary patency rate between IN.PACT Admiral DCB and PTA).|Difference in percentage|-3.7||||0.0029|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-11.7|||P-value is derived from one-sided Farrington-Manning test with noninferiority margin of 15% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test||For subjects missing primary effectiveness endpoint status, a logistic regression model was used for multiple imputation with pre-specified baseline variables as model predictors.|The SurVeil DCB will be declared noninferior to IN.PACT Admiral DCB with respect to efficacy endpoint if the null hypothesis of inferiority is rejected at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|||-11.7|0.0029
91902655|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|37.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.4|22.6|< 0.0001
91860896|NCT03241459|183608253|NON_INFERIORITY|10.0% is the absolute noninferiority margin (50% of the difference in primary safety endpoint rate between IN.PACT Admiral DCB and PTA).|Difference in percentage|2.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.1|||P-value is derived from one-sided Farrington-Manning test with noninferiority margin of 10% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test||For subjects missing primary safety endpoint status, a logistic regression model was used for multiple imputation with pre-specified baseline variables as model predictors.|The SurVeil DCB will be declared noninferior to IN.PACT Admiral DCB with respect to safety endpoint if the null hypothesis of inferiority is rejected at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|||-4.1|<.0001
91860897|NCT03241459|183608254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is derived from two-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence estimates will be reported along with a p-value from a two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing the SurVeil and the IN.PACT Admiral groups.||||0.579
91860898|NCT03241459|183608255|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Both arms demonstrated 100% success, therefore, Fisher's exact test does not provide a p-value, but we populated it with a p-value of 1.00 to indicate no difference between arms.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence estimates will be reported along with a two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing the SurVeil and the IN.PACT Admiral groups.||||1.00
91860899|NCT03241459|183608256|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is derived from two-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence estimates will be reported along with a two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing the SurVeil and the IN.PACT Admiral groups.||||1.000
91860900|NCT03241459|183608257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||P-value is derived from two-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
91860901|NCT03241459|183608258|NON_INFERIORITY|The Farrington and Manning test for noninferiority of proportions at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Difference in percentage|-1.9||||0.0059|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-12.1|||P-value is derived from one-sided Farrington-Manning test with noninferiority margin of 15% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test|||The objective is to assess whether the primary patency rate of subjects in the SurVeil DCB group is noninferior to that of the IN.PACT Admiral DCB group:|||-12.1|0.0059
91792763|NCT02751931|183463228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.19||||0.005||95.0|-22.02|-4.36||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||-4.36|-22.02|0.005
91860902|NCT03241459|183608259|SUPERIORITY|Target Vessel Patency for SurVeil DCB vs. Target Vessel Patency for IN.PACT DCB at 12 months.||||||0.699||||||12-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||The main analysis of the secondary endpoints will be carried out using the ITT analysis set.||||0.699
91860903|NCT03241459|183608259|SUPERIORITY|Target Vessel Patency for SurVeil DCB vs. Target Vessel Patency for IN.PACT DCB at 24 months.||||||1||||||24-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||The main analysis of the secondary endpoints will be carried out using the ITT analysis set.||||1.0
91860904|NCT03241459|183608260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||6-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.699
91860905|NCT03241459|183608260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||12-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.447
91860906|NCT03241459|183608260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589||||||24-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.589
91860907|NCT03241459|183608261|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 6-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91715323|NCT03652818|183321795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.9546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0237|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||38.1014|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group E vs. Group D||38.1014||
91715324|NCT03652818|183321796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|33.6821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.1209|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|7.7011||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group D vs. Group B|||7.7011|
91715325|NCT03652818|183321796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.1658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.3312|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-20.0868||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group C vs. Group B|||-20.0868|
91715326|NCT03652818|183321796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|77.3395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4347|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|49.662||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group C vs. Group A|||49.6620|
91792764|NCT02751931|183463229|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||<0.001
91792765|NCT02751931|183463229|OTHER|||||||0.148||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.148
91902656|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|58.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.1|43.8|< 0.0001
91902657|NCT03627767|183700078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|29.5||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.5|12.8|
91902658|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.4|||=|0.7232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.8|-6.1|= 0.7232
91902659|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.2|||=|0.5694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.4|-9.8|= 0.5694
91902660|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.8||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-11.2|
91902661|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|35.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.8|22.2|< 0.0001
91902662|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|57.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|64.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||64.5|51.2|< 0.0001
91792766|NCT02751931|183463229|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||0.002
91715327|NCT03652818|183321796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|71.1737|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0123|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|44.0417||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group B vs. Group A|||44.0417|
91715328|NCT03652818|183321796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|104.8558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.2975|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|77.3555||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group D vs. Group A|||77.3555|
91715329|NCT03652818|183321796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.5163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.5918|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.9272||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group D vs. Group C|||0.9272|
91715330|NCT03652818|183321796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.1223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.1776|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-63.924||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group E vs. Group D|||-63.9240|
91715331|NCT01868646|183321821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
91792767|NCT02751931|183463229|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||0.039
91792768|NCT02751931|183463230|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||<0.001
91792769|NCT02751931|183463230|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.007
91671023|NCT03314662|183237418|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-1 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the GMT ratio (GMTaTIV/GMTaQIV); Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (aTIV/aQIV) was \<1. The superiority comparison was based on the Full Analysis Set (FAS) Immunogenicity comprised all subjects who were randomized, received at least 1 study vaccination, and provided immunogenicity data at Day 1 and Day 22.|GMT ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.7||||||B/Yamagata strain: GMT Ratio (aTIV/aQIV)||0.70|0.58|
91671024|NCT03314662|183237418|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-2 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the GMT ratio (GMTaTIV/GMTaQIV); Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (aTIV/aQIV) was \<1. The superiority comparison was based on the FAS Immunogenicity.|GMT ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.78||||||B/Victoria Strain: GMT Ratio (aTIV/aQIV)||0.78|0.64|
91671025|NCT03314662|183237421|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-1 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the difference in SCR (SCRaTIV-SCRaQIV) at Day 22. Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs (aTIV-aQIV) was \<0, for both B strains. The superiority comparison was based on the FAS Immunogenicity.|SCR difference|-11.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|-8.81||||||B/Yamagata Strain: SCR Difference (aTIV-1 - aQIV).||-8.81|-15.12|
91671026|NCT03314662|183237421|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-2 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the difference in SCR (SCRaTIV-SCRaQIV) at Day 22. Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs (aTIV-aQIV) was \<0, for both B strains. The superiority comparison was based on the FAS Immunogenicity.|SCR difference|-10.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.54|-8.11||||||B/Victoria Strain: SCR Difference (aTIV-2 - aQIV)||-8.11|-13.54|
91671027|NCT01117766|183237427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.537||0.7319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||0.92|-1.29|0.7319
91671028|NCT01117766|183237427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.3404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.57|-1.61|0.3404
91671029|NCT01117766|183237428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.872||0.6539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.2|45.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||45.56|-70.20|0.6539
91860908|NCT03241459|183608261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823||||||P-Value at 12-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.823
91860909|NCT03241459|183608261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.454
91860910|NCT03241459|183608262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535||||||P-Value at 6-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.535
91860911|NCT03241459|183608262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||P-Value at 12-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.860
91860912|NCT03241459|183608262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.390
91860913|NCT03241459|183608263|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Both arms demonstrated 0 amputations at 6 months. Fisher's Exact test does not provide a p-value, but we populated it with a p-value of 1.00 to indicate no difference between arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91860914|NCT03241459|183608263|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Both arms demonstrated 0 amputations at 12 months. Fisher's Exact test does not provide a p-value, but we populated it with a p-value of 1.00 to indicate no difference between arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91860915|NCT03241459|183608263|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91671030|NCT01117766|183237428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.807||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.54|30.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||30.72|-78.54|0.3678
91860916|NCT03241459|183608264|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91860917|NCT03241459|183608264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.472
91860918|NCT03241459|183608265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 1-Month|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.193
91860919|NCT03241459|183608265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 6-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.140
91860920|NCT03241459|183608265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 12-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
91860921|NCT03241459|183608265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 24-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
91860922|NCT03241459|183608266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 1-Month|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.320
91860923|NCT03241459|183608266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 6-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
91860924|NCT03241459|183608266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 12-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.248
91860925|NCT03241459|183608266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 24-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.194
91860926|NCT03241459|183608267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb ABI ≥0.15: BL to 6-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.789
91860927|NCT03241459|183608267|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91860928|NCT03241459|183608267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb ABI ≥0.15: BL to 12-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
91860929|NCT03241459|183608267|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb TBI ≥0.15: BL to 12-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91860930|NCT03241459|183608267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb ABI ≥0.15: BL to 24-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.401
91860931|NCT03241459|183608267|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb TBI ≥0.15: BL to 24-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91860932|NCT03241459|183608268|OTHER|||||||0.995||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-Month: Walking Impairment Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.995
91860933|NCT03241459|183608268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-month: Walking distance score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.158
91860934|NCT03241459|183608268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-month: Walking speed score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.695
91860935|NCT03241459|183608268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-Month: Stair Climbing Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.086
91860936|NCT03241459|183608268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Walking Impairment Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.331
91860937|NCT03241459|183608268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Walking Distance Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.580
91671031|NCT01117766|183237429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.35|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||-0.35|-1.84|0.0071
91671032|NCT01117766|183237429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.19|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.19|-1.36|0.1294
91671033|NCT01117766|183237430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-61.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.298||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.12|-6.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||-6.96|-116.12|0.0300
91671034|NCT01117766|183237430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.501||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.67|7.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||7.55|-105.67|0.0844
91671035|NCT01117766|183237431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.7506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.14|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||1.14|-0.83|0.7506
91671036|NCT01117766|183237431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.64|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.64|-0.61|0.9673
91671037|NCT01117766|183237432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.642||0.5502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.78|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||1.78|-0.99|0.5502
91671038|NCT01117766|183237432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.96|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.96|-1.15|0.8536
91715332|NCT01868646|183321822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0426||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0426
91671039|NCT01117766|183237433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.34|||ANCOVA||In statistical analyses, scores were further grouped to 1-3 'improved', 4 'no change' and 5-7 'worsened'.|Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||-0.34|-2.73|0.0132
91792770|NCT02751931|183463230|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||< 0.001
91792771|NCT02751931|183463230|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||< 0.001
91671040|NCT01117766|183237433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.05|||ANCOVA||In statistical analyses, scores were further grouped to 1-3 'improved', 4 'no change' and 5-7 'worsened'.|Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||-0.05|-1.95|0.0403
91671041|NCT01117766|183237434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||0.74|-1.12|0.6631
91671042|NCT01117766|183237434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||-0.59|-2.48|0.0022
91671043|NCT01117766|183237435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||0.53|-2.60|0.1753
91671044|NCT01117766|183237435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||-0.27|-2.75|0.0198
91671045|NCT01117766|183237436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.292||0.4999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|8.54|||ANCOVA|||||8.54|-17.13|0.4999
91671046|NCT05766787|183237440|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, period, sequence, visit, and lens by visit interaction) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID022821 minus AOHG. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||-0.01||
91671047|NCT00438659|183237441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91671048|NCT01867606|183237452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
91671049|NCT01867606|183237454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91671050|NCT01917968|183237471|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|6.5||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|13.2||Statistical significance is considered at 0.05 level.|Z statistics|P-value is calculated using a Z statistics from the propensity score adjusted estimates. Missing values are handled using multiple imputation.||||13.2|-0.2|0.056
91671051|NCT01917968|183237472|NON_INFERIORITY|With type I error of 0.05 and type II error of 0.20 (power 80%), 298 subjects (149 subjects per arm) are needed to detect non-inferiority with a margin of 10%.|Adjusted difference in percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.9|||||The propensity score adjusted difference in SAE rate of Uphold LITE transvaginal mesh (TVM) vs. NTR was estimated.|||1.9|-2.7|
91671052|NCT01435928|183237485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.45|0.039
91671053|NCT01435928|183237486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.54|0.070
91671054|NCT01435928|183237487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.029
91715333|NCT01868646|183321823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5990
91792772|NCT02751931|183463231|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||<0.001
91792773|NCT02751931|183463231|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.006
91792774|NCT02751931|183463231|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||< 0.001
91671055|NCT01435928|183237488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.015
91860938|NCT03241459|183608268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Walking Speed Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
91860939|NCT03241459|183608268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Stair Climbing Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
91860940|NCT03241459|183608268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 24-Months: Walking Impairment Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.869
91860941|NCT03241459|183608268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 24-Months: Walking Distance Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.837
91860942|NCT03241459|183608268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674||||||P-value for change in WIQ for BL to 24-Months: Walking Speed Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.674
91860943|NCT03241459|183608268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||P-value for change in WIQ for BL to 24-Months: Stair Climbing Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
91860944|NCT03241459|183608269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237||||||P-value for change in 6MWT from BL to 12-Months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.237
91860945|NCT03241459|183608269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P-value for change in 6MWT from BL to 24-Months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
91860946|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Physical Function Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.772
91860947|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Stability Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.930
91860948|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Symptom Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
91860949|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Treatment Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.621
91860950|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.133
91860951|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Social Limitation Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.592
91860952|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Summary Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.601
91860953|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Physical Function Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.185
91860954|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Stability Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.856
91860955|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Symptom Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.541
91860956|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Treatment Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.731
91860957|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.696
91860958|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Social Limitation Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.716
91860959|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Summary Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.797
91860960|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Physical Function Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.290
91860961|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Stability Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.473
91860962|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Symptom Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
91860963|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Treatment Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.974
91860964|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.266
91860965|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Social Limitation Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
91860966|NCT03241459|183608270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months:Summary Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.959
91860967|NCT03241459|183608271|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 36-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91860968|NCT03241459|183608271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903||||||P-Value at 48-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.903
91860969|NCT03241459|183608271|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 60-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91860970|NCT03241459|183608272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 36-Months||||||0.913
91860971|NCT03241459|183608272|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 48-Months||||||1.0
91860972|NCT03241459|183608272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||P-Value at 60-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.839
91860973|NCT03241459|183608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 36-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91860974|NCT03241459|183608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 48-Months||||||0.5
91860975|NCT03241459|183608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 60-Months||||||0.251
91860976|NCT03241459|183608274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||P-Value at 36-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.478
91860977|NCT03241459|183608274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605||||||P-Value at 48-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.605
91860978|NCT03241459|183608274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345||||||P-Value at 60-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.345
91864553|NCT05207982|183618056|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This study utilized a multiple baseline single case experimental design in which analysis of the daily weights (for each participant) involved discontinuous growth curve analysis using multi-level modeling. Separate models were developed for each participant which include the daily weights from the baseline, treatment and follow-up phases. Given the nature of the data, we hypothesized different slopes for the baseline vs treatment phases. Overall weight change was a primary outcome measure.|Multiple baseline single case experimental design in which analysis of the daily weights (for each participant) involved discontinuous growth curve analysis using multi-level modeling.|||
91792775|NCT02751931|183463231|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||0.001
91902663|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|37.0||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.0|20.8|
91902664|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|37.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.2|23.9|< 0.0001
91902665|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|48.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|55.6||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.6|42.1|< 0.0001
91902666|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|26.6||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.6|9.8|
91902667|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|31.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.5|18.4|< 0.0001
91902668|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|39.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|46.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.5|32.7|< 0.0001
91902669|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|22.8||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.8|6.3|
91902670|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|31.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.2|18.1|< 0.0001
91671056|NCT01435928|183237489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.218
91671057|NCT01435928|183237490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.021
91671058|NCT01435928|183237491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.056
91671059|NCT02248662|183237512|OTHER|The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A two-sided p value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted percentages for receipt of mastectomy were calculated by setting covariates to their observed mean values.|This group is the reference group.|Unadjusted associations between patient characteristics and the three-level cluster of treatment intensity for primary DCIS were evaluated using Chi-squared tests. We used multivariable modeling to adjust for potential confounders. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching to balance regional treatment intensity for primary DCIS with respect to the covariates included in the multivariable models.||||<0.05
91671060|NCT02248662|183237512|OTHER|The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.56||A two-sided p value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Unadjusted associations between patient characteristics and the three-level cluster of treatment intensity for primary DCIS were evaluated using Chi-squared tests. We used multivariable modeling to adjust for potential confounders. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching to balance regional treatment intensity for primary DCIS with respect to the covariates included in the multivariable models.||1.56|0.71|<0.05
91671061|NCT02248662|183237512|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.84|||Chi-squared|||||2.84|1.27|<0.05
91671062|NCT01835548|183237513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-8.2|||ANCOVA|||||-8.20|-13.9|<0.0001
91671063|NCT00739973|183237543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-7.12|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-7.12|-12.81|<0.001
91671064|NCT00739973|183237544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean Difference|-4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.94|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-1.94|-7.70|0.001
91792776|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.58||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|28.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||28.1|1.0|0.035
91902671|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|45.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.3|31.6|< 0.0001
91902672|NCT03627767|183700079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|22.3||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.3|5.6|
91902673|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.0|||=|0.4815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.3|-5.3|= 0.4815
91902674|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.8|||=|0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|6.6||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.6|-10.3|= 0.6748
91902675|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|3.2||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.2|-13.4|
91902676|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|30.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.3|17.8|< 0.0001
91902677|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|49.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.0|35.6|< 0.0001
91902678|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|26.6||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions||26.6|10.2|
91671065|NCT00739973|183237545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|-11.0|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-11.0|-16.68|<0.001
91671066|NCT00739973|183237546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.04|-10.4|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-10.4|-16.04|<0.001
91671067|NCT00739973|183237547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-4.22|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-4.22|-7.77|<0.001
91671068|NCT00739973|183237548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-1.19|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-1.19|-4.77|0.001
91671069|NCT00739973|183237549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.39|-6.87|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-6.87|-10.39|<0.001
91671070|NCT00739973|183237550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|-6.4|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-6.40|-9.94|<0.001
91671071|NCT00739973|183237551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Sqaure Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-0.53|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-0.53|-4.14|0.011
91671072|NCT00739973|183237552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|-9.05|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-9.05|-12.57|<0.001
91671073|NCT00739973|183237553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|-3.03|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-3.03|-6.56|<0.001
91671074|NCT00739973|183237554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-2.18|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-2.18|-5.78|<0.001
91671075|NCT00739973|183237555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-7.87|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-7.87|-11.41|<0.001
91671076|NCT00739973|183237556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.51|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-4.51|-8.00|<0.001
91792777|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.99||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|58.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||58.9|13.1|0.003
91902679|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|31.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.0|18.2|< 0.0001
91902680|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|47.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.3|33.7|< 0.0001
91902681|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|24.1||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.1|7.6|
91902682|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|25.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.1|12.6|< 0.0001
91902683|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|41.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||41.5|27.6|< 0.0001
91902684|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|23.7||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.7|7.5|
91902685|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|25.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.0|12.4|< 0.0001
91671077|NCT00739973|183237557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-0.83|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-0.83|-4.42|0.004
91671078|NCT00739973|183237558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-9.35|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-9.35|-12.85|<0.001
91671079|NCT00739973|183237559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-0.07|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-0.07|-5.73|0.056
91671080|NCT00739973|183237560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.001||95.0|-19.91|-14.3|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-14.3|-19.91|<0.001
91671081|NCT00739973|183237561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-3.62|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-3.62|-9.29|<0.001
91671082|NCT00739973|183237562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-3.11|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region asntwo factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-3.11|-8.90|<0.001
91671083|NCT00739973|183237563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.88|-12.2|||ANCOVA|||||-12.2|-17.88|<0.001
91671084|NCT00739973|183237564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|-5.02|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-5.02|-10.63|<0.001
91671085|NCT00739973|183237565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|0.73|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||0.73|-5.04|0.143
91671086|NCT00739973|183237566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.21|-13.6|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-13.6|-19.21|<0.001
91671087|NCT03203642|183237606|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0082||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0217|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0112|-0.0217|0.5265
91671088|NCT03203642|183237607|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0111||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0264|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0180|-0.0264|0.7076
91792778|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|45.5||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||45.5|14.7|<0.001
91792779|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|79.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||79.3|24.6|<0.001
91902686|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|39.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.2|25.4|< 0.0001
91902687|NCT03627767|183700087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|21.7||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.7|5.6|
91902688|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.7373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.5|= 0.7373
91902689|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.8092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.5|-0.7|= 0.8092
91902690|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.4|-0.8|
91902691|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.0|-6.1|< 0.0001
91902692|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.5|-7.6|< 0.0001
91902693|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.4|
91902694|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.7|-5.3|< 0.0001
91902695|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.9|-6.4|< 0.0001
91902696|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-2.1|
91902697|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-3.5|= 0.0150
91902698|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-4.7|< 0.0001
91902699|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-2.3|
91792780|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|51.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||51.1|22.7|<0.001
91792781|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|68.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||68.9|21.3|<0.001
91792782|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|46.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||46.3|18.2|<0.001
91671089|NCT03203642|183237608|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.3895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0404|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0160|-0.0404|0.3895
91671090|NCT03203642|183237609|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0248|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0278|-0.0248|0.9093
91671091|NCT02875028|183237614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
91671092|NCT05068284|183237626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|20.6|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||20.6|-6.3|
91671093|NCT05068284|183237626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|60.0|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||60.0|6.7|
91671094|NCT05068284|183237626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|52.2|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||52.2|4.9|
91671095|NCT05068284|183237626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|53.6|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||53.6|1.0|
91671096|NCT05068284|183237627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|43.6|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||43.6|-19.8|
91671097|NCT05068284|183237627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|63.8|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||63.8|-4.8|
91671098|NCT05068284|183237627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|51.8|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||51.8|-13.7|
91671099|NCT05068284|183237627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|60.3|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||60.3|-13.6|
91671100|NCT05068284|183237628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|41.0|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||41.0|-18.5|
91792783|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.94||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|68.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||68.6|19.2|0.001
91671101|NCT05068284|183237628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|71.9|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||71.9|5.0|
91671102|NCT05068284|183237628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|56.2|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||56.2|-7.0|
91671103|NCT05068284|183237628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|74.5|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||74.5|3.8|
91792784|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|60.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||60.0|23.3|<0.001
91671104|NCT02760264|183237633|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
91671105|NCT02760264|183237635|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
91671106|NCT02760264|183237637|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
91671107|NCT02760264|183237638|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
91671108|NCT02760264|183237640|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
91671109|NCT02760264|183237642|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
91671110|NCT05918822|183237650|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to log (ln)-transformed plasma maribavir Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed for differences between Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Point estimate and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|82.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.31|90.91|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of Cmax of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment B (Test) versus Treatment A (Reference)||90.91|74.31|
91671111|NCT05918822|183237650|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90 percent (%) CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment C (test) versus Treatment B (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment B.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|57.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.18|63.84|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of Cmax of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment C (Test) versus Treatment B (Reference)||63.84|52.18|
91671112|NCT05918822|183237650|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir Cmax with treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for the differences between Treatment E (test) versus Treatment D (reference). The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for the ratios of Treatment E versus Treatment D.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|49.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.07|60.0|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of Cmax of Maribavir: Part 2: Treatment E (Test) versus Treatment D (Reference)||60.00|40.07|
91715334|NCT01868646|183321824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6215||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of mean value at baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6215
91671113|NCT05918822|183237651|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|97.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.39|104.2|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUClast of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment B (Test) versus Treatment A (Reference)||104.20|91.39|
91671114|NCT05918822|183237651|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment C (test) versus Treatment B (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment B.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|82.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.84|87.61|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUClast of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment C (Test) versus Treatment B (Reference)||87.61|76.84|
91671115|NCT05918822|183237651|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUClast with treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for the differences between Treatment E (test) versus Treatment D (reference). The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for the ratios of Treatment E versus Treatment D.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.11|81.51|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUClast of Maribavir: Part 2: Treatment E (Test) versus Treatment D (Reference)||81.51|60.11|
91671116|NCT05918822|183237652|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|99.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.12|106.11|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUC0-infinity of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment B (Test) versus Treatment A (Reference)||106.11|94.12|
91671117|NCT05918822|183237652|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment C (test) versus Treatment B (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment B.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|81.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.93|86.73||||||Comparison of AUC0-infinity of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment C (Test) versus Treatment B (Reference)||86.73|76.93|
91671118|NCT05918822|183237652|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUC0-infinity with treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for the differences between Treatment E (test) versus Treatment D (reference). The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for the ratios of Treatment E versus Treatment D.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|88.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.94|102.78|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUC0-infinity of Maribavir: Part 2: Treatment E (Test) versus Treatment D (Reference)||102.78|76.94|
91671119|NCT00988208|183237694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.0||p-value is based on unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.00|1.17|0.0017
91671120|NCT00988208|183237695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.66|||Log Rank|P-value is based on unstratified log-rank test||||1.66|1.05|0.0187
91671121|NCT00988208|183237696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.3975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.176|||Chi-squared|||||1.176|0.665|0.3975
91671122|NCT03008837|183237701|OTHER|Using seed-based analysis with a right posterior insula seed, cluster size was set at 40 voxels, and p-value was thresholded at p\<0.05 to compare the differences between the two groups in terms of connectivity between the right posterior insula and areas of the DMN identified based on a priori hypotheses.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Standard therapy control (post-pre) was subtracted from PENFS (post-pre).|PENFS (post-pre) - Standard Therapy (post-pre)||||<0.05
91902700|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||=|0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|-2.4|= 0.3616
91671123|NCT02000531|183237719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.62|||Log Rank|||||2.62|0.61|>0.05
91671124|NCT01546142|183237739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.983|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.311|3.849|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by pooled study center.|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (that there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||3.849|2.311|<0.001
91671125|NCT01546142|183237740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.908|13.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center.|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (that there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||13.520|2.908|<0.001
91671126|NCT01546142|183237741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.838|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.299|18.622|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||18.622|3.299|<0.001
91671127|NCT01546142|183237742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and Baseline PR-SMFIS total scale score.||If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||||<0.001
91671128|NCT00255151|183237759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
91671129|NCT00255151|183237759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
91671130|NCT00255151|183237759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.80473||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.80473
91671131|NCT00255151|183237760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91671132|NCT00255151|183237760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91671133|NCT00255151|183237760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76046||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76046
91671134|NCT00255151|183237762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
91671135|NCT00255151|183237762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
91671136|NCT00255151|183237762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37161||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.37161
91671137|NCT00255151|183237763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91671138|NCT00255151|183237763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91671139|NCT00255151|183237763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59700
91671140|NCT00934596|183237767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|57.0|||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91671141|NCT00934596|183237770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|72.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91671142|NCT00934596|183237775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As data for these small groups were non-parametric the median and quartiles were used for comparison of groups by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.||||<0.001
91671143|NCT01280617|183237805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Continuous variables analyzed using 2-tailed t test or Mann Whitney tes.. Categorical variables analyzed using Chi-Square or Fisher's Exact test||||||<0.05
91671144|NCT01280617|183237805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91671145|NCT01311557|183237812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed around each of the ratios: Pertussis toxoid (PT) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2.~The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025."|GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.05||||||||1.05|0.843|
91671146|NCT01311557|183237812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95% CI was constructed around each of the ratios: anti-Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2.~The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025."|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.13||||||||1.13|0.944|
91864554|NCT02800356|183618075|OTHER|||||||0.404|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.404
91864555|NCT02800356|183618076|OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.232
91864556|NCT02800356|183618077|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.001
91864557|NCT02800356|183618080|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.267
91864558|NCT01651403|183618102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||< 0.001
91864559|NCT01651403|183618102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test without adjusting for strata at baseline||||||< 0.001
91864560|NCT01651403|183618103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||0.935
91671147|NCT01311557|183237812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95% CI was constructed around each of the ratios: Anti-Pertactin (PRN) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2.~The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025."|GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.18||||||||1.18|0.928|
91671148|NCT01311557|183237812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was constructed around each of the ratios: anti-Fimbriae types 2 and 3 (FIM) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2. The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.06||||||||1.06|0.731|
91671149|NCT03852524|183237818|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||The sample size (41 patients per study group; 82 patients total) for this superiority trial was calculated with a power of 90% (alpha = 0.05) and based on the assumption that 50% of subjects in the placebo group would experience a bowel movement by postoperative day 3, as compared to 85% in the treatment group. Additionally, a 10% lost-to-follow up rate was assumed.||||0.81
91671150|NCT02973321|183237849|OTHER|The overall Type 1 error for multiple comparisons of the HbA1c and body weight was controlled by a Hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was performed in following sequence: 1. 1st trend test for HbA1c, 2. 1st trend test for body weight, 3. 2nd trend test for HbA1c, 4. 2nd trend test for body weight, 5. 3rd trend test for HbA1c, 6. 3rd trend test for body weight.|||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|1st trend test||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Visit 4 (Day 1) BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Overall 1st trend test based on a contrast with coefficients of +3, +1, -1, -3 and 0 for SAR425899 0.20 mg, 0.16 mg, 0.12 mg, placebo and liraglutide. Here it is test 1 of testing order.||||< 0.0001
91671151|NCT02973321|183237849|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.|LS Mean difference|-0.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.359|-0.552||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|2nd Trend test||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Visit 4 (Day 1) BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Second Trend test based on a contrast with coefficients of 0, +1, 0, -1 and 0 for SAR425899 0.20 mg, 0.16 mg, 0.12 mg, placebo and liraglutide, respectively. Here, it is test no. 3 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-0.552|-1.359|< 0.0001
91671152|NCT02973321|183237849|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.|LS Mean difference|-0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.264|-0.444||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|3rd Trend test||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Visit 4 (Day 1) BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Third Trend test based on a contrast with coefficients of 0, 0, +1, -1 and 0 for SAR425899 0.20 mg, 0.16 mg, 0.12 mg, placebo and liraglutide, respectively. Here, it is test no. 5 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-0.444|-1.264|< 0.0001
91671153|NCT02973321|183237850|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.||||||0.0012||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|1st Trend test||Placebo, SAR425899 0.12,0.16,0.20 mg: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Day 1 BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate. Here, it is test no. 2 of hierarchical testing sequence.||||0.0012
91671154|NCT02973321|183237850|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant|LS Mean difference|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.309|-1.832||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|2nd Trend test||SAR425899 0.16 mg vs Placebo: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Day 1 BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate. Here, it is test no. 4 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-1.832|-5.309|< 0.0001
91671155|NCT02973321|183237850|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.|LS Mean difference|-2.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.264|-0.77||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|3rd Trend test||3rd Trend Test: SAR425899 0.12 mg vs Placebo: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Day 1 BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate. Here, it is test no. 6 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-0.77|-4.264|0.0047
91671156|NCT01098110|183237865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-11.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.42|-7.16||Statistical significant: p=\<0.05, two sided|ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-7.16|-15.42|<0.0001
91715335|NCT01868646|183321825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6155||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Total cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.6155
91671157|NCT01098110|183237865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|-9.12||Statistical significant: p=\<0.05, two sided|ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-9.12|-17.33|<0.0001
91715336|NCT01868646|183321825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of HDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.7507
91671158|NCT01098110|183237866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.13|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.13|-4.80|<0.0001
91671159|NCT01098110|183237866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|-2.46|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.46|-5.11|<0.0001
91671160|NCT01098110|183237867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.41|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.41|-3.53|<0.0001
91792785|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|59.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|94.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||94.9|23.8|0.002
91792786|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|83.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||83.2|24.5|<0.001
91671161|NCT01098110|183237867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-1.97|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.97|-4.08|<0.0001
91671162|NCT01098110|183237868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-3.35|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-3.35|-7.56|<0.0001
91671163|NCT01098110|183237868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-4.44||Statistical significant: p=\<0.05, two sided|ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-4.44|-8.62|<0.0001
91671164|NCT01098110|183237869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-2.09|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.09|-4.72|<0.0001
91671165|NCT01098110|183237869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-2.35|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.35|-4.97|<0.0001
91671166|NCT01098110|183237870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.26|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.26|-3.47|<0.0001
91671167|NCT01098110|183237870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.84|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.84|-4.03|<0.0001
91792787|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|52.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|83.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||83.8|20.5|0.002
91792788|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|63.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||63.7|22.0|<0.001
91792789|NCT02751931|183463232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|72.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||72.3|12.5|0.008
91860979|NCT01000961|183608305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority endpoint of the clinical trial would be achieved if the upper limit of the 95.8% CI of the difference between RP103 and Cystagon® was less than the a-priori 0.3 non-inferiority margin, which would correspond to an observed p-value less than or equal to 0.02104|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0785||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.0107|0.1464|||t-test, 1 sided||95.8% confidence interval was used instead of 95% to take into account a sample size re-estimation calculation that was performed after 20 patients were enrolled.|16-subject study will have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis of non-inferiority at the 0.025 level of significance with a non-inferiority margin of 0.3. Final analysis was performed at a nominal significance level of 0.02104.||0.1464|0.0107|0.0001
91860980|NCT01000961|183608306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.67||||||||1.67|1.17|
91860981|NCT01000961|183608307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|150.0||||||||150|90|
91860982|NCT01000961|183608308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.39||||||||2.39|1.75|
91860983|NCT02432404|183608309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of G. vaginalis at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.011
91860984|NCT02432404|183608309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of G. vaginalis at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.008
91860985|NCT02432404|183608309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. iners at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.662
91792790|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.5||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|40.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||40.1|-5.1|0.126
91671168|NCT01098110|183237871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.70|-3.73|<0.0001
91671169|NCT01098110|183237871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-2.08|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.08|-4.09|<0.0001
91671170|NCT01098110|183237872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.83|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.83|-2.41|<0.0001
91671171|NCT01098110|183237872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-1.47|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.47|-3.04|<0.0001
91671172|NCT01098110|183237873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.78|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.78|-2.04|<0.0001
91671173|NCT01098110|183237873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.91|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.91|-2.16|<0.0001
91671174|NCT01098110|183237874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|28.1||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||28.1|9.2|0.0001
91864561|NCT01651403|183618104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||0.001
91671175|NCT01098110|183237874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|32.6||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||32.6|13.7|<0.0001
91671176|NCT01098110|183237875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.28|-0.75|<0.0001
91671177|NCT01098110|183237875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.36|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.36|-0.82|<0.0001
91671178|NCT01098110|183237876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.4||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||32.4|12.0|<0.0001
91671179|NCT01098110|183237876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|38.8||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||38.8|18.9|<0.0001
91671180|NCT01028911|183237912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|128.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|217.21||||||Day 30: Natural log transformed AUCtau of donepezil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, day and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||217.21|75.90|
91671181|NCT01028911|183237913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|119.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|189.16||||||Day 30: Natural log transformed AUCtau of donepezil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, day and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||189.16|75.90|
91671182|NCT05212883|183237921|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||||||Comparison of the likelihood to test before gathering for age \< 18 vs. age \>= 18.||1.3|0.8|
91671183|NCT02502734|183237933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (0.025, 1-sided significance test level) for the mean difference in lower-leg growth rate of FF 50 mcg OD versus Placebo was greater than -0.20mm/week.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1217|0.0176||Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (0.025,1-sided significance test level) for the mean difference in lower-leg growth rate of FF 50 mcg OD versus Placebo was greater than -0.20mm/week.|ANCOVA|Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates period-level baseline and subject-level baseline lower-leg length, age, gender, treatment and period.||||0.0176|-0.1217|
91671184|NCT03476317|183237944|EQUIVALENCE|Median difference in calprotectin for controls from day 12 to baseline||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91671185|NCT00530348|183238008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.23||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression model with robust variance estimation using treatment group and geographic region as covariates was used.||1.23|0.40|0.2173
91671186|NCT00530348|183238009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.63||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Proportional means regression|||Proportional means regression model with robust variance estimation and covariate adjustment for geographic region was used.||0.63|0.32|<0.0001
91715337|NCT01868646|183321825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4195||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of LDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.4195
91671187|NCT00530348|183238010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.61|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with robust variance estimation, covariate adjustment for geographic region, was used. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by multiple sclerosis functional composite. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||0.61|0.33|<0.0001
91671188|NCT00530348|183238011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4188|||||||Wei-Lachin|||The analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by multiple sclerosis functional composite. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||||0.4188
91671189|NCT00530348|183238012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0115|||||||Wei-Lachin|||Change at Year 2: analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by MSFC. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||||0.0115
91671190|NCT00530348|183238013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA models with covariate adjustment for geographic region and baseline T2 lesion volume was used. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by multiple sclerosis functional composite. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||||0.3080
91671191|NCT04364763|183238014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0352||||||p-value is for Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0352
91671192|NCT04364763|183238014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||p-value is for Day 28|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison made for Day 7 and Day 28||||0.2350
91671193|NCT00127166|183238103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-3.25||||0.009||95.0|-5.66|-0.84|||ANOVA|Model terms: participant, treatment and period. The treatment test is adjusted for period||||-0.84|-5.66|0.009
91671194|NCT00127166|183238104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-52.71||||0.006||95.0|-89.76|-15.66|||ANOVA|Model terms: participant, treatment and period. The treatment test is adjusted for period.||||-15.66|-89.76|0.006
91671195|NCT00127166|183238105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.11|||<|0.001||95.0|2.58|5.64|||ANCOVA|Participant, treatment, period \& covariate for FEV1 %-predicted Treatment test is adjusted for period \& FEV1 %-predicted at pre-exercise baseline||||5.64|2.58|<0.001
91671196|NCT00127166|183238106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.035||95.0|1.02|1.55|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model terms: treatment and period|Dispersion not applicable to time to event data|||1.55|1.02|0.035
91671197|NCT00127166|183238107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.8|||<|0.001||95.0|2.28|5.32|||ANOVA|Model terms: participant, treatment and period. The treatment test is adjusted for period.||||5.32|2.28|<0.001
91671198|NCT01396421|183238108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-4.4||Primary analysis was performed by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) which included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Difference between average effect of brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day and placebo was tested first at alpha level of 0.05. If statistically significant, then comparisons for each group (brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day) versus placebo were performed.||-4.40|-12.0|<0.0001
91671199|NCT01396421|183238108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Sample size was determined to achieve 90% power at alpha level of 0.025 (two-sided) to a detect treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) between a brexpiprazole treatment of 4 mg/day (or 2 mg/day) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||-3.30|-12.0|0.0006
91671200|NCT01396421|183238108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Traetment difference|-8.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-4.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Sample size was determined to achieve 90% power at alpha level of 0.025 (two-sided) to a detect treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) between a brexpiprazole treatment of 4 mg/day (or 2 mg/day) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||-4.37|-13.1|<0.0001
91671201|NCT01396421|183238108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.89||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Sample size was determined to achieve 90% power at alpha level of 0.025 (two-sided) to a detect treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) between a brexpiprazole treatment of 4 mg/day (or 2 mg/day) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||2.49|-8.27|0.2910
91671202|NCT01396421|183238109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.36||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Difference between the average effect of brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day and placebo was tested first at alpha level of 0.05. If statistically significant, then comparisons for each group (brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day) versus placebo were performed at a significance level of 0.05.||-0.15|-0.56|0.0006
91671203|NCT01396421|183238109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.38||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||||-0.15|-0.61|0.0012
91671204|NCT01396421|183238109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.33||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||||-0.10|-0.56|0.0056
91671205|NCT01396421|183238109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.03||||0.8491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||||0.26|-0.31|0.8491
91671206|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.5||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.09||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.09|-3.09|0.0644
91671207|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.99||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.41||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||-0.41|-3.58|0.0139
91671208|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.35||||0.7231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.32||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||2.32|-1.61|0.7231
91671209|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-5.14||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-1.93||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||-1.93|-8.36|0.0018
91792791|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.38||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|75.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||75.4|9.3|0.014
91792792|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|46.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|71.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||71.7|21.7|<0.001
91860986|NCT02432404|183608309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. iners at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.41
91860987|NCT02432404|183608309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. crispatus at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.164
91671210|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.75||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|-1.17||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||-1.17|-6.33|0.0045
91671211|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.84||||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|5.02||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||5.02|-1.34|0.2568
91671212|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-1.82||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||-1.82|-6.97|0.0009
91671213|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.45||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|-0.23||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||-0.23|-6.67|0.0360
91671214|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.9876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|4.6||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||4.60|-4.53|0.9876
91671215|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-3.93||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||-3.93|-11.3|<0.0001
91671216|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-5.16||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|-1.47||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||-1.47|-8.85|0.0062
91671217|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.93||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.9||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||5.90|-2.05|0.3407
91671218|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.86||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.86||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-3.86|-11.9|0.0001
91671219|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-3.14||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-3.14|-11.2|0.0005
91671220|NCT01396421|183238110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.12||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|3.83||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5|Because only the comparison of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day versus placebo met the threshold in the primary analysis, the following analysis is not part for the formal statistical testing and is descriptive only.|||3.83|-6.07|0.6570
91792793|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|73.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|117.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||117.2|29.3|0.002
91792794|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER|Pre-Specified|Mean Difference (Net)|45.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|68.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||68.4|22.1|<0.001
91860988|NCT02432404|183608309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|||Mean quantity of L. crispatus at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.183
91860989|NCT02432404|183608309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. jensenii at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.506
91860990|NCT02432404|183608309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. jensenii at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.119
91860991|NCT02432404|183608309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of Megasphaera at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.510
91860992|NCT02432404|183608309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of Megasphaera at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.168
91860993|NCT02432404|183608309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of BVAB2 at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.454
91860994|NCT02432404|183608309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of BVAB2 at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.471
91860995|NCT05089734|183608367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||1.04|0.68|0.0534
91860996|NCT05089734|183608368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.11||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.77|0.1938
91860997|NCT05089734|183608369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-4.3||||0.9255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|1.5||The 1-sided p-value is calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for randomization stratification factors of histology, and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.5|-10.1|0.9255
91860998|NCT05089734|183608374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.91||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.61|0.0020
91860999|NCT05089734|183608375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||0.97|0.66|0.0125
91861000|NCT04873401|183608395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.79|0.39|0.928
91861001|NCT04873401|183608396|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.115|||Regression, Linear|||||0.115|-0.24|0.240
91861002|NCT04873401|183608397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29|||Regression, Linear|||||0.29|0.05|0.367
91861003|NCT04873401|183608398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29|||Regression, Linear|||||0.29|0.05|0.005
91792795|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.86||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|78.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||78.3|7.4|0.020
91792796|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|54.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||54.3|12.2|0.003
91902701|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.7|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-4.3|= 0.0012
91902702|NCT03627767|183700088|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-3.0|
91902703|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.6|||=|0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.8|-0.6|= 0.3339
91902704|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.5|||=|0.4653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.7|-0.8|= 0.4653
91902705|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.1|-1.3|
91902706|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.3|-6.2|< 0.0001
91902707|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.3|-8.2|< 0.0001
91902708|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.3||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-3.6|
91902709|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.1|-1.8|= 0.9083
91902710|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||=|0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.8|-3.0|= 0.2439
91902711|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.1||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-2.6|
91902712|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||=|0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.7|-2.4|= 0.7405
91902713|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.1|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-4.1|= 0.0410
91902714|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.4||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-3.1|
91902715|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||=|0.4026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.4|-3.5|= 0.4026
91792797|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|47.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|76.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||76.8|17.8|0.003
91902716|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||=|0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-4.2|= 0.0944
91792798|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.88||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|82.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||82.6|17.1|0.004
91671221|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.08|-0.13|0.6553
91671222|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.03||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.08|-0.13|0.6170
91671223|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.03||||0.6446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates..|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.15|-0.10|0.6446
91902717|NCT03627767|183700089|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-2.5|
91671224|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||-0.01|-0.29|0.0347
91671225|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Leasr squares mean|-0.12||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.02||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.27|0.0825
91671226|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.12||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.3||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||0.30|-0.05|0.1678
91671227|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.21||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||-0.03|-0.39|0.0219
91671228|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.09||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.09||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||0.09|-0.27|0.3275
91671229|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.18||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.4||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||0.40|-0.04|0.1173
91671230|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.21||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||-0.21|-0.63|<0.0001
91792799|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|84.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|137.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||137.1|31.6|0.003
91792800|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|99.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||99.0|21.2|0.003
91671231|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.19||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||0.01|-0.40|0.0662
91671232|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.7587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.22||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||0.22|-0.30|0.7587
91671233|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.39||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.17||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-0.17|-0.61|0.0006
91671234|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.34||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.11||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-0.11|-0.56|0.0032
91671235|NCT01396421|183238111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.23||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||0.23|-0.32|0.7619
91671236|NCT01396421|183238112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.46||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|4.98||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 6||||4.98|-0.06|0.0557
91671237|NCT01396421|183238112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.89||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.42||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 6||||5.42|0.37|0.0250
91671238|NCT01396421|183238112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.58||||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.74||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 6||||4.74|-1.58|0.3264
91671239|NCT01396421|183238113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.99||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.99|-3.88|0.0010
91671240|NCT01396421|183238113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.22||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.77||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-3.67|0.0029
91671241|NCT01396421|183238113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.11||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.68||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-2.90|0.2227
91671242|NCT01396421|183238114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.41||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.39||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-2.44|0.0069
91671243|NCT01396421|183238114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.78||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.76||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.76|-2.81|0.0007
91671244|NCT01396421|183238114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatmetn difference|-1.07||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.2||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-2.33|0.0996
91671245|NCT01396421|183238115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.22||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for trial center was applied to CGI-I score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.22|-0.77|0.0004
91671246|NCT01396421|183238115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.26||The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for trial center was applied to CGI-I score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.26|-0.82|0.0002
91671247|NCT01396421|183238115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.14||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.22||The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for trial center was applied to CGI-I score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.22|-0.50|0.4505
91671248|NCT01396421|183238116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.48||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.91||CMH general association test controlling for trial was applied to the analysis of response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.91|1.14|0.0032
91671249|NCT01396421|183238116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05||CMH general association test controlling for trial was applied to the analysis of response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.05|1.23|0.0004
91671250|NCT01396421|183238116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.27||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.76||CMH general association test controlling for trial was applied to the analysis of response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.76|0.92|0.1576
91671251|NCT01396421|183238117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.1||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.14||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-2.06|0.0246
91671252|NCT01396421|183238117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.22||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.26||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-2.19|0.0131
91671253|NCT01396421|183238117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.34||||0.5706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.85||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.85|-1.53|0.5706
91671254|NCT01396421|183238118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.39||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial center was applied to the analysis of discontinuation rate.||||0.85|0.18|0.0143
91671255|NCT01396421|183238118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.87||||0.6606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.65||CMH general association test controlling for trial center was applied to the analysis of discontinuation rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.65|0.46|0.6606
91902718|NCT03627767|183700090|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.341||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate p-value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.341|0.211|< 0.0001
91902719|NCT03627767|183700090|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.136||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.136|0.070|< 0.0001
91671256|NCT01396421|183238118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.77||||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.68||CMH general association test controlling for trial center was applied to the analysis of discontinuation rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.68|0.35|0.5115
91671257|NCT01396421|183238119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.34||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-0.91||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-3.77|0.0014
91671258|NCT01396421|183238119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.47||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.04||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.04|-3.91|0.0008
91671259|NCT01396421|183238119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.89||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.89||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|-2.66|0.3263
91671260|NCT01396421|183238120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.3||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.25||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-2.35|0.0155
91671261|NCT01396421|183238120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.68||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.62||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-2.73|0.0019
91671262|NCT01396421|183238120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.86||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.44||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|-2.17|0.1956
91671263|NCT01396421|183238121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.75||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.75||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.75|-2.76|0.0007
91671264|NCT01396421|183238121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.97||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-2.98|0.0001
91671265|NCT01396421|183238121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.72||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.52||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-1.96|0.2572
91671266|NCT01396421|183238122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.07||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.28||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-1.87|0.0085
91671267|NCT01396421|183238122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.08||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.28||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-1.88|0.0081
91671268|NCT01396421|183238122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.33||||0.5172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.66||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-1.31|0.5172
91671269|NCT01396421|183238123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.34||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.35||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.35|-1.03|0.3284
91671270|NCT01396421|183238123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.65||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.04||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-1.34|0.0655
91671271|NCT01396421|183238123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.21||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.64||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|-1.07|0.6251
91671272|NCT01610063|183238130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for QIDS-C16||||<0.0001
91715338|NCT01868646|183321825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3609||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Triglycerides changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.3609
91715339|NCT01868646|183321826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0605
91861004|NCT03457142|183608403|OTHER|No formal test, a confidence interval estimate for the grade 3+ treatment related AE rate.|grade 3+ treatment related AE rate|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.54||||||||0.54|0.17|
91861005|NCT04533347|183608430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Assuming an 85% clinical recovery rate in the TQ group and a 70% clinical recovery rate in the placebo group, sample sizes of 125 per treatment group were expected to achieve 80% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.1879
91861006|NCT05520190|183608436|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Attitude score - 1-month Attitude score / SD of average change|||||
91671273|NCT01610063|183238131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for HAMD-17||||<0.0001
91671274|NCT01610063|183238132|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for PHQ-9||||0.002
91671275|NCT00442546|183238138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9185||95.0|-0.766|0.691||A step-down procedure was used for multiple comparisons adjustment. If the difference between the high dose and placebo groups was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the next step conducted where the low dose group was compared to placebo.|ANOVA|Least squares means from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with main effects of treatment and center and Baseline mean worst pain score.|Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|||0.691|-0.766|0.9185
91671276|NCT00442546|183238138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.3619||95.0|-1.07|0.392||A step-down procedure was used for multiple comparisons adjustment. If the difference between the high dose and placebo groups was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the next step conducted where the low dose group was compared to placebo.|ANOVA|Least squares means from the ANOVA model with main effects of treatment and center and Baseline mean worst pain score.|Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|||0.392|-1.070|0.3619
91671277|NCT00442546|183238139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.426||0.4091||95.0|-54.332|22.203|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||22.203|-54.332|0.4091
91671278|NCT00442546|183238139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.388||0.4234||95.0|-53.74|22.645|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||22.645|-53.740|0.4234
91671279|NCT00442546|183238139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.517||0.0284||95.0|-68.972|-3.884|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||-3.884|-68.972|0.0284
91671280|NCT00442546|183238139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.57||0.0816||95.0|-61.632|3.663|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||3.663|-61.632|0.0816
91715340|NCT01868646|183321827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0726|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0726
91715341|NCT01868646|183321828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3108|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3108
91715342|NCT01868646|183321829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2934
91715343|NCT01868646|183321830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3410
91715344|NCT01868646|183321831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1577|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction||||0.1577
91715345|NCT01868646|183321831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hyperglycemia||||0.5262
91715346|NCT01868646|183321831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypoglycemia||||0.7417
91671281|NCT00442546|183238139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.752||0.8147||95.0|-20.446|25.964|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||25.964|-20.446|0.8147
91671282|NCT00442546|183238139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.589||0.7187||95.0|-27.064|18.7|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||18.700|-27.064|0.7187
91671283|NCT00442546|183238139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.148||0.7416||95.0|-23.516|16.804|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||16.804|-23.516|0.7416
91671284|NCT00442546|183238139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.283||0.2577||95.0|-29.017|7.869|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||7.869|-29.017|0.2577
91671285|NCT00442546|183238139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.387||0.9982||95.0|-36.431|36.352|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||36.352|-36.431|0.9982
91671286|NCT00442546|183238139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.184||0.5552||95.0|-59.756|33.107|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||33.107|-59.756|0.5552
91671287|NCT00442546|183238139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.655||0.2032||95.0|-118.463|38.463|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|144 hours||38.463|-118.463|0.2032
91671288|NCT00442546|183238139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-138.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.661||0.0348||95.0|-258.354|-18.646|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|144 hours||-18.646|-258.354|0.0348
91671289|NCT00442546|183238140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.499||0.3602||95.0|-4.79|13.062|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 2||13.062|-4.790|0.3602
91671290|NCT00442546|183238140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.637||0.7352||95.0|-7.626|10.771|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 2||10.771|-7.626|0.7352
91671291|NCT00442546|183238140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.156||0.6435||95.0|-9.392|15.111|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 4||15.111|-9.392|0.6435
91671292|NCT00442546|183238140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.361||0.6123||95.0|-9.422|15.895|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 4||15.895|-9.422|0.6123
91671293|NCT00442546|183238140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.663||0.6356||95.0|-11.683|18.984|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 6/ET||18.984|-11.683|0.6356
91671294|NCT00442546|183238140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.747||0.907||95.0|-14.593|16.411|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 6/ET||16.411|-14.593|0.9070
91671295|NCT00442546|183238141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1190.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|123.062||0.0656||95.0|-2754.304|373.004|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, 72 hours||373.004|-2754.304|0.0656
91671296|NCT00442546|183238141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|142.1||0.9277||95.0|-1789.352|1821.752|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, 72 hours||1821.752|-1789.352|0.9277
91671297|NCT00442546|183238141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.692||0.935||95.0|-263.972|275.515|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 24 hours||275.515|-263.972|0.9350
91671298|NCT00442546|183238141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.33||0.6139||95.0|-164.494|216.98|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 24 hours||216.980|-164.494|0.6139
91671299|NCT00442546|183238141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96||0.776||95.0|-25.451|19.611|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 48 hours||19.611|-25.451|0.7760
91671300|NCT00442546|183238141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.833||0.819||95.0|-17.066|13.846|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 48 hours||13.846|-17.066|0.8190
91671301|NCT00442546|183238141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|390.483||0.8603||95.0|-861.171|722.7|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 24 hours||722.700|-861.171|0.8603
91671302|NCT00442546|183238141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|384.376||0.9642||95.0|-796.945|762.155|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 24 hours||762.155|-796.945|0.9642
91671303|NCT00442546|183238141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|93.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|484.957||0.8476||95.0|-880.865|1068.251|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 48 hours||1068.251|-880.865|0.8476
91671304|NCT00442546|183238141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|105.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|457.374||0.8185||95.0|-813.584|1024.67|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 48 hours||1024.670|-813.584|0.8185
91671305|NCT00442546|183238141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-682.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|495.241||0.1792||95.0|-1696.759|332.15|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 72 hours||332.150|-1696.759|0.1792
91671306|NCT00442546|183238141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-250.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|501.808||0.6216||95.0|-1278.347|777.469|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 72 hours||777.469|-1278.347|0.6216
91671307|NCT00442546|183238142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-494.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|301.253||0.1996||95.0|-1452.72|464.72|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, Week 2.||464.720|-1452.720|0.1996
91861007|NCT05520190|183608437|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Norm score - 1-month Norm score / SD of average change|||||
91671308|NCT00442546|183238142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-195.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|368.958||0.6335||95.0|-1369.338|979.038|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, Week 2.||979.038|-1369.338|0.6335
91671309|NCT00442546|183238142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|302.355||0.929||95.0|-657.992|603.41|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 2||603.410|-657.992|0.9290
91671310|NCT00442546|183238142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|256.969||0.8937||95.0|-501.241|570.815|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 2||570.815|-501.241|0.8937
91671311|NCT00442546|183238142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|198.937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|491.153||0.6912||95.0|-847.93|1245.804|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 4||1245.804|-847.930|0.6912
91671312|NCT00442546|183238142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|349.047||0.6024||95.0|-558.248|929.704|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 4||929.704|-558.248|0.6024
91671313|NCT00442546|183238142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-256.921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|407.391||0.5372||95.0|-1120.551|606.709|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 6/ET||606.709|-1120.551|0.5372
91671314|NCT00442546|183238142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-287.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|328.227||0.3948||95.0|-982.843|408.778|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 6/ET||408.778|-982.843|0.3948
91671315|NCT00442546|183238143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-121.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1169.654||0.9341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14983.36|14740.362|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|||14740.362|-14983.36|0.9341
91671316|NCT00442546|183238145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|302.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|302.9|302.9|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|||302.900|302.900|<0.0001
91671317|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.1661||95.0|-0.293|0.051|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.051|-0.293|0.1661
91671318|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.3604||95.0|-0.254|0.093|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.093|-0.254|0.3604
91671319|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.1299||95.0|-0.29|0.037|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.037|-0.290|0.1299
91671320|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.1167||95.0|-0.29|0.032|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.032|-0.290|0.1167
91671321|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5271||95.0|-0.234|0.12|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.120|-0.234|0.5271
91671322|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6731||95.0|-0.215|0.139|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.139|-0.215|0.6731
91671323|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.5936||95.0|-0.247|0.142|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.142|-0.247|0.5936
91792801|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.78||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|98.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||98.9|10.6|0.017
91671324|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.8368||95.0|-0.206|0.167|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.167|-0.206|0.8368
91792802|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|84.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||84.4|22.6|0.001
91671325|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.8659||95.0|-0.242|0.204|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.204|-0.242|0.8659
91671326|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.7151||95.0|-0.266|0.184|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.184|-0.266|0.7151
91671327|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.2121||95.0|-0.249|0.056|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.056|-0.249|0.2121
91861008|NCT05520190|183608438|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Perceived Behavioral Control score - 1-month Perceived Behavioral Control score / SD of average change|||||
91671328|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.5607||95.0|-0.197|0.107|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.107|-0.197|0.5607
91671329|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.7797||95.0|-0.13|0.173|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.173|-0.130|0.7797
91671330|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.8761||95.0|-0.143|0.167|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.167|-0.143|0.8761
91671331|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.8619||95.0|-0.121|0.144|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.144|-0.121|0.8619
91671332|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.7256||95.0|-0.111|0.159|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.159|-0.111|0.7256
91861009|NCT05520190|183608439|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Intention score - 1-month Intention score / SD of average change|||||
91861010|NCT05520190|183608440|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline drinks per day - 1-month drinks per day / avg change in drinks per day|||||
91861011|NCT05520190|183608441|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline drinking days - 1-month drinking days / SD of avg change in drinking days|||||
91861012|NCT05520190|183608442|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline binge drinking days - 1-month binge drinking days / avg change in binge drinking days|||||
91861013|NCT05520190|183608443|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline depression - 1-month depression / SD of avg change in depression|||||
91861014|NCT05520190|183608444|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline anxiety - 1-month anxiety / SD avg change in anxiety|||||
91861015|NCT05520190|183608445|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline PTSD - 1-month PTSd / SD avg change in PTSD|||||
91861016|NCT05520190|183608446|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline insomnia - 1-month insomnia / SD avg change in insomnia|||||
91861017|NCT05520190|183608447|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Alcohol Screen - 1-month Alcohol Screen / SD avg change|||||
91861018|NCT05520190|183608448|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline behavioral beliefs - 1-month behavioral beliefs / avg change in behavioral beliefs|||||
91861019|NCT05520190|183608449|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline normative beliefs - 1-month normative beliefs / SD avg change in normative beliefs|||||
91861020|NCT05520190|183608450|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline control beliefs - 1-month control beliefs / SD avg change in control beliefs|||||
91671333|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.8659||95.0|-0.11|0.131|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.131|-0.110|0.8659
91671334|NCT00442546|183238149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0203||95.0|0.023|0.27|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.270|0.023|0.0203
91671335|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5791||95.0|-0.187|0.105|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.105|-0.187|0.5791
91671336|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.6829||95.0|-0.178|0.117|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.117|-0.178|0.6829
91671337|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4516||95.0|-0.19|0.085|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.085|-0.190|0.4516
91671338|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.3014||95.0|-0.207|0.064|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.064|-0.207|0.3014
91671339|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.7628||95.0|-0.171|0.125|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.125|-0.171|0.7628
91671340|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.711||95.0|-0.176|0.12|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.120|-0.176|0.7110
91671341|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.7382||95.0|-0.183|0.13|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.130|-0.183|0.7382
91671342|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.6586||95.0|-0.183|0.116|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.116|-0.183|0.6586
91671343|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.7691||95.0|-0.195|0.145|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.145|-0.195|0.7691
91671344|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.507||95.0|-0.229|0.115|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.115|-0.229|0.5070
91671345|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.5802||95.0|-0.166|0.093|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.093|-0.166|0.5802
91671346|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.919||95.0|-0.122|0.136|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.136|-0.122|0.9190
91671347|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.6559||95.0|-0.09|0.143|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.143|-0.090|0.6559
91671348|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8552||95.0|-0.108|0.13|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.130|-0.108|0.8552
91671349|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.6364||95.0|-0.072|0.117|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.117|-0.072|0.6364
91671350|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.2127||95.0|-0.035|0.157|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.157|-0.035|0.2127
91671351|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.8746||95.0|-0.086|0.101|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.101|-0.086|0.8746
91671352|NCT00442546|183238150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0286||95.0|0.011|0.202|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.202|0.011|0.0286
91861021|NCT02921230|183608496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0077
91861022|NCT05875142|183608514|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TM||||0.0008
91861023|NCT05875142|183608514|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||5.03e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TMC.||||0.00000503
91671353|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.1078||95.0|-0.367|0.036|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.036|-0.367|0.1078
91861024|NCT05875142|183608515|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||0.0176|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with T||||0.0176
91861025|NCT05875142|183608515|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||0.0056|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing T with TMC.||||0.0056
91861026|NCT05875142|183608516|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\<=treatment vs HA: control\>treatment||||||0.4066|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TM||||0.4066
91861027|NCT05875142|183608516|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\<=treatment vs HA: control\>treatment||||||0.4045|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TMC||||0.4045
91861028|NCT04274764|183608518|OTHER|||||||0.7399|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7399
91861029|NCT00450658|183608560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) and prior upper gastrointestinal ulcer history (Yes/No) at randomization.||The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects developing UGI (gastric and/or duodenal) ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of UGI ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing UGI ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history at randomization.||15.9|3.0|0.0018
91861030|NCT00450658|183608561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) and prior upper gastrointestinal ulcer history (Yes/No) at randomization.||||14.4|1.9|0.0051
91861031|NCT00450658|183608562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history at randomization.||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects developing duodenal ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history at randomization.||7.1|0.8|0.0017
91861032|NCT03891667|183608629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|75.66||||||||75.66|.21|
91861033|NCT03891667|183608630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|9.47||||||||9.47|0.05|
91861034|NCT02100813|183608666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42|||Negative binomial regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.42|0.23|<0.001
91861035|NCT02100813|183608666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.33|||Negative binomial regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.33|0.18|<0.001
91861036|NCT02100813|183608666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.79|||=|0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||1.04|0.59|=0.096
91861037|NCT02100813|183608667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.02|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|124.0|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||124|1.53|=0.007
91861038|NCT02100813|183608667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|8.82|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|154.5|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||154.5|1.99|=0.001
91861039|NCT02100813|183608667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.26|||=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.31|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.31|0.72|=0.43
91861040|NCT02100813|183608668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|8.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|51.66|||Log binomial regression|||||51.66|2.93|<0.001
91861041|NCT02100813|183608668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|9.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|56.4|||Log binomial regression|||||56.4|3.22|<0.001
91861042|NCT02100813|183608668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.09|||=|0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49|||Log binomial regression|||||1.49|0.81|=0.55
91861043|NCT01963793|183608669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|4.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.11|-7.12|0.58
91861044|NCT03158714|183608725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.005
91861045|NCT03158714|183608725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.101
91861046|NCT03158714|183608726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and controlled for baseline levels of outcome in regression.||||||< .001
91861047|NCT03158714|183608726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and controlled for baseline levels of outcome in regression.||||||< .001
91864562|NCT01651403|183618106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
91671354|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.6406||95.0|-0.252|0.155|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.155|-0.252|0.6406
91671355|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.2404||95.0|-0.289|0.073|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.073|-0.289|0.2404
91671356|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1005||95.0|-0.327|0.029|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.029|-0.327|0.1005
91671357|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.2109||95.0|-0.349|0.078|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.078|-0.349|0.2109
91671358|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.2399||95.0|-0.342|0.086|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.086|-0.342|0.2399
91671359|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.2272||95.0|-0.346|0.083|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.083|-0.346|0.2272
91671360|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.4417||95.0|-0.285|0.125|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.125|-0.285|0.4417
91671361|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.9502||95.0|-0.299|0.281|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.281|-0.299|0.9502
91671362|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.355||95.0|-0.426|0.156|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.156|-0.426|0.3550
91671363|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.1888||95.0|-0.304|0.06|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.060|-0.304|0.1888
91671364|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.3774||95.0|-0.262|0.1|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.100|-0.262|0.3774
91671365|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.9452||95.0|-0.178|0.166|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.166|-0.178|0.9452
91671366|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.7663||95.0|-0.201|0.148|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.148|-0.201|0.7663
91715347|NCT01249417|183321840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-0.38||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||-0.13|-0.64|0.0029
91715348|NCT01249417|183321840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-0.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||-0.23|-0.75|0.0002
91715349|NCT01249417|183321841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.14|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||1.14|0.50|<0.0001
91715350|NCT01249417|183321841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.1|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||1.10|0.45|<0.0001
91792803|NCT02751931|183463233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.3||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|99.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||99.6|9.0|0.021
91671367|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5777||95.0|-0.104|0.186|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.186|-0.104|0.5777
91671368|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.2916||95.0|-0.069|0.227|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.227|-0.069|0.2916
91671369|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.8389||95.0|-0.15|0.122|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.122|-0.150|0.8389
91671370|NCT00442546|183238151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0734||95.0|-0.012|0.266|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.266|-0.012|0.0734
91715351|NCT01249417|183321842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|5.32||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|8.32|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||8.32|2.31|0.0006
91715352|NCT01249417|183321842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.65||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|7.71|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||7.71|1.59|0.0031
91792804|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.13||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|40.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||40.7|-4.5|0.113
91864563|NCT01651403|183618108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||0.002
91671371|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1949||95.0|-0.276|0.057|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.057|-0.276|0.1949
91671372|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.5431||95.0|-0.22|0.116|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.116|-0.220|0.5431
91671373|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.2164||95.0|-0.247|0.056|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.056|-0.247|0.2164
91671374|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.1251||95.0|-0.266|0.033|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.033|-0.266|0.1251
91671375|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.4079||95.0|-0.247|0.101|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.101|-0.247|0.4079
91671376|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.4562||95.0|-0.24|0.108|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.108|-0.240|0.4562
91715353|NCT01854697|183321843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint assessment comparison was made within each of the 2 HCV genotypes (GT1a and GT1b). Within HCV GT1a, the 3-DAA + RBV and TPV/PR arms were compared. Within HCV GT1b, the 3-DAA and TPV/PR arms were compared. The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the respective HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|28.2|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1a. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||28.2|1.3|
91715354|NCT01854697|183321843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint assessment comparison was made within each of the 2 HCV genotypes (GT1a and GT1b). Within HCV GT1a, the 3-DAA + RBV and TPV/PR arms were compared. Within HCV GT1b, the 3-DAA and TPV/PR arms were compared. The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the respective HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|32.6|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||32.6|6.4|
91792805|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.58||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|72.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||72.2|-1.1|0.056
91902720|NCT03627767|183700090|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.516||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.516|0.255|< 0.0001
91671377|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.4526||95.0|-0.254|0.114|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.114|-0.254|0.4526
91671378|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.6186||95.0|-0.221|0.132|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.132|-0.221|0.6186
91671379|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.8712||95.0|-0.237|0.202|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.202|-0.237|0.8712
91671380|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4784||95.0|-0.3|0.143|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.143|-0.300|0.4784
91671381|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.2635||95.0|-0.232|0.064|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.064|-0.232|0.2635
91671382|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.6009||95.0|-0.187|0.108|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.108|-0.187|0.6009
91671383|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.8559||95.0|-0.13|0.156|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.156|-0.130|0.8559
91671384|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.9841||95.0|-0.147|0.144|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.144|-0.147|0.9841
91671385|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.6771||95.0|-0.095|0.146|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.146|-0.095|0.6771
91671386|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.3717||95.0|-0.067|0.178|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.178|-0.067|0.3717
91671387|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.9863||95.0|-0.114|0.116|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.116|-0.114|0.9863
91671388|NCT00442546|183238152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0355||95.0|0.009|0.243|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.243|0.009|0.0355
91671389|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.8071||95.0|-0.35|0.449|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.449|-0.350|0.8071
91671390|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.8282||95.0|-0.359|0.447|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.447|-0.359|0.8282
91671391|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.8972||95.0|-0.353|0.403|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.403|-0.353|0.8972
91671392|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8159||95.0|-0.329|0.418|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.418|-0.329|0.8159
91671393|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.8577||95.0|-0.337|0.405|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.405|-0.337|0.8577
91671394|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.8158||95.0|-0.415|0.327|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.327|-0.415|0.8158
91671395|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.4243||95.0|-0.229|0.541|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.541|-0.229|0.4243
91671396|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.2742||95.0|-0.164|0.574|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.574|-0.164|0.2742
91671397|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.5569||95.0|-0.302|0.165|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.165|-0.302|0.5569
91671398|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.3762||95.0|-0.13|0.336|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.336|-0.130|0.3762
91671399|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.6203||95.0|-0.229|0.383|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.383|-0.229|0.6203
91671400|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.3343||95.0|-0.155|0.455|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.455|-0.155|0.3343
91671401|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.2213||95.0|-0.096|0.41|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.410|-0.096|0.2213
91671402|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.2863||95.0|-0.118|0.399|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.399|-0.118|0.2863
91671403|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.305||95.0|-0.077|0.245|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.245|-0.077|0.3050
91861048|NCT03158714|183608727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.343||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.003
91671404|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.0155||95.0|0.039|0.368|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.368|0.039|0.0155
91861049|NCT03158714|183608727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.172||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.152
91671405|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.9243||95.0|-0.164|0.181|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.181|-0.164|0.9243
91671406|NCT00442546|183238153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0201||95.0|0.033|0.386|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.386|0.033|0.0201
91671407|NCT00442546|183238154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.1537||95.0|-1.093|0.173|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.173|-1.093|0.1537
91671408|NCT00442546|183238154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.2208||95.0|-1.038|0.241|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.241|-1.038|0.2208
91671409|NCT00442546|183238154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.8355||95.0|-0.707|0.572|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.572|-0.707|0.8355
91671410|NCT00442546|183238154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.5024||95.0|-0.875|0.43|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.430|-0.875|0.5024
91671411|NCT00442546|183238154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.8116||95.0|-0.489|0.624|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.624|-0.489|0.8116
91671412|NCT00442546|183238154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.7325||95.0|-0.667|0.469|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.469|-0.667|0.7325
91671413|NCT00442546|183238154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.8133||95.0|-0.614|0.482|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.482|-0.614|0.8133
91671414|NCT00442546|183238154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.9307||95.0|-0.588|0.538|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.538|-0.588|0.9307
91671415|NCT00442546|183238154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.2682||95.0|-1.364|0.385|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.385|-1.364|0.2682
91671416|NCT00442546|183238154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.4784||95.0|-1.116|0.528|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.528|-1.116|0.4784
91671417|NCT00442546|183238154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.0255||95.0|0.084|1.239|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.239|0.084|0.0255
91671418|NCT00442546|183238154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.1591||95.0|-0.18|1.076|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.076|-0.180|0.1591
91671419|NCT00442546|183238155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.0359||95.0|-1.52|-0.052|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.052|-1.520|0.0359
91671420|NCT00442546|183238155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.0161||95.0|-1.644|-0.17|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.170|-1.644|0.0161
91671421|NCT00442546|183238155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.7416||95.0|-0.733|0.523|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.523|-0.733|0.7416
91671422|NCT00442546|183238155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.3527||95.0|-0.939|0.336|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.336|-0.939|0.3527
91671423|NCT00442546|183238155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5419||95.0|-0.776|0.409|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.409|-0.776|0.5419
91671424|NCT00442546|183238155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.9333||95.0|-0.628|0.577|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.577|-0.628|0.9333
91671425|NCT00442546|183238155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.142||95.0|-0.827|0.12|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.120|-0.827|0.1420
91671426|NCT00442546|183238155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.829||95.0|-0.535|0.429|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.429|-0.535|0.8290
91671427|NCT00442546|183238155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.0138||95.0|-1.989|-0.233|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||-0.233|-1.989|0.0138
91671428|NCT00442546|183238155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.23||95.0|-1.332|0.325|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.325|-1.332|0.2300
91792806|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.71||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|63.7|||t-test, 2 sided|From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||63.7|11.7|0.005
91792807|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|70.35||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|118.5||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||118.5|22.2|0.006
91902721|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.4|= 0.7556
91902722|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.7484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.4|= 0.7484
91902723|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.5|-0.5|
91671429|NCT00442546|183238155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.5151||95.0|-0.36|0.711|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||0.711|-0.360|0.5151
91671430|NCT00442546|183238155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.146||95.0|-0.155|1.022|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.022|-0.155|0.1460
91671431|NCT00442546|183238156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.463||0.5786||95.0|-1.17|0.655|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.655|-1.170|0.5786
91671432|NCT00442546|183238156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.957||95.0|-0.895|0.946|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.946|-0.895|0.9570
91671433|NCT00442546|183238156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.986||95.0|-0.862|0.847|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.847|-0.862|0.9860
91671434|NCT00442546|183238156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442||0.7336||95.0|-1.021|0.72|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.720|-1.021|0.7336
91671435|NCT00442546|183238156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.2939||95.0|-0.336|1.104|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||1.104|-0.336|0.2939
91671436|NCT00442546|183238156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.4615||95.0|-0.459|1.008|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||1.008|-0.459|0.4615
91671437|NCT00442546|183238156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.6433||95.0|-0.845|0.523|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.523|-0.845|0.6433
91671438|NCT00442546|183238156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.9466||95.0|-0.678|0.726|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.726|-0.678|0.9466
91715355|NCT01854697|183321844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|6.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||6.65|-2.39|0.351
91715356|NCT01854697|183321844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean of Difference|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|9.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||9.47|2.19|0.002
91715357|NCT01854697|183321844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean of Difference|5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|8.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||8.54|2.01|0.002
91715358|NCT01854697|183321845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|9.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||9.44|2.72|<0.001
91715359|NCT01854697|183321845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|8.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||8.85|3.55|<0.001
91715360|NCT01854697|183321845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|9.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||9.37|4.36|<0.001
91715361|NCT01854697|183321846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.2||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|38.0|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, and interleukin 28B (IL28B) genotype (CC versus non-CC) as predictors.||||38.0|1.4|0.021
91792808|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|66.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||66.8|21.0|<0.001
91792809|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.11||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|78.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||78.4|-2.2|0.063
91792810|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.05||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|49.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||49.9|8.2|0.008
91861050|NCT01160211|183608731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88||Pike estimate of the treatment hazard ratio, \<1 indicates a lower risk compared with trastuzumab + AI.|Log Rank|using a two-sided stratified log-rank test (based on stratification factors)||Null hypothesis H0: λ ≥ 1 or to reject it in favor of the alternative hypothesis HA: λ \<1, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR) between Treatment Group A and Treatment Group B for progression-free survival.||0.88|0.45|0.0063
91861051|NCT01160211|183608733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.79||||||||0.79|0.44|
91861052|NCT01160211|183608733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15||||||||1.15|0.66|
91861053|NCT01160211|183608733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.92||||||||0.92|0.51|
91861054|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|2.36||||||FACT-B total score||2.36|-5.95|
91861055|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|0.29||||||FACT-B total score||0.29|-8.09|
91861056|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.739|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|1.92||||||FACT-G total score||1.92|-4.92|
91861057|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.751|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|0.34||||||FACT-G total score||0.34|-6.55|
91861058|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.25||||||FACT-B trial outcome index (TOI)||0.25|-5.66|
91861059|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.512|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-0.64||||||FACT-B trial outcome index (TOI)||-0.64|-6.59|
91861060|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.11||||||Physical well-being (PWB)||-0.11|-2.82|
91861061|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.18||||||Physical well-being (PWB)||-0.18|-2.90|
91861062|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.79||||||Social family wellbeing (SWB)||1.79|-1.01|
91861063|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.86||||||Social family wellbeing (SWB)||0.86|-1.96|
91861064|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.568|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.66||||||Emotional wellbeing (EWB)||1.66|-0.57|
91861065|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.53||||||Emotional wellbeing (EWB)||1.53|-0.72|
91861066|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.646|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.28||||||Functional wellbeing (FWB)||0.28|-2.26|
91861067|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.04||||||Functional wellbeing (FWB)||-0.04|-2.60|
91861068|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.95||||||Breast cancer subscale (BCS)||0.95|-1.66|
91861069|NCT01160211|183608739|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.48||||||Breast cancer subscale (BCS)||0.48|-2.14|
91861070|NCT05894577|183608794|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\>1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.12|0.92|
91861071|NCT05894577|183608795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.07|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||7.07|0.14|
91864564|NCT01651403|183618110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
91902724|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.6|< 0.0001
91902725|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-1.9|< 0.0001
91715362|NCT01854697|183321846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1b HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|33.6|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||33.6|7.9|
91715363|NCT01854697|183321846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|241.1|||Regression, Logistic|Calculated using logistic regression model with treatment arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, and IL28B genotype (CC versus non-CC) as predictors.||||241.1|3.3|0.002
91715364|NCT01854697|183321846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel after adjusting for IL28B genotype (CC or non-CC).||||||0.005
91715365|NCT01854697|183321849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1a HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|27.0|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1a. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||27.0|-0.4|
91715366|NCT01854697|183321849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1b HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|32.7|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||32.7|6.5|
91715367|NCT01854697|183321849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1b HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|32.6|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||32.6|6.4|
91715368|NCT01421498|183321890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.24||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|0.10|0.0007
91715369|NCT01421498|183321891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.11|-0.15|0.7860
91792811|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|74.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||74.2|11.9|0.009
91902726|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.7|
91715370|NCT03933449|183321918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||0.82|0.36|0.0015
91715371|NCT03933449|183321919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.69||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||0.69|0.17|0.0008
91715372|NCT03933449|183321920|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.83||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||0.83|0.37|0.0021
91715373|NCT03933449|183321921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|12.9||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|24.5||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||24.5|2.7|0.0084
91715374|NCT03933449|183321922|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|17.1||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|38.0||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||38.0|-2.3|0.0403
91715375|NCT03933449|183321923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|13.3||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|25.2||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||25.2|2.8|0.0083
91715376|NCT03933449|183321924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||1.23|0.58|0.177
91715377|NCT03933449|183321925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.46||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||1.46|0.44|0.238
91715378|NCT03933449|183321926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||1.23|0.57|0.171
91715379|NCT00501631|183321929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||95.0|||||Van der Waerden test|||The null hypothesis that there is no difference between two treatment groups (i.e. Placebo and Vivitrol) was tested using a two-sided Van der Waerden test. Response profiles were tabulated as a cumulative percent of subjects at each decile of percent heavy drinking days.||||0.336
91715380|NCT02858401|183321939|OTHER|||||||0.1498|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1498
91715381|NCT02858401|183321939|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0640
91715382|NCT02858401|183321939|OTHER|||||||0.2807|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2807
91715383|NCT02858401|183321939|OTHER|||||||0.1228|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1228
91715384|NCT02858401|183321939|OTHER|||||||0.0289|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0289
91715385|NCT02858401|183321939|OTHER|||||||0.5895|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5895
91715386|NCT02858401|183321940|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715387|NCT02858401|183321940|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91861072|NCT05894577|183608798|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\<1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.84|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.84|0.45|
91671439|NCT00442546|183238156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.4967||95.0|-1.66|0.812|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.812|-1.660|0.4967
91671440|NCT00442546|183238156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.8659||95.0|-1.06|1.257|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||1.257|-1.060|0.8659
91671441|NCT00442546|183238156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.0311||95.0|0.093|1.895|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.895|0.093|0.0311
91671442|NCT00442546|183238156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.0441||95.0|0.027|1.962|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.962|0.027|0.0441
91671443|NCT00442546|183238157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.0284||95.0|-1.835|-0.104|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.104|-1.835|0.0284
91715388|NCT02858401|183321940|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715389|NCT02858401|183321941|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
91715390|NCT02858401|183321941|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
91792812|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|75.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||75.2|13.2|0.006
91864565|NCT01651403|183618112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
91864566|NCT01651403|183618114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
91671444|NCT00442546|183238157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.5516||95.0|-1.141|0.611|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.611|-1.141|0.5516
91671445|NCT00442546|183238157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.479||95.0|-1.02|0.48|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.480|-1.020|0.4790
91671446|NCT00442546|183238157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.9947||95.0|-0.765|0.77|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.770|-0.765|0.9947
91671447|NCT00442546|183238157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.8943||95.0|-0.605|0.692|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.692|-0.605|0.8943
91671448|NCT00442546|183238157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336||0.9767||95.0|-0.674|0.654|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.654|-0.674|0.9767
91715391|NCT02858401|183321941|OTHER|||||||0.8288|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8288
91715392|NCT02858401|183321941|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
91715393|NCT02858401|183321941|OTHER|||||||0.6056|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6056
91715394|NCT02858401|183321941|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
91715395|NCT02858401|183321942|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715396|NCT02858401|183321942|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715397|NCT02858401|183321942|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715398|NCT02858401|183321943|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715399|NCT02858401|183321943|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715400|NCT02858401|183321943|OTHER|||||||0.1556|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1556
91715401|NCT02858401|183321943|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715402|NCT02858401|183321943|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715403|NCT02858401|183321943|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715404|NCT02858401|183321944|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715405|NCT02858401|183321944|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715406|NCT02858401|183321944|OTHER|||||||0.3613|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3613
91715407|NCT02858401|183321945|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715408|NCT02858401|183321945|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715409|NCT02858401|183321945|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
91792813|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|132.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||132.3|30.4|0.003
91864567|NCT01651403|183618116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
91864568|NCT01651403|183618118|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||>0.999
91864569|NCT01651403|183618126|OTHER|Comparison of the difference in percentages|Exact Chan-Zhang method|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.1||||||||25.1|-6.9|
91864570|NCT01651403|183618127|OTHER|Comparison of the difference in percentages|Exact Chan-Zhang method|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.1||||||||25.1|-6.9|
91864571|NCT01651403|183618128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|two-sided superiority test||||||0.007
91864572|NCT01651403|183618130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
91864573|NCT04070573|183618177|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.035||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Risk difference direction = 81mg arm minus 162mg arm.|||||0.28
91671449|NCT00442546|183238157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.8117||95.0|-0.59|0.752|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.752|-0.590|0.8117
91671450|NCT00442546|183238157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.7216||95.0|-0.818|0.567|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.567|-0.818|0.7216
91671451|NCT00442546|183238157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.8558||95.0|-1.286|1.07|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||1.070|-1.286|0.8558
91671452|NCT00442546|183238157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.422|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.4501||95.0|-1.53|0.685|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.685|-1.530|0.4501
91671453|NCT00442546|183238157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.4682||95.0|-0.57|1.227|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.227|-0.570|0.4682
91671454|NCT00442546|183238157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.5347||95.0|-0.675|1.289|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.289|-0.675|0.5347
91671455|NCT00442546|183238158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.0613||95.0|-1.568|0.037|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.037|-1.568|0.0613
91671456|NCT00442546|183238158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.023||95.0|-1.741|-0.13|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.130|-1.741|0.0230
91671457|NCT00442546|183238158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8306||95.0|-0.703|0.875|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.875|-0.703|0.8306
91671458|NCT00442546|183238158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.2814||95.0|-1.242|0.363|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.363|-1.242|0.2814
91671459|NCT00442546|183238158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.8637||95.0|-0.636|0.757|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.757|-0.636|0.8637
91671460|NCT00442546|183238158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.9585||95.0|-0.727|0.689|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.689|-0.727|0.9585
91671461|NCT00442546|183238158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.3975||95.0|-0.906|0.361|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.361|-0.906|0.3975
91671462|NCT00442546|183238158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.6386||95.0|-0.799|0.491|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.491|-0.799|0.6386
91671463|NCT00442546|183238158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.0813||95.0|-1.493|0.089|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.089|-1.493|0.0813
91671464|NCT00442546|183238158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.31||95.0|-1.114|0.358|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.358|-1.114|0.3100
91671465|NCT00442546|183238158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.0231||95.0|0.118|1.545|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.545|0.118|0.0231
91671466|NCT00442546|183238158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388||0.2367||95.0|-0.311|1.237|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.237|-0.311|0.2367
91671467|NCT00442546|183238159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.8868||95.0|-0.947|0.82|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.820|-0.947|0.8868
91671468|NCT00442546|183238159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5733||95.0|-1.142|0.634|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.634|-1.142|0.5733
91671469|NCT00442546|183238159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.7385||95.0|-0.884|0.628|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.628|-0.884|0.7385
91671470|NCT00442546|183238159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.8353||95.0|-0.849|0.687|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.687|-0.849|0.8353
91671471|NCT00442546|183238159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.5737||95.0|-0.51|0.918|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.918|-0.510|0.5737
91671472|NCT00442546|183238159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.364||95.0|-1.06|0.391|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.391|-1.060|0.3640
91671473|NCT00442546|183238159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.4315||95.0|-0.393|0.917|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.917|-0.393|0.4315
91671474|NCT00442546|183238159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.6727||95.0|-0.525|0.812|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.812|-0.525|0.6727
91671475|NCT00442546|183238159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.3361||95.0|-1.496|0.517|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.517|-1.496|0.3361
91671476|NCT00442546|183238159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.9634||95.0|-0.955|0.912|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.912|-0.955|0.9634
91671477|NCT00442546|183238159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.2098||95.0|-0.257|1.15|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.150|-0.257|0.2098
91671478|NCT00442546|183238159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.49||95.0|-0.497|1.027|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.027|-0.497|0.4900
91671479|NCT00442546|183238160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546||0.9912||95.0|-1.07|1.082|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||1.082|-1.070|0.9912
91671480|NCT00442546|183238160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.8076||95.0|-1.227|0.957|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.957|-1.227|0.8076
91671481|NCT00442546|183238160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6978||95.0|-0.727|1.085|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||1.085|-0.727|0.6978
91671482|NCT00442546|183238160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.5344||95.0|-1.219|0.634|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.634|-1.219|0.5344
91671483|NCT00442546|183238160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.8721||95.0|-0.819|0.695|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.695|-0.819|0.8721
91671484|NCT00442546|183238160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.3179||95.0|-1.173|0.383|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.383|-1.173|0.3179
91671485|NCT00442546|183238160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.8037||95.0|-0.648|0.835|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.835|-0.648|0.8037
91671486|NCT00442546|183238160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7731||95.0|-0.656|0.881|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.881|-0.656|0.7731
91671487|NCT00442546|183238160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.4461||95.0|-1.684|0.748|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.748|-1.684|0.4461
91671488|NCT00442546|183238160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.3568||95.0|-1.679|0.612|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.612|-1.679|0.3568
91671489|NCT00442546|183238160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0623||95.0|-0.032|1.227|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.227|-0.032|0.0623
91671490|NCT00442546|183238160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.3529||95.0|-0.364|1.005|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.005|-0.364|0.3529
91671491|NCT00442546|183238161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.611|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.1448||95.0|-1.434|0.212|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.212|-1.434|0.1448
91671492|NCT00442546|183238161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1148||95.0|-1.494|0.163|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.163|-1.494|0.1148
91671493|NCT00442546|183238161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.3285||95.0|-1.35|0.454|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.454|-1.350|0.3285
91671494|NCT00442546|183238161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466||0.2205||95.0|-1.49|0.346|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.346|-1.490|0.2205
91671495|NCT00442546|183238161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.6266||95.0|-0.958|0.578|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.578|-0.958|0.6266
91671496|NCT00442546|183238161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.2077||95.0|-1.284|0.281|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.281|-1.284|0.2077
91671497|NCT00442546|183238161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.5626||95.0|-0.982|0.536|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.536|-0.982|0.5626
91671498|NCT00442546|183238161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.3507||95.0|-1.145|0.408|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.408|-1.145|0.3507
91864574|NCT04070573|183618178|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.035||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Risk difference direction = 81mg arm minus 162mg arm.|||||0.31
91671499|NCT00442546|183238161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.7276||95.0|-1.498|1.05|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||1.050|-1.498|0.7276
91671500|NCT00442546|183238161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.598||0.353||95.0|-1.748|0.631|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.631|-1.748|0.3530
91715410|NCT02858401|183321945|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715411|NCT02858401|183321945|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91902727|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.2|= 0.0242
91902728|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.4|= 0.0012
91902729|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.6|
91671501|NCT00442546|183238161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.529||0.0283||95.0|0.13|2.242|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||2.242|0.130|0.0283
91671502|NCT00442546|183238161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.573||0.6934||95.0|-0.918|1.372|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.372|-0.918|0.6934
91902730|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.3|= 0.1240
91671503|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.553|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0476||95.0|-3.089|-0.017|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||-0.017|-3.089|0.0476
91671504|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.0237||95.0|-3.293|-0.243|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||-0.243|-3.293|0.0237
91671505|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.4925||95.0|-0.516|1.069|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||1.069|-0.516|0.4925
91671506|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.8299||95.0|-0.727|0.905|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.905|-0.727|0.8299
91671507|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9185||95.0|-0.766|0.691|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.691|-0.766|0.9185
91902731|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||=|0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.6|= 0.0107
91671508|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.3619||95.0|-1.07|0.392|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.392|-1.070|0.3619
91671509|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.4309||95.0|-0.538|1.254|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||1.254|-0.538|0.4309
91671510|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.459||0.9778||95.0|-0.895|0.921|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.921|-0.895|0.9778
91671511|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||0.8503||95.0|-1.411|1.706|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||1.706|-1.411|0.8503
91671512|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757||0.0183||95.0|-3.364|-0.326|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||-0.326|-3.364|0.0183
91671513|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.286||95.0|-3.598|1.316|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||1.316|-3.598|0.2860
91671514|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856||0.204||95.0|-7.479|2.06|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||2.060|-7.479|0.2040
91671515|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.6332||95.0|-0.722|0.44|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.440|-0.722|0.6332
91671516|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.5183||95.0|-0.402|0.794|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.794|-0.402|0.5183
91671517|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.6341||95.0|-0.75|0.458|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.458|-0.750|0.6341
91671518|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.4607||95.0|-0.868|0.395|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.395|-0.868|0.4607
91671519|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.7499||95.0|-0.541|0.75|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.750|-0.541|0.7499
91671520|NCT00442546|183238162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.8231||95.0|-0.584|0.733|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.733|-0.584|0.8231
91715412|NCT02858401|183321945|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91671521|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.709||0.1486||95.0|-2.452|0.379|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||0.379|-2.452|0.1486
91671522|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.903|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706||0.0089||95.0|-3.311|-0.494|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||-0.494|-3.311|0.0089
91671523|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.8995||95.0|-0.635|0.722|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.722|-0.635|0.8995
91671524|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.3918||95.0|-1.0|0.394|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.394|-1.000|0.3918
91671525|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9942||95.0|-0.648|0.652|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.652|-0.648|0.9942
91792814|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|58.49||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|97.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||97.2|19.8|0.004
91861073|NCT05894577|183608799|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(OR\<1))|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.29|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||2.29|0.50|
91861074|NCT05894577|183608800|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(OR\<1))|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.49|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.49|0.16|
91861075|NCT05894577|183608801|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(OR\<1))|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.96|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||2.96|0.33|
91671526|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.5352||95.0|-0.859|0.448|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.448|-0.859|0.5352
91671527|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.8055||95.0|-0.662|0.85|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.850|-0.662|0.8055
91671528|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.256||95.0|-1.22|0.327|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.327|-1.220|0.2560
91671529|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.641||0.8744||95.0|-1.184|1.387|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||1.387|-1.184|0.8744
91671530|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.614|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.0115||95.0|-2.851|-0.378|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||-0.378|-2.851|0.0115
91671531|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155||0.9497||95.0|-3.047|2.893|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||2.893|-3.047|0.9497
91671532|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.992||0.5288||95.0|-6.467|3.773|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||3.773|-6.467|0.5288
91861076|NCT05894577|183608802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.31|0.71|
91861077|NCT05894577|183608802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.51|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.51|0.75|
91864575|NCT04070573|183618179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.019||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Risk difference direction = 81mg arm minus 162mg arm.|||||0.61
91864576|NCT04070573|183618182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
91671533|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.2595||95.0|-0.813|0.22|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.220|-0.813|0.2595
91671534|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9605||95.0|-0.546|0.519|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.519|-0.546|0.9605
91671535|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.4107||95.0|-0.702|0.288|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.288|-0.702|0.4107
91671536|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.2271||95.0|-0.836|0.2|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.200|-0.836|0.2271
91715413|NCT02858401|183321946|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715414|NCT02858401|183321946|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91792815|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|50.9||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|99.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||99.1|2.7|0.039
91671537|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.9552||95.0|-0.535|0.506|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.506|-0.535|0.9552
91671538|NCT00442546|183238163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.9899||95.0|-0.533|0.526|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.526|-0.533|0.9899
91671539|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471||0.2211||95.0|-0.35|1.506|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||1.506|-0.350|0.2211
91671540|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.477||0.0916||95.0|-1.75|0.132|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||0.132|-1.750|0.0916
91671541|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.9312||95.0|-0.863|0.791|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|8 hours||0.791|-0.863|0.9312
91671542|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.1658||95.0|-1.428|0.247|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|8 hours||0.247|-1.428|0.1658
91671543|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483||0.9921||95.0|-0.958|0.948|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||0.948|-0.958|0.9921
91671544|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.715|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.1367||95.0|-1.66|0.229|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||0.229|-1.660|0.1367
91715415|NCT02858401|183321946|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715416|NCT02858401|183321947|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91671545|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.3561||95.0|-1.053|0.38|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.380|-1.053|0.3561
91671546|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.426||95.0|-1.012|0.429|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.429|-1.012|0.4260
91671547|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.7975||95.0|-0.703|0.914|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|32 hours||0.914|-0.703|0.7975
91671548|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.6947||95.0|-0.65|0.974|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|32 hours||0.974|-0.650|0.6947
91671549|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.6954||95.0|-1.101|0.736|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|40 hours||0.736|-1.101|0.6954
91671550|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.8665||95.0|-1.032|0.87|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|40 hours||0.870|-1.032|0.8665
91671551|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.4216||95.0|-0.45|1.072|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||1.072|-0.450|0.4216
91671552|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.4673||95.0|-0.487|1.056|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||1.056|-0.487|0.4673
91671553|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5624||95.0|-0.614|1.125|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|56 hours||1.125|-0.614|0.5624
91671554|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.3705||95.0|-1.286|0.482|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|56 hours||0.482|-1.286|0.3705
91671555|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.4539||95.0|-1.302|0.586|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|64 hours||0.586|-1.302|0.4539
91671556|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.0373||95.0|-2.107|-0.065|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|64 hours||-0.065|-2.107|0.0373
91671557|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.76||95.0|-0.796|1.087|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||1.087|-0.796|0.7600
91671558|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.2506||95.0|-1.507|0.397|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.397|-1.507|0.2506
91671559|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895||0.2567||95.0|-0.77|2.823|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|80 hours||2.823|-0.770|0.2567
91671560|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.882|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76||0.0167||95.0|-3.408|-0.356|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|80 hours||-0.356|-3.408|0.0167
91715417|NCT02858401|183321947|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715418|NCT02858401|183321947|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715419|NCT02858401|183321948|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715420|NCT02858401|183321948|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715421|NCT02858401|183321948|OTHER|||||||0.1556|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1556
91715422|NCT02858401|183321948|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715423|NCT02858401|183321948|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715424|NCT02858401|183321948|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715425|NCT02858401|183321949|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715426|NCT02858401|183321949|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715427|NCT02858401|183321949|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91902732|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.8|
91671561|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.6953||95.0|-1.456|2.159|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|88 hours||2.159|-1.456|0.6953
91671562|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.894||0.208||95.0|-2.962|0.668|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|88 hours||0.668|-2.962|0.2080
91671563|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.975||0.3805||95.0|-1.116|2.849|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||2.849|-1.116|0.3805
91671564|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.905||0.89||95.0|-1.965|1.713|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||1.713|-1.965|0.8900
91671565|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.1821||95.0|-1.103|4.448|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|104 hours||4.448|-1.103|0.1821
91671566|NCT00442546|183238164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.768||0.6505||95.0|-3.693|5.395|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|104 hours||5.395|-3.693|0.6505
91671567|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.0388||95.0|-2.004|-0.053|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||-0.053|-2.004|0.0388
91671568|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.0004||95.0|-2.798|-0.822|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||-0.822|-2.798|0.0004
91671569|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.6274||95.0|-0.995|0.601|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.601|-0.995|0.6274
91671570|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.135||95.0|-1.432|0.194|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.194|-1.432|0.1350
91671571|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.1106||95.0|-1.605|0.166|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.166|-1.605|0.1106
91671572|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.457||0.0248||95.0|-1.939|-0.133|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||-0.133|-1.939|0.0248
91671573|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.2335||95.0|-0.582|2.33|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||2.330|-0.582|0.2335
91671574|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.682||0.0258||95.0|-2.939|-0.198|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||-0.198|-2.939|0.0258
91671575|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.973||0.3878||95.0|-3.207|6.939|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||6.939|-3.207|0.3878
91671576|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.1762||95.0|-3.74|15.559|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||15.559|-3.740|0.1762
91671577|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.379||0.1754||95.0|-1.261|0.231|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.231|-1.261|0.1754
91671578|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.1413||95.0|-1.329|0.191|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.191|-1.329|0.1413
91671579|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.1731||95.0|-1.023|0.185|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.185|-1.023|0.1731
91671580|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.6829||95.0|-0.747|0.49|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.490|-0.747|0.6829
91671581|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2436||95.0|-0.943|0.241|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.241|-0.943|0.2436
91671582|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.119||95.0|-1.108|0.127|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.127|-1.108|0.1190
91671583|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.4117||95.0|-0.897|0.369|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.369|-0.897|0.4117
91671584|NCT00442546|183238165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.6294||95.0|-0.794|0.482|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.482|-0.794|0.6294
91715428|NCT02858401|183321950|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
91715429|NCT02858401|183321950|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715430|NCT02858401|183321950|OTHER|||||||0.4278|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4278
91715431|NCT02858401|183321950|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715432|NCT02858401|183321950|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715433|NCT02858401|183321950|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91671585|NCT00442546|183238166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.315||0.7958||95.0|-7.391|5.673|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Day 1||5.673|-7.391|0.7958
91671586|NCT00442546|183238166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.322||0.9733||95.0|-6.436|6.659|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Day 1||6.659|-6.436|0.9733
91671587|NCT00442546|183238166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.946||0.822||95.0|-6.898|8.675|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|1 hour||8.675|-6.898|0.8220
91671588|NCT00442546|183238166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.917||0.4736||95.0|-10.542|4.917|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|1 hour||4.917|-10.542|0.4736
91715434|NCT02858401|183321951|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91715435|NCT02858401|183321951|OTHER|||||||0.5716|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5716
91715436|NCT02858401|183321951|OTHER|||||||0.1869|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1869
91715437|NCT02858401|183321951|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91715438|NCT02858401|183321951|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91792816|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|85.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||85.8|21.7|0.002
91861078|NCT05894577|183608802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.88|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.88|0.84|
91671589|NCT00442546|183238166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.045||0.5113||95.0|-10.639|5.316|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|2 hours||5.316|-10.639|0.5113
91671590|NCT00442546|183238166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.9266||95.0|-7.425|8.154|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|2 hours||8.154|-7.425|0.9266
91671591|NCT00442546|183238166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.347||0.9699||95.0|-8.423|8.751|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|3 hours||8.751|-8.423|0.9699
91671592|NCT00442546|183238166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.232||0.9482||95.0|-8.085|8.635|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|3 hours||8.635|-8.085|0.9482
91671593|NCT00442546|183238166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.391||0.7969||95.0|-16.842|13.012|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||13.012|-16.842|0.7969
91671594|NCT00442546|183238166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.1991||95.0|-25.533|5.487|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||5.487|-25.533|0.1991
91671595|NCT00442546|183238166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.737||0.0321||95.0|13.976|158.693|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|5 hours||158.693|13.976|0.0321
91715439|NCT02858401|183321952|OTHER|||||||0.3613|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3613
91715440|NCT02858401|183321952|OTHER|||||||0.4237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4237
91715441|NCT02858401|183321952|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2230
91715442|NCT02858401|183321953|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
91715443|NCT02858401|183321953|OTHER|||||||0.3971|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3971
91715444|NCT02858401|183321953|OTHER|||||||0.1301|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1301
91715445|NCT02858401|183321953|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
91715446|NCT02858401|183321953|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
91715447|NCT02858401|183321953|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
91715448|NCT02858401|183321954|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715449|NCT02858401|183321954|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
91715450|NCT02858401|183321954|OTHER|||||||0.5993|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5993
91715451|NCT02858401|183321955|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715452|NCT02858401|183321955|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715453|NCT02858401|183321955|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
91715454|NCT02858401|183321955|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715455|NCT02858401|183321955|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715456|NCT02858401|183321955|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715457|NCT02858401|183321956|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715458|NCT02858401|183321956|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715459|NCT02858401|183321956|OTHER|||||||0.2763|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2763
91715460|NCT02858401|183321956|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715461|NCT02858401|183321956|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715462|NCT02858401|183321957|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715463|NCT02858401|183321957|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715464|NCT02858401|183321957|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715465|NCT02858401|183321958|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715466|NCT02858401|183321958|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715467|NCT02858401|183321958|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
91715468|NCT02858401|183321958|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715469|NCT02858401|183321958|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715470|NCT02858401|183321958|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91792817|NCT02751931|183463234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.13||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|99.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||99.8|-1.6|0.057
91671596|NCT00442546|183238166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.295||0.0353||95.0|5.837|84.091|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|5 hours||84.091|5.837|0.0353
91671597|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.055||0.5736||95.0|-30.792|17.169|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||17.169|-30.792|0.5736
91671598|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.786||0.8003||95.0|-26.438|20.455|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||20.455|-26.438|0.8003
91671599|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.815|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.371||0.5125||95.0|-27.369|13.74|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||13.740|-27.369|0.5125
91671600|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.227||0.4773||95.0|-27.563|12.976|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||12.976|-27.563|0.4773
91671601|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.101||0.2142||95.0|-36.055|8.226|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||8.226|-36.055|0.2142
91671602|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.245||0.2989||95.0|-34.197|10.659|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||10.659|-34.197|0.2989
91671603|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.612||0.3829||95.0|-53.429|134.449|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||134.449|-53.429|0.3829
91671604|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.322||0.5531||95.0|-120.59|66.092|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||66.092|-120.59|0.5531
91671605|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.491||0.2738||95.0|-89.376|126.402|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||126.402|-89.376|0.2738
91671606|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.519||0.7987||95.0|-4.343|5.63|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||5.630|-4.343|0.7987
91671607|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.441||0.8875||95.0|-5.177|4.485|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||4.485|-5.177|0.8875
91671608|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.949||0.4319||95.0|-2.324|5.398|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||5.398|-2.324|0.4319
91671609|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.935||0.407||95.0|-2.223|5.443|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||5.443|-2.223|0.4070
91671610|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.641||0.4968||95.0|-4.371|2.133|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.133|-4.371|0.4968
91671611|NCT00442546|183238167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.665||0.427||95.0|-1.972|4.626|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||4.626|-1.972|0.4270
91671612|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.862|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.999||0.7742||95.0|-6.775|5.052|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||5.052|-6.775|0.7742
91671613|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.025||0.0996||95.0|-0.96|10.971|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||10.971|-0.960|0.0996
91671614|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.7738||95.0|-4.698|6.304|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||6.304|-4.698|0.7738
91671615|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.778||0.1328||95.0|-1.284|9.669|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||9.669|-1.284|0.1328
91671616|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.012||0.7585||95.0|-5.027|6.882|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||6.882|-5.027|0.7585
91671617|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.997||0.19||95.0|-1.979|9.871|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||9.871|-1.979|0.1900
91671618|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.693||0.2365||95.0|-3.004|11.865|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||11.865|-3.004|0.2365
91671619|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.1616||95.0|-2.202|12.814|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||12.814|-2.202|0.1616
91671620|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.911||0.8819||95.0|-17.98|15.838|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||15.838|-17.98|0.8819
91671621|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.4676||95.0|-37.7|19.558|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||19.558|-37.70|0.4676
91671622|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.925|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.195||0.3813||95.0|-2.403|6.254|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||6.254|-2.403|0.3813
91671623|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.236||0.2966||95.0|-2.07|6.751|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||6.751|-2.070|0.2966
91715471|NCT02858401|183321959|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91902733|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||=|0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.1|= 0.3139
91902734|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.3|= 0.0853
91902735|NCT03627767|183700091|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.7|
91902736|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.4|||=|0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.8|0.0|= 0.0674
91671624|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.4474||95.0|-3.122|7.046|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||7.046|-3.122|0.4474
91902737|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|||=|0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.1|= 0.1437
91902738|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.5|
91671625|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.0416||95.0|0.204|10.427|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||10.427|0.204|0.0416
91671626|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.566||0.5935||95.0|-3.694|6.438|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||6.438|-3.694|0.5935
91671627|NCT00442546|183238168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.674||0.3966||95.0|-3.006|7.551|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||7.551|-3.006|0.3966
91792818|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.98||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|40.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||40.0|-24.0|0.617
91902739|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-1.8|< 0.0001
91902740|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-1.8|< 0.0001
91671628|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.631||0.5117||95.0|-3.457|6.916|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||6.916|-3.457|0.5117
91671629|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.675||0.0154||95.0|1.258|11.805|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||11.805|1.258|0.0154
91671630|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.353||0.7022||95.0|-3.738|5.54|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||5.540|-3.738|0.7022
91671631|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.343||0.0557||95.0|-0.11|9.129|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||9.129|-0.110|0.0557
91671632|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.552||0.2161||95.0|-1.874|8.215|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||8.215|-1.874|0.2161
91671633|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.0058||95.0|2.098|12.172|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||12.172|2.098|0.0058
91671634|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.993||0.1283||95.0|-1.853|14.223|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||14.223|-1.853|0.1283
91671635|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.033||0.008||95.0|3.056|19.291|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||19.291|3.056|0.0080
91671636|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.0018||95.0|7.414|18.468|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||18.468|7.414|0.0018
91792819|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|39.52||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|76.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||76.0|3.0|0.035
91715472|NCT02858401|183321959|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91902741|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.4|-0.4|
91902742|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||=|0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.0|= 0.1136
91902743|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.1|= 0.0276
91902744|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.5|
91902745|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||=|0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.5|= 0.0108
91902746|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.0|-1.3|= 0.0677
91671637|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.533||0.0038||95.0|8.859|27.023|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||27.023|8.859|0.0038
91671638|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.115||0.5953||95.0|-3.045|5.296|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||5.296|-3.045|0.5953
91671639|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.172||0.1267||95.0|-0.952|7.613|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||7.613|-0.952|0.1267
91671640|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.339||0.2647||95.0|-1.997|7.231|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||7.231|-1.997|0.2647
91671641|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.421||0.0181||95.0|0.995|10.548|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||10.548|0.995|0.0181
91671642|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299||0.5507||95.0|-3.161|5.91|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||5.910|-3.161|0.5507
91671643|NCT00442546|183238169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.393||0.3164||95.0|-2.317|7.124|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||7.124|-2.317|0.3164
91671644|NCT00442546|183238170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4365||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.4365
91671645|NCT00442546|183238170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4023||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.4023
91671646|NCT00442546|183238171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4024||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.4024
91671647|NCT00442546|183238171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.191||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.1910
91671648|NCT00442546|183238172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.497||0.3483||95.0|-2.573|7.268|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||7.268|-2.573|0.3483
91671649|NCT00442546|183238172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.498||0.2078||95.0|-1.766|8.077|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.077|-1.766|0.2078
91671650|NCT00442546|183238172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.436||0.4299||95.0|-7.836|18.088|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||18.088|-7.836|0.4299
91671651|NCT00442546|183238172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.726||0.4482||95.0|-8.4|18.693|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||18.693|-8.400|0.4482
91671652|NCT00442546|183238172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.426||0.6472||95.0|-6.818|10.89|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||10.890|-6.818|0.6472
91671653|NCT00442546|183238172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.642||0.4992||95.0|-6.129|12.442|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||12.442|-6.129|0.4992
91671654|NCT00442546|183238172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.149||0.6072||95.0|-7.578|12.891|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||12.891|-7.578|0.6072
91671655|NCT00442546|183238172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.906||0.3146||95.0|-4.789|14.714|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||14.714|-4.789|0.3146
91671656|NCT00442546|183238173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.326||0.0739||95.0|-0.407|8.76|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.760|-0.407|0.0739
91671657|NCT00442546|183238173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.327||0.074||95.0|-0.409|8.761|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.761|-0.409|0.0740
91671658|NCT00442546|183238173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.418||0.2615||95.0|-5.628|20.224|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||20.224|-5.628|0.2615
91671659|NCT00442546|183238173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.707||0.6266||95.0|-10.22|16.795|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||16.795|-10.22|0.6266
91671660|NCT00442546|183238173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958||0.2963||95.0|-3.747|12.086|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||12.086|-3.747|0.2963
91671661|NCT00442546|183238173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.151||0.1375||95.0|-2.054|14.55|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||14.550|-2.054|0.1375
91671662|NCT00442546|183238173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.895||0.2703||95.0|-4.298|15.161|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||15.161|-4.298|0.2703
91671663|NCT00442546|183238173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.664||0.104||95.0|-1.607|16.933|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||16.933|-1.607|0.1040
91671664|NCT00442546|183238174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.154||0.8545||95.0|-5.635|6.793|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||6.793|-5.635|0.8545
91671665|NCT00442546|183238174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.155||0.5006||95.0|-4.088|8.344|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.344|-4.088|0.5006
91671666|NCT00442546|183238174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.248||0.7217||95.0|-13.66|19.569|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||19.569|-13.66|0.7217
91671667|NCT00442546|183238174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.4203||95.0|-10.35|24.372|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||24.372|-10.35|0.4203
91671668|NCT00442546|183238174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.9859||95.0|-11.3|11.102|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||11.102|-11.30|0.9859
91671669|NCT00442546|183238174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.873||0.9915||95.0|-11.68|11.811|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||11.811|-11.68|0.9915
91671670|NCT00442546|183238174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.508||0.9843||95.0|-13.06|12.808|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||12.808|-13.06|0.9843
91671671|NCT00442546|183238174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.201||0.7055||95.0|-9.974|14.677|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||14.677|-9.974|0.7055
91671672|NCT00442546|183238175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.9405||95.0|-0.614|0.661|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.661|-0.614|0.9405
91671673|NCT00442546|183238175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.5641||95.0|-0.749|0.415|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.415|-0.749|0.5641
91671674|NCT00442546|183238175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755||0.5226||95.0|-1.181|2.181|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||2.181|-1.181|0.5226
91671675|NCT00442546|183238175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.8557||95.0|-2.156|1.823|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||1.823|-2.156|0.8557
91671676|NCT00442546|183238175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.1925||95.0|-3.596|0.94|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.940|-3.596|0.1925
91671677|NCT00442546|183238175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.982||0.9654||95.0|-2.568|2.479|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||2.479|-2.568|0.9654
91671678|NCT00442546|183238175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.782||0.235||95.0|-6.712|2.008|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.008|-6.712|0.2350
91671679|NCT00442546|183238175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.742||95.0|-1.806|2.399|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.399|-1.806|0.7420
91671680|NCT00442546|183238176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.5299||95.0|-0.458|0.874|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.874|-0.458|0.5299
91715473|NCT02858401|183321959|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91792820|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.81||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|48.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||48.3|-8.7|0.167
91671681|NCT00442546|183238176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2442||95.0|-0.964|0.253|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.253|-0.964|0.2442
91671682|NCT00442546|183238176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755||0.5226||95.0|-1.181|2.181|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||2.181|-1.181|0.5226
91671683|NCT00442546|183238176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.8557||95.0|-2.156|1.823|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||1.823|-2.156|0.8557
91671684|NCT00442546|183238176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0.324||95.0|-3.751|1.512|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||1.512|-3.751|0.3240
91671685|NCT00442546|183238176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139||0.9503||95.0|-2.853|3.003|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||3.003|-2.853|0.9503
91671686|NCT00442546|183238176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.858||0.3618||95.0|-6.379|2.712|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.712|-6.379|0.3618
91671687|NCT00442546|183238176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.7226||95.0|-1.859|2.525|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.525|-1.859|0.7226
91671688|NCT00442546|183238177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2473||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Discharge||||0.2473
91671689|NCT00442546|183238177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0239||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Discharge||||0.0239
91671690|NCT00442546|183238177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6118||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.6118
91671691|NCT00442546|183238177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.6730
91671692|NCT00442546|183238177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5954||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.5954
91671693|NCT00442546|183238177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7784||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.7784
91671694|NCT00442546|183238177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7293||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6/ET||||0.7293
91671695|NCT00442546|183238177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5202||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6/ET||||0.5202
91671696|NCT00442546|183238178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1509||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||0.1509
91671697|NCT00442546|183238178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3822||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||0.3822
91671698|NCT00442546|183238178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2825||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 6||||0.2825
91671699|NCT00442546|183238178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7733||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 6||||0.7733
91671700|NCT02449473|183238180|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group as fixed effect and baseline log-transformed airway submucosal eosinophils as a continuous covariate. No interaction terms were included in the model. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. All group comparisons from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model were based on Type III sums of squares.|Least square (LS) geometric mean ratio|1.43||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.27|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in airway submucosal eosinophils; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. The null hypothesis was that the change in airway submucosal eosinophils at Week 12 on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding change on placebo.||3.27|0.63|0.3862
91715474|NCT02858401|183321960|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91715475|NCT02858401|183321960|OTHER|||||||0.5896|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5896
91715476|NCT02858401|183321960|OTHER|||||||0.8207|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8207
91715477|NCT02858401|183321960|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91715478|NCT02858401|183321960|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91715479|NCT02858401|183321960|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91715480|NCT02858401|183321961|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91792821|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|75.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|124.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||124.7|25.8|0.005
91671701|NCT02449473|183238181|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed eosinophils and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|1.21||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.48|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in blood eosinophil count; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.48|1.00|0.0546
91671702|NCT02449473|183238182|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed differential sputum eosinophils and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A REML approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|0.57||||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|6.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in differential sputum eosinophils; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||6.00|0.06|0.6334
91671703|NCT02449473|183238183|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed blood free ECP and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A REML approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|1.11||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in blood free ECP concentration; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.40|0.88|0.3769
91671704|NCT02449473|183238184|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed sputum free ECP and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A REML approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|0.49||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in sputum free ECP concentration; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.20|0.20|0.1126
91671705|NCT04039919|183238211|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6513|0.9461||||||The log-transformed PK parameters was analyzed by a mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with period and treatment as fixed effects and study participant as the random effect. The estimates and confidence intervals are back-transformed after the analysis.||0.9461|0.6513|
91671706|NCT04039919|183238212|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.8342|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6999|0.9942||||||The log-transformed PK parameters was analyzed by a mixed ANOVA with period and treatment as fixed effects and study participant as the random effect. The estimates and confidence intervals are back-transformed after the analysis.||0.9942|0.6999|
91671707|NCT03460158|183238239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1524||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t test with equal variances the null hypothesis is the relative change in volume and relative change in patient reported outcomes will be the same at 2 weeks post injection||||0.8822
91671708|NCT03460158|183238239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1466||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t test with equal variances the null hypothesis is the change in volume and change in patient reported outcomes will be the same at 4 weeks post injection||||0.2223
91671709|NCT03460158|183238239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t test with equal variances the null hypothesis is the change in volume and change in patient reported outcomes will be the same at 12 weeks post injection||||0.0015
91671710|NCT00263887|183238241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The main effect ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline to endpoint as the dependent variable, treatment and center as fixed factors, change in logarithm of total lung volume and baseline measurement as covariates.||||0.049
91671711|NCT03095118|183238252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Proteinuria baseline values compared to 6 month follow up values||||0.001
91671712|NCT03095118|183238253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Proteinuria baseline values compared to 12 month follow up values||||0.004
91671713|NCT03095118|183238255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine baseline values compared to 6 month follow up values||||0.15
91671714|NCT03095118|183238256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine baseline values comparted to 12 month follow up values||||0.16
91671715|NCT03420768|183238280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.7||||||||17.70|0.13|
91671716|NCT03420768|183238280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|20.23||||||||20.23|0.26|
91671717|NCT02075606|183238287|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||=|0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Clinical symptomatic response as dependent variable and CTC presence at baseline as explanatory variable was used to perform the logistic regression analysis.||1.65|0.02|=0.126
91671718|NCT00983476|183238294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: In-person MOVE SMI visit x group Beta estimate is .27 (p=.08); Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: Usual care plus handouts visit x group Beta estimate is .29 (p=.06).|Difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) by study arm at 6 months after controlling for BMI 6 months prior to baseline using a repeated measures mixed model with arm, time, and the interaction of arm by time||||0.11
91671719|NCT00983476|183238295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.02||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: In-person MOVE SMI visit x group Beta estimate is .40 (p=.02); Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: Usual care plus handouts visit x group Beta estimate is .44 (p=.01).|In the obese sample, difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) by study arm at 6 months after controlling for BMI 6 months prior to baseline using a repeated measures mixed model with arm, time, and the interaction of arm by time||||0.02
91671720|NCT00983476|183238296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was not statistically significant.|||||0.32
91671721|NCT00983476|183238297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.11
91671722|NCT00983476|183238298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.47
91715481|NCT02858401|183321961|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715482|NCT02858401|183321961|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715483|NCT02858401|183321962|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
91861079|NCT05894577|183608802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.6|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.60|0.65|
91861080|NCT05894577|183608802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.36|0.57|
91861081|NCT05894577|183608802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.0|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||2.00|0.69|
91715484|NCT02858401|183321962|OTHER|||||||0.3755|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3755
91861082|NCT05894577|183608803|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.15|0.66|
91861083|NCT05894577|183608803|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.14|0.63|
91861084|NCT05894577|183608803|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.08|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.08|0.56|
91861085|NCT05894577|183608803|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.45|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.45|0.73|
91861086|NCT05894577|183608803|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.4|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.40|0.71|
91861087|NCT05894577|183608803|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.35|0.60|
91861088|NCT05894577|183608804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.31|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.31|0.70|
91861089|NCT05894577|183608804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.4|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.40|0.72|
91715485|NCT02858401|183321962|OTHER|||||||0.4577|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4577
91715486|NCT02858401|183321962|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
91715487|NCT02858401|183321962|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
91715488|NCT02858401|183321962|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
91715489|NCT02858401|183321963|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715490|NCT02858401|183321963|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
91715491|NCT02858401|183321963|OTHER|||||||0.7526|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7526
91715492|NCT02858401|183321964|OTHER|||||||0.5546|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5546
91715493|NCT02858401|183321964|OTHER|||||||0.6937|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6937
91715494|NCT02858401|183321964|OTHER|||||||0.8207|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8207
91715495|NCT02858401|183321964|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91715496|NCT02858401|183321964|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91715497|NCT02858401|183321964|OTHER|||||||0.7878|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7878
91715498|NCT02858401|183321965|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715499|NCT02858401|183321965|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715500|NCT02858401|183321965|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715501|NCT02858401|183321966|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715502|NCT02858401|183321966|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715503|NCT02858401|183321966|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715504|NCT02858401|183321966|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715505|NCT02858401|183321966|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91715506|NCT02858401|183321966|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
91715507|NCT02858401|183321967|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91715508|NCT02858401|183321967|OTHER|||||||0.5716|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5716
91715509|NCT02858401|183321967|OTHER|||||||0.6908|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6908
91715510|NCT02858401|183321967|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91671723|NCT00983476|183238299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.51
91671724|NCT00983476|183238300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.83
91671725|NCT01439724|183238306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.158||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.498|||Chi-squared|||The primary end point of the study was the incidence of grade 3-4 oral mucositis (OM) according to the WHO scale. Assuming an α =0.05 and a β = 0.20, with the estimates of proportion being 0.40 for placebo (P0) and 0.15 for LLLT (P1) a total of 94 patients were evaluated. One-sided test error was the basis for the sample size determination and all the reported P-values were derived from two-sided statistical tests. P-values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||0.498|0.050|0.05
91671726|NCT04019054|183238311|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group.||||||0.518|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.518
91671727|NCT04019054|183238312|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Analysis described here is within-group differences.||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05. Observed power η2=0.39.|ANOVA|||||||0.008
91671728|NCT04019054|183238312|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Analysis described here is between-group differences.|||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91671729|NCT04019054|183238313|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Result described here is within-group difference over time.||||||0.004||||||a priori threshold for significance p=0.05. Result above describes within group testing over time. Observed power η2=0.43.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
91792822|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.01||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|62.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||62.3|5.7|0.020
91671730|NCT04019054|183238313|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Result described here is the between-group comparison|||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance p=0.05|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91861090|NCT05894577|183608804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.20|0.55|
91671731|NCT04019054|183238314|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.01||||||Threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of skin conductance level (SCL) as a function of step and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.01
91671732|NCT04019054|183238314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The second statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of skin conductance level (SCL) (as a function of step and timepoint).||||0.029
91671733|NCT04019054|183238315|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.001
91671734|NCT04019054|183238315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and timepoint.||||0.63
91671735|NCT04019054|183238315|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of anticipatory distress as a function of treatment group and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<.001
91671736|NCT04019054|183238315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of anticipatory distress as a function of group and timepoint.||||<0.001
91671737|NCT04019054|183238315|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and group. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.001
91671738|NCT04019054|183238315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and group.||||0.047
91671739|NCT04019054|183238316|SUPERIORITY||Mann Whitney U statistic|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2-sided Mann-Whitney U Test (nonparametric) utilized to compare the ability of the groups to tolerate treatment intensity.||||0.027
91715511|NCT02858401|183321967|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91715512|NCT02858401|183321968|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715513|NCT02858401|183321968|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715514|NCT02858401|183321968|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715515|NCT02858401|183321969|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91715516|NCT02858401|183321969|OTHER|||||||0.5896|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5896
91671740|NCT04019054|183238318|OTHER|A pair of chi-square analyses were performed to validate blinding of the study (based on questionnaires completed by subjects and raters). Given the small sample size, Fisher's exact method was utilized. The number of correct and incorrect guesses for each group were examined once for the subject guesses and once for the rater's guesses.|||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|For the subjects, p=0.64 using Fisher's exact method. For the raters, p=1 using Fisher's exact method.||||||>.05
91671741|NCT04019054|183238319|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of maximum distress as a function of step and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<.001
91671742|NCT04019054|183238319|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of maximum distress as a function of step and timepoint.||||>.05
91671743|NCT04019054|183238319|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of maximum distress as a function of treatment group and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<.001
91671744|NCT04019054|183238319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of maximum distress as a function of group and timepoint.||||<.001
91671745|NCT04019054|183238319|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of maximum distress as a function of step and group. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.001
91671746|NCT04019054|183238319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of maximum distress as a function of step and group.||||0.024
91715517|NCT02858401|183321969|OTHER|||||||0.1784|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1784
91715518|NCT02858401|183321969|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91715519|NCT02858401|183321969|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91715520|NCT02858401|183321969|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91715521|NCT02858401|183321970|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715522|NCT02858401|183321970|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715523|NCT02858401|183321970|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715524|NCT02858401|183321971|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715525|NCT02858401|183321971|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715526|NCT02858401|183321971|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715527|NCT02858401|183321972|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
91715528|NCT02858401|183321972|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
91715529|NCT02858401|183321973|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715530|NCT02858401|183321973|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715531|NCT02858401|183321973|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715532|NCT02858401|183321974|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
91715533|NCT02858401|183321974|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
91715534|NCT02858401|183321974|OTHER|||||||0.5993|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5993
91864577|NCT04479761|183618286|OTHER|T test derived from a linear mixed effects model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||we provided the mean difference between the vestibular group and healthy controls for the reported condition.|||||0.005
91671747|NCT01040793|183238320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0018||95.0|1.043|1.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 5 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.199|1.043|0.0018
91671748|NCT01040793|183238320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0052||95.0|1.03|1.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 10 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.184|1.030|0.0052
91671749|NCT01040793|183238321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0155||95.0|0.016|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.152|0.016|0.0155
91715535|NCT02858401|183321975|OTHER|||||||0.8504|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8504
91671750|NCT01040793|183238321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.234|0.098|<0.0001
91671751|NCT01040793|183238322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.366|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.1176||95.0|-0.757|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.085|-0.757|0.1176
91671752|NCT01040793|183238322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.7591||95.0|-0.486|0.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.355|-0.486|0.7591
91671753|NCT01040793|183238323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.234|0.094|<0.0001
91671754|NCT01040793|183238323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.265|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.265|0.125|<0.0001
91671755|NCT01040793|183238324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0245||95.0|0.01|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.146|0.010|0.0245
91671756|NCT01040793|183238324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.240|0.105|<0.0001
91671757|NCT01040793|183238325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2897||95.0|-0.211|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.063|-0.211|0.2897
91671758|NCT01040793|183238325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.7199||95.0|-0.162|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.112|-0.162|0.7199
91671759|NCT01040793|183238326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.5313||95.0|-0.196|0.379|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.379|-0.196|0.5313
91715536|NCT02858401|183321975|OTHER|||||||0.5716|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5716
91715537|NCT02858401|183321975|OTHER|||||||0.6908|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6908
91671760|NCT01040793|183238326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0198||95.0|0.055|0.628|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.628|0.055|0.0198
91671761|NCT01040793|183238327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.1048||95.0|-0.19|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.018|-0.190|0.1048
91671762|NCT01040793|183238327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0246||95.0|-0.224|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.015|-0.224|0.0246
91715538|NCT02858401|183321975|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91671763|NCT01040793|183238328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.318|-0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.108|-0.318|<0.0001
91671764|NCT01040793|183238328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0005||95.0|-0.293|-0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.082|-0.293|0.0005
91671765|NCT01040793|183238329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0002||95.0|0.071|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.228|0.071|0.0002
91671766|NCT01040793|183238329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0001||95.0|0.076|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.076|0.0001
91671767|NCT01040793|183238330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.303|0.162|<0.0001
91671768|NCT01040793|183238330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.273|0.133|<0.0001
91671769|NCT01040793|183238331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.3109||95.0|-0.053|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.166|-0.053|0.3109
91671770|NCT01040793|183238331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.608||95.0|-0.081|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.138|-0.081|0.6080
91671771|NCT01040793|183238332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.6809||95.0|-0.087|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.133|-0.087|0.6809
91671772|NCT01040793|183238332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.858||95.0|-0.1|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.120|-0.100|0.8580
91671773|NCT01040793|183238333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.148|0.073|<0.0001
91671774|NCT01040793|183238333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.148|0.073|<0.0001
91671775|NCT01040793|183238334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.151|<0.0001
91671776|NCT01040793|183238334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.236|0.153|<0.0001
91671777|NCT01040793|183238335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0013||95.0|0.047|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.191|0.047|0.0013
91671778|NCT01040793|183238335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0013||95.0|0.047|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.191|0.047|0.0013
91671779|NCT01040793|183238336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.196|0.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.333|0.196|<0.0001
91671780|NCT01040793|183238336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.212|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.350|0.212|<0.0001
91671781|NCT01040793|183238337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.405|0.156|<0.0001
91671782|NCT01040793|183238337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.416|0.166|<0.0001
91671783|NCT01040793|183238338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.441|0.719|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.719|0.441|<0.0001
91671784|NCT01040793|183238338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001||95.0|0.412|0.691|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.691|0.412|<0.0001
91715539|NCT02858401|183321975|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91671785|NCT05070390|183238344|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|2.44|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||2.44|0.62|
91864578|NCT04479761|183618287|OTHER|T tests derived from linear mixed effects model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||we provided the mean difference between the vestibular group and the controls on the reported condition.|||||0.008
91671786|NCT05070390|183238345|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|4.83|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||4.83|0.55|
91671787|NCT05070390|183238346|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.99|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||2.99|0.70|
91671788|NCT05070390|183238349|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.62|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||1.62|0.41|
91715540|NCT02858401|183321976|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91671789|NCT05070390|183238350|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.42|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||1.42|0.60|
91671790|NCT05070390|183238353|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|3.1|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||3.10|0.22|
91715541|NCT02858401|183321976|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715542|NCT02858401|183321976|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715543|NCT02858401|183321977|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715544|NCT02858401|183321977|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715545|NCT02858401|183321977|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715546|NCT02858401|183321978|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
91715547|NCT02858401|183321978|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
91715548|NCT02858401|183321979|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715549|NCT02858401|183321979|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715550|NCT02858401|183321979|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715551|NCT02858401|183321980|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715552|NCT02858401|183321980|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715553|NCT02858401|183321980|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91715554|NCT02858401|183321981|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
91715555|NCT02858401|183321981|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
91715556|NCT02858401|183321981|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2230
91715557|NCT02858401|183321982|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715558|NCT02858401|183321982|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715559|NCT02858401|183321982|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
91715560|NCT02858401|183321983|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715561|NCT02858401|183321983|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91715562|NCT02858401|183321983|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
91715563|NCT02858401|183321984|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
91715564|NCT02858401|183321984|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
91715565|NCT02858401|183321984|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2230
91715566|NCT02858401|183321987|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715567|NCT02858401|183321987|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715568|NCT02858401|183321987|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715569|NCT02858401|183321987|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715570|NCT02858401|183321987|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715571|NCT02858401|183321987|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715572|NCT02858401|183321988|OTHER|||||||0.3333|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3333
91715573|NCT02858401|183321989|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715574|NCT02858401|183321989|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715575|NCT02858401|183321989|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715576|NCT02858401|183321989|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715577|NCT02858401|183321989|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715578|NCT02858401|183321989|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715579|NCT02858401|183321990|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715580|NCT02858401|183321990|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715581|NCT02858401|183321990|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715582|NCT02858401|183321990|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715583|NCT02858401|183321990|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715584|NCT02858401|183321990|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715585|NCT02858401|183321991|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91671791|NCT05070390|183238354|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|3.1|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||3.10|0.22|
91671792|NCT05070390|183238355|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|1.13|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||1.13|0.13|
91671793|NCT02412722|183238364|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.76||||||||0.76|0.46|
91671794|NCT02412722|183238365|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.36||||||||1.36|0.59|
91671795|NCT02412722|183238366|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.49||||||||1.49|0.72|
91671796|NCT02412722|183238370|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.47||||||||1.47|0.78|
91671797|NCT02412722|183238371|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.68||||||||1.68|0.75|
91671798|NCT02412722|183238372|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.26||||||||1.26|0.67|
91671799|NCT03877926|183238383|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs for the Day 64 TNA NF50 GMT ratios between AV7909 Lot 1 and Lot 2 had to be within 0.5 to 2.0 equivalence margin.|Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.1||||||||1.10|0.93|
91671800|NCT03877926|183238383|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs for the Day 64 TNA NF50 GMT ratios between AV7909 Lot 1 and Lot 3 had to be within 0.5 to 2.0 equivalence margin.|Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.14||||||||1.14|0.96|
91671801|NCT03877926|183238383|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs for the Day 64 TNA NF50 GMT ratios between AV7909 Lot 2 and Lot 3 had to be within 0.5 to 2.0 equivalence margin.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||||||||1.13|0.95|
91861091|NCT05894577|183608804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.39|0.62|
91671802|NCT03877926|183238385|OTHER||Percentage of participants|66.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.5|68.1||||||||68.1|64.5|
91671803|NCT03877926|183238386|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -15% was used for the difference in percentage of AV7909 participants (pooled from three AV7909 study groups \[Lot 1, 2, and 3\]) vs. BioThrax participants who achieved TNA NF50 ≥0.29 at Day 64. The success criterion was defined as the lower bound of 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage of AV7909 vs. BioThrax participants being greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|24.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|29.2||||||||29.2|20.0|
91671804|NCT03877926|183238387|OTHER|Relative risk of serious adverse events incidence between AV7909 (combined from all three AV7909 lots) and BioThrax.|Relative risk (AV7909/BioThrax)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.5|||||The 95% CI of the relative risk was derived using the Farrington-Manning relative risk score statistic.|||6.5|0.9|
91671805|NCT03877926|183238388|OTHER|Success criteria was defined as the lower bound for the 95% CI for the proportion of participants pooled from all three AV7909 study groups with TNA NF50 ≥0.15 to be ≥67%.|Percentage of participants|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|98.3||||||||98.3|97.2|
91671806|NCT03877926|183238390|OTHER|Relative risk of adverse events of special interest (events of autoimmune etiology) incidence between AV7909 (combined from all three AV7909 lots) and BioThrax.|Relative risk (AV7909/BioThrax)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.0|||||The 95% CI of the relative risk was derived using the Farrington-Manning relative risk score statistic.|||5.0|0.3|
91671807|NCT00588731|183238400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
91671808|NCT00588731|183238401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
91671809|NCT00346164|183238406|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +), and histologic (POG) grade.||||<0.0001
91671810|NCT00346164|183238407|OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of histologic (POG) grade after accounting for the effects of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic), site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), and extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +) .||||0.0049
91671811|NCT00346164|183238408|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +), and histologic (POG) grade.||||<0.0001
91715586|NCT02858401|183321991|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715587|NCT02858401|183321991|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715588|NCT02858401|183321992|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91671812|NCT00346164|183238409|OTHER|||||||0.0096|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of the resection extent of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), and histologic (POG) grade.||||0.0096
91671813|NCT00346164|183238410|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Firth logistic regression is used to overcome the issue of quasi-complete separation of data points.||The logistic regression model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +), and histologic (POG) grade.||||<0.0001
91715589|NCT02858401|183321992|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715590|NCT02858401|183321992|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715591|NCT02858401|183321994|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91671814|NCT00346164|183238411|OTHER|||||||0.0228|||||||Regression, Logistic|Firth logistic regression is used to overcome the issue of quasi-complete separation of data points.||The logistic regression model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of histologic (POG) grade after accounting for the effects of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic), site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), and extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +) .||||0.0228
91671815|NCT00346164|183238413|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.88||||||Kappa statistic and its 95% confidence interval are used to assess agreement beyond random.||0.88|0.76|
91671816|NCT00346164|183238414|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.48||||||Kappa statistic and its 95% confidence interval are used to assess agreement beyond random.||0.48|0.36|
91671817|NCT01684878|183238417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.88||||0.4983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||2 sided log-rank|||The stratified time-to-event analysis included the treatment group variable plus the following stratification factors: selected chemotherapy cohort (gemcitabine versus topotecan vs paclitaxel), previous anti-angiogenic therapy (yes versus no), and progression-free interval (PFI) since platinum therapy (\< 3 months versus 3-6 months). A hazard ratio \< 1 favored the pertuzumab + chemotherapy treatment arm.||1.27|0.62|0.4983
91671818|NCT01684878|183238419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|6.06||||0.4102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|18.3|||Fisher Exact||Approximate 95% CI for difference of 2 rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||18.3|6.0|0.4102
91671819|NCT01684878|183238424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio (stratified)|0.9||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.32|||2 sided log-rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favored the Pertuzumab + Chemotherapy treatment group|The stratified time-to-event analysis included the treatment group variable plus the following stratification factors: selected chemotherapy cohort (gemcitabine versus topotecan versus paclitaxel), previous angiogenic therapy (yes versus no) and PFI since platinum therapy (\<3 months versus 3-6 months).||1.32|0.61|0.5960
91671820|NCT00810888|183238425|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons as a prior hypothesis critical value \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test||||1.00
91671821|NCT00810888|183238426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||Only the randomized subjects will be compared||||0.66
91671822|NCT00810888|183238427|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|38.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|64.6|||Fisher Exact|||||64.6|17.6|0.004
91671823|NCT00810888|183238428|SUPERIORITY||Specificity|94.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.6|98.1|||Fisher Exact|||||98.1|85.6|0.004
91792823|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.43||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|84.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||84.9|3.9|0.033
91671824|NCT00810888|183238429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
91671825|NCT00810888|183238430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
91671826|NCT00810888|183238431|OTHER|A Kappa test of overall agreement was used|Kappa|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93|||||A kappa of \>0.75 is considered excellent agreement|||0.93|0.61|
91671827|NCT00810888|183238432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Groups 1 and 2 only the spot positive subjects randomized to interventional drug or placebo||||0.25
91671828|NCT01955044|183238447|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DHA levels||||0.05
91671829|NCT01886937|183238493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91671830|NCT00605917|183238496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was starting dose. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between three types of starting dose in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91671831|NCT00605917|183238497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drug in the participants of responders."||||0.002
91671832|NCT00605917|183238498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was family history of psychiatric disorder. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without family history of psychiatric disorder in the participants of responders."||||0.032
91671833|NCT00605917|183238499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was smoking status. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between three types of smoking status in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91671834|NCT00605917|183238500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was past medical history of other illness. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history of other illness in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91671835|NCT00605917|183238501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was non-pharmaceutical therapies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without non-pharmaceutical therapies in the participants of responders."||||0.001
91671836|NCT00605917|183238502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was history of treatment prior to administration of Sertraline. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without history of treatment prior to administration of Sertraline in the participants of responders."||||0.028
91671837|NCT00605917|183238503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was average daily dose. The null hypothesis is there is no difference of five types of average daily dose in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91671838|NCT00605917|183238504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the participants of responders."|Chi-squared|not adjusted, p=0.050||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the participants of responders."||||0.030
91715592|NCT02858401|183321994|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91715593|NCT02858401|183321994|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91671839|NCT00605917|183238505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drug in the participants of responders."||||0.013
91671840|NCT00605917|183238506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without complications in the participants of responders."||||0.004
91671841|NCT00605917|183238507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was drinking status. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between five types of drinking status in the participants of responders."||||0.004
91671842|NCT01506908|183238508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-10.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 5 minutes||-10.2|-21.6|<0.0001
91671843|NCT01506908|183238509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-4.2||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 1 minute.||0.0|-8.4|0.0511
91671844|NCT01506908|183238510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-6.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 3 minutes.||-6.4|-16.7|<0.0001
91671845|NCT01506908|183238511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-11.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 7 minutes.||-11.7|-23.8|<0.0001
91671846|NCT01506908|183238512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-11.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 10 minutes.||-11.4|-24.4|<0.0001
91671847|NCT00925301|183238519|SUPERIORITY||Difference|12.5||||0.2996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex|The difference between the percentage of successes between migalastat and placebo treatment groups|||37.3|-13.4|0.2996
91671848|NCT00925301|183238522|OTHER|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach with fixed effects of treatment, time (Month 6 and Month 12), mutation type (amenable or non-amenable), time by treatment interaction, time by mutation type interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix to account for repeated measures within a participant was assumed.||||||0.014||||||Significant at the 0.050 level|MMRM|||||||0.014
91671849|NCT00925301|183238523|OTHER||Difference LSMeans|-0.3||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Significant at the 0.010 level|ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline in the average number of kidney ICs was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with covariate adjustment for the baseline value and factors for treatment group and the treatment by baseline interaction.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0078
91792824|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.68||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|34.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||34.7|-17.3|0.503
91671850|NCT00292227|183238533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||||90.0|-2.63|1.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.12|-2.63|
91671851|NCT00292227|183238534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||||90.0|-2.21|2.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.19|-2.21|
91715594|NCT01418339|183322003|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-4.63|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|-1.63||P-value was derived from a repeated measures linear model with treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed categorical effects, the baseline value as a fixed covariate, and week as the time variable for repeated measures.|MMRM|||The statistical comparison was performed using MMRM model at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||-1.63|-7.62|=0.0028
91671852|NCT00292227|183238535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||||90.0|-1.12|2.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.80|-1.12|
91671853|NCT00292227|183238536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||||90.0|-1.8|2.32|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.32|-1.80|
91671854|NCT00292227|183238537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||||90.0|-2.25|2.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.02|-2.25|
91671855|NCT00292227|183238538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||||90.0|-2.14|2.28|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.28|-2.14|
91715595|NCT01418339|183322004|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.52|||=|0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.12||P-value was derived from a repeated measures linear model with treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed categorical effects, the baseline value as a fixed covariate, and week as the time variable for repeated measures.|MMRM|||The statistical comparison was performed using MMRM model at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.12|-0.93|=0.0124
91715596|NCT01418339|183322005|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.0|||=|0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|4.32||P-value was derived from a repeated measures linear model with treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed categorical effects, the baseline value as a fixed covariate, and week as the time variable for repeated measures.|MMRM|||The statistical comparison was performed using MMRM model at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||4.32|-8.31|=0.5317
91671856|NCT00292227|183238539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||||90.0|-2.84|1.72|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.72|-2.84|
91671857|NCT00292227|183238540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||||90.0|-2.29|1.78|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.78|-2.29|
91715597|NCT02219685|183322006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||This p-value for treatment effect on basal ganglia was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91715598|NCT02219685|183322006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||This p-value for treatment effect on frontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91715599|NCT02219685|183322006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||||||This p-value for treatment effect on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91715600|NCT02219685|183322007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||This p-value for treatment effect on basal ganglia was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91715601|NCT02219685|183322007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||This p-value for treatment effect on frontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91715602|NCT02219685|183322007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||This p-value for treatment effect on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
91671858|NCT00292227|183238541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||||90.0|-3.25|0.91|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.91|-3.25|
91671859|NCT00292227|183238542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||||90.0|-0.34|3.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||3.73|-0.34|
91671860|NCT00292227|183238543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||||90.0|-1.7|2.32|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.32|-1.70|
91671861|NCT00292227|183238544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||||90.0|-0.65|3.96|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||3.96|-0.65|
91671862|NCT00292227|183238545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||||90.0|-1.78|1.36|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.36|-1.78|
91671863|NCT00292227|183238546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||||90.0|-2.37|1.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.30|-2.37|
91715603|NCT02219685|183322008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||This p-value for treatment effect on basal ganglia was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91715604|NCT02219685|183322008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||This p-value for treatment effect on frontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91671864|NCT00292227|183238547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||||90.0|-2.3|1.49|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.49|-2.30|
91671865|NCT00292227|183238548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||||90.0|-2.34|1.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.35|-2.34|
91671866|NCT00292227|183238549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||||90.0|-1.76|2.17|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.17|-1.76|
91671867|NCT00292227|183238550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||||90.0|-2.99|0.53|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.53|-2.99|
91671868|NCT00292227|183238551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62||||||90.0|-3.87|0.63|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.63|-3.87|
91671869|NCT00292227|183238552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||||90.0|-2.55|0.93|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.93|-2.55|
91671870|NCT00292227|183238553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||||90.0|-2.13|1.39|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.39|-2.13|
91671871|NCT00292227|183238554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||||90.0|-2.6|1.25|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.25|-2.60|
91715605|NCT02219685|183322008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||This p-value for treatment effect on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91715606|NCT02219685|183322009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0795
91671872|NCT00292227|183238555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||||90.0|-0.69|3.03|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||3.03|-0.69|
91671873|NCT00292227|183238556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||||90.0|-1.14|2.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.73|-1.14|
91671874|NCT00292227|183238557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||||90.0|-2.33|1.5|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.50|-2.33|
91671875|NCT00292227|183238558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||||95.0|-1.04|1.71|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||1.71|-1.04|
91671876|NCT00292227|183238559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||||95.0|-0.72|1.68|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||1.68|-0.72|
91671877|NCT00292227|183238560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.51||||||95.0|0.3|2.73|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||2.73|0.30|
91671878|NCT00292227|183238561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.5||||||95.0|11.78|15.22|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||15.22|11.78|
91671879|NCT00292227|183238562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.02||||||95.0|9.12|12.93|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||12.93|9.12|
91671880|NCT00292227|183238563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.3||||||95.0|9.94|12.67|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||12.67|9.94|
91671881|NCT00292227|183238564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.28||||||95.0|6.85|9.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||9.70|6.85|
91861092|NCT05894577|183608804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.46|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.46|0.65|
91715607|NCT02219685|183322010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7007||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7007
91715608|NCT02219685|183322011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2677||||||The p-value was ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2677
91715609|NCT02219685|183322012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.9870
91861093|NCT05894577|183608804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.35|0.48|
91861094|NCT05894577|183608805|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.24|0.62|
91715610|NCT02219685|183322013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3388||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3388
91715611|NCT01746862|183322078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age and baseline height as the covariates.||||4.78|2.17|<0.0001
91715612|NCT04585919|183322124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effect model controlling for secular trend, patient sociodemographic and health characteristics||||||0.005
91715613|NCT04585919|183322125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effect model controlling for secular trend, patient sociodemographic and health characteristics||||||0.19
91715614|NCT03519009|183322129|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.3|||longitudinal logistic regression|||||6.3|1.8|<0.001
91715615|NCT03519009|183322130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.4|||longitudinal logistic regression|||||4.4|1.5|<0.001
91671882|NCT00292227|183238565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3||||||95.0|7.57|11.02|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||11.02|7.57|
91671883|NCT00292227|183238566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.87||||||95.0|7.47|10.28|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||10.28|7.47|
91671884|NCT00292227|183238567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.6||||||95.0|7.25|9.96|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||9.96|7.25|
91861095|NCT05894577|183608805|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.38|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.38|0.65|
91715616|NCT05209880|183322133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5835|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5835
91715617|NCT03834493|183322143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.22|0.88|0.6621
91715618|NCT03834493|183322144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.14|0.84|0.4073
91715619|NCT03834493|183322145|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.09|0.83|
91715620|NCT03834493|183322146|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.3|||||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||8.3|-1.5|
91715621|NCT03834493|183322147|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.1|||||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||4.1|-3.4|
91715622|NCT03834493|183322148|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.1|||||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||6.1|-0.2|
91715623|NCT03834493|183322150|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.15|0.86|
91715624|NCT03834493|183322151|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.09|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.09|0.74|
91715625|NCT03834493|183322152|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.35|0.82|
91715626|NCT03834493|183322153|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.51|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.51|0.85|
91715627|NCT04817332|183322198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92|||Odds ratio Ordinal Logistic Regression|adjusted for the stratifying factors of age as a fixed effect and site using robust standard errors to account for clustering||||0.92|0.57|0.008
91715628|NCT04817332|183322199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.76|0.058
91715629|NCT04817332|183322202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||||||||1.13|0.84|
91715630|NCT04817332|183322204|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99||||||||0.99|0.87|
91715631|NCT04817332|183322205|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.74||||||||1.74|0.73|
91715632|NCT04817332|183322206|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04||||||||1.04|0.69|
91715633|NCT04817332|183322207|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.58||||||||2.58|1.09|
91715634|NCT04817332|183322208|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||||||||1.15|0.92|
91715635|NCT04817332|183322209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.88||||||||1.88|1.06|
91715636|NCT04817332|183322223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.0|-31.0||||||||-31|-102|
91671885|NCT00292227|183238568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.52||||||95.0|6.31|8.72|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||8.72|6.31|
91715637|NCT04817332|183322227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.066||||||||0.066|-0.06|
91861096|NCT05894577|183608805|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.13|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.13|0.49|
91671886|NCT00292227|183238569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.58||||||95.0|6.21|8.95|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||8.95|6.21|
91792825|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.23||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|68.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||68.6|7.8|0.016
91671887|NCT00292227|183238570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.19||||||95.0|4.94|7.45|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||7.45|4.94|
91671888|NCT00948792|183238594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in post-transfusion platelet counts (30-minutes post-transfusion) between the two groups.~We opted to determine the number of transfusions that would be required to detect difference of 20,000 platelets/mm3 (with a standard deviation of 20,000). The number shown to demonstrate this was 44."||||0.8
91671889|NCT00948792|183238595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in post-transfusion platelet counts (6-hour post-transfusion) between the two groups.~We opted to determine the number of transfusions that would be required to detect difference of 20,000 platelets/mm3 (with a standard deviation of 20,000). The number shown to demonstrate this was 44."||||0.26
91671890|NCT00948792|183238596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in the change in post-transfusion platelet counts (30 minutes and 6 hours post-transfusion) between the two groups.~We opted to determine the number of transfusions that would be required to detect difference of 20,000 platelets/mm3 (with a standard deviation of 20,000). The number shown to demonstrate this was 44."||||0.09
91792826|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.76||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|80.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||80.2|1.4|0.043
91671891|NCT03234608|183238597|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.81||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||0.81|-0.44|0.56
91671892|NCT03234608|183238598|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.84||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||1.84|-1.28|0.73
91671893|NCT03234608|183238599|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for Individual Level Healthcare Self-Efficacy Sub-scale.||0.33|-0.35|0.94
91671894|NCT03234608|183238599|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for Relationship-Dependent Healthcare Self-Efficacy Sub-scale||0.52|-0.33|0.65
91671895|NCT03234608|183238600|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.79||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||0.79|-1.25|0.66
91671896|NCT03234608|183238601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.69||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||1.69|-1.40|0.85
91671897|NCT02105701|183238605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91671898|NCT02105701|183238605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91671899|NCT02105701|183238605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91671900|NCT02105701|183238605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91671901|NCT02105701|183238608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91671902|NCT02105701|183238608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91671903|NCT02105701|183238608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91671904|NCT02105701|183238608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91792827|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|86.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.5|131.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||131.8|41.5|<0.001
91671905|NCT01362296|183238615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75||P-value from the stratified log-rank was adjusted for gender (male versus female).|Log Rank||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. The HR from the stratified log-rank test was adjusted for gender (male versus female).|||1.75|0.75|0.5197
91671906|NCT02339090|183238639|NON_INFERIORITY|Threshold for significance: annualized height velocity between somavaratan and daily rhGH ≤ -2.0 cm/year|LS Mean Difference|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.24||||||An ANCOVA model will be used to determine the adjusted (least squares) means and standard error (SE) to determine the confidence interval (CI) of the difference. ANCOVA model included treatment group, region, and gender as fixed effects; with baseline age and baseline IGF-I SDS as covariates.||-0.24|-2.32|
91671907|NCT04052698|183238666|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided test where the mean ratio is less than 0.5 utilizing a negative binomial counting regression model. One-sided alpha level of 2.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1645|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.10194|0.26558|||Regression, Linear|||||0.26558|0.10194|<0.0001
91671908|NCT04052698|183238668|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided test where the mean ratio is less than 0.5 utilizing a negative binomial counting regression model. One-sided alpha level of 2.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1389|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07664|0.25187|||Regression, Linear|||||0.25187|0.07664|<0.0001
91671909|NCT06442410|183238680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91671910|NCT06442410|183238681|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91671911|NCT06442410|183238682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91715638|NCT01435759|183322235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.14, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model EMax.|||||0.004
91671912|NCT06442410|183238683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91671913|NCT06442410|183238684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91671914|NCT06442410|183238685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91715639|NCT01435759|183322235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.48, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Exponential.|||||0.032
91861097|NCT05894577|183608805|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.55|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.55|0.67|
91671915|NCT06442410|183238687|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91671916|NCT06442410|183238688|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91715640|NCT01435759|183322235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.26 was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Linear.|||||0.003
91671917|NCT06442410|183238689|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91671918|NCT06442410|183238690|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91671919|NCT06442410|183238691|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91671920|NCT06442410|183238692|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91671921|NCT06442410|183238693|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91671922|NCT04947150|183238713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA were used.||||||.255
91671923|NCT04947150|183238714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.560
91671924|NCT04947150|183238715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.319
91671925|NCT04947150|183238716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.032
91671926|NCT04947150|183238717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.044
91671927|NCT04947150|183238718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.010
91671928|NCT04947150|183238719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.073
91671929|NCT04947150|183238720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.872
91671930|NCT04947150|183238721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.145
91671931|NCT04947150|183238722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.173
91671932|NCT04947150|183238723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.012
91671933|NCT04947150|183238724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.008
91671934|NCT04947150|183238725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91671935|NCT04947150|183238726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91671936|NCT04947150|183238727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91671937|NCT04947150|183238728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.382
91671938|NCT04947150|183238729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91671939|NCT04947150|183238730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.178
91671940|NCT04947150|183238731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.081
91671941|NCT04947150|183238732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.343
91671942|NCT04947150|183238733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.369
91792828|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.08||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|79.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||79.6|-17.5|0.203
91861098|NCT05894577|183608805|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.19|0.51|
91671943|NCT04947150|183238734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.055
91671944|NCT04947150|183238737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.001
91671945|NCT04947150|183238738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.079
91671946|NCT04947150|183238739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.581
91671947|NCT04947150|183238740|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91671948|NCT04947150|183238741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91671949|NCT04947150|183238742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91671950|NCT04947150|183238743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91671951|NCT04947150|183238747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Sample T-test||||||<.05
91671952|NCT04947150|183238749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||.006
91671953|NCT04947150|183238750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||<.001
91671954|NCT04947150|183238751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||.220
91671955|NCT04947150|183238752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||.623
91671956|NCT04947150|183238753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.577
91671957|NCT04947150|183238754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91671958|NCT04947150|183238755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91671959|NCT04947150|183238756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.008
91671960|NCT04947150|183238757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.601
91671961|NCT04947150|183238758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.088
91671962|NCT04947150|183238759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.210
91671963|NCT04947150|183238760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.060
91671964|NCT04947150|183238761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.370
91671965|NCT04947150|183238762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.556||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.556
91671966|NCT04947150|183238763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.913
91671967|NCT04947150|183238764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.241
91715641|NCT01435759|183322235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis Method|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.88, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic1.|||||0.010
91792829|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|68.47||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|124.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||124.2|12.7|0.019
91671968|NCT02953678|183238765|OTHER||Exact method for binomial distributions|54.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|66.8||||||||66.8|42.7|
91671969|NCT03535857|183238776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Pairwise t- test|||||||0.546
91671970|NCT00546910|183238788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||P-value is for Time Active overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Time Active was tested at rank 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.87|0.52|<0.001
91671971|NCT00546910|183238788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57||P-value is for Distance overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Distance was tested at rank 5.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.57|0.98|<0.001
91671972|NCT00546910|183238788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.35||P-value is for Area overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Area was tested at rank 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.35|0.81|<0.001
91671973|NCT00546910|183238788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22||P-value is for Microevents overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Microevents was tested at rank 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.22|0.78|<0.001
91671974|NCT00546910|183238788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.58||P-value is for Motion Simplicity overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Motion Simplicity was tested at rank 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.58|0.18|<0.001
91671975|NCT00546910|183238789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|14.99||P-value for ADHD-RS Total Score|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||Comparison of atomoxetine vs. placebo at Visit 7 (Week 8)||14.99|8.20|<0.001
91671976|NCT00546910|183238790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.46||P-value for CGI-S ADHD score|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||Comparison of atomoxetine vs. placebo at Visit 7 (Week 8)||1.46|0.76|<0.001
91671977|NCT00546910|183238791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|7.92||P-value for Total Score|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||7.92|3.55|<0.001
91671978|NCT00546910|183238791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|5.44||P-value for Evening subscore|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||5.44|2.49|0.001
91671979|NCT00546910|183238791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.93||P-value for Morning subscore|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.93|0.42|<0.002
91671980|NCT00546910|183238791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.93||P-value for Item 11 (difficulty falling asleep).|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.93|0.31|<0.001
91671981|NCT00546910|183238792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.35||P-value is for Reaction Time Variation overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Reaction time variation was tested at rank 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.35|0.66|<0.001
91671982|NCT00546910|183238792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.93||P-value is for Omission Error overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Omission error was tested at rank 7.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.93|0.46|<0.001
91671983|NCT00546910|183238792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.65||P-value is for Mean Reaction Time overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Mean reaction time was tested at rank 2.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.65|0.17|<0.001
91671984|NCT00546910|183238792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.73||P-value is for Normalized Variation of Reaction Time overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Normalized Variation of Reaction Time was tested at rank 10.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.73|0.26|<0.001
91671985|NCT00546910|183238793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.68||P-value is for Commission Error overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Commission Error was tested at rank 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.68|0.31|<0.001
91671986|NCT00546910|183238793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.31||P-value is for Anticipatory Response overall for morning, noon and evening. Anticipatory Response was not tested in the primary analysis but is a secondary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.31|0.02|0.022
91671987|NCT00546910|183238794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.18||P-value is for Error Rate overall for morning, noon and evening. Error Rate was not tested in the primary analysis but is a secondary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.18|0.69|<0.001
91671988|NCT00546910|183238794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28||P-value is for Multi Response overall for morning, noon and evening. Multi Response was not tested in the primary analysis but is a secondary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.28|0.05|0.178
91671989|NCT01011556|183238821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 3.5% was used.|Difference in Least Square Means|-7.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.489|-5.851|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-5.851|-8.489|<0.001
91671990|NCT01011556|183238821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 3.5% was used.|Difference in Least Square Means|-7.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.822|-6.144|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-6.144|-8.822|<0.001
91671991|NCT01011556|183238821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 3.5% was used.|Difference in Least Square Means|-6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.448|-4.891|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-4.891|-7.448|<0.001
91671992|NCT01011556|183238822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.716|-3.452|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-3.452|-5.716|<0.001
91671993|NCT01011556|183238822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.006|-2.727|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-2.727|-5.006|<0.001
91671994|NCT01011556|183238822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.652|-2.464|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-2.464|-4.652|<0.001
91715642|NCT01435759|183322235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.12, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic2.|||||0.005
91861099|NCT05894577|183608805|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.35|0.49|
91671995|NCT01011556|183238823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.663|-3.392||p-value is for change in BMD at 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-3.392|-5.663|<0.001
91671996|NCT01011556|183238823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.086|-2.8||p-value is for change in BMD at 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-2.800|-5.086|<0.001
91792830|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.83||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|62.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||62.4|1.3|0.042
91671997|NCT01011556|183238823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.627|-2.43||p-value is for change in BMD at 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-2.430|-4.627|<0.001
91671998|NCT01011556|183238823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.856|-6.151||p-value is for change in BMD at 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-6.151|-8.856|<0.001
91671999|NCT01011556|183238823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.835|-6.091||p-value for change in BMD at 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-6.091|-8.835|0.001
91672000|NCT01011556|183238823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.802||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|-4.86||p-value is for change in BMD at 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-4.860|-7.510|0.001
91672001|NCT01011556|183238824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
91672002|NCT01011556|183238824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
91672003|NCT01011556|183238824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
91672004|NCT01011556|183238824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
91672005|NCT01011556|183238824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
91672006|NCT01011556|183238824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||0.003
91672007|NCT01011556|183238824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||<0.001
91672008|NCT01011556|183238824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||<0.001
91672009|NCT01011556|183238824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||0.029
91672010|NCT01011556|183238824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||<0.001
91715643|NCT01435759|183322236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.86 was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Emax.|||||0.011
91672011|NCT01011556|183238824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||<0.001
91672012|NCT01011556|183238824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.047
91715644|NCT01435759|183322236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.59, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Exponential.|||||0.023
91715645|NCT01435759|183322236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||MCP-Mod Analysis|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Least Squares Means|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.28, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Linear.|||||0.003
91672013|NCT01011556|183238825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||0.822
91672014|NCT01011556|183238825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||0.406
91672015|NCT01011556|183238825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||0.312
91672016|NCT01011556|183238825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
91672017|NCT01011556|183238825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
91672018|NCT01011556|183238825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||0.952
91672019|NCT01011556|183238825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||<0.001
91672020|NCT01011556|183238825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||0.011
91672021|NCT01011556|183238825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||0.997
91672022|NCT01011556|183238825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.003
91672023|NCT01011556|183238825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.112
91715646|NCT01435759|183322236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.93, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic1.|||||0.009
91715647|NCT01435759|183322236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.13, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic2.|||||0.005
91715648|NCT01435759|183322237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.24, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Emax|||||<0.001
91672024|NCT01011556|183238825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.988
91672025|NCT01011556|183238826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
91672026|NCT01011556|183238826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
91672027|NCT01011556|183238826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
91672028|NCT01483625|183238866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0516|0.1654|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects:treatment,visit,treatment by visit,baseline and baseline by visit. Random:Patient. A spatial power covariance structure was used.||Tiotropium 18 mcg minus Placebo||0.1654|-0.0516|0.3025
91715649|NCT01435759|183322237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.36, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Expontential.|||||0.002
91672029|NCT01483625|183238867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9053|1.078|||2sample t quantiles with pooled variance|||Comparison Tiotropium 18 mcg Vs Placebo||1.0780|0.9053|0.7823
91715650|NCT01435759|183322237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.10, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Linear.|||||<0.001
91861100|NCT05894577|183608806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.41|0.77|
91715651|NCT01435759|183322237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.39, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic1.|||||<0.001
91715652|NCT01435759|183322237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.39 was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic2.|||||<0.001
91861101|NCT05894577|183608806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.69|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.69|0.82|
91672030|NCT01483625|183238868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0806||0.9025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1489|0.1686||Comparison Tiotropium 18 mcg Vs Placebo at Week 12|Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects:treatment,visit,treatment by visit,baseline and baseline by visit. Patient was random. A spatial power covariance structure was used.||||0.1686|-0.1489|0.9025
91672031|NCT01483625|183238871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0115||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0157|1.8938|||t-test, 2 sided|95% confidence interval is based on 2 sample t quantiles using pooled variance.||Comparison Tiotropium 18 mcg Vs Placebo Over 12 Weeks||1.8938|-10.0157|0.1797
91672032|NCT00707447|183238957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||There was only one primary outcome variable, thus no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-tests for between group comparisons, dependent t-tests for within group comparisons||||<.05
91672033|NCT00707447|183238958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-tests for between group comparisons, dependent t-tests for within group comparisons||||<.05
91672034|NCT00707447|183238959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91672035|NCT00707447|183238960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91672036|NCT00707447|183238961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91672037|NCT00707447|183238962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91672038|NCT00707447|183238963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91672039|NCT00707447|183238964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91672040|NCT00707447|183238965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91672041|NCT00707447|183238966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91672042|NCT00508027|183238967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ho: There is no change in plasma biomarker levels before and after simivastatin treatment. With 12 patients in each group and assuming a 5% risk of Type I error (two-tailed α = 0.05) and estimated SD for the change in NOx (or sVCAM-1) of 48%, power will be 80% to detect a 40% change from baseline for each group, and a 55% difference in the change in biomarker levels between dose groups. Matched paired t-tests were used to measure changes in biomarker levels from baseline.||||<0.05
91715653|NCT01435759|183322238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||1|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis Method|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.10, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Betamod.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method||||1.000
91792831|NCT02751931|183463235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|87.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||87.3|-11.0|0.121
91792832|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||3.4|-2.7|0.818
91672043|NCT02013531|183238988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from Baseline in the MADRS total score at Week 6 was tested at a significance level of 0.05. Because this was an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
91672044|NCT02013531|183238989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||||<0.0001
91715654|NCT01435759|183322238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.942|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.41, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Emax.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method.||||0.942
91792833|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||0.1|-1.2|0.114
91792834|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||0.0|-2.3|0.052
91792835|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||0.1|-1.8|0.066
91792836|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||6.7|-4.4|0.674
91792837|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||0.6|-1.9|0.278
91792838|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||5.0|-4.2|0.871
91792839|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||0.3|-1.6|0.153
91792840|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||3.9|-3.5|0.922
91792841|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||0.0|-1.5|0.047
91672045|NCT02013531|183238995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||The null hypothesis of zero in Mean change from Baseline in HAM-A total score at Week 6 was tested at a significance level of 0.05. Because this was an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
91672046|NCT02240186|183239010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91672047|NCT02240186|183239011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91672048|NCT02240186|183239012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91672049|NCT00860743|183239053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91672050|NCT00860743|183239054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2
91672051|NCT02776553|183239060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
91792842|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||-0.4|-3.6|0.018
91792843|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||0.1|-1.7|0.070
91792844|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||0.1|-2.0|0.083
91792845|NCT02751931|183463236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||0.1|-2.3|0.064
91792846|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER|||||||0.692||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||||0.692
91792847|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||||0.018
91792848|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER|||||||0.061||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||0.061
91792849|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.008
91792850|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER|||||||0.612||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||||0.612
91792851|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||||0.018
91792852|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER|||||||0.858||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||||0.858
91715655|NCT01435759|183322238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.995|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.20, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Linear.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method.||||0.995
91792853|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||||0.004
91792854|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||0.003
91672052|NCT02776553|183239061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91861102|NCT05894577|183608806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.52|
91792855|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||< 0.001
91672053|NCT02776553|183239062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
91672054|NCT03827018|183239071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.92||Comparison of KPL-301 and placebo with respect to time to flare calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||95% confidence interval was calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata.|||0.92|0.15|0.0263
91672055|NCT03827018|183239072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|33.3||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|55.8||Two-sided p-value and 95% CI for the difference in sustained remission between two arms using normal approximation. Placebo arm is the reference.|normal approximation|||Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||55.8|10.7|0.0038
91672056|NCT03827018|183239073|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.95||Calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate, and stratified by randomization strata.|Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||0.95|0.27|0.0277
91672057|NCT03827018|183239074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||Calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate, and stratified by randomization strata.|Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||0.98|0.19|0.0378
91672058|NCT03827018|183239075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.06||Calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate, and stratified by randomization strata.|Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||1.06|0.22|0.0651
91792856|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER|||||||0.045||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||||0.045
91792857|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||||0.002
91672059|NCT03827018|183239076|OTHER|Descriptive statistic|Least Squares (LS) means difference|-326.45||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-675.99|23.09||Calculated using ANCOVA with treatment arm and randomization strata as discrete variables, and corticosteroid starting dose as a continuous variable.|ANCOVA|||||23.09|-675.99|0.0667
91672060|NCT03827018|183239077|OTHER|Descriptive statistic|Difference in percentages|31.0||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|50.8||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.8|11.1|0.0201
91672061|NCT03827018|183239078|OTHER|Descriptive statistic|Difference in percentages|9.5||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|27.8||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.8|-8.7|0.5533
91672062|NCT03827018|183239079|OTHER|Descriptive statistics|Difference in percentages|39.3||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|61.3||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.3|17.2|0.0031
91672063|NCT03827018|183239080|OTHER|Descriptive statistics|Least Squares (LS) means difference|-380.82||||0.1629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-919.66|158.02||Calculated using ANCOVA with treatment arm and randomization strata as discrete variables, and corticosteroid starting dose as a continuous variable|ANCOVA|||||158.02|-919.66|0.1629
91672064|NCT01998243|183239088|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.6|||Chi-squared||risk ratio (RR)|||2.60|0.53|0.689
91672065|NCT01998243|183239089|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.01|||Chi-squared||all in all balloon and postsurgical morbidity in group A vs. group B.|||3.01|0.84|0.144
91672066|NCT01998243|183239090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.937
91672067|NCT01998243|183239091|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91672068|NCT01998243|183239092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.673
91672069|NCT04569786|183239120|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|0.92||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.34||1-sided|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA) method|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.34|0.63|0.649
91672070|NCT04569786|183239120|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.495||90.0|0.68|1.48||1-sided|LDA model|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.48|0.68|0.495
91672071|NCT04569786|183239120|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.6||1-sided|LDA Model|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.60|0.75|0.339
91861103|NCT05894577|183608806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.43|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.43|0.65|
91672072|NCT04569786|183239120|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|3.28||1-sided|LDA Model|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||3.28|1.56|<0.001
91672073|NCT02646917|183239146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Goodman and Baron's qualitative acne scar severity scores. Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero.||||<0.008
91672074|NCT02646917|183239147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxen signed-rank test|||Null hypothesis 4 (no change).||||<.001
91672075|NCT02646917|183239148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero||||<0.01
91672076|NCT02646917|183239149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 0 (no change in the appearance of acne scars).||||<0.01
91672077|NCT02646917|183239150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 4 (no change).||||||<0.01
91672078|NCT00680186|183239157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 2.75 for the HR analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.0002||95.0|0.69|1.85||Non-inferiority P-Value.Two co-primary analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the risk difference (RD) (at day 180) and for the HR (up to end of ptp) analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on primary endpoint|Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||Hazard ratio (HR) vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.85|0.69|0.0002
91715656|NCT01435759|183322238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.978|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.30, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Logistic.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method||||0.978
91672079|NCT00680186|183239157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 3.6% for the RD based on KM estimates|Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|1.3||Non-inferiority P-Value.Two co-primary analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the RD (at day 180) and for the HR (events up to end of ptp) analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on the primary endpoint.|Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death related to VTE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.3|-1.0|<0.0001
91672080|NCT00680186|183239157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||||95.0|0.64|1.8|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the earliest of last contact date or day 180.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and day 180). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE. This analysis was performed as sensitivity analysis for statistical analysis 1.||1.8|0.64|
91672081|NCT00680186|183239158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.6932||95.0|-1.1|1.6|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.6|-1.1|0.6932
91672082|NCT00680186|183239158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6383||95.0|0.75|1.6|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.60|0.75|0.6383
91672083|NCT00680186|183239159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.6||||0.1703||95.0|-0.3|1.5|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic DVT at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.5|-0.3|0.1703
91672084|NCT00680186|183239159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.1054||95.0|0.9|3.01|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||3.01|0.90|0.1054
91672085|NCT00680186|183239160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.4||||0.2283||95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic non-fatal PE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.3|-1.1|0.2283
91672086|NCT00680186|183239160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.2101||95.0|0.26|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.35|0.26|0.2101
91792858|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||||0.006
91672087|NCT00680186|183239161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.2||||0.083||95.0|0.0|0.5|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died due to VTE . Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.5|0.0|0.0830
91672088|NCT00680186|183239162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.1||||0.7348||95.0|-0.7|1.0|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died from any cause. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.0|-0.7|0.7348
91672089|NCT00680186|183239162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8939||95.0|0.61|1.77|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.77|0.61|0.8939
91672090|NCT00680186|183239163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.3||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic fatal and non-fatal PE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.3|-1.0|0.3210
91672091|NCT00680186|183239163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.46|||Regression, Cox|||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.46|0.29|0.3021
91672092|NCT00680186|183239164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||||95.0|0.36|1.32|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first MBE.|HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of MBE was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.32|0.36|
91672093|NCT00680186|183239164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.81|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first occurrence of any bleeding event.|HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of any bleeding was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||0.81|0.56|<0.0001
91672094|NCT00479388|183239213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.006||95.0|-7.7|-1.3|||Repeated measures analysis|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time, baseline LDL-C-by-time and concomitant statin group-by-time interaction.||||-1.3|-7.7|0.006
91861104|NCT05894577|183608806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.41|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.41|0.63|
91672095|NCT00479388|183239214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<=|0.001||95.0|13.4|17.9|||Repeated measures analysis|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time, baseline HDL-C-by-time and concomitant statin group-by-time interaction.||||17.9|13.4|<=0.001
91672096|NCT00479388|183239215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|||<=|0.001||95.0|-19.2|-11.7|||Repeated measures analysis|ANCOVA model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, gender, concomitant statin group and Tukey's normal score of baseline.||||-11.7|-19.2|<=0.001
91672097|NCT01876368|183239223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-4.73|<0.001
91672098|NCT02260258|183239244|EQUIVALENCE|Time variable log transformed and compared using linear regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Effect estimate represents geometric mean difference. Values above 1.0 favor longer duration in the NMB arm.|Geometric mean difference|1.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||A priori threshold for significance 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.7|0.82
91672099|NCT02260258|183239245|EQUIVALENCE|LOS truncated at 28 days and compared using negative binomial regression controlling for stratification and site. Effect estimates represent incidence rate ratios. The parameter estimate, p value and CI provided below are from the negative binomial regression carried out all patients (N = 37 in NMB and 43 in Usual Care)|Incidence rate ratio|1.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9|||Negative binomial regression|||All patients analyzed (N = 37 in NMB and 43 in Usual Care)||1.9|1.0|0.09
91672100|NCT02260258|183239245|EQUIVALENCE|LOS truncated at 28 days and compared using negative binomial regression controlling for stratification and site. Effect estimates represent incidence rate ratios. The parameter estimate, p value and CI provided below are from the negative binomial regression carried out on ICU survivors alone (n = 14 in NMB and 14 in Control)|Incidence rate ratio|1.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Negative binomial regression|||ICU survivors alone analyzed (n = 14 in each arm)||2.0|0.8|0.35
91792859|NCT02751931|183463237|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||||0.007
91792860|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||0.6|0.1|0.018
91861105|NCT05894577|183608806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.19|0.44|
91672101|NCT02260258|183239246|EQUIVALENCE|Duration log transformed and compared using linear regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Includes all patients (n=37 in NMB and n = 43 in control). Effect estimates represent geometric mean difference. Values above 1.0 favor longer duration in the NMB arm.|Geometric mean difference|1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Duration log transformed and so parameter estimate represents geometric mean difference.||Anaysis for the full data (n= 37 in NMB and 43 in Control)||1.9|0.9|0.18
91672102|NCT02260258|183239246|EQUIVALENCE|Duration log transformed and compared using linear regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Includes patients surviving to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation (n=14 in each group). Two patients discharged from the hospital on mechanical ventilation have duration truncated at time of discharge and are considered survivors to extubation. Effect estimates represent geometric mean difference. Values above 1.0 favor longer duration in the NMB arm.|Geometric mean difference|1.4||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Regression, Linear|Duration log transformed and so parameter estimate represents geometric mean difference.||Anaysis for the patients surviving to extubation (n= 14 in both groups)||2.9|0.7|0.32
91672103|NCT02260258|183239247|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison made using logistic regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Effect estimates represent odds ratios|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3|0.5|0.63
91672104|NCT02260258|183239248|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison made using logistic regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Effect estimates represent odds ratios|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.7|0.6|0.35
91861106|NCT05894577|183608807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.39|0.75|
91672105|NCT04230876|183239274|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.047|||=|0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||Within the 28 participants, changes in the COSI scores after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes after four weeks watching 20 minutes of CC TV (F(1,26)=1.28).|ANOVA|||||||=0.269
91672106|NCT04230876|183239275|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.031|||=|0.401|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the IOI-HA scores measured after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes seen after four weeks of CC TV every day (F(1,23)=.733).|ANOVA|||||||=0.401
91715657|NCT00427908|183322239|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to be greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenA.|Difference in percentage|6.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|16.04||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenA. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenA titer from pre to post vaccination.||16.04|1.15|
91792861|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||1.6|0.0|0.045
91902747|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.2|
91672107|NCT04230876|183239276|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.0|||=|0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the APHAB benefit scores after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the improvements seen after four weeks of CC TV every day (F(1,25)=.002).|ANOVA|||||||=0.968
91672108|NCT04230876|183239277|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.028|||=|0.392|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the SSQ-12 scores after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the improvements seen after four weeks watching 20 minutes of CC TV (F(1,26)=.756).|ANOVA|||||||=0.392
91672109|NCT04230876|183239278|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.005|||=|0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Among the 28 participants, changes in the hours per day of hearing aid usage seen after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes seen after four weeks of CC TV every day (F(1,26)=.131).|ANOVA|||||||=0.720
91672110|NCT04230876|183239279|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.052|||=|0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the NU-6 seen after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes seen after four weeks watching 20 minutes of CC TV (F(1,26)=1.43).|ANOVA|||||||=0.242
91672111|NCT00545688|183239281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|16.82||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|30.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by breast cancer type (operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory) and estrogen and or progesterone positivity (either positive versus both negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.1|3.5|0.0094
91672112|NCT00545688|183239281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with Simes multiplicity adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0141
91672113|NCT00545688|183239281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|-12.15||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-0.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by breast cancer type (operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory) and estrogen and or progesterone positivity (either positive versus both negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.5|-23.8|0.0198
91672114|NCT00545688|183239281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with Simes multiplicity adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0198
91672115|NCT00545688|183239281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|-21.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-8.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by breast cancer type (operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory) and estrogen and or progesterone positivity (either positive versus both negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-8.5|-35.1|0.0010
91672116|NCT00545688|183239281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with Simes multiplicity adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0030
91672117|NCT00545688|183239296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.2983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|PFS||1.40|0.34|0.2983
91672118|NCT00545688|183239296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.4722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|PFS||2.30|0.68|0.4722
91672119|NCT00545688|183239296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.05||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|PFS||3.93|1.07|0.0268
91672120|NCT00545688|183239296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|DFS||1.27|0.28|0.1805
91672121|NCT00545688|183239296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|DFS||1.64|0.42|0.5901
91672122|NCT00545688|183239296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|DFS||4.32|1.08|0.0250
91672123|NCT04243096|183239298|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.64|2.60|<0.0001
91672124|NCT04243096|183239299|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.06|<0.0001
91672125|NCT04243096|183239300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.03|<0.0001
91672126|NCT04243096|183239301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.04|<0.0001
91672127|NCT04243096|183239302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.01|<0.0001
91672128|NCT04243096|183239303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.02|0.0013
91672129|NCT04243096|183239304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.02|0.0003
91672130|NCT04243096|183239305|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|0.02|<0.0001
91672131|NCT04243096|183239306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|0.06|<0.0001
91672132|NCT04243096|183239310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|13.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.31|6.60|<0.0001
91672133|NCT04243096|183239311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.65|16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, BMI, and presence of comorbidities.|Change from baseline to week 12|||16.48|9.65|<0.0001
91672134|NCT04243096|183239312|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.5||||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.61|-39.7|0.1196
91672135|NCT04243096|183239314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.04|<0.0001
91672136|NCT04243096|183239315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.09|-5.76|<0.0001
91672137|NCT04243096|183239316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.46|<0.0001
91672138|NCT04243096|183239317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-2.22|<0.0001
91672139|NCT04243096|183239318|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.22|-3.37|<0.0001
91672140|NCT04243096|183239319|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.21||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|11.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.11|1.31|0.0134
91672141|NCT04243096|183239320|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.34|1.16|<0.0001
91672142|NCT04243096|183239321|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.97|0.0030
91672143|NCT04243096|183239322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|0.23|<0.0001
91672144|NCT04243096|183239323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|51.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||51.67|18.70|<0.0001
91672145|NCT04243096|183239324|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.39|-2.57|<0.0001
91672146|NCT02792218|183239340|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.495|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|0.655|||negative binomial regression model|||Obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression model with log-link to the number of relapses, adjusted for treatment and region as factors, number of relapses in previous year, baseline EDSS, baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions and the patient's age at baseline as covariates. The natural log of the time-in-study was used as offset to annualize the relapse rate.||0.655|0.375|<0.001
91902748|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||=|0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.1|= 0.1320
91672147|NCT02792218|183239341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.863|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.863|0.500|0.003
91672148|NCT02792218|183239342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.652||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|0.956|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.956|0.445|0.029
91672149|NCT02792218|183239343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.676||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.917|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.917|0.498|0.012
91672150|NCT02792218|183239344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.607||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.930|0.396|0.022
91672151|NCT02792218|183239345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.952|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||1.952|0.952|0.092
91672152|NCT02792218|183239346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.186||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.983|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||1.983|0.709|0.516
91672153|NCT02792218|183239347|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.049|||negative binomial regression model|||||0.049|0.013|<.001
91672154|NCT02792218|183239348|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.33|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 12||0.33|0.21|<.001
91672155|NCT02792218|183239348|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.34|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 24||0.34|0.15|<.001
91672156|NCT02792218|183239348|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.22|||negative binomial regression model|||End of Study||0.22|0.15|<.001
91672157|NCT02792218|183239349|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.93||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 3||0.98|0.89|0.011
91672158|NCT02792218|183239349|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 12||0.77|0.69|<.001
91672159|NCT02792218|183239349|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 24||0.82|0.72|<.001
91672160|NCT02792218|183239350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15|||random coefficient model|||||0.15|-0.02|0.118
91672161|NCT02792218|183239353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|0.847|||Regression, Cox|||||0.847|0.486|0.002
91672162|NCT02792218|183239354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.898|||Regression, Cox|||||0.898|0.481|0.008
91672163|NCT00248170|183239370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3150
91672164|NCT01557582|183239385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||EDV percent difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|7.56|||||Mean percent difference and 95% CI for EDV|||7.56|2.24|
91672165|NCT01557582|183239385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ESV percent difference|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|4.76|||||Mean percent difference and 95% CI for ESV|||4.76|-1.17|
91672166|NCT01557582|183239385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||EF percent difference|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.33|||||Mean percent difference and 95% CI for EF|||3.33|0.72|
91672167|NCT00749411|183239401|NON_INFERIORITY|GSK233705/GW642444 were declared non-inferior to placebo for heart rate if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference for weighted mean heart rate was less than +10bpm.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.5|||||Analysis performed using a Repeated Measures Model with covariates of baseline pulse rate, sex, age, smoking status, treatment and Day and Day by treatment and Day by baseline interactions.|||3.5|-5.5|
91672168|NCT03694808|183239403|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 1 (2018-2019)||1.89|0.8|
91672169|NCT03694808|183239403|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.38|0.66|
91672170|NCT03694808|183239404|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 1 (2018-2019)||2.15|0.88|
91672171|NCT03694808|183239404|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.4|0.53|
91672172|NCT03694808|183239405|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||2.79|1.23|
91672173|NCT03694808|183239405|NON_INFERIORITY|2-sided t-test performed on log-transformed titers; estimate and 95% confidence interval of log-scale difference exponentiated to generate GMT ratio and its 95% CI below.|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.26|0.61|
91792862|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||1.2|0.1|0.013
91672174|NCT03694808|183239406|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.308|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.308|-0.001|
91672175|NCT03694808|183239406|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.089|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.089|-0.2|
91792863|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||2.2|0.6|0.002
91715658|NCT00427908|183322239|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response is greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenC.|Difference in percentage|13.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|24.32||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenC. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenC titer from pre to post vaccination.||24.32|4.79|
91715659|NCT00427908|183322239|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response is greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenW-135.|Difference in percentage|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|12.21||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenW-135. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenW-135 titer from pre to post vaccination.||12.21|1.51|
91715660|NCT00427908|183322239|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrux minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response is greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenY.|Difference in percentage|16.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|26.78||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenY. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenY titer from pre to post vaccination.||26.78|8.99|
91792864|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||1.8|0.5|0.001
91672176|NCT03694808|183239407|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.218|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.373|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.373|0.063|
91672177|NCT03694808|183239407|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.123|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.123|-0.139|
91672178|NCT03694808|183239408|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.291|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.291|-0.019|
91672179|NCT03694808|183239408|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.164|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.164|-0.117|
91672180|NCT03694808|183239409|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.64|0.29|
91672181|NCT03694808|183239409|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.69|0.29|
91672182|NCT03694808|183239410|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||1.16|0.71|
91672183|NCT03694808|183239410|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.33|0.69|
91672184|NCT03694808|183239411|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.544|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|-0.414|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||-0.414|-0.674|
91672185|NCT03694808|183239411|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|-0.025|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||-0.025|-0.311|
91672186|NCT03694808|183239412|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.013|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.013|-0.221|
91672187|NCT03694808|183239412|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference of proportions|-0.113|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.015|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.015|-0.241|
91672188|NCT00455962|183239419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Using previously collected data from a group of 18 predominantly Caucasian women undergoing a similar infusion we determined that 22 women would be necessary to identify a 30% difference in peak LH levels, the primary outcome measure, between AAW and CW with 80% power at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.69
91672189|NCT02070757|183239420|NON_INFERIORITY|Meropenem minus ceftolozane/tazobactam. For ceftolozane/tazobactam to be non-inferior to meropenem the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups had to be ≥ -10%.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|7.39|||||The % difference between groups is the weighted proportion difference using MRc stratum weights for diagnosis and age categories. The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference.|||7.39|-5.13|
91672190|NCT02070757|183239421|NON_INFERIORITY|Clinical Response difference is calculated as ceftolozane/tazobactam minus meropenem. For ceftolozane/tazobactam to be non-inferior to meropenem the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups had to be ≥ -12.5%.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|8.29|||||The % difference between groups is the weighted proportion difference using MRc stratum weights for diagnosis and age categories. The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference.|||8.29|-6.17|
91672191|NCT02070757|183239422|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|11.75|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||11.75|-2.83|
91792865|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||3.3|1.2|<0.001
91792866|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||2.1|0.5|0.001
91792867|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||3.0|0.9|<0.001
91792868|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||2.0|0.7|<0.001
91792869|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||3.2|1.2|<0.001
91792870|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||2.1|0.5|0.002
91792871|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||2.8|1.0|<0.001
91715661|NCT00427908|183322242|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority (serogroup C only): one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix Group minus Meningitec Group) in the percentage of subjects with rSBA titer ≥ 1:8 is greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limit of -15%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|7.89||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine when compared to the licensed Meningitec™ vaccine for MenC as measured by rSBA.||7.89|-0.27|
91715662|NCT01764841|183322333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7331||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5027|1.069|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 97.5% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 28/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||1.0690|0.5027|0.0650
91715663|NCT01764841|183322333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5333||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3568|0.7971|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 97.5% CI was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 14/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||0.7971|0.3568|0.0005
91715664|NCT01764841|183322334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.8615||||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.6264|1.1848|||Poisson regression|||A Poisson regression with adjustment for over-/under dispersion was used to analyze the number of exacerbation events over 48 weeks and to test the difference in the frequency of exacerbation between Ciprofloxacin DPI 28 and Pooled placebo group. P-value was analyzed using Wald-type test along with the incidence rate ratio of the comparison.||1.1848|0.6264|0.2944
91715665|NCT01764841|183322334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.7329||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5237|1.0256|||Poisson regression|||A Poisson regression with adjustment for over-/under dispersion was used to analyze the number of exacerbation events over 48 weeks and to test the difference in the frequency of exacerbation between Ciprofloxacin DPI 14 and Pooled placebo group. P-value was analyzed using Wald-type test along with the incidence rate ratio of the comparison.||1.0256|0.5237|0.0382
91715666|NCT04863872|183322350|OTHER|Difference|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.3|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression with binary primary outcome, estimated using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) and robust variance estimation.||||1.30|0.39|0.27
91715667|NCT00549549|183322351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||This was the primary analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group and region as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity (for the prior 24 hours) at Baseline as a covariate.||-0.18|-0.74|
91715668|NCT00549549|183322351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.52|
91715669|NCT00549549|183322351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|0.29|
91715670|NCT00549549|183322351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|0.05|
91715671|NCT00549549|183322351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.17|
91715672|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity (for the prior 24 hours) at Baseline as a covariate.||0.14|-0.29|
91715673|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.02|-0.42|
91715674|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.47|0.04|
91715675|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.39|-0.04|
91715676|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.27|-0.16|
91715677|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.16|-0.26|
91715678|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.03|-0.40|
91715679|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.32|-0.11|
91715680|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.27|-0.16|
91715681|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.13|-0.30|
91672192|NCT02070757|183239423|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|7.67|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||7.67|-10.21|
91672193|NCT02070757|183239424|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.0||||||95.0|-5.11|18.93|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||18.93|-5.11|
91672194|NCT02070757|183239426|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|3.57|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||3.57|-6.41|
91672195|NCT02070757|183239427|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|6.04|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||6.04|-7.67|
91672196|NCT02070757|183239428|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|12.02|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||12.02|-8.91|
91672197|NCT02070757|183239429|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|10.44|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||10.44|-3.38|
91672198|NCT01332578|183239447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-20.92||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.31|-15.81|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference was determined.|Null hypothesis was no difference between test hot drink and standard paracetamol tablets.||-15.81|-27.31|0.0004
91672199|NCT02597582|183239457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A previous study found that the mean operation time was 165 minutes for patients undergoing LigaSure vessel sealing system-assisted total laryngectomy plus neck dissection and 195 minutes for those receiving conventional hemostasis.~With a difference in operative duration of 30 minutes between the two groups,9 the estimated sample size needed to demonstrate a two-sided significance level of 0.05 with 80% power should be at least 18 participants in each treatment arm."||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
91672200|NCT02597582|183239458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|As above||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
91672201|NCT02597582|183239459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|as above||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
91902749|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||=|0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.9|= 0.2975
91672202|NCT02597582|183239461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|as above||||||0.524|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.524
91672203|NCT02597582|183239462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|as above||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
91672204|NCT01833533|183239484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 65% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|94.3|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||94.3|86.2|
91672205|NCT01833533|183239484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 65% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|93.7|
91672206|NCT01833533|183239485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91672207|NCT01833533|183239486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|93.7|
91672208|NCT01833533|183239486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|94.3|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||94.3|86.2|
91672209|NCT01833533|183239486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group was analyzed using a noninferiority margin of -10.5%; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI (calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution)for the difference in percentage of participants must exceed -10.5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.5|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||-1.5|-12.0|
91672210|NCT01043926|183239572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"AUC(0-∞) GMR = AUC(0-∞) GM for Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency Participants ÷ AUC(0-∞) GM for Healthy Participants~A 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR was computed from the ANCOVA model. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the upper limit bound of the 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR fell below 2.00, then the hypothesis would be met and the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant would be similar in both groups of participants. That is, if the true ratio of the GM AUC(0-∞) is no more than 2.00."|AUC(0-∞) Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.43|||ANCOVA|||"The geometric mean (GM) for each participant group and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for AUC(0-∞) using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The AUC(0-∞) geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the 2 participant groups was used to test the primary hypothesis, which was that the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant following a single 20-mg oral dose would be similar between participants with moderate hepatic insufficiency and healthy matched control participants."||1.43|0.74|
91672211|NCT01043926|183239573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Cmax GMR = Cmax GM for Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency Participants ÷ Cmax GM for Healthy Participants~A 90% CI for the Cmax GMR was computed from the ANCOVA model. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the upper limit bound of the 90% CI for the Cmax GMR fell below 2.00, then the hypothesis would be met and the Cmax of suvorexant would be similar in both groups of participants. That is, if the true ratio of the geometric mean Cmax is no more than 2.00."|Cmax Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.29|||ANCOVA|||"The GM for each participant group and the corresponding 95% CI were calculated for Cmax using an ANCOVA model.~The Cmax GMR of the 2 participant groups was used to test the primary hypothesis, which was that the Cmax of suvorexant following a single 20-mg oral dose would be similar between participants with moderate hepatic insufficiency and healthy matched control participants."||1.29|0.68|
91672212|NCT00562120|183239662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.302
91672213|NCT00562120|183239662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.134
91861107|NCT05894577|183608807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.44|0.76|
91861108|NCT05894577|183608807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.71|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.71|0.84|
91672214|NCT00562120|183239662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.229
91672215|NCT00562120|183239662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.544
91715682|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.10|-0.33|
91672216|NCT00562120|183239662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.710
91672217|NCT00562120|183239662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.816
91672218|NCT00562120|183239663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.269
91672219|NCT00562120|183239663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.097
91792872|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||2.2|0.5|0.002
91792873|NCT02751931|183463238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||3.2|1.1|<0.001
91792874|NCT02751931|183463239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.04||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.49||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||6.49|-2.40|0.352
91792875|NCT02751931|183463239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|1.53||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||1.53|-11.34|0.127
91792876|NCT02751931|183463239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|6.57||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||6.57|-3.96|0.613
91792877|NCT02751931|183463239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|0.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||0.20|-13.78|0.056
91792878|NCT02751931|183463240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.86||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||0.86|-0.14|0.153
91715683|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||-0.11|-0.53|
91672220|NCT00562120|183239663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.252
91672221|NCT00562120|183239663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.479
91672222|NCT00562120|183239663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.521
91672223|NCT00562120|183239663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.952
91672224|NCT00562120|183239664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.130
91715684|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Day /early termination analysis||0.37|-0.05|
91792879|NCT02751931|183463240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.08||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||1.08|0.19|0.007
91861109|NCT05894577|183608807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.71|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.71|0.76|
91672225|NCT00562120|183239664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.663
91672226|NCT00562120|183239664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.138
91792880|NCT02751931|183463240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.93||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||0.93|-0.10|0.106
91672227|NCT00562120|183239664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.124
91715685|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.25|-0.17|
91861110|NCT05894577|183608807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.46|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.46|0.67|
91861111|NCT05894577|183608807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.59|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.59|0.62|
91861112|NCT05894577|183608808|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.14|0.74|
91861113|NCT05894577|183608808|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.22|0.79|
91861114|NCT05894577|183608808|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.08|0.71|
91861115|NCT05894577|183608808|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.21|0.80|
91861116|NCT05894577|183608808|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.29|0.84|
91861117|NCT05894577|183608808|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.14|0.68|
91861118|NCT05894577|183608809|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference in MTU (Active - Placebo)\<0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||The mean time unwell is estimated from receipt of study drug to study day 14. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.1|-0.6|
91672228|NCT00562120|183239664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.134
91792881|NCT02751931|183463240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.51||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||1.51|0.38|0.003
91672229|NCT00562120|183239664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.978
91672230|NCT00562120|183239665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.357
91792882|NCT04090411|183463255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|27.65||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||27.65|-0.20|0.0545
91672231|NCT00562120|183239665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.952
91792883|NCT04090411|183463255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.71||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|24.09||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||24.09|-1.70|0.0823
91672232|NCT00562120|183239665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.480
91672233|NCT00562120|183239665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.043
91672234|NCT00562120|183239665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.087
91672235|NCT00562120|183239665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.753
91672236|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.011
91672237|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.127
91672238|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.103
91672239|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.218
91672240|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.905
91792884|NCT04090411|183463255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.24||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|22.91||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||22.91|-0.64|0.0642
91672241|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.273
91792885|NCT04090411|183463262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.92||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.62|20.04||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||20.04|-3.62|0.1398
91672242|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
91672243|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.055
91672244|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.012
91672245|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.048
91792886|NCT04090411|183463262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.36||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.88|17.06||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||17.06|-4.88|0.2038
91792887|NCT04090411|183463262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|17.06||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||17.06|-3.70|0.1498
91672246|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.496
91672247|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.190
91672248|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
91792888|NCT04090411|183463263|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.16||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.25|32.23||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||32.23|3.25|0.0189
91792889|NCT04090411|183463263|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.37||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.24|36.28||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||36.28|6.24|0.0045
91672249|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.019
91672250|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.009
91672251|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.061
91672252|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.778
91672253|NCT00562120|183239666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.102
91672254|NCT00562120|183239667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
91672255|NCT00562120|183239667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
91672256|NCT00562120|183239667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
91672257|NCT00562120|183239667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.217
91672258|NCT00562120|183239667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.156
91672259|NCT00562120|183239667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.848
91672260|NCT02148445|183239669|SUPERIORITY|Based on prior studies using precessation NRT, we estimate a 2-fold increase in cessation outcomes in the GMT group compared to the SC group. Given our recruitment of patients at all levels of readiness to quit, we estimate a 12 month cessation rate of 10%. With 199 participants, in each arm, we will have an 80% power to detect a 2-fold difference or greater with a Type I error rate of 5%.||||||0.88|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.88
91672261|NCT02148445|183239670|SUPERIORITY|Based on prior studies using precessation NRT, we estimate a 2-fold increase in cessation outcomes in the GMT group compared to the SC group. Given our recruitment of patients at all levels of readiness to quit, we estimate a 12 month cessation rate of 10%. With 199 participants, in each arm, we will have an 80% power to detect a 2-fold difference or greater with a Type I error rate of 5%. This sample size will provide comparable power for looking at 6 month sustained cessation.||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
91672262|NCT02148445|183239671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
91672263|NCT02148445|183239672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91672264|NCT02148445|183239673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91792890|NCT04090411|183463263|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.19||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.22|31.31||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||31.31|3.22|0.0117
91672265|NCT02148445|183239674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
91672266|NCT02148445|183239675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.42
91672267|NCT02148445|183239676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
91672268|NCT02148445|183239677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
91672269|NCT02148445|183239679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 3 self-reported abstinence||||0.08
91672270|NCT02148445|183239679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 3 biochemically verified abstinence||||0.06
91672271|NCT02148445|183239679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 6, self-reported abstinence||||0.22
91672272|NCT02148445|183239679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 6, biochemically verified abstinence||||0.34
91672273|NCT02148445|183239679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 12, self-reported abstinence||||0.66
91672274|NCT02148445|183239680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0149|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0149
91672275|NCT02148445|183239681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91672276|NCT02148445|183239682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91672277|NCT02148445|183239683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91672278|NCT02148445|183239684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0918|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0918
91672279|NCT03450629|183239685|EQUIVALENCE|8 AM +/- 30 min||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0006
91672280|NCT03450629|183239685|EQUIVALENCE|10 AM +/- 30 min||||||0.0291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0291
91792891|NCT04090411|183463264|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.82||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.14|37.3||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||37.30|4.14|0.0146
91861119|NCT05894577|183608810|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference days benefit (Active - Placebo)\>0))|Difference in model estimated means|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.75|||||The interval is a highest density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.75|-0.13|
91672281|NCT03450629|183239685|EQUIVALENCE|4 PM +/- 30 min||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91715686|NCT00549549|183322352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.05|-0.38|
91792892|NCT04090411|183463264|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.73||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.76|34.05||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||34.05|2.76|0.0167
91792893|NCT04090411|183463264|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.3||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.22|34.95||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||34.95|3.22|0.0094
91715687|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity (for the prior 24 hours) at Baseline as a covariate.||0.22|-0.29|
91715688|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.16|-0.35|
91715689|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.34|-0.17|
91715690|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.30|-0.20|
91715691|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.25|-0.26|
91715692|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.11|-0.36|
91715693|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.04|-0.44|
91715694|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.46|-0.01|
91715695|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.33|-0.14|
91715696|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.26|-0.22|
91715697|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.10|-0.38|
91715698|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||-0.04|-0.52|
91715699|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.39|-0.08|
91861120|NCT04064164|183608843|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.004||||||Dear (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 8.4 df=1||||||.004
91672282|NCT02093923|183239695|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
91672283|NCT02093923|183239695|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-87.77||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.18|-46.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-46.90|-97.18|0.0050
91672284|NCT02093923|183239695|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-91.08||||0.0012||95.0|-97.93|-61.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-61.57|-97.93|0.0012
91672285|NCT02093923|183239696|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
91672286|NCT02093923|183239696|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-84.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.07|-63.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-63.46|-93.07|<.0001
91715700|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.26|-0.22|
91715701|NCT00549549|183322353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.12|-0.36|
91672287|NCT02093923|183239696|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-87.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.81|-71.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-71.50|-94.81|<.0001
91672288|NCT02093923|183239697|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
91672289|NCT02093923|183239697|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-82.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.5|-58.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-58.64|-92.50|<.0001
91672290|NCT02093923|183239697|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-87.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.55|-69.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-69.06|-94.55|<.0001
91715702|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.6402
91715703|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9739|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.9739
91715704|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4581|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.4581
91792894|NCT04090411|183463265|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.17||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|25.25||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||25.25|0.05|0.0489
91715705|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2962|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.2962
91715706|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4951|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.4951
91715707|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4957
91672291|NCT02093923|183239698|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
91672292|NCT02093923|183239698|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-85.24||||0.0141||95.0|-96.79|-32.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-32.03|-96.79|0.0141
91672293|NCT02093923|183239698|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-89.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.68|-51.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-51.13|-97.68|0.0040
91672294|NCT01181531|183239703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|5.4||Unadjusted. Model contains baseline stratification factor for type of Vitamin D administered at the site|Mixed Models Analysis||Cinacalcet - Vitamin D|Null hypothesis: no difference in % change from baseline in PTH comparing the two treatment arms.||5.4|-15.4|0.346
91672295|NCT01181531|183239704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||Stratified by type of Vitamin D at site|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is Cinacalcet: Vitamin D|||2.29|0.92|0.110
91672296|NCT01181531|183239705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.39||stratified by type of Vitamin D at site|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is Cinacalcet: Vitamin D|||2.39|0.74|0.346
91792895|NCT04090411|183463265|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.02||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.66|12.88||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||12.88|-7.66|0.3396
91672297|NCT01631682|183239729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was reactivated (CS+R) after propranolol was administered would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus that was not reactivated (CS+N).||||>.05
91672298|NCT01631682|183239729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was initially presented (CS+R) and then followed by a series of extinction trials after a 10-min delay would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus (CS+N) that was not extinguished without a 10-min delay.||||>.05
91792896|NCT04090411|183463265|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.25||||0.3995|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|11.58||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||11.58|-7.42|0.3995
91672299|NCT01631682|183239729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was reactivated (CS+R) after mifepristone was administered would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus that was not reactivated (CS+N).||||<.05
91715708|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.8364
91715709|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.6892
91672300|NCT01631682|183239729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was reactivated (CS+R) after intranasal oxytocin was administered would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus that was not reactivated (CS+N).||||>.05
91672301|NCT04034355|183239756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.521||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0462|2.2113|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2113|1.0462|0.0280
91672302|NCT03064438|183239770|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares (LS) Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.162|5.727|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.727|-2.162|0.366
91672303|NCT03064438|183239771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1099|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 2||||0.1099
91672304|NCT03064438|183239771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1653|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 4||||0.1653
91672305|NCT03064438|183239771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8437|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 8||||0.8437
91672306|NCT03064438|183239771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4644|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 12||||0.4644
91672307|NCT03064438|183239772|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91672308|NCT03064438|183239773|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.571|5.211|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||5.211|-2.571|0.495
91672309|NCT03064438|183239773|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.014|2.045|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||2.045|-5.014|0.399
91672310|NCT03064438|183239773|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.965|6.407|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 8||6.407|-1.965|0.290
91672311|NCT03064438|183239773|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.953|5.469|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 12||5.469|-1.953|0.343
91672312|NCT03064438|183239774|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.894|2.155|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||2.155|-0.894|0.407
91672313|NCT03064438|183239774|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|1.109|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||1.109|-0.342|0.291
91672314|NCT03064438|183239774|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|1.073|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 8||1.073|-0.763|0.734
91672315|NCT03064438|183239774|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|1.197|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in pustule lesions at Week 12||1.197|-1.128|0.952
91672316|NCT03064438|183239775|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.069|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||0.069|-0.215|0.313
91672317|NCT03064438|183239775|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.152|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||0.152|-0.141|0.942
91672318|NCT03064438|183239775|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.226|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in nodule lesions at Week 8||0.226|-0.067|0.284
91672319|NCT03064438|183239775|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.105|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 12||0.105|-0.198|0.542
91672320|NCT03064438|183239776|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.135|6.139|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||6.139|-2.135|0.333
91672321|NCT03064438|183239776|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.882|2.822|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||2.822|-4.882|0.591
91672322|NCT03064438|183239776|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|6.758|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 8||6.758|-1.840|0.254
91672323|NCT03064438|183239776|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.131|5.779|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 12||5.779|-2.131|0.356
91672324|NCT02322788|183239814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean ratio|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||2.29|1.52|<0.001
91672325|NCT02322788|183239814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||2.20|1.46|<0.001
91715710|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4110
91715711|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5981|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.5981
91715712|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9317|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.9317
91792897|NCT02233478|183463285|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparison of ellagic acid concentration 0 to 24 hours post-dose area under the curve was made to PJ alone vs. PJ with soy protein after intervention.~Due to the quality issue of soybean flour, data from this intervention group was not analyzed."||||0.82
91792898|NCT03764033|183463293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|5.24||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.24|-3.66|0.729
91792899|NCT03764033|183463294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|4.61||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.61|-4.46|0.975
91672326|NCT02322788|183239814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The details of the sample size calculation is document at Section 8.2 the study protocol.|Estimated mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||1.13|0.75|
91672327|NCT02322788|183239814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The details of the sample size calculation is document at Section 8.2 the study protocol.|Estimated mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||1.08|0.72|
91672328|NCT02631837|183239825|NON_INFERIORITY|Our hypothesis was that women would accept a higher conversion rate of 15% for vNOTESbased on a telephone interview of 10 women treated by total vaginal NOTES hysterectomy. Women were asked to choose among ﬁve cut-off rates (5, 10, 15, 20 or 25%). Most women indicated 15%. We would conclude non-inferiority when the upper limit of the one-sided 95% conﬁdence interval for the difference in the proportions of women between both comparisons would be below 15%.||||||0.0221||||||The Farrington-Manning test for non-inferiority was performed with 5% significance level and yielded P = 0.0221 in a sensitivity analysis assuming one conversion in the vNOTES and 0 conversions in the laparoscopy group.|Farrington-Manning|||||||0.0221
91672329|NCT02631837|183239826|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.13|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.13|-0.56|0.007
91672330|NCT02631837|183239826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91672331|NCT02631837|183239828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.8|||Mann-Whitney U test|Two-sided test||||-1.8|-10|0.006
91672332|NCT02631837|183239829|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91672333|NCT02631837|183239830|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.05
91672334|NCT02631837|183239831|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.10|-0.47|0.009
91672335|NCT02631837|183239832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.106
91672336|NCT02631837|183239833|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-34.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-22.0|||Mann-Whitney U test|||||-22|-46|< 0.01
91672337|NCT02631837|183239834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7604||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.7604
91861121|NCT04064164|183608843|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App. Significant associations indicated the human and app were accurately identifying true positives (1:1) or true negatives (0:0).|||||<|0.001||||||Sweet (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 20.20 df=1||||||<.001
91861122|NCT04064164|183608843|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.02||||||Girl (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 5.08, df=1||||||.02
91672338|NCT02631837|183239835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3071||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.3071
91672339|NCT02631837|183239836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4541||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.4541
91672340|NCT02631837|183239837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4514||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.4514
91672341|NCT02631837|183239838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3473||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.3473
91715713|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.0831
91672342|NCT02631837|183239839|SUPERIORITY|We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.||||||0.3473||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.3473
91672343|NCT02631837|183239841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-555.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0||36.0|||Mann-Whitney U test|||||36|-1,044|0.110
91672344|NCT01197417|183239855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment||Null hypothesis of equal distributions of primary length of stay between treatment arms within all randomization strata||||0.24
91672345|NCT01197417|183239856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.12
91672346|NCT01197417|183239857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.39
91672347|NCT01197417|183239858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||<0.01
91715714|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5747|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.5747
91861123|NCT04064164|183608843|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.1||||||Honey (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 2.7, df= 1||||||.10
91792900|NCT03764033|183463295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|4.24||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.24|-5.27|0.831
91861124|NCT04064164|183608843|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.85||||||Baby (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 12.2, df = 1||||||0.85
91715715|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.6204
91715716|NCT00549549|183322354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2556|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analysis||||0.2556
91792901|NCT03764033|183463296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|-1.87||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.87|-11.31|0.006
91792902|NCT03764033|183463297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|-1.74||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.74|-11.34|0.008
91715717|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1444
91715718|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.7532
91715719|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4722|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.4722
91715720|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3878|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.3878
91715721|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6717|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.6717
91715722|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3098|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.3098
91861125|NCT02023866|183608863|OTHER|||||||0.1875|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Section I - Current Function Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||0.1875
91861126|NCT02023866|183608863|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxin Signed Rank|||Section II - System Specific Involvement Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||1.0000
91861127|NCT02023866|183608863|OTHER|||||||0.0781|||||||Wilcoxin Signed Rank|||Section III - Current Clinical Assessment Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||0.0781
91715723|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4356
91792903|NCT03764033|183463298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.37|0.066
91672348|NCT01197417|183239859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.11
91672349|NCT01197417|183239860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.78
91672350|NCT01197417|183239861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.46
91792904|NCT03764033|183463299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.69|0.043
91672351|NCT01252719|183239864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -10%, the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin was concluded.|Difference in Proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.7||||||||4.7|-5.5|
91715724|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.5703
91715725|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4986|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4986
91715726|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7855|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.7855
91861128|NCT02023866|183608863|OTHER|||||||0.2941|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test||Section IV - Quality of Life Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||0.2941
91861129|NCT04114877|183608909|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
91861130|NCT04114877|183608910|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
91715727|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.0169
91715728|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.1353
91861131|NCT04114877|183608911|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
91861132|NCT04114877|183608912|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
91861133|NCT04114877|183608913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.455
91861134|NCT04709783|183608916|OTHER|One group pre-post test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
91672352|NCT01252719|183239865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -10% the non-inferiority (NI) of oritavancin to vancomycin was concluded.|Difference in Proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.4||||||||8.4|-1.6|
91672353|NCT01252719|183239866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin was concluded.|Difference in Proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.6||||||||8.6|-0.5|
91672354|NCT03135899|183239884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.048|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 100 μg is compared to placebo.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||0.165|-0.048|
91672355|NCT03135899|183239884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.144|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 400 μg is compared to placebo.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||0.070|-0.144|
91672356|NCT03135899|183239884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.266|-0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 1200 μg is compared to placebo.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||-0.047|-0.266|
91672357|NCT03135899|183239886|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.595|0.977|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 100 μg is compared to placebo. Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||0.977|0.595|
91672358|NCT03135899|183239886|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 400 μg is compared to placebo. Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||1.199|0.715|
91672359|NCT03135899|183239886|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.651|1.095|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 1200 μg is compared to placebo. Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||1.095|0.651|
91672360|NCT03135899|183239888|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.95|||Regression, Cox||BI 443651 100 μg is compared to placebo.|The cox proportional hazard model included treatment and period as fixed effect and patient baseline as covariate. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the median of the period baselines for each patient. A hazard ratio greater than 1 gives that active treatment is not-inferior to placebo.||3.95|1.31|
91672361|NCT03135899|183239888|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.53|||Regression, Cox||BI 443651 400 μg is compared to placebo.|The cox proportional hazard model included treatment and period as fixed effect and patient baseline as covariate. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the median of the period baselines for each patient. A hazard ratio greater than 1 gives that active treatment is not-inferior to placebo.||3.53|1.22|
91715729|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.3690
91792905|NCT03764033|183463300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.43|0.016
91792906|NCT03764033|183463301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.04||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.74|0.028
91902750|NCT03627767|183700092|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.2|
91861135|NCT04709783|183608917|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.49||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91861136|NCT04709783|183608918|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.07|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91861137|NCT04709783|183608919|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91861138|NCT06132867|183608931|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used for the analysis. The model included sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants nested within sequence as a random effect. Geometric mean ratios and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment least square means (LSM) from the analyses on the natural log-transformed of Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.98|97.74|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment A/Treatment B).|||97.74|86.98|
91861139|NCT06132867|183608932|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used for the analysis. The model included sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants nested within sequence as a random effect. Geometric mean ratios and 90% CIs were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the natural log-transformed of AUClast.|GMR (%)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.48|104.16|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment A/Treatment B).|||104.16|88.48|
91672362|NCT03135899|183239888|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.47|||Regression, Cox||BI 443651 1200 μg is compared to placebo.|The cox proportional hazard model included treatment and period as fixed effect and patient baseline as covariate. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the median of the period baselines for each patient. A hazard ratio greater than 1 gives that active treatment is not-inferior to placebo.||4.47|1.50|
91672363|NCT02914236|183239899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Hypothesis was that the mean improvement in NOSE score exceeded 15 points||||||<0.0001
91672364|NCT02914236|183239900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||binomial test|Success threshold required at least 55% of subjects to be responders||||||<0.0001
91672365|NCT00441350|183239910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91672366|NCT00441350|183239911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
91672367|NCT00441350|183239912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
91672368|NCT00441350|183239913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91672369|NCT03614494|183239922|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|36.4|||Chi-squared|||||36.4|26.2|<0.0001
91672370|NCT03614494|183239923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.197||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.906|||Logistic regression, Firth's bias reduct|||||0.906|0.021|0.036
91672371|NCT02129647|183239928|OTHER||||||||||||||||||10 tissue matched historical controls were analyzed. The Median (Full Range) of the histoscore was 122 (60 to 265)|||
91672372|NCT02129647|183239929|OTHER||||||||||||||||||10 tissue matched historical controls were analyzed. The Median (Full Range) of the histoscore was 135 (100 to 240)|||
91672373|NCT02129647|183239930|OTHER||||||||||||||||||10 tissue matched historical controls were analyzed. The Median (Full Range) of the histoscore was 12 (0 to 100)|||
91672374|NCT01715896|183239936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-3.5||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|9.8|||Logit response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||9.8|-16.8|0.666
91672375|NCT01715896|183239937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-8.6||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.0|4.8|||Logit response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||4.8|-22.0|0.293
91672376|NCT01715896|183239938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-9.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|1.4|||Logit Response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||1.4|-21.1|0.156
91672377|NCT01715896|183239939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.2|0.0|||Logit Response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||0.0|-23.2|0.108
91672378|NCT01715896|183239940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-10.3||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|3.0|||Logit Response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||3.0|-23.7|0.2080
91672379|NCT01715896|183239947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|-7.42||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.24|2.4|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term.|||2.40|-17.24|0.213
91672380|NCT01715896|183239949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.04|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 90% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor.|||1.04|0.36|0.129
91672381|NCT01715896|183239950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.6||||0.108||90.0|-23.2|0.0|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of golimumab or active responders was less than 5.||0.0|-23.2|0.108
91672382|NCT01715896|183239950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.7||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.8|1.4|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||1.4|-24.8|0.145
91672383|NCT01715896|183239951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|||||||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using the Log rank test.||||||0.328
91672384|NCT01715896|183239952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Weibull model|P-value was calculated using an Weibull model.||||||0.003
91672385|NCT01715896|183239953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.7||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.4|9.0|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|P-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of golimumab or active responders was less than 5.||9.0|-12.4|0.795
91672386|NCT01715896|183239954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.7||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|-2.5|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|||-2.5|-21.0|0.048
91672387|NCT01715896|183239955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.9||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.6|-3.1|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|||-3.1|-20.6|0.035
91672388|NCT01715896|183239956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-7.5||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|-1.5|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|||-1.5|-13.6|0.061
91715730|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.0787
91861140|NCT06132867|183608933|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used for the analysis. The model included sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants nested within sequence as a random effect. Geometric mean ratios and 90% CIs were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the natural log-transformed of AUCinf.|GMR (%)|95.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.81|103.42|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment A/Treatment B).|||103.42|88.81|
91861141|NCT04222660|183608935|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91672389|NCT01715896|183239957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|1.32|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||1.32|-1.33|0.993
91861142|NCT04222660|183608936|OTHER||||||<|0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0025
91672390|NCT01715896|183239957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.23||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|3.77|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in Tender joint count at Day 169.||3.77|-1.31|0.424
91672391|NCT01715896|183239958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.89||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|12.24|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||12.24|-2.46|0.272
91715731|NCT00549549|183322355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.5687
91672392|NCT01715896|183239959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.46||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|11.84|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||11.84|-2.92|0.319
91672393|NCT01715896|183239960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.74|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||0.74|-0.42|0.640
91715732|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular), region and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||-0.10|-0.60|
91861143|NCT04222660|183608937|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91861144|NCT04222660|183608938|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91861145|NCT04222660|183608939|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91861146|NCT04222660|183608940|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91861147|NCT04222660|183608941|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91861148|NCT04222660|183608942|OTHER||||||<|0.0017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0017
91861149|NCT04222660|183608943|OTHER||||||<|0.0195|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0195
91861150|NCT04648033|183608944|OTHER||Probability of DLT at dose level 4|0.116|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.26||||||The primary analysis is performed using the Time-To-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TiTE-CRM). Giving posterior estimates for the probability of toxicity (DLT) at each dose level.||0.26|0.032|
91672394|NCT01715896|183239961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.18||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.34|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||0.34|0.03|0.055
91672395|NCT01715896|183239962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.41|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.|||1.41|0.79|0.752
91672396|NCT01715896|183239963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.05||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.3|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.|||1.30|0.84|0.725
91672397|NCT01045993|183239972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|Proportional hazards regression model|P-value calculated using proportional hazards model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.046
91672398|NCT01045993|183239973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical alternative hypothesis tested is that the survival curves of time to first perceptible relief confirmed by meaningful relief are not identical between two treatment groups, or equivalently, the hazard ratio between two treatment groups is not equal to 1.||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|Proportional hazards regression model|P-value calculated using proportional hazards model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.046
91672399|NCT01045993|183239974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment term only in the model.||||||<0.001
91672400|NCT01045993|183239975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value calculated using ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.002
91672401|NCT01045993|183239977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||60 minutes timepoint||||0.012
91902751|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||=|0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.4|-1.3|= 0.3531
91902752|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|-0.8|= 0.9282
91672402|NCT01045993|183239977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||120 minutes timepoint||||0.016
91672403|NCT01045993|183239977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||180 minutes timepoint||||<0.001
91715733|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||-0.25|-0.75|
91715734|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||0.78|0.29|
91715735|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||0.44|-0.06|
91715736|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||0.28|-0.21|
91715737|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.04|-0.52|
91715738|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||-0.18|-0.74|
91715739|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.84|0.29|
91715740|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.60|0.05|
91715741|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.39|-0.17|
91715742|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.03|-0.53|
91715743|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||-0.26|-0.83|
91715744|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.88|0.32|
91715745|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.64|0.08|
91715746|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.34|-0.22|
91715747|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||-0.00|-0.56|
91715748|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||-0.28|-0.84|
91715749|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||0.90|0.35|
91715750|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||0.62|0.07|
91715751|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||0.34|-0.21|
91715752|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||-0.07|-0.64|
91715753|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||-0.38|-0.94|
91715754|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||0.93|0.37|
91715755|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||0.57|0.02|
91715756|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||0.27|-0.29|
91715757|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||-0.10|-0.65|
91715758|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||-0.29|-0.84|
91902753|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.3|-0.4|
91715759|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||0.83|0.29|
91715760|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||0.46|-0.08|
91715761|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||0.26|-0.28|
91715762|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||-0.04|-0.61|
91715763|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||-0.34|-0.92|
91715764|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||0.78|0.21|
91715765|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||0.45|-0.11|
91715766|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||0.15|-0.42|
91715767|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||-0.00|-0.57|
91715768|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||-0.27|-0.84|
91715769|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||0.70|0.14|
91672404|NCT01045993|183239977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||240 minutes timepoint||||0.002
91672405|NCT01045993|183239977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||300 minutes timepoint||||<0.001
91672406|NCT01045993|183239977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||360 minutes timepoint||||<0.001
91672407|NCT01045993|183239977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||420 minutes timepoint||||0.003
91672408|NCT01045993|183239977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||480 minutes timepoint||||0.001
91715770|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||0.41|-0.15|
91902754|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.0|-7.3|< 0.0001
91672409|NCT01045993|183239978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||60 minutes timepoint||||0.012
91672410|NCT01045993|183239978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||120 minutes timepoint||||0.002
91672411|NCT01045993|183239978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||180 minutes timepoint||||0.033
91672412|NCT01045993|183239978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||240 minutes timepoint||||0.096
91672413|NCT01045993|183239978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||300 minutes timepoint||||0.002
91715771|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||0.14|-0.42|
91672414|NCT01045993|183239978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||360 minutes timepoint||||0.005
91715772|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||-0.02|-0.61|
91715773|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||-0.23|-0.82|
91792907|NCT04594369|183463302|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.789|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.916||Adjusted p-value = 0.0038. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the primary endpoint was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.01.|Negative binomial regression|||Model treatment \& randomization stratification factor=geographic region, sputum sample (Pseudomonas aeruginosa) at start \& PE last 12 months, age group (fixed effects) \& time at risk (log scale) as offset variable. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.916|0.680|=0.0019
91792908|NCT04594369|183463302|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.806|||=|0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|0.936||Adjusted p-value = 0.0048. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the primary endpoint was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.01.|Negative binomial regression|||Model treatment \& randomization stratification factor=geographic region, sputum sample (Pseudomonas aeruginosa) at start \& PE last 12 months, age group (fixed effects) \& time at risk (log scale) as offset variable. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.936|0.694|=0.0046
91792909|NCT04594369|183463303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|0.952||Adjusted p-value = 0.0200. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the secondary endpoints were tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazard|||Estimate of Cox proportional hazard model=effect for treatment, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening and PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] in last 12 months, stratification region and age group. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.952|0.695|=0.01
91715774|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||0.76|0.18|
91715775|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||0.44|-0.13|
91715776|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||0.23|-0.35|
91792910|NCT04594369|183463303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825|||=|0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|0.968||Adjusted p-value = 0.0364. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the secondary endpoints were tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazard|||Estimate of Cox proportional hazard model=effect for treatment, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening and PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] in last 12 months, stratification region and age group. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.968|0.703|=0.0182
91902755|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.1|-10.3|< 0.0001
91672415|NCT01045993|183239978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||420 minutes timepoint||||0.008
91672416|NCT01045993|183239978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||480 minutes timepoint||||0.004
91672417|NCT01045993|183239979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.268
91672418|NCT01045993|183239979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.419
91672419|NCT01045993|183239979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.086
91672420|NCT01045993|183239980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.067
91672421|NCT01045993|183239980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.757
91672422|NCT01045993|183239980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.219
91672423|NCT01045993|183239981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.043
91672424|NCT01045993|183239981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.388
91792911|NCT04594369|183463304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412|||=|0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|1.806||Adjusted p-value = 0.0200. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the secondary endpoints were tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Logistic Regression|||Missing responder status was imputed 100 times. Dataset was analyzed via logistic regression with treatment group, sputum P. aeruginosa status, prior PEs (\<3/≥3), region, and age group as fixed effects. Results were then combined using Rubin's rules.||1.806|1.105|=0.0059
91792912|NCT04594369|183463304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||=|0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|1.792||Adjusted p-value = 0.0364. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the secondary endpoints were tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Logistic Regression|||Missing responder status was imputed 100 times. Dataset was analyzed via logistic regression with treatment group, sputum P. aeruginosa status, prior PEs (\<3/≥3), region, and age group as fixed effects. Results were then combined using Rubin's rules.||1.792|1.095|=0.0074
91672425|NCT01045993|183239981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.039
91672426|NCT01045993|183239982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.797
91672427|NCT01045993|183239983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.371
91672428|NCT01045993|183239984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.122
91672429|NCT01045993|183239985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.355
91672430|NCT01045993|183239985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.371
91672431|NCT01045993|183239985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-values from ANOVA model with treatment treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.216
91672432|NCT01045993|183239986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.054
91672433|NCT01045993|183239986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.600
91672434|NCT01045993|183239986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.294
91902756|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.1||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.1|-4.0|
91672435|NCT01045993|183239987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.088
91672436|NCT01045993|183239987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.625
91672437|NCT01045993|183239987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.034
91672438|NCT01045993|183239988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores.||||||<0.001
91672439|NCT01659736|183239989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the condition (active TMS versus Sham) by time (pre, post, 3-month follow-up) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.006
91715777|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.01|-0.59|
91672440|NCT00474851|183239999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||p (within group for subjects receiving norethindrone + conjugated estrogens)=0.05 p (within group for subjects receiving norethindrone + placebo)=0.65 p (between the two groups)=0.10|RMANOVA|||"Analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. The time course of each measurement from baseline to 3, 6, 9, and 12 months was compared between arms by repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA), with an autoregressive covariance model to account for visit-to-visit correlation within subjects.~The primary test of treatment efficacy was time × treatment interaction. Adjusted changes over time and differences between trial arms were constructed from parameters of the RMANOVA."||||0.10
91715778|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||-0.16|-0.76|
91672441|NCT00474851|183240000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p (within group for participants receiving norethindrone + estrogens)=0.0001 p (within group for participants receiving norethindrone + placebo)=0.31 p (between groups)=0.02|RMANOVA|||"The time course of each measurement from baseline to 3, 6, 9, and 12 months was compared between arms by repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA), with an autoregressive covariance model to account for visit-to-visit correlation within subjects.~The primary test of treatment efficacy was time × treatment interaction. Adjusted changes over time and differences between trial arms were constructed from parameters of the RMANOVA."||||0.02
91672442|NCT03478865|183240005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|2.83||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 2 for Cohort 1)."||2.83|-7.91|0.259
91672443|NCT03478865|183240005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|4.12||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 1 for Cohort 2)."||4.12|-4.66|0.818
91672444|NCT03478865|183240006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.56||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|6.12||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the post-treatment follow-up visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 3 for Cohort 1)."||6.12|-13.24|0.365
91715779|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.69|0.10|
91902757|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.9|-6.2|< 0.0001
91672445|NCT03478865|183240006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|19.41||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the post-treatment follow-up visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 2 for Cohort 2)."||19.41|-12.94|0.480
91672446|NCT02296853|183240025|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|54.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.98|69.56|||||Here, GLSM is geometric least square mean.|TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||69.56|41.98|
91672447|NCT02296853|183240025|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|63.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.9|92.7||||||TFV: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||92.70|42.90|
91672448|NCT02296853|183240025|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|94.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.48|122.99||||||Free (unbound) TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||122.99|72.48|
91715780|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.41|-0.18|
91715781|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.23|-0.36|
91715782|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.05|-0.56|
91715783|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||-0.17|-0.77|
91861151|NCT04318548|183608984|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against M14459 (fHbp) strain was above (\>) 0.5|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.06|0.77|
91672449|NCT02296853|183240026|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|45.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.66|64.25||||||TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||64.25|31.66|
91672450|NCT02296853|183240026|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|89.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.77|124.72||||||TFV: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||124.72|64.77|
91672451|NCT02296853|183240026|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|82.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.58|119.31||"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."||||Free (unbound) TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||119.31|56.58|
91672452|NCT02296853|183240027|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|51.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.11|65.36||||||TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||65.36|40.11|
91672453|NCT02296853|183240027|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|62.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.92|91.82||||||TFV: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||91.82|41.92|
91672454|NCT02296853|183240027|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|93.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.62|119.8||||||Free (unbound) TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||119.8|72.62|
91672455|NCT01352182|183240032|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91715784|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.69|0.10|
91861152|NCT04318548|183608984|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against 96217 (NadA) strain was \>0.5|GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.04|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.04|0.75|
91672456|NCT01352182|183240033|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||threshold for significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91672457|NCT01352182|183240034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||threshold for significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
91672458|NCT01352182|183240035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.683||||||significance threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.683
91715785|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.44|-0.16|
91672459|NCT01352182|183240036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||significance threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91672460|NCT01352182|183240037|OTHER|linear regression|Slope|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3741||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.003
91672461|NCT02740179|183240046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||P value for Change in Coronary Flow Reserve on Cardiac PET|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
91672462|NCT02740179|183240047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||P value for Change in Stress Myocardial Blood Flow on Cardiac MRI|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91672463|NCT02740179|183240048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.38
91672464|NCT02740179|183240049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
91672465|NCT02740179|183240050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed on log transformation of data||||||0.03
91715786|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.23|-0.37|
91715787|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.09|-0.53|
91715788|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||-0.15|-0.77|
91715789|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.57|-0.04|
91715790|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.36|-0.25|
91672466|NCT02740179|183240051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||P value for Change in Plasma IL-6|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.09
91672467|NCT02740179|183240052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P value for Change in Plasma hsCRP|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.36
91672468|NCT02740179|183240053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||P value for Change in Plasma MCP-1|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.88
91672469|NCT02740179|183240054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P value for Change in Plasma sCD163|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.17
91715791|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.11|-0.50|
91672470|NCT02740179|183240055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.28
91672471|NCT02740179|183240056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.32
91672472|NCT02740179|183240057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91672473|NCT02740179|183240058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.73
91672474|NCT02740179|183240059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.56
91672475|NCT02740179|183240060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.03
91672476|NCT02740179|183240061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91672477|NCT01192399|183240087|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.0001
91672478|NCT02377063|183240097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to day 4 minus day 0 (baseline) change of phylum Firmicutes after juice consumption||||0.014
91792913|NCT04594369|183463305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square (LS) Mean|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|=|0.3841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.037||Adjusted p-value = 0.3841. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Linear repeated measures model|||Analysis on linear repeated measure model=treatment visit, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at start, PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] last 12 months, stratification region, age group (fixed effect) \& baseline (covariate). Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.037|-0.014|=0.3841
91672479|NCT02377063|183240097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to day 4 minus day 0 (baseline) change of phylum Bacteroidetes after juice consumption||||0.026
91672480|NCT02723773|183240102|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|79.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.72|84.61|||Poisson regression method||VE=1 - the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=50YOA Group over Historical Control \>=50YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||84.61|73.72|
91672481|NCT02723773|183240103|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.55|93.36|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group over Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group and Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||93.36|75.55|
91672482|NCT02723773|183240103|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.17|94.35|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group over Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group and Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||94.35|74.17|
91672483|NCT02723773|183240103|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|77.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.37|83.14|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||83.14|69.37|
91672484|NCT02723773|183240103|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|73.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.94|80.92|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||80.92|62.94|
91672485|NCT02723773|183240104|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.89|90.12|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50 YOA Group.||90.12|84.89|
91672486|NCT02723773|183240104|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|91.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.25|95.37|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||95.37|86.25|
91715792|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.07|-0.56|
91715793|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||-0.19|-0.81|
91715794|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.51|-0.10|
91672487|NCT02723773|183240104|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.66|96.24|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||96.24|86.66|
91672488|NCT02723773|183240104|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.98|89.33|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||89.33|82.98|
91792914|NCT04594369|183463305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0136|=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.065||Adjusted p-value = 0.0364. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Linear repeated measures model|||Analysis on linear repeated measure model=treatment visit, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at start, PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] last 12 months, stratification region, age group (fixed effect) \& baseline (covariate). Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.065|0.011|=0.0054
91902758|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.1|-8.3|< 0.0001
91715795|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.26|-0.35|
91715796|NCT00549549|183322356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.01|-0.60|
91715797|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.14|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||0.14|-0.28|
91715798|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.03|-0.39|
91715799|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.52|0.11|
91715800|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.45|0.04|
91715801|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.34|-0.08|
91864579|NCT05309291|183618288|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis to demonstrate non-inferiority using a 10% margin for λ FLC RR can be expressed as: Ho: μT-μR ≤ -3.783. The alternative hypothesis is expressed as: Ha: μT-μR \> -3.783 where μT denotes the Theranova 400 treatment mean and μR denotes the FX 800 treatment mean.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.84|19.15|||t-test, 2 sided|T-test was utilized to generate a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in means.||Non-inferiority of the Theranova 400 Dialyzer compared to the FX 800 Dialyzer in regard to the λ FLC RR at the mid-week treatment day dialysis session was assessed.||19.15|14.84|<0.0001
91792915|NCT04594369|183463306|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.742|||=|0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.089||Adjusted p-value = 0.3841. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||Analysis based on a negative binomial model including treatment, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening, PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] in previous 12 months, stratification region and age group. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||1.089|0.505|=0.1277
91672489|NCT02723773|183240104|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.91|87.93|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||87.93|79.91|
91672490|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|97.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.07|99.53|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.53|93.07|
91715802|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.08|-0.37|
91715803|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||-0.03|-0.48|
91715804|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.58|0.14|
91715805|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.44|0.00|
91672491|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.57|99.92|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.92|80.57|
91672492|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.32|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 1.||100.00|79.32|
91672493|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|97.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.46|99.76|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.76|92.46|
91672494|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|97.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.96|99.71|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.71|90.96|
91672495|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.15|96.57|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 2.||96.57|86.15|
91672496|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.78|99.15|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 2.||99.15|70.78|
91672497|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|95.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.11|99.89|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 2.||99.89|72.11|
91715806|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.34|-0.11|
91715807|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.17|-0.32|
91715808|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||-0.06|-0.56|
91715809|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.67|0.18|
91715810|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.59|0.11|
91715811|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.36|-0.13|
91792916|NCT04594369|183463306|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.74|||=|0.1025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.062||Adjusted p-value = 0.2050. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||Analysis based on a negative binomial model including treatment, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening, PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] in previous 12 months, stratification region and age group. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||1.062|0.515|=0.1025
91902759|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-3.3|
91715812|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.10|-0.42|
91792917|NCT04594369|183463307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0775|=|0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|4.143||Adjusted p-value = 0.3841. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|linear repeated measures model|||Analysis based on a linear repeated measures model with treatment group, visit, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening, pulmonary exacerbations \[\<3 or ≥3\] in previous 12 months, stratification region fixed effect, baseline as covariate.||4.143|-0.081|=0.0594
91715813|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||-0.11|-0.63|
91715814|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.70|0.19|
91715815|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.55|0.03|
91715816|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.34|-0.18|
91715817|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.07|-0.46|
91715818|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||-0.04|-0.57|
91715819|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.68|0.16|
91861153|NCT04318548|183608984|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against NZ98/254 (PorA) strain was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.12|0.76|
91715820|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.49|-0.04|
91715821|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.38|-0.15|
91715822|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.14|-0.40|
91715823|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||-0.05|-0.59|
91715824|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.74|0.20|
91715825|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.61|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.61|0.08|
91715826|NCT00549549|183322357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.42|-0.11|
91715827|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.27|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||0.27|-0.09|
91715828|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||0.40|0.04|
91715829|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||-0.14|-0.50|
91715830|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||-0.05|-0.41|
91715831|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||0.08|-0.28|
91715832|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||0.29|-0.10|
91715833|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.45|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||0.45|0.06|
91715834|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||-0.16|-0.55|
91715835|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||-0.07|-0.45|
91715836|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||0.09|-0.29|
91715837|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.35|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||0.35|-0.08|
91715838|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.51|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||0.51|0.08|
91715839|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||-0.18|-0.61|
91672498|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.13|96.93|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 2.||96.93|85.13|
91672499|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.82|96.88|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 2.||96.88|82.82|
91715840|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||-0.05|-0.47|
91715841|NCT00549549|183322358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.11|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||0.11|-0.32|
91715842|NCT00549549|183322359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||||0.0459
91715843|NCT00549549|183322359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.0017
91672500|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.98|96.59|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 3.||96.59|84.98|
91672501|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 3.||100.00|89.20|
91672502|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.39|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 3.||100.00|89.39|
91672503|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|89.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.81|95.51|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 3.||95.51|79.81|
91715844|NCT00549549|183322359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.0001
91715845|NCT00549549|183322359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.0410
91715846|NCT00549549|183322359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.5592
91715847|NCT00549549|183322359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.0277
91792918|NCT04594369|183463307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0642|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.852||Adjusted p-value = 0.2050. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|linear repeated measures model|||Analysis based on a linear repeated measures model with treatment group, visit, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening, pulmonary exacerbations \[\<3 or ≥3\] in previous 12 months, stratification region fixed effect, baseline as covariate.||5.852|1.680|=0.0004
91792919|NCT03875235|183463319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.64|0.99||The analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for disease status (initially unresectable versus recurrent) and primary tumor location (IHCC versus EHCC versus GBC), and tested at 0.03 significance level.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for disease status and primary tumor location.|The 2-sided significance level for OS at the second interim analysis was 3%.|95% CI 0.66 to 0.97|0.99|0.64|0.021
91672504|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.99|93.35|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 3.||93.35|68.99|
91672505|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|89.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.31|95.24|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 4.||95.24|80.31|
91672506|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|93.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.62|99.85|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 4.||99.85|60.62|
91672507|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|91.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|99.04|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 4.||99.04|66.10|
91672508|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|88.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.96|95.13|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 4.||95.13|77.96|
91672509|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|95.33|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 4.||95.33|73.30|
91715848|NCT00549549|183322359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.0018
91715849|NCT00549549|183322359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||<.0001
91715850|NCT00549549|183322359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.0394
91861154|NCT04318548|183608984|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against M13520 (NHBA) strain was \>0.5|GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.06|0.73|
91715851|NCT00549549|183322359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4603|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.4603
91715852|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.5528
91715853|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1779
91672510|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|83.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.31|92.63|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 6.||92.63|68.31|
91715854|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1754
91715855|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.3384
91861155|NCT04318548|183608985|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men A serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men A, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.14|0.78|
91672511|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.83|98.61|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 6.||98.61|46.83|
91672512|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.79|99.82|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 6.||99.82|48.79|
91672513|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|82.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.64|93.05|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 6.||93.05|63.64|
91672514|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.3|92.5|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 6.||92.50|54.30|
91672515|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|83.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.76|92.51|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 7.||92.51|67.76|
91715856|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.5005
91715857|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0845
91715858|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0213
91715859|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1231
91715860|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6636|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.6636
91715861|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5378|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.5378
91861156|NCT04318548|183608985|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men C serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.44|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men C, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.44|0.86|
91861157|NCT04318548|183608985|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men W serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men W, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.21|0.82|
91672516|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|93.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.67|99.84|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 7.||99.84|56.67|
91715862|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0818
91861158|NCT04318548|183608985|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men Y serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men Y, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.27|0.84|
91861159|NCT04318548|183608987|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis M14459 (fHbp) strain at one month after the fisrt vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.91|0.64|
91861160|NCT04318548|183608987|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.77|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis 96217 (NadA) strain at one month after the first vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.77|0.49|
91861161|NCT04318548|183608987|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis NZ98/254 (PorA) strain at one month after the first vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.91|0.58|
91715863|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0317
91672517|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.04|98.31|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 7.||98.31|32.04|
91672518|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|80.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.54|91.58|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 7.||91.58|59.54|
91672519|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|78.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.24|92.08|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 7.||92.08|51.24|
91672520|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|82.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.98|92.14|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 8.||92.14|65.98|
91672521|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.67|98.52|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 8.||98.52|42.67|
91715864|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1592
91715865|NCT00549549|183322362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7956|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.7956
91715866|NCT00549549|183322363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||0.31|-0.17|
91715867|NCT00549549|183322363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.02|
91715868|NCT00549549|183322363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.50|
91861162|NCT04318548|183608987|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.9|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis M13520 (NHBA) at one month after the first vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.90|0.64|
91715869|NCT00549549|183322363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.43|
91715870|NCT00549549|183322363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.28|
91902760|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.6|||=|0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-4.5|= 0.0082
91715871|NCT00549549|183322364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.3173
91715872|NCT00549549|183322365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4724|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.4724
91715873|NCT00549549|183322365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7316|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.7316
91715874|NCT00549549|183322365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7316|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.7316
91715875|NCT00808067|183322417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||||0.93|0.64|0.0055
91715876|NCT00808067|183322424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.84|0.5119
91715877|NCT00808067|183322425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||||1.29|0.94|0.2371
91792920|NCT03875235|183463322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.19|0.63|0.89||The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for disease status (initially unresectable versus recurrent) and primary tumor location (IHCC versus EHCC versus GBC), and tested at 0.0481 significance level.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for disease status and primary tumor location.|The 2-sided significance level for PFS at the second interim analysis was 4.81%.|95% CI 0.63 to 0.89|0.89|0.63|0.001
91902761|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.6|-7.4|< 0.0001
91672522|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.04|98.31|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 8.||98.31|32.04|
91672523|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|81.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.97|92.45|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 8.||92.45|59.97|
91672524|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|80.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.91|93.4|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 8.||93.40|52.91|
91672525|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|73.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.89|86.16|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 9.||86.16|52.89|
91672526|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|90.52|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 9.||90.52|3.52|
91672527|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|72.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|95.11|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 9.||95.11|-3.24|
91672528|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|76.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.78|89.35|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 9.||89.35|51.78|
91715878|NCT00808067|183322426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.89|0.5052
91715879|NCT00808067|183322427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.2241||95.0|0.82|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.82|0.2241
91715880|NCT01107925|183322435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in median MPA in response to 20 μM ADP in LBW participants who received 5 mg prasugrel to the 75th percentile of MPA response to 20 μM ADP in HBW participants who received10 mg prasugrel at the end of Study Period 1 (Baseline through Day 12) was estimated from the observed data.|Estimate of the difference|-10.1||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|0.2|||bootstrap (to determine 95% CI)||Estimate of the difference = \[median (low body weight) - Q3 (higher body weight)\]|||0.20|-23.40|0.526
91715881|NCT03574974|183322482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91715882|NCT00830219|183322499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.53||||||90.0|99.16|108.09|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.09|99.16|
91792921|NCT03875235|183463325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR and CI were estimated from a stratified CMH test adjusting for disease status and primary tumor location.|||2.31|1.11|0.011
91902762|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.6||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.6|-4.2|
91672529|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|75.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.69|91.07|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 9.||91.07|43.69|
91672530|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|71.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.03|85.18|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 10.||85.18|49.03|
91672531|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.89|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 10.||100.00|77.89|
91672532|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.71|99.77|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 10.||99.77|29.71|
91672533|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|60.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.55|79.83|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 10.||79.83|26.55|
91672534|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|48.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|74.87|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 10.||74.87|-2.41|
91672535|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.03|92.22|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 11.||92.22|63.03|
91672536|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.67|98.52|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 11.||98.52|42.67|
91672537|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.07|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 11.||100.00|65.07|
91715883|NCT00830219|183322500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.3||||||90.0|97.56|107.27|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.27|97.56|
91792922|NCT02477696|183463337|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of acalabrutinib was demonstrated if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio was below 1.429.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||||Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by 17p deletion status (yes versus no) and number of prior therapies (1-3 versus \>=4).|||1.27|0.79|
91715884|NCT00830219|183322501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.54||||||90.0|97.53|107.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.8|97.53|
91715885|NCT01130272|183322502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.457||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|6.077|||ANCOVA|||||6.077|0.994|0.052
91715886|NCT01130272|183322502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.383||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|5.478|||ANCOVA|||||5.478|1.036|0.041
91715887|NCT01130272|183322502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.079||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|4.842|||ANCOVA|||||4.842|0.893|0.090
91715888|NCT01130272|183322502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.797||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|6.376|||ANCOVA|||||6.376|1.227|0.015
91715889|NCT01130272|183322503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.719||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|1.689|||ANCOVA|||||1.689|0.306|0.449
91715890|NCT01130272|183322503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.208||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|2.373|||ANCOVA|||||2.373|0.615|0.583
91715891|NCT01130272|183322503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.014||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.069|3.795|||ANCOVA|||||3.795|1.069|0.030
91715892|NCT01130272|183322503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.395||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|2.716|||ANCOVA|||||2.716|0.717|0.326
91792923|NCT02104739|183463349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Exenatide at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.27
91715893|NCT00641056|183322508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: 205 patients per treatment group would provide approximately 92% power to detect a true difference between treatments of 0.4% in change in HbA1c from baseline with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects. Superiority of exenatide once weekly to insulin glargine is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[exenatide once weekly-insulin glargine\]\<0; noninferiority is concluded if this upper limit\<0.3%.||-0.03|-0.29|0.017
91715894|NCT00641056|183322509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c \<=7.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which background OAD and country served as the stratification factors.||||0.097
91715895|NCT00641056|183322510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which background OAD and country served as the stratification factors.||||0.002
91792924|NCT02104739|183463349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Saxagliptin at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.59
91902763|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.4|||=|0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-4.5|= 0.0313
91715896|NCT00641056|183322511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.0||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in FSG as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline FSG, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||1.00|0.25|0.001
91715897|NCT00641056|183322512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-3.52||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in BW as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline BW, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||-3.52|-4.57|<.001
91715898|NCT00641056|183322513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in total cholesterol as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline total cholesterol, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||0.06|-0.21|0.292
91715899|NCT00641056|183322514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in HDL as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline HDL, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||0.02|-0.05|0.377
91715900|NCT00641056|183322515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.15||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by MMRM ANCOVA with change in triglycerides as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline triglycerides, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||1.15|0.99|0.077
91792925|NCT02104739|183463349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Placebo at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.51
91792926|NCT02104739|183463349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Exenatide extended-release (ER) at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.31
91792927|NCT02104739|183463351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91672538|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|79.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.82|92.3|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 11.||92.30|52.82|
91672539|NCT02723773|183240105|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.41|89.77|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 11.||89.77|33.41|
91672540|NCT02723773|183240106|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.75|96.79|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group and Historical Control\>=50 YOA Group.||96.79|64.75|
91672541|NCT02723773|183240106|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.59|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group over Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group and Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||100.00|46.59|
91672542|NCT02723773|183240106|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-860.45|99.15|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group over Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group and Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||99.15|-860.45|
91672543|NCT02723773|183240106|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.66|95.95|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||95.95|53.66|
91672544|NCT02723773|183240106|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.83|97.49|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||97.49|56.83|
91672545|NCT02723773|183240107|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|89.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.67|95.7|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||95.70|78.67|
91672546|NCT02723773|183240107|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.79|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||100.00|77.79|
91672547|NCT02723773|183240107|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|74.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.17|99.49|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||99.49|-155.17|
91715901|NCT01811732|183322524|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for noninferiority testing was computed based on the difference in sample rates for vancomycin + aztreonam and delafloxacin at the primary endpoint. If the upper limit (UL) of the CI was less than 0.10, delafloxacin would be considered noninferior to vancomycin + aztreonam.|Difference in Responder Rates|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.6||||||||3.6|-8.8|
91792928|NCT02104739|183463353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and saxagliptin over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
91792929|NCT02104739|183463353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and placebo over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
91672548|NCT02723773|183240107|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.29|94.72|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||94.72|73.29|
91672549|NCT02723773|183240107|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|88.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.87|95.41|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||95.41|73.87|
91672550|NCT02723773|183240108|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|91.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.68|99.81|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||99.81|43.68|
91672551|NCT02723773|183240108|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-247.21|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 60-69YOA Group over Historical Control 60-69YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group and Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||100.00|-247.21|
91672552|NCT02723773|183240108|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|90.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.45|99.79|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=60YOA Group over Historical Control \>=60YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||99.79|37.45|
91792930|NCT02104739|183463355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
91792931|NCT02104739|183463357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and saxagliptin over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
91792932|NCT02104739|183463357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and placebo over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
91792933|NCT02104739|183463359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
91792934|NCT02104739|183463360|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and saxagliptin over all time points (3 hours, 6 hours).||||>0.05
91792935|NCT02104739|183463360|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and placebo over all time points (3 hours, 6 hours).||||>0.05
91792936|NCT03070444|183463368|OTHER|GEE analysis|GEE analysis|0.99||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.51|||GEE analysis|||||1.51|0.48|0.0002
91792937|NCT03070444|183463369|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91672553|NCT02723773|183240108|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|88.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.81|99.75|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=70YOA Group over Historical Control \>=70YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||99.75|19.81|
91672554|NCT02723773|183240109|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.57|99.17|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||99.17|71.57|
91715902|NCT00536510|183322547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001||95.0|-18.6|-10.9||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05|ANOVA|The efficacy analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with factors for treatment, country, gender, and stratum defined by concomitant statin use.||The primary hypothesis of superiority of MK0524A 2 g to placebo in lowering Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) was assessed using the comparison between these 2 groups from the ANOVA model.||-10.9|-18.6|<0.001
91672555|NCT02723773|183240109|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1830.98|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||100.00|-1830.98|
91672556|NCT02723773|183240109|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.55|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||100.00|17.55|
91672557|NCT02723773|183240109|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.17|99.11|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||99.11|69.17|
91672558|NCT02723773|183240109|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|90.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.93|98.91|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||98.91|60.93|
91672559|NCT01730040|183240163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-55.9|-22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.||Alirocumab group was compared to the corresponding active control group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-22.2|-55.9|< 0.0001
91672560|NCT01730040|183240163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.6|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.7|-6.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||-6.5|-40.7|= 0.0004
91672561|NCT01730040|183240163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-65.0|-33.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-33.5|-65|< 0.0001
91792938|NCT01373489|183463370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91792939|NCT02582255|183463371|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.05
91792940|NCT02582255|183463372|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.025
91792941|NCT02582255|183463373|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.025
91792942|NCT02582255|183463374|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.05
91792943|NCT01709578|183463375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.711|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.247||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error rate at 0.05 and handle multiple endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||4.247|1.730|<0.0001
91672562|NCT01730040|183240163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-48.4|-16.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.9|-48.4|< 0.0001
91861163|NCT02651428|183608997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.62||The threshold significance level at the interim and final statistical analyses for the primary efficacy endpoint was 0.0294.|Log Rank||The numerator for the hazard ratio was the estimated hazard for the Neutrolin treatment arm, and the denominator was the estimated hazard for the Heparin treatment arm.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the survival functions for CRBSI between the two treatments. Based on 80% power to detect a 55% reduction in the risk of CRBSI relative to the control treatment, a 1:1 randomization, a 2-sided log-rank test, one interim analysis using the method of Pocock, and an overall alpha of 0.05, it was determined that 56 CRBSIs would be needed. These are the results of the final analysis.||0.62|0.14|0.0006
91902764|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.0|-7.1|< 0.0001
91672563|NCT01730040|183240163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-47.4|-15.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.4|-47.4|<0.0001
91672564|NCT01730040|183240164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-59.2|-25.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1% level.||-25.7|-59.2|< 0.0001
91672565|NCT01730040|183240164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-41.9|-7.8||Threshold for significance≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.8|-41.9|= 0.0002
91672566|NCT01730040|183240164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-69.2|-36.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-36.5|-69.2|< 0.0001
91672567|NCT01730040|183240164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-51.3|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.6|-51.3|< 0.0001
91672568|NCT01730040|183240164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-50.0|-16.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.8|-50.0|< 0.0001
91672569|NCT01730040|183240165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-54.0|-25.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-25.6|-54|<0.0001
91672570|NCT01730040|183240165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.0|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.6|-40.0|<0.0001
91672571|NCT01730040|183240165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-47.7|-24.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-24.3|-47.7|<0.0001
91672572|NCT01730040|183240165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.2|-15.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.4|-39.2|<0.0001
91672573|NCT01730040|183240165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.8|-8.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.9|-32.8|<0.0001
91672574|NCT01730040|183240166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-55.8|-33.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-33.1|-55.8|<0.0001
91672575|NCT01730040|183240166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-38.0|-15.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.2|-38.0|<0.0001
91672576|NCT01730040|183240166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-48.1|-24.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-24.5|-48.1|<0.0001
91672577|NCT01730040|183240166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.6|-15.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.8|-39.6|<0.0001
91672578|NCT01730040|183240166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.2|-8.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.2|-32.2|<0.0001
91672579|NCT01730040|183240167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.0|-16.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-16.6|-42.0|<0.0001
91715903|NCT00536510|183322548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001||95.0|12.6|19.2||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05|ANOVA|The efficacy analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with factors for treatment, country, gender, and stratum defined by concomitant statin use.||The secondary hypothesis of superiority of MK0524A 2 g to placebo in lowering High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (HDL-C) was assessed using the comparison between these 2 groups from the ANOVA model.||19.2|12.6|<0.001
91715904|NCT02035553|183322549|SUPERIORITY||Diff in MMRM LSM|-1.84||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-3.64|0.0451
91715905|NCT04539964|183322550|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.1||The study is considered successful if there is a statistically significant improvement in the proportion of subjects with ACR20 response in favor of the SetPoint System at the one-sided alpha of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.1|0.6|0.0209
91715906|NCT04539964|183322551|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|19.5||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|31.7||Adjusted p-value. Hochberg's step-up procedure was used to control the family wise type 1 error rate at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.7|7.3|0.0048
91715907|NCT04539964|183322552|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|13.2||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.3||Adjusted p-value. Hochberg's step-up procedure was used to control the family wise type 1 error rate at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.3|1.1|0.0528
91715908|NCT04539964|183322553|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|21.4||Adjusted p-value. Hochberg's step-up procedure was used to control the family wise type 1 error rate at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|-3.3|0.0797
91715909|NCT04539964|183322554|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|19.0||Adjusted p-value. Hochberg's step-up procedure was used to control the family wise type 1 error rate at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.0|-3.1|0.0797
91715910|NCT04539964|183322555|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that control group response rate exceeds the treatment group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.0|-14.4|0.2476
91715911|NCT04539964|183322556|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that control group response rate exceeds the treatment group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-20.2||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.2|-38.1|0.0156
91715912|NCT04539964|183322557|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that control group response rate exceeds the treatment group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-18.6||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|-2.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.6|-34.7|0.0099
91715913|NCT04539964|183322558|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.8|0.0618
91715914|NCT04539964|183322559|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-1.8|0.0308
91715915|NCT04539964|183322560|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.7|0.0441
91715916|NCT04539964|183322561|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.6|0.2871
91715917|NCT04539964|183322562|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.9|0.4345
91715918|NCT04539964|183322563|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.1|0.0900
91715919|NCT04539964|183322564|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.7|0.0662
91715920|NCT04539964|183322565|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-3.9|0.0450
91861164|NCT02651428|183608998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Log Rank||The numerator for the hazard ratio was the estimated hazard for the Neutrolin treatment arm, and the denominator was the estimated hazard for the Heparin treatment arm.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time until catheter removal for any reason between the two treatments.||1.29|0.90|0.4161
91672580|NCT01730040|183240167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.6|-10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-10.7|-36.6|<0.0001
91672581|NCT01730040|183240167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-50.8|-26.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-26.0|-50.8|<0.0001
91672582|NCT01730040|183240167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-43.2|-18.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.6|-43.2|<0.0001
91672583|NCT01730040|183240167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.1|-15.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.1|-40.1|<0.0001
91672584|NCT01730040|183240168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-44.6|-20.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.6|-44.6|<0.0001
91672585|NCT01730040|183240168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-37.3|-12.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.8|-37.3|<0.0001
91672586|NCT01730040|183240168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-51.2|-25.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-25.4|-51.2|<0.0001
91672587|NCT01730040|183240168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.6|-17.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.1|-42.6|<0.0001
91672588|NCT01730040|183240168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.4|-13.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-13.4|-39.4|<0.0001
91672589|NCT01730040|183240169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-44.7|-16.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-16.1|-44.7|<0.0001
91861165|NCT01333969|183609021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.02|||GEE|Regression analysis using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method to compare the changes over time in VAS scores at rest and with exercise||||-0.02|-1.40|.043
91672590|NCT01730040|183240169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.1|-7.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.1|-36.1|=0.0002
91672591|NCT01730040|183240169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-54.7|-27.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-27.5|-54.7|<0.0001
91672592|NCT01730040|183240169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-43.7|-16.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.6|-43.7|<0.0001
91672593|NCT01730040|183240169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.3|-12.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.8|-40.3|<0.0001
91672594|NCT01730040|183240170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-47.0|-19.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-19.0|-47.0|<0.0001
91672595|NCT01730040|183240170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.6|-8.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.1|-36.6|<0.0001
91861166|NCT01333969|183609022|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.043
91672596|NCT01730040|183240170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-57.4|-29.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-29.7|-57.4|<0.0001
91672597|NCT01730040|183240170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-46.0|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.3|-46.0|<0.0001
91672598|NCT01730040|183240170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-41.4|-13.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-13.2|-41.4|<0.0001
91672599|NCT01730040|183240171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.9|-13.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-13.2|-32.9|<0.0001
91672600|NCT01730040|183240171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-25.8|-5.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-5.8|-25.8|<0.0001
91672601|NCT01730040|183240171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.4|-18.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.4|-39.4|<0.0001
91861167|NCT01333969|183609023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.584||||0.584|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.584
91861168|NCT01333969|183609024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.763||||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.763
91672602|NCT01730040|183240171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.4|-11.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.4|-32.4|<0.0001
91861169|NCT01333969|183609025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.602||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Regression analyses based on the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method||||||.602
91672603|NCT01730040|183240171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-29.1|-7.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.7|-29.1|<0.0001
91672604|NCT01730040|183240172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-41.6|-21.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-21.3|-41.6|<0.0001
91672605|NCT01730040|183240172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.4|-15.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.2|-35.4|<0.0001
91672606|NCT01730040|183240172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.9|-17.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.5|-35.9|<0.0001
91672607|NCT01730040|183240172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-31.5|-12.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.9|-31.5|<0.0001
91672608|NCT01730040|183240172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-25.2|-6.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-6.6|-25.2|<0.0001
91672609|NCT01730040|183240173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-45.3|-21.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-21.6|-45.3|<0.0001
91672610|NCT01730040|183240173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.2|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.6|-35.2|<0.0001
91861170|NCT01333969|183609026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8656||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8656
91861171|NCT01333969|183609027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8422||||0.8422|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8422
91861172|NCT01333969|183609028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.526||||0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.526
91672611|NCT01730040|183240173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.0|-19.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-19.6|-39.0|<0.0001
91672612|NCT01730040|183240173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.3|-12.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.7|-32.3|<0.0001
91672613|NCT01730040|183240173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-24.7|-4.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-4.9|-24.7|<0.0001
91672614|NCT01730040|183240174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-31.4|-13.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-13.8|-31.4|<0.0001
91672615|NCT01730040|183240174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-24.6|-7.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.0|-24.6|<0.0001
91672616|NCT01730040|183240174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-26.9|-11.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.4|-26.9|<0.0001
91672617|NCT01730040|183240174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-23.3|-7.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.6|-23.3|<0.0001
91672618|NCT01730040|183240174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-17.7|-1.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-1.9|-17.7|=0.0015
91672619|NCT01730040|183240175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|3.9|71.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||71.7|3.9|<0.0001
91861173|NCT01333969|183609029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.526||||0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.526
91672620|NCT01730040|183240175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||=|0.0284|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.8|14.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||14.6|0.8|=0.0284
91672621|NCT01730040|183240175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|83.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|11.6|596.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||596.8|11.6|<0.0001
91672622|NCT01730040|183240175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.2|||=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.3|38.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||38.3|1.3|=0.0025
91672623|NCT01730040|183240175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.1|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.6|52.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||52.2|1.6|=0.0011
91672624|NCT01730040|183240176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|128.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|14.2|1157.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1157|14.2|<0.0001
91672625|NCT01730040|183240176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.9|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.6|75.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||75.4|1.6|=0.0015
91672626|NCT01730040|183240176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.7|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.8|101.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||101.1|1.8|=0.0008
91672627|NCT01730040|183240177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|116.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|14.7|927.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||927.5|14.7|<0.0001
91672628|NCT01730040|183240177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|2.5|68.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||68.8|2.5|<0.0001
91672629|NCT01730040|183240177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.9|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.9|51.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||51.9|1.9|=0.0004
91672630|NCT01730040|183240178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|162.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|17.3|1520.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1520.5|17.3|<0.0001
91672631|NCT01730040|183240178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|3.1|126.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||126.3|3.1|<0.0001
91672632|NCT01730040|183240178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|2.2|88.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||88.1|2.2|=0.0002
91861174|NCT04749615|183609206|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority Margin = (-Infinity, 1.28)||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.11
91861175|NCT04749615|183609207|NON_INFERIORITY|a noninferiority margin of 1.0 and 10% attrition|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||this is the calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91861176|NCT05746494|183609273|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
91861177|NCT05746494|183609274|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.042|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||||||0.042
91861178|NCT05746494|183609275|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.980
91861179|NCT05746494|183609276|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.01|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||||||0.010
91861180|NCT05746494|183609277|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.064
91861181|NCT05746494|183609278|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.306
91861182|NCT05746494|183609279|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
91861183|NCT05746494|183609280|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
91861184|NCT04806451|183609293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-267.775|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.313||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-403.427|-132.124|||ANCOVA|||||-132.124|-403.427|0.0002
91861185|NCT03134196|183609354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06||||||||1.06|0.5|
91861186|NCT03134196|183609355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.99||||||||0.99|0.56|
91861187|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91861188|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91861189|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91861190|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91861191|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91861192|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91672633|NCT01730040|183240179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.3|-5.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-5.9|-36.3|=0.0004
91672634|NCT01730040|183240179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.2|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Robust|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.6|-40.2|<0.0001
91672635|NCT01730040|183240179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-45.6|-16.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Robust|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.4|-45.6|<0.0001
91672636|NCT01730040|183240180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||=|0.4456|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-7.0|12.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification).||12.9|-7.0|=0.4456
91672637|NCT03407612|183240187|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the baseline HOS-ADL measures.||||0.67
91672638|NCT03407612|183240187|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the 6 week postoperative HOS-ADL measures.||||0.73
91672639|NCT03407612|183240187|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the 12 week postoperative HOS-ADL measures.||||0.87
91715921|NCT04539964|183322566|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.55||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-3.2|0.0350
91672640|NCT03407612|183240187|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the 6 month postoperative HOS-ADL measures.||||0.78
91672641|NCT03407612|183240188|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91861193|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91672642|NCT03407612|183240189|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91672643|NCT01552369|183240193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0396|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0396
91672644|NCT01552369|183240193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.22||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.3|||Competing risk regression|Death was considered a competing risk.|The risk of CMV disease is 2.2x higher in the prophylaxis group when compared to the preemptive group|||7.3|1.01|0.048
91672645|NCT01552369|183240194|SUPERIORITY|log-rank test for equality of survivor functions||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
91672646|NCT01552369|183240195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.58|||Mantel Haenszel||The odds of rejection in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive group|||1.58|0.45|0.60
91672647|NCT01552369|183240196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.92|||Mantel Haenszel||The odds of graft loss in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive group|||6.92|0.13|0.96
91672648|NCT01552369|183240197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.69|||Mantel Haenszel||Odds of late disease in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive|||8.69|1.21|0.014
91672649|NCT01552369|183240198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.23|||Mantel Haenszel||Odds of bacterial infection in prophylaxis subjects compared to preemptive|||2.23|0.61|0.64
91672650|NCT01552369|183240199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.62|||Mantel Haenszel||Odds of fungal disease in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive|||7.62|0.66|0.18
91672651|NCT01552369|183240200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91672652|NCT01552369|183240201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
91672653|NCT01552369|183240202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
91672654|NCT01552369|183240203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
91672655|NCT01221090|183240205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|||We used a multilevel statistical model including time (in days) as a continuous variable, where 0=baseline. The lowest level of the hierarchy was repeated measurements of HbA1c on each subject, with participants themselves constituting the 2nd level. Forward selection was utilized, in which powers of time were added one at a time to the base model including treatment group effects. Interaction terms between time \& treatment effects were added gradually and evaluated with likelihood ratio tests.||||0.771
91672656|NCT01221090|183240206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2176||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust variance estimates.||||||0.2176
91672657|NCT01221090|183240207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.572
91672658|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Test blood sugar."||||0.26
91672659|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Test blood sugar the recommended times."||||0.21
91672660|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Exercise at least 30 minutes."||||0.53
91861194|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
91861195|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91861196|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91861197|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91861198|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91792944|NCT01709578|183463375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.108|5.115||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.115|2.108|<0.0001
91672661|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Participate in a specific exercise session."||||0.24
91672662|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Check feet."||||0.18
91672663|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Wash feet."||||0.19
91672664|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Soak feet."||||0.87
91672665|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Dry between toes."||||0.53
91672666|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Inspect inside of shoes."||||0.32
91672667|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Follow healthful eating plan."||||0.37
91715922|NCT04539964|183322567|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|-2.1|0.0648
91715923|NCT04539964|183322568|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.6|1.2|0.0154
91715924|NCT04539964|183322612|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|25.2||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.3|7.1|0.0054
91672668|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Space carbohydrates."||||0.72
91672669|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Eat 5+ servings of fruits and vegetables."||||0.59
91672670|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Eat high-fat foods."||||<0.004
91672671|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Eat packaged foods (e.g., sweets and desserts)."||||0.66
91672672|NCT01221090|183240208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Followed a healthful eating plan."||||0.68
91672673|NCT01221090|183240209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust Variance Estimation.||"This analysis was to compare the quality of life measure, Number of days physical health was not good in the past 30 days at the 12 month follow-up visit."||||0.685
91672674|NCT01221090|183240209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust variance estimation.||"This analysis was to compare the quality of life measure, Number of days mental health was not good in the past 30 days at the 12 month follow-up visit."||||0.997
91672675|NCT01221090|183240209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3067||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust variance estimation.||"This analysis was to compare the quality of life measure, Number of days poor physical/mental health prevented usual activity in the past 30 days at the 12 month follow-up visit."||||0.3067
91672676|NCT00440466|183240226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a difference in the mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to the average of the last 12 weeks of treatment of -0.3 g/dL between QW and Q2W groups, a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL, and a noninferiority margin of 1 g/dL, a sample size of approximately 200 subjects (100 per group) would provide 90% power to demonstrate that Q2W group would not inferior to QW group for an overall 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.153|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to the average of the last 12 weeks of treatment between the every-2-weeks (Q2W) and once-weekly (QW) groups would be lower than -1 g/dL.||0.153|-0.208|
91715925|NCT04539964|183322613|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.9|-2.2|0.0437
91792945|NCT01709578|183463376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.202||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.086||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.086|-0.318|0.0007
91861199|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91792946|NCT01709578|183463376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|-0.095||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.095|-0.325|0.0004
91861200|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91861201|NCT00875277|183609360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
91861202|NCT04541147|183609376|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the number of doses in Dexamethasone Plus Analgesics group differs from that in Analgesics Alone group at a significance level of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.7|-2.9|0.16
91861203|NCT04541147|183609377|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the average pain score in Dexamethasone Plus Analgesics group differs from that in Analgesics Alone group at a significance level of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-1.8|0.56
91861204|NCT04541147|183609378|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the Number of participants with post-operative complications in Dexamethasone Plus Analgesics group differs from that in Analgesics Alone group at a significance level of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.36|||Fisher Exact|||||0.36|-0.22|1.00
91715926|NCT04539964|183322614|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-17.6||||0.1643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.0|-51.1|0.1643
91715927|NCT04539964|183322615|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|-24.1|0.415
91861205|NCT04026555|183609408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.78|||Regression, Poisson|||IPTW Poisson regression was used to model the number of escalations per visit with an offset of the log transformed length of stay normalized per 1000 bed days. Treatment effect is expressed in terms of adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) per 1000 patient bed days.||1.78|1.16|< 0.001
91692152|NCT01262872|183279149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE (see above)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|25.7||||||VE-10PP-HD 2+1d vs Synflorix 2+1d - 5M post-Dose 2. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, five months (M) post-dose 2 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||25.7|-18.0|
91861206|NCT04026555|183609409|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.18||Correction for multiple comparisons was performed on all key outcomes within the primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, using the false discovery rate method (FDR).|Regression, Logistic|||IPTW log-binomial regres- sion models were used to model the secondary and ad hoc outcomes. Treatment effect is expressed as adjusted relative risk (RR).||2.18|1.39|<0.001
91861207|NCT04026555|183609412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||Correction for multiple comparisons was performed on all key outcomes within the primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, using the false discovery rate method (FDR).|Regression, Logistic|||IPTW log-binomial regression models were used to model the secondary and ad hoc outcomes. Treatment effect is expressed as adjusted relative risk (RR).||0.99|0.58|0.045
91861208|NCT04026555|183609417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.98|0.14
91672677|NCT00440466|183240226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Under the same assumptions in the sample size calculation for the QW and the Q2W, 100 subjects would be needed for the Q4W. However, because Study EPO-AKD-3001 and the current study both included QW and Q2W groups, the sample size would add up to 200 for each group if combined, the sample size in the Q4W group in the current study was increased to 200 subjects in order to enroll a comparable and sufficiently large number of subjects in each of the 3 extended dosing groups across the 2 studies.|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.063|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to the average of the last 12 weeks of treatment between the every-4-weeks (Q4W) and once-weekly (QW) groups would be lower than -1 g/dL.||0.063|-0.249|
91672678|NCT00440466|183240228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.7|||95% Confidence Interval|||||21.7|0.1|
91672679|NCT00440466|183240228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|11.2|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||11.2|-9.1|
91672680|NCT00440466|183240229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.372|||ANOVA|||||0.372|-0.113|
91672681|NCT00440466|183240229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.32|||ANOVA|||||0.320|-0.098|
91672682|NCT00440466|183240230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|18.3|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||18.3|-2.0|
91672683|NCT00440466|183240230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|10.3||||||95.0|1.5|19.2|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||19.2|1.5|
91672684|NCT00440466|183240231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|19.1|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||19.1|-7.7|
91902765|NCT03627767|183700093|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.3||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-4.1|
91672685|NCT00440466|183240231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|20.6|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||20.6|-2.5|
91672686|NCT00440466|183240232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|9.5|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||9.5|-15.8|
91672687|NCT00440466|183240232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||8.0|-13.9|
91672688|NCT00440466|183240233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.08||||||95.0|-0.367|0.208|||ANOVA|||||0.208|-0.367|
91672689|NCT00440466|183240233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.289|||ANOVA|||||0.289|-0.206|
91672690|NCT02997657|183240235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
91672691|NCT02997657|183240236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.81
91672692|NCT02997657|183240237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
91672693|NCT02997657|183240238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
91672694|NCT02997657|183240239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91672695|NCT02997657|183240240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
91672696|NCT02997657|183240241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91672697|NCT03756883|183240248|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval for the test-to-reference ratio was calculated using a procedure similar to Fieller's method.|Test-to-Reference Ratio|101.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|111.94||||||||111.94|92.68|
91672698|NCT03756883|183240249|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval for the test-to-reference ratio was calculated using a procedure similar to Fieller's method.|Test-to-Reference Ratio|98.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.1|110.61||||||||110.61|87.10|
91672699|NCT03756883|183240250|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of the test product over the placebo.||||<0.0001
91672700|NCT03756883|183240250|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of Reference to placebo.||||<0.0001
91672701|NCT03756883|183240251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of test over placebo.||||<0.0001
91672702|NCT03756883|183240251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of reference to placebo.||||<0.0001
91672703|NCT00754442|183240255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||see above|t-test, 2 sided|95%||The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between patients and controls at baseline||||0.1
91672704|NCT00754442|183240255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between patients and controls at 4 hours||||0.002
91672705|NCT00754442|183240255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between patients and controls at 8 hrs||||0.003
91672706|NCT03005067|183240257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.553||P-value was based on the Wald statistic Chi-Square test, from an ANCOVA model with treatment, center, and Day 1 dosing time stratification as factors and baseline NSS (Day 1 prior to the first dose) as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference of LS mean is 1146A Formulation Nasal Spray - Placebo Nasal Spray. 95% CI is for difference of LS means.|||0.553|-0.279|0.516
91902766|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.4832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|= 0.4832
91902767|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.6553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.3|= 0.6553
91672707|NCT03233958|183240261|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91672708|NCT03233958|183240262|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91672709|NCT03233958|183240263|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91672710|NCT03233958|183240264|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.076
91672711|NCT03233958|183240265|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.147
91672712|NCT03233958|183240266|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.197
91672713|NCT03233958|183240267|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91672714|NCT02310763|183240364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7343|3.32||The significance level is 0.05.|ANCOVA||Least square mean difference was calculated by placebo minus domagrozumab.|||3.3200|-0.7343|0.2088
91672715|NCT02310763|183240368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0845||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7354|1.5663||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||1.5663|-1.7354|0.9191
91672716|NCT02310763|183240368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5837||||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2978|4.4652||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||4.4652|-3.2978|0.7642
91672717|NCT02310763|183240368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2712||||0.9423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3799|7.9223||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||7.9223|-7.3799|0.9423
91672718|NCT02310763|183240369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0693|0.0693||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||0.0693|-0.0693|0.9993
91672719|NCT02310763|183240369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0259||||0.5464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1107|0.0589||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||0.0589|-0.1107|0.5464
91672720|NCT02310763|183240369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.042||||0.3041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1227|0.0386||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||0.0386|-0.1227|0.3041
91672721|NCT02310763|183240370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.3522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||2.5|-0.9|0.3522
91672722|NCT02310763|183240370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||4.2|0.7|0.0061
91902768|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.2|
91902769|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-1.5|< 0.0001
91672723|NCT02310763|183240370|SUPERIORITY|Week 49|Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.8||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|||3.8|-0.5|0.1268
91672724|NCT02310763|183240371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.1||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left ankle, Week 17||2.1|-2.9|0.7337
91672725|NCT02310763|183240371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.8893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left ankle, Week 33||2.7|-2.4|0.8893
91672726|NCT02310763|183240371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left ankle, Week 49||1.3|-4.3|0.2939
91672727|NCT02310763|183240371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.5995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.6||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right ankle, Week 17||3.6|-2.1|0.5995
91672728|NCT02310763|183240371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.6||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right ankle, Week 33||5.6|0.2|0.0385
91672729|NCT02310763|183240371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right ankle, Week 49||3.2|-3.3|0.9927
91672730|NCT02310763|183240372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||1.0|-1.7|0.6049
91672731|NCT02310763|183240372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.4||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||4.4|-1.0|0.2065
91672732|NCT02310763|183240372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||1.2|-1.3|0.9391
91672733|NCT02310763|183240373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|20.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||20.3|-16.7|0.8499
91672734|NCT02310763|183240373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.9||||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|29.8||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||29.8|-12.0|0.4008
91672735|NCT02310763|183240373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|27.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||27.0|-30.0|0.9160
91672736|NCT02310763|183240374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.115||||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.517||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow extension, Week 17||0.517|-0.287|0.5726
91672737|NCT02310763|183240374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.574|0.248||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow extension, Week 33||0.248|-0.574|0.4334
91672738|NCT02310763|183240374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.126||||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.573|0.321||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow extension, Week 49||0.321|-0.573|0.5767
91672739|NCT02310763|183240374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|0.446||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow extension, Week 17||0.446|-0.489|0.9274
91672740|NCT02310763|183240374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.439||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.872|-0.006||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow extension, Week 33||-0.006|-0.872|0.0469
91672741|NCT02310763|183240374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.255||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow extension, Week 49||0.255|-0.587|0.4362
91672742|NCT02310763|183240375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.156||||0.5557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|0.367||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow flexion, Week 17||0.367|-0.679|0.5557
91672743|NCT02310763|183240375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.303||||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|0.235||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow flexion, Week 33||0.235|-0.841|0.2669
91672744|NCT02310763|183240375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.161||||0.4665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|0.276||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow flexion, Week 49||0.276|-0.598|0.4665
91672745|NCT02310763|183240375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083||||0.7335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.399||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow flexion, Week 17||0.399|-0.564|0.7335
91672746|NCT02310763|183240375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.361||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.156||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow flexion, Week 33||0.156|-0.877|0.1695
91672747|NCT02310763|183240375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.189||||0.3783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.234||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow flexion, Week 49||0.234|-0.612|0.3783
91672748|NCT02310763|183240376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.586||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.303|0.13||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left hip abduction, Week 17||0.130|-1.303|0.1078
91902770|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-2.2|< 0.0001
91672749|NCT02310763|183240376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046||||0.8967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|0.746||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left hip abduction, Week 33||0.746|-0.654|0.8967
91672750|NCT02310763|183240376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.378||||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|0.371||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left hip abduction, Week 49||0.371|-1.128|0.3196
91672751|NCT02310763|183240376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.689||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.386|0.008||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right hip abduction, Week 17||0.008|-1.386|0.0526
91902771|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.9|
91672752|NCT02310763|183240376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.336||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.082|0.41||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right hip abduction, Week 33||0.410|-1.082|0.3739
91672753|NCT02310763|183240376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.322||||0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.079|0.436||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right hip abduction, Week 49||0.436|-1.079|0.4019
91672754|NCT02310763|183240377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.107||||0.7676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|0.61||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left knee extension, Week 17||0.610|-0.825|0.7676
91672755|NCT02310763|183240377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.322||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|0.454||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left knee extension, Week 33||0.454|-1.098|0.4127
91672756|NCT02310763|183240377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.113||||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.693|0.919||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left knee extension, Week 49||0.919|-0.693|0.7815
91672757|NCT02310763|183240377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.236||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|0.451||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right knee extension, Week 17||0.451|-0.924|0.4975
91672758|NCT02310763|183240377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.467||||0.2646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.294|0.359||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right knee extension, Week 33||0.359|-1.294|0.2646
91672759|NCT02310763|183240377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.149||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.008|0.71||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right knee extension, Week 49||0.710|-1.008|0.7320
91672760|NCT02310763|183240378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.044||||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.525|0.437||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left shoulder abduction, Week 17||0.437|-0.525|0.8569
91672761|NCT02310763|183240378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.154||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.663|0.355||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left shoulder abduction, Week 33||0.355|-0.663|0.5495
91672762|NCT02310763|183240378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.566|0.521||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left shoulder abduction, Week 49||0.521|-0.566|0.9340
91672763|NCT02310763|183240378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.236||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.239||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right shoulder abduction, Week 17||0.239|-0.711|0.3279
91672764|NCT02310763|183240378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.757||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.318|-0.196||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right shoulder abduction, Week 33||-0.196|-1.318|0.0086
91672765|NCT02310763|183240378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.439||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.165|0.286||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right shoulder abduction, Week 49||0.286|-1.165|0.2328
91672766|NCT02310763|183240379|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.211||||0.8908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8353|3.2573|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||3.2573|-2.8353|0.8908
91861209|NCT06429319|183609437|SUPERIORITY||F value|5.919||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of one and two NOLTREX™ courses was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group."||No sample size calculation was performed. Maximum expected number of participants for OLE was 72 patients randomized to the NOLTREX™ group in the parent study (IA/PAAG-SI/OA/2019). A total of 65 patients entered the OLE. The study did not have a formal hypothesis. The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (OLE visit 0) in the WOMAC-T at visit 5 was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.004
91672767|NCT02310763|183240380|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.819||||0.4748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4514|3.0895|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||3.0895|-1.4514|0.4748
91672768|NCT02310763|183240381|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0097||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0692|0.0887|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||0.0887|-0.0692|0.8070
91672769|NCT02310763|183240382|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0506||||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0594|0.1607|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||0.1607|-0.0594|0.3643
91672770|NCT02310763|183240383|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||0|-5.7|0.0483
91672771|NCT02310763|183240384|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||-0.8|-7.0|0.0146
91672772|NCT02310763|183240385|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.6||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.9|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||13.6|-76.9|0.1669
91672773|NCT02310763|183240386|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-66.3||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.5|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||-8.1|-124.5|0.0267
91672774|NCT02310763|183240387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0692||||0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4345|0.2961||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.2961|-0.4345|0.7033
91672775|NCT02310763|183240387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2114||||0.6893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8472|1.27||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||1.27|-0.8472|0.6893
91672776|NCT02310763|183240387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6439||||0.6469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4292|9.1414||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||9.1414|-14.4292|0.6469
91672777|NCT02310763|183240388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3289||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7649|0.1072||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.1072|-0.7649|0.1353
91672778|NCT02310763|183240388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3457||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9614|2.6528||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||2.6528|-1.9614|0.7648
91715928|NCT01674725|183322616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333 treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 64% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.9|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion because the point estimate was 100%.|Planned enrollment is 210 to allow ≥200 GT1b-infected participants to be treated with combination formulation of ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333 with and without RBV. Enrollment terminated after 187 participants were randomized. Assuming a rate of 82% in each arm, a sample size of 90 participants per arm will have \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each arm to the historical rate based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority.||100.0|95.9|
91722539|NCT02629159|183337903|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.16||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.16|3.13|<0.001
91861210|NCT06429319|183609437|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-37.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.34||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.98|97.7||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||97.70|-172.98|0.783
91861211|NCT06429319|183609437|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|81.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.45||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.28|227.16|||Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||227.16|-63.28|0.370
91672779|NCT02310763|183240388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.2893||||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6409|26.2194||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||26.2194|-9.6409|0.3562
91672780|NCT02310763|183240389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5582||||0.1163||95.0|-1.2615|0.1451||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.1451|-1.2615|0.1163
91672781|NCT02310763|183240389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0944||||0.9503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0798|3.2686||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||3.2686|-3.0798|0.9503
91672782|NCT02310763|183240389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2881||||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8328|10.2566||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||10.2566|-32.8328|0.2947
91672783|NCT02310763|183240390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0159||||0.8229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.1588||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.1588|-0.1270|0.8229
91672784|NCT02310763|183240390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0132||||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1036|0.0772||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||0.0772|-0.1036|0.7709
91672785|NCT02310763|183240390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0889||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1219|0.2996||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||0.2996|-0.1219|0.3746
91672786|NCT02310763|183240391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0934||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2481|0.0613||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.0613|-0.2481|0.2294
91672787|NCT02310763|183240391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0117||||0.8485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1339|0.1105||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||0.1105|-0.1339|0.8485
91672788|NCT02310763|183240391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0562||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2187|0.3312||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||0.3312|-0.2187|0.6645
91672789|NCT02310763|183240392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1013||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2622|0.0597||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.0597|-0.2622|0.2101
91902772|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.0|-1.7|< 0.0001
91672790|NCT02310763|183240392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0359||||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1326|0.0608||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||0.0608|-0.1326|0.4603
91672791|NCT02310763|183240392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1039||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1386|0.3463||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||0.3463|-0.1386|0.3739
91672792|NCT02310763|183240393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.8925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||3.9|-4.5|0.8925
91672793|NCT02310763|183240393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.2107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||3.2|-0.7|0.2107
91672794|NCT02310763|183240393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.5|-0.9|0.2298
91672795|NCT02310763|183240394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.1||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||7.1|-0.1|0.0554
91672796|NCT02310763|183240394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||4.0|-0.9|0.2027
91672797|NCT02310763|183240394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||6.3|-0.5|0.0926
91672798|NCT02310763|183240395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||6.3|-2.4|0.3597
91672799|NCT02310763|183240395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.7345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||3.3|-2.3|0.7345
91792947|NCT01709578|183463377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.283|-0.658||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.658|-1.283|<0.0001
91672800|NCT02310763|183240395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||7.7|0.4|0.0320
91672801|NCT02310763|183240396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.8||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||3.8|-1.3|0.3345
91672802|NCT02310763|183240396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.4||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||0.4|-2.9|0.1400
91792948|NCT01709578|183463377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.752|-1.135||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.135|-1.752|<0.0001
91672803|NCT02310763|183240396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.6||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.6|-5.4|0.6764
91672804|NCT02310763|183240397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|14.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||14.2|-1.2|0.0970
91672805|NCT02310763|183240397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.6919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||1.3|-1.9|0.6919
91672806|NCT02310763|183240397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.6736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.9||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.9|-5.8|0.6736
91672807|NCT02310763|183240398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||1.5|-1.5|0.9582
91672808|NCT02310763|183240398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.8629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||1.5|-1.8|0.8629
91672809|NCT02310763|183240398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.7|-5.5|0.6746
91672810|NCT02310763|183240399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|30.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||30.7|-42.4|0.7483
91672811|NCT02310763|183240399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|21.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||21.2|-23.9|0.9053
91672812|NCT02310763|183240399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.1||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|79.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||79.7|-53.4|0.6896
91672813|NCT02310763|183240400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|27.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||27.5|-34.8|0.8117
91672814|NCT02310763|183240400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|35.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||35.2|-20.6|0.6018
91672815|NCT02310763|183240400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.3||||0.7152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.4|106.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||106.0|-73.4|0.7152
91672816|NCT02310763|183240401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|46.1||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||46.1|-32.1|0.7190
91672817|NCT02310763|183240401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.8||||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|27.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||27.3|-58.9|0.4634
91672818|NCT02310763|183240401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.7|108.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||108.5|-100.7|0.9400
91672819|NCT02310763|183240405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.945||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7597|5.1309||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||5.1309|0.7597|0.0087
91672820|NCT02310763|183240405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.918||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0461|5.8811||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||5.8811|-0.0461|0.0536
91672821|NCT02310763|183240405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.087||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4069|7.7677||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||7.7677|0.4069|0.0298
91672822|NCT02310763|183240406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.575||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1213|3.2715||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||3.2715|-0.1213|0.0684
91672823|NCT02310763|183240406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.612||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1521|5.0711||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||5.0711|0.1521|0.0376
91672824|NCT02310763|183240406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.208||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1318|6.2844||The significance level is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||6.2844|0.1318|0.0411
91672825|NCT03396874|183240463|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|87.3|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.58|100.0||The exact p-value cannot be entered as it is equal to 2.2e-16.|Exact binomial proportion test|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)||We determined the positive predictive value (PPV) (true positives / (true positives + false positives)) of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence or absence of prostate cancer confirmed by histopathology on a per-patient basis. On a per-patient basis, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|81.58|<0.0000001
91672826|NCT03396874|183240464|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|92.3|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||Per patient basis p-value = 2.2e-16|binomial proportion test|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)||PPV, composite standard, per-patient basis: We determined the positive predictive value (PPV) of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available. On a per-patient basis, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100|90.0|<0.0000001
91672827|NCT03396874|183240464|OTHER|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|95.29|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.3|100.0||Per patient basis p-value = 2.2e-16|Sensitivity|||Sensitivity, composite standard, per-patient basis: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). On a per-patient basis, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|93.3|<0.0000001
91672828|NCT03396874|183240464|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|91.1|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, prostate or prostate bed: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In the prostate or prostate bed, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|86.2|<0.0000001
91672829|NCT03396874|183240464|OTHER|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|91.72|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.74|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16 Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, prostate/prostate bed: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In the prostate or prostate bed, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|86.74|<0.0000001
91672830|NCT03396874|183240464|OTHER|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|90.78|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.74|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, pelvic lymph nodes: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In the prostate or prostate bed, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|85.74|<0.0000001
91672831|NCT03396874|183240464|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|96.97|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.2|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, pelvic lymph nodes: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In pelvic lymph nodes, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|93.20|<0.0000001
91672832|NCT03396874|183240464|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|91.25|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.19|100.0||p-value = 2.9e-15|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, soft tissues: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In soft tissues, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|84.19|<0.0000001
91672833|NCT03396874|183240464|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|93.59|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.99|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, soft tissues: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In soft tissues, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|86.99|<0.0000001
91792949|NCT01709578|183463378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.958|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.764|4.959||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.959|1.764|<0.0001
91672834|NCT03396874|183240464|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|95.17|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.12|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, bone: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In bone tissues, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|91.12|<0.0000001
91722540|NCT02629159|183337903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.51||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.76||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||2.76|0.27|0.017
91672835|NCT03396874|183240464|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|100.0|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.85|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, bone: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In bone, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|97.85|<0.0000001
91672836|NCT02563769|183240565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91672837|NCT02563769|183240565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91672838|NCT02598895|183240569|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The primary efficacy endpoint was percent patients achieving PSA decline of 50% or more from baseline (PSA50), assessed in the time prior to disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or 1 year after the last study medication. The historical comparison was PSA50 of 26%. The target response rate was 60%. The study followed an optimal two-stage Simon design (Simon, 1989) where the null hypothesis that the true PSA response rate PSA50 was 0.26 was tested against a one-sided alternative.|See above|||
91672839|NCT00842530|183240589|SUPERIORITY|The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant only if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|56.6||||||Vaccine efficacy of CYD dengue vaccine: The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||56.6|-13.4|
91672840|NCT00842530|183240590|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|75.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-377.0|99.6||||||Vaccine efficacy against severe VCD (IDMC)||99.6|-377|
91715929|NCT01674725|183322616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 64% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.6|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Assuming a rate of 82% in each arm, a sample size of 90 participants per arm will have \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each arm to the historical rate based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority.||100.0|94.6|
91715930|NCT01674725|183322617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91715931|NCT01674725|183322618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.6|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|||100.0|94.6|
91715932|NCT01674725|183322618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.9|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority|||100|95.9|
91715933|NCT01674725|183322618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333 treatment group as compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group was analyzed using a noninferiority margin of -10.5%; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed -10.5% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.4|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||5.4|-0.8|
91861212|NCT06429319|183609437|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|119.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.76||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.09|203.07||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||203.07|36.09|0.003
91672841|NCT00842530|183240590|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|50.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-585.0|96.4||||||Vaccine efficacy of against severe VCD (WHO 1999)||96.4|-585|
91672842|NCT00842530|183240591|SUPERIORITY|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant only if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|41.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|74.9||||||Vaccine efficacy:- 28 days Post-Inj. 2 up to Inj. 3||74.9|-38.4|
91672843|NCT00842530|183240591|SUPERIORITY|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant only if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|56.5||||||Vaccine efficacy: 28 days Post-Inj. 2 up to end of Active Phase||56.5|3.3|
91715934|NCT02709746|183322632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|4.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||4.2|-1.94|0.4702
91861213|NCT06429319|183609437|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.78||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of one and two NOLTREX™ courses was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group."||The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (visit 1 study 1) in the WOMAC-T at visit 5 was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.070
91672844|NCT00842530|183240597|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|33.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|53.5||||||Vaccine efficacy: 28 days Post-Inj. 1 up to end of Active Phase||53.5|4.1|
91672845|NCT00842530|183240597|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|54.3||||||Vaccine efficacy: Day 0 up to end of Active Phase||54.3|6.7|
91715935|NCT02709746|183322632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.6373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|2.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||2.27|-3.71|0.6373
91715936|NCT02709746|183322632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|-0.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||-0.72|-6.74|0.0152
91715937|NCT02709746|183322632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|2.82|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||2.82|-2.41|0.8778
91715938|NCT03074695|183322660|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.03||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|20.08|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline characteristics (parturient race, ethnicity, height, and induction status).||||20.08|-14.02|0.766
91715939|NCT00902577|183322670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.36|||Regression, Cox|||"FMISO selectively binds to hypoxic tissues so that SUVpeak within a region provides a measure of tumor hypoxia.:~This marker was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||2.36|1.0|0.048
91715940|NCT00902577|183322670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.81|||Regression, Cox|||T/Bmax is the pixel in the tumor region with the maximum tumor:blood ratio (T/Bmax) and T/Bmax depicts the magnitude of the hypoxia TBmax was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for OS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported. The study was designed to enroll 46 evaluable participants to detect a log hazard ratio of 1.279 for TBmax with HV as a covariate with a 50% event rate||1.81|.75|0.50
91715941|NCT00902577|183322670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|0.97|0.97|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||"Hypoxia Volume (HV) depicts the volume of tumor that has crossed the threshold for hypoxia.~Hypoxic Volume (HV) was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.03|0.97|0.90
91672846|NCT02243293|183240604|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment as compared to historical control (in genotype 2 (GT2) DAA-naive participants in Part 4, arm S) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 89% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||100.0|96.5|
91672847|NCT04117945|183240608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8874|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.8874
91672848|NCT04117945|183240609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9683|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.9683
91672849|NCT04117945|183240610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0448|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.0448
91672850|NCT04117945|183240611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9007|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.9007
91715942|NCT00902577|183322670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.34|||Regression, Cox||HR reported per 0.01 increase|"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Mean ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model Mean ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.34|1.02|0.024
91902773|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.8|-2.5|< 0.0001
91672851|NCT01769274|183240628|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Hierarchical rank test|||||||1.0000
91672852|NCT01769274|183240628|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Hierarchical rank test|||||||1.0000
91672853|NCT02409329|183240647|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.313||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.017||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. For the HbA1c model, we allowed for a three-way interaction between time, treatment group, and baseline HbA1c because there was descriptive evidence that the effect was modified by baseline HbA1c values. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||-0.017|-0.610|.0493
91672854|NCT02409329|183240647|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.24||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. For the HbA1c model, we allowed for a three-way interaction between time, treatment group, and baseline HbA1c because there was descriptive evidence that the effect was modified by baseline HbA1c values. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.240|-0.380|0.260
91715943|NCT00902577|183322670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.72|||Regression, Cox||HR reported per 0.01 increase|"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Median ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Median ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.72|1.01|0.045
91902774|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-1.1|
91792950|NCT01709578|183463378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.374|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.045|5.566||Threshold for significance was 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.566|2.045|<0.0001
91861214|NCT06429319|183609441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||"BASELINE (study 1 visit 1)~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||0.030
91902775|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.4|< 0.0001
91672855|NCT02409329|183240648|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.406|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.615||A priori threshold p\<.05.|Wald statistic|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.615|0.196|<.001
91672856|NCT02409329|183240648|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.45||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. For the HbA1c model, we allowed for a three-way interaction between time, treatment group, and baseline HbA1c because there was descriptive evidence that the effect was modified by baseline HbA1c values. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.450|-0.031|0.003
91672857|NCT02409329|183240649|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.54||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|1.09||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||1.090|-0.012|0.376
91672858|NCT02409329|183240649|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.278||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.319|0.875||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.875|-0.319|0.434
91672859|NCT02409329|183240650|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.399||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.637||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations||0.637|0.160|0.0012
91672860|NCT02409329|183240650|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.152||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.426||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.426|-0.121|0.003
91672861|NCT02409329|183240651|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.061||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.095||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.095|-0.218|0.632
91672862|NCT02409329|183240651|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.005||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|1.1||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||1.100|-0.202|0.572
91715944|NCT00902577|183322670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||Relative cerebral blood volume (RCBV) maps, computed from the integral of ∆R2\*(t), were corrected for leakage effects and normalized to normal appearing white matter (nRCBV); nRCBV provides a measure of tumor vasculature and was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.37|0.90|0.31
91715945|NCT00902577|183322670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps were was normalized to the mean of the region of interest (ROI) in normal appearing white matter to produce the nCBF and provide another measure of vascular permeability and perfusion nCBF was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.29|0.88|0.51
91792951|NCT01709578|183463379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.607||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.774|7.332||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.332|1.774|0.0002
91672863|NCT02409329|183240652|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|369.0||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.0|881.0||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||881|-142|0.703
91672864|NCT02409329|183240652|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|26.0||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-459.0|511.0||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||511|-459|0.465
91672865|NCT02409329|183240653|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH only relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.12|||||6-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||-0.12|-1.38|
91672866|NCT02409329|183240653|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH only relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.39|||||12-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.39|-1.00|
91672867|NCT02409329|183240653|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH\_FAMS relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.05|||||6-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||-0.05|-1.26|
91715946|NCT00902577|183322670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measures water diffusion through tissue. Cerebral infarction leads to diffusion restriction resulting in a low ADC signal in the infarcted area. A double Gaussian mixed model was fit to the ADC histogram and the mean of the lower ADC curve, was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.26|0.79|0.9700
91715947|NCT00902577|183322670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measures water diffusion through tissue. Cerebral infarction leads to diffusion restriction resulting in a low ADC signal in the infarcted area. A double Gaussian mixed model was fit to the ADC histogram and the mean of the higher ADC curve, was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.09|0.91|0.9007
91715948|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.91|||Regression, Cox|||"FMISO selectively binds to hypoxic tissues so that SUVpeak within a region provides a measure of tumor hypoxia.~This marker was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for Progression Free Survival time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.91|.80|0.33
91715949|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||T/Bmax is the pixel in the tumor region with the maximum tumor:blood ratio (T/Bmax) and T/Bmax depicts the magnitude of the hypoxia TBmax was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.4|.61|0.72
91715950|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||"Hypoxia Volume (HV) depicts the volume of tumor that has crossed the threshold for hypoxia.~Hypoxic Volume (HV) was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.04|.98|0.355
91715951|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Mean ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Mean ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.23|0.99|0.074
91792952|NCT01709578|183463379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.653||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.308|5.383||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.383|1.308|0.0056
91672868|NCT02409329|183240653|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH+FAMS relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.51|||||12-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.51|-0.96|
91672869|NCT03200535|183240672|SUPERIORITY|Superiority analysis|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91672870|NCT03200535|183240673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91672871|NCT03291041|183240674|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|34.75||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0354
91672872|NCT03291041|183240675|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0168
91672873|NCT03291041|183240676|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|90.56||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0785
91672874|NCT03291041|183240677|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|78.45||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0225
91672875|NCT03291041|183240678|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0198
91672876|NCT03291041|183240679|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.55||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0347
91672877|NCT03291041|183240680|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-56.44||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0840
91672878|NCT03291041|183240681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0765
91672879|NCT04184999|183240695|SUPERIORITY||F-Statistic|207.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.01
91672880|NCT01172821|183240696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.264|0.159|<0.0001
91672881|NCT01172821|183240696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.222|0.116|<0.0001
91672882|NCT01172821|183240697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.233|0.120|<0.0001
91672883|NCT01172821|183240697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.190|0.076|<0.0001
91672884|NCT01172821|183240698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.168|0.052|0.0002
91672885|NCT01172821|183240698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.147|0.030|0.0031
91672886|NCT01172821|183240699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.149|0.025|0.0061
91672887|NCT01172821|183240699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.146|0.021|0.0093
91672888|NCT01172821|183240700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.252|0.150|<0.0001
91672889|NCT01172821|183240700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.215|0.112|<0.0001
91902776|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.2|< 0.0001
91672890|NCT01172821|183240701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.164|0.052|0.0002
91672891|NCT01172821|183240701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.145|0.033|0.0019
91672892|NCT01172821|183240702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.963|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.025|38.494|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||38.494|19.025|<0.0001
91672893|NCT01172821|183240702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.985|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.401|37.956|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||37.956|18.401|<0.0001
91672894|NCT01172821|183240703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.144|-0.122|0.8700
91715952|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.63|||Regression, Cox|||"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Median ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Median ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.63|1.04|0.021
91715953|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||"Relative cerebral blood volume (RCBV) maps, computed from the integral of ∆R2\*(t), were corrected for leakage effects and normalized to normal appearing white matter (nRCBV); nRCBV provides a measure of tumor vasculature and was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time.~The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.54|1.06|0.0096
91672895|NCT01172821|183240703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.9612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.130|-0.137|0.9612
91672896|NCT01172821|183240704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|-0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||-0.012|-0.241|0.0305
91672897|NCT01172821|183240704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.033|-0.198|0.1602
91672898|NCT01172821|183240705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.74||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||1.74|0.81|0.4012
91672899|NCT01172821|183240705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||1.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.42||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||1.42|0.67|1.1727
91672900|NCT01172821|183240706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.496|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.795|29.431|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||29.431|11.795|<0.0001
91672901|NCT01172821|183240706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.513|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.907|33.607|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||33.607|15.907|<0.0001
91672902|NCT01172821|183240707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.547||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.074|24.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||24.908|7.074|0.0004
91672903|NCT01172821|183240707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.561|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.302|30.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||30.193|12.302|<0.0001
91672904|NCT01172821|183240708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.598||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.125|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.220|-2.125|0.1114
91672905|NCT01172821|183240708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.355|0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.999|-1.355|0.7665
91672906|NCT01172821|183240709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.140|0.018|0.0111
91715954|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||"cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps were was normalized to the mean of the region of interest (ROI) in normal appearing white matter to produce the nCBF and provide another measure of vascular permeability and perfusion.~nCBF was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.38|1.01|0.038
91902777|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-1.1|
91715955|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.682||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|1.463|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression for SUVpeak to predict PFS6||1.463|0.318|0.3253
91672907|NCT01172821|183240709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.126|0.003|0.0395
91672908|NCT01172821|183240710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.131|0.005|0.0357
91672909|NCT01172821|183240710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.129|0.002|0.0422
91672910|NCT01172821|183240711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.086|-0.427|0.1927
91672911|NCT01172821|183240711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.367|-0.148|0.4053
91672912|NCT01172821|183240712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.028|-0.079|0.3501
91672913|NCT01172821|183240712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.8045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.061|-0.047|0.8045
91672914|NCT01172821|183240713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||1.72|1.03|0.0308
91672915|NCT01172821|183240713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||1.71|1.02|0.0348
91672916|NCT02985879|183240716|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|=|0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.63|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||2.63|-2.63|=0.998
91672917|NCT02985879|183240716|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|=|0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|3.58|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||3.58|-1.63|=0.464
91672918|NCT02985879|183240718|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|=|0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.93|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||1.93|-1.52|=0.812
91715956|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.991||||0.9836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|2.434|||Regression, Logistic|||TBmax was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6.||2.434|0.403|0.9836
91715957|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.957||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.017|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypoxic Volume (HV) was modeled with a logistic regression model for 6month progression free survival (PFS6) .||1.017|0.900|0.1566
91715958|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.9554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.273|||Regression, Logistic|||"Mean ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Mean ktrans was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6."||1.273|0.775|0.9554
91792953|NCT01709578|183463380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.339|9.132||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.132|2.339|<0.0001
91672919|NCT02985879|183240718|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|=|0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.16|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||3.16|-0.30|=0.104
91672920|NCT02985879|183240719|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|=|0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||0.26|-0.36|=0.756
91672921|NCT02985879|183240719|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|=|0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||0.18|-0.44|=0.409
91672922|NCT02985879|183240720|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.54|=|0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|19.53|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||19.53|-33.86|=0.597
91672923|NCT02985879|183240720|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.56|=|0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.04|20.42|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||20.42|-33.04|=0.642
91672924|NCT02985879|183240721|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|=|0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|7.51|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||7.51|-2.48|=0.323
91672925|NCT02985879|183240721|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|=|0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|5.02|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||5.02|-4.86|=0.974
91672926|NCT02985879|183240726|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|=|0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||0.23|-0.31|=0.761
91672927|NCT02985879|183240726|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|=|0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||0.21|-0.32|=0.678
91672928|NCT02985879|183240727|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|=|0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.57|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||5.57|-3.50|=0.653
91715959|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.919||||0.6941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.402|||Regression, Logistic|||"Median ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Median ktrans was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6"||1.402|0.602|0.6941
91715960|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.744||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.095|||Regression, Logistic|||"Relative cerebral blood volume (RCBV) maps were corrected for leakage effects and normalized to normal appearing white matter (nRCBV).~nRCBV was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6."||1.095|0.506|0.1340
91902778|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.2|= 0.0020
91715961|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.161|||Regression, Logistic|||"cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps were was normalized to the mean of the region of interest (ROI) in normal appearing white matter to produce the nCBF.~nCBF was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6."||1.161|0.580|0.2642
91672929|NCT02985879|183240727|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|=|0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.57|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||5.57|-3.50|=0.748
91672930|NCT02985879|183240728|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.74|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||0.74|-0.60|=0.828
91672931|NCT02985879|183240728|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.87|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||0.87|-0.46|=0.543
91672932|NCT02985879|183240729|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.44|=|0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.66|44.63|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||44.63|-55.66|=0.829
91672933|NCT02985879|183240729|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.92|=|0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.94|18.23|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||18.23|-83.94|=0.206
91715962|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.855||||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.357|||Regression, Logistic|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) low values were modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6||1.357|0.539|0.5069
91715963|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.064|||Regression, Logistic|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) high values were modeled with a univariate Logistic regression model for PFS6||1.064|0.735|0.1921
91715964|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.79||||||"FMISO selectively binds to hypoxic tissues so that SUVpeak within a region provides a measure of tumor hypoxia.~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9."||0.79|0.42|
91715965|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.78||||||"T/Bmax is the pixel in the tumor region with the maximum tumor:blood ratio (T/Bmax) and T/Bmax depicts the magnitude of the hypoxia.~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9."||0.78|0.39|
91672934|NCT02985879|183240730|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|=|0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|11.65|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||11.65|-3.65|=0.304
91672935|NCT02985879|183240730|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|=|0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|12.19|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||12.19|-3.11|=0.243
91672936|NCT02985879|183240731|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.86||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.76|79.94|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||79.94|-132.76|0.625
91672937|NCT02985879|183240731|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.47|=|0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.34|142.71|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||142.71|-76.34|=0.550
91672938|NCT02985879|183240732|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1739.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2502.95|=|0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3201.75|6680.02|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||6680.02|-3201.75|=0.488
91672939|NCT02985879|183240732|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|3684.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2487.32|=|0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1225.46|8595.29|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||8595.29|-1225.46|=0.140
91672940|NCT02985879|183240733|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|207.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|592.68|=|0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-962.98|1378.88|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||1378.88|-962.98|=0.726
91672941|NCT02985879|183240733|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|133.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|611.91|=|0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1075.26|1342.4|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||1342.40|-1075.26|=0.828
91715966|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.83||||||"Hypoxia Volume (HV) depicts the volume of tumor that has crossed the threshold for hypoxia.~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9."||0.83|0.46|
91715967|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.83||||||"mean ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of mean ktrans to predict PFS9."||0.83|0.42|
91672942|NCT00380692|183240830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-10.0|-3.4||P-value for treatment group differences over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.4|-10.0|<0.001
91672943|NCT00380692|183240831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.921||95.0|-0.5|0.4||P-value for treatment differences over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.5|0.921
91672944|NCT00380692|183240832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.369||95.0|-1.8|0.7||P-value for treatment differences in Oppositional Score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-1.8|0.369
91672945|NCT00380692|183240832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.024||95.0|-3.7|-0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Hyperactivity score at 8 weeks|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-3.7|0.024
91672946|NCT00380692|183240832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.179||95.0|-1.7|0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Cognititve/Attention score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.7|0.179
91672947|NCT00380692|183240832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.077||95.0|-5.6|0.3||P-value for treatment differences in ADHD score at 8 weeks|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-5.6|0.077
91672948|NCT00380692|183240834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.028||95.0|-1.0|-0.1||P-value for treatment differences in Time to fall asleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.028
91672949|NCT00380692|183240834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.407||95.0|-0.3|0.9||P-value for treatment differences in Difficulty falling asleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.407
91672950|NCT00380692|183240834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.652||95.0|-0.6|0.4||P-value for treatment differences in Total hours of sleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.6|0.652
91672951|NCT00380692|183240834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.112||95.0|-1.7|0.2||P-value for treatment differences in Quality of sleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.7|0.112
91715968|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.84||||||"Median ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of Median ktrans to predict PFS9."||0.84|0.44|
91672952|NCT00380692|183240834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.188||95.0|-2.9|0.6||P-value for treatment differences in Functional outcome during day score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-2.9|0.188
91672953|NCT00380692|183240835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.452||95.0|-3.5|1.6||P-value for treatment differences in Irritability score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.6|-3.5|0.452
91672954|NCT00380692|183240835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.85||95.0|-2.4|2.0||P-value for treatment differences in Lethargy score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.0|-2.4|0.850
91672955|NCT00380692|183240835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.014||95.0|-2.8|-0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Stereotypic score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.8|0.014
91672956|NCT00380692|183240835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.01||95.0|-7.8|-1.1||P-value for treatment differences in Hyperactivity score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-7.8|0.010
91672957|NCT00380692|183240835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.045||95.0|-1.7|0.0||P-value for treatment differences in Inappropriate speech score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.7|0.045
91672958|NCT00380692|183240836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.069||95.0|-8.1|0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Total score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-8.1|0.069
91672959|NCT00380692|183240837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.598||95.0|-1.6|0.9||P-value for treatment differences in Total score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-1.6|0.598
91672960|NCT00380692|183240838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.318||95.0|-33.3|11.0||P-value for treatment differences in Total score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||11.0|-33.3|0.318
91715969|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89||||||nRCBV provides a measure of tumor vasculature Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9.||0.89|0.54|
91715970|NCT00902577|183322671|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||||||nCBF provides a measure of vascular permeability and perfusion. Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9.||0.89|0.55|
91715971|NCT04456686|183322708|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.7|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.70|-0.77|
91715972|NCT04456686|183322709|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.96|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.96|-0.82|
91672961|NCT00380692|183240839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.948||95.0|-5.5|5.2||P-value for treatment differences in Error Rate over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|-5.5|0.948
91672962|NCT00380692|183240839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.399||95.0|-9.7|3.9||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rate irrelevant targets over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|-9.7|0.399
91672963|NCT00380692|183240839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1||0.57||95.0|-4.3|7.8||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rate relevant nontargets over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.8|-4.3|0.570
91672964|NCT00380692|183240840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-61.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.0||0.352||95.0|-193.5|69.8||P-value for Treatment differences in Reaction time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||69.8|-193.5|0.352
91672965|NCT00380692|183240840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.3||0.553||95.0|-160.3|86.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections irrelevant target over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||86.2|-160.3|0.553
91672966|NCT00380692|183240840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.7||0.904||95.0|-107.1|121.1||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections relevant nontarget over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||121.1|-107.1|0.904
91672967|NCT00380692|183240841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.9||0.748||95.0|-152.8|110.3||P-value for Treatment differences in Standard Deviation of Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.3|-152.8|0.748
91715973|NCT04456686|183322710|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.63|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.63|-0.45|
91715974|NCT04456686|183322711|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|5.06|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||5.06|-3.31|
91715975|NCT04456686|183322712|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.5|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.50|-0.46|
91715976|NCT04456686|183322713|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.91|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.91|-0.72|
91715977|NCT04456686|183322714|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|12.2|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||12.20|-7.27|
91715978|NCT04456686|183322715|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.85|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.85|-0.04|
91715979|NCT04456686|183322716|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|168.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.22|379.2|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||379.20|-38.22|
91715980|NCT04456686|183322717|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.06|-0.07|
91715981|NCT02059239|183322729|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.3|98.6||||||||98.6|65.3|
91672968|NCT00380692|183240841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-80.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.5||0.299||95.0|-234.3|72.5||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections irrelevant target over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||72.5|-234.3|0.299
91672969|NCT00380692|183240841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.1||0.84||95.0|-119.3|146.5||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections relevant nontarget over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||146.5|-119.3|0.840
91715982|NCT02059239|183322729|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|81.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|95.9||||||||95.9|54.4|
91715983|NCT02059239|183322730|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
91672970|NCT00380692|183240842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.126||95.0|-1.2|9.9||P-value for Treatment differences in Error Rate over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.9|-1.2|0.126
91672971|NCT00380692|183240842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.297||95.0|-5.2|1.6||P-value for Treatment\*Error Rate absent over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-5.2|0.297
91672972|NCT00380692|183240842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.023||95.0|-9.4|-0.7||P-value for Treatment\*Targets Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-9.4|0.023
91672973|NCT00380692|183240843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.7||0.228||95.0|-230.4|56.0||P-value for Treatment differences in Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||56.0|-230.4|0.228
91672974|NCT00380692|183240843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|87.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.3||0.26||95.0|-65.6|240.8||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||240.8|-65.6|0.260
91672975|NCT00380692|183240843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|70.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.5||0.239||95.0|-47.3|188.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections Load 2 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||188.2|-47.3|0.239
91672976|NCT00380692|183240843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|122.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|80.1||0.128||95.0|-35.9|281.4||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time hits Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||281.4|-35.9|0.128
91672977|NCT00380692|183240844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-175.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.0||0.051||95.0|-351.5|0.5||P-value for Treatment differences in Standard Deviation of Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-351.5|0.051
91672978|NCT00380692|183240844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|218.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|90.8||0.018||95.0|38.0|398.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||398.2|38.0|0.018
91715984|NCT02059239|183322730|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.3|100.0||||||||100.0|75.3|
91715985|NCT02059239|183322731|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
91715986|NCT02059239|183322731|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.8||||||||99.8|64.0|
91672979|NCT00380692|183240844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|173.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.6||0.103||95.0|-35.7|383.0||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections Load 2 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||383.0|-35.7|0.103
91672980|NCT00380692|183240844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|205.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|99.9||0.042||95.0|7.5|403.6||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation hits Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||403.6|7.5|0.042
91672981|NCT00380692|183240845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.128||95.0|-16.9|2.3||P-value for Treatment difference in Accuracy over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-16.9|0.128
91672982|NCT00380692|183240846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.022||95.0|-11.2|-1.0||P-value for Treatment difference in Stability of Movement over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-11.2|0.022
91672983|NCT00380692|183240847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.43||95.0|-2.4|5.7||P-value for Treatment difference in Error Rate over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-2.4|0.430
91672984|NCT00380692|183240847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.005||95.0|-11.8|-2.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rate irrelevant targets over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.2|-11.8|0.005
91672985|NCT00380692|183240848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.221||95.0|-9.6|2.3||P-value for Treatment differences in Error Rates over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-9.6|0.221
91672986|NCT00380692|183240848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.307||95.0|-2.1|6.3||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rates compatible signals over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|-2.1|0.307
91672987|NCT00380692|183240849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.9||0.752||95.0|-163.1|119.1||P-value for Treatment differences in Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||119.1|-163.1|0.752
91672988|NCT00380692|183240849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.9||0.564||95.0|-47.0|84.3||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections Load 2 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||84.3|-47.0|0.564
91672989|NCT02065713|183240908|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.026
91672990|NCT02062801|183240916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
91672991|NCT02062801|183240917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
91672992|NCT02062801|183240918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.56
91715987|NCT02059239|183322732|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
91715988|NCT02059239|183322732|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|84.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|98.1||||||||98.1|54.6|
91715989|NCT02059239|183322733|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
91672993|NCT03923699|183240948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.08|0.85|0.41
91672994|NCT03923699|183240949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.10|0.92|0.92
91672995|NCT03923699|183240950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.09|0.89|0.68
91672996|NCT03923699|183240951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.05|0.92|0.42
91672997|NCT03923699|183240952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.02|0.98|0.99
91672998|NCT03923699|183240953|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.05|0.95|0.95
91672999|NCT03923699|183240954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||0.00|-0.00|0.29
91673000|NCT03923699|183240955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||0.00|-0.01|0.37
91715990|NCT02059239|183322733|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|46.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|74.9||||||||74.9|19.2|
91715991|NCT02059239|183322734|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.6||||||||20.6|0.0|
91673001|NCT03923699|183240956|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.13|0.95|0.30
91673002|NCT03923699|183240957|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.02|0.98|0.85
91673003|NCT03923699|183240958|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, poisson|||||1.02|0.97|0.51
91673004|NCT04578886|183240959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.4|2.3|0.22
91673005|NCT04578886|183240959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3307||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0571|1.6751||unadjusted for covariates|Regression, Linear|||"Null Hypothesis: The administration of guanfacine in critically ill patients in the intensive unit has no effect on the duration of delirium.~Continuous variables will be summarized using sample mean and sample variance whereas categorical variables will be summarized as proportions. Logistic regression models will examine whether age, gender, or comorbities associated with incidence of delirium when Guanfacine is administered."||1.6751|1.0571|0.0150
91673006|NCT00296491|183240998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.001||95.0|12.5|33.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = FSC - MON|||33.8|12.5|<0.001
91673007|NCT00296491|183240999|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given estimates, and assuming a significance level of a=0.05, a sample size of 133 subjects per treatment was determined to be sufficient to provide 80% power to show equivalance.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0|<|0.127||95.0|-24.6|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference=FSC+MON-FSC|||6.9|-24.6|<0.127
91673008|NCT03347838|183241008|SUPERIORITY||Observed response rate|0.526||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the 6-month response rate is less than or equal to 0.3.||1|0.32|0.03
91673009|NCT00484419|183241027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.0061
91673010|NCT00484419|183241027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.1090
91673011|NCT00484419|183241027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||<0.0001
91673012|NCT00484419|183241028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.0234
91673013|NCT00484419|183241028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||<0.0001
91673014|NCT00484419|183241028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.0011
91715992|NCT02059239|183322734|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|45.4||||||||45.4|1.9|
91715993|NCT02059239|183322735|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|86.7||||||||86.7|41.0|
91715994|NCT02059239|183322735|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|43.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|70.1||||||||70.1|19.8|
91715995|NCT02059239|183322736|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.7|98.4||||||||98.4|61.7|
91715996|NCT02059239|183322736|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|76.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.2|95.0||||||||95.0|46.2|
91673015|NCT00484419|183241031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0077
91673016|NCT00484419|183241031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0004
91673017|NCT00484419|183241031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0483||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0483
91673018|NCT00484419|183241032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0133
91673019|NCT00484419|183241032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0004
91673020|NCT00484419|183241032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0125
91673021|NCT00484419|183241035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8596||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.8596
91673022|NCT00484419|183241035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0257||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0257
91673023|NCT00484419|183241035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1862||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.1862
91673024|NCT00484419|183241036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7094||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.7094
91715997|NCT02059239|183322737|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|81.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|96.0||||||||96.0|54.4|
91673025|NCT00484419|183241036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1394||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.1394
91673026|NCT00484419|183241036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4528||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.4528
91673027|NCT00484419|183241038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0374||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0374
91673028|NCT00484419|183241038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||<0.0001
91673029|NCT00484419|183241038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0001
91673030|NCT00484419|183241039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2701||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.2701
91673031|NCT00484419|183241039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6117||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.6117
91673032|NCT00484419|183241039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.2007
91673033|NCT00484419|183241041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||<0.0001
91673034|NCT00484419|183241041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1864||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.1864
91673035|NCT00484419|183241041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0999||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0999
91673036|NCT00484419|183241042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||<0.0001
91673037|NCT00484419|183241042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0566||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0566
91673038|NCT00484419|183241042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0217
91673039|NCT02462486|183241082|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of the 95.1% confidence interval for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab is greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar group is established.|Percentage Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.4|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||2.4|-5.0|
91673040|NCT02462486|183241082|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of the 95.1% confidence interval for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab is greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar group is established.|Percentage Difference|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-0.5|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||-0.5|-9.0|
91715998|NCT02059239|183322737|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|61.4||||||||61.4|9.1|
91715999|NCT02059239|183322738|OTHER|Median PFS in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Median (95% CI)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|25.0||||||||25|5|
91673041|NCT02462486|183241083|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.4|2.0|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.0|-2.4|
91673042|NCT02462486|183241083|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.8|0.6|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-3.8|
91673043|NCT02462486|183241084|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-7.1|14.0|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-baseline CRT interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||14.0|-7.1|
91673044|NCT02462486|183241084|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.7|16.5|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-baseline CRT interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||16.5|-4.7|
91673045|NCT02462486|183241085|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|8.4|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||8.4|-5.5|
91673046|NCT02462486|183241085|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.5|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||4.5|-9.1|
91673047|NCT02462486|183241086|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.5|0.3|||||MMRM included treatment group, region, baseline BCVA in the study eye, baseline VFQ score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.3|-3.5|
91673048|NCT02462486|183241086|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.9|-0.1|||||MMRM included treatment group, region, baseline BCVA in the study eye, baseline VFQ score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.1|-3.9|
91673049|NCT04706507|183241087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in the number of respiratory support free days between the active drug arm and the placebo drug arm based on the student's t-test.||||0.098
91673050|NCT04706507|183241088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
91673051|NCT04706507|183241089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in the number of respiratory support free days between the active drug arm and the placebo drug arm based on the student's t-test.||||0.130
91673052|NCT04706507|183241090|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.02|||Regression, Cox||The placebo arm is the comparison arm (denominator). The incidence rate uses the person-years at risk for each of the study arms.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two arms. The placebo arm is the comparison group.||5.02|1.40|0.003
91673053|NCT04706507|183241091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.68|||Regression, Cox||The placebo arm is the comparison arm (denominator). The incidence rate uses the person-years at risk for each of the study arms.|the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two arms. The placebo group is the comparator group.||3.68|1.32|0.002
91673054|NCT04706507|183241092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91673055|NCT04706507|183241093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.457
91673056|NCT04706507|183241095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in the number of ICU free days between the active drug arm and the placebo drug arm based on the student's t-test.||||0.037
91673057|NCT04706507|183241096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This analysis evaluated any level of CMV reactivation.|Fine-Gray competing risks regression|This analysis will include death as a competing risk if it occurs on the same day of the last negative CMV test date.||||||<0.001
91673058|NCT04706507|183241096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||This analysis evaluate CMV reactivation \> 1000 UI/mL.|Fine-Gray competing risks regression|This analysis will include death as a competing risk if it occurs on the same day of the last negative CMV test date.||||||0.3
91673059|NCT00285584|183241113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9
91673060|NCT00285584|183241114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank test||||0.3
91673061|NCT00285584|183241115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.15||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|27.8|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of cumulative incidence proportions||27.8|0.4|0.3
91673062|NCT00285584|183241116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91673063|NCT01523587|183241135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.956||P-value from log-rank stratified by Race (two-sided). Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Race.|Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model without the randomization stratification variable was used for each subgroup category, along with the corresponding log-rank test.||0.956|0.693|0.0103
91716000|NCT01039467|183322755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91716001|NCT01039467|183322756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91902779|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.2|< 0.0001
91716002|NCT01039467|183322757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.833||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.833
91716003|NCT01039467|183322758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.265||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.265
91716004|NCT01039467|183322759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91716005|NCT01039467|183322760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91716006|NCT01039467|183322761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0008
91716007|NCT01039467|183322762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
91716008|NCT01039467|183322763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.493||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.493
91673064|NCT01523587|183241136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.841||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|0.973||P-value from log-rank stratified by Race (two-sided). Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Race.|Log Rank|||A Cox proportional-hazards model, stratified by race, was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two treatment groups.||0.973|0.727|0.0193
91673065|NCT01523587|183241137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.32||Odds ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib), 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by race.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.32|0.98|0.0551
91673066|NCT01523587|183241138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib), 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by race.||||2.06|1.18|0.0020
91673067|NCT01523587|183241139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|2.28|||ANCOVA||Mean was adjusted for baseline sum of diameters and race.|The analysis will compare the treatments using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for minimum sum of diameters, using baseline sum of diameters as a covariate. The randomization strata will be included as classification factors.||2.28|-4.67|0.500
91673068|NCT01523587|183241141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||p-value calculated using log rank test stratified by race.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by race.|The results shown relate to Time to Deterioration in Coughing.||1.09|0.72|0.2562
91673069|NCT01523587|183241141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94||p-value calculated using log rank test stratified by race.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by race.|The results shown relate to Time to Deterioration in Dyspnoea||0.94|0.66|0.0078
91673070|NCT01523587|183241141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18||p-value calculated using log rank test stratified by race|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by race.|The results shown relate to Time to Deterioration in Pain||1.18|0.82|0.8690
91673071|NCT01523587|183241142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|-0.88|||Regression, Cox|||The results shown relate to Change in scores over time for: Coughing.||-0.88|-6.15|0.0091
91673072|NCT01523587|183241142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-1.25|||Regression, Cox|||The results shown relate to Change in scores over time for: Dyspnoea.||-1.25|-5.75|0.0024
91716009|NCT03575702|183322764|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is considered as change in mean daily urination episodes of 0,8 episodes per day|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.5595|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.38|||ANCOVA|The number of urination episodes at the initiation of therapy is used as covariate, and the therapy group is used as a factor.||"The null hypothesis is that effect of Urotol according to the assessment of mean daily urination episodes exceeds effect of Uritos.~A sample containing of 222 patients (111 per study group) is considered sufficient to prove the alternative hypothesis at the significance level 0.025% and study power 80%. Given the expected drop out rate during the treatment period, the total number of patients to be randomized is 300 (150 in each group)."||0.38||=0.5595
91673073|NCT01523587|183241142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-0.15|||Regression, Cox|||The results shown relate to Change in scores over time for: Pain.||-0.15|-5.33|0.0384
91673074|NCT02709486|183241143|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.12||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.81|0.0088
91673075|NCT02709486|183241143|SUPERIORITY|A step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. A tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.26||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.97|0.0006
91673076|NCT02709486|183241144|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.24||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.93|0.0008
91716010|NCT03575702|183322765|OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0008
91716011|NCT03575702|183322766|OTHER||||||=|0.0099|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0099
91716012|NCT03575702|183322767|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91716013|NCT03575702|183322768|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in number of daily incontinence episodes - week 2||||||<0.0001
91716014|NCT03575702|183322768|OTHER||||||=|0.0236|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in number of daily incontinence episodes - week 4||||||=0.0236
91716015|NCT03575702|183322768|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in number of daily incontinence episodes - week 8||||||<0.0001
91716016|NCT03575702|183322768|OTHER||||||=|0.0018|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in daytime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 2||||||=0.0018
91716017|NCT03575702|183322768|OTHER||||||=|0.3835|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in daytime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 4||||||=0.3835
91716018|NCT03575702|183322768|OTHER||||||=|0.0088|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in daytime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 8||||||=0.0088
91716019|NCT03575702|183322768|OTHER||||||=|0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in nighttime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 2||||||=0.0004
91673077|NCT02709486|183241144|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.36||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.36|-1.05|<.0001
91673078|NCT02709486|183241145|SUPERIORITY|A step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. A tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.24|0.1092
91673079|NCT02709486|183241145|SUPERIORITY|A step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. A tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.32|0.0051
91673080|NCT02709486|183241146|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-0.94|<.0001
91673081|NCT02709486|183241146|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.61|0.0149
91673082|NCT02709486|183241146|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.08|<.0001
91673083|NCT02709486|183241146|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.07|<.0001
91673084|NCT02709486|183241146|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.92|<.0001
91673085|NCT02709486|183241146|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.07|<.0001
91716020|NCT03575702|183322768|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in nighttime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 4||||||<0.0001
91673086|NCT02709486|183241146|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.05|<.0001
91716021|NCT03575702|183322768|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in nighttime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 8||||||<0.0001
91716022|NCT03575702|183322769|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
91716023|NCT03575702|183322770|OTHER||||||=|0.1348|||||||ANCOVA|Week 2 changes||||||=0.1348
91716024|NCT03575702|183322770|OTHER||||||=|0.3199|||||||ANCOVA|Week 4 changes||||||=0.3199
91716025|NCT03575702|183322770|OTHER||||||=|0.9537|||||||ANCOVA|Week 8 changes||||||=0.9537
91716026|NCT03575702|183322771|OTHER||||||=|0.5321|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Change week 12||||||=0.5321
91716027|NCT03575702|183322772|OTHER||||||=|0.4839|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Change week 12||||||=0.4839
91716028|NCT03575702|183322773|OTHER||||||=|0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.86
91716029|NCT00490035|183322779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage Reduction over Placebo|6.5|||=|0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.9|||ANCOVA|||In order to control the Type I error testing was performed in sequence starting with 50 mg, then 100 mg and finally 20 mg Brivaracetam per day versus Placebo, only moving to the next test if the previous one was significant at the 5 % level.||16.9|-5.2|=0.261
91861215|NCT06429319|183609441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||"BASELINE (OLE visit 0)~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||0.002
91861216|NCT06429319|183609441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA|||"visit 3~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||0.007
91861217|NCT06429319|183609441|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||"visit 5~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||<0.001
91716030|NCT05559905|183322807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.29||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.58|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||0.58|-1.16|0.578
91716031|NCT05559905|183322808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.69||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.17|-0.79|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||-0.79|-6.17|0.201
91716032|NCT05559905|183322814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.62||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.65|2.42|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||2.42|-3.65|0.736
91716033|NCT05559905|183322815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.93||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.88|5.02|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||5.02|-8.88|0.646
91716034|NCT05559905|183322816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.14||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|1.04|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.04|-1.31|0.849
91716035|NCT05559905|183322817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.09||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.97|1.78|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.78|-5.97|0.371
91716036|NCT05559905|183322818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.82||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.11|1.47|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC-CFB in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC-CFB between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.47|-5.11|0.360
91716037|NCT05559905|183322819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.46||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|0.57|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean peak TSS in each group and the differences in mean peak TSS between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI was computed based on the linear model.||0.57|-1.50|0.459
91861218|NCT06429319|183609442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there is a significant difference between 3 groups.~visit 3"||||<0.001
91716038|NCT05559905|183322821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.28|24.5||||||||24.50|-18.28|
91716039|NCT05559905|183322822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.37|25.69||||||||25.69|-19.37|
91716040|NCT05559905|183322823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|-2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|19.91||||||||19.91|-25.07|
91716041|NCT05559905|183322824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|-16.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.77|5.64||||||||5.64|-36.77|
91716042|NCT05559905|183322825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|-2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|19.37||||||||19.37|-25.69|
91716043|NCT05559905|183322826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.69||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|0.31|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||0.31|-1.68|0.253
91861219|NCT06429319|183609442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"visit 5~Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there is a significant difference between 3 groups."||||<0.001
91861220|NCT06429319|183609443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"visit 3~Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between 3 groups."||||0.018
91861221|NCT06429319|183609443|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"visit 5~Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between 3 groups."||||<0.001
91673087|NCT02709486|183241146|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.09|<.0001
91673088|NCT02709486|183241146|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.93|0.0005
91673089|NCT02709486|183241146|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.93|0.0004
91673090|NCT02709486|183241148|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-0.95|<.0001
91673091|NCT02709486|183241148|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.70|0.0014
91673092|NCT02709486|183241148|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.09|<.0001
91673093|NCT02709486|183241148|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.08|<.0001
91673094|NCT02709486|183241148|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-0.93|<.0001
91673095|NCT02709486|183241148|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.06|<.0001
91716044|NCT05559905|183322827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.1708||95.0|0.83|3.57|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.57|0.83|0.1708
91673096|NCT02709486|183241148|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.11|<.0001
91673097|NCT02709486|183241148|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.15|<.0001
91673098|NCT02709486|183241148|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.00|<.0001
91716045|NCT05559905|183322828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.93||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.61|2.75|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||2.75|-14.61|0.257
91673099|NCT02709486|183241148|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-1.00|<.0001
91673100|NCT02709486|183241150|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.33|<.0001
91673101|NCT02709486|183241150|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.27|0.0022
91673102|NCT02709486|183241150|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.35|<.0001
91673103|NCT02709486|183241150|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.43|<.0001
91673104|NCT02709486|183241150|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.28|0.0029
91673105|NCT02709486|183241150|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.37|<.0001
91673106|NCT02709486|183241150|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.40|<.0001
91673107|NCT02709486|183241150|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.43|<.0001
91673108|NCT02709486|183241150|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.26|0.0352
91716046|NCT05559905|183322829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.58||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|0.71|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||0.71|-1.88|0.453
91716047|NCT05559905|183322830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.9121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.51|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.51|0.44|0.9121
91902780|NCT03627767|183700094|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.3|
91716048|NCT05559905|183322831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.83||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.25|1.6|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.60|-5.25|0.377
91673109|NCT02709486|183241150|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.37|<.0001
91716049|NCT05559905|183322832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.13||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|4.02|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC-CFB in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC-CFB between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||4.02|-4.28|0.958
91673110|NCT02709486|183241152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.14|1.59|<.0001
91673111|NCT02709486|183241152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.18|1.12|0.0085
91673112|NCT02709486|183241152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.88|1.89|<.0001
91673113|NCT02709486|183241152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.28|1.62|<.0001
91673114|NCT02709486|183241152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.75|1.33|0.0005
91716050|NCT05559905|183322833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.62||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|0.98|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean peak TSS in each group and the differences in mean peak TSS between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI was computed based on the linear model.||0.98|-2.21|0.520
91716051|NCT05559905|183322835|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.24||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.07|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||5.07|0.99|0.0459
91716052|NCT03258593|183322862|OTHER|Location Tests (Wilcoxon Rank sum test)|Median Difference (Net)|67.5||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|75.0||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon Rank sum test|||||75|25|0.202
91716053|NCT03258593|183322862|OTHER|Location Tests (Wilcoxon Rank sum test)|Median Difference (Net)|114.0||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|160.3||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon Rank sum test|||||160.3|67.9|0.667
91673115|NCT02709486|183241152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.73|1.32|0.0005
91716054|NCT03258593|183322862|OTHER|Location Tests (Wilcoxon Rank sum test)|Median Difference (Net)|44.1||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|75.0|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test|||||75|25|0.463
91673116|NCT02709486|183241152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.86|1.31|0.0009
91673117|NCT02709486|183241152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.89|1.32|0.0008
91673118|NCT02709486|183241152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.01|1.41|0.0002
91716055|NCT03258593|183322864|OTHER|Location test (Rank sum based i.e., Wilcoxon test)|Median Difference (Net)|-17.75||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.6|170.3|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test||Median change; Signed Rank (S/R) of post-treatment PDL-1 levels minus baseline.|||170.3|-211.6|0.863
91716056|NCT03258593|183322864|OTHER|Location test (Rank sum based i.e., Wilcoxon test)|Median Difference (Net)|114.1||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|160.3|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test||Median change; Signed Rank (S/R) of post-treatment PDL-1 levels minus baseline.|||160.3|67.9|0.666
91716057|NCT03258593|183322864|OTHER|Location test (Rank sum based i.e., Wilcoxon test)|Median Difference (Net)|21.3||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.9|269.9|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test||Median change; Signed Rank (S/R) of post-treatment PDL-1 levels minus baseline.|||269.9|-203.9|0.949
91716058|NCT03258593|183322866|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|38.0||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interferon Gamma (IFN-γ) at 3 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||38.0|1.7|<0.001
91673119|NCT02709486|183241152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment||2.57|1.23|0.0022
91673120|NCT02709486|183241152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment||2.54|1.21|0.0032
91716059|NCT03258593|183322866|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.25||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interferon Gamma (IFN-γ) at 5 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||11.25|1.5|<0.001
91673121|NCT02709486|183241152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment||2.69|1.27|0.0013
91673122|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.59|1.30|0.0006
91673123|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.16|1.08|0.0160
91716060|NCT03258593|183322866|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF-α) at 3 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||0.7|0.1|<0.05
91902781|NCT02953639|183700102|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.36||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||1.38|-2.11|0.730
91673124|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.07|1.34|0.0008
91673125|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.80|0.75|0.5118
91673126|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.81|1.25|0.0093
91673127|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.01|0.71|0.3017
91673128|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.58|0.60|0.2160
91673129|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.08|0.29|0.7174
91673130|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.45|<.0001
91673131|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.54|1.29|0.0006
91673132|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.65|1.23|0.0024
91673133|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.16|1.49|<.0001
91673134|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.14|1.04|0.0373
91716061|NCT03258593|183322866|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.96||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF-α ) at 5 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||0.96|-0.01|0.052
91716062|NCT03258593|183322866|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.61||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 6 (IL-6) at 3 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||4.61|-0.03|0.055
91716063|NCT03258593|183322866|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.96|||Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|Hochberg adjustment may be used.||Interleukin 6 (IL-6) at 5 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||1.96|-0.06|0.06
91673135|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.72|1.27|0.0046
91673136|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.47|0.92|0.0683
91673137|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||11.66|1.22|0.0214
91716064|NCT03258593|183322866|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.62||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 8 (IL-8) at 3 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||1.62|-1.63|0.420
91716065|NCT03258593|183322866|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.315|1.31||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 8 (IL-8) at 5 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||1.31|-1.315|0.733
91716066|NCT03258593|183322866|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.21||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 10 (IL-10) at 3 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||0.21|0.04|0.010
91792954|NCT01709578|183463380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.801|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.948|11.413||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||11.413|2.948|<0.0001
91792955|NCT01709578|183463381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.444|-4.167||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.167|-10.444|<0.0001
91792956|NCT01709578|183463381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.727|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.833|-6.622||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-6.622|-12.833|<0.0001
91673138|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.58|1.30|0.0006
91792957|NCT01709578|183463382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.183||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.048||Threshold for significance was 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.048|-0.318|0.0078
91792958|NCT01709578|183463382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.242||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.109||Threshold for significance was 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.109|-0.376|0.0004
91792959|NCT01709578|183463383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|5.049||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.049|1.450|0.0004
91792960|NCT01709578|183463383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.305|5.846||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.846|2.305|<0.0001
91792961|NCT01709578|183463384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.515||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.818|3.848||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||3.848|-0.818|0.2026
91792962|NCT01709578|183463384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.013||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|4.309||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.309|-0.282|0.0854
91792963|NCT03505671|183463477|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.61
91902782|NCT02953639|183700102|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.28||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||2.02|-1.47|0.793
91902783|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.91||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.46|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Attention/Vigilance)||1.64|-3.46|0.556
91902784|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.27||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Attention/Vigilance)||2.05|-2.59|0.848
91902785|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.04||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Reasoning and Problem Solving)||2.16|-2.08|0.973
91673139|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.28|1.16|0.0048
91673140|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.65|1.27|0.0012
91673141|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.47|1.68|<.0001
91792964|NCT03505671|183463477|OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Correlation between EORTC Sensory Subscale baseline and 12 weeks (overall, N=20)|||||
91673142|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.74|0.99|0.0537
91673143|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.13|1.58|0.0001
91673144|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.27|0.82|0.1155
91673145|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||7.96|1.13|0.0271
91673146|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.63|1.30|0.0007
91792965|NCT03505671|183463477|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Correlation between EORTC Sensory Subscale baseline and 12 weeks (intervention, N=9)|||||
91792966|NCT03505671|183463477|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Correlation between EORTC Sensory Subscale baseline and 12 weeks (Usual Care, N=11)|||||
91792967|NCT03505671|183463478|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||P value for the motor subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.91
91673147|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.56|1.26|0.0011
91673148|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.52|1.27|0.0009
91673149|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.91|1.47|<.0001
91673150|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.78|1.18|0.0064
91673151|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.58|1.09|0.0180
91673152|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|15.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||15.08|2.09|0.0006
91673153|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|12.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||12.13|1.64|0.0034
91673154|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.44|1.22|0.0022
91673155|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.50|1.25|0.0014
91673156|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.64|1.33|0.0003
91673157|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.36|1.19|0.0030
91673158|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.24|0.96|0.0754
91902786|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.57||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Reasoning and Problem Solving)||2.67|-1.53|0.651
91673159|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.44|1.06|0.0253
91673160|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.83|1.30|0.0098
91673161|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.13|0.72|0.2230
91673162|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.12|1.07|0.0201
91673163|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.44|1.22|0.0021
91716067|NCT03258593|183322866|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 10 (IL-10) at 5 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||0.40|0.04|0.014
91673164|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.43|1.22|0.0022
91673165|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.64|1.32|0.0004
91673166|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.01|0.86|0.2031
91673167|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.18|0.95|0.0867
91673168|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.22|0.77|0.1746
91673169|NCT02709486|183241154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.57|0.87|0.1039
91673170|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.68|1.33|0.0003
91673171|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.10|1.04|0.0286
91673172|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.27|0.93|0.1031
91673173|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.10|0.85|0.2033
91673174|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|5.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||5.86|1.34|0.0064
91673175|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.3706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.23|0.65|0.3706
91716068|NCT03258593|183322868|OTHER|One curve estimated in this cohort. Not compared to any other curves.|Kaplan-Meier product-limit|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.5|97.5||Unadjusted p-value|Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates|||Disease free survival time was evaluated with the product-limit estimator by Kaplan-Meier test.||97.5|2.5|
91792968|NCT03505671|183463478|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P value for autonomic subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.55
91792969|NCT03505671|183463479|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P value for baseline numbness or tingling severity data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
91902787|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.44||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.89|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Social Cognition)||1.08|-3.89|0.350
91673176|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.41|0.61|0.2121
91673177|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||7.11|0.39|0.4859
91673178|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.17|1.60|<.0001
91673179|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.50|<.0001
91792970|NCT03505671|183463479|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||P value for baseline numbness or tingling interference data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91861222|NCT06429319|183609446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution.||||0.010
91673180|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.27|0.0020
91673181|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.40|1.53|<.0001
91673182|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.14|1.21|0.0107
91673183|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.02|1.18|0.0126
91673184|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||10.26|0.70|0.1516
91673185|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|16.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||16.05|1.25|0.0210
91673186|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|1.18|0.0034
91673187|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.45|1.26|0.0010
91673188|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.71|1.27|0.0014
91673189|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.10|1.46|<.0001
91673190|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.55|1.49|0.0007
91673191|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.24|1.39|0.0018
91673192|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|12.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||12.79|1.31|0.0150
91673193|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||11.78|1.22|0.0211
91792971|NCT03505671|183463479|OTHER|||||||0.58||||||Week 12 p value for numbness or tingling severity data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
91902788|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.18||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Social Cognition)||4.50|-0.14|0.121
91902789|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.13||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Speed of Processing)||1.83|-2.10|0.911
91673194|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.84|1.43|<.0001
91792972|NCT03505671|183463479|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||P value for Week 12 numbness or tingling interference data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91861223|NCT04295798|183609447|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to gait speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.02
91673195|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.10|1.55|<.0001
91673196|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.00|1.47|<.0001
91673197|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.46|<.0001
91673198|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.76|1.10|0.0180
91673199|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.94|1.18|0.0072
91673200|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.84||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|47.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||47.22|2.49|0.0015
91673201|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.62||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|37.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||37.96|1.96|0.0044
91673202|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.43|1.22|0.0018
91673203|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.50|1.26|0.0011
91673204|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.38|1.19|0.0035
91673205|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.43|1.22|0.0022
91673206|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.72|1.11|0.0155
91673207|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.1549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.20|0.88|0.1549
91673208|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|7.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||7.37|1.18|0.0212
91673209|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.57|1.06|0.0373
91673210|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.57|1.29|0.0006
91792973|NCT03505671|183463479|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Week 12 - Baseline p value for numbness or tingling severity data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
91902790|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Speed of Processing)||2.03|-1.99|0.987
91716069|NCT05457257|183322883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.45||The 2-sided nominal p-values were calculated using the log-rank test stratified by the same variables selected in the primary pooling strategy, using the Breslow method for handling ties.|Log Rank||The Hazard ratio and CI were calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusted for the variables. The Efron approach was used for handling ties. A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd.|The explanation of statistical method||3.45|0.46|0.726
91902791|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Verbal Learning)||1.93|-2.62|0.803
91792974|NCT03505671|183463479|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||Week 12 - Baseline p value for numbness or tingling interference|Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
91673211|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.02|1.51|<.0001
91673212|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.18|1.09|0.0152
91673213|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.45|1.23|0.0018
91673214|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|0.93|0.0970
91673215|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.98|0.79|0.3435
91673216|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|9.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.27|1.17|0.0236
91716070|NCT05457257|183322884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|59.66||A Fisher's exact test using mid p-values was used.|Regression, Logistic||Objective response rate compared using logistic regression adjusting for previous taxane use as a covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd. CI calculated using profile likelihood method.|The explanation of statistical method||59.66|0.20|0.498
91716071|NCT05457257|183322885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.48||The 2-sided nominal p-values were calculated using the log-rank test stratified by the same covariates and using the Breslow method for handling ties.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and CI were calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with the Efron approach being used for handling ties, adjusting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd.|The explanation of statistical method||7.48|0.50|0.440
91792975|NCT03505671|183463480|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P value for baseline numbness or tingling severity Grade 1-3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91792976|NCT03505671|183463480|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P value for 12 weeks numbness or tingling severity Grade 1-3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91792977|NCT03505671|183463480|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P value for week 12 - baseline change in numbness or tingling severity|Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91792978|NCT03505671|183463481|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91716072|NCT05457257|183322887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.88||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by the same variables selected in the primary pooling strategy, using the Breslow method for handling ties.|Log Rank||The Hazard ratio and CI were calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusted for the variables selected in the primary pooling strategy: none. The Efron approach was used for handling ties. A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd.|The explanation of statistical method||2.88|0.20|0.604
91716073|NCT05457257|183322890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|6.24||The 2-sided nominal p-values were calculated using the log-rank test stratified by the same covariates and using the Breslow method for handling ties.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and CI were calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with the Efron approach being used for handling ties, adjusting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd.|The explanation of statistical method||6.24|0.19|0.889
91673217|NCT02709486|183241155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|8.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||8.81|1.12|0.0296
91673218|NCT02709486|183241157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.90|1.17|0.0132
91673219|NCT02709486|183241157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.02|0.87|0.1274
91673220|NCT02709486|183241157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.76|1.44|0.0016
91673221|NCT02709486|183241157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.03|1.84|<.0001
91673222|NCT02709486|183241157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.49|1.20|0.0089
91673223|NCT02709486|183241157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.10|1.42|0.0012
91673224|NCT02709486|183241157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.98|1.45|0.0006
91716074|NCT00359203|183322892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.96|||Log Rank|The risk of syncope recurrence was based on HR obtained by means of the univarate Cox model, with the use of the Breslow method for ties.|numerator=pacemaker ON denominator=pacemaker OFF|The analysis was designed to have 80% power to detect a 1-year absolute reduction of 25% in the risk of recurrence of first syncope in the Pm ON arm applying a log-rank test with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. This analysis was planned as a comparison of the cumulative risk of syncope between the 2 groups with the use of a log-rank test.||0.96|0.19|0.04
91716075|NCT00359203|183322892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The analysis was designed to have 80% power to detect a 1-year absolute reduction of 25% in the risk of recurrence of first syncope in the treatment arm applying a log-rank test with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.96||For the final analysis the threshold of statistical significance was set at 0.04.|Log Rank||Numerator=pacemaker ON denominator=pacemaker OFF|||0.96|0.19|0.039
91716076|NCT02131064|183322904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in tpCR rate|-11.71||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.95|-2.48||Threshold for significance at 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||95% CI for the difference in tPCR rates between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-2.48|-20.95|0.0126
91792979|NCT03505671|183463482|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
91673225|NCT02709486|183241157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||5.21|1.92|<.0001
91673226|NCT02709486|183241157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.06|1.10|0.0203
91673227|NCT02709486|183241157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.86|1.77|<.0001
91902792|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.94||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.26|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Verbal Learning)||1.38|-3.26|0.502
91673228|NCT02709486|183241157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.55|0.95|0.0775
91673229|NCT02709486|183241157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.21|1.21|0.0064
91673230|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.70|<.0001
91792980|NCT03505671|183463483|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||P value for cross sectional area sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.46
91902793|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.11||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.74|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Visual Learning)||2.52|-2.74|0.945
91902794|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.11||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Visual Learning)||3.76|-1.54|0.488
91716077|NCT02131064|183322905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.7557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||||3.96|0.37|0.7557
91716078|NCT02131064|183322906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in BCS rate|-10.84||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.21|-1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||95% CI for the difference in BCS rate between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-1.47|-20.21|0.0228
91716079|NCT02131064|183322907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.61||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.98|||Log Rank|The Log Rank was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||||4.98|1.36|0.0027
91716080|NCT02131064|183322908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.4||||||||2.40|0.52|
91716081|NCT02131064|183322911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-24.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.98|-15.19||||||95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in GHS/QoL score between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-15.19|-33.98|
91716082|NCT02131064|183322912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.78|||Log Rank|Log Rank was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||Stratified cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate Hazard Ratio and CI. Stratification by hormonal receptor status and clinical stage at presentation (stratification factors).||0.78|0.46|0.0001
91716083|NCT02131064|183322923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-16.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.32|-6.94||||||This is the statistical analysis for cognitive functioning. 95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in function subscales between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-6.94|-26.32|
91716084|NCT02131064|183322923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-32.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.74|-23.34||||||This is the statistical analysis for physical functioning. 95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in function subscales between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-23.34|-41.74|
91716085|NCT02131064|183322923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-28.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.95|-19.8||||||This is the statistical analysis for role functioning. 95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in function subscales between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-19.80|-37.95|
91716086|NCT02554760|183322926|OTHER||success proportion|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|92.3|||Catagorical tabulation|||||92.3|60.4|
91716087|NCT02554760|183322926|OTHER||success proportion|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|93.9||||||||93.9|54.4|
91716088|NCT00593918|183322929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed random effects model was used both unadjusted and adjustment for relevant co-variates obtained from the literature.||||||0.04
91716089|NCT00593918|183322930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||Analysis was per protocol based on the number of children enrolled by genotype and completed nasal washes at first visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed random effects model was used both unadjusted and adjustment for relevant co-variates obtained from the literature.||||||0.14
91716090|NCT00871234|183322942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.36
91716091|NCT01939314|183322999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|27.1||||||||27.1|-13.0|
91716092|NCT01939314|183323001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|43.6||||||||43.6|2.6|
91716093|NCT03311945|183323025|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This was a single-arm study without a comparator group; therefore, no formal hypothesis testing was conducted. The primary endpoint-therapeutic failure at 48 weeks-was analyzed descriptively. The proportion of participants experiencing therapeutic failure was calculated for both the intention-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment (OT) populations. Exact binomial (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals were used to estimate the failure rates.|||
91716094|NCT03839394|183323045|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.012
91716095|NCT03839394|183323046|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z-test of Proportions|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.05
91716096|NCT03839394|183323047|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.750
91716097|NCT03839394|183323048|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.860
91716098|NCT03839394|183323049|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.760
91716099|NCT00418028|183323072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"If we assume that the non-inferiority level is up to 15% lower (equivalent to a median progression-free time of 3 months), for a one-sided error α=0.05, and 80% power, are necessary 88 patients per group.~Considering an dropout rate of around 10%, the number of patients would be 98 per group."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Log Rank|||||1.7|0.9|0.1224
91716100|NCT00418028|183323073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8269|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8269
91716101|NCT00418028|183323074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.07|||Log Rank|||||2.07|0.67|0.5703
91716102|NCT00418028|183323075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.50|0.83|0.4676
91716103|NCT00418028|183323076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.5688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.66|0.5688
91716104|NCT00418028|183323077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4984|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4984
91673231|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.58|0.0009
91673232|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.00|<.0001
91673233|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.77|0.0001
91673234|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.06|<.0001
91673235|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.77|0.0006
91673236|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.20|<.0001
91673237|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.06|<.0001
91673238|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.59|-1.20|<.0001
91673239|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.25|<.0001
91716105|NCT00418028|183323078|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.2556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.88|0.2556
91716106|NCT05630196|183323120|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.00|-0.22|
91716107|NCT05630196|183323121|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.77|-0.44|
91716108|NCT05630196|183323122|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.67|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.67|-0.23|
91716109|NCT05630196|183323123|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.18|-0.13|
91902795|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.37||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Working Memory)||0.64|-3.38|0.262
91902796|NCT02953639|183700103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.89||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.01|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Working Memory)||1.23|-3.01|0.489
91716110|NCT05630196|183323124|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|11.87|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||11.87|-3.51|
91716111|NCT05630196|183323125|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.05|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.05|-0.74|
91902797|NCT02953639|183700104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.63||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.78|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (VPA I total raw score)||0.52|-3.78|0.211
91716112|NCT05630196|183323126|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.85|136.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||136.77|-159.85|
91716113|NCT05630196|183323127|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.11|
91716114|NCT03438266|183323128|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper limit of the confidence interval at Month 1 was less than 0.5, then treatment with cannula was considered non-inferior to treatment with needle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||||The 95% CI is based on the paired t-test.|Change from Baseline at Month 1||0.25|-0.05|
91902798|NCT02953639|183700104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.35||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (VPA I total raw score)||2.52|-1.81|0.787
91673240|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.93|0.0001
91673241|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.13|<.0001
91673242|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.05|<.0001
91673243|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.10|<.0001
91673244|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.06|<.0001
91673245|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.13|<.0001
91716115|NCT03438266|183323129|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|3.98||||||||3.98|-7.31|
91716116|NCT03256578|183323215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
91716117|NCT03256578|183323216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.107
91716118|NCT03256578|183323217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.847
91716119|NCT03256578|183323218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
91716120|NCT03256578|183323219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.346
91716121|NCT03256578|183323220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.094
91716122|NCT03256578|183323221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
91716123|NCT03256578|183323222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.434
91716124|NCT03256578|183323223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.903
91716125|NCT03256578|183323224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.699
91716126|NCT03256578|183323225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.231
91716127|NCT03256578|183323226|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.593||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|1.561|||Chi-squared|||||1.561|0.225|0.283
91716128|NCT03256578|183323227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.864||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|4.599|||Chi-squared|||||4.599|0.756|0.168
91716129|NCT03256578|183323228|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|0.947|||Chi-squared|||||0.947|0.474|0.024
91716130|NCT03256578|183323229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
91716131|NCT03256578|183323230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.342
91716132|NCT03256578|183323231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.431
91716133|NCT03256578|183323233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.059||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.313|||Chi-squared|||||1.313|0.854|0.518
91716134|NCT03256578|183323234|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.951||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.629|||Chi-squared|||||1.629|0.555|0.855
91716135|NCT03256578|183323235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.994||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.186|||Chi-squared|||||1.186|0.834|0.524
91716136|NCT03256578|183323236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.649||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|1.434|||Chi-squared|||||1.434|0.294|0.280
91716137|NCT03256578|183323237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.393||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|2.76|||Chi-squared|||||2.760|0.703|0.339
91716138|NCT03256578|183323238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.486
91716139|NCT03256578|183323239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.655
91716140|NCT03256578|183323240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||Chi-squared|||||1.02|0.99|1.00
91716141|NCT05428436|183323241|OTHER||gMean ratio|121.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.14|170.3|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 78.5.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||170.30|86.14|
91716142|NCT05428436|183323241|OTHER||gMean ratio|108.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.68|152.48|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 78.5.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||152.48|76.68|
91716143|NCT05428436|183323242|OTHER||gMean ratio|122.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.25|187.84|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 104.0.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two formulation groups (T1 \& R)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||187.84|79.25|
91716144|NCT05428436|183323242|OTHER||gMean ratio|108.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.33|112.97|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.8.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two treatment groups (T1 \& T2)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.97|104.33|
91716145|NCT05428436|183323243|OTHER||gMean ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.82|162.25|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 72.2.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||162.25|85.82|
91716146|NCT05428436|183323243|OTHER||gMean ratio|87.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.77|121.28|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 72.2.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||121.28|63.77|
91716147|NCT05428436|183323244|OTHER||gMean ratio|115.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.64|172.22|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 93.3.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two formulation groups (T1 \& R)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||172.22|77.64|
91792981|NCT03505671|183463483|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||P value for cross sectional area for median data|ANCOVA|||||||0.22
91792982|NCT03505671|183463484|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P value for amplitude - sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.20
91792983|NCT03505671|183463484|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||P value for amplitude - tibial, ankle|ANCOVA|||||||0.28
91673246|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.87|0.0040
91673247|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.98|0.0005
91673248|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.06|0.0002
91673249|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.05|0.0002
91673250|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.78|0.0506
91673251|NCT02709486|183241158|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.91|0.0086
91716148|NCT05428436|183323244|OTHER||gMean ratio|90.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.82|101.87|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.0.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two treatment groups (T1 \& T2)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||101.87|80.82|
91792984|NCT03505671|183463484|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P value for amplitude tibial, pop fossa|ANCOVA|||||||0.13
91673252|NCT02709486|183241160|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.07|<.0001
91673253|NCT02709486|183241160|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.94|<.0001
91716149|NCT05428436|183323245|OTHER||gMean ratio|93.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.49|97.21|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.1.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||97.21|90.49|
91792985|NCT03505671|183463484|OTHER|||||||0.71||||||P value for amplitude median, wrist|ANCOVA|||||||0.71
91716150|NCT05428436|183323245|OTHER||gMean ratio|109.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.72|113.44|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.1.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||113.44|105.72|
91716151|NCT05428436|183323246|OTHER||gMean ratio|95.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.39|98.77|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.5.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two formulation groups (T1 \& R)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||98.77|91.39|
91716152|NCT05428436|183323246|OTHER||gMean ratio|108.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.9|112.89|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 8.2.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two treatment groups (T1 \& T2)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.89|103.90|
91716153|NCT03964207|183323247|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-5.28||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-1.48|||Mixed-effects Model||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||-1.48|-9.07|0.007
91716154|NCT03964207|183323248|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-4.14||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect||-0.56|-7.72|0.024
91716155|NCT03964207|183323249|SUPERIORITY||Difference rate (%)|13.0||||0.249|||||||Chi-square test||The Difference rate was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|Chi-squared test was used to analyze proportion of patients indicating preference in the Patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire (PASAPQ) at week 8. All participants have used both treatments at this point: Handihaler (4 weeks) and Respimat (4 weeks).||||0.249
91716156|NCT03964207|183323250|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-4.72||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|0.15|||The mixed model for repeated measures||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||0.15|-9.59|0.057
91902799|NCT02953639|183700104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.28||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (VPA II total raw score)||0.94|-0.37|0.477
91716157|NCT03964207|183323251|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-4.38||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|4.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||4.86|-13.63|0.347
91716158|NCT02337062|183323265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test.||||<0.001
91716159|NCT02337062|183323266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91716160|NCT02337062|183323267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91716161|NCT02337062|183323268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91716162|NCT02337062|183323269|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91716163|NCT02337062|183323270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91716164|NCT00433836|183323290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority delta of 3.5 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.17|||ANOVA|||||1.17|-3.80|
91716165|NCT01240382|183323299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority in mean change in fluorescein staining score from baseline was assessed on the non-inferiority margin (0.34) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the 2 treatment groups.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||||95.0|-0.405|0.338|||l|||||0.338|-0.405|
91716166|NCT01240382|183323300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.01||95.0|-1.18|-0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.67|-1.18|0.010
91716167|NCT02634073|183323388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.799|0.914|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-inf) comparison|||0.914|0.799|
91716168|NCT02634073|183323388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.677|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.635|0.721|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-inf) comparision|||0.721|0.635|
91716169|NCT02634073|183323388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.594|0.682|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-inf) comparision|||0.682|0.594|
91716170|NCT02634073|183323388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.747|0.864|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-24) comparision|||0.864|0.747|
91716171|NCT02634073|183323388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.608|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.566|0.655|||ANOVA||AUC (0-24) comparision|||0.655|0.566|
91716172|NCT02634073|183323388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.518|0.599|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-24) comparision|||0.599|0.518|
91792986|NCT03505671|183463484|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||P value for amplitude, median, elbow|ANCOVA|||||||0.46
91902800|NCT02953639|183700104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.91||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (VPA II total raw score)||1.58|0.23|0.028
91902801|NCT02953639|183700104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (VPA II recognition total raw score)||0.91|-1.51|0.683
91673254|NCT02709486|183241160|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.03|<.0001
91673255|NCT02709486|183241160|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.15|<.0001
91673256|NCT02709486|183241160|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.91|0.0004
91716173|NCT02634073|183323388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.766|0.876|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-t) comparision|||0.876|0.766|
91673257|NCT02709486|183241160|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.31|<.0001
91673258|NCT02709486|183241160|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.14|<.0001
91673259|NCT02709486|183241160|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.18|<.0001
91716174|NCT02634073|183323388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.595|0.68|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-t) comparision|||0.680|0.595|
91716175|NCT02634073|183323388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.585|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.548|0.626|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-t) comparision|||0.626|0.548|
91716176|NCT02634073|183323389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.916|1.08|||ANCOVA||C24 comparison|||1.08|0.916|
91902802|NCT02953639|183700104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.04||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (VPA II recognition total raw score)||1.22|-1.13|0.954
91673260|NCT02709486|183241160|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.00|0.0002
91673261|NCT02709486|183241160|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.12|<.0001
91673262|NCT02709486|183241160|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.99|0.0013
91673263|NCT02709486|183241160|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.25|<.0001
91716177|NCT02634073|183323389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.21|||ANCOVA||C24 comparision|||1.21|1.03|
91716178|NCT02634073|183323389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.18|||ANCOVA||C24 comparision|||1.18|1.000|
91716179|NCT02634073|183323389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.56|||ANCOVA||Ct comparision|||1.56|1.13|
91716180|NCT02634073|183323389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|1.71|||ANCOVA||Ct comparision|||1.71|1.25|
91716181|NCT02634073|183323389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.63|||ANCOVA||Ct comparision|||1.63|1.18|
91716182|NCT02634073|183323389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.657|0.798|||ANCOVA||Cmax comparision|||0.798|0.657|
91716183|NCT02634073|183323389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.479|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.434|0.527|||ANCOVA||Cmax comparision|||0.527|0.434|
91716184|NCT02634073|183323389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.454|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.412|0.5|||ANCOVA||Cmax comparision|||0.500|0.412|
91716185|NCT02634073|183323390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.69|||ANCOVA|||||1.69|1.11|
91716186|NCT02634073|183323390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|1.88|||ANCOVA|||||1.88|1.25|
91716187|NCT02634073|183323390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.61|||ANCOVA|||||1.61|1.04|
91716188|NCT02634073|183323391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.094|1.251|||ANCOVA|||||1.251|1.094|
91716189|NCT02634073|183323391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.386|1.576|||ANCOVA|||||1.576|1.386|
91716190|NCT02634073|183323391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.571|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.466|1.684|||ANCOVA|||||1.684|1.466|
91792987|NCT03505671|183463485|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||P value for latency sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.81
91902803|NCT02953639|183700105|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.45||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (LM I)||3.17|-0.27|0.164
91716191|NCT00705757|183323414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||One way ANOVA of Upper Lid||||0.769
91716192|NCT00705757|183323414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||One way ANOVA of Lower Lid||||0.230
91716193|NCT00705757|183323414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||One way ANOVA of cheek/face||||0.851
91716194|NCT05696392|183323419|OTHER|difference between the average sleep at baseline and Week 8||||||0.8357|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.8357
91716195|NCT05696392|183323420|OTHER|difference between the average sleep at baseline and Week 8||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0001
91716196|NCT03389620|183323448|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous literature indicating that the minimum clinical threshold for change in NRS pain score is 2 points, a non-inferiority margin of differential change between treatment arms of 2 points at the 2 month time point following the surgical procedure was specified, assuming the true difference between treatment arms is zero.||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.057
91716197|NCT03389620|183323449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.376
91716198|NCT03389620|183323449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.848
91716199|NCT03389620|183323450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.613
91716200|NCT03389620|183323450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.565
91716201|NCT03389620|183323450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.958
91902804|NCT02953639|183700105|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.56||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (LM I)||2.14|-1.02|0.559
91716202|NCT03389620|183323451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.287
91716203|NCT03389620|183323451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.365
91716204|NCT03389620|183323451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.867
91716205|NCT03389620|183323452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.311
91716206|NCT03389620|183323452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.377
91716207|NCT03389620|183323452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.668
91716208|NCT03389620|183323453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.794
91716209|NCT03389620|183323453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.843
91716210|NCT03389620|183323453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.713
91716211|NCT03389620|183323454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.177
91716212|NCT03389620|183323454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.325
91716213|NCT03389620|183323454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.505
91716214|NCT03389620|183323455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.811
91716215|NCT03389620|183323455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.325
91716216|NCT03389620|183323455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.674
91716217|NCT03389620|183323456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.903
91716218|NCT03389620|183323456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.500
91716219|NCT03389620|183323456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.716
91716220|NCT03389620|183323457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Fisher Exact|||Immediately post-procedure||||0.461
91716221|NCT03389620|183323457|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||2 days post procedure||||1.00
91716222|NCT06077773|183323488|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (LSMD)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.4059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|5.94||MMRM=mixed effects model for repeated measures|MMRM|The p-value was based on the treatment group by week interaction term for the visit of interest.|LSMD = EP262 minus placebo|||5.94|-1.96|0.4059
91716223|NCT06077773|183323488|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.385||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.49|2.42||The p-value was based on the treatment group by week interaction term for the visit of interest.|MMRM||LSMD = EP262 minus placebo|||2.42|-5.49|0.5213
91716224|NCT03834506|183323496|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.09|0.78|0.1677
91716225|NCT03834506|183323497|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.01|0.71|0.0335
91716226|NCT03834506|183323498|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.01|0.74|0.0331
91716227|NCT03834506|183323500|OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.8||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|7.1||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||7.1|-10.7|0.6545
91716228|NCT03834506|183323502|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.43|0.77|0.6178
91792988|NCT03505671|183463485|OTHER|||||||0.76||||||P value for latency tibial, ankle data|ANCOVA|||||||0.76
91716229|NCT03834506|183323503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.9788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.33|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||2.33|1.01|0.9788
91673264|NCT02709486|183241162|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-0.96|<.0001
91716230|NCT03834506|183323504|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.12|0.82|0.2970
91673265|NCT02709486|183241162|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.73|0.0004
91673266|NCT02709486|183241162|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.04|<.0001
91673267|NCT02709486|183241162|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.08|<.0001
91673268|NCT02709486|183241162|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.90|<.0001
91673269|NCT02709486|183241162|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-1.13|<.0001
91673270|NCT02709486|183241162|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.09|<.0001
91673271|NCT02709486|183241162|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.12|<.0001
91673272|NCT02709486|183241162|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.95|0.0001
91673273|NCT02709486|183241162|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.99|<.0001
91673274|NCT02709486|183241162|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.89|0.0015
91673275|NCT02709486|183241162|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.07|<.0001
91673276|NCT02709486|183241164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-0.96|<.0001
91673277|NCT02709486|183241164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.67|0.0139
91792989|NCT03505671|183463485|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||P value for latency tibial, pop fossa|ANCOVA|||||||0.24
91792990|NCT03505671|183463485|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P value for latency median wrist data|ANCOVA|||||||0.20
91792991|NCT03505671|183463485|OTHER|||||||0.51||||||P value for latency median elbow data|ANCOVA|||||||0.51
91716231|NCT03834506|183323505|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.15|0.78|0.2876
91673278|NCT02709486|183241164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.13|<.0001
91673279|NCT02709486|183241164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.55|-1.16|<.0001
91673280|NCT02709486|183241164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.91|0.0003
91673281|NCT02709486|183241164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.04|<.0001
91673282|NCT02709486|183241164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.08|<.0001
91673283|NCT02709486|183241164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.14|<.0001
91673284|NCT02709486|183241164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.98|0.0006
91673285|NCT02709486|183241164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.96|0.0009
91673286|NCT02709486|183241164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.78|0.0377
91792992|NCT03505671|183463486|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P value for velocity sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.98
91792993|NCT03505671|183463486|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P value for velocity tibial data|ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91792994|NCT03505671|183463486|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||P value for velocity median data|ANCOVA|||||||0.81
91794390|NCT01827358|183467852|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.01|||Cox proportional hazards models|||The time to clinical infection with SA on or prior to Day 22 was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival curve and Cox proportional hazards models (with treatment as the only independent variable). Infants were censored at Day 22 or completion or early termination from the study. Estimates of the hazard ratio (values less than one indicating a treatment benefit) with Wald 95% confidence intervals and accompanying p-values were calculated.||2.01|0.03|0.182
91902805|NCT02953639|183700105|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.12||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (LM II)||1.94|-1.70|0.912
91902806|NCT02953639|183700105|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.36||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (LM II)||1.22|-1.93|0.706
91792995|NCT02038829|183463488|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0318|0.0569||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.0569|-0.0318|0.9730
91792996|NCT02038829|183463488|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.1264||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1264|0.0380|0.0014
91792997|NCT02038829|183463488|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0644|0.1532||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1532|0.0644|<0.0001
91716232|NCT04577794|183323508|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with a multiple imputation method to handle missing values, with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as covariate.||1.7|-1.7|0.981
91716233|NCT00689338|183323516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of survival|53.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|60.9|||Kaplan-Meier|||Kaplan-Meier estimate of survival at Day 90 (survivor function).||60.9|45.9|
91716234|NCT00078286|183323518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|\*Power analysis already provided.|Difference in mean change score|-0.3||||0.89||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Significance was tested at p=.05.||A hierarchical mixed model was used, analyzing the fixed effects of treatment, the natural log of time, natural log of time squared, the interactions of time and time squared with treatment and site, as well as the random effects of patient, patient-by-time, and square of patient-by-time.||||0.89
91792998|NCT02038829|183463488|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0931|0.1818||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation||0.1818|0.0931|<0.0001
91902807|NCT02953639|183700106|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.04||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||1.15|0.94|0.527
91716235|NCT00078286|183323519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||0.78||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tests for differences of proportions were used to examine the composite cardiovascular status outcome at the end of acute treatment. Chi-square tests were used to test for overall treatment differences, with a Mantel Haenszel test performed to examine treatment differences when controlling for clinical site. The primary analyses were conducted on the tri-level cardiovascular status outcome.||||.78
91716236|NCT00922636|183323654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74||||0.008||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Least Squares (LS) Mean Change is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.|The LS Mean difference was computed as treatment minus placebo.|||||0.008
91902808|NCT02953639|183700106|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.04||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||1.17|0.92|0.636
91902809|NCT02953639|183700107|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.36||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.63|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.91|-3.63|0.323
91902810|NCT02953639|183700107|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.95||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||1.88|-3.77|0.579
91673287|NCT02709486|183241164|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.96|0.0019
91716237|NCT00922636|183323654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.04||||0.006||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Least Squares (LS) Mean Value is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.|The LS Mean difference was computed as treatment minus placebo.|||||0.006
91792999|NCT02038829|183463488|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1121|0.2012||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.2012|0.1121|<0.0001
91673288|NCT02709486|183241166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.99|<.0001
91861224|NCT04295798|183609448|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to standing postural sway speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.02
91716238|NCT00922636|183323657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.938||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Least squares (LS) mean is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.||Gated secondary analysis for total score. If both LY2216684 groups (0.2 mg/kg/day and 0.3 mg/kg/day) were statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027. If only 0.2 mg/kg/day or 0.3 mg/kg/day LY2216684 was statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.023 for the corresponding group.||||0.938
91716239|NCT00922636|183323657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44||||0.002||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Least squares (LS) mean is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.||Gated secondary analysis for total score. If both LY2216684 groups (0.2 mg/kg/day and 0.3 mg/kg/day) were statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027. If only 0.2 mg/kg/day or 0.3 mg/kg/day LY2216684 was statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.023 for the corresponding group.||||0.002
91716240|NCT00729521|183323714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effects Poisson Regression|Comparison group is the control arm.|||0.95|0.88|<0.05
91716241|NCT00729521|183323714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effected Poisson Model Regression|Comparison group is the control arm.|||0.94|0.88|<.05
91716242|NCT01774981|183323739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0449|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0449
91716243|NCT01774981|183323739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0808|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0808
91716244|NCT01774981|183323739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2219|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2219
91716245|NCT02915835|183323749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.70
91902811|NCT02953639|183700108|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.67||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.94|-2.27|0.493
91716246|NCT02915835|183323750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
91716247|NCT02915835|183323751|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91716248|NCT02915835|183323752|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91716249|NCT02915835|183323753|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91716250|NCT02915835|183323754|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91716251|NCT02915835|183323755|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91716252|NCT02915835|183323756|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91716253|NCT02915835|183323757|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91716254|NCT02915835|183323758|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91716255|NCT02915835|183323759|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91716256|NCT02915835|183323760|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91716257|NCT02915835|183323761|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91716258|NCT02915835|183323762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Log Rank|||||||.56
91716259|NCT02915835|183323763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Log Rank|||||||.35
91716260|NCT02915835|183323765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.76
91716261|NCT02915835|183323766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.57
91716262|NCT02915835|183323767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.40
91716263|NCT02915835|183323768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.49
91716264|NCT02915835|183323769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.75
91716265|NCT02915835|183323770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.41
91716266|NCT02915835|183323771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
91716267|NCT02915835|183323772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
91716268|NCT02915835|183323773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
91716269|NCT02915835|183323774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.66
91716270|NCT02915835|183323775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
91716271|NCT02915835|183323776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
91716272|NCT02915835|183323777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.90
91716273|NCT02915835|183323778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.68
91716274|NCT02915835|183323779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.25
91716275|NCT02915835|183323780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.95
91716276|NCT02915835|183323781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
91716277|NCT02915835|183323782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.82
91716278|NCT02915835|183323783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.47
91716279|NCT02915835|183323784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
91716280|NCT02915835|183323785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
91716281|NCT02915835|183323786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
91716282|NCT02915835|183323788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
91716283|NCT02915835|183323789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
91716284|NCT02915835|183323790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
91716285|NCT02915835|183323791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
91716286|NCT02915835|183323792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
91716287|NCT02915835|183323793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.41
91716288|NCT02915835|183323794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
91902812|NCT02953639|183700108|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||2.07|-2.32|0.926
91902813|NCT02953639|183700109|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.02||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.17|-0.22|0.839
91716289|NCT02915835|183323795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
91716290|NCT02915835|183323796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.75
91716291|NCT02915835|183323797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
91716292|NCT02915835|183323798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
91716293|NCT02915835|183323799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
91716294|NCT02915835|183323800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
91716295|NCT02915835|183323801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
91716296|NCT02915835|183323802|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91716297|NCT02915835|183323803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.73
91716298|NCT02915835|183323804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
91716299|NCT02915835|183323805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
91716300|NCT02915835|183323806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.58
91902814|NCT02953639|183700109|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.06||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||0.15|-0.27|0.625
91716301|NCT02915835|183323807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.39
91716302|NCT02915835|183323808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
91716303|NCT02456727|183323809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2039||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|0.0291|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.0291|-0.7720|0.0691
91716304|NCT02456727|183323810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.5077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6452|0.319|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.319|-0.6452|0.5077
91716305|NCT02456727|183323811|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0399||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0058|0.1506|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1506|-0.0058|0.24
91716306|NCT02456727|183323812|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0487||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0422|0.1485|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1485|-0.0422|0.17
91716307|NCT02456727|183323813|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0396||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0151|0.1401|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1401|-0.0151|0.17
91716308|NCT02456727|183323814|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0488||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0075|0.184|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.184|-0.0075|0.40
91716309|NCT02456727|183323815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1782||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6136|0.0851|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change in score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between the two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.0851|-0.6136|0.1387
91716310|NCT02456727|183323816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2124||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6497|0.1829|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change in score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between the two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.1829|-0.6497|0.2725
91716311|NCT02456727|183323817|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0388||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0334|0.1185|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1185|-0.0334|0.07
91716312|NCT02456727|183323818|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0477||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0651|0.1218|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1218|-0.0651|0.07
91716313|NCT02456727|183323819|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0356||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0436|0.0961|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.0961|-0.0436|0.02
91902815|NCT02953639|183700110|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.03||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.23|-0.28|0.865
91673289|NCT02709486|183241166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.87|0.0002
91673290|NCT02709486|183241166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.65|-1.29|<.0001
91673291|NCT02709486|183241166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.65|-1.28|<.0001
91673292|NCT02709486|183241166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-1.11|<.0001
91902816|NCT02953639|183700110|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||0.29|-0.31|0.964
91673293|NCT02709486|183241166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.35|<.0001
91673294|NCT02709486|183241166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.11|<.0001
91673295|NCT02709486|183241166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.23|<.0001
91673296|NCT02709486|183241166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.03|0.0005
91673297|NCT02709486|183241166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.13|<.0001
91673298|NCT02709486|183241166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.82|0.0246
91673299|NCT02709486|183241166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.10|0.0003
91716314|NCT02456727|183323820|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0539|0.1186|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1186|-0.0539|0.06
91902817|NCT02953639|183700111|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.27||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|6.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (SQLS Cognition \& Vitality Score)||6.95|-0.40|0.142
91902818|NCT02953639|183700111|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.32||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.04|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (SQLS Cognition \& Vitality Score)||2.40|-7.04|0.416
91716315|NCT02456727|183323821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5288|0.0795|||t-test, 2 sided|The outcome is the change of PGIC from baseline to 12 weeks.|The estimated value is the difference of PGIC change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.0795|-0.5288|0.1475
91716316|NCT02456727|183323822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.546|0.1706|||t-test, 2 sided|The outcome is the change of PGIC from baseline to 12 weeks.|The estimated value is the difference of PGIC change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.1706|-0.546|0.3038
91716317|NCT02456727|183323823|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0392||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0517|0.1018|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1018|-0.0517|0.03
91716318|NCT02456727|183323824|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0481||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0925|0.096|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.096|-0.0925|0.02
91716319|NCT02456727|183323825|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.0602|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.0602|-0.081|0.00
91716320|NCT02456727|183323826|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0464||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0755|0.1063|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1063|-0.0755|0.03
91716321|NCT02456727|183323827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5336||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9659|1.13|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.13|-0.9659|0.8778
91793000|NCT02038829|183463489|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0163|0.0888|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.0888|0.0163|0.0046
91673300|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||6.29|-3.90|0.6427
91716322|NCT02456727|183323828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6252||0.5626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8667|1.5912|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.5912|-0.8667|0.5626
91793001|NCT02038829|183463489|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0185|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0478|0.1206|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1206|0.0478|<0.0001
91673301|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|3.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||3.04|-7.22|0.4208
91673302|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.8204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||4.79|-6.03|0.8204
91673303|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||1.13|-10.16|0.1157
91902819|NCT02953639|183700111|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.98||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|5.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (SQLS Psychosocial Score)||5.83|-1.86|0.394
91902820|NCT02953639|183700111|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.71||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (SQLS Psychosocial Score)||4.87|-3.44|0.776
91902821|NCT02953639|183700111|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.43||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (SQLS Total Score)||5.94|-1.09|0.254
91902822|NCT02953639|183700111|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.57||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.64|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (SQLS Total Score)||3.50|-4.64|0.816
91716323|NCT02456727|183323829|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0399||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0419|0.1144|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1144|-0.0419|0.05
91716324|NCT02456727|183323830|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0466||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0266|0.156|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.156|-0.0266|0.22
91716325|NCT02456727|183323831|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.1335|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1335|-0.029|0.12
91794276|NCT02821910|183467551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|99.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.81|103.86|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.86|95.81|
91673304|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|3.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||3.47|-6.12|0.5845
91673305|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|2.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.11|-7.97|0.2514
91673306|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.60|-13.97|0.0717
91673307|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|-5.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-5.26|-20.11|0.0010
91673308|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|-2.77|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.77|-17.85|0.0079
91673309|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.49|-2.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.63|-18.49|0.0096
91673310|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|4.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||4.41|-12.97|0.3302
91673311|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54||0.5483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|6.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||6.30|-11.78|0.5483
91673312|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.76|-14.26|0.0774
91794391|NCT01827358|183467853|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.12|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The time to clinical infection with SA on or prior to Day 22 was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival curve and Cox proportional hazards models (with treatment as the only independent variable). Infants were censored at Day 22 or completion or early termination from the study. Estimates of the hazard ratio (values less than one indicating a treatment benefit) with Wald 95% confidence intervals and accompanying p-values were calculated.||2.12|0.03|0.198
91673313|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|-4.81|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-4.81|-20.15|0.0017
91673314|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-1.99|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-1.99|-16.83|0.0135
91673315|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|-2.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.17|-17.91|0.0129
91673316|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|4.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||4.96|-12.66|0.3869
91716326|NCT02456727|183323832|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0498||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0047|0.1903|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1903|-0.0047|0.44
91716327|NCT02456727|183323833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5753||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6468|1.6129|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.6129|-0.6468|0.4014
91716328|NCT02456727|183323834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.9334|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.9334|-0.61|0.307
91716329|NCT02456727|183323835|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0555|0.0873|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.0873|-0.0555|0.01
91716330|NCT02456727|183323836|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0424||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0544|0.1117|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1117|-0.0544|0.05
91716331|NCT02456727|183323837|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0369||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0335|0.1112|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1112|-0.0335|0.05
91673317|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62||0.6485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|7.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||7.08|-11.31|0.6485
91673318|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|-3.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-3.03|-9.34|0.0001
91716332|NCT02456727|183323838|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0436||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0247|0.1463|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1463|-0.0247|0.18
91716333|NCT02456727|183323839|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the proportion of participants with self-reported opioid prescription comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.1658|||||||McNemar|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest pre- and post-randomization.||||0.1658
91793002|NCT02038829|183463489|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.1621|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1621|0.0890|<0.0001
91673319|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-6.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-6.00|-12.26|<.0001
91673320|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.50|-9.51|0.0008
91673321|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|-3.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-3.51|-10.44|<.0001
91673322|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.60|-6.76|0.1004
91716334|NCT02456727|183323840|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the proportion of participants with self-reported opioid prescription comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.1172|||||||McNemar|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest pre- and post-randomization.||||0.1172
91673323|NCT02709486|183241169|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect||-1.30|-8.59|0.0079
91673324|NCT02709486|183241184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment. Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.||0.46|0.02|0.0027
91673325|NCT02709486|183241184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment. Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.||0.54|0.05|0.0033
91673326|NCT02709486|183241185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0002
91673327|NCT02709486|183241185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||P-value based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0007
91673328|NCT02709486|183241186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.59|0.29|<.0001
91716335|NCT02456727|183323841|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the days of self-reported opioid medication use comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.0326|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest prior- and post-randomization.||||0.0326
91716336|NCT02456727|183323842|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the days of self-reported opioid medication use comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest prior- and post-randomization.||||0.0026
91794277|NCT02821910|183467552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.94|102.56|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.56|90.94|
91716337|NCT02456727|183323843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||The change in MME was not normally distributed, thus we report median and IQR rather than mean/standard deviation. We employed Mann-Whitney to assess whether the change in MME between pre- and post-treatment periods differed across intervention arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.129
91716338|NCT02456727|183323844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||The change in MME was not normally distributed, thus we report median and IQR rather than mean/standard deviation. We employed Mann-Whitney to assess whether the change in MME between pre- and post-treatment periods differed across intervention arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
91673329|NCT02709486|183241186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.78|0.38|0.0010
91673330|NCT02709486|183241186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.70|0.36|<.0001
91673331|NCT02709486|183241186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.88|0.44|0.0067
91673332|NCT02709486|183241186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.89|0.45|0.0087
91673333|NCT02709486|183241186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.04|0.53|0.0787
91673334|NCT02709486|183241186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.91|0.47|0.0129
91673335|NCT02709486|183241186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.91|0.47|0.0124
91673336|NCT02709486|183241186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.98|0.50|0.0399
91673337|NCT02709486|183241186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.87|0.45|0.0060
91673338|NCT02709486|183241186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.42|0.72|0.9449
91673339|NCT02709486|183241186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.18|0.60|0.3238
91673340|NCT02709486|183241188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Least square (LS) Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.82|0.54|0.0001
91673341|NCT02709486|183241188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.92|0.61|0.0067
91673342|NCT02709486|183241188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.82|0.51|0.0003
91673343|NCT02709486|183241188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.93|0.58|0.0112
91673344|NCT02709486|183241188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.92|0.56|0.0093
91673345|NCT02709486|183241188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.96|0.59|0.0237
91673346|NCT02709486|183241188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.98|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.98|0.56|0.0374
91716339|NCT02456727|183323845|SUPERIORITY|Difference in change in proportion pre and post-treatment differs by treatment arm.||||||0.0059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0059
91716340|NCT02456727|183323846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0385|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0385
91673347|NCT02709486|183241188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.0|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.00|0.57|0.0468
91673348|NCT02709486|183241188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.03|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.03|0.59|0.0751
91673349|NCT02709486|183241188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.06|0.61|0.1305
91673350|NCT02709486|183241188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.16|0.63|0.3057
91673351|NCT02709486|183241188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.11|0.61|0.2056
91673352|NCT02709486|183241190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.99|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.99|0.39|0.0441
91673353|NCT02709486|183241190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.17|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.17|0.46|0.1895
91673354|NCT02709486|183241190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.01|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.01|0.35|0.0567
91673355|NCT02709486|183241190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.28|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.28|0.44|0.2960
91673356|NCT02709486|183241190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.12|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.12|0.37|0.1215
91673357|NCT02709486|183241190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.34|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.34|0.44|0.3569
91673358|NCT02709486|183241190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.25|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.25|0.36|0.2096
91673359|NCT02709486|183241190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.28|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.28|0.37|0.2387
91673360|NCT02709486|183241190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.29|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.29|0.39|0.2627
91673361|NCT02709486|183241190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group||1.31|0.40|0.2863
91716341|NCT00113607|183323853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.79||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.65|0.0190
91673362|NCT02709486|183241190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.58|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.58|0.43|0.5560
91673363|NCT02709486|183241190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.53|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.53|0.42|0.5076
91716342|NCT00113607|183323854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.86||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.72|0.0835
91716343|NCT00113607|183323855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.144|2.367|||Fisher Exact|||||2.367|1.144|0.0080
91716344|NCT00113607|183323856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.95||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.62|0.8203
91716345|NCT02974868|183323874|SUPERIORITY||Mean of Difference from Placebo|31.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.78|43.5||Hochberg P-value (one-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||43.50|18.78|<.0001
91716346|NCT02974868|183323874|SUPERIORITY||Mean of Difference from Placebo|49.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.62|61.74||Hochberg P-value (one-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||61.74|36.62|<.0001
91716347|NCT02974868|183323875|OTHER||Mean of Difference from Placebo|25.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.64||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.98|43.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||43.58|7.98|0.0094
91716348|NCT02974868|183323875|OTHER||Mean of Difference from Placebo|46.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.02|64.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||64.20|29.02|<.0001
91716349|NCT02974868|183323880|OTHER||Difference in Percentage from Placebo|47.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.2|60.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||60.7|34.2|<.0001
91716350|NCT02974868|183323880|OTHER||Difference in Percentage from Placebo|61.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.2|73.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||||73.6|48.2|<.0001
91673364|NCT00536484|183241211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002||95.0|-1.1|-0.4||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, center and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction.|The LS mean difference \& 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline = 12.9 (centered baseline used in model)|Null hypothesis: the mean change from baseline in micturitions per 24 hours in the fesoterodine group is the same as in the placebo group at Week 12. A sample size of 350 in each arm had at least 85% power to detect a difference of 0.8 between flexible dose fesoterodine \& placebo assuming a standard deviation of 3.52 using a 2-sample t-test with a 0.05 2-sided significance level. Accounting for 10% of randomized subjects not having the primary endpoint data, 390 subjects were needed in each arm||-0.4|-1.1|0.0002
91673365|NCT00536484|183241212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0136||95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment, baseline covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 2 minus Baseline||-0.1|-0.8|0.0136
91673366|NCT00536484|183241212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002||95.0|-1.1|-0.3||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.3|-1.1|0.0002
91673367|NCT00536484|183241213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1057||95.0|-0.9|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.9|0.1057
91673368|NCT00536484|183241213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0338||95.0|-1.1|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.0|-1.1|0.0338
91716351|NCT01663402|183323909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.93||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world).||0.93|0.78|0.0003
91716352|NCT01663402|183323910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.95||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region(North America,South America,Western Europe,Eastern Europe,Asia, Rest of the world).A hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall type-I error at 0.0249 one-sided alpha level(0.0498 two-sided).Testing was then performed sequentially in the order endpoints were reported.Hierarchical testing sequence continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.||0.95|0.81|0.0013
91716353|NCT01663402|183323911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.96||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.96|0.80|0.0060
91716354|NCT01663402|183323912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.94||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.94|0.81|0.0003
91716355|NCT01663402|183323913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.93||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.93|0.79|0.0003
91716356|NCT01663402|183323914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.11|0.76|0.3824
91673369|NCT00536484|183241213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0003||95.0|-1.5|-0.5||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.5|-1.5|0.0003
91673370|NCT00536484|183241214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1666||95.0|-0.6|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.6|0.1666
91673371|NCT00536484|183241214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0506||95.0|-0.8|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||0.0|-0.8|0.0506
91673372|NCT00536484|183241214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0014||95.0|-1.0|-0.2||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.2|-1.0|0.0014
91673373|NCT00536484|183241215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2054||95.0|-0.4|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.4|0.2054
91673374|NCT00536484|183241215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0225||95.0|-0.6|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.0|-0.6|0.0225
91673375|NCT00536484|183241215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0167||95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.1|-0.6|0.0167
91673376|NCT00536484|183241216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8019||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.8019
91673377|NCT00536484|183241216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3881||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 6 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.3881
91673378|NCT00536484|183241216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.324||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 12 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.3240
91673379|NCT00536484|183241217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8279||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.8279
91673380|NCT00536484|183241217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5059||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 6 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.5059
91673381|NCT00536484|183241217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0806||95.0|-0.4|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 12 minus Baseline||0.0|-0.4|0.0806
91673382|NCT00536484|183241218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0203||95.0|-3.2|-0.3||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||-0.3|-3.2|0.0203
91673383|NCT00536484|183241218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0007||95.0|-4.2|-1.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||-1.1|-4.2|0.0007
91673384|NCT00536484|183241218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.9|-1.7||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-1.7|-4.9|<0.0001
91673385|NCT00536484|183241219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-10.7|-4.9||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 12 minus Baseline||-4.9|-10.7|<0.0001
91673386|NCT00536484|183241220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001||95.0|5.3|11.5||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~Concern domain"||11.5|5.3|<0.0001
91673387|NCT00536484|183241220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001||95.0|3.9|10.2||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~Coping domain"||10.2|3.9|<0.0001
91673388|NCT00536484|183241220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.0036||95.0|1.5|7.8||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate||"Week 12 minus Baseline~Sleep domain"||7.8|1.5|0.0036
91673389|NCT00536484|183241220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0007||95.0|1.6|5.8||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~Social interaction domain"||5.8|1.6|0.0007
91673390|NCT00536484|183241220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001||95.0|3.6|8.9||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~HRQL scale score total"||8.9|3.6|<0.0001
91673391|NCT00536484|183241221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0087
91716357|NCT03387267|183323943|OTHER||AUC under ROC curve|0.64|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.72||||||||0.72||
91793003|NCT02038829|183463489|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1601|0.2325|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.2325|0.1601|<0.0001
91861225|NCT04295798|183609449|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to stride time variability from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.04
91673392|NCT00536484|183241221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 6||||0.0008
91673393|NCT00536484|183241221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0006
91673394|NCT00536484|183241222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0129
91673395|NCT00536484|183241222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 6||||0.0100
91673396|NCT00536484|183241222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0009
91794392|NCT02043379|183467860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used alpha level of 0.05 and power of 0.8 to calculate the sample size necessary to detect a meaningful clinical difference for our primary endpoint.||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||1
91861226|NCT04295798|183609450|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task gait speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.56
91673397|NCT00536484|183241223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.4||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
91673398|NCT00536484|183241223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.1|-0.5||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
91716358|NCT03387267|183323944|OTHER||AUC under ROC curve|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91673399|NCT00536484|183241223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.3|-0.7||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
91673400|NCT01770431|183241238|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared|14.7315||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
91673401|NCT01770431|183241239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.81|||Regression, Cox|||||0.81|0.55|<0.0001
91673402|NCT02610816|183241267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity, since a single primary endpoint is analyzed|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment of degrees of freedom is needed.||The primary treatment comparison was to compare change in PEESS V2.0 scores of 1FED versus 4FED. The primary null hypothesis was 4FED would be no more effective than 1FED. This was designed as a superiority trial.||||0.04
91673403|NCT02610816|183241268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is a calculated p-value. The threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91902823|NCT03034460|183700124|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.158|||||||Wilcoxon rank signed test|||This analysis was performed in participants applied CD5024 1% Cream on one side of face and CD5024 1% Cream Matched Placebo on other side of face for paired difference between Active - Vehicle (CD5024 1% Cream \[n=48\] versus CD5024 1% Cream Matched Placebo \[n=48\]).||||= 0.158
91673404|NCT02610816|183241268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is a calculated p-value. The threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91673405|NCT02610816|183241269|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91673406|NCT02610816|183241272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
91673407|NCT02610816|183241273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
91673408|NCT02610816|183241274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
91673409|NCT02691741|183241283|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on the treatment difference is less than 0.1 logMAR unit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.093|-0.029||||||||-0.029|-0.093|
91673410|NCT02691741|183241284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.093|-0.029|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||-0.029|-0.093|0.002
91716359|NCT03387267|183323945|OTHER||AUC under ROC curve|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91716360|NCT04464707|183324037|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.8484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.22|||ANCOVA|||||1.22|-1.48|0.8484
91673411|NCT02691741|183241285|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on the treatment difference is less than 0.1 logMAR unit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.043||||||||0.043|-0.019|
91673412|NCT02691741|183241285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.455
91673413|NCT02691741|183241286|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on the treatment difference is less than 0.1 logMAR unit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.078|-0.023||||||||-0.023|-0.078|
91716361|NCT04613518|183324051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|43.4||||||||43.4|-35.7|
91673414|NCT02691741|183241286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.003
91673415|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.41|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-1.59|-5.41|
91794393|NCT02043379|183467861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||1
91794394|NCT02043379|183467862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||0.38
91673416|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.18|-1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-1.89|-5.18|
91673417|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.77|-2.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-2.43|-5.77|
91673418|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.14|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-1.28|-5.14|
91716362|NCT02713178|183324185|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-20.249||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.361|31.864|||ANOVA|||||31.864|-72.361|0.4463
91716363|NCT02713178|183324185|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-28.796||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.483|22.892|||ANOVA|||||22.892|-80.483|0.2749
91673419|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.41|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-0.51|-4.41|
91673420|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.84|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||1.03|-2.84|
91673421|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||1.29|-2.53|
91673422|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||1.99|-1.84|
91673423|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.22|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||1.10|-3.22|
91673424|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.88|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-0.57|-4.88|
91793004|NCT02038829|183463489|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1537|0.2268|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.2268|0.1537|<0.0001
91673425|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-0.32|-3.77|
91673426|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||2.33|-1.90|
91673427|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.56|-2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.11|-5.56|
91673428|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||1.25|-2.75|
91673429|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||2.38|-1.49|
91673430|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||4.58|0.58|
91673431|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||4.98|0.73|
91673432|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.85|6.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||6.03|1.85|
91673433|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.61|6.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||6.95|3.61|
91673434|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.99|8.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||8.89|4.99|
91673435|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||5.34|0.93|
91673436|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||4.40|-0.23|
91794395|NCT02043379|183467863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.26||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||0.26
91673437|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||3.30|-0.57|
91673438|NCT03465436|183241293|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.63|-2.21|
91673439|NCT03465436|183241293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.03|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||9.60|5.03|
91673440|NCT03465436|183241293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.47|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||14.10|10.47|
91673441|NCT03465436|183241293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.54|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||13.00|9.54|
91673442|NCT03465436|183241293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.97|13.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||13.87|9.97|
91673443|NCT03465436|183241293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.17|12.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||12.79|9.17|
91673444|NCT03465436|183241293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.1|13.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||13.87|10.10|
91673445|NCT03465436|183241293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.32|14.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||14.05|10.32|
91673446|NCT03465436|183241293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.83|13.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||13.52|9.83|
91673447|NCT03465436|183241293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|10.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||10.39|6.10|
91673448|NCT03465436|183241293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.66|10.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||10.07|5.66|
91673449|NCT03465436|183241293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.32|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||8.38|4.32|
91673450|NCT03465436|183241293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.88|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||8.38|3.88|
91716364|NCT02713178|183324186|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.853||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.014|||ANOVA|||||1.014|0.717|0.0716
91673451|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|-2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.52|-6.47|
91673452|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.18|-3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-3.42|-7.18|
91673453|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.57|-3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-3.82|-7.57|
91673454|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.64|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-2.30|-6.64|
91673455|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.87|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-2.19|-6.87|
91673456|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||-0.59|-4.90|
91716365|NCT02713178|183324186|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.913||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.084|||ANOVA|||||1.084|0.769|0.3004
91716366|NCT02713178|183324188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1896|||||||Log Rank|||The overall distribution as estimated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis was compared between the EXPAREL arm and the placebo arm.||||0.1896
91673457|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.86|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||0.39|-3.86|
91673458|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||0.44|-3.77|
91673459|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||0.94|-3.17|
91673460|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-0.35|-4.58|
91673461|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.87|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-0.43|-3.87|
91673462|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.14|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||2.72|-1.14|
91673463|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.57|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.71|-6.57|
91673464|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-0.39|-4.59|
91673465|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.02|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||1.09|-3.02|
91673466|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|3.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||3.73|-0.46|
91794396|NCT02043379|183467864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||24 hour post-CPB albumin||||0.42
91673467|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|3.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||3.81|-0.59|
91673468|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||4.57|0.25|
91673469|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.48|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||6.12|2.48|
91673470|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.02|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||7.27|3.02|
91673471|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|4.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||4.79|0.75|
91673472|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||4.05|-0.55|
91673473|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||3.69|-0.19|
91716367|NCT02713178|183324188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2549|||||||Log Rank|||The overall distribution as estimated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis was compared between the EXPAREL arm and the placebo arm.||||0.2549
91716368|NCT04414787|183324223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|6.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (\~1 week post-randomization)||6.21|-6.21|1.00
91716369|NCT04414787|183324224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 4 (3 months post-randomization)||1.72|-1.83|0.95
91716370|NCT04414787|183324225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 4 (3 months post-randomization)||1.86|-1.28|0.72
91716371|NCT04414787|183324226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|5.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 4 (3 months post-randomization)||5.14|-2.44|0.48
91673474|NCT03465436|183241294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.44|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.48|-2.44|
91673475|NCT03465436|183241294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.72|9.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||9.41|4.72|
91673476|NCT03465436|183241294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.94|13.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||13.69|9.94|
91673477|NCT03465436|183241294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.16|12.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||12.74|9.16|
91673478|NCT03465436|183241294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.5|13.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||13.43|9.5|
91673479|NCT03465436|183241294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.9|12.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||12.71|8.9|
91673480|NCT03465436|183241294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.42|14.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||14.28|10.42|
91673481|NCT03465436|183241294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.76|14.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||14.54|10.76|
91673482|NCT03465436|183241294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.23|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||13.10|9.23|
91673483|NCT03465436|183241294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.02|10.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||10.22|6.02|
91673484|NCT03465436|183241294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.01|10.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||10.19|6.01|
91673485|NCT03465436|183241294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.23|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||8.28|4.23|
91716372|NCT04414787|183324227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (target \~1 week post-randomization)||1.2|0.20|0.12
91673486|NCT03465436|183241294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.47|8.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||8.01|3.47|
91673487|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|32.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.5|54.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||54.28|11.50|
91673488|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|100.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.81|122.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||122.50|77.81|
91673489|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|107.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.31|130.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||130.91|83.31|
91673490|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|74.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.32|92.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||92.63|56.32|
91673491|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|89.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.77|109.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||109.61|68.77|
91673492|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|74.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.41|94.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||94.55|55.41|
91794397|NCT02043379|183467864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.06||||||a p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for test signficance|t-test, 2 sided|||48 hour post CPB albumin||||0.06
91673493|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|52.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.03|69.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||69.63|36.03|
91673494|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|42.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.86|59.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||59.35|24.86|
91673495|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|62.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.39|82.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||82.83|42.39|
91673496|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|56.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.49|79.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||79.61|32.49|
91673497|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|35.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.79|59.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||59.63|11.79|
91673498|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.66|15.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||15.47|-24.66|
91673499|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|56.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.72|76.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||76.35|36.72|
91673500|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|103.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.88|122.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||122.72|83.88|
91673501|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|94.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.15|113.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||113.26|75.15|
91673502|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|83.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.98|99.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||99.00|67.98|
91673503|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|103.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.28|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||120.00|87.28|
91673504|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|89.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.24|107.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||107.29|71.24|
91673505|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|65.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.28|82.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||82.30|48.28|
91673506|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|52.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.1|69.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||69.60|36.10|
91673507|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|86.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.36|105.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||105.82|66.36|
91673508|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|80.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.32|101.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||101.91|58.32|
91673509|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|67.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.64|90.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||90.51|44.64|
91673510|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.01|25.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||25.55|-10.01|
91673511|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.44|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-5.60|-38.44|
91673512|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-38.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.15|-20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-20.60|-57.15|
91673513|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.35|-4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-4.91|-39.35|
91673514|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-17.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.15|-2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-2.56|-32.15|
91673515|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.17|16.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||16.12|-18.17|
91673516|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.81|12.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||12.27|-21.81|
91716373|NCT04414787|183324228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91716374|NCT04414787|183324229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91673517|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-16.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.36|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||0.24|-33.36|
91673518|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-15.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.94|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||2.37|-32.94|
91716375|NCT04414787|183324230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91793005|NCT01315236|183463522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||Conducted in the mITT population using a stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test, to compare the treatment arms at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05, adjusting for the randomization strata (presence/absence of CF and MAC versus Mycobacterium abscessus).|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"The primary efficacy analysis tested the following hypotheses:~* H0: There is no difference at Day 84 between the LAI arm and the placebo arm~* Ha: There is a difference at Day 84 between the LAI arm and the placebo arm~Statistical analysis applies to all day 84 rows."||||0.072
91673519|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.86|23.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||23.11|-10.86|
91673520|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.25|19.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||19.80|-15.25|
91673521|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.46|9.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||9.56|-33.46|
91673522|NCT03465436|183241295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.32|16.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||16.69|-17.32|
91793006|NCT01315236|183463523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||||0.003
91793007|NCT01315236|183463524|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.68||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|25.79|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazard model||25.79|1.25|0.0129
91793008|NCT01315236|183463525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Ordinal Logistic Regressions Model||||0.077
91716376|NCT05093933|183324231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||1.04|0.83|0.219
91793009|NCT01315236|183463526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4545|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Stratified Wilcoxon-rank sum||||0.4545
91673523|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||0.41|-0.37|
91673524|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||0.15|-0.61|
91673525|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||0.23|-0.47|
91673526|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-0.07|-0.81|
91673527|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-0.15|-0.95|
91673528|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||0.00|-0.77|
91673529|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-0.10|-0.72|
91673530|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-0.04|-0.66|
91793010|NCT01315236|183463528|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.69||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.64|||Regression, Cox|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||5.64|1.28|0.0076
91793011|NCT03160859|183463549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi Square||||0.62
91673531|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-0.09|-0.98|
91673532|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.31|-0.58|
91673533|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||0.12|-0.70|
91673534|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.84|0.01|
91673535|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||0.21|-0.59|
91673536|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||0.89|0.06|
91673537|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||0.93|0.19|
91673538|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||0.77|0.02|
91673539|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||0.88|0.13|
91673540|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||0.71|-0.05|
91673541|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||0.67|-0.02|
91673542|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||0.84|0.16|
91673543|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||0.36|-0.56|
91673544|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.33|-0.56|
91673545|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||0.06|-0.84|
91673546|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.45|-0.37|
91673547|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||0.28|-0.45|
91673548|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||0.27|-0.46|
91673549|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||0.60|-0.10|
91716377|NCT05093933|183324232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||0.97|0.71|0.020
91716378|NCT05093933|183324233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||1.10|0.82|0.509
91716379|NCT05093933|183324234|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||Andersen-Gill Model||Based on an Andersen-Gill model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||1.02|0.80|0.094
91716380|NCT05093933|183324235|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.02|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||1.02|0.82|0.116
91716381|NCT05093933|183324236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||0.97|0.74|0.015
91716382|NCT05093933|183324240|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.2|-0.4|0.512
91716383|NCT05093933|183324241|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.6|0.6|0.007
91716384|NCT05093933|183324242|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.6|0.0|0.045
91716385|NCT04112368|183324243|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the p-value for the Treatment X Cycle Phase Interaction. Kenward-Roger Method was utilized for degrees of freedom.||Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=E2+P4) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||-.02|-.02|<.001
91902824|NCT03034460|183700124|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon rank signed test|||This analysis was performed in participants applied Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde on one side of face and Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde Matched Placebo on the other side of face for paired difference between Active - Vehicle (Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde \[n=22\] versus Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde Matched Placebo \[n=22\]).||||= 0.002
91902825|NCT02294682|183700135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Microbio Response Urogenital Gonorrhea|97.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|85.1||||||GSK2140944 1500 mg||||85.1|
91673550|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||0.40|-0.38|
91673551|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||0.37|-0.34|
91673552|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||0.25|-0.44|
91673553|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-0.03|-0.76|
91673554|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-0.03|-0.73|
91673555|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-0.17|-1.03|
91673556|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.04|-0.82|
91673557|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||0.09|-0.70|
91673558|NCT03465436|183241296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.61|-0.23|
91716386|NCT04112368|183324244|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=E2+P4) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||.82|.04|.026
91716387|NCT04112368|183324245|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=E2+P4) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||.00|-.18|.052
91673559|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-0.16|-2.90|
91673560|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|-3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-3.88|-6.29|
91673561|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|-4.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-4.32|-6.81|
91673562|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|-3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-3.01|-5.00|
91673563|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|-3.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-3.65|-5.91|
91673564|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|-3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||-3.08|-5.20|
91673565|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.87|-2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-2.01|-3.87|
91673566|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.42|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-1.42|-3.42|
91673567|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.17|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-3.06|-6.17|
91673568|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.38|-2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-2.26|-5.38|
91716388|NCT02997163|183324259|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|112.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.06|157.26||||||||157.26|80.06|
91716389|NCT02997163|183324259|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|142.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.03|198.42||||||||198.42|103.03|
91716390|NCT02997163|183324259|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|263.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.88|369.06||||||||369.06|187.88|
91716391|NCT02997163|183324260|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|111.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.4|166.01||||||||166.01|74.40|
91716392|NCT02997163|183324260|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|131.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.12|194.25||||||||194.25|89.12|
91716393|NCT02997163|183324260|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|189.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.74|282.8||||||||282.80|126.74|
91673569|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.33|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-0.97|-4.33|
91673570|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.46|-1.22|
91673571|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.16|-2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.02|-4.16|
91673572|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.65|-4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-4.58|-6.65|
91673573|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.42|-4.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-4.35|-6.42|
91716394|NCT02997163|183324261|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|118.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.85|167.7||||||||167.70|83.85|
91716395|NCT02997163|183324261|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|139.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.53|195.06||||||||195.06|99.53|
91716396|NCT02997163|183324261|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|286.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.66|405.33||||||||405.33|202.66|
91673574|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.55|-3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-3.72|-5.55|
91673575|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.77|-4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-4.87|-6.77|
91673576|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.03|-3.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||-3.96|-6.03|
91673577|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.68|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-2.71|-4.68|
91673578|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.21|-2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-2.17|-4.21|
91673579|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.83|-4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-4.95|-7.83|
91673580|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.73|-4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-4.02|-6.73|
91673581|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.25|-3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-3.17|-6.25|
91716397|NCT02997163|183324262|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|117.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.74|172.99||||||||172.99|79.74|
91716398|NCT02997163|183324262|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|128.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.05|186.72||||||||186.72|88.05|
91716399|NCT02997163|183324262|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|206.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.91|303.51||||||||303.51|139.91|
91716400|NCT00496769|183324316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.62|||Log Rank|||||0.62|0.32|<0.00001
91716401|NCT00496769|183324317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.00026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83|||Log Rank||Vascular death|||0.83|0.53|0.00026
91716402|NCT00496769|183324318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.06782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||Log Rank||All-cause death|||1.02|0.62|0.06782
91716403|NCT00496769|183324318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Log Rank||Composite endpoint of major vascular events and major bleeding-net clinical benefit|||0.90|0.60|0.00280
91716404|NCT00496769|183324318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.36586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank||Vascular death|||1.17|0.65|0.36586
91716405|NCT00496769|183324319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.45|||Log Rank||Major bleeding|||2.45|0.96|0.0716
91716406|NCT00496769|183324319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.53|||Log Rank||All bleeding|||1.53|1.10|0.0017
91673582|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.63|-1.74|
91673583|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||2.33|0.32|
91673584|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||3.40|1.19|
91673585|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||2.28|0.31|
91673586|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||1.97|0.17|
91673587|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||1.23|-0.81|
91673588|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||1.56|-0.50|
91673589|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||2.44|0.29|
91673590|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||2.34|0.09|
91673591|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.97|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||0.99|-1.97|
91673592|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.83|-1.54|
91673593|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||2.34|-0.87|
91673594|NCT03465436|183241297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.04|-1.29|
91692153|NCT01262872|183279149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE (see above)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|17.2||||||VE-10PP-HD 2+1d vs Synflorix 2+1d - 3M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, three months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||17.2|-29.3|
91716407|NCT00496769|183324319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.78|||Log Rank||Major or CNRM bleeding|||1.78|1.07|0.0144
91716408|NCT00496769|183324320|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|1.10|0.0017
91716409|NCT02308046|183324325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.002
91716410|NCT02308046|183324326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91716411|NCT02308046|183324327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of culture cure at 7-14 days||||<0.001
91793012|NCT01101191|183463553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.67|106.66|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||106.66|98.67|
91793013|NCT01101191|183463554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|99.81|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||99.81|94.20|
91902826|NCT02294682|183700135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Microbio Response Urogenital Gonorrhea|95.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|84.7||||||GSK2140944 3000 mg||||84.7|
91793014|NCT01101191|183463555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.41|99.94|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||99.94|94.41|
91673595|NCT02697773|183241302|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.13||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.07|0.0129
91716412|NCT02308046|183324327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of culture cure at 21-30 days||||<0.001
91793015|NCT04779216|183463561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91673596|NCT02697773|183241302|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.26||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.20|0.0023
91673597|NCT02697773|183241303|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed data sets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-1.14|0.0065
91673598|NCT02697773|183241303|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-1.37|0.0002
91673599|NCT02697773|183241304|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.39|0.0109
91673600|NCT02697773|183241304|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.41|0.0038
91673601|NCT02697773|183241305|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.08|0.0020
91793016|NCT02674854|183463567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. netarsudil||||||<0.0001
91673602|NCT02697773|183241305|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.10|0.0014
91673603|NCT02697773|183241305|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.31|<.0001
91673604|NCT02697773|183241305|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.30|<.0001
91716413|NCT02308046|183324328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of the number of subjects whose reported their symptoms completely resolved||||0.088
91793017|NCT02674854|183463567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
91673605|NCT02697773|183241305|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.03|0.0085
91673606|NCT02697773|183241305|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.85|0.0657
91673607|NCT02697773|183241305|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.31|-1.25|0.0012
91673608|NCT02697773|183241305|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.33|0.0004
91673609|NCT02697773|183241307|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.17|0.0004
91673610|NCT02697773|183241307|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.33|<.0001
91673611|NCT02697773|183241307|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.60|-1.45|<.0001
91673612|NCT02697773|183241307|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.68|-1.53|<.0001
91673613|NCT02697773|183241307|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.07|0.0057
91673614|NCT02697773|183241307|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.02|0.0114
91716414|NCT01181167|183324337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Difference in incidence of thromboembolic events between DU-176b and enoxaparin groups and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.~Incidence of thromboembolic events and 95% CI also calculated by treatment group.~Only when null hypothesis H01 was rejected, upper limit of 95% CI for difference between DU-176b and enoxaparin groups was confirmed. When upper limit of 95% CI was below 0%, DU-176b was considered to be superior to enoxaparin in terms of the prevention of VTE."|Cox Proportional Hazard|-4.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Farrington Manning Method|ANCOVA|||Hypothesis testing of proportion of subjects who experienced at least one thromboembolic events, defined as primary endpoint, carried out using Farrington-Manning method. Null hypothesis H˅01: Incidence of thromboembolic events in DU-176b group (P˅DU) = Incidence of thromboembolic events in enoxaparin group (P˅E) + Δ (8%). Alternative hypothesis H˅11: P˅DU \< P˅E + Δ (significance level: One-sided, 0.025)||||<0.001
91716415|NCT01573000|183324339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|65.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR). The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||65|35|
91716416|NCT01573000|183324339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|36.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR). The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||36|9|
91716417|NCT01573000|183324340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|32.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR) before Crossover.|||32|0|
91716418|NCT01573000|183324340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|97.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR) after Crossover.|||97|61|
91716419|NCT01573000|183324341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|39.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||39|13|
91716420|NCT01573000|183324341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||17|0|
91716421|NCT01573000|183324342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
91673615|NCT02697773|183241307|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12:Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.33|0.0004
91673616|NCT02697773|183241307|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.52|<.0001
91673617|NCT02697773|183241309|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.32|0.0236
91673618|NCT02697773|183241309|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.27|0.0958
91673619|NCT02697773|183241309|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.40|0.0007
91673620|NCT02697773|183241309|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.36|0.0040
91673621|NCT02697773|183241309|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.00|-0.31|0.0498
91673622|NCT02697773|183241309|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.24|0.2380
91673623|NCT02697773|183241309|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.34|0.0426
91673624|NCT02697773|183241309|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.45|0.0014
91716422|NCT01573000|183324343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed complete response before Crossover.|||0|0|
91716423|NCT01573000|183324343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|64.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed complete response after Crossover.|||64|20|
91716424|NCT01573000|183324344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||7|0|
91794398|NCT02043379|183467865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.52||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
91716425|NCT01573000|183324344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||8|0|
91716426|NCT01573000|183324345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR before Crossover.|||0|0|
91793018|NCT01076075|183463587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model controlling for treatment, stratum (type of sulfonylurea) and baseline value.||Pairwise comparison - Sitagliptin vs. Placebo, using the difference in the Least Squares Means.||-0.50|-0.87|<0.001
91793019|NCT01076075|183463588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-33.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-21.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model controlling for treatment, stratum (type of sulfonylurea) and baseline value.||Pairwise comparison - Sitagliptin vs. Placebo, difference in the Least Squares Means.||-21.7|-45.3|<0.001
91716427|NCT01573000|183324345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR after Crossover.|||15|0|
91716428|NCT01573000|183324346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|45.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||45|17|
91793020|NCT01076075|183463589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-10.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model controlling for treatment, stratum (type of sulfonylurea) and baseline value.||Pairwise comparison - Sitagliptin vs. Placebo, using the difference in the Least Squares Means.||-10.7|-26.4|<0.001
91673625|NCT02697773|183241311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.61|1.22|0.0027
91673626|NCT02697773|183241311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.89|1.36|0.0004
91673627|NCT02697773|183241311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.95|1.33|0.0008
91673628|NCT02697773|183241311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.04|1.37|0.0004
91673629|NCT02697773|183241311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.87|0.86|0.2283
91673630|NCT02697773|183241311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.03|0.93|0.1066
91673631|NCT02697773|183241311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.54|1.10|0.0154
91673632|NCT02697773|183241311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.27|1.38|0.0006
91673633|NCT02697773|183241311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.07|0.92|0.1139
91673634|NCT02697773|183241311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.04|1.31|0.0014
91673635|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.78|1.30|0.0009
91794399|NCT02043379|183467866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.81||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Admit Inotrope Score||||0.81
91673636|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.90|1.36|0.0004
91673637|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.29|0.0015
91673638|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.07|1.34|0.0008
91673639|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.75|1.07|0.0251
91673640|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.72|1.06|0.0276
91716429|NCT01573000|183324346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|21.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||21|1|
91794400|NCT02043379|183467866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.82||||||a p value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hours post-operative inotrope score||||0.82
91793021|NCT03326206|183463615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Mixed linear regression||Mixed linear regression models were performed to assess differences over time for continuous variables, comparing COPE versus control groups. The models included a random effect for patients to account for within-patient correlation over time in the outcome measures and a random effect for the primary health facility, to account for within-site correlation. In the sensitivity analyses we also adjusted the models for the random effect of matching groups.||||<0.0001
91793022|NCT03326206|183463616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Mixed linear regression as described in primary endpoint||||||0.004
91793023|NCT03326206|183463617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significant p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Mixed linear regression as described in primary endpoint||||||0.02
91793024|NCT03326206|183463618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Mixed linear regression model as described for primary endpoint||||||0.93
91793025|NCT03326206|183463619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091||||||Primary result is coefficient on post intervention change in visits by COPE pts relative to controls: if significant and \>0, COPE visits have increased relative to controls; if significant and \<0, COPE visits have decreased relative to controls.|Regression, Linear|||Generalized linear mixed regression models were used for count outcomes (SAS 9.3: PROC GLIMMIX) to estimate change in health care visits by COPE pts relative to non-COPE pts. Random effects accounted for within-site correlation at service units. Adjusted for covariates: age, gender, language, primary care physician, and diagnoses: essential hypertension, major depression disorder, alcohol abuse, major cardiovascular disease, and dyslipidemia.||||0.0091
91793026|NCT03326206|183463620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Linear|||As described for primary outpatient services||||0.0003
91793027|NCT03326206|183463621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4296|||||||Regression, Linear|||as described for primary outpatient services||||0.4296
91861227|NCT04295798|183609451|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task gait speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.07
91861228|NCT04295798|183609452|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task stride time variability from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.74
91793028|NCT03326206|183463622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||As described for primary outpatient services||||<0.0001
91793029|NCT03326206|183463623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0431|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0431
91793030|NCT03326206|183463624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0516|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0516
91793031|NCT03326206|183463625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3582|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3582
91793032|NCT03326206|183463626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2461|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2461
91793033|NCT03326206|183463627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0613
91793034|NCT03326206|183463628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.0001
91793035|NCT03326206|183463629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
91793036|NCT03326206|183463630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||P-value corresponds to patient-reported health compared to a year ago and compared to others their age|Chi-squared|||||||0.19
91793037|NCT03326206|183463631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||P value corresponds with Ability to cope with negative life events|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0028
91793038|NCT04770753|183463680|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|40.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimated adjusted difference in response rate, 95% CI, and p-value are based on Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.||49.8|32.0|<0.0001
91793039|NCT04770753|183463681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Lean Square (LS) Mean|3.4||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.59|||ANCOVA|||The estimates, 95% CIs, and 2-sided p-value are based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which includes average change from baseline in FACIT-Fatigue subscale score from Week 12 through Week 24 as the dependent variable, treatment group as the independent variable, and baseline and the randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.59|1.21|0.0026
91793040|NCT04770753|183463682|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|9.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|11.46|||ANCOVA|||The estimates, 95% CIs, and 2-sided p-value are based on an ANCOVA model which includes average change from baseline in Hb concentrations from Week 12 through Week 24 as the dependent variable, treatment group as the independent variable, and baseline Hb concentration and the randomization stratification factors as covariates.||11.46|7.80|<0.0001
91793041|NCT05281510|183463718|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The comparison was between plasma viral HIV-1 RNA data at set-point and at pre-ART within the same treatment group.||||0.0020
91716430|NCT01573000|183324347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR before Crossover.|||0|0|
91716431|NCT01573000|183324347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|70.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR after Crossover.|||70|25|
91793044|NCT04001829|183463780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.27
91793045|NCT04001829|183463781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91793046|NCT04001829|183463782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91793047|NCT04001829|183463783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91673641|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.71|1.03|0.0404
91673642|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.72|0.70|0.3486
91673643|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.02|1.42|0.0002
91793048|NCT04001829|183463784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
91902827|NCT01516970|183700153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2434||||||The discontinuation rates were compared with a statistical test (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel \[CMH\]-Test) with p-value: 0.2434|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2434
91673644|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.79|1.32|0.0006
91793049|NCT04001829|183463785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
91793050|NCT06415305|183463828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.008|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||<0.008
91902828|NCT01516970|183700154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8839||||||The percentage of participants with TEAEs were compared with a statistical test (Fisher's Exact Test) with p-value: 0.8839.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8839
91673645|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.05|1.41|0.0002
91673646|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.15|1.46|<.0001
91673647|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.18|1.28|0.0024
91673648|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.34|1.35|0.0011
91673649|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.72|1.14|0.0172
91673650|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.72|1.14|0.0173
91716432|NCT01573000|183324348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|28.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||28|5|
91673651|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.35|1.11|0.0118
91673652|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%:Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.32|1.10|0.0132
91673653|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.92|1.35|0.0005
91673654|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%:Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.45|1.13|0.0100
91673655|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.12|1.28|0.0023
91673656|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.58|1.04|0.0322
91673657|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.67|0.81|0.2005
91673658|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.68|0.82|0.1923
91673659|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.79|1.28|0.0013
91793051|NCT06415305|183463829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||0.009
91793052|NCT06415305|183463830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||0.008
91716433|NCT01573000|183324348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|21.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||21|1|
91793053|NCT06415305|183463831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||0.009
91793054|NCT04103346|183463844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.588
91793055|NCT04103346|183463845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.748
91793056|NCT04103346|183463846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||<0.001
91793057|NCT04103346|183463847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.0764
91673660|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.73|1.68|<.0001
91673661|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.10|1.45|<.0001
91716434|NCT01573000|183324349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91716435|NCT01573000|183324351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.495
91716436|NCT01573000|183324352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.677
91716437|NCT01573000|183324355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.119
91716438|NCT01573000|183324356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.016
91716439|NCT01573000|183324369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|32.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR before Crossover.|||32|0|
91716440|NCT01573000|183324369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|52.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR after Crossover.|||52|11|
91716441|NCT01450813|183324421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size needed for a one-way ANOVA test with an alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.8 to rule out the null hypothesis that neuromuscular blocking drugs have no effect on CVI with 95% confidence was a total of 64 or 16 per Group.|||||<|0.05||||||Comparisons of the means were accomplished via student's t-test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis that neuromuscular blocking drugs have no effect on CVI with 95% confidence.||||< 0.05
91716442|NCT00752089|183324441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.146||||0.7756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.904|9.196||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||9.196|-6.904|0.7756
91793058|NCT04103346|183463848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||<0.001
91793059|NCT05380180|183463853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
91716443|NCT00752089|183324441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.291||||0.4194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|11.421||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||11.421|-4.840|0.4194
91716444|NCT00752089|183324441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.28|30.12||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||30.120|14.280|<0.0001
91716445|NCT00752089|183324441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.145||||0.5927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.874|10.164||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||10.164|-5.874|0.5927
91716446|NCT00752089|183324441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|21.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.189|28.919||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||28.919|13.189|<0.0001
91793060|NCT05380180|183463854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
91716447|NCT00752089|183324441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|18.909|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.036|26.783||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||26.783|11.036|<0.0001
91794401|NCT02043379|183467866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.9||||||a p value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post-operative inotrope score||||0.9
91794402|NCT02043379|183467866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.23||||||a p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical signficance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours post-operative inotrope score||||0.23
91673662|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.67|1.26|0.0014
91673663|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.99|1.33|0.0008
91673664|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.06|1.37|0.0005
91673665|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.49|1.16|0.0127
91673666|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.64|1.22|0.0075
91673667|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.52|1.17|0.0061
91673668|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.88|1.33|0.0007
91673669|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY|The two comparisons for 'Participants with \>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus placebo and tanezumab 2.5/5 mg treatment group versus placebo) were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure and an overall significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.76|1.29|0.0010
91673670|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|1.02|0.0411
91673671|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.57|1.14|0.0090
91673672|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.86|0.89|0.1149
91673673|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.79|0.87|0.1351
91673674|NCT02697773|183241312|SUPERIORITY|The two comparisons for 'Participants with ≥50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus placebo and tanezumab 2.5/5 mg treatment group versus placebo) were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure and an overall significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.16|1.48|<.0001
91673675|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.11|1.45|0.0001
91673676|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.40|1.59|<.0001
91673677|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.39|1.04|0.0312
91902829|NCT02366728|183700158|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.072
91716448|NCT00752089|183324442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-321.438||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-818.118|175.242||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||175.242|-818.118|0.1990
91716449|NCT00752089|183324442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-72.68||||0.7718||95.0|-574.398|429.039||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||429.039|-574.398|0.7718
91716450|NCT00752089|183324442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1784.675|||<|0.0001||95.0|1296.044|2273.306||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2273.306|1296.044|<0.0001
91716451|NCT00752089|183324442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|248.758||||0.3164||95.0|-245.962|743.478||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included tratment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||743.478|-245.962|0.3164
91716452|NCT00752089|183324442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2106.113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1620.906|2591.32||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2591.320|1620.906|<0.0001
91716453|NCT00752089|183324442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1857.355|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1371.637|2343.072||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period and fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2343.072|1371.637|<0.0001
91716454|NCT01324102|183324443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05. The .004 value exceeds this value. There was only one comparison, so there was no adjustment for multiple comparison. This analysis refers to the row and category of anxiety.|ANOVA|F=10.25||Repeated measure Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with null hypothesis of no group differences, comparing anxiety scores pre-Yoga versus post-Yoga, between the two groups for changes in anxiety.||||.004
91716455|NCT01324102|183324443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||F=4.07. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05. The .056 value does not exceed it. There was only one comparison, so there was no adjustment for multiple comparison. This analysis refers to the row/category of insomnia.|ANOVA|||Repeated measure Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with null hypothesis of no group differences, comparing insomnia scores pre-Yoga versus post-Yoga, between the two groups. This measures changes in insomnia.||||.056
91793061|NCT05380180|183463855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
91902830|NCT02366728|183700158|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.089
91673678|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.19|1.40|0.0003
91673679|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.01|1.48|0.0005
91716456|NCT00975416|183324452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA to deterimine whether oxytocin increased compared to placebo measures of therapeutic alliance (as measured by the Helping alliance questionnaire) pre compared to post 12 sessions of CBT.||||0.927
91716457|NCT00975416|183324452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures anova to determine if oxytocin compared to placebo increased therpeutic alliance as measured by the working alliance inventory after 12 sessions of CBT.||||0.60
91716458|NCT00678418|183324550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Van der Waerden|||Null hypothesis = the distribution function of opioid-free weeks is the same for both treatment groups.||||0.0002
91716459|NCT00678418|183324551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042||95.0||||A total of 114 subjects continued on-study beyond the 168-day endpoint for Part A; these subjects were censored as of the first dosing day in Part B.|Kaplan Meier|||P-value was calculated using the log-rank test for the null hypothesis: the distribution of days to discontinuation does not differ by treatment.||||0.0042
91861229|NCT04295798|183609453|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task stride time variability from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.33
91673680|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.94|1.45|0.0006
91673681|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.32|1.02|0.0436
91673682|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.69|0.84|0.1348
91673683|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.36|1.58|<.0001
91673684|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.09|1.46|<.0001
91673685|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.57|1.62|<.0001
91673686|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.82|1.74|<.0001
91673687|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.70|1.47|0.0003
91673688|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.89|1.55|0.0001
91673689|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.82|1.07|0.0310
91673690|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.34|1.24|0.0088
91673691|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.16|1.03|0.0360
91673692|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.51|1.19|0.0039
91673693|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.13|1.43|0.0002
91673694|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.62|1.20|0.0040
91673695|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.74|1.10|0.0175
91902831|NCT02366728|183700159|OTHER|||||||0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0195
91902832|NCT02366728|183700160|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
91716460|NCT00678418|183324552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"P-value was calculated using the Chi-square test for the null hypothesis: mean treatment difference = 0.~Calculations were based on the Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model (normal distribution, identity link and AR(1) correlation structure) for repeated data on change from baseline with treatment and visit as main effects, and baseline as a covariate. Missing data were imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method."||||<0.0001
91716461|NCT00678418|183324553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.0154||95.0|0.6|0.95|||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square test was used to calculate the p-value for treatment. Null hypothesis = no association between relapse to dependence and study treatment.~Subjects who discontinued prematurely from the study were imputed as having a positive naloxone challenge test result."||0.95|0.60|0.0154
91673696|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.94|1.19|0.0065
91793062|NCT05380180|183463856|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
91794403|NCT02043379|183467867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.49||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
91673697|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.23|0.94|0.0796
91673698|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.27|0.95|0.0718
91716462|NCT00678418|183324554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||van der Waerden|||Null hypothesis: Treatment difference=0. Missing data from subjects due to early discontinuation during Part A were imputed using the baseline rate; thus data for subjects who discontinued early were imputed as having no change from baseline.||||0.0031
91716463|NCT06058390|183324571|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.14|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.14|0.91|
91673699|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.36|0.0004
91673700|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.93|1.78|<.0001
91673701|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.09|1.44|0.0001
91673702|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.04|1.42|0.0002
91673703|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.23|1.41|0.0003
91716464|NCT06058390|183324572|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.15|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.15|0.96|
91673704|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.46|1.52|<.0001
91673705|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.68|1.18|0.0113
91673706|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.85|1.25|0.0064
91673707|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|1.07|0.0200
91673708|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.14|1.43|0.0002
91673709|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.34|0.0005
91673710|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.56|1.11|0.0141
91716465|NCT06058390|183324573|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.18|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.18|0.88|
91794404|NCT02043379|183467868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.79||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91902833|NCT02366728|183700161|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
91902834|NCT02366728|183700162|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
91902835|NCT02366728|183700162|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.078
91902836|NCT02366728|183700163|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.64
91902837|NCT02366728|183700164|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.29
91673711|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.26|0.0022
91716466|NCT06058390|183324574|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.09|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.09|0.88|
91716467|NCT06058390|183324575|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.13|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.13|0.87|
91716468|NCT06058390|183324576|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.08|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.08|0.87|
91716469|NCT03292016|183324577|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.5|20.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|With fixed effects-treatment and period, random effect-subject nested within sequence to analyze natural-log transformed dose normalized parameter.||Sample size of 12 subjects, a two-sided 90% CI for the difference in paired PK parameter means on the log scale will have an interval that extends no more than 0.221 units from the observed difference with 90% coverage probability. Assumes CV of 35% for the difference on the original scale.||20.3|7.5|
91716470|NCT03292016|183324577|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio (APL-130277/APO-go)|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|16.3||||||||16.3|6.5|
91716471|NCT03292016|183324577|OTHER|relative bioavailibilty|Geometric Mean ratio (APOKYN/APO-go)|83.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.5|137.6||||||||137.6|50.5|
91716472|NCT03292016|183324577|OTHER||Ratio|0.21|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APO-Go 3 mg|||||
91716473|NCT03292016|183324577|OTHER||Ratio|0.13|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
91793063|NCT05380180|183463857|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
91794405|NCT02043379|183467869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.32||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||pre-operative IgG level||||0.32
91673712|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.50|0.80|0.2286
91716474|NCT03292016|183324577|OTHER||Ratio|1.16|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 3 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
91716475|NCT03292016|183324577|OTHER||Ratio|0.16|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APO-Go 4 mg|||||
91716476|NCT03292016|183324577|OTHER||Ratio|0.17|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
91716477|NCT03292016|183324577|OTHER||Ratio|1.12|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 4 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
91716478|NCT03292016|183324577|OTHER||Ratio|0.08|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APO-Go 5 mg|||||
91716479|NCT03292016|183324577|OTHER||Ratio|0.09|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
91716480|NCT03292016|183324577|OTHER||Ratio|1.04|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 5 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
91716481|NCT03292016|183324578|OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0625
91716482|NCT03292016|183324578|OTHER|||||||0.0313|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0313
91716483|NCT03292016|183324578|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Sign test|||||||>0.9999
91716484|NCT03292016|183324579|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.1|22.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|With fixed effects-treatment and period, random effect-subject nested within sequence to analyze natural-log transformed dose normalized parameter.||||22.5|13.1|
91716485|NCT03292016|183324579|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.0|21.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.3|13.0|
91716486|NCT03292016|183324579|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APOKYN/APO-go)|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.2|126.4||||||||126.4|74.2|
91716487|NCT03292016|183324579|OTHER||Ratio|0.32|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APO-Go 3 mg|||||
91716488|NCT03292016|183324579|OTHER||Ratio|0.16|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
91716489|NCT03292016|183324579|OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 3 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
91716490|NCT03292016|183324579|OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APO-Go 4 mg|||||
91716491|NCT03292016|183324579|OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
91716492|NCT03292016|183324579|OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 4 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
91716493|NCT03292016|183324579|OTHER||Ratio|0.15|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APO-Go 5 mg|||||
91716494|NCT03292016|183324579|OTHER||Ratio|0.14|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
91673713|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.57|0.84|0.1808
91793064|NCT04831216|183463861|OTHER|||||||0.0107||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in HbA1c from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0107
91673714|NCT02697773|183241314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.36|1.57|<.0001
91861230|NCT04295798|183609454|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to standing postural sway area from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.16
91716495|NCT03292016|183324579|OTHER||Ratio|0.96|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 5 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
91861231|NCT04295798|183609455|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task postural sway speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.52
91673715|NCT02697773|183241316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.34|0.88|0.1463
91673716|NCT02697773|183241316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.62|0.60|0.9644
91673717|NCT02697773|183241316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.59|1.02|0.0422
91716496|NCT03292016|183324580|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.7|22.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|With fixed effects-treatment and period, random effect-subject nested within sequence to analyze natural-log transformed dose normalized parameter.||||22.5|13.7|
91673718|NCT02697773|183241316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.16|0.85|0.1995
91673719|NCT02697773|183241316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.84|0.75|0.4878
91673720|NCT02697773|183241316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.67|0.68|0.7856
91673721|NCT02697773|183241316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.39|1.00|0.0476
91673722|NCT02697773|183241316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.63|1.12|0.0124
91673723|NCT02697773|183241316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.62|1.05|0.0307
91673724|NCT02697773|183241316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.35|0.95|0.0846
91716497|NCT03292016|183324580|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APO-go)|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.7|21.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.6|13.7|
91673725|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.63|0.0319
91673726|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 1:Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.68|0.0139
91673727|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.03|0.0011
91673728|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.93|0.0053
91716498|NCT03292016|183324580|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APOKYN/APO-go)|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.6|124.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||124.8|76.6|
91716499|NCT03292016|183324585|OTHER|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
91716500|NCT03292016|183324585|OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
91716501|NCT03292016|183324585|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.9999
91716502|NCT01211145|183324662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.5||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||2.50|0.75|.312
91716503|NCT01211145|183324662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.26||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||3.26|0.95|.071
91716504|NCT01211145|183324662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.39||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||3.39|1.40|<.001
91716505|NCT01211145|183324663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.91||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.91|0.70|.575
91716506|NCT01211145|183324663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.31||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||3.31|1.06|.032
91716507|NCT01211145|183324663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.95||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||1.95|0.91|.137
91716508|NCT01211145|183324664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.96||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.96|0.74|.458
91716509|NCT01211145|183324664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.03||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||3.03|1.09|.021
91716510|NCT01211145|183324664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.32||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||2.32|1.12|.010
91716511|NCT01211145|183324665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.84||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.84|0.64|.753
91716512|NCT01211145|183324665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.79||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||2.79|0.86|.145
91716513|NCT01211145|183324665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.04||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||2.04|0.91|.127
91716514|NCT01211145|183324666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.32||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||2.32|0.79|.274
91716515|NCT01211145|183324666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.67||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.91||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||2.91|0.96|.067
91902838|NCT01002456|183700165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2|||||Proportional odds ratio to measure the trend of change in concordance with guideline recommendations, with Arm 1 as the comparator.|||3.2|1.1|
91716516|NCT01211145|183324666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.08||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||2.08|0.91|.127
91716517|NCT01211145|183324667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.16||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.16|0.38|.153
91716518|NCT01211145|183324667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.08||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||1.08|0.33|.087
91716519|NCT01211145|183324667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.83||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||0.83|0.36|.004
91716520|NCT04195061|183324668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.303
91716521|NCT04195061|183324669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91716522|NCT04195061|183324670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91716523|NCT02688933|183324690|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.8494|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model with identity link||Analysis was performed using generalized linear model with identity link, had percentage of time glucose concentration within target range 70-180 mg/dL as dependent variable, treatment group as an independent variable, adjusting variables including baseline characteristics: duration of diabetes, baseline BMI, age, and randomization strata (HbA1c at screening \[\<8.0% vs ≥8.0%\], frequency of Lantus injection at screening, current CGM use \[yes/no\], and mealtime insulin titration algorithm).||||0.8494
91716524|NCT04379921|183324794|OTHER|||||||0.26801155||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.26801155
91716525|NCT04379921|183324794|OTHER|||||||0.27520264||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.27520264
91716526|NCT04379921|183324794|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91716527|NCT04379921|183324794|OTHER|||||||0.5623012||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.56230120
91716528|NCT04379921|183324794|OTHER|||||||0.3581397||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.35813970
91673729|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.08|0.0014
91673730|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.36|-1.17|0.0002
91673731|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.33|<.0001
91902839|NCT01187550|183700288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.194
91902840|NCT01187550|183700289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.752
91793065|NCT04831216|183463862|OTHER|||||||0.7927||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in skin carotenoid levels from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.7927
91793066|NCT04831216|183463863|OTHER|||||||0.4651||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in HEI score from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.4651
91793067|NCT04831216|183463864|OTHER|||||||0.2439||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in BMI from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.2439
91794406|NCT02043379|183467869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.36||||||a p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hours post-operative IgG level||||0.36
91861232|NCT04295798|183609456|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task postural sway speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.01
91673732|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.52|-1.36|<.0001
91673733|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.16|0.0015
91673734|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.12|0.0023
91673735|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.89|0.0512
91673736|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.85|0.0693
91673737|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.14|0.0043
91673738|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.13|0.0041
91673739|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.19|0.0024
91673740|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.22|0.0015
91673741|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-1.16|0.0063
91902841|NCT01187550|183700290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.710
91902842|NCT01187550|183700291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.265
91902843|NCT01187550|183700292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.308
91673742|NCT02697773|183241317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.30|0.0008
91673743|NCT02697773|183241319|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-1.47|<.0001
91673744|NCT02697773|183241319|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.47|<.0001
91673745|NCT02697773|183241319|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.81|-1.67|<.0001
91673746|NCT02697773|183241319|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.66|<.0001
91673747|NCT02697773|183241319|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.25|0.0007
91673748|NCT02697773|183241319|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.20|0.0013
91716529|NCT04379921|183324794|OTHER|||||||0.26801155||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.26801155
91902844|NCT01187550|183700293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For total cholesterol: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.078
91673749|NCT02697773|183241319|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.55|-1.51|<.0001
91673750|NCT02697773|183241319|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.73|-1.67|<.0001
91673751|NCT02697773|183241319|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-1.32|0.0007
91673752|NCT02697773|183241319|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.48|<.0001
91673753|NCT02697773|183241321|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.22|<.0001
91716530|NCT04379921|183324794|OTHER|||||||0.08121447||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.08121447
91673754|NCT02697773|183241321|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.29|<.0001
91716531|NCT04379921|183324794|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91861233|NCT04295798|183609457|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task postural sway area from baseline to immediately post intervention||||0.39
91902845|NCT01187550|183700293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For HDL-cholesterol: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.033
91673755|NCT02697773|183241321|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.46|<.0001
91673756|NCT02697773|183241321|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.66|-1.49|<.0001
91716532|NCT04379921|183324794|OTHER|||||||0.59932922||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.59932922
91716533|NCT04379921|183324794|OTHER|||||||0.3581397||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.35813970
91861234|NCT04295798|183609458|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task postural sway area from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.18
91716534|NCT04379921|183324795|OTHER|||||||0.0909144||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.09091440
91861235|NCT01715285|183609516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.466|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.55|||Log Rank|||||0.550|0.394|<0.0001
91861236|NCT01715285|183609517|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.661|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.775|||Log Rank|||||0.775|0.564|< 0.0001
91716535|NCT04379921|183324795|OTHER|||||||0.12858419||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.12858419
91716536|NCT04379921|183324795|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91716537|NCT04379921|183324795|OTHER|||||||0.9304017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.93040170
91716538|NCT04379921|183324795|OTHER|||||||0.38647114||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.38647114
91716539|NCT04379921|183324795|OTHER|||||||0.0909144||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.09091440
91861237|NCT05020249|183609523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91861238|NCT05020249|183609524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91861239|NCT05020249|183609525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.080
91861240|NCT05020249|183609526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.080
91861241|NCT05020249|183609527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91861242|NCT05020249|183609528|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91861243|NCT05020249|183609529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91861244|NCT05020249|183609530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91673757|NCT02697773|183241321|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.12|0.0024
91861245|NCT05020249|183609531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|81.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.216|803.544||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio of scalp IGA response for bimekizumab group compared with placebo group using CMH.||803.544|8.216|<0.001
91716540|NCT04379921|183324795|OTHER|||||||0.12858419||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.12858419
91716541|NCT04379921|183324795|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91716542|NCT04379921|183324795|OTHER|||||||0.9304017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.93040170
91716543|NCT04379921|183324795|OTHER|||||||0.38647114||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.38647114
91716544|NCT04379921|183324796|OTHER|||||||0.14778771||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.14778771
91716545|NCT04379921|183324796|OTHER|||||||0.36288455||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.36288455
91716546|NCT04379921|183324796|OTHER|||||||0.95547874|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91861246|NCT05020249|183609532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.353||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.447|105.443||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio of DLQI total score response for bimekizumab group compared with placebo group using CMH.||105.443|1.447|0.007
91716547|NCT04379921|183324796|OTHER|||||||0.65291937||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.65291937
91793068|NCT04831216|183463866|OTHER|||||||0.6794||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in DMSES scale score from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.6794
91861247|NCT05020249|183609533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-80.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.509|-58.379|||ANCOVA|||||-58.379|-102.509|<0.001
91716548|NCT04379921|183324796|OTHER|||||||0.61429132|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.61429132
91716549|NCT04379921|183324796|OTHER|||||||0.1589642||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.15896420
91716550|NCT04379921|183324796|OTHER|||||||0.39253325||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.39253325
91716551|NCT04379921|183324796|OTHER|||||||0.99526258||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.99526258
91861248|NCT05364671|183609538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is set to 0.04|Chi-squared|||||||0.0088
91716552|NCT04379921|183324796|OTHER|||||||0.65291937||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.65291937
91716553|NCT04379921|183324796|OTHER|||||||0.67694276||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.67694276
91716554|NCT04379921|183324797|OTHER|||||||0.06340316||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.06340316
91716555|NCT04379921|183324797|OTHER|||||||0.08121447||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.08121447
91716556|NCT04379921|183324797|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91716557|NCT04379921|183324797|OTHER|||||||0.59932922||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.59932922
91716558|NCT04379921|183324797|OTHER|||||||0.3581397||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.35813970
91716559|NCT04379921|183324797|OTHER|||||||0.06340316||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.06340316
91861249|NCT05364671|183609539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is set to 0.005|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean differences (Raphamin vs. Placebo) were compared||||0.0025
91861250|NCT05364671|183609541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2607|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean differences (Raphamin vs. Placebo) were compared||||0.2607
91861251|NCT05364671|183609542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7601|||||||Fisher Exact|||"This analysis applies to Day 6 row."||||0.7601
91861252|NCT05364671|183609542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7685|||||||Fisher Exact|||"This analysis applies to Day 10 row."||||0.7685
91861253|NCT05364671|183609543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.052
91716560|NCT04379921|183324797|OTHER|||||||0.08121447||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.08121447
91716561|NCT04379921|183324797|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91716562|NCT04379921|183324797|OTHER|||||||0.59932922|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.59932922
91716563|NCT04379921|183324797|OTHER|||||||0.3581397||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.35813970
91716564|NCT04379921|183324798|OTHER|||||||0.52394318||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.52394318
91716565|NCT04379921|183324798|OTHER|||||||0.37244637||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.37244637
91716566|NCT04379921|183324798|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91716567|NCT04379921|183324798|OTHER|||||||0.9304017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.93040170
91716568|NCT04379921|183324798|OTHER|||||||0.38647114||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.38647114
91716569|NCT04379921|183324798|OTHER|||||||0.7155239||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.71552390
91793069|NCT04831216|183463867|OTHER|||||||0.1043||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in oral health behavior from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Cumulative logit mixed effects model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Cumulative logit mixed effects model (using PROC GLIMMIX) for repeated measures used all available participant data. This model is specifically designed for ordinal outcomes. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.1043
91716570|NCT04379921|183324798|OTHER|||||||0.35456143||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.35456143
91716571|NCT04379921|183324798|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91716572|NCT04379921|183324798|OTHER|||||||0.9304017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.93040170
91716573|NCT04379921|183324798|OTHER|||||||0.42512141||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.42512141
91716574|NCT04275973|183324816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||No Intervention vs AFO||||0.649
91716575|NCT04275973|183324816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||No Intervention vs FES||||0.513
91716576|NCT04275973|183324816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AFO vs FES||||0.617
91716577|NCT00791219|183324840|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|6.47|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.77||||||||||-1.77|
91716578|NCT00791219|183324840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||The ITT was used for all superiority testing. For the three primary endpoints and all four secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing||||<0.05
91716579|NCT00791219|183324841|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|10.38|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.92|||||||To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|||0.92|
91716580|NCT00791219|183324841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||The ITT was used for all superiority testing. For the three primary endpoints and all four secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing||||<0.05
91794407|NCT02043379|183467869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation|||||<|0.01||||||p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical signficance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||post-operative day 3 (72 hours) IgG level||||<0.01
91861254|NCT05364671|183609544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
91861255|NCT05364671|183609545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
91716581|NCT00791219|183324842|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|3.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.62||||||||||-10.62|
91861256|NCT05364671|183609546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
91861257|NCT05364671|183609547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of pulse rate (heart rate) from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.92
91861258|NCT05364671|183609548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of respiration rate (breathing rate) from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.44
91861259|NCT05364671|183609549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of SpO2 from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.90
91861260|NCT05364671|183609550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of SBP from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.30
91793070|NCT04831216|183463868|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in PAID-5 scale score from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||<0.0001
91861261|NCT05364671|183609550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of DBP from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.94
91673758|NCT02697773|183241321|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.03|0.0078
91673759|NCT02697773|183241321|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.35|0.0002
91673760|NCT02697773|183241321|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.57|-1.50|<.0001
91673761|NCT02697773|183241321|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.16|0.0034
91673762|NCT02697773|183241321|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.33|0.0003
91673763|NCT02697773|183241323|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.10|0.0026
91673764|NCT02697773|183241323|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.10|0.0023
91673765|NCT02697773|183241323|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.29|0.0002
91673766|NCT02697773|183241323|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.35|<.0001
91673767|NCT02697773|183241323|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.11|0.0066
91793071|NCT04831216|183463870|OTHER|||||||0.5332||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in number of visits to food pantries in the past 30 days from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.5332
91902846|NCT01187550|183700293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For LDL-cholesterol: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.041
91902847|NCT01187550|183700293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For triglycerides: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.091
91861262|NCT05794243|183609555|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0741|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC (0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The least square means (LSMs) and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between geometric least square means (GLSMs).||0.228|0.0741|
91673768|NCT02697773|183241323|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.79|0.1506
91673769|NCT02697773|183241323|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.25|0.0021
91673770|NCT02697773|183241323|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-1.32|0.0008
91673771|NCT02697773|183241323|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.09|0.0167
91793072|NCT04831216|183463871|OTHER|||||||0.0468||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in ARMS-D scale scores from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0468
91861263|NCT05794243|183609555|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.399|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.237|0.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC (0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between GLSMs.||0.669|0.237|
91793073|NCT04831216|183463874|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week following general healthful diet from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||<0.0001
91793074|NCT04831216|183463875|OTHER|||||||0.0649||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week following specific diet recommendations from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0649
91861264|NCT05794243|183609557|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.062|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between GLSMs.||0.182|0.0620|
91673772|NCT02697773|183241323|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.17|0.0073
91673773|NCT02697773|183241325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.09|0.0058
91673774|NCT02697773|183241325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.31|0.0002
91673775|NCT02697773|183241325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.44|<.0001
91673776|NCT02697773|183241325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.56|<.0001
91673777|NCT02697773|183241325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.11|0.0091
91861265|NCT05794243|183609557|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.343|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.206|0.569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between GLSMs.||0.569|0.206|
91673778|NCT02697773|183241325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.92|0.0668
91673779|NCT02697773|183241325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.36|0.0011
91793075|NCT04831216|183463876|OTHER|||||||0.0049||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week engaging in exercise from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0049
91794408|NCT02043379|183467869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation|||||<|0.01||||||p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||post-operative day 5 (120 hours) IgG level||||<0.01
91716582|NCT00791219|183324842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||The ITT was used for all superiority testing. For the three primary endpoints and all four secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing||||<0.05
91793076|NCT04831216|183463877|OTHER|||||||0.0086||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week conducted blood glucose testing from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0086
91793077|NCT04831216|183463878|OTHER|||||||0.0243||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week conducting food checks from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0243
91716583|NCT00791219|183324845|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure or Mycological Cure as appropriate at Visit 7 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|-0.57|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|||||||If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure or Mycological Cure as appropriate at Visit 7 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|||-12.91|
91864580|NCT05309291|183618289|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis to demonstrate non-inferiority using a 10% margin for ß2-MG RR can be expressed as Ho: μT-μR ≤ -7.848. The alternative hypothesis is expressed as: Ha: μT-μR \> -7.848, where μT denotes the Theranova 400 treatment mean and μR denotes the FX 800 treatment mean.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|T-test was utilized to generate a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in means.||Non-inferiority of the Theranova 400 Dialyzer compared to the FX 800 Dialyzer in regard to the β2-MG RR at the mid-week treatment day dialysis session was assessed.||0.16|-2.54|<0.0001
91864581|NCT05163496|183618421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in MADRS score from the preparation 1 session to day 28 would be the same in both niacin and psilocybin groups. The alternative hypothesis was that the change in the psilocybin group would be greater than the change in the niacin group, with an assumed true effect size of 1.06 SD units based on findings in prior studies. With 15 participants per group, this study had 80% power to observe a statistically significant difference between groups.||||<.001
91793078|NCT04831216|183463879|OTHER|||||||0.2861||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in smoking status (yes/no) from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.2861
91673780|NCT02697773|183241325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.48|0.0002
91673781|NCT02697773|183241325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-1.20|0.0059
91794409|NCT02043379|183467870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.6||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.60
91673782|NCT02697773|183241325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.39|0.0005
91673783|NCT02697773|183241328|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||3.70|-2.48|0.6984
91673784|NCT02697773|183241328|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||1.48|-4.84|0.2953
91673785|NCT02697773|183241328|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|2.74|||ANCOVA|||Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.74|-13.59|0.1911
91673786|NCT02697773|183241328|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|2.71|||ANCOVA|||Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.71|-13.89|0.1857
91864582|NCT04625725|183618452|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|76.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.05|89.96|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|Primary Analysis||89.96|46.05|<0.001
91902848|NCT00129623|183700294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1226|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9613|5.2838||The primary analysis was an ANOVA (two way classification), including treatment group and time since menopause (as a binary variable; 0.5-3 years, \>3 years) as independent factors.|ANOVA|||"H0 (null hypothesis): There was no statistically significant difference between monthly treatment with 150 mg oral IBN and monthly treatment with placebo in relative change from baseline of mean lumbar spine (L2-L4 BMD).~H1 (alternative hypothesis): There was a statistically significant difference between monthly treatment with 150 mg oral IBN and monthly treatment with placebo in relative change from baseline of mean lumbar spine (L2-L4 BMD)."||5.2838|2.9613|<0.0001
91673787|NCT02697773|183241328|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|2.52|||ANCOVA|||Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.52|-14.12|0.1707
91673788|NCT02697773|183241328|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|2.07|||ANCOVA|||Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.07|-14.85|0.1380
91673789|NCT02697773|183241328|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.94|-8.58|0.1151
91673790|NCT02697773|183241328|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.98|-8.51|0.1195
91673791|NCT02697773|183241339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.29|0.18|0.1444
91673792|NCT02697773|183241339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.91|0.09|0.0335
91673793|NCT02697773|183241340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0809||||||P-value was based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0809
91673794|NCT02697773|183241340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0239||||||P-value was based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0239
91673795|NCT02697773|183241341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.04|0.48|0.0761
91673796|NCT02697773|183241341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.96|0.44|0.0312
91793079|NCT04831216|183463880|OTHER|||||||0.9933||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week adhering to prescribed medications from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.9933
91793080|NCT03470441|183463897|OTHER||||||||||||||descriptive||||As little data exists on the incidence of arrhythmias that occur over an extended period of time following AMI, descriptive analysis of the primary endpoints (Arrhythmias of Interest at 48 hours and 14 days for overall and anterior infarcts) was appropriate in this study due to the absence of an externally validated benchmark which would normally serve as the basis for hypothesis testing of FDY-5301's effect on arrhythmias.|||
91793081|NCT03470441|183463902|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.15|-10.8|3.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test comparing placebo to FDY-5301 treated subjects (combined low dose, intermediate dose, and high dose).||3.1|-10.8|0.32
91793082|NCT03470441|183463904|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.16|-20.2|12.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test Comparing placebo to anterior infarcts FDY-5301 treated subjects (low, intermediate, and high) combined into one group.||12.10|-20.2|0.46
91793083|NCT03470441|183463910|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.11|-3.6|10.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test comparing placebo to FDY-5301 treated subjects (combined low dose, intermediate dose, and high dose).||10.6|-3.6|0.25
91861266|NCT03637660|183609563|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.06||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.03||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|To assess the primary efficacy endpoint, the number and proportion of participants with a serological response by Month 6 and the 95% confidence interval were summarized overall and by treatment. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis for the primary objective was that the difference in proportion of participants with serological responses between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%||0.03|-0.15|0.002
91673797|NCT02697773|183241341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.95|0.45|0.0262
91861267|NCT03637660|183609571|EQUIVALENCE|The alternative hypothesis was that the two treatment groups were unequal.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value was calculated based on 2-sided Pearson Chi-Square test. Difference in proportion was reported with the Wilson 95% CI|Chi-squared|||The number and proportion of participants who were compliant to the treatment, receiving all assigned doses within the assigned visit windows. The null hypothesis was no difference between two treatment groups.||||< 0.001
91673798|NCT02697773|183241341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.79|0.37|0.0013
91673799|NCT02697773|183241341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.33|0.64|0.6706
91793084|NCT03470441|183463912|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.16|-7.0|16.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test comparing placebo to anterior infarcts FDY-5301 treated subjects (combined low dose, intermediate dose, and high dose).||16.9|-7|0.31
91716584|NCT00791219|183324846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0018|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||It the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated.|A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||For the three primary endpoints and all four dichotomous secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Test or Reference group was statistically greater (p \< 0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority of that treatment over placebo was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing.||||<0.05
91716585|NCT00791219|183324846|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0853|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||For the three primary endpoints and all four dichotomous secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Test or Reference group was statistically greater (p \< 0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority of that treatment over placebo was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing.||||<0.05
91716586|NCT00767572|183324847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pre-post brachial artery diameter changes do not differ between placebo and atorvastatin||||>0.05
91716587|NCT06831344|183324870|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM Percentage (%)|113.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.86|122.33|||||Geometric least square mean (GLSM) ratios were calculated by taking antilog of difference of least square means and associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) from linear mixed effect model analyzing natural logarithms of corresponding PK parameters.|||122.33|104.86|
91673800|NCT02697773|183241341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.43|0.69|0.9720
91673801|NCT02697773|183241341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.29|0.61|0.5311
91673802|NCT02697773|183241341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.12|0.53|0.1712
91673803|NCT02697773|183241341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.54|0.73|0.7475
91673804|NCT02697773|183241341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.33|0.63|0.6564
91673805|NCT02697773|183241343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.16|0.73|0.4833
91673806|NCT02697773|183241343|SUPERIORITY|Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.|LS Mean Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03|||Negative binomial model|||||1.03|0.65|0.0942
91673807|NCT02697773|183241343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.15|0.67|0.3371
91673808|NCT02697773|183241343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.00|0.58|0.0508
91673809|NCT02697773|183241343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.27|0.71|0.7280
91673810|NCT02697773|183241343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.15|0.65|0.3244
91673811|NCT02697773|183241343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.27|0.65|0.5681
91864583|NCT04625725|183618452|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|83.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.26|91.21|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|Final Analysis||91.21|67.26|<0.001
91864584|NCT04625725|183618454|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.44|46.05|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||46.05|21.44|<0.001
91861268|NCT03637660|183609573|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.05||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.07||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) in HIV-infected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning|||The number and proportion of participants with serological response by month 6 among participants with HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.07|-0.17|0.022
91864585|NCT04625725|183618455|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|91.41||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.31|98.09|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||98.09|61.31|0.001
91864586|NCT04625725|183618456|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|52.43||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.61|82.13|||Poisson regression|||||82.13|-26.61|0.137
91794410|NCT02043379|183467870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.06||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.06
91861269|NCT03637660|183609573|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.09||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-uninfected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning|||The number and proportion of participants with serological response by month 6 among participants without HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.09|-0.22|0.037
91716588|NCT06831344|183324870|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|107.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.67|116.28|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||116.28|99.67|
91716589|NCT06831344|183324870|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.68|109.3|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||109.30|93.68|
91716590|NCT06831344|183324870|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|105.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.08|114.43|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||114.43|98.08|
91716591|NCT06831344|183324870|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|95.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|102.67|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||102.67|88.00|
91716592|NCT06831344|183324870|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|104.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.93|113.08|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||113.08|96.93|
91716593|NCT06831344|183324871|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|114.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.46|122.24|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||122.24|107.46|
91716594|NCT06831344|183324871|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|110.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.14|117.33|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||117.33|103.14|
91864587|NCT05086796|183618489|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.51|2.91|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator. There are two primary outcome measures, so the type I error level was adjusted to alpha = 0.025.||Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who initiated MOUD in the hospital by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 97.5% confidence interval (CI) and with covariates treatment arm, site (3 sites), prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no), and length of hospital stay in days.|2.91|1.51|
91716595|NCT06831344|183324871|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.39|113.06|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||113.06|99.39|
91716596|NCT06831344|183324871|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|103.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.39|110.78|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||110.78|97.39|
91864588|NCT05086796|183618490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.15|1.93|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator. There are two primary outcome measures, so the type I error level was adjusted to alpha = 0.025.||Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who linked to follow-up OUD care by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 97.5% confidence interval (CI) and with covariates treatment arm, site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|1.93|1.15|
91716597|NCT06831344|183324871|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|95.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.99|102.37|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||102.37|89.99|
91716598|NCT06831344|183324871|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|97.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.87|104.51|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||104.51|91.87|
91716599|NCT06831344|183324872|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|114.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.28|121.17|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||121.17|107.28|
91716600|NCT06831344|183324872|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|109.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.49|116.9|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||116.90|103.49|
91716601|NCT06831344|183324872|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|106.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.26|113.24|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||113.24|100.26|
91716602|NCT06831344|183324872|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|104.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.15|110.86|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||110.86|98.15|
91716603|NCT06831344|183324872|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.77|102.53|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||102.53|90.77|
91716604|NCT06831344|183324872|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|104.05|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||104.05|92.11|
91716605|NCT02873689|183324897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.057
91716606|NCT02873689|183324898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.268
91716607|NCT00434252|183324904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in survival rates|3.5||||0.5724||95.0|-8.7|15.7|||z-test|z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.||||15.7|-8.7|0.5724
91716608|NCT00434252|183324905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|12.2||||0.0982||95.0|-2.3|26.6|||z-test|z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method||||26.6|-2.3|0.0982
91864589|NCT05086796|183618491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.41|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who initiated MOUD in the hospital between arms by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: treatment arm, site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|2.41|1.35|
91864590|NCT05086796|183618492|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.39|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who reported any post-discharge MOUD utilization between arms by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: treatment arm, site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|2.39|1.23|
91716609|NCT02990000|183324924|SUPERIORITY|We used the Optimal Design program to determine the minimum numbers of therapists and patients needed to detect a moderate effect of condition (standardized difference between change rates = .50). Based on this a priori power analysis, we will need a total of 44 therapists and 211 patients to achieve a power of .80 to detect moderate condition effects. Factoring in a 25% dropout rate, enrolling 281 patients should provide sufficient statistical power.|condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.03|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the TOP-CS average z-scores. Given that higher TOP-CS z-scores indicate greater impairment, negative slopes indicate a weekly decrease in impairment during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||-0.03|-0.05|.02
91716610|NCT02990000|183324925|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the SCL-10 total score. Given that higher SCL-10 scores indicate greater psychological distress, negative slopes indicate a weekly decrease in impairment during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||-0.02|-0.30|.03
91716611|NCT02990000|183324926|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the patient-rated WAI. Given that higher WAI scores indicate better quality therapeutic alliances, positive slopes indicate a weekly increase in alliance during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||0.21|-0.33|.65
91716612|NCT02990000|183324927|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the OE subscale of the CEQ. Given that higher OE scores indicate more optimistic expectations, positive slopes indicate a weekly increase in OE during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||0.07|-0.17|.41
91673812|NCT02697773|183241343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.09|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.09|0.55|0.1387
91673813|NCT02697773|183241343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.48|0.76|0.7275
91673814|NCT02697773|183241343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.31|0.67|0.7090
91673815|NCT02697773|183241345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.62|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.62|0.58|0.9164
91716613|NCT02990000|183324928|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.006|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the log-transformed TOP-CS domain-specific z-scores. Given that higher z-scores indicate greater impairment, negative slopes indicate a weekly decrease in impairment during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||-0.006|-0.01|.01
91716614|NCT02990000|183324929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel logistic regression|||Multilevel logistic regression analysis with patients nested within therapists (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0). Statistically significant odds ratios that are greater than 1 would indicate that patients in the Scientific Match Condition were more likely to discontinue treatment early, whereas odds ratios that are less than 1 would indicate the opposite.||||.48
91673816|NCT02697773|183241345|SUPERIORITY|Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.|LS Mean Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||||1.31|0.47|0.3542
91673817|NCT02697773|183241345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.68|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.68|0.51|0.8065
91673818|NCT02697773|183241345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.20|0.36|0.1752
91673819|NCT02697773|183241345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.73|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.73|0.48|0.7837
91673820|NCT02697773|183241345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.52|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.52|0.43|0.5062
91673821|NCT02697773|183241345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.82|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.82|0.40|0.6821
91716615|NCT02990000|183324930|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on satisfaction|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.31|||2-level hierarchical linear model|||Due to the nested nature of the data (patients nested within therapists), we used a two-level hierarchical linear model to test the effect of condition on provider satisfaction at posttreatment. Because higher values indicate more satisfaction, a positive condition effect would indicate that Scientific Match patients were more satisfied than Pragmatic Match patients, whereas a negative condition effect would indicate the opposite.||1.31|-0.57|.44
91861270|NCT03637660|183609574|NON_INFERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in response rates was less than 10%. The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.05||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.04||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the -sproportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|The number and proportion of participants with a serological response by Month 12 and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.04|-0.14|0.002
91861271|NCT03637660|183609575|NON_INFERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in response rates was less than 10%. The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.06||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.05||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) in HIV-infected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the -sproportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-infected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|The number and proportion of participants with a serological response by month 12 among participants with HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.05|-0.18|0.011
91864591|NCT05086796|183618493|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.03|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who reported receiving any post-discharge outpatient medical care for their OUD between arms by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|3.03|1.18|
91673822|NCT02697773|183241345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.65|0.36|0.5032
91673823|NCT02697773|183241345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.61|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||2.61|0.58|0.5796
91673824|NCT02697773|183241345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.8725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.0|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||2.00|0.44|0.8725
91673825|NCT02756637|183241363|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.11||||||The Hazard Ration is the ratio of survival rates between patients with high NLR and low NLR.||1.11|0.98|
91861272|NCT03637660|183609575|NON_INFERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in response rates was less than 10%. The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.03||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.11||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-uninfected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the -sproportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-uninfected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|The number and proportion of participants with a serological response by month 12 amont participants without HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.11|-0.18|0.064
91673826|NCT02756637|183241363|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||||||The Hazard Ration is the ratio of survival rates between patients with high NLR and low NLR.||1.14|0.90|
91861273|NCT05093829|183609596|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup A if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||For serogroup A, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||2.0|-1.0|
91861274|NCT05093829|183609596|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup A if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.7||||||For serogroup A, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||3.7|-0.6|
91861275|NCT05093829|183609596|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup C if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9||||||For serogroup C, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||1.9|-2.3|
91861276|NCT05093829|183609596|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup C if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.5||||||For serogroup C, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||2.5|-3.3|
91864592|NCT05086796|183618494|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.43|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable negative binomial regression with a log link function was used to compare opioid use-days between the two treatment arms by calculating the incident rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: site (3 sites), prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no), and baseline opioid use days.|2.43|0.64|
91673827|NCT03660241|183241374|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|138.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.74|204.61|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group.||204.61|93.74|
91673828|NCT03660241|183241374|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.3|171.43|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||171.43|57.30|
91902849|NCT00129623|183700300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|30.56||||||Lumbar BMD: Adjusted treatment effect - The treatment effect and 95% C.I. were represented by presenting OR. These were estimated by fitting a logistic regression model, with responder outcome (responder/non-responder) as the dependent variable and the treatment group (oral IBN 150 mg/Placebo) and time since menopause as the independent variables. An OR of \>1 indicated participants treated with IBN were more likely to have BMD above or equal to baseline relative to those treated with placebo.||30.56|5.12|
91673829|NCT03660241|183241375|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|182.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.09|285.71|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||285.71|117.09|
91673830|NCT03660241|183241375|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|121.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.32|215.41|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||215.41|68.32|
91673831|NCT03660241|183241376|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.8|165.57|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||165.57|59.80|
91673832|NCT03660241|183241376|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|167.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.2|289.64|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||289.64|97.20|
91673833|NCT03660241|183241377|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|154.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.11|226.26|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||226.26|105.11|
91673834|NCT03660241|183241377|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|287.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|196.72|418.89|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||418.89|196.72|
91673835|NCT03660241|183241378|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|137.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.82|176.81|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||176.81|106.82|
91673836|NCT03660241|183241378|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|177.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.91|232.92|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||232.92|135.91|
91673837|NCT03660241|183241379|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|269.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|196.61|370.18|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||370.18|196.61|
91673838|NCT03660241|183241379|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|571.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|447.27|730.05|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||730.05|447.27|
91673839|NCT03660241|183241384|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|133.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.45|174.92|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||174.92|102.45|
91673840|NCT03660241|183241384|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|129.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.86|180.57|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||180.57|92.86|
91673841|NCT03660241|183241385|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|210.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.6|285.8|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||285.80|154.60|
91673842|NCT03660241|183241385|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|290.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|217.39|388.69|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||388.69|217.39|
91673843|NCT03919448|183241392|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area Under the Serum Concentration-time Curve of Bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|101.55||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.19|114.34||Power of ANOVA: 0,93|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||114.34|90.19|0.9766
91673844|NCT03919448|183241392|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area Under the Serum Concentration-time Curve of Bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|100.95||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.75|113.55||Power of ANOVA: 0,93|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||113.55|89.75|0.9766
91673845|NCT03919448|183241392|EQUIVALENCE|As supplementary information, Test Product 1 vs. Test Product 2 shall also be compared. The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test1-to-test2 ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area Under the Serum Concentration-time Curve of Bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|100.59||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.16|114.77|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||114.77|88.16|0.9766
91673846|NCT03919448|183241393|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test to reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|90.82||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.21|101.57||Power of ANOVA: 0,95|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||101.57|81.21|0.3617
91861277|NCT05093829|183609596|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup W if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.8||||||For serogroup W, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||0.8|-6.3|
91716616|NCT01949545|183324941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|144.43||||0.02232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|111.48|187.12|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-last an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||187.12|111.48|0.02232
91673847|NCT03919448|183241393|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test to reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|94.87||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.91|105.99||Power of ANOVA: 0.95|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||105.99|84.91|0.3617
91716617|NCT01949545|183324941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|126.08||||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.59|168.06|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-last an ANOVA of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||168.06|94.59|0.1812
91673848|NCT03919448|183241393|EQUIVALENCE|As supplementary information, Test Product 1 vs. Test Product 2 shall also be compared. The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test1-to-test2 ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|95.73||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.82|108.05|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||108.05|84.82|0.3617
91673849|NCT03919448|183241394|EQUIVALENCE|80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|90.46||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.64|101.47||Power of ANOVA: 0.94|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||101.47|80.64|0.3529
91673850|NCT03919448|183241394|EQUIVALENCE|80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|95.02||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.8|106.49||Power of ANOVA: 0.94|ANOVA|||||106.49|84.80|0.3529
91673851|NCT03919448|183241394|EQUIVALENCE|As supplementary information, Test Product 1 vs. Test Product 2 shall also be compared. The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test1-to-test2 ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|95.19||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.17|107.67|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||107.67|84.17|0.3529
91673852|NCT01567826|183241409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
91673853|NCT01567826|183241410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91673854|NCT01612884|183241417|OTHER|Student's T-test||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
91673855|NCT01612884|183241418|OTHER|Chi-Square||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.93
91793118|NCT05411367|183463930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.62|0.315
91861278|NCT05093829|183609596|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup W if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.5||||||For serogroup W, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||3.5|-1.8|
91673856|NCT01612884|183241419|OTHER|Chi-Square|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91673857|NCT03265288|183241420|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|0.7716||||0.3449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8397|2.3828||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Primary analysis of the treatment effect at the Week 24 visit on the intent to treat population (ITT) Null hypothesis is no treatment difference||2.3828|-0.8397|0.3449
91673858|NCT03265288|183241420|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.0053||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.0807||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Analysis of the overall treatment effect from baseline through Week 24 in the intent to treat population (ITT), Null hypothesis is no treatment difference||2.0807|-0.0700|0.0667
91673859|NCT03265288|183241420|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.2258||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0078|2.4438||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Secondary analysis of the overall treatment effect from baseline through Week 24 on the per protocol population (PP), null hypothesis is no treatment difference||2.4438|0.0078|0.0486
91673860|NCT03265288|183241420|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|2.6628||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2069|5.5325||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|"Secondary analysis of treatment effect at the Week 24 visit for stratification factor ppFEV1 (\<70% or ≥70%) in intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment difference.~Here presented is the analysis for subgroup ≥70%, n=29 (LAU-7b), n=27 (Placebo)"||5.5325|-0.2069|0.0687
91673861|NCT03265288|183241420|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.391||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.922|3.7041||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|"Secondary analysis of treatment effect at the Week 24 visit for stratification factor co-administration of CFTR modulator (yes/no) in intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment difference.~Here presented is the analysis for subgroup receiving CFTR modulators, n=41 (LAU-7b), n=46 (Placebo)"||3.7041|-0.9220|0.236
91716618|NCT01949545|183324942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|151.84||||0.02137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.59|202.96|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-inf an ANOVA of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||202.96|113.59|0.02137
91673862|NCT03265288|183241420|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.1302||||0.5323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4447|4.7052||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|"Secondary analysis of treatment effect at the Week 24 visit for à priori defined subgroup co-administration of ETI - elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (yes/no) in intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment difference.~Here presented is the analysis for subgroup receiving ETI, n=18 (LAU-7b), n=23 (Placebo)"||4.7052|-2.4447|0.5323
91673863|NCT03265288|183241422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5036||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2199|1.1532||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of normalization with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of normalization with LAU-7b|Highest normalization of Arachidonic Acid (AA) during treatment Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||1.1532|0.2199|0.1047
91673864|NCT03265288|183241422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8773||||0.7596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3793|2.0291||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of normalization with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of normalization with LAU-7b|Highest normalization of Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) during treatment Intent to treat population (ITT, null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.0291|0.3793|0.7596
91673865|NCT03265288|183241422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0532||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5209|2.1296||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of normalization with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of normalization with LAU-7b|Highest normalization of AA/DHA ratio during treatment Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.1296|0.5209|0.8852
91673866|NCT03265288|183241425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3025|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3025
91673867|NCT03265288|183241426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.55||||0.3366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.8||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Cox||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds of a pulmonary exacerbation for LAU-7b and placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b|Protocol-Defined IV antibiotics-treated pulmonary exacerbation events. Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||3.80|0.63|0.3366
91673868|NCT03265288|183241426|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.64||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Cox||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds of a pulmonary exacerbation for LAU-7b and placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b|ALL IV antibiotics-treated pulmonary exacerbation events. Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.64|0.68|0.3936
91793119|NCT05411367|183463931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.11|0.487
91794411|NCT02043379|183467870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.06||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.06
91716619|NCT01949545|183324942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|143.53||||0.07247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.28|199.45|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-inf an ANOVA of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||199.45|103.28|0.07247
91716620|NCT03268343|183324983|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|74.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.39|84.08|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||84.08|66.39|
91716621|NCT03268343|183324984|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|99.98|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||99.98|94.20|
91716622|NCT03268343|183324985|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.25|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test||Hodges-Lehmann method|||2.25|0.50|< 0.0001
91716623|NCT03268343|183324986|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|96.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|99.85|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||99.85|93.30|
91716624|NCT03268343|183324990|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|104.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.97|110.87|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||110.87|98.97|
91716625|NCT01507181|183325041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
91716626|NCT01507181|183325042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91716627|NCT01507181|183325043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Statistics are calculated by comparing 24-h scores using separate ANCOVAs and controlling for baseline severity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.17
91716628|NCT01669434|183325053|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Fisher Exact|||||0.97|0.67|0.03
91716629|NCT01669434|183325054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.60|0.23|0.44
91716630|NCT01669434|183325055|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.99|||Fisher Exact|||||2.99|0.48|1.0
91716631|NCT01669434|183325056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.26|||Fisher Exact|||||1.26|0.81|1.0
91716632|NCT01669434|183325057|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.95||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.34|||Fisher Exact|||||3.34|1.14|0.01
91716633|NCT01669434|183325058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.86|||Fisher Exact|||||0.86|0.28|0.02
91716634|NCT02860988|183325059|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.29
91716635|NCT02860988|183325060|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin|Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.88
91716636|NCT02860988|183325061|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.96||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.89
91716637|NCT02860988|183325062|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.26||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.61
91716638|NCT02860988|183325063|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.61||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.67
91716639|NCT02860988|183325064|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.23||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.14
91716640|NCT02860988|183325065|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.81
91716641|NCT02860988|183325066|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.74
91716642|NCT00526474|183325135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.82|0.001
91716643|NCT00526474|183325136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.94|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.94|0.80|<0.001
91716644|NCT00526474|183325137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.74|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.74|1.31|<0.001
91716645|NCT00526474|183325138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.51|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.51|1.31|<0.001
91673869|NCT03265288|183241426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.5011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Cox||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds of a pulmonary exacerbation for LAU-7b and placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b|Combined IV- or Oral antibiotics-treated pulmonary exacerbation events. Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||1.79|0.75|0.5011
91673870|NCT03265288|183241427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1955|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1955
91673871|NCT03265288|183241428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.12||alpha is set to 0.05|Poisson regression||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of an antibiotic treatment with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of an antibiotic treatment with LAU-7b|Number per subject of intravenous antibiotic treatments required for a pulmonary exacerbation, excludes Cycle 1 pulmonary exacerbations Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.12|0.86|0.1909
91673872|NCT03265288|183241429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.7473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.04||alpha is set to 0.05|Poisson regression||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds in terms of days of antibiotics with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds in terms of days of antibiotics with LAU-7b or placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds in terms of days of antibiotics with LAU-7b|Number of days of intravenous antibiotics required for a pulmonary exacerbation, excludes Cycle 1 pulmonary exacerbations, Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.04|0.60|0.7473
91794278|NCT02821910|183467552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|95.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.5|104.01|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.01|87.50|
91864593|NCT00429364|183618495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91673873|NCT03265288|183241430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-2.89||||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.154|0.374||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Intent-to-Treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||0.374|-6.154|0.0822
91673874|NCT03265288|183241430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-576.0||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1177.0|25.4||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|Calprotectin, Intent-to-Treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||25.4|-1177|0.0603
91673875|NCT03265288|183241430|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-3.853||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.297|-0.408||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Per-Protocol population (PP), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||-0.408|-7.297|0.0287
91673876|NCT03265288|183241430|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-620.0||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1228.0|12.0||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|Calprotectin, Per-Protocol population (PP), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||12|-1228|0.0459
91673877|NCT03265288|183241431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-0.39||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.08||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Body weight, Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||0.08|-0.86|0.1006
91673878|NCT03265288|183241432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-0.137||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.038||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Body mass index, intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||0.038|-0.312|0.1246
91673879|NCT03265288|183241433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764||||||alpha is set to 0.05|ANOVA|||Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||||0.7640
91673880|NCT03265288|183241434|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-2.758||||0.2996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.998|2.482||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||CFQ-R Respiratory subscore, intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.482|-7.998|0.2996
91673881|NCT02790034|183241439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.3184||0.6411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.741|17.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary inferential comparison between treatment groups used a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based, mixed-effects repeated measures model approach (MMRM) with 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups for % change from baseline in the number of apnea episodes. Model included % change from baseline as response, the fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the continuous terms age and baseline value as covariate.||17.157|-27.741|0.6411
91692154|NCT00720213|183279263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.03||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|6.51|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Each participant was treated with the BiPAP autoSV2 (ASV2) and autoSV Advanced (ASV3) on two separate nights; therefore, the data were analyzed as paired samples. Depending on normality, each endpoint was analyzed with either a paired t-test or the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. All comparisons were 2-sided conducted at a 5% level of significance.||6.51|1.44|0.0054
91673882|NCT02790034|183241439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1869||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.119|9.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary inferential comparison between treatment groups used a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based, mixed-effects repeated measures model approach (MMRM) with 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups for % change from baseline in the number of apnea episodes. Model included % change from baseline as response, the fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the continuous terms age and baseline value as covariate.||9.186|-43.119|0.2011
91673883|NCT04976621|183241465|OTHER|Because this was a feasibility study, we did not compute inferential statistics and did not include a power calculation.||||||||||||Because this was a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed.||||This feasibility study assessed preliminary evidence of treatment response. We have reported only descriptive statistics for quantitative findings. We have not reported inferential statistics, in keeping with the purpose of the VA SPiRE grant mechanism through which the study was funded. We assessed change in participant response by comparing the mean change in the outcome from baseline to follow-up in Group 1 (BA) and Group 2 (TAU). We inspected trends and directions of change in both groups.|Because this is a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed. We examined the trends and direction of change in the baseline mean score and follow-up mean score between the two groups.|||
91673884|NCT04976621|183241466|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This feasibility study assessed preliminary evidence of treatment response. We have reported only descriptive statistics for quantitative findings. We have not reported inferential statistics, in keeping with the purpose of the VA SPiRE grant mechanism through which the study was funded. We assessed change in participant response by comparing the mean change in the outcome from baseline to follow-up in Group 1 (BA) and Group 2 (TAU). We inspected trends and directions of change in both groups.|Because this is a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed. We examined the trends and direction of change in the baseline mean score and follow-up mean score between the two groups.|||
91673885|NCT04976621|183241467|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This feasibility study assessed preliminary evidence of treatment response. We have reported only descriptive statistics for quantitative findings. We have not reported inferential statistics, in keeping with the purpose of the VA SPiRE grant mechanism through which the study was funded. We assessed change in participant response by comparing the mean change in the outcome from baseline to follow-up in Group 1 (BA) and Group 2 (TAU). We inspected trends and directions of change in both groups.|Because this is a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed. We examined the trends and direction of change in the baseline mean score and follow-up mean score between the two groups.|||
91673886|NCT04976621|183241468|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics are being used.|||
91673887|NCT04976621|183241469|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics are used to describe acceptability/satisfaction for those who received the BA intervention. This tool is completed after the last intervention session when the qualitative interview is also conducted.|Descriptive statistics are used in this feasibility study. We are not using inferential statistics to test for statistical significance.|||
91673888|NCT04976621|183241470|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics are used to describe recruitment.|||
91794412|NCT02043379|183467870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.33||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hours post-operative||||0.33
91673889|NCT04976621|183241471|OTHER||||||||||||||||||One measure of retention was the percent in each group who completed the study, meaning completed the Time 2 follow-up interview (that occurred 3-4 months after the baseline interview). Another measure of retention was the percent in the treatment group that completed four or more treatment sessions.|||
91673890|NCT04976621|183241472|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For each of five participants who received the intervention, we reviewed a transcript of 1 intervention session for treatment fidelity. The criterion is that no more than 15% of sessions observed or audiotaped will have a mean less than 2.0.|||
91673891|NCT05611996|183241484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.783|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.772||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.336|-0.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Score difference = Post-intervention - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.||-0.230|-3.336|0.025
91673892|NCT05611996|183241484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.814||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.057|-0.784||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Score difference = 3-month - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.||-0.784|-4.057|0.005
91673893|NCT05611996|183241484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1744||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9039|-0.1897||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference of the PHQ-9 score by each unit increase of the time(each week increase)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores over time for all study participants.||-0.1897|-0.9039|0.0040
91673894|NCT03053583|183241485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Posthoc analysis of POGO scores were compared using the Kruskall Wallis test with Mann-WHitney test for pairwise comparisons||||<0.05
91673895|NCT04479475|183241497|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is a non-parametric statistical test. We used it to assess repeated measures of missed methadone doses.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.8||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|||||Exact p-value reported due to small sample size|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||We opted not to include the 95% confidence interval due to the non-parametric nature of the data.|||||0.0094
91673896|NCT05363683|183241499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.293
91673897|NCT05363683|183241501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.114
91673898|NCT05363683|183241502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
91673899|NCT05363683|183241503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.021
91673900|NCT05363683|183241504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.936
91673901|NCT05363683|183241505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.867
91673902|NCT05363683|183241506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.370
91794413|NCT02043379|183467870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.05||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post-operative||||0.05
91673903|NCT05363683|183241507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.379
91673904|NCT00619359|183241508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the CI for the difference in response rates (Fosaprepitant minus Aprepitant), calculated using the methodology of Miettinen and Nurminen, had a lower limit ≥7 percentage points, fosaprepitant was considered at least as effective as aprepitant for Complete Response in the overall phase. Study had 90% power to detect non-inferiority for this outcome measure.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||||95.0|-4.1|3.3||||||||3.3|-4.1|
91673905|NCT00619359|183241509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the CI for the difference in response rates, calculated using the methodology of Miettinen and Nurminen, had a lower limit ≥7.3 percentage points, fosaprepitant was considered at least as effective as aprepitant for Complete Response in the delayed phase.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||||95.0|-3.5|3.7||||||||3.7|-3.5|
91673906|NCT00619359|183241510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the CI for the difference in response rates, calculated using the methodology of Miettinen and Nurminen, had a lower limit ≥8.2 percentage points, fosaprepitant was considered at least as effective as aprepitant for No Vomiting in the overall phase.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||||95.0|-5.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-5.3|
91673907|NCT05575063|183241517|NON_INFERIORITY|All analyzed numbers are in percentage. The success criterion for the primary safety endpoint was met (Safety Population), as the investigational device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) demonstrated non-inferiority to the control device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) with respect to the difference in IOP spike rate, estimated to be 0.08% (with the 95% confidence interval of \[-5.07%; 5.23%\]).|Not Measured|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|5.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||All values in this section are in percentage.|||5.23|-5.07|
91673908|NCT05575063|183241518|NON_INFERIORITY|All analyzed numbers are in percentage. The success criterion for the primary effectiveness endpoint was met (modified ITT Population) as the investigational device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) demonstrated non-inferiority to the control device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) with respect to the difference in mean ECC percent change, estimated to be -0.50% (with the 95% confidence interval of \[-3.37%; 2.37%\]).|Difference in Percent Change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||All values are in percentage.|||2.37|-3.37|
91864594|NCT00429364|183618496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91673909|NCT04625062|183241527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, two-tailed|df = 6|Traditional treatment condition - biofeedback treatment condition|||||.72
91673910|NCT02654587|183241528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.91||OS in patients with ICI secondary resistance|t-test, 2 sided||p=0.017|||0.91|0.38|<0.05
91673911|NCT02654587|183241528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||OS in the ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary resistance)||1.19|0.62|0.36
91673912|NCT02654587|183241529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-progression survival in patients with ICI secondary resistance||0.79|0.27|0.004
91673913|NCT02654587|183241529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-progression survival in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||0.83|0.39|0.0035
91673914|NCT02654587|183241530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Time to worsening ECOG PS \>1 in patients with ICI secondary resistance||0.80|0.23|0.006
91673915|NCT02654587|183241530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Time to worsening ECOG PS in the ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||0.92|0.35|0.02
91673916|NCT02654587|183241531|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.045|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ C30 Global Health Status in Patients with ICI secondary resistance||||<0.05
91673917|NCT02654587|183241531|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Physical functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||0.07
91673918|NCT02654587|183241531|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Role functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||<0.05
91673919|NCT02654587|183241531|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Emotional functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||0.36
91673920|NCT02654587|183241531|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.24||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Cognitive functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||0.24
91673921|NCT02654587|183241531|SUPERIORITY|QLQ-C30 Social functioning|P Value|0.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91673922|NCT02654587|183241532|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.06||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Fatigue in ICI secondary resistance||||0.06
91673923|NCT02654587|183241532|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.0003||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Constipation in ICI secondary resistance||||0.0003
91673924|NCT02654587|183241532|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.8||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Dyspnea in ICI secondary resistance||||0.80
91673925|NCT02654587|183241532|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting in ICI secondary resistance||||0.21
91673926|NCT02654587|183241532|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.45||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Pain in ICI secondary resistance||||0.45
91673927|NCT02654587|183241532|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.87||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Insomnia in ICI secondary resistance||||0.87
91673928|NCT02654587|183241532|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.59||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Appetite loss in ICI secondary resistance||||0.59
91673929|NCT02654587|183241532|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.88||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Diarrhea in ICI secondary resistance||||0.88
91673930|NCT02654587|183241532|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.37||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Financial difficulties in ICI secondary resistance||||0.37
91673931|NCT02654587|183241533|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.0001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Alopecia in ICI secondary resistance||||<0.0001
91673932|NCT02654587|183241533|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC 13 Peripheral neuropathy in ICI secondary resistance||||0.03
91673933|NCT02654587|183241533|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Sore mouth in ICI secondary resistance||||0.01
91673934|NCT02654587|183241533|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Dysphagia in ICI secondary resistance||||0.01
91673935|NCT02654587|183241533|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.35||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Pain in arm and shoulder||||0.35
91673936|NCT02654587|183241533|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||QLQ-LC13 Pain in chest in ICI secondary resistance||||0.43
91673937|NCT02654587|183241533|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.78||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Pain in other parts||||0.78
91673938|NCT02654587|183241533|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.23||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC 13 Hemoptysis in ICI secondary resistance||||0.23
91673939|NCT02654587|183241533|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.54||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Coughing in ICI secondary resistance||||0.54
91794414|NCT02043379|183467870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.83||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours post-operative||||0.83
91864595|NCT00429364|183618497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
91673940|NCT02654587|183241534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.75|||Mantel Haenszel|||DCR at 6 months in patients with ICI secondary resistance||2.75|0.43|0.87
91673941|NCT02654587|183241534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.46|||Mantel Haenszel|||DCR at 6 months in ITT patients with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||1.46|0.36|0.37
91673942|NCT02654587|183241535|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Median PFS in patients with ICI secondary resistance||2.0|0.82|0.29
91673943|NCT02654587|183241535|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Median PFS in ITT patients with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||2.28|1.18|<0.05
91673944|NCT02654587|183241536|SUPERIORITY|ORR in ICI secondary resistance|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.11|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.11|0.10|0.07
91673945|NCT02654587|183241536|SUPERIORITY|ORR in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.59|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.59|0.08|0.002
91673946|NCT02654587|183241537|SUPERIORITY|Duration of response at 6 months in ICI secondary resistance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|5.3|||Regression, Cox|||||5.30|0.25|0.88
91673947|NCT02654587|183241537|SUPERIORITY|Duration of Response at 6 months in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.6|||Regression, Cox|||||4.60|0.43|0.57
91673948|NCT02654587|183241538|SUPERIORITY|Time to next lung cancer therapy in ICI secondary resistance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.31|||Regression, Cox|||||3.31|1.03|0.04
91673949|NCT02654587|183241538|SUPERIORITY|Time to next lung cancer therapy in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.36|||Regression, Cox|||||2.36|1.07|0.02
91673950|NCT02654587|183241539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.86|1.00|<0.05
91673951|NCT00904748|183241546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|98.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.03|105.82|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||105.82|92.03|
91673952|NCT00904748|183241546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|97.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.67|104.26|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||104.26|90.67|
91673953|NCT00904748|183241547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20%.|ratio between geometric means|80.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.38|90.26|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||90.26|72.38|
91673954|NCT00904748|183241547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20%.|ratio between geometric means|78.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.53|87.96|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||87.96|70.53|
91673955|NCT00904748|183241548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|99.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.76|105.93|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||105.93|92.76|
91673956|NCT00904748|183241548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|97.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.56|104.56|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||104.56|91.56|
91673957|NCT00904748|183241549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.5|||ANOVA|||Difference in Tmax between Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||0.50|-0.14|
91673958|NCT00904748|183241549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.28|||ANOVA|||Difference in Tmax between Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||0.28|-0.27|
91716646|NCT00526474|183325139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.85|0.009
91794415|NCT02043379|183467871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.27||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour levels||||0.27
91902850|NCT00129623|183700300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|19.42||||||Proximal femur BMD: The adjusted treatment effect and 95% C.I. were represented by presenting OR. These were estimated by fitting a logistic regression model, with responder outcome (responder/non-responder) as the dependent variable and the treatment group (oral IBN 150 mg once monthly/Placebo) and time since menopause as the independent variables. An OR of \>1 indicated participants treated with IBN were more likely to have BMD above or equal to baseline relative to those treated with placebo.||19.42|3.80|
91673959|NCT01682148|183241552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a responder rate (π) of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant delta (Δ) of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for treatment.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.0986
91673960|NCT01682148|183241552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.5682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for spasticity pattern.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.5682
91673961|NCT01682148|183241552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for country.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.8543
91673962|NCT01682148|183241552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for MAS at Baseline.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.9167
91673963|NCT01682148|183241552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.6052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for treatment.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.6052
91673964|NCT01682148|183241552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for spasticity pattern.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.5369
91794416|NCT02043379|183467871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.34||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour level||||0.34
91716647|NCT00526474|183325140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.94|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.94|0.78|0.002
91794417|NCT02043379|183467871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.14||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 hour level||||0.14
91673965|NCT01682148|183241552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for country.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.7732
91673966|NCT01682148|183241552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for MAS at Baseline.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.1758
91673967|NCT01682148|183241554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-0.1324||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3531|0.0884||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for treatment, spasticity pattern, country and MAS baseline score.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0884|-0.3531|0.2400
91673968|NCT01682148|183241555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) included factors for treatment, spasticity pattern and country, and Baseline VAS as a covariate.||Mean change in VAS from Baseline to Week 4.||||0.9448
91673969|NCT01682148|183241555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5458|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA included factors for treatment, spasticity pattern and country, and Baseline VAS as a covariate.||Mean change in VAS from Baseline to Week 12.||||0.5458
91673970|NCT01682148|183241556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4006|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA included factors for treatment, spasticity pattern and country.||||||0.4006
91673971|NCT01682148|183241557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5747|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||||||0.5747
91673972|NCT01682148|183241558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1802|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||||||0.1802
91673973|NCT04844021|183241581|OTHER|We used a multiple hypothesis testing framework to evaluate the effectiveness of Nudge+ vs. Nudge, considering: 1) Nudge+ is more effective than Nudge by over 10 percentage points (PP); 2) Nudge+ is as effective as Nudge, with a difference of no greater than 10 PP in either direction; and 3) Nudge+ is less effective than Nudge by over 10 PP. The 10 PP margin was selected based on discussions with health system leaders and previous studies to ensure the differences were clinically meaningful.|Marginal probability|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.31||If the 95% confidence interval for the risk difference did not contain any values within a region (Nudge+ superior, equivalence, Nudge+ inferior), that region could be rejected.||||The primary analysis involved fitting generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a binomial distribution and logit link to estimate reach (primary endpoint) for Nudge and Nudge+ along with the risk difference between conditions.||0.31|0.13|
91673974|NCT04844021|183241581|OTHER|We used a multiple hypothesis testing framework to evaluate the effectiveness of Nudge+ vs. Nudge, considering: 1) Nudge+ is more effective than Nudge by over 10 percentage points (PP); 2) Nudge+ is as effective as Nudge, with a difference of no greater than 10 PP in either direction; and 3) Nudge+ is less effective than Nudge by over 10 PP. The 10 PP margin was selected based on discussions with health system leaders and previous studies to ensure the differences were clinically meaningful.|Marginal probability|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.61||If the 95% confidence interval for the risk difference did not contain any values within a region (Nudge+ superior, equivalence, Nudge+ inferior), that region could be rejected.||||The primary analysis involved fitting generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a binomial distribution and logit link to estimate reach (primary endpoint) for Nudge and Nudge+ along with the risk difference between conditions.||0.61|0.37|
91673975|NCT01103479|183241590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.65||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.38||Random effects model adjusting for clustering by clinic|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.38|0.62|0.32
91673976|NCT01103479|183241591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.2||Linear model adjusting for stratification by clinic and participant age|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|0.53|0.28
91673977|NCT01103479|183241592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.43||Random effects model adjusted for clustering by clinic|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.43|0.60|0.42
91673978|NCT01103479|183241593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18||Linear model adjusting for stratification by clinic and participant age|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|0.94|0.38
91673979|NCT01298778|183241594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||acute pain scores with movement at 24 hours||||0.05
91673980|NCT02377921|183241602|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.74||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.09||Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model includes change from Baseline (BL) as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and BL values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||3.09|-1.61|0.5387
91673981|NCT02377921|183241603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.58||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||1.58|-2.38|0.6938
91673982|NCT02377921|183241604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49||||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|2.86||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||2.86|-5.83|0.5023
91673983|NCT02377921|183241605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.2739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.57||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||0.57|-2.01|0.2739
91716648|NCT00526474|183325141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.81|<0.001
91716649|NCT00526474|183325142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.96|0.86|0.001
91716650|NCT00526474|183325143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.85|<0.001
91716651|NCT00526474|183325144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.04|0.76|0.151
91716652|NCT00526474|183325145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.74|0.001
91716653|NCT00526474|183325146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.03|0.75|0.108
91716654|NCT00526474|183325147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.14|0.83|0.733
91716655|NCT00526474|183325148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression||Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.07|0.85|0.411
91716656|NCT00526474|183325149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.74|0.001
91716657|NCT00526474|183325150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.83|<0.001
91716658|NCT00526474|183325151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.90|0.76|<0.001
91716659|NCT00526474|183325152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.89|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.89|0.73|<0.001
91716660|NCT00526474|183325153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.71|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.71|1.23|<0.001
91861279|NCT05093829|183609596|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup Y if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.4||||||For serogroup Y, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||-0.4|-5.4|
91794418|NCT02043379|183467871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.13||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour level||||0.13
91864596|NCT00429364|183618498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
91673984|NCT02377921|183241606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.76||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|0.75||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||0.75|-6.27|0.1235
91673985|NCT02377921|183241607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.55||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||0.55|-1.40|0.3907
91794419|NCT02043379|183467871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.02||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour level||||0.02
91673986|NCT02377921|183241608|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.98||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.64|5.68||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||5.68|-27.64|0.1964
91673987|NCT02377921|183241609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|0.86||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER - placebo|||0.86|-3.66|0.2241
91673988|NCT02377921|183241610|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.5608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.75||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||0.75|-1.39|0.5608
91673989|NCT02443545|183241612|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in LIC was significantly different from 0.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 1 year of deferiprone therapy||||0.0000
91673990|NCT02443545|183241612|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in LIC was significantly different from 0.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 2 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0000
91673991|NCT02443545|183241612|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in LIC was significantly different from 0.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 3 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0000
91673992|NCT02443545|183241613|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in MRI T2\* was significantly different from 0.||||||0.3146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 1 year of deferiprone therapy||||0.3146
91673993|NCT02443545|183241613|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in MRI T2\* was significantly different from 0.||||||0.9454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 2 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.9454
91673994|NCT02443545|183241613|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in MRI 2\* was significantly different from 0.||||||0.4336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 3 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.4336
91673995|NCT02443545|183241614|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in serum ferritin was significantly different from 0||||||0.9952|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 1 year of deferiprone therapy||||0.9952
91864597|NCT00429364|183618499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91673996|NCT02443545|183241614|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in serum ferritin was significantly different from 0||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 2 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0008
91673997|NCT02443545|183241614|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in serum ferritin was significantly different from 0||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 3 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0420
91673998|NCT02139124|183241620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.6||The model includes terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||"The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo."||2.6|-6.6|0.6750
91673999|NCT02139124|183241620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.2||The model includes terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo||-2.2|-11.5|0.0013
91674000|NCT02139124|183241620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.7||The model includes terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||"The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo"||2.7|-6.8|0.6720
91674001|NCT02139124|183241620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.2||The model include terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||"The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo"||-3.2|-12.9|0.0002
91674002|NCT03821272|183241634|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.45||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.77|||Fisher Exact|||||0.77|0.17|0.31
91674003|NCT03821272|183241635|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.99|||Fisher Exact|||||0.99|0.28|0.31
91674004|NCT03821272|183241636|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.56||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.86|||Fisher Exact|||||0.86|0.21|0.58
91674005|NCT03821272|183241637|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.99|||Fisher Exact|||||0.99|0.28|0.58
91674006|NCT05626803|183241650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91674007|NCT05626803|183241650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91674008|NCT05626803|183241650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0003
91674009|NCT05626803|183241652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91674010|NCT05626803|183241652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91674011|NCT05626803|183241652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91674012|NCT05626803|183241654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91674013|NCT05626803|183241654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91674014|NCT05626803|183241654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0017
91674015|NCT05626803|183241656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91864598|NCT00429364|183618500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91674016|NCT05626803|183241656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91674017|NCT05626803|183241656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91674018|NCT05626803|183241658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0059
91674019|NCT05626803|183241658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0020
91674020|NCT05626803|183241658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1899|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.1899
91674021|NCT05626803|183241660|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91674022|NCT05626803|183241660|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91674023|NCT05626803|183241660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0020
91674024|NCT02516410|183241702|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.2|||=|0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.6|||Mixed-effect repeated measure (MMRM)|||||2.6|-0.3|= 0.1176
91674025|NCT04146363|183241718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|37.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.8|21.6|<0.000001
91674026|NCT04146363|183241719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.0|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.3|50.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.6|33.3|<0.000001
91674027|NCT04146363|183241720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.218644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.0|-0.6|0.218644
91674028|NCT04146363|183241721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.000498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.6|5.7|0.000498
91674029|NCT04146363|183241722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.4|22.1|<0.000001
91864599|NCT00429364|183618501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
91674030|NCT04146363|183241723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.3|21.3|<0.000001
91674031|NCT04146363|183241724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.915|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-22.7|||ANCOVA|||||-22.7|-38.1|<0.000001
91674032|NCT04146363|183241725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.9|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|41.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.3|24.6|<0.000001
91674033|NCT04146363|183241726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.1|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|43.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.9|26.3|<0.000001
91674034|NCT04146363|183241727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.151|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-30.2|||ANCOVA|||||-30.2|-46.4|<0.000001
91674035|NCT04146363|183241728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.5|-22.4|<0.000001
91674036|NCT04146363|183241729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.000412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.2|6.2|0.000412
91674037|NCT04146363|183241730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||||-4.5|-7.1|<0.000001
91674038|NCT04146363|183241731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|49.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.3|28.3|<0.000001
91674039|NCT04146363|183241732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|52.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.3|31.2|<0.000001
91674040|NCT04146363|183241733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-22.1|||ANCOVA|||||-22.1|-42.6|<0.000001
91674041|NCT04146363|183241734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-0.9|<0.000001
91674042|NCT04146363|183241735|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.6|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|43.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.0|26.2|<0.000001
91674043|NCT04146363|183241736|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.275529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.9|-0.8|0.275529
91674044|NCT04146363|183241737|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.016656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.6|1.9|0.016656
91674045|NCT04146363|183241738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3||||3e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|13.7|0.000003
91674046|NCT04146363|183241739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.244105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.3|-0.8|0.244105
91674047|NCT04146363|183241740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.01445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.4|2.2|0.014450
91674048|NCT04146363|183241741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.9||||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.9|14.9|0.000002
91674049|NCT04146363|183241742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.203|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.59|-24.0|||ANCOVA|||||-24.00|-36.59|<0.000001
91674050|NCT04146363|183241744|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.072375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.1|-2.3|0.072375
91674051|NCT04146363|183241744|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.106653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|39.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.5|-4.5|0.106653
91674052|NCT04146363|183241745|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.0||||0.029857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.2|2.8|0.029857
91674053|NCT04146363|183241745|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0||||0.019744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.3|4.6|0.019744
91674054|NCT04146363|183241746|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8||||0.268265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.8|-12.2|0.268265
91674055|NCT04146363|183241746|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6||||0.192776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|42.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.7|-9.4|0.192776
91674056|NCT04146363|183241747|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.185361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.6|-9.3|0.185361
91674057|NCT04146363|183241747|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6||||0.192776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|42.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.7|-9.4|0.192776
91674058|NCT04146363|183241748|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.756||0.714208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|7.66|||ANCOVA|||||7.66|-11.15|0.714208
91674059|NCT04146363|183241748|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4748||0.237855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|3.76|||ANCOVA|||||3.76|-15.01|0.237855
91674060|NCT04146363|183241749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.2|0.1|<0.000001
91674061|NCT04146363|183241749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||US||0.1|0.1|<0.000001
91674062|NCT04146363|183241750|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|5.0|<0.000001
91674063|NCT04146363|183241751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-8.9|<0.000001
91674064|NCT04146363|183241752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.917||0.716224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.80|-6.93|0.716224
91674065|NCT04146363|183241753|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.599||0.089275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|0.72|||ANCOVA|||||0.72|-9.73|0.089275
91674066|NCT04146363|183241754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.796||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-4.88|0.000040
91674067|NCT04146363|183241755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.000127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.33|||ANCOVA|||||-1.33|-4.07|0.000127
91674068|NCT04146363|183241756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.455291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.33|0.455291
91674069|NCT04146363|183241757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||6.9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-10.1|0.000069
91674070|NCT00107042|183241760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2954|||||||Fisher Exact|||The study wasn't powered to compare the 2 arms but to detect a large difference. A quantitative antibody (a'body) response was measured, but for sample size and power considerations, the outcome was considered to be binary. The primary analysis involved straightforward computation of point estimates and exact confidence intervals of immunogenicity in each arm. The data for primary analysis used the Intent-to-Treat for subjects who were vaccinated at least once. Missing titers were not imputed.||||0.2954
91674071|NCT00107042|183241760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|87.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.26|95.17|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the Recombivax arm is presented here."||95.17|74.26|
91674072|NCT00107042|183241760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|94.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.88|98.86|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the 'Twinrix arm is presented here."||98.86|84.88|
91674073|NCT00107042|183241761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis included an assessment of quantitative titer values in each of the two arms using confidence intervals and examining the frequency distributions of the titers in each arm. Transformations were considered (log10) for the titers based on the distributional properties observed in the sample, with the goal of attaining approximate normality of the transformed data.||||0.0608
91674074|NCT00107042|183241761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean response|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.53|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the Recombivax arm is presented here."||2.53|2.05|
91674075|NCT00107042|183241761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.76|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the Twinrix arm is presented here."||2.76|2.40|
91674076|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1757||0.1667|||||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of treatment arm (Recombivax vs. Twinrix) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.1667
91674077|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficent|-0.0025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1792||0.989||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of site effect(Other sites vs. Baltimore) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.9890
91674078|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coeffcient|0.2053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1885||0.2796||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of age(15 - 17 year old particpants vs. 12 - 14 year old participants) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.2796
91674079|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regresssion coeffcient|-0.4726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1734||0.008||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of gender(Females vs. Males) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0080
91674080|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1905||0.2543||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Hispanic ethnicity (Not Hispanic vs. Hispanic) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.2543
91794420|NCT02043379|183467872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||1
91674081|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3292||0.3661||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of racial background(White vs. Other/Mixed vs. Black/African American) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between White vs. Other/Mixed Race is presented.||||0.3661
91674082|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3497||0.9812||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of racial background(White vs. Other/Mixed vs. Black/African American) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between White vs. Black/African American is presented.||||0.9812
91674083|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2314||0.7766||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Tanner Stage for Females(Stage 5 vs. Stages 1 - 4) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.7766
91674084|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.2929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2508||0.2492||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Tanner Stage for Males(Stage 5 vs. Stages 1 - 4) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.2492
91674085|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coeffcient|-0.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1826||0.0877||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of BMI at Baseline(Normal and Underweight (\<25.0) vs. Overweight and Obsese (\>= 25.0)) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0877
91674086|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0113||0.0117||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of BMI at Baseline(continuous variable) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers.||||0.0117
91674087|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2163||0.7899||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of smokng cigarettes(Never Smoked vs. Has Smoked) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.7899
91674088|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.5339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2803||0.0607||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of sexual identity(Straight (heterosexual) vs. Gay (homosexual), Bi (bisexual), and Not Sure or Undecided) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0607
91674089|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.3883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2779||0.167||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of age at which the subject first had unforced sex (Never vs. \<= 14 year olds vs. 15-17 year olds) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between never vs. \<= 14 year olds is presented."||||0.1670
91674090|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2065||0.8682||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of age at which subject had first unforced sex (Never vs. \<= 14 year olds vs. 15 - 17 year olds) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between never vs. 15-17 year olds is presented."||||0.8682
91674091|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.1532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1896||0.4219||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of total number of lifetime sex partners (0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. 1-5 partners is presented.||||0.4219
91674092|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.7752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.002||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. \>= 6 partners is presented.||||0.0020
91674093|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2086||0.1659||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Male Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. 1-5 partners is presented.||||0.1659
91674094|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-1.6163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2839||0||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Male Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. \>= 6 partners is presented.||||0.0000
91674095|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.1788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2463||0.4701||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Female Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. 1-5 partners is presented.||||0.4701
91674096|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.1083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3488||0.7572||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Female Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. \>= 6 partners is presented.||||0.7572
91794421|NCT02043379|183467873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.4||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
91674097|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1809||0.8657||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of whether a subject ever drank alcohol (No vs. Yes) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.8657
91674098|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.3548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2076||0.0917||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of whether a subject ever smoked marijuana(No vs. Yes) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0917
91674099|NCT00107042|183241764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.3474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3924||0.3788||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of whether a subject ever used drugs not prescribed(No vs. Yes) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.3788
91674100|NCT00107042|183241765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.76|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Recombivax' group.|||10.76|0.60|0.2068
91674101|NCT00107042|183241766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.5524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.01|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Other Sites' group.|||6.01|0.38|0.5524
91674102|NCT00107042|183241767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|9.36|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the '15-17 year' age group|||9.36|0.36|0.4646
91674103|NCT00107042|183241768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.3|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Female' group.|||2.30|0.09|0.3390
91674104|NCT00107042|183241769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.86||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|29.78|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Hispanic: NO' group.|||29.78|1.58|0.0102
91674105|NCT00107042|183241769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.38||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|34.95||Since Hispanic (no, yes) was a factor with a p-value of \< 0.15 in the unadjusted univariate regression analysis, it was entered into the initial full multivariate model.|Multivariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Hispanic: NO group."|||34.95|1.56|0.0118
91674106|NCT00107042|183241770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.4241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.84|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'White' group.|||3.84|0.04|0.4241
91674107|NCT00107042|183241770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|50.76|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'White' group.|||50.76|0.34|0.2685
91674108|NCT00107042|183241771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|15.44|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Stage 5' group.|||15.44|0.05|0.9390
91674109|NCT00107042|183241772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.39|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Stage 5 group."|||7.39|0.30|0.6181
91674110|NCT00107042|183241773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.1943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Normal and Underweight (\<25.0) group."|||1.60|0.10|0.1943
91674111|NCT00107042|183241774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.86|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever smoked cigarettes: NO group."|||1.86|0.10|0.2542
91674112|NCT00107042|183241775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.14||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.69|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Straight (heterosexual) group."|||0.69|0.03|0.0161
91674113|NCT00107042|183241775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.74||Since sexual identity was a factor with a p-value of \< 0.15 in the unadjusted univariate regression analysis, it was entered into the initial full multivariate model.|Multivariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Straight (heterosexual) group."|||0.74|0.02|0.0222
91674114|NCT00107042|183241776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|11.83|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Never (had sex)group."|||11.83|0.12|0.8945
91674115|NCT00107042|183241776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.7|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Never (had sex) group."|||0.70|0.02|0.0190
91674116|NCT00107042|183241777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.48|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the 0 partners group"|||0.48|0.01|0.0042
91674117|NCT00107042|183241777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.6893||95.0|||||Univariate regression, Logistic||"The reference group is the 0 partners group.~Two sided 95% confidence interval: Lower Limit = 0.17; upper limit = infinity"|||||0.6893
91674118|NCT00107042|183241778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.015||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.19|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is hte 0 Partners group."|||0.19|0.00|0.0003
91674119|NCT00107042|183241778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.01|||Univariate regression, Logistic||"The reference group is the 0 Partners group"|||10.01|0.00|1.0000
91674120|NCT00107042|183241779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.5503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.86|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the 0 Partners group"|||4.86|0.05|0.5503
91674121|NCT00107042|183241779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|10.46|||Univariate Regression, Logistic||"The reference group is the 0 Partners group."|||10.46|0.13|0.8904
91674122|NCT00107042|183241780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.92|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever drank alcohol: NO group."|||1.92|0.12|0.3010
91674123|NCT00107042|183241781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.0|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever smoked marijuana: NO group."|||1.00|0.06|0.0501
91674124|NCT00107042|183241782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.61|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever used drugs not prescribed: NO group."|||3.61|0.04|0.3846
91674125|NCT00107042|183241783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3827||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3827
91674126|NCT00107042|183241783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate|81.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.84|92.04|||||Response rate=Total number subjects responded/Total number subjects in arm|||92.04|68.84|
91674127|NCT00107042|183241783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.69|95.47|||||Response rate=Total number subjects responded/Total number subjects in arm|||95.47|75.69|
91674128|NCT00107042|183241784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding rate|98.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.74|99.95||A p-value has not been entered because there is only one study arm in this analysis.|Exact 95% CI|||||99.95|89.74|
91674129|NCT00107042|183241785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate|91.49||||||95.0|79.62|97.63||A p-value has not been entered because there is only one study arm in this analysis.|Exact 95 % confidence interval|||||97.63|79.62|
91674130|NCT00107042|183241786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate %|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.93|99.95||A p-value has not been entered because there is only one study arm in this analysis.|Exact 95% confidence interval||"For overall response, if a subject is reactive at either 1-month or 12-month, then the overall response is considered Positive. If a subject is non-reactive at both 1-month and 12-month, then the overall response for this subject is Negative."|||99.95|89.93|
91674131|NCT00107042|183241787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2938||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2938
91674132|NCT00107042|183241787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate %|85.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.83|94.43|||95 % confidence interval|||||94.43|70.83|
91674133|NCT00107042|183241787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate %|93.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.46|98.66|||95% confidence interval|||||98.66|82.46|
91674134|NCT01286558|183241813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||||95.0|-0.22|3.14|||ANCOVA|||||3.14|-0.22|
91674135|NCT01286558|183241814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||||95.0|-0.36|4.64|||ANCOVA|||||4.64|-0.36|
91674136|NCT01286558|183241815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||||95.0|-2.58|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-2.58|
91674137|NCT01286558|183241816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||||95.0|-4.16|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-4.16|
91794422|NCT02043379|183467874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.09||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0-48 hours post-CPB||||0.09
91674138|NCT01286558|183241817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||||95.0|-2.57|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-2.57|
91674139|NCT01286558|183241818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||||95.0|-4.27|0.99|||ANCOVA|||||0.99|-4.27|
91674140|NCT01287039|183241837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.501|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3726|0.6737||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.6737|0.3726|<0.0001
91674141|NCT01287039|183241838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.198|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||For each week and overall change, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment and sex as fixed factors, and covariates for height and baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.198|0.076|<0.0001
91674142|NCT01287039|183241839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0967||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.428|||Mixed model repeated measures|||For each week and overall change, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment and sex as fixed factors, and covariates for height and baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.428|0.048|0.0143
91674143|NCT01287039|183241840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0681||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|-0.132|||Mixed model repeated measures|||For each week and overall change, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment and sex as fixed factors, and covariates for height and baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||-0.132|-0.399|0.0001
91674144|NCT01287039|183241841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.575|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline usage of oral corticosteroid (yes or no) and geographical region (US or other).|Reslizumab vs placebo|Kaplan-Meier estimate of probability (5) of not experiencing a CAE by week 52. The first CAEs for each patient occurring after randomization and up to 2 weeks after the end of treatment period were analyzed. Patients without a CAE within this time frame were censored at two weeks after the treatment completion date or study discontinuation, whichever came first.||0.750|0.440|<0.0001
91674145|NCT01287039|183241842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.083|||Mixed model repeated measures|||For each week, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment as fixed factor, and covariate baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.083|0.034|<0.0001
91674146|NCT01287039|183241843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1632||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597|0.045|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, OCS use at enrollment as fixed factors, and covariate for baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.045|-0.597|0.0919
91674147|NCT01287039|183241844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|-0.418|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"Eosinophil Count Over 16 Weeks~Inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment as fixed factor, and covariate baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures."||-0.418|-0.514|<0.0001
91861280|NCT05093829|183609596|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup Y if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.8||||||For serogroup Y, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||4.8|-0.6|
91861281|NCT05093829|183609597|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). The CI is estimated using bootstrap resampling stratified by vaccine arm, and the 95% CI is estimated as the interval between the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the bootstrap empirical distribution. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7||||||For the 9-months study age group, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT in serogroup W is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 in serogroup X to determine the difference in proportions.||4.7|0.3|
91861282|NCT05093829|183609597|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). The CI is estimated using bootstrap resampling stratified by vaccine arm, and the 95% CI is estimated as the interval between the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the bootstrap empirical distribution. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|4.4||||||For the 15-months study age group, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT in serogroup Y is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 in serogroup X to determine the difference in proportions.||4.4|0.004|
91674148|NCT01287039|183241844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0182|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.491|-0.419|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"Eosinophil Count Over 52 Weeks~Inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment as fixed factor, and covariate baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures."||-0.419|-0.491|<0.0001
91674149|NCT01287039|183241846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.4499|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3255|0.622||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Requiring Systemic Corticosteroids The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.6220|0.3255|<0.0001
91674150|NCT01287039|183241846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.6595||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.355||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Hospitalization or ER visit The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||1.3550|0.3210|0.2572
91861283|NCT05093829|183609601|SUPERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed superior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes 0.30 (30%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.4|87.2||||||For serogroup X, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||87.2|76.4|
91864600|NCT00429364|183618502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Regression model adjusted for age at study visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
91864601|NCT00429364|183618503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
91864602|NCT00429364|183618504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91674151|NCT01117337|183241852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
91674152|NCT01117337|183241853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
91674153|NCT03575871|183241854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|29.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.0|9.6|0.0008
91674154|NCT03575871|183241854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|38.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.8|18.6|<0.0001
91674155|NCT03575871|183241855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|44.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.4|23.3|<0.0001
91674156|NCT03575871|183241855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|50.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|60.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||60.9|40.0|<0.0001
91674157|NCT03575871|183241856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|27.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.4|11.0|0.0002
91674158|NCT03575871|183241856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|40.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.2|22.3|<0.0001
91674159|NCT03575871|183241856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|36.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.2|18.9|<0.0001
91674160|NCT03575871|183241856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|55.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.7|37.2|<0.0001
91674161|NCT03575871|183241856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|38.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.0|16.8|<0.0001
91674162|NCT03575871|183241856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|50.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.6|28.9|<0.0001
91864603|NCT00429364|183618505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.65
91674163|NCT03575871|183241856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|39.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.6|18.9|<0.0001
91674164|NCT03575871|183241856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|38.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|49.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.1|28.1|<0.0001
91674165|NCT03575871|183241857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.3|<0.0001
91674166|NCT03575871|183241857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.6|-2.8|<0.0001
91674167|NCT03575871|183241859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||14.9|2.8|0.0150
91674168|NCT03575871|183241859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|30.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.3|15.0|<0.0001
91674169|NCT03575871|183241859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|29.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.0|10.9|0.0004
91674170|NCT03575871|183241859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|44.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|53.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.8|34.8|<0.0001
91674171|NCT03575871|183241859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|41.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||41.2|19.7|<0.0001
91674172|NCT03575871|183241859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|58.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.0|36.8|<0.0001
91794423|NCT02043379|183467874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.52||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0-24 hours post CPB||||0.52
91864604|NCT00429364|183618506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91716661|NCT00526474|183325154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.54|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.54|1.31|<0.001
91794424|NCT02043379|183467875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.72||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91864605|NCT00429364|183618507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
91864606|NCT00429364|183618508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
91864607|NCT00429364|183618509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
91864608|NCT00429364|183618510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91793120|NCT02032823|183463948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||7.3e-06|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.409|0.816||A multiple testing procedure is employed across the primary and all key secondary endpoints to strongly control overall type I error at 5% (2 sided) accounting for all analysis timepoints.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by chemotherapy type, hormone receptor status, and prior platinum therapy using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's Proportional Hazards Model, \<1 indicates a lower risk with olaparib compared with placebo arm. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.816|0.409|0.0000073
91861284|NCT05093829|183609601|SUPERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed superior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes 0.30 (30%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|68.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|74.7||||||For serogroup X, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||74.7|61.3|
91861285|NCT05093829|183609602|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to measles if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.0|-1.0|
91864609|NCT00429364|183618512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
91674173|NCT03575871|183241860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.1||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|10.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.0|0.2|0.0459
91674174|NCT03575871|183241860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|20.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.5|7.8|0.0005
91674175|NCT03575871|183241860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.9||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|19.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.4|6.3|0.0019
91674176|NCT03575871|183241860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|39.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.9|23.6|<0.0001
91861286|NCT05093829|183609602|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to measles if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.1|-1.0|
91861287|NCT05093829|183609603|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to rubella if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.6||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.6|-10.5|
91861288|NCT05093829|183609603|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to rubella if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.1|-1.0|
91674177|NCT03575871|183241860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.9||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|21.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.4|2.4|0.0246
91793121|NCT02032823|183463949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||2.57e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.392|0.831||A multiple testing procedure is employed across the primary and all key secondary endpoints to strongly control overall type I error at 5% (2 sided) accounting for all analysis timepoints.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by chemotherapy type, hormone receptor status, and prior platinum therapy using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's Proportional Hazards Model, \<1 indicates a lower risk with olaparib compared with placebo arm. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.831|0.392|0.0000257
91861289|NCT05093829|183609604|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered yellow fever vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered yellow fever vaccine in eliciting seroprotective response to yellow fever if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.6||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to yellow fever vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to yellow fever vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||0.6|-4.2|
91861290|NCT05093829|183609605|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.3|0.8|
91864610|NCT00429364|183618514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.13
91674178|NCT03575871|183241860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|36.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.9|17.0|<0.0001
91674179|NCT03575871|183241861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7||P-value was not estimable since there were no events.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.7|-3.7|
91864611|NCT00429364|183618516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.32
91864612|NCT00429364|183618518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.10
91674180|NCT03575871|183241861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.1|-2.2|0.2262
91674181|NCT03575871|183241861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.1|-2.2|0.2223
91674182|NCT03575871|183241861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.5||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.2|-0.2|0.0597
91861291|NCT05093829|183609605|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.6|1.0|
91861292|NCT05093829|183609605|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||0.6|0.4|
91674183|NCT03575871|183241861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.2|-2.7|0.3207
91674184|NCT03575871|183241861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.5||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.2|-0.2|0.0586
91861293|NCT05093829|183609605|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||0.5|0.3|
91674185|NCT03575871|183241861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.1|0.3|0.0419
91861294|NCT05093829|183609605|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.3|0.6|
91794425|NCT02043379|183467876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.63||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91861295|NCT05093829|183609605|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.1|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||2.1|1.1|
91861296|NCT05093829|183609605|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.0|0.6|
91861297|NCT05093829|183609605|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.3|0.8|
91674186|NCT03575871|183241861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.3||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|11.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.4|1.2|0.0244
91861298|NCT05093829|183609605|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1511.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1169.5|1952.4|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1952.4|1169.5|
91861299|NCT05093829|183609605|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|767.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|553.2|1064.4|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1064.4|553.2|
91861300|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2756.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1976.3|3844.5|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3844.5|1976.3|
91861301|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2506.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1404.0|4476.1|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||4476.1|1404.0|
91674187|NCT03575871|183241862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|35.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.2|14.8|<0.0001
91793122|NCT02032823|183463950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.678||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.468|0.973||A multiple testing procedure is employed across the primary and all key secondary endpoints to strongly control overall type I error at 5% (2 sided) accounting for all analysis timepoints.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by chemotherapy type, hormone receptor status, and prior platinum therapy using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's Proportional Hazards Model, \<1 indicates a lower risk with olaparib compared with placebo arm. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.973|0.468|0.0091
91793123|NCT02411448|183463987|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.591|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.760|0.461|<0.0001
91793124|NCT02411448|183463989|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.303|||Log Rank|||||1.303|0.532|0.4209
91793125|NCT02411448|183463990|OTHER|||||||0.7413|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7413
91793126|NCT02411448|183463991|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
91793127|NCT02411448|183463992|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|0.805|||Log Rank|||||0.805|0.477|0.0003
91861302|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1179.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|709.8|1958.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1958.6|709.8|
91861303|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1096.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|513.4|2340.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2340.6|513.4|
91861304|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|288.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.6|392.0|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||392.0|212.6|
91674188|NCT03575871|183241862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|54.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||54.6|33.9|<0.0001
91674189|NCT03575871|183241862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|42.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.8|17.5|<0.0001
91674190|NCT03575871|183241862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|61.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.7|37.8|<0.0001
91674191|NCT03575871|183241862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|44.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.3|18.8|<0.0001
91674192|NCT03575871|183241862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|47.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|59.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||59.6|35.7|<0.0001
91674193|NCT03575871|183241862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|48.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|60.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||60.1|37.2|<0.0001
91674194|NCT03575871|183241862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|71.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||71.0|49.1|<0.0001
91674195|NCT03575871|183241863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|2.5||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.8|-1.7|0.1623
91674196|NCT03575871|183241863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|14.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||14.7|3.4|0.0070
91674197|NCT03575871|183241863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.7||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|15.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||15.4|4.0|0.0049
91716662|NCT00526474|183325155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.79|<0.001
91716663|NCT00526474|183325156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.75|<0.001
91674198|NCT03575871|183241863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|30.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.2|15.5|<0.0001
91674199|NCT03575871|183241863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.6||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|22.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.0|7.2|0.0013
91674200|NCT03575871|183241863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|40.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.1|23.1|<0.0001
91674201|NCT03575871|183241863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|28.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.3|11.9|0.0001
91674202|NCT03575871|183241863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.5|24.6|<0.0001
91674203|NCT03575871|183241864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.7|-3.7|
91674204|NCT03575871|183241864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.3|-2.8|0.3261
91674205|NCT03575871|183241864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.3|-2.7|0.3207
91674206|NCT03575871|183241864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.9||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.5|-0.8|0.0810
91674207|NCT03575871|183241864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.2|-2.7|0.3207
91674208|NCT03575871|183241864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.8||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.4|-0.7|0.0810
91674209|NCT03575871|183241864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.1|0.3|0.0419
91674210|NCT03575871|183241864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.2|1.8|0.0180
91674211|NCT03575871|183241865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-22.3|-38.1|<0.0001
91674212|NCT03575871|183241865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-34.4|-50.3|<0.0001
91674213|NCT03575871|183241865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-21.7|-38.1|<0.0001
91674214|NCT03575871|183241865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8|-36.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-36.3|-52.8|<0.0001
91674215|NCT03575871|183241865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.7|-36.2|<0.0001
91674216|NCT03575871|183241865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-40.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-30.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-30.4|-50.0|<0.0001
91674217|NCT03575871|183241865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-19.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-19.7|-43.1|<0.0001
91674218|NCT03575871|183241865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-44.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-33.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-33.0|-56.4|<0.0001
91674219|NCT03575871|183241866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-17.5|-35.5|<0.0001
91674220|NCT03575871|183241866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-34.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-25.1|-43.1|<0.0001
91674221|NCT03575871|183241866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-20.4|-39.0|<0.0001
91674222|NCT03575871|183241866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-31.1|-49.8|<0.0001
91674223|NCT03575871|183241866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-21.2|-44.6|<0.0001
91674224|NCT03575871|183241866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-40.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-28.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-28.9|-52.2|<0.0001
91674225|NCT03575871|183241866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-39.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-27.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-27.4|-51.8|<0.0001
91674226|NCT03575871|183241866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-48.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4|-36.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-36.0|-60.4|<0.0001
91674227|NCT03575871|183241867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.0|-2.2|0.2353
91674228|NCT03575871|183241867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.8||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|10.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.8|0.8|0.0332
91674229|NCT03575871|183241867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.6|1.4|0.0227
91674230|NCT03575871|183241867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|23.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.5|10.1|0.0001
91674231|NCT03575871|183241867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|21.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.3|7.7|0.0008
91674232|NCT03575871|183241867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|33.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||33.4|18.1|<0.0001
91674233|NCT03575871|183241867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|26.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.5|10.5|0.0003
91674234|NCT03575871|183241867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|39.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.0|21.4|<0.0001
91674235|NCT03575871|183241868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.7||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|18.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.9|6.5|0.0011
91674236|NCT03575871|183241868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|40.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.6|24.6|<0.0001
91674237|NCT03575871|183241868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|38.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.2|18.5|<0.0001
91674238|NCT03575871|183241868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|62.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.5|43.2|<0.0001
91674239|NCT03575871|183241868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|39.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.0|17.0|<0.0001
91902851|NCT00129623|183700300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.17|36.79||||||Lumbar Spine and Proximal Femur BMD: The adjusted treatment effect and 95% C.I. were represented by presenting OR. These were estimated by fitting a logistic regression model, with responder outcome (responder/non-responder) as the dependent variable, and treatment group (oral IBN150 mg/Placebo) and time since menopause as the independent variables. An OR of \>1 indicated participants treated with IBN were more likely to have BMD above or equal to baseline relative to those treated with placebo.||36.79|5.17|
91902852|NCT00596934|183700303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in each collected parameter will be evaluated using a paired t-test. If data are skewed such as in triglyceride levels, nonparametric tests will be used. P\<0.05 will be considered significant. If a significant difference can be demonstrated between baseline and 1-year results, a large scale, placebo-controlled trial will be designed using the data obtained from this pilot study||||0.015
91902853|NCT00596934|183700304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91902854|NCT00596934|183700305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||||||p = 0.074|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.074
91902855|NCT00596934|183700306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91902856|NCT00596934|183700307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91902857|NCT00596934|183700308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
91902858|NCT00596934|183700309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||||||p-value = 0.195.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.195
91902859|NCT00596934|183700310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
91902860|NCT00744211|183700318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||p\<0.05; Pairwise tests of individual groups means were compared by adjusted probabilities (Bonferroni method).|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91902861|NCT00744211|183700319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Pairwise tests of individual groups means were compared by adjusted probabilities (Bonferroni method).|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91902862|NCT00744211|183700320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91902863|NCT00744211|183700321|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-square tests for differences between groups.||||||0.015||||||P-value is associated with the hematological/lymphatic adverse event.|Chi-squared|||||||0.015
91902864|NCT00038727|183700346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.81|0.87
91902865|NCT00038727|183700346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.79|0.95
91902866|NCT04178967|183700378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||4e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|14.2|0.000004
91902867|NCT04178967|183700379|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|42.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.2|24.4|<0.000001
91902868|NCT04178967|183700380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.308463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.7|-0.3|0.308463
91902869|NCT04178967|183700381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.001607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|12.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.0|4.1|0.001607
91902870|NCT04178967|183700382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||4e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|14.2|0.000004
91902871|NCT04178967|183700383|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.1|13.3|0.000008
91902872|NCT04178967|183700384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.53|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|-20.2|||ANCOVA|||||-20.2|-34.9|<0.000001
91902873|NCT04178967|183700385|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.3|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|36.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.5|20.0|<0.000001
91902874|NCT04178967|183700386|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.4|21.0|<0.000001
91902875|NCT04178967|183700387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.57|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-26.0|||ANCOVA|||||-26.0|-41.2|<0.000001
91902876|NCT04178967|183700388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.0|-20.3|<0.000001
91902877|NCT04178967|183700389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.022921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.4|1.4|0.022921
91902878|NCT04178967|183700390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||||-3.5|-6.3|<0.000001
91902879|NCT04178967|183700391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.9||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|43.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.6|22.2|0.000001
91902880|NCT04178967|183700392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.0||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.8|22.2|0.000001
91902881|NCT04178967|183700393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.09|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|-26.8|||ANCOVA|||||-26.8|-47.4|<0.000001
91902882|NCT04178967|183700394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-0.9|<0.000001
91902883|NCT04178967|183700395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.000571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.1|9.6|0.000571
91902884|NCT04178967|183700396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.469221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.2|-0.4|0.469221
91902885|NCT04178967|183700397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.113194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|-0.1|0.113194
91902886|NCT04178967|183700398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.2||||0.00023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.7|7.7|0.000230
91902887|NCT04178967|183700399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.46816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|-0.4|0.468160
91902888|NCT04178967|183700400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.11577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|-0.1|0.115770
91793189|NCT02616562|183464066|OTHER||Estimated Treatment difference|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.76||||||The primary analysis tested the estimated treatment difference in HV after 26 weeks of treatment between once-weekly somapacitan 0.04 mg/kg and daily dosing of norditropin 0.034 mg/kg. It was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, age group, sex, region and sex by age group interaction as factors and height at baseline as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||-1.76|-5.57|
91793190|NCT02616562|183464066|OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.32||||||The primary analysis tested the estimated treatment difference in HV after 26 weeks of treatment between once-weekly somapacitan 0.08 mg/kg and daily dosing of norditropin 0.034 mg/kg. It was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, age group, sex, region and sex by age group interaction as factors and height at baseline as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||1.32|-2.41|
91793191|NCT02616562|183464066|OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|3.56||||||The primary analysis tested the estimated treatment difference in HV after 26 weeks of treatment between once-weekly somapacitan 0.16 mg/kg and daily dosing of norditropin 0.034 mg/kg. It was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, age group, sex, region and sex by age group interaction as factors and height at baseline as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||3.56|-0.22|
91902889|NCT04178967|183700401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.000252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.1|8.2|0.000252
91793192|NCT04770779|183464085|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|17.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|27.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||27.2|8.0|0.0003
91902890|NCT04178967|183700402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.76|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.93|-24.59|||ANCOVA|||||-24.59|-36.93|<0.000001
91902891|NCT04178967|183700404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.238245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|35.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.1|-9.5|0.238245
91902892|NCT04178967|183700404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.612427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|27.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.3|-17.8|0.612427
91902893|NCT04178967|183700405|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.6||||0.033876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|62.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.5|2.6|0.033876
91902894|NCT04178967|183700405|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.407417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|44.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.3|-17.5|0.407417
91902895|NCT04178967|183700406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.159281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|52.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.0|-11.4|0.159281
91902896|NCT04178967|183700406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.4||||0.16495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.4|-10.6|0.164950
91902897|NCT04178967|183700407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7||||0.179704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|51.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.2|-12.2|0.179704
91902898|NCT04178967|183700407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.3||||0.08308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|55.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.1|-6.5|0.083080
91902899|NCT04178967|183700408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29||||0.176748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.46|2.87|||ANCOVA|||||2.87|-15.46|0.176748
91902900|NCT04178967|183700408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25||||0.183151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.48|2.99|||ANCOVA|||||2.99|-15.48|0.183151
91902901|NCT04178967|183700409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.1|0.1|0.000001
91902902|NCT04178967|183700409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||US||0.1|0.0|0.000001
91902903|NCT04178967|183700410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.005304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.6|||ANCOVA|||||7.6|1.3|0.005304
91902904|NCT04178967|183700411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-7.7|<0.000001
91902905|NCT04178967|183700412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91||||0.241275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|2.03|||ANCOVA|||||2.03|-7.85|0.241275
91902906|NCT04178967|183700413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.000116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.36|||ANCOVA|||||-1.36|-4.12|0.000116
91902907|NCT04178967|183700414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.645132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|3.67|||ANCOVA|||||3.67|-5.86|0.645132
91902908|NCT04178967|183700415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75||||3.1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.47|||ANCOVA|||||-1.47|-4.03|0.000031
91674240|NCT03575871|183241868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|57.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||57.1|35.2|<0.0001
91793193|NCT04770779|183464086|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|11.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|17.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||17.0|5.1|0.0003
91902909|NCT04178967|183700416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.974417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.27|0.974417
91902910|NCT04178967|183700417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.084769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-9.1|0.084769
91902911|NCT00628251|183700431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.56||If the observed p-value for the combined olaparib groups is \<0.02 (1-sided) then the result will be regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA (1 or 2) and platinum sensitivity (sensitive=1 or resistant/refractory=0).||Analysis of olaparib 200 or 400 mg bd (n=64) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33). A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib.||1.56|0.51|0.6604
91902912|NCT00628251|183700431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.7794||95.0|0.48|1.74||An observed p-value of \<0.005 (1-sided) will be regarded as statistically significant for a given pairwise comparison.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA (1 or 2) and platinum sensitivity (sensitive=1 or resistant/refractory=0).||Analysis of olaparib 200 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33). A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib.||1.74|0.48|0.7794
91902913|NCT00628251|183700431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.62||An observed p-value of \<0.005 (1-sided) will be regarded as statistically significant for a given pairwise comparison.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA (1 or 2) and platinum sensitivity (sensitive=1 or resistant/refractory=0).||Analysis of olaparib 400 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33). A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib.||1.62|0.45|0.6604
91902914|NCT00628251|183700432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.32||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Analysis was performed using logistic regression with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|An odds ratio \>1 favoured olaparib|Analysis of olaparib 200 or 400 (n=64) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||7.32|0.79|0.1291
91902915|NCT00628251|183700432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.3131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|7.01||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Analysis was performed using logistic regression with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|An odds ratio \>1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 200 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||7.01|0.55|0.3131
91902916|NCT00628251|183700432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.76|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|An odds ratio \>1 favoured olaparib|Analysis of olaparib 400 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||9.76|0.81|0.1079
91793194|NCT04770779|183464087|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|19.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||19.1|7.7|<0.0001
91861305|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|654.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|385.5|1111.0|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1111.0|385.5|
91674241|NCT03575871|183241868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|36.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|47.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.1|25.4|<0.0001
91793195|NCT04770779|183464088|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|6.4||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|10.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||10.9|1.9|0.0056
91674242|NCT03575871|183241868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|49.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.9|60.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||60.3|38.9|<0.0001
91674243|NCT03575871|183241869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.0|-2.2|0.2261
91674244|NCT03575871|183241869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.0|0.3|0.0451
91674245|NCT03575871|183241869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.3|1.8|0.0171
91674246|NCT03575871|183241869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|24.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.5|10.9|<0.0001
91674247|NCT03575871|183241869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.5||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|17.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.5|5.5|0.0018
91674248|NCT03575871|183241869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||33.1|18.3|<0.0001
91674249|NCT03575871|183241869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|23.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.6|8.8|0.0005
91674250|NCT03575871|183241869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|35.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.8|19.3|<0.0001
91674251|NCT03575871|183241870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.3|<0.0001
91674252|NCT03575871|183241870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.3|-3.5|<0.0001
91674253|NCT03575871|183241870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-2.6|<0.0001
91674254|NCT03575871|183241870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.5|-3.8|<0.0001
91674255|NCT03575871|183241870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
91674256|NCT03575871|183241870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.9|-3.3|<0.0001
91674257|NCT03575871|183241870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.2|0.0006
91674258|NCT03575871|183241870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-3.0|<0.0001
91674259|NCT03575871|183241871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-2.0|<0.0001
91793196|NCT03692052|183464113|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson Method|Significance of p-value associated with the test of H0:Hb response rate =0.3 vs H1:Hb response rate \> 0.3.||||||<.0001
91793197|NCT05169567|183464164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.57|0.02
91674260|NCT03575871|183241871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.0|<0.0001
91674261|NCT03575871|183241871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.4|<0.0001
91793198|NCT04576455|183464180|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.10|0.60|0.1757
91674262|NCT03575871|183241871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.3|-3.6|<0.0001
91674263|NCT03575871|183241871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
91793199|NCT04576455|183464181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.6|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.60|0.85|0.3446
91793200|NCT04576455|183464182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||4.07|0.86|0.1126
91793201|NCT04576455|183464182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Objective Response Rates|5.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|12.78|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||12.78|-1.97|
91674264|NCT03575871|183241871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-3.1|<0.0001
91793202|NCT04576455|183464184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||3.04|1.06|0.0289
91902917|NCT00628251|183700438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.5781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.7||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|A hazard ratio of \<1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 200 or 400 (n=64) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||1.70|0.41|0.5781
91793203|NCT04576455|183464184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rates|10.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|20.86|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||20.86|0.33|
91861306|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|287.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.9|387.5|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||387.5|213.9|
91674265|NCT03575871|183241871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.7|0.0164
91674266|NCT03575871|183241871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.0|-2.5|<0.0001
91674267|NCT03575871|183241872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.1|-26.6|<0.0001
91674268|NCT03575871|183241872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-26.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-26.4|-37.9|<0.0001
91674269|NCT03575871|183241872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.2|-28.1|<0.0001
91674270|NCT03575871|183241872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-35.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-29.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-29.4|-42.3|<0.0001
91674271|NCT03575871|183241872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-12.1|-26.8|<0.0001
91674272|NCT03575871|183241872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-33.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-26.3|-41.0|<0.0001
91674273|NCT03575871|183241872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-13.9|-32.3|<0.0001
91674274|NCT03575871|183241872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-24.3|-42.6|<0.0001
91674275|NCT01746264|183241889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.59
91674276|NCT01746264|183241890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow up visit.||||<0.001
91674277|NCT01746264|183241891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||<0.01
91674278|NCT01746264|183241893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.32
91674279|NCT01746264|183241894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3-month follow-up.||||0.21
91674280|NCT01746264|183241895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.02
91674281|NCT01746264|183241896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.0123
91674282|NCT01746264|183241897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.09
91674283|NCT01746264|183241898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.27
91674284|NCT01746264|183241899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.18
91674285|NCT01746264|183241900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.33
91674286|NCT01746264|183241901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.05
91674287|NCT01746264|183241902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.41
91674288|NCT01746264|183241903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.32
91674289|NCT01746264|183241904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.47
91716664|NCT00526474|183325157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.9|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.90|0.77|<0.001
91793204|NCT04576455|183464185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.03|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|This statistical analysis is done for PFS by ESR1 mutation detected at baseline||1.03|0.35|0.0610
91674290|NCT02791893|183241905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention pain severity was regressed on pre-intervention pain severity and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.47
91674291|NCT02791893|183241905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase are not included limiting the sample to 10 subjects in each condition (N=20). Post-intervention pain severity was regressed on pre-intervention pain severity and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.58
91674292|NCT02791893|183241906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|This was an independent t-test comparing the conditions on their perception of change since starting the intervention.||"A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase were assigned a score of 1 indicating no change in their condition. Post-intervention PGIC scores were compared between conditions."||||0.23
91674293|NCT02791893|183241906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|This was an independent t-test comparing the conditions on their perception of change since starting the intervention.|Condition difference = Active - Sham|Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Post-intervention PGIC scores were compared between conditions.||||0.23
91861307|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|834.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|496.7|1402.3|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1402.3|496.7|
91674294|NCT02791893|183241907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.88||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention physical function scores was regressed on pre-intervention physical function and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.13
91674295|NCT02791893|183241907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention physical function scores was regressed on pre-intervention physical function and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.12
91716665|NCT00526474|183325158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.83|<0.001
91793205|NCT04576455|183464185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.42|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|This statistical analysis is done for PFS by ESR1 Mutation not detected at baseline||1.42|0.54|0.5947
91793206|NCT04576455|183464186|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.40|0.58|
91793207|NCT04576455|183464187|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.12|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.12|0.49|
91902918|NCT00628251|183700438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.3417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.55||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|A hazard ratio of \<1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 200 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||1.55|0.27|0.3417
91793208|NCT04576455|183464188|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.35|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.35|0.53|
91793209|NCT04576455|183464189|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.69|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.69|0.72|
91793210|NCT04576455|183464190|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.18|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.18|0.47|
91793211|NCT04449055|183464196|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|1.8311||||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test||||0.1760
91716666|NCT00526474|183325159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.94|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.94|0.83|<0.001
91716667|NCT00526474|183325160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.03|0.71|0.108
91716668|NCT00526474|183325161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.73|0.002
91716669|NCT00526474|183325162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.04|0.74|0.127
91716670|NCT00526474|183325163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.87|0.52|0.002
91716671|NCT00526474|183325164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.06|0.80|0.249
91716672|NCT00526474|183325165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.76|0.019
91716673|NCT00526474|183325166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.96|0.83|0.003
91716674|NCT00386334|183325167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91716675|NCT00386334|183325170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0014
91716676|NCT00386334|183325173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91793212|NCT04449055|183464197|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|0.8||||0.3711|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Median and mean survival times were not estimable due to the small number of dropouts. Thus, we reported the proportion remaining in treatment at 18 days as the descriptive summary measure.|The null hypothesis is that time to discontinuation of psychosocial treatment is not different between groups.||||0.3711
91716677|NCT00386334|183325176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0005
91716678|NCT00386334|183325179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91716679|NCT00386334|183325182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91716680|NCT00386334|183325185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91716681|NCT00386334|183325188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91716682|NCT00386334|183325191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91716683|NCT00386334|183325194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91716684|NCT00386334|183325197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1175||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.1175
91793213|NCT04449055|183464197|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|0.8||||0.3711|||||||Log Rank|||This test compared time to discontinuation of psychosocial treatment between groups||||0.3711
91793214|NCT04449055|183464198|SUPERIORITY|Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing changes in temporal correlations between intervention groups.|Difference in median change|-0.711789||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value reported as difference in median change from baseline to 4 weeks for the MPFC first group minus the median change from baseline to 4-weeks for the DPFC first group.|||||0.1333
91793215|NCT04449055|183464199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in median change|0.2729394||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test of comparing changes in correlations between intervention groups.|Reported as difference in median change from baseline to 4 weeks for the MPFC first group minus median change for from baseline to 4-weeks for the DPFC first group.|||||0.1333
91674296|NCT02791893|183241908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention headache days was regressed on pre-intervention headache days and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.58
91674297|NCT02791893|183241908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention headache days was regressed on pre-intervention headache days and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.49
91674298|NCT02791893|183241909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention depression scores were regressed on pre-intervention depression scores and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.18
91674299|NCT02791893|183241909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention depression scores were regressed on pre-intervention depression scores and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.25
91674300|NCT02791893|183241910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a dependent t-test comparing pre-intervention scores to the scores collected at the end of the open label phase.||Regardless of original condition assignment, patients' 2.5-month pain scores at the end of the open label phase were compared to their baseline scores using a dependent samples t-test. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the open-label phase had their most recent score carried forward. All patients included in this comparison received at least 10 weeks of VNS therapy.||||0.004
91674301|NCT02791893|183241910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||This was a dependent t-test comparing baseline scores to the scores collected at the end of the open label phase.|t-test, 2 sided|||Regardless of original condition assignment, patients' 2.5-month pain scores at the end of the open label phase were compared to their baseline scores using a dependent samples t-test. Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the open-label phase were excluded. All patients included in this comparison received at least 10 weeks of VNS therapy.||||0.005
91674302|NCT04060719|183241916|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.74|11.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subject' (random) and 'treatment' (fixed).|Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the mixed effects model. Ratio is calculated as Test/Reference. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.8.|Relative bioavailability||11.28|9.74|
91674303|NCT04060719|183241917|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|30.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.76|35.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subject' (random) and 'treatment' (fixed).|Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the mixed effects model. Ratio is calculated as Test/Reference. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 25.2.|Relative bioavailability||35.02|25.76|
91674304|NCT04060719|183241918|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|10.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.66|11.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subject' (random) and 'treatment' (fixed).|Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the mixed effects model. Ratio is calculated as Test/Reference. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.8.|Relative bioavailability||11.18|9.66|
91674305|NCT03208673|183241979|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric mean|0.5628||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4395|0.7204|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7204|0.4395|.001
91674306|NCT03208673|183241980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Nasal||||0.025
91674307|NCT03208673|183241980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Temporal||||0.312
91674308|NCT03208673|183241981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comfort||||<0.001
91674309|NCT03208673|183241981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Dry||||<0.001
91674310|NCT03208673|183241981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Gritty||||<0.001
91674311|NCT03208673|183241981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Vision||||<0.001
91674312|NCT03891329|183241983|OTHER|No comparison of two groups, just single arm design|SADE-free rate in the study group|0.98||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Serious Adverse Device Effects (SADE) possibly or securely related to the Cor Family devices until the 3- month follow-up are counted for this primary endpoint.~The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%"||1|0.9|0.05
91674313|NCT03891329|183241984|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method|||||||||||||||||The Kaplan-Meier method will be applied to estimate the 3-month SADE-free rate at 92 days after implantation (sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint) and the 12-month SADE-free rate at 365 days after implantation.|||
91674314|NCT03176784|183241987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.6|.66
91674315|NCT03176784|183241987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.4|0.7|.85
91674316|NCT03176784|183241987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.4|0.7|1.00
91674317|NCT03176784|183241988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|0.8|.44
91674318|NCT03176784|183241988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.6|0.8|.61
91793216|NCT04449055|183464200|SUPERIORITY||Difference in median change|0.2676718||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing changes in functional connectivity from baseline to 4 weeks between intervention groups.|Reported as difference in median change from baseline to 4 weeks for the MPFC first minus the median change from baseline to 4 weeks for the DPFC first group.|||||0.2667
91902919|NCT00628251|183700438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.27||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|A hazard ratio of \<1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 400 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||2.27|0.44|0.9877
91674319|NCT03176784|183241988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||2.0|0.9|.12
91674320|NCT03176784|183241989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.5|.43
91674321|NCT03176784|183241989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.5|.37
91674322|NCT03176784|183241989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.6|0.7|.81
91674323|NCT03176784|183241990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.6|.65
91674324|NCT03176784|183241990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.6|.60
91674325|NCT03176784|183241990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.5|0.7|.86
91674326|NCT02990806|183241991|EQUIVALENCE|A test for equivalence was carried out using an asymmetric margin (-12%, 15%) pre-specified in protocol and a two 1-sided test (TOST) analysis with α=0.05 for each 1-sided statistical test.|Percentage difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.5||||||||11.5|-4.3|
91674327|NCT00350402|183242059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.028|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.147|11.362|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 38; t = 3.576|Treatment effect size: Cohen's D =1.142|Hypothesis: Parkinson patients assigned to high intensity IMST will show greater improvement in facial movement (entropy) relative to those undergoing Sham IMST.||11.362|3.147|< 0.001
91674328|NCT00350402|183242060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.955|<|0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|3.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis: Scores on PDQ-39 would show bigger change for the IMST group than the Sham treatment group. The sample size was not powered for the PDQ-39 (but rather for the primary outcome variable).||3.68|-16.41|<0.459
91674329|NCT00350402|183242061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.221|<|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.874|18.978|||t-test, 2 sided|t-value = 2.47, with 37 df||Hypothesis: Changes in MIP following treatment would be greater for participants in the IMST versus the Sham treatment group. This is a validity check on for the IMST intervention.||18.978|1.874|<0.018
91674330|NCT00350402|183242062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492|<|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0834|10.17||No adjustment necessary|t-test, 2 sided|38 df, t= 2.058 However, due to inequality of variance (Levine test), the adjusted p-value = \<0.049, and adjusted df = 27.3||Hypothesis: Facial entropy changes would be greater in IMST group than sham treatment group. Sample size was based on preliminary data suggesting total N of 40 would be adequate for detecting change in entropy (of approximately 50%).||10.17|.0834|<0.047
91674331|NCT00645944|183242064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-7.5|0.039
91674332|NCT00606502|183242072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14||||||||1.14|0.61|
91674333|NCT00560937|183242136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test of change scores, pregnenolone vs. placebo post-treatment compared to baseline.||||.048
91674334|NCT00560937|183242137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91674335|NCT00560937|183242138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91674336|NCT00560937|183242139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test of change scores, pregnenolone compared to placebo post-treatment vs. pre-randomization.||||1.0
91674337|NCT00560937|183242140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91674338|NCT00440115|183242142|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations demonstrated that 250 participants per group would have 95% power to compare combined high-intensity disease management and moderate-intensity disease management with pharmacotherapy management, on the basis of 10% (pharmacotherapy management), 15% (moderate-intensity disease management), and 25% (high-intensity disease management) self-reported quit rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||(High-intensity disease management and moderate-intensity disease management) vs pharmacotherapy management|||1.61|0.78|0.54
91674339|NCT00440115|183242142|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations indicated that 250 participants per group would have 80% power to compare high-intensity disease management and moderate-intensity disease management with pharmacotherapy management, on the basis of 10% (pharmacotherapy management), 15% (moderate-intensity disease management), and 25% (high-intensity disease management) self-reported quit rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||High-intensity disease management vs moderate-intensity disease management|||2.02|0.88|0.18
91674340|NCT03069417|183242145|SUPERIORITY|Conducted at post-treatment time point.||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91674341|NCT03069417|183242145|SUPERIORITY|Conducted at 3-month follow-up time point.||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
91674342|NCT03069417|183242146|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for time calculated at 3-month follow-up time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-12.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.29|-3.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.15|-22.29|< 0.05
91674343|NCT03069417|183242147|SUPERIORITY|Interaction evaluated at post-treatment time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-11.1|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|-3.83||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.83|-18.41|< 0.005
91716685|NCT00386334|183325200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0717||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0717
91716686|NCT00386334|183325203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1182||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1182
91793217|NCT04449055|183464201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0972||0.6829|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by time interaction, with time as second measure date|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the adjusted difference in mean for mPFC first relative to DPFC first.|||||0.6829
91793218|NCT04449055|183464202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1018||0.7654|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by time interaction p-value, with time as second (last) measure date|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the adjusted difference in mean for MPFC first relative to DPFC first.|||||0.7654
91793219|NCT04449055|183464203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06256||0.907|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in slope for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9070
91902920|NCT05315947|183700528|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 90% CI limits for Cmax was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7814|0.9686||||||||0.9686|0.7814|
91902921|NCT05315947|183700529|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 90% CI limits for AUC(0-t) was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9756|1.003||||||||1.003|0.9756|
91674344|NCT03069417|183242147|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for time at 3-month follow-up time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-13.8|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-5.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.17|-22.50|< 0.005
91716687|NCT00386334|183325206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.3010
91716688|NCT00386334|183325209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.7800
91674345|NCT03069417|183242149|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for condition.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-10.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.58|-0.67||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-19.58|< 0.05
91674346|NCT03069417|183242149|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for time at post-treatment time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-12.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.14|-3.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.37|-22.14|< 0.01
91674347|NCT03069417|183242150|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for condition.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|6.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.88||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.88|0.50|< 0.05
91674348|NCT03360539|183242159|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.1|-2.1|
91674349|NCT03360539|183242160|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.0|-2.3|
91674350|NCT03360539|183242161|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.8|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.8|-2.9|
91674351|NCT03360539|183242162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.9|-1.5|
91674352|NCT03360539|183242163|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.4|-2.3|
91674353|NCT03360539|183242164|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.6|-2.4|
91674354|NCT03360539|183242165|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.3|-1.6|
91674355|NCT03360539|183242166|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|28.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in grams|||28.0|-43.7|
91674356|NCT03360539|183242167|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.3|-2.4|
91674357|NCT03360539|183242168|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.5|-0.6|
91674358|NCT03360539|183242169|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in weeks|||0.2|0.0|
91674359|NCT03360539|183242170|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.8|-0.3|
91674360|NCT03360539|183242171|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.9|-2.5|
91793220|NCT04449055|183464204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.1095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0369|0.2559||Based on group x continuous time interaction in generalized estimating equation logistic regression model clustered on subject. This is like a mixed model but uses empirical standard error estimates that are independent of covariance structure.|GEE logistic regression clustered on ID||Difference in change in log odds of positive UA for stimulant for MPFC first versus DPFC first. Estimated change in log odds per day in the study.|||0.2559|-0.0369|0.1427
91793221|NCT04449055|183464205|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02964||0.3917|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference in slope for MPFC first relative to DPFC first.|||||0.3917
91793222|NCT04449055|183464206|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01948||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in slope of change per day for MPFC first vs. DLPFC first|||||0.3829
91674361|NCT03360539|183242172|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.4|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.4|-1.1|
91674362|NCT03360539|183242173|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.7|-4.7|
91674363|NCT03360539|183242174|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.9|-0.5|
91674364|NCT03360539|183242178|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.5|-3.2|
91674365|NCT03360539|183242179|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.7|-3.0|
91674366|NCT03360539|183242180|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in number of visits|||1.08|0.95|
91674367|NCT03360539|183242181|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||4.9|0.1|
91674368|NCT03360539|183242182|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.0|-2.1|
91674369|NCT03360539|183242184|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.9|-3.1|
91674370|NCT03360539|183242185|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.7|-2.4|
91674371|NCT03360539|183242186|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.4|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||-0.4|-8.0|
91674372|NCT03360539|183242194|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.8|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.8|-2.4|
91674373|NCT03360539|183242195|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.3|-1.1|
91674374|NCT03360539|183242196|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in number of injuries|||0.1|-0.1|
91674375|NCT03360539|183242197|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||-0.1|-5.3|
91902922|NCT00708175|183700532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.24||P-value is from a 1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and baseline BMD as a covariate. There were no multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|||The sample size was calculated using a precision approach to estimate the difference between the pioglitazone and placebo treatment groups in the percent change from baseline in BMD.||0.24|-1.33|0.170
91716689|NCT00386334|183325212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0803||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0803
91716690|NCT00386334|183325215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2643||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.2643
91716691|NCT00386334|183325218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0765||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0765
91716692|NCT00386334|183325221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2967||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.2967
91716693|NCT00386334|183325224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0634
91902923|NCT00708175|183700533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.56||P-value is from a 1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and the Month 12 BMD value as a covariate. There were no multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.91|0.640
91793223|NCT04449055|183464207|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7595|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in slope of change per day for MPFC first vs. DLPFC first|||||0.7595
91793224|NCT04449055|183464208|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04804||0.3839|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in slope of change per day for MPFC first vs. DLPFC first|||||0.3839
91793225|NCT04449055|183464209|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.005445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01642||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in slope of change per day for MPFC first vs. DLPFC first|||||0.7455
91793226|NCT04449055|183464210|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1159||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.0823
91793227|NCT04449055|183464211|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07382||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.5289
91793228|NCT04449055|183464212|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06359||0.9714|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9714
91793229|NCT04449055|183464213|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1153||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DLPFC first|||||0.2914
91793230|NCT04449055|183464214|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.0573
91793231|NCT04449055|183464215|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.008267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08675||0.925|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9250
91793232|NCT04449055|183464216|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02679||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9775
91793233|NCT04449055|183464217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.002498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02518||0.9211|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9211
91793234|NCT04449055|183464218|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4196||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.5269
91793235|NCT06596005|183464244|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-4.64||The LSM, SE, and difference from placebo with 95% CI and nominal P-value are estimated using MMRM, with baseline MDS-UPDRS Part III scores and L-Dopa use as covariates, and treatment group, visit, and group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||-4.64|-8.09|<0.0001
91793236|NCT06596005|183464244|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-4.95||The LSM, SE, and difference from placebo with 95% CI and nominal P-value are estimated using MMRM, with baseline MDS-UPDRS Part III scores and L-Dopa use as covariates, and treatment group, visit, and group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||-4.95|-8.45|<0.0001
91793237|NCT02445391|183464245|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis for testing non-inferiority of platinum was defined as that the hazard ratio (HR) for platinum/capecitabine ≥ 1.154 (ie, HR of 1.154 was used as the non-inferiority margin). The alternative hypothesis was HR=0.754 for platinum/ capecitabine. The 4-year IDFS rate was expected to be 67% on capecitabine arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.81|||||The 95% confidence interval provided above was the Jennison and Turnbull repeated confidence interval.|||1.81|0.62|
91674376|NCT03360539|183242198|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in number of visits|||0.1|-0.7|
91674377|NCT03360539|183242199|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.0|-0.4|
91674378|NCT03360539|183242200|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||5.0|-0.4|
91861308|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1068.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|683.3|1670.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1670.6|683.3|
91861309|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1933.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1224.7|3051.1|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3051.1|1224.7|
91861310|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|3163.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2247.5|4451.7|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||4451.7|2247.5|
91902924|NCT03672461|183700557|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.29||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value. Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||Null Hypothesis: Yoga is not associated with improvement in change from baseline in Total Urinary Incontinence Episodes||0.6|-0.01|0.056
91902925|NCT03672461|183700558|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.03||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.2|-0.15|0.757
91902926|NCT03672461|183700559|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.22||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.45|0|0.048
91674379|NCT03360539|183242201|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.2|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.2|-2.3|
91674380|NCT03360539|183242202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.0|-3.4|
91674381|NCT03360539|183242203|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||4.5|-1.0|
91674382|NCT03360539|183242204|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.1|-2.6|
91674383|NCT03360539|183242205|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.7|-2.4|
91674384|NCT03360539|183242206|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.6|-1.9|
91674385|NCT03360539|183242208|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.3|-4.3|
91674386|NCT03360539|183242209|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.0|-3.4|
91674387|NCT03360539|183242210|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.7|-1.0|
91674388|NCT03360539|183242211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.2|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.2|-3.0|
91716694|NCT00386334|183325227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91716695|NCT03238417|183325236|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance comparing change in outcome between EBQI and control from baseline to 12 month.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||2.0|-3.3|0.623
91716696|NCT03238417|183325237|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing for change in outcome between EBQI and control from baseline to 24 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8||P-value is from the interaction term of EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||1.8|-2.8|0.678
91716697|NCT03238417|183325238|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We adjusted our analysis with non-response weights.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.35||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change from baseline to 12-month, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in gender awareness score between EBQI and control from baseline to 12-month||0.35|-0.17|0.364
91716698|NCT03238417|183325239|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We adjusted our analysis with non-response weights.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.1||P-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change from baseline to 24-month, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in gender awareness score between EBQI and control from baseline to 24-month||0.10|-0.33|0.29
91716699|NCT03238417|183325240|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using logistic regression. The number of activities were recoded into 0 vs 1+ activities. The model was adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We also adjusted for non-response weights.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.13||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Difference-in-Differences analysis||The estimated value is predicted change in the odds of involving in one or more quality improvement activities, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|||0.13|-1.52|0.10
91716700|NCT03238417|183325241|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using logistic regression. The number of activities were recoded into 0 vs 1+ activities. The model was adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We also adjusted for non-response weights.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.29||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Regression, Logistic||The estimated value is predicted change in the odds of involving in one or more quality improvement activities, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|||0.29|-1.25|0.22
91716701|NCT03238417|183325242|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing the differences in outcome between EBQI and control groups over 12 month period.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.4||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||5.4|-7.1|0.788
91716702|NCT03238417|183325243|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing for differences in outcomes between EBQI and control arms from baseline to 24 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.35||The p-value reflects the interaction terms between EBQI and control arms.|ANOVA|||||4.35|-7.35|0.61
91716703|NCT03238417|183325244|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control arms|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|21.11||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||21.11|-21.45|0.987
91716704|NCT03238417|183325245|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.35||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.89|17.08||The p-value reflects the interaction terms between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||17.08|-24.89|0.708
91716705|NCT03238417|183325246|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|13.4||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||13.40|-22.43|0.613
91716706|NCT03238417|183325247|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.26|20.13||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||20.13|-18.26|0.922
91716707|NCT03238417|183325248|NON_INFERIORITY|two-way ANOVA testing change in a composite score of gender-neutral preventive care between EBQI and control arms over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.89||The p-value represents the interaction term between EBQI and control.|ANOVA|||||4.89|-3.74|0.789
91716708|NCT03238417|183325249|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcomes over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.33||The p-value reflects the interaction between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|The analysis is adjusted for EBQI and time.||||3.33|-6.60|0.51
91902927|NCT03672461|183700560|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.82||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|15.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||15.23|-13.6|0.911
91716709|NCT03238417|183325250|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA testing for change in outcome over time between EBQI and control arms|Mean Difference (Net)|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|19.9||The p-value reflects the interaction between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||19.9|-13.7|0.711
91716710|NCT03238417|183325251|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control arms|Mean Difference (Net)|8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|26.1||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||26.1|-9.1|0.335
91716711|NCT03238417|183325252|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing for change in outcome between EBQI and control groups from baseline to 12 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|11.1||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||11.1|-38.7|0.268
91716712|NCT03238417|183325253|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing the differences between EBQI and control from baseline and 24 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.6||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|25.3||P-value is from the interaction between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||25.3|-25.6|0.991
91716713|NCT02089347|183325254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by a data if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -10%|Wilson score method|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|4.61||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-booster response for Diphtheria.||4.61|-0.31|
91716714|NCT02089347|183325254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by the data if lower bound ot the two-sided 95% is greater than -10%|Wilson score method|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|10.84||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination booster response for tetanus||10.84|3.32|
91716715|NCT02089347|183325255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by a data if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -10%|Wilson score method|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|3.15||||||Non-inferiority comparison of Diphtheria post-vaccination seroprotection rates at ≥ 0.1 IU/mL||3.15|-0.61|
91716716|NCT02089347|183325255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by a data if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -10%.|Wilson score method|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.14||||||Non-inferiority comparison of Tetanus post-vaccination seroprotection rates at ≥ 0.1 IU/mL||2.14|-1.09|
91716717|NCT01249131|183325271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Least Squares (LS) Means (in %)|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.9|107.0|||||LS mean was calculated from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data for dose-normalized AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||107|83.9|
91716718|NCT01249131|183325271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|124.0|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||124|98.2|
91716719|NCT01249131|183325272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|111.0|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||111|84.2|
91716720|NCT01249131|183325272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.8|123.0|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||123|93.8|
91716721|NCT00473083|183325289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8769||||||P for arm 1 v arms 2 and 3 combined|Chi-squared|||||||0.8769
91716722|NCT00473083|183325289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||||||P for arm 1 v arms 2 and 3 combined|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.147
91716723|NCT00473083|183325290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1503||||||P(arm 1 v arm 2) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 1, 2a, or 2b|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1503
91716724|NCT00473083|183325290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4681||||||P(arm2 v arm3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 1, 2a, or 2b|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4681
91716725|NCT00473083|183325290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196||||||P(arm 1 v arm 3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 1, 2a, or 2b|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0196
91716726|NCT00473083|183325290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1658||||||P(arm 1 v arm 2) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1658
91716727|NCT00473083|183325290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||"P(arm 2 v arm 3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 3.~P-value was calculated to be \>0.9999 using the Wilcoxon Rank Sumtest by comparing between the two treatment arms."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.9999
91902928|NCT03672461|183700561|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|3.13||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||6.13|0.13|0.041
91716728|NCT00473083|183325290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||||||P(arm 1 v arm 3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.285
91716729|NCT00473083|183325291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5097|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Rash Grade 1||||0.5097
91716730|NCT00473083|183325291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Rash Grade 2a||||0.4740
91716731|NCT00473083|183325291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2123|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2b||||0.2123
91716732|NCT00473083|183325291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5004|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 3||||0.5004
91716733|NCT00473083|183325291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9072|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 1||||0.9072
91902929|NCT03672461|183700562|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.07||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.3|-0.16|0.564
91716734|NCT00473083|183325291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0464|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2a||||0.0464
91716735|NCT00473083|183325291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6759|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2b||||0.6759
91793254|NCT06837116|183464302|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|followed by Dunn's multiple comparisons test||Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparisons test||||< 0.01
91861311|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1524.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|913.5|2543.0|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2543.0|913.5|
91861312|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|799.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|532.9|1199.4|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1199.4|532.9|
91861313|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1469.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|995.3|2168.8|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2168.8|995.3|
91674389|NCT03360539|183242212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.9|-2.6|
91674390|NCT03360539|183242213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.6|-1.5|
91674391|NCT03360539|183242214|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.37|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in months|||0.37|-0.1|
91674392|NCT03360539|183242215|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in months|||0.5|-0.45|
91674393|NCT03360539|183242216|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||4.0|0.3|
91674394|NCT03360539|183242217|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in months|||1.1|0.1|
91674395|NCT03360539|183242218|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.0|-0.7|
91674396|NCT03545191|183242219|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.435|-6.961||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-6.961|-17.435|<0.0001
91674397|NCT03545191|183242219|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-22.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.996|-17.567||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-17.567|-27.996|<0.0001
91674398|NCT03545191|183242220|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-11.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.494|-6.23||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-6.23|-17.494|<0.0001
91674399|NCT03545191|183242220|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.945|-12.661||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-12.661|-23.945|<0.0001
91674400|NCT03545191|183242221|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-8.32||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.014|-3.629||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-3.629|-13.014|0.0005
91674401|NCT03545191|183242221|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-11.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.022|-6.687||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-6.687|-16.022|<0.0001
91674402|NCT03545191|183242222|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-7.59||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.265|-2.923||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-2.923|-12.265|0.0015
91674403|NCT03545191|183242222|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-11.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.348|-6.994||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-6.994|-16.348|<0.0001
91674404|NCT03545191|183242223|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|12.62|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.953|20.288||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||20.288|4.953|= 0.0013
91716736|NCT00473083|183325291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 3||||0.0065
91793255|NCT03516942|183464330|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|0.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||P value: For the categorical variable with more than 2 levels, this is the p value from the overall test of the null hypothesis that all estimates are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"Age covariate effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||0.2|-0.1|0.74
91674405|NCT03545191|183242223|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|22.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.405|29.708||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||29.708|14.405|< 0.0001
91674406|NCT03545191|183242224|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|9.93|||=|0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|19.082||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||19.082|0.782|= 0.0334
91674407|NCT03545191|183242224|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|19.77|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.623|28.918||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||28.918|10.623|< .00001
91674408|NCT03545191|183242225|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-0.75|||=|0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.515|0.015||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.015|-1.515|= 0.0547
91674409|NCT03545191|183242225|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-1.75|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.508|-0.983||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-0.983|-2.508|< .00001
91674410|NCT03545191|183242226|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-0.99||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.014||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.014|-1.990|0.0534
91674411|NCT03545191|183242226|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-1.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.905|-0.905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-0.905|-2.905|= 0.0002
91716737|NCT00473083|183325291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5898|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 1||||0.5898
91902930|NCT03672461|183700563|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.3||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.3|-1.69|0.764
91674412|NCT03545191|183242227|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.79||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.9||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.90|0.70|0.0003
91674413|NCT03545191|183242227|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.82||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||0.82|0.65|<0.0001
91674414|NCT03545191|183242228|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.78||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.89|0.68|0.0002
91674415|NCT03545191|183242228|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||0.83|0.64|<0.0001
91674416|NCT01277718|183242232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Least Squares (LS) Means (in %)|111.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.02|124.99|||||LS mean was calculated from Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data for AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||124.99|98.02|
91674417|NCT01277718|183242232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.06|108.77|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||108.77|85.06|
91902931|NCT03672461|183700564|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.53|-1.78|0.883
91674418|NCT01277718|183242232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.53|119.91|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||119.91|94.53|
91674419|NCT01277718|183242233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.09|118.03|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||118.03|85.09|
91716738|NCT00473083|183325291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1921|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2a||||0.1921
91716739|NCT00473083|183325291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0882|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2b||||0.0882
91674420|NCT01277718|183242233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.51|101.33|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||101.33|72.51|
91674421|NCT01277718|183242233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.94|101.17|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||101.17|72.94|
91674422|NCT03919162|183242238|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.152||"Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change of ABC score between the PQ912 and Placebo group after 24 weeks of treatment.~P-values \<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant."|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline ABC score, time, treatment group, and time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|Initially after Phase 2A, a futility analysis was planned with a sample size of 90 participants per treatment group to test the 1-sided hypothesis that the rate of decrease of ABC score is greater for the PQ912 group than for the Placebo group. The test should be carried out at a 1-sided 40% significance level, using the mixed effects model. Due to early termination of the study and limited sample size, analysis of Phase 2A data was done in the same manner as final analysis of Phase 2B data.||0.152|-0.036|0.2261
91674423|NCT03919162|183242239|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.00526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00742||0.4814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02017|0.00964||"Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change of EEG theta power between the PQ912 and Placebo groups after 24 weeks of treatment.~Tests were declared statistically significant if the calculated p-value was ≤ 0.05."|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline qEEG data, time, treatment group, and time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|"Initially after Phase 2A, a futility analysis was planned with a sample size of 90 participants per treatment group to test the hypothesis that increase in EEG theta power is greater for Placebo than for PQ912 (1-sided, alpha = 0.05). Higher theta power is worse; hence this alternative hypothesis indicates benefit of the drug.~Due to early termination of the study and limited sample size, analysis of Phase 2A data was done in the same manner as final analysis of Phase 2B data."||0.00964|-0.02017|0.4814
91692155|NCT03296527|183279338|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower-limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected. In that case, it would be claimed that FE 999049 was non-inferior to GONAL-F with respect to ongoing pregnancy rate in women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.0|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with ongoing pregnancy rate||11.0|-0.2|
91692156|NCT03296527|183279339|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.3|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with positive beta-hCG||12.3|0.3|
91794279|NCT02821910|183467552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|98.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.44|104.85|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.85|92.44|
91674424|NCT03919162|183242240|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.9135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.92||Tests were declared statistically significant if the calculated p-value is ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline CDR-SB score, time, treatment group, and time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the change of CDR-SB scores between the PQ912 and the Placebo arms. The primary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with within-participant change in CDR-SB score as the outcome. The study planned with 207 participants (including 25% drop-out) per group to have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.7 points in CDR-SB score. Power calculation was based on a 2-sided t-test with significance level of 0.05.||0.92|-1.03|0.9135
91674425|NCT03919162|183242241|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|0.969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.345|5.238||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in CFC2 as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline CFC2, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: The key secondary CFC2 follows the primary endpoint (Clinical Dementia Rating - Sum of Boxes), if it is statistically significant, followed by the remaining secondary endpoints in the order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan. Hierarchical testing is stopped as soon as a non-significant result is encountered. If the primary hypothesis is met, then a test for a statistically significant difference will be conducted for the CFC2, however at 4% significance level||5.238|-3.345|0.6528
91674426|NCT03919162|183242242|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.303||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in ABC as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline ABC score, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||0.303|-0.103|0.3241
91674427|NCT03919162|183242243|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.02857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01846||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06746|0.01032||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in qEEG as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline qECG data, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||0.01032|-0.06746|0.1398
91674428|NCT03919162|183242244|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.7377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|3.01||The analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in FAQ as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline FAQ score, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||3.01|-4.22|0.7377
91674429|NCT03919162|183242245|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|2.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.292|6.36||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in ADAS-Cog-13 as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline ADAS-Cog-13 score, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||6.360|-2.292|0.3496
91692157|NCT03296527|183279340|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.7|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with at least one gestational sac 5-6 weeks after transfer||10.7|-0.9|
91692158|NCT03296527|183279341|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.8|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with at least one intrauterine gestational sac with fetal heart beat 5-6 weeks after transfer||9.8|-1.5|
91716740|NCT00473083|183325291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0344|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 3||||0.0344
91716741|NCT00473083|183325292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3834|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3834
91861314|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|549.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|371.8|811.8|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||811.8|371.8|
91674430|NCT03919162|183242246|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|1.62||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in NPI as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||1.62|-7.81|0.1933
91674431|NCT03078478|183242253|SUPERIORITY||Treatment rate ratio|0.88||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||The number of episodes is analysed using a negative binomial regression model (log link) with the logarithm of the time period in which a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model includes treatment, number of OADs, region, sex and dosing time as fixed factors, and age as a covariate. Missing values are imputed through multiple imputation by treatment arm, based on a Poisson model.||1.06|0.73|0.1715
91674432|NCT03861481|183242290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Rozimab - Placebo)|-0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.892|0.788|||||MMRM analysis (fixed effect terms: treatment, baseline iRODS score, prior Ig therapy administration route, assessment week, treatment by week interaction; random effect term: study participant). LS Mean Difference \> 0 favours rozanolixizumab.|||0.788|-0.892|
91674433|NCT00773734|183242291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|13.7|||Chi-squared|||||13.7|-2.6|0.1846
91674434|NCT00773734|183242291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|33.7|||Chi-squared|||||33.7|12.4|<0.0001
91674435|NCT00773734|183242291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|46.6|||Chi-squared|||||46.6|23.9|<0.0001
91674436|NCT00773734|183242293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|26.8|||Chi-squared|||||26.8|-0.4|0.0590
91674437|NCT00773734|183242293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.1||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|36.0|||Chi-squared|||||36.0|8.3|0.0023
91716742|NCT00473083|183325294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0147
91902932|NCT03672461|183700565|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.6|-0.83|0.753
91674438|NCT00773734|183242293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|48.9|||Chi-squared|||||48.9|21.6|<0.0001
91674439|NCT00773734|183242295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.2|||Chi-squared|||||8.2|-1.5|0.1776
91674440|NCT00773734|183242295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.5|||Chi-squared|||||14.5|1.6|0.0158
91674441|NCT00773734|183242295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|17.2|||Chi-squared|||||17.2|3.2|0.0051
91674442|NCT00773734|183242300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.7||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-2.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.6|-24.8|0.0156
91674443|NCT00773734|183242300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-13.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-13.9|-36.4|<0.0001
91674444|NCT00773734|183242300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-21.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-21.7|-44.0|<0.0001
91674445|NCT00773734|183242302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|7.3|||Chi-squared|||||7.3|-11.7|0.6541
91674446|NCT00773734|183242302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|24.1|||Chi-squared|||||24.1|0.6|0.0402
91674447|NCT00773734|183242302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.1||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|33.4|||Chi-squared|||||33.4|8.8|0.0011
91674448|NCT00773734|183242306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-7.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||-7.5|-33.0|0.0020
91674449|NCT00773734|183242306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-17.0|||ANCOVA|based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||-17.0|-42.9|<0.0001
91674450|NCT00773734|183242306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-42.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-29.5||Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||-29.5|-55.2|<0.0001
91674451|NCT00773734|183242308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-3.1|0.1322
91674452|NCT00773734|183242308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-2.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.3|-5.9|<0.0001
91674453|NCT00773734|183242308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.6||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.8|-4.3|0.0047
91716743|NCT03924323|183325316|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-1.42||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.15|||mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.15|-2.69|0.0281
91716744|NCT03924323|183325317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.253||||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|2.258|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMMIX)|||||2.258|0.695|0.4521
91716745|NCT03924323|183325318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.157||||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.387|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMMIX)|||||2.387|0.560|0.6928
91716746|NCT03903172|183325321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 0||||=0.25
91716747|NCT03903172|183325321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||=.93
91716748|NCT03903172|183325322|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used acetominophen||||=1.0
91716749|NCT03903172|183325322|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used ibuprofen||||=1.0
91716750|NCT03903172|183325322|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used Cyclobenzaprine||||=1.0
91861315|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|642.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|309.2|1335.9|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1335.9|309.2|
91861316|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2630.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2037.6|3394.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3394.6|2037.6|
91902933|NCT03672461|183700566|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.28||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.07|-1.63|0.685
91674454|NCT00773734|183242310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|3.3||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||5.8|0.9|0.0078
91674455|NCT00773734|183242310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|3.5||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||6.0|1.0|0.0068
91674456|NCT00773734|183242310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|3.6||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||6.1|1.1|0.0045
91674457|NCT00773734|183242311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.8|-1.6|0.6097
91674458|NCT00773734|183242311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.2424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.6|-0.9|0.2424
91674459|NCT00773734|183242311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.9528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.3|-2.2|0.9528
91674460|NCT02678442|183242501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91674461|NCT02678442|183242503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91674462|NCT02678442|183242504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91674463|NCT02678442|183242505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
91674464|NCT00391079|183242517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.17||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||ANCOVA|||The change in pain NRS score from baseline to the end of study was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and centre group and treatment as factors.||0.29|-0.62|0.468
91674465|NCT00391079|183242518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.309||||0.2338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.038|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportions of responders were compared between the treatment groups using logistic regression with region and treatment groups as factors. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between each Sativex and placebo.||2.038|0.840|0.2338
91674466|NCT00391079|183242519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-1.83||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|1.72|||ANOVA||A negative difference in estimated treatment effect indicates an improvement in pain in favour of Sativex.|The change in NPS score from baseline to the end of study was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and centre group and treatment as factors.||1.72|-5.39|0.3103
91674467|NCT00391079|183242520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.24||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.09|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in estimated treatment difference indicates a reduction in breakthrough analgesic medication in favour of Sativex.|The change in average number of tablets taken daily from baseline to the end of study was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and centre group and treatment as factors.||0.09|-0.57|0.1567
91674468|NCT00391079|183242521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.12||||0.5643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.29|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in estimated means indicates an improvement in pain in favour of Sativex.|||0.29|-0.53|0.5643
91674469|NCT00391079|183242522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.47||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|2.179|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio of greater than 1 indicates and improvement in favour of Sativex.|||2.179|0.991|0.0552
91674470|NCT00391079|183242523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated treatment difference|0.05||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.48|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in estimated treatment difference indicates an improvement in sleep quality in favour of Sativex.|||0.48|-0.39|0.8330
91674471|NCT01744093|183242533|OTHER|Descriptive proportion|Proportion (percent)|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|45.6|||||Exact two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval.|||45.6|4.0|
91674472|NCT01744093|183242534|SUPERIORITY||Proportion (percent)|6.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|30.2|||Fisher Exact||Exact two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval.|Null hypothesis adverse event rate (grade 2 or higher toxicity) = 45.5%||30.2|0.16|0.002
91674473|NCT02006628|183242539|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-2.8||||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the response variable, treatment as fixed effect, and individual baseline subscore and age as covariates.||||0.9|-6.5|0.1332
91674474|NCT02006628|183242540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.0|||Regression, Logistic|Responder (yes/no) is the dependent variable with treatment included as factor and age and baseline P, G, and N scores included as covariates.||||8.00|0.86|0.0896
91674475|NCT02006628|183242541|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-1.4||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.5|0.0188
91674476|NCT02006628|183242542|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|0.0||||0.9647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.3|0.9647
91674477|NCT02006628|183242543|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-1.3||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-3.2|0.1963
91674478|NCT02006628|183242544|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-3.5||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-7.9|0.1167
91674479|NCT02006628|183242545|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-0.3||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.5|0.0443
91674480|NCT02006628|183242546|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-0.5||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.0182
91716751|NCT03903172|183325322|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used Methocarbamol||||=.11
91674481|NCT02006628|183242547|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|1.31||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.72|||ANCOVA|||||2.72|-0.10|0.0677
91674482|NCT00834652|183242548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91674483|NCT01173471|183242563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.352||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 200 mg OD - Placebo OD)|||12.6|-15.2|0.822
91674484|NCT01173471|183242563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.516||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 400 mg BID - Placebo BID)|||4.3|-10.1|0.413
91674485|NCT01173471|183242565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 200 mg OD - Placebo OD)|||3.7|-4.8|0.758
91674486|NCT01173471|183242565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 400 mg BID - Placebo BID)|||1.2|-2.5|0.467
91716752|NCT03903172|183325322|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used Hydroxyzine||||=.49
91716753|NCT03903172|183325322|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used an 'Other' non-pharmacologic medication||||=1.0
91716754|NCT03903172|183325323|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Any narcotic medication used||||=1.0
91716755|NCT01545388|183325324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.678|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.868|-0.489|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-0.489|-0.868|<0.001
91716756|NCT01545388|183325324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.525|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|-0.337|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-0.337|-0.713|<0.001
91716757|NCT01545388|183325324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin (Δ) is set as 0.3% to show the non-inferiority of metformin 500 mg q.d. to metformin 250 mg b.i.d.|Difference in least squares means|0.153|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.306||||||||0.306|0.000|
91716758|NCT01545388|183325325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-18.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|-11.24|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-11.24|-25.94|<0.001
91716759|NCT01545388|183325325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-16.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.62|-9.06|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-9.06|-23.62|<0.001
91716760|NCT01545388|183325325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|8.14||||||||8.14|-3.63|
91716761|NCT01474486|183325333|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
91716762|NCT01255163|183325341|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||threshold for significance (p \< 0.05)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
91793256|NCT03516942|183464330|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||P value: For the categorical variable with more than 2 levels, this is the p value from the overall test of the null hypothesis that all estimates are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"Baseline COST effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
91716763|NCT01255163|183325342|OTHER|||||||0.098||||||"Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05.~Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (6, 52.008) = 1.902, p = 0.098"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED MMSE.tot BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age~* CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE)~* FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3)~* METHOD=REML~* PRINT=SOLUTION~* REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.098
91716764|NCT01255163|183325343|OTHER|||||||0.295||||||"Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05.~Type III Tests of Fixed Effects for Group\*VisitLong F (6, 52.281) = 1.254, p = 0.295"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED ADAS70 BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age~* CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE)~* FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3)~* METHOD=REML~* PRINT=SOLUTION~* REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.295
91716765|NCT01255163|183325344|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (6, 47.485) = 1.704, p = 0.141|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED CDR BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age~CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.141
91716766|NCT01255163|183325345|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects: Group \* VisitLong F (6, 51.955) = 2.553, p = 0.031. Univarate Exendin-4 F(3, 51.386) = 2.734, p = 0.053. Pairwise for Exendin-4, baseline vs. 18 months (p = 0.035).|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED CDR.sob BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.031
91716767|NCT01255163|183325346|OTHER|||||||0.703||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (2, 15.251) = 0.360, p = 0.703.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline,18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED TAU BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.703
91674487|NCT03998436|183242581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.126||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.17|||Chi-squared|||||4.17|1.08|0.0276
91674488|NCT03998436|183242582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.708||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.99|||Chi-squared|||||5.99|1.22|0.0126
91674489|NCT04323098|183242598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057||||||P-value was based on two-sided t-test against 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0057
91794426|NCT02043379|183467877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.41||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.41
91794427|NCT02043379|183467877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.34||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.34
91902934|NCT03672461|183700567|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.24||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.43|-0.95|0.691
91674490|NCT04572243|183242610|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-86.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.01|-28.14||||||||-28.14|-144.01|
91674491|NCT04572243|183242611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|44.35||||||||44.35|0.81|
91674492|NCT04179019|183242625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The intra-individual, paired, 24h urine aldosterone excretion rate following 2 weeks of amlodipine therapy was compared to the baseline pre-treatment 24h urine aldosterone excretion rate. The null hypothesis was that amlodipine therapy would result in no change in the 24h urine aldosterone excretion rate. Because only 2 participants completed the pilot study, the validity of the results is low.||||0.96
91674493|NCT04179019|183242626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The intra-individual, paired, plasma aldosterone concentration following 2 weeks of amlodipine therapy was compared to the baseline pre-treatment aldosterone concentration. The null hypothesis was that amlodipine therapy would result in no change in the plasma aldosterone value. Because only 2 participants completed the pilot study, the validity of the results is low.||||0.29
91674494|NCT04179019|183242627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The intra-individual, paired, change in plasma aldosterone concentration in response to an acute dose of amlodipine (6h post-dose) was compared to the baseline pre-treatment response to an acute dose of amlodipine. The null hypothesis was that an acute amlodipine dose would result in no acute change in the plasma aldosterone levels. Because only 2 participants completed the pilot study, the validity of the results is low.||||0.83
91674495|NCT03179163|183242641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A priori power analysis (power = 0.80,a= 0.05) confirmed a sample size of n= 10 was needed to determine a meaningful difference of 10% in the (flux/MAP)\*logAch(mol/L) . All data were analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVA . When appropriate, post hoc Tukey-Kramer corrections were applied to correct for multiple comparisons. Significance was set a priori at a\<0.05.||||=0.01
91674496|NCT02858726|183242651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-0.8|-2.8|<0.001
91674497|NCT02858726|183242651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||0.2|-1.9|0.107
91674498|NCT02858726|183242651|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-0.2|-2.3|0.019
91674499|NCT02858726|183242652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-4.8|-16.0|<0.001
91674500|NCT02858726|183242652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-1.4|-13.1|0.016
91674501|NCT02858726|183242652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-0.8|-12.8|0.026
91674502|NCT02508259|183242660|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that before and after treatment ADOS scores were equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.55||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-0.9|-2.3|0.0028
91674503|NCT02508259|183242661|EQUIVALENCE|The child-specific difference in EOWPVT scores were compared for equivalence before and 6-weeks after suramin treatment|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|6.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||6.1|-14.5|0.32
91674504|NCT02508259|183242662|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was tested that the child-specific ABC subscores for stereotypy were unchanged before and after suramin treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-1.1|-6.9|0.019
91716768|NCT01255163|183325347|OTHER|||||||0.845||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (2, 15.828) = 0.170, p = 0.845.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline,18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED pTAU BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.845
91722541|NCT02629159|183337904|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-6.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|-3.27||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-3.27|-9.63|<0.001
91861317|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.4|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3.4|1.2|
91861318|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1431.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|905.2|2262.9|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2262.9|905.2|
91902935|NCT03672461|183700568|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.19||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.34|-0.95|0.743
91716769|NCT01255163|183325348|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects: Group \* VisitLong F (2, 16.614) = 5.142, p = 0.018. Univariate tests: Placebo F(1, 16.595) = 4.138, p = 0.058; Exendin-4 F(1, 16.595) = 6.262, p = 0.022. Pairwise for Exendin-4, baseline vs. 18 months (p = 0.022).|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline,18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED Ab42 BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.018
91716770|NCT01255163|183325349|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects: Group \* VisitLong F (8, 72.603) = 2.816, p = 0.009. Univarate Exendin-4 F(4, 72.944) = 4.834, p = 0.002. Pairwise comparisons for Exendin-4 showed a decrease in BMI baseline vs. 6 months (p = 0.029).|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED BMI BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.009
91716771|NCT02495389|183325366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7741|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.35|29.57|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) score after 12 weeks of therapy.||29.57|18.35|<.0001
91716772|NCT02495389|183325367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.04|-39.2|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Urinary Distress Inventory score after 12 weeks of therapy.||-39.20|-64.04|<.0001
91716773|NCT02495389|183325368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4701|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.33|-18.27|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory score after 12 weeks of therapy.||-18.27|-40.33|<.0001
91716774|NCT02495389|183325369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.35|-19.65|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Colo-Rectal-Anal Distress Inventory score after 12 weeks of therapy.||-19.65|-44.35|<.0001
91716775|NCT01924533|183325370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|1.0|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.00|0.63|0.0262
91861319|NCT05093829|183609607|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.3|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3.3|0.9|
91861320|NCT01926496|183609644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel relative risk (ingenol mebutate / imiquimod), stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|||0.99|0.80|0.03
91716776|NCT01924533|183325371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.4|1.34|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.34|0.40|0.2458
91716777|NCT01924533|183325372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.67|1.04|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.04|0.67|0.0645
91716778|NCT01924533|183325373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.42|1.29|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.29|0.42|0.2199
91716779|NCT01924533|183325374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.17|0.92|0.0548
91716780|NCT01924533|183325375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|23.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.23|0.95|0.0309
91716781|NCT01924533|183325376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.64|1.05|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.05|0.64|0.0716
91716782|NCT01924533|183325377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.34|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.16|0.34|0.0927
91716783|NCT04233879|183325396|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was less than 10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.8|||||Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate the treatment difference and the associated 95%CI.|||5.8|-4.5|
91716784|NCT04233879|183325397|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups (Group 1: DOR/ISL and Group 2: BIC/FTC/TAF)|Percentage Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|9.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate percentage difference and the associated 95%CI.|||9.6|-0.8|
91716785|NCT04233879|183325398|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups (Group 1: DOR/ISL and Group 2: BIC/FTC/TAF)|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate percentage difference and the associated 95%CI.|||7.9|0.4|
91716786|NCT04233879|183325401|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate treatment difference and the associated 95%CI.|||7.7|-3.1|
91861321|NCT01926496|183609645|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel relative risk (ingenol mebutate / imiquimod), stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|||1.03|0.87|0.18
91902936|NCT03672461|183700569|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.98||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.93|0.03|0.043
91674505|NCT02508259|183242663|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, we tested the equivalence of the child-specific ATEC subscore for language before and 6-weeks after treatment with suramin.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-0.49|-2.7|0.034
91674506|NCT02508259|183242664|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, overall ASD symptom scores, measured by CGI were compared between suramin and placebo groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.15|||ANOVA|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-0.15|-3.4|0.05
91674507|NCT02508259|183242665|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the child-specific RBQ score was tested for equivalence before and 6-weeks after suramin treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||4.0|-10.4|0.28
91716787|NCT04233879|183325402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate treatment difference and the associated 95%CI.|||6.1|-4.1|
91902937|NCT03672461|183700570|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.99||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||5.84|-3.87|0.689
91674508|NCT06400745|183242674|NON_INFERIORITY|Study success will be concluded if the upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence interval does not exceed the noninferiority margin of 0.1 logMAR.|Difference in Means|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0085|||ONE_SIDED|95.1||0.0232||The upper boundary of the confidence interval is reported instead of a p-value.|t-test, 1 sided|The upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence limit will be compared to the margin, 0.10 logMAR.|Difference in Means = CPO Pro IOL minus CPO|||0.0232||
91674509|NCT00710749|183242675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.44
91674510|NCT00710749|183242675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
91674511|NCT00710749|183242675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91674512|NCT05478252|183242676|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin semaglutide J versus insulin semaglutide B was considered as confirmed if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean treatment difference lied entirely below 2.5%. Non-inferiority was investigated on the FAS.|Treatment difference|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.30|<.0001
91674513|NCT04846881|183242685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4753||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|1.656|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in overall composite T-score of the MCCB at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the stratification factor (screening MCCB overall composite T-score) and fixed effects for the continuous covariate of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with unstructured covariance structure for within-participant dependencies. The primary comparison was iclepertin 10 mg daily vs. placebo at Week 26.||1.656|-0.211|0.1291
91674514|NCT04846881|183242686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6042||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.472|1.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in SCoRS at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and continuous fixed effects for the corresponding baseline endpoint value at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||1.901|-0.472|0.2375
91674515|NCT04846881|183242687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.7541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.753|2.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in VRFCAT at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and continuous fixed effects for the corresponding baseline endpoint value at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||2.419|-1.753|0.7541
91674516|NCT04846881|183242688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in PRECIS at Week 24 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and continuous fixed effects for the corresponding baseline endpoint value at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||0.099|-0.074|0.7769
91674517|NCT04846881|183242689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.911||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.925|0.654|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference in ToL at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|For change from baseline to Week 26 in the T-score of the number of correct responses on ToL, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, stratification factor of screening MCCB overall composite T-score (\<30, ≥30), and baseline number of correct responses on ToL T-score were fitted to the data.||0.654|-2.925|0.2133
91674518|NCT04560998|183242690|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate|1.13||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.056|1.211|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.211|1.056|0.0004
91861322|NCT01926496|183609646|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel relative risk (ingenol mebutate / imiquimod), stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|||0.84|0.52|<0.001
91861323|NCT02677298|183609647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91861324|NCT02677298|183609648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary Outcome Measure shows a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91674519|NCT04560998|183242691|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate|1.08||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.156|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.156|1.004|0.0380
91674520|NCT04560998|183242692|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate|1.0||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|1.518|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.518|0.478|0.0108
91674521|NCT04560998|183242693|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|1.11||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.197|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.197|1.033|0.0046
91674522|NCT04495283|183242749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-114.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.65|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-80.01|||ANOVA|||||-80.01||<0.001
91674523|NCT04495283|183242750|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.549|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-42.32|||ANOVA|||||-42.32||<0.001
91674524|NCT04843566|183242779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Infection||||0.04
91674525|NCT04843566|183242779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Urinary retention||||0.30
91674526|NCT04843566|183242779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bleeding requiring intervention||||0.31
91674527|NCT04843566|183242780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediately following biopsy - Pain||||0.002
91674528|NCT04843566|183242780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediately following biopsy - Discomfort||||0.05
91674529|NCT04843566|183242780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7-day post biopsy - Pain||||<0.0001
91674530|NCT04843566|183242780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7-day post biopsy - Discomfort||||0.07
91674531|NCT04843566|183242781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91674532|NCT04843566|183242782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||Gleason grade \>=2||||0.59
91674533|NCT04843566|183242783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Infection||||0.04
91674534|NCT04843566|183242783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Urinary retention||||0.30
91861325|NCT02677298|183609649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
91674535|NCT04843566|183242783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bleeding requiring intervention||||0.31
91861326|NCT02677298|183609650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Investigator's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
91674536|NCT02287909|183242787|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-6.9|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|985.0|-38.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24|-38|>0.05
91674537|NCT02130583|183242860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.06||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.034
91674538|NCT03702049|183242889|OTHER|Change in score at 3 months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in score at 3 months||||0.603
91674539|NCT03702049|183242889|OTHER|Change at 6 months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month outcome||||0.805
91674540|NCT03702049|183242890|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||3 month outcome||1.79|0.39|0.672
91861327|NCT02677298|183609650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Subject's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
91674541|NCT03702049|183242890|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||6 month outcome||1.34|0.18|0.165
91674542|NCT03702049|183242891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month outcome||||0.719
91674543|NCT03702049|183242891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.626|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month outcome||||0.626
91674544|NCT03702049|183242892|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.03|-0.36|0.1668
91674545|NCT03702049|183242893|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.9198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|32.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 month outcome||32.7|-29.6|0.9198
91674546|NCT03702049|183242893|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|50.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month||50.7|-25.6|0.5015
91674547|NCT03438396|183242898|OTHER|The statistical hypotheses was tested to address ORR \<= 11% vs. ORR \> 11%.||||||0.0002|||||||one-sided exact test|||||||0.0002
91674548|NCT00262041|183242911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup A was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup A compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
91794428|NCT02043379|183467877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.47
91861328|NCT02677298|183609651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for responders rates at week 20||||0.084
91674549|NCT00262041|183242911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup A was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup A compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
91674550|NCT00262041|183242911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup C was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup C compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
91674551|NCT00262041|183242911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup C was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.||||||0.003||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup C compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||0.003
91674552|NCT00262041|183242911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup W was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup W compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
91674553|NCT00262041|183242911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup W was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.||||||0.071||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup W compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||0.071
91674554|NCT00262041|183242911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup Y was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup Y compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
91674555|NCT00262041|183242911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup Y was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup Y compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
91674556|NCT03028740|183242916|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-3.2||||0.2067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.9||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at Baseline).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.9|-8.2|0.2067
91674557|NCT03028740|183242916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6341|1.1044|||||Odds Ratio was based on Mantel-Haenszel estimates comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|||1.1044|0.6341|
91674558|NCT03028740|183242918|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.7||||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.5||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.5|-4.8|0.2827
91674559|NCT03028740|183242918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5032|1.2229|||||Odds Ratio was based on Mantel-Haenszel estimates comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|||1.2229|0.5032|
91674560|NCT03028740|183242919|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.7||||0.4054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.3|-8.7|0.4054
91674561|NCT03028740|183242919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6709|1.1744|||||Odds Ratio was based on Mantel-Haenszel estimates comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|||1.1744|0.6709|
91674562|NCT01138826|183242940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|105.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.09|113.61||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1036 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||113.61|98.09|
91674563|NCT01138826|183242940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|107.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.98|115.69||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1036 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||115.69|99.98|
91674564|NCT01138826|183242940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|101.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|109.6||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1036 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||109.60|94.70|
91674565|NCT01138826|183242941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|103.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.27|110.94||||||||110.94|97.27|
91716788|NCT04233879|183325413|SUPERIORITY|Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 0.|Treatment Difference|0.15||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.02|||ANCOVA|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|ANCOVA model was used to generate treatment difference and the associated 95%CI.|||1.02|-0.71|0.73
91716789|NCT03585270|183325424|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.072||||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|0.396|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.2785).|||0.396|-0.426|0.7338
91716790|NCT03585270|183325425|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.341||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.8644).|||0.642|-0.213|0.177
91716791|NCT03585270|183325426|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|-0.254||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.107|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.8844).|||0.107|-0.760|0.1983
91902938|NCT03672461|183700571|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-3.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.74|-9.54|0.276
91716792|NCT03585270|183325427|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|-0.254||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.107|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.8844).|||0.107|-0.760|0.1983
91716793|NCT03585270|183325428|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.119||||0.5591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.425|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.1706).|||0.425|-0.349|0.5591
91716794|NCT03585270|183325429|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.267||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.505|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.4580)|||0.505|-0.085|0.1179
91716795|NCT03585270|183325430|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.139||||0.5217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|0.457|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.1685)|||0.457|-0.365|0.5217
91902939|NCT03672461|183700572|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.34|-0.15|0.448
91674566|NCT01138826|183242941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|104.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.67|111.3||||||||111.30|97.67|
91674567|NCT01138826|183242941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|100.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.02|107.15||||||||107.15|94.02|
91793257|NCT03516942|183464330|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence||||||0.002||||||This is the p value of the null hypothesis that COST estimates for all cancer types (Colon cancer, Rectal cancer and Rectosigmoid) are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"Cancer type (Colon cancer, Rectal cancer and Rectosigmoid) effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||||0.002
91793258|NCT03516942|183464330|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|0.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||"FACT-G7 effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||0.6|0.0|0.03
91793259|NCT03516942|183464330|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|1.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.7|||Regression, Linear|||"Gender effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||3.7|-0.5|0.13
91793260|NCT03516942|183464330|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence||||||0.91||||||This is the p value of the null hypothesis that COST estimates for all RACES (White, Black, other) are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"RACE (White. Black Other) effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||||0.91
91793261|NCT03516942|183464330|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||"Neighborhood Deprivation (NDI) effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Higher NDI = greater neighborhood deprivation"||0.3|-0.3|>0.99
91861329|NCT02677298|183609652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for the Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Emotional domain change from baseline at week 4||||<0.001
91902940|NCT03672461|183700573|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.28|-0.86|0.319
91716796|NCT02756910|183325440|OTHER||percentile method|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.96|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||bootstrapping|||||||<0.05
91716797|NCT00323063|183325441|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3
91793262|NCT03516942|183464332|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.4142||||||alpha=0.05|McNemar|||Work Time Missed from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.4142
91861330|NCT02677298|183609652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This test was performed for the Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Functioning domain - Change from baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
91793263|NCT03516942|183464332|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.1797|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities at Work from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.1797
91793264|NCT03516942|183464332|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.8415|||||||McNemar|||Overall Work Impairment from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.8415
91793265|NCT03516942|183464332|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.6831|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities Outside of Work from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.6831
91793266|NCT03516942|183464332|EQUIVALENCE|no margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Work Time Missed from Baseline to 12 Months||||<.0001
91793267|NCT03516942|183464332|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0455|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities at Work from Baseline to 12 Months||||0.0455
91793268|NCT03516942|183464332|EQUIVALENCE|no margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Overall Work Impairment from Baseline to 12 Months||||<.0001
91793269|NCT03516942|183464332|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0164|||||||McNemar|||3 Impairment of Activities Outside of Work from Baseline to 12 Months||||0.0164
91793270|NCT03516942|183464332|EQUIVALENCE|nomargin||||||0.0027|||||||McNemar|||Work Time Missed from Baseline to 24 Months||||0.0027
91902941|NCT03672461|183700574|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|1.21||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||8.67|-6.25|0.747
91902942|NCT03672461|183700575|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.76||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||4.65|-10.2|0.459
91861331|NCT02677298|183609652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This test was performed for the Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Overall score||||<0.001
91861332|NCT02677298|183609652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test was performed for the FACE-Q Appraisal of Lines Between Eyebrows Scale - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
91902943|NCT03672461|183700576|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.0||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||4.65|-10.2|0.556
91716798|NCT03904693|183325444|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|0.61|<0.0001
91902944|NCT03672461|183700577|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-3.26||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||6.7|-13.2|0.516
91716799|NCT03904693|183325444|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.80|0.64|<0.0001
91902945|NCT03672461|183700578|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.38||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.91|-5.68|0.154
91861333|NCT02677298|183609652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test was performed for the FACE-Q Age Appraisal VAS score||||<0.001
91716800|NCT03904693|183325445|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.04|||=|0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|49.08|||ANCOVA|||||49.08|-17.0|=0.3802
91716801|NCT03904693|183325445|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|25.37|||=|0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|51.59|||ANCOVA|||||51.59|-0.93|=0.0591
91861334|NCT03210272|183609673|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|155.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.66|185.3|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 18.1|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||185.30|130.66|
91716802|NCT02240667|183325477|OTHER|||||||0.8496|||||||stratified log-rank test|||Persistence in both treatment groups was compared by means of the stratified Log-rank test||||0.8496
91716803|NCT01076543|183325498|OTHER||Maximum tolerated dose in mg|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||"The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined using the traditional 3+3 design and was the maximum dose level such that less than 33% of the patients (i.e, \<1 of 3 or \<2 of 6) experience dose-limiting toxicity."|||||
91716804|NCT01076543|183325500|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Binomial exact test|The number of responders required to reject the null hypothesis was 16 or more.||Two-stage, minimax design was used to test the null hypothesis that the overall response rate was 30% vs. a 50% alternative.||||>0.10
91716805|NCT01076543|183325500|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Two-stage, minimax design was used to test the null hypothesis that the overall response rate was 50% vs. 70% alternative.|The follicular subgroup did not reach its accrual goal and was closed.|||
91674568|NCT01138826|183242942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|98.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.05|106.33||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1146 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||106.33|91.05|
91674569|NCT01138826|183242942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|95.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.16|102.84||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1146 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||102.84|88.16|
91674570|NCT01138826|183242942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|96.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.58|104.54||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1146 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||104.54|89.58|
91674571|NCT02566993|183242945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.967||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.148|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test||||1.148|0.815|0.9029
91674572|NCT02566993|183242946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2826|||||||Normal test|||||||0.2826
91674573|NCT02566993|183242947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6216|||||||Normal test|||||||0.6216
91674574|NCT02566993|183242948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9708|||||||Normal test|||||||0.9708
91793271|NCT03516942|183464332|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0124|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities at Work from Baseline to 24 Months||||0.0124
91793272|NCT03516942|183464332|EQUIVALENCE|no margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Overall Work Impairment from Baseline to 24 Months||||<.0001
91793273|NCT03516942|183464332|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0011|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities Outside of Work from Baseline to 24 Months||||0.0011
91793274|NCT03516942|183464338|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin was assumed||||||0.017|||||||McNemar|||the McNemar test was used to compare the results assuming a null of no difference.||||0.017
91674575|NCT02566993|183242949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.996|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test||||0.996|0.693|0.3257
91674576|NCT02566993|183242950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0851|||||||Normal test|||||||0.0851
91674577|NCT02566993|183242951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0129|||||||Normal test|||||||0.0129
91674578|NCT02566993|183242953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6616|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.6616
91674579|NCT02566993|183242954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.812|||Log Rank|||||0.812|0.416|0.0012
91674580|NCT02566993|183242955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.14||||||||1.140|0.744|
91674581|NCT02566993|183242956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.688|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.863||||||||0.863|0.549|
91674582|NCT02566993|183242958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.376||||||||1.376|0.616|
91674583|NCT02566993|183242959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.736||||||||0.736|0.346|
91674584|NCT02566993|183242960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.122|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5||||||||1.500|0.840|
91674585|NCT02566993|183242961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.786||||||||1.786|0.955|
91674586|NCT02566993|183242963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|1.843||||||||1.843|0.455|
91674587|NCT02566993|183242964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|2.36||||||||2.360|0.506|
91674588|NCT02566993|183242965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.113||||||||1.113|0.765|
91674589|NCT02566993|183242966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.961||||||||0.961|0.645|
91674590|NCT02566993|183242968|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|1.307||||||||1.307|0.624|
91674591|NCT02566993|183242969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.799||||||||0.799|0.392|
91674592|NCT02566993|183242970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.291|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|1.99||||||||1.990|0.838|
91674593|NCT02566993|183242971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|2.019||||||||2.019|0.824|
91674594|NCT02566993|183242973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|2.641||||||||2.641|0.403|
91674595|NCT02566993|183242974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|2.75||||||||2.750|0.373|
91692159|NCT03296527|183279342|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.5|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of implanted embryos 5-6 weeks after transfer||9.5|-1.6|
91692160|NCT03296527|183279343|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.7|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with ongoing implantation rate||9.7|-0.9|
91692161|NCT03296527|183279344|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression including AMH group as a factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with \<4 or \>=15 oocytes retrieved||1.03|0.60|0.083
91716806|NCT01076543|183325500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||Binomial exact test.|The number of responders required to reject the null hypothesis was 16 or more.||Two-stage, minimax design was used to test the null hypothesis that the overall response rate was 30% vs. a 50% alternative.||||<0.10
91716807|NCT00791999|183325539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025||95.0||||Wald p-values(vs. placebo) for the comparison of the treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||For ACR20 responder rate at Week 12, treatment comparisons versus placebo for the two CDP870 dose groups, the CDP870 200 mg group the CDP870 400 mg, were performed. The ACR20 responder rate in the CDP870 100 mg group was used for the secondary analysis.||||<0.025
91716808|NCT00791999|183325540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Wald p-values(vs. placebo) for the comparison of the treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91716809|NCT00737048|183325605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.06|<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Least Signiﬁcant Diﬀerence Method|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Total pain relief based on numerical rating scale score||||<0.0001
91716810|NCT00737048|183325605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.99|<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Least Signiﬁcant Diﬀerence Method|||Statistical Analysis 2 for Total pain relief based on numerical rating scale score||||<0.0001
91716811|NCT03845894|183325668|NON_INFERIORITY|There have been no studies to evaluate pain scores ISB w/ plain bupi+adjuvants. Power to detect difference at least 0.4 on the VAS scale. Threshold for inferiority is difference \>=2 points on the VAS scale. Will use two-sample t test with α= 0.05 and β= 0.1. Postop opioid consumption, total post-op opioid @ 1st 48 hours in oxycodone equivalents. Mean opioid consumption per cohort is calculated, \& the cohorts compared for statistical difference with two-sample t test, with α= 0.05 and β= 0.1.||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91716812|NCT00879190|183325671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91861335|NCT03210272|183609673|OTHER||Ratio T/R (%)|240.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|196.25|293.81|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 27.8|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||293.81|196.25|
91716813|NCT00879190|183325672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91794429|NCT02043379|183467877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.42||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.42
91902946|NCT03672461|183700579|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.22||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.72|-7.17|0.375
91716814|NCT00879190|183325673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
91716815|NCT00289211|183325682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.048||||0.048||95.0|1.008|4.164|||Regression, Cox|||Subjects who did not experience beginning of substantial relief of the defining symptom within 4 hours after initial treatment were included in the analysis as censored observations. Entries of 4.0 (hours) for median time to event or 95% CI indicate that data were NE (see Population Description). As non-numeric data are not supported by the median and 95% CI fields, entry of the actual results (ie, NE or \>4.0) was not possible.||4.164|1.008|0.048
91902947|NCT03672461|183700580|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-1.75||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.5|-5|0.287
91716816|NCT00289211|183325683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41||||0.062||95.0|0.87|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.87|0.062
91716817|NCT00289211|183325684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.717||||0.001||95.0|1.471|5.02|||Regression, Cox|||Subjects who had not experienced complete resolution of the HAE attack at the time of the follow-up telephone call, or who were lost to follow-up, were censored at 72 hours.||5.020|1.471|0.001
91716818|NCT00289211|183325685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91716819|NCT00289211|183325685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Change at 2 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91716820|NCT00289211|183325685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Change at 4 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91716821|NCT00289211|183325685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||95.0||||Change at 12 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
91716822|NCT00289211|183325686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Percent change 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91716823|NCT00289211|183325686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Percent change 2 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91716824|NCT00289211|183325686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Percent change 4 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91716825|NCT00289211|183325686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022||95.0||||Percent change 12 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0022
91716826|NCT00289211|183325687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1321||95.0||||Change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1321
91716827|NCT00289211|183325687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5218||95.0||||Change at 2 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5218
91716828|NCT00289211|183325687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.121||95.0||||Change at 4 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1210
91716829|NCT00289211|183325687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0||||Change at 12 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0017
91716830|NCT03863353|183325706|SUPERIORITY||Rebression coefficient|2.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.4||Adjusted for repeated measures and effects of covariates|Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis was tested using multivariable regression models (generalized estimating equation)||3.40|0.86|.001
91794430|NCT02043379|183467877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.82||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.82
91902948|NCT03672461|183700581|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-1.63||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.58||adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured variance co-variance matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.58|-3.85|0.147
91674596|NCT02278718|183242997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon-Gehan Test|||Wilcoxon test statistic was estimated using generalized Wilcoxon-Gehan test stratified by center group, age group, % TBSA group, proportion of FT area group and number of TWs group. A negative (positive) statistic is associated with longer (shorter) time to the event when treated with NexoBrid vs. Standard of Care. P-value was calculated using the re-randomization test.||||0.0008
91902949|NCT03672461|183700582|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-1.37||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.61|-5.36|0.495
91674597|NCT02278718|183242998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.025|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.09|||Fisher Exact|||Incidence of Surgical Excision for Eschar Removal for NexoBrid vs SOC||0.090|0.007|<0.0001
91674598|NCT02278718|183242999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1374
91674599|NCT02278718|183243000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.5045|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5045
91674600|NCT02278718|183243001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.414||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|1.054|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.054|0.163|0.0545
91674601|NCT04440449|183243002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91674602|NCT04440449|183243003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.108
91674603|NCT03212794|183243011|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.87||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||=0.87
91716831|NCT03863353|183325707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.9||adjusted for covariates|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model examined the effect of the intervention on the outcome (collapsed intentions/behaviors)||1.90|0.72|0.534
91674604|NCT03212794|183243012|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.82||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||=0.82
91674605|NCT03212794|183243013|OTHER||||||=|0.92||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Log Rank|If no event occurred, the data from those individuals were right censored.||||||=0.92
91674606|NCT03212794|183243014|OTHER||||||=|0.85||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Log Rank|If no event occurred, the data from those individuals were right censored.||||||=0.85
91674607|NCT01763918|183243017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.11|-53.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.35|-65.11|<0.001
91674608|NCT01763918|183243017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|-53.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.55|-69.00|<0.001
91674609|NCT01763918|183243018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.83|-54.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.46|-65.83|<0.001
91674610|NCT01763918|183243018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.27|-59.83||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-59.83|-71.27|<0.001
91674611|NCT01763918|183243019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-95.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.1|-85.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-85.2|-105.1|<0.001
91674612|NCT01763918|183243019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-97.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|-87.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-87.7|-107.1|<0.001
91674613|NCT01763918|183243020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-92.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.9|-82.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-82.8|-102.9|<0.001
91692162|NCT03296527|183279344|OTHER|Logistic regression including AMH group as a factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with \<4 or \>=20 oocytes retrieved||1.23|0.65|0.489
91902950|NCT03672461|183700583|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.82||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.59|-8.22|0.303
91861336|NCT03210272|183609674|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|156.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.73|184.22|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 17.0|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||184.22|132.73|
91861337|NCT03210272|183609674|OTHER||Ratio T/R (%)|245.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|200.7|300.44|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 27.8|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||300.44|200.70|
91861338|NCT03210272|183609675|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|158.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.25|220.56|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 34.8|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||220.56|114.25|
91861339|NCT03210272|183609675|OTHER||Ratio T/R (%)|246.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|203.37|297.89|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 26.2|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||297.89|203.37|
91861340|NCT03064217|183609711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91692163|NCT03296527|183279345|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.06||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (any grade)||1.06|0.34|0.075
91861341|NCT02143726|183609712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.33|||Log Rank|Stratified 1-sided log-rank test (stratified by ECOG performance status, prior systemic treatment for hürthle thyroid cancer, and treating site).||||1.33|0.23|0.0918
91861342|NCT02143726|183609714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.3976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.96|||Log Rank|||||4.96|0.53|0.3976
91861343|NCT02761057|183609771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||A proportional hazards model was used to compare the Hazard Ratio (HR) for PFS.||0.97|0.37|0.019
91861344|NCT02761057|183609772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||The Chi-Square test will be used to compare RR between sunitinib and cabozantinib.||||0.10
91861345|NCT02761057|183609773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51|||Log Rank|||The log-rank test will be used to compare OS.||1.51|0.47|
91861346|NCT04971681|183609776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.27
91861347|NCT04971681|183609777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.10
91794431|NCT02043379|183467877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.44||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.44
91674614|NCT01763918|183243020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-91.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.8|-78.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-78.9|-103.8|<0.001
91674615|NCT01763918|183243021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.8|73.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use.||||73.4|52.8|<0.001
91674616|NCT01763918|183243021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|78.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.9|85.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use.||||85.1|66.9|<0.001
91674617|NCT01763918|183243022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|66.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|74.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use||||74.6|53.7|<0.001
91674618|NCT01763918|183243022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|60.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|69.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use.||||69.8|47.6|<0.001
91716832|NCT00966433|183325708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-2.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.79|-13.61|.0051
91794432|NCT02043379|183467878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.28||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.28
91902951|NCT03672461|183700584|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|2.97||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||7.51|-1.56|0.196
91902952|NCT00315939|183700587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.001
91674619|NCT01763918|183243023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.41|-50.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.59|-61.41|<0.001
91674620|NCT01763918|183243023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.24|-54.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.77|-65.24|<0.001
91674621|NCT01763918|183243024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.47|-49.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.12|-60.47|<0.001
91674622|NCT01763918|183243024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.95|-47.96||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-47.96|-61.95|<0.001
91674623|NCT01763918|183243025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.32|-44.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.46|-54.32|<0.001
91674624|NCT01763918|183243025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|-50.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.38|-59.58|<0.001
91716833|NCT00966433|183325709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|4.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.23|2.97|.0001
91902953|NCT04667247|183700590|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.94||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
91674625|NCT01763918|183243026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.55|-43.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-43.63|-54.55|<0.001
91674626|NCT01763918|183243026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.73|-43.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-43.10|-55.73|<0.001
91716834|NCT00966433|183325714|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.88|-8.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-8.92|-18.88|.0001
91716835|NCT04275336|183325832|OTHER||H value|1.344||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.511
91902954|NCT04667247|183700593|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|1.022||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
91902955|NCT04667247|183700595|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|4.828||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.061
91902956|NCT04667247|183700596|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|3.526||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.100
91902957|NCT04667247|183700597|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.005||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
91902958|NCT04667247|183700598|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|3.036||||0.162|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.162
91902959|NCT04667247|183700600|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.151||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.00
91861348|NCT00686335|183609778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-2.2||As this was an explorative study to collect data for a subsequent controlled study, no hypothesis testing was performed. All analyses were descriptive.|Other|As this was an explorative study, no hypothesis testing was performed. All analyses were descriptive.||As this was an explorative study to collect data for a subsequent controlled study, no hypothesis testing was performed. All analyses were descriptive.||-2.2|-13.5|
91902960|NCT04667247|183700601|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.908||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.174
91902961|NCT04667247|183700602|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.038||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.846
91674627|NCT01763918|183243027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.43|-41.76||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.76|-51.43|<0.001
91674628|NCT01763918|183243027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.21|-44.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.11|-54.21|<0.001
91674629|NCT01763918|183243028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.27|-40.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.88|-51.27|<0.001
91716836|NCT04275336|183325833|OTHER||H value|5.272||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.072
91674630|NCT01763918|183243028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.86|-37.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.98|-52.86|<0.001
91674631|NCT01763918|183243029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.35|-47.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-47.99|-58.35|<0.001
91674632|NCT01763918|183243029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.08|-50.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.05|-61.08|<0.001
91674633|NCT01763918|183243030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.16|-48.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.41|-60.16|<0.001
91716837|NCT04275336|183325834|OTHER||H value|0.198||||0.906|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.906
91716838|NCT04275336|183325835|OTHER||H value|6.679||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.035
91861349|NCT03798093|183609779|SUPERIORITY||least squares|-0.112||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||||1.7|-29.3|0.08
91861350|NCT05603143|183609819|OTHER|||||||0.3161|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3161
91861351|NCT05603143|183609823|OTHER|||||||0.3219|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3219
91902962|NCT04667247|183700603|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.041||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Day by Group interaction|||||.841
91902963|NCT04667247|183700604|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.261||||0.612|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.612
91902964|NCT04667247|183700605|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.161||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.690
91902965|NCT04667247|183700606|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.671||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.109
91902966|NCT04667247|183700607|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.039||||0.844|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.844
91902967|NCT04667247|183700608|SUPERIORITY||F value|4.28||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.044
91716839|NCT04275336|183325836|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.844
91716840|NCT04275336|183325837|OTHER||H value|1.651||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.438
91716841|NCT04275336|183325838|OTHER||H value|0.341||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.843
91716842|NCT04275336|183325839|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.642||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.440
91902968|NCT04667247|183700609|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.001||||0.989|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Day by Group interaction|||||.989
91902969|NCT04667247|183700610|SUPERIORITY||F value|7.186||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.010
91902970|NCT04667247|183700611|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.345||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.560
91674634|NCT01763918|183243030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.14|-40.96||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.96|-58.14|<0.001
91674635|NCT01763918|183243031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|-24.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.41|-38.33|<0.001
91674636|NCT01763918|183243031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.91|-24.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.09|-37.91|<0.001
91793276|NCT00478881|183464344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.045||||0.5293||95.0|-33.194|17.104||Bladder volume (mL) at first detrusor contraction tested first. If significant, the change in the average number of daily micturitions was to be tested using a P\<0.05.|ANCOVA||Placebo-Vardenafil|Countries were pooled into 2 clusters, which allowed for testing of Treatment by Center interaction. An ANCOVA including Baseline (Visit 2) as a covariate with main effects for treatment and country (see pooling above) was used to test treatment difference for the primary variable and co-primary variable.||17.104|-33.194|0.5293
91716843|NCT04664205|183325843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
91794433|NCT02043379|183467878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.37||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.37
91902971|NCT04667247|183700612|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.143||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.707
91902972|NCT04667247|183700613|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.09||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Day by Group interaction|||||0.765
91902973|NCT04667247|183700614|SUPERIORITY||F value|7.835||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.005
91902974|NCT04667247|183700615|SUPERIORITY||F value|16.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||<0.001
91902975|NCT04124614|183700639|SUPERIORITY|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|Treatment Difference|-5.59||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|-2.38|||MMRM|||||-2.38|-8.79|0.0007
91902976|NCT04124614|183700640|SUPERIORITY|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|Treatment Difference|-0.47||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.17|||MMRM|||||-0.17|-0.76|0.0019
91902977|NCT04124614|183700641|SUPERIORITY|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|Treatment Difference|-12.03||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|-4.62|||MMRM|||||-4.62|-19.44|0.0016
91902978|NCT01830855|183700652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB80.||1.14|0.93|
91902979|NCT01830855|183700652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB80.||1.13|0.92|
91674637|NCT01763918|183243032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.28|-23.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.87|-39.28|<0.001
91716844|NCT04664205|183325844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.069
91716845|NCT04664205|183325845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.478
91902980|NCT01830855|183700652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB80.||1.12|0.88|
91902981|NCT01830855|183700652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB2948.||1.06|0.85|
91674638|NCT01763918|183243032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.61|-20.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-20.88|-35.61|<0.001
91674639|NCT01763918|183243033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.48|-15.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-15.24|-29.48|<0.001
91674640|NCT01763918|183243033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|-9.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.05|-24.43|<0.001
91716846|NCT01578772|183325847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. All statistical tests are two-sided with nominal alpha level of 0.05.||||0.1|-0.1|<0.05
91716847|NCT01578772|183325848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. All statistical tests are two-sided with nominal alpha level of 0.05.||||1.9|-1.3|<0.05
91902982|NCT01830855|183700652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB2948.||1.06|0.86|
91902983|NCT01830855|183700652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.14||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB2948||1.14|0.88|
91902984|NCT01798992|183700724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in rate of LVEF improvement according to treatment group.||||0.685
91793277|NCT00478881|183464345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.668||||0.0575||95.0|-0.021|1.358||Bladder volume (mL) at first detrusor contraction tested first. If significant, the change in the average number of daily micturitions was to be tested using a P \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Placebo - Vardenafil|Countries were pooled into 2 clusters, which allowed for testing of Treatment by Center interaction. An ANCOVA including Baseline (Visit 2) as a covariate with main effects for treatment and country (see pooling above) was used to test treatment difference for the primary variable and co-primary variable.||1.358|-0.021|0.0575
91674641|NCT01763918|183243034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.92|-11.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.26|-27.92|<0.001
91692164|NCT03296527|183279345|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe)||1.40|0.40|0.365
91793278|NCT00478881|183464346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.657||||0.8533||95.0|-6.335|7.65||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||Placebo- Vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||7.650|-6.335|0.8533
91674642|NCT01763918|183243034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.38|-1.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-1.74|-21.38|<0.001
91716848|NCT01791985|183325910|OTHER||Mean|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Proportion of change in tumour size at 12 weeks (or progression if prior to week 12), when used in combination with either anastrozole or letrozole in ER positive breast cancer patients who have progressed on treatment with either anastrozole or letrozole in any setting||||
91674643|NCT01763918|183243035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|12.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.40|4.36|<0.001
91861352|NCT05603143|183609824|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.496||||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.952|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression.|||8.952|0.250|0.6568
91861353|NCT05603143|183609825|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.99||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.311|28.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression.|||28.740|0.311|0.3190
91861354|NCT05603143|183609826|OTHER|||||||0.3161|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3161
91861355|NCT05603143|183609827|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.425||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|2.112||P-value was based on stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factors as the strata.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||2.112|0.961|0.0859
91793279|NCT00478881|183464347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.59||||0.1539||95.0|-37.057|5.876||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||Placebo- Vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||5.876|-37.057|0.1539
91794434|NCT02043379|183467878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.42||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.42
91861356|NCT05603143|183609828|OTHER||Treatment Difference (vs Placebo)|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.33|||MMRM||Least-squares mean (SE), 95% CI and P value were from MMRM with baseline viral load and randomization strata as covariates.|||-0.33|-0.83|< 0.0001
91861357|NCT02301910|183609866|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation was carried out taking into account the power of 80%||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
91861358|NCT04282148|183609876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Z test using Kaplan Meier survival estim|||||||<0.0001
91861359|NCT01743807|183609882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91861360|NCT01814813|183609918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
91861361|NCT01814813|183609919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
91861362|NCT01814813|183609920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
91861363|NCT03808818|183609923|EQUIVALENCE|the smallest detectable difference will be 22%|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.13||No correction for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||"For self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-months, with a sample size of 140 in each arm then smallest detectable difference will be 22% with 80% power. Subsequent analyses will use a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 using with an estimated control rate of 31%.~The primary analysis will be performed from an intent-to-treat perspective. Chi-square tests will be used to compare the outcomes between treatment groups."||4.13|1.28|0.0046
91861364|NCT03808818|183609924|EQUIVALENCE|the smallest detectable difference will be 22% with 80% power and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 using and an estimated control rate of 28%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.33|||Chi-squared|||7-day point prevalence abstinence at 3-months, with a sample size of 140 in each arm then smallest detectable difference will be 18% with 80% power and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 using and an estimated control rate of 20%||3.33|1.04|0.035
91861365|NCT03808818|183609925|EQUIVALENCE|the smallest detectable difference will be 21% with 80% power and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 and an estimated control rate of 20%.||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||power calculations assumed a sample size of 140 in each arm and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 and an estimated control rate of 20%||||0.016
91861366|NCT03808818|183609927|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
91861367|NCT03808818|183609928|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
91861368|NCT03808818|183609940|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
91793280|NCT00478881|183464348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.374||||0.2348||95.0|-32.834|8.087||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||8.087|-32.834|0.2348
91793281|NCT00478881|183464349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.195||||0.3289||95.0|-24.692|8.303||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||8.303|-24.692|0.3289
91793282|NCT00478881|183464350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.721||||0.0609||95.0|-0.033|1.476||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||1.476|-0.033|0.0609
91674644|NCT01763918|183243035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|13.85||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.85|5.10|<0.001
91674645|NCT01763918|183243036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|13.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.74|4.66|<0.001
91674646|NCT01763918|183243036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|1466.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||1466|3.48|<0.001
91674647|NCT01763918|183243037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|-15.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-15.81|-29.46|<0.001
91793283|NCT00478881|183464351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.4928||95.0|-0.22|0.456||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||0.456|-0.220|0.4928
91793284|NCT00478881|183464352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.823||||0.3248||95.0|-2.476|0.829||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||0.829|-2.476|0.3248
91793285|NCT00478881|183464353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.095||||0.5312||95.0|-4.533|2.342||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||2.342|-4.533|0.5312
91674648|NCT01763918|183243037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.25|-7.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-7.84|-23.25|<0.001
91674649|NCT01763918|183243038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.29|-12.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-12.66|-29.29|<0.001
91674650|NCT01763918|183243038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-9.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.01|0.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||0.68|-19.01|<0.001
91674651|NCT01553747|183243044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
91674652|NCT01553747|183243044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
91861369|NCT03808818|183609941|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
91793286|NCT05803603|183464378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.92|||McNemar|||We recruited 8 homeless individuals and followed them for 12 months. 4 individuals (50%) were housed at 6 months and 3 (37.5) were housed at 12 months.|See results above|10.92|.37|.125
91793287|NCT03977454|183464413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was a comparison between groups at 24 hours.||||0.69
91861370|NCT03808818|183609942|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
91861371|NCT03808818|183609944|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
91861372|NCT03858634|183609945|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.68|2.17||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.17|-8.68|0.3980
91793288|NCT03977454|183464414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Scores were compared at 2 days post operation.||||0.92
91793289|NCT03977454|183464415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91793290|NCT03977454|183464417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Scores were compared at 2 weeks.||||0.85
91861373|NCT03858634|183609945|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.17|1.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.09|-2.17|0.6653
91861374|NCT03858634|183609945|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.63|-3.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-11.63|0.0711
91861375|NCT03858634|183609945|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.7|-1.51||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.51|-4.70|0.0186
91861376|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.52|16.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||16.84|-31.52|0.6533
91861377|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51||0.9077|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.16|12.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||12.69|-15.16|0.9077
91861378|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-61.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.18||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-123.73|1.39||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||1.39|-123.73|0.2065
91861379|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.56|-1.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||-1.07|-9.56|0.1133
91861380|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.76||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.29|18.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||18.98|-52.29|0.4997
91793291|NCT00930982|183464418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-2.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.674|<|0.001||||||p-value should be \< 0.023 (one-sided) for a significant result as an interim analysis was performed. Results based on the no-interaction model which was defined as primary analysis.|ANCOVA|Baseline cfu was covariate, treatment and pooled centers factors. As the p-value for interaction was 0.214, the no-interaction model is appropriate.|Least square mean Ciprofloxacin minus placebo|"Ho: CFU(EOT\|Cipro) - CFU(baseline\|Cipro) \> CFU(EOT\|Placebo) - CFU(baseline\|Placebo) CFU = colony forming units EOT=End of treatment (Day 29) Sample size was based a difference of 1.2 log10 CFU/g between placebo and Ciprofloxacin and a standard deviation of 2 log10 CFU/g"||||< 0.001
91674653|NCT01553747|183243045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.001
91674654|NCT01553747|183243045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
91674655|NCT01490931|183243079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value adjusted with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91674656|NCT01490931|183243083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91674657|NCT01490931|183243084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91674658|NCT01490931|183243085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91793292|NCT00518973|183464433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||t = 2.8|t-test, 2 sided|Hours occupied by preoccupations.||||||.15
91793293|NCT00518973|183464433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||t = .56|t-test, 2 sided|Hours of rituals||||||.40
91793294|NCT00518973|183464434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||t = .13|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.72
91674659|NCT01490931|183243086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91674660|NCT01490931|183243087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0001
91674661|NCT01490931|183243088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91674662|NCT01490931|183243089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91674663|NCT01490931|183243090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91674664|NCT00754494|183243125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.762
91674665|NCT00754494|183243125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.125
91674666|NCT00754494|183243125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.855|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.855
91722498|NCT02452190|183337799|SUPERIORITY|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the primary and secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.|CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.79||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.124||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group, randomization stratification factors, and number of prior exacerbations as model factors and the logarithm of treatment duration excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||1.124|0.562|0.194
91674667|NCT00754494|183243126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.369
91674668|NCT00754494|183243126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.085
91793295|NCT00518973|183464435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||t = .52|t-test, 2 sided|Reporting for Trait||||||.48
91674669|NCT00754494|183243126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.233
91674670|NCT00754494|183243127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.651
91674671|NCT00754494|183243127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.030
91674672|NCT00754494|183243127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.261
91674673|NCT00754494|183243128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.654
91674674|NCT00754494|183243128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.030
91674675|NCT00754494|183243128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.083
91793296|NCT00518973|183464435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||t = .09|t-test, 2 sided|Reporting for State||||||.77
91793297|NCT00518973|183464436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||t = .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.83
91793298|NCT00518973|183464437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||t = .78|t-test, 2 sided|Positive Scale||||||.40
91902985|NCT01798992|183700725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in rate of LVEF improvement according to treatment group.||||0.071
91674676|NCT04070287|183243168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91674677|NCT04070287|183243169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91674678|NCT04070287|183243170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91674679|NCT04070287|183243171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91722499|NCT06001021|183337809|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008).~Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.78||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.9|-32.19||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||-32.19|-38.90|0.000
91793299|NCT00518973|183464437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||t=3.0|t-test, 2 sided|Negative Scale||||||.11
91674680|NCT04070287|183243172|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91674681|NCT04070287|183243173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91674682|NCT01949116|183243197|NON_INFERIORITY|The P-value for the risk difference is from an asymptotic non-inferiority analysis for the proportion (risk) difference with a 15% non-inferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.072||||0.0367|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.134|||Farrington-Manning score (exact)||LDMTX - Placebo|||0.134||0.0367
91674683|NCT01949116|183243198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.85|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified by Statin Use (study stratification factor)||||0.85|-0.67|0.55
91674684|NCT03399318|183243211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||treatment group as the factor of interest, country and disease severity 207 (CM=yes, no) as stratification factors, and admission temperature as a covariate. A t-test for significance of the treatment effect, were derived from this model.|t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis of the primary outcome variable, Tmax, involved fitting an analysis of 206 covariance model with treatment group as the factor of interest, country and disease severity 207 (CM=yes, no) as stratification factors, and admission temperature as a covariate. The estimated 208 treatment effect and associated 95% confidence interval, as well as a t-test for significance of the treatment effect, were derived from this model.||||<0.0001
91902986|NCT00763971|183700732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-15.7|||ANCOVA|||||-15.7|-21.5|<0.001
91674685|NCT03399318|183243212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Seizure occurrence defined as a three-level ordinal variable was analyzed using a 223 multinomial logistic regression model because there was evidence that the proportional odds 224 assumption did not hold. This model included treatment group as the factor of interest and 225 country and disease severity as stratification factors. The adjusted treatment group odds ratio, 226 and its associated 95% confidence interval were derived from this model.||.27|.03|<0.05
91674686|NCT03399318|183243213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|17.7||The covariance matrix for the within-participant observations was 232 modeled using an unstructured pattern.|ANCOVA|Time to parasite clearance was 235 evaluated using a discrete-time proportional hazards model with a complementary log-log link.|The adjusted treatment group difference in mean area 233 under the log10(HRP2 level) × time curve was estimated using appropriate contrasts among the 234 treatment group means over time that quantify this comparison.|Parasite clearance measured by log10 (HRP2 level) was analyzed with a repeated 228 measures analysis of covariance model (mixed model repeated measures)35 with terms for 229 treatment group, country, disease severity, log10(HRP2 level) at admission, time (treated as a 230 categorical variable), and interaction terms for admission log10(HRP2 level) and time, and for 231 treatment group and time.|The model included terms for treatment group, country, and disease severity.|17.7|-5.1|<0.05
91674687|NCT03399318|183243214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.52||An ordinal logistic regression model assuming 216 proportional odds with terms for treatment group, country, and disease severity as covariates was used to derive the estimated adjusted treatment group odds ratio and 95%CI|Regression, Logistic|Sensitivity analyses with best-case and worst-case imputation were 219 performed to accommodate missing data||A secondary efficacy measure included fever exposure as measured by the area under 214 the temperature × time curve for T≥38.5°C during the 72-hour follow-up period, categorized as 215 0, \> 0 and \< 2, and ≥ 2 degree-hours.||.52|.20|<0.05
91674688|NCT04632706|183243219|OTHER|||||||0.803||||||If the p-value is more than 0.05 then dose proportionality can not be confirmed.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assessment of dose proportionality on D2 and D28||||0.803
91674689|NCT04632706|183243221|OTHER|||||||0.689||||||If the p-value is more than 0.05 then dose proportionality can not be confirmed.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assessment of dose proportionality on D2 and D28||||0.689
91716849|NCT01103323|183325915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.774||||0.005178||95.0|0.636|0.942||According to protocol specified O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and 432 death events at 2nd IA, the pre-specified alpha (false positive rate) for this analysis was 0.009279 (1-sided).|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by same stratification factors as randomization. Hazard ratio (Regorafenib / Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval calculated using Cox model, stratified by same factors.|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect 33.3% increase in median OS (i.e. hazard ratio of 0.75, Regorafenib / Placebo). Assuming 1-sided overall alpha of 0.025, randomization ratio of 2:1 for Regorafenib and Placebo, and 2 formal interim analyses of OS using an O'Brien-Fleming-type error spending function, a total of 582 death events were required for primary completion. Results based on 2nd planned formal IA with 432 total events.||0.942|0.636|0.005178
91716850|NCT01103323|183325916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.494|||<|1e-06||95.0|0.419|0.582||Comparison based on pre-specified alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Regorafenib / Placebo)|Two treatment groups compared using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by same stratification factors as randomization. Hazard ratio (Regorafenib / Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval calculated using Cox model, stratified by same factors.||0.582|0.419|<0.000001
91793300|NCT00518973|183464437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||t = .02|t-test, 2 sided|General Scale||||||.90
91902987|NCT00763971|183700732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-10.2|||ANCOVA|||||-10.2|-15.9|<0.001
91674690|NCT02994355|183243236|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence rate ratio|1.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.52|||Poisson Regression|||||1.52|1.16|<0.05
91674691|NCT02994355|183243237|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence rate ratio|1.27|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.3|||Poisson regression|||||1.30|1.15|<0.05
91674692|NCT02994355|183243238|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence rate ratio|3.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|4.55|||Poisson regression|||||4.55|2.29|<0.05
91674693|NCT03050918|183243239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||we used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
91674694|NCT03050918|183243240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91674695|NCT03050918|183243240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
91674696|NCT03050918|183243241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91674697|NCT03050918|183243241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||.05
91674698|NCT03050918|183243242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||.05
91674699|NCT03050918|183243243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91674700|NCT03050918|183243244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91674701|NCT03050918|183243246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91674702|NCT03832738|183243250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.8||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.80|0.39|0.558
91674703|NCT03832738|183243250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.1||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.10|1.07|0.035
91674704|NCT03832738|183243251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.75||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.75|0.89|0.086
91674705|NCT03832738|183243251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|9.75||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.75|1.45|0.006
91674706|NCT03832738|183243252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|17.25||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.25|0.06|>0.999
91674707|NCT03832738|183243252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|41.2||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.20|0.36|0.244
91674708|NCT03832738|183243254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|19.62||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.62|1.38|0.009
91902988|NCT00763971|183700733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentages|63.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|74.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||74.1|53.0|<0.001
91793301|NCT01923168|183464477|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.5|1.7|||Posterior mean diff. & credible interval|||||1.7|-4.5|0.282
91793302|NCT01923168|183464478|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.9|4.2|||Posterior mean difference|Posterior mean difference||||4.2|-1.9|0.697
91674709|NCT03832738|183243254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|29.08||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.08|1.86|0.002
91674710|NCT03852459|183243264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4272|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4272
91674711|NCT05486065|183243280|SUPERIORITY|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-1.25|0.0002
91674712|NCT05486065|183243280|SUPERIORITY|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-1.19|0.0003
91674713|NCT05486065|183243280|SUPERIORITY|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-1.50|<.0001
91674714|NCT05486065|183243280|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.05||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.47|||ANCOVA|||The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.||0.47|-0.38|0.8305
91674715|NCT05486065|183243280|OTHER|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.3||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.72|0.1678
91674716|NCT05486065|183243280|OTHER|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.25||||0.2445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.67|0.2445
91793303|NCT01923168|183464479|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.5|9.7|||Posterior mean diff. & credible interval|||||9.7|-12.5|0.435
91793304|NCT01923168|183464480|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.4|13.2|||Posterior mean diff. & credible interval|||||13.2|-8.4|0.611
91794435|NCT02043379|183467878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.31||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.31
91902989|NCT00763971|183700733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentages|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|57.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.7|34.6|<0.001
91902990|NCT00763971|183700734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-17.0|||ANCOVA|||||-17.0|-25.5|<0.001
91793305|NCT04193410|183464509|OTHER|Linear mixed model analyses assessed longitudinal intervention effects on children's BMI z-score. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at T0 (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's weight status at T0 (underweight/normal weight/overweight). This analyses reports T1-T0.||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.210
91861381|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.85||0.9919|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.83|15.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||15.59|-15.83|0.9919
91794436|NCT02043379|183467878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.38
91861382|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-89.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.56||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-143.03|-35.31||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-35.31|-143.03|0.0891
91861383|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.67|-2.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-2.12|-16.67|0.1029
91793306|NCT04193410|183464509|OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses assessed longitudinal intervention effects on children's BMI z-score. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at T0 (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's weight status at T0 (underweight/normal weight/overweight). This analyses reports T2-T0.||||0.793
91794437|NCT02043379|183467878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.4||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.4
91861384|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.93||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-75.82|32.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||32.05|-75.82|0.5538
91674717|NCT00595335|183243338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' CAS score at 6 months.||||0.73
91674718|NCT00595335|183243339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' failure rate at 6 months.||||0.75
91716851|NCT01103323|183325917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.6||||0.188432||95.0|-1.74|0.53||Comparison based on pre-specified alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference = Placebo - Regorafenib 160 mg|Two treatment groups compared using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for same stratification factors as at randomization.||0.53|-1.74|0.188432
91861385|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.78||0.3252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.51|3.73||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||3.73|-27.51|0.3252
91902991|NCT00763971|183700734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-10.9|||ANCOVA|||||-10.9|-19.3|<0.001
91674719|NCT00595335|183243339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' failure rate at 12 months.||||0.85
91674720|NCT00595335|183243341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change between the two groups in proptosis in the right eye at 12 months.||||0.97
91674721|NCT00595335|183243341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change between the two groups in change in proptosis in left eye at 12 months.||||0.86
91674722|NCT00595335|183243342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in lid fissure in the right eye between the two groups.||||0.98
91674723|NCT00595335|183243342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in lid fissure in the left eye between the two groups.||||0.49
91674724|NCT00595335|183243343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change between groups in extraocular motility at 6 months.||||0.21
91674725|NCT00595335|183243343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change between groups in extraocular motility at 12 months.||||0.64
91674726|NCT00595335|183243344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 physical score at 6 months.||||0.36
91674727|NCT00595335|183243344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 mental score at 6 months.||||0.91
91861386|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-93.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.1||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-158.11|-29.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-29.52|-158.11|0.1106
91861387|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.48|-10.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-10.40|-29.48|0.0123
91674728|NCT00595335|183243344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 physical score at 12 months.||||0.29
91674729|NCT00595335|183243344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 mental score at 12 months.||||0.18
91674730|NCT00595335|183243345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' failure rate at 12 months.||||0.85
91794438|NCT02043379|183467879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.1
91861388|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.86||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.63|29.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||29.81|-87.63|0.4791
91861389|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.66||0.6684|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.28|11.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||11.27|-22.28|0.6684
91674731|NCT01013649|183243366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38||One-sided significance level = 0.15|Log Rank||Reference level = Arm I|A total of 200 deaths between the arms will provide 80% power to detect a signal for an increase in median overall survival from 22 to 28.8 months and 90% power to detect a signal for an increase in median overall survival from 22 to 30.6 months (HRs of 0.76 and 0.72, respectively, in favor of the erlotinib arm) with the addition of erlotinib and a 1-sided alpha of 0.15||1.38|0.79|0.62
91674732|NCT01013649|183243367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.18||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank||Reference level = Arm III|316 deaths from step 2 randomized patients provides 80% power, with 0.05 1-sided alpha, to detect an OS increase (HR=0.76 in favor of arm IV), corresponding to increasing median OS from 17 to 22.5 months with the addition of RT. For analysis triggered by patients having 5 years potential follow-up from step 2 randomization, it is projected that at least 265 events will be observed, providing at least 72% power. The trigger used for the primary analysis was 5-years of follow-up (270 deaths).||1.18|0.79|0.38
91674733|NCT01013649|183243368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.31|||||Reference level = Arm I|||1.31|0.80|
91674734|NCT01013649|183243369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.99|||||Reference level = Arm III|||0.99|0.68|
91902992|NCT00763971|183700736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|6.1|<0.001
91674735|NCT01131299|183243397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The minimum sample size to detect an 8 mg/dl change in total plasma cholesterol between the placebo and alpha cyclodextrin periods is 62 subjects. The power is 80% by using the normal approximation to a one-sample (paired) two-tail t-test at an alpha of 0.05.||||0.82
91674736|NCT01131299|183243398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91674737|NCT01131299|183243399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91674738|NCT01131299|183243400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91716852|NCT01103323|183325918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-25.94|||<|1e-06||95.0|-32.06|-19.82||Comparison based on pre-specified alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference = Placebo - Regorafenib 160 mg|Two treatment groups compared using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for same stratification factors as at randomization.||-19.82|-32.06|<0.000001
91716853|NCT04536701|183325931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total DASS score reported.||||0.444
91716854|NCT04536701|183325931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depressive Mood DASS score reported||||0.8378
91716855|NCT04536701|183325931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety DASS score reported||||0.4087
91793307|NCT04193410|183464510|OTHER|||||||0.444|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.444
91902993|NCT00763971|183700736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.0|||ANCOVA|||||10.0|4.6|<0.001
91674739|NCT00118378|183243432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91674740|NCT00118378|183243433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91674741|NCT00118378|183243434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Week 4 CD4 cell count||||.150
91674742|NCT00118378|183243435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.459
91674743|NCT00836719|183243455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.01||95.0|3.4|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Anisotropic power spatial covariance matrix with terms for time and the registered voxel. Kenward Rogers approx. for degrees of freedom.|Dependent variable: NAA. Main effect: visit. Covariates Cre, %GM, %WM, %CSF and %lesion in the voxel.|N-Acetylaspartate acid (NAA) levels were measured at baseline and exit (6 months). Voxels with less than 30% error in NAA and Creatine (Cre) were used.NAA, Cre and Proton Density were log transformed.||16.2|3.4|<0.01
91674744|NCT02119286|183243473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.152|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.152|0.091|<0.001
91716856|NCT04536701|183325931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4124|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Stress DASS score reported||||0.4124
91716857|NCT04536701|183325932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total RMBPC frequency reported||||0.0508
91716858|NCT04536701|183325932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Frequency of disruptive symptoms on RMBP reported||||0.026
91716859|NCT04536701|183325932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Frequency of depressive symptoms on RMBPC reported||||0.1861
91716860|NCT04536701|183325932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9535|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Frequency of memory symptoms on RMBPC reported||||0.9535
91716861|NCT04536701|183325932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction total is reported||||0.0411
91902994|NCT00763971|183700737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.4|<0.001
91902995|NCT00763971|183700737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
91674745|NCT02119286|183243473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.141|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.141|0.081|<0.001
91674746|NCT02119286|183243474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.179|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.179|0.114|<0.001
91674747|NCT02119286|183243474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.167|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.167|0.103|<0.001
91674748|NCT01272921|183243481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.54|||Z score|||||0.54|0.49|<0.001
91674749|NCT01272921|183243481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.21|||Z score|||||0.21|0.18|<0.001
91674750|NCT01272921|183243482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-6.0||Post hoc comparison were made against the 30-mL volume group and corrected for 6 comparisons using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-6.00|-17.00|0.05
91716862|NCT04536701|183325932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction disruptive symptoms is reported||||0.0058
91716863|NCT04536701|183325932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction depressive symptoms is reported||||0.2527
91716864|NCT04536701|183325932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3542|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction memory symptoms||||0.3542
91716865|NCT04536701|183325933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3857|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3857
91716866|NCT04536701|183325934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) total reported||||0.7213
91716867|NCT04536701|183325934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Observing reported||||0.6075
91716868|NCT04536701|183325934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Describing reported||||0.4136
91861390|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-79.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.28||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-129.22|-30.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-30.13|-129.22|0.0937
91861391|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-40.21|-14.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-14.27|-40.21|0.0120
91716869|NCT04536701|183325934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Acting with Awareness reported||||0.8378
91861392|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.95||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.39|36.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||36.02|-101.39|0.4927
91674751|NCT01272921|183243482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-6.00|-15.00|0.05
91674752|NCT01272921|183243482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-4.00|-10.00|0.05
91674753|NCT01272921|183243482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-2.00|-7.00|0.05
91674754|NCT04271735|183243492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91674755|NCT02040779|183243502|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.116||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.185||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or non-corticosteroid therapy) at the time of screening visit and during the run-in period and treatment.|ANCOVA||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used while controlling the family-wise error rate at 5%. If the 2-sided p-value resulting from the ANCOVA model for comparing beclomethasone dipropionate BAI 160 mcg/day versus placebo was less than 0.05, then the comparison of the 80 mcg/day versus placebo was to be interpreted inferentially.||0.185|0.048|0.0010
91674756|NCT02040779|183243502|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.124||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.193||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or non-corticosteroid therapy) at the time of screening visit and during the run-in period and treatment.|ANCOVA||BDP 80 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|||0.193|0.054|0.0005
91716870|NCT04536701|183325934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Nonjudging reported||||0.7193
91793308|NCT04193410|183464510|OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.863
91674757|NCT02040779|183243503|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.911||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|15.621||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||15.621|0.202|0.0443
91674758|NCT02040779|183243503|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|13.645||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.843|21.446||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||21.446|5.843|0.0007
91716871|NCT04536701|183325934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Nonreactivity reported||||0.4145
91692165|NCT03296527|183279345|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with any preventive intervention||0.83|0.13|0.012
91692166|NCT03296527|183279345|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.81||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (any grade) and/or preventive interventions||0.81|0.30|0.004
91692167|NCT03296527|183279345|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.95|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe) and/or preventive interventions||0.95|0.33|0.029
91674759|NCT02040779|183243504|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|5.405||||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.905|13.715||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||13.715|-2.905|0.2014
91794439|NCT02043379|183467879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.12||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.12
91692168|NCT03296527|183279346|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|13.74||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with cycle cancellation due to poor response||13.74|1.52|0.002
91716872|NCT04536701|183325935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5368
91861393|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.35|7.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||7.49|-29.35|0.4409
91716873|NCT04536701|183325936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2845|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Total reported||||0.2845
91692169|NCT03296527|183279346|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.62||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with transfer cancellation due to excessive ovarian response/OHSS risk||0.62|0.24|<0.001
91861394|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-90.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.58||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-155.96|-25.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-25.54|-155.96|0.1197
91716874|NCT04536701|183325936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Problem Solving is reported||||0.1386
91793309|NCT04193410|183464511|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's PA score. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.053
91861395|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.31||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.68|-18.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANOVA|||Change at Week 5||-18.92|-51.68|0.0102
91902996|NCT01540825|183700746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1831|1.3112|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually the Standard Error of the slope|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 (powder in bottle (PIB)) for Cmax was analysed.||1.3112|1.1831|
91716875|NCT04536701|183325936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Communication is reported||||0.7551
91716876|NCT04536701|183325936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Roles is reported||||0.7213
91716877|NCT04536701|183325936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3233|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Affective Responsiveness is reported||||0.3233
91716878|NCT04536701|183325936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Affective Involvement is reported||||0.2832
91716879|NCT04536701|183325936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Behavior Control is reported||||0.6831
91716880|NCT04536701|183325936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD General Functioning is reported||||0.6075
91794440|NCT02043379|183467879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.51||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.51
91861396|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.77||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-96.97|30.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||30.02|-96.97|0.4515
91861397|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.56||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.76|14.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||14.83|-23.76|0.7623
91861398|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-88.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.57||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-153.65|-23.29||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-23.29|-153.65|0.1247
91861399|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.91||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.59|-21.9||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-21.90|-53.59|0.0053
91861400|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.23||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.97|53.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||53.62|-87.97|0.7177
91674760|NCT02040779|183243504|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|10.902||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|19.303||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||19.303|2.500|0.0112
91674761|NCT02040779|183243505|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.388||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.068||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||-0.068|-0.708|0.0175
91674762|NCT02040779|183243505|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.358||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.678|-0.038||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 80 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||-0.038|-0.678|0.0285
91861401|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.35||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.26|12.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||12.78|-25.26|0.6682
91861402|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-95.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.16||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-150.21|-40.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-40.24|-150.21|0.0823
91861403|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.38|-20.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-20.92|-55.38|0.0087
91861404|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.73||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.11|31.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||31.76|-95.11|0.4734
91861405|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.91||0.813|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.33|16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||16.18|-23.33|0.8130
91861406|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-92.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.1||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-150.6|-33.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-33.32|-150.60|0.0979
91861407|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.48||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.48|-19.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-19.61|-55.48|0.0122
91861408|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.35||0.431|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.98|25.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||25.81|-89.98|0.4310
91861409|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.22||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.38|13.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||13.12|-27.38|0.6452
91674763|NCT02040779|183243506|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.137||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|-0.011||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||-0.011|-0.263|0.0335
91674764|NCT02040779|183243506|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.127||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.001||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 80 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||0.001|-0.255|0.0509
91674765|NCT02040779|183243508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2384|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2384
91674766|NCT02040779|183243508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0208|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0208
91674767|NCT00922272|183243525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91674768|NCT00922272|183243527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.4182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.1|-3.4|0.4182
91716881|NCT01946204|183325937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.271|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.335|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for TTM by BICR (US Regulatory)||0.335|0.219|<0.0001
91793310|NCT04193410|183464511|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's PA score. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.209
91674769|NCT00922272|183243528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6705||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6705
91674770|NCT00922272|183243529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affective Flattening||||<0.0001
91674771|NCT00922272|183243529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Alogia||||<0.0001
91674772|NCT00922272|183243529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Avolition-Apathy||||<0.0001
91674773|NCT00922272|183243529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anhedonia-Asociality||||<0.0001
91794441|NCT02043379|183467879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.27||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.27
91674774|NCT00922272|183243529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Attention||||<0.0001
91716882|NCT01946204|183325937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.279|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.342|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for TTM by BICR (Ex-US Regulatory)||0.342|0.227|<0.0001
91793311|NCT04193410|183464512|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's waist circumference. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.003
91793312|NCT04193410|183464512|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's waist circumference. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||<0.001
91674775|NCT00922272|183243530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Affective Flattening||0.5|-0.4|0.8771
91674776|NCT00922272|183243530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Alogia||1.1|0.0|0.0584
91674777|NCT00922272|183243530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Avolition-Apathy||0.6|-0.3|0.5215
91674778|NCT00922272|183243530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Anhedonia-Asociality||0.7|-0.3|0.4835
91793313|NCT04193410|183464513|OTHER|||||||0.815|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.815
91861410|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-89.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.02||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-159.04|-19.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-19.44|-159.04|0.1375
91793314|NCT04193410|183464513|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.418
91861411|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.59||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.97|-20.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-20.15|-58.97|0.0143
91674779|NCT00922272|183243530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Attention||0.7|-0.4|0.5723
91793315|NCT04193410|183464514|OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.307
91794442|NCT02043379|183467879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.88||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.88
91861412|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.4||0.5867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.7|37.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||37.52|-81.70|0.5867
91861413|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.38||0.6745|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.99|25.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||25.27|-12.99|0.6745
91861414|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-85.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.99||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-142.18|-29.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-29.09|-142.18|0.1039
91793316|NCT04193410|183464514|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.263
91674780|NCT00922272|183243531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Positive subscale||||<0.0001
91674781|NCT00922272|183243531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative subscale||||<0.0001
91674782|NCT00922272|183243531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||General Psychopathology subscale||||<0.0001
91674783|NCT00922272|183243532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Positive subscale||1.5|-0.3|0.1975
91674784|NCT00922272|183243532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Negative subscale||2.3|-0.3|0.1228
91674785|NCT00922272|183243532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||General Psychopathology subscale||3.9|-0.4|0.1115
91674786|NCT00922272|183243539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0307||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0307
91674787|NCT00922272|183243540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.2|||ANCOVA|||||6.2|-0.6|0.1072
91674788|NCT00922272|183243541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.366||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3660
91674789|NCT00922272|183243542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-5.0|0.4347
91674790|NCT00922272|183243543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4312||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4312
91674791|NCT00922272|183243544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-5.4|0.0874
91674792|NCT00922272|183243545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total Skills||||<0.0001
91674793|NCT00922272|183243545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Communication Skills||||0.0002
91674794|NCT00922272|183243545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Financial Skills||||0.0028
91674795|NCT00922272|183243546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Total Skills||2.4|-5.3|0.4637
91674796|NCT00922272|183243546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.6137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Communication Skills||2.4|-4.1|0.6137
91674797|NCT00922272|183243546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Financial Skills||1.3|-3.5|0.3482
91674798|NCT00922272|183243547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0174||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Executive Composite||||0.0174
91674799|NCT00922272|183243547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0461||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Behavioral Recognition Index||||0.0461
91674800|NCT00922272|183243547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0146||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Metacognition Index||||0.0146
91674801|NCT00922272|183243548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.7|||ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||2.7|-3.8|0.7418
91674802|NCT00922272|183243548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.6429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.1|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Recognition Index||4.1|-2.6|0.6429
91674803|NCT00922272|183243548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||2.1|-4.8|0.4364
91674804|NCT03197558|183243559|SUPERIORITY|Upper confidence limit of mean VAS score hypothesized to be less than (superior) to a performance goal of 45 mm.|Bootstrap method|14.35|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||14.35||||||Mean VAS score compared to performance goal using a bootstrap method test at 2.5% significance.||14.35||
91674805|NCT02384941|183243591|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||||||<0.001
91674806|NCT02384941|183243591|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||||||< 0.001
91674807|NCT02384941|183243592|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|11.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|19.36||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint of each treatment comparison was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||19.36|4.28|0.002
91674808|NCT02384941|183243592|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|29.64||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||29.64|14.10|< 0.001
91674809|NCT02384941|183243593|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-1.85||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-1.85|-2.85|< 0.001
91674810|NCT02384941|183243593|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-2.94||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-2.94|-3.95|< 0.001
91674811|NCT02384941|183243594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.917||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.3||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||0.30|-3.30|0.10
91674812|NCT02384941|183243594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-1.5||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-1.50|-5.09|< 0.001
91674813|NCT02384941|183243595|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.48||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-0.48|-1.50|< 0.001
91674814|NCT02384941|183243596|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.3||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||3.3|1.8|< 0.001
91716883|NCT01946204|183325938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|0.356|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for PFS by BICR (US Regulatory)||0.356|0.238|<0.0001
91716884|NCT01946204|183325938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|0.364|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for PFS by BICR (EX-US Regulatory)||0.364|0.247|<0.0001
91716885|NCT01946204|183325939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.447|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|0.634|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for Time to Symptomatic Progression||0.634|0.315|<0.0001
91716886|NCT01946204|183325942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.346|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for MFS by BICR (US Regulatory)||0.346|0.227|<0.0001
91716887|NCT01946204|183325942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.297|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|0.362|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for MFS by BICR (Ex-US Regulatory)||0.362|0.244|<0.0001
91674815|NCT02384941|183243597|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.001
91674816|NCT06005597|183243599|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-48.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.959|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.33|-38.89|||ANCOVA|||||-38.89|-58.33|<.0001
91674817|NCT06005597|183243600|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.893|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.53|-18.35|||ANCOVA|||||-18.35|-37.53|<.0001
91674818|NCT06005597|183243601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-16.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.918||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-7.12|||ANCOVA|||||-7.12|-26.40|0.0007
91674819|NCT06005597|183243602|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.993|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.64|-22.07|||ANCOVA|||||-22.07|-41.64|<.0001
91674820|NCT06005597|183243603|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-45.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.43|-36.84|||ANCOVA|||||-36.84|-53.43|<.0001
91674821|NCT06005597|183243604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.99|-22.4|||ANCOVA|||||-22.40|-35.99|<.0001
91674822|NCT06005597|183243605|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.28|-21.53|||ANCOVA|||||-21.53|-38.28|<.0001
91674823|NCT06005597|183243606|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.549|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-12.82|||ANCOVA|||||-12.82|-26.73|<.0001
91674824|NCT06005597|183243607|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.67|-17.22|||ANCOVA|||||-17.22|-33.67|<.0001
91674825|NCT06005597|183243608|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.495|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.06|-7.36|||ANCOVA|||||-7.36|-21.06|<.0001
91674826|NCT06005597|183243609|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-15.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.236||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.53|-6.93|||ANCOVA|||||-6.93|-23.53|0.0003
91674827|NCT06005597|183243610|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-9.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.493||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|-2.57|||ANCOVA|||||-2.57|-16.26|0.007
91674828|NCT05528861|183243641|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-3.6|0.8174
91674829|NCT05528861|183243642|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-1.6|0.5857
91716888|NCT03217591|183325976|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean change (%)|-16.0|||=|0.2142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.3|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between placebo and praliciguat 20 mg. Geometric mean change (%) and the associated confidence intervals (CIs) were derived as 100×\[exp(Least Squares Mean Change)-1\].||5.8|-33.3|=0.2142
91674830|NCT05528861|183243643|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-2.2|0.9633
91674831|NCT05528861|183243644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.25||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|23.78|||Fisher Exact|||||23.78|-11.40|0.1201
91674832|NCT01602172|183243647|EQUIVALENCE|Results of the regression models were used to reject null hypotheses of equivalence with p-values of comparisons across groups in changes in alcohol related measures using p-values \< 0.05 as significant.||||||0.05||||||First, significance of the regression model was viewed. When the overall model was significant, tests of the co-efficients were viewed. Primary effects of interest were the treatment group X time interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Measures were compared with linear mixed effects regression models to compare impact of BI compared to usual care conditions. Analyses reported here included only those that completed the 6 month interview (71/82 baseline participants).||||.05
91674833|NCT01056640|183243659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2865||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|2.297|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, 2-sample t-test and Chi-square analysis were all used.||All analyses were performed using an intent-to-treat method. Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sample t test, or Chi-Square analysis was used to compare baseline characteristics. The primary end points of combined and individual percentages of hospitalizations and ED visits were compared using Chi-Square test. Statistical adjustment was planned only if there were statistical differences in clinical variables between the groups. All tests for significance used a 2-sided P value of .05.||2.297|0.747|0.05
91674834|NCT00518882|183243671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test is below 0.4%|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.47|-0.18||No multiplicity concerns|ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA with treatment, country and previous OAD treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.~2 hypotheses were tested: H01: µliraglutide ≥ µexenatide + Δ, HA1: µliraglutide \< µexenatide + Δ; Δ=0.4%. If non-inferiority was concluded, a test for superiority was established by a 1-sided test of the hypothesis H02: µliraglutide ≥ µexenatide against HA2: µliraglutide \< µexenatide. Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was below 0%."||-0.18|-0.47|<.0001
91674835|NCT00518882|183243672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.803|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.364|||Paired t-test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.364|0.139|<0.0001
91674836|NCT00518882|183243672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.924||0.9872||95.0|-1.36|0.134|||Paired t-test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.134|-1.36|0.9872
91674837|NCT00518882|183243673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.119|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.137|-0.823|||Paired t-test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Weeks 0 and 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.823|-1.137|<0.0001
91794443|NCT02043379|183467879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.38
91716889|NCT03217591|183325976|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean change (%)|-14.6|||=|0.2718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.7|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between placebo and praliciguat 40 mg. Geometric mean change (%) and the associated CIs were derived as 100×\[exp(Least Squares Mean Change)-1\].||8.3|-32.7|=0.2718
91794444|NCT02043379|183467880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.35||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.35
91902997|NCT01540825|183700748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.1626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1195|1.2057|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 (PIB) for AUC 0- tz was analysed.||1.2057|1.1195|
91674838|NCT00518882|183243673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.105|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.01|-0.687|||Paired t-test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the exenatide→liraglutide group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Weeks 0 and 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.687|-1.010|<0.0001
91674839|NCT00518882|183243676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.38||||0.2235||95.0|-0.99|0.23||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the body weight in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.23|-0.99|0.2235
91674840|NCT00518882|183243677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.24||0.0793||95.0|-0.86|0.05|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26=0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.05|-0.86|0.0793
91674841|NCT00518882|183243677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.67||0.0075||95.0|-1.26|-0.2|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.20|-1.26|0.0075
91674842|NCT00518882|183243678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.63|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.9|-2.61|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.61|-3.90|<0.0001
91674843|NCT00518882|183243678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.44|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.85|-2.55|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.55|-3.85|<0.0001
91716890|NCT03217591|183325976|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean change (%)|-15.3|||=|0.1736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.7|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between placebo and praliciguat overall. Geometric mean change (%) and the associated CIs were derived as 100×\[exp(Least Squares Mean Change)-1\].||3.6|-30.7|=0.1736
91716891|NCT02668640|183326035|OTHER||||||=|0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||=0.0002
91716892|NCT02668640|183326036|OTHER||||||=|0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||=0.0006
91674844|NCT00518882|183243679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.01|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.37|-0.65||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the fasting plasma glucose in the liraglutide and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.65|-1.37|<0.0001
91674845|NCT00518882|183243680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.84|<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|1.0|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ26=0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.00|0.48|<0.0001
91674846|NCT00518882|183243680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.4864||95.0|-0.48|0.23|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.23|-0.48|0.4864
91674847|NCT00518882|183243681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.62|-0.92|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.92|-1.62|<0.0001
91674848|NCT00518882|183243681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.23|-0.42|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.42|-1.23|<0.0001
91716893|NCT02668640|183326037|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in PCS T-score at Week 12||||<0.0001
91716894|NCT02668640|183326037|OTHER||||||=|0.1233|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in MCS T-score at Week 12||||=0.1233
91674849|NCT00518882|183243682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|1.33|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.8|1.86||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.86|0.80|<.0001
91674850|NCT00518882|183243683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.01||||0.9849||95.0|-0.52|0.53||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.53|-0.52|0.9849
91674851|NCT00518882|183243684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|1.01||||0.0005||95.0|0.44|1.57||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.57|0.44|0.0005
91674852|NCT00518882|183243685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.866||0.2972||95.0|-0.626|0.192|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.192|-0.626|0.2972
91674853|NCT00518882|183243685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.253|<|0.0001||95.0|0.66|1.637|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.637|0.660|<0.0001
91674854|NCT00518882|183243686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.307||0.8396||95.0|-0.424|0.521|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.521|-0.424|0.8396
91674855|NCT00518882|183243686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.419||0.7278||95.0|-0.604|0.423|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.423|-0.604|0.7278
91716895|NCT02668640|183326037|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in PCS T-score at Week 24||||<0.001
91794445|NCT02043379|183467880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.39||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.39
91674856|NCT00518882|183243687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.053||0.3271||95.0|-0.219|0.654|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.654|-0.219|0.3271
91674857|NCT00518882|183243687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.775||0.0003||95.0|0.497|1.634|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.634|0.497|0.0003
91674858|NCT00518882|183243688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.662|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.605|-0.562|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.562|-1.605|<0.0001
91674859|NCT00518882|183243688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.467||0.0003||95.0|-1.517|-0.458|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.458|-1.517|0.0003
91674860|NCT00518882|183243689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.158||0.3859||95.0|-0.331|0.853|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.853|-0.331|0.3859
91674861|NCT00518882|183243689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.838||0.2119||95.0|-0.956|0.214|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.214|-0.956|0.2119
91674862|NCT00518882|183243690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.975||0.229||95.0|-0.917|0.2211|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.2211|-0.917|0.2290
91716896|NCT02668640|183326037|OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in MCS T-score at Week 24||||=0.001
91716897|NCT02668640|183326038|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change From Baseline in EQ-5D-3L Index Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
91716898|NCT02668640|183326038|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change From Baseline in EQ-5D-3L Index Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
91793317|NCT04193410|183464515|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.249
91861415|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.6|-22.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-22.36|-62.60|0.0116
91674863|NCT00518882|183243690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.23||0.0002||95.0|-1.449|-0.459|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.459|-1.449|0.0002
91674864|NCT00518882|183243691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.73||||0.0124||95.0|0.16|1.31||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.31|0.16|0.0124
91674865|NCT00518882|183243692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.39||||0.143||95.0|-0.91|0.13||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.13|-0.91|0.1430
91674866|NCT00518882|183243693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.54||||0.038||95.0|0.03|1.05||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.05|0.03|0.0380
91674867|NCT00518882|183243694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.827||0.77||95.0|-0.344|0.463|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.463|-0.344|0.7700
91674868|NCT00518882|183243694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.27||0.0042||95.0|0.23|1.212|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.212|0.230|0.0042
91674869|NCT00518882|183243695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.041||0.0026||95.0|0.238|1.106|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.106|0.238|0.0026
91674870|NCT00518882|183243695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.989||0.6845||95.0|-0.541|0.356|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.356|-0.541|0.6845
91674871|NCT00518882|183243696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.705||0.1041||95.0|-0.066|0.706|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.706|-0.066|0.1041
91674872|NCT00518882|183243696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.114||0.0151||95.0|0.114|1.052|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.052|0.114|0.0151
91674873|NCT00518882|183243697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.857|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.861|-2.763|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.763|-3.861|<0.0001
91674874|NCT00518882|183243697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.56|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.673|-2.589|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.589|-3.673|<0.0001
91716899|NCT02668640|183326039|OTHER||||||=|0.0137|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in WPAI Overall Work Impairment Score at Week 12||||=0.0137
91716900|NCT02668640|183326039|OTHER||||||=|0.0607|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in Overall Work Impairment Score at Week 24||||=0.0607
91861416|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.49||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.55|38.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||38.26|-84.55|0.5807
91902998|NCT01540825|183700749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|1.1941|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose).Dose proportionality of BI 113608 (PIB) for AUC0-inf was analysed||1.1941|1.1080|
91674875|NCT00518882|183243698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-1.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.703|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.457|-1.403|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.403|-2.457|<0.0001
91861417|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.55|28.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||28.80|-11.55|0.5765
91861418|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-86.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.36||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.7|-32.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-32.75|-139.70|0.0933
91793318|NCT04193410|183464515|OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.803
91716901|NCT02668640|183326040|OTHER||||||=|0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in WPAI Activity Impairment Score at Week 12||||=0.0026
91716902|NCT02668640|183326040|OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in WPAI Activity Impairment Score at Week 24||||=0.0001
91794446|NCT02043379|183467880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.58||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.58
91902999|NCT00789750|183700769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.16|-0.49|<0.001
91793319|NCT04193410|183464516|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.073
91674876|NCT00518882|183243698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.654|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.731|-1.618|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.618|-2.731|<0.0001
91674877|NCT00518882|183243699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.752|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.747|-1.676|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.676|-2.747|<0.0001
91674878|NCT00518882|183243699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.625|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.104|-1.997|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.997|-3.104|<0.0001
91674879|NCT00518882|183243700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|29.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.81|41.93||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||41.93|16.81|<.0001
91674880|NCT00518882|183243701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-18.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.811|<|0.0001||95.0|-26.988|-9.382|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-9.382|-26.988|<0.0001
91674881|NCT00518882|183243701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|2.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.997||0.5304||95.0|-5.327|10.307|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||10.307|-5.327|0.5304
91716903|NCT01121263|183326093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063||||0.8||95.0|0.666|1.697|||Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazards regression model was weighted by propensity score to adjust for differences in baseline risk between the two groups.|The Cox model was weighted by propensity score to adjust for differences in baseline risk between the two groups.|This applies to any MACCE||1.697|0.666|0.80
91716904|NCT01121263|183326094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.53||95.0|0.556|1.355|||Regression, Cox||The Cox proportional hazards regression model was weighted by the propensity score to account for the difference in baseline risk between groups.|This applies to any MACCE||1.355|0.556|0.53
91716905|NCT00723229|183326123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Risk Ratio|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||Regression, poisson|Adjusted for period effects.||The trial had 80% power to detect a 35% reduction in genital shedding rates for acyclovir 400 mg twice daily.||0.25|0.17|<0.001
91716906|NCT00723229|183326123|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for period effects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08|||Regression, Poisson|||Among HIV seronegative individuals.||0.08|0.03|<0.001
91793320|NCT04193410|183464516|OTHER|||||||0.658|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.658
91861419|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.3||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-59.29|-19.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-19.37|-59.29|0.0173
91716907|NCT00723229|183326123|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for period effects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||Regression, Poisson|||Among HIV seropositive individuals.||0.6|0.4|<0.001
91716908|NCT02900352|183326132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
91716909|NCT02900352|183326133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.148
91716910|NCT02900352|183326134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||ANOVA|||||||.054
91716911|NCT02900352|183326135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
91716912|NCT02900352|183326136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.889
91716913|NCT02900352|183326137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.482
91716914|NCT02900352|183326138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91716915|NCT04210986|183326178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||>|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.02||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Odds ratio is for fisetin group, relative to the placebo group.|Null hypothesis: no difference in proportion of participants experiencing any TEAE between Fisetin and Placebo groups.||4.02|0.25|>0.9
91793321|NCT04193410|183464517|OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.742
91861420|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.36||0.5293|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.04|35.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||35.62|-90.04|0.5293
91861421|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.73|19.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||19.49|-20.73|0.9676
91861422|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-86.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.38||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-130.27|-42.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-42.11|-130.27|0.0663
91674882|NCT00518882|183243702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|24.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.326|<|0.0001||95.0|16.348|33.374|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||33.374|16.348|<0.0001
91861423|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.33||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.81|-17.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-17.02|-57.81|0.0252
91861424|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.81||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.45|47.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||47.22|-86.45|0.6637
91861425|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.35||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.04|18.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||18.81|-22.04|0.9173
91861426|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-96.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.55||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-146.23|-46.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-46.10|-146.23|0.0685
91861427|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.96||0.023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-60.91|-18.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-18.44|-60.91|0.0230
91861428|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.62||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-80.69|42.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||42.54|-80.69|0.6471
91674883|NCT00518882|183243702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|11.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.145||0.092||95.0|-1.835|24.093|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||24.093|-1.835|0.0920
91674884|NCT00518882|183243703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.11||||0.0946||95.0|-0.23|0.02||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.02|-0.23|0.0946
91674885|NCT00518882|183243704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.774||0.0513||95.0|-0.001|0.216|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.216|-0.001|0.0513
91674886|NCT00518882|183243704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.804||0.0513||95.0|-0.001|0.233|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.233|-0.001|0.0513
91674887|NCT00518882|183243705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.859||0.2764||95.0|-0.187|0.054|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.054|-0.187|0.2764
91674888|NCT00518882|183243705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.1911||95.0|-0.043|0.216|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.216|-0.043|0.1911
91674889|NCT00518882|183243706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.04||||0.4412||95.0|-0.15|0.06||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.06|-0.15|0.4412
91861429|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.52||0.8044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.56|16.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||16.75|-24.56|0.8044
91794447|NCT02043379|183467880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.36||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.36
91861430|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-99.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.71||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-153.63|-45.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-45.37|-153.63|0.0741
91861431|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.89||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-61.0|-18.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-18.72|-61.00|0.0219
91793322|NCT04193410|183464517|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.370
91674890|NCT00518882|183243707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.606||0.4746||95.0|-0.054|0.115|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.115|-0.054|0.4746
91674891|NCT00518882|183243707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.1281||95.0|-0.024|0.188|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.188|-0.024|0.1281
91674892|NCT00518882|183243708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.604|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.39|-0.214|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.214|-0.390|<0.0001
91674893|NCT00518882|183243708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.647|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.303|-0.11|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.110|-0.303|<0.0001
91674894|NCT00518882|183243709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07||||0.0277||95.0|-0.13|-0.01||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.01|-0.13|0.0277
91674895|NCT00518882|183243710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.003||95.0|0.021|0.102|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.102|0.021|0.0030
91674896|NCT00518882|183243710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.307||0.1452||95.0|-0.012|0.079|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.079|-0.012|0.1452
91793323|NCT04193410|183464518|OTHER|||||||0.483|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.483
91674897|NCT00518882|183243711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.306|<|0.0001||95.0|0.223|0.315|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.315|0.223|<0.0001
91674898|NCT00518882|183243711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.346|<|0.0001||95.0|0.259|0.364|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.364|0.259|<0.0001
91674899|NCT00518882|183243712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.01||||0.5105||95.0|-0.02|0.04||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.04|-0.02|0.5105
91674900|NCT00518882|183243713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.222||95.0|-0.034|0.008|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.008|-0.034|0.2220
91794448|NCT02043379|183467880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.61||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.61
91903000|NCT00789750|183700770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.10|-0.24|<0.001
91793324|NCT04193410|183464518|OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.626
91793325|NCT04193410|183464519|OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.771
91793326|NCT04193410|183464519|OTHER|||||||0.861|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.861
91794449|NCT02043379|183467880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.38
91674901|NCT00518882|183243713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.141||0.7923||95.0|-0.018|0.024|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.024|-0.018|0.7923
91674902|NCT00518882|183243714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.159||0.0254||95.0|-0.05|-0.003|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.003|-0.050|0.0254
91674903|NCT00518882|183243714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.165||0.2244||95.0|-0.04|0.009|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.009|-0.040|0.2244
91674904|NCT00518882|183243715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.18||||0.0485||95.0|-0.37|0.0||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.00|-0.37|0.0485
91674905|NCT00518882|183243716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82||0.1161||95.0|-0.02|0.21|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.21|-0.02|0.1161
91674906|NCT00518882|183243716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96||0.7888||95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.12|-0.16|0.7888
91716916|NCT04210986|183326179|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-3.5||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 14 ASSESSMENT Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||3.6|-10.6|0.9728
91716917|NCT04210986|183326179|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-2.5||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 45 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||2.8|-7.8|0.9728
91793327|NCT04193410|183464520|OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.766
91674907|NCT00518882|183243717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07||0.0003||95.0|-0.43|-0.13|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.13|-0.43|0.0003
91674908|NCT00518882|183243717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47||0.2078||95.0|-0.35|0.08|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.08|-0.35|0.2078
91674909|NCT00518882|183243718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07||||0.0014||95.0|-0.11|-0.03||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.03|-0.11|0.0014
91674910|NCT00518882|183243719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.269||0.0018||95.0|0.023|0.098|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.098|0.023|0.0018
91716918|NCT04210986|183326179|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-20.5||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-3.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||-3.3|-37.7|0.0829
91794450|NCT02043379|183467881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.1
91716919|NCT04210986|183326179|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.5||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Contrast of LS Means|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||||0.9728
91861432|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.15||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.21|35.46||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||35.46|-86.21|0.5436
91861433|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.13||0.9149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.2|19.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||19.71|-23.20|0.9149
91861434|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-94.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.34||0.0646|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-142.63|-47.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||-47.05|-142.63|0.0646
91861435|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.09||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.89|-11.41||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||-11.41|-56.89|0.0611
91716920|NCT04210986|183326180|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|2.52|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|54.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 14 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||54.5|-49.4|>0.99
91716921|NCT04210986|183326180|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|11.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|58.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 45 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||58.8|-36.8|>0.99
91861436|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.28||0.606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.68|40.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||40.71|-84.68|0.6060
91861437|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.61||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.0|15.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||15.18|-29.00|0.6823
91861438|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-99.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.56||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-146.02|-53.41||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-53.41|-146.02|0.0556
91861439|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.99||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.98|-10.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-10.76|-55.98|0.0652
91861440|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.45||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-94.14|41.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||41.62|-94.14|0.5714
91716922|NCT04210986|183326180|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-40.3||||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.6|17.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||17.1|-97.6|0.6594
91722542|NCT02629159|183337904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|-13.71||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-13.71|-18.89|<0.001
91861441|NCT03858634|183609947|OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.82||0.5386|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.93|11.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||11.83|-32.93|0.5386
91861442|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-99.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.41||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.35|-58.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-58.60|-139.35|0.0438
91861443|NCT03858634|183609947|OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.38|-1.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-1.08|-53.38|0.1829
91861444|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.59||0.5443|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.2|35.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||35.94|-87.20|0.5443
91861445|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.43||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.39|16.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||16.66|-32.39|0.6748
91861446|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-96.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.97||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-128.19|-64.19||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-64.19|-128.19|0.0297
91793328|NCT04193410|183464520|OTHER|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.995
91793329|NCT04193410|183464521|OTHER|||||||0.437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.437
91716923|NCT04210986|183326180|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-6.9|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|31.7||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||31.7|-45.5|>0.99
91794451|NCT02043379|183467881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.02||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.02
91903001|NCT00789750|183700771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.10|-0.32|0.0002
91716924|NCT04210986|183326181|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|10.5||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|33.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||33.9|-12.9|0.7480
91716925|NCT04210986|183326181|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.6||||0.9572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|21.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||21.1|-22.2|0.9572
91716926|NCT04210986|183326182|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.01|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.49||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.49|-0.47|>0.99
91716927|NCT04210986|183326182|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.07|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.47||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.47|-0.33|>0.99
91716928|NCT04210986|183326183|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.37|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.87||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.87|-1.61|>0.99
91716929|NCT04210986|183326183|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.16|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.13||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.13|-0.80|>0.99
91716930|NCT04210986|183326184|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.022||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.002||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.002|-0.045|0.130
91716931|NCT04210986|183326184|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.024||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.002||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.002|-0.049|0.130
91793330|NCT04193410|183464521|OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.798
91861447|NCT03858634|183609947|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.8||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.33|-0.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-0.63|-53.33|0.1899
91861448|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.47||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.37|24.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||24.78|-55.37|0.5763
91716932|NCT04210986|183326185|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.22||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.40|-0.84|0.9584
91793331|NCT00773838|183464536|OTHER|||||||0.419|||||||Exact Test for Binomial Parameter|||||||0.419
91793332|NCT02522871|183464553|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.132|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.049|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||-0.049||<0.0001
91793333|NCT02522871|183464553|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.145|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.062|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||-0.062||<0.0001
91674911|NCT00518882|183243719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.272||0.5499||95.0|-0.028|0.052|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.052|-0.028|0.5499
91674912|NCT00518882|183243720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.273|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.14|-0.062|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.062|-0.140|<0.0001
91674913|NCT00518882|183243720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.302||0.0012||95.0|-0.118|-0.03|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.030|-0.118|0.0012
91674914|NCT00518882|183243721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.02||||0.1119||95.0|-0.05|0.01||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.01|-0.05|0.1119
91674915|NCT00518882|183243722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.168||0.1342||95.0|-0.041|0.006|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.006|-0.041|0.1342
91674916|NCT00518882|183243722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.189||0.0344||95.0|-0.057|-0.002|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.002|-0.057|0.0344
91674917|NCT00518882|183243723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.176|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.105|-0.056|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.056|-0.105|<0.0001
91674918|NCT00518882|183243723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.192|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.094|-0.038|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.038|-0.094|<0.0001
91674919|NCT04740931|183243726|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. The final sample size provided \>90% power for the non-inferiority assessment (at a one-sided 0.02485 significance level).||1.6|-2.5|
91674920|NCT04740931|183243726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.6715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6||Tested at a two-sided p\<0.0497 significance level.|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The final sample size provided \>80% power for a 3.5-letter superiority assessment of faricimab over aflibercept (at a two-sided 0.0497 significance level).||1.6|-2.5|0.6715
91674921|NCT04740931|183243728|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.3||||||||5.3|-8.4|
91674922|NCT04740931|183243744|OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.3||||||||0.3|-2.7|
91674923|NCT02696031|183243779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.7||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16||2.70|1.09|0.0197
91674924|NCT02696031|183243779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.76||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16||2.76|1.12|0.0146
91674925|NCT02696031|183243780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.63||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52||3.63|1.35|0.0017
91674926|NCT02696031|183243780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.36||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52||4.36|1.64|<.0001
91674927|NCT02696031|183243781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.74|1.14|0.0108
91674928|NCT02696031|183243781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.78||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.78|1.16|0.0087
91674929|NCT02696031|183243781|SUPERIORITY|week 52|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.49||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Linear||||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|3.49|1.34|0.0016
91861449|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.66||0.5214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.86|29.01||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||29.01|-9.86|0.5214
91793334|NCT02522871|183464554|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 1.0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.025|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.025|-0.084|<0.0001
91861450|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-167.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.28||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-365.51|31.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||31.54|-365.51|0.2536
91674930|NCT02696031|183243781|SUPERIORITY|week 52|Median Difference (Net)|2.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.19||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Linear||||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|4.19|1.62|<.0001
91793335|NCT02522871|183464555|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|0.0||||0.0004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.036|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.036||0.0004
91793336|NCT02522871|183464555|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|0.0||||0.0004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.036|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.036||0.0004
91861451|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.2|-3.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||-3.44|-18.20|0.0670
91861452|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.98||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.43|24.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||24.15|-90.43|0.4133
91861453|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.44||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.83|19.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||19.11|-21.83|0.9305
91861454|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-160.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.98||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-411.65|89.86||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||89.86|-411.65|0.3499
91674931|NCT02696031|183243782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.43||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.43|1.06|0.0260
91674932|NCT02696031|183243782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.54||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.54|1.11|0.0149
91674933|NCT02696031|183243783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.58||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|3.58|1.43|0.0005
91793337|NCT02522871|183464556|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.001||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.038|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.038||0.0006
91793338|NCT02522871|183464556|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.001||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.038|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.038||0.0006
91861455|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.74|-1.33||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-1.33|-26.74|0.1588
91861456|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.19||0.3319|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.26|17.0||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||17.00|-98.26|0.3319
91861457|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.39||0.7179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.59|32.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||32.80|-18.59|0.7179
91861458|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-193.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|112.17||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-405.34|17.67||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||17.67|-405.34|0.2261
91861459|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.75|-15.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-15.80|-44.75|0.0123
91716933|NCT04210986|183326185|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.12||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.92||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.92|-0.69|0.9584
91716934|NCT04210986|183326186|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|1.88||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|8.84||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||8.84|-5.07|0.5905
91716935|NCT04210986|183326186|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|3.86||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|10.79||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||10.79|-3.08|0.5414
91716936|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.05|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.85||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 3 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.85|-0.75|>0.99
91861460|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.45||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-112.02|4.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||4.09|-112.02|0.2253
91674934|NCT02696031|183243783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.94||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.94|1.16|0.0094
91674935|NCT02696031|183243784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|7.39||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|7.39|1.95|<.0001
91674936|NCT02696031|183243784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|7.1||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|7.10|1.87|0.0001
91674937|NCT02696031|183243785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.24||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.24|-1.26|0.0041
91674938|NCT02696031|183243785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.13||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.13|-1.15|0.0143
91674939|NCT02696031|183243786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.07||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|4.07|1.58|0.0001
91716937|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.44|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.34||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.34|-0.45|>0.99
91674940|NCT02696031|183243786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.89||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|3.89|1.51|0.0002
91793339|NCT02398227|183464559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||ANCOVA|p value reported for overall effect across all-time points between treatment arms||||||.968
91793340|NCT02398227|183464560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|p value reported for overall effect across all-time points between treatment arms||||||.560
91793341|NCT03149848|183464589|OTHER||Ratio|0.786|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.743|0.831||||||||0.831|0.743|
91793342|NCT03149848|183464590|OTHER||Ratio|0.825|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|0.895||||||||0.895|0.761|
91861461|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.14|28.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||28.66|-16.14|0.7149
91674941|NCT02696031|183243786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.24||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|3.24|1.22|0.0056
91674942|NCT02696031|183243786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.78||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|3.78|1.45|0.0005
91674943|NCT02696031|183243787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of treatment difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.38||unadjusted p-value|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.38|-1.39|0.0006
91674944|NCT02696031|183243787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.47||unadjusted p-value|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.47|-1.47|0.0002
91674945|NCT02696031|183243788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.67||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.67|-2.54|0.0008
91674946|NCT02696031|183243788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.84||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.84|-2.72|0.0002
91674947|NCT02696031|183243789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||0.0012
91674948|NCT02696031|183243789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||<.0001
91674949|NCT02696031|183243790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.45||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders. Patients were considered as non-responders after treatment switch decision."|3.45|0.98|0.0577
91674950|NCT02696031|183243790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.41||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders. Patients were considered as non-responders after treatment switch decision."|5.41|1.65|0.0003
91793343|NCT03149848|183464591|OTHER||Ratio|0.738|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.702|0.776||||||||0.776|0.702|
91793344|NCT03149848|183464594|OTHER||Ratio|1.272|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.204|1.345||||||||1.345|1.204|
91793345|NCT01892722|183464667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial regression model|||||||<0.001
91793346|NCT05217927|183464685|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) Difference|-0.6|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.22|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy), month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.01|-1.22|=0.0220
91793347|NCT05217927|183464685|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.35|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy), month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-1.19|-2.35|<0.0001
91793348|NCT05217927|183464686|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.4|||=|0.0966|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.6|17.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation was used.||17.4|-2.6|=0.0966
91793349|NCT05217927|183464686|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.6|34.8|||Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation was used.||34.8|14.6|<0.0001
91793350|NCT05217927|183464687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.5314|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.95|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy) month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||0.54|-0.95|=0.5314
91861462|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-168.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|109.12||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-374.16|37.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||37.36|-374.16|0.2627
91793351|NCT05217927|183464687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.12|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy) month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.71|-2.12|<0.0001
91674951|NCT02696031|183243791|SUPERIORITY||Relative Treatment Effect|0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.84||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|Analysis was done on the log(e) ratio of the treatment value vs. baseline value to normalize the distribution of the hsCRP at each visit. LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and p-value were from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, stratification factor and TNFi status as factors, log(e) baseline and weight as covariates, treatment by visit and log(e) baseline by visit as interaction terms and an unstructured covariance|0.84|0.58|0.0002
91861463|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.38||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.87|-21.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-21.60|-51.87|0.0047
91674952|NCT02696031|183243791|SUPERIORITY||Relative Treatment Effect|0.7||||0.0002||95.0|0.58|0.84||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|Analysis was done on the log(e) ratio of the treatment value vs. baseline value to normalize the distribution of the hsCRP at each visit. LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and p-value were from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, stratification factor and TNFi status as factors, log(e) baseline and weight as covariates, treatment by visit and log(e) baseline by visit as interaction terms and an unstructured covariance structure.|0.84|0.58|0.0002
91674953|NCT02696031|183243792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.34||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|4.34|1.20|0.0006
91674954|NCT02696031|183243792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.22||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|4.22|1.06|0.0011
91674955|NCT02696031|183243793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|"LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation (MI, MAR assumption) prior to running ANCOVA."|||<0.0001
91674956|NCT02696031|183243793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|"LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation (MI, MAR assumption) prior to running ANCOVA."|||<0.0001
91674957|NCT02696031|183243794|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||<.0001
91674958|NCT02696031|183243794|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||<.0001
91793352|NCT05217927|183464688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.84|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy) month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.47|-1.84|=0.0002
91794452|NCT02043379|183467881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.34||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.34
91674959|NCT00063882|183243796|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Greenwood's T||Reference level = Brachytherapy only|Target sample size was 586; 532 patients were needed to test hypothesis of better FFP in the EBRT + Brachytherapy arm over the Brachytherapy Only arm. The trial is designed to detect a 10% improvement in 5-year FFP with 90% power, 1-sided alpha of 0.025. The Z-test statistic for the difference between the 2 5-year FFP rates with the standard errors estimated by Greenwood's method will be used.||1.12|0.60|0.21
91674960|NCT00063882|183243797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||1.54|0.63|0.95
91674961|NCT00063882|183243798|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||1.58|0.64|0.97
91793353|NCT05217927|183464688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.78|-1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy) month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-1.46|-2.78|<0.0001
91674962|NCT00063882|183243799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.9||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||3.90|0.36|0.77
91674963|NCT00063882|183243800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.13||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||3.13|0.33|0.99
91674964|NCT00063882|183243801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.76||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||2.76|0.46|0.81
91674965|NCT00063882|183243802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||1.17|0.51|0.22
91674966|NCT00063882|183243803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 2+ GU/GI||1.67|0.76|0.53
91674967|NCT00063882|183243803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.53||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 2+ Overall||1.53|0.73|0.73
91674968|NCT00063882|183243803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.19||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ GU/GI||2.19|0.54|0.81
91674969|NCT00063882|183243803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.69||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ Overall||1.69|0.51|0.82
91861464|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.01||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-128.37|-3.88||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-3.88|-128.37|0.1803
91793354|NCT05217927|183464689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.144|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures has treatment group, randomization stratum, month, and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||0.25|-1.20|=0.1440
91861465|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.34||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.62|29.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||29.35|-16.62|0.7174
91861466|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-163.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.47||0.2551|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-358.51|31.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||31.72|-358.51|0.2551
91861467|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.36||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.58|-18.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-18.36|-48.58|0.0086
91861468|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.16||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-121.78|9.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||9.78|-121.78|0.2576
91903002|NCT00789750|183700772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.20|-0.51|<0.001
91674970|NCT00063882|183243804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.68||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ GU/GI||4.68|1.20|0.01
91674971|NCT00063882|183243804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.1||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ Overall||3.10|1.06|0.029
91674972|NCT00063882|183243805|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary||||<0.0001
91903003|NCT00789750|183700773|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
91903004|NCT00789750|183700774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.93|-7.49|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-7.49|-21.93|<0.0001
91903005|NCT00789750|183700775|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
91674973|NCT00063882|183243805|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.09||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary- Incontinence||||0.33
91674974|NCT00063882|183243805|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary-Irritative||||<0.0001
91674975|NCT00063882|183243805|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Bowel||||0.001
91674976|NCT00063882|183243805|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.12||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sexual|Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|||0.23
91674977|NCT00063882|183243806|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary||||0.0002
91674978|NCT00063882|183243806|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary-Incontinence||||0.42
91674979|NCT00063882|183243806|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary-Irritative||||<0.0001
91793355|NCT05217927|183464689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.97|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures has treatment group, randomization stratum, month, and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.65|-1.97|<0.0001
91903006|NCT00789750|183700776|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91861469|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.09||0.9722|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.62|23.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||23.34|-24.62|0.9722
91861470|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-177.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.72||0.2051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-357.85|3.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||3.13|-357.85|0.2051
91861471|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.99||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.98|-26.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-26.08|-57.98|0.0025
91903007|NCT00789750|183700777|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.132
91674980|NCT00063882|183243806|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Bowel||||<0.0001
91674981|NCT00063882|183243806|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.27||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Sexual||||0.0072
91793356|NCT05217927|183464690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4|||=|0.2029|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.84|6.66|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model with treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate for participants with non-missing domain scores at both baseline and Week 12.||6.66|-1.84|=0.2029
91861472|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-65.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.78||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-121.14|-10.5||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-10.50|-121.14|0.1465
91903008|NCT00789750|183700778|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91903009|NCT00789750|183700779|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.62|-12.18|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-12.18|-20.62|<0.001
91903010|NCT00789750|183700780|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.39|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||4.39|-0.75|0.1652
91861473|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.54||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.13|28.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||28.37|-18.13|0.7734
91861474|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-175.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.45||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-340.37|-10.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-10.56|-340.37|0.1826
91861475|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.71||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.4|-20.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-20.93|-57.40|0.0105
91861476|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.17||0.2737|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-119.49|12.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||12.09|-119.49|0.2737
91861477|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.77||0.8692|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.59|26.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||26.52|-20.59|0.8692
91903011|NCT00789750|183700781|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|-6.16|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-6.16|-13.44|<0.0001
91903012|NCT00789750|183700782|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.01||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.5|||ANCOVA||The treatment difference and its 95% confidence interval are estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator and Moses method. The parameter dispersion Type is actually IQR of the Median Difference.|Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||17.5|5.3|0.0004
91903013|NCT00789750|183700783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|5.23|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||5.23|1.58|0.0003
91903014|NCT00789750|183700784|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|-5.78|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-5.78|-11.75|<0.0001
91861478|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-163.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|89.64||0.2106|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-332.06|5.99||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||5.99|-332.06|0.2106
91674982|NCT00703508|183243897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234||||||Ovulation rate vs Testosterone post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0234
91861479|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.67||0.006|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-65.19|-26.14||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-26.14|-65.19|0.0060
91861480|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.12||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-121.44|-3.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-3.13|-121.44|0.1831
91861481|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.39||0.2061|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|43.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||43.30|-0.31|0.2061
91861482|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-161.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.75||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-326.83|4.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||4.12|-326.83|0.2073
91861483|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.19||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.62|-14.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-14.10|-54.62|0.0371
91861484|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.72||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-117.01|6.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||6.54|-117.01|0.2393
91861485|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.01||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.91|27.67||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||27.67|-22.91|0.9019
91674983|NCT00703508|183243897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||||||Ovulation rate vs Testosterone post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0740
91674984|NCT00703508|183243897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4698||||||Ovulation rate vs Testosterone post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.4698
91674985|NCT00703508|183243897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||||||Ovulation rate vs Matsuda Index post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.1180
91674986|NCT00703508|183243897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0311||||||Ovulation rate vs Matsuda Index post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0311
91861486|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-149.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|81.97||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-303.77|5.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||5.35|-303.77|0.2103
91861487|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.2||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-42.4|-1.88||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-1.88|-42.40|0.1634
91903015|NCT00789750|183700785|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.7286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||2.9|-4.1|0.7286
91793357|NCT05217927|183464690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.71|14.52|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model with treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate for participants with non-missing domain scores at both baseline and Week 12.||14.52|5.71|<0.0001
91674987|NCT00703508|183243897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1586||||||Ovulation rate vs Matsuda Index post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.1586
91674988|NCT01064323|183243910|OTHER|Paired T-test to detect if there was a change from baseline to 5 minutes into intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC)||||||0.02|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.02
91674989|NCT01064323|183243917|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
91674990|NCT00486018|183243928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|9.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.6|12.2||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||12.2|6.6|<0.0001
91674991|NCT00486018|183243928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|10.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.6|13.6||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||13.6|7.6|<0.0001
91674992|NCT00486018|183243929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.6|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||38.0|15.6|<0.0001
91674993|NCT00486018|183243929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|20.1|42.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||42.6|20.1|<0.0001
91674994|NCT00486018|183243930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.5||||0.0141||95.0|1.6|9.9|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval based on inverting the exact two-sided score test.|||9.9|1.6|0.0141
91674995|NCT00486018|183243930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.0||||0.2815||95.0|-1.5|8.3|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval based on inverting the exact two-sided score test.|||8.3|-1.5|0.2815
91674996|NCT00486018|183243931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|45.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|36.0|55.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||55.0|36.0|<0.0001
91674997|NCT00486018|183243931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|29.9|50.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||50.2|29.9|<0.0001
91674998|NCT00486018|183243932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-148.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-183.6|-113.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-113.8|-183.6|<0.0001
91674999|NCT00486018|183243932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-134.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-172.7|-96.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-96.8|-172.7|<0.0001
91675000|NCT00486018|183243933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|4.1||||0.0214||95.0|0.6|7.6|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||7.6|0.6|0.0214
91675001|NCT00486018|183243933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|6.4||||0.0002||95.0|3.0|9.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||9.8|3.0|0.0002
91861488|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.28||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-108.04|10.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||10.80|-108.04|0.2727
91675002|NCT00486018|183243934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|3.8||||0.0248||95.0|0.5|7.0|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||7.0|0.5|0.0248
91675003|NCT00486018|183243934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|5.1||||0.0014||95.0|2.0|8.3|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||8.3|2.0|0.0014
91675004|NCT01138111|183243935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline neocortical SUVR in those subjects who progressed to AD over the 2 year follow-up was compared to the neocortical SUVR of those that did not progress by a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.||||0.0001
91675005|NCT01138111|183243935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 12 month neocortical SUVR in those subjects who progressed to AD over the 2 year follow-up was compared to the neocortical SUVR of those that did not progress by a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.||||0.0011
91675006|NCT01138111|183243935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 24 month neocortical SUVR in those subjects who progressed to AD over the 2 year follow-up was compared to the neocortical SUVR of those that did not progress by a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.||||0.0008
91692170|NCT03296527|183279346|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.93||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with cycle cancellation due to poor or excessive response, or transfer cancellation due to excessive response/OHSS risk||0.93|0.42|0.020
91692171|NCT03296527|183279347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 10 mm||||<.001
91692172|NCT03296527|183279347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 12 mm||||<.001
91692173|NCT03296527|183279347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 15 mm||||0.568
91861489|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.29||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.65|13.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||13.36|-32.65|0.5839
91675007|NCT02149121|183243950|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|97.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.08|106.99|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||106.99|88.08|
91675008|NCT02149121|183243950|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|94.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|103.86|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||103.86|85.40|
91675009|NCT02149121|183243950|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|113.85|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||113.85|93.32|
91793358|NCT00076024|183464706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.867|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.1 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using one-sided Log rank test, stratified for estrogen receptor (ER) status (ER-positive or ER-negative/unknown), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes or no), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (less than or equal to \[=\<1\] or 2). The stratified Cox proportional hazards model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.867|0.819|0.156
91793359|NCT00076024|183464707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|17.4||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|31.9|||Fisher Exact|||||31.9|3.0|0.038
91861490|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-167.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.58||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-312.25|-23.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-23.45|-312.25|0.1597
91861491|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.27||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.81|-5.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-5.43|-48.81|0.1138
91861492|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.93||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-102.78|-21.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-21.13|-102.78|0.0888
91903016|NCT00789750|183700786|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||0.0|-0.4|0.0653
91716938|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.42|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.54||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 9 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.54|-0.70|>0.99
91716939|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.06|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.78||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.78|-0.91|>0.99
91716940|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.47|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.56||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 15 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.56|-1.50|>0.99
91793360|NCT00902161|183464712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squared Mean Treatment Difference|32.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|49.0||There was only 1 primary hypothesis, so no multiplicity adjustment was required.|A linear mixed effect (LME) model|||The p-value is for testing the null hypothesis that the difference on Rt(65) between the \[MK-0893 1g + Propranolol\] vs. \[PBO + Propranolol\] \>=60 min. If p-value \< 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected at the significance level of 0.05, thus supporting the primary hypothesis that the treatment difference is less than 60 minutes.||49|15|0.005
91861493|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.19||0.9741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.79|23.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||23.60|-24.79|0.9741
91861494|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-159.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.42||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-282.59|-35.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-35.87|-282.59|0.1354
91793361|NCT00988325|183464728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median time to cessation of viral sheddi|119.0|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.0|230.0||p-value is for the comparison of the age cohorts (treatment groups)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Test was used for testing homogeneity of survival curves|Median time was estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curve (unstratified)|||230|113|=0.166
91675010|NCT02149121|183243951|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|95.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.39|105.04|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||105.04|87.39|
91675011|NCT02149121|183243951|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|89.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.85|98.72|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||98.72|81.85|
91716941|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.19|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.77||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 18 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.77|-1.16|>0.99
91793362|NCT00988325|183464730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time to Resolution of Fever in Patients|14.5|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.0||The p-value is for the comparison of the age cohorts (not including Total)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median time was estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curve (unstratified)|||20|12|=0.059
91793363|NCT01155219|183464734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91793364|NCT03052764|183464735|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-1.46|||ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-3.68|<.0001
91793365|NCT03052764|183464736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|50.37|||||Values obtained were from a Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the number of UUI episodes reported at Baseline (\<= 9 versus \> 9 daily episodes)at each scheduled visit.|||50.37|0.75|
91793366|NCT03052764|183464737|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-3.30|<.0001
91793367|NCT03052764|183464738|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-1.39|||ANCOVA|||||-1.39|-3.73|<.0001
91793368|NCT03052764|183464739|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-1.09|0.0004
91861495|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.21||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-49.41|-3.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-3.52|-49.41|0.1425
91861496|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.61||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.18|-11.01||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-11.01|-98.18|0.1326
91861497|NCT03858634|183609949|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.87||0.8433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.95|23.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||23.58|-31.95|0.8433
91861498|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-130.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.5||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-203.39|-58.19||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-58.19|-203.39|0.0768
91793369|NCT03052764|183464740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|52.57|||||Values were obtained from a Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the number of UUI episodes reported at Baseline (\<= 9 versus \> 9 daily episodes) at each scheduled visit.|||52.57|3.23|
91861499|NCT03858634|183609949|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.69||0.3341|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-43.49|6.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||6.34|-43.49|0.3341
91675012|NCT02149121|183243951|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|106.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.03|117.08|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||117.08|97.03|
91861500|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.82||0.4995|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-166.52|84.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||84.74|-166.52|0.4995
91861501|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.59||0.7071|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.37|9.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||9.06|-16.37|0.7071
91675013|NCT02149121|183243952|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|94.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.61|100.55|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||100.55|89.61|
91675014|NCT02149121|183243952|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.01|94.28|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||94.28|84.01|
91675015|NCT02149121|183243952|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|106.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.56|113.13|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||113.13|100.56|
91675016|NCT02149121|183243953|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the treatment difference in the change from baseline of DAS28 (CRP) at Week 24 was entirely within the equivalence margin of ±0.50.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.2|||||Adjusted least squares means and standard error, estimate of treatment difference \[CT-P10 - (Rituxan + MabThera)\] and 2-sided 90% confidence interval calculated from the ANCOVA model.|Primary efficacy analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, study part, interaction of treatment group with study part, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status at baseline (intolerance case versus inadequate response), and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||0.20|-0.22|
91675017|NCT02149121|183243958|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|102.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.46|113.33||||||Secondary PD analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with results as the response, treatment group, as fixed effect and baseline values, gender, region, race, study part, interaction of treatment group with study part, prior anti-TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.|Estimate of Geometric Least Square Mean and ratio of Geometric Least Square Means (CT-P10/reference products) were obtained from back transforming the least square means from the ANCOVA.|113.33|92.46|
91675018|NCT07106489|183243964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.8705
91675019|NCT07106489|183243965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.9161
91675020|NCT07106489|183243966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.4166|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.4166
91675021|NCT07106489|183243967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.9995
91675022|NCT07106489|183243968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.0422
91675023|NCT07106489|183243969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.56||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.0027
91675024|NCT07106489|183243970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.2598
91675025|NCT07106489|183243971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Beetroot effect|||||0.1725
91675026|NCT00603291|183243972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for baseline body weight, baseline HbA1c stratum, and prior antihyperglycemic medication stratum||||4.80|2.05|<0.0001
91675027|NCT00603291|183243973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.20|-3.92|<0.0001
91692056|NCT04042467|183278709|SUPERIORITY||Estimated intervention effect at 24 mo.|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test (4 DoF) of intervention main effect and 3 intervention by age interaction parameters equal 0 vs. alternative that at least one was not 0.|The p-value is for the Wald test (4 DoF) evaluating whether the Greenlight Plus and Greenlight group trajectories were significantly different. The estimation parameter is the model-estimated intervention effect at 24 months (kg/m).|"Linear mixed-effects model (random intercepts and slopes for clinics and participants within clinics). A priori adjustment for baseline variables: child birth weight and biological sex, race/ethnicity, health literacy, language, education, income, and food insecurity. Child age and birth weight were included using natural splines with 3 DoF.~Effect evaluated using Wald test with a 2-sided, 0.05 significance level. Null hypothesis: Equal weight-for-length growth trajectories in the two groups."||-0.09|-0.57|<0.001
91692057|NCT05151744|183278713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|3.4||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.0|||MMRM|||||7.0|-0.2|0.0625
91793370|NCT01314911|183464741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-3.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z-test, 2-sided|Comparison of randomized arms was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent detectable in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent detectable in the Placebo arm.|Assuming that pooled percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR at Day 3 is 50%, assuming that the Oseltamivir arm was better than the placebo arm and that the detectable rate in the Oseltamivir arm was 42.5% compared to 57.5% in the placebo arm (a 15% reduction), and assuming 10% subjects with missing qPCR at Day 3, in a two-sided, two-sample 0.05-level t- test with 546 participants combined across both arms, there was 90% power.||-3.0|-21.4|0.0097
91861502|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-52.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.39||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-70.18|-34.77||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-34.77|-70.18|0.0305
91903017|NCT00789750|183700787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||1.3|-1.5|0.8862
91675028|NCT02177136|183243974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||||||0.0434
91675029|NCT02177136|183243974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0665|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||||||0.0665
91675030|NCT02054130|183243999|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.63|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.63|0.23|<0.001
91675031|NCT02054130|183243999|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.51|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.51|0.16|<0.001
91675032|NCT02054130|183243999|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.58|||Negative bnomial regression|||||0.58|0.20|<0.001
91675033|NCT02493777|183244052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
91675034|NCT02493777|183244053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
91675035|NCT00468728|183244054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The point estimate of the difference and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups were computed. If the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10%, the clinical non-inferiority of fidaxomicin was demonstrated. CIs for the difference of cure rates were calculated using the method recommended by Agresti and Caffo.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.8||||||H0: C(OPT-80) - C(VAN) \<= -10% Power calculation is based on cure rate of 85% in both treatment groups, non-inferiority margin of 10%, 2.5% (1-sided) type I error rate with approximately 90% power gives a total of 530 subjects.||6.8|-4.8|
91675036|NCT00468728|183244055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-7.0|||Chi-squared|||||-7.0|-21.6|<0.001
91675037|NCT00468728|183244056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.001||95.0|5.4|21.1|||Chi-squared|||||21.1|5.4|0.001
91675038|NCT02312713|183244154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.12|-6.84|0.06
91675039|NCT02312713|183244154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||2.08|-5.26|0.39
91675040|NCT02312713|183244154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.85|-6.24|0.14
91675041|NCT02312713|183244154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||1.11|-6.37|0.17
91675042|NCT02312713|183244154|NON_INFERIORITY|The IBET intervention will be non-inferior to the standard PT intervention, indicated by a mean WOMAC score less than 5 points higher than standard PT.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||3.56|-2.23|0.65
91793371|NCT01314911|183464744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0243||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0243
91861503|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.01|5.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||5.81|-19.01|0.4884
91675043|NCT02312713|183244154|NON_INFERIORITY|The IBET intervention will be non-inferior to the standard PT intervention, indicated by a mean WOMAC score less than 5 points higher than standard PT.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||2.05|-4.13|0.51
91675044|NCT02312713|183244155|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.98|0.15|0.01
91675045|NCT02312713|183244155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.65|-0.19|0.28
91861504|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.63||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-104.93|14.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||14.35|-104.93|0.2885
91675046|NCT02312713|183244155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.49|-0.35|0.75
91675047|NCT02312713|183244155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.7|-0.16|0.22
91675048|NCT02312713|183244155|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||-0.16|-0.84|0.00
91692058|NCT05151744|183278715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.7||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|7.0|||MMRM|||||7.0|-1.5|0.2052
91793372|NCT01314911|183464745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.41
91793373|NCT01314911|183464746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.88
91861505|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.73|20.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||20.06|-9.73|0.6505
91793374|NCT01314911|183464747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7461||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.7461
91793375|NCT01314911|183464748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1501||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.1501
91793376|NCT01314911|183464749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3025||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.3025
91793377|NCT01314911|183464750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5466||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.5466
91903018|NCT01368042|183700896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.9||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||0.03
91675049|NCT02312713|183244155|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||0.39|-0.31|0.83
91675050|NCT02312713|183244156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.75||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|15.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||15.07|0.43|0.04
91675051|NCT02312713|183244156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|8.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||8.82|-6.59|0.78
91675052|NCT02312713|183244156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.88||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|12.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||12.33|-2.56|0.20
91675053|NCT02312713|183244156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|8.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||8.99|-6.74|.78
91675054|NCT02312713|183244156|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||3.21|-8.94|0.35
91675055|NCT02312713|183244156|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||6.42|-6.40|1.00
91675056|NCT02312713|183244157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.30|-1.56|0.19
91675057|NCT02312713|183244157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.98|-0.89|0.93
91675058|NCT02312713|183244157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.93|-0.97|0.97
91675059|NCT02312713|183244157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Unilateral Stand Time||1|-0.91|0.93
91692059|NCT05151744|183278716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|3.3||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.0|||MMRM|||||6.0|0.5|0.0192
91692060|NCT05151744|183278717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.5||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.2|||MMRM|||||5.2|-0.1|0.0637
91692061|NCT05151744|183278718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.8||||0.7091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.9|||MMRM|||||4.9|-3.3|0.7091
91692062|NCT05151744|183278719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.8||||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.1|||MMRM|||||4.1|-0.4|0.1107
91692063|NCT05151744|183278720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.1||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0|||MMRM|||||5.0|-0.8|0.1498
91692064|NCT05151744|183278721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.8||||0.3783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.0|||MMRM|||||6.0|-2.3|0.3783
91692065|NCT05151744|183278722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.9||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.3|||MMRM|||||4.3|-0.4|0.1036
91692066|NCT05151744|183278729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-10.0||||0.4968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|18.9|||MMRM|||||18.9|-38.9|0.4968
91692067|NCT05151744|183278730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-23.2||||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.8|30.5|||MMRM|||||30.5|-76.8|0.3951
91692068|NCT05151744|183278731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-22.8||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|0.2|||MMRM|||||0.2|-45.8|0.0521
91692069|NCT05151744|183278732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-17.5||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|10.7|||MMRM|||||10.7|-45.7|0.2227
91692070|NCT05151744|183278733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-27.2||||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.6|24.2|||MMRM|||||24.2|-78.6|0.2972
91793378|NCT01314911|183464752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|two-sample binomial exact test|The two-sample binomial exact test was performed in PROC STATXACT.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent in the placebo arm.|||3.0|-1.4|0.5311
91793379|NCT01314911|183464753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|4.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z test||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent in the placebo arm.|This test compared the difference in percentages of participants with at least one complication between two randomized arms.||4.7|-3.8|0.8498
91793380|NCT01314911|183464755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-5.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z test||||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent with detectable in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent with detectable in the placebo arm.|-5.1|-22.2|0.0021
91793381|NCT01314911|183464758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
91675060|NCT02312713|183244157|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||1.38|-0.16|0.12
91675061|NCT02312713|183244157|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.77|-0.78|1.00
91675062|NCT02312713|183244158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||.94|-1.55|0.63
91675063|NCT02312713|183244158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||0.6|-1.58|0.37
91675064|NCT02312713|183244158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.59|-0.95|0.62
91675065|NCT02312713|183244158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.35|-0.87|0.67
91675066|NCT02312713|183244158|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.66|-0.40|0.23
91675067|NCT02312713|183244158|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.64|-0.17|0.11
91675068|NCT02312713|183244159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.8|-1.58|0.52
91675069|NCT02312713|183244159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.85|-1.86|0.46
91675070|NCT02312713|183244159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.58|-1.85|0.3
91675071|NCT02312713|183244159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.16|-2.61|0.08
91675072|NCT02312713|183244159|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.74|-1.23|0.63
91675073|NCT02312713|183244159|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.41|-1.85|0.21
91675074|NCT02312713|183244160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.02|-1.59|0.05
91793382|NCT03150485|183464808|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was established is the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 50%.|Estimated Proportion|77.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.15|90.29|||Agresti-Coull|||The Agresti-Coull method was used to estimate the confidence interval of the binomial proportions of subjects with less than 2 lens modifications.||90.29|56.15|
91793383|NCT00472459|183464839|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.514||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.911|||t-test, 2 sided||The 95 % confidence intervals for the lesion complete response rates and lesion recurrence rates were estimated using the method of Clopper and Pearson.|||0.911|0.116|0.0120
91861506|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-72.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-82.91|-61.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-61.34|-82.91|0.0062
91861507|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.34|-6.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-6.76|-32.34|0.0571
91861508|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 6||||
91861509|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.65||0.6927|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.38|9.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||9.84|-18.38|0.6927
91861510|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-65.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-73.33|-57.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-57.94|-73.33|0.0038
91861511|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.82||0.094|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.43|-4.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-4.30|-30.43|0.0940
91861512|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-72.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.73||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.1|-11.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-11.65|-133.10|0.1694
91861513|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07||0.7811|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.5|16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||16.18|-10.50|0.7811
91903019|NCT01368042|183700897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.2||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=231 (paired samples)|||||0.05
91675075|NCT02312713|183244160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.02|-1.82|0.05
91675076|NCT02312713|183244160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.27|-1.37|0.19
91675077|NCT02312713|183244160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.05|-1.83|0.06
91675078|NCT02312713|183244160|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||0.89|-0.43|0.49
91675079|NCT02312713|183244160|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||0.78|-0.77|0.99
91675080|NCT02312713|183244161|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS Pain.||4.92|-1.77|0.36
91861514|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-68.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-72.51|-63.91||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-63.91|-72.51|0.0011
91861515|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.02|-10.7||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-10.70|-36.02|0.0245
91861516|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-79.88|-43.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-43.74|-79.88|0.0603
91903020|NCT01368042|183700898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.4||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=231 (paired samples)|||||0.003
91675081|NCT02312713|183244161|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|6.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS Pain.||6.14|-1.11|0.17
91675082|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.94||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|8.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Pain.||8.06|-0.19|0.06
91675083|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|7.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Pain.||7.79|-1.08|0.14
91675084|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Standard Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Pain.||6.4|-1.67|0.25
91675085|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|5.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Standard Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Pain.||5.18|-3.48|0.70
91675086|NCT02312713|183244161|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS ADL.||1.79|-4.43|0.40
91675087|NCT02312713|183244161|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS ADL.||3.59|-2.93|0.84
91675088|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 month for KOOS ADL.||5.94|-1.73|0.28
91716942|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.19|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.96||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 21 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.96|-0.58|>0.99
91716943|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.97||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 24 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.97|-0.76|>0.99
91861517|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.89||0.4365|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.29|21.04||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||21.04|-5.29|0.4365
91675089|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 month for KOOS ADL.||6.77|-1.2|0.17
91675090|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|7.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS ADL.||7.18|-0.32|0.07
91675091|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS ADL.||6.34|-1.44|0.22
91675092|NCT02312713|183244161|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||4.06|-4.47|.92
91675093|NCT02312713|183244161|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||5.24|-4.15|.82
91675094|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||9|-1.59|0.17
91716944|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.01|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.76||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 27 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.76|-0.74|>0.99
91675095|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.01||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|11.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||11.74|0.29|0.04
91675096|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||9.1|-1.28|0.14
91675097|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|11.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||11.03|-0.1|0.05
91675098|NCT02312713|183244161|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|3.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS QOL.||3.96|-3.29|.86
91675099|NCT02312713|183244161|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS QOL.||6.13|-0.96|0.15
91675100|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|8.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS QOL.||8.11|-0.85|0.11
91675101|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.74||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|12.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS QOL.||12.08|3.39|0
91675102|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS QOL.||7.67|-1.08|0.14
91675103|NCT02312713|183244161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS QOL.||9.37|0.92|0.02
91675104|NCT02312713|183244162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||-0.5|-4.67|0.02
91716945|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.38|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.44||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 30 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.44|-1.20|>0.99
91716946|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.89||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 33 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.89|-0.69|>0.99
91793384|NCT00472459|183464840|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.413||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.016|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.016|-0.190|0.1761
91861518|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-68.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.11|-49.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-49.26|-88.11|0.0218
91675105|NCT02312713|183244162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||1.09|-3.22|0.33
91675106|NCT02312713|183244162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||1.74|-2.52|0.72
91675107|NCT02312713|183244162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||2.86|-1.56|0.56
91675108|NCT02312713|183244162|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||3.9|0.48|0.01
91675109|NCT02312713|183244162|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||3.52|-0.1|0.06
91675110|NCT02312713|183244163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||-0.26|-4.67|0.03
91675111|NCT02312713|183244163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||-0.55|-4.31|0.01
91861519|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.07||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.65|-3.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-3.45|-35.65|0.1238
91675112|NCT02312713|183244163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||1.27|-3.24|0.39
91675113|NCT02312713|183244163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.29|-3.58|0.1
91675114|NCT02312713|183244163|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||3.29|-0.33|0.11
91675115|NCT02312713|183244163|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||2.37|-0.8|0.33
91675116|NCT02312713|183244164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.04|-1.62|0.06
91675117|NCT02312713|183244164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.77|-0.77|1.00
91675118|NCT02312713|183244164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.41|-1.29|0.31
91793385|NCT00472459|183464841|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|1.357|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.357|-0.156|0.1183
91793386|NCT00472459|183464842|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.493||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|1.309|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.309|-0.323|0.2322
91861520|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.38||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.88|-10.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-10.72|-98.88|0.1437
91861521|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.14||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.56|14.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||14.43|-12.56|0.9279
91903021|NCT01368042|183700899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.5|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
91903022|NCT01368042|183700900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.2|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
91675119|NCT02312713|183244164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.57|-1.01|0.58
91675120|NCT02312713|183244164|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||1.03|-0.33|0.32
91675121|NCT02312713|183244164|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||0.43|-0.86|0.51
91675122|NCT02312713|183244165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.95||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|26.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||26.22|-12.31|0.48
91675123|NCT02312713|183244165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.11||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|23.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||23.91|-9.69|0.41
91716947|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.2|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.61||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 36 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.61|-1.02|>0.99
91716948|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.11|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.92||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 39 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.92|-0.70|>0.99
91716949|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.62|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.13||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 42 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.13|-1.36|>0.99
91716950|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.23|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.55||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 7 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.55|-1.01|>0.99
91716951|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.2|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.49||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 8 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.49|-0.89|>0.99
91716952|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.02|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.67||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 9 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.67|-0.63|>0.99
91716953|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.17|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.61||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 10 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.61|-0.95|>0.99
91716954|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.42|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.34||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 11 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.34|-1.18|>0.99
91716955|NCT04210986|183326187|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.35|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.71||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.71|-1.41|>0.99
91793387|NCT00472459|183464843|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|1.562|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.562|-0.202|0.1286
91793388|NCT01362595|183464865|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Due to the small sample size, the statistical approach is primarily descriptive in nature.|||
91793389|NCT04243421|183464900|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
91903023|NCT01368042|183700901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.3|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
91716956|NCT04210986|183326188|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|1.86||||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|6.82||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||6.82|-3.09|0.9106
91793390|NCT04243421|183464901|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91793391|NCT04243421|183464901|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0034
91675124|NCT02312713|183244165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.82||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|12.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||12.91|-26.55|0.50
91675125|NCT02312713|183244165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.02||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|24.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||24.35|-10.31|0.43
91675126|NCT02312713|183244165|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.77||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.73|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||2.19|-29.73|0.09
91675127|NCT02312713|183244165|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|14.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||14.23|-14.41|0.99
91675128|NCT02312713|183244166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Strengthening Exercises||2.66|0.05|0.04
91675129|NCT02312713|183244166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Strengthening Exercises.||2.6|-0.18|0.09
91675130|NCT02312713|183244166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Strengthening Exercises.||2.19|-0.49|0.22
91675131|NCT02312713|183244166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Strengthening Exercises.||2.78|-0.08|0.06
91675132|NCT02312713|183244166|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Strength.||0.58|-1.6|0.36
91675133|NCT02312713|183244166|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Strength.||1.31|-1.03|0.81
91675134|NCT02312713|183244166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Stretching.||3.03|0.67|0.00
91675135|NCT02312713|183244166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Stretching.||2.68|0.55|0.00
91793392|NCT04243421|183464902|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91793393|NCT02284178|183464903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||GEE analysis|||||||0.432
91793394|NCT02284178|183464904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||GEE|||||||0.684
91675136|NCT02312713|183244166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Stretching.||2.57|0.16|0.03
91675137|NCT02312713|183244166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Stretching.||3.16|0.98|0.00
91675138|NCT02312713|183244166|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Stretching.||0.5|-1.46|0.33
91675139|NCT02312713|183244166|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Stretching.||1.34|-0.44|0.32
91675140|NCT02312713|183244166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Aerobic Exercise.||2.8|-0.61|0.21
91675141|NCT02312713|183244166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Aerobic Exercise.||4|0.13|0.04
91675142|NCT02312713|183244166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Aerobic Exercise.||3.62|0.15|0.03
91793395|NCT02284178|183464905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.858
91793396|NCT02284178|183464907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||GEE analysis|||||||0.460
91793397|NCT02284178|183464908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.214
91793398|NCT02284178|183464909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.155
91675143|NCT02312713|183244166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Aerobic Exercise.||3.97|0.01|0.05
91675144|NCT02312713|183244166|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Aerobic Exercise.||2.2|-0.62|0.27
91675145|NCT02312713|183244166|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Aerobic Exercise.||1.54|-1.69|0.93
91675146|NCT05444543|183244219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.089||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
91675147|NCT05444543|183244220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91675148|NCT01258101|183244256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to Arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|53.5||||||||53.5|10.5|
91675149|NCT01258101|183244256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (24 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|7.6||||||||7.6|-14.0|
91675150|NCT01258101|183244256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|19.1||||||||19.1|-4.7|
91675151|NCT01258101|183244256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-42.2|
91675152|NCT01258101|183244258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||||0.2|-1.0|
91675153|NCT01258101|183244258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (24 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.3||||||||1.3|-6.4|
91675154|NCT01258101|183244258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||||1.4|-1.4|
91793399|NCT02284178|183464910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
91793400|NCT04123665|183464915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment group and gender, and the baseline whole mouth mean BI and whole mouth MGI as covariates.|Difference is first named treatment (experimental) minus second named treatment (control).|||-0.04|-0.11|<0.0001
91903024|NCT01368042|183700902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.8|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
91675155|NCT01258101|183244258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||||||||1.7|-0.5|
91675156|NCT01258101|183244266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.2667
91675157|NCT01258101|183244266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.9999
91675158|NCT01258101|183244266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9891|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.9891
91675159|NCT00720226|183244292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants demonstrating 5-35% emphysema on baseline CT scan||||0.06
91675160|NCT00720226|183244293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with 5-35% emphysema at baseline||||0.55
91675161|NCT03438227|183244423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.039
91675162|NCT03438227|183244424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
91675163|NCT03438227|183244425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
91675164|NCT03438227|183244426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
91675165|NCT03438227|183244427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91675166|NCT03438227|183244428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.194
91675167|NCT03438227|183244429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.414
91675168|NCT03438227|183244430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91675169|NCT03438227|183244431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.571
91675170|NCT03438227|183244432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91675171|NCT03438227|183244433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.049
91675172|NCT03438227|183244434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.933
91675173|NCT03438227|183244435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
91675174|NCT03438227|183244436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.633
91675175|NCT01244061|183244454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|11.55||The statistical significance was declared for each hypothesis firstly for CAR Weeks 9-12, and then secondly for CAR Weeks 9-52 until a p-value \> 0.05 was obtained, at which point the hypothesis would be declared to be not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||The study was conducted on a sample size to achieve at least 90% power for the treatment comparison in the primary efficacy endpoint assuming an odds ratio of 3.36 with a placebo abstinence rate of 12% and varenicline abstinence rate of 31%. The intent of the primary efficacy analysis was to evaluate the hypothesis that varenicline is superior to placebo for smoking cessation after 12 weeks of treatment.||11.55|4.34|<0.0001
91675176|NCT01244061|183244455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|20.41||Statistical significance was declared for each hypothesis in the order above until a p-value \>0.05 was obtained, at which point the hypothesis was declared to be not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||The sample size was sufficient to achieve 80% power for the treatment comparison in the key secondary end point for an odds ratio of 2.55 with a placebo abstinence rate of 6% and varenicline abstinence rate of 14%. The intent of the key secondary efficacy analysis was to evaluate the hypothesis that varenicline is superior to placebo for smoking cessation from Week 9 to the end of non-treatment follow up period at Week 52.||20.41|3.97|<0.0001
91675177|NCT01244061|183244456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|10.44||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||||10.44|3.25|<0.0001
91793401|NCT00958789|183464954|NON_INFERIORITY|"For the primary efficacy hypothesis, H0, the total KSS change from preoperative to 2 years postoperative will be less than or equal to delta. The alternative hypothesis, Ha, will be that the total KSS change from preop to 2 years postoperative is greater than delta. When delta=63, the hypothesis will test for non-inferiority. When delta=70, the hypothesis will test for superiority.~H0: mean 2-year - mean preop less than or equal to delta. Ha: mean 2-year - mean preop greater than delta."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|70.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|64.43||||||||||64.43|
91903025|NCT01368042|183700903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.9||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.38
91675178|NCT01244061|183244457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|12.51||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||Week 12 assessment||12.51|4.92|<0.0001
91692071|NCT05151744|183278734|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-19.4||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|4.2|||MMRM|||||4.2|-42.9|0.1071
91692072|NCT05151744|183278735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-14.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|13.2|||MMRM|||||13.2|-42.4|0.3030
91692073|NCT05151744|183278736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-43.0||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.4|6.4|||MMRM|||||6.4|-92.4|0.0878
91692074|NCT05151744|183278737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-22.3||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|5.2|||MMRM|||||5.2|-49.8|0.1111
91692075|NCT02565628|183278760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.6382|ONE_SIDED|90.0||8.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.97||0.6382
91692174|NCT03296527|183279347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 17 mm||||0.839
91861522|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.67||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-77.69|-41.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-41.24|-77.69|0.0254
91675179|NCT01244061|183244457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.64||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||Week 24 assessment||4.64|1.86|<0.0001
91675180|NCT01244061|183244457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|4.97||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||Week 52 assessment||4.97|1.88|<0.0001
91675181|NCT03166124|183244458|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.10|0.953|
91675182|NCT03166124|183244458|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric Least Squares Means (LSMeans) were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.09|0.974|
91675183|NCT03166124|183244459|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.12|0.96|
91675184|NCT03166124|183244459|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.10|0.94|
91716957|NCT04210986|183326188|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-4.2||||0.4424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|1.53||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.53|-9.93|0.4424
91675185|NCT00788593|183244460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|1.023||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.656|2.701|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on LS mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) which included participant as random effect, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and placebo baseline CFA value as covariate.||2.701|-0.656|0.228
91675186|NCT00788593|183244461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91675187|NCT00788593|183244461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91793402|NCT04190680|183465033|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after the evaluation lesson).||||0.001
91793403|NCT04190680|183465033|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after the evaluation lesson).||||0.31
91675188|NCT00788593|183244462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91861523|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.23|-4.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-4.43|-33.23|0.0994
91675189|NCT00788593|183244462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91675190|NCT01392326|183244465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|8.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.85|3.46|<0.0001
91675191|NCT01392326|183244465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|8.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.62|3.37|<0.0001
91675192|NCT01036490|183244482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91675193|NCT01036490|183244483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91675194|NCT01036490|183244486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91675195|NCT01036490|183244487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91675196|NCT03959527|183244548|NON_INFERIORITY|A single oral 3 g dose of zoliflodacin would be considered as non-inferior to a combination of a single IM 500 mg dose of ceftriaxone and a single 1 g oral dose of azithromycin if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the microbiological cure rate of the combination therapy minus zoliflodacin was less than 12% (prespecified non-inferiority \[NI\] margin for the primary endpoint).|Risk Difference (RD)|5.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|8.65|||||95% CI of the treatment difference of ceftriaxone+ azithromycin combination minus zoliflodacin|Point estimate for the treatment difference in proportion of ceftriaxone/azithromycin combination and zoliflodacin with microbiological cure and 2-sided 95% CI calculated by Newcombe score method.||8.65|1.38|
91675197|NCT02960893|183244588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9||Significance was evaluated at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: treatment, baseline (BL) gait severity, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction; Covariate: BL Total SARA score; Random effect: subject||||0.9|-0.5|0.519
91675198|NCT03692312|183244594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.875||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.51|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||3.51|-0.01|0.0514
91675199|NCT03692312|183244595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.88|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.88|-0.20|0.2124
91861524|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.36||0.3656|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-119.9|28.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||28.54|-119.90|0.3656
91861525|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.92||0.7465|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.79|8.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||8.94|-14.79|0.7465
91861526|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-82.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.75|-62.9||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-62.90|-101.75|0.0153
91861527|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.97||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.88|0.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||0.72|-33.88|0.2184
91793404|NCT04190680|183465034|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after evaluation lesson).||||0.55
91793405|NCT04190680|183465034|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after evaluation lesson).||||0.33
91861528|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.78||0.7726|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-50.37|34.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||34.07|-50.37|0.7726
91692175|NCT03296527|183279348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 10 mm||||<.001
91861529|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.66||0.476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.07|7.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||7.63|-26.07|0.4760
91861530|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-82.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.26|-64.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-64.87|-99.26|0.0121
91716958|NCT04210986|183326188|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.03||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|5.48||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 18 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||5.48|-5.55|0.9901
91716959|NCT04210986|183326189|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.69|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.95|32.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|"MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.~A priori power calculation was based a standardized mean difference effect size of SMD=0.73 (Mackay, et al, 2018, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage)."||32.3|-30.95|>0.99
91716960|NCT04210986|183326189|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-11.3|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|24.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|"MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.~A priori power calculation was based a standardized mean difference effect size of SMD=0.73 (Mackay, et al, 2018, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage)."||24.2|-46.9|>0.99
91716961|NCT04210986|183326190|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.21||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05.|Log Rank|Cox proportional hazards model constructed. Score (log rank) test to assess between group difference in hazard rate.|Hazard ratio expresses the hazard rate of the Fisetin group in the numerator and the hazard rate of the Placebo group in the denominator|With only 4 participants that converted to an alternative treatment modality, this analysis is underpowered.||4.21|0.05|0.474
91716962|NCT05222880|183326194|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 0.00 logMAR was used for distance.|Mean Population Estimate|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.12|-0.08||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% Individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 17 subjects were required to test the primary hypothesis for Distance.||-0.08|-0.12|
91716963|NCT05222880|183326194|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 0.17 logMAR was used for Intermediate.|Mean Population Estimate|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.06|-0.02||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% Individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 11 subjects were required to test the primary hypothesis for Intermediate.||-0.02|-0.06|
91716964|NCT05222880|183326194|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 0.17 logMAR was used for near.|Mean Population Estimate|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.05|0.09||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% Individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 48 subjects were required to test the primary hypothesis for Near.||0.09|0.05|
91716965|NCT05222880|183326195|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 36 CLUE Points was used for Hyperopes.|Mean Population Estimate|52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|45.2|59.4||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 14 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Hyperopes.||59.4|45.2|
91793406|NCT04190680|183465035|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after evaluation lesson).||||0.004
91861531|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.43|4.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||4.40|-30.43|0.3329
91861532|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.46||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.31|44.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||44.92|-48.31|0.9564
91716966|NCT05222880|183326195|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 41 CLUE Points was used for Myopes.|Mean Population Estimate|63.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|58.0|68.6||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 18 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Myopes.||68.6|58.0|
91793407|NCT04190680|183465035|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after evaluation lesson).||||0.84
91861533|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.49||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.84|10.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||10.06|-25.84|0.5661
91861534|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-82.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.26|-64.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-64.87|-99.26|0.0121
91716967|NCT05222880|183326196|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.05 was used.|Mean Proportion|0.0019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.00209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0076|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.02 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 2000 replicating trials, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.0076|0.0000|
91793408|NCT04190680|183465036|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after evaluation lesson).||||0.002
91861535|NCT03858634|183609951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.7||0.4275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.4|7.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||7.13|-29.40|0.4275
91861536|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.54||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-94.32|38.46||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||38.46|-94.32|0.5403
91861537|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|376.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|631.83||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-462.83|1214.97||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||1214.97|-462.83|0.5587
91861538|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-67.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.99||0.4516|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-205.33|69.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||69.93|-205.33|0.4516
91861539|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.13|0.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||0.15|-25.13|0.2052
91861540|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.89||0.224|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-123.09|4.28||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||4.28|-123.09|0.2240
91675200|NCT03692312|183244596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|6.96|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||6.96|2.51|<0.0001
91861541|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.33||0.4242|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.7|103.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||103.65|-24.70|0.4242
91861542|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-77.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.61||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-225.44|71.01||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||71.01|-225.44|0.4295
91861543|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.97||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.64|1.2||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||1.20|-38.64|0.2272
91861544|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.9||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-135.23|24.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||24.95|-135.23|0.3416
91861545|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|57.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.75||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.02|150.19||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||150.19|-35.02|0.4192
91861546|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.42||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-231.66|98.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||98.02|-231.66|0.5245
91861547|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.31||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.47|-0.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-0.05|-35.47|0.1988
91861548|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.11||0.3054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.08|22.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||22.72|-161.08|0.3054
91861549|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|229.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|377.23||0.5504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-271.51|730.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||730.22|-271.51|0.5504
91861550|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-71.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.27||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-214.96|72.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||72.65|-214.96|0.4493
91861551|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.63||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-67.74|-12.85||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-12.85|-67.74|0.0665
91716968|NCT05222880|183326197|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.05 was used.|Mean Proportion|0.0018|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0078|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.02 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 2000 replicating trials, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.0078|0.0000|
91716969|NCT05222880|183326198|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 41 CLUE Points was used for Hyperopes.|Mean Population Estimate|52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|45.2|59.4||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 16 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Hyperopes.||59.4|45.2|
91861552|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-78.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.04||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-167.25|9.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||9.75|-167.25|0.2411
91861553|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|60.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.3||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.51|166.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||166.08|-44.51|0.4528
91861554|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.46||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-183.72|100.85||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||100.85|-183.72|0.6381
91861555|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.22||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.44|-8.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-8.62|-54.44|0.0837
91861556|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.45||0.3428|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-183.53|34.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||34.13|-183.53|0.3428
91861557|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.93||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.63|52.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||52.27|-8.63|0.3533
91861558|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.53||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-170.51|42.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||42.66|-170.51|0.3755
91861559|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.6||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.39|-16.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-16.87|-58.39|0.0268
91861560|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.79||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-151.2|-7.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-7.75|-151.20|0.1672
91861561|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|43.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.81||0.3518|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.09|104.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||104.55|-17.09|0.3518
91903026|NCT01368042|183700904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
91903027|NCT01368042|183700905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Physical functioning scale||||0.03
91716970|NCT05222880|183326198|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 46 CLUE Points was used for Myopes.|Mean Population Estimate|63.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|58.0|68.6||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 15 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Myopes.||68.6|58.0|
91861562|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-68.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.22||0.2974|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.52|24.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||24.09|-161.52|0.2974
91861563|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.6||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.83|-13.33||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-13.33|-62.83|0.0555
91861564|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-78.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.72||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-171.17|14.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||14.62|-171.17|0.2614
91861565|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.89||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.62|81.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||81.98|-18.62|0.4134
91861566|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.99||0.262|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-154.44|15.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||15.24|-154.44|0.2620
91861567|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.46|-18.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-18.02|-62.46|0.0269
91861568|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-81.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.32||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-155.46|-7.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-7.02|-155.46|0.1709
91861569|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|42.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.98||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.61|60.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||60.22|25.61|0.0042
91793409|NCT04190680|183465036|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after evaluation lesson).||||0.16
91861570|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.22||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-142.19|35.88||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||35.88|-142.19|0.3772
91861571|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-49.06|-7.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-7.63|-49.06|0.0857
91861572|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-77.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.34||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-120.48|-34.2||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-34.20|-120.48|0.0607
91861573|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|88.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.79||0.4862|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-77.57|255.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||255.22|-77.57|0.4862
91903028|NCT01368042|183700905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Role functioning due to physical health scale||||0.02
91675201|NCT03692312|183244597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.099||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.39|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||5.39|0.96|0.0059
91675202|NCT03692312|183244598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.14|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.14|-0.30|0.4634
91793410|NCT04190680|183465037|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after evaluation lesson).||||0.01
91793411|NCT04190680|183465037|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after evaluation lesson).||||0.19
91793412|NCT03780400|183465038|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up||||||0.5145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5145
91861574|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.73||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-146.96|40.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||40.58|-146.96|0.3968
91861575|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.57||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-46.31|-2.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-2.11|-46.31|0.1624
91861576|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-76.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.75||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-138.58|-14.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-14.93|-138.58|0.1349
91861577|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.81||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|80.0|16.38|74.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||74.56|16.38|0.0525
91861578|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-76.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.98||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-172.71|19.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||19.55|-172.71|0.2719
91861579|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.39||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.86|-7.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-7.49|-53.86|0.0957
91903029|NCT01368042|183700905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Role functioning due to emotional problems scale||||0.01
91675203|NCT03692312|183244599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.79|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.79|-1.49|0.5385
91861580|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.98||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.83|-25.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-25.78|-133.83|0.0942
91861581|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.6||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.16|66.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||66.09|3.16|0.1606
91861582|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-77.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.2||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-156.58|2.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||2.58|-156.58|0.2096
91861583|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.32||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.74|-4.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-4.89|-53.74|0.1279
91861584|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-75.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.17||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-112.96|-37.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-37.08|-112.96|0.0479
91861585|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.91||0.17|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.28|63.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||63.37|2.28|0.1700
91692176|NCT03296527|183279348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 12 mm||||<.001
91692177|NCT03296527|183279348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 15 mm||||<.001
91903030|NCT01368042|183700905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Energy/fatigue scale||||<0.001
91675204|NCT03692312|183244602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.83|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||1.83|-1.26|0.7110
91675205|NCT03692312|183244603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.75|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.75|-0.57|0.7861
91675206|NCT03692312|183244604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.31|-0.19|0.6282
91675207|NCT03692312|183244605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0428
91675208|NCT03692312|183244606|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.98|0.60|0.0379
91675209|NCT03692312|183244608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to the placebo group for mean change from baseline; two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.078
91675210|NCT03692312|183244610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to the placebo group for mean change from baseline; two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.29
91793413|NCT03780400|183465039|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up||||||0.3683|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3683
91675211|NCT03692312|183244612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to the placebo group for mean change from baseline (absolute value); two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.077
91675212|NCT03692312|183244613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to placebo group for mean Raw Score; two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.071
91716971|NCT05222880|183326199|SUPERIORITY|A Superiority margin of 52 CLUE points was used|Mean Population Estimate|72.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.763|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|68.1|77.1||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 11 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE comfort scores.||77.1|68.1|
91903031|NCT01368042|183700905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Emotional well-being scale||||0.002
91675213|NCT04285567|183244668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|26.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.33|40.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||40.87|12.33|0.0004
91675214|NCT04285567|183244670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|20.78||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||34.90|6.66|0.0053
91675215|NCT04285567|183244671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|31.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.55|46.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||46.71|16.55|< .0001
91675216|NCT04285567|183244672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.68||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|21.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||21.41|-2.05|0.1119
91675217|NCT04285567|183244673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.44||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|32.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||32.93|1.96|0.0154
91675218|NCT04285567|183244674|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|18.93||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|36.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||36.95|0.91|0.0054
91675219|NCT04285567|183244675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|26.79||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|49.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||49.72|3.86|0.0038
91793414|NCT03780400|183465040|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up||||||0.9858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9858
91675220|NCT04285567|183244677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.05||||0.4199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|11.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||11.84|-5.73|0.4199
91675221|NCT02246439|183244702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6081||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0194|2.5368||"This P-Value is for the All ages group"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||The odds ratio and p-value were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. For the 'All ages' category, the odds ratio and p-value were stratified by age.||2.5368|1.0194|0.0406
91716972|NCT05222880|183326200|SUPERIORITY|A Superiority margin of 53 CLUE points was used|Mean Population Estimate|67.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|63.0|72.1||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 17 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE handling scores.||72.1|63.0|
91716973|NCT05222880|183326201|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.90 was used.|Mean Posterior Proportion|0.985|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0071|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.959|0.997|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.98 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 2000 replicating trials, that 92 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 80% with 99% central posterior credible.||0.997|0.959|
91716974|NCT01077323|183326205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.28|||||"ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.~Adjusted incidence rates were calculated using a Poisson regression model adjusted for propensity score."|||1.28|0.59|
91793415|NCT03780400|183465041|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91675222|NCT02246439|183244702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|27.2024||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.2024|0.8470|0.0729
91716975|NCT01077323|183326206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5|||||ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.Rate ratios adjusted for propensity score of exenatide initiation using Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||1.5|0.8|
91716976|NCT01077323|183326207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.09|||||"ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.~Adjusted incidence rates were calculated using a Poisson regression model adjusted for propensity score."|||2.09|0.36|
91716977|NCT01077323|183326208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.25|||||"ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.~Adjusted incidence rates were calculated using a Poisson regression model adjusted for propensity score."|||2.25|0.86|
91793416|NCT03780400|183465042|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91861586|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-80.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.67||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-136.03|-24.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-24.15|-136.03|0.1142
91675223|NCT02246439|183244702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4755||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|2.3741||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age and older group"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3741|0.9170|0.1089
91861587|NCT03858634|183609956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.82||0.398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.8|9.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||9.71|-45.80|0.3980
91675224|NCT02246439|183244703|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3545||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8647|2.1216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||2.1216|0.8647|0.1843
91675225|NCT02246439|183244704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.752||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1058|2.776|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||2.7760|1.1058|0.0166
91675226|NCT02246439|183244705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6677||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4093|1.0892|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||1.0892|0.4093|0.1049
91675227|NCT02246439|183244706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6566||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3826|1.1268|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||1.1268|0.3826|0.1235
91675228|NCT02246439|183244708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589||||||This P-Value is for the BSS=7 group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5890
91675229|NCT02246439|183244709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9782||||0.8487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7803|1.2264||"This P-Value is for the All ages group."|Cox proportioanl hazards method|Stratified by age.||||1.2264|0.7803|0.8487
91675230|NCT02246439|183244709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4756||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6549|3.325||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||3.3250|0.6549|0.3479
91793417|NCT01850602|183465043|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-Inferiority margin: 1.0 mg/dL~Non-Inferiority was considerd to be confirmed if the upper limit of two-sided confidence interval became 1.0 mg/dL or less."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.63|0.020
91793418|NCT00740051|183465053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.86|-0.29||No adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||-0.29|-0.86|<0.0001
91861588|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.17|14.86||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||14.86|-41.17|0.4979
91861589|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.88||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.63|38.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||38.83|4.63|0.1079
91675231|NCT02246439|183244709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9445||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7469|1.1943||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age of older group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||1.1943|0.7469|0.6332
91675232|NCT02246439|183244710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0275||||0.8289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8036|1.3138||"This P-Value was for the All ages group."|Cox proportional hazards method|Stratified by age.||||1.3138|0.8036|0.8289
91793419|NCT00740051|183465054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.88|-0.32||No adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Placebo. The primary analysis performed at the interim was re-run at the end of the study to accommodate changes made to the final study database.||-0.32|-0.88|<0.0001
91861590|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.7||0.4837|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-114.19|43.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||43.07|-114.19|0.4837
91903032|NCT01368042|183700905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Social functioning scale||||0.002
91675233|NCT02246439|183244710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5744||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6388|3.8802||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||3.8802|0.6388|0.3241
91675234|NCT02246439|183244710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7688|1.2801||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age or older group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||1.2801|0.7688|0.9511
91675235|NCT02246439|183244711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3012||||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6221|8.5129|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.5129|0.6221|0.2005
91675236|NCT02246439|183244712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6674||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1638|2.7191|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.7191|0.1638|0.5720
91675237|NCT02246439|183244713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1591||||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|9.7735||"This P-Value is for the No nausea or mild nausea group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||9.7735|0.4770|0.3186
91675238|NCT02246439|183244713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.575||||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6096|4.0696||"This P-Value is for the Moderate nausea group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||4.0696|0.6096|0.3473
91675239|NCT02246439|183244713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0971||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9614|4.5747||"This P-Value is for the Severe nausea group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||4.5747|0.9614|0.0633
91675240|NCT02246439|183244713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6397||||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6649|4.0437||"This P-Value is for the Nausea as bad as it could have been group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||4.0437|0.6649|0.2797
91675241|NCT02246439|183244714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8673||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1572|3.0131||"This P-Value is for the All ages group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||3.0131|1.1572|0.0103
91675242|NCT02246439|183244714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7699|25.145||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1450|0.7699|0.0934
91675243|NCT02246439|183244714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7356||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0527|2.8615||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age or older group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.8615|1.0527|0.0303
91675244|NCT02246439|183244715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7699|25.145||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1450|0.7699|0.0924
91675245|NCT02246439|183244715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7356||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0527|2.8615||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age or older group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.8615|1.0527|0.0303
91675246|NCT02246439|183244716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7922||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1188|2.871|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.8710|1.1188|0.0152
91675247|NCT02246439|183244717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0789||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2676|3.4095|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4095|1.2676|0.0037
91692178|NCT03296527|183279348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 17 mm||||0.011
91692179|NCT03296527|183279349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Largest follicle (mm)||||0.140
91793420|NCT00740051|183465055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0002||95.0|-31.1|-9.9||No adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||-9.9|-31.1|0.0002
91903033|NCT01368042|183700905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Bodily pain scale||||<0.001
91675248|NCT03439852|183244719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling for repeated measures was conducted to compare 2 conditions over time. The model included group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation. The response was transformed using squared root to satisfy the model assumption.||1.39|0.26|<0.05
91675249|NCT03439852|183244720|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.64||Calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling conducted for repeated measures comparing minutes per week of light-to-moderate physical activity for participants in two conditions over time. In the multilevel models, participants were nested within Catholic Clubs, adjusting for within-club and within-subject correlations. The model includes group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation. The response was transformed using squared root to satisfy the model assumption.||2.64|-0.37|0.05
91675250|NCT03439852|183244721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling for the repeated measures was conducted comparing the two conditions over time. In the multilevel models, participants were nested within Catholic Clubs, adjusting for within-club and within-subject correlations. The model includes group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation. The response was transformed using squared root to satisfy the model assumption.||0.88|-2.31|0.05
91675251|NCT03439852|183244722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling for the repeated measures was conducted comparing the two conditions over time. In the multilevel models, participants were nested within Catholic Clubs, adjusting for within-club and within-subject correlations. The model includes group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation.||4.60|-2.67|<0.05
91675252|NCT03439852|183244723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-1.11|<0.05
91675253|NCT03439852|183244724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-1.15|<0.05
91675254|NCT03439852|183244725|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures generalized linear model test effects of time/group, \& interaction rate met MVPA, adjusting for within subject correlation.||||1.11|-2.10|<0.05
91675255|NCT04551911|183244730|OTHER|||||||0.7856|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment as the main effect, and baseline aggregate symptom score, baseline 25D level, and body weight as covariates||||||0.7856
91675256|NCT01383421|183244738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91675257|NCT01383421|183244740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.058
91903034|NCT01368042|183700905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||General health perceptions scale||||0.56
91903035|NCT01368042|183700906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.6||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.001
91903036|NCT01368042|183700907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.03
91903037|NCT01368042|183700908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.06
91675258|NCT01383421|183244742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91675259|NCT01383421|183244744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.027
91675260|NCT01383421|183244744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.006
91675261|NCT01383421|183244744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.018
91675262|NCT01383421|183244745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.059
91675263|NCT01383421|183244745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.903||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.003
91675264|NCT01383421|183244745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.945||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.010
91675265|NCT01383421|183244746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.023
91675266|NCT01383421|183244746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.002
91692180|NCT03296527|183279349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Average follicle size (mm)||||0.155
91793421|NCT00740051|183465056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.576||||0.0374||95.0|1.057|6.279||No adjustment of p-values|Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||6.279|1.057|0.0374
91861591|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.99|-4.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||-4.98|-15.99|0.0208
91675267|NCT01383421|183244746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.872||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.002
91675268|NCT01383421|183244750|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.725||0.625|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI absenteeism||||0.625
91675269|NCT01383421|183244750|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.441||0.736|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI presenteeism||||0.736
91675270|NCT01383421|183244750|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.126||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI overall work impairment||||0.700
91675271|NCT01383421|183244750|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.561||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI activity impairment||||0.023
91675272|NCT01383421|183244751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.736||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI absenteeism||||0.890
91675273|NCT01383421|183244751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.523||0.835|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI presenteeism||||0.835
91675274|NCT01383421|183244751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.205||0.883|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI overall work impairment||||0.883
91793422|NCT00740051|183465057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.285||||0.1281||95.0|0.71|15.196||No adjustment of p-values|Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||15.196|0.710|0.1281
91675275|NCT01383421|183244751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.611||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI activity impairment||||0.019
91675276|NCT01383421|183244752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.873|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI absenteeism||||0.873
91675277|NCT01383421|183244752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.598||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI presenteeism||||0.753
91675278|NCT01383421|183244752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.159||0.461|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI overall work impairment||||0.461
91793423|NCT00740051|183465058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.801||||0.0046||95.0|1.374|5.711||No adjustment of p-values|Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||5.711|1.374|0.0046
91675279|NCT01383421|183244752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.624|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI activity impairment||||<0.001
91675280|NCT01383421|183244753|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.973|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM convenience||||0.017
91675281|NCT01383421|183244753|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.843|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.042||0.164|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM effectiveness||||0.164
91675282|NCT01383421|183244753|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.866||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM global satisfaction||||0.003
91861592|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.54||0.5413|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.74|22.38||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||22.38|-54.74|0.5413
91861593|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.28|33.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||33.74|1.28|0.1683
91861594|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.45||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.43|43.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||43.89|-161.43|0.3933
91675283|NCT01383421|183244753|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.769||0.335|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM side effects||||0.335
91793424|NCT02502006|183465067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91793425|NCT02502006|183465068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
91793426|NCT02502006|183465069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91793427|NCT02502006|183465070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2217|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2217
91793428|NCT02502006|183465071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.77
91793429|NCT02502006|183465071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.18
91716978|NCT02984982|183326209|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.2279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|1.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Standard of Care vs Alirocumab|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed categorical effects of treatment arm and randomization strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline normalized TAV.||1.04|-4.32|0.2279
91716979|NCT04232839|183326239|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.3|91.7|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||91.7|80.3|
91716980|NCT04232839|183326239|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.0|77.6|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||77.6|68.0|
91716981|NCT04232839|183326239|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|92.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|98.8|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||98.8|86.5|
91716982|NCT04232839|183326239|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|76.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.6|81.8|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||81.8|71.6|
91716983|NCT04232839|183326239|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|133.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.2|151.9|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =17.6.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||151.9|117.2|
91716984|NCT04232839|183326239|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|114.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.3|127.6|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =16.2.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||127.6|102.3|
91716985|NCT04232839|183326240|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|91.4|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||91.4|80.0|
91793430|NCT02502006|183465072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.57
91861595|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.06|2.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||2.58|-14.06|0.3705
91861596|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.63||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.36|35.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||35.34|-81.36|0.5644
91861597|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.82||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.75|24.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||24.94|-11.75|0.6384
91716986|NCT04232839|183326240|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.4|77.1|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||77.1|67.4|
91716987|NCT04232839|183326240|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|98.6|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||98.6|86.3|
91716988|NCT04232839|183326240|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.6|80.7|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||80.7|70.6|
91793431|NCT02502006|183465072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.07
91793432|NCT02502006|183465073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.88
91793433|NCT02502006|183465073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91861598|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.62||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-169.13|51.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||51.95|-169.13|0.4229
91861599|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.38||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.47|-1.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-1.18|-31.47|0.1688
91903038|NCT01368042|183700909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||0.84
91861600|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.11||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.59|-13.53||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-13.53|-105.59|0.1243
91861601|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.79||0.6841|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.35|29.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||29.22|-15.35|0.6841
91861602|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.83||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-147.31|40.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||40.59|-147.31|0.3963
91861603|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.85||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.85|-8.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-8.32|-39.85|0.0571
91903039|NCT01368042|183700910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||0.67
91675284|NCT01383421|183244754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.183||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM convenience||||0.021
91793434|NCT04445792|183465084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7195
91675285|NCT01383421|183244754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM effectiveness||||0.106
91793435|NCT04445792|183465084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8054
91793436|NCT04445792|183465084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.861
91793437|NCT04445792|183465085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4385|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4385
91793438|NCT04445792|183465085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7185
91793439|NCT04445792|183465085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.431
91793440|NCT04445792|183465086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9222|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9222
91793441|NCT04445792|183465086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1918
91861604|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.32||0.4457|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.32|30.73||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||30.73|-101.32|0.4457
91861605|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.99||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.44|28.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||28.32|-19.44|0.8075
91861606|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-57.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.75||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-162.84|47.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||47.40|-162.84|0.4093
91861607|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.42|-9.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-9.76|-45.42|0.0543
91675286|NCT01383421|183244754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.756||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM global satisfaction||||0.002
91675287|NCT01383421|183244754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.704||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM side effects||||0.269
91675288|NCT01383421|183244755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.177||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM convenience||||0.049
91675289|NCT01383421|183244755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.929||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM effectiveness||||0.011
91675290|NCT01383421|183244755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.775|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM global satisfaction||||<0.001
91675291|NCT01383421|183244755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.657||0.272|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM side effects||||0.272
91675292|NCT01383421|183244756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.572||0.154|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.154
91675293|NCT01383421|183244756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.198|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.198
91675294|NCT01383421|183244756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.585||0.131|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.131
91675295|NCT01383421|183244760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Between Group Change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0429||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|P value is from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline.||Necessity||||0.019
91675296|NCT01383421|183244760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Between Group Change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0526||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|P value is from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline.||Concern||||0.560
91675297|NCT00364949|183244767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
91675298|NCT00364949|183244768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
91675299|NCT00364949|183244769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.156
91675300|NCT00364949|183244770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.770
91675301|NCT00364949|183244771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.325
91675302|NCT00866658|183244779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.116|-0.65||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance(ANCOVA)included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%),sulfonylurea use (yes, no), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 145 patients in each arm would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided t test at 5% significance level.||-0.650|-1.116|<0.0001
91675303|NCT01939496|183244849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.748||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.743|0.163|||ANCOVA|||||0.163|-6.743|0.062
91675304|NCT01939496|183244849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.382|-1.469|||ANCOVA|||||-1.469|-8.382|0.006
91675305|NCT02274844|183244864|SUPERIORITY|The outcomes were all continuous or ordinal measures, thus unadjusted hypothesis tests used t-tests or the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, as appropriate, and statistical modeling used linear regression. ANCOVA was used to adjust for baseline covariates with imbalance across treatment arms (race) and baseline values of the measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.05||The main hypotheses tested were that intervention participants would have higher medication adherence and significantly greater improvement in A1c, BP, LDL-C, and measures of quality of life, and self-efficacy compared to control participants.|ANCOVA|||The study was powered to detect clinically meaningful differences in physiologic risk factors; it had four primary outcomes.Power estimates accounted for clustering of patients within towns, using a variance inflation factor, conservatively estimating power for ICC=0.01-0.05. Process measures were selected to understand which aspects of the intervention were particularly effective, assessing both program satisfaction and peer coach effectiveness.||0.05|-0.23|0.22
91675306|NCT01642914|183244885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|ONE_SIDED||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for equality of distribution||||||0.0054
91675307|NCT01642914|183244885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|ONE_SIDED||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for equality of distribution||||||0.0012
91716989|NCT04232839|183326240|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|134.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.6|153.0|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =17.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||153.0|117.6|
91861608|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.75||0.4711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-92.88|30.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||30.78|-92.88|0.4711
91675308|NCT01642914|183244898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.193||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.3||p-Values were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for geographic region, comparing each linaclotide dose versus placebo in a pairwise manner.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||.300|.086|0.0006
91675309|NCT01642914|183244898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.227||p-Values were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for geographic region, comparing each linaclotide dose versus placebo in a pairwise manner.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||.227|.064|0.0022
91675310|NCT01642914|183244899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.37||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.72|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by geographic region.||||1.72|1.09|.0054
91716990|NCT04232839|183326240|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|114.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.9|128.1|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =16.1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||128.1|102.9|
91716991|NCT04622969|183326252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.157|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91716992|NCT04622969|183326254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.05|=|0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.56
91793442|NCT04445792|183465086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0119|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0119
91861609|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.89||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.74|32.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||32.79|-6.74|0.3925
91861610|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.24||0.5095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-164.22|66.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||66.72|-164.22|0.5095
91675311|NCT01642914|183244899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.55|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by geographic region.||||1.55|0.99|0.0470
91861611|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.22||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.35|-16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-16.18|-51.35|0.0199
91675312|NCT01642914|183244905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.56||p-values were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for geographic region, comparing each linaclotide dose versus placebo in a pairwise manner.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.56|1.09|0.0264
91861612|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.48||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.26|13.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||13.69|-99.26|0.3029
91861613|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.97||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.28|28.16||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||28.16|-6.28|0.4094
91675313|NCT04295135|183244906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.05
91675314|NCT04295135|183244907|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.01
91675315|NCT04295135|183244908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.01
91675316|NCT04295135|183244909|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||>0.05
91675317|NCT04295135|183244910|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.01
91793443|NCT04445792|183465087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6971
91861614|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-49.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.25||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-159.63|60.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||60.05|-159.63|0.4828
91861615|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.66||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.26|-13.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-13.26|-52.26|0.0383
91861616|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.1||0.5322|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.66|34.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||34.65|-86.66|0.5322
91861617|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.71||0.6577|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.38|12.03||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||12.03|-24.38|0.6577
91861618|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.21||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-165.08|88.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||88.40|-165.08|0.6259
91861619|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.27||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.01|-15.38||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-15.38|-56.01|0.0312
91861620|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-108.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.73||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-138.97|-77.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-77.61|-138.97|0.0103
91861621|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.59|26.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||26.56|-6.59|0.4330
91675318|NCT04295135|183244911|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||>0.05
91692181|NCT03296527|183279349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Treatment comparison: Average size of 3 largest follicles (mm)||||0.159
91692182|NCT03296527|183279350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Largest follicle (mm)||||0.848
91692183|NCT03296527|183279350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Average follicle size (mm)||||0.629
91861622|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.23||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-158.82|83.39||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||83.39|-158.82|0.6165
91793444|NCT04445792|183465087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2309
91793445|NCT04445792|183465087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0441|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0441
91861623|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.13||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.11|-11.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-11.84|-52.11|0.0488
91861624|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.9||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.53|46.16||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||46.16|-84.53|0.6636
91903040|NCT01368042|183700911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|324.8||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n= 215 (paired samples)|||||0.02
91692184|NCT03296527|183279350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Average size of 3 largest follicles (mm)||||0.768
91692185|NCT03296527|183279351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Mean number of oocytes retrieved||||<.001
91692186|NCT03296527|183279353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Percentage of MII oocytes / oocytes retrieved||||0.197
91793446|NCT04445792|183465088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7988|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7988
91793447|NCT04445792|183465088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0483
91793448|NCT04445792|183465088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0104
91793449|NCT04445792|183465089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
91861625|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.75||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.18|39.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||39.52|8.18|0.0583
91903041|NCT01368042|183700912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||||||0.12
91793450|NCT04445792|183465089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2348|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2348
91793451|NCT04445792|183465089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0517|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0517
91793452|NCT04445792|183465090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6835|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6835
91793453|NCT04445792|183465090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0205
91793454|NCT04445792|183465090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0036
91793455|NCT04445792|183465091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5878
91793456|NCT04445792|183465091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1051
91675319|NCT02712333|183244953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|7.53|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|10.41||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisol levels (presented as relative intensities in high perfomance liquid chromatography-mass spectrum) by treatments (intervention group vs control group)||10.41|4.65|<0.05
91675320|NCT02712333|183244953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
91675321|NCT02712333|183244954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|3.69|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.54||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisone levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||5.54|1.85|<0.01
91675322|NCT02712333|183244954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
91675323|NCT02712333|183244955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|5.17|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|7.14||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum epinephrine levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||7.14|3.21|<0.01
91675324|NCT02712333|183244955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
91675325|NCT02712333|183244956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|11.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.37|15.21||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum norepinephrine levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||15.21|7.37|<0.01
91675326|NCT02712333|183244956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.57|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
91675327|NCT02712333|183244957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|0.84|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum SBP levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||1.59|0.09|<0.01
91675328|NCT02712333|183244958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|0.31|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisol levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||0.96|-1.59|>0.05
91675329|NCT02712333|183244959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|1.24|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisol levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||3.63|-1.14|>0.05
91675330|NCT03463993|183244960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549||||||The p-value above is the calculated P value based on hematocrit.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that intravenous Tranexamic Acid (TXA) 10mg/kg plus Oxytocin 5IU does not result in a lower incidence of primary postpartum haemorrhage compared to Oxytocin alone after elective caesarean section||||0.549
91675331|NCT03463993|183244960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||This is the calculated p-value based on hemoglobin .|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that intravenous Tranexamic Acid (TXA)10mg/kg plus Oxytocin 5IU does not result in a lower incidence of primary postpartum haemorrhage compared to Oxytocin alone after elective caesarean section||||0.138
91675332|NCT03463993|183244961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||0.789 is the calculated p-value for visually estimated blood loss: Visually estimated blood loss (ml): Group A mean 483.73 (standard deviation182.56); Group B 479.61 (139.49); p-value 0.789|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.789
91675333|NCT03463993|183244961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||0.968 is the calculated p-value based on hematocrit. Hematocrit-based calculation of estimated blood loss(ml): Group A mean 650.06 (standard deviation 631.50); Group B 653.05 (796.03); p-value 0.968|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
91675334|NCT03463993|183244961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||Hemoglobin-based calculation of estimated blood loss(ml) mean(standard deviation): Group A 644.30 (692.27); Group B 707.68 (948.01); p-value 0.447|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.447
91675335|NCT03463993|183244962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91675336|NCT03463993|183244963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91675337|NCT03360916|183244976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|125.59||0.953|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.9530
91675338|NCT03360916|183244976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|130.12||0.7908|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.7908
91675339|NCT03360916|183244976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|44.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|105.19||0.1344|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.1344
91675340|NCT03360916|183244977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.0005
91793457|NCT04445792|183465091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0292|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0292
91675341|NCT03360916|183244977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.0021|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.0021
91675342|NCT03360916|183244977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||0.0025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.0025
91675343|NCT01231373|183244981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.04|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of polidocanol treatment groups versus placebo (absolute change from baseline to week 8 in patient assessment of symptoms of varicose veins (VVSymQ) score.||-2.04|-4.63|<0.0001
91793458|NCT04445792|183465092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91793459|NCT04445792|183465092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5973|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5973
91793460|NCT04445792|183465092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
91793461|NCT03560739|183465189|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 1.|Geo-mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||||The confidence interval reported in the Point Estimate section below is the one from the criterion, not the estimated confidence interval.|Criteria 1 for bioequivalence testing of AUCtau||1.25|.8|
91793462|NCT03560739|183465189|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 2.|95% upper bound of the linearized criter|-0.3131|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||||The upper limit reported in the Point Estimate section below is the limit on the 95% upper bound from the criterion, not the estimated upper limit of the 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion|Criteria 2 for bioequivalence testing of AUCtau||0||
91793463|NCT03560739|183465190|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 1.|geo-mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||||The confidence interval reported in the Point Estimate section below is the one from the criterion, not the estimated confidence interval.|Criteria 1 for bioequivalence testing of Cmax||1.25|.8|
91675344|NCT01231373|183244981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-5.26|<0.0001
91675345|NCT01231373|183244981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.77|||ANCOVA|||||-1.77|-4.33|<0.0001
91675346|NCT01231373|183244982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.88|<0.0001
91675347|NCT01231373|183244982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-1.04|<0.0001
91675348|NCT01231373|183244982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-0.97|<0.0001
91675349|NCT01231373|183244983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-1.59|<0.0001
91675350|NCT01231373|183244983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-1.90|<0.0001
91675351|NCT01231373|183244983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.11|||ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-1.83|<0.0001
91675352|NCT00430950|183245020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.2648||95.0|-1.51|0.42|||ANCOVA|||"The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect and baseline mean trough sitting dBP as covariate.~Significance level alpha = 5%. Power = 80%.~The following statistical superiority hypothesis was tested:~Superiority of OM/HCTZ combination therapy 40/25 mg over OM/HCTZ 20/25 mg"||0.42|-1.51|0.2648
91793464|NCT03560739|183465190|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 2.|95% upper bound of the linearized criter|-0.2446|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||||The upper limit reported in the Point Estimate section below is the limit on the 95% upper bound from the criterion, not the estimated upper limit of the 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion.|Criteria 2 for bioequivalence testing of Cmax||0||
91675353|NCT00430950|183245021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.4246||95.0|-1.26|0.53|||ANCOVA|||||0.53|-1.26|0.4246
91675354|NCT00430950|183245022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.7019||95.0|-1.84|1.24|||ANCOVA||refers to 8 week change; from week 8 to week 16|||1.24|-1.84|0.7019
91675355|NCT00430950|183245022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.7328||95.0|-1.71|1.21|||ANCOVA||refers to 4 week change; from week 8 to week 12|||1.21|-1.71|0.7328
91675356|NCT00430950|183245023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0016||95.0|-2.58|-0.6|||ANCOVA||24 hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) diastolic blood pressure (dBP)|||-0.60|-2.58|0.0016
91675357|NCT00430950|183245023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0031||95.0|-2.61|-0.53|||ANCOVA||daytime Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) diastolic blood pressure (dBP)|||-0.53|-2.61|0.0031
91675358|NCT00430950|183245023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0073||95.0|-2.58|-0.4|||ANCOVA||night-time Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) diastolic blood pressure (dBP)|||-0.40|-2.58|0.0073
91675359|NCT00430950|183245023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0021||95.0|-3.71|-0.82|||ANCOVA||24 hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) systolic blood pressure (sBP)|||-0.82|-3.71|0.0021
91675360|NCT00430950|183245023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0031||95.0|-3.76|-0.76|||ANCOVA||daytime Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) systolic blood pressure (sBP)|||-0.76|-3.76|0.0031
91675361|NCT00430950|183245023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.0104||95.0|-3.61|-0.48|||ANCOVA||night-time Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) systolic blood pressure (sBP)|||-0.48|-3.61|0.0104
91675362|NCT00430950|183245024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||||95.0|0.85|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.85|
91675363|NCT01564459|183245033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.587||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.637|0.464|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|terms for treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction||||0.464|-1.637|0.269
91675364|NCT01564459|183245034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.687||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.527|0.154|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|terms for treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction||||0.154|-1.527|0.108
91675365|NCT00775684|183245039|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student t test||||=0.1
91675366|NCT00775684|183245039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measure (baseline and 6 months)||||< 0.05
91675367|NCT00775684|183245040|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within group changes over 6 months (delta= final - baseline) were compared.||||>0.1
91675368|NCT00775684|183245041|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||To determine if exenatide or sitagliptin induced significant changes from baseline, the change for each measure (Δ = final - baseline) for each group was compared with the change in the glimepiride group using independent Student t tests||||>0.1
91675369|NCT00775684|183245042|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.1
91692187|NCT03296527|183279354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Fertilization rate relative to oocytes retrieved||||0.790
91793465|NCT03228420|183465212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided alpha level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91793466|NCT01083173|183465225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||CD4 cell counts at 24 weeks as compared to baseline||||< 0.0001
91861626|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.87||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-148.55|58.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||58.36|-148.55|0.4975
91716993|NCT04622969|183326258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|=|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.99
91716994|NCT04622969|183326260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
91716995|NCT04622969|183326262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.802|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.01
91716996|NCT04622969|183326264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.842|=|0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=.062
91716997|NCT04622969|183326264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|=|0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.78
91716998|NCT01251042|183326269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Information about the size of the standard deviation (SD) for the change was obtained from an earlier study. The SD for the change from pre-operation until 24 hours after start of transfusion was 0.2305. Due to the imprecise measuring device (if values below 0.3 g/l) and the large SD, a non-inferiority margin (∆) of 0.2 g/l was decided to be used in this study, resulting in a total number of 42 evaluable subjects, i.e. 21 subjects per group.||||||0.6294||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6294
91716999|NCT04249427|183326278|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in mean number of days with significant mid-facial pain in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.96
91793467|NCT01083173|183465225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||CD4 cell counts at 48 weeks as compared to baseline||||< 0.0001
91861627|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.17|-9.82||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-9.82|-51.17|0.0653
91861628|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.98||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.42|48.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||48.62|-95.42|0.6316
91717000|NCT04249427|183326279|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in SNOT-22 score in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
91793468|NCT04626310|183465233|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.8
91793469|NCT04626310|183465233|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.544|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.544
91793470|NCT04626310|183465233|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.442|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.442
91793471|NCT04626310|183465234|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|1.951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.09
91793472|NCT04626310|183465234|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
91861629|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.68||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.05|46.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||46.18|7.05|0.0874
91861630|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.39||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.99|50.03||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||50.03|-139.99|0.4662
91717001|NCT04249427|183326280|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Physical Function as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91717002|NCT04249427|183326281|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Usual Activities as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91717003|NCT04249427|183326282|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Social Function as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.058|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.058
91717004|NCT04249427|183326283|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Emotional Function as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91717005|NCT04249427|183326284|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Overall Impact (global) as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.0036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0036
91717006|NCT04249427|183326285|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change of average number of days per month with significant nasal congestion in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
91717007|NCT04249427|183326286|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change of average number of days per month with significant significant rhinorrhea in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
91717008|NCT04249427|183326287|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in doses of rescue pain medications in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
91717009|NCT04249427|183326288|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change from baseline in mean daily pain score in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
91675370|NCT02728752|183245047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-4.6|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16 for Total Activity Score||-4.6|-11.5|<0.0001
91793473|NCT04626310|183465234|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|1.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
91861631|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.76|-5.51||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-5.51|-45.76|0.1073
91861632|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.31||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-92.62|45.96||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||45.96|-92.62|0.6197
91903042|NCT02632721|183700927|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.081|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
91675371|NCT02728752|183245053|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|8.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.8|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16||12.8|4.4|0.0001
91861633|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.97||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|40.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||40.55|0.63|0.1868
91903043|NCT02632721|183700927|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.33,1) (overdosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
91675372|NCT02728752|183245054|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16||-0.2|-0.5|0.0002
91675373|NCT02728752|183245060|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16||-0.5|-1.9|0.0010
91675374|NCT02025751|183245064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.597
91675375|NCT00653991|183245070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91675376|NCT01568866|183245072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.533|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|0.651|||Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The hazard ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, lines of prior treatment, ISS stage, and choice of route of bortezomib administration.|"The PFS interim analysis was to be performed using a group sequential monitoring plan.~The monitoring plan included an O'Brien-Fleming type of efficacy stopping boundary constructed using the Lan-DeMets alpha spending function to ensure a 1-sided Type I error rate ≤ 0.025."||0.651|0.437|< 0.0001
91675377|NCT01568866|183245073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|0.964||The multiplicity in testing secondary endpoints was adjusted per group using the sequential Holm procedure to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.025.|Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The hazard ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, lines of prior treatment, ISS stage, and choice of route of bortezomib administration.|The second interim analysis of overall survival was to be conducted after 394 events had been reached. A one-sided significance level was determined using the O'Brien-Fleming-type α spending function based on the actual number of events (α=0.0123).||0.964|0.648|0.0100
91675378|NCT01568866|183245074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.032|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.519|2.718||The multiplicity in testing secondary endpoints was adjusted per group using the sequential Holm procedure to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.025.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The odds ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, lines of prior treatment, ISS stage, and choice of route of bortezomib administration.|||2.718|1.519|< 0.0001
91675379|NCT01568866|183245076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.21||The multiplicity in testing secondary endpoints was adjusted per group using the sequential Holm procedure to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was estimated using the unconditional Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||0.210|0.089|<0.0001
91675380|NCT01698775|183245080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.33||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.63|0.035
91903044|NCT02632721|183700927|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.028|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
91675381|NCT01698775|183245081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|8.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal status stratum.|||8.8|-16.3|
91675382|NCT01698775|183245082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal status stratum.|||7.2|-2.6|
91903045|NCT02632721|183700927|OTHER||Posterior probability of the DLT rate ly|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.33,1) (overdosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
91675383|NCT01698775|183245083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|10.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal status stratum.|||10.3|-12.2|
91675384|NCT01698775|183245084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.8||||||||9.8|-3.6|
91675385|NCT01698775|183245085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|8.7|||ANCOVA|||||8.7|-16.5|0.540
91675386|NCT01698775|183245088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9|||cLDA|||||1.9|-2.7|0.720
91675387|NCT03864042|183245090|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.4|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.40|0.978|
91675388|NCT03864042|183245090|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.215|0.308|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.308|0.215|
91675389|NCT03864042|183245091|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|1.25|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.25|0.998|
91675390|NCT03864042|183245091|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.4|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.40|1.12|
91675391|NCT03864042|183245092|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.62|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.62|1.12|
91675392|NCT03864042|183245092|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.622|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.517|0.748|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.748|0.517|
91675393|NCT03864042|183245093|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.23|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.23|0.975|
91675394|NCT03864042|183245093|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.46|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.46|1.16|
91675395|NCT03864042|183245094|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|1.2|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.20|0.922|
91675396|NCT03864042|183245094|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.29|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.29|0.992|
91675397|NCT03864042|183245095|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.19|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.19|0.990|
91675398|NCT03864042|183245095|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.22|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.22|1.00|
91675399|NCT03864042|183245096|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.741|1.08|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.08|0.741|
91675400|NCT03864042|183245096|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.573|0.835|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.835|0.573|
91675401|NCT03864042|183245097|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|2.04|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||2.04|0.861|
91675402|NCT03864042|183245097|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.659|1.56|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.56|0.659|
91675403|NCT03864042|183245098|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|1.33|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.33|0.762|
91675404|NCT03864042|183245098|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.543|0.948|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.948|0.543|
91793474|NCT04626310|183465234|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
91675405|NCT03864042|183245099|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|6.4|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||6.40|2.94|
91675406|NCT03864042|183245099|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.82|3.96|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||3.96|1.82|
91675407|NCT03864042|183245100|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.595|0.954|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||0.954|0.595|
91861634|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.32||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-136.65|26.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||26.71|-136.65|0.3321
91861635|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.67||0.131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.64|-3.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-3.95|-45.64|0.1310
91861636|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.49||0.8128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.15|64.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||64.13|-88.15|0.8128
91903046|NCT02632721|183700927|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.012|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
91675408|NCT03864042|183245100|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.596|0.957|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.957|0.596|
91675409|NCT03864042|183245101|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.27|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.27|0.864|
91675410|NCT03864042|183245101|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.72|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.72|1.17|
91675411|NCT03864042|183245102|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.25|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.25|0.920|
91675412|NCT03864042|183245102|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.151|0.204|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.204|0.151|
91675413|NCT03864042|183245103|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.38|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.38|1.18|
91675414|NCT03864042|183245103|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.14|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.14|0.974|
91675415|NCT03864042|183245104|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.43|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.43|1.09|
91675416|NCT03864042|183245104|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.513|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.449|0.587|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.587|0.449|
91675417|NCT03864042|183245105|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.39|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.39|1.17|
91675418|NCT03864042|183245105|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.16|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.16|0.979|
91675419|NCT03864042|183245106|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.26|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.26|0.947|
91675420|NCT03864042|183245106|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.46|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.46|1.10|
91675421|NCT03864042|183245107|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.23|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.23|1.02|
91675422|NCT03864042|183245107|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.38|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.38|1.14|
91675423|NCT03864042|183245108|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.721|1.12|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.12|0.721|
91675424|NCT03864042|183245108|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.544|0.848|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.848|0.544|
91675425|NCT03864042|183245109|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.98|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.98|0.800|
91675426|NCT03864042|183245109|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.827|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.526|1.3|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.30|0.526|
91675427|NCT03864042|183245110|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.688|1.39|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.39|0.688|
91675428|NCT03864042|183245110|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.633|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|0.9|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.900|0.445|
91675429|NCT03864042|183245111|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.08|3.74|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||3.74|2.08|
91675430|NCT03864042|183245111|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|2.11|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||2.11|1.17|
91675431|NCT03864042|183245112|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.769|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.637|0.928|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||0.928|0.637|
91675432|NCT03864042|183245112|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.736|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.889|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.889|0.610|
91675433|NCT03864042|183245113|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.803|1.23|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.23|0.803|
91675434|NCT03864042|183245113|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.83|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.83|1.20|
91675435|NCT03864042|183245114|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.902|2.32|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||2.32|0.902|
91675436|NCT03864042|183245114|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.93|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.93|0.720|
91675437|NCT03864042|183245115|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|2.36|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||2.36|0.915|
91675438|NCT03864042|183245115|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.851|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.519|1.39|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.39|0.519|
91861637|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.23||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.75|43.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||43.69|5.75|0.1004
91861638|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.81||0.2962|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-147.28|21.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||21.71|-147.28|0.2962
91675439|NCT03864042|183245116|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|1.87|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.87|0.775|
91675440|NCT03864042|183245116|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.593|1.49|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.49|0.593|
91675441|NCT03864042|183245117|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.67|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.67|0.830|
91675442|NCT03864042|183245117|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.41|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.41|0.680|
91675443|NCT03864042|183245118|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.585|1.09|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||1.09|0.585|
91675444|NCT03864042|183245119|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.935|1.11|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||1.11|0.935|
91675445|NCT03864042|183245120|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.613|0.945|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||0.945|0.613|
91675446|NCT03864042|183245121|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.22|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||1.22|0.929|
91675447|NCT00515034|183245271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percent of participants who are clinically cured including 95% confidence intervals are provided.|Risk Difference (RD)|-13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|26.8|||normal approximation to the binomial||Treatment difference (doripenem minus imipenem/cilastatin) in percent of participants who are clinically cured.|There is no formal hypothesis test for this outcome. Only summary data are provided.||26.8|-54.4|
91861639|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.4||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.31|-4.67||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-4.67|-48.31|0.1236
91861640|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.55||0.9276|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-79.1|70.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||70.11|-79.10|0.9276
91861641|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.46||0.1657|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.55|37.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||37.45|1.55|0.1657
91903047|NCT02632721|183700927|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.33,1) (overdosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
91861642|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.8||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-148.54|31.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||31.71|-148.54|0.3461
91861643|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.51||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-49.58|-5.64||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-5.64|-49.58|0.1118
91675448|NCT00515034|183245272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percent of participants who are clinically cured including 95% confidence intervals are provided.|Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|50.6|||normal approximation to binomial||Treatment difference (doripenem minus imipenem) in percent of participants who are clinically cured.|There is no formal hypothesis test for this outcome. Only summary data are presented.||50.6|-13.2|
91675449|NCT00605865|183245325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91675450|NCT00605865|183245326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drug in the participants of responders."||||0.039
91675451|NCT00605865|183245327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was renal dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||0.011
91675452|NCT00605865|183245328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was past medical history of other illness. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history of other illness in the participants of responders."||||0.010
91675453|NCT00605865|183245329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was average daily dose. The null hypothesis is there is no difference of five types of average daily dose in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91675454|NCT00605865|183245330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt). The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without suicidal ideation(including suicide attempt) in the participants of responders."||||0.014
91675455|NCT00605865|183245331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was 15 years and higher of age or not. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between 15 years and higher of age or not in the participants of responders."||||0.021
91675456|NCT00605865|183245332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was target disease severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between three grade of target disease severity in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91692188|NCT03296527|183279355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of embryos on day 3||||<.001
91692189|NCT03296527|183279355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of good-quality embryos on Day 3||||<.001
91675457|NCT00605865|183245333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was history of treatment prior to Sertralin. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without history of treatment prior to Sertralin in the participants of responders."||||0.003
91675458|NCT00605865|183245334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was outpatient or inpatient. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between outpatient or inpatient in the participants of responders."||||0.012
91675459|NCT00605865|183245335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without complications in the participants of responders."||||0.019
91675460|NCT00605865|183245336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was 15 years and higher of age or not. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between 15 years and higher of age or not in the participants of responders."||||0.010
91675461|NCT00605865|183245337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between four groups of age in the participants of responders."||||0.015
91675462|NCT00605865|183245338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt). The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt) in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91675463|NCT02856880|183245366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|40.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.37|47.99||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque Glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||47.99|32.37|<0.0001
91675464|NCT02856880|183245367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|26.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.94|33.88||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||33.88|18.94|<0.0001
91675465|NCT02856880|183245367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.91||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|5.37||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||5.37|-11.18|0.4823
91793475|NCT04626310|183465234|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.836
91675466|NCT02856880|183245367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.86||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|18.59||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||18.59|3.13|0.0072
91675467|NCT02856880|183245367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|13.77||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.01|21.53||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||21.53|6.01|0.0009
91675468|NCT02856880|183245367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.44||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|15.95||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||15.95|0.93|0.0286
91675469|NCT02856880|183245367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.32||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|12.79||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||12.79|-2.15|0.1573
91793476|NCT04626310|183465234|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.994
91675470|NCT02856880|183245367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-29.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-21.43||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||-21.43|-37.20|<0.0001
91675471|NCT02856880|183245367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|31.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.18|39.3||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||39.30|24.18|<0.0001
91675472|NCT02856880|183245367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.42||||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|9.92||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||9.92|-5.08|0.5174
91675473|NCT02856880|183245368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-233.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-332.88|-133.55||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||-133.55|-332.88|<0.0001
91675474|NCT02856880|183245368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|35.53||||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.9|140.96||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||140.96|-69.90|0.5018
91675475|NCT02856880|183245368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-24.73||||0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.07|78.61||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||78.61|-128.07|0.6325
91675476|NCT02856880|183245368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-60.26||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.72|42.21||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||42.21|-162.72|0.2427
91675477|NCT02856880|183245368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.05||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.5|102.61||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||102.61|-100.50|0.9834
91675478|NCT02856880|183245368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-61.31||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.14|38.52||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||38.52|-161.14|0.2226
91675479|NCT02856880|183245368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|268.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|165.98|371.51||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is second named treatment(non-SLS negative control) minus first named treatment (SLS negative control) such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque|||371.51|165.98|<0.0001
91675480|NCT02856880|183245368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-293.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-396.03|-190.91||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||-190.91|-396.03|<0.0001
91793477|NCT04626310|183465235|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.475|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The slopes of the difference between neutral and negative-maintain were regressed on time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) and calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.475
91675481|NCT02856880|183245368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-294.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.43|-193.62||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||-193.62|-395.43|<0.0001
91793478|NCT04626310|183465235|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The slopes of the difference between neutral and negative-maintain were regressed on time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) and calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.654
91793479|NCT04626310|183465235|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The slopes of the difference between neutral and negative-maintain were regressed on time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) and calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.791
91794453|NCT02043379|183467881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.35||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.35
91675482|NCT02856880|183245368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-25.78||||0.6086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.53|74.96||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||74.96|-126.53|0.6086
91675483|NCT02856880|183245369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-273.92||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1550.45|1002.61||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1002.61|-1550.45|0.6664
91675484|NCT02856880|183245369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|674.06||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-692.21|2040.33||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2040.33|-692.21|0.3249
91675485|NCT02856880|183245369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|677.09||||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-784.16|2138.35||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2138.35|-784.16|0.3544
91675486|NCT02856880|183245369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.04||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1469.45|1475.52||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1475.52|-1469.45|0.9967
91675487|NCT02856880|183245369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|766.64||||0.2976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-703.26|2236.54||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2236.54|-703.26|0.2976
91675488|NCT02856880|183245369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-763.6||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2144.45|617.25||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||617.25|-2144.45|0.2702
91675489|NCT02856880|183245369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|947.97||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-361.95|2257.9||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2257.90|-361.95|0.1511
91793480|NCT04626310|183465236|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. We examined the effect of Negative Decrease vs. Negative Maintain over time per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.001
91675490|NCT02856880|183245369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-270.88||||0.6998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1680.58|1138.82||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1138.82|-1680.58|0.6998
91675491|NCT02856880|183245369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1037.52||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2361.33|286.29||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant -level pre-treatment values and period minus participant -level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||286.29|-2361.33|0.1210
91675492|NCT02856880|183245369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-89.54||||0.8935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1439.5|1260.41||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1260.41|-1439.50|0.8935
91794454|NCT02043379|183467881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.67||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.67
91675493|NCT00094458|183245370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||<0.001
91793481|NCT04626310|183465236|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. We examined the effect of Negative Decrease vs. Negative Maintain over time per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.078
91903048|NCT04207801|183700937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy of AUR101 was tested against placebo with respect to the primary endpoint (PASI75 response). A sample size of 25 in each of the three arms provided an 80% power with a one-sided Type I error of 0.05, if the true placebo response rate was 7% and the response rate on investigational arm(s) was 35%. The sample size was increased to 30 to account for \~ 15-20% dropouts over the study period.||||0.01
91903049|NCT02663271|183700938|SUPERIORITY|We used one-sample log rank test to compare to historical control.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91903050|NCT01572675|183700948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||p-student|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for duration of prescription at enrollment||||<0.001
91903051|NCT01572675|183700948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||p-student|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for duration of prescription at enrollment||||<0.001
91903052|NCT01572675|183700953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Duration of treatment comparison (More than one year vs Up to thirty days) for intermittent selective COX-2 inhibitor use. The analysis assessed whether long-term treatment was more correlated with intermittent selective COX-2 inhibitor use compared to short-term treatment.||||<0.001
91903053|NCT01572675|183700956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.104|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) for controlled BP (SBP \<140 mmHg and DBP \<90 mmHg) at study entry||||0.104
91903054|NCT01572675|183700956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0049|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for controlled BP (SBP \<140 mmHg and DBP \<90 mmHg) at study entry||||0.0049
91903055|NCT01572675|183700956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.618|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for controlled BP (SBP \<140 mmHg and DBP \<90 mmHg) at study entry||||0.618
91903056|NCT01572675|183700957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for medical history of arterial hypertension||||0.012
91903057|NCT01572675|183700957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for medical history of arterial hypertension||||0.175
91903058|NCT01572675|183700959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.701|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for significant past treatments||||0.701
91903059|NCT01572675|183700959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for significant past treatments||||0.007
91903060|NCT01572675|183700959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.955|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) for significant past treatments||||0.955
91903061|NCT01572675|183700962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparsion (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) for previous treatment with other agents prior to initiation of Arcoxia® and Celebrex® for the main study indications||||0.049
91903062|NCT01572675|183700965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.165|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparsion (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) of adverse events experienced during treatment||||0.165
91903063|NCT00223678|183700967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.849
91903064|NCT00705432|183701025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for for baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||34.1|19.1|<0.0001
91903065|NCT00705432|183701025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||35.8|20.8|<0.0001
91903066|NCT00705432|183701025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|19.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|36.9|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||36.9|1.6|0.0440
91903067|NCT00705432|183701025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|29.7||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|47.1|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||47.1|12.2|0.0035
91903068|NCT00705432|183701026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR rates|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||35.2|19.2|<0.0001
91903069|NCT00705432|183701026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR rates|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||36.8|21.5|<0.0001
91903070|NCT00705432|183701026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|21.3||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|40.2|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||40.2|2.3|0.0366
91903071|NCT00705432|183701026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|27.2||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|45.3|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||45.3|9.0|0.0107
91903072|NCT01667107|183701043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rank correlation coefficient|0.53||||0.139|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||Spearman rank correlation between concurrent BAL and serum posaconazole concentrations||||0.139
91903073|NCT01667107|183701043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rank correlation coefficient|0.59||||0.057|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||Spearman rank correlation between concurrent BAL and serum posaconazole concentrations||||0.057
91903074|NCT01557348|183701045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0068
91675494|NCT00094458|183245370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.006
91675495|NCT00094458|183245370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.022
91675496|NCT00094458|183245371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||<0.001
91675497|NCT00094458|183245371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.023
91675498|NCT00094458|183245371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.055
91675499|NCT03247517|183245379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-0.6|-8.4|0.0232
91675500|NCT03247517|183245379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-1.3|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-1.3|-8.9|0.0091
91675501|NCT03247517|183245380|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.2|-0.8|0.0042
91675502|NCT03247517|183245380|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.3|-0.9|0.0003
91675503|NCT03247517|183245381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.4|-3.6|0.6854
91675504|NCT03247517|183245381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-5.8|0.0518
91675505|NCT03247517|183245382|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.2062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.20|0.2062
91675506|NCT03247517|183245382|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.23|0.0519
91675507|NCT03247517|183245383|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|32.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.2|5.5|0.0068
91675508|NCT03247517|183245383|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|30.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.5|4.6|0.0095
91675509|NCT03247517|183245384|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|12.5|||ANCOVA|||||12.5|-9.1|0.7629
91675510|NCT03247517|183245384|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|-12.1|0.7648
91675511|NCT03247517|183245385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-0.7|-4.6|0.0069
91675512|NCT03247517|183245385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.5|-5.2|0.0005
91675513|NCT03247517|183245385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.1|-4.2|0.0424
91675514|NCT03247517|183245385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.1|-4.1|0.0390
91903075|NCT01557348|183701046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0588||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0588
91903076|NCT01557348|183701047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1126||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in TJC at Month 6||||0.1126
91903077|NCT01557348|183701047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2342||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in TJC at Month 12||||0.2342
91675515|NCT03247517|183245386|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-3.4|0.3813
91675516|NCT03247517|183245386|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.9506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-2.4|0.9506
91675517|NCT03247517|183245387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.0254
91903078|NCT01557348|183701048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4168||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in SJC at Month 6||||0.4168
91675518|NCT03247517|183245387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0899|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.0899
91675519|NCT03247517|183245387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0070
91675520|NCT03247517|183245387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.0031
91903079|NCT01557348|183701048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5867||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in SJC at Month 12||||0.5867
91675521|NCT03247517|183245387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.0065
91675522|NCT03247517|183245387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.0070
91675523|NCT03247517|183245387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.0063
91675524|NCT03247517|183245387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.0123
91675525|NCT03247517|183245387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0003
91675526|NCT03247517|183245387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.0001
91675527|NCT03247517|183245387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.0025
91675528|NCT03247517|183245387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.0033
91675529|NCT03573505|183245393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.73|||Log Rank|||A cox proportional hazards model with terms for treatment (BG00011 vs. placebo) and randomization stratification factor is used. A stratified log-rank test is used to compare the 2 treatment groups using randomization stratus as the stratification factor. An HR (Hazard Ratio) \< 1 indicates lower risk of event for the BG00011 group where HR is based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment (Placebo, BG00011) as the categorical covariate.||4.73|0.85|0.112
91903080|NCT01557348|183701049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8758||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in CRP at Month 6||||0.8758
91903081|NCT01557348|183701049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4849||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in CRP at Month 12||||0.4849
91675530|NCT00515541|183245413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A P-value \<0.05 when compared to baseline is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group B baseline vs. Group B Week 12||||0.01
91675531|NCT00515541|183245414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median of Groups A, B, and C grouped together was compared Baseline to Week 6.||||<0.001
91675532|NCT00515541|183245414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median of Groups A, B, and C grouped together was compared Baseline to Week 12.||||<0.001
91675533|NCT01421342|183245424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.75||Co-primary hypothesis: After ordering results from largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmenting Antidepressant+Bupropion with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of remission for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR / Switching to Bupropion-SR|||1.75|0.97|0.076
91675534|NCT01421342|183245424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.89||Co-primary hypothesis: Second ordered test after ordering largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of remission for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|Co-primary hypothesis: After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.||1.89|1.06|0.018
91675535|NCT01421342|183245424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48||Following the gate-keeping strategy of the analysis plan, complete the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole vs. Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic||Represents relative odds of remission for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|If either if the first two hypothesis tests for the co-primary hypotheses were significant, perform the test of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole vs. Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR at the 0.05 significance level.||1.48|0.84|0.46
91675536|NCT01421342|183245425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.39|||Log Rank||Represents relative odds of relapse for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR / Switching to Bupropion-SR|||2.39|0.78|0.70
91675537|NCT01421342|183245425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.94|||Log Rank||Represents relative odds of relapse for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|||1.94|0.65|0.68
91675538|NCT01421342|183245425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.59|||Log Rank||Represents relative odds of relapse for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|||1.59|0.58|0.87
91903082|NCT01557348|183701050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0086||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in ESR at Month 6||||0.0086
91675539|NCT01421342|183245426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion / Switching to Bupropion|After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion with Switching to Bupropion was performed at the 0.05 significance level.||1.50|0.89|0.28
91675540|NCT01421342|183245426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center (site)|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.||2.29|1.33|<0.0001
91903083|NCT01557348|183701050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2918||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in ESR at Month 12||||0.2918
91861644|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.24||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.75|51.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||51.89|-89.75|0.6912
91675541|NCT01421342|183245426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.05||Following the gate-keeping strategy of the analysis plan, complete the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|||2.05|1.17|0.002
91675542|NCT01421342|183245427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.68||After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion with Switching to Bupropion was performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion / Switching to Bupropion|||1.68|0.95|0.11
91675543|NCT01421342|183245427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.||2.29|1.26|<0.001
91675544|NCT01421342|183245427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.86||Following the gate-keeping strategy of the analysis plan, complete the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic||Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|||1.86|1.01|0.043
91675545|NCT03261960|183245465|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91675546|NCT01300052|183245480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|21.8||||||Difference in percentage was calculated as values of AN2728 Ointment, 2% group minus values of AN2728 Ointment, Vehicle group.||21.8|-14.3|
91675547|NCT00706381|183245507|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|7.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.0001
91675548|NCT00706381|183245507|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|9.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||<0.0001
91793482|NCT04626310|183465236|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. We examined the effect of Negative Decrease vs. Negative Maintain over time per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.080
91675549|NCT00706381|183245507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Percent change from placebo|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.89
91675550|NCT00706381|183245507|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.2||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.41
91675551|NCT00706381|183245508|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|40.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.8||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.096
91675552|NCT00706381|183245508|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|260.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|191.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||<0.0001
91675553|NCT00706381|183245508|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|16.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.3||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.83
91675554|NCT00706381|183245508|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|125.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||<0.0001
91675555|NCT00767520|183245531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.148|||||||Un-stratified log-rank test|||||||0.148
91675556|NCT02480582|183245547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Where significant effects were obtained post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in energy intake between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||||||<0.01
91675557|NCT02480582|183245548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Where significant effects were obtained post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in wanting for high fat foods between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||||||<0.05
91794455|NCT02043379|183467881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.47
91675558|NCT02480582|183245549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Where significant effects were obtained post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in hunger AUC between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||||||<0.001
91861645|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.07||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.5|40.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||40.35|5.50|0.0973
91793483|NCT04626310|183465237|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff DBT-ER-IP|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The Negative x Novel x time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) slopes were calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.13
91793484|NCT04626310|183465237|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The Negative x Novel x time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) slopes were calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.046
91861646|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-57.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.33||0.289|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.72|18.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||18.37|-133.72|0.2890
91793485|NCT04626310|183465237|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The Negative x Novel x time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) slopes were calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.617
91794456|NCT02043379|183467882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.46||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.46
91861647|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.68||0.231|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.43|1.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||1.60|-45.43|0.2310
91861648|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.17||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.69|61.28||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||61.28|-86.69|0.7967
91861649|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.98||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.5|36.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||36.44|-3.50|0.2868
91861650|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-64.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.83||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-138.08|8.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||8.37|-138.08|0.2369
91861651|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.34||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.97|1.17||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||1.17|-44.97|0.2228
91793486|NCT04626310|183465238|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of change in this interaction effect were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.005
91675559|NCT02480582|183245550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in energy intake between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||"Energy intake measured by ad-libitum test meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) during each intervention condition.~Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in total energy intake between almonds, cheese savouries and no food."||||<0.05
91692190|NCT03296527|183279356|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.88||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of LH on stimulation Day 6||0.88|0.74|<0.001
91692191|NCT03296527|183279357|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.9||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.||Circulating concentrations of LH at end-of-stimulation||0.98|0.82|0.018
91692192|NCT03296527|183279358|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.84||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Estradiol on stimulation Day 6||0.84|0.70|<0.001
91692193|NCT03296527|183279359|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.81||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Estradiol at end-of-stimulation||0.81|0.68|<0.001
91692194|NCT03296527|183279360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96||The p-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Progesterone on stimulation Day 6||0.96|0.82|0.003
91692195|NCT03296527|183279361|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.79||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Progesterone at end-of-stimulation||0.79|0.68|<0.001
91692196|NCT03296527|183279362|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.83||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.||Circulating concentrations of Inhibin A on stimulation Day 6||0.83|0.70|<0.001
91692197|NCT03296527|183279363|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.83||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Inhibin A at end-of-stimulation||0.83|0.71|<0.001
91692198|NCT03296527|183279364|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.89||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Inhibin B on stimulation Day 6||0.89|0.77|<0.001
91692199|NCT03296527|183279365|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.87||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Inhibin B at end-of-stimulation||0.95|0.80|0.001
91692200|NCT03296527|183279366|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.12||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of FSH on stimulation Day 6||1.12|1.04|<0.001
91675560|NCT01901874|183245576|OTHER|"Acceptable performance: favorably exclude PG=16.9% with 95.1% confidence.~Wa = expected weight (proportion) anatomic = 35% Pa = CEA expected anatomic MAE = 11% Wc = expected weight (proportion) comorbid = 65% Pc = CEA expected comorbid MAE = 14% D = noninferiority delta = 4%~PG = 0.35 x 11% + 0.65 x 14% + 4% = 16.9%"|Weighted binomial proportion|0.0448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0241|<|1e-05|ONE_SIDED|95.1||0.0846||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.049 (from simulation) to ensure overall type-1 error rate ≤ 0.05.|Binomial test (normal approximation)||Weighted by expected fractions of anatomic and comorbid high risk subjects (35% and 65%, respectively). Standard error based on H0.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or greater proportion with 1-year MAE compared to a performance goal (PG).~H0: P ≥ 16.9% vs H1: P \< 16.9%, where P is the true proportion of CAS subjects with 1-year MAE and 16.9% is the PG based on outcomes reported for patients treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA).~N=280 subjects provide ≥90% power to exclude PG with 95.1% confidence if P=10.2% under H1."||0.0846||<0.00001
91675561|NCT01901874|183245584|OTHER||Cumulative probability|0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.047|||||Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (Greenwood's formula for standard error)|||0.047|0.007|
91675562|NCT01901874|183245585|OTHER||Cumulative probability|0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.052|||||Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (Greenwood's formula for standard error)|||0.052|0.009|
91675563|NCT03020719|183245676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081||||0.2521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\< 6 years, ≥ 6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥ -0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 weight-for-age z-score, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.059|-0.221|0.2521
91675564|NCT03020719|183245677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 measurements, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.01|-0.18|0.0890
91675565|NCT03020719|183245678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted from randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 measurements, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.15|-0.28|0.5730
91675566|NCT03020719|183245679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.4259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 measurements, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.40|-0.17|0.4259
91675567|NCT03020719|183245680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.4666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.96|||ANCOVA|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).||||0.96|-2.06|0.4666
91675568|NCT03020719|183245681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with AE|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|13.6|||Fisher Exact||95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||13.6|-13.6|1.0000
91675569|NCT03020719|183245681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with SAE|-13.3||||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|2.9|||Fisher Exact||95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||2.9|-30.5|0.1945
91675570|NCT03020719|183245682|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.21||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.52|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the GSH group was 179.22 and in the Placebo group was 177.19.||1.52|0.96|0.1087
91675571|NCT03020719|183245682|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.12||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.67|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the GSH group was 179.22 and in the Placebo group was 177.19.||0.67|0.01|0.0122
91675572|NCT02340221|183245686|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.56|0.0037
91675573|NCT02340221|183245687|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.58|0.0008
91675574|NCT02340221|183245688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|1.6|0.0002
91675575|NCT02340221|183245689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|1.7|<0.0001
91675576|NCT02340221|183245690|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.58|0.4151
91675577|NCT02340221|183245691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.75|0.9974
91675578|NCT02340221|183245692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.9||||||||2.9|1.2|
91675579|NCT02340221|183245693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.0||||||||3.0|1.2|
91675580|NCT02340221|183245694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.6708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.59|||Log Rank|||||2.59|0.23|0.6708
91675581|NCT02340221|183245695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.35|||Log Rank|||||2.35|0.51|0.8286
91675582|NCT02340221|183245696|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.51|0.0023
91794457|NCT02043379|183467882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.04||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.04
91861652|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.51||0.774|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-92.74|62.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||62.89|-92.74|0.7740
91861653|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.14||0.3|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.74|33.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||33.98|-3.74|0.3000
91903084|NCT01557348|183701051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0764||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Physician Global Assessment of Disease at Month 6||||0.0764
91675583|NCT02340221|183245697|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.56|0.0095
91675584|NCT00518622|183245705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.01||||||95.0|-2.87|-1.14|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 25 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.14|-2.87|
91675585|NCT00518622|183245705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.64||||||95.0|-3.49|-1.8|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 75 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.80|-3.49|
91675586|NCT00518622|183245705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||||95.0|-3.9|-1.9|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 250 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.90|-3.90|
91675587|NCT00518622|183245705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.38||||||95.0|-4.59|-2.17|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 500 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-2.17|-4.59|
91675588|NCT00518622|183245705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.73||||||95.0|-5.15|-4.31|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 700 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-4.31|-5.15|
91675589|NCT00518622|183245705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.93||||||95.0|-2.68|-1.18|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 125 mg qd minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.18|-2.68|
91675590|NCT00518622|183245705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.46||||||95.0|-2.78|-2.13|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 600 mg qd minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-2.13|-2.78|
91675591|NCT02655016|183245725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.755||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||0.755|0.502|<0.0001
91675592|NCT02655016|183245726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.106||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and HRD status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||1.106|0.442|0.1238
91675593|NCT02655016|183245727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|0.802||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and HRD status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||0.802|0.521|0.0001
91675594|NCT02655016|183245728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.139||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and HRD status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||1.139|0.577|0.2242
91675595|NCT02588950|183245788|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSMean Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|1.08|
91675596|NCT02588950|183245792|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSMean Ratio|0.885|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.761|
91675597|NCT02588950|183245793|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.6||||||||2.60|-1.60|
91793487|NCT04626310|183465238|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.281|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of change in this interaction effect were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.281
91794458|NCT02043379|183467882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.14||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.14
91675598|NCT01936519|183245799|EQUIVALENCE|Mann Whitney U Test was performed|Mean Difference (Net)|27.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.61||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.17|70.8||Cockcroft-Gault Clearance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on the Cockcroft Gault Creatinine clearance 2 year data.||70.80|-16.17|0.283
91675599|NCT01936519|183245800|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Test|Median Difference (Final Values)|34.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|58.21|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on the MDRD Clearance 2 year data row data.||58.21|9.95|0.013
91675600|NCT01936519|183245801|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|47.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on the Iothalamate Clearance 2 year data.||47.72|-3.28|0.099
91675601|NCT01936519|183245801|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric statistical tests were used for all analyses, including the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous outcomes and Pearson's chi-square test for binary outcomes. Univariate statistical tests were used for all comparisons. Cohen's d was utilized for all comparisons to provide information about effect size.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.29||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|57.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power and sample size. The assumption was made that eGFR would improve from 34 mL/min/1.73 m2 to 43 mL/min/1.73 m2. It was determined that a sample size of 12 in each group would have 80% power to detect a difference in means of -9.0 (the difference between a group 1 mean of 34.0 and a group 2 mean of 43.0) assuming that the common standard deviation was 7.5 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.~Data from the 2 year time point was used for analysis."||57.1|1.04|.032
91903085|NCT01557348|183701051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0587||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Physician Global Assessment of Disease at Month 12||||0.0587
91675602|NCT01936519|183245801|EQUIVALENCE|Difference of zero hypothesized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.003|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on 2 year data time point.||-0.003|-1.11|0.015
91675603|NCT02072824|183245812|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Linear model with log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and treatment, age stratum, and geographical region as fixed factor effects.||0.42|-0.19|0.4606
91793488|NCT04626310|183465238|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of change in this interaction effect were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.066
91861654|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-72.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.37||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-131.59|-13.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-13.30|-131.59|0.1472
91861655|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.56||0.5536|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.77|14.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||14.94|-39.77|0.5536
91675604|NCT02072824|183245812|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Linear model with log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and treatment, age stratum, and geographical region as fixed factor effects.||-0.06|-0.80|0.0223
91861656|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.65||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.13|53.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||53.84|-89.13|0.7131
91861657|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.27||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.49|34.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||34.24|-6.49|0.3762
91675605|NCT02072824|183245813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.625||||0.2418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.373|||Regression, Logistic|||The dichotomized responder variable was analyzed using a logistic regression model via maximum likelihood estimation with treatment group, age stratum, and geographical region as a fixed effect covariates.||1.373|0.284|0.2418
91794459|NCT02043379|183467882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.82||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.82
91903086|NCT01557348|183701052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0443||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Patient Global Assessment of Disease at Month 6||||0.0443
91903087|NCT01557348|183701052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4802||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Patient Global Assessment of Disease at Month 12||||0.4802
91903088|NCT01557348|183701053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2026||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Participant's Visual Analogue Scale Pain Score at Months 6||||0.2026
91903089|NCT01557348|183701053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0295||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Participant's Visual Analogue Scale Pain Score at Months 12||||0.0295
91903090|NCT01557348|183701054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Month 6||||0.3370
91903091|NCT01557348|183701054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1515||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Month 12||||0.1515
91903092|NCT01557348|183701055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3253||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in duration of morning stiffness at month 6||||0.3253
91903093|NCT01557348|183701055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3535||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in duration of morning stiffness at month 12||||0.3535
91903094|NCT03427125|183701063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91861658|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.37||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.26|-14.97||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-14.97|-133.26|0.1419
91675606|NCT02072824|183245813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.622||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|4.086|||Regression, Logistic|||The dichotomized responder variable was analyzed using a logistic regression model via maximum likelihood estimation with treatment group, age stratum, and geographical region as a fixed effect covariates.||4.086|0.644|0.3050
91903095|NCT03427125|183701064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0020
91675607|NCT03835325|183245826|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The sample size calculation was based on the following hypothesis test:~H0: there is no improvement in memory capacity between the initial (VS) and final (VF) assessments, assessed by the self-efficacy factor of the MIAr questionnaire.~H1: there is an improvement in memory capacity between the initial (VS) and final (VF) assessments, assessed by the self-efficacy factor of the MIAr questionnaire.~or H0: AUTO-EF (VF) - AUTO-EF (VS) ≤ 0 H1: AUTO-EF (VF) - AUTO-EF (VS)\> 0"||||<0.001
91794460|NCT02043379|183467882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.9||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.9
91861659|NCT03858634|183609958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.74||0.5817|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.22|15.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||15.95|-39.22|0.5817
91861660|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.77||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-63.6|119.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||119.06|-63.60|0.6532
91903096|NCT02281357|183701066|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the average percentage change in OCS dose on tralokinumab was equal to the average percentage change in OCS dose on placebo.|LS Mean difference|-7.78||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|6.15|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model utilised a sandwich estimator for the variance.|The model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline OCS dose as a continuous covariate. No interaction terms were included in the model. All group comparisons from the ANCOVA model were based on Type III sums of squares.|Comparison of percent change from baseline in OCS dose: tralokinumab vs placebo.||6.15|-21.70|0.271
91675608|NCT03395639|183245846|OTHER|Difference in adjudicated major or CRNM bleeding rates were assessed.|Annualized rate difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.18|
91793489|NCT04626310|183465239|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.653||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. neutral images on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.108
91861661|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|80.0|11.38|35.85||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||35.85|11.38|0.0187
91861662|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.53||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-123.27|44.68||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||44.68|-123.27|0.4707
91861663|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.22|4.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||4.59|-8.22|0.7108
91675609|NCT03395639|183245846|OTHER|Difference in adjudicated major bleeding rates were assessed.|Annualized rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0|0|
91675610|NCT03395639|183245846|OTHER|Difference in all adjudicated bleeding (major, CRNM, minor) rates were assessed.|Annualized rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.24|
91675611|NCT00942331|183245854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||1.06|0.72|0.1707
91675612|NCT01194973|183245896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|117.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.77|142.59|||ANOVA|||||142.59|92.77|<0.0001
91675613|NCT01194973|183245902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|102.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.15|136.82|||ANOVA|||||136.82|68.15|<0.0001
91675614|NCT01338987|183245905|OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||||||0.0075
91675615|NCT03856593|183245968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the interaction coefficient for the difference-in-difference in average weekly MME pre-to-post letter between study arms. It was used to acquire the estimated average weekly MME post-letter in the Outcome Measure Data table.|Please note that 10% of means in the pre-intervention period were trimmed to remove outliers.||-0.07|-0.20|<0.05
91675616|NCT03856593|183245969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the interaction coefficient for the difference-in-difference in average weekly MME pre-to-post letter between study arms. It was used to acquire the estimated average weekly VME post-letter in the Outcome Measure Data table.|||-0.02|-0.15|<0.05
91675617|NCT03407118|183245971|SUPERIORITY||ratio of least square means|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.17||||||||1.17|0.803|
91675618|NCT04017754|183245995|EQUIVALENCE|A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant for at difference in frequency of low p-MBL level(\<500 ug/l) between groups.|Prevalence proportion ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.38|||Chi-squared||The numerator is the risk of low p-MBL in the study sample with RPL patients and the denominator is the risk of low p-MBL in control group 1 of female blood donors.|Comparing the risk of low p-MBL level between RPL patients and MBL reference group. We hypothesized that more RPL patients had a low p-MBL level; thus, the null hypothesis was that no difference existed.||2.38|1.34|<0.001
91794461|NCT02043379|183467882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.78||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.78
91861664|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.36||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-76.47|121.23||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||121.23|-76.47|0.7355
91675619|NCT03508687|183246019|OTHER|||||||0.517||||||paired t test; baseline vs. week 12 (n = 5)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.517
91675620|NCT03508687|183246019|OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (n = 5)||||||0.345
91675621|NCT02999477|183246038|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is no change in the amount of PD-L1 expression from baseline to after a two-week run in of nabpaclitaxel. The test was using one-sided alpha (type I error) of 0.05. The margin is zero.||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0
91675622|NCT02999477|183246038|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is no change in the amount of PD-L1 expression from baseline to after a two-week run in of nabpaclitaxel or pembrolizumab. The test was using one-sided alpha (type I error) of 0.05.||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0
91675623|NCT01635062|183246043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis was that calcitriol therapy would lower plasma renin activity (PRA), when sodium restricted, when compared to placebo.||||0.69
91675624|NCT01635062|183246044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis was that calcitriol therapy would raise renal plasma flow, when sodium loaded, when compared to placebo.||||0.89
91675625|NCT01635062|183246045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis was that calcitriol therapy would lower urine protein, when sodium loaded, when compared to placebo.||||0.80
91675626|NCT01846273|183246046|NON_INFERIORITY|pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 5 letters|Least Squares Mean|3.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.38||||ANCOVA||||||0.38|<0.001
91675627|NCT01846273|183246047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91675628|NCT00359788|183246087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.157|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.157|0.055|<0.0001
91675629|NCT00359788|183246088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.05 liters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.0042||95.0|-0.032|0.072|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.072|-0.032|0.0042
91793490|NCT04626310|183465239|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. neutral images on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.014
91675630|NCT00359788|183246089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.193|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.193|0.098|<0.0001
91675631|NCT00359788|183246090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.114|-0.046|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.046|-0.114|<0.0001
91675632|NCT00359788|183246091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054||||0.0447||95.0|0.001|0.106|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.106|0.001|0.0447
91675633|NCT00359788|183246092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.131|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.171|-0.092|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.092|-0.171|<0.0001
91675634|NCT00359788|183246093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.152|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.19|-0.113|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.113|-0.19|<0.0001
91675635|NCT00359788|183246094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.175|-0.091|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.091|-0.175|<0.0001
91675636|NCT00359788|183246095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175||||0.0015||95.0|0.067|0.283|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.283|0.067|0.0015
91675637|NCT00359788|183246096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.835||95.0|-0.092|0.114|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.114|-0.092|0.835
91794462|NCT02043379|183467883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.37||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour level||||0.37
91717010|NCT02849080|183326311|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.7||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Pattern mixture model||Oral Semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg.|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 52 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||6.70|2.89|<0.0001
91717011|NCT02849080|183326311|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|8.68||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Logistic||Oral Semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on multiple imputation, imputing sequentially using post-baseline measurements up to and including week 52. The imputed data sets were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||8.68|3.54|<0.0001
91717012|NCT02849080|183326312|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide flex - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 52 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.2|-2.6|<0.0001
91717013|NCT02849080|183326312|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide flex - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 52. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.5|-2.9|<0.0001
91717014|NCT02849080|183326329|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.39||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.39|0.09|<0.0001
91717015|NCT02849080|183326330|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.91|0.37|0.0175
91717016|NCT02849080|183326349|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.4381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide flex- Switch / Sitagliptin 100 mg- Switch|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.50|0.39|0.4381
91717017|NCT02849080|183326350|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.09||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide flex- Switch / Sitagliptin 100 mg- Switch|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.09|0.20|0.0790
91717018|NCT00596271|183326380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority of the combined administration is postulated, if the lower bounds of both twosided 95% confidence intervals for the GMT ratios (of combined vaccination over single vaccination) are \> 1/2.~This procedure is equivalent to the approach based on a 1-sided test with a significance level of 2.5% for each comparison with the null hypothesis H0 : ratio ≤ 0.5 versus the alternative hypotheses H1 : ratio \> 0.5."|||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis will compare the IC51+HAVRIX vs. IC51+Placebo group in terms of the GMT for anti- JEV neutralizing antibody at day 56. An observed cases approach will be applied for the primary analysis||||<0.0001
91717019|NCT00596271|183326384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority of the combined administration is postulated, if the lower bounds of both twosided 95% confidence intervals for the GMT ratios (of combined vaccination over single vaccination) are \> 1/2.~This procedure is equivalent to the approach based on a 1-sided test with a significance level of 2.5% for each comparison with the null hypothesis H0 : ratio ≤ 0.5 versus the alternative hypotheses H1 : ratio \> 0.5."|||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis will compare the IC51+HAVRIX vs. HAVRIX+Placebo group in terms of the GMT for HAV antibody at day 28. An observed cases approach will be applied for the primary analysis.||||<0.0001
91675638|NCT00359788|183246097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.379|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.379|0.178|<0.0001
91675639|NCT00359788|183246098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.157|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.236|-0.078|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.078|-0.236|<0.0001
91675640|NCT00359788|183246099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.4386||95.0|-0.059|0.137|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.137|-0.059|0.4386
91675641|NCT00359788|183246100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.282||||0.0001||95.0|-0.374|-0.191|||ANCOVA|||||-0.191|-0.374|0.0001
91675642|NCT00359788|183246101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.361|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.449|-0.274|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.274|-0.449|<0.0001
91675643|NCT00359788|183246102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.375|-0.196|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.196|-0.375|<0.0001
91675644|NCT00359788|183246103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.175|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.207|-0.142|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.142|-0.207|<0.0001
91675645|NCT00359788|183246104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.168|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.205|-0.131|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.131|-0.205|<0.0001
91675646|NCT00359788|183246105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.221|-0.143|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.143|-0.221|<0.0001
91717020|NCT02155985|183326400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|8.8||While there are co-primary comparisons, due to the pilot nature of the study, no adjustment to the 0.05 type I error was made.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is the percent difference in mean fold changes = ((300 mg mean fold change / placebo mean fold change) - 1) \* 100.|Paired differences between the two aspirin arms and placebo were estimated in a single linear regression model using linear combinations of the estimated means.||8.8|-5.5|0.70
91675647|NCT00359788|183246106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.175|-0.097|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.097|-0.175|<0.0001
91675648|NCT00359788|183246107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.125|-0.044|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.044|-0.125|<0.0001
91675649|NCT00359788|183246108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035||||0.0997||95.0|-0.076|0.007|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.007|-0.076|0.0997
91794463|NCT02043379|183467883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour level||||0.47
91675650|NCT00359788|183246109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.101||95.0|-0.007|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.08|-0.007|0.101
91675651|NCT00359788|183246110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.193|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.193|0.098|<0.0001
91675652|NCT00359788|183246111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.055||||0.0411||95.0|-0.108|-0.002|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.002|-0.108|0.0411
91675653|NCT00359788|183246112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.0354||95.0|-0.116|-0.004|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.004|-0.116|0.0354
91675654|NCT00359788|183246113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062||||0.041||95.0|-0.121|-0.003|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.003|-0.121|0.041
91675655|NCT00359788|183246114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.5387||95.0|-0.076|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.04|-0.076|0.5387
91675656|NCT00359788|183246115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.0372||95.0|0.004|0.118|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.118|0.004|0.0372
91675657|NCT00359788|183246116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.066|0.177|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.177|0.066|<0.0001
91675658|NCT00359788|183246117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.216|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.216|0.108|<0.0001
91675659|NCT00359788|183246118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.157|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.157|0.055|<0.0001
91675660|NCT00359788|183246119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.0023||95.0|-0.136|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.03|-0.136|0.0023
91675661|NCT00359788|183246120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087||||0.0019||95.0|-0.142|-0.033|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.033|-0.142|0.0019
91675662|NCT00359788|183246121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.0044||95.0|-0.139|-0.026|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.026|-0.139|0.0044
91675663|NCT00359788|183246122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046||||0.1182||95.0|-0.103|0.012|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.012|-0.103|0.1182
91675664|NCT00359788|183246123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.4814||95.0|-0.037|0.078||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.078|-0.037|0.4814
91675665|NCT00359788|183246124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.008||95.0|0.019|0.129|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.129|0.019|0.008
91675666|NCT00359788|183246125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.082|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.19|0.082|<0.0001
91675667|NCT00359788|183246126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.449|-0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.29|-0.449|<0.0001
91675668|NCT00359788|183246127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.356|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.44|-0.272|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.272|-0.44|<0.0001
91675669|NCT00359788|183246128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.451|-0.264|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.264|-0.451|<0.0001
91675670|NCT00359788|183246129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.285|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.376|-0.194|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.194|-0.376|<0.0001
91717021|NCT02155985|183326400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|13.3||While there are co-primary comparisons, due to the pilot nature of the study, no adjustment to the 0.05 type I error was made.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is the percent difference in mean fold changes = ((100 mg mean fold change / placebo mean fold change) - 1) \* 100.|Paired differences between the two aspirin arms and placebo were estimated in a single linear regression model using linear combinations of the estimated means.||13.3|-1.7|0.14
91793491|NCT04626310|183465239|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. neutral images on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.001
91675671|NCT00359788|183246130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.0003||95.0|-0.261|-0.079|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.079|-0.261|0.0003
91675672|NCT00359788|183246131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.2992||95.0|-0.143|0.044|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.044|-0.143|0.2992
91675673|NCT00359788|183246132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081||||0.0984||95.0|-0.015|0.177|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.177|-0.015|0.0984
91675674|NCT00359788|183246133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.379|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.379|0.178|<0.0001
91794464|NCT02043379|183467883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 hour level||||0.47
91675675|NCT00359788|183246134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.189||||0.0004||95.0|-0.293|-0.086|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.086|-0.293|0.0004
91675676|NCT00359788|183246135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.204||||0.0003||95.0|-0.314|-0.095|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.095|-0.314|0.0003
91675677|NCT00359788|183246136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1832||||0.012||95.0|-0.293|-0.072|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.072|-0.293|0.012
91675678|NCT00359788|183246137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097||||0.044||95.0|-0.219|0.003|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.003|-0.219|0.044
91675679|NCT00359788|183246138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.3634||95.0|-0.058|0.158|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.158|-0.058|0.3634
91675680|NCT00359788|183246139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163||||0.0032||95.0|0.055|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.27|0.055|0.0032
91675681|NCT00359788|183246140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.173|0.378|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.378|0.173|<0.0001
91675682|NCT00359788|183246141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175||||0.0015||95.0|0.067|0.283|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.283|0.067|0.0015
91675683|NCT00359788|183246142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193||||0.0002||95.0|-0.296|-0.091|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.091|-0.296|0.0002
91675684|NCT00359788|183246143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.215|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.323|-0.108|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.108|-0.323|<0.0001
91675685|NCT00359788|183246144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.198||||0.0006||95.0|-0.309|-0.086|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.086|-0.309|0.0006
91675686|NCT00359788|183246145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097||||0.0896||95.0|-0.21|0.015|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.015|-0.21|0.0896
91675687|NCT00359788|183246146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.8937||95.0|-0.103|0.118|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.118|-0.103|0.8937
91675688|NCT00359788|183246147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.0269||95.0|0.014|0.236|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.236|0.014|0.0269
91675689|NCT00359788|183246148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223||||0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.335|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.335|0.111|0.0001
91675690|NCT00359788|183246149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042||||0.7196||95.0|-0.275|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.19|-0.275|0.7196
91793492|NCT04626310|183465240|OTHER||Linear Slope difference DBT-ER-IP|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. negative decrease on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.211
91675691|NCT00359788|183246150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069||||0.6189||95.0|-0.343|0.205|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.205|-0.343|0.6189
91675692|NCT00359788|183246151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073||||0.6197||95.0|-0.36|0.215|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.215|-0.36|0.6197
91794465|NCT02043379|183467883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.79||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour level||||0.79
91675693|NCT00359788|183246152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.112||||0.4582||95.0|-0.408|0.184|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.184|-0.408|0.4582
91675694|NCT00359788|183246153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.6538||95.0|-0.376|0.236|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.236|-0.376|0.6538
91675695|NCT00359788|183246154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145||||0.4145||95.0|-0.495|0.205|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.205|-0.495|0.4145
91675696|NCT00359788|183246155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085||||0.6048||95.0|-0.408|0.238|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.238|-0.408|0.6048
91675697|NCT00359788|183246156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.3137||95.0|-0.503|0.162|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.162|-0.503|0.3137
91675698|NCT00359788|183246157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061||||0.7195||95.0|-0.395|0.273|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.273|-0.395|0.7195
91675699|NCT00359788|183246158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.7947||95.0|-0.367|0.282|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.282|-0.367|0.7947
91861665|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.27||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.66|34.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||34.52|-0.66|0.2167
91675700|NCT00359788|183246159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.093||||0.6049||95.0|-0.446|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.26|-0.446|0.6049
91675701|NCT00359788|183246160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.8109||95.0|-0.437|0.342|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.342|-0.437|0.8109
91861666|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-63.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.8||0.4058|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-178.16|51.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||51.13|-178.16|0.4058
91861667|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.3323|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.95|2.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||2.15|-14.95|0.3323
91861668|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|34.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.11||0.6496|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-77.29|145.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||145.80|-77.29|0.6496
91675702|NCT00359788|183246161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.527||||0.1471||95.0|-0.186|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||1.24|-0.186|0.1471
91675703|NCT00359788|183246162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265||||0.3192||95.0|-0.258|0.788|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.788|-0.258|0.3192
91675704|NCT00359788|183246163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.351||||0.182||95.0|-0.165|0.867|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.867|-0.165|0.182
91793493|NCT04626310|183465240|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.148|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. negative decrease on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.148
91675705|NCT00359788|183246164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363||||0.1777||95.0|-0.166|0.893|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.893|-0.166|0.1777
91675706|NCT00359788|183246165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363||||0.1805||95.0|-0.169|0.895|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.895|-0.169|0.1805
91794466|NCT02043379|183467883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.04||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour level||||0.04
91675707|NCT00359788|183246166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372||||0.1777||95.0|-0.17|0.913|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.913|-0.17|0.1777
91675708|NCT00359788|183246167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159||||0.5725||95.0|-0.395|0.714|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.714|-0.395|0.5725
91675709|NCT00359788|183246168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.6765||95.0|-0.449|0.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.69|-0.449|0.6765
91675710|NCT00359788|183246169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247||||0.3943||95.0|-0.323|0.818|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.818|-0.323|0.3943
91861669|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.76||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.12|30.7||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||30.70|-3.12|0.2925
91861670|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-70.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.98||0.4074|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-198.92|57.46||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||57.46|-198.92|0.4074
91793494|NCT04626310|183465240|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.857|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. negative decrease on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.857
91793495|NCT04626310|183465241|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Difference in DSS DBT-ER-IP|-0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.794||0.693|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DSS over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.693
91793496|NCT04626310|183465241|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Difference in DSS DBT-IE-IP|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.767||0.998|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DSS over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.998
91794467|NCT02043379|183467884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.43||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||pre-operative||||0.43
91861671|NCT03858634|183609960|OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.56||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.6|-1.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-1.49|-29.60|0.1584
91861672|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.04||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-111.31|65.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||65.69|-111.31|0.7013
91861673|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.35||0.423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.3|35.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||35.05|-8.30|0.4230
91861674|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.96||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-169.9|48.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||48.69|-169.90|0.4055
91861675|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.82||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.41|-6.96||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-6.96|-38.41|0.0709
91861676|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.17||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-103.77|139.17||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||139.17|-103.77|0.8268
91861677|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.63||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.03|31.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||31.75|-7.03|0.4082
91861678|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.86||0.4818|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.43|60.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||60.56|-161.43|0.4818
91675711|NCT00359788|183246170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291||||0.3091||95.0|-0.271|0.852|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.852|-0.271|0.3091
91675712|NCT00359788|183246171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317||||0.2911||95.0|-0.273|0.907|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.907|-0.273|0.2911
91675713|NCT00359788|183246172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108||||0.7458||95.0|-0.549|0.766|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.766|-0.549|0.7458
91675714|NCT00359788|183246173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.698||||0.0004||95.0|4.836|16.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||16.56|4.836|0.0004
91675715|NCT00359788|183246174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.257||||0.0023||95.0|4.055|18.458|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||18.458|4.055|0.0023
91675716|NCT00359788|183246175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.772||||0.0015||95.0|4.942|20.602|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.602|4.942|0.0015
91675717|NCT00359788|183246176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.568||||0.0013||95.0|5.342|21.795|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||21.795|5.342|0.0013
91675718|NCT00359788|183246177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.052||||0.005||95.0|3.676|20.428|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.428|3.676|0.005
91675719|NCT00359788|183246178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.107||||0.0159||95.0|2.095|20.119|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.119|2.095|0.0159
91675720|NCT00359788|183246179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.057||||0.0219||95.0|1.613|20.501|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.501|1.613|0.0219
91675721|NCT00359788|183246180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.655||||0.0048||95.0|4.207|23.104|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||23.104|4.207|0.0048
91861679|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.93||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.64|-8.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-8.58|-45.64|0.0673
91793497|NCT04626310|183465241|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DSS DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DSS over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.680
91793498|NCT04626310|183465241|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Difference in DC1 DBT-ER-IP|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.333|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.333
91794468|NCT02043379|183467884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.68||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||max||||0.68
91861680|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|82.15||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.0|164.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||164.10|-105.00|0.7429
91861681|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.55||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.88|39.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||39.79|3.88|0.1227
91861682|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-47.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.06||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-156.95|62.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||62.02|-156.95|0.4996
91675722|NCT00359788|183246181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.231||||0.0058||95.0|4.153|24.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||24.31|4.153|0.0058
91675723|NCT00359788|183246182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.597||||0.0248||95.0|1.483|21.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||21.71|1.483|0.0248
91675724|NCT00359788|183246183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.001||||0.0325||95.0|0.924|21.079|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||21.079|0.924|0.0325
91861683|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.69||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.87|-15.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-15.43|-51.87|0.0244
91861684|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.24||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.5|104.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||104.92|-105.50|0.9967
91861685|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.57||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.15|37.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||37.12|1.15|0.1739
91675725|NCT00359788|183246184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.074||||0.0153||95.0|2.726|25.422|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||25.422|2.726|0.0153
91675726|NCT00359788|183246185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.755||||0.6105||95.0|-8.532|5.022|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||5.022|-8.532|0.6105
91675727|NCT00359788|183246186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.842||||0.8249||95.0|-6.642|8.326|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||8.326|-6.642|0.8249
91675728|NCT00359788|183246187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71||||0.4896||95.0|-5.001|10.421|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||10.421|-5.001|0.4896
91675729|NCT00359788|183246188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.898||||0.0935||95.0|-1.172|14.968|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||14.968|-1.172|0.0935
91793499|NCT04626310|183465241|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC1 DBT-IE-IP|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.632|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.632
91861686|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.61||0.3978|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-152.39|42.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||42.26|-152.39|0.3978
91861687|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.73||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.26|-13.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-13.07|-52.26|0.0397
91861688|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|70.66||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.32|126.14||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||126.14|-105.32|0.8922
91861689|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.43||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.8|36.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||36.45|-1.80|0.2439
91861690|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.1||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-120.29|19.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||19.61|-120.29|0.3076
91861691|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.32|-15.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-15.55|-57.32|0.0322
91861692|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.67||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.98|-49.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-49.36|-139.98|0.0418
91861693|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.44||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.49|42.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||42.26|6.49|0.0865
91675730|NCT00359788|183246189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.419||||0.4339||95.0|-5.17|12.007|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||12.007|-5.17|0.4339
91675731|NCT00359788|183246190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.971||||0.845||95.0|-10.74|8.799|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||8.799|-10.74|0.845
91675732|NCT00359788|183246191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194||||0.9696||95.0|-9.811|10.199|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||10.199|-9.811|0.9696
91675733|NCT00359788|183246192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.129||||0.3252||95.0|-5.117|15.376|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||15.376|-5.117|0.3252
91861694|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.32||0.3489|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-124.96|27.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||27.11|-124.96|0.3489
91861695|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.99||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-59.34|-16.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-16.79|-59.34|0.0286
91675734|NCT00359788|183246193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.062||||0.452||95.0|-6.558|14.683|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||14.683|-6.558|0.452
91675735|NCT00359788|183246194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.14||||0.4388||95.0|-6.372|14.651|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||14.651|-6.372|0.4388
91675736|NCT00359788|183246195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.185||||0.8288||95.0|-9.595|11.964|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||11.964|-9.595|0.8288
91675737|NCT00359788|183246196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.204||||0.4929||95.0|-7.857|16.264|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||16.264|-7.857|0.4929
91675738|NCT00359788|183246197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204||||0.0754||95.0|-0.021|0.429|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.429|-0.021|0.0754
91675739|NCT00359788|183246198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251||||0.0765||95.0|-0.027|0.528|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.528|-0.027|0.0765
91675740|NCT00359788|183246199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151||||0.163||95.0|-0.061|0.363|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.363|-0.061|0.163
91675741|NCT00359788|183246200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.285||||0.0085||95.0|0.073|0.496|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.496|0.073|0.0085
91675742|NCT02220725|183246218|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-70.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.43|-65.91|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-65.91|-85.43|<0.0001
91675743|NCT02220725|183246218|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-51.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.95|-47.03|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-47.03|-57.95|<0.0001
91675744|NCT02220725|183246219|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-74.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.92|-64.45|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-64.45|-78.92|<0.0001
91675745|NCT02220725|183246221|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Shift|-18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.05|-12.73|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-12.73|-23.05|<0.0001
91675746|NCT02220725|183246222|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|1142.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1006.1|1281.4|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1281.40|1006.10|<0.0001
91861696|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.63||0.7198|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.32|147.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||147.59|-90.32|0.7198
91903097|NCT02281357|183701067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline OCS dose as a continuous covariate.||Comparison of OCS dose ≤5.0 mg: tralokinumab vs placebo.||2.73|0.65|0.442
91675747|NCT02220725|183246222|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|1205.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1034.17|1400.79|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1400.79|1034.17|<0.0001
91675748|NCT00103402|183246245|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis compared rates for the primary outcome between study groups, using the exact conditional test version of the Mantel-Haenszel test to control for clustering by clinical center.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.0|||Mantel Haenszel|The exact conditional test version of the Mantel-Haenszel test was used to control for clustering by clinical center.||Sample-size calculations were based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 with 80% power to detect a difference of 20 between response rates (40% placebo and 60% alfuzosin) for the Fisher's exact test. We calculated that a total sample of 270 participants would be required (135 per study group). This proposed sample size included a 20% increase to adjust for clustering within clinical sites and a 5% increase for interim monitoring.||11.0|-11.2|0.99
91675749|NCT00103402|183246246|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis compared rates for the primary outcome between study groups, using the exact conditional test version of the Mantel-Haenszel test to control for clustering by clinical center.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.5|||Mantel Haenszel|||Marked or moderate improvement at 12 weeks Absolute Difference in Rates % (95% CI)||2.5|-9.0|0.90
91675750|NCT00103402|183246247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Total score (0-43) change from baseline||1.5|-2.7|0.70
91675751|NCT00103402|183246247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain score (0-21) change from baseline||0.8|-1.4|0.64
91675752|NCT00103402|183246247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Urinary score (0-10) change from baseline||0.4|-0.8|0.62
91675753|NCT00103402|183246247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life score (0-12) change from baseline||0.4|-0.4|.99
91675754|NCT00103402|183246248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||McGill Total Score||1.2|-1.8|0.45
91675755|NCT00103402|183246248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||McGill Sensory Score||1.0|-1.4|0.47
91675756|NCT00103402|183246248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||McGill Affective Score||0.4|-0.6|0.89
91675757|NCT00103402|183246249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical component summary (0-100) change in scores||1.3|-2.3|0.60
91675758|NCT00103402|183246249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental component summary (0-100) Absolute Difference between Groups (95% CI)||4.6|-0.4|0.16
91861697|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.27||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|21.32|56.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||56.63|21.32|0.0088
91675759|NCT00103402|183246250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-2.4|0.08
91675760|NCT00103402|183246251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.0|-2.6|0.94
91675761|NCT00103402|183246252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-0.3|0.06
91675762|NCT01663727|183246295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.51|0.91|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were plasma VEGF-A level (low/high), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||0.91|0.51|0.0007
91675763|NCT01663727|183246295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.55|0.97|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis.||0.97|0.55|0.0046
91675764|NCT01663727|183246295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4619|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|||A stratified multivariate Cox regression model, including treatment, VEGF-A level, and interaction between treatment and VEGF-A level (low, high) as factors was used to estimate the interaction p-value of the treatment with VEGF-A level for PFS. Analysis for the interaction of treatment effect with the plasma VEGF-A levels was a secondary objective.||||0.4619
91675765|NCT01663727|183246297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were plasma VEGF-A level (low/high), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.18|0.75|0.5877
91675766|NCT01663727|183246297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.21|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.21|0.78|0.8004
91861698|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-56.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-120.39|7.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||7.34|-120.39|0.2371
91675767|NCT01663727|183246299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.14|0.63|0.2745
91675768|NCT01663727|183246299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.17|0.65|0.3616
91675769|NCT01663727|183246300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|20.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|30.11|||Fisher|||||30.11|11.45|<0.0001
91675770|NCT01663727|183246302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.47|0.88|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||0.88|0.47|0.0038
91861699|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.14||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.3|-19.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-19.35|-62.30|0.0210
91903098|NCT02281357|183701068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline OCS dose as a continuous covariate.||Comparison of ≥50% reduction in OCS dose: tralokinumab vs placebo.||2.74|0.70|0.356
91675771|NCT01663727|183246302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.5|0.93|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis.||0.93|0.50|0.0101
91675772|NCT01663727|183246303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|21.53||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.73|34.32|||Fisher|||||34.32|8.73|0.0017
91675773|NCT01663727|183246304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were plasma VEGF-A level (low/high), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.19|0.54|0.2737
91675774|NCT01663727|183246304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.19|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.19|0.56|0.2959
91675775|NCT01663727|183246305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.18|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.18|0.41|0.1783
91675776|NCT01663727|183246305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.22|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.22|0.45|0.2429
91675777|NCT02944383|183246406|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-19.02||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.07|-4.25|||Ranked ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group \& randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as covariate.|Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-4.25|-33.07|0.0063
91675778|NCT02944383|183246406|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.63||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.88|7.05|||Ranked ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group \& randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as covariate.|Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||7.05|-25.88|0.2350
91675779|NCT02944383|183246407|OTHER|||||||0.1663||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1663
91675780|NCT02944383|183246407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6195||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6195
91675781|NCT02944383|183246407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0436||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0436
91675782|NCT02944383|183246407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.5000
91675783|NCT02944383|183246407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0007
91793500|NCT04626310|183465241|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC1 DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.178|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to DBT-ER.||||.178
91794469|NCT02043379|183467885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.87||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||pre-operative||||0.87
91675784|NCT02944383|183246407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1161||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1161
91675785|NCT02944383|183246407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1830
91675786|NCT02944383|183246407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8762||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8762
91675787|NCT02944383|183246408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1780
91675788|NCT02944383|183246408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7615||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.7615
91675789|NCT02944383|183246408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0162
91675790|NCT02944383|183246408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.3710
91675791|NCT02944383|183246408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0010
91675792|NCT02944383|183246408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0988||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0988
91793501|NCT04626310|183465241|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC2 DBT-ER-IP|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC2 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the slope differences DBT-ER to IP.||||.689
91675793|NCT02944383|183246408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2594||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2594
91675794|NCT02944383|183246408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9099||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9099
91675795|NCT02944383|183246408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0219
91675796|NCT02944383|183246408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3494||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3494
91675797|NCT02944383|183246409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0391
91675798|NCT02944383|183246409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2455||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.2455
91675799|NCT02944383|183246409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0260
91675800|NCT02944383|183246409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5704||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.5704
91675801|NCT02944383|183246409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0009
91861700|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.07||0.7312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-68.17|108.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||108.94|-68.17|0.7312
91794470|NCT02043379|183467885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.79||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||24 hour post-operative max||||0.79
91861701|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.64||0.015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|19.88|58.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||58.83|19.88|0.0150
91861702|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-117.22|10.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||10.52|-117.22|0.2559
91861703|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.97||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.21|-13.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-13.72|-56.21|0.0419
91861704|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.66||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-78.95|119.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||119.74|-78.95|0.7589
91861705|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.42||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|80.0|15.97|62.31||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||62.31|15.97|0.0374
91793502|NCT04626310|183465241|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC2 DBT-IE-IP|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.917|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC2 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the slope differences DBT-IE to IP.||||.917
91794471|NCT05985980|183467886|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is true that the ST/HR index (μV/bpm) ıs similar between the early and late follicular phases||||||0.521|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
91861706|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.2463|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-118.8|8.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||8.93|-118.80|0.2463
91675802|NCT02944383|183246409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0846||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0846
91675803|NCT02944383|183246409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1763||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1763
91861707|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.78||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.56|-10.9||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-10.90|-55.56|0.0632
91675804|NCT02944383|183246409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5576||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5576
91675805|NCT02944383|183246409|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-14.66||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.68|-4.39||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-4.39|-24.68|0.0086
91692201|NCT03296527|183279367|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.95||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of FSH at end-of-stimulation||0.95|0.89|<0.001
91903099|NCT02281357|183701069|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12|||Negative binomial||Treatment group, OCS dose at baseline, and number of exacerbations in the previous year are included in the model as covariates.|Comparison of AAER: tralokinumab vs placebo.||1.12|0.57|0.186
91675806|NCT02944383|183246409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.06||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.02|3.64||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||3.64|-15.02|0.1516
91675807|NCT02944383|183246410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0386||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0386
91675808|NCT02944383|183246410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1206||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1206
91903100|NCT01162239|183701075|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91903101|NCT01162239|183701076|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.91
91675809|NCT02944383|183246410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0364
91675810|NCT02944383|183246410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4312||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.4312
91675811|NCT02944383|183246410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0010
91675812|NCT02944383|183246410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0407||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0407
91675813|NCT02944383|183246410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1433||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1433
91861708|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.73||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-75.41|126.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||126.78|-75.41|0.7053
91861709|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.25||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|17.09|60.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||60.34|17.09|0.0285
91675814|NCT02944383|183246410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2866||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2866
91675815|NCT02944383|183246410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0056
91675816|NCT02944383|183246410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0789||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0789
91675817|NCT02944383|183246411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0277||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0277
91675818|NCT02944383|183246411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2502||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.2502
91675819|NCT02944383|183246411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0161
91675820|NCT02944383|183246411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6567||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.6567
91861710|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-64.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.1||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-134.58|5.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||5.32|-134.58|0.2236
91861711|NCT03858634|183609960|OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.38||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.65|-12.41||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-12.41|-58.65|0.0558
91861712|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.86||0.7089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.41|149.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||149.24|-89.41|0.7089
91861713|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.08|53.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||53.35|14.08|0.0347
91675821|NCT02944383|183246411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0010
91675822|NCT02944383|183246411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1257||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1257
91675823|NCT02944383|183246411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1440
91675824|NCT02944383|183246411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7642||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7642
91675825|NCT02944383|183246411|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-16.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.31|-4.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-4.51|-28.31|0.0107
91675826|NCT02944383|183246411|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.32||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|5.52||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.52|-16.73|0.2466
91675827|NCT02944383|183246412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0211
91675828|NCT02944383|183246412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1304||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1304
91675829|NCT02944383|183246412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0318||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0318
91861714|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-60.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.94||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.99|18.16||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||18.16|-139.99|0.2835
91675830|NCT02944383|183246412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4607||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.4607
91861715|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.31|-12.77||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-12.77|-58.31|0.0525
91675831|NCT02944383|183246412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0012
91675832|NCT02944383|183246412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0592||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0592
91675833|NCT02944383|183246412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1170
91675834|NCT02944383|183246412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3138||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3138
91675835|NCT02944383|183246412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0090
91793503|NCT04626310|183465241|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC2 DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC2 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the slope differences DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.603
91793504|NCT04626310|183465242|SUPERIORITY||Other[Quad Slope difference DBT-ER-IP]|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.762|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.762
91861716|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.52||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.68|129.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||129.66|-81.68|0.7347
91675836|NCT02944383|183246412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1317||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1317
91793505|NCT04626310|183465242|SUPERIORITY||Quad Slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.478|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.478
91861717|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.94||0.039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|12.5|49.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||49.60|12.50|0.0390
91675837|NCT02944383|183246413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2395||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.2395
91675838|NCT02944383|183246413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6380
91675839|NCT02944383|183246413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7468||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.7468
91675840|NCT02944383|183246413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8483||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.8483
91793506|NCT04626310|183465242|SUPERIORITY||Quad Slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.705
91861718|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.48||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-127.49|6.33||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||6.33|-127.49|0.2299
91861719|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.11||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.7|-8.53||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||-8.53|-56.70|0.0884
91861720|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.44||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.37|116.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||116.87|-84.37|0.8085
91861721|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.96||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.33|41.14||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||41.14|-1.33|0.2283
91861722|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.26||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-130.76|-9.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-9.11|-130.76|0.1625
91861723|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.8||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.87|-10.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-10.52|-57.87|0.0707
91675841|NCT02944383|183246413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0008
91675842|NCT02944383|183246413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0938
91675843|NCT02944383|183246413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3201||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3201
91675844|NCT02944383|183246413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9010
91675845|NCT02944383|183246413|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-19.31||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|-1.49||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.49|-39.06|0.0156
91675846|NCT02944383|183246413|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.98||||0.3456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.51|17.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||17.26|-28.51|0.3456
91675847|NCT02944383|183246414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3714||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.3714
91675848|NCT02944383|183246414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4415||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.4415
91675849|NCT02944383|183246414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7902||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.7902
91861724|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.17||0.9944|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.79|82.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||82.55|-81.79|0.9944
91861725|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.71|44.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||44.05|3.71|0.1327
91675850|NCT02944383|183246414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.6999
91675851|NCT02944383|183246414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0015
91675852|NCT02944383|183246414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0796||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0796
91861726|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.09|-5.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-5.35|-133.09|0.1777
91861727|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.34|4.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||4.61|-52.34|0.2796
91861728|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.4||0.8999|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-83.15|98.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||98.30|-83.15|0.8999
91861729|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.99||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|43.23||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||43.23|0.68|0.1867
91861730|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-70.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-134.68|-6.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-6.94|-134.68|0.1717
91793507|NCT04626310|183465243|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
91861731|NCT03858634|183609960|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.46||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.5|4.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||4.61|-52.50|0.2792
91861732|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.41||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.77|4.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||4.10|-98.77|0.2289
91861733|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.08||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.96|38.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||38.27|0.96|0.1788
91861734|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|114.35||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-275.19|156.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||156.06|-275.19|0.6544
91861735|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-72.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.4||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.39|-45.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-45.09|-99.39|0.0023
91675853|NCT02944383|183246414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4225||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4225
91675854|NCT02944383|183246414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7687||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7687
91675855|NCT02944383|183246414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0437||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0437
91675856|NCT02944383|183246414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2735||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.2735
91675857|NCT02944383|183246415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1042||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1042
91861736|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.96||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.68|-14.47||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-14.47|-89.68|0.1081
91675858|NCT02944383|183246415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6204||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6204
91675859|NCT02944383|183246415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8659||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.8659
91861737|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.37||0.4926|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.39|43.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||43.26|-13.39|0.4926
91861738|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|219.98||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-361.63|467.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||467.98|-361.63|0.8315
91861739|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.56||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-94.61|-45.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-45.22|-94.61|0.0014
91675860|NCT02944383|183246415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9658||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.9658
91861740|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.96||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.68|-14.47||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-14.47|-89.68|0.1081
91861741|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.97||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.65|36.82||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||36.82|-21.65|0.7339
91861742|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|219.98||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-361.63|467.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||467.98|-361.63|0.8315
91861743|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.26||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.92|-39.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-39.22|-95.92|0.0055
91675861|NCT02944383|183246415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8238||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8238
91675862|NCT02944383|183246415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4874||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4874
91675863|NCT02944383|183246415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9467||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9467
91717022|NCT00402727|183326420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set to 10% in the protocol, in agreeance with FDA recommendations. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning. Estimation was performed to achieve 85% power, based on the equivalence delta of 10%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.3|3.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||3.9|-5.3|
91717023|NCT00402727|183326421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|1.3||||||95.0|-3.8|6.3|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||6.3|-3.8|
91717024|NCT00402727|183326422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of improvement rates (in %)|-0.7||||||95.0|-1.6|0.6|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||0.6|-1.6|
91717025|NCT00402727|183326423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of improvement rates (in %)|1.4||||||95.0|-1.3|3.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||3.9|-1.3|
91717026|NCT00402727|183326424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of resolution rates (in %)|0.2||||||95.0|-3.1|2.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||2.4|-3.1|
91717027|NCT00402727|183326425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of resolution rates (in %)|1.6||||||95.0|-2.4|5.3|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||5.3|-2.4|
91717028|NCT00402727|183326426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-8.5||||||95.0|-17.0|-1.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||-1.4|-17.0|
91717029|NCT00402727|183326427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-8.6||||||95.0|-17.6|-0.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||-0.4|-17.6|
91717030|NCT00402727|183326428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-3.9||||||95.0|-9.5|1.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||1.4|-9.5|
91717031|NCT00402727|183326429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-5.6||||||95.0|-11.4|-0.8|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||-0.8|-11.4|
91717032|NCT00402727|183326430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-0.1||||||95.0|-6.9|5.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||5.4|-6.9|
91717033|NCT00402727|183326431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-2.9||||||95.0|-9.3|2.2|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||2.2|-9.3|
91717034|NCT04794751|183326457|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference between the Test and Control was below 0.05 logMAR.|least-square mean difference|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.002|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Distance (4m)||0.002|-0.039|
91793508|NCT04626310|183465243|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.836
91861744|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.73||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.7|-14.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-14.15|-101.70|0.1188
91861745|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.27||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.26|27.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||27.35|-21.26|0.8697
91861746|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.64||0.7368|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-178.62|117.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||117.94|-178.62|0.7368
91675864|NCT02944383|183246415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7467||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7467
91675865|NCT02944383|183246415|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|10.75||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||10.75|-10.77|0.9081
91675866|NCT02944383|183246415|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.38||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|6.86||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||6.86|-11.82|0.5480
91675867|NCT02944383|183246416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1485||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1485
91675868|NCT02944383|183246416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6008||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6008
91675869|NCT02944383|183246416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9409||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.9409
91675870|NCT02944383|183246416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9292||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.9292
91861747|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.02||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.03|11.03||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||11.03|-29.03|0.5571
91861748|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.21||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.8|3.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||3.69|-101.80|0.2251
91675871|NCT02944383|183246416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8455||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8455
91675872|NCT02944383|183246416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5256||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5256
91675873|NCT02944383|183246416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9217||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9217
91861749|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.93||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.9|42.48||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||42.48|-7.90|0.3733
91861750|NCT03858634|183609962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.57||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-148.16|102.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||102.89|-148.16|0.7662
91861751|NCT03858634|183609962|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.87||0.7241|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.54|16.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||16.44|-28.54|0.7241
91675874|NCT02944383|183246416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7401||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7401
91675875|NCT02944383|183246416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9386||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9386
91675876|NCT02944383|183246416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6352||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6352
91675877|NCT02944383|183246417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0165
91675878|NCT02944383|183246417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3075||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.3075
91675879|NCT02944383|183246417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1069||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1069
91675880|NCT02944383|183246417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6101||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6101
91675881|NCT02944383|183246417|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-12.04||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|-1.08||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.08|-23.79|0.0351
91675882|NCT02944383|183246417|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.15||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|4.25||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.25|-9.86|0.3746
91675883|NCT02944383|183246418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0133||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0133
91675884|NCT02944383|183246418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2044||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2044
91675885|NCT02944383|183246418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0855||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0855
91675886|NCT02944383|183246418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5114||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5114
91675887|NCT02944383|183246418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0289||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0289
91675888|NCT02944383|183246418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.2950
91675889|NCT02944383|183246419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1992||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1992
91675890|NCT02944383|183246419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9945||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.9945
91675891|NCT02944383|183246419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5139||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5139
91861752|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.04||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-68.69|26.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||26.43|-68.69|0.5195
91675892|NCT02944383|183246419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8085||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8085
91717035|NCT04794751|183326457|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference between the Test and Control was below 0.05 logMAR.|least-square mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0127|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.018|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Intermediate (64cm)||0.018|-0.032|
91793509|NCT04626310|183465243|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.994
91675893|NCT02944383|183246419|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|4.85||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.85|-6.31|0.7644
91675894|NCT02944383|183246419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.9499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|6.66||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||6.66|-4.34|0.9499
91675895|NCT02944383|183246420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1521||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1521
91675896|NCT02944383|183246420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8982||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8982
91675897|NCT02944383|183246420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6228||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6228
91675898|NCT02944383|183246420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9622||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9622
91675899|NCT02944383|183246420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6643||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6643
91675900|NCT02944383|183246420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9071||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9071
91675901|NCT02944383|183246421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5647
91675902|NCT02944383|183246421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1073||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1073
91675903|NCT02944383|183246421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3858||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3858
91675904|NCT02944383|183246421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0916||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0916
91675905|NCT02944383|183246421|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|5.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.26|-5.56|0.9473
91675906|NCT02944383|183246421|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.54||||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|9.95||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||9.95|-1.83|0.0911
91675907|NCT02944383|183246422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4623||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4623
91675908|NCT02944383|183246422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1678||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1678
91675909|NCT02944383|183246422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4390
91675910|NCT02944383|183246422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1290
91675911|NCT02944383|183246422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9627||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9627
91675912|NCT02944383|183246422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0911||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0911
91675913|NCT02944383|183246423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2882
91675914|NCT02944383|183246423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4474||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4474
91861753|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.27||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.34|22.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||22.26|0.34|0.1869
91861754|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-87.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.3||0.2545|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-191.75|16.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||16.79|-191.75|0.2545
91675915|NCT02944383|183246423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7875||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7875
91675916|NCT02944383|183246423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0600
91675917|NCT02944383|183246423|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||0.00|0.00|0.9832
91675918|NCT02944383|183246423|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||0.00|0.00|0.1352
91675919|NCT02944383|183246424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2857||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2857
91675920|NCT02944383|183246424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4486||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4486
91675921|NCT02944383|183246424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7640
91675922|NCT02944383|183246424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0560
91675923|NCT02944383|183246424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9954||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9954
91675924|NCT02944383|183246424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1298||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1298
91675925|NCT02944383|183246425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0161
91675926|NCT02944383|183246425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1806||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1806
91675927|NCT02944383|183246425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2657||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2657
91675928|NCT02944383|183246425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5996||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5996
91675929|NCT02944383|183246425|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-11.39||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.81|2.08||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||2.08|-28.81|0.0270
91675930|NCT02944383|183246425|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|15.5||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||15.50|-16.88|0.5263
91675931|NCT02944383|183246426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0345
91675932|NCT02944383|183246426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2709||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2709
91861755|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.26||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.88|-6.57||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-6.57|-33.88|0.0643
91675933|NCT02944383|183246426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3255||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3255
91675934|NCT02944383|183246426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7391
91861756|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.11||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-61.52|4.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||4.35|-61.52|0.2503
91903102|NCT05390580|183701084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.24
91675935|NCT02944383|183246426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0808||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0808
91675936|NCT02944383|183246426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6509||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6509
91675937|NCT02944383|183246427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0004
91675938|NCT02944383|183246427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0412||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0412
91675939|NCT02944383|183246427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1937||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1937
91675940|NCT02944383|183246427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4740
91675941|NCT02944383|183246427|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-14.32||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.13|3.89||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||3.89|-34.13|0.0116
91675942|NCT02944383|183246427|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.66||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.85|14.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||14.26|-23.85|0.1109
91717036|NCT04794751|183326457|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference between the Test and Control was below 0.05 logMAR.|least-square mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.015|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Near (40cm)||0.015|-0.034|
91793510|NCT04626310|183465244|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope diff in DC1 DBT-ER-IP|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the quadratic effects differed DBT-ER to IP.||||.313
91675943|NCT02944383|183246428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0002
91675944|NCT02944383|183246428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0161
91675945|NCT02944383|183246428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3043||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3043
91675946|NCT02944383|183246428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4639||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4639
91675947|NCT02944383|183246428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0210
91861757|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.58||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.08|17.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||17.62|-13.08|0.8468
91861758|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.93||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-222.98|55.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||55.18|-222.98|0.3755
91861759|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.06||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.58|-6.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-6.15|-35.58|0.0755
91794472|NCT05985980|183467887|EQUIVALENCE|High-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) levels before and after ETT at the early and late follicular phases are compared.||||||0.109|||||||ANOVA|||High-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) levels before and after ETT at the early and late follicular phases are compared.||||0.109
91861760|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.77||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-70.76|13.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||13.65|-70.76|0.3486
91861761|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.28|8.5||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||8.50|-17.28|0.6559
91861762|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.46||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-165.35|24.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||24.94|-165.35|0.2987
91903103|NCT05390580|183701085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.0001
91861763|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.29|-0.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-0.13|-33.29|0.1966
91861764|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.7||0.2051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-83.56|0.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.62|-83.56|0.2051
91861765|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.16||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.79|10.25||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||10.25|-16.79|0.7511
91675948|NCT02944383|183246428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0992||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0992
91675949|NCT02944383|183246429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1512||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1512
91675950|NCT02944383|183246429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8400
91675951|NCT02944383|183246429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0244||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0244
91675952|NCT02944383|183246429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1803||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1803
91675953|NCT02944383|183246429|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-24.41||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.73|-9.94||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-9.94|-42.73|0.0307
91675954|NCT02944383|183246429|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.73||||0.5326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|7.68||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||7.68|-23.33|0.5326
91675955|NCT02944383|183246430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1705||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1705
91675956|NCT02944383|183246430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9193||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.9193
91675957|NCT02944383|183246430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0224||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0224
91861766|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.27||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-153.68|-5.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-5.59|-153.68|0.1797
91675958|NCT02944383|183246430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2387||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2387
91675959|NCT02944383|183246430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0600
91861767|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.45||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.61|-1.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-1.08|-31.61|0.1715
91861768|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.32||0.185|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-71.47|-1.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-1.63|-71.47|0.1850
91861769|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.19||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.15|11.29||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||11.29|-21.15|0.6907
91861770|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-74.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.85||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-118.97|-29.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-29.02|-118.97|0.0901
91861771|NCT03858634|183609964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.34||0.564|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.64|9.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||9.94|-25.64|0.5640
91861772|NCT03858634|183609965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.73||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.11|31.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||31.76|-95.11|0.4734
91861773|NCT03858634|183609965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.91||0.813|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.33|16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||16.18|-23.33|0.8130
91861774|NCT03858634|183609965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-92.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.1||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-150.6|-33.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-33.32|-150.60|0.0979
91861775|NCT03858634|183609965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.48||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.48|-19.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-19.61|-55.48|0.0122
91675960|NCT02944383|183246430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6878||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6878
91675961|NCT02944383|183246431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0298
91675962|NCT02944383|183246431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0196
91675963|NCT02944383|183246431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2219
91675964|NCT02944383|183246431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4078
91675965|NCT02944383|183246431|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-15.34||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|1.3||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||1.30|-31.68|0.0605
91675966|NCT02944383|183246431|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.08||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|7.32||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||7.32|-19.91|0.1768
91675967|NCT02944383|183246432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0084
91675968|NCT02944383|183246432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0047
91675969|NCT02944383|183246432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1574||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1574
91861776|NCT04938492|183610012|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||>.05
91861777|NCT04938492|183610013|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||<.001
91717037|NCT04794751|183326458|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the least-square mean difference was greater than -5.|least-square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.8|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||4.8|-4.6|
91793511|NCT04626310|183465244|SUPERIORITY||Quad Slope in DC1 DBT-IE-IP|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.747|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the quadratic effects differed DBT-IE to IP.||||.747
91861778|NCT04938492|183610014|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||<.01
91861779|NCT04938492|183610015|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||>.05
91861780|NCT03865498|183610016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.029|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.919|10.323||McNemar's Chi-squared test (paired) with continuity correction to the test slightly more conservative|McNemar|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in isolated macro-level network structures for African American dementia caregiver networks.||10.323|4.919|< 0.0001
91861781|NCT03865498|183610016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.385|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.963|33.157||McNemar's Chi-squared test (paired) with continuity correction to the test slightly more conservative|McNemar|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in isolated macro-level network structures for Hispanic dementia caregiver networks.||33.157|9.963|<0.0001
91675970|NCT02944383|183246432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3235||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3235
91675971|NCT02944383|183246432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0367
91861782|NCT03865498|183610016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.021||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.325||Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction|Chi-squared, Corrected|||There will be no significant differences in isolated macro-level network structure from Tweets between Hispanic and African American dementia caregiver networks.||1.325|0.787|0.924
91675972|NCT02944383|183246432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0948||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0948
91675973|NCT02944383|183246433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0037
91675974|NCT02944383|183246433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1328||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1328
91675975|NCT02944383|183246433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4364||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4364
91675976|NCT02944383|183246433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8129||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8129
91675977|NCT02944383|183246433|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-15.29||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.54|2.35||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||2.35|-36.54|0.0347
91675978|NCT02944383|183246433|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.14||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|23.62||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||23.62|-25.78|0.3617
91675979|NCT02944383|183246434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0085
91675980|NCT02944383|183246434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2112||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2112
91675981|NCT02944383|183246434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7301||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7301
91675982|NCT02944383|183246434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6283||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6283
91675983|NCT02944383|183246434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0919||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0919
91675984|NCT02944383|183246434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5497||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.5497
91675985|NCT02944383|183246435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0009
91675986|NCT02944383|183246435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0351||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0351
91675987|NCT02944383|183246435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1561||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1561
91675988|NCT02944383|183246435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0268
91675989|NCT02944383|183246435|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-22.3||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.96|-1.67||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.67|-42.96|0.0516
91692202|NCT03296527|183279368|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.03||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.07||The p-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of FSH at oocyte retrieval visit||1.07|0.99|0.184
91861783|NCT03865498|183610017|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post mean difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.742|||a paired t-test|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in emotional valence score detected from Tweets for African American dementia caregiver networks.||0.742|0.513|<0.0001
91675990|NCT02944383|183246435|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-13.06||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.83|4.88||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.88|-32.83|0.0125
91675991|NCT02944383|183246436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0023
91675992|NCT02944383|183246436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0356
91861784|NCT03865498|183610017|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post mean difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.189|1.631|||a paired t-test|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in emotional valence score detected from Tweets for Hispanic dementia caregiver networks.||1.631|1.189|<0.0001
91861785|NCT03865498|183610017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.107|||t-test, 2 sided|||There will be no significant differences in emotional valence score detected from Tweets between Hispanic and African American dementia caregiver networks.||0.107|-0.186|0.600
91861786|NCT03994653|183610056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|4.12|||Fisher Exact|||"Fishers exact test, conducted at each month prior to diagnosis comparing total purchases of relevant products (pain and indigestion medication) compared with all purchases in both cases and controls.~Power calculation: we used a power calculation assuming the Fisher Exact Test to calculate the minimum group size to detect a difference in purchase proportions that we hypothesised with 80% statistical power."||4.12|2.07|<0.001
91861787|NCT03931174|183610058|SUPERIORITY|Unit of analysis is the provider level. All 186 providers (95 ATTC, 91 E-ATTC) who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.81||CM Exposure is reported as the estimated proportion of providers delivering 10 or more CM sessions to at least one patient in a mixed model accounting for nesting.|Mixed Models Analysis|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||6.81|0.85|0.097
91861788|NCT03931174|183610059|SUPERIORITY|Unit of analysis is the provider level. All 186 providers (95 ATTC, 91 E-ATTC) who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|T-test adjusted for inequality of variances||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||1.32|0.11|0.02
91861789|NCT03931174|183610060|SUPERIORITY|Unit of analysis is the organization-level. Total number of organizations included in the analysis is 28 (14 ATTC, 14 E-ATTC).|Chi-square test statistic value|0.662||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-Square||These analyses are unadjusted.||||0.430
91861790|NCT03931174|183610061|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the patient-level. All patients who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||-0.08|-1.30|.034
91692203|NCT03296527|183279369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value is based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH group.||Total gonadotropin dose||||<.001
91675993|NCT02944383|183246436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2284||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2284
91675994|NCT02944383|183246436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0213||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0213
91675995|NCT02944383|183246436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0330
91675996|NCT02944383|183246436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0221||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0221
91675997|NCT02944383|183246437|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.67||||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|5.67||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL||5.67|-10.17|0.2632
91675998|NCT02944383|183246437|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.5382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|9.71||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL||9.71|-6.77|0.5382
91675999|NCT02944383|183246437|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.01||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL||1.01|-0.51|0.1727
91676000|NCT02944383|183246437|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL||0.51|-0.51|0.4567
91676001|NCT02944383|183246437|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.6142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.47||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|HDL||1.47|-1.21|0.6142
91676002|NCT02944383|183246437|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.29||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|HDL||1.29|-2.23|0.2409
91861791|NCT03931174|183610062|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the patient-level. All patients who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||0.41|-0.82|0.27
91861792|NCT03931174|183610063|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the provider-level. Only those providers who completed the post-implementation survey (at the end of the 9-month implementation phase) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.12||Means were compared between conditions in an independent-samples T-test.|t-test, 2 sided|T-test adjusted for inequality of variances||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||0.12|-0.88|.011
91861793|NCT03931174|183610064|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the provider-level. Only those providers who completed the post-implementation survey (at the end of the 9-month implementation phase) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.17||Means of leadership engagement scores were compared between conditions in an independent-samples T-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||0.17|-0.75|.218
91676003|NCT02944383|183246438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2721||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL||||0.2721
91676004|NCT02944383|183246438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5669||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL||||0.5669
91676005|NCT02944383|183246438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1686||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL||||0.1686
91676006|NCT02944383|183246438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4308||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL||||0.4308
91676007|NCT02944383|183246438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5495||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||HDL||||0.5495
91676008|NCT02944383|183246438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2384||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||HDL||||0.2384
91676009|NCT02944383|183246439|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-13.99||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.76|2.55||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL \& Chylomicron particles||2.55|-33.76|0.0781
91676010|NCT02944383|183246439|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|19.01||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL \& Chylomicron particles||19.01|-19.36|0.9901
91676011|NCT02944383|183246439|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-25.23||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.62|-5.1||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL Particles||-5.10|-43.62|0.0717
91676012|NCT02944383|183246439|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-16.09||||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.78|3.76||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL Particles||3.76|-36.78|0.1548
91864613|NCT05873556|183618521|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.27|0.74|0.83
91676013|NCT02944383|183246439|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-47.16||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.58|-5.78||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|IDL Particles||-5.78|-119.58|0.0428
91676014|NCT02944383|183246439|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-26.13||||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.44|19.48||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|IDL Particles||19.48|-121.44|0.1836
91676015|NCT02944383|183246440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1251||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL \& Chylomicron Particles||||0.1251
91676016|NCT02944383|183246440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9047||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL \& Chylomicron Particles||||0.9047
91692204|NCT03296527|183279371|SUPERIORITY|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test.||||||0.001|||||||van Elteren|p-value is based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH group.||Number of stimulation days||||0.001
91692205|NCT01597973|183279399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
91692206|NCT01597973|183279400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.583|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5830
91692207|NCT01597973|183279401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91692208|NCT01597973|183279402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.255
91692209|NCT01597973|183279403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||nephrotoxicity analysis||||0.59
91692210|NCT01597973|183279403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hypersensitivity analysis||||0.22
91692211|NCT01597973|183279403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||Hepatoxicity analysis||||0.94
91861794|NCT05386030|183610065|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB\> d0 where, pA is the response rate for saypha® VOLUME Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested based on Farrington-Manning-statistics with a one-sided type I error rate level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory testing will be performed in a hierarchical ordering: First analysis will be performed on the per protocol dataset, and if the corresponding p-value is below 0.025, the analysis will be performed on the full analysis dataset.|Farrington-Manning test|||||||<0.0001
91676017|NCT02944383|183246440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL Particles||||0.0788
91676018|NCT02944383|183246440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1222||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL Particles||||0.1222
91676019|NCT02944383|183246440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0734||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||IDL Particles||||0.0734
91692212|NCT01597973|183279403|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Seizures analysis||||1.00
91692213|NCT01597973|183279403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neurotoxicity analysis||||0.20
91861795|NCT05386030|183610066|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB\> d0 where, pA is the response rate for saypha® VOLUME Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested based on Farrington-Manning-statistics with a one-sided type I error rate level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory testing will be performed in a hierarchical ordering: First analysis will be performed on the per protocol dataset, and if the corresponding p-value is below 0.025, the analysis will be performed on the full analysis dataset.|Farrington-Manning test|||||||<0.0001
91676020|NCT02944383|183246440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||IDL Particles||||0.4210
91676021|NCT02944383|183246441|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|9.07||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||9.07|-8.12|0.9672
91676022|NCT02944383|183246441|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.58||||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.69||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||8.69|-5.31|0.7993
91676023|NCT02944383|183246442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8602||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.8602
91676024|NCT02944383|183246442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8555||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.8555
91676025|NCT02944383|183246443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0583||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0583
91793512|NCT04626310|183465244|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope diff in DC1 DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the quadratic effects differed DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.444
91793513|NCT03239665|183465245|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0081||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing total knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0081
91676026|NCT02944383|183246443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2289||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2289
91676027|NCT02944383|183246443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0416||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0416
91692214|NCT03655405|183279431|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.972||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.138|||Regression, Poisson|Number of PIMs at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.138|0.830|0.723
91692215|NCT03655405|183279432|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.763||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|0.979|||Regression, Poisson|Number of potentially inappropriate DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||0.979|0.594|0.033
91692216|NCT03655405|183279433|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.915||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.005|||Regression, Poisson|Number of chronic drugs at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.005|0.834|0.064
91692217|NCT03655405|183279434|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.019||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.246|||Regression, Poisson|Number of chronic drugs at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.246|0.833|0.857
91692218|NCT03655405|183279436|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.36||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|7.89|||Regression, Linear|Scale value at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||Analysis for the scale component||7.89|-10.60|0.769
91692219|NCT03655405|183279436|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.096||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.01|||Regression, Linear|Scale value at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||Analysis for the index component||0.01|-0.202|0.075
91864614|NCT05873556|183618521|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.38|0.83|0.61
91676028|NCT02944383|183246443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0150
91676029|NCT02944383|183246443|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-26.21||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-1.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.26|-54.29|0.0718
91676030|NCT02944383|183246443|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-18.68||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|7.31||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||7.31|-50.00|0.1248
91676031|NCT02944383|183246444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2397||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2397
91676032|NCT02944383|183246444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5399||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5399
91676033|NCT02944383|183246444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0409||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0409
91676034|NCT02944383|183246444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0073
91676035|NCT02944383|183246444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0976
91676036|NCT02944383|183246444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1899||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1899
91676037|NCT02944383|183246445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1747||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1747
91676038|NCT02944383|183246445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4576||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4576
91676039|NCT02944383|183246445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1549||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1549
91676040|NCT02944383|183246445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2427||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2427
91676041|NCT02944383|183246445|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.51||||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|8.73||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||8.73|-6.26|0.1379
91676042|NCT02944383|183246445|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.02||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|0.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||0.51|-13.10|0.2490
91676043|NCT02944383|183246446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1550
91676044|NCT02944383|183246446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6604||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.6604
91676045|NCT02944383|183246446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0952||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0952
91861796|NCT05228457|183610078|SUPERIORITY|13 participants were randomized to receive active TMS, and 13 were randomized to receive sham TMS. 1 participant from each group withdrew, resulting in their exclusion from the analysis. Therefore, 24 participants were randomized to active (n = 12) or sham (n = 12) aiTBS groups. The analysis examined MADRS scores measured at baseline and post-treatment. A priori hypotheses were that active aiTBS would demonstrate measurable differences in MADRS scores compared to the sham group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|-9.56|||t-test, 2 sided||The primary outcome was the between-group (Active vs Sham) difference in MADRS scores at the end of the treatment period. Results, including mean scores, standard deviations, confidence intervals, and p-value for the between-group comparisons.|||-9.56|-19.94|<0.001
91676046|NCT02944383|183246446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3006||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3006
91676047|NCT02944383|183246446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0642||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0642
91676048|NCT02944383|183246446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3185||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3185
91676049|NCT02944383|183246447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0679
91676050|NCT02944383|183246447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4126||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4126
91676051|NCT02944383|183246447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0095
91676052|NCT02944383|183246447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0172||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0172
91676053|NCT02944383|183246447|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-23.23||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.54|-3.64||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-3.64|-41.54|0.0359
91676054|NCT02944383|183246447|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-16.06||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.62|5.61||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.61|-38.62|0.0812
91676055|NCT02944383|183246448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1362||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1362
91676056|NCT02944383|183246448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6458||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.6458
91676057|NCT02944383|183246448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0209
91676058|NCT02944383|183246448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0822||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0822
91676059|NCT02944383|183246448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0504
91676060|NCT02944383|183246448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1315
91676061|NCT02944383|183246449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0843||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0843
91861797|NCT05228457|183610079|SUPERIORITY||Z-transformed Pearson's r values|-0.014||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Z-transformed Pearson's r values of average voxel-wise connectivity within the DMN||||0.04
91676062|NCT02944383|183246449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3587||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3587
91676063|NCT02944383|183246449|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|12.99||||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|25.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||25.51|-0.54|0.0843
91692220|NCT03655405|183279437|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.237||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.727|||Mixed-effect regression, Poisson|Number at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.727|0.886|0.212
91861798|NCT04382664|183610080|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.694|1.309|||Regression, Cox|||||1.309|0.694|0.845
91861799|NCT03161028|183610099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the model evaluating the primary outcome (change in T25FW), T25FW was transformed to walking speed by dividing 25 feet by the completion time in seconds (ft/sec). Any participants who were unable to complete the T25FW at any timepoint after baseline were assigned a value of 199 seconds, a statistical technique known as Winsorizing.||||0.51
91676064|NCT02944383|183246449|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.98||||0.3587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|21.39||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||21.39|-3.70|0.3587
91676065|NCT02944383|183246450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0768||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0768
91676066|NCT02944383|183246450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4346||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4346
91676067|NCT02944383|183246450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0768||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0768
91676068|NCT02944383|183246450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4346||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.4346
91676069|NCT02944383|183246451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5411||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5411
91676070|NCT02944383|183246451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2574||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2574
91676071|NCT02944383|183246451|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.11||||0.5411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|14.86||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||14.86|-9.59|0.5411
91676072|NCT02944383|183246451|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.31||||0.2574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|5.76||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.76|-19.30|0.2574
91676073|NCT02944383|183246452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3998||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3998
91676074|NCT02944383|183246452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3659||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3659
91692221|NCT03655405|183279438|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.675||||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.675
91692222|NCT03655405|183279439|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.615||||0.615|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.615
91861800|NCT03161028|183610100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
91861801|NCT03161028|183610101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.90
91861802|NCT03161028|183610102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.084
91692223|NCT03655405|183279440|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.366||||0.366|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.366
91692224|NCT03655405|183279441|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.738||||0.738|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.738
91692225|NCT03655405|183279442|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.781||||0.781|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.781
91861803|NCT03161028|183610103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.134
91861804|NCT03492216|183610110|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.5|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk difference for non-hazardous alcohol use, alcohol incentive groups compared to no alcohol incentive groups. logistic regression model adjusted for INH incentive arm, participant sex, and study site.|||12.5|2.7|0.0025
91861805|NCT03492216|183610111|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.9435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.5|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk difference for \>90% INH adherence, INH incentive group compared to no INH incentives. logistic regression model adjusted for alcohol incentive arm, participant sex and study site.|||6.5|-7.0|0.9435
91861806|NCT03492216|183610114|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.9|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk different for HIV viral suppression at 12 months, Arm 2 (escalating incentives; EtG tests) compared to Arm 1 (control); logistic regression model adjusted for randomization arm, participant sex, and study site.|||1.9|-6.8|0.26
91861807|NCT03492216|183610114|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.1|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk different for HIV viral suppression at 12 months, Arm 3 (escalating incentives; IsoScreen tests) compared to Arm 1 (control); logistic regression model adjusted for randomization arm, participant sex, and study site.|||4.1|-2.8|0.70
91861808|NCT03492216|183610114|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.5|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk different for HIV viral suppression at 12 months, Arm 4 (escalating incentives; EtG and IsoScreen tests) compared to Arm 1 (control); logistic regression model adjusted for randomization arm, participant sex, and study site.|||4.5|-1.9|0.42
91903104|NCT05390580|183701086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.26
91676075|NCT02944383|183246452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3998||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3998
91676076|NCT02944383|183246452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3659||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3659
91676077|NCT02944383|183246453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8823||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8823
91676078|NCT02944383|183246453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3788||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.3788
91676079|NCT02944383|183246453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1091||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1091
91676080|NCT02944383|183246453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6867||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6867
91676081|NCT02944383|183246453|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.07||||0.3156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|36.34||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||36.34|-12.22|0.3156
91676082|NCT02944383|183246453|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.58|25.43||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||25.43|-24.58|0.9734
91676083|NCT02944383|183246454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9772||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.9772
91676084|NCT02944383|183246454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5213||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5213
91676085|NCT02944383|183246454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1582||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1582
91676086|NCT02944383|183246454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4588||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4588
91676087|NCT02944383|183246454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4264||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.4264
91676088|NCT02944383|183246454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8107||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.8107
91676089|NCT02944383|183246455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|19.08||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|Week 10||19.08|1.51|0.0093
91676090|NCT02944383|183246455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.07||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|Week 10||8.07|0.82|0.1070
91676091|NCT02944383|183246455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|7.53||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.53|0.87|0.0865
91676092|NCT02944383|183246455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.48||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|Week 12||4.48|0.55|0.3990
91676093|NCT02944383|183246455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.42||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||8.42|0.90|0.0772
91793514|NCT03239665|183465245|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0243||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing zoster knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0243
91903105|NCT05390580|183701087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.14
91692226|NCT03655405|183279443|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.958||||0.958|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.958
91692227|NCT03655405|183279444|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.911||||0.911|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.911
91692228|NCT01624740|183279463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Period effect p=0.11||||||0.74
91692229|NCT00529087|183279526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|24.4|||<|0.001||95.0|17.3|31.4|||Chi-squared|||||31.4|17.3|<0.001
91692230|NCT00529087|183279527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|19.5|||<|0.001||95.0|15.1|24.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.0|15.1|<0.001
91692231|NCT00529087|183279527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|20.9|||<|0.001||95.0|16.1|25.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.7|16.1|<0.001
91793515|NCT03239665|183465245|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.071||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing pneumonia knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0710
91793516|NCT03239665|183465245|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0008||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing influenza knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0008
91793517|NCT03239665|183465245|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1094||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing total knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.1094
91861809|NCT01799265|183610122|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% upper limit of the prediction interval was calculated using the formula (μ ) ̂+t\_(k-2)\^α √((τ\^2 ) ̂+〖(SE) ̂(μ ̂ )〗\^2 ),where (μ ) ̂is the estimate average AHI across all studies, (τ\^2 ) ̂ is the between-study variation, t\_(k-2)\^α is the critical value for a t-distribution, k is the number of studies in the meta-analysis, and k-2 are the degrees of freedom for the t distribution. Meta-analyzed statistics to compute the prediction interval were (μ ) ̂=5.0, SE(μ ̂ )=0.9, and (τ\^2 ) ̂=8.0||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|A p-value of .05 was used.||"Hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint was conducted using a one-sided test of non-inferiority with the following null and alternative hypotheses at the 0.05 significance level using the MIXED procedure in SAS, version 9.3:~H\_0:(ϕ\_m ) ̂≥6.9 H\_A:(ϕ\_m ) ̂\<6.9 where (ϕ\_m ) ̂ is the estimated AHI difference between Transcend Auto and REMstar Auto from the model described in 3.5.1."||||.05
91861810|NCT04285515|183610162|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-3.84|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.84|-7.60|<0.0001
91692232|NCT00529087|183279528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test for comparisons of survival distributions||||||<0.001
91692233|NCT00529087|183279529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.6|||<|0.001||95.0|1.1|2.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor and baseline weekly RFBM as covariate||||2.1|1.1|<0.001
91692234|NCT00529087|183279529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.7||||0.011||95.0|0.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor and baseline weekly RFBM as covariate||||1.2|0.2|0.011
91692235|NCT00529087|183279531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|20.4|||<|0.001||95.0|9.5|31.3|||Chi-squared|||||31.3|9.5|<0.001
91692236|NCT00529087|183279531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|7.0||||0.212||95.0|-4.0|18.0|||Chi-squared|||||18.0|-4.0|0.212
91692237|NCT00529087|183279532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis for all time points (1, 2, 3 and 6 hours) is only shown once as the p value is the same for all time points.||||<0.001
91692238|NCT00529087|183279532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis for all time points (1, 2, 3 and 6 hours) is only shown once as the p value is the same for all time points.||||<0.001
91692239|NCT00529087|183279533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5|||<|0.001||95.0|11.2|17.9|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||1 hour||17.9|11.2|<0.001
91692240|NCT00529087|183279533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||<|0.001||95.0|4.6|11.4|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||1 hour||11.4|4.6|<0.001
91692241|NCT00529087|183279533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.5|||<|0.001||95.0|14.4|22.5|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||2 hours||22.5|14.4|<0.001
91692242|NCT00529087|183279533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|||<|0.001||95.0|6.3|14.5|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||2 hours||14.5|6.3|<0.001
91692243|NCT00529087|183279533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|||<|0.001||95.0|15.0|23.5|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||3 hours||23.5|15.0|<0.001
91692244|NCT00529087|183279533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.001||95.0|6.7|15.3|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||3 hours||15.3|6.7|<0.001
91692245|NCT00529087|183279533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.5|||<|0.001||95.0|15.2|23.9|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||4 hours||23.9|15.2|<0.001
91692246|NCT00529087|183279533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.001||95.0|6.6|15.4|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||4 hours||15.4|6.6|<0.001
91692247|NCT00529087|183279533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7|||<|0.001||95.0|15.2|24.1|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||6 hours||24.1|15.2|<0.001
91692248|NCT00529087|183279533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||<|0.001||95.0|6.2|15.2|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||6 hours||15.2|6.2|<0.001
91692249|NCT00529087|183279534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|21.0|||<|0.001||95.0|10.2|31.9|||Chi-squared|||||31.9|10.2|<0.001
91692250|NCT00529087|183279534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|5.6||||0.316||95.0|-5.3|16.5|||Chi-squared|||||16.5|-5.3|0.316
91692251|NCT00529087|183279535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|19.7|||<|0.001||95.0|9.4|30.1|||Chi-squared|||||30.1|9.4|<0.001
91692252|NCT00529087|183279535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|13.3||||0.016||95.0|2.6|24.0|||Chi-squared|||||24.0|2.6|0.016
91692253|NCT00529087|183279536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.001||95.0|1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||1.9|1.0|<0.001
91692254|NCT00529087|183279536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.102||95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.8|-0.1|0.102
91692255|NCT00529087|183279537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.1|||<|0.001||95.0|0.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|0.6|<0.001
91692256|NCT00529087|183279537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|0.0|<0.001
91692257|NCT00529087|183279538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001||95.0|0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||1.6|0.8|<0.001
91692258|NCT00529087|183279538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.012||95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.9|0.1|0.012
91692259|NCT00529087|183279539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.002||95.0|0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.7|0.2|0.002
91676094|NCT02944383|183246455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.4315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.48||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.48|0.53|0.4315
91676095|NCT03623386|183246522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.981
91676096|NCT03623386|183246523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.481
91676097|NCT03623386|183246524|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Testing for main effects (group), time effect and the interaction of group and time.||||>0.05
91676098|NCT03623386|183246525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||p value reflects the effect of time.|ANOVA|||Testing for main effects (group), time effect and the interaction of group and time.||||0.026
91676099|NCT05855616|183246541|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.533||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|5.892|||t-test, 1 sided|||||5.892|0.048|1.00
91676100|NCT05855616|183246542|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.176||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.79|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.790|0.039|0.013
91676101|NCT05855616|183246544|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.137
91676102|NCT05855616|183246545|OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.764
91676103|NCT05855616|183246546|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.055
91676104|NCT01388166|183246547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91676105|NCT01388166|183246548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91676106|NCT01388166|183246549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91676107|NCT01429051|183246571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model with episode baseline PI as a covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||||1.179|0.41|0.002
91676108|NCT00986180|183246641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was recalculated due to Amendment INT-1. The non-inferiority margin for SPID120 was set as 120. The common standard deviation for the SPID120 data was estimated to be 230. Seventy nine subjects in each arm would have 90% power to demonstrate the non-inferiority of NUCYNTA to oxycodone IR with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. This would have required enrollment of total 158 mITT subjects for each stratum. The original sample size (292 mITT subjects) was derived for SPID72.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.02||0.9703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|30.9|||ANCOVA|||||30.9|-32.1|0.9703
91676109|NCT00986180|183246642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|13.7|||ANCOVA|||||13.7|-10.1|0.7691
91676110|NCT00986180|183246643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|19.0|||ANCOVA|||||19.0|-17.3|0.9282
91676111|NCT00986180|183246644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.75||0.9562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|56.8|||ANCOVA|||||56.8|-60.1|0.9562
91676112|NCT00986180|183246645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|10.4|||ANCOVA|||||10.4|-13.5|0.7973
91676113|NCT00986180|183246646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.7882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|15.8|||ANCOVA|||||15.8|-20.8|0.7882
91676114|NCT00986180|183246647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.82||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|26.0|||ANCOVA|||||26.0|-36.1|0.7491
91676115|NCT00986180|183246648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.03||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|45.4|||ANCOVA|||||45.4|-68.6|0.6897
91676116|NCT00986180|183246649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.8226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|15.4|||ANCOVA|||||15.4|-12.2|0.8226
91676117|NCT00986180|183246650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8880
91676118|NCT00986180|183246651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4115|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4115
91676119|NCT00986180|183246652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8495|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8495
91676120|NCT00986180|183246653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7846|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7846
91676121|NCT00986180|183246654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4790
91676122|NCT00986180|183246655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3147
91676123|NCT00986180|183246656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5411|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5411
91676124|NCT00986180|183246657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6137
91676125|NCT00986180|183246658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7246
91676126|NCT00986180|183246659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4882|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4882
91717038|NCT02360488|183326459|NON_INFERIORITY|The trial aimed to establish comparable efficacy based upon a non-inferiority margin of 30% of the change in Fugl-Meyer score in the In-Clinic group. Under these assumptions at alpha=0.05 and assuming SD=3.8 points, 124 subjects would need to be enrolled to provide 85% power; this sample was pursued independent of subject dropouts.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|2.26|||Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for study site, age, time post-stroke, stroke subtype, and baseline Fugl-Meyer score.||||2.26|-2.14|.96
91717039|NCT01687218|183326476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.44|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||It shows the rate ratio (RR) based on a GEE model comparing the Daily Rectal regimen with the Oral regimen and controlling for period in the model.|Since some participants have more than one safety event per period of treatment regimen, a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with a Poisson (log) link, exchangeable correlation structure, and robust standard errors were used.||1.44|0.73|0.88
91717040|NCT01687218|183326476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||It shows the rate ratio (RR) based on a GEE model comparing the RAI Rectal regimen with the Oral regimen and controlling for period in the model.|Since some participants have more than one safety event per period of treatment regimen, a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with a Poisson (log) link, exchangeable correlation structure, and robust standard errors were used.||1.21|0.64|0.43
91717041|NCT01687218|183326477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||0.50|0.15|<0.0001
91717042|NCT01687218|183326477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||0.70|0.20|0.002
91717043|NCT01687218|183326478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||1.08|0.29|0.08
91861811|NCT04285515|183610163|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|-3.05|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.05|-8.29|<0.0001
91861812|NCT04285515|183610164|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|-3.29|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.29|-8.61|<0.0001
91861813|NCT04285515|183610165|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|-3.88|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.88|-7.25|<0.0001
91861814|NCT04285515|183610166|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.39|||Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measure|||||-0.39|-0.81|<0.0001
91861815|NCT04285515|183610167|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.31|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.31|-0.91|<0.0001
91861816|NCT04285515|183610168|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.27|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.27|-0.89|0.0003
91861817|NCT04285515|183610169|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.44|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.44|-0.82|<0.0001
91676127|NCT00986180|183246660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7201|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7201
91676128|NCT00986180|183246662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5208|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5208
91676129|NCT00986180|183246664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0401
91676130|NCT00986180|183246666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4679|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4679
91676131|NCT00986180|183246668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1454|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1454
91676132|NCT00986180|183246669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1541|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1541
91676133|NCT00986180|183246671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.06|0.92|
91676134|NCT00986180|183246672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.57|1.17|
91676135|NCT00986180|183246673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|8.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.11|1.45|
91676136|NCT00986180|183246674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.67|0.54|
91676137|NCT00986180|183246675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5828|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5828
91676138|NCT00986180|183246676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9084|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9084
91676139|NCT02408068|183246695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|77.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.89|84.86|||ANOVA|||Results obtained using a mixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for study period, sequence, treatment and subject (sequence) (excl. tmax).||84.86|70.89|
91676140|NCT02408068|183246696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|108.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.3|114.72|||ANOVA|||||114.72|102.30|
91793518|NCT03239665|183465245|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.2029||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing zoster knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.2029
91793519|NCT03239665|183465245|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.8599||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing pneumonia knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.8599
91793520|NCT03239665|183465245|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0007||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing influenza knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.0007
91793521|NCT03239665|183465245|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0246||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing total knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.0246
91861818|NCT00812461|183610179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-0.38|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 229 participants in the placebo group and 212 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||-0.38|-3.07|0.012
91864615|NCT05873556|183618522|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.16||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.72|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.72|0.79|0.45
91676141|NCT02408068|183246697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.75|1.25|0.0005
91676142|NCT02408068|183246698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|83.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.58|91.74||||||||91.74|75.58|
91676143|NCT02408068|183246699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|118.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.58|126.54||||||||126.54|111.58|
91676144|NCT02408068|183246700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.38|2.25|0.0014
91676145|NCT00886288|183246732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91676146|NCT00472797|183246740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean|2.73|||<|0.001||97.5|2.73|2.73||P-Value denotes percent change from baseline to week 12 for all combined subjects.|t-test, 1 sided|||A one-sided paired t-test across all subjects by combining the titrated and non-titrated new formulation groups was performed.||2.73|2.73|<0.001
91676147|NCT00472797|183246741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||||||P-value denotes difference between treatment groups|ANOVA|||||||0.466
91676148|NCT00472797|183246741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value denotes the mean percent change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91676149|NCT00472797|183246741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value denotes the mean percent change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.003
91676150|NCT00472797|183246742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value refers to change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all domains, except global side effect score, in the MSTCQ for all subjects combined.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test for change from baseline to week 12||Change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all subjects combined. Lower scores indicate a more favorable response||||<0.001
91676151|NCT00472797|183246742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value refers to differences between treatment groups in change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all domains, except global side effect score, in the MSTCQ.|ANOVA|||Analysis evaluated differences between treatment groups in change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all domains, except global side effect score, in the MSTCQ. Lower scores indicate a more favorable response.||||0.110
91676152|NCT00472797|183246743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||P-value refers to differneces in total score from baseline to week 12 between treatment groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis evaluates total score from baseline to week 12 for differences between each treatment group.||||0.302
91676153|NCT00472797|183246745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||P-value denotes differences between treatment groups in change in diameter of injection site redness from baseline to week 12.|ANOVA|||Analysis evaluates differences between treatment groups in change in diameter of injection site redness from baseline to week 12.||||0.899
91676154|NCT00472797|183246746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Week 12||||<0.001
91676155|NCT00472797|183246746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Week 36||||0.234
91676156|NCT00472797|183246746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 1||||0.001
91676157|NCT00472797|183246746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 3||||0.004
91793522|NCT03239665|183465245|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.078||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing zoster knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.0780
91676158|NCT00472797|183246746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Exisit Visit LOCF||||0.036
91676159|NCT00472797|183246746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Mental Component - Baseline to Week 12||||0.002
91864616|NCT05873556|183618522|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.17||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.79|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.79|0.77|0.46
91676160|NCT00472797|183246746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Mental Component - Baseline to Week 36||||0.468
91676161|NCT00472797|183246746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Mental Component - Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 1||||0.602
91676162|NCT00472797|183246746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 3||||0.414
91676163|NCT00472797|183246746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Change from Baseline to Exit Visit LOCF||||0.991
91692260|NCT00529087|183279539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.119||95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.5|-0.1|0.119
91861819|NCT00812461|183610180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|0.73|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 229 participants in the placebo group and 212 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||0.73|-10.63|0.088
91676164|NCT00700817|183246748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.6||||0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.43||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).||ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Hieracheal testing of non-inferiority followed by superiority.||-0.43|-0.77|0.0001
91676165|NCT00700817|183246748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.34||||0.0001||95.0|-0.51|-0.16||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).||ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Hieracheal testing of non-inferiority followed by superiority. Liraglutide 1.2 mg versus sitagliptin only tested if liraglutide 1.8 mg was superior to sitagliptin.||-0.16|-0.51|0.0001
91676166|NCT00700817|183246749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated Treatment Difference, LS Mean|-0.63||||0.0001||95.0|-0.81|-0.44||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).|Lira 1.8 - Sita|ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.44|-0.81|0.0001
91676167|NCT00700817|183246749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated Treatment Difference, LS Mean|-0.4||||0.0001||95.0|-0.59|-0.22||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).|Lira 1.2 - Sita|ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.22|-0.59|0.0001
91676168|NCT00700817|183246751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change within treatment group|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.006||95.0|-0.41|-0.07||Multiple comparisons is not applicable.|paired t-test|The analysis is not a controlled comparison, and there are no adjustments||The t-test was performed to examine whether the change in HbA1c from week 52 to week 78 were different from 0 within each treatment group.||-0.07|-0.41|0.0060
91676169|NCT00700817|183246751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change within treatment group|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.0001||95.0|-0.67|-0.23||Multiple comparisons is not applicable.|paired t-test|The analysis is not a controlled comparison, and there are no adjustments||The t-test was performed to examine whether the change in HbA1c from week 52 to week 78 were different from 0 within each treatment group.||-0.23|-0.67|0.0001
91676170|NCT01673698|183246876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0041
91676171|NCT01673698|183246877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91676172|NCT01673698|183246878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5610
91676173|NCT01583218|183246879|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.209||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.366|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.366|0.013|0.038
91676174|NCT01583218|183246880|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.216||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.359|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.359|0.041|0.018
91676175|NCT01583218|183246881|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.254||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.387|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.387|0.092|0.003
91676176|NCT01583218|183246882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.554
91676177|NCT01583218|183246883|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.326||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.576|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.576|-0.069|0.092
91676178|NCT01583218|183246884|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.295||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.542|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.542|-0.085|0.11
91676179|NCT01583218|183246885|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.358||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.580|0.020|0.039
91676180|NCT03182582|183246979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Paired t test|||A sample size of 22 patients was required to achieve 80% power, using a two-tailed test with α = 0.05.||||0.003
91676181|NCT03334721|183246985|SUPERIORITY|"Given the crossover design through which the data were collected, the statistical model also included a Visit (1 vs. 2) factor and a Visit by Treatment Condition interaction term. Analysis used Linear Mixed Modeling with Fixed Factors."|Test III Tests of Fixed Effects (F)|0.141||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Condition Factor (0 = Placebo, 1 = Gabapentin)|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1, 20.183|||"Given the crossover design through which the data were collected, the statistical model also included a Visit (1 vs. 2) factor and a Visit by Treatment Condition interaction term."|||0.711
91676182|NCT01232491|183246989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.49||||0.132||95.0|-0.15|1.13||If the p-value for the two-sided test was less than 5%, and D (the estimated treatment difference \[dietary intervention versus no dietary intervention\]) was less than 0 then superiority for dietary intervention was considered confirmed.|Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, strata, use of insulin secretagogue at screening, sex and region as factors and age and weight at baseline as covariates. Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the estimated treatment difference (dietary intervention versus no dietary intervention), which was calculated using the FAS, was below 0 kg.||1.13|-0.15|0.132
91861820|NCT00812461|183610181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.27|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values were imputed using individual-patient predicted values of TAC derived from the MMRM model.||1.27|0.67|0.630
91861821|NCT00812461|183610182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.02|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 225 participants in the placebo group and 203 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.02|-0.44|0.029
91676183|NCT01232491|183246990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.17||||0.137||95.0|-0.05|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, use of insulin secretagogue at screening, sex and region as factors, and age and BMI at baseline as covariates.||0.39|-0.05|0.137
91676184|NCT01232491|183246991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.13||||0.053||95.0|0.0|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, strata, use of insulin secretagogue at screening and region as factors and HbA1c at baseline as covariate.||0.26|-0.00|0.053
91861822|NCT00812461|183610183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 225 participants in the placebo group and 203 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.04|-0.38|0.111
91861823|NCT00812461|183610184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.96||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||[Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 224 participants in the placebo group and 207 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Logtransformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.08|0.86|0.529
91861824|NCT00812461|183610185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.92||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||[Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 222 participants in the placebo group and 205 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed ALAT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Logtransformed Baseline value-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.00|0.84|0.049
91861825|NCT03953508|183610287|OTHER|Analysis of covariance test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANCOVA|||||||>.05
91861826|NCT03953508|183610288|OTHER|T-test comparing differences, the null hypothesis is that the groups are equal|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91861827|NCT03953508|183610289|OTHER|Analysis of variance test comparing average breakpoint for menthol and non-menthol smokers|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||<.05
91861828|NCT03953508|183610290|OTHER|T-test|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91861829|NCT03953508|183610291|OTHER|Analysis of variance|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||>.05
91861830|NCT03953508|183610292|OTHER|Analysis of variance|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||<.05
91861831|NCT03953508|183610293|OTHER|T-test|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91676185|NCT01232491|183246992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.07||||0.674||95.0|-0.25|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, strata, use of insulin secretagogue at screening and region as factors and FPG at baseline as covariate.||0.39|-0.25|0.674
91692261|NCT00529087|183279540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.3||||0.008||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||-0.1|-0.5|0.008
91692262|NCT00529087|183279540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.2||||0.015||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.0|-0.5|0.015
91861832|NCT03953508|183610294|OTHER|Fisher's exact test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|Fisher Exact|||||||>.05
91861833|NCT03953508|183610295|OTHER|T-test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91861834|NCT03953508|183610296|OTHER|T-test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91861835|NCT01606215|183610315|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 data||||0.84
91676186|NCT00856973|183247031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.17|19.83|||ANCOVA|Bonferroni adjustment was use for multiple comparisons|Difference calculated as Eszopiclone minus placebo|This endpoint was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group (pooled low dose eszopiclone, pooled high dose eszopiclone, and placebo) as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate. Contrast statements were used to perform pairwise comparisons of the eszopiclone treatment groups to placebo. A Bonferroni adjustment was used for the 2 pairwise comparisons. Least squares means and the standard errors were presented for each treatment grou||19.83|-5.17|>0.05
91676187|NCT00856973|183247031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.23|14.65|||ANCOVA|||This endpoint was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group (pooled low dose eszopiclone, pooled high dose eszopiclone, and placebo) as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate. Contrast statements were used to perform pairwise comparisons of the eszopiclone treatment groups to placebo. A Bonferroni adjustment was used for the 2 pairwise comparisons. Least squares means and the standard errors were presented for each treatment group.||14.65|-10.23|>0.05
91676188|NCT01196078|183247058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.88||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|26.19||Between-treatment difference computed using logistic regression with treatment and multiple factors (gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group \[ECOG\] status, histology status, and smoking status) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in tumor response rate determined using Hauck-Anderson approach.|||26.19|-0.22|0.0388
91676189|NCT01196078|183247059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.79||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|31.33||Between-treatment difference computed using logistic regression with treatment and multiple factors (gender, ECOG status, histology status, and smoking status) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for the difference in the disease control rate determined using Hauck-Anderson approach.|||31.33|-3.54|0.1061
91676190|NCT01196078|183247060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9505|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9505
91676191|NCT01196078|183247062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2314|||||||Log Rank|Data were stratified by gender, ECOG status, histology status, and smoking status.||||||0.2314
91676192|NCT01196078|183247064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9894|||||||Log Rank|Data were stratified by gender, ECOG status, histology status, and smoking status.||||||0.9894
91676193|NCT01196078|183247066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||PWB, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.0060
91676194|NCT01196078|183247066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6871|||||||ANOVA|||SWB, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.6871
91676195|NCT01196078|183247066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5104|||||||ANOVA|||EWB Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.5104
91676196|NCT01196078|183247066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9927|||||||ANOVA|||FWB, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.9927
91676197|NCT01196078|183247066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3581|||||||ANOVA|||LCS, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.3581
91676198|NCT03687658|183247079|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a binomial distribution using a logit link function||||||0.066|||||||Generalized linear mixed model|||||||0.066
91676199|NCT03687658|183247080|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a binomial distribution using a logit link function||||||0.273|||||||Generalized linear mixed model|||||||0.273
91676200|NCT03687658|183247081|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a Poisson distribution using a log link function||||||0.403|||||||Generalized linear mixed model|||||||0.403
91676201|NCT04397445|183247082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for ranitidine vs. placebo as the aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased NDMA exposure. Comparisons were performed separately with each diet without adjustment for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between ranitidine and placebo is 0 (-6.9 to 0) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.54
91861836|NCT01606215|183610315|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 data||||0.62
91903106|NCT05390580|183701089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; linearly for in-hospital NIHSS scores based on panel data plots. Interaction terms were utilized to delineate differences amongst trajectories of the outcome of interest.||||0.69
91692263|NCT00529087|183279543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.731||95.0|-5.4|7.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||7.7|-5.4|0.731
91861837|NCT01606215|183610315|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 data||||0.61
91861838|NCT01606215|183610318|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.77
91861839|NCT01606215|183610318|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.68
91861840|NCT01606215|183610318|OTHER|Week 24||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.48
91861841|NCT05505292|183610342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91861842|NCT05505292|183610343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91861843|NCT05505292|183610344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91861844|NCT05505292|183610345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91861845|NCT05505292|183610346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91861846|NCT05505292|183610347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91861847|NCT05505292|183610348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 1a Change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle||||0.62
91861848|NCT05505292|183610348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 1b change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.53
91861849|NCT05505292|183610348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 2a change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.66
91861850|NCT05505292|183610348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 2b change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.81
91676202|NCT04397445|183247082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for ranitidine vs. placebo as the aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased NDMA exposure. Comparisons were performed separately with each diet without adjustment for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between ranitidine and placebo is -1.1 (-9.1 to 11.5) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.71
91861851|NCT05505292|183610348|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 3a change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||>0.999
91861852|NCT05505292|183610348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 3b change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.47
91861853|NCT05505292|183610348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 4 change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.52
91676203|NCT04397445|183247083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 1-sided lower P value \<.05 for NDMA as the cured-meats diet was designed to have higher NDMA.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between the cured-meats diet and noncured-meats diet is 9.3 (3.8 to 25.0) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.005
91692264|NCT00529087|183279543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.779||95.0|-5.6|7.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||7.5|-5.6|0.779
91861854|NCT05505292|183610348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 5 change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.69
91861855|NCT01389856|183610349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91861856|NCT01389856|183610350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3407
91861857|NCT01389856|183610351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2399|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2399
91861858|NCT01389856|183610353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91861859|NCT01389856|183610354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.2235
91861860|NCT01389856|183610355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1468
91861861|NCT01389856|183610356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.0789
91861862|NCT01389856|183610357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3723|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.3723
91861863|NCT01389856|183610358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.0569
91861864|NCT01389856|183610359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1015
91861865|NCT01389856|183610360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.0824
91676204|NCT04397445|183247083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 1-sided lower P value \<.05 for NDMA as the cured-meats diet was designed to have higher NDMA|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between the cured-meats diet and noncured-meats diet is 6.4 (0 to 23.4) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.007
91676205|NCT04397445|183247084|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.01||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator).|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||1.01|0.87|0.92
91676206|NCT04397445|183247084|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.1||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator).|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||1.10|0.81|0.74
91676207|NCT04397445|183247084|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.23||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence.||1.23|0.90|0.52
91676208|NCT04397445|183247084|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence.||1.19|0.93|0.42
91676209|NCT04397445|183247085|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.91||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 2-sided P value \<.05 for ranitidine as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||As ranitidine data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence|This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|0.91|0.72|0.001
91676210|NCT04397445|183247087|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.11||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||1.11|0.91|0.46
91676211|NCT04397445|183247087|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence|This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator)|1.25|0.80|0.49
91692265|NCT00529087|183279544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|5.6||||0.023||95.0|0.8|10.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||10.4|0.8|0.023
91692266|NCT00529087|183279544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.8||||0.258||95.0|-2.0|7.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||7.6|-2.0|0.258
91692267|NCT00529087|183279546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.071||95.0|-0.6|14.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||14.5|-0.6|0.071
91861866|NCT01389856|183610361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3863|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.3863
91861867|NCT01389856|183610362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.3936
91692268|NCT00529087|183279546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.087||95.0|-1.0|14.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||14.2|-1.0|0.087
91692269|NCT00529087|183279547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.038||95.0|0.4|14.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||14.7|0.4|0.038
91861868|NCT01389856|183610363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2436|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.2436
91861869|NCT01389856|183610364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1756|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1756
91861870|NCT01389856|183610365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1155
91861871|NCT01389856|183610366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1400
91861872|NCT03959696|183610387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64||A priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|Regression, Linear|We used a linear regression model with Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) techniques to account for the patients-within-physicians data structure|Mean difference is the Training + Notification arm minus the Notification only arm|The null hypothesis SDMP is equal in the two arms||.64|.08|.011
91861873|NCT03959696|183610388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|5.55||A priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|Regression, Linear|We used a linear regression model with Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) techniques to account for the patients-within-physicians data structure||The null hypothesis is that the two arms have the same knowledge score||5.55|-2.01|0.36
91676212|NCT04397445|183247087|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence.||0.95|0.67|0.02
91676213|NCT04397445|183247087|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence|This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|0.98|0.65|0.03
91676214|NCT04397445|183247088|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 2-sided P value \<.05 for ranitidine as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator).|As ranitidine data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||0.89|0.66|0.002
91676215|NCT03728634|183247136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Analysis of Variance(ANOVA)|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 45 mg||||<0.001
91676216|NCT03728634|183247136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 60 mg||||<0.001
91676217|NCT03728634|183247136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 90 mg||||<0.001
91676218|NCT03728634|183247136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 45 mg||||<0.001
91676219|NCT03728634|183247136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 60 mg||||<0.001
91676220|NCT03728634|183247136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 90 mg||||<0.001
91903107|NCT05390580|183701090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated using a mixed model that includes a random effect for person, based on actual day of the mRS, 90 day assessment. Restricted to participants who survived to an mRS assessment for day 90 , leaving 14 participants (28 mRS scores) in the treatment group and 17 participants (34 mRS scores) in the sham group.||||0.48
91676221|NCT03728634|183247136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Single-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 120 mg||||0.036
91676222|NCT03728634|183247137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 45 mg||||<0.001
91676223|NCT03728634|183247137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 60 mg||||<0.001
91676224|NCT03728634|183247137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 90 mg||||<0.001
91676225|NCT03728634|183247137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 45 mg||||<0.001
91676226|NCT03728634|183247137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 60 mg||||<0.001
91676227|NCT03728634|183247137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 90 mg||||<0.001
91676228|NCT03728634|183247137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Exact Test (2-sided)|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Single-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 120 mg||||0.036
91676229|NCT02011113|183247153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||Based on one sample binomial test for dichotomized response proportion against the null hypothesis(H0: p = 0.1)|Binomial test for dichotomized response|||||||0.0027
91676230|NCT01338649|183247164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test on two groups of differences||||||0.0211
91676231|NCT04688931|183247165|OTHER|The analysis is descriptive in nature.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||||The hazard ratio represents the relative risk of having an event in the treatment arm (numerator) versus the control arm (denominator).|||0.68|0.29|
91676232|NCT04688931|183247166|OTHER|The analysis is descriptive in nature.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||||The hazard ratio represents the relative risk of having an event in the treatment arm (numerator) versus the control arm (denominator).|||0.70|0.30|
91676233|NCT04688931|183247168|OTHER|The analysis is descriptive in nature.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.86|||||The hazard ratio represents the relative risk of having an event in the treatment arm (numerator) versus the control arm (denominator).|||0.86|0.24|
91903108|NCT05390580|183701091|EQUIVALENCE|Here we were testing if there were any safety differences based on treatment. This was a pilot exploratory trial, for which we may be underpowered.||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To assess our dichotomous safety endpoints, we used logistic regression models constructed to assess differences in hypotension.||||0.49
91676234|NCT00361335|183247177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group VI at α = 0.05.||||0.051
91692270|NCT00529087|183279547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.237||95.0|-2.8|11.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||11.5|-2.8|0.237
91692271|NCT01598064|183279548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
91676235|NCT00361335|183247177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31% response in the Group I at α = 0.05.||||0.073
91676236|NCT00361335|183247177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group III at α = 0.05.||||0.093
91861874|NCT03959696|183610389|SUPERIORITY|We will have 81% power to detect a difference of 14% in rates (e.g. decrease from 61% to 47%).||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Logistic|||We will compare the percentages of patients who received their preferred screening in the 12 months after the visit across the two groups using logistic regression model with the GEE approach to adjust for clustering of patients within clinicians.||||0.47
91861875|NCT03959696|183610390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91861876|NCT03959696|183610391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|18.0|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was equal screening rate in both arms||18.0|0.9|0.032
91861877|NCT03959696|183610392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
91676237|NCT00361335|183247177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups VII vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group VII at α = 0.05.||||0.465
91676238|NCT00361335|183247177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.872||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group II at α = 0.05.||||0.872
91676239|NCT00361335|183247177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the combined group (I and III) at α = 0.05.||||0.175
91676240|NCT00361335|183247178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.002
91676241|NCT00361335|183247178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.032
91676242|NCT00361335|183247178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91676243|NCT00361335|183247178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups V vs VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.795
91676244|NCT00361335|183247178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.844
91676245|NCT00361335|183247178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.540
91676246|NCT00361335|183247179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91676247|NCT00361335|183247179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91676248|NCT00361335|183247179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91676249|NCT00361335|183247179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.002
91676250|NCT00361335|183247179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.043
91903109|NCT05390580|183701092|EQUIVALENCE|Here we were testing if there were any safety differences based on treatment. This was a pilot exploratory trial, for which we may be underpowered.||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To assess our dichotomous safety endpoints, we used logistic regression models constructed to assess differences in bradycardia.||||0.66
91676251|NCT00361335|183247179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91676252|NCT00361335|183247180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91676253|NCT00361335|183247180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91676254|NCT00361335|183247180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91676255|NCT00361335|183247180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91676256|NCT00361335|183247180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.003
91676257|NCT00361335|183247180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No adjustments were made to control for multiplicity||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.001
91676258|NCT00361335|183247181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.005
91676259|NCT00361335|183247181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.014
91676260|NCT00361335|183247181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.014
91793523|NCT03239665|183465245|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0167||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing pneumonia knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.0167
91861878|NCT05604508|183610426|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.553|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, and baseline cigarette use intentions|||1.553|0.347|
91861879|NCT05604508|183610426|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.471|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.947|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, and baseline cigarette use intentions.|||0.947|0.234|
91861880|NCT05604508|183610427|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|3.107|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline vaping intentions|||3.107|0.727|
91861881|NCT05604508|183610427|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.938|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline vaping intentions|||1.938|0.398|
91676261|NCT00361335|183247181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups I and VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.996
91676262|NCT00361335|183247181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.738
91676263|NCT00361335|183247181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||No adjustments were made to control for multiplicity|2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.788
91676264|NCT01765582|183247197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|2.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by extent of metastatic disease (liver-limited disease versus non liver-limited disease) and tumor location (right versus left) after correction post-randomization.||2.71|0.96|0.132
91861882|NCT05604508|183610428|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.619|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.301|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, and baseline smokeless use intentions|||1.301|0.295|
91861883|NCT05604508|183610428|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.489|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|1.006|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco, baseline smokeless use intentions|||1.006|0.237|
91861884|NCT05604508|183610429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.832|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline LCC use intentions|||2.832|0.720|
91861885|NCT05604508|183610429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|2.96|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline LCC use intentions|||2.960|0.681|
91861886|NCT05337306|183610430|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA controlling for study arm and baseline||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold .05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|covariates include arm and baseline level of outcome||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) for those lost to follow up; null hypothesis group 1 follow-up outcome = group 2 follow-up outcome.||||.049
91861887|NCT05337306|183610431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold .05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Covariates include trial arm and baseline level of outcome.||LOCF for lost to follow-up||||.040
91676265|NCT01765582|183247198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.88|||Log Rank|||Stratified by extent of metastatic disease (liver-limited disease vs. non-liver-limited disease) and tumor location (right vs. left) after correction post-randomization.||0.88|0.53|0.005
91676266|NCT00714493|183247234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91676267|NCT00714493|183247235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91676268|NCT00076804|183247238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Chi-squared|one degree of freedom||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.42
91676269|NCT00076804|183247239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Chi-squared|one degree of freedom||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.89
91676270|NCT00076804|183247240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.14
91676271|NCT00076804|183247241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.61
91676272|NCT00354341|183247242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with last observation carry forward (LOCF) method.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.8811
91676273|NCT00354341|183247243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.8864
91676274|NCT00354341|183247244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5681|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.5681
91676275|NCT00354341|183247245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.1578
91676276|NCT00354341|183247246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2913|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.2913
91676277|NCT00354341|183247247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91676278|NCT00251719|183247248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 60 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|2.34||||0.234||95.0|-1.45|6.14||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.14|-1.45|0.234
91676279|NCT00251719|183247248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 90 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|4.85||||0.019||95.0|1.2|8.5||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.50|1.20|0.019
91861888|NCT05337306|183610432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|covariates include trial arm and baseline level of outcome.||LOCF for dropout/lost to follow up||||.220
91861889|NCT02677805|183610570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91861890|NCT02677805|183610571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary Outcome Measure shows a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.087
91861891|NCT02677805|183610572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.121
91676280|NCT00251719|183247248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.220
91676281|NCT00251719|183247249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.768
91676282|NCT00251719|183247249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.064
91676283|NCT00251719|183247249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
91676284|NCT00251719|183247250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.727
91676285|NCT00251719|183247250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.064
91676286|NCT00251719|183247250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.174
91676287|NCT00251719|183247251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|1.65||||0.167||95.0|-1.65|4.96||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||4.96|-1.65|0.167
91676288|NCT00251719|183247251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|3.39||||0.03||95.0|0.27|6.5||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||6.50|0.27|0.030
91676289|NCT00251719|183247251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.413
91676290|NCT00251719|183247252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.100
91676291|NCT00251719|183247252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.125
91676292|NCT00251719|183247252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.993
91676293|NCT00251719|183247253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.117
91676294|NCT00251719|183247253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.124
91676295|NCT00251719|183247253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.949
91676296|NCT03709823|183247269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-20.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.141|-9.821||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-9.821|-31.141|0.0002
91676297|NCT03709823|183247269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-22.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.791|-11.342||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-11.342|-32.791|< 0.0001
91676298|NCT03709823|183247269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-5.9||||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.463|4.66||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||4.660|-16.463|0.2708
91676299|NCT03709823|183247269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-2.81||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.438|7.82||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||7.820|-13.438|0.6018
91676300|NCT03709823|183247269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Commercial Sched.|-12.17||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.869|2.535||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||2.535|-26.869|0.1025
91861892|NCT02677805|183610573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Investigator's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
91861893|NCT02677805|183610573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Subject's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
91861894|NCT02677805|183610574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for responders rates at week 20||||0.218
91903110|NCT02499770|183701098|OTHER||||||=|0.0097||||||The p-value was calculated using the stratified log-rank test to account for the baseline ECOG status (0-1 vs 2) as the stratification factor. Significance level was set as two-sided 0.2.|Stratified log-rank test|p-value calculated using stratified log-rank test with baseline ECOG status (0-1 vs 2) as stratification factor. Significance level was two-sided 0.2.||||||= 0.0097
91676301|NCT03709823|183247270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-14.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.216|-6.009||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-6.009|-23.216|0.0010
91676302|NCT03709823|183247270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-16.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.862|-7.548||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-7.548|-24.862|0.0003
91676303|NCT03709823|183247271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-12.41||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.695|-3.135||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-3.135|-21.695|0.0091
91676304|NCT03709823|183247271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-9.3||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.667|0.075||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||0.075|-18.667|0.0518
91676305|NCT02737332|183247272|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|1.019||||0.4879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.077||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.077|0.964|0.4879
91676306|NCT02737332|183247273|OTHER|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|0.994||||0.3642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0451|2.192||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||2.192|0.0451|0.3642
91676307|NCT02737332|183247273|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|0.81||||0.4069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.338|1.939||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.939|0.338|0.4069
91676308|NCT02737332|183247273|EQUIVALENCE|One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|Geometric mean ratio|1.039||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.412|2.617||The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||2.617|0.412|0.7186
91676309|NCT02737332|183247274|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91676310|NCT02737332|183247275|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|0.999||||0.9211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.018||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.||ANOVA-model-based Least-Square Mean|1.018|0.980|0.9211
91692076|NCT03771898|183278778|SUPERIORITY|Survival probability free of loss of locomotion estimated up to Week 106 (or two years).|Difference in survival probability (%)|-2.2|||=|0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|17.7||One-sided, over time intervals during entire follow-up. Stratified generalized log-rank test was used, where matching identification created from matching process in SAS PSMATCH Procedure used as strata.|Log Rank||For the shared time interval up to Week 106 (or two years).|Interval censoring survival analysis.||17.7|-22.2|=0.585
91861895|NCT02677805|183610575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Emotional domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
91861896|NCT02677805|183610575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Social Functioning domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
91861897|NCT02677805|183610575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Overall score - Change from Baseline at Week 4.||||<0.001
91676311|NCT02737332|183247275|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|1.168||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.515||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.515|0.900|0.3037
91676312|NCT02737332|183247275|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.0||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.000|1.000|
91676313|NCT02737332|183247276|OTHER|||||||0.5495|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5495
91676314|NCT02737332|183247276|OTHER|||||||0.2616|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2616
91676315|NCT02737332|183247276|OTHER|||||||0.3632|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3632
91676316|NCT02737332|183247276|OTHER|||||||0.3393|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3393
91861898|NCT02677805|183610575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Appraisal of Lines Between Eyebrows - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
91676317|NCT02737332|183247280|OTHER|||||||0.1917|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1917
91676318|NCT00688376|183247281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.8||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values, least squares (LS) mean, and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained from Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor and Baseline value as covariate.||4.8|-3.22|0.694
91676319|NCT00688376|183247282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|4.09|||ANCOVA|||P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.09|-4.38|0.9458
91676320|NCT00688376|183247283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|6.85|||ANCOVA|||RTVSS Change from Baseline to Week 6 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.85|-9.56|0.743
91676321|NCT00688376|183247283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.9561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|7.84|||ANCOVA|||RTVSS Change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.84|-7.42|0.9561
91676322|NCT00688376|183247283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.5||||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|9.04|||ANCOVA|||RTSS Change from Baseline to Week 6 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||9.04|-3.97|0.4385
91676323|NCT00688376|183247283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|6.0|||ANCOVA|||RTSS Change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||6|-6.74|0.9088
91676324|NCT00688376|183247284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.7||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.96|||ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite Score Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.96|-1.5|0.2886
91676325|NCT00688376|183247284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.1||||0.2555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|5.69|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.69|-1.54|0.2555
91676326|NCT00688376|183247284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.7||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|4.99|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.99|-1.63|0.3155
91676327|NCT00688376|183247284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.9075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|3.16|||ANCOVA|||Working Memory Scale Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||3.16|-3.55|0.9075
91692077|NCT03123120|183278800|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.118|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.118|-0.568|
91861899|NCT02677805|183610575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Age Appraisal VAS score||||<0.001
91861900|NCT03097549|183610642|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-3.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of mean scores using a linear mixed model, incorporating baseline data and accounting for all available data. Sample size calculation: We anticipated ICIQ-UI SF improvements of 2.5 points in the treatment group and 0.9 points in the information group. Detecting this difference with 80% power, a two-sided test, and a significance level of P\<.05 would require a sample size of 49 in each group. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, we needed approximately 60 participants in each group.||-1.3|-4.8|0.001
91861901|NCT03097549|183610643|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-6.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in score between the treatment group and the information group at follow-up.||-2.1|-10.5|0.004
91861902|NCT03097549|183610644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of urinary leakage episodes between the treatment app users and the information app users at follow-up.~ITT analysis. Missing data: 5 participants in the treatment group and 2 participants in the information group had a missing value at follow-up, and for those, the difference was set to 0 (ie, no change)."||||<0.001
91903111|NCT00823303|183701149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|On the basis of prior published reports, we estimated a 5% rate of hypercalcemia with paricalcitol and a 30% rate with calcitriol. To have a 90% power to detect a difference at the P=0.05 confidence level, 42 patients per group were needed. Assuming a 30% dropout rate over the course of the study, we planned to randomize 110 patients.||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
91676328|NCT00557076|183247285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Because 50% of the planned sample size was randomized, achieved power for the DOCS is 0.51.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|21.9|||t-test, 1 sided|DOCS scores were transformed to interval level measures using a many-faceted Rasch model anchored to values from a larger validation data set|The mean difference between the baseline and endpoint DOCS test was compared between the FAST and Sham groups.|The planned sample of 15 per group provided 80% power for a one-sided t-test to detect be-tween group endpoint differences in DOCS averages equivalent to an effect size of .91 (9 units). Clinically, this assumes that the FAST protocol would facilitate progression from one clinical state to another (e.g., vegetative (VS) to minimally conscious (MCS) states). The hypothesized effect was based on average DOCS change for a severe TBI sample receiving three weeks of acute rehabilitation.||21.9|-11.1|.465
91676329|NCT00557076|183247286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.00493|||t-test, 1 sided|CNC scores were transformed to interval level measures using Rasch partial credit and Facets models. We then re-scaled these logits to 0-100 scales.|The mean difference was calculated for each group using the eighth CNC measure minus the Baseline CNC measure.|Power was not calculated for the CNC because the effect size was not published.||-.00493|-1.51|0.049
91676330|NCT00557076|183247286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|||||To confirm that CNC results were not an anomaly at the final measurement and that the overall CNC response pattern was consistent, mixed-effect longitudinal models were conducted.|t-test, 1 sided||The Baseline CNC measure and seven post-Baseline CNC measures (for a total of eight CNC measures) were used to calculate the slope.|||||.0022
91676331|NCT01517659|183247292|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|3.27||||||||3.27|2.23|
91676332|NCT02792959|183247333|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.273||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.602
91676333|NCT02792959|183247334|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|3.361||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.067
91676334|NCT02792959|183247335|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
91676335|NCT02792959|183247336|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.091||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.296
91676336|NCT02792959|183247337|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.068||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.794
91676337|NCT02792959|183247338|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|3.361||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.067
91676338|NCT02792959|183247339|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.296
91676339|NCT02792959|183247340|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
91676340|NCT02792959|183247341|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.068||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.794
91676341|NCT02792959|183247342|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
91676342|NCT02792959|183247343|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.273||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.602
91676343|NCT02792959|183247344|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.705||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.192
91676344|NCT00894738|183247352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value listed is for DEXA total percent fat and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha level was set to 5%.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that mean DEXA total percent fat is similar between the two groups of interest. The primary statistical model consisted of treatment group as a 2-level factor (AP-Treated Vs Non-AP Treated) and DEXA total percent fat as a covariate. Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) was the dependent variable.||||0.49
91692078|NCT03123120|183278801|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.21|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.210|-0.404|
91861903|NCT03097549|183610645|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in score between the treatment group and the information group at follow-up.||-0.9|-2.8|<0.001
91861904|NCT03097549|183610646|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-1.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in score between the treatment group and the information group at follow-up.||-0.3|-2.8|0.016
91903112|NCT02877927|183701165|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|10.3|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||10.3|-0.2|
91676345|NCT00894738|183247353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value listed is for DEXA total percent fat and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha level was set to 5%.|ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis consisted of treatment group as a 2-level factor variable and DEXA total percent fat as a covariate. An interaction term between treatment group and DEXA total percent fat was also generated. Hepatic triglyceride content was the dependent variable. DEXA total percent fat was found to be significant while treatment group and the interaction between treatment group and DEXA total percent fat were not significant.||||<0.0001
91676346|NCT05070546|183247428|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohorts 1 (Group 1) and 2 (Group 3) in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67 for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 1\[Group1\] and 2 \[Group 3\])|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.6|||Geometric Mean Ratio|||||1.60|1.25|
91676347|NCT05070546|183247428|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohort 2 (Group 3 in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67 for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 2 \[Group 3\])|Geometric mean ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.78|||Geometric Mean Ratio|||||1.78|1.34|
91676348|NCT05070546|183247429|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohorts 1 (Group 1) and 2 (Group 3) in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of -10% for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 1\[Group1\] and 2 \[Group 3\]).|Difference in Seroresponse rate|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.9|||Difference in Seroresponse rate|||||10.9|0.3|
91676349|NCT05070546|183247429|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohorts 1 (Group 1) and 2 (Group 3) in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of -10% for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 2 \[Group 3\]).|Difference in Seroresponse rate|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.5|||Difference in Seroresponse rate|||||10.5|-1.6|
91676350|NCT04988152|183247455|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8519|1.35|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.3500|0.8519|
91676351|NCT04988152|183247456|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0513|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9281|1.1908|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.1908|0.9281|
91676352|NCT04988152|183247459|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.6999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.5129|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||2.5129|1.1500|
91676353|NCT04988152|183247460|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.5869|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1236|2.2413|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||2.2413|1.1236|
91676354|NCT04988152|183247475|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8519|1.35|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.3500|0.8519|
91676355|NCT04988152|183247477|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0673|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9286|1.2268|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUClast as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.2268|0.9286|
91676356|NCT04988152|183247481|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.6999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.5129|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||2.5129|1.1500|
91676357|NCT04988152|183247483|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.5766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1777|2.1106|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUClast as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates|||2.1106|1.1777|
91676358|NCT01610453|183247508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||A sample size calculation with alpha 0.05, power 0.8, and cut-off level of HPD at 40 mm. 146 women should be included. The calculation was based from a previous study, in which 93% with HPD ≤40 mm and 57% of with HPD \> 40 mm delivered vaginally.|Chi-squared|||Women were categorized in accordance to fetal descent measured by ultrasound. Head-perineum distance ≤40 mm was used as cut-off level. Vaginal delivery was the primary outcome measure.||||<0.01
91676359|NCT01610453|183247509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91676360|NCT00988065|183247516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.7||||||95.0|-1.8|3.7|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||3.7|-1.8|
91676361|NCT00988065|183247516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|4.7||||||95.0|2.1|9.3|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||9.3|2.1|
91676362|NCT00988065|183247517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.7||||||95.0|-1.8|3.7|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||3.7|-1.8|
91717044|NCT01687218|183326478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.56|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||1.56|0.37|0.46
91717045|NCT01687218|183326479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||0.65|0.22|0.0004
91717046|NCT01687218|183326479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.25|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||1.25|0.39|0.23
91717047|NCT01687218|183326480|OTHER||Slope|-1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||This comparison is between the daily rectal and oral (reference) groups for tenofovir levels in blood plasma, log10 ng/mL.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||-1.30|-1.53|<0.001
91861905|NCT03097549|183610647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference in usage between treatment group and information group at follow-up.||||0.01
91676363|NCT00988065|183247517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.0||||||95.0|-2.5|2.5|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||2.5|-2.5|
91676364|NCT00988065|183247518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.0||||||95.0|-0.5|5.7|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|Comparison of participants who had Level 1 or Level 2 diagnostic certainty.||5.7|-0.5|
91861906|NCT03097549|183610648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference in improvement between the treatment group and the information group att follow-up.||||<0.001
91861907|NCT05089019|183610684|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% to 125%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|94.12|0.81|0.976|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric Least Square (LS) Mean||||0.976|0.810|
91861908|NCT05089019|183610685|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|94.12|0.882|0.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.975|0.882|
91861909|NCT05089019|183610686|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% to 125%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|94.12|0.834|0.951|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.951|0.834|
91861910|NCT05415722|183610693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.178|3.406|||ANCOVA|||Arm 1 compared to Placebo||3.406|-26.178|0.1303
91676365|NCT00988065|183247518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.0||||||95.0|-2.5|2.5|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|Comparison of participants who had Level 1 or Level 2 diagnostic certainty.||2.5|-2.5|
91676366|NCT04319718|183247535|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.025
91676367|NCT04319718|183247536|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.47
91676368|NCT04319718|183247540|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.67
91676369|NCT04319718|183247541|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.51
91676370|NCT04319718|183247542|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.09
91676371|NCT04319718|183247543|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
91676372|NCT04319718|183247543|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.24
91676373|NCT04319718|183247543|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.27
91794473|NCT05985980|183467888|EQUIVALENCE|ETT maximal exercise capacity (METs score) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ETT maximal exercise capacity (METs score) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||0.111
91676374|NCT01030341|183247573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hypoglycemic excursions (\<50 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||<0.0001
91676375|NCT01030341|183247573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hypoglycemic excursions (\<70 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||<0.0001
91676376|NCT01030341|183247573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9||||||0.005||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of euglycemic excursions (70-180 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||0.005
91676377|NCT01030341|183247573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9||||||0.04||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hyperglycemic excursions (\>180 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||0.04
91676378|NCT01030341|183247573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hyperglycemic excursions (\>300 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||<0.0001
91676379|NCT01030341|183247574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in total GCSI score from screening to 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91676380|NCT01030341|183247574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in total GCSI score from screening to 24 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91676381|NCT01030341|183247574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in GCSI composite score from screening to 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91676382|NCT01030341|183247574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in GCSI composite score from screening to 24 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91676383|NCT01030341|183247574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in PAGI-QOL score from screening to 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91676384|NCT01030341|183247574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in PAGI-QOL score from screening to 24 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91676385|NCT02307266|183247575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3165|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3165
91676386|NCT02307266|183247575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0206
91676387|NCT01032018|183247585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of back-transformed means.|-3.5||||0.01||95.0|-6.1|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The trial was powered to detect a between-group difference in the 6-month change in depression symptoms. Assuming 5% attrition rate, we estimated that a sample of 150 patients would be needed to have 80% power to detect a clinically meaningful differential change in depression scores between groups of 0.46 SD.||-0.7|-6.1|0.01
91676388|NCT01796912|183247676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91676389|NCT01796912|183247677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91676390|NCT01796912|183247678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91676391|NCT01796912|183247679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91676392|NCT01796912|183247680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91676393|NCT01796912|183247681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91676394|NCT01796912|183247682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91676395|NCT00841906|183247698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91692079|NCT03123120|183278802|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|0.101|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.101|-0.602|
91692080|NCT03123120|183278803|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.399|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.399|-0.197|
91676396|NCT00903448|183247702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The least squares treatment means, i.e. adjusted treatment means, and standard errors were computed from the analysis of variance models.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This study enrolled 40 subjects in order to complete a target of at least 30 evaluable subjects. For the purpose of determination of sample size, it was assumed that at least 30 subjects would have complete data for all 3 treatment periods. Assuming the true mean difference in % time that gastric pH \> 4.0 between Prilosec OTC and Prevacid was at least 6.5, it was estimated that there would be at least 80% power to detect a treatment difference in 2-sided testing at the 5% significance level.||||< 0.0001
91676397|NCT03537274|183247748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.078
91676398|NCT03537274|183247748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91676399|NCT03537274|183247748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91676400|NCT03537274|183247749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.128
91676401|NCT03537274|183247749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91676402|NCT03537274|183247749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91676403|NCT00974974|183247791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
91676404|NCT00974974|183247792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
91676405|NCT01340768|183247804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.52||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.94||P-value for association between treatment groups and proportions controlling for prior therapy (monotherapy or combination therapy).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.94|0.29|0.028
91676406|NCT01340768|183247805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.83||P-value for association between treatment groups and proportions controlling for prior therapy (monotherapy or combination therapy).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.83|0.29|0.006
91676407|NCT02397408|183247837|OTHER||||||<|0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.008
91676408|NCT00985712|183247838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model details are given in the section of Measure Description.||Superiority criterion is met if the upper limit of Confidence Interval (CI) is below zero.||0.26|-0.17|0.6692
91676409|NCT00985712|183247839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3551||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Chi-squared|||||||0.3551
91676410|NCT00985712|183247839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2026||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.5%.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2026
91676411|NCT00985712|183247840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was adjusted for baseline values.||||||0.9070
91676412|NCT00985712|183247841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9817||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9817
91676413|NCT00985712|183247842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1187||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1187
91676414|NCT00279955|183247856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.292||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.67|||Regression, Cox||The estimated parameter in a Cox regression model was adjusted by age, gender, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class at 6 month visit, Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE)/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB) at 6 months, and Diuretics at 6 month.|||3.67|1.17|0.0119
91676415|NCT00279955|183247857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.277||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.27|||Regression, Cox||The estimated parameter in a Cox regression model was adjusted by age, gender, NYHA class at 6 month visit, ACE/ARB at 6 months, and and at least one day where CRT pacing \<90% in last 21 days of DREP.|||3.27|1.11|0.0185
91676416|NCT00279955|183247858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.311||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.31|||Regression, Cox||A Cox regression model has been used here, and the estimated parameter has been adjusted by including covariates age, gender, and NYHA class at 6 months.|||3.31|0.98|0.0578
91676417|NCT04700280|183247914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-6.2|0.617
91676418|NCT04700280|183247916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.41|-1.70|0.3089
91676419|NCT04700280|183247916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.2834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.97|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.43|-1.97|0.2834
91676420|NCT04700280|183247916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.30|-2.02|0.7109
91676421|NCT04700280|183247917|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||2.9|-3.6|0.859
91676422|NCT04700280|183247917|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||4.8|-3.8|0.837
91676423|NCT01843348|183247919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with tx, center, donor type factors. Raw and adjusted means were presented with one-sided p-values for un-shifted and shifted hypothesis, respectively. Significance level = 2.5% (one-sided)|Least square mean|-9.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|-4.88|||ANOVA|||The trial tests the null hypotheses that the treatment difference (investigational minus reference) in mean eGFR at re-assigned visit Month 12 is lower than the non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 7 mL/min per 1.73m2 versus the alternative that the treatment difference is equal to or greater than the non-inferiority margin||-4.88|-13.82|<0.0001
91676424|NCT01843348|183247919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The trial tests the null hypotheses that the treatment difference (investigational minus reference) in mean eGFR at re-assigned visit Month 12 is lower than the non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 7 mL/min per 1.73m2 versus the alternative that the treatment difference is equal to or greater than the non-inferiority margin|Least squares mean|-5.56||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-1.55||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with tx, center, donor type factors. Raw and adjusted means were presented with one-sided p-values for un-shifted and shifted hypothesis, respectively. Significance level = 2.5% (one-sided)|ANOVA|||||-1.55|-9.56|0.0067
91676425|NCT01843348|183247920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.093||||||TAC+Certican - TAC+MPA - difference between groups||0.093|-0.029|
91676426|NCT01843348|183247920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|0.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.221||||||CycA+Certican -Tac+MPA - difference between groups||0.221|0.076|
91861911|NCT05415722|183610693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.924||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.14|-7.799|||ANCOVA|||Arm 2 compared to Placebo||-7.799|-39.140|0.0036
91676427|NCT01843348|183247924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.028|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.087|||Pearson's chi-square test|||BPAR - treatment differences at Month 12||0.087|-0.032|< 0.001
91676428|NCT00257920|183247936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.67||95.0|-0.023|0.015||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. A single hypothesis was tested by the primary efficacy analysis. All hypothesis tests were two-tailed and P-values \<= 0.050 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the mean calcium absorption fraction between Zemplar Injection and Hectorol Injection. The power calculation applied to the primary efficacy analysis.||0.015|-0.023|0.670
91676429|NCT00257920|183247937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.573||95.0|-0.024|0.014||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. A single hypothesis was tested by the primary efficacy analysis. All hypothesis tests were two-tailed and P-values \<=0.050 were considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in mean calcium absorption between Zemplar and Hectorol. Approximately 42 subjects were to be randomized assuming 36 subjects would available in the per-protocol set. A sample size of 36 subjects has 80% power to detect a mean difference of -0.018 assuming the Zemplar group mean is 0.139, the Hectorol group mean is 0.157 and the STD is 0.037. The ANOVA model included effects for sequence, subject-within-sequence, period and treatment regimen.||0.014|-0.024|0.573
91676430|NCT01189500|183247954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|100.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.7|104.85|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||104.85|96.70|
91676431|NCT01189500|183247956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|99.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.02|105.17|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||105.17|94.02|
91676432|NCT01189500|183247961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|92.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.71|100.0|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||100.00|84.71|
91676433|NCT01189500|183247967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|112.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.44|116.9|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||116.90|107.44|
91861912|NCT05415722|183610693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.545|-25.064|||ANCOVA|||Arm 3 compared to Placebo||-25.064|-56.545|<0.0001
91861913|NCT05415722|183610694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.87||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.17|9.39|||ANCOVA|||Arm 1 compared to Placebo||9.39|-73.17|0.1289
91676434|NCT01189500|183247972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|105.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.74|111.81|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||111.81|99.74|
91676435|NCT01189500|183247973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|108.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.51|113.67|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||113.67|103.51|
91676436|NCT04764630|183247994|SUPERIORITY|To demonstrate an increase in naloxone concentration, the lower bound of the one-sided 97.79% interval for the geometric mean ratio must exclude 1. The results will be transformed back to the original scale by exponentiation to provide treatment geometric means.|Geometric mean ratio|1.95||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|95.6|1.28|||Testing will be conducted sequentially (i.e., start at the initial time and progress forward, stopping if success is achieved) at a 1-sided 0.0221 significance level since an increase in naloxone exposure is expected.|t-test, 1 sided||Data is shown for 10-minute timepoint (first time point tested where an increased was observed). This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Up to three different time points have been pre-specified for the comparison (10, 12.5, and 15 min). Time points will be evaluated from earliest to latest time. Testing will proceed until either one passes or all pre-specified time points fail. Subject-level naloxone concentrations will be log-transformed. Naloxone concentrations below the lower limit of quantification will result in that time point from that subject being removed for comparisons involving that treatment arm.|This was the first timepoint in the comparison that showed an increase in the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) compared to the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) and is the reported outcome for this endpoint.||1.28|0.002
91692081|NCT03135548|183278806|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.338|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.338|-0.190|
91692082|NCT03135548|183278806|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.338|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.338|-0.190|
91794474|NCT05985980|183467889|EQUIVALENCE|ETT ST/HR slope (μV/bpm) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ETT ST/HR slope (μV/bpm) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||0.414
91861914|NCT05415722|183610694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.65||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.08|13.58|||ANCOVA|||Arm 2 compared to Placebo||13.58|-72.08|0.1790
91861915|NCT05415722|183610694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-75.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.96||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.08|-32.23|||ANCOVA|||Arm 3 compared to Placebo||-32.23|-119.08|0.0008
91861916|NCT05415722|183610695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.895||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.352|-1.128|||ANCOVA|||Arm 4 compared to Placebo||-1.128|-32.352|0.0358
91861917|NCT05415722|183610695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.647|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.858|-28.612|||ANCOVA|||Arm 5 compared to Placebo||-28.612|-58.858|<0.0001
91793524|NCT03239665|183465245|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.9417||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing influenza knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.9417
91676437|NCT04764630|183247995|SUPERIORITY|To demonstrate an increase in naloxone concentration, the lower bound of the one-sided 97.79% interval for the geometric mean ratio must exclude 1. The results will be transformed back to the original scale by exponentiation to provide treatment geometric means.|Geometric mean ratio|1.98||||0.018|ONE_SIDED|95.6|1.03|||Testing will be conducted sequentially (i.e., start at the initial time and progress forward, stopping if success is achieved) at a 1-sided 0.0221 significance level since an increase in naloxone exposure is expected.|t-test, 1 sided||Data is shown for 4.5-minute timepoint (first time point tested where an increased was observed). This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Up to three different time points have been pre-specified for the comparison (4.5, 7, and 10 minutes). Time points will be evaluated from earliest to latest time. Testing will proceed until either one passes or all pre-specified time points fail. Subject-level naloxone concentrations will be log-transformed. Naloxone concentrations below the lower limit of quantification will result in that time point from that subject being removed for comparisons involving that treatment arm.|This was the first timepoint in the comparison that showed an increase in the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) compared to the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) and is the reported outcome for this endpoint.||1.03|0.018
91676438|NCT04764630|183247996|SUPERIORITY|To demonstrate an increase in naloxone concentration, the lower bound of the one-sided 97.79% interval for the geometric mean ratio must exclude 1. The results will be transformed back to the original scale by exponentiation to provide treatment geometric means.|Geometric mean ratio|1.69||||0.013|ONE_SIDED|95.6|1.06|||Testing will be conducted sequentially (i.e., start at the initial time and progress forward, stopping if success is achieved) at a 1-sided 0.0221 significance level since an increase in naloxone exposure is expected.|t-test, 1 sided||Data is shown for 4.5-minute timepoint (first time point tested where an increased was observed). This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Up to three different time points have been pre-specified for the comparison (4.5, 7, and 10 minutes). Time points will be evaluated from earliest to latest time. Testing will proceed until either one passes or all pre-specified time points fail. Subject-level naloxone concentrations will be log-transformed. Naloxone concentrations below the lower limit of quantification will result in that time point from that subject being removed for comparisons involving that treatment arm.|This was the first timepoint in the comparison that showed an increase in the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) compared to the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) and is the reported outcome for this endpoint.||1.06|0.013
91676439|NCT04764630|183247997|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.89||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for Cmax will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||1.00|0.78|0.10
91676440|NCT04764630|183247997|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.77||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for Cmax will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.92|0.65|0.018
91692083|NCT03135548|183278808|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|0.086|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.086|-0.289|
91692084|NCT03135548|183278808|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.348|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.348|-0.116|
91793525|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0011||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.0011
91793526|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|||||<|0.0001||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||<0.0001
91794475|NCT05985980|183467890|EQUIVALENCE|Maximal horizontal or down slope ST segment depression (mm) during exercise treadmill test is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Maximal horizontal or down slope ST segment depression (mm) during exercise treadmill test is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||0.062
91676441|NCT04764630|183247997|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for Cmax will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||1.01|0.75|0.12
91861918|NCT05415722|183610696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.09||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.33|-18.96|||ANCOVA|||Arm 4 compared to Placebo||-18.96|-106.33|0.0053
91676442|NCT04764630|183247998|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.83||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-inf will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.91|0.76|0.002
91676443|NCT04764630|183247998|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-inf will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.81|0.70|<0.001
91676444|NCT04764630|183247998|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-inf will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.97|0.85|0.014
91692085|NCT03135548|183278809|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|34.48|||Student's t-distribution|CIs were based on Student's t-distribution.||||34.48|-20.01|
91861919|NCT05415722|183610696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.13||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.97|-27.39|||ANCOVA|||Arm 5 compared to Placebo||-27.39|-110.97|0.0014
91861920|NCT03524612|183610698|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper Pearson test|||||||<0.0001
91861921|NCT05457647|183610723|OTHER|The accuracy and precision of the theranostic imaging biomarkers, including both the riboflavin score and theranostic score, to predict CXL treatment outcome were determined by calculating the proportion of correctly classified eyes and the positive predictive value respectively.|Proportion|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The study set a minimum threshold of 85 for the the combined use of the theranostic imaging biomarkers' accuracy and precision in predicting the propensity of CXL to halt disease progression at 1 year in the study population.|Accuracy and precision of the combined use of theranostic imaging biomarkers generated by the UV-A device to predict the propensity of CXL in flattening the Kmax value at 12-months.||||
91861922|NCT05457647|183610724|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of Kmax value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
91861923|NCT05457647|183610725|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of ECD value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
91692086|NCT03135548|183278809|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.35|16.7|||Student's t-distribution|CIs were based on Student's t-distribution.||||16.70|-28.35|
91692087|NCT03135548|183278810|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.049|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.||||0.049|-0.346|
91692088|NCT03135548|183278810|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.252|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.||||0.252|-0.213|
91692089|NCT05022667|183278864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
91692090|NCT05022667|183278865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5
91692091|NCT05022667|183278866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.2
91692092|NCT05022667|183278867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
91692093|NCT05022667|183278868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.4
91692094|NCT05022667|183278870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3
91861924|NCT05457647|183610726|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of MSER value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
91861925|NCT05457647|183610727|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of CDVA value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
91676445|NCT04764630|183247999|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.82||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-t will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.89|0.75|0.001
91676446|NCT04764630|183247999|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-t will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.80|0.69|<0.001
91676447|NCT04764630|183247999|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-t will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.96|0.85|0.014
91676448|NCT01144364|183248020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Log Rank|||Difference between treatment arms||||0.254
91676449|NCT01144364|183248022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.12||Overall DFS|Cox proportional-hazards|Adjusted for randomization stratum and the known prognostic factors.||||1.12|0.31|0.105
91861926|NCT05457647|183610728|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of UDVA value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
91861927|NCT05457647|183610729|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of CCT value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
91676450|NCT01144364|183248023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.751
91676451|NCT01144364|183248024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.751
91676452|NCT01144364|183248026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.05|||Cox proportional-hazards|||Analysis of overall PFS with Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for the randomization stratum and the known prognostic factors.||1.05|0.38|0.079
91676453|NCT01144364|183248029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.09||Univariate analysis|Regression, Cox|Cox model stratified for the stratification groups.||||1.09|0.40|0.103
91676454|NCT01144364|183248029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.04||Multivariate analysis|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for stratification group, age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, FL International prognostic index (FLIPI) score.||||1.04|0.37|0.071
91676455|NCT01144364|183248030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.06||Univariate analysis|Fine and Gray model|Fine and Gray model stratified for the stratification groups.||||1.06|0.39|0.084
91676456|NCT01144364|183248030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||Fine and Gray model|Fine and Gray model adjusted for stratification group, age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, and FLIPI score||||1.00|0.38|0.052
91692095|NCT03521154|183278873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.24|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.24|0.10|<0.001
91692096|NCT03521154|183278874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.29|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|PFS in Ex19Del positive patients||0.29|0.10|
91861928|NCT05457647|183610730|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively. Bonferroni correction was applied to analysis of exploratory outcome measures of stratification groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91861929|NCT03115476|183610741|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.9|||likelihood ratio test|||Relative difference between groups (ingenol disoxate vs vehicle) expressed as hazard ratio||3.9|0.61|0.43
91861930|NCT03115476|183610742|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.62|||likelihood ratio test|||relative difference between treatment groups (ingenol disoxate gel vs vehicle) expressed as hazard ratio||3.62|1.17|<0.01
91861931|NCT00764751|183610823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|25.0|||Paired t-test|||||25|5.6|=0.003
91861932|NCT00764751|183610823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.1||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|1.9|||Paired t-test|||||1.9|-36.0|0.07
91861933|NCT04204265|183610839|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91861934|NCT04204265|183610840|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91861935|NCT04204265|183610841|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91692097|NCT03521154|183278874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||||95.0|0.19|0.56|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|PFS in L858R positive patients||0.56|0.19|
91794476|NCT05985980|183467891|EQUIVALENCE|Estrogen levels increase at the late follicular phase.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91692098|NCT03521154|183278875|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.34|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|Negative at screening||0.34|0.15|
91692099|NCT03521154|183278876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.32|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.32|0.09|<0.001
91861936|NCT02465268|183610844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.16|||Log Rank|||||2.16|0.77|0.196
91861937|NCT02465268|183610844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.7|||Log Rank|||||2.70|0.99|0.196
91861938|NCT02465268|183610845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.60|0.354
91861939|NCT02465268|183610845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.33|||Log Rank|||||2.33|0.87|0.354
91861940|NCT02465268|183610846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.038
91861941|NCT02465268|183610846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.038
91861942|NCT02465268|183610846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.038
91861943|NCT02465268|183610848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
91861944|NCT02465268|183610848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
91861945|NCT02465268|183610848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
91861946|NCT02465268|183610849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6
91861947|NCT02465268|183610849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6
91861948|NCT02465268|183610849|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6
91861949|NCT02465268|183610851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
91861950|NCT02465268|183610851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
91861951|NCT02465268|183610851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
91861952|NCT02876588|183610852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2||Random-effects logistic regression models were constructed, using RAR order sessions as the outcome, randomization group as the independent variable, and the clinician as the random intercept to account for nesting of order sessions within clinicians|Regression, Logistic|||||1.20|.90|.60
91692100|NCT03521154|183278878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.56|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||1.56|0.42|0.530
91692101|NCT03521154|183278879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|5.08|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours osimertinib|||5.08|1.54|<0.001
91692102|NCT03521154|183278881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.47|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours osimertinib.|||4.47|0.94|0.069
91692103|NCT03521154|183278884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.38|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.38|0.11|<0.001
91692104|NCT03521154|183278885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.32|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.32|0.14|<0.001
91692105|NCT03521154|183278886|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.21|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.21|0.08|<0.001
91692106|NCT03521154|183278887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.91|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.91|0.28|0.022
91692107|NCT03521154|183278888|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.08|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||1.08|0.35|0.088
91692108|NCT04632927|183278897|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.647||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.601|8.311|||Regression, Logistic|The OR was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group, baseline HAQ-DI and strata (body weight) as independent variables||||8.311|1.601|0.002
91692109|NCT04795466|183278922|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1442||0.6386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.178|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|||NTB Total z-score - day 171||0.316|-0.178|0.6386
91692110|NCT04795466|183278923|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1739||0.9917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Memory function - day 171||0.296|-0.300|0.9917
91692111|NCT04795466|183278924|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1958||0.351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.148|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Executive function- day 171||0.520|-0.148|0.3510
91692112|NCT04795466|183278925|SUPERIORITY||Repeated measures analysis|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.787|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DSST - day 171||2.58|-3.56|0.7870
91692113|NCT02612623|183278985|OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.96|||||Gefapixant minus Placebo|Least squares mean (LSM) difference: Mixed effect repeated measures model (MMRM) uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||0.96|-2.08|
91692114|NCT02612623|183278985|OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.92|||||Gefapixant minus Placebo|LSM difference: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||0.92|-2.34|
91692115|NCT02612623|183278985|OTHER||LSM Difference|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.3|||||Gefapixant minus Placebo|LSM difference: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||0.30|-2.99|
91692116|NCT02612623|183278985|OTHER||Percentage Change|-42.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.5|162.3|||||100 x \[(Exponent of LSM Difference) minus 1\]|Estimated Percentage Change: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||162.3|-87.5|
91692117|NCT02612623|183278985|OTHER||Percentage Change|-50.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|151.1|||||100 x \[(Exponent of LSM Difference) minus 1\]|Estimated Percentage Change: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||151.1|-90.3|
91692118|NCT02612623|183278985|OTHER||Percentage Change|-74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|34.7|||||100 x \[(Exponent of LSM Difference) minus 1\]|Estimated Percentage Change: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||34.7|-95.0|
91692119|NCT02535026|183279024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||ER status association with age groups||||0.280
91692120|NCT02535026|183279025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||ER status association with nuclear grade.||||<0.001
91692121|NCT02535026|183279026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||ER status association with lymphovascular invasion.||||=0.03
91692122|NCT02535026|183279027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||PR status association with age groups||||=0.004
91692123|NCT02535026|183279028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||PR status association with nuclear grade.||||<0.001
91692124|NCT02535026|183279029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.025|||||||ANOVA|||PR status association with lymphovascular invasion.||||=0.025
91692125|NCT02535026|183279030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.056|||||||ANOVA|||HER2 status association with age groups.||||=0.056
91692126|NCT02535026|183279031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||HER2 status association with nuclear grade.||||<0.001
91692127|NCT02535026|183279032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.129|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.129
91692128|NCT02535026|183279033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||ANOVA|||Breast cancer phenotypes association with age groups.||||=0.003
91692129|NCT02535026|183279034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Breast cancer phenotypes association with nuclear grades.||||<0.001
91717048|NCT01687218|183326480|OTHER||Slope|-1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||This comparison is between the RAI rectal and oral (reference) groups for tenofovir levels in blood plasma, log10 ng/mL.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||-1.70|-1.95|<0.001
91861953|NCT02876588|183610853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19||Random-effects logistic regression models were constructed, using RAR order sessions as the outcome, randomization group as the independent variable, the clinician as the random intercept to account for nesting of order sessions within clinicians|Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|.89|.68
91676457|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.2|-3.0|
91676458|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0796|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.8|-1.4|
91676459|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0792|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||7.1|-1.1|
91676460|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.6|-1.6|
91676461|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0789|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.8|-2.4|
91676462|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.9|-4.2|
91717049|NCT01687218|183326481|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.83|0.49|<0.001
91717050|NCT01687218|183326481|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.15|-0.46|0.31
91794477|NCT00282347|183467908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.5538
91861954|NCT02876588|183610854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91861955|NCT02547363|183610855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||<0.001
91861956|NCT02547363|183610856|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|62.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|451.08|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||451.08|8.68|<0.001
91861957|NCT02547363|183610857|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|59.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.44|415.35|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||415.35|8.44|<0.001
91676463|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0792|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.9|-7.2|
91676464|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0796|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-5.4|
91676465|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.9|-4.2|
91676466|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-6.7|
91676467|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.6|-2.4|
91676468|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.6|-1.4|
91676469|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.8|-4.2|
91676470|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0276|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.2|-2.8|
91676471|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-4.6|
91861958|NCT02547363|183610858|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.32|||Mantel Haenszel||0.037% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.32|0.23|<0.001
91676472|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.1|-6.9|
91676473|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.4|-3.6|
91676474|NCT02037165|183248031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-5.0|
91676475|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.7|-4.6|
91676476|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-6.5|
91676477|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8557|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-6.7|
91676478|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.0|-5.3|
91676479|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8554|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.8|-3.5|
91861959|NCT03084536|183610878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.68
91861960|NCT03084536|183610879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
91861961|NCT03084536|183610880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.53
91861962|NCT03084536|183610881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.44
91861963|NCT03084536|183610882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.88
91861964|NCT04986501|183610884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
91861965|NCT04986501|183610886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
91676480|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.3|-3.0|
91676481|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8557|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-4.8|
91676482|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.3|-5.0|
91676483|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-4.5|
91676484|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-4.7|
91676485|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.4|-7.6|
91676486|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8252|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-6.0|
91676487|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.3|-4.9|
91692130|NCT02535026|183279035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||phenotypes of breast cancer association with lymphovascular invasion.||||=0.001
91861966|NCT01084876|183610951|EQUIVALENCE|The therapeutic equivalence between CT-P6 and Herceptin is concluded if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the risk difference (CT-P6 - Herceptin) estimate in ORR ITRC review during the Main Study Treatment Period is entirely within the predefined equivalence margin of -0.15 to 0.15.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.036||||||||0.036|-0.143|
91692131|NCT02535026|183279036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||phenotypes of breast cancer association with ER status.||||<0.001
91692132|NCT02535026|183279037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Phenotypes of breast cancer association with PR status.||||<0.001
91692133|NCT02535026|183279038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||phenotypes of breast cancer association with HER2 status.||||<0.001
91794478|NCT02101112|183467917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|1.054|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.118||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and suspended in water) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||1.118|0.994|
91861967|NCT05717907|183610978|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
91692134|NCT01671007|183279040|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.08|0.64|
91793527|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0028||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0028
91676488|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.825|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.9|-5.3|
91676489|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-3.8|
91676490|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8252|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-5.0|
91676491|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.9|-6.2|
91676492|NCT02037165|183248032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.3|-3.9|
91676493|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-2.8|
91676494|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.9|-0.5|
91676495|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.7|-1.7|
91861968|NCT05546749|183610983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was performed to predict pain intensity by arm at weeks 3 and 6, controlling for baseline pain intensity score.||0.54|-3.1|0.17
91692135|NCT01671007|183279041|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.27|0.70|
91861969|NCT05546749|183610984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was used to predict opioid craving score by arm at weeks 3 and 6, controlling for baseline opioid craving score.||13.1|-40.3|0.32
91676496|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.9|-1.4|
91861970|NCT05546749|183610993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.6|||Regression, Linear||RelieVRx was associated with lower stress score.|We performed a mixed effects model to predict stress score at week 6 by arm, controlling for baseline stress score.||3.6|-23.1|0.137
91676497|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-2.0|
91676498|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.0|-2.3|
91676499|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.1|-4.3|
91676500|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-4.2|
91676501|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-3.5|
91676502|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.0|-4.2|
91861971|NCT04342494|183611024|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline PHQ-9 score via analysis of covariance.||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
91861972|NCT04342494|183611025|EQUIVALENCE|Average mood score obtained from daily measurements analyzed via analysis of variance||||||0.0073|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0073
91861973|NCT04342494|183611026|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline PANSI-PI score via analysis of covariance||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91861974|NCT04342494|183611027|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline PANSI-NSI score via analysis of covariance||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.71
91861975|NCT04342494|183611028|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline GAD-7 score via analysis of covariance||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
91861976|NCT03736720|183611030|OTHER|No statistical test.|Proportion|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.033|0.301|||||Estimated using Jeffrey's prior method.|||0.301|0.033|
91861977|NCT03736720|183611036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Sign test|two-sided test.||Comparing the pre-treatment and end of treatment QoL scores.||||0.289
91861978|NCT05119023|183611041|OTHER|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Language Severity and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.39
91861979|NCT05119023|183611041|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Language severity and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||<0.01
91676503|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.7|-1.5|
91676504|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-1.8|
91676505|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-3.9|
91676506|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.2|-2.0|
91676507|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-2.6|
91676508|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-4.7|
91676509|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.0|-2.2|
91692136|NCT01671007|183279042|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.06|0.43|
91861980|NCT05119023|183611041|OTHER|||||||0.95||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Language severity and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule-based Learning Scores||||0.95
91861981|NCT05119023|183611042|OTHER|Sample underpowered for regression so correlation examined||||||0.36||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Attention and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.36
91861982|NCT05119023|183611042|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Pearson's correlation|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||Examination of Attention and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||0.09
91861983|NCT05119023|183611042|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Attention and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule Based Learning||||0.32
91861984|NCT05119023|183611043|OTHER|Sample underpowered for regression so correlation examined||||||0.64||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Working Memory and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.64
91676510|NCT02037165|183248033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.3|-2.9|
91676511|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2419|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.5|-3.4|
91676512|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.5|-4.4|
91676513|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-4.1|
91676514|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.9|-3.0|
91676515|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.7|-2.1|
91793528|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|||||<|0.0001||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||<0.0001
91676516|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-2.1|
91676517|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-2.3|
91692137|NCT01671007|183279043|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.09|0.43|
91793529|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||1||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||1.0
91861985|NCT05119023|183611043|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Working Memory and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||0.01
91861986|NCT05119023|183611043|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Working Memory and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule-based Learning Scores||||0.79
91692138|NCT01671007|183279047|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function, concomitant antiplatelets use and concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding.||0.88|0.38|
91861987|NCT05119023|183611044|OTHER|Sample underpowered for regression so correlation examined||||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Executive Function and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.90
91861988|NCT05119023|183611044|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Executive Function and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||0.09
91861989|NCT05119023|183611044|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Executive Function and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule-based Learning Scores||||0.24
91903113|NCT02877927|183701166|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.9|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.9|-2.2|
91861990|NCT03194217|183611046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|-1.68|0.668
91717051|NCT01687218|183326482|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. Mid period and end period visits only were used in this analysis.||0.50|0.10|0.004
91717052|NCT01687218|183326482|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||-0.47|-0.92|<0.001
91717053|NCT01687218|183326483|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality for the following analysis.||-2.50|-2.82|<0.001
91717054|NCT01687218|183326483|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality for the following analysis.||-2.49|-2.81|<0.001
91717055|NCT01687218|183326484|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. End period visits only are used in this analysis.||-0.80|-1.01|<0.001
91717056|NCT01687218|183326484|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. End period visits only are used in this analysis.||-0.80|-1.01|<0.001
91717057|NCT01687218|183326485|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. Mid period and end period visits only are used in this analysis.||-1.84|-2.16|<0.001
91717058|NCT01687218|183326485|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. Mid period and end period visits only are used in this analysis.||-1.74|-2.07|<0.001
91861991|NCT03194217|183611046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.26|||ANCOVA|||||2.26|-0.50|0.213
91717059|NCT01687218|183326486|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.72|0.35|<0.001
91717060|NCT01687218|183326486|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.31|-0.28|0.92
91793530|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.643||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.6430
91861992|NCT03194217|183611046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|-1.76|0.575
91861993|NCT02962895|183611047|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.75||||0.5161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||3.02|-1.52|0.5161
91861994|NCT02962895|183611047|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||1.71|-2.80|0.6332
91861995|NCT02962895|183611047|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.92||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||0.32|-4.15|0.0921
91861996|NCT02962895|183611049|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32||||0.4457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||1.13|-0.50|0.4457
91861997|NCT02962895|183611049|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.01||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||0.82|-0.79|0.301
91861998|NCT02962895|183611049|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.8858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||0.74|-0.86|0.8858
91861999|NCT02962895|183611051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.93||||0.3424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values are derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||2.07|-5.93|0.3424
91862000|NCT02962895|183611051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.56||||0.2092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values are derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||1.45|-6.58|0.2092
91676518|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.9|-3.0|
91676519|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2419|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-3.6|
91676520|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.1|-3.7|
91676521|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.5|-4.3|
91676522|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-3.6|
91692272|NCT00333983|183279568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||P value was set at .025 to adjust for 2 treatment comparisons and for interim monitoring for the treatment effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||An analysis of all robot interventions compared with intensive conventional exercise for Fugl-Meyer change were completed using linear mixed models.||||.025
91862001|NCT02962895|183611051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values are derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||4.20|-3.58|0.8740
91862002|NCT02962895|183611053|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.02||||0.5768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo / Mental Component Score||2.57|-4.61|0.5768
91862003|NCT02962895|183611053|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.68||||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|4.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo / Mental Component Score||4.28|-2.93|0.7113
91862004|NCT02962895|183611053|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0||||0.5722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo / Mental Component Score||4.48|-2.49|0.5722
91862005|NCT02962895|183611053|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.84||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|3.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo / Physical Component Score||3.83|-1.59|0.4138
91862006|NCT02962895|183611053|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo / Physical Component Score||1.71|-3.72|0.4663
91862007|NCT02962895|183611053|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.84||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|4.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo / Physical Component Score||4.47|-0.79|0.1694
91862008|NCT02962895|183611055|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.17||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||3.22|-11.56|0.2671
91676523|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-2.3|
91676524|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.7|-3.1|
91676525|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-2.0|
91676526|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-2.3|
91692273|NCT03656068|183279580|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.0039
91862009|NCT02962895|183611055|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.49||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||2.79|-11.78|0.2248
91862010|NCT02962895|183611055|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.36||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||-1.20|-15.51|0.0224
91862011|NCT02962895|183611057|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.27||||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||12.00|-7.46|0.6457
91862012|NCT02962895|183611057|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.26||||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|13.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||13.06|-6.55|0.5132
91862013|NCT02962895|183611057|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.77||||95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||4.68|-14.21|95
91692274|NCT03656068|183279581|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.0026
91692275|NCT03656068|183279582|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.5555|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.5555
91692276|NCT03656068|183279583|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.3778
91692277|NCT03656068|183279584|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1||||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|14.8||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||14.8|-31.0|0.4638
91692278|NCT03656068|183279585|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|5.97||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.97|-9.26|0.6532
91692279|NCT03656068|183279586|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.7254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.61||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.61|-1.86|0.7254
91692280|NCT03656068|183279587|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.77||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|29.25||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||29.25|-11.70|0.3772
91692281|NCT03656068|183279588|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.5799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.33||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.56|0.5799
91692282|NCT03656068|183279589|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.65|8.87||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.87|-12.65|0.7088
91692283|NCT03656068|183279590|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.02||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.72|0.0609
91793531|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1193||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.1193
91793532|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|||||<|0.0001||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||<0.0001
91862014|NCT02962895|183611058|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo (Stimulated salivary flow rate)||0.30|-0.08|0.2710
91862015|NCT02962895|183611058|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo (Stimulated salivary flow rate)||0.32|-0.05|0.1618
91862016|NCT02962895|183611058|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo (Stimulated salivary flow rate)||0.38|0.01|0.0374
91862017|NCT02962895|183611058|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo (Unstimulated salivary flow rate)||0.09|-0.09|0.9559
91862018|NCT02962895|183611058|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo (Unstimulated salivary flow rate)||0.08|-0.09|0.9290
91676527|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.7|-4.1|
91676528|NCT02037165|183248034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.6|
91676529|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1758|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.1|-1.5|
91692139|NCT01671007|183279050|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.84|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, concomitant antiplatelets use, concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding, hypertension, and diabetes.||1.84|0.49|
91862019|NCT02962895|183611058|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo (Unstimulated salivary flow rate)||0.07|-0.10|0.7276
91862020|NCT04509674|183611064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference regarding the risk of the endpoint in question between empagliflozin and placebo.~p\<=0.05 required for testing of subsequent key secondary endpoint hypotheses"|Regression, Cox||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|The primary endpoint was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates.||1.06|0.76|0.2061
91903114|NCT02877927|183701167|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.6|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||5.6|-0.6|
91903115|NCT01791803|183701196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|11.4||||||||11.4|1.1|
91793533|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.4861||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.4861
91794479|NCT02101112|183467917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.741|0.839||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and mixed with applesauce) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||0.839|0.741|
91903116|NCT01791803|183701196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.7||||||||9.7|1.04|
91676530|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1755|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-1.8|
91676531|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1752|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.4|-0.2|
91676532|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1751|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.6|-1.0|
91676533|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.175|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-1.2|
91676534|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1751|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.7|-2.9|
91676535|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1752|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.9|-3.7|
91676536|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1755|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-2.1|
91676537|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1758|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.7|-1.9|
91692140|NCT01671007|183279051|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.01|0.60|
91692141|NCT00449865|183279069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Global Statistical Test|The global statistical test yielded t = -0.75 (2-sided p-value = .45, df=1865.8).||||||0.45
91903117|NCT01791803|183701197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.2||||Adjusted for gender, marital status, diagnosis at enrollment.||||6.2|0.8|
91903118|NCT01791803|183701197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.0||||||||10|1.2|
91903119|NCT01791803|183701198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of smoking status at 12 weeks after hospitalization for a cardiac or pulmonary diagnosis||||< 0.001
91862021|NCT04509674|183611065|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|0.87||||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.1|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.10|0.68|0.2423
91676538|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1567|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-4.0|
91692284|NCT03656068|183279591|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.61||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|2.94||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.94|-16.16|0.1556
91903120|NCT01791803|183701198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of smoking stars at 26 weeks after hospitalization for a cardiac or a pulmonary illness||||0.07
91676539|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-1.8|
91676540|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.2|-0.4|
91676541|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.5|-1.0|
91676542|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-1.6|
91676543|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference of 200 mg BI mi|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-2.7|
91862022|NCT04509674|183611066|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|0.92||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.07|0.78|0.2867
91862023|NCT04509674|183611067|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|0.87||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7654|0.9978|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||0.9978|0.7654|0.0463
91862024|NCT04509674|183611068|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|1.06||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.35|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.35|0.83|0.6311
91862025|NCT04509674|183611069|OTHER|The statistical analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8124||95.0|0.81|1.31|||Regression, Cox||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.31|0.81|0.8124
91862026|NCT03896789|183611172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.5||The primary outcome was analyzed using a multi-level mixed-effects model, which included a random effect for site (to account for potential provider clustering) and fixed effects for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Included covariates were age, gender, head maximum AIS, non-head maximum AIS, nurse: patient ratio and baseline TBI guideline adherence scores.||"Null hypothesis: Assuming no difference between usual care (control) and PEGASUS (intervention).~We used 2011-2012 results from prior pilot work in Argentina (58.6% TBI guideline adherence) to determine a sample size of 432 eligible patients (216 per arm) for the planned parallel cluster RCT, which would have 80% power to detect a 18.7% higher ICU TBI guideline adherence rate with programme implementation, with a two-sided alpha of 5%, and an intraclass coefficient of 0.05."||3.5|-3.3|.95
91862027|NCT03896789|183611178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.8||The outcome was analyzed using a multi-level mixed-effects model, which included a random effect for site (to account for potential provider clustering) and fixed effects for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Included covariates were age, gender, head maximum AIS, non-head maximum AIS, nurse: patient ratio and baseline TBI guideline adherence scores.||||13.8|1.9|.01
91692285|NCT03656068|183279592|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|1.4||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-30.6|0.0709
91862028|NCT05851573|183611179|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||< .05
91794480|NCT02101112|183467918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.076||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and suspended in water) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||1.076|0.981|
91862029|NCT05851573|183611180|OTHER||||||=|0.775|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||= .775
91862030|NCT05851573|183611181|OTHER||||||=|0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .444
91862031|NCT05851573|183611182|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||.959
91862032|NCT05851573|183611183|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||.068
91862033|NCT05851573|183611184|OTHER||||||=|0.119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .119
91862034|NCT05851573|183611185|OTHER||||||=|0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .258
91862035|NCT05851573|183611186|OTHER||||||=|0.593|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .593
91862036|NCT04473222|183611214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.15||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The logit represents the difference in log odds per 1-week change in time for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||.026
91676544|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.5|-3.0|
91676545|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.4|-2.2|
91692286|NCT03656068|183279593|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.61||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|1.81||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.81|-9.02|0.1799
91692287|NCT03656068|183279594|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.3306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|7.6||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-21.2|0.3306
91862037|NCT04473222|183611215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The logit represents the difference in log odds per 1-week change in time for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.032
91862038|NCT04473222|183611216|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||.010
91862039|NCT04473222|183611217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.161
91862040|NCT04473222|183611218|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.006
91862041|NCT04473222|183611219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.045
91903121|NCT02060383|183701233|OTHER|There was no formal hypothesis testing planned in this study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.08|||||Difference of adjusted mean change in HbA1c between the two arms based on an ANOVA model with treatment (Incretin, Insulin) and randomization stratification factors (Cushing's vs. Acromegaly; baseline HbA1c \<7% vs ≥7%) as fixed effects.|All Patients||0.08|-0.63|
91692288|NCT03656068|183279595|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|3.37||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.37|-7.25|0.4504
91692289|NCT03656068|183279596|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|33.8||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|79.0||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||79.0|-11.5|0.1349
91692290|NCT03656068|183279597|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|76.24||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.04|133.43||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||133.43|19.04|0.0117
91692291|NCT03656068|183279598|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|31.3||||0.4281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|112.9||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||112.9|-50.3|0.4281
91692292|NCT03656068|183279599|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|117.37||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|229.14||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||229.14|5.60|0.0407
91692293|NCT03656068|183279600|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|47.28||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.9|305.46||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||305.46|-210.90|0.7065
91692294|NCT03656068|183279601|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|43.11||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.95|106.17||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||106.17|-19.95|0.1693
91692295|NCT03656068|183279602|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-48.14||||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-317.64|221.36||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||221.36|-317.64|0.7099
91692296|NCT03656068|183279603|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|30.03||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.48|97.55||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||97.55|-37.48|0.3597
91692297|NCT03656068|183279604|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|169.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25908.2|26246.2||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||26246.2|-25908.2|0.9893
91862042|NCT04473222|183611220|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.685
91862043|NCT04473222|183611221|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.734|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.734
91862044|NCT04473222|183611222|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.019
91717061|NCT01687218|183326487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.63|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables was used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. Because the distribution of the adherence percentages were skewed, we did not use a linear mixed effects model as originally planned. Instead, we dichotomized the adherence percentage into\<80% adherence versus\>80% adherence.||0.63|0.19|0.0005
91717062|NCT01687218|183326487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.81|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables was used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. Because the distribution of the adherence percentages were skewed, we did not use a linear mixed effects model as originally planned. Instead, we dichotomized the adherence percentage into\<80% adherence versus\>80% adherence.||1.81|0.43|0.74
91717063|NCT02084511|183326502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|131.1|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||131.1|-76.3|
91717064|NCT02084511|183326502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|157.1|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||157.1|-50.2|
91717065|NCT02084511|183326502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-174.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.3|-70.9|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-70.9|-278.3|
91676546|NCT02037165|183248035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1567|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.6|-3.0|
91676547|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.7|-2.7|
91676548|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.2|
91676549|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-3.7|
91692298|NCT03656068|183279605|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.82||||0.1454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|32.85||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||32.85|-5.21|0.1454
91692299|NCT03656068|183279606|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3016.8||||0.8089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22996.2|29029.7||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||29029.7|-22996.2|0.8089
91692300|NCT03656068|183279607|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.78||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|30.06||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||30.06|-4.50|0.1365
91692301|NCT03656068|183279608|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|28.954||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.525|67.433||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||67.433|-9.525|0.1322
91692302|NCT03656068|183279609|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|23.99||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|53.57|||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for testing mean = 0||||53.57|-5.59|0.1062
91692303|NCT03656068|183279610|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|28.311||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.151|60.774||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||60.774|-4.151|0.0831
91692304|NCT03656068|183279611|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|32.72||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|66.13||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||66.13|-0.69|0.0543
91692305|NCT03656068|183279612|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.056||||0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.298||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.298|-0.185|0.6325
91692306|NCT03656068|183279613|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.6925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.87||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.87|-1.94|0.6925
91692307|NCT03656068|183279614|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.161||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.462|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.462|-0.140|0.2733
91692308|NCT03656068|183279615|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.47||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|4.56||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.56|-1.63|0.3288
91692309|NCT03656068|183279616|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.649||||0.9271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.923|133.22||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||133.220|-121.923|0.9271
91692310|NCT03656068|183279617|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.58|20.37||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||20.37|-18.58|0.9244
91692311|NCT03656068|183279618|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-30.244||||0.7288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.93|151.441||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||151.441|-211.930|0.7288
91692312|NCT03656068|183279619|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|28.52||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||28.52|-21.85|0.7824
91692313|NCT03656068|183279620|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-47.629||||0.6448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-260.433|165.176||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||165.176|-260.433|0.6448
91692314|NCT03656068|183279621|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.9806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.04|32.8||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||32.80|-32.04|0.9806
91692315|NCT03656068|183279622|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-113.616||||0.3256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-351.124|123.891||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||123.891|-351.124|0.3256
91692316|NCT03656068|183279623|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.78||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.52|50.09||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||50.09|-32.52|0.6582
91717066|NCT02084511|183326502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-148.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.4|-44.7|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-44.7|-252.4|
91717067|NCT02084511|183326503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.7|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||5.7|-2.3|
91717068|NCT02084511|183326503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||5.0|-3.0|
91717069|NCT02084511|183326503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-2.2|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-2.2|-10.3|
91717070|NCT02084511|183326503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.9|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-2.9|-11.0|
91717071|NCT02084511|183326504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|27.8|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||27.8|-16.0|
91717072|NCT02084511|183326504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|42.5|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||42.5|-1.3|
91793534|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0002||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0002
91793535|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.3247||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.3247
91717073|NCT02084511|183326504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.6|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||8.6|-35.2|
91793536|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.4627||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.4627
91793537|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1244||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.1244
91717074|NCT02084511|183326504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|23.3|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||23.3|-20.6|
91717075|NCT02084511|183326505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2503|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.2503
91717076|NCT02084511|183326505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1851|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.1851
91717077|NCT02084511|183326505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.0167
91717078|NCT02084511|183326506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.4150
91717079|NCT02084511|183326506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3093|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.3093
91717080|NCT02084511|183326506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.0074
91717081|NCT00461734|183326508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4347|||||||two-sided z-test|||||||0.4347
91717082|NCT00461734|183326509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||two-sided z-test|||||||0.338
91717083|NCT00461734|183326510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2257
91717084|NCT00461734|183326511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5480
91717085|NCT00461734|183326512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8868|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8868
91717086|NCT00461734|183326513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6151
91717087|NCT00461734|183326517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0525
91717088|NCT00461734|183326518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1852
91717089|NCT00461734|183326520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9719|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9719
91717090|NCT00461734|183326521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8779
91717091|NCT03204643|183326533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.54|0.06
91862045|NCT04473222|183611223|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.776
91862046|NCT01098812|183611228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.0|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|25.0|||Primary study endpoint; therefore, no adjustment for multiple comparisons. The planned alpha level for testing was 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||Toric IOL results for mean percent reduction in cyl compared to control results at 6 months. Null hypothesis = mean reduction for toric eyes is \<= to that of control eyes; alternate hypothesis = mean reduction for toric eyes is \> the control. There is 80% power to detect \>=31% difference in mean percent reduction in cylinder (postoperative refractive cylinder minus preoperative keratometric cylinder)/(target refractive cylinder minus preoperative keratometric cylinder) between IOL groups.|||25|<0.0001
91862047|NCT01098812|183611229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.0009|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.03||P-value compared to alpha level adjusted for multiplicity of 0.0125.|t-test, 1 sided|||Used LogMAR values for visual acuity; The null hypothesis is that the mean UCDVA for toric eyes is worse than or equal to that for control eyes; the alternate hypothesis is that the mean UCDVA for toric eyes is better than that for control eyes. There is 80% power to detect \>=0.06 LogMAR difference in mean UCDVA between IOL groups.||-0.03||0.0009
91862048|NCT02319759|183611230|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|39.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.3|54.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.1|25.3|<0.001
91862049|NCT02319759|183611231|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%) Difference|66.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|78.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||78.4|53.8|<0.001
91862050|NCT02319759|183611232|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|-0.148|||MMRM|MMRM stands for Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures||||-0.148|-0.471|<0.001
91862051|NCT03848065|183611342|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|17.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|31.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Erythema (Redness)||31.4|9.0|0.004
91862052|NCT03848065|183611342|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|15.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Erythema (Redness)||15.5|-3.7|0.150
91862053|NCT03848065|183611342|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-13.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|0.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Erythema (Redness)||0.2|-27.6|0.054
91903122|NCT02060383|183701233|OTHER|There was no formal hypothesis testing planned in this study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.95|||||Difference of adjusted mean change in HbA1c between the two arms based on an ANOVA model with treatment (Incretin, Insulin) and randomization stratification factors (baseline HbA1c \<7% vs ≥7%) as fixed effects.|Cushing's Disease||0.95|-0.96|
91717092|NCT03204643|183326534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.70|0.76
91717093|NCT03204643|183326535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|0.65|0.62
91717094|NCT03204643|183326536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|0.96|0.96|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|0.96|0.08
91717095|NCT00944710|183326543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|30.0|||Binomial regression|adjusted for visual acuity at randomization||||30|-10|0.33
91717096|NCT00944710|183326548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.|Positive values favor the Intensified Treatment group|The primary analysis was a treatment group comparison of the masked 10-week amblyopic eye visual acuity using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusting for visual acuity at randomization. The analysis was a 2-sided test for efficacy to test the null hypothesis of no treatment difference, assuming 90% power and a type I error rate of 5%.||0.12|-0.01|0.12
91717097|NCT00944710|183326556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.43|||ANCOVA|||A treatment group difference in fellow-eye visual acuity change at the 12-week exam was evaluated using an ANCOVA model, adjusting for the fellow-eye visual acuity at randomization.||0.43|-0.23|0.55
91717098|NCT00944710|183326565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 12-week Randot Preschool Stereoacuity scores was compared between treatment groups using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.23
91793538|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0575||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.0575
91793539|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.7489||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.7489
91793540|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0098||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0098
91793541|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1797||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.1797
91793542|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.3613||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.3613
91903123|NCT02060383|183701233|OTHER|There was no formal hypothesis testing planned in this study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.02|||||Difference of adjusted mean change in HbA1c between the two arms based on an ANOVA model with treatment (Incretin, Insulin) and randomization stratification factors (baseline HbA1c \<7% vs ≥7%) as fixed effects.|Acromegaly||0.02|-0.74|
91717099|NCT00944710|183326566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 12-week Randot Preschool Stereoacuity scores was compared between treatment groups using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.66
91717100|NCT02175225|183326594|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 12% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.006|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.068|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.068||
91717101|NCT02175225|183326595|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16||||||||1.16|0.57|
91717102|NCT02175225|183326596|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.56||||||||1.56|0.57|
91717103|NCT02175225|183326597|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 13% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than13% in favor of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.062|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.121|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference\[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.121||
91717104|NCT02175225|183326598|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 12% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.086|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.156|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.156||
91717105|NCT02175225|183326599|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 13% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than 13% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.018|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.029|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 13% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.029||
91717106|NCT02175225|183326600|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||The p value reflects the significance of the interaction term between treatment and onset to treatment time.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.83
91717107|NCT02175225|183326601|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.67|||||The estimation parameter is the adjusted common odds ratio.|||1.67|0.72|
91717108|NCT02175225|183326602|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.93||||||||1.93|0.82|
91717109|NCT02175225|183326605|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.97|||||Confidence interval is exact (rather than asymptotic) due to small number of events.|||14.97|0.0|
91717110|NCT02175225|183326606|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.54|||||Confidence interval constructed only for all cause owing to small number of events caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome.|||1.54|0.51|
91717111|NCT02175225|183326607|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.35||||||||5.35|0.63|
91717112|NCT02008526|183326615|SUPERIORITY||F|1.16||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 Degrees of Freedom||||||0.3137
91793543|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.5972||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.5972
91903124|NCT03426787|183701240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.30216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|-5.6531|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-5.6531|-18.95|<0.001
91793544|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.024||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.0240
91717113|NCT02008526|183326616|SUPERIORITY||F|0.16||||0.8494|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 Degrees of Freedom||||||0.8494
91717114|NCT01062308|183326619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from baseline to day 30|-11.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-22.6|0.03
91717115|NCT01062308|183326620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from baseline to day 30|6.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.9|-2.7|0.16
91717116|NCT01190813|183326634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|11.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|28.0|||Fisher Exact|It was not possible to adjust for baseline VA in these secondary analyses due to the small number of subjects meeting secondary outcome criteria.|Treatment group difference calculated as Levodopa - Placebo|A sample size of 129 participants provided 80% power with 1-sided type I error rate of 5% to reject the hypothesis of no difference between groups if the proportion improved was 30% in the levodopa group compared with 10% in the placebo group.||28|-7|0.06
91717117|NCT01190813|183326637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|18.0|||||Levodopa - Placebo|||18|-17|
91717118|NCT01190813|183326638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|10.0||||||||10|-25|
91717119|NCT01190813|183326639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|13.0|||||Levodopa - Placebo|||13|-22|
91717120|NCT01190813|183326647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as Levodopa - Placebo|||1.3|-1.9|0.65
91717121|NCT01190813|183326649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-1.6|0.44
91717122|NCT01190813|183326651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|-1.2|0.20
91717123|NCT01190813|183326653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
91717124|NCT01190813|183326657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.3||The alpha level was set to 0.0485 for the primary analysis to adjust for alpha spending of 0.015 for one interim analysis for efficacy conducted when outcome data were available for 50% of participants.|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as Levodopa - Placebo|With 129 participants, assuming a 1-sided type I error rate of 4.85%, there was 96% power to detect a difference in mean visual acuity between treatment groups at 18 weeks adjusted for baseline and for 1 interim analysis for futility if the true difference was 5 letters with SD of 7 letters and 82% power if the true difference was 3.75 letters||3.3|-0.4|0.06
91717125|NCT01248416|183326731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.006
91717126|NCT01248416|183326733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.906
91717127|NCT01248416|183326734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.015
91717128|NCT01248416|183326736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91717129|NCT01248416|183326737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91717130|NCT01248416|183326738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91903125|NCT03426787|183701241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4717||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9355|-0.00793|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.00793|-0.9355|0.0463
91903126|NCT03426787|183701242|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.936|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4086|3.5365|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5365|-7.4086|>0.05
91793545|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.2437||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.2437
91676550|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.3|
91676551|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-2.3|
91676552|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-2.3|
91676553|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.7|-3.7|
91676554|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.3|
91692317|NCT03656068|183279624|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2438||||0.5459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0847|0.5972||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5972|-1.0847|0.5459
91692318|NCT03656068|183279625|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|23.91||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.15|69.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||||69.97|-22.15|0.2860
91793546|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0631||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0631
91862054|NCT03848065|183611342|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.1||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|28.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Induration (Hard Lump)||28.8|-2.3|0.091
91717131|NCT04745351|183326740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.816||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.321||P-value was calculated from stratified log-rank test, stratified by the baseline stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.321|0.504|0.6132
91717132|NCT04745351|183326741|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.388||P-value was calculated from stratified log-rank test stratified by the baseline stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.388|0.497|0.3881
91717133|NCT04745351|183326742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.043||||0.9116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|2.207||The treatment effect p-value was calculated using Cox model with death as the competing risk and baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Regression, Cox|||||2.207|0.493|0.9116
91862055|NCT03848065|183611342|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-9.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-0.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Induration (Hard Lump)||-0.4|-21.2|0.044
91692319|NCT03656068|183279626|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2893||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.158|0.5794||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5794|-1.1580|0.4887
91692320|NCT03656068|183279627|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|30.27||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.21|98.75||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||98.75|-38.21|0.3610
91692321|NCT03656068|183279628|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.4945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.26||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.26|-2.51|0.4945
91692322|NCT03656068|183279629|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.8191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|7.95||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||7.95|-9.94|0.8191
91692323|NCT03656068|183279630|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.22||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-0.47||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.47|-5.96|0.0243
91692324|NCT03656068|183279631|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.94||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.84|-0.04||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.04|-19.84|0.0493
91692325|NCT03656068|183279632|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.3066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.79||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.79|-0.59|0.3066
91692326|NCT03656068|183279633|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|9.63||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.63|-2.82|0.2671
91862056|NCT03848065|183611342|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-22.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-12.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Induration (Hard Lump)||-12.5|-36.4|0.001
91862057|NCT03848065|183611342|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|9.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|28.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Pain||28.9|-10.0|0.333
91676555|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-2.3|
91676556|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0986|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-2.5|
91676557|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.2|-4.5|
91862058|NCT03848065|183611342|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.2||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|17.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Pain||17.2|-23.4|0.760
91862059|NCT03848065|183611342|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-13.0||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Pain||7.1|-32.2|0.205
91903127|NCT00257166|183701250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Mixed effects repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-2.31|-8.12|0.0005
91793547|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.054||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.0540
91793548|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.7298||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.7298
91793549|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.4218||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.4218
91793550|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.2282||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.2282
91794481|NCT02101112|183467918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.835|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|0.875||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and mixed with applesauce) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||0.875|0.797|
91903128|NCT00257166|183701251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.2545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9422||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1045|-1.4046|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-1.4046|-5.1045|0.0006
91676558|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-3.6|
91676559|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-3.5|
91676560|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0983|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.0|-3.3|
91676561|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.5|-2.8|
91676562|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-3.7|
91692327|NCT03656068|183279634|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.16||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.16|-0.94|0.8241
91862060|NCT03848065|183611342|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|29.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Swelling||29.7|-3.9|0.128
91676563|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.1|
91676564|NCT02037165|183248036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0986|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-1.4|
91692328|NCT03656068|183279635|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.7587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|8.57||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.57|-6.37|0.7587
91903129|NCT00257166|183701251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.5857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4184||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3705|-0.8009|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.8009|-6.3705|0.0117
91862061|NCT03848065|183611342|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.0||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|13.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Swelling||13.0|-17.0|0.779
91862062|NCT03848065|183611342|OTHER||Difference in Parentages|-15.0||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Swelling||1.7|-31.5|0.076
91676565|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-6.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.2|-12.5|
91676566|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-10.6|
91676567|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3393|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|0.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.0|-13.3|
91676568|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.3|-8.9|
91676569|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1554|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-10.7|
91676570|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6161|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-6.4|
91676571|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-8.7|
91676572|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7688|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|4.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.7|-10.3|
91862063|NCT03848065|183611343|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-10.6||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|8.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Decreased Appetite (Appetite Loss)||8.7|-29.1|0.282
91862064|NCT03848065|183611343|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-9.9||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|9.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Decreased Appetite (Appetite Loss)||9.5|-28.7|0.317
91862065|NCT03848065|183611343|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.7||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|20.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Decreased Appetite (Appetite Loss)||20.4|-19.2|0.948
91903130|NCT00257166|183701251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.8665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7154||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2345|-1.4985|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-1.4985|-8.2345|0.0047
91862066|NCT03848065|183611343|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.5||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|29.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Somnolence (Drowsiness)||29.6|-9.4|0.303
91676573|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.857|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.4|-7.0|
91676574|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.07|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-.07|-13.2|
91676575|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3457|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.4|-10.9|
91676576|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2806|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-10.1|
91676577|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5078|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.2|-7.8|
91692329|NCT03656068|183279636|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.567||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.746||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.746|-1.880|0.3784
91692330|NCT03656068|183279637|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.64||||0.3526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.53||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.53|-14.80|0.3526
91862067|NCT03848065|183611343|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-4.0||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Somnolence (Drowsiness)||15.0|-22.6|0.681
91903131|NCT00257166|183701252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0989||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5696|-0.1812|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.1812|-0.5696|0.0002
91862068|NCT03848065|183611343|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-14.4||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|5.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Somnolence (Drowsiness)||5.4|-33.2|0.153
91862069|NCT03848065|183611343|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.7||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|28.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Irritability||28.2|-7.2|0.237
91903132|NCT00257166|183701252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.5596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1355|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8256|-0.2936|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.2936|-0.8256|<0.0001
91862070|NCT03848065|183611343|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.4||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|25.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Irritability||25.0|-10.3|0.406
91862071|NCT03848065|183611343|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.3||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|15.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Irritability||15.5|-21.8|0.729
91903133|NCT00257166|183701252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6798|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0024|-0.3572|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.3572|-1.0024|<0.0001
91903134|NCT00257166|183701252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1761||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0342|-0.3426|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.3426|-1.0342|0.0001
91676578|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.1|-6.2|
91676579|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-6.1|
91676580|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.7|-8.8|
91676581|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7013|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.5|-11.2|
91676582|NCT02037165|183248037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-8.7|
91676583|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5753|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-8.9|
91676584|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.3|-9.8|
91692331|NCT03656068|183279638|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.098||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.978|2.173||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.173|-1.978|0.9218
91862072|NCT03848065|183611343|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.6||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|17.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Urticaria (Hives/Welts)||17.5|-7.1|0.385
91862073|NCT03848065|183611343|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.1||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|15.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Urticaria (Hives/Welts)||15.4|-11.0|0.719
91862074|NCT03848065|183611343|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|8.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Urticaria (Hives/Welts)||8.9|-14.9|0.610
91862075|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 1||8.5|-8.1|
91717134|NCT04745351|183326745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8541||||||P-value was analysed from proportional odds model including treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||||||0.8541
91717135|NCT04745351|183326746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4974||||||P-value was analysed from proportional odds model including treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||||||0.4974
91717136|NCT04745351|183326747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4283||||||P-value was calculated based on Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4283
91717137|NCT04745351|183326748|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.89||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.091||The treatment effect p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis including baseline stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.091|0.731|0.2773
91862076|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 1||8.5|-7.9|
91862077|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 1||7.9|-8.1|
91862078|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114- SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 3||8.5|-8.1|
91862079|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 3||6.3|-11.7|
91862080|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 3||11.6|-6.0|
91862081|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 4||8.5|-8.1|
91862082|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 4||8.5|-7.9|
91862083|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 4||7.9|-8.1|
91862084|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 5||8.5|-8.1|
91862085|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 5||8.5|-7.9|
91862086|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 5||7.9|-8.1|
91862087|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.3|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6A||6.3|-11.9|
91717138|NCT04745351|183326749|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.97||||0.7538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.155||The treatment effect p-value was calculated using CMH analysis including baseline stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.155|0.819|0.7538
91717139|NCT02014272|183326752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.07|98.94||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of rifampicin was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||98.94|92.07|
91717140|NCT02014272|183326752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|103.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.33|107.75||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of isoniazid was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||107.75|99.33|
91717141|NCT02014272|183326753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.13|101.01||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of rifampicin was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||101.01|83.13|
91794482|NCT02101112|183467919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.075||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and suspended in water) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||1.075|0.981|
91862088|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6A||8.5|-7.9|
91862089|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|5.8|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6A||5.8|-11.9|
91862090|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-0.2|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6B||-0.2|-21.2|
91862091|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|2.1|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6B||2.1|-17.9|
91676585|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9156|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-0.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.3|-11.9|
91903135|NCT00257166|183701253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects was used for the analysis.||-0.34|-1.18|0.0004
91676586|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4987|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|0.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.1|-13.8|
91676587|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6922|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-12.6|
91676588|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-11.9|
91676589|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7073|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|4.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.3|-10.5|
91676590|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.186|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|4.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.5|-12.1|
91692332|NCT03656068|183279639|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|15.01||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||15.01|-14.71|0.9833
91692333|NCT03656068|183279640|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.68||||0.3957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|43.16||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||43.16|-17.79|0.3957
91862092|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|10.2|||||Difference=% V114 SC minus % V114 IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6B||10.2|-15.6|
91862093|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114 SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 7F||8.5|-8.1|
91862094|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 7F||6.3|-11.7|
91862095|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 7F||11.6|-6.0|
91903136|NCT02592551|183701254|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compare in ratios of intratumoral cytotoxic T cells to regulatory T cells (CD8/Treg) between pre and post of MEDI4736+Tremelimumab||||0.109
91862096|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Differences in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 9V||8.5|-8.1|
91862097|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 9V||8.5|-7.9|
91862098|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 9V||7.9|-8.1|
91717142|NCT02014272|183326753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|107.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.07|120.47||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of isoniazid was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||120.47|96.07|
91717143|NCT02014272|183326754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.54|99.43||||||Natural log transformed AUC(0 - ∞) of rifampicin was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||99.43|92.54|
91717144|NCT02014272|183326754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.76|106.19||||||Natural log transformed AUC(0 - ∞) of isoniazid was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||106.19|98.76|
91717145|NCT03499795|183326759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8633|||||||Clopper-Pearson|P-value was calculated based on the exact method of Clopper-Pearson and superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value is \<0.05.||||||0.8633
91717146|NCT02265510|183326771|OTHER|Descriptive Statistics|||||||||||||||||The analysis of the primary endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91717147|NCT02265510|183326772|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Confidence Intervals for ORR were calculated based on the exact method for binomial distributions. There were no comparison between treatment groups.|||
91862099|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.3|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 14||6.3|-11.9|
91862100|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 14||8.5|-7.9|
91717148|NCT02265510|183326773|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Confidence Intervals for response were calculated based on the exact method for binomial distributions. There were no comparison between treatment groups.|||
91717149|NCT02265510|183326774|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91717150|NCT02265510|183326775|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91717151|NCT02265510|183326776|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91717152|NCT02265510|183326777|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91903137|NCT02592551|183701255|OTHER|Compare the tissue biomarker for the immune response of ICOS+ CD4 T cells to before and after MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||1
91717153|NCT02265510|183326778|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91717154|NCT02265510|183326779|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91717155|NCT02265510|183326780|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91717156|NCT02265510|183326781|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91717157|NCT02530385|183326794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91717158|NCT02530385|183326795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
91717159|NCT02530385|183326796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
91717160|NCT02530385|183326797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.90
91717161|NCT02530385|183326798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
91717162|NCT03093181|183326804|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|3.12||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.56||From Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment main effect, age stratum and baseline as covariates|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment (test product) minus second named treatment (negative control) such that a positive value favors the first named treatment (test product).|||5.56|0.68|0.0128
91717163|NCT03093181|183326804|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.51||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.96||From ANCOVA with treatment main effect, age stratum and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment (test product) minus second named treatment (negative control) such that a positive value favors the first named treatment (test product).|||3.96|-0.95|0.2262
91717164|NCT03093181|183326806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.15|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||3.15|1.08|0.0243
91717165|NCT03093181|183326806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.78|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||1.78|0.61|0.8931
91717166|NCT03093181|183326806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.25|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||3.25|1.12|0.0181
91717167|NCT03093181|183326806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.63|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||1.63|0.55|0.8319
91717168|NCT03093181|183326807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||0.28|0.02|0.0279
91862101|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|5.8|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 14||5.8|-11.9|
91862102|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 18C||8.5|-8.1|
91862103|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 18C||8.5|-7.9|
91862104|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Differences in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 18C||7.9|-8.1|
91903138|NCT02592551|183701256|OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compare tumor expression programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) before and after treatment with combination MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab||||0.461
91903139|NCT02592551|183701257|OTHER|||||||0.954|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tissue biomarker immune response of CD8 and Treg (ratio of CD8/treg) after MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab, and after MEDI4736 alone||||0.954
91676591|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|4.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.1|-9.5|
91676592|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5461|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.4|-8.7|
91676593|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4848|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-7.4|
91676594|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-9.0|
91676595|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4569|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-9.8|
91676596|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6471|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||7.5|-7.0|
91676597|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.8|-9.4|
91692334|NCT03656068|183279641|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.81||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|12.01||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.01|-4.39|0.3440
91692335|NCT03656068|183279642|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.22||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|31.21||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||31.21|-0.77|0.0607
91692336|NCT03656068|183279643|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.83||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|12.05||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.05|-0.39|0.0644
91692337|NCT03656068|183279644|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3665||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7306|-0.0023||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.0023|-0.7306|0.0487
91862105|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19A||8.5|-8.1|
91903140|NCT02592551|183701258|OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tissue biomarker immune response of CD8 and Treg(ratio of CD8/Treg) after MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab, and at day 1 of untread control group||||0.799
91692338|NCT03656068|183279645|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|16.64||||0.5919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.25|80.54||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||80.54|-47.25|0.5919
91692339|NCT03656068|183279646|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2679||||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|0.0983||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0983|-0.6340|0.1272
91793551|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.8711||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.8711
91793552|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0027||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0027
91793553|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.7579||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.7579
91793554|NCT03239665|183465246|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1299||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.1299
91793555|NCT03239665|183465248|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||1||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous engagement in the program immediately post-intervention via Fisher's Exact test||||1.0
91862106|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19A||8.5|-7.9|
91793556|NCT03239665|183465248|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6806||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous engagement in the program at the one-month follow-up via Fisher's Exact test||||0.6806
91862107|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19A||7.9|-8.1|
91862108|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19F||8.5|-8.1|
91862109|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19F||8.5|-7.9|
91676598|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6602|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|3.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.1|-11.5|
91862110|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19F||7.9|-8.1|
91862111|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|10.4|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 23F||10.4|-9.8|
91903141|NCT02592551|183701261|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tumor expression programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) after combination therapy (MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab) and after MEDI-4736 alone||||0.418
91676599|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1389|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||8.8|-7.7|
91793557|NCT03239665|183465248|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||1||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous satisfaction with the program's content immediately post-intervention via Fisher's Exact test||||1.0
91862112|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|12.4|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 23F||12.4|-5.7|
91862113|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|5.8|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 23F||5.8|-11.9|
91862114|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|96.4|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 22F||96.4|77.2|
91862115|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.1|98.7|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 22F||98.7|84.1|
91862116|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|3.6|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 22F||3.6|-15.2|
91862117|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|90.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 33F||90.5|67.9|
91793558|NCT03239665|183465248|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.4908||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous satisfaction with the program's content at the one-month follow-up via Fisher's Exact test||||0.4908
91862118|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.4|95.2|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 33F||95.2|76.4|
91676600|NCT02037165|183248038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3835|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.7|-8.8|
91676601|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-29.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.5691|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.3|29.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||29.0|-88.3|
91676602|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-16.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.8613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.5|42.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||42.9|-75.5|
91676603|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.1035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|57.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||57.5|-42.2|
91676604|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-20.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.311|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.7|25.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||25.8|-66.7|
91676605|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.1894|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.6|33.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||33.4|-58.6|
91676606|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.7285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|46.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||46.5|-47.8|
91692340|NCT03656068|183279647|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.02||||0.5881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55|77.59||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||77.59|-47.55|0.5881
91692341|NCT03656068|183279648|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.42|0.1458
91793559|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7728|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.7728
91793560|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6871|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6871
91862119|NCT03848065|183611345|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|8.2|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 33F||8.2|-22.7|
91903142|NCT02592551|183701262|OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tumor expression programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) after combination therapy (MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab) and before and at day 1 of untreated||||0.932
91862120|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 1||1.00|0.58|
91862121|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|||1.13|0.65|
91862122|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114-IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|||1.16|0.68|
91903143|NCT04415658|183701294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.07|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||80% power to detect a 10% increase in hearts transplanted||1.07|0.97|0.57
91903144|NCT04415658|183701295|NON_INFERIORITY|Six percent margin, assuming 96% graft survival in control group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Non-inferiority analysis for thyroxine vs saline||6.0|-2.3|<0.001
91676607|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-19.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.6359|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|35.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||35.7|-74.3|
91676608|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-25.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.5524|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.9|29.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||29.5|-79.9|
91676609|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-17.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.0135|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.9|36.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||36.5|-70.9|
91676610|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-39.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.3023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.7|18.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||18.5|-97.7|
91676611|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-37.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.5797|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.7|21.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||21.6|-95.7|
91692342|NCT03656068|183279649|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.53||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.61|4.54||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.54|-27.61|0.1495
91692343|NCT03656068|183279650|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.3174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.40|0.3174
91862123|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.76|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 3||1.76|0.96|
91862124|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.01|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 3||2.01|1.10|
91903145|NCT00785044|183701324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Analysis was performed using the null hypothesis for the AUC stated as: H0: θ ≤A versus H1: θ \>A, where the AUC (θ) value was: 'A' selected based on the diagnostic utility desired from the use of myocardial 123 I-mIBG uptake measured using H/M ratio. A smooth parametric model of the ROC curve was fitted to the data. The AUC for the resulting model was calculated and 95% confidence interval for the AUC was reported. The hypothesis was tested using the Z-statistics at 'A' at level of 0.70.|Mean|0.581|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|0.63||At 0.05 level of significance.|Z-statistic|||"Analysis was performed on all HF participants from both groups AdreView™ - HF Group (With No Adverse Cardiac Events) and AdreView™ - HF Group (With Adverse Cardiac Events) based on H/M ratio."||0.630|0.532|<0.001
91903146|NCT01641237|183701361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for linear dose-response relationship was performed for %SMHR as a function of fluoride concentration.||||<0.0001
91676612|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-52.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.8429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.8|-3.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-3.1|-101.8|
91676613|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-59.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.0541|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.6|-14.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-14.1|-105.6|
91676614|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-39.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.9336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.5|5.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.5|-85.5|
91676615|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-38.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.4683|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.6|7.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||7.6|-85.6|
91692344|NCT03656068|183279651|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.02||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|6.82||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||6.82|-22.86|0.2420
91692345|NCT01436370|183279652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain.||||0.145
91793561|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8259|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.8259
91903147|NCT01641237|183701361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3748||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for quadratic dose-response relationship was performed for %SMHR as a function of fluoride concentration.||||0.3748
91794483|NCT02101112|183467919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|0.871||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and mixed with applesauce) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||0.871|0.794|
91793562|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8868|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.8868
91692346|NCT01436370|183279652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain||||0.145
91692347|NCT01436370|183279652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain.||||0.999
91793563|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8069|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.8069
91676616|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-63.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.3484|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.1|-9.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-9.3|-118.1|
91676617|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-61.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.2866|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.6|-7.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-7.2|-115.6|
91676618|NCT02037165|183248039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-49.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.7541|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.6|3.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.8|-102.6|
91676619|NCT04932941|183248046|SUPERIORITY||Common risk difference|-0.276||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.634|11.081|||Mantel Haenszel||Strata-adjusted Mantel Haenszel (MH) method for difference in proportions controlling for stratification factors (COVID-19 severity: moderate, severe, and age group: less than or equal to 65 years, greater than 65 years).|||11.081|-11.634|0.962
91676620|NCT00375492|183248115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.0030
91676621|NCT00375492|183248116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
91676622|NCT00375492|183248118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1985||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.1985
91676623|NCT00375492|183248119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1827||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1827
91676624|NCT00375492|183248120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1584||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1584
91717169|NCT03093181|183326807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||0.14|-0.12|0.8887
91717170|NCT03093181|183326807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||0.28|0.02|0.0224
91717171|NCT03093181|183326807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||0.12|-0.15|0.8253
91676625|NCT00375492|183248121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8279||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8279
91676626|NCT00375492|183248122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8334||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8334
91676627|NCT00375492|183248123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2881||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2881
91717172|NCT00324155|183326816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified for metastasis stage (M0 vs M1a vs M1b vs M1c) and ECOG performance status (0 vs 1) recorded at randomization.||Analysis stratified for metastasis stage (M0 vs M1a vs M1b vs M1c) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs 1) recorded at randomization.||1.740|0.799|0.4067
91676628|NCT00375492|183248124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0654
91676629|NCT00375492|183248125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.728||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.728
91676630|NCT00375492|183248126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.127
91676631|NCT01461226|183248150|OTHER|Mixed models analysis|mixed models|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91676632|NCT01461226|183248150|OTHER||mixed models|0.24||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline difference between groups|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
91676633|NCT01461226|183248150|OTHER|Mixed models|Slope|0.27||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
91676634|NCT01461226|183248150|OTHER|mixed models|mixed models|4.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||change after 10 months between groups||||0.04
91676635|NCT00609518|183248153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||Linear probability model|||||0.28|-0.10|
91676636|NCT00609518|183248154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4902||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4902
91676637|NCT00609518|183248155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6791||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.6791
91676638|NCT00609518|183248155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.49|||Regression, Cox|Treatment was the covariate included in this model.||||1.49|0.54|
91676639|NCT00609518|183248156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5870
91717173|NCT00324155|183326824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|0.872||p-value was via stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio via stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Analysis stratified for metastasis stage (M0 vs M1a vs M1b vs M1c) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1) recorded at randomization.||0.872|0.588|0.0009
91717174|NCT05412134|183326852|OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Chi-squared|||Repetition adherence||||0.333
91717175|NCT05412134|183326852|OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||Chi-squared|||Session adherence||||0.626
91717176|NCT05412134|183326853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.416
91717177|NCT05412134|183326854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.581
91717178|NCT05412134|183326855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
91717179|NCT05412134|183326856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.356
91717180|NCT05412134|183326858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
91717181|NCT03444584|183326877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-143.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.2|-87.98|||ANCOVA|||||-87.98|-198.20|<0.0001
91717182|NCT03444584|183326878|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.24|-14.1|||ANCOVA|||||-14.10|-30.24|<0.0001
91717183|NCT02439164|183326942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.51|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.16|32.87|||t-test, 2 sided|bonferroni correction was used for post hoc analysis, P value less than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.|this described the difference during midazolam sedation between the glioma and control group without dividing into subgroups.||Oneway Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test the difference among hands in a certain time point. General linear model for repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the time difference of test before and after drug administration,|32.87|14.16|<0.01
91717184|NCT02314728|183326947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91717185|NCT02314728|183326948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||NICU admission||||0.60
91717186|NCT02314728|183326948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||histologic chorioamnionitis||||0.13
91717187|NCT02343224|183326950|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|76.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|100.0||||||This Kaplan-Meier estimate is the conditional probability of event-free survival among study participants at 12 and 24 months.||100|52.1|
91903148|NCT01641237|183701362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.17||||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|5.43||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment and the subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||5.43|-1.09|0.1898
91717188|NCT02343224|183326951|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|100.0||||||This Kaplan-Meier estimate is the conditional probability of overall survival among participants at 12 and 24 months.||100|50.3|
91717189|NCT03118934|183326952|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 0.5. With a sample size of 80/group, there was approximately 83% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in fit with assumed standard deviation of 0.6 and expected difference of 0.25 (one-sided alpha=0.05).|LSM Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1||||||||-0.1||
91717190|NCT03886272|183326966|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T1/R1)[%]|112.96||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.7|124.26||P-value for ratio outside 80% -125%.|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as: T1/R1. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.2|Relative bioavailability||124.26|102.70|0.0413
91717191|NCT03886272|183326966|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T2/R2)[%]|115.49||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.23|126.74||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T2/R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.9.|Relative bioavailability||126.74|105.23|0.0776
91717192|NCT03886272|183326966|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3c/R3) [%]|78.05||||0.6443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.71|87.38||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as Tc3/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative bioavailability||87.38|69.71|0.6443
91717193|NCT03886272|183326966|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3u/R3) [%]|45.97||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.05|51.48||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T3u/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative bioavailability||51.48|41.05|1.00
91717194|NCT03886272|183326967|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T1/R1)[%]|144.62||||0.9485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.82|167.57||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T1/R1. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 22.1|Relative bioavailability||167.57|124.82|0.9485
91717195|NCT03886272|183326967|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T2/R2)[%]|129.69||||0.7813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.51|140.73||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The adjusted geometric mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T2/R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 12.2.|Relative Bioavailability||140.73|119.51|0.7813
91793564|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8489|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.8489
91717196|NCT03886272|183326967|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3c/R3) [%]|75.09||||0.7616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.58|87.32||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T3c/3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 23.5.|Relative Bioavailability||87.32|64.58|0.7616
91717197|NCT03886272|183326967|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3u/R3) [%]|41.45||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.61|48.25||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T3u/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation = 23.5.|Relative Bioavailability||48.25|35.61|1.00
91717198|NCT03886272|183326968|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T1/R1)[%]|111.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.87|120.01||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%.|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T1/R1. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative Bioavailability||120.01|102.87|0.0092
91717199|NCT03886272|183326968|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T2/R2)[%]|114.13||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.58|124.56||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%.|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T2/R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.0.|Relative Bioavailability||124.56|104.58|0.0442
91717200|NCT03886272|183326968|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3c/R3) [%]|80.1||||0.4928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.54|89.68||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T3c/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative Bioavailability||89.68|71.54|0.4928
91717201|NCT03886272|183326968|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3u/R3) [%]|48.83||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.6|54.69||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%.|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T3u/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative Bioavailability||54.69|43.60|1.00
91717202|NCT01091246|183326970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.16|||Bootstrapping|||A/H1N1: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Yamagata + FluMist/B/Victoria) / (Q/LAIV) for A/H1N1 strain||1.16|0.98|
91717203|NCT01091246|183326970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5. If the upper bounds of 95% CIs were ≤ 1.5 for all 4 strains, the immunologic noninferiority of Q/LAIV compared to FluMist was declared.|Ratio of geometric means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14|||Bootstrapping|||A/H3N2: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Yamagata + FluMist/B/Victoria) / (Q/LAIV) for A/H3N2 strain||1.14|0.94|
91717204|NCT01091246|183326970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5. If the upper bounds of 95% CIs were ≤ 1.5 for all 4 strains, the immunologic noninferiority of Q/LAIV compared to FluMist was declared.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.37||||||B/Yamagata: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Yamagata) / (Q/LAIV) for B/Yamagata strain||1.37|1.07|
91717205|NCT01091246|183326970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5. If the upper bounds of 95% confidence intervals were ≤ 1.5 for all 4 strains, the immunologic noninferiority of Q/LAIV compared to FluMist was declared.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18||||||B/Victoria: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Victoria) / (Q/LAIV) for B/Victoria strain||1.18|0.93|
91717206|NCT02848664|183327090|OTHER|Same DOSS score before and after device use for 3 months or improved DOSS score after device use for 3 months|||||<|0.025||||||p values adjusted for multiple comparisons (two outcome measures)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Examined change in DOSS for each participant from before to after three months of device use. Examined numbers of participants who showed either worsening of DOSS, no improvement in DOSS or improvement of DOSS.||||<0.025
91717207|NCT02848664|183327091|EQUIVALENCE|Examination of whether the level of swallowing handicap is changed following device use|Mean Difference (Net)|22.571||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.003|39.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.140|6.003|0.016
91793565|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3985|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.3985
91676640|NCT00609518|183248156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Regression, Cox|Treatment was the covariate included in this model.||||1.38|0.57|
91676641|NCT02920918|183248174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||We expected a baseline peak oxygen consumption (VO2) of 14.5 mL/kg/min. A sample size of 40 patients per group (total of 80 patients) provided sufficient power to detect a mean difference in the interval change in peak VO2 of 1.50±1.76 mL/kg/min (primary endpoint) expected with Canagliflozin compared to Sitagliptin, which we predict to have no significant effect on peak VO2 (0±1.76 mL/kg/min).||||0.083
91676642|NCT02920918|183248175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.51
91676643|NCT00450619|183248207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5019||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.041
91903149|NCT01641237|183701362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|8.86||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment and the subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no dose-response relationship between %SMHR and fluoride concentration in the dentifrice.||8.86|2.35|0.0009
91676644|NCT00450619|183248207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5019||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Hazard Ratio|||||||0.046
91793566|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.1722|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.1722
91903150|NCT01641237|183701362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.43||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|6.68||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment and the subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||6.68|0.18|0.0389
91676645|NCT00450619|183248211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.35|||Kaplan Meier|||||1.35|0.37|0.30
91676646|NCT04442490|183248278|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|||-0.3|-3.1|0.0141
91676647|NCT04442490|183248279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217 or placebo), baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|||0.0|-0.4|0.1193
91676648|NCT04442490|183248280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from baseline at Day 3||-2.0|-4.0|<0.0001
91676649|NCT04442490|183248280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.4|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from baseline at Day 8||-1.4|-3.8|<0.0001
91676650|NCT04442490|183248280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from baseline at Day 42||0.6|-2.4|0.2344
91676651|NCT04442490|183248281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.98|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|||Day 15|Model used is a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D response for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.98|0.99|0.0599
91676652|NCT04442490|183248281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94|||GEE Model|||Day 42|Model used is a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure.Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D response for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.94|0.95|0.0889
91676653|NCT04442490|183248282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.66|||GEE Model|||Day 15|Model used is GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D remission for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.66|0.76|0.5495
91676654|NCT04442490|183248282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.6|||GEE Model|||Day 42|Model used is GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D remission for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.60|0.74|0.6790
91692348|NCT01436370|183279660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain||||0.182
91692349|NCT01436370|183279660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain.||||0.500
91676655|NCT04442490|183248283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.16|||GEE Model|||Placebo, SAGE-217|Model used was a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, CGI-S baseline score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having CGI-I response for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|2.16|1.07|0.0191
91676656|NCT04442490|183248284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.3|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure|Placebo, SAGE-217||-0.3|-4.4|0.0238
91676657|NCT04442490|183248285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Model used was MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline HAM-A total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Placebo, SAGE-217||-0.2|-2.5|0.0199
91676658|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||1.5|-0.5|0.3216
91676659|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.8|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||1.8|-0.2|0.1247
91676660|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.0|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.0|-0.2|0.1111
91676661|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||2.0|-0.3|0.1449
91676662|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.8242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||1.0|-1.3|0.8242
91676663|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||MMRM|||Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||1.1|-1.4|0.8329
91676664|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||MMRM|||Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.1|-1.4|0.8127
91676665|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.5435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6|||MMRM|||Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||1.6|-0.9|0.5435
91676666|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.8|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||1.8|-0.7|0.3551
91676667|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.7495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||1.6|-1.1|0.7495
91676668|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.7|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.7|-1.1|0.6471
91676669|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.5|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||2.5|-0.5|0.1832
91676670|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||2.2|0.2|0.0168
91676671|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||2.0|-0.1|0.0787
91676672|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.6|-0.7|0.4273
91676673|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.2|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||2.2|-0.2|0.0938
91676674|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.3|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||4.3|0.9|0.0033
91717208|NCT02848664|183327092|EQUIVALENCE|whether the degree of laryngeal elevation relative to hyoid elevation became greater or less after device use for 3 months||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91676675|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.1|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||5.1|1.1|0.0029
91676676|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.9|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||3.9|-0.2|0.0791
91717209|NCT02848664|183327093|EQUIVALENCE|pairwise comparison within subject comparing baseline with 3 months post device use|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.78||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.751|-4.809|||ANOVA|||||-4.809|-100.751|0.037
91793567|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7318|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.7318
91676677|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.2|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||4.2|-0.2|0.0761
91676678|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.1|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||3.1|-0.5|0.1568
91676679|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.2807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.0|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||3.0|-0.9|0.2807
91676680|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.7751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.4|-1.8|0.7751
91676681|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||3.9|-0.3|0.0913
91676682|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.2|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||3.2|-0.9|0.2863
91676683|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||3.7|-0.7|0.1801
91676684|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.1|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||4.1|-0.4|0.1107
91676685|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.3274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||3.6|-1.2|0.3274
91676686|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.4|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||3.4|-0.2|0.0873
91676687|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||3.9|-0.3|0.0871
91676688|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.3095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.3|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||3.3|-1.1|0.3095
91676689|NCT04442490|183248287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||4.0|-0.6|0.1477
91676690|NCT04442490|183248288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 8||0.1|-2.1|0.0828
91676691|NCT04442490|183248288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 15||0.1|-2.4|0.0606
91793568|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6309|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6309
91793569|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7881|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.7881
91717210|NCT01257347|183327118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<=|0.001||||||We included a stopping rule in which recruitment would be stopped at the midpoint for futility if the z-score was negative or for efficacy if the z-score was positive and the p-value ≤ 0.001.|GEE model|GEE models (logit link) with clinician as the cluster variable, appropriateness of management as outcome, intervention group as explanatory variable.||The sample size was calculated to have sufficient power to detect meaningful differences in appropriateness of clinician management between intervention and control groups. Each patient-clinician encounter was treated as independent and the sample size was inflated to account for the design effect (DE) of clustering of patients within clinician. GEE stands for generalized estimating equation.||||<=0.001
91676692|NCT04442490|183248288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.2|-2.3|0.1079
91676693|NCT04442490|183248288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 42||0.7|-1.9|0.3951
91676694|NCT02836496|183248295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline oral corticosteroid (OCS) (0-\<=20 mg per day and \>20mg perday prednisone or equivalent) and region|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
91676695|NCT02836496|183248295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis adjusted for Baseline OCS dose and region.|Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented. Odds ratio \<1 indicated lower odds of HES flare with Mepolizumab compared with placebo.|||0.64|0.12|0.003
91676696|NCT02836496|183248296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline OCS (0-\<=20 mg per day and \>20mg perday prednisone or equivalent) and region||||||0.020
91676697|NCT02836496|183248296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis adjusted for Baseline OCS dose and region|Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented. Odds ratio \<1 indicated lower odds of HES flare with Mepolizumab compared with placebo.|||0.85|0.13|0.022
91676698|NCT02836496|183248297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.67||Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted for Baseline OCS dose and region.|Regression, Cox||Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using hazards ratio and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented. Hazard ratio \<1 indicated a lower risk of HES flare with Mepolizumab compared with Placebo.|||0.67|0.18|0.002
91676699|NCT02836496|183248298|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.63|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon test stratified by Baseline OCS (0-\<=20 mg/day, \>20 mg/day prednisone or equivalent) and region.|Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using rate ratio and 95% CI has been presented. Rate ratio \<1 indicates a lower flare rate with Mepolizumab compared with Placebo.|||0.63|0.19|0.002
91676700|NCT02836496|183248299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||||||0.036
91676701|NCT00063635|183248303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||Since two primary comparisons are planned, a P-value of 0.025 will be considered significant, applying a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.26
91676702|NCT00063635|183248303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||Since two primary comparisons are planned, a P-value of 0.025 will be considered significant, applying a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.83
91676703|NCT00063635|183248304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
91676704|NCT00063635|183248304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
91676705|NCT00063635|183248305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91676706|NCT00063635|183248305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
91676707|NCT00063635|183248306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
91676708|NCT00063635|183248306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91676709|NCT00063635|183248307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
91676710|NCT00063635|183248307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
91676711|NCT00063635|183248308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
91676712|NCT00063635|183248308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
91676713|NCT00063635|183248309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91676714|NCT00063635|183248309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91676715|NCT00063635|183248310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.77
91676716|NCT00063635|183248310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
91676717|NCT00063635|183248311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91676718|NCT00063635|183248311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
91676719|NCT00063635|183248312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
91676720|NCT00063635|183248312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
91676721|NCT00063635|183248313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.15
91676722|NCT00063635|183248313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.96
91676723|NCT00415194|183248314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.02|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.02|0.75|0.082
91676724|NCT00415194|183248315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.03|0.76|0.166
91676725|NCT00415194|183248316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||Unadjusted normal distribution|p-value is based on an unadjusted, normal distribution approximation for differences in rates.||||||0.061
91903151|NCT01641237|183701362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|13.13||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||13.13|6.58|<0.0001
91676726|NCT00415194|183248317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.53|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.53|0.56|0.811
91717211|NCT03044314|183327181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: inhalation with iNO (the gold standard) would provide greater response than the comparator (iloprost).||||0.148
91717212|NCT03044314|183327183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that fewer patients receiving iloprost (new agent) would respond compared to iNO (the gold standard).||||0.346
91717213|NCT00264147|183327202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|Cochran-Armitage trend test|A step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling were used for the trend test.||||||<0.001
91717214|NCT00264147|183327202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|Cochran-Armitage trend test|A step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling were used for the trend test.||||||0.057
91717215|NCT00264147|183327202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|18.53||||||95.0|7.84|28.65|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||28.65|7.84|
91676727|NCT00415194|183248318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.07|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.07|0.69|0.20
91903152|NCT01641237|183701362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|10.96||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||10.96|4.41|<0.0001
91676728|NCT01297465|183248320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|0.59|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and country|The primary efficacy variable was to be analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, adjusted for treatment and country.|The null hypothesis was that the difference between the mean number of oocytes is less than (-3) or greater than (+3) between the two treatment arm. The alternate hypothesis was that the difference is between (-3) and (+3). The study had 80% power to show that the group randomized to Pergoveris® has an absolute difference of no more than 3 oocytes retrieved in comparison to the group randomized to GONAL-f®/Pergoveris®||0.59|-3.15|
91676729|NCT01524679|183248350|SUPERIORITY|The Fisher Test with asymptotic test statistic provided by the analysis software was used.|||||<|0.0001||||||This was the only a priori defined primary endpoint. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|There was no adjustment for other variables intended for the primary analysis. Confounding variables were analysed in subsequent analyses.||Nullhypothesis was the equality of response rates of the treatment group and the control group. Treatments were compared by a two-sided Fisher test on a level of significance of 0.05. The study was appropriately powered (80%) for this analysis.||||<0.0001
91676730|NCT01524679|183248351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7525||||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5382|1.0521|||ANCOVA|||||1.0521|0.5382|0.0957
91676731|NCT01524679|183248352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4621||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4621|0.7106|||ANCOVA|||||0.7106|0.4621|0.0005
91676732|NCT03801265|183248355|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.770
91676733|NCT03801265|183248356|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.826
91676734|NCT03801265|183248357|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.859
91676735|NCT03801265|183248358|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.904|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.904
91717216|NCT00264147|183327202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|10.0||||||95.0|-0.66|20.46|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||20.46|-0.66|
91717217|NCT00264147|183327202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|9.18||||||95.0|-1.25|19.39|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||19.39|-1.25|
91717218|NCT00264147|183327202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|6.49||||||95.0|-3.76|16.61|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||16.61|-3.76|
91717219|NCT00264147|183327203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.002
91717220|NCT00264147|183327203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.221||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.221
91862125|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.18|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 3||1.18|0.65|
91676736|NCT03801265|183248359|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.122
91676737|NCT03801265|183248360|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.379|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.379
91676738|NCT03801265|183248361|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.881|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.881
91717221|NCT00264147|183327203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.06||||||95.0|-6.44|-1.68||||||||-1.68|-6.44|
91717222|NCT00264147|183327203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||||95.0|-3.91|0.93||||||||0.93|-3.91|
91717223|NCT00264147|183327203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||||95.0|-5.13|-0.35||||||||-0.35|-5.13|
91717224|NCT00264147|183327203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||||95.0|-4.88|-0.12||||||||-0.12|-4.88|
91862126|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 4||0.90|0.58|
91862127|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.0|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 4||1.00|0.65|
91717225|NCT00264147|183327204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.001
91717226|NCT00264147|183327204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.125||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.125
91717227|NCT00264147|183327204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24||||||95.0|-3.64|-0.84||||||||-0.84|-3.64|
91862128|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 4||1.11|0.72|
91862129|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.16|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 5||1.16|0.60|
91862130|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 5||1.31|0.69|
91862131|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 5||1.21|0.64|
91862132|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.84|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6A||0.84|0.47|
91676739|NCT03801265|183248362|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.818|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.818
91717228|NCT00264147|183327204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||||95.0|-2.44|0.41||||||||0.41|-2.44|
91717229|NCT00264147|183327204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||||95.0|-2.63|0.18||||||||0.18|-2.63|
91717230|NCT00264147|183327204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||||95.0|-1.89|0.91||||||||0.91|-1.89|
91717231|NCT00264147|183327205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91862133|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.93|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6A||0.93|0.52|
91862134|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6A||1.21|0.68|
91862135|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6B||0.79|0.36|
91862136|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6B||0.90|0.41|
91862137|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6B||1.30|0.59|
91903153|NCT01641237|183701362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.25||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.53||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||7.53|0.98|0.0112
91903154|NCT01641237|183701363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for linear dose-response relationship was performed for %RER as a function of fluoride concentration.||||<0.0001
91903155|NCT01641237|183701363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Test for quadratic dose-response relationship was performed for %RER as a function of fluoride concentration.||||0.0002
91903156|NCT01641237|183701363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|32.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.18|39.59||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||39.59|25.18|<0.0001
91903157|NCT01641237|183701363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|31.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.25|38.67||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||38.67|24.25|<0.0001
91903158|NCT01641237|183701363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|20.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|28.02||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||28.02|13.60|<0.0001
91903159|NCT01641237|183701363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.92||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|8.1||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||8.10|-6.25|0.8000
91903160|NCT01641237|183701363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.57||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|18.74||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||18.74|4.40|0.0017
91903161|NCT01641237|183701363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.65||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|17.81||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||17.81|3.48|0.0038
91676740|NCT03801265|183248363|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.678
91862138|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.81|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 7F||0.81|0.46|
91862139|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 7F||0.90|0.52|
91862140|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.17|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 7F||1.17|0.67|
91903162|NCT01641237|183701364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for linear dose-response relationship was performed for EFU as a function of fluoride concentration.||||<0.0001
91903163|NCT01641237|183701364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for quadratic dose-response relationship was performed for EFU as a function of fluoride concentration.||||0.0008
91903164|NCT01641237|183701364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.9||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.90|1.42|<0.0001
91903165|NCT01641237|183701364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.85||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.85|1.36|<0.0001
91862141|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 9V||0.99|0.57|
91676741|NCT03801265|183248364|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.002
91862142|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 9V||1.13|0.65|
91862143|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 9V||1.15|0.67|
91862144|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.19|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 14||1.19|0.60|
91862145|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.43|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 14||1.43|0.72|
91862146|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 14||1.16|0.59|
91862147|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 18C||0.90|0.53|
91862148|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 18C||0.92|0.54|
91862149|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.27|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 18C||1.27|0.76|
91862150|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19A||1.15|0.66|
91862151|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.96|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19A||0.96|0.55|
91862152|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.57|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19A||1.57|0.90|
91676742|NCT03801265|183248365|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.007
91676743|NCT03801265|183248366|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.271|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.271
91676744|NCT03801265|183248367|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.810
91676745|NCT03801265|183248368|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.676
91676746|NCT03801265|183248369|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.908|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.908
91676747|NCT03801265|183248370|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.270
91862153|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19F||0.89|0.57|
91862154|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.95|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19F||0.95|0.62|
91862155|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19F||1.15|0.75|
91862156|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.09|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 23F||1.09|0.57|
91862157|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 23F||1.09|0.58|
91862158|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.36|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 23F||1.36|0.73|
91862159|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|134.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.91|204.62|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 22F||204.62|88.91|
91862160|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|204.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.18|309.69|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 22F||309.69|135.18|
91862161|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.99|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 22F||0.99|0.44|
91862162|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|25.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.34|41.13|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 33F||41.13|15.34|
91862163|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|34.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.93|55.83|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 33F||55.83|20.93|
91862164|NCT03848065|183611346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.19|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 33F||1.19|0.45|
91862165|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|13.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Diphtheria Toxin||13.9|-7.7|
91862166|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|12.0|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Diphtheria Toxin||12.0|-10.8|
91862167|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|13.0|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Diphtheria Toxin||13.0|-8.0|
91676748|NCT03801265|183248371|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.015
91676749|NCT03801265|183248372|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.203
91862168|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|12.4|||||Difference = % V114 SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Tetanus Toxin||12.4|-5.8|
91862169|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|12.4|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Tetanus Toxin||12.4|-5.7|
91862170|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Tetanus Toxin||7.9|-8.1|
91676750|NCT03801265|183248373|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.672
91676751|NCT04078126|183248374|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.020|-0.054|0.3450
91862171|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis Toxin||8.5|-8.1|
91862172|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis Toxin||8.5|-7.9|
91862173|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114 SC minus % V114 IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis Toxin||7.9|-8.1|
91862174|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis FHA||8.5|-8.1|
91862175|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis FHA||8.5|-7.9|
91862176|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis FHA||7.9|-8.1|
91862177|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 1||8.5|-8.1|
91862178|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 1||8.5|-7.9|
91862179|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 1||7.9|-8.1|
91862180|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 2||8.5|-8.1|
91862181|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 2||8.5|-7.9|
91862182|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 2||7.9|-8.1|
91862183|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 3||8.5|-8.1|
91862184|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||"Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13~-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method."|Poliovirus Type 3||8.5|-7.9|
91862185|NCT03848065|183611347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 3||7.9|-8.1|
91676752|NCT04078126|183248375|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.021|||ANCOVA|||||0.021|-0.054|0.3675
91676753|NCT04078126|183248376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0199||0.7563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.047|0.7563
91862186|NCT04564742|183611357|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio (WR)|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5||A closed testing procedure including a pre-specified hierarchical ordering of the primary and secondary endpoints was utilised. No multiplicity control was placed on the exploratory endpoints.|Win Ratio Analysis|||The primary objective of the study was to determine if the clinical benefit of dapagliflozin was superior as compared with placebo, utilizing a hierarchical composite endpoint and win-ratio (WR) method. With a presumed WR of 1.20, 4000 patients were provide an 80% statistical power for the primary endpoint, maintaining a 1:1 allocation between treatments. The primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle using the Full Analysis Set.||1.50|1.20|<0.001
91862187|NCT03313076|183611361|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.84||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.63||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||||0.63|-2.32|0.276
91862188|NCT03313076|183611361|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|2.14||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||||2.14|-0.71|0.336
91676754|NCT04078126|183248377|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0521||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.075|||ANCOVA|||||0.075|-0.139|0.5419
91676755|NCT04078126|183248378|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|1.18|||ANCOVA|||||1.18|-8.39|0.1337
91676756|NCT04078126|183248379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.269||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-5.29|0.0431
91676757|NCT04078126|183248380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.667||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.81|||ANCOVA|||||1.81|-4.87|0.3625
91676758|NCT04078126|183248381|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.084|||ANCOVA|||||0.084|0.003|0.0375
91676759|NCT04078126|183248382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0443||0.9089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.096|||ANCOVA|||||0.096|-0.086|0.9089
91676760|NCT03056157|183248383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.236||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1519 )= -2.19, d = 0.15.||-0.18|-3.34|0.03
91676761|NCT03056157|183248383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to- treat data for SDS scores, t(160)= -15.74, d = 2.97.||-6.11|-10.12|<.001
91676762|NCT03056157|183248383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(160) = -12.72, d = 1.86.||-6.11|-8.35|<0.001
91676763|NCT03056157|183248383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.65||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1510) = -0.90, d = 0.05.||0.86|-2.13|0.49
91676764|NCT03056157|183248383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1510) = 2.11, d = 0.11.||2.17|0.06|<0.001
91676765|NCT03056157|183248383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1510) = 3.45, d = 0.18||2.81|0.75|<0.001
91676766|NCT03056157|183248384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.56|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced probable recovery in SDS from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||5.56|1.01|0.03
91676767|NCT03056157|183248384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.71|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportion of participants who experienced improvement from baseline to post-treatment in SDS in AD-MIL versus PCT.||0.71|0|0.01
91676768|NCT03056157|183248384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.87|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportion of participants who experienced no change in SDS from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.87|0.35|.69
91676769|NCT03056157|183248384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|0.0|0.0|5.83|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportion of participants who experienced deterioration in SDS from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||5.83|0|0.50
91862189|NCT03313076|183611361|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.33||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.9||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||Sensitivity analysis adjusting for an influential observation (using the dfbeta approach) that could produce spurious results from a small trial dataset||-0.9|-3.76|0.004
91862190|NCT03313076|183611361|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.92||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|2.09||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||Sensitivity analysis adjusting for an influential observation (using the dfbeta approach) that could produce spurious results from a small trial dataset||2.09|-0.25|0.139
91862191|NCT05270408|183611401|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.93||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Total Learning||||0.25
91903166|NCT01641237|183701364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.86||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||0.86|0.38|<0.0001
91862192|NCT05270408|183611401|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.69||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Total Learning||||0.18
91862193|NCT05270408|183611401|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.74||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Delayed||||0.48
91862194|NCT05270408|183611401|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.19||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Delayed||||0.64
91862195|NCT05270408|183611402|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.03||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT total learning||||0.98
91862196|NCT05270408|183611402|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.86||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT total learning||||0.22
91862197|NCT05270408|183611402|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.04||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT delayed||||0.97
91862198|NCT05270408|183611402|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.69||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT delayed||||0.23
91862199|NCT05270408|183611403|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
91862200|NCT05270408|183611403|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.42||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
91862201|NCT05270408|183611404|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.06
91862202|NCT05270408|183611404|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.08||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
91676770|NCT03056157|183248385|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.39||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -0.93, d = 0.10.||3.79|-10.57|0.35
91676771|NCT03056157|183248385|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for BIPF scores, t(116) = -3.27, d = 0.61.||-3.44|-13.83|0.001
91676772|NCT03056157|183248385|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.25||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(116) = -2.08, d = 0.39.||-0.29|-10.21|0.04
91676773|NCT03056157|183248385|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -1.79, d = 0.20.||0.52|-10.86|0.08
91676774|NCT03056157|183248385|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -2.72, d = 0.30.||-1.57|-9.72|0.007
91676775|NCT03056157|183248385|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -0.23, d = 0.03.||3.50|-4.44|0.82
91676776|NCT03056157|183248386|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -0.32, d = 0.03.||3.36|-4.68|0.75
91676777|NCT03056157|183248386|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-9.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -6.01, d = 1.97.||-6.12|-12.12|<0.001
91676778|NCT03056157|183248386|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|-5.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -6.11, d = 2.01.||-5.76|-11.16|<0.001
91676779|NCT03056157|183248386|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.28||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|5.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -0.59, d = 0.06.||5.52|-10.08|0.56
91676780|NCT03056157|183248386|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|10.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 1.25, d = 0.13.||10.92|-0.24|0.22
91676781|NCT03056157|183248386|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|10.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 3.18, d = 0.33.||10.69|2.52|0.002
91676782|NCT03056157|183248387|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.48||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|10.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(367) = 0.10, d = 0.01.||10.69|-9.60|0.92
91676783|NCT03056157|183248387|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-16.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.64|-8.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -4.23, d = 1.39.||-8.52|-23.64|<0.001
91676784|NCT03056157|183248387|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-16.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-9.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -4.77, d = 1.57.||-9.72|-23.40|<0.001
91676785|NCT03056157|183248387|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-26.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-9.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(367) = -3.15, d = 0.33.||-9.84|-42.60|0.002
91676786|NCT03056157|183248387|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-18.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -2.67, d = 0.28.||-4.92|-32.40|0.01
91676787|NCT03056157|183248387|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.25||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B- IPF scores, the Pre-Post PCT Time slope was -5.25 \[95% CI = -10.21, -0.29\], p-value = 0.04, t(116) = -2.08, d = 0.39.||-0.29|-10.21|0.04
91692350|NCT01436370|183279660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain.||||0.087
91676788|NCT03056157|183248388|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.38||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = -1.69, d = 0.48.||1.22|-13.97|0.10
91676789|NCT03056157|183248388|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|-7.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(32) = -4.71, d = 1.67.||-7.62|-18.96|<0.001
91676790|NCT03056157|183248388|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.92||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(32) = -2.75, d = 0.97.||-1.87|-11.96|0.001
91676791|NCT03056157|183248388|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.22||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|16.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = 0.97, d = 0.28.||16.05|-5.60|0.34
91676792|NCT03056157|183248388|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.93||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|14.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = 1.40, d = 0.40.||14.41|-2.55|0.17
91676793|NCT03056157|183248388|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.7||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = 0.21, d = 0.06.||7.44|-6.04|0.83
91676794|NCT03056157|183248389|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.6||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 0.30, d = 0.03.||4.20|-3.12|0.76
91676795|NCT03056157|183248389|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -3.14, d = 1.03.||-1.56|-6.96|0.002
91676796|NCT03056157|183248389|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -3.88, d = 1.27.||-2.40|-7.32|<0.001
91676797|NCT03056157|183248389|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -1.50, d = 0.16.||1.44|-11.16|0.13
91676798|NCT03056157|183248389|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -0.87, d = 0.09.||3.00|-7.68|0.38
91676799|NCT03056157|183248389|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 1.42, d = 0.15.||5.88|-0.96|0.26
91676800|NCT03056157|183248390|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = -3.65, d = 0.39.||-3.07|-10.23|<0.001
91676801|NCT03056157|183248390|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-11.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|-9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(131) = -9.14, d = 1.60.||-9.32|-14.43|<0.001
91676802|NCT03056157|183248390|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(131) = -4.10, d = 0.72.||-2.72|-7.74|<0.001
91676803|NCT03056157|183248390|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.36||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = 0.87, d = 0.09.||4.45|-1.73|0.39
91676804|NCT03056157|183248390|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = 0.07, d = 0.001.||2.26|-2.10|0.94
91676805|NCT03056157|183248390|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.28||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = -1.15, d = 0.12.||0.91|-3.48|0.25
91676806|NCT03056157|183248391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.44||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|63.18|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced probable recovery in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||63.18|1.29|0.01
91676807|NCT03056157|183248391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.75|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced improvement in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||3.75|0.61|0.40
91717232|NCT00264147|183327205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91717233|NCT00264147|183327205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91676808|NCT03056157|183248391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.7|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced no change in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.70|0.36|0.58
91676809|NCT03056157|183248391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|1.2|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced deterioration in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.20|0.003|0.06
91676810|NCT03056157|183248392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.06|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants with a PTSD Diagnosis in CAPS-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.06|0.22|0.07
91862203|NCT05270408|183611405|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.19||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.61
91676811|NCT03056157|183248392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.56|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants with PTSD Diagnosis in CAPS-5 at 3MFU in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.56|0.28|0.33
91676812|NCT03056157|183248392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.08|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants with PTSD Diagnosis in CAPS-5 at 6MFU in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.08|0.15|0.05
91676813|NCT03056157|183248393|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = -3.01, d = 0.13.||-2.10|-7.16|.003
91862204|NCT05270408|183611405|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.68||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
91717234|NCT00264147|183327205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.023
91793570|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6798|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6798
91793571|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8548|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.8548
91862205|NCT05270408|183611407|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.96||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
91862206|NCT05270408|183611407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA||||Eta2 effect sizes produced from the pairwise comparisons were transformed to Cohen's d for examination of effect sizes. A small/weak effect size was demonstrated (Cohen's d = 0.10), when adjusting for baseline performance.|||0.68
91862207|NCT05835336|183611514|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91862208|NCT05835336|183611515|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91862209|NCT05835336|183611516|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91862210|NCT05835336|183611517|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.16||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
91862211|NCT05835336|183611519|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.58||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91862212|NCT05835336|183611520|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.521|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.521
91862213|NCT02561247|183611521|OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||P Value is from a one sample t-test compared against the null hypothesis value|t-test, 1 sided|Null Hypothesis Value = -38; Degrees of Freedom=16; t-value=-4.13||P Value is from a one sample t-test compared against the null hypothesis value. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons/multiplicity in this study, since there was only one primary endpoint, one arm, and one pre-specified primary null hypothesis.||||0.0008
91862214|NCT04908722|183611526|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.926|1.44||||||Group 1 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.440|0.926|
91676814|NCT03056157|183248393|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-12.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|-10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(161) = -11.50, d = 1.81.||-10.80|-14.43|<0.001
91676815|NCT03056157|183248393|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-7.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(161) = -7.40, d = 1.16.||-6.20|-9.77|<0.001
91676816|NCT03056157|183248393|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = -0.45, d = 0.02.||2.52|-4.01|0.65
91676817|NCT03056157|183248393|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = 1.94, d = 0.10.||4.63|-0.03|0.05
91676818|NCT03056157|183248393|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = 2.61, d = 0.13.||5.34|0.75|0.001
91676819|NCT03056157|183248394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.84|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants experiencing probable recovery in PCL-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||5.84|1.01|0.04
91676820|NCT03056157|183248394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.95|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants experiencing improvement in PCL-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.95|0.25|0.49
91676821|NCT03056157|183248394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.32|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants experiencing no change in PCL-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.32|0.25|0.18
91862215|NCT04908722|183611526|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.8||||||97.5|0.641|1.0||||||Group 5 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.00|0.641|
91862216|NCT04908722|183611526|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.844|1.356||||||Group 2 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.356|0.844|
91862217|NCT04908722|183611526|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.742|1.193||||||Group 4 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.193|0.742|
91862218|NCT04908722|183611526|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.648|1.007||||||Group 6 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.007|0.648|
91862219|NCT04908722|183611527|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.992|3.207||||||Group 1 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||3.207|1.992|
91903167|NCT01641237|183701364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.29||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||0.29|-0.19|0.6680
91903168|NCT01641237|183701364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.28||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.28|0.80|<0.0001
91903169|NCT01641237|183701364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.23||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.23|0.75|<0.0001
91903170|NCT01301456|183701390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean|-21.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.766||0.219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-43.26|0.93|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||0.93|-43.26|0.219
91903171|NCT01301456|183701390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-34.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.189||0.034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.2|-14.16|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||-14.16|-54.20|0.034
91903172|NCT01301456|183701390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-33.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.806||0.044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.5|-12.84|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||-12.84|-54.50|0.044
91903173|NCT01301456|183701390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.111||0.857|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.16|18.31|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||18.31|-24.16|0.857
91903174|NCT01301456|183701391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.419|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.54|0.12|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||0.12|-0.54|0.419
91903175|NCT01301456|183701391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.077|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|-0.12|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.12|-0.71|0.077
91903176|NCT01301456|183701391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.147|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.04|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.04|-0.65|0.147
91676822|NCT03056157|183248395|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.99||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = -1.46, d = 0.07||0.34|-2.29|0.14
91676823|NCT03056157|183248395|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(161) = -12.41, d = 1.96.||-4.90|-6.80|<0.001
91676824|NCT03056157|183248395|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-3.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(161) = -10.29, d = 1.62.||-3.94|-5.82|<0.001
91676825|NCT03056157|183248395|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = 0.42, d = 0.02.||1.53|-0.99|0.68
91903177|NCT01301456|183701391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|-0.11|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.11|-0.76|0.086
91903178|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.326||0.663|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.16|16.37|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||16.37|-8.16|0.663
91903179|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.472||0.825|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.03|9.25|||mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||9.25|-13.03|0.825
91903180|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.791||0.878|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.2|12.92|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||12.92|-10.20|0.878
91903181|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.829||0.936|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.89|12.33|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||12.33|-10.89|0.936
91903182|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.037||0.959|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.46|17.82|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||17.82|-16.46|0.959
91903183|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.872||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.07|-16.85|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-16.85|-48.07|0.011
91903184|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.212||0.833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.67|13.45|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||13.45|-18.67|0.833
91862220|NCT04908722|183611527|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.088|1.815||||||Group 1 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.815|1.088|
91862221|NCT04908722|183611527|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.408|2.265||||||Group 5 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||2.265|1.408|
91862222|NCT04908722|183611527|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.769|1.282||||||Group 5 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.282|0.769|
91862223|NCT04908722|183611527|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.829|3.007||||||Group 2 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||3.007|1.829|
91862224|NCT04908722|183611527|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.0|1.739||||||Group 2 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.739|1.000|
91862225|NCT04908722|183611527|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.697|2.841||||||Group 4 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||2.841|1.697|
91862226|NCT04908722|183611527|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.928|1.606||||||Group 4 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.606|0.928|
91862227|NCT04908722|183611527|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.348|2.148||||||Group 6 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||2.148|1.348|
91862228|NCT04908722|183611527|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.736|1.217||||||Group 6 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.217|0.736|
91862229|NCT06321809|183611537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses.||total scale score comparison||||0.24
91862230|NCT06321809|183611537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||total scale score comparison||||0.001
91862231|NCT06321809|183611537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||total scale score comparison||||0.03
91862232|NCT06321809|183611537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||total scale score comparison||||0.003
91862233|NCT06321809|183611538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||Weight comparison||||0.08
91862234|NCT06321809|183611539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||BMI Comparison||||0.13
91862235|NCT06321809|183611540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||Waist Circumference Comparison||||0.63
91862236|NCT06321809|183611541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||LDL Cholesterol Comparison||||0.89
91862237|NCT01369355|183611552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.040
91862238|NCT01369355|183611552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.005
91676826|NCT03056157|183248395|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = 3.02, d = 0.15.||2.24|0.48|0.003
91692351|NCT01436370|183279661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 7.||||0.234
91862239|NCT01369355|183611553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.033
91862240|NCT01369355|183611553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.018
91862241|NCT01369355|183611554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.189||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.189
91862242|NCT01369355|183611554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.007
91862243|NCT01369355|183611555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.035
91676827|NCT03056157|183248395|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = 2.37, d = 0.12.||1.99|0.19|0.02
91903185|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.365||0.565|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.47|9.05|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||9.05|-23.47|0.565
91903186|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.713||0.703|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.52|9.02|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||9.02|-16.52|0.703
91903187|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.827||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-37.07|-13.85|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-13.85|-37.07|0.008
91903188|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.061||0.253|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.51|1.32|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.32|-22.51|0.253
91903189|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.198||0.128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.57|-2.38|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-2.38|-26.57|0.128
91903190|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.421||0.196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.17|-0.13|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.13|-30.17|0.196
91903191|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.393||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.84|-14.51|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-14.51|-41.84|0.012
91903192|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.773||0.047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.65|-8.32|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-8.32|-36.65|0.047
91903193|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.837||0.023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.19|-13.06|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-13.06|-44.19|0.023
91903194|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.576||0.711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.77|22.93|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||22.93|-12.77|0.711
91903195|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.365||0.666|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.86|21.66|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||21.66|-10.86|0.666
91676828|NCT03056157|183248396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(314) = -1.35, d = 0.15.||0.09|-0.49|0.18
91676829|NCT03056157|183248396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = -2.44, d = 0.46.||-0.05|-0.47|0.02
91676830|NCT03056157|183248396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = -0.69, d = 0.12.||0.14|-0.26|0.62
91676831|NCT03056157|183248396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(314) = 1.34, d = 0.15.||0.39|-0.07|0.18
91676832|NCT03056157|183248396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = 1.49, d = 0.28.||0.30|-0.04|0.14
91676833|NCT03056157|183248396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = -0.38, d = 0.07.||0.13|-0.19|0.71
91717235|NCT00264147|183327205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.16||||||95.0|-19.38|-8.95||||||||-8.95|-19.38|
91903196|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.333||0.807|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.27|13.17|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||13.17|-19.27|0.807
91903197|NCT01301456|183701393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.877||0.603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.15|23.72|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||23.72|-10.15|0.603
91903198|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551||0.387|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|1.21|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.21|-0.24|0.387
91903199|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.309|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|1.18|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.18|-0.14|0.309
91903200|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.518||0.956|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|0.65|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||0.65|-0.71|0.956
91903201|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||0.089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.24|1.67|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.67|0.24|0.089
91903202|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.434|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|1.95|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.95|-0.48|0.434
91903203|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.841||0.15|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|2.35|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.35|0.14|0.150
91903204|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861||0.752|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.86|1.41|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.41|-0.86|0.752
91903205|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.492|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|1.79|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.79|-0.55|0.492
91903206|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|2.4|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.40|-0.40|0.358
91903207|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.33|2.88|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.88|0.33|0.110
91903208|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993||0.461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|2.05|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.05|-0.56|0.461
91903209|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|2.45|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.45|-0.23|0.286
91903210|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.362|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|2.63|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.63|-0.45|0.362
91903211|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069||0.179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07|2.88|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.88|0.07|0.179
91903212|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.342|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|2.49|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.49|-0.38|0.342
91903213|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.129||0.272|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|2.75|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.75|-0.22|0.272
91676834|NCT03056157|183248397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(314) = -3.41, d = 0.39.||-0.20|-0.74|<0.001
91676835|NCT03056157|183248397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = -6.41, d = 1.20.||-0.44|-0.83|<0.001
91676836|NCT03056157|183248397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = -1.83, d = 0.34.||0.02|-0.36|0.07
91676837|NCT03056157|183248397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(314) = 3.13, d = 0.06.||0.57|0.13|0.002
91903214|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.317||0.979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.77|1.7|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.70|-1.77|0.979
91903215|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.568|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.27|0.88|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||0.88|-2.27|0.568
91903216|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.311|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|2.82|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.82|-0.34|0.311
91903217|NCT01301456|183701395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.71|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.18|2.13|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.13|-1.18|0.710
91903218|NCT00791258|183701426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|75.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|78.5||||||||78.5|73.0|
91903219|NCT00791258|183701427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|84.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.8|86.5||||||||86.5|81.8|
91717236|NCT00264147|183327205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.21||||||95.0|-14.52|-3.9||||||||-3.90|-14.52|
91717237|NCT00264147|183327205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.87||||||95.0|-14.11|-3.63||||||||-3.63|-14.11|
91717238|NCT00264147|183327205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.05||||||95.0|-11.27|-0.83||||||||-0.83|-11.27|
91717239|NCT00264147|183327206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91717240|NCT00264147|183327206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91717241|NCT00264147|183327206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91717242|NCT00264147|183327206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.018
91717243|NCT00264147|183327206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||||95.0|-0.77|-0.35||||||||-0.35|-0.77|
91717244|NCT00264147|183327206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||||95.0|-0.55|-0.13||||||||-0.13|-0.55|
91717245|NCT00264147|183327206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||||95.0|-0.61|-0.19||||||||-0.19|-0.61|
91717246|NCT00264147|183327206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||||95.0|-0.46|-0.04||||||||-0.04|-0.46|
91717247|NCT00264147|183327207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91717248|NCT00264147|183327207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.018
91717249|NCT00264147|183327207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.017
91717250|NCT00264147|183327207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.080
91717251|NCT00264147|183327207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.44||||||95.0|-19.62|-9.26||||||||-9.26|-19.62|
91717252|NCT00264147|183327207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.22||||||95.0|-11.52|-0.92||||||||-0.92|-11.52|
91717253|NCT00264147|183327207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.32||||||95.0|-11.53|-1.12||||||||-1.12|-11.53|
91717254|NCT00264147|183327207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.63||||||95.0|-9.81|0.55||||||||0.55|-9.81|
91717255|NCT02563899|183327238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|39.9||||||Umeclidinium, 2 mg/cm\^2 of 1.85%, OD Vs Vehicle: \<=-30%||39.9|-42.2|
91717256|NCT02563899|183327238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|42.2||||||Umeclidinium, 2 mg/cm\^2 of 1.85%, OD vs Vehicle: \<=-50%||42.2|-39.9|
91717257|NCT02563899|183327238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|44.0||||||Umeclidinium, 2 mg/cm\^2 of 1.85%, OD Vs Vehicle: \<=-70%||44.0|-25.2|
91717258|NCT02563899|183327240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|62.6||||||||62.6|-8.5|
91717259|NCT00369343|183327258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|||<|0.001||95.0|2.53|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) used baseline as a covariate and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus placebo adjusted mean change.|||6.11|2.53|<0.001
91717260|NCT00369343|183327259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||DVS SR compared to Placebo for CGI-I scores of either 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91717261|NCT00369343|183327260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.132||||0.008||95.0|1.22|3.74||DVS SR compared with Placebo.|Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|Adjusted odds ratio of DVS SR to Placebo. Odds ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|||3.74|1.22|0.008
91717262|NCT00369343|183327261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.125|||<|0.001||95.0|1.85|5.27||DVS SR compared with Placebo.|Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|Adjusted odds ratio of DVS SR to Placebo. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|||5.27|1.85|<0.001
91717263|NCT00369343|183327262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.24|4.23||Mixed model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted mean score for baseline score, time and center.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo adjusted mean score minus DVS SR adjusted mean score.|||4.23|1.24|<0.001
91717264|NCT00369343|183327263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.18|-0.06||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment and site as factors and baseline as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo adjusted mean score minus DVS SR adjusted mean score.|||-0.06|-0.18|<0.001
91717265|NCT00369343|183327270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||||||t-test adjusted by multiple comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||100mg vs. Placebo (0mg) post taper||||0.553
91717266|NCT00369343|183327270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||t-test adjusted by multiple comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||200mg vs. Placebo (0mg) post taper||||0.034
91903220|NCT00791258|183701428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|71.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|74.1||||||12 week analysis||74.1|68.3|
91903221|NCT00791258|183701428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|84.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|87.0||||||20 week analysis||87.0|82.4|
91862244|NCT01369355|183611555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.004
91862245|NCT01369355|183611556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2 sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and ustekinumab induction dose.||||||0.140
91862246|NCT01369355|183611556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2 sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and ustekinumab induction dose.||||||0.102
91862247|NCT03131154|183611565|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.982|||||Cox proportional hazards model|||1.982|0.643|
91862248|NCT03131154|183611566|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.619|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|6.939|||||Cox proportional hazards model|||6.939|0.989|
91862249|NCT06424236|183611567|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean|-0.1166|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29505||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|-0.0272|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 52: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline Composite \[11C\] PiB-PET SUVR score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.0272|-0.2060|0.0117
91676838|NCT03056157|183248397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = 2.21, d = 0.42.||0.34|0.02|0.03
91862250|NCT06424236|183611567|OTHER||LS mean|-0.4648|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5971|-0.3326|||MMRM|||Week 104: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline Composite \[11C\] PiB-PET SUVR score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.3326|-0.5971|<0.0001
91862251|NCT06424236|183611567|OTHER||LS mean|-0.7062|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43787|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8821|-0.5303|||MMRM|||Week 156: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline Composite \[11C\] PiB-PET SUVR score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.5303|-0.8821|<0.0001
91862252|NCT06424236|183611568|SUPERIORITY|Recurrent progression was defined as any progression which was either the first increase in CDR-SB above baseline or any progression above the highest preceding post-baseline value identified as a progression, where progression above the preceding value must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless the progression occurs at the last measurement.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.7|||Regression, Cox|||The time to recurrent progression in CDR - sum of boxes. Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on the Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. The OLE gantenerumab mITT analysis set included all participants in the OLE who met mITT criteria using OLE baseline as the baseline reference point.||2.70|0.64|0.4535
91862253|NCT06424236|183611568|OTHER|Recurrent progression was defined as any progression which was either the first increase in CDR-SB above baseline or any progression above the highest preceding post-baseline value identified as a progression, where progression above the preceding value must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless the progression occurs at the last measurement.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.86|||Regression, Cox|||The time to recurrent progression in CDR - sum of boxes. Baseline Symptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on the Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. The OLE gantenerumab mITT analysis set included all participants in the OLE who met mITT criteria using OLE baseline as the baseline reference point.||1.86|0.74|0.4848
91862254|NCT06424236|183611569|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.58|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first progression in CDR-Global score. Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. Time to first progression was defined as time from baseline to first visit where CDR-Global Score was greater than baseline value, where progression must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless progression occurs at last measurement.||2.58|0.33|0.8855
91676839|NCT03056157|183248397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = -2.22, d = 0.42.||-0.02|-0.32|0.03
91676840|NCT03056157|183248398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Wrongdoing scores, t(314) = 2.46, d = 0.28.||0.57|0.06|0.01
91862255|NCT06424236|183611569|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.4497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first progression in CDR-Global score. Baseline Symptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. Time to first progression was defined as time from baseline to first visit where CDR-Global Score was greater than baseline value, where progression must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless progression occurs at last measurement.||1.69|0.30|0.4497
91862256|NCT06424236|183611570|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.33|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with compound symmetry covariance matrix.||0.33|-0.46|0.760
91903222|NCT00791258|183701429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-13.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||4 week analysis||-13.8|-15.4|<0.0001
91862257|NCT06424236|183611570|OTHER||LS mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-2.63|0.093
91903223|NCT00791258|183701429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-15.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||8 week analysis||-15.7|-17.7|<0.0001
91676841|NCT03056157|183248398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.001||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for RGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = 0.06, d = 0.01.||0.18|-0.17|0.95
91676842|NCT03056157|183248398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for RGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = -3.32, d = 0.62.||-0.13|-0.50|0.01
91676843|NCT03056157|183248398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Wrongdoing scores, t(314) = -2.02, d = 0.23.||-0.01|-0.41|0.04
91676844|NCT03056157|183248398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = -2.18, d = 0.03.||-0.02|-0.30|0.03
91676845|NCT03056157|183248398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for RGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = 0.70, d = 0.13.||0.20|-0.09|0.48
91676846|NCT03056157|183248399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.7||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = 0.76, d = 0.09.||2.52|-1.12|0.45
91676847|NCT03056157|183248399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(113) = -1.79, d = 0.34.||0.12|-2.52|0.08
91676848|NCT03056157|183248399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.91||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(113) = -3.00, d = 0.56.||-0.66|-3.15|0.003
91676849|NCT03056157|183248399|SUPERIORITY||standardized effect size of the slope|-0.29||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = -0.39, d = 0.04.||1.17|-1.75|0.70
91676850|NCT03056157|183248399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.59||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = -1.11, d = 0.12.||0.46|-1.64|0.27
91676851|NCT03056157|183248399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = -0.57, d = 0.06.||0.72|-1.32|0.57
91676852|NCT03056157|183248400|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.41||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = 2.35, d = 0.26.||6.25|0.56|0.02
91676853|NCT03056157|183248400|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(116) = -6.53, d = 1.21.||8.90|4.78|<0.001
91676854|NCT03056157|183248400|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.43||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(116) = 3.44, d = 0.64.||5.40|1.47|0.001
91676855|NCT03056157|183248400|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.76||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = 0.66, d = 0.07.||3.03|-1.50|0.51
91676856|NCT03056157|183248400|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = -0.32, d = 0.04.||1.35|-1.89|0.75
91676857|NCT03056157|183248400|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.03||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = -1.28, d = 0.14.||0.55|-2.61|0.20
91676858|NCT03056157|183248401|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 2.93, d = 0.33.||0.43|0.08|0.004
91676859|NCT03056157|183248401|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 5.56, d = 1.04.||0.48|0.23|<0.001
91676860|NCT03056157|183248401|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 1.61, d = 0.30.||0.22|-0.02|0.11
91676861|NCT03056157|183248401|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 0.10, d = 0.10.||0.15|-0.13|0.92
91676862|NCT03056157|183248401|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 0.31, d = 0.03.||0.12|-0.08|0.75
91676863|NCT03056157|183248401|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 0.18, d = 0.02.||0.11|-0.09|0.86
91676864|NCT03056157|183248402|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.56||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -1.43, d = 0.16.||0.97|-6.10|0.15
91676865|NCT03056157|183248402|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|-2.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(116) = -4.07, d = 0.76||-2.73|-7.83|<0.001
91676866|NCT03056157|183248402|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(116) = -2.19, d = 0.41.||-0.28|-5.16|0.03
91676867|NCT03056157|183248402|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.38||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -0.97, d = 0.11.||1.42|-4.17|0.33
91692352|NCT01436370|183279661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 180.||||0.250
91903224|NCT00791258|183701429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-20.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||12 week analysis||-20.9|-22.7|<0.0001
91793572|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3182|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.3182
91793573|NCT03239665|183465249|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7986|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.7986
91793574|NCT03239665|183465250|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0163|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.0163
91862258|NCT06424236|183611571|OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.44|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-0.43|0.989
91903225|NCT00791258|183701429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-25.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||16 week analysis||-25.0|-27.0|<0.0001
91676868|NCT03056157|183248402|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.54||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -1.51, d = 0.17.||0.46|-3.54|0.13
91676869|NCT03056157|183248402|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -0.17, d = 0.02.||1.79|-2.12|0.87
91676870|NCT03056157|183248403|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -2.03, d = 0.23.||-0.01|-0.72|0.04
91676871|NCT03056157|183248403|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(116)= -6.40, d = 1.19.||-0.58|-1.09|<0.001
91676872|NCT03056157|183248403|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(116) = -3.78, d = 0.70.||-0.22|-0.71|0.002
91676873|NCT03056157|183248403|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -0.56, d = 0.06.||0.21|-0.37|0.58
91676874|NCT03056157|183248403|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -0.96, d = 0.11.||0.11|-0.31|0.34
91676875|NCT03056157|183248403|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -0.19, d = 0.02.||0.18|-0.22|0.85
91676876|NCT03056157|183248404|SUPERIORITY|We log-transformed CTS2 scores because they were heavily positively skewed in conjunction with zero-inflation.|Slope|-0.23||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319)= -1.82, d = 0.20.||0.02|-0.48|0.07
91676877|NCT03056157|183248404|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(116) = -1.39, d = 0.16.||-0.05|-0.31|0.17
91676878|NCT03056157|183248404|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(116) = 1.18, d = 0.13.||0.27|-0.07|0.24
91676879|NCT03056157|183248404|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319) = -0.37, d = 0.04.||0.15|-0.23|0.71
91676880|NCT03056157|183248404|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319) = -1.00, d = 0.11.||0.07|-0.21|0.32
91676881|NCT03056157|183248404|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319) = -0.51, d = 0.06.||0.10|-0.17|0.61
91676882|NCT03056157|183248405|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(318) = -0.33, d = 0.04||0.36|-0.50|0.74
91676883|NCT03056157|183248405|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.77, d = 0.14.||0.19|-0.43|0.44
91676884|NCT03056157|183248405|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.34, d = 0.06.||0.24|-0.35|0.74
91676885|NCT03056157|183248405|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.57, d = 0.11.||0.25|-0.45|0.57
91676886|NCT03056157|183248405|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.23, d = 0.04.||0.22|-0.28|0.82
91676887|NCT03056157|183248405|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = 0.58, d = 0.11.||0.31|-0.17|0.57
91676888|NCT03056157|183248406|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(316) = -1.42, d = 0.16.||0.43|-2.63|0.16
91676889|NCT03056157|183248406|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.76||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114)= -1.35, d = 0.25.||0.35|-1.87|0.18
91903226|NCT00791258|183701429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-25.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||20 week analysis||-25.7|-27.8|<0.0001
91903227|NCT00791258|183701430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-7.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||4 week analysis||-7.6|-8.6|<0.0001
91717267|NCT02322749|183327271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals for both AUC and Cmax were entirely contained within the limits 80.00% to 125.00% then bioequivalence was concluded.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.25|10.53|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||10.53|8.25|
91717268|NCT02322749|183327272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals for both AUC and Cmax were entirely contained within the limits 80.00% to 125.00% then bioequivalence was concluded.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|24.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.62|26.03|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||26.03|22.62|
91717269|NCT02322749|183327273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals for both AUC and Cmax were entirely contained within the limits 80.00% to 125.00% then bioequivalence was concluded.|Geometric LS mean ratio|22.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.65|23.69|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||23.69|20.65|
91717270|NCT02322749|183327274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.42|14.65|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||14.65|11.42|
91717271|NCT02322749|183327275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.44|28.09|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||28.09|24.44|
91717272|NCT02322749|183327276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.02|25.3|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||25.30|22.02|
91717273|NCT02322749|183327277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|9.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|10.97|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect|||10.97|8.5|
91717274|NCT02322749|183327277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|13.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.45|14.86|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||14.86|11.45|
91717275|NCT02322749|183327278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|11.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.8|13.05|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||13.05|9.80|
91717276|NCT02322749|183327278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.07|14.8|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||14.80|11.07|
91717277|NCT01409239|183327279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum was used to determine differences between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Since this was a pilot study no formal power analysis was possible. It was hypothesized that IV insulin would be associated with lower LF/HF HRV.||||0.05
91793575|NCT03239665|183465250|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.0028
91717278|NCT04265261|183327289|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.19||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|14.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.23|-11.86|0.8586
91717279|NCT04265261|183327289|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.93||||0.6388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.18|9.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.31|-15.18|0.6388
91717280|NCT02669849|183327310|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|3.69|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||3.69|-5.08|0.7519
91717281|NCT02369653|183327348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0403
91717282|NCT02369653|183327349|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
91717283|NCT01587885|183327369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.548|||<|0.048|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.0480
91717284|NCT01603602|183327414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.938|-0.379||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.379|-0.938|<0.001
91717285|NCT01603602|183327414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.992|-0.426||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|MMRM|||||-0.426|-0.992|<0.001
91793576|NCT03239665|183465250|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0433|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0433
91717286|NCT01603602|183327415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.511||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|MMRM|||||0.511|-0.082|0.155
91717287|NCT01603602|183327415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.523||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|MMRM|||||0.523|-0.079|0.147
91793577|NCT03239665|183465250|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0592|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.0592
91676890|NCT03056157|183248406|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114) = 0.63, d = 0.12.||1.39|-0.71|0.53
91862259|NCT06424236|183611571|OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.533||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.25|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.25|-0.86|0.714
91862260|NCT06424236|183611572|OTHER||LS mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.13|-0.18|0.738
91862261|NCT06424236|183611572|OTHER||LS mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.66|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.66|-0.28|0.395
91862262|NCT06424236|183611573|OTHER||LS mean|-2.176|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.89551|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9469|-1.4051|||MMRM|||Week 56: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF pTau181 as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-1.4051|-2.9469|<0.0001
91862263|NCT06424236|183611573|OTHER||LS mean|-4.8434|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78771|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8609|-3.826|||MMRM|||Week 104: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF pTau181 as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-3.8260|-5.8609|<0.0001
91862264|NCT06424236|183611573|OTHER||LS mean|-5.762|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.31129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9679|-4.5561|||MMRM|||Week 156: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF pTau181 as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-4.5561|-6.9679|<0.0001
91862265|NCT06424236|183611574|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with variance components covariance matrix.||0.09|0.00|0.055
91862266|NCT06424236|183611574|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.11|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.11|-0.02|0.188
91862267|NCT06424236|183611575|OTHER||LS mean|0.0067|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0124||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0034|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 52: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF Amyloid Beta1-42/40 score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||0.0100|0.0034|0.0001
91903228|NCT00791258|183701430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-8.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||8 week analysis||-8.5|-9.7|<0.0001
91903229|NCT00791258|183701430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-11.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||12 week analysis||-11.4|-12.5|<0.0001
91676891|NCT03056157|183248406|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(316) = -0.89, d = 0.12.||0.73|-1.93|.37
91676892|NCT03056157|183248406|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114) = -0.08, d = 0.02.||0.92|-1.00|0.94
91692353|NCT01436370|183279661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 7.||||0.145
91862268|NCT06424236|183611575|OTHER||LS mean|0.0251|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02262|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0189|0.0312|||MMRM|||Week 104: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF Amyloid Beta1-42/40 score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||0.0312|0.0189|<0.0001
91862269|NCT06424236|183611575|OTHER||LS mean|0.0357|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0266|0.0447|||MMRM|||Week 156: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF Amyloid Beta1-42/40 score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||0.0447|0.0266|<0.0001
91903230|NCT00791258|183701430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-14.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||16 week analysis||-14.0|-15.2|<0.0001
91903231|NCT00791258|183701430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-13.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||20 week analysis||-13.8|-15.1|0.0001
91903232|NCT00791258|183701442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-13.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure||-13.4|-16.2|<0.0001
91903233|NCT00791258|183701442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-14.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime systolic blood pressure||-14.8|-17.8|<0.0001
91676893|NCT03056157|183248406|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.57||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114) = 1.21, d = 0.23.||1.48|-0.35|0.23
91676894|NCT03056157|183248407|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 2.49, d = 0.28.||7.13|0.83|0.01
91676895|NCT03056157|183248407|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 4.16, d = 0.78.||7.13|2.55|<0.001
91676896|NCT03056157|183248407|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.85||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 0.78, d = 0.15.||3.02|-1.31|0.44
91676897|NCT03056157|183248407|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.21||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 0.17, d = 0.02.||2.75|-2.32|0.88
91676898|NCT03056157|183248407|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.55||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 0.60, d = 0.07.||2.37|-1.27|0.55
91676899|NCT03056157|183248407|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 0.38, d = 0.04.||2.10|-1.42|0.70
91676900|NCT03056157|183248408|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(318) = -0.25, d = 0.03.||0.25|-0.32|0.80
91676901|NCT03056157|183248408|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(115) = 0.57, d = 0.11.||0.16|-0.09|0.57
91676902|NCT03056157|183248408|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(115) = -0.23, d = 0.04.||0.11|-0.14|0.82
91676903|NCT03056157|183248408|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(320) = 0.57, d = 0.06.||0.23|-0.13|0.57
91676904|NCT03056157|183248409|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = 3.16, d = 0.32.||6.35|1.48|0.002
91676905|NCT03056157|183248409|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|5.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(121) = 4.66, d = 0.85.||5.92|2.41|<0.001
91676906|NCT03056157|183248409|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(121) = 0.63, d = 0.11.||1.94|-1.44|0.78
91676907|NCT03056157|183248409|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = -0.34, d = 0.01.||0.24|-0.34|0.73
91717288|NCT01603602|183327416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.861|0.091||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score of finger flexor muscle group as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||||0.091|-0.861|0.111
91676908|NCT03056157|183248409|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = 0.56, d = 0.06.||0.27|-0.15|0.58
91676909|NCT03056157|183248409|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = 1.07, d = 0.11.||0.31|-0.10|0.28
91676910|NCT00140426|183248415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.74|||Regression, Cox|Time to reaching ease of eating level 3 assessed using Cox regression as some patients did not reach it during the study.|The hazard ratio is for the placebo group versus the treatment group. A hazard ratio \<1 implies that the placebo group had a lower risk of achieving EOE level 3, although not statistically significant. Achieving EOE level 3 was the desired endpoint.|||1.74|0.41|0.55
91676911|NCT00140426|183248419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.74||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91676912|NCT00140426|183248419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.88|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91676913|NCT00140426|183248421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference was for placebo - risperidone.|Null hypothesis: no difference in change from baseline to end of treatment for CAPT total score||0.33|-0.71|0.47
91676914|NCT00140426|183248422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91676915|NCT00140426|183248423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91676916|NCT00140426|183248424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91676917|NCT00140426|183248425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91676918|NCT02149108|183248426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.69||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from log-rank test stratified by regorafenib pre-treatment (yes vs no), time from onset metastatic disease until randomisation (less than 24 months vs 24 months or more ) and region.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio \<1 favors Nintedanib.|||0.69|0.49|<0.0001
91676919|NCT02149108|183248427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from log-rank test stratified by regorafenib pre-treatment (yes vs no), time from onset metastatic disease until randomisation (less than 24 months vs 24 months or more ) and region.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio below 1 favors Nintedanib.|||1.19|0.86|0.8659
91676920|NCT02149108|183248429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.47||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for regorafenib pre-treatment (yes vs no), time from onset metastatic disease until randomization in the trial (less than 24 months vs. 24 months or more) and region.|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates benefit to Nintedanib.|||4.47|2.00|<0.0001
91903234|NCT00791258|183701442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-10.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime systolic blood pressure||-10.8|-14.1|<0.0001
91717289|NCT01603602|183327416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.933|0.051||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score of finger flexor muscle group as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||||0.051|-0.933|0.078
91717290|NCT01603602|183327417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.305||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.305|-0.498|0.636
91717291|NCT01603602|183327417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|0.318||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.318|-0.502|0.658
91903235|NCT00791258|183701442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-11.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||systolic blood pressure during last 2 hours of dose||-11.6|-15.7|<0.0001
91903236|NCT00791258|183701442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-11.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||systolic blood pressure during last 4 hours of dose||-11.2|-14.7|<0.0001
91903237|NCT00791258|183701442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-10.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||systolic blood pressure during last 6 hours of dose||-10.9|-14.3|<0.0001
91676921|NCT04168190|183248435|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|9.0|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site erythema||9.0|-29.3|
91676922|NCT04168190|183248435|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|24.6|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site erythema||24.6|-18.1|
91676923|NCT04168190|183248435|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|39.3|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site pain||39.3|-7.7|
91676924|NCT04168190|183248435|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|42.1|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site pain||42.1|-4.1|
91717292|NCT01603602|183327417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.635||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.635|-0.162|0.243
91676925|NCT04168190|183248435|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|26.5|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site swelling||26.5|-13.2|
91676926|NCT04168190|183248435|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|22.8|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site swelling||22.8|-16.0|
91676927|NCT04168190|183248436|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|31.0|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Fatigue||31.0|-11.4|
91717293|NCT01603602|183327417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.576||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.576|-0.237|0.412
91903238|NCT00791258|183701442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.3|-8.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure||-8.5|-10.3|<0.0001
91903239|NCT00791258|183701442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-9.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime diastolic blood pressure||-9.6|-11.7|<0.0001
91903240|NCT00791258|183701442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-6.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure||-6.4|-8.8|<0.0001
91676928|NCT04168190|183248436|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|31.0|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Fatigue||31.0|-11.4|
91676929|NCT04168190|183248436|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|28.3|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Arthralgia||28.3|-7.4|
91676930|NCT04168190|183248436|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|20.2|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Arthralgia||20.2|-13.1|
91676931|NCT04168190|183248436|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|33.8|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Myalgia||33.8|-7.5|
91903241|NCT00791258|183701442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.0|-7.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||diastolic blood pressure during last 2 hours of dose||-7.2|-10.0|<0.0001
91903242|NCT00791258|183701442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-6.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||diastolic blood pressure during last 4 hours of dose||-6.8|-9.2|<0.0001
91903243|NCT00791258|183701442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.8|-6.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||diastolic blood pressure during last 6 hours of dose||-6.6|-8.8|<0.0001
91903244|NCT00791258|183701443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-19.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||24-hour mean systolic blood pressure||-19.3|-22.6|<0.0001
91903245|NCT00791258|183701443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-21.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime systolic blood pressure||-21.4|-25.1|<0.0001
91903246|NCT00791258|183701443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-15.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime systolic blood pressure||-15.6|-19.4|<0.0001
91903247|NCT00791258|183701443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-17.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Systolic blood pressure - last 2 hours of dose||-17.4|-21.7|<0.0001
91676932|NCT04168190|183248436|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|37.3|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Myalgia||37.3|-4.6|
91676933|NCT04168190|183248436|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|34.5|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Headache||34.5|-8.5|
91676934|NCT04168190|183248436|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|23.8|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Headache||23.8|-17.2|
91676935|NCT04168190|183248437|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|11.5|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|||11.5|-11.5|
91676936|NCT04168190|183248437|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|11.5|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|||11.5|-11.5|
91676937|NCT04168190|183248438|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.8|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Injection site erythema||6.8|-2.8|
91676938|NCT04168190|183248438|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|17.1|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Injection site pain||17.1|0.1|
91676939|NCT04168190|183248438|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.4|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Injection site swelling||8.4|-2.0|
91676940|NCT04168190|183248439|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.5|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Fatigue||13.5|0.8|
91903248|NCT00791258|183701443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-16.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||Systolic blood pressure - last 4 hours of dose||-16.3|-20.2|<0.0001
91903249|NCT00791258|183701443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-16.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Systolic blood pressure - last 6 hours of dose||-16.0|-19.7|<0.0001
91676941|NCT04168190|183248439|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Arthralgia||3.8|-3.8|
91676942|NCT04168190|183248439|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.0|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Myalgia||7.0|-3.8|
91676943|NCT04168190|183248439|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.9|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Headache||9.9|-2.7|
91676944|NCT04168190|183248440|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|||1.5|-1.5|
91676945|NCT04168190|183248441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.22|0.82|<0.001
91676946|NCT04168190|183248441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.56|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.56|0.95|<0.001
91676947|NCT04168190|183248441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.41|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.41|0.90|<0.001
91676948|NCT04168190|183248441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.16|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.16|1.16|<0.001
91676949|NCT04168190|183248441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.24|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.24|0.71|<0.001
91692354|NCT01436370|183279661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 180.||||0.500
91692355|NCT01436370|183279661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 7.||||0.999
91903250|NCT00791258|183701443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-12.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||24-hour mean diastolic blood pressure||-12.2|-14.4|<0.0001
91903251|NCT00791258|183701443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-13.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime diastolic blood pressure||-13.8|-16.2|<0.0001
91903252|NCT00791258|183701443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-9.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure||-9.8|-12.4|<0.0001
91676950|NCT04168190|183248441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.21|0.80|<0.001
91676951|NCT04168190|183248441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.47|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.47|0.87|<0.001
91676952|NCT04168190|183248441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.52|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.52|0.93|<0.001
91676953|NCT04168190|183248441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.9|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.90|1.78|<0.001
91676954|NCT04168190|183248441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|3.55|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||3.55|1.86|<0.001
91676955|NCT04168190|183248441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.16|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.16|1.24|<0.001
91676956|NCT04168190|183248441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.36|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.36|1.43|<0.001
91676957|NCT04168190|183248442|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|8.62|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||8.62|4.23|<0.001
91676958|NCT04168190|183248442|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|8.62|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||8.62|5.37|<0.001
91676959|NCT04168190|183248442|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|3.9|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||3.90|2.31|<0.001
91676960|NCT04168190|183248442|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|18.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.98|25.57|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||25.57|12.98|<0.001
91676961|NCT04168190|183248442|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|19.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.87|29.4|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||29.40|12.87|<0.001
91676962|NCT04168190|183248442|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|29.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.72|43.09|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||43.09|20.72|<0.001
91692356|NCT01436370|183279661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 180.||||0.500
91692357|NCT01436370|183279662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 7.||||0.716
91903253|NCT00791258|183701443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-10.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure - last 2 hours of dose||-10.8|-13.8|<0.0001
91903254|NCT00791258|183701443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-10.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure - last 4 hours of dose||-10.2|-12.9|<0.0001
91676963|NCT04168190|183248442|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|32.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.83|44.89|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||44.89|22.83|<0.001
91676964|NCT04168190|183248442|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.25|50.23|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||50.23|24.25|<0.001
91676965|NCT04168190|183248442|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|11.26|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||11.26|7.19|<0.001
91676966|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.42|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.42|0.58|
91676967|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.76|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.76|0.71|
91676968|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.99|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||1.99|0.63|
91676969|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.84|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||3.84|1.19|
91676970|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.21|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||2.21|0.74|
91676971|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.63|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||3.63|1.19|
91676972|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.46|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||1.46|0.37|
91676973|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||2.00|0.50|
91676974|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.41|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||1.41|0.40|
91676975|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.48|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||2.48|0.70|
91676976|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.08|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.08|0.37|
91676977|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.69|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.69|0.58|
91676978|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.85|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||1.85|0.57|
91676979|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.97|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||2.97|0.90|
91676980|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.32|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||2.32|0.67|
91676981|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||3.45|0.98|
91676982|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.38|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||1.38|0.42|
91676983|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.91|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||2.91|0.87|
91676984|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.17|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||2.17|0.50|
91692358|NCT01436370|183279662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 180.||||0.999
91862270|NCT06424236|183611576|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-0.12|0.644
91862271|NCT06424236|183611576|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.26|-0.18|0.745
91903255|NCT00791258|183701443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-10.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure - last 6 hours of dose||-10.0|-12.6|<0.0001
91676985|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.5|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||4.50|1.02|
91676986|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.68|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||3.68|1.21|
91676987|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|5.03|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||5.03|1.64|
91676988|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.93|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||2.93|0.93|
91676989|NCT04168190|183248443|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.43|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||3.43|1.07|
91676990|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|9.25|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||9.25|1.99|
91676991|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|11.91|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||11.91|2.53|
91676992|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|5.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|9.85|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||9.85|2.59|
91676993|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|8.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|17.5|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||17.50|4.55|
91676994|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|8.15|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||8.15|2.38|
91676995|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|9.16|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||9.16|2.64|
91676996|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.91|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||5.91|1.97|
91676997|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|6.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|11.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||11.45|3.78|
91676998|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|20.4|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||20.40|4.35|
91676999|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|20.62|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||20.62|4.34|
91677000|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.05|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||6.05|1.95|
91677001|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|8.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||8.45|2.69|
91677002|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|8.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|19.35|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||19.35|3.36|
91677003|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|16.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|39.01|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||39.01|6.68|
91692359|NCT01436370|183279662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 7.||||0.503
91692360|NCT01436370|183279662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 180.||||0.475
91862272|NCT04213872|183611577|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogPCI 25.4 (14.2) 17.3 (10.5) \*-8.1 (3.7) .01~\*reduction in scores indicate improvement."||||.01
91677004|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|16.95|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||16.95|4.93|
91677005|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|13.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.28|25.32|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||25.32|7.28|
91677006|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|15.36|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||15.36|5.56|
91677007|NCT04168190|183248444|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.49|20.87|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||20.87|7.49|
91677008|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.47|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.47|0.67|
91677009|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.57|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.57|0.72|
91677010|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.54|1.42|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||1.42|0.54|
91677011|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.8|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||1.80|0.68|
91677012|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.54|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||1.54|0.59|
91677013|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.15|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||2.15|0.81|
91677014|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.23|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||3.23|0.85|
91677015|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.96|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||3.96|1.03|
91677016|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.67|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||1.67|0.44|
91862273|NCT04213872|183611578|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogPCA 16.0 (5.1) 19.2 (5.3) 3.2 (0.2) .03||||.03
91862274|NCT04213872|183611579|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogQOL 3.7 (3.8) 1.8 (2.2) \*-1.9 (1.6) .04~\*lower scores signifying better outcomes."||||.04
91862275|NCT04213872|183611580|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogOth 1.5 (2.1) 0.2 (0.4) \*-1.3 (1.7) .04~\*lower scores signifying better outcomes."||||.04
91862276|NCT04213872|183611581|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value WAIS-III Letter/Number 10.7 (3.2) 12.7 (2.8) 2.0 (0.4) .01||||.01
91677017|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.69|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||3.69|0.97|
91677018|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.08|0.46|
91677019|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.38|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.38|0.58|
91677020|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.15|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||2.15|0.62|
91677021|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.04|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||2.04|0.58|
91677022|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.71|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||2.71|0.90|
91677023|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.23|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||3.23|1.08|
91677024|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.49|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||1.49|0.53|
91717294|NCT01603602|183327417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.361||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.361|-0.408|0.904
91717295|NCT01603602|183327417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.135||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.135|-0.641|0.200
91717296|NCT01603602|183327417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.978||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.978|0.210|0.003
91717297|NCT01603602|183327417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.58||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.580|-0.194|0.327
91717298|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.1||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.089|27.293||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Elbow||27.293|-3.089|0.117
91717299|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.41||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.717|23.527||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Elbow||23.527|-6.717|0.273
91717300|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.71||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.958|26.458||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Elbow||26.458|2.958|0.015
91717301|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.85||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|23.504||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Elbow||23.504|0.203|0.046
91717302|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.801|33.137||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Elbow||33.137|8.801|<0.001
91717303|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.35||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.662|23.362||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Elbow||23.362|-0.662|0.064
91717304|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.25||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.317|27.178||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Elbow||27.178|3.317|0.013
91717305|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.22||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.488|18.934||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Elbow||18.934|-4.488|0.225
91862277|NCT04213872|183611582|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value~WAIS-III Digit Span Forward and Backward 19.2 (4.8) 19.7 (4.4) 0.5 (0.4) .60"||||.60
91677025|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.87|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||1.87|0.66|
91717306|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.239|15.236||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Elbow||15.236|-6.239|0.409
91677026|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.27|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||3.27|0.89|
91717307|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.86||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|14.419||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Elbow||14.419|-6.690|0.470
91717308|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.13||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.962|4.706||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Wrist||4.706|-16.962|0.263
91862278|NCT04213872|183611583|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value PSQI 1.5 (0.8) 0.9 (0.7) \*-0.6 (0.1) .03~\*Lower scores mean better outcomes."||||.03
91862279|NCT04213872|183611584|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value POMS Anxiety 9.2 (7.7) 4.2 (3.7) \*-5.0 (4.0) .05~\*Lower scores mean better outcomes."||||.05
91677027|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.62|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||4.62|1.24|
91793578|NCT03239665|183465250|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.1843|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.1843
91862280|NCT04213872|183611585|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value POMS Depression 4.1 (4.9) 2.0 (3.0) \*-2.1 (1.9) .08~\*Lower scores mean better outcomes."||||.08
91677028|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.34|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||3.34|1.16|
91677029|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.51|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||3.51|1.21|
91677030|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.91|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||1.91|0.77|
91677031|NCT04168190|183248445|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||2.45|0.99|
91677032|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|13.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|33.1|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||33.10|5.90|
91677033|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|14.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|34.35|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||34.35|6.05|
91677034|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|7.39||||||95.0|4.29|12.75|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||12.75|4.29|
91677035|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.42|16.28|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||16.28|5.42|
91677036|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.63|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||3.63|1.25|
91677037|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.79|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||4.79|1.64|
91677038|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|7.67|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||7.67|1.88|
91793579|NCT03239665|183465250|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.5933|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.5933
91793580|NCT03239665|183465250|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3942|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.3942
91862281|NCT04213872|183611586|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value BDNF 0.11 (0.9) 0.30 (0.7) 0.19 (0.2) .30~Higher scores mean better outcomes."||||.30
91862282|NCT04213872|183611587|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value NF-kB1 171.7 (25.4) 173.7 (21.6) 2.0 (3.8) .80~Higher scores mean better outcomes."||||.80
91903256|NCT00314249|183701491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.38||||||95.0|-8.56|-4.19|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.19|-8.56|
91677039|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|5.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|11.94|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||11.94|2.88|
91677040|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|13.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|33.32|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||33.32|5.68|
91677041|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|19.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.91|47.0|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||47.00|7.91|
91677042|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|23.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|65.82|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||65.82|8.64|
91677043|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|39.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.15|109.65|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||109.65|14.15|
91677044|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|19.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|43.74|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||43.74|9.03|
91677045|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|31.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.98|69.03|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||69.03|13.98|
91862283|NCT04213872|183611588|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value TP53 12.3 (2.7) 13.1 (5.5) 0.8 (2.8) .61||||.61
91862284|NCT03339713|183611589|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.11|||t-test, 1 sided|||A/Michigan strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.11|0.55|<.001
91677046|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|57.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.15|132.78|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||132.78|25.15|
91677047|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|58.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|134.33|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||134.33|25.10|
91677048|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|6.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|10.8|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||10.80|4.45|
91677049|NCT04168190|183248446|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|12.24|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||12.24|5.00|
91677050|NCT04168190|183248449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.30|0.90|<0.001
91677051|NCT04168190|183248449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.52|0.99|<0.001
91677052|NCT04168190|183248449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.52|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.52|1.02|<0.001
91677053|NCT04168190|183248449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.75|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.75|1.06|<0.001
91677054|NCT04168190|183248449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.06|0.69|<0.001
91677055|NCT04168190|183248449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.18|0.78|<0.001
91677056|NCT04168190|183248449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.64|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.64|1.04|<0.001
91677057|NCT04168190|183248449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.32|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.32|1.44|<0.001
91677058|NCT04168190|183248449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.86|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.86|1.27|<0.001
91677059|NCT04168190|183248449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.04|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||3.04|1.75|<0.001
91692361|NCT01436370|183279662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 7.||||0.182
91692362|NCT01436370|183279662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 180.||||0.014
91862285|NCT03339713|183611589|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.12|||t-test, 1 sided|||A/Hong Kong strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.12|0.59|<.001
91717309|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.846|-3.36||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Wrist||-3.360|-25.846|0.012
91717310|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.64||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.277|1.996||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Wrist||1.996|-23.277|0.098
91717311|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.26|0.068||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Wrist||0.068|-26.260|0.051
91717312|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.11||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.031|-4.189||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Wrist||-4.189|-30.031|0.010
91717313|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.25||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.622|2.131||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Wrist||2.131|-24.622|0.098
91717314|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.71||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.888|-5.537||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Wrist||-5.537|-29.888|0.005
91717315|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.74||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.293|-3.194||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Wrist||-3.194|-28.293|0.015
91717316|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.01|-2.492||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Wrist||-2.492|-28.010|0.020
91903257|NCT00314249|183701492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||||95.0|-0.69|-0.38|||ANOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors.||-0.38|-0.69|
91903258|NCT00314249|183701493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||||95.0|-3.27|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-3.27|
91717317|NCT01603602|183327418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.52||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.797|-0.243||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Wrist||-0.243|-26.797|0.046
91862286|NCT03339713|183611589|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.34|||t-test, 1 sided|||B/Brisbane strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.34|0.77|<.001
91717318|NCT00316004|183327426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three groups.||||0.55
91717319|NCT00316004|183327427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three treatment groups among patients with head AIS≥4.||||0.59
91717320|NCT00316004|183327428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three groups.||||0.67
91793581|NCT03239665|183465250|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.9062|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.9062
91793582|NCT03239665|183465250|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.9618|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.9618
91903259|NCT00314249|183701494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.001||95.0|1.45|2.94||Closed testing procedure used to control overall type 1 error rate at 5%: fibromyalgia syndrome tested prior to fibromyalgia pain|Regression, Logistic|||The test of no difference in the responder rate between milnacipran and placebo groups was performed using a logistic regression model with treatment group, baseline pain score, and baseline SF-36 PCS score as explanatory variables.||2.94|1.45|<0.001
91862287|NCT03339713|183611589|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.36|||t-test, 1 sided|||B/Phuket strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.36|0.76|<.001
91677060|NCT04168190|183248449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.22|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.22|1.49|<0.001
91677061|NCT04168190|183248449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.83|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.83|1.81|<0.001
91677062|NCT04168190|183248450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|4.84|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||4.84|2.95|<0.001
91677063|NCT04168190|183248450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|9.64|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||9.64|6.12|<0.001
91677064|NCT04168190|183248450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.17|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||4.17|2.60|<0.001
91677065|NCT04168190|183248450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|10.41|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||10.41|7.19|<0.001
91677066|NCT04168190|183248450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|7.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|9.9|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model||9.90|6.20|<0.001
91677067|NCT04168190|183248450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|5.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|6.94|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||6.94|4.53|<0.001
91677068|NCT04168190|183248450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|23.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.35|29.74|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||29.74|19.35|<0.001
91677069|NCT04168190|183248450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.32|12.33|||P-value was estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||12.33|8.32|<0.001
91677070|NCT04168190|183248450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|18.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.59|21.45|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||21.45|15.59|<0.001
91677071|NCT01675661|183248456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|OR=1.00||For the primary outcome measure, a repeated-measures logistic regression model was used to analyze the odds of a negative urine cannabinoid test as an indicator of abstinence across all 12 weeks of treatment. A generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to adjust for this correlation with multiple samples per participant. The model for the primary analysis included the main effect of treatment, main effect of time, site effects, effect of smoking tobacco, and timeXtreatment interaction.||1.59|0.63|0.985
91677072|NCT02992418|183248492|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was greater than (\>) 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|0.848|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|0.997||||||Anti-PT||0.997|0.721|
91862288|NCT05403827|183611599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5019|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.5019
91862289|NCT05403827|183611600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2028|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.2028
91862290|NCT05403827|183611601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1914|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.1914
91793583|NCT03239665|183465250|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.114|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.1140
91862291|NCT05403827|183611602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2512|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.2512
91862292|NCT05403827|183611603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7906|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.7906
91862293|NCT05403827|183611604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5343|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.5343
91862294|NCT05403827|183611605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3757|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.3757
91862295|NCT01987895|183611642|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%.|Difference between 2 proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||4.3|-7.2|
91862296|NCT01987895|183611642|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%.|Difference between 2 proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.2|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Sensitivity analysis with imputation for a single day with missing UBM data between one day before end-of-treatment (EOT) and 2 days after EOT||3.2|-8.1|
91862297|NCT01987895|183611643|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%.|Difference between 2 proportions|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.0|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson' score method|||1.0|-9.2|
91862298|NCT01987895|183611644|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above zero|Difference between 2 proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|10.8|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||10.8|-4.3|
91677073|NCT02992418|183248492|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was \> 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.18||||||Anti-FHA||1.18|0.892|
91677074|NCT02992418|183248492|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was \> 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.46||||||Anti-PRN||1.46|0.836|
91677075|NCT02992418|183248492|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was \> 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.33||||||Anti-FIM2+3||1.33|0.827|
91677076|NCT02992418|183248493|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the percentage difference was \> -10% for all antigens.|Percentage difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|5.04||||||Anti-D||5.04|-4.53|
91677077|NCT02992418|183248493|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the percentage difference was \> -10% for all antigens.|Percentage difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.37||||||Anti-T||1.37|-2.87|
91677078|NCT02992418|183248494|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.44||||||Serotype 1||1.44|0.862|
91677079|NCT02992418|183248494|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47||||||Serotype 2||1.47|0.97|
91677080|NCT02992418|183248494|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.16||||||Serotype 3||1.16|0.739|
91677081|NCT02992418|183248494|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.999||||||Serotype 4||0.999|0.644|
91677082|NCT00289536|183248507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1662|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with dose as fixed effect||Null Hypothesis: The mean log initial recovery will be the same in each dose group.||||0.1662
91677083|NCT00289536|183248508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0965||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with dose as fixed effect||Null Hypothesis: The mean log AUC/dose will be the same in each dose group.||||0.0965
91677084|NCT00289536|183248509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5057|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with dose as fixed effect||Null Hypothesis: The mean terminal half-life will be the same in each dose group.||||0.5057
91677085|NCT00289536|183248517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7048||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: Relationship of initial recovery to pre-infusion level of VWF:Rco with dose groups combined.||||0.7048
91677086|NCT00289536|183248517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0322||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of AUC/Dose to pre-infusion level of VWF:Rco with dose groups combined.||||.0322
91677087|NCT00289536|183248517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of terminal half-life to pre-infusion level of VWF:Rco with dose groups combined.||||0.0056
91677088|NCT00289536|183248518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3696||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of initial recovery to pre-infusion level of VWF:Ag with dose groups combined.||||0.3696
91862299|NCT01987895|183611645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||two-sided p-value (alpha 5%) based on log-rank test stratified by first occurrence / first recurrence and geographical region.|Log Rank|||||1.14|0.80|0.6016
91862300|NCT01987895|183611646|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.002||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the diarrhea domain scores||0.20|-0.20|0.9814
91717321|NCT00316004|183327429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three treatment groups among patients with head AIS≥2.||||0.57
91717322|NCT00316004|183327430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients at any level of disability between the three groups.||||.84
91717323|NCT00316004|183327431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were alive on the 28th day after injury between the three groups.||||0.88
91717324|NCT00316004|183327432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were alive on the day discharged from the hospital after injury between the three groups.||||0.88
91717325|NCT00316004|183327433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were alive and free of ARDS from the day of injury to the 28th day after injury between the three groups.||||0.91
91717326|NCT00316004|183327434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in average Worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scores (MODS) through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.81
91717327|NCT00316004|183327435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Ventilator-free days through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.77
91717328|NCT00316004|183327436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of days alive out of the ICU through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.76
91717329|NCT00316004|183327437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of days alive out of the hospital through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.43
91717330|NCT00316004|183327438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with any nosocomial infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.06
91862301|NCT01987895|183611646|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.087||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.25||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the abdominal symptoms domain scores||0.25|-0.07|0.2879
91862302|NCT01987895|183611646|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.05||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the systemic / other symptoms domain scores||0.19|-0.09|0.4880
91862303|NCT01987895|183611647|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|2.9|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||2.9|-6.5|
91862304|NCT01987895|183611648|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||2.3|-6.2|
91903260|NCT00314249|183701495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.001||95.0|1.38|2.51||Closed testing procedure was used to control overall type 1 error rate at 5%: fibromyalgia pain tested after statistically significant fibromyalgia syndrome test|Regression, Logistic|||The test of no difference in the responder rate between milnacipran and placebo groups was performed using a logistic regression model with the treatment group and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.||2.51|1.38|<0.001
91862305|NCT01987895|183611649|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.7|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||10.7|-3.4|
91717331|NCT00316004|183327438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with pneumonia through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.3
91717332|NCT00316004|183327438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with bloodstream infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.04
91717333|NCT00316004|183327438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with urinary tract infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.06
91717334|NCT00316004|183327438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with wound infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.88
91717335|NCT00316004|183327439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average amount of total fluids given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.68
91717336|NCT00316004|183327440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of PRBC units given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.43
91717337|NCT00316004|183327441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died during hospitalization between the three groups.||||0.88
91717338|NCT00316004|183327441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were discharged alive from the hospital to home between the three groups.||||0.26
91717339|NCT00316004|183327441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were discharged alive from the hospital to inpatient rehabilitation facilities between the three groups.||||0.16
91717340|NCT00316004|183327441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were discharged alive from the hospital to skilled nursing facilities between the three groups.||||0.17
91717341|NCT01935089|183327446|OTHER|"Hypothesis: 20 weeks of treatment (baseline week 3 to endpoint week 24) will result in a change in the levels of integrated HIV-1 DNA (copies/CD4 T cell Variable name: intDNA).~Test if the mean difference (IntDNA wk24 - IntDNAwk3) is significantly different from zero (i.e. no change) Null hypothesis: Mean (IntDNA wk24 - IntDNAwk3) = 0; reject if p\<0.05"||||||0.0797||||||significant if \<0.05|signed rank test|||||||0.0797
91862306|NCT01987895|183611650|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis|Difference between 2 proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.7|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||8.7|-6.5|
91717342|NCT02932943|183327447|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.6482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.72|-1.07|0.6482
91862307|NCT03628924|183611662|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|12.6|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|-4.6|= 0.166
91717343|NCT02932943|183327448|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.87|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.87|-1.61|0.5590
91862308|NCT03628924|183611662|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|6.6|||=|0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.6|-10.3|= 0.459
91862309|NCT02547233|183611794|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|30.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|218.0|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|||218.0|4.28|<0.001
91862310|NCT02547233|183611795|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|12.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|31.78|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||31.78|4.73|<0.001
91903261|NCT00314249|183701496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||||95.0|0.86|2.44|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.44|0.86|
91717344|NCT02932943|183327449|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.8131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.95|-1.53|0.8131
91717345|NCT02932943|183327450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.21|-2.05|0.6108
91717346|NCT00977197|183327458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.008
91717347|NCT00977197|183327459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.009
91717348|NCT00977197|183327460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender; rank scale.||||||0.389
91717349|NCT00977197|183327461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.||||||0.049
91717350|NCT00977197|183327462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.044
91717351|NCT00977197|183327463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||Intent to treat analysis, not adjusted for age and gender.|Chi-squared|||||||0.350
91677089|NCT00289536|183248518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of AUC/Dose to pre-infusion level of VWF:Ag with dose groups combined.||||0.0001
91677090|NCT00289536|183248518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of terminal half-life to pre-infusion level of VWF:Ag with dose groups combined.||||<0.0001
91677091|NCT03127644|183248538|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00571|-0.0042|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confirmatory testing proceeded sequentially (ZS 10g TID, then ZS 5g TID).|Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 48 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00420|-0.00571|<0.0001
91677092|NCT03127644|183248538|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000385|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00337|-0.00185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confirmatory testing proceeded sequentially (ZS 10g TID, then ZS 5g TID).|Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 48 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00185|-0.00337|<0.001
91677093|NCT03127644|183248539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|46.495|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.142|213.152|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||213.152|10.142|<0.0001
91677094|NCT03127644|183248539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.835|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.497|382.337|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||382.337|13.497|<0.0001
91677095|NCT03127644|183248540|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000645||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00359|-0.00104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 24 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00104|-0.00359|0.0004
91677096|NCT03127644|183248540|OTHER||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000637|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00527|-0.00275|||Mixed Models Analysis||Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 24 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00275|-0.00527|<0.0001
91677097|NCT03127644|183248541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.347||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|4.329|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||4.329|0.419|0.6167
91677098|NCT03127644|183248541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.334|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.006|58.697|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||58.697|4.006|<0.0001
91677099|NCT03127644|183248545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0586||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0586
91677100|NCT03127644|183248545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0006
91677101|NCT03127644|183248546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0250
91717352|NCT00977197|183327464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.||||||0.020
91677102|NCT03127644|183248546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0064
91677103|NCT04972123|183248547|SUPERIORITY|The primary end point was evaluated via a large sample Z-test for proportions. The test statistic was compared to a Pocock monitoring boundary at both an interim analysis and at the final analysis.||||||0.521||||||The primary end point was evaluated via a large sample Z-test for proportions. The test statistic was compared to a Pocock monitoring boundary at both an interim analysis and at the final analysis.|Large sample Z-test for population prop|The test statistic was compared to a Pocock monitoring boundary at both an interim analysis and at the final analysis.||Primary endpoint -- ITT primary endpoint analysis||||0.521
91677104|NCT04972123|183248548|SUPERIORITY|Time to event was compared between groups via a log-rank test.||||||0.574||||||Time to event was compared between groups via a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Secondary endpoint -- Time to event for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.574
91677105|NCT04972123|183248549|SUPERIORITY|Incidence of asystole were compared between groups using Fisher exact test.||||||1||||||Incidence of asystole were compared between groups using Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|Incidence of asystole were compared between groups using Fisher exact test.||Secondary endpoint -- Incidence of asystolic pause \> 3 seconds for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||1.000
91677106|NCT04972123|183248550|SUPERIORITY|Reporting for the 1 hour fatigue score only.||||||0.732||||||Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Secondary endpoint -- Measures of Fatigue for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.732
91677107|NCT04972123|183248550|SUPERIORITY|Reporting for the 4 hour fatigue score only.||||||0.591||||||Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Secondary endpoint -- Measures of Fatigue for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.591
91677108|NCT04972123|183248550|SUPERIORITY|Reporting for the 8 hour fatigue score only.||||||0.034||||||Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Secondary endpoint -- Measures of Fatigue for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.034
91677109|NCT01156142|183248561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.1|-6.7|<0.001
91677110|NCT01156142|183248562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.1|0.1|0.0018
91677111|NCT01156142|183248563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|8.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.3|2.9|0.001
91677112|NCT01156142|183248564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.6|-1.2|0.0297
91717353|NCT00977197|183327465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.024
91677113|NCT01156142|183248565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1392|||||||Chi-squared|||At 2 hours after initial mouthwash||||0.1392
91677114|NCT01156142|183248565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6989|||||||Chi-squared|||At 4 hours after initial mouthwash||||0.6989
91793584|NCT03239665|183465250|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0141|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0141
91793585|NCT03239665|183465250|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0457|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0457
91793586|NCT03239665|183465251|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6153|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their doctor at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.6153
91793587|NCT03239665|183465251|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8299|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their doctor post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.8299
91862311|NCT02547233|183611796|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|10.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|23.97|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||23.97|4.43|<0.001
91903262|NCT05395104|183701497|OTHER|Ratio = Geometric least squares mean (test)/geometric least squares mean (reference)|Ratio|1.0865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9724|1.2141||||||Midazolam + Cefiderocol: single 5-mg dose of midazolam + 2 g cefiderocol (Day 15)||1.2141|0.9724|
91677115|NCT01156142|183248566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0018
91677116|NCT02337959|183248621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
91677117|NCT02337959|183248622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Both the predicate and investigational images were randomized for the monitors. Predicate images could display on the left or the right and vice versa with the investigational. There were formulas in the spreadsheet that gave the preferences a numerical value, and subsequently became part of the analysis.||||0.000
91677118|NCT02623348|183248627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|linear mixed modeling|||||||<0.01
91717354|NCT00977197|183327466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.||||||0.417
91793588|NCT03239665|183465251|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0405|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their doctor at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0405
91793589|NCT03239665|183465251|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3776|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their pharmacist at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.3776
91793590|NCT03239665|183465251|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.2856|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their pharmacist post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.2856
91793591|NCT03239665|183465251|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their pharmacist at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0016
91862312|NCT02547233|183611797|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.37||Negative binominal regression with treatment group and pooled site as factors and log baseline count as offset variable.|Mantel Haenszel||0.018% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.37|0.25|<0.001
91903263|NCT05395104|183701499|OTHER|Ratio = Geometric least squares mean (test)/geometric least squares mean (reference)|Ratio|1.1174|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9784|1.2762||||||Midazolam + Cefiderocol: single 5-mg dose of midazolam + 2 g cefiderocol (Day 15)||1.2762|0.9784|
91677119|NCT04647721|183248657|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.5. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was constructed using the repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.07|
91677120|NCT04647721|183248658|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|6.35||||||||6.35|-6.35|
91677121|NCT04647721|183248659|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|6.74||||||||6.74|-3.08|
91677122|NCT04380090|183248661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.86|||Regression, Logistic||OR for Propylene Glycol use (vs Docusate Sodium), adjusted for operative time and sex (female vs. male)|||2.86|0.65|0.41
91677123|NCT04380090|183248662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.24|||ordinal regression model||OR for Propylene Glycol use (vs Docusate Sodium), adjusted for operative time and sex (female vs. male)|||2.24|0.28|0.66
91677124|NCT04380090|183248663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.63|||ordinal regression model||OR for Propylene Glycol use (vs Docusate Sodium), adjusted for operative time and sex (female vs. male)|||3.63|0.45|0.65
91677125|NCT04380090|183248664|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a p-value greater or equal to 0.05 (no difference between groups)||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91677126|NCT04380090|183248665|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a p-value greater or equal to 0.05 (no difference between groups)||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91677127|NCT01974440|183248666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806||||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.037|||Log Rank|||||1.037|0.626|0.0922
91793592|NCT03239665|183465251|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.9449|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their family/friends at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.9449
91677128|NCT01974440|183248667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|1.682|||Log Rank|||||1.682|0.312|0.4505
91677129|NCT02749292|183248705|EQUIVALENCE|Using a two-sided log-rank test with an alpha level of 0.05, a projected relapse risk of 15% in the superior group and 30% in the inferior group, and an estimated enrollment time of 36 months, it was determined that 200 patients were required to detect a significant difference with a power of 0.80. Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the deleterious impact of rituximab on vaccination efficacy, the trial was concluded before reaching the target enrollment of 200.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.9|||Log Rank|||"The difference between the two treatment strategies was assessed using the log-rank test. P values of 0.05 were considered significant. Both rows were included and combined in the statistical analysis (ANCA-PR3 and ANCA-MPO) to assess the difference in treatment strategies.~Null hypothesis: No difference in the ANCA and B-cell arm in the probability of relapses."||0.90|0.15|0.045
91677130|NCT02749292|183248706|OTHER|chi square test||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in the proportion of patients with SAEs in each arm"||||0.87
91677131|NCT02749292|183248711|OTHER||||||<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in the mean number of infusions per patient in each arm.||||<0001
91677132|NCT02749292|183248712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean change from baseline Vasculitis Damage Index between each arm. A t-test was used.||-0.06|-0.34|0.17
91677133|NCT02749292|183248713|OTHER|Using a two-sided log-rank test with an alpha level of 0.05, a projected relapse risk of 15% in the superior group and 30% in the inferior group, and an estimated enrollment time of 36 months, it was determined that 200 patients were required to detect a significant difference with a power of 0.80. Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the deleterious impact of rituximab on vaccination efficacy, the trial was concluded before reaching the target enrollment of 200.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.36|||Log Rank|||"The difference between the two treatment strategies was assessed using the log-rank test. P values of 0.05 were considered significant.~Null hypothesis: No difference in the ANCA and B-cell arm in the probability of relapses"||5.36|0.50|0.42
91677134|NCT00251641|183248715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||The treatment comparison for this endpoint was carried at the 4.9% level of significance.||||<0.001
91677135|NCT00251641|183248716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Multiplicity adjustment was provided using Hochberg test.|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||||||<0.001
91677136|NCT00251641|183248717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Multiplicity adjustment was provided using the Hochberg test.|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||||||<0.001
91677137|NCT00251641|183248718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Multiplicity adjustment was provided using the Hochberg test.|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||||||<0.001
91677138|NCT00876018|183248719|OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.004
91677139|NCT00876018|183248719|OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.147
91677140|NCT00876018|183248720|OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.002
91677141|NCT00876018|183248720|OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.003
91677142|NCT00876018|183248721|OTHER|||||||0.153||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.153
91903264|NCT05395104|183701500|OTHER|Ratio = Geometric least squares mean (test)/geometric least squares mean (reference)|Ratio|1.1239|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9887|1.2776||||||Midazolam + Cefiderocol: single 5-mg dose of midazolam + 2 g cefiderocol (Day 15)||1.2776|0.9887|
91677143|NCT00876018|183248721|OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.903
91677144|NCT00876018|183248722|OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.143
91677145|NCT00876018|183248722|OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.678
91677146|NCT00888459|183248735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.432
91677147|NCT01000493|183248736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.62||||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|6.65||The mixed effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score and the treatment by week and Baseline. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 12.|||6.65|-17.9|0.3624
91677148|NCT01000493|183248737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.3156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|6.76|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||6.76|0.54|0.3156
91677149|NCT01000493|183248737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.3024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.5|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||1.50|0.27|0.3024
91677150|NCT01000493|183248737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.28|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 8. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||7.28|0.79|0.1208
91677151|NCT01000493|183248737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|15.4|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||15.4|0.70|0.1331
91677152|NCT01000493|183248739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|3.61||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||3.61|-5.35|0.7015
91677153|NCT01000493|183248739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.81||||0.4292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|9.84||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||9.84|-4.22|0.4292
91864617|NCT05873556|183618523|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.17|0.77|0.62
91677154|NCT01000493|183248739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.64||||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|5.62||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||5.62|-14.9|0.3702
91677155|NCT01000493|183248740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.82|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to place. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||5.82|0.04|0.5719
91677156|NCT01000493|183248740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.908||95.0|0.07|20.1|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to place. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||20.1|0.07|0.9080
91677157|NCT01000493|183248740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|12.5|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to place. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||12.5|0.07|0.9486
91677158|NCT01000493|183248742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.85||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||2.85|-1.51|0.5426
91677159|NCT01000493|183248742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.7552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|3.75||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||3.75|-2.73|0.7552
91677160|NCT01000493|183248742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.22||||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|2.83||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||2.83|-7.27|0.3827
91677161|NCT01000493|183248742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|3.75||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||3.75|-7.71|0.4915
91677162|NCT01000493|183248743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.74||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||1.74|-1.93|0.9190
91677163|NCT01000493|183248743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.0||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||4.00|-1.37|0.3326
91677164|NCT01000493|183248743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|3.77||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||3.77|-3.91|0.9712
91677165|NCT01000493|183248743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.6711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|3.39||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||3.39|-5.22|0.6711
91677166|NCT01000493|183248744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.5532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.92||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness scales (CGI-S) score.|Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||6.92|0.36|0.5532
91677167|NCT01000493|183248744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.4508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.93|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 2.|||3.93|0.54|0.4508
91677168|NCT01000493|183248744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.62|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||2.62|0.42|0.9234
91677169|NCT01000493|183248744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.53|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1|||6.53|0.94|0.0662
91677170|NCT01000493|183248744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.48|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||5.48|0.61|0.2767
91692363|NCT01436370|183279664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 21.||||0.317
91903265|NCT04422990|183701518|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in mean CLCDVA was declared if the upper confidence limit was less than 0.10 logMAR.|Least squares mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Mixed effects repeated measures model||Least squares mean difference (LID018869 minus Biofinity).|||0.01|-0.01|
91677171|NCT01000493|183248744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|10.5|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 10.|||10.5|0.96|0.0588
91677172|NCT01000493|183248744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|14.1|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||14.1|0.78|0.1032
91677173|NCT01000493|183248745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||0.05|-0.29|0.1743
91677174|NCT01000493|183248745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.05||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 2.|||0.05|-0.46|0.1181
91677175|NCT01000493|183248745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.34||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||0.34|-0.35|0.9698
91677176|NCT01000493|183248745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.09||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 6.|||0.09|-0.69|0.1341
91677177|NCT01000493|183248745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.18||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||-0.18|-1.04|0.0064
91677178|NCT01000493|183248745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.1||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 10.|||0.10|-0.98|0.1095
91677179|NCT01000493|183248745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.27||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||0.27|-0.90|0.2814
91677180|NCT01000493|183248752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.92||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.5||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1|||-0.50|-3.33|0.0083
91677181|NCT01000493|183248752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.18||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 2.|||-0.18|-3.71|0.0311
91677182|NCT01000493|183248752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.47||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||0.47|-4.26|0.1155
91677183|NCT01000493|183248752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-0.45||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 6.|||-0.45|-5.33|0.0210
91677184|NCT01000493|183248752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|0.1||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||0.10|-5.83|0.0582
91677185|NCT01000493|183248752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.88||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|0.49||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 10.|||0.49|-6.25|0.0927
91677186|NCT01000493|183248752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.8954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|3.83||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||3.83|-4.36|0.8954
91692364|NCT01436370|183279664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.564
91692365|NCT01436370|183279664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.999
91793593|NCT03239665|183465251|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6143|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their family/friends post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6143
91862313|NCT05235750|183611798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline or T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline or T4) for the RSES, expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.83
91677187|NCT03629028|183248759|NON_INFERIORITY|Data compared to meta-analysis conducted in Sardo et al., 2017||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared or Fisher's test statistic was used to compare the categorical variables.||The sample size was calculated based on the study of Sardo et al. The website http://powerandsamplesize.com/Calculators was used. As a result of the sample size calculation with 90% power and 0.05 alpha error, it was planned to include 141 patients in each group.||||0.05
91677188|NCT02192164|183248774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.757334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.594019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.916307|0.401638||||||||0.401638|-5.916307|
91677189|NCT02192164|183248775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.911449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.426517|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73847|1.915572||||||||1.915572|-3.73847|
91677190|NCT03123861|183248781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91677191|NCT03123861|183248782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91677192|NCT03123861|183248783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91677193|NCT03123861|183248784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
91677194|NCT05011123|183248787|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-5%|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.8|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|||1.8|-3.4|
91677195|NCT05011123|183248788|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-5%|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|||3.0|-4.0|
91677196|NCT00461253|183248800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||||Breast cancer OR for ever use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD; adjusted for BMI, family history of breast cancer, age at first birth, age at menarche and physical activity (primary analysis)|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.12|0.88|
91677197|NCT00461253|183248800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||||Breast cancer OR for ever use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD, crude|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.17|0.93|
91677198|NCT00461253|183248800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.39|||||"Breast cancer OR for current use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD at time of breast cancer diagnosis; adjusted for BMI, family history of breast cancer, age at first birth, age at first menarche, physical activity (primary analysis)"|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.39|0.52|
91677199|NCT00461253|183248800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.41|||||"Breast cancer OR for current use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD at time of breast cancer diagnosis, crude"|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.41|0.58|
91692366|NCT01436370|183279664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 21.||||0.564
91793594|NCT03239665|183465251|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their family/friends at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0036
91677200|NCT02297438|183248802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.867||1-sided p-value from the adjusted log-rank test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole.|Stratified by disease site (visceral vs. non-visceral) per Randomization.||0.867|0.529|0.0012
91677201|NCT02297438|183248803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.14778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.139||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.139|0.651|0.14778
91677202|NCT02297438|183248804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.301||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.1||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.100|0.805|0.154
91677203|NCT02297438|183248805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.255||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|2.066||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.066|0.762|0.206
91677204|NCT02297438|183248806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.315||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|2.095||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.095|0.825|0.135
91677205|NCT02297438|183248807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.392||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|2.346||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.346|0.825|0.117
91677206|NCT02297438|183248810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.945||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.673||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.673|0.533|0.471
91677207|NCT02297438|183248811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|1.621||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.621|0.474|0.383
91677208|NCT02297438|183248812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.227||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|2.082||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.082|0.725|0.248
91677209|NCT02297438|183248813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.349||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|2.509||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.509|0.731|0.189
91677210|NCT02297438|183248814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.36502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.286||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Log Rank||Assuming Cox proportional hazards, hazard ratio less than 1 indicates reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.286|0.698|0.36502
91677211|NCT02297438|183248821|SUPERIORITY||Mean|0.031||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08|||Mixed effects model||A positive change indicates improvement from baseline and a negative change indicates deterioration.|The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.08|-0.02|0.1914
91677212|NCT02297438|183248822|SUPERIORITY||Mean|3.358||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.83|||Mixed effects model||A positive change indicates improvement from baseline and a negative change indicates deterioration.|The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||5.83|0.88|0.0078
91677213|NCT02297438|183248823|SUPERIORITY||Mean|0.476||||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|3.92|||Mixed effects model||A positive change indicates improvement from baseline and a negative change indicates deterioration.|The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||3.92|-2.97|0.7862
91677214|NCT02440022|183248838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0562|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.0562
91677215|NCT02440022|183248839|NON_INFERIORITY|Where δ = 10% is the non-inferiority margin, which is the range of difference that is considered not clinically important. A non-inferiority Farrington and Manning Test was used to test the primary safety hypothesis. The test is successful if the one-sided p-value is less than 0.025. In addition to the p-value of the test, the confidence intervals of the rate in each group and the difference between the two groups is calculated.||||||0.002|||||||Binary Analysis|||"H0: The primary safety rate p1 in the DCB treatment group through 30 days post index procedure is inferior to that p2 of the PTA treatment group. (i.e. p1 ≤ p2 - δ)~H1: The primary safety rate p1 in the DCB treatment group through 30 days post index procedure is non-inferior to that p2 of the PTA treatment group. (i.e. p1 \> p2 - δ)"||||0.002
91677216|NCT02440022|183248845|OTHER|||||||0.716||||||P-value was type 3 test of the interaction of treatment group and pre-dilation balloon type.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.7160
91677217|NCT02358343|183248860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||a priori threshold for significance is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|Likelihood ratio test obtained from logistic regression analysis adjusting for site||||||0.77
91677218|NCT02358343|183248861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.13||a priori threshold for significance is 0.05.|Wald Test|The Wald test is for the week 12 comparative treatment effect from a longitudinal model of QIDS-C adjusting for clinical site.|The week 12 mean difference estimated from the longitudinal model is the difference between antidepressant drug therapy (drug) and the cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) at 12 weeks, (drug - CBT).|All participants randomized to treatment (N=120) were included in the pre-specified longitudinal model of QIDS-C used to estimate comparative treatment effect at 12 weeks (primary outcome). The model adjustment for clinical site and included baseline, 6 week and 12 week QIDS-C scores. Week 0 (baseline) and week 6 measurements are not pre-specified primary or secondary outcomes. The Observational Cohort arm was not included in the analysis.||-0.13|-3.54|0.035
91862314|NCT05235750|183611798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|||||.91
91862315|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline, T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline, T4) for the FACT-G at scale, factor and item levels expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.45
91903266|NCT04422990|183701519|NON_INFERIORITY|Proportion of subjects was used for the statistical analysis. Noninferiority in proportion of subjects achieving CLCDVA 20/20 or better in each eye was declared if the lower confidence limit was greater than -0.10.|Difference in proportion|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Generalized linear mixed model||Lens difference (LID018869 minus Biofinity)|||0.02|-0.04|
91677219|NCT02358343|183248862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||a priori threshold for significance is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|Likelihood Ratio Test from logistic regression analysis adjusting for clinical site.||||||0.96
91677220|NCT02358343|183248863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-0.02|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||-0.02|-7.4|
91677221|NCT02358343|183248864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.8|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.8|-3.1|
91677222|NCT02358343|183248865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.1|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||-0.1|-6.2|
91677223|NCT02358343|183248866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|19.0|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||19.0|1.3|
91677224|NCT02358343|183248867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||1.4|-0.2|
91677225|NCT02358343|183248868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.1|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||5.1|0.1|
91677226|NCT02358343|183248869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.5|-0.5|
91677227|NCT02358343|183248871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.7|-0.5|
91677228|NCT02358343|183248872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||||The mean difference estimate is from a negative binomial model adjusted for clinical site. It is the rate of sessions skipped/shortened in the Drug group (numerator) compared to CBT (denominator).|||1.10|0.55|
91677229|NCT02358343|183248873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.34|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.34|-0.54|
91677230|NCT02358343|183248874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.75|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.75|-0.25|
91677231|NCT00792935|183248894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.6|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|||Using a standard deviation of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of at least 65 participants per treatment group would be required to have an 80% power to detect a true difference of 12.5 mg/dL between MK-0941 and glimepiride as measured by change from baseline in 24-hour WMG at Week 6.||9.6|-7.9|0.847
91677232|NCT00792935|183248895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|-7.7||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|8.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method.||The estimated value represents the difference in percentages, MK-0941 minus Glimepiride.|||8.7|-23.6|0.361
91677233|NCT00368979|183248965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.003||95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.7|0.003
91677234|NCT00912093|183248973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
91677235|NCT00912093|183248974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
91677236|NCT00912093|183248975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||Peto Peto Wilcoxon|||||||0.012
91677237|NCT00912093|183248976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
91677238|NCT00912093|183248977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
91793595|NCT03239665|183465252|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants having discussed vaccines with their doctor at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||<0.0001
91862316|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|||||.29
91677239|NCT01462318|183248982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.153|||||test/reference = midazolam+DAC HYP/midazolam|Pairwise comparison: midazolam. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.153|0.894|
91677240|NCT01462318|183248982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.063|||||test/reference = S-warfarin+DAC HYP/S-warfarin|Pairwise comparison: S-warfarin. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.063|0.951|
91677241|NCT01462318|183248982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.127|||||test/reference = omeprazole+DAC HYP/omeprazole|Pairwise comparison: omeprazole. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.127|0.880|
91677242|NCT01462318|183248982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.145|||||test/reference = caffeine+DAC HYP/caffeine|Pairwise comparison: caffeine. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants. Excludes participants with high predose concentration (\>5% of maximum observed concentration \[Cmax\]).||1.145|0.930|
91677243|NCT01462318|183248983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.764|1.342|||||test/reference = dextromethorphan+DAC HYP/dextromethorphan|Pairwise comparison: dextromethorphan. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.342|0.764|
91677244|NCT01462318|183248991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|1.276|||||test/reference = midazolam+DAC HYP/midazolam|Pairwise comparison: midazolam. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.276|0.912|
91677245|NCT01462318|183248991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.075|||||test/reference = S-warfarin+DAC HYP/S-warfarin|Pairwise comparison: S-warfarin. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.075|0.952|
91677246|NCT01462318|183248991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.804|1.392|||||test/reference = omeprazole+DAC HYP/omeprazole|Pairwise comparison: omeprazole. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.392|0.804|
91677247|NCT01462318|183248991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.005|1.238|||||test/reference = caffeine+DAC HYP/caffeine|Pairwise comparison: caffeine. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants. Excludes participants with high predose concentration (\>5% of Cmax).||1.238|1.005|
91677248|NCT01462318|183248993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.105|||||test/reference = omeprazole+DAC HYP/omeprazole|Pairwise comparison: omeprazole. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.105|0.697|
91677249|NCT00270257|183248994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate per 100 person-years|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8||||||||2.8|0.7|
91677250|NCT00270257|183248994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate per 100 person-years|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.7||||||||3.7|1.2|
91677251|NCT00270257|183248994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.694||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|1.562|||Regression, Cox|||||1.562|0.308|0.3769
91677252|NCT00270257|183248995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.844||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.289||P value applies for the comparison at visit 104.|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for site||||1.289|0.553|0.4325
91793596|NCT03239665|183465252|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants having discussed vaccines with their pharmacist at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0012
91677253|NCT00270257|183248996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.194||P value applies for the comparison at visit 104 only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.194|0.536|0.2749
91677254|NCT00270257|183248997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.746||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|1.369||Analysis is done for visit 104|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site||||1.369|0.407|0.3446
91677255|NCT00270257|183248998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8712||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6477|1.1718||P value applies for the comparison at visit 104 only. See the estimation comments for the other visits|Generalized linear model|adjusted for site.||||1.1718|0.6477|0.3620
91677256|NCT00270257|183248999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.6|||||29 events over 132 person-years|||31.6|14.7|
91677257|NCT00270257|183248999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.0|||||8 events over 174 person-years|||9.0|2.0|
91677258|NCT00270257|183249000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.08|||||9 events over 336 person-years|||5.08|1.22|
91677259|NCT00270257|183249000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.1|||||0 events over 37 person-years|||10.1|0.00|
91677260|NCT01155024|183249018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|10 participants required to detect one value change in rating for the SCS scale, with 80% power.|||||>|0.4||95.0||||Two-Sided|t-test, 2 sided|||Alpha level of 0.05||||>0.4
91677261|NCT00302081|183249061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority for SVR was concluded if the lower limit of the one-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%. Otherwise, noninferiority was concluded for both dose and treatment duration comparisons if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs were greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.041||95.0|-0.1|1.0||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons (\[PEG2b 1.0/R(24 weeks)\] - \[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks\]) and (\[PEG2b 1.5/R(16 weeks)\]-\[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks)\]).|z-test (non-inferiority margin=-0.1)|SVR rates are 0.665 (153/230 subjects) in the 1.5-dose group and 0.643 (144/224 subjects) in the 1.0-dose group, for a risk difference of -0.02.||This is an evaluation of the effect of the peginterferon alfa-2b dose (1.0 vs 1.5 micrograms/kg/week) on the primary outcome measure.||1|-0.10|0.041
91862317|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.46
91862318|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.79
91862319|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.05
91677262|NCT00302081|183249061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority for SVR was concluded if the lower limit of the one-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%. Otherwise, noninferiority was concluded for both dose and treatment duration comparisons if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs were greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.495||95.0|-0.17|1.0||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons (\[PEG2b 1.0/R(24 weeks)\] - \[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks\]) and (\[PEG2b 1.5/R(16 weeks\]-\[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks\]).|z-test (non-inferiority margin=-0.1)|SVR rates are 0.665 (153/230 subjects) in the 24-week group and 0.566 (129/228 subjects) in the 16-week group, for a risk difference of -0.10.||This is an evaluation of the effect of treatment duration (24 weeks vs 16 weeks) on the primary outcome measure.||1|-0.17|0.495
91862320|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.03
91862321|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.82
91677263|NCT02701413|183249063|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91677264|NCT02701413|183249067|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91677265|NCT00535587|183249072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.94|<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.02
91677266|NCT00536263|183249076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.008||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.079||P-values are unadjusted; Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used to maintain the overall 0.05 significance level in test of superiority using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the proportion with HBeAg loss.~Based on the targeted sample size, there was 80% statistical power (2-sided 0.05 alpha) to detect a true 36% HBeAg loss rate in this treatment arm versus a true rate of 23% in the control arm."||0.079|-0.063|0.860
91677267|NCT00536263|183249076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.217||P-values are unadjusted; Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used to maintain the overall 0.05 significance level in test of superiority using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the proportion with HBeAg loss.~Based on the targeted sample size, there was 80% statistical power (2-sided 0.05 alpha) to detect a true 36% HBeAg loss rate in this treatment arm versus a true rate of 23% in the control arm."||0.217|0.061|<0.001
91677268|NCT00536263|183249076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority of PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*24 weeks with respect to PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*48 weeks was to be concluded if the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference of the rates (PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*24 weeks minus PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*48 weeks) was greater than the noninferiority margin of -10%.|Pairwise rate difference|-0.132|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.198|-0.065||||||||-0.065|-0.198|
91677269|NCT00536263|183249077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.011||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.052|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||||0.052|-0.074|0.700
91862322|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.58
91903267|NCT03740997|183701536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.46||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.44|21.89|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||21.89|10.44|0.0008
91903268|NCT03740997|183701536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.11|23.07|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||23.07|11.11|<0.0001
91677270|NCT00536263|183249077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.054||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.123|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||||0.123|-0.014|0.125
91677271|NCT00536263|183249077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.122|-0.008||||||||-0.008|-0.122|
91677272|NCT00536263|183249078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.016||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.047|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.047|-0.078|0.598
91677273|NCT00536263|183249078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.041||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.108|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.108|-0.027|0.24
91793597|NCT03239665|183465252|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0034|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants having discussed vaccines with their family/friends at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0034
91862323|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.56
91677274|NCT00536263|183249078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.112|-0.001||||||End of treatment||-0.001|-0.112|
91677275|NCT00536263|183249078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.006||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.063|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.063|-0.075|0.830
91677276|NCT00536263|183249078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.208|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.208|0.053|0.001
91677277|NCT00536263|183249078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.136||||||90.0|-0.201|-0.071||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.071|-0.201|
91677278|NCT00536263|183249079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.072||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.151|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.151|-0.007|0.076
91677279|NCT00536263|183249079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.135||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.216|0.053|0.001
91677280|NCT00536263|183249079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.135|0.009||||||End of treatment||0.009|-0.135|
91677281|NCT00536263|183249079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.017||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.092|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.092|-0.058|0.662
91677282|NCT00536263|183249079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.220|0.059|<0.001
91862324|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.58
91903269|NCT03740997|183701536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.28|25.3|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||25.30|13.28|0.0002
91677283|NCT00536263|183249079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.191|-0.053||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.053|-0.191|
91677284|NCT00536263|183249080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.019||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.061|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.061|-0.023|0.373
91677285|NCT00536263|183249080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.049||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.096|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.096|0.003|0.040
91677286|NCT00536263|183249080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.072|0.011||||||End of treatment||0.011|-0.072|
91677287|NCT00536263|183249080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.001||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.043|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.043|-0.041|0.969
91677288|NCT00536263|183249080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.045||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.094|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.094|-0.004|0.074
91677289|NCT00536263|183249080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.085|-0.003||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.003|-0.085|
91677290|NCT00536263|183249081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.004||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.019|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.019|-0.027|0.724
91677291|NCT00536263|183249081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.018||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.048|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.048|-0.012|0.243
91677292|NCT00536263|183249081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.002||||||End of treatment||0.002|-0.046|
91677293|NCT00536263|183249081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.004||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.019|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.019|-0.027|0.724
91677294|NCT00536263|183249081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.018||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.048|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.048|-0.012|0.232
91677295|NCT00536263|183249081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.002||||||24 weeks after EOT||0.002|-0.046|
91677296|NCT00536263|183249082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.056||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.145|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.145|-0.033|0.219
91677297|NCT00536263|183249082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.126||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.216|0.037|0.006
91677298|NCT00536263|183249082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.148|0.006||||||End of treatment||0.006|-0.148|
91677299|NCT00536263|183249082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.082||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.168|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.168|-0.004|0.067
91677300|NCT00536263|183249082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.268|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.268|0.092|<0.001
91677301|NCT00536263|183249082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.098|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.174|-0.021||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.021|-0.174|
91677302|NCT00536263|183249083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.001||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.041|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.041|-0.039|0.995
91677303|NCT00536263|183249083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.054||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.103|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.103|0.005|0.031
91677304|NCT00536263|183249083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.094|-0.012||||||End of treatment||-0.012|-0.094|
91862325|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.58
91677305|NCT00536263|183249083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.024||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.078|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.078|-0.030|0.389
91677306|NCT00536263|183249083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.121|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.184|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.184|0.058|<0.001
91677307|NCT00536263|183249083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.152|-0.041||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.041|-0.152|
91677308|NCT00536263|183249084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.012|-0.012|0.991
91677309|NCT00536263|183249084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.013||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.033|-0.006|0.181
91677310|NCT00536263|183249084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.003||||||End of treatment||0.003|-0.030|
91677311|NCT00536263|183249084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.0||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.012|-0.012|0.971
91677312|NCT00536263|183249084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.013||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.033|-0.006|0.179
91677313|NCT00536263|183249084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.003||||||24 weeks after EOT||0.003|-0.030|
91677314|NCT00536263|183249085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Stratified by genotype~Due to zero responses in the 2 arms, pairwise rate difference \& corresponding 95% confidence interval were not applicable."||End of treatment||||0.991
91677315|NCT00536263|183249085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.004||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.013|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.013|-0.004|0.322
91677316|NCT00536263|183249085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.003||||||End of treatment||0.003|-0.012|
91677317|NCT00536263|183249085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Stratified by genotype~Due to zero responses in the 2 arms, pairwise rate difference \& corresponding 95% confidence interval were not applicable."||24 weeks after EOT||||0.991
91677318|NCT00536263|183249085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.009||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.021|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.021|-0.003|0.157
91677319|NCT00536263|183249085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.019|0.001||||||24 weeks after EOT||0.001|-0.019|
91677320|NCT00536263|183249086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|comparison of post-treatment versus baseline values||||||0.014
91677321|NCT00536263|183249086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|comparison of post-treatment versus baseline values||||||<0.001
91677322|NCT00536263|183249086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|comparison of post-treatment versus baseline values||||||0.010
91677323|NCT00536263|183249086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.2||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and genotype were the fixed effects and baseline was the covariate.||||0.8|-1.2|0.631
91677324|NCT00536263|183249086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.3||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and genotype were the fixed effects and baseline was the covariate.||||0.8|-1.4|0.617
91677325|NCT00536263|183249086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.1|
91677326|NCT01640873|183249131|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.5||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.4|30.4||The posterior probability that the reduction in FPG is ≥ 20 mg/dL is 0.06, and hence, the FPG hypothesis was not met.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||30.4|-47.4|0.356
91677327|NCT01640873|183249133|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.19||The posterior probability that the reduction in 24h-WMG is ≥ 20 mg/dL is \< 0.01, and hence, the 24h- WMG hypothesis was not met.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.19|0.92|0.2714
91677328|NCT01640873|183249134|OTHER|Day 1|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.55|||ANOVA|Placebo-corrected (MK-8655 / placebo)||||1.55|0.99|0.060
91677329|NCT01640873|183249134|OTHER|Day 3|Geometric mean Ratio|1.2||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.47|||ANOVA|Placebo-corrected (MK-8655 / placebo)||||1.47|0.98|0.065
91677330|NCT01640873|183249134|OTHER|Day 16|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.37|||ANOVA|Placebo-corrected (MK-8655 / placebo)||||1.37|0.89|0.217
91677331|NCT00534794|183249143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ITT (Intent to Treat)||||0.532
91677332|NCT00534794|183249144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||ITT (Intent to Treat)||||0.927
91677333|NCT03431974|183249145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||The efficacy of LD-AMT established using a step-down analysis approach with one-sided Fisher's exact tests. First, the analysis for subjects attaining PASI 75 will be performed, then, if that analysis shows a significant treatment effect, analysis for subjects attaining a sPGA success will be performed.||||0.43
91677334|NCT01301508|183249153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||p-value was calculated for the statistical significant difference between greater decrease in vehicle lesion and greater decrease in active lesion for the AN2898 Topical Ointment, 1% + Ointment Vehicle group.|Two-sided sign test|||||||0.008
91677335|NCT01301508|183249153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||p-value was calculated for the statistical significant difference between greater decrease in vehicle lesion and greater decrease in active lesion for the AN2728 Topical Ointment, 2% + Ointment Vehicle group.|Two-sided sign test|||||||0.017
91677336|NCT01929031|183249167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.767|49.708|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo|||49.708|33.767|<0.0001
91793598|NCT04777331|183465302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.01|0.69|0.0657
91793599|NCT04777331|183465303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.03|0.66|0.0914
91793600|NCT04777331|183465304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.05|0.73|0.1574
91793601|NCT04777331|183465305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.01|0.69|0.0622
91793602|NCT04777331|183465306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.17|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.17|0.75|0.5515
91793603|NCT04777331|183465307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.39||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.05|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.05|-1.84|0.5944
91793604|NCT04777331|183465308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.08||||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.24|||MMRM|||||1.24|-1.08|0.8955
91862326|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.34
91862327|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.27
91862328|NCT05235750|183611799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.62
91793605|NCT00400153|183465325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.05 liter|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0095||0.7135||95.0|-0.0222|0.0152|||ANCOVA|||||0.0152|-0.0222|0.7135
91793606|NCT00400153|183465326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001||95.0|0.028|0.066|||ANCOVA|||||0.066|0.028|< 0.0001
91793607|NCT00400153|183465327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.05 liters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.1389||95.0|-0.039|0.005|||ANCOVA|||||0.005|-0.039|0.1389
91793608|NCT00400153|183465328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established for this comparison.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.124||95.0|-0.036|0.004|||ANCOVA|||||0.004|-0.036|0.124
91793609|NCT00400153|183465329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established for this comparison.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.4888||95.0|-0.026|0.013|||ANCOVA|||||0.013|-0.026|0.4888
91793610|NCT00400153|183465330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established for this comparison.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.1433||95.0|-0.033|0.005|||ANCOVA|||||0.005|-0.033|0.1433
91793611|NCT00400153|183465331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.083|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.083|0.04|< 0.0001
91793612|NCT00400153|183465332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001||95.0|0.024|0.065|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.065|0.024|< 0.0001
91793613|NCT00400153|183465333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001||95.0|0.027|0.067|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.067|0.027|< 0.0001
91793614|NCT00400153|183465334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0258||95.0|0.003|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|0.003|0.0258
91793615|NCT00400153|183465335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.3749||95.0|-0.032|0.012|||ANCOVA|||||0.012|-0.032|0.3749
91793616|NCT00400153|183465336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.3355||95.0|-0.033|0.011|||ANCOVA|||||0.011|-0.033|0.3355
91793617|NCT00400153|183465337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0743||95.0|-0.042|0.002|||ANCOVA|||||0.002|-0.042|0.0743
91793618|NCT00400153|183465338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.5711||95.0|-0.015|0.028|||ANCOVA|||||0.028|-0.015|0.5711
91793619|NCT00400153|183465339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.2274||95.0|-0.033|0.008|||ANCOVA|||||0.008|-0.033|0.2274
91793620|NCT00400153|183465340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.8065||95.0|-0.018|0.024|||ANCOVA|||||0.024|-0.018|0.8065
91793621|NCT00400153|183465341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.043|0.087|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.087|0.043|< 0.0001
91793622|NCT00400153|183465342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.044|0.087|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.087|0.044|< 0.0001
91793623|NCT00400153|183465343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.081|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.081|0.04|< 0.0001
91677337|NCT01929031|183249167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.497|44.437|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine|||44.437|28.497|<0.0001
91677338|NCT01929031|183249167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.868|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.493|17.759|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen|||17.759|6.493|<0.0001
91677339|NCT01929031|183249168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.937|10.113|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo|||10.113|6.937|<0.0001
91677340|NCT01929031|183249168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.384|9.559|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine|||9.559|6.384|<0.0001
91677341|NCT01929031|183249168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.472|4.716|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen|||4.716|2.472|<0.0001
91677342|NCT01929031|183249169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo||||<0.0001
91677343|NCT01929031|183249169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine||||<0.0001
91677344|NCT01929031|183249169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2389|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen||||0.2389
91677345|NCT01929031|183249170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo||||<0.0001
91677346|NCT01929031|183249170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine||||<0.0001
91677347|NCT01929031|183249170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen||||0.0001
91677348|NCT01366443|183249171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.89|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Sensitivity = true positives/(true positives + false negatives); It indicates how likely is the test to detect the presence of a characteristic in someone with the characteristic.||0.89|0.79|
91677349|NCT01366443|183249171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Specificity = true negatives/(false positives + true negatives); It indicates how likely the test is to detect the absence of a characteristic in someone without the characteristic.||0.99|0.93|
91903270|NCT03740997|183701536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.47|23.57|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||23.57|13.47|<0.0001
91677350|NCT01366443|183249171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Positive Predictive Value = true positives/(true positives + false positives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a positive test result will actually have the characteristic.||1.00|0.96|
91677351|NCT01366443|183249171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.84|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Negative Predictive Value = true negatives/(true negatives + false negatives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a negative test result will actually not have the characteristic.||0.84|0.69|
91677352|NCT01366443|183249171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Sensitivity = true positives/(true positives + false negatives); It indicates how likely is the test to detect the presence of a characteristic in someone with the characteristic.||1.00|0.97|
91677353|NCT01366443|183249171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Specificity = true negatives/(false positives + true negatives); It indicates how likely the test is to detect the absence of a characteristic in someone without the characteristic.||0.95|0.83|
91677354|NCT01366443|183249171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.98|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Positive Predictive Value = true positives/(true positives + false positives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a positive test result will actually have the characteristic.||0.98|0.90|
91677355|NCT01366443|183249171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Negative Predictive Value = true negatives/(true negatives + false negatives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a negative test result will actually not have the characteristic.||1.00|0.94|
91677356|NCT00321594|183249172|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|1400.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD was not reached and the maximum dose of 1400 mg/m2 is used in Phase II portion|MTD is defined as the dose below which \>=2 of 3 or \>= 2 of 6 patients experience DLT||||
91677357|NCT00369382|183249174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||two-sided alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 52||||0.004
91677358|NCT00369382|183249176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 4||||0.018
91793624|NCT00400153|183465344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.089|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.089|0.047|< 0.0001
91862329|NCT05235750|183611800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline, T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline, T4) for the FACIT-Sp-12 at scale and factor levels, expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.76
91862330|NCT05235750|183611800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.19
91677359|NCT00369382|183249176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 16||||<.001
91677360|NCT00369382|183249176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 24||||0.012
91677361|NCT00369382|183249176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 32||||0.072
91677362|NCT00369382|183249176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 40||||0.175
91677363|NCT00369382|183249177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 4||||0.031
91677364|NCT00369382|183249177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 16||||<0.001
91677365|NCT00369382|183249177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 24||||0.020
91677366|NCT00369382|183249177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 32||||0.151
91677367|NCT00369382|183249177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 40||||0.295
91677368|NCT00369382|183249177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 52||||0.010
91677369|NCT00369382|183249179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 4||||0.009
91677370|NCT00369382|183249179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 16||||<0.001
91677371|NCT00369382|183249179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 24||||0.002
91677372|NCT00369382|183249179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 32||||0.030
91677373|NCT00369382|183249179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 40||||0.121
91677374|NCT00369382|183249179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 52||||0.001
91677375|NCT00369382|183249181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||slope difference (CNI - SRL)|-2.311||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.282|0.66||alpha is unadjusted|Random coefficient model||Random coefficient model with each participant's creatinine clearance function of time on treatment; intra-subject regression coefficients considered random.|||0.660|-5.282|0.126
91677376|NCT00369382|183249183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|Fisher Exact|||For-cause Biopsy-Confirmed Acute Rejection compared between treatment groups||||0.206
91677377|NCT00369382|183249183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|Fisher Exact|||Standard of Care Biopsy-Confirmed Acute Rejection compared between treatment groups||||0.476
91677378|NCT01565616|183249195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the anxiety domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.52
91677379|NCT01565616|183249195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the depression domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.12
91793625|NCT00400153|183465357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.417||95.0|-0.058|0.024|||ANCOVA|||||0.024|-0.058|0.417
91793626|NCT00400153|183465358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3505||95.0|-0.059|0.021|||ANCOVA|||||0.021|-0.059|0.3505
91793627|NCT00400153|183465359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3499||95.0|-0.058|0.021|||ANCOVA|||||0.021|-0.058|0.3499
91862331|NCT05235750|183611800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.35
91862332|NCT05235750|183611800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.99
91677380|NCT01565616|183249195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the fatigue domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.54
91677381|NCT01565616|183249195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the pain interference domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.006
91677382|NCT01565616|183249195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the physical function domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.044
91677383|NCT01565616|183249195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the satisfaction with social role domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.85
91677384|NCT01565616|183249195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the sleep disturbances domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.88
91677385|NCT01565616|183249195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in raw scores of the pain intensity domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.53
91677386|NCT00986453|183249196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4697||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4697
91862333|NCT05235750|183611800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.46
91862334|NCT05235750|183611800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.24
91862335|NCT05235750|183611800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.55
91903271|NCT03740997|183701536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.62|23.05|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||23.05|16.62|<0.0001
91903272|NCT03740997|183701536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.16|26.03|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||26.03|14.16|<0.0001
91677387|NCT00986453|183249197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1470
91677388|NCT00986453|183249198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0428||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0428
91677389|NCT00986453|183249199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0776||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0776
91677390|NCT00986453|183249200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91677391|NCT00922987|183249227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91677392|NCT00586482|183249250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided p value of less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.12
91677393|NCT00586482|183249251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91677394|NCT00586482|183249252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91793628|NCT00400153|183465360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.8288||95.0|-0.044|0.035|||ANCOVA|||||0.035|-0.044|0.8288
91793629|NCT00400153|183465361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.154|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.154|0.069|< 0.0001
91677395|NCT00586482|183249253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91677396|NCT00586482|183249254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91677397|NCT04221789|183249266|OTHER|differences in proportions|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.2||Statistical significance threshold p \<0.05|Chi-squared|||Ho no difference in treatment success between groups. The study was originally powered to detect a 15% difference between groups||1.20|1.02|0.049
91677398|NCT04221789|183249267|OTHER|comparison of proportions and relative risk with 95% CI|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||<|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97||statistical significance if p value \<0.05|Chi-squared||intervention / control|Ho No difference between arms. 80% power to detect a 10% difference||0.97|0.50|<0.043
91677399|NCT04394351|183249269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.37|392.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline weight group.|Odds ratio and corresponding Confidence Interval (CI) are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||392.82|7.37|<0.0001
91677400|NCT04394351|183249269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|46.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|399.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by CMH test stratified by baseline weight group.|Odds ratio and corresponding CI are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||399.54|5.47|<0.0001
91677401|NCT04394351|183249270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|178.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.84|1682.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Odds ratio and corresponding CI are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||1682.4|18.84|<0.0001
91677402|NCT04394351|183249270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|410.23||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Odds ratio and corresponding CI are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||410.23|7.45|<0.0001
91677403|NCT04394351|183249271|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-107.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.249|-74.9|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-74.900|-139.249|<0.0001
91677404|NCT04394351|183249271|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-98.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.463|-65.37||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-65.370|-132.463|<0.0001
91677405|NCT04394351|183249272|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.902|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0325|-0.7714|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.7714|-1.0325|<0.0001
91677406|NCT04394351|183249272|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.917|-0.644||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.6440|-0.9170|<0.0001
91903273|NCT03740997|183701536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.44|24.56|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||24.56|19.44|<0.0001
91677407|NCT04394351|183249273|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.883|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0095|-0.7568|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.7568|-1.0095|<0.0001
91677408|NCT04394351|183249273|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.769|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9013|-0.6362||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.6362|-0.9013|<0.0001
91677409|NCT04394351|183249274|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.95|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.9500|-2.4400|<0.0001
91677410|NCT04394351|183249274|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.82||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.8200|-2.4500|<0.0001
91677411|NCT04394351|183249275|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-1.96|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.9600|-3.3500|<0.0001
91677412|NCT04394351|183249275|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.62||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.6200|-3.3100|<0.0001
91677413|NCT04394351|183249276|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-2.63|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-2.63|-4.94|<0.0001
91692367|NCT01436370|183279664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.999
91692368|NCT01436370|183279664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.655
91903274|NCT03740997|183701536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.45|26.99|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||26.99|15.45|<0.0001
91862336|NCT05235750|183611800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.80
91862337|NCT05235750|183611800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|||||.34
91862338|NCT05235750|183611800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|||||.91
91903275|NCT03740997|183701536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.35||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|21.64|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||21.64|2.02|0.0268
91677414|NCT04394351|183249276|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-2.1||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-2.10|-4.59|<0.0001
91677415|NCT04394351|183249277|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.038|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.038|-0.244|0.1526
91677416|NCT04394351|183249277|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.146||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.146|-0.155|0.9533
91677417|NCT04394351|183249278|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.45||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.527|3.422||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||3.422|-0.527|0.1507
91677418|NCT04394351|183249278|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.107|2.117||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||2.117|-2.107|0.9965
91677419|NCT04394351|183249279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.03||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.030|-0.139|0.2064
91677420|NCT04394351|183249279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.112||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.112|-0.069|0.6361
91677421|NCT04394351|183249280|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.33||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.330|-0.072|0.2086
91677422|NCT04394351|183249280|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.286||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.286|-0.088|0.2975
91677423|NCT04394351|183249281|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.615|1.007||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||1.007|-4.615|0.2085
91677424|NCT04394351|183249281|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.36||||0.3098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.972|1.26||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||1.260|-3.972|0.3098
91692369|NCT01436370|183279665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 21.||||0.180
91864618|NCT05873556|183618523|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.14||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.48|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.48|0.87|0.34
91903276|NCT03740997|183701536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.45|22.82|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||22.82|9.45|<0.0001
91862339|NCT05235750|183611801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline, T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline, T4) for two subscales HADS-A and HADS-D respectively, expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.14
91862340|NCT05235750|183611801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|||||.14
91862341|NCT05235750|183611801|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|||||.32
91862342|NCT05235750|183611801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|||||.20
91677425|NCT04394351|183249282|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.186||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.186|-0.046|0.2360
91677426|NCT04394351|183249282|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.181||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.181|-0.037|0.1939
91677427|NCT03653507|183249338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.689||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.86|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||0.860|0.552|0.0005
91677428|NCT03653507|183249339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.936|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||0.936|0.622|0.0047
91677429|NCT03653507|183249340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.012||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.328|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.328|0.772|0.4654
91677430|NCT03653507|183249341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.4478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.577|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.577|0.673|0.4478
91677431|NCT03653507|183249342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.153|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.153|0.655|0.1670
91677432|NCT03653507|183249343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219||||||Based on 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. Stratification factors were Region, Number of Metastatic Sites and Prior Gastrectomy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2219
91677433|NCT03653507|183249344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.105|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.105|0.552|0.0826
91677434|NCT05205772|183249353|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91677435|NCT05205772|183249353|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91677436|NCT05205772|183249353|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91677437|NCT05205772|183249353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.98
91677438|NCT05205772|183249353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
91677439|NCT05205772|183249353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
91677440|NCT05205772|183249354|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||Adjusted for age.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.38
91677441|NCT05205772|183249355|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||Adjusted for age.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.67
91677442|NCT05205772|183249356|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.156
91677443|NCT03696953|183249365|OTHER|t test comparing||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91677444|NCT03696953|183249366|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91677445|NCT03696953|183249366|OTHER|T test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91677446|NCT03696953|183249367|OTHER|T test||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of 36 week AP-GI-SA Scores between probiotic and placebo groups at 36 weeks||||0.01
91677447|NCT03696953|183249368|OTHER|T test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91677448|NCT03696953|183249369|OTHER|T test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91677449|NCT01106014|183249410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.46|0.78||one-sided p-value|Log Rank|||The primary analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set by a one-sided unstratified log-rank test||0.78|0.46|<0.0001
91692370|NCT01436370|183279665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.763
91692371|NCT01436370|183279665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.096
91717355|NCT00977197|183327467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
91862343|NCT06019559|183611802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0756||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||||||0.0756
91862344|NCT06019559|183611802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|(MMRM) model with gender, treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||For the primary endpoint of percentage change from baseline in body weight, a sample size of 150 participants (stratified by gender and randomized 1:1:1 into three treatment arms) provided \>95% power to detect a treatment difference of 4% weight reduction after 13 weeks of treatment with a 2-sided alpha of 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 4% and 20% drop out.||||0.0008
91862345|NCT06019559|183611803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8366||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.8366
91717356|NCT00977197|183327468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.016
91717357|NCT00977197|183327469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||||||Intent to Treat analysis; not adjusted for age and gender.|Chi-squared|||||||0.097
91862346|NCT06019559|183611803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1848||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1848
91862347|NCT06019559|183611804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0616||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0616
91677450|NCT01106014|183249411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.0|24.0||One-sided p-value of the nonparametric ANCOVA, adjusted for 6-minute walk distance at baseline|ANCOVA||Point estimate and 2-sided 99% CI for location shift using the HodgesLehmann method|Non-parametric ANCOVA with 6MWD as covariate at baseline. Missing values were imputed based on the following imputation rules: 1) if patient was unable to walk at week 26, 0 meter was imputed, 2) if rule 1 did not apply, the second lowest observed 6MWD value (10 meters) at Week 26 was imputed. Missing values were imputed for 21.6% of the subjects.||24|1|0.0027
91677451|NCT01106014|183249412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|It was assumed that the probabilities for absence of worsening in WHO FC at Week 26 were the same for both treatment groups|Odds Ratio, log|1.161||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.811|1.664||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by WHO FC at baseline. For patients with missing NYHA/WHO FC at Week 26, the NYHA/WHO FC is considered as having worsened from baseline at Week 26. Missing values were imputed for 18.3% of subjects .|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.664|0.811|0.2843
91677452|NCT00062010|183249464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall Response Percentage|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|21.3||||||The study was designed to have adequate (90%) power to distinguish a true response rate of 50% from a null rate of 35% assuming total accrual of 76 patients in two stages. The design mandated that at least 13 objective responses be observed among 34 patients in the first stage in order to continue to the second stage. These were not observed, so the study stopped after the first stage. 90% exact binomial confidence intervals are provided for the response rate.||21.3|2.4|
91677453|NCT02766374|183249467|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE regression|||||||>0.1
91677454|NCT00852969|183249468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|7.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.41|-10.79|0.71
91677455|NCT00852969|183249469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.24|-7.20|0.29
91677456|NCT01951885|183249483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|47 patients per arm were needed to detect a 25% improvement in mucositis based on a one-sided test with 5% significance and 80% power.||||||0.05
91717358|NCT02295644|183327485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Interaction test of duty cycle and intensity for self reported pain score|ANOVA|||||||0.17
91717359|NCT02295644|183327485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Main effect of duty cycle on self reported pain score.|ANOVA|||||||0.14
91717360|NCT02295644|183327485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Main effect of intensity on self reported pain score.|ANOVA|||||||1.0
91717361|NCT02295644|183327486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Main effect for duty cycle.|ANOVA|||||||.24
91717362|NCT02295644|183327486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Main effect for intensity.|ANOVA|||||||0.019
91862348|NCT06019559|183611804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
91862349|NCT03344094|183611844|OTHER|changes in subsets paired and unpaired t-tests, ANOVA||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91862350|NCT02310646|183611845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.28; gender effect: p=0.20; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and gender as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: gender (male, female)."||||0.2
91862351|NCT02310646|183611845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.001||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.34; age effect: p=0.001; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression with age and treatment sequence as factors||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: age (18-39 years, 40-59 years, ≥60 years)."||||=0.001
91903277|NCT03740997|183701536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.59||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.04|18.24|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||18.24|6.04|0.0028
91903278|NCT03740997|183701536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|21.61|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||21.61|10.04|<0.0001
91677457|NCT01951885|183249486|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative incidence methods are compared using the Gray test with a p-value \<0.05|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91717363|NCT02295644|183327486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Interaction of intensity and duty cycle.||||0.17
91717364|NCT02295644|183327487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Main effect for duty cycle.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
91717365|NCT02295644|183327487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||ANOVA|||Main effect for intensity.||||0.475
91717366|NCT02295644|183327487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||ANOVA|||Interaction of intensity and duty cycle.||||.178
91677458|NCT01951885|183249487|NON_INFERIORITY|Hospital stay will be compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test with a p value of 0.05.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91677459|NCT01951885|183249488|NON_INFERIORITY|TPN use will be compared using the Chi-square test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91677460|NCT01951885|183249489|NON_INFERIORITY|Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between patients receiving Tac/MTX versus Tac/mini-MTX/MMF using the log-rank test|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91677461|NCT01951885|183249490|NON_INFERIORITY|Progression-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between patients receiving Tac/MTX versus Tac/mini-MTX/MMF using the log-rank test|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91677462|NCT01951885|183249493|NON_INFERIORITY|Infusion times will be compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91677463|NCT01951885|183249494|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
91677464|NCT01951885|183249495|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
91677465|NCT01951885|183249496|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91677466|NCT01951885|183249497|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
91677467|NCT01951885|183249499|NON_INFERIORITY|180-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
91677468|NCT01951885|183249500|NON_INFERIORITY|180-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
91677469|NCT01951885|183249501|NON_INFERIORITY|180-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
91677470|NCT01687478|183249503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|1.8|||||The Confidence Interval is based on the treatment difference LS Mean changes from baseline between Olanzapine + Fluoxetine and Placebo + Fluoxetine.|||1.80|-5.04|
91903279|NCT01849497|183701550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-16.3|
91677471|NCT03716076|183249521|OTHER|mixed-effects linear regression|||||||||||||||||To compare time values to baseline, post-hoc Tukey's test was applied|||
91677472|NCT01276301|183249528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.87|107.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, period, treatment and random term for subject within sequence.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Intra-Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa plus verapamil divided by empa||107.02|98.87|
91677473|NCT01276301|183249529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.38|99.97|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, period, treatment and random term for subject within sequence.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Intra-Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa plus verapamil divided by empa||99.97|85.38|
91903280|NCT01849497|183701551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|2.99||||||||2.99|-10.38|
91677474|NCT01276301|183249530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.87|106.83|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, period, treatment and random term for subject within sequence.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Intra-Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa plus verapamil divided by empa||106.83|98.87|
91677475|NCT01971970|183249562|EQUIVALENCE|The number of genes with a 1.5 fold change (FDR value ≤ 0.05; paired t-test) from week 0 to week 8 were assessed for pediatric IBD or adult IBD patients.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test,FDR 1.5fold,FDRvalue≤ 0.05|||The number of genes with a 1.5 fold change (FDR value ≤ 0.05; paired t-test) from week 0 to week 8 were assessed for pediatric IBD or adult IBD patients.||||< 0.05
91677476|NCT01971970|183249563|OTHER|||||||0.2616||||||Kaplan-Meier curve comparing the percentage of children and adults on continued anti-TNF therapy over the course of study duration|gehan-breslow-wilcoxon test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were produced by dividing the population in the following groups i) paediatric versus adult patients.These groups were used to statistically compare the proportions of patients over time regarding continued anti-TNF therapy, reflecting maintenance of response at 12 and 18 months.||||0.2616
91677477|NCT01971970|183249564|OTHER|||||||0.0177||||||Kaplan-Meier curve comparing the percentage of children and adults with therapy intensification over the course of study duration|gehan-breslow-wilcoxon test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were produced by dividing the population in the following groups i) paediatric versus adult patients.These groups were used to statistically compare the proportions of patients over time regarding the escalation of anti-TNF therapy (dose increase above 5 mg/kg and/or interval shortening to less than 8 weeks)||||0.0177
91677478|NCT01831765|183249571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment was done by comparing the difference of faster aspart vs. NovoRapid®/NovoLog® in change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of randomised treatment to a non-inferiority limit of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c analysed using a mixed effect model for repeated measurements including visit 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34 and 36. The model included treatment, region and strata (combination of bolus adjusting method, basal treatment regimen and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and frequently sampled meal test subgroup) as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||-0.07|-0.23|
91692372|NCT01436370|183279665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 21||||0.157
91692373|NCT01436370|183279665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.705
91692374|NCT01436370|183279665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.132
91903281|NCT00955279|183701552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.543
91903282|NCT00955279|183701552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.126
91903283|NCT00955279|183701553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.896
91903284|NCT00955279|183701553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.063
91793630|NCT00400153|183465362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.132|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.132|0.049|< 0.0001
91862352|NCT02310646|183611845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.34; baseline disease severity effect: p=0.29; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and baseline disease severity as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: Baseline disease severity (mild, moderate, severe)."||||0.29
91862353|NCT02310646|183611845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.33; distribution phenotype (localised, widespread) effect: p=0.55; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and distribution phenotype (localised, widespread) as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: distribution phenotype (localised, widespread)."||||0.55
91903285|NCT00955279|183701554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.374
91903286|NCT00955279|183701554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.073
91677479|NCT01831765|183249571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment was done by comparing the difference of faster aspart vs. NovoRapid®/NovoLog® in change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of randomised treatment to a non-inferiority limit of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.12||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c analysed using a mixedeffect model for repeated measurements including visit 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34 and 36. The model included treatment, region and strata (combination of bolus adjusting method, basal treatment regimen and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and frequently sampled meal test subgroup) as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||0.12|-0.04|
91677480|NCT04561375|183249594|SUPERIORITY||Proportional odds ratio|0.37||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.07|||proportional odds logistic regression|In the analysis, 100 µg and 150 µg were merged as one level since too few cases used 150 µg.||||1.07|0.13|0.067
91677481|NCT04561375|183249595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.8|26.0|||Regression, Linear|||||26|-5.8|0.147
91677482|NCT04561375|183249596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.0|34.0|||Regression, Linear|||||34|-18|0.463
91677483|NCT04561375|183249597|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.0||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|-25|0.032
91677484|NCT00117325|183249630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.335||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||0.00|-0.67|0.050
91677485|NCT00117325|183249631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.393||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05||Week 1-4|ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline iTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||-0.05|-0.74|0.027
91677486|NCT00117325|183249632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression adjusting for age, gender, investigator, and treatment.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD up to Week 4 analysis.|Effectiveness of study medication for relieving non-allergic rhinitis symptoms over the entire treatment period (Total response) was analyzed.|||0.184
91677487|NCT00117325|183249633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.348||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||0.00|-0.70|0.051
91677488|NCT00117325|183249634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.304||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD up to Week 4 analysis||0.03|-0.64|0.076
91677489|NCT00117325|183249635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.51||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|0.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||0.75|-9.77|0.093
91677490|NCT00117325|183249636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.372||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline iTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||-0.90|-11.8|0.023
91677491|NCT00117325|183249637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.118||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Rhinorrhea||0.01|-0.24|0.061
91677492|NCT00117325|183249637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Nasal Congestion||0.01|-0.25|0.061
91677493|NCT00117325|183249637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for post-nasal drip||0.03|-0.22|0.138
91793631|NCT00400153|183465363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.138|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.138|0.056|< 0.0001
91793632|NCT00400153|183465364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.135|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.135|0.054|< 0.0001
91903287|NCT00955279|183701555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1931|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1931
91903288|NCT00955279|183701555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2772|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2772
91903289|NCT00955279|183701556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Linear Contrast Test|||||||0.451
91903290|NCT00955279|183701556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|||||||Linear Contrast Test|||||||0.546
91677494|NCT00117325|183249638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.113||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Rhinorrhea||0.02|-0.24|0.087
91677495|NCT00117325|183249638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.164||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for nasal congestion||-0.03|-0.30|0.015
91677496|NCT00117325|183249638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for post-nasal drip||0.02|-0.25|0.106
91677497|NCT00117325|183249639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.132||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rhinorrhea||-0.00|-0.26|0.048
91677498|NCT00117325|183249639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Nasal congestion||0.01|-0.26|0.076
91677499|NCT00117325|183249639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg for post-nasal drip||0.04|-0.22|0.164
91677500|NCT00117325|183249640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Rhinorrhea||0.03|-0.22|0.136
91677501|NCT00117325|183249640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.111||||0.1||95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for nasal congestion||0.02|-0.24|0.100
91677502|NCT00117325|183249640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.111||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for post-nasal drip||0.02|-0.24|0.100
91717367|NCT00477685|183327496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the postoperative intraocular pressure at 90 days equals the preoperative intraocular pressure at baseline.||||0.01
91717368|NCT01038687|183327528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.059
91862354|NCT02310646|183611845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.32; plaque size (≤3 mm diameter, \>3 mm diameter): p=0.25; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and plaque size as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: plaque size (≤3 mm diameter, \>3 mm diameter)."||||0.25
91677503|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 1||-0.10|-0.80|0.011
91677504|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.325||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 2||0.05|-0.70|0.089
91677505|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.393||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 3||0.00|-0.79|0.052
91717369|NCT01038687|183327528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.18
91717370|NCT01038687|183327528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.04
91717371|NCT01038687|183327529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.81
91677506|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 4||0.13|-0.65|0.187
91677507|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.298||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 5||0.12|-0.72|0.164
91677508|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.573||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 6||-0.15|-1.00|0.008
91677509|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.376||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 7||0.05|-0.80|0.082
91677510|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 8||0.20|-0.67|0.296
91677511|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.191||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 9||0.24|-0.62|0.383
91717372|NCT01038687|183327529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.89
91717373|NCT01038687|183327529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.76
91717374|NCT01038687|183327530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.075
91677512|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.464||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 10||-0.00|-0.92|0.048
91677513|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.172||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 11||0.29|-0.64|0.469
91677514|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 12||0.12|-0.80|0.151
91677515|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.344||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 13||0.12|-0.81|0.145
91677516|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.235||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 14||0.21|-0.68|0.297
91677517|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 15||0.07|-0.82|0.094
91677518|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 16||0.03|-0.89|0.064
91677519|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.563||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 17||-0.09|-1.03|0.019
91677520|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.457||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 18||-0.01|-0.90|0.044
91677521|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.633||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 19||-0.17|-1.09|0.007
91677522|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 20||0.24|-0.69|0.348
91677523|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.281||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 21||0.19|-0.76|0.243
91677524|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.595||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 22||-0.12|-1.07|0.014
91677525|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.474||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 23||0.01|-0.96|0.055
91677526|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.464||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 24||0.02|-0.95|0.062
91677527|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 25||0.05|-0.91|0.079
91677528|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.576||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 26||-0.10|-1.06|0.019
91677529|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 27||0.01|-0.97|0.056
91677530|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.659||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 28||-0.11|-1.20|0.018
91677531|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 1||0.1|-0.56|0.194
91677532|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.263||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 2||0.08|-0.61|0.134
91677533|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 3||0.05|-0.67|0.091
91677534|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.278||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 4||0.08|-0.64|0.131
91903291|NCT03346057|183701564|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-6.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-0.8|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||-0.8|-17.5|0.026
91677535|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 5||0.23|-0.49|0.483
91677536|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.301||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 6||0.10|-0.70|0.137
91677537|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.297||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 7||0.10|-0.69|0.142
91677538|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.245||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 8||0.15|-0.64|0.220
91677539|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.373||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 9||0.05|-0.79|0.081
91677540|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.453||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 10||-0.04|-0.87|0.034
91677541|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.314||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 11||0.11|-0.74|0.150
91677542|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.333||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 12||0.08|-0.74|0.111
91677543|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 13||0.19|-0.69|0.261
91677544|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.342||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 14||0.09|-0.78|0.123
91677545|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.415||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 15||0.01|-0.84|0.056
91677546|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.566||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 16||-0.13|-1.00|0.011
91677547|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 17||-0.15|-1.03|0.009
91677548|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.301||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 18||0.13|-0.74|0.175
91677549|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.449||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 19||-0.02|-0.87|0.039
91677550|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.315||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 20||0.12|-0.75|0.152
91677551|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.424||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 21||0.02|-0.87|0.063
91677552|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.454||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 22||-0.01|-0.90|0.044
91677553|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 23||0.14|-0.77|0.179
91677554|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.479||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 24||-0.04|-0.92|0.034
91677555|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 25||0.31|-0.62|0.505
91677556|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.317||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 26||0.15|-0.79|0.186
91717375|NCT01038687|183327530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.058
91717376|NCT01038687|183327530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.164
91862355|NCT02310646|183611845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.34; skin thickness phenotype (≤0.75 mm, \>0.75 mm) effect: p=0.41; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and skin thickness phenotype as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: skin thickness phenotype (≤0.75 mm, \>0.75 mm)."||||0.41
91717377|NCT01038687|183327531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.084
91717378|NCT01038687|183327531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg vs placebo||||0.98
91717379|NCT01038687|183327531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg vs placebo||||0.079
91717380|NCT01038687|183327532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.058
91717381|NCT01038687|183327532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.32
91717382|NCT01038687|183327532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.034
91717383|NCT01038687|183327533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91717384|NCT01038687|183327533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.002
91717385|NCT01038687|183327533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg vs placebo||||0.001
91717386|NCT01038687|183327534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.091
91717387|NCT01038687|183327534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.99
91717388|NCT01038687|183327534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg vs placebo||||0.103
91862356|NCT02310646|183611845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.30; onset phenotype (≤40 years of age, \>40 years of age) effect: p=0.20; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and onset phenotype (≤40 years of age, \>40 years of age) as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: onset phenotype (≤40 years of age, \>40 years of age)."||||0.20
91717389|NCT01038687|183327535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91717390|NCT01038687|183327535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.002
91717391|NCT01038687|183327535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.001
91717392|NCT01038687|183327536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91717393|NCT01038687|183327536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.053
91717394|NCT01038687|183327536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.002
91717395|NCT02783911|183327537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.808|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.808
91717396|NCT02616783|183327538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|2.427|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.337|3.517|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||3.517|1.337|<0.001
91717397|NCT02616783|183327539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.036|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|2.904|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% CIs were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||2.904|1.168|<0.001
91717398|NCT02616783|183327540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.749|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|2.771|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% CIs were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||2.771|0.726|<0.001
91717399|NCT02616783|183327541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.351|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|2.099|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% CIs were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||2.099|0.602|<0.001
91717400|NCT02616783|183327542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-5.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.6||P-values for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL were from the Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact||Differences in percentages and 95% CI were generated based on exact method.|||1.6|-11.8|0.18
91717401|NCT02616783|183327543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|9.3|||Fisher Exact|P-values for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL were from the Fisher exact test.|Differences in percentages and 95% CI were generated based on exact method.|||9.3|-8.5|1.00
91717402|NCT02616783|183327544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|52.0||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|106.0|||ANOVA|The p-value, difference in least square means (LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||||106|-1|0.053
91717403|NCT02616783|183327545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|57.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|115.0|||ANOVA|The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||||115|0|0.051
91717404|NCT01614470|183327553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|10.678|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2559|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.1000|7.2559|<0.0001
91717405|NCT01614470|183327554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6624|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3366|0.9881|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9881|0.3366|<0.0001
91717406|NCT01614470|183327556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.1667|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9527|-41.3807|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.3807|-56.9527|<0.0001
91717407|NCT01614470|183327559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.6105||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4874|14.7336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7336|4.4874|0.0004
91717408|NCT01328964|183327568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.974||The p-value is a comparison of the combined hospitalization/emergency department visit endpoint|Regression, Cox|||||0.974|0.51|<0.0001
91862357|NCT02310646|183611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||"The total TPUQ score for the gel and the foam (mean score 29.9 vs. mean score 26.8; p=0.007).~Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05."|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon rank sum test comparing the period difference (within subject difference between study treatments) between both treatment sequences.||Subjects in the analysis are 212 - full analysis set. All subjects received both study treatments. Total TPUQ score (summary score item 1-25) superiority comparison gel versus foam.||||0.007
91677557|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.283||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 27||0.18|-0.75|0.234
91677558|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.645||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 28||-0.12|-1.17|0.017
91677559|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 1||0.06|-0.70|0.095
91677560|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 2||0.15|-0.61|0.236
91677561|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.255||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 3||0.14|-0.65|0.205
91677562|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.343||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 4||0.05|-0.73|0.084
91677563|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.146||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 5||0.26|-0.55|0.475
91677564|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.296||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 6||0.14|-0.73|0.178
91677565|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.406||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 7||0.04|-0.85|0.071
91677566|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.111||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 8||0.33|-0.55|0.621
91677567|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 9||0.25|-0.66|0.372
91677568|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.452||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 10||-0.01|-0.90|0.046
91677569|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.302||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 11||0.14|-0.75|0.183
91677570|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.226||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 12||0.22|-0.67|0.320
91677571|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.188||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 13||0.28|-0.66|0.431
91677572|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.299||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 14||0.15|-0.75|0.191
91677573|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.475||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 15||-0.02|-0.94|0.043
91677574|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.619||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 16||-0.16|-1.08|0.009
91677575|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.495||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 17||-0.02|-0.97|0.040
91677576|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 18||0.18|-0.71|0.249
91677577|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.536||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 19||-0.07|-1.00|0.023
91862358|NCT02310646|183611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing within subject difference to latest topical treatment||Subjects in the analysis are 118. All subjects received both study treatments. Statistical analysis for total TPUQ score (summary score item 1-25): superiority comparison foam versus latest topical treatment.||||<0.001
91717409|NCT01328964|183327569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-9.0||P-value is based on the differences in the total monthly asthma costs|Regression, Linear|||||-9|-19|<0.001
91717410|NCT01328964|183327570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.999||P-value is based on the comparison of combined endpoint of hospitalization/emergency department visits|Regression, Cox|||||0.999|0.565|0.0495
91717411|NCT01328964|183327571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-27.0||P-value is based on difference in total monthly asthma costs|Regression, Linear|||||-27|-28|<0.0001
91717412|NCT03669588|183327624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.951|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.213|11.528|||Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis with a 2-sided exact test (using logistic regression) at the 2-sided 5% significance level in the AChR-Ab seropositive population, stratified by Japanese versus (vs) non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment, with cycle baseline MG-ADL total score as covariate.~The treatment effect was presented as the odds ratio. An odds ratio of more than 1 represents a higher response rate for ARGX-113 compared to placebo."||11.528|2.213|<0.0001
91717413|NCT03669588|183327625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.842|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.179|31.2|||Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis with a 2-sided exact test (using logistic regression) at the 2-sided 5% significance level in the AChR-Ab seropositive population, stratified by Japanese vs non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment, with cycle baseline QMG total score as covariate.~The treatment effect was presented as the odds ratio. An odds ratio of more than 1 represents a higher response rate for ARGX-113 compared to placebo."||31.200|4.179|<0.0001
91717414|NCT03669588|183327626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.699|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.854|7.578|||Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis with a 2-sided exact test (using logistic regression) at the 2-sided 5% significance level in the overall population, stratified by AChR-Ab status (seropositive vs seronegative), Japanese vs non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment, with cycle baseline MG-ADL total score as covariate.~The treatment effect was presented as the odds ratio. An odds ratio of more than 1 represents a higher response rate for ARGX-113 compared to placebo."||7.578|1.854|<0.0001
91717415|NCT03669588|183327627|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|22.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.616||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.949|33.181|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in the AChR-Ab seropositive population with treatment, baseline MG-ADL total score, Japanese vs non-Japanese, and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment as the covariates.||33.181|10.949|0.0001
91717416|NCT03669588|183327628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2604|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis was performed in the AChR-Ab seropositive population and the p-value was calculated using the log-rank test, stratified by Japanese vs non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment.||||0.2604
91717417|NCT01721447|183327630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91862359|NCT02310646|183611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing within subject difference to latest topical treatment||Subjects in the analysis are 118. All subjects received both study treatments. Statistical analysis for total TPUQ score (summary score item 1-25): superiority comparison gel versus latest topical treatment.||||<0.001
91717418|NCT01721447|183327631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91717419|NCT00794664|183327640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C was approximately 22%. With 15 patients in the control group and 30 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 80% power to detect a 20 percentage point difference between the 2 treatment groups. Enrollment was to be conducted such that at least 51 patients were randomized to allow for potential exclusions from an analysis set.||||<0.001
91717420|NCT00794664|183327642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91717421|NCT00794664|183327644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in Apo B at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91717422|NCT00794664|183327646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in total cholesterol at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91677578|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 20||0.23|-0.71|0.321
91677579|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.568||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 21||-0.09|-1.04|0.019
91677580|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.419||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 22||0.07|-0.91|0.092
91862360|NCT00613106|183611862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4228||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4228
91677581|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 23||0.28|-0.69|0.404
91677582|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.546||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 24||-0.06|-1.03|0.027
91677583|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 25||0.26|-0.71|0.357
91677584|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.403||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 26||0.10|-0.90|0.114
91677585|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.307||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 27||0.19|-0.81|0.228
91677586|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.725||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 28||-0.16|-1.29|0.012
91677587|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 1||0.30|-0.49|0.643
91677588|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.279||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 2||0.10|-0.66|0.150
91677589|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.291||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 3||0.12|-0.70|0.162
91677590|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.244||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 4||0.17|-0.65|0.242
91677591|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.223||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 5||0.18|-0.63|0.278
91677592|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.282||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 6||0.15|-0.71|0.200
91677593|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.164||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 7||0.27|-0.60|0.456
91677594|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.385||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 8||0.04|-0.81|0.076
91677595|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.396||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 9||0.05|-0.85|0.084
91677596|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.481||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 10||-0.02|-0.94|0.040
91677597|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.405||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 11||0.06|-0.87|0.090
91677598|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.432||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 12||0.02|-0.88|0.060
91677599|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.277||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 13||0.20|-0.75|0.252
91677600|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 14||0.19|-0.79|0.229
91677601|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.373||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 15||0.08|-0.83|0.109
91677602|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 16||-0.01|-0.96|
91677603|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 17||-0.23|-1.17|0.003
91677604|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.326||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 18||0.15|-0.81|0.182
91677605|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.299||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 19||0.15|-0.75|0.194
91677606|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.348||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 20||0.10|-0.80|0.129
91677607|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.292||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 21||0.19|-0.77|0.232
91677608|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.499||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 22||-0.02|-0.98|0.042
91677609|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.356||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 23||0.13|-0.84|0.150
91677610|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.398||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 24||0.06|-0.86|0.090
91677611|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.028||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 25||0.46|-0.52|0.909
91677612|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.233||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 26||0.26|-0.73|0.354
91677613|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 27||0.20|-0.78|0.245
91677614|NCT00117325|183249641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.601||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 28||-0.03|-1.17|0.038
91677615|NCT00759187|183249642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Two way Anova general linear model (subject and treatment as factors)|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91677616|NCT02666352|183249647|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.31||||||||2.31|0.89|
91677617|NCT02666352|183249647|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.47||||||||3.47|1.33|
91903292|NCT03346057|183701564|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-6.2||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|0.2|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||0.2|-17.3|0.058
91677618|NCT02666352|183249648|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.31||||||||2.31|0.88|
91677619|NCT02666352|183249648|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.15||||||90.0|1.33|3.48||||||||3.48|1.33|
91677620|NCT02666352|183249649|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.31||||||||2.31|0.89|
91677621|NCT02666352|183249649|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.47||||||||3.47|1.33|
91677622|NCT02666352|183249650|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.15||||||||2.15|0.81|
91677623|NCT02666352|183249650|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.94||||||||2.94|1.11|
91677624|NCT02666352|183249656|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.1||||||||1.10|0.58|
91677625|NCT02666352|183249656|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.16||||||||1.16|0.61|
91677626|NCT02666352|183249657|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.11||||||||1.11|0.58|
91677627|NCT02666352|183249657|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.86||||||90.0|0.62|1.18||||||||1.18|0.62|
91677628|NCT02666352|183249658|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.05||||||||1.05|0.57|
91677629|NCT02666352|183249658|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.99||||||||0.99|0.54|
91677630|NCT02666352|183249659|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.13||||||||1.13|0.61|
91677631|NCT02666352|183249659|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.01||||||||1.01|0.55|
91677632|NCT02666352|183249660|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.15||||||||1.15|0.60|
91677633|NCT02666352|183249660|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.13||||||||1.13|0.59|
91677634|NCT02666352|183249664|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.9||||||||0.90|0.52|
91677635|NCT02666352|183249664|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.86||||||||0.86|0.50|
91677636|NCT02666352|183249665|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.86||||||||0.86|0.48|
91677637|NCT02666352|183249665|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.61||||||90.0|0.46|0.82||||||||0.82|0.46|
91677638|NCT02666352|183249666|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.01||||||||1.01|0.62|
91677639|NCT02666352|183249666|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.02||||||||1.02|0.63|
91677640|NCT02666352|183249667|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.05||||||||1.05|0.61|
91677641|NCT02666352|183249667|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.03||||||||1.03|0.60|
91677642|NCT02666352|183249668|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.89||||||||0.89|0.57|
91677643|NCT02666352|183249668|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.91||||||||0.91|0.58|
91677644|NCT02666352|183249671|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.58||||||||1.58|0.85|
91677645|NCT02666352|183249671|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.85||||||||1.85|1.00|
91677646|NCT02666352|183249672|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.68||||||||1.68|0.91|
91677647|NCT02666352|183249672|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.58||||||90.0|1.17|2.14||||||||2.14|1.17|
91862361|NCT04568603|183611897|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to the methadone alone will be supported if the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is contained within the interval (0.70, 1.43).|GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07||||||||1.07|1.00|
91677648|NCT02666352|183249673|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.33||||||||1.33|0.60|
91862362|NCT04568603|183611898|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to the methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.07||||||||1.07|0.99|
91677649|NCT02666352|183249673|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.34||||||||1.34|0.60|
91677650|NCT02666352|183249674|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.3||||||||1.30|0.45|
91677651|NCT02666352|183249674|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.14||||||||1.14|0.40|
91677652|NCT02666352|183249675|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.6||||||||1.60|0.90|
91677653|NCT02666352|183249675|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.87||||||||1.87|1.06|
91677654|NCT04795908|183249700|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistical significant differences between groups||||||0.1997|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1997
91677655|NCT04795908|183249701|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistical significant differences between groups||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.076
91677656|NCT04795908|183249702|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.6228|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6228
91677657|NCT04795908|183249703|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.8984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8984
91677658|NCT04795908|183249704|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.8188|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8188
91677659|NCT04795908|183249705|NON_INFERIORITY|Looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.0288|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0288
91677660|NCT04795908|183249706|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.0524|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0524
91677661|NCT00311311|183249710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.07||P-value and 95% CI for least square (LS) mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||0.070|0.001|0.0445
91677662|NCT00311311|183249710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.064||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|18 months post-transplant||0.064|0.004|0.0288
91677663|NCT00311311|183249710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.06||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||0.060|0.004|0.0269
91677664|NCT00311311|183249710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.06||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||0.060|-0.005|0.0970
91677665|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 12 Months Post-transplant||1.09|0.39|<.0001
91677666|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.67||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 12 Months Post-transplant||0.67|0.15|0.0022
91677667|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.19||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 12 Months Post-transplant||0.19|-0.03|0.1612
91677668|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.86||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 12 Months Post-transplant||0.86|0.26|0.0005
91677669|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.02||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 18 Months Post-transplant||1.02|0.30|0.0006
91677670|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.61||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 18 Months Post-transplant||0.61|0.08|0.0126
91862363|NCT04568603|183611899|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to the methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 1.43.|GMR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09||||||||1.09|0.96|
91862364|NCT04568603|183611900|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.1||||||||1.10|1.03|
91677671|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 18 Months Post-transplant||0.17|-0.04|0.2380
91677672|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.88||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 18 Months Post-transplant||0.88|0.27|0.0003
91677673|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.0||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 24 Months Post-transplant||1.00|0.17|0.0065
91677674|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 24 Months Post-transplant||0.60|-0.04|0.0845
91677675|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 24 Months Post-transplant||0.16|-0.06|0.3742
91677676|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.92||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 24 Months Post-transplant||0.92|0.27|0.0006
91677677|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.03||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 36 Months Post-transplant||1.03|-0.16|0.1488
91677678|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.62||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 36 Months Post-transplant||0.62|-0.33|0.5460
91677679|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.16||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 36 Months Post-transplant||0.16|-0.12|0.7511
91903293|NCT03346057|183701564|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-2.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|8.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||8.6|-17.8|0.730
91677680|NCT00311311|183249713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.06||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 36 Months Post-transplant||1.06|0.20|0.0048
91677681|NCT00311311|183249714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.91||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||1.91|-0.36|0.1757
91677682|NCT00311311|183249714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.89||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||1.89|-0.00|0.0509
91677683|NCT00311311|183249714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.31||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||2.31|-0.09|0.0683
91677684|NCT00311311|183249715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.47||||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.79|30.85||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||30.85|-105.79|0.2741
91677685|NCT00311311|183249715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.97||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.48|37.53||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||37.53|-77.48|0.4865
91692375|NCT02770170|183279666|OTHER|||||||0.7271||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod quadratic model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.7271
91903294|NCT03346057|183701565|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-14.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-4.0|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||-4.0|-28.8|0.007
91677686|NCT00311311|183249715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48||||0.9339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.54|57.59||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||57.59|-62.54|0.9339
91677687|NCT00311311|183249716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.011||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||0.011|-0.005|0.4892
91677688|NCT00311311|183249716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.012||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference||24 months post-transplant||0.012|-0.000|0.0514
91677689|NCT00311311|183249716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.02||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||0.020|-0.002|0.1180
91677690|NCT00311311|183249717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|8.93||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||8.93|2.20|0.0016
91677691|NCT00311311|183249717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.8||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||6.80|1.01|0.0091
91677692|NCT00311311|183249717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.2468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.1||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||6.10|-1.60|0.2468
91677693|NCT00311311|183249718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.5282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.94||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||3.94|-2.05|0.5282
91677694|NCT00311311|183249718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27||||0.5057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|5.07||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||5.07|-2.53|0.5057
91677695|NCT00311311|183249718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|7.18||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||7.18|-4.00|0.5701
91677696|NCT00311311|183249720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.48||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||12 months post-transplant||0.48|0.03|0.0280
91677697|NCT00311311|183249720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.48||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||24 months post-transplant||0.48|0.04|0.0190
91677698|NCT00311311|183249720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||36 months post-transplant||0.60|-0.07|0.1182
91677699|NCT00311311|183249721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.49||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||1.49|-2.09|0.7361
91677700|NCT00311311|183249721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.5549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|1.26||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||1.26|-2.32|0.5549
91677701|NCT00311311|183249721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|2.17||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||2.17|-3.69|0.6058
91677702|NCT00311311|183249722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.84||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||2.84|-1.63|0.5902
91793633|NCT00400153|183465365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0688||95.0|-0.003|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.003|0.0688
91677703|NCT00311311|183249722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.7536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.95||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||1.95|-2.68|0.7536
91677704|NCT00311311|183249722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33||||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|1.86||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||1.86|-4.53|0.4066
91677705|NCT00311311|183249723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.47||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|30.4||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||30.40|-11.46|0.3678
91677706|NCT00311311|183249723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.72||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|27.97||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||27.97|-6.53|0.2179
91677707|NCT00311311|183249723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.96||||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|38.32||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||38.32|-14.39|0.3663
91677708|NCT00311311|183249724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||0.8|0.0|0.0410
91677709|NCT00311311|183249724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||0.6|0.0|0.0275
91677710|NCT00311311|183249724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||0.6|-0.1|0.1841
91793634|NCT00400153|183465366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.3895||95.0|-0.064|0.025|||ANCOVA|||||0.025|-0.064|0.3895
91793635|NCT00400153|183465367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.959||95.0|-0.045|0.042|||ANCOVA|||||0.042|-0.045|0.959
91677711|NCT00311311|183249725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.3||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.9|6.3||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference||12 months post-transplant||6.3|-108.9|0.0797
91677712|NCT00311311|183249725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.3||||0.2341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.7|22.2||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference||24 months post-transplant||22.2|-88.7|0.2341
91677713|NCT00311311|183249725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|59.8||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||59.8|-90.3|0.6854
91692376|NCT02770170|183279666|OTHER|||||||0.6415||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod sigmoidal Emax model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.6415
91793636|NCT00400153|183465368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.7652||95.0|-0.053|0.039|||ANCOVA|||||0.039|-0.053|0.7652
91793637|NCT00400153|183465369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.6244||95.0|-0.057|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.057|0.6244
91793638|NCT00400153|183465370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.873||95.0|-0.041|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|-0.041|0.873
91793639|NCT00400153|183465371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.5294||95.0|-0.06|0.031|||ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.06|0.5294
91677714|NCT00311311|183249726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.6|-36.9||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||-36.9|-108.6|0.0002
91677715|NCT00311311|183249726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.5|-26.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||-26.6|-108.5|0.0017
91677716|NCT00311311|183249726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.3||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.2|-6.5||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||-6.5|-118.2|0.0293
91677717|NCT00311311|183249728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2573|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Consent to Conversion||||0.2573
91677718|NCT00311311|183249728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6386|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Conversion to Month 12||||0.6386
91677719|NCT00311311|183249728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Month 12 to Month 24||||0.0709
91677720|NCT00311311|183249728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Month 24 to Month 36||||1.0000
91677721|NCT00311311|183249729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Consent to Conversion||||0.4286
91677722|NCT00311311|183249729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Conversion to Month 12||||1.0000
91677723|NCT00311311|183249729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Month 12 to Month 24||||1.0000
91677724|NCT00311311|183249729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Month 24 to Month 36||||1.0000
91677725|NCT00311311|183249730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|14.7||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|18 months post-transplant||14.7|-50.7|0.2718
91677726|NCT00311311|183249730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7||||0.2729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|12.1||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||12.1|-41.6|0.2729
91677727|NCT00311311|183249730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.2902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|7.3||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||7.3|-23.8|0.2902
91677728|NCT00507546|183249789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Friedman|||||||0.70
91677729|NCT00507546|183249790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Friedman|||||||0.35
91677730|NCT03736213|183249794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, two-tailed|df = 6|Ultrasound biofeedback treatment condition - visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment condition. Because more accurate productions have lower normalized acoustic values, a negative difference indicates an advantage for US biofeedback.|||||.13
91677731|NCT00609466|183249795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|70.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|35.9|105.6||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||105.6|35.9|<0.0001
91677732|NCT00609466|183249796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Test for time (in hours) to first rescue medication use. No multiplicity adjustment.|Log Rank|Adjusted for site||||||<0.0001
91677733|NCT00609466|183249797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|37.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|22.7|52.2||No multiplicity adjustment used|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||52.2|22.7|<0.0001
91677734|NCT00609466|183249798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means|9.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.2|13.6||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||13.6|6.2|<0.0001
91677735|NCT00609466|183249799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|20.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|13.2|28.0||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||28.0|13.2|<0.0001
91677736|NCT00609466|183249800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|36.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|20.7|52.0||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||52.0|20.7|<0.0001
91717423|NCT00794664|183327648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
91793640|NCT00400153|183465372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.563||95.0|-0.032|0.058|||ANCOVA|||||0.058|-0.032|0.563
91793641|NCT00400153|183465373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.167|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.167|0.075|< 0.0001
91862365|NCT04568603|183611902|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.09||||||||1.09|0.94|
91862366|NCT04568603|183611903|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.13||||||||1.13|1.04|
91862367|NCT04568603|183611905|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.07||||||||1.07|0.99|
91862368|NCT04568603|183611906|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.08||||||||1.08|0.95|
91677737|NCT00609466|183249801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means|108.2||||0.0002||95.0|51.9|164.5||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||164.5|51.9|0.0002
91677738|NCT03512262|183249802|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LSM) Means Difference|7.3165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|5.0668|9.5663||Significance level of 0.01.|ANCOVA|Missing values were imputed using a multiple imputation method.||||9.5663|5.0668|<0.0001
91677739|NCT03512262|183249803|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.1209|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.9948|3.2469||Significance level of 0.01.|ANCOVA|Missing values were imputed using a multiple imputation method.||||3.2469|0.9948|<0.0001
91677740|NCT03512262|183249804|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.8221|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.3972|4.2471||Significance level of 0.01.|ANCOVA|Missing values were imputed using a multiple imputation method.||||4.2471|1.3972|<0.0001
91677741|NCT03188666|183249836|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.6||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-51.8|0.0741
91677742|NCT03188666|183249837|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.9||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.8|30.9|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||30.9|-80.8|0.3726
91677743|NCT03188666|183249838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared number of new lesions per participant by CT at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0039
91677744|NCT03188666|183249839|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-25.6||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.8|-53.9|0.0756
91677745|NCT03188666|183249840|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.8||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.1|30.5|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||30.5|-86.1|0.3407
91677746|NCT03188666|183249841|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.2656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.96|0.2656
91677747|NCT03188666|183249842|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-1.01|0.2651
91677748|NCT03188666|183249849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared number of new lesions per participant by PET at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0039
91677749|NCT03188666|183249850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|McNemar|||Compared percent of participants with new lesions by CT at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0027
91677750|NCT03188666|183249851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|McNemar|||Compared percent of participants with new lesions by PET at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0047
91677751|NCT03188666|183249854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3663||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3663
91677752|NCT03188666|183249855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0010
91677753|NCT03188666|183249861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared total new lesion volume per participant by CT at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0039
91677754|NCT03188666|183249862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0273||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared total lesion activity per participant in new lesions by PET at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0273
91677755|NCT03188666|183249863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2123||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2123
91677756|NCT03188666|183249864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1528||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1528
91677757|NCT05071313|183249904|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||||||A/Victoria||1.14|0.89|
91677758|NCT05071313|183249904|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.28||||||A/Tasmania||1.28|0.97|
91677759|NCT05071313|183249904|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.05||||||B/Washington||1.05|0.79|
91677760|NCT05071313|183249904|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97||||||95.0|0.85|1.1||||||B/Phuket||1.10|0.85|
91793642|NCT00400153|183465374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.174|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.174|0.084|< 0.0001
91862369|NCT04568603|183611907|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.11||||||||1.11|1.03|
91862370|NCT04137367|183611922|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We estimated a priori that a total of 100 participants would be needed to detect a difference between ABM and sham condition, with a two-tailed α of 0.05 and (1-β) of .80. Power calculation was based on the assumption that 50 % of the participants allocated to ABM would report a minimum of 3 points reduction on BDI-II at six months, compared to 20 % in the sham condition. Assuming 15 % lost to follow up, power calculation indicated the need for 50 participants in each condition||||.05
91862371|NCT05448105|183611952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|"Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing the participants' SUS scores to the threshold value of 71 indicative of good usability."||||||0.02
91677761|NCT03107026|183249955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.66|0.1187
91677762|NCT03107026|183249955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-0.93|0.0045
91677763|NCT03107026|183249956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.68|0.0256
91677764|NCT03107026|183249956|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-0.83|0.0025
91677765|NCT03107026|183249957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.854|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.854|0.726|0.5342
91677766|NCT03107026|183249957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|1.882|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.882|0.738|0.4905
91677767|NCT03107026|183249958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.946||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-4.16|0.0154
91717424|NCT00794664|183327650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91717425|NCT00794664|183327652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.032||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.032
91862372|NCT05448105|183611955|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.04
91862373|NCT05448105|183611956|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is calculated p-value. The threshold for significance was less than 0.05.|paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||<0.01
91677768|NCT03107026|183249958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.969||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.50|-5.31|0.0005
91677769|NCT04763564|183249971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||A priori threshold for significance was \< 0.05. Significance level liraglutide vs. placebo in percent reduction of bowel frequency at week 4 vs. baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The 2 treatment modalities, Liraglutide and Placebo, were compared. A repeated-measures mixed model was fitted to the data, with treatment (liraglutide or placebo), period, and treatment sequence as fixed effects and the repeated measures within the subject as a random effect.||||<0.03
91677770|NCT04763564|183249974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The 2 treatment modalities, Liraglutide and Placebo, were compared. A repeated-measures mixed model was fitted to the data, with treatment (liraglutide or placebo), period, and treatment sequence as fixed effects and the repeated measures within the subject as a random effect.||||0.01
91862374|NCT05448105|183611957|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.16
91862375|NCT05448105|183611958|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.69
91677771|NCT00807248|183249998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.44|||ANCOVA|||||1.44|-2.34|0.6405
91677772|NCT00807248|183249998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.35|||ANCOVA|||||2.35|-1.41|0.6227
91677773|NCT00807248|183249999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-3.11|||ANCOVA|||||-3.11|-7.98|<0.0001
91677774|NCT00807248|183249999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-2.66|||ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-7.53|<0.0001
91677775|NCT00807248|183249999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-3.56|||ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-8.43|<0.0001
91677776|NCT00807248|183250000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|-2.84|||ANCOVA|||||-2.84|-7.13|<0.0001
91677777|NCT00807248|183250000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.32|||ANCOVA|||||-2.32|-6.60|<0.0001
91677778|NCT00807248|183250000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.13|||ANCOVA|||||-3.13|-7.41|<0.0001
91677779|NCT00807248|183250001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.58|||ANCOVA|||||-1.58|-4.59|<0.0001
91677780|NCT00807248|183250001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.14|||ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-4.15|0.0006
91717426|NCT00794664|183327654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91717427|NCT00794664|183327656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.278
91717428|NCT00794664|183327658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647
91793643|NCT00400153|183465375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.163|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.163|0.072|< 0.0001
91862376|NCT05448105|183611959|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.90
91862377|NCT05448105|183611960|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.11
91862378|NCT05448105|183611961|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.22
91862379|NCT05448105|183611962|OTHER|||||||1||||||This is the calculated p-value.|McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of A1C||||1.00
91862380|NCT05448105|183611962|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for hemoglobin A1c.||||0.55
91862381|NCT05448105|183611962|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of systolic blood pressure||||0.11
91793644|NCT00400153|183465376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.171|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.171|0.081|< 0.0001
91862382|NCT05448105|183611962|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for systolic blood pressure||||0.63
91677781|NCT00807248|183250001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.10|-5.13|<0.0001
91677782|NCT00807248|183250002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-1.85|<0.0001
91677783|NCT00807248|183250002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-1.72|0.0004
91677784|NCT00807248|183250002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.87|<0.0001
91677785|NCT00807248|183250003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.72|0.0007
91677786|NCT00807248|183250003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.69|0.0013
91677787|NCT00807248|183250003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-1.92|<0.0001
91677788|NCT00807248|183250004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-1.82|0.0002
91677789|NCT00807248|183250004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.72|0.0006
91677790|NCT00807248|183250004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-2.00|<0.0001
91677791|NCT00807248|183250005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-0.89|<0.0001
91677792|NCT00807248|183250005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-0.82|0.0001
91677793|NCT00807248|183250005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-0.99|<0.0001
91677794|NCT00807248|183250006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-1.02|<0.0001
91677795|NCT00807248|183250006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-0.88|<0.0001
91677796|NCT00807248|183250006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.97|<0.0001
91677797|NCT02504671|183250054|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|24.52|||Regression, Logistic||95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.52|0.18|0.547
91677798|NCT02504671|183250054|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|62.44|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||62.44|0.81|0.077
91677799|NCT02504671|183250054|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.39||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|72.14|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||72.14|0.98|0.053
91677800|NCT02504671|183250054|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.69||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|51.4|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||51.40|0.63|0.122
91677801|NCT02504671|183250054|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|48.83|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.83|0.60|0.134
91677802|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|8.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CRP, Week 12|||8.05|-7.13|0.905
91677803|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.36||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|4.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||4.28|-11.00|0.387
91677804|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|4.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||4.87|-10.04|0.495
91677805|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.68||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.92|2.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||2.55|-17.92|0.140
91677806|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.68||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.85|-3.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-3.52|-23.85|0.009
91677807|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.44|-7.35||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-7.35|-27.44|<0.001
91677808|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.42||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|0.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||0.62|-5.45|0.118
91677809|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||-0.14|-6.20|0.041
91793645|NCT00400153|183465381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06396||0.9943||95.0|-0.1259|0.125|||ANCOVA|||||0.125|-0.1259|0.9943
91862383|NCT05448105|183611962|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of LDL cholesterol||||0.12
91717429|NCT00720499|183327668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.8937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.031|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.031|-0.035|0.8937
91717430|NCT00720499|183327669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.061|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.061|-0.015|0.2425
91717431|NCT00720499|183327671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.5198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.021|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.021|-0.010|0.5198
91717432|NCT00720499|183327671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.051|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.051|-0.011|0.2110
91717433|NCT00720499|183327671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.9368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.027|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.027|-0.029|0.9368
91717434|NCT00720499|183327672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.5339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.014|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.014|-0.027|0.5339
91717435|NCT00720499|183327672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.058|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.058|-0.015|0.2408
91717436|NCT00720499|183327672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.7139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.042|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.042|-0.029|0.7139
91717437|NCT00720499|183327673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.034|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.034|-0.026|0.7906
91717438|NCT00720499|183327674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.8473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.082|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.082|-0.067|0.8473
91717439|NCT00720499|183327675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.094|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.094|-0.029|0.2944
91717440|NCT00720499|183327675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.066|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.066|-0.046|0.7180
91717441|NCT00720499|183327677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.032|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.032|-0.029|0.9384
91717442|NCT00720499|183327677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.088|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.088|-0.014|0.1583
91717443|NCT00720499|183327677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.082|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.082|-0.025|0.2914
91717444|NCT00720499|183327678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.094|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.094|-0.024|0.2485
91717445|NCT00720499|183327679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.13|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.130|-0.039|0.2875
91717446|NCT00720499|183327680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.038||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.046|5.015|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.015|-3.046|0.6299
91717447|NCT00720499|183327680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.156||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|12.553|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||12.553|0.070|0.0475
91793646|NCT00400153|183465381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06441||0.7569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1463|0.1064|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.1064|-0.1463|0.7569
91717448|NCT00720499|183327680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.729|6.833|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.833|-3.729|0.5620
91717449|NCT00720499|183327681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.342||0.9391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.812|4.454|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||4.454|-4.812|0.9391
91717450|NCT00720499|183327681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.559||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|13.52|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||13.520|-0.560|0.0709
91717451|NCT00720499|183327681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.134||0.3245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.298|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||9.298|-3.100|0.3245
91717452|NCT00720499|183327682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.655||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.914|8.514|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||8.514|-9.914|0.8808
91717453|NCT00720499|183327683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.177||0.6081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.429|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test week 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.429|-3.190|0.6081
91717454|NCT00720499|183327683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.342||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.296|5.973|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 2. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.973|-3.296|0.5686
91717455|NCT00720499|183327683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.653|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.294||0.7765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.888|5.194|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 3. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.194|-3.888|0.7765
91717456|NCT00720499|183327683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.543||0.5166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.379|6.686|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 4. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.686|-3.379|0.5166
91793647|NCT00400153|183465382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1206||0.3659||95.0|-0.1276|0.3458|||ANCOVA|||||0.3458|-0.1276|0.3659
91717457|NCT00720499|183327684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.585||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.813|8.418|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||8.418|-1.813|0.2037
91717458|NCT00720499|183327684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.738||0.6118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.027|6.813|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 2. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.813|-4.027|0.6118
91717459|NCT00720499|183327684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.498||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.251|6.64|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 3. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.640|-3.251|0.4988
91717460|NCT00720499|183327684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.478||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.944|3.865|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 4. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||3.865|-5.944|0.6757
91717461|NCT00720499|183327685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.169|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.169|-0.147|0.8901
91793648|NCT00400153|183465382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3947|0.08395|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.08395|-0.3947|0.203
91717462|NCT00720499|183327685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 2. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.050|-0.290|0.1647
91717463|NCT00720499|183327685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.176|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 3. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.176|-0.180|0.9822
91793649|NCT00400153|183465383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03199||0.809||95.0|-0.05503|0.0705|||ANCOVA|||||0.0705|-0.05503|0.809
91793650|NCT00400153|183465383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03225||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001746|0.1283|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.1283|0.001746|0.044
91793651|NCT00400153|183465384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03002||0.6674||95.0|-0.04598|0.07179|||ANCOVA|||||0.07179|-0.04598|0.6674
91717464|NCT00720499|183327685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.137|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 4. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.137|-0.218|0.6542
91717465|NCT00720499|183327686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.115|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.115|-0.342|0.3269
91717466|NCT00720499|183327687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.171|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.171|-0.181|0.9557
91717467|NCT00720499|183327687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.14|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.140|-0.178|0.8096
91717468|NCT00492726|183327705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set to 10% in the protocol, in agreement with FDA recommendations. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning. Estimation was performed to achieve 85% power, based on the equivalence delta of 10%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-3.8||||||95.0|-7.9|0.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||0.4|-7.9|
91717469|NCT00492726|183327706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in improvement rates (in %)|1.1||||||95.0|-0.4|2.7|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||2.7|-0.4|
91717470|NCT00492726|183327707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in bact. success rates (in %)|-3.9||||||95.0|-8.8|1.0|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group. Presumed eradications and eradications without superinfection were considered bacteriological successes.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.0|-8.8|
91793652|NCT00400153|183465384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03033||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04376|0.07523|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.07523|-0.04376|0.604
91677810|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||0.05|-6.00|0.003
91677811|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|1.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TC28, Week 12|||1.01|-5.61|0.172
91677812|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.92||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|-0.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-0.62|-7.22|0.020
91677813|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-2.45||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-2.45|-8.98|<0.001
91677814|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.51||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|5.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||5.12|-10.13|0.518
91677815|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||5.49|-9.50|0.599
91677816|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.63||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.78|-2.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-2.48|-22.78|0.015
91677817|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.27|-7.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-7.10|-27.27|<0.001
91677818|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.98||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||0.05|-6.00|0.054
91677819|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|-3.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||-3.02|-9.05|<0.001
91677820|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.63||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|-0.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-0.33|-6.92|0.031
91677821|NCT02504671|183250055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-3.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-3.02|-9.61|<0.001
91677822|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91677823|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
91677824|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|1.9|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||1.9|-12.7|
91862384|NCT05448105|183611962|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for LDL cholesterol||||0.33
91677825|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
91677826|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91677827|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91677828|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91677829|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91677830|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91677831|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|36.4|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.4|6.8|
91677832|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91677833|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91677834|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|41.3|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.3|12.7|
91677835|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91677836|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91677837|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91677838|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91677839|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91677840|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91677841|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91677842|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91677843|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91677844|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91677845|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91677846|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91677847|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91677848|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91677849|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91677850|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91677851|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91677852|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91677853|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91677854|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91677855|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91677856|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91677857|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91677858|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91677859|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91862385|NCT05448105|183611962|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of urine microalbumin||||0.23
91862386|NCT05448105|183611962|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for urine microalbumin||||0.58
91677860|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91677861|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91677862|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91677863|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91677864|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91677865|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91677866|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91677867|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91717471|NCT00492726|183327708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-1.5||||||95.0|-5.0|1.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.9|-5.0|
91862387|NCT05448105|183611962|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of body mass index (BMI)||||1.00
91862388|NCT05448105|183611962|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for body mass index (BMI)||||0.27
91862389|NCT05329220|183612068|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5|1.57||P-value corresponds to Cohort 1 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 1 Comirnaty|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to having at least 400 evaluable subjects with primary endpoint data available at baseline and at 2 weeks after trial vaccination. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||1.57|0.50|0.6350
91903295|NCT03346057|183701565|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-12.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-0.8|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||-0.8|-26.1|0.036
91677868|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
91677869|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
91677870|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91677871|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91677872|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91677873|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91677874|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91677875|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91677876|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91677877|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91677878|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91677879|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91677880|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91677881|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91677882|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91677883|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91677884|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91677885|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36, 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91677886|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91677887|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|38.1|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.1|10.5|
91677888|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91677889|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91677890|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91677891|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91677892|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91677893|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91677894|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91677895|NCT02504671|183250056|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91677896|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.01|-0.64|0.046
91903296|NCT03346057|183701565|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-9.9||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|3.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||3.6|-27.6|0.158
91677897|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||0.03|-0.62|0.071
91677898|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.05|-0.69|0.022
91677899|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||0.11|-0.67|0.160
91677900|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||0.07|-0.71|0.103
91677901|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||-0.03|-0.80|0.034
91677902|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||0.07|-0.87|0.096
91677903|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.09|-1.02|0.020
91677904|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.29|-1.22|0.001
91677905|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||0.10|-0.93|0.110
91677906|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||0.05|-0.98|0.076
91677907|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||-0.10|-1.11|0.020
91677908|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||0.12|-0.97|0.128
91677909|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.24|-1.33|0.005
91677910|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.29|-1.36|0.003
91677911|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||0.12|-1.17|0.110
91677912|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.23|-1.53|0.008
91677913|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.60|-1.88|<0.001
91793653|NCT00400153|183465385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0653||0.4238||95.0|-2.3995|5.7047|||ANCOVA|||||5.7047|-2.3995|0.4238
91677914|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||0.56|-1.15|0.500
91677915|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.15||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||-0.15|-1.83|0.021
91677916|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.18||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||-0.18|-1.83|0.017
91677917|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.83|-0.98|0.871
91677918|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.29|-1.46|0.190
91677919|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.20|-1.51|0.130
91677920|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.20|-2.24|0.019
91677921|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.55|-2.51|0.002
91677922|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.43|-2.34|0.005
91677923|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.09|-0.73|0.013
91677924|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.17|-0.80|0.003
91677925|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||-0.09|-0.86|0.017
91677926|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||-0.13|-0.90|0.009
91677927|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.20|-1.13|0.005
91677928|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.55|-1.48|<0.001
91677929|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.04||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||0.04|-0.99|0.073
91677930|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.34||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||-0.34|-1.36|0.001
91677931|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.35||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.35|-1.43|0.001
91677932|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.56|-1.65|<0.001
91677933|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.03|-1.32|0.039
91677934|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.63||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.63|-1.91|<0.001
91677935|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||0.07|-1.61|0.073
91677936|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||-0.30|-1.91|0.007
91677937|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.10|-1.65|0.083
91677938|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.03|-1.63|0.059
91677939|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-0.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.50|-2.46|0.003
91793654|NCT00400153|183465385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0874||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6578|6.533|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||6.533|-1.6578|0.2431
91793655|NCT00400153|183465386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.173||95.0|-0.034|0.187|||ANCOVA|||||0.187|-0.034|0.173
91903297|NCT03346057|183701566|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-0.9||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.0|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||4.0|-9.4|0.637
91677940|NCT02504671|183250057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.89|-2.75|<0.001
91677941|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|16.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|31.4|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.4|1.1|0.037
91677942|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|10.8||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.7|-3.1|0.144
91677943|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|18.9||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|34.5|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||34.5|3.3|0.033
91677944|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|5.4||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|22.2|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||22.2|-11.3|0.437
91677945|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|2.7||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|18.9|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||18.9|-13.5|0.755
91677946|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|24.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|43.4|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||43.4|5.2|0.023
91677947|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|29.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|0.006
91677948|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|21.6||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.2|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.2|2.0|0.039
91677949|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|29.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|0.008
91677950|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|21.6||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.8|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.8|0.4|0.044
91677951|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|18.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|40.0|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||40.0|-2.2|0.083
91677952|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|48.3|||||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.3|5.8|
91677953|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|32.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.8|-11.2|
91677954|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|48.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.9|5.2|
91677955|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|54.0|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||54.0|10.9|
91677956|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|42.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.4|0.9|
91677957|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|50.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||50.6|8.9|
91677958|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|66.0|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||66.0|25.9|
91677959|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|33.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.8|-6.8|
91677960|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|53.3|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||53.3|11.6|
91677961|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|58.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||58.5|17.2|
91677962|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|38.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.4|-0.5|
91677963|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|55.1|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.1|15.1|
91793656|NCT00400153|183465386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.056|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.056|-0.165|0.336
91793657|NCT00400153|183465387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.924||95.0|-0.115|0.127|||ANCOVA|||||0.127|-0.115|0.924
91903298|NCT03346057|183701566|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-2.1||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||1.5|-10.6|0.134
91793658|NCT00400153|183465387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.053|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.053|-0.19|0.266
91903299|NCT03346057|183701566|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-1.7||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.8|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||5.8|-14.7|0.577
91677964|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.2|68.1|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.1|29.2|
91677965|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|35.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.4|-3.0|
91677966|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|
91677967|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|57.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||57.8|17.9|
91677968|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91677969|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91677970|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91677971|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91677972|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91677973|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91677974|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91677975|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91677976|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91677977|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91677978|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91677979|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91677980|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91677981|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91677982|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91677983|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91677984|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91677985|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91677986|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91677987|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91677988|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91677989|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91903300|NCT03346057|183701567|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|18.5||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||18.5|-2.6|
91862390|NCT05329220|183612068|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7|0.92||P-value corresponds to Cohort 2 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 2 Comirnaty|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to having at least 400 evaluable subjects with primary endpoint data available at baseline and at 2 weeks after trial vaccination. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||0.92|0.70|0.0002
91717472|NCT00492726|183327709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in bact. success rates (in %)|-3.9||||||95.0|-8.8|1.0|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group. Presumed eradications and eradications without superinfection were considered bacteriological successes.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.0|-8.8|
91717473|NCT00492726|183327710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in bact. success rates (in %)|-3.8||||||95.0|-9.0|1.5|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group. Presumed eradications and eradications without super- or reinfection were considered bacteriological successes.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.5|-9.0|
91717474|NCT00492726|183327711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-2.9||||||95.0|-7.6|1.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.9|-7.6|
91717475|NCT01100502|183327715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.40|0.001
91717476|NCT01621009|183327727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.36|.78|>0.05
91717477|NCT01621009|183327727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.44|.52|>0.05
91717478|NCT04356937|183327740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.81|||Log Rank|||||1.81|0.38|0.64
91717479|NCT04356937|183327741|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.1|||Log Rank|||||2.10|0.59|0.73
91717480|NCT04356937|183327742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.67|0.69
91717481|NCT02557399|183327764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-6.83||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-1.78||The analysis method was mixed model repeated measures analysis with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.78|-11.88|0.008
91717482|NCT02557399|183327765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-0.25||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|4.35||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1|||4.35|-4.85|0.916
91717483|NCT02557399|183327765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-5.85||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-1.42||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4|||-1.42|-10.29|0.010
91717484|NCT02557399|183327765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-2.35||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|1.72||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8|||1.72|-6.42|0.257
91862391|NCT05329220|183612069|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.76||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.64|0.91||P-value corresponds to Cohort 2 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 2 Comirnaty for Omicron variant BA.4/BA.5|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to meeting the primary endpoint success criterion in Cohort 2. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||0.91|0.64|0.0008
91717485|NCT02557399|183327765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-3.24||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|0.16||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12|||0.16|-6.64|0.062
91864619|NCT05873556|183618524|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.54|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.54|0.76|0.66
91717486|NCT02557399|183327766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-5.08||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|1.25||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.25|-11.41|0.115
91717487|NCT02557399|183327766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-8.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.35|-2.51||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-2.51|-14.35|0.005
91717488|NCT02557399|183327766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-9.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|-4.33||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-4.33|-14.42|<0.001
91717489|NCT02557399|183327766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-6.69||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|-2.16||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-2.16|-11.21|0.004
91717490|NCT02557399|183327766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.89||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for ILs|||-0.89|-8.10|0.015
91717491|NCT02557399|183327766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|2.71||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|8.8||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||8.80|-3.38|0.382
91717492|NCT02557399|183327766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-5.69||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|0.78||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.78|-12.17|0.085
91717493|NCT02557399|183327766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-3.89||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|1.88||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.88|-9.67|0.186
91717494|NCT02557399|183327766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-0.59||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|4.44||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||4.44|-5.61|0.818
91717495|NCT02557399|183327766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-3.78||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|0.35||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.35|-7.92|0.073
91903301|NCT03346057|183701567|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.1||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||13.1|-9.3|
91903302|NCT03346057|183701567|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|17.7||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||17.7|-8.4|
91903303|NCT03346057|183701568|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.3||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||14.3|-5.5|
91717496|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for TLs. negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||4.4|-4.6|0.961
91717497|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-1.2||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for TLs. negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.2|-11.2|0.015
91903304|NCT03346057|183701568|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.3||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||9.3|-9.2|
91903305|NCT03346057|183701568|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|12.7||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||12.7|-15.1|
91793659|NCT00400153|183465388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.139||95.0|-0.031|0.225|||ANCOVA|||||0.225|-0.031|0.139
91903306|NCT03346057|183701569|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.8||||||The percentage of participants experiencing one or more ECIs was compared between the Sugammadex 2 mg/kg arm and the Neostigmine plus Glycopyrrolate arm. Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||3.8|-11.8|
91677990|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|37.7|||||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||37.7|5.6|
91677991|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|37.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||37.6|0.2|
91677992|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|43.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||43.4|5.2|
91677993|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|46.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.9|7.1|
91677994|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|70.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.5|32.2|
91677995|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.8|0.4|
91677996|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|61.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||61.2|19.9|
91677997|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|48.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.9|5.2|
91677998|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|56.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||56.5|13.8|
91677999|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|47.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||47.9|6.2|
91678000|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|73.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.2|34.9|
91678001|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|42.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.4|0.9|
91678002|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|70.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.9|31.8|
91678003|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|46.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.9|7.1|
91678004|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|75.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||75.4|38.2|
91678005|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|46.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.9|7.1|
91678006|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|73.0|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.0|35.1|
91678007|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678008|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|75.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.4|89.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||89.9|61.4|
91678009|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678010|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|85.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||85.5|55.0|
91678011|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678012|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|85.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||85.5|55.0|
91678013|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678014|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|78.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||78.4|45.9|
91678015|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678016|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|73.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.4|40.1|
91678017|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91793660|NCT00400153|183465388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.146|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.146|-0.111|0.788
91862392|NCT05329220|183612069|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.59|0.81||P-value corresponds to Cohort 2 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 2 Comirnaty for Omicron Variant XBB.1.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to meeting the primary endpoint success criterion in Cohort 2. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||0.81|0.59|<0.0001
91862393|NCT05651308|183612073|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08|||Chi-squared||Risk difference = Intervention proportion minus control proportion.|||0.08|-0.03|0.37
91862394|NCT00986856|183612077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.2|||<|0.01||95.0|1.4|120.4||Test for the hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||120.4|1.4|<0.01
91862395|NCT00986856|183612078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.023||95.0|1.1|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.6|1.1|0.023
91903307|NCT03346057|183701569|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.4||||||The percentage of participants experiencing one or more ECIs was compared between the Sugammadex 4 mg/kg arm and the Neostigmine plus Glycopyrrolate arm. Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||8.4|-8.1|
91678018|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|78.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||78.4|45.9|
91678019|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678020|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.7|65.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||65.6|31.7|
91678021|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678022|NCT02504671|183250059|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
91678023|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678024|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91717498|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-0.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for TLs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.1|-9.2|0.044
91862396|NCT00986856|183612079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.1|0.3|0.54
91862397|NCT00986856|183612080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.8|0.8|0.1
91862398|NCT00986856|183612081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1
91862399|NCT00986856|183612082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.043||95.0|0.9|83.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.5|0.9|0.043
91903308|NCT03346057|183701569|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|11.1||||||The percentage of participants experiencing one or more ECIs was compared between the Sugammadex 16 mg/kg arm and the Neostigmine plus Glycopyrrolate arm. Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||11.1|-13.5|
91678025|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91862400|NCT00986856|183612083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.8||||0.007||95.0|1.5|109.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||109.6|1.5|0.007
91862401|NCT00986856|183612084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.008||95.0|-4.8|-0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.8|-4.8|0.008
91678026|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 1, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678027|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91678028|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
91678029|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.7|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.7|-3.1|
91678030|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678031|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678032|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678033|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|32.6|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.6|-0.2|
91678034|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|44.7|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||44.7|9.3|
91678035|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|41.8|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.8|6.9|
91678036|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
91678037|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
91678038|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|17.8|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.8|-7.0|
91678039|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 4, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678040|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|30.9|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||30.9|-9.3|
91678041|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|27.9|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||27.9|-11.7|
91678042|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|30.9|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||30.9|-9.3|
91678043|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|7.0|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.0|-17.8|
91678044|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|10.6|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.6|-16.0|
91678045|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|14.1|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-14.1|
91678046|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678047|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678048|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|26.3|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.3|-10.1|
91678049|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|44.1|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||44.1|4.5|
91678050|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|
91678051|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91678052|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91678053|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678054|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91678055|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91678056|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91678057|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|42.7|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.7|6.0|
91678058|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|48.4|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.4|11.0|
91678059|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|59.5|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||59.5|21.6|
91793661|NCT00400153|183465393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
91678060|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.0|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.0|-10.6|
91678061|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
91678062|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|32.6|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.6|-0.2|
91678063|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
91678064|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
91678065|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91678066|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|32.4|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.4|-5.4|
91678067|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|
91678068|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|55.1|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.1|15.1|
91678069|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
91678070|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
91678071|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
91678072|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
91793662|NCT00400153|183465394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||<0.0001
91678073|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
91678074|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91678075|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|26.3|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.3|-10.1|
91678076|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.2|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.2|2.0|
91678077|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|57.8|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||57.8|17.9|
91678078|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.0|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.0|-10.6|
91678079|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|32.6|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.6|-0.2|
91678080|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
91678081|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
91678082|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.7|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.7|-3.1|
91678083|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
91678084|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|28.5|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.5|-6.9|
91678085|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|46.3|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.3|7.7|
91678086|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|43.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|62.6|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||62.6|23.8|
91678087|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|14.1|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-14.1|
91793663|NCT00400153|183465395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||<0.0001
91678088|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|33.7|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.7|-1.2|
91678089|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|36.7|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.7|1.1|
91678090|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
91678091|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
91678092|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
91678093|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678094|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678095|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678096|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678097|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678098|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678099|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678100|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91678101|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91678102|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678103|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91678104|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91678105|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678106|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91678107|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678108|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91678109|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678110|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91678111|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678112|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678113|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678114|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91678115|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678116|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91862402|NCT05445427|183612085|SUPERIORITY|Groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.544|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.544
91793664|NCT00400153|183465396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.508|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||<0.0001
91678117|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678118|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91678119|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678120|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678121|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678122|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91678123|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678124|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678125|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91678126|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91678127|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678128|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91678129|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678130|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678131|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678132|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678133|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678134|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678135|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678136|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91678137|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678138|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678139|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678140|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678141|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678142|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678143|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91793665|NCT00400153|183465397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
91793666|NCT00400153|183465398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
91862403|NCT05445427|183612086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used with the baseline value used as the covariate.||||||0.292
91862404|NCT04447469|183612102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.069||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|8.615||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||8.615|0.555|0.2598
91862405|NCT04447469|183612102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.414||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|9.957||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||9.957|0.653|0.1610
91862406|NCT04447469|183612102|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|2.091||||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|7.144||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.144|0.612|0.2448
91793667|NCT00400153|183465399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
91862407|NCT04447469|183612102|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|2.749||||0.1378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|9.993||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.993|0.756|0.1378
91862408|NCT04447469|183612103|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.231||||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|2.12||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.120|0.715|0.4534
91862409|NCT04447469|183612103|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.097||||0.7414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.891||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.891|0.636|0.7414
91862410|NCT04447469|183612104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.984||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|4.884|||Fisher Exact|||||4.884|0.198|1.0000
91862411|NCT04447469|183612104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.286||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|6.417|||Fisher Exact|||||6.417|0.260|1.0000
91862412|NCT04447469|183612105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|15.6|||||95% CI were calculated using asymptotic normal approximation. Difference = KPL-301 - placebo.|||15.6|-45.6|
91862413|NCT04447469|183612105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-27.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|0.9|||||95% CI were calculated using asymptotic normal approximation. Difference = KPL-301 - Placebo .|||0.9|-56.4|
91862414|NCT04447469|183612106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6229||||||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank|||||||0.6229
91862415|NCT04447469|183612106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5526||||||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank|||||||0.5526
91678144|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91862416|NCT04447469|183612107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.46||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|||1.46|0.71|0.9426
91862417|NCT04447469|183612107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.78|1.57||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|||1.57|0.78|0.6838
91862418|NCT04447469|183612108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.235||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|1.328|||Fisher Exact|||||1.328|0.023|0.0905
91678145|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91678146|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678147|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678148|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91793668|NCT00400153|183465400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
91862419|NCT04447469|183612108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.431||||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|1.815|||Fisher Exact|||||1.815|0.087|0.2247
91862420|NCT04447469|183612108|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.191||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|1.114||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.114|0.033|0.0623
91862421|NCT04447469|183612108|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.368||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|1.583||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.583|0.085|0.1957
91862422|NCT04447469|183612109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.57||||0.3766|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|3.09||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, and age).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy and age).|||3.09|0.80|0.3766
91862423|NCT04447469|183612109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|2.16||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, and age).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy and age).|||2.16|0.51|0.9209
91862424|NCT04447469|183612110|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.645||||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.222||Calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.222|0.340|0.1772
91862425|NCT04447469|183612110|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.029||||0.9269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.881||Calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.881|0.563|0.9269
91862426|NCT04447469|183612111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.49||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|||1.49|0.66|0.9578
91862427|NCT04447469|183612111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.7||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|||1.70|0.76|0.5274
91862428|NCT04447469|183612112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.15||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|||1.15|0.36|0.1336
91862429|NCT04447469|183612112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.72||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata ( age, and ARDS status).|||1.72|0.59|0.9767
91862430|NCT04447469|183612113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.71|||||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age).|||3.71|0.55|
91862431|NCT04447469|183612113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.54|||||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age).|||4.54|0.78|
91862432|NCT05201079|183612114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.395||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|97.79|0.54|10.624||Alpha: 0.0221|Regression, Logistic||Numerator: fidaxomicin; denominator: MBK-01|||10.624|0.540|0.228
91862433|NCT05201079|183612120|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Alpha value used: 0.0221|Statistical analysis using Odds Ratio cannot be performed because there are zero patients with bad progress in MBK-01 group.|||
91678149|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678150|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678151|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678152|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678153|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678154|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
91678155|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678156|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678157|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91862434|NCT05201079|183612121|SUPERIORITY||Score (logrank) test|1.25||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: 0.0221|Regression, Cox|Degrees of freedom: 1||||||0.300
91862435|NCT05201079|183612123|SUPERIORITY||Score (logrank) test|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: 0.0221|Regression, Cox|Degrees of freedom: 1||||||0.900
91862436|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749||||||Main effect of the Group for the Physical Function area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.104.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.749
91862437|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Physical Function area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.249.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.620
91793669|NCT00400153|183465401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
91862438|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Physical Function area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.024.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.160
91862439|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614||||||Main effect of the Group for the Bodily pain area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.257.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.614
91862440|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Bodily pain area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 7.705. Effect size = 0.046.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.007
91793670|NCT00400153|183465402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
91678158|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91678159|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91678160|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678161|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678162|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91678163|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678164|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91678165|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 1. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678166|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 1. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91678167|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|46.8|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.8|12.7|
91678168|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|55.4|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.4|20.3|
91678169|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678170|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678171|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|56.1|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||56.1|19.5|
91678172|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|56.1|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||56.1|19.5|
91678173|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
91678174|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
91678175|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 4, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678176|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|33.8|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.8|-6.8|
91678177|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|45.2|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||45.2|3.5|
91678178|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|17.6|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.6|-12.2|
91678179|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|17.6|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.6|-12.2|
91678180|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678181|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678182|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|52.4|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||52.4|12.4|
91678183|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|55.1|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.1|15.1|
91678184|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|36.4|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.4|6.8|
91862441|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Bodily pain area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.132.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.718
91862442|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||Main effect of the Group for the General Health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.474.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.494
91862443|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339||||||Main effect of the Visit for the General Health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.932.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.339
91862444|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the General health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.783.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.380
91862445|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Main effect of the Group for the Vitality area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.072|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.790
91678185|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678186|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678187|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91678188|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|48.4|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.4|11.0|
91678189|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|59.5|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||59.5|21.6|
91678190|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|38.8|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.8|4.5|
91678191|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
91678192|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
91678193|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|17.8|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.8|-7.0|
91678194|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|44.1|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||44.1|4.5|
91678195|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|70.5|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.5|32.2|
91678196|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
91678197|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
91678198|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|17.8|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.8|-7.0|
91678199|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.2|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.2|2.0|
91678200|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|43.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|63.0|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||63.0|23.5|
91678201|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|41.8|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.8|6.9|
91678202|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|38.8|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.8|4.5|
91678203|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|34.5|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||34.5|3.3|
91678204|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91678205|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|46.3|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.3|7.7|
91678206|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|65.2|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||65.2|26.7|
91862446|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Vitality area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.465.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.498
91862447|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Vitality area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 5.490.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.023
91862448|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553||||||Main effect of the Group for the Social role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.356.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.553
91862449|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Social role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.132.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.718
91862450|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Social role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.319.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.574
91678207|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|30.6|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||30.6|-3.6|
91678208|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|33.7|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.7|-1.2|
91678209|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91678210|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91678211|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678212|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|64.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.9|80.8|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||80.8|48.9|
91678213|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678214|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|36.4|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.4|6.8|
91678215|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91678216|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91678217|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678218|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
91678219|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678220|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|42.7|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.7|11.4|
91678221|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91678222|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678223|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678224|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|73.4|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.4|40.1|
91678225|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678226|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|48.7|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.7|16.2|
91678227|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
91678228|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91717499|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.5||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for TLs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||3.5|-4.9|0.747
91862451|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Main effect of the Group for the Emotional role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.482.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.490
91678229|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678230|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
91678231|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91678232|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|45.7|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||45.7|13.8|
91678233|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91678234|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678235|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678236|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
91678237|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91678238|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|51.6|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||51.6|18.7|
91678239|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678240|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91678241|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678242|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|70.9|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.9|37.3|
91678243|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678244|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|48.7|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.7|16.2|
91793671|NCT01423604|183465411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.061||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||||1.061|0.506|0.0494
91678245|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91678246|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|34.9|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||34.9|8.4|
91678247|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678248|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.7|65.6|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||65.6|31.7|
91678249|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678250|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|39.6|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||39.6|9.1|
91678251|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91862452|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Emotional role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 4.850|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.032
91862453|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Emotional role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.181.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.145
91678252|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91862454|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467||||||Main effect of the Group for the Mental health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.535.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.467
91862455|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Mental health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.795|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.100
91678253|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678254|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|57.3|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||57.3|23.7|
91678255|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91678256|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|39.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||39.6|9.1|
91678257|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91678258|NCT02504671|183250060|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91678259|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 4. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678260|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678261|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91678262|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91678263|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91678264|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91678265|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91678266|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91678267|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678268|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91678269|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678270|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678271|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678272|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678273|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678274|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678275|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91862456|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Mental health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.019.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.890
91862457|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||Main effect of the Group for the Physical Role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.109.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.742
91678276|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678277|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678278|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678279|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678280|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678281|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678282|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678283|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678284|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678285|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678286|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678287|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678288|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678289|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678290|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91678291|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678292|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678293|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678294|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 2. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678295|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 4. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678296|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678297|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678298|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91678299|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91678300|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91678301|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91678302|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678303|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678304|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-2.5|
91678305|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|68.2|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|-1.9|
91678306|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678307|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678308|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678309|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91678310|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678311|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678312|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91678313|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678314|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678315|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91862458|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Physical Role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 21.912. Effect size = 0.109.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||<0.001
91678316|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678317|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678318|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678319|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91793672|NCT01423604|183465411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.502||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|0.888||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||Cox Regression Analysis of Overall Survival: C-reactive protein (CRP) \> 13 μg/ml; Statistical analysis plan (SAP) specified subgroup analysis||0.888|0.281|0.0081
91862459|NCT05201079|183612134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Physical Role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.986.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.089
91678320|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678321|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678322|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678323|NCT02504671|183250061|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91862460|NCT04719832|183612162|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), baseline inhaled CS dose (medium, high), geographical region, baseline percent predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1), and offset of log (total time in the study in years).|Rate Ratio|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||Negative binomial distribution|||To demonstrate the superiority of GSK3511294 100 mg SC + SoC following two doses (at Week 0 and at Week 26) compared with placebo + SoC, assessed by the annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations measured over the study intervention period of 52 weeks.||0.59|0.30|< 0.001
91717500|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.8||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for TLs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.8|-5.3|0.338
91717501|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.1|-3.8|0.068
91717502|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.1|-4.8|0.002
91717503|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.0||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.0|-4.3|0.002
91717504|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.4||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.4|-3.4|0.012
91862461|NCT04719832|183612163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.36|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline SGRQ total score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline SGRQ total score and visit by treatment group||0.39|-7.11|= 0.080
91862462|NCT04719832|183612164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.04|||=|0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ACQ-5 score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ACQ-5 score and visit by treatment group.||0.18|-0.27|= 0.690
91678324|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678325|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678326|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678327|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678328|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678329|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678330|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678331|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678332|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678333|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678334|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678335|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678336|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678337|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678338|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91793673|NCT01423604|183465412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efron approximation of hazard ratio|0.75||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|1.094||Two-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.094|0.513|0.1340
91862463|NCT04719832|183612165|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.001|||=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.088|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, visit, visit by baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and visit by treatment group.||0.088|-0.089|= 0.991
91678339|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678340|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678341|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678342|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678343|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678344|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.8|0.4|
91678345|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678346|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678347|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678348|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678349|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 2. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678350|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678351|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678352|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678353|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678354|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678355|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678356|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678357|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678358|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91793674|NCT01423604|183465414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0236|||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.0236
91793675|NCT05494632|183465424|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||the threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91793676|NCT00403403|183465510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528||||0.0097||95.0|0.323|0.862|||Log Rank||HR estimated from a stratified Cox regression model, stratified for ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2) and chemotherapy type (cisplatin vs. carboplatin)|||0.862|0.323|0.0097
91717505|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.1|-2.4|0.078
91717506|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.7||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||5.7|-2.1|0.367
91717507|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.1|-7.4|0.148
91717508|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.9||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.9|-5.9|0.314
91717509|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||4.7|-2.3|0.494
91717510|NCT02557399|183327767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.3||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||2.3|-3.5|0.684
91717511|NCT02557399|183327768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.3||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.6||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1.The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||4.6|0.1|0.047
91862464|NCT04719832|183612166|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.09|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ANSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ANSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.31|-0.50|= 0.650
91717512|NCT02557399|183327768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.0||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||7.3|-1.3|0.185
91717513|NCT02557399|183327768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.7||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.9||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||9.9|-2.5|0.251
91717514|NCT02557399|183327768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|18.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||18.0|2.4|0.006
91862465|NCT04719832|183612167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.08|||=|0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ADSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ADSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.26|-0.42|= 0.647
91717515|NCT02557399|183327768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|20.4||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||20.4|0.9|0.022
91793677|NCT00403403|183465511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.039|||Log Rank||HR estimated from a stratified Cox regression model, stratified for ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2) and chemotherapy type (cisplatin vs. carboplatin)|||2.039|0.660|0.6054
91793678|NCT00403403|183465512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.3269||95.0|-9.6|29.0|||Chi-squared|||||29.0|-9.6|0.3269
91678359|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678360|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678361|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678362|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678363|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678364|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678365|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678366|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678367|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678368|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678369|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678370|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678371|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678372|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678373|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91793679|NCT00403403|183465514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.305||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.644|||Log Rank||HR estimated from a stratified Cox regression model, stratified for ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2) and chemotherapy type (cisplatin vs. carboplatin)|||0.644|0.144|0.0011
91678374|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678375|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678376|NCT02504671|183250062|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678377|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 4, Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678378|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678379|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91678380|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91678381|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91678382|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91678383|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91678384|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91678385|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678386|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678387|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
91678388|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678389|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678390|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678391|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678392|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678393|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678394|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91678395|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678396|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678397|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678398|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678399|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91862466|NCT04324359|183612169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on the normal approximation test for differences between proportions.||||||<0.001
91717516|NCT02557399|183327769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.8||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||4.3|-0.7|0.129
91678400|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678401|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678402|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678403|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678404|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678405|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678406|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91678407|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678408|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91678409|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678410|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678411|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678412|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 2. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678413|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 4. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.6|||7.9|-2.5|
91678414|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678415|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678416|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91678417|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91678418|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91678419|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91678420|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91678421|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||5.4|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678422|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91793680|NCT01885871|183465542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91678423|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678424|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678425|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678426|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91678427|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678428|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678429|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91678430|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91862467|NCT04324359|183612170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Other: z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.066
91678431|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678432|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91678433|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678434|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678435|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91678436|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678437|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678438|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91678439|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91717517|NCT02557399|183327769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.9||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||5.9|-3.4|0.612
91717518|NCT02557399|183327769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.2||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||13.2|1.1|0.016
91717519|NCT02557399|183327769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.5||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||15.5|0.3|0.034
91717520|NCT02557399|183327769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|21.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||21.3|1.4|0.018
91717521|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.9||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||12.3|-4.5|0.379
91717522|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.7||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|15.1||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||15.1|-5.7|0.409
91717523|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|17.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||17.0|-3.1|0.180
91717524|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.5||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.7||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||7.7|-8.8|0.810
91678440|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
91678441|NCT02504671|183250063|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91678442|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|0.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, SDAI|||0.00|-8.18|0.050
91717525|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.9||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|9.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||9.0|-5.2|0.648
91862468|NCT04324359|183612171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.716
91862469|NCT04324359|183612172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.528|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.528
91862470|NCT04324359|183612173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.766
91678443|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.66||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|0.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||0.52|-7.84|0.086
91678444|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.33||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||-0.23|-8.43|0.038
91678445|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.06||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|1.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||1.05|-9.18|0.119
91678446|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.72||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|0.4||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||0.40|-9.85|0.071
91678447|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.48||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-0.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||-0.42|-10.53|0.034
91678448|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.78||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-0.94||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-0.94|-12.61|0.023
91862471|NCT04324359|183612174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.619
91862472|NCT05239455|183612273|OTHER|The FDA requires one-sided 95% lower confidence limit for the population proportion of success is greater than 70% where success of a unit is defined as the RBC in vivo 24-hour percentage recovery ≥ 75%. Allows for low recoveries (\<75%) in 2/20 or 3/24 volunteers.|95% Confidence Interval|88.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|72.81||||||A one-sided confidence interval for the proportion of successes was determined using the Clopper-Pearson exact method for a 95% confidence interval.|The comparison is to the FDA requirements for in vivo 24-hour recovery of LR-RBC.|Proportion of successes greater than 70% where success of a unit is defined as the RBC in vivo 24-hour percentage recovery ≥ 75% was calculated.||72.81|
91862473|NCT05239455|183612274|OTHER|The FDA criteria requires LR-RBC mean 24-hour recovery ≥ 75% with standard deviation (SD) ≤ 9%||||||||||||||||The comparison is to the FDA requirements for in vivo 24-hour recovery of LR-RBC.|Mean and standard deviation were calculated.|||
91678449|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.28||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|-1.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-1.47|-13.09|0.014
91862474|NCT03701763|183612282|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.1|11.2|<0.0001
91678450|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.99|-3.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-3.47|-14.99|0.002
91678451|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.65||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|0.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||0.32|-11.62|0.063
91678452|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.29||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|-0.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-0.30|-12.28|0.040
91678453|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|-0.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-0.90|-12.69|0.024
91678454|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.58||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.15|-0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-0.01|-13.15|0.050
91862475|NCT03701763|183612283|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|40.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.9|17.8|<0.0001
91862476|NCT03701763|183612284|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|51.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.2|25.6|<0.0001
91862477|NCT03701763|183612285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-26.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.572|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.93|-18.0|||ANCOVA|||||-18.00|-35.93|<0.0001
91678455|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.15||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|-2.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-2.60|-15.71|0.006
91678456|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|-2.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-2.41|-15.32|0.007
91678457|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.91||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|0.68||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||0.68|-14.49|0.074
91678458|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.37||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.99|-2.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-2.74|-17.99|0.008
91678459|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.64|-6.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-6.67|-21.64|<0.001
91678460|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|6.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||6.43|-10.19|0.656
91678461|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|1.19||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||1.19|-15.19|0.093
91678462|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.26||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|0.78||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||0.78|-15.30|0.076
91678463|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|9.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||9.74|-8.14|0.860
91678464|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.71||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|2.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||2.99|-14.40|0.196
91678465|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.48|2.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||2.48|-14.48|0.164
91862478|NCT03701763|183612286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-34.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.229|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.99|-22.55|||ANCOVA|||||-22.55|-46.99|< 0.0001
91862479|NCT03701763|183612287|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|4.1||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.0|-9.8|0.5616
91862480|NCT03701763|183612288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-2.9|0.0009
91717526|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|19.6||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||19.6|-1.3|0.048
91862481|NCT02618577|183612312|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.81||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.08|||Cause-spec. Cox Proport. Hazard model|||||1.08|0.6|0.15
91678466|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.65||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.99|0.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||0.69|-21.99|0.066
91678467|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.25|-5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-5.49|-27.25|0.003
91678468|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-5.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-5.03|-26.30|0.004
91678469|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-0.65||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||-0.65|-8.91|0.024
91678470|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-3.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||-3.70|-11.84|<0.001
91678471|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|-1.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||-1.60|-11.74|0.010
91678472|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|-1.78||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||-1.78|-11.91|0.008
91678473|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-2.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-2.67|-14.20|0.004
91678474|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.26|-6.75||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-6.75|-18.26|<0.001
91678475|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.99|-1.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-1.01|-12.99|0.022
91678476|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.07|-4.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-4.24|-16.07|<0.001
91678477|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-4.66||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-4.66|-17.70|<0.001
91678478|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57|-7.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-7.44|-20.57|<0.001
91678479|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.68||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|-2.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-2.11|-17.26|0.013
91717527|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|20.6||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||20.6|1.8|0.016
91862482|NCT02618577|183612313|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.39||||||||1.39|0.45|
91862483|NCT02618577|183612314|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.18||||||||1.18|0.67|
91862484|NCT02618577|183612315|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|1.16||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53|||Cause-spec. Cox Proport. Hazard model|||||1.53|0.88|0.28
91678480|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-9.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-9.32|-24.39|<0.001
91678481|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.03||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.24|2.18||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||2.18|-14.24|0.149
91678482|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.43||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.32|-1.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||-1.55|-17.32|0.019
91678483|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.59||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|2.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||2.14|-15.32|0.138
91678484|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.99|-0.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||-0.42|-16.99|0.040
91678485|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.77|-4.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-4.98|-26.77|0.005
91862485|NCT02618577|183612316|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|2.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.38|||Cause-spec. Cox Proport. Hazard model|||||3.38|1.3|0.002
91717528|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.6||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|16.9||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||16.9|0.4|0.044
91678486|NCT02504671|183250064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-10.53||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-10.53|-31.20|<0.001
91678487|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||0.20|-7.89|0.063
91678488|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|0.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||0.28|-7.95|0.067
91678489|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.43||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-0.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||-0.39|-8.46|0.032
91678490|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.17||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|0.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||0.84|-9.17|0.102
91678491|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.47||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||1.49|-8.43|0.170
91678492|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-0.27||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||-0.27|-10.13|0.039
91678493|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|-1.57||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-1.57|-12.82|0.012
91678494|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-1.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-1.16|-12.30|0.018
91678495|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.73|-3.66||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-3.66|-14.73|0.001
91678496|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.48||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|0.35||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||0.35|-11.31|0.065
91678497|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.85||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|0.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||-0.00|-11.69|0.050
91678498|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.63||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|-0.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||-0.87|-12.38|0.024
91717529|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.6||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|11.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||11.0|-3.8|0.345
91717530|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.7||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||8.7|-3.5|0.424
91678499|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.41||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|0.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||0.02|-12.84|0.051
91678500|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.97|-2.22||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-2.22|-14.97|0.008
91678501|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.74||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-2.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-2.43|-15.06|0.007
91678502|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.19|0.58||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||0.58|-14.19|0.071
91678503|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.17|-2.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-2.44|-17.17|0.009
91678504|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|-6.59||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-6.59|-21.17|<0.001
91678505|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|6.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||6.26|-9.63|0.676
91678506|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.33||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|1.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||1.44|-14.11|0.110
91678507|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.44||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|1.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||1.23|-14.12|0.099
91678508|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|9.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||9.69|-7.61|0.812
91678509|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.39||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|2.96||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||2.96|-13.75|0.204
91678510|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|2.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||2.30|-14.09|0.157
91678511|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.37||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|1.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||1.42|-20.15|0.088
91678512|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-4.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-4.83|-25.40|0.004
91678513|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|-4.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-4.80|-25.01|0.004
91678514|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.89||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||0.17|-7.96|0.060
91678515|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-3.36||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||-3.36|-11.42|<0.001
91678516|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|-1.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||-1.14|-11.06|0.016
91678517|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|-1.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||-1.91|-11.78|0.007
91678518|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.92||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.48|-2.37||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-2.37|-13.48|0.005
91678519|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|-6.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-6.64|-17.74|<0.001
91678520|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.62||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|0.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||0.21|-11.45|0.059
91678521|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|-4.38||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||-4.38|-15.97|<0.001
91678522|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|-4.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-4.00|-16.75|0.002
91678523|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|-7.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-7.41|-20.18|<0.001
91678524|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|-2.31||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-2.31|-17.03|0.010
91678525|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.97|-9.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-9.30|-23.97|<0.001
91678526|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.53||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|2.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||2.30|-13.37|0.165
91678527|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.85||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.39|-1.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||-1.32|-16.39|0.022
91678528|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.55||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.99|1.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||1.89|-14.99|0.127
91678529|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.67||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|-0.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||-0.67|-16.67|0.034
91678530|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.43||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|-5.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-5.07|-25.78|0.004
91678531|NCT02504671|183250065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-10.06||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-10.06|-29.70|<0.001
91678532|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.16|-0.14|0.938
91717531|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|5.5||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||5.5|-9.4|0.527
91717532|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.3||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.4||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||13.4|-6.7|0.584
91794484|NCT04340063|183467924|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55||Effect of time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant was used and fixed effects were time (assessment order) and a time by group interaction (Treadmill or Movement Amplification). A binomial distribution was used for this model.||0.55|0.25|<0.001
91862486|NCT02618577|183612317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|EQ-5D-5L UK Index||0.01|-0.02|
91678533|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.15||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.15|-0.15|0.981
91678534|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.14|-0.16|0.857
91678535|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.22||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.22|-0.13|0.592
91678536|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.18||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.18|-0.16|0.917
91678537|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.12|-0.23|0.545
91678538|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.24|-0.16|0.707
91678539|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.15|0.603
91678540|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.27|0.473
91678541|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.22||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.22|-0.21|0.987
91678542|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.17|-0.25|0.713
91678543|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.11|-0.31|0.357
91678544|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.19|0.748
91678545|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.11|-0.34|0.327
91678546|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.32|0.395
91678547|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.21|-0.30|0.710
91678548|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.21|-0.30|0.740
91678549|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.14|-0.36|0.398
91678550|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.52|-0.19|0.364
91678551|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.46|-0.23|0.503
91678552|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.42|0.647
91862487|NCT02618577|183612317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.38|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|EQ-5D-5L VAS, FU 24months||1.38|-1.46|
91862488|NCT02618577|183612317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.09|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|Karnofsky score||1.09|-0.56|
91862489|NCT02618577|183612318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.87|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|PACT-Q convenience||0.87|-1.12|
91862490|NCT02618577|183612318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.52|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|PACT-Q satisfaction||0.52|-2.60|
91862491|NCT02618577|183612321|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.96||||||||0.96|0.27|
91862492|NCT02618577|183612322|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.31||||||||1.31|0.62|
91678553|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.33|-0.37|0.910
91862493|NCT05192109|183612323|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of condition.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
91862494|NCT05192109|183612323|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of diagnostic group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||0.93
91862495|NCT05192109|183612323|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the interaction between condition and group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
91862496|NCT05192109|183612324|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of condition.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
91862497|NCT05192109|183612324|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||0.22
91678554|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.42|0.660
91862498|NCT05192109|183612324|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the interaction between condition and group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
91862499|NCT04489771|183612330|SUPERIORITY|P-value, difference in percentage and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk categories (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Difference in Percentage|-0.5||||0.5312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|12.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Belzutifan 200 mg minus Belzutifan 120 mg|||12.9|-14.0|0.5312
91862500|NCT04489771|183612331|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.4||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Log Rank|One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|||1.40|0.63|0.3861
91678555|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.17|-0.50|0.340
91678556|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.39|-0.34|0.902
91678557|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.28|-0.42|0.687
91794485|NCT04340063|183467924|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.16||Interaction effect for time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments) by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.22|0.8
91862501|NCT04489771|183612333|OTHER|One-sided nominal p-value, difference in percentage and associated 95% CIs were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Miettinen & Nurminen method|-6.3||||0.7832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.4|-21.7|0.7832
91678558|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.25||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.25|-0.44|0.599
91678559|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.11|-0.19|0.588
91678560|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.06||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.06|-0.23|0.259
91678561|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.09|-0.26|0.358
91678562|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.09|-0.26|0.325
91678563|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.28|0.473
91678564|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.02|-0.38|0.085
91678565|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.23|-0.20|0.897
91678566|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.01|-0.42|0.065
91678567|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.09|-0.36|0.238
91678568|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.02|-0.44|0.071
91678569|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.38|0.340
91678570|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.01|-0.49|0.059
91678571|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.44|-0.26|0.607
91678572|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.32|-0.34|0.959
91678573|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.20|-0.49|0.401
91678574|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.12|-0.54|0.207
91678575|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.27||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.27|-0.44|0.637
91678576|NCT02504671|183250066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.14|-0.53|0.251
91678577|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|4.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||4.90|-9.81|0.511
91678578|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|4.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||4.60|-10.13|0.461
91678579|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.71||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-0.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||-0.39|-15.03|0.039
91678580|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|5.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||5.01|-10.86|0.469
91678581|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.99||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|1.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||1.85|-13.82|0.133
91678582|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.58||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||0.23|-15.40|0.057
91678583|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.03||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|5.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||5.61|-11.67|0.490
91678584|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.38||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|-0.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||-0.86|-17.91|0.031
91678585|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.21||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.67|-3.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||-3.74|-20.67|0.005
91678586|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.49||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|4.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||4.85|-13.83|0.345
91678587|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.02||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|1.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||1.26|-17.30|0.090
91678588|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.36||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.55|0.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||0.83|-17.55|0.074
91678589|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.61||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.57|4.34||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||4.34|-15.57|0.268
91678590|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|-4.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-4.70|-24.43|0.004
91678591|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.94||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.72|-4.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-4.16|-23.72|0.005
91678592|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.02||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|3.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||3.32|-17.36|0.182
91678593|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.15||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.42|-3.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-3.87|-24.42|0.007
91678594|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.35|-8.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-8.01|-28.35|<0.001
91678595|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.89||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|10.36||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||10.36|-20.15|0.527
91678596|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.95||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.72|-1.19||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||-1.19|-30.72|0.034
91678597|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.86||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|0.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||0.70|-28.42|0.062
91678598|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|13.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||13.47|-14.85|0.924
91678599|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.17||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.82|0.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||0.48|-26.82|0.058
91678600|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.49||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.91|-0.08||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||-0.08|-26.91|0.049
91678601|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.38||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.84|10.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||10.07|-22.84|0.445
91678602|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.14||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.87|5.58||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||5.58|-25.87|0.205
91678603|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.07||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.55|3.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||3.41|-27.55|0.125
91678604|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.93||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|2.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||2.41|-12.26|0.187
91678605|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.63||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|1.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||1.67|-12.93|0.130
91678606|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.85||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||0.03|-15.72|0.051
91862502|NCT04489771|183612334|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.9||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Log Rank|One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|||1.90|0.65|0.6448
91862503|NCT05292872|183612341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.752||1-sided p-values are proportion of bootstrap replicates exceeding null (defined as a HR of 1) in each direction), and the two-tailed p-value is twice the smaller of one-tailed p-values. A two-tailed p-value was calculated for HR using this method.|Nonparametric bootstrap approach|||||0.752|0.143|<.001
91862504|NCT02561585|183612345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|11.65||t-test in a baseline adjusted linear model|t-test, 2 sided|t-test, 2 sided on a 5% level||||11.65|-12.05|0.97
91678607|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.44||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|-2.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||-2.60|-18.27|0.009
91678608|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.94||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.47|0.58||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||0.58|-16.47|0.068
91678609|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.47|-5.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||-5.44|-22.47|0.001
91678610|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.36||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.62|1.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||1.89|-16.62|0.118
91678611|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.43||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|-3.19||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||-3.19|-21.68|0.009
91862505|NCT04059484|183612393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.051||||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.4||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025 level.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on presence of visceral metastasis, prior treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors and ECOG according to IRT.|Amcenestrant versus PCEM|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to ensure a strong control of the overall Type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures was reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at one-sided 2.5% for the primary and the first secondary outcome.||1.4|0.789|0.6437
91862506|NCT04292223|183612406|OTHER|Comparison of the 16-week value with the baseline value|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.3|8.8|<0.0001
91862507|NCT00753545|183612412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.49|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||0.49|0.25|<0.00001
91862508|NCT00753545|183612413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||0.95|0.55|0.02
91862509|NCT00753545|183612417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-27.1||||0.03185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-2.4|||ANCOVA|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||LS mean \< 0 favours olaparib||-2.4|-51.9|0.03185
91862510|NCT00753545|183612421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.47|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||0.47|0.25|<0.00001
91678612|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|-6.65||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-6.65|-26.38|0.001
91678613|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.27|-10.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-10.52|-30.27|<0.001
91678614|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.27|-1.73||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-1.73|-22.27|0.022
91678615|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|-7.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-7.70|-28.18|<0.001
91678616|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.2||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|1.79||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||1.79|-28.18|0.084
91678617|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.87||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|2.27||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||2.27|-26.02|0.099
91678618|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.91||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.68|-0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||-0.14|-27.68|0.048
91678619|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.22||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.32|-0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||-0.13|-26.32|0.048
91678620|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.23||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.11|2.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||2.64|-29.11|0.102
91862511|NCT00753545|183612425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.71|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||1.71|0.88|0.22
91862512|NCT00753545|183612426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.56|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||1.56|0.75|0.67
91678621|NCT02504671|183250067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.79|-1.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||-1.62|-31.79|0.030
91862513|NCT00753545|183612427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.64|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||1.64|0.83|0.38
91678622|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|3.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||3.52|-2.31|0.683
91678623|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.19||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|6.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||6.07|0.31|0.030
91678624|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.61||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|5.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||5.47|-0.25|0.074
91678625|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|4.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, PCS|||4.80|-1.88|0.390
91678626|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|5.75||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, PCS|||5.75|-0.91|0.154
91678627|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, PCS|||5.02|-1.56|0.302
91678628|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.88||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||6.88|-3.50|0.521
91678629|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|6.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||6.20|-3.63|0.606
91678630|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|7.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||7.32|-2.41|0.320
91678631|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|3.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||3.64|-4.65|0.811
91678632|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|4.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||4.55|-3.65|0.830
91678633|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|3.54||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||3.54|-4.61|0.795
91678634|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||5.64|-3.00|0.548
91678635|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|5.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||5.77|-2.85|0.505
91678636|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|5.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||5.39|-3.15|0.605
91678637|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||6.90|-6.03|0.895
91678638|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|8.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||8.42|-3.84|0.461
91678639|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||4.99|-7.10|0.732
91678640|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.88||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily Pain|||2.88|-3.11|0.941
91678641|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.73||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|6.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily Pain|||6.67|0.78|0.013
91678642|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.92||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|5.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily Pain|||5.84|-0.01|0.051
91862514|NCT03839940|183612499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.9999
91862515|NCT03839940|183612500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3346
91862516|NCT03839940|183612516|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.70361|||||||Fisher Exact|||Female Population.||||< 0.70361
91862517|NCT03839940|183612516|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.4667|||||||Fisher Exact|||Male population.||||<0.4667
91862518|NCT03839940|183612517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Black or African American population||||<1.0
91678643|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|5.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily Pain|||5.12|-2.07|0.403
91678644|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.82||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|6.4||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily Pain|||6.40|-0.76|0.122
91678645|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.08||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|5.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily Pain|||5.62|-1.45|0.247
91678646|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.85||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|9.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily Pain|||9.32|-3.61|0.384
91678647|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.05||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|11.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily Pain|||11.16|-1.07|0.105
91678648|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.21||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|9.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily Pain|||9.17|-2.76|0.290
91678649|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, General Health|||2.50|-3.52|0.738
91678650|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|3.97||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, General Health|||3.97|-1.99|0.513
91678651|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|3.08||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, General Health|||3.08|-2.83|0.934
91678652|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|3.68||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, General Health|||3.68|-2.43|0.687
91678653|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.85||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, General Health|||4.91|-1.20|0.233
91678654|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|3.59||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, General Health|||3.59|-2.44|0.708
91678655|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.29||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|8.93||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, General Health|||8.93|-2.34|0.250
91678656|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.76||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|8.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, General Health|||8.09|-2.57|0.307
91678657|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|7.79||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, General Health|||7.79|-2.74|0.345
91678658|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Mental Health|||0.52|-0.19|0.950
91678659|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|4.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Mental Health|||4.87|-3.11|0.664
91678660|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.96||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Mental Health|||3.96|-3.99|0.994
91678661|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|7.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Mental Health|||7.03|-1.84|0.250
91678662|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.21||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|7.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Mental Health|||7.64|-1.22|0.154
91678663|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|6.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Mental Health|||6.89|-1.88|0.262
91678664|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|7.93||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Mental Health|||7.93|-5.28|0.693
91678665|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.28||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|9.54||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Mental Health|||9.54|-2.98|0.302
91862519|NCT03839940|183612517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||White population||||<1.0
91862520|NCT03839940|183612518|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Not Hispanic or Latino population.||||<1.0
91862521|NCT03839940|183612519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1701|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Female population.||||<0.1701
91862522|NCT03839940|183612519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.4811|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Male population.||||<0.4811
91678666|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|6.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Mental Health|||6.77|-5.54|0.844
91678667|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|4.04||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Physical Functioning|||4.04|-2.71|0.698
91678668|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.38||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|5.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Physical Functioning|||5.70|-0.94|0.159
91678669|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Physical Functioning|||4.83|-1.76|0.360
91678670|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.82||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|6.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Physical Functioning|||6.69|-1.04|0.151
91678671|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.01||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|6.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Physical Functioning|||6.86|-0.83|0.124
91678672|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|6.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Physical Functioning|||6.80|-0.79|0.120
91678673|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|4.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Physical Functioning|||4.70|-5.98|0.814
91678674|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|4.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Physical Functioning|||4.67|-5.49|0.873
91678675|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Physical Functioning|||5.26|-4.80|0.928
91678676|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|2.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Emotional|||2.86|-5.44|0.541
91678677|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.81||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Emotional|||2.81|-5.39|0.535
91678678|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Emotional|||3.05|-5.10|0.620
91678679|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|4.76||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Emotional|||4.76|-4.08|0.881
91678680|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|5.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,Role Emotional|||5.07|-3.74|0.767
91678681|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|4.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Emotional|||4.61|-4.12|0.913
91678682|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|7.63||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Emotional|||7.63|-5.81|0.790
91678683|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|6.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Emotional|||6.87|-5.86|0.876
91678684|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|4.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Emotional|||4.99|-7.59|0.684
91678685|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Physical|||4.01|-2.28|0.588
91678686|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|5.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Physical|||5.00|-1.21|0.229
91678687|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Physical|||5.49|-0.67|0.125
91678688|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|4.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Physical|||4.12|-2.92|0.736
91678689|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Physical|||5.23|-1.80|0.338
91678690|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|4.4||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Physical|||4.40|-2.55|0.600
91862523|NCT03839940|183612520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Black or African American Population||||<1.0
91678691|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|6.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Physical|||6.86|-4.34|0.657
91862524|NCT03839940|183612520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.5029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||White Population||||<0.5029
91862525|NCT03839940|183612521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.295|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Not Hispanic or Latino Population||||<0.2950
91862526|NCT05210608|183612528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether significant changes occurred between baseline and the post-treatment assessment.||2.18|-.85|.29
91678692|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|5.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Physical|||5.17|-5.41|0.965
91678693|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|6.37||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Physical|||6.37|-4.14|0.675
91678694|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|3.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||3.89|-4.54|0.880
91678695|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||7.33|-1.00|0.135
91678696|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|4.71||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||4.71|-3.56|0.785
91678697|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|4.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||4.80|-3.69|0.797
91678698|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||4.23|-4.23|>0.999
91678699|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|4.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||4.46|-3.91|0.896
91678700|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.02|4.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||4.24|-10.02|0.424
91678701|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|6.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||6.29|-7.16|0.898
91678702|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.79||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|2.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||2.84|-10.42|0.260
91678703|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|4.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||4.90|-2.85|0.603
91678704|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|7.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||7.39|-0.26|0.068
91678705|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|6.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||6.43|-1.17|0.174
91678706|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.97||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|5.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||5.98|-2.04|0.334
91678707|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.91||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|6.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||6.91|-1.09|0.153
91678708|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|6.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||6.13|-1.78|0.279
91678709|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|8.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,Vitality|||8.91|-5.04|0.584
91678710|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.15||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|9.73||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||9.73|-3.44|0.346
91678711|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|9.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||9.48|-3.55|0.370
91678712|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.94||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||5.83|0.06|0.045
91862527|NCT05210608|183612528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|5.79||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether significant changes occurred between baseline and the 1 month follow up||5.79|-3.45|.48
91678713|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|7.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||7.01|1.22|0.006
91678714|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.89||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|5.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,PCS|||5.23|-1.44|0.264
91678715|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.55||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|6.88||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,PCS|||6.88|0.22|0.037
91862528|NCT05210608|183612529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.8|=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|102.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in number of total cigarettes smoked per week from baseline to Post-treatment.||102.10|19.90|=0.015
91678716|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.16||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|7.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||7.14|-2.81|0.392
91678717|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|6.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for PCS Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||6.39|-3.09|0.493
91678718|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|5.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for MCS Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||5.26|-2.94|0.577
91678719|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for MCS Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||4.20|-4.01|0.964
91678720|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.97||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||6.28|-2.35|0.370
91678721|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.25||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|7.54||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||7.54|-1.05|0.138
91678722|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|7.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||7.56|-4.85|0.667
91678723|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.79||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|7.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||7.56|-4.85|0.203
91678724|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.45||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily pain|||6.41|0.49|0.023
91678725|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily pain|||8.03|2.14|<0.001
91862529|NCT05210608|183612529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.69||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.57|142.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in number of total cigarettes smoked per week from baseline to 1 month follow-up.||142.57|-14.57|.08
91678726|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|5.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily pain|||5.70|-1.49|0.249
91678727|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.43||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|6.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily pain|||6.99|-0.13|0.059
91678728|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.72||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|10.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily pain|||10.90|-1.47|0.134
91678729|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|10.97||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily pain|||10.97|-0.58|0.078
91678730|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|4.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, General health|||4.62|-1.32|0.275
91678731|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, General health|||4.91|-1.03|0.199
91678732|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, General health|||3.74|-2.36|0.654
91678733|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|5.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, General health|||5.33|-0.74|0.138
91678734|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|7.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, General health|||7.17|-3.62|0.516
91678735|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|8.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, General health|||8.46|-1.77|0.198
91678736|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|3.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Mental health|||3.84|-4.15|0.941
91678737|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|4.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Mental health|||4.05|-3.94|0.979
91862530|NCT05210608|183612530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|8.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in carbon monoxide ppm from baseline to Post-treatment.||8.86|-9.86|.90
91678738|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|6.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Mental health|||6.84|-2.03|0.287
91678739|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.45||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|7.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Mental health|||7.85|-0.96|0.125
91678740|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.15||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|8.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Mental health|||8.49|-4.18|0.503
91678741|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.01||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|10.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24,Mental health|||10.98|-0.96|0.099
91678742|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|5.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Physical functioning|||5.21|-1.45|0.268
91678743|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.45||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|5.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Physical functioning|||5.77|-0.87|0.147
91678744|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.87||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|6.73||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Physical functioning|||6.73|-0.99|0.145
91678745|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.54||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Physical functioning|||8.61|0.97|0.014
91678746|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|5.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Physical functioning|||5.61|-4.66|0.856
91794486|NCT04340063|183467924|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.09||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.36||Effect of time (post-training and follow-up assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used. A binomial distribution was used for this model.||0.36|-0.18|0.5
91678747|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|5.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Physical functioning|||5.55|-4.24|0.793
91862531|NCT05210608|183612530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.42|22.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant difference in carbon monoxide ppm from baseline to the 1 month follow-up.||22.42|-49.42|.32
91678748|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|4.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role emotional|||4.69|-3.51|0.778
91678749|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role emotional|||3.50|-4.70|0.773
91678750|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role emotional|||5.49|-3.34|0.631
91678751|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.68||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|7.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role emotional|||7.07|-1.71|0.230
91678752|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role emotional|||6.84|-6.03|0.901
91678753|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|8.59||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role emotional|||8.59|-3.54|0.412
91678754|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role physical|||4.98|-1.22|0.234
91678755|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.66||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|5.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role physical|||5.77|-0.46|0.094
91678756|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|4.94||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role physical|||4.94|-2.08|0.423
91678757|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|6.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role physical|||6.86|-0.16|0.061
91862532|NCT05210608|183612531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|19.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in working memory scores from baseline to post-treatment.||19.10|-5.10|.18
91862533|NCT05210608|183612531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.38|7.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in working memory scores from baseline to the 1 month follow up.||7.38|-25.38|.18
91862534|NCT04963270|183612532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.16|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.16|-1.88|0.0196
91678758|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|6.57||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role physical|||6.57|-4.16|0.657
91678759|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|5.95||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role physical|||5.95|-4.22|0.737
91678760|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.95||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|7.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||7.11|-1.22|0.165
91678761|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|7.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||7.56|-0.77|0.109
91862535|NCT04963270|183612533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.22|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.22|-1.82|0.0123
91862536|NCT04963270|183612534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-12.7||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis||1.9|-27.3|0.088
91862537|NCT04963270|183612535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-10.5||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis||3.3|-24.2|0.137
91678762|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|6.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||6.21|-2.26|0.359
91678763|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|8.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||8.56|0.14|0.043
91678764|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|6.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||6.49|-7.15|0.923
91678765|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|6.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||6.70|-6.11|0.927
91678766|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||8.46|0.82|0.018
91862538|NCT04963270|183612536|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.46|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.46|-2.80|0.0062
91862539|NCT04963270|183612537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted Mean|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.56|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.56|-2.80|0.0034
91678767|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|7.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||7.17|-0.49|0.087
91678768|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.64||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|6.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||6.64|-1.35|0.193
91678769|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.97||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|7.95||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||7.95|-0.01|0.051
91678770|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|10.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||10.02|-3.31|0.321
91678771|NCT02504671|183250068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|9.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||9.44|-3.18|0.328
91678772|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||2.67|-3.97|0.701
91678773|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|4.78||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||4.78|-1.79|0.370
91862540|NCT04963270|183612538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|0.34|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||0.34|-3.36|0.1094
91862541|NCT04963270|183612539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.27|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||0.27|-3.05|0.0999
91862542|NCT04963270|183612540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-0.04|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.04|-4.36|0.0456
91862543|NCT04963270|183612541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.11|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.11|-4.10|0.0382
91862544|NCT04963270|183612542|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-18.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-3.9|-33.5|0.013
91862545|NCT04963270|183612543|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-22.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-7.9|-36.2|0.002
91678774|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|5.81||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||5.81|-0.71|0.125
91678775|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.92||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|5.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||5.50|-1.66|0.292
91678776|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.11||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|6.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT sscore|||6.11|-1.04|0.163
91678777|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.08||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|6.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||6.61|-0.46|0.087
91678778|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.92||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||6.92|-5.40|0.808
91678779|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|5.38||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||5.38|-6.31|0.874
91678780|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|4.95||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,FACIT score|||4.95|-6.58|0.780
91678781|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||6.85|0.29|0.033
91678782|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.81||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|6.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||6.10|-0.48|0.094
91678783|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.92||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|7.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||7.49|0.34|0.032
91678784|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.33||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|8.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||8.89|1.77|0.004
91678785|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|6.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||6.64|-5.19|0.808
91678786|NCT02504671|183250069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.87||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|7.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||7.48|-3.74|0.511
91678787|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||0.90|-1.04|0.888
91678788|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||0.46|-1.46|0.307
91678789|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.04||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||-0.04|-1.95|0.041
91678790|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||0.32|-1.60|0.191
91678791|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.24|-2.16|0.014
91678792|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.45||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.45|-2.34|0.004
91678793|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||1.23|-1.94|0.656
91678794|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.57||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||1.57|-1.43|0.928
91678795|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||1.28|-1.68|0.788
91678796|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||-0.30|-2.22|0.010
91678797|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||0.03|-1.89|0.059
91678798|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.48|-2.40|0.003
91678799|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.62|-2.53|0.001
91862546|NCT04963270|183612544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.41|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-1.41|-4.57|0.0002
91862547|NCT04963270|183612545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-1.53|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-1.53|-4.47|<0.0001
91678800|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.76||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||0.76|-2.28|0.324
91678801|NCT02504671|183250070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||0.87|-2.02|0.432
91862548|NCT04963270|183612546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-21.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-6.6|-35.4|0.004
91862549|NCT04963270|183612547|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-19.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-5.9|-32.8|0.005
91678802|NCT04280705|183250077|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.49|||Log Rank|||||1.49|1.12|<0.001
91678803|NCT04280705|183250101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Barnard's Exact Test|||||||0.058
91678804|NCT04280705|183250102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Barnard's Exact Test|||||||0.010
91678805|NCT04280705|183250114|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.41|||Log Rank|||||1.41|1.08|0.002
91678806|NCT04280705|183250115|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|1.12|<0.001
91862550|NCT04963270|183612548|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-1.7||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|-19.4|0.847
91862551|NCT04963270|183612549|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-4.3||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|6.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.7|-15.4|0.441
91862552|NCT04963270|183612550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|8.5||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|19.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19|-2.1|0.115
91678807|NCT04280705|183250116|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|1.10|<0.001
91678808|NCT04280705|183250117|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.58||||||This analysis is for Asian participants||1.58|0.73|
91678809|NCT04280705|183250117|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.72||||||This analysis is for Black or African American participants||1.72|0.91|
91678810|NCT04280705|183250117|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.57||||||This analysis is for White participants||1.57|1.06|
91678811|NCT04280705|183250117|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.58||||||This analysis is for Race of Other participants||2.58|1.10|
91678812|NCT04280705|183250118|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.55||||||This analysis is for Not Hispanic or Latino participants||1.55|1.10|
91678813|NCT04280705|183250118|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.73||||||This analysis is for Hispanic or Latino participants||1.73|0.94|
91678814|NCT04280705|183250119|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.56||||||This analysis is for Male participants||1.56|1.09|
91678815|NCT04280705|183250119|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.66||||||This analysis is for Female participants||1.66|1.03|
91678816|NCT03222583|183250127|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants in Arm A with SVR12 was non-inferior to the historical SVR12 rate of 96% if the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage was \> 90%.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|98.9||||||In order to control the Type I error rate, a fixed sequence testing procedure was used for the 3 ranked primary efficacy endpoints. Only if success had been demonstrated for the first primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the second primary endpoint. Similarly, only if success had been demonstrated for the second primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the third primary endpoint.||98.9|95.5|
91678817|NCT03222583|183250128|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of GT1-infected participants in Arm A with SVR12 was non-inferior to the historical SVR12 rate of 97% if the LCB of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage was \> 91%.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|100.0||||||In order to control the Type I error rate, a fixed sequence testing procedure was used for the 3 ranked primary efficacy endpoints. Only if success had been demonstrated for the first primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the second primary endpoint. Similarly, only if success had been demonstrated for the second primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the third primary endpoint.||100.0|98.3|
91678818|NCT03222583|183250129|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of GT2-infected participants in Arm A with SVR12 was non-inferior to the historical SVR12 rate of 95% if the LCB of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage was \> 89%.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|100.0||||||In order to control the Type I error rate, a fixed sequence testing procedure was used for the 3 ranked primary efficacy endpoints. Only if success had been demonstrated for the first primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the second primary endpoint. Similarly, only if success had been demonstrated for the second primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the third primary endpoint.||100.0|95.4|
91862553|NCT04963270|183612551|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|8.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|-1|0.077
91862554|NCT04963270|183612552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|-6.77||||0.1314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.25|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.70|-17.25|0.1314
91862555|NCT04963270|183612553|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Risk Difference|-5.07||||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|4.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.61|-14.74|0.2264
91862556|NCT04963270|183612554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.29|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||6.29|0.59|0.0179
91862557|NCT04963270|183612555|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Adjusted Mean|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.42|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||6.42|1.04|0.0066
91862558|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|17.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||17.86|-17.81|0.998
91678819|NCT03986138|183250139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|1.6||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.60|1.46|< 0.0001
91678820|NCT03986138|183250139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.58||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||0.58|0.36|<0.0001
91678821|NCT03986138|183250139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|1.78||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.78|1.65|<0.0001
91678822|NCT03986138|183250139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|1.87||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.87|1.76|<0.0001
91678823|NCT03986138|183250139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.64||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||0.64|0.42|<0.0001
91678824|NCT03986138|183250139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|2.11||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||2.11|1.95|<0.0001
91678825|NCT03986138|183250139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|2.72||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||2.72|2.56|<0.0001
91692377|NCT02770170|183279666|OTHER|||||||0.7367||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Emax model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.7367
91692378|NCT02770170|183279666|OTHER|||||||0.6624||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod exponential model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.6624
91793681|NCT05454657|183465573|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis||Cross-level interaction effect of Study Day X Treatment Group|To test the effect of HRVB vs control on negative affect, a multilevel model was estimated where study day predicted mean negative affect that same day (L1; within-person), while controlling for day-of-the-week. At Level 2 (between-person), treatment condition and sex were included as predictors of negative affect. The focal effects were the main effect of treatment condition (L2) and cross-level interactions between study day (L1) and treatment condition (L2) predicting daily negative affect.||-.008|-.015|<.05
91862559|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.73|10.93||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||10.93|-24.73|0.445
91862560|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|20.36||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||20.36|-15.33|0.781
91678826|NCT03986138|183250139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|1.96||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 2. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.96|1.68|<0.0001
91678827|NCT03986138|183250139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|2.41||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||2.41|2.26|<0.0001
91678828|NCT03986138|183250140|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.05|-0.05|<0.0001
91678829|NCT03986138|183250140|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.10|-0.05|<0.0001
91678830|NCT03986138|183250140|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.01||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.01|-0.10|<0.0001
91678831|NCT03986138|183250140|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1||0.05|-0.06|<0.0001
91678832|NCT03986138|183250140|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2||0.07|-0.07|<0.0001
91678833|NCT03986138|183250140|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3||0.02|-0.08|<0.0001
91678834|NCT03986138|183250140|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1||0.09|-0.06|<0.0001
91678835|NCT03986138|183250140|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 2||0.12|-0.07|<0.0001
91678836|NCT03986138|183250140|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3||0.04|-0.08|<0.0001
91678837|NCT03182244|183250155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.612||||0.00152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.832|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per interactive response technology (IRT).|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||0.832|0.451|0.00152
91862561|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|14.75||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||14.75|-20.93|0.732
91678838|NCT03182244|183250156|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.589||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.792|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||0.792|0.438|0.00005
91678839|NCT03182244|183250157|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.9||||0.04256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||17.5|0.3|0.04256
91678840|NCT03182244|183250158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.163||||0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|10.338|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||10.338|0.131|0.88710
91678841|NCT03182244|183250159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.55969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|2.414|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||2.414|0.209|0.55969
91678842|NCT03182244|183250160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.583||||0.66261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|13.048|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||13.048|0.192|0.66261
91678843|NCT03182244|183250161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.756||||0.55731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.999|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||1.999|0.286|0.55731
91862562|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|29.14||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||29.14|-6.53|0.212
91678844|NCT03182244|183250162|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|17.7||||0.00049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||27.5|7.9|0.00049
91678845|NCT03182244|183250164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.56944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|1.487|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||1.487|0.494|0.56944
91678846|NCT03182244|183250165|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|31.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|42.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||42.3|20.2|<0.00001
91678847|NCT03182244|183250171|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|14.7||||0.00055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|22.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||22.8|6.5|0.00055
91678848|NCT03182244|183250172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.6||||0.14841||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment as a fixed factor, baseline score, response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT as covariates. LS Mean difference was estimated using chemotherapy as control.|ANCOVA|||||||0.14841
91678849|NCT04709835|183250200|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|0.27|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 3||0.27|-0.49|0.7144
91678850|NCT04709835|183250200|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.3373|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.74|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 5||0.74|-0.11|0.3373
91678851|NCT04709835|183250200|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.66|0.16|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 7||0.16|-0.66|0.4260
91678852|NCT04709835|183250201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.53|1.74|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||1.74|0.53|
91862563|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.27|11.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||11.39|-24.27|0.476
91678853|NCT04709835|183250201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|2.32|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||2.32|0.76|
91678854|NCT04709835|183250202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.44|1.7|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||1.70|0.44|
91678855|NCT04709835|183250202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|2.03|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||2.03|0.56|
91862564|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|18.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||18.26|-17.40|0.962
91862565|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|31.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||31.16|-6.96|0.211
91862566|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|21.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||21.73|-16.40|0.782
91862567|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.72||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|33.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||33.78|-4.34|0.129
91862568|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.27||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|32.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||32.35|-5.80|0.171
91862569|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.56||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|34.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||34.62|-3.49|0.108
91862570|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|23.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||23.30|-14.83|0.661
91862571|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.21||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|33.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||33.27|-4.85|0.142
91862572|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.98||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|31.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||31.04|-7.08|0.216
91678856|NCT04709835|183250203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|10.16|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 3||10.16|-0.16|
91678857|NCT04709835|183250203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.2|5.41|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 3||5.41|-9.20|
91862573|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.38||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|26.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||26.48|-11.71|0.445
91862574|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.13||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|35.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||35.19|-2.92|0.096
91678858|NCT04709835|183250203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|5.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.82|16.4|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 5||16.40|-4.82|
91862575|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.89||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|30.96|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||30.96|-7.19|0.220
91862576|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.71||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|31.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||31.78|-6.35|0.189
91862577|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|16.41|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||16.41|-21.75|0.782
91862578|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|25.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||25.18|-12.98|0.528
91862579|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.45|20.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||20.12|-15.45|0.795
91862580|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.13||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.96|11.69|||mean difference|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||11.69|-23.96|0.497
91678859|NCT04709835|183250203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.4|10.65|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 5||10.65|-12.40|
91678860|NCT04709835|183250203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.64|15.42|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 7||15.42|-10.64|
91678861|NCT04709835|183250203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.39|12.88|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 7||12.88|-13.39|
91862581|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.44||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|25.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||25.21|-10.34|0.409
91862582|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.89||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|25.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||25.70|-9.92|0.382
91793682|NCT05454657|183465574|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|0.857|||Mixed Models Analysis||Cross-level interaction effect of Study Day X Treatment Group|To test the effect of HRVB vs. control on positive affect, a multilevel model was estimated where study day predicted mean positive affect that same day (L1; within-person), while controlling for day-of-the-week. At Level 2 (between-person), treatment condition and sex were included as predictors of positive affect. The focal effects were the main effect of treatment condition (L2) and cross-level interactions between study day (L1) and treatment condition (L2) predicting daily positive affect.||.857|-.677|<.05
91862583|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.74||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|25.54|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||25.54|-10.05|0.390
91678862|NCT04709835|183250215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.7351|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.28|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 3||0.28|-0.48|0.7351
91678863|NCT04709835|183250215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7524|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 5||0.30|-0.50|0.7524
91678864|NCT04709835|183250215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.33|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 7||0.33|-0.48|0.8083
91678865|NCT03347422|183250230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|88.04||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by baseline hemoglobin (\< median versus \>=median) and geographic region (Asia/Other, North America, and Europe).|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||88.04|2.88|<0.001
91678866|NCT03347422|183250232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.38||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||3.38|1.75|<0.001
91678867|NCT03347422|183250233|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|13.85||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||13.85|4.00|<0.001
91862584|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.72||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.54|14.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||14.10|-21.54|0.680
91678868|NCT02633488|183250275|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence defined as less that 2 SD in FMD between 2 treatments|||||>|0.05||||||FMD % change exceeded the threshold of our statistical significance test, i.e. the null hypothesis that there was no effect of metformin remained tenable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91678869|NCT01383135|183250301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||||||GraphPad (GraphPad Software, San Diego, Calif) was used for the paired two-sample t test and was performed to compare SUVmax values. P \< .05 was considered to indicate a significant difference|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison made between baseline tumor values and tumor values 6-weeks post-bevacizumab therapy||||.034
91862585|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.99|18.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||18.65|-16.99|0.927
91678870|NCT03397771|183250319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.963
91678871|NCT03397771|183250320|NON_INFERIORITY|The analysis was conducted according to the nul hypothesis, assuming no difference between treatment arms||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.022
91678872|NCT02605993|183250374|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253. A sample size of 20 participants from the combined cohorts was required to provide approximately 95% power to detect a mean paired difference in LDH from Baseline of -40% at Day 253 for Cohorts 1 to 4, with an estimated standard deviation (SD) of 45%. This was based on a 2-sided paired t-test, with 5% type I error rate. To account for a possible 15% dropout rate, up to 26 participants were enrolled.||||<0.0001
91692379|NCT02770170|183279666|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.292|7.288|||Regression, Logistic|include treatment and covariates, race (Asian or non-Asian), proteinuria at screening (\<3g/day or \>= 3g/day)|Confidence intervals calculated using delta method|||7.288|-27.292|0.4645
91717533|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.9||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|14.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||14.3|-6.5|0.519
91717534|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.8||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.5||The P-values are based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||8.5|-10.1|0.766
91862586|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|23.98||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||23.98|-11.95|0.508
91862587|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.66|14.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||14.35|-21.66|0.688
91862588|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.08||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|34.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||34.03|-1.88|0.079
91862589|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|26.96|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||26.96|-8.96|0.323
91862590|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.23||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|27.85|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||27.85|-5.39|0.183
91678873|NCT02605993|183250374|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281. A sample size of 20 participants from the combined cohorts was required to provide approximately 95% power to detect a mean paired difference in LDH from Baseline of -40% at Day 281 for Cohort 4 only, with an estimated SD of 45%. This was based on a 2-sided paired t-test, with 5% type I error rate. To account for a possible 15% dropout rate, up to 26 participants were enrolled.||||<0.0001
91678874|NCT02605993|183250375|OTHER|||||||0.0214||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0214
91862591|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|14.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||14.02|-19.24|0.756
91678875|NCT02605993|183250375|OTHER|||||||0.0313||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281.||||0.0313
91678876|NCT02605993|183250376|OTHER|||||||0.0625||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||tatistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0625
91862592|NCT04802967|183612569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.96||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|20.59|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||20.59|-12.68|0.638
91862593|NCT04636528|183612597|EQUIVALENCE|A minimal detectable difference of 11.2 points was selected based on the psychometric properties of the scale. Considering a power of 80%, a 2-sided 0.05 significance level, and a 10% dropout rate, 82 patients would be necessary to detect an 11.2-point difference between the 2 groups.|Median Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.8||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||9.8|-13.5|0.75
91862594|NCT04636528|183612597|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.16||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.16|0.32|0.71
91862595|NCT04636528|183612598|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||-0.2|-1.4|0.12
91862596|NCT04636528|183612599|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|30.2||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|||||30.2|-34.6|0.89
91678877|NCT02605993|183250376|OTHER|MMRM||||||0.5||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.||||0.5000
91678878|NCT02605993|183250377|OTHER|||||||0.4871||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.4871
91678879|NCT02605993|183250377|OTHER|||||||0.4688||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281.||||0.4688
91678880|NCT02605993|183250378|OTHER|||||||0.0023||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0023
91862597|NCT04636528|183612600|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||0.5|-1.0|0.51
91678881|NCT02605993|183250379|OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0029
91678882|NCT02605993|183250379|OTHER|||||||0.125||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281.||||0.1250
91678883|NCT03493386|183250383|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||AUC (0-t)|||1.07|0.97|
91678884|NCT03493386|183250383|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||AUC(0-inf)|||1.07|0.97|
91678885|NCT03493386|183250384|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||||Cmax|||1.12|0.97|
91678886|NCT03493386|183250391|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.01|||||AUC (0-t)|||1.01|0.82|
91678887|NCT03493386|183250391|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.01|||||AUC (0-inf)|||1.01|0.82|
91678888|NCT03493386|183250392|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geomtric mean|0.89||||||90.0|0.73|1.08||||||||1.08|0.73|
91678889|NCT00988442|183250447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Two-sided 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of participants with virologic suppression, defined as HIV-1 RNA less than 200 copies/mL at week 48 between the standard of care and standard of care + enhanced telephone support groups.||||1.000
91678890|NCT00271154|183250475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean 12-month change in LVESVi in group 1 = mean 12-month change in LVESVi in group 2.||||<0.0001
91717535|NCT02557399|183327770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|10.5||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||10.5|-5.8|0.666
91717536|NCT02557399|183327774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.04|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.04|-0.40|0.017
91678891|NCT00271154|183250476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: Percentage worsened in CRT OFF group = Percentage worsened in CRT ON group||||0.10
91717537|NCT02557399|183327774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.04|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.04|-0.40|0.017
91862598|NCT04636528|183612601|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91862599|NCT04636528|183612602|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||0.6|-1.5|<.001
91862600|NCT04636528|183612603|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||-0.5|-1.4|<.001
91678892|NCT04620135|183250477|SUPERIORITY||The least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.31||Analyzed as ANCOVA with mean diurnal IOP at Week 4 as the response, baseline mean diurnal IOP as a covariate, and treatment as a main effect, using the ITT population with MCMC and regression-based multiple imputation to impute missing data.|ANCOVA||||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint employed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with mean diurnal IOP at Week 4 as the response, baseline mean diurnal IOP as a covariate, and treatment as a main effect, using the ITT population with Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and regression based multiple imputation (MI) techniques to impute missing data. The least squares (LS) mean difference (netarsudil - ripasudil) was presented with a 2-sided p-value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A success criterion for the superiority of netarsudil to ripasudil was defined as the 2-sided p value ≤ 0.05 for testing the difference (netarsudil QD - ripasudil BID) to 0 and the point estimate of the LS mean difference of \< 0.|-1.31|-2.17|<0.00001
91678893|NCT01442688|183250481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.995|
91678894|NCT01442688|183250482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric mean ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.940|
91862601|NCT04636528|183612604|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|A robust method on the medians.||||0.4|-1.3|.27
91862602|NCT04636528|183612605|EQUIVALENCE||Difference in proportions|11.8||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91717538|NCT02557399|183327774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.03|-0.41|0.024
91717539|NCT02557399|183327774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.02|-0.36|0.080
91717540|NCT00490919|183327810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects general linear model with repeated measures.|Double-blind analysis (comparison between BTDS and placebo TDS) at week 12 of the double-blind phase.|Missing average pain over the last 24 hours scores after treatment discontinuation were imputed using BOCF for adverse event-related withdrawals and LOCF for withdrawals due to other reasons.||-0.14|-1.02|.0104
91717541|NCT00490919|183327811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0874||0.1586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.048||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holms methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|ANCOVA||Mean comparison from weeks 2-12 of the double-blind phase.|||0.048|-0.296|.1586
91717542|NCT00490919|183327812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|-1.25||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holms methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects general linear model with repeated measures.|Treatment comparison over Weeks 4, 8, and 12.|The primary comparison between groups was based on estimates and contrasts for the weeks 4, 8, and 12 mean values.||-1.25|-7.55|.0062
91717543|NCT02100124|183327814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.56|1.0
91717544|NCT02100124|183327814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|0.70|1.0
91717545|NCT02100124|183327814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|0.82|0.53
91717546|NCT02100124|183327815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.71|0.48
91717547|NCT02100124|183327815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.87|1.0
91717548|NCT02100124|183327815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.99|0.07
91717549|NCT02100124|183327816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.29|0.84|1.0
91717550|NCT02100124|183327816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|0.82|1.0
91717551|NCT02100124|183327816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.22|0.79|1.0
91717552|NCT02100124|183327817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.83|1.0
91717553|NCT02100124|183327817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.81|1.0
91717554|NCT02100124|183327817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|0.75|1.0
91717555|NCT04350827|183327818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.433
91717556|NCT00737178|183327834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.01
91717557|NCT00737178|183327836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
91717558|NCT02034006|183327837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.44|223.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of active leakage.||223.42|23.44|<0.0001
91717559|NCT02034006|183327843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|27.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of macular edema.||27.36|3.18|<0.0001
91717560|NCT02034006|183327844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|42.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of cysts.||42.67|3.76|<0.0001
91717561|NCT02034006|183327845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.62|213.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of intra-retinal fluid.||213.50|11.62|<0.0001
91717562|NCT02034006|183327846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Change in Central subfield thickness vs previous visit.||1.00|0.99|0.1514
91717563|NCT02034006|183327847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Change in Central subfield volume vs previous visit.||5.63|0.00|0.1265
91717564|NCT02034006|183327849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.91||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|30.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of clinically significant abnormalities.||30.23|1.58|0.0103
91717565|NCT02034006|183327850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Gain \< 5 letters vs. Gain \>= 5 letters.||5.33|0.90|0.0854
91717566|NCT02034006|183327851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Gain \< 10 letters vs. Gain \>= 10 letters.||5.17|1.23|0.0114
91717567|NCT02034006|183327852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Change from baseline in BCVA: Improved vs. No change. For retreated subjects, the last scheduled assessment prior to the first retreatment was considered. For subjects treated only once, the last scheduled assessment available was considered.||0.91|0.25|0.0049
91717568|NCT02034006|183327852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|44.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Change from baseline in BCVA: Worsened vs. No change||44.52|0.69|0.0461
91862603|NCT04636528|183612606|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91862604|NCT04636528|183612607|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.7||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91862605|NCT04636528|183612608|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91862606|NCT03381196|183612625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0216
91678895|NCT00546572|183250488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.88|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 1: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.88|1.17|
91678896|NCT00546572|183250488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.35|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 3: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.35|0.91|
91678897|NCT00546572|183250488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|3.74|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 4: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.74|1.93|
91678898|NCT00546572|183250488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.63|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 5: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.63|1.55|
91678899|NCT00546572|183250488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|4.13|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 6B: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||4.13|2.21|
91678900|NCT00546572|183250488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.18|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 7F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.18|1.07|
91678901|NCT00546572|183250488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.97|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 9V: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.||2.97|1.36|
91862607|NCT01073566|183612652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Pre-study power calculations determined that 28 completed subjects provided 90% power to detect equivalence for the primary endpoint of MDBG of bolus-patch compared to pen/syringe using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, when the margin of equivalence for MDBG is 1.11 mmol/L, the true mean difference is 0.0, and the standard deviation of the differences is 1.72 mmol/L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.16|||ANOVA||Finesse versus usual injection device.|A two-period, two-treatment crossover ANOVA model was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||0.16|-0.97|0.098
91692380|NCT02770170|183279666|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.38||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.204|14.451|||Regression, Logistic|include treatment and covariates, race (Asian or non-Asian), proteinuria at screening (\<3g/day or \>= 3g/day)|Confidence intervals calculated using delta method|||14.451|-21.204|0.8084
91692381|NCT02770170|183279666|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.77||||0.7398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.364|10.832|||Regression, Logistic|include treatment and covariates, race (Asian or non-Asian), proteinuria at screening (\<3g/day or \>= 3g/day)|Confidence intervals calculated using delta method|||10.832|-18.364|0.7398
91692382|NCT02770170|183279667|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.93||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.66|7.64|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||7.64|-23.66|0.5773
91862608|NCT01073566|183612653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.17|||ANOVA||Finesse versus usual injection device|This was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated at 95%, 2-sided. A two-period, two-treatment crossover ANOVA model was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||-0.17|-0.80|0.004
91862609|NCT01073566|183612654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Higher number is better. The answers were scored on a scale of 0-100 to standardize as described in the original papers.||||<0.001
91862610|NCT03461276|183612664|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|A 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025 was employed.||"The trial was considered successfully confirmatory regarding efficacy (immunogenicity) of ABvac40 if the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal (OD in ELISA) in the ABvac40 group was significantly greater than the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal in the Placebo group. i.e.~* Null hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) ≤ average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo).~* Alternative hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) \> average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo)."||||<0.0001
91678902|NCT00546572|183250488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 14: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.33|0.73|
91678903|NCT00546572|183250488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.5|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 18C: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.50|1.42|
91678904|NCT00546572|183250488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.2|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 19A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.20|1.43|
91678905|NCT00546572|183250488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.06|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 19F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.06|1.17|
91678906|NCT00546572|183250488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|5.09|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 23F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||5.09|2.69|
91678907|NCT00546572|183250489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|43.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|49.9|||||Exact 2-sided CI (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC - 23vPS expressed as a percentage.|"Serotype 6A: difference in proportions, 13vPnC - 23vPS, expressed as a percentage.~Statistical significance was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC - 23vPS) was \> 0."||49.9|37.4|
91678908|NCT00546572|183250490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|13.26|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|"Serotype 6A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.~Statistical significance was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio was \>2."||13.26|7.00|
91692383|NCT02770170|183279667|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.59|29.03|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||29.03|-4.59|0.4013
91692384|NCT02770170|183279667|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.8965|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.98|11.1|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||11.10|-15.98|0.8965
91692385|NCT02770170|183279668|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.64||||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.38|-2.48|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||-2.48|-35.38|0.1476
91862611|NCT03461276|183612664|SUPERIORITY|Additional test|||||<|0.0001||||||1-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91692386|NCT02770170|183279668|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.2|26.86|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||26.86|-4.20|0.4013
91717569|NCT02470741|183327860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.85||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.92|9.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix.|Model generated LS Mean Differences|Null hypotheses: Letrozole is not associated with an improvement in the UFSQOL Overall Score.||9.23|-32.92|0.24
91717570|NCT00485836|183327861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|11.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.7|15.3||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||15.3|7.7|<0.0001
91717571|NCT00485836|183327861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|13.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|10.3|17.4||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||17.4|10.3|<0.0001
91717572|NCT00485836|183327862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|18.8|39.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||39.7|18.8|<0.0001
91717573|NCT00485836|183327862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|19.6|40.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||40.9|19.6|<0.0001
91717574|NCT00485836|183327863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.3||||0.0019||95.0|4.3|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||18.2|4.3|0.0019
91717575|NCT00485836|183327863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.2|20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||20.1|7.2|<0.0001
91717576|NCT00485836|183327864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|51.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|41.6|62.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||62.3|41.6|<0.0001
91717577|NCT00485836|183327864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|54.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|44.0|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||64.1|44.0|<0.0001
91717578|NCT00485836|183327865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-272.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-329.9|-214.5|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-214.5|-329.9|<0.0001
91717579|NCT00485836|183327865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-283.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-337.8|-229.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-229.8|-337.8|<0.0001
91717580|NCT00485836|183327866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|5.8||||0.0019||95.0|2.1|9.4|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||9.4|2.1|0.0019
91717581|NCT00485836|183327866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|4.9||||0.0099||95.0|1.2|8.6|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||8.6|1.2|0.0099
91717582|NCT00485836|183327867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|6.3||||0.0002||95.0|3.1|9.5|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||9.5|3.1|0.0002
91717583|NCT00485836|183327867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|4.1||||0.0199||95.0|0.7|7.6|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||7.6|0.7|0.0199
91717584|NCT01898078|183327877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.12|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the treatment effect, sequence effect, period effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|The confidence intervals are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Cmax plain values (difference = Fed/Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric means.||1.12|0.85|
91717585|NCT01898078|183327878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.34|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the treatment effect, sequence effect, period effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|The confidence intervals are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed AUC(last) plain values (difference = Fed/Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric mean.||1.34|1.01|
91862612|NCT03461276|183612664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|3.34|||ANCOVA|||The average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal between the two treatment groups was compared using an ANCOVA model, using the MΔ anti-Aβ40 antibody signal as the dependent variable, baseline anti-Aβ40 antibody signal (OD in ELISA) as covariate and treatment group and amyloid positivity as fixed effects.||3.34|2.96|<0.0001
91862613|NCT03461276|183612664|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|t-test (sensitivity hypothesis). A 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025 was employed.||"1-sided t-test to compare the ABvac40 and placebo groups.~The primary analysis (t-test) was repeated, using the mITT Analysis Set to test the hypothesis:~* Null hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) - average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo) ≤ 1.778~* Alternative hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) - average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo) \> 1.778 The alternative hypothesis was confirmed."||||<0.0001
91678909|NCT00546572|183250491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 1: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.10|0.85|
91678910|NCT00546572|183250491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 3: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.11|0.91|
91678911|NCT00546572|183250491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.92|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 4: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.92|0.68|
91678912|NCT00546572|183250491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.94|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 5: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.94|0.73|
91678913|NCT00546572|183250491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.4|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 6A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.40|1.03|
91678914|NCT00546572|183250491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.35|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 6B: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.35|1.02|
91678915|NCT00546572|183250491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.01|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 7F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.01|0.65|
91678916|NCT00546572|183250491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 9V: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.69|
91678917|NCT00546572|183250491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.05|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 14: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.05|0.79|
91678918|NCT00546572|183250491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.23|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 18C: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.23|0.97|
91678919|NCT00546572|183250491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 19A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.07|0.89|
91678920|NCT00546572|183250491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 19F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.83|
91862614|NCT03461276|183612664|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The change in anti-Aβ40 antibody signal from baseline to each post-baseline efficacy visit was analyzed using a Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM), using the mITT Analysis Set.~Dependent variable: change from baseline in anti-Aβ40 antibody signal. Fixed effects: treatment, protocol-specified visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and amyloid positivity. Covariates: baseline anti-Aβ40 antibody signal and baseline age; Repeated measure: measures within-patient at each visit."||||<0.05
91862615|NCT03461276|183612671|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||<0.001
91678921|NCT00546572|183250491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.14|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 23F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.14|1.60|
91678922|NCT00546572|183250492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.76|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 1: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.76|1.10|
91678923|NCT00546572|183250492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.34|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 3: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.34|0.91|
91678924|NCT00546572|183250492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.25|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 4: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.25|1.66|
91678925|NCT00546572|183250492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.06|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 5: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.06|1.21|
91678926|NCT00546572|183250492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|5.07|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 6B: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||5.07|2.78|
91678927|NCT00546572|183250492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.67|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 7F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.67|0.80|
91678928|NCT00546572|183250492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.62|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 9V: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.62|1.18|
91678929|NCT00546572|183250492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.13|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 14: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.13|0.62|
91692387|NCT02770170|183279668|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.63|13.63|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||13.63|-13.63|
91692388|NCT02770170|183279669|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.67||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.52|-9.42|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||-9.42|-41.52|0.0512
91692389|NCT02770170|183279669|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.1|20.74|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||20.74|-12.10|0.7597
91692390|NCT02770170|183279669|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.7505|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.74|9.02|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||9.02|-18.74|0.7505
91692391|NCT02770170|183279670|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.43||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.03|-4.41|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||-4.41|-36.03|0.1269
91717586|NCT01898078|183327879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.39|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log(PK parameter) with fixed terms for the treatment effect, sequence effect, period effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|The confidence intervals are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed AUC∞ plain values (difference = Fed/Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric mean||1.39|0.96|
91717587|NCT02351934|183327895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.564
91717588|NCT02351934|183327896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.675
91717589|NCT02351934|183327897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.125
91717590|NCT02351934|183327899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.595
91717591|NCT02351934|183327900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.985
91717592|NCT01115452|183327917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.32||||0.9347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|7.5||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments.||7.50|-8.14|0.9347
91717593|NCT01115452|183327918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.24||Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.24|-8.20|0.9963
91717594|NCT01115452|183327918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.9||||0.3582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|12.25||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.25|-4.45|0.3582
91717595|NCT01115452|183327918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.88||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|12.22||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.22|-4.46|0.3600
91717596|NCT01115452|183327919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.91||||0.8265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|7.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.30|-9.13|0.8265
91717597|NCT01115452|183327919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9||||0.8314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|7.45||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.45|-9.25|0.8314
91862616|NCT03461276|183612671|OTHER||||||=|0.047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.047
91717598|NCT01115452|183327919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.01||||0.9978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|8.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.35|-8.33|0.9978
91717599|NCT01115452|183327920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.22||||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.44|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.44|-4.00|0.3122
91717600|NCT01115452|183327920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.27||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|7.08||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.08|-9.62|0.7646
91862617|NCT03461276|183612672|OTHER||||||=|0.9936|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.9936
91862618|NCT03461276|183612672|OTHER||||||=|0.0391||||||MMRM - Week 6A|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.0391
91862619|NCT03461276|183612672|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||< 0.0001
91862620|NCT03461276|183612672|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||< 0.0001
91862621|NCT03461276|183612672|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||< 0.0001
91678930|NCT00546572|183250492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.69|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 18C: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.69|1.53|
91678931|NCT00546572|183250492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.1|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 19A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.10|1.37|
91678932|NCT00546572|183250492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.93|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 19F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.93|1.09|
91678933|NCT00546572|183250492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|9.82|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 23F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||9.82|5.36|
91678934|NCT00546572|183250493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.92|16.44|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|"Serotype 6A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.~Statistical significance was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio was \>2."||16.44|8.92|
91678935|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-5.6|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-5.6|-17.3|<0.001
91678936|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.0||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|1.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-9.1|0.129
91678937|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-2.3|-11.3|0.002
91678938|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.2||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-6.3|0.028
91678939|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-7.0|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-7.0|-18.5|<0.001
91678940|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-10.2|0.048
91678941|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-5.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-5.1|-14.2|<0.001
91678942|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-2.7|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-2.7|-7.9|<0.001
91678943|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chan & Zhang|-6.8||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|0.4|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||0.4|-14.0|0.062
91678944|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.0||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|3.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||3.3|-11.3|0.284
91692392|NCT02770170|183279670|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.24|21.62|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||21.62|-12.24|0.7889
91717601|NCT01115452|183327920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.49||||0.1957||95.0|-13.83|2.85||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||2.85|-13.83|0.1957
91717602|NCT01115452|183327921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.35||||0.7472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|6.92||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.92|-9.62|0.7472
91678945|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-10.6|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-10.6|-21.7|<0.001
91678946|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.9||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||1.4|-3.5|0.539
91678947|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-17.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-11.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-11.1|-23.1|<0.001
91678948|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-9.0|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-9.0|-20.8|<0.001
91678949|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.4|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.4|-4.8|0.020
91678950|NCT00546572|183250494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1|||Limitation of arm movement: any; differe||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-4.9|0.042
91678951|NCT00546572|183250499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.6|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|New generalized muscle pain: difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.6|-15.2|0.034
91678952|NCT00546572|183250499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.9||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-0.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Aggravated generalized muscle pain: difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-13.6|0.039
91678953|NCT03979820|183250504|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean TSFs|544.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|340.57|870.09|||ANOVA||"The arm Phenelzine/Phenelzine + Tyramine represented the numerator. The arm Placebo/Placebo + Tyramine represented the denominator."|"The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale for each treatment relative to placebo.~TSF was log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the fixed effects 'treatment'."||870.09|340.57|
91678954|NCT03979820|183250504|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean TSFs|123.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.09|196.95|||ANOVA||"The arm 10 mg BI 1467335/10 mg BI 1467335 + Tyramine represented the numerator.~The arm Placebo/Placebo + Tyramine represented the denominator."|"The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale for each treatment relative to placebo.~TSF was log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the fixed effects 'treatment'."||196.95|77.09|
91678955|NCT01229735|183250508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||=|0.7007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value is from likelihood ratio test of treatment group regression coefficient against 0.|Regression, Logistic|||The Odds Ratio (OR) for LEV vs TPM is based on logistic regression modeling of subject retention by treatment and center pooling category. A profile likelihood confidence interval for the OR is presented.||1.7|0.7|=0.7007
91862622|NCT03461276|183612672|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||< 0.0001
91862623|NCT03461276|183612672|OTHER||||||=|0.0299|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0299
91678956|NCT01355159|183250555|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.34|||Chi-squared|||||1.34|0.90|0.37
91678957|NCT01355159|183250557|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.28|||Chi-squared|||||2.28|0.74|0.37
91678958|NCT01355159|183250558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.31|0.21
91678959|NCT01355159|183250559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.82|0.71
91678960|NCT01355159|183250560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||Chi-squared|||||1.13|0.86|0.87
91678961|NCT01355159|183250561|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.96|||Chi-squared|||||3.96|0.37|0.75
91862624|NCT03461276|183612672|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||< 0.0001
91862625|NCT03461276|183612672|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||< 0.0001
91678962|NCT01355159|183250562|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.84|||Chi-squared|||||2.84|0.81|0.19
91678963|NCT01355159|183250563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.63|-0.96|0.61
91678964|NCT01355159|183250564|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.30|0.14
91678965|NCT01355159|183250565|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.41|0.37
91678966|NCT01355159|183250566|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.81|0.82
91678967|NCT01355159|183250567|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.44|||Chi-squared|||||2.44|0.31|0.79
91678968|NCT01355159|183250568|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.05|||Chi-squared|||||1.05|0.37|0.07
91678969|NCT01355159|183250569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.66|||Chi-squared|||||2.66|0.54|0.65
91678970|NCT01355159|183250570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.09|0.10
91678971|NCT01355159|183250571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.04||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|8.57|||Chi-squared|||||8.57|0.49|0.33
91678972|NCT01355159|183250572|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2.00|0.47|0.94
91678973|NCT01355159|183250573|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.66|||Chi-squared|||||2.66|0.97|0.06
91678974|NCT01355159|183250574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.37||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.14|||Chi-squared|||||9.14|0.61|0.21
91678975|NCT01355159|183250575|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Chi-squared|||||1.80|0.80|0.38
91678976|NCT01355159|183250576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|2.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.64|-5.84|046
91678977|NCT01355159|183250577|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.44|||Chi-squared|||||2.44|0.31|0.79
91678978|NCT01355159|183250578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.92|||Chi-squared|||||10.92|0.37|0.42
91678979|NCT03276221|183250580|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.215|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the paired associates learning module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.215
91678980|NCT03276221|183250581|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.495|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the paired associates learning module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of picking the correct box for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate better memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.495
91678981|NCT03276221|183250582|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial span module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of reaching a longer span for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher span lengths for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.050
91678982|NCT03276221|183250583|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.532|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial span module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of reaching a longer span for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher span lengths for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.532
91692393|NCT02770170|183279670|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.99|1.68|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||1.68|-25.99|0.2906
91692394|NCT02770170|183279671|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.64||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.79|7.45|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||7.45|-25.79|0.5687
91692395|NCT02770170|183279671|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.67|19.17|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||19.17|-14.67|0.9217
91862626|NCT03461276|183612672|OTHER||||||=|0.1267|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.1267
91862627|NCT03461276|183612672|OTHER|MMRM - Week 104A|||||=|0.2477|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.2477
91862628|NCT03461276|183612673|OTHER||||||=|0.2151|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.2151
91717603|NCT01115452|183327921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.66||||0.8767||95.0|-7.75|9.08||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.08|-7.75|0.8767
91717604|NCT01115452|183327921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.01||||0.6367||95.0|-6.39|10.42||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.42|-6.39|0.6367
91717605|NCT01115452|183327922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.95||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|6.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.32|-10.22|0.6417
91717606|NCT01115452|183327922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.43||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|8.85||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.85|-7.99|0.9200
91717607|NCT01115452|183327922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.38||||0.5766||95.0|-6.02|10.78||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.78|-6.02|0.5766
91717608|NCT01115452|183327923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.58||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|4.68||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||4.68|-11.65|0.3930
91862629|NCT03461276|183612673|OTHER||||||=|0.0169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.0169
91862630|NCT03461276|183612673|OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.0008
91717609|NCT01115452|183327923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|6.71||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.71|-10.12|0.6896
91717610|NCT01115452|183327923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjustes mean difference|1.88||||0.6591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|10.28||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.28|-6.52|0.6591
91717611|NCT01115452|183327924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.08||||0.6301||95.0|-10.6|6.45||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.45|-10.60|0.6301
91717612|NCT01115452|183327924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.76||||0.6888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|6.93||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.93|-10.46|0.6888
91717613|NCT01115452|183327924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.32||||0.9428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|9.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.00|-8.37|0.9428
91862631|NCT03461276|183612673|OTHER||||||=|0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.0002
91862632|NCT03461276|183612673|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||< 0.0001
91862633|NCT03461276|183612673|OTHER||||||=|0.0023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.0023
91862634|NCT03461276|183612673|OTHER||||||=|0.0021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0021
91862635|NCT03461276|183612673|OTHER||||||=|0.0007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||= 0.0007
91717614|NCT01115452|183327925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.58||||0.5504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|5.95||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||5.95|-11.10|0.5504
91717615|NCT01115452|183327925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|6.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.60|-10.80|0.6340
91717616|NCT01115452|183327925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.48||||0.9127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|9.16|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.16|-8.20|0.9127
91717617|NCT01115452|183327926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.15||||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|6.38||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.38|-10.67|0.6192
91717618|NCT01115452|183327926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.6||||0.8912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|9.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.30|-8.10|0.8912
91717619|NCT01115452|183327926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.75||||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|11.43||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||11.43|-5.93|0.5321
91862636|NCT03461276|183612673|OTHER||||||=|0.0012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.0012
91862637|NCT03461276|183612673|OTHER||||||=|0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.0018
91717620|NCT01115452|183327927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.37||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|4.63||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||4.63|-11.37|0.4055
91717621|NCT01115452|183327927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.74||||0.8573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|8.91||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.91|-7.42|0.8573
91717622|NCT01115452|183327927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.12||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|12.27||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.27|-4.03|0.3193
91717623|NCT01115452|183327928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.23||||0.4264||95.0|-4.77|11.23||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||11.23|-4.77|0.4264
91717624|NCT01115452|183327928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.04||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|9.21||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.21|-7.42|0.8008
91862638|NCT03461276|183612673|OTHER||||||=|0.738|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.738
91862639|NCT03461276|183612674|OTHER||||||=|0.7623|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.7623
91862640|NCT03461276|183612674|OTHER||||||=|0.1506|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.1506
91862641|NCT03461276|183612674|OTHER||||||=|0.1071|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.1071
91862642|NCT03461276|183612674|OTHER||||||=|0.0212|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.0212
91862643|NCT03461276|183612674|OTHER||||||=|0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.0014
91678983|NCT03276221|183250584|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.226
91678984|NCT03276221|183250585|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.369|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.369
91678985|NCT03276221|183250586|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.647|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.647
91678986|NCT03276221|183250587|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.511|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.511
91678987|NCT03276221|183250588|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.312
91678988|NCT03276221|183250589|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.27||0.836|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the median response latency for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher slower responses for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.836
91678989|NCT03276221|183250590|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.898|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the median incongruency cost for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher costs for incongruent trials for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.898
91862644|NCT03461276|183612674|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||< 0.0001
91862645|NCT03461276|183612674|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||< 0.0001
91862646|NCT03461276|183612674|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||< 0.0001
91862647|NCT03461276|183612674|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||< 0.0001
91862648|NCT03461276|183612674|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||< 0.0001
91862649|NCT03461276|183612674|OTHER||||||=|0.0251|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.0251
91862650|NCT03461276|183612675|OTHER||||||=|0.6515|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.6515
91862651|NCT03461276|183612675|OTHER||||||=|0.7447|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.7447
91717625|NCT01115452|183327928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.18||||0.5969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|5.97||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||5.97|-10.33|0.5969
91717626|NCT01115452|183327929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.14||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|2.86||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||2.86|-13.14|0.2059
91717627|NCT01115452|183327929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39||||0.9248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|7.77||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.77|-8.56|0.9248
91717628|NCT01115452|183327929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.75||||0.2508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.9||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.90|-3.40|0.2508
91717629|NCT01115452|183327930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.12||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|9.1||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.10|-6.86|0.7822
91717630|NCT01115452|183327930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.44||||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|9.41||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.41|-6.52|0.7208
91717631|NCT01115452|183327931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.36||||0.7318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|6.46||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.46|-9.18|0.7318
91717632|NCT01115452|183327931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.05||||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|9.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.03|-6.93|0.7949
91717633|NCT01115452|183327931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.41||||0.5507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|10.37||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.37|-5.56|0.5507
91793683|NCT05454657|183465575|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis||Cross-level interaction effect of Study Day X Treatment Group|To test the effect of HRVB vs. control on craving, a multilevel model was estimated where study day predicted mean craving that same day (L1; within-person), while controlling for day-of-the-week. At Level 2 (between-person), treatment condition and sex were included as predictors of craving. The focal effects were the main effect of treatment condition (L2) and cross-level interactions between study day (L1) and treatment condition (L2) predicting daily craving.||-.014|-.026|<.05
91862652|NCT03461276|183612675|OTHER||||||=|0.4518|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.4518
91862653|NCT03461276|183612675|OTHER||||||=|0.5416|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.5416
91717634|NCT01115452|183327932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|7.1||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Investigator applied the participants with 5% potassium nitrate solution on each of the three individual sensitive tooth for two minutes (mins), in each of the five day treatment period|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.10|-8.54|0.8549
91862654|NCT03461276|183612675|OTHER||||||=|0.3504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.3504
91862655|NCT03461276|183612675|OTHER||||||=|0.2109|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.2109
91862656|NCT03461276|183612675|OTHER||||||=|0.0049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0049
91862657|NCT03461276|183612675|OTHER||||||=|0.0498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||= 0.0498
91678990|NCT03276221|183250591|SUPERIORITY||Slope|16.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.05||0.068|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the multitasking cost for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher costs for multitasking trials for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.068
91678991|NCT03276221|183250592|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the one touch stockings of Cambridge module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct response for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher accuracy for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.150
91678992|NCT03276221|183250593|SUPERIORITY||Slope|179.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|281.76||0.525|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the one touch stockings of Cambridge module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.525
91678993|NCT03276221|183250594|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-10.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the stop signal task module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the inhibition latency for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate slower inhibition for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.038
91678994|NCT03276221|183250595|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.576|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial working memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.576
91678995|NCT03276221|183250596|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial working memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of trials with strategic responding for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher rates of strategic responding for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.296
91678996|NCT03276221|183250597|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the rapid visual information processing module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the discriminability measure for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher discriminability rates for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.650
91692142|NCT00406367|183279070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||No type I-error adjustment was necessary in this study.|ANCOVA|Indepent variables in the model were treatment, baseline JRS-Severity score, gender, age, dose, and pooled center.||The null hypothesis in the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was the absence of difference in the change from baseline in the JRS severity subscore between incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) and placebo. The ANCOVA model was performed 2-sided (type-I error=5 percent) and change from baseline in the JRS Severity subscore assessed by a blinded Independent Rater as dependent variable. The independent variables were treatment, baseline JRS Severity subscore, gender, age, dose group, and pooled center.||-0.5|-1.4|<0.001
91862658|NCT03461276|183612675|OTHER||||||=|0.2181|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2181
91862659|NCT03461276|183612675|OTHER||||||=|0.2087|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.2087
91794487|NCT04340063|183467924|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.17||Interaction effect of time (post-training and follow-up assessments) by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used. A binomial distribution was used for this model.||0.17|-0.31|0.6
91862660|NCT03461276|183612675|OTHER||||||=|0.8599|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.8599
91862661|NCT03461276|183612676|OTHER||||||=|0.9469|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.9469
91678997|NCT03276221|183250598|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-11.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55||0.223|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the rapid visual information processing module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the median response latency for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate slower responses for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.223
91678998|NCT02615171|183250605|OTHER|||||||0.0106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0106
91678999|NCT02615171|183250606|OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0027
91679000|NCT02615171|183250607|OTHER|||||||0.7829|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7829
91679001|NCT00975286|183250611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|-0.171||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms; randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%) and TZD use (yes/no); country as fixed effects; baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 225 patients in each arm would provide a power of 98% (or 90%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.171|-0.463|<0.0001
91679002|NCT01781481|183250667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Inter-rater reliability|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Inter rater reliability for a subset of 40 patients whose Pediatric INTERMED was scored by two trained raters. The median inter-rater reliability coefficient was .87.|||||
91679003|NCT01781481|183250667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cronbach's Alpha|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Overall internal consistency of the overall Pediatric INTERMED scale (34 items).|||||
91679004|NCT01781481|183250668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Correlation between the biological and psychological domain scores on the Pediatric INTERMED. The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.05
91679005|NCT01781481|183250668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between the Biological and Social domain scores on the Pediatric INTERMED.||||<0.01
91679006|NCT01781481|183250668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between the Biological and Family/Caregiver Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
91679007|NCT01781481|183250668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Biological and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
91862662|NCT03461276|183612676|OTHER||||||=|0.9063|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.9063
91679008|NCT01781481|183250668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Psychology and Social Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
91679009|NCT01781481|183250668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||<0.01
91679010|NCT01781481|183250668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
91679011|NCT01781481|183250668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Social and Family/Caregiver Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
91862663|NCT03461276|183612676|OTHER||||||=|0.3418|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.3418
91679012|NCT01781481|183250668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Social and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
91679013|NCT01781481|183250668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Family/Caregiver and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
91679014|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and IBD Disease Severity at Diagnosis||||>0.05
91692143|NCT02632409|183279127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|98.22|0.55|0.9|||Stratified Cox Proportional hazard model|||||0.90|0.55|0.0008
91862664|NCT03461276|183612676|OTHER||||||=|0.0236|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.0236
91862665|NCT03461276|183612676|OTHER||||||=|0.0012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.0012
91862666|NCT03461276|183612676|OTHER||||||=|0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.0004
91862667|NCT03461276|183612676|OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0008
91862668|NCT03461276|183612676|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||< 0.0001
91862669|NCT03461276|183612676|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||< 0.0001
91862670|NCT03461276|183612676|OTHER||||||=|0.1255|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.1255
91862671|NCT03461276|183612676|OTHER||||||=|0.4232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.4232
91862672|NCT03461276|183612677|OTHER||||||=|0.9211|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.9211
91862673|NCT03461276|183612677|OTHER||||||=|0.2817|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.2817
91862674|NCT03461276|183612677|OTHER||||||=|0.2984|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.2984
91679015|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and IBD Disease Severity (at time of Study Participation).||||<0.01
91679016|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Functional Disability Index (child rating).||||<0.01
91679017|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Functional Disability Index (parent rating).||||<0.01
91679018|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Impact Quality of Life: General Well Being scale.||||<0.01
91679019|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Number of Surgeries.||||>0.05
91679020|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Number of Courses of Prednisone.||||>0.05
91679021|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Use of Immunomodulators.||||>0.05
91679022|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Use of ant-TNFa medications.||||>0.05
91679023|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Disease Severity at Diagnosis.||||>0.05
91679024|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Disease Severity at time of study participation (Pediatric INTERMED interview).||||>0.05
91679025|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Report)||||>0.05
91679026|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent)||||<0.01
91679027|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well-Being.||||>0.05
91679028|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Number of Surgeries.||||>0.05
91679029|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone.||||>0.05
91679030|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\< 0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficent|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators (azathioprine or methotrexate)||||<0.05
91679031|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and use of anti-TNFa medications.||||>0.05
91679032|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Disease Severity at Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91679033|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and IBD Disease Severity at time of study participation."||||<0.01
91679034|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (child rating)."||||<0.01
91679035|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent Rating)"||||<0.01
91679036|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well-Being Scale"||||<0.01
91679037|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Number of Surgeries"||||>0.05
91679038|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone."||||>0.05
91679039|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators."||||>0.05
91679040|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Use of anti-TNFa Medications."||||>0.05
91862675|NCT03461276|183612677|OTHER||||||=|0.8402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.8402
91862676|NCT03461276|183612677|OTHER||||||=|0.4428|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.4428
91862677|NCT03461276|183612677|OTHER||||||=|0.4156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.4156
91717635|NCT01115452|183327932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.15||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|7.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.83|-8.13|0.9705
91862678|NCT03461276|183612677|OTHER||||||=|0.8706|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.8706
91862679|NCT03461276|183612677|OTHER||||||=|0.8691|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||= 0.8691
91862680|NCT03461276|183612677|OTHER||||||=|0.2188|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2188
91679041|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05. The P-Value indicated above was found for all the correlations which were examined.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlations between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic Dilemma Item (Historical Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent) and each of the following variables: Disease Severity at Diagnosis, Disease Severity at Interview, Functional Disability Index - Child, Functional Disability Index- Parent, Impact Quality of Life: General Well Being, Number of Surgeries, Number of Courses of Prednisone, Use of Immunomodulators, Use of Anti-TNFa Medications."||||>0.05
91679042|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and IBD Disease Severity at Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91679043|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and IBD Disease Severity at time of study participation."||||<0.05
91679044|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Rating)"||||<0.05
91679045|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (parent rating)."||||>0.05
91679046|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Impact Quality of LIfe: General Well-Being Scale"||||<0.01
91679047|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Number of Surgeries."||||>0.05
91717636|NCT01115452|183327932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.57||||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|8.54||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.54|-7.39|0.8867
91862681|NCT03461276|183612677|OTHER||||||=|0.1448|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.1448
91862682|NCT03461276|183612677|OTHER||||||=|0.5004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.5004
91862683|NCT03461276|183612678|OTHER||||||=|0.1058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.1058
91862684|NCT03461276|183612678|OTHER||||||=|0.0922|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.0922
91679048|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone."||||>0.05
91679049|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators. ."||||>0.05
91679050|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Use of anti-TNFa Medications"||||>0.05
91862685|NCT03461276|183612679|OTHER||||||=|0.9313|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.9313
91862686|NCT03461276|183612679|OTHER||||||=|0.2243|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2243
91862687|NCT03461276|183612679|OTHER||||||=|0.0952|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.0952
91862688|NCT03461276|183612680|OTHER||||||=|0.3599|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - left||||= 0.3599
91862689|NCT03461276|183612680|OTHER||||||=|0.8913|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - left||||= 0.8913
91862690|NCT03461276|183612680|OTHER||||||=|0.4736|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - left||||= 0.4736
91862691|NCT03461276|183612680|OTHER||||||=|0.9095|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - right||||= 0.9095
91862692|NCT03461276|183612680|OTHER||||||=|0.8744|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - right||||= 0.8744
91862693|NCT03461276|183612680|OTHER||||||=|0.9307|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - right||||= 0.9307
91862694|NCT03461276|183612681|OTHER||||||=|0.3982|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.3982
91862695|NCT03461276|183612681|OTHER||||||=|0.7035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7035
91862696|NCT03461276|183612681|OTHER||||||=|0.6334|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.6334
91862697|NCT03461276|183612682|OTHER||||||=|0.2193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2193
91862698|NCT03461276|183612682|OTHER||||||=|0.5543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.5543
91862699|NCT03461276|183612683|OTHER||||||=|0.7324|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7324
91862700|NCT03461276|183612683|OTHER||||||=|0.1719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.1719
91862701|NCT03461276|183612684|OTHER||||||=|0.7977|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7977
91862702|NCT03461276|183612684|OTHER||||||=|0.8828|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.8828
91862703|NCT03461276|183612685|OTHER||||||=|0.7954|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7954
91862704|NCT03461276|183612685|OTHER||||||=|0.5895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.5895
91862705|NCT03461276|183612686|OTHER||||||=|0.743|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.743
91679051|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Disease Severity at Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91679052|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Disease Severity at time of study participation (Pediatric INTERMED interview)."||||>0.05
91679053|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Rating)."||||>0.05
91679054|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent Rating)"||||>0.05
91679055|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well-Being"||||>0.05
91679056|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Number of Surgeries."||||>0.05
91862706|NCT03461276|183612686|OTHER||||||=|0.832|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.832
91862707|NCT03461276|183612687|OTHER||||||=|0.2283|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2283
91679057|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone since diagnosis."||||<0.05
91679058|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significiance is p\<0.01.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators (azathioprine or methotrexate)."||||<0.01
91679059|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The Threshold for significance is p\<0.05)|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Use of ant-TNFa Medications (infliximab or adalimumab)."||||<0.01
91679060|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Disease Severity at diagnosis."||||>0.05
91679061|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Disease Severity at study participation."||||<0.05
91679062|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Rating)."||||<0.01
91679063|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.01.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Functional Disability Index (parent rating)."||||<0.01
91679064|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well Being Scale."||||<0.05
91679065|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Number of Surgeries."||||>0.05
91679066|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone."||||>0.05
91679067|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators (azathioprine or methotrexate)."||||<0.05
91679068|NCT01781481|183250682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Use of anti-TNFa Medications."||||>0.05
91862708|NCT03461276|183612687|OTHER||||||=|0.886|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.886
91862709|NCT03461276|183612688|OTHER||||||=|0.909|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.909
91862710|NCT03461276|183612688|OTHER||||||=|0.8498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.8498
91862711|NCT03461276|183612689|OTHER||||||=|0.8711|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.8711
91862712|NCT03461276|183612689|OTHER||||||=|0.1098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.1098
91862713|NCT03461276|183612689|OTHER||||||=|0.6179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.6179
91862714|NCT03461276|183612689|OTHER||||||=|0.3715|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.3715
91862715|NCT03461276|183612690|OTHER||||||=|0.8949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.8949
91862716|NCT03461276|183612690|OTHER||||||=|0.8712|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.8712
91862717|NCT03461276|183612690|OTHER||||||=|0.8748|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.8748
91862718|NCT03461276|183612690|OTHER||||||=|0.6402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.6402
91862719|NCT03461276|183612691|OTHER||||||=|0.552|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.552
91862720|NCT03461276|183612691|OTHER||||||=|0.9371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.9371
91862721|NCT03461276|183612691|OTHER||||||=|0.2354|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.2354
91717637|NCT00288912|183327933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Primary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 pain score than usual care or health education control. Sample size estimate based on detecting 0.57 point (14%) difference between groups. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.2|-1.0|0.007
91794488|NCT04340063|183467925|OTHER||Slope|0.06||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.62||Effect of time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used||0.62|-0.50|0.8
91862722|NCT03461276|183612691|OTHER||||||=|0.4608|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.4608
91679069|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Internalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91679070|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Externalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91679071|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Children's Depression Inventory: Total Score||||<0.01
91679072|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children: Total Score.||||<0.05
91679073|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Emotional Scale||||<0.01
91679074|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Social Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||0.01
91862723|NCT03461276|183612692|OTHER||||||=|0.3246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.3246
91679075|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Activities Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.05
91862724|NCT03461276|183612692|OTHER||||||=|0.8047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.8047
91679076|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Academic Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91679077|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Social Scale||||<0.01
91679078|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Pediatric Inventory for Parents: Difficulty Score (parenting stress).||||<0.05
91679079|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Family Inventory of Life Events (family stress measure).||||<0.01
91679080|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Family Inventory of Resources for Management (family resources measure).||||<0.01
91679081|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Internalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91679082|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Externalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91679083|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Children's Depression Inventory: Total Score||||<0.01
91679084|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children: Total Score.||||<0.05
91679085|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Emotional Scale||||<0.01
91679086|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Social Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91862725|NCT03461276|183612692|OTHER||||||=|0.916|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.916
91862726|NCT03461276|183612692|OTHER||||||=|0.9582|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.9582
91862727|NCT03461276|183612693|OTHER||||||=|0.777|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - Trail A||||= 0.777
91862728|NCT03461276|183612693|OTHER||||||=|0.1727|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - Trail A||||= 0.1727
91862729|NCT03461276|183612693|OTHER||||||=|0.0218|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A - Trail A||||= 0.0218
91679087|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Activities Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91679088|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Academic Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91679089|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Social Scale||||<0.01
91679090|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Pediatric Inventory for Parents: Difficulty Score (parenting stress).||||<0.01
91679091|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Family Inventory of Life Events (family stress measure).||||<0.01
91679092|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Family Inventory of Resources for Management (family resources measure).||||<0.01
91679093|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Internalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91679094|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Externalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91679095|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Children's Depression Inventory: Total Score||||<0.01
91679096|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children: Total Score.||||>0.05
91679097|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Emotional Scale||||<0.01
91679098|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Social Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91679099|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Activities Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91679100|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Academic Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91679101|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Social Scale||||<0.01
91679102|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Pediatric Inventory for Parents: Difficulty Score (parenting stress).||||<0.01
91679103|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Family Inventory of Life Events (family stress measure).||||<0.01
91679104|NCT01781481|183250683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Family Inventory of Resources for Management (family resources measure).||||<0.01
91679105|NCT01781481|183250684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|34.47||||||||34.47|2.02|
91679106|NCT01781481|183250685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|43.02||||||||43.02|1.70|
91679107|NCT01781481|183250686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|24.36||||||||24.36|2.17|
91679108|NCT01781481|183250687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|122.84||||||||122.84|5.00|
91679109|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Number of Hospital Services involved in the child's care.||||<0.01
91679110|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Number of Inpatient Hospitalizations since IBD diagnosis.||||<0.01
91679111|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Number of Surgeries since IBD diagnosis.||||<0.01
91679112|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Family Financial Well Being||||<0.01
91679113|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||>0.05
91862730|NCT03461276|183612693|OTHER||||||=|0.2789|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - Trail A||||= 0.2789
91862731|NCT03461276|183612693|OTHER||||||=|0.2261|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - Trail B||||= 0.2261
91862732|NCT03461276|183612693|OTHER||||||=|0.9743|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - Trail B||||= 0.9743
91679114|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||<0.01
91679115|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Number of Surgeries since Diagnosis."||||<0.01
91679116|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||<0.01
91679117|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
91679118|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91679119|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Number of Surgeries since child's diagnosis."||||>0.05
91679120|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||>0.05
91679121|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
91679122|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91679123|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Surgeries since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91679124|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||<0.01
91679125|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
91679126|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91679127|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Surgeries Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91679128|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Family Financial Well Being."||||>0.05
91679129|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||>0.05
91679130|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis. Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
91679131|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Number of Surgeries since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91679132|NCT01781481|183250688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||<0.01
91692144|NCT02632409|183279128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|98.72|0.35|0.84|||Stratified Cox Proportional hazard model|||||0.84|0.35|0.0005
91692396|NCT02770170|183279671|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.03|14.03|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||14.03|-14.03|
91692397|NCT00162981|183279675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0182||95.0|||||1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test|1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the difference from baseline.||||||<0.0182
91862733|NCT03461276|183612693|OTHER||||||=|0.2556|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A - Trail B||||= 0.2556
91862734|NCT03461276|183612693|OTHER||||||=|0.1008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - Trail B||||= 0.1008
91862735|NCT03461276|183612694|OTHER||||||=|0.6189|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.6189
91862736|NCT03461276|183612694|OTHER||||||=|0.6937|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.6937
91862737|NCT03461276|183612694|OTHER||||||=|0.6981|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.6981
91862738|NCT03461276|183612696|OTHER||||||=|0.2863|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2863
91862739|NCT03461276|183612696|OTHER||||||=|0.3703|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.3703
91862740|NCT03461276|183612697|OTHER||||||=|0.9663|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.9663
91862741|NCT03461276|183612697|OTHER||||||=|0.3843|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.3843
91862742|NCT03461276|183612698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025 was employed.|t-test, 1 sided|||"The trial was considered successfully confirmatory regarding efficacy (immunogenicity) of ABvac40 if the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal (OD in ELISA) in the ABvac40 group was significantly greater than the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal in the Placebo group. i.e.~* Null hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) ≤ average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo).~* Alternative hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) \> average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo)"||||< 0.0001
91862743|NCT03461276|183612698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
91862744|NCT03461276|183612698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|3.02|< 0.0001
91862745|NCT05530603|183612699|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||.009
91862746|NCT05530603|183612700|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.730
91862747|NCT05530603|183612701|OTHER|||||||0.033||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||.033
91679133|NCT01781481|183250689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rsquare change statistic|0.08|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 Threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of hospital services involved in child's care. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.01
91862748|NCT05530603|183612702|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||||||.068
91862749|NCT05530603|183612703|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||.001
91862750|NCT05530603|183612704|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91862751|NCT05530603|183612705|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91862752|NCT02043678|183612715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.122||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.374|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.374|0.917|0.2636
91862753|NCT02043678|183612716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.151||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.374|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||||1.374|0.964|0.1194
91862754|NCT02043678|183612717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.152||||0.1283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.383|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.383|0.960|0.1283
91862755|NCT02043678|183612718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.389|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.389|0.945|0.1669
91692398|NCT00162981|183279675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the difference from baseline.|1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
91692399|NCT00162981|183279678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a standard deviation of 50%, one-tailed significance at 0.05 and a power of 80% to detect a reduction of at least 25% (baseline to final in a within-subjects design), then approximately 27 subjects would have been required in each treatment arm. Assuming a 10% drop-out rate, then approximately 30 subjects per treatment were to be enrolled in the study.|||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||1-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|1-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test was used to compare the high dose group to the low dose group.||||||<0.0001
91692400|NCT03187301|183279684|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|7.4||||||15 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||7.4|0.5|
91862756|NCT02043678|183612719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.033||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.308|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.308|0.816|0.7871
91692401|NCT03187301|183279684|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|6.5||||||30 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||6.5|-0.5|
91692402|NCT03187301|183279684|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|7.2||||||45 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||7.2|0.2|
91862757|NCT02043678|183612720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.126||||0.2467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.378|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.378|0.921|0.2467
91679134|NCT01781481|183250690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R2Change|0.05|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.01|Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of calls to the IBD Nurse. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.01
91679135|NCT01781481|183250691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rsquare change statistic|0.05|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<.05 threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of extra appointments with the IBD team. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3).||||<0.01
91679136|NCT01781481|183250692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R2Change|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of ER Visits. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.05
91794280|NCT02821910|183467553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|95.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.36|103.48|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.48|87.36|
91903309|NCT00232141|183701679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3914||95.0|-0.83|0.32||The analysis procedures planned will control the Type I error for the primary analysis. No multiplicity adjustment is needed for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Primary hypotheses : null (H0): µA=µP vs alternative (HA): µA≠µP (µA and µP represent true means for primary endpoint in active treatment \& placebo groups respectively). Assumptions in power calculation: 2-sided test with type I error at α =0.05, type II error at β =0.10, \& a common s.d of 2.2 for primary endpoint (based on previous clinical trial data). With n=150 subjects/ group (300 subjects overall) at least 90% power to detect a treatment difference of at least 1.1 in primary endpoint||0.32|-0.83|0.3914
91679137|NCT01781481|183250693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R2Change|0.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of hospital services involved in child's care. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.01
91679138|NCT00372411|183250694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|4.58||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses|ANCOVA|Analysis is of change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline FM value.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol, comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||4.58|-0.23|0.08
91679139|NCT00372411|183250694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.88||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.18||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||5.18|0.57|0.02
91679140|NCT00372411|183250694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.65||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses|ANCOVA|Analysis is of change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline FM value.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||2.65|-2.94|0.92
91679141|NCT00372411|183250694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|1.81||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||1.81|-2.97|0.63
91679142|NCT00372411|183250695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.64||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|13.24||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline SIS value.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol, comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||13.24|2.03|0.009
91679143|NCT00372411|183250695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.95||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|11.56||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||11.56|0.34|0.04
91717638|NCT00288912|183327933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Primary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 pain score than usual care or health education control. Sample size estimate based on detecting 0.57 point (14%) difference between groups. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.1|-0.8|0.105
91717639|NCT00288912|183327934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 function score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.0|-0.5|0.093
91717640|NCT00288912|183327934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 function score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.2|-0.2|0.43
91717641|NCT00288912|183327935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 affect score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.4|-0.3|0.78
91717642|NCT00288912|183327935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 affect score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.4|-0.3|0.79
91717643|NCT00288912|183327936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in arthritis self-efficacy score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.8|0.0|0.043
91717644|NCT00288912|183327936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in arthritis self-efficacy score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.7|0.0|0.066
91717645|NCT03312738|183327937|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.71||||||||0.71|0.40|
91679144|NCT00372411|183250695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|4.94||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline SIS value.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||4.94|-3.87|0.81
91717646|NCT03312738|183327938|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.67||||||||0.67|0.32|
91717647|NCT03312738|183327939|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.89||||||||1.89|0.69|
91717648|NCT00607893|183327970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.23|||Regression, Linear||F2-isoprostanes/Cr was log-transformed before analysis. The estimation parameter shows the log-transformed mean difference of the absolute change between groups, while the least square means of two groups are transformed back for presentation.|||0.23|-0.090|0.38
91717649|NCT00607893|183327971|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.42|21.07|||Regression, Linear|||||21.07|-17.42|0.85
91717650|NCT00607893|183327972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.87|||Regression, Linear|||||2.87|-2.60|0.92
91717651|NCT00607893|183327973|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.91|||Regression, Linear|||||0.91|-0.48|0.55
91717652|NCT00607893|183327974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.92|||Regression, Linear|||||0.92|-0.16|0.17
91717653|NCT00607893|183327975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|5.07|||Regression, Linear|||||5.07|-0.26|0.076
91717654|NCT00607893|183327976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11|||Regression, Linear||sIL-6R was log-transformed before analysis. The estimation parameter shows the log-transformed mean difference of the absolute change between groups, while the least square means of two groups are transformed back for presentation.|||0.11|0.010|0.019
91717655|NCT00607893|183327977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.99|||Regression, Linear|||||0.99|-0.64|0.68
91717656|NCT00607893|183327978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.31|||Regression, Linear|||||6.31|-3.60|0.59
91717657|NCT00607893|183327979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|10.81|||Regression, Linear|||||10.81|3.04|<0.001
91717658|NCT03073486|183328041|OTHER|||||||0.2301|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.2301
91717659|NCT03073486|183328042|OTHER|||||||0.6888|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.6888
91717660|NCT03073486|183328043|OTHER|||||||0.1361|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression (Firth's Penalized Likelihood), MCMC Multiple Imputation||||||0.1361
91717661|NCT01079780|183328051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91717662|NCT01079780|183328052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
91717663|NCT01079780|183328054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.55
91793684|NCT05454657|183465576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|0.543||95% Bayesian Credible Intervals Intervals are used to determine significance, and significance is represented by credible intervals that do not include 0 or 1.00 when odds ratios are calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis||Main effect of treatment group|To test the effect of HRVB vs. control on AOD use A Bayesian logistic multilevel model was estimated where study day predicted AOD use that same day (L1; within-person), while controlling for day-of-the-week. At Level 2 (between-person), treatment condition and sex were included as predictors of AOD use. The focal effects were the main effect of treatment condition (L2) and cross-level interactions between study day (L1) and treatment condition (L2) predicting daily AOD use.||0.543|0.245|<0.05
91793685|NCT05454657|183465577|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sample t test with unequal variances|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|5.13|||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances were specified as part of the model.||Two-sample t test with unequal variances||5.13|-8.07|.660
91903310|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0131||95.0|-0.81|-0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.10|-0.81|0.0131
91679145|NCT00372411|183250695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|5.12||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||5.12|-2.74|0.55
91679146|NCT00372411|183250696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.41||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|2.7||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline WMFT value.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||2.70|-11.52|0.22
91679147|NCT00372411|183250696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-2.6||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||-2.60|-13.61|0.005
91679148|NCT00372411|183250696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|8.89||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline WMFT value.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||8.89|-7.03|0.82
91679149|NCT00372411|183250696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.93||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||4.93|-9.20|0.55
91679150|NCT00372411|183250697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.11||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||0.11|-1.73|0.08
91679151|NCT00372411|183250697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.06||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||-0.06|-1.62|0.03
91679152|NCT00372411|183250698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.26||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||0.26|-0.25|0.95
91679153|NCT00372411|183250698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||0.04|-0.42|0.10
91679154|NCT00667810|183250707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.05||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in ADAS-Cog/11 total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model for repeated-measures (MMRM). The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 2.65 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||0.05|-3.71|0.057
91862758|NCT03133546|183612872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37||significance level: 5%|Regression, Cox|Univariate Cox for PFS with treatment effect only|The HR for Osimertinib plus Bevacizumab versus Osimertinib alone is provided.|"Assumption: Median PFS with osimertinib 11 months Target: Detect a 36% improvement in PFS (HR=0.64, corresponding to an increase in median PFS to 17.2 months) under osimertinib and bevacizumab (80% power, at one-sided significant level of 5%)~126 events required"||1.37|0.68|0.84
91679155|NCT00667810|183250707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|2.1||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in ADAS-Cog/11 total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 2.65 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||2.10|-1.73|0.848
91862759|NCT05034328|183612887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91862760|NCT05034328|183612888|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.451|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treament chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.451|0.778|0.7026
91679156|NCT00667810|183250708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.49||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in DAD total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 6.56 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||5.49|-2.48|0.459
91679157|NCT00667810|183250708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|5.07||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in DAD total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 6.56 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||5.07|-3.04|0.623
91679158|NCT00667810|183250709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on the pooled bapineuzumab (with subjects in the bapineuzumab 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg groups combined) treatment difference estimated at Week 71. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 0.186 unit advantage for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo for PiB PET binding at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||0.09|-0.15|0.654
91679159|NCT00667810|183250710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.18||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|1.02|||ANCOVA|||The analysis is based on the pooled bapineuzumab (with subjects in the bapineuzumab 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg groups combined) treatment difference estimated at Week 71. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 15 ng/L advantage in p-tau for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||1.02|-15.38|0.085
91679160|NCT00667810|183250711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MRI BBSI was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 5.05-cm3 advantage for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo on reduction in brain volume as measured by the BBSI at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||3.57|-1.55|0.437
91679161|NCT00667810|183250711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MRI BBSI was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 5.05-cm3 advantage for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo on reduction in brain volume as measured by the BBSI at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||3.66|-1.54|0.423
91679162|NCT00667810|183250712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|-3.40|0.212
91679163|NCT00667810|183250712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.52|-1.76|0.725
91679164|NCT00667810|183250713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.56|-1.15|0.149
91679165|NCT00667810|183250713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|6.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.46|-2.44|0.375
91679166|NCT00667810|183250714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Not specifed.|Log Rank|||||||0.030
91679167|NCT00667810|183250714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.567
91679168|NCT00667810|183250715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.079
91679169|NCT00667810|183250715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.675
91679170|NCT00667810|183250716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Not spsecified.||||0.846
91679171|NCT00667810|183250716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.797
91679172|NCT00667810|183250717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.933
91679173|NCT00667810|183250717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.714
91679174|NCT00667810|183250719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.277
91679175|NCT00667810|183250719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.996
91679176|NCT00667810|183250721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.855|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.855
91679177|NCT00667810|183250721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.423
91679178|NCT00667810|183250722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DS score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.33|-0.65|0.516
91679179|NCT00667810|183250722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DS score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.21|-0.79|0.257
91679180|NCT00667810|183250723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in CDR-SOB total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.24|-0.96|0.238
91679181|NCT00667810|183250723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in CDR-SOB total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.43|-0.78|0.564
91679182|NCT02227147|183250748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.4|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.2|66.6|||Chi-squared|||||66.6|14.2|=0.006
91679183|NCT02227147|183250749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.1|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|62.7|||Chi-squared|||||62.7|9.4|=0.013
91679184|NCT02227147|183250750|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|19.0|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|47.1|||Chi-squared|||week 4 - central reviewer||47.1|-9.0|=0.191
91679185|NCT02227147|183250750|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|10.7|||=|0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|39.1|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - central reviewer||39.1|-17.7|=0.464
91679186|NCT02227147|183250750|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|14.9|||=|0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|43.1|||Chi-squared|||week 4 - investigator||43.1|-13.4|=0.308
91679187|NCT02227147|183250750|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|23.6|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|51.3|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - investigator||51.3|-4.2|=0.106
91679188|NCT02227147|183250751|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|9.5|||=|0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.9|||Chi-squared|||week 4||25.9|-6.9|=0.255
91679189|NCT02227147|183250751|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|0.8|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|17.1|||Chi-squared|||week 6||17.1|-15.6|=0.927
91679190|NCT02227147|183250751|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|18.6|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|37.8|||Chi-squared|||week 8||37.8|-0.7|=0.062
91862761|NCT05034328|183612889|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.469|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.469|0.792|0.6322
91862762|NCT05034328|183612890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.356|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.356|0.726|0.9598
91679191|NCT02227147|183250752|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|1.1|||=|0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.7|-5.6|=0.745
91679192|NCT02227147|183250753|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-3.8|||=|0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|13.7|||Chi-squared|||week 4||13.7|-21.3|=0.672
91679193|NCT02227147|183250753|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|0.5|||=|0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|19.6|||Chi-squared|||week 6||19.6|-18.5|=0.955
91679194|NCT02227147|183250753|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-3.6|||=|0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|16.7|||Chi-squared|||week 8||16.7|-23.9|=0.727
91679195|NCT02227147|183250754|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.6|||=|0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-0.4|=0.207
91679196|NCT02227147|183250755|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-13.3|||=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9|||Chi-squared|||||3.9|-30.5|=0.110
91679197|NCT03514641|183250757|SUPERIORITY||LS Means difference|-2.72||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.96|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.96|-4.47|0.0025
91679198|NCT03514641|183250758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.54|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.54|-4.32|0.0117
91679199|NCT03514641|183250759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.83||Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP|Covariance|||||1.83|0.92|0.1317
91679200|NCT03514641|183250760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.3|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.30|1.11|0.0113
91679201|NCT03514641|183250761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|-2.42|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-2.42|-6.83|<0.0001
91679202|NCT03514641|183250762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.62|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.62|1.32|0.0004
91679203|NCT03514641|183250763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.12|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||0.12|-1.79|0.0863
91679204|NCT03514641|183250764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.08|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.08|1.06|0.0232
91679205|NCT03514641|183250765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.91|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.91|1.13|0.0140
91679206|NCT03514641|183250766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.92|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.92|-3.70|0.0011
91679207|NCT03514641|183250767|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.35|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.35|1.13|0.0094
91679208|NCT03514641|183250768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-0.83|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.83|-5.57|0.0083
91679209|NCT03514641|183250769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.19|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||0.19|-1.87|0.1085
91679210|NCT03514641|183250770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.17|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||0.17|-2.67|0.0837
91679211|NCT03688282|183250778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91679212|NCT04796779|183250805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Direct likelihood model|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91679213|NCT04796779|183250806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Robust regression using M-estimation|The model was adjusted for baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
91679214|NCT04796779|183250807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Direct likelihood model|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91679215|NCT04796779|183250808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Direct likelihood model|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91679216|NCT04796779|183250809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Robust regression using M-estimation|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a fixed effect.||||||0.57
91679217|NCT01055132|183250857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|Least-square mean difference|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|-0.0013|||linear mixed model|Sequence of wear, period and lens were included as fixed effects; site, patient, eye\*patient, period\*patient and period\*eye\*patient as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference(test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence limit is below 0.05 LogMAR.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for monocular visual performance on logMAR scale at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used.||-0.0013|-0.041|
91679218|NCT01055132|183250858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve a minimum of 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|Least-square mean difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|-0.003|||linear mixed model|Sequence of wear,lens period and lens were included in the model as fixed effects; site, patient, period\*patient were included as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference (test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence limit is below 0.05 LogMAR.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for Binocular visual performance on logMAR scale at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used.||-0.003|-0.027|
91679219|NCT01055132|183250859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve a minimum of 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|Least-square mean difference|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|19.79|||linear mixed model|Sequence of lens wear, lens period and lens type were included in the model as fixed effects; and Site and patient as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference (test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval is higher than -5.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for comfort at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of -5 units was used.||19.79|4.05|
91679220|NCT01055132|183250860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve a minimum of 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|least-square mean difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|14.8|||linear mixed model|Sequence of lens wear, lens period and lens type were included in the model as fixed effects; and site and patient as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference (test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval is higher than -5.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for overall quality of vision at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of -5 units was used.||14.80|0.58|
91679221|NCT00158600|183250862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|28.12||||0.0347||95.0|2.07|54.17||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. A fixed testing sequence procedure was used to preserve an overall error rate of 5% for the co-primary efficacy endpoints by linking the test of FVC to the result of 6MWT.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in distance walked from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||54.17|2.07|0.0347
91679222|NCT00158600|183250863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.4||||0.0055||95.0|1.03|5.77||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. A fixed testing sequence procedure was used to preserve an overall error rate of 5% for the co-primary efficacy endpoints by linking the test of FVC to the result of 6MWT.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in % predicted FVC from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||5.77|1.03|0.0055
91862763|NCT05034328|183612891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.333||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.88|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.880|0.945|0.1016
91862764|NCT05034328|183612892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.153||||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.601|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.601|0.830|0.3954
91679223|NCT00158600|183250864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.18||||0.1093||95.0|-0.73|7.08||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparison was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in QMT from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||7.08|-0.73|0.1093
91679224|NCT00158600|183250865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.37||||0.8333||95.0|-3.83|3.09||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparison was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in PCS from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||3.09|-3.83|0.8333
91679225|NCT00910091|183250938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.1895
91679226|NCT00910091|183250939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.0203
91679227|NCT00910091|183250941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.6980
91717664|NCT01178294|183328055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||one-sided binomial exact test|||Summary statistics for the percentage of participants with serious bleeding episodes responsive at 24 hours after the initiation of treatment are presented, along with the 95% confidence interval (two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval).||||<0.001
91862765|NCT05034328|183612893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.218||||1.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.703|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.703|0.871|1.218
91862766|NCT05034328|183612894|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The impact of the treatment chosen on the risk to develop respiratory complication requiring antibiotic prescription during a 20-day follow-up was analyzed by a multivariate logistic model||||>0.05
91862767|NCT05034328|183612895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.335||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.174|0.644|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.644|0.174|0.0010
91679228|NCT00910091|183250942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3078|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.3078
91679229|NCT00910091|183250943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.0484
91679230|NCT01659866|183250944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91679231|NCT02618408|183250952|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.08||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|1.22|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.22|-15.38|0.0916
91679232|NCT02618408|183250952|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.76||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|8.27|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based on the results of a prespecified interim analysis, the enrollment of the low dose SPN-810 arm was halted, and this treatment arm was dropped. Accordingly, all analysis of primary and secondary endpoints focused on the comparison of SPN-810 high dose and placebo||8.27|-11.78|0.7136
91862768|NCT05312008|183612982|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||<0.6
91679233|NCT02618408|183250953|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.46|0.0238
91679234|NCT02618408|183250953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.02|-0.47|0.0683
91679235|NCT02618408|183250953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.02|-0.51|0.0742
91679236|NCT02618408|183250954|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.3713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.30|0.3713
91679237|NCT02618408|183250954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.06|-0.45|0.1367
91679238|NCT02618408|183250954|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.09|-0.49|0.1729
91679239|NCT02618408|183250955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.456||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|5.02|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the physical functioning summary score at Visit 6.||5.02|-0.72|0.1407
91679240|NCT02618408|183250955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.24|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the psychosocial health summary score at Visit 6||1.24|-2.29|0.5586
91717665|NCT01663623|183328094|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.59||Cox proportional Hazards (Wald Chi Square)|Cox Proportional Hazards model|Analysis was adjusted for ANCA type, disease stage at induction and induction regimen|Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with covariates treatment group, Actual ANCA type, Actual disease stage at induction and Actual induction regimen.|||2.59|0.44|0.884
91862769|NCT05312008|183612983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<0.6
91862770|NCT05312008|183612984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<1
91862771|NCT05312008|183612985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<0.04
91862772|NCT05312008|183612986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<0.5
91679241|NCT02618408|183250956|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.7637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.45|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Total Stress summary score Visit 6.||3.45|-4.70|0.7637
91679242|NCT02618408|183250956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.58|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parental Distress Domain score at Visit 6.||1.58|-1.95|0.8365
91679243|NCT02618408|183250956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.02|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction score at Visit 6.||1.02|-2.24|0.4606
91679244|NCT02618408|183250956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.8222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.46|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Difficult Child Domain score Visit 6.||1.46|-1.84|0.8222
91679245|NCT02618408|183250957|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.43|0.1031
91793686|NCT01041495|183465583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.869||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.869
91793687|NCT01041495|183465584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAPS). The final visit VAPS at 8th week will be compared against baseline VAPS scores for both treatment groups||||.486
91793688|NCT01041495|183465584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.486
91793689|NCT01041495|183465585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.869|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||As above- this was the difference between the groups on mean avg, it was used here|||||.869
91862773|NCT00324805|183612987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Regression, Cox||Arm II versus Arm I|||1.19|0.82|0.90
91903311|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0393||95.0|-0.96|-0.02||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||-0.02|-0.96|0.0393
91679246|NCT02618408|183250957|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 5|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.56|0.0250
91679247|NCT02618408|183250957|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 6|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.64|0.0384
91679248|NCT02618408|183250958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the inattention subscale at Visit 6.||0.06|-0.27|0.1935
91679249|NCT02618408|183250958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.05|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale at Visit 6||0.05|-0.32|0.1445
91679250|NCT02618408|183250958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the oppositional defiant disorder subscale at Visit 6||0.03|-0.36|0.1064
91679251|NCT02618408|183250958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the combined scale score at Visit 6||0.04|-0.28|0.1418
91679252|NCT04870138|183250959|OTHER|||||||1||||||One-sided Fisher's Exact Test with alpha = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91862774|NCT00324805|183612988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Arm II vs. Arm I|||1.15|0.86|0.95
91679253|NCT04870138|183250961|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided single sample t-test with alpha=0.05||Null hypothesis: The proportion of the strain in the inoculum = 0.5||||<0.0001
91679254|NCT03914950|183251009|OTHER|"The calculation of power and sample size is based on a formula that selects the sample size so that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval by the expected specificity of the new method most probably exceeds the specificity value of the current method.~Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis of the values of SUVmax of the early and delayed images with and without TOF of all pancreatic lesions was done in correlation with the histopathological findings."||||||0.78|||||||DeLong-test|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||It was calculated that 118 participants would have at least 90% power to demonstrate an improvement in specificity of 25% (to 70%) with the new method assuming a specificity of the current method of 45% at a prevalence of malignant lesions of 70% (corresponding to 30% benign lesions). Assumptions included a discontinuation rate of 25%.||||0.78
91793690|NCT01041495|183465585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.275
91793691|NCT03584373|183465586|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.60|-0.89|0.70
91679255|NCT03914950|183251009|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||DeLong-test|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||||||0.95
91679256|NCT03167723|183251013|NON_INFERIORITY|15% Non-Inferiority||||||0.036|||||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.036
91679257|NCT04040322|183251023|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference in change|-1.26||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|1.82||Threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||1.82|-4.34|0.4210
91793692|NCT03584373|183465587|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|-1.08|0.58
91793693|NCT03584373|183465588|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.56|-3.25|0.006
91793694|NCT03584373|183465589|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.06|-2.26|0.04
91793695|NCT03584373|183465590|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.56|-1.67|0.33
91793696|NCT03584373|183465591|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-0.10|0.47
91793697|NCT00366340|183465603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.6|-2.5|
91793698|NCT00366340|183465603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-3.3||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-3.3|-16.0|
91793699|NCT00366340|183465603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.2||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||5.2|-0.4|
91862775|NCT05698875|183612992|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|1.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||P=0.04 however was adjusted using the Bonferroni correction The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs control meals||1.9|0.1|0.12
91679258|NCT04536935|183251049|SUPERIORITY|A series of mixed effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation were built to test linear time change on the PHQ-9 and to test for condition differences at follow-up and change slope. Models were built in an outwardly nested fashion, such that an initial null model was computed, followed by models that added a random intercept, random time component, condition assignment, and condition x time interaction effects.|Slope|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-1.8|<.001
91679259|NCT04536935|183251050|OTHER|A series of mixed effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation were built to test linear time change on the GAD-7 and to test for condition differences at follow-up and change slope. Models were built in an outwardly nested fashion, such that an initial null model was computed, followed by models that added a random intercept, random time component, condition assignment, and condition x time interaction effects.|Slope|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-1.6|<.001
91679260|NCT04536935|183251051|OTHER|A series of mixed effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation were built to test linear time change on the DERS and to test for condition differences at follow-up and change slope. Models were built in an outwardly nested fashion, such that an initial null model was computed, followed by models that added a random intercept, random time component, condition assignment, and condition x time interaction effects.||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.73
91679261|NCT04536935|183251052|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
91679262|NCT04536935|183251053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||.22
91679263|NCT04536935|183251054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||||||.48
91679264|NCT04536935|183251055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91679265|NCT02731326|183251072|EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2 for recurrence detection (α = .05).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.3|||Regression, Cox||Treatment arm equals numerator. Control arm=denominator.|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2 for recurrence detection (α = .05). Kaplan-Meier curves were created for recurrence detection in the intervention and control groups over the 6-month follow-up period. Differences in time to recurrence between groups were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Baseline variables that differed significantly between groups were included as covariates and adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed.||2.30|1.06|0.05
91679266|NCT02731326|183251073|EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2 (α = .05).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.58|||Regression, Cox||Treatment arm equals numerator. Control arm=denominator.|Kaplan-Meier curves were created for assessing time to treatment for intervention and control groups. Time to treatment was defined as the time interval from detection of a recurrent arrhythmia to treatment for that arrhythmia.||0.58|0.09|0.05
91679267|NCT02731326|183251074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.58|||Regression, Cox|||||0.58|0.19|<.0001
91679268|NCT02731326|183251075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91679269|NCT02731326|183251076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
91679270|NCT02994940|183251084|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehman estimator|21.3||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|44.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||44.2|-2.5|0.127
91679271|NCT02994940|183251085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.851
91679272|NCT02994940|183251086|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehman estimator|2.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.0|-1.0|0.109
91679273|NCT02994940|183251087|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehman estimator|7.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.0|4.0|0.0001
91679274|NCT00899470|183251140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted condition), then 20 subjects provided 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test|For Cmax of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate bioequivalence (BE) of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.088|0.940|
91679275|NCT00899470|183251140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed condition), then 20 subjects provided 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs Reference|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.075||||Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For Cmax of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.075|0.929|
91717666|NCT01329198|183328099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Mean change in YGTSS scores from Baseline to 6 Months across all study participants presented.|||||0.013
91793700|NCT00366340|183465603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.1||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.1|-0.9|
91862776|NCT05698875|183612992|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|-0.58||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs control meal||0.4|-1.5|0.23
91862777|NCT05698875|183612992|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|0.24||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL vs control meal||1.2|-0.7|0.62
91793701|NCT00366340|183465603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-4.2|
91679276|NCT00899470|183251141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.066|0.993|
91679277|NCT00899470|183251141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Means Ratio|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.058|0.986|
91679278|NCT00899470|183251142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.066|0.990|
91679279|NCT00899470|183251142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Means Ratio Test vs. Reference|1.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of saxagliptin and metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.060|0.985|
91679280|NCT00899470|183251144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted and fed), then 20 subjects provided 98% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin, respectively.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.939|1.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For Cmax of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.084|0.939|
91679281|NCT00899470|183251144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed), then 20 subjects provided 98% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For Cmax of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.111|0.962|
91793702|NCT00366340|183465603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.3|-3.8|
91862778|NCT05698875|183612992|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|1.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5||Above is adjusted p value using Bonferroni correction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP||2.5|0.7|0.003
91862779|NCT05698875|183612992|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|0.82||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||1.7|-0.1|0.08
91679282|NCT00899470|183251145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of metformin the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.088|0.964|
91679283|NCT00899470|183251145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.108|0.981|
91679284|NCT00899470|183251146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted ), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.973|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.088|0.973|
91679285|NCT00899470|183251146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of metformin, the point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.102|0.986|
91679286|NCT03456960|183251165|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the least square means (LSM) between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.034|0.0458||||||||0.0458|-0.0340|
91679287|NCT03456960|183251166|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0079|0.1096||||||||0.1096|-0.0079|
91679288|NCT03456960|183251167|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0546|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0941|0.2034||||||||0.2034|-0.0941|
91862780|NCT05698875|183612992|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||0.2|-1.7|0.12
91862781|NCT05698875|183612993|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.835||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs control meals||1.8|-0.1|0.08
91862782|NCT05698875|183612993|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meal vs control meal||0.2|-1.7|0.13
91862783|NCT05698875|183612993|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||0.8|-1.2|0.68
91862784|NCT05698875|183612993|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||2.5|0.7|<0.01
91862785|NCT05698875|183612993|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 p value adjusted with the Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||2.0|0.2|0.06
91903312|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0554||95.0|-1.08|0.01||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||0.01|-1.08|0.0554
91679289|NCT03456960|183251167|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model will include a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0399|0.1424||||||||0.1424|0.0399|
91679290|NCT03456960|183251168|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0916|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.133|0.3162||||||||0.3162|-0.1330|
91679291|NCT03456960|183251168|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1519|0.3068||||||||0.3068|0.1519|
91679292|NCT03456960|183251169|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0299|0.05||||||||0.0500|-0.0299|
91679293|NCT03456960|183251170|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.0281|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1662|0.11||||||||0.1100|-0.1662|
91679294|NCT03456960|183251171|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0448|0.0149||||||||0.0149|-0.0448|
91679295|NCT03456960|183251172|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.0195|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0676|0.0286||||||||0.0286|-0.0676|
91679296|NCT03456960|183251173|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0547|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0937|0.2032||||||||0.2032|-0.0937|
91679297|NCT03456960|183251173|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0654|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0141|0.1167||||||||0.1167|0.0141|
91679298|NCT03456960|183251174|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.146|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2478|-0.0443||||||||-0.0443|-0.2478|
91679299|NCT03456960|183251174|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.1674|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2084|-0.1264||||||||-0.1264|-0.2084|
91679300|NCT03456960|183251175|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.1193|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2179|-0.0206||||||||-0.0206|-0.2179|
91679301|NCT03456960|183251175|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.1366|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.173|-0.1002||||||||-0.1002|-0.1730|
91679302|NCT03456960|183251176|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0734|0.103||||||||0.1030|-0.0734|
91862786|NCT05698875|183612993|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance - P\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||0.4|-1.4|0.29
91903313|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1513||95.0|-0.99|0.15||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||0.15|-0.99|0.1513
91679303|NCT03456960|183251176|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0463|0.0424||||||||0.0424|-0.0463|
91679304|NCT03456960|183251177|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2138|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1609|0.2667||||||||0.2667|0.1609|
91679305|NCT03456960|183251178|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2161|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1652|0.2671||||||||0.2671|0.1652|
91679306|NCT03456960|183251179|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.219|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1675|0.2706||||||||0.2706|0.1675|
91679307|NCT03456960|183251180|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.3653|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.218|0.5126||||||||0.5126|0.2180|
91679308|NCT03456960|183251183|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2089|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0061|0.4239||||||||0.4239|-0.0061|
91679309|NCT03456960|183251183|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0639|0.0918||||||||0.0918|-0.0639|
91679310|NCT03456960|183251184|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2099|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0048|0.4246||||||||0.4246|-0.0048|
91679311|NCT03456960|183251184|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0137|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0712|0.0986||||||||0.0986|-0.0712|
91679312|NCT03456960|183251185|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0054|0.4246||||||||0.4246|-0.0054|
91862787|NCT05698875|183612994|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted p value with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||3.0|0.8|<0.01
91862788|NCT05698875|183612994|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||0.8|-1.4|0.59
91679313|NCT03456960|183251185|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0201|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.069|0.1092||||||||0.1092|-0.0690|
91862789|NCT05698875|183612994|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.0|-1.2|0.86
91862790|NCT05698875|183612994|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||3.3|1.2|<0.001
91679314|NCT03456960|183251186|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.4058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0803|0.7312||||||||0.7312|0.0803|
91679315|NCT03456960|183251186|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.1969|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1065|0.2873||||||||0.2873|0.1065|
91679316|NCT00446199|183251223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91679317|NCT00446199|183251223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91679318|NCT00446199|183251223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||0.0005
91679319|NCT00446199|183251224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/ van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91679320|NCT00446199|183251224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91679321|NCT00446199|183251224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91679322|NCT00446199|183251225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91679323|NCT00446199|183251225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91862791|NCT05698875|183612994|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||3.1|1.1|<0.001
91679324|NCT00446199|183251225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||0.0096
91679325|NCT00446199|183251226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91793703|NCT00366340|183465603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.5||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.5|-6.0|
91862792|NCT05698875|183612994|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||0.9|-1.2|0.79
91862793|NCT05698875|183612995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|8.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||8|-25|0.31
91862794|NCT05698875|183612995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-8.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P adjusted using Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||-8|-41|0.03
91862795|NCT05698875|183612995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|29.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||29.5|-4.1|0.14
91862796|NCT05698875|183612995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|31.7||A priori threshold P \<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||31.7|3.1|0.34
91862797|NCT05698875|183612995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-4.7||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjusted P value with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||-4.7|-33.3|0.07
91862798|NCT05698875|183612995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-21.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||-21.8|-51.0|<0.001
91862799|NCT05698875|183612996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|151.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|294.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjusted p value with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||294|7|0.25
91862800|NCT05698875|183612996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-109.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.0|38.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||38|-256|0.15
91862801|NCT05698875|183612996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.0|117.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||117|-177|0.69
91862802|NCT05698875|183612996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|264.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.0|401.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||401|126|<0.001
91862803|NCT05698875|183612996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|192.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|329.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||329|56|0.02
91862804|NCT05698875|183612996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.0|69.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||69|-211|0.32
91862805|NCT05698875|183612997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||10.4|3.3|<0.01
91793704|NCT00366340|183465604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.84||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.84|0.63|
91862806|NCT05698875|183612997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||7.2|-0.2|0.06
91862807|NCT05698875|183612997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||3.9|-3.3|0.86
91862808|NCT05698875|183612997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.48||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P value adjusted with the Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||6.48|0.24|0.11
91862809|NCT05698875|183612997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||9.8|3.6|<0.001
91862810|NCT05698875|183612997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||6.5|0.2|0.13
91862811|NCT05698875|183612998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-13.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meal||-13.6|-55.9|0.01
91862812|NCT05698875|183612998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|19.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||19.9|-23.6|0.87
91862813|NCT05698875|183612998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|17.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||17.0|-26.4|0.67
91862814|NCT05698875|183612998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-12.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||-12.2|-54.4|0.01
91862815|NCT05698875|183612998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|-10.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||-10.4|-52.4|0.01
91862816|NCT05698875|183612998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|23.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||23.4|-19.7|0.87
91862817|NCT05698875|183612999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|65.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGL meals||65|2|0.04
91862818|NCT05698875|183612999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|30.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGLP meals||30|-17|0.56
91862819|NCT05698875|183612999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs MGL meals||32|8|0.22
91862820|NCT05698875|183612999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|67.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs HGLP meals||67|10|0.01
91862821|NCT05698875|183612999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|62.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs MGL meals||62|4|0.03
91862822|NCT05698875|183612999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|18.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGLP vs MGL meals||18|-29|0.63
91903314|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3345||95.0|-0.89|0.3||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||0.30|-0.89|0.3345
91903315|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0879||95.0|-1.13|0.08||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.08|-1.13|0.0879
91903316|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0307||95.0|-1.32|-0.07||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||-0.07|-1.32|0.0307
91903317|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0156||95.0|-1.36|-0.14||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||-0.14|-1.36|0.0156
91862823|NCT05698875|183613000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|53.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGL meals||53|10|0.16
91679326|NCT00446199|183251226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91862824|NCT05698875|183613000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|46.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGLP meals||46|5|0.11
91862825|NCT05698875|183613000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|45.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs MGL meals||45|8|0.15
91862826|NCT05698875|183613000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|71.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs HGLP meals||71|16|<0.01
91903318|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0981||95.0|-1.15|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||0.10|-1.15|0.0981
91903319|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.306||95.0|-0.93|0.29||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.29|-0.93|0.3060
91679327|NCT00446199|183251226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||0.0005
91679328|NCT00446199|183251227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal pH is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91679329|NCT00446199|183251227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal pH is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91862827|NCT05698875|183613000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|21.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs MGL meals||21|-36|0.60
91862828|NCT05698875|183613000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|51.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGLP vs MGL meals||51|6|0.02
91862829|NCT05698875|183613001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meal excursion vs Control meal at 30 minutes||2.4|0.8|<0.001
91862830|NCT05698875|183613001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meal vs Control meal glucose excursion at 30 minutes||1.2|-0.5|0.38
91862831|NCT05698875|183613001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meal excursion vs Control meal at 30 minutes||0.5|-1.1|0.47
91862832|NCT05698875|183613001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meal vs HGLP meal||2.0|0.5|0.01
91862833|NCT05698875|183613001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meal vs MGL meals||2.6|1.1|<0.001
91679330|NCT00446199|183251227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3 mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal pH is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91862834|NCT05698875|183613001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs MGL meals||1.4|0.1|0.09
91679331|NCT00446199|183251228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal maturation value is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91679332|NCT00446199|183251228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal maturation value is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91679333|NCT00446199|183251228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal maturation value is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91679334|NCT00446199|183251229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0314||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0314
91679335|NCT00446199|183251229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.8780
91679336|NCT00446199|183251229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5908||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.5908
91679337|NCT00446199|183251230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0027
91679338|NCT00446199|183251230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4463||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.4463
91679339|NCT00446199|183251230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0303||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0303
91862835|NCT05698875|183613002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||3.0|0.7|<0.001
91862836|NCT05698875|183613002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||1.0|-1.2|0.87
91862837|NCT05698875|183613002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||0.7|-1.5|0.48
91862838|NCT05698875|183613002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||3.1|1.0|<0.001
91679340|NCT00446199|183251231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4397||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.4397
91679341|NCT00446199|183251231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0132||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0132
91679342|NCT00446199|183251231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.3250
91679343|NCT00446199|183251232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9555||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.9555
91679344|NCT00446199|183251232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1743||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.1743
91679345|NCT00446199|183251232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4395||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.4395
91679346|NCT00446199|183251233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8966||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.8966
91679347|NCT00446199|183251233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7512||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.7512
91679348|NCT00446199|183251233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8751||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.8751
91679349|NCT00446199|183251234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1067||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.1067
91679350|NCT00446199|183251234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.6011
91862839|NCT05698875|183613002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||3.4|1.3|<0.001
91862840|NCT05698875|183613002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||0.7|-1.4|0.53
91862841|NCT05698875|183613003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||2.7|-0.03|0.06
91862842|NCT05698875|183613003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||0.3|-2.5|0.13
91679351|NCT00446199|183251234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4408||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.4408
91679352|NCT00446199|183251235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.0144
91679353|NCT00446199|183251235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5589||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.5589
91679354|NCT00446199|183251235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.5500
91679355|NCT00446199|183251236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.2179
91679356|NCT00446199|183251236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7749||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.7749
91679357|NCT00446199|183251236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8307||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.8307
91679358|NCT00446199|183251237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-33.2|-22.0||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-22.0|-33.2|<0.0001
91679359|NCT00446199|183251237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.8|-16.6||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-16.6|-27.8|<0.0001
91679360|NCT00446199|183251237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.0007||95.0|-15.4|-4.2||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline||-4.2|-15.4|0.0007
91679361|NCT00446199|183251238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.9|17.8||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||17.8|-29.9|<0.0001
91679362|NCT00446199|183251238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-20.2|-8.1||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-8.1|-20.2|<0.0001
91679363|NCT00446199|183251238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0054||95.0|-14.6|-2.5||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-2.5|-14.6|0.0054
91679364|NCT00446199|183251239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.069|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.28|-0.859||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.859|-1.280|<0.0001
91679365|NCT00446199|183251239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.803|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.013|-0.593||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.593|-1.013|<0.0001
91679366|NCT00446199|183251239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.361||||0.0007||95.0|-0.57|-0.152||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.152|-0.570|0.0007
91679367|NCT00446199|183251240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.635|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.813|-0.458||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, and Baseline value used as covariate||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.458|-0.813|<0.0001
91679368|NCT00446199|183251240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.382|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.56|-0.205||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, and Baseline value used as covariate||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.205|-0.560|<0.0001
91679369|NCT00446199|183251240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.204||||0.0233||95.0|-0.381|-0.028||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, and Baseline value used as covariate||Comparison between E2 (0.3) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.028|-0.381|0.0233
91679370|NCT01822574|183251241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.001
91679371|NCT01822574|183251242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.001
91679372|NCT01822574|183251243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.240
91679373|NCT01195272|183251269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.308
91679374|NCT01195272|183251269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.415
91679375|NCT01195272|183251269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.335
91679376|NCT01195272|183251269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.120
91679377|NCT01195272|183251269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.061
91862843|NCT05698875|183613003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.5|0.82
91679378|NCT01195272|183251269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.031
91679379|NCT01195272|183251269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.131
91679380|NCT01195272|183251269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.202
91679381|NCT01195272|183251269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.484
91679382|NCT01195272|183251269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.047
91679383|NCT01195272|183251269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.285
91679384|NCT01195272|183251269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.315
91679385|NCT01195272|183251270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.288
91679386|NCT01195272|183251270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.318
91679387|NCT01195272|183251270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.400
91679388|NCT01195272|183251270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.317
91679389|NCT01195272|183251270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.137
91679390|NCT01195272|183251270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.052
91679391|NCT01195272|183251270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.354
91679392|NCT01195272|183251270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.266
91679393|NCT01195272|183251270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.378
91679394|NCT01195272|183251270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.422
91679395|NCT01195272|183251270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.444
91679396|NCT01195272|183251270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.345
91679397|NCT01195272|183251271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.39
91679398|NCT01195272|183251271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.08
91679399|NCT01195272|183251271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.18
91679400|NCT01195272|183251272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.48
91679401|NCT01195272|183251272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.30
91679402|NCT01195272|183251272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.34
91679403|NCT01195272|183251273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.22
91679404|NCT01195272|183251273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.44
91679405|NCT01195272|183251273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.23
91679406|NCT01195272|183251274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.22
91679407|NCT01195272|183251274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.46
91679408|NCT01195272|183251274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.24
91679409|NCT01195272|183251275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.05
91679410|NCT01195272|183251275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.01
91679411|NCT01195272|183251275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.18
91679412|NCT01195272|183251276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.48
91679413|NCT01195272|183251276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.43
91679414|NCT01195272|183251276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.44
91679415|NCT01195272|183251277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.313
91679416|NCT01195272|183251277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.083
91679417|NCT01195272|183251277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.092
91679418|NCT01195272|183251277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.145
91679419|NCT01195272|183251277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.398
91679420|NCT01195272|183251277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.138
91862844|NCT05698875|183613003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||3.7|1.1|<0.01
91679421|NCT01195272|183251278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.467
91679422|NCT01195272|183251278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.250
91679423|NCT01195272|183251278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.060
91679424|NCT01195272|183251278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.149
91679425|NCT01195272|183251278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.061
91679426|NCT01195272|183251278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.047
91679427|NCT01195272|183251279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.169
91679428|NCT01195272|183251279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.165
91679429|NCT01195272|183251279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.471
91679430|NCT01195272|183251279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.243
91679431|NCT01195272|183251279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.396
91679432|NCT01195272|183251279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.375
91679433|NCT01195272|183251280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.496
91679434|NCT01195272|183251280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.122
91679435|NCT01195272|183251280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.070
91679436|NCT01195272|183251280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.135
91679437|NCT01195272|183251280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.082
91679438|NCT01195272|183251280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.461
91679439|NCT01769339|183251296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91679440|NCT00290251|183251304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|performed on log-transformed delta change in total fibroid volume from baseline to end of treatment||||||0.43
91679441|NCT00290251|183251304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Performed on log-transformed delta change||Ulipristal acetate groups one and two were first compared and found to be similar (see statistical analysis 1), so they were combined into a single treatment group for comparison to placebo group||||0.003
91679442|NCT00290251|183251305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The Delta of scores from treatment end to baseline was used to compare by ANOVA.|ANOVA|Adjustment for age||No sample size calculation was made.||||< 0.05
91679443|NCT04732221|183251325|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-9.2||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|2.9||A 1-sided p-value was obtained from fitting a Robust regression estimate based on a Huber-type M estimator including terms for treatment and WHO-FC (Class II and Class III/IV) at baseline|Robust Regression|Missing data at week 12 due to death were imputed using the worst observed value and other missingness were imputed using J2R method|Least Square Mean of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported|||2.9|-21.3|0.068
91679444|NCT04732221|183251325|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-10.3||based on a Huber-type M estimator including terms for treatment and WHO-FC (Class II and Class III/IV) at baseline|Robust Regression|Missing data at week 12 due to death were imputed using the worst observed value and other missingness were imputed using J2R method|Least Square Mean of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported|||-10.3|-33.7|<0.001
91679445|NCT04732221|183251325|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-19.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-6.4||A 1-sided p-value was obtained from fitting a Robust regression estimate based on a Huber-type M estimator including terms for treatment and WHO-FC (Class II and Class III/IV) at baseline|Robust Regression|Missing data at week 12 due to death were imputed using the worst observed value and other missingness were imputed using J2R method|Least Square Mean of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported|||-6.4|-33.4|0.002
91679446|NCT03611543|183251337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Information related to the INVESTIGATIONAL group.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||<0.0001
91679447|NCT05538065|183251368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.78||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with a log link and binary errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||1.78|1.10|0.002
91679448|NCT05538065|183251368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with a log link and binary errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||1.57|1.01|0.039
91862845|NCT05698875|183613003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||2.9|0.2|0.08
91862846|NCT05698875|183613003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.2|-0.5|0.21
91679449|NCT05538065|183251369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|94.6||Adjusted for multiple testing|Regression, Linear|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||94.6|-36.6|0.386
91679450|NCT05538065|183251369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.1||||272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|106.1||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||106.1|-29.9|272
91679451|NCT05538065|183251370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5|47.0||Adjusted for multiple testing|Regression, Linear|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||47.0|-74.5|0.657
91679452|NCT05538065|183251370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|91.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for multiple testing||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||91.0|-60.7|0.696
91679453|NCT00292188|183251411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.01||95.0|-1.09|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline mean pain score and pooled country||The study is powered to detect a clinically significant difference of 1 between treatment groups in the weekly mean pain score. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in weekly mean pain scores between pregabalin and placebo.||-0.15|-1.09|0.010
91679454|NCT00292188|183251412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.031||95.0|-1.6|-0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||-0.08|-1.60|0.031
91679455|NCT00292188|183251413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.003||95.0|-1.61|-0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||-0.33|-1.61|0.003
91679456|NCT00292188|183251414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.099||95.0|-3.69|0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||0.32|-3.69|0.099
91679457|NCT00292188|183251415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.819||95.0|-1.87|2.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||2.34|-1.87|0.819
91679458|NCT00292188|183251416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.099||95.0|-0.56|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 1||0.05|-0.56|0.099
91679459|NCT00292188|183251416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.15||95.0|-0.62|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 2: FAS||0.10|-0.62|0.150
91679460|NCT00292188|183251416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01||95.0|-0.93|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 3: FAS||-0.13|-0.93|0.010
91679461|NCT00292188|183251416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.137||95.0|-0.74|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 4: FAS||0.10|-0.74|0.137
91679462|NCT00292188|183251416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.041||95.0|-0.9|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 5: FAS||-0.02|-0.90|0.041
91679463|NCT00292188|183251416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.009||95.0|-1.03|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 6: FAS||-0.15|-1.03|0.009
91679464|NCT00292188|183251416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.035||95.0|-1.01|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 7: FAS||-0.04|-1.01|0.035
91679465|NCT00292188|183251416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.019||95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 8: FAS||-0.10|-1.10|0.019
91679466|NCT00292188|183251417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.032||95.0|1.05|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|logstic regression adjusted for treatment group, baseline pain score and pooled country.||30% responder||3.21|1.05|0.032
91679467|NCT00292188|183251417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.088||95.0|0.92|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|logstic regression adjusted for treatment group, baseline pain score and pooled country.||50% responder||3.46|0.92|0.088
91679468|NCT00292188|183251418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.001||95.0|-1.25|-0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||-0.34|-1.25|0.001
91679469|NCT00292188|183251419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0||95.0|-15.89|-5.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Disturbance||-5.55|-15.89|0.000
91679470|NCT00292188|183251419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.7||95.0|-4.3|6.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Snoring||6.40|-4.30|0.700
91679471|NCT00292188|183251419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.04||95.0|-11.62|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Awaken Short of Breath/Headache||-0.28|-11.62|0.040
91679472|NCT00292188|183251419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.846||95.0|-0.92|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Quantity||0.76|-0.92|0.846
91679473|NCT00292188|183251419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.001||95.0|4.19|17.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Adequacy||17.07|4.19|0.001
91679474|NCT00292188|183251419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.324||95.0|-2.3|6.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Somnolence||6.92|-2.30|0.324
91679475|NCT00292188|183251419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0||95.0|-14.71|-4.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Problems Index-6||-4.33|-14.71|0.000
91679476|NCT00292188|183251419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0||95.0|-11.52|-3.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Problems Index-9||-3.56|-11.52|0.000
91679477|NCT00292188|183251420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.267||95.0|0.76|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||2.64|0.76|0.267
91679478|NCT00292188|183251428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.09||95.0|-8.28|0.61|||ANCOVA|||||0.61|-8.28|0.090
91679479|NCT00824616|183251438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.58|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model|||||0.58|-0.81|0.745
91679480|NCT00824616|183251439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|5.9||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|25.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Between-treatment difference (MK-0941 group minus Placebo group) in the percentage of participants who experienced one or more episodes of hypoglycemia.||25.4|-13.7|0.537
91679481|NCT04711902|183251449|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Marginal difference|39.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.87|68.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||68.95|10.87|
91679482|NCT04711902|183251450|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Marginal difference|11.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|30.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.91|-7.18|
91679483|NCT04711902|183251451|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.68|
91679484|NCT04711902|183251452|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-2.35|
91679485|NCT04711902|183251453|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated scores (MMRM)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|7.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.46|0.94|
91679486|NCT04711902|183251454|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.58|
91679487|NCT03786718|183251455|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One sample median test|||Due to nonnormality, we used nonparametric tests to analyze the data. This analysis is a one sample median test of participants' median SUS score compared to the threshold score of 68 indicative of 'above average' usability.||||<0.001
91862847|NCT05698875|183613004|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||2.2|-0.7|0.31
91679488|NCT03786718|183251459|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.77
91679489|NCT03786718|183251460|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in General Diet sub-scale score||||0.02
91679490|NCT03786718|183251460|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Specific Diet sub-scale score||||0.13
91679491|NCT03786718|183251460|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Exercise sub-scale score||||0.35
91679492|NCT03786718|183251460|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Blood-glucose Testing sub-scale score||||0.67
91679493|NCT03786718|183251460|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Foot Care sub-scale score||||0.65
91679494|NCT03786718|183251461|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.001
91679495|NCT03786718|183251462|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.86
91679496|NCT03786718|183251463|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of A1C||||0.30
91679497|NCT03786718|183251463|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for hemoglobin A1c.||||1.00
91679498|NCT03786718|183251463|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of systolic blood pressure||||0.63
91679499|NCT03786718|183251463|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for systolic blood pressure||||0.02
91679500|NCT03786718|183251463|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of LDL cholesterol||||0.55
91679501|NCT03786718|183251463|OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for LDL cholesterol||||0.0009
91679502|NCT03786718|183251463|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of flu vaccine||||1.00
91679503|NCT03786718|183251463|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of recommended frequency of flu vaccination||||1.00
91679504|NCT03786718|183251464|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.15
91679505|NCT03786718|183251465|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me (i.e., social comparison information)||||0.23
91679506|NCT03786718|183251465|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how their diabetes health data compares to the goal range (i.e., goal-based comparison information)||||1.00
91679507|NCT03786718|183251465|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me \[social comparison information\] is useful.'||||0.51
91862848|NCT05698875|183613004|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||-0.1|-3.0|0.05
91679508|NCT03786718|183251465|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to the goals range \[goal-based comparison information\] is useful.||||0.63
91679509|NCT03786718|183251466|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.01
91679510|NCT03244644|183251467|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|24.0|||||The Bayesian posterior probability of superiority was 0.99136. This value exceeded the pre-specified threshold of 0.9750338 (nominal 0.025 one-sided level).|A hierarchical, closed-testing procedure (Bayesian hierarchical model) was utilized for the primary endpoint. The Bayesian hierarchical model formally incorporated data from the previous Phase 2B study (NCT02299570) of RBX2660. This analysis tested the hypothesis that the response rate of RBX2660 was superior to Placebo and was performed at the nominal 0.00125 and 0.025 one-sided levels.||24.0|2.3|
91679511|NCT03244644|183251468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156||||||P-value for secondary outcome evaluated from baseline through 6 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.156
91679512|NCT00123474|183251484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6||||||6 Month Analysis||11.6|-6.0|
91679513|NCT00123474|183251485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.6||||||||10.6|-6.8|
91679514|NCT00123474|183251485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of 100 mg total daily dose relative to 140 mg total daily dose was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|8.5||||||||8.5|-8.9|
91679515|NCT00123474|183251496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|15.3||||||6 Month Analysis||15.3|-11.7|
91679516|NCT00123474|183251496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of 100 mg QD Total Daily Dose relative to 140 mg QD Total Daily Dose was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|17.6||||||6 Month Analysis||17.6|-9.3|
91679517|NCT00123474|183251496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.1||||||24 Month Analysis||14.1|-11.2|
91679518|NCT00123474|183251496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of 100 mg QD Total Daily Dose relative to 140 mg QD Total Daily Dose was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.1||||||24 Month Analysis||14.1|-11.2|
91679519|NCT01059344|183251506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
91679520|NCT01059344|183251507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91679521|NCT01059344|183251508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91679522|NCT01059344|183251509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
91679523|NCT01059344|183251510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91679524|NCT01059344|183251511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91679525|NCT01059344|183251512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
91679526|NCT05472662|183251520|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|1.86||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|4.2|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 15 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||4.20|-0.48|0.113
91679527|NCT05472662|183251521|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|0.58||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.25|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 5 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||2.25|-1.10|0.483
91679528|NCT05472662|183251521|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|0.23||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.9|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 30 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||1.90|-1.45|0.782
91679529|NCT05472662|183251521|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.4||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.16|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||1.16|-1.97|0.599
91679530|NCT05472662|183251521|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.13||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.99|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1.5 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||0.99|-1.24|0.815
91793705|NCT00366340|183465604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.82|0.52|
91862849|NCT05698875|183613004|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.5|-1.5|0.97
91679531|NCT05472662|183251521|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.69||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.64|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 3 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||0.64|-2.01|0.294
91679532|NCT05472662|183251522|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.061|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 5 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.061|-0.032|0.519
91679533|NCT05472662|183251522|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.061||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.13|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 15 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.130|-0.009|0.085
91679534|NCT05472662|183251522|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.004||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.054|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 30 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.054|-0.045|0.858
91679535|NCT05472662|183251522|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.011||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.036|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.036|-0.058|0.632
91679536|NCT05472662|183251522|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.003||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.031|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1.5 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.031|-0.038|0.846
91679537|NCT05472662|183251522|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.021|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 3 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.021|-0.068|0.282
91679538|NCT04558918|183251575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|338.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.07|4564.14||two sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model using Firth||||4564.14|25.07|<0.0001
91679539|NCT04558918|183251575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in marginal proportion|80.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.2|87.6||||||||87.6|71.2|
91679540|NCT04558918|183251576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|495.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.41|10066.53||two sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model using Firth||||10066.53|24.41|<0.0001
91679541|NCT04558918|183251576|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in marginal proportion|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|76.9||||||||76.9|56.4|
91679542|NCT04558918|183251579|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.53|
91679543|NCT04558918|183251580|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.68||||||||1.68|-4.01|
91679544|NCT04558918|183251581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|108.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.25|681.24||two sided unadjusted p-value|Conditional logistic regression|||||681.24|17.25|<0.0001
91679545|NCT04558918|183251581|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in marginal proportion|68.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|83.9||||||logistic regression model||83.9|51.4|
91679546|NCT04558918|183251582|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean diff.|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|4.12||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||4.12|3.20|<0.0001
91679547|NCT04558918|183251583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|11.29||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||11.29|5.28|<0.0001
91679548|NCT04558918|183251584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-116.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.04|-100.26||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-100.26|-132.04|<0.0001
91679549|NCT04558918|183251585|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.99||||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.10|0.89|0.8361
91679550|NCT04558918|183251586|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.1||||0.01183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.61||two sided unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model|||||0.61|0.02|0.01183
91679551|NCT04558918|183251586|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.04||||||||0.04|-1.24|
91679552|NCT04558918|183251587|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|0.03||||0.31731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1||two sided unadjusted p-value|Poisson model|||||0.10|-0.03|0.31731
91679553|NCT04558918|183251588|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|20.23||||||||20.23|-16.86|
91679554|NCT04558918|183251589|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.3||||||||1.30|0.97|
91679555|NCT02256436|183251592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.41648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS - All Participants||1.19|0.81|0.41648
91679556|NCT02256436|183251593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.00224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||OS - All Participants (Note: ECOG PS=Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status)||0.91|0.59|0.00224
91862850|NCT05698875|183613004|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||3.6|1.0|<0.01
91679557|NCT02256436|183251594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.26443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.24||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS - PD-L1 positive participants||1.24|0.68|0.26443
91679558|NCT02256436|183251595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.00239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||OS - PD-L1 positive participants||0.86|0.43|0.00239
91679559|NCT02256436|183251596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.23958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS - Strongly PD-L1 positive participants||1.28|0.61|0.23958
91679560|NCT02256436|183251597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.00483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.88||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||OS - Strongly PD-L1 positive participants||0.88|0.37|0.00483
91679561|NCT02256436|183251600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|17.2||||0.00061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.4||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per RECIST 1.1 - Strongly PD-L1 Positive Participants||29.4|6.8|0.00061
91679562|NCT02256436|183251601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|15.6||||0.00049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|25.7||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per RECIST 1.1 - PD-L1 Positive Participants||25.7|6.5|0.00049
91679563|NCT02256436|183251602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|10.0||||0.00068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|16.2||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per RECIST 1.1 - All Participants||16.2|3.9|0.00068
91679564|NCT02256436|183251603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.07066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS per mRECIST - Strongly PD-L1 Positive Participants||1.11|0.53|0.07066
91679565|NCT02256436|183251604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.08745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS per mRECIST - PD-L1 Positive Participants||1.10|0.60|0.08745
91679566|NCT02256436|183251605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.05328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS per mRECIST - All Participants||1.04|0.71|0.05328
91679567|NCT02256436|183251606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|21.5||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|34.2||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per mRECIST - Strongly PD-L1 Positive Participants||34.2|10.1|0.00009
91679568|NCT02256436|183251607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|21.0||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|31.5||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per mRECIST - PD-L1 Positive Participants||31.5|11.1|0.00002
91679569|NCT02256436|183251608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|13.8||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|20.3||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per mRECIST - All Participants||20.3|7.4|0.00001
91679570|NCT01394952|183251614|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95.33% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio was below 1.0 (after adjustment for the interim analysis).~Once superiority was achieved for the primary endpoint, multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.33|0.79|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Primary CV endpoint||0.99|0.79|0.026
91679571|NCT01394952|183251615|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||Death from CV causes||1.06|0.78|0.211
91679572|NCT01394952|183251615|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Nonfatal MI||1.16|0.79|0.652
91679573|NCT01394952|183251615|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Nonfatal stroke||0.95|0.61|0.017
91679574|NCT01394952|183251616|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||Time to all cause mortality||1.01|0.80|0.067
91862851|NCT05698875|183613004|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||2.2|0.6|0.27
91862852|NCT05698875|183613004|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with p value|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||3.0|0.1|0.12
91862853|NCT05698875|183613005|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.5|0.83
91679575|NCT01394952|183251617|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||microvascular endpoint||0.93|0.79|<0.001
91679576|NCT01394952|183251618|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||Heart failure requiring hospitalization or an urgent heart failure clinic visit||1.12|0.77|0.456
91679577|NCT01394952|183251619|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||Hospitalization for unstable angina||1.54|0.84|0.413
91679578|NCT01986010|183251627|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.6||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||2.6|0.8|
91679579|NCT01986010|183251627|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||3.2|1.1|
91679580|NCT01986010|183251627|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.4||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||7.4|1.6|
91679581|NCT01986010|183251627|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.6||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||4.6|1.4|
91679582|NCT01986010|183251627|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.0||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||3.0|0.9|
91679583|NCT01986010|183251627|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.0||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||7.0|2.2|
91679584|NCT01986010|183251627|OTHER||GMT Ratio|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|28.4||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||28.4|9.5|<0.001
91679585|NCT01986010|183251627|OTHER||GMT Ratio|76.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.5|118.6||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||118.6|49.5|<0.001
91679586|NCT01986010|183251627|OTHER||GMT Ratio|68.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|115.6||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||115.6|40.1|<0.001
91679587|NCT01986010|183251627|OTHER||GMT Ratio|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|70.7||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||70.7|23.8|<0.001
91679588|NCT01986010|183251627|OTHER||GMT Ratio|128.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|190.3||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||190.3|87.0|<0.001
91679589|NCT01986010|183251627|OTHER||GMT Ratio|62.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|126.1||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||126.1|30.5|<0.001
91793706|NCT00366340|183465604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.74|
91862854|NCT05698875|183613005|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||-0.2|-2.9|0.09
91679590|NCT01986010|183251627|OTHER||GMT Ratio|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|124.6||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||124.6|31.9|<0.001
91679591|NCT02800213|183251648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.280
91679592|NCT01948986|183251649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.32|132.27|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||132.27|80.32|
91679593|NCT01948986|183251649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|156.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.83|191.23|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||191.23|127.83|
91679594|NCT01948986|183251649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|170.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.02|207.98|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||207.98|139.02|
91679595|NCT01948986|183251649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|155.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.38|193.8|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||193.80|124.38|
91679596|NCT01948986|183251650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|103.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.66|132.61|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||132.61|80.66|
91679597|NCT01948986|183251650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|151.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.05|185.34|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||185.34|124.05|
91679598|NCT01948986|183251650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|168.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.53|205.49|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||205.49|137.53|
91679599|NCT01948986|183251650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|151.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.69|189.36|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||189.36|121.69|
91679600|NCT01948986|183251652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|101.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.83|130.87|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||130.87|78.83|
91679601|NCT01948986|183251652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|143.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.15|176.37|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||176.37|117.15|
91679602|NCT01948986|183251652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|140.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.4|172.23|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||172.23|114.40|
91679603|NCT01948986|183251652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|90.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.99|112.96|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||112.96|71.99|
91679604|NCT01948986|183251659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|80.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.41|108.76|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||108.76|59.41|
91679605|NCT01948986|183251659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|53.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.64|68.63|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||68.63|41.64|
91679606|NCT01948986|183251659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|43.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.85|55.78|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||55.78|33.85|
91679607|NCT01948986|183251659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|29.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.04|38.21|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||38.21|22.04|
91679608|NCT01948986|183251676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio: Mild Ren. Impa./T2DM Norm. Renal|76.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.58|121.19|||||Adjusted geometrics mean values were used. The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||121.19|48.58|
91862855|NCT05698875|183613005|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.6|0.78
91679609|NCT01948986|183251676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio: Mod. Ren. Impa./T2DM Norm. Renal|86.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.78|136.65|||||Adjusted geometrics mean values were used. The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||136.65|54.78|
91679610|NCT01948986|183251676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio: Sev. Ren. Impa./T2DM Norm. Renal|72.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.63|118.58|||||Adjusted geometrics mean values were used. The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||118.58|44.63|
91679611|NCT01948986|183251678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./T2DM Norm. Ren|49.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.22|90.93|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||90.93|27.22|
91679612|NCT01948986|183251678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./T2DM Norm. Ren|38.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.85|69.64|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||69.64|20.85|
91679613|NCT01948986|183251678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Sev. Renal Impair./T2DM Norm. Ren|13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.32|26.58|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||26.58|7.32|
91679614|NCT00392236|183251679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.083
91679615|NCT01898650|183251766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. the threshold for significance was set a priori at 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis was that blood flow would be equivalent on the unaffected and affected sides.||||0.004
91679616|NCT02912650|183251768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|30.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.14|36.02|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on LS Mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, gender, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR) as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||36.02|24.14|<0.001
91679617|NCT02912650|183251768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|9.8|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||9.80|1.51|0.008
91679618|NCT02912650|183251768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.55|18.97|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||18.97|10.55|<0.001
91679619|NCT02912650|183251768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|30.35|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||30.35|18.50|<0.001
91679620|NCT02912650|183251768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|21.29|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||21.29|9.35|<0.001
91679621|NCT02912650|183251768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.31|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||13.31|4.90|<0.001
91679622|NCT02912650|183251769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|11.94|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||11.94|6.59|<0.001
91679623|NCT02912650|183251769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.84||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.71|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.71|-0.03|0.053
91679624|NCT02912650|183251769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|7.49|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||7.49|3.69|<0.001
91717667|NCT01004614|183328101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|98.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.09|104.46|||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.|Natural log transformed AUCt was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||104.46|93.09|
91717668|NCT01004614|183328101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|101.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.28|105.45|||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.|Natural log transformed AUCt was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||105.45|97.28|
91717669|NCT01004614|183328102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.28|106.28||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||106.28|92.28|
91717670|NCT01004614|183328102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|100.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.93|106.0||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||106.00|95.93|
91717671|NCT02175121|183328124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.49|-29.16||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-29.16|-51.49|<0.0001
91717672|NCT02175121|183328124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.08|-33.99||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-33.99|-57.08|<0.0001
91717673|NCT02175121|183328124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-68.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.92|-57.65||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-57.65|-79.92|<0.0001
91717674|NCT02175121|183328124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-68.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.46|-56.78||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-56.78|-79.46|<0.0001
91717675|NCT02175121|183328125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|-6.6||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-6.60|-25.90|0.0060
91717676|NCT02175121|183328125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.81|-17.15||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-17.15|-36.81|<0.0001
91717677|NCT02175121|183328125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.2|-30.0||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-30.00|-49.20|<0.0001
91717678|NCT02175121|183328125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.46|-36.98||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-36.98|-56.46|<0.0001
91793707|NCT00366340|183465604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.76|
91717679|NCT02175121|183328125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.89|-18.25||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-18.25|-35.89|<0.0001
91717680|NCT02175121|183328125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.21|-27.14||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-27.14|-45.21|<0.0001
91717681|NCT02175121|183328125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-51.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.29|-42.65||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-42.65|-60.29|<0.0001
91717682|NCT02175121|183328125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.12|-48.22||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-48.22|-66.12|<0.0001
91717683|NCT02175121|183328126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.13||0.2063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.91|29.62||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||29.62|-3.91|0.2063
91717684|NCT02175121|183328126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.33||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|30.11||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||30.11|-4.05|0.2087
91717685|NCT02175121|183328126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.11|22.3||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||22.30|-11.11|0.5802
91717686|NCT02175121|183328126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|31.59||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||31.59|-2.32|0.1553
91717687|NCT02175121|183328126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.87|10.47||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||10.47|-14.87|0.7741
91717688|NCT02175121|183328126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.78||0.9588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.28|12.47||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||12.47|-13.28|0.9588
91717689|NCT02175121|183328126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.8523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.17|14.01||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||14.01|-11.17|0.8523
91717690|NCT02175121|183328126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73||0.4166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.49|19.08||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||19.08|-6.49|0.4166
91717691|NCT02175121|183328127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|5.93||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||5.93|-4.73|0.8516
91717692|NCT02175121|183328127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.2303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|9.42||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||9.42|-1.48|0.2303
91717693|NCT02175121|183328127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.7132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|6.52||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||6.52|-4.15|0.7132
91862856|NCT05698875|183613005|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.7|0.1|0.11
91862857|NCT05698875|183613005|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGL meals||1.1|-1.5|0.82
91862858|NCT05698875|183613005|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.6|-0.1|0.06
91717694|NCT02175121|183328127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.32|15.16||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||15.16|4.32|0.0034
91862859|NCT05698875|183613006|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||1.3|-1.1|0.85
91862860|NCT05698875|183613006|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.04||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||0.04|-2.4|0.06
91862861|NCT05698875|183613006|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.3|0.90
91862862|NCT05698875|183613006|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.5|0.3|0.05
91717695|NCT02175121|183328127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.7394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.89|3.92||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||3.92|-5.89|0.7394
91717696|NCT02175121|183328127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.8652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|5.53||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.53|-4.50|0.8652
91862863|NCT05698875|183613006|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||1.5|-0.8|0.55
91717697|NCT02175121|183328127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|5.52||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.52|-4.30|0.8370
91717698|NCT02175121|183328127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.6|14.58||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||14.58|4.60|0.0018
91717699|NCT02175121|183328128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.6182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.15|4.91||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||4.91|-9.15|0.6182
91862864|NCT05698875|183613006|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.2|-0.1|0.08
91862865|NCT03819153|183613020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.88|||Regression, Cox|||Time from randomization to first composite renal event was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by use of sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor (yes/no) at baseline. Based on the available number of events for analysis, the nominal significance level was updated to 0.01612 using the Lan-DeMets alpha spending function. eGFR was calculated using the CKD-EPI formula.||0.88|0.66|0.0001
91862866|NCT04898673|183613052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-4.37|||ANOVA|||||-4.37|-6.08|<0.001
91862867|NCT04898673|183613053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|3.51|||ANOVA|||||3.51|-2.31|0.670
91862868|NCT04898673|183613054|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin=-10% words correct; CP1110 non-inferior to CP1000 if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the difference \> -10% words correct.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.5|||ANOVA|||||-0.50|-7.00|0.026
91717700|NCT02175121|183328128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.52|8.84||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||8.84|-5.52|0.7028
91717701|NCT02175121|183328128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.33|6.73||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||6.73|-7.33|0.9445
91793708|NCT00366340|183465604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|2.49||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||2.49|2.04|
91862869|NCT04898673|183613055|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin=-10% words correct; CP1110 non-inferior to CP1000 if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the difference \> -10% words correct.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|1.72|||ANOVA|||||1.72|-4.02|0.411
91862870|NCT05778695|183613094|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Median Difference (Net)|-14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.02||0.875|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.875
91717702|NCT02175121|183328128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|16.21||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||16.21|1.93|0.0373
91717703|NCT02175121|183328128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.25|6.67||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||6.67|-7.25|0.9448
91717704|NCT02175121|183328128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.74|7.49||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||7.49|-6.74|0.9312
91717705|NCT02175121|183328128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|6.85||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||6.85|-7.07|0.9791
91717706|NCT02175121|183328128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.26|19.41||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||19.41|5.26|0.0044
91717707|NCT02175121|183328129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.78|8.33||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||8.33|-4.78|0.6553
91717708|NCT02175121|183328129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|11.3||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||11.30|-2.09|0.2569
91717709|NCT02175121|183328129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|14.18||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||14.18|1.09|0.0553
91717710|NCT02175121|183328129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.26|19.53||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||19.53|6.26|0.0016
91717711|NCT02175121|183328129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.8717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.35|6.51||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||6.51|-5.35|0.8717
91717712|NCT02175121|183328129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.86|7.26||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||7.26|-4.86|0.7430
91717713|NCT02175121|183328129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|10.48||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||10.48|-1.36|0.2041
91717714|NCT02175121|183328129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.92|20.92||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||20.92|8.92|<0.0001
91717715|NCT02175121|183328130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|6.87||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||6.87|-6.62|0.9750
91717716|NCT02175121|183328130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|10.87||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||10.87|-2.90|0.3396
91717717|NCT02175121|183328130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.7142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|5.24||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||5.24|-8.23|0.7142
91862871|NCT05778695|183613094|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.166||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.026|12.026||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.026|-16.026|0.739
91862872|NCT05778695|183613095|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91717718|NCT02175121|183328130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|16.63||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||16.63|2.94|0.0192
91862873|NCT04731818|183613113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||analyzed by 1-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test|ANOVA|1 way repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.0001
91862874|NCT05623228|183613121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||"Bonferroni correction p\<.05~F(1.25)=9.17 η=.254 (p\<.05)"|ANOVA|||||||.00
91717719|NCT02175121|183328130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.8277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|5.52||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.52|-7.20|0.8277
91717720|NCT02175121|183328130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.93|7.06||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||7.06|-5.93|0.8857
91717721|NCT02175121|183328130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.93|5.79||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.79|-6.93|0.8824
91717722|NCT02175121|183328130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.77|15.69||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||15.69|2.77|0.0192
91717723|NCT00931632|183328156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.427
91717724|NCT01419314|183328165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.25||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.33|52.05|||ANOVA|Sphericity was not tenable for the factor pain scores, degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimates, df (1.71,56.46).||A repeated measure ANOVA was performed to evaluate the contrasts of interest.||52.05|38.33|0.001
91717725|NCT01419314|183328165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|23.39||Bonferroni adjustment for significance\<0.013.|t-test, 2 sided||Paired t-test contrasting pain scores from baseline to week six of the trial-Splint group. The statistical power for the within splint intervention contrast was calculated to be 0.99.|Null hypothesis: Is there a difference in baseline pain scores compared to those at week 6 in the splinting group?||23.39|8.80|<0.0005
91717726|NCT01419314|183328165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|7.47||Bonferroni adjustment for significance\<0.013.|t-test, 2 sided|df(35)|The statistical power for the between intervention contrast was calculated to be 0.26|Null Hypothesis: There is not difference in pain scores between the liner and splint applications at week three.||7.47|-13.93|0.155
91717727|NCT01419314|183328165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|3.85|||t-test, 2 sided|df(35)||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in pain scores between the liner and splint applications at week six.||3.85|-23.20|0.155
91717728|NCT00843492|183328178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||||0.54|0.15|<0.001
91717729|NCT00457730|183328203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91717730|NCT00457730|183328204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91862875|NCT05623228|183613121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Bonferroni correction p\<.05 F(2)=7.30 η=.213 (P\<.05)|ANOVA|||||||.00
91717731|NCT00457730|183328205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.074
91717732|NCT00721799|183328206|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.08
91717733|NCT00721799|183328206|OTHER||C-statistic|0.73||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.04
91717734|NCT00721799|183328207|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.05
91717735|NCT00721799|183328207|OTHER||C-statistic|0.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.02
91717736|NCT00721799|183328208|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.44|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
91717737|NCT00721799|183328208|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.02
91717738|NCT00721799|183328209|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.73
91717739|NCT00721799|183328209|OTHER||C-statistic|0.52||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.88
91717740|NCT00721799|183328210|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.78
91717741|NCT00721799|183328210|OTHER||C-statistic|0.45||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.66
91717742|NCT00721799|183328211|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.01
91717743|NCT00721799|183328211|OTHER||C-statistic|0.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.05
91717744|NCT00721799|183328212|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.63
91862876|NCT05623228|183613122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||F(2)=3.20, η=.106 Bonferroni Correction p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||.04
91862877|NCT05623228|183613123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||F(1,06)=8,11, η2=.231 Bonferroni correction p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||.00
91862878|NCT05623228|183613124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||F(1,19)=4,30, η2=.137 Bonferroni correction p\<0.5|ANOVA|||||||.04
91862879|NCT05623228|183613125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||t (38.70)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.00
91717745|NCT00721799|183328212|OTHER||C-statistic|0.58||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.46
91717746|NCT00721799|183328213|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.58
91717747|NCT00721799|183328213|OTHER||C-statistic|0.6||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.36
91717748|NCT00721799|183328214|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.89
91717749|NCT00721799|183328214|OTHER||C-statistic|0.59||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.42
91717750|NCT00721799|183328215|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.43
91717751|NCT00721799|183328215|OTHER||C-statistic|0.47||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.80
91717752|NCT00721799|183328216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.01
91717753|NCT00721799|183328216|OTHER||C-statistic|0.69||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.07
91717754|NCT00721799|183328217|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.18
91717755|NCT00721799|183328217|OTHER||C-statistic|0.63||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.25
91717756|NCT00721799|183328218|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.24
91717757|NCT00721799|183328218|OTHER||C-statistic|0.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.27
91717758|NCT00721799|183328219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.99
91717759|NCT00721799|183328219|OTHER||C-statistic|0.48||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.84
91717760|NCT00721799|183328220|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.41
91717761|NCT00721799|183328220|OTHER||C-statistic|0.54||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.69
91717762|NCT00721799|183328221|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.17
91717763|NCT00721799|183328221|OTHER||C-statistic|0.64||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.18
91717764|NCT00721799|183328222|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.09
91717765|NCT00721799|183328222|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.06
91717766|NCT00721799|183328223|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.06
91862880|NCT04828005|183613144|NON_INFERIORITY|Alternative hypothesis: Nalmefene reversal not less than 80% naloxone reversal|||||<|0.0009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0009
91717767|NCT00721799|183328223|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.04
91717768|NCT00721799|183328224|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
91717769|NCT00721799|183328224|OTHER||C-statistic|0.82|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
91717770|NCT00721799|183328225|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.92
91717771|NCT00721799|183328225|OTHER||C-statistic|0.48||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.84
91717772|NCT00721799|183328226|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.76
91717773|NCT00721799|183328226|OTHER||C-statistic|0.45||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.68
91717774|NCT00721799|183328227|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
91717775|NCT00721799|183328227|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.03
91717776|NCT00721799|183328228|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.55
91717777|NCT00721799|183328228|OTHER||C-statistic|0.61||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.35
91717778|NCT00721799|183328229|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.48
91717779|NCT00721799|183328229|OTHER||C-statistic|0.63||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.28
91717780|NCT00721799|183328230|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.67
91717781|NCT00721799|183328230|OTHER||C-statistic|0.71||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.11
91717782|NCT00721799|183328231|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.40
91717783|NCT00721799|183328231|OTHER||C-statistic|0.48||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.88
91717784|NCT00721799|183328232|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.39|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
91717785|NCT00721799|183328232|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.03
91717786|NCT00721799|183328233|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.26
91717787|NCT00721799|183328233|OTHER||C-statistic|0.59||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.46
91717788|NCT00721799|183328234|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.37
91717789|NCT00721799|183328234|OTHER||C-statistic|0.59||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.46
91717790|NCT00721799|183328235|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.90
91717791|NCT00721799|183328235|OTHER||C-statistic|0.52||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.87
91717792|NCT00721799|183328236|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.36
91717793|NCT00721799|183328236|OTHER||C-statistic|0.56||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.63
91717794|NCT00721799|183328237|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.20
91717795|NCT00721799|183328237|OTHER||C-statistic|0.63||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.24
91717796|NCT01926028|183328245|EQUIVALENCE|The proportion of patients in each group was summarized with point estimates and their 95% confidence interval|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.39||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.91|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.91|0.17|0.03
91717797|NCT01926028|183328246|EQUIVALENCE|The proportion of patients in each group was summarized with point estimates and their 95% confidence interval|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.13|0.27|0.10
91717798|NCT04539275|183328255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.14|||Fisher Exact|||||0.14|-0.15|1.00
91717799|NCT04539275|183328256|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||Log Rank|||||1.78|0.65|0.749
91717800|NCT04539275|183328257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|4.23|||Log Rank|||||4.23|0.21|0.943
91717801|NCT04539275|183328258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.1|||Chi-squared|||||0.10|-0.25|0.4014
91717802|NCT04539275|183328259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.96|||Log Rank|||||1.96|0.18|0.3762
91717803|NCT04539275|183328260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.6867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||Fisher Exact|||||0.09|-0.17|0.6867
91717804|NCT04539275|183328261|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|1.11||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.83|||Log Rank|||||1.83|0.68|0.6494
91717805|NCT04539275|183328262|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.59|0.9338
91717806|NCT04539275|183328266|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|1.14||||0.5682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.86|||Log Rank|||||1.86|0.70|0.5682
91717807|NCT04539275|183328268|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.3|-2.3|0.8642
91717808|NCT01799941|183328270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
91717809|NCT01799941|183328270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||one-sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
91717810|NCT01799941|183328270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
91717811|NCT01799941|183328270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
91717812|NCT01799941|183328270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.45|||||A positive estimate indicates a smaller change in the first group. Observations used =261.|||1.45|-1.37|
91717813|NCT01799941|183328270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ANCOVA|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.68|||||A positive estimate indicates a smaller change in the first group. Observations used =261.|||2.68|-0.46|
91717814|NCT01799941|183328270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ANCOVA|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.69|||||A positive estimate indicates a smaller change in the first group. Observations used =261.|||2.69|-0.39|
91717815|NCT01799941|183328271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91717816|NCT01799941|183328271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91717817|NCT01799941|183328271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91717818|NCT01799941|183328271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91717819|NCT01799941|183328272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91717820|NCT01799941|183328272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91717821|NCT01799941|183328272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91717822|NCT01799941|183328272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 assessment||||<0.0001
91717823|NCT01799941|183328272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91717824|NCT01799941|183328272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91717825|NCT01799941|183328272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91717826|NCT01799941|183328272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91717827|NCT01799941|183328274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|0.445|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regreesion Model||Number of observations = 854, Number of participants = 298|Day 30 assessment||0.445|0.407|<0.0001
91717828|NCT01799941|183328274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|0.293|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 854, Number of participants = 298|Day 90 assessment||0.293|0.262|<0.0001
91717829|NCT01799941|183328274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.534|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 318, Number of participants = 108|Day 30 assessment||0.534|0.469|<0.0001
91717830|NCT01799941|183328274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.349|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 318, Number of participants = 108|Day 90 assessment||0.349|0.299|<0.0001
91717831|NCT01799941|183328274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|0.383|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 297, Number of participants = 103|Day 30 assessment||0.383|0.323|<0.0001
91717832|NCT01799941|183328274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.282|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 297, Number of participants = 103|Day 90 assessment||0.282|0.231|<0.0001
91717833|NCT01799941|183328274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.425|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 239, Number of participants = 87|Day 30 assessment||0.425|0.352|<0.0001
91717834|NCT01799941|183328274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.245|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 239, Number of participants = 87|Day 90 assessment||0.245|0.189|<0.0001
91717835|NCT01799941|183328277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91717836|NCT01799941|183328277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91717837|NCT01799941|183328277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91717838|NCT01799941|183328277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91717839|NCT01569022|183328319|EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint of the study was tested by comparing difference in residual AHI using the paired t test|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91717840|NCT01569022|183328320|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ESS||||0.97
91717841|NCT01569022|183328320|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PCL||||0.98
91717842|NCT01569022|183328320|EQUIVALENCE|t-test assuming non unequal variance||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PSQI||||0.31
91717843|NCT01569022|183328321|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91717844|NCT01569022|183328322|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91717845|NCT00644059|183328325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|81.36|||||TWO_SIDED|97.66|49.24|93.16|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the population average incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||93.16|49.24|
91717846|NCT00644059|183328328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|81.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.24|93.16|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||93.16|49.24|
91717847|NCT00644059|183328328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.92|98.94|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||98.94|80.92|
91717848|NCT00644059|183328328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.73|||Mantel Haenszel|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||0.73|0.13|
91717849|NCT00644059|183328328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.38|||Mantel Haenszel|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||0.38|0.02|
91717850|NCT00644059|183328329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||vaccine Efficacy|79.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.78|90.42|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the population average incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||90.42|54.78|
91717851|NCT00644059|183328329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|92.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.35|97.24|||Poisson Regression Model|||Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the incidence of influenza. Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)||97.24|77.35|
91862881|NCT02359890|183613156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants with events|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.5|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval is derived using the exact Clopper-Pearson interval.|||6.5|0.7|
91717852|NCT00644059|183328329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|64.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.21|83.28|||Poisson Regression Model|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||83.28|23.21|
91717853|NCT00644059|183328329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|85.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.95|94.99|||Poisson Regression Model|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||94.99|58.95|
91717854|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.02|0.67|
91717855|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|7.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.42|11.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||11|5.42|
91717856|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|21.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay||21|11|
91862882|NCT02359890|183613158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of patient with acute success|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|98.6|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval is derived using the exact Clopper-Pearson interval|||98.6|92.0|
91717857|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|8.68|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay||8.68|4.83|
91717858|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.21|0.85|
91862883|NCT05260112|183613160|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91862884|NCT05260112|183613161|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91862885|NCT05260112|183613162|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91862886|NCT05260112|183613163|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91862887|NCT05260112|183613164|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91862888|NCT05260112|183613165|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91862889|NCT03031470|183613224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688|||||||Fisher Exact|Analysis is based on exact Fisher test to compare treatments.||||||0.688
91862890|NCT03031470|183613225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|Analysis is based on exact Fisher test to compare treatments.||||||0.700
91862891|NCT03031470|183613226|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|Treatment groups were compared for frequency of allograft nonfunction using Fisher exact test||||||>0.999
91862892|NCT03031470|183613227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.308
91862893|NCT03031470|183613228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.601
91862894|NCT03031470|183613230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Reparixin and Control groups will be compared for degree of allograft steatosis using Cochran-Mantel-Hensel (CMH) test with control EAD.||||||0.574
91679625|NCT02912650|183251769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.75|10.09|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||10.09|4.75|<0.001
91862895|NCT03031470|183613231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Reparixin and Control groups will be compared for duration of cold ischemia using Cochran-Mantel-Hensel (CMH) test with control EAD.||||||0.843
91862896|NCT03031470|183613232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Reparixin and Control groups will be compared for duration of earm ischemia using Cochran-Mantel-Hensel (CMH) test with control EAD.||||||0.701
91903320|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.1874||95.0|-1.08|0.21||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||0.21|-1.08|0.1874
91679626|NCT02912650|183251769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.67||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||6.36|0.98|0.008
91679627|NCT02912650|183251769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.64|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.64|1.85|<0.001
91679628|NCT02912650|183251770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.39|15.71|||ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||15.71|10.39|<0.001
91679629|NCT02912650|183251770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.86|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.86|1.15|0.002
91679630|NCT02912650|183251770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.06|8.83|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.83|5.06|<0.001
91679631|NCT02912650|183251770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|12.7|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.70|7.39|<0.001
91679632|NCT02912650|183251770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|8.78|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.78|3.44|<0.001
91679633|NCT02912650|183251770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|5.81|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.81|2.06|<0.001
91679634|NCT02912650|183251770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|5.05|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.05|2.63|<0.001
91679635|NCT02912650|183251770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.92|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.92|0.23|0.013
91679636|NCT02912650|183251770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.55|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.55|1.83|<0.001
91862897|NCT03031470|183613242|SUPERIORITY|"General survival and graft survival (graft loss will be qualified as an event for graft survival) within 1 year were presented with Kaplan-Mayer curves and survival time median with 95% CI. Treatment groups will be compared using logrank test."||||||0.416|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.416
91862898|NCT03435614|183613255|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We selected the individual signs and symptoms associated with the presence of OIWS based on a difference of greater than 15 % in the assessments between the group with OIWS and the group not displaying OIWS. This 15 % difference was judged to be of clinical significance. The signs and symptoms which did not meet this difference were not considered (data not available).|||
91862899|NCT02683447|183613258|OTHER|Correlation||||||0.039||||||P \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Pearson correlation|||||||0.039
91862900|NCT02683447|183613259|OTHER|Correlation|||||<|0.01||||||P \< 0.05 is considered statically significant.|Pearson correlation|||ACLS correct score||||<0.01
91862901|NCT02683447|183613259|OTHER|Correlation||||||0.322||||||P \< 0.05 is considered statically significant.|Pearson correlation|||ACLS risk score||||0.322
91862902|NCT03216057|183613308|SUPERIORITY|The sample size was calculated that 130 subjects randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms have 85% power to detect a difference of at least 20% in triglyceride percentage changes compared with placebo at week 12, assuming a common standard deviation in percentage change of 35%, a 2-sided α = 0.05, and we add 20% for lost follow-up, finally the number of subjects for each arm was 65.|Mean Difference (Net)|-24.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-16.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-16.2|-32.7|<0.01
91862903|NCT03216057|183613309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-36.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-36.8|-83.0|<0.01
91717859|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|9.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.76|12.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||12|7.76|
91717860|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||20|12|
91717861|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|6.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||6.65|3.64|
91717862|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.1|0.91|
91717863|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.9|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.9|1.19|
91717864|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|6.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|8.53|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||8.53|5.72|
91717865|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|3.5|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||3.5|2.44|
91717866|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.04|0.64|
91717867|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.78|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.78|0.83|
91679637|NCT02912650|183251770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.98|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.98|1.56|<0.001
91717868|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1]|7.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.33|11.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||11|5.33|
91717869|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||4.55|2.4|
91717870|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.1|0.74|
91717871|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|4.51|||GMT|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||4.51|2.78|
91717872|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|16.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||16|10|
91717873|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|4.95|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||4.95|2.61|
91717874|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1|1|
91679638|NCT02912650|183251770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.37|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.37|-0.07|0.064
91679639|NCT02912650|183251770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.47|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.47|0.76|<0.001
91679640|NCT02912650|183251771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91679641|NCT02912650|183251771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.069
91862904|NCT03216057|183613310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.9|-16.1|0.01
91862905|NCT03216057|183613311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|6.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.05|-15.8|0.3
91862906|NCT03216057|183613312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.5|-21.2|<0.01
91862907|NCT03216057|183613313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-4.1|0.02
91862908|NCT03216057|183613314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.8|-6.3|0.6
91862909|NCT03216057|183613315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.9|-0.9|0.1
91679642|NCT02912650|183251771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91717875|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.11|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.11|1.02|
91717876|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|1.92|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.92|1.57|
91717877|NCT00644059|183328335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.08|0.92|
91717878|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.19|0.78|
91679643|NCT02912650|183251771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91679644|NCT02912650|183251771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91679645|NCT02912650|183251771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.005
91679646|NCT02912650|183251772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-45.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.96|-31.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-31.58|-58.96|<0.001
91679647|NCT02912650|183251772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.88||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.50|-18.27|0.064
91679648|NCT02912650|183251772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-26.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.91|-17.05|||ANOVA|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.05|-36.91|<0.001
91717879|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|6.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|8.76|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||8.76|4.69|
91717880|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|8.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|11.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||11|6.36|
91717881|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|4.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|5.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||5.65|3.38|
91717882|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of Geometric Mean Titers GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.35|0.82|
91717883|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|8.73|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||8.73|4.72|
91862910|NCT03216057|183613316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||21|5.8|<0.01
91679649|NCT02912650|183251772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-36.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-22.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-22.07|-50.45|<0.001
91679650|NCT02912650|183251772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.58||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.64|-4.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-4.52|-32.64|0.010
91679651|NCT02912650|183251772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.44|-7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.90|-28.44|<0.001
91679652|NCT02912650|183251772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-57.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.44|-44.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-44.72|-70.44|<0.001
91679653|NCT02912650|183251772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.28||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-3.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.57|-18.99|0.004
91679654|NCT02912650|183251772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-28.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.77|-19.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.35|-36.77|<0.001
91679655|NCT02912650|183251772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-46.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.98|-32.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-32.04|-59.98|<0.001
91862911|NCT03216057|183613317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.2|0.4|<0.01
91862912|NCT03904147|183613336|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.44||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Method||The Win Ratio provides an estimation of the treatment effect.|||||0.0311
91862913|NCT03904147|183613337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||exact test|||||||0.0008
91903321|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1025||95.0|-1.22|0.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||0.11|-1.22|0.1025
91679656|NCT02912650|183251772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.65|-15.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-15.75|-43.65|<0.001
91679657|NCT02912650|183251772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-16.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|-7.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.29|-26.59|<0.001
91679658|NCT02912650|183251773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91679659|NCT02912650|183251773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.003
91679660|NCT02912650|183251773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.031
91679661|NCT02912650|183251773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91862914|NCT03904147|183613338|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Z test|||||||<0.0001
91679662|NCT02912650|183251773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91679663|NCT02912650|183251773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.631
91862915|NCT03904147|183613339|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA model|||||||<0.0001
91862916|NCT03904147|183613340|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
91679664|NCT02912650|183251774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91679665|NCT02912650|183251774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.088
91679666|NCT02912650|183251774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.133
91679667|NCT02912650|183251774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91679668|NCT02912650|183251774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91679669|NCT02912650|183251774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.887
91679670|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.52|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|0.14|<0.001
91679671|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.28|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|0.01|0.034
91679672|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.14|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.14|-0.13|0.963
91679673|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.37|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.37|-0.01|0.062
91862917|NCT03904147|183613341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2482|||||||ANCOVA model|||||||0.2482
91862918|NCT03904147|183613342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact test|||||||<0.0001
91862919|NCT03904147|183613343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact method|||||||<0.0001
91862920|NCT03904147|183613344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||normal approximation|||||||0.1090
91862921|NCT03468868|183613353|NON_INFERIORITY|We chose a non-inferiority margin of 10% (or 0.10 feet per second) for this population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.44|-0.14|<0.01
91862922|NCT03468868|183613354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|384.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.56|174.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||174.5|-29.56|0.16
91862923|NCT03468868|183613355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.96||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|1.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.41|-10.84|0.13
91862924|NCT03468868|183613356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.22||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|5.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.32|-3.55|0.70
91862925|NCT03468868|183613357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.71||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Anxiety Domain||2.30|-0.97|0.43
91717884|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|7.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|10.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||10|6.2|
91717885|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.05|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||4.05|2.42|
91717886|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.05|0.9|
91717887|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.93|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.93|1.26|
91717888|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|5.88|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||5.88|4.25|
91717889|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|2.93|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||2.93|2.22|
91717890|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day1 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.22|0.75|
91717891|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.51|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||2.51|1.17|
91717892|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|7.63|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||7.63|4.08|
91717893|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||4.2|2.3|
91717894|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.3|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.3|0.74|
91717895|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.49|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||4.49|2.19|
91717896|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|7.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.51|9.82|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||9.82|5.51|
91717897|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||3.55|2|
91717898|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.01|0.98|
91717899|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.22|1.05|
91717900|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|1.97|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.97|1.63|
91717901|NCT00644059|183328338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.17|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.17|1|
91717902|NCT02497469|183328363|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.8||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||P-value of the adjusted difference was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (Yes/No) and prior use of TNF-alpha antagonist (Yes/No) or the Fisher's exact method if the numerator was \<=5.|15.0|2.5|0.0061
91717903|NCT02497469|183328364|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||P-value of the adjusted difference was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (Yes/No) and prior use of TNF-alpha antagonist (Yes/No) or the Fisher's exact method if the numerator was \<=5.|18.5|5.3|0.0005
91717904|NCT02497469|183328365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-9.3||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||P-value of the adjusted difference was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior use of TNF-alpha antagonist (Yes/No) or the Fisher's exact method if the numerator was \<=5.|0.4|-18.9|0.0641
91717905|NCT03558516|183328366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.315
91862926|NCT03468868|183613357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.16||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Depression Domain||1.74|-1.26|0.75
91903322|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0662||95.0|-1.3|0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||0.04|-1.30|0.0662
91679674|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.52|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|0.13|0.001
91679675|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||-0.01|-0.28|0.040
91862927|NCT03468868|183613357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.54||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Fatigue Domain||0.97|-2.71|0.35
91679676|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.27|0.70|<0.001
91679677|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.37|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.37|-0.03|0.095
91679678|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.29|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.29|-0.12|0.414
91679679|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.1|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.10|0.52|<0.001
91679680|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.19|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.19|0.61|<0.001
91862928|NCT03468868|183613357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.83||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Upper Extremity Function Domain||0.99|-0.88|0.91
91862929|NCT03468868|183613357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.44||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Lower Extremity Function Domain||2.85|0.20|0.02
91903323|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1856||95.0|-1.21|0.24||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.24|-1.21|0.1856
91679681|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.12|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.12|-0.29|0.406
91679682|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.09|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.09|1.40|<0.001
91679683|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.58|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.58|0.10|0.006
91679684|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.57|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.57|0.08|0.009
91679685|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.75|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.75|1.07|<0.001
91679686|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.77|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.77|1.08|<0.001
91679687|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.23|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.23|-0.26|0.908
91679688|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.35|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.35|1.64|<0.001
91679689|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.64|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|0.15|0.002
91679690|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.82|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.82|0.32|<0.001
91679691|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.95|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.95|1.25|<0.001
91862930|NCT03468868|183613357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Cognitive Function Domain||0.76|-2.54|0.29
91862931|NCT03468868|183613357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Emotional and Behavioral Dyscontrol Domain||2.42|-0.26|0.11
91862932|NCT03468868|183613357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.13||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Positive Affect and Well-Being Domain||2.28|-1.19|0.54
91862933|NCT03468868|183613357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.76||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Sleep Disturbance Domain||0.81|-2.00|0.41
91862934|NCT03468868|183613357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.65||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities Domain||2.02|-1.22|0.63
91862935|NCT03468868|183613357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.44||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities Domain||2.47|-1.16|0.48
91679692|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.78|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.78|1.07|<0.001
91679693|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.43|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.43|-0.07|0.157
91679694|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.48|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.48|1.73|<0.001
91679695|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.63|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.63|0.11|0.005
91679696|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|0.52|<0.001
91679697|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.1|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.10|1.36|<0.001
91679698|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.69|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.69|0.94|<0.001
91679699|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.68|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.68|0.15|0.002
91679700|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.45|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.45|1.67|<0.001
91679701|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.67|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.67|0.13|0.004
91679702|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.37|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.37|0.82|<0.001
91679703|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.04|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.04|1.27|<0.001
91679704|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.36|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.36|0.58|<0.001
91679705|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.96|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.96|0.42|<0.001
91679706|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.4|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.40|1.60|<0.001
91679707|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.72|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.72|0.16|0.002
91679708|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.44|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.44|0.88|<0.001
91679709|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.96|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.96|1.16|<0.001
91679710|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.24|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.24|0.44|<0.001
91679711|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.00|0.44|<0.001
91679712|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.31|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.31|1.50|<0.001
91679713|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.74|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.74|0.18|0.001
91679714|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.43|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.43|0.85|<0.001
91679715|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.85|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.85|1.04|<0.001
91862936|NCT03468868|183613357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.68||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Stigma Domain||1.45|-1.32|0.92
91679716|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.17|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.17|0.36|<0.001
91679717|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.97|0.39|<0.001
91679718|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.98|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.98|1.13|<0.001
91679719|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.65|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.06|0.017
91679720|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.37|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.37|0.77|<0.001
91679721|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.62|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.62|0.78|<0.001
91679722|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.91|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.91|0.06|0.026
91679723|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.01|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.01|0.42|<0.001
91679724|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.69|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.69|0.84|<0.001
91679725|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.66|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|0.07|0.017
91679726|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.60|<0.001
91862937|NCT03468868|183613357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.45||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Communication Domain||0.37|-1.31|0.28
91862938|NCT03468868|183613358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.63||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||MSIS Physical||2.60|-7.55|0.34
91679727|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.33|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.33|0.48|<0.001
91679728|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.8|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.80|-0.06|0.089
91679729|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.83|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.83|0.24|<0.001
91679730|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.44|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.44|0.60|<0.001
91679731|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.65|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.06|0.018
91679732|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.02|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.02|0.42|<0.001
91679733|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.09|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.25|0.002
91679734|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.72|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.72|-0.12|0.163
91679735|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.66|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|0.07|0.016
91679736|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.10|0.26|0.002
91679737|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.4|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|-0.19|0.496
91679738|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.76|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.76|0.16|0.003
91717906|NCT03558516|183328367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
91717907|NCT03558516|183328368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.299
91862939|NCT03468868|183613358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.37||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|3.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||MSIS Psychological||3.88|-6.63|0.24
91862940|NCT03468868|183613359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.91||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Cognitive||2.56|-1.83|0.74
91862941|NCT03468868|183613359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.03||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Physical||-0.12|-4.07|0.04
91717908|NCT02065557|183328376|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
91717909|NCT02065557|183328376|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
91717910|NCT02065557|183328376|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||0.382
91717911|NCT02065557|183328376|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
91717912|NCT02065557|183328376|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
91717913|NCT02065557|183328376|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||0.344
91793709|NCT00366340|183465604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.71|0.51|
91862942|NCT03468868|183613359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Psychosocial||0.39|-0.68|0.59
91862943|NCT03468868|183613359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Total||2.30|-6.05|0.38
91862944|NCT03468868|183613360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.34|0.87
91862945|NCT03468868|183613361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.08|0.05
91862946|NCT05399459|183613362|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|26.8|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg - placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||26.8|12.0|<0.0001
91862947|NCT05399459|183613363|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|30.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg - placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||30.9|14.5|<0.0001
91862948|NCT05399459|183613364|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|14.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||23.6|5.9|0.0011
91862949|NCT05399459|183613365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|27.4|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||27.4|10.1|<0.0001
91903324|NCT00232141|183701680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7925||95.0|-0.66|0.5||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.50|-0.66|0.7925
91679739|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.0|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.00|0.15|0.008
91679740|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.64|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|-0.21|0.315
91679741|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.66|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|0.06|0.019
91679742|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.87|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.87|0.02|0.038
91679743|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.31|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.31|-0.28|0.918
91679744|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.55|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.55|-0.05|0.105
91679745|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.85|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.85|0.01|0.045
91679746|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.62|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.62|-0.22|0.355
91679747|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.53|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.53|-0.07|0.127
91679748|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.7|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.70|-0.12|0.171
91679749|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.33|-0.25|0.790
91717914|NCT02065557|183328377|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91679750|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.47|-0.12|0.235
91679751|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.66|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|-0.16|0.236
91862950|NCT05399459|183613366|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|31.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|40.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||40.3|23.2|<0.0001
91862951|NCT05399459|183613367|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|-19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-11.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||-11.6|-27.8|<0.0001
91862952|NCT05399459|183613368|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|41.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||41.6|24.7|<0.0001
91679752|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.53|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.53|-0.30|0.599
91679753|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.43|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.43|-0.15|0.353
91679754|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.62|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.62|-0.19|0.293
91679755|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|-0.28|0.986
91679756|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.39|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.39|-0.18|0.459
91717915|NCT02065557|183328377|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91717916|NCT02065557|183328377|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.382
91717917|NCT02065557|183328377|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91717918|NCT02065557|183328377|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91717919|NCT02065557|183328377|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.344
91717920|NCT02065557|183328378|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91717921|NCT02065557|183328378|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|Chi-squared|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91793710|NCT00366340|183465604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.06|0.73|
91717922|NCT02065557|183328378|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.008||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|Chi-squared|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.008
91793711|NCT00366340|183465607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|8.3||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||8.3|-3.0|
91793712|NCT00366340|183465607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|13.0||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||13.0|-4.1|
91679757|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.62|-0.18|0.287
91679758|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.51|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|-0.30|0.600
91679759|NCT02912650|183251775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.4|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|-0.17|0.447
91679760|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.96|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.96|0.23|0.001
91679761|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.39|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.39|-0.12|0.297
91862953|NCT05399459|183613369|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|10.1||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|21.1||P-value \> 0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||21.1|-0.9|0.0707
91679762|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.16|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.16|-0.35|0.457
91679763|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.82|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.82|0.10|0.012
91679764|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.06|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.06|0.33|<0.001
91679765|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.02|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.02|-0.49|0.076
91679766|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.63|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.63|1.42|<0.001
91679767|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.93|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.93|0.10|0.016
91862954|NCT05583578|183613385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91862955|NCT05583578|183613385|OTHER||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes greater than (d = 0.80) were considered large.|Post-intervention changes in walking speed||||
91862956|NCT05583578|183613386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91903325|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1191||95.0|0.802|5.935||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||5.935|0.802|0.1191
91679768|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.64|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.64|-0.21|0.330
91679769|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.11|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.11|0.91|<0.001
91679770|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.42|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.42|1.21|<0.001
91679771|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.12|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.12|-0.73|0.163
91679772|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|4.65|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.65|3.18|<0.001
91679773|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.38|0.35|0.001
91679774|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.31|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.31|0.26|0.003
91679775|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|3.79|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.79|2.32|<0.001
91679776|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|3.87|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.87|2.39|<0.001
91793713|NCT00366340|183465607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.5||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups(13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.4|
91679777|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.44|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.44|-0.60|0.769
91679778|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|5.42|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.42|3.88|<0.001
91679779|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.4|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.40|0.32|0.002
91679780|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.93|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.93|0.83|<0.001
91679781|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|4.56|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.56|3.02|<0.001
91679782|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.04|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.04|2.49|<0.001
91679783|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.06|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.06|-0.03|0.062
91679784|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|5.64|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.64|4.01|<0.001
91679785|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.33|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.33|0.19|0.009
91793714|NCT00366340|183465607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.5||||||95.0|-9.3|0.3||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated||0.3|-9.3|
91679786|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.33|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.33|1.17|<0.001
91679787|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|4.88|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.88|3.25|<0.001
91679788|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.9|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.90|2.26|<0.001
91679789|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.56|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.56|0.41|<0.001
91679790|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|5.52|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.52|3.82|<0.001
91679791|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.38|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.38|0.19|0.010
91679792|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.01|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.01|1.81|<0.001
91679793|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|4.74|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.74|3.04|<0.001
91862957|NCT05583578|183613386|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes ranging from 0.21 to 0.79 were considered moderate, anything ≥0.80 were considered large.|||||
91862958|NCT05825755|183613393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.252
91862959|NCT05825755|183613394|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0
91862960|NCT05825755|183613395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.791
91862961|NCT04103580|183613400|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 1.||||0.247
91717923|NCT02065557|183328378|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91793715|NCT00366340|183465607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Haemophilus Influenzae Type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
91862962|NCT04103580|183613400|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 2.||||0.049
91903326|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.5041||95.0|0.666|2.301||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||2.301|0.666|0.5041
91679794|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.11|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.11|1.40|<0.001
91679795|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.23|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.23|1.02|<0.001
91679796|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|5.4|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.40|3.65|<0.001
91679797|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.43|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.43|0.21|0.009
91679798|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.04|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.04|1.79|<0.001
91679799|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|4.58|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.58|2.83|<0.001
91679800|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.99|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.99|1.23|<0.001
91679801|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.22|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.22|0.97|<0.001
91679802|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|5.17|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.17|3.37|<0.001
91679803|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.44|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.44|0.18|0.012
91679804|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.0|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.00|1.72|<0.001
91679805|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.36|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.36|2.57|<0.001
91679806|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.82|1.00|<0.001
91793716|NCT00366340|183465607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-5.0|2.3||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated||2.3|-5.0|
91679807|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.19|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.19|0.92|<0.001
91679808|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|4.6|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.60|2.76|<0.001
91679809|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.27|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.27|-0.01|0.055
91679810|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.84|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.84|1.54|<0.001
91679811|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.97|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.97|2.14|<0.001
91679812|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.49||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.42|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.42|0.57|0.002
91679813|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.21|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.21|0.91|<0.001
91679814|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.03|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.03|2.17|<0.001
91679815|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.65||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.30|0.00|0.049
91679816|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.59|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.59|1.27|<0.001
91679817|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.37|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.37|1.52|<0.001
91679818|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.1|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.10|0.23|0.015
91679819|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.94|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.94|0.62|<0.001
91679820|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.4|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.40|1.56|<0.001
91679821|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.2|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.20|-0.08|0.087
91679822|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.12|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.12|0.82|<0.001
91793717|NCT00366340|183465607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.4||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||4.4|-0.4|
91862963|NCT04103580|183613401|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 1.||||0.150
91679823|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.84|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.84|1.00|<0.001
91717924|NCT02065557|183328378|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91717925|NCT02065557|183328378|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.038||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.038
91717926|NCT02065557|183328379|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91717927|NCT02065557|183328379|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91717928|NCT02065557|183328379|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.382
91862964|NCT04103580|183613401|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 2.||||0.635
91862965|NCT04752709|183613420|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91679824|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.94|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.94|0.09|0.032
91679825|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.56|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.56|0.26|0.006
91679826|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.66|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.66|0.85|<0.001
91679827|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.77|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.77|-0.49|0.669
91679828|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.89||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.53|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.53|0.24|0.007
91903327|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6859||95.0|0.638|1.985||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||1.985|0.638|0.6859
91679829|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.52|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.52|0.71|<0.001
91862966|NCT04248725|183613426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Models were adjusted for sex, baseline severity, and disability condition.||||||0.004
91862967|NCT04248725|183613427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|0.30|<0.001
91862968|NCT04248725|183613428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.61|0.29
91679830|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.78|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.78|-0.05|0.063
91679831|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.75||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.39|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.39|0.11|0.022
91679832|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.12|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.12|0.32|0.008
91679833|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.68|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.68|-0.58|0.876
91679834|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.13|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.13|-0.15|0.134
91679835|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.07|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.07|0.27|0.011
91679836|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.64|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.64|-0.17|0.112
91679837|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.08|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.08|-0.20|0.179
91679838|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.85|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.85|0.09|0.032
91679839|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.67|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.67|-0.56|0.850
91679840|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.95|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.95|-0.30|0.311
91679841|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.79|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.79|0.03|0.043
91679842|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64||||0.154||95.0|-0.24|1.53|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.53|-0.24|0.154
91679843|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.89|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.89|-0.36|0.408
91679844|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.68|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.68|-0.05|0.065
91679845|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.55|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.55|-0.66|0.862
91679846|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.9|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.90|-0.32|0.352
91679847|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.87||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.73|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.73|0.00|0.049
91862969|NCT05977530|183613443|SUPERIORITY||comparison of ranks in Wilcoxon|0.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
91862970|NCT05692960|183613473|SUPERIORITY|For this feasibility study, a sample of approximately 15 participants per arm will allow for estimates that can be used in the development of a larger study.|FSFI Total, HRI Cohen's d|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.1||||||Effect sizes, Cohen's d, were calculated for both study arms using paired t-tests for FSFI total, FSFI lubrication, FSFI pain, and FSFI desire subscales. Means and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.||2.10|.62|
91862971|NCT05692960|183613473|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Total, VVA Cohen's d|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.37||||||||2.37|.86|
91717929|NCT02065557|183328379|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91717930|NCT02065557|183328379|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91717931|NCT02065557|183328379|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.344
91717932|NCT02065557|183328380|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91717933|NCT02065557|183328380|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91717934|NCT02065557|183328380|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.292||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.292
91717935|NCT02065557|183328380|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91717936|NCT02065557|183328380|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91717937|NCT02065557|183328380|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.292||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.292
91717938|NCT02065557|183328381|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.382
91862972|NCT05692960|183613473|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Lubrication, HRI Cohen's d|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.87||||||||1.87|.49|
91862973|NCT05692960|183613473|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Lubrication, VVA Cohen's d|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.66||||||||2.66|1.02|
91862974|NCT05692960|183613473|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Pain, HRI Cohen's d|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.36||||||||1.36|.16|
91862975|NCT05692960|183613473|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Pain, VVA Cohen's d|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.38||||||||1.38|.24|
91862976|NCT05692960|183613473|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Desire, HRI Cohen's d|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.82||||||||1.82|.46|
91862977|NCT05692960|183613473|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Desire, VVA Cohen's d|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.86||||||||1.86|.55|
91679848|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.39|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.39|-0.35|0.239
91679849|NCT02912650|183251776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.96|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.96|-0.27|0.270
91679850|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.28|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|0.01|0.031
91679851|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.12|-0.06|0.527
91679852|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.05|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.05|-0.14|0.386
91679853|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.25|-0.02|0.084
91679854|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.32|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.32|0.06|0.006
91679855|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.02|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.02|-0.17|0.135
91679856|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.73|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|0.34|<0.001
91679857|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.27|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.27|-0.01|0.062
91679858|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.14|-0.14|0.977
91679859|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.6|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.60|0.21|<0.001
91679860|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.73|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|0.34|<0.001
91679861|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.01|-0.27|0.069
91679862|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.38|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.38|0.90|<0.001
91679863|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.46|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.46|0.12|<0.001
91679864|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.39|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.39|0.05|0.011
91679865|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.09|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.61|< 0.001
91679866|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.16|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.16|0.67|<0.001
91679867|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.1|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.10|-0.24|0.427
91862978|NCT05692960|183613474|SUPERIORITY|For this feasibility study, a sample of approximately 15 participants per arm will allow for estimates that can be used in the development of a larger study.|BITS, HRI Cohen's d|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.63||||||Effect sizes, Cohen's d, were calculated for both study arms using paired t-tests for the BITS. Means and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.||1.63|.34|
91862979|NCT05692960|183613474|SUPERIORITY||BITS, VVA Cohen's d|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.01||||||||1.01|.03|
91862980|NCT05692960|183613475|SUPERIORITY|For this feasibility study, a sample of approximately 15 participants per arm will allow for estimates that can be used in the development of a larger study.|PROMIS Interest, HRI Cohen's d|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.75||||||Effect sizes, Cohen's d, were calculated for both study arms using paired t-test for PROMIS interest, lubrication and satisfaction subscales. Means and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.||1.75|.41|
91679868|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.6|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.60|1.11|<0.001
91679869|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.44|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.44|0.10|0.002
91679870|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.58|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.58|0.23|<0.001
91717939|NCT02065557|183328381|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||1||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||1.000
91717940|NCT02065557|183328381|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||1||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||1.000
91717941|NCT02065557|183328381|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.344
91717942|NCT02065557|183328381|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.559||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.559
91717943|NCT02065557|183328381|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.815||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.815
91717944|NCT01462942|183328392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.125|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.160|0.090|<0.0001
91717945|NCT01462942|183328392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.069||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.105|0.034|0.0001
91717946|NCT01462942|183328393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.119|0.051|<0.0001
91717947|NCT01462942|183328393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.053||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.087|0.019|0.0022
91793718|NCT00366340|183465607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91862981|NCT05692960|183613475|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Interest, VVA Cohen's d|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.18||||||||1.18|.09|
91903328|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.414||95.0|0.735|2.116||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||2.116|0.735|0.4140
91793719|NCT00366340|183465607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91862982|NCT05692960|183613475|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Satisfaction, HRI Cohen's d|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.89||||||||1.89|.45|
91717948|NCT01462942|183328394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.293|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.859|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by BDI baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||||1.859|0.728|<0.0001
91793720|NCT00366340|183465607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-1.3|3.3||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated||3.3|-1.3|
91862983|NCT05692960|183613475|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Satisfaction, VVA Cohen's d|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.44||||||||1.44|.13|
91862984|NCT05692960|183613475|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Lubrication, HRI Cohen's d|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.67||||||||2.67|.88|
91862985|NCT05692960|183613475|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Lubrication, VVA Cohen's d|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.5||||||||2.50|.74|
91862986|NCT02675777|183613476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91862987|NCT02675777|183613477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
91793721|NCT00366340|183465608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.58||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.58|0.96|
91679871|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.33|0.84|<0.001
91679872|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.70|<0.001
91679873|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.31|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.31|-0.04|0.123
91679874|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.67|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.67|1.14|<0.001
91679875|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.42|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.42|0.05|0.012
91679876|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.75|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.75|0.38|<0.001
91679877|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.43|0.90|<0.001
91679878|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.11|0.57|<0.001
91679879|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.51|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|0.14|<0.001
91903329|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7852||95.0|0.644|1.794||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||1.794|0.644|0.7852
91679880|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.65|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.65|1.11|<0.001
91679881|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.48|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.48|0.11|0.002
91679882|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.95|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.95|0.56|<0.001
91679883|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.36|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.36|0.82|<0.001
91679884|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.9|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.90|0.35|<0.001
91679885|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.65|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.27|<0.001
91679886|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.61|1.06|<0.001
91793722|NCT00366340|183465608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b µg/mL the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.39|0.95|
91679887|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.49|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.49|0.10|0.003
91679888|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.98|0.58|<0.001
91679889|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.32|0.76|<0.001
91679890|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.84|0.28|<0.001
91679891|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.68|0.29|<0.001
91679892|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.57|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.57|1.00|<0.001
91679893|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.50|0.10|0.003
91679894|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.91|0.51|<0.001
91679895|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.27|0.70|<0.001
91679896|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.86|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|0.29|<0.001
91679897|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.61|0.21|<0.001
91679898|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.38|0.81|<0.001
91679899|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.45|0.05|0.014
91679900|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|0.45|<0.001
91679901|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.13|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.13|0.56|<0.001
91679902|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.73|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|0.15|0.003
91679903|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.61|0.21|<0.001
91679904|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.2|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.62|<0.001
91679905|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.42|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.42|0.01|0.041
91679906|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.76|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.76|0.35|<0.001
91679907|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.99|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.99|0.41|<0.001
91903330|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7399||95.0|0.654|1.817||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||1.817|0.654|0.7399
91679908|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.65|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.06|0.018
91679909|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.55|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.55|0.14|0.001
91679910|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|0.48|<0.001
91679911|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|0.00|0.045
91679912|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.64|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|0.24|<0.001
91679913|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.84|0.28|< 0.001
91679914|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.61|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.61|0.04|0.027
91679915|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.44|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.44|0.04|0.020
91679916|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.85|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.85|0.29|<0.001
91679917|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.28|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|-0.11|0.374
91679918|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.54|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.54|0.14|<0.001
91679919|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.76|0.20|<0.001
91679920|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.51|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|-0.05|0.106
91679921|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.45|0.05|0.013
91679922|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.67|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.67|0.11|0.006
91679923|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.22|-0.17|0.796
91679924|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.36|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.36|-0.03|0.104
91679925|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.65|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.09|0.010
91679926|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.51|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|-0.05|0.114
91679927|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.34|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.34|-0.06|0.168
91679928|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.59|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.59|0.05|0.022
91679929|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.24|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.24|-0.14|0.620
91679930|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.33|-0.06|0.164
91903331|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.1055||95.0|0.913|2.701||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||2.701|0.913|0.1055
91679931|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.54|-0.00|0.052
91679932|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.45|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.45|-0.09|0.196
91679933|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|-0.10|0.364
91679934|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.52|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|-0.02|0.071
91679935|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.865||95.0|-0.2|0.17|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.17|-0.20|0.865
91679936|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.3|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.30|-0.08|0.238
91679937|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.53|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.53|-0.00|0.054
91679938|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.4|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|-0.14|0.335
91679939|NCT02912650|183251777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.32|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.32|-0.06|0.176
91679940|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.77|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.77|0.18|0.002
91679941|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.38|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.38|-0.03|0.098
91679942|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.17|-0.25|0.719
91679943|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.60|0.00|0.048
91679944|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.81|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.81|0.21|<0.001
91679945|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.0|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||-0.00|-0.42|0.046
91862988|NCT00691002|183613484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test for superiority of LEO 80190 ointment versus calcipotriol ointment at Week 8 LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward).||1.74|0.94|0.11
91679946|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.99|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.99|1.05|<0.001
91679947|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.63|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.63|-0.02|0.069
91679948|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.42|-0.24|0.604
91679949|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.69|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.69|0.75|<0.001
91679950|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.9|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.90|0.96|<0.001
91679951|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.11|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.11|-0.54|0.200
91679952|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|3.46|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.46|2.32|<0.001
91679953|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.03|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.03|0.23|0.002
91679954|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.95|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.95|0.14|0.008
91679955|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.83|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.83|1.69|<0.001
91679956|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.91|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.91|1.77|<0.001
91679957|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.32|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.32|-0.49|0.685
91679958|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|3.93|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.93|2.77|<0.001
91679959|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.07|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.07|0.26|0.001
91679960|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.39|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.39|0.57|<0.001
91679961|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.27|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.27|2.11|<0.001
91679962|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.96|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.96|1.79|<0.001
91679963|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.73|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|-0.10|0.132
91679964|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|4.13|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.13|2.88|<0.001
91679965|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.05|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|0.17|0.007
91679966|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.8|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.80|0.91|<0.001
91679967|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|3.52|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.52|2.27|<0.001
91679968|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.79|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.79|1.52|<0.001
91862989|NCT00691002|183613484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test for superiority of LEO 80190 ointment versus hydrocortisone ointment at Week 8 LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward).||2.45|1.31|<0.001
91862990|NCT00691002|183613484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test for superiority of LEO 80190 ointment versus ointment vehicle at Week 8 LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward).||4.04|1.80|<0.001
91862991|NCT04642820|183613510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
91717949|NCT01462942|183328394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.162|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted by BDI baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||1.730|0.593|<0.0001
91717950|NCT01462942|183328395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.653||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.082|1.776|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by SGRQ baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||||1.776|-3.082|0.5980
91717951|NCT01462942|183328395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.828||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.259|0.604|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by SGRQ baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||||0.604|-4.259|0.1406
91717952|NCT02737722|183328397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5152|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 1 (Visit 2)||||0.5152
91717953|NCT02737722|183328397|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 1 (Visit 2)||||1.0000
91717954|NCT02737722|183328397|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2 (Visit 3)||||1.0000
91793723|NCT00366340|183465609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.80|0.57|
91679969|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.19|0.30|0.001
91679970|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|4.09|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.09|2.79|<0.001
91679971|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.15|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.15|0.24|0.003
91679972|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.31|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.31|1.39|<0.001
91679973|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.39|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.39|2.10|<0.001
91679974|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.24|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.24|0.94|< 0.001
91793724|NCT00366340|183465609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.01|0.75|
91679975|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.61|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.61|0.69|<0.001
91679976|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|4.0|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.00|2.67|<0.001
91679977|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.2|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.27|0.002
91679978|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.41|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.41|1.47|<0.001
91717955|NCT02737722|183328397|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2 (Visit 3)||||1.0000
91717956|NCT02737722|183328397|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 9 (Visit 4)||||1.0000
91717957|NCT02737722|183328397|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 9 (Visit 4)||||1.0000
91717958|NCT02737722|183328397|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 15 (Visit 5)||||1.0000
91717959|NCT02737722|183328397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3636|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 15 (Visit 5)||||0.3636
91717960|NCT02737722|183328398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.172
91717961|NCT02737722|183328398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.365
91717962|NCT02737722|183328398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.619
91717963|NCT02737722|183328399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.432
91717964|NCT02737722|183328399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.435
91717965|NCT02737722|183328399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.715
91717966|NCT02737722|183328400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.519
91717967|NCT02737722|183328400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.519
91717968|NCT02737722|183328400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.153
91717969|NCT02737722|183328401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
91717970|NCT02737722|183328401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
91717971|NCT02737722|183328401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
91717972|NCT02737722|183328402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.361
91717973|NCT02737722|183328402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.519
91793725|NCT00366340|183465610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11||||||For hepatitis B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated.||1.11|0.69|
91903332|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.2107||95.0|0.829|2.401||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||2.401|0.829|0.2107
91679979|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|3.26|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.26|1.93|<0.001
91679980|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.07|0.73|<0.001
91679981|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.67|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.67|0.73|<0.001
91679982|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|3.87|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.87|2.51|<0.001
91679983|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.23|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.23|0.29|0.002
91679984|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.33|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.33|1.37|< 0.001
91679985|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.11|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.11|1.75|<0.001
91679986|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.03|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.03|0.66|<0.001
91679987|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.56|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.56|0.61|<0.001
91679988|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.35|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.35|1.95|<0.001
91679989|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.09|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.12|0.015
91679990|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.22|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.22|1.24|<0.001
91679991|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.74|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.74|1.35|<0.001
91679992|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.62|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.62|0.22|0.010
91679993|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.61|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.61|0.63|<0.001
91679994|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.88|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.88|1.47|<0.001
91679995|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.06|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.06|0.08|0.022
91679996|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.95|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.95|0.95|<0.001
91679997|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.30|0.90|<0.001
91679998|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.43|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.43|0.02|0.045
91679999|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.38|0.38|<0.001
91680000|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.47|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.47|1.09|<0.001
91680001|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.04|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.04|0.07|0.024
91680002|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.65|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.65|0.67|<0.001
91717974|NCT02737722|183328402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.153
91903333|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.527||95.0|0.697|2.046||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||2.046|0.697|0.5270
91862992|NCT04568434|183613511|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-43.5|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.085|-17.921||ANCOVA model included effects of treatment (olezarsen 80 mg, olezarsen 50 mg, or placebo): dependent variable, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-17.921|-69.085|=0.0009
91680003|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.92|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.92|0.54|<0.001
91680004|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.32|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.32|-0.07|0.079
91680005|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.09|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.12|0.015
91680006|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.94|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.94|0.56|<0.001
91680007|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.67|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.67|-0.29|0.438
91680008|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.29|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.29|0.31|0.001
91680009|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.75|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.75|0.37|0.003
91680010|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.14|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.14|-0.25|0.204
91680011|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.10|0.12|0.014
91680012|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.53|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.53|0.15|0.018
91680013|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.52|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|-0.44|0.867
91680014|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.9|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.90|-0.08|0.099
91680015|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.49|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.49|0.11|0.024
91680016|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.12|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.12|-0.27|0.228
91680017|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.86|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|-0.12|0.136
91680018|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.28|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.28|-0.07|0.078
91680019|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.56|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.56|-0.38|0.716
91680020|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.79|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.79|-0.16|0.197
91680021|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.19|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.19|-0.15|0.131
91680022|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.97|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.97|-0.39|0.399
91680023|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.7|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.70|-0.25|0.349
91680024|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.12|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.12|-0.20|0.169
91680025|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.44|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.44|-0.48|0.937
91680026|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.69|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.69|-0.25|0.351
91862993|NCT04568434|183613511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-22.37|||=|0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|2.463||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included effects of treatment (olezarsen 80 mg, olezarsen 50 mg, or placebo): dependent variable, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.463|-47.200|=0.0775
91793726|NCT00366340|183465610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22||||||For hepatitis B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.22|0.71|
91680027|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.14|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.14|-0.18|0.151
91680028|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.9|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.90|-0.42|0.476
91680029|NCT02912650|183251778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.71|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.71|-0.22|0.310
91680030|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|8.61|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||8.61|6.09|<0.001
91680031|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.41||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.28|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.28|0.53|0.002
91680032|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.88|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.88|1.09|<0.001
91680033|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|7.2|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||7.20|4.69|<0.001
91680034|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|6.63|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||6.63|4.10|<0.001
91680035|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.47|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.47|-0.31|0.203
91680036|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|28.9|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||28.90|20.10|<0.001
91717975|NCT02737722|183328403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
91717976|NCT02737722|183328403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
91793727|NCT02011893|183465662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 7.5 points, where the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores were measured on a scale of 0 to 100. Testing was carried out at a 5% significance level.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-distribution|95% UCB and p-value for non-inferiority are based on t-distribution with n1 + n2-2 degrees of freedom where n1 and n2 are number of subjects per arm.||||||<0.001
91680037|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.44||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|7.52|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||7.52|1.37|0.005
91680038|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|14.48|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||14.48|8.23|<0.001
91680039|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.66|24.45|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||24.45|15.66|<0.001
91793728|NCT02011893|183465663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||||||Superiority analysis performed|McNemar|||||||0.083
91717977|NCT02737722|183328403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
91717978|NCT02737722|183328405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
91717979|NCT02737722|183328405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
91717980|NCT02737722|183328405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
91722500|NCT06001021|183337810|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008). Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis.~2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.14||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.59|28.32||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||28.32|19.59|0.000
91793729|NCT02011893|183465665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Superiority analysis performed|t-distribution|95% UCB and p-value for superiority are based on t-distribution with n1 + n2-2 degrees of freedom where n1 and n2 are number of subjects per arm.||||||0.017
91903334|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6845||95.0|0.513|1.546||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||1.546|0.513|0.6845
91717981|NCT02449434|183328406|OTHER|Using the presence or absence of severe erosive wear as the dependent variable, the unadjusted, sex-and-age- adjusted and fully adjusted associations of the included variables with erosive tooth wear were estimated using unconditional binary logistic regression and reported using odds ratios (OR).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Only results from fully adjusted regression models will be deemed as significant|Regression, Logistic|Unconditional binary logistic regression and reported using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals||A minimum sample size of 490 participants (245 in each group) was needed. This calculation assumed the proportion of adults with high dietary acid intake (3+ times/day) was 55% among cases and 40% among controls (expected odds ratio of 2.25), case- control ratio of 1-to-1, 90% statistical power and 95% significance level.||||<0.05
91717982|NCT01026493|183328410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.48|||Log Rank|Two-sided test|Reference level = Arm 1/BEV-NAIVE|||1.48|0.66|0.95
91717983|NCT01026493|183328410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.53|||Log Rank|Two-sided test|Reference level = Arm 1/BEV-FAILURE|||1.53|0.57|0.93
91717984|NCT02662569|183328411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.43|-65.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-65.16|-75.43|<0.0001
91717985|NCT02662569|183328411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.67|-65.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-65.41|-74.67|<0.0001
91717986|NCT02662569|183328412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.61|-65.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-65.93|-77.61|<0.0001
91717987|NCT02662569|183328412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.97|-59.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-59.89|-69.97|<0.0001
91717988|NCT02662569|183328413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|-56.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-56.9|-68.2|<0.0001
91717989|NCT02662569|183328413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.4|-57.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-57.8|-68.4|<0.0001
91717990|NCT02662569|183328414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|-57.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-57.6|-69.7|<0.0001
91717991|NCT02662569|183328414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-53.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-53.3|-64.3|<0.0001
91717992|NCT02662569|183328415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.51|-56.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-56.29|-65.51|<0.0001
91903335|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7737||95.0|0.522|1.619||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||1.619|0.522|0.7737
91793730|NCT01255787|183465708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.258|2.035||Adjustment for multiplicity for the comparisons was based on the Dunnett-Hsu procedure.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a fixed factors and baseline MADRS as a covariate.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance.||2.035|-3.258|0.9070
91903336|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8853||95.0|0.597|1.818||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||1.818|0.597|0.8853
91793731|NCT01255787|183465708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.114||0.3006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.938|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a fixed factors and baseline MADRS as a covariate.||||0.938|-4.310|0.3006
91717993|NCT02662569|183328415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.52|-55.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-55.29|-63.52|<0.0001
91717994|NCT02662569|183328416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.82|-56.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-56.45|-66.82|<0.0001
91717995|NCT02662569|183328416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|-49.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-49.74|-58.70|<0.0001
91717996|NCT02662569|183328417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.93|-52.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-52.93|-60.93|<0.0001
91717997|NCT02662569|183328417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.52|-51.18||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-51.18|-58.52|<0.0001
91717998|NCT02662569|183328418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.59|-52.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-52.54|-61.59|<0.0001
91717999|NCT02662569|183328418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.31|-45.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-45.53|-53.31|<0.0001
91718000|NCT02662569|183328419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|-38.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-38.10|-44.95|<0.0001
91718001|NCT02662569|183328419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.47|-36.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-36.53|-42.47|<0.0001
91718002|NCT02662569|183328420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.02|-38.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-38.42|-46.02|<0.0001
91718003|NCT02662569|183328420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.12|-32.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-32.67|-39.12|<0.0001
91718004|NCT02662569|183328421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.64|-40.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-40.54|-47.64|<0.0001
91903337|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7712||95.0|0.612|1.946||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||1.946|0.612|0.7712
91718005|NCT02662569|183328421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-40.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-40.44|-46.90|<0.0001
91903338|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9586||95.0|0.574|1.796||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||1.796|0.574|0.9586
91793732|NCT01255787|183465708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.2399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.436|0.794|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a fixed factors and baseline MADRS as a covariate.||||0.794|-4.436|0.2399
91793733|NCT00509262|183465742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4%; i.e., non-inferiority required that the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (sitagliptin minus glipizide) to be less than 0.4%.|Difference in least squares mean|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06|||ANCOVA||Based on analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate, or severe), prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (on or not on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline A1C.|||0.06|-0.29|
91793734|NCT00509262|183465743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-4.8|||Miettirnen& Nurminen method||Miettirnen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate or severe) \& prior diabetes pharmacotherapy|||-4.8|-17.1|0.001
91793735|NCT00509262|183465744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|7.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|16.1|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate or severe), prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (on or not on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose.|||16.1|-1.9|
91793736|NCT00509262|183465745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance with terms of treatment, renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate or severe), prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (on or not on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline body weight.|||-1.0|-2.6|<0.001
91793737|NCT01244490|183465769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-5.8|||ANCOVA|||||-5.8|-11.9|<0.001
91680040|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.71|17.57|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||17.57|8.71|<0.001
91680041|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.04|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||10.04|3.80|<0.001
91793738|NCT01244490|183465769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-6.8|0.017
91793739|NCT01244490|183465770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage Improvement|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.4|11.1|<0.001
91903339|NCT00232141|183701681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.3482||95.0|0.486|1.283||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint-BOCF||1.283|0.486|0.3482
91903340|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1132||95.0|0.882|2.969||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||2.969|0.882|0.1132
91680042|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.09|43.57|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||43.57|26.09|<0.001
91793740|NCT01244490|183465770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage Improvement|12.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1|-0.9|0.024
91793741|NCT01244490|183465771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.217||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|-0.076|||ANCOVA|||||-0.076|-0.358|0.003
91793742|NCT01244490|183465771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.162||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||||-0.019|-0.305|0.026
91793743|NCT01244490|183465772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.209||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|-0.059|||ANCOVA|||||-0.059|-0.358|0.006
91793744|NCT01244490|183465772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.09||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.061|||ANCOVA|||||0.061|-0.241|0.242
91793745|NCT01244490|183465773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91793746|NCT01244490|183465773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.196
91680043|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|11.95|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||11.95|-0.25|0.060
91680044|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|22.95|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||22.95|10.54|<0.001
91793747|NCT01244490|183465775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.165||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.064||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.064|-0.266|0.001
91793748|NCT01244490|183465775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.104||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|-0.001||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.001|-0.207|0.048
91793749|NCT01244490|183465776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.211||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|-0.007||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.007|-0.416|0.043
91793750|NCT01244490|183465776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.125||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.08||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.080|-0.331|0.231
91793751|NCT01244490|183465777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Diiference in Least Squares Mean|-0.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|-0.094||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.094|-0.364|<0.001
91793752|NCT01244490|183465777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.181||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|-0.045||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.045|-0.317|0.009
91793753|NCT01244490|183465778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.094||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.017||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.204|0.096
91680045|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.26|37.71|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||37.71|20.26|<0.001
91680046|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.08|||<|0.001||95.0|9.29|26.88|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||26.88|9.29|<0.001
91680047|NCT02912650|183251779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|17.1|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||17.10|4.70|<0.001
91680048|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.51|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.51|1.72|<0.001
91680049|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.71|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.71|0.16|0.002
91680050|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.86|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|0.30|<0.001
91793754|NCT01244490|183465778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.067||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.046||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.046|-0.180|0.242
91680051|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.08|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.08|1.29|<0.001
91680052|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.93|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.93|1.14|<0.001
91680053|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.43|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.43|-0.13|0.303
91680054|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|8.58|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.58|5.86|<0.001
91680055|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.53|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.53|0.63|0.001
91680056|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|4.45|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.45|2.52|<0.001
91680057|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|6.99|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.99|4.28|<0.001
91680058|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.1|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.10|2.37|<0.001
91680059|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.86|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.86|0.95|<0.001
91680060|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|10.71|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.71|7.08|<0.001
91680061|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.26|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.26|0.73|0.002
91680062|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.77|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.77|3.20|<0.001
91793755|NCT01244490|183465779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.049||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.094||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.094|-0.191|0.500
91793756|NCT01244490|183465779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.078||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.066||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.066|-0.222|0.288
91793757|NCT01244490|183465780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.233||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|-0.092||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.092|-0.374|0.001
91793758|NCT01244490|183465780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.111||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.031||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.253|0.124
91793759|NCT01244490|183465781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.056||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.018||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.131|0.139
91793760|NCT01244490|183465781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.039||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.037||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.037|-0.115|0.315
91680063|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.08|8.71|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.71|5.08|<0.001
91680064|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|6.24|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.24|2.58|<0.001
91680065|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.77|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.77|1.21|<0.001
91718006|NCT02662569|183328422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-39.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-39.97|-47.90|<0.0001
91718007|NCT02662569|183328422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|-37.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-37.04|-44.08|<0.0001
91718008|NCT02662569|183328423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.15|-54.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-54.25|-62.15|<0.0001
91718009|NCT02662569|183328423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.53|-52.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-52.93|-60.53|<0.0001
91718010|NCT02662569|183328424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.59|-53.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-53.84|-62.59|<0.0001
91793761|NCT00971620|183465786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||4.00|-2.00|.70
91680066|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.76|13.08|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||13.08|7.76|<0.001
91718011|NCT02662569|183328424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.81|-47.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-47.59|-55.81|<0.0001
91793762|NCT00971620|183465788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.06
91793763|NCT00971620|183465789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||WIlcoxon rank sum test|||||||.007
91903341|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.4687||95.0|0.731|1.978||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||1.978|0.731|0.4687
91680067|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.14||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.0|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.00|0.28|0.024
91680068|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|7.12|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.12|3.35|<0.001
91680069|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|10.93|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.93|5.62|<0.001
91680070|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|7.86|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.86|2.51|<0.001
91680071|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.97|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.97|1.22|0.001
91680072|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.59|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.59|1.95|<0.001
91680073|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.24|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.24|0.09|0.023
91680074|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.24|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.24|1.07|<0.001
91793764|NCT00971620|183465790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.48
91793765|NCT00971620|183465791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.04
91793766|NCT00971620|183465793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.07
91680075|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.92|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.92|1.29|<0.001
91680076|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.94|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.94|0.29|0.008
91680077|NCT02912650|183251780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.57|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.57|0.41|<0.001
91680078|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|3.82|||ANOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.82|2.68|<0.001
91680079|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.03|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour:Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.03|0.23|0.002
91903342|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1546||95.0|0.877|2.375||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||2.375|0.877|0.1546
91680080|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.27|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.27|0.46|<0.001
91680081|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.19|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.19|2.05|<0.001
91680082|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.96|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.96|1.81|<0.001
91680083|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.64|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|-0.17|0.258
91680084|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|12.74|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.74|8.79|<0.001
91680085|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.29||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.67|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.67|0.91|0.001
91680086|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|6.73|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.73|3.93|<0.001
91680087|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|10.44|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.44|6.51|<0.001
91680088|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|7.42|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.42|3.46|<0.001
91680089|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.43|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.43|1.65|<0.001
91680090|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|18.62|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||18.62|10.74|<0.001
91680091|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.16||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.91|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.91|0.41|0.024
91680092|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.15|10.73|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.73|5.15|<0.001
91680093|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.59|15.45|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||15.45|7.59|<0.001
91680094|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.75|||<|0.001||95.0|2.79|10.71|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.71|2.79|<0.001
91680095|NCT02912650|183251781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.56|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.56|2.0|<0.001
91680096|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|6.32|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.32|4.42|<0.001
91680097|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.74|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.74|0.40|0.002
91680098|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.13|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.13|0.77|<0.001
91718012|NCT02662569|183328425|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|74.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||74.8|60.4|<0.0001
91718013|NCT02662569|183328425|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|71.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.1|77.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||77.9|64.1|<0.0001
91718014|NCT02662569|183328426|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|67.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.9|73.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||73.9|58.9|<0.0001
91718015|NCT02662569|183328426|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.6|75.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||75.3|60.6|<0.0001
91718016|NCT02662569|183328427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.64|-18.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-18.40|-92.64|<0.0001
91718017|NCT02662569|183328427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.82|-37.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-37.72|-63.82|<0.0001
91718018|NCT02662569|183328428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.89|-14.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-14.03|-110.89|<0.0001
91718019|NCT02662569|183328428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.87|-28.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-28.77|-61.87|<0.0001
91718020|NCT02662569|183328429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.89|-10.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-10.14|-25.89|0.0002
91718021|NCT02662569|183328429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.69|-9.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-9.58|-21.69|<0.0001
91718022|NCT02662569|183328430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.63|-8.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-8.19|-24.63|0.0002
91718023|NCT02662569|183328430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-12.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.76|-5.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-5.86|-18.76|<0.0001
91903343|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4216||95.0|0.7444|2.025||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||2.025|0.7444|0.4216
91718024|NCT02662569|183328431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|9.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||9.33|3.36|0.0003
91718025|NCT02662569|183328431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||10.65|5.10|<0.0001
91793767|NCT03324581|183465821|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.81|||=|0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.92||The change from baseline in CAARS-O:SV was analyzed using a Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) methodology with the unstructured variance covariance matrix.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|It included fixed class-effect terms: treatment,trial site,visit week, interaction term: treatment by visit week, Baseline CAARS-O:SV as a covariate.||||5.92|-4.30|=0.7554
91793768|NCT03324581|183465821|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.61|||=|0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-1.6||The change from baseline in CAARS-O:SV was analyzed using a MMRM methodology with the unstructured variance covariance matrix.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|It included fixed class-effect terms: treatment,trial site,visit week, interaction term: treatment by visit week, Baseline CAARS-O:SV as a covariate.||||-1.60|-11.6|=0.0101
91903344|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7479||95.0|0.556|1.527||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||1.527|0.556|0.7479
91680099|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|5.25|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.25|3.35|<0.001
91680100|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|4.88|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.88|2.96|<0.001
91680101|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.05|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|-0.29|0.268
91680102|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.69|21.28|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||21.28|14.69|<0.001
91680103|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|6.17|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.17|1.57|<0.001
91680104|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.48|11.15|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||11.15|6.48|<0.001
91680105|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.83|17.4|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||17.40|10.83|<0.001
91680106|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|12.48|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.48|5.86|<0.001
91680107|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|7.27|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.27|2.62|<0.001
91680108|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.52|26.37|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||26.37|17.52|<0.001
91680109|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|8.09|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.09|1.91|0.002
91680110|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.29|14.56|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||14.56|8.29|<0.001
91680111|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.53|21.36|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||21.36|12.53|<0.001
91680112|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|14.97|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||14.97|6.07|<0.001
91680113|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|9.55|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||9.55|3.30|<0.001
91680114|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.57|31.63|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||31.63|18.57|<0.001
91680115|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.86|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||9.86|0.74|0.023
91680116|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.55|17.8|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||17.80|8.55|<0.001
91680117|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.28|26.31|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||26.31|13.28|<0.001
91680118|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|18.49|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||18.49|5.36|<0.001
91680119|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|12.48|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.48|3.27|<0.001
91680120|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|8.62|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.62|4.61|<0.001
91680121|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.74||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.14|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.14|0.34|0.015
91718026|NCT02662569|183328432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|9.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||9.27|2.49|0.0003
91718027|NCT02662569|183328432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|11.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||11.25|5.03|<0.0001
91903345|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.3842||95.0|0.481|1.33||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||1.330|0.481|0.3842
91680122|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|5.76|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.76|2.92|<0.001
91680123|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|6.88|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.88|2.87|<0.001
91680124|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.27||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.28|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.28|0.25|0.028
91680125|NCT02912650|183251782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.02|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.02|1.19|<0.001
91680126|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-36.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.41|-23.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-23.71|-49.41|<0.001
91680127|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.95||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|0.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.56|-8.45|0.086
91680128|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.71||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.86|-8.28|0.112
91718028|NCT02662569|183328433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-20.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-20.17|-34.20|<0.0001
91680129|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-32.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.86|-19.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.17|-45.86|<0.001
91680130|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-32.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.22|-19.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.55|-46.22|<0.001
91680131|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|0.11||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||5.42|-5.20|0.968
91680132|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-47.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.18|-34.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-34.58|-61.18|<0.001
91680133|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.61|-0.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.84|-11.61|0.023
91680134|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.23||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-0.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.73|-11.73|0.026
91680135|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-41.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.51|-27.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-27.52|-55.51|<0.001
91680136|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-41.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.65|-27.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-27.89|-55.65|<0.001
91718029|NCT02662569|183328433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.88|-18.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-18.14|-29.88|<0.0001
91718030|NCT03154086|183328496|OTHER||Ratio|0.8||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.594|1.077|||ANOVA|||||1.077|0.5940|0.204
91718031|NCT03154086|183328497|OTHER||Ratio|0.7325||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5267|1.019|||ANOVA|||||1.019|0.5267|0.118
91903346|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.845||95.0|0.627|1.769||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||1.769|0.627|0.8450
91680137|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.16||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|6.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||6.23|-6.56|0.960
91680138|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-55.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.81|-42.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-42.65|-68.81|<0.001
91680139|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.16||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.13|-12.46|0.055
91680140|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-4.70|-18.70|0.001
91680141|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-49.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.21|-35.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-35.60|-63.21|<0.001
91680142|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.04|-30.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-30.55|-58.04|<0.001
91718032|NCT03154086|183328498|OTHER||Ratio|0.6502||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3876|1.091|||ANOVA|||||1.091|0.3876|0.157
91718033|NCT04465422|183328554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Anaiysis 1 is according to Occupational Performance History Interview - II (OPHI-II) total score.||5.55|1.65|<0.001
91680143|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-5.69||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|2.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.08|-13.46|0.151
91680144|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.96|-43.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-43.91|-69.96|<0.001
91680145|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-9.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-2.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-2.19|-15.80|0.010
91680146|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-20.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.97|-12.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-12.24|-27.97|<0.001
91680147|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-47.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.64|-33.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-33.83|-61.64|<0.001
91680148|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-37.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|-23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-23.40|-50.96|<0.001
91718034|NCT04465422|183328554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 is based on Occupational Identity(range 11\~44；higher scores indicates better performance), a sub-domain of OPHI-II. The Occupational Identity scale is designed to measure the degree to which a client has internalized a positive occupational identity (i.e., has values, interests, and confidence; sees self in various occupational roles; has an image of the kind of life desired)||2.37|0.23|0.019
91718035|NCT04465422|183328554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 is based on Occupational Competence(range 9\~36；higher scores indicate better performance), a sub-domain of OPHI-II. The Occupational Competence scale is designed to measure the degree to which a client is able to sustain a pattern of occupational behavior that is productive and satisfying.||2.11|0.38|0.006
91718036|NCT04465422|183328554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 4 is based on Occupational Behavior Settings(range 9\~36；higher scores indicate greater performance), a sub-domain of OPHI-II. The Occupational Behavior Settings scale addresses the impact of the environment on the person's occupational life.||1.35|-0.19|0.136
91718037|NCT04465422|183328555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 is based on Lawton Instrumental Activities Daily Living (range 0\~23；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||2.25|-3.90|0.592
91718038|NCT04465422|183328555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 is based on Comprehensive Occupational Therapy Evaluation Scale (range 20\~100；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||7.23|-2.29|0.302
91718039|NCT04465422|183328555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 is based on Personal and Social Performance scale (range 1\~100；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||6.82|-6.25|0.931
91718040|NCT04465422|183328555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 4 is based on Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (range 1\~10；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||1.69|-1.73|0.981
91718041|NCT00572832|183328619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The formula used for calculating sample size for the treatment arm (NT) is NT = (1 + 1/u) (Zα + Zβ)2 σ2 /\[log (RGMC) -δ0\] where u is the ratio of the size of the control and treatment arms, one sided alpha that is divided by 4, a non-inferiority margin (δ0 of natural log 0.5), the expected ratio of geometric mean concentrations RGMC set at 0.8, and a standard deviation of 1.26 (the largest for HPV-16). The calculated sample size for a power of 80% was 75 participants in each arm.||||||0.025||95.0||||Non-inferiority was tested against a one-sided null hypothesis (alpha=.025) that the post Dose 3 GMT ratio of the Alternate to Standard schedule was ≤ 0.5 for each HPV type. Results: GMT ratios were 2.23, 3,17, 2.14, and 1.68 for types 6,11,16,\& 18.|ANOVA|Log transformed the data and calculated GMTs. Tested if post Dose 3 GMT ratio of the Alternate to Standard schedule was ≤ 0.5 for each HPV type||Non-inferiority tested against 1-sided null hypothesis (alpha=.025) that the post Dose 3 GMT ratio of the Alternate to Standard schedule was ≤ 0.5 for each HPV type||||.025
91718042|NCT01041859|183328665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.415|-0.493||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment, dose level, and pooled analysis center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as a covariate|ANCOVA||Mean Difference is least squares mean change in DB Tapentadol ER group minus least squares mean change in DB Placebo group (based on ANCOVA model)|The primary null hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the tapentadol ER group was not different from the placebo group for the primary endpoint. Assuming the mean treatment group difference of 1.0 with an SD of 2.6, 144 subjects per treatment group were estimated to provide 90% power to show that the tapentadol ER group was statistically different from placebo at an alpha level of 0.05. The total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to a DB treatment group for the study was 300.||-0.493|-1.415|<0.001
91718043|NCT02753881|183328704|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for dose normalized doxorubicin.||||.036
91718044|NCT02753881|183328704|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for dose normalized doxorubicinol.||||0.002
91718045|NCT02753881|183328706|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for time-concentration-curves for doxorubicin.||||0.023
91718046|NCT02753881|183328706|OTHER|||||||0.041||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for time-concentration-curves for doxorubicinol.||||0.041
91718047|NCT05471505|183328780|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.787|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.787|0.719|<0.001
91718048|NCT05471505|183328781|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.813|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.813|0.687|<0.001
91718049|NCT05471505|183328782|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|0.958|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.958|0.862|<0.001
91718050|NCT05471505|183328783|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.067|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||1.067|0.842|0.378
91718051|NCT05471505|183328784|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.259|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.294|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.294|0.229|<0.001
91718052|NCT05471505|183328785|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.84|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.840|0.700|<0.001
91718053|NCT05471505|183328786|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|0.99|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.990|0.877|0.022
91718054|NCT03427892|183328807|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.|||||<|0.001||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||<.001
91718055|NCT03427892|183328808|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.93||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.93
91718056|NCT03427892|183328809|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.49||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor. The above reported is RAVLT Score|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.49
91718057|NCT03427892|183328809|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.56||||||Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.Reported is delay score|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.56
91718058|NCT03427892|183328810|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.221||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor. Reported is CW score.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.221
91718059|NCT03427892|183328810|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.306||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.Reported is Inter. score|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.306
91718060|NCT03427892|183328811|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.07||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor. The above reported is TMT A.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.07
91722501|NCT06001021|183337811|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008).~Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.43||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.33|95.46||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||95.46|78.33|0.00
91680149|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.19||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.02|-2.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-2.36|-20.02|0.013
91680150|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-58.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.03|-45.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-45.26|-71.03|<0.001
91680151|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-10.15||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|-3.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.06|-17.24|0.005
91680152|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-26.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-18.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-18.44|-35.10|<0.001
91680153|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-47.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.76|-33.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-33.72|-61.76|<0.001
91680154|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-31.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|-17.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.76|-45.61|<0.001
91680155|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-16.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-7.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.42|-26.10|<0.001
91680156|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-57.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.44|-44.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-44.72|-70.44|<0.001
91680157|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.28||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-3.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.57|-18.99|0.004
91793769|NCT03324581|183465821|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.42|||=|0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.5||The change from baseline in CAARS-O:SV was analyzed using a MMRM methodology with the unstructured variance covariance matrix.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|It included fixed class-effect terms: treatment,trial site,visit week, interaction term: treatment by visit week, Baseline CAARS-O:SV as a covariate.||||-2.50|-12.3|=0.0033
91680158|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-28.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.77|-19.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.35|-36.77|<0.001
91680159|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-46.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.98|-32.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-32.04|-59.98|<0.001
91680160|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.65|-15.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-15.75|-43.65|<0.001
91680161|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-16.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|-7.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.29|-26.59|<0.001
91680162|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.06|-39.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-39.75|-66.06|<0.001
91680163|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.93||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.34|-17.53|0.042
91680164|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-27.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.65|-17.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.86|-36.65|<0.001
91680165|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-43.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.83|-29.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-29.72|-57.83|<0.001
91680166|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-25.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.93|-11.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-11.57|-39.93|<0.001
91680167|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-8.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-8.59|-28.39|<0.001
91680168|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-45.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.96|-31.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-31.58|-58.96|<0.001
91680169|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.88||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.50|-18.27|0.064
91680170|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-26.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.91|-17.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.05|-36.91|<0.001
91680171|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-36.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-22.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-22.07|-50.45|<0.001
91680172|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.58||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.64|-4.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-4.52|-32.64|0.010
91680173|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.44|-7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.90|-28.44|<0.001
91680174|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-34.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.21|-20.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-20.21|-48.21|<0.001
91680175|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.97||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.12|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.19|-17.12|0.179
91680176|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.04|-10.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-10.35|-31.04|<0.001
91793770|NCT04473482|183465832|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich estimators used with Wald 95% confidence intervals and conversion to odds ratios|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich estimators used with Wald 95% confidence intervals and conversion to odds ratios||Generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich estimators used with Wald 95% confidence intervals|||
91680177|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.44|-12.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-12.96|-41.44|<0.001
91680178|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-13.9||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.84|0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.04|-27.84|0.051
91680179|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-13.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.21|-3.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.31|-24.21|0.010
91680180|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-23.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.31|-9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-9.20|-37.31|0.001
91680181|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-2.22||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|8.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||8.19|-12.63|0.676
91680182|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-13.15||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|-2.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-2.74|-23.57|0.013
91680183|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-20.94||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.18|-6.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-6.69|-35.18|0.004
91680184|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-10.39||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.19|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.40|-24.19|0.140
91680185|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.06||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.51|-0.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.61|-21.51|0.038
91680186|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-17.9||||0.013||95.0|-32.13|-3.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||-3.79|-32.13|0.013
91680187|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.85||||0.467||95.0|-14.23|6.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||6.53|-14.23|0.467
91680188|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-10.38||||0.049||95.0|-20.73|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.02|-20.73|0.049
91680189|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-14.1||||0.05||95.0|-28.22|0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.02|-28.22|0.050
91680190|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-7.99||||0.255||95.0|-21.73|5.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||5.76|-21.73|0.255
91680191|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.57||||0.212||95.0|-16.89|3.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.75|-16.89|0.212
91680192|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-15.68||||0.027||95.0|-29.59|-1.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||-1.77|-29.59|0.027
91718061|NCT03427892|183328811|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.19||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.The above reported is TMT B.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.19
91793771|NCT04473482|183465833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||GEEs with robust sandwich estimators and Wald 95% CIs with conversion to Odds Ratios|||||
91794489|NCT04340063|183467925|OTHER||Slope|-0.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.16||Interaction effect of time by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||-0.16|-1.2|0.012
91680193|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-4.39||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|5.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||5.82|-14.59|0.399
91680194|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-7.5||||0.152||95.0|-17.76|2.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.77|-17.76|0.152
91680195|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.32||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.05|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.40|-25.05|0.106
91680196|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.59||||0.21||95.0|-22.0|4.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||4.83|-22.00|0.210
91680197|NCT02912650|183251783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.13||||0.545||95.0|-13.26|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||7.00|-13.26|0.545
91680198|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|20.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|30.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||30.94|10.54|<0.001
91680199|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|4.52||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|13.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||13.86|-4.81|0.342
91680200|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|3.62||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|13.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||13.22|-5.98|0.459
91680201|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|16.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|26.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||26.17|6.24|0.001
91680202|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|17.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.42|27.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||27.31|7.42|<0.001
91680203|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.91||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|8.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||8.42|-10.2|0.849
91680204|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.53|62.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||62.62|39.53|<0.001
91680205|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Percentage of Participants wi|5.16||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.30|-4.97|0.318
91680206|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.86||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|20.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||20.21|-0.49|0.062
91903347|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1602||95.0|0.864|2.527||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||2.527|0.864|0.1602
91680207|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|45.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.45|57.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.76|33.45|<0.001
91680208|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|41.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.76|53.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||53.38|28.76|<0.001
91680209|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|4.74||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|15.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.17|-5.70|0.374
91680210|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.93|72.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.26|47.93|<0.001
91680211|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|4.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|12.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||12.81|-4.22|0.323
91680212|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.86||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|18.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.86|0.86|0.032
91680213|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|55.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.11|68.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||68.20|43.11|<0.001
91680214|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.71|63.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||63.05|37.71|<0.001
91680215|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|5.61||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.80|-3.58|0.232
91680216|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|59.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.39|72.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.46|47.39|<0.001
91903348|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6815||95.0|0.66|1.89||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||1.890|0.660|0.6815
91680217|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|5.51||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|13.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||13.53|-2.52|0.179
91680218|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.10|4.65|0.003
91680219|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|54.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.36|67.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||67.29|41.36|<0.001
91680220|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|46.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|59.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||59.99|33.50|<0.001
91680221|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680222|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.99|73.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||73.03|47.99|<0.001
91680223|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.08||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.89|0.135
91680224|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.64|5.30|0.002
91794490|NCT04340063|183467925|OTHER||Slope|0.26||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.75||Effect of time (post-training to follow-up)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||0.75|-0.22|0.3
91903349|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5635||95.0|0.486|1.482||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||1.482|0.486|0.5635
91903350|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.49||95.0|0.699|2.104||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||2.104|0.699|0.4900
91680225|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|54.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.36|67.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||67.29|41.36|<0.001
91680226|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|46.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|59.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||59.99|33.50|<0.001
91680227|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680228|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
91680229|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91680230|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
91680231|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91903351|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1602||95.0|0.856|2.575||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||2.575|0.856|0.1602
91680232|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91680233|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680234|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
91680235|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91680236|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
91680237|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91680238|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91680239|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680240|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
91680241|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91680242|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
91680243|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91680244|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91903352|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5819||95.0|0.663|2.079||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||2.079|0.663|0.5819
91680245|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680246|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
91680247|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91903353|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.2796||95.0|0.768|2.432||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||2.432|0.768|0.2796
91794491|NCT04340063|183467925|OTHER||Slope|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.29||Interaction effect of time (post-training to follow-up) by group|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||0.29|-0.69|0.4
91903354|NCT00232141|183701682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.5437||95.0|0.534|1.39||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint-BOCF||1.390|0.534|0.5437
91680248|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
91680249|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91680250|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91680251|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680252|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
91680253|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91680254|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
91680255|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91680256|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91680257|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680258|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
91680259|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91680260|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
91680261|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001||95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91680262|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001||95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|< 0.001
91680263|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087||95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680264|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001||95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||71.00|45.24|< 0.001
91680265|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071||95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91680266|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001||95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|< 0.001
91680267|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91680268|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91680269|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087||95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680270|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
91680271|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071||95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91680272|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
91680273|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91718062|NCT03427892|183328812|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.|||||<|0.001||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||<.001
91718063|NCT03427892|183328813|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.022||||||To analyze separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed. Time (baseline, week 4, week 8) was included as the within-subject factor.Above is from baseline to week 8 for C-SSRS AA, IA, and ABA.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures (ANOVA) were performed. Time (baseline, wk 4, wk 8) included as within-subject factor. Above is for C-SSRS AA,IA, and ABA.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.022
91718064|NCT03427892|183328813|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.163||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.163
91680274|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001||95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91680275|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91718065|NCT03427892|183328814|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.133||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.133
91680276|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
91680277|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071||95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91680278|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001||95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
91680279|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001||95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91680280|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91680281|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680282|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
91680283|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91680284|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
91680285|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91680286|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91680287|NCT02912650|183251784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680288|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.16||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.75|-0.44|0.156
91680289|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.16||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.76|-0.44|0.155
91680290|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.68||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||1.90|-3.27|0.605
91680291|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.84||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|3.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.89|-0.21|0.079
91718066|NCT03427892|183328815|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.002||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.002
91718067|NCT03427892|183328816|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.002||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.002
91718068|NCT03427892|183328817|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.005||||||Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another. Baseline to week 8 is reported above.|t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.005
91718069|NCT03427892|183328818|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.|||||<|0.001||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||<.001
91718070|NCT03427892|183328819|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.295||||||Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another. Baseline to week 8 is reported above.|t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.295
91718071|NCT01287936|183328909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.001
91718072|NCT01287936|183328911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.004
91718073|NCT00427934|183328921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.73||||0.79||90.0|-15.13|8.68|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 1||8.68|-15.13|0.790
91903355|NCT00232141|183701683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5425||95.0|-3.44|6.52||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Disturbance.||6.52|-3.44|0.5425
91718074|NCT00427934|183328921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.43||||0.477||90.0|-13.67|11.64|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 2||11.64|-13.67|0.477
91718075|NCT00427934|183328921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.03||||0.37||90.0|-12.85|16.77|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 4||16.77|-12.85|0.370
91718076|NCT00427934|183328921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|8.66||||0.175||90.0|-7.07|22.03|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 8||22.03|-7.07|0.175
91793772|NCT00266864|183465835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One sample t -tests were performed on the percent change from baseline to month 12 \[(month 12- baseline)/baseline\*100\] for comparison to the null hypothesis. An a priori level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.|ANOVA|||Separate 2 factor (group: treatment, control) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on visit (baseline, month 12) were performed to identify changes in lean tissue mass across time. To further characterize significant main and interaction effects, post-hoc paired t -tests were performed within group.||||<0.01
91903356|NCT00232141|183701683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3184||95.0|-0.75|0.25||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Quantity||0.25|-0.75|0.3184
91680292|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-1.85||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.21|-3.90|0.078
91680293|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|21.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.33|27.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||27.62|15.33|<0.001
91680294|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Percentage of Participants wi|7.79||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|15.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.77|-0.19|0.056
91680295|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.37||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|8.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||8.43|-9.18|0.934
91680296|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.58|18.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.77|8.58|<0.001
91680297|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|21.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.64|28.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||28.28|15.64|<0.001
91680298|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.21||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.01|-16.40|0.050
91680299|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|55.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.05|64.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.73|47.05|<0.001
91680300|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|12.99||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|23.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.49|2.50|0.015
91680301|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.16||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|17.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||17.82|-3.51|0.188
91680302|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.85|51.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||51.38|33.85|<0.001
91680303|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|48.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.63|57.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.54|39.63|<0.001
91903357|NCT00232141|183701683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.9886||95.0|-5.81|5.72||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Adequacy||5.72|-5.81|0.9886
91680304|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-5.98||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|4.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||4.55|-16.51|0.266
91680305|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|59.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.63|69.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.90|49.63|<0.001
91680306|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|8.62||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|18.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.69|-1.46|0.094
91718077|NCT00427934|183328922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3||||0.42||90.0|-6.34|6.01|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 1||6.01|-6.34|0.420
91718078|NCT00427934|183328922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.6||||0.258||90.0|-5.08|7.95|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 2||7.95|-5.08|0.258
91718079|NCT00427934|183328922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.46||||1||90.0|-14.39|3.42|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 4||3.42|-14.39|1.000
91718080|NCT00427934|183328922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.3||||0.899||90.0|-13.56|7.92|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 8||7.92|-13.56|0.899
91718081|NCT00427934|183328922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3||||0.489||90.0|-11.24|10.96|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 12||10.96|-11.24|0.489
91718082|NCT00427934|183328923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.03||||1||90.0|-13.59|1.28|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 4||1.28|-13.59|1.000
91718083|NCT00427934|183328923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.6||||0.258||90.0|-5.08|7.95|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 8||7.95|-5.08|0.258
91793773|NCT00266864|183465836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|101.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|103.0||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One sample t -tests were performed on the percent change from baseline to month 12 \[(month 12- baseline)/baseline\*100\] for comparison to the null hypothesis. An a priori level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.|ANOVA|||Separate 2 factor (group: treatment, control) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on visit (baseline, month 12) were performed to identify changes in resting energy expenditure across time. To further characterize significant main and interaction effects, post-hoc paired t -tests were performed within group.||||0.051
91793774|NCT00829933|183465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||For the incidence of bleeding events, paired comparison between the DU-176b groups was performed using the χ2 test.||||0.429
91903358|NCT00232141|183701683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.5742||95.0|-3.53|6.35||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Awaken Short of Breath or with Headache||6.35|-3.53|0.5742
91718084|NCT00427934|183328923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.03||||1||90.0|-13.59|1.28|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 12||1.28|-13.59|1.000
91718085|NCT00427934|183328924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.335||90.0|-0.79|2.99||This analysis was carried out using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||2.99|-0.79|0.335
91793775|NCT00829933|183465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.077
91718086|NCT00427934|183328924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.816||90.0|-1.82|2.41||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||2.41|-1.82|0.816
91718087|NCT00427934|183328924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.996||90.0|-2.35|2.36||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||2.36|-2.35|0.996
91718088|NCT00427934|183328924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.263||90.0|-3.98|0.76||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.76|-3.98|0.263
91718089|NCT00427934|183328924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.294||90.0|-3.82|0.85||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.85|-3.82|0.294
91718090|NCT00427934|183328925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.7||90.0|-1.7|1.06||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||1.06|-1.70|0.700
91718091|NCT00427934|183328925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.799||90.0|-1.45|1.97||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||1.97|-1.45|0.799
91718092|NCT00427934|183328925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.867||90.0|-1.35|1.66||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.66|-1.35|0.867
91793776|NCT00829933|183465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|8.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.1|-11.2|
91793777|NCT00829933|183465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.320
91793778|NCT00829933|183465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12.3|-7.6|
91680307|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|10.43||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|20.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||20.72|0.15|0.047
91718093|NCT00427934|183328925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.167||90.0|-3.17|0.28||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.28|-3.17|0.167
91680308|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|61.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||61.40|40.50|<0.001
91680309|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|49.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.79|59.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||59.89|38.79|<0.001
91680310|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.79||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|12.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||12.14|-8.56|0.734
91680311|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.88|70.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||70.03|46.88|<0.001
91680312|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.01||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|16.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.59|-2.57|0.152
91680313|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.0||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|19.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||19.82|-0.83|0.073
91680314|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.38|63.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||63.21|39.38|<0.001
91680315|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|49.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.5|61.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||61.47|37.50|<0.001
91680316|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.99||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|11.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||11.89|-7.91|0.694
91793779|NCT00829933|183465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|18.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.1|-2.7|
91680317|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.37|72.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.84|48.37|<0.001
91718094|NCT00427934|183328925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.966||90.0|-1.91|1.81||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||1.81|-1.91|0.966
91680318|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.58||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.20|-2.05|0.135
91680319|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|14.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|23.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.97|5.50|0.002
91680320|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.31|66.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||66.32|41.31|<0.001
91680321|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|45.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.21|58.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||58.66|33.21|<0.001
91718095|NCT00427934|183328926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.925||90.0|-6.41|5.72||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||5.72|-6.41|0.925
91793780|NCT03687970|183465858|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression was applied to predict binary outcome while controlling for other potential confounding factors (age, cumulative chemotherapy dose, chemotherapy group).|Slope|-0.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||threshold for p value is 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.05
91718096|NCT00427934|183328926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.26||||0.239||90.0|-12.62|2.11||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||2.11|-12.62|0.239
91718097|NCT00427934|183328926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.872||90.0|-6.79|8.25||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||8.25|-6.79|0.872
91718098|NCT00427934|183328926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.745||90.0|-9.91|6.65||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||6.65|-9.91|0.745
91718099|NCT00427934|183328926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22||||0.644||90.0|-10.14|5.71||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||5.71|-10.14|0.644
91718100|NCT00427934|183328927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.524||90.0|-8.49|3.77||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||3.77|-8.49|0.524
91718101|NCT00427934|183328927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.96||||0.338||90.0|-10.8|2.87||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||2.87|-10.80|0.338
91718102|NCT00427934|183328927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.83||90.0|-8.55|6.58||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||6.58|-8.55|0.830
91718103|NCT00427934|183328927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.68||||0.118||90.0|-15.76|0.4||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.40|-15.76|0.118
91718104|NCT00427934|183328927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||0.712||90.0|-9.73|6.18||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||6.18|-9.73|0.712
91718105|NCT00427934|183328928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.54||90.0|-0.28|0.13||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.13|-0.28|0.540
91680322|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|8.18||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|17.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||17.69|-1.32|0.091
91718106|NCT00427934|183328928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.757||90.0|-0.28|0.19||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.19|-0.28|0.757
91718107|NCT00427934|183328928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.767||90.0|-0.31|0.21||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.21|-0.31|0.767
91680323|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.59|72.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.42|47.59|<0.001
91680324|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.03||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|14.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.43|-2.36|0.159
91718108|NCT00427934|183328928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.112||90.0|-0.52|0.01||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.01|-0.52|0.112
91718109|NCT00427934|183328928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.49||90.0|-0.42|0.17||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.17|-0.42|0.490
91718110|NCT00427934|183328929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.464||90.0|-0.19|0.07||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.07|-0.19|0.464
91718111|NCT00427934|183328929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.068||90.0|-0.35|-0.02||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.02|-0.35|0.068
91718112|NCT00427934|183328929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.532||90.0|-0.23|0.11||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.11|-0.23|0.532
91718113|NCT00427934|183328929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.063||90.0|-0.41|-0.03||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.03|-0.41|0.063
91718114|NCT00427934|183328929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.396||90.0|-0.36|0.12||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.12|-0.36|0.396
91718115|NCT00427934|183328930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.481||90.0|-7.36|2.96||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||2.96|-7.36|0.481
91718116|NCT00427934|183328930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.698||90.0|-4.34|6.99||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||6.99|-4.34|0.698
91793781|NCT03687970|183465859|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber detection threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for patients with painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|0.22||||0.7525|TWO_SIDED|||||The thrshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|||||||0.7525
91793782|NCT03687970|183465859|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber detection threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for Control group patients without painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|0.32||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficien|||||||0.1876
91680325|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|24.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.41|6.23|<0.001
91680326|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.08|66.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||66.50|41.08|<0.001
91680327|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|44.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.72|57.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.81|31.72|<0.001
91680328|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.28||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|18.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.64|-0.08|0.052
91680329|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|57.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.75|70.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||70.39|44.75|<0.001
91680330|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.06||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|14.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.25|-2.13|0.147
91680331|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|24.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.21|6.39|<0.001
91680332|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.16|64.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.48|38.16|<0.001
91680333|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.74|55.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||55.82|28.74|<0.001
91680334|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.27||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|18.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.49|0.04|0.049
91680335|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.49|45.93|<0.001
91680336|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.67|-1.38|0.105
91680337|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|24.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.63|7.08|<0.001
91680338|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
91680339|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.44|56.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.44|29.44|<0.001
91680340|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.23||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.40|0.06|0.048
91680341|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.49|45.93|<0.001
91680342|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.67|-1.38|0.105
91680343|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|24.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.63|7.08|<0.001
91680344|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
91680345|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.44|56.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.44|29.44|<0.001
91680346|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.23||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.40|0.06|0.048
91680347|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001||95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||71.49|45.93|<0.001
91718117|NCT00427934|183328930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.65||||0.233||90.0|-1.79|11.1||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||11.10|-1.79|0.233
91718118|NCT00427934|183328930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48||||0.32||90.0|-2.29|9.25||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||9.25|-2.29|0.320
91718119|NCT00427934|183328930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.912||90.0|-5.81|6.64||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||6.64|-5.81|0.912
91718120|NCT00427934|183328931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.653||90.0|-0.31|0.18||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.18|-0.31|0.653
91718121|NCT00427934|183328931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.703||90.0|-0.41|0.26||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.26|-0.41|0.703
91718122|NCT00427934|183328931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.968||90.0|-0.37|0.39||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.39|-0.37|0.968
91718123|NCT00427934|183328931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.21||90.0|-0.72|0.1||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.10|-0.72|0.210
91718124|NCT00427934|183328931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.696||90.0|-0.53|0.33||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.33|-0.53|0.696
91718125|NCT00427934|183328933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|9.09||||0.155||90.0|-6.16|21.83||p-value (one-sided) was based on Barnard exact test if more than 20% of expected cell counts were \< 5 otherwise Pearson chi-square test.|Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|||21.83|-6.16|0.155
91718126|NCT00427934|183328939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.698||90.0|-1.87|3.01||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||3.01|-1.87|0.698
91718127|NCT00427934|183328939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68||||0.344||90.0|-4.62|1.26||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||1.26|-4.62|0.344
91718128|NCT00427934|183328940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.734||90.0|-2.71|4.11||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||4.11|-2.71|0.734
91718129|NCT00427934|183328940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.818||90.0|-3.5|4.62||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.62|-3.50|0.818
91718130|NCT00427934|183328941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.649
91718131|NCT00427934|183328942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9826||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9826
91718132|NCT02683109|183328952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the Tio+Olo FDC versus the Tio/Olo free combination was tested at the one-sided α-level of 0.025 using a non-inferiority margin of 0.1 L.|Adjusted mean|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.067|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was conducted using an Analysis of Covariance \[ANCOVA\] model including treatment as fixed categorical effect and baseline as continuous covariate.||0.067|-0.020|<0.0001
91718133|NCT02683109|183328953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.8648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.073|||ANCOVA|||The secondary analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model including treatment as fixed categorical effect and baseline as continuous covariate.||0.073|-0.061|0.8648
91718134|NCT02683109|183328954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.384|0.729|||ANCOVA|||The secondary analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model including treatment as fixed categorical effect and baseline as continuous covariate.||0.729|-1.384|0.5420
91718135|NCT00368251|183328955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.15|||=|0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|24.96||All hypotheses are tested at the 5 % level. The multiplicity scheme (hierarchical testing procedure) assures strong control of the type I error at the 5 % level.|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo was calculated.|"The first hypothesis for the primary efficacy variable compares placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day.~The second hypothesis for the primary efficacy variable compares placebo versus BRV 5 mg/day. However, this second hypothesis will only be tested when all the hypotheses for placebo versus BRV 150 mg/day are significant for the primary three UMRS related secondary endpoints.~The hypotheses will be tested using nonparametric analysis. The study was designed to have 80 % power."||24.96|-26.12|=0.942
91718136|NCT00368251|183328955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|-18.05|||=|0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.31|4.86||Tested at the 5 % level - given the primary endpoint and the three UMRS related secondary endpoints comparing placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day are significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||4.86|-39.31|=0.105
91718137|NCT00368251|183328956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|1.24|||=|0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|31.06||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Primary Outcome testing Placebo versus BRV 150 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann(unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|If primary efficacy is proven for Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day, the following secondary endpoints will be tested for Placebo versus BRV 150 mg/day. The testing scheme will be hierarchical, thus statistical significance at 5 % on BRV 150 mg/day on a secondary endpoint is needed to continue testing BRV 150 mg/day at 5 % significance level for the next secondary endpoint.||31.06|-21.90|=0.672
91718138|NCT00368251|183328956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.0|||=|0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.33|18.75||Tested at the 5 % level - given the primary endpoint testing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 5 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intevals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|"In case the three endpoints are significant for placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day, the primary endpoint will be tested for Placebo versus BRV 5 mg/day. In case of significance, the three UMRS related secondary endpoints will be tested for Placebo versus BRV 5 mg/day, provided the previous is significant at 5 %. Secondary endpoints are tested in the following order:~* Functional Disability~* Stimulus Sensitivity~* Myoclonus Patient Questionnaire"||18.75|-33.33|=0.806
91718139|NCT00368251|183328957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.0|||=|0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|100.0||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Willcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||100.00|-25.00|=0.549
91718140|NCT00368251|183328957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.0|||=|0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|66.67||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 5 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||66.67|-50.00|=0.654
91718141|NCT00368251|183328958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|14.29|||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|39.39||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||39.39|-1.76|=0.037
91718142|NCT00368251|183328958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|10.0|||=|0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|30.0||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 5 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||30.00|-5.56|=0.111
91718143|NCT00368251|183328959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.931||||||The Global Evaluation Scale by Investigator (I-GES) was compared between placebo and each dose at 5 % significance level independently from the previous secondary endpoints.|Stratified Wilcoxon test|||||||=0.931
91718144|NCT00368251|183328959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.253||||||The Global Evaluation Scale by Investigator (I-GES) was compared between placebo and each dose at 5 % significance level independently from the previous secondary endpoints.|Stratified Wilcoxon test|||P-value for pairwise comparison of each Brivaracetam dose versus Placebo.||||=0.253
91903359|NCT00232141|183701683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.5775||95.0|-3.54|6.33||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Somnolence||6.33|-3.54|0.5775
91718145|NCT02202252|183329001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.490
91718146|NCT02202252|183329002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
91718147|NCT02202252|183329003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.819
91718148|NCT02111083|183329053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.01||||||||1.01|0.965|
91718149|NCT02111083|183329054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|0.919||||||||0.919|0.828|
91718150|NCT02111083|183329055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.375||||||||0.375|0|
91718151|NCT02111083|183329056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.02||||||||1.02|0.954|
91680348|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||14.67|-1.38|0.105
91680349|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.48|23.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.97|6.48|<0.001
91680350|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001||95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
91680351|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.15|57.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.07|30.15|<0.001
91680352|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|8.61||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|17.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||17.76|-0.55|0.065
91680353|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001||95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.49|45.93|<0.001
91680354|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.67|-1.38|0.105
91680355|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
91680356|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
91680357|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|44.89|||<|0.001||95.0|31.51|58.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||58.26|31.51|<0.001
91680358|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.36||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|16.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.45|-1.73|0.113
91680359|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.95|69.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.94|43.95|<0.001
91680360|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.07||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.91|0.136
91680361|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
91680362|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91680363|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91680364|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680365|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.95|69.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.94|43.95|<0.001
91680366|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.07||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.91|0.136
91718152|NCT02111083|183329057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.0||||||||1.00|0.901|
91680367|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
91680368|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91680369|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91680370|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680371|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.95|69.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.94|43.95|<0.001
91680372|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.07||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.91|0.136
91680373|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
91680374|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91680375|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91680376|NCT02912650|183251785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91680377|NCT02912650|183251786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
91680378|NCT02912650|183251786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||0.004
91680379|NCT02912650|183251786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
91680380|NCT02912650|183251786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
91680381|NCT02912650|183251786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
91680382|NCT02912650|183251786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||0.003
91680383|NCT01674647|183251790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.73|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.51% (0.20% - 1.17%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 1.02% (0.40% - 2.34%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||1.73|0.15|
91680384|NCT01674647|183251791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.67|||no test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.61% (0.26% - 1.27%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.80% (0.27% - 2.00%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||2.67|0.21|
91680385|NCT01674647|183251792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.0|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.20% (0.04% - 0.71%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.61% (0.17% - 1.72%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||2.00|0.06|
91680386|NCT01674647|183251793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.55|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.61% (0.27% - 1.29%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 1.22% (0.53% - 2.51%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||1.55|0.16|
91718153|NCT02111083|183329058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least squares means|0.424|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.164|0.685||||||||0.685|0.164|
91718154|NCT02111083|183329059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.01||||||||1.01|0.975|
91718155|NCT00447083|183329069|OTHER|||||||0.1811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1811
91718156|NCT03363906|183329080|SUPERIORITY||Ratio Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean|1.04||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.949|0.473
91718157|NCT03363906|183329081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.30|0.993|0.119
91718158|NCT00676143|183329082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.22||Primary variable ADAS-Cog/11 total score had to reach statistical significance, p-values had to reach p \<=0.05, in order to be declared effective.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in ADAS-Cog/11 total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants in each group gave 90% power to detect a 2.21 point advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo on the ADAS-Cog/11 total score, at the primary time point (Week 78). This calculation was based on a two-sided test with an alpha of 0.05."||1.22|-1.18|0.979
91718159|NCT00676143|183329083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.6||Primary variable DAD total score had to reach statistical significance, p-values had to reach p \<=0.05, in order to be declared effective.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in DAD total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants in each group gave 90% power to detect a 5.39 unit advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo on the DAD total score, at the primary time point (Week 78). This calculation was based on a two-sided test with an alpha of 0.05."||2.60|-2.51|0.973
91718160|NCT00676143|183329084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in PIB PET SUVr was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 0.152 unit advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo for PiB PET binding at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05."||0.03|-0.17|0.159
91718161|NCT00676143|183329085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|4.13|||ANCOVA|||Change in CSF phospho-tau was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The analysis was based on the treatment difference estimated at Week 71 based on appropriate contrasts or LS means. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 13-ng/L advantage in phospho-tau for the bapineuzumab group over placebo at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05.||4.13|-6.89|0.620
91718162|NCT00676143|183329086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in MRI BBSI was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 4.15-cm3 advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo on reduction in brain volume as measured by the BBSI at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05."||1.63|-1.89|0.884
91718163|NCT00676143|183329087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Difference: Bapineuzumab - Placebo||1.45|-0.97|0.700
91680387|NCT01674647|183251798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|5.47|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.41% (0.14% - 1.02%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.41% (0.07% - 1.41%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||5.47|0.18|
91680388|NCT01674647|183251799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.49|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.51% (0.20% - 1.17%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.61% (0.17% - 1.72%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||3.49|0.20|
91680389|NCT03923530|183251812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.12
91680390|NCT03923530|183251813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.49
91680391|NCT03923530|183251814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.03
91680392|NCT03923530|183251815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.27
91718164|NCT00676143|183329088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Difference: Bapineuzumab - Placebo||2.78|-2.61|0.949
91718165|NCT00676143|183329089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.684
91718166|NCT00676143|183329090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.383
91718167|NCT00676143|183329091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.191
91718168|NCT00676143|183329092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.478
91718169|NCT00676143|183329093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DS total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.||0.13|-0.41|0.462
91680393|NCT03923530|183251816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.18
91680394|NCT03923530|183251817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.8
91680395|NCT03923530|183251818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.76
91680396|NCT00741936|183251819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91680397|NCT00741936|183251820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Tests were implemented: 1) between two groups of each time frame; 2) between each treatment group of each time frame and its baseline.||||||<0.05
91718170|NCT00676143|183329095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.086
91718171|NCT00676143|183329097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.120
91718172|NCT00676143|183329098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in CDR-SOB total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.||0.24|-0.55|0.448
91718173|NCT00250588|183329123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.4||Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for child's age, race/ethnicity, Spanish, mother's education.||The primary effects of interest, condition and condition by time are fixed effects. PedsQL™ scores were analyzed as continuous normal outcomes with mixed effects regression models, which accounts for repeated measures over time for T2 and T3. Independent variables included baseline measure, time, asthma severity, condition, and condition by time interaction. We report the differences across groups in the adjusted mean changes over time.||7.4|0.63|0.05
91718174|NCT00250588|183329123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|6.4||Bonferroni adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for child's age, race/ethnicity, Spanish, mother's education.||The primary effects of interest, condition and condition by time are fixed effects. PedsQL™ scores were analyzed as continuous normal outcomes with mixed effects regression models, which accounts for repeated measures over time for T2 and T3. Independent variables included baseline measure, time, asthma severity, condition, and condition by time interaction. We report the differences across groups in the adjusted mean changes over time.||6.4|-0.21|0.05
91718175|NCT00250588|183329124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, Spanish language and mother's education||||1.38|0.18|0.21
91718176|NCT00250588|183329124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.83||adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, Spanish language and mother's education|Regression, Logistic|||||2.83|0.53|0.85
91718177|NCT00250588|183329125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|All analyses accounted for repeated measures and included the same terms in the model described previously.||Symptom frequency and utilization were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models (GLMM), with appropriate distribution and link functions. Nighttime symptoms is a dichotomous outcome and a logistic model was constructed.||0.82|0.13|0.011
91718178|NCT02330341|183329144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of postprandial glucose on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.380
91718179|NCT02330341|183329144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of postprandial glucose on placebo group||||0.695
91718180|NCT02330341|183329145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.110
91718181|NCT02330341|183329145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on placebo group||||0.910
91718182|NCT02330341|183329146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of glucosylated hemoglobin on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.010
91718183|NCT02330341|183329146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of glucosylated hemoglobin on placebo group||||0.938
91718184|NCT02330341|183329147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.733
91718185|NCT02330341|183329147|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on placebo group||||1.0
91718186|NCT02330341|183329148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.03
91718187|NCT02330341|183329148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on placebo group||||0.900
91680398|NCT00741936|183251821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Tests were implemented: 1) between two groups of each time frame; 2) between each treatment group of each time frame and its baseline||||||<0.05
91680399|NCT00741936|183251822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Tests were implemented: 1) between two groups of each time frame; 2) between each treatment group of each time frame and its baseline.||||||<0.05
91680400|NCT00741936|183251823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis was implemented between two treatment groups in each time frame.||||||<0.05
91680401|NCT00741936|183251824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||simple percentage|||||||0
91680402|NCT00741936|183251825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91680403|NCT00741936|183251826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-samples t-test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
91680404|NCT00741936|183251827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
91680405|NCT00741936|183251828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
91680406|NCT00741936|183251829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
91680407|NCT01941940|183251830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680408|NCT01941940|183251836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680409|NCT01941940|183251838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680410|NCT01941940|183251838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680411|NCT01941940|183251838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680412|NCT01941940|183251839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680413|NCT01941940|183251839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680414|NCT01941940|183251839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680415|NCT01941940|183251842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-68: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680416|NCT01941940|183251842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-68: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680417|NCT01941940|183251842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-68: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680418|NCT01941940|183251842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680419|NCT01941940|183251842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680420|NCT01941940|183251842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680421|NCT01941940|183251843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-66: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680422|NCT01941940|183251843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-66: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680423|NCT01941940|183251843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-66: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91903360|NCT00232141|183701683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.004||95.0|3.02|15.66||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Snoring||15.66|3.02|0.0040
91680424|NCT01941940|183251843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680425|NCT01941940|183251843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680426|NCT01941940|183251843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680427|NCT01941940|183251844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and CDAI at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680428|NCT01941940|183251844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and CDAI at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680429|NCT01941940|183251844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and CDAI at Week 52||||<0.0001
91680430|NCT01941940|183251845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and SDAI at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680431|NCT01941940|183251845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and SDAI at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680432|NCT01941940|183251845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and SDAI at Week 52||||<0.0001
91680433|NCT01941940|183251846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and SDAI at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680434|NCT01941940|183251846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and SDAI at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680435|NCT01941940|183251846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and SDAI at Week 52||||<0.0001
91680436|NCT01941940|183251847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR20 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680437|NCT01941940|183251847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR50 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680438|NCT01941940|183251847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR70 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91862994|NCT04568434|183613512|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-43.81|||=|0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.928|-13.692||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting TG at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-13.692|-73.928|=0.0044
91680439|NCT01941940|183251847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR20 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680440|NCT01941940|183251847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR50 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680441|NCT01941940|183251847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR70 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680442|NCT01941940|183251847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR20 at Week 52||||0.0004
91680443|NCT01941940|183251847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR50 at Week 52||||0.0004
91680444|NCT01941940|183251847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR70 at Week 52||||0.0004
91680445|NCT01941940|183251848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and EULAR at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680446|NCT01941940|183251848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and EULAR at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680447|NCT01941940|183251848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and EULAR at Week 52||||<0.0001
91680448|NCT01941940|183251849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR20 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680449|NCT01941940|183251849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR50 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680450|NCT01941940|183251849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR70 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680451|NCT01941940|183251849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR20 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680452|NCT01941940|183251849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR50 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680453|NCT01941940|183251849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR70 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680454|NCT01941940|183251849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR20 at Week 52||||<0.0001
91680455|NCT01941940|183251849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR50 at Week 52||||<0.0001
91680456|NCT01941940|183251849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR70 at Week 52||||<0.0001
91862995|NCT04568434|183613512|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.39|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.663|-28.119||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting TG at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-28.119|-90.663|=0.0002
91680457|NCT01941940|183251850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and EULAR at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680458|NCT01941940|183251850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and EULAR at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680459|NCT01941940|183251850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and EULAR at Week 52||||<0.0001
91680460|NCT01941940|183251851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR20 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680461|NCT01941940|183251851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR50 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680462|NCT01941940|183251851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR70 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680463|NCT01941940|183251851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR20 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680464|NCT01941940|183251851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR50 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680465|NCT01941940|183251851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR70 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680466|NCT01941940|183251851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR20 at Week 52||||<0.0001
91680467|NCT01941940|183251851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR50 at Week 52||||<0.0001
91680468|NCT01941940|183251851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR70 at Week 52||||<0.0001
91680469|NCT01941940|183251852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and EULAR at Week 2||||<0.0001
91680470|NCT01941940|183251852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and EULAR at Week 24||||<0.0001
91680471|NCT01941940|183251852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and EULAR at Week 52||||0.0016
91680472|NCT01941940|183251855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680473|NCT01941940|183251855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680474|NCT01941940|183251855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680475|NCT01941940|183251856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680476|NCT01941940|183251856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91718188|NCT02330341|183329149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.519
91718189|NCT02330341|183329149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on placebo group||||0.922
91718190|NCT02330341|183329150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of weight on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.605
91718191|NCT02330341|183329150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of weight on placebo group||||0.105
91718192|NCT02330341|183329151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.687
91718193|NCT02330341|183329151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on placebo group||||0.021
91718194|NCT02330341|183329152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.339
91718195|NCT02330341|183329152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on placebo group||||0.246
91718196|NCT02330341|183329153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.775
91718197|NCT02330341|183329153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on placebo group||||0.195
91718198|NCT02330341|183329154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.040
91718199|NCT02330341|183329154|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on placebo group||||1.000
91718200|NCT02330341|183329155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.021
91718201|NCT02330341|183329155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on placebo group||||0.080
91718202|NCT02330341|183329156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.465
91718203|NCT02330341|183329156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on placebo group||||0.574
91718204|NCT02330341|183329157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.480
91718205|NCT02330341|183329157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on placebo group||||0.383
91718206|NCT02330341|183329158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.034
91718207|NCT02330341|183329158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on placebo group||||0.080
91718208|NCT02330341|183329159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.017
91718209|NCT02330341|183329159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on placebo group||||0.082
91718210|NCT02330341|183329160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.170
91718211|NCT02330341|183329160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure placebo group||||0.199
91718212|NCT03555149|183329177|OTHER||Difference in Overall Response Rate|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|25.25|||||The difference in ORR was calculated as the experimental arm (Atezolizumab + Regorafenib) subtracted from the control arm (Regorafenib).|||25.25|-11.92|
91718213|NCT03555149|183329177|OTHER||Difference in Overall Response Rate|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|25.25|||||The difference in ORR was calculated as the experimental arm (Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928) subtracted from the control arm (Regorafenib).|||25.25|-11.92|
91718214|NCT03555149|183329178|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.73||||||||2.73|0.67|
91718215|NCT03555149|183329178|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.88||||||||4.88|1.08|
91680477|NCT01941940|183251856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680478|NCT01941940|183251857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680479|NCT01941940|183251857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680480|NCT01941940|183251857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680481|NCT01941940|183251858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680482|NCT01941940|183251858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680483|NCT01941940|183251858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91718216|NCT03555149|183329178|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.18||||||||2.18|0.29|
91680484|NCT01941940|183251860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680485|NCT01941940|183251860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680486|NCT01941940|183251860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91680487|NCT01941940|183251861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||0.0045
91680488|NCT01941940|183251861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1992|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||0.1992
91680489|NCT04135196|183251867|OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Regression, Linear|||"The power analysis for the overall study was based on 12-month change in UD iBMC. The power calculation, based on pilot data, determined that 20 participants per group would have 80% power to detect a 1.0±1.1% change.~The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in iBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group."|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.101, F=2.244, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.119~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.015, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.007, Beta=0.374, t=2.114, p=0.041, 95% CI of B: \[0.001, 0.030\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.009, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.007, Beta=0.221, t=1.247, p=0.220, 95% CI of B: \[-0.005, 0.022\]"|||0.119
91680490|NCT04135196|183251867|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in iBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.438, F=12.836, df1=2, df2=33, p=\<0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.036, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.009, Beta=0.599, t=4.050, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.018, 0.055\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.041, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.009, Beta=0.678, t=4.589, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.023, 0.060\]"|||<0.01
91718217|NCT03555149|183329178|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.24||||||||6.24|0.64|
91680491|NCT04135196|183251868|OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in cBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.011, F=0.213, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.809~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.006, Beta=0.039, t=0.209, p=0.836, 95% CI of B: \[-0.012, 0.014\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.002, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.006, Beta=-0.077, t=-0.412, p=0.682, 95% CI of B: \[-0.015, 0.010\]"|||0.809
91718218|NCT03555149|183329178|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.63||||||||3.63|0.83|
91718219|NCT03555149|183329178|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.63||||||||1.63|0.39|
91718220|NCT03555149|183329178|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|33.82||||||||33.82|0.94|
91718221|NCT03555149|183329179|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.93||||||Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||2.93|0.71|
91718222|NCT03555149|183329179|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81||||||Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||2.81|0.68|
91718223|NCT03555149|183329179|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.72||||||Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||2.72|0.30|
91718224|NCT03555149|183329179|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.84||||||Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||3.84|0.42|
91718225|NCT03555149|183329179|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.88||||||Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||1.88|0.39|
91718226|NCT03555149|183329179|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.96||||||Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||1.96|0.43|
91718227|NCT03555149|183329179|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|24.85||||||Atezolizumab + LOAd703 vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||24.85|0.33|
91718228|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|15.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|32.19||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||32.19|-0.61|
91718229|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-16.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.78|16.79||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||16.79|-49.78|
91718230|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-14.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.37|15.47||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||15.47|-44.37|
91718231|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|11.14||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||11.14|-32.25|
91718232|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-10.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.62|16.87||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||16.87|-38.62|
91718233|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-23.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|9.78||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||9.78|-56.10|
91718234|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.19|23.62||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||23.62|-39.19|
91718235|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|29.63||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||29.63|-24.08|
91718236|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|15.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|32.19||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||32.19|-0.61|
91718237|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|16.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|58.07||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||58.07|-24.39|
91718238|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|18.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.53|72.3||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||72.30|-34.53|
91718239|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|9.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.19|57.08||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||57.08|-38.19|
91718240|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-9.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|36.28||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||36.28|-54.70|
91718241|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-13.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.74|40.43||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||40.43|-66.74|
91718242|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.26|38.36||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||38.36|-57.26|
91718243|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.18|53.73||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||53.73|-38.18|
91718244|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.03|21.56||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||21.56|-32.03|
91718245|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|40.6||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||40.60|-23.33|
91718246|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.19|40.06||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||40.06|-29.19|
91680492|NCT04135196|183251868|OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in cBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.107, F=1.971, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.155~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.008, Beta=0.284, t=1.526, p=0.137, 95% CI of B: \[-0.004, 0.027\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.008, Beta=0.342, t=1.837, p=0.075, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.030\]"|||0.155
91718247|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|36.06||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||36.06|-22.64|
91718248|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.31|26.22||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||26.22|-21.31|
91718249|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|10.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.99|41.34||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||41.34|-20.99|
91718250|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.59|31.36||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||31.36|-33.59|
91718251|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|9.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|37.94||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||37.94|-19.06|
91718252|NCT03555149|183329180|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|15.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|32.19||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab +LOAd703 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||32.19|-0.61|
91718253|NCT02965924|183329184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91793783|NCT03687970|183465859|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber pain threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for patients with painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|0.13||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|||||||0.61
91680493|NCT04135196|183251869|OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in ecBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=\<0.001, F=0.009, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.991~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.009, Beta=0.025, t=0.133, p=0.894, 95% CI of B: \[-0.016, 0.018\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.008, Beta=0.012, t=0.063, p=0.950, 95% CI of B: \[-0.016, 0.017\]"|||0.991
91680494|NCT04135196|183251869|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in ecBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.216, F=4.548, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.018~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.455, t=2.607, p=0.014, 95% CI of B: \[0.006, 0.052\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.447, t=2.563, p=0.015, 95% CI of B: \[0.006, 0.052\]"|||0.018
91680495|NCT04135196|183251870|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in tBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.090, F=1.968, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.153~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.007, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.352, t=1.973, p=0.055, 95% CI of B: \[0.000, 0.013\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.003, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.156, t=0.874, p=0.387, 95% CI of B: \[-0.004, 0.009\]"|||0.153
91680496|NCT04135196|183251870|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in tBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.331, F=8.152, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=0.473, t=2.930, p=0.006, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.020\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.016, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=0.617, t=3.828, p=0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.008, 0.025\]"|||0.001
91680497|NCT04135196|183251871|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in iBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.009, F=0.176, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.840~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.091, t=0.489, p=0.628, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.003\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.101, t=0.544, p=0.589, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.003\]"|||0.840
91680498|NCT04135196|183251871|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in iBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.563, F=21.225, df1=2, df2=33, p=\<0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.009, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.739, t=5.669, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.005, 0.012\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.008, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.716, t=5.495, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.005, 0.012\]"|||<0.001
91680499|NCT04135196|183251872|OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in cBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.077, F=1.665, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.202~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.005, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=-0.303, t=-1.689, p=0.099, 95% CI of B: \[-0.012, 0.001\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.004, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=-0.266, t=-1.484, p=0.146, 95% CI of B: \[-0.010, 0.002\]"|||0.202
91680500|NCT04135196|183251872|OTHER|||||||0.381|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in cBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.057, F=0.995, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.381~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.004, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.254, t=1.327, p=0.194, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.011\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.038, t=0.200, p=0.843, 95% CI of B: \[-0.006, 0.008\]"|||0.381
91680501|NCT04135196|183251873|OTHER|||||||0.697|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in ecBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.018, F=0.365, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.697~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.004, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=-0.158, t=-0.854, p=0.398, 95% CI of B: \[-0.012, 0.005\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.002, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=-0.078, t=-0.423, p=0.675, 95% CI of B: \[-0.010, 0.006\]"|||0.697
91718254|NCT00808340|183329219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4143|0.1644|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.1644|-0.4143|
91680502|NCT04135196|183251873|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in ecBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.215, F=4.516, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.018~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.005, Beta=0.484, t=2.773, p=0.009, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.0524\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.005, Beta=0.406, t=2.325, p=0.026, 95% CI of B: \[0.001, 0.022\]"|||0.018
91680503|NCT04135196|183251874|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in tBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.123, F=2.799, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.073~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.003, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.413, t=2.361, p=0.023, 95% CI of B: \[0.000, 0.006\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.002, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.198, t=1.129, p=0.265, 95% CI of B: \[-0.001, 0.004\]"|||0.073
91680504|NCT04135196|183251874|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in tBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.480, F=15.256, df1=2, df2=33, p=\<0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.008, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.590, t=4.153, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.012\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.734, t=5.164, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.006, 0.014\]"|||<0.001
91680505|NCT04135196|183251875|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in iBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.108, F=2.428, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.101~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.053, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.024, Beta=0.388, t=2.200, p=0.034, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.101\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.022, Beta=0.226, t=1.280, p=0.208, 95% CI of B: \[-0.017, 0.074\]"|||0.101
91680506|NCT04135196|183251875|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in iBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.063, F=01.103, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.344~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.015, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.025, Beta=0.113, t=0.595, p=0.556, 95% CI of B: \[-0.036, 0.065\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.038, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.025, Beta=0.283, t=1.481, p=0.148, 95% CI of B: \[-0.014, 0.089\]"|||0.344
91680507|NCT04135196|183251876|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in cBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.019, F=0.395, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.676~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.015, Beta=0.146, t=0.787, p=0.436, 95% CI of B: \[-0.019, 0.042\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.014, Beta=0.013, t=0.070, p=0.945, 95% CI of B: \[-0.028, 0.029\]"|||0.676
91680508|NCT04135196|183251876|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in cBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|Overall model fit: R\^2=0.072, F=1.288, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.289 Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.018, Beta=0.154, t=0.814, p=0.422, 95% CI of B: \[-0.022, 0.051\] Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.018, Beta=0.304, t=1.604, p=0.118, 95% CI of B: \[-0.008, 0.066\]|||0.289
91680509|NCT04135196|183251877|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in ecBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.111, F=2.491, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.096~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.026, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.391, t=2.222, p=0.032, 95% CI of B: \[0.032, 0.049\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.015, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.240, t=1.362, p=0.181, 95% CI of B: \[-0.007, 0.037\]"|||0.096
91680510|NCT04135196|183251877|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in ecBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.063, F=1.103, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.344~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.015, Beta=0.113, t=0.595, p=0.556, 95% CI of B: \[-0.036, 0.065\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.038, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.025, Beta=0.283, t=1.481, p=0.148, 95% CI of B: \[-0.014, 0.089\]"|||0.344
91793784|NCT03687970|183465859|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber detection threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for patients with painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|-0.2812205||||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|||||||0.2914
91903361|NCT00232141|183701683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.5882||95.0|-2.83|4.97||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Sleep Problems Index I||4.97|-2.83|0.5882
91718255|NCT00808340|183329219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6587|-0.07996|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference was calculated as balafilcon A multifocal minus senofilcon A multifocal prod.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||-0.07996|-0.6587|
91718256|NCT00808340|183329220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2485|0.3302|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.3302|-0.2485|
91718257|NCT00808340|183329220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7502|-0.1714|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||-0.1714|-0.7502|
91718258|NCT00808340|183329221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02656|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.08153|0.02271|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.02271|-0.08153|
91718259|NCT00808340|183329221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02656|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1198|-0.01553|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senfilcon A multifocal prod minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||-0.01553|-0.1198|
91718260|NCT00808340|183329222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2243|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.779|0.1183|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hyposthesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.1183|-0.779|
91718261|NCT00808340|183329222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2243|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6767|0.2206|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternativie hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||0.2206|-0.6767|
91718262|NCT02027025|183329242|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.78|||ANCOVA|||||0.78|-1.73|0.4532
91718263|NCT02027025|183329242|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|-1.76|0.4704
91718264|NCT02027025|183329243|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.56|0.3013
91718265|NCT02027025|183329243|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.58|0.2994
91718266|NCT02027025|183329244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3815|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3815
91718267|NCT02027025|183329244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7491|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7491
91718268|NCT02027025|183329245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8991|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8991
91718269|NCT02027025|183329245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8829
91718270|NCT00828711|183329246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|12.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for site effect|MVI 200 - MVI 100|The primary objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of MVI 100 and MVI 200 based on the proportion of vaginal deliveries within 24 hours. A minimum sample size of approximately 120 subjects per arm would provide 84 subjects per arm with vaginal delivery, which would ensure \>80% power (with two-sided alpha of 5%) to detect a 20% improvement in the proportion of women delivering vaginally within 24 hours||||0.057
91718271|NCT00828711|183329247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-563.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - MVI 100|Subjects who underwent a cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdrew consent prior to delivery were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||0.018
91718272|NCT00828711|183329249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-8.46||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - MVI 100|||||0.153
91718273|NCT00828711|183329250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|2.37||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for site effect|MVI 200 - MVI 100|||||0.65
91718274|NCT00828711|183329251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-22.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for site effect|MVI 200 - MVI 100|||||<.001
91718275|NCT00828711|183329253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-368.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - MVI 100|Subjects who never went into active labor during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdraw consent prior to delivery will be censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||0.007
91718276|NCT01618968|183329254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|127.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.61|134.7||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the abdomen using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the last measurable concentration AUC(0-inf).||134.70|121.61|
91718277|NCT01618968|183329254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|125.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.43|131.84||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following oral administration to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the AUC(0-Inf).||131.84|119.43|
91903362|NCT00232141|183701683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.4516||95.0|-2.3|5.14||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Sleep Problems Index II||5.14|-2.30|0.4516
91903363|NCT00232141|183701684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5105||95.0|-0.51|1.03||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Anxiety||1.03|-0.51|0.5105
91680511|NCT04135196|183251878|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in tBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.054, F=1.132, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.332~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.016, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.271, t=1.493, p=0.143, 95% CI of B: \[-0.006, 0.039\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.007, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.010, Beta=0.115, t=635, p=0.529, 95% CI of B: \[-0.014, 0.028\]"|||0.332
91680512|NCT04135196|183251878|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in tBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.054, F=0.946, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.399~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.008, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.119, t=0.619, p=0.540, 95% CI of B: \[-0.017, 0.032\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.017, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.264, t=1.375, p=0.178, 95% CI of B: \[-0.008, 0.042\]"|||0.399
91680513|NCT04135196|183251879|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis was that change in cortical thickness was not proportional to strain magnitude. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.~There were no significant relationships found between change in cortical thickness and strain magnitude group at any time point (p\>0.05)."|||
91680514|NCT04135196|183251879|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis was that change in cortical thickness was not proportional to strain rate. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.~At 3 months, there was a significant overall linear relationship between change in cortical thickness and strain rate group. Additionally, the coefficient representing the contrast between the control group and the high strain rate group was also significant. All other comparisons were not statistically significant (p\>0.05).~Stats for 3 months:~Overall model fit: R\^2=0.258, F=4.519, df1=2, df2=26, p=0.021~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.036, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.574, t=2.967, p=0.006, 95% CI of B: \[0.011, 0.061\]"|||
91680515|NCT04135196|183251880|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis was that change in bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was not proportional to strain magnitude. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.~At 9 months, there was a significant overall linear relationship between change in BV/TV and strain magnitude group. Additionally, the coefficient representing the contrast between the control group and the low strain magnitude group was also significant. All other comparisons were not statistically significant (p\>0.05).~Stats for 9 months:~Overall model fit: R\^2=0.240, F=5.057, df1=2, df2=32, p=0.012~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.003, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.562, t=3.180, p=0.003, 95% CI of B: \[0.001, 0.006\]"|||
91680516|NCT04135196|183251880|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was not proportional to strain rate. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.|||>0.05
91794281|NCT02821910|183467553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|105.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.78|113.15|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||113.15|98.78|
91903364|NCT00232141|183701684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.2513||95.0|-0.3|1.14||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Depression||1.14|-0.30|0.2513
91718278|NCT01618968|183329254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of bioequivalence was performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference ratio|101.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.41|104.36||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following SC injection into the abdomen to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the AUC(0-inf)||104.36|99.41|
91680517|NCT00006721|183251942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.05|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for the stratification factor (serum beta-2 microglobulin level)|CHOP + Tositumomab versus CHOP + Rituximab|||1.05|0.6|0.11
91680518|NCT00006721|183251946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.54|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for the stratification factor (serum beta-2 microglobulin level)|CHOP + Tositumomab versus CHOP + Rituximab|||2.54|0.95|0.08
91680519|NCT05091307|183251974|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for non-inferiority (NI) was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.53|||ANOVA|||A/Victoria (H1N1): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.53|1.09|
91680520|NCT05091307|183251974|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.45|||ANOVA|||A/Cambodia (H3N2): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.45|1.05|
91680521|NCT05091307|183251974|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||ANOVA|||B/Victoria (B/Victoria): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.19|0.84|
91680522|NCT05091307|183251974|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21|||ANOVA|||B/Phuket (B/Yamagata): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.21|0.88|
91680523|NCT05091307|183251975|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||ANOVA|||Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.26|0.97|
91680524|NCT02752906|183252019|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non- inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|9.38||||||Serogroup A||9.38|0.735|
91680525|NCT02752906|183252019|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non-inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|8.76||||||Serogroup C||8.76|2.16|
91680526|NCT02752906|183252019|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non-inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.907|4.55||||||Serogroup Y||4.55|-0.907|
91903365|NCT00232141|183701685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.5834||95.0|-0.38|0.67||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Pain Severity Index||0.67|-0.38|0.5834
91680527|NCT02752906|183252019|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non-inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|10.9||||||Serogroup W||10.9|4.30|
91680528|NCT00642694|183252092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91680529|NCT01007942|183252109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.65|0.0067
91680530|NCT04492020|183252118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.69|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|||||2.69|1.63|<.0001
91680531|NCT04492020|183252119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.78|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|||||2.78|1.63|<.0001
91680532|NCT04492020|183252120|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Odds Ratio|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.96|||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||1.96|1.40|<.0001
91680533|NCT04492020|183252121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.66|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|||||2.66|1.39|<.0001
91680534|NCT01175811|183252126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.14|
91680535|NCT01175811|183252127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.15|
91680536|NCT01175811|183252128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=6.5% HbA1c at 12 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.344
91718279|NCT01618968|183329255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|127.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.28|134.36||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the abdomen using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the 24 hour concentration AUC(0-24)||134.36|121.28|
91680537|NCT01175811|183252128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=7.0% HbA1c at 12 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.822
91680538|NCT01175811|183252128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=6.5% HbA1c at 24 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.417
91680539|NCT01175811|183252128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=7.0% HbA1c at 24 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.392
91680540|NCT02109419|183252137|OTHER||Pearson Test-retest reliability coeff.|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Test-retest reliability coeff.|||HHT-D reliability was evaluated via test-retest reliability coefficients. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||<0.0001
91680541|NCT02109419|183252137|OTHER||Pearson test-retest reliability coeff|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson test-retest reliability coeff|||HHT-G reliability was evaluated via test-retest reliability coefficients. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||<0.0001
91680542|NCT02109419|183252137|OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation coefficient|||Validity of the HHT-D was tested by Pearson correlation coefficients between HHT-D and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) scores. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||<.0001
91680543|NCT02109419|183252137|OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation coefficient|||Validity of the HHT-G was tested by Pearson correlation coefficients between HHT-G and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||0.0001
91680544|NCT02109419|183252137|OTHER||Chronbach's alpha|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Internal consistency reliability of the HHT-D was assessed with Chronbach's alpha. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||
91680545|NCT02109419|183252137|OTHER||Chronbach's alpha|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Internal consistency reliability of the HHT-G was assessed with Chronbach's alpha. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||
91680546|NCT04715932|183252138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.3849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression).||||3.69|0.60|0.3849
91680547|NCT04715932|183252139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.88|0.71|0.3139
91680548|NCT04715932|183252140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.14|0.65|0.5886
91680549|NCT04715932|183252141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.27|0.38|0.2328
91862996|NCT04568434|183613513|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-65.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.634|-48.32||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 6||-48.320|-82.634|<0.0001
91680550|NCT04715932|183252142|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.14||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression).||||1.37|0.95|0.1560
91680551|NCT04715932|183252143|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.6233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression)||||1.33|0.84|0.6233
91680552|NCT04715932|183252144|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.03||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression)||||1.37|0.78|0.8290
91680553|NCT04715932|183252145|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression)||||1.40|0.69|0.9222
91680554|NCT04715932|183252146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8834|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8834
91680555|NCT04715932|183252147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.77|0.59|0.9416
91680556|NCT04715932|183252148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.55|0.49|0.6296
91680557|NCT04715932|183252149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.40|0.41|0.3711
91680558|NCT04715932|183252150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.5696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.61|0.42|0.5696
91680559|NCT04715932|183252151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.67|0.26|0.7583
91680560|NCT04715932|183252152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.58|0.20|0.8091
91680561|NCT04715932|183252153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.5591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||9.42|0.30|0.5591
91680562|NCT04715932|183252154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||||0.9983
91680563|NCT04715932|183252155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.82|0.90|0.1068
91680564|NCT04715932|183252156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.98|0.57|0.8382
91680565|NCT04715932|183252157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.51|0.59|0.5912
91862997|NCT04568434|183613513|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-73.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.553|-52.837||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 6||-52.837|-94.553|<0.0001
91680566|NCT04715932|183252159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.35|0.45|0.3686
91680567|NCT04715932|183252160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.86|0.59|0.8711
91680568|NCT04715932|183252161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.87|0.57|0.9124
91680569|NCT04715932|183252162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.37|0.36|0.2952
91680570|NCT04715932|183252163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.34|0.62|0.5894
91680571|NCT04715932|183252164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.89|0.45|0.7887
91680572|NCT04715932|183252165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.70|0.20|0.6348
91680573|NCT04715932|183252166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.4257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.92|0.04|0.4257
91680574|NCT04715932|183252167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.11|0.89|0.1113
91680575|NCT04715932|183252168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.47|0.71|0.2613
91680576|NCT04715932|183252169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.49|0.27|0.7273
91680577|NCT04715932|183252170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.19|0.19|0.8909
91680578|NCT04715932|183252171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.1438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.67|0.87|0.1438
91680579|NCT04715932|183252172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.68|0.71|0.3440
91680580|NCT04715932|183252173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.56|0.58|0.5968
91718280|NCT01618968|183329255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference ratio|125.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.16|131.55||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the 24 hour concentration AUC(0-24)||131.55|119.16|
91862998|NCT04568434|183613513|SUPERIORITY||Ls mean difference|-77.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.938|-55.177||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-55.177|-98.938|<0.0001
91680581|NCT04715932|183252174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.76|0.62|0.3620
91680582|NCT04715932|183252175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.27|0.91|0.0875
91862999|NCT04568434|183613513|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-81.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.656|-57.894||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-57.894|-104.656|<0.0001
91680583|NCT04715932|183252176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.32|0.36|0.8397
91680584|NCT04715932|183252177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.65|0.40|0.6265
91680585|NCT04715932|183252178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||8.91|0.16|0.8528
91680586|NCT04715932|183252179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.35|0.77|0.2983
91680587|NCT04715932|183252180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.5611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.16|0.66|0.5611
91680588|NCT04715932|183252181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.4643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.58|0.65|0.4643
91680589|NCT04715932|183252182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.62|0.53|0.5063
91680590|NCT04715932|183252183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.47|0.80|0.2292
91680591|NCT04715932|183252184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.07|0.65|0.6097
91680592|NCT04715932|183252185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.16|0.54|0.8389
91718281|NCT01618968|183329255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of bioequivalence was performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|101.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.39|104.31||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following SC injection into the abdomen to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the 24 hour concentration AUC(0-24)||104.31|99.39|
91718282|NCT01618968|183329256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference ratio|94.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.42|104.06||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the abdomen using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the maximum observed concentration (Cmax)||104.06|86.42|
91718283|NCT01618968|183329256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|82.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.16|88.55||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the maximum observed concentration (Cmax)||88.55|76.16|
91718284|NCT01618968|183329256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of bioequivalence was performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|115.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.83|122.86||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following SC injection into the abdomen to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the maximum observed concentration (Cmax)||122.86|108.83|
91718285|NCT00251758|183329262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
91718286|NCT00251758|183329262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
91718287|NCT00251758|183329262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15505||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.15505
91903366|NCT00232141|183701685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.7783||95.0|-0.43|0.57||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Pain Interference Index||0.57|-0.43|0.7783
91680593|NCT04715932|183252186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.17|0.45|0.9764
91680594|NCT04715932|183252187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.40|0.46|0.4403
91680595|NCT04715932|183252188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.60|0.39|0.5112
91680596|NCT04715932|183252189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.36|0.46|0.9306
91680597|NCT04715932|183252190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.36|0.23|0.6046
91680598|NCT04715932|183252191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.34|0.57|0.6963
91680599|NCT04715932|183252192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.88|0.22|0.4250
91680600|NCT04715932|183252193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.65|0.27|0.8797
91680601|NCT04715932|183252194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|37.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||37.03|0.37|0.2634
91680602|NCT04715932|183252195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.06|0.73|0.2710
91680603|NCT04715932|183252196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.30|0.77|0.1748
91680604|NCT04715932|183252197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.63|0.34|0.8513
91680605|NCT04715932|183252198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||5.07|0.29|0.7906
91680606|NCT03560986|183252199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.17||2-sided p-value for testing superiority of neridronic acid 400 mg compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom of the denominator are estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.|The primary endpoint estimate was the least squares mean differences of change from baseline in pain NRS (electronic diary) at Week 12 between neridronate and Placebo.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) defined with baseline pain intensity as covariate, the factors geographic region, week, treatment and treatment-by-week as fixed effects, and an unstructured covariance matrix to model the covariance structure of the repeated measurements.||1.17|-0.31|0.2522
91680607|NCT00655876|183252206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Log Rank|||The sample size was based on the primary hypothesis of a 29% reduction in the hazard rate of death with cetuximab, corresponding to an increase in 2-year overall survival (OS) from 41% to 53% and a hazard ratio (λ\[exp\]/λ\[cont\]) of 0.71 in favor of the cetuximab arm. Assuming an exponential distribution and constant hazards, 400 patients were required to reach 281 OS events, with 80% statistical power, a 1-sided α of 0.025, 4.5 years of accrual, 2 years of follow-up, and 4 interim analyses.||1.16|0.70|0.47
91680608|NCT00655876|183252207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.025||||1.28|0.66|0.65
91680609|NCT00655876|183252209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided significance level = 0.025||||||0.66
91680610|NCT00655876|183252210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||6-8 weeks post-treatment||||0.04
91680611|NCT00655876|183252210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||1 year||||0.77
91680612|NCT00655876|183252210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||2 years||||0.17
91680613|NCT00699374|183252232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.5||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test controlling the effects of geographic region, prior transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and tumor invasion condition.|Log Rank|||||1.50|1.14|0.9993
91680614|NCT00699374|183252233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.3||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test controlling the effects of geographic region, prior TACE, and tumor invasion condition|Log Rank|||||1.30|0.99|0.8857
91680615|NCT00699374|183252234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.31||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test controlling the effects of geographic region, prior TACE and tumor invasion condition|Log Rank|||||1.31|0.98|0.8459
91680616|NCT01783548|183252244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.66||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||Based on other studies, the standard deviation for the change from baseline over the first 6 weeks of treatment in the average of AM and PM rTNSS is assumed to be 2.0. Using this standard deviation, 450 subjects aged 6 to 11 years (300 on active treatment of BDP and 150 on placebo) provide approximately 90% power to detect a difference of 0.65 in rTNSS change from baseline between treatment groups with a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-0.24|-1.08|0.002
91680617|NCT01783548|183252245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.58||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.18||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.18|-0.99|0.004
91680618|NCT01783548|183252246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.23|-1.00|0.002
91680619|NCT01783548|183252247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.17||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.17|-0.91|0.004
91680620|NCT00552578|183252284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.523||95.0|0.0098|2.8215|||Fisher Exact|||Intent to treat||2.8215|0.0098|0.523
91680621|NCT00552578|183252286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||No adjustment|Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used and tested the hypothesis that neither group would be more likely to complete the study protocol.||||0.015
91680622|NCT01992523|183252287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or medians (quartiles) as appropriate, and categorical data as proportions (%). Data were compared by means of the chi-2 test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables and unpaired t test or Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables, as appropriate. A P value \< .05 was considered statistically significant. All tests were two-sided.||||0.006
91680623|NCT00296231|183252318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired Student's t-test was used to compare pre and post intervention pCO2 values.||||0.011
91680624|NCT04091659|183252320|EQUIVALENCE|To determine if the two training approaches were comparable to one another a margin of +/- 1 was used in differences of both OOKS and OOAS scale scores based on previously established literature. An equivalence test of differences using two one-sided tests on data from a cluster-randomized design was conducted using structural equation modeling. Sample sizes of 35 and 57 in group two, obtained by sampling 9 clusters, achieve 85% power to detect equivalence. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.49|||SEM||||The control group, standard education was the reference for this model.|0.49|-0.85|0.65
91680625|NCT04091659|183252321|EQUIVALENCE|To determine if the two training approaches were comparable to one another a margin of +/- 1 was used in differences of both OOKS and OOAS scale scores based on previously established literature. An equivalence test of differences using two one-sided tests on data from a cluster-randomized design was conducted using structural equation modeling. Sample sizes of 35 and 57 in group two, obtained by sampling 9 clusters, achieve 85% power to detect equivalence. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.5|||SEM||The control group, standard education, was the reference|||0.50|0.02|0.02
91718288|NCT00251758|183329264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.00001
91718289|NCT00251758|183329264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
91680626|NCT00895947|183252322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||Overall comparison of treatment groups for incidence of ILI|Chi-squared|||||||0.25
91680627|NCT00895947|183252322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Comparision of ILI incidence in subjects age 50 and older at baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91680628|NCT00895947|183252322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Comparison of ILI in subjects age \< 50 at baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91680629|NCT00895947|183252322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in subjects vaccinated against seasonal influenza prior to enrollment.|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91680630|NCT00895947|183252322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in subjects not vaccinated against seasonal influenza prior to enrollment|Chi-squared|||||||0.45
91680631|NCT00895947|183252322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in male subjects|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91680632|NCT00895947|183252322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in female subjects|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91680633|NCT00895947|183252323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting any cold/flu symptoms during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91680634|NCT00895947|183252323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting moderate to severe feverishness|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91680635|NCT00895947|183252323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting moderate to severe head congestion|Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91680636|NCT00895947|183252323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting moderate to severe sore throat|Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91680637|NCT00895947|183252324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to think clearly|Chi-squared|||||||0.39
91680638|NCT00895947|183252324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to sleep well|Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91680639|NCT00895947|183252324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to breathe easily|Chi-squared|||||||0.66
91680640|NCT00895947|183252324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to walk, climb stairs and exercise|Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91680641|NCT00895947|183252324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to perform daily activities|Chi-squared|||||||0.26
91680642|NCT00895947|183252324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to work outside the home|Chi-squared|||||||0.25
91718290|NCT00251758|183329264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3874||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.38740
91680643|NCT00895947|183252324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to work inside the home|Chi-squared|||||||0.20
91680644|NCT00895947|183252324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to interact with others|Chi-squared|||||||0.20
91680645|NCT00895947|183252324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to live personal life|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91680646|NCT00895947|183252325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they felt sick|Chi-squared|||||||0.66
91680647|NCT00895947|183252325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they missed work|Chi-squared|||||||0.88
91680648|NCT00895947|183252325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they visited the doctor|Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91680649|NCT00895947|183252325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they visited the pharmacy|Chi-squared|||||||0.54
91680650|NCT00895947|183252325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they took cold/flu medication|Chi-squared|||||||0.24
91680651|NCT00895947|183252325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they skipped a planned activity|Chi-squared|||||||0.89
91680652|NCT00895947|183252326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a confirmed viral respiratory infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.61
91680653|NCT00895947|183252326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a moderate/severe viral respiratory infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91680654|NCT00895947|183252326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a moderate/severe influenza infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91680655|NCT00895947|183252326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a moderate/severe viral respiratory infection other than influenza|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91680656|NCT00895947|183252327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0||||Proportion of subjects meeting the definition of acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.54
91680657|NCT00895947|183252327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||Proportion of subjects meeting with moderate/severe acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91680658|NCT00895947|183252327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects with moderate/severe febrile acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91680659|NCT00895947|183252327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||Proportion of subjects with moderate/severe afebrile acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.60
91680660|NCT01243112|183252336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis is that no difference would be measured between treatment arms.||||0.359
91680661|NCT01243112|183252337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.490
91680662|NCT01739348|183252359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.2||||0.6287|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.9|1.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.3|-0.9|0.6287
91680663|NCT01739348|183252359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.4||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.8|1.5|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.5|-0.8|0.4625
91680664|NCT01739348|183252360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.5||||0.4925|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.1|2.1|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.1|-1.1|0.4925
91680665|NCT01739348|183252360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.7||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.9|2.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.3|-0.9|0.3221
91680666|NCT01739348|183252367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.4|0.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.4|0.8426
91680667|NCT01739348|183252367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.8264|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.3|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.8264
91680668|NCT01739348|183252368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.0|-0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.0005
91718291|NCT01387269|183329314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
91680669|NCT01739348|183252368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.1|-0.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.1|0.0002
91680670|NCT01739348|183252369|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Fold Change from Baseline|0.95||||0.2138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.04|0.87|0.2138
91680671|NCT01739348|183252369|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Fold Change from Baseline|0.97||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.05|0.90|0.4330
91680672|NCT01739348|183252370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.03||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.05|0.0066
91680673|NCT01739348|183252370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.02|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.06|<0.0001
91680674|NCT01739348|183252372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.7||||0.2949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.1|-0.6|0.2949
91680675|NCT01739348|183252372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.1||||0.1372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.6|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.6|-0.4|0.1372
91680676|NCT01739348|183252373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.2||||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.3|0.4721
91680677|NCT01739348|183252373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.5||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.0|0.0|0.0599
91680678|NCT01447420|183252377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Participants without measurement at the end of the 24 week untreated follow-up period were considered as non-responders.||IL28B Genotypes (CC, CT or TT)||||0.0007
91680679|NCT01447420|183252380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.14|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|Anemia after the first month of treatment vs No anemia||4.14|0.69|
91680680|NCT01447420|183252380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.59|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|Anemia in the first month of treatment vs No anemia||2.59|0.28|
91680681|NCT01447420|183252380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|13.12|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|IL28B - CC vs CT||13.12|2.27|
91680682|NCT01447420|183252380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|13.61|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|IL28B - CC vs TT||13.61|1.19|
91680683|NCT00790335|183252393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for extent of DVT and for clinical center|Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm. Primary outcome = no statistically significant difference between the two arms.|||1.11|0.82|0.56
91680684|NCT00790335|183252394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm. No statistically significant difference was seen.|||1.98|0.17|0.38
91680685|NCT00790335|183252395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for thrombus extent and clinical center|No statistically significant difference was seen.|||1.09|0.80|0.39
91680686|NCT00790335|183252396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by extent of DVT and clinical center|Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||0.98|0.54|0.04
91680687|NCT00790335|183252397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.18||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|49.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm. More major bleeding was observed in the PCDT Arm.|||49.2|0.78|0.049
91680688|NCT00790335|183252398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||3.01|0.76|0.23
91680689|NCT00790335|183252399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.64||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator = PCDT Arm; Denominator = Control Arm. Bleeding was more frequent in the PCDT Arm.|||6.68|1.04|0.03
91680690|NCT00790335|183252400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||1.89|0.85|0.25
91680691|NCT00790335|183252401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator = PCDT Arm; Denominator = Control Arm|||5.28|0.44|0.50
91680692|NCT00790335|183252402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.47||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||2.29|0.94|0.09
91680693|NCT00790335|183252404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.44|0.33|0.83
91680694|NCT00790335|183252405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
91680695|NCT00790335|183252406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
91680696|NCT00790335|183252407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
91680697|NCT00790335|183252408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||0.005
91680698|NCT00790335|183252409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
91680699|NCT00790335|183252410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||0.01
91718292|NCT01387269|183329315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1475|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||0.1475
91718293|NCT01387269|183329316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.0004
91718294|NCT01387269|183329317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0544|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.0544
91718295|NCT01387269|183329318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
91718296|NCT02858908|183329346|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6696||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.334|-0.0051|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete 10-metre walk/run test at the preferred speed||-0.0051|-1.3340|0.0484
91718297|NCT02858908|183329346|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6449||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3094|0.0195|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete 10-metre walk/run test at the preferred speed||0.0195|-1.3094|0.0565
91718298|NCT02858908|183329347|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9102||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1526|2.973|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in grip strength (kg)||2.9730|-1.1526|0.3732
91718299|NCT02858908|183329347|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3897||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4525|0.6731|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in grip strength (kg)||0.6731|-3.4525|0.1782
91718300|NCT02858908|183329348|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0213||||0.8886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3368|0.2941|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in FVC (litres)||0.2941|-0.3368|0.8886
91718301|NCT02858908|183329348|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0152||||0.9204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3003|0.3307|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in FVC (litres)||0.3307|-0.3003|0.9204
91718302|NCT02858908|183329349|OTHER|The exact Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test for a change in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g) from baseline to end of treatment|Median Difference (Net)|-42.75||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1270.0|2178.5|||ANCOVA||Hodges-Lehmann estimates for the median and confidence intervals are presented|Changes from baseline to week 12 in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g)||2178.50|-1270.00|1.0000
91718303|NCT02858908|183329349|OTHER|The exact Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test for a change in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g) from baseline to end of treatment|Median Difference (Net)|426.75||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-289.5|1198.5|||ANCOVA||Hodges-Lehmann estimates for the median and confidence intervals are presented|Changes from baseline to week 12 in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g)||1198.50|-289.50|0.3125
91718304|NCT02858908|183329351|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.7||The p-value is presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement Scale (CGI-I)||3.7|2.6|0.0030
91718305|NCT02858908|183329351|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.6||The p-value is presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement Scale (CGI-I)||3.6|2.4|0.0009
91794492|NCT04340063|183467926|OTHER||Slope|-52.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-651.0|456.0||Effect of time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||456|-651|0.9
91903367|NCT00232141|183701686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4776||95.0|-0.73|0.34||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.73|0.4776
91680700|NCT00790335|183252411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
91680701|NCT00790335|183252412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||0.03
91680702|NCT00790335|183252413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|No significant difference was seen in the degree of change from baseline to 24 months between the two treatment arms.|||||0.37
91680703|NCT00790335|183252414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|No difference was observed in the degree of change from baseline to 24 months in the two treatment groups.|||||0.99
91680704|NCT00790335|183252415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|No significant difference in the change from baseline to 24 months between the two treatment arms.|||||0.08
91680705|NCT00790335|183252416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.02
91680706|NCT00790335|183252417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.03
91680707|NCT00790335|183252418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.02
91680708|NCT00790335|183252419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.05
91680709|NCT02695537|183252472|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure frequency over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure frequency between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure frequency was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure frequency outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
91680710|NCT02695537|183252473|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure severity scores over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure severity scores between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure severity scores was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure severity score outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure severity relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
91680711|NCT02792699|183252478|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|152371.4|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680712|NCT02792699|183252478|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|159236.0|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680713|NCT02792699|183252478|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|172213.2|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680714|NCT02792699|183252478|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for AUCinf was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9569|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.887|1.0323||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0323|0.8870|
91680715|NCT02792699|183252478|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUCinf was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8204|0.9542||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9542|0.8204|
91903368|NCT00232141|183701687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0077||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0077
91794493|NCT04340063|183467926|OTHER||Slope|79.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-622.0|780.0||Interaction effect of time by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||780|-622|0.8
91863000|NCT04568434|183613515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.29|||=|0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.612|16.041||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change From Baseline at Month 6||16.041|-82.612|=0.1860
91680716|NCT02792699|183252478|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUCinf was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9246|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8575|0.997||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9970|0.8575|
91680717|NCT02792699|183252479|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|368.43|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91718306|NCT02858908|183329352|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.132||||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the weekly total number of 3 minute bouts of activity per hour wear time||0.066|-0.330|0.1857
91903369|NCT00232141|183701688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3852||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3852
91680718|NCT02792699|183252479|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|374.44|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680719|NCT02792699|183252479|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|393.29|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680720|NCT02792699|183252479|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9356|1.0348||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0348|0.9356|
91680721|NCT02792699|183252479|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9368|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8912|0.9848||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9848|0.8912|
91680722|NCT02792699|183252479|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9521|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9055|1.001||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0010|0.9055|
91680723|NCT02792699|183252480|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|42203.8|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680724|NCT02792699|183252480|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|43378.8|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680725|NCT02792699|183252480|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|44925.3|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680726|NCT02792699|183252480|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for AUC0-14day was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9729|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9174|1.0318||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0318|0.9174|
91680727|NCT02792699|183252480|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-14day was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9394|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8863|0.9958||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9958|0.8863|
91863001|NCT04568434|183613515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-83.97|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.949|-30.982||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change From Baseline at Month 6||-30.982|-136.949|=0.0019
91903370|NCT00232141|183701689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3097||95.0|-0.03|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Burning||0.10|-0.03|0.3097
91680728|NCT02792699|183252480|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-14day was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9104|1.024||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0240|0.9104|
91903371|NCT00232141|183701689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6147||95.0|-0.07|0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Pressing||0.04|-0.07|0.6147
91680729|NCT02792699|183252481|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|149590.5|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680730|NCT02792699|183252481|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|155778.7|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680731|NCT02792699|183252481|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|166811.0|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680732|NCT02792699|183252481|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for AUC0-12wk was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|1.0303||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0303|0.8950|
91680733|NCT02792699|183252481|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-12wk was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8363|0.9616||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9616|0.8363|
91680734|NCT02792699|183252481|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-12wk was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9339|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8707|1.0016||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0016|0.8707|
91680735|NCT02792699|183252482|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|304.04|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680736|NCT02792699|183252482|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|305.8|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680737|NCT02792699|183252482|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|320.87|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91680738|NCT02792699|183252482|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9461|1.0448||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0448|0.9461|
91680739|NCT02792699|183252482|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9021|0.9953||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9953|0.9021|
91680740|NCT02792699|183252482|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9531|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.0015||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0015|0.9070|
91680741|NCT02792699|183252491|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was tested by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the change from baseline at week 24 of DAS28-CRP between ABP 798 and rituximab with an equivalence margin of (-0.6, 0.6).|LS Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.225|0.264||||||If PK similarity was established between rituximab (US) and rituximab (EU), the 2 rituximab arms were to be combined into a single reference group for the primary assessment of clinical equivalence of DAS28-CRP change from baseline at week 24 using a repeated measures analysis with DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and the stratification variables, visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline DAS28-CRP as predictors, and unstructured covariance matrix in the model.||0.264|-0.225|
91680742|NCT02792699|183252491|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.353|0.213||||||||0.213|-0.353|
91680743|NCT02792699|183252491|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.171|0.392||||||||0.392|-0.171|
91794494|NCT00491556|183467944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-7.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-7.97|-12.20|<0.0001
91680744|NCT02792699|183252492|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.203|0.33||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.330|-0.203|
91680745|NCT02792699|183252492|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.147|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.411|0.117||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.117|-0.411|
91680746|NCT02792699|183252492|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.502|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.233|0.772||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.772|0.233|
91680747|NCT02792699|183252492|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.539||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.539|0.000|
91680748|NCT02792699|183252492|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.55||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.550|-0.040|
91680749|NCT02792699|183252492|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.135|0.455||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.455|-0.135|
91680750|NCT02792699|183252492|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.262|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.564||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.564|-0.040|
91680751|NCT02792699|183252492|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.216|0.376||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.376|-0.216|
91680752|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9339|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7696|1.1332||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.1332|0.7696|
91680753|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1495|0.0775||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0775|-0.1495|
91680754|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0392|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8436|1.2801||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2801|0.8436|
91863002|NCT04568434|183613515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.9|||=|0.4219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.254|47.459||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||47.459|-113.254|=0.4219
91680755|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0246|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.091|0.1402||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1402|-0.0910|
91680756|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7573|1.0179||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0179|0.7573|
91680757|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0794|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1834|0.0247||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0247|-0.1834|
91680758|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0426|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.877|1.2394||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2394|0.8770|
91680759|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0348|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0758|0.1454||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1454|-0.0758|
91680760|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8743|1.1671||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.1671|0.8743|
91680761|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0835|0.1234||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1234|-0.0835|
91680762|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0793|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9244|1.2601||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2601|0.9244|
91680763|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0561|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0493|0.1615||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1615|-0.0493|
91718307|NCT02858908|183329352|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.325||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|-0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the weekly total number of 3 minute bouts of activity per hour wear time||-0.102|-0.549|0.0054
91718308|NCT02858908|183329355|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.162||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.731|-0.593|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete the nine hole peg test for the dominant arm||-0.593|-3.731|0.0111
91718309|NCT02858908|183329355|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.955||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.525|0.614|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete the nine hole peg test for the dominant arm||0.614|-2.525|0.2088
91718310|NCT02858908|183329356|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the subject top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||0.18|-3.71|0.0728
91718311|NCT02858908|183329356|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the subject top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||-0.04|-3.94|0.0456
91718312|NCT02858908|183329356|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the caregiver top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||-0.80|-4.03|0.0058
91718313|NCT02858908|183329356|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the caregiver top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||-0.34|-3.56|0.0208
91718314|NCT02858908|183329357|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the OSU Autism Rating Scale - DSM-IV (OARS-4) total impairment mean||-0.017|-0.092|0.0068
91718315|NCT02858908|183329357|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the OSU Autism Rating Scale - DSM-IV (OARS-4) total impairment mean||0.028|-0.047|0.6090
91793785|NCT06374394|183465867|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio between the Control Group (at Day 61) versus Co-Ad Group (at Day 31) for RSV-A neutralizing titers 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose was less than or equal to (≤) 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.|The GMR is based on the back transformation of the group comparisons in the ANCOVA model applied to the logarithmically-transformed titers.|To demonstrate non-inferiority of humoral immune response to RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared to RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone.||1.28|0.97|
91903372|NCT00232141|183701689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6838||95.0|-0.05|0.07||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Paroxysmal||0.07|-0.05|0.6838
91863003|NCT04568434|183613515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-75.63|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.195|1.927||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||1.927|-153.195|=0.0560
91718316|NCT02858908|183329358|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12 in OSU CGI-I. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for the repeated visits within subject.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.7||p-values are presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in OSU global improvement scale for autism (OSU CGI-I)||3.7|3.0|0.0011
91718317|NCT02858908|183329358|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12 in OSU CGI-I. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for the repeated visits within subject.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|4.4||p-values are presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in OSU global improvement scale for autism (OSU CGI-I)||4.4|3.6|1.0000
91718318|NCT02858908|183329359|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline at week 12 in the clinician-completed domain specific causes for concern VAS total score (cm)||-3.47|-8.35|<0.0001
91718319|NCT02858908|183329359|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline at week 12 in the clinician-completed domain specific causes for concern VAS total score (cm)||-0.83|-5.71|0.0116
91718320|NCT02858908|183329360|OTHER|An ANCOVA was fitted to the change in the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test age-based standard score from baseline to end of treatment. The model included the baseline value as a covariate and dose group as a fixed effect.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.3|||ANCOVA||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the peabody picture vocabulary test age-based standard score||4.3|-6.5|0.6631
91718321|NCT02858908|183329360|OTHER|An ANCOVA was fitted to the change in the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test age-based standard score from baseline to end of treatment. The model included the baseline value as a covariate and dose group as a fixed effect.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.2|||ANCOVA||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the peabody picture vocabulary test age-based standard score||5.2|-5.5|0.9546
91718322|NCT05994963|183329393|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|58.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.45|85.6|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment A = reference; treatment B = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||85.60|40.45|
91718323|NCT05994963|183329394|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|56.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.71|83.73|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment A = reference; treatment B = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||83.73|38.71|
91718324|NCT05994963|183329395|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|50.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.01|76.13|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment A = reference; treatment B = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||76.13|33.01|
91718325|NCT05994963|183329396|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|202.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.43|296.27|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment C = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||296.27|138.43|
91718326|NCT05994963|183329397|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|196.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.01|293.55|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment C = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||293.55|131.01|
91794495|NCT00491556|183467945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||0.26|-3.87|0.0834
91863004|NCT04568434|183613516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.69|||=|0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.571|-0.801||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline Month 6||-0.801|-34.571|=0.0401
91863005|NCT04568434|183613516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.2|||=|0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.484|-7.911||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline Month 6||-7.911|-40.484|=0.0036
91680764|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7759|1.0091||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0091|0.7759|
91680765|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0776|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1789|0.0237||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0237|-0.1789|
91680766|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8585|1.1605||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.1605|0.8585|
91680767|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1038|0.1054||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1054|-0.1038|
91680768|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6722|0.9196||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.9196|0.6722|
91680769|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3066|-0.0941||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||-0.0941|-0.3066|
91680770|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7587|1.0215||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0215|0.7587|
91680771|NCT02792699|183252493|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1037|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2066|-0.0007||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||-0.0007|-0.2066|
91680772|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9256|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.3388||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3388|0.6400|
91680773|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0181|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1209|0.0847||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0847|-0.1209|
91680774|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7328|1.6119||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.6119|0.7328|
91680775|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0201|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0803|0.1205||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1205|-0.0803|
91680776|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7095|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5387|0.9346||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.9346|0.5387|
91680777|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1109|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2231|0.0013||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0013|-0.2231|
91794496|NCT00491556|183467946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-317.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-390.04|-244.68|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-244.68|-390.04|<0.0001
91680778|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0882|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7829|1.5127||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.5127|0.7829|
91680779|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0441|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0626|0.1508||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1508|-0.0626|
91680780|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9612|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7273|1.2705||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2705|0.7273|
91680781|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1081|0.1122||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1122|-0.1081|
91680782|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|1.3305||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3305|0.7560|
91680783|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1056|0.1135||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1135|-0.1056|
91680784|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6797|1.0316||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0316|0.6797|
91680785|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2029|0.0302||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0302|-0.2029|
91680786|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1191|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.878|1.4264||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.4264|0.8780|
91680787|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0288|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0827|0.1402||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1402|-0.0827|
91680788|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8376|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6807|1.0307||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0307|0.6807|
91680789|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0781|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2014|0.0452||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0452|-0.2014|
91680790|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8351|1.3321||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3321|0.8351|
91680791|NCT02792699|183252494|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1021|0.1303||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1303|-0.1021|
91680792|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2818|1.2462||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2462|0.2818|
91680793|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1285|0.0136||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0136|-0.1285|
91680794|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3383|1.6519||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.6519|0.3383|
91680795|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0327|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0962|0.0308||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0308|-0.0962|
91680796|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6346|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3704|1.0872||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0872|0.3704|
91680797|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0569|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1448|0.031||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0310|-0.1448|
91680798|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7857|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|1.3874||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3874|0.4450|
91680799|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0417|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1237.0|0.0403||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0403|-1237|
91680800|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9254|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5772|1.4838||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.4838|0.5772|
91680801|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.078|0.1092||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1092|-0.0780|
91680802|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6722|1.8398||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.8398|0.6722|
91863006|NCT04568434|183613516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-29.84|||=|0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.49|-6.198||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-6.198|-53.490|=0.0134
91863007|NCT04568434|183613516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.7|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.108|-16.292||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-16.292|-63.108|=0.0009
91680803|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0244|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.1119||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1119|-0.0630|
91863008|NCT04568434|183613517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.1|||=|0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.506||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 1 to 53:offset variable.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.506|0.020|=0.0052
91903373|NCT00232141|183701689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6479||95.0|-0.07|0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Evoked||0.04|-0.07|0.6479
91903374|NCT00232141|183701689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1849||95.0|-0.02|0.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Paresthesia/dysesthesia||0.11|-0.02|0.1849
91680804|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6675|1.4384||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.4384|0.6675|
91680805|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0707|0.1456||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1456|-0.0707|
91680806|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1831|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7833|1.787||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.7870|0.7833|
91680807|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0752|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0297|0.1802||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1802|-0.0297|
91680808|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.493|1.0017||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0017|0.4930|
91680809|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0908|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.211|0.0294||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0294|-0.2110|
91680810|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1449|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7601|1.7246||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.7246|0.7601|
91680811|NCT02792699|183252495|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0277|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0804|0.1357||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1357|-0.0804|
91680812|NCT02792699|183252496|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.673|3.675||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||3.675|-7.673|
91680813|NCT02792699|183252496|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.544|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.185|6.274||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||6.274|-5.185|
91680814|NCT02792699|183252496|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.224|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.102|-2.346||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||-2.346|-14.102|
91680815|NCT02792699|183252496|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.052|3.933||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||3.933|-8.052|
91680816|NCT02792699|183252496|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.62|4.979||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||4.979|-7.620|
91718327|NCT05994963|183329398|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|230.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.53|364.2|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment C = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||364.20|145.53|
91718328|NCT05994963|183329399|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|122.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.61|161.19|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment D= test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||161.19|93.61|
91680817|NCT02792699|183252496|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.691|7.15||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||7.150|-5.691|
91680818|NCT02792699|183252496|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.207|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.562|1.417||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||1.417|-8.562|
91680819|NCT02792699|183252496|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.497|6.424||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||6.424|-6.497|
91680820|NCT02792699|183252496|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.455|0.197||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.197|-13.455|
91680821|NCT02792699|183252496|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.883|3.691||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||3.691|-9.883|
91680822|NCT02792699|183252497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0245|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1083|0.0593|||||Based on a generalized linear model adjusted for geographic region, seropositivity and prior biologic use as covariates in the model.|||0.0593|-0.1083|
91680823|NCT02792699|183252497|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0187|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.061|0.0984|||||Based on a generalized linear model adjusted for geographic region, seropositivity and prior biologic use as covariates in the model.|||0.0984|-0.0610|
91680824|NCT04420273|183252510|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|McNemar's chi-square with continuity correction||1-month survey||||<0.001
91680825|NCT04420273|183252510|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|McNemar's chi-square with continuity correction||2- months||||<0.001
91680826|NCT04420273|183252510|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|McNemar's chi-square with continuity correction||3-months||||<0.001
91680827|NCT04420273|183252511|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91680828|NCT04420273|183252512|OTHER||||||<|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.1
91680829|NCT04420273|183252513|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91680830|NCT04420273|183252514|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91680831|NCT04420273|183252515|OTHER|||||||0.459|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.459
91680832|NCT04420273|183252515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91680833|NCT04420273|183252516|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91680834|NCT01584843|183252561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.83||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.81|2.14||LSD=Least Significant Difference|Fisher LSD method|||||2.14|-21.81|0.091
91680835|NCT01584843|183252561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|8.23|||Fisher LSD method|||||8.23|-20.39|0.338
91680836|NCT01584843|183252561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|17.33|||Fisher LSD method|||||17.33|-9.83|0.524
91680837|NCT01584843|183252561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.46|-1.24|||Fisher LSD method|||||-1.24|-24.46|0.031
91680838|NCT01584843|183252561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|-5.38|||Fisher LSD method|||||-5.38|-28.06|0.005
91680839|NCT01584843|183252561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.87||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|7.47|||Fisher LSD method|||||7.47|-15.21|0.490
91680840|NCT00643565|183252583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41|||Log Rank|||The HR was calculated based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with stratification factors of age and histology/disease risk.||1.41|0.61|0.7189
91680841|NCT00643565|183252584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.25|||Log Rank|||The HR was calculated based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with stratification factors of age and histology/disease risk.||1.25|0.51|0.3211
91680842|NCT02283983|183252607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91680843|NCT03275064|183252608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.73|31.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||31.69|-30.73|
91680844|NCT03275064|183252608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.04|34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||34.40|-27.04|
91680845|NCT03275064|183252609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.7|31.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||31.08|-27.70|
91680846|NCT03275064|183252609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.03|34.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||34.97|-23.03|
91680847|NCT03275064|183252610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.27|49.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||49.04|-47.27|
91680848|NCT03275064|183252610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.11|47.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||47.65|-43.11|
91718329|NCT05994963|183329400|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|115.94|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment D= test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||115.94|94.54|
91718330|NCT05994963|183329401|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|124.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.46|166.09|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment D= test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||166.09|93.46|
91863009|NCT04568434|183613518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.12|||=|0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.656||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 1 to 53:offset variable.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.656|0.022|=0.0144
91680849|NCT03275064|183252611|SUPERIORITY|Week 29|Mean Difference (Net)|200.18||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.53|345.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||345.83|54.53|0.0131
91680850|NCT03275064|183252611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|141.87||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.83|287.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||287.56|-3.83|0.0544
91680851|NCT03275064|183252611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|228.27||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.87|375.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||375.67|80.87|0.0067
91680852|NCT03275064|183252611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|116.21||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.52|261.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||261.94|-29.52|0.0931
91680853|NCT03275064|183252612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||0.10|-0.00|0.0574
91680854|NCT03275064|183252612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||0.11|0.01|0.0248
91680855|NCT03275064|183252612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||0.07|-0.05|0.3864
91680856|NCT03275064|183252612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||0.08|-0.05|0.3290
91680857|NCT03275064|183252613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.75||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.36|30.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||30.85|-21.36|0.6184
91680858|NCT03275064|183252613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.32||||0.3194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.16|18.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||18.53|-33.16|0.3194
91680859|NCT03275064|183252614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.72|8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||8.47|-1.72|
91680860|NCT03275064|183252614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.22|5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||5.01|-5.22|
91794497|NCT00491556|183467947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|242.38||0.6222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.25|75.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||75.85|-124.25|0.6222
91863010|NCT04568434|183613519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.14|||=|0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.709||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 13 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.709|0.028|=0.0174
91680861|NCT03275064|183252614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.42|4.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||4.15|-6.42|
91680862|NCT03275064|183252614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.68|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||-2.20|-12.68|
91680863|NCT03275064|183252615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|7.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||7.66|-3.49|
91680864|NCT03275064|183252615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.82|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||6.45|-4.82|
91680865|NCT03275064|183252615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|8.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||8.11|-3.54|
91680866|NCT03275064|183252615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.81|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||-0.10|-11.81|
91680867|NCT03275064|183252616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|9.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||9.15|-2.21|
91680868|NCT03275064|183252616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.31|5.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||5.04|-6.31|
91680869|NCT03275064|183252616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.07|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||2.82|-8.07|
91680870|NCT03275064|183252616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.61|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||-2.72|-13.61|
91680871|NCT03055650|183252631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change from Baseline in Meibomian Gland Secretion Total Score at Week 1||||<0.0001
91680872|NCT03055650|183252631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change from Baseline in Meibomian Gland Secretion Total Score at Month 1||||<0.0001
91680873|NCT03055650|183252632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change From Baseline in Tear Break-Up Time (TBUT) at Week 1||||<0.0001
91680874|NCT03055650|183252632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change From Baseline in Tear Break-Up Time (TBUT) at Month 1||||<0.0001
91680875|NCT03055650|183252633|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.025.||Change From Baseline in Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) Total Score at Week 1||||<0.0001
91680876|NCT03055650|183252633|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.025.||Change From Baseline in Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) Total Score at Month 1||||<0.0001
91680877|NCT03055650|183252634|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.025.||||||<0.0001
91680878|NCT04305496|183252650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.71|0.51|<0.001
91680879|NCT04305496|183252651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.71|0.51|<0.001
91680880|NCT04305496|183252652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.65|0.38|<0.001
91680881|NCT04305496|183252653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.65|0.38|<0.001
91794498|NCT00491556|183467948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|152.57||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.77|7.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||7.18|-124.77|0.0781
91903375|NCT00232141|183701689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5898||95.0|0.0|0.0||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Total Score||0|0|0.5898
91680882|NCT04305496|183252654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.76|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.76|0.34|<0.001
91680883|NCT04305496|183252655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.76|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.76|0.34|<0.001
91680884|NCT04305496|183252656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.85|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.85|0.19|0.016
91680885|NCT04305496|183252657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.85|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.85|0.19|0.016
91680886|NCT00532935|183252660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline A1C value.||||-0.28|-0.66|<0.001
91680887|NCT00532935|183252661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-22.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline FPG value.||||-22.4|-32.7|<0.001
91680888|NCT00532935|183252662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-8.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline 2-hour PMG value.||||-8.3|-32.1|<0.001
91680889|NCT00532935|183252663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-4.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline FPG value.||||-4.9|-19.0|<0.001
91680890|NCT00532935|183252664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.8||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 32 in the Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/1000 mg b.i.d. group vs. the Pioglitazone 45 mg q.d. group.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline A1C value.|This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 32 in the Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/1000 mg b.i.d. group vs. the Pioglitazone 45 mg q.d. group.|||2.8|1.3|<0.001
91680891|NCT03176459|183252691|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment difference|-16.5||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-30.8|0.0117
91680892|NCT03176459|183252692|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 36|LSM treatment difference (SE)|-30.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|14.7|||ANCOVA|||||14.7|-75.9|0.0020
91680893|NCT03176459|183252693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.557|7.906|||LSM probability from logistic regression|||||7.906|1.557|0.0012
91680894|NCT03176459|183252694|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-3.2||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0543
91794499|NCT00491556|183467949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-103.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.61||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.9|-27.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||-27.16|-179.90|0.0102
91680895|NCT03176459|183252695|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-11.4||||0.0096|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0096
91680896|NCT03176459|183252696|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-22.4||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0175
91680897|NCT03176459|183252697|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-19.6||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0542
91680898|NCT03176459|183252698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7536|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.7536
91680899|NCT03176459|183252699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3609
91680900|NCT02081209|183252705|OTHER||sucess percentage|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.4|87.3||||||||87.3|76.4|
91680901|NCT02081209|183252705|OTHER||sucess percentage|77.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|85.1||||||||85.1|68.1|
91680902|NCT02081209|183252705|OTHER||sucess percentage|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|89.5||||||||89.5|65.0|
91680903|NCT02081209|183252705|OTHER||sucess percentage|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.6|98.8||||||||98.8|84.6|
91680904|NCT02081209|183252706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91680905|NCT02081209|183252706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||||||||2.1|0.5|
91680906|NCT02081209|183252706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.1||||||||4.1|2.0|
91680907|NCT02081209|183252707|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Data from the 16-week follow-up questionnaire were tabulated for all subjects with completed questionnaires.. All confidence intervals were calculated at 95%. Alpha was calculated to be 0.05, critical probability (p\*) was calculated to be 0.975. Assuming normal distribution of survey recipients, a standard deviation of 1.96 is used to calculate the standard margin of error.|||
91680908|NCT02022748|183252713|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|151.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.03|203.86|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||203.86|112.03|
91680909|NCT02022748|183252713|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|161.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.52|212.58|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||212.58|122.52|
91680910|NCT02022748|183252713|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|90.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.07|103.98|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||103.98|78.07|
91680911|NCT02022748|183252714|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|117.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.51|162.22|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||162.22|84.51|
91680912|NCT02022748|183252714|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|136.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.38|194.7|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||194.70|95.38|
91680913|NCT02022748|183252714|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|82.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.43|98.96|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||98.96|68.43|
91680914|NCT02022748|183252715|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|137.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.7|179.52|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||179.52|105.70|
91680915|NCT02022748|183252715|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|148.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.07|192.32|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||192.32|115.07|
91680916|NCT02022748|183252715|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|90.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.55|105.27|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||105.27|77.55|
91680917|NCT02022748|183252716|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|112.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.61|143.42|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||143.42|88.61|
91680918|NCT02022748|183252716|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|114.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|143.45|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||143.45|91.19|
91680919|NCT02022748|183252716|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|93.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.31|108.0|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||108.00|80.31|
91680920|NCT02022748|183252717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.75|||||Treatment A - Treatment H.|||0.75|-0.97|
91680921|NCT02022748|183252717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.52|||||Treatment B - Treatment H.|||1.52|-0.96|
91680922|NCT02022748|183252717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|1.02|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment A - Treatment B.|||1.02|-1.73|
91680923|NCT02022748|183252718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|0.48|||||Treatment A - Treatment H.|||0.48|-2.62|
91680924|NCT02022748|183252718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|0.37|||||Treatment B - Treatment H.|||0.37|-2.46|
91794500|NCT00491556|183467950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.72||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.66|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||7.40|-41.66|0.1616
91680925|NCT02022748|183252718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.27|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment A - Treatment B.|||0.27|-1.27|
91680926|NCT06378749|183252731|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.029
91680927|NCT06378749|183252732|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91680928|NCT06378749|183252733|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91680929|NCT06378749|183252734|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91680930|NCT06378749|183252735|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91680931|NCT04663295|183252786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.9||One-sided test at significant level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed rank test comparing baseline and study period.||||7.9|3.3|<0.001
91680932|NCT05958888|183252804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<0.001
91680933|NCT05958888|183252804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome.The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<0.001
91680934|NCT05958888|183252804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
91680935|NCT05958888|183252804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.10
91680936|NCT05958888|183252804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.01
91680937|NCT05958888|183252804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.25
91680938|NCT05958888|183252805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
91680939|NCT05958888|183252805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
91680940|NCT05958888|183252805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
91680941|NCT05958888|183252805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.12
91794501|NCT00491556|183467951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.17||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.59|-10.58|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||-10.58|-75.59|0.0117
91793786|NCT06374394|183465868|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control Group (at Day 61) versus Co-Ad Group (at Day 31) for RSV-B neutralizing titers 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose was ≤1.5.|GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.|The GMR is based on the back transformation of the group comparisons in the ANCOVA model applied to the logarithmically-transformed titers.|To demonstrate non-inferiority of humoral immune response to RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared to RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone.||1.23|0.94|
91863011|NCT04568434|183613520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.16|||=|0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.85||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 13 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.850|0.031|=0.0314
91863012|NCT04568434|183613523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.14|||=|0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.669||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 1 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.669|0.029|=0.0137
91863013|NCT04568434|183613524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.2|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.986||Regression model:treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 13 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.986|0.040|=0.0480
91680942|NCT05958888|183252805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||<.001
91680943|NCT05958888|183252805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.04
91680944|NCT05958888|183252806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||.01
91680945|NCT05958888|183252806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||.23
91680946|NCT05958888|183252806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||.01
91680947|NCT05958888|183252806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.58
91680948|NCT05958888|183252806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.85
91680949|NCT05958888|183252806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.58
91680950|NCT05958888|183252807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||>.99
91794502|NCT00491556|183467952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-76.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.27|-52.57|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||-52.57|-101.27|< 0.0001
91680951|NCT05958888|183252807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||>.99
91680952|NCT05958888|183252807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||.47
91680953|NCT05958888|183252807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||>.99
91680954|NCT05958888|183252807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.45
91718331|NCT01296412|183329430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sitagliptin-based treatment paradigm was to be declared non-inferior to the liraglutide-based treatment paradigm in lowering A1C at Week 26 if the upper bound of 95% confidence intervals of between group difference was less than the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Difference in least squares mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.23|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment paradigm and a covariate for baseline value.||||0.23|-0.05|
91718332|NCT01296412|183329431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment paradigm and a covariate for baseline value.||||11.4|0.5|
91718333|NCT01296412|183329432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||-1.5|-17.4|
91718334|NCT01296412|183329433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.7|-12.7|
91718335|NCT02160626|183329434|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0003
91718336|NCT02160626|183329434|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0001
91718337|NCT02160626|183329435|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||mean change from baseline to Visit 8 PLA will be performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline PLA as the covariate.||||0.0001
91718338|NCT02160626|183329435|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||mean change from baseline to Visit 8 PLA will be performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline PLA as the covariate.||||0.0001
91718339|NCT02160626|183329436|OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||"Secondary efficacy analyses will also be conducted based on the proportion of subjects who have at least 3 of 4 target lesions judged to be clear on the PLA (PLA=0) at Visit 8.~A separate comparison will be made between each active treatment group and the vehicle treatment group using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by site."||||0.0016
91863014|NCT04164888|183613537|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-84.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.95|-70.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Applying the LOCF method (Last Observation Carried Forward) did not result in any changes at Day 29 or Day 57 due to the lack of missing values and resulted in similar results at Day 85.||-70.18|-98.95|<0.0001
91718340|NCT02160626|183329436|OTHER|For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0004||||||For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
91718341|NCT00720278|183329490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|<|0.001||95.0|-2.98|-1.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-1.14|-2.98|<0.001
91718342|NCT00720278|183329490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.465|<|0.001||95.0|-3.91|-2.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-2.09|-3.91|<0.001
91718343|NCT00720278|183329491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.479|<|0.001||95.0|-2.72|-0.84|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-0.84|-2.72|<0.001
91718344|NCT00720278|183329491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.668|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4735|<|0.001||95.0|-3.6|-1.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-1.74|-3.60|<0.001
91718345|NCT00720278|183329492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.376|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.418||0.001||95.0|-2.2|-0.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-0.56|-2.20|0.001
91718346|NCT00720278|183329492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.432|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4145|<|0.001||95.0|-3.24|-1.62|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-1.62|-3.24|<0.001
91718347|NCT01075048|183329495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3815|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3815
91718348|NCT01075048|183329495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.1900
91718349|NCT01075048|183329495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1986|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||||||0.1986
91718350|NCT01075048|183329495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2617|||||||Tarone-Ware|||||||0.2617
91718351|NCT01075048|183329496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4488|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4488
91718352|NCT01075048|183329496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2887|||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.2887
91718353|NCT01075048|183329496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1851|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||||||0.1851
91718354|NCT01075048|183329496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2495|||||||Tarone-Ware|||||||0.2495
91718355|NCT01075048|183329498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2804|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 12 Oct 2012||||0.2804
91718356|NCT01075048|183329498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2469|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 29 Mar 2013||||0.2469
91718357|NCT01075048|183329498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1334|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 25 Jul 2013||||0.1334
91718358|NCT01075048|183329498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2159|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 20 Feb 2015||||0.2159
91718359|NCT01677286|183329502|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Mean outcome change|171.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|328.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 12||BNP pg/mL, baseline versus end study values||328|14.1|0.035
91718360|NCT01677286|183329503|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Mean outcome change|0.0072||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.0234|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 12||Troponin I ng/mL, baseline versus end study levels.||0.0234|-0.009|0.340
91718361|NCT01677286|183329504|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Change in outcome measure|-7.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 10||Creatinine clearance, baseline versus end study levels.||-1.67|-13.12|0.017
91718362|NCT01677286|183329505|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Change in outcome measure|0.091||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 10||Proteinuria (g/24 hours), baseline versus end study levels.||0.466|-0.285|0.603
91680955|NCT05958888|183252807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.70
91680956|NCT05958888|183252808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
91680957|NCT05958888|183252808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
91680958|NCT05958888|183252808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
91680959|NCT05958888|183252808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||<.001
91680960|NCT05958888|183252808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||<.001
91680961|NCT05958888|183252808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.72
91680962|NCT05958888|183252809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
91680963|NCT05958888|183252809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
91680964|NCT05958888|183252809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
91680965|NCT05958888|183252809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||<.001
91680966|NCT05958888|183252809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.01
91680967|NCT05958888|183252809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.04
91680968|NCT05958888|183252810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
91680969|NCT05958888|183252810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
91680970|NCT05958888|183252810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
91680971|NCT05958888|183252810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.43
91680972|NCT05958888|183252810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.81
91680973|NCT05958888|183252810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.81
91680974|NCT00325195|183252811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91680975|NCT00325195|183252811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91680976|NCT00325195|183252812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.002
91680977|NCT00325195|183252812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
91718363|NCT00408499|183329506|OTHER|Maximum tolerated dose was derived from toxicity data obtained from dose level 1-4.|Maximum tolerated dose|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum tolerated dose was determined to be dose level 4: 150 mg Erlotinib, 250 mg/m2 Cetuximab|||||
91718364|NCT04596293|183329510|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91718365|NCT04596293|183329510|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91718366|NCT04596293|183329511|OTHER|||||||0.6351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6351
91718367|NCT04596293|183329511|OTHER|||||||0.3108|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3108
91718368|NCT04596293|183329512|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91903376|NCT00232141|183701690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6865||95.0|-0.45|0.68||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Static mechanical allodynia||0.68|-0.45|0.6865
91718369|NCT04596293|183329512|OTHER|||||||0.6594|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6594
91718370|NCT04596293|183329513|OTHER|||||||0.5808|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5808
91718371|NCT04596293|183329513|OTHER|||||||0.2143|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2143
91718372|NCT01258374|183329522|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The PK paramaters reported as geometric means, were calculated using noncompartmental modelinf techniques (WinNolin; Pharsight Corporation, Mountain View, CA)|Noncompartmental modeling techniques||||The pharmacokinetic parameters calculated for DRV, RTV and RAL were trough plasma concentration (C trough), defined as the concentration at 24 or 12 h after observed dose, the maximum observed plasma concentration (C max), the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 H (AUC 0-24) or 0 to 12 h (AUC 0-12) and the elimination half-life (t1/2). AUC and t1/2 were calculated using non using noncompartmental modeling techniques (WinNolin; Pharsight Corporation, Mountain View, CA). All of these PK parameters are reported as geometric means.|||<0.01
91718373|NCT01125930|183329567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.93
91680978|NCT00325195|183252813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||% of pegloticase q2 participants reporting flares compared to placebo pts during Months 4-6 treatment period||||0.007
91680979|NCT00325195|183252813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||% of pegloticase q4 participants reporting flares compared to placebo pts during Months 4-6 treatment period||||0.321
91680980|NCT00325195|183252814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.166
91680981|NCT00325195|183252814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
91718374|NCT01125930|183329568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.79
91680982|NCT00325195|183252815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91680983|NCT00325195|183252815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
91680984|NCT03469336|183252882|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2364|4.3226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The efficacy assessment of PF-06763809 was performed for the change from baseline in log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19 using a longitudinal analysis of covariance model, with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as main effects and the log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB at baseline as covariate.||4.3226|0.2364|0.9883
91680985|NCT03469336|183252882|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.9979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2334|4.2671|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The efficacy assessment of PF-06763809 was performed for the change from baseline in log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19 using a longitudinal analysis of covariance model, with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as main effects and the log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB at baseline as covariate.||4.2671|0.2334|0.9977
91680986|NCT03469336|183252882|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.1382|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2662|4.867|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The efficacy assessment of PF-06763809 was performed for the change from baseline in log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19 using a longitudinal analysis of covariance model, with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as main effects and the log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB at baseline as covariate.||4.8670|0.2662|0.8600
91680987|NCT03469336|183252887|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.9979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.9763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8588|1.1594|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To evaluate the AUC of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB for PF-06763809 compared to vehicle.||1.1594|0.8588|0.9763
91680988|NCT03469336|183252887|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.9664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8686|1.0752|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To evaluate the AUC of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB for PF-06763809 compared to vehicle.||1.0752|0.8686|0.5081
91680989|NCT03469336|183252887|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.1155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0157|1.2252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To evaluate the AUC of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB for PF-06763809 compared to vehicle.||1.2252|1.0157|0.0249
91718375|NCT01125930|183329569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.94
91718376|NCT01125930|183329569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.57
91680990|NCT03469336|183252888|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.7946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1858|3.3977|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to calcipotriene/calcipotriol solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||3.3977|0.1858|0.7540
91680991|NCT03469336|183252888|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.7844|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1834|3.354|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to calcipotriene/calcipotriol solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||3.3540|0.1834|0.7407
91680992|NCT03469336|183252888|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.8946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.8793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2092|3.8256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to calcipotriene/calcipotriol solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||3.8256|0.2092|0.8793
91680993|NCT03469336|183252889|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.081321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25287|4.623941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to betamethasone solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||4.623941|0.25287|<0.0001
91680994|NCT03469336|183252889|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.067453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249631|4.564555|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to betamethasone solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||4.564555|0.249631|<0.0001
91680995|NCT03469336|183252889|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.217483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284708|5.206258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to betamethasone solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||5.206258|0.284708|<0.0001
91680996|NCT02740699|183252915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||||||0.0256
91680997|NCT02740699|183252916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||||||0.0254
91680998|NCT02740699|183252917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.58
91680999|NCT02740699|183252918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
91681000|NCT02740699|183252919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
91681001|NCT02740699|183252920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
91681002|NCT02393248|183252933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2841|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.2841
91681003|NCT02393248|183252933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3042|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.3042
91681004|NCT02393248|183252933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1259|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1259
91681005|NCT02393248|183252933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8214|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.8214
91681006|NCT02393248|183252933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4315|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.4315
91681007|NCT02393248|183252933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2595|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.2595
91681008|NCT02393248|183252937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8577|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.8577
91681009|NCT02393248|183252937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7238|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.7238
91681010|NCT02393248|183252937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5923|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.5923
91718377|NCT01125930|183329569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.66
91681011|NCT02393248|183252937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7634|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.7634
91681012|NCT02393248|183252937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5749|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.5749
91681013|NCT02393248|183252937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6877|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.6877
91681014|NCT02393248|183252941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.143
91681015|NCT02393248|183252942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.0013
91681016|NCT02393248|183252943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.319
91681017|NCT02393248|183252944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.128
91681018|NCT02393248|183252945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.305
91681019|NCT02393248|183252946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.305
91681020|NCT02393248|183252947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.772
91681021|NCT02585934|183252960|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.36||||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.22||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.22|-0.95|0.2249
91681022|NCT02585934|183252961|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.72||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.72|-0.90|0.8260
91681023|NCT02585934|183252962|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.02||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||-0.02|-0.22|0.0234
91681024|NCT02585934|183252963|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.12||||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.32||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.32|-0.07|0.2096
91681025|NCT02585934|183252964|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.14||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.8||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.80|-1.09|0.7650
91681026|NCT02585934|183252965|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.38||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.27||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.27|-1.03|0.2472
91793787|NCT06374394|183465869|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control Group (at Day 31) versus Co-Ad group (at Day 31) for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titers 1-month after the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose was ≤1.5.|GMR|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.|The GMR is based on the back transformation of the group comparisons in the ANCOVA model applied to the logarithmically-transformed titers.|To demonstrate non-inferiority of humoral immune response to a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to COVID-19 mRNA vaccine administered alone.||1.51|1.13|
91681027|NCT00593736|183252985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Least Squares (LS) means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||0.646
91681028|NCT00593736|183252985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.084
91681029|NCT00593736|183252985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.929
91681030|NCT00593736|183252986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.854
91681031|NCT00593736|183252986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.383
91681032|NCT00593736|183252986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.883
91681033|NCT00593736|183252987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.365
91681034|NCT00593736|183252987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.121
91681035|NCT00593736|183252987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.269
91681036|NCT00593736|183252988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.920
91681037|NCT00593736|183252988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.382
91681038|NCT00593736|183252988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.439
91681039|NCT00593736|183252989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.973
91681040|NCT00593736|183252989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.117
91681041|NCT00593736|183252989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.816
91681042|NCT00593736|183252990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.661
91681043|NCT00593736|183252990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.341
91681044|NCT00593736|183252990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.853
91863015|NCT04164888|183613537|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-80.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.58|-66.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Applying the LOCF method (Last Observation Carried Forward) did not result in any changes at Day 29 or Day 57 due to the lack of missing values and resulted in similar results at Day 85.||-66.29|-94.58|<0.0001
91681045|NCT00593736|183252991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.365
91681046|NCT00593736|183252991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.121
91681047|NCT00593736|183252991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.268
91681048|NCT00593736|183252992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.900
91681049|NCT00593736|183252992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.525||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.525
91681050|NCT00593736|183252992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.418||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.418
91681051|NCT00593736|183252993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.051
91681052|NCT00593736|183252993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.926
91681053|NCT00593736|183252993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.166
91718378|NCT01125930|183329569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.38
91681054|NCT00593736|183252994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.511
91681055|NCT00593736|183252994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.082
91681056|NCT00593736|183252994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.188
91681057|NCT00593736|183252995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.691
91681058|NCT00593736|183252995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.323
91681059|NCT00593736|183252995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.324
91681060|NCT00593736|183252996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.197
91681061|NCT00593736|183252996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.871
91681062|NCT00593736|183252996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.737
91681063|NCT00593736|183252997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.972
91681064|NCT00593736|183252997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.117
91681065|NCT00593736|183252997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.811
91681066|NCT00593736|183252998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.659
91681067|NCT00593736|183252998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.337
91681068|NCT00593736|183252998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.853
91681069|NCT00593736|183252999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.206
91681070|NCT00593736|183252999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.495
91718379|NCT01125930|183329569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.24
91718380|NCT01125930|183329570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess photodamage.||||0.87
91794503|NCT00491556|183467953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|68.75||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|46.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||46.60|-12.86|0.2519
91681071|NCT00593736|183252999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.800
91681072|NCT00593736|183253000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.194
91681073|NCT00593736|183253000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.134
91681074|NCT00593736|183253000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.130
91681075|NCT00593736|183253001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.063
91681076|NCT00593736|183253001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.156
91681077|NCT00593736|183253001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.521
91681078|NCT00593736|183253002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.675
91718381|NCT01125930|183329571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea.||||1.00
91794282|NCT02821910|183467553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|101.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|112.22|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.22|92.00|
91681079|NCT00593736|183253002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.566
91681080|NCT00593736|183253002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.205
91681081|NCT00593736|183253003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.643
91681082|NCT00593736|183253003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.032
91681083|NCT00593736|183253003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.875
91681084|NCT00593736|183253004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.286
91681085|NCT00593736|183253004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.318
91681086|NCT00593736|183253004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.483
91681087|NCT00593736|183253005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.040
91681088|NCT00593736|183253005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.610
91681089|NCT00593736|183253005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.368
91681090|NCT00593736|183253006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.352
91681091|NCT00593736|183253006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.860
91681092|NCT00593736|183253006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.297
91681093|NCT00593736|183253007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.053
91681094|NCT00593736|183253007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.837
91681095|NCT00593736|183253007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.783||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.783
91681096|NCT00593736|183253008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.566
91681097|NCT00593736|183253008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.543
91681098|NCT00593736|183253008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.847
91681099|NCT00593736|183253009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.356
91681100|NCT00593736|183253009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.964
91681101|NCT00593736|183253009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.799
91681102|NCT00593736|183253010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.698
91681103|NCT00593736|183253010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.385
91681104|NCT00593736|183253010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.641
91681105|NCT00593736|183253011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.979
91681106|NCT00593736|183253011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.194
91681107|NCT00593736|183253011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.004
91681108|NCT00593736|183253012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.975
91681109|NCT00593736|183253012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.639
91681110|NCT00593736|183253012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.109
91681111|NCT00593736|183253013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.823
91681112|NCT00593736|183253013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.004
91681113|NCT00593736|183253013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.296
91681114|NCT00593736|183253014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.092
91681115|NCT00593736|183253014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.025
91681116|NCT00593736|183253014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.732
91681117|NCT00593736|183253015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.298
91718382|NCT01125930|183329571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||0.62
91681118|NCT00593736|183253015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.276
91681119|NCT00593736|183253015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.430
91681120|NCT00593736|183253016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.349
91681121|NCT00593736|183253016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.203
91681122|NCT00593736|183253016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.444
91681123|NCT00593736|183253017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.581
91681124|NCT00593736|183253017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.257
91681125|NCT00593736|183253017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.688
91681126|NCT00593736|183253018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.561
91681127|NCT00593736|183253018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.595
91681128|NCT00593736|183253018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.795
91681129|NCT00593736|183253019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.655
91903377|NCT00232141|183701690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3787||95.0|-0.71|0.27||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Dynamic mechanical allodynia||0.27|-0.71|0.3787
91681130|NCT00593736|183253019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.177
91681131|NCT00593736|183253019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.044
91681132|NCT00593736|183253020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.475
91681133|NCT00593736|183253020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.635
91718383|NCT01125930|183329571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||1.00
91681134|NCT00593736|183253020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.782
91863016|NCT04164888|183613537|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-84.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.0|-70.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Applying the LOCF method (Last Observation Carried Forward) did not result in any changes at Day 29 or Day 57 due to the lack of missing values and resulted in similar results at Day 85.||-70.75|-99.00|<0.0001
91863017|NCT04164888|183613538|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-48.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.06|-32.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Similar changes from baseline were observed for Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 compared to Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 LOCF.||-32.99|-63.06|<0.0001
91681135|NCT00593736|183253021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.192
91681136|NCT00593736|183253021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.618
91681137|NCT00593736|183253021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.152
91681138|NCT00593736|183253022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.379
91681139|NCT00593736|183253022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.057
91681140|NCT00593736|183253022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.808
91681141|NCT00593736|183253023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.284
91681142|NCT00593736|183253023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.344
91681143|NCT00593736|183253023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.558||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.558
91681144|NCT00593736|183253024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.867
91863018|NCT04164888|183613538|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-49.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.396|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|34.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Similar changes from baseline were observed for Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 compared to Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 LOCF.||34.69|-64.50|<0.0001
91681145|NCT00593736|183253024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.244
91681146|NCT00593736|183253024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.620
91681147|NCT00593736|183253025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.206
91681148|NCT00593736|183253025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.559
91681149|NCT00593736|183253025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.074
91863019|NCT04164888|183613538|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-51.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.34|-36.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Similar changes from baseline were observed for Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 compared to Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 LOCF.||-36.64|-67.34|<0.0001
91681150|NCT00593736|183253026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.796||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.796
91863020|NCT03365882|183613542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.43|0.44
91863021|NCT03365882|183613544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
91863022|NCT05349500|183613639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.9|-20.1|0.019
91681151|NCT00593736|183253026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.546
91681152|NCT00593736|183253026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.479
91681153|NCT00593736|183253027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.766
91681154|NCT00593736|183253027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.912
91681155|NCT00593736|183253027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.952
91681156|NCT00593736|183253028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.722
91681157|NCT00593736|183253028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.262
91681158|NCT00593736|183253028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.717
91681159|NCT00593736|183253029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.498
91681160|NCT00593736|183253029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.664
91681161|NCT00593736|183253029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.428
91681162|NCT00593736|183253030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.519
91681163|NCT00593736|183253030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.179
91681164|NCT00593736|183253030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.935
91681165|NCT00593736|183253031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.425
91681166|NCT00593736|183253031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.406
91681167|NCT00593736|183253031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.720
91681168|NCT00593736|183253032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.294
91681169|NCT00593736|183253032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.474
91681170|NCT00593736|183253032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.999
91681171|NCT00593736|183253033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.655
91681172|NCT00593736|183253033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.331
91681173|NCT00593736|183253033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.362
91681174|NCT00593736|183253034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.684
91681175|NCT00593736|183253034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.399
91681176|NCT00593736|183253034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.611
91681177|NCT00593736|183253035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.157
91681178|NCT00593736|183253035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.463
91681179|NCT00593736|183253035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.774
91681180|NCT00593736|183253036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.413
91681181|NCT00593736|183253036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.093
91681182|NCT00593736|183253036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.982
91718384|NCT01125930|183329571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||1.00
91681183|NCT00593736|183253037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.441
91681184|NCT00593736|183253037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.082
91681185|NCT00593736|183253037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.549
91681186|NCT00593736|183253038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.860
91681187|NCT00593736|183253038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.997
91681188|NCT00593736|183253038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.834
91718385|NCT01125930|183329571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||0.45
91863023|NCT05349500|183613640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|-14.1|0.286
91863024|NCT05349500|183613641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-4.0|0.046
91681189|NCT00593736|183253039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.837
91681190|NCT00593736|183253039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.321
91681191|NCT00593736|183253039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.978
91681192|NCT00593736|183253040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.513||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.513
91681193|NCT00593736|183253040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.751
91681194|NCT00593736|183253040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.242
91681195|NCT00593736|183253041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.307
91681196|NCT00593736|183253041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.765
91681197|NCT00593736|183253041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.727
91681198|NCT00593736|183253042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.902
91681199|NCT00593736|183253042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.590
91681200|NCT00593736|183253042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.290
91681201|NCT00593736|183253043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.685
91681202|NCT00593736|183253043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.214
91681203|NCT00593736|183253043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.055
91681204|NCT00593736|183253044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.589
91681205|NCT00593736|183253044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.156
91681206|NCT00593736|183253044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.041
91794283|NCT00423670|183467554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|16.7||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|30.0|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||30|3.5|0.0126
91863025|NCT05349500|183613642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-3.8|0.128
91863026|NCT05349500|183613643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-14.3|0.031
91863027|NCT05349500|183613644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9|-8.8|0.564
91718386|NCT01125930|183329572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
91718387|NCT01125930|183329572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
91681207|NCT01853930|183253049|SUPERIORITY|The purpose of the superiority test is to show if laboratory based training is superior to an independent home-based training option.||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t= -0.157 df= 30||||||0.876
91681208|NCT00110136|183253077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.02||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.74||Paired t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|paired t-test||The difference is post minus pre so negative values represents fewer hot flashes after treatment.|Analysis of the change in hot flash frequency from baseline to four weeks; null hypothesis is no change.||0.74|-2.36|0.2629
91681209|NCT00110136|183253078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.91||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|1.72||Paired t-test; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||Difference in hot flash score is post minus pre so a negative value represents a decrease in the frequency and/or severity of the hot flashes.|Assessment of the change in the hot flash score over time||1.72|-10.45|0.1365
91681210|NCT00110136|183253080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|5.92||Paired t-test; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||This is the change in MCS from baseline to four weeks (post minus pre) so values greater than zero reflect improvement in QOL.|Assess the change in MCS from baseline to four weeks in patients receiving St. John's wort.||5.92|-4.84|0.8320
91681211|NCT00110136|183253081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.43||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|5.71||Paired t-test on the change in PCS from baseline to four weeks; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||This is the change in PCS from baseline to four weeks (post minus pre), so positive numbers represent improvement in QOL.|Assess the change in PCS from baseline to four weeks; null hypothesis is no change.||5.71|-5.71|0.9995
91681212|NCT00110136|183253082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.12||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|9.822||Paired t-test; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||This is the change in mood from baseline to four weeks (post minus pre). Mood is scored so that higher numbers represent better mood so positive changes represent an improvement in mood.|Assess the change in mood from baseline to four weeks. Null hypothesis is no change.||9.822|-1.12|0.1042
91681213|NCT02737748|183253103|OTHER|||||||0.2217|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2217
91681214|NCT02737748|183253104|OTHER|||||||0.0324|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0324
91681215|NCT02737748|183253105|OTHER|||||||0.3975|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3975
91681216|NCT06354998|183253155|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.245|||||GMR was a secondary endpoint.|GMR (mRNA-1273.815 versus licensed Spikevax) at Day 15 and its 95% CI was calculated based on the t-distribution for the mean difference of log-transformed antibody values and then back transformed to the original scale for presentation.||1.245|0.662|
91681217|NCT01791153|183253253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|18.0|66.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (less than or equal to \[\</=\] 30 mg/day, greater than \[\>\] 30 mg/day).||66.00|18.00|<0.0001
91681218|NCT01791153|183253253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|39.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|12.46|65.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||65.66|12.46|< 0.0001
91681219|NCT01791153|183253254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||||< 0.0001
91681220|NCT01791153|183253254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The tocilizumab group was to be considered as non-inferior to the placebo group if the lower limit of the two-sided 99.5% confidence interval was \>/= -22.5%.|Difference in Response Rates|38.35|||||TWO_SIDED|99.5|17.89|58.81||||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||58.81|17.89|
91681221|NCT01791153|183253254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||||0.0002
91681222|NCT01791153|183253254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The tocilizumab group was to be considered as non-inferior to the placebo group if the lower limit of the two-sided 99.5% confidence interval was \>/= -22.5%.|Difference in Response Rates|35.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.5|10.41|60.41||||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||60.41|10.41|
91681223|NCT01791153|183253255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.11|0.46|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||0.46|0.11|<0.0001
91681224|NCT01791153|183253255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.18|0.82|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||0.82|0.18|0.0011
91681225|NCT01791153|183253255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.12|0.66|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||0.66|0.12|0.0001
91681226|NCT01791153|183253255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.2|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||1.16|0.20|0.0316
91681227|NCT01791153|183253256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30 mg/day, \> 30 mg/day).||||<0.0001
91681228|NCT01791153|183253256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30 mg/day, \> 30 mg/day).||||<0.0001
91681229|NCT01791153|183253256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day).||||0.0003
91681230|NCT01791153|183253256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30 mg/day, \> 30 mg/day).||||<0.0001
91681231|NCT01791153|183253257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.61||||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-5.86|7.07|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||7.07|-5.86|0.8067
91681232|NCT01791153|183253257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.44||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.69|9.56|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.56|-0.69|0.0252
91793788|NCT01966692|183465921|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for AUC0-last fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|106.0||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.0|114.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 2 (B-3.8 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed AUC0-last: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||114|99|0.4132
91681233|NCT01791153|183253257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.56||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-7.64|6.53|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||6.53|-7.64|0.8374
91681234|NCT01791153|183253257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|3.27||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.59|9.14|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.14|-2.59|0.1468
91681235|NCT01791153|183253257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.38||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.58|10.34|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||10.34|-1.58|0.0570
91681236|NCT01791153|183253257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|5.59||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.86|10.32|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||10.32|0.86|0.0024
91681237|NCT01791153|183253257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|3.04||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-3.43|9.51|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.51|-3.43|0.2218
91681238|NCT01791153|183253257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.25||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.14|9.64|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.64|-1.14|0.0412
91681239|NCT01791153|183253258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-15.6||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-34.3|3.1|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||3.1|-34.3|0.0312
91681240|NCT01791153|183253258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-11.8||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-27.2|3.6|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||3.6|-27.2|0.0476
91681241|NCT01791153|183253258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-21.9||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.4|-1.4|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||-1.4|-42.4|0.0059
91681242|NCT01791153|183253258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-18.2||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.8|-0.5|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||-0.5|-35.8|0.0081
91681243|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|difference in log-transformed GM|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.09|-0.11|
91681244|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.17|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.17|-0.38|
91681245|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.16|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.16|-0.37|
91681246|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.46|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.46|0.13|
91681247|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.29|-0.04|
91681248|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||-0.01|-0.33|
91681249|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.04|-0.16|
91681250|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.04|-0.16|
91681251|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.10|-0.10|
91793789|NCT01966692|183465921|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for AUC0-last fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|109.0||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.0|116.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed AUC0-last: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||116|102|0.1295
91681252|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.09|-0.15|
91681253|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.08|-0.16|
91681254|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.11|-0.13|
91681255|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.07|-0.13|
91681256|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.03|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-0.03|-0.23|
91681257|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-0.00|-0.20|
91681258|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.01|-0.22|
91681259|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.23|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.23|-0.44|
91681260|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.11|-0.33|
91681261|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.11|-0.16|
91681262|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.31|0.04|
91681263|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.34|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.34|0.07|
91681264|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.01|-0.23|
91681265|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||-0.04|-0.28|
91794284|NCT00423670|183467554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|18.8||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||32.2|5.5|0.0048
91681266|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.06|-0.17|
91681267|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.02|-0.19|
91681268|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-0.07|-0.28|
91681269|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.02|-0.19|
91681270|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.37|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.37|0.13|
91681271|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.12|-0.12|
91681272|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.13|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||-0.13|-0.37|
91681273|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.25|0.02|
91681274|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.24|0.01|
91681275|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.11|-0.13|
91681276|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.10|-0.09|
91681277|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.04|-0.14|
91863028|NCT05349500|183613645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|0.349
91863029|NCT05349500|183613646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.6|0.303
91863030|NCT05349500|183613647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.1|0.507
91863031|NCT05349500|183613648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.2|0.729
91863032|NCT05349500|183613649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.2|0.421
91681278|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.04|-0.15|
91681279|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.03|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.03|-0.19|
91681280|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.09|-0.12|
91681281|NCT00444457|183253329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.17|-0.05|
91681282|NCT00444457|183253330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Tetanus toxoid: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||3.0|-3.3|
91681283|NCT00444457|183253331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus type 1: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||2.0|-2.1|
91681284|NCT00444457|183253331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus type 2: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||2.0|-3.4|
91681285|NCT00444457|183253331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus type 3: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||3.0|-1.5|
91681286|NCT00444457|183253332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hepatitis B: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||2.2|-2.4|
91681287|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|4.75||||||Common serotypes - serotype 4||4.75|-0.51|
91681288|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|1.1||||||Common serotypes - serotype 4||1.10|-3.09|
91794285|NCT00423670|183467554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||42.5|16.5|<0.0001
91794286|NCT00423670|183467554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||49.8|24.7|<0.0001
91863033|NCT05349500|183613650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.2|0.648
91863034|NCT05349500|183613651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.5|0.3|0.034
91863035|NCT05349500|183613652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|-2.1|0.315
91863036|NCT05349500|183613653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|48.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.2|-21.5|0.444
91863037|NCT05349500|183613654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|49.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||49.2|-30.6|0.638
91681289|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-0.58||||||Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.58|-5.58|
91681290|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|9.19||||||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||9.19|1.55|
91681291|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|3.66||||||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||3.66|-2.77|
91681292|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|-1.1||||||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||-1.10|-8.82|
91681293|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|2.83||||||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||2.83|-3.13|
91681294|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|1.73||||||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.73|-3.97|
91681295|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|1.88||||||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.88|-3.81|
91681296|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.95||||||Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.95|-1.27|
91681297|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.01||||||Common serotypes - serotype 14||3.01|-0.60|
91681298|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.76||||||Common serotypes - serotype 14||2.76|-1.04|
91681299|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|4.74||||||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||4.74|-0.38|
91681300|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.99||||||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||1.99|-2.33|
91681301|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|0.23||||||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.23|-4.89|
91681302|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|2.6||||||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||2.60|-1.93|
91681303|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.28||||||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.28|-3.46|
91681304|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.02||||||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.02|-3.87|
91681305|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|7.46||||||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||7.46|-1.03|
91794287|NCT00423670|183467555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR rates|5.1||||0.2864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|14.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||14.3|-4.2|0.2864
91863038|NCT05349500|183613655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.9|-13.4|0.688
91863039|NCT05349500|183613656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.5|0.709
91863040|NCT05349500|183613657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-3.3|0.089
91863041|NCT05349500|183613658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.8|-1.0|0.066
91718388|NCT01125930|183329572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
91681306|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|8.39||||||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||8.39|-0.27|
91681307|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|5.46||||||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||5.46|-3.75|
91681308|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.18||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||3.18|-1.48|
91681309|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.34||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||1.34|-2.78|
91681310|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|0.67||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.67|-3.77|
91681311|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|2.45||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||2.45|-10.27|
91681312|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-4.57||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-4.57|-16.80|
91681313|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-0.74||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-0.74|-12.76|
91681314|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.69||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||7.69|0.15|
91681315|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|3.09||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||3.09|-3.52|
91681316|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|-0.36||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||-0.36|-7.92|
91681317|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.23||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||5.23|0.12|
91681318|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.86||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.86|-2.22|
91681319|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-0.27||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||-0.27|-5.39|
91681320|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.3||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||2.30|-0.47|
91681321|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.18||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||1.18|-1.12|
91681322|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.52||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.52|-2.30|
91681323|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.8||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.80|-2.91|
91681324|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.19||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.19|-2.69|
91863042|NCT06504862|183613659|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|133.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.52|170.11|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||170.11|105.52|
91863043|NCT06504862|183613660|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|124.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.13|160.43|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 42.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||160.43|96.13|
91903378|NCT00232141|183701690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.7704||95.0|-0.79|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Punctate hyperalgesia testing area||0.59|-0.79|0.7704
91681325|NCT00444457|183253333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.04||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||2.04|-1.40|
91681326|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.81|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||1.81|-1.61|
91681327|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.23|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.23|-2.39|
91681328|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.2|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.20|-2.54|
91681329|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.11|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.11|-1.02|
91681330|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.04|-1.03|
91681331|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.06|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.06|-1.13|
91681332|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.37|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.37|-1.25|
91681333|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.18|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||2.18|-0.76|
91681334|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.18|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||2.18|-0.87|
91681335|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.62|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.62|-0.74|
91681336|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.04|-1.03|
91681337|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.76|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.76|-1.61|
91681338|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|2.39|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||2.39|-1.52|
91681339|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||1.04|-2.30|
91681340|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.74|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.74|-2.87|
91718389|NCT01125930|183329572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
91863044|NCT06504862|183613661|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|230.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|195.68|271.04|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.7|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||271.04|195.68|
91863045|NCT06504862|183613662|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|301.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|247.19|368.19|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 33.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||368.19|247.19|
91863046|NCT06504862|183613663|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|83.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.48|90.12|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.3|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||90.12|76.48|
91681341|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.5|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||1.50|-2.55|
91681342|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.57|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.57|-3.06|
91681343|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|1.0|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||1.00|-2.44|
91681344|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.05|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||2.05|-1.21|
91681345|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.16|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||3.16|-0.52|
91681346|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|2.87|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||2.87|-1.05|
91794288|NCT00423670|183467556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR rates|15.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test|Adjusted for the baseline stratification factors: black versus non black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||24.8|6.5|0.0009
91681347|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.53|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||2.53|-0.17|
91681348|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.44|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||2.44|-0.20|
91681349|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.66|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||1.66|-1.79|
91681350|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|8.55|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||8.55|-2.85|
91681351|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|0.21|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.21|-9.99|
91681352|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-2.37|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-2.37|-13.14|
91718390|NCT01125930|183329572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||1.00
91718391|NCT01125930|183329573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||1.00
91718392|NCT01125930|183329573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.41
91718393|NCT01125930|183329573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.66
91718394|NCT01125930|183329573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.92
91718395|NCT01125930|183329573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.80
91718396|NCT01125930|183329574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of TAC1 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.003
91863047|NCT06504862|183613664|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|75.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.03|83.95|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 17.1|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||83.95|68.03|
91718397|NCT01125930|183329574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of CXCR4 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.35
91718398|NCT01125930|183329574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of CXCL12 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.68
91718399|NCT01125930|183329574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of TNFa at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.76
91718400|NCT01125930|183329575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of COL-1 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||1.00
91718401|NCT01125930|183329575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of COL-3 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.25
91718402|NCT01125930|183329575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of MMP-1 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.41
91718403|NCT01125930|183329575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of MMP-3 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.02
91718404|NCT01125930|183329575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of MMP-9 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.61
91718405|NCT01125930|183329576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||1.00
91718406|NCT01125930|183329576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.44
91718407|NCT01125930|183329576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.41
91718408|NCT01125930|183329576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.94
91718409|NCT01125930|183329577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.15
91718410|NCT01125930|183329578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.13
91718411|NCT01125930|183329579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||1.00
91681353|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.84|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.84|-1.00|
91681354|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.3|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.30|-1.27|
91681355|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.02|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.02|-1.84|
91681356|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.08|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.08|-1.04|
91681357|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.56|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.56|-0.76|
91681358|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.56|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.56|-0.83|
91681359|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.09|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||2.09|-0.47|
91681360|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.0|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||2.00|-0.48|
91681361|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.49|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||1.49|-1.59|
91681362|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.09|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.09|-1.04|
91681363|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.04|-1.05|
91681364|NCT00444457|183253334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.07|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.07|-1.09|
91681365|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|3.63|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||3.63|-6.52|
91681366|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.15|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-2.15|-11.30|
91681367|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-0.79|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.79|-9.85|
91681368|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.07|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||2.07|-1.19|
91681369|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.06|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.06|-1.69|
91681370|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.75|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.75|-2.27|
91681371|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|1.82|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.82|-9.46|
91681372|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.24|0.76|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.76|-10.24|
91681373|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.41|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||4.41|-6.30|
91681374|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.73|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.73|-2.14|
91681375|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.39|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||2.39|-1.69|
91681376|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|2.59|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||2.59|-1.46|
91681377|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.17|0.2|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.20|-11.17|
91681378|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.31|-4.7|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-4.70|-15.31|
91681379|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|0.46|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.46|-9.55|
91681380|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.52|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||2.52|-4.23|
91681381|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|-0.4|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.40|-6.35|
91681382|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|0.33|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.33|-5.44|
91681383|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|4.8|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||4.80|-3.67|
91681384|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|6.28|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||6.28|-2.38|
91681385|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|5.82|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||5.82|-3.06|
91681386|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|5.08|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||5.08|-3.34|
91681387|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.18|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||1.18|-6.39|
91681388|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|0.46|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.46|-7.45|
91681389|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.55|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||8.55|-5.20|
91681390|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.79|2.16|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||2.16|-11.79|
91681391|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.51|0.54|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.54|-13.51|
91681392|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|7.13|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||7.13|-0.84|
91718412|NCT01125930|183329580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.75
91718413|NCT01125930|183329581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.68
91718414|NCT01125930|183329582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.77
91718415|NCT01125930|183329583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.41
91718416|NCT01125930|183329583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||1.00
91718417|NCT01125930|183329583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.96
91718418|NCT01125930|183329583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.91
91718419|NCT01125930|183329584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.29
91718420|NCT01125930|183329584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.29
91718421|NCT01125930|183329584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.15
91718422|NCT01125930|183329584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.29
91718423|NCT01125930|183329585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.54
91903379|NCT00232141|183701690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6088||95.0|-0.82|0.48||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Temporal summation to tactile stimuli||0.48|-0.82|0.6088
91718424|NCT01125930|183329585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.06
91718425|NCT01125930|183329585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.02
91718426|NCT01125930|183329585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.09
91718427|NCT01125930|183329586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.18
91718428|NCT01125930|183329586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.70
91718429|NCT01125930|183329586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.70
91718430|NCT01125930|183329586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.35
91718431|NCT01125930|183329587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.80
91718432|NCT01125930|183329587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.31
91718433|NCT01125930|183329587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.25
91718434|NCT01125930|183329587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.46
91718435|NCT01125930|183329588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.41
91718436|NCT01125930|183329588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.05
91718437|NCT01125930|183329588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.16
91718438|NCT01125930|183329588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.14
91718439|NCT01125930|183329589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.36
91718440|NCT01125930|183329589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.88
91718441|NCT01125930|183329589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.18
91718442|NCT01125930|183329589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.17
91793790|NCT01966692|183465921|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for AUC0-last fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|114.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.0|122.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm)\*; Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed AUC0-last: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||122|106|0.0078
91794289|NCT02131532|183467565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.321||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.398|17.102|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in fatigue scores between baseline and three-month assessments||17.102|1.398|0.03
91903380|NCT00232141|183701690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.3767||95.0|-0.93|0.35||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Cold allodynia testing area||0.35|-0.93|0.3767
91681393|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|4.11|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||4.11|-3.14|
91681394|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|1.4|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.40|-6.72|
91681395|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|3.02|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||3.02|-0.87|
91681396|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.71|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.71|-1.62|
91681397|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.92|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.92|-3.00|
91681398|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|4.67|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||4.67|-0.62|
91681399|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.55|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||1.55|-2.67|
91681400|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|-0.01|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||-0.01|-5.11|
91681401|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.1|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||2.10|-0.45|
91681402|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.58|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.58|-0.75|
91681403|NCT00444457|183253336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.05|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.05|-1.86|
91681404|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.13|-0.10|
91681405|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.17|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.17|-0.41|
91681406|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.19|-0.43|
91681407|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.30|0.06|
91681408|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.23|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.23|-0.00|
91681409|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.06|-0.18|
91681410|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.09|-0.13|
91681411|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.07|-0.15|
91681412|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.09|-0.13|
91681413|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.06|-0.19|
91903381|NCT00232141|183701690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.7689||95.0|-0.64|0.86||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Cold hyperalgesia testing area||0.86|-0.64|0.7689
91718443|NCT01125930|183329590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||0.21
91718444|NCT01125930|183329590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||<0.01
91718445|NCT01125930|183329590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||0.04
91681414|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.08|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.08|-0.17|
91681415|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.15|-0.11|
91681416|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.0|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.00|-0.25|
91681417|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-0.12|-0.37|
91681418|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.01|-0.25|
91681419|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.11|-0.18|
91681420|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.22|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.22|-0.51|
91718446|NCT01125930|183329590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||0.10
91718447|NCT01125930|183329591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||1.00
91681421|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.2|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.20|-0.47|
91681422|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.11|-0.17|
91681423|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.22|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.22|-0.07|
91681424|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.25|-0.03|
91681425|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.06|-0.20|
91794504|NCT00491556|183467954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-126.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|105.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.46|-81.12|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-81.12|-172.46|< 0.0001
91681426|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.03|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.03|-0.21|
91718448|NCT01125930|183329591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||0.02
91681427|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.11|-0.15|
91681428|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.18|-0.06|
91681429|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.04|-0.18|
91681430|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-0.01|-0.25|
91681431|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.28|0.05|
91681432|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.21|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.21|-0.00|
91681433|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.05|-0.17|
91681434|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.19|-0.04|
91681435|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.21|-0.02|
91681436|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.14|-0.10|
91681437|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.15|-0.10|
91681438|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.07|-0.17|
91681439|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.05|-0.20|
91681440|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.13|-0.11|
91681441|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.1|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.10|-0.14|
91681442|NCT00444457|183253337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.08|-0.15|
91681443|NCT03970837|183253371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||3.53|1.87|<0.0001
91681444|NCT03970837|183253371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||3.50|1.85|<0.0001
91794290|NCT02131532|183467566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.401||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|5.937|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in depression scores between baseline and three-month assessments||5.937|-0.687|0.10
91903382|NCT00232141|183701691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1277||95.0|-0.86|0.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.86|0.1277
91681445|NCT03970837|183253371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|7.9|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||7.90|3.66|<0.0001
91681446|NCT03970837|183253371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.66|0.34|<0.0001
91681447|NCT03970837|183253371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.66|0.34|<0.0001
91681448|NCT03970837|183253375|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 95% Confidence Interval (CI) in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Difference in Percentage|-14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.1|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 95% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-8.1|-21.3|
91681449|NCT03970837|183253375|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 95% Confidence Interval (CI) in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Difference in Percentage|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-10.6|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 95% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-10.6|-23.9|
91681450|NCT02304991|183253580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat; participants not completing the DBPCFC considered to have challenge score of zero||||0.002
91681451|NCT02304991|183253581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat; participants not completing the DBPCFC considered to have challenge score of zero||||0.0005
91681452|NCT02304991|183253582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91681453|NCT02304991|183253583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per protocol analysis of patients with available samples.||||0.01
91681454|NCT02304991|183253584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per protocol analysis of patients with available samples.||||<0.0001
91681455|NCT02304991|183253585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
91681456|NCT00786994|183253586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||A vs C/D||||0.60
91681457|NCT00786994|183253586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||B vs. C/D||||0.83
91681458|NCT01193127|183253589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0||95.0|0.6|1.1||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, ketorolac tromethamine, and vehicle), time-point and LOCS II grade as covariates|repeated measures model|All data time points collected used in the analysis.|OMS302 - Vehicle (BSS)|||1.1|0.6|0.0000
91681459|NCT01193127|183253589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0||95.0|0.5|0.9||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, ketorolac tromethamine, and vehicle), time-point and LOCS II grade as covariates.|repeated measures model|OMS302 - ketorolac tromethamine||||0.9|0.5|0.0000
91681460|NCT01193127|183253590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0421||95.0|-8.9|-0.2||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, PE and vehicle), time point and LOCS II grade as covariates|repeated measures model||OMS302 - Vehicle (BSS)|||-0.2|-8.9|0.0421
91681461|NCT01193127|183253590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0093||95.0|-10.3|-1.5||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, PE and vehicle), time point and LOCS II grade as covariates.|repeated measures model||OMS302 - PE|||-1.5|-10.3|0.0093
91681462|NCT01193127|183253591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.630
91681463|NCT01193127|183253591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.769
91681464|NCT01193127|183253591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.025
91681465|NCT01193127|183253592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.229
91681466|NCT01193127|183253592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.162
91681467|NCT01193127|183253592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.226
91681468|NCT01193127|183253593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.177
91681469|NCT01193127|183253593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.051
91681470|NCT01193127|183253593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.497
91681471|NCT01193127|183253594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.480
91681472|NCT01193127|183253594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.090
91681473|NCT01193127|183253594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.439
91681474|NCT01193127|183253595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.812
91681475|NCT01193127|183253595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.480
91681476|NCT01193127|183253595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.160
91681477|NCT01193127|183253596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.085
91681478|NCT01193127|183253596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.742
91681479|NCT01193127|183253596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.021
91681480|NCT01193127|183253597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.081
91681481|NCT01193127|183253597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.202
91681482|NCT01193127|183253597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.606
91681483|NCT01193127|183253598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.893
91681484|NCT01193127|183253598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.553
91681485|NCT01193127|183253598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.412
91681486|NCT01193127|183253599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.186
91681487|NCT01193127|183253599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.191
91681488|NCT01193127|183253599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.167
91681489|NCT01193127|183253600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.663
91681490|NCT01193127|183253600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.326
91681491|NCT01193127|183253600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.045
91681492|NCT01193127|183253601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.106
91681493|NCT01193127|183253601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.519
91681494|NCT01193127|183253601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.039
91681495|NCT01193127|183253602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.100
91681496|NCT01193127|183253602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.029
91681497|NCT01193127|183253602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.525||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.525
91681498|NCT01193127|183253603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.642
91681499|NCT01193127|183253603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.442
91681500|NCT01193127|183253603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.467
91681501|NCT01193127|183253604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.695
91681502|NCT01193127|183253604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.355
91681503|NCT01193127|183253604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.369
91681504|NCT01193127|183253605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.124
91681505|NCT01193127|183253605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.298
91681506|NCT01193127|183253605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.291
91681507|NCT01193127|183253606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.825
91681508|NCT01193127|183253606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.211
91681509|NCT01193127|183253606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.589
91681510|NCT01193127|183253607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.401
91681511|NCT01193127|183253607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.200
91681512|NCT01193127|183253607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.478
91681513|NCT01193127|183253608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.758
91681514|NCT01193127|183253608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.521
91681515|NCT01193127|183253608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.432
91681516|NCT01193127|183253609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.148
91681517|NCT01193127|183253609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.156
91681518|NCT01193127|183253609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.381
91681519|NCT01193127|183253610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.646
91681520|NCT01193127|183253610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.950
91681521|NCT01193127|183253610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.160
91681522|NCT01193127|183253611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91681523|NCT01193127|183253611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.667
91681524|NCT01193127|183253611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.303
91681525|NCT01193127|183253612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.789
91681526|NCT01193127|183253612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.977
91681527|NCT01193127|183253612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.336
91681528|NCT01193127|183253613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.632
91681529|NCT01193127|183253613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
91681530|NCT01193127|183253613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.336
91718449|NCT01125930|183329591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||0.08
91718450|NCT01125930|183329591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||0.15
91718451|NCT01125930|183329592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.67
91681531|NCT01193127|183253614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.528
91681532|NCT01193127|183253614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.362
91681533|NCT01193127|183253614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.353
91681534|NCT01193127|183253615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.463
91681535|NCT01193127|183253615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.406
91681536|NCT01193127|183253615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.245
91681537|NCT01193127|183253616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.945
91681538|NCT01193127|183253616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.438
91681539|NCT01193127|183253616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.596
91681540|NCT01193127|183253617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.811
91681541|NCT01193127|183253617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.552
91681542|NCT01193127|183253617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.549
91681543|NCT01193127|183253618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.173
91903383|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0469||95.0|-0.71|0.0||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.00|-0.71|0.0469
91681544|NCT01193127|183253618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.362
91681545|NCT01193127|183253618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
91681546|NCT01193127|183253619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.681
91681547|NCT01193127|183253619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.429
91681548|NCT01193127|183253619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.306
91681549|NCT01193127|183253620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.226
91681550|NCT01193127|183253620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.602
91681551|NCT01193127|183253620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.290
91681552|NCT01193127|183253621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.244
91681553|NCT01193127|183253621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.122
91681554|NCT01193127|183253621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.790
91681555|NCT01193127|183253622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.752
91681556|NCT01193127|183253622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.355
91681557|NCT01193127|183253622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.292
91681558|NCT01193127|183253623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.228
91681559|NCT01193127|183253623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.564
91681560|NCT01193127|183253623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.755
91681561|NCT01193127|183253624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.018
91681562|NCT01193127|183253624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.292
91681563|NCT01193127|183253624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.298
91681564|NCT01193127|183253625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.271
91681565|NCT01193127|183253625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.345
91681566|NCT01193127|183253625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.096
91681567|NCT01193127|183253626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.320
91681568|NCT01193127|183253626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.390
91681569|NCT01193127|183253626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.230
91681570|NCT01193127|183253627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
91681571|NCT01193127|183253627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.348
91681572|NCT01193127|183253627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.477
91681573|NCT01193127|183253628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.374
91681574|NCT01193127|183253628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.265
91681575|NCT01193127|183253628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.555
91681576|NCT01193127|183253629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.031
91681577|NCT01193127|183253629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.059
91681578|NCT01193127|183253629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.472
91681579|NCT01193127|183253630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.476
91681580|NCT01193127|183253630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.169
91681581|NCT01193127|183253630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.310
91681582|NCT01193127|183253631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.075
91681583|NCT01193127|183253631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
91681584|NCT01193127|183253631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.078
91681585|NCT01193127|183253632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.226
91681586|NCT01193127|183253632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.357
91681587|NCT01193127|183253632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.291
91681588|NCT01193127|183253633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.172
91681589|NCT01193127|183253633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.547
91681590|NCT01193127|183253633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wicoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.921
91681591|NCT01193127|183253634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.701
91681592|NCT01193127|183253634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.089
91681593|NCT01193127|183253634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.095
91681594|NCT01193127|183253635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.086
91681595|NCT01193127|183253635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wicoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.092
91681596|NCT01193127|183253635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.120
91681597|NCT01193127|183253636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.626
91681598|NCT01193127|183253636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.736
91681599|NCT01193127|183253636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.725
91681600|NCT01193127|183253637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.220
91681601|NCT01193127|183253637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.903
91681602|NCT01193127|183253637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.463
91681603|NCT01193127|183253638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.675
91718452|NCT01125930|183329592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.18
91718453|NCT01125930|183329592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 21 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.02
91718454|NCT01125930|183329592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.42
91718455|NCT02741284|183329593|NON_INFERIORITY|A noninferiority margin of 30% (mean difference \<1.0 mmol/l) was pre-specified as it corresponds to an upper umbilical artery lactate cut-off value of 4.5 mmol/L, above which there is an increased risk of neonatal morbidity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.7|-0.5|0.69
91718456|NCT02741284|183329594|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin 30%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||pH||0.03|-0.01|<0.05
91718457|NCT02741284|183329595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.48|||Chi-squared|||Cesarean delivery||1.48|0.07|<0.05
91718458|NCT02741284|183329595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Cesarean delivery for non reassuring fetal status||0|0|<0.05
91718459|NCT02741284|183329595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|45.2|||Chi-squared|||Operative vaginal delivery||45.20|0.71|<0.05
91718460|NCT02741284|183329596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-5.4|0.44
91718461|NCT02741284|183329597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-9.6|0.06
91718462|NCT02741284|183329598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-1.0|0.99
91718463|NCT01516216|183329659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.07
91718464|NCT01516216|183329660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
91718465|NCT01516216|183329661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
91718466|NCT01516216|183329663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
91681604|NCT01193127|183253638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|WIlcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.825
91718467|NCT01516216|183329666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9801|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9801
91718468|NCT01516216|183329667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7444|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7444
91718469|NCT03098979|183329668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5183||||||Linear dose-response shape: The multiple comparison procedures (MCP) approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques.||||||0.5183
91681605|NCT01193127|183253638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.668
91718470|NCT03098979|183329668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Sigmoidal Emax 1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.3300
91718471|NCT03098979|183329668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6232||||||Sigmoidal Emax 2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.6232
91718472|NCT03098979|183329668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0918||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.0918
91718473|NCT03098979|183329668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2701||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.2701
91718474|NCT02419807|183329689|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as the difference in the proportions of nodes flagged between the Tc and ICG methods falling within an interval (-δ, +δ), where δ is taken to be 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.151||||||||0.151|0.036|
91718475|NCT01499511|183329698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.624
91718476|NCT01499511|183329699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91718477|NCT01499511|183329700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.304
91718478|NCT01499511|183329701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.641
91718479|NCT01499511|183329702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.915
91718480|NCT04459338|183329727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All continuous data are summarized as means ± SEM. Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated using the trapezoidal rule. A paired, two-way Student t-test (parametric) or a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (non-parametric) was used to examine differences between study days. A p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.02
91794291|NCT02131532|183467567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.991|0.491|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in independence scores between baseline and three-month assessments||0.491|-0.991|0.45
91718481|NCT00853385|183329740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|24.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.18|35.31||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||35.31|13.18|<0.0001
91718482|NCT00853385|183329740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|23.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.16|34.29||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||34.29|12.16|<0.0001
91718483|NCT00853385|183329740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.93||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|29.96||Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of adalimumab to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||29.96|7.90|0.0007
91718484|NCT00853385|183329741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.25||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.25|-0.50|<0.0001
91718485|NCT00853385|183329741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as the comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.19|-0.43|<0.0001
91718486|NCT00853385|183329741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.13||Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.13|-0.37|<0.0001
91718487|NCT00853385|183329742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.08|16.73||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and two-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||16.73|6.08|<0.0001
91718488|NCT00853385|183329742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.12||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|9.26||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||9.26|0.98|0.0151
91718489|NCT00853385|183329742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.65||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.9||Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of adalimumab to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||9.90|1.40|0.0091
91718490|NCT01829347|183329837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|1.133|||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the Intent-to-Treat (ITT) population utilizing a log-rank test.||1.133|0.085|0.076
91718491|NCT01829347|183329838|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91793791|NCT01966692|183465922|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|182.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.0|208.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 2 (B-3.8 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||208|159|<0.001
91793792|NCT01966692|183465922|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|190.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|166.0|217.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||217|166|<0.001
91718492|NCT03435055|183329839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test were conducted on subject specific beta maps to identify changes in connectivity associated with nitrous oxide in SPM12. Hypothesis was that the results would be deemed significant at false discovery rate (FDR) cluster level corrected p \< 0.05 derived from a voxel-wise uncorrected p-value \< 0.001.||||0.001
91718493|NCT03435055|183329840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test were conducted on subject specific beta maps to identify changes in connectivity associated with nitrous oxide in SPM12. Hypothesis was that results would be deemed significant at false discovery rate (FDR) cluster level corrected p \< 0.05 derived from a voxel-wise uncorrected p-value \< 0.001.||||0.006
91681606|NCT01193127|183253639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2066||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.2066
91681607|NCT01193127|183253639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2066||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.2066
91681608|NCT01193127|183253639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5263||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.5263
91681609|NCT01193127|183253640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4222||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.4222
91681610|NCT01193127|183253640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2712||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.2712
91681611|NCT01193127|183253640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8819||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.8819
91681612|NCT01193127|183253641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0510
91681613|NCT01193127|183253641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8084||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.8084
91681614|NCT01193127|183253641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1495||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.1495
91681615|NCT01193127|183253642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4099||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.4099
91681616|NCT01193127|183253642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6499||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.6499
91681617|NCT01193127|183253642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0765||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0765
91681618|NCT01193127|183253643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0688||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0688
91718494|NCT03435055|183329841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired-t tests were conducted to determine whether changes in stimulus intensity: post stimulus at baseline and under subanesthetic dose of nitrous oxide. Statistical tests were completed in SPSS 26 and determined by p \< 0.05.||||<0.01
91681619|NCT01193127|183253643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0314||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0314
91681620|NCT01193127|183253643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0775||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0775
91681621|NCT01193127|183253644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5369||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.5369
91681622|NCT01193127|183253644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3763||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.3763
91681623|NCT01193127|183253644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6144||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.6144
91681624|NCT01193127|183253645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1374||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.1374
91681625|NCT01193127|183253645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9146||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.9146
91681626|NCT01193127|183253645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7599||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.7599
91681627|NCT01193127|183253646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
91681628|NCT01193127|183253646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
91681629|NCT01193127|183253646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91681630|NCT01193127|183253647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
91681631|NCT01193127|183253647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.647
91718495|NCT03435055|183329842|OTHER|Paired T-test comparing baseline to nitrous||||||0.0622|||||||Paired t-test|||Delta||||0.0622
91718496|NCT03435055|183329842|OTHER|Paired T-test comparing baseline to nitrous||||||0.0292|||||||Paired t-test|||Theta||||0.0292
91718497|NCT03435055|183329842|OTHER|Paired T-test comparing baseline to nitrous||||||0.5905|||||||Paired t-test|||Alpha comparison||||0.5905
91794292|NCT02131532|183467568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.769|-1.981|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in scores of general rating of recovery between baseline and three-month assessments||-1.981|-25.769|0.03
91681632|NCT01193127|183253647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
91681633|NCT01193127|183253648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
91681634|NCT01193127|183253648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.335
91681635|NCT01193127|183253648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
91681636|NCT01193127|183253649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91681637|NCT01193127|183253649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
91681638|NCT01193127|183253649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91681639|NCT01193127|183253650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.824||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.824
91681640|NCT01193127|183253650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.476
91681641|NCT01193127|183253650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.281
91681642|NCT01193127|183253651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.842
91681643|NCT01193127|183253651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.619
91681644|NCT01193127|183253651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.711
91681645|NCT01193127|183253652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.773
91681646|NCT01193127|183253652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.592
91681647|NCT01193127|183253652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.787
91681648|NCT01193127|183253653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.695
91681649|NCT01193127|183253653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.166
91681650|NCT01193127|183253653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.987
91681651|NCT01193127|183253654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.134
91681652|NCT01193127|183253654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.710
91681653|NCT01193127|183253654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.310
91681654|NCT01193127|183253655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.086
91681655|NCT01193127|183253655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.183
91681656|NCT01193127|183253655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.029
91681657|NCT01193127|183253656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.206
91681658|NCT01193127|183253656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.021
91718498|NCT01668797|183329859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|The log-rank test was based on time to exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse.||The total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 1:1 (brexpiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio.||||<0.0001
91718499|NCT01668797|183329860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The percentage of participants with impending relapse in treatment groups (Brexpiprazole and placebo) in final analysis for participants meeting at least one of the criteria.||||<0.0001
91718500|NCT01668797|183329861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2296|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||||0.2296
91718501|NCT01668797|183329861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2051|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||0.2051
91718502|NCT01668797|183329861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7354|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||||0.7354
91718503|NCT01668797|183329861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1977|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||||0.1977
91718504|NCT01668797|183329861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8734|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||||0.8734
91718505|NCT01668797|183329861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Last Visit.||||0.0007
91718506|NCT01668797|183329862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 6.||0.23|-6.82|0.0664
91718507|NCT01668797|183329862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.31||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 12.||-0.52|-10.1|0.0301
91718508|NCT01668797|183329862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.77||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 24.||-0.68|-8.86|0.0226
91794293|NCT02131532|183467569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.594||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|12.448|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in physical strength scores between baseline and three-month assessments||12.448|-14.010|0.89
91718509|NCT01668797|183329862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 36.||-1.59|-10.5|0.0086
91718510|NCT01668797|183329862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.31||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 52.||5.46|-18.1|0.2800
91718511|NCT01668797|183329862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|-1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits||-1.82|-7.01|0.0011
91718512|NCT01668797|183329863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.23|-6.31|0.0683
91718513|NCT01668797|183329863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.05||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.90|-9.20|0.0174
91718514|NCT01668797|183329863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.59||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-3.18|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-3.18|-12.0|0.0008
91718515|NCT01668797|183329863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.02||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.59|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-3.59|-12.4|0.0005
91718516|NCT01668797|183329863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.95||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.41|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-3.41|-12.5|0.0007
91718517|NCT01668797|183329864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.00|-2.23|0.0507
91718518|NCT01668797|183329864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.50|-3.24|0.0080
91718519|NCT01668797|183329864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.24|-2.89|0.0215
91718520|NCT01668797|183329864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.58|-3.19|0.0053
91718521|NCT01668797|183329864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.22|-5.20|0.339
91718522|NCT01668797|183329864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.88|-2.32|< 0.0001
91718523|NCT01668797|183329865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.21|-2.10|0.1093
91718524|NCT01668797|183329865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.47|||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.47|-3.25|0.0089
91718525|NCT01668797|183329865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-1.22|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-1.22|-4.26|0.0005
91718526|NCT01668797|183329865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-1.44|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-1.44|-4.43|0.0001
91718527|NCT01668797|183329865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.66|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||-1.66|-4.70|<0.0001
91718528|NCT01668797|183329866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.29|-1.66|0.1650
91793793|NCT01966692|183465922|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|213.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|186.0|244.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm)\*; Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||244|186|<0.001
91793794|NCT00509392|183465970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91681659|NCT01193127|183253656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.026
91681660|NCT01193127|183253657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.822
91681661|NCT01193127|183253657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.424||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.424
91681662|NCT01193127|183253657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.695
91681663|NCT01193127|183253658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.489
91681664|NCT01193127|183253658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.459
91681665|NCT01193127|183253658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.990
91681666|NCT01193127|183253660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4575||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4575
91681667|NCT01193127|183253660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8318
91681668|NCT01193127|183253660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8946||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8946
91681669|NCT01193127|183253661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||||||Ocular pain medications will be identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 will be presented. Treatment comparisons will be performed using methodology 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1570
91681670|NCT01193127|183253661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0839||||||Ocular pain medications will be identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 will be presented. Treatment comparisons will be performed using methodology 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0839
91681671|NCT01193127|183253661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||||||Ocular pain medications will be identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 will be presented. Treatment comparisons will be performed using methodology 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0920
91681672|NCT01193127|183253662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.711
91681673|NCT01193127|183253662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.253
91681674|NCT01193127|183253662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.104
91681675|NCT00321737|183253680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
91681676|NCT00321737|183253680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
91681677|NCT00321737|183253680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99999||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99999
91681678|NCT00321737|183253681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91718529|NCT01668797|183329866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.42|-1.97|0.2001
91793795|NCT00509392|183465971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91793796|NCT00509392|183465972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91793797|NCT00509392|183465973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2962||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2962
91793798|NCT00509392|183465974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0048
91681679|NCT00321737|183253681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91681680|NCT00321737|183253681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0673||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06730
91681681|NCT00321737|183253683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
91681682|NCT00321737|183253683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
91681683|NCT00321737|183253683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13932||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.13932
91681684|NCT00321737|183253684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91681685|NCT00321737|183253684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91681686|NCT00321737|183253684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11257||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11257
91681687|NCT04994483|183253708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.4308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|-1.37|0.4308
91681688|NCT04994483|183253709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.4034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.70|-0.68|0.4034
91681689|NCT00759902|183253717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|123.0||||||90.0|112.9|134.1|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||134.1|112.9|
91681690|NCT00759902|183253719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.7||||||90.0|98.5|104.9|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||104.9|98.5|
91681691|NCT00759902|183253720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|102.9||||||90.0|99.3|106.5|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||106.5|99.3|
91681692|NCT02213510|183253721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91681693|NCT02213510|183253722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.655
91681694|NCT02213510|183253723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.811
91718530|NCT01668797|183329866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.16|-2.07|0.0939
91681695|NCT02213510|183253724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91681696|NCT02213510|183253725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.462
91681697|NCT02213510|183253726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.646
91681698|NCT02213510|183253727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.510
91681699|NCT02213510|183253728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.651
91681700|NCT02213510|183253729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.588
91681701|NCT02213510|183253730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.858
91681702|NCT02213510|183253731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91681703|NCT03954834|183253732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.63|-2.18|<0.001
91681704|NCT03954834|183253732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.65|-2.21|<0.001
91681705|NCT03954834|183253732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.83|-2.39|<0.001
91681706|NCT03954834|183253733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.7|-7.8|<0.001
91681707|NCT03954834|183253733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.5|-8.6|<0.001
91681708|NCT03954834|183253733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.2|-10.3|<0.001
91681709|NCT03954834|183253734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.12|113.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||113.67|21.12|<0.001
91681710|NCT03954834|183253734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|80.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|203.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||203.19|31.80|<0.001
91681711|NCT03954834|183253734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|125.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||125.73|22.30|<0.001
91681712|NCT03954834|183253735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.9|-11.9|0.776
91681713|NCT03954834|183253735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.8|-13.0|0.622
91681714|NCT03954834|183253735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.8|-11.1|0.908
91681715|NCT03954834|183253736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.74|209.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||209.71|7.74|<0.001
91681716|NCT03954834|183253736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.53|178.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||178.19|6.53|<0.001
91681717|NCT03954834|183253736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|85.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.36|443.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||443.13|16.36|<0.001
91681718|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Premeal - Fasting||-31.2|-44.1|<0.001
91681719|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Premeal - Fasting||-32.2|-45.1|<0.001
91681720|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-29.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Premeal - Fasting||-29.8|-43.1|<0.001
91681721|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.4|-47.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour Postmeal||-47.4|-68.4|<0.001
91681722|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.3|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour Postmeal||-39.2|-60.3|<0.001
91681723|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|-46.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour Postmeal||-46.4|-68.1|<0.001
91681724|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Premeal||-32.2|-49.6|<0.001
91681725|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Premeal||-31.2|-48.6|<0.001
91681726|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Premeal||-31.1|-49.0|<0.001
91681727|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour Postmeal||-40.4|-62.5|<0.001
91681728|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-36.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour Postmeal||-36.2|-58.4|<0.001
91681729|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.1|-39.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour Postmeal||-39.3|-62.1|<0.001
91718531|NCT01668797|183329866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||0.35|-2.44|0.1396
91718532|NCT01668797|183329866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||5.00|-4.14|0.8470
91718533|NCT01668797|183329866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||0.3|-1.24|0.2258
91718534|NCT01668797|183329867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.14|-1.65|0.0981
91718535|NCT01668797|183329867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.15|-2.30|0.0264
91718536|NCT01668797|183329867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.42|-2.69|0.0078
91718537|NCT01668797|183329867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.38|-2.77|0.0101
91718538|NCT01668797|183329867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||0.01|-2.50|0.0516
91718539|NCT01668797|183329868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.03|-0.53|0.0279
91681730|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-30.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Premeal||-30.4|-47.6|<0.001
91681731|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-30.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Premeal||-30.6|-47.9|<0.001
91681732|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-27.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Premeal||-27.5|-45.3|<0.001
91681733|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour Postmeal||-40.1|-63.2|<0.001
91681734|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1|-40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour Postmeal||-40.9|-64.1|<0.001
91681735|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|-41.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour Postmeal||-41.3|-65.1|<0.001
91681736|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.6|-37.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime||-37.4|-58.6|<0.001
91681737|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|-40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime||-40.1|-61.3|<0.001
91681738|NCT03954834|183253737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.9|-62.6|<0.001
91681739|NCT03954834|183253738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.43|23.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.94|6.43|<0.001
91681740|NCT03954834|183253738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.59|42.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.18|10.59|<0.001
91681741|NCT03954834|183253738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|40.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.04|10.09|<0.001
91681742|NCT01404923|183253748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
91681743|NCT00945100|183253757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk difference (unadjusted)|22.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|35.0|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||||35|8|0.003
91681744|NCT00945100|183253758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included interocular difference at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||||1.0|0.1|0.01
91681745|NCT00945100|183253760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The primary analysis was a treatment group comparison of the masked 10-week amblyopic eye visual acuity using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusting for visual acuity at randomization. The analysis was a 2-sided test for efficacy to test the null hypothesis of no treatment difference, assuming 90% power and a type I error rate of 5%.||1.0|0.3|0.002
91718540|NCT01668797|183329868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.09|-0.68|0.0117
91718541|NCT01668797|183329868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.09|-0.64|0.0105
91718542|NCT01668797|183329868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.25|-0.87|0.0007
91718543|NCT01668797|183329868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.06|-1.09|0.0780
91718544|NCT01668797|183329868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.15|-0.54|0.0006
91718545|NCT01668797|183329869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.03|-0.47|0.0284
91718546|NCT01668797|183329869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.11|-0.62|0.0056
91718547|NCT01668797|183329869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.24|-0.76|0.0002
91718548|NCT01668797|183329869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.30|-0.82|<.0001
91718549|NCT01668797|183329869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||-0.26|-0.79|0.0002
91718550|NCT01668797|183329870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.20|-0.60|0.0387
91718551|NCT01668797|183329870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.07|-0.75|0.0185
91718552|NCT01668797|183329870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.24|-0.97|0.0010
91718553|NCT01668797|183329870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.30|-1.02|0.0004
91718554|NCT01668797|183329870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.61||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.25|-0.96|0.0009
91793799|NCT00509392|183465975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0036
91718555|NCT01668797|183329871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|5.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||5.49|-3.47|0.6525
91718556|NCT01668797|183329871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.08||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|14.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||14.87|-2.71|0.1677
91718557|NCT01668797|183329871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||9.5|-2.41|0.2347
91718558|NCT01668797|183329872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.17|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||7.17|0.40|0.0285
91718559|NCT01668797|183329872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.18|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||8.18|1.31|0.0071
91718560|NCT01668797|183329873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||4.88|-1.65|0.3290
91718561|NCT01668797|183329873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|6.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||6.54|-1.22|0.1765
91718562|NCT01668797|183329873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||8.63|0.38|0.0331
91718563|NCT01668797|183329873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.88||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|11.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||11.82|-0.06|0.0522
91718564|NCT01668797|183329873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||6.92|0.41|0.0281
91718565|NCT01668797|183329874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.86|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||6.86|0.90|0.0111
91718566|NCT01668797|183329874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.36||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.62|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||8.62|2.10|0.0014
91718567|NCT01668797|183329874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|10.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||10.00|3.61|<.0001
91718568|NCT01668797|183329874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|9.83|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||9.83|3.28|0.0001
91718569|NCT01668797|183329875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0014
91718570|NCT01668797|183329876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.1577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.17|-1.02|0.1577
91718571|NCT01668797|183329876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.28|-1.61|0.1685
91718572|NCT01668797|183329876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.2815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.42|-1.43|0.2815
91718573|NCT01668797|183329876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.12|-2.16|0.0286
91793800|NCT00509392|183465976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0005
91793801|NCT00509392|183465977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5761||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5761
91793802|NCT00509392|183465978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91681746|NCT00945100|183253764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within gender was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and gender in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.04
91718574|NCT01668797|183329876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.51|-2.58|0.1803
91681747|NCT00945100|183253764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within race/ethnicity was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and race/ethnicity in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.89
91681748|NCT00945100|183253764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within age at randomization was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and age in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.49
91681749|NCT00945100|183253764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The treatment effect within amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and visual acuity in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for the main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.37
91681750|NCT00945100|183253764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within cause of amblyopia was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and amblyopia cause in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.50
91681751|NCT00945100|183253766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||||1.0|0.04|
91681752|NCT00945100|183253774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of participants in each treatment group with a loss of 2 or more lines in the better of the initial test and retest (if indicated) fellow eye visual acuities at the 10-week exam.||||>0.99
91681753|NCT00945100|183253776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of participants in each treatment group with a loss of 2 or more lines in the better of the initial test and retest (if indicated) fellow eye visual acuities at the final exam.||||0.12
91681754|NCT00945100|183253780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||An Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for the difference between treatment groups in the distribution of levels of change in Randot Preschool Stereoacuity from randomization to 10 weeks.||||0.28
91681755|NCT00945100|183253783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||An Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for the difference between treatment groups in the distribution of levels of change in Randot Preschool Stereoacuity from randomization to 10 weeks.||||0.45
91718575|NCT01668797|183329876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.17|-1.12|0.0077
91793803|NCT00509392|183465979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91681756|NCT02684630|183253789|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the donor's post-procedure platelet count is ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL, lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple sample proportion|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.951||||||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"Sample Size Determination:~Up to 160 participants were to be enrolled in this study to ensure 60 evaluable single platelet product collections and 60 evaluable double platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of 95% of postprocedure participant platelet count of ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL with 95% confidence."|||0.951|
91681757|NCT02684630|183253790|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the donor's post-procedure platelet count is ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL, lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple sample proportion|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.951||||||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"Sample Size Determination:~Up to 160 participants were to be enrolled in this study to ensure 60 evaluable single platelet product collections and 60 evaluable double platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of 95% of postprocedure participant platelet count of ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL with 95% confidence."|||0.951|
91681758|NCT00000378|183253797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||actual calculation|Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression and mixed effects model||||<0.05
91681759|NCT01284361|183253818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|91.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.5|97.5|||||Seventy five of the 82 subjects (91.5%) preferred the longer commercially available catheter over the experimental 30 cm catheter.|The sample size of 81 subjects provides a 10.8% margin of error.||97.5|84.5|
91681760|NCT00505375|183253859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.0014
91718576|NCT01668797|183329877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.21|-1.06|0.1852
91718577|NCT01668797|183329877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.21|-1.47|0.1430
91718578|NCT01668797|183329877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.09|-2.06|0.0323
91793804|NCT00509392|183465980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91793805|NCT00509392|183465981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0050
91793806|NCT00509392|183465983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0009
91793807|NCT00509392|183465984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91793808|NCT00509392|183465985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
91681761|NCT02906930|183253860|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.9|-1.3|<0.0001
91681762|NCT02906930|183253860|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.6|-1.1|<0.0001
91681763|NCT02906930|183253860|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.4|-0.8|<0.0001
91681764|NCT02906930|183253860|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
91681765|NCT02906930|183253860|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
91681766|NCT02906930|183253860|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.2|-1.7|<0.0001
91681767|NCT02906930|183253861|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.5|-3.1|<0.0001
91718579|NCT01668797|183329877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.37|-2.31|0.0071
91718580|NCT01668797|183329877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.56|-2.52|0.0023
91793809|NCT00509392|183465986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2825||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2825
91793810|NCT00509392|183465987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0854||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0854
91793811|NCT00509392|183465988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0044
91681768|NCT02906930|183253861|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.1|-1.9|0.0866
91681769|NCT02906930|183253861|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.1||||0.8692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.8|-0.9|0.8692
91681770|NCT02906930|183253861|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.7075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.6|-1.0|0.7075
91681771|NCT02906930|183253861|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.8|0.0138
91681772|NCT02906930|183253861|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.4|<0.0001
91681773|NCT02906930|183253884|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.78||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.78|0.26|0.0043
91681774|NCT02906930|183253884|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.59||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.59|0.18|0.0002
91681775|NCT02906930|183253884|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.60|0.19|0.0002
91681776|NCT02906930|183253885|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.93||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.93|0.25|0.0300
91718581|NCT01668797|183329878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.14|-2.54|0.0288
91718582|NCT01668797|183329878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.44|-3.60|0.0128
91793812|NCT00509392|183465989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0457||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0457
91793813|NCT00509392|183465990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9463||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9463
91681777|NCT02906930|183253885|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.36||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.36|0.04|0.0001
91681778|NCT02906930|183253885|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.06||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg /Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.26|0.01|0.0001
91681779|NCT02603393|183253938|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference lies entirely to the right of (higher than) -50 mL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.0404||95.0|-0.053|0.001||1 sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.001|-0.053|0.0404
91681780|NCT02603393|183253939|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|1.08||||0.5802||95.0|0.83|1.4||2 sided|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||1.40|0.83|0.5802
91681781|NCT02603393|183253940|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|1.08||||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.43||2-sided|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||1.43|0.82|0.5651
91681782|NCT02603393|183253941|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|1.02||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.34||2-sided|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||2.34|0.44|0.9665
91681783|NCT02603393|183253942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.0573||95.0|-0.053|0.001||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.001|-0.053|0.0573
91681784|NCT02603393|183253943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.0022||95.0|0.7|3.0||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||3.0|0.7|0.0022
91681785|NCT02603393|183253944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated measures Analys|||||2.6|0.2|0.0221
91681786|NCT02603393|183253945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241||||0.1724||95.0|-0.587|0.105|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.105|-0.587|0.1724
91681787|NCT02603393|183253946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.288||||0.1055||95.0|-0.638|0.061||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repated Measures Analysi|||||0.061|-0.638|0.1055
91681788|NCT02603393|183253947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177||||0.0641||95.0|-0.01|0.365||2-Sided|Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.365|-0.010|0.0641
91681789|NCT02603393|183253948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.061||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.061|-0.025|0.4107
91681790|NCT04540406|183253974|OTHER|We employed covariate-adjusted Principal Coordinates Analysis and a subject-stratified PERMANOVA test to assess the overall gut microbiota structural change. These tests are generally neither superiority, non-inferiority, nor equivalence tests. Instead, they are used to detect and evaluate overall differences in the microbial community structure between groups or conditions.||||||||||||||||PCoA (Principal Coordinates Analysis) + PERMANOVA (Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance) are exploratory multivariate techniques commonly used in microbiome research to assess and visualize differences in community composition. The null hypothesis for PERMANOVA is that there are no differences in the centroids (multivariate means) of the groups being compared. The microbial communities in different groups or conditions are not significantly different from each other.|To assess the overall structural changes in gut microbiota, we employed covariate-adjusted Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) and a subject-stratified PERMANOVA test. PCoA, an exploratory multivariate technique, helps visualize and interpret patterns in complex microbiome data by reducing dimensionality, with the first principal coordinate (PC1) capturing the largest variation among samples. PERMANOVA, which does not rely on standard parametric assumptions, was used to determine if there are statistically significant differences in the overall composition of microbial communities between groups based on a chosen distance metric. Our analysis aimed to explore whether microbial community compositions differed significantly between Day 0 and Day 28 within the Treatment group, accounting for inter-individual variability. Similarly, we investigated if such differences existed over the same time points in the Control group. The unit of measure was distance metrics.|||
91681791|NCT01517373|183254001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.4468|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.17||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment,duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM),time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects,baseline as the covariate,time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||0.17|-0.21|0.4468
91681792|NCT01517373|183254001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|-0.11||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.11|-0.48|0.0218
91718583|NCT01668797|183329878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.03|-3.15|0.0462
91718584|NCT01668797|183329878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.64|-3.94|0.0074
91794505|NCT00491556|183467955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|97.71||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.39|129.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||129.90|45.39|0.0003
91681793|NCT01517373|183254001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.28||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.28|-0.65|0.0006
91681794|NCT01517373|183254001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.02|-0.65||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.65|-1.02|<0.0001
91681795|NCT01517373|183254002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.6112|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.14||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.14|-0.09|0.6112
91681796|NCT01517373|183254002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.25|-0.03||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.03|-0.25|0.0550
91681797|NCT01517373|183254002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|-0.13||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80%CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.13|-0.35|0.0032
91681798|NCT01517373|183254002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|-0.33||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.33|-0.55|<0.0001
91681799|NCT01517373|183254002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.16||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.16|-0.10|0.6146
91681800|NCT01517373|183254002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.2606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.06||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.06|-0.19|0.2606
91681801|NCT01517373|183254002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.2||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.20|-0.45|0.0006
91681802|NCT01517373|183254002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7|-0.44||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.44|-0.70|<0.0001
91681803|NCT01517373|183254002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.6618|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.20|-0.10|0.6618
91681804|NCT01517373|183254002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|-0.01||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.31|0.0878
91903384|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0067||95.0|-1.08|-0.18||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||-0.18|-1.08|0.0067
91681805|NCT01517373|183254002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|-0.19||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.19|-0.49|0.0022
91681806|NCT01517373|183254002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|-0.51||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.51|-0.81|<0.0001
91681807|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.222||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.8|4.62||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.62|-8.80|0.3446
91718585|NCT01668797|183329878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||-0.75|-6.05|0.0136
91903385|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.031||95.0|-1.1|-0.05||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||-0.05|-1.10|0.0310
91681808|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.81|0.57||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.57|-12.81|0.1204
91681809|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.166||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.37|-7.1||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.10|-20.37|0.0041
91681810|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.192|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.01|-14.67||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-14.67|-28.01|<0.0001
91681811|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.191||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.8|1.53||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.53|-11.80|0.1616
91681812|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.219||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.15|2.26||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.26|-11.15|0.1974
91681813|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.22|-5.02||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-5.02|-18.22|0.0122
91681814|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.37|-18.2||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-18.20|-31.37|<0.0001
91681815|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.674||0.3645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.26|5.32||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.32|-9.26|0.3645
91681816|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.676||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.22|5.36||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.36|-9.22|0.3672
91681817|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.598||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.69|-0.31||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.31|-14.69|0.0906
91681818|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.624||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.91|-12.46||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-12.46|-26.91|0.0003
91681819|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.534||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.29|1.93||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.93|-12.29|0.1748
91681820|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.566||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.69|-3.38||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.38|-17.69|0.0297
91718586|NCT01668797|183329878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.97|-2.84|0.0001
91718587|NCT01668797|183329879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.09|-2.26|0.0695
91718588|NCT01668797|183329879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.49|-3.38|0.0089
91718589|NCT01668797|183329879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.27|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-1.27|-4.39|0.0004
91681821|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.469||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.47|-5.41||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-5.41|-19.47|0.0118
91681822|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-34.04|-19.96||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-19.96|-34.04|<0.0001
91681823|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.281||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.1|0.04||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.04|-16.10|0.1012
91681824|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.287||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.07|-2.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-2.91|-19.07|0.0409
91681825|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.232||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.88|-6.86|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-6.86|-22.88|0.0089
91681826|NCT01517373|183254003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.93|-17.92||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-17.92|-33.93|<0.0001
91681827|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.59||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.59|0.08|0.0898
91681828|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.62||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.62|0.12|0.0555
91681829|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.61||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.61|0.12|0.0585
91681830|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|0.64||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.64|0.14|0.0454
91681831|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.55||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.55|-0.05|0.2819
91681832|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|0.81||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.81|0.20|0.0319
91681833|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.6||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.60|0.01|0.1835
91681834|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|1.22||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.22|0.63|0.0001
91681835|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.9689|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|0.33||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.33|-0.35|0.9689
91681836|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.67||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.67|-0.02|0.2221
91718590|NCT01668797|183329879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-1.54|-4.63|0.0001
91718591|NCT01668797|183329879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-1.89|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-1.89|-4.99|<0.0001
91681837|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.62||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.62|-0.05|0.2774
91681838|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.43||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.43|0.76|<0.0001
91681839|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.17|0.98||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.98|0.17|0.0667
91681840|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|1.19||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.19|0.38|0.0133
91681841|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.29|1.08||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.08|0.29|0.0260
91681842|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.23|2.02||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.02|1.23|<0.0001
91681843|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|1.28||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.28|0.32|0.0335
91681844|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.05|1.01||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.01|0.05|0.1557
91681845|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.39||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.39|0.45|0.0132
91681846|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.2|3.15||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.15|2.20|<0.0001
91718592|NCT01668797|183329880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.35|-1.66|0.1969
91718593|NCT01668797|183329880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.43|-2.04|0.2007
91903386|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2088||95.0|-0.86|0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||0.19|-0.86|0.2088
91681847|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.46||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.46|0.45|0.0158
91681848|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.01|0.99||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.99|-0.01|0.2132
91681849|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|1.36||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.36|0.37|0.0263
91718594|NCT01668797|183329880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.03|-2.30|0.0436
91718595|NCT01668797|183329880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.04|-2.97|0.0444
91718596|NCT01668797|183329880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||5.02|-4.40|0.8927
91718597|NCT01668797|183329880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.2154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||0.31|-1.34|0.2154
91718598|NCT01668797|183329881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.07|-1.78|0.0707
91718599|NCT01668797|183329881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.14|-2.35|0.0276
91718600|NCT01668797|183329881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.45|-2.72|0.0065
91718601|NCT01668797|183329881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.42|-2.84|0.0085
91718602|NCT01668797|183329881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.07|-2.52|0.0630
91718603|NCT01668797|183329882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.31|-1.33|0.2251
91718604|NCT01668797|183329882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.07|-2.19|0.0368
91718605|NCT01668797|183329882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.56|-2.51|0.0024
91718606|NCT01668797|183329882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.15|-2.80|0.0293
91718607|NCT01668797|183329882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||3.17|-3.32|0.9632
91718608|NCT01668797|183329882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.34|-1.63|0.0029
91718609|NCT01668797|183329883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.14|-1.44|0.1062
91718610|NCT01668797|183329883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.42|-2.33|0.0051
91718611|NCT01668797|183329883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-1.01|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-1.01|-3.08|0.0001
91718612|NCT01668797|183329883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.89|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.89|-3.00|0.0004
91718613|NCT01668797|183329883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.56|-2.81|0.0035
91718614|NCT01668797|183329884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.13|-0.85|0.1465
91718615|NCT01668797|183329884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.2154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.29|-1.27|0.2154
91718616|NCT01668797|183329884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.2696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.35|-1.23|0.2696
91718617|NCT01668797|183329884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.19|-1.95|0.0179
91718618|NCT01668797|183329884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.18|-2.46|0.0875
91718619|NCT01668797|183329884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.24|-1.08|0.0021
91718620|NCT01668797|183329885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.2135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.19|-0.86|0.2135
91718621|NCT01668797|183329885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.29|-1.13|0.2437
91718622|NCT01668797|183329885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.05|-1.66|0.0635
91718623|NCT01668797|183329885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.22|-1.92|0.0144
91718624|NCT01668797|183329885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.39|-2.12|0.0046
91718625|NCT01668797|183329886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.19|-1.14|0.1640
91718626|NCT01668797|183329886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.5466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.55|-1.04|0.5466
91718627|NCT01668797|183329886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.87|-0.81|0.9417
91718628|NCT01668797|183329886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||0.76|-1.25|0.6257
91718629|NCT01668797|183329886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||1.21|-1.68|0.7437
91718630|NCT01668797|183329886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||0.28|-0.62|0.4506
91718631|NCT01668797|183329887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.06|-1.32|0.0467
91718632|NCT01668797|183329887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.22|-1.33|0.1599
91718633|NCT01668797|183329887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.19|-1.35|0.1417
91718634|NCT01668797|183329887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||0.06|-1.47|0.0724
91718635|NCT01668797|183329887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.03|-1.47|0.0608
91718636|NCT00062166|183329918|NON_INFERIORITY|Time dependent risk for requiring an intervention for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET), among 63 patients with PNETs with diameter \>1.2 and \<3 cm, and a known position of germline VHL pathogenic variant (n=63). Comparison between exon 3 vs exon 1 and 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.1|||Regression, Cox|||||9.1|1.2|0.02
91718637|NCT06119854|183329935|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|3.59|||||The CBT arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||3.590|0.406|
91681850|NCT01517373|183254011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.12|3.12||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.12|2.12|<0.0001
91681851|NCT03149445|183254016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4||||0.1045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.5||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||1.5|-12.3|0.1045
91681852|NCT03149445|183254016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.3||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-4.0|0.7422
91681853|NCT03149445|183254016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.0||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||11.0|0.1|0.0460
91681854|NCT03149445|183254016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.3847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|17.8||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||17.8|-9.2|0.3847
91681855|NCT03149445|183254017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.5||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||2.5|-14.9|0.1326
91681856|NCT03149445|183254017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.3||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-2.9|0.5148
91681857|NCT03149445|183254017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.4||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||9.4|-0.3|0.0605
91681858|NCT03149445|183254017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.5198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|14.0||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||14.0|-8.8|0.5198
91681859|NCT03149445|183254018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.1||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.6||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-12.5|0.0058
91681860|NCT03149445|183254018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.5142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|9.5||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||9.5|-5.3|0.5142
91681861|NCT03149445|183254018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.3794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|11.3||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||11.3|-5.1|0.3794
91681862|NCT03149445|183254018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.1||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||8.1|-6.1|0.6850
91681863|NCT02699060|183254032|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91681864|NCT04916444|183254033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the TWSTRS scores.||||0.691
91681865|NCT04916444|183254034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the BDI scores.||||0.816
91718638|NCT06119854|183329935|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.018|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.018|-0.013|
91718639|NCT06119854|183329935|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|2.436|||||The inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||2.436|0.194|
91718640|NCT06119854|183329935|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.01|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.010|-0.018|
91718641|NCT06119854|183329936|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.253|||||The CBT arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.253|0.785|
91718642|NCT06119854|183329936|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.058|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.058|-0.063|
91718643|NCT06119854|183329936|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.534|||||The inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.534|0.981|
91718644|NCT06119854|183329936|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.133|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.133|0.008|
91681866|NCT04916444|183254035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the time to complete the TMT-A task.||||0.167
91681867|NCT04916444|183254036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the time to complete the TMT-A task.||||0.507
91681868|NCT04916444|183254037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.056
91681869|NCT04916444|183254038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.646
91681870|NCT05005312|183254039|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|101.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.2|140.11|||ANOVA|||||140.11|74.20|
91681871|NCT05005312|183254040|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|99.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.81|139.21|||ANOVA|||||139.21|70.81|
91681872|NCT05005312|183254041|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|98.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|138.12|||ANOVA|||||138.12|70.65|
91718645|NCT06119854|183329937|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.527|||||CBT group represents the numerator and standard (conventional) represents the denominator|||1.527|0.740|
91718646|NCT06119854|183329937|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.053|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm|||0.053|-0.037|
91718647|NCT06119854|183329937|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.262|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.784|||||The inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.784|0.892|
91718648|NCT06119854|183329937|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.08|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.080|-0.013|
91718649|NCT06119854|183329938|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.406|||||CBT arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.406|0.911|
91718650|NCT06119854|183329938|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.109|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.109|-0.019|
91718651|NCT06119854|183329938|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.074|1.631|||||the inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.631|1.074|
91718652|NCT06119854|183329938|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.111|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.176|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.176|0.045|
91718653|NCT06494761|183329940|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|110.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.9|127.1|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 22.1|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 1) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||127.10|96.90|
91718654|NCT06494761|183329940|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|130.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.35|153.39|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 25.2|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 3) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||153.39|110.35|
91718655|NCT06494761|183329941|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|107.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.57|117.9|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 13.5|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||117.90|98.57|
91718656|NCT06494761|183329941|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.41|116.93|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 15.4|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||116.93|95.41|
91718657|NCT06494761|183329942|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|96.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.96|122.72|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 24.5|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||122.72|75.96|
91718658|NCT06494761|183329942|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|89.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.86|130.2|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 39.6|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||130.20|61.86|
91718659|NCT06494761|183329943|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|117.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.56|129.84|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 16.8|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 1) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||129.84|105.56|
91718660|NCT06494761|183329943|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|144.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.53|168.71|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.9|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 3) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||168.71|123.53|
91793814|NCT03954041|183465991|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.62|||=|0.3752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|14.98||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, interactive response technology (IRT) stratification factors at randomization, baseline total contusion volume based on central read, imaging modality at Hour 96 (MRI vs NCCT).|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||14.98|-5.74|= 0.3752
91793815|NCT03954041|183465992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.36||||||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||3.36|0.40|
91793816|NCT03954041|183465993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47|||=|0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.86||P-value was analyzed by ordinal logistic regression on mRS adjusting for covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline mRS score, and baseline total contusion volume based on central read.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||3.86|0.56|=0.4306
91903387|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1849||95.0|-0.87|0.17||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||0.17|-0.87|0.1849
91681873|NCT06077149|183254048|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91681874|NCT06077149|183254049|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91681875|NCT06077149|183254050|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
91681876|NCT06077149|183254051|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91681877|NCT02970318|183254058|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.49||Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.49|0.20|<0.0001
91681878|NCT02970318|183254059|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.38||Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.38|0.20|<0.0001
91681879|NCT02970318|183254060|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|Risk difference (% Arm A - Arm B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|||14.9|-3.3|0.2248
91681880|NCT02970318|183254061|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|Risk difference (% Arm A - Arm B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|||7.0|-9.6|0.7340
91681881|NCT02970318|183254062|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||Log Rank|Log-Rank Analysis stratified by factors recorded in IXRS data: presence of deletion 17 p (yes / no), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Cox proportional hazard analysis stratified (Arm A vs. Arm B) by factors recorded in IXRS data including presence of deletion 17 p (yes / no), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Analysis stratified by factors recorded in IXRS data including presence of deletion 17 p (yes / no), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).||1.04|0.46|0.0783
91681882|NCT02970318|183254063|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.59||Log Rank Test stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.59|0.19|<0.0001
91681883|NCT02970318|183254064|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.33||Log Rank Test stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.33|0.16|<0.0001
91681884|NCT02970318|183254065|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.4||Log Rank Test stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.40|0.21|<0.0001
91681885|NCT02500641|183254100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5298|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5298
91681886|NCT02036775|183254137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the area under the curve (AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|110.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.84|122.69|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||122.69|99.84|
91793817|NCT03954041|183465995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.53|||=|0.6478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|5.13||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline total contusion volume based on central read.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||5.13|-8.19|= 0.6478
91681887|NCT02036775|183254137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the area under the curve (AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.54|110.74|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||110.74|96.54|
91681888|NCT02036775|183254137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the area under the curve (AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|106.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.29|114.02|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||114.02|100.29|
91681889|NCT02036775|183254138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the peak concentration (Cmax ss) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|84.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.96|93.25|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||93.25|76.96|
91681890|NCT02036775|183254138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the peak concentration (Cmax ss) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.22|113.31|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||113.31|95.22|
91681891|NCT02036775|183254138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the peak concentration (Cmax ss) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|80.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.95|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.92|88.62|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||88.62|73.92|
91681892|NCT02036775|183254139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the dose-adjusted total exposure (AUCss 0-24 norm) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|88.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.87|98.15|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||98.15|79.87|
91681893|NCT02036775|183254139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the dose-adjusted total exposure (AUCss 0-24 norm) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.54|110.74|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||110.74|96.54|
91681894|NCT02036775|183254139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the dose-adjusted total exposure (AUCss 0-24 norm) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|85.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.23|91.22|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||91.22|80.23|
91681895|NCT02036775|183254140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the rate of absorption at steady state (Cmax ss/AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|76.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.1|82.4|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||82.40|71.10|
91681896|NCT02036775|183254140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the rate of absorption at steady state (Cmax ss/AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.69|106.58|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||106.58|94.69|
91681897|NCT02036775|183254140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the rate of absorption at steady state (Cmax ss/AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|75.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.92|81.93|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||81.93|69.92|
91903388|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0452||95.0|-1.09|-0.01||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||-0.01|-1.09|0.0452
91793818|NCT03954041|183465996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||=|0.9314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.02||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) based on eCRF, and baseline absolute hematoma volume based on central read.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||2.02|-2.20|=0.9314
91793819|NCT03954041|183465997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.18|||=|0.6569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|11.98||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline absolute edema volume based on central read, baseline GCS based on eCRF, and imaging modality at Hour 96 (MRI vs NCCT).|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||11.98|-7.61|= 0.6569
91681898|NCT04181723|183254150|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.6|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.6|-5.7|0.0175
91681899|NCT04181723|183254151|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.1|-0.5|0.0030
91681900|NCT04181723|183254152|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||1.7|0.3|0.0064
91681901|NCT04181723|183254153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.8|-13.8|0.3376
91681902|NCT04181723|183254154|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.1|-0.3|0.3649
91681903|NCT04181723|183254155|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.1|-0.3|0.2114
91681904|NCT04181723|183254156|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.0|-0.6|0.0257
91681905|NCT04181723|183254157|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.2|-0.2|0.9799
91681906|NCT04181723|183254158|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.1|-0.1|0.5304
91681907|NCT04181723|183254159|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.5855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-3.5|0.5855
91681908|NCT04181723|183254160|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.4|-0.1|0.2507
91681909|NCT03496610|183254161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test performed given non-normal distribution of data by Shapiro Wilks Test. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in oral morphine equivalent consumption between the two groups in the first 24hrs after surgery. Original sample size calculation based on α=0.05, β=0.8, difference in means=2, and effect size of 1.0.||||0.81
91864620|NCT05873556|183618524|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.38|0.75|0.92
91718661|NCT06494761|183329944|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|110.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.92|121.52|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 14.1|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||121.52|100.92|
91681910|NCT03496610|183254162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test performed with α=0.05. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in pain on postoperative day 7.||||0.40
91681911|NCT03496610|183254163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test performed with α=0.05. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in bloating severity between the two groups.||||0.74
91681912|NCT03496610|183254164|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Compared using the Likelihood ratio test with α=0.05. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the groups.||||0.38
91681913|NCT04156620|183254194|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|17.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.12|25.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||25.71|10.12|<0.0001
91681914|NCT04156620|183254195|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|20.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.45|26.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.44|14.45|<0.0001
91681915|NCT04156620|183254196|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-0.64|-1.38|<0.0001
91681916|NCT04156620|183254197|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|22.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.36|29.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.95|14.36|<0.0001
91681917|NCT04156620|183254198|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-0.56|-1.33|<0.0001
91681918|NCT04156620|183254199|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||4.22|1.80|<0.0001
91681919|NCT04156620|183254200|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-1.04|-2.51|<0.0001
91681920|NCT04156620|183254201|SUPERIORITY||Relative LS mean change|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||0.51|0.37|<0.0001
91681921|NCT04156620|183254202|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|23.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.61|31.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.66|15.61|<0.0001
91681922|NCT04156620|183254203|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|12.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|17.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||17.19|7.96|<0.0001
91681923|NCT04156620|183254204|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|10.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|15.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.47|5.64|<0.0001
91681924|NCT04156620|183254205|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.09|-1.24|0.0234
91718662|NCT06494761|183329944|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|117.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.3|126.81|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 11.9|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||126.81|108.30|
91718663|NCT06494761|183329945|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|79.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.9|126.3|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 77.6|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||126.30|49.90|
91718664|NCT06494761|183329945|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|62.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.69|86.2|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 49.1|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||86.20|44.69|
91681925|NCT01121666|183254206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) of the number of oocytes retrieved with a power of 90%, an alpha error of 2.5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/-2.9 oocytes for the relevant population.||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) with a power of 90%, an alpha error of 2.5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/-2.9 oocytes for the relevant population.|Shuirmann's TOST|||This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) of the number of oocytes retrieved.||||0.0003
91681926|NCT01121666|183254207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2357|TWO_SIDED|||||Follicles of 12 mm|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2357
91681927|NCT01121666|183254207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1395|TWO_SIDED|||||Follicles of 15 mm|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1395
91681928|NCT01121666|183254207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3992|TWO_SIDED|||||Follicles of 17 mm|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3992
91681929|NCT01121666|183254209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9638|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9638
91681930|NCT01121666|183254214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8926|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8926
91681931|NCT01121666|183254221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) of the number of oocytes retrieved with a power of 90%, an alpha error of 2.5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/-2.9 oocytes for the relevant population.||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Shuirmann's TOST|||||||0.0003
91681932|NCT01629966|183254303|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.27||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.17|||MMRM|||||0.17|-2.71|0.0830
91681933|NCT01629966|183254303|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-0.34|||MMRM|||||-0.34|-3.26|0.0156
91793820|NCT01896479|183465999|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin used was 1.58.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7||Stratification factors comprised RET M918T mutational status (positive, negative, and unknown).|Log Rank|||||1.70|0.90|0.1916
91903389|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0359||95.0|-1.18|-0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||-0.04|-1.18|0.0359
91681934|NCT01629966|183254304|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.37||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.02|||MMRM|||||0.02|-2.75|0.0536
91681935|NCT01629966|183254304|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.52||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-0.11|||MMRM|||||-0.11|-2.94|0.0349
91681936|NCT01150890|183254305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1941|||||||Overall Trend test|||The primary null hypothesis was tested sequentially using a linear trend test at the significance level of 0.05 (two-sided) using logistic regression modeling.||||0.1941
91681937|NCT01150890|183254305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||Chi-squared|||||0.09|-0.09|1.0000
91681938|NCT01150890|183254305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.1203||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.26|||Chi-squared|||||0.26|-0.02|0.0966
91681939|NCT01150890|183254305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0597||||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17|||Chi-squared|||||0.17|-0.06|0.3208
91681940|NCT01150890|183254306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0363||||0.6831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Chi-squared|||||0.21|-0.14|0.6831
91681941|NCT01150890|183254306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.1477||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.34|||Chi-squared|||||0.34|-0.04|0.1396
91681942|NCT01150890|183254306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0265||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.19|||Chi-squared|||||0.19|-0.14|0.7588
91681943|NCT01150890|183254307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4161|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for baseline CDAI score.||||||0.4161
91681944|NCT01150890|183254307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8094|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CDAI score.||||||0.8094
91681945|NCT01150890|183254307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CDAI score.||||||0.3040
91681946|NCT03118570|183254313|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.644||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.644
91793821|NCT01896479|183466000|OTHER|Descriptive statistical analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0195||||0.9437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors comprised RET M918T mutational status (positive, negative, and unknown).||||1.7|0.6|0.9437
91903390|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0184||95.0|-1.26|-0.12||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||-0.12|-1.26|0.0184
91681947|NCT03118570|183254313|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.485||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.485
91681948|NCT03118570|183254313|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.404||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.404
91681949|NCT03118570|183254314|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91681950|NCT03118570|183254314|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.19||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.190
91681951|NCT03118570|183254314|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.704||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.704
91681952|NCT03118570|183254315|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.011||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91681953|NCT03118570|183254315|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.047||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
91681954|NCT03118570|183254315|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.756||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.756
91681955|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.329||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.329
91681956|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.953||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.953
91681957|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.795||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.795
91681958|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.644||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.644
91681959|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.485||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.485
91681960|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.404||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.404
91681961|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.827||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.827
91681962|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.459||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.459
91681963|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.022||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.022
91681964|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.821||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.821
91681965|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.911||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.911
91681966|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.152||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.152
91681967|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.668||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.668
91681968|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.109||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.109
91681969|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.358||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.358
91681970|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.742||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.742
91681971|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.567||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.567
91681972|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.43||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.430
91681973|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.634||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.634
91681974|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.146||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.146
91681975|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.521||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.521
91681976|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.991||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.991
91903391|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1043||95.0|-1.06|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||0.10|-1.06|0.1043
91681977|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.069||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.069
91681978|NCT03118570|183254316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.625||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.625
91681979|NCT03118570|183254317|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.615||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.615
91681980|NCT03118570|183254317|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.376||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.376
91681981|NCT03118570|183254317|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.259||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.259
91681982|NCT03118570|183254317|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.253||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.253
91681983|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.064||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.064
91681984|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.019||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.019
91718665|NCT06494761|183329946|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|110.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.58|127.24|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 22.5|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 1) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||127.24|96.58|
91718666|NCT06494761|183329946|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|129.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.7|153.59|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 25.8|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 3) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||153.59|109.70|
91681985|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.845||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.845
91681986|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.006
91681987|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.19||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.190
91681988|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.704||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.704
91681989|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.002||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.002
91681990|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.021||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.021
91681991|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.504||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.504
91681992|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.462||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.462
91681993|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.134||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.134
91681994|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.086||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.086
91681995|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.199||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.199
91681996|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.219||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 8||||0.219
91681997|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.112||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.112
91681998|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.086||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.086
91903392|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1053||95.0|-1.04|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.10|-1.04|0.1053
91681999|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.245||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.245
91682000|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.232||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.232
91682001|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.237||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.237
91682002|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.088||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.088
91682003|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.302||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.302
91682004|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.626||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.626
91682005|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.517||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 8||||0.517
91682006|NCT03118570|183254318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.262||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.262
91682007|NCT03118570|183254319|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||< 0.001
91682008|NCT03118570|183254319|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.004||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.004
91682009|NCT03118570|183254319|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.08||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.080
91682010|NCT03118570|183254319|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.031||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.031
91682011|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.06||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.060
91682012|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.015||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.015
91682013|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.795||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.795
91682014|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.011||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.011
91793822|NCT02325791|183466058|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|1.15||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.898|5.201|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to KM estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in CMH test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||5.201|-2.898|0.5773
91794294|NCT02131532|183467570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.378||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.729|3.519|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in memory and thinking scores between baseline and three-month assessments||3.519|-7.729|0.009
91682015|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.047||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.047
91863048|NCT06504862|183613665|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|137.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.17|158.36|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 22.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||158.36|120.17|
91682016|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.756||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.756
91682017|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.006
91682018|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.137||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.137
91682019|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.639||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.639
91682020|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.325||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.325
91682021|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.108||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.108
91682022|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.078||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.078
91682023|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.106||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.106
91682024|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.236||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.236
91682025|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.164||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.164
91682026|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.031||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.031
91682027|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.224||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.224
91682028|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.291||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.291
91682029|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.324||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.324
91682030|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.188||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.188
91682031|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.503||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.503
91682032|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.385||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.385
91903393|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.144||95.0|-1.03|0.15||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||0.15|-1.03|0.1440
91682033|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.727||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.727
91682034|NCT03118570|183254320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.338||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.338
91682035|NCT03118570|183254321|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||< 0.001
91682036|NCT03118570|183254321|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||< 0.001
91682037|NCT03118570|183254321|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||< 0.001
91718667|NCT06494761|183329947|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|108.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.79|119.41|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 14.3|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||119.41|98.79|
91718668|NCT06494761|183329947|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|106.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.49|117.73|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 15.9|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||117.73|95.49|
91718669|NCT06494761|183329948|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|108.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.9|146.35|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 44.9|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||146.35|79.90|
91718670|NCT06494761|183329948|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|97.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.01|127.53|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 38.5|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||127.53|75.01|
91718671|NCT04865289|183329949|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.41||||||||1.41|0.51|
91718672|NCT04865289|183329950|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.21||||||||1.21|0.48|
91718673|NCT04865289|183329951|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was that the hazard ratio was equal to 1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.5831415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.15|0.64|0.5831415
91903394|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0866||95.0|-1.17|0.08||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||0.08|-1.17|0.0866
91682038|NCT03118570|183254321|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||< 0.001
91682039|NCT03118570|183254323|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91682040|NCT03118570|183254323|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91682041|NCT03118570|183254323|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.08||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.080
91682042|NCT03118570|183254323|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.238||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.238
91682043|NCT03118570|183254323|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.238||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.238
91682044|NCT03118570|183254323|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.035||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.035
91718674|NCT04865289|183329951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6980186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.15|0.64|0.6980186
91718675|NCT04865289|183329952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.52046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.8|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.80|0.57|0.52046
91718676|NCT04865289|183329953|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-10.5||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|9.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One sided p value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.||||9.3|-29.2|0.8497
91682045|NCT03118570|183254323|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.687||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.687
91682046|NCT03118570|183254323|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.107||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.107
91682047|NCT03118570|183254323|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.128||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.128
91682048|NCT03118570|183254324|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91682049|NCT03118570|183254324|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91682050|NCT03118570|183254324|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.088||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.088
91682051|NCT03118570|183254324|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.184||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.184
91682052|NCT03118570|183254324|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.144||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.144
91682053|NCT03118570|183254324|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.028||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.028
91682054|NCT03118570|183254324|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.694||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.694
91682055|NCT03118570|183254324|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.143||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.143
91682056|NCT03118570|183254324|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.111||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.111
91682057|NCT03118570|183254325|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91682058|NCT03118570|183254325|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91903395|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0359||95.0|-1.3|-0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.04|-1.30|0.0359
91682059|NCT03118570|183254325|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.026||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.026
91682060|NCT03118570|183254325|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.007||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.007
91682061|NCT03118570|183254325|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.004||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.004
91682062|NCT03118570|183254325|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.085||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.085
91682063|NCT03118570|183254325|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.04||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.040
91682064|NCT03118570|183254325|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.061||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.061
91682065|NCT03118570|183254325|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.189||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.189
91682066|NCT03118570|183254326|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91682067|NCT03118570|183254326|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91682068|NCT03118570|183254326|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.035||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.035
91682069|NCT03118570|183254326|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.003
91682070|NCT03118570|183254326|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.003
91682071|NCT03118570|183254326|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.088||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.088
91682072|NCT03118570|183254326|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.016||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.016
91682073|NCT03118570|183254326|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.068||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.068
91682074|NCT03118570|183254326|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.16||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.160
91682075|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.065||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.065
91682076|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.405||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.405
91682077|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.966||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.966
91682078|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.003
91682079|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.229||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.229
91682080|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.807||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.807
91682081|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.042||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.042
91682082|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.283||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.283
91682083|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.536||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.536
91682084|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.765||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.765
91682085|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.247||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.247
91682086|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.05||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.050
91682087|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.037||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.037
91682088|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.174||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.174
91682089|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.558||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.558
91682090|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.02||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.020
91682091|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.346||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.346
91682092|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.387||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.387
91682093|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.093||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.093
91682094|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.156||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.156
91682095|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.324||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.324
91682096|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.92||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.920
91682097|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.04||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.040
91682098|NCT03118570|183254327|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.643||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.643
91682099|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.285||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.285
91682100|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.544||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.544
91682101|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.615||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.615
91682102|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.179||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.179
91682103|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.513||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.513
91682104|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.849||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.849
91682105|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.037||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.037
91682106|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.88||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.880
91718677|NCT04865289|183329954|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-9.1||||0.8522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|8.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One sided p value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.||||8.0|-25.5|0.8522
91718678|NCT04865289|183329955|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.14||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|6.27|||cLDA model|||||6.27|-10.54|0.6138
91718679|NCT04865289|183329956|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.73||||0.8398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|6.46|||cLDA model|||||6.46|-7.93|0.8398
91718680|NCT03104374|183329961|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|41.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.6|24.0|<0.0001
91718681|NCT03104374|183329961|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|48.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.3|31.1|<0.0001
91718682|NCT03104374|183329962|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.12|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.12|-0.30|<0.0001
91718683|NCT03104374|183329962|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.22|-0.40|<0.0001
91718684|NCT03104374|183329963|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|36.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.1|19.2|<0.0001
91718685|NCT03104374|183329963|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.8|22.3|<0.0001
91718686|NCT03104374|183329964|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|46.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.9|25.6|<0.0001
91718687|NCT03104374|183329964|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|51.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.0|29.9|<0.0001
91794295|NCT02131532|183467571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.168||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.624|-6.183|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in emotion scores between baseline and three-month assessments||-6.183|-30.624|0.009
91718688|NCT03104374|183329965|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|4.98|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||4.98|2.07|<0.0001
91863049|NCT06504862|183613666|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|149.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.12|193.25|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 44.4|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||193.25|116.12|
91903396|NCT00232141|183701692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0711||95.0|-1.3|0.05||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.05|-1.30|0.0711
91718689|NCT03104374|183329965|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|5.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|6.88|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.88|3.99|<0.0001
91718690|NCT03104374|183329966|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.4|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.4|2.0|<0.0001
91718691|NCT03104374|183329966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|6.4|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.||6.4|3.1|<0.0001
91718692|NCT03104374|183329967|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.6|16.0|<0.0001
91718693|NCT03104374|183329967|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.5|19.7|<0.0001
91718694|NCT03104374|183329968|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-18.4|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-18.4|-27.4|<0.0001
91718695|NCT03104374|183329968|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-23.8|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.8|-32.7|<0.0001
91718696|NCT03104374|183329969|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.9|20.1|<0.0001
91718697|NCT03104374|183329969|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|39.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.9|25.9|<0.0001
91718698|NCT03104374|183329970|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||11.9|4.2|<0.0001
91718699|NCT03104374|183329970|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.1|11.0|<0.0001
91794296|NCT02131532|183467572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.696||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.883|1.598|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in communication scores between baseline and three-month assessments||1.598|-15.883|0.10
91718700|NCT03104374|183329971|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.4|14.3|<0.0001
91794297|NCT02131532|183467573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.455|0.455|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in daily activities scores between baseline and three-month assessments||0.455|-5.455|0.09
91863050|NCT06504862|183613667|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|134.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.56|171.34|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||171.34|105.56|
91682107|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.153||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.153
91682108|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.073||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.073
91682109|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.007||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.007
91682110|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.791||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.791
91682111|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.01||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.010
91682112|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.553||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.553
91682113|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.652||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.652
91682114|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||< 0.001
91682115|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.482||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.482
91682116|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.685||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.685
91682117|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.002||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.002
91682118|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.672||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.672
91682119|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.377||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.377
91682120|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.015||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.015
91682121|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.086||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.086
91682122|NCT03118570|183254328|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.712||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.712
91682123|NCT03118570|183254330|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.045||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 6||||0.045
91682124|NCT03118570|183254330|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.101||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 6||||0.101
91682125|NCT03118570|183254330|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.482||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 6||||0.482
91863051|NCT06504862|183613668|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|248.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|211.03|293.07|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 27.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||293.07|211.03|
91793823|NCT02325791|183466058|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.318|3.438||Analysis performed using CMH statistics with randomization stratum adjusted using Mantel-Haenzel (MH) method to assess pairwise treatment difference (i.e. absolute risk reduction of each suptavumab arm compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each Suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||3.438|-4.318|
91903397|NCT00232141|183701694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0685||95.0|-0.89|0.03||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.03|-0.89|0.0685
91682126|NCT03118570|183254330|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.011||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 12||||0.011
91682127|NCT03118570|183254330|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.508||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 12||||0.508
91682128|NCT03118570|183254330|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.563||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 12||||0.563
91682129|NCT03118570|183254330|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.917||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 6||||0.917
91682130|NCT03118570|183254330|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.789||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 6||||0.789
91682131|NCT03118570|183254330|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.262||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 6||||0.262
91682132|NCT03118570|183254330|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.426||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 12||||0.426
91682133|NCT03118570|183254330|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.871||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 12||||0.871
91682134|NCT03118570|183254330|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.113||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 12||||0.113
91682135|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
91682136|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
91682137|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.984||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||0.984
91682138|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91682139|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.05||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.050
91682140|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.857||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.857
91682141|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.001
91682142|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.079||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.079
91682143|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.912||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.912
91682144|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.054||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.054
91682145|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.95||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.950
91682146|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.555||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.555
91682147|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.221||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.221
91682148|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.393||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.393
91682149|NCT03118570|183254331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.385||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.385
91682150|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
91682151|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
91682152|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
91682153|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.003
91718701|NCT03104374|183329971|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.2|15.1|<0.0001
91718702|NCT04609514|183330043|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.95||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.51
91682154|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.05||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.050
91682155|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.006
91682156|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.519||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.519
91718703|NCT04609514|183330044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||<0.001
91903398|NCT00232141|183701694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.928||95.0|-0.52|0.57||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.57|-0.52|0.9280
91682157|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.226||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.226
91682158|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.19||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.190
91682159|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.388||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.388
91718704|NCT04609514|183330049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||A robust Yuen's test was conducted with an apriori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance. No covariates were introduced in the model.|Robust Yuen's test|||||||0.39
91718705|NCT04609514|183330050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Robust Yuen's test|||||||0.40
91718706|NCT04609514|183330051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction.||||||0.478
91718707|NCT04609514|183330052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction.||||||0.51
91682160|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.109||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.109
91718708|NCT04609514|183330054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.185||||0.8392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.119|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.119|0.23|0.8392
91903399|NCT00232141|183701694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6672||95.0|-0.71|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.45|-0.71|0.6672
91682161|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.204||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.204
91682162|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.119||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.119
91682163|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.925||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.925
91682164|NCT03118570|183254332|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.204||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.204
91682165|NCT03118570|183254333|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.588||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.588
91682166|NCT03118570|183254333|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.697||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.697
91682167|NCT03118570|183254333|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.283||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.283
91682168|NCT03118570|183254333|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.354||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.354
91682169|NCT03118570|183254333|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.43||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.430
91682170|NCT03118570|183254333|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.091||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.091
91682171|NCT03118570|183254334|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.527||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.527
91682172|NCT03118570|183254334|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.738||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.738
91682173|NCT03118570|183254334|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.465||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.465
91682174|NCT03118570|183254334|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.068||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.068
91682175|NCT03118570|183254334|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.328||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.328
91682176|NCT03118570|183254334|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.277||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.277
91682177|NCT03118570|183254335|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.092||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.092
91682178|NCT03118570|183254335|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.31||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.310
91718709|NCT04609514|183330055|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction.||||||1.00
91682179|NCT03118570|183254335|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.304||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.304
91682180|NCT03118570|183254335|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.155||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.155
91682181|NCT03118570|183254335|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.392||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.392
91682182|NCT03118570|183254335|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.464||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.464
91682183|NCT03118570|183254336|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.15||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.150
91682184|NCT03118570|183254336|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.468||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.468
91682185|NCT03118570|183254336|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.8||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.800
91793824|NCT02325791|183466062|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.291|3.959|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to KM estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in CMH test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||3.959|-5.291|
91682186|NCT03118570|183254336|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.563||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.563
91682187|NCT03118570|183254336|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.839||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.839
91682188|NCT03118570|183254336|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.186||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.186
91682189|NCT03118570|183254337|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.278||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.278
91682190|NCT03118570|183254337|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.292||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.292
91682191|NCT03118570|183254337|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.115||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.115
91682192|NCT03118570|183254337|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.356||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.356
91682193|NCT03118570|183254337|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.205||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.205
91794298|NCT02131532|183467574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.382||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.091|-0.551|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in mobility scores between baseline and three-month assessments||-0.551|-7.091|0.03
91682194|NCT03118570|183254337|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.078||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.078
91682195|NCT03118570|183254338|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.037||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.037
91682196|NCT03118570|183254338|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.342||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.342
91682197|NCT03118570|183254338|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.515||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.515
91863052|NCT06504862|183613669|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|82.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.27|89.96|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.4|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||89.96|76.27|
91863053|NCT06504862|183613670|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|143.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.78|166.33|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.2|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||166.33|123.78|
91863054|NCT01574274|183613674|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91863055|NCT01574274|183613675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 4 NSAA Level||||0.07
91682198|NCT03118570|183254338|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.786||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.786
91682199|NCT03118570|183254338|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.212||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.212
91682200|NCT03118570|183254338|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.655||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.655
91682201|NCT01672970|183254356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91682202|NCT01672970|183254356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91682203|NCT01672970|183254357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.001
91682204|NCT01672970|183254357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.005
91682205|NCT01672970|183254358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91682206|NCT01672970|183254358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91682207|NCT01672970|183254359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91682208|NCT01672970|183254359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
91682209|NCT01672970|183254362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91682210|NCT01672970|183254362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91682211|NCT01672970|183254363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91682212|NCT01672970|183254363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91682213|NCT01672970|183254368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91682214|NCT01672970|183254368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91682215|NCT01672970|183254369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91682216|NCT01672970|183254369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91682217|NCT01672970|183254370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91682218|NCT01672970|183254370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91682219|NCT01672970|183254371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91682220|NCT01672970|183254371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91682221|NCT01672970|183254372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91682222|NCT01672970|183254372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91682223|NCT01672970|183254373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91682224|NCT01672970|183254373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91682225|NCT04430855|183254374|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|27.2|||Chi-squared||Response rate difference compared to historical placebo = upadacitinib 30 mg - historical placebo|The primary analysis compared the percentage of participants in the upadacitinib 30 mg treatment group who achieved HiSCR response to that of a prespecified, single historical placebo rate (25%). The historical placebo rate of 25% was assumed based on the corresponding response rates of placebo participants satisfying the same key eligibility criteria from the 2 adalimumab HS Phase 3 studies, Study M11-313 (NCT01468207) and Study M11-810 (NCT01468233).||27.2|-0.6|0.018
91863056|NCT01574274|183613675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 11 NSAA Level||||0.29
91863057|NCT01574274|183613675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 18 NSAA Level||||0.0002
91863058|NCT01574274|183613675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 25 NSAA Level||||<0.0001
91863059|NCT01574274|183613675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 7 NSAA Level||||<0.0001
91718710|NCT00885118|183330057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42828.482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6487.174|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29936.586|55720.378|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate.||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||55720.378|29936.586|<0.0001
91718711|NCT00885118|183330057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80964.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6303.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68437.16|93492.194|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||93492.194|68437.160|<0.0001
91718712|NCT00885118|183330057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88589.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6544.604|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75583.738|101595.79|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||101595.790|75583.738|<0.0001
91718713|NCT00885118|183330057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85620.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6610.091|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72484.181|98756.515|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||98756.515|72484.181|<0.0001
91718714|NCT00885118|183330058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.936|-4.424|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-4.424|-20.936|0.0030
91718715|NCT00885118|183330058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.919|-11.921|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-11.921|-27.919|<0.0001
91718716|NCT00885118|183330058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.168|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.49|-17.925|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-17.925|-34.490|<0.0001
91718717|NCT00885118|183330058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.586|-18.884|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-18.884|-35.586|<0.0001
91718718|NCT00885118|183330059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.861||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.529|-6.236|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-6.236|-29.529|0.0030
91718719|NCT00885118|183330059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.445|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.308|-11.665|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-11.665|-33.308|<0.0001
91718720|NCT00885118|183330059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.762|-14.768|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-14.768|-37.762|<0.0001
91718721|NCT00885118|183330059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.699|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.665|-17.015|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-17.015|-39.665|<0.0001
91718722|NCT00885118|183330060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|-0.02|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-0.020|-0.498|0.0705
91718723|NCT00885118|183330060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.545|-0.047|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-0.047|-0.545|0.0203
91718724|NCT00885118|183330060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|-0.17|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-0.170|-0.687|0.0014
91718725|NCT00885118|183330060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.135|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-0.135|-0.654|0.0033
91718726|NCT00885118|183330061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.755||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.757|47.811|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||47.811|-22.757|0.4823
91718727|NCT00885118|183330061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.313||0.7305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.422|40.39|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||40.390|-28.422|0.7305
91718728|NCT00885118|183330061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.903||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.438|17.721|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||17.721|-53.438|0.3213
91718729|NCT00885118|183330061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.13||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.869|16.192|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||16.192|-55.869|0.2768
91718730|NCT00885118|183330062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.728|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.653|-2.731|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-2.731|-5.653|<0.0001
91718731|NCT00885118|183330062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.126|-3.091|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-3.091|-6.126|<0.0001
91718732|NCT00885118|183330062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.762|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.565|-2.508|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-2.508|-5.565|<0.0001
91863060|NCT01574274|183613675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 13 NSAA Level||||0.87
91863061|NCT01574274|183613675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19 NSAA Level||||0.83
91863062|NCT01574274|183613675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 25 NSAA Level||||0.94
91863063|NCT04413708|183613730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.62||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.17|||Fisher Exact|||||5.17|0.50|0.41
91863064|NCT04413708|183613731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.90|0.61|1.0
91682226|NCT04430855|183254374|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.2||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo (in-trial + synthetic)|As a supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved HiSCR at Week 12 was further analyzed by comparing upadacitinib with in-trial placebo participants combined with subjects with historical placebo HiSCR data pre-selected using propensity score matching from adalimumab studies M11-313 and M11-810 and risankizumab study M16-833 (NCT03926169), whose study populations, entry criteria and study designs were similar to this study. The placebo in-trial + synthetic HiSCR was 29.2%.||25.9|-7.6|0.142
91682227|NCT04430855|183254374|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.7||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|36.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo|As an additional supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved HiSCR at Week 12 was also analyzed by comparing upadacitinib 30 mg with in-trial placebo participants.||36.0|-6.6|0.087
91682228|NCT04430855|183254375|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.9||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|30.3|||Chi-squared||Response rate difference compared to historical placebo (upadacitinib 30 mg - historical placebo)|The primary analysis compared the percentage of participants in the upadacitinib 30 mg treatment group who achieved NRS30 response to that of a prespecified, single historical placebo rate (22.5%). The historical placebo rate of 22.5% was assumed based on the corresponding response rates of placebo participants satisfying the same key eligibility criteria from the 2 adalimumab HS Phase 3 studies, Study M11-313 (NCT01468207) and Study M11-810 (NCT01468233).||30.3|-2.5|0.028
91682229|NCT04430855|183254375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|4.5||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|23.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo (in-trial + synthetic)|As a supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved NRS30 at Week 12 was further analyzed by comparing upadacitinib with in-trial placebo participants combined with subjects with historical placebo NRS30 data pre-selected using propensity score matching from adalimumab studies M11-313 and M11-810 and risankizumab study M16-833 (NCT03926169), whose study populations, entry criteria and study designs were similar to this study. The placebo in-trial + synthetic NRS30 was 31.3%.||23.5|-14.6|0.323
91682230|NCT04430855|183254375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|2.2||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo|As an additional supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved NRS30 at Week 12 was also analyzed by comparing upadacitinib 30 mg with in-trial placebo participants.||24.0|-19.6|0.421
91682231|NCT03801382|183254376|EQUIVALENCE|Validity and test-retest reliability were explored|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Validity and test-retest reliability were explored|||>.05
91682232|NCT00390221|183254384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.668||adjusted for the number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 vs \> 2.5), and age (\<=35 vs \>35)|Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.668|0.318|<0.0001
91682233|NCT00390221|183254384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.503||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.721||adjusted for the number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 vs \> 2.5), and age (\<=35 vs \>35)|Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.721|0.352|0.0002
91682234|NCT00390221|183254385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|78.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.97|86.35|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for the baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||86.35|65.97|<0.0001
91682235|NCT00390221|183254385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|69.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.4|80.41|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for the baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||80.41|52.40|<0.0001
91682236|NCT00390221|183254386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|78.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.33|84.22|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||84.22|71.33|<0.0001
91682237|NCT00390221|183254386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|70.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.94|77.88|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||77.88|59.94|<0.0001
91718733|NCT00885118|183330062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.048|-2.726|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-2.726|-7.048|<0.0001
91718734|NCT00885118|183330063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.302|0.343|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||0.343|-1.302|0.2498
91793825|NCT02325791|183466062|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.836|6.867|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to KM estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in CMH test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||6.867|-2.836|
91682238|NCT00390221|183254387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio|0.49||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.72||Covariates included were number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry (p=0.001), baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 versus \>2.5, p=0.449), and age (\<=35 versus \>35, p=0.026).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||0.72|0.33|0.0003
91682239|NCT00390221|183254387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.67||Covariates included were number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry (p=0.001), baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 versus \>2.5, p=0.449), and age (\<=35 versus \>35, p=0.026).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||0.67|0.30|<0.0001
91682240|NCT00390221|183254388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Mean Change|-1.93||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|0.56||Analysis of variance for difference between treatment groups, controlling for baseline score.|Analysis of Variance|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||0.56|-4.42|0.1284
91682241|NCT00390221|183254388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Mean Change|-4.27||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-1.78|||Analysis of Variance|Analysis of variance for difference between treatment groups, controlling for baseline score.||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||-1.78|-6.76|0.0008
91682242|NCT00918138|183254439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|3.2||Comparison between saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg and metformin 2000 mg significant at alpha =0.05 according to sequential testing procedure|ANCOVA|Change from baseline to week 4 was analyzed with ANCOVA including treatment group, baseline value and country in the model|Estimate = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg - adjusted mean change for metformin 2000 mg|With at least 36 participants per treatment group (72 total), there is 90% power to detect a difference of 18 mg/dL between the two treatment groups. Assuming approximately 20% of participants will discontinue without any valid post-randomization assessment at Week 4, a total of 90 participants (45 participants per treatment group) needed to be randomized.||3.2|-24.8|0.1278
91682243|NCT00918138|183254440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-7.7||Comparison between saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg and metformin 2000 mg significant at alpha =0.05 according to sequential testing procedure.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline to week 4 was analyzed with ANCOVA including treatment group, baseline value and country in the model|Estimate = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg - adjusted mean change for metformin 2000 mg.|||-7.7|-54.6|
91682244|NCT00918138|183254441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|8.5||Comparison between saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg and metformin 2000 mg significant at alpha =0.05 according to sequential testing procedure.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline to week 4 was analyzed with ANCOVA including treatment group, baseline value and country in the model.|Estimate = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg - adjusted mean change for metformin 2000 mg|||8.5|-20.0|
91682245|NCT02885181|183254470|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means of Differences|0.01||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.76|- 0.74|0.978
91682246|NCT02885181|183254470|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0||1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.16|- 0.36|0.300
91682247|NCT02885181|183254470|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|0.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||- 0.43|- 1.92|0.002
91718735|NCT00885118|183330063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|0.43|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||0.430|-1.189|0.3544
91794506|NCT00491556|183467956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|213.77||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.98|132.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||132.90|-51.98|0.3739
91682248|NCT02885181|183254471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-5.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|-36.0|0.660
91682249|NCT02885181|183254471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-15.9||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|13.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.8|-44.7|0.277
91682250|NCT02885181|183254471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|40.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|65.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.6|10.7|0.009
91682251|NCT02885181|183254472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-2.7||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-32.0|0.853
91682252|NCT02885181|183254472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-2.7||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-32.0|0.852
91863065|NCT06044090|183613737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.856
91863066|NCT06044090|183613737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.613
91718736|NCT00885118|183330063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.171|-0.516|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-0.516|-2.171|0.0018
91718737|NCT00885118|183330063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.094|-0.419|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-0.419|-2.094|0.0037
91718738|NCT00885118|183330064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-95.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.388|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.995|-64.833|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-64.833|-125.995|<0.0001
91718739|NCT00885118|183330064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-109.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.633|-80.327|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-80.327|-138.633|<0.0001
91718740|NCT00885118|183330064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-131.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.848|-100.824|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-100.824|-161.848|<0.0001
91718741|NCT00885118|183330064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-136.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.357|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.86|-105.823|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-105.823|-166.860|<0.0001
91718742|NCT00885118|183330065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.152||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|48.805|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||48.805|-3.470|0.0883
91903400|NCT00232141|183701694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.9731||95.0|-0.57|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.59|-0.57|0.9731
91718743|NCT00885118|183330065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.941||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.859|56.293|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||56.293|4.859|0.0203
91718744|NCT00885118|183330065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.289||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.434|32.382|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||32.382|-20.434|0.6541
91718745|NCT00885118|183330065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.612||0.4206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.036|38.066|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||38.066|-16.036|0.4206
91718746|NCT00885118|183330066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.869|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.066||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.949|-0.789|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-0.789|-16.949|0.0318
91718747|NCT00885118|183330066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.966||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.225|-6.462|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-6.462|-22.225|0.0005
91718748|NCT00885118|183330066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.131||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.853|-7.432|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-7.432|-23.853|0.0003
91718749|NCT00885118|183330066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.137||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.339|-1.897|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-1.897|-18.339|0.0164
91718750|NCT01265498|183330109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status.|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.8|1.3|0.0002
91718751|NCT01265498|183330110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.6|0.9|0.08
91718752|NCT01265498|183330111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.7|1.1|0.004
91718753|NCT01265498|183330112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.01
91863067|NCT06044090|183613738|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
91903401|NCT00232141|183701694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9045||95.0|-0.61|0.69||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.69|-0.61|0.9045
91863068|NCT06044090|183613738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.691
91863069|NCT06044090|183613739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.225
91863070|NCT06044090|183613739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.667
91863071|NCT02969707|183613762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test||Examining the Change in sum of positive z-transformed CC.||||0.035
91863072|NCT02969707|183613762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||2-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Examining the change in sum of all z-transformed CC.||||0.7
91863073|NCT02969707|183613762|SUPERIORITY|2-sample t-test||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Examining the change in sum of negative z-transformed CC.||||0.11
91718754|NCT01265498|183330113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
91682253|NCT02885181|183254472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.5|-6.6|0.092
91682254|NCT02885181|183254473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-8.6||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|22.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.5|-37.9|0.360
91682255|NCT02885181|183254473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.4||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.7|-28.0|0.896
91682256|NCT02885181|183254473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.5||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|50.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.1|-6.6|0.072
91682257|NCT02885181|183254474|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|-0.12||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.25|-0.49|0.528
91682258|NCT02885181|183254474|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|0.2||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.57|-0.17|0.293
91682259|NCT02885181|183254474|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|-0.33||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.03|-0.70|0.072
91682260|NCT04562155|183254521|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0345||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: Emax model (ED50=30) Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0345
91682261|NCT04562155|183254521|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0376||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: Emax model (ED50=50) Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0376
91682262|NCT04562155|183254521|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0319||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: sigm. Emax model (ED50=30, h=3) sigm = sigmoidal h = hill parameter Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0319
91682263|NCT04562155|183254521|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0603||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: sigm. Emax model (ED50=60, h=5) sigm = sigmoidal h = hill parameter Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0603
91682264|NCT04005352|183254546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||with significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91682265|NCT04005352|183254547|NON_INFERIORITY|4 letter margin (1-sided)|Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||ANOVA|||||1.5|-1.3|<0.0001
91682266|NCT04005352|183254548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91682267|NCT04005352|183254549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91718755|NCT01265498|183330114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.1|1.0|0.03
91682268|NCT04005352|183254550|SUPERIORITY|Week 14|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.7|||likelihood ratio test|Assessed at one-sided 0.025 significance level||||2.7|0.9|0.0510
91682269|NCT04005352|183254550|SUPERIORITY|Week 16|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.9|||likelihood ratio test|Assessed at one-sided 0.025 significance level||||3.9|1.7|<0.0001
91682270|NCT04005352|183254553|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5||p-value for treatment difference|ANOVA|||||1.5|-1.9|0.8137
91682271|NCT04005352|183254554|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||likelihood ratio test|adjusting for baseline BCVA categories (\<55, 55-\<73, ≥73 letters).||||1.3|0.7|0.4106
91682272|NCT04005352|183254554|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||likelihood ratio test|adjusting for baseline BCVA categories (\<55, 55-\<73, ≥73 letters).||||1.4|0.7|0.4667
91682273|NCT04005352|183254555|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.2397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||likelihood ratio test|assessed at the 0.025 significance level||||1.7|0.8|0.2397
91682274|NCT04005352|183254555|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8|||likelihood ratio test|assessed at the 0.025 significance level||||1.8|0.9|0.1150
91682275|NCT04005352|183254556|SUPERIORITY|Weeks 28 and 32|Difference|-26.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.87||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-7.5|||ANOVA|||||-7.5|-46.3|0.0066
91682276|NCT04005352|183254556|SUPERIORITY|Weeks 60 and 64|Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.26||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||||6.7|-37.6|0.1714
91682277|NCT04005352|183254559|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.2|0.193
91682278|NCT04005352|183254559|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.9|0.052
91682279|NCT04005352|183254560|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|2.16||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-0.3|0.081
91682280|NCT04005352|183254560|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.2|0.590
91682281|NCT04005352|183254561|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.77||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-1.8|0.558
91682282|NCT04005352|183254561|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-4.5|0.138
91682283|NCT04005352|183254562|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-1.4|0.287
91682284|NCT04005352|183254562|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-6.2|0.070
91682285|NCT04005352|183254563|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|-0.71||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-3.4|0.602
91682286|NCT04005352|183254563|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-5.3|0.086
91682287|NCT04005352|183254564|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.55||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.8|||ANCOVA|||||3.8|-0.7|0.174
91682288|NCT04005352|183254564|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-3.8|0.210
91682289|NCT04005352|183254565|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.8|0.499
91682290|NCT04005352|183254565|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-5.4|0.147
91682291|NCT04005352|183254566|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.88||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-2.8|0.643
91682292|NCT04005352|183254566|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-5.0|0.507
91718756|NCT01265498|183330115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.0|-0.5|0.03
91682293|NCT04005352|183254567|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|||||3.0|-2.0|0.700
91682294|NCT04005352|183254567|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-6.0|0.070
91682295|NCT04005352|183254568|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-3.6|0.741
91682296|NCT04005352|183254568|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-6.6|0.494
91682297|NCT04005352|183254569|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.76||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-0.0|0.054
91682298|NCT04005352|183254569|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.4|0.331
91682299|NCT04005352|183254570|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.1|-1.6|0.394
91682300|NCT04005352|183254570|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-3.6|0.728
91682301|NCT00176423|183254580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91682302|NCT00176423|183254581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91682303|NCT00176423|183254582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91682304|NCT00176423|183254583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91682305|NCT01755767|183254589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8006|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank between treatment arms adjusted for stratification factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||||0.8006
91682306|NCT01755767|183254589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9682||||0.8061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7483|1.2529|||Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox Regression between treatment arms adjusted for factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||1.2529|0.7483|0.8061
91682307|NCT01755767|183254591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank between treatment arms adjusted for stratification factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||||0.7509
91682308|NCT01755767|183254591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9557||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7487|1.22|||Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression between treatment arms adjusted for factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||1.2200|0.7487|0.7160
91682309|NCT00998309|183254603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participatns of responders."||||=0.001
91682310|NCT00998309|183254604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years  in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
91682311|NCT00998309|183254605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was type of infection. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang Skin and Soft Tissue Infection, Sexual Transmitted Infection, and Dental and Oral Surgery Infection in the participatns of responders."||||<0.001
91682312|NCT00998309|183254606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.556|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Infection severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang mild infection, moderate infection, and severe infection in the participatns of responders."||||=0.556
91682313|NCT00998309|183254607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was hepatic dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without hepatic dysfunction in the participatns of responders."||||=0.074
91682314|NCT00998309|183254608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal dysfunction in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
91682315|NCT00998309|183254609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past medical history. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
91682316|NCT00998309|183254610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications  in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
91682317|NCT00998309|183254611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was previous antibiotic treatment history. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without previous antibiotic treatment history in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
91903402|NCT00232141|183701694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.8298||95.0|-0.53|0.66||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.66|-0.53|0.8298
91682318|NCT00998309|183254612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was comcomittant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without comcomittant drugs in the participatns of responders."||||=0.470
91682319|NCT00998309|183254613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was non-drug therapy. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without non-drug therapy in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
91682320|NCT00998309|183254616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.657|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.657
91682321|NCT00998309|183254617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years or \>=65 in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.145
91682322|NCT00998309|183254618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Type of Infection. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang Skin and Soft Tissue Infection, Sexual Transmitted Infection, and Dental or Oral Surgery Infection in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.005
91682323|NCT00998309|183254619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Infection severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang mild infection, moderate infection, or severe infection in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.213
91682324|NCT00998309|183254620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91682325|NCT00998309|183254621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.116
91682326|NCT00998309|183254622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past Medical History. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Past Medical History in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||<0.001
91682327|NCT00998309|183254623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.645
91682328|NCT00998309|183254624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.679|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was previous antibiotic treatment history (PATH). The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without previous antibiotic treatment history (PTH) in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.679
91682329|NCT00998309|183254625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.234|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was comcomittant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without comcomittant drugs in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.234
91682330|NCT00998309|183254626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was non-drug therapy. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without non-drug therapy in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.039
91682331|NCT00998309|183254627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.605|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Pregnancy in Female. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Pregnancy in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs) in Female."||||=0.605
91682332|NCT04154631|183254694|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-10.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Immediate TranS-C (Standard/Adapted combined) versus UC-DT on change in sleep disturbance from pre to post.||||<0.001
91682333|NCT04154631|183254694|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.17||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.95|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||4.95|-4.62|0.95
91718757|NCT01265498|183330116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs. placebo|||2.3|1.2|0.001
91682334|NCT04154631|183254694|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.09||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.56|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.56|-2.39|0.95
91682335|NCT04154631|183254694|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.16||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.98|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.98|-2.31|0.88
91682336|NCT04154631|183254694|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.13||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.31|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.31|-3.10|0.88
91718758|NCT01265498|183330117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|0.0004
91718759|NCT01265498|183330118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs. placebo|||2.2|1.1|0.006
91682337|NCT04154631|183254694|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.5||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.66|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.66|-2.18|0.79
91682338|NCT04154631|183254694|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.26||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.66|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.66|-2.18|0.79
91682339|NCT04154631|183254695|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.03||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment effect (Standard versus Adapted TranS-C) on change in Acceptability Intervention Measure (AIM) from baseline (post-training) to post-treatment.||||0.77
91682340|NCT04154631|183254696|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-9.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in sleep-related impairment from pre to post.||||<0.001
91682341|NCT04154631|183254696|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.26||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|5.56|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||5.56|-5.04|0.92
91682342|NCT04154631|183254696|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|2.24|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.24|-2.04|0.92
91682343|NCT04154631|183254696|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.39||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.31|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.31|-3.10|0.78
91682344|NCT04154631|183254696|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.75|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.75|-2.35|0.78
91682345|NCT04154631|183254696|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.43||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|3.8|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||3.80|-4.66|0.84
91682346|NCT04154631|183254696|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.58|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.58|-1.94|0.84
91682347|NCT04154631|183254697|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in Composite Sleep Health Score from pre to post.||||<0.001
91682348|NCT04154631|183254698|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in functional impairment from pre to post.||||<0.001
91682349|NCT04154631|183254698|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.66|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-1.66|-4.58|<0.001
91682350|NCT04154631|183254698|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-2.22|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI). The parameter of interest was the indirect effect at post||-2.22|-5.41|<0.001
91682351|NCT04154631|183254698|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.07||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.92|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.92|-1.78|0.94
91682352|NCT04154631|183254698|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.05||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.25|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.25|-1.16|0.94
91682353|NCT04154631|183254698|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.37|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.37|-0.30|0.85
91718760|NCT01265498|183330119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0006
91718761|NCT01265498|183330120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs. placebo|||1.7|0.6|0.90
91718762|NCT01265498|183330121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.2|-0.1|0.59
91718763|NCT01265498|183330122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-11.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-11|-28|<0.0001
91718764|NCT01265498|183330123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-6|-18|0.0001
91718765|NCT01265498|183330124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||24|13|<0.0001
91718766|NCT01265498|183330125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-14|-35|<0.0001
91718767|NCT01265498|183330126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.5|-2.4|0.002
91718768|NCT01265498|183330127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.60|0.16|0.0009
91718769|NCT01265498|183330128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.01|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.01|-0.10|0.01
91718770|NCT01265498|183330129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.65|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.65|0.26|<0.0001
91718771|NCT01265498|183330130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.30|-0.35|0.88
91718772|NCT01265498|183330131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.6|-1.8|0.72
91718773|NCT01265498|183330132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.01|-0.01|0.71
91718774|NCT01265498|183330133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.4|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.4|-1.8|0.002
91718775|NCT01265498|183330134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.4|-0.2|0.40
91718776|NCT01265498|183330135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|26.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||26|7|0.001
91718777|NCT01265498|183330136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.1|-1.4|0.03
91903403|NCT00232141|183701695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8605||95.0|-0.52|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.44|-0.52|0.8605
91718778|NCT01265498|183330137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.04|0.00|0.04
91718779|NCT01265498|183330138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.05|-0.03|0.53
91718780|NCT01265498|183330139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||5.0|0.2|0.03
91718781|NCT01265498|183330140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|29.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||29|0|0.05
91718782|NCT01265498|183330141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.2|-1.2|0.13
91718783|NCT01265498|183330142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||1.6|-0.5|0.31
91718784|NCT01265498|183330143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.1|-0.6|0.16
91718785|NCT01265498|183330144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.01|-0.04|0.002
91718786|NCT01265498|183330145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.8|-0.2|0.26
91718787|NCT01265498|183330146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|69.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||69|6|0.02
91718788|NCT01265498|183330147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|23.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||23|3|0.01
91718789|NCT01265498|183330148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.6|-1.7|0.71
91718790|NCT01265498|183330149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.6|-3.7|0.008
91718791|NCT01265498|183330150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.2|-1.3|0.01
91718792|NCT01265498|183330151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||1.5|-2.2|0.70
91718793|NCT01265498|183330152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.02|-0.01|0.57
91863074|NCT02969707|183613762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|61.98||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample(paired) t-test||Examining the change in positive functional connectivity between the L-DLPFC and the dACC within the active group from pre to post TMS.||||0.008
91718794|NCT01265498|183330153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0|-7|0.05
91718795|NCT01265498|183330154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||1|-4|0.23
91718796|NCT01265498|183330155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||3|-1|0.22
91718797|NCT01265498|183330156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2|-3|0.65
91718798|NCT01373164|183330196|SUPERIORITY|The planned primary analysis for this study utilized a Bayesian exponential-likelihood model, incorporating historical overall survival (OS) data from 2 studies (Oettle et al. 2005; Saif et al. 2009). The primary analysis was performed using strong borrowing from the historical data. The model was estimated to borrow approximately 37 events from the historical studies.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.085|||Bayesian Analysis|Primary comparison was to be considered successful if there was at least 0.85 posterior probability that the hazard ratio (HR) for OS of LY+Gem is \<1.|This is a Credible Interval estimated from the Bayesian analysis.|||1.085|0.590|
91718799|NCT03055013|183330214|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.22|||Log Rank|stratified logrank test (one-sided)|hazard ratio : arm A vs. arm B|||1.22|0.74|0.34
91718800|NCT02765035|183330250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||C-Leg 3 vs. NMPK (Baseline)||||0.01
91718801|NCT02765035|183330250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||C-Leg 4 vs. NMPK (Baseline)||||0.04
91718802|NCT01259245|183330274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.012||Regression coefficients from ANCOVA for Tai Chi intervention (PRP as reference) at 6 months after adjusted for baseline value of the outcome variable, age, sex, BMI, smoking and education|ANCOVA|||||0.012|-0.046|0.252
91718803|NCT01259245|183330275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.442||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|0.447|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, education, BMI and smoking||power0.80 for a medium effect size at 5% level of significance||0.447|-0.438|0.984
91718804|NCT01259245|183330276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.433||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.061|4.805|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, education, BMI and education||power of 0.80 for a medium effect size at 5% level of significance||4.805|-4.061|0.869
91863075|NCT02969707|183613764|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U statistic|601.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U-test 2-tailed|||Non-parametric analysis, comparison of change (post-treatment minus pre-treatment)||||0.046
91863076|NCT02969707|183613764|OTHER||Cohen's R|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimate of effect size|Non-parametric analysis, comparison of change (post-treatment minus pre-treatment)||||
91863077|NCT02969707|183613765|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|Mann-Whitney U statistic|702.5|||=|0.412|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U-test 2-tailed|||Pre- to post-rTMS change in HIS scores were calculated for both Active and Sham conditions. Two-tailed t-tests were used to evaluate the difference between the two conditions' change scores.||||=.412
91863078|NCT02969707|183613768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test||||||0.037
91682354|NCT04154631|183254698|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.23||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.95|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.95|-1.41|0.70
91682355|NCT04154631|183254698|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.25|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.25|-0.23|0.92
91682356|NCT04154631|183254698|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.54|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.54|-0.68|0.82
91682357|NCT04154631|183254699|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-6.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in psychiatric symptoms from pre to post.||||<0.001
91682358|NCT04154631|183254699|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-1.86||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.21|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.21|-3.93|0.08
91682359|NCT04154631|183254699|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-2.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.44|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.44|-4.58|0.02
91682360|NCT04154631|183254699|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.05||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.08|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.08|-1.99|0.97
91682361|NCT04154631|183254699|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.004||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.19|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.19|-0.18|0.97
91682362|NCT04154631|183254699|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.3|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.30|-0.27|0.90
91682363|NCT04154631|183254699|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.2|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.20|-0.19|0.94
91682364|NCT04154631|183254699|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.19||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.28|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.28|-1.67|0.80
91682365|NCT04154631|183254699|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.04||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.25|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.25|-0.33|0.77
91682366|NCT04154631|183254700|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment effect (Standard versus Adapted TranS-C) on change in Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) from baseline (post-training) to post-treatment.||||0.94
91682367|NCT04154631|183254701|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.11||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment effect (Standard versus Adapted TranS-C) on change in Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) from baseline (post-training) to post-treatment.||||0.34
91682368|NCT05187013|183254723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|-1.73|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: No improvement between baseline and final SBP, i.e., Final SBP - Baseline SBP \>= 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Final SBP - Baseline SBP \<0 Power calculation: Based on the data, the mean and SD of the change in SBP are -7.16 and 21.40, respectively. Using a one-sided paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05, we should have a power of 83.16%||-1.73|-12.59|0.006
91682369|NCT05187013|183254723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|0.49|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: No improvement between baseline and final DBP, i.e., Final DBP - Baseline DBP \>= 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Final DBP - Baseline DBP \<0 Power calculation: Based on the data, the mean and SD of the change in SBP are -2.15 and 10.49, respectively. Using a one-sided paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05, we should have a power of 51.48%||0.49|-4.79|0.056
91863079|NCT02969707|183613768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
91863080|NCT02969707|183613768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91682370|NCT05187013|183254723|EQUIVALENCE|The margin was considered to be 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|7.42|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SBP and follow-up time|The parameter was defined as the change in SBP for the general health education arm - the change in SBP for the HTN specific education arm adjusted for follow-up time and baseline SBP|"Null hypothesis: No difference between the change in SBP between the two arms~Power calculation: With our sample size, we expect to have 80% power as long as the effect size is at least 0.72 at a 5% level."||7.42|-8.76|0.87
91682371|NCT05187013|183254723|EQUIVALENCE|The margin was taken to be 0|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|4.98|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline DBP and follow-up time|The parameter was defined as the change in DBP for the general health education arm - the change in DBP for the HTN specific education arm adjusted for follow-up time and baseline SBP|"Null hypothesis: No difference between the change in DBP between the two arms~Power calculation: With our sample size, we expect to have 80% power as long as the effect size is at least 0.72 at a 5% level."||4.98|-3.02|0.63
91682372|NCT05187013|183254724|EQUIVALENCE|The margin is taken to be 0|Odds Ratio, log|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|A mixed effect model with study arm as a fixed effect and subject-specific random effect.|For OR: the general education arm was taken as the baseline (denominator)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference in medicine adherence between the two groups||2.29|-0.26|0.14
91682373|NCT05187013|183254725|EQUIVALENCE|The margin was taken to be 0.|Odds Ratio, log|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.19|||Regression, Logistic|Binomial regression for appointment attended/appointment scheduled.|The baseline (denominator) was taken to be the general education arm.|Null hypothesis: No difference in appointment adherence between the study arms||0.19|-0.58|0.32
91682374|NCT01568320|183254734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Freedom from Major adverse events (%)|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|82.0|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Method|||82|59|
91682375|NCT01568320|183254735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Survival rate (%)|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|99.0|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Method|||99|87|
91682376|NCT03233230|183254736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.61|0.84|0.1746
91682377|NCT03233230|183254736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.61|0.8283
91682378|NCT03233230|183254736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|0.88|0.1298
91682379|NCT03233230|183254737|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.13||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.04|0.0077
91682380|NCT03233230|183254737|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.17||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.27|0.07|0.0013
91682381|NCT03233230|183254737|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.13||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.04|0.0080
91682382|NCT03233230|183254738|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|0.03|0.0056
91682383|NCT03233230|183254738|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|0.03|0.0050
91682384|NCT03233230|183254738|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|0.03|0.0053
91682385|NCT03233230|183254739|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.03|0.1419
91682386|NCT03233230|183254739|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.07||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.05|0.2202
91682387|NCT03233230|183254739|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.07||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.05|0.2328
91682388|NCT03233230|183254740|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.06||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.15|-0.02|0.1232
91682389|NCT03233230|183254740|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.05||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.14|-0.03|0.1725
91682390|NCT03233230|183254740|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.05||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.13|-0.03|0.1795
91682391|NCT03233230|183254748|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.04|
91682392|NCT03233230|183254748|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.03|
91682393|NCT03233230|183254748|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
91682394|NCT03233230|183254749|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.02|
91682395|NCT03233230|183254749|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.00|
91682396|NCT03233230|183254749|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.03|
91682397|NCT03233230|183254750|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
91682398|NCT03233230|183254750|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||||0.10|0.00|
91682399|NCT03233230|183254750|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
91682400|NCT03233230|183254751|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.03|
91682401|NCT03233230|183254751|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.02|
91682402|NCT03233230|183254751|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31||||||||0.31|0.05|
91682403|NCT04159935|183254773|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
91682404|NCT04159935|183254774|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.057
91682405|NCT04159935|183254775|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91682406|NCT04159935|183254777|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
91682407|NCT04159935|183254778|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
91682408|NCT04159935|183254779|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
91682409|NCT04159935|183254780|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91682410|NCT04159935|183254781|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
91682411|NCT04159935|183254783|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.343
91682412|NCT04159935|183254784|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.700
91682413|NCT04159935|183254785|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
91793826|NCT00718237|183466069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (1-Relative Risk [RR])|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|94.1||Hypothesis: Efficacy \>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k); p = proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome; k = ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact Conditional Test|Exact Conditional Test based on Binomial Distribution|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group, adjusted for the ratio of the follow-up period in each group.|||94.1|47.4|<0.001
91903404|NCT00232141|183701695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8348||95.0|-0.58|0.47||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.47|-0.58|0.8348
91682414|NCT02472223|183254800|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|90.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91682415|NCT00206323|183254825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Primary variable change of TTS/YGTSS at the BSL to Day 70. Changes of YGTSS compared using analysis of covariance with score at day 1 as a covariate. Groups compared for incidence of AE's and of AESI based on Fisher's Exact Test. All tests were two-sided at the 5% level of significance.~The Total Tic Score is a summation of the Total Motor Tic and Total Phonic Tic Scores. The Overall Impairment Rating is rated on a 50-point scale anchored by 0 (No impairment) and 50 (Severe impairment)"||||0.0259
91682416|NCT03657342|183254870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.095||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.214||1-sided p value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at V9.||0.214|-0.405|0.7310
91682417|NCT03657342|183254871|SUPERIORITY||least suare mean difference|-0.064||||0.8041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.084||1-sided p value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimates were from a Linear Mixed Model on the response variable change from baseline in FEV1/FVC with factors for time splines, treatment, the interactions of time splines by treatment, baseline FEV1/FVC, the interactions of time splines with baseline FEV1/FVC, region (North America versus all other countries together), underlying indication for lung transplant (COPD versus all others), use of azithromycin at randomization, and time as random effect.||0.084|-0.212|0.8041
91682418|NCT03657342|183254872|SUPERIORITY||adjusted hazard ratio|2.601||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|16.585||1-sided p value. Adjusted Hazard Ratio calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates of Treatment, Baseline FEV1, with Efron's method of tie handling.|Regression, Cox|||||16.585|0.408|0.1559
91682419|NCT01753336|183254878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-6.28||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-6.28|-9.79|
91682420|NCT01753336|183254878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|-2.68||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-2.68|-7.36|
91682421|NCT01753336|183254878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|-4.47||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-4.47|-7.42|
91682422|NCT01753336|183254878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-0.27||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-0.27|-3.37|
91682423|NCT01753336|183254878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|-2.2||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||-2.20|-5.99|
91682424|NCT01753336|183254878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.81||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.81|-3.11|
91682425|NCT01753336|183254879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|-9.56||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-9.56|-13.38|
91682426|NCT01753336|183254879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|-6.71||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 12 visit for treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-6.71|-11.08|
91682427|NCT01753336|183254879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-12.11||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-12.11|-16.74|
91682428|NCT01753336|183254879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|-8.22||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-8.22|-12.92|
91718805|NCT01259245|183330277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.295|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.706||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.001|3.411|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium size effect at 5% level of significance||3.411|-6.001|0.588
91682429|NCT01753336|183254879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|-12.1||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 is presented.||-12.10|-17.18|
91682430|NCT01753336|183254879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|-9.39||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 is presented.||-9.39|-14.02|
91682431|NCT01753336|183254881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|-2.52||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-2.52|-4.46|
91682432|NCT01753336|183254881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.7||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.70|-2.81|
91682433|NCT01753336|183254881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-2.23||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-2.23|-3.75|
91682434|NCT01753336|183254881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.27||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||0.27|-1.33|
91682435|NCT01753336|183254881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.83||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||-1.83|-3.64|
91682436|NCT01753336|183254881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.02||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||-0.02|-2.00|
91682437|NCT01753336|183254882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-2.12||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-2.12|-3.64|
91682438|NCT01753336|183254882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.86||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12.The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.86|-2.79|
91682439|NCT01753336|183254882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.04||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-1.04|-2.44|
91682440|NCT01753336|183254882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.12||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-0.12|-1.55|
91682441|NCT01753336|183254882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.12||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.12|-1.45|
91682442|NCT01753336|183254882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.7||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12.The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.70|-0.85|
91682443|NCT01753336|183254883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.92||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.92|-2.39|
91682444|NCT01753336|183254883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.66||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.66|-2.22|
91682445|NCT01753336|183254883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.58||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4.The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-0.58|-1.84|
91903405|NCT00232141|183701695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2227||95.0|-0.83|0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.19|-0.83|0.2227
91682446|NCT01753336|183254883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.18||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||0.18|-1.08|
91682447|NCT01753336|183254883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.19||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.19|-1.57|
91682448|NCT01753336|183254883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.73||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.73|-0.85|
91682449|NCT01770392|183254910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|50.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.155|53.275||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|"The model includes fixed effect for treatment and effect subjects was considered as random"|"The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (in %).~The ratio has been calculated as (nintedanib+ rifampicin) divided by nintedanib (in %)"|||53.275|47.155|1.0000
91682450|NCT01770392|183254911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|59.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.829|66.348||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|"The model includes fixed effect for treatment and effect subjects was considered as random"|"The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (in %).~The ratio has been calculated as (nintedanib+ rifampicin) divided by nintedanib (in %)."|||66.348|53.829|1.0000
91682451|NCT01770392|183254912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|49.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.3||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.886|53.286||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|"The model includes fixed effect for treatment and effect subjects was considered as random"|"The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (in %).~The ratio has been calculated as (nintedanib+ rifampicin) divided by nintedanib (in %)."|||53.286|46.886|1.0000
91682452|NCT04682730|183254921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.58|0.18
91682453|NCT04682730|183254923|OTHER|single intervention group across 16 clinics|mean total program costs in 2021 dollars|7845.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6378.0|9312.0|||||An opportunity cost approach was used. Costs estimated: Develop workbook- guideline, EHR data analyses, survey, evidence review- \& print; facilitator training/delivery/program tailoring; staff time; implemented strategies; dental sealant placements.|Mean Total Program costs per clinic for the KPNW Dental system.||9312|6378|
91682454|NCT04682730|183254927|OTHER|single intervention group across 16 clinics|mean total costs/per clinic per sealant|1321.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1245.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|845.0|3208.0|||||Total cost per sealant calculated as quotient of total intervention costs ($125,521) \& total sealants placed (95), is = to mean cost/sealant across each clinic ($7845/5.938).|Mean Total Program costs per sealant per clinic for the KPNW Dental system.||3208|845|
91682455|NCT04682730|183254929|OTHER|descriptive analysis|percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||89/89 treatment plans completed by the end of the period.|||
91682456|NCT00620659|183254970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included terms for period and treatment.||||||0.615
91682457|NCT00620659|183254971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 minutes. If the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for MK0249 minus modafinil 200 mg was greater than -1.5 minutes, non-inferiority would be established.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.92|-2.3||||||||-2.30|-5.92|
91682458|NCT00620659|183254972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 minutes. If the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for MK0249 minus modafinil 200 mg was greater than -1.5 minutes, non-inferiority would be established.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|-2.38||||||||-2.38|-5.23|
91682459|NCT00620659|183254973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included terms for period and treatment.||||||0.079
91682460|NCT00620659|183254974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included terms for period and treatment.||||||0.003
91682461|NCT02352779|183254975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6763|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4843||0.1666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||BFI-SF||||0.1666
91682462|NCT02352779|183254975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4567||0.1329|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||BFI-SF||||0.1329
91682463|NCT02352779|183254975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8065||0.9826|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||MFSI-SF||||0.9826
91682464|NCT02352779|183254975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5448||0.4016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||MFSI-SF||||0.4016
91682465|NCT01540773|183254985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91682466|NCT01540773|183254986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91682467|NCT03867097|183255007|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference in change|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.047||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|7.49|||ANCOVA||The Shapiro-Wilk normality test of residuals indicated that the data did not have a normal distribution (p-value 0.0108).|"Treatment comparison of change versus placebo. LS mean difference in change. When a subject had no RP attacks in the past 24 hours, the frequency was considered as zero for that day.~The LS means, SEs, CIs, and p-values came from an ANCOVA model with randomized treatment group and use of phosphodiesterase inhibitors at screening (yes, no) as factors and baseline as a covariate."||7.49|-9.04|0.8498
91682468|NCT03867097|183255007|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.9729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|9.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Change in the Weekly Frequency of Symptomatic Raynaud's Phenomenon Attacks From Baseline to the Double-Blind Endpoint Using Nonparametric Analysis - Modified Intent-to-Treat Population.~Treatment comparison of change versus placebo."||9.32|-9.97|0.9729
91682469|NCT01398943|183255010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91682470|NCT01398943|183255010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91682471|NCT01398943|183255011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91682472|NCT01398943|183255011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91682473|NCT00191113|183255054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline height SDS, baseline age, treatment, and interactions. Age and interaction terms removed when not significant.|"Effect direction is As-Randomized Humatrope minus As-Randomized Control"|This component of the primary analysis is inferential i.e. to ascertain definitively whether Humatrope treatment affects change in Height SDS (NCHS). Null hypothesis is no effect of Humatrope treatment.||1.1|0.7|<0.001
91794299|NCT02131532|183467575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.264||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.594|5.844||The critical level was adjusted for the multiple comparisons for the eight subscales of the Stroke Impact Scale|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in hand function scores between baseline and three-month assessments||5.844|-9.594|0.58
91682474|NCT00191113|183255055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001||95.0|0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline height SDS, baseline age, treatment, and interactions. Age and interactions terms removed when not significant.|"Effect direction is As-Treated Growth Hormone minus As-Treated No Growth Hormone"|Estimation analysis of the magnitude of effect of treatment with growth hormone upon Final Height. Null hypothesis is no effect of growth hormone upon attained height standard deviation score (National Center for Health Statistics).||1.2|0.9|<0.001
91682475|NCT00191113|183255056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||<|0.001||95.0|0.9|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|0.9|<0.001
91682476|NCT00191113|183255057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.001||95.0|5.7|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.1|5.7|<0.001
91682477|NCT00191113|183255058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91682478|NCT00191113|183255059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.744
91682479|NCT00191113|183255060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.073
91682480|NCT00191113|183255061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportion of patients with any category of hearing loss between As-Treated Growth Hormone group and As-Treated No Growth Hormone.||||>0.999
91682481|NCT00191113|183255062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.492||||0.419||95.0|-8.631|3.646|||ANOVA||Direction of estimated treatment effect is Humatrope minus Control|||3.646|-8.631|0.419
91682482|NCT00191113|183255064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.545
91682483|NCT00191113|183255066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91682484|NCT00191113|183255068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91682485|NCT00191113|183255069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.945||95.0|-0.199|0.186|||ANOVA||Direction of estimated treatment effect is Humatrope minus Control|||0.186|-0.199|0.945
91682486|NCT00191113|183255071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0||||P-value cannot be computed since no patients had abnormal result in either comparison group.|Fisher Exact|||||||
91682487|NCT01555671|183255076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
91682488|NCT00631657|183255079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|48.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|62.5|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA performed with fixed effects for treatment and (pooled) center as factors and baseline TST as covariate.|||62.5|35.0|<0.0001
91682489|NCT00631657|183255082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.9||||0.2145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.8|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA performed with fixed effects for treatment and (pooled) center as factors and baseline SL as covariate.|||2.8|-12.6|0.2145
91682490|NCT00631657|183255083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-15.4|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA performed with fixed effects for treatment and (pooled) center as factors and baseline WASO as covariate.|||-15.4|-34.5|<0.0001
91682491|NCT00806286|183255117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-value is calculated by dividing the square of the treatment group difference on the log-log scale by the standard error of the difference and referring the result to the standard normal distribution.|Z-test||The estimated value represents the difference in treatments (%).|||||<0.0001
91682492|NCT00806286|183255117|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.579||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.5|||Regression, Cox|||||2.5|1.0|0.0499
91682493|NCT00806286|183255118|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided p-value is calculated by dividing the square of the treatment group difference on the log-log scale by the standard error of the difference and referring the result to the standard normal distribution.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-test||The estimated value represents the difference in treatments (%).|||||<0.0001
91682494|NCT04713553|183255140|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.13|0.91|
91682495|NCT04713553|183255140|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% CI for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.04|0.83|
91682496|NCT04713553|183255140|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% CI for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.03|0.82|
91682497|NCT04713553|183255141|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% CI for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.07|0.84|
91682498|NCT04713553|183255142|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of the 20 mcg dose to the corresponding 30 mcg dose was said to be achieved if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is \>0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02|||||GMRs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group|||1.02|0.84|
91682499|NCT03151408|183255198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8275||||||P-value stratified by cytogenetic risk factor and ECOG performance status|Log Rank|||||||0.8275
91682500|NCT03151408|183255199|OTHER|||||||0.1244|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1244
91682501|NCT03151408|183255200|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1430
91903406|NCT00232141|183701695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4753||95.0|-0.73|0.34||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.34|-0.73|0.4753
91682502|NCT03151408|183255201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9977|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9977
91682503|NCT03151408|183255202|OTHER|||||||0.9959|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9959
91682504|NCT03151408|183255203|OTHER|||||||0.3502|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3502
91682505|NCT03151408|183255204|OTHER|||||||0.0502|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0502
91682506|NCT03151408|183255206|OTHER|||||||0.4656|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4656
91682507|NCT03151408|183255207|OTHER|||||||0.7063|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7063
91682508|NCT03151408|183255208|OTHER|||||||0.0592|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0592
91682509|NCT03151408|183255209|OTHER|||||||0.3835|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3835
91682510|NCT03151408|183255210|OTHER|||||||0.7099|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7099
91682511|NCT00265395|183255211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR Rate Difference|-4.9||||0.6445||95.0|-20.4|10.6|||Asymptotic Z-test|||||10.6|-20.4|0.6445
91682512|NCT03400943|183255212|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Number of subjects per treatment: 41 (Vilaprisan) / 20 (Placebo).|Vilaprisan (A1) and Vilaprisan+Placebo (B2) combined vs. Placebo+Vilaprisan (B1) in treatment period 1||0.78|0.33|<.0001
91682513|NCT02045147|183255232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|10.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.65|-4.98|0.463
91682514|NCT02045147|183255232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|8.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.49|-5.23|0.634
91682515|NCT02045147|183255232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|13.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.32|-3.74|0.259
91682516|NCT02045147|183255232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|6.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.84|-3.21|0.472
91682517|NCT02045147|183255233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.5|-8.5|0.532
91682518|NCT02045147|183255233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.2|-7.5|0.574
91682519|NCT02045147|183255233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|-12.3|0.254
91682520|NCT02045147|183255233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.6|-6.3|0.759
91682521|NCT02045147|183255234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.7|-2.1|0.153
91682522|NCT02045147|183255234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.5|-7.9|0.729
91682523|NCT02045147|183255234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-6.6|0.886
91682524|NCT02045147|183255234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.9|-8.7|0.446
91682525|NCT02045147|183255235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.1|-5.7|0.521
91682526|NCT02045147|183255235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.5|-1.5|0.146
91682527|NCT02045147|183255235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.3|-8.5|0.926
91682528|NCT02045147|183255235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.3|-6.4|0.526
91682529|NCT02045147|183255236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.9|-9.2|0.776
91682530|NCT02045147|183255236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.7|-1.6|0.135
91682531|NCT02045147|183255236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.0|-10.9|0.556
91682532|NCT02045147|183255236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.9|-2.9|0.361
91682533|NCT02045147|183255237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|11.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.6|-6.4|0.564
91682534|NCT02045147|183255237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.3|-3.0|0.307
91682535|NCT02045147|183255237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-6.7|0.768
91682536|NCT02045147|183255237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.5|-4.2|0.785
91682537|NCT02045147|183255238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.8|-7.5|0.917
91682538|NCT02045147|183255238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.3|-2.2|0.181
91682539|NCT02045147|183255238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.3|-6.3|0.772
91682540|NCT02045147|183255238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.3|-3.8|0.526
91682541|NCT02045147|183255239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.9|-.8|0.872
91682542|NCT02045147|183255239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.34|-.87|0.387
91682543|NCT02045147|183255239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.81|-.37|0.916
91682544|NCT02045147|183255239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.94|-.19|0.189
91682545|NCT02045147|183255240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.13|-.21|0.627
91682546|NCT02045147|183255240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.09|-.11|0.840
91682547|NCT02045147|183255240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.00|-.22|0.049
91682548|NCT02045147|183255240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.06|-.06|0.952
91682549|NCT02045147|183255241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|25.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.00|-11.07|.436
91682550|NCT02045147|183255241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.24|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.80|-25.24|.088
91682551|NCT02045147|183255241|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.86|4.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.77|-25.86|0.169
91682552|NCT02045147|183255241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|5.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.37|-12.79|0.416
91682553|NCT00049530|183255242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||bionomial proportion test|||It is of interest to test the null hypothesis of 10% plasma b-FGF response rate versus the alternative hypothesis of 30% response rate. Based on the sample size of 30 eligible patients, there will be 84% power to detect this 20% difference in b-FGF response rates. This was based on a two-sided type I error of .05, using the one-sample binomial test.||||<0.001
91682554|NCT06017479|183255260|OTHER|"Chi-square test as the study used chi-square analysis to compare the incidence of UTIs between the groups (p = 0.660) For this non-inferiority analysis, the study demonstrated that the odds ratio (OR) between the two groups was 0.8 (95% CI: 0.4-1.95), indicating no significant difference. Further details are provided in the study's discussion section."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.125||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.95||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons as there were no multiple outcome measures being compared in this analysis. The significance threshold (alpha) was set at 0.05.|Chi-squared||"The standard deviations (SD) for the groups are as follows:~For the group receiving 3g fosfomycin: 19.08 For the group receiving 500mg levofloxacin: 17.17"|This randomized controlled trial compared the incidence of UTI between two groups: patients receiving a single dose of 500 mg levofloxacin and patients receiving a single dose of 3 g fosfomycin one hour before a urodynamic study. The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in UTI incidence between the two groups. The power calculation was based on a sample size of 126 patients.|A chi-square test was performed to compare the incidence of UTIs between the two groups: patients receiving a single dose of 500 mg levofloxacin and those receiving a single dose of 3 g fosfomycin, both administered one hour before the urodynamic study (UDS). The result showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.660). An odds ratio was also calculated (OR = 0.8, 95% CI: 0.4-1.95), indicating a slightly lower likelihood of UTI in the fosfomycin group, but the difference was not significant.|1.95|0.4|0.660
91682555|NCT00936897|183255261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Ibandronate|||1.8|1.0|<0.0001
91682556|NCT00936897|183255262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91682557|NCT00936897|183255263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Ibandronate|||1.7|0.7|<0.0001
91682558|NCT00936897|183255264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.5|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Ibandronate|||2.5|1.5|<0.0001
91682559|NCT04058067|183255270|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.1|-3.7|0.013
91682560|NCT04058067|183255271|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-4.2|0.035
91682561|NCT04058067|183255273|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.8|-3.0|
91682562|NCT04058067|183255274|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.2|||ANOVA|||||0.2|-4.0|
91682563|NCT04058067|183255275|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.2|||ANOVA|||||0.2|-4.3|
91682564|NCT04058067|183255278|SUPERIORITY||DIfference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥5 letters gain from baseline or reached BCVA of ≥84 letters at Week 52||6.7|-13.7|
91682565|NCT04058067|183255278|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥10 letters gain from baseline or reached BCVA of ≥84 letters at Week 52||9.4|-14.7|
91682566|NCT04058067|183255278|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥15 letters gain from baseline or reached BCVA of ≥84 letters at Week 52||6.9|-15.5|
91682567|NCT04058067|183255282|SUPERIORITY||DIfference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥5 letters loss from baseline at Week 52||4.4|-4.2|
91682568|NCT04058067|183255282|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥10 letters loss from baseline at Week 52||3.8|-1.6|
91682569|NCT04058067|183255282|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥15 letters loss from baseline at Week 52||2.3|-2.2|
91682570|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 4|Difference - %|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 4||8.6|-7.9|
91682571|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 6|Difference - %|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 6||2.9|-14.3|
91682572|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 8|Difference - %|-4.0||||||95.0|-13.3|4.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 8||4.4|-13.3|
91682573|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 12|Difference - %|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|2.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 12||2.3|-16.4|
91682574|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 16|Difference - %|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|0.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 16||-0.0|-19.2|
91903407|NCT00232141|183701695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6017||95.0|-0.4|0.68||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.68|-0.40|0.6017
91682575|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 18|Difference - %|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|0.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 18||-0.0|-19.0|
91682576|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 20|Difference - %|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|3.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 20||3.9|-15.8|
91682577|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 24|Difference - %|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-3.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 24||-3.1|-23.9|
91682578|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-2.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||-2.1|-22.0|
91682579|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 32|Difference - %|-15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.8|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 32||-4.8|-26.0|
91682580|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 36|Difference - %|-18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-8.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||Week 36||-8.9|-29.5|
91682581|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 40|Difference - %|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-8.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 40||-8.6|-28.7|
91682582|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 44|Difference - %|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-4.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 44||-4.4|-25.6|
91682583|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 48|Difference - %|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-3.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 48||-3.4|-23.6|
91682584|NCT04058067|183255283|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 52|Difference - %|-12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||-2.9|-23.5|
91682585|NCT04058067|183255284|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|11.2|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||11.2|-13.6|
91682586|NCT04058067|183255286|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|17.0|||ANOVA|||||17.0|-37.3|
91682587|NCT04058067|183255287|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|21.9|||ANOVA|||||21.9|-26.8|
91682588|NCT04058067|183255288|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|13.2|||ANOVA|||||13.2|-30.3|
91682589|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.5|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 4||13.5|-3.3|
91682590|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|20.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 6||20.6|1.4|
91682591|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|25.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 8||25.3|3.9|
91682592|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|24.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method||Proportion estimates (%) = 39.3|Week 12||24.9|2.8|
91682593|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|16.8||||||95.0|5.1|28.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 16||28.6|5.1|
91682594|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|26.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 18||26.6|3.1|
91682595|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|27.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 20||27.1|3.5|
91682596|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|30.2|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 24||30.2|7.2|
91682597|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|27.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||27.9|4.9|
91682598|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|24.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 32||24.4|0.4|
91682599|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|18.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 36||18.0|-5.9|
91682600|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|26.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 40||26.1|3.3|
91682601|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|25.7|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 44||25.7|1.9|
91682602|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|23.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 48||23.6|-0.8|
91682603|NCT04058067|183255289|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|30.5|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||30.5|5.8|
91682604|NCT04058067|183255290|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||3.6|0.8|
91682605|NCT04058067|183255291|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|4.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||4.6|-13.2|
91682606|NCT04058067|183255292|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|12.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||12.4|-10.5|
91682607|NCT04058067|183255297|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.8|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||8.8|-13.9|
91682608|NCT04058067|183255297|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 52|Difference - %|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|9.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||9.0|-14.1|
91682609|NCT04058067|183255299|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|12.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||12.6|-4.1|
91682610|NCT04058067|183255299|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 52|Difference - %|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|9.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||9.3|-10.5|
91682611|NCT04058067|183255301|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||2.9|0.7|
91682612|NCT04058067|183255303|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||2.9|0.7|
91682613|NCT04058067|183255304|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-4.1|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 28||2.3|-4.1|
91682614|NCT04058067|183255304|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||3.3|-3.1|
91682615|NCT05502081|183255341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682616|NCT05502081|183255341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.176
91682617|NCT05502081|183255341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682618|NCT05502081|183255341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682619|NCT05502081|183255342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.011
91682620|NCT05502081|183255342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.021
91718806|NCT01259245|183330278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.477||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.627|2.327|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||2.327|-6.627|0.345
91718807|NCT01259245|183330279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.062||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.753|2.372|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||2.372|-5.753|0.413
91718808|NCT01259245|183330280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.049|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.89||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.159|21.939|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||21.939|4.159|0.004
91718809|NCT01259245|183330281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.226||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.184|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||0.184|-0.100|0.560
91718810|NCT01259245|183330282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.088||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.128|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||0.128|-0.054|0.425
91718811|NCT01259245|183330283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.8|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||6.8|-3.5|0.528
91718812|NCT01027845|183330314|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1100 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.05 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.00 to 1.10).|GMC ratio|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.18||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 1."||0.18|0.14|
91718813|NCT01027845|183330314|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1106 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.45 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.38 to 1.53).|GMC ratio|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.25||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 4."||0.25|0.2|
91718814|NCT01027845|183330314|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1104 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.70 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.62 to 1.78).|GMC ratio|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.29||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 5."||0.29|0.23|
91718815|NCT01027845|183330314|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1100 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 0.33 µg/mL with 95% CI = (0.30 to 0.36).|GMC ratio|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.23||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 6B."||0.23|0.16|
91718816|NCT01027845|183330314|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1107 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.72 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.64 to 1.80).|GMC ratio|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.31||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 7F."||0.31|0.25|
91794507|NCT00491556|183467957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|166.4||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.82|-19.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-19.90|-163.82|0.0147
91903408|NCT00232141|183701695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6158||95.0|-0.38|0.64||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.64|-0.38|0.6158
91682621|NCT05502081|183255342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.42
91682622|NCT05502081|183255342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
91682623|NCT05502081|183255343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
91682624|NCT05502081|183255344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.005
91682625|NCT05502081|183255344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
91682626|NCT05502081|183255344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91682627|NCT05502081|183255344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91682628|NCT05502081|183255345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682629|NCT05502081|183255345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.119
91682630|NCT05502081|183255345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682631|NCT05502081|183255345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682632|NCT05502081|183255346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.933
91682633|NCT05502081|183255347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.011
91682634|NCT05502081|183255347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.054
91682635|NCT05502081|183255347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.185
91682636|NCT05502081|183255347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91722502|NCT06001021|183337812|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008).~Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.15||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.41|25.12||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||25.12|19.41|0.000
91682637|NCT05502081|183255348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682638|NCT05502081|183255348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91682639|NCT05502081|183255348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682640|NCT05502081|183255348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682641|NCT05502081|183255349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682642|NCT05502081|183255349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.758
91682643|NCT05502081|183255349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682644|NCT05502081|183255349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682645|NCT05502081|183255350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.412
91682646|NCT05502081|183255351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.106
91682647|NCT05502081|183255352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91682648|NCT05502081|183255352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
91682649|NCT05502081|183255352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.156
91682650|NCT05502081|183255352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91682651|NCT05502081|183255353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.219
91682652|NCT05502081|183255354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.298
91682653|NCT05502081|183255355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
91682654|NCT05502081|183255355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.232
91682655|NCT05502081|183255355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91682656|NCT05502081|183255355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.054
91682657|NCT05502081|183255356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.68
91682658|NCT05502081|183255356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.232
91682659|NCT05502081|183255356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91682660|NCT05502081|183255356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.054
91682661|NCT05502081|183255357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
91682662|NCT05502081|183255357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.557
91682663|NCT05502081|183255357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91682664|NCT05502081|183255357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91682665|NCT05502081|183255358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682666|NCT05502081|183255358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.51
91682667|NCT05502081|183255358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682668|NCT05502081|183255358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682669|NCT05502081|183255359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682670|NCT05502081|183255359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.891
91682671|NCT05502081|183255359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682672|NCT05502081|183255359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682673|NCT05502081|183255360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.516
91682674|NCT05502081|183255361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.264
91682675|NCT05502081|183255362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682676|NCT05502081|183255362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.256
91682677|NCT05502081|183255362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682678|NCT05502081|183255362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682679|NCT05502081|183255363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
91682680|NCT05502081|183255363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.797
91682681|NCT05502081|183255363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91682682|NCT05502081|183255363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91682683|NCT05502081|183255364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
91682684|NCT05502081|183255365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682685|NCT05502081|183255365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.982
91682686|NCT05502081|183255365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682687|NCT05502081|183255365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682688|NCT05502081|183255366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
91682689|NCT05502081|183255366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.136
91682690|NCT05502081|183255366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.062
91682691|NCT05502081|183255366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.005
91682692|NCT05502081|183255367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.136
91682693|NCT05502081|183255368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.687
91682694|NCT05502081|183255369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.278
91682695|NCT05502081|183255370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
91682696|NCT05502081|183255371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.574
91682697|NCT05502081|183255372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
91682698|NCT05502081|183255372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
91682699|NCT05502081|183255372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.041
91682700|NCT05502081|183255372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.616
91682701|NCT05502081|183255373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
91682702|NCT05502081|183255374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682703|NCT05502081|183255374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.208
91682704|NCT05502081|183255374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682705|NCT05502081|183255374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91682706|NCT05502081|183255375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.088
91682707|NCT05502081|183255376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
91682708|NCT05502081|183255377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
91682709|NCT05502081|183255377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.151
91682710|NCT05502081|183255377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91682711|NCT05502081|183255377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.035
91682712|NCT05502081|183255378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.037
91682713|NCT05502081|183255378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.997
91682714|NCT05502081|183255378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.016
91682715|NCT05502081|183255378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.014
91682716|NCT05502081|183255379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91682717|NCT05502081|183255380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.047
91682718|NCT05502081|183255380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
91682719|NCT05502081|183255380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
91682720|NCT05502081|183255380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
91682721|NCT05502081|183255381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
91682722|NCT05502081|183255381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.027
91682723|NCT05502081|183255381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
91682724|NCT05502081|183255381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.38
91682725|NCT05502081|183255382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.814
91682726|NCT05502081|183255383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
91682727|NCT05502081|183255384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682728|NCT05502081|183255384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682729|NCT05502081|183255384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682730|NCT05502081|183255384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.971
91682731|NCT05502081|183255385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91682732|NCT05502081|183255385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682733|NCT05502081|183255386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
91682734|NCT05502081|183255386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
91682735|NCT05502081|183255386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.452
91682736|NCT05502081|183255386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.237
91682737|NCT05502081|183255387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
91682738|NCT05502081|183255388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
91682739|NCT05502081|183255388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.223
91682740|NCT05502081|183255388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91682741|NCT05502081|183255388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
91682742|NCT05502081|183255389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.423
91682743|NCT05502081|183255390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.429
91682744|NCT05502081|183255391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.089
91682745|NCT05502081|183255392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.222
91682746|NCT05502081|183255393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.252
91682747|NCT05502081|183255394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
91682748|NCT05502081|183255395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
91682749|NCT05502081|183255395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.382
91682750|NCT05502081|183255395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
91682751|NCT05502081|183255395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
91682752|NCT05502081|183255396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.457
91682753|NCT05502081|183255397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91682754|NCT05502081|183255398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91682755|NCT05502081|183255398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.605
91682756|NCT05502081|183255398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91903409|NCT00232141|183701696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.239||95.0|-0.69|0.17||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.17|-0.69|0.2390
91682757|NCT05502081|183255398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91682758|NCT05502081|183255399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.293
91682759|NCT05502081|183255400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
91682760|NCT05502081|183255401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.36
91682761|NCT05502081|183255402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.404
91682762|NCT05502081|183255403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682763|NCT05502081|183255403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.234
91682764|NCT05502081|183255403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682765|NCT05502081|183255403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682766|NCT05502081|183255404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682767|NCT05502081|183255404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.223
91682768|NCT05502081|183255404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682769|NCT05502081|183255404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682770|NCT05502081|183255405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682771|NCT05502081|183255405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
91682772|NCT05502081|183255405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682773|NCT05502081|183255405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.213
91682774|NCT05502081|183255406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682775|NCT05502081|183255406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.478
91682776|NCT05502081|183255406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682777|NCT05502081|183255406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682778|NCT05502081|183255407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682779|NCT05502081|183255407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.413
91682780|NCT05502081|183255407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682781|NCT05502081|183255407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682782|NCT05502081|183255408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.005
91682783|NCT05502081|183255408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.155
91682784|NCT05502081|183255408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.022
91682785|NCT05502081|183255408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91682786|NCT05502081|183255409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91682787|NCT05502081|183255410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682788|NCT05502081|183255410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91682789|NCT05502081|183255410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91682790|NCT05502081|183255410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.011
91682791|NCT05502081|183255411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.189
91682792|NCT05502081|183255412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.414
91682793|NCT00191165|183255423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.34||95.0|-0.5|1.4|||ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||1.40|-0.50|0.340
91682794|NCT00191165|183255424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.388||95.0|-0.21|0.53||P-value for 12-Month Height SDS Change|ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||0.53|-0.21|0.388
91682795|NCT00191165|183255424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.061||95.0|-0.02|0.99||P-value for 24-Month Height SDS Change|ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||0.99|-0.02|0.061
91682796|NCT00191165|183255425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13||||0.088||95.0|-0.18|2.44|||ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||2.44|-0.18|0.088
91682797|NCT03200912|183255426|EQUIVALENCE|Primary Efficacy Endpoint - AK Complete Clearance Rates at Day 57 (PP and mITT Populations)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.55|12.14||||||||12.14|-7.55|
91682798|NCT03421730|183255431|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A: n=6; D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 25.33%.|||
91682799|NCT03421730|183255431|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|28.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||B: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 25.33%.|||
91682800|NCT03421730|183255431|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|59.51|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||C: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 25.33%.|||
91682801|NCT03421730|183255432|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|13.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A: n=4, D: n=4||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 22.05%.|||
91682802|NCT03421730|183255432|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|35.97|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||B: n=4, D: n=4||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 22.05%|||
91682803|NCT03421730|183255432|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|76.98|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||C: n=4, D: n=4||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 22.05%|||
91682804|NCT03421730|183255433|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|9.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 33.04%.|||
91682805|NCT03421730|183255433|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|32.42|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||B: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 33.04%.|||
91682806|NCT03421730|183255433|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|59.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||C: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 33.04%.|||
91682807|NCT00555152|183255448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91722503|NCT06001021|183337813|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.55||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.02|17.87||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||Physical Domain of Quality of Life||17.87|15.02|0.000
91682808|NCT01096368|183255471|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.46|0.627|1.197||P-value is one-sided. After adjusting for interim analyses, the a priori threshold for significance for the final analysis is one-sided alpha=0.031.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of events for Arm II over hazard of events for Arm III. Confidence interval is stage-wise adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|The study was designed to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by EFS using the hazard ratio via a 1-sided log-rank test. The planned sample size was 160 subjects per arm. 85 EFS events were needed, which were expected after 8 years of accrual and 2 years of follow-up. At 5% type 1 error, the study had 93% power to detect an increase in 2-year EFS from 75% (RT alone) to 87% (RT+maintenance). The design also incorporated interim analyses for futility and efficacy.||1.197|0.627|0.229
91682809|NCT01096368|183255472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.46|0.463|1.238||P-value is one-sided. After adjusting for interim analyses, the a priori threshold for significance for the final analysis is one-sided alpha=0.031.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of death for Arm II over hazard of death for Arm III. Confidence interval is stage-wise adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|It was planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by OS using the hazard ratio via a 1-sided log-rank test using the planned sample size of 160 subjects per arm which was optimized for the EFS outcome. A one-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison as well.||1.238|0.463|0.172
91682810|NCT01096368|183255473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.701||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.068||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of events for Arm II over hazard of events for Arm III.|In stratum 1, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by EFS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||1.068|0.461|0.096
91682811|NCT01096368|183255474|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.684||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|7.175||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of events for Arm II over hazard of events for Arm III.|In stratum 2, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by EFS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||7.175|1.004|0.041
91682812|NCT01096368|183255475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.547||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.053||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of death for Arm II over death of events for Arm III.|In stratum 1, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by OS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||1.053|0.284|0.067
91682813|NCT01096368|183255476|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.601||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|17.902||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of death for Arm II over hazard of death for Arm III.|In stratum 2, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by OS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||17.902|0.724|0.094
91682814|NCT02373189|183255481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The P-value indicated above is calculated.|paired t-test|means at pre and post treatment were compared within subject.||||||0.05
91682815|NCT02373189|183255482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91682816|NCT02151877|183255483|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||This test applies to the first marker, cardiac troponin I.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null: mean cardiac troponin I changes in the NO group = mean cardiac troponin I changes in the control||||>0.05
91682817|NCT02151877|183255484|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null: NO group fluid balances are the same as the control||||>0.05
91682818|NCT03095638|183255491|OTHER||Ratio|1.0084|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8626|1.1789||||||||1.1789|0.8626|
91682819|NCT03095638|183255492|OTHER||Ratio|1.0121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8648|1.1845||||||||1.1845|0.8648|
91682820|NCT03095638|183255493|OTHER||Ration|1.0329|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8623|1.2373||||||||1.2373|0.8623|
91682821|NCT03095638|183255494|OTHER||Ratio|1.6242|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4986|1.7604||||||||1.7604|1.4986|
91682822|NCT03095638|183255494|OTHER||Ratio|1.5448|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4253|1.6743||||||||1.6743|1.4253|
91682823|NCT03095638|183255495|OTHER||Ratio|1.6292|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.503|1.7661||||||||1.7661|1.5030|
91682824|NCT03095638|183255495|OTHER||Ratio|1.5519|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4317|1.6822||||||||1.6822|1.4317|
91682825|NCT03095638|183255496|OTHER||Ratio|1.7933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6226|1.9819||||||||1.9819|1.6226|
91682826|NCT03095638|183255496|OTHER||Ratio|1.7974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6263|1.9865||||||||1.9865|1.6263|
91682827|NCT01158573|183255558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Hypothesis that leptin levels in OA is not different from the other 3 groups.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91682828|NCT01158573|183255559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91682829|NCT01158573|183255560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.725
91682830|NCT01158573|183255561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
91682831|NCT02980874|183255564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-6.1||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|3.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. Prior to evaluating the results of the CMH test, a Breslow-Day test with Tarone's adjustment was conducted to confirm the homogeneity of the odds ratios between RVO strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by the type of retinal vein occlusion, i.e., branch vs. central.|Estimated value was calculated as the percentage of subjects in the Active arm meeting the primary endpoint minus the percentage of subjects in the Control arm meeting the primary endpoint.|Based on a Pearson chi-square test, a total sample size of approximately 460 subjects provided 90% power to detect a difference of 15% between the Active and Control arms assuming the Control arm showed a proportion of 0.50 at 8 weeks. The primary analysis was a test of superiority of the Active arm over the Control arm, and was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by type of retinal vein occlusion.||3.0|-15.2|0.187
91794508|NCT00491556|183467958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|76.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.92|112.71|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||112.71|46.92|< 0.0001
91682832|NCT02450526|183255567|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|94.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.8|97.7||The test is two-sided at the significance level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||97.7|90.8|<0.0001
91682833|NCT02450526|183255568|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|87.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.5|92.4||The test is two-sided at the significance level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||92.4|82.5|<0.0001
91682834|NCT02450526|183255569|NON_INFERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.9||||||The non-inferiority of Dysport® to Botox on the ILA at maximum frown was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model||1.9|-6.7|
91682835|NCT02450526|183255570|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|73.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.1|88.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||88.4|59.1|<0.0001
91682836|NCT02450526|183255571|SUPERIORITY|The comparison between mean scores of SGA at Treatment Cycle 1, Day 29 is based on 2 separate linear mixed models, adjusting on the two stratification parameters, gender and baseline ILA severity score, and the centre.|Treatment Difference|2.603|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.327|2.878||The test was two-sided at the significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a linear mixed model.||2.878|2.327|<0.0001
91682837|NCT02450526|183255572|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|83.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|88.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||88.7|78.7|<0.0001
91682838|NCT00911807|183255587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Square (Factor Treatment)|19.59||||0.6348||||||ANCOVA F-test. The study was designed to show significant differences in each of the two primary variables. No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the week 28 ADAS-cog+ change score as dependent variable and the ADAS-cog+ baseline score as a covariate.||The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the three treatment groups regarding the mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog+ at week 28. A sample size of approximately 60 evaluable patients per treatment arm was estimated to allow for the detection of a significant group difference of two points in ADAS-cog+ week 28 change score (standard deviation \[SD\] 3.3) between the three groups with a power of \> 80% and a probability level of alpha = 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.6348
91682839|NCT00911807|183255587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.583||95.0|-2.891|1.63||No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between all pair of means were performed with two-sample t-tests within the ANCOVA model.||Multiple testing of individual null hypotheses that control for the overall significance level alpha = 0.05 were performed by using the 'closed testing procedure'||1.630|-2.891|0.5830
91682840|NCT00911807|183255587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.3434||95.0|-3.324|1.163||No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between all pair of means were performed with two-sample t-tests within the ANCOVA model.||Multiple testing of individual null hypotheses that control for the overall significance level alpha = 0.05 were performed by using the 'closed testing procedure'.||1.163|-3.324|0.3434
91682841|NCT00911807|183255587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.6962||95.0|-2.719|1.819||No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between all pair of means were performed with two-sample t-tests within the ANCOVA model.||Multiple testing of individual null hypotheses that control for the overall significance level alpha = 0.05 were performed by using the 'closed testing procedure'.||1.819|-2.719|0.6962
91682842|NCT01997229|183255641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.33|0.96|||ANCOVA|||||0.96|-24.33|0.0698
91682843|NCT04568031|183255647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91682844|NCT04568031|183255647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91682845|NCT04568031|183255652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91682846|NCT04568031|183255652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91682847|NCT04568031|183255655|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91682848|NCT04568031|183255655|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91903410|NCT00232141|183701696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9444||95.0|-0.49|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.45|-0.49|0.9444
91903411|NCT00232141|183701696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7386||95.0|-0.63|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.45|-0.63|0.7386
91682849|NCT02304458|183255659|OTHER|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level was determined by the rolling-6 design.|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum Tolerate Dose Level is 3 mg/kg Nivolumab|||||
91682850|NCT04874636|183255672|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.75|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.75|-0.59|
91682851|NCT04874636|183255673|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|2.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.00|-1.02|
91682852|NCT04874636|183255674|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.55|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.55|-0.27|
91682853|NCT04874636|183255675|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.02|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.02|-0.43|
91682854|NCT04874636|183255676|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|16.14|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||16.14|-0.32|
91682855|NCT04874636|183255677|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.3|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.30|-0.65|
91682856|NCT04874636|183255678|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-34.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.34|106.69|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||106.69|-176.34|
91682857|NCT04874636|183255679|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.09|-0.10|
91682858|NCT04188301|183255684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.38||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.38|0.84|0.192
91682859|NCT04188301|183255684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.29|0.92|0.107
91682860|NCT04188301|183255684|SUPERIORITY|IA vs IDA treatment groups for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.15||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||||2.15|0.97|0.068
91682861|NCT04188301|183255684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.79||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IDA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||1.79|0.59|0.918
91682862|NCT04188301|183255687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.38||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.38|0.84|0.192
91682863|NCT04188301|183255687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.29|0.92|0.107
91682864|NCT04188301|183255687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.15||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA groups for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.15|0.97|0.068
91682865|NCT04188301|183255687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.79||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IDA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||1.79|0.59|0.918
91682866|NCT04188301|183255690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.21||Adjusted p values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person. Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA in fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||3.21|0.85|0.134
91682867|NCT04188301|183255690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.44||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA3 for fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||4.44|1.12|0.023
91682868|NCT04188301|183255690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.85||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IDA1 vs IDA3 for fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.85|.64|0.430
91682869|NCT04188301|183255690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.34||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA treatment groups for fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||3.34|1.09|0.023
91682870|NCT03564444|183255722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.9||||||||1.9|-6.7|
91682871|NCT03246646|183255728|SUPERIORITY||Z test of proportions|0.66|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Z test of independent proportions|||||||>.05
91682872|NCT02569112|183255729|SUPERIORITY|A significant improvement in skin laxity reduction is defined as a mean average increase in grade of 1 as per the GAIS.|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Used Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks test||The null hypothesis was that the addition of the multipolar radiofrequency with varipulse technology treatment to the cryolipolysis treatment would not show visual improvement.||||<0.01
91682873|NCT00319982|183255730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||Change in E' Velocity comparing baseline and final study visits||||0.75
91682874|NCT00319982|183255731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Adverse Events||||0.99
91682875|NCT00319982|183255732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||||||>0.06
91682876|NCT00319982|183255733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value|Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||Change in LV End-Diastolic Diameter z-score from baseline to final visit||||<0.001
91682877|NCT00319982|183255735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage adherent to study medication||||0.08
91682878|NCT00319982|183255736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value|Generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||||||0.15
91682879|NCT00758680|183255738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference on Last Dosing Day|37.63||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|62.68|||Mixed Effect Model|||||62.68|12.58|0.015
91682880|NCT00758680|183255738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference on Last Dosing Day|92.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.56|117.04|||Mixed Effect Model|||||117.04|67.56|<0.001
91682881|NCT03480386|183255742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Daily Light Physical Activity||||0.0788
91682882|NCT03480386|183255742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0742|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Daily Moderate Physical Activity||||0.0742
91682883|NCT03480386|183255743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0113
91682884|NCT03480386|183255744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
91682885|NCT03480386|183255745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2216|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2216
91682886|NCT03480386|183255746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4762
91682887|NCT03480386|183255747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0068
91682888|NCT03480386|183255748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1548|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1548
91682889|NCT03589768|183255765|OTHER|N/A, Only risk difference estimated and 95% CI reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|10.3|||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|||10.3|-11.9|
91682890|NCT03589768|183255766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.62||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|15.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|||15.5|-6.25|0.559
91682891|NCT03589768|183255767|OTHER|Only risk difference estimated and 95% CI reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.8|||||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|9.8|-9.3|
91682892|NCT03589768|183255768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.06||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|15.9|||Fisher Exact||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|15.9|-3.82|0.290
91682893|NCT03589768|183255770|OTHER|Only risk difference estimated and 95% CI reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|7.3|||||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|7.3|-6.4|
91682894|NCT03589768|183255771|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth day timepoint|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|10.7|4.6|<0.0001
91682895|NCT03589768|183255771|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for Prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age) timepoint|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|7.3|3.2|<0.0001
91682896|NCT03589768|183255771|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for One month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) timepoint|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|4.8|1.8|<0.0001
91682897|NCT03589768|183255771|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.3||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for One month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.7|0.1|0.0068
91682898|NCT03589768|183255771|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares differences in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.5|0.1|0.0003
91794300|NCT02131532|183467576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.691||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.304|-5.847||The critical level was adjusted for the multiple comparisons for the eight subscales of the Stroke Impact Scale|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in social activity scores between baseline and three-month assessments||-5.847|-23.304|0.006
91682899|NCT03589768|183255772|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.7102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.3|0.7|0.7102
91682900|NCT03589768|183255772|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|12.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|12.0|6.2|<0.0001
91682901|NCT03589768|183255772|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|6.6|3.3|<0.0001
91682902|NCT03589768|183255772|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|5.2|2.1|<0.0001
91682903|NCT03589768|183255773|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1||||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.4|0.8|0.7039
91682904|NCT03589768|183255773|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|24.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|24.3|14.0|<0.0001
91682905|NCT03589768|183255773|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|13.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|13.7|8.1|<0.0001
91682906|NCT03589768|183255773|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.||Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|11.1|5.0|<0.0001
91682907|NCT03589768|183255774|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.8|0.8|0.2897
91682908|NCT03589768|183255774|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|82.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|82.4|35.6|<0.0001
91682909|NCT03589768|183255774|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|49.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|49.7|20.6|<0.0001
91682910|NCT03589768|183255774|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|34.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|34.2|10.4|<0.0001
91682911|NCT03589768|183255775|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.5|0.6|0.8370
91682912|NCT03589768|183255775|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.8|0.5|<0.0001
91682913|NCT03589768|183255775|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.9|0.6|0.0050
91682914|NCT03589768|183255775|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.8||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.6|0.0689
91682915|NCT03589768|183255776|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0||||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.6|0.7|0.8361
91682916|NCT03589768|183255776|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.5136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.3|0.6|0.5136
91682917|NCT03589768|183255776|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.2|0.6|0.4237
91794301|NCT03583073|183467590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|DF = 1||||||.053
91794302|NCT03583073|183467591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|4.06|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.06|-0.18|.072
91682918|NCT03589768|183255776|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.2|0.4|0.1607
91682919|NCT03589768|183255777|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|18.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|18.3|10.2|<0.0001
91682920|NCT03589768|183255777|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|14.5|8.0|<0.0001
91682921|NCT03589768|183255777|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|15.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio. Test compares difference in log values.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|15.2|6.9|<0.0001
91682922|NCT03589768|183255777|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|3.0|1.4|0.0002
91682923|NCT03589768|183255777|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.7|0.8|0.4828
91682924|NCT03589768|183255778|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|81.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|81.0|26.6|<0.0001
91682925|NCT03589768|183255778|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|65.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|65.0|24.0|<0.0001
91682926|NCT03589768|183255778|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|17.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|17.9|6.1|<0.0001
91682927|NCT03589768|183255778|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.3|0.0746
91682928|NCT03589768|183255778|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.5|0.1532
91682929|NCT03589768|183255779|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.9|0.6|0.0022
91682930|NCT03589768|183255779|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.8|0.5|0.0008
91682931|NCT03589768|183255779|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.5|0.0261
91682932|NCT03589768|183255779|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.3|0.0532
91682933|NCT03589768|183255779|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.4|0.5|0.5587
91682934|NCT03589768|183255780|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.5056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.3|0.6|0.5056
91682935|NCT03589768|183255780|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0||||0.9466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.5|0.7|0.9466
91718817|NCT01027845|183330314|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1103 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.32 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.25 to 1.38).|GMC ratio|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.27||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 9V."||0.27|0.22|
91718818|NCT01027845|183330314|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1100 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 2.90 µg/mL with 95% CI = (2.75 to 3.05).|GMC ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.33||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 14."||0.33|0.25|
91718819|NCT01027845|183330314|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1102 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.66 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.56 to 1.77).|GMC ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.12||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 18C."||0.12|0.09|
91718820|NCT01027845|183330314|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1104 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.84 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.71 to 1.98).|GMC ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.12||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 19F."||0.12|0.09|
91718821|NCT01027845|183330314|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1102 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 0.53 µg/mL with 95% CI = (0.50 to 0.57).|GMC ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.29||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 23F."||0.29|0.21|
91718822|NCT03040726|183330391|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
91718823|NCT03040726|183330392|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
91718824|NCT03040726|183330393|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91718825|NCT03040726|183330394|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91718826|NCT05063448|183330401|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±2.47. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.47|||||Five cases fell outside of the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||3.47|-1.47|
91718827|NCT05063448|183330401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||This is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori alpha is set at 95% with two tails.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.547, df = 16. N at time 3 = 18.||Paired samples t-test was used to compare group average pretest (time 1) and posttest (time 3) scores of self-perceptions of the parental role, a measure of parenting confidence.||||0.022
91794509|NCT00491556|183467959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.18||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.56|4.76|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||4.76|-45.56|0.1067
91903412|NCT00232141|183701696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3493||95.0|-0.79|0.28||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.28|-0.79|0.3493
91718828|NCT05063448|183330402|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±1.84. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.84|||||Three cases fell outside of the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||2.84|-0.84|
91718829|NCT05063448|183330403|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±5.97. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|6.97||||Two cases demonstrated reliable and one case demonstrated a reliable increase in work-family role conflict at posttest.|Two cases fell outside of the upper confidence interval and one case fell outside of the lower confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||6.97|-4.97|
91718830|NCT05063448|183330404|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±4.78.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|5.78|||||Three cases fell below the confidence interval and two cases fell above the confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score..||5.78|-3.78|
91718831|NCT05063448|183330405|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±3.37. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|4.37|||||Three cases fell below the lower confidence interval and two cases fell above the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||4.37|-2.27|
91718832|NCT05063448|183330406|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±2.80. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.8|||||Two cases fell below the lower confidence interval and two cases fell above the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||3.80|-1.80|
91793827|NCT00718237|183466070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (1-Relative Risk [RR])|74.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|90.6||Hypothesis: Efficacy \>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k); p = proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome; k = ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact Conditional Test|Exact Conditional Test based on Binomial Distribution|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group, adjusted for the ratio of the follow-up period in each group.|||90.6|39.9|<0.001
91903413|NCT00232141|183701696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6596||95.0|-0.46|0.73||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.73|-0.46|0.6596
91903414|NCT00232141|183701696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4075||95.0|-0.31|0.77||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.77|-0.31|0.4075
91903415|NCT00232141|183701697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0202||95.0|-1.01|-0.09||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.09|-1.01|0.0202
91903416|NCT00232141|183701697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8865||95.0|-0.55|0.47||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.47|-0.55|0.8865
91903417|NCT00232141|183701697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9964||95.0|-0.54|0.54||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.54|-0.54|0.9964
91682936|NCT03589768|183255780|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1||||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.0|0.6|0.6911
91682937|NCT03589768|183255780|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.3|0.0952
91682938|NCT03589768|183255780|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.0|0.8|0.4134
91682939|NCT03589768|183255781|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.6||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.6|0.9|0.0859
91682940|NCT03589768|183255781|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.4||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.3|0.8|0.2040
91682941|NCT03589768|183255781|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.6||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.7|1.0|0.0763
91682942|NCT03589768|183255781|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.5||||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.2|0.0836
91682943|NCT03589768|183255781|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.3|0.0672
91682944|NCT03047330|183255798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
91682945|NCT03047330|183255798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91682946|NCT03047330|183255799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
91682947|NCT03047330|183255799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
91682948|NCT05773794|183255800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
91682949|NCT05773794|183255800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.366
91682950|NCT05773794|183255800|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91682951|NCT05773794|183255801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91682952|NCT05773794|183255801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91682953|NCT05773794|183255801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91682954|NCT05773794|183255802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0196
91682955|NCT05773794|183255802|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91682956|NCT05773794|183255802|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91682957|NCT01392963|183255816|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91682958|NCT03783039|183255818|NON_INFERIORITY|10% margin|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0605|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.0189|||Testing whether the group difference in proportion of successes is \>-0.1 (Test Group - Control Group)|Farrington-Manning method||||||-0.0189|<0.0001
91682959|NCT03783039|183255819|OTHER||Difference in proportion of successes|0.0992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0078|0.1906|||Farrington-Manning Method|Difference in proportion of successes (Test Group - Control Group)||||0.1906|0.0078|
91682960|NCT03783039|183255820|OTHER||Difference in proportion of successes|0.0275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0312|0.0863|||Farrington-Manning Method|Difference in proportion of successes (Test Group - Control Group)||||0.0863|-0.0312|
91682961|NCT01955837|183255829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.62|0.035
91682962|NCT01955837|183255830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||Log Rank|||||0.54|0.34|<0.001
91682963|NCT01955837|183255831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.58|||Log Rank|||||0.58|0.37|<0.001
91682964|NCT01955837|183255832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|1.1||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.4|||Fisher Exact|||||2.4|-0.1|0.554
91682965|NCT01955837|183255833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.0|||Fisher Exact|||||38.0|20.9|<0.001
91682966|NCT01955837|183255834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.0|||Fisher Exact|||||38.0|20.9|<0.001
91682967|NCT01955837|183255837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.57|0.083
91903418|NCT00232141|183701697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5993||95.0|-0.7|0.41||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.41|-0.70|0.5993
91682968|NCT01955837|183255838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.57|0.228
91682969|NCT01955837|183255839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59||||||||0.59|0.32|
91682970|NCT01955837|183255840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65||||||||0.65|0.31|
91682971|NCT02563106|183255851|OTHER|The analysis of the primary endpoint was based on the mITT analysis set. Per-protocol and worse case analyses were performed as sensitivity analyses.The P-value was based on a one-sided z-test for the comparison of the treatment difference between the SYN-004 group and the Placebo group.|Relative Risk Reduction (%)|71.4||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|94.0||Study was designed to provide 80% power to detect treatment effect with one-sided alpha = 0.05 on the primary endpoint. Based on the pre-specified z-test the one-sided P=0.045.|z-test|1-sided P=0.045.|Relative Risk Reduction in SYN-004 group compared to Placebo group.|The Modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) analysis set included randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Number of subjects with CDI, imputing early termination without CDI as not being treatment failures.||94.0|-35.9|0.045
91682972|NCT02338193|183255852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.032|||||||ANOVA|||One Way ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast if p\>0.05||||<0.032
91682973|NCT02338193|183255853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|One Way ANOVA with Bonferoni contrast test||||||<0.05
91682974|NCT02338193|183255854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.01
91682975|NCT02338193|183255855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.012|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.012
91682976|NCT02338193|183255856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.007
91682977|NCT02338193|183255857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||0.023
91682978|NCT02338193|183255858|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||>0.05
91682979|NCT02338193|183255859|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||>0.05
91682980|NCT02338193|183255860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||<0.001
91682981|NCT02338193|183255861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.001
91682982|NCT02338193|183255862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.004
91682983|NCT02338193|183255863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.02
91682984|NCT02338193|183255864|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.012|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.012
91682985|NCT02338193|183255865|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||>0.05
91682986|NCT02338193|183255866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.028
91682987|NCT02338193|183255867|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<.03
91682988|NCT05084716|183255901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|12.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.13|2.08|<.0001
91682989|NCT05084716|183255901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|16.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.59|3.48|<.0001
91682990|NCT05084716|183255902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|27.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.85|5.96|<.0001
91682991|NCT05084716|183255902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|1.26|.001
91682992|NCT05084716|183255903|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d for difference in proportions|1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Odds Ratio is undefined and p-value from Fisher's Exact test is reported because 0% of PrEP users had ≥80% medication coverage pre-intervention.|Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
91682993|NCT05084716|183255903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.34|0.16|<.0001
91682994|NCT03839823|183255904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.87|||one-sided stratified logrank test|||||0.870|0.429|0.003
91682995|NCT03839823|183255905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.497||||||95.0|0.363|0.68||||||||0.680|0.363|
91682996|NCT03839823|183255906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.020
91682997|NCT03839823|183255907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.255
91682998|NCT03839823|183255908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.116
91682999|NCT03839823|183255909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.064||||||||1.064|0.546|
91683000|NCT04228783|183255923|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
91683001|NCT04228783|183255923|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
91683002|NCT04228783|183255923|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
91683003|NCT04228783|183255924|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||||||||1.2|0.8|
91683004|NCT04228783|183255924|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||||||||1.3|0.8|
91683005|NCT04228783|183255924|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||||||||1.3|0.8|
91683006|NCT00626392|183255929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.010
91718833|NCT05063448|183330408|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±4.03. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|5.03|||||One case fell outside of the upper confidence interval, while 5 participants fell below the lower confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||5.03|-3.03|
91683007|NCT03151811|183255941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0311|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0311
91683008|NCT01081834|183255952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.088|-0.729|||ANCOVA|||||-0.729|-1.088|<0.001
91683009|NCT01081834|183255952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.342|-0.985|||ANCOVA|||||-0.985|-1.342|<0.001
91683010|NCT01081834|183255954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|9.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.23|3.10|<0.001
91683011|NCT01081834|183255954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.14|26.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.25|8.14|<0.001
91683012|NCT01081834|183255955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.22|-28.78|||ANCOVA|||||-28.78|-42.22|<0.001
91683013|NCT01081834|183255955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-43.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.402|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.06|-36.69|||ANCOVA|||||-36.69|-50.06|<0.001
91683014|NCT01081834|183255956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-49.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.629|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.12|-36.99|||ANCOVA|||||-36.99|-59.12|<0.001
91683015|NCT01081834|183255956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-64.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.616|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.02|-52.94|||ANCOVA|||||-52.94|-75.02|<0.001
91683016|NCT01081834|183255957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-2.9|<0.001
91683017|NCT01081834|183255957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-4.0|<0.001
91683018|NCT01081834|183255958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.568|||ANCOVA|||||-1.568|-5.860|<0.001
91683019|NCT01081834|183255958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.088|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.556|-3.28|||ANCOVA|||||-3.280|-7.556|<0.001
91683020|NCT01081834|183255959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.1|-14.8|0.267
91683021|NCT01081834|183255959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-19.6|0.034
91683022|NCT01081834|183255960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.6|||ANCOVA|||||10.6|2.9|<0.001
91683023|NCT01081834|183255960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.9|||ANCOVA|||||9.9|2.2|0.002
91683024|NCT00492024|183255975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0||||P-value is adjusted for study center; p-value applies to percentage of subjects with success (clinical cure)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for study center||Null hypothesis is that the success rate for moxifloxacin = the success rate for placebo||||0.189
91683025|NCT00492024|183255980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0||||p-value adjusted for study center; p-value applies to percentage of subjects with success (clinical cure)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for study center||Null hypothesis is that the success rate for moxifloxacin = the success rate for placebo||||0.075
91683026|NCT00926783|183256011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||||||The p-value was based on Fisher's exact test. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that rates of free from atrial arrhythmia for the two arms, Targeted and Generalized, are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the rates are not the same. Due to the lack of literature data comparing these endpoints between two randomization groups, the sample size is not statistically powered to support statistical inferences.||||0.048
91683027|NCT00926783|183256012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the total RF delivery times for both arms are equal. The alternative hypothesis is that the total RF delivery times are not equal. Due to the lack of literature data comparing these endpoints between two randomization groups, the sample size is not statistically powered to support statistical inferences.||||0.002
91683028|NCT00696787|183256030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.38||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.66|||ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.42|0.471
91683029|NCT00696787|183256030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.28||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-1.33|0.604
91683030|NCT00696787|183256031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.35||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|-1.42|0.510
91683031|NCT00696787|183256031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.55||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.54|||ANCOVA|||||0.54|-1.64|0.317
91683032|NCT02704403|183256040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.09|||Regression, Logistic|test is 2-sided, alpha=0.01||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in response rates between the elafibranor and placebo treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference in the response rates between the elafibranor and placebo treatment groups.||0.090|-0.003|0.0659
91683033|NCT02704403|183256041|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.457|||||No formal test due to the early termination of the study.|||1.457|0.619|
91683034|NCT02922738|183256080|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.70|0.54
91683035|NCT02922738|183256081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91683036|NCT01346293|183256096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for Anti-Pertussis toxoid antigen between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.2||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||10.2|0.7|
91683037|NCT01346293|183256096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for Anti-Filamentous Haemagglutinin between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|21.5||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||21.5|2.5|
91683038|NCT01346293|183256096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for the Pertactin antigens between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|3.7|-0.2|7.9||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||7.9|-0.2|
91683039|NCT01346293|183256096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for Fimbriae types 2 and 3 antigens between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.1||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||9.1|0.9|
91683040|NCT01346293|183256097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Pertussis Toxoid antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.31||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each Pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||2.31|1.68|
91683041|NCT01346293|183256097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Filamentous Haemagglutinin antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.88||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||1.88|1.30|
91683042|NCT01346293|183256097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Pertactin antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.79||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||1.79|1.27|
91683043|NCT01346293|183256097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL® ) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Fimbriae types 2 and 3 antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.6||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||1.60|1.12|
91683044|NCT02687217|183256120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91683045|NCT02687217|183256121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91683046|NCT02687217|183256122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91683047|NCT01844505|183256123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.43|0.76|||Stratified Log Rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab over Ipimlimumab.|||0.76|0.43|<0.0001
91794510|NCT00491556|183467960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|107.8||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|137.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||137.43|44.20|0.0005
91683048|NCT01844505|183256123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.31|0.57|||Stratified Log Rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab.|||0.57|0.31|<0.0001
91683049|NCT01844505|183256124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.5|0.78|||Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF status, and M stage at screening as entered into the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab over Ipilimumab|||0.78|0.50|<0.0001
91683050|NCT01844505|183256124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.42|0.72|||Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF status, and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab.|||0.72|0.42|<0.0001
91683051|NCT01844505|183256127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||0.96|0.65|
91683052|NCT01844505|183256128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||1.05|0.69|
91683053|NCT01844505|183256129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|5.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by PD-L1 Status, BRAF Status and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Ratio of Nivolumab over Ipilimumab.|||5.16|2.49|<0.0001
91683054|NCT01844505|183256129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|9.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by PD-L1 Status, BRAF Status and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Ratio of Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab.|||9.22|4.38|<0.0001
91794511|NCT00491556|183467961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|64.41||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|61.34|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||61.34|5.64|0.0207
91683055|NCT01844505|183256129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Objective Response Rates|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|32.8|||||Difference in ORR and corresponding 95% CI is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 Status, BRAF Mutation Status and M-stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Difference of Nivolumab - Ipilimumab.|||32.8|19.1|
91683056|NCT01844505|183256129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Objective Response Rates|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|45.9|||||Difference in ORR and corresponding 95% CI is based on CMH method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 Status, BRAF Mutation Status and M-stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Difference of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab - Ipilimumab.|||45.9|32.2|
91683057|NCT01844505|183256129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.42|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by PD-L1 Status, BRAF Status and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Ratio of Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab|||2.42|1.26|
91683058|NCT01844505|183256129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Objective Response Rates|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|20.7|||||Difference in ORR and corresponding 95% CI is based on CMH method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 Status, BRAF Mutation Status and M-stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Difference of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab - Nivolumab.|||20.7|5.7|
91683059|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.85|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.85|0.46|
91683060|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.54|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.54|0.28|
91683061|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.87|0.45|
91683062|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.59|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.59|0.34|
91683063|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.53|0.30|
91683064|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||1.21|0.66|
91683065|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.71|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.71|0.45|
91683066|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.53|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.53|0.33|
91683067|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.94|0.57|
91683068|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.6|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.60|0.27|
91683069|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.54|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.54|0.22|
91683070|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||1.38|0.54|
91683071|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.67|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.67|0.43|
91683072|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.54|0.34|
91683073|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.01|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||1.01|0.63|
91683074|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||0.73|0.28|
91683075|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.49|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||0.49|0.16|
91683076|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.09|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||1.09|0.34|
91683077|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.52|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.52|0.49|
91683078|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||0.89|0.30|
91683079|NCT01844505|183256130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.09|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.09|0.33|
91683080|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.05|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||1.05|0.57|
91683081|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.81|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.81|0.43|
91683082|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||||95.0|0.55|1.04|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||1.04|0.55|
91683083|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.68|0.39|
91683084|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.67|0.38|
91683085|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.31|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||1.31|0.72|
91683086|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.78|0.49|
91683087|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.66|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.66|0.41|
91683088|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||1.08|0.66|
91683089|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.91|0.41|
91683090|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.91|0.38|
91683091|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.53|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||1.53|0.62|
91683092|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.75|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.75|0.48|
91683093|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.68|0.43|
91683094|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||1.14|0.71|
91683095|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.1|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||1.10|0.44|
91683096|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||0.91|0.32|
91794512|NCT00491556|183467962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|145.62||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.34|23.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||23.60|-102.34|0.2082
91683097|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.32|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||1.32|0.45|
91683098|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.34|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.34|0.37|
91683099|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||0.91|0.26|
91683100|NCT01844505|183256131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.39|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.39|0.34|
91683101|NCT02730351|183256148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|0.39||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values. Subject is fitted as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-3.76|0.109
91683102|NCT02730351|183256149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.01||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values. Subject is fitted as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-4.31|0.051
91683103|NCT02730351|183256150|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.26||Repeated measures logistic regression model with parameters estimated using the Generalized Estimating Equation method. Covariates of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, and period baseline FEV1 were included.|Regression, Logistic||12 hrs: modeling the odds of having FEV1 \>/=95% of pre exercise FEV1 at each of the two time points.|||2.26|0.80|0.266
91683104|NCT02730351|183256150|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.58||Repeated measures logistic regression model with parameters estimated using the Generalized Estimating Equation method|Regression, Logistic||23 hrs: modeling the odds of having FEV1 \>/=95% of pre exercise FEV1 at each of the two time points.|||2.58|0.73|0.322
91683105|NCT02730351|183256151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.71||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values. Subject is fitted as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||12 hrs post-dose|||0.71|-2.01|0.342
91683106|NCT02730351|183256151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.07||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values.|Mixed Models Analysis||23 hrs post-dose|||-0.07|-3.42|0.041
91683107|NCT00311402|183256152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-event rates after 1 year in the Aggrenox group and ASA group are estimated at 94.0% and 91.5%, respectively. The non-inferiority margin was set to 2%. Under these conditions, 500 patients per group were supposed to be enough to detect the non-inferiority of Aggrenox with over 80% power.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.47||||0.097||95.0|0.93|2.31|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||2.31|0.93|0.097
91683108|NCT00311402|183256153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.79||||0.223||95.0|0.7|4.54|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||4.54|0.70|0.223
91683109|NCT00311402|183256154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.0||||0.998|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.|||0|0.998
91863081|NCT02969707|183613773|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|Cohen's d|-0.234||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects model|||We used standard mixed-effects modeling to estimate the change (slope) in pain in our 2\*2 pre- and post-assessment design. Pain ratings were calculated by averaging pain ratings across 5 assessments under four conditions (TMS with hypnosis, TMS without hypnosis, Sham with hypnosis, Sham without hypnosis). Based on these change estimates, we derived the two main effects (TMS, Hypnosis) and their interaction effect on the change in pain from the pre- to post-treatment assessment.||||0.49
91683110|NCT00311402|183256155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.977||95.0|0.21|5.07|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.07|0.21|0.977
91683111|NCT00311402|183256156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58||||0.192||95.0|0.26|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||1.31|0.26|0.192
91683112|NCT00311402|183256157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.88||||0.215||95.0|0.69|5.07|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.07|0.69|0.215
91683113|NCT00311402|183256158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.16||||0.443||95.0|0.79|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||1.69|0.79|0.443
91683114|NCT00311402|183256159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.52||||0.043||95.0|1.01|2.29|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||2.29|1.01|0.043
91683115|NCT00311402|183256160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.919||95.0|0.48|2.25|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||2.25|0.48|0.919
91683116|NCT00311402|183256161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34||||0.101||95.0|0.94|1.91|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||1.91|0.94|0.101
91683117|NCT02640053|183256162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91683118|NCT02640053|183256163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91683119|NCT02640053|183256164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91863082|NCT02969707|183613774|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||=|0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre- to post-rTMS change in SOARS scores were calculated for both Active and Sham conditions. Two-tailed t-tests were used to evaluate the difference between the two conditions' change scores.||||=.454
91683120|NCT02640053|183256165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91683121|NCT02640053|183256166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91683122|NCT02640053|183256167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91683123|NCT02640053|183256168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91683124|NCT02640053|183256169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
91683125|NCT01798316|183256184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91683126|NCT06281171|183256212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91683127|NCT06281171|183256213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.996
91683128|NCT06281171|183256214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.782
91683129|NCT06281171|183256215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.54
91683130|NCT06281171|183256216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
91683131|NCT06281171|183256217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.30
91683132|NCT06281171|183256218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
91683133|NCT00513682|183256221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0013
91683134|NCT00513682|183256222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
91683135|NCT03258853|183256225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||paired 2-sided t-test|||||||0.001
91683136|NCT03258853|183256226|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Secondary outcomes were adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||1.0
91683137|NCT03258853|183256227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Secondary outcomes are adjusted for multiple comparisons|paired 2-sided t-test|||||||0.04
91683138|NCT03258853|183256228|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wicoxon signed rank test|||||||1.0
91683139|NCT03258853|183256229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.014
91683140|NCT03258853|183256230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.014
91683141|NCT03258853|183256231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.14
91683142|NCT03258853|183256232|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||1.0
91683143|NCT03258853|183256233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.01
91683144|NCT03258853|183256234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||McNemar|||||||0.08
91683145|NCT03258853|183256235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||McNemar|||||||0.56
91683146|NCT03258853|183256236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||McNemar|||||||0.56
91683147|NCT03258853|183256237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||McNemar|||||||0.15
91683148|NCT00070499|183256238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.073
91683149|NCT00070499|183256238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
91683150|NCT00070499|183256240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of overall survival||||0.29
91683151|NCT00070499|183256240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of overall survival||||0.55
91683152|NCT00070499|183256241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of relapse-free survival||||0.074
91683153|NCT00070499|183256241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of relapse-free survival||||0.29
91718834|NCT02717195|183330425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.9196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|2.13||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary enpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes from Randomization in PANSS total score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||2.13|-2.37|0.9196
91683154|NCT04036799|183256246|OTHER|Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and proportions.|Cumulative proportion of events at 5 yrs|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91718835|NCT02717195|183330425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|3.94||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary endpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes from Randomization in PANSS total score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||3.94|-0.59|0.1474
91718836|NCT02717195|183330426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.78||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary endpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes from Randomization in PSP score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||2.78|-0.86|0.2998
91718837|NCT02717195|183330426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.4478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.12||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary endpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes in PSP score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||1.12|-2.54|0.4478
91863083|NCT02969707|183613775|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to water and Thermal Pain Tolerance with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Tolerance as the dependent variable.||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .104, F(2,48) = 2.794, β = .320, p = .023)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Tolerance and E/I ratio as it relates to water was assessed.||||0.023
91903419|NCT00232141|183701697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3553||95.0|-0.33|0.9||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.90|-0.33|0.3553
91903420|NCT00232141|183701697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2771||95.0|-0.25|0.88||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.88|-0.25|0.2771
91683155|NCT04240392|183256247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|4.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||||4.055|0.462|0.5340
91683156|NCT04240392|183256248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.803||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.979|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||At delivery||1.979|0.326|0.600
91683157|NCT04240392|183256248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.709||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|1.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||At 3 months post partum||1.975|0.254|0.471
91718838|NCT01773928|183330457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The probability that the modified process is noninferior to the current one (i.e. lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of geometric means \[modified vs. current\] is greater than or equal to 0.67) is above 99% for one strain, and it is around 97% for all three strains (considering the three strains to be independent, 0.99 x 0.99 x 0.99=0.97)|ANCOVA|0.67|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.67||||||||||0.67|
91683158|NCT04240392|183256249|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|1.53||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|6.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Linear Mixed Model|Beta-coefficient for treatment for time interaction term|At week 36||6.19|-3.13|0.518
91683159|NCT04240392|183256249|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|0.32||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|5.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Linear Mixed Model|Beta-coefficient for treatment for time interaction term|At 3 months post partum||5.06|-4.41|0.893
91683160|NCT03785600|183256250|OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||a priori threshold is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.02
91683161|NCT04086407|183256268|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||<.05
91683162|NCT04086407|183256269|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||<.05
91683163|NCT04086407|183256270|OTHER||||||||||||||||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||
91683164|NCT04086407|183256271|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||<.05
91718839|NCT01773928|183330459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ANCOVA|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.5||||||"The overall power to prove the similarity between the three lots for all three strains is approximately 99%.~For the two primary co-analyses (Noninferiority and Lot Consistency), the overall power of the immunogenicity analyses is approximately 96% (calculated as 0.97 x 0.99=0.96)."||1.5|0.67|
91718840|NCT01773928|183330460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Differences between fever incidences (95% CI) between treatment groups VCIV Modified (Total) and TIV was computed for each age cohort separately. The Confidence Interval estimation method was the method of Miettinen \& Nurminen, as described in the StatXact User Manual (i.e. the score statistics, also called Chan's method, page 283).~Noninferiority will be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% CI (VCIV modified-TIV) is \<5%."|Method of Miettinen & Nurminen|1.8||||||95.0|0.1|3.3||||||||3.3|0.1|
91718841|NCT01149655|183330466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.461||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|0.879|||Log Rank|The log-rank test was based on time to exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse.|Hazard ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were derived from the Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as term. Hazard ratio \< 1 is in favor of oral aripiprazole 10-30 mg group for superiority test.|The total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||0.879|0.242|0.0161
91718842|NCT01149655|183330468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|p-value was derived using Chi-square test.||Statistical Analysis for Last Visit. The total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0962
91718843|NCT01149655|183330469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|p-value was derived using Chi-square test.||The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.9025
91718844|NCT01149655|183330470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|p-value was derived from the log-rank tests.||The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0076
91718845|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis at Baseline. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.3862
91718846|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 1. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.8861
91718847|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8189|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 2. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.8189
91718848|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3689|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 3. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.3689
91903421|NCT00232141|183701698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2352||95.0|-0.82|0.2||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.20|-0.82|0.2352
91718849|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 4. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.9723
91718850|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2985|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 6. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.2985
91718851|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 8. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0883
91718852|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 10. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0228
91718853|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 12. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0274
91683165|NCT00660907|183256272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferior margin delta = 0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0569|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11||Significant at alpha=0.025 (1-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) \>= delta versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) \< delta (with alpha = 0.025, one-sided)||0.11|-0.11|<0.0001
91683166|NCT00660907|183256273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2483|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-4.17||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) =/= 0||-4.17|-5.14|<0.0001
91718854|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 14. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0135
91793828|NCT00718237|183466071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (1-Relative Risk [RR])|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.4|100.0||Hypothesis: Efficacy \>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k); p = proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome; k = ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact Conditional Test|Exact Conditional Test based on Binomial Distribution|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group, adjusted for the ratio of the follow-up period in each group.|||100.0|55.4|<0.001
91683167|NCT00660907|183256274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-32.2||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) =/= 0||-32.2|-42.3|<0.0001
91683168|NCT00660907|183256275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|35.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) =/= 0||35.7|26.0|<0.0001
91718855|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 16. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0059
91718856|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 18. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0076
91718857|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 20. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0065
91718858|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 22. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0175
91718859|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 24. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0107
91718860|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 26. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0118
91718861|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 28. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0232
91718862|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 30. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0337
91718863|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 32. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0507
91683169|NCT01908907|183256276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|28.7|||Regression, Linear|Outcome was transformed using a natural logarithm transformation. Models included gestational age group since the randomization was blocked.|Since analyzed on the log scale, estimates provide are % change rather than absolute change between group.|All analyses used the intent-to-treat study population. A linear mixed model was used to assess differences in time to full feeds, days on study drug, and gestational age at discharge. These models included a random effect for multiples, which was maintained in the model after testing. Fixed effects included treatment and GA group for time to full feeds and days on study drug and treatment effect for gestational age at discharge.||28.7|0.2|0.07
91683170|NCT01908907|183256277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|This is a complex regression model including linear and quadratic growth and interactions as specified above.||Linear mixed models were used to explore growth over time (weight, length and head circumference). These models included a random effect for intercepts and slopes to account for subject specific growth over time as well as a random effect for possible correlation between twins and triplets present in the data set. Fixed effects included both a linear and quadratic time effect, GA at birth, treatment group, full feeds (yes/no), and interactions. Non-significant interactions were eliminated.||||0.048
91683171|NCT04684238|183256291|OTHER|Least square means of the difference between the treatment groups, including a 2-sided 95% confidence interval was reported in the statistical analysis. The noninferiority criterion was a relative difference of less than 15% between treatment groups.|Least square means|6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|22.13||Noninferiority was defined as the entire 95% CI for the difference being above the noninferiority margin for the relative difference of -15%. Testing the hypothesis of no difference between isoflurane and midazolam.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.13|-8.99|
91683172|NCT04684238|183256292|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set to a relative difference of -15%.|Least square means|5.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|21.17||Testing the hypothesis of no difference between isoflurane and midazolam.||||||21.17|-10.48|
91683173|NCT04684238|183256293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.8|0.0004
91683174|NCT04684238|183256294|SUPERIORITY|Results display comparison between isoflurane and midazolam and are based on an analysis of variance model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline opioid dose as covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-1.69|0.096
91683175|NCT04684238|183256295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|7.07|||Regression, Cox|||Time to extubation||7.07|1.54|0.0021
91683176|NCT04684238|183256296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.25|||ANOVA|||Spontaneous breathing efforts. Results display a comparison between isoflurane and midazolam and are based on a mixed effects analysis of variance model with treatment group as fixed effect.||0.25|-0.15|0.636
91683177|NCT04684238|183256297|SUPERIORITY|Results display comparison between isoflurane and midazolam and are based on a Wilcoxon ranksum test.||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Need for inotropic/vasopressor agent at ≤24 hours.||||0.55
91683178|NCT04684238|183256297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Need for inotropic/vasopressor agent at \>24 hours.||||0.637
91683179|NCT02152605|183256328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|-1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.79|-6.28|<0.001
91683180|NCT02152605|183256329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.172|0.071|<0.001
91683181|NCT02152605|183256330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91683182|NCT00537303|183256335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments are declared equivalent if the 95% Confidence Interval for the estimated difference in means between the two treatment groups is included in the interval from -0.4 to 0.4 for both the full analysis set and the per protocol set|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.606||95.0|-0.17|0.29||P-value for test of difference between treatments.|ANCOVA|Regimen, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) use as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||Equivalence analysis with a null hypothesis stating that there is a difference between Advanced and Basic treatment groups of more than 0.4%.||0.29|-0.17|0.606
91683183|NCT00537303|183256336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments are declared equivalent if the 95% Confidence Interval for the estimated difference in means between the two treatment groups is included in the interval from -0.4 to 0.4 for both the Full Analysis Set and the Per Protocol set.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.816||95.0|-0.21|0.26||P-value for test of difference between treatments.|ANCOVA|||Equivalence analysis with a null hypothesis stating that there is a difference between Advanced and Basic treatment groups of more than 0.4%.||0.26|-0.21|0.816
91683184|NCT01473524|183256344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
91683185|NCT01473524|183256346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
91683186|NCT01473524|183256347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
91683187|NCT01473524|183256348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
91683188|NCT01473524|183256349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91683189|NCT01473524|183256349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91683190|NCT01473524|183256350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||0.0004
91683191|NCT01473524|183256350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91683192|NCT01473524|183256351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91683193|NCT01473524|183256351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91683194|NCT01473524|183256352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91683195|NCT01473524|183256352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91683196|NCT01473524|183256353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||0.0003
91683197|NCT01473524|183256353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor||||||<0.0001
91683198|NCT01473524|183256354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91683199|NCT01473524|183256354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91683200|NCT01544179|183256357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.13|0.65|0.273
91683201|NCT01544179|183256360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.52|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||2.52|1.05|0.029
91683202|NCT01544179|183256361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.55|0.760
91683203|NCT01544179|183256362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.74|0.308
91683204|NCT01544179|183256363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.59|0.53|0.770
91683205|NCT01544179|183256364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.21|0.68|0.507
91683206|NCT01544179|183256365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.54|0.725
91683207|NCT01544179|183256366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.23|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.23|0.69|0.575
91683208|NCT01544179|183256367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.61|0.959
91683209|NCT01544179|183256368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.20|0.66|0.437
91683210|NCT04314648|183256379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|16.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.48|2.38|<.001
91683211|NCT04314648|183256380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.76|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|17.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.86|1.86|<.01
91683212|NCT04314648|183256381|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.64|||Regression, Logistic||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||2.64|.21|.64
91683213|NCT04314648|183256382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|20.51|||Regression, Logistic||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||20.51|.35|.35
91683214|NCT04314648|183256383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a linear regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||||.43
91683215|NCT04314648|183256384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a liner regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||||.44
91683216|NCT04314648|183256385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|.39|.77
91683217|NCT04623086|183256421|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|8.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For our power calculations, we assumed the true change in TIR to be 0% for the bridging group and 15% for the direct-conversion group, and we assumed a common standard deviation of 15% (meaning the distributions of change in TIR are separated by 1 standard-deviation unit), and thereby obtained that 20 patients in each group would provide 87% power to observe a statistically significant (at the two-sided level of .05) difference in mean change of TIR.||||0.14
91683218|NCT04623086|183256422|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91683219|NCT04623086|183256423|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|12.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91683220|NCT04623086|183256424|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91683221|NCT04623086|183256425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91683222|NCT04623086|183256426|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91683223|NCT04623086|183256427|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
91683224|NCT04623086|183256428|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.99
91683225|NCT03464630|183256429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.503
91683226|NCT03464630|183256430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91683227|NCT03464630|183256431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.059
91683228|NCT03464630|183256432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.702
91683229|NCT03464630|183256433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.08
91683230|NCT03464630|183256434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.09
91683231|NCT03464630|183256435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.898
91683232|NCT03464630|183256436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.349
91683233|NCT03464630|183256437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91683234|NCT00715624|183256438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.174||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), metformin use (yes, no), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|To control type I error, a step-down procedure described by Hochberg and Tomhane was applied.||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 300 patients in lixisenatide arm and 150 in placebo arm would provide a power of 96% (or 86%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.174|-0.550|0.0002
91683235|NCT02309138|183256459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.903||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.538|1.516||Each co-primary hypothesis was tested at the 2.5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|In the ITT, logistic regression was used to quantify the probability of large-for-gestational age as a function of the study arm and clinic type.|A relative risk \< 1 represents a benefit in the direction of the IADPSG group, while a value \> 1 represents a benefit towards the CC group.|Co-primary hypotheses #1: women diagnosed using the IADPSG criteria will have lower rates of large-for-gestational age infants compared to those diagnosed using the Carpenter-Coustan criteria.||1.516|0.538|0.668
91683236|NCT02309138|183256459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.853||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.493|1.475||Each co-primary hypothesis was tested at the 2.5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|In the ITT, logistic regression was used to quantify the probability of large-for-gestational age as a function of the study arm and clinic type.||"Co-primary hypothesis #2: women classified as no gestational diabetes by the IADPSG criteria will have lower rates of large-for-gestational age infants compared to those classified in the Carpenter-Coustan criteria."||1.475|0.493|0.853
91683237|NCT02309138|183256460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.046||||0.6669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.291|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.291|0.847|0.6669
91683238|NCT02309138|183256460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.033||||0.8394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.307|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.307|0.816|0.8394
91683239|NCT02309138|183256461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.987||||0.9335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.318|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.318|0.740|0.9335
91683240|NCT02309138|183256461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.022||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.407|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.407|0.742|0.9260
91683241|NCT02309138|183256462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|1.909|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.909|1.027|0.0322
91683242|NCT02309138|183256462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.233||||0.2643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.760|0.864|0.2643
91683243|NCT01955083|183256477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|48.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We hypothesized that pillar implant provide a better efficacy in the treatment of snoring than radiofrequency surgery. The sample size was estimated using the primary outcome effects (VAS) in two previously published studies (Friedman 2008; Fang 2004). Using a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test (normal parent distribution; effect size, 1.0; type I error, 0.05; power, 80%), we got a sample size of 11. For considering a 20% drop-out rate, we needed at least 14 participants.||48.4|-14.4|<0.05
91683244|NCT01955083|183256478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91683245|NCT01955083|183256479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91683246|NCT01955083|183256480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91683247|NCT01955083|183256481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91683248|NCT01955083|183256482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91683249|NCT01955083|183256483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91683250|NCT01955083|183256484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91683251|NCT01955083|183256485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91683252|NCT01955083|183256486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91683253|NCT01955083|183256487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91683254|NCT01955083|183256488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91683255|NCT01955083|183256489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91683256|NCT01559389|183256504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.21||P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|The method was a paired t-test||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the overall GRISS score between females with UUI and their male partners||0.21|-1.23|.16
91683257|NCT01559389|183256505|SUPERIORITY||z-score|2.97||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test|The z-score is a standardized Wilcoxon statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 indicate a significant difference in the GRISS change score between responders and non-responders of solifenacin treatment|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the overall GRISS change score between those who respond and do not respond to treatment with solifenacin.||||.003
91683258|NCT01559389|183256506|SUPERIORITY||z-score|0.89||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The z-score is a standardized Wilcoxon statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 indicate a significant difference in the GRISS change score between the two groups|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the overall GRISS change score between male partners of female participants who respond to solifenacin and male partners of female participants who do not respond to solifenacin||||.37
91683259|NCT02871492|183256507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4294
91683260|NCT03201445|183256547|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|0.7|||||Difference in percentage and 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a stratified Mantel-Haenszel test.|||0.7|-16.3|
91683261|NCT03201445|183256549|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||1.8|-2.1|
91683262|NCT03201445|183256551|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|24.7|||||Difference in medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||24.7|-13.4|
91683263|NCT03201445|183256553|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.9|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||4.9|-2.8|
91683264|NCT03201445|183256555|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||0.3|-0.1|
91683265|NCT03201445|183256557|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||4|0|
91683266|NCT00724048|183256572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.13|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment, as well as covariates for baseline mMS, and age at entry to the study.||0.13|-2.47|0.078
91683267|NCT00724048|183256572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.16||Hypothesis testing was completed only if ACR16 45 mg BID (90 mg) vs. placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment, as well as covariates for baseline mMS, and age at entry to the study.||0.16|-2.53|0.084
91718864|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0791|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 34. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0791
91718865|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 36. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0898
91903422|NCT00232141|183701698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7607||95.0|-0.6|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.44|-0.60|0.7607
91683268|NCT00724048|183256572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.32||Hypothesis testing was completed only if ACR16 22.5 mg BID (45 mg) vs. placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment, as well as covariates for baseline mMS, and age at entry to the study.||1.32|-1.35|0.982
91683269|NCT00474266|183256592|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.78||||||||6.78|0.29|
91683270|NCT00474266|183256592|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%|Difference in percentage|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.58||||||||1.58|-0.78|
91683271|NCT00474266|183256592|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.58||||||||1.58|-0.79|
91683272|NCT00474266|183256592|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.07||||||||1.07|-1.06|
91683273|NCT00474266|183256593|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.17||||||||3.17|-1.06|
91683274|NCT00474266|183256594|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|12.46||||||||12.46|-2.82|
91683275|NCT00474266|183256595|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.18||||||||3.18|-1.06|
91683276|NCT00474266|183256596|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|9.5||||||||9.5|-0.28|
91683277|NCT03316378|183256680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.8||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 1: Between groups||||0.44
91683278|NCT03316378|183256680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 2: Effect of time||||0.08
91683279|NCT03316378|183256681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 1: Between groups||||<0.001
91683280|NCT03316378|183256681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 2: Effect of time||||0.012
91683281|NCT03316378|183256682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 1: Between groups||||1.0
91683282|NCT03316378|183256682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 2: Effect of time||||1.0
91683283|NCT01197755|183256720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.17||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders at Week 24 with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.28|0.05|0.004
91683284|NCT01197755|183256720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.07||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders at Week 24 with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|-0.03|0.168
91683285|NCT01197755|183256721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.29|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.29|0.16|<0.001
91683286|NCT01197755|183256722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.19|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.19|0.02|0.014
91683287|NCT01197755|183256722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|-0.02|0.180
91683288|NCT01197755|183256723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.19|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.19|0.06|<0.001
91683289|NCT01197755|183256723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.04|-0.04|0.891
91683290|NCT01197755|183256724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|||||0.01||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||0.010
91683291|NCT01197755|183256724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||0.019
91683292|NCT01197755|183256725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|13.91|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||13.91|1.21|0.023
91683293|NCT01197755|183256725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|8.23||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||8.23|0.65|0.197
91683294|NCT01197755|183256726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|10.92|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||10.92|1.54|0.005
91794513|NCT00491556|183467963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|139.33||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.73|147.23|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||147.23|26.73|0.0067
91683295|NCT01197755|183256726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.3||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||12.30|1.79|0.002
91683296|NCT01197755|183256727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|5.76||Nominal p value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity testing procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data||5.76|1.86|<0.001
91683297|NCT01197755|183256727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.31||Nominal p-value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity testing procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data||3.31|1.07|0.028
91683298|NCT01197755|183256728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.45|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using logistic regression with treatment and pooled country as factors|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||4.45|1.33|0.004
91683299|NCT01197755|183256728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.79||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using logistic regression with treatment and pooled country as factors|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.79|0.82|0.186
91683300|NCT01197755|183256729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||||||Nominal p-value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|ANCOVA|This was performed on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as covariate.||||||0.729
91683301|NCT01197755|183256729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Nominal p-value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|ANCOVA|This was performed on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as covariate.||||||0.019
91683302|NCT01197755|183256730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.6||||0.009||95.0|0.65|4.56|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||4.56|0.65|0.009
91683303|NCT01197755|183256730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.53||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|3.44|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.44|-0.39|0.118
91683304|NCT01197755|183256731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.67||||0.487||95.0|-1.23|2.58|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.58|-1.23|0.487
91683305|NCT01197755|183256731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.62||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.51|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.51|-1.26|0.516
91683306|NCT03395405|183256741|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.64||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significant is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until clinical resolution between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.|HR estimated from a Cox model|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until clinical resolution between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||1.64|0.33|0.459
91683307|NCT03395405|183256743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significant is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Titer values were log-transformed||Includes participants in the Norovirus GII subgroup. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until clinical resolution between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||||0.735
91794514|NCT00491556|183467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.78|-12.36|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-12.36|-23.78|< 0.0001
91683308|NCT03395405|183256747|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|||Includes participants in the Norovirus GII subgroup. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until first negative viral load between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||4.06|0.19|0.873
91683309|NCT04308226|183256756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91683310|NCT04308226|183256758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91683311|NCT05307510|183256759|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is under powered. N is too low.||||||0.135||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Pain at rest||||0.135
91683312|NCT05307510|183256759|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low||||||0.716||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Pain at Night||||.716
91683313|NCT05307510|183256759|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Analysis underpowered. N is too small.||||||0.509||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Pain in use||||.509
91683314|NCT05307510|183256760|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91683315|NCT05307510|183256761|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.635||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Palmar abduction of surgical hand||||.635
91683316|NCT05307510|183256761|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Radial Abduction Surgical Hand||7.4|-13.6|.521
91683317|NCT05307510|183256762|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.42||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|32.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||32.0|-16.16|.495
91683318|NCT05307510|183256763|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.953||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Buttoning Buttons||||.953
91683319|NCT05307510|183256763|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.947||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Lacing and tying a shoe||||.947
91683320|NCT05307510|183256763|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.828||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Opening and closing safety pins||||.828
91683321|NCT05307510|183256763|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.169||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Managing coins||||.169
91683322|NCT05307510|183256764|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis underpowered. N too small.||||||0.917||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.917
91683323|NCT05307510|183256764|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too small||||||0.837||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.837
91903423|NCT00232141|183701698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6563||95.0|-0.64|0.4||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.40|-0.64|0.6563
91683324|NCT00761657|183256773|OTHER|||||||0.2073||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.2073
91683325|NCT00761657|183256773|OTHER|||||||0.0046||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0046
91683326|NCT00761657|183256773|OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0860
91683327|NCT00761657|183256773|OTHER|||||||0.4005||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.4005
91683328|NCT00761657|183256773|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is presented for Day 26-29 timepoint. P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91683329|NCT00761657|183256773|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91683330|NCT00761657|183256773|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91683331|NCT00761657|183256773|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91683332|NCT00761657|183256774|OTHER|||||||0.0507||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0507
91683333|NCT00761657|183256774|OTHER|||||||0.4502||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.4502
91683334|NCT00761657|183256774|OTHER|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||||||0.1603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.1603
91683335|NCT00761657|183256774|OTHER|||||||0.9816||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.9816
91683336|NCT00761657|183256774|OTHER|||||||0.0139||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0139
91683337|NCT00761657|183256774|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91683338|NCT00761657|183256774|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0001
91718866|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 38. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0686
91718867|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 40. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0833
91718868|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 42. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0824
91718869|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 44. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0686
91683339|NCT00761657|183256774|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91683340|NCT00618332|183256792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
91683341|NCT00618332|183256793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.775||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.775
91683342|NCT00618332|183256794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.737
91683343|NCT00618332|183256795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.117
91683344|NCT00618332|183256796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
91683345|NCT00618332|183256797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795
91683346|NCT00618332|183256798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.638||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638
91683347|NCT00618332|183256799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
91683348|NCT00618332|183256800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
91683349|NCT01564537|183256821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.742||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|0.939|||Log Rank||HR is estimated from Cox Regression.|||0.939|0.587|0.012
91903424|NCT00232141|183701698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8319||95.0|-0.58|0.47||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.47|-0.58|0.8319
91683350|NCT01564537|183256822|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939|||=|0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|1.125|||Log Rank||HR:estimated from Cox Regression with stratification factors: prior therapies, proteasome inhibitor, and ISS Stage at Screening with treatment as factor in model. \<1 hazard ratio for treatment=better prevention of death in drug arm vs control.|||1.125|0.784|=0.495
91683351|NCT01564537|183256823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916|||=|0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|1.626|||Log Rank||HR:estimated from Cox Regression with stratification factors: prior therapies, proteasome inhibitor, and ISS Stage at Screening with treatment as factor in model. \<1 hazard ratio for treatment=better prevention of death in drug arm vs control.|||1.626|0.516|=0.764
91683352|NCT01564537|183256835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||=|0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.45||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by: prior therapies (1, 2 or 3), proteasome inhibitor (exposed, naïve), and ISS Stage at Screening (I or II, III).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is from logistic regression model with prognostic factors: prior therapies (1, 2 or 3), proteasome inhibitor (exposed, naïve),and ISS Stage at Screening (I or II, III). Odds ratio \> 1 favors Ixazomib.|||2.45|0.69|=0.332
91683353|NCT02784444|183256885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.81||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||1.81|0.44|0.747
91683354|NCT02784444|183256885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.48||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||2.48|0.60|0.575
91683355|NCT02784444|183256885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.27||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.27|0.83|0.158
91718870|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 46. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0737
91683356|NCT02784444|183256886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.42||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||2.42|0.49|0.828
91683357|NCT02784444|183256886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.21||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.21|0.70|0.299
91683358|NCT02784444|183256886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.82||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.82|0.86|0.116
91683359|NCT02784444|183256887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.55||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||2.55|0.55|0.657
91683360|NCT02784444|183256887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.06||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.06|0.69|0.332
91683361|NCT02784444|183256887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.16||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.16|0.72|0.270
91683362|NCT02784444|183256888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.3|-0.7|0.392
91683363|NCT02784444|183256888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||-0.1|-1.1|0.023
91683364|NCT02784444|183256888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||-0.1|-1.0|0.028
91683365|NCT02784444|183256889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline steatosis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.4|0.224
91683366|NCT02784444|183256889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline steatosis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.0|-0.4|0.096
91683367|NCT02784444|183256889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline steatosis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||-0.1|-0.6|0.007
91683368|NCT02784444|183256890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline inflammation.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.2|-0.1|0.488
91683369|NCT02784444|183256890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline inflammation.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.3|0.291
91683370|NCT02784444|183256890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline inflammation.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.2|0.595
91794515|NCT00491556|183467965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2||0.5815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|7.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||7.80|-4.48|0.5815
91683371|NCT02784444|183256891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline ballooning.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.2|-0.4|0.416
91683372|NCT02784444|183256891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline ballooning.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.0|-0.5|0.056
91683373|NCT02784444|183256891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline ballooning.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.4|0.220
91683374|NCT02784444|183256892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 vs. F2/F3, and baseline CRN fibrosis staging score.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.3|-0.3|0.928
91683375|NCT02784444|183256892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 vs. F2/F3, and baseline CRN fibrosis staging score.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.5|0.244
91683376|NCT02784444|183256892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 vs. F2/F3, and baseline CRN fibrosis staging score.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.5|0.228
91683377|NCT00843479|183256919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91683378|NCT00843479|183256920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91683379|NCT00843479|183256921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91683380|NCT00843479|183256922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91683381|NCT00843479|183256923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91683382|NCT00843479|183256924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91683383|NCT01386983|183256925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.406||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.297|8.941|||Regression, Cox|||||8.941|1.297|0.0128
91683384|NCT01386983|183256926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Generalized linear model|Gamma distribution with log-link function was used.||||||0.0002
91683385|NCT02383810|183256938|SUPERIORITY|The overall hypothesis system was represented by the following pool of partial hypothesis systems: Hok: πGi = πGj i = 1 to 3, and j = 2 to 4, and k = 1 to 6, and i ≠ j HAk: πGi ≠πGj i = 1 to 3, and j = 2 to 4, and k = 1 to 6, and i ≠ j where πG is the probability of absence of Grade ≥2 CID for the Group. Each Ho involved 2 groups.|||||<|0.1||||||Overall alpha level 0.10 was maintained by correction for multiplicity according to Hommel's procedure.|Chi-squared|||Overall null hypothesis: All elsiglutide dose groups had equal proportion of subjects with max Grade≥2 diarrhea and this was equal to the one in the placebo group. This includes 6 individual hypotheses (i.e., 3 to compare each dose group vs. placebo and 3 to compare dose groups vs. each other). Raw p-values from Chi square tests were corrected for multiplicity according to the Hommel's procedure. Each of 6 hypotheses was then evaluated based on corrected p-value at alpha 0.10 (two-sided).||||<0.1
91683386|NCT04516759|183256965|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32|||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test on the one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||1.32|0.9|0.1854
91683387|NCT04516759|183256966|OTHER|||||||0.0286||||||Baseline p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-side significance level of 2.5%||||||0.0286
91683388|NCT04516759|183256966|OTHER|||||||0.0786||||||Day 7 p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-side significance level of 2.5%||||||0.0786
91683389|NCT04516759|183256966|OTHER|||||||0.2169||||||Day 14 p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-side significance level of 2.5%||||||0.2169
91683390|NCT04516759|183256966|OTHER|||||||0.186||||||Day 21 p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.1860
91683391|NCT04516759|183256966|OTHER|||||||0.2256||||||Study Drug Discontinuation (SDD) p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.2256
91683392|NCT04516759|183256967|OTHER|||||||0.4006||||||Increase in Diabetic Medication needed equal or more than 3 days|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4006
91683393|NCT04516759|183256967|OTHER|||||||0.7482||||||Diabetic Medication is stable/reduced equal or more than 3 days|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7482
91683394|NCT04516759|183256967|OTHER|||||||0.6949||||||Increase in Diabetic Medication needed at any time during the study|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6949
91683395|NCT04516759|183256967|OTHER|||||||0.5521||||||Diabetic Medication is stable/reduced at any time during the study|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5521
91683396|NCT04516759|183256968|OTHER|||||||0.5875|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5875
91683397|NCT04516759|183256969|OTHER|||||||0.1129|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1129
91683398|NCT04516759|183256970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1556|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1556
91683399|NCT04516759|183256971|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.26|||Fisher Exact|The p-value is assessed by means of an Fisher's exact test on the one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||1.26|0.13|0.0903
91683400|NCT04516759|183256972|OTHER|||||||0.6144|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.6144
91683401|NCT04516759|183256973|OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Fisher Exact|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.0105
91683402|NCT04516759|183256974|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Fisher Exact|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.062
91683403|NCT01338870|183256996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.29|-0.08|0.7606
91683404|NCT01338870|183256996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.09|-0.46|0.0266
91683405|NCT01338870|183256996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.06|-0.42|0.0440
91683406|NCT01338870|183256996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.36|-0.71|0.0001
91683407|NCT01338870|183256996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.25|-0.60|0.0013
91683408|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.98|-16.40|0.3611
91683409|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.686||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.61|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.71|-20.61|0.0969
91683410|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.11|-19.30|0.1566
91683411|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.678||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.06|-4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-4.77|-27.06|0.0052
91683412|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-21.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.712||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-9.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-9.88|-32.30|0.0002
91683413|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.852||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|11.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.56|-11.41|0.9893
91683414|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.814||0.4767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||7.27|-15.55|0.4767
91683415|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.816||0.6222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|8.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.55|-14.28|0.6222
91683416|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.744||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|-2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-2.61|-25.16|0.0159
91683417|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.735||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.95|-7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.44|-29.95|0.0012
91683418|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.895||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|15.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||15.43|-7.71|0.5125
91903425|NCT00232141|183701698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3086||95.0|-0.28|0.89||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.89|-0.28|0.3086
91683419|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.815||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.94|-19.89|0.1455
91683420|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.794||0.8712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|12.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||12.31|-10.43|0.8712
91903426|NCT00232141|183701698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7972||95.0|-0.48|0.62||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.62|-0.48|0.7972
91683421|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.707||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.77|-8.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-8.36|-30.77|0.0006
91683422|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.696||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.26|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.90|-30.26|0.0008
91683423|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.055||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|18.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||18.87|-4.90|0.2488
91683424|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.004||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.23|-19.34|0.2084
91683425|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.971||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|12.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||12.43|-11.01|0.9053
91683426|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.853||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.79|-3.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.81|-26.79|0.0091
91683427|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.875||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.15|-7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.09|-30.15|0.0016
91683428|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.217||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||18.70|-5.71|0.2963
91683429|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.82|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.40|-21.82|0.1159
91683430|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.103||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|16.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||16.68|-7.28|0.4413
91683431|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.918||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.91|-3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.68|-26.91|0.0099
91683432|NCT01338870|183256997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.981||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.69|-3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.21|-26.69|0.0126
91683433|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.02|-0.13|0.1797
91683434|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.04|-0.19|0.0234
91683435|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.03|-0.18|0.0400
91683436|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.02|-0.13|0.1568
91683437|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.25|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.11|-0.25|0.0010
91683438|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.19|0.0695
91683439|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.02|-0.20|0.0636
91683440|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.02|-0.20|0.0512
91683441|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.09|-0.26|0.0051
91683442|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.13|-0.30|0.0009
91683443|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.05|-0.19|0.2392
91683444|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.05|-0.29|0.0308
91683445|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.15|-0.38|0.0019
91683446|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.36|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.13|-0.36|0.0034
91683447|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.44|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.21|-0.44|0.0002
91718871|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 48. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0893
91718872|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 50. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0706
91718873|NCT01149655|183330473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 52. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0657
91718874|NCT00921024|183330493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91718875|NCT00921024|183330494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91718876|NCT04030598|183330503|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-90.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|-76.0|||Wald Chi-Square||The percentage difference in mean investigator-confirmed HAE attack rate between donidalorsen 80 mg and placebo was calculated as 100 percentage (%) × (mean rate ratio -1).|||-76.00|-96.00|0.001
91718877|NCT04030598|183330504|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-89.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|-77.0|||Wald Chi-Square||The percentage difference in mean investigator-confirmed HAE attack rate between donidalorsen 80 mg and placebo was calculated as 100% × (mean rate ratio -1).|||-77.00|-95.00|0.003
91718878|NCT04030598|183330505|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-96.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-65.0|||Wald Chi-Square||The percentage difference in mean investigator-confirmed HAE attack rate between donidalorsen 80 mg and placebo was calculated as 100% × (mean rate ratio -1).|||-65.00|-100.00|0.004
91718879|NCT04030598|183330506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|95.7|||Fisher Exact|||For ≥ 50% reduction from Baseline in the HAE attack rate.||95.7|17.5|0.004
91718880|NCT04030598|183330506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|75.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|96.5|||Fisher Exact|||For ≥ 70% reduction from Baseline in the HAE attack rate.||96.5|26.8|0.003
91718881|NCT04030598|183330506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|92.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|99.8|||Fisher Exact|||For ≥ 90% reduction from Baseline in the HAE attack rate.||99.8|48.0|<0.001
91718882|NCT04030598|183330507|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-95.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.0|-52.0|||Wald Chi-Square|||||-52.00|-99.00|0.009
91718883|NCT04030598|183330510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.1|33.9|||Fisher Exact|||Week 9||33.9|-59.1|1.000
91903427|NCT00232141|183701699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1863||95.0|-0.94|0.18||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.18|-0.94|0.1863
91718884|NCT04030598|183330510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.4||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact|||Week 17||27.1|-64.9|0.521
91718885|NCT04030598|183330511|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-25.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-14.74||||||Week 9||-14.74|-37.10|
91718886|NCT04030598|183330511|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-20.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-8.68||||||Week 17||-8.68|-32.70|
91718887|NCT01419535|183330518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||0.60
91718888|NCT01419535|183330519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||<0.001
91718889|NCT01419535|183330520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||<0.001
91718890|NCT01419535|183330521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||<0.001
91718891|NCT01419535|183330522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||0.004
91718892|NCT01419535|183330523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||0.002
91718893|NCT02543840|183330524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.5||Adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni four comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-1.26|<0.01
91718894|NCT02543840|183330524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|7.82||Adjusted for comparisons (Bonferroni for 4 comparisons.)|Regression, Linear|||Among Veteran participants,we used a linear contrast comparing a) those with complex clinical presentations, defined as receiving treatment for three or more mental health diagnoses in the prior year to b) those with two or fewer diagnoses during the facilitation year from T0 to T12..||7.82|2.24|<0.001
91718895|NCT02543840|183330525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.3||Adjusted for comparison (Bonferroni for four comparisons.)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|0.04|<0.04
91718896|NCT02543840|183330526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-0.2|>0.05
91718897|NCT02543840|183330527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.3|>0.05
91718898|NCT02543840|183330528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.6|>0.05
91718899|NCT02543840|183330529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.084|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired.||||0.084|-0.074|>0.05
91718900|NCT02543840|183330530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.206|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.077|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired.||||0.077|-0.056|>0.05
91683448|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.7854|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.06|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.26|-0.06|0.7854
91683449|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.02|-0.33|0.0778
91683450|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.15|-0.46|0.0065
91683451|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.21|-0.52|0.0011
91683452|NCT01338870|183256998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.21|-0.52|0.0013
91683453|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.38|-0.69|0.5636
91683454|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.4889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.72|-0.35|0.4889
91683455|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.5849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.39|-0.68|0.5849
91683456|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.5104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.35|-0.70|0.5104
91683457|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.23|-0.83|0.2640
91683458|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-1.42|0.0464
91683459|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.7107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.56|-0.83|0.7107
91683460|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.19|-1.19|0.1564
91683461|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.38|-0.98|0.3834
91683462|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.15|-1.21|0.1279
91683463|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.28|-1.06|0.2520
91683464|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.03|-0.30|0.2772
91683465|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.7038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.53|-0.79|0.7038
91683466|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.23|-1.07|0.2031
91683467|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.52|-0.78|0.6948
91683468|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421||0.5691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.59|-1.07|0.5691
91683469|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.3447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.21|-0.42|0.3447
91683470|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.5769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.58|-1.04|0.5769
91683471|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.42|-1.16|0.3599
91683472|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.50|-1.10|0.4600
91683473|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.59|-1.39|0.4253
91683474|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.4349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.37|-0.59|0.4349
91683475|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.76|-1.18|0.6697
91683476|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.65|-1.22|0.5501
91683477|NCT01338870|183257000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484||0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.55|-1.35|0.4081
91683478|NCT02288182|183257051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Student's t-test comparing the group means was planned and performed (successfully). However, due to some outliers, the central tendencies have been reported as medians (instead of arithmetic means). Therefore an additional non-parameteric test (Mann-Whitney U-test) was performed.||||0.001
91683479|NCT03582826|183257066|SUPERIORITY|Paired Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Tests|Median Difference (Final Values)|79.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|163.0||Original p-value for dermatological bacteria was 6e-05. It was adjusted first by applying centered log-ratio (CLR) transformation approach then by false discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons by using Benjamini-Hochberg Procedure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||163|26|0.02
91683480|NCT00574912|183257075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91903428|NCT00232141|183701699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.31||0.5953||95.0|-0.77|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.44|-0.77|0.5953
91683481|NCT01282723|183257076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Estimation of Odds Ratio of True Positive Fraction between SureCALL® and TOCO~Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the True Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO or the SureCALL® is significantly greater than TOCO.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the True Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO and the TOCO is significantly greater than SureCALL®."||1.95|1.10|0.0093
91718901|NCT02543840|183330531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.262|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||0.262|0.044|<0.001
91903429|NCT00232141|183701699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.508||95.0|-0.73|0.36||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.36|-0.73|0.5080
91903430|NCT00232141|183701699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5842||95.0|-0.7|0.39||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.39|-0.70|0.5842
91683482|NCT01282723|183257076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.3204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Estimation of Odds Ratio of False Positive Fraction between SureCALL® and TOCO~Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the False Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO or the SureCALL® is significantly less than TOCO.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the False Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO and the TOCO is significantly less than SureCALL®."||1.17|0.61|0.3204
91683483|NCT00469911|183257078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91683484|NCT00371397|183257115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75||||0.009||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||hsCRP dichotomized as undetectable/detectable. Logistic regression w/generalized estimating equations(GEE)s to determine odds ratio. Assessed hsCRP at baseline at each of the three visits; 43% of the values (n = 65) were below the assay's detectable lower bound of .3 mg/dL, and thus hsCRP was dichotomized as undetectable/detectable.||||.009
91683485|NCT03753763|183257130|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.1||||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in anterior and lateral displacement from baseline||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||6.5|-6.3|0.9697
91683486|NCT03753763|183257131|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.5||||0.7751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.1||A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in anterior and lateral displacement from baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate||4.1|-3.1|0.7751
91683487|NCT03753763|183257132|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.2||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in from baseline in UMSARS Part II||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.7|-3.3|0.9076
91683488|NCT03753763|183257133|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.1||||0.5386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in from baseline in UMSARS Part II.||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||2.6|-4.8|0.5386
91683489|NCT03753763|183257134|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.0||||0.3364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in from baseline in MSA-QoL scale.||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||18.6|-6.5|0.3364
91683490|NCT03753763|183257135|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.2||||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA included change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group as a factor, and baseline score as a covariate||1.5|-1.1|0.7574
91683491|NCT03753763|183257136|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.8||||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change from baseline in UDRS.||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.0|-2.5|0.6393
91683492|NCT01104779|183257137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.4|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 3-6 mg/day vs Placebo|||-2.4|-11.3|0.0029
91683493|NCT01104779|183257137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-5.3|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 6-9 mg/day vs Placebo|||-5.3|-14.5|<0.0001
91683494|NCT01104779|183257138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 3-6 mg/day vs Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0115
91683495|NCT01104779|183257138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 6-9 mg/day vs Placebo|||-0.3|-0.8|<0.0001
91683496|NCT01372774|183257154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.35|<0.0001
91683497|NCT01372774|183257155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.50|0.76|0.70
91683498|NCT01372774|183257156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00068||||||Intracranial Brain Control Rates estimated via 1-Cumulative Incidence Rate from Competing Risk survival analysis of time to the specific recurrence type. Deaths without recurrence are censored at time of death.|Gray's K-sample|||||||0.00068
91683499|NCT01372774|183257158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91683500|NCT01565850|183257164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total sample size of 150 HIV-1 infected participants, randomized in a 2:1 ratio to 2 groups, would achieve 56% power to evaluate noninferiority with respect to the response rate of HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 if a response rate of 0.88 for both arms, a noninferiority margin of 0.12, and the significance level of the test at a one-sided 0.025 level were assumed.|Difference in proportions|3.3||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|18.1||The p-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and race strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportion.|The null hypothesis was that the D/C/F/TAF group is at least 12% worse than the DRV+COBI+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 24; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the D/C/F/TAF group is less than 12% worse than that in the DRV+COBI +FTC/TDF group.||18.1|-11.4|0.64
91683501|NCT01565850|183257165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the D/C/F/TAF group is at least 12% worse than the DRV+COBI+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the D/C/F/TAF group is less than 12% worse than that in the DRV+COBI +FTC/TDF group.|Difference in proportions|-6.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|7.4||The p-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and race strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportion.|||7.4|-19.9|0.35
91683502|NCT01565850|183257166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21||The p-value, difference in least squares mean (LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||0.21|-0.14|0.67
91683503|NCT01565850|183257167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23||The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||0.23|-0.11|0.50
91683504|NCT01565850|183257168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|45.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|101.0||The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||101|-10|0.11
91683505|NCT01565850|183257169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|18.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|72.0||The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||72|-35|0.50
91683506|NCT04324073|183257193|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|12.2||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credibility interval here|||12.2|-11.7|
91683507|NCT04324073|183257194|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.74||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|HR adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|||1.74|0.69|
91683508|NCT04324073|183257195|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.5|8.7||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted on age and centre|% Confidence Interval is %Credible Interval here. Results are presented as the proportion not improved, so that an effective treatment would be associated with a decrease in proportion.|||8.7|-22.5|
91683509|NCT04324073|183257196|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|2.07||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis||% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|||2.07|0.55|
91683510|NCT04324073|183257197|SUPERIORITY|Day 14|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.03|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex||||2.03|0.23|
91683511|NCT04324073|183257197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.59|||Regression, Cox|||Day 28||1.59|0.27|
91683512|NCT04324073|183257197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||Day 90||1.58|0.31|
91683513|NCT04324073|183257197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.25|||Regression, Cox|||Day 14||2.25|0.40|
91683514|NCT04324073|183257197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.96|||Regression, Cox|||Day 28||1.96|0.40|
91683515|NCT04324073|183257197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||Day 90||1.58|0.35|
91683516|NCT04324073|183257198|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.34|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 4||2.34|0.53|
91683517|NCT04324073|183257198|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.08|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 7||2.08|0.49|
91683518|NCT04324073|183257198|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.47|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||1.47|0.42|
91683519|NCT04324073|183257198|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 4||2.02|0.38|
91683520|NCT04324073|183257198|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.4|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||2.40|0.47|
91683521|NCT04324073|183257198|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.57|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and sex|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 90||2.57|0.50|
91683522|NCT04324073|183257199|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.9||||adjusted on age and centre||||3.9|-6.1|
91683523|NCT04324073|183257200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.57|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||1.57|0.72|
91683524|NCT04324073|183257200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.25|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||2.25|0.74|
91683525|NCT04324073|183257200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.44|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.44|0.59|
91683526|NCT04324073|183257200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.55|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.55|0.74|
91683527|NCT04324073|183257201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.75|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||1.75|0.81|
91683528|NCT04324073|183257201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.67|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||1.67|0.80|
91683529|NCT04324073|183257201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.66|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||2.66|0.55|
91683530|NCT04324073|183257201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.37|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||2.37|0.71|
91683531|NCT04324073|183257202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.44|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||1.44|0.42|
91683532|NCT04324073|183257202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.47|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.47|0.49|
91683533|NCT03610516|183257212|OTHER|A repeated measures mixed model was fitted with factors for treatment group (CFZ533 or placebo) and visit.|Ratio of geometric means CFZ533/placebo|0.579||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|1.256||one-sided p-value|Repeated measures Mixed Model|||||1.256|0.267|0.0788
91683534|NCT02657928|183257230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5004
91683535|NCT02657928|183257231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9127|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9127
91683536|NCT01988129|183257237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for 'sick' days||||0.66
91683537|NCT01988129|183257237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for 'disability/injury' days||||0.033
91683538|NCT01988129|183257237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis with nested random effects for possible station-level and station-pairing correlation (3-level hierarchical linear model)||Mixed model analysis was conducted for 'disability/injury' days||||0.003
91683539|NCT01988129|183257238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91683540|NCT01988129|183257239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided||The Odds Ratio analyses compared the odds of reporting at least one injury during the study between those who did (n=560) and did not (n=629) attend the education sessions, regardless of station assignment (intervention or control).|||0.98|0.60|0.31
91683541|NCT01988129|183257240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Of the 100 participants who completed both the pre- and post-study survey (see Patient Flow), only 62 completed answered the question about sleep duration at both time points||||0.22
91683542|NCT01988129|183257241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.65
91683543|NCT01988129|183257242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.71
91683544|NCT01988129|183257244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screened|41.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of any sleep disorders; there is no comparison group||||
91683545|NCT01988129|183257244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|31.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of obstructive sleep apnea only; there is no comparison group||||
91683546|NCT01988129|183257244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of insomnia; there is no comparison group||||
91683547|NCT01988129|183257244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of restless legs syndrome only; there is no comparison group||||
91683548|NCT01988129|183257244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of shiftwork disorder only; there is no comparison group||||
91683549|NCT01988129|183257245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.31
91683550|NCT01988129|183257246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test, 2-sided|||Sleeping while stopped in traffic||||0.16
91683551|NCT01988129|183257247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test, 2-sided|||||||0.46
91683552|NCT02500043|183257249|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6917||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5597|0.8548||One-sided P-Value.|Log Rank|||TAS-102+BSC and Placebo+BSC were compared using the stratified log-rank test using the 3 randomization stratification factors (region, ECOG performance status, and prior treatment with ramucirumab). The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox's proportional hazard (CPH) model and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates.||0.8548|0.5597|0.0003
91683553|NCT02500043|183257250|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5723|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4674|0.7008||||||TAS-102+BSC and Placebo+BSC were compared using the stratified log-rank test using the 3 randomization stratification factors (region, ECOG performance status, and prior treatment with ramucirumab). The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified CPH model and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates.||0.7008|0.4674|
91683554|NCT00580788|183257258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTHrP 2 and PTHrP 5 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
91683555|NCT00580788|183257258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p value corresponds to a decrease by Day 8 compared to baseline in the PTHrP 4 pmol group|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.01
91683556|NCT00580788|183257260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to all Arms/Groups at all time points compared to baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.61
91683557|NCT00580788|183257261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTHrP 4 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Value The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<0.0001
91683558|NCT00580788|183257262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTHrP 4 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<0.0001
91718902|NCT02543840|183330532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.289|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired.||||0.289|0.083|<0.01
91718903|NCT02543840|183330533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.07||Repeated patient binary outcome models for hospitalized (0/1) across 8 quarters.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted (Bonferroni four comparisons).||||-0.07|-0.16|<0.001
91718904|NCT03114150|183330534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustments for degrees of freedom|Parameter is the interaction term for the interaction of group, learning rate, and session.|We tested the prediction that learning rate would increase more so for the moderate-to-vigorous training group compared to the light intensity training group. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, according to our statistical analysis plan.||.01|-.04|<.05
91718905|NCT03114150|183330535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustments for degrees of freedom|Parameter is the interaction term for the interaction of exercise condition (intensity) and session.|We tested the prediction that hippocampal-cortical functional connectivity would change more for the moderate-to-vigorous acute condition compared to the light intensity condition. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, according to our statistical analysis plan.||.02|-.01|<.05
91718906|NCT03114150|183330536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustments for degrees of freedom||We tested the prediction that functional connectivity strength would increase more so for the moderate-to-vigorous training group compared to the light intensity training group. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, according to our statistical analysis plan.|Parameter is the interaction term for the interaction of group and session.|.02|-.03|<.05
91718907|NCT03114150|183330537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Residualized change model, as reported in our protocol paper.||We tested the prediction that cardiorespiratory fitness would increase more so for the moderate-to-vigorous training group compared to the light intensity training group. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, as reported in our protocol paper.||2.59|.27|<.05
91718908|NCT02325414|183330543|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.61||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||One-year data analysis were carried out using linear mixed-effects models. Covariate adjustments for baseline value of the corresponding outcome and ambulatory status (measured by WISCI) were performed by fitting these variables as fixed factors. The repeated measures were addressed using participant identification as random intercepts in the model.|||0.05
91718909|NCT04817189|183330547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.49|||generalized linear model||||"The model-based statistics were used to calculate the difference in the probability to experience a per cycle complete response between the treatment arms."|2.49|1.12|<0.05
91718910|NCT04817189|183330549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Sleep ≥ 7 h, compared to Sleep \< 7 h.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of \< 7 h of sleep the night before chemotherapy increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.17|0.68|0.412
91718911|NCT04817189|183330549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.8|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Without history, compared to With history.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of History of any nausea and vomiting such as motion sickness, vestibular dysfunction, … increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.80|0.71|0.592
91718912|NCT04817189|183330549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.65|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to No anticipatory, compared to Anticipatory.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Anticipatory nausea and/or vomiting increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.65|0.80|0.458
91718913|NCT04817189|183330549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.56|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to No anxiety, compared to Anxiety.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Anxiety over the past 24hrs increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.56|0.75|0.663
91718914|NCT04817189|183330549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.68|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to \< 10 units per week, compared to \>= 10 units per week.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Alcohol intake (\>= 10 units per week vs \< 10 units per week) increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratio."||1.68|0.46|0.691
91718915|NCT04817189|183330549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.14|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Male, compared to Female.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Gender increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||2.14|1.02|0.037
91718916|NCT04817189|183330549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.42|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to No fatigue experience, compared to Fatigue experience.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Fatigue experience (symptom) increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.42|0.84|0.514
91794516|NCT00491556|183467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.85|14.62|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||14.62|7.85|< 0.0001
91683559|NCT00580788|183257263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time from baseline for all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>.05
91683560|NCT00580788|183257264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the % increase compared to baseline in all Arms/groups on Days 2-8.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.008
91683561|NCT00580788|183257264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
91683562|NCT00580788|183257265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to % change (increase) from baseline in all Arms/groups at Days 2-8.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
91683563|NCT00580788|183257265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
91683564|NCT00580788|183257266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % decrease compared to baseline at Days 2-8 in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
91683565|NCT00580788|183257266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % change from baseline at the follow-up visit in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.01
91683566|NCT00580788|183257267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value correspond to the decrease compared to baseline over time in the PTHrP 4 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.001
91683567|NCT00580788|183257267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p=value corresponds to % change compared to baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.01
91683568|NCT00580788|183257268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-values correspond to the decrease compared to baseline in all arms/groups at Days 2-8|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<0.05
91683569|NCT00580788|183257269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to the increase comapred to baseline over time (days 2-8) in the PTHrP 4 pmol group|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.002
91683570|NCT01403051|183257270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||2-sided test with type I error rate of 5%, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test for differences between the two treatment groups, stratified by the screening 25-OH vitamin (\<=20 vs. \>20 ng/mL)||The study was sized to have 80% power to detect a 2 % difference in BMD of the hip from baseline to week 48.||||0.001
91683571|NCT01701011|183257292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IBM SPSS Statistics 20 was used to perform the statistical analysis. A mixed model for repeated measures was used to examine the differences between the three groups over time for the primary outcome, anxiety. All models were estimated by the method of restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and the Compound Symmetry covariance structure was chosen for the repeated measures. The analysiswas performed according to the intention to treat.||||<0.05
91683572|NCT01701011|183257292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test the difference in psychological well-being between three groups with a power of 95%,a ¼ 0.05 and a medium effect size ( f ¼ 0.25), a total of 297 participants were required (99 patients per group). Taking into account a 20% attrition rate, at least 124 women had to be recruited in each group.||||<0.05
91794517|NCT00491556|183467967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.93||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.12|-5.87|0.0594
91683573|NCT01701011|183257293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IBM SPSS Statistics 20 was used to perform the statistical analysis. A mixed model for repeated measures was used to examine the differences between the three groups over time for the secondary outcome, depression. All models were estimated by the method of restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and the Compound Symmetry covariance structure was chosen for the repeated measures. The analysiswas performed according to the intention to treat.||||<0.05
91903431|NCT00232141|183701699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4286||95.0|-0.35|0.83||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.83|-0.35|0.4286
91903432|NCT00232141|183701699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5766||95.0|-0.4|0.71||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.71|-0.40|0.5766
91683574|NCT02932306|183257294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
91683575|NCT02932306|183257295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
91683576|NCT02932306|183257296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression test (using Firth's Penalized Likelihood) with factors of treatment group and analysis center.||||<0.001
91683577|NCT01635218|183257327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.0||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||7.0|3.1|<0.05
91683578|NCT01635218|183257327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|5.25||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||5.25|1.31|<0.05
91683579|NCT01635218|183257328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|7.61||The statistical significant ANOVA result (p\<0.05) suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||7.61|-0.73|0.14
91683580|NCT01635218|183257328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|5.5||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||5.5|-2.93|0.99
91683581|NCT01635218|183257329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||Chi-squared|||||0.34|0.03|<0.05
91683582|NCT01635218|183257329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.56|||Chi-squared|||||0.56|0.06|<0.05
91683583|NCT01635218|183257330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|14.52||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||14.52|2.72|0.002
91683584|NCT01635218|183257330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|9.6||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||9.6|-2.33|0.424
91683585|NCT01635218|183257331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.1||95.0|0.05|1.32|||Chi-squared|||||1.32|0.05|0.10
91683586|NCT01635218|183257331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.05|0.11
91683587|NCT03262038|183257332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.412
91683588|NCT03262038|183257333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.633
91683589|NCT03262038|183257334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.007
91683590|NCT03262038|183257335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.634
91683591|NCT01934335|183257353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
91683592|NCT01934335|183257354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91683593|NCT01934335|183257355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91683594|NCT00811928|183257391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval for the difference in incidence defined as (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100% (posaconazole minus fluconazole) had to be \< 4 in order to be considered non-inferior. IFI occurred: proven+probable|Difference for the incidence|-5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|0.25|||||Posaconazole minus fluconazole|||0.25|-12.21|
91683595|NCT00811928|183257392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.7|||||IFI Incidence for the Posaconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%|||9.7|1.4|
91683596|NCT00811928|183257392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|13.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|21.3|||||IFI Incidence for the Fluconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%|||21.3|8.0|
91683597|NCT00811928|183257395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|31.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|40.9|||||IFI Incidence for the Posaconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%.|||40.9|23.3|
91683598|NCT00811928|183257395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|41.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|51.4|||||IFI Incidence for the Fluconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%|||51.4|32.8|
91683599|NCT00811928|183257396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.3|||||All-Cause Mortality Rate is the percentage of participants with mortality from any cause.|||7.3|0.5|
91683600|NCT00811928|183257396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|11.9|||||All-Cause Mortality Rate is the percentage of participants with mortality from any cause.|||11.9|2.4|
91683601|NCT00838435|183257404|OTHER|Coefficient estimates from a random coefficient model and associated p-values.|Slope|-0.5768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6004|0.4468|||||The slope shown above is based on a 2-year window.|A random coefficient model was used to calculate the slope (per year) of FSIQ over the entire study period. Factors in the model included visit and testing sequence, with change in FSIQ score as the dependent variable. Random terms include both intercept and visit. The treatment was considered successful if the lower 95% confidence limit of the mean change excluded a decline of greater than 5 points over a 2-year window.||0.4468|-1.6004|
91683602|NCT02348723|183257414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD) %|-5.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-2.2|||Chi-squared|||The risk difference between dabigatran etexilate vs. warfarin, its 2-sided 95% CI, and corresponding p-value are presented.||-2.2|-8.4|0.0009
91683603|NCT00678886|183257418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||Mixed meal-stimulated C-peptide AUC, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||0.08|-0.06|0.813
91683604|NCT00678886|183257419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.7|||Hochberg adjusted|||Percentage of responders, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||1.70|0.47|0.737
91683605|NCT00678886|183257419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.39|||Hochberg adjusted|||Percentage of responders, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||1.39|0.42|0.737
91683606|NCT00678886|183257419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.46|||Hochberg adjusted|||Percentage of responders, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||1.46|0.45|0.481
91683607|NCT00678886|183257420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||Mean insulin use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||0.01|-0.07|0.281
91683608|NCT00678886|183257420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||Mean insulin use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||0.05|-0.05|0.969
91683609|NCT00678886|183257420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||Mean insulin use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||0.02|-0.08|0.272
91683610|NCT00678886|183257421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||HbA1c levels, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||0.52|-0.16|0.289
91683611|NCT00678886|183257421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.49|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||HbA1c levels, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||0.49|-0.15|0.538
91683612|NCT00678886|183257421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.36|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||HbA1c levels, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||0.36|-0.19|0.538
91683613|NCT00678886|183257430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|3.11|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||ADRR, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||3.11|-0.88|0.540
91683614|NCT00678886|183257430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|3.56|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||ADRR, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||3.56|-1.89|0.546
91683615|NCT00678886|183257430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.42|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||ADRR, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||3.42|-1.56|0.462
91683616|NCT00678886|183257431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||||0.957
91683617|NCT00678886|183257431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||||0.957
91683618|NCT00678886|183257432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for C-Peptide AUC, HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||||0.653
91683619|NCT00678886|183257432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for C-Peptide AUC, HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||||0.653
91683620|NCT04693416|183257454|OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.252
91683621|NCT04693416|183257455|OTHER|||||||0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post score within arm||||0.546
91683622|NCT04693416|183257456|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.005
91683623|NCT04693416|183257457|OTHER|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.188
91683624|NCT04693416|183257458|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post score within arm||||0.049
91683625|NCT04693416|183257459|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.036
91683626|NCT01695863|183257497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.816|||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Colon||0.816|0.269|<0.0001
91683627|NCT01695863|183257497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.655|||t-test, 2 sided|||Transverse Colon||0.655|0.122|0.005
91683628|NCT01695863|183257497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.484|||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Colon||0.484|-0.029|0.08
91683629|NCT01695863|183257498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Calcium||||0.093
91683630|NCT01695863|183257498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glucose||||0.801
91683631|NCT01695863|183257498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.599|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Blood Urea Nitrogen||||0.599
91683632|NCT01695863|183257498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Creatinine||||0.696
91683633|NCT01695863|183257498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sodium||||.042
91683634|NCT01695863|183257498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.596|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Potassium||||0.596
91683635|NCT01695863|183257498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.107|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Chloride||||0.107
91683636|NCT01695863|183257498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.351|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bicarbonate||||0.351
91683637|NCT01695863|183257499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0438||||0.772|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nausea||||0.772
91683638|NCT01695863|183257499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2821||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Vomiting||||0.028
91683639|NCT01695863|183257499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2102||||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bloating||||0.235
91683640|NCT01695863|183257499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0547||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Abdominal pain or cramping||||0.707
91683641|NCT01695863|183257499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0269||||0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ability to complete entire prep||||0.773
91683642|NCT01695863|183257499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0498||||0.766|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difficulty/Inconvenience in completing prep||||0.766
91683643|NCT01687244|183257507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||HGRF survival at 12 months|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.8|53.6||Not applicable: the primary analysis was a calculation of a confidence interval||||The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months. The proportion of patients achieving high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months was reported for each dose group, together with an exact 90% confidence interval for the proportion||53.6|16.8|
91683644|NCT01687244|183257507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||HGRF survival at 12 months|36.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.8|58.2|||||The proportion of subjects achieving high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months|The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months. The proportion of patients achieving high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months was reported for each dose group, together with an exact 90% confidence interval for the proportion.||58.2|18.8|
91683645|NCT01330420|183257520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.001
91683646|NCT01330420|183257521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.001
91683647|NCT01330420|183257522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.01
91793829|NCT00322153|183466083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.2|||ANCOVA|Least-squares mean (-0.4 in placebo and 2.2 in memantine ER) are controlled for center and adjusted for SIB baseline value.||The co-primary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline to Week 24 in SIB total score. Missing SIB total scores at Week 24 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||4.2|1.0|0.001
91683648|NCT01330420|183257524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.01
91683649|NCT00073021|183257537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|12.543||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|24.12|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that true rate of improvement for 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (alpha = 0.05), and power of 80%, 120 patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis were required per group to complete the study.||24.12|0.96|0.0357
91683650|NCT00073021|183257538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Between Means|-0.5||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.21|||ANOVA|||||0.21|-1.28|0.1594
91683651|NCT00073021|183257538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|The 2-sample t-test will be used to examine the treatment effect.||||||<0.0001
91683652|NCT00073021|183257538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|Teh 2-sample t-test will be used to examine the treatment effect.||||||<0.0001
91683653|NCT00073021|183257539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|3.75||||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|16.93|||Chi-squared|||||16.93|-9.43|0.5774
91683654|NCT00073021|183257540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|6.19||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|17.86|||Chi-squared|||||17.86|-5.47|0.2991
91683655|NCT00073021|183257541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|2.74||||0.6543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|14.73|||Chi-squared|||||14.73|-9.25|0.6543
91683656|NCT00073021|183257542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|1.05||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|12.29|||Chi-squared|||||12.29|-10.19|0.8542
91683657|NCT00073021|183257543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|-0.96||||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|12.17|||Chi-squared|||||12.17|-14.09|0.8859
91683658|NCT00073021|183257544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|9.73||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|20.4|||Chi-squared|||||20.40|-0.94|0.0758
91683659|NCT00073021|183257545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8308
91683660|NCT00073021|183257545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91683661|NCT00073021|183257545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91683662|NCT00073021|183257546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5340
91683663|NCT00073021|183257546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91683664|NCT00073021|183257546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91683665|NCT00073021|183257547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|11.1||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|24.14|||Chi-squared|||||24.14|-1.87|0.0966
91683666|NCT00073021|183257548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|9.75||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|21.89|||Chi-squared|||||21.89|-2.39|0.1173
91683667|NCT02629354|183257591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|113.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.99|130.75|||ANOVA||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was provided.||130.75|98.99|
91683668|NCT02629354|183257592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|110.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.32|125.97|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||125.97|96.32|
91683669|NCT02629354|183257593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|112.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.49|128.94|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||128.94|98.49|
91683670|NCT02629354|183257594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.61|100.19|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||100.19|94.61|
91683671|NCT02629354|183257595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.74|99.28|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||99.28|93.74|
91683672|NCT02629354|183257596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.57|102.8|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||102.80|92.57|
91683673|NCT02629354|183257597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|100.73|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||100.73|94.50|
91683674|NCT02629354|183257598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.22|102.46|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||102.46|92.22|
91683675|NCT02629354|183257599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|96.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.75|100.01|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||100.01|93.75|
91683676|NCT03982199|183257600|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|80.0||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.211|52.2|92.9|||Poisson regression|||Case Definition 1||92.9|52.2|0.00004
91683677|NCT03982199|183257600|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|75.0||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.211|50.1|88.5|||Poisson regression|||Case Definition 2||88.5|50.1|0.00001
91683678|NCT03982199|183257600|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|69.8||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.211|43.7|84.7|||Poisson regression|||Case Definition 3||84.7|43.7|0.00004
91683679|NCT03433755|183257617|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-70.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.98|-63.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-63.48|-77.98|< 0.0001
91683680|NCT03433755|183257617|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-69.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.51|-62.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-62.97|-76.51|< 0.0001
91683681|NCT03433755|183257618|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-70.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.47|-62.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-62.27|-79.47|< 0.0001
91903433|NCT00232141|183701700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5493||95.0|-0.73|0.39||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.39|-0.73|0.5493
91903434|NCT00232141|183701700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9875||95.0|-0.58|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.59|-0.58|0.9875
91903435|NCT00232141|183701700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6931||95.0|-0.68|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.45|-0.68|0.6931
91903436|NCT00232141|183701700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4614||95.0|-0.34|0.75||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.75|-0.34|0.4614
91683682|NCT03433755|183257618|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-65.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.97|-57.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-57.66|-73.97|< 0.0001
91683683|NCT03433755|183257619|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-76.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.6|-66.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-66.4|-86.6|< 0.0001
91683684|NCT03433755|183257619|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-77.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.7|-66.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-66.7|-87.7|< 0.0001
91683685|NCT03433755|183257620|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-75.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.1|-64.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-64.7|-87.1|< 0.0001
91683686|NCT03433755|183257620|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-73.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.1|-61.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-61.8|-84.1|< 0.0001
91683687|NCT03433755|183257621|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.04|-54.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-54.37|-68.04|< 0.0001
91683688|NCT03433755|183257621|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-62.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.97|-56.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-56.32|-67.97|< 0.0001
91683689|NCT03433755|183257622|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.25|-53.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-53.65|-69.25|< 0.0001
91683690|NCT03433755|183257622|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-56.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.66|-49.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-49.63|-63.66|< 0.0001
91683691|NCT03433755|183257623|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-56.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.44|-50.07||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-50.07|-62.44|< 0.0001
91683692|NCT03433755|183257623|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-57.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.35|-51.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-51.65|-62.35|< 0.0001
91683693|NCT03433755|183257624|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-55.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.98|-48.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-48.41|-62.98|< 0.0001
91683694|NCT03433755|183257624|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-51.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.06|-44.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-44.37|-58.06|< 0.0001
91683695|NCT03433755|183257625|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-42.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.06|-37.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-37.41|-48.06|< 0.0001
91793830|NCT00322153|183466084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The co-primary efficacy parameter was CIBIC-Plus total score at week 24. Missing CIBIC-Plus total scores at Week 24 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||||0.008
91793831|NCT00322153|183466085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|Least-squares mean (-1.7 in placebo and -1.0 in memantine ER) are controlled for center and adjusted for ADCS-ADL19 baseline value.||The secondary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline at Week 24 in the total score of the 19-Item Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL19). Missing scores at week 24 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||1.8|-0.3|0.177
91793832|NCT02380690|183466116|SUPERIORITY|ECLIPSE was powered to detect an effect size of 0.45.||||||0.981||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.981
91793833|NCT02380690|183466117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.774
91683696|NCT03433755|183257625|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-44.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.02|-39.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-39.58|-49.02|< 0.0001
91683697|NCT03433755|183257626|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-43.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.09|-37.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-37.00|-49.09|< 0.0001
91683698|NCT03433755|183257626|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-40.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.98|-34.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-34.87|-45.98|< 0.0001
91683699|NCT03433755|183257627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|92.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||92.8|72.6|< 0.0001
91683700|NCT03433755|183257627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|91.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.9|96.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||96.1|76.9|< 0.0001
91683701|NCT03433755|183257628|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|90.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|95.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||95.6|76.6|< 0.0001
91683702|NCT03433755|183257628|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|85.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|91.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||91.9|68.2|< 0.0001
91683703|NCT03433755|183257629|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|93.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||93.0|73.3|< 0.0001
91683704|NCT03433755|183257629|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|88.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.5|94.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||94.0|73.5|< 0.0001
91683705|NCT03433755|183257630|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.8|90.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||90.1|67.8|< 0.0001
91683706|NCT03433755|183257630|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|82.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.8|89.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||89.7|64.8|< 0.0001
91683707|NCT03433755|183257631|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-48.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.78|-39.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-39.11|-57.78|< 0.0001
91683708|NCT03433755|183257631|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-40.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.62|-32.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-32.24|-48.62|< 0.0001
91793834|NCT02380690|183466118|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on primary outcome.||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.546.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
91793835|NCT02380690|183466119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.403.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
91793836|NCT02380690|183466120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.452.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
91793837|NCT02380690|183466121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.243.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.980
91683709|NCT03433755|183257632|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-44.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.76|-34.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-34.65|-54.76|< 0.0001
91683710|NCT03433755|183257632|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-38.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.94|-26.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-26.59|-49.94|< 0.0001
91683711|NCT03433755|183257633|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-15.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.44|-5.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-5.75|-24.44|0.008
91683712|NCT03433755|183257633|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-19.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-11.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-11.05|-28.30|< 0.0001
91683713|NCT03433755|183257634|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-17.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.42|-5.69||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-5.69|-29.42|0.008
91683714|NCT03433755|183257634|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|-1.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-1.67|-23.04|< 0.0001
91683715|NCT03433755|183257635|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|13.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||13.52|3.35|0.008
91683716|NCT03433755|183257635|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||11.50|2.10|0.017
91683717|NCT03433755|183257636|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|13.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||13.71|2.18|0.008
91683718|NCT03433755|183257636|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|11.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||11.92|0.42|0.017
91683719|NCT03433755|183257637|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.12|-12.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-12.81|-33.12|0.0002
91683720|NCT03433755|183257637|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-27.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-19.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-19.02|-36.60|< 0.0001
91683721|NCT03433755|183257638|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.31|-9.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-9.25|-34.31|0.0002
91683722|NCT03433755|183257638|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-15.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.31|-5.18||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-5.18|-26.31|< 0.0001
91683723|NCT00826007|183257713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||.18|.09|<0.001
91683724|NCT01056289|183257732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: absolute difference between the 2 discontinuation regimens in DESS total scores was \>2.5. Alternative hypothesis: absolute difference was ≤2.5; tested by calculating 95% 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) on the mean difference between the 2 regimens. If absolute values of both confidence limits were ≤2.5, then the regimens were declared equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.83|||ANCOVA|||Difference: Placebo versus DVS SR 50 mg||2.83|-0.51|
91903437|NCT00232141|183701700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1467||95.0|-0.16|1.06||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||1.06|-0.16|0.1467
91683725|NCT01056289|183257732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: absolute difference between the 2 discontinuation regimens in DESS total scores was \>2.5. Alternative hypothesis: absolute difference was ≤2.5; tested by calculating 95% 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) on the mean difference between the 2 regimens. If absolute values of both confidence limits were ≤2.5, then the regimens were declared equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.35|||ANCOVA|||Difference: DVS SR 25 mg versus DVS SR 50 mg||2.35|-1.03|
91683726|NCT01056289|183257732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: absolute difference between the 2 discontinuation regimens in DESS total scores was \>2.5. Alternative hypothesis: absolute difference was ≤2.5; tested by calculating 95% 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) on the mean difference between the 2 regimens. If absolute values of both confidence limits were ≤2.5, then the regimens were declared equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Difference: Placebo versus DVS SR 25 mg||1.89|-0.88|
91683727|NCT01917916|183257736|OTHER||Slope|2.4386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3417|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7504|3.1267|||||Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of BI 655064 was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter Cmax, determined for the 4 subcutaneous dose levels. This analysis is for the overall population.||3.1267|1.7504|
91683728|NCT01917916|183257737|OTHER||Slope|2.6033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2499|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0993|3.1073|||||Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of BI 655064 was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter AUC0-∞, determined for the 4 subcutaneous dose levels. This analysis is for the overall population.||3.1073|2.0993|
91683729|NCT01917916|183257738|OTHER||Slope|3.1291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3395|3.9187|||||Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of BI 655064 was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter AUC0-tz, determined for the 4 subcutaneous dose levels. This analysis is for the overall population.||3.9187|2.3395|
91683730|NCT00270855|183257743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group (i.e, baseline vs. post-intervention in ARE)||||>0.05
91683731|NCT00270855|183257743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group (i.e, baseline vs. post-intervention in FESLCE)||||>0.05
91683732|NCT00270855|183257744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91683733|NCT00270855|183257744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91683734|NCT00270855|183257745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||||0.519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group.||||0.519
91683735|NCT00270855|183257745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91683736|NCT00270855|183257746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||||0.615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||0.615
91683737|NCT00270855|183257746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91683738|NCT00270855|183257747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91683739|NCT00270855|183257747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91683740|NCT00270855|183257748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91683741|NCT00270855|183257749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91683742|NCT00270855|183257750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91683743|NCT00270855|183257751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91683744|NCT00270855|183257752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91683745|NCT00270855|183257753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91683746|NCT00270855|183257753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91718917|NCT04817189|183330549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.08|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Non smoker, compared to Former smoker or smoker.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Smoking status increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.08|0.52|0.127
91718918|NCT04817189|183330549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97|||generalized linear model||The OR was calculated as the change in weight per 10 kg.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Weight increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||0.97|0.77|0.014
91718919|NCT04817189|183330556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.96|||generalized linear model||||"The model-based statistics were used to calculate the difference in the score per cycle between the treatment arms."|6.96|0.05|<0.05
91718920|NCT04817189|183330567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - acute phase|||0.01|-0.13|<0.05
91718921|NCT04817189|183330567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.12|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - delayed phase|||-0.12|-0.50|<0.05
91718922|NCT04817189|183330567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02|||generalized linear model||||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 2|-0.02|-0.21|<0.05
91718923|NCT04817189|183330567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 3|||0.04|-0.17|<0.05
91718924|NCT04817189|183330567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 4|||0.05|-0.16|<0.05
91718925|NCT04817189|183330567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 5|||0.05|-0.13|<0.05
91718926|NCT04817189|183330567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.14|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - overall phase|||-0.14|-0.60|<0.05
91718927|NCT02775851|183330568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial|||We assumed a null pCR rate of 5% and powered the study assuming an alternative hypothesis of 25%. This single stage design had an alpha of 3.4% (i.e. probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true CR is 5%) and a power of 90% (probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true pCR is 25%) with 25 eligible participants.||||<0.001
91718928|NCT02775851|183330569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial|||We assumed a null CR rate of 5% and powered the study assuming an alternative hypothesis of 20%. This single stage design had an alpha of 8.5% (i.e. probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true CR is 5%) and a power of 82% (probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true CR is 20%) with 21 eligible participants.||||<0.001
91718929|NCT02058095|183330672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91718930|NCT02058095|183330674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91718931|NCT00148798|183330681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Stratified Log Rank|||Primary efficacy analysis: To test equality of OS time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (Stage IIIb vs IV, ECOG 0/1 vs 2) (α=5%).||||0.0441
91718932|NCT00148798|183330682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Stratified Log Rank|||To test equality of progression free survival time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%).||||0.3869
91718933|NCT00148798|183330683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The best overall response rate was compared in the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (two-sided with α=5%).||||0.0101
91718934|NCT00148798|183330684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The disease control rate was compared in the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (two-sided with α=5%).||||0.6801
91718935|NCT02842866|183330718|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95 percent (%) confidence internal (CI) of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than (\>) -10 percent (%) for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.08|22.2||||||Serogroup A||22.2|9.08|
91718936|NCT02842866|183330718|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% CI of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|33.5||||||Serogroup C||33.5|21.2|
91718937|NCT02842866|183330718|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% CI of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|37.0||||||Serogroup Y||37.0|24.6|
91718938|NCT02842866|183330718|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% CI of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|24.2||||||Serogroup W||24.2|11.2|
91718939|NCT02842866|183330719|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.2||||||Serogroup A||2.20|1.40|
91718940|NCT02842866|183330719|OTHER||GMT Ratio|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|5.33||||||Serogroup C||5.33|3.16|
91718941|NCT02842866|183330719|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.23||||||Serogroup Y||4.23|2.57|
91718942|NCT02842866|183330719|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.31||||||Serogroup W||2.31|1.42|
91718943|NCT03720119|183330727|OTHER|Analysis of Variance for repeated measurements.|day effect F|27.83||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The calculated P-Value represents the repeated measurement/Day (all times versus Day 1)|Dunnett's post-hoc test|||||||0.0001
91793838|NCT02380690|183466122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.133.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.864
91793839|NCT02380690|183466123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.102.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.780
91683747|NCT00270855|183257754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91683748|NCT00270855|183257754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91903438|NCT00232141|183701700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2819||95.0|-0.25|0.87||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.87|-0.25|0.2819
91683749|NCT00270855|183257755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91683750|NCT00270855|183257755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91683751|NCT00270855|183257756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91683752|NCT00270855|183257756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91683753|NCT00270855|183257757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91683754|NCT00270855|183257757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91683755|NCT00270855|183257758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91683756|NCT00270855|183257758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91683757|NCT00270855|183257759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91683758|NCT00270855|183257759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91683759|NCT00270855|183257760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91683760|NCT00270855|183257761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91793840|NCT02380690|183466124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.536.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
91683761|NCT00270855|183257762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91683762|NCT00270855|183257763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91683763|NCT00270855|183257764|OTHER|A Mann-Whitney U test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91683764|NCT00270855|183257765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a Mann-Whitney U test.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||we evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91683765|NCT00270855|183257766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mann-whitney u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91683766|NCT00270855|183257767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91683767|NCT00270855|183257767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91683768|NCT00270855|183257768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney U test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91683769|NCT00324649|183257817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0014
91793841|NCT02380690|183466125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.340.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.997
91793842|NCT02380690|183466126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.384.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
91683770|NCT00324649|183257818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9713||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9713
91683771|NCT00324649|183257819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9725||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9725
91683772|NCT00324649|183257820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0078
91683773|NCT00324649|183257821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6984||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: percentages of days with compliance in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: percentages of days with compliance in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.6984
91683774|NCT00324649|183257822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.3||||0.1165||95.0|-0.9|29.4||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.|The difference is for Truvada minus zidovudine/lamivudine. The 95% confidence interval on the mean difference between treatment groups is based on the normal approximation.|"Null Hypothesis: treatment is not associated with the observed virologic response.~Alternative Hypothesis: treatment is associated with the observed virologic response."||29.4|-0.9|0.1165
91683775|NCT00324649|183257825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0789
91683776|NCT00324649|183257826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9633||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9633
91683777|NCT00324649|183257827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9686||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9686
91683778|NCT00324649|183257828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6638||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.6638
91683779|NCT00324649|183257829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2907||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.2907
91683780|NCT00324649|183257830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0072
91683781|NCT00324649|183257831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0006
91683782|NCT00324649|183257832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1785||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.1785
91683783|NCT02618759|183257835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0745|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0745
91683784|NCT02618759|183257836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2310
91683785|NCT02618759|183257837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1059|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1059
91683786|NCT02618759|183257838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6962|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6962
91683787|NCT02618759|183257839|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
91683788|NCT02618759|183257840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1044|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1044
91683789|NCT03301649|183257844|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was demonstrated if 90% CI of percentage difference between generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion group was within the range (-20%, +20%).|Difference in percentage of participants|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|7.8||||||If the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the absolute difference between the percentage of participants who were considered a treatment success in the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was contained within the range (-20%, +20%) then therapeutic equivalence of the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was considered to have been demonstrated.||7.8|-3.9|
91683790|NCT03301649|183257845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using last observation carried forward \[LOCF\] method).||||<0.0001
91683791|NCT03301649|183257845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using LOCF method).||||<0.0001
91683792|NCT03301649|183257846|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was demonstrated if 90% CI of percentage difference between generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion group was within the range (-20%, +20%).|Difference in percentage of participants|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|4.5||||||If the 90% CI for the absolute difference between the percentage of participants who were considered a treatment success in the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was contained within the range (-20%, +20%) then therapeutic equivalence of the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was considered to have been demonstrated.||4.5|-2.6|
91683793|NCT03301649|183257847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using LOCF method).||||<0.0001
91683794|NCT03301649|183257847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using LOCF method).||||<0.0001
91683795|NCT03323437|183257860|OTHER|two way anova|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91683796|NCT03323437|183257861|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||||||.68
91683797|NCT03323437|183257862|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||.03
91683798|NCT03323437|183257863|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||.01
91683799|NCT03323437|183257864|OTHER|two sided t test||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.59
91683800|NCT03323437|183257865|OTHER|two sided t test||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
91683801|NCT03323437|183257866|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||.32
91683802|NCT03323437|183257867|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||.60
91683803|NCT03323437|183257868|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||.34
91683804|NCT03323437|183257869|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||.35
91683805|NCT03323437|183257870|OTHER|fisher's exact||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.66
91683806|NCT03323437|183257871|OTHER|two sided t test||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
91683807|NCT03323437|183257872|OTHER|fisher's exact test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91683808|NCT03257865|183257895|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.62|||=|0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.32|||mixed-effect model repeated measure||"Comparison between treatment groups was carried out using MMRM, with study center, treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factor and baseline-by-visit interaction as a covariate. An unstructured covariance was used."|||0.32|-3.56|=0.1011
91683809|NCT03857750|183257897|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|124.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing onset time of rocuronium||124|40|<0.001
91683810|NCT03857750|183257897|OTHER||Odds|19.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney odd||95 % confidence interval is 7.63 to infinity|82||||<0.001
91683811|NCT03857750|183257899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|48.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing duration of action of rocuronium||48|14|<0.001
91683812|NCT03857750|183257899|OTHER||Odds|6.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney odd||95% Confidence interval is 2.59 to infinity.|Comparing duration of action of rocuronium||||0.001
91683813|NCT02549027|183257900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.47|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing LPS was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.47|0.12|
91683814|NCT02549027|183257900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.41|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing LPS was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.41|0.10|
91683815|NCT02549027|183257900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.3|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing LPS was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.30|0.08|
91683816|NCT02549027|183257901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.11|||||Ratio is MK-6096/placebo|Mean log treatment difference of MK-6096 versus placebo (MK-6096 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio.||0.11|0.02|
91683817|NCT02549027|183257904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.07|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing WASO was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||1.07|0.67|
91683818|NCT02549027|183257904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.86|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing WASO was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.86|0.54|
91683819|NCT02549027|183257904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.95|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing WASO was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.95|0.60|
91683820|NCT02549027|183257905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.79|||||Ratio is MK-6096/placebo|Mean log treatment difference of MK-6096 versus placebo (MK-6096 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio.||0.79|0.50|
91793843|NCT02380690|183466127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.730.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
91683821|NCT02549027|183257906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.01|17.2|||||Difference is MK-1064 - placebo|Analysis used a step-up approach. Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of the lowest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed. If the CI lies completely below 25 milliseconds, testing continued to the next higher MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that at least one dose of MK-1064 does not produce psychomotor impairment versus placebo as assessed by CRT will be supported if the CI lies below 25 milliseconds for at least one dose.||17.20|-12.01|
91683822|NCT02549027|183257906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.33|19.88|||||Difference is MK-1064 - placebo|Analysis used a step-up approach. Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of the lowest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed. If the CI lies completely below 25 milliseconds, testing continued to the next higher MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that at least one dose of MK-1064 does not produce psychomotor impairment versus placebo as assessed by CRT will be supported if the CI lies below 25 milliseconds for at least one dose.||19.88|-9.33|
91683823|NCT02549027|183257906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|20.98|||||Difference is MK-1064 - placebo|Analysis used a step-up approach. Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of the lowest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed. If the CI lies completely below 25 milliseconds, testing continued to the next higher MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that at least one dose of MK-1064 does not produce psychomotor impairment versus placebo as assessed by CRT will be supported if the CI lies below 25 milliseconds for at least one dose.||20.98|-8.23|
91683824|NCT02549027|183257907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|25.7|||||Difference is MK-6096 - placebo|Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of MK-6096 versus placebo (MK-6096 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed.||25.70|-7.10|
91683825|NCT00168818|183257919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 7.7%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the rate difference has to be below 7.7%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.7||||0.5648||95.0|-2.9|1.6||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.6|-2.9|0.5648
91683826|NCT00168818|183257919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 7.7%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the rate difference has to be below 7.7%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.9||||0.1339||95.0|-0.6|4.4||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.4|-0.6|0.1339
91683827|NCT00168818|183257920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.8||||0.3256||95.0|-2.5|0.8|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||0.8|-2.5|0.3256
91683828|NCT00168818|183257920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.4||||0.7052||95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.2|-1.5|0.7052
91683829|NCT00168818|183257921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.1||||0.1863||95.0|-2.7|0.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||0.5|-2.7|0.1863
91683830|NCT00168818|183257921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.702||95.0|-1.4|2.1|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.1|-1.4|0.7020
91683831|NCT00168818|183257922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.1||||0.3173||95.0|-3.3|1.1|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.1|-3.3|0.3173
91683832|NCT00168818|183257922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.9||||0.1274||95.0|-0.5|4.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.3|-0.5|0.1274
91683833|NCT00168818|183257923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0694||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0694
91683834|NCT00168818|183257923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0212||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0212
91683835|NCT00168818|183257924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5062||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.5062
91683836|NCT00168818|183257924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3717||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.3717
91683837|NCT00168818|183257925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.1240
91683838|NCT00168818|183257925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2497||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.2497
91683839|NCT00168818|183257927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4352||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.4352
91683840|NCT00168818|183257927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6037||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.6037
91683841|NCT00469144|183257931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||100 Days, Between Arms: Participants in CR||||0.9
91683842|NCT00469144|183257931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||100 Days, Between Arms: Participants not in CR||||0.4
91683843|NCT00469144|183257931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 Year, Between Arms: Participants in CR||||0.7
91683844|NCT00469144|183257931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 Year, Between Arms: Participants not in CR||||0.05
91793844|NCT02380690|183466128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.161.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.914
91793845|NCT02380690|183466129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.930.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
91903439|NCT00232141|183701701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8727||95.0|-0.55|0.46||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.46|-0.55|0.8727
91793846|NCT02380690|183466130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.379.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
91683845|NCT01994291|183257933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the mean difference at Week 12 is greater than -3.0 letters.|Difference in LS means|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.27|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the difference, in the mean change from baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||-0.37|-4.27|0.1271
91683846|NCT01994291|183257933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the mean difference at Week 12 is greater than -3.0 letters.|Difference in LS means|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.24|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the difference, in the mean change from baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||-0.73|-4.24|0.0699
91683847|NCT01994291|183257933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the mean difference at Week 12 is greater than -3.0 letters.|Difference in LS means|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.91|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the difference, in the mean change from baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||-0.91|-3.91|0.0399
91683848|NCT01994291|183257934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1416||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2483|-0.0467|||Barnard test|||||-0.0467|-0.2483|0.0218
91683849|NCT01994291|183257934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0442||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1217|0.0261|||Barnard test.|||baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||0.0261|-0.1217|0.4209
91683850|NCT01994291|183257934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0849||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1516|-0.0168|||Barnard test.|||||-0.0168|-0.1516|0.0778
91683851|NCT01994291|183257935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|114.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|88.56|139.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||139.59|88.56|<0.0001
91683852|NCT01994291|183257935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|65.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.36||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|42.2|89.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||89.43|42.20|0.0004
91683853|NCT01994291|183257935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|87.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|67.45|107.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||107.19|67.45|<0.0001
91683854|NCT01994291|183257936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.13|9.83|||ANCOVA|||||9.83|6.13|<0.0001
91683855|NCT01994291|183257936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.7|7.98|||ANCOVA|||||7.98|4.70|<0.0001
91683856|NCT01994291|183257936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.66|8.48|||ANCOVA|||||8.48|5.66|<0.0001
91683857|NCT01994291|183257937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13|0.55|||ANCOVA|||||0.55|0.13|0.0423
91683858|NCT01994291|183257937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|0.75|||ANCOVA|||||0.75|0.36|0.0004
91683859|NCT01994291|183257937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|0.30|0.0004
91683860|NCT01775189|183257946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) mean Difference|9.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|14.2||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.2|4.8|0.0001
91683861|NCT01775189|183257946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-27.6||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-27.6|-37.0|<0.0001
91683862|NCT01775189|183257946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|13.8||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.8|4.5|0.0002
91683863|NCT01775189|183257946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.3||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.3|-5.0|0.8806
91683864|NCT01775189|183257946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|46.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.1|36.8|<0.0001
91683865|NCT01775189|183257946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|46.4||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.4|37.1|<0.0001
91683866|NCT01775189|183257947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.6||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|17.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.1|-4.0|0.2176
91793847|NCT02380690|183466131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.969.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
91793848|NCT04854642|183466206|OTHER||Least square mean difference|71.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.13|75.29|||ANOVA|||||75.29|68.13|<0.0001
91793849|NCT04854642|183466207|OTHER||Least square mean difference|90.93||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.3|96.93|||ANOVA|||||96.93|85.30|0.0170
91683867|NCT01775189|183257947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|-44.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-44.1|-65.1|<0.0001
91683868|NCT01775189|183257947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|15.5||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||15.5|-5.6|0.3502
91683869|NCT01775189|183257947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|8.9||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.9|-12.1|0.7624
91683870|NCT01775189|183257947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|59.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|70.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||70.1|49.0|<0.0001
91683871|NCT01775189|183257947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|71.7||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.7|50.6|<0.0001
91683872|NCT01775189|183257948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|35.3||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||35.3|13.8|<0.0001
91683873|NCT01775189|183257948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-50.9||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-50.9|-72.6|<0.0001
91683874|NCT01775189|183257948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|29.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||29.1|7.4|0.0012
91718944|NCT02897349|183330729|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (%)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.16|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Based on Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) including fixed effects treatment, week, type of insulin, and treatment by week interaction, linear covariates baseline HbA1c, baseline HbA1c by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||-0.16|-0.65|0.0016
91793850|NCT04854642|183466208|OTHER||Least square mean difference|90.9||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.04|97.16|||ANOVA|||||97.16|85.04|0.0213
91683875|NCT01775189|183257948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|4.5||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.5|-17.2|0.2507
91683876|NCT01775189|183257948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|79.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.2|90.7||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||90.7|69.2|<0.0001
91683877|NCT01775189|183257948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|86.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.4|97.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||97.1|75.4|<0.0001
91683878|NCT01775189|183257949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|43.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||43.1|10.6|0.0015
91683879|NCT01775189|183257949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-109.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.7|-93.0||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-93.0|-125.7|<0.0001
91683880|NCT01775189|183257949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.4||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|37.8||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.8|5.1|0.0109
91683881|NCT01775189|183257949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.4||||0.5117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|10.9||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.9|-21.8|0.5117
91683882|NCT01775189|183257949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|130.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.5|147.0||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||147.0|114.5|<0.0001
91683883|NCT01775189|183257949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|136.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.8|152.5||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||152.5|119.8|<0.0001
91793851|NCT04854642|183466209|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91793852|NCT01865084|183466232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.307||||||The p-value is based on the treatment difference LS Mean changes from baseline between tadalafil and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.307
91793853|NCT01865084|183466232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.538||||||The p-value is based on the treatment difference LS Mean changes from baseline between tadalafil and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.538
91793854|NCT03693170|183466243|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"The null hypothesis that the true response rate is 30% will be tested against a one-sided alternative.~The cORR will be provided with a corresponding Clopper-Pearson (exact) binomial 95% CI for the Efficacy Set.~This design yields a 1-sided type I error rate equal to 1.6% and power of 80% when the true response rate is 45%."|If 37 or more confirmed responses were observed in the 90 treated subjects with a centrally confirmed BRAFV600E mutation, corresponding to a lower limit of Clopper-Pearson (exact) binomial 95% CI exceeding 30%, the study was considered to have met its primary endpoint. If more than 90 subjects were enrolled, the lower limit of Clopper-Pearson was to be used for decision.|||
91683884|NCT00118534|183258015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|||The target sample size (n=1400)was designed to have 90% power to detect the difference between 6% and 11% prolonged abstinence rates in SCC and IC, respectively, using a 2-sided .05 level Chi-square test. Final enrollment was 943. The recruitment period was not extended because the achieved sample size provided 78% power to detect the hypothesized prolonged abstinence rates, and the study continued to the end of planned follow-up.||3.59|1.22|0.007
91683885|NCT00118534|183258016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|1.58|<0.001
91683886|NCT02639052|183258083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9704||||||Significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||Baseline assessment of itch VAS after itch induction but prior to Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||0.9704
91683887|NCT02639052|183258084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||1 week (Visit 2) was the first assessment of itch VAS after itch induction after Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||<0.0001
91683888|NCT02639052|183258085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant difference in mean itch VAS between the two treatments (Botox mean=2.45 versus saline mean=3.20, p\<0.0001). Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||1 month (Visit 3) was the second assessment of itch VAS after itch induction after Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||<0.0001
91683889|NCT02639052|183258086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare treatment (Botox vs saline), time, and interaction effect between treatment \& time||3 months (Visit 4) was the third assessment of itch VAS after itch induction after Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||0.0004
91683890|NCT02639052|183258087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1306||||||Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and visit, and interaction effect between treatment and visit.||||0.1306
91683891|NCT03203564|183258103|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|14.12|||||Parameter estimate is done for Placebo-corrected change-from baseline QTcF (ΔΔQTcF) for Modufolin 500 mg/m2 at end of infusion.|"The primary analysis of QTcF was based on a linear mixed-effects model with change-from-baseline QTcF as the dependent variable, time (categorical), treatment, and time-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The least-squares (LS) mean and 2-sided 90 % CIs have been calculated for the contrast Modufolin® versus placebo at each dose of Modufolin® and each post-dose time point."||14.12|0.68|
91683892|NCT00789737|183258129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0369||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||least squares mean; 80% power to detect a 0.3% change||||0.0369
91683893|NCT00789737|183258130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0373||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0373
91683894|NCT00789737|183258135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.00001
91683895|NCT02458287|183258142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-54.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-value are from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction as covariates.||-54.7|-72.0|<0.001
91683896|NCT02458287|183258151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-34.0|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-34.0|-51.9|<0.001
91683897|NCT02458287|183258152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-34.1|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-34.1|-45.4|<0.001
91683898|NCT02458287|183258152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-20.8|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-20.8|-32.5|<0.001
91683899|NCT02458287|183258153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.2|-49.5|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-49.5|-66.2|<0.001
91793855|NCT00905827|183466320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons (ANOVA simple effect comparisons) adjusted for baseline scores||||<0.01
91683900|NCT02458287|183258153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-27.1|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-27.1|-44.4|<0.001
91793856|NCT00905827|183466320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons (ANOVA simple effect comparisons) adjusted for baseline scores||||0.01
91683901|NCT02458287|183258154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.7|-48.6|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-48.6|-63.7|<0.001
91683902|NCT02458287|183258154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-29.3|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-29.3|-45.0|<0.001
91683903|NCT02823652|183258215|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
91683904|NCT02823652|183258216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91683905|NCT02823652|183258217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.312
91683906|NCT02823652|183258218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91683907|NCT04428333|183258231|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.87||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||23.87|0.20|0.740
91683908|NCT04428333|183258232|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.87||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥ 20 vs 1≤ CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||23.87|0.20|0.740
91683909|NCT04428333|183258233|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.43||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||2.43|0.20|0.284
91683910|NCT04428333|183258234|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.43||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||2.43|0.20|0.284
91683911|NCT04428333|183258237|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|11.3||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||11.3|-20.8|
91683912|NCT04428333|183258238|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|11.3||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||11.3|-21.4|
91683913|NCT04428333|183258239|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|13.1||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||13.1|-22.2|
91683914|NCT04428333|183258240|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|13.3||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||13.3|-22.8|
91793857|NCT03347188|183466322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.67|-0.73|0.1876
91793858|NCT03139604|183466345|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|2.204||Not adjusted for multiplicity with interim and final analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||binomial distribution||2.204|0.959|0.0782
91718945|NCT02897349|183330730|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (mg/dL)|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|3.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Based on MMRM including fixed effects treatment, week, type of insulin, and treatment by week interaction, linear covariates baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG baseline FPG by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||3.8|-16.2|0.2241
91718946|NCT02897349|183330731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (mg/dL)|-31.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.15|-15.75|||ANCOVA|||Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including fixed effect treatment and type of insulin, and linear covariates baseline HbA1c and baseline 2-h PPG.||-15.75|-48.15|0.0001
91718947|NCT02897349|183330732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|4.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with terms for treatment and type of insulin as fixed effect and continuous linear covariates baseline HbA1c||4.780|0.673|0.2431
91718948|NCT02897349|183330733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.481||||0.6235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|7.105|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with terms for treatment and type of insulin as fixed effect and continuous linear covariates baseline HbA1c||7.105|0.309|0.6235
91718949|NCT02897349|183330734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.293||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.286|4.091|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with terms for treatment and type of insulin as fixed effect and continuous linear covariates baseline HbA1c||4.091|1.286|0.0049
91718950|NCT01142336|183330768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05, adjust for 3 primary outcomes using Holm Correction|ANCOVA|Response variable was Aβ42 in CSF at 1 year, and predictor variables were Aβ42 in CSF at baseline, treatment group, age, sex, and APOE e4 allele.||||||0.53
91718951|NCT01142336|183330769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05, adjusted for 3 primary outcomes using Holm correction|ANCOVA|Response variable was total tau in CSF at 1 year, and predictor were total tau in at baseline, treatment group, age, sex, and APOE e4 allele status||||||0.36
91718952|NCT01142336|183330770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05, adjusted for 3 primary outcomes using Holm correction.|ANCOVA|Response variable was p-tau181 in CSF at 1 year, and predictor were p-tau181 in at baseline, treatment group, age, sex, and APOE e4 allele status||||||0.25
91718953|NCT01225055|183330774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.84
91718954|NCT01225055|183330774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.64
91718955|NCT01225055|183330774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.26
91718956|NCT01225055|183330775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.64
91903440|NCT00232141|183701701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6897||95.0|-0.65|0.43||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.43|-0.65|0.6897
91718957|NCT01225055|183330775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.00
91718958|NCT01225055|183330775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.09
91718959|NCT01225055|183330776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.72
91718960|NCT01225055|183330776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.58
91718961|NCT01225055|183330776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.44
91718962|NCT01225055|183330777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.02
91718963|NCT01225055|183330777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.10
91718964|NCT01225055|183330777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.04
91718965|NCT01225055|183330778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.01
91718966|NCT01225055|183330778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.34
91718967|NCT01225055|183330778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.20
91718968|NCT01225055|183330779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.00
91718969|NCT01225055|183330779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.01
91718970|NCT01225055|183330779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.04
91718971|NCT01123655|183330805|EQUIVALENCE|P less than 0.05 was the criteria for equivalence.||||||0.5179|||||||Fisher Exact|||Specified to be a reduction from baseline values of net IFNƔ concentration of ≥ 25% in αl(ll)-stimulated PBMC culture supernatants (calculated as αI(II)-IFNƔ-PBS IFNƔ in patients receiving APL A12 compared to placebo.||||0.5179
91718972|NCT01123655|183330805|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis was that the response rate in the APL treated groups is not significantly difference from the 50% spontaneous response rate.||||||0.0114|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.0114
91718973|NCT01123655|183330805|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis was that the response rate in the placebo group is not significantly difference from the 50% spontaneous response rate.||||||0.4142|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.4142
91718974|NCT01123655|183330807|EQUIVALENCE|P greater than 0.05 was the criteria for equivalence.|||||>|0.05||||||P value is applicable for baseline and follow-up data.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91718975|NCT01123655|183330808|EQUIVALENCE|p value greater than 0.05 was the criteria for equivalence.|||||>|0.05||||||P value is applicable to IL-17a, IL-10, IL-1b, IL-9, IL-13, IL-5, IL-21, IL-6, TNFa, TGFb, MIP3a.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91718976|NCT05469438|183330842|OTHER|We assessed prediction accuracy of our system using the R\^2 from leave-one-out cross-validation of predicted Fugl-Meyer scores, which were obtained from models predicting recovery based on baseline data.|||||||||||||||||We assessed prediction accuracy of our system using the R\^2 from leave-one-out cross-validation of predicted Fugl-Meyer scores, which were obtained from models predicting recovery based on baseline data.|||
91718977|NCT02368132|183330843|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in least square means between Usual Care (reference) and Group Delivered TEP arm at 3 months.|||||<0.001
91718978|NCT02368132|183330843|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in least square means between Usual Care (reference) and Individual Delivered TEP arm at 3 months.|||||0.04
91718979|NCT02475369|183330846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.271
91718980|NCT02475369|183330847|OTHER|In order to calculate a correlation between baseline fecal elastase-1 and total CeD-GSRS score on PES treatment vs. placebo treatment, we calculated a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between the two independent variables.||||||0.995|||||||Spearman rank coefficient|||||||0.995
91718981|NCT02475369|183330848|OTHER|In order to evaluate the estimated difference of the effect of Pancreatic Enzyme Supplement versus Placebo for the Celiac Symptom Index (CSI) scores, we used a linear mixed effects model with the nlme package.||||||0.08|||||||Linear Mixed Effects model|||||||0.08
91718982|NCT00471497|183330849|OTHER||Difference in response rate|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|14.5|<0.0001
91718983|NCT00471497|183330849|OTHER||Difference in response rate|20.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.0|12.9|<0.0001
91718984|NCT00471497|183330850|OTHER||Difference in response rate|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|27.5||||||(Low)||27.5|2.1|
91718985|NCT00471497|183330850|OTHER||Difference in response rate|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|40.2||||||(Low)||40.2|14.6|
91903441|NCT00232141|183701701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7527||95.0|-0.6|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.44|-0.60|0.7527
91718986|NCT00471497|183330850|OTHER||Difference in response rate|27.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|40.4||||||(Intermediate)||40.4|15.0|
91718987|NCT00471497|183330850|OTHER||Difference in response rate|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|29.8||||||(Intermediate)||29.8|4.6|
91718988|NCT00471497|183330850|OTHER||Difference in response rate|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|38.1||||||(High)||38.1|10.7|
91718989|NCT00471497|183330850|OTHER||Difference in response rate|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|28.6||||||(High)||28.6|2.1|
91718990|NCT00471497|183330851|OTHER||Difference in response rate|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|28.8||||||||28.8|13.9|
91718991|NCT00471497|183330851|OTHER||Difference in response rate|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|26.0||||||||26.0|11.3|
91718992|NCT00471497|183330853|OTHER||Absolute difference|-1.6||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.6|-9.8|0.6987
91718993|NCT01991795|183330905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.81|0.0378
91718994|NCT01991795|183330906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.88|0.7883
91718995|NCT01991795|183330907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.71|0.0294
91718996|NCT01991795|183330908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.99||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.64|0.0375
91718997|NCT01991795|183330909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.87|0.6846
91718998|NCT01991795|183330910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.94|||Regression, Cox|||||2.94|1.82|<0.0001
91718999|NCT01991795|183330911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.07|||Regression, Cox|||||3.07|2.02|<0.0001
91719000|NCT01991795|183330912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.93|||Regression, Cox|||||2.93|1.98|<0.0001
91719001|NCT01991795|183330913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.92|||Regression, Cox|||||4.92|3.32|<0.0001
91719002|NCT01232283|183330932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|29.6|||Chi-squared|||||29.6|16.3|<0.0001
91719003|NCT01232283|183330933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|21.9|||Chi-squared|||||21.9|10.2|<0.0001
91719004|NCT01232283|183330934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-42.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.11|-33.2|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-33.20|-51.11|<0.0001
91683915|NCT04428333|183258257|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.71||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.71|0.42|0.329
91683916|NCT04428333|183258258|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.69||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.69|0.40|0.302
91683917|NCT04428333|183258259|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.11||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||2.11|0.44|0.472
91683918|NCT04428333|183258260|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.9||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.90|0.36|0.335
91683919|NCT04853992|183258261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary endpoint, change from baseline in post-provocation Urticaria Activity Score (UASprovo) to the end of the treatment period, was compared between treatments with the null hypothesis that they are equal against the alternative that they are different. The primary efficacy endpoint was analysed using a linear mixed model, containing treatment, period and carryover effects, the factor site and additionally the value of UASprovo at baseline as a covariate.||0.53|-1.69|0.277
91683920|NCT02135614|183258297|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.12||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.43||P-value was calculated from the ANCOVA model including baseline values, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) score, and stratification factor as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.20|0.46
91683921|NCT02135614|183258298|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.08||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.16||P-value was calculated from the ANCOVA model including the baseline value, CFS score and stratification factor as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.00|0.046
91683922|NCT02135614|183258299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||P-value was calculated from the negative binomial model with the stratification factor as covariate.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.39
91683923|NCT02135614|183258300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value from the negative binomial model comparing the rate ratio between treatment groups, adjusted for the stratification factor.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.004
91683924|NCT01421511|183258327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the early clinical response rates at 48 to 72 Hours after the first infusion of study drug using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|8.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid responder rate minus the linezolid responder rate.|||8.2|-3.0|
91683925|NCT01421511|183258328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the programmatic clinical response at the EOT visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.1||Hierarchical testing procedure of Westfall and Krishen used to control for inflation of the overall type I error rate. If NI is declared for the primary, NI will be tested for the secondary outcomes in this order: Secondary Outcomes Measures 2 to 5.|||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||4.1|-6.1|
91683926|NCT01421511|183258329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the EOT Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.3|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||0.3|-8.8|
91683927|NCT01421511|183258330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.3|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||5.3|-4.8|
91793859|NCT04543409|183466408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|117.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.17|361.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The OR estimate and p-value was obtained from the CMH test controlling for region (North America and Rest of the world), baseline steroid use, and presence of strictures at baseline. Odds ratio values \>1 favor Benra 30 mg treatment group.|Analysis completed at Week 24.||361.64|38.17|<0.0001
91903442|NCT00232141|183701701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6394||95.0|-0.67|0.41||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.41|-0.67|0.6394
91683928|NCT01421511|183258331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|0.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||0.2|-7.7|
91683929|NCT01421511|183258332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.6|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the 48-72 Hour Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification.||5.6|-3.3|
91683930|NCT01421511|183258333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.9|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the Day 7 Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification.||4.9|-3.2|
91683931|NCT00106964|183258352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0440
91683932|NCT00106964|183258352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0157
91683933|NCT00106964|183258356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.5822||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.5822
91683934|NCT00106964|183258356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8698||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.8698
91683935|NCT00106964|183258357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio (OR) Odds ratio depends on CD4 count resulting from interaction. For example, OR=0.29 for CD4 count = 0; OR= 2.91 for CD4 count = 460 (median CD4 count for the evaluable study population).|||1.19|0.07|0.0853
91683936|NCT00106964|183258357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.63|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio|||3.63|1.09|0.0244
91683937|NCT04040192|183258358|OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||||||0.0034
91683938|NCT04040192|183258360|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included fixed effects of treatment group, age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Least square mean difference|34.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.274||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|66.64|||ANCOVA|||||66.64|2.53|0.0346
91683939|NCT04040192|183258361|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||p-value was estimated by Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference and 95%CI were estimated using Hodges-Lehmann method.|||0.00|-1.00|0.0042
91683940|NCT04040192|183258362|OTHER|||||||0.6815||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Baseline PP NRS \>=3 and \>=3 point reduction in PP NRS||||0.6815
91683941|NCT04040192|183258362|OTHER|||||||0.1518||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Baseline PP NRS \>=4 and \>=4 point reduction in PP NRS||||0.1518
91683942|NCT04040192|183258363|OTHER|||||||0.1933||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization|Log Rank|||||||0.1933
91683943|NCT04040192|183258364|OTHER|p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization||||||0.3778|||||||Log Rank|||Baseline ORIS Scale \>=3 and \>=3 point reduction||||0.3778
91683944|NCT04040192|183258364|OTHER|p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization||||||0.487|||||||Log Rank|||Baseline ORIS Scale \>=4 and \>=4 point reduction||||0.4870
91683945|NCT04040192|183258365|OTHER|||||||0.1159||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||||||0.1159
91683946|NCT04040192|183258366|OTHER|||||||0.6973||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||DLQI for participants \>=16 years of age||||0.6973
91683947|NCT04040192|183258366|OTHER|||||||0.7456||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Children's DLQI: participants 4-\<16 yrs of age||||0.7456
91683948|NCT04040192|183258367|OTHER|||||||0.0513||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||POEM||||0.0513
91683949|NCT04040192|183258367|OTHER|||||||0.0217||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Proxy POEM||||0.0217
91683950|NCT03207243|183258460|OTHER||Median Rate Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||||Median rate ratio (Placebo - GSK3772847) and its 95% Credible Interval has been presented|||0.99|0.66|
91719005|NCT01232283|183330935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-27.2|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-27.2|-42.4|<0.0001
91719006|NCT01232283|183330936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|44.7|||Chi-squared|||||44.7|26.9|< 0.0001
91719007|NCT01232283|183330937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-14.2|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-14.2|-28.4|<0.0001
91719008|NCT01232283|183330938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.8|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-2.8|-5.3|<0.0001
91719009|NCT01232283|183330939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.63||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.56|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||4.56|0.69|0.0078
91719010|NCT01232283|183330940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|20.0|||Chi-squared|||||20.0|8.5|<0.0001
91719011|NCT01232283|183330941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.408|17.399|||Log Rank|||||17.399|3.408|<0.0001
91719012|NCT01141608|183330948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Linear mixed effects model|||||||<0.05
91719013|NCT00855218|183330955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.072||95.0|0.588|1.08||stratified one-sided (alpha=0.15). adjusted for region and Alfa-fetoprotein (AFP) level at baseline.|Log Rank|||||1.080|0.588|0.072
91719014|NCT00855218|183330956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.295||95.0|0.606|1.33|||Log Rank|stratified one-sided (alpha=0.15). adjusted for region and AFP level at baseline.||||1.330|0.606|0.295
91903443|NCT00232141|183701701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1188||95.0|-0.13|1.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||1.11|-0.13|0.1188
91719015|NCT00855218|183330957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.586||||0.999||95.0|1.2|2.096|||Log Rank|startified one-sided (alpha=0.15), adjusted for region and AFP level at baseline||||2.096|1.200|0.999
91719016|NCT00855218|183330958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.621||||0.076||95.0|0.321|1.2|||Log Rank|stratified one sided (alpha=0.15), adjusted on region and AFP level at baseline||||1.200|0.321|0.076
91719017|NCT02941640|183330967|OTHER|Anova|||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91719018|NCT02941640|183330967|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||Post hoc analysis was done by Tukey test.||||0.001
91719019|NCT02941640|183330967|OTHER|Tukey post hoc test|||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
91719020|NCT02941640|183330967|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||0.044
91719021|NCT02941640|183330967|OTHER||||||<|0.272||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.272
91719022|NCT02941640|183330967|OTHER|||||||0.835||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||0.835
91719023|NCT02941640|183330967|OTHER|||||||0.199||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||0.199
91719024|NCT02941640|183330968|OTHER|Anova|||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91719025|NCT02941640|183330968|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
91719026|NCT02941640|183330968|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
91719027|NCT02941640|183330968|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
91719028|NCT02941640|183330968|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
91719029|NCT02941640|183330968|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
91719030|NCT02941640|183330968|OTHER|||||||1||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||1.00
91719031|NCT00506675|183330970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
91719032|NCT00506675|183330971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
91719033|NCT00506675|183330972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
91719034|NCT03658980|183330991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.233|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.415|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.415|0.131|<0.001
91719035|NCT03141359|183330995|SUPERIORITY||Rate|0.627||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.75|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|We used a single-stage design to test null hypothesis (H0) that 1-yr PFS is \<= 0.60. Assuming one-sided α= 0.10, 60 patients provided 98% power to reject H0, assuming the true 1-yr PFS is 0.80. Since not all enrolled subjects received durva, study power was affected. For patients who did not receive durva, H0 was assumed to be 0.40 versus an alternative of 0.60. Including these subjects reduced power from 98%. The conditional power given that 13 evaluable subjects didn't receive durva was 88%.||0.750|0.492|.388
91719036|NCT03141359|183330998|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.571|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.712|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.712|0.422|
91719037|NCT03141359|183330999|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|0.853|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.853|0.621|
91719038|NCT03141359|183331007|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.164|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.281|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.281|0.082|
91719039|NCT03141359|183331008|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.246|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.373|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.373|0.145|
91722504|NCT06001021|183337813|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.16|18.04||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval.|ANCOVA|||Psychological Domain of Quality of Life||18.04|15.16|0.000
91793860|NCT04543409|183466409|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the DSQ scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). Analysis was repeated on 100 imputed datasets, and results were combined using Rubin's formula.|Difference in Least Squares Means|2.999||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|7.35|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline in DSQ = Treatment + baseline DSQ + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Analysis completed at Week 24.||7.35|-1.36|0.1770
91903444|NCT00232141|183701701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2685||95.0|-0.24|0.87||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.87|-0.24|0.2685
91683951|NCT03207243|183258465|OTHER||Median Rate Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.01|||||Median rate ratio (Placebo - GSK3772847) and its 95% Credible Interval has been presented|||1.01|0.44|
91683952|NCT03207243|183258466|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.044
91683953|NCT03207243|183258510|OTHER||Percent change|-93.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.9|-91.7||Week 4|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-91.7|-94.9|<0.001
91683954|NCT03207243|183258510|OTHER||Percent change|-92.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.8|-90.3||Week 8|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-90.3|-94.8|<0.001
91683955|NCT03207243|183258510|OTHER||Percent change|-93.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.4|-90.0||Week 12|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-90.0|-95.4|<0.001
91683956|NCT03207243|183258510|OTHER||Percent change|-93.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.3|-90.4||Week 16|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-90.4|-95.3|<0.001
91683957|NCT03207243|183258511|OTHER||Percent change|2300.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1833.9|2879.3||Week 4|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||2879.3|1833.9|<0.001
91683958|NCT03207243|183258511|OTHER||Percent change|2507.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1924.2|3259.4||Week 8|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||3259.4|1924.2|<0.001
91683959|NCT03207243|183258511|OTHER||Percent change|2162.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1489.1|3120.3||Week 12|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||3120.3|1489.1|<0.001
91683960|NCT03207243|183258511|OTHER||Percent change|2663.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1994.6|3544.8||Week 16|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||3544.8|1994.6|<0.001
91683961|NCT00603837|183258521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.445
91683962|NCT02318303|183258527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1087|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.669|-0.5485|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5485|-1.6690|<0.0001
91683963|NCT02318303|183258527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7315|-0.609|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6090|-1.7315|<0.0001
91683964|NCT02318303|183258527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7718||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2616|-0.282|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2820|-1.2616|0.0020
91683965|NCT02318303|183258527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3563||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8445|0.1319|||ANCOVA|||||0.1319|-0.8445|0.1524
91683966|NCT02318303|183258527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4918||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.981|-0.0025|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0025|-0.9810|0.0488
91683967|NCT02318303|183258527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7133||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2031|-0.2235|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2235|-1.2031|0.0043
91683968|NCT02960490|183258532|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-4.7||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.85|16.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.46|-25.85|0.621
91683969|NCT02368314|183258581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.226
91683970|NCT01266031|183258600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Null hypothesis is: PFS 6 months of Bevacizumab = PFS 6 months of Bevacizumab + Vorinostat.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is: progression free survival (PFS) 6 months of Bevacizumab = PFS 6 months of Bevacizumab + Vorinostat.||||0.26
91683971|NCT02047734|183258649|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.623|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|0.768||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline number of GdE lesions, and Included the natural log transformation of time on study as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.768|0.506|<0.0001
91793861|NCT04543409|183466410|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil (eos) counts after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-96.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.53|-77.85|||ANCOVA|Model: Percent change from baseline in Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eos counts = Treatment + baseline Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eos counts.||Analysis completed at Week 24.||-77.85|-114.53|<0.0001
91683972|NCT02047734|183258649|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.791||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.958||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson Regression Model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline number of GdE lesions, and Included the natural log transformation of time on study as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.958|0.652|0.0167
91683973|NCT02047734|183258650|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.714||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions, and included the natural log transformation of available number of MRI scans as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.714|0.465|<0.0001
91683974|NCT02047734|183258650|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.657||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|0.813||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions and included the natural log transformation of available number of MRI scans as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.813|0.531|0.0001
91683975|NCT02047734|183258651|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.471||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.725||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions with the natural log transformation of available MRI scans at Month 24 as an offset term.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.725|0.306|0.0006
91683976|NCT02047734|183258651|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.528||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.805||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model,|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions with the natural log transformation of available MRI scans at Month 24 as an offset term.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.805|0.346|0.0030
91683977|NCT02047734|183258652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045||||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.537||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazards model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World) age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||1.537|0.711|0.8224
91683978|NCT02047734|183258652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.798||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.206||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazards model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||1.206|0.528|0.2849
91683979|NCT02047734|183258653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.435||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|2.305||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||2.305|0.893|0.1353
91683980|NCT02047734|183258653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.098||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.815||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||1.815|0.664|0.7154
91683981|NCT02047734|183258654|SUPERIORITY||Difference|9.4||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World) and Baseline EDSS category||||15.8|2.9|0.0047
91683982|NCT02047734|183258654|SUPERIORITY||Difference|7.1||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World) and Baseline EDSS category||||13.6|0.6|0.0320
91683983|NCT02047734|183258655|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.4||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world) and Baseline EDSS category||||10.8|0.0|0.0466
91683984|NCT02047734|183258655|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.1||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world) and Baseline EDSS category||||10.5|-0.3|0.0581
91683985|NCT02047734|183258656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.244|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.363||Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline|ANCOVA||Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline.|||0.363|0.125|<0.0001
91683986|NCT02047734|183258656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.224||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.342||Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline.|ANCOVA||Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline.|||0.342|0.106|0.0002
91683987|NCT02047734|183258657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.043||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.116|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline MSFC Z-score|Difference in means are based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and the Baseline MSFC Z-score.|||0.116|-0.030|0.2480
91683988|NCT02047734|183258657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.093||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.165|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline MSFC Z-score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and the Baseline MSFC Z-score.|||0.165|0.020|0.0123
91683989|NCT02047734|183258658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|1.345||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|2.943|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary Score||2.943|-0.252|0.0988
91683990|NCT02047734|183258658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|1.849||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|3.44|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary Score||3.440|0.258|0.0228
91683991|NCT02047734|183258658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.38||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.553|2.313|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary Score||2.313|-1.553|0.6997
91794518|NCT00491556|183467968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|17.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||17.01|8.15|0.0001
91719040|NCT03675308|183331014|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|30.0||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The comparison between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups for the primary efficacy endpoint (ACR20 at Week 24) was performed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factors of baseline psoriasis (≥ 3%/\< 3% body surface area), presence of dactylitis (yes/no), presence of enthesitis (yes/no) and current csDMARD use (0/≥ 1).||30.0|18.0|<0.001
91719041|NCT03675308|183331015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.14||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.14|-0.26|<0.001
91719042|NCT03675308|183331016|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|49.3||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||49.3|35.6|<0.001
91719043|NCT03675308|183331017|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|29.4||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||29.4|16.8|<0.001
91719044|NCT03675308|183331018|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|19.4||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||19.4|10.2|<0.001
91719045|NCT03675308|183331019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-2.68||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-2.68|-5.70|<0.001
91719046|NCT03675308|183331020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
91719047|NCT03675308|183331021|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.2||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use and extent of psoriasis at Baseline and study.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The pre-specified analysis for the resolution of enthesitis included pooled data from KEEPsAKE 1 (this study) and KEEPsAKE 2 (M15-998; NCT03671148).||20.2|7.6|<0.001
91719048|NCT03675308|183331022|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|26.4||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, extent of psoriasis at Baseline, and study.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The pre-specified analysis for the resolution of dactylitis included pooled data from KEEPsAKE 1 (this study) and KEEPsAKE 2 (M15-998; NCT03671148).||26.4|7.5|<0.001
91719049|NCT03675308|183331023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and the stratification factors and baseline value as covariates.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||0.17|-0.36|0.496
91719050|NCT03675308|183331024|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.22||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at the change from Baseline in PsA-mTSS comparison.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||4.22|2.42|<0.001
91903445|NCT00232141|183701702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4991||95.0|-0.74|0.36||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.36|-0.74|0.4991
91903446|NCT00232141|183701702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6094||95.0|-0.73|0.43||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.43|-0.73|0.6094
91683992|NCT02047734|183258658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.587||||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.339|2.513|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and the Baseline summary score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary Score||2.513|-1.339|0.5501
91683993|NCT02047734|183258660|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and Baseline EDSS category, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline||||||<0.0001
91683994|NCT02047734|183258660|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and Baseline EDSS category, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline||||||<0.0001
91683995|NCT01333397|183258661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||ILA - Dysport NG 20 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91683996|NCT01333397|183258661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||ILA - Dysport NG 50 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91683997|NCT01333397|183258661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||ILA - Dysport NG 75 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91683998|NCT01333397|183258661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||SSA - Dysport NG 20 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91683999|NCT01333397|183258661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||SSA - Dysport NG 50 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91684000|NCT01333397|183258661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||SSA - Dysport NG 75 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91684001|NCT00314951|183258683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The point estimate of the difference and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups were computed. If the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10%, the clinical non-inferiority of fidaxomicin was demonstrated. CIs for the difference of cure rates were calculated using the method recommended by Agresti and Caffo.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.0||||||H0: C(fidaxomicin) - C(Vancomycin) \<= -10% Power calculation is based on cure rate of 85% in both treatment groups, non-inferiority margin of 10%, 2.5% (1-sided) type I error rate with approximately 90% power gives a total of 530 subjects.||8.0|-2.9|
91684002|NCT00314951|183258684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-2.5|||Chi-squared|||||-2.5|-16.2|0.008
91684003|NCT00314951|183258685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.5|||Chi-squared|||||17.5|2.8|0.007
91684004|NCT04411914|183258686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0009
91684005|NCT04411914|183258687|OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|"Spearman Correlation Coefficient, N=9 Prob \> \|r\| under H0: Rho=0"||||||0.0053
91684006|NCT00423319|183258722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.54||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Farrington-Manning test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.54|0.22|<0.0001
91684007|NCT00423319|183258722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|1.5||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Farrington-Manning test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||1.50|-3.54|<0.0001
91684008|NCT00423319|183258723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.8||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Farrington-Manning test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.80|0.15|<0.0001
91684009|NCT00423319|183258723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk difference|-0.68||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.17||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Chi-squared||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||-0.17|-1.27|0.0054
91684010|NCT00423319|183258725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.15||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.64||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||Major bleeding. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.64|-0.33|0.54
91684011|NCT00423319|183258725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.44||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.66||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||CRNM. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.66|-1.53|0.43
91684012|NCT00423319|183258725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.21||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.95||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||Major or CRNM. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.95|-1.38|0.72
91684013|NCT00423319|183258725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rate|-0.85||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.9||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||Any bleeding. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.90|-2.61|0.34
91684014|NCT00423319|183258735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. MI/stroke|||0.26|-0.34|
91684015|NCT00423319|183258735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.34|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. MI|||0.34|-0.17|
91684016|NCT00423319|183258735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.07|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. Stroke|||0.07|-0.35|
91684017|NCT00423319|183258735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. Thrombocytopenia|||0.17|-0.26|
91684018|NCT04630158|183258751|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|11.7||Reporting the adjusted p-value derived based on Dunett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis||||11.7|-8.5|0.930
91684019|NCT04630158|183258751|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|13.8||Reporting the adjusted p-value derived based on Dunett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis||||13.8|-6.4|0.699
91684020|NCT05162014|183258768|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards regression models based on time-to-first acute pancreatitis used to estimate the hazard ratios.||||1.02|0.76|
91684021|NCT01943994|183258792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|23.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.26|1.99|0.003
91684022|NCT00642278|183258798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.747|-0.148||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.148|-0.747|<0.001
91684023|NCT00642278|183258798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.804|-0.207||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.207|-0.804|<0.001
91684024|NCT00642278|183258798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|-0.244||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.244|-0.841|<0.001
91684025|NCT00642278|183258798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.006|-0.405||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.405|-1.006|<0.001
91684026|NCT00642278|183258798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.432||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.432|-1.029|<0.001
91684027|NCT00642278|183258798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.862|-0.265||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.265|-0.862|<0.001
91684028|NCT00642278|183258799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.34|-1.39|0.001
91684029|NCT00642278|183258799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.92|-1.98|<0.001
91684030|NCT00642278|183258799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.27|-2.33|<0.001
91684031|NCT00642278|183258799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.26|-2.32|<0.001
91684032|NCT00642278|183258799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.19|-2.25|<0.001
91684033|NCT00642278|183258799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.46|-1.51|<0.001
91684034|NCT00642278|183258801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.07|46.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||46.13|26.07|<0.001
91684035|NCT00642278|183258801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|49.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.17|59.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||59.34|39.17|<0.001
91684036|NCT00642278|183258801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|48.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.98|58.42|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||58.42|37.98|<0.001
91684037|NCT00642278|183258801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.91|59.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||59.01|38.91|<0.001
91684038|NCT00642278|183258801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|60.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.17|70.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||70.35|50.17|<0.001
91684039|NCT00642278|183258801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|6.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||6.67|-13.33|0.513
91684040|NCT00642278|183258803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.3|-2.2|0.009
91684041|NCT00642278|183258803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.6|-2.5|0.002
91684042|NCT00642278|183258803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and mixed meal tolerance test.||||-0.7|-2.6|<0.001
91684043|NCT00642278|183258803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.4|-3.3|<0.001
91684044|NCT00642278|183258803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.4|-3.3|<0.001
91684045|NCT00642278|183258803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||1.4|-0.5|0.371
91684046|NCT03713619|183258804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.75||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of HiSCR50 response at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||2.73|1.12|0.0070
91719051|NCT03675308|183331025|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at the change from Baseline in PsA-mTSS comparison.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.7|1.5|<0.001
91719052|NCT03675308|183331026|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||27.2|17.3|<0.001
91719053|NCT03675308|183331027|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||14.2|6.9|<0.001
91719054|NCT04953338|183331064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32|||||Calculated as the relative risk of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having a depression episode versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.32|0.92|
91719055|NCT04953338|183331067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.51|||||Calculated as the relative risk of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having with anxiety disorder versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.51|1.01|
91719056|NCT04953338|183331068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.56|||||Calculated as the relative risk of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having with recurrent depressive disorder versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.56|1.01|
91719057|NCT01721798|183331069|NON_INFERIORITY|Primary Outcome Analysis: Proportion of women with detectable genital viral load across 24 months|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.62|||GEE|||C-IUD is comparator group.||1.62|0.47|0.66
91719058|NCT01721798|183331070|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary Outcome Analysis of Proportion with Detectable plasma viral load users at 24 months|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.86|||GEE|Adjusted as-treated analysis||C-IUD is comparator group.||1.86|0.37|0.64
91719059|NCT01721798|183331072|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary Outcome Analysis of Allocated IUC continuation at 24 months|Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|24.4|||Regression, Cox|||C-IUD is comparator group.||24.4|3.03|<0.001
91719060|NCT00089648|183331089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|23.0||||||95.0|13.2|35.5|||||ORR=proportion of subjects with confirmed CR or PR, relative to total number of subjects who received at least 1 dose of study medication, were refractory to bevacizumab, had a baseline disease assessment and had the correct histological cancer type.|||35.5|13.2|
91719061|NCT03979313|183331102|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|62.15||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|86.8|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||86.80|-8.57|0.0708
91719062|NCT03979313|183331103|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|74.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.63|87.12|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||87.12|49.63|<0.0001
91719063|NCT03979313|183331104|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|76.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.27|85.18|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||85.18|62.27|<0.0001
91719064|NCT03979313|183331105|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|76.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.36|89.41|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||89.41|49.36|0.0002
91719065|NCT03183908|183331110|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 5%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|The null hypothesis is allV3 is inferior (i.e., allV3 will have higher rates of moderate/severe injection site pain) to IIV3-HD in regards to the proportion of subjects having moderate or severe injection site pain in the first week post vaccination.||0.4|-5.8|
91719066|NCT03183908|183331112|OTHER|The comparison of the number of participants with reported SAEs regardless of relationship to study product were made using 95% confidence intervals. Results were reported using exact binomial confidence intervals.|Comparison of Frequencies|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.47||||||||4.47|1.09|
91719067|NCT03183908|183331112|OTHER|The comparison of the number of participants with reported SAEs regardless of relationship to study product were made using 95% confidence intervals. Results were reported using exact binomial confidence intervals.|Comparison of Frequencies|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.23||||||||2.23|0.16|
91719068|NCT03183908|183331113|NON_INFERIORITY|This objective will be assessed using a one-sided noninferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and noninferiority margin of 10%. The null hypothesis is the allV3 H3N2 seroconversion rate is inferior to IIV3-HD seroconversion rate.|Difference in Proportions|-0.0579||||0.1245|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.1291||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The directional comparison was the lower bound of the confidence interval using a 10% non-inferiority margin.||||-.1291|0.1245
91719069|NCT03183908|183331114|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-5.0|1.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Redness||1.0|-5.0|
91794519|NCT00491556|183467969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.95||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|8.66|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||8.66|-0.81|0.0995
91684047|NCT03713619|183258804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of HiSCR50 response at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||2.32|0.95|0.0418
91793862|NCT04543409|183466411|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-HSS total grade score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.175|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in EoE-HSS TGS = Treatment + baseline EoE-HSS grade score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||||-0.14|-0.21|<0.0001
91684048|NCT03713619|183258805|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean Difference|-23.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-12.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of percentage change from baseline in AN count at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||-12.21|-33.90|<0.0001
91684049|NCT03713619|183258805|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-18.46||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.32|-7.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of percentage change from baseline in AN count at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||-7.60|-29.32|0.0004
91684050|NCT03713619|183258806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of Flare over 16 weeks (multiple imputation)||0.73|0.25|0.0010
91684051|NCT03713619|183258806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of Flare over 16 weeks (multiple imputation)||1.17|0.43|0.0926
91684052|NCT03713619|183258807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of skin pain/NRS30 response at Week 16 (pooled data, multiple imputation)||3.40|1.00|0.0248
91684053|NCT03713619|183258807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.77||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of skin pain/NRS30 response at Week 16 (pooled data, multiple imputation)||2.0|1.15|0.0044
91684054|NCT02552212|183258823|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.231|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.336|31.623|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/C- Reactive Protein (MRI/CRP) classification.||31.623|7.336|<0.001
91684055|NCT02552212|183258824|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.436|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.127|13.401|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and MRI/CRP classification.||13.401|4.127|<0.001
91684056|NCT02552212|183258834|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.359|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.286|12.636|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region MRI/CRP classification.||12.636|4.286|<0.001
91684057|NCT02552212|183258835|OTHER||Difference|-1.696|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.282|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.282|-2.110|<0.001
91684058|NCT02552212|183258836|OTHER||Difference|-1.585|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.132|-1.038|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.038|-2.132|<0.0001
91684059|NCT02552212|183258837|OTHER||Difference|-1.819|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.388|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.388|-2.250|<0.001
91684060|NCT02552212|183258838|OTHER||Difference|-1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.909|-0.672|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-0.672|-1.909|<0.001
91684061|NCT02552212|183258839|OTHER||Difference|-4.8687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4014|-3.336|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-3.3360|-6.4014|<0.001
91684062|NCT02552212|183258840|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.223|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.191|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and MRI/CRP classification.||10.191|3.800|<0.001
91793863|NCT04543409|183466412|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-HSS total stage score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.122|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in EoE-HSS TSS = Treatment + baseline EoE-HSS stage score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||||-0.09|-0.16|<0.0001
91684063|NCT02552212|183258841|OTHER||Difference|-0.183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.117|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-0.117|-0.250|<0.001
91684064|NCT02552212|183258849|OTHER||Difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.18|-2.62|<0.001
91684065|NCT02552212|183258850|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.484|||=|0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|1.653|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/PBO and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and MRI/CRP classification.||1.653|0.142|=0.247
91684066|NCT03020589|183258854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Fisher Exact|||||2.05|0.67|0.58
91684067|NCT03020589|183258855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.02|||Fisher Exact|||||2.02|0.72|0.46
91684068|NCT01094886|183258862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.05|.008
91684069|NCT01094886|183258863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|-1.1||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.048|0.219|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.219|-2.048|0.111
91684070|NCT01094886|183258864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.977||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|2.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.35|-2.77|0.87
91684071|NCT01094886|183258865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.316|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.01|-22.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-22.26|-48.01|<0.001
91684072|NCT02092467|183258910|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate Cox proportional hazard model with treatment \[All Tofacitinib (ie, tofacitinib 5 mg BID and tofacitinib 10 mg BID combined) and TNFi\] as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.09|||||Primary comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between All Tofacitinib and TNFi if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \< 1.8 (non-inferiority criterion).|All Tofacitinib versus TNFi||2.09|1.04|
91719070|NCT03183908|183331114|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.1|4.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Shoulder Pain||4.3|-3.1|
91684073|NCT02092467|183258910|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.43|||||Secondary comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between tofacitinib 10 mg BID and tofacitinib 5 mg BID if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \< 2.0 (non-inferiority criterion).|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus Tofacitinib 5 mg BID||1.43|0.70|
91684074|NCT02092467|183258910|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.18|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 5 mg BID versus TNFi||2.18|1.00|
91684075|NCT02092467|183258910|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.19|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus TNFi||2.19|1.00|
91684076|NCT02092467|183258911|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate Cox proportional hazard model with treatment \[All Tofacitinib (ie, tofacitinib 5 mg BID and tofacitinib 10 mg BID combined) and TNFi\] as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.94|||||Primary comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between All Tofacitinib and TNFi if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \< 1.8 (non-inferiority criterion).|All Tofacitinib versus TNFi||1.94|0.91|
91684077|NCT02092467|183258911|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.71|||||Secondary Comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between tofacitinib 10 mg BID and tofacitinib 5 mg BID if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \<2.0 (non-inferiority criterion).|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus Tofacitinib 5 mg BID||1.71|0.77|
91684078|NCT02092467|183258911|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.91|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 5 mg BID versus TNFi||1.91|0.81|
91684079|NCT02092467|183258911|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.18|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus TNFi||2.18|0.94|
91684080|NCT01284621|183258934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by empa alone|Geometric mean ratio|96.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.05|100.18|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||100.18|93.05|
91684081|NCT01284621|183258935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by empa alone|Geometric mean ratio|104.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|111.77|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||111.77|97.65|
91684082|NCT01284621|183258936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone|Geometric mean ratio|108.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.51|116.35|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||116.35|100.51|
91684083|NCT01284621|183258937|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone.|Geometric mean ratio|103.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.73|119.64|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||119.64|89.73|
91684084|NCT01284621|183258938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone|Geometric mean ratio|98.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.0|101.42|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||101.42|96.00|
91684085|NCT01284621|183258939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone.|Geometric mean ratio|98.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.67|104.25|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||104.25|92.67|
91684086|NCT02293863|183258997|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.40|0.83|0.6050
91719071|NCT03183908|183331114|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-7.5|-0.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Swelling||-0.3|-7.5|
91684087|NCT02293863|183258997|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.2028|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.51|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.51|0.85|0.2028
91684088|NCT02293863|183258999|OTHER||Difference in event rates|10.19||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|20.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.52|-0.15|0.1905
91719072|NCT03183908|183331114|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.7|5.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Tenderness||5.9|-2.7|
91684089|NCT02293863|183258999|OTHER||Difference in event rates|7.91||||0.3168|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.64|18.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.47|-2.64|0.3168
91684090|NCT02293863|183259000|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-7.92||||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.5|11.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.66|-27.50|0.6043
91719073|NCT03183908|183331115|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.2|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Redness||0.2|-5.2|
91719074|NCT03183908|183331115|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Shoulder Pain||4.9|-2.3|
91719075|NCT03183908|183331115|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.1|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Swelling||-1.1|-8.1|
91719076|NCT03183908|183331115|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Tenderness||5.9|-2.7|
91719077|NCT03183908|183331115|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Injection Site Pain||0.4|-6.9|
91719078|NCT03183908|183331116|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Redness||7.3|-7.3|
91719079|NCT03183908|183331116|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.7|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Shoulder Pain||5.7|-9.5|
91719080|NCT03183908|183331116|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|6.1|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Swelling||6.1|-8.6|
91719081|NCT03183908|183331116|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Tenderness||8.3|-5.7|
91719082|NCT03183908|183331116|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Injection Site Pain||5.4|-7.9|
91863084|NCT02969707|183613775|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to water and Thermal Pain Threshold with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Threshold as the dependent variable.||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .081, F(1,49) = 4.315, β = .284, p = .043)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Threshold and E/I ratio as it relates to water was assessed.||||0.043
91903447|NCT00232141|183701702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.3669||95.0|-0.76|0.28||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.28|-0.76|0.3669
91719083|NCT03183908|183331117|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.7|5.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Arthralgia||5.4|-1.7|
91719084|NCT03183908|183331117|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.8|2.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Chills/Shivering||2.3|-2.8|
91719085|NCT03183908|183331117|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-4.0|1.5|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Diarrhea||1.5|-4.0|
91719086|NCT03183908|183331117|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.8|7.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fatigue||7.3|-0.8|
91719087|NCT03183908|183331117|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.5|2.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fever||2.0|-2.5|
91863085|NCT02969707|183613775|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to creatine and Thermal Pain Tolerance with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Tolerance as the dependent variable.||||||0.022|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .103, F(1,49) = 5.632, β = .321, p = .022)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Tolerance and E/I ratio as it relates to creatine was assessed.||||0.022
91903448|NCT00232141|183701702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7641||95.0|-0.43|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.59|-0.43|0.7641
91903449|NCT00232141|183701702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9428||95.0|-0.51|0.55||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.55|-0.51|0.9428
91903450|NCT00232141|183701702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9508||95.0|-0.52|0.49||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.49|-0.52|0.9508
91903451|NCT00232141|183701703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0073||95.0|-1.18|-0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.19|-1.18|0.0073
91903452|NCT00232141|183701703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2202||95.0|-0.96|0.22||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.22|-0.96|0.2202
91903453|NCT00232141|183701703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1824||95.0|-0.95|0.18||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.18|-0.95|0.1824
91903454|NCT00232141|183701703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1872||95.0|-0.98|0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.19|-0.98|0.1872
91903455|NCT00232141|183701703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.4374||95.0|-0.38|0.88||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.88|-0.38|0.4374
91903456|NCT00232141|183701703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4406||95.0|-0.36|0.82||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.82|-0.36|0.4406
91903457|NCT00232141|183701704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2277||95.0|-0.86|0.21||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.21|-0.86|0.2277
91903458|NCT00232141|183701704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.8407||95.0|-0.71|0.58||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.58|-0.71|0.8407
91903459|NCT00232141|183701704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.8809||95.0|-0.62|0.53||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.53|-0.62|0.8809
91903460|NCT00232141|183701704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6288||95.0|-0.72|0.43||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.43|-0.72|0.6288
91903461|NCT00232141|183701704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9739||95.0|-0.59|0.61||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.61|-0.59|0.9739
91684091|NCT02293863|183259000|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-14.58||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.13|6.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.97|-36.13|0.3865
91684092|NCT02293863|183259001|OTHER||Difference in event rates|1.99||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.57|9.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||9.56|-5.57|0.5379
91684093|NCT02293863|183259001|OTHER||Difference in event rates|4.97||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.12|13.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||13.05|-3.12|0.2189
91684094|NCT02293863|183259001|OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.14||||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.04|10.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 30||10.31|-6.04|0.6594
91684095|NCT02293863|183259001|OTHER||Difference in event rates|3.54||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.24|12.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 30||12.31|-5.24|0.5013
91684096|NCT02293863|183259001|OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.21||||0.6849|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.28|10.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||10.69|-6.28|0.6849
91903462|NCT00232141|183701704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.8926||95.0|-0.61|0.53||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.53|-0.61|0.8926
91684097|NCT02293863|183259001|OTHER||Difference in event rates|1.68||||0.7633|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.38|10.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||10.74|-7.38|0.7633
91684098|NCT02293863|183259002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.41|-1.06|||ANOVA|||||-1.06|-6.41|0.2407
91684099|NCT02293863|183259002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.8339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.49|2.1|||ANOVA|||||2.10|-3.49|0.8339
91684100|NCT02293863|183259003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|-0.07|||ANOVA|||||-0.07|-0.60|0.2790
91684101|NCT02293863|183259003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7|-0.15|||ANOVA|||||-0.15|-0.70|0.1909
91684102|NCT02293863|183259004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.7413|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.77|1.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.32|0.77|0.7413
91684103|NCT02293863|183259004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|1.77|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.77|0.99|0.4763
91684104|NCT02293863|183259005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.78|1.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.32|0.78|0.8806
91684105|NCT02293863|183259005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5447|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|1.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.38|0.80|0.5447
91684106|NCT02293863|183259006|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.4171|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|1.03|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.03|0.47|0.4171
91684107|NCT02293863|183259006|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.34|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.34|0.61|0.8322
91684108|NCT02293863|183259007|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-1.42||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.61|7.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.76|-10.61|0.8240
91684109|NCT02293863|183259007|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-1.6||||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.48|8.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.28|-11.48|0.8111
91684110|NCT02293863|183259008|OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.42||||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.96|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.80|-6.96|0.7219
91684111|NCT02293863|183259008|OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.67||||0.9225|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.29|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|-9.29|0.9225
91684112|NCT02293863|183259009|OTHER||Difference in event rates|1.99||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.57|9.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.56|-5.57|0.5379
91684113|NCT02293863|183259009|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-1.85||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.88|6.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.18|-9.88|0.3667
91684114|NCT02293863|183259010|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|1.07|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.07|0.41|0.7827
91684115|NCT02293863|183259010|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|0.96|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.96|0.36|0.2522
91684116|NCT00213135|183259084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.54|||Wald Chi-square test|||||0.54|0.35|<0.001
91684117|NCT00213135|183259084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||Wald Chi-square test|||||0.54|0.34|<0.001
91684118|NCT01328379|183259088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0724||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.196||To demonstrate study sensitivity with respect to efficacy and maintain an overall alpha level ≤ 0.05, a stepwise procedure was performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CmaxSS at Visit 3||0.196|-0.088|0.457
91684119|NCT01328379|183259088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0732||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.262|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CmaxSS at Visit 3||0.262|-0.026|0.107
91684120|NCT01328379|183259088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0724||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.207|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CmaxSS at Visit 3||0.207|-0.078|0.375
91794520|NCT00491556|183467970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||2.84|1.05|0.0002
91684121|NCT01328379|183259089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0666||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.117||To demonstrate study sensitivity with respect to efficacy and maintain an overall alpha level ≤ 0.05, a stepwise procedure was performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CminSS at Visit 3||0.117|-0.145|0.832
91684122|NCT01328379|183259089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0674||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.226|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CminSS at Visit 3||0.226|-0.039|0.167
91684123|NCT01328379|183259089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0666||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.238|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CminSS at Visit 3||0.238|-0.024|0.108
91684124|NCT01328379|183259090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lease Squares Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.367||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|4.25|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 3||4.25|-5.05|0.866
91684125|NCT01328379|183259090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.393||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|2.15|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 3||2.15|-7.26|0.286
91684126|NCT01328379|183259090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.366||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|2.49|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 3||2.49|-6.81|0.362
91684127|NCT01328379|183259091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.237||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|5.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 2||5.24|-3.56|0.708
91684128|NCT01328379|183259091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.258||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|4.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 2||4.06|-4.81|0.868
91684129|NCT01328379|183259091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.236||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|3.18|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 2||3.18|-5.61|0.588
91684130|NCT01328379|183259092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.57||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|103.7|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance as dependent variable and Baseline Six-Minute Walk Distance and Treatment as independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance at visit 2||103.7|-33.0|0.308
91684131|NCT01328379|183259092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|87.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.9||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|156.1|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance as dependent variable and Baseline Six-Minute Walk Distance and Treatment as independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance at visit 2||156.1|18.2|0.014
91684132|NCT01328379|183259092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.21||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|119.3|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance as dependent variable and Baseline Six-Minute Walk Distance and Treatment as independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance at visit 2||119.3|-15.9|0.133
91684133|NCT01328379|183259093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Average EQ-5D score at Visit 3||0.1|-0.0|0.320
91684134|NCT01328379|183259093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Average EQ-5D score at Visit 3||0.0|-0.1|0.734
91684135|NCT01328379|183259093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in Average EQ-5D score at Visit 3||0.0|-0.1|0.185
91719088|NCT03183908|183331117|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.0|2.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Headache||2.4|-3.0|
91863086|NCT02969707|183613775|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to creatine and Thermal Pain Threshold with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Threshold as the dependent variable.||||||0.041|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .083, F(1,49) = 4.425, β = .288, p = .041)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Threshold and E/I ratio as it relates to creatine was assessed.||||0.041
91903463|NCT00232141|183701707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7136||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7136
91684136|NCT01328379|183259094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in EQ-5D VAS score at Visit 3||0.1|-7.0|0.055
91684137|NCT01328379|183259094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in EQ-5D VAS score at Visit 3||2.4|-4.7|0.530
91863087|NCT02969707|183613781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728|||||||ANCOVA|||Standard ANCOVA testing whether the Post-TMS E/I relative to creatine is predicted for each subject by the intervention (Active / Sham) while covarying for the Pre-TMS E/I ratio relative to creatine.||||0.728
91903464|NCT00232141|183701708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6729||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6729
91903465|NCT05564299|183701712|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.053
91684138|NCT01328379|183259094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in EQ-5D VAS score at Visit 3||5.8|-1.2|0.203
91684139|NCT03452137|183259148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.26|||Log Rank||HR was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were response to definitive local therapy, human papillomavirus (HPV) status and type of definitive local therapy as per interactive voice or web-based response system (IxRS).||1.26|0.70|0.6804
91684140|NCT03452137|183259149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.36|||Log Rank||HR was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were response to definitive local therapy, HPV status and type of definitive local therapy as per interactive voice or web-based response system (IxRS).||1.36|0.68|0.8371
91684141|NCT03452137|183259150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.32|||Log Rank||HR was estimated by Cox regression|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were response to definitive local therapy, HPV status and type of definitive local therapy as per interactive voice or web-based response system (IxRS).||1.32|0.73|0.9115
91684142|NCT03452137|183259151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.67||||0.8816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|8.11|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||8.11|-9.45|0.8816
91684143|NCT03452137|183259151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.46||||0.9234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|9.78|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 2 years||9.78|-8.86|0.9234
91684144|NCT03452137|183259151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.19||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|10.88|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||10.88|-8.49|0.8090
91684145|NCT03452137|183259151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.01||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|10.19|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 4 years||10.19|-10.17|0.9985
91684146|NCT03452137|183259152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.17||||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|13.79|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||13.79|-3.44|0.2393
91684147|NCT03452137|183259152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.61||||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|12.9|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 2 years||12.90|-5.69|0.4472
91684148|NCT03452137|183259152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.14||||0.5222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|12.77|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||12.77|-6.49|0.5222
91684149|NCT03452137|183259152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.31||||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|11.26|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 4 years||11.26|-8.64|0.7967
91684150|NCT03452137|183259153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|2.77||||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|10.49|||Z test|||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 2 years||10.49|-4.95|0.4819
91684151|NCT03452137|183259153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-1.25||||0.7783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|7.47|||Z test|||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||7.47|-9.97|0.7783
91684152|NCT03452137|183259153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-1.07||||0.8924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|14.42|||Z test|||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 5 years||14.42|-16.56|0.8924
91684153|NCT02856802|183259159|NON_INFERIORITY|Assumption that 15% of placebo and 42% of DFN 02 10 mg (treated) subjects would be pain-free at 2 hours. A sample size of 50 subjects in each DB1 dosing arm provided 86% power to detect this assumed difference between placebo and DFN-02 10 mg at a 5% (2-sided) level of significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.83|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical testing and confidence intervals (CIs) were 2 sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted with the statistical analysis system (SAS)® software package (version 9.3).||6.83|1.05|0.044
91684154|NCT02856802|183259160|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority conducted as specified in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||||||0.007||||||The corresponding p-values from Fisher's exact test were computed for the comparison between treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91684155|NCT02856802|183259161|NON_INFERIORITY|No assumptions made.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.3|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical testing and confidence intervals (CIs) were 2 sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted with the SAS® software package (version 9.3).||3.30|0.52|0.642
91684156|NCT00261443|183259199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.893||Stratified Log-rank Test, controlling for type of mood stabilizer and type of mood episode|Stratified Log-rank Test||Cox proportional hazards model, with type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode as stratification factors, and treatment group as covariate.|||0.893|0.332|0.014
91684157|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.01||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, difference in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.15|-0.16|0.911
91684158|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.04||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.18||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.18|-0.09|0.557
91684159|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.04||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.10|-0.18|0.596
91719089|NCT03183908|183331117|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.7|5.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Malaise||5.4|-1.7|
91684160|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.05||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.11|-0.22|0.522
91684161|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.13||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.04|-0.30|0.142
91684162|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.16||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.03||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.03|-0.35|0.092
91684163|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||-0.01|-0.40|0.039
91684164|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.21||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.0||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.00|-0.43|0.050
91684165|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.19||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.01|-0.40|0.064
91684166|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.25||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-0.05|-0.46|0.017
91684167|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-0.01|-0.43|0.039
91684168|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.27||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-0.05|-0.48|0.015
91684169|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.07||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.07|-0.50|0.009
91684170|NCT00261443|183259200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.28||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.06|-0.50|0.013
91719090|NCT03183908|183331117|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.3|4.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Myalgia||4.4|-3.3|
91719091|NCT03183908|183331117|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.1|1.6|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Nausea||1.6|-3.1|
91719092|NCT03183908|183331117|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.8|1.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Vomiting||1.8|-1.8|
91719093|NCT03183908|183331118|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Arthralgia||5.8|-1.1|
91903466|NCT00525044|183701743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01|||ANOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Differences between the treatment groups with regard to the primary endpoint SPIDnorm was tested using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects.~Treatment differences were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||-0.01|-0.12|0.0156
91684171|NCT00261443|183259201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.829||Stratified Log-rank Test, controlling for type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode.|Stratified Log-rank Test||Cox proportional hazards model, with type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode as stratification factors, and treatment group as covariate.|||0.829|0.146|0.013
91684172|NCT00261443|183259202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|1.479||Stratified Log-rank Test P-value for Equality of Survival Curves|Stratified Log-rank Test||Cox proportional hazards model, with type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode as stratification factors, and treatment group as covariate.|||1.479|0.364|0.384
91684173|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.02||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.77||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.77|-0.73|0.955
91684174|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.06||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.95||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.95|-0.83|0.895
91684175|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.69||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.24||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.24|-1.61|0.144
91684176|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||-0.01|-2.19|0.047
91684177|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.25||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||-0.25|-2.52|0.017
91684178|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.91||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.68||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||-0.68|-3.15|0.003
91684179|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-0.89||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||-0.89|-3.47|<0.001
91684180|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-1.19||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-1.19|-4.06|<0.001
91684181|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.95||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.95|-3.70|<0.001
91719094|NCT03183908|183331118|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Chills/Shivering||2.0|-3.0|
91684182|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-1.37||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-1.37|-4.19|<0.001
91684183|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.29||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-1.29|-4.13|<0.001
91684184|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-1.46||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-1.46|-4.38|<0.001
91684185|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.57||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-1.57|-4.59|<0.001
91684186|NCT00261443|183259204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.54||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-1.54|-4.55|<0.001
91684187|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.94||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.94|-0.54|0.590
91684188|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.5||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.6||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.60|-1.59|0.371
91684189|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.04||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.25||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.25|-2.33|0.113
91684190|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.29||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.29|-2.28|0.128
91684191|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.85||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.47||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.47|-2.16|0.205
91684192|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.13||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|0.32||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.32|-2.59|0.125
91684193|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.43||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.06|-2.92|0.061
91684194|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.51||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.06|-3.07|0.060
91684195|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.62||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-0.03||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.03|-3.21|0.046
91684196|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.15||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.47||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.47|-2.77|0.164
91719095|NCT03183908|183331118|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Diarrhea||1.8|-3.5|
91903467|NCT00525044|183701744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Analysis at 30 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0|-0.4|0.1280
91684197|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.53||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.10|-3.16|0.066
91684198|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.57||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.10|-3.24|0.066
91684199|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.08||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.43||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.43|-3.73|0.014
91684200|NCT00261443|183259206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.01||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.34||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.34|-3.68|0.019
91684201|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.05||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.22||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.22|-0.13|0.597
91684202|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.02||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.21|-0.17|0.838
91684203|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.11||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.10|-0.32|0.291
91684204|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.14||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.08|-0.37|0.219
91684205|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.18||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.05||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.05|-0.41|0.133
91684206|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.21||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.04||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.04|-0.46|0.092
91684207|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.31||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.05||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||-0.05|-0.56|0.018
91684208|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-0.03|-0.56|0.029
91684209|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.31||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.04||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.04|-0.57|0.024
91684210|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-0.02|-0.56|0.035
91684211|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-0.02|-0.56|0.038
91684212|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.34||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-0.07|-0.62|0.015
91684213|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.12||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.12|-0.67|0.006
91684214|NCT00261443|183259208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.35||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.07|-0.62|0.015
91684215|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.04||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.16|-0.09|0.588
91684216|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.01||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.16|-0.18|0.922
91684217|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.11||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.08|-0.30|0.266
91684218|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.14||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.06|-0.34|0.159
91684219|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.11||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.10|-0.31|0.305
91684220|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.13||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.09|-0.35|0.251
91684221|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.05|-0.40|0.135
91684222|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.02|-0.46|0.073
91684223|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.26||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.02|-0.50|0.034
91684224|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.17||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.07|-0.41|0.174
91684225|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.19||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.06|-0.43|0.132
91684226|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.18||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.07|-0.42|0.152
91684227|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.23||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.01||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||0.01|-0.48|0.060
91684228|NCT00261443|183259210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||0.03|-0.46|0.085
91684229|NCT00261443|183259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.04||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.33|-0.25|0.774
91684230|NCT00261443|183259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.19||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.11||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.11|-0.49|0.213
91684231|NCT00261443|183259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.12||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.20|-0.43|0.465
91684232|NCT00261443|183259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.02||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.02|-0.59|0.068
91684233|NCT00261443|183259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.27||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.05|-0.58|0.095
91684234|NCT00261443|183259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.04|-0.62|0.082
91684235|NCT00261443|183259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.36||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.03||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-0.03|-0.69|0.033
91684236|NCT00261443|183259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.31||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.02||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.02|-0.64|0.062
91684237|NCT00261443|183259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.43||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-0.10|-0.76|0.011
91684238|NCT00261443|183259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.37||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-0.04|-0.70|0.027
91684239|NCT00261443|183259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.37||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-0.04|-0.71|0.029
91684240|NCT00261443|183259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.06|-0.74|0.022
91684241|NCT00261443|183259213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.06|-0.75|0.023
91684242|NCT00261443|183259215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.09||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.36||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.36|-0.17|0.486
91684243|NCT00261443|183259215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.04||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.23|-0.30|0.793
91684244|NCT00261443|183259215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.06||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.22||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.22|-0.34|0.665
91684245|NCT00261443|183259215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.07||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.22||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.22|-0.35|0.650
91684246|NCT00261443|183259215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.06||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.23||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.23|-0.34|0.705
91684247|NCT00261443|183259215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.08||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.21||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.21|-0.38|0.572
91684248|NCT00261443|183259215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.12||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.18||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.18|-0.43|0.418
91684249|NCT00261443|183259215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.10|-0.51|0.185
91684250|NCT00261443|183259215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.1||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.21||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.21|-0.41|0.536
91684251|NCT00261443|183259215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.07||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.24||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.24|-0.39|0.637
91684252|NCT00261443|183259215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.03||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.29|-0.34|0.875
91719096|NCT03183908|183331118|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fatigue||7.0|-1.1|
91903468|NCT00525044|183701744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Analysis at 60 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.4|0.0417
91903469|NCT00525044|183701744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 120 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||-0.1|-0.6|0.0054
91684253|NCT00261443|183259215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.14||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.17||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||0.17|-0.46|0.378
91684254|NCT00261443|183259215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.12||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||0.20|-0.43|0.474
91684255|NCT00261443|183259217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.4||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.40|-0.19|0.488
91684256|NCT00261443|183259217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.15||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.16|-0.46|0.349
91684257|NCT00261443|183259217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.07||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.25||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.25|-0.39|0.653
91684258|NCT00261443|183259217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.24||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.08||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.08|-0.56|0.141
91684259|NCT00261443|183259217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.11||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.11|-0.54|0.196
91684260|NCT00261443|183259217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.04|-0.62|0.088
91684261|NCT00261443|183259217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.34||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-0.01|-0.68|0.047
91684262|NCT00261443|183259217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.33||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.01|-0.67|0.057
91684263|NCT00261443|183259217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.33||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.02||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.02|-0.68|0.063
91684264|NCT00261443|183259217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.3||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.05|-0.65|0.091
91719097|NCT03183908|183331118|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fever||-0.4|-3.0|
91719098|NCT03183908|183331118|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Headache||2.4|-3.2|
91719099|NCT03183908|183331118|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.5|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Malaise||4.5|-2.5|
91719100|NCT03183908|183331118|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Myalgia||4.3|-3.1|
91719101|NCT03183908|183331118|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Nausea||1.3|-3.3|
91793864|NCT04543409|183466413|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the centrally-read EREFS total score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1||||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline in EREFS TS = Treatment + baseline EREFS TS + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Analysis completed at Week 24.||0.32|-0.52|0.7322
91793865|NCT04543409|183466414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|43.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Controlling for region (North America and Rest of the world), baseline steroid use, and presence of strictures at baseline. OR values \>1 would favor Benra 30 mg treatment group.|||43.47|5.79|<0.0001
91793866|NCT04543409|183466418|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.42|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Dysphagia-related pain.||0.42|-0.50|0.8656
91793867|NCT04543409|183466418|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.181||||0.3926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.23|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Dysphagia-related discomfort.||0.23|-0.60|0.3926
91863088|NCT02969707|183613781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANCOVA|||Standard ANCOVA testing whether the Post-TMS E/I relative to water is predicted for each subject by the intervention (Active / Sham) while covarying for the Pre-TMS E/I ratio relative to water.||||0.720
91794521|NCT00491556|183467971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.68|-0.61|0.9150
91863089|NCT06074172|183613790|OTHER|Linear Mixed Models were done with a compound symmetry covariance structure. This infers that the variances (pooled within-group) and covariances (across subjects) of all of the repeated measures are homogenous.||||||0.008||||||In the Bonferroni corrected Linear Mixed Model for PI Ratio, the p-value for the following interaction was reported: Treatment\*Age.|Linear Mixed Model|"Linear Mixed Model analyses:~1. Factor: Treatment group~2. Covariates: Age, Sex, CBD Use history, and Urine THC~3. Interactions"||||||0.008
91863090|NCT03020199|183613794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|48.3|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression model with treatment as an explanatory variable and subset of significant covariates (including Baseline PASI score, age, BMI and their interaction terms with treatment) selected using forward selection method.|Week 52 PASI 90||48.3|5.9|<0.0001
91719102|NCT03183908|183331118|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Vomiting||1.8|-1.8|
91719103|NCT03183908|183331119|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Arthralgia||6.4|-7.2|
91719104|NCT03183908|183331119|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.6|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Diarrhea||-0.6|-8.1|
91719105|NCT03183908|183331119|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fatigue||10.9|-3.6|
91863091|NCT03020199|183613795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic||Exact logistic regression method for Treatment group comparison, without using any covariates.|Week 104 PASI 90||2.1|0.3|0.6530
91863092|NCT02714257|183613821|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||1.14|0.74|0.43
91863093|NCT02714257|183613822|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Regression, Negative Binomial||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||1.28|0.89|0.50
91863094|NCT02714257|183613823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.72|0.30
91794522|NCT00491556|183467972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.48|-17.55|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-17.55|-29.48|< 0.0001
91684265|NCT00261443|183259217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.06|-0.64|0.105
91684266|NCT00261443|183259217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.36||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.01|-0.72|0.047
91684267|NCT00261443|183259217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.33||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.03||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||0.03|-0.69|0.073
91684268|NCT00261443|183259218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 4||1.08|0.92|0.910
91684269|NCT00261443|183259218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.04||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.11||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 8||1.11|0.97|0.300
91684270|NCT00261443|183259218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.01||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 12||1.08|0.95|0.744
91684271|NCT00261443|183259218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.09||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 16||1.17|1.02|0.015
91684272|NCT00261443|183259218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.05||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.14||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 20||1.14|0.97|0.264
91684273|NCT00261443|183259218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.05||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.11||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 24||1.11|0.99|0.090
91684274|NCT00261443|183259218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.08||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 28||1.17|1.00|0.056
91684275|NCT00261443|183259218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.99||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.05||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 32||1.05|0.93|0.756
91684276|NCT00261443|183259218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.05||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.13||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 36||1.13|0.98|0.177
91684277|NCT00261443|183259218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.07||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.13||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 40||1.13|1.01|0.021
91684278|NCT00261443|183259218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.06||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 44||1.16|0.96|0.216
91684279|NCT00261443|183259218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.07||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 48||1.15|1.01|0.017
91684280|NCT00261443|183259218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.06||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.13||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 52||1.13|0.99|0.083
91684281|NCT00261443|183259219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.08|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified Log Rank Test p-value for equality of survival curves.||||1.08|0.56|0.132
91684282|NCT00261443|183259260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.640
91684283|NCT00261443|183259260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.423||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.423
91684284|NCT00261443|183259260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.297||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.297
91684285|NCT00261443|183259260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.707
91684286|NCT00261443|183259261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.656
91684287|NCT00261443|183259261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.045
91719106|NCT03183908|183331119|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.6|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fever||6.6|-2.4|
91684288|NCT00261443|183259261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.532
91684289|NCT00261443|183259261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.578||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.578
91684290|NCT00261443|183259262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.619||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.619
91684291|NCT00261443|183259262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.868||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.868
91684292|NCT00261443|183259262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.284
91684293|NCT00261443|183259262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.481||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.481
91684294|NCT00261443|183259263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.184||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.184
91684295|NCT00261443|183259263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.073
91684296|NCT00261443|183259263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.020
91684297|NCT00261443|183259263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.206||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.206
91684298|NCT00261443|183259264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.142||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.142
91684299|NCT00261443|183259264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.110
91684300|NCT00261443|183259264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.022
91684301|NCT00261443|183259264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.542||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.542
91684302|NCT00261443|183259265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.916||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.916
91684303|NCT00261443|183259265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.707
91684304|NCT00261443|183259265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.665||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.665
91719107|NCT03183908|183331119|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|12.2|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Malaise||12.2|2.0|
91719108|NCT03183908|183331119|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Myalgia||7.3|-7.3|
91684305|NCT00261443|183259265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.757||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.757
91684306|NCT00261443|183259266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.871||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.871
91684307|NCT00261443|183259266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.362
91719109|NCT03183908|183331120|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5862|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Limitation Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5862
91684308|NCT00261443|183259266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.295
91684309|NCT00261443|183259266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.519||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.519
91684310|NCT00261443|183259267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.935||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.935
91684311|NCT00261443|183259267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.174||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.174
91684312|NCT00261443|183259267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.527||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.527
91684313|NCT00261443|183259267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.753||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.753
91684314|NCT00261443|183259268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.850
91684315|NCT00261443|183259268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.709||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.709
91684316|NCT00261443|183259268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.326||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.326
91684317|NCT00261443|183259268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.201||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.201
91719110|NCT03183908|183331120|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5648|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Daily Activities Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5648
91793868|NCT04543409|183466418|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.344||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.05|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Overall episode severity.||0.05|-0.74|0.0867
91684318|NCT00261443|183259269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.81||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Difference||1.81|-0.87|0.491
91684319|NCT00261443|183259269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.12||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value Treatment Difference||1.12|-1.21|0.945
91684320|NCT00261443|183259270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.279||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 Treatment Comparison||||0.279
91684321|NCT00261443|183259270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.247||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24 Treatment Comparison||||0.247
91684322|NCT00261443|183259270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Treatment Comparison||||0.329
91684323|NCT00261443|183259270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.928||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 Treatment Comparison||||0.928
91684324|NCT00261443|183259270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.09||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Comparison||2.09|0.66|0.584
91684325|NCT00261443|183259270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.08||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"At Any Time Treatment Comparison"||2.08|0.76|0.369
91684326|NCT00261443|183259271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 Treatment Comparison||||0.685
91684327|NCT00261443|183259271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.792||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24 Treatment Comparison||||0.792
91684328|NCT00261443|183259271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.805||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Treatment Comparison||||0.805
91684329|NCT00261443|183259271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 Treatment Comparison||||0.533
91684330|NCT00261443|183259271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.74||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Comparison||1.74|0.35|0.545
91684331|NCT00261443|183259271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.86||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"At Any Time Treatment Comparison"||1.86|0.54|0.987
91684332|NCT00261443|183259272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.646||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Treatment Comparison Baseline||||0.646
91684333|NCT00261443|183259272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 12 Treatment Comparison||||0.006
91684334|NCT00261443|183259272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.485||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 24 Treatment Comparison||||0.485
91684335|NCT00261443|183259272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.325||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 36 Treatment Comparison||||0.325
91684336|NCT00261443|183259272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.374||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 52 Treatment Comparison||||0.374
91684337|NCT00261443|183259272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Comparison||||0.064
91684338|NCT00261443|183259272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison||||0.310
91684339|NCT00261443|183259272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison||||0.046
91684340|NCT00261443|183259274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.331||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline ALP||||0.331
91684341|NCT00261443|183259274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.353||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in ALP at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.353
91684342|NCT00261443|183259274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.298||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison ALP Highest Change Value During Phase 3||||0.298
91684343|NCT00261443|183259275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline ALT||||0.111
91684344|NCT00261443|183259275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.948||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change in ALT at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.948
91684345|NCT00261443|183259275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.559||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison ALT Highest Change Value During Phase 3||||0.559
91684346|NCT00261443|183259276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline AST||||0.077
91684347|NCT00261443|183259276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.255||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change in AST at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.255
91684348|NCT00261443|183259276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.918||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison AST Highest Change Value During Phase 3||||0.918
91684349|NCT00261443|183259277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline BUN||||0.118
91684350|NCT00261443|183259277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in BUN at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.532
91863095|NCT02714257|183613824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.92|0.16|<0.01
91684351|NCT00261443|183259277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison BUN Highest Value of Change During Phase 3||||0.169
91684352|NCT00261443|183259278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.878||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Total Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.878
91684353|NCT00261443|183259278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.544||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Total Cholesterol (fasting) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.544
91684354|NCT00261443|183259278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.658||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Total Cholesterol (fasting) in Phase 3||||0.658
91684355|NCT00261443|183259279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Creatine Kinase||||0.043
91684356|NCT00261443|183259279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from baseline in Creatine Kinase at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.019
91684357|NCT00261443|183259279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Creatine Kinase During Phase 3||||0.176
91684358|NCT00261443|183259280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.105||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Creatinine||||0.105
91684359|NCT00261443|183259280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.634||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Creatinine at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.634
91684360|NCT00261443|183259280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Creatinine During Phase 3||||0.958
91684361|NCT00261443|183259281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.507||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Eosinophils (relative)||||0.507
91684362|NCT00261443|183259281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.834||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Eosinophils (relative) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.834
91684363|NCT00261443|183259281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.511||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Eosinophils (relative) During Phase 3||||0.511
91684364|NCT00261443|183259282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Glucose (fasting)||||0.741
91684365|NCT00261443|183259282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.962||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Glucose (fasting) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.962
91684366|NCT00261443|183259282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Change Value in Glucose (fasting) During Phase 3||||0.592
91684367|NCT00261443|183259283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Hemoglobin||||0.080
91684368|NCT00261443|183259283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.868||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Hemoglobin at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.868
91684369|NCT00261443|183259283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.299||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Change Value in Hemoglobin During Phase 3||||0.299
91684370|NCT00261443|183259284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.187||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Hematocrit||||0.187
91863096|NCT02714257|183613825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||Regression, Logistic||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||1.27|0.85|0.73
91684371|NCT00261443|183259284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.377||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Hematocrit During Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.377
91684372|NCT00261443|183259284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.494||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Hematocrit During Phase 3||||0.494
91684373|NCT00261443|183259285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline HDL Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.180
91684374|NCT00261443|183259285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in HDL Cholesterol (fasting) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.950
91684375|NCT00261443|183259285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.342||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in HDL Cholesterol (fasting) During Phase 3||||0.342
91684376|NCT00261443|183259286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.349||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline HOMA2-Percent Beta||||0.349
91684377|NCT00261443|183259286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.624||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in HOMA2-Percent Beta at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.624
91684378|NCT00261443|183259286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value in HOMA2-Percent Beta During Phase 3||||0.329
91684379|NCT00261443|183259287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline HOMA2-IR||||0.550
91684380|NCT00261443|183259287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.554||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in HOMA2-IR at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.554
91684381|NCT00261443|183259287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in HOMA2-IR, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.870
91684382|NCT00261443|183259288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase||||0.004
91684383|NCT00261443|183259288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase||||0.034
91684384|NCT00261443|183259288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.091||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Lactate Dehydrogenase During Phase 3||||0.091
91684385|NCT00261443|183259289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.808||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline LDL Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.808
91684386|NCT00261443|183259289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.507||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.507
91684387|NCT00261443|183259289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.948||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Change Value in LDL Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.948
91684388|NCT00261443|183259290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.967||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Neutrophils (relative)||||0.967
91684389|NCT00261443|183259290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.486||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison in change from Baseline in Neutrophils (relative) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.486
91684390|NCT00261443|183259290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.323||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Neutrophils (relative), Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.323
91684391|NCT00261443|183259291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.663||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline in Platelet Count||||0.663
91684392|NCT00261443|183259291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.322
91684393|NCT00261443|183259291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.358||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Platelet Count, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.358
91684394|NCT00261443|183259291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.541||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Platelet Count, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.541
91684395|NCT00261443|183259292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.412||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Prolactin||||0.412
91684396|NCT00261443|183259292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||<0.001
91684397|NCT00261443|183259292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Prolactin, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.004
91684398|NCT00261443|183259293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Total Bilirubin||||0.630
91684399|NCT00261443|183259293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.675||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.675
91684400|NCT00261443|183259293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Total Bilirubin, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.592
91684401|NCT00261443|183259294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Triglycerides (fasting)||||0.273
91684402|NCT00261443|183259294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.489||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.489
91684403|NCT00261443|183259294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.415||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Triglycerides (fasting), Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.415
91684404|NCT00261443|183259295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.189||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Uric Acid||||0.189
91684405|NCT00261443|183259295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.350
91684406|NCT00261443|183259295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Uric Acid, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.799
91684407|NCT00261443|183259296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.124||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Leukocytes||||0.124
91684408|NCT00261443|183259296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.295
91684409|NCT00261443|183259296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value of Change in Leukocytes, Phase 3||||0.735
91684410|NCT00261443|183259296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.505||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value of Change in Leukocytes, Phase 3||||0.505
91684411|NCT00261443|183259298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.213||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline QTc Bazett||||0.213
91684412|NCT00261443|183259298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.708||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in QTc Bazett at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.708
91684413|NCT00261443|183259298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.107||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in QTc Bazett, Phase 3||||0.107
91684414|NCT00261443|183259299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.205||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline QTc (0.33)||||0.205
91684415|NCT00261443|183259299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.669||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in QTc (0.33) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.669
91684416|NCT00261443|183259299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in QTc (0.33), Phase 3||||0.072
91684417|NCT00261443|183259300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline PR||||0.012
91684418|NCT00261443|183259300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in PR at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.027
91684419|NCT00261443|183259300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in PR, Phase 3||||0.128
91684420|NCT00261443|183259301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.571||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline RR||||0.571
91684421|NCT00261443|183259301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.353||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in RR at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.353
91684422|NCT00261443|183259301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.204||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in RR, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.204
91719111|NCT03183908|183331120|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Mobility Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4196
91684423|NCT00261443|183259301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.435||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Prolactin, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.435
91684424|NCT00261443|183259302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.826||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline QRS||||0.826
91684425|NCT00261443|183259302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.545||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in QRS at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.545
91684426|NCT00261443|183259302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in QRS, Phase 3||||0.372
91684427|NCT00261443|183259303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.27||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.27|-0.07|0.235
91863097|NCT02714257|183613826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.62|-0.18|0.27
91863098|NCT02714257|183613827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.34|-0.13|0.37
91863099|NCT02714257|183613828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.38|-0.10|0.26
91684428|NCT00261443|183259303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value in Change Treatment Difference||0.64|0.08|0.012
91719112|NCT03183908|183331120|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.2418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participation Restriction Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.2418
91684429|NCT00261443|183259304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.587||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Heart Rate||||0.587
91684430|NCT00261443|183259304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in Heart Rate at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.386
91684431|NCT00261443|183259304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.405||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Heart Rate, Phase 3||||0.405
91684432|NCT00261443|183259304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.253||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Heart Rate, Phase 3||||0.253
91684433|NCT00261443|183259305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.23|-0.12|0.514
91684434|NCT00261443|183259305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.38||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change Treatment Difference||0.38|-0.14|0.362
91684435|NCT00261443|183259306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.04|-0.04|0.904
91684436|NCT00261443|183259306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.11||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change Treatment Difference||0.11|-0.03|0.222
91684437|NCT00261443|183259307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.04|-0.03|0.808
91684438|NCT00261443|183259307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.771||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change Treatment Difference||||0.771
91684439|NCT00261443|183259308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.03|-0.05|0.576
91684440|NCT00261443|183259308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value treatment Difference||0.08|-0.05|0.636
91684441|NCT00261443|183259309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.08|-0.06|0.774
91684442|NCT00261443|183259309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change, Treatment Difference||0.14|-0.06|0.444
91719113|NCT03183908|183331120|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0746|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.0746
91719114|NCT03183908|183331120|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Instrumental Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5497
91684443|NCT02755649|183259323|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.87|42.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior Cyclosporine A (CSA) use (Yes, No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens. Difference is Dupilumab minus placebo. Confidence Interval (CI) calculated using normal approximation. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16. Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated.||42.05|16.87|< 0.0001
91684444|NCT02755649|183259323|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.41|45.57||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior Cyclosporine A (CSA) use (Yes, No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens. Difference is Dupilumab minus placebo. Confidence Interval (CI) calculated using normal approximation. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16. Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated.||45.57|20.41|< 0.0001
91684445|NCT02755649|183259324|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.85|-24.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI w/p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs placebo) of LS mean percent change using multiple imputation (MI) w/ANCOVA model w/baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use\[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI||-24.3|-38.85|< 0.0001
91684446|NCT02755649|183259324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.42|-25.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue \& then imputed by MI.||-25.88|-40.42|< 0.0001
91684447|NCT02755649|183259325|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.07|-17.41||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI||-17.41|-35.07|< 0.0001
91684448|NCT02755649|183259325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference]|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.34|-19.68||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-19.68|-37.34|< 0.0001
91684449|NCT02755649|183259326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.56|-21.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-21.93|-35.56|< 0.0001
91684450|NCT02755649|183259326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-26.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-26.06|-39.7|< 0.0001
91684451|NCT02755649|183259327|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.89|38.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||38.39|13.89|< 0.0001
91684452|NCT02755649|183259327|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.08|43.83||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||43.83|19.08|< 0.0001
91719115|NCT03183908|183331121|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.6278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Limitation Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.6278
91794523|NCT00491556|183467973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.96||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|9.28|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||9.28|-5.38|0.5864
91684453|NCT02755649|183259328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.706|-13.197||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value is based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment,randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI||-13.197|-22.706|< 0.0001
91684454|NCT02755649|183259328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.431|-14.895||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-14.895|-24.431|< 0.0001
91684455|NCT02755649|183259329|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.99|36.41||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||36.41|13.99|< 0.0001
91684456|NCT02755649|183259329|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.95|37.65||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||37.65|14.95|< 0.0001
91684457|NCT02755649|183259330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-3.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.04|-5.6|< 0.0001
91684458|NCT02755649|183259330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-3.74||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\])as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.74|-6.31|< 0.0001
91684459|NCT02755649|183259331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|-5.47||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\])as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-5.47|-8.78|< 0.0001
91684460|NCT02755649|183259331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-5.97||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\])as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-5.97|-9.29|< 0.0001
91684461|NCT02755649|183259332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|30.1|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.63|45.64||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||45.64|14.63|= 0.0002
91684462|NCT02755649|183259332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|31.6|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.11|47.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||47.05|16.11|= 0.0001
91684463|NCT02755649|183259333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|-3.51||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.51|-11.64|= 0.0003
91684464|NCT02755649|183259333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|-5.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-5.95|-14.15|< 0.0001
91684465|NCT02755649|183259334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|-1.43||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-1.43|-4.41|= 0.0001
91684466|NCT02755649|183259334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-2.4|-5.38|< 0.0001
91684467|NCT02755649|183259335|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|41.96||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||41.96|17.1|< 0.0001
91684468|NCT02755649|183259335|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|40.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.24|52.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||52.61|28.24|< 0.0001
91684469|NCT02755649|183259336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.63|-16.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab group vs. placebo)of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment,randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use\[Yes,No\])as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-16.88|-31.63|< 0.0001
91684470|NCT02755649|183259336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.49|-18.86||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata (disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-18.86|-33.49|< 0.0001
91684471|NCT02755649|183259337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-3.66||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens. CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.66|-15.8|= 0.0017
91684472|NCT02755649|183259337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|||=|0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|-1.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-1.06|-13.31|= 0.0214
91684473|NCT02755649|183259338|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-4.7|||=|0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||1.58|-10.97|= 0.1486
91684474|NCT02755649|183259338|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-6.5|||=|0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|-0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||-0.65|-12.27|= 0.0319
91719116|NCT03183908|183331121|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Daily Activities Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5622
91684475|NCT02755649|183259339|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.0|||=|0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||3.53|-3.6|= 0.9829
91684476|NCT02755649|183259339|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||3.63|-3.6|= 1
91684477|NCT02755649|183259340|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.9|||=|0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|3.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||3.97|-2.19|= 0.5619
91684478|NCT02755649|183259340|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-0.9|||=|0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||0.88|-2.73|= 0.3241
91684479|NCT02755649|183259341|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-0.4|||=|0.9518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||11.9|-12.6|= 0.9518
91684480|NCT02755649|183259341|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|2.5|||=|0.6833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|14.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||14.68|-9.64|= 0.6833
91684481|NCT02089659|183259350|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.35|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.35|0.72|
91684482|NCT02089659|183259351|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.24|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.24|0.66|
91684483|NCT02089659|183259352|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.18|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.18|0.74|
91684484|NCT02089659|183259353|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.33|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.33|0.74|
91903470|NCT00525044|183701744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 180 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.6|0.0201
91684485|NCT02126826|183259355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.7865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6193|0.9537|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||0.9537|0.6193|
91684486|NCT02126826|183259355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0171|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8378|1.1964|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.1964|0.8378|
91684487|NCT02126826|183259357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9511|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7654|1.1367|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||1.1367|0.7654|
91684488|NCT02126826|183259357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0834|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8655|1.3013|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.3013|0.8655|
91684489|NCT02126826|183259359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.7832|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6235|0.9428|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||0.9428|0.6235|
91684490|NCT02126826|183259359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0365|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8593|1.2137|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.2137|0.8593|
91684491|NCT02126826|183259361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9433|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7744|1.1122|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||1.1122|0.7744|
91684492|NCT02126826|183259361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8583|1.3037|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.3037|0.8583|
91684493|NCT01371747|183259362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91719117|NCT03183908|183331121|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5538|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Mobility Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5538
91794524|NCT00491556|183467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.31|25.65|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||25.65|18.31|< 0.0001
91684494|NCT01371747|183259362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684495|NCT01371747|183259362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684496|NCT01371747|183259362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684497|NCT01371747|183259362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684498|NCT01371747|183259362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684499|NCT01371747|183259363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684500|NCT01371747|183259363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684501|NCT01371747|183259363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684502|NCT01371747|183259363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684503|NCT01371747|183259363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684504|NCT01371747|183259363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684505|NCT01371747|183259364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684506|NCT01371747|183259364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684507|NCT01371747|183259364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684508|NCT01371747|183259364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684509|NCT01371747|183259364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684510|NCT01371747|183259364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91684511|NCT01371747|183259365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91684512|NCT01371747|183259365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91684513|NCT01371747|183259365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91684514|NCT01371747|183259365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91684515|NCT01371747|183259365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91684516|NCT01371747|183259365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91684517|NCT01371747|183259366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91684518|NCT01371747|183259366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91684519|NCT01371747|183259366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91684520|NCT01371747|183259366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91684521|NCT01371747|183259366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91684522|NCT01371747|183259366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91684523|NCT01371747|183259367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.3|100.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||100.0|94.3|
91684524|NCT01371747|183259367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.5|100.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||100|94.5|
91684525|NCT01371747|183259367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|100.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||100|91.6|
91684526|NCT01371747|183259367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|99.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99|73|
91684527|NCT01371747|183259367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|95.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.9|99.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.9|78.9|
91684528|NCT01371747|183259367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|99.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.9|77.2|
91684529|NCT01371747|183259368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.7|99.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.0|86.7|
91684530|NCT01371747|183259368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|96.5|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||96.5|81.0|
91793869|NCT04543409|183466420|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.267||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.7|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Abdominal pain severity||0.70|-0.16|0.2248
91903471|NCT00525044|183701745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Analysis at 30 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.4|0.1280
91684531|NCT01371747|183259368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|81.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|89.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||89.9|69.5|
91684532|NCT01371747|183259368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|92.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||92.9|57.8|
91684533|NCT01371747|183259368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|99.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99|73|
91684534|NCT01371747|183259368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|77.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|92.2|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||92.2|54.6|
91684535|NCT01371747|183259370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|86.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|94.3|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||94.3|73.7|
91684536|NCT01371747|183259370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|81.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|91.2|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||91.2|68.0|
91684537|NCT01371747|183259370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.9|96.3|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||96.3|75.9|
91684538|NCT01371747|183259370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.5|98.3|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||98.3|59.5|
91684539|NCT01371747|183259370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.9|98.7|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||98.7|66.9|
91684540|NCT01371747|183259370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|99.8|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.8|68.1|
91684541|NCT03092219|183259371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|For this outcome measure, missing data were imputed using a LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward) method.||||||0.0001
91684542|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Matrilysin (P09237) was analyzed.||||= 0.001
91684543|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.002||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of von Willebrand factor (P04275) was analyzed.||||= 0.002
91684544|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.044||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of CCN family member 4 (O95388) was analyzed.||||= 0.044
91684545|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.044||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of TGF beta-1 proprotein (P01137) was analyzed.||||= 0.044
91684546|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.127||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of TGF beta receptor type 3 (Q03167) was analyzed.||||= 0.127
91684547|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.21||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX differences (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of IL-15 receptor subunit alpha (Q13261) was analyzed.||||= 0.210
91684548|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.215||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Metalloproteinase inhibitor 1 (P01033) was analyzed.||||= 0.215
91684549|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.215||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Pappalysin-1 (Q13219) was analyzed.||||= 0.215
91684550|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.745||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Proto-oncogene c-Src (P12931) was analyzed.||||= 0.745
91684551|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Protein AMBP (P02760) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
91684552|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Uromodulin (P07911) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
91684553|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Aminopeptidase N (P15144) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
91684554|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of TNFRSF1A (P19438) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
91684555|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (P05121) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
91684556|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of CCN family member 2 (P29279) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
91684557|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of uPAR (Q03405) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
91684558|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-C motif chemokine 14 (Q16627) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
91684559|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-C motif chemokine 16 (O15467) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91719118|NCT03183908|183331121|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participation Restriction Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.2310
91684560|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Collagen alpha-1(I) chain (P02452) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91684561|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Decorin (P07585) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91794525|NCT00491556|183467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.25||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.93|-5.34|0.1592
91684562|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX differences (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-C motif chemokine 2 (P13500) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91684563|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Matrix metalloproteinase-9 (P14780) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91684564|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX differences (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of E-selectin (P16581) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91684565|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Thrombospondin-2 (P35442) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91684566|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of RARRES2 (Q99969) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91684567|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-X-C motif chemokine 16 (Q9H2A7) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91684568|NCT05013008|183259422|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Dickkopf-related protein 3 (Q9UBP4) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91684569|NCT00591773|183259453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.54|-13.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-13.19|-18.54|<0.001
91684570|NCT00591773|183259453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.13|-12.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-12.76|-18.13|<0.001
91684571|NCT00591773|183259454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|-10.99||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-10.99|-17.81|<0.001
91684572|NCT00591773|183259454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-9.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.25|-16.10|<0.001
91684573|NCT00591773|183259455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|-8.56||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.56|-12.02|<0.001
91684574|NCT00591773|183259455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|-8.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.76|-12.23|<0.001
91684575|NCT00591773|183259456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|-5.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.25|-9.25|<0.001
91684576|NCT00591773|183259456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|-5.05||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.05|-9.06|<0.001
91684577|NCT00591773|183259457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.56|-14.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-14.04|-19.56|<0.001
91684578|NCT00591773|183259457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.01|-13.47||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-13.47|-19.01|<0.001
91684579|NCT00591773|183259458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|-9.18||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.18|-12.86|<0.001
91684580|NCT00591773|183259458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|-9.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.35|-13.04|<0.001
91684581|NCT00591773|183259459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-9.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.94|-15.92|<0.001
91684582|NCT00591773|183259459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|-9.84||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.84|-15.83|<0.001
91684583|NCT00591773|183259460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-6.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.19|-10.14|<0.001
91684584|NCT00591773|183259460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|-6.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.19|-10.15|<0.001
91684585|NCT00591773|183259461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|-14.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-14.64|-20.39|<0.001
91684586|NCT00591773|183259461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.84|-14.05||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-14.05|-19.84|<0.001
91684587|NCT00591773|183259462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.49|-9.59||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.59|-13.49|<0.001
91684588|NCT00591773|183259462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|-9.72||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.72|-13.64|<0.001
91684589|NCT00591773|183259463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|-10.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.94|-17.13|<0.001
91684590|NCT00591773|183259463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|-10.37||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.37|-16.58|<0.001
91684591|NCT00591773|183259464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|-7.2||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.20|-11.65|<0.001
91684592|NCT00591773|183259464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-7.46||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.46|-11.92|<0.001
91684593|NCT00591773|183259465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|7.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.03|2.38|<0.001
91684594|NCT00591773|183259465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|5.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.03|1.82|<0.001
91684595|NCT00591773|183259466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.27||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.27|1.90|<0.001
91684596|NCT00591773|183259466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.0||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.00|1.46|0.002
91684597|NCT00591773|183259467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.64||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.64|2.41|<0.001
91684598|NCT00591773|183259467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.79||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.79|1.83|<0.001
91684599|NCT03022084|183259468|NON_INFERIORITY|The probability that Desyncra is non-inferior to CBT, defined by the sponsor as the event that mean TQ score change from baseline in the Desyncra arm is no more than 3.5 points worse than the mean TQ change in the CBT arm.|||||||||||||Bayesian|Data collected to date were analyzed using a Bayesian approach.|||Data collected to date were analyzed using a Bayesian approach.|||
91719119|NCT03183908|183331121|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0435|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Roles Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.0435
91719120|NCT03183908|183331121|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.6519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Instrumental Roles Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.6519
91719121|NCT03183908|183331122|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Limitation Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7483
91719122|NCT03183908|183331122|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Daily Activities Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7483
91719123|NCT03183908|183331122|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Mobility Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4953
91719124|NCT03183908|183331122|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.8669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participation Restriction Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.8669
91719125|NCT03183908|183331122|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.8451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.8451
91719126|NCT03183908|183331122|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Instrumental Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7376
91719127|NCT03183908|183331123|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7407|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||US Index Score Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7407
91719128|NCT03183908|183331124|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||US Index Score Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4032
91719129|NCT03183908|183331125|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||US Index Score Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4079
91719130|NCT03183908|183331126|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EQ VAS Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7948
91719131|NCT03183908|183331127|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. Alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EQ VAS Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7953
91719132|NCT03183908|183331128|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.9329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EQ VAS Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.9329
91719133|NCT01588509|183331148|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|2.13||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|3.2|||ANOVA|||||3.20|1.05|0.002
91719134|NCT01588509|183331148|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|2.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|3.14|||ANOVA|||||3.14|1.02|0.002
91719135|NCT01588509|183331149|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|3.05|||ANOVA|||||3.05|1.07|<0.001
91719136|NCT01588509|183331149|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|2.89|||ANOVA|||||2.89|0.95|0.002
91719137|NCT01588509|183331150|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.95|||ANOVA|||||1.95|0.81|<0.001
91719138|NCT01588509|183331150|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.96|||ANOVA|||||1.96|0.84|<0.001
91719139|NCT00393367|183331156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||The difference in median improvement between treatment groups was expected to be greater than 2.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91719140|NCT00393367|183331157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14|||Chi-squared|||||0.14|-0.14|0.97
91719141|NCT00393367|183331158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6|-7|
91719142|NCT00393367|183331159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3|-3|
91719143|NCT00393367|183331160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1|-1|
91719144|NCT00393367|183331161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03||||0.69||95.0|-0.2|0.14|||Chi-squared|||||0.14|-0.20|0.69
91719145|NCT00393367|183331162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.47|||Chi-squared|||||0.47|-0.02|0.08
91719146|NCT00393367|183331163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||Chi-squared|||||0.08|-0.37|0.22
91719147|NCT00393367|183331165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-0.6|0.78
91719148|NCT01944423|183331168|SUPERIORITY||Logit difference (final values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.97||p=ns 2-sided|two-phase growth curve model|||||0.97|-2.25|
91719149|NCT01944423|183331169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|7.94||2-sided|two-phase growth curve model|||At end-of-treatment||7.94|0.25|.038
91684600|NCT00605540|183259469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All data were analyzed using SigmaStat 3.2 (Inc., USA) software. Mean ± SD or median interquartile range (25-75%) was used depending on the data distribution. Wilcoxon test was applied to compare the characteristics at baseline to those observed after 3 years.||||0.09
91684601|NCT01235195|183259478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of adjusted means|104.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.12|109.83|||||Reference treatment=Sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg hard gelatin capsule. Test treatment=sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg film-coated tablet.|Natural log-transformed AUC (0-72) analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of adjusted mean differences (Test minus Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model. Adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test divided by Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||109.83|100.12|
91684602|NCT01235195|183259479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of adjusted means|105.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.46|112.69|||||Reference treatment=Sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg hard gelatin capsule. Test treatment=sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg film-coated tablet.|Natural log-transformed Cmax analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of adjusted mean differences (Test minus Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model. Adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test divided by Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.69|98.46|
91684603|NCT01235195|183259481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of adjusted means|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.16|112.39|||||Reference treatment=Sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg hard gelatin capsule. Test treatment=sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg film-coated tablet.|Natural log-transformed AUC (0-∞) analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of adjusted mean differences (Test minus Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model. Adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test divided by Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.39|100.16|
91684604|NCT02119819|183259484|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.52|||Bayesian|||||-0.52|-1.05|0.459
91684605|NCT02119819|183259484|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.511|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|-0.54|||Bayesian|||||-0.54|-1.07|0.511
91684606|NCT02119819|183259484|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|-0.89|||Bayesian|||||-0.89|-1.41|0.988
91684607|NCT02119819|183259484|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.934|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|-0.78|||Bayesian|||||-0.78|-1.30|0.934
91684608|NCT02119819|183259484|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.61|||Bayesian|||||0.61|0.08|0.373
91684609|NCT02119819|183259484|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.59|||Bayesian|||||0.59|0.07|0.433
91684610|NCT02119819|183259484|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.24|||Bayesian|||||0.24|-0.28|0.978
91684611|NCT02119819|183259484|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.904|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.35|||Bayesian|||||0.35|-0.17|0.904
91684612|NCT05384171|183259511|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.02||||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.617
91684613|NCT05384171|183259513|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.089||||0.214|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group intention follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline intention scores and age)||||.214
91684614|NCT05384171|183259513|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.001||||0.894|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group attitude follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline attitude scores and age)||||.894
91719150|NCT01944423|183331170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|5.26||2-sided|two-phase growth curve model|||At 6 month follow-up||5.26|1.15|.003
91719151|NCT00204737|183331186|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison at 2 Weeks||||0.06
91719152|NCT00204737|183331186|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison at 6 Weeks||||0.18
91684615|NCT05384171|183259513|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (Effect Size)|0.053||||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group social norms follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline social norms scores and age)||||.359
91684616|NCT05384171|183259513|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (Effect Size)|0.058||||0.322|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group perceived behavioral control follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline perceived behavioral control scores and age)||||.322
91684617|NCT05384171|183259514|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.001||||0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.891
91684618|NCT02052011|183259572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.62||||||||0.62|-0.08|
91684619|NCT01851330|183259573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 8 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91684620|NCT01851330|183259573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF+RBV 8 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91684621|NCT01851330|183259573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 12 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91719153|NCT00204737|183331186|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison at 12 weeks||||0.5
91793870|NCT04543409|183466420|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.296||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.71|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Nausea severity.||0.71|-0.11|0.1575
91793871|NCT04543409|183466423|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.202||||0.8239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.98|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Eating/Diet Impact||1.98|-1.57|0.8239
91793872|NCT04543409|183466423|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.147||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Social Impact||1.10|-0.80|0.7623
91719154|NCT00486044|183331219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.966
91719155|NCT00486044|183331220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91719156|NCT00486044|183331221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.113
91863100|NCT02714257|183613829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.22|-0.09|0.39
91863101|NCT03656510|183613946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.382|0.185||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 3||0.185|-1.382|
91719157|NCT00486044|183331222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.210
91719158|NCT02701634|183331223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||P-value was calculated using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91793873|NCT04543409|183466423|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference of Least Squares Means|0.01||||0.9898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.49|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Emotional Impact||1.49|-1.47|0.9898
91793874|NCT04543409|183466423|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.386||||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.41|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Disease Anxiety||1.41|-0.64|0.4603
91863102|NCT03656510|183613946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.418||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 3||0.418|-1.190|
91719159|NCT02701634|183331228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
91719160|NCT02701634|183331229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||P-value was calculated using the two sample proportion t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91794526|NCT00491556|183467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.04||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.74|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||9.74|0.20|0.0420
91863103|NCT03656510|183613946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.674|-0.25||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 8||-0.250|-4.674|
91719161|NCT02701634|183331230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||P-value was calculated using the two sample proportion t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91863104|NCT03656510|183613946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.645|-0.114||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 8||-0.114|-4.645|
91719162|NCT02701634|183331231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.18||P-value was calculated using the log-rank test and stratified for disease severity and usage of calcineurin inhibitor or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for disease severity and usage of calcineurin inhibitor or MMF|||2.18|0.55|0.800
91719163|NCT01206764|183331235|OTHER|Kaplan Meier|Median Difference (Net)|27.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.86|35.29||||||Single arm open label study||35.29|21.86|
91719164|NCT01206764|183331239|OTHER|Kaplan Meier|Median Difference (Net)|45.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.29|106.43||||||The median overall survival was not evaluable, this presents the 25th percentile of overall survival||106.43|31.29|
91719165|NCT00997893|183331243|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||treatment x time p=.004|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo. Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment and time, as well the treatment by time interaction.|||.004
91719166|NCT00997893|183331244|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||visit x time x treatment interaction p=.98|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo before and after a psychosocial stressor. Predictor variables in the model included treatment, time (before and after the psychosocial stressor), visit (Baseline, 12 weeks), and all two and three way interactions.|||.98
91863105|NCT03852472|183614032|OTHER||% Difference (Avacopan - Placebo)|-8.4||||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|2.4||P-values are obtained from a CMH test stratified by stratification factors Hurley Stage (Stage II vs III), and anti-TNF drug use (Treatment naive vs Previous treatment).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.4|-18.7|0.1321
91863106|NCT03852472|183614032|OTHER||% Difference (Avacopan - Placebo)|4.3||||0.4503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|15.5||P-values are obtained from a CMH test stratified by stratification factors Hurley Stage (Stage II vs III), and anti-TNF drug use (Treatment naive vs Previous treatment)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.5|-6.9|0.4503
91863107|NCT03852472|183614033|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||2.9|-1.7|0.5784
91684622|NCT01851330|183259573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was greater than -12%.|Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.3|1.8|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||1.8|-8.3|
91684623|NCT01851330|183259573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the CI for the difference between groups was greater than -12%.|Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.2|2.5|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||2.5|-7.2|
91684624|NCT01851330|183259573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the CI for the difference between groups was greater than -12%.|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||5.7|-3.9|
91684625|NCT01590797|183259586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.19|||Robust Regression|Robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and the metformin stratum and type of insulin, and baseline A1C (%) as a covariate.||||-0.19|-0.50|<0.001
91863108|NCT03852472|183614033|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.9|-3.7|0.2253
91684626|NCT01590797|183259587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.14|||Robust Regression|Robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and type of insulin, and baseline A1C (%) as a covariate.||||-0.14|-0.61|0.002
91684627|NCT01590797|183259588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-14.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and the metformin stratum and type of insulin, and baseline 2-hr Post- Meal Glucose (mg/dL) as a covariate.||||-14.7|-38.4|<0.001
91684628|NCT03106987|183259591|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.566||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.372|0.868|||Stratified log-rank||Hazard Ratio (Cox Proportional Hazards model)|||0.868|0.372|0.0220
91684629|NCT03106987|183259591|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|0.708|||Stratified log-rank||Hazard Ratio (Cox Proportional Hazards model)|||0.708|0.264|0.0023
91684630|NCT02114385|183259615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.45|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 6||1.45|1.04|<0.001
91684631|NCT02114385|183259615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 11||1.04|0.76|<0.001
91684632|NCT02114385|183259615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.21|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 16||1.21|0.89|<0.001
91684633|NCT02114385|183259615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.37|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 18||1.37|0.91|<0.001
91684634|NCT01651793|183259655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P value reference to the beverage x time interaction effect|ANCOVA|||Hypotheses were tested using a series (all outcome variables) of 2 Treatment x 4 Time point, repeated measures ANCOVAs that controlled for the prior night's sleep. Primary interests were the presence of statistically significant interactions of time and either cocoa versus placebo, cocoa + caffeine versus cocoa, or cocoa + caffeine versus caffeine-only. Significant interactions were decomposed using one-way ANOVAs and t-tests with familywise error controlled using LSD post-hoc tests.||||0.05
91684635|NCT01120704|183259665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.906||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|0.998|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||.998|.822|.045
91684636|NCT01120704|183259665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.982||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.081|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.081|.892|.705
91684637|NCT01120704|183259665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.044||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.149|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.149|.948|.382
91684638|NCT01120704|183259665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.954||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.050|.867|.339
91684639|NCT01120704|183259665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.945||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.040|.858|.248
91684640|NCT01120704|183259666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.402||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.821|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., 8 Weeks of Nicotine Patch and Nicotine Gum vs. 26 Weeks of Nicotine Patch and Nicotine Gum) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.821|1.080|.011
91794527|NCT00491556|183467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.39||0.4029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|3.16|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||3.16|-7.56|0.4029
91684641|NCT01120704|183259666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.321|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Maintenance Counseling vs. Maintenance Counseling) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.321|.769|.956
91684642|NCT01120704|183259666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.018||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.301|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling vs. Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.301|.797|.885
91684643|NCT01120704|183259666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.852||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.092|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Electronic Medication Monitoring Device Without Feedback vs. Electronic Medication Monitoring Device Plus Feedback) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.092|.664|.205
91684644|NCT01120704|183259666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.411|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Automated Adherence Prompting Phone Calls vs. Automated Adherence Prompting Phone Calls) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.411|.842|.514
91684645|NCT01292226|183259710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4505||||||Free MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA)||||||0.4505
91684646|NCT01292226|183259710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7322||||||Free MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.7322
91684647|NCT01292226|183259710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6798||||||Total MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.6798
91684648|NCT01292226|183259710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.541||||||Total MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.5410
91684649|NCT01292226|183259711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3892||||||Free MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3892
91684650|NCT01292226|183259711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6564||||||Total MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.6564
91684651|NCT01292226|183259711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7772||||||Free MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.7772
91684652|NCT01292226|183259711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0958||||||Total MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.0958
91684653|NCT01292226|183259712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5796||||||Time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.5796
91684654|NCT01292226|183259712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3428||||||Time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3428
91684655|NCT01292226|183259713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9372||||||Free MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9372
91684656|NCT01292226|183259713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9904||||||Total MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9904
91684657|NCT01292226|183259713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3658||||||Free MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3658
91684658|NCT01292226|183259713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2987||||||Total MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.2987
91684659|NCT01292226|183259714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7455||||||time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.7455
91684660|NCT01292226|183259714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8504||||||Time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.8504
91684661|NCT01292226|183259715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6847||||||IMPDH I, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.6847
91684662|NCT01292226|183259715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3184||||||IMPDH I, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3184
91684663|NCT01292226|183259715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3862||||||IMPDH II, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3862
91684664|NCT01292226|183259715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||IMPDH II, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9040
91684665|NCT01292226|183259715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0907||||||IMPDH activity, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.0907
91684666|NCT01292226|183259715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||||||IMPDH activity, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9630
91684667|NCT01292226|183259716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||||||IMPDH I|ANOVA|||||||0.4130
91684668|NCT01292226|183259716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3823||||||IMPDH II|ANOVA|||||||0.3823
91684669|NCT01292226|183259717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0316||||||IMPDH I|ANOVA|||||||0.0316
91684670|NCT01292226|183259717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||||||IMPDH II|ANOVA|||||||0.9440
91684671|NCT01292226|183259718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1328||||||IMPDH I|ANOVA|||||||0.1328
91684672|NCT01292226|183259718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||||||IMPDH II|ANOVA|||||||0.5760
91684673|NCT01292226|183259719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7332||||||Free MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.7332
91684674|NCT01292226|183259719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2681||||||Total MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.2681
91684675|NCT01292226|183259719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7087||||||AUC MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.7087
91684676|NCT01292226|183259720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9432||||||Free MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.9432
91684677|NCT01292226|183259720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5177||||||Total MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.5177
91684678|NCT01292226|183259720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6398||||||AUC MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.6398
91684679|NCT01292226|183259721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0656||||||Free MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.0656
91684680|NCT01292226|183259721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0131||||||Total MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.0131
91684681|NCT01292226|183259721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0515||||||AUC MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.0515
91684682|NCT03898908|183259737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||pValues below 0.05 are considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between baseline and Week 8||||0.015
91719167|NCT00997893|183331245|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||treatment x time (before and after the psychosocial stressor) x visit p=.68|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo on emotional memory following a laboratory induced stress. Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment, time (before and after the psychosocial stressor), visit (Baseline, 12 weeks), and all two and three way interactions.|||.68
91719168|NCT00997893|183331246|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||treatment x time p=.11|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo on verbal memory (logical memory; immediate). Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment and time, as well the treatment by time interaction.|||.11
91719169|NCT00997893|183331247|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||treatment x time p=.86|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo on verbal memory (logical memory; immediate)Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment and time, as well the treatment by time interaction.|||.86
91719170|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-3.4|||=|0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 5 vs 1)||7.0|-13.6|= 0.525
91719171|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-4.5|||=|0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 4 vs 1)||5.8|-14.7|= 0.396
91719172|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.7|||=|0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 3 vs 1)||1.6|-18.8|= 0.097
91719173|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-9.9|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|0.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 2 vs 1)||0.3|-19.9|= 0.057
91684683|NCT03898908|183259738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754||||||pValues below 0.05 are considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between baseline and W24||||0.754
91684684|NCT00468650|183259740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.19|<|0.001||95.0|10.0|11.93||"Statistical significance will be declared if the p-value is \<0.05.~Change from Baseline: Week 6 (LOCF) minus Baseline"|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Primary hypothesis to be tested is whether there is a significant improvement in the IIEF EF domain at the end of the 100 mg period, as compared to the baseline (Week 0) score. Sample size (N=115) provides more than 90% power to detect a change from baseline of 10 in the primary efficacy variable, assuming a standard deviation of 9, using the two-sided, single-sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05.||11.93|10.00|<0.001
91684685|NCT00468650|183259741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.21|<|0.001||95.0|6.17|8.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||8.11|6.17|<0.001
91684686|NCT00468650|183259741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.43|<|0.001||95.0|9.56|11.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||11.59|9.56|<0.001
91684687|NCT00468650|183259741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.26|<|0.001||95.0|9.93|11.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||11.92|9.93|<0.001
91684688|NCT00468650|183259741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.21|<|0.001||95.0|9.97|11.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 endpoint minus baseline||11.92|9.97|<0.001
91719174|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.4|||=|0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 5 vs 1)||1.2|-17.8|= 0.085
91719175|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-9.5|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 4 vs 1)||-0.0|-18.9|= 0.050
91719176|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-6.5|||=|0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|3.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 3 vs 1)||3.1|-16.1|= 0.183
91719177|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.7|||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 2 vs 1)||0.8|-18.1|= 0.074
91684689|NCT00468650|183259742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.97|<|0.001||95.0|2.74|4.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.23|2.74|<0.001
91684690|NCT00468650|183259742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.38|<|0.001||95.0|3.05|4.71||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2 For the secondary outcome, the change in IIEF-EF domain from the end of 50 mg period (Week 2) to the end of 100 mg period (Week 6), the sample size (N=115) provides more than 80% power to detect a mean change of 1.75 points, assuming a standard deviation of 6, using the two-sided, single sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05||4.71|3.05|<0.001
91684691|NCT00468650|183259742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|<|0.001||95.0|3.04|4.67||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2 For the secondary outcome, the change in IIEF-EF domain from the end of 50 mg period (Week 2) to the end of 100 mg period (Week 6), the sample size (N=115) provides more than 80% power to detect a mean change of 1.75 points, assuming a standard deviation of 6, using the two-sided, single sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05||4.67|3.04|<0.001
91684692|NCT00468650|183259742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|<|0.001||95.0|3.04|4.67||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2 For the secondary outcome, the change in IIEF-EF domain from the end of 50 mg period (Week 2) to the end of 100 mg period (Week 6), the sample size (N=115) provides more than 80% power to detect a mean change of 1.75 points, assuming a standard deviation of 6, using the two-sided, single sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05||4.67|3.04|<0.001
91684693|NCT00468650|183259743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|<|0.001||95.0|1.45|2.34||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||2.34|1.45|<0.001
91684694|NCT00468650|183259743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.32|<|0.001||95.0|2.02|2.89||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||2.89|2.02|<0.001
91684695|NCT00468650|183259743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.44|<|0.001||95.0|2.13|3.05||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||3.05|2.13|<0.001
91684696|NCT00468650|183259743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|<|0.001||95.0|2.17|3.08||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||3.08|2.17|<0.001
91684697|NCT00468650|183259743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42|<|0.001||95.0|2.14|3.04||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||3.04|2.14|<0.001
91684698|NCT00468650|183259744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51|<|0.001||95.0|0.32|0.89||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||0.89|0.32|<0.001
91684699|NCT00468650|183259744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.46|<|0.001||95.0|0.47|1.02||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.02|0.47|<0.001
91684700|NCT00468650|183259744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|<|0.001||95.0|0.47|1.01||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.01|0.47|<0.001
91719178|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|3.4|||=|0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 5 vs 1)||13.6|-7.0|= 0.525
91684701|NCT00468650|183259744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|<|0.001||95.0|0.47|1.01||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.01|0.47|<0.001
91684702|NCT00468650|183259745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87|<|0.001||95.0|1.09|1.78||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||1.78|1.09|<0.001
91684703|NCT00468650|183259745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86|<|0.001||95.0|1.65|2.35||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||2.35|1.65|<0.001
91684704|NCT00468650|183259745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.001||95.0|1.89|2.62||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||2.62|1.89|<0.001
91684705|NCT00468650|183259745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.94|<|0.001||95.0|1.9|2.62||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||2.62|1.90|<0.001
91684706|NCT00468650|183259745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93|<|0.001||95.0|1.91|2.64||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||2.64|1.91|<0.001
91684707|NCT00468650|183259746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.41|<|0.001||95.0|0.29|0.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||0.82|0.29|<0.001
91684708|NCT00468650|183259746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47|<|0.001||95.0|0.53|1.09||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.09|0.53|<0.001
91684709|NCT00468650|183259746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.001||95.0|0.55|1.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.11|0.55|<0.001
91684710|NCT00468650|183259746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.001||95.0|0.55|1.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.11|0.55|<0.001
91684711|NCT00468650|183259747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42|<|0.001||95.0|2.73|3.63||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||3.63|2.73|<0.001
91684712|NCT00468650|183259747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39|<|0.001||95.0|3.94|4.83||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||4.83|3.94|<0.001
91684713|NCT00468650|183259747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.53|<|0.001||95.0|4.25|5.21||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||5.21|4.25|<0.001
91684714|NCT00468650|183259747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.001||95.0|4.23|5.17||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||5.17|4.23|<0.001
91684715|NCT00468650|183259747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.001||95.0|4.25|5.19||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||5.19|4.25|<0.001
91684716|NCT00468650|183259748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|<|0.001||95.0|0.8|1.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.59|0.80|<0.001
91684717|NCT00468650|183259748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|<|0.001||95.0|1.12|1.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.95|1.12|<0.001
91684718|NCT00468650|183259748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19|<|0.001||95.0|1.13|1.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.95|1.13|<0.001
91684719|NCT00468650|183259748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19|<|0.001||95.0|1.13|1.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.95|1.13|<0.001
91684720|NCT00468650|183259749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.38|<|0.001||95.0|2.28|3.17||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||3.17|2.28|<0.001
91684721|NCT00468650|183259749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.49|<|0.001||95.0|3.2|4.14||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||4.14|3.20|<0.001
91684722|NCT00468650|183259749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.001||95.0|3.44|4.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||4.40|3.44|<0.001
91684723|NCT00468650|183259749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.53|<|0.001||95.0|3.44|4.38||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||4.38|3.44|<0.001
91684724|NCT00468650|183259749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.53|<|0.001||95.0|3.42|4.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||4.37|3.42|<0.001
91684725|NCT00468650|183259750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.88|<|0.001||95.0|0.62|1.32||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.32|0.62|<0.001
91684726|NCT00468650|183259750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.001||95.0|0.85|1.57||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.57|0.85|<0.001
91684727|NCT00468650|183259750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.001||95.0|0.84|1.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.55|0.84|<0.001
91684728|NCT00468650|183259750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.001||95.0|0.84|1.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.55|0.84|<0.001
91684729|NCT00468650|183259751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.36|<|0.001||95.0|27.98|37.43||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||37.43|27.98|<0.001
91684730|NCT00468650|183259751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|46.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.27|<|0.001||95.0|41.29|51.12||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||51.12|41.29|<0.001
91684731|NCT00468650|183259751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.96|<|0.001||95.0|40.44|50.63||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||50.63|40.44|<0.001
91684732|NCT00468650|183259751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.01|<|0.001||95.0|40.25|50.31||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||50.31|40.25|<0.001
91684733|NCT00468650|183259751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.02|<|0.001||95.0|39.99|50.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||50.11|39.99|<0.001
91719179|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||=|0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 4 vs 1)||9.7|-10.8|= 0.915
91684734|NCT00468650|183259752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1|<|0.001||95.0|9.89|17.79||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||17.79|9.89|<0.001
91684735|NCT00468650|183259752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.25|<|0.001||95.0|8.49|17.65||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||17.65|8.49|<0.001
91684736|NCT00468650|183259752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.26|<|0.001||95.0|8.14|17.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||17.23|8.14|<0.001
91684737|NCT00468650|183259752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.26|<|0.001||95.0|8.14|17.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||17.23|8.14|<0.001
91684738|NCT00468650|183259753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.001||95.0|4.59|6.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||6.23|4.59|<0.001
91684739|NCT00468650|183259753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.96|<|0.001||95.0|7.92|9.78||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||9.78|7.92|<0.001
91684740|NCT00468650|183259753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.19|<|0.001||95.0|8.23|10.19||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||10.19|8.23|<0.001
91684741|NCT00468650|183259753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.14|<|0.001||95.0|8.32|10.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||10.24|8.32|<0.001
91684742|NCT00468650|183259753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.15|<|0.001||95.0|8.28|10.22||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||10.22|8.28|<0.001
91684743|NCT00468650|183259754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.89|<|0.001||95.0|2.78|4.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.24|2.78|<0.001
91684744|NCT00468650|183259754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.41|<|0.001||95.0|3.08|4.74||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||4.74|3.08|<0.001
91684745|NCT00468650|183259754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.38|<|0.001||95.0|3.09|4.73||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||4.73|3.09|<0.001
91684746|NCT00468650|183259754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.38|<|0.001||95.0|3.09|4.73||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||4.73|3.09|<0.001
91684747|NCT00468650|183259755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86|<|0.001||95.0|5.77|7.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||7.59|5.77|<0.001
91684748|NCT00468650|183259755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.21|<|0.001||95.0|8.96|10.91||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||10.91|8.96|<0.001
91684749|NCT00468650|183259755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.08|<|0.001||95.0|9.62|11.56||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||11.56|9.62|<0.001
91684750|NCT00468650|183259755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.03|<|0.001||95.0|9.68|11.58||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||11.58|9.68|<0.001
91684751|NCT00468650|183259755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.06|<|0.001||95.0|9.68|11.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||11.59|9.68|<0.001
91684752|NCT00468650|183259756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1|<|0.001||95.0|2.52|4.05||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.05|2.52|<0.001
91793875|NCT04543409|183466423|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.162||||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.56|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Swallowing Anxiety||0.56|-0.89|0.6613
91684753|NCT00468650|183259756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.09|<|0.001||95.0|3.06|5.0||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||5.00|3.06|<0.001
91684754|NCT00468650|183259756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.04|<|0.001||95.0|3.06|4.96||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||4.96|3.06|<0.001
91684755|NCT00468650|183259756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.04|<|0.001||95.0|3.06|4.96||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||4.96|3.06|<0.001
91684756|NCT00468650|183259757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.44|<|0.001||95.0|2.33|3.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||3.24|2.33|<0.001
91684757|NCT00468650|183259757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.56|<|0.001||95.0|3.74|4.71||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||4.71|3.74|<0.001
91684758|NCT00468650|183259757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.84|<|0.001||95.0|4.2|5.28||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||5.28|4.20|<0.001
91684759|NCT00468650|183259757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.81|<|0.001||95.0|4.25|5.31||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||5.31|4.25|<0.001
91684760|NCT00468650|183259757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82|<|0.001||95.0|4.23|5.3||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||5.30|4.23|<0.001
91684761|NCT00468650|183259758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.001||95.0|1.13|1.85||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.85|1.13|<0.001
91684762|NCT00468650|183259758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|<|0.001||95.0|1.57|2.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||2.36|1.57|<0.001
91684763|NCT00468650|183259758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07|<|0.001||95.0|1.59|2.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||2.37|1.59|<0.001
91684764|NCT00468650|183259758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07|<|0.001||95.0|1.59|2.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||2.37|1.59|<0.001
91684765|NCT00468650|183259759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|8.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.7||0.0016||95.0|3.42|14.26||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||14.26|3.42|0.0016
91684766|NCT00468650|183259759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.51|<|0.001||95.0|4.93|15.43||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||15.43|4.93|<0.001
91684767|NCT00468650|183259759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.88|<|0.001||95.0|6.7|17.88||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||17.88|6.70|<0.001
91684768|NCT00468650|183259759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.33|<|0.001||95.0|6.61|17.32||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||17.32|6.61|<0.001
91684769|NCT00468650|183259759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.55|<|0.001||95.0|6.51|17.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||17.40|6.51|<0.001
91684770|NCT00468650|183259760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.85||0.3324||95.0|-1.42|4.17||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.17|-1.42|0.3324
91684771|NCT00468650|183259760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.26||0.0249||95.0|0.4|5.84||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||5.84|0.40|0.0249
91684772|NCT00468650|183259760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.95||0.0249||95.0|0.37|5.58||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||5.58|0.37|0.0249
91684773|NCT00468650|183259760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.07||0.0249||95.0|0.39|5.68||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||5.68|0.39|0.0249
91903472|NCT00525044|183701745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 60 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.4|0.0417
91684774|NCT00468650|183259761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.51|<|0.001||95.0|9.38|21.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||21.36|9.38|<0.001
91684775|NCT00468650|183259761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.22|<|0.001||95.0|10.76|23.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||23.55|10.76|<0.001
91684776|NCT00468650|183259761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.44|<|0.001||95.0|11.68|24.76||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||24.76|11.68|<0.001
91684777|NCT00468650|183259761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.87|<|0.001||95.0|11.07|23.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||23.59|11.07|<0.001
91684778|NCT00468650|183259761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.1|<|0.001||95.0|11.31|24.04||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||24.04|11.31|<0.001
91684779|NCT00468650|183259762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.41||0.1061||95.0|-0.32|3.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||3.24|-0.32|0.1061
91684780|NCT00468650|183259762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.33||0.3237||95.0|-1.18|3.54||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||3.54|-1.18|0.3237
91684781|NCT00468650|183259762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.05||0.3236||95.0|-1.13|3.38||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||3.38|-1.13|0.3236
91684782|NCT00468650|183259762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.16||0.3236||95.0|-1.15|3.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||3.45|-1.15|0.3236
91684783|NCT00468650|183259763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|56.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.93|<|0.001||95.0|49.31|64.6||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||64.60|49.31|<0.001
91684784|NCT00468650|183259763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.46|<|0.001||95.0|63.74|77.81||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||77.81|63.74|<0.001
91684785|NCT00468650|183259763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.79|<|0.001||95.0|64.02|78.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||78.45|64.02|<0.001
91684786|NCT00468650|183259763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|72.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.41|<|0.001||95.0|65.2|79.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||79.11|65.20|<0.001
91684787|NCT00468650|183259763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.55|<|0.001||95.0|64.54|78.65||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||78.65|64.54|<0.001
91684788|NCT00468650|183259764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.89|<|0.001||95.0|7.72|19.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||19.40|7.72|<0.001
91684789|NCT00468650|183259764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.31|<|0.001||95.0|8.25|20.25||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||20.25|8.25|<0.001
91684790|NCT00468650|183259764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.77|<|0.001||95.0|8.56|20.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||20.46|8.56|<0.001
91684791|NCT00468650|183259764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|<|0.001||95.0|8.72|20.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||20.82|8.72|<0.001
91684792|NCT00468650|183259765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.24|<|0.001||95.0|50.48|66.68||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||66.68|50.48|<0.001
91684793|NCT00468650|183259765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|76.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.21|<|0.001||95.0|68.9|83.67||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||83.67|68.90|<0.001
91684794|NCT00468650|183259765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|77.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.26|<|0.001||95.0|70.18|85.21||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||85.21|70.18|<0.001
91903473|NCT00525044|183701745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 120 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||-0.1|-0.6|0.0054
91684795|NCT00468650|183259765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|78.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.65|<|0.001||95.0|71.59|85.99||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||85.99|71.59|<0.001
91684796|NCT00468650|183259765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|78.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.89|<|0.001||95.0|71.04|85.68||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||85.68|71.04|<0.001
91684797|NCT00468650|183259766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.63|<|0.001||95.0|10.98|24.83||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||24.83|10.98|<0.001
91684798|NCT00468650|183259766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.84|<|0.001||95.0|12.44|26.56||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||26.56|12.44|<0.001
91684799|NCT00468650|183259766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.99|<|0.001||95.0|12.59|26.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||26.45|12.59|<0.001
91684800|NCT00468650|183259766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.23|<|0.001||95.0|12.84|26.91||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||26.91|12.84|<0.001
91684801|NCT00468650|183259767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|57.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.6|<|0.001||95.0|48.93|65.75||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||65.75|48.93|<0.001
91684802|NCT00468650|183259767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.3|<|0.001||95.0|62.72|78.71||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||78.71|62.72|<0.001
91684803|NCT00468650|183259767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.78|<|0.001||95.0|62.41|78.85||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||78.85|62.41|<0.001
91684804|NCT00468650|183259767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|72.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.27|<|0.001||95.0|64.16|79.98||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||79.98|64.16|<0.001
91684805|NCT00468650|183259767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.48|<|0.001||95.0|63.48|79.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||79.55|63.48|<0.001
91684806|NCT00468650|183259768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.11|<|0.001||95.0|7.58|18.63||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||18.63|7.58|<0.001
91684807|NCT00468650|183259768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.53|<|0.001||95.0|7.84|20.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||20.37|7.84|<0.001
91684808|NCT00468650|183259768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.92|<|0.001||95.0|7.47|19.47||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||19.47|7.47|<0.001
91684809|NCT00468650|183259768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.16|<|0.001||95.0|7.61|19.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||19.82|7.61|<0.001
91684810|NCT00468650|183259769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|56.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.93|<|0.001||95.0|49.31|64.6||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||64.60|49.31|<0.001
91684811|NCT00468650|183259769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.46|<|0.001||95.0|63.74|77.81||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||77.81|63.74|<0.001
91684812|NCT00468650|183259769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.79|<|0.001||95.0|64.02|78.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||78.45|64.02|<0.001
91684813|NCT00468650|183259769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|72.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.41|<|0.001||95.0|65.2|79.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||79.11|65.20|<0.001
91684814|NCT00468650|183259769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.55|<|0.001||95.0|64.54|78.65||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||78.65|64.54|<0.001
91903474|NCT00525044|183701745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 180 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.6|0.0201
91719180|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|1.9|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|12.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 3 vs 1)||12.2|-8.4|= 0.714
91719181|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||=|0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|9.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 2 vs 1)||9.7|-10.7|= 0.926
91719182|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|8.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 5 vs 1)||8.7|-8.7|> 0.999
91719183|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-2.2|||=|0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|6.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 4 vs 1)||6.4|-10.8|= 0.609
91719184|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|1.8|||=|0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|10.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 3 vs 1)||10.7|-7.1|= 0.688
91719185|NCT03620162|183331248|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-4.1|||=|0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|4.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 2 vs 1)||4.3|-12.6|= 0.336
91719186|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-1.1|||=|0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|8.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group5 vs1)||8.8|-11.0|= 0.825
91719187|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||=|0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|9.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group4 vs1)||9.3|-10.4|= 0.912
91719188|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.8|||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group3 vs1)||0.9|-18.3|= 0.074
91719189|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Percentage of Participants|-3.7|||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|6.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group2 vs1)||6.1|-13.4|= 0.458
91719190|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|2.8|||=|0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|12.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 5 vs1)||12.3|-6.8|= 0.568
91719191|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.6|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|10.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 4 vs1)||10.2|-9.1|= 0.910
91719192|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-4.7|||=|0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|5.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 3 vs1)||5.2|-14.5|= 0.354
91719193|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-6.8|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|3.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 2 vs1)||3.1|-16.6|= 0.178
91719194|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|3.4|||=|0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|13.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 5 vs 1)||13.5|-6.8|= 0.520
91719195|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 4 vs 1)||10.2|-10.2|> 0.999
91719196|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||=|0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|10.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 3 vs 1)||10.0|-10.5|= 0.963
91719197|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-1.2|||=|0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|9.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 2 vs 1)||9.0|-11.4|= 0.821
91719198|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 5 vs 1)||5.0|-6.1|= 0.836
91719199|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|1.7|||=|0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 4 vs 1)||7.6|-4.2|= 0.562
91719200|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-1.6|||=|0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 3 vs 1)||3.7|-7.1|= 0.527
91719201|NCT03620162|183331249|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-3.4|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 2 vs 1)||1.5|-8.6|= 0.160
91719202|NCT03620162|183331250|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 5 vs 1)||2.1|-2.1|
91719203|NCT03620162|183331250|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 4 vs 1)||2.1|-2.1|
91719204|NCT03620162|183331250|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 3 vs 1)||3.1|-1.6|
91719205|NCT03620162|183331250|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 2 vs 1)||2.1|-2.1|
91719206|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.00|0.69|
91719207|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.12|0.77|
91719208|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.00|0.70|
91719209|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.19|0.86|
91719210|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.12|0.80|
91719211|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.25|0.90|
91719212|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.00|0.66|
91719213|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.03|0.68|
91719214|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.08|0.72|
91719215|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 4 vs 1)||0.98|0.64|
91719216|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.29|0.84|
91719217|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.14||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.14|0.75|
91719218|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 4 vs 1)||0.98|0.66|
91719219|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.37||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 3 vs 1)||1.37|0.91|
91719220|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 2 vs 1)||1.36|0.92|
91719221|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.31||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 4 vs 1)||1.31|0.88|
91684815|NCT00468650|183259770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.89|<|0.001||95.0|7.72|19.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||19.40|7.72|<0.001
91684816|NCT00468650|183259770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.31|<|0.001||95.0|8.25|20.25||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||20.25|8.25|<0.001
91684817|NCT00468650|183259770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.77|<|0.001||95.0|8.56|20.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||20.46|8.56|<0.001
91684818|NCT00468650|183259770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|<|0.001||95.0|8.72|20.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||20.82|8.72|<0.001
91684819|NCT00468650|183259771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.77||0.001||95.0|-19.96|-5.2||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||-5.20|-19.96|0.0010
91684820|NCT00468650|183259771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.04|<|0.001||95.0|-27.47|-13.64||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||-13.64|-27.47|<0.001
91684821|NCT00468650|183259771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.64|<|0.001||95.0|-29.88|-15.18||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||-15.18|-29.88|<0.001
91684822|NCT00468650|183259771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.06|<|0.001||95.0|-28.49|-14.39||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||-14.39|-28.49|<0.001
91684823|NCT00468650|183259771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.29|<|0.001||95.0|-29.03|-14.7||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||-14.70|-29.03|<0.001
91684824|NCT00468650|183259772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.58||0.0021||95.0|-11.06|-2.52||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||-2.52|-11.06|0.0021
91684825|NCT00468650|183259772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.02||0.0027||95.0|-11.26|-2.43||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||-2.43|-11.26|0.0027
91684826|NCT00468650|183259772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.2||0.0015||95.0|-11.97|-2.9||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||-2.90|-11.97|0.0015
91684827|NCT00468650|183259772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4||0.0015||95.0|-12.18|-2.96||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||-2.96|-12.18|0.0015
91684828|NCT00468650|183259773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.44||0.0045||95.0|-16.6|-3.14||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||-3.14|-16.60|0.0045
91684829|NCT00468650|183259773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8|<|0.001||95.0|-18.22|-5.27||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||-5.27|-18.22|<0.001
91684830|NCT00468650|183259773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.56|<|0.001||95.0|-19.51|-6.05||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||-6.05|-19.51|<0.001
91684831|NCT00468650|183259773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.94|<|0.001||95.0|-19.76|-6.5||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||-6.50|-19.76|<0.001
91684832|NCT00468650|183259773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.13|<|0.001||95.0|-18.94|-5.86||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||-5.86|-18.94|<0.001
91903475|NCT00525044|183701746|OTHER|||||||0.9939|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 1:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.9939
91684833|NCT00468650|183259774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0||0.2567||95.0|-6.55|1.77||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.77|-6.55|0.2567
91684834|NCT00468650|183259774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.73||0.3435||95.0|-5.88|2.07||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||2.07|-5.88|0.3435
91684835|NCT00468650|183259774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.28||0.2||95.0|-6.89|1.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.46|-6.89|0.2000
91684836|NCT00468650|183259774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.48||0.2||95.0|-7.01|1.48||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.48|-7.01|0.2000
91903476|NCT00525044|183701746|OTHER|||||||0.5552|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 2:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.5552
91684837|NCT00468650|183259775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.75||0.0558||95.0|-21.91|0.27||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||0.27|-21.91|0.0558
91684838|NCT00468650|183259775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.81|<|0.001||95.0|-40.96|-17.35||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||-17.35|-40.96|<0.001
91684839|NCT00468650|183259775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.9|<|0.001||95.0|-43.0|-18.58||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||-18.58|-43.00|<0.001
91684840|NCT00468650|183259775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.7|<|0.001||95.0|-42.33|-18.21||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||-18.21|-42.33|<0.001
91684841|NCT00468650|183259775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.54|<|0.001||95.0|-42.82|-18.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||-18.92|-42.82|<0.001
91684842|NCT00468650|183259776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-18.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.03|<|0.001||95.0|-27.05|-9.66||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||-9.66|-27.05|<0.001
91684843|NCT00468650|183259776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.24|<|0.001||95.0|-30.84|-13.49||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||-13.49|-30.84|<0.001
91684844|NCT00468650|183259776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.86|<|0.001||95.0|-28.87|-11.69||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||-11.69|-28.87|<0.001
91684845|NCT00468650|183259776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.2|<|0.001||95.0|-29.38|-11.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||-11.92|-29.38|<0.001
91684846|NCT00468650|183259777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.43|<|0.001||95.0|25.17|41.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||41.36|25.17|<0.001
91684847|NCT00468650|183259777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|61.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.77|<|0.001||95.0|52.61|70.29||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||70.29|52.61|<0.001
91684848|NCT00468650|183259777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|66.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.15|<|0.001||95.0|57.05|75.16||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||75.16|57.05|<0.001
91684849|NCT00468650|183259777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|64.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.7|<|0.001||95.0|55.91|73.77||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||73.77|55.91|<0.001
91684850|NCT00468650|183259777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|65.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.56|<|0.001||95.0|56.14|74.12||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||74.12|56.14|<0.001
91684851|NCT00468650|183259778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.19|<|0.001||95.0|19.94|35.13||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||35.13|19.94|<0.001
91684852|NCT00468650|183259778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.9|<|0.001||95.0|22.89|38.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||38.95|22.89|<0.001
91684853|NCT00468650|183259778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.88|<|0.001||95.0|22.59|38.27||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||38.27|22.59|<0.001
91684854|NCT00468650|183259778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.06|<|0.001||95.0|23.04|38.93||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||38.93|23.04|<0.001
91684855|NCT00468650|183259779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.1|<|0.001||95.0|13.44|31.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||31.46|13.44|<0.001
91684856|NCT00468650|183259779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.15|<|0.001||95.0|23.97|40.62||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||40.62|23.97|<0.001
91719222|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.32||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 3 vs 1)||1.32|0.88|
91719223|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.49||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 2 vs 1)||1.49|1.02|
91719224|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 4 vs 1)||0.95|0.64|
91719225|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 3 vs 1)||1.21|0.81|
91719226|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.35||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 2 vs 1)||1.35|0.92|
91719227|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 4 vs 1)||1.01|0.70|
91719228|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 3 vs 1)||1.06|0.73|
91719229|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 2 vs 1)||1.13|0.79|
91684857|NCT00468650|183259779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.52|<|0.001||95.0|26.59|44.04||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||44.04|26.59|<0.001
91684858|NCT00468650|183259779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.48|<|0.001||95.0|26.07|43.07||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||43.07|26.07|<0.001
91684859|NCT00468650|183259779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.29|<|0.001||95.0|25.72|42.81||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||42.81|25.72|<0.001
91684860|NCT00468650|183259780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.45||0.0014||95.0|3.61|14.74||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||14.74|3.61|0.0014
91684861|NCT00468650|183259780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.26||0.0025||95.0|3.15|14.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||14.36|3.15|0.0025
91684862|NCT00468650|183259780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.11|<|0.001||95.0|4.32|15.97||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||15.97|4.32|<0.001
91684863|NCT00468650|183259780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.36|<|0.001||95.0|4.41|16.26||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||16.26|4.41|<0.001
91719230|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.28|0.83|
91684864|NCT00345943|183259783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Growth curve models with between-within degrees of freedom and a random effect for the intercept and fixed effects for predictors.|BN versus HC group effect|Growth curve models examined the following: group (BN versus HC) differences in cortical thickness (CT) at baseline; group differences in the rate of change in CT over time; and the persistence of group differences in CT over time.||||.03
91684865|NCT00345943|183259783|OTHER||Slope|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Growth curve models with between-within degrees of freedom and a random effect for the intercept and fixed effects for predictors.||Growth curve models examined the following: group (BN versus HC) differences in conflict-related BOLD signal at baseline; group differences in the rate of change in conflict-related BOLD signal over time; and the persistence of group differences in conflict-related BOLD signal over time.||0.15|-0.04|<.05
91684866|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||<0.0001
91719231|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.78||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.78|1.15|
91719232|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.71||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.71|1.13|
91719233|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 4 vs 1)||1.30|0.88|
91719234|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.76||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 3 vs 1)||1.76|1.18|
91684867|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.0002
91684868|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.0004
91684869|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91684870|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91684871|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.2510
91684872|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3433||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.3433
91684873|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4503||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.4503
91684874|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2122||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.2122
91684875|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2232||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.2232
91903477|NCT00525044|183701747|OTHER|||||||0.0343|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 1:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.0343
91684876|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4207||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.4207
91684877|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5375||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%||||0.5375
91719235|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.83||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 2 vs 1)||1.83|1.25|
91719236|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 4 vs 1)||1.01|0.69|
91903478|NCT00525044|183701747|OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 2:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.0119
91684878|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6633||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%||||0.6633
91684879|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3667||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.3667
91684880|NCT00673387|183259838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.3720
91684881|NCT00673387|183259842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0404|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate||||0.0404
91684882|NCT00673387|183259842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0265
91684883|NCT00673387|183259842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1357|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1357
91684884|NCT00673387|183259842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0409
91684885|NCT00673387|183259842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0082
91684886|NCT00673387|183259846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0464|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0464
91684887|NCT00673387|183259846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0647
91684888|NCT00673387|183259846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0690
91684889|NCT00673387|183259846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.3717
91684890|NCT00673387|183259846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0327
91684891|NCT00673387|183259847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0049
91684892|NCT00673387|183259847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0047
91684893|NCT00673387|183259847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0046
91684894|NCT00673387|183259847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0257|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0257
91684895|NCT00673387|183259847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0014
91684896|NCT00673387|183259848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0222
91684897|NCT00673387|183259848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0128
91684898|NCT00673387|183259848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0122
91684899|NCT00673387|183259848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0073
91719237|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 3 vs 1)||1.07|0.72|
91719238|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 2 vs 1)||1.13|0.77|
91684900|NCT00673387|183259848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0034
91684901|NCT00960115|183259865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.479||This trial was not powered to demonstrate statistical significance of treatment differences with respect to a statistical test, i.e., the p value being lower than a significance level of alpha (α) = 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards regression model|||1.479|0.614|0.828
91684902|NCT03996447|183259892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|1.88||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.88|1.76|<.0001
91684903|NCT03996447|183259892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.0||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.00|1.81|<.0001
91684904|NCT03996447|183259892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.44||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||1.44|1.29|<.0001
91684905|NCT03996447|183259892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.33||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.33|2.20|<.0001
91684906|NCT03996447|183259892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|1.85||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||1.85|1.69|<.0001
91684907|NCT03996447|183259892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|2.06||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.06|1.85|<.0001
91684908|NCT03996447|183259892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|2.85||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.85|2.69|<.0001
91863109|NCT03974178|183614067|OTHER|"The minimal sample size to get a possible rejection of H0 (pdeath = 8.5% or more) in favour of H1 (pdeath \<8.5%) was 34 evaluable patients with stage 2 r-HAT.~The hypothesis was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level."|Fatality rate|0.0||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.43||The rate of deaths possibly related to r-HAT or to fexinidazole at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 8.5%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of deaths (pdeath) is compared to the threshold of 8.5%, with H0 being pdeath = 8.5% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the fatality rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||8.43|0|0.0488
91684909|NCT03996447|183259892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|2.67||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement - Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.67|2.49|<.0001
91684910|NCT03996447|183259892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|2.95||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.95|2.84|<.0001
91684911|NCT03996447|183259893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.02|-0.06|<0.0001
91684912|NCT03996447|183259893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.11|-0.04|<0.0001
91684913|NCT03996447|183259893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3||0.05|-0.01|<0.0001
91684914|NCT03996447|183259893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1||0.03|-0.04|<0.0001
91684915|NCT03996447|183259893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2||0.09|-0.05|<0.0001
91684916|NCT03996447|183259893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3||0.08|0.01|<0.0001
91684917|NCT03996447|183259893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1||0.07|-0.04|0.0001
91684918|NCT03996447|183259893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 2||0.12|-0.03|<0.0001
91684919|NCT03996447|183259893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3||0.15|0.03|<0.0001
91684920|NCT00369486|183259911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline central subfield thickness|repeated measures least sq. regression|Models adjusted for baseline values and for correlated data from subjects with two study eyes.||Comparison of change in central subfield thickening from baseline to 34 weeks in all five groups.||||0.46
91684921|NCT00369486|183259912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.04||95.0|0.2|1.0|||generalized estimating equations|||Analysis combined posterior and anterior injection + laser groups to compare with laser only.||1.0|0.2|0.04
91684922|NCT00369486|183259912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.63||95.0|0.5|2.9|||generalized estimating equations|||Analysis combined posterior and anterior injection only groups to compare with laser only treatment group.||2.9|0.5|0.63
91719239|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 4 vs 1)||1.15|0.81|
91719240|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 3 vs 1)||1.26|0.88|
91719241|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 2 vs 1)||1.21|0.86|
91719242|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 4 vs 1)||0.96|0.61|
91719243|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 3 vs 1)||0.99|0.63|
91719244|NCT03620162|183331251|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 2 vs 1)||1.17|0.76|
91719245|NCT03620162|183331252|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Group 5/Group 1+Group 2) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage (Group 5 vs Group 1+2)||2.0|-3.7|< 0.001
91719246|NCT03620162|183331253|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 5/Group 1+Group 2) to be \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34|||ANCOVA|||GMT Ratio (Group 5 vs Group 1+2)||1.34|0.70|< 0.001
91719247|NCT03620162|183331256|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 5 vs 1)||0.86|0.60|
91719248|NCT03620162|183331256|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.44||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 5 vs 1)||1.44|1.04|
91719249|NCT03620162|183331256|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 5 vs 1)||1.10|0.73|
91719250|NCT03620162|183331256|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 5 vs 1)||0.97|0.64|
91719251|NCT03620162|183331256|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.84||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 5 vs 1)||0.84|0.57|
91719252|NCT03620162|183331256|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 5 vs 1)||1.15|0.78|
91719253|NCT03620162|183331256|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 5 vs 1)||0.82|0.55|
91719254|NCT03620162|183331256|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 5 vs 1)||1.18|0.82|
91719255|NCT03620162|183331256|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 5 vs 1)||1.07|0.70|
91719256|NCT03620162|183331256|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 5 vs 1)||1.25|0.85|
91719257|NCT03620162|183331256|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 5 vs 1)||0.95|0.65|
91719258|NCT03620162|183331256|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 5 vs 1)||1.02|0.72|
91719259|NCT03620162|183331256|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 5 vs 1)||0.91|0.59|
91794528|NCT00491556|183467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.99|17.21|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||17.21|11.99|< 0.0001
91719260|NCT01258049|183331295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.85|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.25|67.45|||Regression, Logistic|||In ART003, the parasite success rate for quinine was 67.7%. On the assumption that the parasite success rate was 70% for quinine in this study and in order to demonstrate that ArTiMist™ is superior to quinine by at least 20% the success rate for ArTiMist™ should be at least 90%. Using these figures, and assuming a power of 80%, an alpha of 0.05 (two sided) and based on an equal allocation to the ArTiMist™ and quinine treatment arms, the number of subjects (n) required on each treatment was 59.||67.45|42.25|<0.005
91719261|NCT01258049|183331296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.22|-15.72|||ANCOVA|||||-15.72|-62.22|<0.05
91719262|NCT01258049|183331297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.91|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.38|-8.44|||ANCOVA|||||-8.44|-17.38|<0.005
91719263|NCT01258049|183331298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.16|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71||||Regression, Cox|||||- 6.61|-11.71|<0.005
91719264|NCT01258049|183331299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.02|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.05|80.98|||ANCOVA|||||80.98|27.05|<0.005
91719265|NCT01258049|183331300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|174.09||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|358.61|||ANCOVA||mean parasite counts increased in the first 12 hours for patients on quinine treatment|||358.61|-10.44|0.06
91719266|NCT01258049|183331301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|12.08|||Regression, Cox|||||12.08|-10.16|0.86
91719267|NCT01258049|183331302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.42|0.99
91719268|NCT01258049|183331305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|55.01|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.44|67.58|||Regression, Linear|||||67.58|42.44|<0.005
91719269|NCT00961415|183331311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.37|<0.001
91719270|NCT00961415|183331312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.47|0.230
91719271|NCT00961415|183331314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.34|0.006
91719272|NCT00961415|183331315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.38|<0.001
91719273|NCT02309359|183331319|OTHER|Under the assumption of monotonicity, a Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed as the primary efficacy analysis. Data were analyzed according to the intent-to-treat (ITT) principle; thus, subjects were analyzed according to the treatment to which they were assigned. Subjects with missing ACR20 response at Week 12 were treated as non responders (non responder imputation approach).||||||0.172|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The null hypothesis of this test was that there is no difference in the percentage of subjects achieving ACR20 response between the treatment groups and the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of subjects achieving ACR20 response increases with increasing dose level.||||0.172
91719274|NCT04649359|183331376|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort A was 30%.||||<0.0001
91719275|NCT04649359|183331376|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort B was 15%.||||<0.0001
91719276|NCT04649359|183331377|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort A was 12%.||||<0.0001
91719277|NCT04649359|183331378|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort A was 38%.||||<0.0001
91719278|NCT03307174|183331398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91719279|NCT05911841|183331412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|6.6||||||||6.6|-30.6|
91719280|NCT05911841|183331412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|19.2||||||||19.2|-19.4|
91719281|NCT05911841|183331412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|1.7||||||||1.7|-31.6|
91719282|NCT05911841|183331413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|8.7||||||||8.7|-17.6|
91719283|NCT05911841|183331413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|15.1||||||||15.1|-12.3|
91719284|NCT05911841|183331413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|1.9||||||||1.9|-21.8|
91719285|NCT01981616|183331446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"With 55 evaluable participants in each group, the study would have at least 80% power to exclude the non-inferiority margin of 15% with the lower bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions between vedolizumab- and placebo-treated participants, assuming a 90% seroconversion rate (anti-HBs of 10 IU/L) for hepatitis B vaccine.~If the lower bound of this interval was less than -15% (ie, more negative), then the null hypothesis was accepted."|Difference from placebo|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|9.1||||||||9.1|-12.7|
91719286|NCT01981616|183331447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size of 55 evaluable subjects in the vedolizumab 750 mg IV group and 55 evaluable participants in the placebo group provided at least 71% power to exclude the non-inferiority margin of 15% with the lower bound of the 1-sided 95% CI on the difference in proportions between vedolizumab- and placebo-treated participants, assuming an 85% seroconversion rate to the oral cholera vaccine (Dukoral).|Difference from placebo|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-3.9||||||||-3.9|-24.6|
91719287|NCT05079321|183331505|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91719288|NCT05079321|183331506|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91719289|NCT05079321|183331507|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
91719290|NCT05079321|183331508|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91719291|NCT05079321|183331509|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91719292|NCT05079321|183331510|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91719293|NCT05079321|183331511|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91719294|NCT05079321|183331512|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91719295|NCT05079321|183331514|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91719296|NCT05079321|183331515|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91719297|NCT05079321|183331516|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91719298|NCT05079321|183331517|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
91719299|NCT05079321|183331518|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
91719300|NCT05079321|183331519|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
91903479|NCT02039726|183701753|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|0.983|||P-value for HR=1 (1-sided)|||Stratified analysis - stratification factors include prior therapy and response (Relapsed in ≤6 months (not post-HSCT), Refractory, or relapsed in ≤6 months post allogeneic HSCT), and pre-selected chemotherapy (High intensity chemotherapy \[MEC or FLAG-IDA\], or low intensity chemotherapy \[LoDAC\]).||0.983|0.584|0.0185
91684923|NCT00369486|183259913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||repeated measures least sq. regression|Adjusted for baseline values and for the correlated data from subjects with two study eyes.||Comparison of the mean change in visual acuity letter score among the five groups at 34 weeks. Negative changes represent a worsening in visual acuity.||||0.94
91684924|NCT03888066|183259923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|-0.067|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Difference in adjusted mean changes (SE)||-0.067|-0.128|< 0.001
91684925|NCT03888066|183259924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||"Hazard Ratio patiromer vs placebo.~The HR for the time to first hyperkalemia event for patiromer vs placebo was calculated. HR and p-value come from a Cox proportional regression model adjusted for geographic region, sex, Baseline T2DM status, Baseline K+ value, and Baseline eGFR.~HR = Hazard Ratio; T2DM=Type 2 diabetes mellitus; eGFR=Estimated glomerular filtration rate"||0.87|0.45|= 0.006
91684926|NCT03888066|183259925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||"Hazard Ratio patiromer vs placebo.~The HR for the time to first hyperkalemia event for patiromer vs placebo was calculated. HR and p-value come from a Cox proportional regression model adjusted for geographic region, sex, Baseline T2DM status, Baseline K+ value, and Baseline eGFR.~HR = Hazard Ratio; T2DM=Type 2 diabetes mellitus; eGFR=Estimated glomerular filtration rate"||0.87|0.45|= 0.006
91684927|NCT03888066|183259926|SUPERIORITY||Annualized event rate ratio|0.658|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.81|||Negative binomial model adjusted for cov|||"NBMAC Annualized event RR patiromer vs placebo.~NBMAC adjusted for geographical region, sex, Baseline T2DM status, Baseline K+ value, and Baseline eGFR. Rate ratio less than 1 favors patiromer.~NBMAC=Negative binomial model adjusted for covariates; RR=Rate Ratio; T2DM=Type 2 diabetes mellitus; eGFR=Estimated glomerular filtration rate"||0.81|0.534|< 0.001
91684928|NCT03888066|183259927|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.526|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.231|1.906|||Win Ratio|||"Win ratio for composite.~Win ratio approach: Patients in the new treatment and control groups are formed into matched pairs based on their risk profiles. For each matched pair, the new treatment patient is labelled winner/loser depending on CV/hyperkalemia event first. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total numbers of losers."||1.906|1.231|<0.001
91684929|NCT03888066|183259927|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|0.914|||=|0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|1.578|||Win Ratio|||"Win ratio CV death and hospitalization.~Win ratio approach: Patients in the new treatment and control groups are formed into matched pairs based on their risk profiles. For each matched pair, the new treatment patient is labelled winner/loser depending on CV/hyperkalemia event first. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total numbers of losers. Unmatched win ratio is presented for this endpoint. Win ratio above 1 favors patiromer."||1.578|0.526|= 0.744
91684930|NCT03888066|183259928|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.248|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|1.564|||Win Ratio|||"Win ratio for composite.~Win ratio approach: Patients in the new treatment and control groups are formed into matched pairs based on their risk profiles. For each matched pair, the new treatment patient is labelled winner/loser depending on CV/hyperkalemia event first. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total numbers of losers. Unmatched win ratio is presented for this endpoint. Win ratio above 1 favors patiromer."||1.564|1.003|= 0.048
91684931|NCT02207634|183259980|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 0.19, calculated as 20% of the observed common standard deviation, which was estimated from observations in the placebo group by a repeated measured mixed-effect linear model with visit as a covariate. If the upper bound of the 95% CI for the difference between the placebo and evolocumab group in mean change from baseline for Z score averaged across the visits was less than the non-inferiority margin non-inferiority criteria were met.|Treatment Difference|0.0072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0375|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0664|0.0808||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference (placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening low-density lipoprotein cholesterol \[LDL-C\] and geographical region), age, education level, baseline SWM strategy index Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.0808|-0.0664|
91794529|NCT00491556|183467979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-0.46|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-0.46|-5.81|0.0239
91684932|NCT02207634|183259981|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.0333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0363|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0378|0.1045||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference (placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening LDL-C and geographical region), age, education level, baseline SWM between-errors Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.1045|-0.0378|
91684933|NCT02207634|183259982|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.0226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0422|0.0873||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference (placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening LDL-C and geographical region), age, education level, baseline PAL total errors adjusted Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.0873|-0.0422|
91719301|NCT01081626|183331520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0135||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1325|0.1637|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.1637|-0.1325|0.9560
91719302|NCT01081626|183331521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.088||||0.7924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7642|1.549|||Chi-squared|||||1.5490|0.7642|0.7924
91903480|NCT02039726|183701754|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.157|||P value for HR=1 (1-sided)|||Stratified analysis - stratification factors include prior therapy and response (Relapsed in ≤6 months (not post-HSCT), Refractory, or relapsed in ≤6 months post allogeneic HSCT), and pre-selected chemotherapy (High intensity chemotherapy \[MEC or FLAG-IDA\], or low intensity chemotherapy \[LoDAC\]).||1.157|0.697|0.2034
91719303|NCT01081626|183331525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5331||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5331
91719304|NCT01081626|183331526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.015||||0.9351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7175|1.435|||Chi-squared|||||1.4350|0.7175|0.9351
91719305|NCT00032591|183331551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A target of 363 patients with primary events required to discern a 32% relative drop in annual primary event rates with 90% power (from 5.5% for HQACM to 3.75% for PST) was based on a sample size of 3200 patients with 1 year of enrollment and a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Due to slower than planned enrollment, we randomized 2922 patients over 2.75 years, with a mean follow-up of 3 years.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was the hazard ratio was equal to 1.||||0.14
91719306|NCT05172609|183331628|EQUIVALENCE|Margin difference of 1 standard deviation (SD) or higher was considered evidence of non-equivalence comparison||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests between EBIS and IAU conditions at 12-week follow up for AIM||||.47
91719307|NCT05172609|183331629|EQUIVALENCE|Margin difference of 1 SD or higher was considered evidence of non-equivalence comparison||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests between EBIS and IAU conditions at 12-week follow up for FIM||||.88
91719308|NCT05172609|183331630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS screening rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.46
91719309|NCT05172609|183331630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS screening rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.40
91719310|NCT05172609|183331630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS planning rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.56
91719311|NCT05172609|183331630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS planning rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.68
91719312|NCT05172609|183331630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SUDS screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.87
91719313|NCT05172609|183331630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SUDS planning at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.43
91719314|NCT05172609|183331631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening self-efficacy rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.59
91719315|NCT05172609|183331631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening self-efficacy rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.59
91719316|NCT05172609|183331631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing intervening self-efficacy rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.25
91719317|NCT05172609|183331631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing intervening self-efficacy rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.35
91719318|NCT05172609|183331631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: Self-efficacy screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.88
91719319|NCT05172609|183331631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: Self-efficacy intervening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.71
91719320|NCT05172609|183331632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening use at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.88
91719321|NCT05172609|183331632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening use at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.55
91719322|NCT05172609|183331632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: CSR screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.36
91719323|NCT05172609|183331633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing total SPIRS score at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.24
91719324|NCT05172609|183331633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing total SPIRS score at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.88
91719325|NCT05172609|183331633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SPIRS at timepoints 3 and 4||||.10
91719326|NCT00042289|183331653|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.62||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.88||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.44|0.055
91719327|NCT00042289|183331653|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.73||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.73|0.55|<0.001
91719328|NCT00042289|183331653|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.68||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.04||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.04|0.44|0.22
91719329|NCT00042289|183331653|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.72|0.49|<0.001
91719330|NCT00042289|183331653|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.89||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.64|<0.05
91719331|NCT00042289|183331653|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.57|<0.05
91719332|NCT00042289|183331653|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.35||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.35|0.71|0.78
91719333|NCT00042289|183331654|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.63||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.63|0.42|<0.05
91719334|NCT00042289|183331654|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.84||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.84|0.63|<0.05
91719335|NCT00042289|183331654|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.98||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.98|0.34|0.03
91719336|NCT00042289|183331654|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.89||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.51|0.001
91684934|NCT02207634|183259983|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.0727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0022|0.1477||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference ( placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening LDL-C and geographical region), age, education level, baseline RTI median 5-choice reaction time Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.1477|-0.0022|
91684935|NCT02640482|183260047|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for Arm A as compared with the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 89% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥96% in the Arm A (180 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ABT-493/ABT-530 to the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) (95%) (based on the normal approximation of using a single binomial proportion a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.5|
91684936|NCT02640482|183260048|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for Arm A as compared with the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 95% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥96% in the Arm A (180 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of ABT-493/ABT-530 to the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) (95%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion using a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.5|
91684937|NCT00113763|183260059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline IVRS ECOG performance status and geographic region||Null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups||||<0.0001
91684938|NCT00113763|183260060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.806||||||This analysis was conducted contingent on a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome, and adjusted to an a priori threshold for statistical significance at a 4% level for a multiple comparison involving objective tumor response|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline IVRS ECOG performance status and geographic region||Null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups||||0.806
91684939|NCT03743415|183260081|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that reflected average difference between arms over time (weeks 1-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.96||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models were used for 13 repeated measures of the symptom index, adjusting for baseline value.|Mean of SMSH alone minus mean of SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||1.96|-2.50|.81
91684940|NCT03743415|183260081|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|3.49||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included adjustment for baseline value of the symptom index.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||3.49|-4.65|.78
91684941|NCT03743415|183260081|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that included reflected average difference between arms over time (weeks 1-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.32||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||2.32|-0.66|.27
91684942|NCT03743415|183260081|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|4.39||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||4.39|-0.88|.19
91684943|NCT03743415|183260082|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that included reflected average difference between arms over weeks 5-13.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.36||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. . The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||6.36|-3.30|.53
91684944|NCT03743415|183260082|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|9.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. . The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||9.68|-5.70|.97
91684945|NCT03743415|183260082|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that included reflected average difference between arms over weeks 5-13.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|5.75||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. . The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||5.75|-1.83|.31
91684946|NCT03743415|183260082|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|8.74||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||8.74|-2.13|.61
91684947|NCT03743415|183260083|SUPERIORITY|Key parameter was the difference between arms at week 13.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|1.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.35|-3.12|.44
91684948|NCT03743415|183260083|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.18||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.||2.18|-2.32|.95
91719337|NCT00042289|183331654|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.34||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0684
91719338|NCT00042289|183331654|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.49|<0.05
91719339|NCT00042289|183331654|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.68||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.53|<0.05
91719340|NCT00042289|183331655|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.72||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|t-test, 2 sided|Paired sample t-test on natural log-transformed PK parameter||||0.88|0.60|0.008
91719341|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.75||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.75|0.52|0.002
91719342|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.71||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.81||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.81|0.63|0.0003
91719343|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.57||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.98||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.98|0.34|0.09
91719344|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.82||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.82|0.54|0.004
91719345|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.79||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.27||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.27|0.50|0.27
91719346|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.86||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.12||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.12|0.66|0.70
91719347|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.62||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|1.34||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.34|0.29|0.46
91719348|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.94||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.39||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.39|0.63|0.50
91719349|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.0||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.0|0.57|<0.10
91719350|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.56|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.73||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.73|0.42|<0.10
91719351|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.47|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.33|<0.10
91719352|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.44|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.54||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.54|0.36|<0.10
91719353|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.74||||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.04||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.04|0.53|0.1875
91719354|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.46||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.11||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.11|0.19|0.1563
91684949|NCT03743415|183260083|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.93||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.93|-1.85|.97
91684950|NCT03743415|183260083|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.20|-1.56|.74
91684951|NCT03743415|183260084|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|4.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus mean of SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||4.58|-4.49|.98
91684952|NCT03743415|183260084|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|3.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||3.68|-5.48|.70
91684953|NCT03743415|183260084|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|1.62||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.62|-5.62|.27
91684954|NCT03743415|183260084|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.81||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||3.81|-3.40|.91
91684955|NCT03743415|183260085|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|0.19||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||0.19|-3.98|.06
91684956|NCT03743415|183260085|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||0.11|-3.81|.09
91684957|NCT03743415|183260085|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.04|-1.77|.89
91719355|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.94||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.03||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.03|0.85|0.241
91719356|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.32||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.32|0.90|0.837
91903481|NCT00713817|183701764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.89||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.56|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre group and treatment group as factors. Due to the low power of the test for interaction the test was performed at the 10% level of significance and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented for the difference between treatments.||2.56|-0.78|0.273
91684958|NCT03743415|183260085|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.58|-1.20|.47
91684959|NCT03743415|183260086|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|2.39||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.39|-5.22|.45
91684960|NCT03743415|183260086|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|4.12||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||4.12|-3.59|.82
91684961|NCT03743415|183260086|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|4.23||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||4.23|-3.13|.77
91684962|NCT03743415|183260086|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|3.34||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||3.34|-3.98|.86
91684963|NCT01917214|183260092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0308
91684964|NCT01696058|183260096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.135|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.135|0.078|<.0001
91684965|NCT01696058|183260097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.065|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (555), Tio+Olo 5ug (550).||0.065|0.014|0.0029
91684966|NCT01696058|183260098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.757|-0.951|||ANCOVA|||"Results are from ANCOVA model. Fixed effects include study, treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (1055), Tio+Olo 5ug (1039)."||-0.951|-2.757|<.0001
91684967|NCT01696058|183260099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.129|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563)."||0.129|0.071|<.0001
91684968|NCT01696058|183260100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.164|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563)."||0.164|0.072|<.0001
91684969|NCT01696058|183260101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.152|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563)."||0.152|0.057|<.0001
91684970|NCT01696058|183260102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.076|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (555), Tio+Olo 5ug (550)."||0.076|-0.008|0.1156
91719357|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.55|<0.05
91719358|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.89||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.72|0.0046
91684971|NCT01696058|183260103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|7.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.145||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.028|11.446|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12: Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (552)."||11.446|3.028|0.0008
91684972|NCT01696058|183260104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.336|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12 - Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (555)."||-0.336|-0.800|<.0001
91684973|NCT01696058|183260105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 1|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|-0.001|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12 - Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (555)."||-0.001|-0.178|0.0467
91684974|NCT01696058|183260106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|-0.298|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12 - Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (555)."||-0.298|-0.668|<.0001
91684975|NCT04746794|183260143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0074
91684976|NCT04746794|183260144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91684977|NCT00856375|183260152|OTHER|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI from univariate Cox regression model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645|||=|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.041|||Log Rank|||||1.041|0.4|= 0.07
91684978|NCT00856375|183260153|OTHER|Hazard ratio and 95% CI from univariate Cox regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||=|0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.486|||Log Rank|||||1.486|0.557|= 0.706
91684979|NCT00856375|183260154|OTHER|ORR 95% CI based on Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits. Odds ratio 95% CI based on asymptotic confidence limits.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.054|||=|0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|11.9|||Fisher Exact|||||11.9|0.355|= 0.676
91684980|NCT00856375|183260155|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.018|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.018
91684981|NCT04414345|183260158|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.188||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. CNM-Au8 slowed progression) was 0.59059. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by CNM-Au8 relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||"The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality.~The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes."|1.188|0.797|
91684982|NCT04414345|183260160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.766||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|CNM-Au8 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.68|-4.25|0.6570
91684983|NCT04414345|183260161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.403||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|CNM-Au8 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||3.58|-9.78|0.3621
91684984|NCT04414345|183260162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7398|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7398
91684985|NCT00875797|183260179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91684986|NCT00875797|183260180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|χ2 test|percentage of infection|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05|Chi-squared|2 degrees of freedom||||||0.05
91684987|NCT00875797|183260181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of survivers|80.0|||<|0.05||95.0||||p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|2-degrees of freedom||Chi-square||||<0.05
91684988|NCT00000620|183260182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||Adjustment performed for the following pre-specified factors: sub-trial assignment (Blood Pressure Trial or Lipid Trial), assignment to intensive BP group in BP Trial, assignment to fenofibrate group in Lipid Trial, the seven clinical center networks, and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline.||1.03|0.81|0.12
91684989|NCT00000620|183260183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.38||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||Adjustment performed for the following pre-specified factors: sub-trial assignment (Blood Pressure Trial or Lipid Trial), assignment to intensive BP group in BP Trial, assignment to fenofibrate group in Lipid Trial, the seven clinical center networks, and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline.||1.38|1.03|0.02
91684990|NCT00000620|183260184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06||P-value is adjusted for interim monitoring. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||Recruitment for the Blood PressureTrial was designed to enroll 4200 participant to have 94% power to detect a 20% reduction in the rate of MCE for patients in the intensive-therapy group as compared with the standard-therapy group, assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a primary-outcome rate of 4% per year in the standard-therapy group, and a planned average follow-up of approximately 5.6 years.||1.06|0.73|0.20
91684991|NCT00000620|183260185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.89||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||||0.89|0.39|0.01
91719359|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.66|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.85||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.85|0.52|<0.05
91684992|NCT00000620|183260186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08||P-value is adjusted for interim monitoring. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||Recruitment for the Glycemia Trial was designed to enroll 5800 participant to have 87% power to detect a 20% reduction in the rate of MCE for patients in the fenofibrate group as compared with the placebo group, assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a primary-outcome rate of 2.4% per year in the placebo group, and a planned average follow-up of approximately 5.6 years.||1.08|0.79|0.32
91684993|NCT00000620|183260187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||||1.05|0.85|0.30
91684994|NCT05084924|183260188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of stimulation: F(2,32) = 3.32||||||0.049
91684995|NCT05084924|183260189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Main effect of stimulation: F(2,32) = 6.67|ANOVA|||||||0.004
91684996|NCT03774407|183260190|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||This P value reported was for bladder urinary frequency change from baseline to 9 months|p value|||||||0.002
91684997|NCT00182325|183260193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91684998|NCT00182325|183260194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91684999|NCT00182325|183260195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
91685000|NCT00182325|183260196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91685001|NCT00182325|183260197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91685002|NCT00182325|183260198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91685003|NCT00182325|183260199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
91685004|NCT00182325|183260200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91685005|NCT00182325|183260201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91719360|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91685006|NCT00182325|183260202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91719361|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91719362|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
91719363|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
91685007|NCT03322930|183260213|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||calculated from data|t-test, 2 sided||||mean sensitivity for group; Coefficient of Repeatability for multiple tests per patient|||<0.05
91685008|NCT03344861|183260214|OTHER|No comparator arm.|Clopper-Pearson (binomial proportion)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||exact Clopper-Pearson binomial method|One-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the event percentage was calculated using exact (Clopper-Pearson) method for binomial proportion.|One-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the event percentage was calculated using exact (Clopper-Pearson) method for binomial proportion|Adverse events will be listed, coded by MedDRA, by system organ class and preferred term.||||<0.05
91685009|NCT03344861|183260239|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||exact Clopper-Pearson binomial method|One-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the event percentage, calculated using exact (Clopper-Pearson) method for binomial proportion.||"All adverse event terms are coded using MedDRA Dictionary version 21.1. NCS (Non-Clinical Significant) events were not included in the summary because their CTCAE grade and relationship were not collected. Subjects are counted once within each system organ class and each preferred term. An AE is defined as treatment related if its relationship to the study drug is recorded as reasonable possibility on the CRF (Case Report Form)."||||<0.05
91685010|NCT02728843|183260257|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91685011|NCT02728843|183260258|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91685012|NCT02728843|183260259|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91685013|NCT02728843|183260260|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91685014|NCT02728843|183260261|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91685015|NCT02728843|183260262|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91685016|NCT02728843|183260263|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91685017|NCT03185013|183260268|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value was \<0.025 and the corresponding lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded zero (0).|Difference in percentage|11.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|21.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||21.2|-0.4|0.029
91685018|NCT03185013|183260270|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|24.5||||||||24.5|-0.6|
91685019|NCT03185013|183260271|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|29.4||||||||29.4|5.1|
91685020|NCT03185013|183260272|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|23.5||||||||23.5|1.7|
91685021|NCT03185013|183260273|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|20.3||||||||20.3|1.5|
91685022|NCT03185013|183260274|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|10.3||||||||10.3|-11.5|
91685023|NCT03185013|183260275|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|20.1||||||||20.1|-0.5|
91685024|NCT03185013|183260276|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location shift|224.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|224.0||||||Week 15: HPV-16 E7||224.0|24.0|
91685025|NCT03185013|183260276|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location shift|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 36: HPV-16 E7||0.0|0.0|
91685026|NCT03185013|183260276|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location Shift|2024.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2000.0|6050.0||||||Week 15: HPV-18 E7||6050.0|2000.0|
91685027|NCT03185013|183260276|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location Shift|224.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|674.0||||||Week 36: HPV-18 E7||674.0|74.0|
91685028|NCT03185013|183260277|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location shift|11.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|20.0||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 15||20.00|8.33|
91863110|NCT03974178|183614068|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at the end of hospitalization = 9% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|0.0||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.43||The rate of failures at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 9%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at the end of hospitalization (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 9%, with H0 being pfailure = 9% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||8.43|0|0.0405
91863111|NCT03974178|183614069|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at 12 months = 12% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|2.94||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|13.21||The rate of failures at 12 months was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 12%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at 12 months (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 12%, with H0 being pfailure = 12% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||13.21|0.15|0.0730
91863112|NCT03974178|183614072|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pdeath = 8.5% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Fatality rate|0.0||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|6.58||The rate of deaths possibly related to r-HAT or to fexinidazole at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 8.5%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of deaths (pdeath) is compared to the threshold of 8.5%, with H0 being pdeath = 8.5% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the fatality rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||6.58|0|0.0201
91685029|NCT03185013|183260277|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.67||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 36||11.67|3.33|
91685030|NCT03185013|183260277|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|10.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 15||15.00|5.00|
91685031|NCT03185013|183260277|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|10.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 36||10.00|1.67|
91685032|NCT03185013|183260277|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|50.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.67|66.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 15||66.67|31.67|
91685033|NCT03185013|183260277|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|38.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|51.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 36||51.67|18.33|
91685034|NCT03185013|183260277|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|14.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.67|18.33||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 15||18.33|6.67|
91685035|NCT03185013|183260277|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.0||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 36||15.00|5.00|
91685036|NCT03185013|183260278|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.046||||||Parameter: CD8+CD137+Perforin+||0.046|0.002|
91685037|NCT03185013|183260278|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.014||||||Parameter: CD8+CD38+Perforin+||0.014|0.000|
91685038|NCT03185013|183260278|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.058||||||Parameter: CD8+CD69+Perforin+||0.058|0.017|
91719364|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91685039|NCT00197496|183260286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|19.6|||Regression, Linear|||||19.6|-72.1|<0.05
91685040|NCT00197496|183260289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.2|||Regression, Linear|||||9.2|-3.6|0.40
91685041|NCT01175031|183260360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||signed-rank tests|||||||0.003
91685042|NCT02056392|183260364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||1.5|-1.8|
91685043|NCT02056392|183260364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||7.7|4.4|
91685044|NCT02056392|183260365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||1.3|-2.0|
91685045|NCT02056392|183260365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||10.8|7.6|
91719365|NCT00042289|183331656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91719366|NCT00042289|183331657|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.97||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.13|0.83|0.07
91719367|NCT00042289|183331657|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.96||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.96|0.61|<0.05
91719368|NCT00042289|183331657|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.03||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.03|0.62|<0.05
91719369|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.81||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.01||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.01|0.64|0.148
91719370|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.81||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.81|0.62|<0.001
91719371|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.74||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.89||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.61|0.0098
91719372|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.75||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.88|0.64|0.0025
91719373|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.64||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.64|0.46|<0.0001
91719374|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.56||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.76||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.76|0.41|0.0024
91719375|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.795||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.499|1.269||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.269|0.499|0.438
91719376|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.531||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.186|1.512||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.512|0.186|0.219
91719377|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.05||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.18||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.18|0.94|0.296
91719378|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.56||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.56|1.01|0.007
91719379|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.83||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.22||2nd Trimester vs Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||FPV was analyzed as the form of amprenavir (APV). FPV is the prodrug of APV.||1.22|0.56|0.16
91719380|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.93|||Wilcoxson signed rank test|||FPV was analyzed in the form of amprenavir (APV). FPV is the prodrug of APV.||0.93|0.58|0.03
91719381|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.86|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.08||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum since the sample size for 2nd trimester was 1)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||This analysis was for ATV.||1.08|0.68|>0.05
91719382|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.89||||0.1636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.01||Third Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 4 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.01|0.79|0.1636
91719383|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.91||3rd Trimester vs Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 4 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||This analysis was for ATV.||0.91|0.53|<0.05
91719384|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.24||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since there was no Second Trimester data available)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.24|0.99|0.16
91719385|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91719386|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91719387|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91719388|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91719389|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
91719390|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
91719391|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91719392|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91719393|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.06||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.34||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 2 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.34|0.85|0.67
91719394|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.73||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|0.91||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.91|0.59|0.08
91719395|NCT00042289|183331658|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.63|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.72|0.55|<0.01
91719396|NCT00042289|183331659|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.57|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.68|0.48|<0.05
91719397|NCT00042289|183331659|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.85||3rd Trimester vs.Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.85|0.62|<0.05
91719398|NCT00042289|183331659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.09
91719399|NCT00042289|183331659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.003
91719400|NCT00042289|183331659|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.34||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 5 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.036
91719401|NCT00042289|183331659|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.84|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.02||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.02|0.69|>0.05
91719402|NCT00042289|183331659|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.83|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.01||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.01|0.68|>0.05
91719403|NCT00042289|183331660|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.61||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.09||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.09|0.34|0.14
91719404|NCT00042289|183331660|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.81||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.81|0.50|0.002
91719405|NCT00042289|183331660|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.77||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.23||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.23|0.49|0.24
91719406|NCT00042289|183331660|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.84||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.17||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.17|0.60|0.53
91719407|NCT00042289|183331660|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.58||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.11||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.11|0.30|0.2
91719408|NCT00042289|183331660|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.95||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.55||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.55|0.58|0.12
91719409|NCT00042289|183331660|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.92||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.2||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.2|0.71|0.358
91719410|NCT00042289|183331660|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.72||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.93||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.93|0.55|0.0156
91719411|NCT00042289|183331661|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.85||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since no Second Trimester data was available)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.85|0.58|0.007
91719412|NCT00042289|183331662|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.66||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.12||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.12|0.39|0.109
91719413|NCT00042289|183331662|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.69||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.69|0.49|<0.001
91719414|NCT00042289|183331662|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.48||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|1.65||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.65|0.14|0.44
91719415|NCT00042289|183331662|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.72|0.43|<0.001
91719416|NCT00042289|183331662|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.83||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.1||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.10|0.63|0.43
91719417|NCT00042289|183331662|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.44||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.44|0.69|0.31
91719418|NCT00042289|183331662|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.16||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.16|0.71|0.49
91719419|NCT00042289|183331663|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.63||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.63|0.32|<0.05
91719420|NCT00042289|183331663|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.58|<0.05
91719421|NCT00042289|183331663|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.42||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.78||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.78|0.23|0.02
91719422|NCT00042289|183331663|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.78||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.08||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.08|0.56|0.3
91793876|NCT04543409|183466423|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.017||||0.6965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|6.13|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Total Score||6.13|-4.09|0.6965
91719423|NCT00042289|183331663|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.41||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.036
91719424|NCT00042289|183331663|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.52||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.52|0.32|<0.05
91719425|NCT00042289|183331663|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.57||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.57|0.41|<0.05
91719426|NCT00042289|183331664|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.01||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|t-test, 2 sided|Paired sample t-test on natural log-transformed PK parameter||||1.01|0.72|0.10
91719427|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.49||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.35|0.0039
91719428|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.66||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.84||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.84|0.52|0.0062
91719429|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.10
91719430|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.10
91719431|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.15|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.3||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.30|0.08|<0.10
91719432|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.21|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.36||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.36|0.12|<0.10
91719433|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.32|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.51||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.51|0.20|<0.10
91719434|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.32|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.94||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.94|0.11|>0.10
91719435|NCT00042289|183331665|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.97||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.97|0.78|0.079
91719436|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.92||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.09||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.09|0.77|0.01
91685046|NCT02056392|183260366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||2.5|-0.7|
91685047|NCT02056392|183260366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.3|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||11.5|8.3|
91685048|NCT02056392|183260367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||2.0|-1.2|
91685049|NCT02056392|183260367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||11.8|8.5|
91685050|NCT02056392|183260368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||1.5|-1.8|
91685051|NCT02056392|183260368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||||90.0|10.3|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||13.6|10.3|
91685052|NCT02056392|183260369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||0.2|-3.1|
91685053|NCT02056392|183260369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.2|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||12.5|9.2|
91685054|NCT02056392|183260370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||-0.1|-3.4|
91685055|NCT02056392|183260370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||10.4|7.1|
91685056|NCT02056392|183260371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||0.4|-2.9|
91685057|NCT02056392|183260371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||10.5|7.2|
91685058|NCT02056392|183260372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||-3.1|-6.4|
91719437|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.72|0.37|<0.05
91719438|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.82||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.96||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.96|0.71|0.0325
91719439|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.77||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.77|0.54|<0.05
91685059|NCT02056392|183260372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.0|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||9.3|6.0|
91685060|NCT02056392|183260373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||-0.9|-4.1|
91685061|NCT02056392|183260373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||5.7|2.4|
91685062|NCT00555360|183260374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.77|-4.62|.975
91685063|NCT00555360|183260375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|-5.78|.349
91685064|NCT00555360|183260376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|24.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.2|3.9|.007
91685065|NCT00658021|183260386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline HbA1c, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.45|-1.01|0.444
91685066|NCT00658021|183260388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 7% at Week 28:~Treatment group comparison is based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c and background diabetes therapy strata. P-value is from the general association statistics."||||0.562
91685067|NCT00658021|183260388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment difference in HbA1c \<= 6.5% at Week 28:~Treatment group comparison is based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c and background diabetes therapy strata. P-value is from the general association statistics."||||0.621
91685068|NCT00658021|183260388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 6.5% at Week 28:~Treatment group comparison is based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c and background diabetes therapy strata. P-value is from the general association statistics."||||0.229
91685069|NCT00658021|183260389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 4:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||-0.28|-1.58|0.005
91685070|NCT00658021|183260389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.669||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 12:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.65|-2.00|0.314
91685071|NCT00658021|183260389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 20:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||1.50|-2.24|0.692
91685072|NCT00658021|183260389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 28:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||1.68|-2.56|0.679
91685073|NCT00658021|183260390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.614|1.052|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline fasting serum glucose, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.052|-1.614|0.679
91719440|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91685074|NCT00658021|183260391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5151||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|1.199|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for pre-meal SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.199|-0.821|0.714
91685075|NCT00658021|183260391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5245||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.516|1.541|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for post-meal SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.541|-0.516|0.329
91719441|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91685076|NCT00658021|183260391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4015||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|0.997|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for post-prandial excursion SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||0.997|-0.577|0.601
91685077|NCT00658021|183260391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4749||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|1.248|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for overall SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.248|-0.615|0.505
91685078|NCT00658021|183260392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.187||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.48|73.84|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline fasting serum insulin, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||73.84|-95.48|0.802
91685079|NCT00658021|183260393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.542||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.19|32.51|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for HOMA-B: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline %HOMA-B, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||32.51|-40.19|0.836
91685080|NCT00658021|183260393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.846||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|7.26|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for HOMA-S: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline %HOMA-S, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||7.26|-7.82|0.941
91685081|NCT05819203|183260429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the means of AUC on global score or ARSSQ during the first 10 days of the study between both groups.||||0.0013
91685082|NCT05819203|183260430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209|||||||Cox survival regression and p Wald|||Comparison of the mean duration of common cold during the study between both groups.||||0.0209
91685083|NCT05819203|183260431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0399|||||||Cox survival regression and p Wald|||Comparison of the mean duration of impact of common cold on quality of life during the study between both groups.||||0.0399
91685084|NCT05819203|183260432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0015
91685085|NCT05819203|183260433|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||not significant|Poisson regression|||||||>0.05
91685086|NCT05819203|183260434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0029
91685087|NCT05819203|183260435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0006
91685088|NCT05819203|183260436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0513|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0513
91685089|NCT05819203|183260437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0789|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0789
91685090|NCT05819203|183260438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Poisson regression|||||||<0.0001
91685091|NCT05819203|183260439|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of the means of AUC on global score or ARSSQ during the first 10 days of the study between both groups.||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0034
91685092|NCT02952898|183260446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Two-sided, continuity-corrected Chi-square tests was used to evaluate the superiority of GDC 695 gel's complete clearance proportion over that of the Vehicle treatment in the mITT population using LOCF.||||<0.0001
91685093|NCT02952898|183260446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Two-sided, continuity-corrected Chi-square tests was used to evaluate the superiority of Diclofenac sodium gel's complete clearance proportion over that of the Vehicle treatment in the mITT population using LOCF.||||<0.0001
91685094|NCT02968849|183260490|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.30|0.81|0.84
91719442|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
91685095|NCT02968849|183260490|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Wald||The hazard ratio was estimated using Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator..|||1.31|0.81|0.83
91685096|NCT02968849|183260501|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.28|0.85|0.66
91685097|NCT02968849|183260501|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.23|||Wald||The hazard ratio was estimated using Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator..|||1.23|0.81|0.98
91685098|NCT02968849|183260503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.58|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.58|0.84|0.39
91685099|NCT02968849|183260503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.54|||Wald||The hazard ratio was estimated using Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator..|||1.54|0.81|0.50
91719443|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
91719444|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91719445|NCT00042289|183331665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91719446|NCT00042289|183331666|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.06||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.06|0.73|<0.05
91719447|NCT00042289|183331666|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.9||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.90|0.55|<0.05
91719448|NCT00042289|183331666|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.23||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.23|0.57|<0.05
91719449|NCT00042289|183331670|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.24||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.59||Before ENG initiation vs. after ENG initiation|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The statistical analysis is for LPV PK.||1.59|0.97|0.114
91719450|NCT00042289|183331671|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.1||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.44||Before ENG initiation vs. after ENG initiation|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The statistical test is for ATV PK.||1.44|0.84|0.367
91719451|NCT00042289|183331671|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.02||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.13|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|Before ENG initiation vs. after ENG initiation||The statistical test is for EFV PK.||1.13|0.92|0.561
91719452|NCT00498550|183331696|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|-4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.088
91719453|NCT04460885|183331712|NON_INFERIORITY|The response and change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.|Treatment difference|-0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.36|<0.0001
91719454|NCT05352815|183331737|SUPERIORITY|Change in HbA1c from baseline to week 52 is analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with region and randomised treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing HbA1c values at week 52 are imputed by using multiple imputation. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.|Treatment difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-0.76|<0.0001
91719455|NCT00534469|183331777|OTHER|Two-sided test.||||||0.43||||||Log-rank test (Mantel-Haenszel test). This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: All four groups are drawn from the same distribution. Alternative hypothesis: At least one of the groups has measurably different survival from the others.||||0.43
91719456|NCT02592824|183331778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided Student's t-test used for sample size estimation which was based on data from the first GLUTAMICS trial.||||0.086
91719457|NCT02592824|183331779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91719458|NCT02592824|183331780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91719459|NCT02592824|183331785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91719460|NCT01704261|183331786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.38|||Difference in the least squares means|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) method with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.||||-0.38|-0.85|<0.001
91719461|NCT01704261|183331787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Omarigliptin vs Placebo|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|20.8||||||||20.8|-1.4|
91719462|NCT01704261|183331788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Omarigliptin vs Placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.3||||||||4.3|-4.3|
91719463|NCT01704261|183331789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of the least squares means|-16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-7.8|||Difference in the least squares means|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) method with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.||||-7.8|-25.5|<0.001
91719464|NCT01704261|183331790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|27.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Between-group confidence intervals and p-value (%) A1C \<7.0%; estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques.||||27.6|11.7|<0.001
91719465|NCT01704261|183331790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference (%)|8.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Between-group confidence intervals and p-value (%) A1C \<7.0%; estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques.||||14.5|2.7|0.005
91719466|NCT02855268|183331821|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|6.48||Threshold of significance was 1-sided \<0.025.|Linear mixed effect model|||Annualized rate of change in eGFR during the placebo-controlled treatment period was compared between lademirsen and placebo using a random coefficient linear mixed effect model which included time as a continuous variable.||6.48|-6.92|0.9472
91719467|NCT02326064|183331868|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mac-Nemar paired Chi-2 test|||||||<0.001
91719468|NCT02326064|183331869|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mac-Nemar paired Chi-2 test|||||||<0.001
91719469|NCT00111761|183331870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|25.0||||||95.0|9.8|46.7||||||||46.7|9.8|
91719470|NCT00111761|183331871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|58.0||||||95.0|34.0|80.0||||||||80|34|
91719471|NCT00111761|183331872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|33.3||||||95.0|15.6|55.3||||||||55.3|15.6|
91719472|NCT00111761|183331877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|47.4||||||95.0|24.4|71.1||||||||71.1|24.4|
91719473|NCT00914069|183331889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Threshold for significance was p less than or equal to 0.05 by a one-tailed Fisher Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
91719474|NCT00914069|183331892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
91719475|NCT00071981|183331896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare CTL response rate among four arms. The null hypothesis is that CTL response is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that CTL response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||<0.001
91719476|NCT00071981|183331897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare HTL response rate to 6MHP among four arms. The null hypothesis is that HTL response is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that HTL response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||<0.001
91719477|NCT00071981|183331898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare HTL response rate to tetanus peptide among four arms. The null hypothesis is that HTL response is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that HTL response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||<0.001
91685100|NCT02968849|183260514|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.33|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.33|0.80|0.82
91685101|NCT02968849|183260515|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.98|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.98|0.50|0.98
91685102|NCT02968849|183260516|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.47|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.47|0.80|0.60
91685103|NCT02968849|183260517|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.46|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.46|0.58|0.71
91685104|NCT02203331|183260522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Emax|0.1483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2925||0.3875|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.3875
91685105|NCT02203331|183260522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Linear|0.2484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2975||0.2676|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.2676
91685106|NCT02203331|183260522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 1|0.1995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2922||0.3211|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.3211
91685107|NCT02203331|183260522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 2|0.3467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2994||0.1721|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1721
91685108|NCT02203331|183260523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Emax|0.2736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2878||0.231|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.231
91685109|NCT02203331|183260523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Linear|0.3234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2927||0.1865|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1865
91685110|NCT02203331|183260523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 1|0.3081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2875||0.1955|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1955
91685111|NCT02203331|183260523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 2|0.3781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2944||0.1416|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1416
91685112|NCT02203331|183260524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Emax|0.0081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2832||0.5794|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.5794
91685113|NCT02203331|183260524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Linear|0.1148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.4301|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.4301
91685114|NCT02203331|183260524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 1|0.0401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2829||0.5337|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.5337
91685115|NCT02203331|183260524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 2|0.1835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2899||0.3396|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.3396
91685116|NCT05833139|183260567|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (T/R) [%]|141.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.3|157.7|||ANOVA||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 18.0|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. AUC0-∞ was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, considering the effect 'participant' as random and treatment as fixed."||157.7|126.3|
91685117|NCT05833139|183260568|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (T/R) [%]|126.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.6|151.0|||ANOVA||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 28.7|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. Cmax was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, considering the effect 'participant' as random and treatment as fixed."||151.0|106.6|
91685118|NCT05833139|183260569|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (T/R) [%]|142.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.0|161.9|||ANOVA||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 20.4|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. AUC0-tz was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, considering the effect 'participant' as random and treatment as fixed."||161.9|126.0|
91685119|NCT01277601|183260584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Raw p-values comparing treatments were based on a log-rank test stratified by HBeAg status and viral genotype.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
91685120|NCT01277601|183260584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Raw p-values comparing treatments were based on a log-rank test stratified by HBeAg status and viral genotype.|Log Rank|||||||0.002
91685121|NCT02260570|183260621|SUPERIORITY||F value|24.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|F(1,1,60) = 24.1, p \< 0.0001, adjusted r\^2 = 0.275||||||<0.0001
91685122|NCT02260570|183260622|SUPERIORITY||F value|6.23||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|F(1,30) = 6.23, p = 0.0184, adjusted r\^2 = 0.144||||||0.0184
91685123|NCT04034927|183260625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|2.068|||||The numerator is the experimental arm (odds of response) and the denominator is the control arm (odds of response).|Odds ratio for experimental arm (O + T) response compared to control arm (O) response.||2.068|0.241|
91863113|NCT03974178|183614073|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at the end of hospitalization = 9% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|0.0||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|6.58||The rate of failures at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 9%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at the end of hospitalization (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 9%, with H0 being pfailure = 9% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||6.58|0|0.0158
91863114|NCT03974178|183614074|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at 12 months = 12% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|2.27||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|10.34||The rate of failures at 12 months was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 12%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at 12 months (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 12%, with H0 being pfailure = 12% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||10.34|0.12|0.0253
91685124|NCT03956355|183260628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91685125|NCT03956355|183260629|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91685126|NCT03956355|183260630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.68||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
91685127|NCT03956355|183260631|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91685128|NCT03956355|183260632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|8.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
91685129|NCT00094861|183260633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.8553||||0.355||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants with no assessments were assumed as having grade ≥ 2 dysphagia in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.3550
91685130|NCT00094861|183260634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.9936||||0.3189||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.3189
91685131|NCT00094861|183260635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.437||||0.5086||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants with no assessments were assumed as having grade 5 dysphagia in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.5086
91685132|NCT00094861|183260636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.46||||0.4976||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants with no assessments were assumed as having grade ≥ 3 dysphagia in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.4976
91685133|NCT00094861|183260637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|-2.5325||||0.1115||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants who never received radiotherapy were assumed to have unplanned breaks.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.1115
91685134|NCT00094861|183260638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.4812||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test for mean score difference using modified ridit score. Participants without any ECOG assessment post baseline were assumed to have ECOG status of 5 in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.0621
91685135|NCT00094861|183260639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.0294||||0.8639||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.8639
91685136|NCT00094861|183260640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.1414||||0.1996||||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.1996
91685137|NCT00264550|183260641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab+MTX and Group 1 is significant at the 0.05, and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant at the 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs III and Groups I vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Assuming greater than 90 % power, ACR 20 response for Group I, Group III and Group IV (120, 80, and 80 participants, respectively) as 35 % for Group I and 55 % for Groups III and IV.||||<0.001
91685138|NCT00264550|183260641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs III and Groups I vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Samples of sizes 120, 80, 80 patients in Group I, III, and IV provide \>90% power assuming 35% response in Group I and 55% ACR 20 response in golimumab groups(III \& IV).||||0.001
91685139|NCT00264550|183260641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs III and Groups I vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Samples of sizes 120, 80, 80 patients in Group I, III, and IV provide \>90% power assuming 35% response in Group I and 55% ACR 20 response in golimumab groups(III \& IV).||||<0.001
91685140|NCT00264550|183260641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||This null hypothesis is tested only if a positive test for null hypothesis Statistical Analysis 1.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference between Group II and Group I with respect of ACR 20 at Wk 14. Superiority of golimumab alone vs MTX alone will be demonstrated if 2-sided test is significant. Sample of 120 patients in each Group I \& II provides \>85% power assuming 35% ACR 20 response in Group I and 55% ACR 20 in Group II.||||0.059
91685141|NCT00264550|183260642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91793877|NCT04543409|183466425|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.3||||0.6852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.27|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Physical functioning (PF)||1.27|-1.93|0.6852
91793878|NCT04543409|183466425|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.9||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.72|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Role limitations due to physical health (RP)||0.72|-2.57|0.2685
91793879|NCT04543409|183466425|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.8||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.71|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Bodily pain (BP)||1.71|-3.27|0.5380
91793880|NCT04543409|183466425|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.75|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||General health perceptions (GH)||1.75|-1.81|0.9734
91685142|NCT00264550|183260642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91685143|NCT00264550|183260642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91685144|NCT00264550|183260642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
91794530|NCT00491556|183467980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|-14.91|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-14.91|-23.79|< 0.0001
91685145|NCT00264550|183260643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab+MTX and Group I is significant at the 0.05, and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant at the 0.05.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and Combined Golimumab + Methotrexate (MTX) at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91685146|NCT00264550|183260643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and III at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91685147|NCT00264550|183260643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91685148|NCT00264550|183260643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and II at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.240
91685149|NCT00264550|183260644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91685150|NCT00264550|183260644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91685151|NCT00264550|183260644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91685152|NCT00264550|183260644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.187
91685153|NCT00264550|183260645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden noramal|||||||<0.001
91685154|NCT00264550|183260645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||<0.001
91685155|NCT00264550|183260645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||<0.001
91685156|NCT00264550|183260645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||0.097
91685157|NCT00264550|183260646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal|||||||0.551
91685158|NCT00264550|183260646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||0.953
91685159|NCT00264550|183260646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||ANOVA on van der waerden normal scores|||||||0.293
91685160|NCT00264550|183260646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||0.361
91685161|NCT02129608|183260647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.398
91685162|NCT02129608|183260647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.436
91685163|NCT02129608|183260648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.070
91685164|NCT02129608|183260648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.950
91685165|NCT00451204|183260652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.63||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.05|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 mo, time since dx, previous glatiramer acetate tx, and previous interferon beta tx.||||1.05|0.37|0.077
91685166|NCT00451204|183260653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.08|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||1.08|0.39|0.098
91685167|NCT00451204|183260654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.63||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.09|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||1.09|0.36|0.096
91685168|NCT00451204|183260655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.7||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.17|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||1.17|0.42|0.179
91685169|NCT00451204|183260656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.49||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.88|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||0.88|0.28|0.016
91685170|NCT00451204|183260657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.52||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.86|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||0.86|0.31|0.012
91685171|NCT03578549|183260664|OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.92
91685172|NCT00741286|183260678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model for a repeated measures covariance pattern model with unstructured covariances within subjects was used. Two fixed effects were included: 1 between-subjects treatment effect (group: cilostazol, control) and 1 within-subject time effect (time: baseline, 14 days, 90 days). A possible difference in treatment across 14- and 90-day follow-up was analyzed by time x treatment interactions.||||<0.05
91685173|NCT00741286|183260678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||To determine between-group differences of changes in the PIs at 14 and 90 days from the baseline study.||||<0.05
91685174|NCT00741286|183260679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91685175|NCT02597127|183260680|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 200 mg (Single-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Single-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91685176|NCT02597127|183260680|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 300 mg (Single-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Single-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91685177|NCT02597127|183260680|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 500 mg (Single-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Single-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91685178|NCT02597127|183260680|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 100 mg Double-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Double-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91685179|NCT02597127|183260680|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 200 mg Double-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Double-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91685180|NCT02597127|183260680|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 300 mg Double-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Double-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91685181|NCT01256944|183260707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91685182|NCT01256944|183260708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91719478|NCT00071981|183331899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare objective response rate among four arms. The null hypothesis is that objective response rate is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that objective response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||0.741
91685183|NCT01256944|183260709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91685184|NCT01256944|183260711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91685185|NCT01256944|183260712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91685186|NCT01256944|183260713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91685187|NCT01256944|183260714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91685188|NCT01256944|183260716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91685189|NCT01256944|183260717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91685190|NCT01778634|183260801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|22.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.27|2.53|<0.0001
91685191|NCT01778634|183260802|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.29|||Generalized Estimating Equations||Generalized Estimating Equations with an identity link|||0.29|-0.08|0.28
91685192|NCT01778634|183260803|SUPERIORITY|P values are based on GEE to account for twins||||||0.11|||||||GEE|||||||0.11
91685193|NCT01778634|183260804|SUPERIORITY|P values are based on GEE to account for twins. The counts provided refer to to the numbers actually observed. The analysis to determine the p value accounted for the missing 11 patients using multiple imputation.||||||0.62|||||||GEE with multiple imputation|||||||0.62
91685194|NCT01778634|183260805|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91685195|NCT01778634|183260806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||To include non-survivors as bad values of this outcome we imputed a high value for the participants who died. Note, because we analyzed the data using a nonparametric test, the actual value doesn't affect the analysis, only the rank of the value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91685196|NCT01778634|183260807|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|26.0||To include non-survivors as bad values of this outcome we imputed a high value for the participants who died. Note, because we analyzed the data using a nonparametric test, the actual value doesn't affect the analysis, only the rank of the value.|Wilcoxon test after multiple outputation||Bootstrap|||26|-15|0.94
91685197|NCT01778634|183260808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
91685198|NCT01778634|183260809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.63|0.44|0.88
91903482|NCT00713817|183701765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|4.62||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|13.75|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre group and treatment group as factors. Due to the low power of the test for interaction the test was performed at the 10% level of significance and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented for the difference between treatments.||13.75|-4.51|0.296
91685199|NCT01778634|183260810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.18
91685200|NCT01778634|183260812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
91685201|NCT01778634|183260813|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91685202|NCT01778634|183260814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.18
91685203|NCT01778634|183260815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.091
91685204|NCT01778634|183260816|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91685205|NCT01778634|183260817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.33
91685206|NCT01778634|183260818|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91685207|NCT02661217|183260819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.896||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.021|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.021|0.786|0.099
91719479|NCT00071981|183331900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Compare overall survival curves among four arms.||||0.532
91685208|NCT02661217|183260820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.906||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.993|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.993|0.827|0.034
91685209|NCT02661217|183260821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.006|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.006|0.916|0.089
91685210|NCT00687830|183260830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91685211|NCT00687830|183260831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91685212|NCT02892149|183260832|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.1||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||-0.10|-0.23|
91719480|NCT00909870|183331922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.5||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p-value did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance of \< 0.05|Chi-squared|Unadjusted||"H0: the proportion of responders in the Dermagraft group = the proportion of responders in the Control group.~HA: the proportion of responders in the Dermagraft group ≠ the proportion of responders in the Control group.~The proportion of responders in the Dermagraft group was compared with the proportion of responders in the control group using the uncorrected chi-square test for 2x2 contingency tables. The difference between the groups was expected to be 13%."||||0.1030
91685213|NCT02892149|183260833|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.30 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.4745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.117|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.117|0.828|0.4745
91685214|NCT02892149|183260833|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.113|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 355 and 377 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 46.14 (24.71, 77.14) weeks versus 47.00 (22.43, 74.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.113|0.833|=0.4877
91685215|NCT02892149|183260834|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.12||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||-0.12|-0.25|
91685216|NCT02892149|183260835|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.097|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.097|0.832|0.3718
91685217|NCT02892149|183260835|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.096|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic event Excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 420 and 449 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.07 (21.50, 71.14) weeks versus 45.29 (22.29, 72.43) weeks, respectively.||1.096|0.840|=0.4096
91685218|NCT02892149|183260836|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.131|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.131|0.777|0.3875
91685219|NCT02892149|183260836|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.144|||Gray's test|||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 225 and 242 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.29 (21.71, 77.14) weeks versus 45.79 (21.14, 73.86) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.144|0.795|=0.5007
91685220|NCT02892149|183260837|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.203|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.203|0.761|0.6281
91719481|NCT00909870|183331923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.4046||95.0||||This p-value did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance of \< 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.4046
91719482|NCT00909870|183331924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.0||||0.0239||95.0||||Unadjusted|Chi-squared|Unadjusted||Pre-specified subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint||||0.0239
91685221|NCT02892149|183260837|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.195|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 150 and 160 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.71 (27.43, 77.14) weeks versus 49.29 (24.43, 74.07) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.195|0.766|=0.6284
91685222|NCT02892149|183260838|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.136|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.136|0.816|0.5811
91685223|NCT02892149|183260838|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.4878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.118|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 291 and 310 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.00 (29.71, 79.00) weeks versus 49.57 (25.86, 77.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.118|0.812|=0.4878
91685224|NCT00101283|183260890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall Response Percent|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|41.7|||||Overall response percent for Pemetrexed/Carboplatin arm (percent of eligible, treated patients with complete or partial response)|The treatment was to be considered promising if a true response rate of 40% or higher was observed, whereas a rate of 15% or less would not be of interest. 3 or more responses were required to expand accrual to a second stage. This expansion did not occur.||41.7|5.4|
91685225|NCT00101283|183260890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall Response Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|20.6|||||Overall response percent for Pemetrexed/Gemcitabine arm (percent of eligible, treated patients with complete or partial response)|The treatment was to be considered promising if a true response rate of 40% or higher was observed, whereas a rate of 15% or less would not be of interest. 3 or more responses were required to expand accrual to a second stage. This expansion did not occur.||20.6|0.0|
91685226|NCT02054338|183260899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.2|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves and life tables by treatment arm to describe time-dependent parameters. Stratified Cox proportional model was used to compare the 2 treatment arms. A stratified Cox proportional hazards model and logistic regression were applied to the progression-free survival and to the tumour response, respectively.||1.20|0.91|0.54
91685227|NCT02054338|183260900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.87|0.86
91685228|NCT02054338|183260901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|14.4|||Log Rank|||||14.4|8.7|0.10
91685229|NCT01758588|183260949|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A statistical comparison and analysis of the clinical improvement (CI) proportions cannot be made because the sample size (n=5 in treatment arm, n=3 in observation arm) is too small|||
91685230|NCT00205803|183260955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|2.33||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.33|-8.08|
91685231|NCT00205803|183260955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|8.65||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||8.65|-9.93|
91685232|NCT00205803|183260955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|2.26||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.26|-8.07|
91685233|NCT00205803|183260955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.68||||||95.0|-4.96|6.16||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.16|-4.96|
91685234|NCT00205803|183260955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.25||||||95.0|-8.18|2.36||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.36|-8.18|
91719483|NCT03699748|183331925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.27|14.58|||Type III F test|||||14.58|7.27|<0.001
91685235|NCT00205803|183260955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-4.84|6.32||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.32|-4.84|
91685236|NCT00205803|183260955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.69||||||95.0|-7.75|5.86||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||5.86|-7.75|
91685237|NCT00205803|183260955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|72.87||||||95.0|63.32|81.07||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||81.07|63.32|
91685238|NCT00205803|183260955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|84.92||||||95.0|76.73|91.05||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||91.05|76.73|
91685239|NCT00205803|183260955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|57.94||||||95.0|48.01|67.42||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||67.42|48.01|
91685240|NCT00205803|183260955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|62.81||||||95.0|52.33|72.2||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||72.20|52.33|
91685241|NCT00205803|183260955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|92.27||||||95.0|85.26|96.54||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||96.54|85.26|
91685242|NCT00205803|183260955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|5.61||||||95.0|1.23|11.86||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||11.86|1.23|
91685243|NCT00205803|183260956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.9|3.6||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.6|-7.9|
91794531|NCT00491556|183467981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||2.43|-9.33|0.2363
91685244|NCT00205803|183260956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
91685245|NCT00205803|183260956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-6.9|2.8||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.8|-6.9|
91685246|NCT00205803|183260956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
91685247|NCT00205803|183260956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.7|3.9||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.9|-4.7|
91685248|NCT00205803|183260956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
91685249|NCT00205803|183260956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2||||||95.0|-2.6|7.7||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||7.7|-2.6|
91685250|NCT00205803|183260956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|97.8||||||95.0|92.3|99.7||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||99.7|92.3|
91685251|NCT00205803|183260956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|83.6||||||95.0|73.2|90.8||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||90.8|73.2|
91685252|NCT00205803|183260956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|29.5||||||95.0|19.7|40.9||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||40.9|19.7|
91685253|NCT00205803|183260956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.0||||||95.0|5.9|20.4||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||20.4|5.9|
91685254|NCT00205803|183260956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|94.1||||||95.0|86.8|98.1||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||98.1|86.8|
91685255|NCT00205803|183260956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
91685256|NCT00205803|183260957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.76||||||95.0|0.59|0.96||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.59|
91685257|NCT00205803|183260957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.62|1.48||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.48|0.62|
91685258|NCT00205803|183260957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.85||||||95.0|0.69|1.05||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.05|0.69|
91794532|NCT00491556|183467982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.93|23.45|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||23.45|15.93|< 0.0001
91685259|NCT00205803|183260957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.6|1.11||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.11|0.60|
91685260|NCT00205803|183260957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.62||||||95.0|0.49|0.79||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.79|0.49|
91685261|NCT00205803|183260957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.67|1.09||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.09|0.67|
91685262|NCT00205803|183260957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.59|1.0||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.00|0.59|
91685263|NCT00205803|183260957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|39.78||||||95.0|27.47|57.63||||||For serotype 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||57.63|27.47|
91685264|NCT00205803|183260957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|15.56||||||95.0|11.63|20.81||||||For serotype 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||20.81|11.63|
91685265|NCT00205803|183260957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|8.67||||||95.0|6.65|11.29||||||For serotype 5 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||11.29|6.65|
91685266|NCT00205803|183260957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|9.6||||||95.0|7.07|13.04||||||For serotype 6A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||13.04|7.07|
91685267|NCT00205803|183260957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|26.78||||||95.0|20.97|34.22||||||For serotype 7F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||34.22|20.97|
91685268|NCT00205803|183260957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.71||||||95.0|1.36|2.16||||||For serotype 19A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||2.16|1.36|
91685269|NCT00205803|183260959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.08||||||95.0|-7.22|13.73||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||13.73|-7.22|
91685270|NCT00205803|183260959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.02||||||95.0|-7.28|21.14||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||21.14|-7.28|
91685271|NCT00205803|183260959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-9.38|7.73||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL and 0.1 IU/mL thresholds was calculated||7.73|-9.38|
91685272|NCT00205803|183260959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-9.38|7.73||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL and 0.1 IU/mL thresholds was calculated||7.73|-9.38|
91685273|NCT00205803|183260959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-5.97|5.68||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||5.68|-5.97|
91685274|NCT00205803|183260959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.64||||||95.0|-8.8|4.24||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||4.24|-8.80|
91685275|NCT00205803|183260959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.64||||||95.0|-8.8|4.21||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||4.21|-8.80|
91685276|NCT00205803|183260959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-9.38|7.73||||||For Hepatitis b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 10 mIU/mL threshold was calculated||7.73|-9.38|
91685277|NCT00205803|183260959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.74||||||95.0|-11.0|6.99||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 82.00 EU/MI threshold was calculated||6.99|-11.00|
91685278|NCT00205803|183260959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.36||||||95.0|-17.03|3.16||||||For Pertussis - PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 43.00 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.16|-17.03|
91863115|NCT03899259|183614084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|22.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.17|2.79|<0.001
91719484|NCT03699748|183331928|OTHER||Effect Estimate for 4 Months|12.88|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||12.88 (9.49 - 16.28)||Effect estimates were expected mean differences in Patient Activation Measure scores between groups from baseline. Effect estimates were estimated using generalized estimating equations (GEE) models as a function of treatment group, categorical time (baseline, 4 months and 12 months), and an interaction term between treatment group and time with an exchangeable correlation clustered within person. The effect estimate column shows the difference between change in the intervention group from baseline and the change in the control group from baseline.|||
91685279|NCT00205803|183260959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.33||||||95.0|-6.79|9.68||||||For Pertussis - Pertactin the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 18.00 EU/mL threshold was calculated||9.68|-6.79|
91685280|NCT00205803|183260960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.14||||||||2.14|0.69|
91685281|NCT00205803|183260961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.48||||||||1.48|0.63|
91685282|NCT00205803|183260962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.21||||||||1.21|0.57|
91685283|NCT00205803|183260963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.53||||||Polio Type 1||1.53|0.66|
91685284|NCT00205803|183260963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.49||||||Polio Type 2||1.49|0.56|
91685285|NCT00205803|183260963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.84||||||Polio Type 3||1.84|0.69|
91685286|NCT00205803|183260964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.15||||||Pertussis - FHA||1.15|0.74|
91685287|NCT00205803|183260964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25||||||Pertussis - PT||1.25|0.83|
91685288|NCT00205803|183260964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44||||||Pertussis - Pertactin||1.44|0.76|
91685289|NCT03104400|183260990|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.2|40.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.7|28.2|<0.0001
91685290|NCT03104400|183260990|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|48.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.3|36.3|<0.0001
91685291|NCT03104400|183260991|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.22|-0.35|<0.0001
91685292|NCT03104400|183260991|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.27|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.27|-0.40|<0.0001
91863116|NCT03899259|183614084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|53.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||53.30|7.30|<0.001
91685293|NCT03104400|183260992|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|37.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.5|24.7|<0.0001
91685294|NCT03104400|183260992|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|43.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|49.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.6|36.7|<0.0001
91685295|NCT03104400|183260993|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.8|32.8|<0.0001
91685296|NCT03104400|183260993|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|41.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|49.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.6|32.5|<0.0001
91685297|NCT03104400|183260994|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and the stratification factor current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.14|-0.44|0.0002
91719485|NCT03699748|183331929|OTHER||Effect Estimate for 12 Months|20.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||20.65 (6.97 - 24.32)||Effect estimates were expected mean differences in Patient Activation Measure scores between groups from baseline. Effect estimates were estimated using generalized estimating equations (GEE) models as a function of treatment group, categorical time (baseline, 4 months and 12 months), and an interaction term between treatment group and time with an exchangeable correlation clustered within person.|||
91719486|NCT03699748|183331930|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|11.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.09|15.0|||Type III F-test|||||15.00|7.09|0.001
91719487|NCT03699748|183331932|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.91 (0.40-2.09)||Odds Ratios for any emergency room use and any hospitalization use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
91719488|NCT03699748|183331933|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.27 (0.03 - 2.85)||Odds Ratios for any ED Use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
91719489|NCT03699748|183331934|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.38 (0.18-0.76)||Odds Ratios for any emergency room use and any hospitalization use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
91719490|NCT03699748|183331935|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.42 (0.22-0.79)||Odds Ratios for any emergency room use and any hospitalization use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
91719491|NCT03699748|183331936|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.38 (0.08-1.75)||Odds Ratios for Hospitalization Use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
91719492|NCT03699748|183331937|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
91719493|NCT03699748|183331938|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
91903483|NCT00713817|183701766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chi-square|0.048||||0.826||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to treatment failure was analysed using Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis methodology. The difference in loss of response cumulative distribution function between treatments was assessed using the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||||0.826
91719494|NCT03699748|183331939|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||6.82 (2.46-18.93)||Odds Ratios for Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||
91719495|NCT03699748|183331940|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3.62 (1.73-7.60)||Odds Ratios for Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments at 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||
91719496|NCT03699748|183331941|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|8.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
91719497|NCT03699748|183331942|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|19.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments at 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
91719498|NCT03699748|183331943|OTHER||Effect Estimate|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.65 (0.44-0.98)||Proportional change in total health care costs are expressed as referent to the control group and were modeled using a generalized linear model with gamma link-log function to account for skewed cost data after adjustment for length of follow-up.|||
91719499|NCT03699748|183331944|OTHER||Effect Estimate|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.57 (0.28 - 1.18)||Proportional change in total health care costs are expressed as referent to the control group and were modeled using a generalized linear model with gamma link-log function to account for skewed cost data.|||
91719500|NCT03699748|183331945|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||6.82 (2.46-18.93)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
91719501|NCT03699748|183331946|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3.62 (1.73-7.60)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
91719502|NCT03699748|183331947|OTHER||Effect Estimate|5.71|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||5.71 (1.56-20.93)||Odds Ratios for any ED Use and any Palliative Care were estimated using logistic regression models. Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) were estimated using Poisson models. All ratios are expressed as referent to the control group.|||
91719503|NCT03699748|183331948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||4.33 (0.89-21.08)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
91719504|NCT03699748|183331949|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||2.76 (1.01-7.55)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments at 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
91719505|NCT03699748|183331950|OTHER||Effect Estimate|5.71|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||5.71 (1.56-20.93)||Odds Ratios for any ED Use and any Hospice Receipt were estimated using logistic regression models. Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) were estimated using Poisson models. All ratios are expressed as referent to the control group.|||
91719506|NCT03818854|183331954|SUPERIORITY|Using the change in oxygenation index over 36 hours from the baseline as the primary outcome with measurements taken at 6 time points, the trial was estimated to have 80% power to detect an effect size difference of 0.43 between the trial arms.||||||0.34||||||The mixed model included the following variables: treatment arm, 6 time-points, sites, pre-defined randomization stratifications and the baseline characteristics with bivariate analyses P \< 0.20.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91719507|NCT03818854|183331955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 1.||||0.92
91719508|NCT03818854|183331955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 2.||||0.37
91719509|NCT03818854|183331955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 3.||||0.54
91719510|NCT03818854|183331955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 7.||||0.19
91719511|NCT03818854|183331957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 1.||||0.35
91719512|NCT03818854|183331957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 2.||||0.25
91719513|NCT03818854|183331957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 3.||||0.69
91719514|NCT03818854|183331957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 7.||||0.08
91903484|NCT00713817|183701767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.14||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|9.62|||Hodges-Lehmann|||The difference in loss of response cumulative distribution functions between treatments was assessed using the Wilcoxon test with an estimate of the median difference between groups in response level (percent change from baseline) provided by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||9.62|-39.7|0.54
91685298|NCT03104400|183260994|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and the stratification factor current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.06|-0.36|0.0069
91685299|NCT03104400|183260995|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|29.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.8|18.8|<0.0001
91685300|NCT03104400|183260995|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|38.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.8|27.4|<0.0001
91685301|NCT03104400|183260996|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|29.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.7|13.0|<0.0001
91685302|NCT03104400|183260996|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|33.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.7|16.9|<0.0001
91685303|NCT03104400|183260997|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of each upadacitinib dose versus adalimumab was assessed using Koch's 3-arm approach; non-inferiority was achieved if upadacitinib preserved at least 50% of the placebo-subtracted adalimumab effect.~The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path."|Percent Adalimumab Effect Preservation|119.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.987|147.942|||Koch 3-Arm Test||The percent of adalimumab effect preservation is the point estimate of 3-arm non-inferiority analysis, which is calculated by (Upadacitinib - Placebo) / (Adalimumab - Placebo) \* 100.|||147.942|97.987|<0.0001
91685304|NCT03104400|183260997|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of each upadacitinib dose versus adalimumab was assessed using Koch's 3-arm approach; non-inferiority was achieved if upadacitinib preserved at least 50% of the placebo-subtracted adalimumab effect.~The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path."|Percent Adalimumab Effect Preservation|146.604|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.817|180.398|||Koch 3-Arm Test||The percent of adalimumab effect preservation is the point estimate of 3-arm non-inferiority analysis, which is calculated by (Upadacitinib - Placebo) / (Adalimumab - Placebo) \* 100.|||180.398|122.817|<0.0001
91719515|NCT03818854|183331958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value was given by ordered logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.01
91719516|NCT03818854|183331959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P-value was given by ordered logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
91719517|NCT03818854|183331960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91719518|NCT03818854|183331961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91719519|NCT03818854|183331962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis is for the percentages of patients who developed incision/wound infection events by day 14.||||0.36
91719520|NCT03818854|183331962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis is for the percentages of patients who developed organ/space infection events by day 14.||||0.50
91719521|NCT03818854|183331962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis is for the percentages of patients who developed ventilator-associated pneumonia by day 14.||||0.20
91719522|NCT03818854|183331963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.56
91719523|NCT03818854|183331964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis for the SOFA score between two arms at Day 3.||||0.32
91719524|NCT03818854|183331964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis for the SOFA score between two arms at Day 7.||||0.33
91719525|NCT03818854|183331965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for non-pulmonary SOFA scores between the two arms at Day 3.||||0.39
91719526|NCT03818854|183331965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for non-pulmonary SOFA scores between the two arms at Day 7.||||0.26
91685305|NCT03104400|183260998|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|4.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|5.67|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.67|3.67|<0.0001
91685306|NCT03104400|183260998|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|5.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|6.72|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.72|4.71|<0.0001
91685307|NCT03104400|183260999|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||4.7|2.4|<0.0001
91685308|NCT03104400|183260999|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|5.5|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.5|3.1|<0.0001
91685309|NCT03104400|183261000|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|5.6||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||11.8|-0.6|0.0815
91685310|NCT03104400|183261000|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|13.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||19.4|7.5|<0.0001
91685311|NCT03104400|183261001|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|36.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|47.9||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||47.9|25.7|<0.0001
91685312|NCT03104400|183261001|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.8|50.9||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.9|28.8|<0.0001
91685313|NCT03104400|183261002|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||0.3|-0.3|0.8970
91685314|NCT03104400|183261002|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.2|-0.7|0.0028
91719527|NCT03818854|183331966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||The analysis is for the mortality between two arms at Day 14.||||0.29
91719528|NCT03818854|183331966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||The analysis is for the mortality between the two arms at Day 28.||||0.83
91719529|NCT03818854|183331966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||The analysis is for the mortality between the two arms at Day 60.||||0.56
91719530|NCT03818854|183331967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91719531|NCT03818854|183331968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.56
91719532|NCT03818854|183331968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.79
91719533|NCT03818854|183331968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.62
91719534|NCT03818854|183331968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.67
91719535|NCT03818854|183331969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.60
91719536|NCT03818854|183331969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.04
91719537|NCT03818854|183331969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.09
91719538|NCT03818854|183331969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.38
91719539|NCT03818854|183331970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.28
91719540|NCT03818854|183331970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.10
91719541|NCT03818854|183331970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.15
91719542|NCT03818854|183331970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.34
91719543|NCT03818854|183331971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.85
91719544|NCT03818854|183331971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.50
91719545|NCT03818854|183331971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.64
91719546|NCT03818854|183331971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.70
91719547|NCT03818854|183331972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 6 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.32
91719548|NCT03818854|183331972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 24 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.02
91719549|NCT03818854|183331972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 48 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.02
91719550|NCT03818854|183331972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 72 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.19
91719551|NCT03818854|183331973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 6 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.16
91719552|NCT03818854|183331973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 24 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.64
91719553|NCT03818854|183331973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 48 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.80
91719554|NCT03818854|183331973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 72 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.40
91719555|NCT03818854|183331974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 6 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.85
91719556|NCT03818854|183331974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 24 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.22
91719557|NCT03818854|183331974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 48 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.61
91719558|NCT03818854|183331974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 72 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.98
91719559|NCT03818854|183331980|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91719560|NCT01420536|183331988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed by a researcher who was unaware of all procedures performed. The questionnaire about denture satisfaction originated a general score that was compared using the Wilcoxon test, according to the two tested conditions.||||0.569
91719561|NCT01420536|183331989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.339
91793881|NCT04543409|183466425|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.19|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Vitality (VT)||2.19|-2.09|0.9653
91685315|NCT03104400|183261003|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.01||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.01|-0.15|0.0162
91685316|NCT03104400|183261003|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.07||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.07|-0.20|<0.0001
91685317|NCT03104400|183261004|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-14.6||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-14.6|-19.6|<0.0001
91685318|NCT03104400|183261004|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-17.3||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-17.3|-22.3|<0.0001
91685319|NCT03104400|183261005|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|29.9||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.9|18.7|<0.0001
91685320|NCT03104400|183261005|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|44.3||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.3|32.8|<0.0001
91685321|NCT03104400|183261006|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|17.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||17.0|9.5|<0.0001
91685322|NCT03104400|183261006|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|27.3||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.3|18.5|<0.0001
91685323|NCT03104400|183261007|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|21.4||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.4|10.9|<0.0001
91685324|NCT03104400|183261007|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|31.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.8|20.7|<0.0001
91685325|NCT01191944|183261017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|pre-specified non-inferiority (NI) margin of -4 points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9192|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.047|2.566||one-sided test relative to NI margin of -4|ANCOVA|adjusted for treatment, centre and baseline|Pramipexole IR minus Pramipexole ER, Pramipexole ER non inferior to Pramipexole IR if lower limit of confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference is higher than NI margin.|The null hypothesis (H0) states that the mean change from baseline to Week 18 (or last observation carried forward \[LOCF\]) in the UPDRS II+III score for the treatment group pramipexole ER is inferior to the mean change for the treatment group pramipexole IR.||2.566|-1.047|<0.0001
91685326|NCT01191944|183261018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1836||0.8261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.787|3.826|||ANCOVA|||||3.826|-4.787|0.8261
91685327|NCT01191944|183261019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3274||0.8698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|0.592|||ANCOVA|||||0.592|-0.699|0.8698
91685328|NCT01191944|183261020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7902||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7902
91685329|NCT01191944|183261021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.763|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7845||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.255|2.729|||ANCOVA|||||2.729|-8.255|0.3223
91685330|NCT01191944|183261022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5581||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|6.583|||ANCOVA|||||6.583|0.437|0.0254
91685331|NCT01191944|183261023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2658||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.848|5.09|||ANCOVA|||||5.090|-3.848|0.7843
91685332|NCT01191944|183261024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4901||0.4529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|1.335|||ANCOVA|||||1.335|-0.598|0.4529
91685333|NCT01191944|183261025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4437||0.2338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.405|0.345|||ANCOVA|||||0.345|-1.405|0.2338
91685334|NCT01191944|183261026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2509||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|1.057|||ANCOVA|||||1.057|0.067|0.0263
91685335|NCT01191944|183261027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3727||0.9337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.704|0.766|||ANCOVA|||||0.766|-0.704|0.9337
91685336|NCT01191944|183261028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0798||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.188|||ANCOVA|||||0.188|-0.127|0.6995
91685337|NCT01191944|183261029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3170
91685338|NCT01191944|183261030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4756||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4756
91685339|NCT01191944|183261031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1051||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1051
91685340|NCT01191944|183261032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3138||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.771|||ANCOVA|||||0.771|-0.463|0.6237
91685341|NCT01191944|183261034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.628|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7088||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.765|2.021|||ANCOVA|||||2.021|-0.765|0.3760
91685342|NCT02814890|183261039|OTHER|difference test||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size: Based on our previous data, pain score at rest 48 hours postoperatively when using ropivacaine only was of 2.8 with a standard deviation of 1.4. Assuming a decrease of pain score by 1.1 being clinically significant, twenty six patents in each group would be required for a study power of 80% (α=0.05,β=0.2). Considering possible dropouts, we aimed at recruiting 30 patients in each group with a total of 60 patients.||||0.001
91685343|NCT02814890|183261040|OTHER|difference test|Kendall's tau-b correlation coefficient|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91685344|NCT02814890|183261042|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91685345|NCT01753297|183261081|OTHER|||||||0.158|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to BRFS between both treatment groups.|Analysis on BRFS was based on 61 BR events (comprised of 35 BR events in the active surveillance arm and 26 BR events in the triptorelin arm).|||0.158
91685346|NCT01753297|183261081|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between treatment groups: Triptorelin compared to Active surveillance.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute hazards ratios (HRs) and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||1.09|0.38|0.100
91685347|NCT01753297|183261081|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.79|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between countries: Russia compared to China.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."|Interactions effect between treatment group and each covariate (country, centre(country) and Gleason score) were tested one by one in separate models. An interaction effect was considered as significant if p-value was \<0.20. Interaction between treatment group and country: p=0.970.|4.79|0.46|0.502
91685348|NCT01753297|183261081|OTHER|||||||0.671|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Centre effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."|Interactions effect between treatment group and each covariate (country, centre(country) and Gleason score) were tested one by one in separate models. An interaction effect was considered as significant if p-value was \<0.20. Interaction between treatment group and centre: p=0.241.|||0.671
91685349|NCT01753297|183261081|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.35||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|6.39|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between Gleason score categories: Gleason score of =7 compared to Gleason score ≤6.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."|Interactions effect between treatment group and each covariate (country, centre(country) and Gleason score) were tested one by one in separate models. An interaction effect was considered as significant if p-value was \<0.20. Interaction between treatment group and Gleason score: p=0.272.|6.39|0.87|0.093
91685350|NCT01753297|183261081|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.55|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between Gleason score categories: Gleason score of ≥8 compared to Gleason score ≤6.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||5.55|0.74|0.168
91685351|NCT01753297|183261083|OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to EFS between both treatment groups.|Analysis was based on 2 EFS events in the active surveillance arm and 3 EFS events in the triptorelin arm.|||0.639
91794533|NCT00491556|183467983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.37|-4.43|0.0929
91685352|NCT01753297|183261083|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|9.59|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between treatment groups: Triptorelin compared to Active surveillance.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||9.59|0.24|0.653
91685353|NCT01753297|183261083|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Country effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.999
91685354|NCT01753297|183261083|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Centre effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||1.000
91685355|NCT01753297|183261083|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Gleason score effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.583
91685356|NCT01753297|183261085|OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to OS between both treatment groups.|1 death occurred in the active surveillance arm and 2 deaths occurred in the triptorelin arm.|||0.557
91685357|NCT01753297|183261088|OTHER|||||||0.525|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare PSADT between both treatment groups.|Analysis was based on 9 PSADT events in the active surveillance arm and 6 PSADT events in the triptorelin arm.|||0.525
91685358|NCT01753297|183261088|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.73|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between treatment groups: Triptorelin compared to Active surveillance.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||6.73|0.44|0.435
91685359|NCT01753297|183261088|OTHER|||||||0.761|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Country effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.761
91685360|NCT01753297|183261088|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Centre effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.652
91685361|NCT01753297|183261088|OTHER|||||||0.726|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Gleason score effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.726
91685362|NCT00794339|183261126|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.4883|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants were divided into two groups by whether their T/M Ratio fell at or above vs. below the observed median of 7.3 and the the median survival was compared between the 2 groups.||||0.4883
91685363|NCT00794339|183261127|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin|Slope|-0.1235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6988||0.1924|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Modeling Complete Metabolic Response by T/M Ratio||||0.1924
91685364|NCT00794339|183261128|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0||||||0.309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants were divided into two groups: those at or above the median for T/M Ratio (7.3) vs. those below, and the time to primary tumor recurrence was compared between the 2 goups.||||0.3090
91685365|NCT00794339|183261129|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.5291|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Evaluating Tissue to Muscle (T/M) uptake ratio as a Predictor of PELVIC Lymph Node Metastases at Baseline||||0.5291
91685366|NCT00794339|183261129|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.9684|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Evaluating Tissue to Muscle (T/M) uptake Ratio as a Predictor of COMMON ILIAC Lymph Node Metastases at Baseline||||0.9684
91685367|NCT00794339|183261129|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.7327|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Evaluating Tissue to Muscle (T/M) uptake Ratio as a Predictor of Para Aortic Lymph Node Metastases at Baseline||||0.7327
91719562|NCT01420536|183331990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.515
91685368|NCT00794339|183261139|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.4981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants were divided into two groups by whether their T/M Ratio fell at or above vs. below the observed median of 7.3 and the time to observe new distant metastases was compared between the groups||||.4981
91685369|NCT04315506|183261161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.72||The analysis was a two-intervention arm comparison. Adjustments for multiple tests and outcomes were not required.|Regression, Logistic||Odds of quitting in Enuf Snuff group (SGR) compared to Enough Snuff (control)|||1.72|0.75|0.5384
91719563|NCT01420536|183331991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.485||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.485
91794534|NCT00491556|183467984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.94||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.34|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||1.34|-6.40|0.1886
91685370|NCT04315506|183261162|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1057||||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5808|0.3693||P-value above is for the treatment-by-time squared term in the statistical model for longitudinal data; quadratic change in outcome determined, compared trajectory of outcome change in EnufSnuff (SGR) compared to Enough Snuff (control)|Mixed Models Analysis|Multi-level, mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was conducted.|Slope difference estimate reported above, estimate compares trajectory slope coefficient for EnufSnuff (SGR) to slope coefficient for Enough Snuff (control).|For secondary outcomes, the study was not powered. The null hypothesis was no between-treatment arm difference in the trajectory of change from baseline to six months.||0.3693|-0.5808|0.6624
91685371|NCT04315506|183261163|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0946||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0609|0.2501||A multi-level, mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was applied. The p-value provided above was for the treatment-by-time effect used to test for differences in the trajectory of change in craving reduction between the two treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|Multi-level, mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was conducted. (trajectory analysis)|Slope difference estimate reported above, estimate compares trajectory slope coefficient for EnufSnuff (SGR) to slope coefficient for Enough Snuff (control).|For secondary outcomes, the study was not powered. The null hypothesis was no between-treatment arm difference in the trajectory of change from baseline to six months.||0.2501|-0.0609|0.2320
91685372|NCT03485365|183261184|OTHER|Bayesian Repeated Measures Model|Median Difference (Net)|-1.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.494|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.2|||||Posterior median difference (GSK3858279 - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented.|||-0.20|-2.15|
91685373|NCT03485365|183261185|OTHER|Bayesian Repeated Measures Model|Median Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.612|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.12|||||Posterior median difference (GSK3858279 - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented.|||0.12|-2.29|
91685374|NCT03332979|183261219|OTHER|Multivariable regression analysis will be used to enable us to explore the impact of modifiable factors reflecting preparation for end of life on the MMCGI-SF.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear||||Multivariable regression will be used to explore preparation for end of life on the MMCGI-SF. The analyses will use the MMCGI-SF as the dependent variable with five predictor variables (dementia knowledge \[DKAS\], Social support \[HLQ1\], Communication with healthcare professionals \[HLW4\], advance decisions and knowledge of end of life wishes of person with dementia. There will also be 10 confounders included in the model (gender of caregiver, living arrangement of person with dementia \[at home of a care home\], aged of person with dementia, dementia severity \[CDR\], change in closeness, religiosity \[DURAL\], deprivation and relationship of the carer to the person with dementia).|||<0.05
91685375|NCT03968978|183261259|OTHER||Proportion|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.67|99.5|||Score CI|CI at Week 0 (in clinic)||||99.5|93.67|
91685376|NCT03968978|183261259|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.65|100.0|||Score CI|CI at Week 4 (in clinic)||||100|96.65|
91685377|NCT03968978|183261259|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.63|
91685378|NCT03968978|183261259|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 12 (at home)||||100.00|96.63|
91685379|NCT03968978|183261259|OTHER||Proportion|95.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.71|98.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||98.02|89.71|
91685380|NCT03968978|183261259|OTHER||Proportion|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.94|98.56|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||98.56|90.94|
91685381|NCT03968978|183261259|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.47|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 0 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.47|
91685382|NCT03968978|183261259|OTHER||Proportion|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.93|99.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 4 (in clinic)||||99.02|91.93|
91685383|NCT03968978|183261259|OTHER||Proportion|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.32|99.48|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||99.48|93.32|
91685384|NCT03968978|183261259|OTHER||Proportion|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|99.83|||Score CI|CI for week 12 (at home)||||99.83|94.80|
91685385|NCT03968978|183261259|OTHER||Proportion|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.93|99.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||99.02|91.93|
91685386|NCT03968978|183261259|OTHER||Proportion|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.93|99.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||99.02|91.93|
91685387|NCT03968978|183261260|OTHER||Proportion|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.67|99.5|||Score CI|CI at Week 0 (in clinic)||||99.50|93.67|
91685388|NCT03968978|183261260|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.65|100.0|||Score CI|CI at Week 4 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.65|
91685389|NCT03968978|183261260|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.63|
91685390|NCT03968978|183261260|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 12 (at home)||||100.00|96.63|
91685391|NCT03968978|183261260|OTHER||Proportion|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.8|99.04|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||99.04|92.80|
91685392|NCT03968978|183261260|OTHER||Proportion|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.85|99.83|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||99.83|94.85|
91685393|NCT03968978|183261260|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.46|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 0 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.46|
91685394|NCT03968978|183261260|OTHER||Proportion|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.38|99.48|||Score CI|CI for Week 4 (in clinic)||||99.48|93.38|
91685395|NCT03968978|183261260|OTHER||Proportion|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.32|99.48|||Other CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||99.48|93.32|
91685396|NCT03968978|183261260|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.44|100.0|||Score CI|CI for week 12 (at home)||||100.00|96.44|
91685397|NCT03968978|183261260|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.37|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||100.00|96.37|
91685398|NCT03968978|183261260|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.37|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.37|
91685399|NCT03968978|183261261|OTHER||Proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.33|||Score CI|CI at Week 0 (in clinic)||||6.33|0.50|
91685400|NCT03968978|183261261|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.35|||Score CI|CI at Week 4 (in clinic)||||3.35|0|
91685401|NCT03968978|183261261|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.37|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||3.37|0|
91685402|NCT03968978|183261261|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.37|||Score CI|CI for Week 12 (at home)||||3.37|0|
91685403|NCT03968978|183261261|OTHER||Proportion|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.92|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||7.92|0.96|
91685404|NCT03968978|183261261|OTHER||Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.15|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||5.15|0.17|
91685405|NCT03968978|183261261|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.53|||Score CI|CI for Week 0 (in clinic)||||3.53|0|
91685406|NCT03968978|183261261|OTHER||Proportion|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|7.99|||Score CI|CI for Week 4 (in clinic)||||7.99|0.97|
91685407|NCT03968978|183261261|OTHER||Proportion|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.68|||Other CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||6.68|0.52|
91685408|NCT03968978|183261261|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.56|||Score CI|CI for week 12 (at home)||||3.56|0|
91685409|NCT03968978|183261261|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.63|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||3.63|0|
91685410|NCT03968978|183261261|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.63|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||3.63|0|
91685411|NCT00863772|183261265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||1.01|-0.44|0.434
91685412|NCT00863772|183261265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.79|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.79|-0.68|0.883
91685413|NCT00863772|183261266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.86|-0.59|0.720
91685414|NCT00863772|183261266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.74|-0.73|0.985
91685415|NCT04080544|183261325|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.18||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to episodic memory.||0.18|-3.03|.081
91685416|NCT04080544|183261325|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.19||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in prediction of episodic memory.||0.19|-0.32|.604
91685417|NCT04080544|183261326|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.39||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between amyloid accumulation (annualized change score for amyloid SUVR) to temporal tau SUVR.||3.39|0.15|.033
91685418|NCT04080544|183261327|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.66||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to speed of processing.||1.66|-1.12|.699
91685419|NCT04080544|183261327|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.38||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in the prediction of speed of processing.||0.38|-0.06|.154
91685420|NCT04080544|183261328|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.36||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to reasoning function.||0.36|-2.58|.137
91685421|NCT04080544|183261328|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in prediction of reasoning.||0.37|-0.16|.428
91685422|NCT04080544|183261329|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.86||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to working memory.||0.86|-2.25|.376
91685423|NCT04080544|183261329|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.53||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in prediction of working memory.||0.53|0.01|.039
91685424|NCT04080544|183261329|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.017 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (3 post hoc tests).|sim_slopes (R interactions package)|||Post hoc simple slopes test of the amyloid x tau interaction (Statistical Analysis #2) at 1SD below the mean for amyloid||||.091
91685425|NCT04080544|183261329|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.017 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (3 post hoc tests).|sim_slopes (R interactions package)|||Post hoc simple slopes test of the amyloid x tau interaction (Statistical Analysis #2) at the mean for amyloid SUVR||||.296
91685426|NCT04080544|183261329|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.695|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.017 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (3 post hoc tests).|sim_slopes (R interactions package)|||Post hoc simple slopes test of the amyloid x tau interaction (Statistical Analysis #2) at 1SD above the mean for amyloid SUVR||||.695
91685427|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0004|0.004||A prior threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to inferior temporal SUVR.||0.004|0.0004|.012
91685428|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.000005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00004||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000009|0.00008||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to inferior temporal SUVR.||0.00008|-0.000009|.905
91685429|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to inferior temporal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.006
91685430|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0003|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to middle temporal gyrus SUVR.||0.003|0.0003|.018
91685431|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.00002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00004||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0001|0.00006||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustment for multiple comparisons.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to middle temporal SUVR.||0.00006|-0.0001|.579
91685432|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to middle temporal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.008
91685433|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0004||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age to superior temporal SUVR.||0.001|-0.001|.897
91685434|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.00002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00003||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00007|0.00003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to superior temporal SUVR.||0.00003|-0.00007|.539
91685435|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.00001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0004||0.973|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to superior temporal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.973
91685436|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to entorhinal SUVR.||0.003|-0.001|.200
91685437|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00005||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00005|0.0001||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to entorhinal SUVR.||0.0001|-0.00005|.346
91685438|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.283|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing relationship of age(growth model) to entorhinal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.283
91685439|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0004|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to parahippocampal SUVR.||0.003|0.0004|.011
91685440|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00003||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00004|0.00009||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to parahippocampal SUVR.||0.00009|-0.00004|.536
91685441|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to parahippocampal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.013
91685442|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to fusiform SUVR.||0.003|0.001|<.001
91685443|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00003||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00004|0.00006||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to fusiform SUVR.||0.00006|-0.00004|.692
91685444|NCT04080544|183261330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0004|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to fusiform SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||<.001
91794535|NCT00491556|183467985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.13||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|5.38|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||5.38|-1.65|0.2831
91719564|NCT01420536|183331992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.111
91685445|NCT04080544|183261331|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.53||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to inferior temporal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.53|-0.18|.331
91685446|NCT04080544|183261331|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to middle temporal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.39|-0.24|.636
91685447|NCT04080544|183261331|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.7||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to superior temporal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.70|0.05|.024
91685448|NCT04080544|183261331|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.18||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to parahippocampal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.18|-0.73|.235
91685449|NCT04080544|183261331|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.01||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to entorhinal gyrus cortical thickness.||1.01|-0.63|.639
91685450|NCT04080544|183261331|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.5||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to fusiform gyrus cortical thickness.||0.50|-0.13|.252
91685451|NCT04080544|183261332|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-233.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|469.31||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1163.28|695.79||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to hippocampal volume.||695.79|-1163.28|.619
91685452|NCT04080544|183261333|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|9260.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3836.92||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1660.52|16859.51||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to volume of white matter hypointensities.||16859.51|1660.52|.017
91685453|NCT04080544|183261334|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.99||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to activation of inferior frontal gyrus (beta) on the semantic judgment fMRI task.||0.99|-0.41|.411
91685454|NCT04080544|183261334|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.81||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to middle temporal gyrus activation (beta) on the semantic judgment fMRI task.||0.81|-0.34|.412
91685455|NCT04080544|183261334|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.09||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to precuneus gyrus activation (beta) on the semantic judgment fMRI task.||1.09|-0.48|.438
91685456|NCT04080544|183261335|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.14||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to resting-state system segregation.||-0.14|-2.12|.026
91685457|NCT04400682|183261345|EQUIVALENCE|0.80-1.25 margins for equivalence|Mean ratio|1.015||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9897|1.041|||ANOVA||||Ln(AUClast) : 0.989- 1.0410|1.0410|0.9897|0.0000
91685458|NCT04400682|183261346|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is required.|Mean ratio|1.0361||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9294|1.1551|||ANOVA||||Ln(Cmax) : 0.9294 - 1.1551|1.1551|0.9294|0.0033
91685459|NCT04400682|183261347|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is not required.|Mean ratio|1.0108||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9856|1.0366|||ANOVA||||Ln(Cmax) : 0.9856 - 1.0366|1.0366|0.9856|0.0000
91685460|NCT02105974|183261349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.034||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.055|0.014|0.001
91685461|NCT02105974|183261350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.62||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|5.59|||ANCOVA|||||5.59|-0.35|0.084
91685462|NCT02105974|183261351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.78||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|||||0.78|0.43|<0.001
91685463|NCT03597464|183261353|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||4.05|1.30|0.004
91794536|NCT00491556|183467986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|13.94|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||13.94|9.10|< 0.0001
91685464|NCT03597464|183261353|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 18||3.83|1.25|0.006
91685465|NCT03597464|183261353|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24||3.16|1.04|0.035
91685466|NCT03597464|183261353|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 30||3.92|1.28|0.005
91685467|NCT03597464|183261353|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 36||3.03|1.00|0.051
91685468|NCT03597464|183261354|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|8.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||8.46|1.88|<0.001
91685469|NCT03597464|183261354|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 18||4.88|1.28|0.008
91685470|NCT03597464|183261354|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24||4.91|1.46|0.001
91685471|NCT03597464|183261354|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 30||3.34|1.03|0.040
91685472|NCT03597464|183261354|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 36||2.58|0.75|0.290
91685473|NCT03597464|183261355|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Number of subjects with adequate renal response. This model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline urine protein creatinine ratio (UPCR), biopsy class, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) use at baseline and region. An odds ratio \< unity indicates benefit for voclosporin.||0.99|0.32|0.045
91685474|NCT03597464|183261356|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.8||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||0.5|-2.1|0.238
91685475|NCT03597464|183261356|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.7||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||0.4|-1.8|0.215
91685476|NCT03597464|183261356|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.7||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||0.5|-1.8|0.246
91685477|NCT03597464|183261357|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||-0.26|-1.05|0.001
91685478|NCT03597464|183261357|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.63||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-0.07|-1.20|0.029
91685479|NCT03597464|183261357|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-0.29|-1.24|0.002
91685480|NCT03597464|183261357|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||-0.33|-1.49|0.002
91685481|NCT03597464|183261357|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.48||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||-0.10|-1.06|0.106
91685482|NCT03597464|183261358|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-2.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||-0.1|-5.3|0.041
91685483|NCT03597464|183261358|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-1.8||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||1.6|-5.1|0.292
91685484|NCT03597464|183261358|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-2.2||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||1.8|-6.1|0.282
91685485|NCT03597464|183261358|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.9||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||5.1|-3.2|0.659
91685486|NCT03597464|183261358|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|1.8||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||6.4|-2.8|0.438
91685487|NCT03597464|183261359|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-67.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.4|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||-25.1|-110.4|0.002
91685488|NCT03597464|183261359|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-87.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.2|-24.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-24.2|-151.2|0.007
91685489|NCT03597464|183261359|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-47.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.8|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-3.3|-90.8|0.035
91863117|NCT03899259|183614085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.834|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|-17.72|||ANCOVA|||||-17.72|-32.78|<0.001
91793882|NCT04543409|183466425|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.5||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|0.98|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Social functioning (SF)||0.98|-4.04|0.2326
91793883|NCT04543409|183466425|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7||||0.6274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|2.08|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Role limitations due to emotional problems (RE)||2.08|-3.44|0.6274
91863118|NCT03899259|183614085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.482|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.33|-37.65|||ANCOVA|||||-37.65|-51.33|<0.001
91863119|NCT03899259|183614086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|13.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.60|1.58|0.005
91863120|NCT03899259|183614086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|35.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.44|4.72|<0.001
91863121|NCT03899259|183614087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|10.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.74|1.77|0.001
91863122|NCT03899259|183614087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|31.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.10|5.75|<0.001
91685490|NCT03597464|183261359|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-73.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.5|-22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||-22.6|-123.5|0.005
91863123|NCT03899259|183614089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|7.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.24|0.91|0.076
91863124|NCT03899259|183614089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|25.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.77|4.12|<0.001
91863125|NCT03899259|183614090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.62|0.63|0.260
91863126|NCT03899259|183614090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|20.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.66|3.18|<0.001
91863127|NCT03899259|183614091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.40|1.25|0.017
91685491|NCT03597464|183261359|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-19.0||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.7|41.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||41.7|-79.7|0.537
91685492|NCT03597464|183261360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.084|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||0.134|0.035|<0.001
91685493|NCT03597464|183261360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.051||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||0.131|-0.029|0.209
91685494|NCT03597464|183261360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.057||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||0.178|-0.064|0.353
91685495|NCT03597464|183261360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.036||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||0.105|-0.176|0.616
91685496|NCT03597464|183261360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.077||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||0.094|-0.248|0.372
91685497|NCT00447876|183261382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.46|||Fisher Exact|||The responders rate at Week 6 was compared between treatment groups by a two-sided Fisher exact test.||0.46|-0.06|=0.182
91685498|NCT00447876|183261383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.222|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Gerbershagen's Global scores were compared at Week 18 using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis of variance statistic with adjustment to the baseline score.||||=0.222
91685499|NCT00447876|183261385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.837|||=|0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.94|13.266|||ANCOVA|||SPID was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) taking into account the SPID value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||13.266|-30.940|=0.423
91685500|NCT00447876|183261387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.173|||=|0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.64|16.294|||ANCOVA|||SPID was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect ANCOVA taking into account the SPID value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||16.294|-24.640|=0.682
91685501|NCT00447876|183261389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.066|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.91|12.779|||ANCOVA|||The sum of pain threshold difference (i.e. SPID expressed as AUC) was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect ANCOVA taking into account the SPID AUC value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||12.779|-28.910|=0.438
91685502|NCT00447876|183261391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.594|||=|0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.575|15.762|||ANCOVA|||The sum of pressure threshold difference (i.e. SPID expressed as AUC) was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect ANCOVA taking into account the SPID AUC value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||15.762|-14.575|=0.937
91685503|NCT00447876|183261392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|||=|0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|5.3||The difference (most affected side - control side) in ROM for the dorsal extension was analyzed using a fixed effect ANCOVA, using Week 18 results as the dependent variable and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-6.8|=0.800
91685504|NCT00447876|183261393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.862|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 2. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.862
91685505|NCT00447876|183261393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.317|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 6. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.317
91685506|NCT00447876|183261393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.525|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 10. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.525
91685507|NCT00447876|183261393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.931|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 14. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.931
91685508|NCT00447876|183261393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.353|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 18. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.353
91685509|NCT00447876|183261394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.882|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 2. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.882
91685510|NCT00447876|183261394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.489|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 6. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.489
91685511|NCT00447876|183261394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.66|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 10. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.660
91685512|NCT00447876|183261394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.485|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 14. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.485
91685513|NCT00447876|183261394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.392|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 18. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.392
91685514|NCT02952586|183261404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.9199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.573||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor (T) stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal (N) stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), Human papillomavirus (HPV) status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.573|0.928|0.9199
91685515|NCT02952586|183261405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.849||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor (T) stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal (N) stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), Human papillomavirus (HPV) status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.849|0.927|0.9372
91685516|NCT02952586|183261407|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.9316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.694||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor (T) stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal (N) stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), Human papillomavirus (HPV) status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.694|0.930|0.9316
91685517|NCT02952586|183261408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.947||||0.6229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.352||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test. The 3 stratification factors were tumor stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), HPV status (Positive vs Negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.352|0.663|0.6229
91685518|NCT02952586|183261409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.9061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.624||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), HPV status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.624|0.909|0.9061
91685519|NCT01931878|183261429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mean RLS Scale scores between 21 incoA and 21 saline injections||||0.031
91685520|NCT01931878|183261430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0088
91685521|NCT01931878|183261431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0855|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0855
91685522|NCT00789035|183261457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.29||No formal testing so adjustment for multiple comparisons was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, number of previous anti-diabetic medications and country.|Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo|||-0.29|-0.74|<0.0001
91685523|NCT00789035|183261457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.35||No formal testing so adjustment for multiple comparisons was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, number of previous anti-diabetic medications and country.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.35|-0.80|<0.0001
91685524|NCT00789035|183261457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.5||No formal testing so adjustment for multiple comparisons was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, number of previous anti-diabetic medications and country.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.50|-0.94|<0.0001
91794537|NCT00491556|183467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.88||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-0.67|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-0.67|-5.75|0.0157
91863128|NCT03899259|183614091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|27.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.25|4.32|<0.001
91863129|NCT03899259|183614092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|78.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||78.42|2.73|0.002
91863130|NCT03899259|183614092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.93|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|5.93|<0.001
91863131|NCT03899259|183614093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.981||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|0.88|||ANCOVA|||||0.88|-6.91|0.129
91863132|NCT03899259|183614093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.799||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-7.75|0.020
91863133|NCT03899259|183614094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.017||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-12.68|0.026
91863134|NCT03899259|183614094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.737|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-8.04|||ANCOVA|||||-8.04|-18.80|<0.001
91863135|NCT03899259|183614095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|0.88|||ANCOVA|||||0.88|-9.65|0.103
91685525|NCT00295061|183261587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total sample size of 20 subjects could demonstrate comparability of an AUC(0-7days) with 90% power up to a standard deviation of 0.288 of the difference in the log scale, expected mean treatment difference of 0 (= ratio of 1), a lower equivalence limit of -0.223 (= log 0.8), upper limit of 0.223 (= log 1.25) and a one-sided alpha of 0.05 (90% CI).|Geometric least square means ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.97|1.09||||||To compare AUC 0-7 days between the two treatments (Alpha-1 MP vs. Prolastin),natural log-transformed AUC 0-7 days values were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA).||1.09|0.97|
91863136|NCT03899259|183614095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.429|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-3.56|||ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-13.10|<0.001
91685526|NCT00711880|183261591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.96||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||The change in Numerical Rating Scale Peripheral Neuropathic Pain scores was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Numerical Rating Scale Peripheral Neuropathic Pain score as a covariate.||-0.32|-1.59|0.004
91685527|NCT00711880|183261592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-8.03||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-2.23|||ANCOVA|||The change in Neuropathic Pain Scale scores was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Neuropathic Pain Scale score as a covariate.||-2.23|-13.83|0.007
91685528|NCT00711880|183261593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.43||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||The change in sleep disturbance scores was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline sleep disturbance score as a covariate.||-0.19|-0.67|0.001
91685529|NCT00711880|183261594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-5.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|-2.09|||ANCOVA|||The change in total Pain Disability Index scores was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline total Pain Disability Index score as a covariate.||-2.09|-9.62|0.003
91685530|NCT00711880|183261595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.82||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||The change in Dynamic Allodynia Test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline Dynamic Allodynia Test score as a covariate.||-0.03|-1.60|0.042
91685531|NCT00711880|183261596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|12.73||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|29.85|||ANCOVA|||The change in Static Allodynia Test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline Static Allodynia Test score as a covariate.||29.85|-4.40|0.144
91685532|NCT00711880|183261597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.75||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.35|||ANCOVA|||The change in total General Health Questionnaire score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline total General Health Questionnaire score as a covariate.||1.35|-2.84|0.483
91685533|NCT00711880|183261598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.02||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.5|||ANCOVA|||The change in selective reminding test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline selective reminding test score as a covariate.||0.50|-0.46|0.924
91685534|NCT00711880|183261599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.53||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.38|||ANCOVA|||The change in 10/36 spatial recall test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline 10/36 spatial recall test score as a covariate.||1.38|-0.31|0.214
91685535|NCT00711880|183261600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.15||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|0.85|||ANCOVA|||The change in symbol digit modalities test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline symbol digit modalities test score as a covariate.||0.85|-5.15|0.158
91685536|NCT00711880|183261601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.28||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|7.04|||ANCOVA|||The change in paced auditory serial addition task score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline paced auditory serial addition task test score as a covariate.||7.04|-4.47|0.656
91863137|NCT03899259|183614096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-0.82|0.518
91863138|NCT03899259|183614096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.28|0.012
91863139|NCT03899259|183614097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-1.08|0.083
91863140|NCT03899259|183614097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.20|0.010
91863141|NCT01152450|183614098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.196|0.102|<0.0001
91863142|NCT01152450|183614098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.205|0.111|<0.0001
91863143|NCT01152450|183614098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||95.0|-0.038|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.056|-0.038|
91863144|NCT01152450|183614099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|<|0.0001||95.0|11.084|31.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||31.573|11.084|<0.0001
91863145|NCT01152450|183614099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.225|<|0.0001||95.0|12.044|32.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||32.670|12.044|<0.0001
91863146|NCT01152450|183614099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.242||||95.0|-9.318|11.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||11.376|-9.318|
91863147|NCT01152450|183614100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.026|<|0.0001||95.0|20.001|39.839|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||39.839|20.001|<0.0001
91863148|NCT01152450|183614100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.042|<|0.0001||95.0|18.707|38.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||38.606|18.707|<0.0001
91863149|NCT01152450|183614100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.056||||95.0|-11.243|8.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||8.716|-11.243|
91863150|NCT01152450|183614101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.218|0.120|<0.0001
91863151|NCT01152450|183614101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.234|0.136|<0.0001
91863152|NCT01152450|183614101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||95.0|-0.033|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.065|-0.033|
91863153|NCT01152450|183614102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.181|0.077|<0.0001
91685537|NCT00711880|183261602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|3.39|||ANCOVA|||The change in word list generation test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline word list generation test score as a covariate.||3.39|-3.56|0.962
91685538|NCT00711880|183261603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|32.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|48.12|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups for each question, using Fisher's Exact Test.||48.12|16.40|<0.001
91685539|NCT00711880|183261605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|29.03||||0.001||95.0|13.39|44.67|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups for each question, using Fisher's Exact Test.||44.67|13.39|0.001
91863154|NCT01152450|183614102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.079|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.183|0.079|<0.0001
91863155|NCT01152450|183614102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||95.0|-0.05|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.054|-0.050|
91863156|NCT01152450|183614103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.179|0.084|<0.0001
91863157|NCT01152450|183614103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.179|0.084|<0.0001
91863158|NCT01152450|183614103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||95.0|-0.048|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.047|-0.048|
91863159|NCT01152450|183614104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002||95.0|0.053|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.170|0.053|0.0002
91863160|NCT01152450|183614104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.191|0.074|<0.0001
91863161|NCT01152450|183614104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||||95.0|-0.037|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.080|-0.037|
91863162|NCT01152450|183614105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0515||95.0|0.0|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.136|0.000|0.0515
91863163|NCT01152450|183614105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.1058||95.0|-0.012|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.124|-0.012|0.1058
91685540|NCT00704132|183261607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Mean|-111.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-158.0|-63.9|||ANCOVA||Sitagliptin minus Placebo|||-63.9|-158.0|<0.001
91685541|NCT04238650|183261619|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.11||||||||1.11|0.981|
91863164|NCT01152450|183614105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||||95.0|-0.08|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.057|-0.080|
91863165|NCT01152450|183614106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.177|0.073|<0.0001
91903485|NCT00713817|183701768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimate mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.29|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre group and treatment group as factors. Due to the low power of the test for interaction the test was performed at the 10% level of significance and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented for the difference between treatments.||1.29|-1.45|0.902
91685542|NCT04238650|183261620|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.24||||||||1.24|1.03|
91685543|NCT04238650|183261621|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUClast was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.11||||||||1.11|0.997|
91685544|NCT02585778|183261706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-35.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-35.0|-60.7|<0.0001
91685545|NCT02585778|183261706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-43.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-43.6|-54.4|<0.0001
91685546|NCT02585778|183261708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.4|-37.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Hierarchical testing procedure was followed for T1DM and T2DM participants separately.||-37.9|-63.4|<0.0001
91685547|NCT02585778|183261708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-46.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-46.4|-56.9|<0.0001
91685548|NCT02585778|183261709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-35.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-35.5|-61.2|<0.0001
91685549|NCT02585778|183261709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|-40.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-40.4|-50.9|<0.0001
91685550|NCT02585778|183261710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-32.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-32.8|-56.9|<0.0001
91685551|NCT02585778|183261710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-45.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-45.3|-55.2|<0.0001
91685552|NCT02585778|183261711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-30.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-30.5|-54.9|<0.0001
91685553|NCT02585778|183261711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-39.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-39.2|-49.0|<0.0001
91685554|NCT02585778|183261712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|-31.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-31.3|-54.2|<0.0001
91685555|NCT02585778|183261712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|-33.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-33.9|-43.4|<0.0001
91863166|NCT01152450|183614106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0002||95.0|0.048|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.152|0.048|0.0002
91863167|NCT01152450|183614106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||95.0|-0.077|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.027|-0.077|
91863168|NCT01152450|183614107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0051||95.0|0.023|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.129|0.023|0.0051
91685556|NCT02585778|183261713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-28.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-28.7|-49.4|<0.0001
91685557|NCT02585778|183261713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-32.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-32.5|-40.9|<0.0001
91685558|NCT02585778|183261714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-20.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-20.7|-37.8|<0.0001
91685559|NCT02585778|183261714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-24.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-24.1|-31.2|<0.0001
91685560|NCT02585778|183261715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|117.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|1041.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||1041.8|13.1|<0.0001
91685561|NCT02585778|183261715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|196.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||196.1|36.5|<0.0001
91685562|NCT02585778|183261716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|168.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||168.3|16.6|<0.0001
91685563|NCT02585778|183261717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|137.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||137.4|8.0|<0.0001
91685564|NCT02585778|183261717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|51.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||51.5|14.2|<0.0001
91685565|NCT02585778|183261718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|473.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||473.7|6.5|0.0002
91685566|NCT02585778|183261718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|103.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|433.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||433.1|24.6|<0.0001
91685567|NCT02585778|183261719|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.7||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-6.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-6.0|-31.4|0.0039
91685568|NCT02585778|183261719|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-13.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-13.2|-23.7|<0.0001
91685569|NCT02585778|183261720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|12.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||12.0|-4.2|0.3434
91685570|NCT02585778|183261720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||7.7|1.1|0.0100
91685571|NCT02585778|183261721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.7||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||0.9|-12.3|0.0902
91685572|NCT05246670|183261735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|5.74||||||||5.74|-1.33|
91685573|NCT05246670|183261735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|5.41||||||||5.41|-5.23|
91685574|NCT05246670|183261735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|7.09||||||||7.09|-2.87|
91685575|NCT05124691|183261798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||pairwise comparisons of cure rates within the three study groups, considering an overall significance level of 0.05. To account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in an adjusted significance level of 0.0167||||<0.0001
91863169|NCT01152450|183614107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0123||95.0|0.015|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.120|0.015|0.0123
91685576|NCT05124691|183261798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates within the three study groups, considering an overall significance level of 0.05. To account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in an adjusted significance level of 0.0167||||<0.0001
91685577|NCT05124691|183261798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates within the three study groups, considering an overall significance level of 0.05. To account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in an adjusted significance level of 0.0167||||<0.0001
91685578|NCT05124691|183261801|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates were conducted between Albendazole and FDCx3, as well as FDCx1 and FDCx3, but not between Albendazole and FDCx1, since both contain the same dose regimen of the active drug. An overall significance level of 0.05 was considered, and to account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied.||||<0.0001
91685579|NCT05124691|183261801|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates were conducted between Albendazole and FDCx3, as well as FDCx1 and FDCx3, but not between Albendazole and FDCx1, since both contain the same dose regimen of the active drug. An overall significance level of 0.05 was considered, and to account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied.||||=0.0007
91685580|NCT05124691|183261804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
91685581|NCT05124691|183261804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91685582|NCT05124691|183261804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91685583|NCT01890434|183261825|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|16.7||||9e-05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|9.3||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||9.3|0.00009
91685584|NCT01890434|183261825|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|26.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|18.2||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||18.2|<0.0001
91685585|NCT01890434|183261825|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|32.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|24.5||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||24.5|<0.0001
91685586|NCT01890434|183261826|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|21.0||||5e-05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|12.1||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 2.5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||12.1|0.00005
91685587|NCT01890434|183261826|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|36.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|26.3||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 2.5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||26.3|<0.0001
91685588|NCT01890434|183261826|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|41.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|31.8||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 2.5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||31.8|<0.0001
91685589|NCT01890434|183261831|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|28.4|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI.||28.4|12.9|<0.0001
91685590|NCT01890434|183261831|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.2|27.2|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 10%||||27.2|14.2|<0.0001
91685591|NCT01890434|183261833|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%|Sensitivity Difference|5.7||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|14.9|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of GSPECT evaluated by majority BR.||14.9|-5.4|0.2733
91685592|NCT01890434|183261833|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%.|Sensitivity Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|7.2|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of GSPECT evaluated by investigator.||7.2|-8.6|1.0000
91685593|NCT01890434|183261835|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%.|Specificity Difference|11.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|17.0|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Specificity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with specificity of GSPECT by majority BR.||17.0|4.1|0.0010
91685594|NCT01890434|183261835|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%.|Specificity Difference|7.8||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.2|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Specificity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with specificity of GSPECT by investigator.||13.2|1.6|0.0094
91685595|NCT00428116|183261848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||WAZ-score comparison at 18 months||||0.15
91685596|NCT00428116|183261848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HAZ score at 18 months||||0.45
91685597|NCT00428116|183261849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||log rank or Cox regression|incidence with Cox regression utilized Anderson-Gill method to handle recurrent events||SAEs||||0.39
91685598|NCT00428116|183261849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox regression Anderson Gill|||Pneumonia||||0.60
91685599|NCT00428116|183261849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Pneumonia||||0.60
91685600|NCT00428116|183261849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Diarrhea||||0.77
91863170|NCT01152450|183614107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||95.0|-0.061|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.045|-0.061|
91685601|NCT00428116|183261849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Death||||0.29
91685602|NCT01044264|183261857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|BE of the test to reference in the per protocol population|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.47|113.54|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||113.54|92.47|
91685603|NCT02257385|183261867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternate hypothesis:the difference between the trt means (umeclidinium/vilanterol minus indacaterol + tiotropium bromide) would be \> -50 milliliters (mL). If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance level) of the statistical test should fall above -50 mL, then umeclidinium/vilanterol may be deemed statistically non-inferior to indacaterol plus tiotropium. If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance) of the statistical testing exceeded 0 then, statistical superiority would have been established.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.001||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.030|-0.029|0.964
91685604|NCT02257385|183261868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.023||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.008|-0.054|0.145
91863171|NCT01152450|183614108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0042||95.0|0.025|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.130|0.025|0.0042
91685605|NCT05147324|183261878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91685606|NCT05147324|183261879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91685607|NCT05147324|183261887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91685608|NCT02714426|183261888|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,33) = 5.57, p = .024, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. First-order Autoregressive was best (which specifies homogeneous variance over time but allows one correlation between occasions).||||.024
91685609|NCT02714426|183261889|OTHER|||||||0.333||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,34) = 0.96, p = .333, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.333
91685610|NCT02714426|183261891|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-8) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,31.069) = 15.046, p = .001, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.001
91685611|NCT02714426|183261892|OTHER|||||||0.448||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,34) = 0.589, p = .0.448, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.448
91685612|NCT02714426|183261893|OTHER|||||||0.439||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,31) = 0.616, p = 0.439, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.439
91685613|NCT01727726|183261894|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.39|-2.56|0.0078
91863172|NCT01152450|183614108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0747||95.0|-0.005|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.100|-0.005|0.0747
91863173|NCT01152450|183614108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||95.0|-0.082|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.023|-0.082|
91863174|NCT01152450|183614112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.147|0.055|<0.0001
91863175|NCT01152450|183614112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0004||95.0|0.038|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.130|0.038|0.0004
91863176|NCT01152450|183614112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||95.0|-0.063|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.030|-0.063|
91685614|NCT01727726|183261894|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||1.04|-1.63|0.6642
91685615|NCT01727726|183261895|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.07|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||0.07|-0.52|0.1334
91685616|NCT01727726|183261895|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.78|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||0.78|0.06|0.0237
91685617|NCT01727726|183261896|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.76|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B week 2||-0.76|-2.29|0.0001
91685618|NCT01727726|183261896|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.29|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B Week 2||-0.29|-2.15|0.0103
91685619|NCT01727726|183261896|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.2|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B week 4||-0.20|-2.15|0.0185
91685620|NCT01727726|183261896|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.11|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B Week 4||1.11|-1.27|0.8949
91685621|NCT01727726|183261897|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Severity of Illness Scale Score||-0.01|-0.29|0.0350
91685622|NCT01727726|183261897|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.5601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Severity of Illness Scale Score||0.12|-0.22|0.5601
91685623|NCT01727726|183261897|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Improvement Scale Score||-0.04|-0.35|0.0146
91685624|NCT01727726|183261897|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Improvement Scale Score||0.15|-0.23|0.7127
91685625|NCT01727726|183261898|OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.49||||0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||2.84|0.78|0.2242
91685626|NCT01727726|183261898|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.26||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||2.98|0.53|0.5998
91685627|NCT01727726|183261899|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.52||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||3.49|0.66|0.3321
91685628|NCT01727726|183261899|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.51||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||2.46|0.11|0.3917
91685629|NCT01727726|183261900|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.35||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||1.66|1.10|0.0032
91685630|NCT01727726|183261900|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.24||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||1.59|0.98|0.0898
91685631|NCT01727726|183261902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.56|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Work/School Score||0.56|-0.25|0.4480
91685632|NCT01727726|183261902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.02|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Work/School Score||1.02|0.03|0.0380
91685633|NCT01727726|183261902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.01|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Social Life Score||-0.01|-0.66|0.0436
91685634|NCT01727726|183261902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.84|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Social Life Score||0.84|0.03|0.0350
91685635|NCT01727726|183261902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Family Life Score||-0.01|-0.69|0.0424
91685636|NCT01727726|183261902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.75|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Family Life Score||0.75|-0.09|0.1230
91685637|NCT00086281|183261920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.009
91685638|NCT00086281|183261920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.0244
91685639|NCT00086281|183261920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.0119
91685640|NCT00086281|183261920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5055||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.5055
91685641|NCT00086281|183261920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3132||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.3132
91685642|NCT02391987|183261924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.73
91685643|NCT02391987|183261925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.98
91685644|NCT02391987|183261926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
91685645|NCT01595386|183261960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study sample size was powered to detect a 60% difference in LCOS between groups at α 0.05 and β 0.70, assuming the prevalence of LCOS after neonatal bypass of 65% (based on retrospective data of patients who died, required rescue steroids, ECMO, or epinephrine \> 0.1 μg/kg/min).||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
91685646|NCT01595386|183261961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
91685647|NCT01595386|183261962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91685648|NCT01595386|183261963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91685649|NCT01595386|183261963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||interleukin-6 at 12, 24, and 48 hour. A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91685650|NCT01595386|183261963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||TNF-alpha at 12, 24, and 48 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91685651|NCT01595386|183261963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Interleukin1-beta at 24 and 48 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91903486|NCT00713817|183701769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.557||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|8.261|||Regression, Logistic|||The two treatment groups were compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The model incorporated the parent Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs). The interaction between treatment group and parent RCTs was investigated, but was dropped from the model if found to have little influence. The test was performed at the 10% significance level. The final model was then treatment group and parent RCTs, i.e. the treatment effect was adjusted for parent RCTs baseline.||8.261|0.293|0.603
91685652|NCT01595386|183261963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Interleukin-8 at 24 and 48 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91685653|NCT01595386|183261963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||IL-10 at 4 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91685654|NCT01595386|183261964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91685655|NCT01595386|183261965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91685656|NCT01595386|183261966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91685657|NCT01595386|183261967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
91685658|NCT01595386|183261968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91685659|NCT01595386|183261969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91685660|NCT01595386|183261970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91685661|NCT01595386|183261970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||post-operative cortisol.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91685662|NCT01595386|183261970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Adrenal Insufficiency after bypass.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91685663|NCT01595386|183261970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Development of Low cardiac output syndrome in subjects with Adrenal Insufficiency.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91685664|NCT04784533|183262017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|26.8|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||26.8|5.5|
91685665|NCT04784533|183262017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|22.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||22.9|1.3|
91685666|NCT04784533|183262017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|26.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|37.5|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||37.5|15.4|
91903487|NCT01817907|183701773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91685667|NCT04784533|183262017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|31.3|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||31.3|8.5|
91685668|NCT04784533|183262018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 8||3.9|-2.7|
91685669|NCT04784533|183262018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|17.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||17.9|3.3|
91685670|NCT04784533|183262018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.8|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||22.8|5.3|
91685671|NCT04784533|183262018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|29.5|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||29.5|9.2|
91685672|NCT04784533|183262018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|31.7|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||31.7|9.8|
91685673|NCT04784533|183262019|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8|||||LS means,standard error(SE),and confidence intervals(CIs) are based on mixed model repeated measures(MMRM)analysis with effects for treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,and baseline value.The Model uses an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 4||1.8|-2.8|
91685674|NCT04784533|183262019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-2.7|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 8||-2.7|-11.9|
91685675|NCT04784533|183262019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-5.5|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 12||-5.5|-19.3|
91685676|NCT04784533|183262019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-6.9|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 16||-6.9|-22.2|
91863177|NCT01152450|183614113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.091|<|0.0001||95.0|22.167|38.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||38.317|22.167|<0.0001
91863178|NCT01152450|183614113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.089|<|0.0001||95.0|26.24|42.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||42.380|26.240|<0.0001
91863179|NCT01152450|183614113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.094||||95.0|-4.012|12.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||12.148|-4.012|
91903488|NCT01086410|183701779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square gometric mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12|||||Analysis was performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with covariates of region, sex, age, treatment, and the log of the Baseline values.|||1.12|0.87|
91685677|NCT04784533|183262019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-7.2|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 20||-7.2|-23.7|
91719565|NCT01420536|183331993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.399
91685678|NCT04784533|183262019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-6.8|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 24||-6.8|-24.0|
91685679|NCT04784533|183262020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|31.8|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||31.8|9.9|
91719566|NCT01420536|183331994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.550
91719567|NCT01420536|183331995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.609||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.609
91719568|NCT01420536|183331996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.600
91793884|NCT04543409|183466425|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.9||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.42|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Mental health (MH)||1.42|-3.14|0.4599
91719569|NCT01420536|183331997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.611||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.611
91719570|NCT01420536|183331998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.044
91863180|NCT01152450|183614114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.769||0.6747||95.0|-1.195|1.841|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||1.841|-1.195|0.6747
91863181|NCT01152450|183614114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.774||0.6159||95.0|-1.138|1.916|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||1.916|-1.138|0.6159
91863182|NCT01152450|183614114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||||95.0|-1.468|1.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||1.599|-1.468|
91863183|NCT01152450|183614115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.5906||95.0|-0.358|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.204|-0.358|0.5906
91863184|NCT01152450|183614115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.2208||95.0|-0.458|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.106|-0.458|0.2208
91863185|NCT01152450|183614115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||||95.0|-0.382|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.184|-0.382|
91903489|NCT01086410|183701779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square gometric mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.1|||||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of region, sex, age, treatment, and the log of the Baseline values.|||1.10|0.86|
91863186|NCT01152450|183614116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.9797||95.0|-0.163|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.159|-0.163|0.9797
91863187|NCT01152450|183614116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.4518||95.0|-0.223|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.100|-0.223|0.4518
91863188|NCT01152450|183614116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||||95.0|-0.222|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.102|-0.222|
91863189|NCT01152450|183614117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.4089||95.0|-0.207|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.085|-0.207|0.4089
91863190|NCT01152450|183614117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.3185||95.0|-0.221|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.072|-0.221|0.3185
91903490|NCT01086410|183701779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square gometric mean|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41|||||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of region, sex, age, treatment, and the log of the Baseline values.|||0.41|0.28|
91903491|NCT00621751|183701819|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|36.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||CBZ (up to 800 mg daily) vs placebo significantly improves behavior (Rasch NPI irritability \& aggression rated by observer) baseline to day-42 among individuals \>6 months post-traumatic brain injury and moderate-severe irritability.|ANCOVA|||The primary outcome was a composite measure of observer-rated NPI-I \& NPI-A domains transformed to a Rasch logit scale ranging 0 (best) to 100 (worse) units (i.e., observer-rated NPI-I/A Rasch construct scores). Mean day-42 observer-rated NPI-I/A Rasch construct scores were compared between the placebo vs. carbamazepine groups using ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate.||||0.60
91903492|NCT00621751|183701820|OTHER|A prespecified secondary analysis compared proportions of participants that experienced a decrease of \> 1 MCID in the NPI-I/A Rasch construct score (i.e., participants that are considered to have meaningful reduction in irritability/aggression) from baseline to day-42 between the groups using a chi-square test. MCID was defined as 0.5 times the standard deviation of baseline scores.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< .05
91903493|NCT03383289|183701842|SUPERIORITY||Beta estimate of the percent who fell|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MIANALYZE was used to model missing data. Models were adjusted for the design effects of clustering.||||||0.4170
91685680|NCT04784533|183262020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|25.2|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||25.2|2.5|
91685681|NCT04784533|183262020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|27.0|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||27.0|4.1|
91685682|NCT04784533|183262020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||25.9|2.9|
91685683|NCT04784533|183262021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|34.0|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||34.0|11.9|
91685684|NCT04784533|183262021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|33.1|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||33.1|10.7|
91685685|NCT04784533|183262021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|33.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||33.9|11.2|
91685686|NCT04784533|183262021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.0|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||31.0|8.1|
91685687|NCT04784533|183262022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 12||-0.3|-0.9|
91685688|NCT04784533|183262022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 16||-0.4|-1.1|
91685689|NCT04784533|183262022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 20||-0.4|-1.2|
91685690|NCT04784533|183262022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 24||-0.3|-1.2|
91685691|NCT04784533|183262023|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 12||-0.1|-0.7|
91685692|NCT04784533|183262023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 16||-0.3|-1.0|
91685693|NCT04784533|183262023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 20||-0.5|-1.2|
91863191|NCT01152450|183614117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||||95.0|-0.16|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.134|-0.160|
91685694|NCT04784533|183262023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 24||-0.4|-1.2|
91685695|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.2|-0.7|
91685696|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.2|-0.7|
91685697|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.3|-0.8|
91685698|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.2|-0.8|
91685699|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.3|-0.8|
91685700|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.3|-0.7|
91685701|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.3|-0.8|
91685702|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.3|-0.8|
91685703|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 12||-0.2|-0.8|
91685704|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 16||-0.1|-0.6|
91685705|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 20||-0.1|-0.7|
91685706|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 24||-0.2|-0.7|
91685707|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 12||-0.2|-0.7|
91685708|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 16||-0.2|-0.7|
91685709|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 20||-0.2|-0.7|
91863192|NCT01152450|183614118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.9626||95.0|-0.059|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.062|-0.059|0.9626
91863193|NCT01152450|183614118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.9102||95.0|-0.058|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.065|-0.058|0.9102
91863194|NCT01152450|183614118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||||95.0|-0.059|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.063|-0.059|
91903494|NCT03383289|183701844|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.708|-0.998|||paired t test|||Analysis of adjusted mean differences using a paired t test procedure||-0.998|-1.708|<0.001
91685710|NCT04784533|183262024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 24||-0.3|-0.8|
91685711|NCT02682927|183262045|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|62.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.72|72.8|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||72.80|47.72|
91685712|NCT02682927|183262045|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|64.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.85|74.19|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||74.19|51.85|
91685713|NCT02682927|183262046|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|32.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.19|51.33|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||51.33|6.19|
91685714|NCT02682927|183262046|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|49.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.31|63.43|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||63.43|31.31|
91685715|NCT02682927|183262048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.773||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.475|15.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.450|1.475|0.009
91685716|NCT02682927|183262048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.484|49.915|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.915|4.484|<0.001
91685717|NCT02682927|183262048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|49.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.8|3.6|0.0001
91685718|NCT02682927|183262048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|220.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||220.5|12.9|<0.0001
91685719|NCT02682927|183262051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.035
91685720|NCT02682927|183262051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91685721|NCT02682927|183262051|SUPERIORITY||Comparing active with placebo|||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0002
91863195|NCT05670587|183614120|OTHER||gMean ratio at Week 4|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||||"gMean ratios of CfB in CC/h were calculated from the log transformed values at each visit.~Geometric Coefficient of variation (gCV) = 84.59%"|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of change from baseline (CfB) in cough count per hour (CC/h) at Week 4.||1.18|0.76|
91903495|NCT03383289|183701845|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.6364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1797|1.0931|||Poisson regression|||||1.0931|0.1797|0.0064
91685722|NCT02682927|183262051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
91685723|NCT03462459|183262070|EQUIVALENCE|Proportional tests (Chi-squared) compared the episodes of C. difficile. Log-rank tests (Kaplan-Meier) were conducted to compare the non-recurrence proportions within the eight-week period. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression determined if treatment, age, and number of previous C. difficile episodes were predictors of recurrence.|See comments|-0.11||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|8.0|||Chi-squared||Proportional tests compared episodes of C. difficile recurrence in eight weeks (vancomycin vs. placebo) using Chi-squared test. Log-rank tests compared the non-recurrence proportions within 8 weeks with the Kaplan-Meier method.||"Statistical analyses are primarily reported for the population who were randomized in the study (as randomized). The secondary statistical analyses are reported for the population who completed all three visits (as completed treatment). Proportional tests were conducted to compare the episodes of C. difficile recurrence in eight weeks following the completion of the study intervention in patients receiving vancomycin versus placebo using the Chi-squared test. Log-rank tests were conducted to compare the non-recurrence proportions within the eight-week period in patients receiving vancomycin versus placebo with the Kaplan-Meier method. A nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare distributions of the number of days to the first recurrence of CDI after starting oral vancomycin or placebo. The significance level was set to be ≤0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted in R statistical software (version 4.4.0; R Core Team, 2024)"|8.0|-35.1|0.22
91685724|NCT03462459|183262072|EQUIVALENCE|Proportional difference tests comparing the proportion of patients with VRE colonization at Visit 3, compared to baseline. Significance level was set to 0.10.||||||0.1|||||||Proportional difference test|||||||0.10
91685725|NCT03975491|183262090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|76.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||76.2|-17.1|0.32
91685726|NCT03975491|183262091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|34.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||34.0|-7.5|0.25
91685727|NCT03975491|183262092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||7.7|-13.7|0.52
91685728|NCT03975491|183262093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||1.51|-0.33|0.21
91863196|NCT05670587|183614120|OTHER||gMean ratio at Week 8|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||||"gMean ratios of CfB in CC/h were calculated from the log transformed values at each visit.~Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 115.62%"|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of change from baseline (CfB) in cough count per hour (CC/h) at Week 8.||1.11|0.64|
91903496|NCT03383289|183701845|SUPERIORITY||Estimated log mean|-4.0168||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5827|-2.4509|||Poisson regression|||||-2.4509|-5.5827|0.001
91903497|NCT03383289|183701846|OTHER|adjusted mean differences from paired t tests|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.774|-0.138|||paired t test|||||-0.138|-0.774|0.005
91903498|NCT04439071|183701854|OTHER|||||||0.949|||||||Log Rank|||Time to respiratory improvement was compared between treatment groups using stratified log-rank test.||||0.949
91719571|NCT01420536|183331999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.677||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.677
91719572|NCT01420536|183332000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.885||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.885
91719573|NCT03191552|183332016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91719574|NCT03191552|183332017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.027
91719575|NCT03191552|183332018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Mann-WhitneyU test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
91719576|NCT03191552|183332019|SUPERIORITY|Mann-WhitneyU test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.||||||0.004||||||Mann-WhitneyU test was performed to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91719577|NCT03191552|183332020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.837
91719578|NCT03191552|183332021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.570
91863197|NCT05670587|183614120|OTHER||gMean ratio at Day 82|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||"gMean ratios of CfB in CC/h were calculated from the log transformed values at each visit.~Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 100.02%."|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of change from baseline (CfB) in cough count per hour (CC/h) at Day 82.||1.29|0.75|
91685729|NCT03975491|183262095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0005||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0024|0.0034|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||0.0034|-0.0024|0.73
91719579|NCT03191552|183332022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.334
91719580|NCT03191552|183332023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91863198|NCT03738852|183614125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.907
91685730|NCT03922529|183262105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.543|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.5430
91685731|NCT03922529|183262106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7625|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7625
91685732|NCT03922529|183262107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.8842|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8842
91685733|NCT03922529|183262108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.4086|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4086
91719581|NCT03191552|183332024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.77
91719582|NCT03191552|183332025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.889
91719583|NCT03191552|183332026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.956
91719584|NCT03191552|183332027|SUPERIORITY||||||,|0||||||Mann-WhitneyU test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0,001
91903499|NCT04439071|183701873|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Log Rank|||Time to respiratory improvement was compared between treatment groups using stratified log-rank test.||||0.033
91903500|NCT00892177|183701874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91685734|NCT03922529|183262109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.3841|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.3841
91719585|NCT03191552|183332028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.14
91719586|NCT03191552|183332029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
91719587|NCT03191552|183332030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
91719588|NCT03191552|183332031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.244
91719589|NCT03191552|183332032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91719590|NCT05352763|183332111|OTHER|No statistical analysis performed|||||||||||||||||The classical summary of count and percentages will be provided for basic safety tabulations and dispositions as appropriate. All data will be presented in by-subject data listings. No inferential statistics will be produced.|||
91719591|NCT02555254|183332123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon's rank test|||||||0.55
91719592|NCT04780659|183332127|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
91719593|NCT04780659|183332130|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
91719594|NCT04780659|183332131|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
91685735|NCT03922529|183262110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1393|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|||The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||0.1393
91685736|NCT03922529|183262111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3||0.9257|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9257
91685737|NCT03922529|183262112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.8||0.6588|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.6588
91685738|NCT03922529|183262113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.0||0.992|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9920
91685739|NCT03922529|183262114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9504|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9504
91685740|NCT03922529|183262115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6228|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.6228
91685741|NCT03922529|183262116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7966|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7966
91685742|NCT03922529|183262117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5071|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.5071
91685743|NCT03922529|183262118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5553|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.5553
91685744|NCT03922529|183262119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1194|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.1194
91685745|NCT03922529|183262120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9012|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9012
91685746|NCT03922529|183262121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.4279|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4279
91685747|NCT03922529|183262122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.1932|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.1932
91685748|NCT03922529|183262123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.2723|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.2723
91722505|NCT06001021|183337813|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.52|9.01||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain of Quality of Life||9.01|7.52|0.000
91903501|NCT00892177|183701875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.262|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference in proportion|||0.262|-0.052|0.22
91903502|NCT00892177|183701877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4|||Kaplan Meier|||||1.4|0.61|0.7
91685749|NCT03922529|183262124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.8951|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8951
91685750|NCT03922529|183262125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.2574|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.2574
91685751|NCT03922529|183262126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.8307|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8307
91794538|NCT00491556|183467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.24|-17.06|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-17.06|-28.24|< 0.0001
91903503|NCT00892177|183701878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.7|||Kaplan Meier|||||1.7|0.76|0.52
91903504|NCT00892177|183701879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate is the net difference between Arm A and Arm B total score using information from all cycles. A negative value means that Arm A has a lower quality of life and a positive value means Arm A has a higher reported quality of life.|||||0.96
91903505|NCT00892177|183701880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6325|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6325
91685752|NCT03922529|183262127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.6140
91685753|NCT03922529|183262128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.7327|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7327
91685754|NCT03922529|183262129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7651|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||0.7651
91685755|NCT03922529|183262130|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|1.15||||0.3974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.59|||Negative binomial regression models|||||1.59|0.83|0.3974
91685756|NCT03922529|183262131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.2727|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.2727
91685757|NCT03922529|183262132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.4269|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4269
91685758|NCT03922529|183262133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.4354|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4354
91685759|NCT03922529|183262134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8695|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8695
91685760|NCT03922529|183262135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.7075|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7075
91685761|NCT03922529|183262136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8936|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8936
91685762|NCT03922529|183262137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2794|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2794
91685763|NCT03922529|183262138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6177|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6177
91685764|NCT03922529|183262139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1440
91685765|NCT03922529|183262140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1122|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1122
91685766|NCT03922529|183262141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.63|0.9653
91685767|NCT02731638|183262142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|Bias-corrected logistic regression, accounting for baseline culture status||||5.23|0.65|0.26
91685768|NCT02731638|183262143|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|1.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.4|||Regression, Linear||Positive coefficients of the logMAR value indicated worsened visual acuity|||4.4|-1.2|0.25
91685769|NCT02731638|183262143|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6|||Regression, Linear||Positive coefficients of the logMAR value indicate worsened visual acuity|||3.6|-2.6|0.75
91685770|NCT02454608|183262152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91685771|NCT02454608|183262153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91685772|NCT02454608|183262154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91685773|NCT02454608|183262155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91685774|NCT02454608|183262156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
91685775|NCT02454608|183262157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91685776|NCT02454608|183262158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
91685777|NCT02462291|183262169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4|||ANOVA|||Baseline||5.4|-7.9|1
91685778|NCT02462291|183262169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|40.2|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||40.2|26.4|<0.01
91685779|NCT02462291|183262169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-24.8|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-24.8|-38.2|<0.01
91685780|NCT02462291|183262169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|9.9|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||9.9|-3.7|1
91685781|NCT02462291|183262170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANOVA|||Baseline||0.5|-0.8|1
91685782|NCT02462291|183262170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||-1.2|-2.6|<0.01
91863199|NCT04508309|183614147|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.891|1.327|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||1.327|0.891|
91685783|NCT02462291|183262170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.61|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.61|0.28|<0.01
91685784|NCT02462291|183262170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.17|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-0.17|-1.52|<0.01
91685785|NCT02462291|183262171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||=|0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.1|-3.6|= 0.84
91685786|NCT02462291|183262171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.7|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||1.7|-4.3|= 0.9
91685787|NCT02462291|183262171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|2.69|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||2.69|-3.14|0.88
91685788|NCT02462291|183262171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|2.16|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||2.16|-3.73|0.89
91685789|NCT02462291|183262172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|2.73|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.73|-5.48|0.9
91685790|NCT02462291|183262172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.62||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.9|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||6.90|-1.60|0.59
91685791|NCT02462291|183262172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|1.16|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.16|-7.15|0.34
91685792|NCT02462291|183262172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|5.23|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||5.23|-3.17|0.9
91685793|NCT02462291|183262173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.14|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.14|-1.41|0.83
91722506|NCT06001021|183337813|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.07||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.64|25.81||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval.|ANCOVA|||||25.81|21.64|0.000
91722507|NCT03112603|183337818|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.80|1.86|<0.0001
91685794|NCT02462291|183262173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.53|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||4.53|0.84|<0.01
91685795|NCT02462291|183262173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.34|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-0.34|-3.94|0.010
91685796|NCT02462291|183262173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.0|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||2.00|-1.64|0.84
91685797|NCT02462291|183262174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|2.95|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.95|-0.16|0.11
91685798|NCT02462291|183262174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|2.41|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||2.41|-0.81|0.7
91685799|NCT02462291|183262174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.98|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.98|-1.17|0.88
91685800|NCT02462291|183262174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.39|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.39|-1.78|0.95
91685801|NCT02462291|183262175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.4|||ANOVA|||Baseline||0.40|-0.67|0.95
91685802|NCT02462291|183262175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.99|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||0.99|-0.12|0.23
91685803|NCT02462291|183262175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.44|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.44|-0.65|0.96
91685804|NCT02462291|183262175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.01|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.01|-0.08|0.15
91685805|NCT02462291|183262176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.27|||ANOVA|||Baseline||1.27|-1.14|0.84
91685806|NCT02462291|183262176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.54|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||1.54|-0.96|0.81
91685807|NCT02462291|183262176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.74|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.74|-1.71|0.86
91685808|NCT02462291|183262176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.97|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.97|-1.49|0.75
91685809|NCT02462291|183262177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|44.9|||ANOVA|||Baseline||44.9|-74.4|0.94
91685810|NCT02462291|183262177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.36||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.47|70.2|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||70.20|-53.47|0.87
91685811|NCT02462291|183262177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.19|30.78|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||30.78|-90.19|0.78
91685812|NCT02462291|183262177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.7|54.5|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||54.5|-67.7|0.84
91685813|NCT02462291|183262178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|4.56|||ANOVA|||Baseline||4.56|-3.73|0.74
91685814|NCT02462291|183262178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|3.04|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||3.04|-5.54|0.82
91685815|NCT02462291|183262178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|4.82|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||4.82|-3.57|0.59
91863200|NCT04508309|183614147|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.455|2.176|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% CI was used.||2.176|1.455|
91903506|NCT05097716|183701881|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI|ratio of adjusted geometric means|103.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.66|109.77|||||The comparison was Test vs. Reference (Ritlecitinib + Tolbutamide vs. Tolbutamide).|||109.77|96.66|
91685816|NCT02462291|183262178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|3.19|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||3.19|-5.28|0.69
91685817|NCT02462291|183262179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.09|||ANOVA|||Baseline||1.09|-0.64|0.9
91685818|NCT02462291|183262179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.76|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||3.76|1.96|<0.01
91685819|NCT02462291|183262179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.04|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-2.04|-3.80|<0.01
91685820|NCT02462291|183262179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.59|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.59|-1.17|0.88
91685821|NCT02462291|183262180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.37|||ANOVA|||Baseline||0.37|-0.72|0.83
91685822|NCT02462291|183262180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.29|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||1.29|0.15|0.005
91685823|NCT02462291|183262180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.09|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-0.09|-1.21|0.013
91685824|NCT02462291|183262180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.81|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.81|-0.31|0.87
91685825|NCT02462291|183262181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|0.542|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.082; 3 degrees of freedom|||||= 0.910
91685826|NCT02462291|183262182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|17.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.965; 3 degrees of freedom|||||<0.001
91685827|NCT02462291|183262183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|5.749||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.488; 3 degrees of freedom|||||0.124
91685828|NCT02462291|183262184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|0.008||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.050; 3 degrees of freedom|||||1
91685829|NCT02462291|183262185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|1.049||||0.789|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.116; 3 degrees of freedom|||||0.789
91685830|NCT01549405|183262193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.002
91685831|NCT01549405|183262194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|122.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.0||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.98|132.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||132.4|52.98|0.000
91685832|NCT02111603|183262218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of on-treatment total fecal bile acid excretion with baseline total fecal bile acid excretion.||||0.012
91685833|NCT00976911|183262225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.8||||||||24.8|6.5|
91685834|NCT00976911|183262225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|unstratified analysis||||||0.0010
91685835|NCT00976911|183262225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified analysis: The strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (\<3 or 3-6 months).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
91685836|NCT00976911|183262226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|0.9||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by unstratified Cox regression model.|||0.900|0.225|0.0202
91685837|NCT00976911|183262226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.0081
91685838|NCT00976911|183262228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.379|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.485|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis:Strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (less than \[\<\] 3 or 3-6 months). Cox regression model was used to determine the hazard ratio.|||0.485|0.296|<0.0001
91685839|NCT00976911|183262228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.577|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis||||0.577|0.366|<0.0001
91685840|NCT00976911|183262228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|Unstratified analysis||||||<0.0001
91685841|NCT00976911|183262228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|Stratified analysis:Strata were chemotherapy selected, prior anti-angiogenic therapy, and platinum-free interval.||||||<0.0001
91685842|NCT00976911|183262229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.833||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.059||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank|||||1.059|0.655|0.1360
91685843|NCT00976911|183262229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|||||Unstratified analysis|Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.0715
91685844|NCT00976911|183262229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.116||Stratified analysis: The strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (\<3 or 3-6 months).|Log Rank|||||1.116|0.678|0.2711
91685845|NCT00976911|183262229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified analysis: The strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (\<3 or 3-6 months).|Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.0890
91685846|NCT00976911|183262230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|8.8||||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|21.4|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus Week 8/9||21.4|-3.8|0.1859
91863201|NCT04508309|183614147|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.942|2.903|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||2.903|1.942|
91903507|NCT05097716|183701882|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI|ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.01|106.62|||||The comparison was Test vs. Reference (Ritlecitinib + Tolbutamide vs. Tolbutamide).|||106.62|92.01|
91903508|NCT01011439|183701884|SUPERIORITY||Single proportion|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.59|||Fisher Exact|||H0:p\</=17% vs. H1:p\>17%, with an interesting PFS-3 rate of 33% or higher; Power=80%; Alpha(1-sided)=5%, 54 evaluable patients are required for a Simon optimal two stage design trial. If at least 4 successes among the first 17 evaluable patients are observed in the 1st stage, patients' enrollment proceed up to the final analysis where at least 14/54 successes (PFS-3 rate ≥ 25.9%) must be required to reject the null hypothesis.||0.59|0.31|<0.001
91685847|NCT00976911|183262230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|3.5||||0.8309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|20.9|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus at Week 16/18||20.9|-14|0.8309
91685848|NCT00976911|183262230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|9.3||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|34.1|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus at Week 24||34.1|-15|0.5790
91685849|NCT00976911|183262230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|-4.8||||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|30.6|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus at Week 30||30.6|-40|0.7339
91685850|NCT00230178|183262264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate %|21.0||||0.0009||95.0|8.6|32.7|||Wilson's method|||||32.7|8.6|0.0009
91685851|NCT00230178|183262264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate %|12.3||||0.0632||95.0|-0.9|25.0|||Wilson's method|||||25.0|-0.9|0.0632
91685852|NCT00230178|183262265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91685853|NCT00230178|183262265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91903509|NCT01372150|183701900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|4.48|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Adjusted mean difference = placebo - fluoxetine|Fluoxetine versus Placebo||4.48|-1.06|0.226
91903510|NCT01372150|183701900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.3|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR|DVS SR versus Placebo||2.30|-3.23|0.739
91685854|NCT02652611|183262267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||We reported the average pain and function from 6 to 24 months postinjury with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and summarized pain and function at 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months postinjury with means and standard deviations and medians with interquartile ranges.||1.4|-0.8|=0.57
91685855|NCT02652611|183262268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.3|-2.9|0.21
91685856|NCT03577301|183262274|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|3.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 3 months.||||||0.35
91685857|NCT03577301|183262274|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.97||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 6 months.||||||0.58
91685858|NCT03577301|183262274|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.68||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 9 months.||||||0.64
91685859|NCT03577301|183262274|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.15||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 12 months.||||||0.76
91685860|NCT03577301|183262275|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|3.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 3 months.||||||0.38
91685861|NCT03577301|183262275|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.26||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 6 months.||||||0.74
91685862|NCT03577301|183262275|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.27||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 9 months.||||||0.74
91685863|NCT03577301|183262275|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.66||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 12 months.||||||0.300
91685864|NCT03577301|183262276|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 3 months.||||||0.73
91685865|NCT03577301|183262276|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.68||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 6 months.||||||0.64
91685866|NCT03577301|183262276|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|0.64||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 9 months.||||||0.89
91685867|NCT03577301|183262276|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.08||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 12 months.||||||0.78
91685868|NCT03577301|183262277|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|2.37||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 3 months.||||||0.50
91685869|NCT03577301|183262277|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|2.98||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 6 months.||||||0.34
91685870|NCT03577301|183262277|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.59||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 9 months.||||||0.66
91685871|NCT03577301|183262277|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|2.74||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 12 months.||||||0.43
91863202|NCT04508309|183614148|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.022|1.539|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||1.539|1.022|
91863203|NCT04508309|183614148|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.372|2.069|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||2.069|1.372|
91903511|NCT01372150|183701901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.46|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - Fluoxetine|Fluoxetine versus Placebo||0.46|-0.11|0.224
91685872|NCT00005957|183262281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.13|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) estimation is for Standard Breast Irradiation arm versus Breast Radiation plus regional radiation arm.|It was estimated that the actuarial five year survival of patients on the control arm of this trial would be 80% and a 5% increase in five year survival with experiment arm is clinically interesting to detect. A sample size of 1832 will ensure 80% power to detect such a difference with two-sided alpha of 0.05.||1.13|0.72|0.38
91685873|NCT00005957|183262282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.61|0.01
91685874|NCT00606632|183262383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||McNemar|||||||0.023
91685875|NCT00606632|183262383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.01
91685876|NCT03633825|183262392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|1.03|=.02
91685877|NCT03633825|183262393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.59|||Chi-squared|||||1.59|0.91|=.19
91722508|NCT03112603|183337820|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.51||The p-value was derived from a 1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from a stratified Cox model using cGvHD severity at randomization as strata.|||0.510|0.268|<0.0001
91722509|NCT03112603|183337821|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.361|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.485|||||The hazard ratio was obtained from a stratified Cox model using cGvHD severity at randomization as strata.|||0.485|0.268|
91685878|NCT04841577|183262394|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine is ≤ (equal to or smaller than) 1.5.|Adjusted group GMT ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.44||||||Adjusted ratios of Control group over Co-Ad Group in RSV-A Neutralizing antibody GMTs at one month after RSV\_PreF3 OA investigational vaccination. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse post-vaccination log-transformed titers of RSV-A neutralizing antibodies The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.||1.44|1.12|
91685879|NCT04841577|183262395|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean titer ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.35||||||For the Flu A/Hong Kong/2671/2019 (H3N2) strain, an ANCOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.35|1.02|
91685880|NCT04841577|183262395|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.44||||||For the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) strain, an ANCOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.44|1.03|
91685881|NCT04841577|183262395|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.32||||||For the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata) strain, an ANCOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.32|1.04|
91685882|NCT04841577|183262395|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26||||||For the Flu B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria) strain, an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.26|0.95|
91685883|NCT04841577|183262396|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|9.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu A/Hong Kong/2671/2019 (H3N2) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||9.30|-4.13|
91719595|NCT03729362|183332133|SUPERIORITY|Analysis used a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included terms for treatment, baseline 6MWD, age, height, weight (all as continuous covariates), enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), gender, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. Time was used as a repeated measure, and an unstructured covariance approach was applied.|LS Mean Difference|14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.481||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|31.02||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|MMRM|||"The primary and key secondary endpoints were tested in hierarchical order as follows:~The test for the primary endpoint was conducted first at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level, and if significant, the ordered key secondary endpoints were similarly tested. If at any point the null hypothesis for superiority failed to be rejected, then that comparison and any other comparison below it could not be claimed as successful and would be considered nominal."||31.02|-2.6|0.048
91719596|NCT03729362|183332134|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.156||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.95||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in sitting FVC was the first of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||4.95|0.37|0.012
91719597|NCT03729362|183332135|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.727||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.4||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the MMT score for the lower extremities was the second of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||2.4|-0.48|0.095
91719598|NCT03729362|183332136|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.261||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|20.57||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 26 in 6MWD was the third of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||20.57|-4.24|0.097
91719599|NCT03729362|183332137|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|5.25||1-sided significance level of 0.025|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the PROMIS® - Physical Function was the fourth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||5.25|-1.51|0.138
91863204|NCT04508309|183614148|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.389|2.102|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||2.102|1.389|
91863205|NCT04508309|183614153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the Cecolin containing arm (Group 5) compared to Gardasil at months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.476|2.071|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin containing arm (Group 5)/Gardasil (Group 4)) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||2.071|1.476|
91903512|NCT01372150|183701901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR|DVS SR versus Placebo||0.27|-0.29|0.944
91685884|NCT04841577|183262396|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|9.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||9.83|-0.77|
91685885|NCT04841577|183262396|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|10.28|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||10.28|-2.21|
91685886|NCT04841577|183262396|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||6.90|-6.07|
91685887|NCT04841577|183262398|OTHER||Adjusted group GMT ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.51||||||Adjusted ratios of Control group over Co-Ad Group in RSV-B Neutralizing antibody GMTs at one month after RSV\_PreF3 OA investigational vaccination. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse post-vaccination log-transformed titers of RSV-B neutralizing antibodies. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.||1.51|1.09|
91685888|NCT01004003|183262422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.437|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.565|||||"Hazard ratio (HR) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.565|0.805|
91685889|NCT01004003|183262425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.351|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|2.343|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.343|0.779|
91685890|NCT01004003|183262426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.473|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||1.473|0.522|
91685891|NCT04856930|183262479|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.7841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|1.73||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|Linear repeated measures model (LRMM)|||||1.73|-2.42|0.7841
91685892|NCT04856930|183262479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|3.4||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||3.40|-0.74|0.2885
91685893|NCT04856930|183262480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.5939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.66|10.07||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||10.07|-19.66|0.5939
91685894|NCT04856930|183262480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95||0.7002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.38|18.29||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||18.29|-11.38|0.7002
91685895|NCT04856930|183262481|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|23.4|||||Estimate parameter and 90% CI was based on Unadjusted Risk Difference and exact unconditional confidence intervals (CI).|||23.4|-13.3|
91685896|NCT04856930|183262481|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|21.0|||||Estimate parameter and 90% C was based on Unadjusted Risk Difference and exact unconditional CIs.|||21.0|-14.6|
91685897|NCT04856930|183262482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.7||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.70|-1.08|0.7282
91719600|NCT03729362|183332138|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.2||1-sided significance level of 0.025|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the PROMIS® - Fatigue was the fifth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||2.2|-2.12|0.515
91863206|NCT04508309|183614154|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the Cecolin containing arm (Group 5) compared to Gardasil at months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.451|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin containing arm (Group 5)/Gardasil (Group 4)) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||1.451|1.004|
91903513|NCT01372150|183701902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.924||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 1||||0.924
91685898|NCT04856930|183262482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.53||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.53|-1.25|0.5019
91685899|NCT04856930|183262483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.67||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.67|-0.96|0.7698
91685900|NCT04856930|183262483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.65||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.65|-0.97|0.7468
91685901|NCT04856930|183262484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.46||0.275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.57|13.14||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||13.14|-64.57|0.2750
91685902|NCT04856930|183262484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.81||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.6|18.28||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||18.28|-60.60|0.3757
91685903|NCT04856930|183262485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.04||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.22|15.05||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||15.05|-28.22|0.6146
91685904|NCT04856930|183262485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95||0.4951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.35|12.62||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||12.62|-30.35|0.4951
91719601|NCT03729362|183332139|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|-1.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.463|-0.364||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the GSGC was the sixth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||-0.364|-2.463|0.004
91719602|NCT03405870|183332167|OTHER|Determined maximum tolerated dose|Value of Maximum Tolerated Dose (g/kg)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Using sequential dose escalation, participants received 2 doses of 1.0 to 1.6 g/kg of lipid emulsion (Smoflipid 20% lipid emulsion) within 48 hours of enrollment to test the maximum tolerated dose of study drug. The maximum tolerated dose was defined by patients exhibiting specific dose-related toxicities from administration of escalating doses of the study drug. Of 9 patients, adverse events were only considered dose-limiting toxicities if they met the predefined study protocol criteria.||||
91719603|NCT02807259|183332170|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations did not account for stratification used in the randomisation or include adjustment for baseline levels of the outcome, since the correlation over time was not known. Results suggested that the trial had \>80% power to detect a risk ratio of 0.77, if the coefficient of between-cluster variation was between 0.15 and 0.25.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculations were conducted assuming an IPV prevalence (past 12 months) of 47% and consistent condom use (past 12 months) of 38% based on initial assessments. The power calculation was performed by analysing simulated data from 800 women, distributed across clusters using empirical data with a range in variance across cluster-level proportions of IPV (15% to 25% of the total variation) and a narrow range of effect sizes (risk ratio= 0.75-0.80).||3.01|0.71|0.298
91719604|NCT02807259|183332171|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|0.68|0.378
91719605|NCT02807259|183332172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|0.58|0.748
91719606|NCT02807259|183332173|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.94|0.4|0.025
91719607|NCT02807259|183332174|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|10.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.26|0.42|0.372
91719608|NCT02807259|183332175|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|0.61|0.845
91719609|NCT02807259|183332176|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.82|1.02|0.042
91719610|NCT00849056|183332182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-0.95|<0.0001
91863207|NCT04508309|183614155|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cecolin at Months 0 and 6 (Group 1) compared to Gardasil at Months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.344|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||1.344|0.933|
91863208|NCT04508309|183614156|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cecolin at Months 0 and 6 (Group 1) compared to Gardasil at Months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.635|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||1.635|1.070|
91863209|NCT01674140|183614163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.77|0.52
91685905|NCT04933383|183262495|SUPERIORITY||difference/ratio of least square means|180.6||||0.000813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.42|306.48|||ANCOVA|||"The primary efficacy endpoint is the change from baseline in PC20 after each treatment period (baseline is defined at Visit 1).~For primary efficacy analysis, the mean PC20 changes from baseline between AQ001S and the comparator were compared by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for crossover design. A p-value was calculated for the difference of the parameter between AQ001S and the comparator.~Additionally, an adjusted 95%-CI for the mean difference was obtained by the ANCOVA."||306.48|106.42|0.000813
91685906|NCT02237092|183262509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91722510|NCT03112603|183337822|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.52||The one-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|||3.52|1.34|0.0011
91863210|NCT01674140|183614164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.75|0.84
91863211|NCT01674140|183614166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.74|0.32
91863212|NCT05139810|183614171|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.351|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 1 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used to account for potential over dispersion.||0.351|0.107|<0.001
91685907|NCT02237092|183262510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91685908|NCT02237092|183262511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.02
91685909|NCT02237092|183262512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.58|||NNT|||||2.58|1.05|<0.05
91685910|NCT02075515|183262519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority Criterion: The two-sided 95 % CI of the GMC ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.67, 1.5\]|Adjusted GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.86|
91722511|NCT03112603|183337824|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.39||The one-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated using a stratified CMH test.|||4.39|1.75|<0.0001
91722512|NCT03112603|183337826|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.851||||0.2396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|1.331||The p-value was derived from a 1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from a stratified Cox model using cGvHD severity at randomization as strata.|||1.331|0.544|0.2396
91863213|NCT05139810|183614171|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.45|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.777|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 1 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential overdispersion.||0.777|0.261|=0.004
91685911|NCT02075515|183262519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority Criterion: The two-sided 95 % CI of the GMC ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.67, 1.5\]|Adjustd GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|0.85|
91685912|NCT02075515|183262519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority Criterion: The two-sided 95 % CI of the GMC ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|0.88|
91685913|NCT01297985|183262529|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||"This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in self-perceived Recovery and that this effect would be maintained overtime; and that intervention participants would report greater increases in hopefulness than controls, also maintained longitudinally~This first model reports on Recovery over time."||||.013
91685914|NCT01297985|183262530|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|This analysis used Random Regression Modeling; this first model included depressive symptoms as moderator||"We tested 3 moderating variables: BSI depressive symptom, anxiety, and general symptom distress. In these three models, we hypothesized that the intervention participants with high levels of each type of symptoms would experience greater gains in empowerment over time than participants with low levels of symptoms, as well as control participants with both high and low symptom level.~This model includes depressive symptoms as the moderator (High depressive symptoms X time X study condition)"||||0.01
91685915|NCT01297985|183262530|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|This analysis used Random Regression Modeling; this second model included anxiety symptoms as moderator||"We tested 3 moderating variables: depressive symptom, anxiety, and general symptom distress. In these three models, we hypothesized that the intervention participants with high levels of each type of symptoms would experience greater gains in empowerment over time than participants with low levels of symptoms, as well as control participants with both high and low symptom level.~This model includes anxiety as the moderator (high anxiety X time X study condition)"||||0.01
91685916|NCT01297985|183262530|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|This analysis used Random Regression Modeling; this third model included the general symptom distress as moderator||"We tested 3 moderating variables: BSI depressive symptom, anxiety, and general symptom distress. In these three models, we hypothesized that the intervention participants with high levels of each type of symptoms would experience greater gains in empowerment over time than participants with low levels of symptoms, as well as control participants with both high and low symptom level.~This model includes general symptom distress as the moderator (high symptom distress X time X study condition)"||||.022
91685917|NCT01297985|183262531|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in Hopefulness that would be maintained longitudinally||||<.01
91685918|NCT01297985|183262532|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This analysis Mixed Effects Random Regression Modeling to test whether self-advocacy scores changed overtime by study condition status. Reported below are findings for the self-advocacy assertiveness sub scale.||||<0.01
91685919|NCT01297985|183262533|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.017
91685920|NCT02032680|183262542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3749|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The two treatments were compared to see whether participants in one achieved a higher level on their goals (i.e., the maximum level achieved on the goal).||||0.3749
91685921|NCT03593395|183262549|OTHER|Estimation only|Least Square Mean Estimate|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.34|||||Estimates are from generalized linear mixed model with a negative binomial distribution log link construct and length of follow up offset. Includes fixed effects for site size, baseline acute utilization, and random effect for cluster (site).|||3.34|1.81|
91685922|NCT03593395|183262549|OTHER|Estimation only.|Least Square Mean Estimate|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.19|||||Estimates are from generalized linear mixed model with a negative binomial distribution log link construct and length of follow up offset. Includes fixed effects for site size, baseline acute utilization, and random effect for cluster (site).|||4.19|2.09|
91685923|NCT03713632|183262562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.55||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|1.05|0.0149
91685924|NCT03713632|183262562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.96||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.96|1.22|0.0022
91685925|NCT03713632|183262563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.33||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.79|-3.88||one-side p-value|ANCOVA|||||-3.88|-28.79|0.0051
91863214|NCT05139810|183614172|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.281|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.281|0.062|<0.001
91903514|NCT01372150|183701902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 1||||0.698
91719611|NCT04588259|183332190|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between faster aspart and NovoRapid was compared to a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. If it was below or equal to 0.4%, non-inferiority was considered to be established and effect demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09||p-values are from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The outcome measure was analysed using mixed-effect model for repeated measurement (MMRM) where all calculated changes in HbA1c from baseline at visits were included in analysis. Model included treatment and stratification of type 1 diabetes mellitus/ type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) as fixed factors, HbA1c at baseline as covariate and interactions between all fixed factors and visit. An unstructured covariance matrix described the variability for the repeated measurements for a participant.||0.09|-0.19|0.5102
91719612|NCT04588259|183332191|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference between faster aspart and NovoRapid was compared to a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. If it was below or equal to 0.4%, non-inferiority was considered to be established and effect demonstrated.|Treatment Difference|-0.52||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.03||p-values are from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The outcome measure was analysed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measurements (MMRM) where all calculated changes in HbA1c from baseline at visits are included in the analysis. The model includes treatment and stratification (T1DM/T2DM) as fixed factors, HbA1c at baseline as covariate and interactions between all fixed factors and visit. An unstructured covariance matrix is used to describe the variability for the repeated measurements for a participant.||1.03|-2.08|0.5102
91719613|NCT00274456|183332232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.224||95.0||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site||Independent reader assessed ORR. As per the protocol, if the conclusions from the investigator and independent assessments of response rate were the same, the investigator assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. If the conclusions were different, the independent radiology reader assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. The conclusions were different.||||0.224
91719614|NCT00274456|183332232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by study site||Investigator assessed ORR. As per the protocol, if the conclusions from the investigator and independent assessments of response rate were the same, the investigator assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. If the conclusions were different, the independent radiology reader assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. The conclusions were different.||||<0.001
91719615|NCT00274456|183332232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.002
91863215|NCT05139810|183614172|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.4|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.748|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.748|0.212|=0.004
91863216|NCT05139810|183614173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.79|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|59.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.||||59.36|2.34|=0.003
91863217|NCT05139810|183614173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|22.85|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.||||22.85|0.46|=0.240
91719616|NCT00274456|183332232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||<0.001
91719617|NCT00274456|183332232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site||Investigator assessed ORR||||>0.05
91719618|NCT00274456|183332232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.024
91719619|NCT00274456|183332232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.099||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.099
91719620|NCT00274456|183332232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.002
91863218|NCT05139810|183614174|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.339|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.339|0.035|<0.001
91863219|NCT05139810|183614174|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.59|||=|0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|1.26|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||1.260|0.276|=0.173
91863220|NCT05139810|183614175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|310.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.63|8279.94|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 50% Reduction||8279.94|11.63|<0.001
91685926|NCT03713632|183262563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|-10.63||one-side p-value|ANCOVA|||||-10.63|-35.24|0.0001
91863221|NCT05139810|183614175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|69.41|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 50% Reduction||69.41|3.15|<0.001
91685927|NCT03713632|183262564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.14||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.14|0.41|0.0732
91685928|NCT03713632|183262564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.29|0.0049
91685929|NCT03713632|183262565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.09||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||4.09|1.28|0.0026
91685930|NCT03713632|183262565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.37||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||3.37|1.03|0.0206
91685931|NCT02370238|183262582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.81||p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomized sub-populations, newly diagnosed metastatic patients and patients that had relapsed following a prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.|Log Rank|||||1.81|0.71|0.589
91685932|NCT02370238|183262583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.65||p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomized sub-populations, newly diagnosed metastatic patients and patients that had relapsed following a prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.|Log Rank|||||1.65|0.64|0.897
91685933|NCT02370238|183262584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4909|3.963||P-value is based on Zelen's test for homogeneity of the odds ratios.|Zelen's test|||||3.963|0.4909|0.667
91685934|NCT02370238|183262586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767||||||For the All Patients group, p-value was based on a log-rank test stratified by actual sub-populations, newly diagnosed metastatic patients and patients that had relapsed following a prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.|Log Rank|||||||0.767
91685935|NCT02370238|183262587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.101||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|2.79||P-value was based on Zelen's test for homogeneity of the odds ratios|Zelen's test|||||2.790|0.437|0.667
91685936|NCT01937871|183262590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.57||||||||-0.57|-2.25|
91685937|NCT01937871|183262594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.18||||||||0.18|-1.87|
91685938|NCT02652949|183262612|SUPERIORITY||Event rate|0.023|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.081|||Exact binomial test|||"The primary study endpoint, major device effect at 30 days, is a dichotomous study outcome; hence, an exact method based on the binomial distribution was used for the hypothesis testing. The primary study endpoint was tested against a performance goal of 16%:~H0: p ≥ 16% vs. Ha: p \<16%, where p denotes the true event rate of primary study endpoint in the target population."||0.081||<0.0001
91685939|NCT03837743|183262644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in Change (week 4)||||0.022
91685940|NCT03837743|183262644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in Change (week 8)||||0.296
91685941|NCT05199090|183262651|OTHER||adjusted means|-1.9||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.9|-0.9|||MMRM analysis|||Comparison of adjusted means||-0.9|-2.9|0.0182
91685942|NCT05199090|183262651|OTHER||adjusted means|-1.3||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.4|-0.2|||MMRM analysis|||||-0.2|-2.4|0.1205
91685943|NCT05199090|183262651|OTHER||adjusted means|-1.3||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.2|-0.3|||MMRM analysis|||||-0.3|-2.2|0.0931
91685944|NCT05199090|183262651|OTHER||adjusted means|0.6||||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|1.7|||MMRM analysis|||||1.7|-0.5|0.4994
91685945|NCT05199090|183262651|OTHER||adjusted means|1.0||||0.2295|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|2.1|||MMRM analysis|||||2.1|-0.1|0.2295
91685946|NCT05199090|183262651|OTHER||adjusted means|-0.7||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.3|0.0|||MMRM analysis|||||0.0|-1.3|0.2114
91685947|NCT00384930|183262659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus Baseline.|Permutation Test|||This is the principal inferential analysis of the primary outcome.||||<0.001
91685948|NCT00384930|183262660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.025||95.0|-1.08|-0.07||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.07|-1.08|0.025
91685949|NCT00384930|183262660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.4||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.40|-1.40|<0.001
91685950|NCT00384930|183262660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.45|-0.46||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.46|-1.45|<0.001
91685951|NCT00384930|183262660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.58|-0.57||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.57|-1.58|<0.001
91685952|NCT00384930|183262661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.008||95.0|-1.69|-0.26||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.26|-1.69|0.008
91719621|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.027
91719622|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.009
91719623|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.017
91719624|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||>0.05
91793885|NCT04543409|183466425|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.4||||0.6456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.28|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Psychometrically-based physical summary score (PCS)||1.28|-2.07|0.6456
91793886|NCT04543409|183466425|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.6206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|1.84|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Mental health component summary scores (MCS)||1.84|-3.08|0.6206
91863222|NCT05139810|183614175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|164.87|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 70% Reduction||164.87|7.32|<0.001
91863223|NCT05139810|183614175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.17|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|41.09|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 70% Reduction||41.09|2.05|=0.004
91863224|NCT05139810|183614175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|86.42|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 90% Reduction||86.42|3.36|<0.001
91719625|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||>0.05
91863225|NCT05139810|183614175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.7|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|48.52|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 90% Reduction||48.52|1.56|=0.014
91863226|NCT05139810|183614176|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.234|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.234|0.030|<0.001
91863227|NCT05139810|183614176|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.33|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.706|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.706|0.155|=0.004
91719626|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||>0.05
91719627|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.085|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.085
91863228|NCT05139810|183614178|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-18.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.673|-9.454|||Mixed model with repeated measures(MMRM)|||||-9.454|-27.673|<0.001
91863229|NCT05139810|183614178|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-13.65|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.024|-3.286|||MMRM|||||-3.286|-24.024|=0.010
91719628|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparison was performed only if this test was significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed disease control rate (DCR), ie, SD \>= 16 weeks, or CR or PR||||0.007
91719629|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||>0.05
91719630|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.009
91793887|NCT01052844|183466437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Complete protection from nausea and vomiting (CP) was defined as the absence of any episode of nausea or vomiting and no use of rescue medication. CP was further defined as either acute (ACP), when occurring during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy; delayed (DCP), when occurring during the period from days 2 through 5 after chemotherapy; or overall, when occurring over the entire period of the study (first 120 hours).||||0.04
91793888|NCT01052844|183466438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We evaluated associations between categorical variables using the Chi-Square test||||0.06
91793889|NCT01754909|183466462|SUPERIORITY|Occurrence rates, comparison by t test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91863230|NCT06182033|183614193|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We conducted a linear regression. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.84
91863231|NCT06182033|183614194|OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We conducted a linear regression. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.727
91863232|NCT06182033|183614195|OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||These analyses use the assertiveness subscale as the outcome variable. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.205
91685953|NCT00384930|183262661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.4|-0.98||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.98|-2.40|<0.001
91685954|NCT00384930|183262661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.6|-1.18||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-1.18|-2.60|<0.001
91685955|NCT00384930|183262661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.87|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.59|-1.15||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-1.15|-2.59|<0.001
91685956|NCT00384930|183262662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.503||95.0|-0.28|0.14||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.14|-0.28|0.503
91863233|NCT06182033|183614195|OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||This analysis focused specifically on the behavior control subscale. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.034
91863234|NCT06182033|183614195|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||These analyses use the Task Orientation subscale as the outcome variable. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.099
91863235|NCT06182033|183614195|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis used peer social skills subscale as the outcome in the model. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.209
91863236|NCT06182033|183614196|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Multilevel Model|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.82
91863237|NCT06182033|183614197|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Multilevel Model|Kenward-Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustments in light of small sample size to reduce error likelihood.||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.67
91863238|NCT06182033|183614198|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward-Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood to account for the small sample size.||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.024
91863239|NCT06182033|183614199|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.013
91863240|NCT02151981|183614226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours Osimertinib 80mg|||0.41|0.23|<0.001
91863241|NCT02151981|183614227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|8.48|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for ethnicity (Asian/non-Asian)|odds ratio \>1.0 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||8.48|3.47|<0.001
91863242|NCT02151981|183614228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Expected (DoR)|6.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|9.57|||formulae provided in Ellis S et al 2008|Treatments compared by calculating the ratio of the Expected (DoR) using the Log Normal probability distribution for DOR in responding patients||||9.57|4.04|<0.001
91863243|NCT02151981|183614229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|8.84|||Regression, Logistic||odds ratio \>1.0 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||8.84|2.64|<0.001
91863244|NCT02151981|183614230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-21.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.71|-15.52|||ANCOVA|Covariates for ethnicity (Asian, non-Asian) and the baseline sum of diameters of target lesions|LS Mean: Osimertinib -46.93, Chemo -25.3 A difference in LS means \<0 favours Osimertinib 80mg|||-15.52|-27.71|<0.001
91863245|NCT02151981|183614231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||1.13|0.67|0.277
91863246|NCT02151981|183614232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.28|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favors Osimertinib 80mg|||0.28|0.16|<0.001
91863247|NCT02151981|183614233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||1.11|0.69|<0.001
91719631|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.005
91719632|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||>0.05
91719633|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.098||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.098
91719634|NCT00274456|183332233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.014
91719635|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0498||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||0.0498
91719636|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.607||||0.0524|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||0.0524
91719637|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495||||0.0065|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||0.0065
91719638|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
91719639|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
91719640|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
91719641|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
91719642|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons was performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.008
91719643|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91719644|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91719645|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.568||||0.012|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.012
91719646|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.972||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.001
91903515|NCT01372150|183701902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 2||||0.214
91719647|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.702||||0.076|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.076
91719648|NCT00274456|183332234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91719649|NCT00274456|183332235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons was performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
91719650|NCT00274456|183332236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons was performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.013
91719651|NCT00274456|183332236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.022
91719652|NCT00274456|183332236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91719653|NCT00274456|183332236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91719654|NCT00274456|183332236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.005
91719655|NCT00274456|183332236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91719656|NCT00274456|183332236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91719657|NCT00274456|183332237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||||||0.047
91719658|NCT00274456|183332237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
91719659|NCT00274456|183332237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
91719660|NCT00274456|183332237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
91719661|NCT00274456|183332237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.069||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
91719662|NCT00274456|183332237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
91719663|NCT00274456|183332237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.008||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.008
91719664|NCT02314546|183332241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91719665|NCT02314546|183332242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91719666|NCT02314546|183332243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.26
91719667|NCT02314546|183332244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
91719668|NCT02314546|183332245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
91719669|NCT02314546|183332246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
91719670|NCT02314546|183332247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
91719671|NCT04476043|183332253|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean (LSM) difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.3|||MMRM|||||-0.3|-5.2|0.0277
91719672|NCT04476043|183332253|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.9|||MMRM|||||-1.9|-6.8|0.0006
91719673|NCT04476043|183332253|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.4|||MMRM|||||-1.4|-6.2|0.0021
91903516|NCT01372150|183701902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 2||||0.113
91863248|NCT01922050|183614246|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.69|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.69|0.40|<0.001
91719674|NCT04476043|183332254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.3|||Wald test||Logistic regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (disease severity and geographical region).|||5.3|1.0|0.0445
91719675|NCT04476043|183332254|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35|||||||||||Standard error of difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
91719676|NCT04476043|183332254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.6|||Wald test||Logistic regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (disease severity and geographical region).|||4.6|0.9|0.0998
91719677|NCT04476043|183332254|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32|||||||||||Standard error of difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
91719678|NCT04476043|183332254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.7|||Wald test||Logistic regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (disease severity and geographical region).|||4.7|0.9|0.0829
91719679|NCT04476043|183332254|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29|||||||||||Standard error of difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
91719680|NCT02100631|183332264|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two sided 95% Wald CI on the difference in seroconversion rate was estimated by inverting a Z test with pooled variance. The lower limit of the CI had be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority. The lower bound of the CI on the older adults serconversion rate was required to exceed 70%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.4||||||||0.4|-6.7|
91719681|NCT02100631|183332265|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57||||||||0.57|0.34|
91793890|NCT01466595|183466482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|no other adjustments||"Null hypothesis:~There is no difference between the two arms in the change in T-cell activation from baseline to week 4"||||0.028
91863249|NCT01922050|183614246|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.61|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.61|0.35|<0.001
91863250|NCT01922050|183614246|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.48|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.48|0.28|<0.001
91863251|NCT01922050|183614246|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||1.17|0.66|0.38
91903517|NCT01372150|183701902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 3||||0.314
91903518|NCT01372150|183701902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 3||||0.659
91903519|NCT01372150|183701902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 4||||0.577
91719682|NCT02100631|183332266|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis for information only. No non-inferiority margin specified.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.5||||||||3.5|-2.2|
91719683|NCT02100631|183332267|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis for information only. No non-inferiority margin specified.||||||0.0062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0062
91719684|NCT00336544|183332270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7||||0.0769||95.0|-11.9|0.6|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||0.6|-11.9|0.0769
91719685|NCT00336544|183332272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4||||0.0775||95.0|-9.1|0.3|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||0.3|-9.1|0.0775
91719686|NCT00576758|183332274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.26||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.9|18.7|||Chi-squared|||||18.7|3.9|0.1587
91719687|NCT00576758|183332275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.6||||||||16.6|-2.9|
91719688|NCT00576758|183332279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|18.3||||||||18.3|-13.9|
91719689|NCT00576758|183332280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.44||||||||1.44|0.62|
91719690|NCT00576758|183332282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.5||||||||1.50|0.67|
91719691|NCT03427411|183332303|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as response rates which were sufficiently similar (p\>0.20 by Fisher's exact test).||||||0.6143||||||The p value was calculated and was 0.6143 which is \> 0.2 (pre-defined threshold).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6143
91793891|NCT02313454|183466525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.19|||Paired t-test||Intranasal Application relative to the Extranasal Application|||-0.19|-1.0|0.008
91863252|NCT01922050|183614246|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.69||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.93|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.93|0.52|0.013
91863253|NCT01922050|183614246|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.79||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.07|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||1.07|0.58|0.13
91719692|NCT02631057|183332331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.629|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.717|-1.251|||Abadie-Imbens|LoS Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (ATET) \[Dabigatran group\], dispersion analysed with Abadie-Imbens's standard error.|The ATET of LoS from oral anticoagulant initiation to hospital discharge was calculated as \[Dabigatran - Warfarin\] in the matched cohort of matching ratio 1:3.|||-1.251|-3.717|<0.001
91719693|NCT02690727|183332332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|128.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.13|138.59|||ANOVA|||||138.59|119.13|0.0002
91719694|NCT02690727|183332334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|139.27||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.01|174.73|||ANOVA|||||174.73|111.01|0.0278
91719695|NCT04757636|183332335|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.861409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.84|||MMRM|||||1.84|-2.20|0.861409
91719696|NCT04757636|183332335|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029||0.416264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.18|||MMRM|||||1.18|-2.86|0.416264
91719697|NCT04757636|183332336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.981348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.7|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||7.7|-7.5|0.981348
91719698|NCT04757636|183332336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|7.0|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||7.0|-8.5|0.856000
91863254|NCT01922050|183614247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|0.74||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.04|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.04|0.27|0.57
91863255|NCT01922050|183614247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.33||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.13|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||3.13|0.56|0.51
91863256|NCT01922050|183614247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.21|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||4.21|0.86|0.11
91719699|NCT04757636|183332337|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.655104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.6|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||5.6|-8.9|0.655104
91719700|NCT04757636|183332337|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.821257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|6.5|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||6.5|-8.2|0.821257
91719701|NCT04757636|183332338|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.199828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.16|||MMRM|||||0.16|-0.76|0.199828
91719702|NCT04757636|183332338|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.188725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.15|||MMRM|||||0.15|-0.77|0.188725
91719703|NCT04757636|183332339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.84781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|4.6|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||4.6|-5.6|0.847810
91719704|NCT04757636|183332339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.718699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.1|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||6.1|-4.2|0.718699
91719705|NCT00091819|183332340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 10% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||||95.0|-4.8|6.8||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.|||"Statistical analysis applies to cure"|||6.8|-4.8|
91719706|NCT00701363|183332363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||One subject (Group B) had missing IGF-1 value at Week 48. One subject (Group A) had missing IGF-1 value at Baseline.||||0.0013
91719707|NCT00701363|183332363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91719708|NCT00701363|183332363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91719709|NCT00701363|183332364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0009
91719710|NCT00701363|183332364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91719711|NCT00701363|183332364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91863257|NCT01922050|183614247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.79||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.43|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||4.43|0.72|0.21
91719712|NCT00701363|183332364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0170
91719713|NCT00701363|183332365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in baseline IGF-1 levels between 108 subjects with normalized IGF-1 levels at week 24 (A+B+C) and 14 subjects with uncontrolled IGF-1 levels at week 24.||||0.0103
91719714|NCT03704064|183332383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
91719715|NCT03704064|183332384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|0.4|0.89
91719716|NCT03704064|183332385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7|1.0|0.06
91685957|NCT00384930|183262662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.206||95.0|-0.34|0.07||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.07|-0.34|0.206
91685958|NCT00384930|183262662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.452||95.0|-0.28|0.13||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.13|-0.28|0.452
91685959|NCT00384930|183262662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.012||95.0|-0.47|-0.06||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.06|-0.47|0.012
91719717|NCT03704064|183332386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91685960|NCT00384930|183262663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.029||95.0|-0.49|-0.03||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.03|-0.49|0.029
91685961|NCT00384930|183262663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.002||95.0|-0.6|-0.14||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.14|-0.60|0.002
91685962|NCT00384930|183262663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.66|-0.19||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.19|-0.66|<0.001
91685963|NCT00384930|183262663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.64|-0.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.17|-0.64|<0.001
91685964|NCT00384930|183262664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.583||95.0|-0.58|0.33||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.33|-0.58|0.583
91685965|NCT00384930|183262664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.013||95.0|-1.03|-0.12||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.12|-1.03|0.013
91685966|NCT00384930|183262664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.016||95.0|-1.0|-0.1||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.10|-1.00|0.016
91685967|NCT00384930|183262664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.007||95.0|-1.08|-0.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.17|-1.08|0.007
91719718|NCT03704064|183332387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
91719719|NCT03704064|183332388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|0.6|0.24
91719720|NCT03704064|183332389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.1|0.6|0.24
91719721|NCT03704064|183332390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.6|0.9|0.07
91863258|NCT01922050|183614247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.55||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|5.98|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||5.98|1.09|0.031
91863259|NCT01922050|183614247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.43||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.75|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.75|0.74|0.29
91863260|NCT01922050|183614248|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.69||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.69|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.69|1.06|0.026
91719722|NCT03704064|183332391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.4|0.6|0.21
91719723|NCT03704064|183332392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 10 minute bouts||||0.62
91719724|NCT03704064|183332392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 20 minute bouts||||0.92
91863261|NCT01922050|183614248|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.79||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.84|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.84|1.13|0.013
91863262|NCT01922050|183614248|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.25|||Log binomial regression|||||3.25|1.35|<0.001
91863263|NCT01922050|183614248|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Log binomial regression|||||1.47|0.76|0.73
91719725|NCT03704064|183332392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Moderate activity per day||||0.16
91719726|NCT03704064|183332392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.8||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Light activity per day||||0.41
91719727|NCT03704064|183332393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 10 minute bouts||||0.46
91719728|NCT03704064|183332393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 20 minute bouts||||0.87
91719729|NCT03704064|183332393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Moderate activity per day||||0.07
91719730|NCT03704064|183332393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.5||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Light activity per day||||0.17
91719731|NCT03704064|183332394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 10 minute bouts||||0.63
91719732|NCT03704064|183332394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 20 minute bouts||||0.72
91719733|NCT03704064|183332394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Moderate activity per day||||0.52
91719734|NCT03704064|183332394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.4||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Light activity per day||||0.27
91719735|NCT03704064|183332395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|151.2||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91719736|NCT03704064|183332396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-111.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|137.2||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91719737|NCT03704064|183332397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|163.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|154.0||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
91719738|NCT03704064|183332398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
91719739|NCT03704064|183332399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
91863264|NCT01922050|183614248|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.24||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.67|||Log binomial regression|||||1.67|0.92|0.16
91719740|NCT03704064|183332400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
91719741|NCT03704064|183332401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
91719742|NCT03704064|183332402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
91719743|NCT03704064|183332403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
91719744|NCT03704064|183332404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
91719745|NCT03704064|183332405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
91863265|NCT01922050|183614248|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.17||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.57|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||1.57|0.87|0.30
91719746|NCT03704064|183332406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.80
91719747|NCT03704064|183332406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.94
91719748|NCT03704064|183332407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.07
91719749|NCT03704064|183332407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.96
91719750|NCT03704064|183332408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
91719751|NCT03704064|183332409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
91719752|NCT03704064|183332410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
91719753|NCT03704064|183332411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.9|0.5|0.38
91719754|NCT03704064|183332412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|0.3|0.95
91719755|NCT03704064|183332413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|0.3|0.99
91719756|NCT03704064|183332414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.06
91719757|NCT03704064|183332414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.06
91719758|NCT03704064|183332414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FE||||0.19
91719759|NCT03704064|183332415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.05
91719760|NCT03704064|183332415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.18
91719761|NCT03704064|183332415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FE||||0.046
91719762|NCT03704064|183332416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.07
91719763|NCT03704064|183332416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.11
91719764|NCT03704064|183332416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FE||||0.15
91863266|NCT05693935|183614345|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.89||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-5.89|-13.60|<0.0001
91863267|NCT05693935|183614345|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|-7.53||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-7.53|-15.01|<0.0001
91685968|NCT00384930|183262665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.133
91685969|NCT00384930|183262665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
91685970|NCT00384930|183262665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91685971|NCT00384930|183262665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91685972|NCT00384930|183262666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.735||95.0|-0.69|0.98||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.98|-0.69|0.735
91685973|NCT00384930|183262666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.355||95.0|-0.44|1.23||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||1.23|-0.44|0.355
91685974|NCT00384930|183262666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.433||95.0|-0.5|1.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||1.17|-0.50|0.433
91685975|NCT00384930|183262666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.089||95.0|-0.11|1.59||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||1.59|-0.11|0.089
91685976|NCT00384930|183262667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36|||<|0.001||95.0|1.56|5.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||5.17|1.56|<0.001
91685977|NCT00384930|183262667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.75|||<|0.001||95.0|2.95|6.54||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||6.54|2.95|<0.001
91685978|NCT00384930|183262667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.83|||<|0.001||95.0|4.04|7.62||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||7.62|4.04|<0.001
91685979|NCT00384930|183262667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.15|||<|0.001||95.0|4.35|7.95||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||7.95|4.35|<0.001
91685980|NCT00384930|183262668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.005||95.0|-2.68|-0.48||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-0.48|-2.68|0.005
91685981|NCT00384930|183262668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.69|-1.51||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-1.51|-3.69|<0.001
91685982|NCT00384930|183262668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.99|-1.81||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-1.81|-3.99|<0.001
91685983|NCT00384930|183262668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.94|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.04|-1.84||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-1.84|-4.04|<0.001
91863268|NCT05693935|183614345|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.02||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-6.02|-13.50|<0.0001
91903520|NCT01372150|183701902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 4||||0.187
91685984|NCT02686138|183262702|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91685985|NCT02686138|183262703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91685986|NCT02686138|183262704|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.004
91685987|NCT02686138|183262705|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.16||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
91685988|NCT02686138|183262706|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.01
91685989|NCT02686138|183262707|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.17||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.013
91685990|NCT02686138|183262708|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91685991|NCT02686138|183262709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91685992|NCT02686138|183262710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.17||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.015
91685993|NCT01685840|183262716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22||A sample size of 1100 patients was expected to provide approximately 90% power to detect a difference in the primary endpoint with an assumed type I error rate of 0.05, 2-sided. Analysis was adjusted for age, sex, ejection fraction, NT-proBNP and DM.|Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.79|0.88
91685994|NCT01685840|183262717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.62|0.37
91685995|NCT01685840|183262718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|39.0|||Bang-Tsiatis Partitioned Estimator|||||39|-20|0.53
91685996|NCT01685840|183262719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.65|0.75
91685997|NCT01685840|183262720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.82|0.76
91685998|NCT01685840|183262721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.72|||Anderson-Gill Intensity Model|||||1.72|0.97|0.08
91685999|NCT01685840|183262722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline||||0.636
91686000|NCT01685840|183262722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.628|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||||0.628
91686001|NCT01685840|183262722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||||0.586
91686002|NCT01685840|183262722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||||0.669
91686003|NCT01685840|183262722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||||0.949
91686004|NCT01685840|183262723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.188|2.947||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||2.947|-1.188|0.404
91686005|NCT01685840|183262723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.478||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.881|3.836||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||3.836|-0.881|0.219
91686006|NCT01685840|183262723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.099||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|4.63||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||4.630|-0.433|0.104
91686007|NCT01685840|183262723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.999||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.253|5.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||5.250|-1.253|0.228
91686008|NCT01685840|183262724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.06||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||0.060|-0.025|0.421
91686009|NCT01685840|183262724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.074||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||0.074|-0.018|0.239
91686010|NCT01685840|183262724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||0.070|-0.028|0.402
91686011|NCT01685840|183262724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.076||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||0.076|-0.057|0.780
91686012|NCT01685840|183262725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.131||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.902|1.64||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||1.640|-5.902|0.268
91686013|NCT01685840|183262725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.069||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.921|5.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||5.058|-2.921|0.599
91686014|NCT01685840|183262725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.389||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.486|3.707||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||3.707|-4.486|0.852
91686015|NCT01685840|183262725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.343||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.708|2.022||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||2.022|-8.708|0.221
91686016|NCT01685840|183262726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.816||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.999|2.367||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||2.367|-3.999|0.615
91686017|NCT01685840|183262726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.977|3.482||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||3.482|-2.977|0.878
91686018|NCT01685840|183262726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.406||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.989|2.178||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||2.178|-4.989|0.441
91686019|NCT01685840|183262726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.091||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.673|5.856||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||5.856|-3.673|0.653
91686020|NCT01685840|183262727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.226||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.097|0.645||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||0.645|-3.097|0.199
91686021|NCT01685840|183262727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.742||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.735|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||1.250|-2.735|0.465
91686022|NCT01685840|183262727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.119|1.97||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||1.970|-2.119|0.943
91863269|NCT05693935|183614346|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.31||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-0.31|-0.75|<0.0001
91863270|NCT05693935|183614346|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.39||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-0.39|-0.82|<0.0001
91719765|NCT03704064|183332417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Overall treatment acceptability||||0.04
91719766|NCT03704064|183332417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL component acceptability||||0.35
91719767|NCT03704064|183332417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BIAS vs recipe component acceptability||||<0.001
91719768|NCT03704064|183332417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL skill acquisition||||0.01
91719769|NCT03704064|183332417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill acquisition||||<0.001
91719770|NCT03704064|183332417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill use||||<0.001
91719771|NCT03704064|183332418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Overall treatment acceptability||||0.24
91719772|NCT03704064|183332418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL component acceptability||||0.28
91903521|NCT01372150|183701902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 6||||0.051
91719773|NCT03704064|183332418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BIAS vs recipe component acceptability||||<0.001
91719774|NCT03704064|183332418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL skill acquisition||||0.34
91719775|NCT03704064|183332418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill acquisition||||0.008
91863271|NCT05693935|183614346|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.25||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-0.25|-0.68|<0.0001
91863272|NCT05693935|183614347|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.72||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|7.4||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||7.40|2.05|0.0011
91903522|NCT01372150|183701902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 6||||0.266
91903523|NCT01372150|183701902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 8||||0.095
91903524|NCT01372150|183701902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 8||||0.852
91719776|NCT03704064|183332418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill use||||0.001
91719777|NCT05033041|183332451|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is based on an equivalence hypothesis of -17mL \<difference in differences \< 17mL.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the means using two one-sided t tests (TOST)||||.001
91719778|NCT00833755|183332502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.274|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.274
91719779|NCT00833755|183332503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.552
91719780|NCT00833755|183332504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91719781|NCT00560404|183332523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean Hb within target range during efficacy evaluation period within plus or minus 1 g/dL of their reference Hb and between the target range with a non-inferiority limit of -0.15.|Difference of response rates|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.25|
91719782|NCT04108468|183332561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.03|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline PASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.03|-1.12|0.064
91719783|NCT04108468|183332562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.24|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline BASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||-0.24|-1.48|0.007
91719784|NCT04108468|183332563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.11|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline PASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.11|-1.26|0.096
91793892|NCT02313454|183466526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.4|||Paired t-test||Intranasal application relative to Extranasal application|||-3.4|-19.0|0.004
91686023|NCT01685840|183262727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.478||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.286|4.241||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||4.241|-1.286|0.294
91686024|NCT01685840|183262728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.579||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.527|1.369||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||1.369|-4.527|0.294
91686025|NCT01685840|183262728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.946||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.096|2.203||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||2.203|-4.096|0.555
91686026|NCT01685840|183262728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.798||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.178|2.583||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||2.583|-4.178|0.643
91686027|NCT01685840|183262728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.647||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.767|3.472||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||3.472|-4.767|0.757
91686028|NCT01685840|183262729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.484||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.102|4.133||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||4.133|-5.102|0.837
91686029|NCT01685840|183262729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.693||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.662|2.276||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||2.276|-7.662|0.288
91686030|NCT01685840|183262729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.539||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|3.732||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||3.732|-6.810|0.567
91686031|NCT01685840|183262729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.512||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.394|9.419||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||9.419|-4.394|0.475
91686032|NCT01685840|183262730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.057||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|6.364||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||6.364|-4.250|0.696
91686033|NCT01685840|183262730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.966||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.715|7.647||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||7.647|-3.715|0.497
91686034|NCT01685840|183262730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.564||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|12.673||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||12.673|0.456|0.035
91686035|NCT01685840|183262730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.857||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.247|10.961||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||10.961|-5.247|0.488
91686036|NCT01685840|183262731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.383|3.417||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||3.417|-3.383|0.992
91686037|NCT01685840|183262731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.409|3.969||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||3.969|-3.409|0.882
91686038|NCT01685840|183262731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.904||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.973|4.782||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||4.782|-2.973|0.647
91686039|NCT01685840|183262731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.322||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.894|5.538||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||5.538|-4.894|0.903
91686040|NCT01685840|183262732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hospitalizations||||0.74
91686041|NCT01685840|183262732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ER only events||||0.45
91686042|NCT01685840|183262732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rehab facilities||||0.67
91686043|NCT01685840|183262732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total admissions||||0.47
91686044|NCT01685840|183262733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hospital Costs||||0.88
91686045|NCT01685840|183262733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physician Fees||||0.69
91686046|NCT01685840|183262733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total Cost||||0.88
91686047|NCT00351533|183262780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91686048|NCT00351533|183262781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91686049|NCT00351533|183262782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91686050|NCT00351533|183262783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91686051|NCT00351533|183262784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91686052|NCT00351533|183262785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91686053|NCT00351533|183262786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91686054|NCT00351533|183262787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91686055|NCT00351533|183262788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91686056|NCT00351533|183262789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91686057|NCT00351533|183262790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
91686058|NCT00351533|183262791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91686059|NCT00351533|183262792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
91686060|NCT00351533|183262793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
91686061|NCT00351533|183262794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91686062|NCT00351533|183262795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
91686063|NCT00351533|183262796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
91686064|NCT00351533|183262797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
91686065|NCT00351533|183262798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91686066|NCT00351533|183262799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91686067|NCT00351533|183262800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91686068|NCT00351533|183262801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91793893|NCT00450112|183466527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.1
91793894|NCT00450112|183466528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
91719785|NCT04108468|183332564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.59|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline PASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.59|-0.72|0.844
91686069|NCT00351533|183262802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91686070|NCT00351533|183262803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
91686071|NCT00351533|183262804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91686072|NCT00351533|183262805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91686073|NCT00351533|183262806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91686074|NCT00351533|183262807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91686075|NCT03390426|183262860|SUPERIORITY|"this is a superiority study and the non-inferiority or equivalence analysis is not required"|||||<|0.05||||||Comparisons were made between the two groups using a two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. p-value of \<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons were made using a two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables.||We determined 30 subjects were needed to detect a 50% difference in THN incidence between the two groups using a one-sided Fisher's exact test with alpha = 0.05 and 80% power while allowing up to 20% drop-out. For primary and secondary outcomes, comparisons were made between the two groups using a two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. p-value of \<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.||||<0.05
91686076|NCT03301623|183262888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Test is on interaction term between time (pre/post intervention) and treatment group (CDSvsPEAT) dummy variables in the regression model.|The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in reducing pain interference over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the participant level."||1.52|-2.9|.541
91686077|NCT03301623|183262889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.31|||Regression, Logistic|There were 69 providers with at least one CG-CAHPS response.|The interaction term describes the change in the PEAT group's scores in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in improving how satisfied patients feel over time after communicating with their physician about chronic pain treatment risks and benefits?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the PCP level."||7.31|1.20|.019
91686078|NCT03301623|183262890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in improving physical function over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the participant level."||1.88|-2.73|.719
91686079|NCT03301623|183262891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in reducing opioid prescriptions of more than 90 morphine milligrams equivalent (MME) over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the PCP level."||2.36|1.13|.010
91686080|NCT03301623|183262892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in reducing co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?||1.71|.34|.510
91686081|NCT03301623|183262893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|We employed robust standard errors clustered at the participant level. Time was controlled for using a fixed effect.|The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|PHQ-9 was categorized by assigning scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 to the response categories (not at all: several days, more than half the days, nearly every day, respectively) and then summing. Scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represent cutpoints for mild, moderate, moderately severe and severe depression, respectively. The analysis was conducted as a multilevel ordered logistic regression.||2.34|.76|.260
91686082|NCT00315731|183262920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of AUC(0-120)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.12|||||Ratio of AUC(0-120) is the ratio of AUC(0-120) values following infusion of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab to those following infusion of tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab.|||1.12|0.85|
91686083|NCT00315731|183262921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of AUC(0-168)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.11|||||Ratio of AUC(0-168) is the ratio of AUC(0-168) values following infusion of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab to those following infusion of tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab.|||1.11|0.83|
91686084|NCT00315731|183262922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of AUC(0 to infinity)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.1||||||||1.10|0.78|
91686085|NCT00315731|183262923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of Cmax|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.11||||||||1.11|0.87|
91719786|NCT04108468|183332565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||-0.04|-1.88|0.041
91719787|NCT04108468|183332566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.54|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.54|-1.41|0.375
91719788|NCT04108468|183332567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.58|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.58|-1.46|0.392
91719789|NCT04108468|183332568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.71|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.71|-1.34|0.541
91719790|NCT04108468|183332569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.14|7.43|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||7.43|-12.14|0.633
91719791|NCT04108468|183332570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.95|12.43|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||12.43|-9.95|0.826
91719792|NCT04108468|183332571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|6.25|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||6.25|-1.76|0.268
91863273|NCT05693935|183614347|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.24||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.89||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||5.89|0.59|0.0167
91719793|NCT04108468|183332572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|5.83|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||5.83|-3.42|0.605
91719794|NCT04108468|183332573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.54|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.54|-4.23|0.620
91719795|NCT04108468|183332574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.24|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.24|-5.02|0.449
91719796|NCT04108468|183332575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|5.48|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||5.48|-2.04|0.364
91863274|NCT05693935|183614347|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.01||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|7.66||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||7.66|2.35|0.0007
91903525|NCT01372150|183701903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|1.335|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 1||1.335|0.226|0.186
91903526|NCT01372150|183701903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|2.567|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 1||2.567|0.382|0.984
91719797|NCT04108468|183332576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.61|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||4.61|-3.60|0.806
91719798|NCT04108468|183332577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|4.89|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||4.89|-2.79|0.588
91719799|NCT04108468|183332578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.93|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.93|-2.45|0.372
91719800|NCT04108468|183332579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.55|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||1.55|-2.05|0.781
91719801|NCT04108468|183332580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-0.14|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||-0.14|-4.39|0.037
91719802|NCT04108468|183332581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.03|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.03|-1.93|0.058
91719803|NCT04108468|183332582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.35|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.35|-1.54|0.213
91719804|NCT04108468|183332583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.5|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||1.50|-0.88|0.606
91719805|NCT04108468|183332584|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.01||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.14|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.14|0.48|0.971
91719806|NCT04108468|183332585|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.1||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.46|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.46|0.49|0.817
91719807|NCT04108468|183332586|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.35||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.93|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.93|0.63|0.441
91903527|NCT01372150|183701903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.795||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|1.465|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 2||1.465|0.431|0.462
91903528|NCT01372150|183701903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.726||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.324|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 2||1.324|0.399|0.297
91719808|NCT04108468|183332587|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.29||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.03|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.03|0.55|0.563
91719809|NCT04108468|183332588|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.17||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.26|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.26|0.02|0.083
91719810|NCT04108468|183332589|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.26||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|7.64|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||7.64|0.01|0.432
91719811|NCT04108468|183332590|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.11||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.21|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.21|0.01|0.071
91719812|NCT04108468|183332591|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.84|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.84|0.00|0.037
91863275|NCT00085735|183614403|NON_INFERIORITY|A hazard ratio of 1.6 is used as the non-inferiority margin. For the final analysis of comparing LDCSI vs. SDCSI, a one-sided 80% upper confidence limit of the hazard ratio based on a stratified approach will be estimated (stratified by RT group (IFRT vs. PFRT)). If the upper confidence limit is lower than 1.6, LDCSI would be deemed to be non-inferior. If not, non-inferiority would not be established.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|80.0||1.9||||||The comparison is based on all eligible randomized patients 3-7 years of age without anaplastic histology or excess residual disease or disseminated disease by central review per the protocol document. Using a one-sided log rank test with type I error of 0.20, this study was designed to have power of 0.80 to detect a 10% reduction in cure rate due to the use of LDCSI compared to SDCSI.||1.9||
91719813|NCT04108468|183332592|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.68||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.41|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.41|0.32|0.296
91719814|NCT04108468|183332593|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.51||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.09|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.09|0.23|0.081
91863276|NCT00085735|183614403|NON_INFERIORITY|A hazard ratio of 1.6 is used as the non-inferiority margin. For the final analysis comparing IFRT vs. PFRT, a one-sided 94% upper confidence limit of the hazard ratio based on a stratified approach will be estimated (stratified by age group and RT group (LDCSI vs. SDCSI)). If the upper confidence limit is lower than 1.6, IFRT would be deemed to be non-inferior. If not, non-inferiority would not be established.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|94.0||1.3||||||The comparison is based on all eligible randomized patients 3-21 years of age without anaplastic histology or excess residual disease or disseminated disease by central review as per the protocol document. Using a one-sided log rank test with type I error of 0.20, this study was designed with power of 0.94 to detect a 10% reduction in cure rate and power of 0.65 to detect a 5% reduction in cure rate, due to the use of IFRT compared to PFRT.||1.3||
91863277|NCT01824875|183614423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.07|||||Hazard ratio of Arm B/Arm A|||1.07|0.46|
91863278|NCT01824875|183614424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
91863279|NCT05256017|183614450|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.7||||||||3.7|-7.2|
91863280|NCT05256017|183614451|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.4|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|Occurrence and excess rate (95% CI) of any TEAEs (by PT, for PTs reported in ≥1% of participants in either arm) from the investigational product administration (Day 1) to the Month 4 follow-up visit.||1.4|-4.1|
91719815|NCT04108468|183332594|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.75||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.59|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.59|0.36|0.458
91863281|NCT05256017|183614452|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||1.6|-1.6|
91719816|NCT04108468|183332595|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.12||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.72|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.72|0.46|0.798
91719817|NCT04108468|183332596|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.77|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.77|-1.53|0.512
91863282|NCT05256017|183614453|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.4|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||1.4|-3.2|
91863283|NCT05256017|183614454|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.6|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.6|-2.6|
91863284|NCT05256017|183614455|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.8|-2.2|
91863285|NCT05256017|183614456|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.7|-2.3|
91863286|NCT05256017|183614457|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.3|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||5.3|0.3|
91863287|NCT05256017|183614458|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||1.3|-2.4|
91863288|NCT05256017|183614459|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.3|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.3|-3.5|
91719818|NCT04108468|183332597|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.44|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.44|-1.33|0.320
91863289|NCT05256017|183614460|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.1||||||Occurrence and excess rate (95% CI) of any TEAEs reported during hospitalization.||5.1|-3.7|
91719819|NCT04108468|183332598|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.28|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.28|-1.22|0.220
91686086|NCT04123561|183262941|SUPERIORITY|"The primary efficacy endpoint is defined as the change from Injection 1 Baseline in WOMAC Pain on a normalized scale of 0-4 at Week 12 between the randomized TLC599 12mg and Placebo groups.~The least-squares mean, alongside its corresponding 95% confidence interval, was used to estimate the treatment difference between TLC599 and Placebo, utilizing two-sided p-values."|Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0819||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Parameters estimated via REML using the Newton-Raphson algorithm, and the Kenward-Roger method calculates denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.010|-0.331|0.0372
91686087|NCT02091466|183262954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance for repeated measures (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline values, compared tympanic temperatures between the groups. Statistical significance was established at p \< 0.05, and the statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software version 20.||||<0.05
91686088|NCT00676780|183262955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.027
91686089|NCT00676780|183262956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
91686090|NCT00676780|183262957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is no change, i.e. median change = 0.0||||<0.001
91686091|NCT01613313|183262958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||No p value||This is a proof of concept dose escalation study. No power justification has been implemented. Descriptive data provided for each arm.||||
91686092|NCT01613313|183262959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This is a proof of concept dose escalation study. No power of justification was implemented. Descriptive statistics was provided for each arm only.||||
91686093|NCT00708227|183262960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
91686094|NCT00708227|183262961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
91686095|NCT00708227|183262962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91686096|NCT04007991|183262966|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.351|=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-0.79||Change from baseline in YGTSS score as a continuous variable was based on mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with an unstructured covariance matrix.|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-6.09|=0.011
91686097|NCT03355469|183262987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|6.99||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|Linear ANCOVA model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||6.99|0.08|0.045
91686098|NCT03355469|183262987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.73||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||4.73|-2.42|0.507
91686099|NCT03355469|183262987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.98||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|8.83||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.83|1.14|0.014
91686100|NCT03355469|183262987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|6.42||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||6.42|-1.66|0.237
91686101|NCT03355469|183262987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.7||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||5.70|-2.80|0.486
91686102|NCT03355469|183262987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.83||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|8.19||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.19|-0.53|0.081
91686103|NCT03355469|183262988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0073||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0093|0.024||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0240|-0.0093|0.373
91686104|NCT03355469|183262988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0097||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0055|0.025||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0250|-0.0055|0.198
91686105|NCT03355469|183262988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0041||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0129|0.0211||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0211|-0.0129|0.622
91686106|NCT03355469|183262988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0024||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0136|0.0088||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0088|-0.0136|0.666
91686107|NCT03355469|183262988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0032||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0169|0.0104||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0104|-0.0169|0.634
91686108|NCT03355469|183262988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0056||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0174|0.0062||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0062|-0.0174|0.336
91686109|NCT03355469|183262989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|8.69||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.69|-5.68|0.671
91686110|NCT03355469|183262989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.82||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|2.19||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||2.19|-11.84|0.170
91686111|NCT03355469|183262989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|5.97||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||5.97|-7.29|0.839
91686112|NCT03355469|183262989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|11.8||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||11.80|0.86|0.024
91686113|NCT03355469|183262989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|2.83||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||2.83|-7.16|0.385
91686114|NCT03355469|183262989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|8.86||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.86|-0.53|0.080
91719820|NCT04108468|183332599|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.95|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.95|-0.85|0.912
91863290|NCT05256017|183614460|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.9||||||Occurrence and excess rate (95% CI) of any TEAEs reported after the hospitalization period.||0.9|-8.2|
91863291|NCT05256017|183614461|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.0||||||||0.0|-3.1|
91863292|NCT05256017|183614462|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.7||||||Of note, all AEs reported during this study were TEAEs.||3.7|-7.2|
91719821|NCT04108468|183332600|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.42|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.42|-1.42|0.281
91719822|NCT04108468|183332601|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.47|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.47|-1.44|0.985
91719823|NCT04108468|183332602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.60|0.45|0.869
91719824|NCT04108468|183332603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.13|0.38|0.802
91719825|NCT04108468|183332604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.72|0.48|0.767
91719826|NCT04108468|183332605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.55|0.26|0.315
91719827|NCT04108468|183332606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.27|0.55|0.516
91863293|NCT05256017|183614480|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.4||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||1.4|-2.1|
91863294|NCT05256017|183614481|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.0|21.1||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||21.1|-22.0|
91719828|NCT04108468|183332607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.38|0.39|0.939
91719829|NCT04108468|183332608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.94|0.48|0.701
91863295|NCT05256017|183614482|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|1.3||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||1.3|-3.6|
91863296|NCT05256017|183614483|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|0.4||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||0.4|-1.9|
91863297|NCT05256017|183614484|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|-6.6||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||-6.6|-15.3|
91863298|NCT05256017|183614485|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|-8.7||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||-8.7|-14.4|
91863299|NCT05256017|183614486|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|-8.6||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||-8.6|-14.9|
91863300|NCT05256017|183614487|OTHER||Estimate|-10.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.5|-7.85||||||Estimated ΔΔQTcF (in ms) computed from a concentration-response (C-R) model between dry blood spot concentration of acoziborole and changes from baseline in QTcF parameter||-7.85|-13.5|
91863301|NCT03785964|183614610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.55|||Log Rank|p-value was from a one-sided stratified log-rank test with placebo as reference.||Hazard ratio was estimated from stratified Cox proportional hazards model using the exact method for ties, stratified by tumor location. Placebo was the reference treatment.||0.55|0.15|< 0.001
91863302|NCT03785964|183614611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Two-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association stratified by tumor location. Placebo was reference treatment.||||< 0.001
91903529|NCT01372150|183701903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.688||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 3||1.210|0.391|0.194
91719830|NCT04108468|183332609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.22|0.19|0.124
91719831|NCT04108468|183332610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.63|0.78|0.161
91719832|NCT04108468|183332611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.02|0.70|0.251
91719833|NCT04108468|183332612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.60|0.63|0.363
91863303|NCT03785964|183614612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline Brief Pain Inventory Short Form score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 40 and 31 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
91903530|NCT01372150|183701903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|1.277|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 3||1.277|0.419|0.272
91903531|NCT01372150|183701903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.748||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|1.314|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Flouxetine versus Placebo - Week 4||1.314|0.426|0.313
91719834|NCT04108468|183332613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.46|0.40|0.991
91719835|NCT04108468|183332614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|9.1|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||9.10|1.07|0.037
91719836|NCT04108468|183332615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.4|||Regression, Logistic||The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||6.40|0.98|0.056
91719837|NCT04108468|183332616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.57|0.65|0.277
91719838|NCT04108468|183332617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.92|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.92|0.48|0.548
91719839|NCT04108468|183332618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|10.97|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||10.97|1.25|0.018
91719840|NCT04108468|183332619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.02|0.28|0.926
91719841|NCT04108468|183332620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.94|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||5.94|0.50|0.385
91719842|NCT04108468|183332621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.12|0.32|0.684
91719843|NCT04108468|183332622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.72||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|326.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||326.19|0.86|0.063
91719844|NCT04108468|183332623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.9||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|72.42|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||72.42|1.09|0.041
91719845|NCT04108468|183332624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.71||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|52.14|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||52.14|0.86|0.069
91719846|NCT04108468|183332625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|16.66|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||16.66|0.33|0.397
91719847|NCT04108468|183332626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.83|0.04|0.309
91719848|NCT04108468|183332627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.60|0.17|0.871
91719849|NCT04108468|183332628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||5.52|0.04|0.555
91903532|NCT01372150|183701903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.663||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.171|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 4||1.171|0.376|0.157
91903533|NCT01372150|183701903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|1.05|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Flouxetine versus Placebo - Week 6||1.050|0.319|0.072
91903534|NCT01372150|183701903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|1.149|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 6||1.149|0.356|0.135
91793895|NCT00450112|183466528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
91719850|NCT04108468|183332629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.72|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.72|0.11|0.009
91719851|NCT03260023|183332631|OTHER|Enough participants will be treated to obtain 22 evaluable as a first stage. If at least 3/22 participants are considered responders, the enrolment will be continued, otherwise it will be stopped. For the second stage of the trial, enough participants will be treated to obtain a total of 40 evaluable participants and consider the study positive if at least 8/40 of them are considered responders.||||||||||||||||A Simon's two-stage design will be used. The null hypothesis for response rate H0 is set at 10% corresponding to the response rate observed in second line participants, the alternate hypothesis of efficacy is set at HA=25%, the type I error α is set at 5% one sided, the type II error β is set at 20% (power=80%).|With a hierarchical strategy on the final analysis, a subgroup analysis performed in oropharyngeal SCCHN patients and with a null hypothesis for response rate (H0) set at 10% and the alternative hypothesis of efficacy set at HA = 35%, 18 oropharyngeal SCCHN patients would have been needed to reach a power of 81% and actual alpha at 2.8%. This analysis would have been considered positive with at least 5 responders among the 18 SCCHN patients. The second stage of the Simon's design has not been done following the decision to exclude oropharyngeal SCCHN and to change to a randomized controlled two-arms study (phase II part 2).|||
91719852|NCT03260023|183332632|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is performed using a one-sided log-rank unstratified test to compare Progression-Free Survival of TG4001 in combination with avelumab vs avelumab alone in participants with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) HPV-16 positive advanced malignancies and without liver metastases at baseline. PFS will be evaluated based on RECIST1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.29|||Log Rank|Unstratified with one-sided p-value||Efficacy will be evaluated by comparing the PFS between TG4001 arm versus TG4001 \& avelumab arm with an adaptive approach. With one-sided type I error α at 5%, 76 events are needed to reach a power of 95%, corresponding to around 80 participants enrolled. To stick with initial timelines for final analyses and limiting the loss of statistical power, PFS analysis will be performed based on at least 69 events.||1.29|0.59|0.2810
91719853|NCT03260023|183332634|OTHER|||||||0.832||||||At level 0.05 without adjustments for multiplicity testing, pvalue is calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||In Phase II part 2 cohort A, statistical Test stratified by indication to compare the Overall Response Rate between TG4001+Avelumab versus Avelumab alone.||||0.832
91719854|NCT04220021|183332652|SUPERIORITY|For the sign and binomial test our two outcomes are decreased (success) percentage change in RAN protein levels and increased (failure) percentage change in RAN protein levels.||||||0.0245||||||A priori test for significance is p less than or equal to 0.05|Sign test|One-tailed sign and binomial test||Sign and binomial test with one-tail analysis where the null hypothesis predicts a 50/50 split (p=0.5) for two outcomes.||||0.0245
91719855|NCT04935879|183332675|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.95||||0.6967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.25|||Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = Ratio of rate of VOC for inclacumab group to placebo group.|Adjusted rates are based on estimate from a negative binomial model with the independent variable of treatment group (inclacumab, placebo) and adjusted for baseline hydroxyurea (HU) use (yes, no), number of VOCs in 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||1.25|0.71|0.6967
91719856|NCT04935879|183332676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.22|||Log Rank|||Analysis was stratified by baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||1.22|0.63|0.4298
91719857|NCT04935879|183332678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|10.3||||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in the 12 months prior to study entry (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||22.2|-1.6|0.0912
91719858|NCT04935879|183332679|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.9246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47|||Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = Ratio of rate of VOC for inclacumab group to placebo group.|Adjusted rates are based on estimate from a negative binomial model with the independent variable of treatment group (inclacumab, placebo) and adjusted for baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in the 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of the world).||1.47|0.71|0.9246
91719859|NCT04935879|183332680|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.92|||=|0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.87|||Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = Ratio of rate of VOC for inclacumab group to placebo group.|Adjusted rates are based on estimate from a negative binomial model with the independent variable of treatment group (inclacumab, placebo) and adjusted for baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||1.87|0.46|=0.8263
91719860|NCT03054428|183332682|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|31.87||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (less than \[\<\] 60 kilogram \[kg\] vs greater than or equal to \[≥\] 60 kg).||31.87|12.2|< 0.0001
91719861|NCT03054428|183332682|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|15.5|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|24.31||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg).||24.31|6.7|= 0.0007
91719862|NCT03054428|183332683|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.07|45.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg).||45.39|21.07|< 0.0001
91793896|NCT00450112|183466529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
91863304|NCT03785964|183614613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline DEsmoid Tumor Symptom Scale score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 40 and 32 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
91863305|NCT03785964|183614614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 39 and 28 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
91719863|NCT03054428|183332683|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.94|41.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg).||41.78|17.94|< 0.0001
91719864|NCT03054428|183332684|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|-29.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||-29.04|-55.6|< 0.0001
91719865|NCT03054428|183332684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|-28.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||-28.02|-54.44|< 0.0001
91719866|NCT03054428|183332685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.54|-18.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||-18.38|-39.54|< 0.0001
91719867|NCT03054428|183332685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.45|15.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||15.63|-37.45|< 0.0001
91719868|NCT03054428|183332686|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|39.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|51.84||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||51.84|26.9|< 0.0001
91903535|NCT01372150|183701903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.465||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|0.871|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Flouxetine versus Placebo - Week 8||0.871|0.249|0.017
91903536|NCT01372150|183701903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.751||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|1.357|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 8||1.357|0.415|0.343
91903537|NCT01178333|183701924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.98||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.36|||Regression, Cox|||||4.36|0.90|0.09
91719869|NCT03054428|183332686|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.97|41.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||41.32|16.97|< 0.0001
91719870|NCT03054428|183332687|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|31.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.45|43.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||43.2|20.45|< 0.0001
91793897|NCT00450112|183466529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
91903538|NCT01178333|183701924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.66|||Regression, Cox|||||2.66|0.65|0.45
91903539|NCT01178333|183701926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.76||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|40.87|||Regression, Cox|||||40.87|0.55|0.15
91903540|NCT01178333|183701926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|11.25|||Regression, Cox|||||11.25|0.16|0.78
91903541|NCT01178333|183701927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.38||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.79|||Regression, Cox|||||5.79|0.98|0.06
91863306|NCT03785964|183614615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 38 and 27 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||0.006
91719871|NCT03054428|183332687|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.7|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|32.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||32.28|11.21|= 0.0001
91719872|NCT03880474|183332716|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.52||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.55|||Log Binominal Model|||||2.55|0.90|0.1146
91719873|NCT03880474|183332716|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.52||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.55|||Poisson Model with Robust Variance|||||2.55|0.90|0.1146
91719874|NCT03880474|183332717|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||Log Binomial Model|||The Analysis concerns the Incidence of Influenza-like Illness (ILI)||1.15|0.86|1.0000
91719875|NCT03880474|183332717|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||0.9799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||Poisson Model with Robust Variance|||The Analysis concerns the Incidence of Influenza-like Illness (ILI)||1.15|0.86|0.9799
91719876|NCT03880474|183332719|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-287.1||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-872.75|298.59|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (HI) at Day 28||298.59|-872.75|0.3284
91719877|NCT03880474|183332719|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.39||||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.26|125.47|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (HI) at Week26||125.47|-152.26|0.8468
91719878|NCT03880474|183332719|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-465.7||||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1875.21|943.75|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (MN) at Day 28||943.75|-1875.21|0.5087
91863307|NCT03785964|183614616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 38 and 28 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
91719879|NCT03880474|183332719|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-83.68||||0.7509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-611.67|444.32|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (MN) at Week 26||444.32|-611.67|0.7509
91719880|NCT03880474|183332719|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-81.17||||0.3398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.72|88.39|||ANOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H1N1pdm at Day 28||88.39|-250.72|0.3398
91719881|NCT03880474|183332719|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|26.15||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.95|90.26|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H1N1pdm at Week 26||90.26|-37.95|0.4154
91719882|NCT03880474|183332719|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|22.84||||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.5|150.18|||ANCOVA|||Titers of neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/ Victoria at Day 28||150.18|-104.50|0.7193
91719883|NCT03880474|183332719|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|52.38||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.59|124.35|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/ Victoria at Week 26||124.35|-19.59|0.1496
91719884|NCT03880474|183332719|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.76||||0.9044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-296.57|263.06|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/Yamagata at Day 28||263.06|-296.57|0.9044
91719885|NCT03880474|183332719|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|38.64||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.97|134.24|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/Yamagata at Week 26||134.24|-56.97|0.4198
91719886|NCT03880474|183332720|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.90|0.4159
91719887|NCT03880474|183332721|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.99||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Feeling Hot (AUC)||1.19|0.83|0.9550
91719888|NCT03880474|183332721|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|1.0||||0.8933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Temperature (AUC)||1|1|0.8933
91719889|NCT03880474|183332721|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.87||||0.2156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.09|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Cough (AUC)||1.09|0.7|0.2156
91719890|NCT03880474|183332721|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.88||||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.1|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Sore Throat AUC||1.10|0.71|0.2216
91719891|NCT03880474|183332721|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.87||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Blocked Nose AUC||1.09|0.69|0.2306
91719892|NCT03880474|183332721|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.99||||0.8038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Chest Pain AUC||1.13|0.97|0.8038
91719893|NCT03880474|183332721|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|1.01||||0.9319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Muscle Pain AUC||1.21|0.84|0.9319
91719894|NCT03880474|183332721|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|1.01||||0.8399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Shortness of Breath AUC||1.19|0.86|0.8399
91719895|NCT03880474|183332722|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|743.78||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|443.71|1043.84|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed for Total(NP+M) (SFU/10\^6 PBMC) at Day 28 Nucleoprotein = NP, matrix1 = M1||1043.84|443.71|0
91903542|NCT01178333|183701927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.21|||Regression, Cox|||||4.21|0.87|0.11
91719896|NCT03880474|183332722|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|177.1||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|367.33|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed for Total(NP+M) (SFU/10\^6 PBMC) at Week 26 Nucleoprotein = NP, matrix1 = M1||367.33|-13.14|0.0673
91719897|NCT06070610|183332742|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.59|111.1|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 12.3|||111.10|93.59|
91719898|NCT06070610|183332743|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|109.65|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 11.4|||109.65|93.60|
91719899|NCT06070610|183332744|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.36|117.02|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 21.4|||117.02|87.36|
91719900|NCT06070610|183332745|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.58|114.49|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.5|||114.49|102.58|
91719901|NCT06070610|183332746|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.54|115.49|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.7|||115.49|102.54|
91719902|NCT06070610|183332747|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.27|101.11|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 20.5|||101.11|75.27|
91719903|NCT01499810|183332748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91719904|NCT01499810|183332750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91719905|NCT01499810|183332751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91719906|NCT01499810|183332752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91719907|NCT01499810|183332753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91719908|NCT01499810|183332754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91719909|NCT01499810|183332755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0001
91719910|NCT01499810|183332756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91863308|NCT03785964|183614617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 38 and 28 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
91719911|NCT01499810|183332757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.35
91719912|NCT01499810|183332758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.12
91719913|NCT01499810|183332759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||7e-05||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.00007
91719914|NCT01499810|183332760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9e-05||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.00009
91719915|NCT01499810|183332761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||4e-05||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.00004
91719916|NCT01499810|183332762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0001
91719917|NCT01499810|183332763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0007
91719918|NCT01499810|183332764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.001
91719919|NCT01499810|183332765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0004
91719920|NCT01499810|183332766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0002
91863309|NCT02723591|183614618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.115||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.636|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with DSA/IA occurrence by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant calculated panel reactivity antibody (cPRA) as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard variance components covariance type.||1.636|0.760|0.5777
91719921|NCT01499810|183332767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.57
91719922|NCT01499810|183332768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.54||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.54
91719923|NCT01499810|183332769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.87
91719924|NCT01499810|183332770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.77
91719925|NCT01499810|183332771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.06
91719926|NCT01499810|183332772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.07
91719927|NCT01499810|183332773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.32
91719928|NCT01499810|183332774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.12
91719929|NCT01499810|183332775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.72
91719930|NCT01499810|183332776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.37
91719931|NCT01499810|183332777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.99
91719932|NCT01499810|183332778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.76
91719933|NCT01499810|183332779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.08
91719934|NCT01499810|183332780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.35
91863310|NCT02723591|183614621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6618|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2x3 Exact Test of treatment by strength levels.||||0.6618
91719935|NCT01499810|183332781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.22
91719936|NCT01499810|183332782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.29
91719937|NCT01499810|183332783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.89
91863311|NCT02723591|183614626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.038||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.539|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with IA occurrence by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant cPRA as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard Variance Components covariance type.||1.539|0.700|0.8518
91903543|NCT01178333|183701928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.22|||Regression, Cox|||||5.22|1.50|0.001
91719938|NCT01499810|183332784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.65||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.65
91719939|NCT01499810|183332785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.76
91719940|NCT01499810|183332786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||Repeated measures analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.35
91719941|NCT01499810|183332787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.92
91719942|NCT01499810|183332788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.32
91719943|NCT01499810|183332789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.40
91719944|NCT01499810|183332790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.17
91863312|NCT02723591|183614629|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2-sided Fisher's Exact Test of treatment arm by response.||||1.0000
91863313|NCT02723591|183614630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2-sided Fisher's Exact Test of treatment arm by response.||||0.4750
91863314|NCT02723591|183614631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0939|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2-sided Fisher's Exact Test of treatment arm by response.||||0.0939
91903544|NCT01178333|183701928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.45|||Regression, Cox|||||3.45|1.12|0.02
91903545|NCT01178333|183701931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91903546|NCT01178333|183701932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
91719945|NCT01499810|183332791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.014
91719946|NCT05539131|183332821|SUPERIORITY|The LMM analysis results refer to the F-statistics and associated p-values derived from linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), including fixed effects for time, group, and their interaction.||||||0.862||||||This is p-valu regarding time and group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.862
91719947|NCT05539131|183332822|SUPERIORITY|The LMM analysis results refer to the F-statistics and associated p-values derived from linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), including fixed effects for time, group, and their interaction.||||||0.662||||||This is p-valu regarding time and group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.662
91719948|NCT05539131|183332823|SUPERIORITY|The LMM analysis results refer to the F-statistics and associated p-values derived from linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), including fixed effects for time, group, and their interaction.||||||0.318||||||This is p-valu regarding time and group.|ANOVA|||||||0.318
91719949|NCT05539131|183332824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.273
91719950|NCT05539131|183332825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.639
91719951|NCT05539131|183332826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.452
91686115|NCT03355469|183262990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.005||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.005|-0.069|0.088
91719952|NCT01732692|183332865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint was analyzed by a non-inferiority test using the exact Farrington-Manning method. Non-inferiority of the two treatments was to be concluded if the lower end of the confidence interval of the difference the experimental treatment group (morning-only dose) - control treatment group (split dose) was above a non-inferiority margin of -0.15%.|Treatment Difference|0.0286|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.097||||Exact Farrington - Manning||Treatment Difference is the difference in proportion of participants with successful colon cleansing between treatments -experimental vs. control||||-0.097|<0.001
91719953|NCT02030600|183332874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.8|||Poisson||Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was entirely below 1.0.|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: Number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period"||0.80|0.61|<0.0001
91719954|NCT02030600|183332875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.74|||Poisson||Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was entirely below 1.0.|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: Number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period."||0.74|0.46|<0.0001
91719955|NCT02030600|183332876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3458||||||Superiority was confirmed if the p-value was less than 0.025.|McNemar|||"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure:~Step 3: Proportion of subjects with one or more severe hypoglycaemic episodes in the maintenance period."||||0.3458
91719956|NCT02030600|183332878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of IDeg against IGlar was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%.|Treatment contrast|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.23||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 32 (treatment period 1). Before the primary endpoint was tested, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measurement (MMRM) with treatment, sex, antidiabetic therapy at screening, visit and dosing time as fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates."||0.23|-0.04|
91719957|NCT02030600|183332878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%|Treatment contrast|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.18||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 64 (treatment period 2). The baseline values are week 32 values. Before the primary endpoint was tested, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was performed using a MMRM with treatment, sex, antidiabetic therapy at screening, visit and dosing time as fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates."||0.18|-0.07|
91719958|NCT01107015|183332886|OTHER|Sample size was determined on the basis of the primary outcome, change in glycated hemoglobin. The comparison of UC, which included 56 patients from nine practices, to CPDS, which included 62 patients from seven practices, had 80% power to detect a difference in mean glycated hemoglobin changes of 0.65 SD, corresponding to 1.0% if SD was 1.58%, using a two-sided test with 0.05 type I error after accounting for a within cluster correlation of 0.10.||||||0.027||||||CO (P = 0.027) and CPP (0.40) mean HbA1c levels decreased over 12 months.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare mean changes in primary and secondary outcomes between UC and each active intervention. The primary analysis examined 12-month changes for glycated hemoglobin. Secondary analyses jointly compared 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month changes between groups. Random effects accounted for within-practice clustering and within-patient correlation.||||0.027
91719959|NCT01107015|183332886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare mean changes in primary and secondary outcomes between UC and each active intervention. The primary analysis examined 12-month changes for glycated hemoglobin.||||0.001
91719960|NCT01155323|183332887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be superior to omafilcon A for comfort.||0.23|-0.21|
91719961|NCT01155323|183332888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be non-inferior to omafilcon A for vision.||0.25|-0.19|
91719962|NCT01155323|183332889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.22|||||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be non-inferior to omafilcon A for lens handling.||0.22|-0.22|
91719963|NCT01155323|183332890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = +/-0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be equivalent to omafilcon A for corneal staining.||0.01|-0.03|
91903547|NCT01178333|183701933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91903548|NCT01178333|183701934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
91903549|NCT01178333|183701935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.66
91903550|NCT01178333|183701936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91903551|NCT01178333|183701937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.55|||Regression, Cox|||||4.55|1.35|0.003
91863315|NCT02723591|183614634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.431||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with occurrence of eGFR \< 50 by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant cPRA as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard Variance Components covariance type.||2.240|0.915|0.1160
91719964|NCT01155323|183332891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be non-inferior to omafilcon A for quality perceptions.||0.29|-0.15|
91719965|NCT01155323|183332892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = +/- 0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be equivalent to omafilcon A from limbal hyperemia.||0.06|-0.01|
91719966|NCT01208051|183332896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||p-value is stratified by randomization factors.|Log Rank|The conditional power was 7.8%, reaching the futility boundary of \<15%. Patients on the combination arm were then crossed over to cediranib alone.||||||0.26
91719967|NCT01208051|183332897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.36
91719968|NCT01208051|183332899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.80
91719969|NCT01208051|183332900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91719970|NCT00973973|183332911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of Change from Baseline at Week 4||-0.03|-0.45|0.0262
91719971|NCT00973973|183332911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.46|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.46|-1.06|< 0.0001
91719972|NCT00973973|183332913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-0.04|-0.38|0.0163
91719973|NCT00973973|183332913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.08|-0.48|0.0066
91719974|NCT00973973|183332915|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-0.06|-0.38|0.0089
91863316|NCT02723591|183614635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.212||||0.4995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with occurrence of 5-point eGFR decline by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant cPRA as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard Variance Components covariance type.||2.120|0.693|0.4995
91863317|NCT02723591|183614653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6327|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.6327
91719975|NCT00973973|183332915|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.14|-0.53|0.0011
91719976|NCT00973973|183332917|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change form baseline at week 4||-0.02|-0.52|0.0360
91719977|NCT00973973|183332917|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.11|-0.65|0.0070
91719978|NCT00973973|183332923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.939||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.63|-2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-2.05|-17.63|0.0137
91719979|NCT00973973|183332923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.913||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|-4.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-4.70|-20.19|0.0019
91719980|NCT00973973|183332925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.728||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.61|-0.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-0.81|-11.61|0.0244
91863318|NCT02723591|183614654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9701|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.9701
91863319|NCT02723591|183614655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3127|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.3127
91863320|NCT02723591|183614656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.0830
91863321|NCT02723591|183614657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6022|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.6022
91863322|NCT02723591|183614658|SUPERIORITY|P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||||0.9249|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9249
91863323|NCT02723591|183614659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9136|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.9136
91863324|NCT02723591|183614660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8789|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.8789
91719981|NCT00973973|183332925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.549||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|-1.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-1.30|-11.39|0.0141
91719982|NCT00973973|183332927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.821||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|0.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||0.49|-6.72|0.0893
91719983|NCT00973973|183332927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.938||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||0.32|-7.35|0.0720
91719984|NCT00973973|183332929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of the change from baseline in CPSSS total score||-1.26|-3.26|< 0.0001
91686116|NCT03355469|183262990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.062||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.062|-0.059|0.960
91903552|NCT01178333|183701937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.85|||Regression, Cox|||||2.85|0.96|0.07
91903553|NCT01178333|183701939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91903554|NCT01178333|183701940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.49|||Regression, Cox|||||1.49|0.56|0.72
91686117|NCT03355469|183262990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.006||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.006|-0.109|0.075
91686118|NCT03355469|183262990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.028||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.028|-0.094|0.258
91686119|NCT03355469|183262990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.035||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.035|-0.075|0.443
91686120|NCT03355469|183262990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.02||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.020|-0.126|0.144
91686121|NCT03355469|183262991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.003||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.003|-0.017|0.147
91686122|NCT03355469|183262991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.017||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.017|-0.016|0.943
91686123|NCT03355469|183262991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.003||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.003|-0.027|0.108
91686124|NCT03355469|183262991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.009||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.009|-0.024|0.319
91686125|NCT03355469|183262991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.01||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.010|-0.019|0.496
91719985|NCT00973973|183332929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of dysmenorrhea score||-0.69|-1.41|< 0.0001
91903555|NCT01178333|183701940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.54|0.34
91686126|NCT03355469|183262991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.007||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.007|-0.031|0.187
91686127|NCT03355469|183262992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.035||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.035|-0.495|0.086
91686128|NCT03355469|183262992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.574||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.574|-0.354|0.608
91686129|NCT03355469|183262992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.344||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.779|0.09||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.090|-0.779|0.110
91686130|NCT03355469|183262992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.818|0.137||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.137|-0.818|0.145
91686131|NCT03355469|183262992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.538|0.309||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.309|-0.538|0.565
91719986|NCT00973973|183332929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of non-menstrual pelvic pain score||-0.07|-0.64|0.0139
91719987|NCT00973973|183332929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of dyspareunia score||0.06|-0.63|0.1052
91719988|NCT00973973|183332929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of pelvic tenderness score||-0.10|-0.67|0.0081
91719989|NCT00973973|183332929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of induration score||-0.04|-0.53|0.0240
91793898|NCT00450112|183466530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
91686132|NCT03355469|183262992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.454||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.025|0.116||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.116|-1.025|0.110
91686133|NCT02291510|183262993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|35.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.27|38.74|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of least squares (LS) means and the comparator for the p-values.||38.74|32.27|<0.001
91686134|NCT02291510|183262993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|52.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.77|57.36|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||57.36|47.77|<0.001
91719990|NCT00973973|183332931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Patient Global Impression of Change at week 4||-0.3|-1.2|0.0012
91793899|NCT00450112|183466530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
91793900|NCT00450112|183466531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed..||||<0.0001
91793901|NCT00450112|183466531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
91863325|NCT02723591|183614661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5574|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.5574
91863326|NCT02723591|183614662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.8150
91863327|NCT02723591|183614663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5673|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.5673
91863328|NCT03334630|183614695|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming a Control composite SAE freedom rate of 93.5%, 226 subjects per group yields 80% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of -6.5% between treatment groups at a significance level of 0.025.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0132|0.0779||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test||Estimated risk difference = DiamondTemp composite SAE freedom rate - Control composite SAE freedom rate = 3.24% = 0.0324|Null hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is inferior to the Control arm. Alternative hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is non-inferior to the Control arm.||0.0779|-0.0132|<0.0001
91863329|NCT03334630|183614696|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming a Control primary effectiveness rate of 65%, 229 subjects per group yields 80% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of -12.5% between treatment groups at a significance level of 0.025.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.109||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test||Estimated risk difference = DiamondTemp composite SAE freedom rate - Control composite SAE freedom rate = 3.4% = 0.034|Null hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is inferior to the Control arm. Alternative hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is non-inferior to the Control arm.||0.109|-0.042|<0.0001
91686135|NCT02291510|183262993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.3|35.18|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||35.18|29.30|<0.001
91686136|NCT02291510|183262993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|47.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.38|52.09|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||52.09|43.38|<0.001
91686137|NCT02291510|183262993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|110.1||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.5|120.68|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||120.68|100.50|0.0832
91686138|NCT02291510|183262994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.43|39.77|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||39.77|32.43|<0.001
91686139|NCT02291510|183262994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|53.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.88|58.71|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||58.71|47.88|<0.001
91719991|NCT00973973|183332931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Patient Global Impression of Change at week 8||-0.5|-1.5|0.0002
91719992|NCT00973973|183332933|SUPERIORITY||Difference|19.4||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|34.4|||Pearson chi-squared|||Comparison of response rates at week 4||34.4|4.4|0.0136
91719993|NCT00973973|183332933|SUPERIORITY||Difference|30.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|46.7|||Pearson chi-squared|||Comparison of response rates at week 8||46.7|13.6|0.0007
91719994|NCT02471339|183332939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance. Analyses for primary and secondary outcomes were two-tailed and alpha was set to 0.05. An a priori analysis suggested that, to detect a change of .68 standard deviation on the primary outcome measure between the two groups at .80 power, 41 patients per group would be needed.||||0.05
91903556|NCT01241552|183701947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.7||||0.3182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.5||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||5.5|-8.6|0.3182
91686140|NCT02291510|183262994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|45.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.88|50.13|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||50.13|40.88|<0.001
91686141|NCT02291510|183262994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|66.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.34|74.0|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||74.00|60.34|<0.001
91719995|NCT02471339|183332940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91719996|NCT02471339|183332943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test|||||||.05
91719997|NCT02471339|183332947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.042
91719998|NCT02110693|183333027|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Alcohol Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.75||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.75|.64|
91719999|NCT02110693|183333027|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Alcohol Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.79||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.79|.68|
91793902|NCT00450112|183466533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
91686142|NCT02291510|183262994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|79.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.65|87.86|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||87.86|71.65|0.0004
91686143|NCT00459355|183263027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91720000|NCT02110693|183333028|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cannabis Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.79||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were separately tested against the reference measure.||.79|.63|
91720001|NCT02110693|183333028|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cannabis Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.77||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were separately tested against the reference measure.||.77|.62|
91720002|NCT02110693|183333029|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cocaine and Amphetamine (Stimulant) Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.67||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.67|.47|
91863330|NCT03334630|183614697|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-14.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||-14.6|-21.2|<0.0001
91903557|NCT01241552|183701947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-10.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-4.3||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.3|-15.9|0.0003
91686144|NCT00459355|183263028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MANCOVA|||||||<.0001
91686145|NCT00459355|183263029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||MANCOVA|||||||.002
91793903|NCT00450112|183466533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
91903558|NCT01241552|183701947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-5.9||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-5.9|-17.4|< 0.0001
91686146|NCT01009814|183263031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4656|0.2477|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2477|-0.4656|0.6102
91686147|NCT01009814|183263031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2076||0.5452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4758|0.2225|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2225|-0.4758|0.5452
91686148|NCT01009814|183263031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2055||0.4178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5139|0.1775|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.1775|-0.5139|0.4178
91686149|NCT01009814|183263031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2075||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8375|-0.1395|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||-0.1395|-0.8375|0.0233
91686150|NCT01009814|183263031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2043||0.9314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3613|0.3259|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.3259|-0.3613|0.9314
91686151|NCT01009814|183263031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0592|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2045||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4032|0.2847|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2847|-0.4032|0.7734
91686152|NCT01009814|183263031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2043||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7232|-0.036|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||-0.0360|-0.7232|0.0702
91686153|NCT01009814|183263031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1993||0.8359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3768|0.2937|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2937|-0.3768|0.8359
91686154|NCT01009814|183263031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1988||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6962|-0.0275|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||-0.0275|-0.6962|0.0759
91720003|NCT02110693|183333029|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cocaine and Amphetamine (Stimulant) Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.69||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were separately tested against the reference measure.||.69|.50|
91793904|NCT00450112|183466534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
91686155|NCT01009814|183263031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1993||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6555|0.0149|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.0149|-0.6555|0.1155
91686156|NCT00180661|183263092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91686157|NCT00180661|183263093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91686158|NCT01495702|183263131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the Stribild group was at least 12% worse than the NNRTI+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the Stribild group was less than 12% worse than the NNRTI+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in proportions|5.3||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.0|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was from unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic using StatXact.|||12.0|-0.5|0.066
91686159|NCT04152863|183263135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.9||||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|32.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|To ensure adequate number of participants, strata were combined according to sSAP when one treatment had 0 participants in a particular stratum.||||32.5|-9.5|0.1812
91686160|NCT04152863|183263135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8||||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.2|25.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|To ensure adequate number of participants, strata were combined according to sSAP when one treatment had 0 participants in a particular stratum.||||25.5|-16.2|0.3548
91686161|NCT04152863|183263135|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|28.2||||||||28.2|-14.6|
91686162|NCT04152863|183263136|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.27||||||||2.27|0.50|
91720004|NCT02110693|183333030|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Heroin Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|sensivity|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.77||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.77|.53|
91686163|NCT04152863|183263136|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.29||||||||2.29|0.51|
91686164|NCT04152863|183263136|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.04||||||||2.04|0.50|
91686165|NCT04152863|183263138|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|19.2||||||||19.2|-23.1|
91686166|NCT04152863|183263138|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|19.2||||||||19.2|-23.1|
91686167|NCT04152863|183263138|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.2|21.2||||||||21.2|-21.2|
91686168|NCT04152863|183263139|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.02||||||||3.02|0.70|
91686169|NCT04152863|183263139|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.68||||||||2.68|0.62|
91686170|NCT04152863|183263139|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.22||||||||2.22|0.60|
91686171|NCT04152863|183263141|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.79||||||||3.79|0.71|
91686172|NCT04152863|183263141|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.68||||||||2.68|0.47|
91686173|NCT04152863|183263141|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.02||||||||3.02|0.64|
91686174|NCT00919126|183263144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.||The dose of propofol adjusted to BSA and maintenance duration was expected to be 4.0 mg/m².min in the control group, 2.8 mg/m².min in one xenon group and 3.0 mg/m².min in the other xenon group. With an expected common standard deviation of 2.0 mg/m².min, a type I error of 0.05 (two-sided) and a power of 0.80, the sample size required to show a statistically significant difference between the three groups was estimated to be 48 patients per group, resulting in a total of 144 randomised patients.||||<0.0001
91686175|NCT00919126|183263144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0256|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.328|3.724||Pairwise comparison performed using Tukey's test.|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.|The difference Xenon 70% in Oxygen minus Medical Air in Oxygen was assessed.|||3.724|2.328|<0.0001
91686176|NCT00919126|183263144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2905|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.011||Pairwise comparison performed using Tukey's test.|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.|The difference Xenon 50% in Oxygen minus Medical Air in Oxygen was assessed.|||3.011|1.570|<0.0001
91686177|NCT00919126|183263144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7351||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|1.432||Pairwise comparison was performed using the Tukey's test.|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.|The difference Xenon 70% in Oxygen minus Xenon 50% in Oxygen was assessed|||1.432|0.038|0.0365
91720005|NCT02110693|183333030|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Heroin Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensivity|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.77||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.77|.53|
91863331|NCT03334630|183614698|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-9.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||-9.8|-13.9|<0.0001
91863332|NCT03334630|183614707|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|3.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.||Since the previous secondary endpoint (Total fluoroscopy time) was non-significant, testing stopped and this secondary endpoint was not tested.|Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||3.1|-14.4|
91903559|NCT01241552|183701947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-9.9||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-3.4||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-3415 + SOC|||-3.4|-16.9|0.0013
91686178|NCT01644617|183263157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|-3.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.39|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-2.39|-4.85|<0.001
91903560|NCT01241552|183701947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.4||||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.9||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-6072 + SOC|||3.9|-6.7|0.2997
91686179|NCT01644617|183263157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.98||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.72|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.72|-3.24|0.003
91686180|NCT01644617|183263158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-1.03|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-1.03|-3.14|<0.001
91686181|NCT01644617|183263158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.23||||0.032||95.0|-2.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.11|-2.36|0.032
91686182|NCT01644617|183263159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.39|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.39|-2.34|0.007
91686183|NCT01644617|183263159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.54||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.29|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.29|-1.38|0.198
91686184|NCT01644617|183263160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-4.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-3.09|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-3.09|-6.59|<0.001
91686185|NCT01644617|183263160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-0.95|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.95|-4.35|0.003
91686186|NCT01644617|183263161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.13|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-1.13|-4.12|<0.001
91686187|NCT01644617|183263161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.37||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.22|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.22|-2.96|0.091
91793905|NCT00450112|183466534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
91686188|NCT01644617|183263162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.97||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.64|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.64|-3.30|0.004
91686189|NCT01644617|183263162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.83||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.4|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.40|-2.06|0.181
91686190|NCT01644617|183263163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.62|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.62|-1.92|<0.001
91686191|NCT01644617|183263163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.77||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.11|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.11|-1.43|0.023
91686192|NCT01644617|183263164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.53||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.07|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.07|-1.13|0.082
91686193|NCT01644617|183263164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.13||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.52|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.52|-0.79|0.691
91686194|NCT01644617|183263165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.61||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.09|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.09|-1.14|0.023
91686195|NCT01644617|183263165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.34||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.22|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.22|-0.90|0.235
91686196|NCT01644617|183263168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.68|0.43|<0.001
91686197|NCT01644617|183263168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.52|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.52|0.33|<0.001
91686198|NCT01644617|183263168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.64|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.64|0.41|<0.001
91686199|NCT01644617|183263168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.48|0.30|<0.001
91686200|NCT01644617|183263169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.33|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.33|0.13|<0.001
91686201|NCT01644617|183263169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.25|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.25|0.12|<0.001
91903561|NCT01241552|183701948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-8.3||||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-0.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-0.2|-16.3|0.9775
91903562|NCT01241552|183701948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|4.8||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||11.7|-2.1|0.0861
91686202|NCT01644617|183263169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.42|0.23|<0.001
91686203|NCT01644617|183263169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.33|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.33|0.16|<0.001
91686204|NCT01644617|183263170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|12.4||||||95.0|-3.6|28.9|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||28.9|-3.6|
91686205|NCT01644617|183263170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|26.6|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||26.6|-7.0|
91686206|NCT01644617|183263171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|6.7|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||6.7|-22.6|
91686207|NCT01644617|183263171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-5.4|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||-5.4|-28.5|
91686208|NCT00719615|183263172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Only risk factors significant at the 0.10 level in univariate analysis were included in the multivariate model.|Fisher Exact|||Patient characteristics for each group were assessed using descriptive statistics, including medians, range, frequencies, and proportions. Categorical outcomes were compared between the 3 groups using a Fisher's exact test. A logistic regression modeling procedure was used to compare the odds of a low vitamin D levels between patient groups while adjusting for other risk factors: gender, age, BMI, season, and TNM staging.||||<0.05
91686209|NCT02995408|183263173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.65||p-value was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.65|-2.63|.23
91686210|NCT02995408|183263174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|10.78||.05 is the threshold for significance|t-test, 2 sided|||We examined between group (3RP treatment versus wait-list) differences in pre-post change scores of resiliency.||10.78|.78|0.024
91686211|NCT02995408|183263175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|12.12||p=.05 is the threshold for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.12|3.45|0.001
91686212|NCT03126435|183263195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6647|||||||Log Rank|P-Value is from a stratified log-rank test.||||||0.6647
91686213|NCT03126435|183263196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4345|||||||Log Rank|P-Value is from a stratified log-rank test.||||||0.4345
91686214|NCT03126435|183263197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2632|||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors among non-missing records||||||0.2632
91686215|NCT03126435|183263199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1002|||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors among non-missing records.||||||0.1002
91686216|NCT03126435|183263200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9882|||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors among non-missing records.||||||0.9882
91903563|NCT01241552|183701948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|3.5||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.4||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.4|-3.5|0.1646
91686217|NCT03971474|183263203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|0.92||If either P value from the two tests (standard stratified log-rank and weighted log-rank) was \< 0.0972, the study would be considered to have rejected the null at the one-sided 10% level.|Log Rank|Testing was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test.|Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model including the stratification factors (PD-L1 status and histology) and 80% CIs.|Comparison of OS was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test. The study had 90% power to detect the scenario with overlapping curves up to 3 months and a hazard ratio of 0.5 after 3 months, assuming exponentially distributed survival times, a median OS of 10.5 months in the SOC arm, and uniform accrual over 21-24 months. This analysis reports the standard stratified log-rank test.||0.92|0.51|0.05
91686218|NCT03971474|183263203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||If either p-value from the two tests (standard stratified log-rank and weighted log-rank) was \< 0.0972, the study would be considered to have rejected the null at the one-sided 10% level.|Log Rank|||Comparison of OS was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test. The study had 90% power to detect the scenario with overlapping curves up to 3 months and a hazard ratio of 0.5 after 3 months, assuming exponentially distributed survival times, a median OS of 10.5 months in the SOC arm, and uniform accrual over 21-24 months. This analysis reports the weighted log-rank test.||||0.15
91686219|NCT03971474|183263204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Proportions were compared using a chi-squared test at the one-sided 5% level.|Chi-squared|||||||0.19
91686220|NCT03971474|183263205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Proportions were compared using a chi-squared test at the one-sided 5% level.|Chi-squared|||||||0.38
91686221|NCT03971474|183263208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|1.14|||Log Rank|Testing was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test.|Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model including the stratification factors (PD-L1 status and histology) and 80% CIs.|Comparison of IA-PFS was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test with weights equal to 1-S(t), where S(t) is the pooled survival estimate at time t (G\[rho=0, gamma=1\]). The weighted test weights later events over earlier events and has more power than the standard log-rank test under a delayed separation in the curves. This analysis reports the standard stratified log-rank test.||1.14|0.66|0.25
91686222|NCT03971474|183263208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|Testing was performed using a weighted log-rank test.||Comparison of IA-PFS between the RP and SOC arms was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test with weights equal to 1-S(t), where S(t) is the pooled survival estimate at time t (G\[rho=0, gamma=1\]). The weighted test weights later events over earlier events and has more power than the standard log-rank test under a delayed separation in the curves. This analysis reports the weighted log-rank test.||||0.14
91686223|NCT03971474|183263209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.1||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \< 1% subgroup.||1.10|0.50|0.16
91686224|NCT03971474|183263209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.97||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \>= 1% subgroup.||0.97|0.45|0.08
91686225|NCT03971474|183263209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28|0.65||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the squamous histology subgroup.||0.65|0.28|0.005
91720006|NCT02110693|183333034|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet computer administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard AUDIT-C score was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.66|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Alcohol Score and the AUDIT-C score. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.66|.59|
91720007|NCT02110693|183333034|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard of the AUDIT C score was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.68|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Alcohol Score and the AUDIT-C Score. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.68|.61|
91686226|NCT03971474|183263209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|1.35||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the non-squamous histology subgroup.||1.35|0.67|0.43
91686227|NCT03971474|183263210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|1.22||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \< 1% subgroup.||1.22|0.58|0.28
91686228|NCT03971474|183263210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|0.95||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \>= 1% subgroup.||0.95|0.48|0.07
91793906|NCT00559754|183466541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4915|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4915
91793907|NCT00559754|183466542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4864|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4864
91863333|NCT03334630|183614712|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||1.6|-1.9|0.8528
91863334|NCT04068311|183614723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
91863335|NCT04068311|183614724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||unadjusted|Chi-squared|||||||0.83
91863336|NCT04068311|183614725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91686229|NCT03971474|183263210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|0.8||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the squamous histology subgroup.||0.80|0.38|0.02
91863337|NCT04068311|183614726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91903564|NCT01241552|183701948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|11.7||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|19.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-3415 + SOC|||19.7|3.5|0.0025
91686230|NCT03971474|183263210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.29||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the non-squamous histology subgroup.||1.29|0.69|0.41
91686231|NCT01023035|183263212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|7.2|||Mantel-Haenszel, modified Koch method|||The modified Koch method was used to calculate the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) difference between the SVR rates for the Erythropoietin Use Arm versus the Ribavirin Dose Reduction Arm and corresponding 95% confidence interval with continuity correction.||7.2|-8.6|
91686232|NCT01807065|183263214|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.06
91686233|NCT02664181|183263236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Partial remission rate was compared between both arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in partial remission rate between the two arms, with a p-value of \< 0.05 indicating significance||||0.05
91686234|NCT02664181|183263237|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.13|0.06
91686235|NCT02664181|183263238|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.62|||Log Rank||Data from Kaplan-Meier analyses|||1.62|0.11|0.19
91686236|NCT00699816|183263240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.43|0.01
91686237|NCT00699816|183263241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.06|0.008
91686238|NCT00699816|183263242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.04|0.02
91686239|NCT03668808|183263256|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Time in Range (70-140mg/dl) in the initial 24 hours at destination, whether after Eastward travel or Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance set at 0.05; using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the standard deviation of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91686240|NCT03668808|183263257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Time in Range (70-180mg/dl) in the initial 24 hours at destination, whether after Eastward travel or Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance set at 0.05; using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the standard deviation of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91686241|NCT03668808|183263258|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Mean ± SD CGM glucose (mg/dl) in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91686242|NCT03668808|183263259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in CGM % time \<70 mg/dl in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91793908|NCT00559754|183466543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3613|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3613
91793909|NCT00559754|183466544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6605|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6605
91793910|NCT00559754|183466545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8311|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8311
91863338|NCT03474107|183614831|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.702||||0.00142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.886||Stratification factors were ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis. P-value was based on log-rank test. P-value of overall survival is ≤ the predetermined 1-sided significance level of 0.00679 based on the number of observed deaths.|Stratified Log rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis as the explanatory variables.|||0.886|0.556|0.00142
91720008|NCT02110693|183333036|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet computer administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard Smokeless Tobacco Questionnaire was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.33|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between the TAPS Tool Tobacco Score and the Smokeless Tobacco Questionnare. Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet computer) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.33|.25|
91720009|NCT02110693|183333036|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.32|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Tobacco Score and the score on the Smokeless Tobacco Questionnaire. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.32|.24|
91720010|NCT02110693|183333037|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet computer administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard of the results of the oral fluid test was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.48|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Cannabis Score and the results of the Oral Fluid Test. Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.48|.35|
91720011|NCT02110693|183333037|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.46|||||The estimated value is a point estimate of the Spearman Correlation between the TAPS Tool Cannabis Score and the Oral Fluid Cannabis Screen. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|||.46|.33|
91720012|NCT02054156|183333055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.83|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||The estimate is adjusted for age strata (\>=6 months - 3 years, \>3 - 6 years, \>6 - 12 years, and \>12 - 18 years).|||0.83|0.37|0.0043
91720013|NCT02054156|183333056|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.55|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||The estimate is adjusted for age strata (\>=6 months - 3 years, \>3 - 6 years, \>6 - 12 years, and \>12 - 18 years).|||1.55|0.64|0.9915
91720014|NCT02054156|183333057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with SAE|-2.5||||0.7531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.7|||Fisher Exact||95% confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||8.7|-13.7|0.7531
91863339|NCT03474107|183614832|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.615|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|0.748||Stratification factors were ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis. P-value was based on log-rank test. P value of PFS is ≤ the predetermined 1-sided significance level of 0.02189 based on the number of observed PFS events.|Stratified Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis as the explanatory variables.|||0.748|0.505|<0.00001
91720015|NCT02054156|183333057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with AE|4.4||||0.3593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|12.6|||Fisher Exact||95% confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson.|||12.6|-3.5|0.3593
91720016|NCT02054156|183333058|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.94|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the Azithromycin group was 1267.73 and in the Placebo group was 1193.72.||0.94|0.80|0.0004
91720017|NCT02054156|183333058|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.25||||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.78|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the Azithromycin group was 1267.73 and in the Placebo group was 1193.72.||1.78|0.88|0.2098
91720018|NCT04154956|183333059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.143||||0.8204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|1.512||One-sided significance level was 0.01|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||1.512|0.864|0.8204
91720019|NCT04154956|183333060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|1.109||One-sided significance level was 0.00174.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||1.109|0.644|0.1120
91863340|NCT03474107|183614833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Stratification factors were ECOG PS, Region and Liver Metastasis."|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91863341|NCT03474107|183614834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Stratification factors were ECOG PS, Region and Liver Metastasis.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91863342|NCT01733316|183614993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||Paired t-test testing the null hypothesis that the population average difference during the Cystagon® phase is equal to the population average difference during the RP103 phase.|Paired t-test, two-sided|||||||0.0048
91863343|NCT03621371|183615023|OTHER||F-test|9.88|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91863344|NCT02606422|183615042|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91863345|NCT04625465|183615063|OTHER||Difference in the log odds ratios|0.042||||0.869|||||||Multilevel logistic regression|||"Multilevel logistic regression of daily IPV perpetration on alcohol use (Level 1) nested within participant (Level 2) with interaction between alcohol use and CBT Intervention.~Testing the difference in odds ratio between groups 1 (No Intervention and Attention Control ) and 2 (CBT Texts Intervention) H0: OR1 = OR2"||||.869
91863346|NCT04625465|183615064|OTHER||Difference in the log odds ratios|-0.32||||0.21|||||||Multilevel logistic regression|||"Multilevel logistic regression of daily IPV perpetration on alcohol use (Level 1) nested within participant (Level 2) with interaction between alcohol use and CBT Intervention.~Testing the difference in odds ratio between groups 1 (No Intervention and Attention Control ) and 2 (CBT Texts Intervention) H0: OR1 = OR2"||||.210
91720020|NCT04154956|183333061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.42||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and its 2-sided CI were provided from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified according to the stratification factors.|||1.42|0.55|0.6972
91720021|NCT04154956|183333062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.972||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||0.972|0.546|0.0157
91720022|NCT04154956|183333063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.763||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||0.763|0.388|0.0002
91720023|NCT04154956|183333064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.014||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||1.014|0.533|0.0305
91720024|NCT04810962|183333079|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91720025|NCT04810962|183333080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91720026|NCT04810962|183333082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91720027|NCT04810962|183333083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91720028|NCT04810962|183333084|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91863347|NCT05566639|183615073|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 10%|Relative vaccine efficacy (rVE)|1.7||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|22.2|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards||rVE = 100 \* (1 - HR) % was defined as the percent reduction in the hazard (mRNA-1010 vs active comparator), where HR was the hazard ratio between mRNA-1010 vs the active comparator.|||22.2|-24.1|0.1715
91863348|NCT03952338|183615126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.93|-4.07|0.97
91863349|NCT03952338|183615127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.44|-3.00|0.57
91863350|NCT03952338|183615128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-0.32|0.09
91863351|NCT03952338|183615129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.43|-0.22|0.08
91686243|NCT03668808|183263260|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in CGM % time 70-180 mg/dl in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91686244|NCT03668808|183263261|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in CGM % time \>180 mg/dl in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91686245|NCT03668808|183263262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in CGM - Coefficient of Variation (CV) in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91686246|NCT03668808|183263263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in CGM Fasting Blood Glucose (FBG) at 0600 local time at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the standard deviation of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91720029|NCT04810962|183333085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91720030|NCT04810962|183333086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91720031|NCT04810962|183333087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91720032|NCT04810962|183333088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91720033|NCT04810962|183333089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91720034|NCT04810962|183333090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-1.0|-1.4|<0.001
91720035|NCT04810962|183333091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
91720036|NCT04810962|183333092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
91720037|NCT04810962|183333093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.02|-0.07|<0.001
91720038|NCT04810962|183333094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.05|-0.10|<0.001
91793911|NCT00559754|183466546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2230
91793912|NCT00559754|183466547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8696|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8696
91793913|NCT00559754|183466548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0074
91793914|NCT00559754|183466549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3235|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3235
91793915|NCT00559754|183466550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0693|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0693
91720039|NCT04810962|183333095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.05|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.05|-0.11|<0.001
91720040|NCT04810962|183333096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91720041|NCT01348269|183333098|OTHER|T-test (with MITT, omitting outlier value of one patient in placebo group)|||||=|0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.006
91720042|NCT01348269|183333098|OTHER|Mann-Whitney-Test|||||=|0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.015
91720043|NCT00920816|183333127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.053||||||First-line participants: hazard ratio was stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status (0 versus 1).||1.053|0.559|
91720044|NCT00920816|183333128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.058||||||Second-line participants: hazard ratio was stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment (sunitinib versus cytokine-containing regimen).||1.058|0.506|
91720045|NCT03185208|183333143|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|0.69||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
91720046|NCT03185208|183333144|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|-0.08835||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
91720047|NCT03185208|183333145|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|0.08738||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
91903565|NCT01241552|183701948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.4||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|5.5||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-6072 + SOC|||5.5|-8.3|0.6532
91720048|NCT03185208|183333147|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|0.012||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
91720049|NCT03185208|183333148|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|-351.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
91720050|NCT03185208|183333149|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|58.95||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
91720051|NCT05824026|183333207|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The purpose of the primary analysis was to show non-inferiority to the performance of a historical control (a silver containing gelling fiber) on proportion of wounds healed, 77%, with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is above 57%. An exact confidence interval for the proportion was applied. In the primary analysis missing data was not included. In the post hoc sensitivity analysis missing data was imputed using multiple imputation for 3 wounds where data was assumed to be missing at random, and otherwise imputed as wound not healed.~The supplemental analysis addressed a more conservative analysis than performed for the historical control. Hence, no formal non-inferiority criteria was applied for this analysis."|||
91720052|NCT01129128|183333217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-173.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of TNF alpha levels to account for skewed distribution of values||comparison of peak level of TNF alpha after controlling for baseline level. Based on data from 20 participants in a group, there was a power of 0.9 to detect a difference of 1000 pg/ml with a standard deviation of 700 pg/ml||||0.87
91720053|NCT01129128|183333217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|705.0||||0.82||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of TNF alpha levels to account for skewed distribution of values||comparison of peak level of TNF alpha after controlling for baseline level. Based on data from 20 participants in a group, there was a power of .9 to detect a difference of 1000 pg/ml with a standard deviation of 700 pg/ml||||0.82
91720054|NCT01129128|183333218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15793.0||||0.82||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of IL-6 levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.82
91720055|NCT01129128|183333218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23472.0||||0.68||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of IL-6 levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.68
91720056|NCT01129128|183333219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0||||0.9||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of Interferon gamma levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.90
91720057|NCT01129128|183333219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.76||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of Interferon gamma levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.76
91720058|NCT01129128|183333220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.98||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels||||||0.98
91720059|NCT01129128|183333220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.0||||0.34||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels||||||0.34
91720060|NCT01311661|183333231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.229|0.152|<0.0001
91720061|NCT01311661|183333231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.189|0.111|<0.0001
91720062|NCT01311661|183333231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.19|0.266|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.266|0.190|<0.0001
91720063|NCT01311661|183333231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.170|<0.0001
91793916|NCT00559754|183466552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4254|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4254
91793917|NCT00559754|183466554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91720064|NCT01311661|183333232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.229|0.150|<0.0001
91720065|NCT01311661|183333232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.121|<0.0001
91720066|NCT01311661|183333232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.175|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.253|0.175|<0.0001
91720067|NCT01311661|183333232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.181|<0.0001
91720068|NCT01311661|183333233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.238|0.153|<0.0001
91720069|NCT01311661|183333233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|0.102|<0.0001
91720070|NCT01311661|183333233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.285|0.200|<0.0001
91720071|NCT01311661|183333233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.241|0.156|<0.0001
91793918|NCT00559754|183466555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91863352|NCT03952338|183615130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.46|-0.17|0.09
91863353|NCT03952338|183615131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.30|-1.39|0.95
91863354|NCT03952338|183615132|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.06|0.01
91863355|NCT03952338|183615133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.96|0.09|0.04
91863356|NCT03952338|183615134|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.23|0.27|0.236
91863357|NCT03952338|183615135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.97|0.62|0.220
91863358|NCT03952338|183615136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total vegetables||0.55|-0.37|0.70
91863359|NCT03952338|183615136|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Greens and beans||0.69|-0.84|0.85
91863360|NCT03952338|183615136|SUPERIORITY|Total fruits|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|-0.29|0.29
91863361|NCT03952338|183615136|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole fruits||1.26|-0.06|0.07
91863362|NCT03952338|183615136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole grains||1.05|-1.16|0.92
91863363|NCT03952338|183615136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dairy||0.89|-1.29|0.72
91863364|NCT03952338|183615136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total protein||0.74|-0.12|0.15
91720072|NCT01311661|183333234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.228|0.138|<0.0001
91720073|NCT01311661|183333234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.198|0.108|<0.0001
91720074|NCT01311661|183333234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.267|0.177|<0.0001
91720075|NCT01311661|183333234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.165|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.165|<0.0001
91720076|NCT01311661|183333235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.109|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.203|0.109|<0.0001
91720077|NCT01311661|183333235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.054|<0.0001
91793919|NCT00559754|183466557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91863365|NCT03952338|183615136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Seafood and plant proteins||0.71|-0.78|0.92
91720078|NCT01311661|183333235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.149|0.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.243|0.149|<0.0001
91720079|NCT01311661|183333235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.125|<0.0001
91720080|NCT01311661|183333236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.180|0.091|<0.0001
91720081|NCT01311661|183333236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|0.078|<0.0001
91720082|NCT01311661|183333236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.186|0.098|<0.0001
91720083|NCT01311661|183333236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.103|<0.0001
91720084|NCT01311661|183333237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.206|0.110|<0.0001
91720085|NCT01311661|183333237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.090|<0.0001
91720086|NCT01311661|183333237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.218|0.123|<0.0001
91793920|NCT03595774|183466565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0833||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|One-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.0833
91863366|NCT03952338|183615136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatty acids||0.94|-1.47|0.67
91720087|NCT01311661|183333237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.087|<0.0001
91720088|NCT01311661|183333238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.188|0.102|<0.0001
91720089|NCT01311661|183333238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.085|<0.0001
91720090|NCT01311661|183333238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.198|0.113|<0.0001
91863367|NCT03952338|183615136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sodium||0.84|-1.45|0.61
91720091|NCT01311661|183333238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.098|<0.0001
91793921|NCT03595774|183466566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|One-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.0131
91863368|NCT03952338|183615136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Refined grains||0.04|-2.34|0.06
91863369|NCT03952338|183615136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Saturated fats||1.57|-0.51|0.32
91863370|NCT03952338|183615136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Added sugars||0.92|-0.56|0.63
91793922|NCT03595774|183466567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012728||||||a prior threshold for significant of P\<0.05|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for repeated measured followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.012728
91793923|NCT03595774|183466568|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-08||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.00000002
91793924|NCT03595774|183466569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017215||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.017215
91863371|NCT03952338|183615137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total vegetables||0.50|-0.61|0.85
91863372|NCT03952338|183615137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Greens and beans||0.70|-0.88|0.82
91686247|NCT03668808|183263264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in Liverpool Jet-Lag Questionnaire after 24 and 48 hours at the destination, whether after Eastward travel or after Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. The criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins.||||<0.01
91686248|NCT03668808|183263265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The tests were performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in Sleep quantity measured by ActiGraph in 24 hours at the destination, whether after Eastward or after Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. The criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins.||||<0.05
91686249|NCT03668808|183263266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The tests were performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Sleep efficiency measured by ActiGraph in 24 hours at the destination, whether after Eastward or after Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. The criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins.||||<0.05
91686250|NCT01252277|183263371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91686251|NCT01252277|183263372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91686252|NCT01252277|183263373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91686253|NCT01252277|183263374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91686254|NCT00345631|183263452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|-12.31||Multiplicity is addressed for the two co-primary effectiveness endpoints via a closed testing procedure where the time to hemostasis will be assessed first and then time to ambulation only if significance is first achieved for time to hemostasis.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The mean time to hemostasis for the manual compression (MC) arm is less or equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.~The trial is powered to detect a 5 minute reduction in mean time to hemostasis and a 2 hour reduction in mean time to ambulation for VCD vs. MC with over 90% power and a 5% two-sided (2.5% one-sided) Type I error"||-12.31|-19.04|<0.0001
91686255|NCT00345631|183263453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-1.87||Multiplicity is addressed for the two co-primary effectiveness endpoints via a closed testing procedure where the time to hemostasis will be assessed first and then time to ambulation only if significance is first achieved for time to hemostasis.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis:The mean time to ambulation for the manual compression (MC) arm is less or equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.~The trial is powered to detect a 5 minute reduction in mean time to hemostasis and a 2 hour reduction in mean time to ambulation for VCD vs. MC with over 90% power and a 5% two-sided (2.5% one-sided) Type I error"||-1.87|-5.53|0.0028
91686256|NCT00345631|183263454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is adequate to rule out a 4% or larger disadvantage for VCD vs. MC (null hypothesis: 2.5% MC vs. 6.5% VCD) in the incidence of major complications for VCD vs. MC using a 95% upper confidence bound for the VCD - MC difference with 80% power and a 5% one-sided Type I error|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.14||P-value was calculated using unconditional exact test of non-inferiority for difference of two binomial proportions (VCD vs. MC) with a margin of 4%.|unconditional exact test|||Based on pre-planned hypotheses, a minimum sample size of 390 randomized patients (260 VCD patients and 130 MC patients) would demonstrate non-inferiority for the primary safety endpoint and superiority for both co-primary effectiveness endpoints in comparing VCD vs. MC.||1.14||0.0006
91686257|NCT00345631|183263455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The mean time to eligibility for hospital discharge for the manual compression (MC) arm is equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.||0.45|-7.84|0.1540
91686258|NCT00345631|183263456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.3612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|2.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The mean time to hospital discharge for the manual compression (MC) arm is equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.||2.31|-7.46|0.3612
91686259|NCT00345631|183263459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.7||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The percentages of patients achieving procedure success between the vascular closure device and manual compression arms are equal.||7.4|-4.8|0.85
91686260|NCT00517556|183263461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91686261|NCT01906515|183263468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91686262|NCT01906515|183263469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91686263|NCT02969382|183263654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.0|-11.9|0.001
91686264|NCT02969382|183263655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
91686265|NCT02969382|183263656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-3.1|0.019
91686266|NCT02969382|183263657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-2.6|0.008
91686267|NCT02969382|183263658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.0|-6.6|<0.001
91686268|NCT02969382|183263659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-6.8|<0.001
91686269|NCT02969382|183263660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-3.2|0.020
91686270|NCT02969382|183263661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.645||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.422|4.921|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.921|1.422|0.002
91686271|NCT02969382|183263663|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.498
91686272|NCT02969382|183263664|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91686273|NCT02969382|183263665|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.498
91686274|NCT02839772|183263869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.581|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|2.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=5.341, df=89.347||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function (SBF) in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the top of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.164|0.997|<0.001
91686275|NCT02839772|183263870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.684|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|2.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=4.871, df=189.789||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the mid-point of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.367|1.002|<0.001
91686276|NCT02839772|183263871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.731|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=5.111, df=189.620||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the base of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.731|1.210|<0.001
91686277|NCT02839772|183263872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|2.846|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=3.154, df=189.580||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the top of the feet by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.846|0.656|0.002
91686278|NCT02839772|183263873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.042|-1.1078|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-4.236,df=165.310||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the top of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-1.1078|-3.042|<0.001
91686279|NCT02839772|183263874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.581|-0.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-3.549, df=180.923||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the mid-point of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-0.736|-2.581|<0.001
91686280|NCT02839772|183263875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.574|-0.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-3.471, df=186.308||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the base of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-0.708|-2.574|0.001
91686281|NCT02839772|183263876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.572|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.168|-0.911|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-3.565, df=186.739||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the base of the top of the feet by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-0.911|-3.168|<0.001
91686282|NCT02839772|183263877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.952||A cumulative logistic link function was used|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald Chi squared=3.138, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of the stage of podoconiosis by group being more severe at the 4th visit."||0.952|-0.048|0.076
91720092|NCT01311661|183333239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.187|0.084|<0.0001
91863373|NCT03952338|183615137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total fruits||0.93|-0.43|0.48
91863374|NCT03952338|183615137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole fruits||1.46|-0.04|0.06
91863375|NCT03952338|183615137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole grains||1.84|-0.63|0.34
91863376|NCT03952338|183615137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dairy||2.62|0.31|0.01
91686283|NCT02839772|183263878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.224||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.917||A Bernouilli distribution with a logistic link function was used.|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald chi-square=0.410, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of mossy changes being present in the lower legs/feet by group at the 4th visit."||0.917|-0.469|0.527
91720093|NCT01311661|183333239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.073|<0.0001
91720094|NCT01311661|183333239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.093|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.195|0.093|<0.0001
91686284|NCT02839772|183263879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|-0.411||A Bernouilli distribution with a logistic link function was used|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald chi-square=8.304, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of participants having a bad odour emanating from their lower legs/feet by group at the 4th visit. Bad odour results in a decease in quality of life."||-0.411|-2.161|0.031
91686285|NCT02839772|183263880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.741||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.514||A Poisson distribution with a logarithmic link function was used|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald chi-square=7.745, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of wounds being present on the lower legs/feet of participants by group at the 4th visit."||3.514|0.610|0.005
91686286|NCT02839772|183263881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group ratio estimate|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.058|TWO_SIDED|0.058|-0.069|4.25||A Poisson distribution with a logarithmic link function was used.|Generalized estimation equation|df=1|Those in the experimental group were expected to have fewer work days lost due to ADL.|"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds by group of having had fewer work days lost in the previous month at the 4th visit due to ADL."||4.250|-0.069|0.058
91686287|NCT02839772|183263882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was \< 0.001 at all time points.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|The correlation at the 1st visit was 0.252, at the 2nd 0.306, at the 3rd 0.291 and at the 4th 0.265.||The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.||||<0.001
91686288|NCT02839772|183263883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|df=185.386||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~A reduction in leg circumference indicates an improvement in the disease."||0.690|-0.113|0.158
91686289|NCT02839772|183263884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.895|||Mixed Models Analysis|df=169.916, t=3.550||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~A reduction in foot circumference indicates an improvement in the disease."||0.895|0.255|<0.001
91686290|NCT02839772|183263885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|1.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-0.117, df=178.814||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Podoconiosis has a large effect on a person's quality of life. abnormal looking legs/feet, wounds and the related bad odour plus social isolation result in stigma and social isolation.."||1.002|-1.129|0.907
91686291|NCT01569295|183263886|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.45|||Stratified log-rank test||Hazard Ratio is estimated using Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|||0.45|0.27|< 0.0001
91686292|NCT01569295|183263887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|4.62||Odds ratio,p-value and 95% Confidence Interval(CI) were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) Chi-square test stratified by stratification factor in EDC(del17p/TP53,immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region(IgHV) mutation and disease status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.62|1.98|<0.0001
91720095|NCT01311661|183333239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.075|<0.0001
91863377|NCT03952338|183615137|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total protein||0.69|-0.27|0.39
91720096|NCT01311661|183333240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.165|0.055|0.0001
91686293|NCT01569295|183263888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|79.02||Odds ratio, p-value and 95% CI were calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors in EDC (del17p/TP53, IgHV mutation and disease status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||79.02|10.50|<0.0001
91863378|NCT03952338|183615137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Seafood and plant proteins||0.70|-0.90|0.81
91686294|NCT01569295|183263889|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.03|||Stratified log-rank test|||||1.03|0.59|0.098
91686295|NCT01569295|183263890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.55||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|76.81||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors in EDC (del17p/TP53, IgHV mutation and disease status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||76.81|1.19|0.011
91686296|NCT01895777|183263896|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 20%|Difference in Rates|-0.038|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.141|0.066||p-value for non-inferiority is actually \<0.0001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in rates (SOC - DE)|The primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint used the randomised set, following the intention-to-treat principle, based on adjudication-confirmed data. Age group was used as stratification factor using a Mantel-Haenszel type weighted average of differences.||0.066|-0.141|= 0.0001
91686297|NCT01895777|183263897|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.032|0.032|||Kaplan-Meier estimate||Kaplan-Meier estimate of rate difference.|Time-to event endpoint using Kaplan-Meier estimates based on adjudication-confirmed data. Due to the low event rate of major bleeding, age group stratification was not considered.||0.032|-0.032|
91686298|NCT01895777|183263903|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.736|1.78||||||Any bleeding events was analysed as time-to-event endpoint using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a covariate in the model and age group as the stratification factor. A pooling of age groups was performed as no events were observed in certain age group.||1.780|0.736|
91686299|NCT01895777|183263904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|69990000.0||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|999999999.0|||Cox proportional hazard model||Upper Limit of the 90% confidence interval was not assessable|All-cause mortality was analyzed as time-to-event endpoint using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a covariate in the model.||999999999|0.000|0.9976
91686300|NCT02064296|183263913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Salience co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain.||||0.3330
91686301|NCT02064296|183263913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis covers the sensorimotor co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain for Healthy controls||||0.6474
91686302|NCT02064296|183263913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Salience co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain||||<0.0001
91686303|NCT02064296|183263913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis covers the sensorimotor co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain for Fibromyalgia patients||||0.0004
91686304|NCT02064296|183263914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Mock Laser Acupuncture pre-and post 4 weeks of treatment.||||0.0653
91686305|NCT02064296|183263914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a P value for the change in Traditional Acupuncture, pre and post 4 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91686306|NCT02064296|183263915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glx statistical comparison||||0.7399
91686307|NCT02064296|183263915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glx statistical comparison||||0.6226
91686308|NCT02064296|183263916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GABA statistical comparison||||0.6344
91686309|NCT02064296|183263916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7985|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GABA statistical comparison||||0.7985
91686310|NCT01406444|183263946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Linear random effects model|||||||0.03
91686311|NCT01406444|183263947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Linear random effects model|||||||0.002
91686312|NCT01406444|183263947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Linear random effects model|||||||0.04
91686313|NCT02800642|183263969|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact one-sided 1-sample binomial test|||"The null hypothesis the proportion of participants with a ≥ 15-letter gain in BCVA at Week 76 is ≤ 40% on the 2.5% level of significance (one-sided) was performed using the following criterion: If the p value is less than 2.5%, the null hypothesis will be rejected. Otherwise, the null hypothesis will be regarded as not rejected and may still be true"||||<0.0001
91686314|NCT02800642|183263970|OTHER||||||=|0.8822|||||||Exact one-sided 1-sample binomial test|||"The null hypothesis the proportion of participants with a mean treatment interval of ≥ 8 weeks is ≤ 50% on the 2.5% level of significance (one-sided) was performed using the following criterion: If the p value is less than 2.5%, the null hypothesis will be rejected. Otherwise, the null hypothesis will be regarded as not rejected and may still be true"||||=0.8822
91686315|NCT02027428|183263978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.19||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||1.19|0.61|0.3486
91720097|NCT01311661|183333240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.001||95.0|0.037|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.147|0.037|0.0010
91720098|NCT01311661|183333240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.063|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.172|0.063|<0.0001
91863379|NCT03952338|183615137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatty acids||-0.04|-2.57|0.04
91863380|NCT03952338|183615137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sodium||0.48|-1.86|0.25
91863381|NCT03952338|183615137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Refined grains||1.40|-1.25|0.91
91863382|NCT03952338|183615137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Saturated fats||1.13|-0.98|0.89
91686316|NCT02027428|183263979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.98||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||0.98|0.47|0.0365
91686317|NCT02027428|183263980|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate ratio|1.2||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.519||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at the end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||response ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. The rate ratio and its 95% CI were based on the non-stratified analysis.||1.519|0.948|0.0870
91686318|NCT02027428|183263981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||1.22|0.62|0.4164
91686319|NCT02027428|183263982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.98||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||0.98|0.47|0.0381
91686320|NCT02027428|183263983|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate ratio|3.15||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|13.574||5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|||13.574|0.733|0.0978
91686321|NCT02027428|183263984|SUPERIORITY||disease control rate ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.007|||||Disease control rate ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|The rate ratio and its 95% confidence interval are based on non-stratified analysis.||1.007|0.978|
91686322|NCT02027428|183263986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.47|||||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at the end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||1.47|0.59|
91686323|NCT01307748|183263997|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate.|ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA with time (stress, post-stress) as a within factor and aroma (lavender, coconut, water) as a between-group factor was used.||The null hypothesis stated that there were no differences between the groups in cortisol level trajectory over time.||||.005
91686324|NCT01307748|183263999|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate|ANCOVA|A 3 (lavender, coconut, water) by 2 ( prime, no prime) Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with years of education as a covariate was used.||||||.01
91686325|NCT02374346|183264001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sevoflurane administration in developing postoperative headache||5.13|2.04|0.001
91686326|NCT02374346|183264001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Smoking as a factor for developing postoperative headache||2.84|1.19|0.006
91720099|NCT01311661|183333240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.057|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.057|<0.0001
91720100|NCT01311661|183333241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.5|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.757|0.500|<0.0001
91863383|NCT03952338|183615137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Added sugars||0.97|-0.55|0.59
91863384|NCT03952338|183615138|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.67||Marginal food insecurity|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||||0.67|0.03|0.01
91863385|NCT03952338|183615138|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Moderate food insecurity||1.82|0.17|0.34
91863386|NCT03952338|183615138|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Severe food insecurity||0.76|0.03|0.02
91863387|NCT03952338|183615139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Marginal food insecurity||1.29|0.06|0.10
91720101|NCT01311661|183333241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.473|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.730|0.473|<0.0001
91720102|NCT01311661|183333241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.503|0.758|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.758|0.503|<0.0001
91720103|NCT01311661|183333241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.558|0.813|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.813|0.558|<0.0001
91720104|NCT01311661|183333242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.532|0.799|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.799|0.532|<0.0001
91863388|NCT03952338|183615139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Moderate food insecurity||2.21|0.21|0.52
91863389|NCT03952338|183615139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.11||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Severe food insecurity||0.56|0.02|0.01
91903566|NCT01241552|183701949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|1.7||||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.7|-6.9|0.6505
91686327|NCT02374346|183264001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Intraoperative hypotension associated with postoperative headache in total sample||3.66|1.22|0.008
91686328|NCT02374346|183264001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Female gender as a factor for developing postoperative headache||3.15|1.08|0.024
91686329|NCT02374346|183264001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|13.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of female gender and postoperative headache||13.17|1.58|0.005
91686330|NCT02374346|183264001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|9.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of intraoperative hypotension and postoperative headache||9.72|1.48|0.006
91686331|NCT02374346|183264001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|14.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of caffeine consumption and postoperative headache||14.06|1.06|0.041
91686332|NCT02374346|183264001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test.Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|9.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of sevoflurane administration and postoperative headache||9.95|1.82|0.001
91686333|NCT00396565|183264003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.0001||95.0|-17.16|-8.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline score as a covariate||||-8.25|-17.16|<0.0001
91686334|NCT00396565|183264004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.17|-2.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and with baseline score as a covariate.||||-2.51|-5.17|<0.0001
91686335|NCT00396565|183264005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.71|-1.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and with baseline score as a covariate||||-1.33|-3.71|<0.0001
91863390|NCT03952338|183615140|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.94||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|12.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Medium malnutrition risk||12.66|0.68|0.15
91863391|NCT03952338|183615140|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||High malnutrition risk||7.13|0.20|0.86
91863392|NCT03952338|183615141|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Medium malnutrition risk||5.38|0.31|0.74
91863393|NCT03952338|183615141|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.48||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|41.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||High malnutrition risk||41.3|0.73|0.10
91720105|NCT01311661|183333242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.431|0.698|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.698|0.431|<0.0001
91720106|NCT01311661|183333242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.569|0.835|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.835|0.569|<0.0001
91720107|NCT01311661|183333242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.467|0.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.732|0.467|<0.0001
91720108|NCT01311661|183333243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.516|0.765|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.765|0.516|<0.0001
91720109|NCT01311661|183333243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.453|0.701|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.701|0.453|<0.0001
91720110|NCT01311661|183333243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.544|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.790|0.544|<0.0001
91720111|NCT01311661|183333243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.519|0.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.766|0.519|<0.0001
91720112|NCT01311661|183333244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.436|0.746|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.746|0.436|<0.0001
91720113|NCT01311661|183333244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.366|0.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.677|0.366|<0.0001
91863394|NCT03952338|183615142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-0.65|0.64
91720114|NCT01311661|183333244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.439|0.749|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.749|0.439|<0.0001
91720115|NCT01311661|183333244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.468|0.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.777|0.468|<0.0001
91720116|NCT01311661|183333245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.396|0.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.662|0.396|<0.0001
91720117|NCT01311661|183333245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.277|0.543|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.543|0.277|<0.0001
91720118|NCT01311661|183333245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.603|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.471|0.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.736|0.471|<0.0001
91720119|NCT01311661|183333245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.349|0.613|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.613|0.349|<0.0001
91720120|NCT01311661|183333246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.0001||95.0|26.709|39.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||39.206|26.709|<0.0001
91720121|NCT01311661|183333246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.167|<|0.0001||95.0|26.409|38.855|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.855|26.409|<0.0001
91720122|NCT01311661|183333246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.161|<|0.0001||95.0|25.448|37.872|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||37.872|25.448|<0.0001
91863395|NCT03952338|183615143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-0.57|0.90
91863396|NCT03952338|183615144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.05|5.92||Males|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.92|-14.05|0.43
91863397|NCT03952338|183615144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|4.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Females||4.66|-3.75|0.83
91863398|NCT03952338|183615145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|3.57||Age 18-59 years|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.57|-5.65|0.66
91863399|NCT03952338|183615145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|10.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Age 60+ years||10.93|-4.36|0.40
91686336|NCT00396565|183264006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.0001||95.0|-8.58|-3.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and with baseline score as a covariate||||-3.80|-8.58|<0.0001
91686337|NCT00396565|183264007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0007
91686338|NCT00396565|183264008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.84|-0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and baseline score as a covariate||||-0.34|-0.84|<0.0001
91686339|NCT02211417|183264025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.057
91686340|NCT01198132|183264035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.8||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Poisson log-linear model|||||1.32|0.48|0.3797
91686341|NCT01277211|183264045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Pearl Indices|0.61||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.29|||Poisson distribution method|Differences between treatment groups was explored using an exact 95% CI for the ratio of the two Pearl Indices based on the Poisson distribution.||Differences between the two treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) were explored using an exact 95% CI for the Ratio of the two Pearl Indices based on the Poisson distribution.||2.29|0.19|0.531
91686342|NCT01277211|183264046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 1|-3.0||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 1, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||3.1|-9.9|0.346
91686343|NCT01277211|183264046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 2|-6.2||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 2, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.6|-12.7|0.029
91686344|NCT01277211|183264046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 3|-5.8||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 3, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.9|-11.8|0.019
91686345|NCT01277211|183264046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 4|-8.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 4, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-2.9|-14.0|0.001
91686346|NCT01277211|183264046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 5|-1.3||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 5, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||2.6|-6.4|0.556
91686347|NCT01277211|183264046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 6|-3.9||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 6, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.5|-9.5|0.089
91686348|NCT01277211|183264046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 7|-3.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 7, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.8|-9.4|0.110
91686349|NCT01277211|183264046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 8|-4.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 8, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.0|-9.8|0.049
91686350|NCT01277211|183264046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 9|-1.1||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 9, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||2.9|-6.2|0.621
91686351|NCT01277211|183264046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 10|-4.4||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 10, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.2|-10.0|0.041
91686352|NCT01277211|183264046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 11|-3.8||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 11, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.1|-8.9|0.046
91686353|NCT01277211|183264046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 12|-4.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 12, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.2|-9.9|0.037
91686354|NCT01277211|183264046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 13|-4.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 13, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.0|-10.4|0.048
91686355|NCT01277211|183264047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 1|-6.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 1, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-1.1|-12.0|0.015
91863400|NCT03952338|183615146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.25||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|21.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Males||21.63|-9.13|0.43
91863401|NCT03952338|183615146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Females||5.41|-3.23|0.62
91863402|NCT03952338|183615147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|4.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||18-59 years||4.66|-4.76|0.99
91863403|NCT03952338|183615147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60+ years||12.80|-5.48|0.43
91903567|NCT01241552|183701949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-10.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-3.8||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-3.8|-17.7|0.0013
91686356|NCT01277211|183264047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 2|-4.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 2, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-1.0|-10.1|0.012
91686357|NCT01277211|183264047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 3|-6.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 3, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-2.2|-12.0|0.002
91686358|NCT01277211|183264047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 4|-3.6||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 4, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.1|-8.5|0.044
91686359|NCT01277211|183264047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 5|-1.0||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 5, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||2.5|-5.7|0.609
91686360|NCT01277211|183264047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 6|-3.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 6, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.2|-9.3|0.062
91686361|NCT01277211|183264047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 7|-4.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 7, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.6|-9.0|0.019
91686362|NCT01277211|183264047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 8|-1.9||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 8, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||1.6|-6.7|0.308
91686363|NCT01277211|183264047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 9|-4.2||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-0.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 9, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.4|-9.3|0.027
91686364|NCT01277211|183264047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 10|-2.9||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 10, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.5|-7.6|0.098
91686365|NCT01277211|183264047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 11|-4.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 11, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-1.0|-9.4|0.009
91686366|NCT01277211|183264047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 12|-6.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 12, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-2.1|-11.7|0.002
91686367|NCT01277211|183264047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 13|-4.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 13, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.1|-10.2|0.043
91686368|NCT02924727|183264063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9012||||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7778|1.0441|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||Primary Composite||1.0441|0.7778|0.1659
91686369|NCT02924727|183264063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7104|1.0754|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||CV Death||1.0754|0.7104|0.2031
91686370|NCT02924727|183264063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8653||||0.1679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7044|1.0629|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||First HF Hospitalization||1.0629|0.7044|0.1679
91686371|NCT02924727|183264063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6831||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4546|1.0266|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||First Outpatient HF||1.0266|0.4546|0.0667
91686372|NCT02924727|183264064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9133||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7824|1.0662|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||CV death or HF hospitalization||1.0662|0.7824|0.2507
91686373|NCT02924727|183264065|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8422||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6979|1.0163|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||HF hospitalization or Outpatient HF||1.0163|0.6979|0.0732
91686374|NCT02924727|183264066|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9007||||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7734|1.0489|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||CV death, Non-fatal spontaneous MI or Non-fatal stroke||1.0489|0.7734|0.1785
91686375|NCT02924727|183264067|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8361||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7018|0.9961|||Negative Binomial regression model|||Total Number of Confirmed Composite Endpoints||0.9961|0.7018|0.0452
91686376|NCT02924727|183264068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8751||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7279|1.052|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||All-Cause Death||1.0520|0.7279|0.1556
91686377|NCT04614246|183264070|OTHER||LS-Mean|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.13|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.14|-2.13|
91686378|NCT04614246|183264070|OTHER||LS-Mean|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.66|-1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.61|-2.66|
91686379|NCT04614246|183264070|OTHER||LS-Mean|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.43|-2.48|
91686380|NCT04614246|183264070|OTHER||LS-Mean|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.44|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.45|-2.44|
91720123|NCT01311661|183333246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.161|<|0.0001||95.0|22.683|35.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||35.107|22.683|<0.0001
91686381|NCT04614246|183264071|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures|Difference of least square-mean|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.35||||||Difference of least square-mean (95% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||1.35|-0.77|
91686382|NCT04614246|183264071|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.91||||||Difference of least square-mean (95% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.91|-1.27|
91686383|NCT04614246|183264071|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.17|1.02||||||Difference of least square-mean (95% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||1.02|-1.17|
91686384|NCT04614246|183264071|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|0.98||||||Difference of least square-mean (80% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.98|-0.4|
91686385|NCT04614246|183264071|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.89|0.53||||||Difference of least square-mean (80% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.53|-0.89|
91686386|NCT04614246|183264071|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.79|0.64||||||Difference of least square-mean (80% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.64|-0.79|
91686387|NCT02521376|183264080|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|43.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.59|77.62||||||||77.62|24.59|
91686388|NCT02521376|183264080|OTHER||GMR|233.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.85|384.79||||||||384.79|141.85|
91686389|NCT02521376|183264080|OTHER||GMR|219.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.74|343.84||||||||343.84|139.74|
91686390|NCT02521376|183264080|OTHER||GMR|108.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.2|152.48||||||||152.48|77.20|
91686391|NCT02521376|183264081|OTHER||GMR|55.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.7|89.42||||||||89.42|34.70|
91720124|NCT01311661|183333247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.046|<|0.0001||95.0|22.884|34.856|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||34.856|22.884|<0.0001
91720125|NCT01311661|183333247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.034|<|0.0001||95.0|26.094|38.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.018|26.094|<0.0001
91720126|NCT01311661|183333247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.028|<|0.0001||95.0|25.864|37.767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||37.767|25.864|<0.0001
91793925|NCT03519386|183466597|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.13||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||-0.13|-1.45|
91863404|NCT01456949|183615154|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|66.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.6|71.7|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||71.7|61.6|<0.001
91686392|NCT02521376|183264081|OTHER||GMR|211.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.49|339.03||||||||339.03|132.49|
91863405|NCT01456949|183615155|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||4.5|1.1|<0.001
91863406|NCT01456949|183615156|OTHER|Secondary analyses were exploratory. No formal hypotheses or performance criteria were predefined.|||||||||||||||||Freedom from MAFE's was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
91863407|NCT01456949|183615157|OTHER|Secondary analyses were exploratory. No formal hypotheses or performance criteria were predefined.|||||||||||||||||Chronic treatment success was estimated at one and two years using Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
91686393|NCT02521376|183264081|OTHER||GMR|171.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.17|271.37||||||||271.37|108.17|
91686394|NCT02521376|183264081|OTHER||GMR|107.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.71|158.51||||||||158.51|72.71|
91686395|NCT00993421|183264199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
91686396|NCT00993421|183264199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
91686397|NCT00993421|183264199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
91686398|NCT00993421|183264199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
91863408|NCT05875467|183615170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.042
91863409|NCT05875467|183615171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.928
91686399|NCT00993421|183264199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.041
91686400|NCT00993421|183264199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.668
91686401|NCT00993421|183264199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.437
91686402|NCT00993421|183264199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.249
91686403|NCT04140032|183264264|SUPERIORITY||Difference between groups in change in B|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant||||-0.06|-0.31|0.003
91686404|NCT04140032|183264265|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio for difference between groups|1.29||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant|Reported dispersion parameter is standard error of log(OR)|||4.91|.034|0.7
91686405|NCT04140032|183264266|SUPERIORITY||Difference between groups in change in f|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.58|0.3
91686406|NCT04140032|183264270|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio for difference between groups|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant|Reported dispersion parameter is standard error of log(OR)|||2.16|0.56|0.8
91686407|NCT04140032|183264270|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio for difference between groups|1.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant|Reported dispersion parameter is standard error of log(OR)|||2.16|0.56|0.8
91686408|NCT04205812|183264283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93||The p-value was based on a stratified log-rank test at an overall 1-sided 2.5% level of significance, using O'Brien and Fleming boundary to adjust for alpha spending at interim analysis.|Log Rank||A stratified Cox regression with Efron's method for tie handling was used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||0.93|0.60|0.0042
91686409|NCT04205812|183264284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||Log Rank|The p-value was based on the stratified log-rank test for PFS.|A stratified Cox regression with Efron's method for tie handling was used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||0.79|0.52|<0.0001
91794539|NCT00491556|183467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.37||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|10.88|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||10.88|-2.41|0.1999
91863410|NCT05875467|183615172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.022
91863411|NCT05875467|183615173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
91863412|NCT05469464|183615184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|9.0|||ANCOVA|||||9.0|-18.2|0.505
91863413|NCT05469464|183615184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|12.3|||ANCOVA|||||12.3|-15.8|0.812
91686410|NCT04205812|183264285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||The p-value was calculated at the 1-sided 2.5% level from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
91686411|NCT02514447|183264302|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (primary and key secondary myelosuppression efficacy endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.10 level.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Analysis was for Part 2 data: Treatment difference was evaluated using a nonparametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The nonparametric ANCOVA included study baseline ANC value as covariate, stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and sensitivity to first line treatment (sensitive or resistant) and treatment as fixed effects.||||<0.0001
91686412|NCT02514447|183264303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (primary and key secondary myelosuppression efficacy endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.10 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||The occurrence of SN was a binary variable. Treatment group difference was analyzed using modified Poisson regression to account for the variable duration of the Treatment Period for each patient. The model included baseline ANC as a covariate, stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2), sensitivity to 1st line treatment (sensitive or resistant), and treatment as fixed effects. The logarithm transformation of # of cycles was included as an offset variable in the modeling.||||0.0160
91686413|NCT05351164|183264325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91686414|NCT05351164|183264326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91686415|NCT03367572|183264339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7056||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
91686416|NCT03367572|183264339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1486|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91686417|NCT03367572|183264340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4468||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.010
91686418|NCT03367572|183264340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5632||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91863414|NCT05469464|183615184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.8|-24.6|0.118
91863415|NCT03100149|183615361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.21|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-4.21|0.2385
91863416|NCT03100149|183615361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.7169|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.82|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-2.82|0.7169
91720127|NCT01311661|183333247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.028|<|0.0001||95.0|27.375|39.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||39.278|27.375|<0.0001
91720128|NCT01311661|183333248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.581|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.262|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.900|-2.262|<0.0001
91720129|NCT01311661|183333248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.104|-0.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.748|-2.104|<0.0001
91720130|NCT01311661|183333248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.415|-1.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-1.062|-2.415|<0.0001
91720131|NCT01311661|183333248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.0458||95.0|-1.366|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.013|-1.366|0.0458
91720132|NCT01311661|183333249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|173.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.484|<|0.0001||95.0|135.099|211.682|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||211.682|135.099|<0.0001
91720133|NCT01311661|183333249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|155.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.406|<|0.0001||95.0|116.961|193.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||193.234|116.961|<0.0001
91863417|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.6116|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.13||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IA||0.13|-0.30|0.6116
91686419|NCT03367572|183264341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Secondary Aim 1 is to determine if olanzapine is more effective than prochlorperazine in controlling nausea at Cycle 2 in participants who experienced CINV at Cycle 1 when used in combination with netupitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone.~This will be assessed by estimating the contrast D = (3 - 1) - (2 - 1), where 3 is the Arm 3 mean, 2 is the Arm 2 mean, and 1 is the Control mean, and testing whether D = 0 versus the one-sided alternative hypothesis that D \> 0."||||0.019
91686420|NCT03367572|183264342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|2.66||prochlorperazine arm statistics|Regression, Logistic|||||2.66|0.65|0.386
91720134|NCT01311661|183333249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|149.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.369|<|0.0001||95.0|111.204|187.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||187.333|111.204|<0.0001
91720135|NCT01311661|183333249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|150.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.369|<|0.0001||95.0|112.377|188.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||188.505|112.377|<0.0001
91720136|NCT01311661|183333250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.997|<|0.0001||95.0|104.916|179.586|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||179.586|104.916|<0.0001
91720137|NCT01311661|183333250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|132.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.92|<|0.0001||95.0|94.954|169.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||169.322|94.954|<0.0001
91720138|NCT01311661|183333250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.885|<|0.0001||95.0|105.021|179.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||179.251|105.021|<0.0001
91863418|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.3||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IA||0.30|-0.13|0.6188
91686421|NCT03367572|183264342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|1.13||olanzapine arm statistics|Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.02|0.036
91686422|NCT05026177|183264361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.5335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|-0.96|0.5335
91686423|NCT05026177|183264361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-0.99|0.5836
91686424|NCT05026177|183264362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-3.30|0.0763
91686425|NCT05026177|183264362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-2.93|0.1530
91686426|NCT00733005|183264504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.102
91686427|NCT00733005|183264505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
91720139|NCT01311661|183333250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|157.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.885|<|0.0001||95.0|120.192|194.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||194.420|120.192|<0.0001
91720140|NCT01311661|183333251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.78|-0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.329|-0.780|<0.0001
91863419|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.4||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IB||0.40|-0.48|0.9062
91686428|NCT01769456|183264507|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Reported p-value is the calculated value provided by SAS output.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||< 0.0001
91686429|NCT01769456|183264508|OTHER|||||||0.0236|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0236
91686430|NCT01769456|183264509|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0003
91686431|NCT01769456|183264510|OTHER|||||||0.0236|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0236
91686432|NCT03860974|183264542|NON_INFERIORITY|"We tested the non-inferiority of serratus block compared with PVB using the 95% CI associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test with continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for median average PACU pain scores was greater than -1.25 , we would conclude non-inferiority. The non-inferiority of serratus blocks with regard to opioid consumption was similarly tested to a predefined non-inferiority margin of 2 mg intravenous morphine equivalents."|Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91686433|NCT00886015|183264567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.93||||||||1.93|0.96|
91686434|NCT00886015|183264568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.98||||||||0.98|0.46|
91686435|NCT00886015|183264569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18||||||||1.18|0.66|
91686436|NCT00886015|183264570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.98||||||||0.98|0.44|
91720141|NCT01311661|183333251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.862|-0.412|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.412|-0.862|<0.0001
91686437|NCT00886015|183264571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.97||||||Mild ECA compared with Normal||0.97|0.42|
91686438|NCT00886015|183264571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.01||||||Moderate ECA compared with Normal||1.01|0.39|
91686439|NCT00886015|183264571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1||||||Severe ECA compared with Normal||1.10|0.35|
91686440|NCT00886015|183264572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.53||||||||1.53|0.97|
91686441|NCT05992623|183264574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.565
91686442|NCT05992623|183264575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.617
91686443|NCT05992623|183264576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91686444|NCT01983566|183264581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The actual number of subjects analyzed is 16. No formal statistical hypothesis was tested.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|115.8||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.52|211.11||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (bioequivalence test). P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%.|ANOVA||This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The statistical analysis result is based on the adjusted means.|"The difference between the expected means for log(Dele low fat) and log(Dele fasted) was estimated by the differences in the adjusted means (Least Squares Means), and a 2 sided 90% confidence interval (CI) based on the t-distribution was computed.~These were then back transformed. The estimation model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'."||211.11|63.52|0.3944
91686445|NCT01983566|183264582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The actual number of subjects analyzed is 16. No formal statistical hypothesis was tested.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|114.83||||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.803|176.281||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (bioequivalence test). P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%.|ANOVA||This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The statistical analysis result is based on the adjusted means.|"The difference between the expected means for log(Dele low fat) and log(Dele fasted) was estimated by the differences in the adjusted means (Least Squares Means), and a 2 sided 90% CI based on the t-distribution was computed.~These were then back transformed. This estimation model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'."||176.281|74.803|0.3674
91686446|NCT02794870|183264596|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.0|78.0||||||||78|39|
91686447|NCT02794870|183264596|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.0|56.0||||||||56|8|
91863420|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.43|0.46||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IB||0.46|-0.43|0.9621
91863421|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.651|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|0.34||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part I Total||0.34|-0.71|0.6510
91686448|NCT02794870|183264597|OTHER||% vaccinees with unsolicited AEs|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.0|56.0||||||||56|18|
91686449|NCT02794870|183264597|OTHER||% placebo with unsolicited AEs|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|47.0||||||||47|3|
91686450|NCT02794870|183264602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91686451|NCT02794870|183264603|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91686452|NCT03277066|183264707|SUPERIORITY||Lest-Squared Mean Differences|0.011||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0110
91686453|NCT03277066|183264707|SUPERIORITY||Lest-Squared Mean Differences|0.2835||||0.2835|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2835
91686454|NCT01153425|183264712|OTHER|unpaired t-test for the difference of the means between the two arms|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test for change from baseline to 24 months||||>0.05
91686455|NCT00911300|183264723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value is the absolute percent difference between Fondaparinux and UFH/VKA.|||3.1|-2.0|1.000
91686456|NCT01565356|183264735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa statistic|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||Cohen's (simple) kappa statistic||1.00|1.00|
91686457|NCT02288325|183264747|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.33|0.0212
91686458|NCT00490841|183264856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||1-sided exact binomial test|||"objective is to demonstrate the binary restenosis rate at 9 months is \< 28.6% OPC. Assumptions for the primary endpoint analysis:~* H0: Restenosis Rate ≥ 28.6%~* HA: Restenosis Rate \< 28.6%~* Assumed binary restenosis rate = 20%~* Power = 80%~* One-sided type I error = 5%~With the above assumptions, 161 samples would be required. To account for approximately 20% lost to follow-up rate, 202 subjects will be enrolled in the study. The sample size calculation was performed using PASS 2005."||||< 0.0001
91686459|NCT03452943|183264873|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-4.1|0.692
91686460|NCT04803305|183264966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|1.18|||||Week 4|||1.18|-2.38|
91686461|NCT04803305|183264967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|3.15|||||Week 1|||3.15|-0.75|
91686462|NCT04803305|183264967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|2.49|||||Week 2|||2.49|-0.28|
91686463|NCT04803305|183264967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|2.99|||||Week 3|||2.99|-0.93|
91720142|NCT01311661|183333251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.813|-0.364|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.364|-0.813|<0.0001
91686464|NCT04803305|183264967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|2.02|||||Week 5|||2.02|-2.02|
91686465|NCT04803305|183264967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|1.51|||||Week 6|||1.51|-3.11|
91686466|NCT04803305|183264968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.18|3.53|||||Week 1|||3.53|-4.18|
91686467|NCT04803305|183264968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.49|1.16|||||Week 2|||1.16|-5.49|
91720143|NCT01311661|183333251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.322|-0.770|<0.0001
91720144|NCT01311661|183333256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.461|-0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.253|-0.461|<0.0001
91686468|NCT04803305|183264968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|2.06|||||Week 3|||2.06|-0.62|
91686469|NCT04803305|183264968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|2.2|||||Week 4|||2.20|-1.29|
91686470|NCT04803305|183264968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|2.57|||||Week 5|||2.57|-1.21|
91686471|NCT04803305|183264968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|3.39|||||Week 6|||3.39|0.34|
91686472|NCT00754546|183264971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between mode of exercise and treatment effect.~Twenty patients were considered adequate to provide a power of 85% with an alpha of 0.05."||||< 0.05
91686473|NCT00754546|183264971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing arformoterol with placebo with treadmill exercise||||0.024
91686474|NCT00754546|183264971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Arformoterol versus normal saline with cycle exercise||||0.038
91686475|NCT01965860|183264982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||"Prior to the study a power analysis was performed to calculate the number of participants required in each of the three groups. Previous work comparing OSATS derived scores in endovascular interventions shows a Cohen D of two. Using a of .05, a power of .80, and an expected dropout rate of 10%, the minimum number of surgical trainees required per group was seven.~Null hypothesis for primary outcome: no difference in technical performance during real life procedures between the three groups"||||0.001
91686476|NCT01965860|183264982|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test MCQ score||||0.003
91686477|NCT01965860|183264982|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test MCQ score||||0.001
91686478|NCT01965860|183264982|OTHER|||||||0.228|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test MCQ score||||0.228
91686479|NCT01965860|183264982|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test GRS score||||0.001
91686480|NCT01965860|183264982|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test GRS score||||0.008
91686481|NCT01965860|183264982|OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test GRS score||||0.164
91686482|NCT01965860|183264982|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test Examiner's checklist score||||0.001
91686483|NCT01965860|183264982|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test Examiner's checklist score||||0.001
91686484|NCT01965860|183264982|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test Examiner's checklist score||||0.190
91686485|NCT03901092|183265001|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.91||||||Fleiss' kappa is a statistical measure for assessing the reliability of agreement between a fixed number of raters when assigning categorical ratings to a number of items or classifying items. The primary hypothesis to be tested was that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of Fleiss' Kappa will be greater than or equal to 0.6.||0.91|0.83|
91720145|NCT01311661|183333256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.4|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.192|-0.400|<0.0001
91686486|NCT03901092|183265004|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.88||||||Fleiss' kappa is a statistical measure for assessing the reliability of agreement between a fixed number of raters when assigning categorical ratings to a number of items or classifying items. The primary hypothesis to be tested was that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of Fleiss' Kappa will be greater than or equal to 0.6.||0.88|0.80|
91686487|NCT03901092|183265005|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.95||||||Fleiss' kappa is a statistical measure for assessing the reliability of agreement between a fixed number of raters when assigning categorical ratings to a number of items or classifying items. The hypothesis to be tested was that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of Fleiss' Kappa will be greater than or equal to 0.6.||0.95|0.85|
91686488|NCT03901092|183265006|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 1||1.00|0.69|
91686489|NCT03901092|183265006|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 2||1.00|0.41|
91686490|NCT03901092|183265006|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.95||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 3||0.95|0.24|
91686491|NCT03901092|183265006|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 4||1.00|0.67|
91686492|NCT03901092|183265006|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 5||1.00|0.52|
91686493|NCT04138823|183265015|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16,0.33)|0.172|||||||||||Bayesian logistic regression model|||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
91720146|NCT01311661|183333256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.405|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.198|-0.405|<0.0001
91686494|NCT04138823|183265015|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1.00]|0.01||||||||||||||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
91686495|NCT04138823|183265015|OTHER||Probabilty of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.362||||||||||||||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
91720147|NCT01311661|183333256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.405|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.198|-0.405|<0.0001
91720148|NCT01900314|183333258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA at 4 weeks with baseline MADRS as co-variate||||0.16
91720149|NCT01900314|183333259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline MADRS as co-variate||||0.04
91793926|NCT03519386|183466597|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.56||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||-0.56|-1.92|
91686496|NCT04138823|183265015|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1.00]|0.046||||||||||||||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
91686497|NCT04138823|183265015|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.478||||||||||||||"Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.~The 200 mg BI 891065 BID dose was modelled as equivalent to a 300 mg QD dose in terms of dose-toxicity relationship."||||
91686498|NCT04138823|183265015|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1.00]|0.118||||||||||||||"Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.~The 200 mg BI 891065 BID dose was modelled as equivalent to a 300 mg QD dose in terms of dose-toxicity relationship."||||
91686499|NCT02466685|183265058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91686500|NCT03097991|183265104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.32
91686501|NCT03097991|183265104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.53
91686502|NCT03097991|183265105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.07
91686503|NCT03097991|183265105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Group Effect|||.69
91686504|NCT03097991|183265106|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.22
91686505|NCT03097991|183265106|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group effect|||||.53
91686506|NCT03097991|183265107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.33
91686507|NCT03097991|183265107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.69
91686508|NCT03097991|183265108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.81
91686509|NCT03097991|183265108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.56
91686510|NCT03097991|183265109|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.77
91686511|NCT03097991|183265109|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.85
91686512|NCT03097991|183265110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.56
91720150|NCT04513366|183333319|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.23|0.64|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.64|0.23|<.0001
91720151|NCT04513366|183333319|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.32|0.73|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.73|0.32|<.0001
91863422|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.41|0.65||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part I Total||0.65|-0.41|0.7709
91863423|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|1.01||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part II Total||1.01|-0.33|0.5177
91720152|NCT04513366|183333320|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.18|-3.42|||ANCOVA|||||-3.42|-7.18|<.001
91863424|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.9095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|0.61||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part II Total||0.61|-0.73|0.9095
91863425|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.255||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.49|-0.27||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Total||-0.27|-3.49|0.1354
91686513|NCT03097991|183265110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.81
91720153|NCT04513366|183333320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.57|-3.7|||ANCOVA|||||-3.70|-7.57|<.001
91863426|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.262||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.64|0.61||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Total||0.61|-2.64|0.4217
91686514|NCT03097991|183265111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint effect|||||.85
91686515|NCT03097991|183265111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.77
91686516|NCT03097991|183265112|SUPERIORITY||Slope|21.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||<.001
91686517|NCT03097991|183265112|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||<.001
91720154|NCT04513366|183333321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-87.85|-40.85|||ANCOVA|||||-40.85|-87.85|<.001
91720155|NCT04513366|183333321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-92.16|-47.35|||ANCOVA|||||-47.35|-92.16|<.001
91863427|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.8053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|0.56||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Rigidity||0.56|-0.38|0.8053
91863428|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.497|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|0.73||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Rigidity||0.73|-0.22|0.4970
91863429|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.779||0.1703|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.07|-0.07||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Bradykinesia||-0.07|-2.07|0.1703
91863430|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.782||0.5729|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.45|0.56||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Bradykinesia||0.56|-1.45|0.5729
91863431|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.02|-0.19||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Resting Tremor||-0.19|-1.02|0.0628
91863432|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.2125|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|0.01||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Resting Tremor||0.01|-0.82|0.2125
91863433|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.4577|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|0.06||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Axial Symptoms||0.06|-0.22|0.4577
91686518|NCT03097991|183265113|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects|Group|||||<.05
91686519|NCT03097991|183265113|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||<.05
91686520|NCT03097991|183265114|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|"We analyzed the CTS scales Psychological Aggression and Physical Assault. Inspection of the latter in the raw data and descriptives showed extremely consistent selection of the lowest value of the scale (no incidents of assault) across all respondents, so we did not conduct inferential tests."||||.39
91686521|NCT03097991|183265114|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time|||||<.005
91686522|NCT03097991|183265115|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.24
91686523|NCT03097991|183265115|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA found a main effect of group, F(1, 155) = 6.85, p \< .05, η2G = .04.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Group|||||<.05
91686524|NCT03097991|183265116|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.02
91686525|NCT03097991|183265116|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.56
91686526|NCT03097991|183265117|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.30
91720156|NCT04513366|183333322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.090
91720157|NCT04513366|183333322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.472|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.472
91720158|NCT04513366|183333323|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.58||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.25|0.91|||Chi-squared|||||0.91|0.25|0.0003
91720159|NCT04513366|183333323|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.25||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.36|0.86|||Chi-squared|||||0.86|-0.36|0.1895
91720160|NCT04513366|183333324|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.43||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|0.72|||Chi-squared|||||0.72|0.14|0.0035
91863434|NCT03100149|183615362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.13||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Axial Symptoms||0.13|-0.15|0.9182
91686527|NCT03097991|183265117|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.36
91686528|NCT03097991|183265118|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.17
91686529|NCT03097991|183265118|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.48
91686530|NCT03097991|183265119|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.88
91686531|NCT03097991|183265119|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time|||||.38
91686532|NCT03097991|183265120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.07
91686533|NCT03097991|183265120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||<.001
91686534|NCT03097991|183265121|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.92
91686535|NCT03097991|183265121|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.05
91686536|NCT03097991|183265122|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.81
91686537|NCT03097991|183265122|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.34
91686538|NCT03097991|183265123|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.76
91686539|NCT03097991|183265123|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.53
91720161|NCT04513366|183333324|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.28||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.02|0.57|||Chi-squared|||||0.57|-0.02|0.0428
91863435|NCT03100149|183615363|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3582|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.01||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.05|0.3582
91686540|NCT03097991|183265124|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.88
91686541|NCT03097991|183265124|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.95
91686542|NCT03097991|183265125|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.47
91686543|NCT03097991|183265125|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.07
91686544|NCT03097991|183265126|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.68
91863436|NCT03100149|183615363|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.06|0.0||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.06|0.1955
91863437|NCT03100149|183615364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.54||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.54|-0.09|0.3611
91903568|NCT01241552|183701949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-11.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.7|-18.6|0.0006
91686545|NCT03097991|183265126|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.07
91686546|NCT03097991|183265127|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.65
91686547|NCT03097991|183265127|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.50
91686548|NCT03097991|183265128|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.48
91686549|NCT03097991|183265128|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.27
91686550|NCT03097991|183265129|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.01
91686551|NCT03097991|183265129|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.58
91686552|NCT01330303|183265145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|101.89||||||90.0|94.91|109.39|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations were calculated.|||109.39|94.91|
91686553|NCT01330303|183265146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|101.91||||||90.0|95.0|109.33|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations were calculated.|||109.33|95.00|
91686554|NCT01330303|183265147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|94.04||||||90.0|86.33|102.44|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations were calculated.|||102.44|86.33|
91686555|NCT03516513|183265157|SUPERIORITY|t-tests||||||0.905|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.905
91686556|NCT03516513|183265157|SUPERIORITY|t-test||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.320
91720162|NCT04513366|183333325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-1.10|0.517
91863438|NCT03100149|183615364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13|0.75||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.75|0.13|0.0727
91863439|NCT03100149|183615365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.18||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.18|0.50|0.4265
91686557|NCT03516513|183265158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.155
91686558|NCT03516513|183265158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.974
91863440|NCT03100149|183615365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49|1.16||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.16|0.49|0.4063
91686559|NCT03516513|183265160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.212
91686560|NCT03516513|183265161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.507
91686561|NCT03516513|183265162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.091
91686562|NCT02593110|183265163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.41||||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.59|5.78|||ANCOVA|||||5.78|-54.59|0.1107
91686563|NCT02593110|183265163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.78||||0.5378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.84|41.39|||ANCOVA|||||41.39|-21.84|0.5378
91686564|NCT02593110|183265163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.96|26.38|||ANCOVA|||||26.38|-24.96|0.9560
91686565|NCT02593110|183265164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.35||||0.6121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.42|155.12|||ANCOVA|||||155.12|-92.42|0.6121
91686566|NCT02593110|183265164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|141.78||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.14|250.42|||ANCOVA|||||250.42|33.14|0.0116
91686567|NCT02593110|183265164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.75||||0.8146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.89|111.39|||ANCOVA|||||111.39|-140.89|0.8146
91686568|NCT02593110|183265165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.8755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|12.68|||ANCOVA|||||12.68|-10.84|0.8755
91720163|NCT04513366|183333325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.39|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|-0.39|0.230
91863441|NCT03100149|183615366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3847|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|1.15||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.15|0.48|0.3847
91863442|NCT03100149|183615366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.57|1.36||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.57|0.7055
91863443|NCT03100149|183615367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.87|0.41||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-1.87|0.4142
91863444|NCT03100149|183615367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.885||0.4486|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.81|0.47||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.81|0.4486
91863445|NCT03100149|183615368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.94|1.42||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.94|0.3769
91686569|NCT02593110|183265165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.7651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|18.7|||ANCOVA|||||18.70|-13.83|0.7651
91686570|NCT02593110|183265165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.88||||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|22.41|||ANCOVA|||||22.41|-8.65|0.3776
91686571|NCT02593110|183265166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.06||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|3.79|||ANCOVA|||||3.79|-19.91|0.1782
91686572|NCT02593110|183265166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.27||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.61|6.07|||ANCOVA|||||6.07|-16.61|0.3555
91686573|NCT02593110|183265166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.75||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|17.49|||ANCOVA|||||17.49|-5.99|0.3294
91686574|NCT02593110|183265167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.72||||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.91|3.47|||ANCOVA|||||3.47|-20.91|0.1569
91686575|NCT02593110|183265167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.7692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|12.02|||ANCOVA|||||12.02|-16.16|0.7692
91686576|NCT02593110|183265167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09||||0.6306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|15.91|||ANCOVA|||||15.91|-9.74|0.6306
91686577|NCT02593110|183265168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.86||||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.74|9.02|||ANCOVA|||||9.02|-24.74|0.3542
91686578|NCT02593110|183265168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.98|16.71|||ANCOVA|||||16.71|-17.98|0.9417
91686579|NCT02593110|183265168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.45||||0.4508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|19.86|||ANCOVA|||||19.86|-8.96|0.4508
91686580|NCT01130597|183265169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|90.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.4|96.4|||||Clopper-Pearson was used to arrive at the 95% Confidence Interval|||96.4|80.4|
91686581|NCT01130597|183265174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|84.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|92.1|||||Clopper-Pearson was used to arrive at the 95% Confidence Interval|||92.1|72.7|
91686582|NCT00207883|183265227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91686583|NCT00307437|183265229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91720164|NCT04513366|183333326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.35|0.250
91720165|NCT04513366|183333326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.16|0.506
91720166|NCT04513366|183333327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.55|0.37|||ANOVA|||||0.37|-0.55|0.653
91720167|NCT04513366|183333327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.36|0.56|||ANOVA|||||0.56|-0.36|0.629
91720168|NCT04513366|183333328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.54|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Months 1-3)||0.54|-0.40|0.731
91863446|NCT03100149|183615368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.02|1.53||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.53|1.02|0.1658
91863447|NCT03100149|183615369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9542|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.77|1.33||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.77|0.9542
91863448|NCT03100149|183615369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|1.13||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.63|0.4567
91863449|NCT02296125|183615461|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.57|||Log Rank|||||0.57|0.37|<0.0001
91863450|NCT02296125|183615461|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.37|0.0065
91686584|NCT00307437|183265229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control for the multiplicity for the primary endpoint analysis, the Holm's procedure was used at an overall significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05. Sample Size: With 1200 participants (400 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in the primary endpoint between ustekinumab groups and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight \[\<=90kg vs \> 90 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power is \>99% at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91720169|NCT04513366|183333328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|0.58|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Month 1-3)||0.58|-0.35|0.583
91794540|NCT00491556|183467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.52|15.41|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||15.41|9.52|< 0.0001
91863451|NCT02296125|183615463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.22|1.03|0.036
91863452|NCT02296125|183615463|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|0.61|0.485
91863453|NCT02296125|183615464|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.09|||Regression, Linear|||||5.09|1.21|0.0133
91686585|NCT00307437|183265230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91686586|NCT00307437|183265230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint need to be significant first.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significancd level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91686587|NCT00307437|183265231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Analysis of variance on van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg) as factors in the model||||||<0.001
91863454|NCT02296125|183615464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.08|||Regression, Linear|||||3.08|1.68|<0.0001
91686588|NCT00307437|183265231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint and the two comparisons for the 1st second endpoint analyses need to be significant first.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Analysis of varianceon van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤90 kg vs \>90 kg) as factors in the model||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91686589|NCT00307437|183265232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (row mean score)|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||0.468
91686590|NCT00307437|183265232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (row mean score)|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||0.210
91686591|NCT00307437|183265232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||To control the overall multiplicity, the combined groups was tested first and each dose will then be tested; but the primary and the 1st 2 secondary endpoint analyses need to be significant before this endpoint can be tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (row mean score)|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between combined q8 group and the combined q12 group, 45 mg q8 and 45 mg q12, 90 mg q8 and 90 mg q12 at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||0.014
91720170|NCT00269152|183333340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Feasibility Response Rate (percentage)|59.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|71.5||||||||71.5|46.4|
91720171|NCT00269152|183333340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Feasibility Response Rate (percentage)|50.0||||||95.0|36.1|63.9||||||||63.9|36.1|
91863455|NCT02296125|183615465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.78|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours osimertinib|||6.78|1.25|0.0110
91903569|NCT01241552|183701949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-13.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-5.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-3415 + SOC|||-5.2|-22.5|0.0007
91863456|NCT02296125|183615465|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|12.98|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 favours osimertinib|||12.98|0.27|0.5772
91863457|NCT02296125|183615466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.205|-2.403|||Regression, Linear|||||-2.403|-11.205|0.0025
91863458|NCT02296125|183615466|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.59||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.246|2.072|||Regression, Linear|||||2.072|-15.246|0.1348
91863459|NCT02296125|183615467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6409|0.9963|||Log Rank|||||0.9963|0.6409|0.0462
91863460|NCT02296125|183615467|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.4416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5568|1.291|||Log Rank|||||1.2910|0.5568|0.4416
91863461|NCT04753697|183615525|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||||-0.84|-2.97|0.0005
91720172|NCT03043053|183333345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3||||||||1.3|-1.4|
91794541|NCT00491556|183467991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.12||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.26|-4.17|0.0808
91686592|NCT06360081|183265262|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (gMean) (T/R) using an acceptance range of 80.0 to 125.0%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means (T/R)|99.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.08|102.78||p-value was calculated for ratios outside the 80.0 to 125.0% interval.|ANOVA||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 9.0%.|PK endpoints were back transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for each endpoint. The model included effects accounting for variation in sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the others were considered as fixed. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||102.78|97.08|<0.0001
91686593|NCT06360081|183265263|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (gMean) (T/R) using an acceptance range of 80.0 to 125.0%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means (T/R)|100.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.43|105.44||p-value was calculated for ratios outside the 80.0 to 125.0% interval.|ANOVA||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.2%.|PK endpoints were back transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for each endpoint. The model included effects accounting for variation in sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the others were considered as fixed. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||105.44|96.43|<0.0001
91686594|NCT00352417|183265265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite's method||||||0.97
91686595|NCT00352417|183265266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite's method||||||0.37
91686596|NCT00352417|183265267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91686597|NCT00352417|183265268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on the natural log transformed data||||||<0.01
91686598|NCT00352417|183265269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91686599|NCT03573830|183265317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.2||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|0.04|0.002
91686600|NCT03573830|183265318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.22||Threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|0.07|0.000
91686601|NCT03573830|183265319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||Threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.03|0.352
91686602|NCT03573830|183265320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.56||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.56|0.34|0.000
91686603|NCT03573830|183265321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.22||Threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|0.05|0.002
91686604|NCT03573830|183265322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.56||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|62.46||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||62.46|2.65|0.033
91686605|NCT03573830|183265324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.19||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|0.00|0.065
91686606|NCT03573830|183265325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.28||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|0.01|0.030
91686607|NCT00266630|183265326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.9||||||||-1.90|-4.10|
91686608|NCT00266630|183265330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.58|-14.06||||||||-14.06|-25.58|
91686609|NCT00879255|183265386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority design to test the hypothesis that VTC is noninferior to in-person treatment delivery. The noninferiority margin was determined to be 10 CAPS points. We analyzed means differences in CAPS scores between the two treatment conditions (VTC minus in-person) with positive values indicating greater reductions in VTC condition. Power was estimated to be 90% with alpha = .20, and a between-group difference equaling an effect size of d = .50 (estimated 10 CAPS points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.75|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|2.42||"The noninferiority margin is the maximum clinically meaningful amount by which VTC can be worse than the in-person delivery to allow for a conclusion of noninferiority (a priori set to 10 CAPS points)."|noninferiority analysis|We hypothesized that VTC is noninferior to in-person condition, which is supported if upper limit of 95% CI is less than preset noninferiority margin.|The noninferiority hypothesis would be supported if the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference in CAPS scores between the 2 conditions (VTC minus in-person scores) is less than the present noninferiority margin (10 CAPS points).|||2.42|-11.92|> .05
91686610|NCT00879255|183265387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority design to test the hypothesis that VTC is noninferior to in-person treatment delivery. The noninferiority margin was determined to be 10 CAPS points. We analyzed means differences in CAPS scores between the two treatment conditions (VTC minus in-person) with positive values indicating greater reductions in VTC condition. Power was estimated to be 90% with alpha = .20, and a between-group difference equaling an effect size of d = .50 (estimated 10 CAPS points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|2.13||"The noninferiority margin is the maximum clinically meaningful amount by which VTC can be worse than the in-person delivery to allow for a conclusion of noninferiority (a priori set to 10 CAPS points)."|noninferiority design|We hypothesized that VTC is noninferior to in-person condition, which is supported if upper limit of 95% CI is less than preset noninferiority margin.|The noninferiority hypothesis would be supported if the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference in CAPS scores between the 2 conditions (VTC minus in-person scores) is less than the present noninferiority margin (10 CAPS points).|||2.13|-11.65|> .05
91720173|NCT03043053|183333346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.9|82.6|||||Controlled for lean mass. Reported values are outputted by STATA.|||82.6|-141.9|
91720174|NCT03043053|183333347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|196.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1036.0|1428.0||||||||1428|-1036|
91863462|NCT04753697|183615526|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||32.2|20.6|<0.0001
91863463|NCT04753697|183615527|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI(%)|18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|25.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||25.5|11.3|<0.0001
91863464|NCT04753697|183615527|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI(%)|17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|24.0||Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|10.1|<0.0001
91863465|NCT04753697|183615528|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|40.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.3|46.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status||||46.7|33.3|<0.0001
91863466|NCT04753697|183615529|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used for all in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||33.6|17.8|<0.0001
91863467|NCT04753697|183615529|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used for all in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||35.7|19.7|<0.0001
91863468|NCT04753697|183615530|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.98|||ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-3.55|0.0006
91863469|NCT04753697|183615530|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657||0.0002||95.0|-3.78|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.20|-3.78|0.0002
91863470|NCT04753697|183615531|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-4.8|<0.0001
91863471|NCT04753697|183615532|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-4.5|<0.0001
91863472|NCT04753697|183615532|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-4.1|<0.0001
91863473|NCT04753697|183615533|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-22.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.528|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-19.51|||ANCOVA|||||-19.51|-25.50|<0.0001
91720175|NCT03043053|183333348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-152.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-302.3|-1.7||||||||-1.7|-302.3|
91863474|NCT04753697|183615534|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|-14.4|||ANCOVA|||||-14.40|-21.85|<0.0001
91863475|NCT04753697|183615534|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-15.53|||ANCOVA|||||-15.53|-22.90|<0.0001
91863476|NCT04753697|183615535|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.793|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.92|-21.89|||ANCOVA|||||-21.89|-28.92|<0.0001
91863477|NCT04753697|183615536|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-20.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.229|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|-18.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-18.91|-25.17|<0.0001
91863478|NCT04753697|183615536|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-23.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.73|-21.56|||ANCOVA|||||-21.56|-27.73|<0.0001
91863479|NCT04753697|183615537|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.80|-6.40|0.0005
91863480|NCT04753697|183615538|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-1.57|||ANCOVA|||||-1.57|-7.14|0.0022
91863481|NCT04753697|183615538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.425||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||||-2.41|-8.00|0.0003
91863482|NCT04753697|183615539|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|16.9||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|27.2|||ANCOVA|||||27.2|6.7|0.0016
91863483|NCT01658930|183615558|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin of inferiority in the difference of 3 year pelvic recurrence rates between simple and radical hysterectomy group was 4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0162|0.0232|||||Difference between simple and radical hysterectomy groups.|||0.0232|-0.0162|
91863484|NCT01658930|183615559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.67|||||Hazard ratio of simple to radical hysterectomy.|||2.67|0.47|
91863485|NCT01658930|183615560|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|18.4|||||Hazard ratio is simple hysterectomy group of radical hysterectomy group.|||18.4|0.79|
91863486|NCT01658930|183615561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.45|||||Hazard ratio is simple hysterectomy group to radical hysterectomy group.|||3.45|0.69|
91863487|NCT01658930|183615562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.14|||||Hazard ratio of simple to radical hysterectomy.|||3.14|0.38|
91863488|NCT05446168|183615658|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.03||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t = -4.05, df = 7||||-0.03|-0.12|0.005
91863489|NCT05446168|183615659|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.81||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|12.47||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.17, df = 11||||12.47|-3.81|0.27
91863490|NCT01828099|183615677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.42|<0.001
91863491|NCT06473662|183615703|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0039
91863492|NCT06473662|183615704|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.8||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0166
91863493|NCT06473662|183615706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.13||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0474
91863494|NCT02398656|183615707|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.04||||||||1.04|0.88|
91863495|NCT05602220|183615709|SUPERIORITY||F test|0.054||||0.817|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.817
91863496|NCT05602220|183615710|SUPERIORITY||F test|2.162||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.147
91863497|NCT05602220|183615711|SUPERIORITY||F test|2.88||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.096
91863498|NCT05602220|183615712|SUPERIORITY||F test|0.449||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.640
91863499|NCT05602220|183615713|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed-effects model fit to participants' latent performance scores across 10 time bins.~Comparison of performance changes over time between groups."|beta parameter|0.0001419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036816||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072164|0.072448|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.072448|-0.072164|0.997
91903570|NCT01241552|183701949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.0||||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.8||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-6072 + SOC|||5.8|-7.7|0.3906
91686611|NCT00879255|183265388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority design to test the hypothesis that VTC is noninferior to in-person treatment delivery. The noninferiority margin was determined to be 10 CAPS points. We analyzed means differences in CAPS scores between the two treatment conditions (VTC minus in-person) with positive values indicating greater reductions in VTC condition. Power was estimated to be 90% with alpha = .20, and a between-group difference equaling an effect size of d = .50 (estimated 10 CAPS points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.56|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|5.14||"The noninferiority margin is the maximum clinically meaningful amount by which VTC can be worse than the in-person delivery to allow for a conclusion of noninferiority (a priori set to 10 CAPS points)."|noninferiority test|We hypothesized that VTC is noninferior to in-person condition, which is supported if upper limit of 95% CI is less than preset noninferiority margin.|The noninferiority hypothesis would be supported if the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference in CAPS scores between the 2 conditions (VTC minus in-person scores) is less than the present noninferiority margin (10 CAPS points).|||5.14|-16.26|> .05
91686612|NCT01499095|183265401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Stepwise closed testing approach was to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.119||||||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the HbA1c baseline value as a covariate.||0.119|-0.139|
91686613|NCT01499095|183265402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A one-sided test (at alpha=0.025) for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed in case the non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus for the primary endpoint was demonstrated. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with treatment as a factor and stratified on strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%).||0.99|0.61|0.0380
91686614|NCT01499095|183265403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.8279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the pre-injection SMPG baseline value as a covariate. A test for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed one-sided at level alpha = 0.025 if previous analysis for nocturnal hypoglycaemia was significant.||0.350|-0.438|0.8279
91686615|NCT01499095|183265412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.415||||||Analysis was performed using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment regimen and country as fixed effects and baseline (Month 6) HbA1c value as a covariate.||0.415|-0.152|
91686616|NCT02099786|183265500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|8.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of participants with ASHA-significant threshold shifts between treatment arms.||8.8|.55|.27
91686617|NCT02099786|183265500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of participants with CTCAE grade 1 or greater hearing loss between treatment arms.||5.9|.3|.67
91686618|NCT02099786|183265501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis is no difference in audiology clinic use between treatment arms.||2.9|.29|.88
91686619|NCT02099786|183265502|NON_INFERIORITY|We require a non-inferiority margin of no more than 1.1 mortality odds among COMP-VA patients relative to Usual Care patients. This means that the upper 95% confidence bound for the fitted odds ratio must be less than 1.1 to reject the null hypothesis that COMP-VA induces extra mortality risk.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
91686620|NCT02099786|183265503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.72
91686621|NCT03052751|183265504|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.7|||=|0.221|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.8||One-sided p-value was presented for difference.|MMRM||Estimate included treatment and treatment by visit interaction effects.|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model included fixed terms for treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group and visit, covariate of Baseline QMG score, and random effect for participant.~The differences presented was 'UCB7665 (7 mg/kg) minus Placebo'."||0.8||=0.221
91686622|NCT03052751|183265505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.8|||=|0.089|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.4||One-sided p-value was presented for difference.|MMRM||Estimate included treatment and treatment by visit interaction effects.|"MMRM ANCOVA model included fixed terms for treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group and visit, covariate of Baseline MG-composite score, and random effect for participant.~The differences presented was 'UCB7665 (7 mg/kg) minus Placebo'."||0.4||=0.089
91686623|NCT03052751|183265506|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.4|||=|0.036|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1||One-sided p-value was presented for difference.|ANCOVA||Estimate included treatment effect.|ANCOVA model included fixed terms for treatment group, covariate of Baseline MGADL score.||-0.1||=0.036
91686624|NCT03071692|183265530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16||||||||1.16|0.92|
91794542|NCT00491556|183467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.83||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|17.69|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||17.69|5.72|0.0005
91863500|NCT05764525|183615733|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares mean|6.938||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.145|11.731|||ANOVA|||||11.731|2.145|0.0047
91863501|NCT03910478|183615767|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided Wald-test for evidence of a non-zero coefficient for intervention group in the regression was conducted at the 5% significance level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.948||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|2.053|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression was adjusted by covariates (transplant site and participant's perceived ease of access to blood draw facility).||A traditional logistic regression model was fit where the outcome was whether or not participants completed \> 90% of their clinician-recommended CMV monitoring tests in the study period by 1-year after HCT.||2.053|0.438|0.8920
91793927|NCT03519386|183466597|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.51||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||0.51|-0.86|
91903571|NCT01241552|183701950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|5.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||12.8|-2.5|0.185
91686625|NCT03071692|183265531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2||||||||1.20|0.92|
91686626|NCT03071692|183265532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18||||||||1.18|0.89|
91686627|NCT03071692|183265533|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.16||||||||1.16|0.93|
91686628|NCT03071692|183265534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||||||||1.13|0.93|
91686629|NCT03071692|183265535|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ration|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13||||||||1.13|0.87|
91686630|NCT03071692|183265536|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09||||||||1.09|0.69|
91686631|NCT03071692|183265537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.41||||||||1.41|0.95|
91686632|NCT03071692|183265538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.19||||||||1.19|0.69|
91686633|NCT03071692|183265539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||||||||1.14|0.84|
91686634|NCT03071692|183265540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32||||||||1.32|0.83|
91686635|NCT03071692|183265541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26||||||TT Variant||1.26|0.75|
91686636|NCT03071692|183265541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.47||||||CT Variant||1.47|0.96|
91686637|NCT03071692|183265541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||||||CC Variant||1.39|0.69|
91686638|NCT03071692|183265542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13496|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13496
91686639|NCT03071692|183265543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91686640|NCT03071692|183265544|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91686641|NCT03071692|183265545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96689|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.96689
91903572|NCT01241552|183701950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.4||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.1|-3.3|0.323
91903573|NCT01241552|183701950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.3||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||4.5|-9.1|0.507
91686642|NCT03071692|183265546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91686643|NCT03071692|183265547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09178|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.09178
91686644|NCT03071692|183265548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91686645|NCT03071692|183265549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91686646|NCT03071692|183265550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91686647|NCT01027702|183265556|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"This was a dose-escalation study to determine a target DLI dose at which the:~1. Probability of CD4+ cells \> 100/µL by Day +120 is at least 66% and~2. Probability of grade II and III GVHD is at most 33%, probability of grade III GVHD is at most 17%, and no grade IV GVHD occurs Patients were assigned in cohorts of 3."|"The study design consisted of two phases, a dose-escalation phase and a dose-confirmation phase. In the dose-escalation phase, patients were assigned in cohorts of 3. The dose escalation plan was:~* If a grade IV acute GVHD event was observed at any dose, no more patients were assigned to this or higher dose levels unless the methotrexate dosing was modified.~* If none of the initial three patients at a dose level experienced grade II/III GVHD and \< 2/3 had a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the next three patients were assigned to the next higher dose level.~* If 1 out of 3 patients had grade III GVHD or 1 - 2 out of 3 patients had grade II GVHD and/or \> 2/3 have a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the dose was repeated for the next 3 patients.~The dose of 5 x 10\^4 CD3+ cells/kg was determined to be the optimal dose."|||
91686648|NCT01027702|183265557|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"This was a dose-escalation study to determine a target DLI dose at which the:~1. Probability of CD4+ cells \> 100/µL by Day +120 is at least 66% and~2. Probability of grade II and III GVHD is at most 33%, probability of grade III GVHD is at most 17%, and no grade IV GVHD occurs Patients were assigned in cohorts of 3."|"The study design consisted of two phases, a dose-escalation phase and a dose-confirmation phase. In the dose-escalation phase, patients were assigned in cohorts of 3. The dose escalation plan was:~If a grade IV acute GVHD event was observed at any dose, no more patients were assigned to this or higher dose levels unless the methotrexate dosing was modified.~If none of the initial three patients at a dose level experienced grade II/III GVHD and \< 2/3 had a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the next three patients were assigned to the next higher dose level.~If 1 out of 3 patients had grade III GVHD or 1 - 2 out of 3 patients had grade II GVHD and/or \> 2/3 have a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the dose was repeated for the next 3 patients.~The dose of 5 x 10\^4 CD3+ cells/kg was determined to be the optimal dose."|||
91686649|NCT00403585|183265559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 156.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||<0.001
91686650|NCT03022370|183265580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||=|0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.62|=0.686
91686651|NCT03022370|183265580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.97|0.51|=0.032
91686652|NCT03022370|183265581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.64|0.555
91686653|NCT03022370|183265581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.03|0.54|0.072
91720176|NCT02139540|183333352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary outcome (HDRS-21) was analyzed with a repeated-measures mixed effects linear model using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. To adjust for the observed carryover effect, the model included a randomization group term and a three-way interaction (treatment × time × randomization group)||||<0.05
91686654|NCT03022370|183265582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.66|0.672
91686655|NCT03022370|183265582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.94|0.52|0.019
91686656|NCT03022370|183265583|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.86|||Regression, Linear|||||0.86|-0.88|0.984
91720177|NCT02139540|183333353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91720178|NCT03533751|183333354|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.235||0.4498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4066|27.8983|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||27.8983|-12.4066|0.4498
91720179|NCT03533751|183333354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.39||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.774|12.1262|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||12.1262|-24.7740|0.5010
91720180|NCT03533751|183333354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.454||0.8349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6037|20.5476|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||20.5476|-16.6037|0.8349
91720181|NCT03533751|183333354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.154||0.6662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1892|26.8275|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||26.8275|-17.1892|0.6662
91720182|NCT03533751|183333355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.9509|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||1.9509|0.4200|0.7992
91720183|NCT03533751|183333355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.2197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|3.3572|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.3572|0.7570|0.2197
91720184|NCT03533751|183333355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5345|2.4774|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||2.4774|0.5345|0.7197
91720185|NCT03533751|183333355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|1.8404|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||1.8404|0.3910|0.6772
91720186|NCT03533751|183333356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3922|2.6994|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||2.6994|0.3922|0.9537
91720187|NCT03533751|183333356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6323|3.8895|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.8895|0.6323|0.3316
91720188|NCT03533751|183333356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5331|3.4944|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.4944|0.5331|0.5166
91720189|NCT03533751|183333356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4545|3.0223|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.0223|0.4545|0.7426
91686657|NCT03022370|183265583|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.63|||Regression, Linear|||||0.63|-0.51|0.839
91686658|NCT03022370|183265584|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.51|||Tobit|Log + 1 performed on data||||1.51|0.43|<0.0001
91686659|NCT03022370|183265584|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.21||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.83|||Tobit|Log plus 1 to transform data||||0.83|-0.42|0.521
91686660|NCT03022370|183265585|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.58|||Regression, Linear|||||1.58|-1.09|0.718
91686661|NCT03022370|183265585|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.28|||Regression, Linear|||||1.28|-1.87|0.712
91686662|NCT03022370|183265586|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.52||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||||0.11|-3.14|0.067
91686663|NCT03022370|183265586|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.99|||Regression, Linear|||||0.99|-2.48|0.398
91686664|NCT03022370|183265587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.85|0.228
91720190|NCT03533751|183333357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3998|7.7615|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||7.7615|0.3998|0.4543
91720191|NCT03533751|183333357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6314|10.4827|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||10.4827|0.6314|0.1874
91720192|NCT03533751|183333357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.1721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6506|11.0814|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||11.0814|0.6506|0.1721
91720193|NCT03533751|183333357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.6755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1086|4.2141|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||4.2141|0.1086|0.6755
91686665|NCT03022370|183265587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.53|0.558
91720194|NCT03533751|183333358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2481|2.2543|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||2.2543|0.2481|0.6058
91720195|NCT03533751|183333358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3356|2.7923|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as a covariate.||||2.7923|0.3356|0.9521
91720196|NCT03533751|183333358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4457|3.3878|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as a covariate.||||3.3878|0.4457|0.6905
91863502|NCT03910478|183615768|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided Wald-test for evidence of a non-zero coefficient for intervention group in the regression was conducted at the 5% significance level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression was adjusted by covariates (transplant site and participant's perceived ease of access to blood draw facility).||A traditional logistic regression model was fit where the outcome was whether or not participants completed \> 90% of their clinician -recommended CMV monitoring tests in the study period by 1-year after HCT.||1.450|0.301|0.3008
91903574|NCT01241552|183701951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.2||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||6.7|-1.5|0.246
91686666|NCT03022370|183265588|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||0.80|-0.52|0.679
91686667|NCT03022370|183265588|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.55||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.16|||Regression, Linear|||||1.16|-0.07|0.08
91686668|NCT03022370|183265589|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.95|||Regression, Linear|||||0.95|-1.21|0.810
91686669|NCT03022370|183265589|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.03||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.04|-2.01|0.041
91686670|NCT03022370|183265590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|0.67|0.635
91686671|NCT03022370|183265590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.41|0.256
91686672|NCT03022370|183265591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.73|0.526
91720197|NCT03533751|183333358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3671|2.9518|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as a covariate.||||2.9518|0.3671|0.9399
91793928|NCT03519386|183466597|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.11||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||-0.11|-1.43|
91686673|NCT03022370|183265591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.56|0.67|0.931
91686674|NCT03022370|183265592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.63|0.691
91686675|NCT03022370|183265592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.60|0.692
91686676|NCT03022370|183265593|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||0.24|-0.72|0.137
91686677|NCT03022370|183265593|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.40|-0.58|0.721
91686678|NCT03022370|183265594|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||0.24|-0.70|0.332
91686679|NCT03022370|183265594|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||||0.32|-0.71|0.468
91686680|NCT03022370|183265595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|0.89|0.174
91686681|NCT03022370|183265595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.50|0.89|0.129
91686682|NCT03022370|183265596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|0.89|0.174
91686683|NCT03022370|183265596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.43|0.64|0.836
91686684|NCT01526655|183265599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Main effect over time p\<0.001; Interaction effect p=0.65. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.011
91686685|NCT01526655|183265600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p 0.02.~Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-values): hsCRP time 4 p 0.02; hsCRP time 5 p \<0.001.|||0.03
91686686|NCT01526655|183265601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p \< 0.0001.~Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): WBC time 3 p \< 0.0001.|||<0.01
91686687|NCT01526655|183265602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): IL-6 time 3 p \< 0.01.|||0.03
91686688|NCT01526655|183265603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p \< 0.01.~Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): CK time 4 p \< 0.0001.|||0.03
91686689|NCT01526655|183265604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p \< 0.01.~Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): cortisol time 3 p \< 0.0001.|||0.06
91686690|NCT01526655|183265605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91686691|NCT01526655|183265606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91686692|NCT01894087|183265671|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87|||||Numerator is Therapist-led Brief Intervention, Denominator is Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of outcome of overdose risk behavior sum score at 6 months, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome||0.87|0.59|
91686693|NCT01894087|183265672|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Numerator is the Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and Denominator is Enhanced Usual Care only|Multivariable linear regression of the outcome of standardized sum score of overdose symptom knowledge at 6 months follow-up, adjusted for baseline level of overdose symptom knowledge.||0.40|-0.20|
91720198|NCT03533751|183333359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|4.5268|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||4.5268|0.3290|0.7659
91863503|NCT06201559|183615831|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate of geometric mean ratio (GMR) of T/R should be between 80.00 -125.00%. If the intra-subject variability for Cmax following replicate administrations of the comparator product was \> 30%, the acceptance criteria for Cmax was widened to a maximum of 69.84-143.19%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.79|110.91|||||Geometric least square means were combined to perform statistical analysis of T as T1 + T2 and R as R1 + R2.|||110.91|86.79|
91720199|NCT03533751|183333359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3895|4.776|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||4.7760|0.3895|0.6273
91720200|NCT03533751|183333359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5734|6.1879|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||6.1879|0.5734|0.2967
91720201|NCT03533751|183333359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4152|5.1476|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||5.1476|0.4152|0.5544
91686694|NCT01894087|183265673|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33|||||This item was reverse coded; higher scores indicate lower intention to avoid overdose risk (for the strategy of using opioids as prescribed). Numerator was the Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and the denominator was Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of the outcome of intention to use opioids as prescribed, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome.||1.33|0.93|
91720202|NCT03533751|183333360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3175|3.9513|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||3.9513|0.3175|0.8600
91686695|NCT01894087|183265673|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||||This item was reverse coded; higher scores indicate lower intention to avoid overdose risk (for the strategy of reducing or avoiding opioid use). Numerator was the Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and the denominator was Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of the outcome of intention to avoid or reduce opioid use, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome.||0.90|0.65|
91686696|NCT01894087|183265673|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.19|||||This item was reverse coded; higher scores indicate lower intention to avoid overdose risk (for the strategy of not combining opioids with other drugs). Numerator was Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and denominator was Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of the outcome of intention to avoid combining opioids with other substances, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome.||1.19|0.80|
91686697|NCT01894087|183265674|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92|||||Numerator is Therapist-Led Brief Intervention, Denominator is Enhanced Usual Care only|Multivariable Poisson regression for the outcome of total COMM score at follow-up, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome||0.92|0.70|
91686698|NCT04020887|183265705|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|18.01||||||Difference in time to PACU discharge determination from observation to interaction phase \[ Time Frame: 6 months\]: The difference in discharge readiness time between the observation and interaction phases will be compared.||18.01|-6.01|
91686699|NCT04020887|183265706|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|29.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.82|35.66||||||||35.66|23.82|
91720203|NCT03533751|183333360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.3222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5511|6.1214|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||6.1214|0.5511|0.3222
91686700|NCT04020887|183265707|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|-2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|3.02||||||||3.02|-8.18|
91686701|NCT04020887|183265708|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|13.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|20.79||||||||20.79|5.16|
91686702|NCT04020887|183265709|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|3.07||||||||3.07|-1.63|
91686703|NCT04020887|183265710|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|12.71||||||||12.71|3.13|
91686704|NCT02006732|183265753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.336|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.336|0.261|<0.0001
91686705|NCT02006732|183265753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.141|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.141|0.069|<0.0001
91686706|NCT02006732|183265753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.323|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.323|0.246|<0.0001
91686707|NCT02006732|183265753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.128|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.128|0.053|<0.0001
91720204|NCT03533751|183333360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.2564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6089|6.431|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||6.4310|0.6089|0.2564
91720205|NCT03533751|183333360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5806|6.1275|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||6.1275|0.5806|0.2912
91720206|NCT03533751|183333361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.679||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2117|15.8686|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||15.8686|-18.2117|0.8927
91903575|NCT01241552|183701951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||6.8|-0.3|0.069
91686708|NCT02006732|183265753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.232|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.232|0.156|<0.0001
91686709|NCT02006732|183265753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.4499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.051|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.051|-0.023|0.4499
91686710|NCT02006732|183265754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.203|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.203|0.129|<0.0001
91686711|NCT02006732|183265754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.076|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.076|0.002|0.0395
91686712|NCT02006732|183265754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.207|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.207|0.132|<0.0001
91720207|NCT03533751|183333361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.019||0.7035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2767|21.1463|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||21.1463|-14.2767|0.7035
91686713|NCT02006732|183265754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.079|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.079|0.005|0.0269
91686714|NCT02006732|183265754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.165|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.165|0.090|<0.0001
91686715|NCT02006732|183265754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.8669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.034|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.034|-0.040|0.8669
91686716|NCT02006732|183265755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.499|-2.629|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.629|-6.499|<0.0001
91686717|NCT02006732|183265755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.628|0.193|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.193|-3.628|0.0780
91686718|NCT02006732|183265755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.611|-1.721|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.721|-5.611|0.0002
91686719|NCT02006732|183265755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.979||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.741|1.102|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.102|-2.741|0.4028
91686720|NCT02006732|183265755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.796|-0.897|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.897|-4.796|0.0042
91686721|NCT02006732|183265755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.971||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.804|1.008|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.008|-2.804|0.3555
91686722|NCT02006732|183265756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-3.276|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.276|-6.060|<0.0001
91686723|NCT02006732|183265756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.701||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.471|-0.723|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.723|-3.471|0.0028
91686724|NCT02006732|183265756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-2.451|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.451|-5.240|<0.0001
91686725|NCT02006732|183265756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.702||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.651|0.102|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.102|-2.651|0.0696
91720208|NCT03533751|183333361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.608||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.159|7.6237|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||7.6237|-26.1590|0.2819
91794543|NCT00491556|183467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.12||0.9198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|5.81|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||5.81|-6.41|0.9198
91794544|NCT00491556|183467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||4.97|2.40|< 0.0001
91686726|NCT02006732|183265756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.714||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.971|-1.171|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.171|-3.971|0.0003
91686727|NCT02006732|183265756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.698||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.191|0.546|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.546|-2.191|0.2387
91686728|NCT02006732|183265757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.317|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.317|0.187|<0.0001
91686729|NCT02006732|183265757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.125|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.125|-0.003|0.0614
91686730|NCT02006732|183265757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.37|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.370|0.240|<0.0001
91686731|NCT02006732|183265757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.178|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.178|0.049|0.0005
91686732|NCT02006732|183265757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.256|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.256|0.126|<0.0001
91686733|NCT02006732|183265757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.012|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.012|-0.117|0.1089
91686734|NCT02006732|183265758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.725|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.725|0.665|<0.0001
91686735|NCT02006732|183265758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|1.106|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.106|0.058|0.0296
91686736|NCT02006732|183265758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.796|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.796|0.730|<0.0001
91686737|NCT02006732|183265758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.178|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.178|0.122|0.0159
91686738|NCT02006732|183265758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|1.148|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.148|0.078|0.0248
91686739|NCT02006732|183265758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.7984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.454|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.454|-0.590|0.7984
91686740|NCT02006732|183265759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.245|2.0|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.000|1.245|<0.0001
91686741|NCT02006732|183265759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.967|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.967|0.220|0.0019
91863504|NCT06201559|183615832|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate of geometric mean ratio (GMR) of T/R should be between 80.00 -125.00%. If the intra-subject variability for AUC(0-t) following replicate administrations of the comparator product was \> 30%, the acceptance criteria for AUC(0-t) was widened to a maximum of 69.84-143.19%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.86|109.73|||||Geometric least square means were combined to perform statistical analysis of T as T1 + T2 and R as R1 + R2.|||109.73|86.86|
91686742|NCT02006732|183265759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.611|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232|1.989|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.989|1.232|<0.0001
91686743|NCT02006732|183265759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|0.956|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.956|0.207|0.0023
91686744|NCT02006732|183265759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.41|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.410|0.649|<0.0001
91686745|NCT02006732|183265759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.383|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.383|-0.359|0.9494
91720209|NCT03533751|183333361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.557||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8452|10.7333|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||10.7333|-22.8452|0.4793
91903576|NCT01241552|183701951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.2||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||4.6|-2.1|0.464
91686746|NCT02006732|183265760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.498|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.498|0.366|<0.0001
91686747|NCT02006732|183265760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.212|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.212|0.084|<0.0001
91686748|NCT02006732|183265760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.522|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.522|0.387|<0.0001
91686749|NCT02006732|183265760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.236|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.236|0.105|<0.0001
91686750|NCT02006732|183265760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|0.35|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.350|0.217|<0.0001
91686751|NCT02006732|183265760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.042|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.042|-0.087|0.4974
91686752|NCT00825786|183265761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.09|||Log Rank||group 2 vs. group 1 (sequential vs combined)|||1.09|0.46|0.14
91686753|NCT00825786|183265762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
91686754|NCT00825786|183265763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.66
91720210|NCT03533751|183333362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.677||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5723|19.7054|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||19.7054|-6.5723|0.3262
91720211|NCT03533751|183333362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.366||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7439|11.2782|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||11.2782|-13.7439|0.8465
91720212|NCT03533751|183333362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.396||0.6947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0587|15.082|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.||||15.0820|-10.0587|0.6947
91903577|NCT01241552|183701952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||14.7|0.9|0.027
91686755|NCT00825786|183265764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.60
91686756|NCT00825786|183265765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
91686757|NCT00825786|183265766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
91686758|NCT00825786|183265767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
91686759|NCT02969044|183265768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-3.79|||ANCOVA|||||-3.79|-14.75|<0.001
91686760|NCT02359994|183265850|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10%, such that the endpoint is successfully met if the non-inferiority one-sided p-value is less than 0.025 or, equivalently, if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between PerClot and Arista hemostasis rates is greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.8|||Farrington-Manning score test||Directionality for difference in the percentage of participants achieving endpoint: PerClot - Arista|The primary efficacy hypothesis is that the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis of the treated bleeding site at 7 minutes in the overall PerClot group is non-inferior to the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis at 7 minutes in the Arista group, the active control.||4.8|-7.5|0.005
91686761|NCT02359994|183265851|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10%, such that the endpoint is successfully met if the non-inferiority one-sided p-value is less than 0.025 or, equivalently, if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between PerClot and Arista hemostasis rates is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.0|||Farrington-Manning score test||Directionality for difference in the percentage of participants achieving endpoint: PerClot - Arista|The secondary efficacy hypothesis is that the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis of the treated bleeding site at 5 minutes in the overall PerClot group is non-inferior to the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis at 5 minutes in the Arista group, the active control.||12.0|-2.4|<0.001
91686762|NCT02766283|183265872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
91686763|NCT02766283|183265873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
91863505|NCT05218096|183615847|OTHER|Difference|Difference|-7.1||||0.6797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|15.0|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test||CI calculated using the Chan and Zhang method.|||15.0|-28.8|0.6797
91793929|NCT03519386|183466597|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.82||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||0.82|-0.63|
91686764|NCT02448368|183265883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the Pharmacokinetics (PK), Pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|232.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.0|266.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||266|202|
91686765|NCT02448368|183265883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|181.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.0|200.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||200|164|
91686766|NCT02448368|183265883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.5|124.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||124|91.5|
91686767|NCT02448368|183265885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|170.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.0|195.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||195|147|
91686768|NCT02448368|183265885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|170.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.0|199.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||199|146|
91686769|NCT02448368|183265885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|129.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|146.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||146|114|
91686770|NCT02448368|183265886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|161.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.0|187.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||187|139|
91686771|NCT02448368|183265886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|159.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.0|188.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||188|135|
91686772|NCT02448368|183265886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|131.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.0|147.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||147|116|
91686773|NCT02448368|183265888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.3|112.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||112|88.3|
91686774|NCT02448368|183265888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||117|85.5|
91686775|NCT02448368|183265888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|116.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|143.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||143|94.8|
91686776|NCT02448368|183265889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.3|116.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||116|98.3|
91686777|NCT02448368|183265889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|113.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||113|95.0|
91793930|NCT03519386|183466597|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.57||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||0.57|-0.89|
91863506|NCT05218096|183615847|OTHER|Difference|Difference|-7.1||||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.8|19.3|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test||CI calculated using the Chan and Zhang method.|||19.3|-34.8|0.7341
91686778|NCT02448368|183265889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|140.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||140|95.3|
91863507|NCT05321082|183615896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, baseline intake of AF (nintedanib) treatment, baseline HRCT pattern, age (continuous), baseline FVC % predicted, and baseline DLCO % predicted (corrected for hemoglobin) as covariates. Breslow's method was applied for tied event times. A two-sided p-value from the Wald test assessed the treatment effect. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.00|0.61|0.0507
91686779|NCT02448368|183265890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|116.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||116|98.1|
91686780|NCT02448368|183265890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.6|113.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||113|94.6|
91686781|NCT02448368|183265890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|137.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||137|93.3|
91686782|NCT03086551|183265896|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as time to complete the sequence at the pre-baseline assessment minus the time it took to complete the sequence at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Magnitude of change in sequence completion time from pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Active arm. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
91686783|NCT03086551|183265896|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as time to complete the sequence at the pre-baseline assessment minus the time it took to complete the sequence at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Magnitude of change in sequence completion time from pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Sham arm. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
91686784|NCT03086551|183265896|OTHER|Cohen's d effect size was calculated to compare the magnitude of change in time to complete the movement sequence from pre-baseline to post-intervention across the Active and Sham arms.|Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|||||
91686785|NCT03086551|183265897|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Active arm.||||
91686786|NCT03086551|183265897|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Sham arm.||||
91686787|NCT03086551|183265897|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison across study arm of the magnitude of improvement in aggregate time to complete all elements of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test for the stroke affected limb. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
91686788|NCT03086551|183265897|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the non-stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Active arm.||||
91863508|NCT05321082|183615896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, baseline intake of AF (nintedanib) treatment, baseline HRCT pattern, age (continuous), baseline FVC % predicted, and baseline DLCO % predicted (corrected for hemoglobin) as covariates. Breslow's method was applied for tied event times. A two-sided p-value from the Wald test assessed the treatment effect. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.99|0.60|0.0395
91903578|NCT01241552|183701952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||7.2|-4.1|0.594
91903579|NCT01241552|183701952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.3||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||0.0|-10.6|0.051
91903580|NCT01241552|183701953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.0||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||3.5|-0.3|0.115
91720213|NCT03533751|183333362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.909||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8451|20.3626|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||20.3626|-6.8451|0.3288
91863509|NCT05321082|183615897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.96|0.51|0.0258
91863510|NCT05321082|183615897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.82|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.82|0.43|0.0017
91863511|NCT05321082|183615898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.96|0.57|0.0237
91863512|NCT05321082|183615898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.99|0.59|0.0427
91903581|NCT01241552|183701953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||2.4|-0.5|0.170
91686789|NCT03086551|183265897|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the non-stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Sham arm.||||
91686790|NCT03086551|183265897|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison across study arm of the magnitude of improvement in aggregate time to complete all elements of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test for the non-stroke affected limb. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
91686791|NCT03086551|183265898|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 1 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
91686792|NCT03086551|183265898|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 2 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
91686793|NCT03086551|183265898|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 3 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
91686794|NCT03086551|183265898|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 4 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
91720214|NCT03533751|183333363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.355||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4081|2.9218|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||2.9218|-2.4081|0.8497
91720215|NCT03533751|183333363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5636|1.7473|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||1.7473|-3.5636|0.5016
91903582|NCT01241552|183701953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placeb + SOC|||1.6|-0.9|0.544
91903583|NCT01241552|183701954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.4||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||2.4|-0.5|0.192
91903584|NCT01241552|183701954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.4|-0.7|0.311
91863513|NCT05321082|183615899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|81.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.95|116.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nerandomilast 9 mg group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline FVC \[mL\] at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||116.32|45.95|<0.0001
91903585|NCT01241552|183701954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.0|-1.0|> 0.999
91903586|NCT01241552|183701955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|8.7|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||8.7|-1.0|
91686795|NCT03086551|183265899|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Active arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 120% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
91686796|NCT03086551|183265899|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Sham arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 120% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
91686797|NCT03086551|183265899|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Active arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 150% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
91686798|NCT03086551|183265899|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Sham arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 150% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
91686799|NCT03086551|183265900|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention across the Active and Sham arms when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 120% of resting motor threshold. Comparison quantified as effect size using Cohen's d.||||
91686800|NCT03086551|183265900|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention across the Active and Sham arms when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 150% of resting motor threshold. Comparison quantified as effect size using Cohen's d.||||
91686801|NCT03736031|183265904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||two-sample independent t-test|An alpha of 0.05 was used.||||||0.09
91686802|NCT03736031|183265905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||two-sample independent t-test|An alpha of 0.05 was used.||||||0.81
91686803|NCT03736031|183265906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91686804|NCT03736031|183265907|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91686805|NCT00451178|183265917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|4.393|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of EIF4EBP1 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of EIF4EBP1 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker EIF4EBP1 Cytoplasm with PFS.||4.393|0.223|
91686806|NCT00451178|183265917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|3.628|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of EIF4E Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of EIF4E Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker EIF4E Cytoplasm with PFS.||3.628|0.316|
91686807|NCT00451178|183265917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|6.053|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of HDAC2 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of HDAC2 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker HDAC2 Nucleus with PFS.||6.053|0.454|
91686808|NCT00451178|183265917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|36.628|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PCREB Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PCREB Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PCREB Nucleus with PFS.||36.628|0.455|
91903587|NCT01241552|183701955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||8.5|0.2|
91903588|NCT01241552|183701955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.2|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||5.2|-2.6|
91863514|NCT05321082|183615899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|67.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.91|102.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline FVC \[mL\] at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||102.46|31.91|0.0002
91686809|NCT00451178|183265917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.253|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIF3746 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIF3746 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIF3746 Cytoplasm with PFS.||2.253|0.180|
91903589|NCT01241552|183701956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|3.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||3.5|-16.8|
91903590|NCT01241552|183701956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-9.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-9.6|-26.3|
91686810|NCT00451178|183265917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.362|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|1.576|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIF3746 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIF3746 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIF3746 Nucleus with PFS.||1.576|0.083|
91686811|NCT00451178|183265917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|4.901|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIFS209 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIFS209 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIFS209 Cytoplasm with PFS.||4.901|0.473|
91686812|NCT00451178|183265917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|3.699|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIFS65 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIFS65 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIFS65 Nucleus with PFS.||3.699|0.223|
91686813|NCT00451178|183265917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.843|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|7.867|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIFT70 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIFT70 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIFT70 Nucleus with PFS.||7.867|0.432|
91686814|NCT00451178|183265917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|3.109|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of P GSK3B Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of P GSK3B Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker P GSK3B Cytoplasm with PFS.||3.109|0.276|
91686815|NCT00451178|183265917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.033|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PKCb2 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PKCb2 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PKCb2 Cytoplasm with PFS.||3.033|0.320|
91686816|NCT00451178|183265917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.817|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|2.758|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PTEN Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PTEN Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PTEN Cytoplasm with PFS.||2.758|0.242|
91686817|NCT04856917|183265921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|8.19|||LRMM|||Least square (LS) Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a linear repeated measures model (LRMM) which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.||8.19|-2.47|0.3757
91686818|NCT04856917|183265921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.6183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.73|6.95|||LRMM|||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.||6.95|-3.73|0.6183
91686819|NCT04856917|183265922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|4.8||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||4.80|-0.85|0.2490
91686820|NCT04856917|183265922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|5.99||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||5.99|0.28|0.0708
91686821|NCT04856917|183265922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.44|12.34||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||12.34|3.44|0.0040
91720216|NCT03533751|183333363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.167|2.287|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||2.2870|-3.1670|0.7511
91903591|NCT01241552|183701956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-7.7|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-7.7|-24.5|
91903592|NCT01241552|183701957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|8.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||8.6|-20.1|
91720217|NCT03533751|183333363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396||0.7558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3133|3.1824|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||3.1824|-2.3133|0.7558
91720218|NCT03454555|183333366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.3|-16.6|0.31
91720219|NCT03454555|183333367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.7|-10.3|0.963
91720220|NCT03454555|183333368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|-16.8|0.253
91720221|NCT03454555|183333369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.5|-10.1|0.90
91720222|NCT03454555|183333370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.6|-13.7|0.65
91720223|NCT03454555|183333371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.8|-1.9|0.102
91720224|NCT03454555|183333372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.75|0.50|0.83
91863515|NCT05321082|183615900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.78|0.34|0.0017
91863516|NCT05321082|183615900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.78|0.34|0.0018
91863517|NCT05321082|183615901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in predicted Forced Vital Capacity % between the Nerandomilast 9 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Based on MMRM, with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline FVC \[% pred\] at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||3.23|1.15|<0.0001
91863518|NCT05321082|183615901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in predicted Forced Vital Capacity % between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Based on MMRM, with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline FVC \[% pred\] at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||2.98|0.90|0.0003
91720225|NCT03454555|183333373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.50|0.42|0.47
91720226|NCT03454555|183333374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.90|0.54|0.96
91720227|NCT03454555|183333375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.33|0.38|0.28
91720228|NCT03454555|183333376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.71|0.47|0.75
91720229|NCT03454555|183333377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.31|0.35|0.25
91720230|NCT03454555|183333378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.9|0.70
91720231|NCT03454555|183333379|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-1.1|0.92
91720232|NCT03454555|183333380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-0.7|0.64
91793931|NCT03519386|183466597|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.06||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol||-0.06|-1.38|
91720233|NCT03454555|183333381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.8|0.75
91720234|NCT03454555|183333382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.9|0.69
91720235|NCT03454555|183333383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.6|0.33
91720236|NCT03454555|183333384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-1.8|0.86
91720237|NCT03454555|183333385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-1.4|0.76
91720238|NCT03454555|183333386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.0|0.55
91720239|NCT03454555|183333387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.1|0.52
91720240|NCT03454555|183333388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.2|0.37
91720241|NCT03454555|183333389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.3|0.91
91720242|NCT03454555|183333390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|0.33
91863519|NCT05321082|183615902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||0.87|0.54|0.0018
91720243|NCT03454555|183333391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.3|0.46
91720244|NCT03454555|183333392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||Chi-squared|||||0.04|-0.08|0.52
91720245|NCT03454555|183333393|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a generalized logistic model for repeated measurements; modeled the outcome of intention to taper.||||2.59|0.85|0.17
91720246|NCT03454555|183333394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a generalized logistic model for repeated measurements; modeled the outcome of intention to taper.||||2.31|0.71|0.41
91720247|NCT03454555|183333395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
91863520|NCT05321082|183615902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||0.89|0.56|0.0038
91720248|NCT03454555|183333396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.67
91720249|NCT00375752|183333455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|31.1|||Fisher Exact|||||31.1|-1.8|0.106
91720250|NCT01140906|183333465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|-3.4||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-3.40|-7.66|<0.0001
91720251|NCT01140906|183333465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-4.97||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-4.97|-9.21|<0.0001
91720252|NCT01140906|183333465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|-7.35||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-7.35|-11.55|<0.0001
91720253|NCT01140906|183333466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|4.47||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||4.47|1.76|<0.0001
91720254|NCT01140906|183333466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.36||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||5.36|2.10|<0.0001
91720255|NCT01140906|183333466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|9.78||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|||||9.78|3.61|<0.0001
91720256|NCT01140906|183333467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.44||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.44|-0.94|<0.0001
91720257|NCT01140906|183333467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.70|-1.20|<0.0001
91720258|NCT01140906|183333467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.87||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-0.87|-1.36|<0.0001
91720259|NCT01140906|183333468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|-2.22||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-2.22|-8.25|0.0007
91903593|NCT01241552|183701957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-0.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-0.5|-25.5|
91863521|NCT05321082|183615903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in DLCO \[% pred\] between the Nerandomilast 9 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline DLCO \[% pred\] at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients. Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form page (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.11|-2.90|0.3793
91863522|NCT05321082|183615903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in DLCO \[% pred\] between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline DLCO \[% pred\] at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients. Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form page (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.53|-2.50|0.6354
91863523|NCT05321082|183615904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.14|0.65|0.2967
91863524|NCT05321082|183615904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.20|0.68|0.4815
91903594|NCT01241552|183701957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-1.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-1.6|-26.8|
91903595|NCT01241552|183701958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|21.0|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||21.0|-16.9|
91903596|NCT01241552|183701958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-1.4|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-1.4|-28.3|
91903597|NCT01241552|183701958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|1.9|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.9|-26.2|
91686822|NCT04856917|183265922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.206|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|7.94||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||7.94|-1.05|0.2060
91686823|NCT04856917|183265922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.4341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|6.51||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||6.51|-2.33|0.4341
91686824|NCT04856917|183265922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.59|5.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||5.48|-3.59|0.7307
91686825|NCT04856917|183265922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.97|7.77||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||7.77|-1.97|0.3261
91686826|NCT04856917|183265922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.8221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.56|4.23||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||4.23|-5.56|0.8221
91686827|NCT04856917|183265923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.84|16.73||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||16.73|-3.84|0.3008
91722513|NCT05845619|183337875|SUPERIORITY|There was no power calculation because this was a pilot study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.76|||Regression, Logistic||Numerator: pilot; denominator: prospective controls|In this pilot study, we hypothesized that pilot participants would have a reduced risk of viremia 6 months after the intervention compared to controls.||1.76|0.83|0.33
91686828|NCT04856917|183265923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|21.19||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||21.19|0.40|0.0878
91686829|NCT04856917|183265923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.64|40.57||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||40.57|12.64|0.0020
91722514|NCT05845619|183337875|SUPERIORITY|No power calculation, pilot study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.14|0.73|0.41
91903598|NCT01241552|183701959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|10.0|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.0|-30.1|
91903599|NCT01241552|183701959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-6.1|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-6.1|-43.7|
91903600|NCT01241552|183701960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|3.9|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||3.9|-24.9|
91686830|NCT04856917|183265923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|28.09||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||28.09|-0.12|0.1029
91686831|NCT04856917|183265923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.5427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.25|20.02||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||20.02|-9.25|0.5427
91686832|NCT04856917|183265923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.06||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.05|20.02||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||20.02|-10.05|0.5833
91686833|NCT04856917|183265923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.46|28.99||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||28.99|-7.46|0.3293
91686834|NCT04856917|183265923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|32.74||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||32.74|-3.74|0.1900
91686835|NCT04856917|183265923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.91|27.23||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||27.23|-3.91|0.2168
91686836|NCT04856917|183265923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.82|23.45||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||23.45|-7.82|0.4089
91686837|NCT04856917|183265924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|6.24||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||6.24|-2.16|0.4229
91686838|NCT04856917|183265924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.91|5.59||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||5.59|-2.91|0.6027
91722515|NCT02595892|183337876|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.98|||Log Rank|||||.98|.33|0.044
91686839|NCT04856917|183265924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|6.95||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||6.95|-1.35|0.2655
91686840|NCT04856917|183265924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.6229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|5.44||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||5.44|-2.95|0.6229
91686841|NCT04856917|183265924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|9.3||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||9.30|-3.10|0.4091
91686842|NCT04856917|183265924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|12.25||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||12.25|-0.47|0.1274
91722516|NCT02595892|183337879|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-Sided Fisher's exact test.||||||0.44
91903601|NCT01241552|183701960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-0.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-0.5|-24.7|
91903602|NCT01241552|183701960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-4.0|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.0|-27.8|
91903603|NCT01241552|183701961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|4.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||4.6|-23.2|
91863525|NCT05321082|183615905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.4748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nerandomilast 9mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Dyspnea score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||1.54|-3.30|0.4748
91863526|NCT05321082|183615905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Dyspnea score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||1.15|-3.69|0.3042
91863527|NCT05321082|183615906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.2506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nerandomilast 9 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Cough score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||1.33|-5.08|0.2506
91863528|NCT05321082|183615906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.9311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|3.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Cough score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||3.35|-3.07|0.9311
91863529|NCT05321082|183615907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.9668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nerandomilast 9mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Fatigue score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||2.57|-2.46|0.9668
91863530|NCT05321082|183615907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Fatigue score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||3.46|-1.58|0.4644
91863531|NCT03532282|183615950|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.15||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.001
91863532|NCT03532282|183615951|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.01
91863533|NCT03532282|183615952|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.24||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.0006
91863534|NCT03532282|183615953|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.04||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.05
91863535|NCT04005794|183615970|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Social latency t = 3.215|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91863536|NCT04005794|183615971|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.213
91863537|NCT04005794|183615972|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91863538|NCT04005794|183615973|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91686843|NCT04856917|183265924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|11.01||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||11.01|-1.47|0.2075
91863539|NCT04005794|183615974|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91863540|NCT05671653|183615984|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.25|98.38||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 4).||98.38|80.25|
91863541|NCT05671653|183615984|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.21|88.76||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 7).||88.76|55.21|
91863542|NCT05671653|183615985|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|57.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.27|83.29||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 4).||83.29|39.27|
91863543|NCT05671653|183615985|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|29.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.6|44.94||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 7).||44.94|19.60|
91863544|NCT05671653|183615986|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|119.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.97|131.85||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 5).||131.85|108.97|
91863545|NCT05671653|183615986|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|185.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.0|318.44||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 8)||318.44|108.00|
91863546|NCT05671653|183615987|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.09|111.93||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 5).||111.93|95.09|
91863547|NCT05671653|183615987|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.24|135.06||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 8)||135.06|60.24|
91686844|NCT04856917|183265924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|10.64||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||10.64|-1.88|0.2484
91720260|NCT01140906|183333468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|-3.31||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-3.31|-9.53|<0.0001
91720261|NCT01140906|183333468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-5.69||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-5.69|-11.73|<0.0001
91720262|NCT01140906|183333469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.91||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||3.91|1.37|0.0016
91863548|NCT05671653|183615988|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|92.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.97|107.87||||||Reference: Cohort 2: Midazolam 2 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 2: Semaglutide 2.4 mg QW + Midazolam 2 mg (Period 3).||107.87|79.97|
91794545|NCT00491556|183467995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.54||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.21|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-0.21|-2.41|0.0215
91686845|NCT04856917|183265924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|9.45||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||9.45|-2.53|0.3399
91794546|NCT00734747|183467999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
91863549|NCT02505984|183616062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91863550|NCT02505984|183616062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.093
91863551|NCT02505984|183616062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
91863552|NCT02505984|183616062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91863553|NCT02505984|183616063|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.9
91863554|NCT02505984|183616063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
91863555|NCT02505984|183616064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91863556|NCT02505984|183616064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91863557|NCT02505984|183616065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
91863558|NCT02505984|183616065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91863559|NCT02505984|183616065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
91863560|NCT04176601|183616069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|7.15||||||||7.15|1.49|
91720263|NCT01140906|183333469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.44||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||4.44|1.58|0.0002
91720264|NCT01140906|183333469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|8.37||Wald's test. This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusted for Odds Ratio|||||8.37|2.99|<0.0001
91720265|NCT01140906|183333470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-0.97||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.97|-5.51|0.0054
91720266|NCT01140906|183333470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|-1.73||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-1.73|-6.11|0.0005
91720267|NCT01140906|183333470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-4.7||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-4.70|-9.16|<0.0001
91720268|NCT01140906|183333471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.48||A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.48|-1.83|0.2524
91863561|NCT04176601|183616070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|8.15||||||||8.15|1.26|
91903604|NCT01241552|183701961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|1.4|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.4|-23.2|
91720269|NCT01140906|183333471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.68||A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.68|-1.64|0.4186
91720270|NCT01140906|183333472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.7372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.67||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.67|-0.95|0.7372
91720271|NCT01140906|183333472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.37||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.37|-0.24|0.1690
91720272|NCT01649765|183333473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.46||||||||3.46|0.64|
91720273|NCT01649765|183333474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|6.54|||||Definition 1|||6.54|1.15|
91720274|NCT01649765|183333474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.17|||||Definition 2|||7.17|1.19|
91720275|NCT02469233|183333485|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-3.18||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.025
91720276|NCT02469233|183333485|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.52||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.28
91720277|NCT02469233|183333486|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.001
91720278|NCT02469233|183333486|SUPERIORITY||maximum likelihood estimation|-3.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.03
91720279|NCT02469233|183333487|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||<0.0001
91794547|NCT05063318|183468034|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|272.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|213.22|348.86|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||348.86|213.22|
91863562|NCT04176601|183616071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|6.14||||||||6.14|1.59|
91863563|NCT04299464|183616079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.432||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.291|1.428|||ANCOVA|||||1.428|-2.291|0.7650
91863564|NCT04299464|183616079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.4444||||0.7517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.25|1.363|||ANCOVA|||||1.363|-2.250|0.7517
91863565|NCT04299464|183616088|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.741||||0.6082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.631|6.114|||ANCOVA|||||6.114|-2.631|0.6082
91863566|NCT04299464|183616088|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.715||||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.204|2.774|||ANCOVA|||||2.774|-6.204|0.6228
91863567|NCT04299464|183616089|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.983||||0.1987|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.957|-0.009|||ANCOVA|||||-0.009|-5.957|0.1987
91863568|NCT04299464|183616089|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-4.474||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.326|-1.622|||ANCOVA|||||-1.622|-7.326|0.0460
91903605|NCT01241552|183701961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-4.7|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.7|-28.4|
91720280|NCT02469233|183333487|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||<0.0001
91720281|NCT02469233|183333488|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-9.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||<0.0001
91720282|NCT02469233|183333488|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.37||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.027
91720283|NCT02469233|183333489|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.95||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.32
91720284|NCT02469233|183333489|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.67||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.08
91686846|NCT04856917|183265924|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|13.05||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||13.05|1.03|0.0545
91720285|NCT02469233|183333490|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.09||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.72
91720286|NCT02469233|183333490|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.08||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.74
91720287|NCT02469233|183333491|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-2.46||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.73
91720288|NCT02469233|183333491|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-17.52||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.02
91720289|NCT02469233|183333492|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|5.68||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.03
91720290|NCT02469233|183333492|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|5.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.03
91863569|NCT04299464|183616090|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.279||||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.021|3.578|||ANCOVA|||||3.578|-1.021|0.4746
91720291|NCT02469233|183333492|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.45||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.43
91720292|NCT02469233|183333492|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.55||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.40
91720293|NCT02469233|183333493|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-12.68||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.59
91720294|NCT02469233|183333493|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-28.33||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.22
91720295|NCT02469233|183333493|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|4.65||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST variability (min) : Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.80
91863570|NCT04299464|183616090|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|2.697||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.453|4.94|||ANCOVA|||||4.940|0.453|0.1244
91863571|NCT05907174|183616136|SUPERIORITY||B|-2.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.023
91863572|NCT05093842|183616161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91863573|NCT05093842|183616162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91863574|NCT05093842|183616163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91863575|NCT05093842|183616164|OTHER|Descriptive rates were calculated.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
91686847|NCT04856917|183265925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.69||0.9679|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.86|18.91||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||18.91|-19.86|0.9679
91794548|NCT05063318|183468035|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|236.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|177.35|316.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||316.00|177.35|
91863576|NCT05093842|183616165|OTHER|Descriptive statistics only|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
91863577|NCT05093842|183616166|OTHER|Descriptive statistics only|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
91863578|NCT05093842|183616167|OTHER|Descriptive statistics only|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
91863579|NCT03916276|183616168|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce a greater proportion of people decreasing their dose relative to those increasing their dose during treatment.|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91686848|NCT04856917|183265925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.83||0.9152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.87|18.35||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||18.35|-20.87|0.9152
91686849|NCT04856917|183265925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64||0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.67|23.32||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||23.32|-8.67|0.4490
91686850|NCT04856917|183265925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.74||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.72|19.6||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||19.60|-12.72|0.7246
91686851|NCT04856917|183265925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.88||0.4655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.49|45.14||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||45.14|-17.49|0.4655
91686852|NCT04856917|183265925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.33||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|62.54||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||62.54|-1.59|0.1178
91686853|NCT04856917|183265925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.71||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.22|52.52||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||52.52|-6.22|0.1938
91686854|NCT04856917|183265925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.85||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|59.29||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||59.29|0.08|0.0991
91686855|NCT04856917|183265925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.44||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.62|40.59||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||40.59|-10.62|0.3337
91686856|NCT04856917|183265925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.48||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.5|56.87||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||56.87|5.50|0.0465
91686857|NCT04856917|183265926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|8.56||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||8.56|-1.21|0.2150
91863580|NCT03916276|183616169|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91863581|NCT03916276|183616170|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91863582|NCT03916276|183616171|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91863583|NCT03916276|183616172|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91863584|NCT03916276|183616173|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91903606|NCT02606461|183701967|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7026||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5191|0.9509|||Log Rank|||||0.9509|0.5191|0.0114
91720296|NCT02469233|183333493|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-7.57||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.68
91720297|NCT02469233|183333494|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-76.85||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.34
91720298|NCT02469233|183333494|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-87.15||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.28
91720299|NCT02469233|183333494|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.15||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count variability (min) : Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.18
91863585|NCT03916276|183616174|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91686858|NCT04856917|183265926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|10.05||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||10.05|0.21|0.0864
91686859|NCT04856917|183265926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.97|16.85||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||16.85|3.97|0.0084
91720300|NCT02469233|183333494|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.27||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.02
91720301|NCT02469233|183333495|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-7.19||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.09
91720302|NCT02469233|183333495|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.13||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcome.||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.79
91720303|NCT02469233|183333496|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.16||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcome,||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.46
91720304|NCT02469233|183333496|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.10
91720305|NCT02469233|183333497|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.002
91720306|NCT02469233|183333497|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.64||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.03
91720307|NCT02469233|183333498|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|24.85||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Means of Total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.23
91720308|NCT02469233|183333498|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|34.31||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Means of total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.09
91794549|NCT05063318|183468036|SUPERIORITY||least-squares geometric mean ratio.|115.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.07|133.33|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||133.33|100.07|
91863586|NCT03916276|183616175|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91863587|NCT03916276|183616176|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91686860|NCT04856917|183265926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|12.01||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||12.01|-0.95|0.1600
91720309|NCT02469233|183333498|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-19.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Variability of Total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.19
91720310|NCT02469233|183333498|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.76||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Variability of Total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.91
91720311|NCT02469233|183333499|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-39.33||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.04
91720312|NCT02469233|183333499|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-28.56||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.13
91720313|NCT02469233|183333499|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-17.57||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min) : Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.21
91720314|NCT02469233|183333499|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-16.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.25
91720315|NCT02469233|183333500|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.55||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Bedtime (BT) mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.10
91720316|NCT02469233|183333500|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.71||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||BT mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.04
91720317|NCT02469233|183333500|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.31||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||BT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.20
91720318|NCT02469233|183333500|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.45||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||BT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.07
91720319|NCT02469233|183333501|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.33||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.39
91720320|NCT02469233|183333501|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.96
91720321|NCT02469233|183333501|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.39||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.047
91720322|NCT02469233|183333501|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.30
91720323|NCT02469233|183333502|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.42||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.66
91720324|NCT02469233|183333502|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-13.34||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.19
91720325|NCT02469233|183333502|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.05||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.77
91720326|NCT02469233|183333502|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.22||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.20
91794550|NCT05063318|183468037|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio.|217.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.81|311.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence (TR or RT) as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect.||||311.82|151.81|
91863588|NCT03916276|183616177|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91863589|NCT03916276|183616178|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91863590|NCT03916276|183616179|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91686861|NCT04856917|183265926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|13.41||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||13.41|-3.94|0.3671
91863591|NCT03916276|183616180|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91686862|NCT04856917|183265926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|16.46||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||16.46|-1.28|0.1587
91686863|NCT04856917|183265926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|17.21||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||17.21|-2.03|0.1932
91686864|NCT04856917|183265926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.82||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|16.37||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||16.37|-2.95|0.2518
91686865|NCT04856917|183265926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|15.83||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||15.83|-2.53|0.2320
91686866|NCT04856917|183265926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|16.35||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||16.35|-2.08|0.2014
91720327|NCT00855582|183333554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91794551|NCT05063318|183468038|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|36.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.66|46.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||46.9|28.66|
91863592|NCT03916276|183616181|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91863593|NCT03916276|183616182|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91863594|NCT03916276|183616183|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91863595|NCT03916276|183616184|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91863596|NCT03209973|183616187|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sided p-value was based on exact test of BGB-A317 versus historical rate of 0.35|Exact Binomial Test|Comparison with historical control values||||||<0.0001
91863597|NCT06415292|183616200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P-value reported here is the calculated p-value. The p-value theshold for significance was p =0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91863598|NCT04800211|183616290|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-178.789|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.899|-152.678|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-152.678|-204.899|<.0001
91903607|NCT02606461|183701969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.1521||||0.6051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5357|2.4778|||Log Rank|||||2.4778|0.5357|0.6051
91903608|NCT00239226|183701993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.93||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.047
91903609|NCT01892306|183702011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scores on the HAM-A were analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression analysis over 6 timepoints.||||.02
91794552|NCT05063318|183468039|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|99.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.76|151.74|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||151.74|65.76|
91863599|NCT04800211|183616290|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-184.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.184|-157.598|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-157.598|-211.184|<.0001
91686867|NCT04856917|183265927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.4361|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|12.06||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||12.06|-4.34|0.4361
91903610|NCT01892306|183702012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scores on the HAM-D were analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression analysis over 6 timepoints.||||0.02
91903611|NCT01892306|183702013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scores on the CSQ were analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression analysis over 6 timepoints.||||0.24
91686868|NCT04856917|183265927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|16.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||16.48|-0.04|0.1018
91686869|NCT04856917|183265927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.66|25.88||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||25.88|6.66|0.0059
91686870|NCT04856917|183265927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|19.59||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||19.59|0.26|0.0913
91686871|NCT04856917|183265927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.4921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.47|18.09||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||18.09|-7.47|0.4921
91686872|NCT04856917|183265927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|24.24||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||24.24|-1.95|0.1607
91686873|NCT04856917|183265927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|29.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||29.48|-1.02|0.1244
91686874|NCT04856917|183265927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|30.51||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||30.51|-0.02|0.1004
91686875|NCT04856917|183265927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.61|28.39||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||28.39|-3.61|0.2015
91686876|NCT04856917|183265927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.66||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|31.81||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||31.81|-0.27|0.1057
91794553|NCT00920829|183468069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model with unstructured variance/covariance matrices was used to evaluate the primary outcome measure.||||0.724
91903612|NCT01892306|183702014|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline DERS scores.||||.62
91903613|NCT01892306|183702014|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline DERS scores||||.03
91903614|NCT01892306|183702015|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ACS scores.||||0.95
91903615|NCT01892306|183702015|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ACS scores.||||0.03
91903616|NCT01892306|183702016|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ASI scores||||0.87
91903617|NCT01892306|183702016|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ASI scores||||0.37
91903618|NCT01892306|183702017|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline NEO- Neuroticism scores.||||0.17
91863600|NCT04800211|183616290|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-175.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.964|-149.237|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-149.237|-200.964|<.0001
91863601|NCT04800211|183616290|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-161.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.543|-135.609|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-135.609|-187.543|<.0001
91863602|NCT04800211|183616290|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-172.983|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.08|-153.886|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-153.886|-192.080|<.0001
91903619|NCT01892306|183702017|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline NEO-Neuroticism scores||||.04
91686877|NCT04856917|183265928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.19||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.19|-0.08|0.5157
91686878|NCT04856917|183265928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.34||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.34|0.06|0.0178
91686879|NCT04856917|183265928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.48|0.10|0.0132
91686880|NCT04856917|183265928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.54||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.54|0.16|0.0034
91686881|NCT04856917|183265928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.47||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.47|0.04|0.0510
91686882|NCT04856917|183265928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.47||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.47|0.03|0.0608
91686883|NCT04856917|183265928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.48|-0.10|0.2702
91686884|NCT04856917|183265928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.69||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.69|0.11|0.0249
91903620|NCT01892306|183702018|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||Fisher's z-transformed values for functional connectivity between anterior insula and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex were entered in separate treatment group-specific linear regression models as the independent variable with change in primary outcomes (HAM-D) as dependent variable.||||0.007
91903621|NCT01892306|183702018|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Linear|||Fisher's z-transformed values for functional connectivity between anterior insula and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex were entered in separate treatment group-specific linear regression models as the independent variable with change in primary outcomes (HAM-D) as dependent variable.||||.14
91794554|NCT00920829|183468069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a test of the main effect of medication, with a null hypothesis of no difference between Naltrexone and Placebo groups.||||0.023
91686885|NCT04856917|183265928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.55||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.55|-0.06|0.1853
91863603|NCT04800211|183616290|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.585||||0.7781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.572|21.401|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||21.401|-28.572|0.7781
91686886|NCT04856917|183265928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.5||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.50|-0.11|0.2974
91686887|NCT04856917|183265929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|1.63||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.63|-6.62|0.3390
91720328|NCT00855582|183333555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720329|NCT00855582|183333556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.181||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.181
91793932|NCT03519386|183466597|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.48||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol||-0.48|-1.83|
91686888|NCT04856917|183265929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.79|1.59||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.59|-6.79|0.3243
91686889|NCT04856917|183265929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|5.91||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||5.91|-5.91|1.0000
91686890|NCT04856917|183265929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.66||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.96|1.63||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||1.63|-6.96|0.3320
91686891|NCT04856917|183265929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.45||||0.7595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.5|10.59||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||10.59|-15.50|0.7595
91686892|NCT04856917|183265929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.11||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.66|-4.57||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||-4.57|-23.66|0.0209
91720330|NCT00855582|183333557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720331|NCT00855582|183333558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0228 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91794555|NCT02237911|183468072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-4.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.7|-4.9|0.071
91686893|NCT04856917|183265929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.56||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.99|9.87||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||9.87|-18.99|0.6094
91863604|NCT04800211|183616290|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.764||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.993|17.465|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||17.465|-32.993|0.5457
91863605|NCT04800211|183616290|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-175.203|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.445|-129.961|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-129.961|-220.445|<.0001
91863606|NCT04800211|183616290|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-176.627|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.672|-130.582|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-130.582|-222.672|<.0001
91863607|NCT04800211|183616290|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-171.515|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.626|-126.404|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-126.404|-216.626|<.0001
91903622|NCT01750931|183702055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Percent ratio|102.45||||0.4396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.4|105.59|||ANOVA|||||105.59|99.40|0.4396
91903623|NCT01750931|183702057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Percent ratio|105.02||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.69|110.63|||ANOVA||Comparison of AUC0-t between group GSK-meloxicam 15 mg and Mobic-meloxicam 15 mg|||110.63|99.69|0.9712
91686894|NCT04856917|183265929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.28||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.34|2.78||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||2.78|-23.34|0.2076
91686895|NCT04856917|183265930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.4482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.29||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.29|-0.10|0.4482
91686896|NCT04856917|183265930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.4529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.33||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.33|-0.05|0.4529
91686897|NCT04856917|183265930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.18||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.18|-0.20|0.9320
91720332|NCT00855582|183333559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0228 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91903624|NCT01750931|183702057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Percent ratio|102.31||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.05|105.69|||ANOVA||Comparison of AUC0-infinity between group GSK-meloxicam 15 mg and Mobic-meloxicam 15 mg|||105.69|99.05|0.9951
91686898|NCT04856917|183265930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.16||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.16|-0.22|0.3151
91720333|NCT00855582|183333560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. Based on the results of prior tests under this procedure, the statistical significance of this hypothesis was not assessed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720334|NCT00855582|183333561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.156||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. Based on the results of prior tests under this procedure, the statistical significance of this hypothesis was not assessed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.156
91720335|NCT00855582|183333562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.226||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.226
91720336|NCT00855582|183333562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91686899|NCT04856917|183265930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.06||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.06|-0.32|0.2908
91686900|NCT04856917|183265930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.7277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.24||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.24|-0.15|0.7277
91686901|NCT04856917|183265930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03||||0.8463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.17||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.17|-0.23|0.8463
91686902|NCT04856917|183265930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.11||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.11|-0.28|0.5281
91686903|NCT04856917|183265930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.5747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.11||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.11|-0.28|0.5747
91686904|NCT04856917|183265930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.14||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.14|-0.24|0.5081
91686905|NCT04856917|183265931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.8338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.2||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.20|-0.19|0.8338
91686906|NCT04856917|183265931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.09||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.09|-0.31|0.1142
91686907|NCT04856917|183265931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.3433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.0||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.00|-0.38|0.3433
91686908|NCT04856917|183265931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.04||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.04|-0.37|0.1129
91686909|NCT04856917|183265931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.2842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.0||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.00|-0.38|0.2842
91794556|NCT02237911|183468072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-5.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted by baseline age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion.||0.7|-5.0|0.074
91794557|NCT02237911|183468072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.7|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted by baseline age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion.||2.9|-2.7|0.930
91686910|NCT04856917|183265931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|-0.13||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||-0.13|-0.52|0.0212
91686911|NCT04856917|183265931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.14||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.14|-0.28|0.7665
91793933|NCT03519386|183466597|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.43||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||0.43|-0.93|
91720337|NCT00855582|183333563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.121
91720338|NCT00855582|183333563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.169||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.169
91720339|NCT00855582|183333563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720340|NCT00855582|183333563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720341|NCT00855582|183333564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720342|NCT00855582|183333564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720343|NCT00855582|183333564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91863608|NCT04800211|183616290|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-153.812|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.27|-108.354|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-108.354|-199.270|<.0001
91720344|NCT00855582|183333564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720345|NCT00855582|183333565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91903625|NCT01829425|183702063|NON_INFERIORITY|The study design will use a non-inferiority design to compare the primary outcome (change in UUI episodes in the hypnotherapy versus pharmacotherapy groups). With respect to the outcome variable of percent reduction in UUI episodes as determined by bladder diaries, we will use a one-sided non- inferiority test at level alpha = 0.25 and a non-inferiority margin of 5%.|Difference in median % change between gr|5.0|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.0||||Exact Mann Whitney|Due dispersion, medians were calculated. Exact Mann Whitney test was used for this analysis.|Hypnotherapy - Pharmacotherapy. % difference in median % change in UUI episodes with lower bounds \> - 5% would be consistent with non-inferiority||||5|<.025
91720346|NCT00855582|183333565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91794558|NCT02237911|183468072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-3.7|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||2.0|-3.7|0.491
91863609|NCT04800211|183616290|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-165.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.898|-134.541|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-134.541|-195.898|<.0001
91863610|NCT04800211|183616290|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.815||||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.223|13.593|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||13.593|-59.223|0.2188
91903626|NCT01829425|183702064|NON_INFERIORITY|The study design will use a non-inferiority design to compare the primary outcome (change in UUI episodes in the hypnotherapy versus pharmacotherapy groups). With respect to the outcome variable of percent reduction in UUI episodes as determined by bladder diaries, we will use a one-sided non- inferiority test at level alpha = 0.25 and a non-inferiority margin of 5%. If|Difference in median % change between gr|5.0|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.0||||Exact Mann Whitney||||||5|<.025
91903627|NCT01006265|183702195|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|0.226|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.384|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.384|0.133|<0.0001
91720347|NCT00855582|183333565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91686912|NCT04856917|183265931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22||||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.0||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||-0.00|-0.42|0.1777
91686913|NCT04856917|183265931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.09||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.09|-0.33|0.3741
91686914|NCT04856917|183265931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.09||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.09|-0.33|0.3321
91686915|NCT04856917|183265932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.7932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|2.14||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||2.14|-1.56|0.7932
91686916|NCT04856917|183265932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.4365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|2.73||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||2.73|-0.99|0.4365
91686917|NCT04856917|183265932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.92|1.54||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.54|-1.92|0.8543
91686918|NCT04856917|183265932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.8726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|1.58||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.58|-1.91|0.8726
91686919|NCT04856917|183265932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.5983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.35||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||2.35|-1.22|0.5983
91686920|NCT04856917|183265932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|2.86||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||2.86|-0.77|0.3396
91794559|NCT02237911|183468072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-4.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.1|-4.5|0.021
91686921|NCT04856917|183265932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.5305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|1.01||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||1.01|-2.23|0.5305
91720348|NCT00855582|183333565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720349|NCT00855582|183333566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.215||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.215
91720350|NCT00855582|183333566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.325||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.325
91720351|NCT00855582|183333566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720352|NCT00855582|183333566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.011||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.011
91686922|NCT04856917|183265932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|3.29||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||3.29|0.09|0.0819
91720353|NCT00855582|183333567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.23||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.230
91720354|NCT00855582|183333567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720355|NCT00855582|183333568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.191||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.191
91720356|NCT00855582|183333568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720357|NCT00855582|183333569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.763||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.763
91720358|NCT00855582|183333569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.075||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.075
91903628|NCT01006265|183702195|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.289|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.289|0.100|<0.0001
91903629|NCT01006265|183702195|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|0.566||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.952|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.952|0.337|0.0318
91903630|NCT01390272|183702199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Constrained longitudinal model adjusting for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||||1.6|-5.9|0.26
91686923|NCT04856917|183265932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|4.31||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||4.31|0.69|0.0243
91686924|NCT04856917|183265932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|3.46||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||3.46|-0.03|0.1061
91686925|NCT04856917|183265933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|2.97||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||2.97|-2.69|0.9333
91686926|NCT04856917|183265933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.27||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||4.27|-1.40|0.3972
91686927|NCT04856917|183265933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|3.99||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||3.99|0.23|0.0662
91686928|NCT04856917|183265933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.8898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|2.04||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||2.04|-1.73|0.8898
91686929|NCT04856917|183265933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|2.82||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||2.82|-0.85|0.3664
91686930|NCT04856917|183265933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|4.05||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||4.05|0.25|0.0655
91686931|NCT04856917|183265933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|2.57||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||2.57|-1.61|0.6921
91686932|NCT04856917|183265933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|4.88||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||4.88|0.59|0.0406
91686933|NCT04856917|183265933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.6872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|1.38||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||1.38|-2.24|0.6872
91686934|NCT04856917|183265933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.3392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|2.92||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||2.92|-0.81|0.3392
91686935|NCT00486525|183265985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.039|-0.19|0.20
91686936|NCT00486525|183265985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.015|-0.25|0.027
91686937|NCT00486525|183265985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (TNF-a) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.018|-0.060|0.28
91686938|NCT00486525|183265985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.0021|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (TNF-a) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.0021|-0.079|0.063
91720359|NCT00855582|183333570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.384||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.384
91720360|NCT00855582|183333570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.082||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.082
91863611|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-248.311|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.423|-210.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-210.199|-286.423|<.0001
91863612|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-247.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-280.904|-214.241|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-214.241|-280.904|<.0001
91903631|NCT01390272|183702200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Constrained longitudinal model adjusting for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||||2.4|-4.9|0.50
91686939|NCT00486525|183265986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.042|-0.2|0.2
91720361|NCT00855582|183333571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91686940|NCT00486525|183265986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.031|-0.28|0.015
91686941|NCT00486525|183265986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-6) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.019|-0.063|0.3
91686942|NCT00486525|183265986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-6) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-0.013|-0.098|0.01
91686943|NCT00486525|183265987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.11|-0.31|0.33
91720362|NCT00855582|183333571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720363|NCT00855582|183333572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720364|NCT00855582|183333572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720365|NCT00855582|183333573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91903632|NCT01390272|183702201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Constrained longitudinal model adjusting for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||||2.4|-5.6|0.43
91720366|NCT00855582|183333573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720367|NCT00855582|183333574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720368|NCT00855582|183333574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91903633|NCT01390272|183702203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status.||Comparison at 6 months||1.6|0.7|0.83
91720369|NCT00855582|183333575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720370|NCT00855582|183333575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720371|NCT00855582|183333576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720372|NCT00855582|183333576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720373|NCT00855582|183333577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91793934|NCT03519386|183466597|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.08||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||-0.08|-1.40|
91720374|NCT00855582|183333577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91720375|NCT00855582|183333578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||<0.001
91720376|NCT00855582|183333578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||<0.001
91720377|NCT00855582|183333579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||0.006
91720378|NCT00855582|183333579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||<0.001
91903634|NCT01390272|183702204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status.||Comparison at 12 months||1.4|0.5|0.53
91903635|NCT01390272|183702205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status.||Comparison at 18 months.||2.3|0.9|0.09
91863613|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-245.868|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.945|-206.791|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-206.791|-284.945|<.0001
91903636|NCT01390272|183702208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variable of diabetes status and diabetes control.||||1.5|0.7|0.95
91903637|NCT01390272|183702209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.1|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link.Adjusted for baseline stratification variable of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||Comparison at 12 months||2.1|0.9|0.12
91686944|NCT00486525|183265987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.014|-0.44|0.037
91686945|NCT00486525|183265987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-1b) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.035|-0.10|0.33
91686946|NCT00486525|183265987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.0074|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-1b) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-0.0074|-0.15|0.03
91686947|NCT00486525|183265988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.15|-8.5|0.058
91686948|NCT00486525|183265988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-2.7|-11.4|0.002
91686949|NCT00486525|183265988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of MFSI-SF Fatigue for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-0.28|-3.1|0.019
91686950|NCT00486525|183265988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of MFSI-SF fatigue for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-1.4|-4.2|0.0001
91686951|NCT00486525|183265989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||11.4|1.4|0.01
91720379|NCT00855582|183333580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 1.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
91686952|NCT00486525|183265989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||11.6|1.5|0.01
91686953|NCT00486525|183265989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of vitality (SF-36) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||3.75|0.40|0.016
91686954|NCT00486525|183265989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of vitality (SF-36) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||4.14|0.77|0.0045
91686955|NCT00486525|183265990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.88|-3.0|0.28
91686956|NCT00486525|183265990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.69|-3.2|0.21
91686957|NCT00486525|183265990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0039|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of CES-D for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.0039|-1.3|0.051
91686958|NCT00486525|183265990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of CESD for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.10|-1.2|0.098
91686959|NCT02548156|183265998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS mean|1.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||From ANCOVA of log transformed data: subject (random), treatment (fixed) and period (fixed) as factors, participant-level baseline and period-level baseline minus participant-level baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA||Treatment difference from ANCOVA of log transformed data. This therefore represents the ratio of the first named treatment to the second named treatment. A ratio \>1 favors the first named treatment.|Test and Reference dentifrice combined vs. Comparator dentifrice||||<0.0001
91686960|NCT01473407|183266038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01||||||Least Square (LS) mean and 95 percent confidence interval (CI) were derived from an ANCOVA model with fixed effect of treatment.||0.01|-0.25|
91686961|NCT01473407|183266039|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.483|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|11.13||||||LS mean and 95 percent CI were derived from an ANCOVA model with fixed effect of treatment.||11.13|-10.40|
91686962|NCT01473407|183266040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7563||||||P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.7563
91686963|NCT01473407|183266041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1061||||||P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.1061
91686964|NCT01473407|183266042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3369||||||P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.3369
91686965|NCT02422797|183266062|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.2|||||Estimates based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INSTI).|||4.2|-3.9|
91686966|NCT02422797|183266064|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.8|||||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INSTI). No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||1.8|-4.0|
91794560|NCT02237911|183468072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-3.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||1.0|-3.6|0.179
91720380|NCT00855582|183333580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 2.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
91720381|NCT00855582|183333580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 1.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
91720382|NCT00855582|183333580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 2.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
91864621|NCT04047602|183618525|EQUIVALENCE|The observed proportion of evaluable patients with symptomatic radiation necrosis was calculated and tested against a baseline 6-month symptomatic radiation necrosis rate of 16% at a type I error rate of 5% using a one-sided binomial exact test. The null hypothesis is that the observed proportion is equivalent to 16% or 0.160.|Binomial Proportion|0.083||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.385||The p-value reported is the one-sided p-value from the exact equivalence binomial test using an alpha value of 0.05.|Exact Binomial Test||The binomial proportion 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson (Exact) method.|The observed proportion of evaluable patients with symptomatic radiation necrosis was calculated and tested against a baseline 6-month symptomatic radiation necrosis rate of 16% at a type I error rate of 5% using a one-sided binomial exact test. The null hypothesis is that the observed proportion is equivalent to 16% or 0.160.||0.385|0.002|0.234
91686967|NCT02422797|183266075|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (25 hydroxy-vitamin D)|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91686968|NCT02422797|183266075|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.861||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|0.967||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - INSTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.967|0.767|0.011
91686969|NCT02422797|183266075|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.012||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.085||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||1.085|0.943|0.745
91686970|NCT02422797|183266075|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.877||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|0.977||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.977|0.787|0.018
91686971|NCT02422797|183266077|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase)|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91686972|NCT02422797|183266077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.728|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|0.773||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.773|0.686|<.001
91686973|NCT02422797|183266077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.865||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|0.954||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - INSTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.954|0.785|0.004
91686974|NCT02422797|183266077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.788|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.864||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.864|0.719|<.001
91686975|NCT02422797|183266077|OTHER|||||||0.677||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.677
91686976|NCT02422797|183266077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.867|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.914||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.914|0.823|<.001
91686977|NCT02422797|183266077|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (osteocalcin)|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91720383|NCT00855582|183333581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANOVA|||||||0.027
91720384|NCT00855582|183333581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANOVA|||||||0.186
91686978|NCT02422797|183266077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.853|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|0.91||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.910|0.799|<.001
91686979|NCT02422797|183266077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.886||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.987||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - INSTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.987|0.796|0.028
91686980|NCT02422797|183266077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.822||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.822|0.672|<.001
91686981|NCT02422797|183266077|OTHER|||||||0.782||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.782
91686982|NCT02422797|183266077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.818|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.891||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.891|0.751|<.001
91863614|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-234.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.603|-198.282|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-198.282|-271.603|<.0001
91686983|NCT02422797|183266090|OTHER|||||||0.179||||||One-sided p-value from weighted least squares chi-squared statistic. A p-value \<=0.10 was used to indicate statistically significant evidence of heterogeneity in the difference in proportions across levels of each analysis strata.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.179
91686984|NCT02422797|183266090|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.6|||||NNRTI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||8.6|-1.6|
91686985|NCT02422797|183266090|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|7.4|||||INSTI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||7.4|-12.1|
91686986|NCT02422797|183266090|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|3.1|||||PI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||3.1|-13.9|
91686987|NCT02422797|183266098|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 4)|ANCOVA|||||||0.430
91686988|NCT02422797|183266098|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.239||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.414|-0.064||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (Symptom Bother Score - Week 4)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||-0.064|-2.414|0.039
91686989|NCT02422797|183266098|OTHER|||||||0.542||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 24)|ANCOVA|||||||0.542
91686990|NCT02422797|183266098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.528||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.896|0.84||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (Symptom Bother Score - Week 24)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||0.840|-1.896|0.448
91686991|NCT02422797|183266098|OTHER|||||||0.402||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 48)|ANCOVA|||||||0.402
91686992|NCT02422797|183266098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.037||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.501|0.426||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (Symptom Bother Score - Week 48)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||0.426|-2.501|0.164
91686993|NCT02422797|183266101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.037
91686994|NCT02422797|183266101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.101
91686995|NCT02422797|183266101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs Total score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.042
91686996|NCT02422797|183266101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.132
91686997|NCT02422797|183266101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.022
91686998|NCT02422797|183266101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.004
91686999|NCT02422797|183266101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.076
91687000|NCT02422797|183266101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.073
91687001|NCT02422797|183266101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.547
91687002|NCT05044195|183266147|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|0.871||||||A/H1N1||0.871|0.738|
91687003|NCT05044195|183266147|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: UL of the 95% CI for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|0.989||||||A/H3N2||0.989|0.819|
91687004|NCT05044195|183266147|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: UL of the 95% CI for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.012||||||B/Yamagata||1.012|0.880|
91687005|NCT05044195|183266147|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: UL of the 95% CI for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.067||||||B/Victoria||1.067|0.923|
91687006|NCT05044195|183266148|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|-0.74||||||A/H1N1||-0.74|-7.97|
91687007|NCT05044195|183266148|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|2.48||||||A/H3N2||2.48|-6.14|
91687008|NCT05044195|183266148|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|2.0||||||B/Yamagata||2.00|-6.77|
91687009|NCT05044195|183266148|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|0.45||||||B/Victoria||0.45|-8.31|
91794561|NCT02237911|183468073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
91687010|NCT05044195|183266149|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.876||||||A/H1N1||0.876|0.745|
91687011|NCT05044195|183266149|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|0.998||||||A/H3N2||0.998|0.829|
91687012|NCT05044195|183266149|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.014||||||B/Yamagata||1.014|0.884|
91687013|NCT05044195|183266149|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.075||||||B/Victoria||1.075|0.931|
91687014|NCT05044195|183266150|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|0.944||||||A/H1N1||0.944|0.803|
91687015|NCT05044195|183266150|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.032||||||A/H3N2||1.032|0.880|
91687016|NCT05044195|183266150|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.077||||||B/Yamagata||1.077|0.953|
91687017|NCT05044195|183266150|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.098||||||B/Victoria||1.098|0.963|
91687018|NCT05044195|183266158|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.838|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.936||||||A/H1N1 (50 to 59 years)||0.936|0.751|
91687019|NCT05044195|183266158|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.04||||||A/H3N2 (50 to 59 years)||1.040|0.821|
91687020|NCT05044195|183266158|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.015||||||B/Yamagata (50 to 59 years)||1.015|0.845|
91687021|NCT05044195|183266158|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.087||||||B/Victoria (50 to 59 years)||1.087|0.901|
91687022|NCT05044195|183266158|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|0.864||||||A/H1N1 (60 to 64 years)||0.864|0.681|
91687023|NCT05044195|183266158|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.033||||||A/H3N2 (60 to 64 years)||1.033|0.766|
91687024|NCT05044195|183266158|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.079||||||B/Yamagata (60 to 64 years)||1.079|0.879|
91687025|NCT05044195|183266158|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.133||||||B/Victoria (60 to 64 years)||1.133|0.905|
91864622|NCT04047602|183618528|OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across SRS groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.285
91687026|NCT05044195|183266159|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|0.935||||||A/H1N1 (yes)||0.935|0.761|
91687027|NCT05044195|183266159|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.128||||||A/H3N2 (yes)||1.128|0.904|
91687028|NCT05044195|183266159|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.016||||||B/Yamagata (yes)||1.016|0.883|
91687029|NCT05044195|183266159|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|1.073||||||B/Victoria (yes)||1.073|0.926|
91687030|NCT05044195|183266159|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.772|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|0.88||||||A/H1N1 (no)||0.880|0.677|
91687031|NCT05044195|183266159|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.941||||||A/H3N2 (no)||0.941|0.683|
91687032|NCT05044195|183266159|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.076||||||B/Yamagata (no)||1.076|0.831|
91687033|NCT05044195|183266159|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.151||||||B/Victoria (no)||1.151|0.881|
91687034|NCT05044195|183266160|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|0.894||||||A/H1N1 (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||0.894|0.752|
91687035|NCT05044195|183266160|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.029||||||A/H3N2 (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||1.029|0.846|
91687036|NCT05044195|183266160|OTHER||GMTratio|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.046||||||B/Yamagata (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||1.046|0.904|
91687037|NCT05044195|183266160|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.094||||||B/Victoria (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||1.094|0.938|
91687038|NCT05044195|183266160|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.706|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.902||||||A/H1N1 (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||0.902|0.553|
91687039|NCT05044195|183266160|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.734|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.982||||||A/H3N2 (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||0.982|0.549|
91687040|NCT05044195|183266160|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|0.935||||||B/Yamagata (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||0.935|0.638|
91687041|NCT05044195|183266160|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.107||||||B/Victoria (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||1.107|0.739|
91687042|NCT02276807|183266252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.345|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU, BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline vs. Week 12) repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
91687043|NCT02276807|183266253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU vs. BA-PC) X 2 (time: Baseline vs. week 12) repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
91687044|NCT02276807|183266254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.666|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU, BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline, Week 12) Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
91687045|NCT02276807|183266255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU vs. BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline, Week 12) Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
91687046|NCT02276807|183266256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.722|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU vs. BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline vs. Week 12) Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
91687047|NCT03288714|183266270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Fisher Exact|The proportion of patients is compared across treatment groups using Fisher's Exact.||Null hypothesis is that the active sTMS treatment group does not differ from the sham group with respect to the proportion of patients with clinical response at Week 6.||||.814
91687048|NCT03288714|183266271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline.||Null hypothesis is that the active sTMS treatment group does not differ from the sham group with respect to the proportion of patients with clinical response at Week 6.||||.872
91687049|NCT03288714|183266272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline.||The null hypothesis is that the active sTMS treatment group does not differ||||.641
91687050|NCT03288714|183266273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Alpha level: .05|ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||.032
91687051|NCT03288714|183266274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Alpha level: .05|ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||.015
91687052|NCT03288714|183266275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||Alpha level: .05|Fisher Exact|The proportion of patients is compared across treatment groups using Fisher's Exact.||||||.028
91863615|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-244.049|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.269|-212.829|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-212.829|-275.269|<.0001
91863616|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-221.385|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-258.371|-184.398|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-184.398|-258.371|<.0001
91864623|NCT04047602|183618529|OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across brain metastases groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.292
91864624|NCT04047602|183618530|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across ICI groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.289
91903638|NCT01390272|183702210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||Comparison at 18 months||1.9|0.8|0.30
91687053|NCT00629018|183266361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The minimal sample size for the study was calculated using a pre-specified power of 90% and P value of 0.05.||||0.01
91687054|NCT03417778|183266367|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUClast of filgotinib falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUClast change of at least 2-fold for filgotinib compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|161.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.77|321.48||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUClast. Two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the geometric least-squares mean (GLSM) ratio of AUClast between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||321.48|80.77|
91687055|NCT03417778|183266368|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUClast of GS-829845 falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUClast change of at least 2-fold for GS-829845 compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|122.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.67|213.89||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUClast. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of AUClast between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||213.89|69.67|
91687056|NCT03417778|183266369|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUCinf of filgotinib falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUCinf change of at least 2-fold for filgotinib compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|159.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.22|308.06||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUCinf. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||308.06|82.22|
91687057|NCT03417778|183266370|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUCinf of GS-829845 falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUCinf change of at least 2-fold for GS-829845 compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|122.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.9|214.07||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUCinf. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||214.07|69.90|
91687058|NCT03417778|183266371|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for Cmax of filgotinib falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit Cmax change of at least 2-fold for filgotinib compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|115.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.75|228.98||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the Cmax. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of Cmax between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||228.98|58.75|
91903639|NCT01177384|183702211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.44||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (on acarbose monotherapy, or on acarbose in combination with other AHA(s)) and a covariate for baseline A1C.|ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-0.79|<.001
91903640|NCT01177384|183702212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-7.0||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (on acarbose monotherapy, or on acarbose in combination with other AHA(s)) and a covariate for baseline FPG.|ANCOVA|||||-7.0|-21.8|<.001
91720385|NCT02832037|183333584|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0145||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0145
91720386|NCT02832037|183333584|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0148||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear in log model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0148
91720387|NCT02832037|183333584|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0089||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 2 mg of BI 425809 .||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0089
91720388|NCT02832037|183333584|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0038||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 75% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0038
91720389|NCT02832037|183333584|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0085||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod logistic model fit|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0085
91720390|NCT02832037|183333584|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.228||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod beta model fit|Assumption:75% of maximum (max) effect at 2mg, 87.5% of max effect at 5mg,25% of max effect at 25mg,max effect at 10mg BI 425809, scalar parameter=26.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2280
91794562|NCT02237911|183468073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.01|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.4|0.01|0.012
91903641|NCT03044249|183702229|SUPERIORITY||Response Ratio|4.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.0|25.0|||Fisher Exact|||||25|-18|0.48
91903642|NCT03044249|183702231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.28||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.16|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-11.16|0.14
91903643|NCT03044249|183702232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.47|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-4.47|0.37
91903644|NCT03044249|183702236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|-2.00|0.94
91903645|NCT00782288|183702250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Measures were compared between Baseline, Treatment \& Recovery periods to determine if changes from baseline differed between placebo and the two digitoxin dose levels. Kruskal-Wallis equity of population rank test was performed on the changes Day 28 minus Day 1. To compare the change from baseline to treatment period between the two arms, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was performed. To determine whether induced sputum Il-8 returned to baseline at the final visit, a one sample sign test was performed.||||>0.05
91903646|NCT00782288|183702256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline,Treatment and Recovery periods were compared to determine if changes from baseline differed between placebo and the two digitoxin doses.||||>0.05
91720391|NCT02832037|183333584|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8205||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.332|1.892||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.892|-1.332|0.7330
91720392|NCT02832037|183333584|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8074||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.724||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.724|-1.450|0.8655
91720393|NCT02832037|183333584|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|1.982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7875||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|3.53||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||3.530|0.434|0.0122
91720394|NCT02832037|183333584|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7884||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|3.28||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||3.280|0.181|0.0287
91720395|NCT02832037|183333585|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.066||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0660
91720396|NCT02832037|183333585|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.1619||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod linear in log model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1619
91720397|NCT02832037|183333585|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.0832||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 2 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0832
91720398|NCT02832037|183333585|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.0625||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 75% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0625
91864625|NCT04047602|183618533|OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across SRS groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.248
91864626|NCT04047602|183618534|OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across brain metastases groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.292
91864627|NCT04047602|183618535|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across ICI groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.289
91864628|NCT04484428|183618561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.773
91903647|NCT00601250|183702263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.5|-0.78|<0.0001
91903648|NCT00601250|183702264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.333|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.333|-0.530|<0.0001
91903649|NCT00601250|183702265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.721|-0.471|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.471|-0.721|<0.0001
91903650|NCT00601250|183702266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.785|-0.512|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.512|-0.785|<0.0001
91687059|NCT03417778|183266372|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for Cmax of GS-829845 falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit Cmax change of at least 2-fold for GS-829845 compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|102.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.12|175.98||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the Cmax. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of Cmax between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||175.98|60.12|
91687060|NCT01995513|183266388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.119||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 0 percent \[%\] to less than \[\<\] 30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.119|0.612|0.2176
91720399|NCT02832037|183333585|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.0768||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod logistic model fit|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0768
91720400|NCT02832037|183333585|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.7479||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod beta model fit|Assumption:75% of maximum (max) effect at 2mg, 87.5% of max effect at 5mg,25% of max effect at 25mg,max effect at 10mg BI 425809, scalar parameter=26.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.7479
91720401|NCT02832037|183333585|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7306||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|2.613||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||2.613|-0.258|0.11
91720402|NCT02832037|183333585|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7224||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.257|0.582||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.582|-2.257|0.25
91720403|NCT02832037|183333585|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7152||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.669|1.142||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.142|-1.669|0.71
91720404|NCT02832037|183333585|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-1.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7125||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.473|0.328||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.328|-2.473|0.13
91720405|NCT04383132|183333589|OTHER|||||||0.388||||||Independent t-test was used to compare mean CIT between two groups. The statistical significance level was accepted as p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||In sample size calculation, CIT and SD were used. It was found that 326 patients (163 per group) were required to detect a 60-second difference in CIT (SD 192 secs), with 80% power and two-sided alpha 0.05. The frequency of the auxiliary maneuvers was calculated that 324 patients were required for a 20% reduction in the auxiliary maneuvers. In case of becoming lost to follow up and withdrawal, the number of patients was expanded by 5%, and a total of 346 patients, were included in the study.||||0.388
91903651|NCT00601250|183702267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.3|-14.96|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-14.96|-27.3|<0.0001
91687061|NCT01995513|183266389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|1.239||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.239|0.617|0.4500
91687062|NCT01995513|183266390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-1.65||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|1.51||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with \>=50% decrease from baseline in PSA response.||1.51|-4.82|0.3101
91720406|NCT04383132|183333590|OTHER|||||||0.069||||||For the comparison of ancillary maneuvers Pearson chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test were used.|Chi-squared|||||||0.069
91720407|NCT04383132|183333591|OTHER|||||||0.487||||||Independent t-test was used to compare mean CIL between two groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.487
91720408|NCT04383132|183333592|OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.822
91720409|NCT04383132|183333593|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.016
91720410|NCT04383132|183333594|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91720411|NCT04383132|183333595|OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.184
91720412|NCT04167462|183333619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|42.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.98|6.33|<0.0001
91863617|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-233.626|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-261.113|-206.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-206.140|-261.113|<.0001
91863618|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|26.266||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|63.661|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||63.661|-11.130|0.1672
91863619|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.051||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.881|-8.221|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-8.221|-71.881|0.0140
91863620|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-42.635||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.785|-4.484|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-4.484|-80.785|0.0288
91863621|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-274.577|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.428|-203.726|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-203.726|-345.428|<.0001
91864629|NCT04484428|183618562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.972
91864630|NCT04484428|183618563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.617
91864631|NCT04484428|183618564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.796
91687063|NCT01995513|183266390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-0.04||||0.9917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.82||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with \>=30% decrease from baseline in PSA response.||3.82|-3.90|0.9917
91864632|NCT04484428|183618565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.960
91864633|NCT04484428|183618566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.761
91864634|NCT04484428|183618567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.979
91720413|NCT04167462|183333620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|61.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.46|9.60|<0.0001
91720414|NCT04167462|183333621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|291.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||291.26|5.82|<0.0001
91863622|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-207.521|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-269.198|-145.844|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-145.844|-269.198|<.0001
91863623|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-203.233|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.683|-130.784|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-130.784|-275.683|<.0001
91863624|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-261.208|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-330.647|-191.769|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-191.769|-330.647|<.0001
91864635|NCT04484428|183618568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.803
91864636|NCT00661141|183618571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8727||||||Overall p-value testing cohort difference from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg Cohort, 3.0 mg/kg cohort, 5.0 mg/kg cohort||||0.8727
91687064|NCT01995513|183266391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Objective Response Rate|-5.0||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|1.75||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in objective response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with CR+PR.||1.75|-11.75|0.1653
91687065|NCT01995513|183266391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Objective Response Rate|10.92||||0.3216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|32.21||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in objective response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with CR+PR+SD.||32.21|-10.37|0.3216
91687066|NCT01995513|183266392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Progression Rate|9.09||||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|25.87||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in Progression Rate was based upon normal approximation.|||25.87|-7.69|0.2963
91687067|NCT01995513|183266393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.204||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.204|0.616|0.3818
91720415|NCT04167462|183333625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|49.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.25|6.06|<0.0001
91720416|NCT04167462|183333626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|11.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.91|2.19|<0.0001
91864637|NCT00661141|183618574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||Overall p-value testing cohort difference from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg Cohort, 3.0 mg/kg cohort, 5.0 mg/kg cohort||||0.0023
91864638|NCT00661141|183618574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||P-values for pairwise comparison between cohorts from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg Cohort, 3.0 mg/kg cohort||||0.386
91864639|NCT00661141|183618574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||P-values for pairwise comparison between cohorts from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg, 5.0 mg/kg||||0.0006
91864640|NCT00661141|183618574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0154||||||P-values for pairwise comparison between cohorts from ANOVA|ANOVA|||3.0 mg/kg, 5.0 mg/kg||||0.0154
91864641|NCT00661141|183618581|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|115.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.45|147.67|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||147.67|90.45|
91864642|NCT00661141|183618581|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|126.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.94|155.87|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||155.87|101.94|
91863625|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-203.998|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-263.396|-144.599|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-144.599|-263.396|<.0001
91864643|NCT00661141|183618581|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|137.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.66|163.65|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||163.65|115.66|
91687068|NCT01995513|183266400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.399||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|2.025||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||2.025|0.967|0.0739
91687069|NCT01232452|183266405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.73|0.848
91687070|NCT01232452|183266406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.338
91687071|NCT00247676|183266423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||clinical benefit response rate|37.8||||||95.0|22.5|55.2|||||Clinical benefit response rate: percent of patients with confirmed CR, confirmed PR, or SD for at least 12 weeks according to RECIST, relative to total treated patients.|||55.2|22.5|
91687072|NCT00247676|183266428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||objective response rate|2.7||||||95.0|0.1|14.2|||||percentage of patients with confirmed CR or confirmed PR according to RECIST, relative to the total number of treated patients.|||14.2|0.1|
91687073|NCT00247676|183266432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.324||||||95.0|0.168|0.479|||||probability derived from Kaplan-Meier estimate.|||0.479|0.168|
91687074|NCT05219448|183266454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|18.0||Unadjusted p value presented. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: The change in added sugar intake from baseline to 6-months will be the same when compared to children in the no-treatment control arm (measured through hair biomarker).||18.0|-3.2|0.17
91687075|NCT05219448|183266455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|14.0||Unadjusted P-value. The threshold for significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: The change in added sugar intake from baseline to 6-months will be the same for caregivers in community A arm when compared to caregivers in the no-treatment control arm (measured through hair biomarker).||14.0|-24.3|0.60
91687076|NCT05219448|183266455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-5.4||The P-value is unadjusted. The threshold for significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: The change in added sugar intake from baseline to 6-months will be the same for caregivers in community B when compared to caregivers in the no-treatment control arm (measured through hair biomarker).||-5.4|-44.1|0.013
91687077|NCT01750190|183266456|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.735|1.967|||ANCOVA|MI (Multiple Imputation) ANCOVA|Roxadustat - Placebo Treatment Difference|Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation strategy by combining the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline Hb and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as covariates and treatment and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 milliliters \[mL\]/minutes \[min\]/1.73 meters \[m\]\^2), as fixed effects.||1.967|1.735|<0.0001
91687078|NCT01750190|183266457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.73|134.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Roxadustat/Placebo Odds ratio|||134.48|44.73|<0.0001
91687079|NCT01750190|183266458|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Analysis|Roxadustat - placebo treatment difference|Treatment comparison was made using MMRM with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as covariates, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and the randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73m\^2), as fixed effects.||2.037|1.730|<0.0001
91687080|NCT01750190|183266459|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.663|2.143|||ANCOVA|MI ANCOVA|Roxadustat - placebo treatment difference|Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation strategy by combining the results of ANCOVA model with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as covariates , and treatment and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73m\^2 ), as fixed effects.||2.143|1.663|<0.0001
91687081|NCT01750190|183266460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.79|22.189|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Roxadustat/placebo odds ratio|||22.189|10.79|<0.0001
91687082|NCT01750190|183266461|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.65|-13.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Analysis|Roxadustat- placebo treatment difference|Treatment comparison was made using MMRM with baseline LDL cholesterol as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and the randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-13.87|-20.65|<0.0001
91687083|NCT01750190|183266462|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|1.245|||ANCOVA|MI ANCOVA|Roxadustat - placebo treatment difference|||1.245|-0.827|0.6924
91720417|NCT04167462|183333627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|53.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.28|0.64|0.0947
91903652|NCT00601250|183702268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|<|0.0001||95.0|-21.76|-11.29|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-11.29|-21.76|<0.0001
91863626|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-178.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.092|-108.408|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-108.408|-249.092|<.0001
91863627|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-190.992|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.134|-144.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-144.850|-237.134|<.0001
91863628|NCT04800211|183616291|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-24.483||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.096|28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||28.130|-77.096|0.3590
91863629|NCT04800211|183616292|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.287|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.582|-1.992|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-1.992|-2.582|<.0001
91864644|NCT00661141|183618581|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.83|108.07|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||108.07|62.83|
91903653|NCT00601250|183702269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.44|-11.01|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-11.01|-22.44|<0.0001
91903654|NCT00601250|183702270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-26.81|-14.84|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-14.84|-26.81|<0.0001
91687084|NCT01750190|183266463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.406||From a Cox Proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m\^2).|Cox Proportional hazards model|||||0.406|0.165|<0.0001
91720418|NCT04167462|183333628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|35.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.74|0.47|0.1741
91720419|NCT02320396|183333632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.51|||cLDA model|||The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in TNSS was estimated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 2 weeks) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value.||-0.51|-1.14|<0.001
91687085|NCT01750190|183266464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.267||From a Cox Proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and the randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (\<=8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus \>=30 mL/min/1.73m\^2).|Cox Proportional hazards model|||First 24 Weeks of Treatment||0.267|0.108|<0.0001
91720420|NCT02320396|183333635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.5|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in TNSS at Week 1: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in TNSS was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.50|-1.14|<0.001
91794563|NCT02237911|183468073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.02|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|0.02|0.005
91863630|NCT04800211|183616292|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.722|-2.107|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.107|-2.722|<.0001
91687086|NCT01750190|183266464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.276||From a Cox Proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m\^2).|Cox Proportional hazards model|||First 52 Weeks of Treatment||0.276|0.138|<0.0001
91687087|NCT05387889|183266489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for the level of significance is set at less than or equal to 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.054
91687088|NCT05387889|183266490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for the level of significance is set at less than or equal to 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.25
91687089|NCT05387889|183266491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for the level of significance is set at less than or equal to 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.07
91687090|NCT03762239|183266494|SUPERIORITY||Relative (percent) changes in the median|1.37||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|5.56|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in better performance, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in attention measures among adolescents in high schools.||5.56|-2.81|0.52
91687091|NCT03762239|183266495|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.013||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0607|0.0865|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher riskloving behavior, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the combined risk taking measures among adolescents in high schools.||0.0865|-0.0607|0.72
91687092|NCT03762239|183266496|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.029||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.0584|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher level of patience, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the combined patience measures among adolescents in high schools.||0.0584|-0.1170|0.50
91687093|NCT03762239|183266497|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.06||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0184|0.1394|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher level of positive reciprocity behavior, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the positive reciprocity measures among adolescents in high schools||0.1394|-0.0184|0.13
91687094|NCT03762239|183266498|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.022||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0595|0.1035|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher Altruism behavior, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the Altruism measures among adolescents in high schools.||0.1035|-0.0595|0.58
91687095|NCT03762239|183266499|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.013||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1786|0.2049|||Ordered logistic regression|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher trust, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the subjective trust measure among adolescents in high schools.||0.2049|-0.1786|0.89
91687096|NCT03762239|183266500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.24|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|||0.24|-0.49|0.50
91687097|NCT03762239|183266501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|||0.10|-0.20|0.47
91687098|NCT03762239|183266502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|1.74|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.||||1.74|-8.51|0.20
91687099|NCT03762239|183266503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.6|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.||||4.60|-5.10|0.92
91687100|NCT03762239|183266504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|2.22|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.||||2.22|-4.94|0.46
91720421|NCT02320396|183333635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.46|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in TNSS at Week 2: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in TNSS was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post- BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.46|-1.23|<0.001
91720422|NCT02320396|183333636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Sneezing: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Sneezing was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.14|-0.35|<0.001
91720423|NCT02320396|183333636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Rhinorrhea: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Rhinorrhea was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.10|-0.32|<0.001
91720424|NCT02320396|183333636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.02|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Nasal Congestion: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Nasal Congestion was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.02|-0.16|0.008
91720425|NCT02320396|183333636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Nasal Itching: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Nasal Itching was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.15|-0.38|<0.001
91863631|NCT04800211|183616292|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.382|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.673|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-2.090|-2.673|<.0001
91720426|NCT02320396|183333637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.13|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Sneezing: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Sneezing was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.13|-0.36|<0.001
91720427|NCT02320396|183333637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Rhinorrhea: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Rhinorrhea was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.37|<0.001
91720428|NCT02320396|183333637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Nasal Congestion: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Nasal Congestion was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.01|-0.18|0.037
91720429|NCT02320396|183333637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Nasal Itching: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Nasal Itching was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.40|<0.001
91720430|NCT02320396|183333638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Sneezing During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Sneezing was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.14|-0.35|<0.001
91794564|NCT02237911|183468073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.003|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|-0.003|0.052
91903655|NCT00601250|183702271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.395|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.41|8.013|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||8.013|2.410|<0.0001
91863632|NCT04800211|183616292|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.782|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.190|-2.782|<.0001
91863633|NCT04800211|183616292|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.668|-2.233|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.233|-2.668|<.0001
91903656|NCT00601250|183702273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.456||||0.0016||95.0|1.907|15.614|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||15.614|1.907|0.0016
91903657|NCT00601250|183702275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.754|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.486|5.669|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||5.669|2.486|<0.0001
91903658|NCT00601250|183702276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-67.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.69|-39.58|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-39.58|-94.69|<0.0001
91687101|NCT03762239|183266505|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.1446||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.0928|||Ordered logistic regression|Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher assessment of math skills, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the self assessed math skills measure among adolescents in high schools.||0.0928|-0.3820|0.232
91687102|NCT00535405|183266506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-17.5|-12.0||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week, treatment by study week interaction, and a random subject effect.||||-12.0|-17.5|<0.001
91687103|NCT00535405|183266506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-10.3|-4.8||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week, treatment by study week interaction, and a random subject effect.||||-4.8|-10.3|<0.001
91687104|NCT00535405|183266506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-11.0|-5.5||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week, treatment by study week interaction, and a random subject effect.||||-5.5|-11.0|<0.001
91687105|NCT00535405|183266507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|<|0.001||95.0|7.64|20.83||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|"Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.~Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)"|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||20.83|7.64|<0.001
91687106|NCT00535405|183266507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001||95.0|2.51|5.85||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||5.85|2.51|<0.001
91687107|NCT00535405|183266507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001||95.0|2.39|5.6|||Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||5.60|2.39|<0.001
91903659|NCT00601250|183702277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-41.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.71|-21.89|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-21.89|-61.71|<0.0001
91903660|NCT00683163|183702295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean difference in percent change from baseline (Concurrent - Sequential)||9.2|-11.5|0.82
91720431|NCT02320396|183333638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Rhinorrhea During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Rhinorrhea was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.33|<0.001
91687108|NCT00535405|183266508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001||95.0|2.04|4.55||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||4.55|2.04|<0.001
91687109|NCT00535405|183266508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.039||95.0|1.02|2.32||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.32|1.02|0.039
91687110|NCT00535405|183266508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.023||95.0|1.14|2.87||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.87|1.14|0.023
91687111|NCT00535405|183266509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|2.76|7.24||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||7.24|2.76|<0.001
91687112|NCT00535405|183266509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.026||95.0|1.07|2.94||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.94|1.07|0.026
91687113|NCT00535405|183266509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.017||95.0|1.23|4.18||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||4.18|1.23|0.017
91687114|NCT00535405|183266510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001||95.0|4.31|13.42||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||13.42|4.31|<0.001
91687115|NCT00535405|183266510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001||95.0|1.86|4.67||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||4.67|1.86|<0.001
91687116|NCT00535405|183266510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|1.42|3.27||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||3.27|1.42|<0.001
91687117|NCT00535405|183266511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001||95.0|2.71|13.38||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||13.38|2.71|<0.001
91687118|NCT00535405|183266511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.069||95.0|0.96|2.6||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.60|0.96|0.069
91687119|NCT00535405|183266511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.9||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.90|1.10|0.039
91687120|NCT03295630|183266519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Difference (steps) between accelerometer quantified step count (thigh placement) and observed step count||||
91687121|NCT03295630|183266519|OTHER||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.78||||||Correlation between accelerometer quantified step count (thigh placement) and observed step count||0.78|-0.1|
91687122|NCT03295630|183266519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Difference (steps) between accelerometer quantified steps (ankle placement) and observed step count||||
91687123|NCT03295630|183266519|OTHER||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0||||||Correlation between accelerometer quantified steps (ankle placement) and observed steps||1.0|0.99|
91720432|NCT02320396|183333638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.02|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Nasal Congestion During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Nasal Congestion was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.02|-0.16|0.009
91794565|NCT02237911|183468073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.02|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|0.02|0.015
91903661|NCT02229539|183702296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.02
91687124|NCT03091179|183266539|EQUIVALENCE|P value was calculated using the means and standard deviations for each of the patient characteristics.||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91794566|NCT02237911|183468073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.003|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|-0.003|0.489
91863634|NCT04800211|183616292|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.466||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|0.747|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.747|0.185|0.0012
91720433|NCT02320396|183333638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Nasal Itching During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Nasal Itching was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value.~cLDA model"||-0.15|-0.38|<0.001
91720434|NCT02320396|183333639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Eye Pruritus: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Eye Pruritus was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
91720435|NCT02320396|183333639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.08|-0.24|<0.001
91720436|NCT02320396|183333639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Worse of Pruritus or Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in the worse symptom of Pruritus or Watering Eyes estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
91720437|NCT02320396|183333640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Eye Pruritus: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Eye Pruritus was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.37|<0.001
91720438|NCT02320396|183333640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.03|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.03|-0.24|0.010
91720439|NCT02320396|183333640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Worse of Pruritus or Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in the worse symptom of Pruritus or Watering Eyes estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.37|<0.001
91720440|NCT02320396|183333641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Eye Pruritus During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Eye Pruritus was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.14|-0.35|<0.001
91794567|NCT02237911|183468074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.0|114.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||114|-106|0.943
91863635|NCT04800211|183616292|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.386|-0.187|0.4957
91903662|NCT02229539|183702296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.004
91903663|NCT00088907|183702310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
91903664|NCT00088907|183702311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
91687125|NCT03164616|183266563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.885||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|D + SoC vs SoC alone. A hazard ratio (HR) \<1 favors D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC alone.||0.885|0.620|0.00093
91687126|NCT03164616|183266564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.07581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.016||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors D + SoC to be associated with a longer OS than SoC alone.||1.016|0.724|0.07581
91687127|NCT03164616|183266565|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors T + D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC alone.||0.860|0.600|0.00031
91687128|NCT03164616|183266566|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.916||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors T + D + SoC to be associated with a longer OS than SoC alone.||0.916|0.650|0.00304
91687129|NCT03164616|183266567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.382|2.619||||||D + SoC vs SoC alone. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + SoC compared to SoC alone. Analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB), with the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||2.619|1.382|
91687130|NCT03164616|183266567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.367||||||T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An odds ratio \>1 favors T + D + SoC compared to SoC alone. Analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs TC \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB), with the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||2.367|1.260|
91687131|NCT03164616|183266570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|0.928|||||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS2 than SoC alone.||0.928|0.666|
91687132|NCT03164616|183266570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|0.883|||||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors T + D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS2 than SoC alone.||0.883|0.632|
91687133|NCT02503787|183266606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A negative value for change in pain represents a reduction (improvement) of the subject's pain score. The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline to 3 months equals 0. The sample provided over 90% power, with two-sided significance level of 0.05, to detect a change of 2 points.||||<0.01
91687134|NCT02374138|183266654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Months||||0.93
91687135|NCT02374138|183266655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 month follow up||||0.87
91687136|NCT02374138|183266655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 month follow up||||0.25
91720441|NCT02320396|183333641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Watering Eyes During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.07|-0.23|<0.001
91687137|NCT02374138|183266657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ICS Use at 6 Month Follow Up||||0.35
91687138|NCT02374138|183266657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ICS Use at 12 Month Follow Up||||0.34
91903665|NCT04050670|183702327|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of AUC(0-∞) for the thigh versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.935|0.97|||Linear mixed effects model|||||0.970|0.935|
91903666|NCT04050670|183702327|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of AUC(0-∞) for the upper arm versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.01|||Linear mixed effects model|||||1.01|0.972|
91687139|NCT02374138|183266657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||LTRA Use at 6 Months||||0.35
91687140|NCT02374138|183266657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||LTRA use at 12 Month Follow Up||||0.62
91720442|NCT02320396|183333641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||cLDA model|||The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in the worse of Pruritus or Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1-Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
91794568|NCT02237911|183468074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.0|142.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||142|-112|0.814
91864645|NCT00661141|183618581|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|115.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|145.67|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||145.67|91.19|
91687141|NCT02374138|183266658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ED visits over 6 months||||0.63
91687142|NCT02374138|183266658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ED Visits between 6 and 12 Month follow up||||0.44
91687143|NCT02374138|183266659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Courses of systemic steroids over 6 months||||0.98
91687144|NCT02374138|183266659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Courses of systemic steroids between 6m and 12m FU||||0.48
91687145|NCT02374138|183266660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Month Follow Up||||0.32
91687146|NCT02374138|183266660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 Month Follow Up||||0.06
91687147|NCT02374138|183266661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Month follow up||||0.32
91687148|NCT02374138|183266661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 month follow up||||0.44
91687149|NCT02374138|183266662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Month Follow Up||||0.70
91687150|NCT02374138|183266662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 Month Follow Up||||0.80
91687151|NCT02374138|183266663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||6 Month Follow Up||||0.53
91687152|NCT02374138|183266663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||12 Month Follow up||||0.77
91687153|NCT02374138|183266664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Quality of Life at 6 Month Follow up||||0.53
91903667|NCT04050670|183702328|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of Cmax for thigh versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|0.909|||Linear mixed effects model|||||0.909|0.818|
91687154|NCT02374138|183266664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Quality of Life at 12 Month Follow up||||0.57
91687155|NCT02374138|183266665|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91687156|NCT02374138|183266668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Score on Brief COPE at 12 Months||||0.58
91687157|NCT02374138|183266670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Score on LOT-R at 6 Month Follow Up||||0.46
91687158|NCT02374138|183266670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Score on LOT-R at 12 Month Follow Up||||0.62
91687159|NCT02374138|183266672|SUPERIORITY|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.35|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||||0.35
91687160|NCT02374138|183266673|SUPERIORITY|Daytime asthma symptoms in prior 14d at 6-month follow up||||||0.54|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.54
91687161|NCT02374138|183266673|SUPERIORITY|Daytime Asthma Symptoms at 12 month follow up||||||0.11|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.11
91687162|NCT02374138|183266673|SUPERIORITY|Days of Activity Limitations at 6 month follow up||||||0.82|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.82
91687163|NCT02374138|183266673|SUPERIORITY|Days of Activity Limitations at 12 month follow up||||||0.84|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.84
91687164|NCT02374138|183266673|SUPERIORITY|Days of Quick Relief Medicine Use at 6 month follow up||||||0.7|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.70
91687165|NCT02374138|183266673|SUPERIORITY|Days of Quick Relief Medicine Use at 12 month follow up||||||0.58|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.58
91687166|NCT02374138|183266674|OTHER|Univariate test||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Parent education||||0.20
91687167|NCT02374138|183266675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ETS exposure at 6 Month Follow Up||||0.91
91687168|NCT02374138|183266675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ETS Exposure at 12 Month Follow up||||0.98
91687169|NCT02374138|183266676|OTHER|Univariate test||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.94
91687170|NCT02374138|183266677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Parent use of mental health resources at 6 Months||||0.02
91864646|NCT00661141|183618581|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|112.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|131.98|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||131.98|96.14|
91687171|NCT02374138|183266677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Parent use of mental health resources at 12 Months||||0.85
91687172|NCT02374138|183266678|OTHER|Univariate test||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91720443|NCT02320396|183333642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.07|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Interference with Daily Activities: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Interference with Daily Activities was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.07|-0.24|<0.001
91720444|NCT02320396|183333642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.09|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Interference with Daily Activities: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Interference with Daily Activities was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.09|-0.30|<0.001
91720445|NCT02320396|183333642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.08|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Interference with Daily Activities During 2 Wks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Interference with Daily Activities estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1-Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.08|-0.26|<0.001
91720446|NCT02320396|183333643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.492||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|2.303|||Regression, Logistic|||"Impression Rate as Assessed by Investigator: Desloratadine 5 mg/Placebo Odds Ratio~Impression was evaluated using a logistic model with impression rate (percentage of assessments of Better + Much better) as a response variable and treatment and severity as factors. Odds ratio was estimated and tested. A point estimate of \>1 indicated that desloratadine 5mg was more effective than placebo."||2.303|0.966|0.071
91720447|NCT02320396|183333644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.408|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||"Impression Rate as Assessed by Participant: Desloratadine 5 mg/Placebo Odds Ratio~Impression was evaluated using a logistic model with impression rate (percentage of assessments of Better + Much better) as a response variable and treatment and severity as factors. Odds ratio was estimated and tested. A point estimate of \>1 indicated that desloratadine 5mg was more effective than placebo"||3.280|1.408|<0.001
91720448|NCT00142415|183333646|OTHER|The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined using a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design. The occurrence of DLTs was compared across cohorts.|Maximum tolerated dose (mCi/m^2)|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91720449|NCT04497883|183333690|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|110.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.7|132.94|||ANOVA|||The comparison analysis was planned between Cohort A: Maribavir 400 mg and Cohort B: Maribavir 400 mg group participants only.||132.94|91.70|
91720450|NCT04497883|183333691|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|122.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.83|154.95|||ANOVA|||The comparison analysis was planned between Cohort A: Maribavir 400 mg and Cohort B: Maribavir 400 mg group participants only.||154.95|96.83|
91720451|NCT04497883|183333692|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|125.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.99|159.64|||ANOVA|||The comparison analysis was planned between Cohort A: Maribavir 400 mg and Cohort B: Maribavir 400 mg group participants only.||159.64|97.99|
91864647|NCT00661141|183618584|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|139.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.18|211.51|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||211.51|92.18|
91720452|NCT04848480|183333744|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the estimated treatment difference was below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|0.05||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks was analysed using ANCOVA model with treatment, region, HbA1c group at screening and pre-trial basal insulin treatment as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||0.23|-0.13|0.0065
91720453|NCT04428151|183333769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.97||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1). The reported p-value is nominal.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).|||1.97|1.11|0.9963
91794569|NCT02237911|183468074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.0|95.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||95|-125|0.787
91687173|NCT02933255|183266696|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration within the total tissue at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91687174|NCT02933255|183266696|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration in the center of the tumor at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.04
91687175|NCT02933255|183266696|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration in the invasive margin at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
91863636|NCT04800211|183616292|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.753|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.266|-2.239|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-2.239|-3.266|<.0001
91863637|NCT04800211|183616292|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.514|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.043|-1.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-1.986|-3.043|<.0001
91863638|NCT04800211|183616292|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.848|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.359|-2.336|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-2.336|-3.359|<.0001
91863639|NCT04800211|183616292|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.586|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.105|-2.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.066|-3.105|<.0001
91864648|NCT00661141|183618584|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|120.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.8|134.03|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||134.03|108.80|
91687176|NCT02933255|183266696|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration in the normal region at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.46
91687177|NCT02933255|183266696|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the total tissue at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91687178|NCT02933255|183266696|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the center of the tumor at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.016
91687179|NCT02933255|183266696|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the invasive margin at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
91687180|NCT02933255|183266696|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the normal region at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.38
91687181|NCT02933255|183266698|OTHER|The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.064
91687182|NCT02933255|183266698|OTHER|The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
91687183|NCT02933255|183266698|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.003
91687184|NCT02933255|183266698|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.003
91687185|NCT02933255|183266698|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
91687186|NCT02933255|183266698|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
91687187|NCT02933255|183266699|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
91720454|NCT04428151|183333770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.4181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1). The reported p-value is nominal.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).|||1.28|0.74|0.4181
91720455|NCT04428151|183333771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-6.5||||0.9266219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0. The reported p-value is nominal.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).|||2.3|-15.4|0.9266219
91720456|NCT00392223|183333781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis performed to assess non-inferiority by calculation \& examination of 95% CI. Analysis conducted via analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including corresponding baseline value and centre as covariates. Non-inferiority margin was chosen as largest clinically acceptable difference. This was set as difference of 3 in GAGS global score. Azithromycin declared non-inferior to minocycline when two-sided 95% confidence interval for difference lied entirely to right of non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||||95.0|-2.48|1.54|||||Comparison between treatment groups was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method, with treatment, center, and baseline value GAGS global score included as covariates.|||1.54|-2.48|
91720457|NCT00392223|183333785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis performed to assess non-inferiority by calculation \& examination of 95% CI. Analysis conducted via analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including corresponding baseline value and centre as covariates. Non-inferiority margin was chosen as largest clinically acceptable difference. This was set as difference of 3 in GAGS global score. Azithromycin declared non-inferior to minocycline when two-sided 95% confidence interval for difference lied entirely to right of non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||||95.0|-2.58|0.84|||||ANCOVA adjusted for baseline, center and treatment.|||0.84|-2.58|
91720458|NCT02908347|183333795|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.8785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.36|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.36|-2.09|0.8785
91720459|NCT02908347|183333798|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 30 - Day 29||||1
91720460|NCT02908347|183333798|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 50 - Day 29||||1
91720461|NCT02908347|183333798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5136|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 30 - Day 43||||0.5136
91720462|NCT02908347|183333798|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 50 - Day 43||||1
91720463|NCT05816070|183333806|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -10% based on the general standard of antibacterial drug. Non-inferiority is established when P\<0.05.||||||0.0137|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0137
91793935|NCT03519386|183466597|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.83||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||0.83|-0.62|
91794570|NCT02237911|183468074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.0||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.0|92.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||92|-164|0.581
91863640|NCT04800211|183616292|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.901|-2.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.199|-2.901|<.0001
91720464|NCT05516758|183333813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|1.14|0.014
91720465|NCT05516758|183333813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|0.92|0.098
91720466|NCT05516758|183333813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|0.66|0.534
91720467|NCT00402831|183333828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6||||||Measles difference||2.6|-2.5|
91720468|NCT00402831|183333828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.3||||||Mumps difference||3.3|-3.0|
91720469|NCT00402831|183333828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.1||||||Rubella difference||4.1|-2.3|
91864649|NCT00661141|183618584|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|143.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.72|190.87|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||190.87|107.72|
91720470|NCT00402831|183333828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.1||||||Varicella||4.1|-2.1|
91720471|NCT02814526|183333852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.078||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.29
91720472|NCT02814526|183333853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.031||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.74
91720473|NCT02814526|183333854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009447||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8284
91720474|NCT02814526|183333855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02024||||0.7086|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7086
91687188|NCT02933255|183266699|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
91687189|NCT02933255|183266699|OTHER|||||||0.233||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.233
91687190|NCT02933255|183266699|OTHER|||||||0.052||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.052
91687191|NCT02933255|183266699|OTHER|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.055
91687192|NCT02933255|183266699|OTHER|||||||0.203||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.203
91687193|NCT02933255|183266699|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91687194|NCT02933255|183266699|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
91687195|NCT02933255|183266699|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91687196|NCT02933255|183266699|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
91687197|NCT02933255|183266699|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
91687198|NCT02933255|183266699|OTHER|||||||0.129||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.129
91687199|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.339||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.339
91687200|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.037
91687201|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.009
91687202|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.844
91687203|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.204||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.204
91864650|NCT00661141|183618584|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|103.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.35|126.1|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||126.10|84.35|
91687204|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.084
91687205|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
91687206|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.688
91903668|NCT04050670|183702328|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of Cmax for the upper arm versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|0.971|||Linear mixed effects model|||||0.971|0.874|
91687207|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91687208|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.733||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.733
91687209|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.519||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.519
91687210|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.695||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.695
91687211|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
91687212|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.301
91720475|NCT02814526|183333856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
91720476|NCT02814526|183333857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
91863641|NCT04800211|183616292|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.071||||0.7372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.489|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.489|-0.346|0.7372
91687213|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.38
91687214|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.014
91687215|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.791||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.791
91687216|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
91687217|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
91687218|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.77
91687219|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
91687220|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.105||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.105
91687221|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.622||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.622
91687222|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.313||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.313
91687223|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91903669|NCT03523728|183702376|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|21.32|||=|0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|58.22|||linear mixed effect model|||||58.22|-5.77|=0.1367
91687224|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.049
91687225|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.47
91687226|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.313||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.313
91687227|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
91687228|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.092||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.092
91687229|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.176
91687230|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.232||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.232
91687231|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91687232|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.131||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.131
91687233|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
91687234|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.438||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.438
91687235|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91687236|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.151||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.151
91720477|NCT02814526|183333858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.49
91863642|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.106|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.502|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.710|-3.502|<.0001
91863643|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.824|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.235|-2.414|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.414|-3.235|<.0001
91863644|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.553|-2.904|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.904|-3.553|<.0001
91864651|NCT00661141|183618584|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|123.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.61|139.67|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||139.67|108.61|
91687237|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.569||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.569
91687238|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.105||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.105
91687239|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.012
91687240|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.677||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.677
91687241|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
91687242|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.432||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.432
91687243|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.016
91687244|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.733||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.733
91687245|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.519||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.519
91687246|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.557||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.557
91687247|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
91687248|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.092||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.092
91720478|NCT02814526|183333859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.61
91687249|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.733||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.733
91687250|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.922||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.922
91687251|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.176
91687252|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.049
91687253|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
91687254|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.563||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
91687255|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.012
91687256|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.084
91687257|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.016
91687258|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.688
91687259|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.38
91687260|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.021
91687261|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.91
91687262|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.084
91687263|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.151||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.151
91687264|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
91687265|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
91687266|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.846||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.846
91687267|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.339||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.339
91687268|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.012
91687269|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.622||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.622
91687270|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.492||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.492
91687271|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.11
91687272|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.02
91687273|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.052||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.052
91687274|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.844
91687275|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||>0.999
91687276|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.049
91687277|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER|||||||0.339||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.339
91687278|NCT02933255|183266701|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||>0.999
91687279|NCT01579747|183266713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Normality of distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. For normally-distributed continuous variables, the groups' distributions were described as means and standard deviations (SD). Student's t-test was used to compare groups in these cases with statistically-significant differences summarized using 95% confidence intervals as appropriate. For all comparisons, two-tailed p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
91687280|NCT02603146|183266772|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.336|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|0.459|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 36 for HCQ.|||0.459|0.213|
91687281|NCT02603146|183266772|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.519|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 36 for Placebo.|||0.519|0.268|
91687282|NCT02603146|183266772|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of CL- RA at 36 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of CL-RA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.058||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.22||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.220|-0.336|0.522
91687283|NCT02603146|183266773|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.225|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 12 for HCQ.|||0.225|0.076|
91687284|NCT02603146|183266773|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.289|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 12 for Placebo.|||0.289|0.099|
91687285|NCT02603146|183266773|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of CL- RA at 12 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of CL-RA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.029||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.131||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.131|-0.188|0.668
91687286|NCT02603146|183266774|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.273|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 12 for HCQ.|||0.273|0.088|
91687287|NCT02603146|183266774|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.289|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 12 for Placebo.|||0.289|0.099|
91687288|NCT02603146|183266774|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of IA at 12 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of IA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.014||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.15||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.150|-0.177|0.840
91687289|NCT02603146|183266775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.652
91687290|NCT02603146|183266776|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.482|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 36 for HCQ.|||0.482|0.230|
91687291|NCT02603146|183266776|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.425|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.551|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 36 for Placebo.|||0.551|0.298|
91687292|NCT02603146|183266776|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of IA at 36 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of IA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.069||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.226||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.226|-0.363|0.452
91687293|NCT02603146|183266777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.928
91687294|NCT02603146|183266777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.076
91687295|NCT02603146|183266778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.781
91687296|NCT02603146|183266778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
91687297|NCT02603146|183266779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.576
91687298|NCT02603146|183266779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.323
91687299|NCT02603146|183266780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.865||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.865
91687300|NCT02603146|183266780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.179
91687301|NCT02603146|183266781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.634
91687302|NCT02603146|183266781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.574
91687303|NCT02603146|183266782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.724
91687304|NCT02603146|183266782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
91720479|NCT02814526|183333860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
91720480|NCT02814526|183333861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.31
91720481|NCT02814526|183333862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0005||||0.817|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.817
91720482|NCT02814526|183333863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.64
91720483|NCT02814526|183333864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.97
91687305|NCT02603146|183266786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.809
91687306|NCT06473519|183266792|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of immune responses induced by MDVRSV preF compared to SDVRSV preF, assessed for RSVA\&B at 1month after vaccination. Null hypotheses(H0): RSVA(H0A)=ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5);RSVB(H0B):ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5), where ln(μMDV)\&ln(μSDV) are means of natural log-transformed antibody concentrations 1month after vaccination for MDV and SDV groups, respectively. Noninferiority=if lower bounds of 2-sided95%CI for GMT ratios (MDV/SDV) were \>0.67(noninferiority margin=1.5)for RSVA\&B.|Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||GMR was calculated as group mean difference of logarithmically transformed antibody levels, back transformed to original units.|RSV A||1.10|0.84|
91687307|NCT06473519|183266792|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of immune responses induced by MDVRSV preF compared to SDVRSV preF, assessed for RSVA\&B at 1 month after vaccination. Null hypotheses(H0):RSVA(H0A)=ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5);RSVB(H0B):ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5), where ln(μMDV)\&ln(μSDV) are means of natural log-transformed antibody concentrations 1 month after vaccination for MDV and SDV groups, respectively. Noninferiority=if lower bounds of 2-sided 95%CI for GMT ratios(MDV/SDV) were \>0.67(noninferiority margin=1.5)for RSVA\&B.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06|||||GMR was calculated as group mean difference of logarithmically transformed antibody levels, back transformed to original units.|RSV B||1.06|0.79|
91720484|NCT02814526|183333865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.94
91720485|NCT02485860|183333872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
91720486|NCT03643848|183333925|SUPERIORITY||variance components; inferring mean diff|0.068|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.033|<|0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|REML; Satterwaite method for t-tests.Participant is random effect. Addtnl fixed effects: Valence, Condition, Anxiety Severity, Gender, Age (months).||Condition (TMR, Sham) x Valence (Negative, Neutral) predicting Lure Generalization Index at 1 week. We hypothesized a significant interaction, with a reduction in negative generalization and an increase in neutral generalization in the TMR condition.||||<.046
91903670|NCT03523728|183702376|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|0.34|||=|0.9812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|33.36|||linear mixed effect model|||||33.36|-24.57|=0.9812
91720487|NCT03643848|183333926|SUPERIORITY||variance components; inferring mean diff|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|=|0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|included additional fixed effects: Anxiety severity, gender, age (months)||Condition (TMR, Sham) x Valence (Negative, Neutral) predicting Lure Generalization Index at 12 hour test. We hypothesized a significant interaction, with a reduction in negative generalization and an increase in neutral generalization in the TMR condition.||||=.61
91720488|NCT04761822|183333927|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.06||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.060|-0.002|0.066
91720489|NCT04761822|183333928|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.042||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.042|-0.016|0.267
91720490|NCT04761822|183333929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.046||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.046|-0.011|0.165
91720491|NCT04761822|183333930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.006||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.033||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.033|-0.021|0.572
91903671|NCT03523728|183702377|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|101.32|||=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.63|233.72|||linear mixed effect model|||||233.72|35.63|=0.0005
91687322|NCT03713593|183266840|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.834|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|0.978|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.978|0.712|
91687323|NCT03713593|183266841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|0.997|||Log Rank|Onesided p-value based on logrank test stratified by geographic region, portal vein invasion/extrahepatic spread/both AFP status,ECOG status.|Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.997|0.708|0.0227
91687324|NCT03713593|183266842|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Difference in percentage|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||14.2|2.8|
91687325|NCT03713593|183266845|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.93|0.66|
91687326|NCT03713593|183266846|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.94|0.68|
91687327|NCT03713593|183266847|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.4|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||13.4|0.0|
91687328|NCT03713593|183266850|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.88|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.88|0.61|
91687329|NCT03620708|183266880|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|3.492|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91687330|NCT03620708|183266881|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|4.36||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.113
91687331|NCT03620708|183266882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.661||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.032
91687332|NCT03620708|183266883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.543||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Examination of differences between groups at follow-up on a measure of confidence in ability to quit.||||.227
91687333|NCT03620708|183266883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.338||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Examination of differences between groups at follow-up on a measure of self-reported importance of quitting smoking.||||.715
91687334|NCT03620708|183266883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.712||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Examination of differences between groups at follow-up on a measure of self-reported readiness to quit smoking.||||.190
91687335|NCT03620708|183266884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.728||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.188
91687336|NCT03631199|183266949|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.00164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||Log Rank|||Chest pain||0.86|0.45|0.00164
91687337|NCT03631199|183266949|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.00069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.82|||Log Rank|||Cough||0.82|0.43|0.00069
91687338|NCT03631199|183266949|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.00045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.84|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea||0.84|0.51|0.00045
91687339|NCT03631199|183266950|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.1|||Log Rank|||Quality of Life||1.10|0.66|0.113
91687340|NCT03631199|183266950|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.00433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||Log Rank|||Shortness of Breath||0.91|0.51|0.00433
91687341|NCT03631199|183266950|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||Log Rank|||Pain||1.20|0.72|0.294
91687342|NCT03690388|183266954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.13|0.36|||Log Rank|||||0.36|0.13|< 0.0001
91687343|NCT03041311|183266956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Treatment difference was evaluated using a nonparametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The nonparametric ANCOVA included study baseline ANC value as covariate, stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and brain metastases (Yes versus No), and treatment as a fixed effect.||||<0.0001
91687344|NCT03041311|183266957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||The occurrence of SN was a binary variable. Treatment group difference was analyzed using a modified Poisson regression model to account for the variable duration of the Induction Period for each patient. The model included baseline ANC count as a covariate, the stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to1 vs. 2) and brain metastases (Yes vs. No), and treatment as a fixed effect. The logarithm transformation of # of Induction cycles was included as an offset variable in the modeling.||||<0.0001
91687345|NCT03041311|183266958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|negative binomial regression|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||||||0.0195
91720492|NCT04761822|183333931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.046|||Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.046|-0.011|0.165
91864652|NCT00661141|183618584|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|137.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.3|152.59|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||152.59|123.30|
91687346|NCT03041311|183266959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1335||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Treatment group difference was analyzed using a modified Poisson regression model. The model included baseline hemoglobin as a covariate, the stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and brain metastases (Yes versus No) and treatment as a fixed effect. The logarithm transformation of the number of weeks on treatment was included as an offset variable in the model.||||0.1335
91687347|NCT03041311|183266960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0686||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Treatment group difference was analyzed using a modified Poisson regression model to account for the variable duration of the Induction Period for each patient. The model included baseline absolute neutrophil count as a covariate, the stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and brain metastases (Yes versus No), and treatment as a fixed effect. The logarithm transformation of number of Induction cycles was included as an offset variable in the modeling.||||0.0686
91687348|NCT03041311|183266961|SUPERIORITY|For time-to-event variable, the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate its within group median value, 25% and 75% percentile values.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.9942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.52||The 2-sided p-value was obtained from the stratified log-rank test to account for the stratification factors.|Log Rank|stratified log-rank test|The HR and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment and stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and presence of brain metastases (Yes versus No).|||1.52|0.64|0.9942
91687349|NCT02604407|183266991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of LS Mean|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-4.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure||Between treatment groups of SHP465 12.5 mg and Placebo.|||-4.4|-11.7|<0.001
91687350|NCT02604407|183266991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of LS Mean|-13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-9.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure||Between treatment groups of SHP465 37.5 mg and Placebo.|||-9.7|-17.1|<0.001
91687351|NCT02964312|183267003|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.5|93.9||||||The null hypothesis was that the proportion of responders at 6 months would be 50%. Since there was not direct comparison group, the hypothesis was set as a superiority comparison to a target proportion (66%) with a power level \>90%.||93.9|83.5|
91687352|NCT02964312|183267006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P values are based on paired t-tests for change from baseline with p\<0.05 indicating significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91687353|NCT03127514|183267080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A two-tailed P value of 0.05 or less was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random-slope, shared-baseline, linear mixed model was adjusted for age and prebaseline ALSFRS-R slope||||||0.03
91687354|NCT05024747|183267096|OTHER||Ratio T/R|96.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.0|103.85||||||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference based on Baseline Adjusted Data.||103.85|90.00|
91687355|NCT05024747|183267097|OTHER||Ratio T/R|92.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.45|99.84||||||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference based on Baseline Adjusted Data.||99.84|85.45|
91687356|NCT05024747|183267098|OTHER||Ratio T/R|92.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.63|100.01||||||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference based on Baseline Adjusted Data.||100.01|85.63|
91687357|NCT05024747|183267099|OTHER||Hodges- Lehmann's median difference|-0.0192||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0542|0.0044|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference.||0.0044|-0.0542|0.0833
91687358|NCT05024747|183267100|OTHER||Hodges- Lehmann's median difference|-6.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference.||0.0000|-10.5000|0.0205
91687359|NCT05024747|183267101|OTHER||Hodges- Lehmann's median difference|0.3225||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0949|0.681|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference.||0.6810|-0.0949|0.0946
91687360|NCT01349192|183267141|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.74||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Proportion difference was calculated as proportion negative for MRSA in the treatment group minus the proportion negative for MRSA in the observation group. 95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||0.74|0.25|0.0005
91687361|NCT01349192|183267141|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.525||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.8||Test includes adjustment for two interim reviews of efficacy data. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Proportion difference was calculated as proportion negative for MRSA in the treatment group minus the proportion negative for MRSA in the observation group.|||0.80|0.23|0.0004
91687362|NCT01349192|183267142|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Proportion difference was calculated as proportion using antibiotics in the treatment group minus the proportion using antibiotics in the observation group. 95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||0.34|-0.18|0.5463
91687363|NCT01349192|183267143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.42||||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|11.47||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference was calculated as mean days of antibiotic use in the treatment group minus the mean days of antibiotic use in the observation group.|||11.47|-30.3|0.3683
91864653|NCT00661141|183618586|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|121.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.42|136.84|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||136.84|108.42|
91903672|NCT03523728|183702377|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|104.17|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.54|236.45|||linear mixed effect model|||||236.45|39.54|=0.0002
91863645|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.839|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.221|-2.457|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.457|-3.221|<.0001
91687364|NCT01349192|183267144|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.03||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Difference was calculated as proportion with a PE treated with MRSA active antibiotics in the treatment group minus the analogous proportion in the observation group. 95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||0.03|-0.42|0.1205
91687365|NCT03749330|183267157|EQUIVALENCE|test of difference between pre and post|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91863646|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.449|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.828|-2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.070|-2.828|<.0001
91864654|NCT00661141|183618586|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|123.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.55|163.56|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||163.56|93.55|
91687366|NCT02023983|183267187|OTHER|||||||0.765|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.765
91687367|NCT02023983|183267188|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91687368|NCT02105467|183267189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided, one-sample exact test|||Superiority of SVR12 in the Immediate Treatment group was tested against the historical response rate of 73%.||||<0.001
91720493|NCT04761822|183333932|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.006||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.033||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.033|-0.021|0.572
91720494|NCT04761822|183333933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.015||||0.4574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.055||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their first active dose as their first injection proportion minus the participants that received their first active dose as their second injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.055|-0.045|0.4574
91687369|NCT02105467|183267190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.6|||||Between-treatment difference (Immediate Treatment Group - Deferred Treatment Group) was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-10.8|
91687370|NCT02105467|183267191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.0|||||Between-treatment difference (Immediate Treatment Group - Deferred Treatment Group) was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||2.0|-4.4|
91687371|NCT01288807|183267224|OTHER|repeated measure ANOVA|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.01
91687372|NCT01288807|183267225|OTHER|two-tailed paired t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis looks at the cold threshold measured in degrees celcius before and after treatment.||||< 0.05
91687373|NCT01288807|183267226|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis looks at the pressure threshold measured in pounds per square inch before and after treatment||||> 0.05
91687374|NCT01288807|183267227|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||one-way repeated measure ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
91687375|NCT03852537|183267248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
91687376|NCT03852537|183267249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.666
91687377|NCT03852537|183267250|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91687378|NCT03852537|183267252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.477
91687379|NCT03852537|183267253|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
91687380|NCT03852537|183267254|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91687381|NCT03852537|183267255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91687382|NCT03852537|183267256|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91687383|NCT03852537|183267258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.213
91687384|NCT05534061|183267260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.56||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||1.56|0.62|.944
91794571|NCT02237911|183468074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|109.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||109|-71|0.676
91687385|NCT05534061|183267261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||1.65|0.62|.952
91687386|NCT05534061|183267262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.11||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||3.11|0.43|.768
91687387|NCT05534061|183267263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|10.94||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||10.94|1.43|.008
91687388|NCT00770328|183267274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91687389|NCT00770328|183267275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0114
91687390|NCT01776632|183267278|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|0.15||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed effects|||||||.03
91687391|NCT01776632|183267279|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|0.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed effects|||||||.003
91687392|NCT01776632|183267280|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|-0.43||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects models|||||||.04
91687393|NCT01776632|183267281|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|-1.27||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects models|||||||.09
91687394|NCT04604795|183267342|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.331|||||Log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model with fixed effects for regimen and period, and participants as random effect.|||1.331|0.833|
91687395|NCT04604795|183267342|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.916|8.474|||||Log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model with regimen, period, and regimen by period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||8.474|4.916|
91687396|NCT04604795|183267351|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.268|1.847|||||AUC(0-inf) was analyzed using a mixed model with fixed effects for regimen and period, and participants as random effect.|||1.847|1.268|
91687397|NCT04604795|183267351|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|12.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.141|15.423|||||Log transformed AUC(0-inf) was analyzed using a mixed model with regimen, period, and regimen by period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||15.423|10.141|
91903673|NCT03523728|183702378|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|51.01|||=|0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.01|125.45|||linear mixed effect model|||||125.45|7.01|=0.0197
91687398|NCT04604795|183267388|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.318|0.693|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) versus (vs) Day 3 (fasted)|||0.693|0.318|
91687399|NCT04604795|183267388|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.405|0.882|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.882|0.405|
91687400|NCT04604795|183267388|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.194|0.427|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.427|0.194|
91687401|NCT04604795|183267388|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.292|0.643|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.643|0.292|
91687402|NCT04604795|183267388|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.617|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.617|0.280|
91687403|NCT04604795|183267388|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.903|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.903|0.410|
91687404|NCT04604795|183267390|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.867|1.205|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.205|0.867|
91687405|NCT04604795|183267390|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.941|1.308|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.308|0.941|
91687406|NCT04604795|183267390|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.671|0.933|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.933|0.671|
91687407|NCT04604795|183267390|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.724|1.007|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.007|0.724|
91687408|NCT04604795|183267390|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.713|0.992|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.992|0.713|
91687409|NCT04604795|183267390|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.837|1.165|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.165|0.837|
91687410|NCT00174954|183267421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|paired t-test|||||||0.785
91687411|NCT00174954|183267422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|paired t-test|||||||0.020
91687412|NCT00839254|183267423|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN3+1 vs Control). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster-related effect.|VE (1-RR)|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.8|100.0||P-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 = (vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||100|82.8|<0.0001
91687413|NCT00839254|183267424|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN2+1 vs Control). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster-related effect.|VE (1-RR)|91.8|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|99.6||p-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 = (vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||99.6|58.3|= 0.0009
91903674|NCT03523728|183702378|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|46.36|||=|0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|119.01|||linear mixed effect model|||||119.01|3.21|=0.0337
91863647|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.328|-2.718|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.718|-3.328|<.0001
91863648|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.126|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.354|-2.897|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.897|-3.354|<.0001
91863649|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.908|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||1.298|0.518|<.0001
91864655|NCT00661141|183618586|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|150.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.14|242.63|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||242.63|93.14|
91864656|NCT00661141|183618586|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|122.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.45|183.0|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analysis for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||183.00|82.45|
91903675|NCT03523728|183702380|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|=|0.6374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.556|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.556|-0.342|=0.6374
91687414|NCT00509795|183267545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. The power is 90% according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol. Although not in the analysis plan for the study, in a separate communication, the FDA further explained that, whereas the 10% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess non-inferiority, a 5% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess clinical equivalence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.4|3.1|||||The difference is calculated as ranibizumab minus IAI. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4. As adjustment of multiple comparisons as conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|The statistical approach included a conditional sequence of calculations of the 95.1% CI using normal approximation of the difference between the proportion of patients with maintained vision at Week 52 for the group treated with 0.5 mg ranibizumab and the proportion of patients with maintained vision for each of the groups treated with IAI.||3.1|-4.4|
91687415|NCT00509795|183267545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. The power is 90% according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol. Although not in the analysis plan for the study, in a separate communication, the FDA further explained that, whereas the 10% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess non-inferiority, a 5% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess clinical equivalence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-5.1|2.1|||||The difference is calculated as ranibizumab minus IAI. A negative value favors the IAI 0.5Q4 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons as conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|The statistical approach included a conditional sequence of calculations of the 95.1% CI using normal approximation of the difference between the proportion of patients with maintained vision at Week 52 for the group treated with 0.5 mg ranibizumab and the proportion of patients with maintained vision for each of the groups treated with IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye).||2.1|-5.1|
91692145|NCT01262872|183279148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|14.6||||||VE-10PP-LD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 1M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, one month (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||14.6|-36.3|
91863650|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.679|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||1.679|0.902|<.0001
91863651|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.174||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||0.490|-0.142|0.2772
91687416|NCT00509795|183267545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. The power is 90% according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol. Although not in the analysis plan for the study, in a separate communication, the FDA further explained that, whereas the 10% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess non-inferiority, a 5% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess clinical equivalence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.5|3.1|||||The difference is calculated as ranibizumab minus IAI. A negative value favors the IAI 2.0Q8 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons as conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|The statistical approach included a conditional sequence of calculations of the 95.1% CI using normal approximation of the difference between the proportion of patients with maintained vision at Week 52 for the group treated with 0.5 mg ranibizumab and the proportion of patients with maintained vision for each of the groups treated with IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye).||3.1|-4.5|
91687417|NCT00509795|183267546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|3.15||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.92|5.37||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||5.37|0.92|0.0054
91687418|NCT00509795|183267546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.8||||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.03|1.43||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 0.5Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.43|-3.03|0.4793
91687419|NCT00509795|183267546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares Means|0.26||||0.8179|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.97|2.49||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||2.49|-1.97|0.8179
91687420|NCT00509795|183267547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.0|14.1||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4.|The null hypothesis is that both percentages are equal.||14.1|-1.0|0.1042
91687421|NCT00509795|183267547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-13.2|1.2||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 0.5Q4.|The null hypothesis is that both percentages are equal.||1.2|-13.2|0.1037
91687422|NCT00509795|183267547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-7.7|7.0||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as VEGF Trap-Eye minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors VEGF Trap-Eye 2.0Q8.|The pairwise The null hypothesis is that both percentages are equal.||7.0|-7.7|0.93
91687423|NCT00509795|183267548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences Least Squares means|1.28||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.73|3.28||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||3.28|-0.73|0.2090
91794572|NCT02237911|183468074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|154.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||154|-52|0.330
91720495|NCT04761822|183333934|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.016||||0.3242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.018||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their first active dose as their first injection proportion minus the participants that received their first active dose as their second injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.018|-0.086|0.3242
91720496|NCT04761822|183333935|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.07||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their second active dose as their second injection proportion minus the participants that received their second active dose as their third injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.070|-0.037|0.3100
91720497|NCT04761822|183333936|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.007||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0783|0.0366||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their second active dose as their second injection proportion minus the participants that received their second active dose as their third injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.0366|-0.0783|0.8070
91720498|NCT04761822|183333937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.042||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine first injection proportion minus comparison placebo first injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.042|-0.040|1.000
91720499|NCT04761822|183333938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.018||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine first injection proportion minus comparison placebo first injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.018|-0.053|0.250
91720500|NCT04761822|183333939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.058||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.101||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.101|0.024|0.004
91720501|NCT04761822|183333940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.075|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.124||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.124|0.039|<0.001
91720502|NCT00248560|183333953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.32||||||||0.32|0.08|
91720503|NCT03556683|183333959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Effect immediately following hypertonic saline treatment.||||<0.001
91720504|NCT03556683|183333960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Effect of hypertonic saline 4 hours after treatment.||||0.99
91720505|NCT03286504|183333964|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.05||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.212|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.212|-0.112|0.55
91720506|NCT03286504|183333965|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.033||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.211|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.211|-0.145|0.71
91720507|NCT03286504|183333967|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|-0.05||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.169|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.169|-0.269|0.65
91720508|NCT03286504|183333968|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.226||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.438|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.438|0.015|0.04
91720509|NCT03286504|183333969|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.208||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.393|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm.|||0.393|0.023|0.03
91903676|NCT03523728|183702380|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|=|0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|0.185|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.185|-0.689|=0.2560
91720510|NCT03320369|183334006|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91720511|NCT03813654|183334010|OTHER|Mixed model analysis with post-hoc tests.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|68.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference between the control and 8-h Free Sleep Group.|||||<0.05
91720512|NCT03813654|183334015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||The groups had unequal variances, so we adjusted for unequal variances when doing the t-test. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|Adjusted for unequal variances between the two groups.||We compared the PVT taken at the start of the final night shift between Group B and those in Group C who slept in the morning and had complete data. Our hypothesis was that Group B would have faster RTs.||||0.09
91720513|NCT03104413|183334025|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.0|13.1|<0.001
91720514|NCT03104413|183334025|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.5|11.6|< 0.001
91720515|NCT03104413|183334026|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|9.9|< 0.001
91720516|NCT03104413|183334026|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.1|15.1|<0.001
91720517|NCT03104413|183334027|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|9.9|<0.001
91720518|NCT03104413|183334027|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.1|15.1|<0.001
91720519|NCT03104413|183334028|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|6.4|0.001
91720520|NCT03104413|183334028|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.3|11.5|<0.001
91863652|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|-3.278|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.278|-4.750|<.0001
91864657|NCT00661141|183618592|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|69.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.88|97.78|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||97.78|48.88|
91864658|NCT00661141|183618592|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|124.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.77|174.5|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||174.50|88.77|
91864659|NCT00661141|183618592|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|105.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.24|124.27|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||124.27|89.24|
91720521|NCT03104413|183334029|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|6.8|0.001
91720522|NCT03104413|183334029|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|3.0|0.008
91720523|NCT03104413|183334030|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.0|19.9|< 0.001
91720524|NCT03104413|183334030|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|21.1|<0.001
91720525|NCT03104413|183334031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.1|0.4|0.020
91720526|NCT03104413|183334031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.3|0.7|0.010
91720527|NCT03104413|183334032|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.9|2.3|0.010
91720528|NCT03104413|183334032|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.2||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.3|1.1|0.023
91720529|NCT03104413|183334033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.5|8.5|<0.001
91720530|NCT03104413|183334033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|11.1|<0.001
91903677|NCT03523728|183702381|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|=|0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|0.747|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.747|-0.971|=0.7900
91903678|NCT03523728|183702381|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|=|0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|0.5|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.500|-0.808|=0.6322
91720531|NCT03104413|183334034|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.9|8.0|<0.001
91720532|NCT03104413|183334034|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|10.8|<0.001
91720533|NCT03104413|183334035|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.6|12.1|<0.001
91720534|NCT03104413|183334035|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.5|13.0|<0.001
91720535|NCT03104413|183334036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|8.9|<0.001
91720536|NCT03104413|183334036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|9.9|<0.001
91720537|NCT03104413|183334037|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.3|4.0|0.006
91720538|NCT03104413|183334037|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.1||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.6|-2.4|0.142
91720539|NCT03104413|183334038|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.1|3.8|0.001
91720540|NCT03104413|183334038|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.0|5.3|<0.001
91720541|NCT03104413|183334039|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.5|13.0|<0.001
91720542|NCT03104413|183334039|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|10.2|<0.001
91720543|NCT03104413|183334040|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.6||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.9|-6.8|0.377
91720544|NCT03104413|183334040|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.4||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|0.7|0.039
91720545|NCT03104413|183334041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-2.9|||Chi-squared|||||-2.9|-13.2|0.002
91720546|NCT03104413|183334041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-4.2|||Chi-squared|||||-4.2|-14.1|<0.001
91720547|NCT03104413|183334042|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|15.7|||Chi-squared|||||15.7|-28.1|1
91863653|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.115|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.865|-3.365|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.365|-4.865|<.0001
91864660|NCT00661141|183618592|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|88.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.66|138.54|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||138.54|56.66|
91903679|NCT03523728|183702382|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.6245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.506|0.839|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.839|-0.506|=0.6245
91687424|NCT00509795|183267548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.67||||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.69|1.35||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 0.5Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.35|-2.69|0.5128
91687425|NCT00509795|183267548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.6||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.61|1.42||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.42|-2.61|0.5579
91687426|NCT00509795|183267549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.33||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.04|0.38||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A negative value favors IAI 2.0Q4|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.38|-1.04|0.3575
91687427|NCT00509795|183267549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.71||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.01|1.42||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A negative value favors IAI 0.5Q4|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.42|-0.01|0.0507
91687428|NCT00509795|183267549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.86||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.15|1.58||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A negative value favors IAI 2.0Q8|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.58|0.15|0.0173
91687429|NCT02213289|183267606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||One-sided Z-test|This was a test of whether the observed 1-year survival rate was significantly different from historical 50% rate.||||||0.0024
91687430|NCT02687529|183267615|EQUIVALENCE|The number of positive and negative CST001 assay results for each subject, across all sites and operators were compared. In order for a subject to have a concordant result, the same assay call must be observed for all replicates across all sites (6/6).|proportion of concordant calls|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.13|91.38||||||||91.38|72.13|
91687431|NCT06075277|183267618|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.09|143.08|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 19.8|Relative bioavailability of Zongertinib administered in fed state (Test) compared with Zongertinib administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||143.08|112.09|
91687432|NCT06075277|183267619|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.34|149.58|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 27.9.|Relative bioavailability of Zongertinib administered in fed state (Test) compared with Zongertinib administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||149.58|106.34|
91687433|NCT06075277|183267620|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.7|142.21|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 19.6.|Relative bioavailability of Zongertinib administered in fed state (Test) compared with Zongertinib administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||142.21|111.70|
91687434|NCT03300817|183267652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6834|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||0.6834
91687435|NCT03765788|183267765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|26.29|||||Odd Ratio (posterior median) median and 95% credibility interval calculated using the Bayesian inference|Odds Ratio||26.29|3.54|
91687436|NCT03176134|183267802|OTHER||Estimated Difference|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|25.3|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||25.3|-12.2|
91864661|NCT00661141|183618592|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|70.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.16|146.59|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||146.59|34.16|
91687437|NCT03176134|183267802|OTHER||Estimated Difference|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|3.7|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||3.7|-28.7|
91687438|NCT03176134|183267802|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
91687439|NCT03176134|183267802|OTHER||Estimated Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|13.4|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||13.4|-10.7|
91687440|NCT03176134|183267803|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
91687441|NCT03176134|183267803|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
91687442|NCT03176134|183267803|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
91687443|NCT03176134|183267803|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
91687444|NCT03915652|183267804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|1.02|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 were combined and appointment nonadherence during the intervention was compared with the 12 months prior.||1.02|-2.88|0.34
91687445|NCT03915652|183267805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 were combined and emergency department visits and hospitalizations during the intervention was compared with the 12 months prior.||0.39|-1.08|0.34
91687446|NCT03915652|183267806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.73|||t-test, 1 sided|One sided t-test of percent of needs remaining from 100%.||Wave 1 and Wave 2 were combined and the quality metric at the end of the 12-month intervention was compared to the metric from the start of the intervention.||0.73|0.45|<0.001
91687447|NCT03915652|183267807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|34.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||34.8|-19.8|0.51
91687448|NCT03915652|183267808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.92|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined, compared post to pre.||1.92|-0.43|0.17
91687449|NCT03915652|183267809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|6.52|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined, compared pre/post intervention||6.52|-4.92|0.72
91687450|NCT03915652|183267810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|10.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Waves 1 and 2 are combined; pre/post survey analysis||10.22|-6.22|0.50
91687451|NCT03915652|183267811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Waves 1 and 2 combined; pre/post analysis||6.47|1.06|0.01
91687452|NCT03915652|183267812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined, pre/post test||0.98|-1.27|0.77
91720548|NCT03104413|183334042|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.4||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|60.2|||Chi-squared|||||60.2|0.6|0.113
91687453|NCT03915652|183267813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|7.52|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined; pre/post analysis||7.52|-3.23|0.37
91687454|NCT05736861|183267814|SUPERIORITY|Decision rule based on Bayesian posterior probability of efficacy. The decision threshold was a posterior probability of 0.95. A prespecified skeptical prior for the treatment effect was used to preserve type I error below 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.17|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.17|0.96|
91687455|NCT05736861|183267815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.6|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Descriptive analysis is a maximum partial likelihood proportional hazards regression model. Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|||2.6|0.4|
91687456|NCT05736861|183267818|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian proportional hazards regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.8|0.6|
91687457|NCT05736861|183267819|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.13|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|||1.13|0.50|
91720549|NCT03104413|183334043|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.0|13.1|<0.001
91720550|NCT03104413|183334043|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.5|11.6|<0.001
91863654|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.403|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.005|-2.801|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.801|-4.005|<.0001
91863655|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.747|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.473|-3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.020|-4.473|<.0001
91687458|NCT05736861|183267820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.13|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|||1.13|0.39|
91687459|NCT05736861|183267821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.91|||||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|1.91|0.52|
91687460|NCT05736861|183267822|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.25|0.82|
91687461|NCT05736861|183267822|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.23|0.78|
91687462|NCT05736861|183267822|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.41|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.41|0.82|
91720551|NCT03104413|183334044|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|6.8|0.001
91687463|NCT05736861|183267822|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.01|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.01|0.57|
91687464|NCT05736861|183267823|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.32|0.92|
91687465|NCT05736861|183267823|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.22|0.83|
91687466|NCT05736861|183267823|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.24|0.83|
91687467|NCT05736861|183267823|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1||||||Day 90|Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|1.10|0.72|
91687468|NCT05736861|183267824|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.20|0.80|
91687469|NCT05736861|183267824|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.25|0.78|
91687470|NCT05736861|183267824|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.43|0.86|
91720552|NCT03104413|183334044|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|3|0.008
91720553|NCT03104413|183334045|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|15.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.7|2.6|0.006
91864662|NCT00661141|183618592|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|86.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.78|132.73|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||132.73|55.78|
91687471|NCT05736861|183267824|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.12|0.66|
91687472|NCT05736861|183267825|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.35|0.87|
91687473|NCT05736861|183267825|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.57|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.57|0.96|
91687474|NCT05736861|183267825|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.54|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.54|0.92|
91687475|NCT05736861|183267825|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.18|0.71|
91687476|NCT05736861|183267826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.47|0.97|
91687477|NCT05736861|183267826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.33|0.84|
91687478|NCT05736861|183267826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.55|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.55|0.95|
91687479|NCT05736861|183267826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.19|0.73|
91687480|NCT05736861|183267827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.26|0.86|
91687481|NCT05736861|183267827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.29|0.85|
91687482|NCT05736861|183267827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.34|0.85|
91687483|NCT05736861|183267827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.28|0.80|
91687484|NCT05736861|183267828|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.27|0.88|
91687485|NCT05736861|183267828|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.14|0.79|
91720554|NCT03104413|183334045|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|10.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|3.7|0.002
91687486|NCT05736861|183267828|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.09|0.75|
91720555|NCT03104413|183334046|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.0|19.9|<0.001
91864663|NCT00661141|183618595|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.54|117.0|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||117.00|69.54|
91720556|NCT03104413|183334046|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|21.1|<0.001
91720557|NCT03104413|183334047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.1|0.4|0.020
91720558|NCT03104413|183334047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.3|0.7|0.010
91720559|NCT03104413|183334048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|19.8|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||19.8|5.0|0.001
91863656|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.461|-3.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.018|-4.461|<.0001
91903680|NCT03523728|183702382|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.281|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.281|-1.044|=0.2567
91903681|NCT03523728|183702383|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|=|0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.232|0.485|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.485|-2.232|=0.2023
91687487|NCT05736861|183267828|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.36|0.93|
91687488|NCT05736861|183267829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.15|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|||-0.15|-0.82|
91687489|NCT05736861|183267830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimated means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.99|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.99|0.18|
91687490|NCT01130532|183267855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91687491|NCT01130532|183267855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91687492|NCT01130532|183267856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687493|NCT01130532|183267856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687494|NCT01130532|183267857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687495|NCT01130532|183267857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687496|NCT01130532|183267858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687497|NCT01130532|183267858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687498|NCT01130532|183267859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 1. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687499|NCT01130532|183267859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 1. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687500|NCT01130532|183267859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 2. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687501|NCT01130532|183267859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 2. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687502|NCT01130532|183267859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 3. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687503|NCT01130532|183267859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 3. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687504|NCT01130532|183267859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 4. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687505|NCT01130532|183267859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 4. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687506|NCT01130532|183267859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 5. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687507|NCT01130532|183267859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 5. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687508|NCT01130532|183267860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91720560|NCT03104413|183334048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|22.4|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||22.4|7.7|<0.001
91720561|NCT03104413|183334049|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.7|7.1|<0.001
91863657|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.197|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.784|-2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.610|-3.784|<.0001
91864664|NCT00661141|183618595|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|112.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.72|121.54|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||121.54|103.72|
91864665|NCT00661141|183618595|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|106.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.81|116.24|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||116.24|96.81|
91687509|NCT01130532|183267860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687510|NCT01130532|183267860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687511|NCT01130532|183267860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687512|NCT01130532|183267860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687513|NCT01130532|183267860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687514|NCT01130532|183267860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687515|NCT01130532|183267860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687516|NCT01130532|183267860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687517|NCT01130532|183267860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687518|NCT01130532|183267861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91687519|NCT01130532|183267861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91687520|NCT01130532|183267862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687521|NCT01130532|183267862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687522|NCT01130532|183267863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687523|NCT01130532|183267863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687524|NCT01130532|183267863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687525|NCT01130532|183267863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687526|NCT01130532|183267863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91720562|NCT03104413|183334049|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.2|10.3|<0.001
91863658|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.678|-2.921|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.921|-3.678|<.0001
91864666|NCT00661141|183618595|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|104.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.5|129.84|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||129.84|83.50|
91903682|NCT03523728|183702383|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|=|0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.537|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.537|-1.610|=0.3205
91903683|NCT01809132|183702408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||.30
91687527|NCT01130532|183267863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687528|NCT01130532|183267863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687529|NCT01130532|183267863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687530|NCT01130532|183267863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687531|NCT01130532|183267863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91687532|NCT01130532|183267864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91687533|NCT01130532|183267864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91687534|NCT01130532|183267866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91720563|NCT03104413|183334050|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|8.9|<0.001
91720564|NCT03104413|183334050|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|9.9|<0.001
91720565|NCT03104413|183334051|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.3|4|0.006
91720566|NCT03104413|183334051|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.1||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.6|-2.4|0.142
91903684|NCT01809132|183702409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the observational subject was lost to follow-up||||.42
91903685|NCT01809132|183702410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
91687535|NCT01130532|183267866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91687536|NCT01130532|183267866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91687537|NCT01130532|183267867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||0.002
91687538|NCT01130532|183267867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||0.004
91687539|NCT01130532|183267867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91687540|NCT04909853|183267884|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|129.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.93|165.25|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||165.25|101.93|
91720567|NCT03104413|183334052|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.1|3.8|0.001
91720568|NCT03104413|183334052|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.0|5.3|<0.001
91720569|NCT03104413|183334053|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.5|13.0|<0.001
91720570|NCT03104413|183334053|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|10.2|<0.001
91720571|NCT03104413|183334054|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.6||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.9|-6.8|0.377
91720572|NCT03104413|183334054|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.4||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|0.7|0.039
91720573|NCT03104413|183334055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-2.9|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-2.9|-13.2|0.002
91720574|NCT03104413|183334055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-4.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-4.2|-14.1|<0.001
91720575|NCT03104413|183334056|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|15.7|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||15.7|-28.1|1.00
91720576|NCT03104413|183334056|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|30.4||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|60.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||60.2|0.6|0.113
91720577|NCT03104413|183334057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.323||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.399|1.753|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||1.753|-16.399|0.113
91720578|NCT03104413|183334057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.759||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.518|-0.001|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-0.001|-17.518|0.050
91720579|NCT03104413|183334058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.221||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|3.865|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||3.865|0.577|0.008
91720580|NCT03104413|183334058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.714||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|4.351|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||4.351|1.077|0.001
91864667|NCT00661141|183618595|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|100.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.86|129.49|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||129.49|77.86|
91687541|NCT04909853|183267884|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|138.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.18|168.55|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||168.55|113.18|
91687542|NCT04909853|183267884|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|148.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.4|196.68|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||196.68|111.40|
91687543|NCT04909853|183267885|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|123.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.64|153.91|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||153.91|99.64|
91720581|NCT03104413|183334059|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24|6.4|0.001
91687544|NCT04909853|183267885|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|187.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.52|236.46|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||236.46|148.52|
91720582|NCT03104413|183334059|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.3|11.5|<0.001
91903686|NCT01809132|183702411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.17
91687545|NCT04909853|183267885|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|304.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|237.6|390.21|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||390.21|237.60|
91720583|NCT01401166|183334061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|0.986|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial confidence interval (CI) were determined.|||0.986|0.903|
91720584|NCT01401166|183334061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|0.986|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.986|0.908|
91720585|NCT01401166|183334061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|0.928|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial CI were determined.|||0.928|0.801|
91720586|NCT01401166|183334061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|0.943|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.943|0.804|
91720587|NCT01401166|183334061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.839|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial CI were determined.|||0.900|0.760|
91720588|NCT01401166|183334061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|0.933|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.933|0.776|
91720589|NCT01401166|183334061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.885|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|0.937|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial CI were determined.|||0.937|0.811|
91720590|NCT01401166|183334061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.956|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.956|0.827|
91720591|NCT00297167|183334069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-25.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.73|-19.32|||ANOVA|||P-Value was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model which included main effects for treatment and sequence and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||-19.32|-31.73|<0.001
91720592|NCT00297167|183334070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.85|-16.14|||ANOVA|||P-Value was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA)model which included main effects for treatment and sequence and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||-16.14|-26.85|<0.001
91903687|NCT03349775|183702424|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.14||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|3.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.18|-8.32|0.35
91720593|NCT02431299|183334140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Whether there were significant changes in the IMRS baseline scores to IMRS follow up scores.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.78, df = 182||||||<0.01
91720594|NCT02431299|183334141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesized that higher levels of IMR competence would predict higher IMRS outcomes.||||<0.05
91720595|NCT06178991|183334161|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for non-inferiority (NI) was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.52|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H1N1||1.52|1.25|
91720596|NCT06178991|183334161|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|1.86|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H3N2||1.86|1.58|
91720597|NCT06178991|183334161|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.73|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Victoria||0.73|0.61|
91720598|NCT06178991|183334162|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|21.6|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|H1N1||21.6|14.1|
91720599|NCT06178991|183334162|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|29.3|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|H3N2||29.3|21.7|
91720600|NCT06178991|183334162|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-10.0|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|Victoria||-10.0|-17.5|
91720601|NCT06178991|183334163|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.10|0.94|
91720602|NCT06178991|183334164|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroresponse was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.6|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroresponse (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|||4.6|-0.9|
91720603|NCT06178991|183334165|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm G titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H1N1||1.34|1.01|
91720604|NCT06178991|183334165|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm H titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H1N1||1.11|0.85|
91720605|NCT06178991|183334165|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|1.97|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm G titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H3N2||1.97|1.56|
91794573|NCT03981822|183468098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0048
91903688|NCT03349775|183702425|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|3.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.92|-1.65|0.37
91720606|NCT06178991|183334165|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm H titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H3N2||1.03|0.82|
91720607|NCT06178991|183334165|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.66|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm G titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Victoria||0.66|0.52|
91794574|NCT03981822|183468098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0075
91903689|NCT02022085|183702444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 6 months with Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
91903690|NCT02022085|183702444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 12 months with Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
91903691|NCT02022085|183702444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 24 months with Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
91720608|NCT06178991|183334165|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.4|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm H titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Victoria||1.40|1.11|
91720609|NCT06178991|183334166|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.01|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm F titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.01|0.82|
91720610|NCT02273167|183334190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits (CL) were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CL. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson CLs. To accommodate the comparison of 2 NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in success rate|4.5||||0.055|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.0|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of NER1006 2-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 2-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. Hochberg procedure used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-4.00|0.055
91720611|NCT02273167|183334190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The CLs were adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CLs. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidences limits. To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach will be used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in success rate|1.59||||0.328|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.91|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was number of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of number of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 1-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were two alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-6.91|0.328
91720612|NCT02273167|183334191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence limits (CL) were adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CLs. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson CLs. To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach will be used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|16.56|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|8.11|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 2-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with highly effective cleansing of the colon ascendens as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 2-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||8.11|<0.001
91793936|NCT03519386|183466597|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.69||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||0.69|-0.77|
91864668|NCT00661141|183618595|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.7|108.42|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||108.42|82.70|
91793937|NCT05714644|183466599|SUPERIORITY|FIT-DNA hypothesized to be higher than FIT|Risk Difference (RD)|4.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.7|||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations to account for clustering of data within CHCs, adjusting for age and race/ethnicity||||8.7|0.8|0.05
91793938|NCT05714644|183466600|SUPERIORITY|FIT-DNA greater than FIT|Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|8.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.5|0.4|<0.05
91793939|NCT01582854|183466603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.9|0.005
91793940|NCT01582854|183466604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.3|-2.6|0.122
91793941|NCT01582854|183466604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||-1.9|-5.5|<0.001
91864669|NCT00661141|183618597|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|94.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.01|1113.63|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||1113.63|78.01|
91903692|NCT02022085|183702445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||All comparisons to the Unaided situation were p=\<0.0001.|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Baha Attract after 24 months vs Unaided situation Pre-Op||||<0.0001
91793942|NCT01582854|183466605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||End of Infusion Period||0.7|-0.1|0.111
91793943|NCT01582854|183466605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.2|0.1|0.016
91793944|NCT01582854|183466605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.3|0.2|0.013
91793945|NCT01582854|183466605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||1.7|0.3|0.003
91793946|NCT01582854|183466606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|19.5|||Chi-squared|||Month 3||19.5|0.9|0.032
91863659|NCT04800211|183616293|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||0.226|-0.638|0.3480
91903693|NCT02022085|183702446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||All comparisons to the Unaided situation were p=\<0.0001.|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Baha Attract after 12 months vs Unaided situation Pre-Op||||<0.0001
91903694|NCT02022085|183702447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All comparisons to the Unaided situation were p=\<0.0001.|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Baha Attract after 6 months vs Unaided situation Pre-Op||||<0.0001
91687546|NCT01783990|183267903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||0.33
91687547|NCT01783990|183267904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||0.80
91687548|NCT01783990|183267905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.87
91687549|NCT01783990|183267906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.28
91687550|NCT01783990|183267907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.31
91687551|NCT01783990|183267908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.04
91687552|NCT01038336|183267909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.289
91687553|NCT01038336|183267910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91687554|NCT01038336|183267911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.072
91687555|NCT01038336|183267912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.030
91687556|NCT01038336|183267913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.092
91687557|NCT01038336|183267914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.832
91687558|NCT01038336|183267915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.454
91687559|NCT01038336|183267916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.128
91687560|NCT02366689|183267917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.04
91687561|NCT02366689|183267918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||< 0.001
91687562|NCT02366689|183267919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91687563|NCT02366689|183267920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.432
91687564|NCT02366689|183267921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91687565|NCT02366689|183267922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91687566|NCT03718832|183267923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0333487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1943638||0.8638688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415628|0.3489306||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.3489306|-0.415628|0.8638688
91687567|NCT03718832|183267923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0066385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1853917||0.9714571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371329|0.358052||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.358052|-0.371329|0.9714571
91687568|NCT03718832|183267924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1409446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2106711||0.5039565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2735162|0.5554053||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.5554053|-0.2735162|0.5039565
91687569|NCT03718832|183267924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1213915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2126328||0.5684854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2970052|0.5397882||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.5397882|-0.2970052|0.5684854
91720613|NCT02273167|183334191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits (CLs) were adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CLs. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson CLs. To accommodate the comparison of 2 NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|18.74|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|10.32|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with highly effective cleansing of the colon ascendens as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 1-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||10.32|<0.001
91863660|NCT04800211|183616294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.716|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|-0.481|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.481|-0.951|<0.0001
91720614|NCT02273167|183334192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|3.55||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.0||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 2-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 2-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||12.00|-4.80|0.106
91720615|NCT02273167|183334192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|3.55||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.0||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 1-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 1-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||12.00|-4.80|0.106
91720616|NCT02273167|183334193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|-0.29||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|8.02||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 2-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 2-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||8.02|-8.74|0.569
91793947|NCT01582854|183466606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.2||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.5|||Chi-squared|||Month 6||19.5|0.8|0.034
91793948|NCT01582854|183466606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.1||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.3|||Chi-squared|||Month 12||19.3|0.8|0.035
91863661|NCT04800211|183616294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.686|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|-0.406|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.406|-0.966|<0.0001
91903695|NCT02022085|183702448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in Noise, 6 months Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
91903696|NCT02022085|183702448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in Noise, 12 months Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
91903697|NCT02022085|183702448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in Noise, 24 months Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
91903698|NCT02022085|183702449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in quiet at 50dB||||<0.0001
91903699|NCT02022085|183702449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in quiet at 65dB||||<0.0001
91903700|NCT02022085|183702449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in quiet at 80dB||||<0.0001
91720617|NCT02273167|183334193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|0.8||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|9.11||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 1-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 1-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||9.11|-7.65|0.455
91720618|NCT02273167|183334194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the colon ascendens was calculated as NER1006 2-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|7.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|15.47|||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||15.47|-1.41|0.024
91720619|NCT02273167|183334194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the colon ascendens was calculated as NER1006 rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits. Non-inferiority of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP was proven.|Difference in PDR|2.37||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|10.82||Superiority of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP not demonstrated statistically.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||10.82|-6.12|0.268
91720620|NCT02273167|183334195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the overall colon was calculated as NER1006 rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals.|Difference in PDR|-0.49||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|8.0|||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||8.00|-8.85|0.579
91720621|NCT02273167|183334195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the overall colon was calculated as NER1006 1-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|0.61||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|9.09|||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||9.09|-7.78|0.478
91720622|NCT03082729|183334201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.612
91720623|NCT03082729|183334202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
91720624|NCT03082729|183334203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.617
91720625|NCT03082729|183334204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.524
91903701|NCT02022085|183702449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in quiet at 50dB||||<0.0001
91720626|NCT03082729|183334205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.972
91720627|NCT03082729|183334206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.315
91720628|NCT03082729|183334207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.443
91720629|NCT03082729|183334208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
91720630|NCT03082729|183334209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.390
91720631|NCT03082729|183334210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.116
91720632|NCT03082729|183334211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.331
91720633|NCT03082729|183334212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.225
91720634|NCT03082729|183334213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
91720635|NCT03082729|183334214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882
91720636|NCT03082729|183334215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.326
91720637|NCT03082729|183334216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
91720638|NCT03082729|183334217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
91720639|NCT03082729|183334218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.771
91720640|NCT03082729|183334219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.491
91720641|NCT03082729|183334220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.924
91720642|NCT03082729|183334221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.868
91903702|NCT02022085|183702449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in quiet at 65dB||||<0.0001
91903703|NCT02022085|183702449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in quiet at 80dB||||<0.0001
91720643|NCT03082729|183334222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.922
91720644|NCT03082729|183334223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
91720645|NCT03082729|183334224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.453
91720646|NCT03082729|183334225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.714
91720647|NCT03082729|183334226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.434
91720648|NCT03082729|183334227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.329
91863662|NCT04800211|183616294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.521|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|-0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.288|-0.755|<.0001
91720649|NCT03082729|183334228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.963
91863663|NCT04800211|183616294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.342||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|-0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.072|-0.612|0.0131
91903704|NCT02022085|183702449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in quiet at 50dB||||<0.0001
91903705|NCT02022085|183702449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in quiet at 65dB||||<0.0001
91720650|NCT03082729|183334229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.400
91720651|NCT03082729|183334230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223
91720652|NCT03082729|183334231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.241
91720653|NCT03082729|183334232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.348
91720654|NCT03082729|183334233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
91720655|NCT03082729|183334234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.667
91720656|NCT03082729|183334235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135
91720657|NCT03082729|183334236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.331
91720658|NCT03082729|183334237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.538
91720659|NCT03082729|183334238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.791
91720660|NCT03082729|183334239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.925
91720661|NCT03082729|183334240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.161
91720662|NCT03082729|183334241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.546
91720663|NCT03082729|183334242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.667
91720664|NCT03082729|183334243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.840
91720665|NCT03082729|183334244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.367
91720666|NCT03082729|183334245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773
91720667|NCT03082729|183334246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
91720668|NCT03082729|183334247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.953
91720669|NCT03082729|183334248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.911
91720670|NCT03082729|183334249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
91720671|NCT03082729|183334250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.226
91720672|NCT03082729|183334251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
91720673|NCT03082729|183334252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.189
91720674|NCT03082729|183334253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.488
91720675|NCT03082729|183334254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.523
91720676|NCT03082729|183334255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
91720677|NCT03082729|183334256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777
91720678|NCT03082729|183334257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.946
91720679|NCT03082729|183334258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.351
91720680|NCT03082729|183334259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
91720681|NCT03082729|183334260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.884
91720682|NCT03082729|183334261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
91720683|NCT03082729|183334262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91720684|NCT03082729|183334263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
91720685|NCT03082729|183334264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.283
91720686|NCT03082729|183334265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
91720687|NCT03082729|183334266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.371
91720688|NCT03082729|183334267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.555
91720689|NCT03082729|183334268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.533
91720690|NCT03082729|183334269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
91720691|NCT03082729|183334270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91720692|NCT03082729|183334270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91720693|NCT03082729|183334270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.537
91720694|NCT03082729|183334271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91720695|NCT03082729|183334271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
91720696|NCT03082729|183334271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
91720697|NCT03082729|183334272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91720698|NCT03082729|183334272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91720699|NCT03082729|183334273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91720700|NCT03082729|183334273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91720701|NCT03082729|183334274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91720702|NCT03082729|183334274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91863664|NCT04800211|183616294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.514|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.712|-0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.316|-0.712|<.0001
91863665|NCT04800211|183616294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.007|-0.455|0.0435
91863666|NCT04800211|183616294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.111||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.371|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||0.371|-0.149|0.4012
91863667|NCT04800211|183616294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.485||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.895|-0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.074|-0.895|0.0133
91720703|NCT03082729|183334275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91903706|NCT02022085|183702449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in quiet at 80dB||||<0.0001
91720704|NCT03082729|183334275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91720705|NCT03082729|183334277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092
91720706|NCT03082729|183334277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.678
91720707|NCT03082729|183334278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91720708|NCT03082729|183334278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.762
91720709|NCT03082729|183334279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.973
91720710|NCT03082729|183334279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.805
91720711|NCT03082729|183334280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.951
91720712|NCT03082729|183334280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.661
91720713|NCT03082729|183334281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.614
91720714|NCT03082729|183334281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.306
91720715|NCT03082729|183334282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.322
91720716|NCT03082729|183334282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
91720717|NCT03082729|183334283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.960
91720718|NCT03082729|183334283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.268
91720719|NCT03082729|183334284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.501
91720720|NCT03082729|183334284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.235
91720721|NCT03082729|183334285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.259
91720722|NCT03082729|183334285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.219
91720723|NCT03082729|183334286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140
91720724|NCT03082729|183334286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.633
91720725|NCT03082729|183334287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.302
91720726|NCT03082729|183334287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
91720727|NCT03082729|183334288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
91720728|NCT03082729|183334288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.324
91720729|NCT03082729|183334289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.812
91720730|NCT03082729|183334289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.264
91720731|NCT03082729|183334290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.283
91720732|NCT03082729|183334290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.250
91720733|NCT03082729|183334291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
91720734|NCT03082729|183334291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.249
91720735|NCT03082729|183334292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526
91720736|NCT03082729|183334292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.632
91720737|NCT03082729|183334293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.584
91720738|NCT03082729|183334293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
91720739|NCT03082729|183334294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91863668|NCT04800211|183616294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.797||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.277|-0.317|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.317|-1.277|0.0002
91863669|NCT04800211|183616294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||0.119|-0.699|0.2641
91863670|NCT04800211|183616294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.453||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||0.018|-0.924|0.0639
91863671|NCT04800211|183616294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|-0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.305|-0.945|0.0001
91863672|NCT04800211|183616294|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.344||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.725|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||0.038|-0.725|0.0776
91720740|NCT03082729|183334294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91720741|NCT03082729|183334295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.533
91863673|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.621||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.055|-0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.186|-1.055|0.0055
91720742|NCT03082729|183334295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
91720743|NCT03082729|183334296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.338
91720744|NCT03082729|183334296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
91720745|NCT03082729|183334297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.102
91720746|NCT03082729|183334297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.153
91720747|NCT03082729|183334298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.226
91720748|NCT03082729|183334298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.222
91720749|NCT03082729|183334299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.384
91720750|NCT03082729|183334299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112
91720751|NCT03082729|183334300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.636
91720752|NCT03082729|183334300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.896
91720753|NCT03082729|183334301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
91720754|NCT03082729|183334301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.551
91720755|NCT03082729|183334302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.440
91720756|NCT03082729|183334302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
91720757|NCT03082729|183334303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.278
91720758|NCT03082729|183334303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
91720759|NCT03082729|183334304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795
91720760|NCT03082729|183334304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.284
91720761|NCT03082729|183334305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.880
91720762|NCT03082729|183334305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
91720763|NCT03082729|183334306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.746
91720764|NCT03082729|183334306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.199
91720765|NCT03082729|183334307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.814
91720766|NCT03082729|183334307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
91720767|NCT03082729|183334308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.494
91720768|NCT03082729|183334308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.960
91720769|NCT03082729|183334309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777
91903707|NCT02022085|183702450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband: change in PTA4||||0.38
91720770|NCT03082729|183334309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
91720771|NCT03082729|183334310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.241
91720772|NCT03082729|183334310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.869
91720773|NCT03082729|183334311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977
91720774|NCT03082729|183334311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91720775|NCT03082729|183334312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.591
91720776|NCT03082729|183334312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
91720777|NCT03082729|183334313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.260
91903708|NCT02022085|183702450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband: change in PTA4||||0.84
91903709|NCT02022085|183702450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband: change in PTA4||||0.89
91720778|NCT03082729|183334313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526
91720779|NCT03082729|183334314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.545
91720780|NCT03082729|183334314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.690
91720781|NCT03082729|183334315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.542|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.542
91720782|NCT03082729|183334315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.344
91720783|NCT03082729|183334316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
91720784|NCT03082729|183334316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91720785|NCT03082729|183334317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.510
91720786|NCT03082729|183334317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516
91720787|NCT03082729|183334318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91720788|NCT03082729|183334318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
91720789|NCT03082729|183334319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.392
91720790|NCT03082729|183334319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.177
91720791|NCT03082729|183334320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.584
91720792|NCT03082729|183334320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.065
91720793|NCT03082729|183334321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
91720794|NCT03082729|183334321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.145
91720795|NCT03082729|183334322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
91720796|NCT03082729|183334322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.345
91720797|NCT03082729|183334323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.957
91720798|NCT03082729|183334323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.425
91720799|NCT03082729|183334324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.698
91720800|NCT03082729|183334324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.709
91720801|NCT03082729|183334325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.362
91720802|NCT03082729|183334325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.221
91720803|NCT03082729|183334326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.813
91720804|NCT03082729|183334326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91720805|NCT03082729|183334327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.752
91720806|NCT03082729|183334327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.808
91720807|NCT03082729|183334328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.251
91720808|NCT03082729|183334328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.329
91720809|NCT03082729|183334329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.215
91720810|NCT03082729|183334329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.612
91720811|NCT03082729|183334330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.307
91720812|NCT03082729|183334330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.686
91720813|NCT03082729|183334331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.139
91720814|NCT03082729|183334331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350
91720815|NCT03082729|183334332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.721
91720816|NCT03082729|183334332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.285
91720817|NCT03082729|183334333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.804
91720818|NCT03082729|183334333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.793
91720819|NCT03082729|183334334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.293
91720820|NCT03082729|183334334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.355
91720821|NCT03082729|183334335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.101
91720822|NCT03082729|183334335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
91720823|NCT03082729|183334336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
91720824|NCT03082729|183334336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
91720825|NCT03082729|183334337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
91720826|NCT03082729|183334337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.378
91720827|NCT03082729|183334338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.122
91720828|NCT03082729|183334338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.815
91720829|NCT03082729|183334339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.321
91720830|NCT03082729|183334339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
91864670|NCT00661141|183618597|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|107.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.42|131.1|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||131.10|87.42|
91687570|NCT03718832|183267925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.26835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.90353||0.2247426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.73804|8.201347||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||8.201347|-34.73804|0.2247426
91687571|NCT03718832|183267925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.20164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.25555||0.2794015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.37119|9.9679||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||9.9679|-34.37119|0.2794015
91687572|NCT03718832|183267925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.12548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.550462||0.1708328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.703702|31.95466||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||31.95466|-5.703702|0.1708328
91687573|NCT03718832|183267925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.47577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.59479||0.2801138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.422762|32.3743||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||32.3743|-9.422762|0.2801138
91687574|NCT03718832|183267926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.135585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.325031||0.1991028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57023|4.299061||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||4.299061|-20.57023|0.1991028
91687575|NCT03718832|183267926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.493798|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.761916||0.0480884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0295297|6.958066||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||6.958066|0.0295297|0.0480884
91687576|NCT03718832|183267926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.681804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34136||0.1276817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.15188|2.788269||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.788269|-22.15188|0.1276817
91687577|NCT03718832|183267926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.658257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706497||0.3318554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698022|5.014535||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||5.014535|-1.698022|0.3318554
91687578|NCT03718832|183267927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8749266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9355095||0.3502313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.714084|0.9642311||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.9642311|-2.714084|0.3502313
91687579|NCT03718832|183267927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5608222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2708671||0.0390797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0282451|1.093399||Adjusted mean difference for full controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.093399|0.0282451|0.0390797
91687580|NCT03718832|183267927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.450197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9508997||0.1281032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.320109|0.419716||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.419716|-3.320109|0.1281032
91687581|NCT03718832|183267927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2794625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2717457||0.3044732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2549974|0.8139224||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.8139224|-0.2549974|0.3044732
91687582|NCT03718832|183267928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.768353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.933945||0.1007463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.907847|21.44455||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||21.44455|-1.907847|0.1007463
91720831|NCT03082729|183334340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.352
91687583|NCT03718832|183267928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.472004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.150772||0.3859868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66534|14.60935||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||14.60935|-5.66534|0.3859868
91720832|NCT03082729|183334340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.180
91720833|NCT03082729|183334341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
91720834|NCT03082729|183334341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
91720835|NCT03082729|183334342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
91720836|NCT03082729|183334342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
91720837|NCT03082729|183334343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
91720838|NCT03082729|183334343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
91720839|NCT03082729|183334344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.446
91720840|NCT03082729|183334344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
91720841|NCT03082729|183334345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91720842|NCT03082729|183334345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
91720843|NCT03353220|183334393|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91720844|NCT03353220|183334394|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91687584|NCT03718832|183267928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5461143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.440905||0.9324908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.22545|12.13323||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||12.13323|-13.22545|0.9324908
91687585|NCT03718832|183267928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.752831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.754947||0.6328075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.08487|8.579205||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||8.579205|-14.08487|0.6328075
91687586|NCT03718832|183267929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.352141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.663846||0.0743062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8250086|17.52929||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment.||17.52929|-0.8250086|0.0743062
91687587|NCT03718832|183267929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.971188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.902349||0.1270654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.709219|13.65159||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||13.65159|-1.709219|0.1270654
91687588|NCT03718832|183267929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.637485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.443227||0.553277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.110146|11.38512||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||11.38512|-6.110146|0.553277
91687589|NCT03718832|183267929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.925307||0.519562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.198658|10.26164||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||10.26164|-5.198658|0.519562
91687590|NCT03718832|183267930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.555117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427417||0.6976216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.363839|2.253605||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.253605|-3.363839|0.6976216
91687591|NCT03718832|183267930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4977997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041102||0.6329035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.546815|1.551216||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.551216|-2.546815|0.6329035
91687592|NCT03718832|183267930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.386111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.812939||0.445181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.954999|2.182777||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.182777|-4.954999|0.445181
91687593|NCT03718832|183267930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.101914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.860687||0.5542241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.765783|2.561956||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.561956|-4.765783|0.5542241
91687594|NCT03718832|183267931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.55812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.74244||0.2045348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35316|57.4694||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||57.4694|-12.35316|0.2045348
91687595|NCT03718832|183267931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.49781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.95579||0.3675252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.93658|42.9322||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||42.9322|-15.93658|0.3675252
91687596|NCT03718832|183267931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.35256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.69115||0.6709307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8992|41.19407||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||41.19407|-63.8992|0.6709307
91687597|NCT03718832|183267931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.912496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.34891||0.6766844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.95358|33.12859||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||33.12859|-50.95358|0.6766844
91687598|NCT03718832|183267932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.870464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.024497||0.356123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.851219|2.110291||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.110291|-5.851219|0.356123
91687599|NCT03718832|183267932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8636408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.941141||0.6566494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.681041|2.95376||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.95376|-4.681041|0.6566494
91903710|NCT02022085|183702451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||250Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.34
91687600|NCT03718832|183267932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.772051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.905125||0.0484944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.519021|-0.0250809||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||-0.0250809|-7.519021|0.0484944
91687601|NCT03718832|183267932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.167034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.821244||0.234947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.749627|1.415558||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||1.415558|-5.749627|0.234947
91720845|NCT03353220|183334395|OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0017
91903711|NCT02022085|183702451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0004
91863674|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.778||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.316|-1.240|0.0011
91864671|NCT00661141|183618597|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.84|112.97|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||112.97|84.84|
91687602|NCT03718832|183267933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5561156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086759||0.6091477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.693002|1.58077||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.58077|-2.693002|0.6091477
91687603|NCT03718832|183267933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3787962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032547||0.713942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.409379|1.651786||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.651786|-2.409379|0.713942
91687604|NCT03718832|183267933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4989275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053869||0.6362064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.573807|2.571662||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.571662|-1.573807|0.6362064
91687605|NCT03718832|183267933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.146286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.048105||0.2748884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9154561|3.208027||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||3.208027|-0.9154561|0.2748884
91687606|NCT03718832|183267934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3232407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3695066||0.3823224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4036366|1.050118||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.050118|-0.4036366|0.3823224
91687607|NCT03718832|183267934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2619965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3729922||0.4829339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4718566|0.9958495||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.9958495|-0.4718566|0.4829339
91687608|NCT03718832|183267934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6983982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3476441||0.045506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.382737|-0.0140597||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||-0.0140597|-1.382737|0.045506
91687609|NCT03718832|183267934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6239824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3336405||0.0625551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.280906|0.0329412||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0329412|-1.280906|0.0625551
91687610|NCT03718832|183267935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.276579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.636162||0.1650343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9420086|5.495166||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||5.495166|-0.9420086|0.1650343
91687611|NCT03718832|183267935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.989458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.359013||0.1442126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6843682|4.663284||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||4.663284|-0.6843682|0.1442126
91687612|NCT03718832|183267935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.579811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.739612||0.0335498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03574|-0.1238828||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||-0.1238828|-3.03574|0.0335498
91687613|NCT03718832|183267935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.764632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8545352||0.0398937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.447175|-0.0820899||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||-0.0820899|-3.447175|0.0398937
91687614|NCT03718832|183267936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6294078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4409795||0.1544491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.496923|0.238107||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.238107|-1.496923|0.1544491
91687615|NCT03718832|183267936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6081765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451915||0.1793486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.497352|0.2809987||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.2809987|-1.497352|0.1793486
91687616|NCT03718832|183267936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1731023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4024787||0.6674618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9653829|0.6191784||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.6191784|-0.9653829|0.6674618
91720846|NCT03353220|183334399|OTHER|||||||0.0189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0189
91720847|NCT03857256|183334417|SUPERIORITY|Mean changes from Week 0 in LDL-C were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach including effects of treatment group, time (Week 6 and Week 12) and treatment group x time interaction as well as the covariates of Week 0 value of LDL-C and Week 0 value of LDL-C x time interaction. An unstructured covariance structure were used to model the within-patient errors. Contrasts under this model allowed for the three main comparisons.||||||0.0167||||||Tests involving the comparisons of each of the active groups versus placebo for the primary endpoint were conducted at the 0.0167 significance level (to account for three main comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation were used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||Tests involving the comparisons of each of the active groups versus placebo for the primary endpoint were conducted at the 0.0167 significance level (to account for three main comparisons).||||0.0167
91720848|NCT00362232|183334460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.71|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.25|-0.17|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 4% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||-0.17|-5.25|<0.001
91720849|NCT00362232|183334460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.71||||0.036||95.0|-5.25|-0.17|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: The incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided).||-0.17|-5.25|0.036
91720850|NCT00362232|183334461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.19||||0.012||95.0|-5.67|-0.71|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided).||-0.71|-5.67|0.012
91864672|NCT05828017|183618601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||<0.001
91903712|NCT02022085|183702451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.22
91687617|NCT03718832|183267936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2208031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4196435||0.5992113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.047063|0.6054567||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.6054567|-1.047063|0.5992113
91687618|NCT03718832|183267937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4824561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423027||0.2549037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349686|1.314598||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.314598|-0.349686|0.2549037
91687619|NCT03718832|183267937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3545817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4230741||0.4025977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4777863|1.186949||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.186949|-0.4777863|0.4025977
91687620|NCT03718832|183267937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0102657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4695747||0.9825739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9346107|0.9140792||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.9140792|-0.9346107|0.9825739
91687621|NCT03718832|183267937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0340184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4869778||0.9443607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9928399|0.9248032||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.9248032|-0.9928399|0.9443607
91687622|NCT03718832|183267938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.160997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0376773||2.52e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0868814|0.2351126||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.2351126|0.0868814|0.0000252
91720851|NCT00362232|183334462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37||||0.456||95.0|-1.34|0.6|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence of the major VTE is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.6|-1.34|0.456
91720852|NCT00362232|183334462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.34|0.6|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence of the major VTE in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.6|-1.34|<0.001
91720853|NCT00362232|183334463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.124||95.0|-1.82|0.22|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence of the major VTE is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.22|-1.82|0.124
91720854|NCT00362232|183334463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.82|0.22|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence of the major VTE in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.22|-1.82|<0.001
91864673|NCT05828017|183618601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.544||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference between Variation #1 and the standard curve in terms of mean preference counts per participant.||||0.015
91903713|NCT02022085|183702451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.64
91903714|NCT02022085|183702451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.039
91863675|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.540|-1.260|<.0001
91863676|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.938|-0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.103|-0.938|0.0150
91863677|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.349||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.771|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.074|-0.771|0.1048
91864674|NCT05828017|183618602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.039|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||<0.001
91864675|NCT05828017|183618602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.03569|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.03569
91687623|NCT03718832|183267938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1691707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0391132||2.04e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0922183|0.2461232||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.2461232|0.0922183|0.0000204
91793949|NCT01582854|183466607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.1|||Fisher Exact|||Month 6||2.1|-8.5|0.251
91687624|NCT03718832|183267938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0028595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0261733||0.9130816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0486635|0.0543825||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0543825|-0.0486635|0.9130816
91687625|NCT03718832|183267938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0166325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0271062||0.5400053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0367394|0.0700045||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0700045|-0.0367394|0.5400053
91687626|NCT03718832|183267939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0511555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016316||0.0018721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0190582|0.0832528||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0832528|0.0190582|0.0018721
91687627|NCT03718832|183267939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0433081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168497||0.0106231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0101555|0.0764607||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0764607|0.0101555|0.0106231
91720855|NCT00362232|183334464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44||||||95.0|-1.59|0.66|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.66|-1.59|
91687628|NCT03718832|183267939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0138256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171112||0.4197898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0198584|0.0475096||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0475096|-0.0198584|0.4197898
91720856|NCT00362232|183334465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.72||||||95.0|-1.81|0.36|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.36|-1.81|
91793950|NCT01582854|183466607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.7|||Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.7|-9.7|0.221
91793951|NCT01582854|183466608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||End of Infusion Period||0.1|-0.4|0.239
91793952|NCT01582854|183466608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.1|-0.5|0.136
91720857|NCT00362232|183334466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.38||||||95.0|-4.84|0.07|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.07|-4.84|
91720858|NCT00362232|183334467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.67||||||95.0|-5.02|-0.32|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||-0.32|-5.02|
91720859|NCT00362232|183334468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24||||||95.0|-0.22|0.71|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.71|-0.22|
91720860|NCT00362232|183334469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||||95.0|-0.35|0.56||||||||0.56|-0.35|
91720861|NCT00362232|183334470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||||95.0|-1.56|0.94|||||Exact methods for difference to Enoxaparin|||0.94|-1.56|
91720862|NCT00362232|183334471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.47||||0.054||95.0|-4.99|0.04|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.04|-4.99|0.054
91720863|NCT00362232|183334471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.47|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.49|0.04|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 4% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.04|-4.49|<0.001
91720864|NCT00362232|183334472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.97||||0.017||95.0|-5.42|-0.53|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||-0.53|-5.42|0.017
91793953|NCT01582854|183466608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.2|-0.3|0.890
91864676|NCT05828017|183618603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.365||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.069
91720865|NCT00362232|183334472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.97|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.42|-0.53|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 4% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||-0.53|-5.42|<0.001
91903715|NCT02022085|183702451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.012
91720866|NCT00362232|183334473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57||||0.27||95.0|-1.57|0.44|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.44|-1.57|0.270
91720867|NCT00362232|183334473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.57|0.44|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.44|-1.57|<0.001
91720868|NCT00362232|183334474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.98||||0.074||95.0|-2.06|0.1|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.10|-2.06|0.074
91720869|NCT00362232|183334474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided) .|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.98|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.06|0.1|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.10|-2.06|<0.001
91720870|NCT00362232|183334475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39||||0.11||95.0|-0.09|0.88|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.88|-0.09|0.110
91720871|NCT02385318|183334497|EQUIVALENCE|85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.38|14.44|||Yates correction|||||14.44|-4.38|
91720872|NCT00300053|183334498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 6 months after treatment.||||0.020
91720873|NCT00300053|183334498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 12 months after treatment.||||0.035
91720874|NCT00300053|183334498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 6 months after treatment.||||0.167
91720875|NCT00300053|183334498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 12 months after treatment.||||0.181
91720876|NCT00300053|183334499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 6 months||||0.014
91720877|NCT00300053|183334499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 12 months||||0.017
91793954|NCT01582854|183466608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.2|-0.4|0.455
91864677|NCT05828017|183618603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.6976
91793955|NCT03101267|183466615|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.09||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.69|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||3TNSS treatment comparison||0.69|-0.52|0.777
91864678|NCT05828017|183618604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.876|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||<0.001
91903716|NCT02022085|183702451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||<0.0001
91720878|NCT00300053|183334499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 6 months||||0.097
91863678|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.846|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|-0.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.507|-1.185|<.0001
91863679|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.873|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.127|-0.619|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.619|-1.127|<.0001
91863680|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.247||||0.2525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.671|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.671|-0.178|0.2525
91863681|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.098||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.527|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.527|-0.330|0.6503
91864679|NCT05828017|183618604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.728||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.0013
91864680|NCT05828017|183618605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.522|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.522
91864681|NCT05828017|183618605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.27
91720879|NCT00300053|183334499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 12 months||||0.134
91720880|NCT02594111|183334510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91720881|NCT01431976|183334518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.39|59.22||||||||59.22|15.39|
91720882|NCT01126424|183334552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.986||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.58|26.607|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||26.607|-68.580|0.3771
91720883|NCT01126424|183334552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|17.508||||0.4487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.854|63.87|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||63.870|-28.854|0.4487
91793956|NCT03101267|183466615|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01||||0.983||95.0|-0.61|0.59|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||3TNSS treatment comparison||0.59|-0.61|0.983
91864682|NCT05828017|183618606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.28
91720884|NCT01126424|183334553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|9.152||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|18.326|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||18.326|-0.023|0.0505
91720885|NCT01126424|183334553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.846||||0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|10.713|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||10.713|-7.020|0.6753
91720886|NCT01126424|183334554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.507||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.293|1.279|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||1.279|-2.293|0.5684
91720887|NCT01126424|183334554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.792||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.122|0.538|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||0.538|-2.122|0.2348
91720888|NCT01126424|183334555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.127|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||0.127|-0.208|0.6275
91720889|NCT01126424|183334555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.046||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.103|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||0.103|-0.194|0.5361
91687629|NCT03718832|183267939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0179852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171811||0.2961479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0158442|0.0518147||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0518147|-0.0158442|0.2961479
91687630|NCT03718832|183267940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4018522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001575||7.43e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2048311|0.5988733||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.5988733|0.2048311|0.0000743
91687631|NCT03718832|183267940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3643095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1026922||0.0004471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16227|0.566349||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.566349|0.16227|0.0004471
91687632|NCT03718832|183267940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0006229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1095781||0.9954683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2150785|0.2163243||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2163243|-0.2150785|0.9954683
91687633|NCT03718832|183267940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0161147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1115322||0.8852268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2357129|0.2034834||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2034834|-0.2357129|0.8852268
91720890|NCT01126424|183334556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|4.655||||0.6315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.858|24.167|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||24.167|-14.858|0.6315
91687634|NCT03718832|183267941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9013876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4414753||0.0417413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0338441|1.768931||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.768931|0.0338441|0.0417413
91687635|NCT03718832|183267941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8939751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3896126||0.0222222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1282798|1.65967||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.65967|0.1282798|0.0222222
91687636|NCT03718832|183267941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0276596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7606961||0.9710103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.467185|1.522504||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||1.522504|-1.467185|0.9710103
91720891|NCT01126424|183334556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.457||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.976|16.062|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||16.062|-18.976|0.8670
91720892|NCT01126424|183334557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-77.919||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-372.814|216.976|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||216.976|-372.814|0.5953
91903717|NCT02022085|183702452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||250Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.11
91720893|NCT01126424|183334557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|157.783||||0.3526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.015|497.581|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||497.581|-182.015|0.3526
91720894|NCT02127671|183334558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-2.5||||||||-2.5|-22.9|
91720895|NCT02127671|183334560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||||||||0.9|-0.7|
91720896|NCT02127671|183334564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|2.4||||||||2.4|-17.6|
91720897|NCT02127671|183334565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.3|
91720898|NCT02127671|183334566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-2.6||||||||-2.6|-18.4|
91720899|NCT02127671|183334567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.5||||||systolic||1.5|-5.1|
91720900|NCT02127671|183334567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5||||||diastolic||0.5|-3.8|
91720901|NCT02127671|183334569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|4.7||||||||4.7|-13.3|
91720902|NCT02127671|183334570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|2.0||||||||2.0|-12.7|
91720903|NCT02127671|183334571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.8||||||||3.8|-1.8|
91720904|NCT02127671|183334572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|29.6||||||||29.6|-13.4|
91720905|NCT00782067|183334580|OTHER|Single arm study|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Null hypothesis: ORR \<= 30% Alternative hypothesis: ORR \>= 50%|Exact Binomial Test||||Exact Binomial 95% Confidence Interval|||<0.001
91720906|NCT00614393|183334601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||||2.00|0.99|0.06
91720907|NCT00614393|183334601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||||1.79|0.89|0.18
91720908|NCT00614393|183334602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.98|0.07
91720909|NCT00614393|183334602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.55|||Regression, Cox|||||1.55|0.83|0.44
91720910|NCT02328105|183334608|SUPERIORITY|Assuming the true overall response rate is 0.20 under the null hypothesis, then this design will provide 81% power to detect a difference of 0.15 under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha = 0.09 significance level. A three stage design with n=15, 30 and 45 subjects was determined with the following rejection regions: For n = 15, the rejection region in number of responses (CR or PR) is 0 - 2, for n = 30 it is 3 - 6, and for n = 45 it is 7 - 12.|Response Rate|0.364||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.692||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment of stage 1. As enrollment was halted early, this p-value is descriptive in nature and cannot determine the success/failure of the trial.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.692|0.109|0.161
91720911|NCT02328105|183334609|OTHER|Estimation only.|Disease Control Rate|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|0.977|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.977|0.482|
91720912|NCT02328105|183334610|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|13.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||13.0|2.2|
91720913|NCT02328105|183334611|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2||Upper limit of the confidence interval is not reached due to censoring rate.||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS(in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.||||2.2|
91720914|NCT02328105|183334612|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|11.9|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response.|||11.9|4.9|
91864683|NCT05828017|183618606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.11
91720915|NCT02328105|183334613|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of disease control (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median disease control duration.|||13.0|3.0|
91720916|NCT01013753|183334649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.097|<0.0001
91720917|NCT01013753|183334649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.224|0.140|<0.0001
91720918|NCT01013753|183334649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.163|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.248|0.163|<0.0001
91720919|NCT01013753|183334649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.186|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.272|0.186|<0.0001
91720920|NCT01013753|183334649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.211|0.126|<0.0001
91720921|NCT01013753|183334650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.116|<0.0001
91903718|NCT02022085|183702452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.066
91687637|NCT03718832|183267941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0377244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6523585||0.9539117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.244338|1.319787||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||1.319787|-1.244338|0.9539117
91687638|NCT03718832|183267942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1045328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1417549||0.4612408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3830955|0.1740299||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.1740299|-0.3830955|0.4612408
91687639|NCT03718832|183267942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0552724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1181649||0.6401864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2874987|0.176954||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.176954|-0.2874987|0.6401864
91687640|NCT03718832|183267942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2761332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2593125||0.2874913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7857084|0.2334419||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2334419|-0.7857084|0.2874913
91687641|NCT03718832|183267942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.155843|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2092772||0.4568601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56713|0.2554439||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2554439|-0.56713|0.4568601
91687642|NCT03718832|183267943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0539315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0267347||0.0442418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0013953|0.1064678||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.1064678|0.0013953|0.0442418
91687643|NCT03718832|183267943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0546574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0272506||0.0454857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0011025|0.1082124||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.1082124|0.0011025|0.0454857
91687644|NCT03718832|183267943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0076781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188378||0.683764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0293401|0.0446963||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0446963|-0.0293401|0.683764
91687645|NCT03718832|183267943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0053342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183059||0.7708852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0306419|0.0413103||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0413103|-0.0306419|0.7708852
91687646|NCT03718832|183267944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.053099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0436586||0.2245167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1388926|0.0326946||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0326946|-0.1388926|0.2245167
91687647|NCT03718832|183267944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0815933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0424438||0.0551913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1650069|0.0018204||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0018204|-0.1650069|0.0551913
91687648|NCT03718832|183267944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0506938|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0461078||0.2721373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1413002|0.0399126||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0399126|-0.1413002|0.2721373
91687649|NCT03718832|183267944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.079563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0428514||0.0640071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1637776|0.0046516||Adjusted mean difference for full controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0046516|-0.1637776|0.0640071
91720922|NCT01013753|183334650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.259|0.166|<0.0001
91687650|NCT03718832|183267945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.79692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|808.862||0.9864081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1581.244|1608.838||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1608.838|-1581.244|0.9864081
91687651|NCT03718832|183267945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|119.3302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|885.2058||0.8929133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1627.128|1865.789||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1865.789|-1627.128|0.8929133
91687652|NCT03718832|183267945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1260.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1327.743||0.343724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3880.298|1359.393||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||1359.393|-3880.298|0.343724
91687653|NCT03718832|183267945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1206.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1344.574||0.3709654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3860.887|1448.455||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||1448.455|-3860.887|0.3709654
91687654|NCT03718832|183267946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1290.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|732.2306||0.0795087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.3215|2734.532||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2734.532|-153.3215|0.0795087
91687655|NCT03718832|183267946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1207.762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|874.6068||0.1689786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-517.7854|2933.309||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||2933.309|-517.7854|0.1689786
91793957|NCT03101267|183466616|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.17||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.10|-0.75|0.710
91903719|NCT02022085|183702452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.71
91903720|NCT02022085|183702452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.78
91687656|NCT03718832|183267946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1209.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|957.1006||0.2080145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-679.1596|3097.86||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||3097.86|-679.1596|0.2080145
91687657|NCT03718832|183267946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1258.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1077.807||0.2445904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-869.3893|3386.563||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||3386.563|-869.3893|0.2445904
91687658|NCT03718832|183267947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.035245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1415551|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.757075|2.313415||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.313415|1.757075|<0.001
91687659|NCT03718832|183267947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1395364|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.734473|2.282927||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.282927|1.734473|<0.001
91687660|NCT03718832|183267947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.619982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2663507|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.096575|2.143388||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.143388|1.096575|<0.001
91687661|NCT03718832|183267947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.559642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2680774|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032797|2.086488||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.086488|1.032797|<0.001
91687662|NCT03718832|183267948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.881776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1057965|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.673875|2.089677||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment.||2.089677|1.673875|<0.001
91687663|NCT03718832|183267948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.868221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1036609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.664499|2.071943||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment.||2.071943|1.664499|<0.001
91687664|NCT03718832|183267948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.650879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2057239|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.246611|2.055147||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.055147|1.246611|<0.001
91687665|NCT03718832|183267948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.636306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2052192|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232994|2.039618||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.039618|1.232994|<0.001
91687666|NCT03718832|183267949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1104533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0769621||0.1519153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.040785|0.2616915||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment.||0.2616915|-0.040785|0.1519153
91687667|NCT03718832|183267949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0594575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654489||0.3641254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0691675|0.1880824||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment.||0.1880824|-0.0691675|0.3641254
91687668|NCT03718832|183267949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2062905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1288363||0.1100186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0468859|0.4594669||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||0.4594669|-0.0468859|0.1100186
91793958|NCT03101267|183466616|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.99|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 127||0.99|-0.84|0.872
91794575|NCT03981822|183468099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3642||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2 - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.3642
91903721|NCT02022085|183702452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.015
91903722|NCT02022085|183702452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.035
91903723|NCT02022085|183702452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0013
91903724|NCT02022085|183702453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||250Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0051
91687669|NCT03718832|183267949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1162375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1015839||0.2531303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0834025|0.3158775||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||0.3158775|-0.0834025|0.2531303
91687670|NCT03718832|183267950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0584644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.040837||0.152918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1387132|0.0217844||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0217844|-0.1387132|0.152918
91687671|NCT03718832|183267950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0585771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0304262||0.0548344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1183728|0.0012186||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment.||0.0012186|-0.1183728|0.0548344
91687672|NCT03718832|183267950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1691027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673022||0.0123238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3013583|-0.036847||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||-0.036847|-0.3013583|0.0123238
91687673|NCT03718832|183267950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1701425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0575065||0.0032534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2831584|-0.0571266||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||-0.0571266|-0.2831584|0.0032534
91687674|NCT01996241|183267968|OTHER|Odds ratio (95% CI), p-value for all the outcomes.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.38||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.38|0.7|0.98
91687675|NCT01996241|183267969|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.4|0.7|0.98
91687676|NCT01996241|183267970|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.31||Adjusted for village strata and cluster, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum using individual-level data and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (in the form of cluster-level summaries).|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||2.31|0.2|0.331
91687677|NCT01996241|183267971|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.15|0.6|0.26
91793959|NCT03101267|183466616|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.18||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.08|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.08|-0.73|0.701
91687678|NCT01996241|183267972|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.55||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.55|0.7|0.79
91687679|NCT01996241|183267973|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.34||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.34|0.5|0.45
91687680|NCT01295112|183267974|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00002
91687681|NCT01295112|183267975|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be described by the 95% upper bound of the confidence interval on the difference in the improvement from baseline in BCVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.96||0.53|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.43|9.74||The p-value is assume superiority. The 95% upper confidence (upper end of the 90% Confidence interval) interval for the non-inferiority analysis is provided below.|t-test, 1 sided|||||9.74|-4.43|0.53
91687682|NCT04882241|183267977|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.39528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.70|0.50|0.39528
91687683|NCT04882241|183267978|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.33244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Based on unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||12.0|-7.7|0.33244
91687684|NCT04882241|183267979|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.52903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.22||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||2.22|0.48|0.52903
91687685|NCT04882241|183267984|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.34632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.05||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||2.05|0.34|0.34632
91687686|NCT02543944|183267987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.0944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.53|-0.72|0.77
91687687|NCT02543944|183267988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
91903725|NCT02022085|183702453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.26
91687688|NCT02543944|183267989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
91793960|NCT03101267|183466616|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04||||0.925||95.0|-0.95|0.86|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 155||0.86|-0.95|0.925
91903726|NCT02022085|183702453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.22
91864684|NCT05828017|183618607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.52
91903727|NCT02022085|183702453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.57
91687689|NCT02543944|183267990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91687690|NCT02932462|183267994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4557|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4557
91687691|NCT02932462|183267995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8096|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8096
91687692|NCT02932462|183267996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7652|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7652
91687693|NCT02413229|183267997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3571|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3571
91687694|NCT02413229|183267997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5224|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5224
91687695|NCT02413229|183267997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3890
91687696|NCT02413229|183267997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0325|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0325
91687697|NCT02091856|183267998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using repeated measures ANOVA for three groups: C-CBT, R-CBT, WLCG and two time points: pre \& post||It was hypothesized that regardless of the CBT version received (conventional or religious), those in the active treatments would achieve a greater reduction in depressive and associated symptoms than participants in the wait-list condition.||||<0.001
91687698|NCT02091856|183267999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|Changes in secondary outcome measures were evaluated using repeated measures ANOVA (C-CBT, R-CBT, WLCG at pre- and post-intervention).||||||>0.05
91793961|NCT03101267|183466616|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.97|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.97|-0.64|0.690
91687699|NCT02091856|183268000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91687700|NCT02091856|183268001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91687701|NCT02091856|183268002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
91687702|NCT04584684|183268003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.89
91687703|NCT04584684|183268003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.88
91687704|NCT04584684|183268003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.82
91687705|NCT04584684|183268003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.65
91687706|NCT04584684|183268003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.77
91687707|NCT04584684|183268003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.76
91687708|NCT04584684|183268003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.80
91687709|NCT04584684|183268003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.71
91687710|NCT04584684|183268003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.60
91687711|NCT04584684|183268003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.80
91687712|NCT02955212|183268018|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|50.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.0|30.5|<0.001
91687713|NCT02955212|183268019|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-1.36|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and Baseline value and the stratification factor country as the covariates.|LS Mean Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.36|-1.86|<0.001
91687714|NCT02955212|183268020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and Baseline value and the stratification factor country as the covariates.|LS Mean Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.33|-0.55|<0.001
91687715|NCT02955212|183268021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|7.01|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and stratification factor of country as fixed effects and Baseline value as covariate|LS Mean Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||7.01|4.13|<0.001
91793962|NCT03101267|183466616|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.87|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.87|-0.73|0.868
91864685|NCT05828017|183618607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.26
91864686|NCT05828017|183618608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.16
91903728|NCT02022085|183702453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.064
91903729|NCT02022085|183702453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.064
91903730|NCT02022085|183702453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0051
91793963|NCT03101267|183466617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 127||0.29|-0.14|0.502
91687716|NCT02955212|183268022|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.7|23.4|<0.001
91687717|NCT02955212|183268023|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|24.3|16.6|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.9|16.6|<0.001
91793964|NCT03101267|183466617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 127||0.20|-0.23|0.879
91687718|NCT02955212|183268024|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|32.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.9|15.6|<0.001
91687719|NCT02955212|183268025|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|41.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.0|24.0|<0.001
91687720|NCT02955212|183268026|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||24.5|11.0|<0.001
91687721|NCT02955212|183268027|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.0|12.1|<0.001
91687722|NCT01311687|183268036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.59|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified by age, disease population, and prior number of anti myeloma therapy.|Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.59|0.35|<0.001
91687723|NCT01311687|183268037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.61|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by age, disease population, and prior number of anti myeloma therapy.|Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.61|0.39|<0.001
91687724|NCT01311687|183268039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.74|0.37|<0.001
91687725|NCT01311687|183268040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.92|0.54|0.009
91687726|NCT01311687|183268041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.91|0.60|0.005
91687727|NCT01311687|183268042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|17.77|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio is for pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone : high dose dexamethasone|||17.77|3.19|< 0.001
91687728|NCT01311687|183268043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|21.42|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||21.42|3.32|< 0.001
91687729|NCT01311687|183268044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.59|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified by age, diseases population, and prior number of anti myeloma therapy.|Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.59|0.36|< 0.001
91687730|NCT04090125|183268077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.43|-0.90|0.485
91687731|NCT04090125|183268078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-1.13|0.0887
91687732|NCT04090125|183268079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.05|0.296
91793965|NCT03101267|183466617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.06||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 155||0.22|-0.10|0.444
91687733|NCT04090125|183268080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.15|0.094
91687734|NCT04090125|183268081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|8.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.62|-0.91|0.11
91687735|NCT04090125|183268082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.59|-4.10|0.55
91687736|NCT04090125|183268083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.34|0.134
91687737|NCT04090125|183268084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.38|0.09
91687738|NCT04090125|183268085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.16|0.25
91687739|NCT04090125|183268086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.22|0.16
91793966|NCT03101267|183466617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 155||0.16|-0.16|0.987
91793967|NCT03101267|183466617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 183||0.18|-0.12|0.645
91794576|NCT03981822|183468099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0967||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0967
91687740|NCT04090125|183268087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.36||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|52.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||52.02|-9.29|0.167
91687741|NCT04090125|183268088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.15||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|63.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||63.14|-12.85|0.189
91687742|NCT04090125|183268093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain subscale||8.67|-3.65|0.42
91687743|NCT04090125|183268093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|8.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptoms subscale||8.57|-6.29|0.76
91687744|NCT04090125|183268093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Quality of life subscale||6.12|-13.20|0.46
91687745|NCT04090125|183268093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|6.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Function in daily life||6.69|-1.61|0.22
91687746|NCT04090125|183268094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.43||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|7.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain subscale||7.85|-4.98|0.65
91687747|NCT04090125|183268094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|11.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptoms subscale||11.83|-3.93|0.32
91687748|NCT04090125|183268094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|12.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Quality of life||12.89|-9.61|0.77
91687749|NCT04090125|183268094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|8.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Function in daily life||8.17|-1.67|0.19
91687750|NCT04090125|183268095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-4.92|0.191
91687751|NCT04090125|183268096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|-2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.62|-8.28|0.0004
91687752|NCT01342081|183268097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-2.1|< 0.001
91687753|NCT01342081|183268097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.5 mmHg was used. Non-inferiority was claimed if the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference is 1.5 mmHg or less.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||||||Non-inferiority was evaluated after superiority to tafluprost was confirmed.||0.1|-0.7|
91687754|NCT03440840|183268102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated marginal means comparisons, Tukey adjustment||||||0.40
91687755|NCT03440840|183268103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Estimated marginal means comparisons, Tukey adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
91687756|NCT03440840|183268104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of estimated marginal means, Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.37
91687757|NCT03440840|183268105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences between estimated marginal means, Tukey correction for multiple comparisons.|||||0.61
91720923|NCT01013753|183334650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.186|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.280|0.186|<0.0001
91687758|NCT04807400|183268182|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.91|-25.77||p-values are adjusted using Holm's procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-25.77|-37.91|<0.001
91687759|NCT04807400|183268182|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.35|-25.94||p-values are adjusted using Holm's procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-25.94|-38.35|<0.001
91687760|NCT04807400|183268184|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.13|||ANOVA|||||2.13|0.62|<0.001
91687761|NCT04807400|183268184|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1|||ANOVA|||||2.10|0.60|<0.001
91687762|NCT04807400|183268185|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326||0.9347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.61|||ANOVA|||||0.61|-0.67|0.9347
91687763|NCT04807400|183268186|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.6759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|5.58|||ANCOVA|||||5.58|-3.62|0.6759
91687764|NCT04807400|183268186|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|5.84|||ANCOVA|||||5.84|-3.25|0.5756
91687765|NCT04807400|183268187|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|3.62|||ANCOVA|||||3.62|-3.02|0.8580
91687766|NCT04194645|183268190|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T2/R)|97.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.45|104.4|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 8.9|No formal hypothesis was tested.||104.40|91.45|
91687767|NCT04194645|183268190|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T1/T2)|112.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.82|128.94|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 16.8|No formal hypothesis was tested.||128.94|98.82|
91687768|NCT04194645|183268191|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T2/R)|48.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.86|55.09|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 18.5|No formal hypothesis was tested.||55.09|41.86|
91903731|NCT02022085|183702454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in Noise with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.46
91720924|NCT01013753|183334650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.298|0.203|<0.0001
91720925|NCT01013753|183334650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.231|0.137|<0.0001
91720926|NCT01013753|183334651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|0.073|<0.0001
91720927|NCT01013753|183334651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.110|<0.0001
91793968|NCT03101267|183466617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.07||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.08|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 183||0.08|-0.22|0.357
91903732|NCT02022085|183702454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in Noise with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.19
91687769|NCT04194645|183268191|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T1/T2)|122.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.04|143.56|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 19.8|No formal hypothesis was tested.||143.56|105.04|
91687770|NCT04194645|183268194|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T2/R)|98.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.98|105.09|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 8.9|No formal hypothesis was tested.||105.09|91.98|
91687771|NCT04194645|183268194|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T1/T2)|112.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.75|129.18|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 16.9|No formal hypothesis was tested.||129.18|98.75|
91687772|NCT03656744|183268195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.199
91687773|NCT03656744|183268195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91687774|NCT03656744|183268196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.152
91687775|NCT03656744|183268196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.109
91687776|NCT03656744|183268197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.034
91687777|NCT03656744|183268197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91687778|NCT03656744|183268198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.884
91687779|NCT03656744|183268198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.236
91687780|NCT03656744|183268199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.196
91687781|NCT03656744|183268199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.016
91687782|NCT03656744|183268200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.294
91687783|NCT03656744|183268201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.287
91687784|NCT03656744|183268201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.090
91687785|NCT03656744|183268202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.201
91687786|NCT03656744|183268202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.534
91687787|NCT03656744|183268203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.955
91687788|NCT03656744|183268203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.072
91687789|NCT03656744|183268204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.041
91687790|NCT03656744|183268204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.120
91720928|NCT01013753|183334651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.135|<0.0001
91720929|NCT01013753|183334651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.164|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.164|<0.0001
91720930|NCT01013753|183334651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.194|0.110|<0.0001
91793969|NCT03101267|183466618|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.12||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.44|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 127||0.44|-0.20|0.472
91687791|NCT03656744|183268205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.955
91687792|NCT03656744|183268205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.072
91687793|NCT03656744|183268206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.488
91687794|NCT03656744|183268206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.022
91903733|NCT02022085|183702454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in Noise with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.31
91794577|NCT03981822|183468099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0648||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0648
91864687|NCT05828017|183618608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.37
91864688|NCT05828017|183618609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.08
91864689|NCT05828017|183618609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.31
91864690|NCT05828017|183618610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.21
91687795|NCT03656744|183268207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.674
91687796|NCT03656744|183268207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.030
91687797|NCT03656744|183268208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.588
91687798|NCT03656744|183268208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.103
91687799|NCT03656744|183268209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.236
91687800|NCT03656744|183268209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.944
91687801|NCT03656744|183268210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.267
91687802|NCT03656744|183268210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.911
91687803|NCT03656744|183268211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.387
91687804|NCT03656744|183268211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.855
91687805|NCT03656744|183268212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.107
91687806|NCT03656744|183268212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.489
91687807|NCT03656744|183268213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.515
91687808|NCT03656744|183268213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.887
91687809|NCT03656744|183268214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91687810|NCT03656744|183268214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.016
91687811|NCT03656744|183268215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.124
91687812|NCT03656744|183268215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.171
91687813|NCT03076775|183268217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91687814|NCT03076775|183268218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91687815|NCT03076775|183268219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91687816|NCT03076775|183268220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91687817|NCT03076775|183268221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
91687818|NCT03076775|183268222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
91687819|NCT03076775|183268223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91687820|NCT03076775|183268224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91687821|NCT03076775|183268225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91687822|NCT03076775|183268226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91687823|NCT01783886|183268232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.9|17.2|||ANCOVA||Least Square (LS) mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||17.2|10.9|<0.0001
91687824|NCT01783886|183268232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.2|16.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||16.9|10.2|<0.0001
91687825|NCT01783886|183268233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|35.0|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH). The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||59.9|35.0|<0.0001
91687826|NCT01783886|183268233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|26.3|52.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||52.1|26.3|<0.0001
91687827|NCT01783886|183268234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.2|43.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||43.0|19.2|<0.0001
91687828|NCT01783886|183268234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.6|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||35.9|12.6|<0.0001
91687829|NCT01783886|183268235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|26.0|52.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||52.2|26.0|<0.0001
91687830|NCT01783886|183268235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|40.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|27.6|53.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||53.7|27.6|<0.0001
91687831|NCT01783886|183268236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-130.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-171.2|-89.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||-89.9|-171.2|<0.0001
91687832|NCT01783886|183268236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-131.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-172.8|-89.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||-89.9|-172.8|<0.0001
91687833|NCT01783886|183268237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.78||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|11.97|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||11.97|-0.41|0.0364
91687834|NCT01783886|183268237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.87||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.8|12.94|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||12.94|0.80|0.0113
91687835|NCT01783886|183268238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.9|8.53|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||8.53|-2.90|0.2688
91687836|NCT01783886|183268238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.01||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.64|13.37|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||13.37|2.64|0.0009
91720931|NCT01013753|183334652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.056|<0.0001
91720932|NCT01013753|183334652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.090|<0.0001
91720933|NCT01013753|183334652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.116|<0.0001
91720934|NCT01013753|183334652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.226|0.134|<0.0001
91720935|NCT01013753|183334652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.211|0.120|<0.0001
91720936|NCT01013753|183334653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.058|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.058|<0.0001
91864691|NCT05828017|183618610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.085
91687837|NCT03541317|183268291|SUPERIORITY|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of CBT sessions delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phases during Stages 1 and 2|Difference in sum of means*|9.7||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.03|49.4|||weighted least squares regression|Marginal means under each implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne, \& Almirall 2017)|\*Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase.|||49.40|-30.03|0.63
91720937|NCT01013753|183334653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.088|<0.0001
91720938|NCT01013753|183334653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.124|<0.0001
91720939|NCT01013753|183334653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.244|0.153|<0.0001
91720940|NCT01013753|183334653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.058|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.147|0.058|<0.0001
91720941|NCT01013753|183334654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.052|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.154|0.052|<0.0001
91720942|NCT01013753|183334654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.106|<0.0001
91720943|NCT01013753|183334654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|0.091|<0.0001
91720944|NCT01013753|183334654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.118|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.118|<0.0001
91720945|NCT01013753|183334654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.153|0.051|<0.0001
91720946|NCT01013753|183334655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0107||95.0|0.014|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.107|0.014|0.0107
91794578|NCT03981822|183468099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1357||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1357
91864692|NCT05828017|183618611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.86
91864693|NCT05828017|183618611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||1
91864694|NCT05828017|183618612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.607||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.009
91793970|NCT03101267|183466618|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.11||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.21|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 127||0.21|-0.43|0.497
91863682|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.239||||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.588|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.588|-0.109|0.1759
91720947|NCT01013753|183334655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.069|<0.0001
91720948|NCT01013753|183334655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.161|0.069|<0.0001
91687838|NCT03541317|183268292|SUPERIORITY|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of brief individual CBT sessions (\<15 min.) delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phases occurring during Stages 1 and 2.|Difference in sum of means*|3.78||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|24.44|||weighted least squares regression|Marginal means under each embedded implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne \& Almirall 2017)|\*Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase|||24.44|-16.88|0.72
91687839|NCT03541317|183268293|SUPERIORITY|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of brief individual CBT sessions (\>15 min.) delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phases occurring during Stages 1 and 2.|Difference in sum of means*|7.85||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|28.91|||Weighted Least Squares Regression|Marginal means under each embedded implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne \& Almirall 2017).|Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase|||28.91|-13.20|0.46
91687840|NCT03541317|183268294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in sum of means*|-0.66||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|7.16|||Weighted Least Squares Regression|Marginal means under each embedded implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne \& Almirall 2017).|Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of group CBT sessions delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phase occurring during Stages 1 and 2.||7.16|-8.49|0.87
91687841|NCT00879086|183268295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-16.7|||=|0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|2.4||The two treatment groups were compared, controlling for baseline pre-existing neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (less than or equal to 3 or greater than 3), with both covariates included as binary variables.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Extended Mantel-Haenszel test statistics with stratification adjustment for pre-existing baseline neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (greater than or equal to 3 or greater than 3)|||2.4|-36.1|=0.0941
91687842|NCT00879086|183268296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-18.4||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-0.3||Controlled for baseline pre-existing neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (greater than or equal to 3 or greater than 3), with both covariates included as binary variables.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Extended Mantel-Haenszel test statistics with stratification adjustment for pre-existing baseline neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (greater than or equal to 3 or greater than 3)|||-0.3|-36.0|0.0492
91720949|NCT01013753|183334655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.098|<0.0001
91720950|NCT01013753|183334655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0001||95.0|0.044|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.137|0.044|0.0001
91720951|NCT01013753|183334656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0005||95.0|0.036|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.128|0.036|0.0005
91720952|NCT01013753|183334656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.181|0.090|<0.0001
91720953|NCT01013753|183334656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.174|0.083|<0.0001
91793971|NCT03101267|183466618|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.04||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.36|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 155||0.36|-0.28|0.821
91687843|NCT02517463|183268310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The PPP from a previous study was 67.2%. Assuming the PPP in the preovulatory and post-ovulatory groups were equivalent, and taking 10% to be the maximum permitted difference for equivalence, a minimum of 273 subjects in each group would be required to confirm equivalence between the two groups with a power of 80% and type I error of 0.05. Therefore, our recruitment of 700 subjects with more than 300 in each group was sufficient."|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91687844|NCT02517463|183268311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.564
91687845|NCT02517463|183268312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91687846|NCT04386616|183268317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.36|0.75|0.9266
91687847|NCT04386616|183268317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.54||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.54|0.86|0.3570
91687848|NCT04386616|183268317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.36||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.36|0.74|0.9812
91687849|NCT04386616|183268317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.49||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.49|0.82|0.5151
91687850|NCT04386616|183268318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.39|0.77|0.8373
91687851|NCT04386616|183268318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.55|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.55|0.86|0.3396
91687852|NCT04386616|183268318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.39|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.39|0.76|0.8619
91687853|NCT04386616|183268318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.4913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.5|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.50|0.82|0.4913
91687854|NCT04386616|183268319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.4711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.49|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.49|0.83|0.4711
91687855|NCT04386616|183268319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.56|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.56|0.87|0.3135
91687856|NCT04386616|183268319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.48|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.48|0.81|0.5735
91687857|NCT04386616|183268319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.46|0.80|0.5973
91687858|NCT04386616|183268320|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.5304|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.5304
91687859|NCT04386616|183268320|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.5058|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the UTT1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.5058
91687860|NCT04386616|183268321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.72|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.72|0.64|0.8451
91687861|NCT04386616|183268321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.79|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.79|0.67|0.7267
91687862|NCT04386616|183268321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.79|0.63|0.8458
91687863|NCT04386616|183268321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.81|0.64|0.7907
91687864|NCT04386616|183268322|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5273|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.5273
91687865|NCT04386616|183268322|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6515|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the UTT1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.6515
91687866|NCT04386616|183268322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.91|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.91|0.71|0.5475
91687867|NCT04386616|183268322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.89|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.89|0.71|0.5652
91687868|NCT04386616|183268323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3401|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.3401
91687869|NCT04386616|183268323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.4676|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the UTT1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.4676
91687870|NCT04386616|183268323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.29|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.29|0.75|0.3408
91687871|NCT04386616|183268323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.29|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.29|0.76|0.3320
91687872|NCT04386616|183268324|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|15.24|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||15.24|-7.57|
91687873|NCT04386616|183268324|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|10.7|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||10.70|-11.46|
91687874|NCT04386616|183268324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.10|0.70|0.4804
91687875|NCT04386616|183268324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.71|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.71|0.56|0.9418
91687876|NCT04386616|183268324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.44|0.68|0.4988
91687877|NCT04386616|183268324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.96|0.54|0.9043
91687878|NCT04386616|183268325|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8007|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.8007
91687879|NCT04386616|183268325|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8633|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.8633
91687880|NCT04386616|183268326|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.31|9.12|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||9.12|-16.31|
91687881|NCT04386616|183268326|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.67|0.67|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||0.67|-24.67|
91687882|NCT04386616|183268326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.41|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.41|0.53|0.5560
91687883|NCT04386616|183268326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.00|0.38|0.0502
91687884|NCT04386616|183268326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.60|0.51|0.7002
91687885|NCT04386616|183268326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||0.99|0.32|0.0448
91687886|NCT04386616|183268327|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.4845|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.4845
91687887|NCT04386616|183268327|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.057|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.0570
91687888|NCT04386616|183268328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.88|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.88|0.76|0.4456
91687889|NCT04386616|183268328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.48|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.48|0.57|0.7213
91687890|NCT04386616|183268328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.96|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.96|0.77|0.3963
91687891|NCT04386616|183268328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.58|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.58|0.60|0.9174
91687892|NCT04386616|183268329|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|9.49|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||9.49|-4.51|
91720954|NCT01013753|183334656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.111|<0.0001
91687893|NCT04386616|183268329|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|9.31|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||9.31|-4.58|
91687894|NCT04386616|183268329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.74|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||3.74|0.57|0.4336
91687895|NCT04386616|183268329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.68|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||3.68|0.56|0.4543
91687896|NCT04386616|183268329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||3.97|0.54|0.4900
91687897|NCT04386616|183268329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||4.28|0.58|0.3595
91687898|NCT04386616|183268330|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|12.26|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||12.26|-5.42|
91687899|NCT04386616|183268330|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|10.26|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||10.26|-6.89|
91687900|NCT04386616|183268330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.8|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.80|0.66|0.4067
91687901|NCT04386616|183268330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.46|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.46|0.56|0.6728
91687902|NCT04386616|183268330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.87|0.62|0.5495
91687903|NCT04386616|183268330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.71|0.57|0.5551
91687904|NCT04386616|183268331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.3831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.4|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.40|0.71|0.3831
91687905|NCT04386616|183268331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.15|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.15|0.65|0.5925
91687906|NCT04386616|183268331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.7487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.05|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.05|0.60|0.7487
91687907|NCT04386616|183268331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.6092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.21|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.21|0.63|0.6092
91687908|NCT01377012|183268342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4|1.4|0.0004
91687909|NCT01377012|183268342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4|1.4|0.0004
91687910|NCT02972892|183268363|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|15.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.||15.01|6.89|<.001
91687911|NCT02972892|183268364|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.|Mean Difference (Net)|52.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.25|57.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.||57.95|46.25|<.001
91687912|NCT02972892|183268365|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|8.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.||8.04|2.64|<.001
91687913|NCT02972892|183268366|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.|Mean Difference (Net)|44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.56|53.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.||53.41|35.56|<.001
91687914|NCT03503669|183268398|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91687915|NCT03503669|183268399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91687916|NCT03503669|183268400|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91687917|NCT03503669|183268401|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91687918|NCT03503669|183268402|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91687919|NCT01068262|183268413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.9|80.2|||Linear mixed effect model|Back-transformed least squares estimates and confidence intervals from a linear mixed effect model were performed on natural log-transformed values.||||80.2|50.9|
91863683|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.867||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.674|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.060|-1.674|0.0293
91720955|NCT01013753|183334656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.143|0.051|<0.0001
91720956|NCT01013753|183334657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0952||95.0|-0.008|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.103|-0.008|0.0952
91720957|NCT01013753|183334657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0003||95.0|0.048|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|0.048|0.0003
91720958|NCT01013753|183334657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0016||95.0|0.034|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.145|0.034|0.0016
91720959|NCT01013753|183334657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.071|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.071|<0.0001
91720960|NCT01013753|183334657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0096||95.0|0.018|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.129|0.018|0.0096
91720961|NCT01013753|183334658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.147||95.0|-0.013|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.088|-0.013|0.1470
91720962|NCT01013753|183334658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0003||95.0|0.042|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|0.042|0.0003
91720963|NCT01013753|183334658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.06|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.060|<0.0001
91720964|NCT01013753|183334658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.078|<0.0001
91720965|NCT01013753|183334658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0448||95.0|0.001|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.101|0.001|0.0448
91720966|NCT01013753|183334659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.277|0.539|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.539|0.277|<0.0001
91720967|NCT01013753|183334659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|0.438|0.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.695|0.438|<0.0001
91720968|NCT01013753|183334659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|0.482|0.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.743|0.482|<0.0001
91720969|NCT01013753|183334659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.539|0.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.801|0.539|<0.0001
91720970|NCT01013753|183334659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|0.457|0.718|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.718|0.457|<0.0001
91720971|NCT01013753|183334660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.213|0.461|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.461|0.213|<0.0001
91720972|NCT01013753|183334660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|0.363|0.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.606|0.363|<0.0001
91687920|NCT01068262|183268413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|14.9|||Linear mixed effects model|Back-transformed least squares estimates and confidence intervals from a linear mixed effect model were performed on natural log-transformed values.||||14.9|-14.7|
91687921|NCT01068262|183268414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.07||Hypothesis: Following 4 weeks of Qw oral dosing of Odanacatib 50 mg, there is no clinically important difference in the true GMR (male/postmenopausal female) of the AUC0-168hr. The GMR is contained within the interval (0.4, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR); male/female|||||1.07|0.75|
91687922|NCT01068262|183268415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.04|||GMR|||||1.04|0.82|
91687923|NCT01068262|183268416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.35|||GMR|||||1.35|0.66|
91687924|NCT01811472|183268424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was largely driven by the maximum true response assumed in the candidate response shapes, which is a difference of -5.2% for pradigastat vs placebo for the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.46|1.09|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements|Degrees of freedom are adjusted using the Kenward-Roger method.||Hypothesis was tested at the 1-sided 5% significance level to assess if LCQ908 5mg/10mg was different from placebo.||1.09|-4.46|0.3128
91687925|NCT01811472|183268424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was largely driven by the maximum true response assumed in the candidate response shapes, which is a difference of -5.2% for pradigastat vs placebo for the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.25|-0.53|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements|Degrees of freedom are adjusted using the Kenward-Roger method.||Hypothesis was tested at the 1-sided 5% significance level to assess if LCQ908 10mg/20mg was different from placebo.||-0.53|-5.25|0.0457
91687926|NCT03105518|183268442|SUPERIORITY||1 way test, chisquare approximation|7.188||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 0; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.007
91687927|NCT03105518|183268442|SUPERIORITY||1 way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|3.6396||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 15; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.056
91687928|NCT03105518|183268442|SUPERIORITY||1 way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|15.971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 30; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||<0.0001
91687929|NCT03105518|183268442|SUPERIORITY||1-way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|16.0972|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 60; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||<0.0001
91687930|NCT03105518|183268443|SUPERIORITY||1-way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|2.7205||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Post Operative Day 1; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.0991
91687931|NCT03105518|183268443|SUPERIORITY||1 way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|1.5654||||0.2109|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Post Operative Day 2; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.2109
91687932|NCT03105518|183268443|SUPERIORITY||1-way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|0.008||||0.9287|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Post Operative Day 3; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.9287
91687933|NCT05262387|183268461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.32||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|17.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.1|1.52|0.0494
91720973|NCT01013753|183334660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.408|0.655|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.655|0.408|<0.0001
91720974|NCT01013753|183334660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.524|0.772|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.772|0.524|<0.0001
91720975|NCT01013753|183334660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.428|0.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.674|0.428|<0.0001
91720976|NCT01013753|183334661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.253|0.493|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.493|0.253|<0.0001
91687934|NCT05262387|183268461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.1||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.38|21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.9|6.38|0.0028
91687935|NCT05262387|183268462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.5||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-102.0|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.8|-102|0.1998
91687936|NCT05262387|183268462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16||||0.9041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.1|61.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||61.4|-53.1|0.9041
91687937|NCT02045446|183268463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.304||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.815|||Log Rank|||||0.815|0.113|.01
91687938|NCT05274178|183268468|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91687939|NCT05274178|183268468|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91687940|NCT02515331|183268470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9077||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.388|-2.722||1-sided p-value|Longitudinal repeated measures mixed eff|||||-2.722|-14.388|0.002
91687941|NCT02515331|183268470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0548|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.852|-8.602||1-sided p-value|Longitudinal repeated measures mixed eff|||||-8.602|-20.852|<0.001
91687942|NCT04688671|183268557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.5605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-0.32|0.5605
91687943|NCT03282916|183268608|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed-effects models (LMM) were used to assess the treatment effects on the outcome with change score from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment, study time point, and their interaction as predictors, adjusting for baseline value of the outcome.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusting for baseline value of ADAS-Cog11||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference in change in ADAS-Cog11 between valacyclovir and placebo treatment.~A sample size of 130 participants (65 per arm) was originally projected to detect Cohen's d of 0.50 with 80% power at 5% significance level. Recruitment target was reduced to 120 participants due to pandemic-related recruitment delays and required study completion within the extended funding timeline. For n=120, the minimum detectable effect size increased slightly to Cohen's d of 0.52."||6.80|1.03|<0.05
91687944|NCT00719186|183268612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
91687945|NCT02096744|183268631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|102.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.74|109.37|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group', 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||109.37|95.74|<0.0001
91687946|NCT02096744|183268632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|104.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.367|110.487|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group', 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||110.487|98.367|<0.0001
91687947|NCT02096744|183268633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|102.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.25|108.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group', 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||108.63|97.25|<0.0001
91687948|NCT02096744|183268634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|104.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.148|110.294|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group','sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||110.294|98.148|<0.0001
91687949|NCT05724589|183268641|SUPERIORITY|A repeated measures ANOVA was selected to analyze changes in skin hydration across four time points within the same participants..|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.671||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value reflects the overall test for difference in hydration over time and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The pre-defined threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|No additional adjustments were applied. Degrees of freedom and sphericity assumptions were checked.|The mean difference was calculated based on changes in skin hydration from baseline to Week 16 using repeated measures ANOVA, in accordance with the pre-specified statistical analysis plan.|Skin hydration was evaluated longitudinally using repeated measures ANOVA at Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16. This pre-specified statistical test assessed within-subject changes over time to determine the efficacy of the serum.|The overall p-value corresponds to the repeated measures ANOVA evaluating changes over four time points. No multiplicity adjustments were applied.|||1.000
91687950|NCT05724589|183268642|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis in this study to assess changes in Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL) after serum application involved a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). This approach allows for the examination of differences in TEWL across multiple time points (baseline, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 weeks) within the same individuals. The use of repeated measures ANOVA accounts for the correlated nature of the data, as multiple measurements are obtained from each participant over time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.656||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|||||A repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess changes in hydration over time. The mean difference between baseline and 16 weeks was -3.656 (arbitrary units). Results are presented in the corresponding outcome measure table.|ANOVA|||||||0.096
91687951|NCT05724589|183268643|SUPERIORITY|The chosen test was designed to assess whether application of the intervention resulted in any statistically significant differences over time in the primary outcome measure, assuming superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|||||The pre-specified significance threshold was set at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied.|ANOVA|Sphericity tested; Greenhouse-Geisser applied if needed. Repeated measures ANOVA accounted for within-subject correlations.|The estimation parameter reflects the change in the R2 elasticity measure from baseline to 16 weeks. The direction of change is based on the final minus baseline value, with baseline serving as the reference point.|The statistical analysis utilized repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate changes in facial skin elasticity (R2 parameter) across multiple time points (Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16) within the same participants. This approach accounts for the correlation of repeated measures over time.||||0.169
91687952|NCT05724589|183268644|SUPERIORITY|This study aimed to evaluate changes in wrinkle scores using a 4-grade percentage wrinkle improvement scale across different time points, including baseline, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 weeks|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||The Mean Difference represents the change in wrinkle scores from baseline (Day 0) to follow-up at Week 8, Week 12, or Week 16. For example, a Mean Difference of 1.0 indicates a 1-point improvement from baseline to Week 16 (Week 16 - baseline score).|||||1.000
91687953|NCT05724589|183268645|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to detect any change in facial melanin levels due to the intervention.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.458||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value indicates no statistically significant change in facial melanin index over time. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was pre-specified at p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|Sphericity assumptions were checked and addressed as needed (e.g., Greenhouse-Geisser correction).|The estimation parameter reflects the mean change in melanin index from baseline to week 16. Baseline was used as the reference point in the analysis.|The statistical analysis assessed changes in facial melanin index after serum application using repeated measures ANOVA. This method evaluated differences across multiple time points (Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16) within the same participants, accounting for the correlated nature of repeated measures.||||1.000
91864695|NCT05828017|183618612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.61
91720977|NCT01013753|183334661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.409|0.645|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.645|0.409|<0.0001
91720978|NCT01013753|183334661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.453|0.692|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.692|0.453|<0.0001
91720979|NCT01013753|183334661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.54|0.781|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.781|0.540|<0.0001
91720980|NCT01013753|183334661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.451|0.689|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.689|0.451|<0.0001
91720981|NCT01013753|183334662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.436|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.436|0.168|<0.0001
91687954|NCT05724589|183268646|SUPERIORITY|A descriptive analysis was performed. No hypothesis testing or power calculation was conducted for this outcome.|percentage of participants at week 16|44.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value reflects descriptive analysis of SGAIS improvement scores; no statistical testing for significance was conducted.|Descriptive|The evaluation involved categorical SGAIS ratings assigned by two independent dermatologists.|This estimate reflects the proportion of participants rated as showing mild improvement on the SGAIS at Week 16, as detailed in the tabular data.|Improvement in facial appearance was assessed using the Subject Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (SGAIS), rated independently by two board-certified dermatologists at multiple time points (8, 12, and 16 weeks).||||1.000
91687955|NCT05724589|183268647|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive summary statistics were used to report satisfaction at multiple time points. No inferential testing was performed.|percentage of participants at week 16|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Descriptive|No formal statistical hypothesis testing was performed.|The estimated percentage reflects participants who reported a satisfaction score of 2 or 3 at week 16.|"Satisfaction was assessed at weeks 8, 12, and 16 using a quartile scale:~0 = Unsatisfied, 1 = Slightly satisfied, 2 = Satisfied, 3 = Very satisfied. One participant was lost to follow-up after week 12."||||
91687956|NCT05724589|183268648|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive safety analysis. No inferential hypothesis testing was conducted.|Percentage adverse events by week 16|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Descriptive|No formal statistical test was conducted.|Descriptive summaries of adverse event incidence are reported in the results tables.|The analysis population includes 28 participants. One subject was lost to follow-up at week 12. Adverse events were assessed through video calls at weeks 2 and 4, and in-person visits at 2, 3, and 4 months.||||
91687957|NCT04700137|183268664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.|A T-score of 50 represents the mean of the US general population (based on the 2010 Census) and 10 T-score units represents one standard deviation. Higher T-score indicates higher loneliness.|Difference in loneliness among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.0|-3.0|0.31
91687958|NCT04700137|183268664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.2||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.|A T-score of 50 represents the mean of the US general population (based on the 2010 Census) and 10 T-score units represents one standard deviation. Higher T-score indicates higher loneliness.|Difference in loneliness among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||2.2|-1.8|0.83
91687959|NCT04700137|183268665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in suicidal ideation and behavior (C-SSRS) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.5|0.0|0.05
91687960|NCT04700137|183268665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in suicidal ideation and behavior (C-SSRS) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.1|-0.4|0.2
91687961|NCT04700137|183268666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in depression (PHQ-9) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.7|-1.5|0.45
91687962|NCT04700137|183268666|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in depression (PHQ-9) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.3|-0.7|0.51
91687963|NCT04700137|183268667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in anxiety (GAD-7) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.7|-1.3|0.54
91794579|NCT03981822|183468099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender. Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0190
91903734|NCT02022085|183702455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months Speech in Quiet at 50dB||||0.43
91903735|NCT02022085|183702455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months Speech in Quiet at 65dB||||0.16
91863684|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.876||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.714|-0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.038|-1.714|0.0362
91863685|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.809|-0.469|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.469|-1.809|<.0001
91863686|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.767||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.559|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.025|-1.559|0.0621
91863687|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.447||||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.352|-1.246|0.5259
91864696|NCT05828017|183618613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean SRT50 scores between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||1.00|0.11|<0.001
91864697|NCT05828017|183618613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in SRT 50 scores between the standard curve and variation #1.||1|0|0.357
91864698|NCT05828017|183618614|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in most preferred program counts between variations #2, #3, and #4||||<0.01
91687964|NCT04700137|183268667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in anxiety (GAD-7) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||2.0|0.1|0.04
91864699|NCT05828017|183618614|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in most preferred program counts between variations #2 and #3.||||0.94
91720982|NCT01013753|183334662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.297|0.561|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.561|0.297|<0.0001
91687965|NCT04700137|183268668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors.|T-score of 50 = mean of the US general population (2010 Census); 10 T-score units = one standard deviation. Higher T-scores = higher stress. T-scores equal to or greater than 60.5 (adults) or 60.8 (adolescents) are moderate or high risk.|Change in stress from baseline to 6 months among patients.||1.7|-2.1|0.84
91720983|NCT01013753|183334662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.333|0.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.599|0.333|<0.0001
91687966|NCT04700137|183268668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors.|T-score of 50 = mean of the US general population (2010 Census); 10 T-score units = one standard deviation. Higher T-scores = higher stress. T-scores equal to or greater than 60.5 (adults) or 60.8 (adolescents) are moderate or high risk.|Change in stress from baseline to 6 months among healthcare providers/staff.||3.7|-0.7|0.18
91687967|NCT04700137|183268669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in perceived burdensomeness (INQ15) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.6|-0.6|0.38
91687968|NCT04700137|183268669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in perceived burdensomeness (INQ15) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.0|-0.8|0.81
91687969|NCT04700137|183268669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.8||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in thwarted belongingness (INQ15) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.8|-2.6|0.73
91687970|NCT04700137|183268669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.2||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in thwarted belongingness (INQ15) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||3.2|-0.8|0.24
91687971|NCT04700137|183268671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.4||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased tobacco use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||1.4|-12.5|0.12
91687972|NCT04700137|183268671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased tobacco use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||-0.7|-11.5|0.03
91687973|NCT04700137|183268671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased alcohol use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||8.5|-10.7|0.83
91687974|NCT04700137|183268671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|12.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased alcohol use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||12.5|-8.0|0.67
91687975|NCT04700137|183268671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.9||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased marijuana/cannabis use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||9.9|-4.1|0.42
91687976|NCT04700137|183268671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased marijuana/cannabis use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||4.5|-8.7|0.53
91720984|NCT01013753|183334662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.4|0.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.669|0.400|<0.0001
91720985|NCT01013753|183334662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.371|0.637|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.637|0.371|<0.0001
91720986|NCT01013753|183334663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0002||95.0|0.127|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.127|0.0002
91687977|NCT04700137|183268671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.4||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased illicit drug use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||1.4|-6.3|0.20
91687978|NCT04700137|183268671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased illicit drug use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||2.0|-3.4|0.62
91687979|NCT04700137|183268672|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|6.3||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Difference in proportion of patients attending mental healthcare appointments by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||6.3|-15.4|0.41
91720987|NCT01013753|183334663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|0.333|0.602|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.602|0.333|<0.0001
91720988|NCT01013753|183334663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|0.348|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.620|0.348|<0.0001
91794580|NCT03981822|183468099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0184||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0184
91863688|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.736|-0.435|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.435|-1.736|<.0001
91687980|NCT04700137|183268672|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.2||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Difference in proportion of healthcare providers/staff attending mental healthcare appointments by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||16.2|-5.2|0.31
91687981|NCT00125515|183268674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||all statistical analysis were two tailed and employed an alpha significance level of 0.05.||||0.32
91687982|NCT03449446|183268677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.6||||0.9449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|18.8||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||18.8|-17.6|0.9449
91687983|NCT03449446|183268677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.4||||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|18.4||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||18.4|-17.6|0.9646
91687984|NCT03449446|183268677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.7||||0.6219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|18.3||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||18.3|-10.9|0.6219
91687985|NCT03449446|183268677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|8.8||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|24.1||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||24.1|-6.4|0.2554
91687986|NCT03449446|183268677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.8||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|26.1||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||26.1|-4.5|0.1658
91687987|NCT03449446|183268677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.2||||0.6963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|19.4||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||19.4|-12.9|0.6963
91687988|NCT03449446|183268677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.0||||0.2441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|26.8||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||26.8|-6.8|0.2441
91720989|NCT01013753|183334663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.487|0.761|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.761|0.487|<0.0001
91720990|NCT01013753|183334663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|0.311|0.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.583|0.311|<0.0001
91793972|NCT03101267|183466618|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.13||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.19|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 155||0.19|-0.45|0.414
91864700|NCT05828017|183618614|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.014||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in most preferred program counts between variations #2 and #4||||0.94
91864701|NCT05828017|183618614|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.45||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in somewhat preferred (i.e. rated in the middle) program counts between variations #2, #3, and #4||||0.017
91794581|NCT03981822|183468099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT Visit - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0048
91903736|NCT02022085|183702455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months Speech in Quiet at 80dB||||0.65
91793973|NCT03101267|183466618|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.12||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 183||0.41|-0.17|0.414
91863689|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.532|-0.693|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.693|-1.532|<.0001
91687989|NCT03449446|183268677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|5.2||||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|21.0||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||21.0|-10.7|0.5229
91687990|NCT03449446|183268677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.4||||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|26.9||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||26.9|-6.0|0.2149
91687991|NCT03048552|183268691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.148
91687992|NCT03048552|183268692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91687993|NCT03048552|183268693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.818
91687994|NCT03048552|183268695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.625
91687995|NCT03180645|183268697|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.07||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis model (ANCOVA) included participant as random effect, treatment arm and side of the face as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment adjusted (LS) mean change from baseline minus the second named treatment adjusted mean change from baseline.|||0.06|-2.21|0.0638
91687996|NCT04208750|183268709|OTHER|Difference between independent proportions||||||||||||||||Added the number of participants from each study arm who preferred each refraction type and then converted it to the proportions|For each outcome, we compared the proportion of participants from both study arms who preferred the VR800 refraction to the proportion of participants who preferred the Standard refraction using a 2-sample test for equality of proportions.|||
91687997|NCT02201277|183268710|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A Fisher's exact test was used to determine if there was a difference in the numbers of filters with penetration for each type. The numbers were not powered enough to make extensive tests in this area meaningful.||||1.0
91687998|NCT02201277|183268710|EQUIVALENCE|rate of penetration||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.0
91687999|NCT02730663|183268718|NON_INFERIORITY|The number and percentage of patients who achieved clinical success at the time of stent removal are presented. A one-sided 97.5% confidence interval is to be calculated to confirm the degree of non-inferiority for the reference value (96%) and the difference (Investigational device - reference value) and if the lower limit of the confidence interval is -10% or higher, the noninferiority will be considered to be confirmed.|Reference value|-0.07||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|97.5||||A two-tail test was performed for statistics at a significance level of 0.05 unless otherwise specified.|t-test, 2 sided|||The clinical success rate at the time point of stent removal is reported 86.2% according to the approval data of the commercially available AXIOS stent submitted to the US FDA. The clinical success rates of EUS-guided transluminal drainage using a lumen-appending stent were 93.3% (29 cases), 100% (8 cases) and 100% (7 cases) respectively in the studies performed afterwards by Shah RJ (2015), Gornals JB (2012) and Moon JH (2014). The weighted average calculated for each study was about 96%.||||0.05
91688000|NCT00866359|183268725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the number of ulcers at Day 85, with treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline ulcer number as a covariate.|||-0.9|-2.4|<0.0001
91688001|NCT00866359|183268726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares mean difference|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-18.0|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the oral ulcer pain VAS at Day 85, with treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline oral ulcer pain VAS as a covariate.|||-18.0|-35.5|<0.0001
91688002|NCT00866359|183268729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-90.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.32|-54.82||The last post-baseline observation was carried forward to Day 85 for participants who discontinued the study before Day 85. For participants who did not have Day 85 visit on the targeted date, the total AUC was adjusted by the actual study days.|ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the number of ulcers at Day 85, with treatment group, gender, and interaction of treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline ulcer number as a covariate.|||-54.82|-125.32|<0.0001
91688003|NCT00866359|183268732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.8|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the number of ulcers at Day 85, with treatment group, gender, and interaction of treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline ulcer number as a covariate.|||-0.8|-2.7|0.0007
91793974|NCT03101267|183466618|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.08||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.37|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 183||0.37|-0.20|0.566
91688004|NCT00866359|183268733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||adjusted difference (percentage)|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|54.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value was based on the CMH test adjusting for gender.|Adjusted difference in proportions = weighted average of treatment differences across gender with the CMH weights.|||54.5|23.6|<0.0001
91688005|NCT00866359|183268734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Based on an Ancova model for change from baseline with treatment group, gender and interaction of treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.5|-1.7|0.0007
91688006|NCT01625091|183268749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91688007|NCT01625091|183268750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91688008|NCT01625091|183268751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91688009|NCT01625091|183268752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
91688010|NCT04182334|183268771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
91688011|NCT04182334|183268772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.995
91720991|NCT01013753|183334664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.671|<|0.0001||95.0|14.802|29.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||29.223|14.802|<0.0001
91864702|NCT05828017|183618614|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in somewhat preferred (i.e. rated in the middle) program counts between variations #2 and #3.||||0.02
91688012|NCT04182334|183268773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.674
91688013|NCT04182334|183268774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.326
91688014|NCT04182334|183268775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.463
91688015|NCT04182334|183268776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.449
91688016|NCT04182334|183268777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.505
91688017|NCT04182334|183268778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.612
91688018|NCT04182334|183268779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
91688019|NCT04182334|183268780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
91688020|NCT04917861|183268788|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|7.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.451|8.992|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||8.992|5.451|
91688021|NCT04917861|183268788|OTHER||GMR|7.123|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.467|9.279|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||9.279|5.467|
91688022|NCT04917861|183268788|OTHER||GMR|2.674|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.961|3.646|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||3.646|1.961|
91688023|NCT04917861|183268788|OTHER||GMR|7.208|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.428|9.571|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seronegative participants|||9.571|5.428|
91688024|NCT04917861|183268788|OTHER||GMR|7.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.106|10.425|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seronegative participants|||10.425|6.106|
91688025|NCT04917861|183268788|OTHER||GMR|1.516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.229|1.869|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seronegative participants|||1.869|1.229|
91688026|NCT04917861|183268788|OTHER||GMR|6.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.562|10.092|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seropositive participants|||10.092|4.562|
91688027|NCT04917861|183268788|OTHER||GMR|6.319|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|9.909|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seropositive participants|||9.909|4.030|
91688028|NCT04917861|183268788|OTHER||GMR|7.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.056|12.18|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seropositive participants|||12.180|4.056|
91688029|NCT04917861|183268789|OTHER||GMR|5.312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.149|6.802|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||6.802|4.149|
91688030|NCT04917861|183268789|OTHER||GMR|5.346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.128|6.922|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||6.922|4.128|
91688031|NCT04917861|183268789|OTHER||GMR|2.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.721|3.14|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||3.140|1.721|
91688032|NCT04917861|183268789|OTHER||GMR|4.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.322|5.363|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||5.363|3.322|
91688033|NCT04917861|183268789|OTHER||GMR|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.243|6.62|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||6.620|4.243|
91688034|NCT04917861|183268789|OTHER||GMR|1.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.407|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||1.407|1.033|
91688035|NCT04917861|183268789|OTHER||GMR|6.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.358|9.674|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||9.674|4.358|
91688036|NCT04917861|183268789|OTHER||GMR|5.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|8.665|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||8.665|3.430|
91688037|NCT04917861|183268789|OTHER||GMR|6.804|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.928|11.784|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||11.784|3.928|
91688038|NCT04917861|183268790|OTHER||percentage difference|76.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.1|82.68|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||82.68|69.10|
91688039|NCT04917861|183268790|OTHER||percentage difference|77.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.29|83.67|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||83.67|70.29|
91688040|NCT04917861|183268790|OTHER||percentage difference|35.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.47|43.74|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||43.74|27.47|
91688041|NCT04917861|183268790|OTHER||percentage difference|86.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.25|92.29|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||92.29|76.25|
91688042|NCT04917861|183268790|OTHER||percentage difference|87.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.71|93.17|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||93.17|78.71|
91903737|NCT02022085|183702455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months Speech in Quiet at 50dB||||0.93
91720992|NCT01013753|183334664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.0001||95.0|21.931|36.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||36.114|21.931|<0.0001
91720993|NCT01013753|183334664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.631|<|0.0001||95.0|20.755|35.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||35.019|20.755|<0.0001
91720994|NCT01013753|183334664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.668|<|0.0001||95.0|25.73|40.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||40.139|25.730|<0.0001
91720995|NCT01013753|183334664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.644|<|0.0001||95.0|16.371|30.686|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||30.686|16.371|<0.0001
91720996|NCT01013753|183334665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.0001||95.0|7.77|22.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||22.071|7.770|<0.0001
91863690|NCT04800211|183616295|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054||||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.427|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.427|-0.535|0.8248
91864703|NCT05828017|183618614|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in somewhat preferred (i.e. rated in the middle) program counts between variations #2 and #4||||0.006
91688043|NCT04917861|183268790|OTHER||percentage difference|20.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.47|29.75|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||29.75|13.47|
91688044|NCT04917861|183268790|OTHER||percentage difference|67.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.69|77.07|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||77.07|55.69|
91720997|NCT01013753|183334665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|<|0.0001||95.0|17.801|31.866|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||31.866|17.801|<0.0001
91720998|NCT01013753|183334665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.601|<|0.0001||95.0|16.539|30.686|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||30.686|16.539|<0.0001
91720999|NCT01013753|183334665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.637|<|0.0001||95.0|21.305|35.594|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||35.594|21.305|<0.0001
91721000|NCT01013753|183334665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.614|<|0.0001||95.0|13.341|27.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||27.538|13.341|<0.0001
91721001|NCT01013753|183334666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.989|-0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.999|-2.989|<0.0001
91864704|NCT05828017|183618614|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in the least preferred program counts between variations #2, #3, and #4||||<.0001
91864705|NCT05828017|183618614|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.38||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in the least preferred program counts between variations #2 and #3||||0.08
91688045|NCT04917861|183268790|OTHER||percentage difference|67.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.36|77.44|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||77.44|55.36|
91688046|NCT04917861|183268790|OTHER||percentage difference|57.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.81|69.08|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||69.08|43.81|
91688047|NCT04917861|183268791|OTHER||percentage difference|75.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.12|81.49|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||81.49|68.12|
91688048|NCT04917861|183268791|OTHER||percentage difference|75.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.94|81.38|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||81.38|67.94|
91688049|NCT04917861|183268791|OTHER||percentage difference|31.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.23|38.96|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||38.96|24.23|
91688050|NCT04917861|183268791|OTHER||percentage difference|77.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.87|85.85|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||85.85|66.87|
91688051|NCT04917861|183268791|OTHER||percentage difference|82.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.02|89.43|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||89.43|73.02|
91903738|NCT02022085|183702455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months Speech in Quiet at 65dB||||0.094
91721002|NCT01013753|183334666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.073|-1.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-1.116|-3.073|<0.0001
91721003|NCT01013753|183334666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.0003||95.0|-2.824|-0.849|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.849|-2.824|0.0003
91721004|NCT01013753|183334666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.0004||95.0|-2.783|-0.795|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.795|-2.783|0.0004
91721005|NCT01013753|183334666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.0118||95.0|-2.258|-0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.283|-2.258|0.0118
91721006|NCT01013753|183334667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0002||95.0|0.045|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|0.045|0.0002
91721007|NCT01013753|183334667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.081|<0.0001
91721008|NCT01013753|183334667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.087|<0.0001
91863691|NCT04800211|183616296|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.821||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.369|4.273|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||4.273|1.369|0.0002
91721009|NCT01013753|183334667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.121|<0.0001
91721010|NCT01013753|183334667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0001||95.0|0.045|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.141|0.045|0.0001
91793975|NCT03101267|183466619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04||||0.822||95.0|-0.37|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 127||0.30|-0.37|0.822
91903739|NCT02022085|183702455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months Speech in Quiet at 80dB||||0.44
91721011|NCT01013753|183334668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0362||95.0|0.003|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.097|0.003|0.0362
91721012|NCT01013753|183334668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0006||95.0|0.035|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.127|0.035|0.0006
91721013|NCT01013753|183334668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0002||95.0|0.042|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|0.042|0.0002
91721014|NCT01013753|183334668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.07|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|0.070|<0.0001
91721015|NCT01013753|183334668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.001||95.0|0.032|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.125|0.032|0.0010
91721016|NCT01013753|183334669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.282|-0.770|<0.0001
91721017|NCT01013753|183334669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0004||95.0|-0.671|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.192|-0.671|0.0004
91793976|NCT03101267|183466619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.09||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 127||0.42|-0.24|0.587
91903740|NCT02022085|183702455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months Speech in Quiet at 50dB||||0.021
91688052|NCT04917861|183268791|OTHER||percentage difference|9.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.63|17.41|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||17.41|4.63|
91721018|NCT01013753|183334669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0001||95.0|-0.72|-0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.237|-0.720|0.0001
91721019|NCT01013753|183334669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.901|-0.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.413|-0.901|<0.0001
91721020|NCT01013753|183334669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0003||95.0|-0.691|-0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.207|-0.691|0.0003
91721021|NCT01013753|183334674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.400|0.178|<0.0001
91721022|NCT01013753|183334674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0002||95.0|0.099|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.099|0.0002
91721023|NCT01013753|183334674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.374|0.151|<0.0001
91721024|NCT01013753|183334674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.429|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.429|0.205|<0.0001
91721025|NCT01013753|183334674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.426|0.203|<0.0001
91721026|NCT01013753|183334675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.432|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.210|-0.432|<0.0001
91721027|NCT01013753|183334675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.403|-0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.184|-0.403|<0.0001
91721028|NCT01013753|183334675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.436|-0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.215|-0.436|<0.0001
91721029|NCT01013753|183334675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.505|-0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.282|-0.505|<0.0001
91721030|NCT01013753|183334675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.457|-0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.235|-0.457|<0.0001
91721031|NCT01013753|183334676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.996||||0.6187||95.0|0.981|1.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.011|0.981|0.6187
91721032|NCT01013753|183334676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.996||||0.6022||95.0|0.981|1.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.011|0.981|0.6022
91721033|NCT01013753|183334676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.999||||0.8641||95.0|0.984|1.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.014|0.984|0.8641
91721034|NCT01013753|183334676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.998||||0.7664||95.0|0.983|1.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.013|0.983|0.7664
91721035|NCT01013753|183334676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.003||||0.6757||95.0|0.988|1.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||1.018|0.988|0.6757
91721036|NCT01013753|183334677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.993||||0.4423||95.0|0.975|1.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.011|0.975|0.4423
91688053|NCT04917861|183268791|OTHER||percentage difference|72.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.56|80.83|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||80.83|61.56|
91688054|NCT04917861|183268791|OTHER||percentage difference|67.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.72|76.78|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||76.78|55.72|
91688055|NCT04917861|183268791|OTHER||percentage difference|63.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.75|74.0|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||74.00|50.75|
91721037|NCT01013753|183334677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.979||||0.0218||95.0|0.962|0.997|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.997|0.962|0.0218
91903741|NCT02022085|183702455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months Speech in Quiet at 65dB||||0.024
91688056|NCT00720382|183268816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.783||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Overall baseline score||||0.783
91688057|NCT00720382|183268816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 1||||0.971
91688058|NCT00720382|183268816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 3||||0.206
91688059|NCT00720382|183268816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 6||||0.111
91688060|NCT00720382|183268816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 9||||0.181
91688061|NCT00720382|183268816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from Baseline to Month 12/Early Term||||0.037
91688062|NCT04467840|183268824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.86||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|12.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Opaganib - Placebo|||12.65|-4.93|0.391
91688063|NCT04467840|183268825|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|12.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.60|-4.78|0.380
91688064|NCT04467840|183268826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.45||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Log Rank|||||1.45|0.91|0.231
91688065|NCT04467840|183268827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.08||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Log Rank|||||1.33|0.87|0.472
91688066|NCT04467840|183268828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.378||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Log Rank|||||1.378|0.846|0.521
91688067|NCT04467840|183268829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.51||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|6.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.18|-9.19|0.701
91688068|NCT04467840|183268830|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.82|||Log Rank|||||1.82|0.99|0.043
91688069|NCT04467840|183268831|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|18.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.65|-2.05|0.118
91688070|NCT04467840|183268835|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.28||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|23.5||unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.50|1.06|0.033
91688071|NCT04467840|183268836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.75||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|9.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.17|-18.67|0.500
91688072|NCT04467840|183268837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.75||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.60|1.90|0.023
91688073|NCT04467840|183268838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.12||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.07|9.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.82|-18.07|0.561
91688074|NCT04467840|183268839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.93|||Log Rank|||||1.93|1.07|0.01
91688075|NCT04467840|183268840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.58|0.545
91688076|NCT04467840|183268841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.276||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.732|||Log Rank|||||1.732|0.940|0.100
91688077|NCT04467840|183268843|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-2.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.57|-18.44|0.012
91688078|NCT04467840|183268844|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|20.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.86|-6.46|0.304
91688079|NCT04467840|183268845|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.22||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|-1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.80|-16.63|0.019
91688080|NCT04467840|183268846|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.37||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|20.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.39|-5.66|0.273
91688081|NCT06418529|183268849|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||||||||1.05|0.85|
91688082|NCT06418529|183268850|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07||||||||1.07|0.83|
91688083|NCT06418529|183268851|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||||||||0.99|0.79|
91688084|NCT06418529|183268852|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.04||||||||1.04|0.79|
91688085|NCT06418529|183268853|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||||||||1.05|0.81|
91688086|NCT06418529|183268854|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.09||||||||1.09|0.79|
91688087|NCT02719184|183268910|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|-0.45|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD I group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-0.45|-5.32|0.0202
91903742|NCT02022085|183702455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months Speech in Quiet at 80dB||||0.59
91721038|NCT01013753|183334677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.977||||0.0109||95.0|0.96|0.995|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.995|0.960|0.0109
91721039|NCT01013753|183334677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.0283||95.0|0.962|0.998|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.998|0.962|0.0283
91721040|NCT01013753|183334677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.991||||0.3085||95.0|0.973|1.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||1.009|0.973|0.3085
91721041|NCT01013753|183334678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.999||||0.9112||95.0|0.984|1.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.015|0.984|0.9112
91721042|NCT01013753|183334678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.992||||0.2955||95.0|0.977|1.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.007|0.977|0.2955
91721043|NCT01013753|183334678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.987||||0.1029||95.0|0.973|1.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.003|0.973|0.1029
91863692|NCT04800211|183616296|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.468|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.086|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||5.086|1.850|<.0001
91863693|NCT04800211|183616296|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.245||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|3.679|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||3.679|0.812|0.0022
91864706|NCT05828017|183618614|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in the least preferred program counts between variations #2 and #4||||<0.001
91721044|NCT01013753|183334678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.991||||0.2552||95.0|0.975|1.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.007|0.975|0.2552
91721045|NCT01013753|183334678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.994||||0.4803||95.0|0.979|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||1.010|0.979|0.4803
91721046|NCT00621530|183334701|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Power calculation assumed that all subjects would have an area of hypersensitivity surrounding the wound at 48 hours. We found that only 1 subject in the placebo group and 3 subjects in the ketorolac group had non-zero areas of hypersensitivity.||||=0.94
91721047|NCT00621530|183334702|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.78|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.78
91721048|NCT00621530|183334703|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.87|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.87
91721049|NCT00621530|183334704|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.66
91721050|NCT00621530|183334705|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.83
91721051|NCT02081807|183334713|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.76|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.76|0.57|
91721052|NCT02081807|183334713|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.94|0.52|
91721053|NCT02081807|183334713|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.98|0.58|
91721054|NCT02081807|183334713|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.35|0.53|
91721055|NCT02081807|183334713|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.98|0.57|
91721056|NCT02081807|183334713|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.98|0.61|
91688088|NCT02719184|183268910|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|-2.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD II group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-2.19|-7.36|0.0003
91688089|NCT02719184|183268910|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-1.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD III group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-1.50|-7.44|0.0033
91863694|NCT04800211|183616296|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.329|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.768|4.891|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.891|1.768|<.0001
91863695|NCT04800211|183616296|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.399|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.252|4.545|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.545|2.252|<.0001
91863696|NCT04800211|183616296|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.25||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|2.633|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||2.633|-0.132|0.0761
91864707|NCT00670241|183618741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.70|2.05|< 0.001
91864708|NCT00670241|183618742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.46|8.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.40|1.46|<0.001
91864709|NCT00670241|183618743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-22.6|-6.9|||ANOVA|||||-6.90|-22.6|<0.001
91688090|NCT02719184|183268910|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|-0.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD and A1AT group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-0.47|-11.26|0.0334
91688091|NCT02719184|183268911|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4||0.9306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|29.7|||Random slope and intercept model||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD I group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||29.7|-27.2|0.9306
91721057|NCT02081807|183334713|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.51|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.51|0.53|
91721058|NCT02081807|183334713|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.89|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.89|0.38|
91688092|NCT02719184|183268911|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.9||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|10.1|||Random slope and intercept model|The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD II group - value from Healthy subjects group.||||10.1|-48.5|0.1983
91688093|NCT02719184|183268911|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|-33.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|-1.9|||Random slope and intercept model||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD III group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-1.9|-65.4|0.0381
91721059|NCT02081807|183334713|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.96|0.50|
91863697|NCT04800211|183616296|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.778||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|3.286|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.286|0.269|0.0211
91864710|NCT03213873|183618798|SUPERIORITY||Interaction effect time x group|0.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-1.0|0.57
91864711|NCT03213873|183618799|SUPERIORITY||Interaction effect time x group|0.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.03|0.25
91864712|NCT03213873|183618800|SUPERIORITY||Interaction effect time x group|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.8|0.75
91903743|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Comprehensive health state||||0.088
91688094|NCT02719184|183268911|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.3||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.3|-2.3|||Random slope and intercept model||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD and A1AT group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-2.3|-121.3|0.0419
91688095|NCT02556801|183268954|SUPERIORITY||Test statistic|1.823||||0.057|ONE_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Method|The primary dose-response analysis was performed by applying linear, Emax, logistic and exponential models.The p-value was based on Emax model.||||||0.057
91688096|NCT02556801|183268954|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.89|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-3.89|
91688097|NCT02556801|183268954|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|0.06||||||||0.06|-3.72|
91721060|NCT02081807|183334714|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.69|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.69|0.38|
91721061|NCT02081807|183334714|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.86|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.86|0.68|
91721062|NCT02081807|183334714|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.8|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.80|0.65|
91721063|NCT02081807|183334714|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.26|0.88|
91688098|NCT02556801|183268954|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.23|-0.43||||||||-0.43|-4.23|
91688099|NCT02556801|183268955|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-3.85|=0.051
91688100|NCT02556801|183268955|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-3.68|0.059
91688101|NCT02556801|183268955|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-4.20|0.024
91688102|NCT02556801|183268956|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.19|-2.39|0.291
91688103|NCT02556801|183268956|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-3.60|=0.042
91688104|NCT02556801|183268956|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-3.56|0.050
91688105|NCT02556801|183268957|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-1.93|=0.079
91688106|NCT02556801|183268957|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|=|0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-1.89|=0.076
91688107|NCT02556801|183268957|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|=|0.038|TWO_SIDED|0.62|-2.13|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-2.13|=0.038
91688108|NCT02556801|183268958|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-1.03|=0.451
91688109|NCT02556801|183268958|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-1.55|=0.137
91688110|NCT02556801|183268958|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|=|0.195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.45|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-1.45|=0.195
91688111|NCT02556801|183268959|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.657|-0.05|||ANOVA|||||-0.050|-0.657|=0.028
91688112|NCT02556801|183268959|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.702|-0.086|||ANOVA|||||-0.086|-0.702|=0.018
91688113|NCT02556801|183268959|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|=|0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.581|0.021|||ANOVA|||||0.021|-0.581|=0.063
91863698|NCT04800211|183616296|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.3841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|4.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||4.092|-0.951|0.3841
91903744|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Vision||||0.88
91688114|NCT02556801|183268960|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.60|1.41|<0.001
91688115|NCT02556801|183268960|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|3.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||3.27|1.80|<0.001
91688116|NCT02556801|183268960|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.73|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||3.15|1.73|<0.001
91688117|NCT02556801|183268960|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.42||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.93|1.05|0.029
91688118|NCT02556801|183268960|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.67||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.25|1.24|0.003
91688119|NCT02556801|183268960|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.37||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.85|1.01|0.042
91721064|NCT02081807|183334714|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.12|0.92|
91721065|NCT02081807|183334714|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.12|0.94|
91721066|NCT02081807|183334714|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.66|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.66|0.39|
91903745|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Hearing||||0.020
91688120|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.11||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.23|1.00|0.057
91688121|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.43|1.17|<0.001
91688122|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.37|1.12|<0.001
91688123|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.23||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.45|1.05|0.015
91903746|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Speech||||0.039
91903747|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Ambulation||||0.25
91903748|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Dexterity||||0.38
91688124|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.37|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.87|1.37|<0.001
91688125|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.62|1.19|<0.001
91688126|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|0.99||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.04|0.93|0.341
91688127|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.16|1.04|0.003
91688128|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.02||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.08|0.97|0.269
91688129|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.02||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.10|0.95|0.312
91688130|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.31|1.13|<0.001
91688131|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.20|1.03|0.008
91688132|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.04||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.14|0.96|0.212
91863699|NCT04800211|183616296|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.084|4.464|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.464|-1.084|0.3934
91903749|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Emotion||||0.43
91688133|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.27|1.07|0.002
91688134|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.25|1.06|0.004
91688135|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.09||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.24|0.96|0.126
91688136|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.45|1.13|<0.001
91688137|NCT02556801|183268961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.43|1.11|0.002
91688138|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.33||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.70|1.03|0.032
91688139|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.68|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.74|1.68|<0.001
91903750|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Cognition||||0.85
91688140|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.59|1.59|<0.001
91688141|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.48||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.06|1.07|0.024
91688142|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.09|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||3.98|2.09|<0.001
91688143|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|2.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.93|1.54|<0.001
91688144|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.18||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.47|0.95|0.102
91688145|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.46|1.61|<0.001
91688146|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.94|1.27|<0.001
91688147|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.39||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.81|1.07|0.019
91688148|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||3.08|1.84|<0.001
91688149|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.19|1.31|<0.001
91688150|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.52||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.31|1.01|0.048
91688151|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||3.53|1.56|<0.001
91688152|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.88|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||4.24|1.88|<0.001
91688153|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.67||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.69|1.03|0.040
91688154|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||4.30|1.67|<0.001
91688155|NCT02556801|183268962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|4.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||4.62|1.80|<0.001
91688156|NCT01339403|183268965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|166.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.4|223.5|||Poisson Regression|||Kaposi's sarcoma: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||223.5|123.4|<0.001
91903751|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Pain||||0.25
91864713|NCT02361216|183618819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|6.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|14.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||AKclear100 at Week 8: full analysis set. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference at Week 8 in AKclear100 rates between ingenol mebutate gel 0.027% and vehicle gel. This hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative of a difference between the 2 treatment groups.||14|2.82|<0.001
91688157|NCT01339403|183268965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|12.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|14.2|||Poisson Regression|||Invasive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||14.2|10.3|<0.001
91688158|NCT01339403|183268965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|3.4||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|12.3|||Poisson Regression|||Invasive cervical cancer: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||12.3|1.0|0.059
91688159|NCT01339403|183268965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|1.8|||Poisson Regression|||Non-AIDS-defining cancers: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||1.8|1.5|<0.001
91688160|NCT01339403|183268965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|166.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.4|223.5|||Poisson Regression|||AIDS-defining cancer: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||223.5|123.4|<0.001
91688161|NCT01339403|183268966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.5|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||1.5|1.3|<0.001
91688162|NCT01339403|183268967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|75.7|||Poisson Regression|||Wasting syndrome: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||75.7|57.1|<0.001
91721067|NCT02081807|183334714|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.68|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.68|0.49|
91721068|NCT02081807|183334714|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.64|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.64|0.49|
91793977|NCT03101267|183466619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 155||0.31|-0.30|0.975
91903752|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Comprehensive health state||||0.088
91903753|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Vision||||0.63
91903754|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Hearing||||0.045
91903755|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Speech||||0.016
91688163|NCT01339403|183268967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|428.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|292.2|628.5|||Poisson Regression|||Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||628.5|292.2|<0.001
91688164|NCT01339403|183268967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|9.5|||Poisson Regression|||Pneumonia, recurrent: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||9.5|7.9|<0.001
91688165|NCT01339403|183268967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|97.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.5|124.8|||Poisson Regression|||Cytomegalovirus: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||124.8|75.5|<0.001
91688166|NCT01339403|183268967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|60.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|74.9|||Poisson Regression|||Esophageal Candidiasis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||74.9|48.3|<0.001
91688167|NCT01339403|183268967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|98.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.8|136.8|||Poisson Regression|||Mycobacterium avium complex: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||136.8|70.8|<0.001
91688168|NCT01339403|183268967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|189.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.3|319.5|||Poisson Regression|||Cryptococcosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||319.5|112.3|<0.001
91688169|NCT01339403|183268967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|7.4|||Poisson Regression|||Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||7.4|5.2|<0.001
91688170|NCT01339403|183268967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|594.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|146.5|2411.7|||Poisson Regression|||Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||2411.7|146.5|<0.001
91688171|NCT01339403|183268967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|14.4|||Poisson Regression|||Lung Candidiasis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||14.4|7.8|<0.001
91863700|NCT04800211|183616296|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.995||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.505|3.494|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||3.494|-1.505|0.7782
91721069|NCT02081807|183334715|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.11|0.69|
91721070|NCT02081807|183334715|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.02|0.66|
91721071|NCT02081807|183334715|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.88|0.47|
91721072|NCT02081807|183334716|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.3|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||3.30|1.03|
91721073|NCT02081807|183334716|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.71|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.71|0.65|
91863701|NCT04800211|183616296|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.552||||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.171|4.274|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.274|-1.171|0.4576
91863702|NCT04800211|183616296|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.621||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|3.466|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.466|-0.224|0.0849
91903756|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Ambulation||||0.25
91721074|NCT02081807|183334716|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.96|0.10|
91721075|NCT02081807|183334717|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.12|0.63|
91688172|NCT01339403|183268967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|51.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|87.5|||Poisson Regression|||Toxoplasmosis of brain: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||87.5|30.3|<0.001
91688173|NCT01339403|183268967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.9|||Poisson Regression|||Coccidiomycosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||12.9|3.0|<0.001
91688174|NCT01339403|183268967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|23.1|||Poisson Regression|||Histoplasmosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||23.1|7.4|<0.0001
91688175|NCT01339403|183268968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|5.1|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||5.1|4.3|<0.001
91688176|NCT01339403|183268969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|8.2|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||8.2|6.0|<0.001
91688177|NCT01339403|183268970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|9.6|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||9.6|7.1|<0.001
91688178|NCT01339403|183268971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|5.9|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||5.9|5.3|<0.001
91688179|NCT01339403|183268972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|35.2|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||35.2|11.2|<0.001
91721076|NCT02081807|183334717|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.96|0.57|
91864714|NCT02361216|183618820|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|6.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.027% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||11.1|4.16|<0.001
91688180|NCT03983980|183268973|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91688181|NCT03983980|183268974|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91688182|NCT03983980|183268975|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91688183|NCT03983980|183268976|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91688184|NCT03983980|183268977|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91688185|NCT01525329|183268981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.007
91688186|NCT01525329|183268981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
91688187|NCT01525329|183268982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91688188|NCT01525329|183268982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91688189|NCT00780338|183268984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.58
91688190|NCT00780338|183268986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.61
91688191|NCT00780338|183268987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.09
91688192|NCT00780338|183268988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.01
91688193|NCT00780338|183268989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.00
91793978|NCT03101267|183466619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 155||0.31|-0.31|0.980
91863703|NCT04800211|183616296|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.139||||0.9016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.064|2.341|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.341|-2.064|0.9016
91688194|NCT00780338|183268990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.45
91688195|NCT00780338|183268991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.65
91688196|NCT00780338|183268992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.00
91688197|NCT00780338|183268993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.61
91688198|NCT00780338|183268994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.02
91688199|NCT02676882|183268996|OTHER|A Chi Squared analysis was performed to determine how the rate of relapse in Group 1 (27.3%) compared to that of historical controls in the literature (67.7%). (Cohen, JAMA 2006)||||||0.005||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91864715|NCT02361216|183618821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|6.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|10.5|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The pre-specified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.5|4.04|<0.001
91688200|NCT02676882|183268997|OTHER|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the overall course of Group 2 participants' MADRS scores. (F(6, 29)=5.16, p=0.001).||||||0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91688201|NCT00114140|183268998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test|||Assuming exponential distribution of survival times, the null hypothesis was a 43% increase in median survival time (40.5 mo. to 57.9 mo.) and a 21% increase in 3-year survival rate (54% to 65%). Assuming 5% ineligibility, 72 patients were required to be accrued over 3 years with 3-years of follow-up resulting in 80% power and 1-sided 0.10 significance level. (N later increased to 135 to accommodate an additional separate analysis of O-6-Methylguanine-DNA Methyltransferase (MGMT) status.)||||<0.001
91688202|NCT00114140|183269000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.52||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|7.56||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Methylated|Overall survival: The sample size was increased to 135 to ensure adequate power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.5 for MGMT status, at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 with an MGMT prevalence rate of at least 30%||7.56|1.64|0.0006
91688203|NCT00114140|183269000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.06||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.04||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Methylated|Progression-free survival||6.04|1.55|0.0007
91688204|NCT00811733|183269045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|73.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||73.4|21.3|
91688205|NCT00811733|183269045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|86.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||86.1|45.1|
91903757|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxan Signed Rank Test|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test failed to approximate p value so Wilcoxan Signed Rank Test instead||24 months change in Dexterity||||0.50
91903758|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Emotion||||0.29
91688206|NCT00811733|183269046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|61.6|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||61.6|11.8|
91688207|NCT00811733|183269046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|82.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||82.8|40.7|
91688208|NCT03885661|183269090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||mixed effects regression|testing for the outcome employed mixed effects regression. The key fixed effects were group assignment, period, and the group X period interaction.||||||0.65
91688209|NCT00129545|183269150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The posterior probability of non-inferiority is defined as the probability that the event rate for the Device group is less than twice that for the Control group. This probability was required to be greater than 0.975 for a finding of non-inferiority. The criterion for non-inferiority was consistently met at each analysis time point demonstrating the Device group is non-inferior to the Control group.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.07|||||Relative Risk calculated as Device Rate over Control rate, with 95% Credible Intervals|||1.07|0.42|
91688210|NCT04660331|183269156|OTHER||||||||||||||||||2-sided t-test conducted for pre- and post-training results.|||
91688211|NCT04660331|183269157|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We grouped pharmacy data on vaccines delivered pre/post intervention into six categories: HPV vaccine, Tdap, Meningococcal, Influenza, COVID-19, and other vaccines. We then compared the counts of total vaccines that were conducted in each group pre- and post-training.|||
91721077|NCT02081807|183334717|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.94|0.45|
91688212|NCT04660331|183269158|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We grouped pharmacy data on vaccines delivered pre/post intervention into six categories: HPV vaccine, Tdap, Meningococcal, Influenza, COVID-19, and other vaccines. We then compared the counts of total vaccines that were conducted in each group pre- and post-training.|||
91688213|NCT05287230|183269207|OTHER|||||||0.061||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.061
91688214|NCT02360215|183269219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Gray's test|||Null hypothesis: the addition of HA-WBRT as compared to WBRT will increase time to neurocognitive failure from 53.8% in the WBRT arm to 42.8% in the HA-WBRT arm at 6 months. Treating death as a competing risk and using a Gray's test with two-sided α=0.05 to test for statistically significant difference in the distribution of neurocognitive failure times, it was calculated that 230 events over both arms would provide 90% statistical power.||0.96|0.59|0.029
91688215|NCT02360215|183269220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.0586
91688216|NCT02360215|183269220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\>61 year vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0048
91688217|NCT02360215|183269220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline Total Recall is reported here.||||<0.0001
91688218|NCT02360215|183269221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2656|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recall Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.2656
91688219|NCT02360215|183269221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recall Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0067
91903759|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Cognition||||0.92
91903760|NCT02022085|183702456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Pain||||0.020
91903761|NCT02022085|183702457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Ease of communication||||<0.0001
91903762|NCT02022085|183702457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Background noise||||<0.0001
91903763|NCT02022085|183702457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Reverberation||||<0.0001
91688220|NCT02360215|183269221|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recall Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline Delayed Recall is reported here.||||<0.0001
91688221|NCT02360215|183269222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recognition Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.0993
91688222|NCT02360215|183269222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recognition Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||<0.0001
91688223|NCT02360215|183269222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recognition Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline Delayed Recognition is reported here.||||<0.0001
91688224|NCT02360215|183269223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5988|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part A (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.5988
91688225|NCT02360215|183269223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part A (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0005
91688226|NCT02360215|183269223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part A (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline TMT Part A is reported here.||||<0.0001
91721078|NCT02081807|183334718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.78|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.78|0.18|
91721079|NCT02081807|183334718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.72|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.72|0.58|
91688227|NCT02360215|183269224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9226|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part B (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.9226
91688228|NCT02360215|183269224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0024|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part B (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||<0.0024
91688229|NCT02360215|183269224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part B (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline TMT Part B is reported here.||||<0.0001
91688230|NCT02360215|183269225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with COWA (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline COWA is reported here.||||<0.0001
91688231|NCT02360215|183269225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9749|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with COWA (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.9749
91688232|NCT02360215|183269225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with COWA (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here. is reported here.||||<0.0001
91688233|NCT02360215|183269226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2552|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with the neurocognitive composite score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.2552
91688234|NCT02360215|183269226|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with the neurocognitive composite score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||<0.0001
91688235|NCT02360215|183269226|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with the neurocognitive composite score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline composite score is reported here.||||<0.0001
91688236|NCT02360215|183269227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.57
91688237|NCT02360215|183269227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Symptom Severity score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline symptom severity is reported here.||||<0.0001
91688238|NCT02360215|183269227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A two-sample t-test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05 provides \>90% statistical power to detect a medium effect size of 0.5 for a comparison of the change from baseline to 6 months from the start of treatment. The comparison at six months was tested within a mixed effects model with covariates age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection, baseline score, treatment arm, and time was used.||||0.083
91721080|NCT02081807|183334718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.87|0.38|
91721081|NCT02081807|183334720|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.59|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.59|0.25|
91721082|NCT02081807|183334720|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.95|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.95|0.51|
91863704|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.587||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.511|8.662|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.662|2.511|0.0004
91903764|NCT02022085|183702457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Aversiveness||||0.69
91903765|NCT02022085|183702457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Global||||<0.0001
91721083|NCT02081807|183334720|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.03|0.43|
91721084|NCT02081807|183334721|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.84|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.84|0.67|
91721085|NCT02081807|183334721|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.16|0.97|
91721086|NCT02081807|183334721|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.63|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.63|0.47|
91721087|NCT02081807|183334722|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.04|0.77|
91721088|NCT02081807|183334722|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.36|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.36|1.07|
91721089|NCT02081807|183334722|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.72|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.72|0.48|
91721090|NCT02081807|183334723|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.8|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.80|0.44|
91903766|NCT02022085|183702457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Ease of communication||||<0.001
91903767|NCT02022085|183702457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Background noise||||<0.001
91688239|NCT02360215|183269228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Interference Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.9118
91688240|NCT02360215|183269228|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Interference Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline interference score is reported here.||||<0.0001
91688241|NCT02360215|183269229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1964|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Cognitive Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.1964
91688242|NCT02360215|183269229|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Cognitive Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline cognitive factor score is reported here.||||<0.0001
91721091|NCT02081807|183334723|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.57|0.98|
91721092|NCT02081807|183334723|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.14|0.54|
91903768|NCT02022085|183702457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Reverberation||||<0.001
91721093|NCT02081807|183334724|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.08|0.79|
91721094|NCT02081807|183334724|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.35|1.05|
91721095|NCT02081807|183334724|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.67|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.67|0.44|
91721096|NCT02081807|183334726|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|78.0|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||078|0.59|
91721097|NCT02081807|183334726|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.16|0.93|
91721098|NCT02081807|183334726|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.67|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.67|0.47|
91721099|NCT02081807|183334727|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.82|0.34|
91721100|NCT02081807|183334727|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.29|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.29|0.55|
91721101|NCT02081807|183334727|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.42|0.41|
91721102|NCT02081807|183334728|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.15|0.60|
91721103|NCT02081807|183334728|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.14|0.63|
91721104|NCT02081807|183334728|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.18|0.53|
91721105|NCT02081807|183334729|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.84|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.84|0.50|
91721106|NCT02081807|183334729|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.01|0.69|
91721107|NCT02081807|183334729|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.76|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.76|0.37|
91721108|NCT02081807|183334730|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.88|0.47|
91721109|NCT02081807|183334730|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.04|0.65|
91721110|NCT02081807|183334730|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.92|0.39|
91721111|NCT02081807|183334731|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.04|0.47|
91721112|NCT02081807|183334731|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.05|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.05|0.60|
91688243|NCT02360215|183269229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Cognitive Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Prior radiotherapy (yes vs. no) is reported here.||||0.0032
91688244|NCT02360215|183269230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8877|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Neurologic Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.8877
91688245|NCT02360215|183269230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Neurologic Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline neurologic factor is reported here.||||<0.0001
91688246|NCT02360215|183269230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Neurologic Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0078
91688247|NCT02360215|183269231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
91688248|NCT02360215|183269233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91688249|NCT02360215|183269234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91688250|NCT02360215|183269235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91688251|NCT02360215|183269236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91688252|NCT02360215|183269237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91688253|NCT02360215|183269238|OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91688254|NCT02360215|183269239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.47||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = WBRT + Memantine|||1.47|0.98|0.076
91688255|NCT02360215|183269240|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.43||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = WBRT + Memantin|||1.43|0.91|0.242
91688256|NCT02360215|183269241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||Two-sided p-value = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91688257|NCT01050530|183269289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.93|-2.08|<0.0001
91688258|NCT01050530|183269290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-300.7||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.2|-75.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-75.1|-526.2|0.0093
91688259|NCT02414958|183269376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|-0.41|||Mixed effect Model Repeated Measures||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model Mixed effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, pre-existing insulin therapy, visit , and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline HbA1c, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and baseline HbA1c-by- visit interaction. Patient was included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.41|-0.66|<0.0001
91688260|NCT02414958|183269376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|-0.41|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean|Model MMRM included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, pre-existing insulin therapy, visit, and treatment-by- visit interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR, and baseline HbA1c-by- visit interaction. Patient was included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.41|-0.66|<0.0001
91688261|NCT02414958|183269377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.4|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.40|-0.65|<0.0001
91688262|NCT02414958|183269377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.64|-0.39|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements||-0.39|-0.64|<0.0001
91794582|NCT03981822|183468099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT Visit - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0075
91903769|NCT02022085|183702457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Aversiveness||||0.84
91903770|NCT02022085|183702457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Global||||<0.001
91688263|NCT02414958|183269378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.744||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.518|1.069|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.069|0.518|0.0623
91688264|NCT02414958|183269378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.726||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.502|1.501|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset||1.501|0.502|0.0480
91688265|NCT02414958|183269378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.774||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|1.048||This is a nominal p-value.|Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.048|0.572|0.0972
91688266|NCT02414958|183269378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.782||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.575|1.064||Negative binomial model|MMRM||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.064|0.575|0.1180
91688267|NCT02414958|183269379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.57|-1.8|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline weight, baseline eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-1.80|-3.57|<0.0001
91688268|NCT02414958|183269379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-4.15|-2.39|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline weight, baseline eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-2.39|-4.15|<0.0001
91688269|NCT02414958|183269380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|8.78|14.93|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes baseline time in the target range, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects.||14.93|8.78|<0.0001
91688270|NCT02414958|183269380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|9.81|15.93|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean|||15.93|9.81|<0.0001
91688271|NCT02414958|183269381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-22.04|-11.81|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes model includes baseline IQR of glucose, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects.||-11.81|-22.04|<0.0001
91688272|NCT02414958|183269381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-24.13|-13.95|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes model includes baseline IQR of glucose, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects.||-13.95|-24.13|<0.0001
91688273|NCT02414958|183269382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.121|-0.063|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.063|-0.121|<0.0001
91688274|NCT02414958|183269382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.119|-0.062|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.062|-0.119|<0.0001
91794583|NCT03981822|183468099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0539||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112 - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0539
91903771|NCT02022085|183702458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech: Change from pre-op to 6 months||||<0.0001
91903772|NCT02022085|183702458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Spatial: Change from pre-op to 6 months||||<0.0001
91903773|NCT02022085|183702458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Qualities: Change from pre-op to 6 months||||<0.0001
91903774|NCT02022085|183702458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech: Change from pre-op to 24 months||||<0.0001
91688275|NCT02414958|183269383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-5.2|1.0|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model MMRM includes baseline SBP seated, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.0|-5.2|0.0397
91688276|NCT02414958|183269383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-6.8|-0.6|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.6|-6.8|0.0003
91688277|NCT02414958|183269383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-2.7|0.0||Nominal p-value|MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model MMRM includes baseline DBP seated, baseline eGFR baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.0|-2.7|0.0457
91688278|NCT02414958|183269383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-4.3|-0.3|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model MMRM includes baseline DBP seated, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.3|-4.3|0.0006
91688279|NCT01269918|183269384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority delta of 7.5 mmHg. If noninferiority was detected, we proceeded to test for superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-5.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on MAP collapsed over time was estimated using a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-5|-13|< 0.001
91688280|NCT01269918|183269384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.0|-4.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on MAP collapsed over time was estimated using a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-4|-13|< 0.001
91688281|NCT01269918|183269385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority delta of 1 point. If noninferiority was detected, we proceeded to test for superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on VAS pain score estimated from a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-1.1|-2.7|< 0.001
91688282|NCT01269918|183269385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|-0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on VAS pain score estimated from a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-0.9|-2.8|< 0.001
91688283|NCT01269918|183269386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority delta = 2 mg opioid|Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on opioid consumption estimated from a Wilcoxon rank sum test||-5|-10|< 0.001
91688284|NCT01269918|183269386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|-3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on opioid consumption estimated from a Wilcoxon rank sum test||-3|-10|< 0.001
91688285|NCT01269918|183269387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on heart rate was assessed using a linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline heart rate.||3|-10|< 0.001
91688286|NCT01269918|183269388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on SOMCT estimated using a linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline SOMCT score.||0.5|-2.6|0.16
91688287|NCT01269918|183269389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on Aldrete score estimated using a linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline Aldrete score.||0.03|-0.6|0.07
91688288|NCT01269918|183269390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.001|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on Nursing workload comparison estimated using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||-0.001|-1|0.009
91688289|NCT01269918|183269391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.18|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus Dexmedetomidine on time to open eyes estimated using Cox regression.||0.18|0.07|< 0.001
91688290|NCT01269918|183269392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.19|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus dexmedetomidine on time to recall assessed using Cox regression.||0.19|0.07|< 0.001
91688291|NCT01269918|183269393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus Dexmedetomidine on time to fitness discharge estimated using Cox regression.||0.95|0.48|0.022
91688292|NCT01269918|183269394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus Dexmedetomidine on time to PACU discharge estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression||1.62|0.81|0.45
91688293|NCT01269918|183269395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on postoperative nausea estimated from chi squared test.||2.2|0.5|0.91
91688294|NCT01269918|183269396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.7|||Chi-squared|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on postoperative vomiting estimated from a chi square test.||1.7|0.07|0.16
91688295|NCT01269918|183269397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||Chi-squared|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on incidence of shivering estimated from a chi square test.||1.7|0.1|0.21
91688296|NCT04542057|183269398|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01501|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0647|0.1236||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to average FEV1 AUC0-12h with treatment, region, background medication strata and smoking strata as fixed effects and baseline FEV1 as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1236|0.0647|<0.0001
91688297|NCT04583735|183269439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.69||MMRM analysis with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix including change from Baseline value as dependent variable \& covariates: Baseline value, treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment \& visit-by-Baseline value interactions.|MMRM|||||-0.69|-2.28|0.0004
91688298|NCT00708110|183269471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||||-1.07|-2.00|<0.001
91688299|NCT00708110|183269471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.55|||ANCOVA|||||-1.55|-2.52|<0.001
91688300|NCT00708110|183269471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-2.02|||ANCOVA|||||-2.02|-2.94|<0.001
91688301|NCT02273388|183269573|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.59|1.48|||||Comparison vs. 1 hour infusion \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 5 minutes before infusion end. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||1.48|-10.59|
91688302|NCT02273388|183269573|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.18|-1.11|||||Comparison vs. 1hour infusion \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 1 hour after infusion end. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||-1.11|-13.18|
91688303|NCT02273388|183269573|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.61|2.46|||||Comparison vs. 1 hour infusion \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 4 hours after infusion start. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||2.46|-9.61|
91721113|NCT02081807|183334731|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.73|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.73|0.24|
91688304|NCT02273388|183269573|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|-2.63|||||Comparison vs. 1 hour \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 24 hours after infusion start. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||-2.63|-14.70|
91688305|NCT04331808|183269594|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|3.1||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credibility interval here|||3.1|-21.0|
91688306|NCT04331808|183269595|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.0||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|HR adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible Interval here|||1.00|0.33|
91688307|NCT04331808|183269596|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|17.1||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here Results are presented as the proportion not improved, so that an effective treatment would be associated with a decrease in proportion.|||17.1|-13.6|
91688308|NCT04331808|183269597|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|2.04||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|HR adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible Interval here|||2.04|0.71|
91688309|NCT04331808|183269598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.55|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex||Day 14||3.55|0.40|
91688310|NCT04331808|183269598|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.53|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.53|0.33|
91688311|NCT04331808|183269598|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.65|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.65|0.25|
91688312|NCT04331808|183269598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.15|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 14||1.15|0.12|
91688313|NCT04331808|183269598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.47|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||1.47|0.32|
91688314|NCT04331808|183269598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.49|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.49|0.30|
91688315|NCT04331808|183269599|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.28|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 4||1.28|0.27|
91688316|NCT04331808|183269599|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.71|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre||Day 7|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|1.71|0.43|
91688317|NCT04331808|183269599|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.42|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and sex|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||1.42|0.40|
91688318|NCT04331808|183269599|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.82|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre||Day 4|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|1.82|0.39|
91688319|NCT04331808|183269599|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.47|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 7||1.47|0.32|
91688320|NCT04331808|183269599|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.43|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||1.43|0.32|
91688321|NCT04331808|183269600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.7||adjusted on age and centre||||||1.7|-6.9|
91688322|NCT04331808|183269601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.01|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.01|0.98|
91688323|NCT04331808|183269601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.52|||Fine-Gray model|||Day 28||2.52|0.82|
91688324|NCT04331808|183269601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.03|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||2.03|0.80|
91688325|NCT04331808|183269602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.27|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||2.27|1.02|
91688326|NCT04331808|183269602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.63|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.63|0.80|
91688327|NCT04331808|183269602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.17|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||2.17|0.84|
91688328|NCT04331808|183269603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.81|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||1.81|0.73|
91688329|NCT04331808|183269603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.24|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||2.24|0.73|
91688330|NCT03172494|183269631|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin degludec/liraglutide versus insulin degludec was considered as confirmed if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean treatment difference lied entirely below 0.4%. Non-inferiority was investigated on the FAS.|Mean treatment difference|-0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and previous oral anti-diabetic (OAD) treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing values were imputed by last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-0.46|-0.73|<0.0001
91688331|NCT03172494|183269631|SUPERIORITY||Mean treatment difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and previous OAD treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing values were imputed by LOCF.||-0.49|-0.76|<0.0001
91688332|NCT00143390|183269695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of exemestane to anastrozole was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (exemestane/anastrozole) was ≤1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.317|||||Disease sites, use of postoperative adjuvant antiestrogen agents therapy, and pamidronate disodium were covariates for adjustment.|95% Confidence Interval based on the Brookmeyer and Crowley method||1.317|0.771|
91688333|NCT00143390|183269696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of exemestane to anastrozole was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (exemestane/anastrozole) was ≤1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.374|||||Disease sites, use of postoperative adjuvant antiestrogen agents therapy, and pamidronate disodium were covariates for adjustment.|95% Confidence Interval based on the Brookmeyer and Crowley method||1.374|0.816|
91688334|NCT00681031|183269757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptability was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (CMFR) from pre-vaccination to 4 weeks postvaccination is \>1.4.|GMFR|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.8|||||GMFR = GMT postdose divided by GMT predose|||3.8|2.6|
91688335|NCT00625872|183269758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.7232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|3.08||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||3.08|-3.93|0.7232
91688336|NCT00625872|183269759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|4.82||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||4.82|-8.04|0.1941
91688337|NCT00625872|183269761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0532||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Sequential Processing): Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0532
91688338|NCT00625872|183269761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3383||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Simultaneous Processing): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3383
91688339|NCT00625872|183269761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Achievement): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.6830
91688340|NCT00625872|183269761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4935||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Non-Verbal): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.4935
91688341|NCT00625872|183269761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3458||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Mental Processing Composite): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3458
91688342|NCT00625872|183269763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6256||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Distractibility): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.6256
91688343|NCT00625872|183269763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Alertness): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.8590
91688344|NCT00625872|183269763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Flexibility): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||1.0000
91688345|NCT00625872|183269763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1234||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Go/No Go): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.1234
91688346|NCT00625872|183269763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3291||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Vigilance): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3291
91794584|NCT03981822|183468099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1638||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112 - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1638
91688347|NCT00625872|183269782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|6.0||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||6.00|-5.71|0.9560
91688348|NCT00625872|183269798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.25||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||1.25|-0.15|0.1107
91688349|NCT00625872|183269800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.21||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||8.21|1.13|0.0161
91721114|NCT00303186|183334739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||5.10|2.40|<0.0001
91721115|NCT00303186|183334739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||5.78|1.65|<0.001
91721116|NCT00303186|183334739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.76|-1.50|0.518
91721117|NCT00303186|183334740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.38|23.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||23.07|12.38|<0.0001
91721118|NCT00303186|183334740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.99|18.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||18.21|6.99|<0.0001
91721119|NCT00303186|183334740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||4.61|-5.70|0.833
91721120|NCT00303186|183334741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||3.18|2.26|<0.0001
91721121|NCT00303186|183334741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||2.87|1.59|<0.0001
91721122|NCT00303186|183334741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.03||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.27|-0.83|0.309
91688350|NCT00625872|183269809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.2||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Triceps SDS: ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||0.20|-0.89|0.1870
91721123|NCT00303186|183334743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.75||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.619|8.301|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||8.301|1.619|0.004
91721124|NCT00303186|183334744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.155|-1.355|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||-1.355|-12.155|0.015
91688351|NCT00625872|183269809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.19||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Subscapular SDS: ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||0.19|-0.49|0.3494
91688352|NCT00625872|183269809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.01||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Suprailiac SDS: ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||-0.01|-0.54|0.0458
91688353|NCT01512160|183269811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|2.2||||||Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was presented.||2.2|-4.3|
91721125|NCT00303186|183334745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.41||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.666|2.546|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||2.546|-1.666|0.676
91721126|NCT00303186|183334746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.486|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||2.05|0.918|<0.0001
91721127|NCT00303186|183334746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.99|||t-test, 1 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||2.99|1.01|<0.001
91721128|NCT00303186|183334746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.32||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||1.46|-0.35|0.223
91721129|NCT00303186|183334747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|7.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: swollen joints and Month 12: swollen joints.||7.47|5.10|<0.0001
91721130|NCT00303186|183334747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|7.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: swollen joints and Month 60: swollen joints.||7.92|4.48|<0.0001
91688354|NCT01512160|183269811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|2.3||||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI was presented.||2.3|-4.1|
91688355|NCT01512160|183269811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|6.7||||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI was presented.||6.7|0.3|
91688356|NCT01512160|183269815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|1.9||||||SPID 0-6: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||1.9|-2.8|
91688357|NCT01512160|183269815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|2.0||||||SPID 0-6: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||2.0|-2.7|
91688358|NCT01512160|183269815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|5.1||||||SPID 0-6: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||5.1|0.4|
91688359|NCT01512160|183269815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|10.5||||||SPID 0-24: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||10.5|-12.6|
91688360|NCT01512160|183269815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.5|11.4||||||SPID 0-24: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||11.4|-11.5|
91688361|NCT01512160|183269815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|19.1||||||SPID 0-24: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||19.1|-4.0|
91688362|NCT01512160|183269816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|16.1||||||LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||16.1|-15.6|
91688363|NCT01512160|183269816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|14.8||||||LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||14.8|-16.5|
91688364|NCT01512160|183269816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|25.1||||||LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||25.1|-6.6|
91688365|NCT01512160|183269817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.5||||||Hazard Ratio (HR) estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.5|0.5|
91688366|NCT01512160|183269817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.1||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.1|0.7|
91688367|NCT01512160|183269817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|2.0||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.0|0.6|
91688368|NCT01512160|183269818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.1||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.1|0.5|
91688369|NCT01512160|183269818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.8||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.8|0.4|
91688370|NCT01512160|183269818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.9|0.7|
91688371|NCT01512160|183269819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.9|0.6|
91688372|NCT01512160|183269819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.4||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.4|0.7|
91688373|NCT01512160|183269819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.3||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.3|0.4|
91688374|NCT02729909|183269837|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of confidence interval (CI)|1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||||1.9|0.1|0.020
91688375|NCT02729909|183269838|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|1.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.9||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||1.9|0.0|0.051
91688376|NCT02729909|183269838|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|1.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||2.0|1.0|0.003
91688377|NCT02729909|183269838|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|1.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||1.9|0.1|0.009
91721131|NCT00303186|183334747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: swollen joints and Month 60: swollen joints.||0.76|-0.36|0.479
91688378|NCT02729909|183269839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.62||The proportion of participants with an SBM within 24 hours after first dose in Week 1 is analyzed by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.62|1.19|0.009
91688379|NCT02729909|183269840|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 1||-0.2|-0.6|0.001
91688380|NCT02729909|183269840|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||-0.1|-0.5|0.004
91688381|NCT02729909|183269840|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.024
91688382|NCT02729909|183269840|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||-0.1|-0.5|0.010
91688383|NCT02729909|183269841|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 1||1.0|0.4|<0.001
91688384|NCT02729909|183269841|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||0.9|0.4|<0.001
91688385|NCT02729909|183269841|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||0.8|0.4|<0.001
91688386|NCT02729909|183269841|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||0.7|0.2|<0.001
91688387|NCT02729909|183269842|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 1||-0.1|-0.9|0.020
91688388|NCT02729909|183269842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||||0.072
91688389|NCT02729909|183269842|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||-0.1|-0.9|<0.001
91688390|NCT02729909|183269842|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||-0.1|-0.9|0.004
91688391|NCT04779879|183269855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.09|||||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment and Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load.|||1.09|0.98|
91688392|NCT04779879|183269856|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.11|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, and Baseline logarithm (base10) viral load and randomization stratification factor (prior exposure to an authorized or approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine).|||1.11|0.94|
91688393|NCT04779879|183269885|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.11|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment and Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load.|||1.11|1.00|
91688394|NCT04779879|183269886|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment and Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load.|||1.07|0.97|
91688395|NCT04779879|183269887|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.09|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load and randomization stratification factor (prior exposure to an authorized or approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine).|||1.09|0.93|
91688396|NCT04779879|183269888|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.1|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load and randomization stratification factor (prior exposure to an authorized or approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine).|||1.10|0.94|
91688397|NCT04779879|183269949|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.89|||||Drug bioavailability was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and weight at Baseline as covariates.|||0.89|0.48|
91688398|NCT04779879|183269949|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.79|||||Drug bioavailability was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and weight at Baseline as covariates.|||0.79|0.43|
91688399|NCT04779879|183269950|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.95|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||1.95|0.67|
91688400|NCT04779879|183269951|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.62|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||1.62|0.69|
91721132|NCT00303186|183334747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.86|11.13|||t-test, 1 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: tender joints and Month 12: tender joints.||11.13|6.86|<0.0001
91688401|NCT04779879|183269952|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.82|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||1.82|0.68|
91688402|NCT04779879|183269953|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|2.12|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||2.12|0.77|
91688403|NCT02854527|183269987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R1) (%)|96.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.22|105.33|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R1) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R1.||105.33|88.22|
91688404|NCT02854527|183269988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R1) (%)|93.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.49|103.97|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R1) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R1.||103.97|83.49|
91688405|NCT02854527|183269989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R2) (%)|102.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.82|112.25|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R2) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R2.||112.25|93.82|
91688406|NCT02854527|183269990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R2) (%)|103.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|115.46|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R2) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R2.||115.46|93.60|
91688407|NCT02854527|183269991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R3) (%)|97.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.54|101.61|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R3 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R3) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R3.||101.61|93.54|
91688408|NCT02854527|183269992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R3) (%)|98.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.85|105.09|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R3 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R3) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R3.||105.09|91.85|
91688409|NCT02854527|183269993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R4) (%)|105.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.39|114.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R4 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R4) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R4.||114.40|96.39|
91688410|NCT02854527|183269994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R4) (%)|104.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.95|114.53|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R4 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R4) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R4.||114.53|94.95|
91688411|NCT02854527|183269995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R1) (%)|96.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.08|101.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R1) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R1.||101.20|92.08|
91688412|NCT02854527|183269996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R2) (%)|97.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.87|104.41|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R2) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R2.||104.41|90.87|
91688413|NCT02854527|183269997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R3) (%)|97.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.58|101.58|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R3 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R3) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R3.||101.58|93.58|
91688414|NCT02854527|183269998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R4) (%)|107.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.04|119.39|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R4 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R4) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R4.||119.39|97.04|
91688415|NCT01959295|183269999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5086|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||The superiority of ASP2151 200mg to ASP2151 placebo was assessed by Mantel-Haenszel method, adjusted by disease type (labial/facial herpes and recurrent genital herpes) .||||0.5086
91688416|NCT01128179|183270009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1121||||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3389|0.1146||The a priori significance level was 5%. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Assuming that the natural logarithm transformed serum intact FGF-23 is normally distributed with a mean of 3.5 and a standard deviation of 0.46, 33 subjects randomised 2:1 (lanthanum carbonate to placebo) will be sufficient to detect with 80% power at the 5% 2-sided significance level a decrease of 0.5 in the mean difference (placebo minus lanthanum carbonate) of the log-transformed data at Week 12.||0.1146|-0.3389|0.3186
91688417|NCT01128179|183270010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.54||||0.2995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|19.23||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of serum iPTH at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline iPTH as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||19.23|-6.15|0.2995
91688418|NCT01128179|183270011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11||||0.3252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|15.57||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of 1,25-Dihydroxy Vitamin D at Week 12 (LOCF) when utilizing an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline 1,25-Dihydroxy Vitamin D as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||15.57|-5.36|0.3252
91688419|NCT01128179|183270012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.845|1.403||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Urinary Fractional Excretion of Phosphate at Week 12 (LOCF) when utilizing an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Urinary Fractional Excretion of Phosphate as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||1.403|-8.845|0.1459
91688420|NCT01128179|183270013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0297||||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1492|0.0897||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Serum Phosphate at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Serum Phosphate as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter||0.0897|-0.1492|0.6134
91688421|NCT01128179|183270014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0294||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0739|0.1328||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Serum Total Calcium at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Serum Total Calcium as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||0.1328|-0.0739|0.5636
91688422|NCT01128179|183270015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0129||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2811|0.2553||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Calcium-Phosphate Product at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Calcium-Phosphate Product as a covariate.||0.2553|-0.2811|0.9220
91688423|NCT01682811|183270016|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||One-sample t-test comparing the absolute value to an alternate expected value of zero.||||0.0001
91688424|NCT01682811|183270019|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired comparisons between treated and placebo lesions within subject.||||0.24
91688425|NCT01682811|183270022|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91688426|NCT02694328|183270026|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.88||P-value was adjusted using the Cui, Hung, and Wang (CHW) method to account for the unblinded interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.|ANCOVA|Missing values at Week 24 were imputed using multiple imputation.||||-0.88|-3.88|0.003
91688427|NCT02694328|183270027|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-4.6||P-value was adjusted using the CHW method to account for the unblinded interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.|Regression, Logistic|Missing values at Week 24 were imputed using multiple imputation.|Risk difference (RD) of ALKS 3831 vs. Olanzapine|||-4.6|-22.8|0.003
91688428|NCT02694328|183270028|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-6.5|||Regression, Logistic|Missing values at Week 24 were imputed using multiple imputation.|Risk difference (RD) ALKS 3831 vs. Olanzapine|||-6.5|-25.3|0.001
91688429|NCT05411991|183270053|SUPERIORITY||Net treatment benefit|10.5||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|31.9|||General pairwaise comparison|||||31.9|-11.9|0.357
91688430|NCT04653454|183270064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<54 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.129
91688431|NCT04653454|183270064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<70 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91688432|NCT04653454|183270065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<54 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
91793979|NCT03101267|183466619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.07||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.21|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 183||0.21|-0.35|0.621
91688433|NCT04653454|183270065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<70 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91688434|NCT04653454|183270067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||Hyperglycemic Episodes \>180 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.076
91688435|NCT04653454|183270067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Hyperglycemic Episodes \>250 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
91688436|NCT04653454|183270068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Creatinine|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91688437|NCT04653454|183270068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||139GFR|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.0002
91688438|NCT04653454|183270068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Bicarbonate|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.22
91688439|NCT04653454|183270068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Hemoglobin|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.48
91688440|NCT04653454|183270068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||MAP|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.77
91688441|NCT04653454|183270068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0516||||||SpO2|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.0516
91688442|NCT05525520|183270079|EQUIVALENCE|two-sided equivalence test|Least square mean difference (LSMD)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609||0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.68|||MMRM|Treatment, type of cholestatic disease, week, and treatment-by-week interaction were fixed effects, and Baseline WI-NRS score was a covariate.|LSMD=EP547 minus placebo|||1.68|-0.77|0.4577
91688443|NCT05878093|183270097|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.15|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-1.15|-2.53|<0.0001
91688444|NCT05878093|183270098|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-0.54||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-0.12|-0.97|0.0126
91688445|NCT05878093|183270099|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-1.68||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.69|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-0.69|-2.67|0.0008
91688446|NCT05878093|183270100|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-0.62||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.17|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-0.17|-1.08|0.0072
91688447|NCT05878093|183270101|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-9.52||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|-2.24|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-2.24|-16.81|0.0104
91688448|NCT04479852|183270118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in MADRS score from baseline.|||0.5|-4.1|0.133
91688449|NCT04479852|183270119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in CGI-S score from baseline.|||0.0|-0.5|0.059
91688450|NCT04479852|183270120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in HAM-D score from baseline.|||0.4|-2.7|0.159
91688451|NCT04479852|183270121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in SDS score from baseline.|||0.5|-2.5|0.188
91688452|NCT04479852|183270122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in QIDS score from baseline.|||0.2|-2.0|0.091
91688453|NCT04479852|183270123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||A positive difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater increase in Q-LES-Q score from baseline.|||4.6|-1.2|0.243
91688454|NCT04479852|183270124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in MADRS score from baseline.|||-1.0|-6.8|.008
91688455|NCT04479852|183270125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in CGI-S score from baseline.|||-0.1|-0.8|0.006
91721133|NCT00303186|183334747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: tender joints and Month 60: tender joints.||11.10|6.10|<0.0001
91721134|NCT00303186|183334747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.92||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: tender joints and Month 60: tender joints.||3.07|-1.76|0.588
91794585|NCT03981822|183468099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4766||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.4766
91864716|NCT02361216|183618822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.32||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group, anatomical location stratum and pooled site as factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.32|0.24|<0.001
91688456|NCT04479852|183270126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in MADRS score from baseline.|||6.3|-0.8|0.134
91688457|NCT04479852|183270127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in CGI-S score from baseline.|||0.6|-0.3|0.437
91688458|NCT04100018|183270131|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.77|1.19||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.01|Log Rank|Stratification factor is visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.||||1.19|0.77|0.5901
91688459|NCT04100018|183270132|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|99.41|0.84|1.43||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.0059. Additional accuracy for p-value: 0.005866.|Log Rank||Stratification factor is visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||1.43|0.84|0.3572
91688460|NCT04100018|183270133|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.1|||||Strata adjusted difference in objective response rate based on DerSimonian and Laird method. Stratified by visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||12.1|-4.5|
91688461|NCT04100018|183270136|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.0|||||Strata adjusted difference in objective response rate based on DerSimonian and Laird method. Stratified by visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||7.0|-5.2|
91688462|NCT04100018|183270137|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16|||||Stratification factor is visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||1.16|0.86|
91688463|NCT03103087|183270192|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|56.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.45|66.49||P-value was stratified by baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL or ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.|||66.49|46.45|<0.0001
91688464|NCT03103087|183270193|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|47.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.04|56.56||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference was relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference is based on the normal approximation.||||56.56|38.04|<0.0001
91688465|NCT03103087|183270194|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.1|-54.3||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference was relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.|||-54.3|-84.1|<0.0001
91903775|NCT02022085|183702458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Spatial: Change from pre-op to 24 months||||<0.0001
91688466|NCT03103087|183270195|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|55.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.25|74.52||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||74.52|37.25|<0.0001
91688467|NCT03103087|183270196|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|29.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|44.38||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||44.38|15.6|<0.0001
91688468|NCT03103087|183270197|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03|=|0.2153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|5.8||LS Means based on analysis of covariance model including treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.8|-25.8|=0.2153
91688469|NCT03103087|183270198|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|=|0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-3.2||LS Means based on analysis of covariance model including treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-21.3|=0.0078
91903776|NCT02022085|183702458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Qualities: Change from pre-op to 24 months||||<0.0001
91688470|NCT03103087|183270199|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-25.5||Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-25.5|-41.2|<0.0001
91688471|NCT03103087|183270202|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.33|||Fisher Exact|||||0.33|0.07|<0.0001
91688472|NCT03103087|183270207|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
91688473|NCT03103087|183270208|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing difference between relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91688474|NCT03103087|183270209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91903777|NCT00823823|183702471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||The frequency of loss of reduction during the study period was compared across casting groups using a two-sided chi-square test with alpha = 0.05.||||1.00
91793980|NCT03101267|183466619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.03||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.25|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 183||0.25|-0.31|0.831
91793981|NCT03101267|183466620|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 127||0.35|-0.29|0.864
91793982|NCT03101267|183466620|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.11||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.43|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 127||0.43|-0.21|0.502
91793983|NCT03101267|183466620|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 155||0.40|-0.25|0.652
91688475|NCT03103087|183270210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
91688476|NCT03103087|183270211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91688477|NCT03103087|183270212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus Placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91793984|NCT03101267|183466620|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.08||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 155||0.41|-0.25|0.633
91793985|NCT03101267|183466620|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 183||0.35|-0.20|0.596
91688478|NCT03103087|183270213|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World). Lower limit of normal is Hgb \< 11.6 g/dL.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91688479|NCT03103087|183270214|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91793986|NCT03101267|183466620|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 183||0.34|-0.21|0.621
91793987|NCT03101267|183466621|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.21||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.65|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 127||0.65|-0.22|0.336
91793988|NCT03101267|183466621|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.36||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 127||0.80|-0.07|0.102
91793989|NCT03101267|183466621|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.11||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.56|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 155||0.56|-0.34|0.625
91793990|NCT03101267|183466621|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.33||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.78|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 155||0.78|-0.12|0.145
91793991|NCT03101267|183466621|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.19||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.59|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.59|-0.22|0.364
91793992|NCT03101267|183466621|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.35||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.76|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.76|-0.05|0.082
91793993|NCT03101267|183466622|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.35|-0.21|0.623
91793994|NCT03101267|183466622|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.15||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.43|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.43|-0.13|0.288
91793995|NCT03101267|183466622|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.30|-0.24|0.830
91793996|NCT03101267|183466622|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.17||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.44|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.44|-0.10|0.208
91688480|NCT03103087|183270215|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91688481|NCT03103087|183270216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91864717|NCT05683340|183618826|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.482||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.71|-16.85|||MMRM||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-16.85|-26.71|0.001
91688482|NCT03103087|183270217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91688483|NCT03103087|183270218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91688484|NCT03103087|183270219|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91688485|NCT03103087|183270220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91688486|NCT03103087|183270221|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91688487|NCT03103087|183270222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91688488|NCT03103087|183270224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91688489|NCT03103087|183270231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
91688490|NCT03283566|183270239|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a 20-30% difference in outcome (CP/G quotient) between study arms, which is equivalent to 0.08-0.12 CP/G difference and a 0.07 standard deviation, a sample size of 6 subjects (1:1 randomization) will detect a CP/G difference of at least 0.12, assuming 80% power, with a 0.05 significance level.||||||0.739|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.739
91688491|NCT01495000|183270244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|4.19|||ANCOVA|||||4.19|1.91|<0.0001
91688492|NCT00276484|183270274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-19.4|-13.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value||||-13.2|-19.4|<0.001
91688493|NCT00276484|183270275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.551||95.0|-1.1|2.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline HDL-C value||||2.1|-1.1|0.551
91688494|NCT00276484|183270276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-17.1|-11.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C value||||-11.6|-17.1|<0.001
91688495|NCT00276484|183270277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001||95.0|-12.0|-7.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C value||||-7.9|-12.0|<0.001
91688496|NCT00276484|183270278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-11.5|-3.1|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline triglycerides value.|The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic.|||-3.1|-11.5|<0.001
91688497|NCT00276484|183270279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001||95.0|-12.7|-7.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B value||||-7.6|-12.7|<0.001
91688498|NCT00276484|183270280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.313||95.0|-0.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo A-I value||||2.5|-0.8|0.313
91688499|NCT00276484|183270281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|-12.6|-8.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C:HDL-C value||||-8.2|-12.6|<0.001
91688500|NCT00276484|183270282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-19.9|-13.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C:HDL-C value||||-13.1|-19.9|<0.001
91688501|NCT00276484|183270283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-13.8|-8.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B:Apo A-I value||||-8.2|-13.8|<0.001
91688502|NCT00276484|183270284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-17.7|-11.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C value||||-11.3|-17.7|<0.001
91688503|NCT00276484|183270285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.174||95.0|-17.1|3.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.|Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means.|||3.4|-17.1|0.174
91688504|NCT00276484|183270286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.37|||<|0.001||95.0|5.45|12.84|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value||||12.84|5.45|<0.001
91688505|NCT01608100|183270291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9048|0.9604||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||0.9604|0.9048|
91864718|NCT02056834|183618869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the percent change from baseline within each treatment group.||||0.0166
91688506|NCT01608100|183270291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9431|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9081|0.9782||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||0.9782|0.9081|
91864719|NCT02056834|183618870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the percent change from baseline within each treatment group.||||0.3785
91688507|NCT01608100|183270291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9419|0.9857||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||0.9857|0.9419|
91721135|NCT00303186|183334751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.29||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||3.82|-1.30|0.330
91688508|NCT01608100|183270291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8914|0.948||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||0.9480|0.8914|
91721136|NCT00303186|183334751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.28||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.37|16.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||16.26|-33.37|0.449
91721137|NCT00303186|183334751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.17||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.04|7.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||7.04|-37.04|0.165
91721138|NCT00303186|183334752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.44|35.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||35.91|26.44|<0.0001
91721139|NCT00303186|183334752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.42|35.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||35.10|22.42|<0.0001
91721140|NCT00303186|183334752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.6||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||4.60|-8.70|0.538
91721141|NCT00303186|183334753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.04|37.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||37.63|30.04|<0.0001
91688509|NCT01608100|183270291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9349|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8986|0.9712||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||0.9712|0.8986|
91721142|NCT00303186|183334753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.96|44.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||44.12|31.96|<0.0001
91721143|NCT00303186|183334753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.59||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|7.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||7.38|-2.62|0.343
91793997|NCT03101267|183466622|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.06||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.31|-0.19|0.616
91903778|NCT03334409|183702473|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91721144|NCT00303186|183334754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.88|36.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||36.49|25.88|<0.0001
91721145|NCT00303186|183334754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.52|36.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||36.09|21.52|<0.0001
91721146|NCT00303186|183334754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.77||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||3.07|-9.74|0.301
91721147|NCT00303186|183334755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|123.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|50.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||50.40|2.01|<0.0001
91793998|NCT03101267|183466622|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.41|-0.09|0.207
91864720|NCT02056834|183618871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the change from baseline within treatment group.||||<0.0001
91688510|NCT01608100|183270291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|0.9805||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||0.9805|0.9190|
91688511|NCT01608100|183270291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9102|0.9722||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||0.9722|0.9102|
91688512|NCT01608100|183270291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9419|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9041|0.9796||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||0.9796|0.9041|
91688513|NCT01608100|183270291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9046|0.9852||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||0.9852|0.9046|
91688514|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|7.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0004
91688515|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|2.31||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0004
91721148|NCT00303186|183334755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.81|18.57|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||18.57|7.81|<0.0001
91721149|NCT00303186|183334755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.07||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.77|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||1.77|-6.40|0.132
91721150|NCT00303186|183334756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|150.1|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|46.04|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||46.04|-13.52|<0.0005
91721151|NCT00303186|183334756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|100.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.33|83.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||83.29|22.33|<0.0001
91864721|NCT02056834|183618872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the change from baseline within treatment group.||||<0.0001
91721152|NCT00303186|183334756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|147.25||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|77.64|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||77.64|-10.84|0.034
91721153|NCT00303186|183334758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||0.62|0.35|<0.0001
91721154|NCT00303186|183334758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||0.56|0.26|<0.0001
91721155|NCT00303186|183334758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.14|-0.24|0.600
91721156|NCT00303186|183334759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||0.30|0.18|<0.0001
91721157|NCT00303186|183334759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||-0.12|-0.31|<0.0001
91721158|NCT00303186|183334759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.06|-0.08|0.789
91721159|NCT00303186|183334760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.59|24.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||24.22|14.59|<0.0001
91721160|NCT00303186|183334760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.08||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.77|-6.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||-6.59|-18.77|0.0001
91688516|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.09||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|5.95||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||5.95|1.59|0.0011
91688517|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|12.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91688518|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91688519|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|6.05||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.05|2.21|<0.0001
91688520|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|7.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91688521|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91721161|NCT00303186|183334760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.22||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|10.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||10.92|-1.21|0.115
91721162|NCT00303186|183334761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-4.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: physical component score and Month 12: physical component score.||-4.47|-10.34|<0.0001
91721163|NCT00303186|183334761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-3.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: physical component score and Month 60: physical component score.||-3.32|-8.56|<0.0001
91721164|NCT00303186|183334761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.83||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|3.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: physical component score and Month 60: physical component score.||3.68|-1.19|0.308
91794586|NCT03981822|183468099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1588||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1588
91688522|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.87||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.87|1.84|0.0002
91688523|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|12.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91688524|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91688525|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|6.05||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.05|2.25|<0.0001
91688526|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|6.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0020
91688527|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|2.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0020
91688528|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.95||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|6.05||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.05|1.41|0.0050
91721165|NCT00303186|183334761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.51||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: mental component score and Month 12: mental component score.||1.80|-3.14|0.589
91721166|NCT00303186|183334761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-2.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: mental component score and Month 60: mental component score.||-2.06|-9.12|0.003
91793999|NCT03101267|183466623|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.15||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.35|-0.06|0.157
91794000|NCT03101267|183466623|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.41|0.01|0.039
91794001|NCT03101267|183466623|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.08||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.30|-0.14|0.459
91794002|NCT03101267|183466623|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.38|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.38|-0.06|0.153
91794003|NCT03101267|183466623|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.12||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.31|-0.06|0.195
91794004|NCT03101267|183466623|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.38|0.01|0.038
91863705|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.556||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|5.732|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.732|-0.620|0.1141
91864722|NCT03687762|183618919|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91688529|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|12.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91688530|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|3.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91688531|NCT01608100|183270292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|6.03||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.03|2.08|<0.0001
91688532|NCT01608100|183270293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|84.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.28|91.23||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||91.23|75.28|
91794005|NCT03101267|183466624|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.37||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.29|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.29|-0.56|0.433
91794006|NCT03101267|183466624|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.33||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.24|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.24|-0.59|0.479
91794007|NCT03101267|183466624|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.22||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.14|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.14|-0.71|0.648
91794008|NCT03101267|183466624|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.21||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.14|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.14|-0.72|0.654
91903779|NCT03334409|183702474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
91688533|NCT01608100|183270293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|92.21|||||TWO_SIDED|83.81|83.81|97.09||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||97.09|83.81|
91688534|NCT01608100|183270293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|93.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.34|97.99||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||97.99|86.34|
91688535|NCT01608100|183270293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|85.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.51|91.7||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||91.70|76.51|
91688536|NCT01608100|183270293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|91.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.95|96.66||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||96.66|83.95|
91688537|NCT01608100|183270293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|94.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.61|98.34||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||98.34|88.61|
91688538|NCT01608100|183270293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|87.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.3|94.04||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||94.04|77.30|
91688539|NCT01608100|183270293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.4|97.01||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||97.01|83.40|
91794009|NCT03101267|183466624|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.27||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.09|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.09|-0.55|0.514
91794010|NCT03101267|183466624|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.35||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.17|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.17|-0.47|0.400
91794011|NCT03101267|183466625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.39||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.54||The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.|MMRM|||6TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.54|-0.76|0.505
91688540|NCT01608100|183270293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|93.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.74|97.74||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||97.74|84.74|
91688541|NCT01608100|183270294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|85.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.18|88.03||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||88.03|83.18|
91721167|NCT00303186|183334761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|-2.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: mental component score and Month 60: mental component score.||-2.18|-9.23|0.002
91721168|NCT02326883|183334762|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.33||A priori two-sided comparison of Care Management condition to Usual Care|Log Rank|A priori Bonferonni-corrected threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|To clarify direction of comparison: relative hazard of suicide attempt among participants assigned to Care Management was 1.07 (95% CI 0.86 - 1.33) higher compared to participants assigned to Usual Care|Comparison of participants assigned to Care Management intervention to those assigned to continued Usual Care||1.33|0.86|0.61
91721169|NCT02326883|183334762|SUPERIORITY|A priori two-sided comparison of Skills Training to usual care.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.59||A priori Bonferonni-corrected threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Log Rank||To clarify direction of comparison: relative hazard of suicide attempt in participants assigned to Skills Training was 1.29 (95% CI 1.05-1.59) times higher than in those assigned to Usual Care|Comparison of Skills Training to Usual Care||1.59|1.05|0.02
91721170|NCT00284856|183334770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.92||||||95.0|0.28|11.56|||||Estimated Value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - placebo)|||11.56|0.28|
91721171|NCT00284856|183334770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.14||||||95.0|4.5|15.78|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (fluticasone - placebo)|||15.78|4.50|
91721172|NCT00284856|183334770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.22||||||95.0|-9.83|1.38|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - fluticasone)|||1.38|-9.83|
91721173|NCT00284856|183334771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15||||||95.0|-0.25|-0.05|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - placebo)|||-0.05|-0.25|
91721174|NCT00284856|183334771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||||95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (fluticasone - placebo)|||-0.10|-0.30|
91688542|NCT01608100|183270294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.66|87.5||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||87.50|82.66|
91721175|NCT00284856|183334771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05||||||95.0|-0.05|0.15|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - fluticasone)|||0.15|-0.05|
91721176|NCT00284856|183334772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.09||||||95.0|-1.27|11.45|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - placebo)|||11.45|-1.27|
91721177|NCT00284856|183334772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.21||||||95.0|4.85|17.58|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (fluticasone - placebo)|||17.58|4.85|
91721178|NCT00284856|183334772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.13||||||95.0|-12.46|0.2|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - fluticasone)|||0.20|-12.46|
91721179|NCT00790036|183334783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22||P-value was obtained from the one-sided unstratified log rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.22|0.69|0.276
91903780|NCT03334409|183702475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
91688543|NCT01608100|183270294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|82.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.99|85.4||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||85.40|79.99|
91721180|NCT00790036|183334784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09||There was no formal testing of the OS between treatment since the primary endpoint was not statistically significant.||||||1.09|0.52|
91721181|NCT00790036|183334785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.07||||||||1.07|0.41|
91721182|NCT02921256|183334830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
91721183|NCT02921256|183334830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
91721184|NCT00315341|183334888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||shift table analyses|||categorized changes in ALT/AST from BL:(1)BL transaminases(both ALT/AST)≤2X upper limit of normal(ULN)\& remained at this level;(2)BL transaminases ≤2X ULN(either ALT/AST)but increased(either ALT/AST)above this level at any time;(3)BL transaminases \>2X ULN(either ALT/AST)\& decreased and remained at ≤2X ULN(both ALT/AST);(4)BL transaminases(both ALT/AST)\>2X ULN \&remained at this level(both ALT/AST);(5)BL transaminases \>2X ULN(either ALT/AST)\& increased 2X above this level ever(either ALT/AST).||||< 0.05
91721185|NCT00090103|183334905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.8||||0.18||95.0|0.58|1.11||Log-rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.58|0.18
91721186|NCT00090103|183334905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|0.26|0.45||Log-rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||0.45|0.26|<0.001
91903781|NCT03334409|183702476|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91903782|NCT03334409|183702477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.18
91903783|NCT03334409|183702478|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91903784|NCT00718549|183702486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.028
91688544|NCT01608100|183270294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|83.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.12|86.17||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||86.17|81.12|
91688545|NCT01608100|183270294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|83.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.09|86.11||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||86.11|81.09|
91688546|NCT01608100|183270294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|80.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.82|83.39||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||83.39|77.82|
91688547|NCT01608100|183270294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|86.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.79|88.63||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||88.63|83.79|
91688548|NCT01608100|183270294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|85.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.31|88.07||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||88.07|83.31|
91688549|NCT01608100|183270294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|84.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.31|86.54||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||86.54|81.31|
91688550|NCT01608100|183270295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.82|98.95||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||98.95|96.82|
91688551|NCT01608100|183270295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.25|99.7||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||99.70|98.25|
91688552|NCT01608100|183270295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.22|99.75||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||99.75|98.22|
91688553|NCT01608100|183270295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|98.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.81|98.95||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||98.95|96.81|
91688554|NCT01608100|183270295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.05|99.62||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||99.62|98.05|
91721187|NCT00090103|183334907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||Log rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||||0.18
91721188|NCT00090103|183334907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Log rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91721189|NCT00090103|183334909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.65|||<|0.001||95.0|0.52|0.8|||Log Rank|Log-rank test with stratification by cluster.||||0.80|0.52|<0.001
91688555|NCT01608100|183270295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.22|99.75||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||99.75|98.22|
91721190|NCT00090103|183334909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.59|||<|0.001||95.0|0.48|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.48|<0.001
91721191|NCT00090103|183334910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.65
91721192|NCT00090103|183334910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Hanenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.10
91721193|NCT00090103|183334911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.95
91688556|NCT01608100|183270295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|98.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.61|99.42||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||99.42|97.61|
91721194|NCT00090103|183334911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.24
91721195|NCT00320086|183334938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA||||<0.05
91721196|NCT01080261|183334950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study had 91% statistical power to demonstrate that the 9-month rate for MACE (accounting for an expected 9-month attrition rate of 10%) is less than the performance goal, assuming a 9-month MACE rate of 8.2%.|Percent of patients experiencing a MACE|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.9|||One-group exact binomial test|||A one-group exact binomial test was used to test the hypothesis that the percentage of patients experiencing a MACE event (primary endpoint) in the PROMUS Element cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 24.1% (based on historical outcomes with plain balloon angioplasty \[20.2%\] plus an adjustment of 3.9% for small vessels).||4.9||<0.0001
91721197|NCT00055237|183334974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion estimate,binomial exact 95%CI|31.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|58.7|||sample estimate with 95% CI||As stated in the Outcome statistical Analysis 1. Section, the confidence interval was calculated using binomial exact statistics. The standard deviation is based on that calculation.|||58.7|11|
91721198|NCT01134042|183334976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.193|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.277|||ANCOVA|||||0.277|0.108|<0.001
91721199|NCT01134042|183334976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.294|||ANCOVA|||||0.294|0.127|<0.001
91688557|NCT01608100|183270295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.27|99.71||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||99.71|98.27|
91688558|NCT01608100|183270295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.26|99.76||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||99.76|98.26|
91688559|NCT01608100|183270296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|38.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.92|45.98||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||45.98|31.92|
91688560|NCT01608100|183270296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.03|42.76||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||42.76|29.03|
91688561|NCT01608100|183270296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|36.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.99|43.38||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||43.38|29.99|
91688562|NCT01608100|183270296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|36.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.43|43.56||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||43.56|30.43|
91688563|NCT01608100|183270296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.43|42.45||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||42.45|29.43|
91688564|NCT01608100|183270296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|37.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.71|44.09||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||44.09|31.71|
91688565|NCT01608100|183270296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|43.47||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||43.47|28.70|
91688566|NCT01608100|183270296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.16|43.16||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||43.16|29.16|
91688567|NCT01608100|183270296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.36|42.21||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||42.21|28.36|
91721200|NCT01134042|183334976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI: 0.025, 1-sided significance level) for the mean difference in change from Baseline in clinic visit trough FEV1 of FF 200 µg OD versus FP 500 µg BID was greater than -125 milliliters.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.102||||||||0.102|-0.066|
91721201|NCT01134042|183334977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.270|0.001|0.048
91721202|NCT01134042|183334977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.206||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.339|||ANCOVA|||||0.339|0.073|0.003
91721203|NCT03345004|183334987|SUPERIORITY||Estimated ratio|1.091|||=|0.5009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.408|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.408|0.845|= 0.5009
91721204|NCT03345004|183334987|SUPERIORITY||Estimated ratio|1.557|||=|0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|2.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.153|1.126|= 0.0078
91721205|NCT00984867|183335018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.34||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives, based on data from both strata combined|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-0.34|-0.62|<0.0001
91903785|NCT00718549|183702486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.033||95.0|0.187|0.933|||Cox's proportional hazards regression|||Univariate comparison||0.933|0.187|0.033
91688568|NCT00116779|183270304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|86.0||||||95.0|73.0|94.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||94|73|
91688569|NCT00116779|183270304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|77.0||||||95.0|64.0|88.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||88|64|
91688570|NCT00116779|183270305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|90.0||||||95.0|79.0|96.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||96|79|
91688571|NCT00116779|183270305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|89.0||||||95.0|78.0|95.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||95|78|
91688572|NCT00116779|183270305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8413||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8413
91688573|NCT00116779|183270306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|93.0||||||95.0|82.0|99.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|82|
91688574|NCT00116779|183270306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|98.0||||||95.0|87.0|100.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|87|
91688575|NCT00116779|183270307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to 50% reduction||||.904
91688576|NCT00116779|183270307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Days to 90% reduction||||.778
91688577|NCT01690117|183270317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|11.12||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||11.12|3.82|<0.001
91688578|NCT01690117|183270318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.86|1.00|<0.05
91688579|NCT01690117|183270319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.97||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.97|1.01|<0.01
91688580|NCT01690117|183270320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|3.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.45|-0.05|0.06
91688581|NCT01690117|183270321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.07|-0.65|0.30
91688582|NCT01690117|183270322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.59||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.59|-0.66|0.24
91688583|NCT01690117|183270323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.62|-2.50|<0.05
91688584|NCT01690117|183270324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.25||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.25|-2.63|0.88
91688585|NCT01690117|183270325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|-1.11||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.11|-8.74|<0.05
91688586|NCT01690117|183270326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|-3.66||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.66|-13.31|<0.001
91688587|NCT01690117|183270327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|0.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.04|-7.86|0.05
91688588|NCT01690117|183270328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|4.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.45|-3.96|0.91
91688589|NCT01690117|183270329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|5.81||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.81|-0.01|0.05
91688590|NCT01690117|183270330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|8.33||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.33|0.68|<0.05
91688591|NCT01690117|183270331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.65||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.65|-8.40|<0.01
91688592|NCT01690117|183270332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|10.83||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||10.83|4.78|<0.01
91688593|NCT02321111|183270342|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91688594|NCT01400477|183270349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||A priori vape was \<0.05|ANOVA|df 1, 37||||||0.89
91688595|NCT04620746|183270390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.98
91688596|NCT04620746|183270391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
91688597|NCT02777372|183270401|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Regression, Linear|||Effect of group on differences in ASR t scores from follicular to luteal.||||0.139
91688598|NCT02777372|183270402|OTHER|||||||0.843||||||Effect of group on ASR t score in the first luteal phase (no medication) to the second luteal phase (sertraline).|Regression, Linear|||||||0.843
91688599|NCT02777372|183270403|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91688600|NCT05767905|183270405|OTHER||ratio|108.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.55|117.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means"||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment.||117.05|100.55|
91688601|NCT05767905|183270405|OTHER||ratio|106.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.39|114.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||114.54|98.39|
91688602|NCT05767905|183270405|OTHER||ratio|228.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|178.67|293.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed High-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||293.48|178.67|
91688603|NCT05767905|183270405|OTHER||ratio|207.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.41|261.09||||||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed Low-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||261.09|164.41|
91688604|NCT05767905|183270405|OTHER||ratio|102.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.55|109.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment, and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment||109.30|95.55|
91688605|NCT05767905|183270406|OTHER||ratio|145.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.29|174.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||174.53|121.29|
91688606|NCT05767905|183270406|OTHER||ratio|122.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.24|147.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||147.12|102.24|
91688607|NCT05767905|183270406|OTHER||ratio|284.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|226.39|358.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed Low-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||358.06|226.39|
91688608|NCT05767905|183270406|OTHER||ratio|327.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|256.9|418.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed High-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||418.44|256.90|
91688609|NCT05767905|183270406|OTHER||ratio|118.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.36|146.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment, and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment.||146.06|96.36|
91688610|NCT05807828|183270410|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median difference between the cup angle of the Control Group for Cup Training and the cup angle of VR Group for Cup Training.||||<0.05
91688611|NCT05807828|183270410|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|291.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median difference between the stem angle of the Control Group for Stem Training and the stem angle of VR Group for Stem Training.||||<0.05
91688612|NCT05807828|183270411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|106.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Each medical student carried out an implantation following VR training and without VR training. Therefore, there was a deviation (mean difference) between the predefined target and the implanted inclination for the cup or the stem version for the same medical student with VR training.||||<0.05
91688613|NCT05807828|183270411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|89.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|133.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Each medical student carried out an implantation following VR training and without VR training. Therefore, there was a deviation (mean difference) between the predefined target and the implanted inclination for the cup or the stem version for the same medical student without VR training (control).||||<0.05
91688614|NCT05807828|183270412|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median difference between the time needed for cup implantation for Control cup group and the time needed for cup implantation for VR cup group||||<0.05
91688615|NCT05807828|183270412|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median difference between the time needed for stem implantation for Control stem group and the time needed for stem implantation for VR stem group||||<0.05
91688616|NCT02635984|183270447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||Based on an 80 % power and an alpha of 0.05, we estimated a need for 49 patients in each treatment arm. From a review of existing literature, the sample size was based on an estimated CR achieved in 65 % of patients on triplet therapy alone and a hypothesized clinically relevant increase of 25 % for the treatment group to 90 %.||||0.003
91688617|NCT02635984|183270448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91688618|NCT02635984|183270449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
91688619|NCT02635984|183270450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91688620|NCT02635984|183270451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91688621|NCT02635984|183270452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91688622|NCT02635984|183270453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
91688623|NCT02635984|183270454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91863706|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.536||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.367|8.705|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.705|2.367|0.0007
91863707|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.629|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|9.577|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||9.577|3.680|<.0001
91864723|NCT03687762|183618920|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91864724|NCT03687762|183618921|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91688624|NCT03135015|183270455|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-14.09||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.1146
91688625|NCT03135015|183270455|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-17.42||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.0519
91688626|NCT03135015|183270455|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-8.95|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||
91688627|NCT03135015|183270456|OTHER|||||||0.1146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons||||0.1146
91688628|NCT03135015|183270456|OTHER|||||||0.0519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons||||0.0519
91688629|NCT03135015|183270457|OTHER|||||||0.5827|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5827
91864725|NCT03687762|183618922|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91864726|NCT03687762|183618923|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91864727|NCT03687762|183618924|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91864728|NCT03687762|183618925|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91688630|NCT03135015|183270457|OTHER|||||||0.5485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5485
91794012|NCT03101267|183466625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.44||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.58|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.58|-0.71|0.451
91721206|NCT00984867|183335019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2466|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.4||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-1.40|-2.37|<0.0001
91688631|NCT03135015|183270458|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-8.53||||0.5827|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5827
91688632|NCT03135015|183270458|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|9.32||||0.5485|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5485
91688633|NCT03135015|183270459|OTHER|||||||0.1234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1234
91688634|NCT03135015|183270459|OTHER|||||||0.0331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0331
91688635|NCT03135015|183270460|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0500
91688636|NCT03135015|183270460|OTHER|||||||0.0568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0568
91688637|NCT03135015|183270461|OTHER|||||||0.0509|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0509
91688638|NCT03135015|183270461|OTHER|||||||0.5016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5016
91688639|NCT03135015|183270462|OTHER|||||||0.8444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8444
91721207|NCT00984867|183335020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1106|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.62||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-0.62|-1.05|<0.0001
91688640|NCT03135015|183270462|OTHER|||||||0.9681|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9681
91688641|NCT03135015|183270462|OTHER|||||||0.1022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1022
91688642|NCT03135015|183270462|OTHER|||||||0.3738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.3738
91688643|NCT03135015|183270462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91688644|NCT03135015|183270462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.387|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91688645|NCT03135015|183270462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.463|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91688646|NCT03135015|183270462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.282|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91688647|NCT03135015|183270463|OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0111
91688648|NCT03135015|183270463|OTHER|||||||0.1684|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1684
91688649|NCT03135015|183270463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.722|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91688650|NCT03135015|183270463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.489|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91688651|NCT03135015|183270463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.664|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91688652|NCT03135015|183270463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.813|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91688653|NCT03135015|183270464|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-21.09||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0374
91688654|NCT03135015|183270465|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-24.22||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0098
91688655|NCT03135015|183270465|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-25.02||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0391
91688656|NCT03135015|183270466|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-36.28||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0034
91688657|NCT03135015|183270466|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-33.21||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0058
91688658|NCT03135015|183270466|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-53.27||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0016
91688659|NCT03135015|183270466|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-46.19||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0125
91688660|NCT03135015|183270467|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-31.36||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0788
91688661|NCT03135015|183270467|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-30.32||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0887
91864729|NCT03687762|183618926|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91688662|NCT03135015|183270467|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-39.96||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0266
91721208|NCT00984867|183335021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.45|-21.4||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-21.40|-34.45|<0.0001
91688663|NCT03135015|183270467|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-41.8||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0455
91688664|NCT03135015|183270468|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-41.82||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0261
91688665|NCT03135015|183270468|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-36.45||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0391
91688666|NCT03135015|183270468|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-82.11||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0372
91688667|NCT03135015|183270468|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-55.81||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.1631
91688668|NCT03135015|183270469|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-46.43||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in insulin will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0303
91688669|NCT03135015|183270469|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-19.64||||0.4283|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in insulin will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.4283
91688670|NCT01197911|183270530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9293|1.4182||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.4182|0.9293|
91688671|NCT01197911|183270530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.5518|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2468|1.9314||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One Participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.9314|1.2468|
91688672|NCT01197911|183270532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.9477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7908|1.1356||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.1356|0.7908|
91688673|NCT01197911|183270532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.0782|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8941|1.3002||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One Participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.3002|0.8941|
91688674|NCT01197911|183270546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.2323|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9618|1.5789||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.5789|0.9618|
91688675|NCT01197911|183270546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.5587|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2165|1.9971||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.9971|1.2165|
91688676|NCT01197911|183270547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.0027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8049|1.2492||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.2492|0.8049|
91794013|NCT03101267|183466625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.29||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.46|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.46|-0.88|0.623
91864730|NCT03687762|183618927|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce a greater proportion of people decreasing their dose relative to those increasing their dose during treatment.|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91864731|NCT03687762|183618928|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91794014|NCT03101267|183466625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.29||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.46|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.46|-0.87|0.620
91688677|NCT01197911|183270547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GeometricLeast-Squares Mean Ratio|1.2254|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9836|1.5266||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.5266|0.9836|
91688678|NCT03737357|183270558|NON_INFERIORITY|The tolerance range or non-inferiority margin characterizes the largest absolute difference which is considered to be dismissible. A MBL of less than 0.5mm within the first year after implant loading constitutes an acceptable clinical standard(10, 18, 19). In this clinical trial, a non-inferiority margin of 20% of the acceptable clinical standard was chosen, which amounts to 0.1mm.|paired difference|0.01||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Non-inferiority one-sided paired t-tests using a non-inferiority margin of -0.10mm.|The paired difference is (SLActive® bone level change from baseline (CFB) - SLA® CFB (i.e. resorption))||In the PP population, the paired difference between SLActive® and SLA® bone level change from baseline (CFB) was estimated at 0.01 mm with a standard deviation of 0.444 mm (95% CI: -Inf, 0.11; p = 0.074), based on a one-sided paired t-test with a non-inferiority margin of 0.10 mm.|||0.074
91688679|NCT01526057|183270563|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 extrapolated to infinite time (AUC 0-inf) are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|105.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.91|115.21|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||115.21|96.91|
91688680|NCT01526057|183270563|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC 0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|106.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|116.41|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||116.41|97.65|
91688681|NCT01526057|183270563|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC 0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.38|110.2|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||110.20|92.38|
91688682|NCT01526057|183270564|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|104.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.75|117.06||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||117.06|92.75|
91688683|NCT01526057|183270564|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|100.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.2|113.11||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||113.11|89.20|
91688684|NCT01526057|183270564|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.57|108.6||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||108.60|85.57|
91688685|NCT01526057|183270565|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|103.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|113.12|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||113.12|95.10|
91688686|NCT01526057|183270565|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|105.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.64|115.3|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||115.30|96.64|
91688687|NCT01526057|183270565|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|101.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.13|111.18|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data.||111.18|93.13|
91688688|NCT01526057|183270566|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|103.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.81|115.12||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||115.12|92.81|
91864732|NCT03687762|183618929|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91903786|NCT00718549|183702486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.052||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|1.972|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison||1.972|0.001|0.111
91688689|NCT01526057|183270566|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|101.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.82|113.04||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||113.04|90.82|
91688690|NCT01526057|183270566|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|98.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.83|109.4||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||109.40|87.83|
91688691|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.78|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||1.78|0.31|
91688692|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.88|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.88|0.60|
91688693|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.73|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.73|0.66|
91688694|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.56|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.56|0.73|
91688695|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.62|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.62|0.68|
91688696|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.69|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||1.69|0.66|
91688697|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||2.00|0.70|
91688698|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.73|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||1.73|0.28|
91688699|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.54|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.54|0.43|
91721209|NCT00984867|183335022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4659||0.5583||95.0|-3.75|2.03||Not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||2.03|-3.75|0.5583
91721210|NCT00984867|183335023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.516|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.73|-7.9||Not significant. Hierarchical testing procedure stopped at previous endpoint|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-7.90|-21.73|
91794015|NCT03101267|183466625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.35||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.37|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.37|-0.68|0.504
91688700|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.42|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.42|0.49|
91688701|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.22|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.22|0.50|
91688702|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.44|0.57|
91688703|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.1|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||2.10|0.88|
91688704|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.18|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||2.18|0.78|
91688705|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.45|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 3.||2.45|0.36|
91688706|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.44|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 5.||1.44|0.41|
91688707|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.31|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 9.||1.31|0.47|
91688708|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.13|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 13.||1.13|0.48|
91688709|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.36|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 17.||1.36|0.55|
91688710|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 21.||1.95|0.85|
91688711|NCT01526057|183270585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.73|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 25 (EOT).||1.73|0.70|
91688712|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.79|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||1.79|0.12|
91688713|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.26|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.26|0.20|
91688714|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.41|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.41|0.43|
91688715|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.74|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.74|0.61|
91688716|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.74|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.74|0.56|
91688717|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.36|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||1.36|0.34|
91688718|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.63|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||1.63|0.46|
91688719|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.6|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||2.60|0.27|
91688720|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.62|0.31|
91688721|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.4|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.40|0.41|
91903787|NCT00718549|183702487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.654||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|28.337|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 129: Univariate Comparison||28.337|0.674|0.155
91688722|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.57|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.57|0.51|
91688723|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.68|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.68|0.51|
91688724|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.19|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||2.19|0.68|
91721211|NCT00984867|183335024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|26.4||Not significant. Hierarchical testing procedure stopped at previous endpoint|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value and stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0.||26.4|11.1|
91688725|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.62|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||1.62|0.44|
91688726|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|7.2|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 3.||7.20|0.44|
91903788|NCT00718549|183702488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.625||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|4.114|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 129: Univariate comparison||4.114|0.073|0.634
91688727|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.86|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 5.||3.86|0.52|
91688728|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.87|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 9.||1.87|0.51|
91688729|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 13.||1.50|0.50|
91688730|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.69|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 17.||1.69|0.52|
91688731|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.5|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 21.||3.50|0.93|
91688732|NCT01526057|183270586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.89|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 25 (EOT).||1.89|0.51|
91688733|NCT03649347|183270624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Interaction effect: p\<.001, np2=.720|ANOVA|Main effect of time: p\<.001, np2=.798; main effect of group: p\<.001, np2=.711||A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess main effects of group (AR therapy intervention versus no treatment control), time (baseline, one week follow up, and one month follow up) as well as an interaction effect. The P-Value shown below is for the interaction effect. Post-hoc power analysis indicated actual power 99%, critical F=4.76.||||<.001
91688734|NCT03649347|183270625|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Interaction effect: p\<.001, np2=.542|ANOVA|Main effect of time: p\<.001, np2=.598; and main effect of group: p\<.001, np2=.439||A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess main effects of group (AR therapy intervention versus no treatment control), time (baseline, one week follow up, and one month follow up) as well as an interaction effect. The P-Value shown below is for the interaction effect. Post-hoc power analysis indicated actual power 96%, critical F=4.76.||||<.001
91688735|NCT03649347|183270627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||Interaction effect: p\<.005, np2=.481|ANOVA|Main effect of time: p\<.001, np2=.572; and main effect of group p\<.001, np2=.626||A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess main effects of group (AR therapy intervention versus no treatment control), time (baseline, one week follow up, and one month follow up) as well as an interaction effect. The P-Value shown below is for the interaction effect. Post-hoc power analysis indicated actual power 99%, critical F=3.49.||||<.005
91688736|NCT03493685|183270638|OTHER||Slope difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.41|-1.74|0.7491
91688737|NCT03493685|183270639|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.0||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|28.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.04|3.96|0.0094
91688738|NCT03493685|183270640|OTHER||Slope difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.04|-1.27|0.4203
91688739|NCT03493685|183270641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|4.93|||ANCOVA|||||4.93|-1.39|0.2708
91903789|NCT00718549|183702489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.769||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|3.92|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||3.920|0.151|0.752
91903790|NCT00718549|183702489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.068||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|2.158|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||2.158|0.002|0.128
91688740|NCT02218463|183270644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessment of complete resolution between the 2 study arms.||||0.206
91688741|NCT02218463|183270645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Time Effect||||0.0001
91688742|NCT02218463|183270645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Treatment Effect||||0.370
91688743|NCT02218463|183270645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||ANOVA|||Treatment by time interaction||||0.425
91688744|NCT03511105|183270716|OTHER||Absolute Difference|-30.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.662|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.07|65.51|||||Absolute difference (GSK2798745 - Placebo) and 95% CrI has been presented.|||65.51|-127.07|
91688745|NCT03511105|183270716|OTHER||Percentage change|8.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.453|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.41|31.3|||||Percentage change on GSK2798745 relative to placebo has been presented.|||31.30|-21.41|
91688746|NCT03511105|183270717|OTHER||Absolute Difference|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.679|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.49|22.87|||||Absolute difference (GSK2798745 - Placebo) and 95% CrI have been presented.|||22.87|-31.49|
91688747|NCT03511105|183270717|OTHER||Percentage change|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.837|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|41.64|||||Percentage change on GSK2798745 relative to placebo has been presented.|||41.64|-48.20|
91688748|NCT03511105|183270718|OTHER||Absolute Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|6.2|||||Absolute difference (GSK2798745 - Placebo) and 95% CrI have been presented.|||6.20|-6.28|
91688749|NCT03511105|183270718|OTHER||Percentage change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|10.16|||||Percentage change on GSK2798745 relative to placebo has been presented.|||10.16|-11.15|
91688750|NCT02810457|183270742|EQUIVALENCE|A 90% CI for the ORR ratio between FKB238 and Avastin was estimated and compared to the margin (0.73 to 1.38), which was deemed to represent a clinically acceptable difference with respect to ORR. If the 90% CI was within the equivalence margin (0.73 to 1.38), an equivalence between FKB238 and Avastin, with respect to the ORR, was confirmed.|Ratio in ORR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.08||||||||1.08|0.86|
91688751|NCT02810457|183270743|OTHER|Ratio in ORR analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Ratio in ORR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.06||||||Comparison between groups: Risk ratio in ORR at Week 19 by BICR.||1.06|0.83|
91794016|NCT03101267|183466625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.42||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.45|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.45|-0.60|0.414
91688752|NCT02810457|183270744|OTHER|Hazard ratio analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||||Treatment hazard ratio \<1 favors FKB238.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age) with ties handled by the Efron method.||1.16|0.82|
91688753|NCT02810457|183270745|OTHER|Hazard ratio analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.45|||||Treatment hazard ratio \<1 favors FKB238.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, ECOG performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age) with ties handled by the Efron method.||1.45|0.96|
91688754|NCT02810457|183270746|OTHER|Hazard ratio analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||||Treatment hazard ratio \<1 favors FKB238.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, ECOG performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age) with ties handled by the Efron method.||1.23|0.74|
91688755|NCT02810457|183270747|OTHER|Comparison between arms: Odds ratio.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58|||||Odds ratio \>1 favors FKB238.|The DCR was compared between treatment arms using logistic regression adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, ECOG performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age).||1.58|0.64|
91688756|NCT02750618|183270782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19|||GEE model|||||1.19|0.73|< 0.0001
91688757|NCT02750618|183270784|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|2.35|||GEE model|||||2.35|2.07|< 0.0001
91688758|NCT02750618|183270785|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.45|||GEE model|||The GEE model includes the RGI-C score as the dependent variable, visit as a factor, age and RSS at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure. The least squares (LS) mean, standard error (SE), 95% confidence interval (CI) and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.||2.45|2.01|< 0.0001
91688759|NCT02750618|183270786|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.53|||GEE model|||||-1.53|-1.98|< 0.0001
91688760|NCT02750618|183270787|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.8||The GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit as a factor, age and RSS at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||||-1.80|-2.25|< 0.0001
91688761|NCT02750618|183270788|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.51|||GEE model|||||1.51|0.90|< 0.0001
91688762|NCT02750618|183270789|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.76||The GEE model includes the RGI-C score as the dependent variable, visit as a factor, age and RSS at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure. The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.|GEE|||||1.76|1.27|< 0.0001
91864733|NCT03687762|183618930|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91688763|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-82.91||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.68|-37.15|||GEE model|||Week 4||-37.15|-128.68|0.0004
91688764|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-83.84||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.55|4.88|||GEE model|||Week 12||4.88|-172.55|0.0640
91688765|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-161.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.7|-136.05|||GEE model|||Week 20||-136.05|-186.70|< 0.0001
91688766|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-214.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.7|-188.28|||GEE model|||Week 40||-188.28|-241.70|< 0.0001
91688767|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-226.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.11|-204.06|||GEE model|||Week 48||-204.06|-249.11|< 0.0001
91794017|NCT04644783|183466678|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, non-linear mixed effects|||||||<0.0001
91688768|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-216.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-248.13|-184.77|||GEE model|||Week 56||-184.77|-248.13|< 0.0001
91688769|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-216.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.66|-191.86|||GEE model|||Week 64||-191.86|-241.66|< 0.0001
91688770|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-231.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.51|-199.93|||GEE|||Week 76||-199.93|-262.51|< 0.0001
91688771|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-237.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.94|-212.62|||GEE|||Week 88||-212.62|-262.94|< 0.0001
91688772|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-218.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-248.21|-188.08|||GEE|||Week 100||-188.08|-248.21|< 0.0001
91688773|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-233.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-255.66|-212.16|||GEE|||Week 112||-212.16|-255.66|< 0.0001
91688774|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-252.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.51|-235.93|||GEE|||Week 124||-235.93|-268.51|< 0.0001
91688775|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-267.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.61|-242.16|||GEE|||Week 136||-242.16|-293.61|< 0.0001
91688776|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-248.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.85|-223.25|||GEE|||Week 148||-223.25|-272.85|< 0.0001
91688777|NCT02750618|183270793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-248.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-270.01|-226.93|||GEE|||Week 160||-226.93|-270.01|< 0.0001
91688778|NCT04055740|183270801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2201|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|This test measures correlation of avg ILA grade per patient with total time of lead extraction. Average ILA grade of all patients in outcome measures.||H0: rho = 0 Spearman correlation coefficient calculated between average ILA grade and total time of lead extraction||||0.2201
91688779|NCT04055740|183270801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5157|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|This measures correlation of avg ILA grade per patient with total laser pulsations used for extraction. Avg ILA grade of patients in outcome measures.||H0: rho = 0 Spearman Correlation coefficient calculated between average ILA grades and laser pulsations||||0.5157
91688780|NCT01518322|183270832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0895|0.1875||||||Kappa statistics were used to determine the level of agreement between FeNO measurements and asthma diagnosis using the a dichotomous schemes a measurement greater than 35 ppb for children under the age of 12 years or greater than 50 ppb for subjects at least 12 years of age was considered high.||0.1875|-0.0895|
91688781|NCT00707239|183270836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-21.6|10.9||||||Cure: Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70 percent (%) CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||10.9|-21.6|
91688782|NCT00707239|183270836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-6.1|24.8||||||Cure: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||24.8|-6.1|
91688783|NCT00707239|183270837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-14.3|14.0||||||Cure: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||14.0|-14.3|
91688784|NCT00707239|183270837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|4.3|31.8||||||Cure: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||31.8|4.3|
91688785|NCT00707239|183270840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-39.6|4.2||||||Eradication: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Microbiological response (rates of eradication) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||4.2|-39.6|
91688786|NCT00707239|183270840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-23.8|20.9||||||Eradication: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Microbiological response (rates of eradication) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||20.9|-23.8|
91688787|NCT00707239|183270841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||Nausea: p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||0.527
91688788|NCT00707239|183270841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||Vomiting: p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||0.390
91688789|NCT00707239|183270842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||1.000
91688790|NCT00707239|183270843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||1.000
91688791|NCT00707239|183270849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0479||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, experienced nausea and did not experience nausea.||1.46|0.754|0.78
91688792|NCT00707239|183270849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84644||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, experienced vomiting and did not experience vomiting.||1.21|0.593|0.356
91688793|NCT00707239|183270850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0054||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, cure and failure/indeterminate.||1.06|0.956|0.836
91864734|NCT03687762|183618931|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91864735|NCT03687762|183618932|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91688794|NCT00707239|183270854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|ANOVA|||Intravenous antibiotic treatment: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as factor was used to calculate p-value.||||0.245
91688795|NCT00707239|183270854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|ANOVA|||Hospital stay: One-way ANOVA with treatment as factor was used to calculate p-value.||||0.484
91688796|NCT00707239|183270854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|ANOVA|||ICU stay: One-way ANOVA with treatment as factor was used to calculate p-value.||||0.192
91688797|NCT00776035|183270881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Student's t-test|||Average myocardial blood flow, men versus women||||<0.005
91688798|NCT00776035|183270882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Average myocardial fatty acid utilization, men versus women||||<0.05
91688799|NCT03442751|183270883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures mixed analysis of covariance model||-0.4|-1.5|0.0004
91688800|NCT03442751|183270884|SUPERIORITY|last observation carried forward was used to impute missing Month 12 data|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||repeated measures mixed analysis of covariance model||-0.6|-1.6|<0.0001
91688801|NCT01870778|183270896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15||Adjusted alpha p-value based on multiple testing procedure.|Log Rank|One-sided p-value||||1.15|0.83|0.3857
91688802|NCT01870778|183270897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.07||Adjusted p-value based on multiple testing procedure|Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test|One-sided p-value||||1.07|0.75|0.0968
91688803|NCT01870778|183270898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||||1.08|0.81|0.3890
91688804|NCT01870778|183270899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2204||||||Based on multiple testing procedure|Wilcoxon rank sum test|One-sided p-value||||||0.2204
91688805|NCT01870778|183270900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.07||Adjusted p-value based on multiple testing procedure|Log Rank|||||1.07|0.88|0.2744
91688806|NCT01870778|183270901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2103|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|2-sided p-value||||||0.2103
91688807|NCT01870778|183270902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.14|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Exertional dyspnea||1.14|1.02|0.0050
91688808|NCT01870778|183270902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.14|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Orthopnea||1.14|1.02|0.0051
91688809|NCT01870778|183270902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Rales||1.05|0.95|0.9962
91688810|NCT01870778|183270902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Jugular venous pressure||1.15|1.01|0.0196
91688811|NCT01870778|183270902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.1|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Peripheral edema, pre-sacral edema||1.10|0.98|0.2158
91688812|NCT01870778|183270903|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9401||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8921|0.9907|||Repeated measures model|||Day 2||0.9907|0.8921|0.0209
91688813|NCT01870778|183270903|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.898||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8358|0.9649|||Repeated measures model|||Day 5||0.9649|0.8358|0.0034
91688814|NCT01870778|183270903|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9074||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8355|0.9854|||Repeated measures model|||Day 14||0.9854|0.8355|0.0209
91864736|NCT03687762|183618933|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91688815|NCT01870778|183270904|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.8597||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7876|0.9385|||Repeated measures model|||Day 2||0.9385|0.7876|0.0007
91688816|NCT01870778|183270904|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9539||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.0579|||Repeated measures model|||Day 5||1.0579|0.8600|0.3709
91688817|NCT01870778|183270904|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9543||||0.3893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8578|1.0617|||Repeated measures model|||Day 14||1.0617|0.8578|0.3893
91688818|NCT01870778|183270905|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9637||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9447|0.983|||Repeated measures model|||Day 2||0.9830|0.9447|0.0003
91688819|NCT01870778|183270905|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9922||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9677|1.0172|||Repeated measures model|||Day 5||1.0172|0.9677|0.5361
91688820|NCT01870778|183270905|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9863||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9567|1.0169|||Repeated measures model|||Day 14||1.0169|0.9567|0.3750
91688821|NCT01805089|183270906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91688822|NCT01875978|183270913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P-value \<0.05 is significance meaningful.|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t-test, 1 sided||Hypothesis: phytosterols improve metabolic status||||<0.05
91688823|NCT01875978|183270914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value \<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t test, 1 sided||Hypothesis: phytosterols increase the anti-oxidative capacity.||||<0.05
91688824|NCT01875978|183270915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P\<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t test, 1 sided||Phytosterols increase IGF-1||||<0.05
91688825|NCT01875978|183270916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value \<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t-test, 1 sided||Hypothesis:phytosterols increase endothelial progenitor cells to provide endothelial repair and vessel protection||||<0.05
91688826|NCT04870710|183270920|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman||||Non-parametric tests were used consisting of Friedman and Durbin Conover tests|||0.10
91688827|NCT01866098|183270937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.83
91688828|NCT01866098|183270938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
91688829|NCT01866098|183270939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.19
91688830|NCT01866098|183270940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.96
91688831|NCT01866098|183270941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.92
91688832|NCT01866098|183270942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.98
91688833|NCT01866098|183270943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.95
91688834|NCT01866098|183270944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.43
91688835|NCT01184079|183270972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size: (1 + 1/u)(Zα + Zβ)2 σ2 /\[log (RGMT) -δ0\] u= ratio of the size of the Standard schedule to Alternate schedule groups (u =1, for equal size groups); one-sided alpha (0.025)/4 for multiplicity of serotypes. Average log-transformed and geometric mean titers (GMTs) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs were used.~Non-inferiority is determined if upper bound GMT ratio of standard group to alternate group \< 1.5."|largest upper bound GMT ratio|0.82|||||||||||||Non-inferiority is determined if upper bound GMT ratio of standard 6 month group to alternate 12 month group \< 1.5.|The primary endpoint would demonstrate noninferiority if the upper bound of the 95% two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMT for Standard schedule group divided by that of Alternate schedule group is \<1.5.||||
91688836|NCT01184079|183270974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothsesis: no difference in proportion of side effects reported between groups||||0.26
91688837|NCT03417687|183270975|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-14.7%, +14.7%).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|3.6||||||The primary efficacy analysis tested the mean difference in the predicted percentage of remaining pulmonary function as measured by 129Xe MRI relative to the value as measured by 133Xe scintigraphy (reference standard) if a pre-defined section of lung were resected.||3.60|-0.75|
91688838|NCT03417687|183270977|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|5.29||||||||5.29|2.12|
91688839|NCT03417687|183270978|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|1.26||||||||1.26|-0.476|
91688840|NCT03417687|183270979|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|2.505||||||||2.505|0.184|
91688841|NCT03417687|183270980|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.101|0.181||||||||0.181|-2.101|
91688842|NCT03417687|183270981|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.721|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.096|-1.345||||||||-1.345|-4.096|
91688843|NCT03417687|183270982|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.192|-0.335||||||||-0.335|-3.192|
91794018|NCT04644783|183466679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, non-linear mixed effects|||||||<0.0001
91688844|NCT00619060|183270997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Binomial|||||||0.01
91688845|NCT01808573|183270998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|0.926|||Log Rank|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine is the reference. Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|||0.926|0.626|0.0059
91688846|NCT01808573|183270999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881||||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.073|||Log Rank|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|Lapatinib plus Capecitabine is the reference. Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|||1.073|0.723|0.2086
91688847|NCT01808573|183271000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Gray's test|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and visceral disease vs. non-visceral disease.||||||0.043
91688848|NCT01808573|183271001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1201|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.||||||0.1201
91688849|NCT01808573|183271002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0328|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.||||||0.0328
91688850|NCT01808573|183271003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.736|||Log Rank||Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine is the reference.|||0.736|0.332|0.0004
91688851|NCT02487225|183271005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5796|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.5796
91688852|NCT02487225|183271005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8415|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5||||0.8415
91794019|NCT02290431|183466680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||single-sample binomial test|||||||< 0.0001
91794020|NCT03437512|183466717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||familywise error rate (FWE) corrected to .05 with cluster threshold of 80 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91721212|NCT00671060|183335025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.682|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Rates of success were compared across study arms. The study was a separate, non-comparative efficacy study. In order to have 80% power (alpha=.05) to demonstrate that each misoprostol regimen was 95%, ± 5%, effective, we enrolled 73 women in each arm of the study, or 146 women total. The sample size also provided 80% power (alpha=.05) to detect a significant difference between treatments should 200μg prove 98% effective and 100μg prove 88% effective.||||<0.05
91721213|NCT00267670|183335089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Sample size estimates were based on 30% reduction in ALT in the treatment group \& 15% reduction in the placebo group. With a sample size of 30 planned (20 treatment:10 placebo), the study was designed to have a power of 90% to detect a difference in means of 1.25 standard deviations (ES=1.25), \& a power of 80% to detect a difference in means of 1.1 standard deviations (ES=1.1), based on calculations using power index, z-table, \& accounting for unequal sample size: n1 = 20, n2 = 10, a = 0.05.||||0.46
91721214|NCT00267670|183335090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between mean hepatic expression of TNF-alpha receptors in patient with NASH. This was a secondary outcome and no power analysis was done.||||0.16
91721215|NCT00267670|183335091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91688853|NCT02487225|183271006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1109|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.1109
91688854|NCT02487225|183271006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4619|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4619
91688855|NCT02487225|183271007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1236|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.1236
91688856|NCT02487225|183271007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9468|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5||||0.9468
91688857|NCT02487225|183271008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.157
91688858|NCT02487225|183271008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5||||0.3173
91688859|NCT00489255|183271018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for treatment was stratified by site.||The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments.||1.11|0.17|0.09
91721216|NCT00267670|183335092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91721217|NCT02107898|183335105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|-59.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-59.8|-68.5|<0.0001
91721218|NCT02107898|183335106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-65.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|-61.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-61.3|-69.4|<0.0001
91721219|NCT02107898|183335107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.3|-57.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-57.7|-65.3|<0.0001
91721220|NCT02107898|183335108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.8|-58.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-58.3|-65.8|<0.0001
91903791|NCT00718549|183702489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.282||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|240.864|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||240.864|0.022|0.728
91688860|NCT00489255|183271019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.90|0.21|0.025
91688861|NCT00489255|183271020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.70|0.09|0.005
91688862|NCT00489255|183271021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.48|0.23|0.65
91688863|NCT00489255|183271022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.21|||ANOVA|Treatment effect in ANOVA was adjusted for site.||||0.21|-0.64|0.32
91688864|NCT00489255|183271023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.43|||ANOVA|||||-0.43|-1.71|0.001
91688865|NCT00489255|183271024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.20|0.95
91688866|NCT00489255|183271025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score) with rigid scores, stratified by site||||||0.88
91688867|NCT00489255|183271026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score) with rigid scores, stratified by site||||||0.019
91688868|NCT00489255|183271027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.29
91688869|NCT00489255|183271028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||1.1|0.5|0.17
91688870|NCT00489255|183271029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||0.7|0.1|0.008
91688871|NCT00489255|183271030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||1.3|0.6|0.49
91688872|NCT00489255|183271031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.1|0.7|0.4
91688873|NCT00489255|183271032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.62||95.0|0.6|2.3||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||2.3|0.6|0.62
91903792|NCT00718549|183702489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|26.275||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|666.708|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||666.708|1.036|0.048
91794021|NCT03437512|183466718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936||||||Interaction between visit and group.|ANOVA|||Analyses conduced with a mixed ANOVA, with between-subjects factor of group (active, sham) and two within-subjects factors: time (post, follow up) and speech task (reading, conversation).||||.936
91688874|NCT00489255|183271033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|3.76|||ANOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline score (score at Visit 1/Screening) as a covariate, and site and treatment as factors.||||3.76|-3.59|0.96
91688875|NCT00489255|183271034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|4.02|||ANOVA|||||4.02|-4.37|0.93
91688876|NCT00489255|183271035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.34|||ANOVA|||||3.34|-4.12|0.84
91688877|NCT00489255|183271036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|8.11|||ANOVA|||||8.11|-2.17|0.25
91688878|NCT00489255|183271037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.4|||ANOVA|||||5.40|-2.47|0.46
91688879|NCT00489255|183271038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.96||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|9.06|||ANOVA|||||9.06|-3.13|0.33
91688880|NCT00489255|183271039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|6.11|||ANOVA|||||6.11|-5.57|0.93
91688881|NCT03953612|183271040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects||||||<.001
91688882|NCT03953612|183271041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects||||||<.001
91688883|NCT03953612|183271042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects||||||0.7
91688884|NCT03953612|183271043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91688885|NCT03953612|183271044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||. Negative binomial regression models|||||||0.042
91688886|NCT03953612|183271045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||. Negative binomial regression models|||||||0.125
91688887|NCT02028676|183271065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Upper 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was 1.64, see other analysis for this endpoint for details|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.73|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.73|0.73|0.59
91688888|NCT02028676|183271065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With assumptions detailed above, \>90% power and one-sided alpha=0.05, 1160 children would be required to exclude an increase in progression rate of 1.6% from 2.5% to 4.1% per year in the CDM arm (upper 95% confidence limit of LCM: CDM hazard ratio 1.64).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.32||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.12|||Comparison of poisson rates|Statistical analysis plan specified that p-value was to be calculated from the log-rank test, so not provided for the risk difference|Difference is CDM minus LCM|"Assumptions:~* control group (LCM) event rate 3% per year~* rates are reduced to 2% per year in the best of the induction-maintenance arms leading to an overall rate of progression to new WHO stage 4 or death of 2.5%~* recruitment is over 1.5 years and follow-up for a minimum further 3.5 years.~* cumulative loss to follow-up is 10% at 5 years. See below for rest of sample size as this box is not big enough."||1.12|-0.47|0.43
91688889|NCT02028676|183271066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.16|0.83|0.83
91688890|NCT02028676|183271067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||Assuming a standard deviation for the change in CD4 percentage from baseline to 72 weeks of 10% (slightly higher than that observed in the PENTA 5 trial) 1200 children would provide at least 80% power to detect a difference in change in CD4% from baseline of more than 2.5% across the 3 groups (F-test with 2-sided alpha=0.05) assuming 20% missing data (loss to follow-up during the first year plus failure to attend the week 72 visit/missing sample).||||0.33
91688891|NCT02028676|183271068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.69
91688892|NCT02028676|183271069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.0001
91688893|NCT02028676|183271069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.63|||Regression, Cox||HR is Arm B vs A|||1.63|1.07|0.01
91688894|NCT02028676|183271069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.94|||Regression, Cox|||||1.94|1.29|<0.001
91688895|NCT02028676|183271070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|631 children would be required to exclude a 12% lower suppression rate in the once daily group with at least 90% power and two-sided alpha=0.05 (lower 95% confidence limit of difference between once and twice daily -12%, the non-inferiority margin). 630 children retains at least 80% (rather than 90%) power to exclude a 10% (rather than 12%) lower suppression rate in the once daily group with one-sided alpha=0.05 (lower 90% confidence limit of difference between once and twice daily -10%).|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.2|||Chi-squared||Difference in suppression \<80 copies/ml in once-daily minus twice-daily|||5.2|-8.4|0.65
91688896|NCT02028676|183271072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With assumptions above, at least 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05, 947 children would be required in the stop/continue cotrimoxazole prophylaxis comparison to exclude an increase in hospitalisation/death rate of 3% from 5% to 8% per year in the stop cotrimoxazole arm (upper 95% confidence limit of stop:continue hazard ratio 1.6).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.37|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is stop vs continue.|"Assumptions~* 5% of children receiving daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis have a new hospitalisation or death per year~* recruitment starts 1 July 2009 with 10% children (those already on ART for \>96 weeks) entering immediately, and then the remaining children recruited over the following 15 months as they reach 96 weeks on ART. Follow-up is until March 2012.~* cumulative loss to follow-up at March 2012 is 10%. See below for further details as box is not big enough"||2.37|1.14|0.007
91721221|NCT02107898|183335109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-49.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-49.1|-57.5|<0.0001
91794022|NCT03437512|183466719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619||||||Interaction between visit and group.|ANOVA|||||||.619
91794023|NCT02417844|183466723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.19|107.74|||||"The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation.~Ratio calculated as test divided by reference."|||107.74|92.19|
91688897|NCT02028676|183271072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With assumptions above, at least 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05, 947 children would be required in the stop/continue cotrimoxazole prophylaxis comparison to exclude an increase in hospitalisation/death rate of 3% from 5% to 8% per year in the stop cotrimoxazole arm (upper 95% confidence limit of stop:continue hazard ratio 1.6).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.2|||Poisson regression for risk difference||Risk difference is stop vs continue.|"Assumptions~* 5% of children receiving daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis have a new hospitalisation or death per year~* recruitment starts 1 July 2009 with 10% children (those already on ART for \>96 weeks) entering immediately, and then the remaining children recruited over the following 15 months as they reach 96 weeks on ART. Follow-up is until March 2012.~* cumulative loss to follow-up at March 2012 is 10%. See below for further details as box is not big enough."||7.2|0.8|0.006
91688898|NCT02028676|183271073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is stop vs continue.|||1.72|0.83|0.33
91721222|NCT02107898|183335110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.8|-49.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-49.8|-57.8|<0.0001
91688899|NCT02028676|183271074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.44|0.49|0.45
91688900|NCT02028676|183271074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.43
91721223|NCT02107898|183335111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|-53.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.5|-61.5|<0.0001
91721224|NCT02107898|183335112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-54.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-54.8|-62.3|<0.0001
91688901|NCT02028676|183271074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.31|0.33|0.23
91688902|NCT02028676|183271074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.81|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.81|0.52|0.93
91688903|NCT02028676|183271075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.89
91688904|NCT02028676|183271075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.48|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.48|0.53|0.64
91688905|NCT02028676|183271075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.52|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.52|0.54|0.71
91688906|NCT02028676|183271076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.38|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.38|0.73|0.98
91688907|NCT02028676|183271076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.44
91688908|NCT02028676|183271076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.2|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.20|0.55|0.30
91688909|NCT02028676|183271076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.17|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.17|0.54|0.24
91688910|NCT02028676|183271077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.49|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM.|||1.49|0.82|0.52
91721225|NCT02107898|183335113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-38.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-38.4|-44.6|<0.0001
91721226|NCT02107898|183335114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-47.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.6|-54.9|<0.0001
91721227|NCT02107898|183335115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|-51.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-51.1|-57.9|<0.0001
91863708|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.083||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.118|7.047|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.047|1.118|0.0072
91688911|NCT02028676|183271077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Log Rank|||||||0.34
91864737|NCT03687762|183618934|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91721228|NCT02107898|183335116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-36.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.4|-41.7|<0.0001
91903793|NCT00718549|183702489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|9.1|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: ZAP-70 Expression Negative versus Positive||9.100|0.005|0.417
91688912|NCT02028676|183271077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.13|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.13|0.54|0.19
91688913|NCT02028676|183271077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.16|0.56|0.25
91688914|NCT02028676|183271078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.71
91688915|NCT02028676|183271078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.58
91688916|NCT02028676|183271079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.07
91688917|NCT02028676|183271079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.90
91688918|NCT02028676|183271080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.64
91688919|NCT02028676|183271080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.30
91688920|NCT02028676|183271081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.45
91688921|NCT02028676|183271082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.70
91688922|NCT02028676|183271083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||0.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.59
91688923|NCT02028676|183271083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.01
91688924|NCT02028676|183271084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.81
91688925|NCT02028676|183271084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.03
91688926|NCT02028676|183271085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
91688927|NCT02028676|183271085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91688928|NCT02028676|183271086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
91903794|NCT00718549|183702489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.197||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|1.647|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||1.647|0.024|0.134
91688929|NCT02028676|183271086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91688930|NCT02028676|183271087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.29|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.29|0.48|0.22
91688931|NCT02028676|183271088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.672||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.075|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.075|0.420|0.09
91688932|NCT02028676|183271088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.04
91688933|NCT02028676|183271088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.08|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||4.08|1.15|0.017
91688934|NCT02028676|183271088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.8|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||3.80|1.05|0.034
91688935|NCT02028676|183271089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.66|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.66|1.02|0.04
91688936|NCT02028676|183271089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.53
91688937|NCT02028676|183271089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.25|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.25|0.68|0.60
91688938|NCT02028676|183271089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.46|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.46|0.81|0.56
91688939|NCT02028676|183271090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.56|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.56|0.58|0.84
91688940|NCT02028676|183271090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.002
91688941|NCT02028676|183271090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|8.29|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||8.29|1.74|0.001
91688942|NCT02028676|183271090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.85|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||6.85|1.39|0.006
91903795|NCT00718549|183702489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.373||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|1568.717|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 17p No versus Yes||1568.717|0.045|0.426
91688943|NCT02028676|183271091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.53
91688944|NCT02028676|183271091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.46
91688945|NCT02028676|183271092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7|||Chi-squared|||||4.7|-9.3|0.52
91688946|NCT02028676|183271093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||0.5|-1.2|0.39
91688947|NCT02028676|183271094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||0.9|-0.9|0.98
91721229|NCT02107898|183335117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|552.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.6|2886.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||2886.8|105.6|<0.0001
91721230|NCT02107898|183335118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1367.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|137.8|13578.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||13578.3|137.8|<0.0001
91688948|NCT02028676|183271095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||0.2|-1.9|0.12
91688949|NCT02028676|183271096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|76.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||76|-60|0.82
91688950|NCT02028676|183271097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.0|38.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||38|-104|0.36
91688951|NCT02028676|183271098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.0|46.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||46|-220|0.20
91721231|NCT02107898|183335119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-36.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.0|-48.0|<0.0001
91721232|NCT02107898|183335120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-13.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.1|-30.9|<0.0001
91688952|NCT02028676|183271100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.64|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.64|0.11|0.20
91688953|NCT02028676|183271101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.77|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.77|0.31|0.51
91688954|NCT02028676|183271102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.16
91721233|NCT02107898|183335121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.4|2.1|0.0020
91688955|NCT02028676|183271103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.54
91688956|NCT02028676|183271104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.08
91688957|NCT02028676|183271105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.52|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.52|0.72|0.82
91688958|NCT02028676|183271106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.27|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.27|0.48|0.31
91688959|NCT02028676|183271107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.74
91688960|NCT02028676|183271108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
91721234|NCT02107898|183335122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.9|0.2|0.0382
91721235|NCT02107898|183335123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-35.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-35.7|-47.0|<0.0001
91688961|NCT02028676|183271109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equation with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.93
91688962|NCT02028676|183271110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.25|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||3.25|1.50|<0.001
91688963|NCT02028676|183271111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.85|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||3.85|0.56|0.44
91688964|NCT02028676|183271112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.48|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||5.48|1.05|0.03
91688965|NCT02028676|183271113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.98||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|35.7|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||35.7|0.44|0.18
91688966|NCT02028676|183271114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.17|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||6.17|0.53|0.34
91688967|NCT02028676|183271115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.15|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||4.15|0.12|0.68
91688968|NCT02028676|183271116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.07
91688969|NCT02028676|183271117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.19
91688970|NCT02028676|183271118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.34
91688971|NCT02028676|183271119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is stop minus continue|||0.2|-1.4|0.13
91688972|NCT02028676|183271120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|42.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is stop minus continue|||42|-65|0.68
91688973|NCT02028676|183271121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.5|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||2.50|1.02|0.04
91721236|NCT02107898|183335124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-6.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-6.6|-24.4|0.0007
91688974|NCT02028676|183271122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Generalised estimating equation|Generalised estimating equation with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.21
91688975|NCT00852202|183271123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7408|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7408
91688976|NCT00852202|183271123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9961|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9961
91688977|NCT00852202|183271124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3441|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3441
91688978|NCT00852202|183271124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2683|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2683
91688979|NCT01263938|183271217|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.625
91688980|NCT01263938|183271217|OTHER|||||||0.813||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.813
91688981|NCT01263938|183271217|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||>0.999
91721237|NCT02107898|183335125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|9.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.3|3.7|<0.0001
91721238|NCT02107898|183335126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.0|3.6|<0.0001
91863709|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.688||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.691|7.686|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.686|1.691|0.0023
91864738|NCT03221426|183619011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.01501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|||0.98|0.67|0.01501
91864739|NCT03221426|183619012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|15.3|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)||||15.3|8.0|<0.00001
91903796|NCT00718549|183702489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.438||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|50.334|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||50.334|0.004|0.733
91688982|NCT01263938|183271218|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||>0.999
91688983|NCT01263938|183271219|OTHER|||||||0.813||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.813
91688984|NCT01263938|183271220|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.625
91688985|NCT03051672|183271265|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||The study terminated at stage 1 and no p-value was estimated.||||The study uses a Simon 2-stage design. In stage 1, if \>/=1 of 8 achieved OR then continue to stage 2 (enroll 19 more). If \>/= 3 of 27 respond, the regimen would be considered promising. The null ORR\<= 3% and alternative ORR\>/=20%. With this design, the probability of stopping the trial early is 58% if the true ORR is 3%. This design at 80% power to declare the combination effective, while controlling for less than 5% 1-sided type I error under the null hypothesis.|The study terminated at stage 1 and no p-value was estimated.|||
91688986|NCT01328184|183271272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.58|108.35|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||108.35|97.58|
91688987|NCT01328184|183271273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.54|105.47|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||105.47|98.54|
91688988|NCT01328184|183271274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|99.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.4|105.39|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||105.39|93.40|
91688989|NCT01328184|183271275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|105.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.47|112.55|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||112.55|99.47|
91688990|NCT04179838|183271302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Corrected for multiple comparisons in piriform cortex|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in decoding accuracy between sleep-deprived and non-sleep deprived interventions. Paired t-test on decoding accuracy from both phases (sleep-deprived minus non-sleep deprived) against the null hypothesis of no difference.||||0.001
91688991|NCT04179838|183271303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.021
91688992|NCT04179838|183271304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.63
91688993|NCT04179838|183271305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.08
91688994|NCT04179838|183271306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.28
91688995|NCT04179838|183271307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.50
91688996|NCT04179838|183271308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.58
91688997|NCT02763046|183271309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.74|0.3512
91688998|NCT02763046|183271310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.60|0.68|0.4010
91688999|NCT02763046|183271310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.55|0.67|0.4382
91721239|NCT02469857|183335148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis utilized the mITT analysis population.||||0.135
91689000|NCT02763046|183271310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||3.50|0.91|0.0934
91689001|NCT02763046|183271310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||2.90|0.75|0.2619
91689002|NCT02763046|183271311|SUPERIORITY||LS (least square) Mean|-10.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|1.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.96|-22.55|0.0997
91689003|NCT02763046|183271311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.47|1.87|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.87|-26.47|0.0888
91689004|NCT02763046|183271311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.36|5.79|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||5.79|-22.36|0.2484
91689005|NCT02763046|183271312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.06||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|11.98|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||delayed tapering (W12) vs early tapering (W16)||11.98|-16.11|0.7735
91689006|NCT02763046|183271313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.20|-0.99|0.1926
91689007|NCT02763046|183271313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.23|-1.14|0.1914
91689008|NCT02763046|183271313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.3397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.35|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.35|-1.01|0.3397
91689009|NCT02763046|183271313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-0.04|-1.33|0.0384
91689010|NCT02763046|183271313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||0.23|-1.05|0.2116
91689011|NCT02763046|183271314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.63|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.63|-1.38|0.5384
91721240|NCT02469857|183335148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis utilized the US-mITT analysis population.||||0.025
91689012|NCT02763046|183271314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.9251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|2.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.21|-2.43|0.9251
91689013|NCT02763046|183271314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|3.66|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||3.66|-0.93|0.2432
91689014|NCT00080912|183271315|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The original sample size was determined based on the non-inferiority. The original sample size is based on assumption of response rate on the multiple fraction arm is 70%, 260 patients were required in each treatment arm to have 80% power to exclude, with a one sided alpha of 0.05, a response rate of 60% or less in the single fraction radiation group (non-inferiority margin =10%). Given an inevaluability rate of 30%, 850 patients (425 for each treatment arm) were randomized to the study.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.2||p-value is for one-sided non-inferiority test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The upper limit of one-sided 95% CI for the response rate difference was 9.2%, which was below the pre-specified 10% non-inferiority boundary|||9.2||0.03
91689015|NCT00818766|183271319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.26||95.0|-11.3|2.7|||Fisher Exact|||||2.7|-11.3|.26
91689016|NCT00818766|183271320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.93||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.3|||Fisher Exact|||||4.3|-6.1|0.77
91689017|NCT00818766|183271321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.6|-8.3|.21
91689018|NCT00818766|183271322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.49
91689019|NCT00818766|183271324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
91689020|NCT00818766|183271325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
91689021|NCT01111318|183271398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|123.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.89|153.36|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as mild divided by healthy||153.36|98.89|
91689022|NCT01111318|183271398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|146.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.02|183.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as moderate divided by healthy||183.02|118.02|
91689023|NCT01111318|183271398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|174.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.29|217.55|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as severe divided by healthy||217.55|140.29|
91689024|NCT01111318|183271399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|103.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.29|130.95|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as mild divided by healthy||130.95|82.29|
91721241|NCT02469857|183335152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
91721242|NCT02469857|183335153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.401
91721243|NCT02469857|183335154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.195
91721244|NCT02469857|183335155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.596
91721245|NCT02469857|183335156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.512
91721246|NCT02469857|183335157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
91721247|NCT02469857|183335158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.50|0.554
91903797|NCT00718549|183702489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.621||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|34.422|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||34.422|0.200|0.463
91721248|NCT02469857|183335159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.23|0.148
91721249|NCT02469857|183335160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.73|||Log Rank|||||1.73|0.46|0.736
91721250|NCT02469857|183335161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.09|0.093
91689025|NCT01111318|183271399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|123.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.74|155.55|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as moderate divided by healthy||155.55|97.74|
91689026|NCT01111318|183271399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|148.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.65|187.23|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as severe divided by healthy||187.23|117.65|
91689027|NCT00725491|183271432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Whitehead|||||||<0.001
91689028|NCT01998919|183271440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|17.0|||||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||17.0|-10.3|
91689029|NCT01998919|183271441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|26.8|||||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||26.8|-5.6|
91689030|NCT01998919|183271442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|27.7|||||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||27.7|-2.7|
91689031|NCT01998919|183271443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0075
91689032|NCT01998919|183271443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.81|||Wald test|||||0.81|0.22|0.0099
91689033|NCT01998919|183271444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
91689034|NCT01998919|183271444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.7|||Wald Test|||||0.70|0.33|0.0001
91689035|NCT01998919|183271445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
91721251|NCT02469857|183335162|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.35|0.352
91721252|NCT02469857|183335163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.04|0.031
91721253|NCT02469857|183335164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
91721254|NCT02469857|183335165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
91903798|NCT00718549|183702489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.288||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|5.122|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||5.122|0.016|0.397
91689036|NCT01998919|183271445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.68|||Wald test|||||0.68|0.33|<0.0001
91689037|NCT01998919|183271446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5991|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5991
91689038|NCT01998919|183271446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23|||Wald test|||||1.23|0.58|0.3774
91689039|NCT00897715|183271447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|ANCOVA|||For the primary specific aim, we will compare the mean percent change on hsCRP between the intervention arm and the placebo arm using linear regression. We anticipate that the intervention will conservatively decrease hsCRP by 54%; whereas, placebo will have no effect. Accordingly, we have estimated that we will need 24 subjects in the experimental arm and 24 controls to have an 80% power, with an alpha of 0.05 to detect the above mentioned effect size.||||0.03
91689040|NCT00897715|183271448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|ANCOVA|||||||0.01
91689041|NCT01641640|183271475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial exact test|||Superiority would be demonstrated if the SVR12 rate was higher than the 60% null SVR rate based on historical control data.||||< 0.001
91689042|NCT00860795|183271486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.17
91689043|NCT00860795|183271487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.72
91689044|NCT00860795|183271488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.2
91689045|NCT00860795|183271490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.51
91689046|NCT00860795|183271491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.43
91689047|NCT00860795|183271492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.61
91721255|NCT02469857|183335166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.034
91721256|NCT02469857|183335167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91721257|NCT03416179|183335186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.532|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Glasdegib 100 mg PO + Cytarabine 100 mg/m\^2 IV + Daunorubicin 60 mg/m\^2 compared to Placebo + Cytarabine 100 mg/m\^2 IV + Daunorubicin 60 mg/m\^2.||1.532|0.755|0.6579
91721258|NCT03416179|183335187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.5955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.388|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Glasdegib 100 mg PO QD + Azacitidine compared to Placebo + Azacitidine||1.388|0.775|0.5955
91721259|NCT03416179|183335188|OTHER|||||||0.5095|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.5095
91721260|NCT03416179|183335189|OTHER|||||||0.8359|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8359
91721261|NCT00879658|183335231|SUPERIORITY||Negative binomial regression model|0.524||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|1.257||Pairwise comparison and p-values refer to ARR on active treatment compared to placebo. An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment compared to placebo based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for treatment group and baseline number of relapses in prev 2 yrs.|||An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|1.257|0.219|0.148
91689048|NCT02792517|183271508|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.22|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed Cmax was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.22|0.88|
91689049|NCT02792517|183271509|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.14|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed AUCtau was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.14|0.91|
91689050|NCT02792517|183271510|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.16|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed Cmax was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.16|0.97|
91689051|NCT02792517|183271511|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.1|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed AUCtau was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.10|0.96|
91689052|NCT02792517|183271512|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.23|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed Cmax was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.23|0.90|
91689053|NCT02792517|183271513|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.12|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed AUCtau was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.12|0.94|
91689054|NCT01958437|183271563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANCOVA|||RM ANCOVA (covarying order) for cognitively intact groups||||.048
91689055|NCT01958437|183271563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|||RM ANCOVA (covarying order) for MCI group||||.063
91689056|NCT01958437|183271564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|Main effect of stimulation covarying session order||Change between active and sham tDCS sessions for allocentric blocks||||.27
91689057|NCT01958437|183271564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91689058|NCT01958437|183271565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Main effect of session using repeated measures ANCOVA covarying stimulation order||||||<.001
91903799|NCT00718549|183702490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.982||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|2.531|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||2.531|0.393|0.969
91689059|NCT01958437|183271565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|Main effect of session using repeated measures ANCOVA covarying stimulation order||||||.046
91689060|NCT01958437|183271566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA (covarying stimulation order)||||.497
91689061|NCT01958437|183271566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.599
91689062|NCT02200055|183271577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|This measurement was collected for each participant. A pre-operative and post-operative bioimpedance measurement was taken.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91689063|NCT03535740|183271591|OTHER|||||||0.0763||||||P-value was based on the comparison of the confirm ORR among the 90/180mg group against a fixed response rate of 20%.|Exact Binomial Test|The calculation was based on an exact binomial test with a total 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 at primary analysis.||||||0.0763
91689064|NCT05317312|183271627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.08||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|42.7|||Emax||The estimated difference between 1.25mg bid and placebo is based on the Emax model. The values that appear in the Outcome Measure Data Table are observed values.|||42.7|-5.2|0.123
91689065|NCT05317312|183271627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|55.0|||Emax||||The estimated difference between 5mg bid and placebo is based on the Emax model. The values that appear in the Outcome Measure Data Table are observed values.|55.0|14.4|<0.001
91689066|NCT05317312|183271627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|61.7|||Emax||The estimated difference between 15mg bid and placebo is based on the Emax model. The values that appear in the Outcome Measure Data Table are observed values.|||61.7|23.9|<0.001
91689067|NCT05317312|183271628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||||The estimated difference between 1.5mg bid and placebo is based on Mixed Model Repeated Measures.The values in the Outcome Measure Data are observed mean values.|||0.2|-2.0|
91689068|NCT05317312|183271628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||||The estimated difference between 5mg bid and placebo is based on Mixed Model Repeated Measures. The values in the Outcome Measure Data are observed mean values|||0.4|-1.8|
91689069|NCT05317312|183271628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||||The estimated difference between 15mg bid and placebo is based on Mixed Model Repeated Measures.. The values in the Outcome Measure Data are observed mean values|||0.3|-1.9|
91689070|NCT05317312|183271629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.036
91689071|NCT05317312|183271629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.006
91689072|NCT05317312|183271629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91689073|NCT05317312|183271630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.411
91689074|NCT05317312|183271630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.383
91689075|NCT05317312|183271630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91689076|NCT05317312|183271631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.4||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|52.7|||Chi-squared|||||52.7|2.0|0.042
91689077|NCT05317312|183271631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|59.3|||Chi-squared|||||59.3|9.7|0.01
91689078|NCT05317312|183271631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|74.1|||Chi-squared|||||74.1|29.6|<0.001
91689079|NCT05317312|183271632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-6.5|||Chi-squared|||||-6.5|-55.9|0.019
91689080|NCT05317312|183271632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.9||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|7.8|||Chi-squared|||||7.8|-41.6|0.187
91689081|NCT05317312|183271632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-44.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|20.6|||Chi-squared|||||20.6|-68.3|0.001
91903800|NCT00718549|183702490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.552||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.488|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||1.488|0.183|0.260
91721262|NCT00879658|183335231|SUPERIORITY||Negative binomial regression model|0.34||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.956||Pairwise comparison and p-values refer to ARR on active treatment compared to placebo. An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment compared to placebo based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for treatment group and baseline number of relapses in prev 2 yrs.||||0.956|0.121|0.041
91721263|NCT00879658|183335231|SUPERIORITY||Negative binomial regression model|1.051||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|2.273||Pairwise comparison and p-values refer to ARR on active treatment compared to placebo. An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment compared to placebo based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for treatment group and baseline number of relapses in prev 2 yrs.||||2.273|0.486|0.899
91689082|NCT02015611|183271638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.63
91689083|NCT02015611|183271639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, race, season, and baseline value||||||0.64
91689084|NCT02015611|183271640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.08
91689085|NCT02015611|183271641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.53
91689086|NCT02015611|183271642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.75
91689087|NCT02015611|183271643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.92
91689088|NCT02015611|183271644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.94
91689089|NCT02015611|183271645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.61
91689090|NCT02015611|183271646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.59
91689091|NCT02015611|183271647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.21
91689092|NCT00951496|183271654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study was designed to provide 80% power when arm II reduces the progression free survival event rate 20%. The critical p-value accounts for correlation between 2 primary hypotheses.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09||P value not adjusted for multiplicity. Significance Threshold = 0.027|Log Rank|Stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease.|Progression free survival of arm II relative to arm I. Adjusted for stage of disease and residual size.|P value.(an P value is used to determine statistical significance in a hypothesis test). from a stratified log rank test to assess equality of progression free survival hazards of arm II and arm I||1.09|0.81|0.341
91689093|NCT00951496|183271654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study was designed to provide 80% power when arm III reduced the true progression free survival event rate. 20% compared to arm I. Critical p value accounts for correlation between 2 primary hypotheses.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||P value not adjusted for multiplicity. Significance threshold = 0.027 accounting for 2 correlated primary hypotheses.|Log Rank|Stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease.|Progression free survival hazard of arm III to arm I. Adjusted for stage of disease and residual disease size.|P value from a log rank test comparing the progression free survival hazards of arm III to arm I.||1.15|0.86|0.587
91689094|NCT00395161|183271678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Log Rank|Two-sided logrank test was used, stratified by immune compromised status at study entry (a factor also used to stratify the study randomization)||Null hypothesis was equal median time in both arms. Sample size calculated to yield 90% power to detect a significant effect, assuming inverse hazard rate of 1.5 using two-sided logrank test with alpha=0.05. This required recruitment until 263 patients with an event were enrolled (though the study was terminated early for futility by the DSMB).||||0.29
91721264|NCT00879658|183335232|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|0.915||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|2.925|||Regression, Logistic|"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."||||2.925|0.288|0.879
91721265|NCT00879658|183335232|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.745||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|7.167||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||7.167|0.484|0.399
91721266|NCT00879658|183335232|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.697||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|8.296||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||8.296|0.438|0.454
91794024|NCT02417844|183466724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.23|105.24|||||"The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation.~Ratio calculated as test divided by reference."|||105.24|94.23|
91903801|NCT00718549|183702490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.465||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|1.242|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||1.242|0.177|0.121
91903802|NCT00718549|183702490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.374||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.957|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||0.957|0.137|0.045
91689095|NCT00395161|183271679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Rate analysis (see comments)|95% CIs were calculated for rates in each arm, and rates compared between arms, via approach of DR Cox, Biometrika (1953), vol 40, pp. 354-60.||Null hypothesis of equal event rates in the two study arms.||||0.81
91689096|NCT00395161|183271680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91689097|NCT00395161|183271681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91689098|NCT00395161|183271682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91689099|NCT01610492|183271687|OTHER||Geometric Mean|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.01||||||||1.01|0.57|
91689100|NCT01610492|183271688|OTHER||Geometric Mean|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.58||||||||0.58|0.12|
91721267|NCT00879658|183335232|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|0.509||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|1.511||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||1.511|0.166|0.223
91721268|NCT00879658|183335232|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|0.785||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.253|2.392||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||2.392|0.253|0.668
91721269|NCT00879658|183335233|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.996||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|5.669|||Regression, Logistic|Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model. - An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment.||||5.669|0.731|0.178
91721270|NCT00879658|183335233|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|4.12||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.328|14.681||Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model. - An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.681|1.328|0.014
91721271|NCT00879658|183335233|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.266||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|3.494||Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model. - An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.494|0.468|0.642
91721272|NCT00879658|183335234|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.408|||Regression, Logistic|new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose groups and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.408|0.047|<0.001
91721273|NCT00879658|183335234|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.307||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.771||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.771|0.123|0.012
91721274|NCT00879658|183335234|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.358||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.358|0.036|<0.001
91721275|NCT00879658|183335234|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.375||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.86||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.860|0.163|0.021
91721276|NCT00879658|183335234|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.478||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.037||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.037|0.220|0.062
91721277|NCT00879658|183335235|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|Lesion ratio|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.376|||Regression, Logistic|new lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model||||0.376|0.063|<0.001
91863710|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.874|7.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.350|2.874|<.0001
91864740|NCT03221426|183619013|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.07503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|||1.06|0.71|0.07503
91864741|NCT03221426|183619018|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.04125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification|||1.03|0.65|0.04125
91903803|NCT00718549|183702490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.809||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.655|163.316|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: ZAP-70 Expression Negative versus Positive||163.316|1.655|0.040
91903804|NCT00718549|183702490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.921||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|2.851|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||2.851|0.287|0.887
91794025|NCT02417844|183466725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.9|105.39|||||"The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation.~Ratio calculated as test divided by reference."|||105.39|93.90|
91864742|NCT03221426|183619019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.04493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia), tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa), and chemotherapy backbone (XP/FP vs. FLOT)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia), tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa), and chemotherapy backbone (XP/FP vs. FLOT)|||1.03|0.71|0.04493
91721278|NCT00879658|183335235|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.228||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.641||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.641|0.081|0.005
91721279|NCT00879658|183335235|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.188|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.509||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.509|0.070|<0.001
91721280|NCT00879658|183335236|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.279||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.628||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.628|0.124|0.002
91721281|NCT00879658|183335236|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.396||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.861||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.861|0.182|0.019
91721282|NCT00879658|183335236|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.4||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.400|0.059|<0.001
91721283|NCT00879658|183335236|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.454||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.945||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.945|0.219|0.035
91689101|NCT02575833|183271728|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was -90 seconds.|Treatment Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.9|22.9||||||The primary endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of variance model with terms for treatment group and randomization strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes). If the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in change from baseline in exercise duration was above the non-inferiority margin of -90 seconds, then the hypothesis that erenumab does not decrease exercise duration would be supported.||22.9|-44.9|
91721284|NCT00879658|183335236|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.555||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.283|1.09||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.090|0.283|0.087
91794587|NCT03981822|183468100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3642||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender. Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.3642
91903805|NCT00718549|183702490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.932||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.186|6.839|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 17p No versus Yes||6.839|0.186|0.936
91689102|NCT02575833|183271729|SUPERIORITY|The log-rank test statistic was used to compare the two treatment groups at a significance level of 0.10.|Normal score|1.55||||0.69|||||||Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 minutes or ≥ 7 minutes).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo and therefore a longer survival time.|||||0.69
91689103|NCT02575833|183271729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.69|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by stratified baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes)|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced angina free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.69|0.73|0.69
91689104|NCT02575833|183271729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.26|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by continuous baseline total exercise time|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced angina free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.26|0.52|0.44
91689105|NCT02575833|183271729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.28|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes), age group (\< 65, ≥ 65), and sex.|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced angina free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.28|0.52|0.47
91864743|NCT03221426|183619020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.00589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|||0.95|0.67|0.00589
91903806|NCT00718549|183702490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|5.012|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||5.012|0.719|0.199
91794588|NCT03981822|183468100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0356
91863711|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.777||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.165|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.720|-2.165|0.6030
91863712|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.003||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|3.967|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.967|-1.960|0.5053
91864744|NCT06262477|183619021|EQUIVALENCE|The natural log (ln)- transformed Cmax was analysed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, which included actual treatment \& body weight category (\<75 kilograms \[kg\], ≥75 kg) as factors. The ratio of geometric least square means (GLSM), and corresponding confidence interval (CI) was obtained by taking the exponential of the differences in LSMs and corresponding CIs on the ln scale.|Ratio of GLSM|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.3|0.974|1.13||||||||1.13|0.974|
91903807|NCT00718549|183702490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.668||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|5.649|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||5.649|0.566|0.375
91689106|NCT02575833|183271730|SUPERIORITY|The log-rank test statistic was used to compare the two treatment groups at a significance level of 0.10.|Normal score|2.2||||0.59|||||||Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 minutes or ≥ 7 minutes).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo and therefore a longer survival time.|||||0.59
91689107|NCT02575833|183271730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.69|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by stratified baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes)|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced ST-segment depression free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.69|0.76|0.59
91689108|NCT02575833|183271730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by continuous baseline total exercise time|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced ST-segment depression free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.60|0.73|0.75
91689109|NCT02575833|183271730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.87|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes), age group (\< 65, ≥ 65), and sex.|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced ST-segment depression free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.87|0.82|0.39
91689110|NCT04211831|183271747|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.29|||=|0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.58|||mixed model for repeated measures||Treatment comparison between Placebo and URO-902 24 mg using least sqaure mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented.|||0.58|-3.16|=0.1722
91903808|NCT00718549|183702490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.957||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|7.275|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||7.275|0.173|0.961
91689111|NCT04211831|183271747|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.24|||=|0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures||Treatment comparison between Placebo and URO-902 48 mg using least sqaure mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.|||-0.43|-4.04|=0.0159
91689112|NCT00967330|183271749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91689113|NCT00967330|183271750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.588||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|0.817|||Chi-squared|||||0.817|0.423|0.0012
91689114|NCT00967330|183271751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.354|||Chi-squared|||||1.354|0.684|0.8283
91689115|NCT00967330|183271753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.06||||0.34745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.14|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR at 4 weeks after RT.||0.14|-0.02|0.34745
91689116|NCT00967330|183271753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.09||||0.17923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.17|||Fisher Exact|||The response rate based on participants with CR at \>4 weeks after RT.||0.17|0.00|0.17923
91689117|NCT00967330|183271753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08|||Fisher Exact|||The response rate based on participants with CR at Month 6.||0.08|-0.08|1.00000
91689118|NCT00967330|183271753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.25||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.38|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR or PR at 4 weeks after RT.||0.38|0.12|0.00210
91903809|NCT00718549|183702491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|10.189|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||10.189|0.237|0.768
91721285|NCT00879658|183335237|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.273||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.273|0.033|<0.001
91721286|NCT00879658|183335237|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.47||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.470|0.069|<0.001
91721287|NCT00879658|183335237|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.434||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.434|0.069|<0.001
91721288|NCT00879658|183335238|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.259||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.67||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.670|0.100|0.005
91721289|NCT00879658|183335238|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.276||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.676||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.676|0.112|0.005
91721290|NCT00879658|183335238|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.118|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.409||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.409|0.034|<0.001
91721291|NCT00879658|183335238|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.683||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|1.991||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.991|0.234|0.485
91721292|NCT00879658|183335238|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.591||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|1.193||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.193|0.292|0.142
91794026|NCT03332771|183466733|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis was declared significant if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the adjusted mean difference is \<0.3.|Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.3306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.357|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.357|-0.120|0.3306
91689119|NCT00967330|183271753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.1||||0.18761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.23|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR and PR at \>4 weeks after RT.||0.23|-0.02|0.18761
91689120|NCT00967330|183271753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-0.05||||0.38974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR or PR at Month 6.||0.07|-0.18|0.38974
91689121|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|2.1002||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9855|8.186|||ANOVA|||Physical Functioning. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||8.1860|-3.9855|0.4975
91721293|NCT00879658|183335239|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.161|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.421||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.421|0.062|<0.001
91721294|NCT00879658|183335239|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.197||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.527||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.527|0.074|0.001
91794027|NCT03332771|183466733|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis was declared significant if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the adjusted mean difference is \<0.3.|Difference in LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.181|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.181|-0.265|0.7112
91794028|NCT03332771|183466734|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.027|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.027|-0.440|0.0827
91689122|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4704||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9358|7.9951|||ANOVA|||Role Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||7.9951|-10.9358|0.7600
91689123|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02278||||0.9949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.035|6.9895|||ANOVA|||Emotional Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.9895|-7.0350|0.9949
91689124|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8213||||0.6253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.155|5.5125|||ANOVA|||Cognitive Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.5125|-9.1550|0.6253
91721295|NCT00879658|183335239|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.416||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.331||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.331|0.130|0.139
91721296|NCT00879658|183335240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.227
91721297|NCT00879658|183335240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.020
91721298|NCT00879658|183335240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
91721299|NCT00879658|183335240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.122
91721300|NCT00879658|183335240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.034
91721301|NCT00879658|183335241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.335
91721302|NCT00879658|183335241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.022
91721303|NCT00879658|183335241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.124
91721304|NCT00879658|183335242|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.129||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.561||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.561|0.030|0.006
91721305|NCT00879658|183335242|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.159||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.578||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.578|0.044|0.005
91721306|NCT00879658|183335242|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.052||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.405||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.405|0.007|0.005
91721307|NCT00879658|183335242|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.271||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.807||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.||0.807|0.091|0.019
91721308|NCT00879658|183335242|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.504||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.337||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.337|0.190|0.169
91721309|NCT00879658|183335243|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.499||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.499|0.091|<0.001
91721310|NCT00879658|183335243|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.24||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.779||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.779|0.074|0.018
91903810|NCT00718549|183702491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|3.653|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||3.653|0.086|0.657
91903811|NCT00718549|183702491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|34.486|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||34.486|0.229|0.655
91721311|NCT00879658|183335243|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.231||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.653||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.653|0.081|0.006
91721312|NCT00157755|183335254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in the frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||0.215
91721313|NCT00157755|183335254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in the frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||1.0
91721314|NCT00157755|183335255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||0.903
91721315|NCT00157755|183335255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||0.932
91721316|NCT00157755|183335256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91721317|NCT00157755|183335256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91721318|NCT00157755|183335257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||A one-sided significance level of 0.025 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|binomial, 1 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The percentage of responders was less than or equal to 50%;~Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of responders was greater than 50%"||||0.014
91864745|NCT06262477|183619022|EQUIVALENCE|The natural log (ln)- transformed AUC0-inf was analyzed using ANCOVA model, which included actual treatment \& body weight category (\<75 kg, ≥75 kg) as factors. The ratio of GLSM, and corresponding CI was obtained by taking the exponential of the differences in LSMs and corresponding CIs on the ln scale.|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.3|0.988|1.15||||||||1.15|0.988|
91864746|NCT06262477|183619023|EQUIVALENCE|The natural log (ln)- transformed AUC0-t was analyzed using ANCOVA model, which included actual treatment \& body weight category (\<75 kg, ≥75 kg) as factors. The ratio of GLSM, and corresponding CI was obtained by taking the exponential of the differences in LSMs and corresponding CIs on the ln scale.|Ratio of GLSM|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.3|0.985|1.15||||||||1.15|0.985|
91689125|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6126||||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2953|10.5205|||ANOVA|||Social Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||10.5205|-7.2953|0.7219
91689126|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4989||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4046|9.4023|||ANOVA|||Global Health Status /QoL. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||9.4023|-2.4046|0.2443
91689127|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3449||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0739|3.3841|||ANOVA|||Fatigue. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.3841|-10.0739|0.3287
91689128|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.196||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3635|-0.0285|||ANOVA|||Nausea/Vomiting. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-0.02850|-8.3635|0.0485
91721319|NCT00157755|183335257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A one-sided significance level of 0.025 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|binomial, 1 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The percentage of responders was less than or equal to 50%;~Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of responders was greater than 50%"||||<0.001
91721320|NCT00157755|183335258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91721321|NCT00157755|183335258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91721322|NCT00157755|183335259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91721323|NCT00157755|183335259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.043
91864747|NCT05365958|183619040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures t-test of differences|||||||<.001
91689129|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.095||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5629|-0.6271|||ANOVA|||Pain. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-0.6271|-17.5629|0.0354
91689130|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2088||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2784|3.8608|||ANOVA|||Dyspnoea. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.8608|-10.2784|0.3724
91689131|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.876||||0.2884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9002|4.1482|||ANOVA|||Insomnia. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||4.1482|-13.9002|0.2884
91689132|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.782||||0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3926|3.8282|||ANOVA|||Appetite loss. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.8282|-9.3926|0.4081
91689133|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9375||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0245|3.1495|||ANOVA|||Constipation. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.1495|-11.0245|0.2750
91689134|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1685||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4129|-0.9241|||ANOVA|||Diarrhoea. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-0.9241|-11.4129|0.0213
91689135|NCT00967330|183271755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7295||||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0727|5.6137|||ANOVA|||Financial Problems. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.6137|-11.0727|0.5201
91689136|NCT00967330|183271756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2699||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2983|3.7585|||ANOVA|||Future uncertainty. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.7585|-10.2983|0.3613
91689137|NCT00967330|183271756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1159||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4654|3.2336|||ANOVA|||Visual disorder. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.2336|-5.4654|0.6146
91689138|NCT00967330|183271756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1014||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2449|6.4477|||ANOVA|||Motor dysfunction. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.4477|-4.2449|0.6860
91689139|NCT00967330|183271756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1009||||0.9706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.468|5.2663|||ANOVA|||Communication deficit. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.2663|-5.4680|0.9706
91689140|NCT00967330|183271756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.3294||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.855|-1.8037|||ANOVA|||Headaches. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-1.8037|-14.8550|0.0124
91689141|NCT00967330|183271756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0054||||0.5997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7654|2.7545|||ANOVA|||Seizures. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||2.7545|-4.7654|0.5997
91689142|NCT00967330|183271756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4399||||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6002|3.7204|||ANOVA|||Drowsiness. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.7204|-10.6002|0.3458
91689143|NCT00967330|183271756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5908||||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2279|3.0464|||ANOVA|||Hair loss. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.0464|-12.2279|0.2383
91689144|NCT00967330|183271756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9807||||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0373|6.9988|||ANOVA|||Itchy skin. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.9988|-5.0373|0.7491
91689145|NCT00967330|183271756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0341||||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1508|6.0827|||ANOVA|||Weakness of legs. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.0827|-8.1508|0.7755
91689146|NCT00967330|183271756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.469||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1211|5.0591|||ANOVA|||Bladder control. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.0591|-4.1211|0.8410
91689147|NCT00967330|183271757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1933||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.02438|||ANOVA|||Orientation to time and place. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.02438|-0.4110|0.0817
91689148|NCT00967330|183271757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02955||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06234|0.003241|||ANOVA|||Immediate recall. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.003241|-0.06234|0.0773
91689149|NCT00967330|183271757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1429||||0.2608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1065|0.3924|||ANOVA|||Repetitions required. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.3924|-0.1065|0.2608
91689150|NCT00967330|183271757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.003262||||0.9836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3092|0.3158|||ANOVA|||Calculations. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.3158|-0.3092|0.9836
91689151|NCT00967330|183271757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03782||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2071|0.1315|||ANOVA|||Short-term verbal memory. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.1315|-0.2071|0.6610
91689152|NCT00967330|183271757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08037||||0.4464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2875|0.1268|||ANOVA|||Language and construct ability. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.1268|-0.2875|0.4464
91689153|NCT00967330|183271757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3128||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1658|0.5402|||ANOVA|||Total score. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.5402|-1.1658|0.4717
91689154|NCT00967330|183271758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.151||||0.2078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4983|1.1963|||ANOVA|||KPS score. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||1.1963|-5.4983|0.2078
91689155|NCT00610428|183271762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||p-values calculated by Log-rank Test in step-down sequence (10 mg to 5 mg)|Survival|||Survival time is defined as time to the first successful headache relief.||||0.0840
91864748|NCT05365958|183619041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures t-test of differences|||||||<.001
91689156|NCT00610428|183271762|SUPERIORITY|Survival time is defined as time to the first successful headache relief.||||||0.0383||||||p-values calculated by Log-rank Test in step-down sequence (10 mg to 5 mg)|Survival|||||||0.0383
91864749|NCT05618587|183619145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
91864750|NCT05618587|183619146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91864751|NCT05618587|183619147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
91864752|NCT05618587|183619148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
91864753|NCT05618587|183619149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
91864754|NCT05618587|183619150|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard unconditional exact test|||||||1.0
91864755|NCT05618587|183619151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91863713|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.674||||0.6607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.347|3.694|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.694|-2.347|0.6607
91864756|NCT05618587|183619152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91689157|NCT04927845|183271763|SUPERIORITY||between-group effect size Cohen's d|0.24||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.41|||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||||0.41|0.06|.008
91689158|NCT04927845|183271763|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||Per Protocol Analyses of Intervention Effects: comparing the waitlist condition versus only intervention group participants who were program initiators||||.03
91721324|NCT00157755|183335260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.009
91689159|NCT04927845|183271763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||Per Protocol Analyses of Intervention Effects: concurrent service use was added as a covariate to models.||||.009
91689160|NCT04927845|183271764|SUPERIORITY||between-group effect size Cohen's d|0.11||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||||||.21
91689161|NCT04927845|183271765|SUPERIORITY||between-group effect size Cohen's d|0.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36|||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||||0.36|0.02|.046
91689162|NCT05120193|183271766|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety analysis is performed at a one-sided Type I error rate of α = 0.05. The Farrington-Manning method is used to calculate the upper 95% confidence bound for the difference (QI - QC) between the rate of the primary safety endpoint in the investigational arm (QI) and the rate of the primary safety endpoint in the control arm (QC). If the upper confidence bound is less than 0.08, the study is considered to have demonstrated safety of the investigational device.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.028|0.037|||Farrington-Manning|||"The null hypothesis (H0) for the primary safety analysis is that the true rate of primary safety events for the investigational device (QI) is equal to or greater than the true rate for the control device (QC) plus a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 0.08. The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the rate of primary safety events for the investigational arm (QI) is less than the rate of primary safety events for the control arm (QC) plus the NIM of 0.08.~H0: QI ≥ QC + 0.08 HA: QI \< QC + 0.08"||0.037|-0.028|<0.0001
91689163|NCT05120193|183271767|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary effectiveness analysis (PSE) is performed at a one-sided Type I error rate of α = 0.025. The Farrington-Manning method is used to calculate the lower 97.5% confidence bound for the difference (PI - PC) between the rate of the PSE in the investigational arm (PI) and the rate of the PSE in the control arm (PC). If the lower confidence bound is greater than -0.15, the study is considered to have demonstrated effectiveness of the investigational device.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.168|||Farrington-Manning|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the true rate of primary effectiveness endpoint success (no failures through Day 360) for the investigational device (PI) is less than or equal to the true rate for the control device (PC) minus the NIM of 0.15. The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the success rate for the investigational arm (PI) is greater than the success rate for the control device (PC) minus the NIM of 0.15.~H0: PI ≤ PC - 0.15 HA: PI \> PC - 0.15"||0.168|-0.009|0.025
91689164|NCT05120193|183271768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-26.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the mean total energy application time during the ablation procedure for the investigational device (ETI) is greater than or equal to the mean time for the control device (ETC). The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the mean total energy application time for the investigational device is less.~H0: ETI ≥ ETC versus HA: ETI \< ETC"||-26.8|-31.7|<0.0001
91689165|NCT05120193|183271769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-21.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the mean treatment time for the investigational device (TTI) is greater than or equal to the mean treatment time for the control device (TTC). The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the mean treatment time for the investigational device is less.~H0: TTI ≥ TTC versus HA: TTI \< TTC"||-21.4|-32.2|<0.0001
91689166|NCT05120193|183271770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-17.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the mean procedure time for the investigational device (PTI) is greater than or equal to the mean procedure time for the control device (PTC). The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the mean procedure time for the investigational device is less.~H0: PTI ≥ PTC versus HA: PTI \< PTC"||-17.3|-33.0|0.025
91689167|NCT04796961|183271771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||||||||0.7|0.1|
91689168|NCT04796961|183271772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1||||||smoking screening||1.1|-0.1|
91689169|NCT04796961|183271772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.2||||||readiness to quit assessments||1.2|-0.1|
91864757|NCT05618587|183619153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91864758|NCT05618587|183619154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91864759|NCT05618587|183619155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91864760|NCT05618587|183619156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91864761|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.13519
91689170|NCT04796961|183271772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||||||smoking cessation counseling||2.0|0.8|
91863714|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.809||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|10.446|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||10.446|-0.827|0.1309
91863715|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.553||||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.212|7.318|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.318|-4.212|0.9776
91863716|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.862||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.939|10.663|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||10.663|-0.939|0.1422
91903812|NCT00718549|183702491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.635||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||3.730|0.117|0.595
91903813|NCT00718549|183702491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|8.102|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: ZAP-70 Expression Negative versus Positive||8.102|0.164|1.000
91689171|NCT04796961|183271772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||||||smoking cessation pharmacotherapy||1.7|-0.5|
91689172|NCT03848715|183271784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.16
91721325|NCT00157755|183335260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.001
91689173|NCT00931528|183271844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||Chi-squared|||Sample size calculations were based on the hypothesis that the use of tadalafil would statistically significant increase the proportion of patients maintaining spontaneous erectile function compared to the use of placebo. Based on a 2-sided Fisher exact test with alpha=0.05, 91 patients/arm would provide 80% statistical power to detect an increase from 20% to 40% in spontaneous erectile response at weeks 28-30. Although designed for the Fisher exact test, Chi-square was used and reported.||9|1|0.49
91689174|NCT00931528|183271844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2386|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA).) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.2386
91689175|NCT00931528|183271844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7908|||||||Regression, Linear|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.)The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. RT method is reported here.||||0.7908
91794589|NCT03981822|183468100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0118
91689176|NCT00931528|183271844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0467|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Age is reported here.||||0.0467
91794029|NCT03332771|183466734|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.571|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.167|-0.571|0.0003
91794030|NCT03332771|183466735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.349|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.173|-0.803|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups (placebo, sotagliflozin 200 mg, sotagliflozin 400 mg, glimepiride), randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130,≥ 130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.803|-2.173|<0.0001
91689177|NCT00931528|183271844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. N Stage is reported here.||||0.0068
91689178|NCT00931528|183271845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.93
91689179|NCT00931528|183271845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.58
91689180|NCT00931528|183271845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9501|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 1: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[none\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, N stage, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.9501
91721326|NCT00157755|183335261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91721327|NCT00157755|183335261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91721328|NCT00157755|183335262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.016
91689181|NCT00931528|183271845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 1: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[none\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, N stage, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. RT method is reported here.||||0.1020
91689182|NCT00931528|183271845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1855|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 1: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[none\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, N stage, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Age is reported here.||||0.1855
91689183|NCT00931528|183271845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5739|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.5739
91721329|NCT00157755|183335262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.236
91721330|NCT01719653|183335263|OTHER||||||<|0.005||||||Chicago BPS Total Score -- 1 was lower than 3,4,5; 2 was lower than 5. Modified Chicago BPS Total Score -- 1 were lower than 5. Chicago BPS Fluid Score -- 1 was dryer than 3,4,5; 2 was dryer than 3,4,5; 3 was wetter than 4,5.|t-test, 2 sided|||"All 5 arms were compared pair-wise.~1=G+PEG-306 2=G+PEG-357 3=G+PEG-Split 4=PEG+Asc-Split 5=SS-Split"||||<0.005
91794031|NCT03332771|183466735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.651|-2.517|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 is analyzed using analysis of ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-2.517|-4.651|< 0.0001
91794032|NCT03332771|183466736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.288||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.701|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.650|-6.701|0.0012
91721331|NCT01719653|183335264|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||1 was lower than 4,5.|t-test, 2 sided|||"All 5 arms were compared pair-wise.~1=G+PEG-306 2=G+PEG-357 3=G+PEG-Split 4=PEG+Asc-Split 5=SS-Split"||||<0.001
91721332|NCT01719653|183335265|OTHER||||||>|0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||All 5 arms were compared pair-wise.||||>0.005
91721333|NCT02421939|183335266|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.637||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83||1-sided P-value|Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR of \< 1 indicates a reduction in the hazard rate in favor of the gilteritinib arm|Stratified analysis where tratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.||0.830|0.490|0.0004
91721334|NCT02421939|183335268|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.089||1-sided P-value|Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR of \< 1 indicates a reduction in the hazard rate in favor of the gilteritinib arm.|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT||1.089|0.577|0.0415
91721335|NCT02421939|183335269|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|10.6||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|18.4||Stratified P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT. Treatment difference = gilteritinib -chemotherapy.||18.4|2.8|0.0106
91721336|NCT02421939|183335270|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.889||||0.6654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.563||Unstratified p-value|Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR of \< 1 indicates a reduction in the hazard rate in favor of the gilteritinib arm.|The LFS was analyzed for participants who achieved remission using the stratified log-rank test with strata to control for response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy. Duration of LFS was based on Kaplan-Meier estimates.||1.563|0.506|0.6654
91721337|NCT02421939|183335271|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.206||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|1.886||Unstratified|Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm.|||1.886|0.022|0.1189
91721338|NCT02421939|183335272|OTHER||Treatment difference|32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|42.6||Unstratified 2-sided P-value|2-sided Fisher's exact test|||Treatment difference = gilteritinib - chemotherapy. The 95% CIs were asymptotic confidence limits using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||42.6|22.3|<0.0001
91721339|NCT02421939|183335273|OTHER||Treatment Difference|10.2||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|19.1||Unstratified 2-sided P-value.|2-sided Fisher's exact test|Treatment difference = gilteritinib - chemotherapy.||||19.1|1.2|0.0333
91689184|NCT00931528|183271845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. RT method is reported here.||||0.0422
91689185|NCT00931528|183271845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5237|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Age is reported here.||||0.5237
91721340|NCT02421939|183335274|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2567||||0|||||||ANCOVA|||C1D8: Using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment as a fixed factor, baseline score, response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT as covariates. Least Square (LS) Mean difference was estimated using chemotherapy as control.||||0.0000
91721341|NCT02421939|183335274|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1574||||0.8037|||||||ANCOVA|||C2D1: Using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment as a fixed factor, baseline score, response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT as covariates. Least Square (LS) Mean difference was estimated using chemotherapy as control.||||0.8037
91721342|NCT02421939|183335275|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference,|18.6|||<|0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|27.4||Stratified 1-sided P-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Based on a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT. Pooled strata were used as shown in Table 12.3.3.2. Treatment differences were adjusted based on pooled strata. Treatment difference = gilteritinib 120 mg - chemotherapy.||27.4|9.8|<0.0171
91721343|NCT04773028|183335281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93054.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91721344|NCT02966834|183335299|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.82||||||||0.82|-1.75|
91721345|NCT02966834|183335299|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.31||||||||0.31|-2.07|
91721346|NCT02966834|183335299|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.28||||||||0.28|-2.03|
91721347|NCT02966834|183335299|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.03||||||||0.03|-2.29|
91721348|NCT02966834|183335299|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.65||||||||0.65|-1.71|
91721349|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||||Symptoms|||2.3|-1.9|
91721350|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||||Symptoms|||2.5|-1.5|
91721351|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.8|||||Symptoms|||0.8|-3.1|
91721352|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.0|||||Symptoms|||2.0|-1.8|
91721353|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9|||||Symptoms|||1.9|-2.0|
91721354|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2|||||Itch|||2.2|-1.3|
91721355|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.3|||||Itch|||1.3|-1.8|
91721356|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2|||||Itch|||1.2|-1.9|
91721357|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||||Itch|||0.5|-2.6|
91721358|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||||Itch|||1.3|-1.9|
91721359|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.2|||||Fatigue|||3.2|-4.5|
91721360|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.2|||||Fatigue|||4.2|-2.8|
91721361|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||||Fatigue|||7.0|0.0|
91794033|NCT03332771|183466736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0973||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|0.491|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.491|-5.890|0.0973
91689186|NCT00931528|183271845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. N Stage is reported here.||||0.4770
91689187|NCT00931528|183271846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.97
91689188|NCT00931528|183271846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.99
91689189|NCT00931528|183271846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.24
91689190|NCT00931528|183271847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.70
91689191|NCT00931528|183271847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.65
91689192|NCT00931528|183271847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.72
91689193|NCT00931528|183271848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.14
91689194|NCT00931528|183271848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.64
91689195|NCT00931528|183271848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.18
91689196|NCT00931528|183271849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.67
91689197|NCT00931528|183271849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.98
91689198|NCT00931528|183271849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.96
91689199|NCT00931528|183271850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.86
91689200|NCT00931528|183271850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.93
91689201|NCT00931528|183271850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.52
91689202|NCT05842967|183271872|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|GMR|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.396|1.759|||||GMRs (ratio of GMTs from C3671023 SSA to C3671013 immunogenicity subset), 2-sided CI were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means, corresponding CIs based on regression model. Data reported here is for RSV A.|||1.759|1.396|
91689203|NCT05842967|183271872|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|GMR|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.333|1.725|||||GMRs (ratio of GMTs from C3671023 SSA to C3671013 immunogenicity subset), 2-sided CI were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means, corresponding CIs based on regression model. Data reported here is for RSV B.|||1.725|1.333|
91689204|NCT05842967|183271873|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|Difference in percentage|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.2|||||Difference (C3671023 SSA, compared to C3671013 immunogenicity subset) in proportions, expressed as a percentage; 95% CIs for percentage difference were calculated using exact method based on Miettinen and Nurminen. Data reported here is for RSV A.|||9.2|1.2|
91864762|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.8556
91689205|NCT05842967|183271873|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|Difference in percentage|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|12.6|||||Difference (C3671023 SSA, compared to C3671013 immunogenicity subset) in proportions, expressed as a percentage; 95% CIs for percentage difference were calculated using exact method based on Miettinen and Nurminen. Data reported here is for RSV B.|||12.6|4.2|
91689206|NCT03514459|183271891|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence ratio|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.2|||Poisson regression|Robust standard errors||||2.20|1.54|<0.001
91689207|NCT01321749|183271930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||5.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91689208|NCT00970593|183271941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.29||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||0.29|-1.79|
91689209|NCT00970593|183271941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.83||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-0.83|-2.98|
91689210|NCT00970593|183271941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.24||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-1.24|-3.06|
91689211|NCT00970593|183271942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.22||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-1.22|-3.52|
91689212|NCT00970593|183271942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-2.2||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-2.20|-4.16|
91689213|NCT00970593|183271942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.437|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-2.28||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-2.28|-4.01|
91689214|NCT02203357|183271947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91689215|NCT01866826|183271952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91863717|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.851||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|11.396|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||11.396|0.307|0.0334
91864763|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.46943
91689216|NCT01866826|183271953|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||We calculated the proportion of pts with elevated viral levels \>50 copies/ml at each phase of the study.|We estimated that four of the seven patients would have an elevation in viral Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) level \>50 copies/ml.|||
91689217|NCT01866826|183271955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7872|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We calculated the percentage of total lymphocytes that were expressing activation markers at each time point, and compared the differences in the percentages in the Rifaximin and control groups. We used the Wilcoxon test to detect differences between the differences in percentages in the control and Rifaximin groups.||||
91689218|NCT01866826|183271955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon|||We calculated the percentage of total lymphocytes that were expressing the activation markers at each time point, and compared the differences in the percentages in the Rifaximin and control groups. We used the T-test to detect differences between the differences in percentages in the control group and Rifaximin groups.||||0.54
91689219|NCT01999920|183271967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.064
91689220|NCT01999920|183271968|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|12.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.32|-1.32|0.11
91689221|NCT01999920|183271969|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Confidence variable||5.53|-4.85|0.89
91689222|NCT01999920|183271969|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|10.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Discomfort with Closeness variable||10.58|-8.21|0.79
91689223|NCT01999920|183271969|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|12.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relationships as Secondary variable||12.01|-4.12|0.31
91689224|NCT01999920|183271969|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Need for Approval variable||0.58|-5.79|0.10
91689225|NCT01999920|183271969|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|6.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Preoccupation with Relationships variable||6.72|-5.30|0.80
91689226|NCT01999920|183271970|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|-19.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.23|-5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.58|-34.23|0.008
91689227|NCT01999920|183271971|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.16|0.42|0.026
91689228|NCT01999920|183271972|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|21.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|37.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||37.11|5.64|0.01
91689229|NCT02058069|183271975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Alternative Hypothesis: The Investigational Device (RIO) true event rate is non-inferior to 0.066 (event rate for manual TKA) with a non-inferiority margin of 0.06. The 0.066 rate is based on literature and 0.06 was determined in consultation with FDA.|Rare Adverse Event Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0331|||||If the upper bound is \<0.126 then the primary composite safety endpoint is met. After the surgeon completed the procedure, at the conclusion of the participant's hospital stay, and 3 months post-operative were used in this single analysis.|||0.0331||
91689230|NCT02058069|183271977|OTHER|The analysis was performed using standard OC curves generated using Sample Size Analyzer® version 2.0 by Taylor Enterprise Inc. (Dr. Wayne A. Taylor).|Alignment Difference <4.38 Degrees|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.966||||||Estimation Parameter is: proportion of participants with limb alignment difference \<4.38 degrees If the lower bound is \>0.95 then the assessment passes.||||0.966|
91864764|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.0449
91689231|NCT02058069|183271978|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper bound for the one-sided 95% confidence interval will be compared with -9. If the upper bound is less than -9, then non-inferiority holds.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-29.6|||t-test, 2 sided||If the upper bound is less than -9, then non-inferiority holds.|Change from pre-op to 3 months||-29.6||<0.001
91689232|NCT02222922|183272024|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|79.38||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.01|116.65|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||116.65|54.01|0.3105
91689233|NCT02222922|183272025|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|77.23||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.8|110.87|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||110.87|53.80|0.2316
91689234|NCT02222922|183272026|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|84.97||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.05|120.22|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||120.22|60.05|0.4264
91689235|NCT02222922|183272027|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|88.32||||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.03|121.82|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||121.82|64.03|0.5123
91721362|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.1|||||Fatigue|||5.1|-1.8|
91689236|NCT02222922|183272028|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|91.15||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.79|185.5|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||185.50|44.79|0.8240
91689237|NCT02222922|183272029|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|89.58||||0.7922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.94|182.62|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||182.62|43.94|0.7922
91689238|NCT02222922|183272030|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|91.17||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.87|185.25|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||185.25|44.87|0.8240
91689239|NCT02222922|183272031|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|102.31||||0.9553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.08|204.9|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||204.90|51.08|0.9553
91689240|NCT02222922|183272032|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|81.14||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.99|113.54|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||113.54|57.99|0.2951
91689241|NCT02222922|183272033|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|84.02||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.24|117.19|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||117.19|60.24|0.3769
91689242|NCT02222922|183272034|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|86.15||||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.2|119.32|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||119.32|62.20|0.4385
91689243|NCT02222922|183272035|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|88.75||||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.24|126.56|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||126.56|62.24|0.5678
91689244|NCT02002221|183272065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||H0: δ vildagliptin 50 mg bid = δ placebo versus H1: δ Vildagliptin 50 mg bid \< δ placebo,||-0.73|-1.08|< 0.001
91689245|NCT03743051|183272088|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.971|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant.~The null hypothesis for mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks (H0w) and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (H1w) were:~H0w: MWa = MW; H1w: MWa ≠ MWp~Where MWa is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the anamorelin arm and MWp is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the placebo arm."||1.971|0.718|<0.0001
91689246|NCT03743051|183272089|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.622|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|1.472|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to the placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant.~The null hypothesis for mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in patient 5-IASS (H0A) and the corresponding alternative (H1A) were:~H0A: MAa = MAp; H1A: MAa ≠ MAp~Where MAa is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the anamorelin arm and MAp is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the placebo arm."||1.472|-0.228|0.1514
91689247|NCT03743051|183272090|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.367|3.453|||ANOVA|||||3.453|1.367|<0.0001
91689248|NCT03743051|183272091|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|2.284|||ANOVA|||||2.284|0.388|0.0057
91689249|NCT03743051|183272092|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|1.816|||ANOVA|||||1.816|0.238|0.0108
91689250|NCT03743051|183272093|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||0.2605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|1.466|||ANOVA|||||1.466|-0.397|0.2605
91689251|NCT02550561|183272094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||Subjects that reported either moderately or markedly improved on the GRA scale at 6 weeks compared to 12 weeks.|McNemar|||||||0.317
91689252|NCT02550561|183272095|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||paired t-tests|||The mean change in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for bladder pain||||0.47
91689253|NCT02550561|183272095|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change in Pelvis Pain and Urgency/Frequency Patient Symptom (PUF) score||||0.17
91689254|NCT02550561|183272095|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change for O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index (ICSI)||||.08
91689255|NCT02550561|183272095|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index (ICPI)||||0.51
91689256|NCT02550561|183272095|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change in 24-h urinary frequency||||0.22
91864765|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.504
91864766|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.772193
91903814|NCT00718549|183702491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.857||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|6.636|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||6.636|0.093|0.882
91689257|NCT00262028|183272125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|44.0||||||Noninferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup A||44|29|
91689258|NCT00262028|183272125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the lower LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|26.0||||||Noninferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup C||26|12|
91689259|NCT00262028|183272125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.0||||||Noninferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup W||29|17|
91689260|NCT00262028|183272125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|38.0||||||No inferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup Y||38|25|
91689261|NCT00262028|183272125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|44.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup A~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||44|29|
91689262|NCT00262028|183272125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|26.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup C~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||26|12|
91689263|NCT00262028|183272125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup W~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||29|17|
91689264|NCT00262028|183272125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|38.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup Y~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||38|25|
91689265|NCT01998841|183272169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.13|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on random coefficient regression model (RCRM) using unstructured covariance matrix: API Composite Endpoint=Treatment \* Analysis Year + interactive voice or Web-based response system (IxRS) defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||1.13|-0.48|0.43
91689266|NCT01998841|183272170|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.02|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: FCSRT Cueing Index = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.02|-0.003|0.16
91689267|NCT01998841|183272171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.52|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression|Stratification factors used: Age Group, Education History, APOE4 Carrier Status, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Global Score.||1.52|0.41|0.48
91864767|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.5414
91864768|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.070
91689268|NCT01998841|183272172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.59|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratification factors used: Age Group, Education History, APOE4 Carrier Status.||1.59|0.53|0.76
91689269|NCT01998841|183272173|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: CDR-SB = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.09|-0.15|0.64
91721363|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||||Fatigue|||3.6|-3.6|
91721364|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||||Cognitive|||2.6|-2.5|
91864769|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.546
91903815|NCT00718549|183702491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.154||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|4.405|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 17p No versus Yes||4.405|0.005|0.216
91864770|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.756
91689270|NCT01998841|183272174|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.75|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: RBANS Total Score = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.75|-0.40|0.55
91689271|NCT01998841|183272175|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.0006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0037|0.0024|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: PET SUVR = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.0024|-0.0037|0.69
91689272|NCT01998841|183272176|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.007|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: FDG-PET = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.007|-0.002|0.25
91689273|NCT01998841|183272177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|107.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.28||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5|290.05|||RCRM|||Whole Brain: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: MRI Whole Brain (Derived) = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||290.05|-74.5|0.25
91689274|NCT01998841|183272177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.39||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.74|43.94|||RCRM|||Bilateral Hippocampus: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: MRI Bilateral Hippocampus = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||43.94|-24.74|0.58
91689275|NCT01998841|183272177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|19.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|213.08||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-400.78|440.62|||RCRM|||Ventricles: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: MRI Ventricles = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||440.62|-400.78|0.93
91689276|NCT01998841|183272178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|4.23|||RCRM|||tTau: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: CSF tTau = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||4.23|-8.17|0.53
91689277|NCT01998841|183272178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43|||RCRM|||pTau: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: CSF pTau = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.43|-1.43|0.28
91689278|NCT01998841|183272186|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|7522.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|313.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6903.44|8141.65|||RCRM|||Aβ1-40: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: APlasma Amyloid Beta 1-40 =Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||8141.65|6903.44|<0.0001
91689279|NCT01998841|183272186|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|556.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|508.63|603.44|||RCRM|||Aβ1-42: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Plasma Amyloid Peptid Beta 42 =Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||603.44|508.63|<0.0001
91689280|NCT00972595|183272191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8 mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet) of AUC0-∞ and Cmax for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.93|1.03||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (OE U.K. tablet / U.K. tablet): an over-encapsulated single 8 mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) taken orally; a single 8 mg tablet of ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally||1.03|0.93|
91689281|NCT00972595|183272192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8 mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8 mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet) of AUC0-∞ and Cmax for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.99||||||90.0|0.93|1.05||||||"Least-Squares Mean Ratio (OE U.K. tablet / U.K. tablet): an over-encapsulated single 8 mg tablet of United Kingdom~(U.K.) ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) taken orally; a single 8 mg tablet of ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) which is marketed in the~United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally"||1.05|0.93|
91689282|NCT00141778|183272205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Discrete variables were compared among treatment groups with a chi-square test.||||0.95
91689283|NCT00141778|183272206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91689284|NCT00141778|183272207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91689285|NCT00141778|183272208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91689286|NCT00141778|183272209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.56
91689287|NCT00141778|183272210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
91689288|NCT00141778|183272211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
91864771|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.700
91864772|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.397
91864773|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.093
91689289|NCT00141778|183272212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
91689290|NCT02085447|183272216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.012
91689291|NCT02085447|183272217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.028
91689292|NCT02085447|183272218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.162
91689293|NCT02085447|183272219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.021
91689294|NCT02085447|183272220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.005
91689295|NCT02085447|183272221|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
91721365|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7|||||Cognitive|||1.7|-2.9|
91721366|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.5|||||Cognitive|||2.5|-2.1|
91721367|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.8|||||Cognitive|||2.8|-1.8|
91721368|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.5|||||Cognitive|||2.5|-2.2|
91721369|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||||Emotional|||0.4|-2.1|
91864774|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.323
91689296|NCT02085447|183272222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.197
91689297|NCT02085447|183272223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
91689298|NCT02085447|183272224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
91689299|NCT02085447|183272225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
91689300|NCT02085447|183272226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.053
91689301|NCT02085447|183272227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
91689302|NCT02085447|183272228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.821
91721370|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.3|||||Emotional|||1.3|-0.9|
91721371|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||||Emotional|||1.1|-1.2|
91721372|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||||Emotional|||0.3|-1.9|
91721373|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||||Emotional|||1.1|-1.2|
91721374|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.0|||||Social|||3.0|-2.4|
91721375|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.7|||||Social|||3.7|-1.3|
91721376|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.7|||||Social|||2.7|-2.3|
91721377|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.1|||||Social|||0.1|-4.8|
91689303|NCT02085447|183272229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.330
91689304|NCT02085447|183272230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.425
91689305|NCT02085447|183272231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.577
91689306|NCT02085447|183272232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.330
91689307|NCT02085447|183272233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.706
91689308|NCT02085447|183272234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.481
91689309|NCT02085447|183272235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.020
91689310|NCT02085447|183272236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.103
91689311|NCT02085447|183272237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.063
91721378|NCT02966834|183335300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4|||||Social|||2.4|-2.8|
91721379|NCT02966834|183335301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-106.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-251.7|38.2||||||||38.2|-251.7|
91721380|NCT02966834|183335301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.5|23.8||||||||23.8|-198.5|
91721381|NCT02966834|183335301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.6|126.5||||||||126.5|-125.6|
91721382|NCT02966834|183335301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-78.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.5|54.8||||||||54.8|-211.5|
91721383|NCT02966834|183335301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.7|110.7||||||||110.7|-170.7|
91721384|NCT02966834|183335303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|15.5||||||||15.5|-58.4|
91721385|NCT02966834|183335303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|16.4||||||||16.4|-41.9|
91721386|NCT02966834|183335303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|20.0||||||||20.0|-49.9|
91721387|NCT02966834|183335303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|10.4||||||||10.4|-63.3|
91721388|NCT02966834|183335303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|37.1||||||||37.1|-36.7|
91721389|NCT02966834|183335304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.73|12.74||||||||12.74|-52.73|
91721390|NCT02966834|183335304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|1.39||||||||1.39|-50.80|
91721391|NCT02966834|183335304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.39|8.16||||||||8.16|-53.39|
91721392|NCT02966834|183335304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.44|0.09||||||||0.09|-63.44|
91721393|NCT02966834|183335304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|26.74||||||||26.74|-38.33|
91721394|NCT02966834|183335305|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.1|-6.8||||||||-6.8|-205.1|
91721395|NCT02966834|183335305|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-65.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.5|17.6||||||||17.6|-148.5|
91721396|NCT02966834|183335305|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.5|50.9||||||||50.9|-136.5|
91721397|NCT02966834|183335305|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-65.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.2|29.5||||||||29.5|-161.2|
91721398|NCT02966834|183335305|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.6|45.3||||||||45.3|-153.6|
91721399|NCT02966834|183335306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.099|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.929|-0.268||||||||-0.268|-11.929|
91721400|NCT02966834|183335306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.337|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.962|2.289||||||||2.289|-6.962|
91721401|NCT02966834|183335306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.679|3.215||||||||3.215|-7.679|
91689312|NCT04052620|183272241|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: if the upper 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of Least Square (LS) mean difference was less than 13 mm then DDEA 2.32% gel BID was concluded as non-inferior.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.22|||ANCOVA|||||5.22|-3.00|0.5950
91689313|NCT04052620|183272243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|1.75|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||1.75|-6.61|0.2536
91689314|NCT04052620|183272243|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.7|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||2.70|-4.23|0.6643
91689315|NCT04052620|183272244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|3.54|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||3.54|-1.13|0.3118
91689316|NCT04052620|183272244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.74|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||1.74|-3.60|0.4937
91689317|NCT04052620|183272244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.3825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|4.74|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||4.74|-1.83|0.3825
91689318|NCT04052620|183272245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.75|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||2.75|-2.23|0.8360
91689319|NCT04052620|183272245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.3119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.18|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||1.18|-3.69|0.3119
91689320|NCT04052620|183272245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.2535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.52|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||4.52|-1.20|0.2535
91689321|NCT04052620|183272246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.6242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.71|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||3.71|-2.23|0.6242
91689322|NCT04052620|183272246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|3.77|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||3.77|-4.33|0.8905
91689323|NCT04052620|183272246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|6.54|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||6.54|-2.29|0.3439
91689324|NCT04052620|183272247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||0.07|-0.44|0.1554
91689325|NCT04052620|183272247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.12|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||-0.12|-0.66|0.0047
91689326|NCT04052620|183272247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.1|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||-0.10|-0.66|0.0082
91689327|NCT04052620|183272248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.07|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||0.07|-0.30|0.2182
91689328|NCT04052620|183272248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||0.01|-0.36|0.0574
91689329|NCT04052620|183272248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.03|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||-0.03|-0.37|0.0194
91689330|NCT04052620|183272249|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.821||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.986|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 1|||1.986|-1.250|0.6545
91689331|NCT04052620|183272249|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.4924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.915|0.924|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||0.924|-1.915|0.4924
91689332|NCT04052620|183272250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.823||0.9491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.675|1.57|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 1|||1.570|-1.675|0.9491
91689333|NCT04052620|183272250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.451||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.059|3.659|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||3.659|-2.059|0.5820
91689334|NCT01112059|183272263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.633|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.633|0.128|<0.05
91689335|NCT03093259|183272298|OTHER|One-sided 10% significance level||||||0.2096|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2096
91689336|NCT03093259|183272299|OTHER|||||||0.1588|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1588
91689337|NCT03093259|183272300|OTHER|||||||0.483|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4830
91689338|NCT03093259|183272301|OTHER|||||||0.0742|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0742
91689339|NCT03093259|183272302|OTHER|||||||0.0462|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0462
91689340|NCT00550459|183272308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.55||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.5||Secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers to be analyzed only when \>=1 of the endpoints in the prior tier were significant. Since primary endpoint not stat significant, analyses of secondary endpoint tiers presented for exploratory purposes only|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age(6 Degrees of Freedom), and covariate baseline to fit primary endpoint using the ITT dataset.||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment,disease severity (\<130mEq/L \[mmol/L\] or ≥130mEq/L \[mmol/L\] at baseline),age (\<65, ≥65 to \<75,and ≥75 years) (factor with 6 Degrees of Freedom), and covariate baseline used to fit primary endpoint using the intent-to-treat (ITT) dataset. Estimated treatment effect and its 95% confidence interval (CI) provided under the model with p-value. A 2-sided alpha (0.05) applied to the primary analysis. Primary analysis based on observed cases (OC).||0.50|-0.03|0.08
91689341|NCT00550459|183272309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.51||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.51|-0.12|0.21
91721402|NCT02966834|183335306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.492|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.413|4.43||||||||4.430|-7.413|
91721403|NCT02966834|183335306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.591|11.063||||||||11.063|-0.591|
91721404|NCT02966834|183335307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6||||||||1.6|-2.7|
91721405|NCT02966834|183335307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1||||||||2.1|-1.5|
91721406|NCT02966834|183335307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7||||||||2.7|-1.2|
91721407|NCT02966834|183335307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0||||||||2.0|-2.1|
91721408|NCT02966834|183335307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9||||||||2.9|-1.5|
91721409|NCT02966834|183335308|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.08|
91864775|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) tothe patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.182
91689342|NCT00550459|183272310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.51||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.51|0.04|0.02
91721410|NCT02966834|183335308|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.09|
91721411|NCT02966834|183335308|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.06|
91721412|NCT02966834|183335308|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.09|
91721413|NCT02966834|183335308|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.10|
91721414|NCT02966834|183335309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.63||||||||0.63|-0.33|
91721415|NCT02966834|183335309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.51|
91721416|NCT02966834|183335309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.34|
91721417|NCT02966834|183335309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.38||||||||0.38|-0.54|
91721418|NCT02966834|183335309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.41||||||||0.41|-0.54|
91721419|NCT02966834|183335319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|12.02|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||12.02|0.69|
91721420|NCT02966834|183335319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.02|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||5.02|0.48|
91721421|NCT02966834|183335319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.76|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||10.76|0.84|
91721422|NCT02966834|183335319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.76|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||10.76|0.84|
91721423|NCT02966834|183335319|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.13|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||4.13|0.43|
91721424|NCT02966834|183335320|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.47|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||4.47|0.41|
91721425|NCT02966834|183335320|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|10.65|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||10.65|0.95|
91721426|NCT02966834|183335320|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.53|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||5.53|0.62|
91721427|NCT02966834|183335320|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.92|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.92|0.74|
91721428|NCT02966834|183335320|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.51|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.51|0.69|
91721429|NCT02966834|183335321|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.04|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||3.04|0.27|
91721430|NCT02966834|183335321|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.91|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.91|0.73|
91721431|NCT02966834|183335321|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.08|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||3.08|0.35|
91721432|NCT02966834|183335321|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.42|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.42|0.73|
91721433|NCT02966834|183335321|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.99|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||5.99|0.67|
91721434|NCT02966834|183335322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|39.0||||||||39.00|-2.59|
91864776|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.880
91721435|NCT02966834|183335322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|29.53||||||||29.53|-7.42|
91721436|NCT02966834|183335322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|36.06||||||||36.06|0.82|
91721437|NCT02966834|183335322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|43.95||||||||43.95|7.00|
91721438|NCT02966834|183335322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|31.99||||||||31.99|-5.47|
91721439|NCT02966834|183335323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|35.1||||||||35.10|-5.13|
91721440|NCT02966834|183335323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|24.84||||||||24.84|-10.90|
91721441|NCT02966834|183335323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|28.82||||||||28.82|-5.27|
91721442|NCT02966834|183335323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|39.7||||||||39.70|3.96|
91721443|NCT02966834|183335323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|39.69||||||||39.69|3.46|
91721444|NCT02966834|183335324|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|27.06||||||||27.06|-14.76|
91721445|NCT02966834|183335324|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|25.84||||||||25.84|-11.32|
91721446|NCT02966834|183335324|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|26.85||||||||26.85|-8.59|
91721447|NCT02966834|183335324|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|38.51||||||||38.51|1.36|
91721448|NCT02966834|183335324|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|45.87||||||||45.87|8.20|
91721449|NCT02966834|183335325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.92||||||||0.92|-1.46|
91721450|NCT02966834|183335325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.62||||||||0.62|-1.58|
91721451|NCT02966834|183335325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.61||||||||0.61|-1.53|
91721452|NCT02966834|183335325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.12||||||||0.12|-2.03|
91721453|NCT02966834|183335325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||||||||0.80|-1.40|
91721454|NCT02966834|183335326|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.71||||||||0.71|-1.49|
91721455|NCT02966834|183335326|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.61||||||||0.61|-1.41|
91721456|NCT02966834|183335326|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.72||||||||0.72|-1.24|
91721457|NCT02966834|183335326|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.56||||||||0.56|-1.39|
91721458|NCT02966834|183335326|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.7||||||||0.70|-1.28|
91721459|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||||Duration|||0.5|-0.7|
91721460|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||||Duration|||0.9|-0.2|
91721461|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||||Duration|||0.1|-1.0|
91794034|NCT03332771|183466737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-2.319|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-2.319|-5.730|<0.0001
91721462|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||||Duration|||0.7|-0.3|
91721463|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||||Duration|||0.6|-0.4|
91864777|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) tothe patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.496
91721464|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||||Degree|||0.3|-0.8|
91721465|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Degree|||0.5|-0.5|
91721466|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||||Degree|||0.5|-0.6|
91721467|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||||Degree|||0.3|-0.7|
91721468|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||||Degree|||0.4|-0.6|
91721469|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Direction|||0.7|-0.7|
91721470|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||||Direction|||0.6|-0.7|
91721471|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||||Direction|||0.5|-0.8|
91721472|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||||Direction|||0.2|-1.0|
91721473|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Direction|||0.6|-0.6|
91721474|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.1|
91721475|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||||Disability|||0.5|-0.8|
91721476|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.0|
91721477|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.0|
91721478|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.0|
91721479|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||||Distribution|||0.3|-0.9|
91721480|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||||Distribution|||0.2|-0.9|
91721481|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||||Distribution|||0.0|-1.0|
91721482|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||||Distribution|||0.2|-0.9|
91721483|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||||Distribution|||0.3|-0.7|
91721484|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||1.3|-3.3|
91721485|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||2.1|-2.2|
91721486|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.7|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||0.7|-3.5|
91721487|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.2|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||1.2|-3.0|
91721488|NCT02966834|183335327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||1.6|-2.7|
91721489|NCT02966834|183335331|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.28||||||||0.28|-1.69|
91721490|NCT02966834|183335331|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.26||||||||0.26|-1.49|
91721491|NCT02966834|183335331|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-1.76|
91721492|NCT02966834|183335331|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.28||||||||-0.28|-2.05|
91721493|NCT02966834|183335331|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-1.85|
91721494|NCT02966834|183335332|OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean ratio|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.471||||||||1.471|0.635|
91721495|NCT02966834|183335332|OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.712||||||||1.712|0.8|
91721496|NCT02966834|183335332|OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.316||||||||1.316|0.627|
91721497|NCT02966834|183335332|OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|1.005||||||||1.005|0.474|
91721498|NCT02966834|183335332|OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.825|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.207||||||||1.207|0.564|
91721499|NCT02966834|183335333|OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.363|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.995||||||||1.995|0.932|
91689343|NCT00550459|183272311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.67||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.67|-0.15|0.21
91794035|NCT03332771|183466738|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-15.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|-11.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Weighted average of percentage difference between treatment groups from each stratum \[randomization strata of HbA1c \[≤8.5%, \>8.5%\] at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP \[\<130, ≥130 mmHg\] at screening using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||-11.12|-19.67|<0.0001
91864778|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.905
91689344|NCT00550459|183272312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.3||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.30|-0.05|0.16
91689345|NCT00550459|183272313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|1.0||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||1.00|-4.02|0.23
91689346|NCT00550459|183272314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.38||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.38|-2.04|0.18
91689347|NCT00550459|183272315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.6||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||6.60|2.89|<0.0001
91689348|NCT01459783|183272365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|6.95||We adopted Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing and used a significance level of .05/3 = 0.017 to interpret the results for our primary outcomes.|Regression, Linear|Multivariate analyses included non-response weights and controlled for study arm, stratification variables, baseline values, \& intervention duration.|The difference in differences at 12 months is reported as in-person arm minus phone arm values from a multivariable analysis. A positive adjusted difference means worse burden for the in-person arm compared to the phone arm.|Analyses were intention-to-treat. Due to attrition and those ineligible for 12-month follow-up due to study ending before that time, we created survey non-response weights for each wave. Prior to the study, a sample size of 125 participants per group was based on the two primary outcomes, with a Type I Error of 0.025 (Bonferroni adjustment), setting a 0.5-SD difference in outcomes as clinically important, 80% power, 0.45 SD difference in difference in outcomes between groups, and 25% attrition.||6.95|-5.13|0.76
91689349|NCT01459783|183272366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|3.55||We used Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing and a significance level of .05/3 = 0.017 to interpret the results for our primary outcomes. The behavior measure is analyzed two ways: total number of problems (reported here), and reaction score.|Regression, Linear|Multivariate analyses included non-response weights and controlled for study arm, stratification variables, baseline values, \& intervention duration.|The difference in differences at 12 months is reported as in-person arm minus phone arm values from a multivariable analysis. A positive adjusted difference means worse problems for the in-person arm compared to the phone arm.|Analyses were intention-to-treat. Due to attrition and those ineligible for 12-month follow-up due to study ending before that time, we created survey non-response weights for each wave. Prior to the study, a sample size of 125 participants per group was based on the two primary outcomes, with a Type I Error of 0.025 (Bonferroni adjustment), setting a 0.5-SD difference in outcomes as clinically important, 80% power, 0.45 SD difference in difference in outcomes between groups, and 25% attrition.||3.55|-1.74|0.49
91689350|NCT04199104|183272400|SUPERIORITY||point estimate|19.3||||1.9e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|27.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||27.3|11.2|0.0000019
91689351|NCT04199104|183272401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0001129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||||0.83|0.55|0.0001129
91689352|NCT04199104|183272402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.8819584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.45|||Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.91|0.8819584
91689353|NCT00070564|183272413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|1.04|0.022
91721500|NCT02966834|183335333|OTHER||LS mean ratio|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.456|2.887||||||||2.887|1.456|
91864779|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.692
91689354|NCT00070564|183272413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.98|0.072
91689355|NCT00070564|183272413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.87|0.38
91689356|NCT00070564|183272413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
91689357|NCT00070564|183272413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41|||Log Rank|||||1.41|0.61|0.733
91689358|NCT00070564|183272414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.93|||Log Rank|||||1.93|1.08|0.013
91689359|NCT00070564|183272414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.95|||Log Rank|||||1.95|1.09|0.011
91689360|NCT00070564|183272414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.91|0.17
91689361|NCT00070564|183272414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.040
91689362|NCT00070564|183272414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.54|0.724
91689363|NCT00070564|183272416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment differences.||||0.67
91689364|NCT00070564|183272416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.42
91689365|NCT00070564|183272417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.90
91689366|NCT00070564|183272417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.52
91721501|NCT02966834|183335333|OTHER||LS mean ratio|2.457|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.758|3.436||||||||3.436|1.758|
91689367|NCT00070564|183272418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.076
91689368|NCT00070564|183272418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.018
91689369|NCT00070564|183272419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.062
91689370|NCT00070564|183272419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.010
91689371|NCT00070564|183272420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.69
91689372|NCT00070564|183272420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.66
91689373|NCT00070564|183272421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences||||0.40
91689374|NCT00070564|183272421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.28
91689375|NCT05201794|183272531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.3|||=|0.1409|ONE_SIDED|80.0|15.2|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for proof-of-concept (PoC) when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||15.2|=0.1409
91689376|NCT05201794|183272531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.2|||=|0.1418|ONE_SIDED|80.0|14.9|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||14.9|=0.1418
91689377|NCT05201794|183272532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|87.8|||=|0.0192|ONE_SIDED|80.0|58.1|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||58.1|=0.0192
91689378|NCT05201794|183272532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|62.9|||=|0.1131|ONE_SIDED|80.0|20.0|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||20|=0.1131
91689379|NCT05201794|183272533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|85.4|||=|0.0302|ONE_SIDED|80.0|62.6|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||62.6|=0.0302
91689380|NCT05201794|183272533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|60.5|||=|0.2239|ONE_SIDED|80.0|-6.3|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||-6.3|=0.2239
91721502|NCT02966834|183335333|OTHER||LS mean ratio|3.128|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.206|4.435||||||||4.435|2.206|
91721503|NCT02966834|183335333|OTHER||LS mean ratio|2.701|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.915|3.81||||||||3.81|1.915|
91721504|NCT03513952|183335334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428||||||A one-sided significance level of 0.10 will be considered for the test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||Estimations were done separately in each treatment arm; the difference between treatments was not calculated.|||0.428
91721505|NCT03513952|183335335|EQUIVALENCE|"Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the CBR was performed, which is used for testing zero effect or equivalence between treatments. A two-sided significance level of 0.05 will be considered for the test."|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|-36.3|0.702
91721506|NCT04739800|183335380|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 2 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.31|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 2 compared to Group 1.|||2.31|0.44|
91689381|NCT06700512|183272551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired||"H0 (Objective 1) SRT (study HA) is either not significantly different from SRT without HAs or significantly worse than SRT without HAs.~H1(Objective 1) SRT(study HA) is significantly better than SRT without HAs. A mean difference in SRT of 1 dB measured with the Oldenburg sentence test can be assumed as a typical difference in speech intelligibility to show a clinically meaningful improvement."||||<0.001
91689382|NCT06700512|183272551|NON_INFERIORITY|A mean difference in SRT of 1 dB measured with the Oldenburg sentence test (Wagener et al, 1999a-c), can be assumed as a typical difference in speech intelligibility to show a clinically meaningful improvement (Kollmeier et al, 2011). Thus if SRT with study hearing aids is 1dB or more worse than with subjects' own hearing aids and the difference is significant (p\<0.05), inferiority of study hearing aid is assumed otherwise study hearing aids are considered non-inferior|||||<|0.001||||||paired|t-test, 1 sided|||H0 (Objective 2) SRT (study HA) is significantly worse than SRT(own HAs). H1(Objective 2) There is no difference between SRT(study HA) and SRT(own HAs) or SRT (study HA) is significantly better than SRT (own HAs) SRT= Speech Reception Threshold in dB||||<0.001
91721507|NCT04739800|183335380|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.84|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|||2.84|0.52|
91721508|NCT04739800|183335380|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.08|||||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|3.08|0.58|
91721509|NCT04739800|183335383|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 2 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.47|||||This is the Hazard Ratio for Group 2 compared to Group 1.|||4.47|0.44|
91721510|NCT04739800|183335383|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.19|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|||4.19|0.40|
91721511|NCT04739800|183335383|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.08|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|||3.08|0.58|
91721512|NCT05227677|183335385|SUPERIORITY|FAS analysis||||||0.9917||||||The threshold for statical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.9917
91794036|NCT03718871|183466752|SUPERIORITY||intracluster correlation coefficient|0.086|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.363||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Given that the intervention arm showed 100% uptake, a multi-level regression model could not be created with a zero in the denominator in the intervention group. We therefore used Fisher's exact test to assess for significant differences in proportion of HIV testing between study arms.||0.363|0.015|<0.001
91721513|NCT05227677|183335385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6555|||||||Chi-squared|||PPS analysis||||0.6555
91721514|NCT05227677|183335386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0649||||||The threshold for statical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||FAS analysis||||0.0649
91721515|NCT05227677|183335386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0342|||||||Chi-squared|||PPS analysis||||0.0342
91721516|NCT05227677|183335387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2199||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Chi-squared|||FAS Analysis||||0.2199
91721517|NCT05227677|183335387|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.||||||0.0769|||||||Chi-squared|||PPS analysis||||0.0769
91721518|NCT05227677|183335388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0200
91721519|NCT05227677|183335388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0147
91721520|NCT05227677|183335389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||FAS analysis||||0.0256
91721521|NCT05227677|183335389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0181||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||PPS analysis||||0.0181
91721522|NCT05227677|183335390|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.|||||>|0.999||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit3 (FAS)||||>0.999
91794037|NCT03718871|183466753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91794038|NCT03718871|183466754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
91794039|NCT03718871|183466755|OTHER|No comparison between study arm groups was made in this analysis, as it was limited to control arm only.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.06||Significance threshold two-sided alpha = 0.05|Regression, Linear|||We considered variables that predicted the primary outcome of receiving an HIV test among control arm only, as uptake was 100% in the intervention. First we identified variables that were significant (two-sided p-value\<0.05) in univariate analysis and creating multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for covariates and intercorrelation between participants from the same healer by including healers as random effects.||1.06|1.02|<0.01
91794040|NCT03718871|183466756|OTHER|No comparison was made with the intervention arm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.04||Univariate analysis|Fisher Exact|||We considered variables that predicted the primary outcome of receiving an HIV test among control arm only, as uptake was 100% in the intervention. First we identified variables that were significant (two-sided p-value\<0.05) in univariate analysis and creating multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for covariates and intercorrelation between participants from the same healer by including healers as random effects.||1.04|0.30|0.07
91863718|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.08||||0.5622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.501|8.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.660|-2.501|0.5622
91863719|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.014||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.643|9.672|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||9.672|-1.643|0.2841
91863720|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.438||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|8.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.103|0.774|0.0178
91863721|NCT04800211|183616297|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.847||||0.6944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.398|5.093|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.093|-3.398|0.6944
91903816|NCT00718549|183702491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.361||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.971|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||2.971|0.017|0.396
91903817|NCT00718549|183702491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|6.572|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||6.572|0.103|0.776
91863722|NCT04800211|183616298|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-35.556||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.038|-12.075|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-12.075|-59.038|0.0031
91903818|NCT00718549|183702492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.528||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|2.114|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||2.114|0.131|0.357
91903819|NCT00718549|183702492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.694||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||2.800|0.138|0.623
91903820|NCT00718549|183702492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|28.158|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||28.158|0.901|0.097
91903821|NCT00718549|183702492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|89.588|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||89.588|0.484|0.233
91721523|NCT05227677|183335390|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.||||||0.6175||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit 4 (FAS)||||0.6175
91863723|NCT04800211|183616298|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.35||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.818|-1.882|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-1.882|-60.818|0.0371
91863724|NCT04800211|183616298|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-34.356||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.877|-10.834|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-10.834|-57.877|0.0043
91903822|NCT00718549|183702492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.844||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|3.681|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||3.681|0.161|0.826
91689405|NCT03657797|183272596|NON_INFERIORITY|LS mean, the difference in LS mean (NCX 470 minus latanoprost), and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was obtained. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI around the difference between the LS mean for NCX 470 and the LS mean for latanoprost was \< 1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was met, superiority was tested which could be claimed if the p-value for treatment difference was \<= 0.05 and the LS mean difference in change from baseline was \< 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.31||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||NCX 470 0.21% was compared to latanoprost.||0.31|-1.11|0.2666
91689406|NCT03657797|183272596|NON_INFERIORITY|LS mean, the difference in LS mean (NCX 470 minus latanoprost), and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was obtained. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI around the difference between the LS mean for NCX 470 and the LS mean for latanoprost was \< 1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was met, superiority was tested which could be claimed if the p-value for treatment difference was \<= 0.05 and the LS mean difference in change from baseline was \< 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.09||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||NCX 0.042% was compared to latanoprost.||-0.09|-1.52|0.0281
91689407|NCT03657797|183272596|NON_INFERIORITY|LS mean, the difference in LS mean (NCX 470 minus latanoprost), and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was obtained. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI around the difference between the LS mean for NCX 470 and the LS mean for latanoprost was \< 1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was met, superiority was tested which could be claimed if the p-value for treatment difference was \<= 0.05 and the LS mean difference in change from baseline was \< 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.51||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||NCX 0.065% was compared to latanoprost.||-0.51|-1.96|0.0009
91689408|NCT03657797|183272597|NON_INFERIORITY|NCX 470 0.021% was compared to latanoprost 0.005% at each visit. The LS mean, LS mean difference and the 95% CIs for the difference was calculated. Non-inferiority at each visit could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was established, superiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 and p\<0.05.|||||<|0.9788||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Upper 95% CIs were 0.51 (week 1), 0.68 (week 2), 0.75 (exit visit); p-values were 0.5560 (week 1), 0.9788 (week 2), 0.8796 (exit visit)||NCX 470 0.021% was compared to latanoprost.||||<0.9788
91689409|NCT03657797|183272597|NON_INFERIORITY|NCX 470 0.042% was compared to latanoprost 0.005% at each visit. The LS mean, LS mean difference and the 95% CIs for the difference was calculated. Non-inferiority at each visit could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was established, superiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 and p\<0.05.|||||<|0.3863||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Upper 95% CIs were 0.20 (week 1), 0.38 (week 2), 0.11 (exit visit); p-values were 0.1556 (week 1), 0.3863 (week 2), 0.0912 (exit visit)||NCX 470 0.042% was compared to latanoprost.||||<0.3863
91689410|NCT03657797|183272597|NON_INFERIORITY|NCX 470 0.065% was compared to latanoprost 0.005% at each visit. The LS mean, LS mean difference and the 95% CIs for the difference was calculated. Non-inferiority at each visit could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was established, superiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 and p\<0.05.|||||<|0.0174||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Upper 95% CIs were -0.35 (week 1), -0.15 (week 2), -0.27 (exit visit); p-values were 0.0040 (week 1), 0.0174 (week 2), 0.0093 (exit visit)||NCX 470 0.065% was compared to latanoprost.||||<0.0174
91689411|NCT01402570|183272607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.95||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline PROMIS physical functioning, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||0.95|-0.67|0.66
91794590|NCT03981822|183468100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day84 EOT Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0026
91903823|NCT00718549|183702492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.067||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|5.581|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||5.581|0.246|0.933
91864780|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.262
91903824|NCT00718549|183702492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.727||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|15.779|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||15.779|0.080|0.794
91689412|NCT01402570|183272608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline sleep efficiency, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||0.02|-0.01|0.44
91689413|NCT01402570|183272609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|145.54||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.93|470.02||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline steps per day, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||470.02|-178.93|0.35
91689414|NCT01402570|183272610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|-1.05||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.1||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline fatigue, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||0.10|-2.21|0.07
91689415|NCT02019472|183272627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.07|< 0.001
91689416|NCT02019472|183272627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.39|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.69|=0.013
91689417|NCT02019472|183272628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-4.8||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|4.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.4|-14.1|0.306
91689418|NCT02019472|183272628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.6||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|-6|0.464
91689419|NCT02019472|183272629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|5.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.4|-0.7|0.086
91689420|NCT02019472|183272629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.7|5.9|< 0.001
91689421|NCT02019472|183272630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.7||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.4|-12.8|0.603
91689422|NCT02019472|183272630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.4||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.3|-7.6|0.644
91864781|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.828
91689423|NCT03861390|183272637|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91689424|NCT03861390|183272638|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91689425|NCT03861390|183272639|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.70
91689426|NCT03861390|183272639|OTHER|||||||0.37||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.37
91689427|NCT03861390|183272640|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.77
91689428|NCT03861390|183272640|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.48
91689429|NCT03861390|183272641|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.96
91689430|NCT03861390|183272641|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.91
91689431|NCT03861390|183272642|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.46
91689432|NCT03861390|183272642|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.46
91689433|NCT03861390|183272643|OTHER|||||||0.82||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.82
91689434|NCT03861390|183272643|OTHER|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.99
91689435|NCT03861390|183272644|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
91689436|NCT03861390|183272644|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.84
91689437|NCT03861390|183272645|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.49
91689438|NCT03861390|183272645|OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.52
91689439|NCT02157935|183272647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.76||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Negative binomial model|||||0.92|0.62|0.0059
91864782|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.268
91903825|NCT00718549|183702493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.923||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|41.751|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||41.751|0.225|0.591
91864783|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.975
91689440|NCT02157935|183272648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.64|0.0164
91689441|NCT02157935|183272649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.343||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.318|-0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.368|-2.318|0.0070
91689442|NCT02157935|183272650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.053|0.008|0.0091
91721524|NCT05227677|183335390|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.|||||>|0.999||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit 3 (PPS)||||>0.999
91721525|NCT05227677|183335390|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.||||||0.5979||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit4 (PPS)||||0.5979
91903826|NCT00718549|183702493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|9.222|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||9.222|0.147|0.796
91689443|NCT02157935|183272651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.203||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|-0.053|||ANCOVA|||||-0.053|-0.353|0.0082
91689444|NCT02157935|183272652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|-0.009|||ANCOVA|||||-0.009|-0.048|0.0048
91689445|NCT03192488|183272658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.11|||ANOVA|"The overall model was adjusted for the co-variate VO2max."||||2.11|0.01|0.047
91689446|NCT03192488|183272659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.327
91689447|NCT03192488|183272659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.557
91864784|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.499
91903827|NCT00718549|183702493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|69.479|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||69.479|0.375|0.338
91689448|NCT00611923|183272665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test analysis comparing change from baseline PMTS score at month 1 between flutamide and placebo groups||||= 0.57
91689449|NCT00611923|183272665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test analysis comparing change from baseline PMTS score at month 2 between flutamide and placebo groups.||||= .27
91689450|NCT00611923|183272666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test comparing change in DRSP scores from baseline to Month 1 of treatment Larger positive change score indicates a greater reduction in symptoms from baseline.||||= 0.52
91689451|NCT00611923|183272666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test comparing change in DRSP scores from baseline to Month 2 of treatment Larger positive change score indicates a greater reduction in symptoms from baseline.||||= 0.2
91689452|NCT00611923|183272667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||= 0.8
91689453|NCT00611923|183272667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||= 0.1
91689454|NCT00611923|183272668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test was performed comparing the Clinical Global Improvement score at month 1 between placebo and flutamide groups||||=.15
91689455|NCT00611923|183272668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test was performed comparing the Clinical Global Improvement score at month 2 between placebo and flutamide groups||||= .05
91689456|NCT00611923|183272669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Comparison of change from baseline score to treatment month 1 between placebo and flutamide treated subjects.|||||=|0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.5
91689457|NCT00611923|183272669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|paired t-test analysis comparing change from baseline CGI severity score at month 2 between flutamide and placebo groups|||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.04
91689458|NCT00611923|183272670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test was performed comparing the Patient Global Improvement score at month 1 between placebo and flutamide groups||||=0.2
91689459|NCT00611923|183272670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|paired t-test was performed comparing the Patient Globall Improvement score at treatment month 2 between placebo and flutamide groups|||||=|0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.06
91689460|NCT00572936|183272673|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<.05
91689461|NCT00572936|183272674|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91689462|NCT00572936|183272675|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.||||||0.93||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.93
91689463|NCT00572936|183272676|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.||||||0.84||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.84
91721526|NCT05227677|183335391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0404||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0404
91721527|NCT05227677|183335391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0330
91721528|NCT05227677|183335392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0408||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0408
91864785|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.750
91903828|NCT00718549|183702493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.333||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|29.008|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||29.008|0.201|0.486
91903829|NCT00718549|183702493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|4.722|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||4.722|0.074|0.691
91863725|NCT04800211|183616298|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.096||||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.375|10.183|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||10.183|-46.375|0.2091
91863726|NCT04800211|183616298|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-24.723||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.473|-3.973|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-3.973|-45.473|0.0197
91863727|NCT04800211|183616298|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.595||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.08|8.891|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||8.891|-36.080|0.2353
91863728|NCT04800211|183616298|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.759||||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.159|22.641|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||22.641|-32.159|0.7329
91864786|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.433
91864787|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.834
91794041|NCT03718871|183466757|OTHER|Comparison between study arms was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.18|||Fisher Exact|||We considered variables that predicted the primary outcome of receiving an HIV test among control arm only, as uptake was 100% in the intervention. First we identified variables that were significant (two-sided p-value\<0.05) in univariate analysis and creating multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for covariates and intercorrelation between participants from the same healer by including healers as random effects.||1.18|0.16|0.09
91689464|NCT00572936|183272677|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91689465|NCT00572936|183272678|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.||||||0.89||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.89
91794042|NCT00737464|183466759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91864788|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.834
91864789|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.526
91689466|NCT00572936|183272679|EQUIVALENCE|Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the differences between outflow facility for the three interventions|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91689467|NCT00572936|183272680|EQUIVALENCE|Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the differences in uveoscleral outflow between the three interventions|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical analysis was \<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91689468|NCT02806908|183272681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0022
91689469|NCT02806908|183272682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0416|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0416
91689470|NCT02806908|183272683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0963|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0963
91689471|NCT02806908|183272684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3018|||||||McNemar|||||||0.3018
91689472|NCT02806908|183272685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||McNemar|||||||0.4240
91689473|NCT02806908|183272686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7539|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
91721529|NCT05227677|183335392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0322||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0322
91721530|NCT05227677|183335393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0303||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0303
91721531|NCT05227677|183335393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0264
91689474|NCT02806908|183272687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7539|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
91689475|NCT02806908|183272688|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91689476|NCT02806908|183272689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6291|||||||McNemar|||||||0.6291
91689477|NCT02806908|183272690|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91689478|NCT02806908|183272691|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91689479|NCT02806908|183272692|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91689480|NCT02806908|183272693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7744|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7744
91721532|NCT05227677|183335394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0374||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0374
91721533|NCT05227677|183335394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0313
91721534|NCT05227677|183335395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0086
91721535|NCT05227677|183335395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0156
91721536|NCT05227677|183335396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0118
91721537|NCT05227677|183335396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0191||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0191
91689481|NCT02806908|183272694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7539|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
91689482|NCT02806908|183272695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1141|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1141
91689483|NCT02806908|183272696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4441|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4441
91689484|NCT02806908|183272697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3423|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3423
91689485|NCT02806908|183272698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9384|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9384
91689486|NCT02806908|183272699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0939|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0939
91689487|NCT02806908|183272700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0246
91689488|NCT02806908|183272701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1475|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1475
91689489|NCT02806908|183272702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1513|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1513
91689490|NCT02806908|183272703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91689491|NCT02806908|183272704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
91689492|NCT02806908|183272705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4774|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4774
91689493|NCT02806908|183272706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3801|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3801
91689494|NCT02806908|183272707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91689495|NCT01760304|183272708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||2-sided paired t-test|||a paired t-test was calculated comparing baseline measures and post intervention||||0.769
91689496|NCT01760304|183272708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired T-test|||a paired t-test was calculated comparing baseline measures and post intervention||||<0.0001
91689497|NCT01760304|183272710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.05
91689498|NCT04429503|183272712|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value for one-sided non-inferiority (NI) test at a margin of 4 letters|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.13|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements||HDq12 minus 2q8|||1.13|-2.26|<0.0001
91689499|NCT04429503|183272712|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value for one-sided non-inferiority (NI) test at a margin of 4 letters|LS Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|0.39|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements||HDq16 minus 2q8|||0.39|-3.27|0.0031
91689500|NCT04429503|183272713|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 15%|Adjusted Difference (%)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|10.57|||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted for stratification factors|||10.57|-6.61|
91689501|NCT04429503|183272713|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 15%.|Adjusted Difference (%)|-7.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|1.84|||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted for stratification factors|||1.84|-16.88|
91689502|NCT05516108|183272734|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stata mixed||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.004
91689503|NCT05516108|183272735|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.020
91721538|NCT05227677|183335397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0057
91721539|NCT05227677|183335397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0175
91721540|NCT05227677|183335398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0065
91721541|NCT05227677|183335398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0188||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0188
91721542|NCT05227677|183335399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0087||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0087
91721543|NCT05227677|183335399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0152
91721544|NCT05227677|183335400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0103||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0103
91721545|NCT05227677|183335400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0176||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0176
91721546|NCT03573297|183335401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.43||P-value is based on the log-rank test stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Cariprazine 1.5 or 3.0 mg/day vs. Placebo) is based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable, stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|||1.43|0.48|0.5745
91794591|NCT03981822|183468100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 112 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0174
91863729|NCT04800211|183616298|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.962||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.989|19.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||19.065|-62.989|0.5420
91864790|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon singed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.816
91903830|NCT00718549|183702493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|13.563|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||13.563|0.212|0.691
91689504|NCT05516108|183272736|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stata melogit||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.74
91864791|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.650
91689505|NCT05516108|183272737|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.10
91689506|NCT05516108|183272738|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stata mixed||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.009
91689507|NCT03664232|183272778|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.17|0.07|||Mixed effects model for repeatedmeasures|||||0.07|-0.17|=0.284
91689508|NCT03664232|183272779|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.29|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.07|||MMRM|||||0.07|-0.18|=0.290
91689509|NCT03664232|183272780|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.231|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.06|||MMRM|||||0.06|-0.21|=0.231
91689510|NCT02717507|183272798|OTHER||Slope|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.383|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVWT/Dz was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVWT/Dz was higher for carvedilol than placebo over time.|The null hypothesis is that change in LVWT/Dz across time do not vary by arm. Assuming a type I error=0.05, 2-sided test, 15% attrition/year, and correlation range of 0.6-0.8 between measurements, we projected that a sample size of 125/arm would provide 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.23-0.32 for LVWT/Dz at 24m.||0.383|-0.057|0.15
91689511|NCT02717507|183272799|OTHER||Slope|-3.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.705||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.105|-0.424|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||-0.424|-7.105|0.03
91689512|NCT02717507|183272800|OTHER||Slope|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.001|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.001|-0.09|0.05
91721547|NCT03573297|183335401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.51||P-value is based on the log-rank test stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Cariprazine 1.5 or 3.0 mg/day vs. Placebo) is based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable, stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|||1.51|0.52|0.6308
91864792|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.095
91689513|NCT02717507|183272801|OTHER||Slope|-2.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|0.951|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVESV was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVESV was lower for carvedilol than placebo over time.|||0.951|-5.34|0.17
91689514|NCT02717507|183272802|OTHER||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.0|-0.024|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||-0.024|-0141|0.01
91689515|NCT02717507|183272803|OTHER||Slope|-2.397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.603||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.499|2.704|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVEDV was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVEDV was lower for carvedilol than placebo over time.|||2.704|-7.499|0.36
91689516|NCT02717507|183272804|OTHER||Slope|0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.134|1.999|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||1.999|-1.134|0.59
91689517|NCT02717507|183272805|OTHER||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|0.532|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is positive|||0.532|-0.652|0.84
91721548|NCT02696798|183335417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.95|1.17|0.017
91689518|NCT02717507|183272806|OTHER||Slope|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.472|0.991|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVEF was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVEF was higher for carvedilol than placebo over time.|The null hypothesis is that change in LVEF across time do not vary by arm. Assuming a type I error=0.05, 2-sided test, 15% attrition/year, and correlation range of 1.2-1.6 between measurements, we projected that a sample size of 125/arm would provide 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.23-0.32 for LVEF at 24m.||0.991|-0.472|0.49
91689519|NCT02717507|183272807|OTHER||Slope|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.082|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.082|-0.065|0.82
91721549|NCT02696798|183335417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.33|1.48|0.003
91721550|NCT02696798|183335418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|1.26|0.006
91689520|NCT02717507|183272808|OTHER||Slope|2.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.387|5.63|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative|||5.63|-1.387|0.24
91689521|NCT02717507|183272809|OTHER||Slope|5.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.532||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.608|21.835|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative|||21.835|-11.608|0.55
91689522|NCT02717507|183272810|OTHER||Slope|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.002|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.002|-0.004|0.51
91689523|NCT02717507|183272811|OTHER||Slope|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.468|0.424|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.424|-0.468|0.92
91689524|NCT02717507|183272813|OTHER||Slope|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.229|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative.|||0.229|-0.18|0.82
91689525|NCT02717507|183272814|OTHER||Slope|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.439||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.877|4.685|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||4.685|-4.877|0.97
91689526|NCT02717507|183272815|OTHER||Slope|1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.491||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.595|8.091|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative.|The null hypothesis is that change in Average Alanine aminotransferase across time-points described above does not differ by treatment arm, tested using a longitudinal GEE analysis of Average Alanine aminotransferase with a treatment by time interaction.||8.091|-5.595|0.72
91689527|NCT05017246|183272818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.9||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.0|-5.8|||Two-sample t-test|Unadjusted analysis|Intrathecal - Epidural|||-5.8|-84.0|0.0249
91721551|NCT02696798|183335418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.73|1.16|0.013
91721552|NCT02696798|183335419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.79|-1.32|<0.001
91721553|NCT02696798|183335419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.75|-1.30|<0.001
91721554|NCT02696798|183335420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.84|1.21|0.015
91721555|NCT02696798|183335420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|6.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.49|1.29|0.010
91721556|NCT02696798|183335421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.81|<0.001
91864793|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.618
91864794|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.340
91689528|NCT05017246|183272819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.01|||Chi-squared||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||3.01|0.36|0.94
91689529|NCT05017246|183272820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.48|||Bootstrap resampling method|Bootstrap resampling method based on raw data was applied for due to highly right-skewed data (5,000 Bootstrap samples were selected).|Intrathecal - Epidural|||0.48|-1.01|0.59
91689530|NCT05017246|183272821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Chi-squared||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||1.48|0.61|0.82
91689531|NCT05017246|183272824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|8.95|||Fisher Exact||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||8.95|0.27|0.67
91689532|NCT05017246|183272825|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.08||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|22.2|||Fisher Exact||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||22.2|0.19|0.61
91864795|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.150
91689533|NCT02493660|183272827|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 10% for all composite endpoints. The primary analysis method was a multilinear regression model for month 12 success with age (\<65 years, ≥65 years), gender, and treatment as the model covariates for the PP population for noninferiority testing.||||||0.0049|||||||Regression, Logistic|Primary analysis method was for month 12 success with age (\<65 years, ≥65 years), sex, and treatment as the model covariates.||||||0.0049
91689534|NCT02493660|183272830|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 10% for all composite endpoints.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Results from logistic regression model.||||<0.05
91689535|NCT03500198|183272883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91689536|NCT03500198|183272885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91689537|NCT03500198|183272886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sided logistic regression|||||||<0.0001
91689538|NCT02440464|183272895|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.10.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in progression-free survival time post-randomization among randomized subjects receiving Ixazomib vs Placebo maintenance therapy during the 21 month period post-randomization. This was compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||1.0
91689539|NCT02440464|183272896|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with acute grade III-IV GVHD between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 100 days post-randomization, with death prior to acute GVHD treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||1.0
91689540|NCT02440464|183272897|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with chronic GVHD between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 21 months post-randomization, with death prior to chronic GVHD treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||1.0
91721557|NCT02696798|183335421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.76|<0.001
91721558|NCT02696798|183335422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.47|-1.63|<0.001
91721559|NCT02696798|183335422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-1.89|<0.001
91721560|NCT02696798|183335423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|33.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.98|0.41|0.242
91721561|NCT02696798|183335423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|47.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||47.54|0.62|0.127
91864796|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.361
91721562|NCT02696798|183335424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.86|1.50|0.006
91721563|NCT02696798|183335424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|13.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.18|1.55|0.006
91721564|NCT02696798|183335425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2863||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7629|3.3007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||3.3007|-1.7629|0.550
91721565|NCT02696798|183335425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3338||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7151|3.536|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||3.5360|-1.7151|0.495
91721566|NCT02696798|183335425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1149|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0204|7.409|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||7.4090|3.0204|<0.001
91721567|NCT02696798|183335425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1505|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.494|7.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||7.0230|2.4940|<0.001
91721568|NCT02696798|183335426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-1.94|0.026
91864797|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.428
91689541|NCT02440464|183272898|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants in the best response to treatment categories between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 2 years post-transplant among participants in sCR/CR at randomization. These proportions were compared using Fisher's Exact test.||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.||Participants in sCR/CR at Randomization||||0.890
91689542|NCT02440464|183272898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants in the best response to treatment categories between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 2 years post-transplant among participants not in sCR/CR at randomization. These proportions were compared using Fisher's Exact test.||||0.754
91689543|NCT02440464|183272900|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with progression between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 21 months post-randomization, with death prior to progression treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||1.0
91689544|NCT02440464|183272901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall survival time post-randomization among randomized subjects receiving Ixazomib vs Placebo maintenance therapy during the 21 month period post-randomization. This was compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.174
91689545|NCT02440464|183272902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with treatment-related mortality between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 21 months post-randomization, with progression treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.173
91689546|NCT02440464|183272904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3-5 toxicities between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 6 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than toxicity treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||0.258
91721569|NCT02696798|183335426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.477||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-1.63|0.149
91721570|NCT02696798|183335427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-3.0|<0.001
91721571|NCT02696798|183335427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.2|<0.001
91721572|NCT02696798|183335428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.896||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-10.0|0.001
91721573|NCT02696798|183335428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.978|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-3.4|||ANCOVA|||||-3.4|-11.2|<0.001
91721574|NCT02696798|183335429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7463|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.187|-13.444|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.444|-28.187|<0.001
91721575|NCT02696798|183335429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.518|-10.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.163|-25.518|<0.001
91863730|NCT04800211|183616298|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.591||||0.5234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.049|23.866|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||23.866|-77.049|0.5234
91721576|NCT02696798|183335430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1275||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|-0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.053|-0.555|0.018
91721577|NCT02696798|183335430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1319||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.088|-0.431|0.194
91721578|NCT02696798|183335431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.99|-0.53|0.170
91721579|NCT02696798|183335431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.04|-1.57|0.800
91721580|NCT02696798|183335432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.521||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-1.34|0.547
91721581|NCT02696798|183335432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-2.06|0.064
91721582|NCT02696798|183335433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.0|0.861
91721583|NCT02696798|183335433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-1.4|0.626
91721584|NCT02696798|183335434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-1.6|0.504
91721585|NCT02696798|183335434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.1|0.860
91721586|NCT02696798|183335435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-3.0|0.362
91721587|NCT02696798|183335435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-3.3|0.303
91721588|NCT02696798|183335436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-1.5|0.813
91864798|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.834
91721589|NCT02696798|183335436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-2.0|0.410
91721590|NCT02696798|183335438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-1.9|<0.001
91721591|NCT02696798|183335438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-1.6|0.005
91721592|NCT02696798|183335439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-2.5|0.088
91721593|NCT02696798|183335439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-2.0|0.366
91689547|NCT02440464|183272904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3-5 toxicities between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 12 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than toxicity treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||0.252
91689548|NCT02440464|183272904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3-5 toxicities between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 18 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than toxicity treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||0.258
91689549|NCT02440464|183272906|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3 infections between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 6 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than infection treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||1.0
91689550|NCT02440464|183272906|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3 infections between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 12 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than infection treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||1.0
91689551|NCT02440464|183272906|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3 infections between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 18 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than infection treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||1.0
91689552|NCT02568072|183272921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91689553|NCT02568072|183272922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91689554|NCT02568072|183272923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91721594|NCT02696798|183335440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.65|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Overall Work Impairment Score||-0.60|-21.65|0.038
91721595|NCT02696798|183335440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.341||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.23|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||Overall Work Impairment Score||-3.10|-24.23|0.012
91794592|NCT03981822|183468100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1311|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1311
91903831|NCT00718549|183702493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|24.621|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||24.621|0.076|1.000
91689555|NCT02714218|183272932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value CMH Test for comparison of odds ratio of NIVO 3 + IPI 1 over NIVO 1 + IPI 3||||0.90|0.38|0.0144
91689556|NCT02714218|183272932|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Difference of rates|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-2.6|||||Estimate of NIVO 3 + IPI 1- NIVO 1 + IPI 3 is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 expression and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS|||-2.6|-22.7|
91689557|NCT02714218|183272933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value CMH Test for comparison of odds ratio of NIVO 3 + IPI 1 over NIVO 1 + IPI 3||||0.84|0.36|0.0059
91721596|NCT02696798|183335440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||0.5|-13.2|0.071
91721597|NCT02696798|183335440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-1.1|-15.5|0.024
91721598|NCT04880850|183335444|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec minus insulin glargine) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region and personal continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||0.15|-0.11|<0.0001
91721599|NCT04091451|183335454|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the incidence of HZ recurrence between HZ/su group and Placebo group was below (\<) 5.|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.46|||Poisson||IRR = incidence rate of HZ recurrence in HZ/su group divided by the incidence rate of HZ recurrence in Placebo group. Poisson method was used to adjust for differences in follow-up time across individuals.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of HZ/su vaccine compared to placebo in terms of incidence of HZ recurrence from 30 days post-second vaccination (Month 3) until study end (duration of approximately 2 years to 4 years and 5 months).||0.46|0.00|
91721600|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of baseline values||||0.643
91721601|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.018
91794593|NCT03981822|183468100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0967|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 2 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0967
91721602|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.027
91721603|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of baseline values||||0.677
91721604|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of baseline values||||0.677
91864799|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.318
91689558|NCT02714218|183272933|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Difference of rates|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-4.3|||||Estimate of NIVO 3 + IPI 1- NIVO 1 + IPI 3 is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 expression and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS|||-4.3|-24.5|
91689559|NCT02714218|183272934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||p-value from CMH Test for the comparison of the odds ratio of N3I1 over N1I3|||1.21|0.53|0.2923
91689560|NCT02714218|183272935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.47|||||Hazard Ratio is N3I1 over N1I3. (NIVO 3 + IPI 1 (N3I1) over NIVO 1 + IPI 3 (N1I3))|||1.47|0.79|
91689561|NCT02714218|183272936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|0.84|0.4512
91689562|NCT01422200|183272952|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91721605|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of baseline values||||0.326
91864800|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.311
91689563|NCT01113892|183272957|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority margin was 15%. The following null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (HA) were tested, with the primary patency rate at 6 months for FUSION Bioline (PF), and the primary patency rate at 6 months for EXXCEL (PE).~H0: PF - PE \< - 0.15; HA: PF - PE \> - 0.15 An exact 1-sided test was used for the observed difference of patency rates between the FUSION Bioline (test) and EXXCEL (control) products."|Mean Difference (Net)|16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|29.9||The threshold for significance was p = .05|Exact 1-sided test||Difference = Patency (Fusion Bioline) - Patency (EXXCEL)|It was calculated that 200 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in the number of participants with primary patency between FUSION Bioline and EXXCEL groups at 6 months. It was assumed that the ratio of Above-Knee to Below-Knee procedures was 60:40; based on this, the primary patency rate for the combined Above-Knee and Below-Knee patients was 79%. Assumptions included a 10% withdrawal rate prior to the 6-month evaluation.||29.9|2.7|<.0001
91689564|NCT01113892|183272958|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used to evaluate whether subjects with any MALE event or POD were homogeneous across the treatment arms.||||||0.033|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The number and percentage of subjects with a MALE or POD event were summarized by treatment group.||||.033
91689565|NCT01113892|183272959|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieved primary assisted patency for both treatment groups were compared using a Chi-Square test||||||.017
91689566|NCT01113892|183272960|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieve secondary patency for both treatment groups will be compared using a Chi-Square test||||||.137
91721606|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.019
91721607|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.014
91721608|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.427
91721609|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.023
91721610|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.021
91721611|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Value||||0.545
91721612|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.004
91721613|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.670
91721614|NCT03074500|183335468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.192
91721615|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.633
91721616|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.282
91721617|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.015
91721618|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.677
91721619|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.344
91721620|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.596
91721621|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.161
91721622|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.257
91721623|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.449
91689567|NCT01113892|183272961|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups were compared with the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||||<.0001
91689568|NCT01113892|183272963|NON_INFERIORITY|"Repeated 6 month analyses for 12 month results.The non-inferiority margin was 15%. The following null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (HA) were tested, with the primary patency rate for FUSION Bioline (PF), and the primary patency rate for EXXCEL (PE).~H0: PF - PE \< - 0.15; HA: PF - PE \> - 0.15 An exact 1-sided test was used for the observed difference of patency rates between the FUSION Bioline (test) and EXXCEL (control) products, with a p-value ≤ .05 indicating significance."|Mean Difference (Net)|9.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|23.0|||Exact 1-sided test|||||23.0|-4.8|.0001
91689569|NCT01113892|183272965|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieve primary assisted patency for both treatment groups will be compared using a Chi-Square test||||||.181
91689570|NCT01113892|183272967|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieve secondary patency for both treatment groups will be compared using a Chi Square test||||||.68
91689571|NCT00789854|183272971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin for differences was set to 3 units in the MADRS total score.~A power set to 80% and using a Bonferroni-adjusted one-sided alpha\* = alpha/3 = 0.0083 yields a planned sample size of 192 patients per study group. With a drop out of 4% a total of 600 randomized patients were required to obtain 192 efficacy evaluable patients per treatment group."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.322||||||97.5|-4.6|-0.05||The CI is for comparing add-on quetiapine versus add-on Lithium. The CI = confidence interval was adjusted for multiple comparisons. The -0.05 value should have been +3 or above to fail to reject the null hypothesis.|ANCOVA|Non-inferiority between add-on quetiapine XR and add-on lithium was shown in the Per Protocol analysis set.||Add-on quetiapine XR was tested versus add-on lithium for non-inferiority. The null hypothesis was that the add-on quetiapine treatment was non-inferior to add-on lithium.||-0.05|-4.6|
91689572|NCT00789854|183272971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin for differences was set to 3 units in the MADRS total score.~A power set to 80% and using a Bonferroni-adjusted one-sided alpha\* = alpha/3 = 0.0083 yields a planned sample size of 192 patients per study group. With a drop out of 4% a total of 600 randomized patients were required to obtain 192 efficacy evaluable patients per treatment group."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.639||||||97.5|-3.24|1.312||The CI is for comparing quetiapine XR mono versus add-on Lithium. The CI = confidence interval was adjusted for multiple comparisons. The 1.312 value should have been +3 or above to fail to reject the null hypothesis.|ANCOVA|Non-inferiority between quetiapine XR mono and add-on lithium was shown in the Per Protocol analysis set.||Quetiapine XR mono was tested versus add-on lithium for non-inferiority. The null hypothesis was that the quetiapine XR mono treatment was non-inferior to add-on lithium.||1.312|-3.24|
91689573|NCT00789854|183272972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0489||95.0||||Adjustment for multiplicity was done, alpha = 0.025|ANCOVA|Superiority testing of primary outcome showed no significant difference in the Modified Intention To Treat (ITT) population||The null hypothesis was that the add-on quetiapine XR treatment was not different to the add-on lithium treatment. The power calculation was done for the primary non-inferior analysis. This superiority analysis was only done if the non-inferior analysis was successful.||||0.0489
91689574|NCT00789854|183272972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4368||95.0||||Adjustment for multiplicity was done, alpha = 0.025|ANCOVA|Superiority testing of primary outcome showed no significant difference in the Modified Intention To Treat (ITT) population||The null hypothesis was that the quetiapine XR mono treatment was not different from the add-on lithium treatment. The power calculation was done for the primary non-inferior analysis. This superiority analysis was only done if the non-inferior analysis was successful.||||0.4368
91689575|NCT02756611|183273026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|||The null hypothesis stated that the CR rate for BCRi-naïve participants would be ≤ 6%, based on the CR rate reported for current therapies at the time the study was designed, with an alternative hypothesis that the CR rate would be \> 6%. If the p-value for this test was \< 0.025, the null hypothesis would be rejected.||||<0.001
91689576|NCT02756611|183273037|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|||The null hypothesis stated that the CR rate for BCRi-naïve participants would be ≤ 6%, based on the CR rate reported for current therapies at the time the study was designed, with an alternative hypothesis that the CR rate would be \> 6%. If the p-value for this test was \< 0.025, the null hypothesis would be rejected.||||<0.001
91689577|NCT01015534|183273061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|12.9||The sample size was calculated with a two-sided test,a type-I error probability of 0.05 and a power of 0.80,Twenty- eight patients in each treatment arm were required to detect a difference in ORR of 0.29|Chi-squared|||||12.9|1.3|0.019
91689578|NCT01015534|183273062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.688||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|3.422|||Fisher Exact|||||3.422|.138|.704
91689579|NCT01015534|183273063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.84
91689580|NCT01422213|183273065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.5||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the composite z-score was analysed using the mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline composite z-score, baseline composite z-score-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.50|0.22|<0.0001
91689581|NCT01422213|183273065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.47||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the composite z-score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline composite z-score, baseline composite z-score-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.47|0.19|<0.0001
91864801|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.885
91721624|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.013
91689582|NCT01422213|183273066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.9||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the DSST (number of correct symbols) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||5.90|2.50|<0.0001
91689583|NCT01422213|183273066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|5.94||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the DSST (number of correct symbols) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||5.94|2.57|<0.0001
91689584|NCT01422213|183273067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.93||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (acquisition) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.93|0.11|0.0287
91689585|NCT01422213|183273067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.5||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (acquisition) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.50|-0.31|0.1988
91689586|NCT01422213|183273068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.19||Since the p-value for RAVLT acquisition for 10 mg was \>0.025, the p-value for this test is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (delayed recall) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.19|0.24|0.0033
91689587|NCT01422213|183273068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.12||Since the p-value for RAVLT acquisition for 20 mg was \>0.025, the p-value for this test is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (delayed recall) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.12|0.17|0.0073
91689588|NCT01422213|183273069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-1.08||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT A (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.08|-6.45|0.0061
91689589|NCT01422213|183273069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-1.14||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT A (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.14|-6.46|0.0052
91689590|NCT01422213|183273070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-2.2||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT B (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.20|-12.93|0.0058
91794303|NCT01856023|183467596|SUPERIORITY|one -sample binomial test - 1-year estimated OS for these 28 patients was 75% (95%CI: 51%, 88%)||||||0.001||||||compared to the historical control rate of 46% one year survival|Log Rank|||OS rates of the Evaluable population in entire cohort was compared with the historical control rate of 46% (Hodi, et al NEJM 2010) using a one-sample binomial test due to early termination of enrollment without reaching target accrual; planned analysis to be the difference between treatment arms using log-rank test. One year OS along with 95% CI estimated for entire population and each treatment arm separately.||||.001
91689591|NCT01422213|183273070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|-3.7||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT B (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-3.70|-14.32|0.0009
91689592|NCT01422213|183273071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-1.49||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Congruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.49|-6.50|0.0018
91721625|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.019
91864802|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.457
91864803|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.745
91689593|NCT01422213|183273071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-1.97||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Congruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.97|-6.93|0.0005
91689594|NCT01422213|183273072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-2.74||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Incongruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.74|-10.76|0.0010
91689595|NCT01422213|183273072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|-2.54||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Incongruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.54|-10.49|0.0013
91689596|NCT01422213|183273073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the SRT (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.02|-0.07|0.0002
91689597|NCT01422213|183273073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the SRT (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.05|0.0157
91689598|NCT01422213|183273074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CRT (Attention) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.05|0.0005
91689599|NCT01422213|183273074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CRT (Attention) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.01|-0.03|0.3549
91689600|NCT01422213|183273075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-2.96||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the MADRS Total Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.96|-6.45|<0.0001
91689601|NCT01422213|183273075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-4.98||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the MADRS Total Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-4.98|-8.43|<0.0001
91689602|NCT01422213|183273076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.42||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-S Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.42|-0.88|<0.0001
91689603|NCT01422213|183273076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.62||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-S Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.62|-1.08|<0.0001
91689604|NCT01422213|183273077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.4||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-I Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.40|-0.81|<0.0001
91689605|NCT01422213|183273077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.65||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-I Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.65|-1.06|<0.0001
91689606|NCT01422213|183273078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.33||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|1.44|0.0002
91689607|NCT01422213|183273078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.21||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.21|2.26|<0.0001
91864804|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.757
91864805|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.562
91864806|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.828
91863731|NCT04800211|183616298|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.761||||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.867|20.344|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||20.344|-61.867|0.5975
91863732|NCT04800211|183616298|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.337||||0.9331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.853|36.179|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||36.179|-62.853|0.9331
91863733|NCT04800211|183616298|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.964||||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.637|13.709|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||13.709|-53.637|0.2444
91864807|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.005
91689608|NCT01422213|183273079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.41||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.41|1.29|0.0030
91689609|NCT01422213|183273079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|5.03||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.03|1.95|<0.0001
91689610|NCT01422213|183273080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|0.01|0.0393
91689611|NCT01422213|183273081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.36||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.36|0.10|0.0007
91864808|NCT05167864|183619158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.437
91903832|NCT00718549|183702493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|22.791|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||22.791|0.099|1.000
91689612|NCT01422213|183273081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|0.02|0.0246
91689613|NCT04782076|183273106|OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)||||1.55|1.33|
91864809|NCT03314688|183619177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
91864810|NCT03314688|183619178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q1: In the past month, how often did you take your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills as the doctor prescribed? = 'All the time'||||0.33
91903833|NCT05417607|183702513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.86||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group pre- and post-intervention.||6.22|1.27|0.0047
91903834|NCT05417607|183702514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.9||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group pre- and post-intervention.||6.02|-1.6|0.2383
91689614|NCT04782076|183273107|OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.46|1.30|
91689615|NCT02547428|183273133|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.1|||ANCOVA||Sample size of 60 participants (30 per treatment sequence) was needed to provide minimum 85% power to detect 5 point difference between treatments at a 2-sided significance level of 5% using a paired t-test.|Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in ADHD-RS-IV total score change from Baseline between CTN SR and placebo. The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included terms for period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects, and Baseline score as a covariate, and a participate-within-sequence term as a random effect.||-5.1|-11.0|<0.001
91689616|NCT02547428|183273134|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in ADHD-RS-IV total score change from Baseline between CTN SR 400 mg/day and placebo.||-3.6|-10.7|<0.001
91689617|NCT01634048|183273156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91689618|NCT06192589|183273160|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|1.52||Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of cannabidiol on citalopram compared to citalopram alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.52|1.34|<0.01
91689619|NCT06192589|183273161|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.17||Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of cannabidiol on citalopram compared to citalopram alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.17|1.06|<0.01
91689620|NCT06192589|183273162|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.16|0.96|0.34
91689621|NCT06192589|183273162|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.12||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect.||1.26|1.00|0.10
91689622|NCT06192589|183273163|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.35|1.05|0.02
91689623|NCT06192589|183273163|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.11||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.30|0.94|0.29
91689624|NCT06192589|183273170|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.05|0.98|0.47
91689625|NCT06192589|183273170|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|0.99||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.03|0.96|0.73
91689626|NCT06192589|183273171|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.12||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.21|1.03|0.03
91689627|NCT06192589|183273171|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.06|0.91|0.66
91721626|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.325
91721627|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.003
91864811|NCT03314688|183619178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q2: In the past month, how often did you forget to take one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.44
91721628|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.323
91721629|NCT03074500|183335469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.641
91721630|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.715
91721631|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.227
91721632|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.012
91721633|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.907
91689628|NCT06192589|183273172|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies.|Geometric mean ratio|1.08||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect.||1.18|0.99|0.13
91689629|NCT06192589|183273172|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.26|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.36|1.17|<0.01
91689630|NCT06192589|183273173|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.17|1.00|0.12
91689631|NCT06192589|183273173|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.11||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.21|1.01|0.07
91689632|NCT00742209|183273183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|0.3||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1||A combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure has been used to maintain the overall experiment-size alphas level of 0.05 for the comparison of GEn vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with baseline number of MHD and IHS Headache Classification for presence or absence of aura as covariates was used.|Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|||1.1|-0.6|0.579
91689633|NCT01332487|183273213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Acute Urinary Retention|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91689634|NCT01332487|183273213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||Surgery|Chi-squared|||||||0.000
91689635|NCT01332487|183273213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||Emergency Surgery|Chi-squared|||||||0.597
91689636|NCT01514461|183273228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% change from reference treatment|-28.78||||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.69|14.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements||||14.46|-55.69|0.0538
91689637|NCT01514461|183273228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% change from reference treatment|-40.88||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.99|-2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements||||-2.94|-63.99|0.0182
91689638|NCT03290378|183273367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.005
91689639|NCT01062425|183273382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||One-sided test with significance level of 0.15.|Z-test|||The null hypothesis was that the 6m PFS rates for both arms are 50%, and the alternative hypothesis was that patients receiving the experimental regimen would have a 6-month PFS rate of 66%. With 150 eligible patients, there would be an 80% statistical power to detect the 16% absolute increase in 6m PFS at a significance level of 0.15, using a one-sided Z test for two proportions.||||0.005
91721634|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.482
91721635|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.485
91721636|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.129
91689640|NCT01062425|183273383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.24||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test.|Log Rank||Placebo is the reference arm for the hazard ratio.|||1.24|0.6|0.44
91689641|NCT01062425|183273383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.34|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is reference level for the hazard ratio.|Multivariate analysis with the Cox proportional hazard model for overall survival was performed with the stratification variables as fixed variables to assess the treatment effect adjusting patient-specific risk factors. The covariates evaluated for the multivariate models were assigned protocol treatment, MGMT methylation status, and RPA risk class.||1.34|0.62|0.648
91721637|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.12
91721638|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.935
91721639|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.002
91721640|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.036
91689642|NCT01062425|183273384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test.|Log Rank||Placebo is the reference arm for the hazard ratio.|||0.95|0.47|0.03
91689643|NCT01062425|183273384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference arm.|Multivariate analysis with the Cox proportional hazard model for progression-free survival was performed with the stratification variables as fixed variables to assess the treatment effect adjusting patient-specific risk factors. The covariates evaluated for the multivariate models were assigned protocol treatment, MGMT methylation status, and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) risk class.||0.97|0.46|0.036
91689644|NCT01062425|183273385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||||||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91863734|NCT04800211|183616298|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.254||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.427|26.919|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||26.919|-53.427|0.5169
91689645|NCT01037218|183273386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.07|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||5.07|1.70|<0.0001
91689646|NCT01037218|183273386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|7.43|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||7.43|4.05|<0.0001
91689647|NCT01037218|183273386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.2|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||9.20|5.86|<0.0001
91689648|NCT01037218|183273387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|20.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.44|26.93|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||26.93|13.44|<0.0001
91689649|NCT01037218|183273387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|25.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.32|31.81|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||31.81|18.32|<0.0001
91689650|NCT01037218|183273387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|32.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.18|39.5|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||39.50|26.18|<0.0001
91689651|NCT01037218|183273388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|21.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.19|29.24|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||29.24|14.19|<0.0001
91721641|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.056
91721642|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.016
91721643|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.618
91721644|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.48
91721645|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.034
91721646|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.041
91721647|NCT03074500|183335470|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||1
91721648|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.103
91721649|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.002
91689652|NCT01037218|183273388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|26.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.27|34.37|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||34.37|19.27|<0.0001
91689653|NCT01037218|183273388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|35.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.98|42.83|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||42.83|27.98|<0.0001
91689654|NCT01037218|183273389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.23|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.23|0.81|<0.0001
91689655|NCT01037218|183273389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.0|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||3.00|1.58|<0.0001
91903835|NCT05417607|183702515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.58||0.3426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group pre- and post-intervention.||0.80|-2.22|0.3426
91689656|NCT01037218|183273389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.6|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||3.60|2.20|<0.0001
91689657|NCT01037218|183273390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.59||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.22|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.22|-0.04|0.0673
91721650|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.008
91721651|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.76
91689658|NCT01037218|183273390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.16|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.16|0.90|<0.0001
91689659|NCT01037218|183273390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.15|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.15|0.91|<0.0001
91721652|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||1
91721653|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.056
91721654|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.002
91721655|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.12
91903836|NCT02871778|183702518|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|1.519||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|2.995|||Mixed-effects Model|||||2.995|0.044|0.0437
91903837|NCT02871778|183702518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.509|2.589|||Mixed-effects Model|||||2.589|-2.509|0.9755
91689660|NCT01037218|183273391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.36||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.73|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.73|-0.01|0.0566
91689661|NCT01037218|183273391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.08|||ANCOVA|P-values obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.08|0.34|0.0002
91689662|NCT01037218|183273391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.07|||ANCOVA|P-values obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.07|0.34|0.0001
91689663|NCT01037218|183273392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.86||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.4|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.40|0.32|0.0019
91689664|NCT01037218|183273392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.09|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.09|1.01|<0.0001
91689665|NCT01037218|183273392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.62|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.62|1.55|<0.0001
91689666|NCT01037218|183273393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
91689667|NCT01037218|183273393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
91689668|NCT01037218|183273393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
91689669|NCT01037218|183273393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
91689670|NCT01037218|183273394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|12.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.01|18.29|||ANOVA|P-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||18.29|7.01|<0.0001
91721656|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.117
91689671|NCT01037218|183273394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.95|25.27|||ANOVA|P-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||25.27|13.95|<0.0001
91689672|NCT01037218|183273394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|27.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.44|32.59|||ANOVA|P-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||32.59|21.44|<0.0001
91721657|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.006
91689673|NCT01037218|183273395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.57|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.57|0.30|<0.0001
91689674|NCT01037218|183273395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
91689675|NCT01037218|183273395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.97|0.69|<0.0001
91689676|NCT01037218|183273396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|15.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|20.14|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||20.14|10.21|<0.0001
91689677|NCT01037218|183273396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|14.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.96|19.92|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||19.92|9.96|<0.0001
91689678|NCT01037218|183273396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|21.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.15|25.96|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||25.96|16.15|<0.0001
91721658|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.013
91721659|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.487
91721660|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.002
91721661|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.102
91721662|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.165
91721663|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.007
91721664|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.028
91864812|NCT03314688|183619178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q3: In the past month, how often did you decide to skip one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.29
91864813|NCT03314688|183619179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q1: In the past month, how often did you take your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills as the doctor prescribed? = 'All the time'||||0.69
91689679|NCT01037218|183273397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|17.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.22|24.81|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||24.81|10.22|<0.0001
91689680|NCT01037218|183273397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|28.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.01|35.62|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||35.62|21.01|<0.0001
91689681|NCT01037218|183273397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|33.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.61|41.02|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||41.02|26.61|<0.0001
91689682|NCT01037218|183273398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|26.23|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||26.23|11.23|<0.0001
91689683|NCT01037218|183273398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|29.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.86|36.92|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||36.92|21.86|<0.0001
91689684|NCT01037218|183273398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|34.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.94|41.75|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001(NCT00282607).||41.75|26.94|<0.0001
91689685|NCT02291237|183273414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|-0.55||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.78|||ANCOVA|P-value and Least Squares (LS) Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline peak VO2 as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in Peak VO2 from baseline to Week 24 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including terms for baseline Peak VO2, sex, and age (continuous).||0.78|-1.87|0.416
91689686|NCT02291237|183273415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|-0.42||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.85||P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline peak VO2 as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||The analysis evaluated the change in Peak VO2 from baseline to Week 12 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline Peak VO2, sex, and age (continuous).||0.85|-1.68|0.517
91689687|NCT02291237|183273416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|1.54||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|6.19|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in MLHFQ from baseline to Week 24 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||6.19|-3.11|0.513
91689688|NCT02291237|183273417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|4.56|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in MLHFQ from baseline to Week 12 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||4.56|-4.36|0.964
91721665|NCT03074500|183335471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.83
91721666|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.837
91721667|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.215
91794304|NCT00424255|183467600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2251||95.0||||The one-sided p-value is unstratified as there are too few events per stratum to perform a stratified test.|Non-stratified log-rank test|||||||0.2251
91794305|NCT00424255|183467600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4502||95.0||||The two-sided p-value is unstratified as there are too few events per stratum to perform a stratified test.|Non-stratified log-rank test|||||||0.4502
91794043|NCT03868124|183466778|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.5||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.50|-1.99|
91794044|NCT03868124|183466778|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.52||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.52|-1.88|
91794045|NCT03868124|183466778|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.69||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.69|-0.76|
91689689|NCT02291237|183273418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|-0.04||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.1|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in treadmill exercise time from baseline to Week 24 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||1.10|-1.18|0.944
91689690|NCT02291237|183273419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.97|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in treadmill exercise time from baseline to Week 12 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||0.97|-0.96|0.993
91689691|NCT07034820|183273420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|64.0||A priori statistical significance threshold for the primary endpoint was set at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was applied to the primary outcome analysis, as it was the sole primary endpoint.|Chi-squared||The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the absolute difference in hemorrhoid regression rates between the Nimsai Herbal Group and the Placebo Group. Calculation: Nimsai Herbal (78%) - Placebo (22%) = 56%.|Powered for 56% difference (80% power, alpha=0.05) to detect the anticipated difference in hemorrhoid regression rates between groups. The sample size of N=300 (150 participants per arm) was calculated based on an expected regression rate of 22% in the placebo group and 78% in the Nimsai Herbal group. This ensured sufficient statistical power for the primary efficacy analysis.||64|48|<0.001
91689692|NCT02189837|183273421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|88.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.67||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.73|161.8|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The superiority of evolocumab monotherapy to placebo was tested using a 2-sided p-value at a significance level of 0.05.||161.80|15.73|0.018
91689693|NCT02189837|183273421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|236.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.02|308.69|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The treatment effect of evolocumab plus atorvastatin compared with placebo plus atorvastatin was estimated and a nominal p-value is provided.||308.69|164.02|<0.001
91689694|NCT02189837|183273421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|147.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.61||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|250.38|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||To assess whether the treatment effect of evolocumab compared with placebo depended on being administered alone or combined with atorvastatin, the interaction was tested, i.e., the difference between the treatment difference versus the respective placebo group for the evolocumab+atorvastatin group and the evolocumab group was calculated.||250.38|44.80|0.005
91689695|NCT02189837|183273422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001||95.0|-65.91|-48.38|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-48.38|-65.91|<0.001
91689696|NCT02189837|183273422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.55|-29.34|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-29.34|-46.55|<0.001
91721668|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.078
91794306|NCT00424255|183467600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.43|||||Hazard Ratios were estimated using a Pike estimator.|||1.43|0.85|
91794307|NCT00591578|183467625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|-1.69||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-1.69|-5.59|<0.001
91864814|NCT03314688|183619179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q2: In the past month, how often did you forget to take one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.91
91689697|NCT02189837|183273422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|31.47|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||31.47|6.93|0.003
91689698|NCT02189837|183273423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.37|4.08|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||4.08|-37.37|0.11
91689699|NCT02189837|183273423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.31||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.19|-12.13|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-12.13|-53.19|0.002
91689700|NCT02189837|183273423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|-16.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.65||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.18|13.16|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||13.16|-45.18|0.28
91689701|NCT02189837|183273424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.94|24.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The superiority of evolocumab monotherapy to placebo was tested using a 2-sided p-value at a significance level of 0.05.||24.70|-28.94|0.87
91689702|NCT02189837|183273424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|39.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.76||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.52|64.59|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The treatment effect of evolocumab plus atorvastatin compared with placebo plus atorvastatin was estimated and a nominal p-value is provided.||64.59|13.52|0.003
91689703|NCT02189837|183273424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|41.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.5||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|78.2|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||To assess whether the treatment effect of evolocumab compared with placebo depended on being administered alone or combined with atorvastatin, the interaction was tested, i.e., the difference between the treatment difference versus the respective placebo group for the evolocumab+atorvastatin group and the evolocumab group was calculated.||78.20|4.15|0.030
91689704|NCT02189837|183273425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.66|-16.21|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-16.21|-62.66|0.001
91689705|NCT02189837|183273425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|23.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.05||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|45.4|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||45.40|1.16|0.039
91689706|NCT02189837|183273425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|62.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.65|94.79|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||94.79|30.65|<0.001
91689707|NCT03787134|183273486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||cued memory item reconstruction - test of reconstruction strength against 0||||.335
91689708|NCT03787134|183273486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||uncued memory item reconstruction - test of reconstruction strength against 0||||.016
91794308|NCT00591578|183467625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|-2.06||Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.06|-6.01|<0.001
91689709|NCT03281876|183273502|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy is defined as 1 minus the risk ratio (Rvacc / Rcon) based on the number of moderate and severe AECOPD observed in 1 year , with Rvacc = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the GSK3277511A Group and Rcon = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the Control group. The objective is to be considered a success if the lower limit of the 87% CI is above 0%.|Other: Vaccine Efficacy rate|-2.26||||0.8157|TWO_SIDED|87.0|-18.27|11.58|||Negative Binomial regression|Negative Binomial model with arm, country, gold grade, history of exacerbation and age category as covariates and log time as offset variable||To assess efficacy of the investigational vaccine as compared to the placebo control with respect to the rate of moderate and severe AECOPDs||11.58|-18.27|0.8157
91689710|NCT03281876|183273503|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy is defined as 1 minus the risk ratio (Rvacc / Rcon) based on the number of moderate and severe AECOPD observed in 1 year , with Rvacc = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the GSK3277511A Group and Rcon = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the Control group.|Other: Vaccine Efficacy rate|-2.26||||0.8157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.45|15.29|||Negative Binomial regression|Negative Binomial model with arm, country, gold grade, history of exacerbation and age category as covariates and log time as offset variable||To assess efficacy of the investigational vaccine as compared to the placebo control with respect to the rate of moderate and severe AECOPDs||15.29|-23.45|0.8157
91721669|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.699
91721670|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.846
91864815|NCT03314688|183619179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q3: In the past month, how often did you decide to skip one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.13
91864816|NCT01828112|183619237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.36|<0.001
91903838|NCT02871778|183702518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.318||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|4.856|||Mixed-effects Model|||||4.856|-0.22|0.0731
91794309|NCT00591578|183467626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.63||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-5.90|0.015
91689711|NCT03281876|183273510|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy is defined as 1 minus the risk ratio (Rvacc / Rcon) based on the number of moderate and severe AECOPD observed in 1 year , with Rvacc = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the GSK3277511A Group and Rcon = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the control group.|Vaccine efficacy rate|-2.72||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|14.19|||Negative Binomial regression|||To assess efficacy of the investigational vaccine as compared to the placebo control with respect to the rate of AECOPDs of any severity- upto 12 months follow up period||14.19|-22.95|0.7700
91689712|NCT03281876|183273512|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.166|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate or severe AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.166|0.758|0.5751
91689713|NCT03281876|183273513|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.934||||0.5194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for any AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.15|0.758|0.5194
91689714|NCT03281876|183273514|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.791|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for mild AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.791|0.616|0.8581
91689715|NCT03281876|183273514|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995||||0.9634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.249|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.249|0.792|0.9634
91689716|NCT03281876|183273514|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.722||||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.157|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for severe AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.157|0.45|0.1755
91689717|NCT03281876|183273521|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.477|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate or severe NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.477|0.73|0.9463
91689718|NCT03281876|183273522|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.093||||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.528|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for any NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.528|0.782|0.6042
91689719|NCT03281876|183273523|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.243||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|5.504|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for mild NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||5.504|0.914|0.0777
91689720|NCT03281876|183273523|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.021||||0.9121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.467|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.467|0.71|0.9121
91689721|NCT03281876|183273523|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.8737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|4.502|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for severe NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||4.502|0.278|0.8737
91689722|NCT02208089|183273535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = TransPRK produced no gains in vision over and above those produced by CXL only||||0.03
91689723|NCT02208089|183273536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = an equal proportion of patients in both study arms have clinically significant visual gains||||0.005
91689724|NCT02208089|183273537|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority = no significant difference between rates of clinically significant visual loss between groups at the p≤0.05 level||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis = rates of clinically significant visual loss are equal for TransPRKCXL and CXL only||||0.13
91689725|NCT00683657|183273552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-8.5||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post - pre = pre treatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin.|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-8.5|-25.1|0.0001
91903839|NCT02871778|183702518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.799||||0.5373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.751|3.348|||Mixed-effects Model|||||3.348|-1.751|0.5373
91721671|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.56
91721672|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.087
91689726|NCT00683657|183273553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-16.1||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-16.1|-44.4|<0.0001
91689727|NCT00683657|183273554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|-14.7||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-14.7|-56.2|0.0010
91689728|NCT00683657|183273555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-10.3||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-10.3|-27.1|<0.0001
91689729|NCT00683657|183273556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-7.4||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-7.4|-23.3|0.0002
91689730|NCT01074944|183273572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Eliglustat QD treatment was declared non-inferior to BID treatment if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was within the non-inferiority margin of -0.15 (or -15%).|Difference in Percentage Stable|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|11.9||||||||11.9|-17.7|
91689731|NCT03741400|183273622|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in total seconds||||0.88
91689732|NCT03741400|183273622|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in fine motor skill assessment||||0.99
91689733|NCT03741400|183273622|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in gross motor skills assessment||||0.80
91689734|NCT03741400|183273623|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||||||0.61
91689735|NCT03741400|183273624|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in total seconds||||0.47
91903840|NCT02871778|183702518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.838||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.368|3.045|||Mixed-effects Model|||||3.045|-1.368|0.453
91689736|NCT03741400|183273624|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in fine motor skill assessment||||0.55
91689737|NCT03741400|183273624|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in gross motor skills assessment||||0.38
91689738|NCT03741400|183273625|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||||||0.24
91689739|NCT03741400|183273626|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.18
91689740|NCT03741400|183273627|OTHER|||||||0.926||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis at week 12||||0.926
91721673|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.183
91903841|NCT02653300|183702527|OTHER|||||||0.03125|||||||Sign test|||||||0.03125
91903842|NCT00307333|183702536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91689741|NCT03741400|183273627|OTHER|||||||0.828||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis at week 24||||0.828
91689742|NCT02586155|183273646|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.823||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.044|||Stratified long-rank|||||1.044|0.649|0.1070
91903843|NCT00307333|183702537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
91903844|NCT00307333|183702538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91903845|NCT00307333|183702539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99|||||HR = hazard for intervention / hazard for control|||0.99|0.61|
91903846|NCT04166383|183702541|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P≤0.10 (alpha 0.1); power = 90% (beta 0.1)|Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.10
91689743|NCT02586155|183273647|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.849||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.061|||Stratified long-rank|||||1.061|0.679|0.1495
91689744|NCT02586155|183273648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.94|||Stratified long-rank|||||0.94|0.38|0.03
91689745|NCT02586155|183273649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.24|||Stratified long-rank|||||1.24|0.62|0.44
91689746|NCT02586155|183273660|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.63|0.03
91689747|NCT02899962|183273700|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was time to first relapse during the maintenance phase. This was calculated as the number of days from randomisation to the day where the subject had the first relapse confirmed. For subjects who either did not encounter a relapse or were withdrawn from the trial, the number of days was treated as a censored observation at the day of end of trial visit.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.69|||Regression, Cox||Estimates are obtained from a proportional hazards model with treatment group,pooled trial site,disease severity at maintenance baseline (Week 4; determined by PGA) as factors.|All randomized subjects were considered for statistical analysis.||0.69|0.47|<0.001
91689748|NCT02899962|183273701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||ANOVA|Factors adjusted for in the ANOVA model were treatment group, pooled trial site, and disease severity at maintenance baseline (PGA).|Multiple imputation of data for withdrawn subjects was done using 100 imputations and depended on whether the subject's reason for withdrawal potentially was related to treatment. Length of the maintenance phase was assumed to be 52 weeks (364 days)|The number of days in remission was calculated as the sum of days where the subject was in remission periods. The proportion of days in remission was calculated as the number of days in remission divided by the length of the maintenance phase in days.||0.14|0.08|<0.001
91721674|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.719
91689749|NCT02899962|183273702|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.63|||Poisson regression||The number of relapses was analysed using a Poisson regression model with treatment group,pooled sites,disease severity at maintenance baseline as factors, subject as random effect, and time at risk as an offset.|||0.63|0.46|<0.001
91689750|NCT00473590|183273710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|2.261|||Log Rank|The strata were number of prior cancer treatments (1, \> 1) and β2-microglobulin level (\< 3.5, ≥ 3.5 mg/L).|The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression.|Stratified analysis||2.261|0.404|0.9179
91689751|NCT00473590|183273710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|1.893||The tests were exploratory because patients were not randomized to the two arms with respect to response status.|Log Rank||The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.893|0.369|0.6665
91689752|NCT00473590|183273711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.633||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|1.552|||Log Rank||The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression. The strata were number of prior cancer treatments (1, \> 1) and β2-microglobulin level (\< 3.5, ≥ 3.5 mg/L).|Stratified analysis||1.552|0.258|0.3134
91689753|NCT00473590|183273711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.608||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|1.468|||Log Rank||The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis||1.468|0.251|0.2634
91689754|NCT00473590|183273712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743||||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|1.276|||Log Rank|The analysis was stratified for number of prior cancer treatments (1, \> 1) and β2-microglobulin level (\< 3.5, ≥ 3.5 mg/L).|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to BORT + P.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the 2 treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that progression-free survival was longer in the BORT + BV group. Stratified Analysis.||1.276|0.432|0.2804
91721675|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.023
91689755|NCT00473590|183273712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|1.2|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio relative to BORT + P was estimated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis.||1.200|0.424|0.2009
91689756|NCT02623725|183273733|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95 percent (%) Confidence Interval (CI) of the Geometric mean of titer ratios (GMTRs) (booster vs post-dose 3) was greater than (\>) 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.06||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||2.06|1.33|
91689757|NCT02623725|183273733|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \>1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.31||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||2.31|1.43|
91721676|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.196
91721677|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.318
91721678|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.001
91864817|NCT05565820|183619283|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: .05|Z-test for difference in proportions|Z: 2.246 Cohen's d: .590|Direction of comparison: Vamousse Day 2 proportion of live lice - Nix Day 2 proportion of live lice|"Null hypothesis: At Day 2 the proportion of lice free subjects in the Vamousse Spray 'n' Go group does not exceed that in the Nix Creme Rinse Lice Treatment group.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."||||.025
91689758|NCT02623725|183273733|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \>1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.27||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.27|0.841|
91689759|NCT02623725|183273733|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \>1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.74||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.74|1.01|
91689760|NCT02623725|183273734|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.05||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||2.05|1.34|
91689761|NCT02623725|183273734|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.41||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||2.41|1.49|
91721679|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.483
91794046|NCT03868124|183466778|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.01||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.01|-0.37|
91689762|NCT02623725|183273734|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.30|0.860|
91689763|NCT02623725|183273734|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.73||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.73|1.02|
91689764|NCT03918629|183273747|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9|||||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR) was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean or the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin A||0.90|0.74|
91689765|NCT03918629|183273747|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMR was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.66|||||Adjusted GMR was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin B||0.66|0.49|
91689766|NCT03918629|183273748|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.9|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin A||2.9|-6.4|
91689767|NCT03918629|183273748|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-12.2|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin B||-12.2|-21.3|
91689768|NCT03918629|183273757|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMR was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95|||||Adjusted GMR was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean or the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin A||0.95|0.80|
91689769|NCT03918629|183273757|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMR was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||Adjusted GMR was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean or the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin B||0.81|0.62|
91689770|NCT03918629|183273758|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.7|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin A||1.7|-3.7|
91689771|NCT03918629|183273758|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-5.5|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin B||-5.5|-15.1|
91689772|NCT01243957|183273759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|2.0|||ANOVA|||||2.00|1.61|
91689773|NCT01243957|183273760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|1.79|||ANOVA|||||1.79|1.49|
91864818|NCT05565820|183619283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: .05.|Z-test for difference in proportions|Z 2.469 Cohen's d .660|Direction of comparison: Vamousse Day 7 proportion live lice free - Nix Day 7 proportion live lice free|"Null hypothesis: At Day 7 the proportion of lice free subjects in the Vamousse Spray 'n' Go group does not exceed that in the Nix Creme Rinse Lice Treatment group.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."||||.014
91864819|NCT05565820|183619283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: .05|Z-test for difference in proportions|Z: 1.920 Cohen's d: .513|Vamousse Day 14 proportion live lice free - Nix Day 14 proportion live lice free|"Null hypothesis: At Day 14 the proportion of lice-free subjects in the Vamousse Spray 'n' Go group does not exceed that in the Nix Creme Rinse Lice Treatment group.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."||||.054
91689774|NCT01243957|183273761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.50|-0.50|0.5459
91689775|NCT01243957|183273762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.04|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of AUCτ for fluoxetine alone and fluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.04|0.99|
91721680|NCT03074500|183335472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.004
91721681|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.897
91689776|NCT01243957|183273762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.06|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of AUCτ for norfluoxetine alone and norfluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.06|1.01|
91689777|NCT01243957|183273763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.03|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Cmax for fluoxetine alone and fluoxetine + LY2216684||1.03|0.97|
91689778|NCT01243957|183273763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Cmax for norfluoxetine alone and norfluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.07|1.00|
91689779|NCT01243957|183273764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|1.42|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Tmax for fluoxetine alone and fluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.42|-3.00|0.4230
91689780|NCT01243957|183273764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Tmax for norfluoxetine alone and norfluoxetine + LY2216684.||-1.00|-6.50|0.0293
91689781|NCT01891864|183273765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin for the comparison of GP2015 with Enbrel with respect to PASI 75 response at Week 12 was based on response rates reported in two pivotal placebo controlled trials (Leonardi et al 2003; Papp et al 2005). Based on the observed effect size of 45-46%, an equivalence margin of 18% was chosen so that at least 60% of the treatment effect seen for Enbrel was maintained. A response rate of 49% was assumed for the comparator treatment Enbrel.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|5.3||||||PASI 75 response rate (proportion of patients showing at least a 75% improvement in PASI) after the first 12 weeks of treatment (Treatment Period 1) was the primary endpoint to assess equivalence between GP2015 and Enbrel®. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of PASI75 could be concluded if the exact 95% confidence interval for the difference in the PASI75 rates is completely contained within the interval \[-18%; 18%\]. A logistic regression model was to be employed.||5.3|-9.85|
91689782|NCT01891864|183273766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A MMRM (Mixed Model Repeated Method) was performed on the percentage change from baseline in PASI score from baseline to Week 12. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2015 and Enbrel was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.474|2.204||||||||2.204|-3.474|
91689783|NCT01891864|183273766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The mean averaged treatment effect (ATE) of percent change from baseline in PASI score up to week 12 was derived for each patient and analyzed using an ANCOVA approach. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2015 and Enbrel was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|1.845||||||||1.845|-3.61|
91689784|NCT05620082|183273783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91689785|NCT05620082|183273784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91689786|NCT05620082|183273785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91689787|NCT05620082|183273786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Appearance of supplements||||0.10
91689788|NCT05620082|183273786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Smell of supplements between groups||||0.10
91689789|NCT05620082|183273786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Taste of supplements||||0.08
91689790|NCT05620082|183273786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Sweetness of supplements||||0.70
91689791|NCT05620082|183273786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Texture of supplements||||0.02
91794310|NCT00591578|183467626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.68||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.68|-8.00|<0.001
91903847|NCT03044886|183702546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.576
91689792|NCT05620082|183273786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Thickness of supplements||||0.45
91689793|NCT05620082|183273786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Aftertaste of supplements||||0.25
91689794|NCT05620082|183273786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing 'Feeling in mouth' of supplements||||0.45
91689795|NCT05620082|183273786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing 'Future choice' of supplements||||0.06
91689796|NCT05620082|183273787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction revealed a significant increase in total daily energy intake from baseline to porridge timepoints (p\<0.001).|Related samples Friedman's Two-Way ANOVA|||||||0.004
91689797|NCT03296813|183273805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.18||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to all-cause mortality among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including the assigned treatment (torsemide vs. furosemide as the reference group) as well as age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.180|0.885|0.765
91689798|NCT03296813|183273806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.02||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Regression, Cox|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to all-cause mortality or first all-cause hospitalization through month 12 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including the assigned treatment (torsemide vs. furosemide as the reference group) as well as age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.020|0.826|0.113
91721682|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.325
91721683|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.172
91721684|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.622
91689799|NCT03296813|183273807|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.068||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Regression, Linear|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to total all-cause hospitalizations through month 12 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a negative binomial regression of the frequency of re-hospitalizations with an offset term of the log of each subject's months to last re-hospitalization assessment through month 12. Re-hospitalizations greater than or equal to 5 were combined and analyzed with re-hospitalizations = 5 (i.e., one category \>=5) and for the subjects with \>=5 re-hospitalizations, the offset term was the log of the months to the 5th re-hospitalization.|1.068|0.836|0.366
91689800|NCT03296813|183273808|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.943||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.181||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Regression, Cox|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to all-cause mortality or first all-cause hospitalization through day 30 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including the assigned treatment (torsemide vs. furosemide as the reference group) as well as age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.181|0.753|0.610
91689801|NCT03296813|183273809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.26||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine whether torsemide improves the QOL at 1 month compared to Furosemide as assessed by the KCCQ among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|Least squares means results from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of the KCCQ score change from baseline with terms for treatment, time (visit) from randomization, treatment x time (visit) interaction as well as the baseline KCCQ score, age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|3.26|-0.66|0.194
91689802|NCT03296813|183273809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.74||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine whether torsemide improves the QOL at 6 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the KCCQ among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|Least squares means results from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of the KCCQ score change from baseline with terms for treatment, time (visit) from randomization, treatment x time (visit) interaction as well as the baseline KCCQ score, age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.74|-2.53|0.718
91689803|NCT03296813|183273809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.3||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine whether torsemide improves the QOL at 12 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the KCCQ among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|Least squares means results from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of the KCCQ score change from baseline with terms for treatment, time (visit) from randomization, treatment x time (visit) interaction as well as the baseline KCCQ score, age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|2.30|-2.26|0.987
91689804|NCT03296813|183273810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904||||||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To determine whether torsemide reduces symptoms of depression at 1 month compared to Furosemide as assessed by the PHQ-2 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.||||0.904
91689805|NCT03296813|183273810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829||||||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To determine whether torsemide reduces symptoms of depression at 6 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the PHQ-2 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.||||0.829
91689806|NCT03296813|183273810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342||||||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To determine whether torsemide reduces symptoms of depression at 12 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the PHQ-2 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.||||0.342
91689807|NCT02513160|183273811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|150.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|213.2||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Difference of LS means, 95% CI, and p-value represent ANCOVA results adjusted for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, and treatment.|Active - placebo|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to interpret the results from the primary analysis while controlling the family-wise error rate at 5%. The 640-mcg/day BAI dose was tested first. If the comparison to placebo resulted in p≤0.05, the 320-mcg/day BAI dose was then tested.||213.2|86.8|<0.0001
91721685|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.909
91721686|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.79
91794311|NCT00591578|183467627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.88|-3.44|<0.001
91903848|NCT03044886|183702547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.489
91903849|NCT03044886|183702548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.042
91903850|NCT03044886|183702548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.041
91903851|NCT03044886|183702549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.710
91689808|NCT02513160|183273811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|144.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.7|206.6||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Difference of LS means, 95% CI, and p-value represent ANCOVA results adjusted for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, and treatment.|Active - placebo|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to interpret the results from the primary analysis while controlling the family-wise error rate at 5%. The 640-mcg/day BAI dose was tested first. If the comparison to placebo resulted in p≤0.05, the 320-mcg/day BAI dose was then tested.||206.6|80.7|<0.0001
91689809|NCT02513160|183273811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|148.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.7|211.4||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05. The p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Difference of LS means and 95% CI represent ANCOVA results adjusted for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, and treatment.|Active - placebo|||211.4|84.7|<0.0001
91689810|NCT02513160|183273812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|21.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.11|33.71||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BAI 640 mcg/day vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BAI 640 mcg/day vs placebo 2) the am PEF for BAI 320 mcg/day vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||33.71|10.11|0.0003
91689811|NCT02513160|183273812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|30.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|41.9||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in previous analysis.||41.90|18.33|<0.0001
91689812|NCT02513160|183273812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|21.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.14|32.83||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||32.83|9.14|0.0006
91689813|NCT02513160|183273813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|143.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|214.1||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||214.1|71.7|<0.0001
91689814|NCT02513160|183273813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|170.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|240.5||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||240.5|98.5|<0.0001
91689815|NCT02513160|183273813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|133.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|204.3||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||204.3|61.3|0.0003
91689816|NCT02513160|183273814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.408|-0.64||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.640|-1.408|<0.0001
91689817|NCT02513160|183273814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.482|-0.717||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.717|-1.482|<0.0001
91689818|NCT02513160|183273814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.415|-0.643||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||-0.643|-1.415|<0.0001
91689819|NCT02513160|183273815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.203||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.203|-0.440|<0.0001
91689820|NCT02513160|183273815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|-0.128||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.128|-0.365|<0.0001
91721687|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.24
91794312|NCT00591578|183467627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-1.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-3.99|<0.001
91903852|NCT03044886|183702550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.340
91903853|NCT03044886|183702551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.048
91903854|NCT03044886|183702551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.038
91903855|NCT03044886|183702552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.521
91689821|NCT02513160|183273815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|-0.185||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||-0.185|-0.423|<0.0001
91689822|NCT02513160|183273816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0058|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0058
91689823|NCT02513160|183273816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0014
91689824|NCT02513160|183273816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0062
91689825|NCT02059512|183273824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.24
91689826|NCT02059512|183273825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Length of hospital stay.||||0.1
91689827|NCT02059512|183273825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Length of stay in the intensive care unit.||||0.1
91689828|NCT02059512|183273826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4
91689829|NCT02059512|183273826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 0-6 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.8
91689830|NCT02059512|183273826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 12-18 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.9
91689831|NCT02059512|183273826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 18-24 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.2
91689832|NCT02059512|183273826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 48 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.5
91689833|NCT02059512|183273826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 72 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.4
91689834|NCT02059512|183273826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 96 hours of the postoperative period/||||0.6
91689835|NCT02059512|183273826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 7 days of the postoperative period.||||0.4
91689836|NCT02059512|183273826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 14 days of the postoperative period.||||0.5
91689837|NCT02059512|183273827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CRP initially.||||0.1
91689838|NCT02059512|183273827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CRP postoperative 4-6 days.||||0.4
91689839|NCT02059512|183273827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CRP postoperative 12-14 days.||||0.99
91689840|NCT02059512|183273828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The volume of discharge through the drains on the first day after surgery.||||0.2
91689841|NCT02059512|183273828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||The volume of discharge through the drains on the second day after the operation.||||0.3
91689842|NCT02059512|183273829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Troponin I postoperative day 1.||||0.6
91794313|NCT00591578|183467628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.98||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-4.06|0.001
91689843|NCT02059512|183273829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Troponin I postoperative day 3.||||0.4
91689844|NCT02059512|183273829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Myoglobin postoperative day 1.||||0.8
91689845|NCT02059512|183273829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Myoglobin postoperative day 3.||||0.7
91689846|NCT02059512|183273830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CPK-MB postoperative day 1.||||0.7
91689847|NCT02059512|183273830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CPK-MB postoperative day 3.||||0.8
91689848|NCT02059512|183273831|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Hb intraoperatively before turning off the cardiopulmonary bypass(CPB).||||1.0
91689849|NCT02059512|183273831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Hb at the end of the operation.||||0.4
91689850|NCT02059512|183273832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||HCT intraoperatively before turning off the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).||||0.8
91689851|NCT02059512|183273832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||HCT at the end of the operation.||||0.3
91689852|NCT02059512|183273833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||K+ intraoperatively before turning off the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).||||0.4
91689853|NCT02059512|183273833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||K+ at the end of the operation.||||0.1
91689854|NCT02059512|183273834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
91689855|NCT02059512|183273835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
91689856|NCT02059512|183273836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydrothorax / postoperative period.||||0.6
91689857|NCT02059512|183273836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydropericardium / postoperative period.||||0.2
91689858|NCT02059512|183273836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Resternotomy / postoperative period.||||0.6
91689859|NCT02059512|183273836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Atrial fibrillation / postoperative period.||||0.06
91689860|NCT02059512|183273836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Atrial flutter / postoperative period.||||0.06
91689861|NCT02059512|183273837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||||||0.4
91689862|NCT02059512|183273838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvd ind. (Lvd mm./BSA kg / cm) - Evaluation of the left ventricular end-diastolic size index.||||0.5
91689863|NCT02059512|183273838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvs ind. (Lvs mm./BSA kg / cm) - Evaluation of the left ventricular end-systolic size index.||||0.5
91689864|NCT02059512|183273838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LAind. (LA mm./BSA kg / cm) - Left Atrial Size Index Assessment.||||0.6
91689865|NCT02059512|183273839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LVEDV MOD BP ind. (LVEDV MOD BP ml./BSA kg / cm) - Evaluation of the left ventricular end-diastolic volume index.||||0.4
91689866|NCT02059512|183273839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Evaluation of the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESV MOD BP ind.)||||0.3
91689867|NCT02059512|183273840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
91689868|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Physical Functioning SF-36. Comparison of patients of group 1 and group 2 with the control group - group 0.||||0.7
91863735|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.174||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.12|12.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||12.772|-93.120|0.1359
91863736|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-71.725||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.961|-15.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-15.490|-127.961|0.0129
91903856|NCT03044886|183702553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.742
91903857|NCT03044886|183702554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||<0.05
91689869|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Role-Physical Functioning SF-36||||0.8
91689870|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Bodily pain SF-36||||0.7
91689871|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||General Health SF-36.||||0.6
91689872|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Vitality SF-36.||||0.8
91689873|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Social Functioning SF-36.||||0.7
91794047|NCT03868124|183466778|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.91||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.91|-0.59|
91689874|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Role- Emotional SF-36.||||0.7
91689875|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Mental Health SF-36.||||0.96
91689876|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Minnesota Quality of Life (MHFLQ).||||0.7
91689877|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Seattle QuestionnairePhysical limitation.||||0.6
91689878|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaireAngina stability.||||0.4
91689879|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaireAngina frequency.||||0.6
91689880|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaireTreatment satisfaction.||||0.7
91689881|NCT02059512|183273842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaire Disease perception.||||0.3
91689882|NCT02059512|183273843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91689883|NCT02059512|183273844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
91689884|NCT02059512|183273845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||||||0.35
91689885|NCT02059512|183273846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvd ind. (Lvd mm./BSA) - left ventricular end-diastolic size index. All patients included in the study.||||0.2
91689886|NCT02059512|183273846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvs ind. (Lvs mm./BSA kg / cm) - left ventricular end-systolic size index.||||0.2
91689887|NCT02059512|183273846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LAind. (LA mm./BSA kg / cm) - left atrial index.||||0.5
91689888|NCT02059512|183273847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LVEDV MOD BP ind. (LVEDV MOD BP ml./BSA kg / cm) - left ventricular end-diastolic volume index.||||0.6
91689889|NCT02059512|183273847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LVESV MOD BP ind. (LVESV MOD BP ml./BSA kg / cm) - left ventricular end-systolic volume index.||||0.2
91689890|NCT02059512|183273848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Peak E of transmitral flow||||0.35
91689891|NCT02059512|183273848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Peak A of transmitral flow.||||0.7
91689892|NCT02059512|183273849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Peak E of transmitral flow/ Peak A of transmitral flow (E/A).||||0.5
91689893|NCT02059512|183273850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||DT (Half-time of wave E).||||0.9
91689894|NCT02059512|183273850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||time of isovolumic relaxation of the left ventricle||||0.9
91689895|NCT02059512|183273851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0367
91794048|NCT03868124|183466778|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.71||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.71|-0.77|
91689896|NCT02059512|183273852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Assessment of the functioning of grafts. Patency of grafts within a specified time of treatment (angiography).||||0.04
91689897|NCT02059512|183273853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91794049|NCT03868124|183466778|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.36||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.36|-1.84|
91863737|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-37.308||||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.293|37.678|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||37.678|-112.293|0.3262
91689898|NCT02059512|183273854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Discriminant Analysis|||||||0.05
91689899|NCT02059512|183273855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Discriminant Analysis|Data were analyzed by 1, 2, and 3 sections according to the study design.||Mononuclear fraction %||||0.05
91689900|NCT02059512|183273855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Discriminant Analysis|Data were analyzed by 1, 2, and 3 sections according to the study design.||CD34+ %||||0.057
91689901|NCT02059512|183273855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Discriminant Analysis|||CD133+ %||||0.05
91689902|NCT02059512|183273856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Factor analysis|||Factor analysis - determining the influence of a factor, in this case, smoking, on the deficit in the number of meters passed according to the test with a 6-minute walk.||||0.046
91794594|NCT03981822|183468100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1357|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1357
91689903|NCT00803790|183273857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.11||||||||1.11|0.92|
91689904|NCT00803790|183273858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0||||||Least squares mean ratio for AUC 0-80 hr for vitamin D following administration of combination tablet and vitamin D alone. No correction for endogenous Vitamin D concentration pre-treatment was made in the analysis.||1.00|0.89|
91689905|NCT00803790|183273859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.0||||||"Least squares mean ratio for Cmax for vitamin D following administration of combination tablet and vitamin D alone.~No correction for endogenous Vitamin D concentration pre-treatment was made in the analysis."||1.00|0.88|
91689906|NCT04581824|183273880|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.46|17.18|||||Mantel and Haenszel method with Sato's variance estimator was used for between arms comparison and was stratified by PD-L1 status and smoking status based on the strata data collected in interactive response technology (IRT) at randomization|||17.18|1.46|
91689907|NCT03593473|183273887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at -40 minutes.||||0.37
91689908|NCT03593473|183273887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at -20 minutes.||||0.40
91689909|NCT03593473|183273887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 0 minutes.||||0.63
91689910|NCT03593473|183273887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 10 minutes.||||0.72
91689911|NCT03593473|183273887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 15 minutes.||||0.88
91689912|NCT03593473|183273887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 28 minutes.||||0.85
91689913|NCT03593473|183273887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 38 minutes.||||0.72
91689914|NCT03593473|183273887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 48 minutes.||||0.57
91689915|NCT03593473|183273887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model with random intercept and slope was used to model cortisol as the outcome variable with time, study arm, and an interaction between time and study arm as the exposure variables. Times are restricted to times 0, +10, +15, and +28, which reflect the measures taken during the Trier Social Stress Test. The p-value presented below is for the interaction term between time and study arm.||||0.96
91689916|NCT03593473|183273888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at -40 minutes.||||0.71
91689917|NCT03593473|183273888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at -20 minutes.||||0.92
91863738|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.012||||0.4343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.468|30.444|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||30.444|-70.468|0.4343
91863739|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-44.657||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.481|8.167|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.167|-97.481|0.0967
91903858|NCT03044886|183702554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.073
91903859|NCT03044886|183702555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.348
91689918|NCT03593473|183273888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 0 minutes.||||0.92
91689919|NCT03593473|183273888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 10 minutes.||||0.40
91689920|NCT03593473|183273888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 15 minutes.||||0.97
91689921|NCT03593473|183273888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 28 minutes.||||0.71
91689922|NCT03593473|183273888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 38 minutes.||||0.78
91689923|NCT03593473|183273888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 48 minutes.||||0.63
91794314|NCT00591578|183467628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.21||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.21|-4.32|<0.001
91794595|NCT03981822|183468100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0184|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0184
91903860|NCT03044886|183702556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.685
91903861|NCT03044886|183702557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.075
91903862|NCT03044886|183702557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.083
91689924|NCT03593473|183273888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model with random intercept and slope was used to model cortisol as the outcome variable with time, study arm, and an interaction between time and study arm as the exposure variables. This is the p-value for the interaction term between time and study arm.||||0.11
91689925|NCT03593473|183273889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at -40 minutes and Cortisol at -20 minutes.||||0.07
91689926|NCT03593473|183273889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at -20 minutes and Cortisol at 0 minutes.||||0.22
91689927|NCT03593473|183273889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at 0 minutes and Cortisol at +10 minutes.||||0.14
91689928|NCT03593473|183273889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +10 minutes and Cortisol at +15 minutes.||||0.14
91689929|NCT03593473|183273889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +15 minutes and Cortisol at +28 minutes.||||0.05
91689930|NCT03593473|183273889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +28 minutes and Cortisol at +38 minutes.||||0.10
91689931|NCT03593473|183273889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +38 minutes and Cortisol at +48 minutes.||||0.90
91689932|NCT03593473|183273889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model with random intercept and slope was used to model cortisol at time j+1 as the outcome with ACTH at time j, study arm, and an interaction term between ACTH at time j and study arm as the exposure variables. The p-value presented below is for the interaction term between ACTH at time j and study arm.||||0.21
91689933|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -40 to -35||||0.8441
91689934|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7919|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -35 to -30||||0.7919
91689935|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -30 to -25||||0.5639
91689936|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -25 to -20||||0.3139
91689937|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -20 to -15||||0.4222
91689938|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -15 to -10||||0.834
91689939|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -10 to -5||||0.7562
91689940|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -5 to 0||||0.4245
91689941|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 5 to 8||||0.1425
91689942|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 8 to 13||||0.7175
91689943|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 13 to 18||||0.1417
91689944|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 18 to 23||||0.0514
91689945|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 23 to 28||||0.1507
91689946|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 8 to 33||||0.4204
91689947|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 33 to 38||||0.4209
91689948|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2569|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 38 to 43||||0.2569
91689949|NCT03593473|183273890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0828|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 43 to 48||||0.0828
91689950|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -40 to -35||||0.6452
91794315|NCT00591578|183467629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-1.44||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.44|-5.53|<0.001
91689951|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -35 to -30||||0.3228
91689952|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3541|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -30 to -25||||0.3541
91689953|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -25 to -20||||0.4311
91689954|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3349|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -20 to -15||||0.3349
91689955|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2646|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -15 to -10||||0.2646
91689956|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1095|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -10 to -5||||0.1095
91689957|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -5 to 0||||0.0194
91903863|NCT01159912|183702575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.257|||ANCOVA|||||0.257|0.036|0.009
91689958|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 5 to 8||||0.473
91689959|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5768|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 8 to 13||||0.5768
91689960|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3477|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 13 to 18||||0.3477
91689961|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1413|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 18 to 23||||0.1413
91689962|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 23 to 28||||0.2128
91689963|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 28 to 33||||0.1415
91689964|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1126|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 33 to 38||||0.1126
91689965|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 38 to 43||||0.1647
91689966|NCT03593473|183273891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 43 to 48||||0.088
91689967|NCT00813150|183273904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||Null Hypothesis: The (median) time to progression is equal in both treatment groups||1.19|0.43|0.196
91689968|NCT00813150|183273905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.43|0.196
91689969|NCT00813150|183273906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.73|||Regression, Cox|||||1.73|0.41|0.645
91689970|NCT00813150|183273907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.814
91689971|NCT05085834|183273908|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.98|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Zinc, μg/dL)||0.98|0.43|<0.01
91689972|NCT05085834|183273909|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.57|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(hsCRP ng/mL)||0.57|-0.57|1.00
91689973|NCT05085834|183273909|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.01|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sCD14, ng/mL)||0.01|-0.18|0.08
91689974|NCT05085834|183273909|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sCD163, ng/mL)||0.15|-0.21|0.77
91689975|NCT05085834|183273909|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(D-dimer, ng/mL)||0.50|-0.10|0.19
91689976|NCT05085834|183273909|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(VCAM, ng/mL)||0.04|-0.41|0.10
91689977|NCT05085834|183273909|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.19||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.16|39.98|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(ICAM, ng/mL)||39.98|-39.16|0.98
91689978|NCT05085834|183273910|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sTNF-RI , pg/mL)||0.16|-0.09|0.55
91689979|NCT05085834|183273910|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sTNF-RII, pg/m)||0.13|-0.13|0.95
91689980|NCT05085834|183273910|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.43|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(IL-6, pg/mL)||0.43|-0.30|0.73
91689981|NCT05085834|183273910|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(IP-10, pg/mL)||0.47|-0.22|0.48
91689982|NCT05085834|183273911|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|1819.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8530.03||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14899.37|18537.74|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(OxLDL, U/L)||18537.74|-14899.37|0.83
91689983|NCT05085834|183273912|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Non-HDL Cholesterol (mg/dL))||0.15|-0.12|0.84
91689984|NCT05085834|183273912|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.04|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(HDL (mg/dL))||0.04|-0.19|0.18
91689985|NCT05085834|183273912|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(LDL (mg/dL))||0.15|-0.19|0.84
91721688|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.161
91903864|NCT01159912|183702575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.145||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.257|||ANCOVA|||||0.257|0.033|0.011
91903865|NCT00228566|183702619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Responders = 201/241|83.4||||||95.0|78.7|88.1|||Descriptive Statistics||The Overall Endpoint includes the last postbaseline value for each patient in the full analysis set, regardless of evaluation period. The Number of Responders (at least minimal improvement) at this Overall Endpoint equaled a total of 201 patients.|This was an open label study, with all patients receiving treatment with armodafinil||88.1|78.7|
91689986|NCT05085834|183273912|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.29|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(VLDL (mg/dL))||0.29|-0.15|0.55
91689987|NCT05085834|183273912|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Cholesterol (mg/dl))||0.09|-0.11|0.78
91689988|NCT05085834|183273912|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Triglycerides (mg/dL))||0.31|-0.17|0.58
91689989|NCT05085834|183273912|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.48|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Metabolic Syndrome||0.48|-1.36|0.35
91689990|NCT05085834|183273913|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Chol:HDL Ratio)||0.20|-0.07|0.36
91689991|NCT05085834|183273914|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|3.6|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on BMI (kg/m2)||3.60|-4.29|0.86
91689992|NCT05085834|183273915|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Waist-umbilicus (cm))||0.05|-0.08|0.74
91689993|NCT05085834|183273916|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.23||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.97|20.99|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Weight (lbs)||20.99|-26.97|0.81
91689994|NCT05085834|183273917|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Systolic blood pressure (mmHg))||0.03|-0.07|0.41
91689995|NCT05085834|183273917|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.36|||linear combination of coeff|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)||2.36|-5.71|0.42
91689996|NCT05085834|183273918|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(10 year ASCVD (%))||0.17|-0.26|0.70
91689997|NCT05085834|183273919|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Reactive Hyperemic Index||0.10|-0.17|0.62
91689998|NCT05085834|183273919|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|5.36|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Augmentation Index||5.36|-4.19|0.81
91721689|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.909
91689999|NCT05085834|183273920|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(IFAB (pg/mL))||0.30|-0.26|0.90
91690000|NCT05085834|183273920|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(BDG (pg/mL))||0.47|-0.12|0.24
91690001|NCT05085834|183273921|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||v|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(LBP (ng/mL))||0.32|-0.21|0.69
91690002|NCT05085834|183273921|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.34|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Zonulin (ng/mL)||0.34|-0.16|0.49
91690003|NCT01662635|183273932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables were summarized as arithmetic means, medians and standard deviations; and categorical variables were reported as proportions with 95% confidence intervals. Inferential comparisons were performed using Student's t test. The x2 or Fisher's exact tests were used to assess significance among categorical variables.||||< 0.05
91690004|NCT01217112|183273933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.06|-0.09|0.766
91690005|NCT01217112|183273933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.11|-0.04|0.424
91794596|NCT03981822|183468100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Study Day 84 EOT Visit Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0024
91690006|NCT01217112|183273933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.04|-0.10|0.412
91690007|NCT01217112|183273933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.09|-0.05|0.668
91690008|NCT01217112|183273934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.08|-0.08|0.978
91690009|NCT01217112|183273934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.07|-0.08|0.864
91690010|NCT01217112|183273934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.05|-0.12|0.537
91690011|NCT01217112|183273934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.13|-0.02|0.260
91690012|NCT01217112|183273935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||-0.01|-0.61|0.088
91690013|NCT01217112|183273935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.39|-0.20|0.583
91721690|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.255
91903866|NCT01479829|183702620|SUPERIORITY||Chi-square value|5.3466||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||The chi-square value with 1 degree of freedom was 5.3466.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the response rate between patients assigned to the intervention cohort or control cohort.||||.02
91690014|NCT01217112|183273935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.43|-0.14|0.388
91690015|NCT01217112|183273935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.58|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.38|-0.19|0.580
91690016|NCT01217112|183273936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.37|-0.29|0.829
91690017|NCT01217112|183273936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.44|-0.22|0.575
91690018|NCT01217112|183273936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.53|-0.15|0.356
91690019|NCT01217112|183273936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.45|-0.18|0.472
91690020|NCT01217112|183273937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.01|-0.59|0.115
91690021|NCT01217112|183273937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.782|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.35|-0.25|0.782
91690022|NCT01217112|183273937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.31|-0.27|0.902
91690023|NCT01217112|183273937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.28|-0.28|0.993
91690024|NCT01217112|183273938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.25|-0.23|0.956
91690025|NCT01217112|183273938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.30|-0.19|0.705
91690026|NCT01217112|183273938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.36|-0.14|0.466
91690027|NCT01217112|183273938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.876|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.25|-0.21|0.876
91690028|NCT01217112|183273939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.09|-0.03|0.408
91690029|NCT01217112|183273939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.07|-0.04|0.714
91690030|NCT01217112|183273939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.02|-0.09|0.267
91690031|NCT01217112|183273939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.08|-0.03|0.484
91721691|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.058
91690032|NCT01217112|183273940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.04|-0.09|0.560
91690033|NCT01217112|183273940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.06|-0.06|0.956
91690034|NCT01217112|183273940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.10|0.403
91690035|NCT01217112|183273940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.08|-0.04|0.617
91690036|NCT01217112|183273941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.21|-0.16|0.815
91690037|NCT01217112|183273941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.26|-0.09|0.418
91690038|NCT01217112|183273941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.32|-0.05|0.236
91690039|NCT01217112|183273941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.23|-0.11|0.556
91690040|NCT01217112|183273942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.17|-0.64|0.329
91690041|NCT01217112|183273942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.68|-0.11|0.232
91690042|NCT01217112|183273942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.68|-0.06|0.164
91690043|NCT01217112|183273942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.63|-0.15|0.302
91690044|NCT01217112|183273943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.614|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.27|-0.50|0.614
91690045|NCT01217112|183273943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.669|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.48|-0.28|0.669
91690046|NCT01217112|183273943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.52|-0.28|0.621
91690047|NCT01217112|183273943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.41|-0.33|0.867
91690048|NCT01217112|183273944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.624||0.335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|6.95|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.95|-1.84|0.335
91690049|NCT01217112|183273944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.545||0.358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|6.62|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.62|-1.90|0.358
91721692|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.569
91690050|NCT01217112|183273944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.406||0.9|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|4.33|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.33|-3.72|0.900
91690051|NCT01217112|183273944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.486||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|10.19|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||10.19|1.86|0.019
91690052|NCT01217112|183273945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.17|-0.65|0.325
91690053|NCT01217112|183273945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.59|-0.21|0.438
91690054|NCT01217112|183273945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.47|-0.29|0.701
91690055|NCT01217112|183273945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.27|-0.50|0.624
91690056|NCT01217112|183273946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.17|0.233
91690057|NCT01217112|183273946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.11|-0.07|0.727
91690058|NCT01217112|183273946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.12|-0.06|0.593
91690059|NCT01217112|183273946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||-0.01|-0.20|0.075
91690060|NCT01217112|183273947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.24|-0.04|0.236
91690061|NCT01217112|183273947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.18|-0.09|0.579
91690062|NCT01217112|183273947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.11|-0.15|0.837
91721693|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.007
91721694|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.614
91690063|NCT01217112|183273947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.19|-0.08|0.467
91690064|NCT01217112|183273948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.613||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.64|-1.41|0.533
91690065|NCT01217112|183273948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.585||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.13|-0.84|0.804
91721695|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.072
91721696|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.447
91721697|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.084
91721698|NCT03074500|183335473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.235
91721699|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.958
91721700|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.597
91690066|NCT01217112|183273948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.99|-0.87|0.916
91690067|NCT01217112|183273948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||-0.25|-2.20|0.040
91690068|NCT01217112|183273949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.838||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.06|8.27|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||8.27|-28.06|0.366
91690069|NCT01217112|183273949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.692||0.844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.81|20.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||20.03|-15.81|0.844
91690070|NCT01217112|183273949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.026||0.118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.76|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.84|-32.76|0.118
91690071|NCT01217112|183273949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.256||0.518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.86|10.51|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||10.51|-23.86|0.518
91690072|NCT01217112|183273950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.33|-0.66|0.576
91690073|NCT01217112|183273950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.34|-0.60|0.648
91690074|NCT01217112|183273950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.24|-0.66|0.447
91690075|NCT01217112|183273950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.16|-0.79|0.273
91690076|NCT01217112|183273951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.097||0.615|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.29|-2.40|0.615
91690077|NCT01217112|183273951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.973||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.57|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.57|-0.70|0.342
91690078|NCT01217112|183273951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.62|-2.52|0.314
91690079|NCT01217112|183273951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.964||0.889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.75|-1.48|0.889
91690080|NCT01217112|183273952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|168.459||0.764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-232.02|333.8|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||333.80|-232.02|0.764
91690081|NCT01217112|183273952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|156.72||0.654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-333.96|192.44|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||192.44|-333.96|0.654
91690082|NCT01217112|183273952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-111.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|146.276||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-357.17|134.16|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||134.16|-357.17|0.450
91721701|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.518
91721702|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.88
91721703|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.733
91690083|NCT01217112|183273952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|149.124||0.517|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-153.02|347.86|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||347.86|-153.02|0.517
91690084|NCT01217112|183273953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.94||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.28|76.94|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||76.94|-60.28|0.840
91690085|NCT01217112|183273953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.521||0.834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.92|74.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||74.55|-57.92|0.834
91690086|NCT01217112|183273953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.044||0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-77.06|53.81|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||53.81|-77.06|0.767
91690087|NCT01217112|183273953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.68||0.289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.99|109.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||109.01|-23.99|0.289
91690088|NCT01217112|183273954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.569|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.12|-0.24|0.569
91690089|NCT01217112|183273954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.984|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.17|-0.17|0.984
91690090|NCT01217112|183273954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.176|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.03|||ANCOVA|||v Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.30|0.176
91690091|NCT01217112|183273954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.18|-0.15|0.895
91690092|NCT01217112|183273955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.745||0.871|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.37|-1.13|0.871
91690093|NCT01217112|183273955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.37|-1.05|0.826
91690094|NCT01217112|183273955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.703||0.693|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.46|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.90|-1.46|0.693
91690095|NCT01217112|183273955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.66|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.66|-0.76|0.536
91690096|NCT01217112|183273956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.633||0.878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.8|13.13|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||13.13|-15.80|0.878
91690097|NCT01217112|183273956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.377||0.919|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.18|14.89|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||14.89|-13.18|0.919
91690098|NCT01217112|183273956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.989||0.557|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.67|18.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||18.11|-8.67|0.557
91690099|NCT01217112|183273956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.328||0.275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|23.16|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||23.16|-4.76|0.275
91690100|NCT01217112|183273957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.445||0.528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.12|38.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||38.01|-17.12|0.528
91863740|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.974||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.915|41.966|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||41.966|-99.915|0.4198
91903867|NCT01479829|183702621|SUPERIORITY||Chi-square value|13.3821|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||The chi-square value with 1 degree of freedom was 13.3821.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the remission rate between patients assigned to the intervention cohort or control cohort.||||<.001
91690101|NCT01217112|183273957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.825||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.32|26.72|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||26.72|-26.32|0.990
91690102|NCT01217112|183273957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.369||0.776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.37|30.15|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||30.15|-21.37|0.776
91690103|NCT01217112|183273957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.834||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.98|71.05|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||71.05|17.98|0.007
91690104|NCT01217112|183273958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.09|-0.70|0.717
91690105|NCT01217112|183273958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.531||0.218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.55|-0.23|0.218
91690106|NCT01217112|183273958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514||0.378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.32|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.32|-0.40|0.378
91690107|NCT01217112|183273958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.361|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.38|-0.40|0.361
91690108|NCT01217112|183273959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.01|0.417
91690109|NCT01217112|183273959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.04|-0.01|0.340
91690110|NCT01217112|183273959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.02|-0.02|0.915
91690111|NCT01217112|183273959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.01|0.465
91721704|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||1
91721705|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.404
91690112|NCT01217112|183273960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.616||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|3.45|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.45|-1.96|0.646
91690113|NCT01217112|183273960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598||0.219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|4.66|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.66|-0.69|0.219
91863741|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-33.141||||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.475|19.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||19.193|-85.475|0.2121
91863742|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|15.799||||0.5445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.614|67.212|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||67.212|-35.614|0.5445
91690114|NCT01217112|183273960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.563||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.23|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.23|-1.00|0.307
91690115|NCT01217112|183273960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.612||0.348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|4.22|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.22|-1.17|0.348
91690116|NCT01217112|183273961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|3.91|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.91|-0.44|0.187
91721706|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.97
91903868|NCT02142738|183702656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.68||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous)||||0.68|0.37|<0.001
91690117|NCT01217112|183273961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|2.86|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.86|-1.43|0.578
91690118|NCT01217112|183273961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.249||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|3.22|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.22|-0.96|0.368
91794050|NCT03868124|183466778|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.45||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Day 10, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.45|-1.81|
91794316|NCT00591578|183467629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-1.83||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.83|-5.96|<0.001
91690119|NCT01217112|183273961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.304||0.696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.69|-1.67|0.696
91721707|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.362
91721708|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.271
91721709|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.519
91903869|NCT02142738|183702657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.86||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous)||||0.86|0.47|0.002
91903870|NCT02142738|183702658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|16.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|27.0||One-sided p-value for testing|Miettinen & Nurminem method|Stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous)||H0: difference in %=0 vs. H1: difference in % \>0||27.0|6.0|0.0011
91690120|NCT01217112|183273962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|3.51|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.51|-0.90|0.327
91690121|NCT01217112|183273962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.303||0.851|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|2.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.43|-1.93|0.851
91690122|NCT01217112|183273962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.281||0.672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.69|-1.60|0.672
91690123|NCT01217112|183273962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.327||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.26|2.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.18|-2.26|0.978
91690124|NCT01217112|183273963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.76|-0.95|0.857
91690125|NCT01217112|183273963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|1.26|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.26|-0.58|0.543
91690126|NCT01217112|183273963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.92|-0.74|0.859
91690127|NCT01217112|183273963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.50|-1.27|0.467
91690128|NCT01217112|183273964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.05|-1.32|0.124
91690129|NCT01217112|183273964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.909|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.79|-0.68|0.909
91690130|NCT01217112|183273964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.20|-1.12|0.245
91690131|NCT01217112|183273964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.382|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.33|-1.05|0.382
91903871|NCT02615470|183702659|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.202||||||A priori alpha = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.202
91690132|NCT01217112|183273965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.66|-2.15|0.376
91690133|NCT01217112|183273965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.908||0.688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.89|-1.15|0.688
91721710|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.569
91721711|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.004
91903872|NCT02615470|183702660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
91903873|NCT02615470|183702661|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.322||||||a priori alpha = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.322
91903874|NCT04196803|183702695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||<0.05
91903875|NCT04196803|183702696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||>0.05
91690134|NCT01217112|183273965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|0.96|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.96|-1.73|0.637
91690135|NCT01217112|183273965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.63|-2.22|0.355
91690136|NCT01217112|183273966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.95|-0.39|0.482
91690137|NCT01217112|183273966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.02|-0.65|0.708
91690138|NCT01217112|183273966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.37|-0.12|0.166
91690139|NCT01217112|183273966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.03|-0.37|0.424
91690140|NCT01217112|183273967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.25|0.94|0.022
91690141|NCT01217112|183273967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.532||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|6.69|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.69|1.44|0.014
91690142|NCT01217112|183273967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.25|0.45|0.053
91690143|NCT01217112|183273967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|5.78|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.78|1.33|0.012
91690144|NCT01217112|183273968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.463||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|5.85|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.85|0.84|0.032
91690145|NCT01217112|183273968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.798||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|7.35|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.35|1.18|0.026
91903876|NCT04196803|183702697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||>0.05
91690146|NCT01217112|183273968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|6.22|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.22|0.65|0.046
91690147|NCT01217112|183273968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.512||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|6.45|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.45|1.26|0.018
91794051|NCT03868124|183466778|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.06||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.06|-0.39|
91690148|NCT01217112|183273969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806||0.294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.25|-0.52|0.294
91903877|NCT04196803|183702698|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||=0.08
91690149|NCT01217112|183273969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.988||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|3.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.43|0.05|0.092
91690150|NCT01217112|183273969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|2.79|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.79|-0.28|0.173
91690151|NCT01217112|183273969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|1.95|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.95|-0.92|0.545
91690152|NCT01217112|183273970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.214||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|4.75|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.75|0.59|0.038
91690153|NCT01217112|183273970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.486||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|7.26|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.26|2.16|0.004
91690154|NCT01217112|183273970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|4.72|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.72|0.09|0.088
91690155|NCT01217112|183273970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.252||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|5.68|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.68|1.39|0.010
91690156|NCT01217112|183273971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.814||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|6.64|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.64|0.42|0.064
91690157|NCT01217112|183273971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.237||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|10.38|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||10.38|2.72|0.008
91690158|NCT01217112|183273971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.016||0.084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|7.1|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.10|0.19|0.084
91690159|NCT01217112|183273971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|7.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.25|0.84|0.041
91690160|NCT01217112|183273972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.01|-0.14|0.129
91690161|NCT01217112|183273972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.961|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.09|-0.08|0.961
91690162|NCT01217112|183273972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.01|-0.16|0.128
91690163|NCT01217112|183273972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.12|0.300
91690164|NCT01217112|183273973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.37|11.67|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||11.67|-6.37|0.625
91690165|NCT01217112|183273973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.519||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|16.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||16.02|-2.48|0.226
91903878|NCT01756040|183702723|OTHER|||||||0.932||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that intestinal permeability as measured by urinary lactulose/rhamnose ratio would be higher in the lower gestational age (\<29 weeks) compared to the more mature infants (≥29 weeks gestation) at postnatal age 7-10 days.||||0.932
91690166|NCT01217112|183273973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.103||0.904|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.94|9.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||9.18|-7.94|0.904
91903879|NCT01756040|183702724|OTHER|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that stool A1AT would be higher in infants with high IP as measured by urinary La/Rh compared to those with low IP.||||0.316
91903880|NCT01756040|183702725|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||The significance value was estimated using Bayesian goodness-of-fit p-value to assess the significance of the association of the relative abundance of Clostridiales and IP categories. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Bayesian goodness of fit|||||||0.011
91903881|NCT01756040|183702726|OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that infants with normal barrier function (La/Rh ratio ≤0.05) would have been fed breastmilk for longer duration than infants with impaired barrier function (La/Rh\>0.05).||||0.0023
91690167|NCT01217112|183273973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|15.75|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||15.75|-3.41|0.285
91690168|NCT01217112|183273974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.568||0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.10|-1.81|0.138
91794052|NCT03868124|183466778|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.93||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.93|-0.46|
91794053|NCT03868124|183466778|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.28||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.28|-0.23|
91794054|NCT03868124|183466778|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.29||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.29|-0.19|
91794055|NCT02742246|183466780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Group by Time interaction.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
91794056|NCT02742246|183466781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Group by time interaction.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.14
91903882|NCT01756040|183702727|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91903883|NCT01756040|183702728|OTHER|||||||0.461||||||A priori threshold \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.461
91903884|NCT01756040|183702729|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that infants with impaired barrier function as measured by high urinary La/Rh (\>0.05) ratio at 7-10 days of age would require longer time to reach full enteral feedings than infants with normal barrier function (La/Rh≤0.05)||||0.019
91903885|NCT01509079|183702794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
91690169|NCT01217112|183273974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.55|-1.28|0.505
91690170|NCT01217112|183273974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.08|-0.73|0.743
91690171|NCT01217112|183273974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.29|-0.60|0.540
91721712|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.973
91903886|NCT01195090|183702802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.08||The change from baseline in A1C were determined using an analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with the factor 'treatment' and baseline A1C as covariate.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in A1C were determined using an analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with the factor 'treatment' and baseline A1C as covariate.||0.08|-0.58|0.165
91903887|NCT01195090|183702818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Chi-square test|Chi-Square|0.0034||||0.954||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test for percentages of patient achieving an A1C \<7%||||0.954
91903888|NCT05111041|183702831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|3.309||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.309|0.302|1.000
91794057|NCT00054717|183466783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794058|NCT00054717|183466784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
91794059|NCT00054717|183466785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794060|NCT00054717|183466786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794061|NCT00054717|183466787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794062|NCT00054717|183466788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794063|NCT00054717|183466789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794064|NCT00054717|183466790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794065|NCT00054717|183466791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794066|NCT00054717|183466792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794067|NCT00054717|183466793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91690172|NCT01217112|183273976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.664||0.701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.14|3.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.43|-2.14|0.701
91690173|NCT01217112|183273976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.662||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|7.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.55|1.99|0.006
91690174|NCT01217112|183273976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.589||0.542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|3.64|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.64|-1.68|0.542
91690175|NCT01217112|183273976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.627||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|3.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.08|-2.36|0.827
91690176|NCT00127231|183273980|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Drinking frequency was analyzed using a generalized binomial mixed-effects model with the logit link function and a random intercept. The use of a binomial distribution was indicated for this analysis because the outcome was assessed using a 90-day TLFB interview, which has a cap at 90 days.||0.75|0.23|<0.005
91690177|NCT03588910|183273999|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.87
91690178|NCT03588910|183274000|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.36
91690179|NCT03588910|183274001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.91
91690180|NCT03588910|183274002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.29
91690181|NCT03588910|183274003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.36
91794068|NCT00054717|183466794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794069|NCT00054717|183466795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794070|NCT00054717|183466796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794071|NCT00054717|183466797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794072|NCT00054717|183466798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91690182|NCT03096314|183274004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Generalized linear model|||||||0.26
91690183|NCT03096314|183274005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.6||||||||8.6|-0.1|
91690184|NCT03096314|183274006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.0||||||||8.0|-0.5|
91690185|NCT03096314|183274007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.0||||||||6.0|-5.4|
91690186|NCT03096314|183274008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.0||||||||0.0|-2.7|
91690187|NCT03096314|183274009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.4||||||||0.4|-4.8|
91690188|NCT03096314|183274010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5||||||||0.5|-2.1|
91690189|NCT03096314|183274011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||||0.1|0|
91794073|NCT00054717|183466799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91794074|NCT00054717|183466800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
91794075|NCT00054717|183466801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
91794076|NCT00054717|183466802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
91794077|NCT00054717|183466842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9894||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9894
91794078|NCT04218123|183466915|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91794079|NCT04218123|183466915|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Anova Post Hoc Analysis||||||<0.05
91690190|NCT03096314|183274012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.6||||||||3.6|-2.1|
91690191|NCT03096314|183274013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|34.9||||||Mild ARDS||34.9|-22.0|
91690192|NCT03096314|183274013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|5.1||||||Moderate ARDS||5.1|-56.3|
91690193|NCT03096314|183274013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|41.1||||||Severe ARDS||41.1|-2.9|
91690194|NCT03096314|183274014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.0||||||No AKI||5.0|-7.3|
91690195|NCT03096314|183274014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.4||||||Mild AKI||3.4|-5.6|
91690196|NCT03096314|183274014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.2||||||Moderate AKI||3.2|-4.4|
91690197|NCT03096314|183274014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.3||||||Severe AKI||7.3|-1.7|
91690198|NCT03096314|183274015|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.9||||||||2.9|-1.9|
91690199|NCT03096314|183274016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
91794080|NCT04218123|183466915|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Anova Post Hoc Analysis||||||<0.05
91690200|NCT03096314|183274017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.1||||||||5.1|-4.4|
91690201|NCT03096314|183274018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.3|
91690202|NCT03096314|183274019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.5|39.6||||||||39.6|31.5|
91690203|NCT03096314|183274020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91690204|NCT03096314|183274021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91794081|NCT04218123|183466915|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Anova Post Hoc Analysis||||||>0.05
91690205|NCT03096314|183274022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
91794082|NCT04218123|183466917|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.31|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Physical Functioning||||=0.31
91794083|NCT04218123|183466917|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.633|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Role Functioning||||0.633
91794084|NCT04218123|183466917|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.424|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Mental Health||||0.424
91903889|NCT05111041|183702832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|2.972||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.972|0.215|0.7389
91690206|NCT03096314|183274023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
91690207|NCT03096314|183274024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
91690208|NCT03096314|183274025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
91690209|NCT01479465|183274046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.06|||Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis was that the hazard ratio (HR) equals to 1 between SIM treatment arm and placebo, while the alternative hypothesis was that HR was less than 1.~The HR (95% confidence interval \[CI\]) and p-value (for comparison between SIM treatment arm and placebo) were based on two-sided log-rank test, stratified based on the 2-level Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 or \> 0) at randomization."||2.06|1.01|0.0395
91690210|NCT01479465|183274046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.89|||Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis was that the HR equals to 1 between SIM treatment arm and placebo, while the alternative hypothesis was that HR was less than 1.~The HR (95% CI) and p-value (for comparison between SIM treatment arm and placebo) were based on two-sided log-rank test, stratified based on the 2-level ECOG performance status (0 or \> 0) at randomization."||1.89|0.92|0.1042
91690211|NCT02562066|183274082|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.63||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Results show the difference in mean CFB at the end of Study Period 1.|A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for equality of the change from baseline (CFB) in the two treatments in Period 1 will be presented.||||0.085
91690212|NCT02562066|183274082|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects linear model will be fit to the data with SGI raw scores as the response and fixed effect terms for treatment, period, age group, mutation type and sequence\*period, and a random effect for patient. The LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.||2.09|-0.97|
91690213|NCT02562066|183274083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17||||0.376|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Results show the difference in mean CFB at the end of Study Period 1.|A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for equality of the change from baseline (CFB) in the two treatments in Period 1 will be presented.||||0.376
91690214|NCT02562066|183274083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects linear model will be fit to the data with Overall MFM-32 scores as the response and fixed effect terms for treatment, period, age group, mutation type and sequence\*period, and a random effect for patient. The LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.||4.58|-2.31|
91690215|NCT02562066|183274084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Results show the difference in mean CFB at the end of Study Period 1.|A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for equality of the change from baseline (CFB) in the two treatments in Period 1 will be presented.||||0.800
91690216|NCT02562066|183274084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects linear model will be fit to the data with Overall MFM-20 scores as the response and fixed effect terms for treatment, period, age group, mutation type and sequence\*period, and a random effect for patient. The LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.||6.50|-5.25|
91721713|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.886
91863743|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.583||||0.9534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.951|55.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||55.116|-51.951|0.9534
91903890|NCT05111041|183702834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.306||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|3.602||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.602|0.474|0.6058
91903891|NCT05111041|183702835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|2.866||||||||2.866|0.349|
91903892|NCT05111041|183702836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.333||||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|3.823||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.823|0.465|0.5925
91690217|NCT01234350|183274098|OTHER||IRR|0.829||||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.283||Poisson-mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% confidence interval (CI), and incidence rate ratio (IRRs) with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|The IRs were estimated using a Poisson-mixture regression model.||1.283|0.536|0.4007
91690218|NCT01234350|183274099|OTHER||IRR|0.874||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.626||Poisson-mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For osteoporosis and osteopenia events. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||1.626|0.470|0.6710
91690219|NCT01234350|183274099|OTHER||IRR|1.857||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|9.403||Poisson-mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For bone fracture events. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||9.403|0.367|0.4544
91903893|NCT01205230|183702842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square geometric means|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|1.99|||||Ratio of least square (LS) geometric means (Pazopanib + Ketoconozole : Pazopanib alone)|||1.99|1.39|
91690220|NCT01234350|183274100|OTHER||IRR|1.193||||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.613||Poisson mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and history of diabetes mellitus along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For glucose intolerance. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||1.613|0.882|0.2529
91690221|NCT01234350|183274100|OTHER||IRR|2.623||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.158|5.944||Poisson-mixture regression is used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual trial exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For T2DM. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||5.944|1.158|0.0208
91721714|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.82
91903894|NCT01205230|183702842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS geometric means|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.7|||||Ratio of LS geometric means (Pazopanib + Esomeprazole : Pazopanib alone)|||0.70|0.52|
91903895|NCT01205230|183702843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS geometric means|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.86|||||Ratio of LS geometric means (Pazopanib + Ketoconozole : Pazopanib alone)|||1.86|1.14|
91903896|NCT01205230|183702843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS geometric means|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.67|||||Ratio of LS geometric means (Pazopanib + Esomeprazole : Pazopanib alone)|||0.67|0.50|
91903897|NCT01205230|183702844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.06||||||||0.06|-1.06|
91903898|NCT01205230|183702844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|2.44||||||||2.44|-0.10|
91903899|NCT01338415|183702879|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.399|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with treatment as covariate (treatment-only univariate model)||4.399|0.470|
91903900|NCT01338415|183702879|OTHER|||||||0.0526||||||p-value \<= 10% indicates that the covariate WHO FC at baseline is related to the time to PAH worsening|Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with WHO FC at baseline (FC III vs FC I/II) as covariate||||0.0526
91863744|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|7.584||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.126|80.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||80.295|-65.126|0.8366
91903901|NCT01338415|183702879|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||||95.0|0.371|3.681|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Treatment Hazard Ratio (HR) in the multivariate model with treatment and WHO FC at baseline as covariates||3.681|0.371|
91903902|NCT01338415|183702879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||p-value \<= 10% indicates an improvement in model fit|log(e) likelihood ratio|||Test of improvement in model fit from the univariate to the multivariate model with WHO FC at baseline as covariate||||0.076
91903903|NCT01338415|183702880|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|6.428|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with treatment as covariate (treatment-only univariate model)||6.428|0.582|
91903904|NCT01338415|183702880|OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||Regression, Cox|p-value \<= 10% indicates that the covariate is related to the time to the time to death up to end-of-study||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with WHO FC at baseline (FC III vs FC I/II) as covariate||||0.0085
91903905|NCT01338415|183702880|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|5.052|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Treatment Hazard Ratio (HR) in the multivariate model with treatment and WHO FC at baseline as covariates||5.052|0.437|
91903906|NCT01338415|183702880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||log(e) likelihood ratio|p-value \<= 10% indicates an improvement in model fit||Test of the improvement in model fit from the univariate to the multivariate model with WHO FC at baseline as covariate||||0.014
91903907|NCT01495858|183702924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3047|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3047
91690222|NCT01234350|183274107|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.747||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.038||A logistic regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease and relevant medical history along with the treatment group on the time to event for all-cause mortality.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease and relevant medical history along with the treatment group.||The analyses of all-cause mortality was based on logistic regressions.||1.038|0.537|0.0821
91690223|NCT00289848|183274108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.08|<|0.001||95.0|-1.23|-0.83|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms of treatment, country, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on AHA or on AHA), and baseline A1C as a covariate||||-0.83|-1.23|<0.001
91690224|NCT00289848|183274109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.8|<|0.001||95.0|-38.4|-23.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms of treatment, country, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on AHA or on AHA), and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-23.7|-38.4|<0.001
91690225|NCT00289848|183274110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.2|<|0.001||95.0|-68.8|-44.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms of treatment, country, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on AHA or on AHA), and baseline 2-hr PMG as a covariate||||-44.3|-68.8|<0.001
91690226|NCT01839708|183274111|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91690227|NCT01839708|183274112|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91690228|NCT01839708|183274113|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91690229|NCT01839708|183274114|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91690230|NCT01839708|183274115|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91690231|NCT01839708|183274116|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91690232|NCT01839708|183274117|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91903908|NCT01495858|183702925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1677|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1677
91903909|NCT01495858|183702926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2764|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2764
91690233|NCT01839708|183274118|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91690234|NCT01839708|183274119|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91690235|NCT01839708|183274120|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91690236|NCT01839708|183274121|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91690237|NCT01839708|183274122|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91690238|NCT01839708|183274123|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91690239|NCT01839708|183274124|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91690240|NCT00191477|183274161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.777||95.0|0.643|1.392||Only 87 recurrences and 7 deaths were documented at planned end of follow-up. The study was stopped early for futility reasons based on an interim analysis using pre-defined stopping boundaries for the hazard ratio (HR) of RFS.|Log Rank|||Sample-size calculation based on estimated 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates of 63% (gemcitabine) and 50% (placebo). 191 critical events were required to detect a difference in RFS (80% power, log-rank test, alpha=0.050). Sample size of 328 patients with clinical evidence of superficial bladder cancer needed to observe these 191 events within a 24-month follow-up period, assuming 246 of these patients would receive instillation and have histopathological diagnosis of pTa/pT1(G1-3/Gx).||1.392|0.643|0.777
91721715|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.017
91721716|NCT03074500|183335474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.734
91794085|NCT04218123|183466917|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Social Functioning||||0.057
91903910|NCT01495858|183702927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2764|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2764
91903911|NCT01495858|183702928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91863745|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.973||||0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.862|42.916|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||42.916|-154.862|0.5437
91863746|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-73.308||||0.2974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.224|30.608|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||30.608|-177.224|0.2974
91863747|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-44.892||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-181.909|92.126|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||92.126|-181.909|0.9026
91863748|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-35.811||||0.8954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.513|60.891|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||60.891|-132.513|0.8954
91863749|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-46.239||||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-146.766|54.288|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||54.288|-146.766|0.7485
91903912|NCT01495858|183702929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
91690241|NCT02224157|183274204|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analysis based on CI instead of p-value, hence no p-value calculated for this analysis. Upper limit of the 1-sided 95% confidence limit \<1.2 indicates Symbicort 'as needed' is non-inferior to Pulmicort bid|Rate ratio|0.97|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.16|||Negative binomial model|Adjusted for randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region. Logarithm of follow-up time is used as an offset variable.|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.16||
91690242|NCT02224157|183274205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.174|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first severe exacerbation.|||1.174|0.777|0.664
91903913|NCT01495858|183702930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0145
91903914|NCT01495858|183702931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
91863750|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-36.559||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.77|96.653|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||96.653|-169.770|0.9578
91903915|NCT01495858|183702932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0387
91903916|NCT01495858|183702933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0305|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0305
91903917|NCT01495858|183702934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0176
91903918|NCT01495858|183702935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91903919|NCT01495858|183702936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0036
91690243|NCT02224157|183274206|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Rand treatment,pre-study treatment,region,visit,rand treatment by visit; fixed effects. Patient; random effect, baseline FEV1; covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'. Estimate corresponds to average treatment effect across all treatment visits.|||-11.4|-53.7|0.003
91903920|NCT01495858|183702937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91903921|NCT01495858|183702938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
91903922|NCT01495858|183702939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
91903923|NCT01495858|183702940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4519|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4519
91903924|NCT01495858|183702941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3707|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3707
91903925|NCT01495858|183702942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
91794086|NCT04218123|183466917|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Health Perceptions||||0.296
91903926|NCT01495858|183702944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3765|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3765
91903927|NCT05215262|183702960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.17|0.04|0.04
91903928|NCT05215262|183702960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.99|-1.59|0.82
91903929|NCT05215262|183702960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference-in-differences results, comparing GSES scores between the Intervention and Standard of Care groups at the three-month time point.||4.23|-0.89|0.20
91903930|NCT00646906|183702992|SUPERIORITY|An analysis of variance, appropriate for a three factor experiment with cohort and dose as non-repeated factors and repeated measure order arranged in a two period cross-over design, was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The primary hypothesis is that acetaminophen given two hours before aspirin will antagonize the effects of aspirin, while reversing the order of administration will not. Percent change from start (8:00 am on day 1) to finish (8:00 am on day 7) of period in serum thromboxane B2 for each order of drug administration will be primary endpoint of interest.||||>0.05
91903931|NCT00646906|183702993|SUPERIORITY|An analysis of variance, appropriate for a three factor experiment with cohort and dose as non-repeated factors and repeated measure order arranged in a two period cross-over design, was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91903932|NCT00240981|183703003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|129.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|215.6||The unadjusted analysis using two-sample Student's t-tests of equal change in the trial groups, allowing unequal variance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||215.6|43.9|0.003
91794087|NCT04218123|183466917|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.872|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Pain||||0.872
91794088|NCT04218123|183466918|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.538|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.538
91794089|NCT04218123|183466919|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.686|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.686
91794090|NCT04218123|183466920|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.167|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.167
91794091|NCT04218123|183466921|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.8
91903933|NCT00240981|183703003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|129.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|215.4||Adjusted analysis used multiple linear regression, with adjustment for baseline total score on the Short Physical Performance Battery, and self-report of limitations in mobility.|Regression, Linear|||||215.4|43.5|0.004
91903934|NCT00240981|183703004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|55.8||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||55.8|13.2|0.002
91903935|NCT00240981|183703004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|56.2||Adjusted|Regression, Linear|||||56.2|13.1|0.002
91903936|NCT00240981|183703005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|26.7||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||26.7|-9.2|0.34
91903937|NCT00240981|183703005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|26.2||Adjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||26.2|-9.9|0.37
91903938|NCT00240981|183703006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.7||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.1|0.69
91903939|NCT00240981|183703006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.7||Adjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||1.7|-1.1|0.71
91903940|NCT00240981|183703007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.135||Unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.135|-0.035|0.26
91690244|NCT02224157|183274208|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||No p-value was calculated for this efficacy variable|ANCOVA|Model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors, and no. of 'as needed' inhalations at baseline as continuous covariate|A mean difference less than zero indicates a larger mean reduction in number of 'as needed' inhalations in the Symbicort 'as needed' group.|||0.07|0.00|
91863751|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.725||||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.208|47.757|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||47.757|-129.208|0.3635
91863752|NCT04800211|183616299|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.333||||0.8713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.097|93.431|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||93.431|-110.097|0.8713
91863753|NCT04800211|183616300|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-115.256||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.973|-52.539|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-52.539|-177.973|0.0003
91903941|NCT00240981|183703007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.048||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.133||Adjusted|Regression, Linear|||||0.133|-0.037|0.27
91903942|NCT00240981|183703008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|60.1||Unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||60.1|0.3|0.05
91903943|NCT00240981|183703008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|59.3||Adjusted|Regression, Linear|||||59.3|0.2|0.05
91903944|NCT00240981|183703010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.5||Month 3 Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|1.2|0.2
91903945|NCT00240981|183703010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2||Month 6 Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.2|0.4|<.0001
91903946|NCT00240981|183703011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||3 Months Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.6|-2.7|0.002
91903947|NCT00240981|183703011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.2||6 Month Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.2|-2.8|<.0001
91690245|NCT02224157|183274209|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-5.34|||ANCOVA|adjusted for randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and the percent 'as needed' free days during run-in as a cont covariate.|An estimate of difference \>0 means that there was a larger increase in the % of 'as needed' free days in the Symbicort 'as-needed' arm.|||-5.34|-8.37|< 0.001
91690246|NCT02224157|183274210|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-37.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.18|-35.77|||ANOVA|model adjusted for: randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region.|An estimate of difference \>0 means that there was a higher % of controller use days in the Symbicort 'as-needed' group.|||-35.77|-39.18|<0.001
91690247|NCT02224157|183274211|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.109|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|rand treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit, rand treat by visit as fixed, patient as random, and baseline ACQ-5 as covariate.|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.150|0.068|<0.001
91690248|NCT02224157|183274212|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.096|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|-0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|rand treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit, rand treat by visit as fixed, patient as random and baseline AQLQ as covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.054|-0.137|<0.001
91690249|NCT02224157|183274213|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.97||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2|||Negative binomial model|Adjusted for randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region. Logarithm of follow-up time is used as an offset variable.|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.20|0.78|0.754
91863754|NCT04800211|183616300|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-74.904||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.706|-1.102|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-1.102|-148.706|0.0467
91863755|NCT04800211|183616300|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-144.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.668|-81.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-81.402|-206.668|<.0001
91863756|NCT04800211|183616300|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-62.755||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.221|7.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||7.710|-133.221|0.0807
91863757|NCT04800211|183616300|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-68.83||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.753|-16.907|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-16.907|-120.753|0.0095
91863758|NCT04800211|183616300|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.593||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.873|58.687|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||58.687|-61.873|0.9586
91863759|NCT04800211|183616300|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.635||||0.9402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.714|66.443|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||66.443|-71.714|0.9402
91903948|NCT00240981|183703012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.074||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19||Unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|-0.05|0.24
91903949|NCT00240981|183703012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.209||Adjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||0.209|-0.030|0.14
91903950|NCT00369785|183703020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in immediate recall memory at 24 weeks||||.62
91903951|NCT00369785|183703021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in discrimination memory between the two groups||||.007
91903952|NCT00800683|183703022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.89|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||For patients who received rescue medication during the course of the trial, the Oracle Clinical (OC) technique was utilised for all efficacy endpoints and the values were set to missing after the rescue medication was administered.||-0.31|-0.89|< 0.0001
91863760|NCT04800211|183616300|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-113.663||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.33|-3.996|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-3.996|-223.330|0.0390
91863761|NCT04800211|183616300|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-72.269||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.091|54.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||54.554|-199.091|0.4543
91863762|NCT04800211|183616300|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-142.442||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.08|-32.805|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-32.805|-252.080|0.0051
91863763|NCT04800211|183616300|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-60.12||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.286|64.046|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||64.046|-184.286|0.6061
91863764|NCT04800211|183616300|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-66.194||||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.672|18.284|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||18.284|-150.672|0.1242
91863765|NCT04800211|183616300|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.149||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.35|88.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||88.052|-112.350|0.8117
91903953|NCT00800683|183703023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.03|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.03|< 0.0001
91690250|NCT05906628|183274214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|21.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||||21.49|4.48|<0.0001
91903954|NCT00800683|183703024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.90|< 0.0001
91690251|NCT05906628|183274214|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|42.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|54.36||||||||54.36|30.70|
91794092|NCT04218123|183466922|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.425|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.425
91863766|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-111.957||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.151|3.237|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.237|-227.151|0.0567
91863767|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-76.728||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.025|43.569|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||43.569|-197.025|0.2103
91863768|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-169.735||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.22|-51.251|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-51.251|-288.220|0.0052
91903955|NCT00800683|183703025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.96|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-0.96|< 0.0001
91903956|NCT00800683|183703026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.05|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-1.05|< 0.0001
91903957|NCT00800683|183703027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.06|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-1.06|< 0.0001
91903958|NCT00800683|183703028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.96|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.96|< 0.0001
91690252|NCT05906628|183274215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 4||8.38|2.14|<0.0001
91690253|NCT05906628|183274215|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.69|42.24||||||Week 4||42.24|16.69|
91690254|NCT05906628|183274215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 16||7.51|2.02|<0.0001
91903959|NCT00800683|183703029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-1.02|< 0.0001
91903960|NCT00800683|183703030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1199||95.0||||P-value calculated using a Fisher's exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1199
91690255|NCT05906628|183274215|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.34|42.57||||||Week 16||42.57|16.34|
91690256|NCT05906628|183274216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|5.923|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Day 3||5.923|0.718|0.1789
91690257|NCT05906628|183274216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.603|8.951|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 1 (Day 7)||8.951|1.603|0.0024
91690258|NCT05906628|183274217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|22.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 16||22.13|4.44|<0.0001
91690259|NCT05906628|183274217|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|45.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.83|58.27||||||Week 16||58.27|32.83|
91690260|NCT05906628|183274219|SUPERIORITY||Cox regression model|1.719||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.211|2.44|||Log Rank|stratified by randomization stratification factors|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA-CHE 3/4, Region : North America or outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.440|1.211|0.0025
91690261|NCT05906628|183274222|SUPERIORITY||Cox regression model|1.279||||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.759|||Log Rank|stratified by randomization stratification factors|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA-CHE 3/4, Region : North America or outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||1.759|0.931|0.1319
91690262|NCT01108718|183274236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Preference|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.47|||McNemar||Rate of preference refers specifically to Tempur-Pedic Mattress.|h0: Rate Preference Tempur-pedic mattress = Rate Preference control mattress h1: Rate Preference Tempur-pedic mattress = Rate Preference control mattress||.47|.43|>0.1
91690263|NCT02857816|183274239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is a single arm study. The primary objective was to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction between baseline and following the 12th PTNM therapy sessions in the number of UUI episodes per day.||||<0.0001
91690264|NCT02443740|183274251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio.|39.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.14|51.99|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||51.99|30.14|
91690265|NCT02443740|183274252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|80.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.74|108.75|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||108.75|59.74|
91690266|NCT02443740|183274253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|80.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.92|108.94|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||108.94|58.92|
91690267|NCT02443740|183274258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|65.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.18|69.16|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||69.16|62.18|
91903961|NCT00800683|183703031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.103||||0.2225||95.0|0.003|3.978|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo. The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c, previous anti-diabetic medication and creatinine clearance||3.978|0.003|0.2225
91690268|NCT02443740|183274259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|68.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.27|74.41|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||74.41|63.27|
91903962|NCT00800683|183703032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.816||||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|15.756|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo. The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c, previous anti-diabetic medication and creatinine clearance||15.756|0.042|0.8927
91690269|NCT02443740|183274260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio.|29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.17|36.64|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||36.64|24.17|
91690270|NCT02443740|183274262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|16.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.35|18.18|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|||18.18|15.35|
91690271|NCT02443740|183274264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.29|17.42|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|||17.42|13.29|
91690272|NCT02456740|183274398|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested independently for each erenumab dose at an alpha level of 0.04 for 70 mg and of 0.01 for 140 mg to maintain the type 1 error rate at an alpha level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.92|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-0.92|-1.88|< 0.001
91690273|NCT02456740|183274398|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested independently for each erenumab dose at an alpha level of 0.04 for 70 mg and of 0.01 for 140 mg to maintain the type 1 error rate at an alpha level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.37|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.37|-2.33|< 0.001
91690274|NCT02456740|183274399|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 70 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.04.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||2.98|1.52|< 0.001
91690275|NCT02456740|183274399|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 140 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.01.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||3.94|2.01|< 0.001
91690276|NCT02456740|183274400|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 70 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.04.|LS Mean Difference|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.64|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-0.64|-1.23|< 0.001
91690277|NCT02456740|183274400|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 140 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.01.|LS Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.12|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, (stratification factors region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.12|-1.71|< 0.001
91903963|NCT00800683|183703033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.43||0.8802||95.0|-24.36|20.91|||ANCOVA|||||20.91|-24.36|0.8802
91903964|NCT00800683|183703034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.19||0.7848||95.0|-18.47|13.98|||ANCOVA|||||13.98|-18.47|0.7848
91903965|NCT00800683|183703035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.1878||95.0|-26.74|5.31|||ANCOVA|||||5.31|-26.74|0.1878
91721717|NCT06023563|183335475|OTHER|The required sample size for medium effect size (f = 0.25) and power of 0.80 was calculated to be 6 participants in each group (n =12) (G\*power 3.1.9.7 software). Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS statistical package (version 29.0.1.0).|||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||A virtual reality active video gaming intervention will be more effective than traditional physical therapy based balance exercises, both based on motor learning principles, in improving static and dynamic balance in youth and young adults with ASD and these improvements will be retained at 4 weeks after the intervention.||||< 0.05
91690278|NCT02456740|183274401|SUPERIORITY|If the first tier secondary endpoints were statistically significant for both erenumab doses the erenumab 140 mg group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested using the Hochberg method at a level of 0.05; If only the erenumab 70 mg group or 140 mg group showed statistical significance for the first tier secondary endpoints then the erenumab 140 group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance at a level of either 0.04 or 0.01 respectively.|LS Mean Difference|-2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-1.35|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.35|-3.51|< 0.001
91721718|NCT06023563|183335476|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91721719|NCT06023563|183335477|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91721720|NCT06023563|183335478|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91721721|NCT06023563|183335479|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91690279|NCT02456740|183274401|SUPERIORITY|If the erenumab 140 mg group for both remaining MPFID secondary endpoints were statistically significant, then the erenumab 70 mg group for the two remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance using the Hochberg method with the same alpha level carried over from 140 mg group.|LS Mean Difference|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.77|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-0.77|-2.95|< 0.001
91690280|NCT02456740|183274402|SUPERIORITY|If the first tier secondary endpoints were statistically significant for both erenumab doses the erenumab 140 mg group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested using the Hochberg method at a level of 0.05; If only the erenumab 70 mg group or 140 mg group showed statistical significance for the first tier secondary endpoints then the erenumab 140 group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance at a level of either 0.04 or 0.01 respectively.|LS Mean Difference|-2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-1.51|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.51|-3.62|< 0.001
91690281|NCT02456740|183274402|SUPERIORITY|If the erenumab 140 mg group for both remaining MPFID secondary endpoints were statistically significant, then the erenumab 70 mg group for the two remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance using the Hochberg method with the same alpha level carried over from 140 mg group.|LS Mean Difference|-2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.16|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.16|-3.28|< 0.001
91690282|NCT02546986|183274438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|2.038|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma versus non-squamous cell carcinoma|Hazard ratio and associated 2-sided 90% CIs were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard model|||2.038|0.926|0.1789
91690283|NCT02546986|183274439|SUPERIORITY||Disease Control Rate Difference|-13.3||||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.0|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma vs non-squamous cell carcinoma||||3.5|-29.0|0.1572
91690284|NCT02546986|183274440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.375||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|2.276|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma vs non-squamous cell carcinoma).|Hazard ratio and associated 2-sided 90% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazard model.|||2.276|0.830|0.2968
91721722|NCT06023563|183335480|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91721723|NCT06023563|183335481|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91721724|NCT06023563|183335482|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91721725|NCT01928849|183335499|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|Univariable Logistic regression||||1.74|0.34|0.53
91721726|NCT01928849|183335500|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of rate of residual limb pain between treatment groups||||0.95
91721727|NCT01928849|183335500|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of rate of Phantom limb pain between treatment groups||||0.74
91721728|NCT01928849|183335501|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of opioid consumption postoperative hours 0-24||||0.27
91721729|NCT01928849|183335501|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of opioid consumption postoperative hours 24-48||||0.27
91721730|NCT01928849|183335502|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of BPI average pain score||||0.59
91721731|NCT01928849|183335502|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of BPI Interference question sum||||0.16
91721732|NCT01928849|183335503|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
91721733|NCT01928849|183335504|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of DVPRS numeric pain score||||0.42
91721734|NCT01928849|183335504|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of DVPRS supplemental question sum||||0.19
91721735|NCT01928849|183335505|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RASS postoperative hours 0-24||||0.27
91721736|NCT01928849|183335505|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RASS postoperative hours 24-48||||0.26
91721737|NCT03483103|183335507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One sided P-value is calculated based on the null hypothesis ORR \<= 50.2%|Exact binomial test|||||||<.0001
91794093|NCT04218123|183466923|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent.|||||=|0.054|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.054
91903966|NCT00800683|183703036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.5781||95.0|-11.28|20.12|||ANCOVA|||||20.12|-11.28|0.5781
91863769|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-52.505||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.721|57.711|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||57.711|-162.721|0.3490
91690285|NCT02546986|183274441|SUPERIORITY||Overall Response Rate (ORR) Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.5|21.3|||||The 90% exact unconditional confidence interval was used for ORR difference.|||21.3|-11.5|
91690286|NCT02546986|183274443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.352||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|2.0|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma versus non-squamous cell carcinoma|Hazard ratio and associated 2-sided 90% CIs were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard model|||2.000|0.914|0.1990
91690287|NCT03349060|183274455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.8||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|24.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.8|6.8|0.0037
91690288|NCT03349060|183274455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|45.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.7|26.2|<0.0001
91690289|NCT03349060|183274456|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|38.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.3|17.4|<0.0001
91690290|NCT03349060|183274456|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|51.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|61.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.5|40.5|<0.0001
91690291|NCT03349060|183274457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||25.8|10.2|0.0004
91690292|NCT03349060|183274457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||51.4|33.6|<0.0001
91690293|NCT03349060|183274457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.0||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||28.0|1.9|0.0251
91690294|NCT03349060|183274457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|54.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||54.4|27.8|<0.0001
91690295|NCT03349060|183274457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.0||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||32.7|7.4|0.0019
91690296|NCT03349060|183274457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|45.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|57.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||57.8|32.7|<0.0001
91690297|NCT03349060|183274457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|34.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||34.8|10.3|0.0003
91690298|NCT03349060|183274457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|53.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||53.9|29.6|<0.0001
91690299|NCT03349060|183274458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.3||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||25.2|7.4|0.0055
91903967|NCT00800683|183703037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.2954||95.0|-26.67|8.18|||ANCOVA|||||8.18|-26.67|0.2954
91690300|NCT03349060|183274458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|43.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.1|53.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||53.6|33.1|<0.0001
91794094|NCT01082640|183466926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.17||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||All statistical tests were two sided and conducted at the 0.05 significance level.||0.17|-0.37|0.459
91690301|NCT03349060|183274458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.5||||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||28.0|-3.0|0.1138
91903968|NCT00800683|183703038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.27||0.5984||95.0|-12.02|20.75|||ANCOVA|||||20.75|-12.02|0.5984
91690302|NCT03349060|183274458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||57.4|26.2|<0.0001
91690303|NCT03349060|183274458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|42.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||42.1|15.3|<0.0001
91690304|NCT03349060|183274458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|61.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||61.1|34.6|<0.0001
91690305|NCT03349060|183274459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares (LS) mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.4|<0.0001
91690306|NCT03349060|183274459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.0|<0.0001
91690307|NCT03349060|183274459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.6|<0.0001
91690308|NCT03349060|183274459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-2.8|<0.0001
91690309|NCT03349060|183274459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.5|0.0035
91690310|NCT03349060|183274459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-2.5|<0.0001
91690311|NCT03349060|183274459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.7|0.0010
91690312|NCT03349060|183274459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.7|<0.0001
91690313|NCT03349060|183274460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0002
91903969|NCT00800683|183703039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.4085||95.0|-9.82|23.96|||ANCOVA|||||23.96|-9.82|0.4085
91903970|NCT00800683|183703040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.17||0.8698||95.0|-14.84|17.52|||ANCOVA|||||17.52|-14.84|0.8698
91903971|NCT02247960|183703054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
91903972|NCT00953719|183703065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The prospectively planned primary endpoint analysis was a non-inferiority test of covariate adjusted 24 month or later Harris Hip score means with a 5 point non-inferiority margin. A prospective power analysis with an anticipated Harris Hip score standard deviation of 10.08 (for both treatment groups) indicated that sample sizes of 134 and 67 would provide approximately 95% statistical power for this non-inferiority test with a type 1 error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.4||||ANCOVA||||||-1.40|<0.001
91690314|NCT03349060|183274460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.6|-3.0|<0.0001
91690315|NCT03349060|183274461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0071||||||P-value was controlled by randomization strata.|Log Rank|||||||0.0071
91690316|NCT03349060|183274461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was controlled by randomization strata.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91690317|NCT03349060|183274462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|13.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||13.3|-0.3|0.0869
91690318|NCT03349060|183274462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|28.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.6|12.0|0.0001
91690319|NCT03349060|183274462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.1||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|23.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.6|2.6|0.0259
91690320|NCT03349060|183274462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|44.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.2|21.7|<0.0001
91903973|NCT00953719|183703071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.952||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|SAS PROC MIXED was used with an ante-dependence covariance structure.||A repeated measurements longitudinal model of Harris Hip scores was carried out to compare Harris Hip results between treatment groups across time.||||0.952
91903974|NCT01910116|183703084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assuming that an improvement in AUSCAN pain score of \>10 is clinically meaningful, and assuming an alpha level of 0.05 (two-tailed), a power of 0.80, and a dropout rate of 20%, the sample size calculation revealed that 220 patients should be enrolled.||||0.014
91690321|NCT03349060|183274462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|35.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.8|14.2|0.0001
91690322|NCT03349060|183274462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|55.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.6|33.6|<0.0001
91690323|NCT03349060|183274463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.9||||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.5|-0.7|0.0802
91690324|NCT03349060|183274463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.8||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|15.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||15.7|4.0|0.0045
91690325|NCT03349060|183274463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.4|-1.9|0.1888
91690326|NCT03349060|183274463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|30.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.5|13.0|<0.0001
91690327|NCT03349060|183274463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.8||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.4|5.2|0.0071
91690328|NCT03349060|183274463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|38.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.7|19.8|<0.0001
91690329|NCT03349060|183274464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with event was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
91903975|NCT01910116|183703085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
91903976|NCT01910116|183703086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
91903977|NCT01910116|183703087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91903978|NCT01910116|183703088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.728|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.728
91690330|NCT03349060|183274464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with event was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
91690331|NCT03349060|183274464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.9||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with event was 0.||||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.9|-3.9|
91690332|NCT03349060|183274464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.7|1.3|0.0234
91690333|NCT03349060|183274464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.6||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.5|-0.3|0.0592
91690334|NCT03349060|183274464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|17.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|5.5|0.0022
91690335|NCT03349060|183274464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.3|1.7|0.0190
91690336|NCT03349060|183274464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|19.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.4|6.7|0.0010
91721738|NCT00149643|183335585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Groups' categorical baseline measures were compared by chi-square analysis, corrected for continuity. Statistical analyses were completed on an intent to-treat study group basis. Outcome measures for depression and for cannabis use and alcohol use across treatment groups were compared by repeated measures analysis of variance. The last observation carried forward (LOCF)method was used for handling missing data in the data analyses.||||<0.05
91794095|NCT01082640|183466926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.3||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||All statistical tests were two sided and conducted at the 0.05 significance level.||0.30|-0.23|0.789
91903979|NCT01910116|183703089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.229
91690337|NCT03349060|183274465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|34.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.1|13.9|<0.0001
91690338|NCT03349060|183274465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|45.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|55.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.5|34.7|<0.0001
91690339|NCT03349060|183274465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|45.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.4|21.6|<0.0001
91690340|NCT03349060|183274465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|52.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|64.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||64.2|41.2|<0.0001
91690341|NCT03349060|183274465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|34.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|46.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.3|21.9|<0.0001
91690342|NCT03349060|183274465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|52.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|64.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||64.6|41.3|<0.0001
91721739|NCT04666298|183335593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2|-49.0||One-sided adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons using Dunnett´s multiple t-test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-49.0|-64.2|<.0001
91721740|NCT04666298|183335593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-60.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|-54.3||One-sided adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons using Dunnett´s multiple t-test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-54.3|-67.6|<.0001
91903980|NCT01910116|183703090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.194
91903981|NCT01910116|183703091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.347
91903982|NCT01910116|183703092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.122
91721741|NCT04666298|183335593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-65.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-58.6||One-sided adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons using Dunnett´s multiple t-test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-58.6|-72.0|<.0001
91721742|NCT00844519|183335609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||within-arm, pre-post change in FMD||||0.17
91721743|NCT00844519|183335609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||within-arm, pre-post change in FMD||||0.90
91721744|NCT03329001|183335616|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.855|0.9706|||||Relative bioavailability (AUC\[tablet\]/AUC\[capsule\]) was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model accounting for sequence, participants nested with sequences, period and treatment.|||0.9706|0.8550|
91721745|NCT03329001|183335617|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9216|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8631|0.9841|||||Relative bioavailability (AUC\[tablet\]/AUC\[capsule\]) was assessed using ANOVA model accounting for sequence, participants nested with sequences, period and treatment.|||0.9841|0.8631|
91721746|NCT03329001|183335618|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9483|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8489|1.0593|||||Relative bioavailability (Cmax\[tablet\]/Cmax\[capsule\]) was assessed using ANOVA model accounting for sequence, participants nested with sequences, period and treatment.|||1.0593|0.8489|
91721747|NCT03329001|183335623|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least-squares means of the test (tablet) to reference (capsule) product was within 0.80 - 1.25% for AUC0-t|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9199|1.0006|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence. Ratio of geometric least square mean of niraparib tablet to niraparib capsule is presented.|||1.0006|0.9199|
91721748|NCT03329001|183335624|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least-squares means of the test (tablet) to reference (capsule) product was within 0.80 - 1.25% for AUC0-inf|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9164|0.9986|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence. Ratio of geometric least square mean of niraparib tablet to niraparib capsule is presented.|||0.9986|0.9164|
91721749|NCT03329001|183335625|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least-squares means of the test (tablet) to reference (capsule) product was within 0.80 - 1.25% for Cmax|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9619|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9124|1.014|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence. Ratio of geometric least square mean of niraparib tablet to niraparib capsule is presented.|||1.0140|0.9124|
91721750|NCT03329001|183335630|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.3154|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1742|1.4735|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence.|||1.4735|1.1742|
91721751|NCT03329001|183335631|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.2771|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1537|1.4137|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence.|||1.4137|1.1537|
91721752|NCT03329001|183335632|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1129|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9408|1.3164|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence.|||1.3164|0.9408|
91721753|NCT00622518|183335646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P value is based on rating\*group interaction term|linear mixed model|||||||.002
91721754|NCT02178956|183335648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02||two-sided|Log Rank|stratified log rank test stratified by region, time to progression on 1st line therapy and disease measurability.|HR is for napabucasin + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel. Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification variables including region, time to progression on first line therapy and disease measurability.|||1.02|0.86|0.8596
91721755|NCT02178956|183335649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19||two sided|Log Rank|stratified log rank test stratified by region, time to progression on 1st line therapy and disease measurability.|HR is for napabucuasin + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel. Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification variables including region, time to progression on first line therapy and disease measurability.|||1.19|0.85|0.9028
91903983|NCT01910116|183703093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.097
91903984|NCT01910116|183703095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
91721756|NCT02178956|183335650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.44||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by actual stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|Odds ratio for napabucasin vs. Placebo. Based on Logistic Regression Model adjusting for actual Stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|||1.44|0.60|0.7359
91721757|NCT02178956|183335651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.3||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by actual stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|Odds ratio for napabucasin vs. Placebo. Based on Logistic Regression Model adjusting for actual Stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|||1.30|0.66|0.6555
91721758|NCT03769493|183335654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< .001
91721759|NCT03769493|183335655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.875
91721760|NCT03282097|183335698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4393|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4393
91721761|NCT03282097|183335699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2262|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.2262
91903985|NCT01910116|183703096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
91903986|NCT01910116|183703097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91903987|NCT01910116|183703098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
91903988|NCT01910116|183703099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.221
91903989|NCT01910116|183703100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.174
91903990|NCT01910116|183703101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.124
91690343|NCT03349060|183274465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|47.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.4|23.3|<0.0001
91690344|NCT03349060|183274465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|65.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||65.0|42.0|<0.0001
91690345|NCT03349060|183274466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.6||||0.7285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.2|-3.9|0.7285
91690346|NCT03349060|183274466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.0||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.2|-1.2|0.1448
91690347|NCT03349060|183274466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.9||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.5|-2.6|0.2576
91690348|NCT03349060|183274466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|28.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.9|12.0|0.0001
91690349|NCT03349060|183274466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.0||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|16.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.8|1.3|0.0423
91690350|NCT03349060|183274466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|37.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.2|18.7|<0.0001
91690351|NCT03349060|183274466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.3||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|21.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.2|5.4|0.0066
91690352|NCT03349060|183274466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|42.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.5|24.3|<0.0001
91690353|NCT03349060|183274467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
91690354|NCT03349060|183274467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
91903991|NCT01910116|183703102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
91690355|NCT03349060|183274467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.9||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.9|-3.9|
91721762|NCT03282097|183335700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0023
91690356|NCT03349060|183274467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.7|1.3|0.0234
91690357|NCT03349060|183274467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.6||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.5|-0.3|0.0604
91690358|NCT03349060|183274467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|17.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|5.5|0.0022
91721763|NCT03282097|183335701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6075|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.6075
91721764|NCT03282097|183335702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
91721765|NCT03282097|183335703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91903992|NCT01910116|183703103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
91903993|NCT01910116|183703104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
91863770|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.413||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.333|100.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||100.507|-123.333|0.8410
91903994|NCT01910116|183703105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.660
91690359|NCT03349060|183274467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.4||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|11.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.6|1.2|0.0255
91690360|NCT03349060|183274467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.4|6.7|0.0010
91690361|NCT03349060|183274468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.3|-8.2|<0.0001
91690362|NCT03349060|183274468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.1|-13.0|<0.0001
91690363|NCT03349060|183274468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.0|-10.7|<0.0001
91721766|NCT03034967|183335768|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.66|||||Median posterior difference, 90 percent (%) credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.66|0.00|
91721767|NCT03034967|183335768|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.52|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model||1.52|0.00|
91721768|NCT03034967|183335768|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.97|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.97|0.43|
91690364|NCT03349060|183274468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.9|-15.6|<0.0001
91690365|NCT03349060|183274468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.5|-11.6|<0.0001
91690366|NCT03349060|183274468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-10.4|-16.5|<0.0001
91903995|NCT01910116|183703106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91690367|NCT03349060|183274468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.1|-11.6|<0.0001
91690368|NCT03349060|183274468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-10.8|-17.3|<0.0001
91690369|NCT03349060|183274469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-7.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.5|-12.1|0.0004
91721769|NCT03034967|183335768|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.03|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||2.03|0.72|
91721770|NCT03034967|183335768|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.07|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||2.07|0.79|
91903996|NCT01910116|183703107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.186
91903997|NCT01910116|183703108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.493
91903998|NCT01910116|183703109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
91903999|NCT01910116|183703110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.604
91904000|NCT01910116|183703111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.252
91690370|NCT03349060|183274469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-10.5|-19.0|<0.0001
91690371|NCT03349060|183274469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-6.9|-16.6|<0.0001
91690372|NCT03349060|183274469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-13.6|-23.4|<0.0001
91690373|NCT03349060|183274469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.0|-19.7|<0.0001
91690374|NCT03349060|183274469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-17.3|-28.0|<0.0001
91690375|NCT03349060|183274469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-8.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.2|-19.3|<0.0001
91904001|NCT01910116|183703112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.378
91690376|NCT03349060|183274469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.5|-27.6|<0.0001
91690377|NCT03349060|183274470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.0|-3.4|0.5210
91690378|NCT03349060|183274470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.0||||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.3|-1.3|0.1416
91690379|NCT03349060|183274470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.6||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.2|-2.1|0.2002
91690380|NCT03349060|183274470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.2|15.1|<0.0001
91690381|NCT03349060|183274470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.6||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|17.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|1.3|0.0434
91690382|NCT03349060|183274470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|36.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.2|17.1|<0.0001
91690383|NCT03349060|183274470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|24.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.0|7.5|0.0019
91721771|NCT03034967|183335769|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.42|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.42|0.00|
91904002|NCT01910116|183703113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.485
91904003|NCT01910116|183703114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91904004|NCT01910116|183703115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.683
91904005|NCT01910116|183703116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.036
91904006|NCT01910116|183703117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
91904007|NCT01910116|183703118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
91904008|NCT01910116|183703119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.060
91904009|NCT02289352|183703120|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the absolute difference between the proportion of patients considered a treatment success (at least a 2-grade improvement on both CEA and PSA over 6 hours+/-10 minutes) in the Test and Reference groups is contained within the range \[-20%, +20%\], then bioequivalence of the Test product to the Reference product is considered to have been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.49|5.33||||||||5.33|-6.49|
91721772|NCT03034967|183335769|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.87|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model||0.87|0.00|
91904010|NCT02289352|183703120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91690384|NCT03349060|183274470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|42.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.7|24.0|<0.0001
91690385|NCT03349060|183274471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|10.8||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|18.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.3|3.3|0.0151
91690386|NCT03349060|183274471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|39.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.0|21.0|<0.0001
91690387|NCT03349060|183274471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|21.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|32.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.3|10.2|0.0010
91690388|NCT03349060|183274471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|49.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.3|26.6|<0.0001
91690389|NCT03349060|183274471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|34.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.3|12.6|0.0003
91690390|NCT03349060|183274471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|52.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||52.7|30.7|<0.0001
91690391|NCT03349060|183274471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.6||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.1|8.1|0.0026
91690392|NCT03349060|183274471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|40.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|51.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||51.7|28.3|<0.0001
91690393|NCT03349060|183274472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.6|-2.9|0.3151
91690394|NCT03349060|183274472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.0||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.3|0.7|0.0292
91690395|NCT03349060|183274472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.9402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.5|-5.9|0.9402
91690396|NCT03349060|183274472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.3||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|23.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.2|7.3|0.0019
91690397|NCT03349060|183274472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|10.8||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.4|4.2|0.0078
91690398|NCT03349060|183274472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|30.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.1|14.2|<0.0001
91904011|NCT02289352|183703120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91690399|NCT03349060|183274472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.2||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||15.3|1.0|0.0528
91690400|NCT03349060|183274472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|35.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.3|17.6|<0.0001
91690401|NCT03349060|183274473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.9|<0.0001
91690402|NCT03349060|183274473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-3.0|<0.0001
91690403|NCT03349060|183274473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.2|<0.0001
91721773|NCT03034967|183335769|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.08|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.08|0.23|
91721774|NCT03034967|183335769|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.1|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.10|0.37|
91721775|NCT03034967|183335769|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.12|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.12|0.40|
91721776|NCT03034967|183335770|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.16|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.16|0.00|
91721777|NCT03034967|183335770|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.43|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model||0.43|0.00|
91721778|NCT03034967|183335770|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.61|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.61|0.04|
91690404|NCT03349060|183274473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.0|-3.4|<0.0001
91690405|NCT03349060|183274473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-2.3|<0.0001
91690406|NCT03349060|183274473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.2|<0.0001
91721779|NCT03034967|183335770|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.64|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.64|0.21|
91690407|NCT03349060|183274473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.1|0.0005
91690408|NCT03349060|183274473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.9|<0.0001
91690409|NCT03349060|183274474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-7.0|-14.8|<0.0001
91721780|NCT03034967|183335770|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.66|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.66|0.26|
91721781|NCT03034967|183335771|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.23|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model.||0.23|-0.21|
91721782|NCT03034967|183335771|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.25|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.25|-0.23|
91721783|NCT03034967|183335771|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.29|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.29|-0.27|
91721784|NCT03034967|183335771|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.3|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.30|-0.28|
91721785|NCT03034967|183335771|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.31|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.31|-0.29|
91721786|NCT03034967|183335778|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|2.86||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|||2.86|1.02|0.089
91721787|NCT03034967|183335778|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.79||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|||1.79|0.62|0.881
91690410|NCT03349060|183274474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.1|-22.7|<0.0001
91690411|NCT03349060|183274474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-7.8|-17.3|<.0001
91690412|NCT03349060|183274474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-17.3|-26.8|<.0001
91690413|NCT03349060|183274474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.0|-19.5|<.0001
91721788|NCT03034967|183335778|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.48||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|||1.48|0.51|0.674
91721789|NCT03034967|183335778|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.58||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|||1.58|0.54|0.804
91721790|NCT03034967|183335778|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.71||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|||1.71|0.59|0.987
91794096|NCT01082640|183466927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.687||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|5.73||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||||5.73|-0.97|0.162
91863771|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-53.565||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.4|58.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||58.270|-165.400|0.3465
91690414|NCT03349060|183274474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.7|-27.2|<.0001
91690415|NCT03349060|183274474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-7.7|-19.0|<0.0001
91690416|NCT03349060|183274474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.3|-27.5|<.0001
91690417|NCT03349060|183274475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.3||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|35.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.9|8.7|0.0028
91863772|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-111.65||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.865|-28.435|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-28.435|-194.865|0.0087
91863773|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|63.944||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.678|177.565|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||177.565|-49.678|0.2688
91904012|NCT02289352|183703121|EQUIVALENCE|"The secondary efficacy variable is the proportion of patients with a clinical response of treatment success on Day 1.~If the 90% confidence interval for the absolute difference between the proportion of patients considered a treatment success (at least a 2-grade improvement on both the CEA and PSA over 6 hours+/-10 minutes) in the Test and Reference groups is contained within the range \[-20%, 20%\], then bioequivalence of the Test to Reference product is considered to have been demonstrated."|Mean Difference (Net)|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|15.41||||||||15.41|-1.54|
91690418|NCT03349060|183274475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|53.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.2|27.1|<0.0001
91690419|NCT03349060|183274475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.1||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|31.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.4|2.8|0.0217
91690420|NCT03349060|183274475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|45.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.9|18.5|<0.0001
91721791|NCT03034967|183335780|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.6|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.||DNX versus (vs.) Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1)at Screening.|2.6|0.5|
91721792|NCT03034967|183335780|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.4|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.4|0.4|
91721793|NCT03034967|183335780|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|3.2|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|3.2|0.6|
91904013|NCT02289352|183703121|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91904014|NCT02289352|183703121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0045
91721794|NCT03034967|183335780|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|4.3|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|4.3|1.0|
91904015|NCT03606980|183703122|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant. A 95% confidence interval was computed using logistic regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.11||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.073|9.005|||Cox proportional hazards analysis|||||9.005|1.073|0.0366
91690421|NCT03349060|183274475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.7||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|30.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.0|1.4|0.0363
91794597|NCT03981822|183468100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 112 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1034
91904016|NCT03606980|183703122|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.16||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.215|14.273|||Cox proportional hazards analysis|||||14.273|1.215|0.0232
91690422|NCT03349060|183274475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.7||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|37.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.7|9.8|0.0011
91690423|NCT03349060|183274475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|34.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.5|5.8|0.0080
91690424|NCT03349060|183274475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|43.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.3|15.0|<0.0001
91690425|NCT03349060|183274476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.2|-5.4|<0.0001
91690426|NCT03349060|183274476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.9|-7.1|<0.0001
91690427|NCT03349060|183274476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-5.0|0.0001
91690428|NCT03349060|183274476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.5|-7.8|<.0001
91690429|NCT03349060|183274476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.8||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-4.8|0.0075
91690430|NCT03349060|183274476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.3|-7.4|<0.0001
91690431|NCT03349060|183274476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.8||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-4.8|0.0072
91690432|NCT03349060|183274476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.9|-6.9|<0.0001
91690433|NCT03349060|183274477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.0|-3.5|0.2750
91690434|NCT03349060|183274477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-4.8|0.0280
91690435|NCT03349060|183274477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.5||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-5.9|0.0051
91690436|NCT03349060|183274477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.0|-8.8|<0.0001
91690437|NCT03349060|183274477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.1||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|-5.1|0.1706
91690438|NCT03349060|183274477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.4||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-7.4|0.0048
91794598|NCT03981822|183468100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1029|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1029
91904017|NCT03606980|183703122|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|4.615|||Cox proportional hazards analysis|||||4.615|0.389|0.64
91904018|NCT03606980|183703123|EQUIVALENCE|All statistical tests were two-sided, and p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.86
91690439|NCT03349060|183274477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.5||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-5.2|0.0629
91690440|NCT03349060|183274477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-6.2|0.0100
91690441|NCT03349060|183274478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.6||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|13.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||13.9|-0.7|0.1238
91690442|NCT03349060|183274478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.1||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|29.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.2|11.0|0.0008
91690443|NCT03349060|183274478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.8||||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|16.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.4|-2.8|0.2091
91690444|NCT03349060|183274478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|35.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.0|12.9|0.0005
91690445|NCT03349060|183274478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.1||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|19.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.1|-0.9|0.1161
91690446|NCT03349060|183274478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|37.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.7|15.3|0.0002
91721795|NCT03034967|183335780|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|4.5|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|4.5|0.9|
91721796|NCT03034967|183335783|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.2|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator %predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.2|1.0|
91794097|NCT01082640|183466927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.698||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.57||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||||4.57|-2.18|0.485
91690447|NCT03349060|183274478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.1||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|19.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.1|-2.8|0.1837
91690448|NCT03349060|183274478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.6|8.1|0.0046
91690449|NCT03349060|183274479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.2||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|16.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.6|-10.3|0.4795
91690450|NCT03349060|183274479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.7|-12.7|
91690451|NCT03349060|183274479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.3||||0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|30.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.3|-3.6|0.1452
91690452|NCT03349060|183274479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.7||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|25.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.4|-6.1|0.2232
91794098|NCT01082640|183466928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Prior use of an ARB, ACEi, or none was a stratification variable.||||||<0.001
91721797|NCT03034967|183335783|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.7|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|1.7|0.8|
91904019|NCT03606980|183703124|EQUIVALENCE|p\<00.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
91690453|NCT03349060|183274479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.8||||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|25.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.4|-13.7|0.5707
91690454|NCT03349060|183274479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.8||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|25.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.1|-13.6|0.5777
91690455|NCT03349060|183274479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.3||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|37.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.5|1.0|0.0744
91690456|NCT03349060|183274479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.7||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|25.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.4|-6.1|0.2232
91690457|NCT03349060|183274480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|46.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.0|17.2|<0.0001
91690458|NCT03349060|183274480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|35.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|49.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.9|21.5|<0.0001
91721798|NCT03034967|183335783|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.6|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|1.6|0.7|
91721799|NCT03034967|183335783|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.1|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.1|1.0|
91794099|NCT01082640|183466928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Prior use of an ARB, ACEi, or none was a stratification variable.||||||<0.001
91794100|NCT01082640|183466928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Prior use of an ARB, ACEi, or none was a stratification variable.||||||0.062
91690459|NCT03349060|183274480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|35.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.6|5.2|0.0090
91690460|NCT03349060|183274480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|47.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.7|19.0|<0.0001
91690461|NCT03349060|183274480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.5||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|32.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.4|0.6|0.0421
91690462|NCT03349060|183274480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|48.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.8|18.9|<0.0001
91690463|NCT03349060|183274480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.5||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|38.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.8|8.2|0.0035
91904020|NCT03606980|183703125|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
91904021|NCT03606980|183703126|EQUIVALENCE|All statistical tests were performed using the SAS Studio. All statistical tests were two-sided, and p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.57|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.57
91904022|NCT01196533|183703127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||All data in the outcome measure table is presenting the percentage of error.|||
91721800|NCT03034967|183335783|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.3|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.3|1.1|
91863774|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|151.222||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.114|265.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||265.330|37.114|0.0096
91863775|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|182.631||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.754|299.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||299.509|65.754|0.0023
91863776|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-175.901||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-390.865|39.063|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||39.063|-390.865|0.1612
91904023|NCT00911625|183703136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.502||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.341|18.341|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two treatment cohorts on their average blood glucose level||18.341|-19.341|.958
91904024|NCT00911625|183703137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|1.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of experiencing at least one blood glucose level below 70 mg/dL between the two treatment cohorts.||1.114|0.172|.0828
91690464|NCT03349060|183274480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|43.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.9|13.8|0.0002
91690465|NCT03349060|183274481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.1||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|43.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.2|-9.1|0.2497
91690466|NCT03349060|183274481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.1||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.3|-9.0|0.2371
91690467|NCT03349060|183274481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.8||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|58.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.3|-0.8|0.0697
91690468|NCT03349060|183274481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|43.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|71.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||71.7|16.2|0.0030
91690469|NCT03349060|183274481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.0||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|59.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||59.9|2.0|0.0583
91690470|NCT03349060|183274481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.2||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|69.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.1|13.2|0.0085
91690471|NCT03349060|183274481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.3||||0.1948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|48.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.5|-9.8|0.1948
91690472|NCT03349060|183274481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.6||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|58.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.5|2.8|0.0296
91690473|NCT03349060|183274482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.1|0.1718
91690474|NCT03349060|183274482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.7|0.0018
91690475|NCT03349060|183274482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0005
91690476|NCT03349060|183274482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.5|<0.0001
91690477|NCT03349060|183274482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.7||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.0|-1.5|0.0476
91721801|NCT03034967|183335784|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.5|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|5.5|0.7|
91721802|NCT03034967|183335784|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.8|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|5.8|0.7|
91794101|NCT03577171|183466940|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.154||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.986|-0.322|||Repeated measures analysis|||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference ABI-H0731 + SOC ETV minus Placebo + SOC ETV at Week 12||-0.322|-1.986|0.0077
91794102|NCT03577171|183466940|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.141||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.973|-0.309|||Repeated measures analysis|||Least Squares Mean Difference ABI-H0731 + SOC ETV minus Placebo + SOC ETV at Week 24||-0.309|-1.973|0.0084
91690478|NCT03349060|183274482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.0|-2.4|<0.0001
91690479|NCT03349060|183274482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.9|0.0028
91690480|NCT03349060|183274482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
91690481|NCT03349060|183274483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.2||||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.5|-0.9|0.6134
91690482|NCT03349060|183274483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.7||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.0|-1.4|0.0422
91690483|NCT03349060|183274483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.2|0.2050
91721803|NCT03034967|183335784|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.6|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|5.6|0.7|
91721804|NCT03034967|183335784|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|6.9|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|6.9|0.9|
91690484|NCT03349060|183274483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-1.9|0.0012
91690485|NCT03349060|183274483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.4||||0.2657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.2|0.2657
91690486|NCT03349060|183274483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-2.0|0.0019
91690487|NCT03349060|183274483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.3|0.1675
91690488|NCT03349060|183274483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.0||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.8|0.0085
91690489|NCT03349060|183274484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.8||||0.5539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|37.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.2|-19.6|0.5539
91690490|NCT03349060|183274484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.9||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|55.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.1|0.8|0.0561
91721805|NCT03034967|183335784|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|2.7|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.7|0.2|
91721806|NCT03034967|183335787|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.59||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|||2.59|0.88|0.208
91721807|NCT03034967|183335787|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.2||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|||2.20|0.73|0.482
91904025|NCT04666350|183703141|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.025||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.109|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DSFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in oocyte prevalence using DSFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.109|-0.160|0.711
91794317|NCT00591578|183467630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.79||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-3.54|0.002
91690491|NCT03349060|183274484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-4.9||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|23.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.7|-33.4|0.7460
91690492|NCT03349060|183274484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|28.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.3|-28.3|1.0000
91690493|NCT03349060|183274484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.8||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|46.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.2|-4.5|0.1474
91690494|NCT03349060|183274484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|37.3||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|62.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.5|12.1|0.0123
91690495|NCT03349060|183274484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.4||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|27.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.6|-28.5|0.9760
91863777|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-227.95||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-448.725|-7.175|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-7.175|-448.725|0.0396
91863778|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-352.366||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-573.315|-131.418|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-131.418|-573.315|0.0002
91904026|NCT04666350|183703141|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.016||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.107|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DMFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in oocyte prevalence using DMFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.107|-0.139|0.795
91690496|NCT03349060|183274484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.8||||0.5965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|36.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.1|-20.4|0.5965
91690497|NCT03349060|183274485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.0||||0.2278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|58.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.0|-9.9|0.2278
91690498|NCT03349060|183274485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|35.2||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|72.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||72.4|-2.0|0.0996
91721808|NCT03034967|183335787|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.53||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|||2.53|0.86|0.239
91690499|NCT03349060|183274485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.5||||0.4449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|50.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.6|-21.6|0.4449
91690500|NCT03349060|183274485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.9||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|55.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.5|-21.6|0.4139
91721809|NCT03034967|183335787|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|2.26||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|||2.26|0.75|0.426
91904027|NCT04666350|183703142|OTHER||Relative Rate|0.38||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.7||Difference between days was evaluated using zero inflated Poisson regression models having as outcome the number of oocysts, as offset the number of surviving mosquitoes, and adjusted by subject.|Poisson Regression|||Comparison of DSFA Day 2 versus Day 1.||0.70|0.21|0.019
91690501|NCT03349060|183274485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-6.7||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|27.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.4|-40.7|0.7290
91690502|NCT03349060|183274485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.7||||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|44.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.6|-27.3|0.6585
91690503|NCT03349060|183274485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.2||||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|55.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.1|-18.7|0.3638
91690504|NCT03349060|183274485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|40.5||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|78.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||78.5|2.4|0.0550
91690505|NCT03349060|183274486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-18.8||||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|20.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.9|-58.4|0.4036
91690506|NCT03349060|183274486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-35.3||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|5.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.3|-75.9|0.1580
91690507|NCT03349060|183274486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-14.2||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|25.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.1|-53.5|0.5140
91690508|NCT03349060|183274486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-19.8||||0.4149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|23.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.7|-63.3|0.4149
91690509|NCT03349060|183274486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-18.8||||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|20.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.9|-58.4|0.4036
91690510|NCT03349060|183274486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-30.7||||0.2092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.9|9.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.6|-70.9|0.2092
91690511|NCT03349060|183274486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.9||||0.5982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|53.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.0|-29.1|0.5982
91690512|NCT03349060|183274486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.2||||0.8647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|44.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.7|-36.3|0.8647
91690513|NCT03349060|183274487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-78.6||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.5|-39.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||-39.6|-117.5|0.0546
91690514|NCT03349060|183274487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-27.9||||0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|6.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.7|-62.5|0.3573
91690515|NCT03349060|183274487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-3.6||||0.9219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|48.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.5|-55.6|0.9219
91690516|NCT03349060|183274487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.6||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|63.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.6|-14.4|0.3173
91904028|NCT04666350|183703142|OTHER||Relative Rate|0.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.45||Difference between days was evaluated using zero inflated Poisson regression models having as outcome the number of oocysts, as offset the number of surviving mosquitoes, and adjusted by subject.|Poisson Regression|||Comparison of DMFA Day 2 versus Day 1.||0.45|0.11|0.003
91690517|NCT03349060|183274487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-25.0||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|27.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.0|-77.0|0.5408
91863779|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-116.449||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-327.445|94.547|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||94.547|-327.445|0.5616
91904029|NCT04666350|183703143|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.023||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.118|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DSFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in sporozoite prevalence using DSFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.118|-0.164|0.750
91690518|NCT03349060|183274487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.6||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|63.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.6|-14.4|0.3173
91690519|NCT03349060|183274487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-25.0||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|27.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.0|-77.0|0.5408
91690520|NCT03349060|183274487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.6||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|63.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.6|-14.4|0.3173
91690521|NCT03349060|183274488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-4.4|0.0006
91690522|NCT03349060|183274488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.7|-7.9|<0.0001
91690523|NCT03349060|183274488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.0|-5.6|<0.0001
91721810|NCT03034967|183335787|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.58||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|||1.58|0.52|0.763
91690524|NCT03349060|183274488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-6.6|-10.2|<0.0001
91690525|NCT03349060|183274488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.7||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-4.7|0.0096
91690526|NCT03349060|183274488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.2|-9.3|<0.0001
91721811|NCT03034967|183335789|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.76||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|||1.76|0.58|0.973
91721812|NCT03034967|183335789|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.63||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|||1.63|0.53|0.825
91690527|NCT03349060|183274488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.1||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-5.2|0.0049
91721813|NCT03034967|183335789|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.66||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|||1.66|0.55|0.887
91690528|NCT03349060|183274488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.7|-9.0|<0.0001
91690529|NCT03349060|183274489|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0020
91690530|NCT03349060|183274489|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.0|<0.0001
91690531|NCT03349060|183274489|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.7|0.0011
91690532|NCT03349060|183274489|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
91690533|NCT03349060|183274489|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.8|0.0020
91690534|NCT03349060|183274489|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.2|<0.0001
91690535|NCT03349060|183274489|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.8|0.0014
91690536|NCT03349060|183274489|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.3|<0.0001
91690537|NCT03349060|183274490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.0||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.7|0.3|0.0575
91721814|NCT03034967|183335789|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.13||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|||2.13|0.69|0.567
91721815|NCT03034967|183335789|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.2||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|||2.20|0.72|0.501
91863780|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-162.635||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-375.57|50.299|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||50.299|-375.570|0.2176
91690538|NCT03349060|183274490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|10.7|0.0002
91690539|NCT03349060|183274490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.2||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|17.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.1|1.3|0.0411
91904030|NCT04666350|183703143|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.031||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.117|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DMFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in sporozoite prevalence using DMFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.117|-0.178|0.681
91690540|NCT03349060|183274490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|35.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.5|16.9|<0.0001
91690541|NCT03349060|183274490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.9||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|18.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.0|-0.1|0.0781
91690542|NCT03349060|183274490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|36.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.3|16.2|<0.0001
91690543|NCT03349060|183274490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.2||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|23.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.2|5.3|0.0075
91690544|NCT03349060|183274490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|38.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.9|19.6|<0.0001
91690545|NCT03349060|183274491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.034||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.066|0.001|0.0453
91690546|NCT03349060|183274491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.068|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.101|0.036|<0.0001
91690547|NCT03349060|183274491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.025||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.062|-0.012|0.1821
91690548|NCT03349060|183274491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.055||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.092|0.018|0.0038
91690549|NCT03349060|183274491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.048||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.090|0.006|0.0241
91690550|NCT03349060|183274491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.093|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.134|0.051|<0.0001
91690551|NCT03349060|183274491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.044||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.087|0.001|0.0461
91794599|NCT03981822|183468101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0356
91690552|NCT03349060|183274491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.064||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.107|0.021|0.0037
91690553|NCT03349060|183274492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.548||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||8.700|0.397|0.0319
91721816|NCT05258721|183335813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91721817|NCT05258721|183335814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91721818|NCT05258721|183335815|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91721819|NCT02612155|183335840|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
91794318|NCT00591578|183467630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-1.28||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.28|-4.06|<0.001
91690554|NCT03349060|183274492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|8.659|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.496|12.822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||12.822|4.496|<0.0001
91690555|NCT03349060|183274492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.361||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|9.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||9.084|-0.362|0.0702
91690556|NCT03349060|183274492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|10.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.349|14.821|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||14.821|5.349|<0.0001
91690557|NCT03349060|183274492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.045||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|11.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||11.501|0.589|0.0300
91690558|NCT03349060|183274492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.803||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.368|15.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||15.237|4.368|0.0005
91690559|NCT03349060|183274492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|7.569||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.119|13.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||13.019|2.119|0.0067
91690560|NCT03349060|183274492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.374||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.933|14.815|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||14.815|3.933|0.0008
91690561|NCT03349060|183274493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.004||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.130|-0.137|0.9568
91690562|NCT03349060|183274493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.223|-0.042|0.1782
91690563|NCT03349060|183274493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.174||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.347|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.347|0.001|0.0491
91721820|NCT04235374|183335847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91721821|NCT04235374|183335848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91721822|NCT04235374|183335849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91721823|NCT04235374|183335850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91721824|NCT04235374|183335851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91721825|NCT01394276|183335855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0237|||||||Exact binomial proportion test|||||||0.0237
91721826|NCT01394276|183335856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Exact binomial proportion test|||||||0.0003
91721827|NCT01394276|183335868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.4|-0.3|0.8080
91721828|NCT01394276|183335868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 1: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.5|0.4884
91721829|NCT01394276|183335868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 2: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.1|-0.7|0.0947
91721830|NCT01394276|183335868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 4: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.4|0.8181
91721831|NCT01394276|183335868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 6: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.4|0.9721
91721832|NCT01394276|183335868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.5832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 12: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.5|-0.3|0.5832
91721833|NCT01394276|183335869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.4211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|12.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||12.2|-5.1|0.4211
91904031|NCT02374021|183703145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.19|0.79
91690564|NCT03349060|183274493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.284||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.456|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.456|0.112|0.0015
91690565|NCT03349060|183274493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.004||||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.194|-0.185|0.9638
91690566|NCT03349060|183274493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.08||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.270|-0.109|0.4016
91690567|NCT03349060|183274493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.007||||0.9429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.198|-0.184|0.9429
91690568|NCT03349060|183274493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.062||||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.254|-0.130|0.5212
91690569|NCT03349060|183274494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|2.131||||0.6467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.095|11.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||11.358|-7.095|0.6467
91690570|NCT03349060|183274494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|11.549||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.338|20.761|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||20.761|2.338|0.0147
91690571|NCT03349060|183274494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.853||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.453|17.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||17.159|-3.453|0.1894
91690572|NCT03349060|183274494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|16.99||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.699|27.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||27.281|6.699|0.0015
91690573|NCT03349060|183274494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|8.672||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.518|19.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||19.862|-2.518|0.1267
91690574|NCT03349060|183274494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.354||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.866|20.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||20.573|-1.866|0.1009
91690575|NCT03349060|183274494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.071||||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.107|15.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||15.249|-3.107|0.1915
91794319|NCT00591578|183467631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-1.62||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.62|-5.96|<0.001
91690576|NCT03349060|183274494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|12.948||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.754|22.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||22.143|3.754|0.0064
91690577|NCT03349060|183274495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|3.6||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.4||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||6.4|0.9|0.0102
91690578|NCT03349060|183274495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.3||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||7.3|1.8|0.0013
91690579|NCT03349060|183274496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.0||||0.5241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.2||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.2|-2.1|0.5241
91690580|NCT03349060|183274496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.9||||0.5821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.1||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.1|-2.3|0.5821
91690581|NCT03349060|183274497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|3.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.1||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||6.1|1.5|0.0013
91690582|NCT03349060|183274497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.0||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||7.0|2.4|<0.0001
91690583|NCT03349060|183274498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.7||||0.2256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.4||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.4|-1.0|0.2256
91721834|NCT01394276|183335869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.6749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|12.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 1: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||12.1|-7.9|0.6749
91904032|NCT02374021|183703146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.14|0.05
91904033|NCT02374021|183703147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.11|0.05
91904034|NCT02374021|183703148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.20|0.05
91690584|NCT03349060|183274498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|3.0||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.8||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||5.8|0.3|0.0275
91690585|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.7||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||7.7|2.0|<0.0001
91690586|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.6|0.1|<0.0001
91690587|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5||||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.0||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.0|0.8|0.6334
91690588|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.6||||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.6|0.2|0.8065
91690589|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|26.6||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||26.6|3.8|<0.0001
91690590|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.3|0.0|<0.0001
91690591|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.3|0.0|<0.0001
91690592|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.1|0.0|<0.0001
91690593|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.8|0.2|0.0011
91690594|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
91690595|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|2.6||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.9||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||6.9|1.0|0.0718
91690596|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.4||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.0|0.1|0.0593
91690597|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Gemetric mean ratio|0.4||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.0|0.1|0.0593
91690598|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||10.4|2.6|<0.0001
91690599|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|2.2||||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.7||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||5.7|0.8|0.2005
91690600|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|93.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||93.1|13.1|<0.0001
91690601|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.1|0.0|<0.0001
91690602|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|0.0|0.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.1|0.0|<0.0001
91904035|NCT02374021|183703149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.17|0.05
91904036|NCT01825057|183703179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|Kruskal-Wallis|degrees of freedom = 2|mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.0009
91904037|NCT01825057|183703179|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|Kruskal-Wallis|degrees of freedom = 2|mean difference = Order One - See One|||||<0.0001
91721835|NCT01394276|183335869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|15.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 2: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||15.9|-3.0|0.1817
91721836|NCT01394276|183335869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 4: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||11.4|-5.8|0.5182
91863781|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-236.196||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-451.334|-21.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-21.059|-451.334|0.0242
91904038|NCT01825057|183703179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.178||||0.4983|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|degrees of freedom = 2|mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.4983
91904039|NCT01825057|183703180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method.|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.0217
91904040|NCT01825057|183703180|SUPERIORITY|mean difference is Order One - See One|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0126
91904041|NCT01825057|183703180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.4231|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference is Do One - See One|||||0.4231
91904042|NCT01825057|183703181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.0091
91690603|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.4||||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.1|0.2|0.1138
91904043|NCT01825057|183703181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Order One - See One|||||0.0196
91904044|NCT01825057|183703181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.2832|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.2832
91690604|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||18.1|2.5|<0.0001
91690605|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
91690606|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
91690607|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|52.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||52.4|4.9|<0.0001
91690608|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.2|0.0|<0.0001
91690609|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.2|0.0|<0.0001
91690610|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.3|0.3|1.0000
91690611|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.3|0.3|1.0000
91690612|NCT02861586|183274500|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.2|0.3|1.0000
91690613|NCT02861586|183274509|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||2.0|0.4|0.9775
91690614|NCT02861586|183274509|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.3||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||3.1|0.6|0.8366
91690615|NCT02861586|183274509|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||3.6|0.7|0.5625
91721837|NCT01394276|183335869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.7||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|22.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 6: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||22.6|4.9|0.0025
91863782|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-294.281|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-434.513|-154.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-154.050|-434.513|<.0001
91863783|NCT04800211|183616301|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-116.17||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.521|43.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||43.180|-275.521|0.1524
91863784|NCT04800211|183616302|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-32.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.375|-26.208|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-26.208|-39.375|<.0001
91863785|NCT04800211|183616302|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.921|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.398|-18.443|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-18.443|-33.398|<.0001
91904045|NCT01825057|183703182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.1566
91721838|NCT01394276|183335869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|12.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 12: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||12.1|-4.4|0.3540
91721839|NCT01394276|183335870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.2|-0.2|0.7343
91904046|NCT01825057|183703182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Order One - See One|||||0.0982
91721840|NCT01394276|183335870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 1: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.0|-0.4|0.1098
91721841|NCT01394276|183335870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 2: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.2|-0.3|0.4932
91721842|NCT01394276|183335870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.2468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 4: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.1|-0.4|0.2468
91721843|NCT01394276|183335870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 6: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.2|-0.2|0.9639
91721844|NCT01394276|183335870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.6696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 12: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.2|0.6696
91794103|NCT03190369|183466972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.395||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Least-square (LS) means, standard errors (SE) were analyzed from repeated measures ANCOVA.||Least-square (LS) means, standard errors (SE) were analyzed from repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment groups (Hylan G-F 20 and placebo), site, visit and visit by treatment interaction, as well as the baseline WOMAC A1 score as a covariate).||0.395|-0.144|0.3610
91863786|NCT04800211|183616302|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.99|-18.979|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-18.979|-31.990|<.0001
91863787|NCT04800211|183616302|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.899|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.135|-19.663|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-19.663|-34.135|<.0001
91863788|NCT04800211|183616302|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.716|-21.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-21.103|-31.716|<.0001
91863789|NCT04800211|183616302|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.021||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.278|-0.763|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-0.763|-13.278|0.0280
91863790|NCT04800211|183616302|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.902||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.881|1.077|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.077|-12.881|0.0972
91863791|NCT04800211|183616302|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.771|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.189|-14.353|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-14.353|-37.189|<.0001
91904047|NCT01825057|183703182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.6631
91794104|NCT01289782|183466979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR12|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|38.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportions of SVR12 between the treatment groups.||38.6|20.1|<0.001
91794105|NCT01289782|183466980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|38.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVRW72 between the treatment groups.||38.2|19.6|<0.001
91904048|NCT01825057|183703183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||.1327
91904049|NCT01825057|183703183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||||mean difference = Order One - See One|||0.4097
91690616|NCT02861586|183274509|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5||||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||3.5|0.6|0.5924
91690617|NCT02861586|183274509|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.8||||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||4.1|0.8|0.3122
91863792|NCT04800211|183616302|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.019||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.833|-7.205|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-7.205|-32.833|0.0005
91863793|NCT04800211|183616302|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.463||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.825|-7.101|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-7.101|-29.825|0.0002
91904050|NCT01825057|183703183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.8779|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.8779
91721845|NCT04530344|183335871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.99|||Log Rank|The p-value was based on the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor between treatment and vehicle.||Cox regression model stratified by stratification factor (treatment assignment in the parent studies) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.||0.990|0.180|0.0414
91721846|NCT04530344|183335872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.316||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.606|||Log Rank|The p-value was based on the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor between treatment and vehicle.||Cox regression model stratified by stratification factor (treatment assignment in the parent studies) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.||0.606|0.165|0.0003
91721847|NCT01933594|183335899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91721848|NCT01933594|183335900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.94
91721849|NCT01933594|183335900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.74
91721850|NCT01933594|183335900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.18
91721851|NCT01933594|183335900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.16
91721852|NCT01933594|183335901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91721853|NCT01933594|183335902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.9
91721854|NCT01933594|183335902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.07
91721855|NCT01933594|183335902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.88
91721856|NCT01933594|183335902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.92
91721857|NCT01933594|183335903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 6 hours post infusion||||0.44
91721858|NCT01933594|183335903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 12 hours post infusion||||0.024
91721859|NCT01933594|183335903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.37
91721860|NCT01933594|183335903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 14 days post infusion||||0.79
91721861|NCT01933594|183335903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.34
91721862|NCT01933594|183335904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
91721863|NCT01933594|183335905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91721864|NCT01933594|183335906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91721865|NCT01933594|183335908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.19
91721866|NCT01933594|183335908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.63
91721867|NCT01933594|183335908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.94
91721868|NCT01933594|183335908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.66
91721869|NCT01933594|183335908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.17
91721870|NCT01933594|183335909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion||||0.73
91721871|NCT01933594|183335909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 14 days post infusion||||0.9
91721872|NCT01933594|183335910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.8
91721873|NCT01933594|183335910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.73
91721874|NCT01933594|183335910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.84
91690618|NCT02861586|183274509|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||2.8|0.5|0.9665
91690619|NCT04796909|183274528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91690620|NCT04796909|183274529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91690621|NCT04796909|183274530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91690622|NCT04796909|183274531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91690623|NCT04796909|183274532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91690624|NCT04796909|183274533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91690625|NCT04796909|183274534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91690626|NCT04796909|183274535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91690627|NCT04796909|183274536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91690628|NCT04796909|183274537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91690629|NCT00437021|183274543|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.99|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||1.99|0.97|
91690630|NCT00437021|183274544|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.895|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|3.69|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||3.69|2.22|
91690631|NCT00437021|183274552|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.76|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||2.76|1.65|
91690632|NCT00437021|183274553|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|3.59|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||3.59|2.57|
91690633|NCT04162847|183274554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline||1.10|.88|.76
91690634|NCT04162847|183274554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||6 week follow-up||.93|.76|.001
91690635|NCT04162847|183274554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||6 month follow-up||.90|.74|.000
91690636|NCT04162847|183274554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||2 year||.95|.77|.002
91690637|NCT04162847|183274555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|7.5|||Chi-squared|||A comparison of service uptake between the intervention and control groups over the 6-month follow-up period.||7.50|5.98|.000
91690638|NCT04162847|183274555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.04|||Chi-squared|||A secondary analysis using the same criterion for the intervention group (access to the digital intervention during the 6-month follow-up) but expanding the control group definition to include individuals who reported having psychotherapy or starting a new medication at any point during the full 2-year follow-up period.||2.04|1.64|.000
91690639|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PHQ-9 6 week||||.000
91690640|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PHQ-9 6 months||||.000
91690641|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PHQ-9 2 year||||.02
91690642|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||GADQ-IV 6 week||||.002
91690643|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||GADQ-IV 6 month||||.80
91690644|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||GADQ-IV 2 year||||.51
91690645|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||SPDQ 6 week||||.004
91690646|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||SPDQ 6 month||||.02
91690647|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||SPDQ 2 year||||.09
91690648|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PDSR 6 week||||.66
91721875|NCT01933594|183335910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.88
91863794|NCT04800211|183616302|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.997||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.619|-8.375|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-8.375|-33.619|0.0002
91863795|NCT04800211|183616302|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.508|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.061|-11.955|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-11.955|-29.061|<.0001
91863796|NCT04800211|183616302|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.978||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.216|11.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||11.172|-9.216|0.8504
91863797|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.257|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.957|-20.557|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-20.557|-41.957|<.0001
91863798|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-29.862|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.234|-15.491|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-15.491|-44.234|<.0001
91904051|NCT02716675|183703205|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|26.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|51.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|wald|||The primary PE analysis tests the null hypothesis PE equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis PE not equal to zero using a 2-sided alpha equal 0.05 level Wald test of the equality of log cumulative hazard functions at the week 80 visit for the pooled VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||51.8|-11.7|0.15
91794106|NCT01289782|183466981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR24|30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||39.3|20.8|<0.001
91904052|NCT02716675|183703205|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|22.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|52.0||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the low-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||52.0|-25.5|
91904053|NCT02716675|183703205|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|30.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|58.0||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the high-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||58.0|-13.9|
91904054|NCT02716675|183703207|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|73.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|89.9||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant less than 1||89.9|27.6|
91690649|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PDSR 6 month||||.85
91690650|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PDSR 2 year||||.97
91690651|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||EDE-Q Global 6 week||||.000
91690652|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||EDE-Q Global 6 month||||.000
91863799|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.512|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.971|-16.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-16.053|-46.971|<.0001
91863800|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-37.197|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.522|-26.872|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-26.872|-47.522|<.0001
91863801|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.96|-17.923|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-17.923|-44.960|<.0001
91904055|NCT02716675|183703207|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-174.3|67.8||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant 1-3||67.8|-174.3|
91904056|NCT02716675|183703207|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|50.3||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant \> 3||50.3|-68.1|
91690653|NCT04162847|183274556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||EDE-Q Global 2 year||||.54
91690654|NCT04162847|183274557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Mental component summary 6 months||||.48
91794107|NCT01289782|183466982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR4|25.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|34.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR4 between the treatment groups.||34.8|16.8|<0.001
91690655|NCT04162847|183274557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Mental component summary 2 years||||.04
91904057|NCT00290290|183703209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.85|||Log Rank|||The average baseline rate of surgical-site infection at the six participating hospitals was 14% after clean-contaminated surgery with povidone-iodine skin preparation, and we estimated that substituting chlorhexidine-alcohol for povidone-iodine would reduce this rate to 7%. Therefore, we planned to enroll approximately 430 patients in each study group who could be evaluated in order for the study to have 90% power to detect a significant difference in the rates of surgical-site infection.||0.85|0.41|0.004
91904058|NCT02015442|183703210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. treatment period||||0.390
91904059|NCT02015442|183703210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs treatment||||0.204
91904060|NCT02015442|183703211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs treatment||||0.001
91690656|NCT04162847|183274557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Physical component summary 6 months||||.97
91690657|NCT04162847|183274557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Physical component summary 2 years||||.80
91690658|NCT03985800|183274564|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.26||||0.53||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 1.26 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of IBD complexity score does not differ by treatment group.||||0.53
91794108|NCT01289782|183467009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-20.679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0979|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6399|-8.7181|||Piecewise-Linear Model Approach|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC60||-8.7181|-32.6399|<0.001
91904061|NCT02015442|183703211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs treatment||||0.244
91904062|NCT02015442|183703211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.244
91863802|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.597||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.34|-13.853|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-13.853|-43.340|0.0002
91863803|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-30.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.943|-19.166|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-19.166|-40.943|<.0001
91690659|NCT03985800|183274564|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.14||||0.57||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*age interaction term is 1.14 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by age. Null hypothesis: Age does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.57
91863804|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.904||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.37|4.563|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.563|-16.370|0.2667
91863805|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|8.767||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|22.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||22.485|-4.950|0.2085
91904063|NCT00003895|183703213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Post versus Pre-treatment % g209-2M-specific t-cells|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91904064|NCT00003895|183703213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Post versus Pre-Treatment %g209-2M-specific T-cells|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
91904065|NCT00003895|183703213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Arm A Versus Arm B|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91904066|NCT01380730|183703214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.48|-60.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.72|-71.48|<0.001
91721876|NCT01933594|183335910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.64
91721877|NCT01933594|183335918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.34
91721878|NCT01933594|183335918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.004
91721879|NCT01933594|183335918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.022
91690660|NCT03985800|183274564|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.08||||0.96||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*diagnosis interaction term is 0.08 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by diagnosis. Null hypothesis: Diagnosis does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.96
91863806|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|12.455||||0.1041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.595|27.505|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||27.505|-2.595|0.1041
91863807|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.353||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.41|-5.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-5.295|-45.410|0.0058
91863808|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-38.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.062|-12.197|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-12.197|-65.062|0.0010
91863809|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.967||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.443|-15.491|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-15.491|-72.443|0.0005
91690661|NCT03985800|183274564|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|6.41||||0.17||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*site interaction term is 6.41 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by site. Null hypothesis: Site does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.17
91690662|NCT03985800|183274564|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|2.6||||0.27||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*site interaction term is 2.6 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by eHealth literacy. Null hypothesis: eHealth literacy does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.27
91863810|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.293||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.159|-11.428|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-11.428|-51.159|0.0003
91863811|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.209||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.941|-14.477|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-14.477|-65.941|0.0004
91904067|NCT01380730|183703214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.61|-54.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.88|-65.61|<0.001
91690663|NCT03985800|183274565|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.21||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 0.21 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 1. The trajectory of PHQ-ADS does not differ by treatment group.||||0.90
91690664|NCT03985800|183274565|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.21||||0.55||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Aim 2a, moderation by disease activity. Null hypothesis: Disease activity does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.55
91721880|NCT01933594|183335918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.008
91721881|NCT01933594|183335918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 2 weeks post infusion 4||||0.55
91721882|NCT01933594|183335918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 5 weeks post infusion 4||||0.48
91721883|NCT01933594|183335918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.54
91721884|NCT01933594|183335918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 18 weeks post infusion 4||||0.47
91721885|NCT01933594|183335920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.95
91721886|NCT01933594|183335920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.07
91721887|NCT01933594|183335920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.26
91721888|NCT01933594|183335921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.89
91721889|NCT01933594|183335921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.14
91721890|NCT01933594|183335921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.74
91721891|NCT01933594|183335922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.71
91721892|NCT01933594|183335922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.79
91721893|NCT01933594|183335922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.38
91721894|NCT01933594|183335923|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||1
91721895|NCT01933594|183335923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.92
91721896|NCT01933594|183335923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.66
91721897|NCT01933594|183335924|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||1
91721898|NCT01933594|183335924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.9
91721899|NCT01933594|183335924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.47
91721900|NCT01933594|183335925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.63
91690665|NCT03985800|183274565|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.37||||0.5||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*age interaction term is 1.37 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by age. Null hypothesis: Age does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.50
91690666|NCT03985800|183274565|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|5.16||||0.08||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*diagnosis interaction term is 5.16 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by diagnosis. Null hypothesis: Diagnosis does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.08
91690667|NCT03985800|183274565|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.11||||1||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*site interaction term is 0.11 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by site. Null hypothesis: Site does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||1.0
91690668|NCT03985800|183274565|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|3.23||||0.2||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*eHealth literacy interaction term is 3.23 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by eHealth literacy. Null hypothesis: eHealth literacy does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.20
91690669|NCT03985800|183274566|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|3.09||||0.53||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 3.09 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of functional impairment does not differ by treatment group.||||0.53
91690670|NCT03985800|183274567|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|6.01||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 6.01 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of IBD-IBS symptom severity does not differ by treatment group.||||0.05
91690671|NCT03985800|183274568|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|4.14||||0.13||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|For hospitalizations, the Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 4.14 with two degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of hospitalizations does not differ by treatment group.||||0.13
91690672|NCT03985800|183274568|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.82||||0.67||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|For ED visits, the Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 0.82 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of ED visits does not differ by treatment group.||||0.67
91690673|NCT03985800|183274569|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.98||||0.37||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 1.98 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of self-efficacy does not differ by treatment group.||||0.37
91690674|NCT03985800|183274570|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|5.57||||0.06||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 5.57 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of quality of life does not differ by treatment group.||||0.06
91721901|NCT01933594|183335925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||hange from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.51
91690675|NCT05258773|183274574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-11.0||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.9||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to assess changes from baseline at 500Hz at the Day 49 visit comparing the treatment groups.The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||3.9|-25.9|0.1406
91690676|NCT05258773|183274574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-14.4||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.24|0.45||An ANCOVA model was used to assess changes from baseline at the average across three frequencies (250-750 Hz) at the Day 49 visit comparing the treatment groups. The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||0.45|-29.24|0.0567
91721902|NCT01933594|183335925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.028
91794109|NCT01289782|183467009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2358|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9931|-9.6064|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC72||-9.6064|-37.9931|<0.001
91794110|NCT01289782|183467010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-230.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.9203||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-438.2662|-22.6626|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC60||-22.6626|-438.2662|0.030
91863812|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-41.052||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.965|-13.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-13.138|-68.965|0.0011
91904068|NCT01380730|183703214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.18|-36.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.45|-47.18|<0.001
91904069|NCT01380730|183703214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.04|-44.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-44.62|-56.04|<0.001
91690677|NCT05258773|183274574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-9.0||||0.2588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.1||An ANCOVA model was used to assess changes from baseline at 500Hz at EOS on Day 105 comparing the treatment groups.The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||7.1|-25.0|0.2588
91690678|NCT05258773|183274574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-13.84||||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.49|2.8||An ANCOVA model was used to assess changes from baseline at the average across three frequencies (250-750 Hz) at EOS on Day 105, comparing the treatment groups. The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||2.80|-30.49|0.0979
91690679|NCT05277922|183274576|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8313|1.2025||||||||1.2025|0.8313|
91690680|NCT05277922|183274576|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0355|1.4979||||||||1.4979|1.0355|
91690681|NCT05277922|183274576|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0304|1.4904||||||||1.4904|1.0304|
91690682|NCT05277922|183274576|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0305|1.4906||||||||1.4906|1.0305|
91690683|NCT05277922|183274576|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8273|1.1967||||||||1.1967|0.8273|
91690684|NCT05277922|183274576|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.252|1.811||||||||1.8110|1.2520|
91690685|NCT05277922|183274576|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2522|1.8113||||||||1.8113|1.2522|
91690686|NCT05277922|183274576|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0053|1.4541||||||||1.4541|1.0053|
91690687|NCT05277922|183274576|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0103|1.4614||||||||1.4614|1.0103|
91690688|NCT05277922|183274576|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0357|1.4981||||||||1.4981|1.0357|
91721903|NCT01933594|183335926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.62
91721904|NCT01933594|183335926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.15
91721905|NCT01933594|183335926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.69
91794111|NCT01289782|183467010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-248.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.6753||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-492.8253|-3.5916|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC72||-3.5916|-492.8253|0.047
91904070|NCT01380730|183703214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.69|-44.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-44.31|-55.69|<0.001
91690689|NCT01730053|183274652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-34.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-49.2|-19.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alirocumab group was compared to the corresponding active control group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-19.3|-49.2|<0.0001
91690690|NCT01730053|183274652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-51.5|-20.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||-20.7|-51.5|<0.0001
91690691|NCT01730053|183274652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.3|||=|0.0453|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-45.8|5.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||5.1|-45.8|=0.0453
91690692|NCT01730053|183274652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|||=|0.0136|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-50.9|0.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||0.3|-50.9|=0.0136
91690693|NCT01730053|183274653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-47.4|-23.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1.25 % level.||-23.0|-47.4|<0.0001
91690694|NCT01730053|183274653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-45.9|-20.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-20.5|-45.9|<0.0001
91690695|NCT01730053|183274653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|||=|0.0131|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-49.2|0.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||0.2|-49.2|=0.0131
91690696|NCT01730053|183274654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-47.4|-17.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-17.9|-47.4|<0.0001
91690697|NCT01730053|183274654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-47.0|-17.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.5|-47|<0.0001
91690698|NCT01730053|183274655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-48.2|-22.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-22.5|-48.2|<0.0001
91690699|NCT01730053|183274655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-45.6|-19.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-19.0|-45.6|<0.0001
91690700|NCT01730053|183274656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-40.1|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-18.3|-40.1|<0.0001
91690701|NCT01730053|183274656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-37.9|-15.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.7|-37.9|<0.0001
91690702|NCT01730053|183274657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-30.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-40.1|-21.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-21.3|-40.1|<0.0001
91690703|NCT01730053|183274657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-38.0|-18.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.7|-38.0|<0.0001
91690704|NCT01730053|183274658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-43.9|-18.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-18.9|-43.9|<0.0001
91690705|NCT01730053|183274658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-42.1|-16.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.4|-42.1|<0.0001
91690706|NCT01730053|183274659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-43.2|-22.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-22.4|-43.2|<0.0001
91690707|NCT01730053|183274659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-39.1|-17.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.3|-39.1|<0.0001
91794112|NCT01289782|183467011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Differences|-278.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.6088||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-485.2529|-70.8668|||Piecewise linear model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC60||-70.8668|-485.2529|0.009
91690708|NCT01730053|183274660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-29.4|-11.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-11.8|-29.4|<0.0001
91690709|NCT01730053|183274660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-29.3|-11.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.2|-29.3|<0.0001
91690710|NCT01730053|183274661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-39.7|-16.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-16.5|-39.7|<0.0001
91690711|NCT01730053|183274661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-35.7|-12.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.3|-35.7|<0.0001
91690712|NCT01730053|183274662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-42.1|-16.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-16.9|-42.1|<0.0001
91690713|NCT01730053|183274662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-37.7|-12.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.2|-37.7|<0.0001
91690714|NCT01730053|183274663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-29.4|-10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-10.7|-29.4|<0.0001
91690715|NCT01730053|183274663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-26.7|-7.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.7|-26.7|<0.0001
91690716|NCT01730053|183274664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.6|59.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||59.5|2.6|<0.0001
91690717|NCT01730053|183274664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.4|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.8|40.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||40.5|1.8|=0.0007
91690718|NCT01730053|183274665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.58|88.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||88.2|2.58|<0.0001
91690719|NCT01730053|183274665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.9|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.7|56.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||56.7|1.7|=0.001
91690720|NCT01730053|183274666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|3.6|96.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||96.2|3.6|<0.0001
91690721|NCT01730053|183274666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.5|53.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||53.1|2.5|<0.0001
91690722|NCT01730053|183274667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.4|67.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||67.7|2.4|<0.0001
91794113|NCT01289782|183467011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-307.722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.1956||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-551.4006|-64.0429|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC72||-64.0429|-551.4006|0.013
91690723|NCT01730053|183274667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.7|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.4|67.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||67.7|2.4|=0.0002
91690724|NCT01730053|183274668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-38.6|-9.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-9.1|-38.6|<0.0001
91690725|NCT01730053|183274668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.6|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-39.0|-8.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Robust|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.2|-39.0|=0.0001
91721906|NCT01933594|183335927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.28
91721907|NCT01933594|183335927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.15
91794114|NCT01289782|183467012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|46.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|99.7966||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.6374|242.436|||Piecewise linear model|||Time Missed from Work AUC60||242.4360|-149.6374|0.642
91904071|NCT01380730|183703214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55|-36.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.13|-47.55|<0.001
91690726|NCT01730053|183274669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|7.4|||=|0.0311|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-1.2|16.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||16.1|-1.2|=0.0311
91690727|NCT04231825|183274723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
91690728|NCT04231825|183274724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
91690729|NCT04231825|183274725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.80
91690730|NCT04231825|183274726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91690731|NCT04231825|183274727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91690732|NCT03207776|183274732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.64|0.041
91690733|NCT03207776|183274733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.42|0.69|0.952
91690734|NCT03207776|183274734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|0.71|0.472
91690735|NCT03207776|183274735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.77|0.74|0.544
91690736|NCT01836471|183274746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.7269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.5|0.7269
91690737|NCT01836471|183274747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least sqares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.08|
91690738|NCT01836471|183274747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.04|
91690739|NCT01836471|183274747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.13|
91690740|NCT01836471|183274748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9179
91690741|NCT01836471|183274749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.17||||||||0.17|-0.22|
91690742|NCT01836471|183274749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least sqares mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.19||||||||0.19|-0.32|
91690743|NCT01836471|183274749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.16|
91690744|NCT01836471|183274749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.43|
91690745|NCT01836471|183274750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7930
91690746|NCT02069015|183274784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.781|6.906|||paired t-test|||||6.906|-4.781|<0.001
91690747|NCT05921903|183274805|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.48|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 2.||5.48|2.26|
91690748|NCT05921903|183274805|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.04|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 3.||2.04|1.28|
91690749|NCT05921903|183274806|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.69|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_IC\_2/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effect, and SOT type and baseline log10-transformed titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_2 group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 4.||1.69|0.94|
91690750|NCT05921903|183274807|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.68|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 4.||1.68|1.01|
91721908|NCT01933594|183335927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.81
91721909|NCT01933594|183335928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.13
91721910|NCT01933594|183335928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.22
91721911|NCT01933594|183335928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.031
91721912|NCT01933594|183335929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.13
91690751|NCT05921903|183274808|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_2) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_2 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 4.||1.30|0.80|
91721913|NCT01933594|183335929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.39
91721914|NCT01933594|183335929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.12
91721915|NCT01933594|183335930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.7
91721916|NCT01933594|183335930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.51
91721917|NCT01933594|183335930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.94
91721918|NCT01933594|183335931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.78
91721919|NCT01933594|183335931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.41
91794115|NCT01289782|183467012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|57.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|115.1548||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.1143|283.4414|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Time Missed from Work AUC72||283.4414|-169.1143|0.620
91794116|NCT00048061|183467067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The monthly dosing regimen (Ibandronate 50/50 mg monthly) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.615||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|1.216|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the monthly oral dose regimens (Ibandronate 50/50) and the active-control.|||1.216|0.013|0.045
91794117|NCT00048061|183467067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The monthly dosing regimen (Ibandronate 100 mg) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.906|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the monthly oral dose regimens (Ibandronate 100 mg) and the active-control|||0.906|-0.312|0.338
91904072|NCT01380730|183703215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-71.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-71.5|-87.0|<0.001
91721920|NCT01933594|183335931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.94
91721921|NCT01933594|183335932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pNFKB+% on CD4||||0.69
91721922|NCT01933594|183335932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pS175% on CD4||||0.27
91904073|NCT01380730|183703215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.2|-69.6||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-69.6|-85.2|<0.001
91721923|NCT01933594|183335933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pNFKB+% on CD8||||0.81
91721924|NCT01933594|183335933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pS175% on CD8||||0.81
91721925|NCT01933594|183335934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.37
91721926|NCT01933594|183335934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.1
91721927|NCT01933594|183335934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.28
91721928|NCT01933594|183335934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.16
91721929|NCT01933594|183335934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.12
91721930|NCT01933594|183335935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.027
91721931|NCT01933594|183335935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.004
91721932|NCT01933594|183335935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.1
91721933|NCT01933594|183335935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.022
91721934|NCT01933594|183335935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.17
91721935|NCT04478266|183335953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.209||||0.9304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|1.557||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025 level.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on presence of De-novo metastatic disease, Postmenopausal women and Visceral metastasis according to IRT.|Letrozole + Palbociclib versus Amcenestrant + Palbociclib|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to ensure a strong control of the overall Type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at one-sided 2.5% for the primary and the first secondary outcome.||1.557|0.939|0.9304
91721936|NCT04058717|183335970|OTHER||H-statistic|10.23||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
91721937|NCT04058717|183335971|OTHER||H-statistic|7.57||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.056
91721938|NCT04058717|183335972|OTHER||H-statistic|1.26||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.74
91721939|NCT04058717|183335973|OTHER||Slope|4.13||||0.248|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.248
91721940|NCT04058717|183335974|OTHER||H-statistic|9.33||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.025
91721941|NCT04058717|183335975|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.289
91863813|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-42.509|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.902|-24.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-24.116|-60.902|<.0001
91690752|NCT05921903|183274810|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|4.98|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 2.||4.98|2.28|
91690753|NCT05921903|183274810|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.13|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 3.||2.13|1.32|
91690754|NCT05921903|183274811|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.7|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_IC\_2/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effect, and SOT type and baseline log10-transformed titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_2 group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 4.||1.70|0.97|
91690755|NCT05921903|183274812|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.65|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 4.||1.65|1.00|
91690756|NCT05921903|183274813|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_2) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_2 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 4.||1.26|0.80|
91690757|NCT02301169|183274841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by weekly means of the daily Average Pain Score (APS), T4P1001 compared with placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3748299||||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5479411|1.297601||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||1.2976010|-0.5479411|0.4162
91690758|NCT02301169|183274842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by weekly means of the daily Worst Pain Score (WPS), T4P1001 compared with placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1255102||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8152493|1.0662697||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||1.0662697|-0.8152493|0.7887
91690759|NCT02301169|183274843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by Investigator Global Assessment of Change, T4P1001 compared with Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.802381||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5457743|2.1505362||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||2.1505362|-0.5457743|0.2353
91690760|NCT02301169|183274844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain intensity measured after heat pain stimuli, T4P1001 compared with placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7656429||||0.06204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0406744|1.5719601||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||1.5719601|-0.0406744|0.06204
91794320|NCT00591578|183467631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|-2.24||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.24|-6.63|<0.001
91690761|NCT02301169|183274845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), T4P1001 compared with placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.683333||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83119|5.197857||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||5.197857|-1.831190|0.3386
91690762|NCT03762265|183274846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.535||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.037|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test stratified by disease type (PV or PF) and disease history (newly diagnosed \[\<=6 months prior to screening\] or relapsing \[diagnosed greater than \[\>\] 6 months prior to screening\]).||20.500|-9.037|0.4469
91794118|NCT00048061|183467067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The monthly dosing regimen (Ibandronate 150 mg) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.605|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the monthly oral dose regimens (Ibandronate 150 mg) and the active-control.|||1.605|0.395|0.001
91794119|NCT01262352|183467085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.069||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a mixed effect model. The model included the absolute change from the baseline in each period as the dependent variable, sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, study baseline LCI as the covariate, and subject nested within sequence as the random effect.||-1.15|-2.98|0.0004
91863814|NCT04800211|183616303|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.915||||0.7835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.855|18.025|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||18.025|-23.855|0.7835
91690763|NCT03762265|183274847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.085||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.752|22.019|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value and 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test stratified by disease type (PV or PF) and disease history (newly diagnosed \[\<=6 months prior to screening\] or relapsing \[diagnosed \>6 months prior to screening\]).||22.019|-5.752|0.2510
91690764|NCT02289729|183274908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91690765|NCT02289729|183274909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91690766|NCT02289729|183274910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91690767|NCT02289729|183274911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91690768|NCT02289729|183274912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0328|||||||t-test|||||||0.0328
91690769|NCT02289729|183274913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4183|||||||t-test|||||||0.4183
91690770|NCT02289729|183274914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91690771|NCT02289729|183274915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test|||||||0.0003
91690772|NCT02289729|183274916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109|||||||t-test|||||||0.0109
91690773|NCT02289729|183274917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test|||||||0.0002
91690774|NCT02289729|183274918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91690775|NCT02289729|183274919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0002
91690776|NCT02289729|183274920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91690777|NCT02289729|183274921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038|||||||t-test|||||||0.0038
91690778|NCT02289729|183274922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
91690779|NCT02289729|183274923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0274|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0274
91690780|NCT02289729|183274924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
91690781|NCT02289729|183274925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test|||||||0.0006
91690782|NCT02289729|183274926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0010
91690783|NCT02289729|183274927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test|||||||0.0002
91690784|NCT02289729|183274928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0297|||||||t-test|||||||0.0297
91690785|NCT02289729|183274929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0279|||||||t-test|||||||0.0279
91690786|NCT02289729|183274930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2777|||||||t-test|||||||0.2777
91690787|NCT02289729|183274931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||t-test|||||||0.0047
91690788|NCT02289729|183274932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test|||||||0.0003
91690789|NCT02289729|183274933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.5877|||||||t-test|||||||<0.5877
91690790|NCT02289729|183274934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test|||||||0.0002
91690791|NCT02289729|183274935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<0.0001
91690792|NCT02289729|183274936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91690793|NCT02289729|183274937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
91690794|NCT02289729|183274938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91690795|NCT02289729|183274939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||0.0001
91690796|NCT02289729|183274940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
91690797|NCT02289729|183274941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2428|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.2428
91690798|NCT02289729|183274942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0687|||||||t-test|||||||0.0687
91690799|NCT02289729|183274943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3126|||||||t-test|||||||0.3126
91690800|NCT02289729|183274944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1533|||||||t-test|||||||0.1533
91690801|NCT02289729|183274945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8145|||||||t-test|||||||0.8145
91690802|NCT02289729|183274946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4048|||||||t-test|||||||0.4048
91721942|NCT02799602|183335977|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.801||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.801|0.568|<0.0001
91721943|NCT02799602|183335980|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.357|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|0.421||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.421|0.302|<0.0001
91721944|NCT02799602|183335982|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.792||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.950|0.660|0.0058
91721945|NCT02799602|183335984|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.609|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|0.718||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.718|0.516|<0.0001
91721946|NCT02799602|183335986|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.712||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.94||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.940|0.539|0.0081
91721947|NCT02799602|183335988|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio, log|0.388|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.458||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.458|0.328|<0.0001
91794600|NCT03981822|183468101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1477|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1477
91904074|NCT01380730|183703215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-43.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.0|-58.5|<0.001
91904075|NCT01380730|183703215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|-53.7||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-53.7|-68.6|<0.001
91690803|NCT02289729|183274947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8321|||||||t-test|||||||0.8321
91690804|NCT02289729|183274948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1945|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.1945
91690805|NCT02289729|183274949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7937|||||||t-test|||||||0.7937
91690806|NCT02289729|183274950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0234|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0234
91690807|NCT02289729|183274951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5922|||||||t-test|||||||0.5922
91690808|NCT02289729|183274952|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test|||||||1.000
91690809|NCT02289729|183274953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6481|||||||t-test|||||||0.6481
91690810|NCT02289729|183274954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6741|||||||t-test|||||||0.6741
91690811|NCT02289729|183274955|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.27846||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014175|0.495059|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-III||0.495059|0.014175|0.0389
91690812|NCT02289729|183274955|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.07359||||0.5852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188409|0.32558|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-IV||0.325580|-0.188409|0.5852
91690813|NCT02289729|183274955|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.21311||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051127|0.444152|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NMSS||0.444152|-0.051127|0.1140
91690814|NCT02289729|183274955|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.29062||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026334|0.504186|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BAI||0.504186|0.026334|0.0311
91690815|NCT02289729|183274955|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.49952||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.230995|0.643312|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BDI-II||0.643312|0.230995|0.0002
91721948|NCT02799602|183335990|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.043||||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.217||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|1.217|0.894|0.7073
91721949|NCT02799602|183335992|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.688||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|0.906||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.906|0.523|0.0037
91721950|NCT06006208|183335994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.275
91904076|NCT01380730|183703215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|-53.7||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-53.7|-68.5|<0.001
91904077|NCT01380730|183703215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-43.1||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.1|-58.0|<0.001
91904078|NCT01380730|183703216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.37|-56.43||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-56.43|-66.37|<0.001
91904079|NCT01380730|183703216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.37|-50.47||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.47|-60.37|<0.001
91904080|NCT01380730|183703216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.39|-33.48||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-33.48|-43.39|<0.001
91690816|NCT02289729|183274955|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.08869||||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176169|0.341163|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with AS||0.341163|-0.176169|0.5146
91690817|NCT02289729|183274955|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.34688||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079996|0.546657|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with PFS||0.546657|0.079996|0.0108
91690818|NCT02289729|183274955|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.22455||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042139|0.455224|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL A-S||0.455224|-0.042139|0.0989
91690819|NCT02289729|183274955|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.35742||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106797|0.565335|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-D||0.565335|0.106797|0.0060
91721951|NCT06006208|183335995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.891
91690820|NCT02289729|183274955|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.00011||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.260462|0.260673|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-R||0.260673|-0.260462|0.9993
91690821|NCT02289729|183274955|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.36687||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565795|-0.092154|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with ZBI||-0.092154|-0.565795|0.0088
91690822|NCT02289729|183274955|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.21643||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057959|0.454911|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Anxiety||0.454911|-0.057959|0.1222
91690823|NCT02289729|183274955|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.57423||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.180247|0.74704|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Depression||0.747040|0.180247|0.0041
91690824|NCT02289729|183274956|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.31946||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042257|0.534657|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-III||0.534657|0.042257|0.0239
91721952|NCT01101178|183336037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.21|114.47|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval fell within 80%-125%.|||114.47|105.21|
91721953|NCT01101178|183336038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.71|96.64|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval fell within 80%-125%.|||96.64|92.71|
91904081|NCT01380730|183703216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.72|-42.44||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-42.44|-52.72|<0.001
91904082|NCT01380730|183703216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.92|-40.67||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.67|-50.92|<0.001
91904083|NCT01380730|183703216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|-32.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-32.65|-42.94|<0.001
91904084|NCT01380730|183703217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.28|-51.61||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.61|-61.28|<0.001
91721954|NCT01101178|183336039|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|97.02|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.02|92.90|
91721955|NCT03907488|183336061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||One sided P-value|Log Rank|||The primary analysis of PFS used a stratified log rank test statistic and is reported as two-sided test. Stratified Cox regression was used to estimate treatment hazard ratios for treatment effect. 95% two-sided intervals are reported. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate PFS curves.||||<0.005
91721956|NCT04338581|183336097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of F-VASI35 Responders between the two treatment groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The p-value compares AMG 714 and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.411
91721957|NCT00770809|183336105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Participants were stratified by clinical stage (II vs III) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||||0.13
91721958|NCT00770809|183336105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|||||Participants were stratified by clinical stage (II vs III) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||||0.072
91721959|NCT03834168|183336112|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression (Cosinor Fit)|||||||0.003
91690825|NCT02289729|183274956|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.36796||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.090528|0.568388|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-IV||0.568388|0.090528|0.0093
91721960|NCT03834168|183336112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91721961|NCT00770367|183336115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A twosample comparison of mean treatment differences conducted using a pre-determined significance level of alpha level \<0.05. 2 a comparison of means for NOx levels at 12 weeks b/w groups. 3 on the change F2-isoprostanes at 12 weeks b/w groups.||||.37
91721962|NCT00435942|183336117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The proportion of subjects in the Effectiveness sample who were free from major device-related AEs at 1-year post-procedure was compared against a performance goal of 0.80 using a 1-sided z-test (normal approximation to the binomial) at an alpha level of 0.025. Rejection of the null hypothesis would provide evidence that this performance goal (proportion-free greater than 0.80) was met.|Proportion free|0.97|||>|0.8|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.93||||1-sided z-test|97.5% 1-sided confidence interval||The proportion of subjects in the Effectiveness sample who were free from major device-related AEs at 1-year post-procedure was compared against a performance goal of 0.80 using a 1-sided z-test (normal approximation to the binomial) at an alpha level of 0.025. Rejection of the null hypothesis would provide evidence that this performance goal (proportion-free greater than 0.80) was met.|||.93|>0.80
91690826|NCT02289729|183274956|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.38627||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105875|0.582517|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NMSS||0.582517|0.105875|0.0069
91721963|NCT01033136|183336198|EQUIVALENCE|To test if MCET is equivalent to CPT in decreasing PTSD symptoms, we test the equivalence of the proportion of patients whose CAPS scores decrease by 10 from baseline, by testing whether the difference in proportions between the 2 interventions ≤ to the equivalence margin δb of .20. Results are reported based on 3-month follow-up data.||||||0.3||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p \<.05 and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
91794120|NCT01262352|183467086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.007||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.21||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for this efficacy variable was performed in a similar way as the analysis for the primary efficacy variable.||12.21|1.80|0.0117
91690827|NCT02289729|183274956|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.70289|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.40173|0.753097|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BAI||0.753097|0.401730|< 0.0001
91721964|NCT01033136|183336199|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p \<.05 and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 2, 54||Longitudinal analysis of PDSS scores||||0.68
91721965|NCT05383209|183336200|OTHER||Difference in response percentage|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|13.4||||||||13.4|-24.9|
91721966|NCT05383209|183336200|OTHER||Slope|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|20.6||||||||20.6|-20.6|
91721967|NCT05383209|183336201|OTHER||Difference in response percentage|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|26.0||||||||26.0|-13.2|
91721968|NCT02313155|183336217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.858|11.592|||||Seroconversion rate difference between treatment groups was obtained by subtracting the value of TAK-850 I.M. from TAK-850 S.C.|A/H1N1 Strain||11.592|-24.858|
91794121|NCT01262352|183467087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.848|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.54|-38.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for change from baseline in average sweat chloride was similar to the analysis of the primary efficacy variable.||-38.16|-53.54|<0.0001
91690828|NCT02289729|183274956|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.63758|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345567|0.72341|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BDI-II||0.723410|0.345567|<0.0001
91690829|NCT02289729|183274956|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.24114||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036024|0.476404|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with AS||0.476404|-0.036024|0.0882
91690830|NCT02289729|183274956|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.67113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374757|0.739016|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with PFS||0.739016|0.374757|< 0.0001
91690831|NCT02289729|183274956|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.60612|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317572|0.708072|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL A-S||0.708072|0.317572|< 0.0001
91721969|NCT02313155|183336217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.779|2.87|||||Seroconversion rate difference between treatment groups was obtained by subtracting the value of TAK-850 I.M. from TAK-850 S.C.|A/H3N2 Strain||2.870|-33.779|
91721970|NCT02313155|183336217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.048|6.547|||||Seroconversion rate difference between treatment groups was obtained by subtracting the value of TAK-850 I.M. from TAK-850 S.C.|B Strain||6.547|-30.048|
91721971|NCT00933933|183336247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|99.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.62|99.88|||Exact binomial|||||99.88|99.62|
91721972|NCT00933933|183336248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.31|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|94.31|
91721973|NCT00933933|183336248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.63|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|99.63|
91690832|NCT02289729|183274956|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.60613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31758|0.708076|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-D||0.708076|0.317580|< 0.0001
91690833|NCT02289729|183274956|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.41143||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133445|0.597087|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-R||0.597087|0.133445|0.0036
91690834|NCT02289729|183274956|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.33661||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557217|-0.044411|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with ZBI||-0.044411|-0.557217|0.0239
91690835|NCT02289729|183274956|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.64565|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339454|0.734221|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Anxiety||0.734221|0.339454|< 0.0001
91863815|NCT04800211|183616304|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.769||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.228|-0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)||-0.309|-1.228|0.0002
91690836|NCT02289729|183274956|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.10898||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427482|0.588111|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Depression||0.588111|-0.427482|0.7058
91690837|NCT02289729|183274957|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.57271|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689585|-0.289724|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with ZBI||-0.289724|-0.689585|< 0.0001
91690838|NCT02289729|183274957|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.16332||||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504489|0.224771|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Anxiety||0.224771|-0.504489|0.4142
91690839|NCT02289729|183274957|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.48143||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.715956|-0.063481|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Depression||-0.063481|-0.715956|0.0239
91690840|NCT02289729|183274957|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.06326||||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.210715|0.327872|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL A-S||0.327872|-0.210715|0.6546
91690841|NCT02289729|183274957|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.17674||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.100105|0.425116|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-D||0.425116|-0.100105|0.2114
91690842|NCT02289729|183274957|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.2944||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017222|0.516523|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-R||0.516523|0.017222|0.0374
91721974|NCT00933933|183336248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.18|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|98.18|
91794321|NCT00591578|183467632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-0.53||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-3.48|0.008
91904085|NCT01380730|183703217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.97|-45.33||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.33|-54.97|<0.001
91904086|NCT01380730|183703217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.56|-29.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.92|-39.56|<0.001
91690843|NCT02289729|183274957|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.36687||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565795|-0.092154|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global PDQ-39||-0.092154|-0.565795|0.0088
91690844|NCT02289729|183274957|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.13433||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387439|0.139207|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-III||0.139207|-0.387439|0.3374
91690845|NCT02289729|183274957|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.17846||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095693|0.424291|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-IV||0.424291|-0.095693|0.2025
91690846|NCT02289729|183274957|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.01625||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252613|0.282777|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global NMSS||0.282777|-0.252613|0.9076
91690847|NCT02289729|183274958|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.7468|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.777482|-0.425693|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with ZBI||-0.425693|-0.777482|< 0.0001
91690848|NCT02289729|183274958|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.17924||||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368382|0.632178|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Anxiety||0.632178|-0.368382|0.5347
91690849|NCT02289729|183274958|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.06987||||0.8251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597767|0.500464|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Depression||0.500464|-0.597767|0.8251
91690850|NCT02289729|183274958|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.1106||||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382323|0.179601|||Fisher's z transformation|||SQLC with NBL A-S||0.179601|-0.382323|0.4581
91690851|NCT02289729|183274958|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.00326||||0.9826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281136|0.287128|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-D||0.287128|-0.281136|0.9826
91690852|NCT02289729|183274958|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.10293||||0.4899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375749|0.187021|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-R||0.187021|-0.375749|0.4899
91690853|NCT02289729|183274958|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.33661||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557217|-0.044411|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global PDQ-39||-0.044411|-0.557217|0.0239
91690854|NCT02289729|183274958|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.23658||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.484427|0.055538|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-III||0.055538|-0.484427|0.1125
91690855|NCT02289729|183274958|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.13015||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.398887|0.16062|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-IV||0.160620|-0.398887|0.3826
91690856|NCT02289729|183274958|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.11688||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176724|0.390468|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global NMSS||0.390468|-0.176724|0.4382
91690857|NCT03123068|183274969|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||>0.05
91690858|NCT02845700|183274977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|2 (time) x 2 (group) x 5 (dilution %) repeated measures ANOVA||||||.08
91690859|NCT02845700|183274978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(4) = -1.19, p = .39||Post-hoc estimates of observed power for the difference between group means was calculated to be .15.||||.39
91721975|NCT00933933|183336249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.18|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|99.18|
91721976|NCT00933933|183336249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.48|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|94.48|
91690860|NCT02845700|183274981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(4) = 0.66, p = .54||Post-hoc estimates of observed power for the difference between group means was calculated to be .08.||||.54
91690861|NCT02452476|183274992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.44|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||"Day 1, 30 min post dose.~SpO2/FiO2 and FiO2 (%) over the first 24 hours: analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, investigational site and gestational age (GA) group as fixed effects, and predose values as covariates. The adjusted mean difference between treatments, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at each timepoint and averaged over the first 24 hours were estimated by the model."||0.44|-0.40|0.930
91690862|NCT02452476|183274992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 1 h post dose||0.21|-0.59|0.346
91690863|NCT02452476|183274992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 3 h post dose||0.23|-0.43|0.549
91690864|NCT02452476|183274992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 6 h post dose||0.23|-0.43|0.539
91690865|NCT02452476|183274992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 12 h post dose||0.43|-0.21|0.491
91690866|NCT02452476|183274992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 18 h post dose||0.37|-0.22|0.623
91690867|NCT02452476|183274992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 24 h post dose||0.43|-0.25|0.608
91690868|NCT02452476|183274992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 2, post dose~SpO2/FiO2 was compared between treatments at the remaining post-treatment time points (i.e., Days 2, 3, 5, 7): analyzed using mixed model including treatment, investigational site and gestational age group as fixed effects and pre-dose ratio as covariate."||0.30|-0.35|0.869
91690869|NCT02452476|183274992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3, post dose||0.31|-0.38|0.833
91690870|NCT02452476|183274992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5, post dose||0.29|-0.39|0.772
91690871|NCT02452476|183274992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, post dose||0.35|-0.33|0.963
91690872|NCT02452476|183274993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|3.99|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 30 min post dose||3.99|-7.87|0.519
91690873|NCT02452476|183274993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|6.93|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 1 h post dose||6.93|-2.04|0.282
91690874|NCT02452476|183274993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|4.86|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 3 h post dose||4.86|-4.04|0.854
91690875|NCT02452476|183274993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.19|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 6 h post dose||4.19|-5.00|0.861
91690876|NCT02452476|183274993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 12 h post dose||0.70|-6.24|0.117
91690877|NCT02452476|183274993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|0.94|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 18 h post dose||0.94|-4.79|0.185
91721977|NCT00933933|183336250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|99.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.06|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|99.06|
91721978|NCT00933933|183336250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.4|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|94.40|
91690878|NCT02452476|183274993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|3.8|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 24 h post dose||3.80|-5.82|0.678
91690879|NCT02452476|183274993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 2, post dose~SpO2/FiO2 was compared between treatments at the remaining post-treatment time points (i.e., Days 2, 3, 5, 7): analyzed using mixed model including treatment, investigational site and gestational age group as fixed effects and pre-dose ratio as covariate."||3.67|-3.49|0.961
91690880|NCT02452476|183274993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3, post dose||3.46|-6.53|0.544
91690881|NCT02452476|183274993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|6.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5, post dose||6.76|-3.28|0.492
91690882|NCT02452476|183274993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, post dose||6.36|-3.90|0.634
91690883|NCT02452476|183274994|SUPERIORITY|Mortality or BPD incidence at 36-week PMA was compared by treatment, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH), adjusting for stratification gestational age (GA) group. Relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval are also provided.|Relative risk|1.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 PMA Incidence of BPD||1.32|0.81|0.811
91690884|NCT02452476|183274994|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 PMA Incidence of Mortality/BPD||1.25|0.81|0.972
91690885|NCT02452476|183274994|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.74||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 PMA Mortality||2.42|0.23|0.619
91690886|NCT02452476|183274994|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.46||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|6.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28 PNA Mortality||6.09|0.35|0.602
91721979|NCT01532089|183336252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.31|||Log Rank|Comparisons of PFS between arms were conducted using a stratified log-rank test.||||1.31|0.50|0.39
91721980|NCT01532089|183336253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.81|||Log Rank|||||2.81|0.71|0.33
91721981|NCT01532089|183336254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.81
91721982|NCT01104766|183336280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-10.1|0.0044
91863816|NCT04800211|183616304|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.972|-0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)||-0.068|-0.972|0.0175
91863817|NCT04800211|183616305|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.408||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.705|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)||4.705|0.110|0.0362
91863818|NCT04800211|183616305|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.692||||0.2142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|3.953|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.953|-0.569|0.2142
91863819|NCT04800211|183616306|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-39.501||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.396|-3.605|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-3.605|-75.396|0.0250
91863820|NCT04800211|183616306|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.94||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.896|32.016|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||32.016|-37.896|0.9997
91904087|NCT01380730|183703217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.16|-36.9||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.90|-47.16|<0.001
91690887|NCT02452476|183274994|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.56||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14 PNA RDS-associated mortality in 14 days of life||5.29|0.06|0.606
91690888|NCT02452476|183274995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.57|||Fisher Exact|||||1.57|0.30|0.409
91690889|NCT02452476|183274996|SUPERIORITY|The percentage of patients requiring at least one rescue surfactant dose were compared by treatment group using the Fisher's exact test at 5% significance interval. Odds ratio (OR) and related exact 95% CI are also provided.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.67|||Fisher Exact|||The percentage of patients requiring at least one rescue surfactant dose.||2.67|0.55|0.689
91690890|NCT02452476|183274997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.935
91690891|NCT00946920|183275013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between treatments (degarelix versus goserelin acetate) was chosen to be -5 percentage points.|Kaplan-Meier estimate|79.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|83.7||||||The cumulative probability of testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL from Day 3 to Day 364 was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Only testosterone measurements taken at scheduled trial visits from Day 3 to Day 364 were included in the analysis. The hypothesis to test was the following: a non-inferiority assessment determined whether degarelix was non-inferior to goserelin with respect to the cumulative probability of testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL from Day 3 to Day 364.||83.7|75.6|
91690892|NCT02892331|183275028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||VO2 testing was not performed for one participant in the HIGH-INT group.|ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT group||||0.006
91863821|NCT04800211|183616307|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-54.398||||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.281|68.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||68.485|-177.281|0.6778
91690893|NCT02892331|183275028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||VO2 testing was not performed for one participant in the HIGH-INT group.|ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT group||||0.045
91690894|NCT02892331|183275028|SUPERIORITY|VO2 testing was not performed for one participant in the HIGH-INT group.||||||0.449|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between MOD-INT and High-INT groups||||0.449
91690895|NCT02892331|183275029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.276|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and High-INT groups||||0.276
91690896|NCT02892331|183275029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.633
91904088|NCT01380730|183703217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.88|-35.66||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-35.66|-45.88|<0.001
91690897|NCT02892331|183275029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.555
91690898|NCT02892331|183275030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON group and the HIGH-INT group||||0.370
91690899|NCT02892331|183275030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD-INT group||||0.383
91690900|NCT02892331|183275030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0972|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.0972
91690901|NCT02892331|183275031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.932
91690902|NCT02892331|183275031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.307
91690903|NCT02892331|183275031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.376
91690904|NCT02892331|183275032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.136
91690905|NCT02892331|183275032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD-INT group||||0.262
91721983|NCT01104766|183336280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||||-4.7|-12.9|<0.0001
91721984|NCT01104766|183336280|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-11.0|0.0008
91690906|NCT02892331|183275032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT group and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.715
91690907|NCT02892331|183275033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and High-INT groups||||0.056
91690908|NCT02892331|183275033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.349
91690909|NCT02892331|183275033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.359
91690910|NCT02892331|183275034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.224
91690911|NCT02892331|183275034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.199
91690912|NCT02892331|183275034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.952
91690913|NCT02892331|183275035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.783|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.783
91690914|NCT02892331|183275035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.098
91690915|NCT02892331|183275035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD and HIGH-INT groups||||0.071
91690916|NCT02892331|183275036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.940
91690917|NCT02892331|183275036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.994
91690918|NCT02892331|183275036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.940
91690919|NCT02892331|183275037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.769
91690920|NCT02892331|183275037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.800
91690921|NCT02892331|183275037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.769
91690922|NCT02892331|183275038|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD groups||||1.000
91690923|NCT02892331|183275038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of HIGH-INT and CON groups||||0.993
91690924|NCT02892331|183275038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.994
91690925|NCT02892331|183275039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.821
91690926|NCT02892331|183275039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.985
91690927|NCT02892331|183275039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.856
91690928|NCT02892331|183275040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.093
91721985|NCT01104766|183336281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|0.0004
91721986|NCT01104766|183336281|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
91721987|NCT01104766|183336281|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|0.0001
91690929|NCT02892331|183275040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD-INT groups||||0.033
91690930|NCT02892331|183275040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.602
91690931|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in PGC1A (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.424
91690932|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in PGC1A (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.308
91690933|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in PGC1a (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.844
91690934|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in citrate synthase (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.135
91690935|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Citrate synthase (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.800
91690936|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in citrate synthase||||0.195
91690937|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex I||||0.459
91690938|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex 1 (CON vs. MOD-INT groups)||||0.213
91690939|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex II (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.971
91690940|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex III (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.634
91690941|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Complex III (CON vs. MOD-INT groups)||||0.919
91690942|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex III||||0.574
91690943|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Complex IV (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.295
91690944|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex IV (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.097
91690945|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex IV||||0.468
91690946|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex V||||0.589
91690947|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex V (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.196
91690948|NCT02892331|183275041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Complex V (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.436
91690949|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of general health subscale (CON vs. HIGH INT)||||0.756
91690950|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||ANCOVA|||General Health Subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.115
91690951|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||ANCOVA|||General Health Subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.225
91690952|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical health Sub-scale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.758
91690953|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical health subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.759
91690954|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Health subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.465
91690955|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||Role Physical subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.549
91690956|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||ANCOVA|||Role Physical Subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.679
91690957|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||ANCOVA|||Role Physical Subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.334
91690958|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.273
91690959|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.642|||||||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.642
91690960|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain Subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.520
91690961|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANCOVA|||Vitality subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.460
91690962|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||ANCOVA|||Vitality sub-scale (CON vs. MOD-INT group)||||0.203
91690963|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||ANCOVA|||Vitality subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.058
91690964|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||ANCOVA|||Social Function subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.739
91690965|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|||Social Function subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.059
91690966|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANCOVA|||Social Function sub-scale (HIGH-INT vs. MOD-INT)||||0.0380
91690967|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of mental health subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.950
91690968|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mental health subscale (CON Vs. MOD INT)||||0.096
91690969|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mental health subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.127
91690970|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional subscale (CON vs HIGH-INT)||||0.373
91690971|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional sub-scale||||0.630
91690972|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional subscale (MOD vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.034
91690973|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.070
91690974|NCT02892331|183275042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in physical health sub-scale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.945
91690975|NCT02892331|183275043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in the mental health sum scale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.650
91690976|NCT02892331|183275043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mental health (sum) subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.034
91690977|NCT02892331|183275043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in physical health (sum)||||0.330
91690978|NCT02892331|183275043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in physical health (sum) subscale||||0.297
91690979|NCT02892331|183275044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in steps (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.109
91690980|NCT02892331|183275044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in steps (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.099
91690981|NCT02892331|183275044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in steps (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.947
91690982|NCT02654054|183275070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.002|140.227||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||140.227|23.002|< 0.001
91904089|NCT01380730|183703217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.51|-29.25||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.25|-39.51|<0.001
91690983|NCT02654054|183275070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.466|50.451||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||50.451|10.466|< 0.001
91690984|NCT02654054|183275071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-222.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91690985|NCT02654054|183275071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-177.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91690986|NCT02654054|183275072|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|79.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.13|88.16||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||88.16|71.13|< 0.001
91690987|NCT02654054|183275072|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|52.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.11|60.76||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||60.76|44.11|< 0.001
91690988|NCT02654054|183275073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-234.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91690989|NCT02654054|183275073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-192.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91690990|NCT02654054|183275074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-240.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91690991|NCT02654054|183275074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-198.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91690992|NCT02654054|183275075|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|49.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.27|69.18||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||69.18|30.27|< 0.001
91690993|NCT02654054|183275075|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|45.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|63.92||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||63.92|26.90|< 0.001
91794322|NCT00591578|183467632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.35|-4.33|<0.001
91690994|NCT02654054|183275076|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-190.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91690995|NCT02654054|183275076|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-116.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91690996|NCT04871776|183275077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||||How vs Usual Care|We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.14|0.67|
91690997|NCT04871776|183275077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.28|0.81|
91690998|NCT04871776|183275077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.51||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.51|0.96|
91690999|NCT04871776|183275078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.01|0.67|
91691000|NCT04871776|183275078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.23||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.23|0.87|
91691001|NCT04871776|183275078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.49||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.49|1.06|
91691002|NCT02490631|183275081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.456
91691003|NCT02490631|183275082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.019
91691004|NCT06389487|183275083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio between Part A:RSV-OA Group over Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was less than or equal to (≤) 1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (Part A:RSV-OA/ Part A:RSV-A-AIR) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-A strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||0.81|0.64|
91691005|NCT06389487|183275084|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the group SRR difference between Part A:RSV-OA Group and Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was ≤10%.|Difference in percentage|-9.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|-4.1|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (Part A:RSV-OA - Part A:RSV-A-AIR).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-A strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||-4.10|-14.55|
91691006|NCT06389487|183275085|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the group GMT ratio between Part A:RSV-OA Group over Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was ≤1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.82|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (Part A:RSV-OA/ Part A:RSV-A-AIR) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-B strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||0.82|0.65|
91691007|NCT06389487|183275086|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the group SRR difference between Part A:RSV-OA Group and Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was ≤10%.|Difference in percentage|-10.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|-4.8|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (Part A:RSV-OA - Part A:RSV-A-AIR).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-B strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||-4.80|-15.26|
91692146|NCT01262872|183279148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|25.7||||||VE-10PP-LD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 5M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, five months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||25.7|-17.8|
91692147|NCT01262872|183279148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|22.5||||||VE-10PP-LD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 8M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, eight months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||22.5|-22.6|
91692148|NCT01262872|183279148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|25.0||||||VE-10PP-HD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 1M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, one month (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||25.0|-21.4|
91692149|NCT01262872|183279148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|24.8||||||VE-10PP-HD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 5M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, five months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||24.8|-19.2|
91794122|NCT01262352|183467088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.991||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.39||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The raw scores in CFQ-R were summarized into different domains of health (12 domains for adolescents and adults 14 years of age and older, 8 domains for children ages 12 and 13 years, 8 domains for children ages 6 to 11 years, and 11 domains for parents/caregivers). Each domain was analyzed in a similar way as for the primary efficacy variable. The primary analytical focus was the respiratory health domain which was analyzed by combining all self-response questionnaire versions.||13.39|-5.40|0.3796
91794323|NCT00591578|183467633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.30|-5.57|0.002
91691008|NCT03851406|183275177|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||> 0.99
91691009|NCT03851406|183275178|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||> 0.99
91691010|NCT03851406|183275179|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||> 0.99
91691011|NCT03851406|183275179|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||> 0.99
91691012|NCT03851406|183275180|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
91691013|NCT03851406|183275180|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
91691014|NCT03851406|183275181|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.25
91691015|NCT03851406|183275181|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.63
91691016|NCT03851406|183275182|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.88
91691017|NCT03851406|183275182|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||>0.99
91904090|NCT01380730|183703218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.18|-43.29||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.29|-52.18|<0.001
91794123|NCT02925793|183467104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED||||||SAS Proc Mixed||For each subject, change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 was calculated as Week 8 NRS value minus Baseline NRS value. Mean change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 for each group was then calculated using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model.|Both 1% and 5% groups (statistical analysis 2) produced the same estimated value (-2.9)||||0.0106
91794601|NCT03981822|183468101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0062
91691018|NCT03851406|183275183|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.88
91691019|NCT03851406|183275183|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.25
91691020|NCT03851406|183275184|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||>0.99
91691021|NCT03851406|183275184|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||>0.99
91691022|NCT03851406|183275185|OTHER|||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.75
91691023|NCT03851406|183275185|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
91691024|NCT02502149|183275198|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.24|||||The adjusted geometric mean ratio is calculated as 15K (PK2)/2K (PK1).|||1.24|0.93|
91691025|NCT02502149|183275199|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.16|||||The adjusted geometric mean ratio is calculated as 15K (PK2)/2K (PK1).|||1.16|0.87|
91691026|NCT03871543|183275344|OTHER|Statistical Difference|Mean difference|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.402||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic|Upper Lid|||-0.402|
91691027|NCT03871543|183275344|OTHER|Statistical Difference|Mean Difference|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.328||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic|Lower Lid|||-0.328|
91691028|NCT03871543|183275345|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Ratio|0.918|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.227|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean ratio was calculated as Symptomatic divided by Asymptomatic|||1.227||
91691029|NCT03871543|183275346|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic|||0.022||
91691030|NCT03871543|183275347|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Difference|1.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.483|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.613||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic||||-4.613|
91691031|NCT03871543|183275348|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Ratio|1.984|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.198||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Ratio was calculated as Symptomatic divided by Asymptomatic|Upper Lid|||1.198|
91691032|NCT03871543|183275348|OTHER|Statistical Difference|Mean Ratio|1.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.093||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Ratio was calculated as Symptomatic divided by Asymptomatic|Lower Lid|||1.093|
91691033|NCT03871543|183275349|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.1416||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4148|0.1551|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.1551|-0.4148|0.3446
91691034|NCT03871543|183275350|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.0887||||0.5556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.3694|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.3694|-0.2070|0.5556
91691035|NCT03871543|183275351|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.2052||||0.1676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4676|0.0905|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.0905|-0.4676|0.1676
91721988|NCT05452239|183336296|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-4); 2. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12); 3. Change in MHDs (Weeks 1-4); 4. Change in MHDs (Weeks 1-12); 5. Participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for CM nor MOH (Weeks 1-4), 6. Participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for CM nor MOH (Weeks 1-12), 7. Change in average Daily Pain assessment score (Weeks 1-2); 8. Change in MAMDs (Weeks 1-4), 9. Change in MAMDs (Weeks 1-12).|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-2.23||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 1 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis was performed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with Baseline number of MMDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MMDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.23|-4.16|<0.0001
91721989|NCT05452239|183336297|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-2.02||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 2 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of MMDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MMDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.02|-3.86|<0.0001
91721990|NCT05452239|183336298|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-2.22||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 3 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change From Baseline in the Number of MHDs at Weeks 1 to 4: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of MHDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MHDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.22|-4.07|<0.0001
91721991|NCT05452239|183336298|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-2.02||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 4 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change From Baseline in the Number of MHDs at Weeks 1 to 12 (averaged over three 4-week intervals): Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of MHDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MHDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.02|-3.83|<0.0001
91691036|NCT03871543|183275352|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.0903||||0.5483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2054|0.3709|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.3709|-0.2054|0.5483
91691037|NCT03871543|183275353|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.2679||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5205|0.0278|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.0278|-0.5205|0.0719
91691038|NCT03871543|183275354|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.3434||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5786|0.0554|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.0554|-0.5786|0.0190
91691039|NCT03871543|183275355|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.2975||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|-0.0078|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||-0.0078|-0.5410|0.0420
91691040|NCT03871543|183275356|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.127||||0.3973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1696|0.4024|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.4024|-0.1696|0.3973
91691041|NCT03871543|183275357|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.021||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3094|0.271|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.2710|-0.3094|0.8894
91691042|NCT03871543|183275358|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.0762||||0.6129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.3585|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.3585|-0.2190|0.6129
91691043|NCT03871543|183275359|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.1402||||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4137|0.1565|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.1565|-0.4137|0.3493
91691044|NCT03871543|183275360|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.1192||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3958|0.1772|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.1772|-0.3958|0.4270
91691045|NCT00663793|183275391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 8 per group was estimated to confer an 80% power to detect a 40% difference in testosterone AUC with a standard deviation of 20% at an alpha of 0.05|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon sign-rank|||||||<0.05
91691046|NCT00663793|183275392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was performed for this pilot study.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon sign-rank|||||||<0.05
91691047|NCT00663793|183275393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was performed for this pilot study||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Area-under-the-curve for serum estradiol||||0.05
91691048|NCT03051100|183275443|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-60.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-53.0|||ANCOVA||Triplet therapy minus placebo|||-53.0|-68.0|<0.001
91691049|NCT03051100|183275444|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-58.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|-52.6|||ANCOVA||Triplet therapy minus placebo|non-HDL-C||-52.6|-64.9|<0.001
91691050|NCT03051100|183275444|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-46.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|-40.4|||ANCOVA||Triplet therapy minus placebo|TC||-40.4|-51.6|<0.001
91691051|NCT03051100|183275444|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-54.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-48.6|||ANCOVA|||apoB||-48.6|-59.7|<0.001
91691052|NCT03051100|183275444|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-22.8|||ANCOVA|||TG||-22.8|-49.7|<0.001
91691053|NCT03051100|183275444|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|=|0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||4.0|-7.0|=0.588
91691054|NCT03051100|183275445|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-41.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|-21.4|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-21.4|-60.0|<0.001
91691055|NCT03051100|183275446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91691056|NCT03051100|183275447|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91691057|NCT03335475|183275511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
91691058|NCT03335475|183275512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
91691059|NCT03335475|183275513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91691060|NCT04886596|183275514|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy (VE) is above 20%.|VE|82.58|||||TWO_SIDED|96.95|57.89|94.08|||Poisson regression method||VE in terms of occurrence of RSV-confirmed LRTD was evaluated using the conditional exact binomial method based on the Poisson model|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy (VE) efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD during the first season in adults ≥ 60 YOA||94.08|57.89|
91794124|NCT02925793|183467104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||SAS Proc Mixed||For each subject, change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 was calculated as Week 8 NRS value minus Baseline NRS value. Mean change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 for each group was then calculated using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model.|Both 1%(statistical analysis 1) and 5% groups produced the same estimated value (-2.9)||||0.0483
91691061|NCT04886596|183275515|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|62.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|46.74|74.79|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over three seasons.||74.79|46.74|
91691062|NCT04886596|183275515|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|67.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|48.19|80.04|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over two seasons.||80.04|48.19|
91691063|NCT04886596|183275516|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|67.76|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|51.82|79.11|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine followed by 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over three seasons.||79.11|51.82|
91691064|NCT04886596|183275516|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|67.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|48.09|80.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine followed by 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over two seasons.||80.00|48.09|
91691065|NCT04886596|183275517|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|69.83|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|42.18|85.72|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype A in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||85.72|42.18|
91691066|NCT04886596|183275517|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|58.57|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|35.9|74.11|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype B in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||74.11|35.90|
91691067|NCT04886596|183275518|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|55.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.52|77.52|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose and 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype A in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||77.52|16.52|
91794602|NCT03981822|183468101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0046
91691068|NCT04886596|183275518|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|73.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|55.1|85.4|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose and 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype B in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||85.40|55.10|
91691069|NCT04886596|183275519|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|18.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|44.33|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season)|To evaluate vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hMPV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine up to the end of Season 1.||44.33|-19.10|
91691070|NCT04886596|183275520|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.73|71.96|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=65YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||71.96|40.73|
91691071|NCT04886596|183275520|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|65.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.32|80.16|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=70YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||80.16|44.32|
91691072|NCT04886596|183275520|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|36.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.99|82.47|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=80YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.47|-93.99|
91691073|NCT04886596|183275520|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|66.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.33|78.64|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=65YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.64|49.33|
91691074|NCT04886596|183275520|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.49|79.55|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=70YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine at end of season 3.||79.55|40.49|
91691075|NCT04886596|183275520|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|32.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.42|81.73|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=80YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine at end of season 3.||81.73|-108.42|
91691076|NCT04886596|183275521|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|80.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.9|92.73|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 1 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||92.73|55.90|
91721992|NCT05452239|183336299|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.94||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic||Percentage of participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 Diagnostic Criteria for CM nor MOH at Weeks 1 to 4: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model with baseline MMDs as a covariate, and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), country and previous treatment failures (≤2, \>2) as categorical variables based on the eDiary data collected over Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12 and over Weeks 1-12 separately, was fitted using the maximum likelihood method and the logit link function.||4.94|2.18|<0.0001
91721993|NCT05452239|183336299|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|4.9||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic||Percentage of participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 Diagnostic Criteria for CM nor MOH at Weeks 1 - 12 (averaged over three 4-week intervals): Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model with baseline MMDs as a covariate, and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), country and previous treatment failures (≤2, \>2) as categorical variables based on the eDiary data collected over Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12 and over Weeks 1-12 separately, was fitted using the maximum likelihood method and the logit link function.||4.90|1.93|<0.0001
91691077|NCT04886596|183275521|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.44|77.7|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.70|36.44|
91691078|NCT04886596|183275521|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|47.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|71.59|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||71.59|7.06|
91691079|NCT04886596|183275521|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|54.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.85|72.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||72.98|27.85|
91691080|NCT04886596|183275521|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.35|88.79|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.79|22.35|
91691081|NCT04886596|183275522|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.62|90.48|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 1 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||90.48|57.62|
91691082|NCT04886596|183275522|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|75.1|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||75.10|34.00|
91691083|NCT04886596|183275522|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|47.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.51|71.97|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||71.97|8.51|
91691084|NCT04886596|183275522|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.59|74.94|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.94|33.59|
91691085|NCT04886596|183275522|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|68.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.64|89.08|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||89.08|24.64|
91691086|NCT04886596|183275523|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.95|89.26|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 1.||89.26|57.95|
91691087|NCT04886596|183275523|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.47|77.95|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 2, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.95|52.47|
91794603|NCT03981822|183468101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0177
91691088|NCT04886596|183275523|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|62.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.76|74.11|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 3, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.11|46.76|
91691089|NCT04886596|183275523|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.27|77.86|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 2, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.86|52.27|
91863822|NCT04800211|183616307|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-48.395||||0.7497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.697|71.908|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||71.908|-168.697|0.7497
91863823|NCT04800211|183616308|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.01||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.447|-7.573|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-7.573|-32.447|0.0003
91904091|NCT01380730|183703218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.81|-38.94||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.94|-47.81|<0.001
91904092|NCT01380730|183703218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.83|-26.97||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-26.97|-35.83|<0.001
91691090|NCT04886596|183275523|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.71|78.34|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 3, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.34|51.71|
91904093|NCT01380730|183703218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.99|-31.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.32|-39.99|<0.001
91904094|NCT01380730|183703218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.29|-31.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.65|-40.29|<0.001
91691091|NCT04886596|183275524|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|66.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.54|79.4|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with low/medium risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||79.40|47.54|
91691092|NCT04886596|183275524|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.81|74.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with high risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.98|34.81|
91794324|NCT00591578|183467633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|-1.85||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.85|-6.16|<0.001
91904095|NCT01380730|183703218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-23.39||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-23.39|-32.06|<0.001
91863824|NCT04800211|183616308|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.566|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.837|-10.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-10.295|-34.837|<.0001
91863825|NCT04800211|183616309|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-179.365|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-225.708|-133.022|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-133.022|-225.708|<.0001
91863826|NCT04800211|183616309|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-153.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.93|-107.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-107.509|-198.930|<.0001
91863827|NCT04800211|183616310|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.569|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.084|-2.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.054|-3.084|<.0001
91863828|NCT04800211|183616310|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.586|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.092|-2.081|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.081|-3.092|<.0001
91863829|NCT04800211|183616312|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.42||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|3.04|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.04|-0.19|0.0839
91691093|NCT04886596|183275524|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|72.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.34|84.37|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with low/medium risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||84.37|54.34|
91794125|NCT03475875|183467133|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.9|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the Degrees of Freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 80 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 90% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||-0.9|-7.7|
91794126|NCT03475875|183467134|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the Degrees of Freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 80 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 90% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||1.0|-4.7|
91863830|NCT04800211|183616312|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.66|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.66|0.53|0.0089
91691094|NCT04886596|183275524|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.17|78.01|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with high risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.01|37.17|
91691095|NCT04886596|183275525|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.62|76.74|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with no pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||76.74|38.62|
91691096|NCT04886596|183275525|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|78.14|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.14|45.10|
91691097|NCT04886596|183275525|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|68.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.71|82.33|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing cardiorespiratory condition, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.33|45.71|
91691098|NCT04886596|183275525|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|63.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.35|82.48|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing endocrinometabolic condition, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.48|31.35|
91691099|NCT04886596|183275525|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.08|79.17|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with no pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||79.17|41.08|
91691100|NCT04886596|183275525|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|71.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.92|83.65|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||83.65|51.92|
91794127|NCT02431247|183467180|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided p-value for non-inferiority of Test versus Control arm. The non-|Difference in percentage|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.1||inferiority margin is 10%.|Mantel Haenszel|||||7.1|-1.6|< 0.001
91904096|NCT01380730|183703219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.23|-48.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-48.65|-58.23|<0.001
91904097|NCT01380730|183703219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.08|-42.52||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-42.52|-52.08|<0.001
91691101|NCT04886596|183275525|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|75.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.11|88.54|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing cardiorespiratory condition,following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.54|54.11|
91691102|NCT04886596|183275525|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|69.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.51|87.05|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing endocrinometabolic condition, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||87.05|37.51|
91691103|NCT04886596|183275526|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-153.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16322.97|88.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.00|-16322.97|
91691104|NCT04886596|183275526|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|70.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.89|85.33|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (pre-frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||85.33|43.89|
91691105|NCT04886596|183275526|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.89|74.08|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (fit) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.08|42.89|
91691106|NCT04886596|183275526|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|13.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6751.38|98.91|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||98.91|-6751.38|
91691107|NCT04886596|183275526|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|74.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.33|88.31|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (pre-frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.31|49.33|
91691108|NCT04886596|183275526|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.1|77.75|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (fit) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.75|46.10|
91721994|NCT05452239|183336300|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.22||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 7 of testing order.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with the average Daily Pain at baseline as a covariate and including treatment group, country, and previous treatment failures, as categorical variables.||-0.22|-0.39|<0.0001
91721995|NCT05452239|183336301|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-2.67||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 8 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change from baseline in monthly days with acute migraine medication use at Weeks 1 to 4: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.67|-4.59|<0.0001
91794128|NCT02431247|183467183|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|=|0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.074|||ANCOVA|||||0.074|-0.171|= 0.437
91904098|NCT01380730|183703219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.53|-29.97||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.97|-39.53|<0.001
91691109|NCT04886596|183275527|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.43|82.68|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to any case definition, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.68|42.43|
91721996|NCT05452239|183336301|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-2.48||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 9 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change from baseline in monthly days with acute migraine medication use at Weeks 1 - 12 (averaged over three 4-week intervals): Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.48|-4.23|<0.0001
91794129|NCT02431247|183467184|OTHER||LS mean difference|18.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.808|=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.595|47.55|||ANCOVA|||||47.550|-10.595|= 0.213
91863831|NCT04800211|183616313|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.66|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.66|-1.13|0.7101
91863832|NCT04800211|183616313|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.59|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.59|-1.12|0.7325
91863833|NCT04800211|183616314|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.48||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.66|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.66|0.31|0.0136
91904099|NCT01380730|183703219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.36|-37.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.50|-48.36|<0.001
91904100|NCT01380730|183703219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.81|-36.98||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.98|-47.81|<0.001
91904101|NCT01380730|183703219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-28.33||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-28.33|-39.20|<0.001
91904102|NCT01179672|183703229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.82|0.030
91721997|NCT00207740|183336365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||||||When interpreting this p-value along with the other co-primary endpoint, Hochberg procedure was used.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that for combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab. Assuming a standard deviation of 23%, there is 86% power to detect a 10% difference at a 0.05 significance level.||||0.802
91904103|NCT01179672|183703230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.14||P-value is for mean change from baseline to 12-week endpoint in night pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.95|0.008
91904104|NCT01179672|183703230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||P-value is for mean change from baseline to 12 week endpoint in worst pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-1.00|0.017
91794130|NCT02431247|183467185|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.05|< 0.001
91794131|NCT02431247|183467186|OTHER||LS mean difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.786|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|4.66|||ANCOVA|||||4.66|1.57|< 0.001
91721998|NCT00207740|183336365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|ANCOVA|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.945
91721999|NCT00207740|183336365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|ANCOVA|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.717
91863834|NCT04800211|183616314|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.08|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.08|0.80|0.0009
91863835|NCT04800211|183616315|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.038||||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.870|-0.795|0.9294
91863836|NCT04800211|183616315|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.277||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|1.142|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.142|-0.587|0.5290
91863837|NCT04800211|183616315|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.508||||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.337|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.321|-1.337|0.2291
91904105|NCT01179672|183703231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.90|0.016
91904106|NCT01179672|183703232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.48|0.081
91904107|NCT01179672|183703233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.40|0.034
91904108|NCT01179672|183703234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment, pooled investigator and baseline.||||-0.16|-2.07|0.022
91904109|NCT01179672|183703235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||P-value is for ≥30% reduction in 24-hour average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.014
91904110|NCT01179672|183703235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value is for ≥50% reduction in 24-hour average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.006
91722000|NCT00207740|183336365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|ANCOVA|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.357
91722001|NCT00207740|183336366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.286
91722002|NCT00207740|183336366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.742
91722003|NCT00207740|183336366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
91722004|NCT00207740|183336366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
91722005|NCT00207740|183336367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718||||||When interpreting this p-value along with the other co-primary endpoint, Hochberg procedure was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that the number of severe exacerbations per patient from baseline through week 24 for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab. Assuming 1 severe exacerbation over 6 months per patient in the placebo group, there is 79% power to detect a 35% reduction in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab group at a 0.05 significance level.||||0.718
91722006|NCT00207740|183336367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.779
91722007|NCT00207740|183336367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.649
91794132|NCT02431247|183467187|OTHER||LS mean difference|6.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|8.25|||ANCOVA|||||8.25|3.83|< 0.001
91722008|NCT00207740|183336367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.256
91722009|NCT00207740|183336368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.894
91722010|NCT00207740|183336368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.572
91722011|NCT00207740|183336368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.731
91722012|NCT00207740|183336368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.856
91722013|NCT00207740|183336369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.273
91722014|NCT00207740|183336369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.382
91863838|NCT04800211|183616315|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.525||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|1.361|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.361|-0.311|0.2179
91904111|NCT01179672|183703235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||||||P-value is for ≥75% reduction in 24-hour average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.193
91904112|NCT01179672|183703236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value is for ≥30% reduction in 24-hour BPI-Severity average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.003
91722015|NCT00207740|183336369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.350
91722016|NCT00207740|183336369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.341
91722017|NCT00207740|183336370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.986
91722018|NCT00207740|183336370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
91722019|NCT00207740|183336370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.858
91722020|NCT00207740|183336370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91722021|NCT00207740|183336371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.833
91722022|NCT00207740|183336371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.814
91722023|NCT00207740|183336371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.897
91722024|NCT00207740|183336371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.726
91722025|NCT05473039|183336380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2629
91722026|NCT05473039|183336381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3582
91722027|NCT05473039|183336382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2187|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2187
91722028|NCT05473039|183336383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3005
91722029|NCT05473039|183336384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0314
91722030|NCT05473039|183336385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9214
91722031|NCT05473039|183336385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fasting glucose at the start of COH compared to baseline fasting glucose.||||0.042
91722032|NCT05473039|183336385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fasting glucose at the start of COH compared to baseline fasting glucose.||||<0.001
91722033|NCT05473039|183336386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59695
91722034|NCT05473039|183336386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466503|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AST at the start of COH compared to baseline AST.||||0.466503
91722035|NCT05473039|183336386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959877|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AST at the start of COH compared to baseline AST.||||0.959877
91722036|NCT05473039|183336387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062810
91722037|NCT05473039|183336387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ALT at the start of COH compared to baseline ALT.||||0.417757
91722038|NCT05473039|183336387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ALT at the start of COH compared to baseline ALT.||||0.968525
91722039|NCT05473039|183336388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.686488
91722040|NCT05473039|183336388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cholesterol at the start of COH compared to baseline cholesterol.||||0.395120
91722041|NCT05473039|183336388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cholesterol at the start of COH compared to baseline cholesterol.||||0.127135
91722042|NCT05473039|183336389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257496
91722043|NCT05850494|183336395|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -0.200 L at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.018||P-Value not applicable since a non-inferiority test was used for the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.018|-0.037|
91722044|NCT03806296|183336398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.07|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||-0.07|-0.77|0.018
91722045|NCT03806296|183336398|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoints, and sex.||1.07|0.28|0.001
91794133|NCT02431247|183467188|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.87|||ANCOVA|||||3.87|0.93|= 0.001
91722046|NCT03806296|183336399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.59|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||1.59|0.61|<0.001
91722047|NCT03806296|183336399|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoints, and sex.||-0.43|-1.09|<0.001
91722048|NCT03806296|183336400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.24|-0.64|0.365
91722049|NCT03806296|183336400|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.43||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoints, and sex.||0.03|-0.88|0.067
91722050|NCT03806296|183336401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|8.82|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||8.82|-2.18|0.234
91722051|NCT03806296|183336401|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-6.15||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||-1.06|-11.25|0.018
91722052|NCT03806296|183336402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.94|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.94|0.07|0.024
91722053|NCT03806296|183336402|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.35|-0.55|0.660
91722054|NCT03806296|183336403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.06|-0.03|0.592
91904113|NCT01179672|183703236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is for ≥50% reduction in 24-hour BPI-Severity average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.001
91722055|NCT03806296|183336403|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.06|-0.11|0.550
91722056|NCT03806296|183336404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.04|-0.07|0.550
91722057|NCT03806296|183336404|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.02||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.06|-0.10|0.556
91722058|NCT03806296|183336405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.06|-0.01|0.124
91722059|NCT03806296|183336405|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|0.0||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.06|-0.05|0.925
91722060|NCT03806296|183336406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.752||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|1.513|||Poisson GLM with robust standard error||Early/Middle Sleep group was the reference group (lower RR indicates less likelihood of cannabis use in the Late Sleep group)|For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a Poisson generalized linear model (GLM) to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on a binary cannabis use outcome (yes/no in the past 3 months), accounting for age and sex.||1.513|0.374|0.42
91722061|NCT03806296|183336407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.236||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|2.171|||Poisson GLM with robust standard error||Early/Middle Sleep group was the reference group (higher RR indicates higher likelihood of alcohol use in the Late Sleep group)|For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a Poisson generalized linear model (GLM) to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on a binary alcohol use outcome (yes/no in the past 3 months), accounting for age and sex.||2.171|0.704|0.461
91794134|NCT02431247|183467190|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||= 0.033
91794135|NCT02431247|183467191|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||= 0.033
91794136|NCT02431247|183467192|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||< 0.001
91904114|NCT01179672|183703236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||||||P-value is for ≥75% reduction in 24-hour BPI-Severity average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.168
91722062|NCT03806296|183336407|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|3.29||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|7.9|||negative binomial glm||Early/Middle Sleep group was the reference group (higher IRR indicates greater days of alcohol use in the Late Sleep group than in the Early/Middle Sleep group).|For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a negative binomial GLM to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on days of alcohol use, accounting for age and sex.||7.90|1.36|0.007
91722063|NCT03116230|183336427|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Treatment A vs Control||||||0.005
91722064|NCT03116230|183336427|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Treatment B vs Control||||||0.64
91722065|NCT02763566|183336431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.499||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.719|||Log Rank|||||0.719|0.346|0.0001
91722066|NCT02763566|183336432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.588|||Log Rank|||||0.588|0.240|<0.0001
91722067|NCT02763566|183336434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91722068|NCT02763566|183336434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91722069|NCT02763566|183336436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0456|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0456
91722070|NCT02763566|183336436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
91722071|NCT02763566|183336437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
91722072|NCT02763566|183336437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91722073|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global Health Status||1.59|-5.36|0.287
91722074|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Physical functioning||2.10|-3.64|0.597
91863839|NCT04800211|183616315|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.401||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|1.016|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.016|-0.213|0.2002
91904115|NCT01179672|183703237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.96|0.001
91722075|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Role Functioning||3.93|-4.55|0.885
91722076|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Emotional Functioning||5.10|-1.77|0.340
91722077|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Cognitive Functioning||1.03|-5.37|0.182
91722078|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.29|-5.05|0.678
91722079|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue||4.91|-1.77|0.355
91722080|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Nausea and Vomiting||3.03|-1.14|0.372
91722081|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Pain||2.66|-3.75|0.740
91722082|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|5.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnoea||5.78|-1.46|0.240
91722083|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom scales - Insomnia||2.97|-4.60|0.673
91722084|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|9.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Appetite||9.07|2.23|0.001
91722085|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Constipation||1.91|-5.04|0.375
91722086|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|15.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.81|18.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Diarrhoea||18.84|12.81|0.000
91722087|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Financial Difficulties||4.10|-7.59|0.557
91722088|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global Health Status||1.49|-8.43|0.169
91722089|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Physical Functioning||5.29|-2.12|0.400
91722090|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Role functioning||2.99|-6.42|0.472
91722091|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Emotional Functioning||2.28|-7.12|0.310
91722092|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Social Functioning||6.55|-5.26|0.830
91722093|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue||7.72|-2.26|0.281
91722094|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|6.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Nausea and Vomiting||6.52|-1.33|0.194
91722095|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Pain||2.14|-7.45|0.275
91722096|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnoea||2.06|-7.04|0.280
91722097|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Insomnia||7.72|-3.78|0.499
91722098|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|13.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Appetite||13.23|1.68|0.012
91722099|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Constipation||2.27|-6.83|0.321
91722100|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|17.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.25|22.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Diarrhoea||22.41|13.25|0.000
91904116|NCT01179672|183703238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-2.33|0.020
91722101|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Financial DIfficulties||9.19|-3.21|0.342
91722102|NCT02763566|183336438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Cognitive functioning||2.28|-7.12|0.310
91722103|NCT04896385|183336441|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||repeated measures correlation|||F-VASI||||0.004
91722104|NCT04896385|183336441|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||repeated measures correlation|||F-VASI||||0.41
91722105|NCT04896385|183336441|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||repeated measures correlation|||T-VASI||||0.0002
91722106|NCT04896385|183336441|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||repeated measures correlation|||T-VASI||||0.91
91722107|NCT05233761|183336446|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS + REM sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS + REM (% TST) sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||2.5|0.1|0.0350
91722108|NCT05233761|183336447|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||1.6|0.4|0.0019
91722109|NCT05233761|183336447|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in REM Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in REM Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||1.2|-.6|0.52
91722110|NCT05233761|183336447|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Light Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Light Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||-0.5|-2.8|0.0040
91722111|NCT05233761|183336447|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Awake Time (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Awake Time (% TST) sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||2.0|-.5|0.24
91794137|NCT02431247|183467193|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||< 0.001
91794138|NCT02431247|183467194|OTHER||||||=|0.147|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||= 0.147
91794139|NCT02431247|183467199|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.678|||ANCOVA|||Hip region BMD (Week 24)||2.678|1.227|< 0.001
91722112|NCT05233761|183336448|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS + REM Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS + REM Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||13.3|1.7|0.0117
91722113|NCT05233761|183336448|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||5.9|0.7|0.0126
91722114|NCT05233761|183336448|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in REM sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in REM Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||5.3|-2.7|0.51
91722115|NCT05233761|183336448|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Light Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Light Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||0.2|-13.7|0.0574
91722116|NCT05233761|183336448|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Awake Time (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Awake Time (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||6.9|-2.4|0.3
91722117|NCT05233761|183336448|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Total Sleep Time (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Total Sleep Time (min) sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||2.4|-16.1|0.14
91722118|NCT05233761|183336449|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of better sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of better sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.3|-.7|0.53
91722119|NCT05233761|183336449|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of sleep induction in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of sleep induction in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.7|-0.6|0.32
91722517|NCT02629159|183337893|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|34.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|39.2||This comparison was the primary analysis for US/FDA regulatory purposes, and a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.2|29.0|<0.001
91794140|NCT02431247|183467199|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.934|3.791|||ANCOVA|||Hip region BMD (Week 48)||3.791|1.934|< 0.001
91794141|NCT02431247|183467199|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|2.919|||ANCOVA|||Spine region BMD (Week 24)||2.919|1.259|< 0.001
91794142|NCT02431247|183467199|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|2.858|||ANCOVA|||Spine region BMD (Week 48)||2.858|0.539|= 0.004
91794604|NCT03981822|183468101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0054
91691110|NCT04886596|183275527|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.43|82.68|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to case definition 1, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.68|42.43|
91691111|NCT04886596|183275527|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|59.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.6|95.93|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to the case definition 2, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||95.93|-119.60|
91691112|NCT04886596|183275527|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.05|90.75|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to any case definition, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||90.75|57.05|
91691113|NCT04886596|183275527|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.05|90.75|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to case definition 1, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||90.75|57.05|
91691114|NCT04886596|183275527|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.27|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to case definition 2, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|20.27|
91691115|NCT04886596|183275528|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|51.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.31|60.21|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||60.21|40.31|
91691116|NCT04886596|183275528|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.1|66.96|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||66.96|48.10|
91691117|NCT04886596|183275529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|5.99|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||5.99|-1.47|
91722518|NCT02629159|183337893|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||13.8|1.2|0.018
91722120|NCT05233761|183336449|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of sleep duration in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of sleep duration in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.9|-0.4|0.20
91722121|NCT05233761|183336449|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of sleep depth in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of sleep depth in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.6|-0.7|0.45
91722122|NCT05233761|183336449|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of vivid dreams in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of vivid dreams in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.9|-0.8|0.4
91863840|NCT04800211|183616315|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|0.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.509|-1.089|0.4760
91722123|NCT05252702|183336464|SUPERIORITY|"The primary safety endpoint hypothesis at 3 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFR ≤ 78% vs. H1: CFR \> 78%~where 78% was the performance goal (PG)."|binomial proportion|90.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.0|||The CFR was estimated as a binomial proportion and a one-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound of the CFR was calculated using the normal approximation. The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG|one-sided Z-test|The p-value from a one-sided Z-test for the binomial proportion was calculated and compared to the 0.025 significance level.|||||87|<0.0001
91722124|NCT05252702|183336465|SUPERIORITY|"The primary safety endpoint hypothesis at 12 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFR ≤ 76.5% vs. H1: CFR \> 76.5%~where 76.5% is the performance goal. The CFR was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the 97.5% lower confidence bound of CFR was calculated using the Greenwood variance estimates."|Kaplan-Meier|88.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|84.5|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the Performance Goal (PG) of 76.5%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.|||||84.5|<0.0001
91722125|NCT05252702|183336466|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|90.8|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.5|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG of 82.5%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.||"The primary effectiveness endpoint #1 hypothesis at 3 month was formally expressed as:~H0: Rate ≤ 82.5% vs. H1: Rate \> 82.5%~where 82.5% was the performance goal (PG)."|||87.5|<0.0001
91863841|NCT04800211|183616315|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.699||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.113|-1.512|0.0914
91794143|NCT01723696|183467255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|30.3||P-value adjusted for design factors of site, gestational age at randomization and covariates of length, race, and sex of infant.|ANCOVA|||Our targeted sample size of 218 infants with successful FEFs at 3 months of age was determined to detect with 90% power, at a significance level of 0.05, increases of 15% in mean FEF75 in the vitamin C group compared to the placebo group.||30.3|-6.1|0.19
91722126|NCT05252702|183336467|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|92.8|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|89.7|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG of 80%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.|The Rate at 12 months was estimated as a binomial proportion and the one-sided 97.5% LCB of the Rate was calculated using the normal approximation.|"The primary effectiveness endpoint #1 hypothesis at 12 months was formally expressed as:~H0: Rate ≤ 80% vs. H1: Rate \> 80%~where 80% was the performance goal (PG)."|||89.7|<0.0001
91722127|NCT05252702|183336468|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|98.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|96.6|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG of 83%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.||"The primary effectiveness endpoint #2 hypothesis was formally expressed as:~H0: RateAV ≤ 83% vs. H1: RateAV \> 83%~where 83% is the performance goal."|||96.6|<0.0001
91722128|NCT05252702|183336469|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|91.3||||0.0003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|88.1|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower confidence bound exceeded the Performance Goal (PG) of 84%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value from a one-sided Z-test for the binomial proportion was to be calculated and compared to the 0.025 significance level.||"The secondary safety endpoint hypothesis at 3 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFRA ≤ 84% vs. H1: CFRA \> 84%~where 84% was the performance goal."|||88.1|0.0003
91722129|NCT05252702|183336470|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier|91.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.1|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the Performance Goal (PG) of 82%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.|The 97.5% lower confidence bound (LCB) of CFRA was calculated using the Greenwood variance estimates.|"The secondary safety endpoint hypothesis at 12 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFRA ≤ 82% vs. H1: CFRA \> 82%~where 82% is the performance goal."|||87.1|<0.0001
91722130|NCT05252702|183336471|OTHER||mixed effects model for repeated measure|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||t-test, 1 sided|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST), with an alpha level of 0.025, and n-1 degrees of freedom.||"An analysis of these data provided an estimate of the 95% confidence interval for the mean slope across analyzable subjects, which had a pre-specified success criterion requiring that this confidence interval must fall between slopes of 65% and 135%. The following hypothesis was evaluated:~H0: Mean Slope \< 0.65 or Mean Slope \> 1.35~H1: 0.65 ≤ Mean Slope ≤ 1.35"||1.04|0.78|<0.001
91722131|NCT01192178|183336486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.819||Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusted for investigative center|Regression, Cox||The risk of having an asthma exacerbation during the treatment period was analyzed.|||1.819|0.519|0.928
91722132|NCT02164916|183336494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.31|0.001
91722133|NCT00296517|183336501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.805||95.0|-1.6|2.0|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: The population mean change from baseline on HAM-D total score at Week 12 of the placebo group is equal to the population mean change from baseline on HAMD total score at Week 12 of the Bupropion hydrochloride sustained release group.||2.0|-1.6|0.805
91722134|NCT00296517|183336511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.036
91722135|NCT01143324|183336530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.3||||||||1.3|1.2|
91722136|NCT01143324|183336531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.9|-3.6|<0.0001
91722137|NCT01143324|183336532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.3|-4.2|<0.0001
91794144|NCT04721067|183467269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.27||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline values||||10.60|-15.14|0.607
91904117|NCT04667377|183703248|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
91722138|NCT01143324|183336533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.41|0.30|<0.0001
91722139|NCT01143324|183336535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|27.0|||||||||||||61/226 patients underwent a rehabilitation programs between 6 and 12 months follow up visit, making it 27.0 % of the total.|||||
91722140|NCT01143324|183336536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|1.2|||||||||||||The rate of additional lumbar spinal surgeries at treated level was 1.2% (3/252) patients.|||||
91722141|NCT01143324|183336537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|1.6|||||||||||||The rate of additional lumbar spinal surgeries at the same level was 1.6% (4/252) patients.|||||
91722142|NCT01143324|183336538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage at 12 months|47.6||||||||||||||||||
91722143|NCT01143324|183336540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-20.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-20.5|-25.5|<0.0001
91722144|NCT01143324|183336541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|42.7||||||||||||||||||
91722145|NCT01143324|183336542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||||95.0|2.9|3.4||||||||3.4|2.9|
91722146|NCT00846365|183336558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.8||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-3.8|-8.4|<0.001
91794145|NCT04721067|183467270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.99||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|4.76|||ANCOVA|||||4.76|-10.74|0.766
91794146|NCT04721067|183467271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|145.54||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.05|555.14|||ANCOVA|||||555.14|-264.05|0.465
91722147|NCT00846365|183336558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-4.4||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-4.4|-9.1|<0.001
91722148|NCT00846365|183336559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-3.7||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-3.7|-8.5|<0.001
91722149|NCT00846365|183336559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-4.8||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-4.8|-9.6|<0.001
91722150|NCT00846365|183336563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.7||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 8. ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Post-baseline p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||-3.7|-7.5|<0.001
91722151|NCT00846365|183336563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-5.2||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 8. ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Post-baseline p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||-5.2|-9.1|<0.001
91722519|NCT02629159|183337894|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|26.5||This comparison was the primary analysis for EU/EMA regulatory purposes, and a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA regulatory purposes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.5|18.6|<0.001
91722520|NCT02629159|183337894|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|16.1||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||16.1|5.3|<0.001
91722521|NCT02629159|183337895|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.469|-1.194||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use, and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.194|-1.469|<0.001
91863842|NCT04800211|183616315|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.328||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.122|1.777|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||1.777|-1.122|0.9705
91904118|NCT04667377|183703248|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Exponential model fit|Model Assumption: 50% of maximum effect achieved at dose 3.6 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
91722522|NCT02629159|183337895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.295||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.295|-0.638|<0.001
91722523|NCT02629159|183337896|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.37||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.37|-0.97|<0.001
91722524|NCT02629159|183337896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.51||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||0.51|-0.23|0.448
91794147|NCT04721067|183467272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|137.79||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.71|344.3|||ANCOVA|||||344.30|-68.71|0.178
91794148|NCT04721067|183467273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.87||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|-4.58|0.548
91794149|NCT04721067|183467274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.80|-3.14|0.579
91722152|NCT00764517|183336630|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.16|0.002
91722153|NCT00764517|183336631|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.21|0.011
91722154|NCT00460798|183336634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Obective Response Rate (Percent)|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|46.0|||||Exact method based on binomial distribution|Objective Response Rate (ORR) = Percentage of participants with best overall response of CR or PR||46.0|35.5|
91722155|NCT01953237|183336647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.558|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5580
91722156|NCT01186770|183336652|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|2.83||||0.1692||95.0|-1.21|6.86||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||6.86|-1.21|0.1692
91722157|NCT01186770|183336652|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.51||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|10.55||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||10.55|2.47|0.0016
91794150|NCT04721067|183467275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.74|||ANCOVA|||||3.74|-5.00|0.766
91794151|NCT04721067|183467276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|1.93|||ANCOVA|||||1.93|-4.39|0.42
91794152|NCT04721067|183467277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.20|-1.34|0.91
91722158|NCT01186770|183336652|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|13.18||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||13.18|5.09|< 0.0001
91722159|NCT01186770|183336653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.84||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||1.84|0.82|0.3076
91722160|NCT01186770|183336653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.29||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||2.29|1.03|0.0339
91722161|NCT01186770|183336653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0043||95.0|1.2|2.66||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||2.66|1.20|0.0043
91722162|NCT01186770|183336654|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.55||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as effect and analysis region and baseline as covariates.||0.55|-0.36|0.6920
91722163|NCT01186770|183336654|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.51||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.97||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as effect and analysis region and baseline as covariates.||0.97|0.06|0.0274
91722164|NCT01186770|183336654|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.98||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as effect and analysis region and baseline as covariates.||0.98|0.07|0.0237
91722165|NCT01995201|183336671|OTHER|||||||0.5231|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5231
91722166|NCT01138735|183336714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity is required. The tests will be conducted as two-sided, each at the 0.05 significance level. The trial will be claimed 'positive' if all primary analyses are shown statistically significant at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by analysis center, using general association statistics||"null hypothesis: no difference in Success rate in two treatment groups (adapalene/benzoyl peroxide vs Topical Gel Vehicle).~power calculation: 90%"||||<0.001
91722167|NCT01138735|183336715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity is required. The tests will be conducted as two-sided, each at the 0.05 significance level. The trial will be claimed 'positive' if all primary analyses are shown statistically significant at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|normality assumption is not met. ANCOVA Model: Ranked Change in Total Lesion Counts = Ranked Baseline Lesion Counts, Analysis Center, Treatment.||null hypothesis: no difference in change from baseline in total lesion count in two treatment groups (adapalene/benzoyl peroxide vs Topical Gel Vehicle)||||<0.001
91722168|NCT01138735|183336716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test with row mean difference statistic using relative to an identified distribution(RIDIT) score, controlling for analysis center||||||<0.001
91722169|NCT01138735|183336717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Ranked Change in Inflammatory Lesion Counts = Ranked Baseline Inflammatory Lesion Counts, Analysis Center, Treatment||||||<0.001
91794153|NCT04721067|183467278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.79||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.6|||ANCOVA|||||5.60|-4.03|0.73
91794154|NCT04721067|183467279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-0.30|0.42
91794155|NCT04721067|183467280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.48|||ANCOVA|||||4.48|-0.90|0.18
91794156|NCT04721067|183467281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.90|-7.97|0.48
91794157|NCT04721067|183467282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|3.08|||ANCOVA|||||3.08|-0.24|0.08
91794158|NCT04721067|183467283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|14.52|||ANCOVA|||||14.52|-13.50|0.94
91794159|NCT04721067|183467286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.32|-0.45|0.32
91691118|NCT04886596|183275529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||6.98|-0.50|
91722170|NCT06001866|183336718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.0001
91722171|NCT06001866|183336718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91722172|NCT06001866|183336719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91722173|NCT06001866|183336719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91722174|NCT06001866|183336720|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.78|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.78
91722175|NCT06001866|183336720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<.00001
91722176|NCT06001866|183336721|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||LSD test|||||||=1.00
91722177|NCT06001866|183336721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91722178|NCT06001866|183336722|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.75|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.75
91722179|NCT06001866|183336722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.01
91691119|NCT04886596|183275529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|8.63|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||8.63|-1.55|
91722180|NCT06001866|183336723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91722181|NCT06001866|183336723|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.62|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.62
91722182|NCT06001866|183336724|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.16|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.16
91722183|NCT06001866|183336724|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.33|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.33
91722184|NCT06001866|183336725|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.54
91722185|NCT06001866|183336726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91722186|NCT04725188|183336750|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.53|0.0910
91722187|NCT04725188|183336750|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.02|||Regression, Cox|||||2.02|0.96|0.9622
91722188|NCT04725188|183336751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.7||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|26.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||26.9|2.1|0.0113
91722189|NCT04725188|183336751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-9.4||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||0.0|-19.6|0.9750
91722190|NCT04725188|183336752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.50|0.0943
91722191|NCT04725188|183336752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||||1.58|0.70|0.5974
91722192|NCT04279483|183336805|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that craving would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the Nontobacco retailer group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.74
91722193|NCT04279483|183336805|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that craving would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the control group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.69
91722194|NCT04279483|183336806|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that cigarettes smoked would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the Nontobacco retailer group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.49
91722195|NCT04279483|183336806|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that craving would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the control group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.72
91722196|NCT00876343|183336809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-3.7|0.006
91722197|NCT00876343|183336809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-4.6|<0.001
91794160|NCT04721067|183467287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.25|-0.75|0.61
91794161|NCT04721067|183467288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|2.31|||ANCOVA|||||2.31|-4.42|0.52
91794162|NCT04721067|183467289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-2.20|0.61
91794163|NCT04721067|183467290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|8.97|||ANCOVA|||||8.97|-1.61|0.16
91691120|NCT04886596|183275529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|6.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|11.9|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||11.90|1.81|
91722198|NCT04153864|183336846|NON_INFERIORITY|The Non-Inferiority Margin (NIM) was defined as 10% of the mean EPDS score in the Specialist group (8.91), which corresponded to a value of 0.89. This predetermined NIM of 10% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.86|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered by Non-Specialists will be non-inferior to BA delivered by Specialists if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in EPDS scores is less than the pre-specified 10% non-inferiority margin (NIM).||0.86||<0.05
91722199|NCT04153864|183336846|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 13% of the mean EPDS score in the In-Person group (8.92), which corresponded to a value of 1.16. This predetermined NIM of 13% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered via Telemedicine will be non-inferior to BA delivered In-Person if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in EPDS scores is less than the pre-specified 13% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Please note, this presents the Intention to Treat (ITT) analysis.||0.77||<0.05
91722200|NCT04153864|183336846|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 13% of the mean EPDS score in the In-Person group (8.81), which corresponded to a value of 1.15. This predetermined NIM of 13% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered via Telemedicine will be non-inferior to BA delivered In-Person if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in EPDS scores is less than the pre-specified 13% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Please note, this is per protocol analysis. Due to institutional pandemic-related restrictions, 21 participants were switched from In-Person to Telemedicine and met criteria for the per protocol analyses.||0.91||<0.05
91794164|NCT04721067|183467291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.00|-0.13|0.13
91691121|NCT04886596|183275530|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|50.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.45|95.19|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||95.19|-184.45|
91691122|NCT04886596|183275530|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|50.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.45|95.19|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||95.19|-184.45|
91691123|NCT04886596|183275530|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.56|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|11.56|
91691124|NCT04886596|183275530|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.56|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|11.56|
91691125|NCT04886596|183275530|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|22.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-457.67|93.12|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the RSV seson in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||93.12|-457.67|
91794165|NCT04721067|183467292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.88||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|7.41|||ANCOVA|||||7.41|0.35|0.03
91691126|NCT04886596|183275530|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|22.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-457.67|93.12|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||93.12|-457.67|
91691127|NCT04886596|183275530|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.53|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|-54.53|
91691128|NCT04886596|183275530|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.53|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|-54.53|
91691129|NCT04886596|183275531|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.43|17.49|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||17.49|-25.43|
91691130|NCT04886596|183275531|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.26|14.61|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory disease during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||14.61|-28.26|
91691131|NCT04886596|183275531|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|16.38|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine||16.38|-28.20|
91691132|NCT04886596|183275531|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.55|15.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory diseases during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||15.98|-27.55|
91691133|NCT04886596|183275531|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|23.99|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||23.99|-23.52|
91722201|NCT04153864|183336848|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 10% of the mean GAD-7 score for the Specialist group (6.36), which corresponded to a value of 0.64. This predetermined NIM of 10% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.57|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered by Non-Specialists will be non-inferior to BA delivered by Specialists if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in GAD-7 scores is less than the pre-specified 10% non-inferiority margin (NIM).This analysis was performed on 3-months post-randomization scores.||0.57||<0.05
91794166|NCT04721067|183467293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|4.66|||ANCOVA|||||4.66|-11.07|0.41
91691134|NCT04886596|183275531|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.56|19.7|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory disease during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||19.70|-28.56|
91691135|NCT04886596|183275531|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.14|26.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||26.00|-22.14|
91691136|NCT04886596|183275531|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.73|25.48|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory diseases during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||25.48|-21.73|
91691137|NCT04886596|183275532|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|62.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.91|82.15|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV- ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.15|28.91|
91691138|NCT04886596|183275532|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|63.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.5|83.2|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV-ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||83.20|28.50|
91691139|NCT04886596|183275532|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|65.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.56|85.47|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV- ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||85.47|28.56|
91691140|NCT04886596|183275532|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|62.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.45|84.29|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV-ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||84.29|21.45|
91691141|NCT04886596|183275533|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|12.42|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||12.42|-8.29|
91691142|NCT04886596|183275533|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|16.39|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||16.39|-4.05|
91691143|NCT04886596|183275533|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|10.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|21.31|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||21.31|-0.68|
91794167|NCT04721067|183467294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.22|||ANCOVA|||||4.22|-0.83|0.17
91863843|NCT04800211|183616315|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.977||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|2.465|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.465|-0.512|0.3280
91691144|NCT04886596|183275533|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|12.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|22.58|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||22.58|0.32|
91722202|NCT04153864|183336848|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 13% of the mean GAD-7 score in the In-Person group (6.29), which corresponded to a value of 0.82. This predetermined NIM of 13% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.73|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered via Telemedicine will be non-inferior to BA delivered In-Person if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in GAD-7 scores is less than the pre-specified 13% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Please note, this presents the Intention to Treat (ITT) analysis.||0.73||<0.05
91722203|NCT06442800|183336850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multiple cancers vs. Control||||<0.001
91722204|NCT06442800|183336850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dementia vs. Control||||<0.001
91691145|NCT02329015|183275615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.58||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Model 1: An intent to treat analyses was performed determining effect of group assignment on academic performance while controlling for previous year GPA.||2.41|-1.25|0.54
91722205|NCT06442800|183336850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Colorectal cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91722206|NCT06442800|183336850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91691146|NCT02329015|183275615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.67||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|3.55|||Regression, Linear|||Model 2: As active participation between groups was significantly different a second intent to treat analysis was performed which added to Model 1 (controlling for previous year GPA) by controlling for active participation.||3.55|-0.21|0.08
91691147|NCT02329015|183275615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.71|||Regression, Linear|||Model 3: Per Protocol Analysis: it was hypothesized that any benefit of yoga education would only accrue if the student was assigned to yoga classes and actively participated in the class. A third Model was fit with an interaction term for class assignment and class participation.||4.71|0.69|0.009
91691148|NCT02329015|183275616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the Voluntary subscale of the Response to Stress Questionnaire||||0.301
91794168|NCT04721067|183467295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.49||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.58|16.55|||ANCOVA|||||16.55|-9.58|0.58
91691149|NCT02348112|183275644|NON_INFERIORITY|The number and proportion of subjects experiencing a 50% or greater reduction in pad weight at 6 months were compared, and non-inferiority assessed using a normal approximation test (Z-test) for a difference in binomial proportion. Non-inferiority was considered achieved if the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions (Comparator - Altis) was less than 0.15.|Difference in Proportions|-0.054||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.031|||Normal approximation test (Z-test)|||||0.031|-0.139|0.013
91691150|NCT02348112|183275645|NON_INFERIORITY|The number and proportion of subjects experiencing device- and/or procedure-related serious adverse events were tabulated for each study group. Non-inferiority through 36 months was calculated using a normal approximation test (Z-test) for a difference in binomial proportion. Non-inferiority was considered achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions (Comparator - Altis) is greater than -0.10 in the mITT analysis population.|Difference in Proportions|0.013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.048|||Normal approximation test (Z-test)|||||0.048|-0.023|<0.0001
91722207|NCT06442800|183336850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Throat and mouth cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91722208|NCT06442800|183336850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver disease vs. Control||||<0.001
91722209|NCT06442800|183336850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypertension vs. Control||||<0.001
91722210|NCT06442800|183336850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Current warning vs. Control||||<0.001
91722211|NCT06442800|183336850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Guidelines vs. Control||||<0.001
91794169|NCT04721067|183467296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|-0.79|0.74
91691151|NCT03714828|183275646|OTHER||Overall Response Rate|100.0||||0.0005|ONE_SIDED|95.0|76.2||||One-sample binomial test|One-sample binomial test versus null hypothesis value of 0.50.|||||76.2|0.0005
91691152|NCT03714828|183275648|OTHER|Descriptive statistics|Mean|48.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.2|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91691153|NCT03714828|183275650|OTHER|Binomial proportion of TILs|Percentage|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91722212|NCT06442800|183336851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multiple cancers vs. Control||||<0.001
91722213|NCT06442800|183336851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dementia vs. Control||||<0.001
91904182|NCT02234284|183703313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||10.2|-33.3|.30
91691154|NCT03714828|183275653|OTHER|Counts of TILs|Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91691155|NCT03714828|183275654|OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91691156|NCT01168427|183275656|OTHER|There was no formal statistical hypothesis tested. The goal was to estimate the procedure-related complications 90 days post implant using the Kaplan-Meier method.|Rate|0.034|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1292||||||||0.1292||
91691157|NCT01709500|183275729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-44.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alirocumab group was compared to the placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-44.8|-58.1|<0.0001
91691158|NCT01709500|183275730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|-45.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 5% level.||-45.6|-58.7|<0.0001
91691159|NCT01709500|183275731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|-42.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-42.2|-54.7|<0.0001
91722214|NCT06442800|183336851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Colorectal cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91722215|NCT06442800|183336851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91691160|NCT01709500|183275732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|-42.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-42.5|-55|<0.0001
91691161|NCT01709500|183275733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-34.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-34.5|-44.1|<0.0001
91722216|NCT06442800|183336851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Throat and mouth cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91794170|NCT04721067|183467297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|129.077||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.78|315.92|||ANCOVA|||||315.92|-57.78|0.17
91691162|NCT01709500|183275734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-35.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-35.1|-44.5|<0.0001
91691163|NCT01709500|183275735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-39.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-39.7|-51.8|<0.0001
91691164|NCT01709500|183275736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-40.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-40.4|-52.3|<0.0001
91691165|NCT01709500|183275737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-28.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-28.1|-37.4|<0.0001
91691166|NCT01709500|183275738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-29.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-29.8|-39.2|<0.0001
91691167|NCT01709500|183275739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-36.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-36.2|-47.8|<0.0001
91691168|NCT01709500|183275740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-25.4|-34.5|<0.0001
91691169|NCT01709500|183275741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|-50.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-50.8|-66.8|<0.0001
91722217|NCT06442800|183336851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver disease vs. Control||||<0.001
91722218|NCT06442800|183336851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypertension vs. Control||||<0.001
91794171|NCT04721067|183467298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|109.71||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.37|327.78|||ANCOVA|||||327.78|-108.37|0.31
91691170|NCT01709500|183275742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|130.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||130|20.9|<0.0001
91691171|NCT01709500|183275743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|132.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||132.6|21.4|<0.0001
91691172|NCT01709500|183275744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|239.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|1820.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1820.3|31.6|<0.0001
91691173|NCT01709500|183275745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|240.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|1841.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1841.7|31.4|<0.0001
91691174|NCT01709500|183275746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-14.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-14.2|-26.4|<0.0001
91691175|NCT01709500|183275747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||10.7|2.8|= 0.0009
91691176|NCT01709500|183275748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.9|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-4.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure. Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-4.3|-17.5|= 0.0012
91691177|NCT01709500|183275749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.4|||=|0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||7.5|1.3|= 0.0062
91691178|NCT01709500|183275750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-13.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-13.1|-25|<0.0001
91691179|NCT01709500|183275751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|||=|0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||7.8|0.9|= 0.0147
91691180|NCT01709500|183275752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.6|||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-1.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-1.1|-16.1|= 0.024
91691181|NCT01709500|183275753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||=|0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||5.5|-0.8|= 0.1475
91691182|NCT00856492|183275800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
91691183|NCT00856492|183275801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.64
91691184|NCT00856492|183275802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
91691185|NCT01120184|183275838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study was powered for superiority with target hazard ratio (HR) equal to 0.75, as well as for non-inferiority with HR equal to 1.1765 for comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm. Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was less than (\<) 1.1765. Superiority was achieved if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was \<1.00.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.73|1.13||Test and p-value apply for superiority test. Two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used to adjust for independent comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm.|Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs. Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.13|0.73|0.3125
91691186|NCT01120184|183275838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study was powered for superiority with target HR equal to 0.75, as well as for non-inferiority with HR equal to 1.1765 for comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm. Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was \<1.1765. Superiority was achieved if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was \<1.00.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.69|1.08||Test and p-value apply for superiority test. Two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used to adjust for independent comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm.|Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs. Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.08|0.69|0.1407
91722219|NCT06442800|183336851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Current warning vs. Control||||<0.001
91722220|NCT06442800|183336851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Guidelines vs. Control||||<0.001
91722221|NCT06442800|183336852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multiple cancers vs. Control||||<0.001
91722222|NCT06442800|183336852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dementia vs. Control||||<0.001
91722223|NCT06442800|183336852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Colorectal cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91722224|NCT06442800|183336852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91722225|NCT06442800|183336852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Throat and mouth cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91722226|NCT06442800|183336852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver disease vs. Control||||<0.001
91722227|NCT06442800|183336852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypertension vs. Control||||<0.001
91794172|NCT04721067|183467299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|5.0|||ANCOVA|||||5.00|-4.52|0.92
91863844|NCT04800211|183616315|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.218||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.667|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||1.230|-1.667|0.9951
91722228|NCT06442800|183336852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.04||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Current warning vs. Control||||0.02
91722229|NCT06442800|183336852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Guidelines vs. Control||||<0.001
91722230|NCT04717557|183336861|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91794173|NCT04721067|183467300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|4.06|||ANCOVA|||||4.06|-6.28|0.66
91794174|NCT04480424|183467336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|-4.0||||0.8275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|14.5||p-value was calculated using Fisher's exact method with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in mortality rate between the two treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||14.5|-22.3|0.8275
91722231|NCT04717557|183336861|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91722232|NCT04717557|183336862|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91722233|NCT04717557|183336863|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91722234|NCT04717557|183336864|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.5
91722235|NCT04717557|183336865|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Underpowered - no statistically significant difference.||||>0.5
91722236|NCT04717557|183336866|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91794175|NCT04480424|183467337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8599||||||p-value was calculated using Gray's test for equality of the Cumulative Incidence Function (CIF) between treatment groups.|Gray's test|||||||0.8599
91722237|NCT04717557|183336867|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91722238|NCT04717557|183336868|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91722239|NCT04717557|183336869|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91722240|NCT06354257|183336870|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the AUC(0-inf) of EE.||1.41|0.55|
91722241|NCT06354257|183336870|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the AUC(0-inf) of LNG.||1.23|0.98|
91722242|NCT06354257|183336871|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the Cmax of EE.||1.09|0.85|
91794176|NCT04480424|183467338|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|2.58||||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|7.12||p-value was calculated using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model, including the number of days on mechanical ventilation as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||7.12|-1.96|0.2626
91794177|NCT04480424|183467339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6854||||||p-value was calculated using Gray's test for equality of the CIF between treatment groups.|Gray's test|||||||0.6854
91794178|NCT04480424|183467340|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.02||||0.9917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|3.78||95% CI for difference in least square mean (LSM) between treatment groups and the associated p-value were calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days on oxygen as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||3.78|-3.82|0.9917
91722243|NCT06354257|183336871|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the Cmax of LNG.||1.19|0.97|
91722244|NCT01654276|183336895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91722245|NCT00720759|183336927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A general linear model was employed. The independent variables were baseline WMFT score, treatment (condensed vs distributed), treatment (d-cycloserine vs placebo), and treatment interaction effect. The dependent measure was WMFT score at 3 months post treatment.||||<0.05
91722246|NCT03100747|183336937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.97|1.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.97|0.039
91722247|NCT03100747|183336937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.54|2.36||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|1.54|<0.0001
91863845|NCT04800211|183616315|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.225||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|2.693|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.693|-0.244|0.1367
91904119|NCT04667377|183703248|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Emax1 model fit|Model Assumption: 90% of maximum effect achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
91904183|NCT02234284|183703314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for mean number of days for participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|||0.62|-2.07|.29
91722248|NCT03100747|183336937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.29|1.92||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|1.29|<0.0001
91722249|NCT03100747|183336942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.65|1.08||p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.65|0.094
91722250|NCT03100747|183336942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.38|0.67||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons, the a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.67|0.38|<0.0001
91722251|NCT03100747|183336942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.45|0.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.80|0.45|<0.0001
91722252|NCT03100747|183336947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.64|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.17|0.64|0.24
91722253|NCT03100747|183336947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.49|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.93|0.49|0.0037
91722254|NCT03100747|183336947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.57|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.57|0.08
91722255|NCT04070703|183337033|SUPERIORITY|The co-primary outcome data were analyzed via a Group by Time mixed-effects model with repeated measures on the second factor (i.e., outcome measures assessed at baseline and 6 months. In the presence of a Group by Time interaction effect, pre-specified follow-up pair-wise comparisons were performed to determine between-group differences.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.1|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|2.1|0.0125
91722256|NCT04070703|183337033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.07|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|.07|.0125
91722257|NCT04070703|183337034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.8|16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.6|2.8|.0125
91722258|NCT04070703|183337034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|12.6|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.2|12.6|.0125
91722259|NCT04070703|183337035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.1|-.5|0.05
91722260|NCT04070703|183337035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.3|-.7|.05
91722261|NCT04070703|183337036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8|-20|.05
91722262|NCT04070703|183337036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16|-28|.05
91722263|NCT04070703|183337037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.1|-.4|<.05
91722264|NCT04070703|183337037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|.4|<.05
91904120|NCT04667377|183703248|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Emax2 model fit|Model Assumption: 70% of maximum effect achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
91691187|NCT01120184|183275838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study was powered for superiority with target HR equal to 0.75, as well as for non-inferiority with HR equal to 1.1765 for comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.73|1.13||Test and p-value apply for superiority test. Primary endpoint did not meet superiority of PFS for trastuzumab emtansine + pertuzumab versus trastuzumab + taxane (two-sided significance level 2.5%); thus, tests and p-value are considered descriptive.|Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs. Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.13|0.73|0.3075
91691188|NCT01120184|183275840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.73|1.2|||Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.20|0.73|0.6568
91691189|NCT01120184|183275840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.5691|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.67|1.11|||Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.11|0.67|0.5691
91691190|NCT01120184|183275842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.69|1.04|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtasine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.04|0.69|
91691191|NCT01120184|183275842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|0.95|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.95|0.63|
91691192|NCT01120184|183275844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.66|0.97|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.97|0.66|
91691193|NCT01120184|183275844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|0.95|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.95|0.65|
91691194|NCT01120184|183275854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-0.5|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||-0.5|-15.9|
91691195|NCT01120184|183275854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|3.9|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||3.9|-11.4|
91722265|NCT04070703|183337038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|.5|<.05
91691196|NCT01120184|183275854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.2|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|||12.2|-3.3|
91691197|NCT01120184|183275855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.8|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||2.8|-12.1|
91722266|NCT04070703|183337038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|1.6|<.05
91722267|NCT04070703|183337039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-.4|<.05
91722268|NCT04070703|183337039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5|3.1|<.05
91722269|NCT04070703|183337040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.7|-.3|<.05
91722270|NCT04070703|183337040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-2.4|<.05
91722271|NCT04070703|183337041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.4|-1.4|<.05
91722272|NCT04070703|183337041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|.8|<.05
91691198|NCT01120184|183275855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|5.7|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||5.7|-9.2|
91722273|NCT04070703|183337042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-.1|<.05
91722274|NCT04070703|183337042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|1.6|<.05
91722275|NCT04070703|183337043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.8|-.7|<.05
91722276|NCT04070703|183337043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-3.1|<.05
91722277|NCT04070703|183337044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-.3|<.05
91722278|NCT04070703|183337044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.2|-1.8|<.05
91722279|NCT04070703|183337045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2|-.4|<.05
91722280|NCT04070703|183337045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|3.1|<.05
91691199|NCT01120184|183275855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.3|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|||10.3|-4.5|
91691200|NCT01120184|183275856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.43|0.84|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.84|0.43|
91691201|NCT01120184|183275856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.45|0.85|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.85|0.45|
91691202|NCT01120184|183275858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Symptom Rate|-32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-24.0|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||-24|-40|
91691203|NCT01120184|183275858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Symptom Rate|-24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-16.0|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||-16|-32|
91722281|NCT04070703|183337046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.03|-.04|<.05
91722282|NCT04070703|183337046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.11|.03|<.05
91722283|NCT04070703|183337047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6|-2|<.05
91722284|NCT04070703|183337047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|125.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.0|166.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||166|84|<.05
91722285|NCT04070703|183337048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.1|-.3|<.05
91722286|NCT04070703|183337048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.4|-.7|<.05
91722287|NCT05028569|183337063|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, included as a continuous variable rather than the binomial stratification variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.69|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||0.69|-0.62|=0.914
91722288|NCT05028569|183337063|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, included as a continuous variable rather than the binomial stratification variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.55|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.55|-0.76|=0.745
91722289|NCT05028569|183337065|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly headache days as covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.01|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||1.01|-0.42|=0.414
91691204|NCT01120184|183275858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Symptom Rate|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|18.4|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||18.4|-2.3|
91691205|NCT01120184|183275862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.86|0.57|
91691206|NCT01120184|183275862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.84|0.55|
91691207|NCT01120184|183275866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.15|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.15|0.40|
91691208|NCT01120184|183275867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.07|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.07|0.41|
91691209|NCT01120184|183275869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|1.25|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.25|0.65|
91691210|NCT01120184|183275871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.74|1.34|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.34|0.74|
91691211|NCT03190993|183275892|OTHER|Linear mixed effect models were used to test if changes (Day 28 - Baseline) were equal between treatment groups (primary outcome).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|=|0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||=0.22
91691212|NCT02954601|183275950|OTHER|Values obtained using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, Period and Baseline value (for change and percent change) are factors in the model with repeated values for a subject.||||||0.1311|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1311
91691213|NCT02954601|183275953|OTHER|||||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Values obtained using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment period and Baseline value (for change and percent change) are factors in the model with repeated values for subject.||||0.3061
91691214|NCT00471081|183275963|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.9|93.2|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup A.||93.2|81.9|
91691215|NCT00471081|183275963|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.3|100.0|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 90%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup C.||100|97.3|
91691216|NCT00471081|183275963|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.2|100.0|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup W-135.||100|96.2|
91691217|NCT00471081|183275963|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.2|100.0|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup Y.||100|96.2|
91691218|NCT02211209|183276052|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-94.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.7|-66.6|||ANCOVA|||||-66.6|-121.7|< 0.0001
91691219|NCT02211209|183276054|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1804.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|251.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2306.0|-1302.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1302|-2306|< 0.0001
91691220|NCT02211209|183276055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|186.16||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.86||NA indicates that the upper limit of 95% CI was not estimable. The upper limit of the odds ratio estimate from the logistic regression model was \>999.999, and it was reported as NA per statistical reporting convention.||Regression, Logistic||||||12.86|0.0001
91794179|NCT04480424|183467341|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.05||||0.7557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.4|||Kenward-Roger|p-value were calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.40|-0.29|0.7557
91691221|NCT02211209|183276056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.75|631.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||631.06|15.75|<0.0001
91794180|NCT04480424|183467342|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.4||||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.86||p-value were calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||||0.86|-0.07|0.0922
91863846|NCT04800211|183616315|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.101||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|2.091|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.091|0.111|0.0294
91863847|NCT04800211|183616315|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.248||||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.424|0.928|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.928|-1.424|0.6792
91904121|NCT04667377|183703248|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model Assumption: 50% of maximum effect achieved at dose 2.4 mg, 90% of maximum effect achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
91722290|NCT05028569|183337065|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly headache days as covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.76|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.76|-0.66|=0.889
91722291|NCT05028569|183337066|SUPERIORITY|P-value is obtained from Logistic Regression. Model includes treatment (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, and placebo), country and strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects in this by visit logistic covariate analysis of variance (ANCOVA). Confidence intervals (Clopper-Pearson) are based on binomial-distribution assumptions.|Response Rate Difference|2.2|||=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|11.46|||Regression, Logistic||Response Rate Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||11.46|-7.08|=0.451
91722292|NCT05028569|183337066|SUPERIORITY|P-value is obtained from Logistic Regression. Model includes treatment (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, and placebo), country and strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects in this by visit logistic covariate analysis of variance (ANCOVA). Confidence intervals (Clopper-Pearson) are based on binomial-distribution assumptions.|Response Rate Difference|1.2|||=|0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|10.4|||Regression, Logistic||Response Rate Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||10.40|-7.94|=0.762
91722293|NCT05028569|183337067|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly acute headache medication days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|=|0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.74|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||0.74|-0.48|=0.686
91722294|NCT05028569|183337067|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly acute headache medication days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|=|0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.64|-0.57|=0.913
91722295|NCT05028569|183337068|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the visit at Month 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline MSQ v2.1 RFR Domain Score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|=|0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|3.93|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||3.93|-3.18|=0.837
91863848|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.638||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||2.137|-0.860|0.4012
91863849|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.163||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|3.983|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.983|0.343|0.0201
91863850|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|2.948|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||2.948|-0.528|0.1709
91863851|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.593||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.035|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.035|0.150|0.0307
91904122|NCT04667377|183703248|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|-0.41||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.41|-6.33|0.0257
91904123|NCT04667377|183703248|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-9.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|-6.81||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation as used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-6.81|-12.57|<.0001
91794181|NCT04480424|183467346|SUPERIORITY||Kenward-Roger|0.4||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.28||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||1.28|-0.47|0.3611
91691222|NCT02211209|183276058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6131
91691223|NCT02211209|183276059|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|138.0||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|312.0|||ANCOVA|||||312|-36|0.1206
91691224|NCT03889418|183276065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.292|-0.309|0.956
91863852|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.588||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|3.302|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.302|-0.126|0.0691
91863853|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.487||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|4.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.137|0.838|0.0034
91863854|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.849||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|3.075|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.075|0.622|0.0034
91863855|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.178||||0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.654|1.299|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.299|-1.654|0.8123
91904124|NCT04667377|183703248|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|-7.49||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-7.49|-13.32|<.0001
91722296|NCT05028569|183337068|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the visit at Month 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline MSQ v2.1 RFR Domain Score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|=|0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|4.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||4.31|-2.74|=0.662
91722297|NCT05028569|183337069|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline AIM-D Physical Impairment domain score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|=|0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.63|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||1.63|-1.32|=0.834
91794182|NCT04480424|183467346|SUPERIORITY||Kenward-Roger|-0.1||||0.9238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.94||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||1.94|-2.13|0.9238
91691225|NCT03889418|183276066|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.005|-0.200|0.039
91722298|NCT05028569|183337069|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline AIM-D Physical Impairment domain score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|=|0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||1.90|-1.06|=0.578
91722299|NCT05028569|183337070|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline total HIT-6 score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|=|0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||0.96|-1.69|=0.589
91722300|NCT05028569|183337070|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline total HIT-6 score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|=|0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.64|-2.00|=0.310
91691226|NCT03889418|183276067|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio, log|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.506|0.603|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.603|-0.506|0.864
91691227|NCT03889418|183276068|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio, log|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.308|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.308|-0.272|0.901
91691228|NCT04910100|183276112|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.5 mm Hg|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
91691229|NCT04910100|183276112|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.0 mm Hg|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
91691230|NCT04910100|183276112|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.5 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
91691231|NCT04910100|183276112|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.0 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
91722525|NCT02629159|183337897|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|-0.253||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.253|-0.372|<0.001
91794183|NCT04480424|183467346|SUPERIORITY||Kenward-Roger|0.08||||0.9541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.73||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||2.73|-2.58|0.9541
91794184|NCT04480424|183467347|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.53||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||1.53|-1.42|0.9366
91863856|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.226|1.267|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.267|-2.226|0.5879
91904125|NCT04667377|183703248|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.24||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-9.24|-15.00|<.0001
91691232|NCT04910100|183276112|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.5 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
91691233|NCT04910100|183276112|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.0 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
91691234|NCT01256879|183276195|OTHER|Each CimTest-A, CimTest-B, and Commercial Cimetidine Solution are compared to Active Comparator (i.e. Sorbitol-free Cimetidine Solution), as a percentage of Active Comparator, per routine FDA bioequivalence testing of AUC.|||||||||||||||||Bioequivalence testing of AUC, per FDA guidance, is applied. Each CimTest-A, CimTest-B, and Commercial Cimetidine Solution are compared to Active Comparator (i.e. Sorbitol-free Cimetidine Solution), as a percentage of Active Comparator, per routine FDA bioequivalence testing of AUC. The upper and lower 90% Confidence Interval for CimTest-A is 104.4% to 120.6%. The upper and lower 90% Confidence Interval for CimTest-B is 97.9% to 113.0%. The upper and lower 90% Confidence Interval for Commercial Cimetidine Solution is 93.2% to 107.7%.|||
91691235|NCT02964247|183276198|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.48|||pattern mixture model||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the primary estimand. Primary estimand: treatment effect (effectiveness) based on the FAS using week 26 measurements from the in-trial observation period. The change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 were analysed using a pattern mixture model with multiple imputation to impute missing data, with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.48|-0.89|<.001
91691236|NCT02964247|183276198|SUPERIORITY|Test was not controlled for type I error. Secondary estimand: treatment effect (efficacy) based on the FAS using post baseline measurements up to and including week 26 from the on-treatment without rescue medication obs. period.|Treatment difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the secondary estimand.The change in HbA1c from baseline up to and including week 26 at scheduled time points were analysed using MMRM with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.53|-0.94|<.001
91691237|NCT02964247|183276199|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.09|||pattern mixture model||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the primary estimand. Primary estimand: treatment effect (effectiveness) based on the FAS using week 26 measurements from the in-trial observation period. The change in body weight from baseline to week 26 were analysed using a pattern mixture model with multiple imputation to impute missing data, with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.09|-1.73|0.077
91794185|NCT04894916|183467349|OTHER|single group|mean|81.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"One-sample t-test comparing the sample mean to the threshold value of 71 indicative of good usability. The null hypothesis: true mean is equal to 71."||||<0.001
91794186|NCT04894916|183467352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91794187|NCT04894916|183467353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91794188|NCT04894916|183467354|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of A1C||||0.68
91691238|NCT02964247|183276199|SUPERIORITY|Test was not controlled for type I error. Secondary estimand: treatment effect (efficacy) based on the FAS using post baseline measurements up to and including week 26 from the on-treatment without rescue medication obs. period.|Treatment difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the secondary estimand. The change in body weight from baseline up to and including week 26 at scheduled time points were analysed using MMRM with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.04|-1.77|0.062
91691239|NCT00725920|183276224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0076
91691240|NCT00359424|183276225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.1||The CMH statistic is tested at the two-sided alpha level of 0.05. For the interim analyses of the primary efficacy analysis, the alpha spending function method (Lan and DeMets, 1987) with O'Brien and Fleming (1979) stopping boundaries were adopted.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the dichotomized baseline NIHSS score (\<20 or ≥20).|Positive adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the Endovascular group, while negative adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the IV Only group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with mRS of 0-2 at 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with mRS of 0-2 at 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms).||9.1|-6.1|.7031
91863857|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.596||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.304|1.111|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.111|-2.304|0.4910
91691241|NCT00359424|183276226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.5241|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-10.3|6.2||The CMH statistic is tested at the two-sided alpha level of 0.01.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the dichotomized baseline NIHSS score (\<20 or ≥20).|Positive adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the Endovascular group, while negative adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the IV Only group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with mortality within 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with mortality within 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms).||6.2|-10.3|.5241
91691242|NCT00359424|183276227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.8275|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.6|5.5||The CMH statistic is tested at the two-sided alpha level of 0.01.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the dichotomized baseline NIHSS score (\<20 or ≥20).|Positive adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the Endovascular group, while negative adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the IV Only group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with sICH within 30 hours post IV tPA initiation in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with sICH within 30 hours post IV tPA initiation in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms).||5.5|-4.6|.8275
91691243|NCT03832686|183276253|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.86
91722526|NCT02629159|183337897|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|-0.036||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.036|-0.184|0.004
91794189|NCT04894916|183467354|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for hemoglobin A1c.||||0.18
91691244|NCT03832686|183276254|OTHER|||||||0.69||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.69
91691245|NCT03832686|183276255|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of Eating in Public Score||||0.47
91691246|NCT03832686|183276255|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of Normalcy of Diet score||||0.73
91691247|NCT03832686|183276256|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of MBSImP Oral score||||0.65
91691248|NCT03832686|183276256|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of MBSImP Pharyngeal score||||0.24
91691249|NCT03832686|183276257|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.53
91691250|NCT03832686|183276258|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.50
91691251|NCT05479435|183276283|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.830
91794190|NCT04894916|183467354|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of systolic blood pressure||||0.18
91722527|NCT02629159|183337898|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test of upadacitinib versus adalimumab was evaluated using the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|Response Rate Difference|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|22.3|||||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||22.3|9.9|
91863858|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.816||||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.967|3.599|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.599|-1.967|0.9673
91904126|NCT04667377|183703249|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|6.84||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||6.84|1.57|0.0015
91691252|NCT05479435|183276284|OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.654
91691253|NCT05479435|183276285|OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.803
91691254|NCT05479435|183276286|OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.398
91691255|NCT05479435|183276287|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.132
91691256|NCT05479435|183276288|OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.991
91691257|NCT05479435|183276289|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.278
91691258|NCT05479435|183276290|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.479
91794191|NCT04894916|183467354|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for systolic blood pressure||||0.17
91794192|NCT04894916|183467354|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of LDL cholesterol||||0.33
91794193|NCT04894916|183467354|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for LDL cholesterol||||0.40
91691259|NCT05479435|183276291|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.849
91691260|NCT05479435|183276292|OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.504
91691261|NCT05479435|183276293|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
91691262|NCT05479435|183276294|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.025
91691263|NCT05479435|183276295|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.016
91691264|NCT05479435|183276296|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.041
91691265|NCT05479435|183276297|OTHER|||||||0.352|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.352
91691266|NCT05479435|183276298|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.390
91691267|NCT05479435|183276299|OTHER|||||||0.928|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.928
91691268|NCT05479435|183276300|OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.558
91691269|NCT05479435|183276301|OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.133
91691270|NCT05479435|183276302|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.367
91691271|NCT05479435|183276303|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.631
91691272|NCT05479435|183276304|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.056
91691273|NCT05479435|183276305|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.979
91691274|NCT05479435|183276306|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.377
91691275|NCT05479435|183276307|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.979
91691276|NCT05479435|183276308|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.055
91691277|NCT03055338|183276332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|Includes terms for treatment, baseline PANSS total score, age, duration of illness, week, and the interaction of week by treatment.|Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Risperidone|||9.2|-4.0|0.440
91691278|NCT03055338|183276332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.7||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.5|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|Includes terms for treatment, baseline PANSS total score, age, duration of illness, week, and the interaction of week by treatment.|Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Placebo|||0.5|-9.8|0.074
91691279|NCT03055338|183276332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.3||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.6|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|Includes terms for treatment, baseline PANSS total score, age, duration of illness, week, and the interaction of week by treatment.|Difference in LSM = Risperidone - Placebo|||-0.6|-14.0|0.033
91691280|NCT03055338|183276333|OTHER||Difference in % versus Placebo|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|30.8|||||Difference in % = MK-8918 - Placebo||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|30.8|3.0|
91794194|NCT04894916|183467354|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of flu vaccine||||1.00
91794195|NCT04894916|183467354|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of recommended frequency of flu vaccination||||0.37
91794196|NCT04894916|183467355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91722301|NCT04609553|183337071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. Specifically, no adjustments were made for child expressive language since it was only measured at 18 months.|||0.64
91904127|NCT04667377|183703249|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|19.46||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||19.46|4.00|<.0001
91904184|NCT02234284|183703315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|59.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||59.8|19.6|<.001
91691281|NCT03055338|183276334|OTHER||Difference in % versus Placebo|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.0|||||Difference in % = MK-8918 - Placebo||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|7.0|-9.6|
91691282|NCT03055338|183276335|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Risperidone|||0.6|-0.2|
91691283|NCT03055338|183276335|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||||Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Placebo|||0.2|-0.5|
91691284|NCT03055338|183276335|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||||Difference in LSM = Risperidone - Placebo|||0.1|-0.8|
91691285|NCT01415518|183276343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.096|||ANCOVA|multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.096|1.043|<.0001
91691286|NCT01415518|183276344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.067|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.044|1.09|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.090|1.044|<.0001
91691287|NCT01415518|183276345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.068|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.043|1.092|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.092|1.043|<.0001
91691288|NCT01415518|183276346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.04||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.064|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.064|1.017|0.0007
91691289|NCT01415518|183276347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.045|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.065|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.065|1.024|<.0001
91722528|NCT02629159|183337898|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|||||<|0.001||||||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use.||||||<0.001
91691290|NCT01415518|183276348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.038||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.06|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.060|1.017|0.0003
91691291|NCT01415518|183276349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.035||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.066|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.066|1.004|0.0248
91691292|NCT01415518|183276350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.038||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.067|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.067|1.010|0.0074
91691293|NCT01415518|183276351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.172||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.733|37.611|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||37.611|12.733|0.0001
91691294|NCT01415518|183276352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.136|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.163|30.11|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||30.110|12.163|<.0001
91691295|NCT01415518|183276353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.927|31.161|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||31.161|14.927|<.0001
91904128|NCT04667377|183703249|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|16.41||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||16.41|3.41|<.0001
91722529|NCT02629159|183337898|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|35.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.0|25.6|<0.001
91691296|NCT01415518|183276354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.513|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.74|44.286|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||44.286|18.740|<.0001
91691297|NCT01415518|183276355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.322|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.425|34.22|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||34.220|14.425|<.0001
91691298|NCT01415518|183276356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.168|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.906|35.431|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||35.431|18.906|<.0001
91691299|NCT01415518|183276357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.297||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|-0.071|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.071|-0.522|0.0102
91691300|NCT01415518|183276358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.343||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.533|-0.153|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.153|-0.533|0.0004
91691301|NCT01415518|183276359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.342||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.523|-0.162|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.162|-0.523|0.0002
91691302|NCT01415518|183276360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.279|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|-0.177|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of score as a covariate||||-0.177|-0.381|<.0001
91691303|NCT01415518|183276361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.193||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|-0.092|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of score as a covariate||||-0.092|-0.294|0.0002
91691304|NCT01415518|183276362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.208||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|-0.108|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of score as a covariate||||-0.108|-0.308|0.0001
91691305|NCT01415518|183276363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.565||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.325|0.981|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression model with treatment as a factor and the duration time in study as an offset variable||||0.981|0.325|0.0425
91691306|NCT01415518|183276363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.604||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.078|||Regression, Cox|Time to the first COPD exacerbation||||1.078|0.339|0.0880
91691307|NCT01415518|183276363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0845|||||||Log Rank|Time to the first COPD exacerbation||||||0.0845
91691308|NCT01415518|183276364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.055||||0.2281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.035|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||0.035|-0.144|0.2281
91691309|NCT01415518|183276365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.122||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|-0.049|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.049|-0.194|0.0010
91691310|NCT01415518|183276366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|-0.029|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.029|-0.183|0.0073
91794197|NCT04894916|183467356|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me (i.e., social comparison information)||||0.03
91691311|NCT02999269|183276367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||p-value for time by amplitude interaction|Regression, Linear|||For the primary outcomes (change in HDRS24), we performed a full longitudinal model with an unstructured repeated measures covariance matrix on subjects who completed the study in the assigned treatment arm. The dependent variable was HDRS at each visit and the independent variables included progress (time within the ECT series: pre-, mid-, and post-ECT), amplitude, age, sex, pulse width and the following interactions: progress/amplitude, progress/sex, and progress/pulse width.|Time-by-amplitude interaction (F4, 72 = 2.65, p = 0.04).|||0.04
91691312|NCT02999269|183276367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
91691313|NCT02999269|183276368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.37
91691314|NCT02999269|183276368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||p-value is time-by-amplitude interaction|Regression, Linear|||||||0.50
91691315|NCT02999269|183276368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Progress (F2,71 = 11.15, p \< 0.01)|Regression, Linear|||||||< 0.01
91691316|NCT01256164|183276369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With 90 subjects, randomized on a 2:1 ratio into the Fibrocaps plus gelatin sponge active arm or the gelatin sponge arm, and assuming a mean TTH of 3.5 minutes with a standard deviation of 2.5 minutes in the active arm and a mean TTH of 6 minutes in the control arm, this translates in a power of 99.4% at a two-sided significance level alpha of 5%, using a two-sample t-test.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91691317|NCT01256164|183276370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91691318|NCT01256164|183276371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Intent-to-treat analysis||||<0.001
91794198|NCT04894916|183467356|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how their diabetes health data compares to the goal range (i.e., goal-based comparison information)||||0.45
91794199|NCT04894916|183467356|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me \[social comparison information\] is useful.||||0.17
91794200|NCT04894916|183467356|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to the goals range \[goal-based comparison information\] is useful.||||0.62
91691319|NCT01256164|183276372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to- treat analysis||||0.001
91794201|NCT04894916|183467358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91794202|NCT04894916|183467359|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
91794203|NCT04894916|183467360|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91794204|NCT04894916|183467361|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91904185|NCT02234284|183703316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|25.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for proportion of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||25.2|-9.5|.38
91691320|NCT01256164|183276373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to-treat analysis||||0.003
91691321|NCT03752970|183276386|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.186||||||||-0.186|-0.880|
91794205|NCT04894916|183467362|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91794206|NCT04233034|183467373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.10|-0.11|0.89
91794207|NCT04233034|183467373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.27|0.01|0.04
91794208|NCT04233034|183467374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 13 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.08|-0.10|0.80
91691322|NCT03752970|183276387|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.816|-0.087||||||||-0.087|-0.816|
91794209|NCT04233034|183467374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 26 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.13|-0.08|0.80
91794210|NCT04233034|183467374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 39 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.09|-0.13|0.80
91691323|NCT03752970|183276388|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.816|-0.087||||||||-0.087|-0.816|
91691324|NCT03976362|183276389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.93||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Cancer Group (ECOG) at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||0.93|0.63|0.0040
91691325|NCT03976362|183276390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.24|0.83|0.5481
91691326|NCT03976362|183276393|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.37||||0.8238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|3.66||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||3.66|-2.91|0.8238
91691327|NCT03976362|183276394|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization Visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization Visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.14|0.66|0.3083
91794605|NCT03981822|183468101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Study Day 84 (EOT) visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0013
91863859|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.643||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|5.968|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.968|-0.683|0.1787
91904129|NCT04667377|183703249|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|24.31||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||24.31|4.77|<.0001
91691328|NCT03976362|183276395|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|1.68||||0.4686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|6.23||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||6.23|-2.87|0.4686
91691329|NCT03976362|183276396|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.35|0.76|0.9174
91691330|NCT03976362|183276397|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.83||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.16||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||7.16|0.50|0.0245
91691331|NCT03976362|183276398|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.75||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.75|0.88|0.2133
91691332|NCT03976362|183276399|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18||||0.9381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|4.62||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||4.62|-4.27|0.9381
91691333|NCT03976362|183276400|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.31||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.31|0.72|0.8464
91691334|NCT03976362|183276401|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-2.81||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|0.41||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||0.41|-6.02|0.0870
91691335|NCT03976362|183276402|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.16||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||2.16|1.18|0.0020
91691336|NCT01467713|183276424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.42|1.39|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with only treatment in the model.|||1.39|0.42|0.286
91691337|NCT01467713|183276424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.43|1.43|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with only treatment in the model.|||1.43|0.43|0.332
91863860|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.806||||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.406|5.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.018|-1.406|0.5243
91691338|NCT01467713|183276424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.6|1.86|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with only treatment in the model.|||1.86|0.60|0.808
91691339|NCT01467713|183276424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.48|1.61|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center, age, gender, and baseline MADRS score in the model.|||1.61|0.48|0.286
91691340|NCT01467713|183276424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.42|1.49|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center, age, gender, and baseline MADRS score in the model.|||1.49|0.42|0.332
91691341|NCT01467713|183276424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.6|1.95|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center, age, gender, and baseline MADRS score in the model.|||1.95|0.60|0.808
91691342|NCT04846569|183276436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.39||||||||0.39|-0.38|
91722302|NCT04609553|183337071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. Specifically, no adjustments were made for child expressive language since it was only measured at 18 months.|||0.46
91691343|NCT04846569|183276437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.47||||||||0.47|-0.78|
91691344|NCT04846569|183276438|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||All participants who we were able to obtain records for were virally suppressed thus an effect size was unable to be calculated.|All participants who we were able to obtain records for were virally suppressed thus an effect size was unable to be calculated as originally planned.|||
91691345|NCT04846569|183276439|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.53||||||||0.53|-0.20|
91691346|NCT04846569|183276440|OTHER|Qualitative data analysis|||||||||||||||||Thematic qualitative data analysis was conducted to determine the count of participants reporting positively about the intervention|||
91691347|NCT05251337|183276502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.462
91691348|NCT05251337|183276503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.285
91691349|NCT05251337|183276505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
91691350|NCT02342678|183276618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-0.3|0.13
91691351|NCT02342678|183276619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.2|0.18
91691352|NCT02342678|183276620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-1.2|0.89
91691353|NCT02342678|183276621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-0.3|0.13
91691354|NCT02342678|183276622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.73
91691355|NCT02342678|183276623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.9|24.3|||ANCOVA|||||24.3|-62.9|0.38
91691356|NCT02342678|183276624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|14.8|||ANCOVA|||||14.8|-3.7|0.24
91691357|NCT02342678|183276625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.4|0.46
91691358|NCT00460603|183276626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.585||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|1.031|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes versus \[vs.\] no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no) was used for the analysis.||1.031|0.332|0.9726
91691359|NCT00460603|183276626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.735||||0.8391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.352|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no) was used for the analysis.||1.352|0.399|0.8391
91691360|NCT00460603|183276626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.797||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.299|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no) was used for the analysis.||1.299|0.489|0.8192
91722303|NCT04609553|183337072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.84
91794211|NCT04233034|183467374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 13 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.13|-0.09|0.69
91794212|NCT04233034|183467374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 26 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.25|-0.02|0.08
91863861|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|4.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.507|-0.966|0.3956
91904186|NCT02234284|183703317|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.||Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||13.4|-9.4|.73
91691361|NCT00460603|183276658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.45|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.45|0.47|0.5699
91691362|NCT00460603|183276658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.61|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||1.61|0.33|0.2167
91691363|NCT00460603|183276658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.98|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.98|0.75|0.8746
91691364|NCT00460603|183276659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.41|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.41|0.81|0.8884
91691365|NCT00460603|183276659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.6648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.89|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||1.89|0.66|0.6648
91691366|NCT00460603|183276659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.07|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.07|0.75|0.8065
91722530|NCT02629159|183337899|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|5.15||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.15|3.52|<0.001
91691367|NCT00460603|183276660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.155||||0.6904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|2.033|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.033|0.656|0.6904
91691368|NCT00460603|183276660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.203||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|2.141|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.141|0.676|0.7364
91691369|NCT00460603|183276660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.653|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||1.653|0.535|0.4140
91691370|NCT01651117|183276673|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed methods ANCOVA with patient random effects, to compare change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months between treatment and control groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1739||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|0.0154||Subject random effect included because same model was used for analyses of 2 separate follow up periods (baseline to 6 month, and baseline to 12 month, reported separately).|Mixed Models Analysis|Multiple imputation used for intent-to-treat analysis.|Negative parameter estimate means decrease in HbA1c was greater for treatment group than for control group.|||0.0154|-0.6690|0.0611
91691371|NCT03808948|183276708|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression with mGFR/eGFR ratio as independent variate, AKI as binary outcome||1.97|0.08|0.4842
91691372|NCT03982511|183276784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT, primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. P-values will be provided in addition to effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures|Effect size: 0.17|Difference on difference from T2 to T1 for BMI z-score||||.73
91691373|NCT03982511|183276784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI z-score from T3 to T1|Effect size: -0.01|||.98
91691374|NCT03982511|183276784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI percentile from T2 to T1|Effect size: 0.24|||0.63
91691375|NCT03982511|183276784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI percentile from T3 to T1|Effect size: 0.03|||0.96
91691376|NCT03982511|183276785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for Emotion regulation subscale from T2 to T1|Effect size: 0.79|||0.12
91691377|NCT03982511|183276785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for emotion regulation subscale from T3 to T1|Effect size: -0.02|||0.96
91691378|NCT03982511|183276786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for child weekly screen time from T2 to T1|Effect size: -0.41|||0.28
91691379|NCT03982511|183276786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for child weekly screen time from T3 to T1|Effect size: 0.42|||0.43
91691380|NCT03982511|183276787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.86||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference score for MVPA minutes from T2 to T1|Effect size: 0.85|||0.16
91691381|NCT03982511|183276787|SUPERIORITY|Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|Mean Difference (Net)|16.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.32||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference score for MVPA minutes from T3 to T1|Effect size: 0.35|||0.61
91904130|NCT04667377|183703250|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.02||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||8.02|1.29|0.0120
91691382|NCT03982511|183276787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-64.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.5||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference score for sedentary minutes from T2 to T1|Effect size: -0.68|||0.26
91691383|NCT03982511|183276787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|66.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.43||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference score for sedentary minutes from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.66|||0.34
91691384|NCT03982511|183276788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for parent-reported sleep time from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.41|||0.41
91691385|NCT03982511|183276788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for parent-reported sleep time from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.76|||0.16
91691386|NCT03982511|183276789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.84||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for actigraphy-recorded sleep time from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.54|||0.42
91691387|NCT03982511|183276789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.61||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for actigraphy-recorded sleep time from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.56|||0.04
91691388|NCT03982511|183276790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for problematic media use from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.15|||0.77
91691389|NCT03982511|183276790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for problematic media use from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.38|||0.47
91691390|NCT03982511|183276791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for child-centered skills from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.65|||0.005
91691391|NCT03982511|183276791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for child-centered skills from T3 to T1|effect size: 1.20|||0.05
91691392|NCT03982511|183276792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PCDI scores from T2 to T1.|effect size: -1.21|||0.02
91691393|NCT03982511|183276792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PCDI scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.57|||0.008
91691394|NCT03982511|183276793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for pressure to eat scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.34|||0.50
91691395|NCT03982511|183276793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for pressure to eat scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.01|||0.98
91794213|NCT04233034|183467374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.28||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 39 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.28|-0.01|0.08
91722304|NCT04609553|183337072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.82
91722305|NCT04609553|183337072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.001
91722531|NCT02629159|183337899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.62||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||2.62|0.62|0.002
91794214|NCT04233034|183467377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-14|-37|<0.001
91794215|NCT04233034|183467377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||16|-25|0.74
91794216|NCT04233034|183467378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|22.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||22|10|<0.001
91794217|NCT04233034|183467378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||13|-9|0.74
91794218|NCT04233034|183467379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|22.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||22|10|<0.001
91794219|NCT04233034|183467379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||14|-8|0.95
91794220|NCT04233034|183467380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.53|0.21|<0.001
91863862|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.068||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|5.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.295|-1.160|0.3810
91794221|NCT04233034|183467380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.32|-0.26|0.79
91794222|NCT04233034|183467382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-9|-22|<0.001
91722306|NCT04609553|183337072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.16
91722307|NCT04609553|183337073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.93
91722308|NCT04609553|183337073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up, A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.04
91794223|NCT04233034|183467382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference at 52 weeks (verapamil - placebo) adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||9|-13|0.74
91794224|NCT04233034|183467383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-1|-7|0.003
91794225|NCT04233034|183467383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (verapamil - placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||4|-6|0.74
91691396|NCT03982511|183276794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive feeding scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.70|||0.17
91691397|NCT03982511|183276794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive feeding scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.51|||0.34
91691398|NCT03982511|183276795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for emotional feeding scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.06|||0.91
91691399|NCT03982511|183276795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for emotional feeding scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.40|||0.45
91691400|NCT03982511|183276796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for instrumental feeding scores from T2 to T1.|effect size: -1.12|||0.03
91691401|NCT03982511|183276796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for instrumental feeding scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.25|||0.03
91863863|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.084||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|6.216|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||6.216|-0.049|0.0557
91691402|NCT03982511|183276797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for active mediation from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.02|||0.05
91691403|NCT03982511|183276797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for active mediation scores from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.88|||0.11
91691404|NCT03982511|183276798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive mediation scores from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.77|||0.002
91691405|NCT03982511|183276798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive mediation scores from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.63|||0.24
91691406|NCT03982511|183276799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for social coviewing from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.31|||0.53
91691407|NCT03982511|183276799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for social coviewing from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.15|||0.77
91691408|NCT03982511|183276800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in the home from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.04|||0.91
91691409|NCT03982511|183276800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in the home from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.17|||0.64
91691410|NCT03982511|183276800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in child bedroom from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.36|||0.31
91691411|NCT03982511|183276800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in child bedroom from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.85|||0.04
91691412|NCT03982511|183276801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for TV on during mealtime from T2 to T1|effect size: -1.25|||0.03
91691413|NCT03982511|183276801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for TV on during mealtime from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.08|||0.10
91691414|NCT03982511|183276801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mobile device present during mealtime from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.44|||0.41
91691415|NCT03982511|183276801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mobile device present during mealtime from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.80|||0.21
91794226|NCT04233034|183467384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.17|-0.04|0.23
91794227|NCT04233034|183467384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.6|-1.0|0.79
91794228|NCT04233034|183467385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.7|-0.3|0.39
91904187|NCT02234284|183703318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||20.8|-14.0|.70
91691416|NCT03982511|183276801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for other media present during mealtime from T2 to T1|effect size: -1.29|||0.02
91691417|NCT03982511|183276801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for other media present during mealtime from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.82|||0.20
91691418|NCT03982511|183276802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime task accomplishment scores from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.55|||0.009
91691419|NCT03982511|183276802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime task accomplishment scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.13|||0.84
91691420|NCT03982511|183276802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime behavior control scores from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.63|||0.24
91691421|NCT03982511|183276802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime behavior control scores from T3 to T1.|effect size: -0.13|||0.84
91691422|NCT03982511|183276803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for ECBI intensity t-scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -1.50|||0.00
91691423|NCT03982511|183276803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for ECBI intensity t-scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.12|||0.01
91691424|NCT03982511|183276804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for internalizing symptoms from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.93|||0.02
91691425|NCT03982511|183276804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for internalizing symptoms from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.68|||0.08
91691426|NCT03982511|183276804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for adaptive skills from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.33|||0.36
91691427|NCT03982511|183276804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.83||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for adaptive skills from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.15|||0.69
91691428|NCT03982511|183276805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PSICA intensity scores from T2 to T1 (higher scores indicate better outcomes).|effect size: 1.70|||0.000
91691429|NCT03982511|183276805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PSICA intensity scores from T3 to T1|effect size: 1.04|||0.01
91794229|NCT04233034|183467385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.6|-1.0|0.74
91904131|NCT04667377|183703250|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|25.86||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||25.86|4.36|<.0001
91691430|NCT03982511|183276806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||Given this is a pilot RCT, primary aim is to estimate effect size for a more fully-powered RCT. P-values will be provided in addition to effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures|Effect size: 0.17|Difference on difference from T2 to T1 for BMI z-score||||.73
91691431|NCT03982511|183276806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Given this is a pilot RCT, primary aim is to estimate effect size for a more fully-powered RCT. P-values will be provided in addition to effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI z-scores from T3 to T1.|Effect size: -0.01|||.98
91691432|NCT00568451|183276809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|12.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|4.5||||Kaplan-Meier||||||4.5|
91691433|NCT01416636|183276854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91691434|NCT01416636|183276854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
91691435|NCT01416636|183276855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.605
91691436|NCT01416636|183276856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.307
91691437|NCT01416636|183276857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0019
91691438|NCT01416636|183276858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.557
91691439|NCT01416636|183276859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91794230|NCT04233034|183467387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
91691440|NCT01416636|183276860|SUPERIORITY|||||||1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00001
91691441|NCT01416636|183276861|SUPERIORITY|||||||3e-06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000003
91691442|NCT01416636|183276862|SUPERIORITY|||||||8e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00008
91691443|NCT01416636|183276863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91691444|NCT01416636|183276864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
91691445|NCT00793455|183276875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|3.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.2|||Chi-squared|||We compared the outcomes in the intervention and control groups using rate ratios and chi square test at 3 and 6 months, a 2 sided test with a p value \< .05 was used to determine significance. The study was powered to detect a 10-percentage point difference in screening completion between intervention and control groups if the control rate of completion as 20% or less with 80% power.||6.2|1.5|<0.05
91691446|NCT00793455|183276876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Same as primary outcome.||2.2|1.03|<0.05
91691447|NCT00699998|183276885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.055||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.055|0.793|0.210
91691448|NCT00699998|183276885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.225||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.225|0.865|0.731
91691449|NCT00699998|183276886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.088|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.088|0.812|0.388
91691450|NCT00699998|183276886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.998||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.195||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.195|0.833|0.990
91691451|NCT00699998|183276887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.073||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.073|0.826|0.353
91691452|NCT00699998|183276887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.218||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.218|0.869|0.719
91794231|NCT04233034|183467387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.4|-1.0|0.65
91794232|NCT04233034|183467390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.20|-0.01|0.07
91794233|NCT04233034|183467390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.05|-0.30|0.52
91794234|NCT05523323|183467427|OTHER||Estimate difference|29.5||||0.0002014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|43.9|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|One-sided p-value was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The exact binomial method by Clopper and Pearson was used to generate the estimate difference and the associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|||43.9|14.0|0.0002014
91794235|NCT05523323|183467428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||3.7e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55|||unstratified Log-rank test.|One-sided p-value was calculated using unstratified Log-rank test.|The unstratified Cox-Regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as covariate was used to generate Hazard Ratio (HR) and the associated 95%CI.|||0.55|0.21|0.0000037
91691453|NCT00699998|183276888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.063||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.063|0.810|0.270
91691454|NCT00699998|183276888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.2||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.200|0.862|0.831
91691455|NCT00699998|183276889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.872|-92.545||p-value is for Day 30 comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) for Day 30 comparison|||-92.545|-107.872|<0.001
91691456|NCT00699998|183276889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-104.475|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.383|-93.566||p-value is for 12 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) for 12 month comparison.|||-93.566|-115.383|<0.001
91691457|NCT00699998|183276889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.413|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.718|-33.108||p-value is for 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) is for the 30 day comparison.|||-33.108|-63.718|<0.001
91691458|NCT00699998|183276889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.264|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.061|-23.468||p-value is for the 12 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) is for the 12 month comparison.|||-23.468|-69.061|<0.001
91691459|NCT00699998|183276890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|0.982||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.059||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.059|0.910|0.631
91691460|NCT00699998|183276890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.01||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.113||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.113|0.916|0.844
91794236|NCT05523323|183467429|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.30933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.54|||Unstratified Log-rank test|One-sided p-value was calculated using unstratified Log-rank test.|The unstratified Cox-Regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as covariate was used to generate Hazard Ratio (HR) and the associated 95%CI.|||1.54|0.49|0.30933
91691461|NCT00699998|183276890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.138||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|1.325||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.325|0.977|0.098
91691462|NCT00699998|183276890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.066||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.31||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.310|0.867|0.545
91691463|NCT00699998|183276891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.018||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|1.129||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.129|0.919|0.727
91691464|NCT00699998|183276891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.057||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.187||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.187|0.942|0.346
91691465|NCT00699998|183276891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.096||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.399||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.399|0.859|0.458
91691466|NCT00699998|183276891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.033||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.329||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.329|0.803|0.802
91794237|NCT05654441|183467433|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91794238|NCT05654441|183467434|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91794239|NCT05654441|183467435|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
91794240|NCT05654441|183467436|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91794241|NCT05654441|183467437|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.886
91794242|NCT05654441|183467438|OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.666
91794243|NCT05654441|183467439|OTHER|||||||0.522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.522
91794244|NCT05654441|183467440|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.438
91722309|NCT04609553|183337073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.08
91722310|NCT04609553|183337073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.03
91722311|NCT04609553|183337074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.002
91722312|NCT04609553|183337074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.80
91722532|NCT02629159|183337900|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|35.8||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.8|26.5|<0.001
91794245|NCT05654441|183467441|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.181
91794246|NCT05654441|183467442|OTHER|||||||0.833|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.833
91794247|NCT05654441|183467443|OTHER|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.455
91794248|NCT05007717|183467480|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ever missing a visit during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.20|0.89|0.631
91794249|NCT05007717|183467481|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ever being virally unsuppressed during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.16|0.54|0.237
91794250|NCT05007717|183467482|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for always having \>80% coverage during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.02|0.94|0.386
91794251|NCT05007717|183467483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.41|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.41|0.71|0.991
91794252|NCT05007717|183467484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for having been given fast track visits during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.46|1.01|0.037
91722313|NCT04609553|183337074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.79
91722314|NCT04609553|183337074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.96
91722315|NCT04609553|183337074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.22
91722316|NCT04609553|183337074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||<0.001
91794253|NCT05007717|183467485|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for having been given long intervals during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.12|0.97|0.276
91863864|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.445||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.490|0.400|0.0195
91691467|NCT00699998|183276893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of physical limitations at baseline. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5
91794254|NCT01117051|183467486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.305
91794255|NCT03355664|183467511|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||||1.9|0.2|0.38
91794256|NCT02821910|183467545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.89|100.66|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.66|92.89|
91904132|NCT04667377|183703250|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.02|23.79||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||23.79|4.02|<.0001
91691468|NCT00699998|183276893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of angina frequency at baseline. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.72
91691469|NCT00699998|183276893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of physical limitations at 24 months. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.63
91691470|NCT00699998|183276893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of angina frequency at at 24 months. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.53
91691471|NCT04616612|183276901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
91691472|NCT04616612|183276902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
91691473|NCT04616612|183276903|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Qualitative data evaluated from interviews tailored after the acceptability scale questionnaire. These interview questions specifically asked participant to rate from strongly disagree to strongly agree on each question and then rationalize answers.~Mobile support: 77% of participants agreed that mobile messages supported their health behaviors.~Time required: 85% disagreed that the intervention took too much time to learn.~Program effectiveness: 92% enjoyed this learning approach, with 100% agreeing they could use the information to improve health behaviors.~Rationalization feedback found participants in rural areas reported difficulties accessing texts."|||
91691474|NCT04616612|183276904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91691475|NCT04616612|183276905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91691476|NCT04616612|183276906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
91691477|NCT04616612|183276907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
91691478|NCT04616612|183276908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.84
91691479|NCT04616612|183276909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91691480|NCT01451463|183276911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.009
91691481|NCT01451463|183276912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.114
91691482|NCT04740918|183276913|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (estrogen receptors (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the Hazard Ratio (HR).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.44|0.2876
91691483|NCT04740918|183276914|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.43|||Log Rank|||||6.43|0.39|0.5151
91691484|NCT04740918|183276915|SUPERIORITY|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis), was used to test for difference in response rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.70|0.50|0.7240
91794257|NCT02821910|183467545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.99|103.7|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.70|97.99|
91722317|NCT04609553|183337074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.96
91722318|NCT04609553|183337074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.12
91863865|NCT04800211|183616316|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.277||||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.615|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.060|-3.615|0.2817
91722319|NCT04609553|183337075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Dialogic reading behavior was measured at a single timepoint (9 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.78
91722533|NCT02629159|183337900|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test of upadacitinib versus adalimumab was evaluated using the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for EU/EMA only.|Response Rate Difference|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|22.5|||||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||22.5|10.0|
91722534|NCT02629159|183337900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use||||||<0.001
91794258|NCT02821910|183467545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|99.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.96|103.85|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.85|95.96|
91904133|NCT04667377|183703250|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|35.55||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||35.55|5.91|<.0001
91722320|NCT04609553|183337075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Dialogic reading behavior was measured at a single timepoint (9 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.96
91722321|NCT04609553|183337076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Discipline strategies were measured at a single timepoint (18 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.78
91722322|NCT04609553|183337076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Discipline strategies were measured at a single timepoint (18 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.96
91722323|NCT04609553|183337077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.80
91722324|NCT04609553|183337077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.06
91722325|NCT04609553|183337077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||"Analysis at the 18-month follow-up.~\\A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2."||||0.81
91722326|NCT04609553|183337077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.08
91722327|NCT04609553|183337078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.07
91722328|NCT04609553|183337078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.91
91722329|NCT04609553|183337078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.39
91863866|NCT05170841|183616317|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.566|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.566
91863867|NCT05170841|183616318|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.013
91863868|NCT05170841|183616319|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.006
91863869|NCT05170841|183616320|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.013
91863870|NCT05170841|183616321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.031
91863871|NCT05170841|183616322|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.027
91863872|NCT05170841|183616323|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.011
91863873|NCT05170841|183616324|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.007
91863874|NCT05170841|183616325|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.013
91863875|NCT05170841|183616326|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.029
91863876|NCT05170841|183616327|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.022
91863877|NCT05170841|183616328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91863878|NCT05170841|183616329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91863879|NCT05170841|183616330|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.001
91691485|NCT04740918|183276916|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.26|0.3531
91722330|NCT04609553|183337078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||"Analysis at the 18-month follow-up.~\\A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3."||||0.10
91722331|NCT04609553|183337079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.19
91722332|NCT04609553|183337079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.18
91863880|NCT05170841|183616331|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.01
91863881|NCT05170841|183616332|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.04
91863882|NCT05170841|183616333|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.016
91691486|NCT04740918|183276917|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.7175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.81|||Log Rank|||||6.81|0.27|0.7175
91722333|NCT04609553|183337079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.18
91722334|NCT04609553|183337079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.45
91722335|NCT04609553|183337080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||<.001
91722336|NCT04609553|183337080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.68
91863883|NCT05170841|183616334|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.045
91863884|NCT05170841|183616335|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.042
91863885|NCT05170841|183616336|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.037
91863886|NCT05170841|183616337|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.045
91863887|NCT05170841|183616338|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.029
91863888|NCT05170841|183616339|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.027
91863889|NCT05170841|183616340|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.035
91863890|NCT05170841|183616341|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.001
91863891|NCT05233800|183616343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.81|3.84|<0.05
91863892|NCT03643744|183616354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.530
91863893|NCT03643744|183616354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.727
91863894|NCT03643744|183616355|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91863895|NCT04487860|183616357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7905|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7905
91863896|NCT04487860|183616357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7372|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7372
91863897|NCT04487860|183616357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2989|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2989
91863898|NCT04487860|183616357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3328|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3328
91863899|NCT04487860|183616358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8989|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8989
91863900|NCT04487860|183616358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6768|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6768
91863901|NCT04487860|183616358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8209|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8209
91863902|NCT04487860|183616358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3106|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3106
91863903|NCT04487860|183616359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8593|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8593
91863904|NCT04487860|183616359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9594|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9594
91863905|NCT04487860|183616359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9041
91863906|NCT04487860|183616359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7147|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7147
91863907|NCT02432261|183616362|SUPERIORITY|We did not statistically power this study.|difference of proportion of subjects|57.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||The difference of proportion = NES/Testosterone - Testosterone|||||0.003
91863908|NCT06122194|183616414|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|112.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.01|135.22||||||Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) were expressed as percentages.||135.22|93.01|
91863909|NCT06122194|183616414|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|187.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.79|225.35||||||Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||225.35|155.79|
91691487|NCT04740918|183276918|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.||||||0.3173|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3173
91691488|NCT04740918|183276919|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.8658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.6|||Log Rank|||||8.60|0.16|0.8658
91691489|NCT04740918|183276920|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.8407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.99|||Log Rank|||||4.99|0.27|0.8407
91691490|NCT01609790|183276962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||Z-test|One-sided test, significance level 0.15||Assuming a 36% 6-month (6m) rate in the placebo arm \[from the March 2009 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) briefing\], a 55% rate in the AMG 386 arm, and an exponential distribution corresponds to median PFS of 4.1 and 7 months, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 0.59 (AMG 386 arm vs. placebo arm). A total of 114 patients (57 per arm) will yield 85% power to detect an absolute 19% difference of 6m PFS rate at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.15 based on a 2-sample proportion test.||||0.98
91691491|NCT01609790|183276963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
91691492|NCT01609790|183276964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.27|||Log Rank|||||2.27|0.95|0.09
91691493|NCT01609790|183276965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.24|||Log Rank|||||2.24|1.02|0.04
91691494|NCT01609790|183276966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91691495|NCT01102257|183277001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91691496|NCT05344560|183277019|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|1.07|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test \[senofilcon A (C3) HEV chromophore\] minus Control \[senofilcon A (C3)\]|||1.07|-6.92|
91691497|NCT01051960|183277046|OTHER|comparison of means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Whether change from baseline to 24-weeks is significantly different from zero||||.0008
91691498|NCT01051960|183277047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.5||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||change from baseline to 24 weeks||||0.00007
91691499|NCT02996968|183277051|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority was declared if the POUR rate at 1-week with self-discontinuation was no worse than the POUR rate at 1-week with office-discontinuation, by a pre-specified margin of 15%.~A sample size was calculated to be 74 patients in each arm based on the following:~* The estimated POUR requiring indwelling urinary catheter at 1-week postoperative is 16%~* The non-inferiority margin was set at 15%.~* The power was set at 80%"|Proportion Difference|0.002||||0.5|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.095||2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction|Two proportions Z-test|||||0.095||0.5
91691500|NCT00607620|183277060|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||||0.98|0.79|
91691501|NCT00607620|183277061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between baseline to 12-months.|||-0.3|-2.1|
91691502|NCT00607620|183277062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.4|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between 6-months and 12-months.|||6.4|0.4|
91691503|NCT00607620|183277063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between 6-months and 12-months.|||1.9|-3.3|
91691504|NCT00607620|183277064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.99|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between 6-months and 12-months.|||0.99|-1.02|
91691505|NCT00791778|183277065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.10 stratified by the same factors as randomization|Sorafenib compared to Placebo|Sample size based on the primary efficacy endpoint of PFS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 65% increase in median PFS. With one-sided alpha of 0.10, power of 90% and a randomization ratio of 1:1 between Sorafenib and Placebo, a total of 105 PFS events were required.||1.63|0.72|0.655
91691506|NCT00791778|183277066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.2|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.10 stratified by the same factors as randomization|Sorafenib compared to Placebo|||2.20|0.93|0.951
91691507|NCT00791778|183277067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.23|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.10 stratified by the same factors as randomization.|Sorafenib compared to Placebo|||3.23|0.69|0.84
91691508|NCT01169064|183277117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.365
91691509|NCT01169064|183277118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.282
91863910|NCT06122194|183616414|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|153.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.4|185.21||||||Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||185.21|127.40|
91691510|NCT03810092|183277170|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.04||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.42|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship between ADL score evolution and hemoglobine rate, in the no transfusion group||0.42|-0.55|0.05
91691511|NCT03810092|183277170|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.39||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Relationship between ADL score evolution and hemoglobine rate, in the transfusion group||2.2|-1|0.05
91691512|NCT00235755|183277178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-parametric rank analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline 28-seizure frequency and stratified by baseline seizure frequency category and region|Non-parametric rank ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91691513|NCT00235755|183277178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Non-parametric rank analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline 28-seizure frequency and stratified by baseline seizure frequency category and region|Non-parametric rank ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91691514|NCT00235755|183277179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91691515|NCT00235755|183277179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91691516|NCT02816736|183277198|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the AUCs|0.95||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||Regression, Linear|||AUC was normalized for time; With the log-scale, the value of 0 indicates, on average, no change in NTproBNP from baseline.||1.08|0.84|0.45
91691517|NCT02816736|183277199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.22||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|3.97|||general linear model|||||3.97|-26.4|0.15
91691518|NCT02816736|183277200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.68|||ordinal logistic regression|||||1.68|0.78|0.51
91691519|NCT02816736|183277201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.87|0.84|0.16
91691520|NCT02816736|183277202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.91|0.34|0.99
91691521|NCT02816736|183277203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.00|1.05|0.035
91691522|NCT00806403|183277225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis:there is no difference in ST resolution at 120 minutes after inclusion between thrombolysis and primary PCI. The power calculation was based on the aim to prove a 50% reduction of failure to achive at least a 50% ST resolution (40% failure in thrombolysis group and 20% failure in Primary PCI group). With a power of 80% and a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided test), a total of 166 patients would be required.||||0.56
91691523|NCT00806403|183277226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91691524|NCT00806403|183277227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis:there is no difference in number of patients with TIMI 3 flow at 5-7 days after inclusion between thrombolysis and primary PCI. The power calculation was based on the aim to prove a 65% reduction of failure to achive TIMI 3 flow (30% failure in thrombolysis group and 10% failure in Primary PCI group). With a power of 90% and a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided test), a total of 180 patients would be required.||||0.04
91691525|NCT00806403|183277228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
91691526|NCT00806403|183277229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
91691527|NCT01320293|183277230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: Percent change in endothelial function from baseline visit to end of treatment/month 6 will be zero change. (percent change=0)||||<0.05
91691528|NCT01320293|183277231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in IL-6 levels from baseline visit to end of treatment/month 6 will be zero change. (percent change=0)||||<0.05
91722337|NCT04609553|183337080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.16
91691529|NCT01320293|183277232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in adiponectin levels from baseline visit to end of treatment/month 6 will be zero change. (percent change=0)||||0.05
91691530|NCT01532934|183277238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||As stated, the p-value reflects the Factor 1 by treatment interaction term and its effect on percent days abstinent/month.|Regression, Linear|||A priori hypothesis. Psychopathy Factor 1 (F1) X treatment interaction to predict higher substance use among people high in F1 + who get treatment relative to individuals with high F1 who get standard care.||||.02
91691531|NCT01532934|183277239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||As stated, the p-value reflects the F1 X treatment interaction term and its effect on substance use consequences. A priori threshold for significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|||Experimental hypothesis: The F1 X treatment interaction will show that individuals low on F1 who get treatment will reduce substance use consequences at six months relative to those low on F1 who get standard care.||||.34
91691532|NCT01532934|183277240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||a priori threshold p\<.05|Regression, Logistic|||Experimental hypothesis: Treatment X F1 interaction will predict fewer charges at one-year follow-up for individuals low on F1 who got treatment relative to individuals low on F1 who did not.||||.69
91691533|NCT03759392|183277270|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2931||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.024|0.131|||ANCOVA|Using multiple imputation||||0.131|-1.024|0.13
91691534|NCT03759392|183277271|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3937||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.108|-0.0668|||ANCOVA|Using multiple imputation||||-0.0668|-10.108|0.025
91691535|NCT03759392|183277272|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6215||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.639|||ANCOVA|Using multiple imputation||||1.639|-0.810|0.51
91691536|NCT03759392|183277273|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Repeated measures mixed model|||||1.1|-0.6|0.54
91691537|NCT01288079|183277274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.39|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||4.39|-7.35|0.617
91794325|NCT00591578|183467634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.72||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-3.63|0.003
91863911|NCT06122194|183616415|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.09|115.54||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||115.54|91.09|
91691538|NCT01288079|183277274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|2.91|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.91|-10.06|0.277
91691539|NCT01288079|183277274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|2.0|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.00|-9.72|0.194
91691540|NCT03170544|183277278|OTHER||Mean|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.04|||||Mean (SE) and 95% CI were based on a linear fixed effects model containing a fixed effect for treatment (MK1092 Doses, Glargine).||The primary hypothesis would be supported if the Bayesian posterior probability of the true mean of GIRmax of MK-1092 lying within 1.5 and 4.5 mg/kg/min exceeded the prespecified threshold of 70% (in Part 3).|2.04|0.63|
91691541|NCT03170544|183277278|OTHER||Mean|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.44|||||Mean (SE) and 95% CI were based on a linear fixed effects model containing a fixed effect for treatment (MK1092 Doses, Glargine).||The primary hypothesis would be supported if the Bayesian posterior probability of the true mean of GIRmax of MK-1092 lying within 1.5 and 4.5 mg/kg/min exceeded the prespecified threshold of 70% (in Part 3).|3.44|2.03|
91691542|NCT02387840|183277303|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T1 values||||0.0002
91691543|NCT02387840|183277303|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T2 values||||0.0003
91691544|NCT02387840|183277304|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T1 values||||0.081
91691545|NCT02387840|183277304|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T2 values||||0.081
91691546|NCT02387840|183277305|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T1 values||||0.12
91691547|NCT02387840|183277305|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T2 values||||0.14
91691548|NCT01213966|183277307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||PPR24 was summarized descriptively. No statistical test was performed. The PRR24 values were summarised when the corresponding regression fit had a p-value of p ≤0.01 and an adjusted coefficient of determination (R2) ≥0.85.|Regression, Linear|||PPR24 was summarised descriptively. No statistical test was performed.||||0.01
91691549|NCT03888469|183277321|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|Difference = DDT2 - Moist|||0.00||
91691550|NCT00420420|183277368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0||||A longitudinal mixed model was used to compare groups, including factors for week, strata (MMSE score and concomitant AD therapy), treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||comparison at Week 4||||0.283
91691551|NCT00420420|183277369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||A longitudinal mixed model was used to compare groups, including factors for week, strata (MMSE score and concomitant AD therapy), treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||comparison at week 4||||0.180
91691552|NCT00420420|183277370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716||95.0||||A longitudinal mixed model was used to compare groups, including factors for week, strata (MMSE score and concomitant AD therapy), treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||comparison at Week 4||||0.716
91691553|NCT00273182|183277374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall survival rate at 36 month|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.6|73.2||No p values for the analysis.|Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates|Survival curves of cause-specific mortality were created based on Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates.|The estimate is the overall survival rate at 36 month. left-truncation methods were used in the survival analysis for previously implanted subjects.|For overall mortality, the endpoint is the proportion of subjects alive during three years post-implant. Survival curves of overall mortality and cause-specific mortality were created based on Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates. Confidence intervals will be calculated on a log-log scale.||73.2|68.6|
91794326|NCT00591578|183467634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-4.20|<0.001
91691554|NCT00273182|183277374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cause specific survival rate at 36 month|85.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.3|87.1||No p value for this analysis.|Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates|Cause specific survival rate at 36 month.|left-truncation methods were used in the survival analysis for previously implanted subjects.|For cause-specific mortality, the endpoint is the proportion of patients who are alive or do not die due to the progressive heart failure or sudden cardiac death causes during 3 years post-implant. Survival curves of cause-specific mortality were created based on Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates. Confidence intervals were calculated on a log-log scale.||87.1|83.3|
91722338|NCT04609553|183337080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.39
91794259|NCT02821910|183467546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.65|103.42|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.42|90.65|
91794260|NCT02821910|183467546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|95.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.44|104.68|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.68|87.44|
91691555|NCT00273182|183277378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||event free rate|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.3|91.2||No p value for this analysis.|Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimate|||Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimate of the curve representing the time to first post-implant LV lead related complication were calculated to the first time point where fewer than 50 patients are still at risk. Confidence intervals will be calculated on a log-log scale.||91.2|88.3|
91691556|NCT02996227|183277389|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority was defined as no more than 25% greater opioid consumption and no worse than 1-point higher pain score at rest. Non-inferiority of TAP with liposomal bupivacaine to epidural could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95.2% CI for the mean difference of pain scores at rest was less than 1 point and the CI for the ratio of geometric means in opioid consumption was less than 1.25.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.2|-0.12|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.12|<0.001
91691557|NCT02996227|183277390|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority was defined as no more than 25% greater opioid consumption and no worse than 1-point higher pain score at rest. Non-inferiority of TAP with liposomal bupivacaine to epidural could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95.2% CI for the mean difference of pain scores at rest was less than 1 point and the CI for the ratio of geometric means in opioid consumption was less than 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric means|1.37||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.2|1.05|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|1.05|0.754
91691558|NCT02996227|183277391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.53|2.76|||Regression, Linear|linear regression after logarithm transformation||||2.76|0.53|0.560
91691559|NCT02996227|183277392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.65|1.37|||Regression, Linear||Difference in means between two groups was assessed using mixed effects model with repeated measurements with unstructured correlation structure|||1.37|-0.65|0.357
91691560|NCT02996227|183277393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.42|0.98|||generalized linear regression|||||0.98|0.42|0.006
91691561|NCT02996227|183277394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.31|5.85|||Regression, Linear||Difference in means between two groups was assessed using mixed effects model with repeated measurements with unstructured correlation structure.|||5.85|-4.31|0.695
91691562|NCT02996227|183277395|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.86|1.12|||Regression, Linear|linear regression after logarithmic transformation||||1.12|0.86|0.738
91691563|NCT01100086|183277402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.35|105.42|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||105.42|99.35|
91691564|NCT01100086|183277403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.94|101.19|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.19|94.94|
91691565|NCT01100086|183277404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|101.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.48|95.20|
91691566|NCT01100086|183277404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|101.48|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.48|95.20|
91722339|NCT04609553|183337081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.87
91794261|NCT02821910|183467546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|98.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.12|105.25|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.25|92.12|
91863912|NCT06122194|183616415|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|125.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.81|141.17||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||141.17|110.81|
91863913|NCT06122194|183616415|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|121.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.65|136.43||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||136.43|108.65|
91863914|NCT04726371|183616439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||A Wald test was used to test against the null hypothesis that intervention main effect and interaction effects between intervention and time trends were simultaneously zero and assess for differences in the mean trend of infections over follow-up.|Test of joint null hypothesis from model|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.||A Poisson GLMM was fit with a main effect for intervention group, linear and quadratic time trends, and interaction effects between intervention and the time trend variables. The model was adjust for stratification factors, baseline infection incidence, agency and included random intercept for group home.|"The point estimates for intervention main effect, intervention by linear time effect, and for intervention by time\^2 interaction effect are described in the paper Tailored vs. General COVID-19 prevention for adults with mental disabilities residing in group homes: a randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation trial by Bartels S, Levison JH, Trieu HD, et al., published in 2024 in BMC Public Health, doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18835-w."|||0.89
91863915|NCT04726371|183616440|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||A Wald test was used to test against the null hypothesis that intervention main effect and interaction effects between intervention and time trends were simultaneously zero and assess for differences in the mean trend of scores over follow-up.|Wald test|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.||A GLMM was fit with a main effect for intervention group, linear and quadratic time trends, and interaction effects between intervention and the time trend variables. The model was adjust for stratification factors, baseline fidelity score, agency and included random intercept for group home.|"The point estimates for intervention main effect, intervention by linear time effect, and intervention by time\^2 interaction effect are described in the paper Tailored vs. General COVID-19 prevention for adults with mental disabilities residing in group homes: a randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation trial by Bartels S, Levison JH, Trieu HD, et al., published in 2024 in BMC Public Health, doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18835-w."|||>.99
91863916|NCT04726371|183616441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.84||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.|Regression, Cox|||A Cox frailty model was fit to evaluate differences in the hazard of vaccination uptake between arms separately within the combined population of residents with SMI and ID/DD. This model included a main effect for intervention arm and additionally adjusted for stratification factors, GH agency, and GH-level log-normal frailties.||1.84|0.79|>.99
91863917|NCT04726371|183616442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.|Regression, Cox|||A Cox frailty model was fit to evaluate differences in the hazard of vaccination uptake between arms separately within the staff population. This model included a main effect for intervention arm and additionally adjusted for stratification factors, GH agency, and GH-level log-normal frailties.||1.15|0.86|>.99
91863918|NCT03125070|183616450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.90
91691567|NCT04227197|183277415|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the trend in the number of indicated or completed evaluations in the Intervention arm versus Control arm.||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|Two tailed; no continuity correction||||||0.018
91691568|NCT04227197|183277417|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group.||||||0.468|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL Psychosocial Health Score||||0.468
91691569|NCT04227197|183277417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||ANOVA|||This p value is for the PedsQL Physical Functioning Score||||0.802
91691570|NCT04227197|183277417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.761
91691571|NCT04227197|183277417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL FIM Parental HRQL Summary Score||||0.965
91691572|NCT04227197|183277417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL FIM Family Functioning Summary Score||||0.619
91691573|NCT04227197|183277417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL FIM Total Scale Score||||0.469
91691574|NCT04227197|183277418|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline on PedsQL Psychosocial Health Score||||0.068
91863919|NCT03125070|183616451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.60
91863920|NCT03125070|183616452|OTHER|||||||0.27||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Sex: Female vs. Male||||0.27
91863921|NCT03125070|183616452|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Age \<70 vs. \>=70||||0.88
91863922|NCT03125070|183616452|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Race and ethnicity: white AND non-Hispanic versus any other combination of race and ethnicity (BIPOC)||||0.98
91863923|NCT03125070|183616452|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Education: High school or less versus at least some college or vocational/technical program||||0.19
91863924|NCT03125070|183616452|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Income: \<$100,000 annual versus \>=$100,000 annual||||0.24
91863925|NCT03125070|183616452|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer the survey items for this measure are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||PHQ score at baseline: no depression (\<10), mild depression (10-14), moderate depression (15-19), severe depression (\>=20)||||0.28
91691575|NCT04227197|183277418|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.907|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline for PedsQL Physical Functioning Score||||0.907
91691576|NCT04227197|183277418|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.196|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline for PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.196
91691577|NCT04227197|183277418|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.112|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline for PedsQL FIM Parental HRQL Summary Score||||0.112
91691578|NCT04227197|183277418|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.245|||||||ANOVA|||This is for change from baseline for PedsQL FIM Family Functioning Summary Score||||0.245
91691579|NCT04227197|183277418|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.219|||||||ANOVA|||This is for change from baseline for PedsQL FIM Total Scale Score||||0.219
91691580|NCT02992236|183277424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91691581|NCT02549859|183277427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91691582|NCT02549859|183277428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91691583|NCT02549859|183277429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91691584|NCT02549859|183277430|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91794262|NCT02821910|183467547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|94.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.6|104.08|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.08|86.60|
91863926|NCT03125070|183616452|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer the survey items for this measure are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||CTXD score at baseline \<0.9 (not distressed) or \>=0.9 (distressed)||||0.33
91691585|NCT02549859|183277431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91863927|NCT03125070|183616452|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Cardiometabolic Healthcare Utilization (HCU-C) score at baseline: \>.80 versus \<.80||||0.10
91691586|NCT02549859|183277432|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91691587|NCT02549859|183277433|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91691588|NCT02549859|183277434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91691589|NCT02549859|183277435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91691590|NCT02549859|183277436|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91691591|NCT02549859|183277437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91691592|NCT02549859|183277438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91691593|NCT02549859|183277439|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91691594|NCT02549859|183277440|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91691595|NCT02549859|183277441|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91691596|NCT02549859|183277442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91691597|NCT02549859|183277443|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91691598|NCT02549859|183277444|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91691599|NCT02549859|183277445|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91863928|NCT03125070|183616452|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Secondary cancer screening healthcare utilization (HCU-SM) at baseline: \>=.80 versus \<.80||||0.31
91863929|NCT03125070|183616453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
91863930|NCT03125070|183616454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
91863931|NCT04119843|183616497|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.824|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.165|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||1.165|0.743|<0.001
91904134|NCT04667377|183703251|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.2654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|8.02||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||8.02|0.56|0.2654
91691600|NCT02549859|183277446|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91691601|NCT03446027|183277447|OTHER|"Prespecified Tobit Regression mode: the model included the AWD baseline measurement, a treatment indicator and the type of centre (SET versus non-SET) as covariates. As the data collected for AWD showed a right-skewed distribution, a square root transformation was used to normalise the data and used for the regression Tobit model. This resulted in the unit of measure being units rather than meters."|square root transformation|0.835||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|2.343|||Tobit Regression|||"Right censored Tobit regression model for AWD at 3 months for the ITT population.~Difference between arms (between baseline and 3 months) - the primary analysis estimates the difference in the AWD at 3 months between the two treatment groups control vs. device. Control group includes both BMT and BMT + SET and the treatment group includes NMES + BMT and NMES + BMT + SET Included participants with both baseline and 3 month treadmill data."||2.343|-0.674|0.28
91691602|NCT03446027|183277448|OTHER|"Right censored, Tobit Regression model to assess the effects of baseline characteristics for ICD at 3 months for the ITT Population. This resulted in the unit of measure being units and not meters.~Included participants with both baseline and 3 month treadmill data. Calculation between arms - estimates the difference in the ICD at 3 months between the two treatment groups.~Control group includes both BMT and BMT + SET and the treatment group includes NMES + BMT and NMES + BMT + SET"|square root transformation|0.972||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.546|||Right censored, Tobit Regression|||||2.546|-0.600|0.23
91691603|NCT03446027|183277452|OTHER|"Linear Regression Model for Duplex ultrasonography (Volume flow - measured in one leg) at 3 months for the ITT population.~Difference (calculation) between the two groups and not per arm (control vs treatment). Unit of measure is Units due to the use of a linear regression model rather than cc/min."|Linear regression|0.483||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.984|1.95|||Regression, Linear|||||1.950|-0.984|0.516
91691604|NCT00708552|183277502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||2.7|-0.4|0.159
91691605|NCT00708552|183277502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||2.3|-0.9|0.410
91691606|NCT00708552|183277502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.2|-1.6|0.821
91691607|NCT00708552|183277503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.5|-0.1|0.254
91691608|NCT00708552|183277503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.2|-0.4|0.394
91691609|NCT00708552|183277503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||-0.0|-0.6|0.049
91691610|NCT00708552|183277504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||2.3|-5.6|0.423
91691611|NCT00708552|183277504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.9|-6.1|0.305
91691612|NCT00708552|183277504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS Total Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||5.7|-1.7|0.282
91691613|NCT00708552|183277505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||3.1|-0.3|0.096
91691614|NCT00708552|183277505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||2.8|-0.8|0.281
91691615|NCT00708552|183277505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.9|-1.1|0.630
91691616|NCT00708552|183277505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||3.6|-5.7|0.655
91691617|NCT00708552|183277505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||3.3|-6.2|0.545
91691618|NCT00708552|183277505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||6.8|-1.9|0.270
91691619|NCT00708552|183277506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||3.6|-0.5|0.138
91691620|NCT00708552|183277506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||3.2|-0.7|0.216
91691621|NCT00708552|183277506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.7|-1.9|0.921
91691622|NCT00708552|183277506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||2.9|-7.0|0.410
91691623|NCT00708552|183277506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||3.8|-5.9|0.667
91691624|NCT00708552|183277506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||7.2|-1.9|0.246
91691625|NCT00708552|183277507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.6|-0.1|0.146
91691626|NCT00708552|183277507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.3|-0.4|0.733
91691627|NCT00708552|183277507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+ score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||0.1|-0.5|0.145
91691628|NCT00708552|183277508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.6|-0.2|0.295
91691629|NCT00708552|183277508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.2|-0.5|0.495
91691630|NCT00708552|183277508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||0.1|-0.6|0.166
91691631|NCT00708552|183277509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.1|0.847
91691632|NCT00708552|183277509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.1|-1.4|0.833
91691633|NCT00708552|183277509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs Donepzil at Week 12||0.7|-1.6|0.443
91691634|NCT00708552|183277510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.3|-0.1|0.320
91691635|NCT00708552|183277510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.2|-0.2|0.927
91691636|NCT00708552|183277510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs Donepzil at Week 12||0.0|-0.4|0.059
91691637|NCT00708552|183277511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.4|-5.2|0.257
91691638|NCT00708552|183277511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||4.0|-2.2|0.570
91691639|NCT00708552|183277511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS total score, Placebo Vs Donepzil at Week 12||6.4|0.3|0.031
91691640|NCT00708552|183277512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.5|-1.1|0.798
91691641|NCT00708552|183277512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.3|0.918
91691642|NCT00708552|183277512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||1.3|-1.2|0.924
91691643|NCT00708552|183277512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||3.0|-4.7|0.676
91691644|NCT00708552|183277512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||6.7|-0.4|0.086
91691645|NCT00708552|183277512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||7.7|0.6|0.021
91691646|NCT00708552|183277513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.7|-1.5|0.908
91691647|NCT00708552|183277513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.7|0.826
91691648|NCT00708552|183277513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.2|-2.7|0.088
91691649|NCT00708552|183277513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.0|-7.3|0.053
91691650|NCT00708552|183277513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||3.3|-4.0|0.848
91691651|NCT00708552|183277513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||8.2|1.1|0.011
91691652|NCT00708552|183277514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CIBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.3|-0.2|0.671
91691653|NCT00708552|183277514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.2|-0.4|0.413
91691654|NCT00708552|183277514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.1|-0.4|0.245
91691655|NCT00708552|183277515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on CIBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.4|-0.2|0.369
91691656|NCT00708552|183277515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.4|-0.2|0.550
91691657|NCT00708552|183277515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.0|-0.5|0.082
91691658|NCT00708552|183277516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.0|-2.4|0.417
91691659|NCT00708552|183277516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||2.0|-1.4|0.725
91691660|NCT00708552|183277516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||2.2|-1.1|0.506
91691661|NCT00708552|183277516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||1.6|-2.3|0.723
91691662|NCT00708552|183277516|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||2.0|-2.2|0.919
91691663|NCT00708552|183277516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||2.0|-2.3|0.896
91691664|NCT00708552|183277517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||CSDD Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.5|-0.9|0.594
91691665|NCT00708552|183277517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|||CSDD Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.9|-0.5|0.523
91691666|NCT00708552|183277517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||CSDD Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.0|-0.4|0.429
91691667|NCT00708552|183277518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||ANCOVA|||MMSE Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.8|-0.8|0.966
91691668|NCT00708552|183277518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||MMSE Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.1|-0.5|0.505
91691669|NCT00708552|183277518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|||MMSE Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.6|0.0|0.044
91691670|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.5|-0.5|0.869
91691671|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.8|-0.4|0.500
91691672|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.8|-0.1|0.140
91691673|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.5|-0.6|0.910
91691674|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.7|-0.5|0.774
91691675|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||0.5|-0.7|0.726
91691676|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.7|-2.2|0.292
91691677|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.3|0.946
91691678|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||1.6|-1.3|0.802
91863932|NCT04119843|183616497|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.892|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.043|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.043|0.552|<0.001
91691679|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||1.3|-2.1|0.636
91691680|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.5|-2.0|0.752
91691681|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.7|-1.9|0.920
91691682|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.6|-0.7|0.972
91691683|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.9|-0.4|0.378
91691684|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.9|-0.3|0.346
91691685|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.9|-0.6|0.720
91691686|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.0|-0.6|0.598
91691687|NCT00708552|183277519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.1|-0.5|0.480
91691688|NCT03971071|183277567|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|1.37||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||2.05|0.92|0.13
91691689|NCT03971071|183277567|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||3.05|1.33|<0.001
91691690|NCT03971071|183277568|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.23||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.1||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.10|-2.35|0.033
91691691|NCT03971071|183277568|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-1.62||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-1.62|-3.87|<0.001
91691692|NCT03971071|183277569|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|1.62||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||2.43|1.08|0.019
91691693|NCT03971071|183277569|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||3.96|1.75|<0.001
91691694|NCT03971071|183277570|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.25||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-0.88||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.88|-5.62|0.007
91691695|NCT03971071|183277570|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.13||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|0.22||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||0.22|-4.48|0.075
91691696|NCT03971071|183277571|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.61||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|-0.29||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.29|-4.92|0.028
91691697|NCT03971071|183277571|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.37||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.07||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.07|-4.67|0.043
91691698|NCT00360282|183277594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||0.007
91691699|NCT00360282|183277595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||.549
91691700|NCT04537078|183277596|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
91863933|NCT04119843|183616497|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.622|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|0.813|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.813|0.494|<0.001
91863934|NCT04119843|183616498|SUPERIORITY|Reader success of the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.853|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.196|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||1.196|0.759|<0.001
91863935|NCT04119843|183616498|SUPERIORITY|Reader success of the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.909|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.267|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.267|0.766|<0.001
91863936|NCT04119843|183616498|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.678|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|0.985|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.985|0.638|<0.001
91904135|NCT04667377|183703251|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.47||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|30.95||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||30.95|2.89|0.0002
91904136|NCT04667377|183703251|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|38.36||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||38.36|3.62|<.0001
91794327|NCT00591578|183467635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|-1.0||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-5.76|0.005
91691701|NCT04537078|183277597|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.48||||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.219
91691702|NCT04537078|183277598|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.269|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.269
91691703|NCT04537078|183277599|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.072
91691704|NCT04537078|183277600|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91691705|NCT04537078|183277601|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.720
91794328|NCT00591578|183467635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|-1.06||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-5.87|0.005
91691706|NCT04537078|183277602|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91691707|NCT04537078|183277603|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|600.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91691708|NCT04537078|183277604|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91691709|NCT04537078|183277605|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|33.33||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91691710|NCT04537078|183277606|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91691711|NCT04537078|183277607|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.851
91863937|NCT04119843|183616500|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.805|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.971|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||0.971|0.555|<0.001
91904137|NCT04667377|183703251|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|21.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.47|68.28||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||68.28|6.47|<.0001
91691712|NCT04537078|183277608|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|25.0||||0.304|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.304
91691713|NCT04537078|183277609|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.486
91691714|NCT03207815|183277610|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Treatment Failure Rate|-30.1||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|-4.1||P-value was estimated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, adjusted for the stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Participants with missing values on treatment failure status were analyzed as treatment failures using a nonresponder imputation (NRI) method.||||-4.1|-56.2|0.0064
91691715|NCT03207815|183277611|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.309||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.663||P-value was derived from the log rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank Test||Stratified hazard ratio (95% confidence interval \[CI\]) were derived from the Cox model stratified by the stratification factors.|||0.663|0.144|0.0014
91691716|NCT03207815|183277612|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Treatment Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, stratification factors and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in Least Squares (LS)-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||0.2|-0.4|0.3550
91691717|NCT03207815|183277613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure ANCOVA model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, stratification factors and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in LS-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||-0.1|-0.8|0.0145
91691718|NCT03207815|183277614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure ANCOVA model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, stratification factors and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in LS-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||-0.00|-0.10|0.0389
91691719|NCT03207815|183277615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure ANCOVA model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, OCT machine, and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in LS-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||-0.00|-0.05|0.0340
91691720|NCT03207815|183277616|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.193||||0.5893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|2.277||P-value was derived from the log rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank Test||Stratified hazard ratio (95% CI) were derived from the Cox model stratified by the stratification factors.|||2.277|0.625|0.5893
91691721|NCT00391768|183277625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.07
91691722|NCT00391768|183277625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.60
91691723|NCT00391768|183277625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.27
91691724|NCT00391768|183277625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.77
91691725|NCT00391768|183277625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.47
91691726|NCT00391768|183277625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.96
91691727|NCT01620138|183277627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91691728|NCT00444535|183277641|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson exact test (binomial)|Exact binomial procedure|69.2||||||95.0|54.9|81.3||||||||81.3|54.9|
91691729|NCT01568892|183277648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.8|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the adjusted mean difference between the two treatment arms.|||-0.80|-1.52|<0.001
91692150|NCT01262872|183279148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|20.9||||||VE-10PP-HD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 8M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, eight months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||20.9|-24.9|
91691730|NCT01697748|183277701|SUPERIORITY|With an SSI rate of 15% at Tampa General Hospital at the time of study design, a sample size of 600 patients was determined to provide a power of 80% to detect a 50% absolute reduction (15 vs. 7.5%) surgical site infection at a two sided alpha = 0.05. Assuming an approximate 10% dropout loss to follow up rate, the total sample size was adjusted to 660.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.96||Variables with at least a borderline association with a treatment arm (P≤ .10) were included in a multiple logistic regression model to verify which is independently associated with the outcome of interest||No P values were reported for the association between dressing type and infection, only relative risk and 95% confidence intervals were reported.||With an SSI rate of 15% at Tampa General Hospital at the time of study design, a sample size of 600 patients was determined to provide a power of 80% to detect a 50% absolute reduction (15 vs. 7.5%) surgical site infection at a two sided alpha = 0.05. Assuming an approximate 10% dropout loss to follow up rate, the total sample size was adjusted to 660.|Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Mann Whitney U test, and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|1.96|0.44|
91691731|NCT01697748|183277701|SUPERIORITY|With an SSI rate of 15% at Tampa General Hospital at the time of study design, a sample size of 600 patients was determined to provide a power of 80% to detect a 50% absolute reduction (15% vs. 7.5%) surgical site infection at a two side alpha = 0.05. Assuming an approximate 10% dropout loss to follow up rate, the total sample size was adjusted to 660.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Variables with at least a borderline association (P≤.10) were then included in a multiple logistic regression model to verify which is independently associated with the outcome of interest|Mixed Models Analysis|In addition to the Chi-Square, Fisher's exact test, Student T-Test, Mann Whitney U test and logistic regression were utilized when appropriate.||||||<0.05
91691732|NCT01697748|183277702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||see below|Chi square, Fisher Exact, Student t-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test where appropriate|||In addition to Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test were utilized where appropriate|||<.05
91691733|NCT01697748|183277703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Chi Square, Fisher's Exact, Student's T test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression when appropriate,|||Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test, and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|||<.05
91691734|NCT01697748|183277703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Chi Square, Fisher Exact, Student t-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test|||Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|||<.05
91691735|NCT01697748|183277705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|||<0.05
91691736|NCT01697748|183277706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||In addition to the Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, Student T-Test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression were utilized where approprate|||<0.05
91691737|NCT01704495|183277707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.49||2-sided p-value|Poisson regression|Correction for overdispersion made by Pearson chi-square|AZD5069 45 mg BID vs Placebo|||2.49|0.98|0.119
91691738|NCT01704495|183277707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|2.46||2-sided|Poisson Regression|Correction for overdispersion made by Pearson chi-square|AZD5069 15 mg BID vs Placebo|||2.46|0.95|0.141
91691739|NCT01704495|183277707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.11||2-sided|Poisson Regression|Correction for overdispersion made by Pearson chi-square|AZD5069 5 mg BID vs Placebo|||2.11|0.79|0.397
91691740|NCT01256450|183277749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.366|||ANCOVA|||||0.366|-0.646|.5870
91691741|NCT02104219|183277759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether the median RGI-C score differs from 0 for each time interval. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||Pairs of radiographs were centrally evaluated by 3 independent, blinded pediatric radiologists trained in the assessment of the skeletal manifestations of HPP. The mean RGI-C score across the 3 radiologists was calculated and served as the patient's RGI-C score for a specific time point||||0.0755
91691742|NCT02104219|183277760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether the median change in height Z-score from baseline to last assessment differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||The earliest documented height measurement that was abstracted within the period from 5 to 15 years of age, inclusive, was defined as the baseline height. Height measurements were assigned to Z-scores calculated using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts and methodology. Changes in height Z-score from Baseline were computed by subtracting baseline height Z-score from post baseline height Z-scores. The post baseline time points were grouped by time intervals.||||0.6344
91722340|NCT04609553|183337081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.14
91794329|NCT00591578|183467636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.59||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-4.04|0.009
91904138|NCT04667377|183703252|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-1.61||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-1.61|-7.44|0.0025
91794330|NCT00591578|183467636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|-0.84||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.84|-4.34|0.004
91691743|NCT02104219|183277761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether the median change in weight Z-score from baseline to last assessment differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||The earliest documented weight measurement that was abstracted within the period from 5 to 15 years of age, inclusive, was defined as the baseline weight. Weight measurements were assigned to Z-scores calculated using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts and methodology. Changes in weight Z-score from Baseline were computed by subtracting baseline weight Z-score from post baseline weight Z-scores. The post baseline time points were grouped by time intervals.||||0.4520
91691744|NCT02104219|183277762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4545|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether change from baseline in the median RSS score differs from 0 for each time interval. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||The Baseline x-ray set defined for RGI-C, which was compared with its subsequent x-ray sets, was also used as the Baseline x-ray set for the RSS reading. Changes from Baseline were computed based on this baseline RSS score, and postbaseline time points were grouped by intervals of time from Baseline.||||0.4545
91691745|NCT02375971|183277763|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy variable was treatment success, defined as the absence of active ROP and absence of unfavorable structural outcomes in both eyes 24 weeks after starting study treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9932|4.8235|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.8235|0.9932|0.0254
91691746|NCT02275819|183277785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
91691747|NCT02275819|183277786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.22
91691748|NCT02275819|183277787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.12
91691749|NCT02275819|183277788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.08
91691750|NCT02275819|183277789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91691751|NCT02025725|183277804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.881
91691752|NCT02025725|183277805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.201||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 1: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo.||||0.036
91691753|NCT02025725|183277805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.336||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 2: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo||||0.025
91691754|NCT02025725|183277805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.347||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 3: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo.||||0.039
91794331|NCT00591578|183467637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.0||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.00|1.07|0.016
91691755|NCT02025725|183277805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.364||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 4: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo.||||0.085
91691756|NCT01787292|183277829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.|ANCOVA|Least square means were adjusted for carryover from the crossover design and between subjects effects were analyzed using Kenward-Roger df estimation||||||.001
91691757|NCT01787292|183277830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.||||.8
91691758|NCT01787292|183277831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.|ANCOVA|||||||.05
91691759|NCT01787292|183277832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.|ANCOVA|A Kenward-Rogers adjustment for degrees of freedom was made to account for carryover effects.||||||.05
91691760|NCT01787292|183277833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
91691761|NCT01787292|183277834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
91691762|NCT01787292|183277835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
91691763|NCT01787292|183277836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5
91691764|NCT01787292|183277837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Kenward-Rogers adjustment for df was made to account for carryover effects.||||||.6
91691765|NCT01787292|183277838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.4
91691766|NCT01787292|183277839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
91691767|NCT01787292|183277840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
91691768|NCT01787292|183277841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
91691769|NCT01597778|183277855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates|6.1||||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|17.4||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05. Final p-value is adjusted for the interim looks per study design.|Z-test to compare the Kaplan-Meier Est.|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference between the 2 year PFS probabilities for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||17.4|-5.2|0.4092
91691770|NCT01597778|183277855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.7||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference between the 2 year PFS probabilities for dUCB vs. haplo-BM after adjustment for age, performance score, and disease type.||1.70|0.99|0.060
91691771|NCT01597778|183277857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before neutrophil recovery is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the neutrophil engraftment post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.046
91863938|NCT04119843|183616500|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.059|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.054|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.054|0.464|<0.001
91904139|NCT04667377|183703252|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-9.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-9.19|-14.94|<.0001
91691772|NCT01597778|183277858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before Platelet recovery is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the platelet engraftment to 20k post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.160
91691773|NCT01597778|183277858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before Platelet recovery is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the platelet engraftment to 50k post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.146
91691774|NCT01597778|183277860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before 2nd graft failure is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the secondary graft failure probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.693
91691775|NCT01597778|183277861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to aGVHD is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the aGVHD grade II - IV probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.142
91691776|NCT01597778|183277861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to aGVHD is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the aGVHD grade III - IV probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.604
91691777|NCT01597778|183277862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before cGVHD is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the cGVHD probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.361
91691778|NCT01597778|183277863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0373||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the OS probabilities at year 2 post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.0373
91691779|NCT01597778|183277863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the OS probabilities at year 2 post-transplant for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.0235
91794263|NCT02821910|183467547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|106.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.65|112.96|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.96|100.65|
91691780|NCT01597778|183277864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality across the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the TRM probabilities post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.039
91691781|NCT01597778|183277864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality across the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the TRM probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM||||0.030
91691782|NCT01597778|183277865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to relapse is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the relapse/progression probabilities post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.968
91691783|NCT01597778|183277865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to relapse is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the relapse/progression probabilities post- transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.907
91691784|NCT01597778|183277868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the total duration of hospitalization within 6 months post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.0003
91691785|NCT05691712|183277873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-12.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.36|-19.9|<0.001
91691786|NCT05691712|183277873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.10|-19.7|<0.001
91691787|NCT05691712|183277874|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-9.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.34|-16.8|<0.001
91691788|NCT05691712|183277875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.9|-5.8|<0.001
91691789|NCT05691712|183277875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.0|-8.0|<0.001
91691790|NCT05691712|183277875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.5|-7.5|<0.001
91691791|NCT05691712|183277877|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.3|-32.4|<0.001
91691792|NCT05691712|183277877|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|-18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.1|-39.6|<0.001
91691793|NCT05691712|183277877|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.5|-38.2|<0.001
91691794|NCT00226499|183277909|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|94.943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|92.446|96.615|||Regression, Cox|||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||96.615|92.446|<0.0001
91691795|NCT00226499|183277909|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|65.428||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|97.5|57.182|72.086|||Regression, Cox|||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||72.086|57.182|0.1265
91691796|NCT00226499|183277910|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|99.498||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.522|99.898|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||99.898|97.522|0.0001
91691797|NCT00226499|183277910|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|90.741||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.866|93.934|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||93.934|85.866|0.1265
91691798|NCT00226499|183277911|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|92.487|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.927|94.396|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||94.396|89.927|<0.0001
91691799|NCT00226499|183277911|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|64.585||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.503|70.486|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||70.486|57.503|0.1265
91691800|NCT00226499|183277931|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|95.855|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.075|97.101|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||97.101|94.075|<0.0001
91691801|NCT00226499|183277931|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|69.812||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.848|75.47|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||75.470|62.848|0.1265
91691802|NCT00226499|183277932|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|99.072|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.907|99.589|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||99.589|97.907|<0.0001
91722341|NCT04609553|183337081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.007
91722342|NCT04609553|183337081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.34
91691803|NCT00226499|183277932|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|89.532||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.126|92.102|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||92.102|86.126|0.1265
91863939|NCT04119843|183616500|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.747|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.747|0.429|<0.001
91863940|NCT04119843|183616501|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.852|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.166|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||1.166|0.726|<0.001
91691804|NCT00226499|183277933|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|94.816|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.838|96.248|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||96.248|92.838|<0.0001
91863941|NCT04119843|183616501|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.261|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.082|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.082|0.380|<0.001
91691805|NCT00226499|183277933|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|68.932||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.893|74.671|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||74.671|61.893|0.1265
91691806|NCT02723344|183277946|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum|||||||.056
91691807|NCT02723344|183277947|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.26
91691808|NCT02723344|183277949|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||||.64
91691809|NCT03473184|183277954|OTHER|p-values are from an ANOVA of the average numerical score (sum of erythema and edema) at 24 and 48 hours post irradiation (Days 3 and 4) with effects of subject and treatment, using Fisher's least significant differences.||||||1|||||||ANOVA|||Irradiated vehicle and untreated irradiated sites versus irradiated diacerein site, and non-irradiated vehicle site versus non-irradiated diacerein site and untreated irradiated site versus irradiated vehicle site.||||1.0000
91691810|NCT03473184|183277954|OTHER|p-values are from an ANOVA of the average numerical score (sum of erythema and edema) at 24 and 48 hours post irradiation (Days 3 and 4) with effects of subject and treatment, using Fisher's least significant differences.||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|||Non-irradiated diacerein and vehicle sites versus irradiated diacerein site, and irradiated vehicle and untreated irradiated sites versus non-irradiated diacerein site, and non-irradiated vehicle site versus irradiated vehicle site, and untreated irradiated site versus non-irradiated vehicle site.||||0.0008
91691811|NCT02524847|183277955|OTHER||Overall response rate (%)|55.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|73.6|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided p-value for testing the null hypothesis H0: Standard therapy has a CR+PR rate = 10% after 4 weeks, using the exact Binomial test.||||73.6|35.7|<.001
91691812|NCT01268527|183277969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|711.4||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|292.5|1130.3|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, Least Squares Means (LSM), and Confidence Intervals (CI) were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1130.3|292.5|0.0038
91691813|NCT01268527|183277969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|1119.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|858.9|1380.6|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1380.6|858.9|<0.0001
91691814|NCT01268527|183277969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|780.0||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1568.5|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1568.5|-8.5|0.0523
91794606|NCT03981822|183468101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Study Day 84 (EOT) Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0034
91722343|NCT04609553|183337082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.99
91722344|NCT04609553|183337082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.07
91722345|NCT04609553|183337082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.41
91722346|NCT04609553|183337082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.03
91722347|NCT01035788|183337085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|p value was obtained from the contrast of the linear mixed model||We sought to obtain a sample size of 18 per group to provide 80% power to detect a .97 standard deviation difference in mean change in CAPS between MB-CBCT and the CBCT-Communication Skills at treatment end based on a two-tailed t-test at 5% significance. Linear mixed models with repeated measures were performed to address the primary hypotheses that MB-CBCT would result in a greater improvement for Veterans and their partners than CBCT-Communication Skills at the end of treatment.||13.2|-1.39|.849
91722348|NCT03829475|183337087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91722349|NCT01433913|183337097|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
91722350|NCT01433913|183337098|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91863942|NCT04119843|183616501|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.786|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.927|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.927|0.517|<0.001
91863943|NCT01037881|183616531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.29||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.03|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||1.03|-3.60|0.27
91863944|NCT01037881|183616531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.25||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.04|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||2.04|-2.53|0.83
91722351|NCT01433913|183337099|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91722352|NCT01433913|183337100|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91722353|NCT01433913|183337101|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91722354|NCT01433913|183337105|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91722355|NCT01433913|183337106|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91722356|NCT01433913|183337107|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91722357|NCT01433913|183337108|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91722358|NCT01433913|183337109|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91722359|NCT00689936|183337119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.85||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||0.85|0.61|0.00006
91722360|NCT00689936|183337119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.82||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||0.82|0.60|0.00001
91722361|NCT00689936|183337119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.70349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||1.20|0.89|0.70349
91722362|NCT00689936|183337120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.79||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.79|0.59|<0.00001
91722363|NCT00689936|183337120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.81||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.81|0.60|<0.00001
91722364|NCT00689936|183337120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.91161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.14|0.86|0.91161
91863945|NCT01037881|183616531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-2.01||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.28|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||0.28|-4.30|0.08
91863946|NCT01037881|183616531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.56||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|0.65|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||0.65|-3.77|0.16
91863947|NCT01037881|183616531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.65||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.54|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||0.54|-3.84|0.14
91863948|NCT01037881|183616531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-2.46||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||-0.17|-4.47|0.04
91863949|NCT01037881|183616531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|2.46||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.74|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||4.74|0.17|0.04
91904140|NCT04667377|183703252|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|-10.07||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo at week 46.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-10.07|-15.85|<.0001
91691815|NCT01268527|183277969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|1775.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1392.3|2158.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||2158.0|1392.3|<0.0001
91691816|NCT01268527|183277969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|921.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|515.7|1327.1|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1327.1|515.7|0.0002
91691817|NCT01268527|183277969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|937.8||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|267.6|1607.9|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1607.9|267.6|0.0115
91722365|NCT00689936|183337121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.00234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.92||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.92|0.67|0.00234
91794332|NCT00591578|183467637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.23||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.23|1.19|0.002
91691818|NCT01268527|183277970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|101.5||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|167.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||167.0|36.0|0.0042
91691819|NCT01268527|183277970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|182.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|140.3|224.4|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||224.4|140.3|<0.0001
91691820|NCT01268527|183277970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|169.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.4|211.5|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||211.5|127.4|<0.0001
91691821|NCT01268527|183277970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|246.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|185.0|308.1|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||308.1|185.0|<0.0001
91722366|NCT00689936|183337121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.82903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.20|0.86|0.82903
91722367|NCT00689936|183337121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.9||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.90|0.66|0.00119
91722368|NCT00689936|183337122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.37|||Fisher Exact|||||2.37|1.41|<0.00001
91722369|NCT00689936|183337122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.53065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.44|||Fisher Exact|||||1.44|0.83|0.53065
91863950|NCT01037881|183616531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|1.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.48|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||3.48|-1.14|0.32
91863951|NCT01037881|183616531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|2.21||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|4.5|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||4.50|-0.08|0.06
91863952|NCT01037881|183616531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.45||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.73|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||2.73|-1.84|0.70
91863953|NCT01037881|183616531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.1|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||3.10|-1.31|0.42
91863954|NCT01037881|183616531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.81||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|3.0|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||3.00|-1.38|0.47
91863955|NCT04563546|183616552|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Unadjusted p-value. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91863956|NCT04563546|183616553|OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.739
91863957|NCT04563546|183616554|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Unadjusted p-value. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91722370|NCT00689936|183337122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.15|||Fisher Exact|||||2.15|1.29|0.00010
91722371|NCT00689936|183337123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.68|||Fisher Exact|||||2.68|1.53|<0.00001
91722372|NCT00689936|183337123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.54|||Fisher Exact|||||1.54|0.85|0.40500
91722373|NCT00689936|183337123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.32|||Fisher Exact|||||2.32|1.35|0.00004
91722374|NCT00689936|183337124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.76||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.76|0.51|<0.00001
91722375|NCT00689936|183337124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.72||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.72|0.50|<0.00001
91722376|NCT00689936|183337124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.23|0.86|0.76740
91722377|NCT00689936|183337125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.72||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.72|0.51|<0.00001
91722378|NCT00689936|183337125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.72||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.72|0.52|<0.00001
91794264|NCT02821910|183467547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|106.64|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.64|94.54|
91794265|NCT02821910|183467548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|97.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.46|104.94|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.94|91.46|
91691822|NCT01268527|183277970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|132.3||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.9|210.7|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||210.7|53.9|0.0043
91722379|NCT00689936|183337125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.17|0.85|0.99537
91722380|NCT00689936|183337126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91722381|NCT00689936|183337126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.46672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46672
91722382|NCT00689936|183337126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91722383|NCT00689936|183337127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91691823|NCT01268527|183277970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|145.0||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|225.8|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM) and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||225.8|64.2|0.0036
91691824|NCT01268527|183277971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|80.7||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|126.7|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||126.7|34.6|0.0013
91691825|NCT01268527|183277971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|127.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.4|163.5|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||163.5|92.4|<0.0001
91691826|NCT01268527|183277971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|110.2||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|218.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||218.0|2.4|0.0458
91722384|NCT00689936|183337127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.46987|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46987
91722385|NCT00689936|183337127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91722386|NCT00689936|183337128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.88|0.68|0.00012
91722387|NCT00689936|183337128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.00187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.93|0.71|0.00187
91722388|NCT00689936|183337128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.45973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.08|0.84|0.45973
91722389|NCT00689936|183337129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.86||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.86|0.67|0.00002
91691827|NCT01268527|183277971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|207.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|155.2|259.9|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||259.9|155.2|<0.0001
91691828|NCT01268527|183277971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|125.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.5|179.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||179.0|71.5|0.0003
91722390|NCT00689936|183337129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.00126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.92|0.72|0.00126
91722391|NCT00689936|183337129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.27704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.06|0.83|0.27704
91691829|NCT01268527|183277971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|128.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.9|163.3|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||163.3|93.9|0.0029
91691830|NCT01008605|183277976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit, 95% one-sided CI|95.83|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|87.46||||||||||87.46|
91691831|NCT03817190|183278039|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of participants|-0.2277||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0415|0.586|||GLMM|||||0.5860|-1.0415|0.6880
91722392|NCT00689936|183337130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.78||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.78|0.56|<0.00001
91722393|NCT00689936|183337130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.88|0.63|0.00067
91794607|NCT03981822|183468101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0156
91863958|NCT05622812|183616664|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|39.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|56.5||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|||56.5|21.6|<0.001
91863959|NCT05622812|183616665|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|57.6||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 6||57.6|23.1|<0.001
91691832|NCT03817190|183278040|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of participants|-0.276||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9185|0.3665|||GLMM|||||0.3665|-0.9185|0.4321
91691833|NCT00868530|183278067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.120
91691834|NCT05142722|183278112|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.602|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.79|-29.5|||ANCOVA|||||-29.50|-35.79|<.0001
91691835|NCT05142722|183278113|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.678|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.07|-30.49|||ANCOVA|||||-30.49|-37.07|<.0001
91691836|NCT05142722|183278114|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.979|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.87|-20.09||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-20.09|-27.87|<.0001
91722394|NCT00689936|183337130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.12333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.03|0.75|0.12333
91722395|NCT00689936|183337131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.73||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||.73|0.54|<0.00001
91722396|NCT00689936|183337131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.83|0.61|0.00001
91722397|NCT00689936|183337131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.05821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.00|0.76|0.05821
91722398|NCT00689936|183337132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.93824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.38|||Fisher Exact|||||1.38|0.75|0.93824
91722399|NCT00689936|183337132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.08836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03|||Fisher Exact|||||1.03|0.56|0.08836
91722400|NCT00689936|183337132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.04974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.79|||Fisher Exact|||||1.79|1.01|0.04974
91722401|NCT00689936|183337133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.02134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.59|||Fisher Exact|||||2.59|1.08|0.02134
91722402|NCT00689936|183337133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.59|||Fisher Exact|||||1.59|0.64|1.00000
91722403|NCT00689936|183337133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.02374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.53|||Fisher Exact|||||2.53|1.08|0.02374
91863960|NCT05622812|183616665|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|41.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|57.8||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 9||57.8|25.6|<0.001
91863961|NCT05622812|183616665|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|30.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|47.1||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 12||47.1|13.2|0.003
91691837|NCT05142722|183278115|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.76|-17.09||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-17.09|-20.76|<.0001
91691838|NCT05142722|183278116|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.38|-16.23||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-16.23|-20.38|<.0001
91691839|NCT05142722|183278117|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.219|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-11.41||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-11.41|-16.20|<.0001
91691840|NCT05142722|183278118|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.89|-26.99||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-26.99|-31.89|<.0001
91691841|NCT05142722|183278119|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.94|-25.69||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-25.69|-30.94|<.0001
91691842|NCT05142722|183278120|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.564|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|-19.95||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-19.95|-26.09|<.0001
91691843|NCT05142722|183278121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|136.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.939|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|132.46|140.07||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||140.07|132.46|<.0001
91691844|NCT05142722|183278122|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|134.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.343|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.84|139.03||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||139.03|129.84|<.0001
91691845|NCT05142722|183278123|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|122.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.53|126.55||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||126.55|117.53|<.0001
91691846|NCT05142722|183278124|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-14.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.183||0.4841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.68|25.44||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05; therefore hierarchical testing was stopped for subsequent secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|||||25.44|-53.68|0.4841
91691847|NCT05161481|183278169|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 24 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.25|9.45||||||Model includes baseline HVPG as linear covariate and treatment and use of NSBBs or carvedilol as fixed effects, treatment by visit interaction and baseline HVPG by visit interaction. The following covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model: Unstructured.||9.45|-26.25|
91691848|NCT05161481|183278169|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 24 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|-14.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.09|5.72||||||Model includes baseline HVPG as linear covariate and treatment and use of NSBBs or carvedilol as fixed effects, treatment by visit interaction and baseline HVPG by visit interaction. The following covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model: Unstructured.||5.72|-34.09|
91691849|NCT05161481|183278170|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 8 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|15.96||||||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) as a linear covariate, with treatment and use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) or carvedilol as fixed effects. All intercurrent events (ICEs) will be handled using the treatment policy for the primary objective as a sensitivity analysis. That is, all data collected after the intercurrent events will be included in the analysis.||15.96|-8.94|
91691850|NCT05161481|183278170|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 8 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|16.33||||||ANCOVA) model includes baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) as a linear covariate, with treatment and use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) or carvedilol as fixed effects. All intercurrent events (ICEs) will be handled using the treatment policy for the primary objective as a sensitivity analysis. That is, all data collected after the intercurrent events will be included in the analysis.||16.33|-10.94|
91691851|NCT00838903|183278178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.16|
91722404|NCT00689936|183337134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.11152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.21|||Fisher Exact|||||3.21|0.91|0.11152
91691852|NCT00838903|183278178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-0.53|
91691853|NCT00838903|183278178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-0.45|
91691854|NCT00838903|183278178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide over placebo at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - placebo) is equal to zero||||||<0.0001
91722405|NCT00689936|183337134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.86336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.83|||Fisher Exact|||||1.83|0.47|0.86336
91691855|NCT00838903|183278178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - sitagliptin) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for non-inferiority testing of albiglutide versus sitagliptin at 0.0125 level.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91691856|NCT00838903|183278178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - glimepiride) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for non-inferiority testing of albiglutide versus glimepiride at 0.0125 level.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91691857|NCT00838903|183278178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||The p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide versus sitagliptin at 0.025 level.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - sitagliptin) is equal to zero.||||||0.0001
91691858|NCT00838903|183278178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||||||The p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide versus glimepiride at 0.025 level.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - glimepiride) is equal to zero.||||||0.0033
91691859|NCT04225715|183278187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|16.4|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method.|||16.4|-2.1|
91691860|NCT04225715|183278187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|10.0|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||10|-3.1|
91691861|NCT04225715|183278187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|39.5|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||39.5|9|
91691862|NCT04225715|183278187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|23.3|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||23.3|1.3|
91691863|NCT04225715|183278187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||0|0|
91691864|NCT04225715|183278187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|15.7|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||15.7|-2.2|
91691865|NCT04225715|183278188|SUPERIORITY||6.2|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.5|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 7: Week 24||14.5|-2|
91691866|NCT04225715|183278188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|25.6|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 8: Week 36||25.6|1.2|
91691867|NCT04225715|183278188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|16.4|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 2: Week 48||16.4|-2.1|
91691868|NCT04225715|183278188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|10.0|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 3: Week 48||10|-3.1|
91691869|NCT04225715|183278188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|47.6|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 4: Week 48||47.6|14.7|
91691870|NCT04225715|183278188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|31.4|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 6: Week 48||31.4|5.4|
91691871|NCT04225715|183278188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|20.1|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 2: FUW 48||20.1|-3.9|
91691872|NCT04225715|183278188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.7|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 3: FUW 48||2.7|-8.1|
91691873|NCT04225715|183278188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|28.8|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 4: FUW 48||28.8|0.4|
91691874|NCT04225715|183278188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|21.5|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 6: FUW 48||21.5|-2.5|
91691875|NCT01894841|183278207|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.03||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).|RMANOVA|||||||.13
91691876|NCT01894841|183278208|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA|Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).||||||.79
91691877|NCT01894841|183278209|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.02||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).|RMANOVA|||||||.49
91722406|NCT00689936|183337134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.07321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.55|||Fisher Exact|||||3.55|0.96|0.07321
91691878|NCT01894841|183278210|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.003||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).|RMANOVA|||||||.96
91691879|NCT01894841|183278211|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.01||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA|Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).||||||.62
91691880|NCT03158038|183278218|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.9||||||||1.9|-6.7|
91691881|NCT03158038|183278219|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|13.2||||||Statistical analysis up to Day 8||13.2|-12.8|
91691882|NCT03158038|183278219|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|13.2||||||Statistical analysis up to Day 15||13.2|-14.1|
91691883|NCT00925704|183278284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||0.171
91691884|NCT00925704|183278284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||0.024
91691885|NCT00925704|183278285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||0.313
91722407|NCT00689936|183337135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.00043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.45|||Fisher Exact|||||4.45|1.55|0.00043
91722543|NCT02629159|183337905|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|7.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.1||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for EU/EMA only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||12.1|3.0|<0.001
91794670|NCT02117414|183468200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who experience a VPCT increase less than or equal to 0.5V from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10%"|||-3.8|<0.0001
91722544|NCT02629159|183337905|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-3.4||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.5||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||1.5|-8.2|0.187
91722545|NCT02629159|183337906|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|23.7||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.7|16.3|<0.001
91722546|NCT02629159|183337906|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|16.4||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||16.4|6.5|<0.001
91722547|NCT05722015|183337907|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.14|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.06|1.22|||Welch's t test|One-sided p-value was calculated using the Welch's t test.|GMR was calculated as the ratio of geometric mean (GM) of Cycle 1 AUC0-6 weeks in Arm 1 to that of Arm 2. The associated 96% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Welch's t test.|||1.22|1.06|<0.00001
91722548|NCT05722015|183337908|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|GMR|1.67|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.0|1.52|1.84|||Welch's t test|One sided p-value was calculated using Welch's t test.|GMR was calculated as the ratio of GM of Cycle 3 Ctrough in Arm 1 to that of Arm 2. The associated 94% CI were calculated using Welch's t test.|||1.84|1.52|<0.00001
91722549|NCT02685735|183337923|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without gabapentin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the gabapentin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).||||||0.882||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the gabapentin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, age, sex, pupil diameter, and catastophizing-optimism construct.||||0.882
91722550|NCT02685735|183337929|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without gabapentin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the gabapentin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).||||||0.137||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the gabapentin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, age, sex, pupil diameter, and catastrophizing-optimism construct.||||0.137
91722551|NCT02685735|183337930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|14 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis (H0) is that modeled trajectory of change in pain intensity report after total hip or total knee arthroplasty does not differ between oral gabapentin and placebo in a manner dependent on its interaction with preferred cognitive style and pre-surgery pupil resting diameter . The alternative hypothesis (H1) is that there is a difference between the two groups which is dependent on these interactions.|A likelihood ratio test was conducted to compare these two models, conditional on the difference in the degrees of freedom in both models. A statistically significant likelihood ratio test would be interpreted as evidence that the three mechanistic predictors (Catastrophising-Optimism construct, Study Group, resting Pupil diameter) impact some aspect of the change in pain that occurs after surgery. If a statistically significant effect is observed, the individual interaction parameters will be interpreted.|||<0.0001
91722552|NCT04133909|183337931|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100 mg/Placebo)|0.79||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||Negative binomial model|||Analysis performed using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment group, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year (less than or equal to \[\<=\]2, 3, \>=4 as ordinal), baseline percent (%) predicted Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and smoking status (current vs. former smoker), and with logarithm (time on- and off-treatment) as an offset variable.||0.94|0.66|0.011
91722553|NCT04133909|183337932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment group, geographic region, number of moderate or severe exacerbations in previous year \<=2, 3, \>=4 as ordinal), baseline % predicted FEV1 and smoking status (current vs former).||0.93|0.64|0.009
91722554|NCT04133909|183337933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to compare the proportion of responders between the mepolizumab and placebo arms in the mITT and mITT2 populations. The model includes fixed categorical covariates (treatment group, smoking status, geographic region) and a fixed continuous covariate (baseline score).||1.09|0.60|0.161
91794671|NCT02117414|183468201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 8%.|Difference in percentages|0.6||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who do not experience a significant decrease in ventricular sensing amplitude from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period is greater than that in the Control group minus 8%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 8% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 8%"|||-4.1|0.0001
91794672|NCT02117414|183468202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected if the one-sided 95% log-log transformed lower confidence bound at 120 days post-implant calculated using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method is greater than 80%.|Complication-free rate|95.9|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.0|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Kaplan-Meier method|||"The system-related complication-free rate between the implant procedure and the one month post-MRI/waiting period is greater than 80%.~H0: p ≤ 0.80 HA: p \> 0.80 where p is the system-related complication-free rate between the implant procedure and 120 days (the approximate time of the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit)."|||93.0|<0.0001
91794673|NCT02117414|183468203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.2|||<|1e-05|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who have a defibrillation impedance between 20 and 100 ohms at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10% Where % successes means the % of subjects whose defibrillation impedance at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit is between 20 and 100 ohms."|||-3.1|<0.00001
91794674|NCT02117414|183468204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Because the success rate was 100% in each group, a p-value could not be calculated.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who have a SVC defibrillation impedance between 20 and 100 ohms at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10% Where % successes means the % of subjects whose SVC defibrillation impedance at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit is between 20 and 100 ohms."||||
91794675|NCT02117414|183468205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|-1.3||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-7.0||||Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who experience an APCT increase less than or equal to 0.5V from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10%"|||-7.0|0.006
91888716|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.07|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.40|0.1647
91888717|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.18|0.7093
91759951|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|-6.21||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.21|-21.75|
91759952|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|13.42||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.42|-0.53|
91759953|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|7.92||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.92|-5.81|
91759954|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|7.57||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.57|-6.25|
91759955|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|4.42||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.42|-9.26|
91759956|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|16.35||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||16.35|1.48|
91759957|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|11.51||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.51|-3.24|
91692415|NCT03187301|183279693|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.5|17.1||||||2 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||17.1|7.5|
91692416|NCT03187301|183279693|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|15.7||||||3 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||15.7|6.1|
91692417|NCT03187301|183279693|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|13.8||||||4 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||13.8|4.2|
91692418|NCT02158585|183279701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.93||||0.5618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|21.35|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups in average total number of vertigo attacks||21.35|-3.49|0.5618
91692419|NCT02158585|183279702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference between average total number of vertigo attacks in pre-treatment and treatment||||0.03429
91692420|NCT02158585|183279703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|8.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference in total average number of vertigo attacks during 3 week time periods||8.29|0.85|0.0092
91722555|NCT04133909|183337934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to compare the proportion of responders between the mepolizumab and placebo arms in the mITT and mITT2 populations. The model includes fixed categorical covariates (treatment group, smoking status, geographic region) and a fixed continuous covariate (baseline score).||1.57|0.87|0.291
91722556|NCT04133909|183337935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to compare the proportion of responders between the mepolizumab and placebo arms in the mITT and mITT2 populations. The model includes fixed categorical covariates (treatment group, smoking status, geographic region) and a fixed continuous covariate (baseline score).||1.12|0.60|0.209
91692421|NCT02158585|183279706|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.14||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|37.92|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||37.92|-15.64|0.0385
91692422|NCT03809663|183279761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.686||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|9.809||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||9.809|0.290|0.56
91759958|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|7.84||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.84|-6.96|
91759959|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|9.56||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.56|-5.14|
91692423|NCT03809663|183279761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.011||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|7.551||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||7.551|0.135|0.99
91692424|NCT03809663|183279761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.146||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|11.8||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||11.800|0.390|0.38
91692425|NCT03809663|183279762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.982||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|2.803||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.803|0.344|0.97
91692426|NCT03809663|183279762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.217||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|3.356||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||3.356|0.441|0.70
91692427|NCT03809663|183279762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|2.197||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.197|0.243|0.58
91692428|NCT02792062|183279786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|113.06||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.37|181.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed Cmax of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||181.67|70.37|0.659
91692429|NCT02792062|183279786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|45.43||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.86|74.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed Cmax of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||74.07|27.86|0.012
91692430|NCT02792062|183279787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|84.28||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.09|107.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC∞ of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||107.47|66.09|0.238
91722557|NCT04133909|183337936|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.65||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.96|||Negative binomial model|||Analysis performed using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment group, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year (\<=2, 3, \>=4 as ordinal), baseline % predicted FEV1 and smoking status (current vs. former smoker), and with logarithm (time on- and off-treatment) as an offset variable. Estimates based on weighting applied to each level of class variable determined from observed proportions.||0.96|0.43|0.032
91692431|NCT02792062|183279787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.39|68.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC∞ of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||68.37|41.39|<0.001
91692432|NCT02792062|183279788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|84.68||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.23|108.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC(0-120) of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||108.27|66.23|0.256
91692433|NCT02792062|183279788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|52.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.78|67.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC(0-120) of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||67.74|40.78|<0.001
91692434|NCT02792062|183279789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|84.68||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.23|108.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUClast of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||108.27|66.23|0.256
91692435|NCT02792062|183279789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|52.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.78|67.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUClast of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||67.74|40.78|<0.001
91692436|NCT03309943|183279796|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for FTCD. Carried out using SPSS Mixed Models with a repeated statement and compound symmetry covariance structure.||||||.019
91692437|NCT03309943|183279797|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for FTCD||||||.830
91692438|NCT03309943|183279798|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.006
91722558|NCT02003924|183337942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.292|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|0.352||P-value was based on stratified log-rank test by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||0.352|0.241|<0.0001
91758701|NCT00235716|183410637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.17||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.17|-3.12|0.14
91692439|NCT03309943|183279799|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.653|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.653
91692440|NCT03309943|183279800|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for FTCD||||||.012
91692441|NCT03309943|183279801|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on PPI indexes while viewing proximal smoking cues (which drove activation effects).||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.013
91692442|NCT03309943|183279802|SUPERIORITY|Repeated Measures ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score)||||||0.024|||||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Adjusted for FTCD.||||||.024
91692443|NCT03309943|183279803|SUPERIORITY|Repeated Measures ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score)||||||0.086|||||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Adjusted for FTCD score||||||.086
91692444|NCT03309943|183279804|SUPERIORITY|Repeated Measures ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score)||||||0.14|||||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Adjusted for FTCD score||||||.140
91692445|NCT03309943|183279805|SUPERIORITY|Standard ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for baseline craving and FTCD score).||||||0.556|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline craving and FTCD score||||||.556
91692446|NCT03309943|183279806|SUPERIORITY|Standard ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score).||||||0.463||||||Adjusted for FTCD score only.|ANCOVA|||||||.463
91794676|NCT02117414|183468206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.3||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who do not experience a 50% decrease in atrial sensing amplitude from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10%"|||-6.2|0.005
91794677|NCT00701376|183468207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-15.6|2.94|||paired t-test|||||2.94|-15.6|0.03
91794678|NCT00701376|183468208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-22.0|6.83|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.83|-22.0|0.08
91794679|NCT00701376|183468209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.84||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-7.55|19.2|||paired t-test|||||19.2|-7.55|0.14
91794680|NCT00701376|183468211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-0.38|-0.02|||paired t-test|||||-0.02|-0.38|<0.001
91794681|NCT00701376|183468212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-0.68|0.23|||paired t-test|||||0.23|-0.68|0.10
91794682|NCT00701376|183468213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-8.68|5.25|||paired t-test|||||5.25|-8.68|0.21
91794683|NCT00701376|183468215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.002
91794684|NCT00701376|183468216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.04
91794685|NCT00701376|183468217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.005
91794686|NCT00701376|183468218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
91794687|NCT04025710|183468254|OTHER|single arm design|SADE-free rate|0.97||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary hypothesis evaluates the SADE free rate (pSADE\_free) at 3 months. Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%||1|0.9|0.05
91794688|NCT00633867|183468286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
91794689|NCT05308290|183468287|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91794690|NCT05308290|183468288|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91794691|NCT05308290|183468289|OTHER|||||||1||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91794692|NCT05308290|183468290|OTHER|||||||1||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91794693|NCT05308290|183468291|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
91794694|NCT00410202|183468301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.9||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.9|||Hochberg procedure|||||19.9|-2.0|0.1336
91794695|NCT00410202|183468301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|5.7||||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|15.5|||Hochberg procedure|||||15.5|-4.2|0.2619
91888718|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.6333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.26|0.6333
91888719|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.16|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.31|0.5238
91794696|NCT00410202|183468302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|15.0||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|26.4|||Hochberg procedure|||||26.4|3.7|0.0095
91794697|NCT00410202|183468303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|21.1||||||||21.1|2.5|
91794698|NCT00410202|183468303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|18.2||||||||18.2|-1.1|
91794699|NCT00410202|183468304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|23.9||||||||23.9|1.8|
91794700|NCT00410202|183468305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.4||||||||17.4|0.3|
91794701|NCT00410202|183468305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|17.3||||||||17.3|-0.1|
91794702|NCT00410202|183468306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|23.4||||||||23.4|2.4|
91794703|NCT00410202|183468309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.534|-0.994|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.994|-1.534|
91794704|NCT00410202|183468309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|-0.281|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.281|-0.824|
91794705|NCT00410202|183468311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|10.7||||||||10.7|-15.5|
91794706|NCT00410202|183468311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|12.6||||||||12.6|-15.0|
91794707|NCT00410202|183468312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|10.6||||||||10.6|-16.2|
91794708|NCT00410202|183468313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.7||||||||6.7|-5.2|
91794709|NCT00410202|183468313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.2||||||||7.2|-4.6|
91794710|NCT00410202|183468314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|6.4||||||||6.4|-9.5|
91794711|NCT00410202|183468315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.8||||||||6.8|-2.4|
91794712|NCT00410202|183468315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.2||||||||6.2|-3.5|
91794713|NCT00410202|183468316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.8||||||||7.8|-3.6|
91794714|NCT00410202|183468317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1||||||||2.1|-0.7|
91794715|NCT00410202|183468317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0||||||||2.0|-2.0|
91722559|NCT02003924|183337943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.066|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.081||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS. Threshold for significance at 0.02 level.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|To maintain the family-wise 2-sided type I error rate at 0.05, a parallel testing strategy between OS (with allocated type I error rate 0.03) and remaining key secondary endpoints (time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy with allocated type I error rate 0.02) was performed. Testing was performed only if the primary endpoint was statistically significant.||0.081|0.054|<0.0001
91722560|NCT02003924|183337944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.208|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.258||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS. Threshold for significance at 0.02 level.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|To maintain the family-wise 2-sided type I error rate at 0.05, a parallel testing strategy between OS (with allocated type I error rate 0.03) and remaining key secondary endpoints (time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy with allocated type I error rate 0.02) was performed. Testing was performed only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.||0.258|0.168|<0.0001
91722561|NCT02003924|183337945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.734||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|0.885||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per interactive voice/web recognition system (IXRS).|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|To maintain family-wise 2-sided type I error rate at 0.05,parallel testing strategy between OS(with allocated type I error rate 0.03)and remaining key secondary endpoints(time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy with allocated type I error rate 0.02)was performed.OS tested at error rate 0.05 when both time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy were significant. When either failed to show significance.OS was tested at error 0.03.||0.885|0.608|0.0011
91722562|NCT02003924|183337946|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.959||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.149||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.149|0.801|0.6534
91722563|NCT02003924|183337947|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.378|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.507||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||0.507|0.282|<0.0001
91722564|NCT02003924|183337950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|73.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.91|77.02||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA doubling time (\<6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Decrease from Baseline \>= 50%||77.02|70.91|<0.0001
91722565|NCT02003924|183337950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|55.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.28|58.76||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA doubling time (\<6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Decrease from Baseline \>= 90%||58.76|52.28|<0.0001
91904188|NCT02234284|183703319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||5.3|-5.5|.97
91911150|NCT02685709|183718452|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The mean change in IGF-1 from RCT Baseline to the end of the RCT phase was calculated using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) approach.|||
91722566|NCT02003924|183337950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|9.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.75|11.54||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA doubling time (\<6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Decrease to Undetectable Level||11.54|7.75|<0.0001
91722567|NCT01155570|183337996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91722568|NCT01155570|183337997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91722569|NCT01155570|183337998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91722570|NCT01155570|183337999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91722571|NCT01155570|183338000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91722572|NCT01155570|183338001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91722573|NCT01155570|183338006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91692447|NCT02230904|183279820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.115|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.635|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The change in average adhesiveness score was average score for Treatment B minus average score for Treatment A.||||
91692448|NCT02230904|183279827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.442|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.895|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The change in average adhesiveness score was average score for Treatment B minus average score for Treatment A.||||
91692449|NCT02949973|183279880|OTHER||Percentage|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91692450|NCT02949973|183279881|OTHER||Percentage|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91692451|NCT02949973|183279882|OTHER||Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91692452|NCT02949973|183279883|OTHER||Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91692453|NCT02949973|183279884|OTHER||Percentage|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|93.3||||||||93.3|34.8|
91692454|NCT02949973|183279885|OTHER||Percentage|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|84.3||||||||84.3|15.7|
91722574|NCT01155570|183338007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91722575|NCT01155570|183338008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91722576|NCT01155570|183338009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91692455|NCT01420068|183279886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|3.37||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and hypertension etiology (primary, secondary) as factors, and Baseline weight as covariates.||||3.37|-2.74|0.840
91692456|NCT01420068|183279887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.02||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and hypertension etiology (primary, secondary) as factors, and Baseline height as covariates.||||2.02|-0.63|0.303
91692457|NCT01420068|183279888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.12||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and hypertension etiology (primary, secondary) as factors, and Baseline BMI as covariates.||||1.12|-1.06|0.957
91692458|NCT01420068|183279890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|3.33||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline weight as covariates||Primary Hypertension group (at LT Visit 18 \[Week 104\])||3.33|-3.29|0.992
91692459|NCT01420068|183279890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|2.1||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline weight as covariates.||Secondary hypertension group (at LT Visit 19 \[Week 156\])||2.10|-8.22|0.215
91692460|NCT01420068|183279891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.09||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline height as covariates||Primary Hypertension group (at LT Visit 18 \[Week 104\])||2.09|-0.85|0.403
91692461|NCT01420068|183279891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|5.57||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline height as covariates.||Secondary hypertension group (at LT Visit 19 \[Week 156\])||5.57|-3.74|0.670
91692462|NCT01420068|183279892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.08||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline BMI as covariates||Primary Hypertension group (at LT Visit 18 \[Week 104\])||1.08|-1.29|0.860
91692463|NCT01420068|183279892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.32||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline BMI as covariates.||Secondary hypertension group (at LT Visit 19 \[Week 156\])||1.32|-3.66|0.320
91692464|NCT00365794|183279895|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total body mass||||0.77
91692465|NCT00365794|183279895|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total fat mass||||0.003
91692466|NCT00365794|183279895|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis is for change in trunk fat mass after 20 weeks of testosterone gel.||||0.0007
91692467|NCT00365794|183279895|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis is for change in extremity fat mass after 20 weeks of testosterone gel.||||0.01
91692468|NCT00365794|183279896|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||No adjustment in p for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91692469|NCT00365794|183279897|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91692470|NCT00365794|183279898|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91692471|NCT00365794|183279899|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for change in whole body insulin sensitivity after treatment with testosterone gel for 20 weeks.||||0.04
91692472|NCT00365794|183279899|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for change in hepatic glucose output (measure of central insulin sensitivity) after treatment with testosterone gel for 20 weeks||||0.59
91692473|NCT00365794|183279899|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for change in rate of peripheral glucose disposal (test of peripheral insulin sensitivity) after treatment with testosterone gel for 20 weeks||||0.03
91692474|NCT00365794|183279900|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DEXA extremity (appendicular) lean tissue, a measure of extremity muscle mass after 20 weeks ot treatent with testosterone gel.||||0.0006
91722577|NCT01155570|183338011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91722578|NCT01155570|183338012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91722579|NCT01155570|183338013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91722580|NCT01155570|183338014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91722581|NCT01155570|183338015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91692475|NCT00365794|183279901|OTHER|Test for fasting triglycerides||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel.||||0.02
91692476|NCT00365794|183279901|OTHER|Test for total cholesterol||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel||||0.004
91692477|NCT00365794|183279901|OTHER|Test for LDL cholesterol||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||nts A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel||||.02
91692478|NCT00365794|183279901|OTHER|Test for HDL cholesterol||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel||||0.004
91692479|NCT00365794|183279902|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91692480|NCT00365794|183279903|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91692481|NCT00365794|183279904|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91692482|NCT04760626|183279907|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec with doseguide minus once daily basal insulin analogue) was strictly below 0.3 percent point.|Treatment difference|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 52 weeks were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with region and randomised treatment as fixed factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.66|<0.0001
91722582|NCT01155570|183338016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91722583|NCT01155570|183338017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91722584|NCT01922934|183338018|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91722585|NCT02354118|183338026|NON_INFERIORITY|10% non-inferiority margin||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91692483|NCT02554682|183279916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.906
91692484|NCT02554682|183279916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.796
91692485|NCT02554682|183279916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.886
91692486|NCT02554682|183279916|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.082
91692487|NCT02554682|183279917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.677
91692488|NCT02554682|183279917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.020
91692489|NCT02554682|183279917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.952
91692490|NCT02554682|183279917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.210
91692491|NCT02554682|183279918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.505
91692492|NCT02554682|183279918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.176
91692493|NCT02554682|183279918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.134
91692494|NCT02554682|183279918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.029
91692495|NCT02554682|183279919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.037
91692496|NCT02554682|183279920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
91692497|NCT02554682|183279921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91692498|NCT02554682|183279922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.571
91692499|NCT02554682|183279923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.394
91692500|NCT02554682|183279924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.008
91692501|NCT02554682|183279925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91692502|NCT02554682|183279926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91692503|NCT02554682|183279927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.159
91692504|NCT02554682|183279928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.112
91692505|NCT02554682|183279929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.165
91692506|NCT02554682|183279930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
91692507|NCT00758290|183279931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91692508|NCT00884117|183279942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.0001
91692509|NCT00884117|183279942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.01
91692510|NCT00884117|183279942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.01
91692511|NCT00884117|183279943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
91692512|NCT00884117|183279943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.009
91692513|NCT00884117|183279943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.03
91692514|NCT00884117|183279944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0005
91692515|NCT00884117|183279944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.008
91692516|NCT00884117|183279944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.0001
91692517|NCT00884117|183279945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0002
91692518|NCT00884117|183279945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.008
91692519|NCT00884117|183279945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.0001
91692520|NCT00884117|183279948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4464|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Resistant versus Susceptible||||0.4464
91692521|NCT00884117|183279949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Resistant versus Susceptible||||<0.0001
91722586|NCT02774889|183338027|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.57|||Fisher Exact|||||2.57|0.27|0.55
91722587|NCT02774889|183338028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-2.89|||Fisher Exact|||at 3 months||-2.89|-6.61|0.001
91722588|NCT02774889|183338028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|-1.68|||Fisher Exact|||at 6 months||-1.68|-6.47|0.001
91722589|NCT02774889|183338029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.16|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.16|0.00|0.05
91722590|NCT02774889|183338029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.22|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.22|0.07|0.0003
91722591|NCT02774889|183338030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.44|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.44|-0.40|0.88
91864820|NCT05565820|183619284|SUPERIORITY|"To check on the effect of the non-normality of the change proportions, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was also performed.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1148||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.537||Alpha = .05 t: 2.567 df (adjusted, see comment below): 16.83 Mann-Whitney Z: 2.830 p(2-tailed) of Mann-Whitney Z: .005 Cohen's d = 1.023|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom for the t-test were adjusted for inequality of variances between the groups using the Satterthwaite correction: df(adj) = 16.83|Direction of comparison: Vamousse prop. reduction in live lice count from Day O - Nix prop. reduction in live lice count from Day O|"Null hypothesis: At Day 2 the mean proportion of decrease from Day 0 in the number of live lice in the Vamousse group does not exceed that in the Nix group.~The distribution of the Day 0 to Day 2 change proportions deviated significantly from normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test for both the Vamousse and combined samples. However, the t-test is robust to such departures from normality for samples of this size and was used to compare the two groups on the mean change proportions."||.537|.052|.020
91864821|NCT05565820|183619284|SUPERIORITY|"The nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was also conducted to check on the effect of the non-normality of the change proportions.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.543||Alpha = .05 t: .976 df: 54 Mann-Whitney Z: 3.021 p(2-tailed) of Mann-Whitney Z: .003 Cohen's d = .294|t-test, 2 sided|Levine's test for violation of equality of variances nonsignificant; no df adjustment necessary.||"Null hypothesis: At Day 7 the proportion of decrease from baseline in the number of live lice in the Vamousse group does not exceed that in the Nix group.~The distribution of the Day 0 to Day 7 change proportions deviated significantly from normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test for both the Vamousse and combined samples. However, the t-test is robust to such departures from normality for samples of this size and was used to compare the two groups on their mean change proportions."||.543|-.187|.334
91864822|NCT05565820|183619284|SUPERIORITY|"The nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was also conducted to check on the effect of the non-normality of the change proportions.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."|Difference between proportions|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1034||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.454||Alpha = .05 t: 2.276 df(adjusted, see comment below): 16.2 Mann-Whitney Z: 2.478 p(2-tailed) of Mann-Whitney Z: .013 Cohen's d = .947|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom for the t-test were adjusted for inequality of variances between the groups using the Satterthwaite correction: df(adj) = 16.2||"Null hypothesis: At Day 14 the proportion of decrease from baseline in the number of live lice in the Vamousse group does not exceed that in the Nix group.~The distribution of the Day 0 to Day 14 change proportion deviated significantly from normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test for both the Vamousse and combined samples. However, the t-test is robust to such departures from normality for samples of this size and was used to compare the two groups on the mean change proportions."||.454|.016|.037
91864823|NCT05586490|183619323|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6375||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.429
91864824|NCT05586490|183619324|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.75||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.351
91864825|NCT05586490|183619325|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.937
91864826|NCT05586490|183619326|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.8||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.044
91864827|NCT05586490|183619327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.42
91722592|NCT02774889|183338030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.37|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.37|-0.48|0.83
91794716|NCT00410202|183468319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1||||||||2.1|-0.7|
91864828|NCT05586490|183619327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device group and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.50
91794717|NCT00410202|183468319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1||||||||2.1|-0.7|
91864829|NCT05586490|183619328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.986
91864830|NCT05586490|183619328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.25||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.479
91864831|NCT05586490|183619329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.195||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.098
91722593|NCT02774889|183338031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.54|-0.20|0.36
91722594|NCT02774889|183338031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.77|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.77|-0.11|0.14
91794718|NCT01178073|183468326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.502||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.724|||Stratified Log Rank||Analysis of time to first adjudicated clinical failure event through FAV. HR is calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. HR is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||0.724|0.348|0.0002
91794719|NCT01178073|183468326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.477||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.723|||Stratified Log Rank||Analysis of time to first adjudicated clinical failure event through FAV. HR is calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. HR is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||0.723|0.314|0.0004
91794720|NCT01178073|183468326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.827|||Stratified Log Rank||Analysis of time to first adjudicated clinical failure event through FAV. HR is calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. HR is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||0.827|0.338|0.0045
91794721|NCT01178073|183468327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|-33.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.78|-20.66|||ANCOVA||Mean percent difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||-20.66|-44.78|<0.0001
91794722|NCT01178073|183468327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|-25.09||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.04|-6.4|||ANCOVA||Mean percent difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||-6.40|-40.04|0.0111
91794723|NCT01178073|183468327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|-41.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.16|-26.97|||ANCOVA||Mean percent difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||-26.97|-53.16|<0.0001
91794724|NCT01178073|183468328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.563||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|2.319|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||2.319|1.054|0.0264
91794725|NCT01178073|183468328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.424||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|2.308|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||2.308|0.878|0.1518
91794726|NCT01178073|183468328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.723||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|2.833|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||2.833|1.047|0.0321
91794727|NCT01178073|183468329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|22.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|33.5|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||33.50|12.00|<0.0001
91722595|NCT02774889|183338032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.85|-0.43|0.52
91794728|NCT01178073|183468329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|24.75||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|38.5|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||38.50|11.00|0.0005
91794729|NCT01178073|183468329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|20.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|33.7|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||33.70|8.00|0.0030
91794730|NCT01178073|183468330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|0.0||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||0.0|0.0|0.2287
91794731|NCT01178073|183468330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This comparison was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||0.0|0.0|
91794732|NCT01178073|183468330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This comparison was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||0.0|0.0|
91794733|NCT01178073|183468331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This endpoint was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||0.00|-0.75|
91794734|NCT01178073|183468331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This endpoint was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||0.00|-1.00|
91794735|NCT01178073|183468331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This endpoint was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||0.00|-1.00|
91794736|NCT01352468|183468332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores||||||.35
91794737|NCT01352468|183468333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores||||||.68
91794738|NCT01352468|183468334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores||||||.57
91794739|NCT04533685|183468374|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received reminder letters to the arm receiving no reminder letter (control)|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.02|1.00|
91722596|NCT02774889|183338032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.85|-0.31|0.36
91794740|NCT04533685|183468374|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||These results compare arms which received direct appointment scheduling to the arms not receiving direct appointment scheduling.|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.98|
91794741|NCT04533685|183468374|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01|||||These results compare arms which received pre-commitment reminders to the arms not receiving pre-commitment reminders.|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|1.00|
91794742|NCT04533685|183468374|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||These results compare arms which received pre-appointment reminder to the arms not receiving pre-appointment reminder.|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.99|
91864832|NCT05586490|183619329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.729
91794743|NCT01226043|183468375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.44|||ANOVA|The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied to impute missing Week 4 overall patient preference values for ANOVA analysis.||The hypothesis was to determine whether patients have higher preference score for Lantus® SoloSTAR® pen compared to Lantus® vial/syringe. Differences of patient preference score greater than 0.5 were considered clinically meaningful. The power for detecting a true difference of 0.5 considering a standard deviation from 1.6 to 2.5, assuming 130 evaluable patients per arm and a two-sided test at 0.05 significance level ranged from 89% to more than 99%.||2.44|2.15|<0.0001
91794744|NCT00510952|183468403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin was 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.551||95.0|-0.21|0.11||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|Hypothesis: Basal analog insulin lispro protamine suspension, injected once or twice daily is noninferior to basal analog insulin glargine, injected once a day, with regard to glycemic control as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 week endpoint (last observation carried forward).||0.11|-0.21|0.551
91794745|NCT00510952|183468404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.427||95.0|-0.21|0.09||P-value for Week 12 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.09|-0.21|0.427
91794746|NCT00510952|183468404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.427||95.0|-0.21|0.09||P-value for Week 12 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.09|-0.21|0.427
91794747|NCT00510952|183468404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.254||95.0|-0.25|0.07||P-value for Week 24 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.07|-0.25|0.254
91794748|NCT00510952|183468404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.254||95.0|-0.25|0.07||P-value for Week 24 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.07|-0.25|0.254
91692522|NCT00884117|183279950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2499|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Resistant versus Susceptible||||0.2499
91692523|NCT02946463|183279957|NON_INFERIORITY|LDH-N was analyzed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach. The model included the following terms: treatment group, history of transfusion (as a categorical variable based on the stratification factor levels), and baseline LDH level (as a continuous variable). Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio (OR) of ravulizumab versus eculizumab for LDH normalization being greater than an OR of 0.39.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.769||||||A minimum of 142 participants were estimated to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ravulizumab to eculizumab.||1.769|0.796|
91692524|NCT02946463|183279958|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was -20%.|Treatment difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|18.14|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A minimum of 193 participants were estimated to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ravulizumab to eculizumab. The difference of percentages were calculated using stratified Newcombe CI method. Stratification factors were: observed stratification groups of packed red blood cells (pRBC)/whole blood units transfused in the 1 year prior to first dose of study drug and screening LDH levels.||18.14|-4.66|
91692525|NCT02946463|183279959|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was 20%.|Treatment difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|0.18|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|The difference of percentages was calculated using stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factors were: observed stratification groups of pRBC units transfused in the 1 year prior to first dose of study drug and screening LDH levels.||0.18|-14.21|
91794749|NCT00510952|183468405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.634
91794750|NCT00510952|183468405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.504
91794751|NCT00510952|183468406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 0.8 millimoles per liter (mmol/L).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.323||95.0|-0.06|0.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatment groups (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|Hypothesis: Insulin lispro protamine suspension is noninferior to glargine at actual morning pre-meal at endpoint.||0.19|-0.06|0.323
91794752|NCT00510952|183468407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.302
91794753|NCT00510952|183468407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.144
91692526|NCT02946463|183279960|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was 20%.|Treatment difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|3.56|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|||3.56|-5.21|
91692527|NCT02946463|183279961|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was -5%.|Treatment difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.55|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|||2.55|-1.21|
91692528|NCT02946463|183279962|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was -20%.|Treatment difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|14.64|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|The difference of percentages was calculated using stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factors were: observed stratification groups of pRBC units transfused in the 1 year prior to first dose of study drug and screening LDH levels.||14.64|-8.80|
91722597|NCT02774889|183338033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.32|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||1.32|-0.58|0.43
91722598|NCT02774889|183338033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.49|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||1.49|-0.42|0.26
91722599|NCT02774889|183338034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.61|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.61|-0.09|0.16
91722600|NCT02774889|183338034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.17|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.17|-0.55|0.29
91722601|NCT02774889|183338036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.4|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||2.40|-2.66|0.91
91722602|NCT02774889|183338036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.15|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||2.15|-2.79|0.80
91722603|NCT02774889|183338037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.64|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||2.64|-1.44|0.54
91692529|NCT00122382|183279982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.2||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving an ACR 50 response.||24.2|6.0|<0.001
91692530|NCT00122382|183279983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|22.8||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving MCR.||22.8|8.2|<0.001
91722604|NCT02774889|183338037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.81|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||3.81|-1.49|0.38
91722605|NCT02774889|183338039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.71|||Fisher Exact|||Inside Balance||3.71|0.06|0.04
91722606|NCT02774889|183338039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|3.51|||Fisher Exact|||Outside Balance||3.51|-0.02|0.05
91722607|NCT02774889|183338039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|3.81|||Fisher Exact|||Strength||3.81|-0.08|0.06
91722608|NCT02774889|183338040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.17|||Fisher Exact|||Balance Exercises at 3 months||2.17|0.54|0.003
91722609|NCT02774889|183338040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|2.24|||Fisher Exact|||Balance Exercises at 6 Months||2.24|-0.22|0.11
91722610|NCT02774889|183338041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.89|||Fisher Exact|||Strength Exercises at 3 months||1.89|0.23|0.01
91722611|NCT02774889|183338041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.67|||Fisher Exact|||Strength Exercises at 6 months||1.67|-0.16|0.11
91722612|NCT02774889|183338042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.3|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||3.30|-1.30|0.38
91692531|NCT00122382|183279984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of/Adjusted Difference|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.48||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||||-0.48|-0.98|<0.001
91722613|NCT02774889|183338042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.73|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||4.73|0.43|0.02
91722614|NCT02774889|183338043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.97|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.97|-0.33|0.33
91722615|NCT02774889|183338043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.27|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||1.27|-0.02|0.06
91722616|NCT02774889|183338044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.28|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||1.28|-0.03|0.06
91722617|NCT02774889|183338044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.81|||Fisher Exact|||||0.81|-0.45|0.59
91722618|NCT01069939|183338045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.65|0.02|0.41||An interim analysis was done so that the significance level was adjusted using the Pocock-like alpha-spending function with Lan-DeMets approach. The adjusted significance level was the two-sided 3.35%.|Log Rank|||The above two groups were compared.||0.41|0.02|<0.001
91722619|NCT00724945|183338055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.08591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008816||||95.0|-0.08591|-0.06857|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: senofilcon A multifocal would be better than or equal to 0.1 logMAR units.||-0.06857|-0.08591|
91722620|NCT00724945|183338056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.02711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008816||||97.5|0.02711|0.04445|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: senofilcon A multifocal lens would be better than or equal to 0.17 logMAR units.||0.04445|0.02711|
91722621|NCT00724945|183338057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is -0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1279||||97.5|-0.1797|0.07407|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A multifocal minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternative hypothesis: senofilcon A multifocal lens will have subjective vision that is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||0.07407|-0.1797|
91722622|NCT04901624|183338067|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||Coefficient for mixed effects regression comparing Time 2 attendance to Time 1 attendance for Personal + Loss Protection relative to reference group (Personal + Lottery).|||1.97|0.42|0.003
91722623|NCT04901624|183338067|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Coefficient for mixed effects regression comparing Time 2 attendance to Time 1 attendance for Family + Loss Protection relative to reference group (Personal + Lottery).|||2.24|0.68|<0.001
91722624|NCT04901624|183338067|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Coefficient for mixed effects regression comparing Time 2 attendance to Time 1 attendance for Family + Lottery relative to reference group (Personal + Lottery).|||1.96|0.26|0.01
91722625|NCT04901624|183338068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that money was the biggest barrier to getting the vaccine.||0.4|-0.98|0.409
91864833|NCT05586490|183619330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.15||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.0580
91692532|NCT00122382|183279985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|9.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|18.4||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving HAQ response.||18.4|1.3|0.024
91692533|NCT00122382|183279986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of/Adjusted Difference|2.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.23||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||PCS Adjusted Mean Change from Baseline to Month 12||4.23|0.77|0.005
91692534|NCT00122382|183279986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of/Adjusted Difference|1.81||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.6||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||MCS Adjusted Mean Change from Baseline to Month 12||3.60|0.03|0.046
91722626|NCT04901624|183338068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that money was the biggest barrier to getting the vaccine.||1.10|-0.09|0.098
91722627|NCT04901624|183338068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that money was the biggest barrier to getting the vaccine.||0.73|-0.71|0.982
91722628|NCT04901624|183338068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that their medical provider was the most trusted source of COVID-19 information.||0.12|-0.67|0.177
91722629|NCT04901624|183338068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that their medical provider was the most trusted source of COVID-19 information.||0.74|-0.08|0.117
91722630|NCT04901624|183338068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that their medical provider was the most trusted source of COVID-19 information.||0.50|-0.39|0.809
91722631|NCT04901624|183338068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who scored below or equal to 5 on the risk aversion scale (scale of 0-10, with 0 being more risk averse and 10 being more risk prone).||0.41|-0.34|0.847
91722632|NCT04901624|183338068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who scored below or equal to 5 on the risk aversion scale (scale of 0-10, with 0 being more risk averse and 10 being more risk prone).||0.38|-0.39|0.993
91722633|NCT04901624|183338068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who scored below or equal to 5 on the risk aversion scale (scale of 0-10, with 0 being more risk averse and 10 being more risk prone).||0.33|-0.51|0.671
91722634|NCT01147458|183338079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|1.04|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.04|0.08|0.067
91722635|NCT01147458|183338079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.701|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.28|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.28|-0.67|0.701
91794754|NCT00510952|183468407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.279
91794755|NCT00510952|183468407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.928
91692535|NCT00122382|183279987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value of \<0.05: probability for comparison of change in radiographic scores between abatacept and placebo.|Nonparametric ANCOVA|||comparison of change in erosion scores between abatacept and placebo||||0.033
91692536|NCT00122382|183279987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353||95.0||||P-value of \<0.05: probability for comparison of change in radiographic scores between abatacept and placebo.|Nonparametric ANCOVA|||comparison of change in JSN scores between abatacept and placebo||||0.353
91692537|NCT00122382|183279989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|26.6||Total score was tested only if there was statistical significance in remission rate. For each test, the nominal type I error rate is set at 5%; this sequential testing procedure preserves the overall type I error rate at 5%.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving DAS28-CRP remission.||26.6|9.6|<0.001
91722636|NCT01147458|183338080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|1.04|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.04|0.08|0.067
91864834|NCT05586490|183619330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.718
91864835|NCT05586490|183619332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.063||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.816
91794756|NCT00510952|183468407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.918
91911151|NCT02685709|183718453|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|Estimates were obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the mean integrated growth hormone (GH) change from baseline with explanatory factors of treatment group and baseline value.|||
91692538|NCT00122382|183279990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0||||Total score was tested only if there was statistical significance in remission rate. For each test, the nominal type I error rate is set at 5%; this sequential testing procedure preserves the overall type I error rate at 5%.|non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||<0.040
91692539|NCT00122382|183280005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91692540|NCT02040805|183280008|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin based on clinically meaningful change of \>= 5 points.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Test of non-inferiority.||||0.04
91692541|NCT02040805|183280009|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin based on clinically meaningful change of \>= 2.5 points.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Test of non-inferiority.||||0.05
91692542|NCT02040805|183280010|OTHER|linear mixed models analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df=1||||||<0.0001
91692543|NCT02040805|183280011|OTHER|linear mixed model|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df=1||||||<0.0001
91692544|NCT00908544|183280013|OTHER|Changes (within CHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.4|0.0|0.98
91692545|NCT00908544|183280013|OTHER|Changes (within PHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.1|-1.7|<0.01
91692546|NCT00908544|183280013|OTHER|Changes (within CHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.3|-0.1|0.93
91692547|NCT00908544|183280013|OTHER|Changes (within PHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.0|-1.6|<0.01
91794757|NCT00510952|183468407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.875
91692548|NCT00908544|183280014|OTHER|Changes (within CHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.4|0.0|0.99
91692549|NCT00908544|183280014|OTHER|Changes (within PHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.5|-2.0|<0.01
91692550|NCT00908544|183280014|OTHER|Changes (within CHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.3|-0.0|0.97
91692551|NCT00908544|183280014|OTHER|Changes (within PHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.4|-2.0|<0.01
91692552|NCT00833105|183280067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||<0.025
91692553|NCT00833105|183280068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.299
91692554|NCT00833105|183280069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.459
91692555|NCT00833105|183280070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.343
91692556|NCT00833105|183280071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.951|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effects||||||0.951
91692557|NCT00833105|183280072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.371
91692558|NCT00833105|183280073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.164
91692559|NCT00833105|183280074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|No multiple comparison procedure||Pre-training score is average of a total of 9 efforts, including 3 efforts from the first 3 days of training. Post-training score is average of a total of 9 efforts, including 3 efforts from the last 3 days of training.||||<0.01
91692560|NCT00833105|183280075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison procedure performed|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.05
91692561|NCT00833105|183280076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison procedure|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91692562|NCT00833105|183280077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison adjustment.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.005
91692563|NCT00833105|183280078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison adjustment.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91692564|NCT00833105|183280079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91692565|NCT02898597|183280080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|110.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||110.30|1.37|< 0.05
91864836|NCT05586490|183619332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0048||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.985
91692566|NCT02898597|183280080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher Exact test was performed, comparing the proportion of participants whose abstinence was verified with salivary cotinine test between the two arms, which was significant (p = 0.02).||||<0.05
91722637|NCT01147458|183338080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.701|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.28|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.28|-0.67|0.701
91722638|NCT01147458|183338081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.29|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.29|-0.15|
91722639|NCT01147458|183338081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.35|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.35|-0.09|
91722640|NCT01147458|183338082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.239|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|2.85|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||2.85|-0.34|
91722641|NCT01147458|183338082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.252|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.95|1.28|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.28|-1.95|
91722642|NCT01147458|183338083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.699|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|4.25|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||4.25|-0.13|
91722643|NCT01147458|183338083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|1.88|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.88|-2.53|
91722644|NCT01147458|183338084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.624|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.03|1.58|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.58|-0.03|
91722645|NCT01147458|183338084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.97|0.65|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.65|-0.97|
91722646|NCT01147458|183338085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.2|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.20|-0.18|
91692567|NCT00343044|183280269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Standard statistical methods (log-rank tests) were used in post hoc analyses that compared efficacy parameters in patients who received 1 vs 2 prior treatment regimens.|Log Rank|||Planned enrollment of 40 patients was determined assuming a median progression free survival (PFS) of 9 months (based on a median PFS of 7.2 months for low-dose, metronomic cyclophosphamide plus bevacizumab in a phase 2 study) and an analysis calculating the sample size at which the narrowing of its 95% confidence interval (CI) became greater than .2 for every 2 patients added. Progression free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.||||.08
91722647|NCT01147458|183338085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.31|-0.07|
91722648|NCT01147458|183338086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.12|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.31|-0.12|
91722649|NCT01147458|183338086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.31|-0.11|
91722650|NCT02811159|183338102|OTHER|||||||0.1797|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.1797
91722651|NCT02811159|183338103|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.1250
91692568|NCT00343044|183280270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Standard statistical methods (log-rank tests) were used in post hoc analyses that compared efficacy parameters in patients who received 1 vs 2 prior treatment regimens.|Log Rank|||Overall survival(OS)was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.||||.02
91692569|NCT01511978|183280273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91722652|NCT02811159|183338104|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.2500
91722653|NCT02811159|183338105|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.5000
91722654|NCT02811159|183338106|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.2500
91722655|NCT02811159|183338107|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||1.0000
91722656|NCT02811159|183338108|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.8750
91722657|NCT02811159|183338109|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.5000
91911152|NCT02685709|183718454|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing|The week 26 value was used as the baseline value for the RCT phase. The denominator for the percentage was the number of subjects at each visit.|||
91692570|NCT01511978|183280274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91911153|NCT02685709|183718455|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing.|The week 26 value is used as the baseline value for the RCT phase. The denominator for the percentage was the number of subjects at each visit.|||
91692571|NCT03321968|183280275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H1N1 (California)||1.18|0.87|
91692572|NCT03321968|183280275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H1N1 (California)||1.12|0.82|
91692573|NCT03321968|183280275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H1N1 (California)||1.10|0.81|
91692574|NCT03321968|183280275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H3N2 (Hong Kong)||1.13|0.77|
91692575|NCT03321968|183280275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H3N2 (Hong Kong)||1.32|0.91|
91692576|NCT03321968|183280275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.41|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H3N2 (Hong Kong)||1.41|0.97|
91692577|NCT03321968|183280275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Brisbane||1.15|0.87|
91692578|NCT03321968|183280275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Brisbane||1.26|0.95|
91722658|NCT02811159|183338110|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.5000
91722659|NCT02811159|183338111|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.2500
91722660|NCT02811159|183338112|OTHER|||||||0.0645|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.0645
91722661|NCT04603066|183338114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0204257||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2624635|0.2216122|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2216122|-0.2624635|0.8651
91692579|NCT03321968|183280275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Brisbane||1.26|0.95|
91692580|NCT03321968|183280275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Phuket||1.09|0.80|
91692581|NCT03321968|183280275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Phuket||1.07|0.78|
91692582|NCT03321968|183280275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Phuket||1.15|0.84|
91692583|NCT02282813|183280293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1041|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1041
91692584|NCT02282813|183280294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0503
91692585|NCT02282813|183280295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4817|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4817
91692586|NCT02282813|183280296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8086
91692587|NCT06509438|183280303|OTHER|Compare 4 weeks after the last injection to baseline|Difference of medians|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91692588|NCT06509438|183280303|OTHER|Compare 12 weeks after the last injection to baseline|Difference of medians|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91692589|NCT03331796|183280307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||7.9|-4.8|0.63
91692590|NCT03331796|183280307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.7|||Regression, Linear|||||13.7|0.1|0.0476
91692591|NCT03331796|183280308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|5.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||5.2|-11.4|0.45
91692592|NCT03331796|183280308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|14.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||14.8|-3.3|0.21
91692593|NCT03331796|183280309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.19|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.19|-0.36|0.29
91692594|NCT03331796|183280309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.08|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.08|-0.55|0.51
91692595|NCT03331796|183280310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||3.0|-1.0|.33
91722662|NCT04603066|183338115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01727052||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0005895|0.03513063|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.03513063|-0.0005895|0.056
91722663|NCT00695019|183338327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
91722664|NCT00695019|183338328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91722665|NCT00695019|183338329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.77
91722666|NCT00695019|183338330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.30
91864837|NCT05586490|183619333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.33||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.59
91864838|NCT05586490|183619333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.16||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.51
91864839|NCT05419830|183619360|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in sleep time dip in systolic BP. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.65
91911154|NCT02685709|183718456|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoints is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing.|This sensitivity analysis was using the Full analysis set (FAS), where any patient who discontinued treatment early was imputed as non-responder.|||
91692596|NCT03331796|183280310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||5.3|1.1|0.0038
91692597|NCT03331796|183280311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.0|-1.1|0.58
91692598|NCT03331796|183280311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||1.3|-2.2|0.59
91722667|NCT00695019|183338331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91722668|NCT00695019|183338332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0023||95.0||||Analysis not adjusted to account for baseline differences between the groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0023
91722669|NCT00695019|183338333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Fibrotest provides an estimate of liver fibrosis based on the values of 5 serum markers. Scores range from 0 to 1 with higher scores indicating a greater level of liver fibrosis. A negative change in Fibrotest score is therefore deemed to indicate improvement (reduction in fibrosis), while a positive change indicates worsening condition.||||0.21
91722670|NCT00695019|183338334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91864840|NCT05419830|183619361|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in nocturia frequency. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.66|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.66
91911155|NCT02685709|183718457|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoints is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing|This sensitivity analysis was using the Full analysis set (FAS), where patient who were biochemically controlled at the RCT Baseline (week 26), and who discontinued treatment early was imputed as non-responder.|||
91692599|NCT03331796|183280312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||16.1|-5.2|0.30
91692600|NCT03331796|183280312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|5.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||5.3|-14.9|0.34
91692601|NCT03331796|183280313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|22.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||22.1|-22.0|0.996
91692602|NCT03331796|183280313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|24.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||24.3|-20.6|0.87
91692603|NCT03331796|183280314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|2.22|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.22|-2.14|0.97
91692604|NCT03331796|183280314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.41|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.41|-2.15|0.91
91692605|NCT03331796|183280315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.9|-2.3|0.84
91692606|NCT03331796|183280315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.4|-1.9|0.80
91692607|NCT03331796|183280316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.6|-5.5|0.48
91692608|NCT03331796|183280316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.3|-6.8|0.18
91722671|NCT00695019|183338334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91722672|NCT05495997|183338356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 6 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.015
91722673|NCT05495997|183338357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 18 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.993
91864841|NCT05419830|183619362|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in NPi. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
91864842|NCT05419830|183619363|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in PSQI scores. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
91864843|NCT05419830|183619364|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in sleep efficiency. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91794758|NCT00510952|183468407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316||95.0||||P-value for Actual 0300 Hours.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.316
91794759|NCT00510952|183468407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean 7-Point SMBG.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.389
91911156|NCT02685709|183718458|OTHER||Proportion of patients|64.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|72.1|||||Confidence Interval estimated using the Clopper-Pearson (Exact) method.||The proportion of patients biochemically controlled at the end of the Run-in phase was defined as IGF-1 \< 1.3 times ULN \[based on the average of week 24 and week 26\])|72.1|56|
91692609|NCT03331796|183280317|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.3|-5.7|0.075
91692610|NCT03331796|183280317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.1|-5.4|0.195
91692611|NCT03331796|183280318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||3.4|-1.0|0.28
91692612|NCT03331796|183280318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||3.6|-0.8|0.21
91692613|NCT03331796|183280319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.1|-3.2|0.66
91722674|NCT05495997|183338358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.517|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 6 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.517
91722675|NCT05495997|183338359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 18 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.817
91722676|NCT04357795|183338434|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91722677|NCT04357795|183338435|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91794760|NCT00510952|183468407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.836
91911157|NCT02685709|183718459|OTHER||Proportion of patients|66.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.5|74.1||||||||74.1|58.5|
91911158|NCT02685709|183718460|OTHER||Proportion of patients|48.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.7|59.1||||||||59.1|38.7|
91692614|NCT03331796|183280319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.5|-4.9|0.11
91692615|NCT03331796|183280320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.17|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.17|-0.29|0.59
91692616|NCT03331796|183280320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.28|-0.17|0.64
91692617|NCT03331796|183280323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05|ANOVA|||||||0.768
91692618|NCT00745901|183280330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9698||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9698
91692619|NCT00745901|183280331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0715||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0715
91692620|NCT00745901|183280332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0050
91692621|NCT00745901|183280333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
91692622|NCT00745901|183280334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0031
91692623|NCT00745901|183280335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0013
91692624|NCT00745901|183280336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91692625|NCT00745901|183280337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91692626|NCT00745901|183280338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91692627|NCT00745901|183280339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91692628|NCT00745901|183280340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0033
91692629|NCT00745901|183280341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0060
91692630|NCT00745901|183280342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91692631|NCT00745901|183280343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91692632|NCT00745901|183280344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.912
91692633|NCT00745901|183280345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91692634|NCT00745901|183280346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91692635|NCT00745901|183280347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.816
91692636|NCT00745901|183280348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
91692637|NCT00745901|183280349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91692638|NCT01753310|183280351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|-4.47|||t-test, 2 sided|The 2 sided t-test was on weighted overall treatment difference.|Based on the sample size weighted overall treatment difference.|The superiority of Dysport® to placebo was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline TWSTRS total score as covariate and stratified by the randomisation stratification factor (BoNT-A naïve versus BoNT-A non-naïve).||-4.47|-12.17|<0.001
91722678|NCT04357795|183338436|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91722679|NCT04357795|183338437|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91911159|NCT02685709|183718464|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The LSM change from baseline estimates are from a mixed model for repeated measures.|||
91794761|NCT00510952|183468407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.394
91794762|NCT00510952|183468407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Morning+Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.609
91794763|NCT00510952|183468408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0||||P-value for All Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.468
91692639|NCT01753310|183280352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|-2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|The 2 sided t-test was on weighted overall treatment difference.|Based on the sample size weighted overall treatment difference.|The superiority of Dysport® to placebo was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a stratified ANCOVA with baseline TWSTRS total score as covariate and stratified by the randomisation stratification factor (BoNT-A naïve versus BoNT-A non-naïve).||-2.14|-8.67|=0.001
91692640|NCT01753310|183280353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CGIC of CD was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||<0.001
91692641|NCT01753310|183280354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test|||The superiorty of Dysport® to placebo on treatment response was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test stratified by the randomisation factor.||||=0.033
91692642|NCT01753310|183280355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CGIC of CD was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an ANOVA with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||<0.001
91692643|NCT01753310|183280356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test|||The superiorty of Dysport® to placebo on treatment response was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test stratified by the randomisation factor.||||<0.001
91692644|NCT01753310|183280357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.174|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CDIP-58 was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an ANOVA with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||=0.174
91692645|NCT01753310|183280358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.583|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CDIP-58 was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an ANOVA with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||=0.583
91692646|NCT04390763|183280369|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.04|||Bayesian two-piece hazard model||Estimated posterior median of the HR after the risk changing timepoint and one-sided 90% credible interval are reported.|||1.04||
91692647|NCT04390763|183280369|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.96|||Bayesian two-piece hazard model||Estimated posterior median of the HR after the risk changing timepoint and one-sided 90% credible interval are reported.|||1.96||
91692648|NCT04390763|183280370|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.46|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37||0.46
91692649|NCT04390763|183280370|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.38|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.44|||Regression, Cox|||||1.44||0.38
91692650|NCT01786993|183280396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event-Free Probability|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|0.951||||||"The hypothesis is formally expressed as:~H0: Freedom from system-related complications through 9 months ≤ 75% Ha: Freedom from system-related complications through 9 months \> 75%"||0.951|0.904|
91692651|NCT01786993|183280397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a binomial distribution with a 44% probability for non-responders between 3 months and 9 months in both study arms, the sample size required for 85% power to reject the null hypothesis at the 5% significance level is 394. To adjust for a potential net crossover of 15% and an overall attrition rate of 20%, the total number of patients required to be enrolled in this study is 506.|Difference of proportions|-0.049||||0.0131|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.138||||normal approximation for binomial dist|||"H0: (Non-responder rate in the BiV arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) - (Non-responder rate in the MPP arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) ≤ -0.15~Ha: (Non-responder rate in the BiV arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) - (Non-responder rate in the MPP arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) \> -0.15~The null hypothesis will be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower one-sided 97.5% confidence bound for the difference in the proportions is above -0.15."|||-0.138|0.0131
91692652|NCT00450437|183280398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.16|0.68|
91692653|NCT00450437|183280398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.23|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.23|0.73|
91794764|NCT00510952|183468408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91794765|NCT00510952|183468408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
91794766|NCT00510952|183468409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316||95.0||||P-value for Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group. Hypoglycemic Rate (1 year) was used.||||||0.316
91911160|NCT04417894|183718472|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.0030
91911161|NCT04417894|183718473|SUPERIORITY||Difference|38.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.06|53.15|||Mantel Haenszel|||||53.15|24.06|<0.0001
91911162|NCT00262873|183718494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91722680|NCT04357795|183338438|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.0323|||||||Paired t-test|OD- Right eye p value||||||0.0323
91722681|NCT04357795|183338438|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.3447||||||OS: P-Value|Paired t-test|||||||0.3447
91722682|NCT04357795|183338439|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91722683|NCT04357795|183338440|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.0029|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0029
91722684|NCT03785366|183338493|OTHER|"For the primary analysis, a ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect was used to analyze the uncorrected PK parameters Cmax, Cmean, and AUC0-56 days.~Analysis methodology for the secondary analysis mirrored the approach for the primary analysis applied to the baseline-corrected PK parameters."|test to Reference geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.80|
91722685|NCT05168800|183338502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||To achieve a group-wise 95% confidence for the primary outcome, each of the three tests were evaluated with acceptance based on a 98.4% confidence interval, or greater than 2.15 standard deviations of the mean for the superiority analyses.|Groupwise binomial comparison|||||||0.99
91722686|NCT05168800|183338502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||To achieve a group-wise 95% confidence for the primary outcome, each of the three tests were evaluated with acceptance based on a 98.4% confidence interval, or greater than 2.15 standard deviations of the mean for the superiority analyses.|Groupwise binomial comparison|||||||0.98
91722687|NCT05168800|183338502|EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 1800 LTCWs (600 per arm) was identified to provide 80% power to detect an 8% difference in the rate of individuals reporting vaccine confidence between arms with 95% confidence. This sample size was sufficient to retain 80% power to detect a 10% difference after 40% attrition. Per study design, the equivalence margin is +/- 10% with anticipated attrition using the binomial confidence interval.||||||0.85||||||To achieve a group-wise 95% confidence for the primary outcome, each of the three tests were evaluated with acceptance based on a 98.4% confidence interval, or +/- 2.45 standard deviations of the mean for the equivalency test.|Groupwise binomial comparison|||||||0.85
91794767|NCT00510952|183468409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group. Hypoglycemic Rate (1 year) was used.||||||<0.001
91722688|NCT05168800|183338503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.93
91722689|NCT05168800|183338503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
91722690|NCT05168800|183338503|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.83
91722691|NCT05168800|183338504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91722692|NCT05168800|183338504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
91722693|NCT05168800|183338504|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
91911163|NCT00262873|183718495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91722694|NCT05168800|183338505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
91722695|NCT05168800|183338505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91722696|NCT05168800|183338505|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
91722697|NCT05168800|183338506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.88
91722698|NCT05168800|183338506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.97
91722699|NCT05168800|183338506|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.48|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.48
91722700|NCT05168800|183338507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.95
91722701|NCT05168800|183338507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.98
91722702|NCT05168800|183338507|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.66|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.66
91722703|NCT05168800|183338508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91722704|NCT05168800|183338508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.64
91722705|NCT05168800|183338508|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
91722706|NCT05168800|183338509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.13
91722707|NCT05168800|183338509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
91722708|NCT05168800|183338509|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
91722709|NCT05168800|183338510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
91722710|NCT05168800|183338510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
91722711|NCT05168800|183338510|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.88
91722712|NCT05168800|183338511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.92
91722713|NCT05168800|183338511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.97
91722714|NCT05168800|183338511|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.83|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.83
91722715|NCT05168800|183338512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.88
91722716|NCT05168800|183338512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.49
91722717|NCT05168800|183338512|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.23|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.23
91722718|NCT05168800|183338513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.90
91722719|NCT05168800|183338513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.94
91722720|NCT05168800|183338513|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.86|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.86
91722721|NCT05168800|183338514|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||1.00
91722722|NCT05168800|183338514|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||1.0
91722723|NCT05168800|183338514|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.49|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.49
91722724|NCT05168800|183338515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.88
91722725|NCT05168800|183338515|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||1.00
91911164|NCT00262873|183718496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91911165|NCT00844753|183718500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91911166|NCT00844753|183718501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
91722726|NCT05168800|183338515|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.02|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.02
91722727|NCT05168800|183338516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.82
91722728|NCT05168800|183338516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.97
91722729|NCT05168800|183338516|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.18|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.18
91722730|NCT05360056|183338579|SUPERIORITY|paired t-test|Mean Difference (Net)|8.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted p-value|paired t-test|||Paired t-test was performed comparing the %Time in range from 2 weeks to 12 weeks||||0.03
91722731|NCT05360056|183338581|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon signed rank|9.85|||<|0.0001|||||||paired Wilcoxon rank test|||||||<0.0001
91722732|NCT00927472|183338663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0386
91794768|NCT00510952|183468409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group. Hypoglycemic Rate (1 year) was used.||||||0.102
91722733|NCT00927472|183338664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3675|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3675
91722734|NCT00927472|183338665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0490
91722735|NCT00927472|183338666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91722736|NCT00927472|183338667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
91722737|NCT00927472|183338668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0012
91722738|NCT00927472|183338669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3817|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3817
91722739|NCT00927472|183338670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1059
91722740|NCT00927472|183338671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1088
91722741|NCT00927472|183338672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1527
91722742|NCT04707469|183338673|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets,and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.|Treatment difference|-0.27||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.12||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference.|ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-0.12|-0.42|0.0006
91722743|NCT04707469|183338673|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets,and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.|Treatment difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.38||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference.|ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-0.38|-0.68|<.0001
91722744|NCT04635423|183338720|SUPERIORITY||Observed Efficacy (%)|89.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.4|98.2||one-sided p-value based on exact binomial method proposed by Chan and Bohidar|Exact Binomial Method Chan and Bohidar||The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy (VE) against the primary efficacy endpoint is greater than 0%.|||98.2|55.4|<0.001
91722745|NCT04635423|183338721|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|40.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|45.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference in percentages calculated as % V503 minus % Placebo.|||45.5|34.5|
91722746|NCT04635423|183338722|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference in percentages calculated as % V503 minus % Placebo.|||5.2|-4.4|
91722747|NCT04635423|183338725|SUPERIORITY||Observed Efficacy (%)|63.5||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|86.0||one-sided p-value based on exact binomial method proposed by Chan and Bohidar|Exact Binomial Method Chan and Bohidar||The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy (VE) against the primary efficacy endpoint is greater than 0%.|||86.0|2.7|0.023
91722748|NCT03488524|183338798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|7.9||Significance testing was 2-tailed and considered statistically significant if the calculated p-value was ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random-slope, shared-baseline, linear mixed model was adjusted for age and prebaseline ALSFRS-R slope.||Participants who did not enter the open-label extension (OLE) were included in this analysis.||7.90|0.56|0.0239
91722749|NCT03488524|183338799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.644||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.995|||Hazard ratio|||Cox Proportional Hazards analysis||0.995|0.416|0.0475
91722750|NCT03488524|183338800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.621||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.957|||Hazard Ratio|||||0.957|0.403|0.0308
91911167|NCT04036968|183718502|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of three drug conditions with cannabidiol to control groups placebo+placebo and hydromorphone+placebo||||||0.195|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.195
91722751|NCT03488524|183338801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|14.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.75|0.80|0.0291
91722752|NCT03488524|183338802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.923||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|12.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.47|-2.95|0.2261
91722753|NCT03488524|183338803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.103||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|20.69||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.69|0.63|0.0372
91722754|NCT03488524|183338804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503||||||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0503
91722755|NCT00315445|183338806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||P values are from a repeated measures model|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures analysis was performed to assess the effects due to treatment, center, and treatment by center interaction. Observations within each subject were assumed to follow a first-order autoregressive model. Missing values were extrapolated by the last observation carried forward (LOCF). Covariates were gender, age, race, weight, baseline pain, and previous opioid use which were incorporated into the model when P \< 0.10, using a backward elimination procedure.||||0.0350
91722756|NCT00315445|183338806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624||||||Repeated measures analysis to assess the effects due to treatment, center, and treatment by center. Missing values = last observation carried forward (LOCF). Covariates: gender, age, race, weight, baseline pain, and previous opioid use.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0624
91722757|NCT00315445|183338807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.2|48.7|||Day 84 Mean|||||48.7|40.2|
91911168|NCT04036968|183718503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91911169|NCT04036968|183718504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.074
91692654|NCT00450437|183280398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.38|0.81|
91911170|NCT01110200|183718507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment comparison ratio|0.917||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|1.447|||Negative bionomial regression model||Annualized rate estimates, the treatment comparison ratio, the confidence interval, and the p-value are from a negative binomial regression model with terms for treatment, country, randomization stratum, baseline severity, and time on treatment.|||1.447|0.581|0.710
91692655|NCT00450437|183280398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.6|0.9|
91692656|NCT00450437|183280398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.77|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.77|1|
91692657|NCT00450437|183280398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.2|0.68|
91692658|NCT00450437|183280398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.97|0.63|
91692659|NCT00450437|183280398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.13|0.86|
91692660|NCT00450437|183280398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.67|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.67|1.09|
91722758|NCT00315445|183338807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|44.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.3|52.4|||Day 84 Mean|||||52.4|43.3|
91722759|NCT00315445|183338807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|46.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.7|50.2|||Day 84 Mean|||||50.2|41.7|
91722760|NCT00315445|183338808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|26.2|||Day 84 Mean|||||26.2|5.2|
91722761|NCT00315445|183338808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.7|32.0|||Day 84 Mean|||||32.0|10.7|
91722762|NCT00315445|183338808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.0|35.2|||Day 84 Mean|||||35.2|16.0|
91722763|NCT00315445|183338809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0452||||||Multiple linear regression|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures analysis was performed to assess the effects due to treatment, center, and treatment by center interaction. Observations within each subject were assumed to follow a first-order autoregressive model. Missing values were extrapolated by the last observation carried forward (LOCF). Covariates were gender, age, race, weight, baseline pain, and previous opioid use which were incorporated into the model when P \< 0.10, using a backward elimination procedure.||||0.0452
91722764|NCT00315445|183338809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0962|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0962
91864844|NCT05012163|183619365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506||||||Pairwise comparisons between patients offered scratch-off tickets for vaccination and those in other arms (Analyses 1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering a scratch-off lottery ticket and patients sent messages offering $1 cash in exchange for vaccination; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering scratch-off tickets compared to those sent messages offering $1 cash.||||.506
91722765|NCT00315445|183338810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.3|35.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||35.6|24.3|
91722766|NCT00315445|183338810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.0|40.3|||Day 84 Mean|||||40.3|29.0|
91722767|NCT00315445|183338810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|41.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.1|42.5|||Day 84 Mean|||||42.5|32.1|
91722768|NCT00315445|183338811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|52.4||||||90.0|50.3|56.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||56.6|50.3|
91722769|NCT00315445|183338811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.8|58.3|||Day 84 Mean|||||58.3|51.8|
91722770|NCT00315445|183338811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|57.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.3|58.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||58.6|52.3|
91722771|NCT00315445|183338814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.8|67.9|||Day 84 Mean|||||67.9|49.8|
91722772|NCT00315445|183338814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|56.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.9|65.3|||Day 84 Mean|||||65.3|45.9|
91722773|NCT00315445|183338814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.1|70.9|||Day 84 Mean|||||70.9|53.1|
91722774|NCT00315445|183338815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|67.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.3|68.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||68.6|61.3|
91722775|NCT00315445|183338815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|68.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.7|68.8|||Day 84 Mean|||||68.8|61.7|
91722776|NCT00315445|183338815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|67.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.0|68.7|||Day 84 Mean|||||68.7|62.0|
91722777|NCT00315445|183338820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.054|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcome measure no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.054
91722778|NCT00315445|183338820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.138|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcome measure no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.138
91722779|NCT00315445|183338821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0105|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcomes no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.0105
91722780|NCT00315445|183338821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04||||0.0024|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcome measure no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.0024
91722781|NCT00315445|183338822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.033
91722782|NCT00315445|183338822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.043
91722783|NCT00315445|183338823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.011
91722784|NCT00315445|183338823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.034
91722785|NCT00315445|183338824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.038
91722786|NCT00315445|183338824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.63
91722787|NCT00315445|183338825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.064
91722788|NCT00315445|183338825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.066
91722789|NCT00315445|183338826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.607
91722790|NCT00315445|183338826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.940
91722791|NCT00315445|183338827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.702|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.702
91722792|NCT00315445|183338827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.634
91722793|NCT01299909|183338831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.51|0.67|0.35
91722794|NCT01299909|183338832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|df=(1,57)||||||0.03
91722795|NCT01299909|183338833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|df=(1,57)||||||0.02
91722796|NCT01299909|183338834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.96||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|df=(1,57)||||||0.03
91722797|NCT01811238|183338835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|"The primary endpoint will be the actual reduction rate of pain intensity (0 -10) score at 8 weeks.~It will be analyzed by using paired t-test."||||||<0.05
91722798|NCT01811238|183338836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|The change(difference) in EQ-5D score at Week 8 from baseline was analyzed by using paired t-test.||||1.12|0|<0.05
91722799|NCT00143507|183338850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.10|0.91|0.945
91722800|NCT00143507|183338851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.22|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.22|0.94|0.316
91722801|NCT00143507|183338852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.06|0.72|0.159
91722802|NCT00143507|183338853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.13|0.86|0.850
91722803|NCT00143507|183338854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.16|0.92|0.547
91864845|NCT05012163|183619365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378||||||Comments: Pairwise comparisons between patients offered scratch-off tickets for vaccination and those in other arms (Analyses 1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering a scratch-off lottery ticket in exchange for vaccination and those sent active control messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering scratch-off tickets compared to those sent active control messages.||||0.378
91889169|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.92|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C||0.92|0.67|
91692661|NCT00450437|183280398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.02|0.61|
91692662|NCT00450437|183280398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.18|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.18|0.7|
91692663|NCT00450437|183280398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.5|0.89|
91692664|NCT00450437|183280399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||14|3|
91692665|NCT00450437|183280399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||7|-2|
91692666|NCT00450437|183280399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|18.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||18|6|
91692667|NCT00450437|183280399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|33.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||33|20|
91692668|NCT00450437|183280400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY was considered noninferior to Menactra if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction \[MenACWY minus Menactra\] was less than 6%.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, safety.||2|-1|
91722804|NCT00143507|183338855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.12|0.71|0.331
91722805|NCT00143507|183338856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.02|0.67|0.078
91722806|NCT00143507|183338857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.40|0.83|0.583
91722807|NCT00143507|183338858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.11|0.81|0.501
91722808|NCT00143507|183338859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.04|0.78|0.141
91722809|NCT00143507|183338860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.06|0.86|0.411
91722810|NCT00143507|183338861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.15|0.94|0.484
91722811|NCT00143507|183338862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.13|0.90|0.835
91722812|NCT00177671|183338865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.41|||Log Rank|||We followed the intention to treat principle. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to quantify the percentage of participants who were free of depression recurrence over time. Cox proportional hazard models quantified hazard ratios comparing the 2 treatment groups.||4.41|1.00|.05
91722813|NCT01121926|183338878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax,ss is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|56.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.99|63.94|||||Test/reference (%)|||63.94|49.99|
91722814|NCT01121926|183338879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUCss is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|85.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.05|90.67|||||Test/reference (%)|||90.67|81.05|
91722815|NCT01496456|183338920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression, controlled for baseline lesion size and for correlation among pairs of teeth using the GEE method.||||||0.002
91794769|NCT00510952|183468411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 1.5 kilograms (kg).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.975||95.0|-0.61|0.59||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|Hypothesis: insulin lispro protamine suspension is noninferior to glargine with regard to change in absolute body weight from baseline to endpoint.||0.59|-0.61|0.975
91794770|NCT00510952|183468412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.031
91794771|NCT00510952|183468413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.015
91864846|NCT05012163|183619365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Pairwise comparisons between patients offered scratch-off tickets for vaccination and those in other arms (Analyses 1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering a scratch-off lottery ticket in exchange for vaccination and those sent no study messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering scratch-off tickets compared to those who were not sent messages.||||<.001
91864847|NCT05012163|183619365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent active control messages and those sent no study messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent active control messages compared to those who were not sent messages.||||<.001
91722816|NCT01496456|183338921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression, controlled for correlation among pairs of teeth using the GEE method.||||||0.045
91722817|NCT01496456|183338922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077|||||||Discreet Time Survival Analysis|Controlled for correlation among tooth pairs (GEE model).||||||0.0077
91722818|NCT04919161|183338923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due sample size differences and pairwise nature of the data, a Kruskal-Wallis was conducted.||Null hypothesis for this analysis is that there will be no differences between pre-scores and post-scores across the different treatment arms. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
91722819|NCT04919161|183338923|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0025||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||=0.0025
91794772|NCT02338336|183468414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91794773|NCT00396032|183468503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0||||Stratified by baseline BFR: 0-199 mL/min, 200-274 mL/min, and 275-299 mL/min.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0044
91794774|NCT00396032|183468503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0035
91794775|NCT00396032|183468505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0396||95.0||||Stratified by baseline BFR: 0-199 mL/min, 200-274 mL/min, and 275-299 mL/min.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0396
91722820|NCT04919161|183338923|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||=0.0001
91722821|NCT04919161|183338923|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||>0.9999
91722822|NCT04919161|183338923|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison would be that there would be no significant difference between post-scores of the two treatment groups.||||>0.9999
91722823|NCT04919161|183338924|SUPERIORITY|Prior to analysis, the score change or difference between post-test and pre-test were calculated for each participant as: ScoreChange=(PostTest) - (PreTest). These changes in score were then compared.|||||=|0.3045||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||=0.3045
91722824|NCT04919161|183338925|SUPERIORITY|Prior to analysis, the score change or difference between post-test and pre-test were calculated for each participant as: PercentScoreChange = (\[(PostTest)-(PreTest)\]/\[PreTest\]) x 100%|||||=|3152||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Two-Tailed Welch t test|Due to unequal standard deviation, a two-tailed Welch's t test was used.||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||=3152
91722825|NCT04919161|183338926|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9568||||||Prior to analysis, the score change between post assessment and pre-assessment was calculated. The threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|An unpaired T-test was used. Normality and F-test for Variances were conducted and found to be normal.||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||=0.9568
91722826|NCT04919161|183338927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due to the pairwise nature and abnormal distribution of the pre- and post-scores, a Kruskal Wallis test was completed.||Null Hypothesis, there would be no difference between the pre-score and post-score of each treatment group. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
91794776|NCT02882074|183468521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.64|||Regression, Linear|||||0.64|-0.11|0.158
91692669|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-10|
91692670|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-12|
91692671|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-9|
91722827|NCT04919161|183338927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||<0.0001
91794777|NCT02882074|183468522|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.86||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.57|1.28||The significance criterion is p-value \< 0.025 (i.e. 0.05/2), corrected for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Syndecan values were all log-transformed to meet the linearity requirement. Thus the treatment effect was presented as the ratio of geometric means.|||1.28|0.57|0.388
91722828|NCT04919161|183338927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||<0.0001
91722829|NCT04919161|183338927|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||>0.9999
91722830|NCT04919161|183338927|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||>0.9999
91794778|NCT02882074|183468523|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.19||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.68||The significance criterion is p-value \< 0.025 (i.e. 0.05/2), corrected for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Endocan values were all log-transformed to meet the linearity requirement. Thus the treatment effect was presented as the ratio of geometric means.|||1.68|0.84|0.257
91794779|NCT02882074|183468524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.01|||Regression, Linear|||||1.01|0.23|0.003
91864848|NCT05012163|183619365|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons between patients offered cash for vaccination and those in active or passive control (Analyses 5 and 6) were analyzed in the same regression.||||||0.121|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering $1 cash in exchange for vaccination and those sent active control messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering $1 cash compared to those sent active control messages.||||.121
91794780|NCT00417482|183468607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.94||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.45|||Stratified Cox analysis|||The primary hypothesis of a difference in survival functions between the initial Phase B placebo (Arm 3) and risperidone continuation (Arms 1+2) conditions was tested in the primary analysis using the stratified Cox analysis. For descriptive purposes, the overall rate of relapse was assessed as the number of follow-up or for secondary interpretative support, as a simple proportion of patients entering a 16-week period.||3.45|1.09|0.02
91864849|NCT05012163|183619365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Pairwise comparisons between patients offered cash for vaccination and those in active or passive control (Analyses 5 and 6) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering $1 cash in exchange for vaccination and those sent no study messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering $1 cash compared to those who were not sent messages.||||.002
91864850|NCT05062330|183619374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.13|||Generalized estimating equation|||||4.13|1.67|<0.0001
91864851|NCT02567409|183619375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.98|||||Hazard ratio relative to arm B.|||1.98|0.69|
91692672|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||10|0|
91864852|NCT02567409|183619376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.48|||||Hazard ratio relative to arm B.|||2.48|0.71|
91692673|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||10|-1|
91692674|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||5|-6|
91722831|NCT04919161|183338928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due to missing measurements and the pairwise nature of the pre- and post-scores, a Kruskal Wallis test was completed.||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
91722832|NCT04919161|183338928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
91864853|NCT02567409|183619377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.51
91904189|NCT02234284|183703320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of outpatient visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||1.28|-0.32|.52
91692675|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-13|
91692676|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||11|-3|
91692677|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|17.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||17|4|
91692678|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-13|
91692679|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||8|-6|
91692680|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||14|0|
91692681|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-10|
91722833|NCT04919161|183338928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
91722834|NCT04919161|183338928|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||>0.9999
91722835|NCT04919161|183338928|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||>0.9999
91904190|NCT02234284|183703321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for rate of COPD-related ED visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.22|-0.32|.78
91692682|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-12|
91692683|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-9|
91692684|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||6|-3|
91692685|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||7|-2|
91692686|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||6|-3|
91722836|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due to the missing measurement and the pairwise nature of the perturbation levels between participants, a Kruskal Wallis test was completed.||Null hypothesis is there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, normality testing was conducted using a Shapiro-Wild test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
91759960|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|15.77||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.77|0.92|
91692687|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-5|
91692688|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-4|
91722837|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Reported p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was established as p\<0.05.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for any comparisons would be that there is no significant mean perturbation level between sessions.|The p-value reported above was the result for 15 comparisons of the recorded perturbation levels in sessions: 1 vs 2, 2 vs 3, 3 vs 4, 3 vs 5, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5, 4 vs 6, 4 vs 7, 4 vs 8, 5 vs 6, 5 vs 7, 5 vs 8, 6 vs 7, 6 vs 8, and 7 vs 8.|||>0.9999
91722838|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0629|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0629
91722839|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0069|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0069
91692689|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-2|
91692690|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-8|
91692691|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-8|
91692692|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||5|-5|
91692693|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-9|
91692694|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-11|
91692695|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-8|
91722840|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0003
91722841|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
91722842|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
91722843|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
91722844|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6497|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.6497
91722845|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0743|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0743
91722846|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0198|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0198
91692696|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%)||5|-3|
91722847|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0017|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0017
91722848|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0006
91722849|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5297|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.5297
91692697|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-4|
91692698|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-4|
91692699|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-5|
91692700|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-4|
91692701|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-2|
91722850|NCT04919161|183338929|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2595|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.2595
91722851|NCT04919161|183338930|OTHER|This is a descriptive analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||=|0.3898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4671|15.3||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of males and females between treatment arms.||15.300|0.4671|=0.3898
91722852|NCT02175758|183338931|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% confidence intervals (CI) were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|129.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.96|152.48||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 12 to \< 18 Years old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||152.48|109.96|
91722853|NCT02175758|183338931|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.25|129.29||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||129.29|93.25|
91722854|NCT02175758|183338931|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|149.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.12|176.21||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||176.21|127.12|
91889170|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A||0.69|0.51|
91722855|NCT02175758|183338933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate for the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group was compared with the historical SVR12 rate of 80% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level. If superiority was demonstrated in the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group, then the SVR12 rate for participants aged 3 to \< 12 years would be compared with 80% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91722856|NCT02175758|183338933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate for the 3 to \< 12 Years Old group was compared with the historical SVR12 rate of 80% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91722857|NCT02489773|183338950|OTHER|Calculate the pearson correlation within whole subjects (across Group 1 and Group 2)|pearson correlation coefficient|0.6342|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91722858|NCT02489773|183338950|OTHER|Diffenrence between Pearson correlations within whole subjects (accross Group 1 and Group 2) and PG, 0.8.|Difference with PG 0.8|-0.1658|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2204|-0.1113|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1113|-0.2204|>0.9999
91722859|NCT02489773|183338951|OTHER|The difference in Spearman correlation coefficient between GA and MBG vs HbA1c and MBG in the first 3-month period in Group 1.|Difference in correlation coefficients|0.249|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.364|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.364|0.130|<0.0001
91722860|NCT02489773|183338952|OTHER|The difference in Kendall correlation coefficient between GA and MBG vs HbA1c and MBG in the first 3-month period in Group 1.|Difference in correlation coefficient|0.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.265|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.265|0.096|<0.0001
91722861|NCT00712920|183338953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.03||95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.10|-1.70|0.03
91722862|NCT00712920|183338953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.08||95.0|-1.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||0.1|-1.5|0.08
91722863|NCT00712920|183338954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6419|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3924||0.102||95.0|-1.41|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||0.13|-1.41|0.102
91722864|NCT00712920|183338954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7925|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3935||0.044||95.0|-1.56|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.02|-1.56|0.044
91722865|NCT00712920|183338955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4394|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3631||0.226||95.0|-1.15|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 28||0.27|-1.15|0.226
91722866|NCT00712920|183338955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1252|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3649||0.002||95.0|-1.84|-0.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 28||-0.41|-1.84|0.002
91722867|NCT00712920|183338956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||||||0.292
91722868|NCT00712920|183338956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||||||0.040
91722869|NCT03755076|183338975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91722870|NCT03755076|183338976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91722871|NCT03483584|183339011|OTHER|Chi-square test is to detect the difference in the prevalence of hypertension between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.244||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.244
91722872|NCT03483584|183339011|OTHER|Chi square test is to detect the difference in prevalence of diabetes mellitus between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.584||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.584
91722873|NCT03483584|183339011|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of insulin resistance between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.067||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.067
91722874|NCT03483584|183339011|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of dyslipidemia between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.365||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.365
91722875|NCT03483584|183339011|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of metabolic syndrome between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.033||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.033
91722876|NCT03483584|183339011|OTHER|Chi square is used to detect the difference in prevalence of osteopenia between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.196||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.196
91722877|NCT03483584|183339011|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test is used when any cells have expected count less than 5.||Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of osteoporosis between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||1.000
91722878|NCT03483584|183339011|OTHER|||||||0.572||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test is used when any cells have expected less than 5.||Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of vitamin D deficiency between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||0.572
91722879|NCT03483584|183339011|OTHER|||||||0.698||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence in renal disease between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||0.698
91722880|NCT03483584|183339011|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of kidney tubular dysfunction between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||||0.848||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.848
91722881|NCT03483584|183339011|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of intermediate or advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>1.3) between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.274||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.274
91722882|NCT03483584|183339011|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||1||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test is used when any cells have expected count less than 5.||||||1.000
91722883|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.508|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|6.45|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing hypertension in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||6.450|0.352|
91722884|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|14.919|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing hypertension in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||14.919|0.251|
91722885|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.388|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|1.155|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing diabetes mellitus in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||1.155|0.099|
91722886|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.507|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|1.948|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing diabetes mellitus in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||1.948|0.132|
91722887|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.397|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing insulin resistance in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||1.397|0.395|
91722888|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.883|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|1.759|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing insulin resistance in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||1.759|0.444|
91722889|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|5.139|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing dyslipidemia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||5.139|0.274|
91722890|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|5.688|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing dyslipidemia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||5.688|0.257|
91722891|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|3.739|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing metabolic syndrome in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||3.739|0.196|
91722892|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.534|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|2.631|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing metabolic syndrome in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||2.631|0.108|
91864854|NCT05280574|183619452|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.1|||Distinct-effects GEE model||Average relative effect of unblinded versus blinded monitoring across the 5-component composite (SpO2 \<85%, RR \>30/min, RR \<4/min, HR \<45/min, HR \>130/min) of cumulative durations.||We assessed the treatment effect of unblinded versus blinded monitoring across the 5-component primary outcome composite of cumulative durations by estimating the average relative effect on the log-transformed count data (counts of observations beyond a given threshold at 1 Hz). Specifically, we employed a distinct-effects (i.e., separate treatment effect estimated for each component) generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to account for within-subject correlation across components with the vector of the 5 cumulative durations as the dependent variable and treatment as independent. We then averaged the component-specific effects and tested whether the average effect equals zero (on the log scale), and reported results as the ratio of geometric means of unblinded versus blinded monitoring.|1.1|0.51|< 0.05
91864855|NCT05363163|183619455|OTHER|If the mean volume variation was higher than 0 and the p-value of the statistical test lower than 0.05, the H0 hypothesis was rejected, and the primary endpoint demonstrated.|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value of the statistical test lower than 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91864856|NCT03505008|183619476|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 90% CI for the intergroup difference in SDAI remission rates to exceed the non-inferiority margin of -15%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||||||||||
91722893|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.396|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|11.35|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing osteopenia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||11.350|0.172|
91722894|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|9.317|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing osteopenia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||9.317|0.119|
91722895|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence of osteoporosis was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing osteoporosis in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||0|0|
91722896|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence of osteoporosis was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing osteoporosis in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||0|0|
91722897|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|2.198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|7.122|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing vitamin D deficiency in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||7.122|0.679|
91722898|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|3.551|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|14.833|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing vitamin D deficiency in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||14.833|0.850|
91722899|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|3.077|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing renal diseases in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||3.077|0.465|
91722900|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.638|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing renal diseases in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||4.638|0.510|
91722901|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|3.331|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing kidney tubular dysfunction in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||3.331|0.408|
91722902|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|2.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|7.18|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing kidney tubular dysfunction in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||7.180|0.615|
91722903|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|1.995|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing intermediate or advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \> 1.3) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||1.995|0.159|
91722904|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|3.493|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing intermediate or advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \> 1.3) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||3.493|0.244|
91864857|NCT03825588|183619528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving ASAP (ASAP+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (BRITE+TAU and TAU) on the rate of actual suicide attempts||||0.71
91864858|NCT03825588|183619528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||False Discovery Rate q-vale \> 0.99|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving BRITE (BRITE+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (ASAP+TAU and TAU) on the rate of actual suicide attempts||||0.43
91692702|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-8|
91722905|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence in advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||0|0|
91864859|NCT03825588|183619528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.66||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on the rate of actual suicide attempts in a 2x2 factorial design. Interaction effect of ASAP and BRITE.||1.66|0.10|0.21
91692703|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-9|
91692704|NCT00450437|183280401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-5|
91692705|NCT00450437|183280402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||8|0|
91692706|NCT00450437|183280402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||9|1|
91692707|NCT00450437|183280402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|20.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs.Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||20|11|
91692708|NCT00450437|183280402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|28.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||28|19|
91692709|NCT00450437|183280402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||8|0|
91692710|NCT00450437|183280402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||7|0|
91692711|NCT00450437|183280402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||9|4|
91692712|NCT00450437|183280402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||20|12|
91864860|NCT03825588|183619528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.34||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on the rate of actual suicide attempts in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of ASAP||3.34|0.51|0.57
91864861|NCT03825588|183619528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.97||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on the rate of actual suicide attempts in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of BRITE.||2.97|0.44|0.77
91864862|NCT03825588|183619528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.69||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare participants receiving ASAP (ASAP+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (BRITE+TAU and TAU) on time to actual suicide attempt||1.69|0.48|0.74
91722906|NCT03483584|183339012|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence in advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \> 2.67) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||0|0|
91722907|NCT04063163|183339025|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.763|||Log Rank|||Defined as a period from randomization through death regardless of causality. Data of patients without a death record will be censored on the last known survival date. COX proportional risk model will be used to estimate HR and its 95% confidence interval (CI); the Kaplan-Meier method will be used to estimate the median, and the Kaplan-Meier curve will be plotted.||0.763|0.496|<0.001
91722908|NCT04063163|183339026|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.576|||Log Rank|||||0.576|0.381|0.001
91722909|NCT04435626|183339039|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95||Two-sided p-value; p-value threshold =0.04967;|stratified Andersen-Gill model|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|Rate Ratio (Finerenone/Placebo)||0.95|0.74|0.0072
91722910|NCT04435626|183339041|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.82||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||Two-sided p-value; p-value threshold=0.04967;|Stratified Andersen-Gill model|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|Rate Ratio (Finerenone/Placebo)||0.94|0.71|0.0062
91722911|NCT04435626|183339043|OTHER|mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference in LS Mean|1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.34||Two-sided p-value;|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Difference in LS Mean||2.34|0.79|<.0001
91722912|NCT04435626|183339044|OTHER|Logistic regression analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15||Two-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio (finerenone /placebo)||1.15|0.88|0.9295
91722913|NCT04435626|183339045|OTHER|Stratified log-rank test|Cause-specific Hazard Ratio|1.33||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.89||two-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||stratified Cox proportional hazards model|Cause-specific Hazard Ratio||1.89|0.94|0.1071
91722914|NCT04435626|183339046|OTHER|Stratified log-rank test|cause-specific hazard ratio|0.93||||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||two-sided p-value|stratified log-rank||stratified Cox proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio||1.06|0.83|0.2794
91722915|NCT04426656|183339047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison was made using the outcome variable measured at Week 12.||||0.85
91722916|NCT04426656|183339048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91864863|NCT03825588|183619528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.48||False Discovery Rate q-vale \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare participants receiving BRITE (BRITE+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (ASAP+TAU and TAU) on the time to actual suicide attempt||1.48|0.42|0.45
91722917|NCT04426656|183339049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.318
91722918|NCT04426656|183339050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.527
91722919|NCT04426656|183339051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.928
91722920|NCT04426656|183339052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.678
91722921|NCT04426656|183339053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison test was made using the outcome variable measured at Week 12.||||0.26
91722922|NCT04426656|183339054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||The comparison was made using data measured at Week 12.||||0.08
91722923|NCT04426656|183339055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison was made using data measured at Week 12.||||0.03
91722924|NCT04426656|183339056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This comparison was made using data at Week 12.||||0.58
91722925|NCT04426656|183339057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison was made using data measured at Week 12.||||0.85
91722926|NCT03033355|183339097|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|Student t-Test|||Right Cingulate Body||||0.0012
91864864|NCT03825588|183619528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.72||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Interaction effect of ASAP and BRITE||1.72|0.13|0.25
91864865|NCT03825588|183619528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.87||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of ASAP.||2.87|0.54|0.62
91722927|NCT03033355|183339097|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Posterior Cingulate||||0.02
91722928|NCT03033355|183339097|OTHER|||||||0.0015||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Anterior Cingulate||||0.0015
91722929|NCT03033355|183339097|OTHER|||||||0.0015||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Right Prefrontal Cortex||||0.0015
91722930|NCT03033355|183339097|OTHER|||||||0.0138||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Insula||||0.0138
91722931|NCT03033355|183339097|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Pons Micturition Center||||0.049
91722932|NCT03033355|183339097|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Cerebellum||||0.001
91722933|NCT03033355|183339097|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Lentiform Nucleus||||0.026
91722934|NCT03033355|183339097|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Right Lentiform Nucleus||||0.026
91722935|NCT03033355|183339097|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Amygdala/parahippocampal Gyrus||||0.015
91692713|NCT00450437|183280402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||7|-1|
91722936|NCT05523297|183339141|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for non-inferiority was one-sided Farrington-Manning score test with non-inferiority margin 10% at a significance level of 2.5%. If the 95% CI for treatment effect not only lay above -10% (the non-inferiority margin) but also above 0, then there was evidence of superiority.|percent difference|17.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|26.4|||Two-sided Farrington-Manning score test.||Difference between Octaplex and FP arms for effectiveness|||26.4|8.7|<0.0001
91692714|NCT00450437|183280402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||4|-1|
91692715|NCT00450437|183280402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||8|3|
91692716|NCT00450437|183280402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|16.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||16|9|
91692717|NCT00450437|183280403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.56|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigational MenACWY Vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenA.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||1.56|1.12|
91692718|NCT00450437|183280403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.67|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigation MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenC.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||1.67|1.17|
91722937|NCT05523297|183339142|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.88|1.26|0.0022
91722938|NCT05523297|183339143|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-170.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.24|-91.22|||ANOVA|||12 hours after chest closure||-91.22|-250.24|<0.0001
91722939|NCT05523297|183339143|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-231.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-338.17|-125.67|||ANOVA|||24 hours after chest closure||-125.67|-338.17|<0.0001
91722940|NCT05523297|183339144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after IMP start||5.15|1.97|<0.0001
91722941|NCT05523297|183339144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after surgery start||4.52|1.83|<0.0001
91722942|NCT05523297|183339144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after CPB end||5.15|1.97|<0.0001
91722943|NCT05523297|183339145|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.57|||Counting regression|||||0.57|0.41|<0.0001
91722944|NCT05523297|183339146|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.71||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.88|||Counting regression|||||0.88|0.57|0.0015
91722945|NCT05523297|183339147|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.82|||Counting regression|||During the first 24 hours after IMP start||0.82|0.46|0.0010
91722946|NCT05523297|183339147|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Counting regression|||During the first 7 days after IMP start||0.76|0.45|<0.0001
91722947|NCT05523297|183339148|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06|||Negative binomial regression|||FP including IMP (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||0.06|0.03|<0.0001
91722948|NCT05523297|183339148|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.85||||0.8522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.82|||Negative binomial regression|||FP excluding IMP (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||4.82|0.15|0.8522
91722949|NCT05523297|183339148|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||Negative binomial regression|||RBCs (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
91722950|NCT05523297|183339148|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.65||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Negative binomial regression|||Platelets (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||0.92|0.45|0.0169
91722951|NCT05523297|183339148|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.57||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.76|||Negative binomial regression|||Cryoprecipitate (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||1.76|0.18|0.3288
91864866|NCT03825588|183619528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.59||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of BRITE.||2.59|0.47|0.83
91722952|NCT05523297|183339148|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.06|||Negative binomial regression|||FP including IMP (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||0.06|0.04|<0.0001
91722953|NCT05523297|183339148|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.63||||0.5439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.84|||Negative binomial regression|||FP excluding IMP (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||2.84|0.14|0.5439
91722954|NCT05523297|183339148|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.74|||Negative binomial regression|||Red blood cells (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||0.74|0.47|<0.0001
91722955|NCT05523297|183339148|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.58||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.84|||Negative binomial regression|||Platelets (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||0.84|0.40|0.0042
91722956|NCT05523297|183339148|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.49||||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.56|||Negative binomial regression|||Cryoprecipitate (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||1.56|0.15|0.2241
91722957|NCT05523297|183339149|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||FP excluding IMP (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||2.52|0.32|0.8364
91722958|NCT05523297|183339149|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||RBCs (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||3.11|1.42|0.0002
91722959|NCT05523297|183339149|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Platelets (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||1.91|0.89|0.1742
91722960|NCT05523297|183339149|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Cryoprecipitate (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||3.38|0.58|0.4618
91722961|NCT05523297|183339149|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Any individual ABP (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||2.55|1.12|0.0129
91722962|NCT05523297|183339149|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.94|||Regression, Logistic|||FP excluding IMP (Within 7 days after IMP start)||3.94|0.63|0.3297
91722963|NCT05523297|183339149|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|||RBCs (Within 7 days after IMP start)||2.76|1.20|0.0049
91722964|NCT05523297|183339149|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Platelets (Within 7 days after IMP start)||1.84|0.86|0.2417
91722965|NCT05523297|183339149|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Cryoprecipitate (Within 7 days after IMP start)||3.38|0.58|0.4618
91722966|NCT05523297|183339149|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Any individual ABP (Within 7 days after IMP start)||2.47|0.99|0.0564
91722967|NCT05523297|183339150|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Fibrinogen concentrate (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||1.73|0.69|0.6956
91722968|NCT05523297|183339150|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.337||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|50.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.70|1.12|0.0317
91722969|NCT05523297|183339150|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|796.37|||Regression, Logistic|||PCC excluding IMP (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||796.37|2.90|<0.0001
91722970|NCT05523297|183339150|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.334||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Any coagulation factor product (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||2.07|0.86|0.1981
91722971|NCT05523297|183339150|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.187||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Fibrinogen concentrate (Within 7 days after IMP start)||1.87|0.75|0.4599
91722972|NCT05523297|183339150|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.337||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|50.7|||Regression, Logistic|||rFVIIa (Within 7 days after IMP start)||50.70|1.12|0.0317
91722973|NCT05523297|183339150|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|796.37|||Regression, Logistic|||PCC excluding IMP (Within 7 days after IMP start)||796.37|2.90|<0.0001
91722974|NCT05523297|183339150|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.431||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Any coagulation factor product (Within 7 days after IMP start)||2.21|0.93|0.1073
91722975|NCT05523297|183339153|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.435||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6429|3.2013|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after CPB end||3.2013|0.6429|0.3782
91722976|NCT05523297|183339153|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.435||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6429|3.2013|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after IMP start||3.2013|0.6429|0.3782
91722977|NCT05523297|183339153|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.332||||0.4899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5902|3.0062|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after surgery start||3.0062|0.5902|0.4899
91722978|NCT05523297|183339154|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04|||ANOVA|||||-0.04|-0.26|0.0081
91722979|NCT05523297|183339155|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.63||||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.45|41.18|||ANOVA|||||41.18|-60.45|0.6735
91722980|NCT05523297|183339156|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.93||||0.9033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-450.13|414.28|||ANOVA|||||414.28|-450.13|0.9033
91722981|NCT05523297|183339157|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.29|||ANOVA|||||0.29|-1.10|0.1808
91722982|NCT05523297|183339158|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.78|15.34|||ANOVA|||||15.34|-14.78|0.9698
91722983|NCT05523297|183339159|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.3363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|3.42|||ANOVA|||||3.42|-9.61|0.3363
91722984|NCT05523297|183339160|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.42||||0.5736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|11.16|||ANOVA|||||11.16|-6.33|0.5736
91722985|NCT05523297|183339161|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.19||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|10.67|||ANOVA|||||10.67|-37.05|0.2667
91722986|NCT05523297|183339162|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.25||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|25.38|||ANOVA|||||25.38|-0.87|0.0658
91722987|NCT05523297|183339163|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02|||ANOVA|||||0.02|-0.40|0.0726
91722988|NCT05523297|183339168|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.183||||0.7497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4211|3.3235|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3235|0.4211|0.7497
91722989|NCT05965427|183339170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.097
91722990|NCT05965427|183339171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis of Any of the specified clinical complications measure"||||0.005
91888720|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.02|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.44|0.0782
91722991|NCT05965427|183339172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
91722992|NCT05965427|183339174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis relates to not presenting with skin lesions measure"||||0.002
91722993|NCT05965427|183339178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis relates to any drug treatment for mpox measure"||||0.114
91722994|NCT05965427|183339179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis relates to any drug for complications measure"||||<0.001
91722995|NCT05965427|183339180|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis relates to lesion onset measure"|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91722996|NCT04556097|183339201|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.2|||Difference in differences|Difference in differences model with a negative binomial distribution and log link that provides rate ratio estimate of the relative difference.|The rate ratio is estimated for intervention patients as compared to controls.|||1.20|0.31|0.05
91722997|NCT04556097|183339202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.12|||Difference in differences|Difference in differences model with a Gaussian distribution and identity link that provides linear estimate of the relative point difference.||||1.12|-6.53|0.05
91722998|NCT05317546|183339253|SUPERIORITY|We used linear mixed effects models containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) with random intercepts. For 1H-MRS models, brain tissue composition \[Gray Matter: Brain Matter or GM:BM defined as GM/(GM+WM)\] was included as a covariate.||||||0.33||||||alpha \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for brain tissue composition||An a priori power analysis was conducted to ensure power to detect differences in neurometabolite levels in the dACC. Due to type of modeling, participants were included even if they did not complete the second medication allocation.||||0.33
91722999|NCT05317546|183339254|SUPERIORITY|We used linear mixed effects models containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) with random intercepts. For 1H-MRS models, brain tissue composition \[Gray Matter: Brain Matter or GM:BM defined as GM/(GM+WM)\] was included as a covariate.||||||0.75||||||alpha \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for brain tissue composition||Due to type of modeling, participants were included even if they did not complete the second medication allocation.||||0.75
91723000|NCT05317546|183339255|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Several studies have demonstrated that CBD can modulate resting-state or task-based BOLD signal under similar study design (acute dosing, 600 mg CBD) with sample sizes smaller than our sample. Due to the modeling, only participants with usable data from both medication allocation visits were included. Contrast of interest was alcohol beverages vs. non-alcohol beverages.||||>0.05
91723001|NCT05317546|183339256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We were not able to complete a power calculation for this task. We used linear mixed effects models, containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) and cue-by-medication interaction terms. Random intercepts were included to account for individual differences.||||0.82
91723002|NCT05317546|183339257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We were not able to complete a power calculation for this task. We used linear mixed effects models, containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) and cue-by-medication interaction terms. Random intercepts were included to account for individual differences.||||0.21
91723003|NCT02290184|183339259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|A multi-level regression was employed to test differences between the 2 arm's change trajectories of their estimated simple slopes. Bootstrapped full information maximum likelihood models were estimated to obtain nonparametric, bias-corrected confidence interval (CI).|cross-level interaction|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.05|-3.0|-1.1|||||"Multilevel regression analysis was used. The primary test of between-group change effect is also called the cross-level interaction between time and group. Simple slopes were also tested to determine if the change was significant within each group."|Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in weight (kg) compared to the active control from baseline to 3-months.||-1.1|-3.0|
91723004|NCT02290184|183339260|SUPERIORITY|Multi-level regression was used to test differences between the 2 arm's change trajectories of their estimated simple slopes. Bootstrapped full information maximum likelihood models were estimated to obtain nonparametric, bias-corrected CI.|cross-level interaction|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|0.05|-3.9|-1.4|||||"Multilevel regression was used. The primary test of between group change effect is also called the cross-level interaction between time and group. Simple slopes were also tested to determine if the change was significant within each group."|Hypothesis: Intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in % weight change compared to the active control from baseline to 3-months||-1.4|-3.9|
91723005|NCT02290184|183339261|SUPERIORITY|A multi-level regression was used to test differences between the 2 arm's change trajectories of their estimated simple slopes. Bootstrapped full information maximum likelihood models were estimated to obtain nonparametric, bias-corrected CI.|cross-level interaction|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.91|||||"Multilevel regression was used. The primary test of between -group change effect is also called the cross-level interaction between time and group. Simple slopes were also tested to determine if the change was significant within each group."|Hypothesis: Intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in waist-circumference (cm) compared to the Active Control from baseline to 3-months||-.91|-4.5|
91723006|NCT01017250|183339289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.04
91723007|NCT01017250|183339290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.002
91723008|NCT01017250|183339291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.02
91723009|NCT01017250|183339292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.0005
91723010|NCT01017250|183339293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.53
91723011|NCT01017250|183339294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.002
91723012|NCT01017250|183339295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.76
91794781|NCT00417482|183468608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.88||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|21.98|||stratified cox analyses|||Similar analyses were used to test the secondary hypothesis in the relapse risk in weeks 17 to 32 of Phase B between the patients who continued to receive risperidone (Arm 1) \& the patients who discontinued risperidone at week 16 \& were switched to placebo (Arm 2). Patients who died \& those in whom a relapse was considered to be imminent before they were dropped out in Phase B were classified as having relapse.||21.98|1.08|0.02
91723013|NCT01017250|183339296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.34
91723014|NCT02555878|183339297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.09|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for primary efficacy composite endpoint.||1.09|0.40|= 0.101
91723015|NCT02555878|183339297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||=|0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.91|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for Symptomatic lower extremity proximal DVT.||2.91|0.43|= 0.814
91794782|NCT00417482|183468609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and placebo groups over the 16 week period post randomization, with respect to change in MMSE.||1.35|-0.08|0.08
91794783|NCT00417482|183468610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.94||95.0|-1.01|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and placebo groups over the 16 week period post randomization, with respect to change in TESS.||0.93|-1.01|0.94
91911171|NCT00903175|183718510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective was to assess the non-inferiority of everolimus as compared to Sunitinib in terms of PFS-1L \& was based on Bayesian methodology. If the estimated HR for PFS-1L had a value ≤ 1.1, non-inferiority of everolimus to Sunitinib would be declared. Non-inferiority of everolimus compared with Sunitinib as a first-line therapy was not achieved. The estimated HR for PFS-1L was 1.43 which did not satisfy the protocol-defined non-inferiority margin of a HR ≤ 1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.77||||||||1.77|1.15|
91723016|NCT02555878|183339297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||=|0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.07|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for symptomatic lower extremity distal DVT.||2.07|0.08|= 0.260
91723017|NCT02555878|183339297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||=|0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.39|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for symptomatic upper extremity DVT.||2.39|0.19|= 0.538
91723018|NCT02555878|183339297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||=|0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.52|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for symptomatic non-fatal PE.||3.52|0.29|= 0.977
91723019|NCT02555878|183339297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.11|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for asymptomatic lower extremity proximal DVT.||1.11|0.11|= 0.063
91723020|NCT02555878|183339297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||=|0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.62|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for incidental PE.||1.62|0.21|= 0.301
91723021|NCT02555878|183339297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.18|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for VTE-related death.||3.18|0.03|= 0.314
91723022|NCT02555878|183339298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.96|||=|0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.49|||Log Rank|||||6.49|0.59|= 0.265
91723023|NCT01164475|183339326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|9.17|||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison was done using the logistic regression model, adjusted for country and baseline PB CD34+ cell count.||9.17|0.44|0.395
91723024|NCT03160170|183339378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91723025|NCT03160170|183339379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91723026|NCT03160170|183339380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91723027|NCT04835441|183339403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.107
91911172|NCT02189850|183718533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.923
91723028|NCT04835441|183339404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.308
91723029|NCT04835441|183339405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.442
91723030|NCT04835441|183339406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.788|||||||Kaplan-Meier methods|||||||0.788
91723031|NCT04835441|183339407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.792
91723032|NCT04835441|183339408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Mixed models for repeated measures|||||||0.302
91723033|NCT04835441|183339409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.506
91723034|NCT04835441|183339410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.659
91723035|NCT02293499|183339463|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.003||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.043
91723036|NCT02293499|183339463|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
91723037|NCT02293499|183339463|SUPERIORITY||Sobel Statistic|2.4119||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED||||||Sobel|||Mediator analysis of AMI-SEI subscale on quality of life||||.0079
91723038|NCT02293499|183339463|SUPERIORITY||Sobel Statistic|2.1132||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED||||||Sobel|||Mediator analysis of ACQ Total score subscale on quality of life||||.0172
91723039|NCT02293499|183339464|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.001||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||0.295
91888721|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.44|0.2346
91911173|NCT00371865|183718534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.27
91911174|NCT00371865|183718535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.90
91723040|NCT02293499|183339464|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
91759961|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|8.8||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.80|-6.03|
91759962|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|6.52||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.52|-8.26|
91759963|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|8.49||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.49|-6.23|
91759964|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|17.06||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.06|1.46|
91759965|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|9.38||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.38|-6.23|
91759966|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|5.27||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.27|-10.27|
91759967|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|9.53||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.53|-5.95|
91759968|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|5.14||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.14|-10.89|
91759969|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.08||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.08|-14.80|
91759970|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|-6.38||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.38|-22.34|
91759971|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-4.41||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.41|-20.22|
91759972|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|5.85||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.85|-10.12|
91759973|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|-6.04||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.04|-22.05|
91692719|NCT00450437|183280403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.05|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenW.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||2.05|1.51|
91692720|NCT00450437|183280403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|2.95|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigational MenACWY Vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenY.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||2.95|2.11|
91692721|NCT00450437|183280405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||5|-7|
91692722|NCT00450437|183280405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine. MenC.||15|3|
91723041|NCT02293499|183339465|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.002||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.140
91723042|NCT02293499|183339465|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
91723043|NCT02293499|183339466|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.001||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.268
91794784|NCT00417482|183468611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in EPS, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||0.41|-1.50|0.26
91911175|NCT00371865|183718536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.13
91692723|NCT00450437|183280405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|17.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||17|2|
91723044|NCT02293499|183339466|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.06||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.14
91794785|NCT00417482|183468612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in AIMS, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||0.07|-0.50|0.13
91911176|NCT00371865|183718537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.26
91911177|NCT00371865|183718538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.90
91692724|NCT00450437|183280405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|23.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||23|9|
91911178|NCT04817111|183718544|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test if the change from pre- vs. post-test outcome is different from zero.||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91911179|NCT04817111|183718546|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test if the change from pre- vs. post-test outcome is different from zero.||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
91692725|NCT01890122|183280406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.278||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and country as fixed effects, and Baseline HbA1c as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.278|-0.700|< 0.0001
91692726|NCT01890122|183280406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.889|-0.467||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and country as fixed effects, and Baseline HbA1c as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.467|-0.889|< 0.0001
91692727|NCT04025879|183280420|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58||||0.00025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.78|||Log Rank||Stratified by randomization stratification factors: PD-L1 Status (\>=1% vs \<1%/not evaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (II vs III), histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||0.78|0.43|0.00025
91692728|NCT04025879|183280422|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE OF PCR|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|26.6|||||Strata adjusted difference based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.|||26.6|14.3|
91692729|NCT04025879|183280422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|12.97|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||12.97|3.40|
91692730|NCT04025879|183280423|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE OF MPR|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|30.6|||||Strata adjusted difference based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.|||30.6|15.8|
91692731|NCT04025879|183280423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01||||||95.0|2.48|6.49|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||6.49|2.48|
91692732|NCT00071110|183280444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Statistic (t): -1.00|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
91692733|NCT00071110|183280445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||Statistic (t): 1.56|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91692734|NCT00071110|183280446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||Statistic (t): 1.40|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91723045|NCT02293499|183339467|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.001||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.238
91723046|NCT02293499|183339467|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.03||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.43
91723047|NCT02293499|183339467|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.203||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.024
91723048|NCT02293499|183339468|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.0||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.484
91723049|NCT02293499|183339468|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
91911180|NCT04817111|183718547|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test if the change from pre- vs. post-test outcome is different from zero.||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91692735|NCT02259010|183280456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.19|||||Estimates were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the itraconazole effect and random terms for participant within period.|||1.19|0.82|
91692736|NCT02259010|183280457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.79|||||Estimates were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the itraconazole effect and random terms for participant within period.|||1.79|1.02|
91692737|NCT02259010|183280458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.95|||||Estimates were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the itraconazole effect and random terms for participant within period.|||1.95|0.99|
91692738|NCT02640664|183280502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|10.5||primary endpoint in the extension study does not have p-values. It's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||10.5|-1.1|
91692739|NCT02640664|183280502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.3||primary endpoint in the extension study does not have p-values. It's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||8.3|-3.4|
91692740|NCT02640664|183280502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.8||primary endpoint in the extension study does not have p-values. It's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||7.8|-3.3|
91692741|NCT02640664|183280505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|16.7||P value not applicable because it's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||16.7|-0.8|
91692742|NCT02640664|183280505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.5||P value not applicable because it's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||10.5|-7.3|
91692743|NCT02640664|183280505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.8|||ANOVA|||||14.8|-2.0|
91692744|NCT03175536|183280527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|12.1|||GEE models|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes|||12.1|-5.2|0.05
91864867|NCT03825588|183619529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||False Discovery Rate q-value = 0.72|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving ASAP (ASAP+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (BRITE+TAU and TAU) on the rate of suicidal events|We used standard univariate statistics to compare partici- pants' baseline sociodemographics and clinical characteris- tics by arm \[(ASAP vs No ASAP where comparison is 6 www.jaacap.org (ASAP+TAU) and (ASAP+BRITE+TAU) vs (TAU alone) and (BRITE+TAU); and BRITE vs No BRITE where comparison is (ASAP+BRITE+TAU) and (BRITE+TAU) vs (ASAP+TAU) and (TAU Alone)\], site, retention, pre- post-COVID and recruitment venue. We then tested for equality of the 2 cells (ASAP vs no ASAP, BRITE vs no BRITE) or 4 cells (ASAP+BRITE+TAU vs BRITE +TAU vs ASAP+TAU vs TAU Alone) without covariates on the rates of and time to suicidal behavior using the appropriate (t or F, c2, Kaplan-Meier, Cox models) test statistics. We then used mixed-effects regression models with arm (2 and 4 cells), time, and their interaction for continuous data. Presented percentages are based on all observed data.|||0.19
91692745|NCT03175536|183280528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.0|||GEE model|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes|||7.0|-4.4|0.05
91692746|NCT03175536|183280529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.3|||GEE model|Binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes.|||11.3|0.7|0.05
91692747|NCT03175536|183280530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.06|||GEE model|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes|||1.06|-0.74|0.05
91692748|NCT03175536|183280531|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-34.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-21.0|||GEE model|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes.|||-21|-47|0.05
91723050|NCT02293499|183339469|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.0||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.648
91723051|NCT02293499|183339469|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.07||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.04
91723052|NCT02293499|183339470|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.003||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.020
91723053|NCT02293499|183339470|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.23
91723054|NCT02293499|183339471|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.002||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.049
91723055|NCT02293499|183339471|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
91723056|NCT02293499|183339471|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.294||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
91723057|NCT02293499|183339471|SUPERIORITY||Sobel Statistic|-2.3505||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED||||||Sobel|||Mediator analysis of AMI-SEI subscale on ACQ total||||.0093
91723058|NCT03915067|183339472|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|80.1||P-value derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and C-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.1|51.5|<0.0001
91723059|NCT03915067|183339472|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|76.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.6|88.9||P-value derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and C-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||88.9|63.6|<0.0001
91692749|NCT00722137|183280532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.79|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||0.79|0.50|<0.001
91723060|NCT03915067|183339495|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|57.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.3|73.5||P-value was derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and P-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.5|42.3|<0.0001
91723061|NCT03915067|183339495|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|70.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|84.1||P-value derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and P-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||84.1|56.4|<0.0001
91723062|NCT01001104|183339520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at 12 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91723063|NCT01001104|183339520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91723064|NCT01001104|183339520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.97|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91723065|NCT01001104|183339520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.17|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91723066|NCT01001104|183339521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value from the Cochran-Armitage trend test.|Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
91723067|NCT01001104|183339521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91723068|NCT01001104|183339521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91723069|NCT01001104|183339521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91723070|NCT01001104|183339522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value from the Cochran-Armitage trend test.|Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
91723071|NCT01001104|183339522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.358
91723072|NCT01001104|183339522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
91723073|NCT01001104|183339522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91723074|NCT01001104|183339523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91723075|NCT01001104|183339523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.2||||0.003||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91723076|NCT01001104|183339523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.54||||0.003||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91723077|NCT01001104|183339523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.48|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91723078|NCT01001104|183339524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91723079|NCT01001104|183339524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.2|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91723080|NCT01001104|183339524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.63|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91723081|NCT01001104|183339524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-41.49|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91723082|NCT01001104|183339525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.987
91723083|NCT01001104|183339525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26||||0.005||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91723084|NCT01001104|183339525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.45||||0.311||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.311
91723085|NCT01001104|183339525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26||||0.556||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.556
91723086|NCT01001104|183339526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0||||This is the p-value from the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.202
91723087|NCT01001104|183339526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.91||||0.917||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.917
91723088|NCT01001104|183339526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.81||||0.264||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.264
91723089|NCT01001104|183339526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.4||||0.346||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.346
91723090|NCT01001104|183339527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91723091|NCT01001104|183339527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.1||||0.036||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
91723092|NCT01001104|183339527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.73||||0.002||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91723093|NCT01001104|183339527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|31.68|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91723094|NCT01001104|183339529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0||||This is the p-value from the Cochran-Armitage trend test (dose-effect).|Cochran-Armitage|||||||0.073
91723095|NCT01001104|183339529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91723096|NCT01001104|183339529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.233
91723097|NCT02034591|183339530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.682|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.621|0.748||||||||0.748|0.621|
91723098|NCT02034591|183339531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.813|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.766|0.863||||||||0.863|0.766|
91723099|NCT02034591|183339532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.764|0.86||||||||0.860|0.764|
91723100|NCT02034591|183339533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.942||||||||0.942|0.830|
91794786|NCT00417482|183468613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in PSMS, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||0.23|-1.47|0.149
91794787|NCT00417482|183468614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|2.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in weight, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||2.95|-3.77|0.81
91794788|NCT00107952|183468647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 20% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||||95.0|-8.6|5.5||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.|||"Statistical analysis applies to cure"|||5.5|-8.6|
91794789|NCT00251004|183468649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.3||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z-test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to mycophenolic acid (MPA) if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in combined graft loss, death or loss to follow-up rates is \<10%.||7.3|-2.9|0.001
91794790|NCT00251004|183468649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in Percentage|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.2||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z-test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to MPA if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in combined graft loss, death or loss to follow-up rates is \<10%.||5.2|-4.6|<0.001
91794791|NCT00251004|183468650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in percentage|1.8||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.1||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z - test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to mycophenolic acid (MPA) if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants composite efficacy failure is \<10%.||9.1|-5.5|0.014
91794792|NCT00251004|183468650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in percentage|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.3||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z-test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to MPA if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in composite efficacy failure rates is \<10%.||3.3|-10.8|<0.001
91794793|NCT00251004|183468651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at -8 mL/min/1.73m\^2.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.5||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the mean GFR of the everolimus arm is lower (worse) than that of the MPA arm by 8 mL/min/1.73m\^2 or more.||6.5|-1.6|<0.001
91794794|NCT00251004|183468651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at -8 mL/min/1.73m\^2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the mean GFR of the everolimus arm is lower (worse) than that of the MPA arm by 8 mL/min/1.73m\^2 or more.||3.3|-4.9|<0.001
91864868|NCT03825588|183619529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving BRITE (BRITE+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (ASAP+TAU and TAU) on the rate of suicidal events||||0.89
91692750|NCT00722137|183280533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.74|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with IPI risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||0.74|0.45|<0.001
91864869|NCT03825588|183619529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.1||False Discovery Rate q-value = 0.72|Regression, Logistic|||Compare participants the 4 arms on the rate of suicidal events in a 2x2 factorial design. Interaction effect of ASAP and BRITE.||1.10|0.11|0.08
91692751|NCT00722137|183280535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with IPI risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||0.65|0.38|<0.001
91692752|NCT00722137|183280536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Log Rank|||||0.65|0.38|=0.001
91692753|NCT00722137|183280537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.428||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|2.722|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio for stratified tables is used, with IPI risk and Stage of Disease as stratification factors. An odds ratio (OR) \> 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||2.722|0.749|0.275
91692754|NCT00722137|183280538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.688|||<|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.148|2.481|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio for stratified tables is used, with IPI risk and Stage of Disease as stratification factors. An odds ratio (OR) \> 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||2.481|1.148|<0.007
91692755|NCT00722137|183280539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.1|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with IPI risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||1.10|0.59|0.173
91692756|NCT05514873|183280547|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Week 12 MG-ADL over Baseline was shown if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is less than 2.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||<0.001
91692757|NCT02729025|183280551|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.39|||Multivariate regression model||Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|A multivariate regression was modelled on the primary endpoint as well as three other response variables (percent change in Lp\[a\] at Weeks 8 and 16, baseline MDS TBR, and baseline Lp\[a\]). The primary endpoint was regressed on the treatment group and statin stratification factor; baseline MDS TBR and Lp(a) were regressed on the statin stratification factor, and percent changes in Lp(a) were regressed on the treatment group, statin stratification factor, visit, and treatment group by visit.||1.39|-7.40|0.18
91723101|NCT02034591|183339534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.905|0.997||||||||0.997|0.905|
91794795|NCT01569464|183468658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|2.42||A hierarchical test procedure was done for the primary efficacy variables at an α-level of 5 %. If a test was statistically significant, a test for the next variable was performed. If a test was not statistically significant the procedure stopped.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used for analysis with fixed effects for treatment assignment (main factor) and the subject's investigational center (stratifying factor) and a covariate for the Baseline Visit value of the IRLS sum score.||2.42|-2.96|0.8451
91794796|NCT01569464|183468659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.8336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.75||A hierarchical test procedure was done for the primary efficacy variables at an α-level of 5 %. If a test was statistically significant, a test for the next variable was performed. If a test was not statistically significant the procedure stopped.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used for analysis with fixed effects for treatment assignment (main factor) and the subject's investigational center (stratifying factor) and a covariate for the Baseline Visit value of the IRLS sum score.||0.75|-0.61|0.8336
91794797|NCT02797054|183468691|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
91794798|NCT02797054|183468692|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.303
91794799|NCT02797054|183468693|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91794800|NCT02797054|183468694|OTHER|||||||0.895|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.895
91692758|NCT02729025|183280552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-8.49|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, statin stratification, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|||-8.49|-19.29|<0.0001
91692759|NCT02729025|183280553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.81|-55.51|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, statin stratification, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|||-55.51|-65.81|<0.0001
91692760|NCT02729025|183280554|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.85|-47.33|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, statin stratification, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|||-47.33|-55.85|<0.0001
91692761|NCT01267019|183280555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a statistical analysis to determine the training effect of social cognitive skills training (in vivo and social cog versus control).||||< .05
91692762|NCT01267019|183280556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91692763|NCT01267019|183280557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91692764|NCT03782792|183280663|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.487||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.672||One-sided P Value.|Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|The Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test was implemented to test the treatment effect on the primary endpoint on the RS (estimand EN) at a 1-sided, alpha level of 0.025. Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.672|0.215|0.0004
91692765|NCT03782792|183280664|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.317||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.527||One-sided P Value.|Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|The Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test was implemented to test the treatment effect on the RS (estimand EN) at a 1-sided, alpha level of 0.025. Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.527|0.022|0.0118
91692766|NCT03782792|183280665|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.346||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.554||One-sided P Value.|Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|The Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test was implemented to test the treatment effect on the RS (estimand EN) at a 1-sided, alpha level of 0.025. Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.554|0.058|0.0081
91692767|NCT03782792|183280666|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||One-sided P Value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The effect of spesolimab was evaluated by a Wilcoxon rank test using the RS. Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 were assigned worst ranks for the testing. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.|The difference between treatments, based on the RS, using a modified Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate of the median difference and 95% Confidence Intervals could not be calculated due to lack of valid data.|||0.0012
91723102|NCT02034591|183339535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|0.994||||||||0.994|0.903|
91723103|NCT01525589|183339591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0909
91723104|NCT01525589|183339595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
91794801|NCT02797054|183468695|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
91794802|NCT02797054|183468696|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0015
91794803|NCT02797054|183468697|OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0056
91794804|NCT02797054|183468698|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
91794805|NCT02398409|183468718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.8407|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression.|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to Baseline (BL)||||.8407
91794806|NCT02398409|183468718|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 months compared to BL||||.0150
91794807|NCT02398409|183468718|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared BL||||.8373
91794808|NCT02398409|183468719|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to BL||||.6445
91794809|NCT02398409|183468719|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months compared to BL||||.5247
91692768|NCT03782792|183280667|OTHER|||||||0.0044||||||One-sided P Value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The effect of spesolimab was evaluated by a Wilcoxon rank test using the RS. Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 were assigned worst ranks for the testing. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.|The difference between treatments, based on the RS, using a modified Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate of the median difference and 95% Confidence Intervals could not be calculated due to lack of valid data.|||0.0044
91723105|NCT01525589|183339599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0561|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0561
91723106|NCT05370326|183339707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|5.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.46|-3.67|0.69
91692769|NCT03782792|183280668|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||One-sided P Value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The effect of spesolimab was evaluated by a Wilcoxon rank test using the RS. Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 were assigned worst ranks for the testing. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.|The difference between treatments, based on the RS, using a modified Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate of the median difference and 95% Confidence Intervals could not be calculated due to lack of valid data.|||0.0012
91692770|NCT03782792|183280669|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.581|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.581|0.058|
91692771|NCT03782792|183280670|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.607|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.607|0.096|
91723107|NCT05370326|183339712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.89|0.67
91723108|NCT05370326|183339713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.34|-1.16|0.50
91723109|NCT05370326|183339714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.51|-1.09|0.74
91723110|NCT05370326|183339716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91692772|NCT03782792|183280671|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.432|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.636|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.636|0.096|
91692773|NCT03782792|183280673|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.401|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.401|-0.138|
91723111|NCT05370326|183339717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91723112|NCT01991314|183339741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We calculated, on the premise that there is non-inferiority between adolescent and adult groups in the difference in increase of mean haemoglobin levels of 0.35g/dL, with estimated standard deviation 0.7g/dL following treatment, that 45 patients in each group would be required, derived using power 80% power, 1-sided significance level 0.05 and R 0.5 for the covariate; this calculation took into account planned ANCOVA methodology and 20% patients who might be lost to follow up or withdraw.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||To test the hypothesis of non-inferiority with maximal statistical power, ANCOVA (one-tailed P\<0.05) was employed to compare the change in mean haemoglobin levels between adults and adolescents after accounting for necessary covariates|ANCOVA|||||||0.23
91723113|NCT01991314|183339742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions (expressed as percentages) of total number of participants in each group who were iron intolerant||Chi squared test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.||||<0.05
91723114|NCT01991314|183339743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unpaired Students t test||||0.96
91723115|NCT01991314|183339744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U test||||0.49
91692774|NCT03782792|183280674|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.32|12.76|||||Median difference was calculated by modified Hodges-Lehmann method.|Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 and assigned with the worst possible outcomes in rank analysis. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.||12.76|-67.32|
91692775|NCT04506463|183280713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.850
91692776|NCT04506463|183280713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.085
91692777|NCT04506463|183280713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.850
91723116|NCT01991314|183339745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann Whitney U test||||0.85
91723117|NCT01991314|183339746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann Whitney U test||||0.69
91723118|NCT01991314|183339747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U test||||<0.0001
91723119|NCT00879359|183339748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||||99|64|
91723120|NCT00970944|183339751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We will have 80% power to detect a one point difference in DRS score between the groups across the four week treatment window. With this sample size, we will be able to detect any unforeseen adverse events that have a prevalence of at least 2.5% in each group with 90% probability. With 92 patients per group we will be able to estimate the rate of adverse events to within ±10%.||||0.045
91723121|NCT00970944|183339752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.007||95.0|-0.41|-0.07||The final analysis used a significance level of 0.045.|Mixed Models Analysis|Final analysis adjusted for early v. late enrollment relative to date of injury, baseline CRS-R rating category (MCS vs. VS), and site.||The planned sample size of 184 patients provided 80% power to detect a difference between the AH and placebo in the rate of Disability Rating Scale (DRS) score change of 0.3 points/week (1.22 DRS point mean difference by the end of the 4-week treatment interval). Two blinded interim analyses were conducted at 60 and 120 patients recruited using the O'Brien-Fleming boundary, with alpha levels of 0.0005 and 0.014. The final analysis used an alpha level of 0.045.||-0.07|-0.41|0.007
91864870|NCT03825588|183619529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.55||False Discovery Rate q \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of ASAP.||2.55|0.51|0.74
91864871|NCT03825588|183619529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.69||False Discovery Rate q=0.72|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of BRITE.||3.69|0.77|0.19
91692778|NCT04506463|183280714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.062
91692779|NCT04506463|183280714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91692780|NCT04506463|183280714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.936
91692781|NCT04506463|183280715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.042
91692782|NCT04506463|183280715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.037
91692783|NCT04506463|183280715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.648
91692784|NCT01609010|183280739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3023|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3023
91692785|NCT01609010|183280740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3362|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 10, Cycle 1||||0.3362
91692786|NCT01609010|183280740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1157|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16, Cycle 2||||0.1157
91692787|NCT01609010|183280741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 10, Cycle 1||||0.8540
91692788|NCT01609010|183280741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16, Cycle 2||||0.0051
91692789|NCT01609010|183280743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784|||||||Log Rank|Stratification by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||CR+CRu+PR||||0.7840
91692790|NCT01609010|183280743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4419|||||||Log Rank|Stratification by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||CR+CRu||||0.4419
91723122|NCT02111980|183339785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
91692791|NCT01609010|183280743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5942|||||||Log Rank|Stratification by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||CR only||||0.5942
91864872|NCT06029452|183619552|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|Sensitivity|0.853|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.815||||||Sensitivity was defined as the probability that an individual with the disease in the population were screen positive for disease by the algorithm (TP). Sensitivity = TP / (TP + FN).||||0.815|
91692792|NCT01609010|183280745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8946|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||||||0.8946
91692793|NCT01609010|183280747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4963|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||||||0.4963
91692794|NCT01134107|183280752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.66|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline HbA1c|This was the primary gated analysis.||0.66|0.06|
91692795|NCT01134107|183280753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.47|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day (Day 1-6) minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day (Day 1-6); adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline HbA1c|||0.47|-0.10|
91692796|NCT01134107|183280753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.58|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day (Day 6) minus Insulin Lispro 6 Day (Day 2); adjusted for DayGroup + Period + Baseline HbA1c|||0.58|0.25|
91692797|NCT01134107|183280754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.88|||||Daily Total Insulin: Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose|||0.88|-0.13|
91692798|NCT01134107|183280754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.31|||||Daily Basal Insulin: Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose|||0.31|-0.26|
91692799|NCT01134107|183280754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.6|||||Daily Bolus Insulin: Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose|||0.60|-0.15|
91692800|NCT01134107|183280755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.24|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Period + Sequence + Baseline HbA1c|||0.24|0.08|
91692801|NCT01134107|183280756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.63|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c ≤6.5% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||1.63|0.39|
91692802|NCT01134107|183280756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.63|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c \<7% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||0.63|0.20|
91692803|NCT01134107|183280757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value for Total Insulin Dose computed using Crossover model: Variable = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Total Dose.|Crossover Model|||||||0.595
91692804|NCT01134107|183280757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506||95.0||||P-value for Basal Insulin Dose computed using Crossover model: Variable = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal Dose.|Crossover Model|||||||0.506
91692805|NCT01134107|183280757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||P-value for Bolus Insulin Dose computed using Crossover model: Variable = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Bolus Dose.|Crossover Model|||||||0.790
91692806|NCT01134107|183280759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0|||||negative binomial test|P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.||||||0.059
91692807|NCT01134107|183280760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for overall pump complications associated with a premature reservoir change computed using Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used.|Gart's Test|||||||1.00
91723123|NCT03086343|183339799|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of upadacitinib 15 mg versus abatacept was tested using the 95% confidence interval (CI) of treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 0.6.|LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.35||The ANCOVA model included treatment as the fixed factor; corresponding baseline value and the stratification factor of prior bDMARD used as covariates.|ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Abatacept|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.||-0.35|-0.69|< 0.001
91723124|NCT03086343|183339800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.35||This comparison was a ranked secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the fixed factor; corresponding baseline value and the stratification factor of prior bDMARD used as covariates|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Abatacept|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked secondary endpoints in a pre specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.||-0.35|-0.69|< 0.001
91723125|NCT03086343|183339801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|23.2||This comparison was a ranked secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The stratification factor of prior failed bDMARD was used.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Abatacept|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.||23.2|10.4|< 0.001
91723126|NCT04900272|183339802|OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.785
91723127|NCT04900272|183339803|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.583
91723128|NCT04900272|183339804|OTHER|||||||0.5015|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5015
91723129|NCT04900272|183339805|OTHER|||||||0.3536|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3536
91723130|NCT04900272|183339806|OTHER|||||||0.2688|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2688
91723131|NCT04900272|183339807|OTHER|||||||0.728|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.728
91723132|NCT04900272|183339808|OTHER|||||||0.473|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.473
91864873|NCT06029452|183619552|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|Specificity|0.584|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.539||||||Sensitivity was defined as the probability that an individual with the disease in the population were screen positive for disease by the algorithm (TP). Sensitivity = TP / (TP + FN).||||0.539|
91864874|NCT03106740|183619560|SUPERIORITY|Because relevant \[11C\]PBR28 PET imaging data were unavailable at the time of trial initiation to inform a power analysis of a treatment effect, we ran a power analysis of the treatment effect on the expected change in pain ratings based on a recent clinical trial using minocycline in subjects with back pain. We computed the sample size required for mixed effects between-subject and within-subject (Time: Pretest/Posttest) repeated measures ANOVA design. Alpha was set at 0.05 (two-tailed test).|Restricted maximum likelihood|0.0||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02||The p-value corresponds to the group-by-time interaction analysis of the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter: Unstandardized partial regression coefficient (beta)|||0.02|-0.02|0.956
91723133|NCT04900272|183339809|OTHER|||||||0.4161|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4161
91723134|NCT04900272|183339810|OTHER|||||||0.3356|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3356
91723135|NCT04900272|183339811|OTHER|||||||0.9825|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9825
91723136|NCT01625182|183339815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Cox|||||1.7|0.6|0.9838
91723137|NCT01970371|183339825|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|51.2|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||51.2|-0.7|
91723138|NCT01970371|183339826|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|28.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|52.5|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||52.5|0.7|
91723139|NCT01970371|183339827|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in clinical cure percentage at the TOC visit between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.9|26.8|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||26.8|-26.9|
91723140|NCT01970371|183339828|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the unadjusted hazard ratio between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin:plazomicin) is based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|14.61|||1-sided logrank test|||||14.61|1.08|
91723141|NCT01970371|183339829|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|40.3|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||40.3|-13|
91723142|NCT01922011|183339862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI is greater than -15%|Common Difference|-6.1||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|7.4|||Wald||Daptomycin - Comparator|95% confidence interval of the common difference was based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.||7.4|-19.4|0.421
91723143|NCT01922011|183339863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-7.1||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|7.9|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|||7.9|-21.6|0.467
91723144|NCT01922011|183339864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-6.2||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|5.0|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|At EOIV visit||5.0|-17.5|0.313
91723145|NCT01922011|183339864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-7.9||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|4.0|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|At EOT visit||4.0|-19.8|0.239
91723146|NCT01922011|183339864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-6.7||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|5.8|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|At TOC visit||5.8|-19.1|0.370
91723147|NCT01922011|183339865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-10.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|5.4|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|Overall Baseline Infecting Pathogen||5.4|-26.3|0.230
91723148|NCT01922011|183339865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-12.3||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|4.4|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|SA||4.4|-28.5|0.164
91723149|NCT01922011|183339865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-15.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|1.1|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|MSSA||1.1|-31.2|0.043
91723150|NCT01922011|183339865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wald|||MRSA||||0.450
91723151|NCT01922011|183339865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wald|||Other Pathogen||||0.280
91723152|NCT01922011|183339866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-6.3||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|5.5|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|EOT||5.5|-18.2|0.272
91723153|NCT01922011|183339866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-4.8||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|7.9|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|TOC||7.9|-17.6|0.480
91723154|NCT01922011|183339867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|4.2|||||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|Overall Baseline Infecting Pathogen||4.2|-24.8|
91723155|NCT01922011|183339867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|2.8|||||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|SA||2.8|-27.2|
91723156|NCT01922011|183339867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|5.2|||||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|MSSA||5.2|-25.4|
91723157|NCT00924482|183339891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Correlation Coefficient (R^2)|0.63||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression between the average of six thermodilution cardiac output measurements was compared to the average of six ECOM output measurements||||||
91723158|NCT00975923|183339924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||infection rates per device days|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.0||p-value and confidence intervals|Regression, Linear|||Infection rates were analyzed using hierarchical negative binomial regression models to model infection rate changes over time and account for clustering of ICUs within hospitals and adjusting for baseline covariates. Power was calculated a priori with a 1-tailed alpha of 0.05 and group size of 30; a 50% decrease in infection rates in the Collaborative group and 15% for the Tool Kit group, yielding power ranging from 82% to 91% for testing group differences.||3.0|1.0|<.05
91723159|NCT00975923|183339925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentages|10.0|||<|5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||Power calculation used alpha = .05 and group size = 30.The estimated effect was a 50% decrease in infection rates for the Collaborative Group and from 10% to 15% decrease in the Tool Kit group.Power ranged from 82%-91% for testing group differences.|It was hypothesized that the Collaborative group would engage in more processes and tools than the Tool Kit group. Power was based on infection rates.||||<05
91723160|NCT01964404|183339926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||p-FDR|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91723161|NCT01964404|183339928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|2.4|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different PANSS Positive symptom scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||2.4|-0.77|0.31
91723162|NCT01964404|183339928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.18|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different PANSS Positive symptom scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The marijuana cigarette group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||0.18|-2.4|.62
91723163|NCT01964404|183339929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.45|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different PANSS Negative symptom scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||3.45|-1|0.28
91864875|NCT04797858|183619575|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0077||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.056|||Fisher Exact|||||0.056|-0.021|0.45
91723164|NCT01964404|183339929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.85|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different PANSS Positive negative scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||2.85|-1.1|0.39
91723165|NCT01964404|183339930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.424||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|-3.18||We set threshold of p\<.01 for statistical significance due to multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for pre-drug exposure cognitive functioning||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different verbal learning scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The marijuana cigarette group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||-3.18|-16.06|0.004
91723166|NCT01964404|183339931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|15.75|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different anxiety scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||15.75|-3.62|.22
91723167|NCT01964404|183339931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|5.7|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different anxiety scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||5.70|-5.87|0.98
91723168|NCT01964404|183339932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.4||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|90.9|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different drug experience ratings of liking scores compared to the placebo group. (The marijuana cigarette group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||90.9|10.9|0.13
91723169|NCT01964404|183339932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.95||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.01|94.07|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different drug liking scores compared to the placebo group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||94.07|8.01|.002
91723170|NCT01964404|183339933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.23|-1.0|0.002
91723171|NCT00876395|183339996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.73|0.1166
91723172|NCT00876395|183339997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.48|0.0049
91723173|NCT00876395|183340000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7276|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.7276
91723174|NCT00876395|183340001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4085|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.4085
91723175|NCT00876395|183340002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9573|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.9573
91723176|NCT00876395|183340003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6382|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.6382
91723177|NCT01787838|183340016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|1.96|||Chi-squared|||Prospective data from 12 months were compared to data that had been collected for the previous 12 month period to determine statistical significance and trended outcomes for comparative periods. Patients were screened for eligibility during the first 12 months, and staff and patients received the interventions during the second 12 month period.||1.96|1.65|<.0001
91723178|NCT02260986|183340020|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.34|36.26||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||36.26|16.34|<0.0001
91723179|NCT02260986|183340020|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.33|33.28||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||33.28|20.33|<0.0001
91723180|NCT02260986|183340021|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.|difference in percentages|45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.72|55.66||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level for both comparisons.||55.66|35.72|<0.0001
91723181|NCT02260986|183340021|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.|difference in percentages|40.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.74|47.81||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level for both comparisons.||47.81|33.74|<0.0001
91723182|NCT02260986|183340022|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.53|49.65||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||49.65|28.53|<0.0001
91759974|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|7.3||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.30|-9.83|
91723183|NCT02260986|183340022|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.84|38.39||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||38.39|23.84|<0.0001
91723184|NCT02260986|183340023|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.56|48.31||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||48.31|27.56|<0.0001
91723185|NCT02260986|183340023|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.31|42.05||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||42.05|27.31|<0.0001
91723186|NCT02260986|183340024|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.72|34.19||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||34.19|12.72|<0.0001
91723187|NCT02260986|183340024|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.42|34.58||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||34.58|20.42|<0.0001
91794810|NCT02398409|183468719|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared to BL||||.9974
91794811|NCT02398409|183468720|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to BL||||.1918
91864876|NCT04797858|183619576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.015||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0004|0.03|||Fisher Exact|||||0.03|-0.0004|0.11
91864877|NCT01880515|183619583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.99||||||||0.99|0.17|
91864878|NCT01880515|183619586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.41
91864879|NCT05290493|183619627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0672|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0672
91723188|NCT02260986|183340025|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|54.65||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||54.65|32.50|<0.0001
91794812|NCT02398409|183468720|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months compared to BL||||.9212
91864880|NCT05290493|183619628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2045
91864881|NCT05290493|183619629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2931|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2931
91864882|NCT05290493|183619630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7799|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7799
91864883|NCT05290493|183619631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7974|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7974
91864884|NCT05290493|183619632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8286|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8286
91864885|NCT03154190|183619651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.47|||Regression, Cox|||||0.47|0.20|
91864886|NCT03154190|183619652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.75|||Regression, Cox|||||0.75|0.30|
91864887|NCT03154190|183619655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.62||||||||0.62|0.33|
91864888|NCT03154190|183619657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7||||||||0.70|0.36|
91864889|NCT03154190|183619662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|10.55||||||||10.55|1.88|
91864890|NCT03673501|183619665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16|||Log Rank|Strata: by intolerance to imatinib treatment||||1.16|0.66|0.3598
91864891|NCT03673501|183619666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33||Two-sided P-value|Log Rank|Strata: mutation status (KIT exon 9 vs. 11 vs. KIT/PDGFRA WT vs. other KIT {absence of exon 9 or 11}/PDGFRA) and intolerance to imatinib treatment||||1.33|0.82|0.7153
91864892|NCT03673501|183619667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Strata: intolerance to imatinib treatment||||||0.0333
91864893|NCT03673501|183619668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2681|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Strata: mutation status (KIT exon 9 vs. 11 vs. KIT/PDGFRA WT vs. other KIT {absence of exon 9 or 11}/PDGFRA) and intolerance to imatinib treatment||||||0.2681
91723189|NCT02260986|183340025|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.91|50.06||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||50.06|34.91|<0.0001
91723190|NCT02260986|183340026|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|-17.43||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-17.43|-35.04|<0.0001
91723191|NCT02260986|183340026|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.83|-20.73||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-20.73|-32.83|<0.0001
91723192|NCT02260986|183340027|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.96|49.66||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||49.66|26.96|<0.0001
91723193|NCT02260986|183340027|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.76|33.45||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||33.45|18.76|<0.0001
91723194|NCT02260986|183340028|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.76|51.35||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||51.35|28.76|<0.0001
91723195|NCT02260986|183340028|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.81|34.76||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||34.76|19.81|<0.0001
91723196|NCT02260986|183340029|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.34|48.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 24 were considered as non-responders.||48.40|27.34|<0.0001
91723197|NCT02260986|183340029|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.65|34.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 24 were considered as non-responders.||34.70|20.65|<0.0001
91723198|NCT02260986|183340030|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.59|31.15||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 4 were considered as non-responders.||31.15|10.59|<0.0001
91723199|NCT02260986|183340030|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|10.7||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|17.31||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 4 were considered as non-responders.||17.31|4.15|0.0021
91759975|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-1.53||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.53|-18.67|
91723200|NCT02260986|183340031|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|9.6||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|17.63||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 2 were considered as non-responders.||17.63|1.61|0.0062
91723201|NCT02260986|183340031|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|5.5||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|10.51||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 2 were considered as non-responders.||10.51|0.56|0.0344
91723202|NCT02260986|183340032|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.297|-1.322||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-1.322|-2.297|<0.0001
91723203|NCT02260986|183340033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.37|-17.82||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-17.82|-46.37|<0.0001
91723204|NCT02260986|183340034|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.583|-14.187||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-14.187|-22.583|<0.0001
91723205|NCT02260986|183340035|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.46|-21.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-21.9|-33.46|<0.0001
91723206|NCT02260986|183340036|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-3.02||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-3.02|-5.31|<0.0001
91864894|NCT03673501|183619669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.48|||Log Rank|Strata: intolerance to imatinib treatment||||1.48|0.75|0.7733
91864895|NCT03673501|183619670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Log Rank|Strata: mutation status (KIT exon 9 vs. 11 vs. KIT/PDGFRA WT vs. other KIT {absence of exon 9 or 11}/PDGFRA) and intolerance to imatinib||||1.18|0.66|0.3928
91864896|NCT05838027|183619671|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|12.55||||||||12.55|0.84|
91864897|NCT05838027|183619672|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.64||||||||2.64|0.24|
91864898|NCT05838027|183619673|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|4.82||||||||4.82|-3.78|
91864899|NCT05838027|183619674|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.4||||||||1.40|-1.01|
91864900|NCT05838027|183619675|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|2.0||||||||2.00|-7.43|
91723207|NCT02260986|183340037|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|-5.93||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-5.93|-8.85|<0.0001
91723208|NCT02260986|183340038|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.37||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||0.37|-2.27|0.1596
91864901|NCT05838027|183619676|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|4.16||||||||4.16|-5.45|
91864902|NCT05838027|183619677|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|IRR|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.74||||||||2.74|0.46|
91864903|NCT05838027|183619678|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-1.29|
91864904|NCT05838027|183619681|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.03||||||||3.03|-1.90|
91864905|NCT05838027|183619682|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.32|
91864906|NCT05838027|183619683|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|IRR|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.63||||||||1.63|0.23|
91864907|NCT05838027|183619684|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.64||||||||2.64|-0.54|
91904191|NCT02234284|183703322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of non-COPD-related ED visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.40|-0.56|.80
91723209|NCT01201863|183340094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.07816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3315||0.954|TWO_SIDED||||||comparison of slopes|Slopes by group and slope difference||To investigate a difference in change in outcome over time between treatment and control, a trend analysis was used in place of a profile analysis, where both control and treatment arms are described more parsimoniously i.e. by a slope (change in outcome over time) (Fitzmaurice 2011).||||0.9540
91723210|NCT01149785|183340095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|316.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|286.17|349.73||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||349.73|286.17|
91759976|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|-6.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.82|-24.01|
91864908|NCT05838027|183619685|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.49||||||||5.49|0.19|
91759977|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.33|-3.26||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.26|-20.33|
91759978|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.57|2.62||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.62|-14.57|
91759979|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.98|-6.76||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.76|-23.98|
91864909|NCT05838027|183619686|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.43||||||||0.43|-2.64|
91692808|NCT01134107|183280760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-value for overall pump complications associated with a premature infusion set change computed using Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used.|Gart's Test|||||||0.472
91692809|NCT01134107|183280761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|negative binomial test|||||||0.383
91692810|NCT01134107|183280761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|negative binomial test|||||||0.499
91692811|NCT01134107|183280762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The p-value is for the Documented Hypoglycemic Episodes category treatment arm comparison. The p-value for the All Reported Hypoglycemic Episodes category could not be generated using Gart's Test.|Gart's Test|Participants represented in both treatment groups, and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period, were used for p-value calculation.||||||1.00
91692812|NCT01134107|183280763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Negative Binomial Test|P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.||||||<0.001
91692813|NCT01134107|183280764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Crossover Model|P-value computed using crossover model. Response = treatment + sequence + period + baseline body weight||||||<0.001
91692814|NCT01134107|183280765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0||||P-value for the Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) computed using crossover model. Response = treatment + sequence + period + baseline systolic blood pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.147
91692815|NCT01134107|183280765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894||95.0||||P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) computed using crossover model. Response = treatment + sequence + period + baseline diastolic blood pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.894
91692816|NCT03581123|183280831|OTHER|Omnibus test for equality of means across the 4 treatment groups||||||0.16||||||Threshold for significance: 0.025 (0.05/2)|ANOVA|Adjusted for site, time period (pre-COVID, COVID, post-COVID), risk for chronicity (medium vs. high), and baseline pain intensity||The null hypothesis here is that the means are equal across the 4 treatment groups. A significant p value indicates rejection of the null.||||0.16
91692817|NCT03581123|183280831|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline pain intensity.||0.0|-0.5|
91692818|NCT03581123|183280831|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline pain intensity.||0.3|-0.3|
91692819|NCT03581123|183280831|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline pain intensity.||0.1|-0.4|
91692820|NCT03581123|183280832|OTHER|Omnibus test for equality of means across the 4 treatment groups.||||||0.001||||||Threshold for significance: 0.025 (0.05/2)|ANOVA|Adjusted for site, time period (pre-COVID, COVID, post-COVID), risk for chronicity (medium vs. high), and baseline disability||The null hypothesis here is that the means are equal across the 4 treatment groups. A significant p value indicates rejection of the null.||||0.001
91692821|NCT03581123|183280832|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline RMDQ.||-0.5|-1.9|
91692822|NCT03581123|183280832|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline RMDQ.||0.4|-1.2|
91692823|NCT03581123|183280832|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline RMDQ.||-0.3|-1.9|
91692824|NCT03581123|183280833|OTHER|Omnibus test for equality of means across the 4 treatment groups.||||||0.006||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANOVA|Adjusted for site, time period (pre-COVID, COVID, post-COVID), risk for chronicity (medium vs. high), and baseline LBP impact score.||The null hypothesis here is that the means are equal across the 4 treatment groups. A significant p value indicates rejection of the null.||||0.006
91692825|NCT03581123|183280833|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline LBP impact score.||-0.6|-2.7|
91692826|NCT03581123|183280833|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline LBP impact score.||1.0|-1.5|
91692827|NCT03581123|183280833|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline LBP impact score.||-0.0|-2.5|
91692828|NCT03581123|183280835|OTHER|Estimation (percent difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-11|
91692829|NCT03581123|183280835|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||5|-7|
91692830|NCT03581123|183280835|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|2.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||2|-13|
91692831|NCT03581123|183280836|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-7|-23|
91692832|NCT03581123|183280836|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|2.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||2|-20|
91692833|NCT03581123|183280836|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-9.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-9|-27|
91692834|NCT03581123|183280837|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-10.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-10|-23|
91723211|NCT01149785|183340096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|328.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|296.42|363.63||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||363.63|296.42|
91723212|NCT01149785|183340099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|144.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.42|164.33||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||164.33|126.42|
91723213|NCT01149785|183340102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|519.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|460.42|586.5||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib metabolite (PF-06260182) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||586.50|460.42|
91723214|NCT01149785|183340103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|516.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|457.88|583.72||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib metabolite (PF-06260182) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||583.72|457.88|
91723215|NCT01149785|183340105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|161.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.09|182.09||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||182.09|143.09|
91723216|NCT00817063|183340109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|5.62|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||5.62|2.55|<0.001
91723217|NCT00817063|183340109|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|31.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||31.7|18.0|<0.001
91723218|NCT00817063|183340110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-17.85|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||-17.85|-30.40|<0.001
91723219|NCT00817063|183340111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|6.07|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||6.07|2.71|<0.001
91723220|NCT00817063|183340111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|32.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||32.3|18.7|<0.001
91723221|NCT00817063|183340112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-13.73|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||-13.73|-31.00|<0.001
91723222|NCT00817063|183340113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.047
91723223|NCT00817063|183340114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.068
91723224|NCT00817063|183340115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91723225|NCT00817063|183340124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.489||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|1.204||The analysis of covariance model includes treatment, age at Baseline, gender, menopausal status of females, baseline BMD score and duration of treatment exposure (\<12weeks, \>=12 weeks) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD||1.204|-0.226|0.179
91723226|NCT00817063|183340124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.497||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|1.071||The analysis of covariance model includes treatment, age at Baseline, gender, menopausal status of females, baseline BMD score and duration of treatment exposure (\<12weeks, \>=12 weeks) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Femur BMD||1.071|-0.077|0.089
91723227|NCT03439514|183340132|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.936||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.246|34.118||Two-sided p-value|Van Elteren test||The Week 24 change from baseline in 6MWT between PF 07265803 and placebo was estimated using the stratified HL median difference, considering only participants who survived 24 weeks.|||34.118|-24.246|0.818
91723228|NCT03439514|183340138|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.13|0.2257
91723229|NCT03439514|183340139|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.63|||Log Rank|||||4.63|0.30|0.8370
91723230|NCT02903914|183340245|OTHER|||||||0.0731|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.0731
91723231|NCT02903914|183340245|OTHER||pairwise geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.784|1.11||||||||1.110|0.784|
91723232|NCT02903914|183340245|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.074|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.271||||||||1.271|0.908|
91723233|NCT02903914|183340245|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.034|1.463||||||||1.463|1.034|
91723234|NCT02903914|183340246|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1496
91723235|NCT02903914|183340247|OTHER|||||||0.2867|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.2867
91723236|NCT02903914|183340247|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.23||||||||1.230|0.825|
91723237|NCT02903914|183340247|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.892|1.311||||||||1.311|0.892|
91723238|NCT02903914|183340247|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.234|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.011|1.507||||||||1.507|1.011|
91723239|NCT02903914|183340248|OTHER|||||||0.6167|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.6167
91723240|NCT02903914|183340248|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.255||||||||1.255|0.820|
91723241|NCT02903914|183340248|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.281||||||||1.281|0.849|
91723242|NCT02903914|183340248|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.447||||||||1.447|0.945|
91723243|NCT02903914|183340252|OTHER|||||||0.0745|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.0745
91723244|NCT02903914|183340252|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.341||||||||1.341|0.947|
91723245|NCT02903914|183340252|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.18||||||||1.180|0.833|
91723246|NCT02903914|183340252|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.064|1.486||||||||1.486|1.064|
91723247|NCT02903914|183340253|OTHER|||||||0.0518|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0518
91723248|NCT02903914|183340254|OTHER|||||||0.1723|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1723
91723249|NCT02903914|183340254|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.941|1.42||||||||1.420|0.941|
91864910|NCT05838027|183619687|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|6.8||||||||6.80|-1.35|
91864911|NCT05838027|183619688|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.36||||||||0.36|-1.74|
91864912|NCT05237284|183619689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CAFS at Week 24 was analyzed using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test to compare mean scores between the treatment groups at Week 24.||||0.6999
91864913|NCT05237284|183619692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.35|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, and baseline ALSFRS-R score-by-visit interaction.||1.350|-0.310|0.2182
91864914|NCT05237284|183619693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.419||||0.8134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.075|3.914|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline SVC, baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, baseline NfL-by-visit interaction, and baseline SVC-by-visit interaction.||3.914|-3.075|0.8134
91864915|NCT05237284|183619694|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the LS Geometric Mean Ratios|0.961||||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.027|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, log transformed baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, and log transformed baseline NfL-by-visit interaction.||1.027|0.899|0.2356
91723250|NCT02903914|183340254|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|1.198||||||||1.198|0.794|
91723251|NCT02903914|183340254|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.233|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.503||||||||1.503|1.012|
91864916|NCT05237284|183619695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.005||||0.9565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|0.183|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline megascore, baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, baseline NfL-by-visit interaction and baseline megascore-by-visit interaction.||0.183|-0.193|0.9565
91864917|NCT05237284|183619700|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.414||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|0.878|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline serum neurofilament light chain (NfL), disease duration-by-visit interaction, baseline NfL-by-visit interaction and baseline ALSFRS-R score-by-visit interaction.||0.878|-1.706|0.5289
91864918|NCT05237284|183619701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, randomization strata of the geographic region of the study site, ALS onset region (bulbar or other areas), use of riluzole (yes or no), use of edaravone (yes or no), use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol (yes or no), disease duration (from first symptom onset to the screening visit), baseline ALSFRS-R score and baseline NfL.||||0.1830
91864919|NCT06193070|183619723|OTHER|A one-tailed paired t-test was run to examine within subject mean difference on the cancer nutrition information beliefs scale pre- and post-game.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold was set at alpha \< 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|A paired samples t-test was run on pre- and post-game mean scores within subjects.||All participants were exposed to the intervention, and pre- and post-game scores within subject were examined.||||<.001
91864920|NCT03580356|183619752|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.029|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.183|25.615|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||25.615|3.183|<.0001
91864921|NCT03580356|183619752|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.926||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.319|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.319|0.650|0.6646
91864922|NCT03580356|183619752|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.508|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.058|32.638|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||32.638|4.058|<.0001
91864923|NCT03580356|183619752|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio, log|1.181||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.667|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.667|0.836|0.1730
91864924|NCT03580356|183619753|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.554|-7.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||-7.439|-12.554|<.0001
91864925|NCT03580356|183619753|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.392|2.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||2.221|-1.392|0.6735
91723252|NCT02903914|183340255|OTHER|||||||0.1705|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1705
91723253|NCT02903914|183340255|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.863|1.359||||||||1.359|0.863|
91723254|NCT02903914|183340255|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.719|1.132||||||||1.132|0.719|
91723255|NCT02903914|183340255|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.212|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.554||||||||1.554|0.945|
91723256|NCT02903914|183340259|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.057||||0.7702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.753|1.483|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.483|0.753|0.7702
91723257|NCT02903914|183340259|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.012||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|1.346|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.346|0.762|0.9384
91723258|NCT02903914|183340259|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.07||||0.6733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.809|1.415|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.415|0.809|0.6733
91723259|NCT02903914|183340259|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.238||||0.3456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.847|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.847|0.830|0.3456
91723260|NCT02903914|183340260|OTHER|||||||0.0441|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.0441
91723261|NCT02903914|183340260|OTHER|||||||0.4092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.4092
91723262|NCT02903914|183340260|OTHER|||||||0.7748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.7748
91723263|NCT02903914|183340260|OTHER|||||||0.1948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.1948
91723264|NCT02903914|183340261|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.92||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.363|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.363|0.620|0.7050
91723265|NCT02903914|183340261|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.929||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|1.31|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.310|0.658|0.7030
91723266|NCT02903914|183340261|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.999||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.725|1.377|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.377|0.725|0.9952
91723267|NCT02903914|183340261|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.742||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.394|1.397|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.397|0.394|0.4012
91723268|NCT02903914|183340262|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.992||||0.9623|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.729|1.349|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = formulation)||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||1.349|0.729|0.9623
91723269|NCT02903914|183340263|OTHER|||||||0.754|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||||0.7540
91723270|NCT02903914|183340264|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.951||||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.718|1.261|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||1.261|0.718|0.7514
91723271|NCT02903914|183340265|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.954||||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.712|1.277|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = formulation)||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||1.277|0.712|0.7707
91723272|NCT03487445|183340292|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis comprised a 2-step testing strategy. The first test, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 50% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<50%) and is reported below. The second step for the Selatogrel 8 mg is described in statistical analysis 2: In this second analysis the subsequent null hypothesis of treatment effect less or equal to 85% was tested for the 8 mg dose.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 50% vs. H1: p \> 50%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||<0.001
91723273|NCT03487445|183340292|SUPERIORITY|This statistical analysis reports the second of the 2-step testing strategy. This second test for the 8 mg Selatogrel dose, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 85% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<85%).||||||0.142||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% vs. H1: p \> 85%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, an overall level of 0.05 and adjusted for multiplicity using the Bonferroni approach.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||0.142
91723274|NCT03487445|183340292|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis comprised a 2-step testing strategy. The first test, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 50% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<50%) and is reported below. The second step for the Selatogrel 16 mg is described in statistical analysis 4: In this second analysis the subsequent null hypothesis of treatment effect less or equal to 85% was tested for the 16 mg dose.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 50% vs. H1: p \> 50%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||<0.0001
91723275|NCT03487445|183340292|SUPERIORITY|This statistical analysis reports the second of the 2-step testing strategy. This second test for the 16 mg Selatogrel dose, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 85% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<85%).||||||0.009||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% vs. H1: p \> 85%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, an overall level of 0.05 and adjusted for multiplicity using the Bonferroni approach.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||0.009
91723276|NCT03487445|183340293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% versus H1: p \> 85%)|One-sided Z-test|||As per the main analysis (mFAS) the supporting analysis on the per-protocol set this analysis of treatment effect was conducted independently for each dose, i.e., 8 and 16 mg.||||0.2280
91723277|NCT03487445|183340293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% versus H1: p \> 85%)|One-sided Z-test|||As per the main analysis (mFAS) the supporting analysis on the per-protocol set this analysis of treatment effect was conducted independently for each dose, i.e., 8 and 16 mg.||||0.0201
91723278|NCT00373672|183340315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model with time (baseline, 6 weeks) as the within-subjects factor and treatment group (armodafinil, placebo) as the between-subjects factor.||||<0.016
91723279|NCT04132050|183340316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent of Participants|36.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|59.3|||Fisher Exact||"The difference in the achievement rate of Stable platelet response (= platelet count of ≥ 50000/μL at 4 or more of the 6 visits from Weeks 14 to 24) between two groups and its two-sided 95% CI were calculated."|||59.3|3.1|0.030
91723280|NCT06717399|183340372|OTHER|The number of participants (n=15) was calculated using an effect size of 0.89. This effect size was based on a randomized clinical trial utilizing a structured mindfulness meditation program on moderate sleep disturbances in older adults (Black et al. 2015). A power of 0.8 and a significance level of 0.05 was utilized to calculate the sample size, a minimum of 12 participants is required to demonstrate significance in this study. To account for 20% attrition total participants needed is 15.||||||0.00058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis:~● There will not be a change in sleep quality after participation in eight mindfulness meditation sessions as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index."||||0.00058
91723281|NCT06717399|183340373|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91723282|NCT03043573|183340375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7011||||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8605|30.4583|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||30.4583|-31.8605|0.9644
91723283|NCT03043573|183340375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4595||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3472|37.2661|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||37.2661|-32.3472|0.8880
91723284|NCT03043573|183340375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5119||||0.9773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5024|35.4785|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||35.4785|-36.5024|0.9773
91723285|NCT03043573|183340375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6667||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0598|78.3931|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 52||78.3931|-47.0598|0.6173
91723286|NCT03043573|183340376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1302||||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5767|4.8371|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||4.8371|-2.5767|0.5454
91723287|NCT03043573|183340376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9618||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8038|6.7275|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||6.7275|-0.8038|0.1212
91723288|NCT03043573|183340376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.095||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7476|4.9377|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||4.9377|-2.7476|0.5710
91723289|NCT03043573|183340376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5524||||0.4377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5256|2.4209|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||2.4209|-5.5256|0.4377
91723290|NCT03043573|183340376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8937||||0.6813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4439|5.2312|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 36||5.2312|-3.4439|0.6813
91723291|NCT03043573|183340376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9457||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2234|7.1148|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.1148|-1.2234|0.1620
91723292|NCT03043573|183340377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0319||||0.9813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6668|2.7305|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||2.7305|-2.6668|0.9813
91864926|NCT03580356|183619753|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.313|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.664|-8.518|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||-8.518|-13.664|<.0001
91723293|NCT03043573|183340377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0564||||0.9735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4397|3.3268|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||3.3268|-3.4397|0.9735
91723294|NCT03043573|183340377|SUPERIORITY|Week 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0611||||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1885|4.3107|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.3107|-2.1885|0.5164
91723295|NCT03043573|183340377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0651|1.0651|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||1.0651|-5.0651|0.1970
91723296|NCT03043573|183340377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.362||||0.8342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0907|3.8146|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 36||3.8146|-3.0907|0.8342
91692835|NCT03581123|183280837|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-7.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-7|-22|
91692836|NCT03581123|183280837|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-9.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-9|-24|
91692837|NCT03581123|183280838|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-3.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-13|
91692838|NCT03581123|183280838|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||1|-12|
91692839|NCT03581123|183280838|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-15|
91692840|NCT03581123|183280845|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-4.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-4|-21|
91692841|NCT03581123|183280845|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
91692842|NCT03581123|183280845|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
91692843|NCT03581123|183280846|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-12.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-12|-28|
91692844|NCT03581123|183280846|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|6.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||6|-13|
91692845|NCT03581123|183280846|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-7.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-7|-26|
91692846|NCT03581123|183280847|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-15|
91692847|NCT03581123|183280847|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
91692848|NCT03581123|183280847|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
91692849|NCT03581123|183280848|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-5.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-5|-19|
91692850|NCT03581123|183280848|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-1.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-16|
91692851|NCT03581123|183280848|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|1.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||1|-16|
91864927|NCT03580356|183619753|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.489|1.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||1.128|-2.489|0.2305
91864928|NCT03580356|183619755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.281|-2.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults only||-2.929|-5.281|<.0001
91864929|NCT03580356|183619755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.5943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.928|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults only||0.928|-0.727|0.5943
91864930|NCT03580356|183619755|SUPERIORITY|Adults only|LS Mean|-4.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.678|-3.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||||-3.314|-5.678|<.0001
91723297|NCT03043573|183340377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2667||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2424|4.7758|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||4.7758|-2.2424|0.4717
91723298|NCT03043573|183340378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9318||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8176|5.9539|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||5.9539|-11.8176|0.5130
91723299|NCT03043573|183340378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4835||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2306|7.2967|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||7.2967|-15.2306|0.4835
91723300|NCT03043573|183340378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.156||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3357|6.0238|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||6.0238|-16.3357|0.3590
91723301|NCT03043573|183340378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1083||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1598|15.3765|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||15.3765|-13.1598|0.8760
91723302|NCT03043573|183340379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0606||||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1841|0.0628|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails A Baseline||0.0628|-0.1841|0.3248
91723303|NCT03043573|183340379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6953||||0.3615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2261|0.8354|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails A - Week 12||0.8354|-2.2261|0.3615
91723304|NCT03043573|183340379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9917||||0.5046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9664|3.9498|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Baseline||3.9498|-1.9664|0.5046
91723305|NCT03043573|183340379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0607||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2821|0.1607|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Week 12||0.1607|-4.2821|0.0679
91723306|NCT03043573|183340379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8929||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1825|0.3968|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Week 24||0.3968|-2.1825|0.1669
91723307|NCT03043573|183340379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4286||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8115|0.9543|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Week 52||0.9543|-3.8115|0.2178
91723308|NCT03043573|183340380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.558||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3747|4.4908|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||4.4908|-1.3747|0.2932
91723309|NCT03043573|183340380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7043||||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4659|4.8744|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||4.8744|-1.4659|0.2871
91723310|NCT03043573|183340380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9167||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4737|4.307|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||4.3070|-2.4737|0.5910
91723311|NCT03043573|183340380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0238||||0.6128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0469|2.9993|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9993|-5.0469|0.6128
91864931|NCT03580356|183619755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.2467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults only||0.540|-1.120|0.2467
91723312|NCT03043573|183340380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9276||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0231|5.8783|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 36||5.8783|-2.0231|0.3326
91723313|NCT03043573|183340380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0741||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8522|6.0004|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||6.0004|-1.8522|0.2935
91723314|NCT00639379|183340396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.65|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|98.98|0.436|0.967|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is senofilcon A toric / alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for proportion of eyes with lens orientation within 5 degrees.||0.967|0.436|
91723315|NCT00639379|183340397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.65|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.416|||||TWO_SIDED|98.98|0.68|1.416|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is senofilcon A toric / alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for proportion of eyes with lens stability within 5 degrees.||1.416|0.680|
91723316|NCT00639379|183340398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0921|||TWO_SIDED|98.98|-0.0517|0.1868|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for lens comfort.||0.1868|-0.0517|
91723317|NCT00639379|183340399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08566|||TWO_SIDED|98.98|-0.2337|-0.01185|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for subjective vision.||-0.01185|-0.2337|
91723318|NCT00639379|183340400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01265|||TWO_SIDED|98.98|-0.01267|0.01986|||||The mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric by having a lower level of corneal staining.||0.01986|-0.01267|
91723319|NCT01033942|183340402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6983||||||The p-value is for the difference in treatment (TX) groups overall. The interaction between TX group and study time that tests whether the TX groups differed over time could not be tested due to small no. of subjects that missed visits during study.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6983
91723320|NCT01033942|183340403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8722|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8722
91723321|NCT01033942|183340404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6921||||||Not all subjects answered every question.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6921
91864932|NCT03580356|183619757|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.955|6.063|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||6.063|1.955|<.0001
91864933|NCT03580356|183619757|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.838||||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.167|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.167|0.602|0.8524
91723322|NCT01033942|183340405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4655||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4655
91723323|NCT01033942|183340406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91723324|NCT01033942|183340407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2297
91723325|NCT01033942|183340408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1886||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1886
91723326|NCT01033942|183340409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1908|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1908
91794813|NCT02398409|183468720|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared to BL||||.2358
91794814|NCT02398409|183468721|SUPERIORITY|adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Median Difference (Net)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.1107|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to BL||||.1107
91794815|NCT02398409|183468721|SUPERIORITY|adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Median Difference (Net)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.0562|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months compared to BL||||.0562
91864934|NCT03580356|183619757|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.577|8.004|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||8.004|2.577|<.0001
91864935|NCT03580356|183619757|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.106||||0.2764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.540|0.794|0.2764
91723327|NCT01033942|183340410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2240
91723328|NCT01033942|183340411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1538||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1538
91723329|NCT01033942|183340412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2151||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2151
91864936|NCT03580356|183619758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.389|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.235|1.561|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.561|1.235|<.0001
91864937|NCT03580356|183619758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.029||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.111|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.111|0.952|0.2369
91723330|NCT01033942|183340413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2809||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2809
91794816|NCT02398409|183468721|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.8579|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared to BL||||.8579
91794817|NCT00708071|183468736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.25||||0.143||95.0|-0.04|0.49|||McNemar||Difference in Proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.49|-0.04|0.143
91723331|NCT01033942|183340414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1850
91723332|NCT01033942|183340415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2366||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2366
91723333|NCT01033942|183340416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4089||||||Not all subjects answered every question.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4089
91723334|NCT01033942|183340417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91723335|NCT01033942|183340418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91723336|NCT01033942|183340419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91723337|NCT01033942|183340420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7007
91723338|NCT01033942|183340421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91723339|NCT01033942|183340422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91723340|NCT01033942|183340423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8934|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8934
91723341|NCT01033942|183340424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91723342|NCT01033942|183340425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91723343|NCT01033942|183340426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91723344|NCT01033942|183340427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4003
91723345|NCT01033942|183340428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6462|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6462
91723346|NCT01033942|183340429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8505|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8505
91723347|NCT01033942|183340437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7434
91723348|NCT01033942|183340438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6153|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6153
91723349|NCT01033942|183340439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2000
91723350|NCT01033942|183340440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5265|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5265
91723351|NCT01033942|183340441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2559|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2559
91723352|NCT01033942|183340442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3846
91723353|NCT01033942|183340443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5133|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5133
91723354|NCT01033942|183340444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1661
91794818|NCT00708071|183468737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.48|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.48|0.12|
91864938|NCT03580356|183619758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.268|1.603|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.603|1.268|<.0001
91864939|NCT03580356|183619758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.056||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.14|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.140|0.978|0.0830
91723355|NCT01033942|183340445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0729
91723356|NCT01033942|183340446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1912|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1912
91723357|NCT01033942|183340447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2829|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2829
91723358|NCT01033942|183340448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2685
91723359|NCT01033942|183340449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2342
91723360|NCT01033942|183340450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7314
91723361|NCT01033942|183340451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3770
91723362|NCT01033942|183340452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7004
91864940|NCT05715528|183619760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.099||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.211||P-value calculated from stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factor as the strata.|Stratified Log-rank test||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factor as a covariate.|||1.211|0.997|0.0681
91723363|NCT01033942|183340453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4668|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4668
91723364|NCT01033942|183340454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7573|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7573
91723365|NCT01033942|183340455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0356|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0356
91723366|NCT01033942|183340456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3176|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3176
91723367|NCT01033942|183340457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1348
91723368|NCT01033942|183340458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0420
91723369|NCT01033942|183340459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4906|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4906
91723370|NCT01033942|183340460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0544|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0544
91723371|NCT01033942|183340461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5645|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5645
91864941|NCT05715528|183619764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.147|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value calculated from stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factor as the strata.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factor as a covariate.|||1.147|0.935|0.5558
91723372|NCT01033942|183340462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7847|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7847
91723373|NCT01033942|183340463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0288|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0288
91723374|NCT01033942|183340464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0945|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0945
91723375|NCT01033942|183340465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3884|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3884
91723376|NCT01033942|183340466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2235|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2235
91723377|NCT01033942|183340467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0467|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0467
91723378|NCT01033942|183340468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6331|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6331
91723379|NCT01033942|183340469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0948|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0948
91723380|NCT01033942|183340470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5826|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5826
91723381|NCT01033942|183340471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0087
91723382|NCT01033942|183340472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1934
91723383|NCT01033942|183340473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2146|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2146
91723384|NCT01033942|183340474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5317|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5317
91723385|NCT01033942|183340475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1733|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1733
91723386|NCT01033942|183340476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1747|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1747
91723387|NCT01033942|183340477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1203|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1203
91723388|NCT01033942|183340478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8243|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8243
91723389|NCT01033942|183340479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6202|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6202
91723390|NCT01033942|183340480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8351
91723391|NCT01033942|183340481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0484|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0484
91723392|NCT01033942|183340482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4207|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4207
91723393|NCT01033942|183340483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2187|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2187
91723394|NCT01033942|183340484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5369|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5369
91723395|NCT01033942|183340485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1524|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1524
91723396|NCT01033942|183340486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4700
91723397|NCT01033942|183340487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4686|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4686
91723398|NCT01033942|183340488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3791|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3791
91723399|NCT01033942|183340489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7374|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7374
91723400|NCT01033942|183340490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9363|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9363
91723401|NCT01033942|183340491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6267|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6267
91723402|NCT01033942|183340492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6434
91723403|NCT01033942|183340493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8582|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8582
91723404|NCT01033942|183340494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5778
91723405|NCT01033942|183340495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9881|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9881
91723406|NCT01033942|183340496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9771|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9771
91723407|NCT01033942|183340497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2301|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2301
91723408|NCT01115231|183340500|OTHER|multivariable logistic regression model|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.42||||||||4.42|0.93|
91723409|NCT02493855|183340521|SUPERIORITY|This study was an exploratory study to evaluate the effect of ribavirin on the slope of the second phase of HCV RNA decline in participants who received the 3-direct-acting antiviral agent regimen.||||||0.311|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.311
91723410|NCT02493855|183340521|SUPERIORITY|This study was an exploratory study to evaluate the effect of ribavirin on the slope of the second phase of HCV RNA decline in participants who received the 3-direct-acting antiviral agent regimen.||||||0.561|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.561
91794819|NCT00708071|183468738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.111|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.32|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.32|-0.11|
91723411|NCT02299167|183340522|OTHER|The ED50% of spinal bupivacaine was estimated using a modified Dixon's up-and-down method|Mean (95% CI) of effective dose in 90% (|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.1|||||The ED50% of spinal bupivacaine was estimated using a modified Dixon's up-and-down method|Descriptive statistics were considered to calculate the mathematic mean (SD) of demographic, surgical, and other postoperative continuous data and to calculate the median (range) of sensory and motor block levels, as well as the degree of patient and surgeon satisfaction||2.1|1.7|
91723412|NCT04868682|183340555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided||The parameter estimate is the difference in means (treatment vs. control) during the first 180 nights following randomization.|||1.91|0.65|.0001
91723413|NCT04868682|183340556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 6-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||0.87|-2.29|0.378
91794820|NCT00708071|183468739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.18|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.18|-0.24|
91794821|NCT00708071|183468740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.21|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.21|-0.21|
91794822|NCT00708071|183468741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.24|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.24|-0.17|
91794823|NCT00708071|183468742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.645
91794824|NCT00708071|183468743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.103
91794825|NCT00708071|183468744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.833
91864942|NCT05715528|183619765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6469|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.6469
91723414|NCT04868682|183340557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 6-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-1.27|-4.09|<0.001
91794826|NCT00708071|183468745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.501
91864943|NCT05715528|183619766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495||||0.5581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|5.464|||Log-rank test|P value was based on log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression.|||5.464|0.045|0.5581
91864944|NCT05715528|183619768|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.02||||0.4254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||p-value was from Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline viral load and randomization strata as covariates.|MMRM||95% CI was from MMRM with baseline viral load and randomization strata as covariates.|||0.08|-0.03|0.4254
91723415|NCT04868682|183340558|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 6-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||1.18|-1.40|0.865
91794827|NCT00708071|183468746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.247
91794828|NCT00708071|183468747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.715||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.715
91794829|NCT00708071|183468749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.754
91794830|NCT00708071|183468750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.388
91794831|NCT00708071|183468751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.234
91794832|NCT00708071|183468752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||90.0||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.688
91864945|NCT05715528|183619769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.256||P-value calculated from stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factor as the strata.|Stratified Log-rank test||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factor as a covariate.|||1.256|1.032|0.0015
91794833|NCT00708071|183468753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.625
91794834|NCT00708071|183468754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.688
91794835|NCT00708071|183468755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||1.000
91794836|NCT00708071|183468756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.521
91794837|NCT00708071|183468757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||90.0||||alpha = 10%|Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|||||||0.324
91794838|NCT00708071|183468758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.661
91794839|NCT00708071|183468759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||1.000
91794840|NCT00708071|183468760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.699
91794841|NCT00708071|183468763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|alpha = 5%||||||0.0010
91794842|NCT00708071|183468765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.182||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.34|||McNemar's test of paired proportions|Alpha = 5%|Difference in Proportions = (Number of SoC Participants with Hematoma/Seroma) - (Number of FS VH S/D 4 Participants with Hematoma/Seroma)|||0.34|0.04|0.014
91794843|NCT02140775|183468771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1||A Chi-Square test was conducted between the treatment groups and the dichotomous outcome of successful achievement of employment goal.||||.602
91864946|NCT05715528|183619770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6978|||||||Fisher's exact test|P-value was from the Fisher's exact test.||||||0.6978
91864947|NCT05715528|183619775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5707|||||||Fisher's exact test|P-value was from the Fisher's exact test.||||||0.5707
91723416|NCT00063622|183340559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Given the fact that there were two planned primary comparisons, Bonferroni-adjusted P values of less than 0.025 were considered to indicate statistical significance.|Mantel Haenszel|||The proportions in each active-treatment group (pioglitazone and vitamin E) in whom there was improvement in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis were compared with the proportion of subjects in the placebo group in whom there was improvement.||||0.001
91723417|NCT00063622|183340559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Given the fact that there were two planned primary comparisons, Bonferroni-adjusted P values of less than 0.025 were considered to indicate statistical significance.|Mantel Haenszel|||The proportions in each active-treatment group (pioglitazone and vitamin E) in whom there was improvement in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis were compared with the proportion of subjects in the placebo group in whom there was improvement.||||0.04
91723418|NCT00063622|183340560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
91794844|NCT02140775|183468772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-7.75|.066
91864948|NCT03331835|183619776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.93|54.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|95% CI and p-value are derived from CMH analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg).||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||54.79|30.93|<0.001
91864949|NCT03331835|183619777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.81|56.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|95% CI and p-value are derived from CMH analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg)||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||56.71|32.81|<0.001
91723419|NCT00063622|183340560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91723420|NCT00063622|183340561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91723421|NCT00063622|183340561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91723422|NCT00063622|183340562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91723423|NCT00063622|183340562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91723424|NCT00063622|183340563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91723425|NCT00063622|183340563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91723426|NCT00063622|183340564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
91723427|NCT00063622|183340564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91723428|NCT02202616|183340569|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.21|||Descriptive Statistics with 95% CI|The mean change from baseline along with the 95% confidence interval used to assess the precision of the estimate||||0.21|0.14|
91723429|NCT02202616|183340570|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.17|||Descriptive Statistics with 95% CI|The mean change from baseline along with the 95% confidence interval used to assess the precision of the estimate||||0.17|0.11|
91723430|NCT02202616|183340571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.3|||Standard Descriptive Statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline and corresponding 95% confidence intervals will be displayed for each visit.||Week 4||2.30|1.74|
91723431|NCT02202616|183340571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|2.85|||Standard Descriptive Statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline and corresponding 95% confidence intervals will be displayed for each visit||Week 16||2.85|2.21|
91723432|NCT02202616|183340572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-4.3|||standard descriptive statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline to Week 4 along with the 95% confidence interval||Week 4||-4.3|-5.7|
91723433|NCT02202616|183340572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-5.7|||standard descriptive statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline to Week 4 along with the 95% confidence interval||Week 16||-5.7|-7.3|
91723434|NCT04327271|183340582|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -0.25% set as lower bound of 95% CI for the maximum mean difference between the proportion of cumulative AEs between control and 2wT arms to conclude that 2wT is non-inferior. This margin was set considering the average AE rate of 0.5% from routine SSA MC programs at scale, and assuming that 2wT increases AE ascertainment to 2.0%, similar to 1.9% of Zimbabwe RCT and the widely-accepted standard 2% AE rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|||||||With 10% loss to follow-up (LTFU), a sample size of 1104 men provides at least 80% power to rule out a decrease in AE ascertainment of more than 0.25% based on the lower bound of the one-sided 95% CI. The one tailed alpha was set 0.05.|||-.09|
91723435|NCT04327271|183340583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21|||Fisher Exact|||The mean number of in-person clinic visit, excluding non-study visits, were compared between the two arms using a t-test. The proportion of potential AEs was calculated as number of potential AE responses divided by the total number of daily responses (no AE and potential AE). A superiority test was performed on the safety outcomes using a two-sided 95% confidence interval and p-value using Fisher's exact test.||1.21|1.03|0.001
91723436|NCT02320175|183340614|OTHER|We compared percent top-box experience ratings pre- vs. post-intervention using a GEE chi-squared test for binary outcomes, clustered by site. Top-box score was calculated as the percentage of participants that gave the top-most response for the given survey item (e.g., 5=Extremely; 5=Excellent). Missing data was accounted for through use of multiple imputations appropriate for missing data in clustered studies.|||||<|0.05|||||||GEE chi-squared test for binary outcomes|||||||<.05
91723437|NCT04871074|183340692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||DeLong's Test|||||||.74
91723438|NCT04871074|183340693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||DeLong's Test|||||||.66
91723439|NCT04871074|183340694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model, fixed effects coefficient test with a Wald test||||||.135
91723440|NCT04871074|183340698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects estimate, Wald test||||||.39
91794845|NCT02140775|183468773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|12.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.09|-18.59|.674
91794846|NCT01858636|183468804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|A one-sided Fisher's exact test was performed with a 95% upper confidence bound of 5.5%||Ho: Pt ≥ 8% Ha: Pt \< 8%, where Pt is the proportion of deployed subjects with a protocol-defined vascular complication.||||0.0029
91723441|NCT02516241|183340758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|98.66|0.688|1.063||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.063|0.688|0.0751
91723442|NCT02516241|183340759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|96.99|0.695|1.139||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.139|0.695|0.3039
91723443|NCT02516241|183340760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.169||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.169|0.830|0.8637
91723444|NCT02516241|183340761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|0.928||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||0.928|0.589|0.0091
91723445|NCT02516241|183340762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.359||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.359|0.799|0.7599
91723446|NCT02516241|183340762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.4424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.175||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|monotherapy as reference.||1.175|0.692|0.4424
91794847|NCT01858636|183468805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|A one-sided Fisher's exact test was performed with a 95% lower confidence bound of 96.4%||Ho: St ≤ 90% Ha: St \> 90%, where St is the proportion of deployed subjects achieving hemostasis within 5 minutes.||||<0.0001
91723447|NCT02516241|183340766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.304||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.304|0.931|0.2579
91723448|NCT02516241|183340766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.124|1.567||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.567|1.124|0.0008
91723449|NCT02516241|183340767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.091||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.091|0.705|0.2395
91794848|NCT01227564|183468811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.9538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.071||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.071|-0.075|0.9538
91794849|NCT01227564|183468811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.081||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 10 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.081|-0.070|0.8787
91864950|NCT03331835|183619778|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.78|55.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||55.84|31.78|<0.001
91692852|NCT04195685|183280868|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|14.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||14.4|7.0|<.0001
91692853|NCT04195685|183280869|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|14.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||14.0|4.9|<.0001
91864951|NCT03331835|183619779|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.76|42.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||42.10|20.76|<0.001
91864952|NCT03331835|183619780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|-1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||-1.33|-4.83|<0.001
91864953|NCT03331835|183619781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.03|-9.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||-9.68|-23.03|<0.001
91864954|NCT03331835|183619782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||-4.81|-13.00|<0.001
91864955|NCT03331835|183619786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-3.53|||ANCOVA|||The AUC was analysed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group, baseline weight group, and the baseline PSI total score as explanatory variables. Treatment groups are defined as randomised treatment.||-3.53|-6.31|<0.001
91864956|NCT03331835|183619787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint is analysed by using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups are defined as randomised treatment.||-0.82|-4.32|0.004
91864957|NCT03331835|183619788|SUPERIORITY|Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (\<=100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|40.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.75|53.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.16|28.75|<0.001
91864958|NCT03331835|183619789|SUPERIORITY|The endpoint was analysed by using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-3.24|0.028
91864959|NCT04204083|183619804|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91864960|NCT04204083|183619805|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91864961|NCT04204083|183619806|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91864962|NCT05552508|183619821|OTHER|||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All participants||||0.0327
91864963|NCT05552508|183619821|OTHER|||||||0.0359|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \>=4 mucus plugs||||0.0359
91864964|NCT05552508|183619821|OTHER|||||||0.1088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \<4 mucus plugs||||0.1088
91864965|NCT05552508|183619821|OTHER|||||||0.0391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Non-OCS-dependent participants||||0.0391
91864966|NCT05552508|183619822|OTHER|||||||0.0423|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0423
91864967|NCT05552508|183619823|OTHER|||||||0.9465|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9465
91864968|NCT05552508|183619824|OTHER|||||||0.3455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3455
91864969|NCT05552508|183619825|OTHER|||||||0.2484|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2484
91864970|NCT05552508|183619826|OTHER|||||||0.9405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9405
91864971|NCT05552508|183619827|OTHER|||||||0.6867|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6867
91864972|NCT05552508|183619828|OTHER|||||||0.7554|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7554
91864973|NCT03421340|183619912|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin of 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||exact|||||||0.029
91864974|NCT03421340|183619913|SUPERIORITY|Not powered|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.1||||||||4.1|-8|
91864975|NCT03421340|183619914|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|133.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.0|143.0||||||||143|120|
91864976|NCT03421340|183619915|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-7.5||||||||-7.5|-11.6|
91864977|NCT01199133|183619939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.01|||>|0.05||95.0|-0.41|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.41|> 0.05
91864978|NCT02575950|183619940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|-3.96|||ANCOVA|||Least square mean values and difference is from ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline total lesion count as covariate and participants as random effect. 100 simulations of monotone multiple imputation is performed. Summary statistics are found across these 100 simulations.||-3.96|-14.71|<.001
91864979|NCT04359654|183619988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91864980|NCT04359654|183619989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91723450|NCT02516241|183340767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.406||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.406|0.917|0.2431
91723451|NCT02516241|183340768|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.177|1.99||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.990|1.177|0.0014
91723452|NCT02516241|183340768|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.209||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|monotherapy as reference.||1.209|0.729|0.6236
91723453|NCT02516241|183340772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.998||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||0.998|0.683|0.0477
91723454|NCT02516241|183340772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.175||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.175|0.809|0.7885
91723455|NCT02516241|183340773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.901||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||0.901|0.549|0.0053
91723456|NCT02516241|183340773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.059||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.059|0.651|0.1336
91692854|NCT04195685|183280870|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|13.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||13.2|7.4|<.0001
91692855|NCT04195685|183280871|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|10.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||10.6|4.2|<.0001
91692856|NCT04195685|183280872|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-11.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-11.7|-53.3|0.0022
91692857|NCT04195685|183280873|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-19.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-19.4|-45.0|<.0001
91692858|NCT04195685|183280874|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-3.4|-11.1|0.0002
91692859|NCT04195685|183280875|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-3.4|-9.0|<.0001
91692860|NCT04195685|183280876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.5|-7.4|0.0033
91723457|NCT02516241|183340774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.391||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.391|0.772|0.8148
91723458|NCT02516241|183340774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.134||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|monotherapy as reference.||1.134|0.636|0.2684
91904192|NCT02234284|183703323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of COPD-related hospital visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.06|-0.32|.35
91692861|NCT04195685|183280877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||15.6|4.4|0.0005
91692862|NCT04195685|183280878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||9.2|3.5|<.0001
91692863|NCT04195685|183280879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|21.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||21.4|7.1|0.0001
91692864|NCT04195685|183280880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|99.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||99.2|36.9|<.0001
91692865|NCT00216125|183280881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.883
91692866|NCT03448419|183280883|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|-4.0||||0.4236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||6.0|-16.0|0.4236
91692867|NCT03448419|183280884|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|3.13||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.29|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||7.29|0.00|0.0893
91692868|NCT03448419|183280885|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (HL-estimate)|0.1||||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||0.40|-0.20|0.4702
91692869|NCT03448419|183280886|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|0.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||9.0|-9.0|0.9830
91692870|NCT03448419|183280887|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.31||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.09|||Mixed Model repeated Measures (MMRM)|Covariates: visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction. Unstructured covariance structure was used to model within-patient errors.||||-0.09|-0.53|0.0053
91692871|NCT03448419|183280888|OTHER|||||||0.6189|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.6189
91692872|NCT03448419|183280889|OTHER|||||||0.6672|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.6672
91692873|NCT03448419|183280890|OTHER|||||||0.5147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.5147
91723459|NCT02516241|183340775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.788||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.788|0.422|0.0005
91759980|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|9.03||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.03|-9.49|
91692874|NCT03448419|183280891|OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.8630
91692875|NCT03448419|183280892|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03|||Mixed Model repeated Measures (MMRM)|Covariates: NT-proBNP-by-visit interaction and visit-by-treatment interaction. Unstructured covariance structure to model within-patient errors.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio \[Empagliflozin/Placebo\] of relative change to baseline.|The endpoint 'relative change from baseline in NT-proBNP at Week 12' (after log-transformation) was evaluated using an MMRM analysis over time with baseline log-transformed NT-proBNP-by-visit interaction and visit-by-treatment interaction as covariates.Unstructured covariance structure was used to model within-patient errors.||1.03|0.81|0.1410
91794850|NCT01227564|183468811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.066||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg or ACC 10 µg + QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.066|-0.062|0.9544
91794851|NCT01227564|183468811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.112||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.112|-0.106|0.9550
91864981|NCT04359654|183619991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91864982|NCT04359654|183619992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported LS means are antilogs of the LS means estimated on the log scale.||||0.021
91864983|NCT03677141|183620028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|-4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.61|21.07||||||||21.07|-30.61|
91864984|NCT03926130|183620072|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.4|23.0|<0.000001
91864985|NCT03926130|183620073|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.7|18.8|<0.000001
91864986|NCT03926130|183620074|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|13.7|<0.000001
91864987|NCT03926130|183620075|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.1|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4|44.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.8|33.4|<0.000001
91864988|NCT03926130|183620075|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3||||0.513623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.3|-4.7|0.513623
91864989|NCT03926130|183620076|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.001431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|19.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.6|5.3|0.001431
91864990|NCT03926130|183620077|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.6|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.4|27.7|<0.000001
91864991|NCT03926130|183620077|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10%. We do not have power calculation in the SAP for this endpoint.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.8|||Z test|||||12.8|-1.4|<0.0001
91864992|NCT03926130|183620078|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.003414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.5|3.2|0.003414
91864993|NCT03926130|183620079|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||1.1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.24|0.000011
91692876|NCT04548193|183280896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.14||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|17.99|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||17.99|-5.72|0.28
91692877|NCT04548193|183280897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.38|0.06|.0054
91692878|NCT04548193|183280899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.65|0.24|.0098
91692879|NCT00630825|183280900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692880|NCT00630825|183280900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692881|NCT00630825|183280900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692882|NCT00630825|183280901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692883|NCT00630825|183280901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692884|NCT00630825|183280901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91864994|NCT03926130|183620080|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-2.01|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-2.42|<0.000001
91864995|NCT03926130|183620081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.6|18.9|<0.000001
91864996|NCT03926130|183620082|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.4|10.2|<0.000001
91864997|NCT03926130|183620083|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|31.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.8|18.2|<0.000001
91864998|NCT03926130|183620084|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.05|<0.000001
91864999|NCT03926130|183620085|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-1.22|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-1.48|<0.000001
91865000|NCT03926130|183620086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91865001|NCT03926130|183620087|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.732715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|-18.0|0.732715
91865002|NCT03926130|183620088|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|27.92|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.67|33.18|||ANCOVA|||||33.18|22.67|<0.000001
91692885|NCT00630825|183280902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91865003|NCT03926130|183620090|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6||||0.000213|TWO_SIDED|99.5|4.1|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.2|4.1|0.000213
91865004|NCT03926130|183620091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|99.5|13.1|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.7|13.1|<0.000001
91865005|NCT03583333|183620092|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for the difference in mortality (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was 12.5%.|Adjusted difference in percentage|5.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Adjusted differences and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||12.4|-1.5|0.024
91692886|NCT00630825|183280902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
91692887|NCT00630825|183280902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
91692888|NCT00630825|183280903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692889|NCT00630825|183280903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692890|NCT00630825|183280903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692891|NCT00630825|183280903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692892|NCT00630825|183280903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692893|NCT00630825|183280903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91723460|NCT02516241|183340775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.253|0.485||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.485|0.253|<0.0001
91723461|NCT02516241|183340776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.394||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||1.394|0.639|0.7708
91723462|NCT02516241|183340776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.61||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.610|0.268|<0.0001
91723463|NCT02516241|183340777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.406||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.406|0.135|<0.0001
91723464|NCT02516241|183340777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.566||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|monotherapy as reference.||1.566|0.469|0.6195
91865006|NCT03583333|183620092|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentage|5.2||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Adjusted differences and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.||||12.4|-1.5|0.938
91692894|NCT00630825|183280903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692895|NCT00630825|183280903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692896|NCT00630825|183280903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692897|NCT00630825|183280904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692898|NCT00630825|183280904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692899|NCT00630825|183280904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91692900|NCT00630825|183280904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.904
91692901|NCT00630825|183280904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.||||||0.138
91865007|NCT03583333|183620093|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.9|||||Adjusted differences and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||14.9|-8.7|
91723465|NCT02516241|183340779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.759||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.759|0.410|0.0002
91723466|NCT02516241|183340779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|0.5||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.500|0.267|<0.0001
91723467|NCT02516241|183340780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.291||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||1.291|0.590|0.4959
91723468|NCT02516241|183340780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.679||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.679|0.305|0.0001
91723469|NCT02516241|183340781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.448||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.448|0.160|<0.0001
91723470|NCT02516241|183340781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.836||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|monotherapy as reference.||1.836|0.623|0.8074
91794852|NCT01227564|183468811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.8874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.105||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 10 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.105|-0.121|0.8874
91794853|NCT01227564|183468811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.095||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg or ACC 10 µg + QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.095|-0.099|0.9595
91723471|NCT02516241|183340782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.802||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.802|0.432|0.0008
91723472|NCT02516241|183340782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.512||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.512|0.270|<0.0001
91723473|NCT02516241|183340783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.394||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||1.394|0.639|0.7717
91723474|NCT02516241|183340783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.682||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.682|0.303|0.0001
91865008|NCT03583333|183620094|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|16.8|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||16.8|-12.4|
91865009|NCT03583333|183620095|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|14.3|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||14.3|-7.6|
91723475|NCT02516241|183340784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.439||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.439|0.151|<0.0001
91692902|NCT00630825|183280904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.729
91692903|NCT00630825|183280906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 4 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91794854|NCT01227564|183468811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.064||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.064|-0.164|0.3826
91865010|NCT03583333|183620096|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|6.6|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||6.6|-15.8|
91692904|NCT00630825|183280906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 4 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692905|NCT00630825|183280906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||||||Treatment comparison at 4 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.113
91692906|NCT00630825|183280906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 8 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692907|NCT00630825|183280906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 8 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692908|NCT00630825|183280906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 8 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692909|NCT00630825|183280906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91692910|NCT00630825|183280906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91692911|NCT00630825|183280906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91865011|NCT03583333|183620097|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|13.1|||||Adjusted differences and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||13.1|-17.8|
91865012|NCT03583333|183620098|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|19.8|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||19.8|-16.5|
91692912|NCT00630825|183280907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91692913|NCT00630825|183280907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
91692914|NCT00630825|183280907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
91692915|NCT01011816|183280916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null: No differenc between the percent success of Saline and BIOSTAT BIOLOGX||||0.52
91692916|NCT01081769|183280919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0191|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0191
91692917|NCT01081769|183280933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0323|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0323
91692918|NCT00427648|183280938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||null hypothesis - no difference in average number of voids between the 2 groups, power calculation estimated 40 participants needed per arm to show a 2 void difference between lidocaine and saline placebo.||||0.588
91692919|NCT00427648|183280939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.617
91692920|NCT00427648|183280940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.441
91692921|NCT00427648|183280941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.189
91865013|NCT03583333|183620099|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|14.4|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||14.4|-19.8|
91865014|NCT03583333|183620100|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.6|||||Difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||10.6|-6.5|
91692922|NCT00427648|183280942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.342
91692923|NCT00427648|183280943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.802
91692924|NCT00427648|183280944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.366
91692925|NCT01575834|183280959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.47||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.47|0.15|< 0.001
91692926|NCT01575834|183280960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.39||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.39|0.15|< 0.001
91865015|NCT03583333|183620101|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.4|||||Difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||1.4|-10.7|
91723476|NCT02516241|183340784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.759||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|monotherapy as reference.||1.759|0.556|0.9692
91723477|NCT02516241|183340792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.59||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||3.59|-0.6|0.1617
91723478|NCT02516241|183340792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|4.29||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||4.29|-0.07|0.0578
91723479|NCT02516241|183340792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|4.32||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||4.32|-0.91|0.2003
91723480|NCT02516241|183340792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.0||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||6.00|0.57|0.0178
91692927|NCT01575834|183280961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.89|0.46|0.008
91692928|NCT01575834|183280962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.05||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.05|0.53|0.096
91692929|NCT01575834|183280963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.97|0.57|0.057
91692930|NCT01575834|183280964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.87|0.52|0.096
91692931|NCT01575834|183280965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.02||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.02|0.44|0.096
91692932|NCT01575834|183280966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.91||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab|||0.91|0.49|0.096
91692933|NCT01575834|183280967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.49||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.49|0.17|0.096
91692934|NCT01575834|183280968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.41||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.41|0.16|0.096
91692935|NCT01575834|183280969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.35||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.35|0.22|0.18
91692936|NCT01575834|183280970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.04|0.24|0.12
91865016|NCT01866163|183620103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|94.3|||Mantel Haenszel|||Multiple imputations were used to handle missing data.||94.30|9.72|<0.001
91865017|NCT01866163|183620104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.67|||ANOVA|||The mean value and CIs were adjusted for the effect of pooled centres and baseline m-PASI. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data.||-2.67|-3.90|<0.001
91865018|NCT01866163|183620105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.78|||ANOVA|||The mean value and CIs were adjusted for the effect of pooled centres and baseline m-PASI. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data.||-0.78|-1.76|<0.001
91692937|NCT01575834|183280971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.90|0.40|0.012
91692938|NCT01575834|183280972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84|||Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.84|0.46|0.002
91692939|NCT01575834|183280973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.87|0.01|0.011
91692940|NCT01575834|183280974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.44|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.44|0.01|< 0.001
91692941|NCT01575834|183280975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|12.9|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the lumbar spine was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||12.9|12.4|< 0.001
91692942|NCT01575834|183280976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|11.4|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the lumbar spine was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||11.4|10.8|< 0.001
91692943|NCT01575834|183280977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|6.0|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the total hip was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||6.0|5.6|< 0.001
91692944|NCT01575834|183280978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|5.5|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the total hip was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||5.5|5.1|< 0.001
91692945|NCT01575834|183280979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|5.4|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the femoral neck was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||5.4|4.9|< 0.001
91692946|NCT01575834|183280980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|5.2|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the femoral neck was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||5.2|4.7|< 0.001
91692947|NCT01383174|183281009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
91692948|NCT01383174|183281010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.465
91692949|NCT01383174|183281011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.025
91723481|NCT02516241|183340792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|5.17||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||5.17|-1.96|0.3765
91692950|NCT01383174|183281012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
91692951|NCT01383174|183281013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.013
91692952|NCT01383174|183281014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.267
91692953|NCT01383174|183281015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.030
91692954|NCT01383174|183281016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.045
91692955|NCT01383174|183281017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.005
91723482|NCT02516241|183340792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.81||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||7.81|0.40|0.0300
91865019|NCT04934072|183620181|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of FKS518 to US-Prolia was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the difference in mean percent change from baseline to Week 52 in LS-BMD laid entirely above -1.45%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.96|||||Difference : FKS518 - US-Prolia|||0.96|-0.05|
91692956|NCT01383174|183281018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.226
91692957|NCT01153815|183281019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Exact Smirnov test|||||||<0.001
91692958|NCT03859427|183281066|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 0.87 for the estimated ORR risk ratio.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.954||||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.032||P-value (2.5% significance level) of the non-inferiority test via the synthesis approach (FDA, 2016) for non-inferiority comparison of ORR between treatment arms.|Synthesis approach||Risk ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.032|0.882|0.0666
91692959|NCT03859427|183281068|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.683|||||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.683|0.653|
91692960|NCT03859427|183281074|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.97|||||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.970|0.775|
91692961|NCT03859427|183281075|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.711|||||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.711|0.657|
91692962|NCT03859427|183281076|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.69|||||Analysis was based on repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including arm, baseline scale score, randomization stratification factors and visit as repeated measure.|||4.69|0.38|
91692963|NCT03859427|183281077|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|4.72|||||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model, including arm, baseline scale score, randomization stratification factors and visit as repeated measure.|||4.72|-1.26|
91692964|NCT03859427|183281078|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|2.03|||||Treatment difference at Cycle 5|||2.03|-2.54|
91692965|NCT03859427|183281078|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|2.28|||||Treatment difference at Cycle 12|||2.28|-3.24|
91692966|NCT03859427|183281078|OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|4.58|||||Treatment difference at safety follow-up|||4.58|-1.69|
91692967|NCT04031846|183281079|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|0.6|||=|0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in % : Injection site erythema||6.3|-5.0|= 0.824
91692968|NCT04031846|183281079|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|2.8|||=|0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Injection site induration||8.4|-2.8|= 0.324
91692969|NCT04031846|183281079|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|16.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Injection site pain||16.6|5.8|< 0.001
91692970|NCT04031846|183281079|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|4.1|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Injection site swelling||9.4|-1.2|= 0.128
91692971|NCT04031846|183281080|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||=|0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Decreased appetite||5.8|-5.0|= 0.885
91692972|NCT04031846|183281080|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|10.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Irritability||10.7|0.1|= 0.045
91692973|NCT04031846|183281080|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|4.4|||=|0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Somnolence||10.0|-1.3|= 0.131
91692974|NCT04031846|183281080|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||=|0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Urticaria||2.1|-2.4|= 0.898
91692975|NCT04031846|183281081|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %||0.5|-1.0|
91865020|NCT04934072|183620181|OTHER|Non-superiority Analysis: Non-superiority of FKS518 to US-Prolia was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the difference in mean percent change from baseline to Week 52 in LS-BMD laid entirely below 1.45%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.2|||||Difference : FKS518 - US-Prolia|||1.20|0.19|
91865021|NCT05970861|183620316|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: there is no statistical significance between the mean percentages of microbiota units of the main and control groups after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: statistical significance exists between the mean percentages of microbiota units of the main and control groups after the mare's milk administration."||||<0.05
91692976|NCT04031846|183281082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.68||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 1 GMC Ratio: CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.68|0.57|< 0.001
91692977|NCT04031846|183281082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.39||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 3 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.39|1.17|< 0.001
91692978|NCT04031846|183281082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 4 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.82|0.68|< 0.001
91692979|NCT04031846|183281082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.7||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 5 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.70|0.59|< 0.001
91692980|NCT04031846|183281082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.76||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 6A GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.76|0.61|< 0.001
91692981|NCT04031846|183281082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 6B GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.07|0.85|< 0.001
91692982|NCT04031846|183281082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.85||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 7F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.85|0.72|< 0.001
91692983|NCT04031846|183281082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.78||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 9V GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.78|0.66|< 0.001
91723483|NCT02516241|183340793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.36||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||4.36|-0.6|0.1373
91865022|NCT05970861|183620316|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Null Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk does not significantly influence the mean percentages of gut microbiota units.~Alternate Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk significantly influences the mean percentages of gut microbiota units."||||<0.05
91692984|NCT04031846|183281082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.83||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 14 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.83|0.67|< 0.001
91692985|NCT04031846|183281082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 18C GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.95|0.80|< 0.001
91865023|NCT05970861|183620317|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between antiphospholipid antibody levels before and after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between antiphospholipid antibody levels before and after the mare's milk administration."||||>0.05
91865024|NCT05970861|183620318|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between uric acid blood levels before and after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between uric acid blood levels before and after the mare's milk administration."||||0.01
91692986|NCT04031846|183281082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.91||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 19A GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.91|0.75|< 0.001
91692987|NCT04031846|183281082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 19F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.97|0.80|< 0.001
91692988|NCT04031846|183281082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.97||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 23F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.97|0.79|< 0.001
91692989|NCT04031846|183281082|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|71.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.16|79.1||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 22F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||79.10|65.16|< 0.001
91692990|NCT04031846|183281082|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|46.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.19|51.42||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 33F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||51.42|42.19|< 0.001
91692991|NCT04031846|183281083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 1|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-1.3|-4.7|< 0.001
91692992|NCT04031846|183281083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.2||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 3|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|12.2|4.4|< 0.001
91692993|NCT04031846|183281083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 4|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.1|-4.5|< 0.001
91692994|NCT04031846|183281083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 5|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.2|-2.2|< 0.001
91692995|NCT04031846|183281083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6A|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.1|-1.9|< 0.001
91692996|NCT04031846|183281083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6B|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.1|-3.5|< 0.001
91692997|NCT04031846|183281083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 7F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.9|-0.9|< 0.001
91865025|NCT05970861|183620319|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after the mare's milk administration."||||<0.01
91692998|NCT04031846|183281083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 9V|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.4|-2.4|< 0.001
91692999|NCT04031846|183281083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 14|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.5|-1.0|< 0.001
91693000|NCT04031846|183281083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 18C|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.9|-1.8|< 0.001
91693001|NCT04031846|183281083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19A|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.2|-2.2|< 0.001
91693002|NCT04031846|183281083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-1.3|< 0.001
91693003|NCT04031846|183281083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 23F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.5|-2.7|< 0.001
91693004|NCT04031846|183281083|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|93.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|95.6||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 22F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|95.6|91.5|< 0.001
91693005|NCT04031846|183281083|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|94.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.7|96.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 33F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|96.5|92.7|< 0.001
91693006|NCT04031846|183281084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Diphtheria toxoid|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.4|-1.7|< 0.001
91693007|NCT04031846|183281084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Tetanus toxoid|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-1.3|< 0.001
91693008|NCT04031846|183281084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Pertussis PT|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.9|-1.3|< 0.001
91723484|NCT02516241|183340793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|6.27||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||6.27|1.26|0.0034
91723485|NCT02516241|183340793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.39||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||5.39|-1.00|0.1774
91723486|NCT02516241|183340793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|8.65||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||8.65|2.19|0.0011
91723487|NCT02516241|183340793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|6.38||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||6.38|-2.27|0.3494
91693009|NCT04031846|183281084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Pertussis FHA|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.5|-1.0|< 0.001
91693010|NCT04031846|183281084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Pertussis PRN|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-1.3|< 0.001
91865026|NCT05970861|183620319|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after 2 measurements in the control group.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after 2 measurements in the control group."||||>0.05
91693011|NCT04031846|183281084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Hib PRP|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|2.1|-1.3|< 0.001
91693012|NCT04031846|183281084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: HBsAg|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.0|-2.0|< 0.001
91693013|NCT04031846|183281084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Poliovirus 1|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.7|-0.7|< 0.001
91693014|NCT04031846|183281084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Poliovirus 2|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.7|-0.7|< 0.001
91693015|NCT04031846|183281084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Poliovirus 3|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.1|-0.5|< 0.001
91693016|NCT04031846|183281085|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Rotarix™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Rotarix™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|GMT Ratio: CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group||1.16|0.80|< 0.001
91693017|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.88|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 1: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.88|0.73|
91693018|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.02|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 3: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||2.02|1.70|
91693019|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 4: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.19|0.98|
91693020|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 5: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.94|0.74|
91693021|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.52|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 6A: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.52|0.40|
91865027|NCT05970861|183620319|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||"Null Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk does not significantly influence the scores on the scales (PCS, MCS).~Alternate Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk significantly influences the scores on the scales (PCS, MCS)."||||<0.01
91693022|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.41|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 6B: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.41|1.00|
91794855|NCT01227564|183468811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049||||0.3912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.065||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 10 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.065|-0.164|0.3912
91794856|NCT01227564|183468811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg or ACC 10 µg + QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.050|-0.149|0.3221
91794857|NCT01227564|183468812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.18||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1197.07|1293.42||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1293.42|-1197.07|0.9384
91794858|NCT01227564|183468812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|581.98||||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-778.17|1942.13||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1942.13|-778.17|0.3945
91794859|NCT01227564|183468812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|315.08||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-812.15|1442.3||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1442.30|-812.15|0.5773
91794860|NCT01227564|183468813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.16||||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.31|111.62||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||111.62|-63.31|0.5818
91865028|NCT05736458|183620332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Of the 23 participants who completed all study procedures, 2 participant's data was unusable for this analysis. Statistics are from paired 2 tailed t-test comparing pre-rTMS 2-back percent accuracy scores for participant's high and low controllability target.||||0.66
91693023|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.91|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 7F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.91|0.76|
91693024|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 9V: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.96|0.77|
91693025|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 14: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.86|0.66|
91693026|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 18C: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.95|0.77|
91693027|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.87|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 19A: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.87|0.70|
91693028|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 19F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.85|0.70|
91693029|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.4|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 23F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.40|1.07|
91693030|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|57.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|65.0|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 22F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||65.00|51.20|
91794861|NCT01227564|183468813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.42||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|174.21||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||174.21|-5.37|0.0648
91865029|NCT05736458|183620333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 19||Statistics are from 2-tailed t-test comparing pre-rTMS to post-rTMS 2-back accuracy scores for a high controllability TMS target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.43
91693031|NCT04031846|183281086|OTHER||GMC Ratio|6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.46|7.14|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 33F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||7.14|5.46|
91723488|NCT02516241|183340793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|11.71||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||11.71|2.96|0.0011
91723489|NCT02516241|183340794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|1.69||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||1.69|-4.35|0.3865
91723490|NCT02516241|183340794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|1.49||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||1.49|-5.05|0.2840
91723491|NCT02516241|183340794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|1.66||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||1.66|-5.41|0.2970
91794862|NCT01227564|183468813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.29||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.47|132.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||132.05|-23.47|0.1672
91693032|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 1|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-4.4|
91693033|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|30.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 3|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|30.3|21.1|
91693034|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 4|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.3|-5.7|
91693035|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 5|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-8.1|
91693036|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-15.0|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6A|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-15.0|-23.9|
91693037|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6B|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|10.7|-1.5|
91693038|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.5|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 7F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.5|-2.9|
91693039|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-3.5|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 9V|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-3.5|-10.1|
91723492|NCT02516241|183340794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.3026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|1.83||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||1.83|-5.85|0.3026
91865030|NCT05736458|183620333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.36|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 20||Statistics are from 2-tailed t-test comparing pre-rTMS and post-rTMS 2-back percent accuracy scores for a low controllability TMS target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.04
91865031|NCT05736458|183620334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 11||Statistics are from 2-tailed paired t-test comparing 2-back accuracy score before and after rTMS to a high controllability target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.05
91693040|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 14|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.7|-2.6|
91693041|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.6|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 18C|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|2.6|-3.9|
91693042|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19A|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.0|-3.5|
91693043|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.7|-2.0|
91693044|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.9|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 23F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|11.9|1.3|
91693045|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|90.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.4|92.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 22F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|92.7|87.4|
91693046|NCT04031846|183281087|OTHER||Percentage Difference|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|50.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 33F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|50.3|41.3|
91693047|NCT04031846|183281090|OTHER|Percentage difference and CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|19.2|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: V114 Serotype 22F minus Prevenar 13™ Serotype 3||19.2|12.9|
91693048|NCT04031846|183281090|OTHER|Percentage difference and CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|18.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: V114 Serotype 33F minus Prevenar 13™ Serotype 3||18.7|12.2|
91693049|NCT01622673|183281111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for TUMS® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.678|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.531|0.866|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean C12hrs for TUMS® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.866|0.531|
91693050|NCT01622673|183281111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% CI falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.293|0.475|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is the geometric least squares mean C12hrs for MINTOX® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.475|0.293|
91693051|NCT01622673|183281112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® before raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.344|0.554|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean C12hrs for MINTOX® before raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.554|0.344|
91693052|NCT01622673|183281112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® after raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.433|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.341|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean C12hrs for MINTOX® after raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.550|0.341|
91693053|NCT01622673|183281113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for TUMS® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.445|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.565|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for TUMS® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.565|0.350|
91693054|NCT01622673|183281113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.402|0.646|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for MINTOX® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.646|0.402|
91693055|NCT01622673|183281114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® before raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.351|0.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for MINTOX® before raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.669|0.351|
91693056|NCT01622673|183281114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® after raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.696|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.504|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for MINTOX® after raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.960|0.504|
91693057|NCT01622673|183281115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for TUMS® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.362|0.627|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean Cmax for TUMS® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||0.627|0.362|
91723493|NCT02516241|183340794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.3168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|2.38||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||2.38|-7.29|0.3168
91693058|NCT01622673|183281115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% CI falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|0.729|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is the geometric least squares mean Cmax for MINTOX® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||0.729|0.423|
91693059|NCT01622673|183281116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® before raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.332|0.709|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean Cmax for MINTOX® before raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||0.709|0.332|
91693060|NCT01622673|183281116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® after raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.775|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean Cmax for MINTOX® after raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||1.132|0.530|
91693061|NCT04229095|183281148|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The effect of the drug on lowering VAS was limited to individuals with impaired sleep at baseline (PSQI \> or = to 5).|Mixed effect model with directional hypothesis that drug reduces strength of craving (VAS). Principle predictors were drug condition, and baseline sleep disturbance (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index {PSQI} total score less than 5 or 5 and greater). Arms were combined for this analysis.||-1.01||.007
91693062|NCT04229095|183281150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0025|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with directional hypothesis that drug reduces number of drinks per day. Principle predictors were drug condition and sex. Arms were combined for this analysis.||-0.46||.0025
91693063|NCT01780038|183281152|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Frequencies and percentages were used to determine this secondary outcome.|||
91693064|NCT02314260|183281164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0318||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|0.979||Under the nonparametric assumption. P-value \<0.05, means statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided||The positive actual state is failed induction and performing Caesarean Section, So as the numbers approaches 1, induction fails. the Y-axis of the curve is sensitivity and the x- axis is (1-Specificity).|Null hypothesis: true area = 0.5 The positive actual state is failed induction, the true positive rate (Sensitivity) is plotted in function of the false positive rate (100-Specificity)||0.979|0.854|0.000
91693065|NCT02314260|183281165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0578||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.919||Under the nonparametric assumption P value \<0.05 is statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided||The positive actual state is failed induction and performing Caesarean Section, So as the numbers approaches 1, induction fails. the Y-axis of the curve is sensitivity and the x- axis is (1-specificity).|Null hypothesis: true area = 0.5 The positive actual state is failed induction, the true positive rate (Sensitivity) is plotted in function of the false positive rate (100-Specificity)||0.919|0.693|0.000
91693066|NCT02314260|183281166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0318||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||P\<0.05 is significant|t-test, 2 sided||at a cutoff value of 4.5, the sensitivity for failure to labour induction is 0.83 (83%), with a specificity of 0.87(87%).|The smallest cutoff value is the minimum observed test value minus 1, and the largest cutoff value is the maximum observed test value plus 1. All the other cutoff values are the averages of two consecutive ordered observed test values.||10|0.00|0.000
91693067|NCT02314260|183281167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0578||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||P\<0.05 is significant|t-test, 2 sided||at a cutoff value of 5.5, the sensitivity for failure to labour induction is 0.83 (83%), with a specificity of 0.73 (73%).|The smallest cutoff value is the minimum observed test value minus 1, and the largest cutoff value is the maximum observed test value plus 1. All the other cutoff values are the averages of two consecutive ordered observed test values.||10|0.00|0.000
91693068|NCT01543178|183281168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method was adjusted for analysis center and time to recurrence during Maintenance Phase 1.||A worst case analysis was performed, in which patients with \< 4 days of IBS symptom data in a given week were considered as non-responders for that week.||||0.0232
91723494|NCT02516241|183340794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|1.96||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||1.96|-8.51|0.2179
91723495|NCT02516241|183340795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.6||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood|Patients with improvement in fatigue||2.6|0.8|0.2419
91723496|NCT02516241|183340795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||2.8|0.9|0.1553
91904193|NCT02234284|183703324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of non-COPD-related hospitalizations for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.04|-0.20|.37
91693069|NCT00300235|183281169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of subjects|35.2||||||95.0|32.5|37.9||||||This was a survey designed to estimate prevalence, no formal comparisons between age or genotype groups were performed.||37.9|32.5|
91693070|NCT00455403|183281177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.7279|TWO_SIDED|||||"Applies to row Title year 1"|Mixed Models Analysis||"applies to row title year 1"|||||0.7279
91693071|NCT03351608|183281186|SUPERIORITY||GM Ratio (SUG 2 mg / NEO + [GLY or ATR])|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.32|||ANOVA|||||0.32|0.16|< 0.0001
91693072|NCT02877004|183281189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with the baseline value included as the covariate.||||||0.723
91693073|NCT02877004|183281190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with the baseline value included as the covariate||||||.368
91693074|NCT02727478|183281191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91693075|NCT02727478|183281192|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.001
91693076|NCT02727478|183281193|OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
91693077|NCT02727478|183281194|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.065
91693078|NCT02727478|183281195|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.301|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.301
91693079|NCT02727478|183281196|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.792|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.792
91693080|NCT02727478|183281197|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91693081|NCT00502242|183281201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.228||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.528||2-sided p-value; alpha equals (=) 0.05|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with region and race strata|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model with region and race strata|||0.528|0.099|0.0002
91693082|NCT00502242|183281202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.763||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with region and race strata|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model with region and race strata|||0.763|0.237|0.0031
91693083|NCT00502242|183281203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||0.002
91693084|NCT00502242|183281203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.074
91693085|NCT00502242|183281204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||0.093
91693086|NCT00502242|183281204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.219
91693087|NCT00502242|183281205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||0.002
91693088|NCT00502242|183281205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.121
91693089|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Ramipril||||
91693090|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Placebo||||
91693091|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.85||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from baseline at Week 3, Ramipril versus (vs.) Placebo||0.96|0.76|0.0098
91693092|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 4, Ramipril||||
91693093|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 4, Placebo||||
91693094|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from baseline at Week 4, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.89|0.68|0.0003
91693095|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 8, Ramipirl||||
91693096|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 8, Placebo||||
91693097|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.79||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.91||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.91|0.68|0.0016
91723497|NCT02516241|183340795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.8||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||2.8|1.4|0.0003
91723498|NCT02516241|183340795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.3||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||2.3|1.1|0.0148
91723499|NCT02516241|183340796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.4||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.4|0.7|0.2473
91723500|NCT02516241|183340796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.8||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.8|0.8|0.0148
91794863|NCT01227564|183468814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|3.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||3.22|-9.94|0.3106
91794864|NCT01227564|183468814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|2.27||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||2.27|-11.28|0.1876
91794865|NCT01227564|183468814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|1.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1.79|-9.66|0.1742
91794866|NCT01227564|183468815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.36||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.52|42.81||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||42.81|-103.52|0.4089
91794867|NCT01227564|183468815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.4||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.69|-7.11||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||-7.11|-159.69|0.0327
91794868|NCT01227564|183468815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.88||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.82|7.06||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||7.06|-120.82|0.0801
91794869|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.78||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.15|76.71||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||76.71|-37.15|0.4892
91723501|NCT02516241|183340796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.0||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood|Patient with deterioration in pain||3.0|1.2|0.0090
91865032|NCT05736458|183620335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.42||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 19||Statistics are from paired 2 tailed t-test comparing 2-back percent changes (Post-rTMS - pre-rTMS) scores for participant's high and low controllability target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.27
91888722|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.01|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.52|0.0631
91794870|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.06||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|110.63||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||110.63|-8.51|0.0915
91794871|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.42||||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|85.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||85.72|-14.88|0.1638
91693098|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril||||
91693099|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Placebo||||
91693100|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.82||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.96|0.70|0.0165
91693101|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril||||
91693102|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Placebo||||
91693103|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.83||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.98|0.70|0.0264
91693104|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril||||
91693105|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Placebo||||
91693106|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.79||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.93|0.66|0.0062
91693107|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril||||
91693108|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Placebo||||
91693109|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.84||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.99|0.72|0.0341
91693110|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril||||
91693111|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Placebo||||
91693112|NCT00502242|183281206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.84||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.01|0.70|0.0600
91693113|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Ramipril||||
91693114|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Placebo||||
91693115|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.71||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.89|0.57|0.0034
91693116|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 4, Ramipril||||
91794872|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.29||||0.2006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.28|252.86||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||252.86|-54.28|0.2006
91723502|NCT02516241|183340796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||2.3|0.9|0.1510
91723503|NCT02516241|183340797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.2||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.2|0.5|0.6763
91723504|NCT02516241|183340797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.3|0.5|0.6539
91723505|NCT02516241|183340797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.0||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood|Patient with deterioration in pain||4.0|1.2|0.0092
91723506|NCT02516241|183340797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.5||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||3.5|1.1|0.0324
91723507|NCT01769586|183340812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5|||Chi-squared|||||.50|.24|<0.001
91723508|NCT00191100|183340813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PFS Probability Difference at 3 Years|0.095||||0.029||95.0|0.01|0.179||The p-value is two-sided and was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Z Statistic||Difference in progression-free survival probability between Gem/Cis/Rad and Cis/Rad. The difference in PFS probability between the two treatment arms can also be presented as a percentage (ie, PFS at 3 years was 9.5% better in the Gem/Cis/Rad arm).|||0.179|0.010|0.029
91723509|NCT00191100|183340814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0008
91723510|NCT00191100|183340815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0||||The p-value is two-sided and was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||"Note: There were 2 patients with unknown site of progressive disease; these patients were counted as a Local failure.~Note: There was 1 patient with both local and distant failure; this patient was counted as a Local failure."||||0.096
91904194|NCT02234284|183703325|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportion|-18.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||-4.8|-33.1|.01
91723511|NCT00191100|183340816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||The p-value is two-sided and was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.250
91723512|NCT00191100|183340817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0224
91723513|NCT00191100|183340818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0227||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0227
91723514|NCT04950686|183340819|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.983|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.983
91723515|NCT04950686|183340819|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.465
91794873|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|225.63||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.18|386.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||386.09|65.18|0.0067
91723516|NCT04950686|183340820|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.579
91723517|NCT04950686|183340820|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.536
91723518|NCT04950686|183340821|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.745
91723519|NCT04950686|183340821|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.972|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.972
91693117|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 4, Placebo||||
91693118|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 4, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
91693119|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Ramipril||||
91693120|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Placebo||||
91693121|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.79||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.79|0.47|0.0002
91693122|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril||||
91693123|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Placebo||||
91693124|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.65||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.87||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.87|0.49|0.0032
91693125|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril||||
91693126|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Placebo||||
91693127|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.69||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.92||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.92|0.51|0.0130
91693128|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril||||
91693129|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Placebo||||
91865033|NCT02990338|183620336|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the type I error rate meaning no further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.596||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|0.814||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025.|Log Rank|Stratification was based on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \>3) according to IRT.|Stratification was based on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \>3) according to IRT.|Confidence interval (CI) for Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated with log-log transformation of survival function and methods of Brookmeyer and Crowley.||0.814|0.436|0.0005
91693130|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.74||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.01|0.54|0.0577
91693131|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril||||
91693132|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Placebo||||
91693133|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.77||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.07||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.07|0.56|0.1146
91693134|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril||||
91693135|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Placebo||||
91693136|NCT00502242|183281207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.85||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.20|0.60|0.3496
91723520|NCT04950686|183340822|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.25|0.24|0.682
91723521|NCT04950686|183340822|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.69|0.28|0.630
91723522|NCT04950686|183340823|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|12.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.82|0.12|0.418
91723523|NCT04950686|183340823|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.29|0.13|0.194
91723524|NCT04950686|183340824|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.07|0.10|0.731
91723525|NCT04950686|183340824|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|7.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.34|0.16|0.786
91723526|NCT04950686|183340825|SUPERIORITY|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|7.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.49|0.16|0.710
91723527|NCT04950686|183340825|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.73|0.16|0.610
91723528|NCT04950686|183340826|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|20.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.33|.09|0.270
91723529|NCT04950686|183340826|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|18.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.57|0.08|0.465
91865034|NCT02990338|183620337|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the type I error rate meaning no further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS.|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One sided p-value was stratified based on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines (2 or 3 versus \>3) according to IRT.||||||<0.0001
91723530|NCT04950686|183340827|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|11.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.95|0.07|0.702
91723531|NCT04950686|183340827|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.56|0.19|0.538
91723532|NCT04950686|183340828|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.084
91723533|NCT04950686|183340828|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.501
91723534|NCT04950686|183340829|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.614
91723535|NCT04950686|183340829|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.854|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.854
91723536|NCT04950686|183340830|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.499
91723537|NCT04950686|183340830|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.623|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.623
91723538|NCT04950686|183340831|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.15|0.14|0.618
91723539|NCT04950686|183340831|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|14.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.13|0.10|0.626
91723540|NCT04950686|183340832|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|9.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.18|0.23|.232
91723541|NCT04950686|183340832|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|0.22|0.811
91723542|NCT04950686|183340833|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.94|0.16|0.427
91723543|NCT04950686|183340833|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|7.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.68|0.25|0.337
91794874|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.46||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.05|298.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||298.87|26.05|0.0204
91794875|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|114.13||||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|240.89||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||240.89|-12.63|0.0766
91865035|NCT02990338|183620341|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the type I error rate meaning no further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.015||One-sided significance level was 0.02 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.|Log Rank|Stratified on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \> 3) according to IRT.|Stratified on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \> 3) according to IRT.|||1.015|0.594|0.0319
91723544|NCT04950686|183340834|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.419
91723545|NCT04950686|183340834|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.808|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.808
91723546|NCT04950686|183340835|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.616
91865036|NCT04011644|183620360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Quanbeck,A.et al. A randomized trial testing digital medicine support models for mild-to-moderate alcohol use disorder. npj Digit. Med.7,248(2024)||||||0.688
91865037|NCT04011644|183620361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.261
91865038|NCT04011644|183620362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
91693137|NCT00502242|183281208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||1.0000
91693138|NCT00502242|183281208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.1115
91693139|NCT00502242|183281209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|1.61||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with MDRD change as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and baseline as covariate.|Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.61|-3.33|0.4933
91693140|NCT00502242|183281209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS Mean Difference|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|5.33||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with MDRD change as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and baseline as covariate.|Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24||5.33|-0.38|0.0888
91693141|NCT00502242|183281209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS Mean Difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.99||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with MDRD change as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and baseline as covariate|Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52||4.99|-0.75|0.1475
91693142|NCT00502242|183281210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.84||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|Log (Fraction of albumin to protein in urine) as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factor, and Log(baseline) as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean.|Week 24||1.04|0.68|0.1167
91693143|NCT00502242|183281210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|1.04||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|Log (Fraction of albumin to protein in urine) as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factor, and Log(baseline) as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean.|Week 52||1.31|0.82|0.7519
91693144|NCT00502242|183281211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, Low DBP ≤50 mmHg||||0.470
91693145|NCT00502242|183281211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, High DBP ≥110 mmHg||||0.220
91693146|NCT00502242|183281211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||0.470
91693147|NCT00502242|183281211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, High SBP: ≥180 mmHg||||1.000
91693148|NCT00502242|183281211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, Low DBP ≤50 mmHg||||0.725
91693149|NCT00502242|183281211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, High DBP ≥110 mmHg||||0.227
91723547|NCT04950686|183340835|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.486
91723548|NCT04950686|183340836|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.638|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.638
91723549|NCT04950686|183340836|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.226|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.226
91865039|NCT04011644|183620364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||ANCOVA|||A univariate analysis (Analysis of Covariance or ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the number of hospital days among the three groups controlling for baseline assessment of the dependent variable and design factors (i.e., Sex and Severity).||||0.908
91693150|NCT00502242|183281211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||1.000
91693151|NCT00502242|183281211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, High SBP: ≥180 mmHg||||0.106
91693152|NCT00502242|183281211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off Therapy, High DBP ≥110 mmHg||||1.000
91693153|NCT00502242|183281211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off Therapy, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||1.000
91693154|NCT00502242|183281211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline, Low DBP ≤50 mmHg||||0.475
91693155|NCT00502242|183281211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||0.475
91693156|NCT00502242|183281213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||1.000
91693157|NCT00502242|183281213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.626
91693158|NCT00502242|183281213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.297
91693159|NCT00502242|183281213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.356
91693160|NCT00502242|183281214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.064
91693161|NCT00502242|183281214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.069
91693162|NCT00502242|183281214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.752
91693163|NCT00502242|183281214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.261
91693164|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.381|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 4||||0.381
91693165|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.956|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 12||||0.956
91693166|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.903|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 24||||0.903
91693167|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.503|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 52||||0.503
91693168|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.451|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 4||||0.451
91693169|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.919|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 12||||0.919
91693170|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.637|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 24||||0.637
91693171|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 52||||0.229
91693172|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.766|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 4||||0.766
91693173|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.217|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 12||||0.217
91693174|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.457|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 24||||0.457
91723550|NCT04950686|183340837|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.630
91723551|NCT04950686|183340837|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.880
91693175|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 52||||0.041
91693176|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 4||||0.044
91693177|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 12||||0.180
91693178|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.264|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 24||||0.264
91693179|NCT00502242|183281215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.408|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 52||||0.408
91693180|NCT00502242|183281216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.487||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|6.978||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on the Cox proportional hazards model.|||6.978|0.887|0.0732
91693181|NCT00502242|183281218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7165|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean test||Post-SRL, AM BCAR||||0.7165
91693182|NCT00502242|183281218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean test||Post-SRL (On-Therapy), AM BCAR||||0.4795
91693183|NCT00502242|183281219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4773|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.4773
91693184|NCT00502242|183281220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.124
91693185|NCT00502242|183281220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.410
91794876|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|226.82||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.23|413.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||413.41|40.23|0.0181
91794877|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|167.33||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|325.63||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||325.63|9.03|0.0387
91794878|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.84||||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.29|284.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||284.97|-69.29|0.2277
91794879|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|226.82||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.23|413.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||413.41|40.23|0.0181
91723552|NCT04950686|183340838|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.569|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.569
91723553|NCT04950686|183340838|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.980
91723554|NCT04950686|183340839|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.466|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
91723555|NCT04950686|183340839|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.990
91723556|NCT04950686|183340840|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.989|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.989
91723557|NCT04950686|183340840|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.678
91723558|NCT04950686|183340841|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
91794880|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|167.33||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|325.63||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||325.63|9.03|0.0387
91865040|NCT04011644|183620366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||ANCOVA|||A univariate analysis (Analysis of Covariance or ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the number of hospital days among the three groups controlling for baseline assessment of the dependent variable and design factors (i.e., Sex and Severity).||||0.206
91865041|NCT04011644|183620367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||ANCOVA|||A univariate analysis (Analysis of Covariance or ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the number of hospital days among the three groups controlling for baseline assessment of the dependent variable and design factors (i.e., Sex and Severity).||||0.104
91865042|NCT04011644|183620368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91723559|NCT04950686|183340841|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
91723560|NCT04950686|183340842|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.301|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.301
91723561|NCT04950686|183340842|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.702|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.702
91723562|NCT04950686|183340843|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.13|0.10|0.352
91723563|NCT04950686|183340843|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.16|0.11|0.445
91723564|NCT04950686|183340844|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.60|0.12|0.039
91723565|NCT04950686|183340844|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|0.17|0.073
91723566|NCT04950686|183340845|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.93|0.13|0.110
91723567|NCT04950686|183340845|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.78|0.11|0.174
91723568|NCT04950686|183340846|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.208
91723569|NCT04950686|183340846|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.302
91723570|NCT04950686|183340847|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.483|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.483
91865043|NCT04011644|183620369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
91865044|NCT04011644|183620370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.555
91723571|NCT04950686|183340847|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.933|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.933
91865045|NCT04011644|183620371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.131
91865046|NCT04011644|183620375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
91723572|NCT04950686|183340848|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.877
91865047|NCT03334695|183620423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.012
91865048|NCT04271046|183620476|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.97
91865049|NCT04271046|183620477|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
91865050|NCT04271046|183620478|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
91865051|NCT04271046|183620479|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
91865052|NCT04271046|183620486|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.08
91865053|NCT04271046|183620487|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.79
91865054|NCT04271046|183620488|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
91865055|NCT04271046|183620489|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.86
91865056|NCT04271046|183620490|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
91723573|NCT04950686|183340848|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.418|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.418
91723574|NCT04950686|183340849|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|98.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||98.76|0.05|0.220
91723575|NCT04950686|183340849|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.3||||||||11.30|0.10|
91723576|NCT04950686|183340850|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|63.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||63.29|0.03|0.506
91723577|NCT04950686|183340850|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|36.32||||||||36.32|0.04|
91723578|NCT04950686|183340851|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|28.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.37|0.04|0.877
91723579|NCT04950686|183340851|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|26.92||||||||26.92|0.02|
91723580|NCT04950686|183340852|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91723581|NCT04950686|183340852|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.00001
91794881|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|141.92||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|298.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||298.45|-14.62|0.0747
91794882|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|204.4||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.02|367.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||367.79|41.02|0.0151
91794883|NCT01227564|183468816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|173.16||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.25|313.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||313.07|33.25|0.0161
91904195|NCT02234284|183703326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|25.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||25.9|3.3|.01
91904196|NCT01576172|183703372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
91723582|NCT04950686|183340853|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.314
91904197|NCT01576172|183703373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.39 on 112.7 degrees of freedom (Satterthwaite)||||||0.70
91904198|NCT01576172|183703374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
91904199|NCT01576172|183703375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
91723583|NCT04950686|183340853|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.176
91723584|NCT04950686|183340854|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
91723585|NCT04950686|183340854|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91723586|NCT04950686|183340855|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.132
91794884|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.652||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|1.267||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||1.267|-6.570|0.1807
91794885|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.497||||0.8051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.515|4.508||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||4.508|-3.515|0.8051
91865057|NCT04271046|183620491|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
91865058|NCT04271046|183620492|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.63
91904200|NCT01576172|183703376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
91693186|NCT00502242|183281220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.423
91693187|NCT00502242|183281220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.297
91693188|NCT00502242|183281221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.726
91723587|NCT04950686|183340855|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91723588|NCT04950686|183340856|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.941|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.941
91865059|NCT04271046|183620493|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28
91865060|NCT04271046|183620494|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.82
91865061|NCT04271046|183620495|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.04
91865062|NCT04271046|183620496|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.98
91865063|NCT04271046|183620497|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.22
91865064|NCT04271046|183620498|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.85
91865065|NCT04271046|183620499|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
91865066|NCT01570361|183620501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Prior to the final analysis, study had two interim analyses. Hence alpha level is 0.0231 for primary analysis adjusted for the two interim analyses.|Log Rank|One-sided test||||||0.0009
91865067|NCT01570361|183620502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118||||||The alpha level is 0.025 for this secondary endpoint.|Log Rank|One-sided test||||||0.0118
91865068|NCT01570361|183620503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||The alpha level is 0.025 for this secondary endpoint.|Log Rank|One-sided test||||||0.0041
91904201|NCT03496324|183703377|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% confidence interval (CI) (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for Cmax.|Geometric Least Square Mean|94.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.81|103.38||||||||103.38|85.81|
91693189|NCT00502242|183281222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91693190|NCT00502242|183281223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.753
91693191|NCT00502242|183281224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.224
91693192|NCT00502242|183281224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.179
91693193|NCT00502242|183281224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.604
91693194|NCT00502242|183281224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.486
91693195|NCT04630002|183281312|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.999|1.293|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.293|0.9990|
91693196|NCT04630002|183281313|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9185|1.242|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.242|0.9185|
91693197|NCT04630002|183281314|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.9891|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9313|1.051|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.051|0.9313|
91693198|NCT04630002|183281315|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9816|1.122|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.122|0.9816|
91693199|NCT04630002|183281316|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.025|1.185|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.185|1.025|
91693200|NCT04630002|183281317|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9947|1.26|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.260|0.9947|
91693201|NCT04630002|183281318|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.5299|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4801|0.5848|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||0.5848|0.4801|
91693202|NCT04630002|183281319|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.6001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5271|0.6833|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||0.6833|0.5271|
91693203|NCT04630002|183281320|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.144|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.082|1.21|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.210|1.082|
91693204|NCT04630002|183281321|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.104|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.026|1.187|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.187|1.026|
91693205|NCT04630002|183281322|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.9435|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8147|1.093|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.093|0.8147|
91723589|NCT04950686|183340856|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.569|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.569
91723590|NCT04950686|183340857|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.354
91723591|NCT04950686|183340857|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
91865069|NCT05513937|183620566|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference pre vs post|-15.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91693206|NCT04630002|183281323|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.8928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7467|1.068|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.068|0.7467|
91693207|NCT00442897|183281371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.714||||||95.0|1.77|7.78|||||Odds ratio was adjusted by baseline LDL strata.|||7.78|1.77|
91693208|NCT00442897|183281372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.579||||||95.0|1.32|5.06|||||Odds ratio was adjusted by baseline LDL strata.|||5.06|1.32|
91693209|NCT04498182|183281373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.2|-8.9|0.2305
91693210|NCT04498182|183281373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-4.6|0.7436
91693211|NCT04498182|183281374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-1.9|0.4936
91693212|NCT04498182|183281374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.6|-1.1|0.7131
91693213|NCT04498182|183281375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.2|-8.9|0.2305
91693214|NCT04498182|183281375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-4.6|0.7436
91693215|NCT04498182|183281376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.8|-13.2|0.0281
91693216|NCT04498182|183281376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.6|-5.9|0.9186
91693217|NCT04498182|183281377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.8|-13.2|0.0281
91693218|NCT04498182|183281377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.6|-5.9|0.9186
91693219|NCT04498182|183281378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.5|-1.5|0.9846
91693220|NCT04498182|183281378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.8|-1.1|0.6508
91693221|NCT04498182|183281379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.5|-1.5|0.9846
91693222|NCT04498182|183281379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.8|-1.1|0.6508
91723592|NCT04950686|183340858|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.501
91723593|NCT04950686|183340858|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.385|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
91723594|NCT04950686|183340859|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.095
91723595|NCT04950686|183340859|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.349
91723596|NCT04950686|183340860|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.846
91865070|NCT02846545|183620568|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.178|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-0.28|= 0.0004
91693223|NCT04498182|183281380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-1.9|0.4936
91693224|NCT04498182|183281380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.6|-1.1|0.7131
91693225|NCT04498182|183281381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.7|-12.6|0.0786
91693226|NCT04498182|183281381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.9477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.5|-6.9|0.9477
91693227|NCT04498182|183281382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.7|-12.6|0.0786
91693228|NCT04498182|183281382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.9477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.5|-6.9|0.9477
91693229|NCT04498182|183281383|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.2|-11.2|0.1153
91693230|NCT04498182|183281383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.2|-6.2|0.9975
91693231|NCT04498182|183281384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.2|-11.2|0.1153
91693232|NCT04498182|183281384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.2|-6.2|0.9975
91693233|NCT04498182|183281385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.0|-13.0|0.1518
91723597|NCT04950686|183340860|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.103
91865071|NCT02846545|183620569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|||=|0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-0.81|= 0.8020
91865072|NCT02846545|183620570|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of hypoglycemia rates|0.9|||=|0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|0.966|||Poisson regression model|||Hypoglycemia rate was analyzed by using a Poisson regression model with the number of hypoglycemia events through Week 52 as the response, treatment and gender as fixed factors, age and baseline HbA1c as covariates, and the duration of study participation through week 52 in logarithm as an offset variable.||0.966|0.838|= 0.0036
91693234|NCT04498182|183281385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||10.8|-4.4|0.4070
91693235|NCT04498182|183281386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.0|-13.0|0.1518
91693236|NCT04498182|183281386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||10.8|-4.4|0.4070
91693237|NCT04498182|183281387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.9|-8.1|0.7560
91693238|NCT04498182|183281387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-7.9|0.8308
91693239|NCT04498182|183281388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.9|-8.1|0.7560
91693240|NCT04498182|183281388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-7.9|0.8308
91693241|NCT04498182|183281389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.5|-12.4|0.0005
91693242|NCT04498182|183281389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.2|-8.7|0.0585
91693243|NCT04498182|183281390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.5|-12.4|0.0005
91693244|NCT04498182|183281390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.2|-8.7|0.0585
91693245|NCT04498182|183281391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-3.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.4|-14.3|0.0015
91693246|NCT04498182|183281391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.6812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.3|-6.6|0.6812
91693247|NCT04498182|183281392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-3.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.4|-14.3|0.0015
91693248|NCT04498182|183281392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.6812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.3|-6.6|0.6812
91693249|NCT04498182|183281393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.3|-8.5|0.1520
91693250|NCT04498182|183281393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.8515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.4|-5.4|0.8515
91693251|NCT04498182|183281394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.3|-8.5|0.1520
91693252|NCT04498182|183281394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.8515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.4|-5.4|0.8515
91693253|NCT04498182|183281395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-12.1|0.0302
91693254|NCT04498182|183281395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.0|-6.5|0.8013
91693255|NCT04498182|183281396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-12.1|0.0302
91693256|NCT04498182|183281396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.0|-6.5|0.8013
91794886|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.078||||0.5331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|2.364||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||2.364|-4.519|0.5331
91794887|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.641||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||3.641|-3.990|0.9274
91794888|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.549||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|7.458||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||7.458|-0.360|0.0743
91794889|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.687||||0.3163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.656|5.031||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||5.031|-1.656|0.3163
91888723|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.6274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.32|0.6274
91693257|NCT04498182|183281397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.5|-4.4|0.8166
91693258|NCT04498182|183281397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.4|-2.5|0.3371
91693259|NCT04498182|183281398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3365|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3365
91693260|NCT04498182|183281398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7323
91723598|NCT04950686|183340861|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.864
91723599|NCT04950686|183340861|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.054
91693261|NCT04498182|183281399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1557
91693262|NCT04498182|183281399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6845|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6845
91693263|NCT04498182|183281400|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.5|-4.4|0.8166
91693264|NCT04498182|183281400|SUPERIORITY|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.4|-2.5|0.3371
91693265|NCT04498182|183281401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.3|-3.7|0.5215
91693266|NCT04498182|183281401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.1312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||9.8|-1.3|0.1312
91693267|NCT04498182|183281402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.3|-3.7|0.5215
91693268|NCT04498182|183281402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.1312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||9.8|-1.3|0.1312
91693269|NCT04498182|183281403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-8.4|0.0254
91723600|NCT04950686|183340862|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.168
91723601|NCT04950686|183340862|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.063
91723602|NCT04950686|183340863|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.819|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.819
91723603|NCT04950686|183340863|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.775|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
91723604|NCT04950686|183340864|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
91794890|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.645||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.721|3.43||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||3.430|-6.721|0.5190
91794891|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.758||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|9.991||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||9.991|-0.476|0.0740
91723605|NCT04950686|183340864|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.579
91723606|NCT04950686|183340865|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.485
91723607|NCT04950686|183340865|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.911|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.911
91723608|NCT04950686|183340866|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.583|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.583
91794892|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.394||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.937|6.049||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||6.049|-2.937|0.4909
91723609|NCT04950686|183340866|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.971|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.971
91723610|NCT04950686|183340867|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.602
91723611|NCT04950686|183340867|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
91794893|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.383||||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.549|6.783||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||6.783|-7.549|0.9151
91794894|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.394||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.069|12.857||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||12.857|-2.069|0.1533
91794895|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.506||||0.4371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.904|8.915||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||8.915|-3.904|0.4371
91794896|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.999|6.579||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||6.579|-10.999|0.6167
91693270|NCT04498182|183281403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-6.9|0.1362
91693271|NCT04498182|183281404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-8.4|0.0254
91693272|NCT04498182|183281404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-6.9|0.1362
91693273|NCT04498182|183281405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.1|-8.0|0.0573
91693274|NCT04498182|183281405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.1|-4.0|0.9930
91693275|NCT04498182|183281406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.1|-8.0|0.0573
91693276|NCT04498182|183281406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.1|-4.0|0.9930
91693277|NCT04498182|183281407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||3.15|0.70|0.3068
91693278|NCT04498182|183281407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||2.68|0.56|0.6167
91693279|NCT04498182|183281408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||1.46|0.28|0.2867
91693280|NCT04498182|183281408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.3803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||1.57|0.32|0.3803
91693281|NCT04498182|183281409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||3.58|0.58|0.4375
91693282|NCT04498182|183281409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||3.27|0.51|0.5840
91693283|NCT04498182|183281410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||1.84|0.29|0.5046
91693284|NCT04498182|183281410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||2.88|0.56|0.5751
91693285|NCT01339260|183281424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.87||If superiority of netupitant/palonosetron was established for the CR delayed, CR acute and then CR overall at cycle 1 were to be tested according to a hierarchical procedure;no adjustment for multiplicity was needed.The a priori threshold was 0.050|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including treatment, age class and region as strata. All missing data were to be imputed as treatment failures.|The null hypothesis was rejected if the 2 sided p value from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test was less than or equal to 0.050 and in the right direction i.e., the Odds Ratio (OR) was in favor of netupitant/palonosetron. Power was 90%.||1.87|1.16|0.001
91723612|NCT04950686|183340868|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.763
91723613|NCT04950686|183340868|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.578|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.578
91723614|NCT04950686|183340869|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.863
91723615|NCT04950686|183340869|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.538|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.538
91723616|NCT04950686|183340870|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.662|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.662
91723617|NCT04950686|183340870|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.406|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.406
91723618|NCT04950686|183340871|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.105
91794897|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.11||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.993|15.212||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||15.212|-2.993|0.1844
91723619|NCT04950686|183340871|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.487
91723620|NCT04950686|183340872|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.171|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.171
91723621|NCT04950686|183340872|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.278
91723622|NCT04950686|183340873|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.283
91723623|NCT04950686|183340873|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.824|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.824
91723624|NCT04950686|183340874|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.965|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.965
91794898|NCT01227564|183468817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.888|9.878||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||9.878|-5.888|0.6205
91723625|NCT04950686|183340874|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.902|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
91794899|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.418||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|1.018||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||1.018|-0.183|0.1695
91794900|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.759||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.759|-0.465|0.6331
91693286|NCT01339260|183281425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87||If the null hypothesis for CR delayed was rejected, analysis of the first key secondary endpoint CR acute was to be performed. Since the analysis was performed according to a hierarchical procedure, no further adjustment for multiplicity was needed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including treatment, age class and region as strata. All missing data were to be imputed as treatment failures.||CR in the acute phase was to be tested using the same 2 sided CMH test as for the primary endpoint. netupitant/palonosetron combination was to be considered superior to palonosetron in the acute phase if the 2 sided p value from the CMH was less than or equal to 0.050 and in the right direction.||1.87|1.0|0.047
91693287|NCT01339260|183281426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.85||If the null hypothesis for CR acute was rejected, analysis of the 2nd key secondary endpoint CR overall was to be performed. Since the analysis was performed according to a hierarchical procedure, no further adjustment for multiplicity was needed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including treatment, age class and region as strata. All missing data were to be imputed as treatment failures.||CR in the overall phase was to be tested using the same 2 sided CMH test as for the primary endpoint. netupitant/palonosetron combination was to be considered superior to palonosetron in the overall phase if the 2 sided p value from the CMH was less than or equal to 0.050 and in the right direction.||1.85|1.17|0.001
91693288|NCT03137160|183281427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the Investigator Global Assessment comparing the proportion of subjects who achieved a 2 pt reduction at study close (0).||||1
91693289|NCT00558467|183281442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean difference|0.01||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|4.97|||ANCOVA|||||4.97|-4.95|0.996
91693290|NCT00558467|183281443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-2.08|||Repeated Measures|||||-2.08|-5.81|
91693291|NCT00558467|183281444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-3.39|||Repeated measures|||||-3.39|-7.21|
91693292|NCT00558467|183281446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-4.06|||Repeated measures|||||-4.06|-7.88|
91693293|NCT00558467|183281447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean differnce|-0.15||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|10.75|||ANCOVA|||||10.75|-11.05|0.9780
91693294|NCT00558467|183281452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1052
91693295|NCT00558467|183281453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2274|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2274
91693296|NCT00558467|183281454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7691|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7691
91693297|NCT00558467|183281455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0674|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0674
91693298|NCT00558467|183281456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4944|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4944
91693299|NCT00558467|183281457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.162
91693300|NCT00558467|183281458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6375|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6375
91693301|NCT00558467|183281459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6625|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6625
91693302|NCT00558467|183281460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2664|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2664
91693303|NCT00558467|183281461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7302|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7302
91693304|NCT00558467|183281462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7723|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7723
91693305|NCT00558467|183281463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4852|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4852
91693306|NCT00558467|183281464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4607|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4607
91693307|NCT00558467|183281465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7723|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7723
91693308|NCT00558467|183281466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9389|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9389
91693309|NCT02019264|183281477|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. MACE met non-inferiority when the one-sided upper bound of 97.5% confidence interval of the HR was less than 1.4 (the non-inferiority margin).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.842|1.198|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.198|0.842|0.0001
91693310|NCT02019264|183281478|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.5464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.074|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.074|0.873|0.5464
91693311|NCT02019264|183281479|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|0.988|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.988|0.659|0.0380
91693312|NCT02019264|183281480|NON_INFERIORITY|Myocardial Infarction: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. 97.5% confidence interval refers to the upper limit of the displayed 2-sided 95% confidence interval.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.824|1.191|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.191|0.824|0.0001
91693313|NCT02019264|183281480|NON_INFERIORITY|Time to Stroke: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. 97.5% CI refers to the upper limit of the displayed 2-sided 95% CI.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.639|1.145|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.145|0.639|0.0005
91693314|NCT02019264|183281480|NON_INFERIORITY|Cardiovascular Death: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. 97.5% confidence interval refers to the upper limit of the displayed 2-sided 95% confidence interval.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.778|1.404|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.404|0.778|0.0262
91693315|NCT02019264|183281480|SUPERIORITY|Hospitalization for Unstable Angina: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.163||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.571|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.571|0.861|0.3243
91693316|NCT02019264|183281480|SUPERIORITY|Heart Failure: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.6758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.197|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.197|0.757|0.6758
91693317|NCT02019264|183281480|SUPERIORITY|Coronary Revascularization: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.125|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.125|0.856|0.7817
91693318|NCT02019264|183281481|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.082||||0.4212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.31|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.310|0.893|0.4212
91693319|NCT02019264|183281482|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.333|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.333|0.947|0.1810
91693320|NCT02019264|183281483|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|0.944|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.944|0.633|0.0116
91693321|NCT02019264|183281484|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.35||P-value was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and stratification variable (presence of established CV disease or CV risk factors without established CV disease) as factors, and baseline HbA1c, as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-0.43|<0.0001
91693322|NCT02019264|183281485|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|0.959|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.959|0.787|0.0054
91693323|NCT02019264|183281486|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.904||||0.3661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.125|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.125|0.727|0.3661
91693324|NCT02019264|183281487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|0.96|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.960|0.762|0.0082
91693325|NCT02019264|183281488|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.182||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.375|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.375|1.017|0.0297
91723626|NCT04950686|183340875|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.074
91723627|NCT04950686|183340875|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.828|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.828
91723628|NCT04950686|183340876|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.336|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.336
91723629|NCT04950686|183340876|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.902|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
91904202|NCT03496324|183703377|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% CI (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for Cmax.|Geometric Least Square Mean|111.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.84|120.07||||||||120.07|103.84|
91693326|NCT02019264|183281489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.11||P-value was based on logistic regression including treatment as a factor and baseline body mass index (BMI) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.69|0.5015
91693327|NCT02019264|183281490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.7249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.98||P-value was based on logistic regression including treatment as a factor and baseline BMI as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.98|0.29|0.7249
91693328|NCT02019264|183281491|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9036||||0.2976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2908|-0.5163||P value was based on a mixed-effects model (unstructured covariance matrix) with repeated measures with treatment, month and treatment by month interaction as factors and baseline pulmonary arterial systolic pressure and baseline BMI as covariates.|Mixed-effects model|||||-0.5163|-1.2908|0.2976
91693329|NCT03858998|183281559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07|||Chi-squared||Direction = Linkage minus SOC|||0.07|-0.06|0.91
91693330|NCT02220764|183281573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: The chipping rates between tooth- and implant- supoorted FDPs are equally distributed.||||0.03
91693331|NCT04205643|183281575|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimated using CMH weights|21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|29.3||If the primary endpoint is significant, a fixed sequence procedure was employed to control the overall type I error rate of the key secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Previous biologic agent and/or JAK inhibitors exposure, Use of oral corticosteroids treatment at Week 0, Clinical remission at Week 10.|The 95% stratified Newcombe CI with CMH weights|||29.3|11.8|<0.0001
91693332|NCT01804946|183281609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-determined margin of 20% of the control group effect was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided, p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the adaptive Holm method|Wald method of Z statistics calculation|Wald method of Z statistics computed a confidence interval of proportion difference.||PP set was analyzed||||0.05
91693333|NCT01804946|183281610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-determined margin of 20% of the control group effect was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided, p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the adaptive Holm method|Wald method of Z statistics calculation|Wald method of Z statistics computed a confidence interval of proportion difference.||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91693334|NCT01804946|183281611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinically significant margin was assumed to be 0.2 of Oseltamivir effect|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91693335|NCT01804946|183281612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinically significant margin was assumed to be 0.2°C|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means.||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91693336|NCT01804946|183281613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.5 point or less to assess any symptom based on 4 point scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91693337|NCT01804946|183281614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To compare the number of antipyretic intake the margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.2|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91693338|NCT01804946|183281615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To compare the quality of life total score the margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.2 of Oseltamivir group value|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|The changes of means (Day 7 vs Day 1) were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91693339|NCT01804946|183281616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To compare the patient subjective health status assessment the margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.2 of Oseltamivir group value|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.2|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Changes of means (Day 7 vs Day 1) were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91693340|NCT01804946|183281617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinically significant difference (margin) between two percentages was assumed to be 20% or more of the effect of Oseltamivir|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||The Wald method of Z statistics calcul|The Wald method of Z statistics calculation was performed including computation a confidence interval for a difference between proportions||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91693341|NCT04390113|183281652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.55|||Log Rank|||||1.55|0.55|0.6253
91723630|NCT04950686|183340877|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.629|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.629
91723631|NCT04950686|183340877|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.318|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.318
91723632|NCT04950686|183340878|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.863
91723633|NCT04950686|183340878|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.299
91865073|NCT06468982|183620579|SUPERIORITY|To evaluate whether intra-aortic balloon pump catheter support contributes to a more rapid decrease in troponin levels and faster myocardial recovery, daily troponin levels were analyzed using mixed ANOVA.||||||0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the threshold value was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|The hypothesis that IABP causes a rapid increase in troponin levels was analyzed using ANOVA, and the p-value was reported.||After testing for normality, the baseline characteristics of the two groups will be analyzed using the Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables and the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Differences between the intra-aortic balloon pump group and the control group in terms of repeated measurements will be analyzed using mixed ANOVA.||||0.05
91865074|NCT06468982|183620580|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The prognostic value of risk factors for in-hospital mortality was evaluated by multivariate logistic regression analysis||0.78|0.38|<0.05
91904203|NCT03496324|183703378|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% CI (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for AUC0-t.|Geometric Least Square Mean|101.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.28|107.16||||||||107.16|96.28|
91693342|NCT01611883|183281659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Ezetimibe treatment group will be considered non-inferior to the placebo control group if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-treatment difference (ezetimibe minus placebo) in means for change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of treatment does not exceed 0.5%.|Difference in Least-squares Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||0.23|-0.07|
91693343|NCT01611883|183281660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.47|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance||ezetimibe minus placebo|||0.47|-0.47|
91693344|NCT01611883|183281661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.5|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance||ezetimibe minus placebo|||2.5|-12.1|
91693345|NCT01611883|183281662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage difference between ezetimibe and placebo||||0.779
91693346|NCT01611883|183281663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage difference between ezetimibe and placebo||||0.365
91693347|NCT01611883|183281664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-21.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|-17.03|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-17.03|-25.06|<0.001
91693348|NCT01611883|183281665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-13.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-10.42|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-10.42|-16.66|<0.001
91693349|NCT01611883|183281666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-11.36||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-1.44|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-1.44|-21.27|0.025
91693350|NCT01611883|183281667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|2.45||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|6.61|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||6.61|-1.71|0.246
91693351|NCT01611883|183281668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-19.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.71|-15.43|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-15.43|-22.71|<0.001
91693352|NCT00030901|183281678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value is adjusted for stratification factors age older than 60, African American, baseline PSA, and vitamin E supplementation.|Regression, Logistic|||With target sample size of 466 randomized patients (233 per arm), there is a 90% of power to detect a one-third reduction in the three-year incidence rate of prostate cancer. The alpha level is set at 0.025, one-sided.||||0.73
91723634|NCT04950686|183340879|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
91723635|NCT04950686|183340879|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.119
91723636|NCT04950686|183340880|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
91723637|NCT04950686|183340880|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
91723638|NCT04950686|183340881|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.810
91723639|NCT04950686|183340881|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.901|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.901
91723640|NCT04950686|183340882|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.145
91723641|NCT04950686|183340882|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.096
91794901|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282||||0.2907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|0.812||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.812|-0.247|0.2907
91865075|NCT02326974|183620581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||By estimating that the overall pCR with T-DM1 plus pertuzumab would be approximately 40%, and 20% of the population classified as heterogeneous, the study would have 80% power with 136 evaluable patients to detect a difference in pCR of 44.9% in the non-heterogenous versus 20.3% in the heterogenous subgroup. The study had a 90% power to detect difference in pCR of 43.4% in the non-heterogenous versus 8.8% in the heterogenous subgroup if the observed prevalence of HER2 heterogeneity was 10%.||||<0.001
91904204|NCT03496324|183703378|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% CI (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for AUC0-t.|Geometric Least Square Mean|104.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.4|107.63||||||||107.63|101.4|
91693353|NCT01205776|183281693|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 2% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 2% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Com-Nougue|||||||<0.0001
91693354|NCT01205776|183281705|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 8.4% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 8.4% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Com-Nougue Approach|||||||0.011
91693355|NCT01540487|183281783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|104.5|||ANOVA|||||104.5|94.7|
91693356|NCT01540487|183281783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|106.8|||ANOVA|||||106.8|95.1|
91693357|NCT01540487|183281784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|101.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.0|95.4|
91693358|NCT01540487|183281784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|111.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.4|123.5|||ANOVA|||||123.5|100.4|
91693359|NCT01540487|183281785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.6|103.8|||ANOVA|||||103.8|90.6|
91693360|NCT01540487|183281785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusteg gMean ratio|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.2|110.1|||ANOVA|||||110.1|96.2|
91693361|NCT01540487|183281786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|104.8|||ANOVA|||||104.8|85.4|
91693362|NCT01540487|183281786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|102.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|113.9|||ANOVA|||||113.9|92.2|
91693363|NCT01540487|183281787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|110.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.5|120.6|||ANOVA|||||120.6|100.5|
91693364|NCT01540487|183281787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|89.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.2|99.3|||ANOVA|||||99.3|80.2|
91693365|NCT01540487|183281788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|104.5|||ANOVA|||||104.5|92.0|
91693366|NCT01540487|183281788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|102.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.0|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.0|97.0|
91693367|NCT01540487|183281789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|104.6|||ANOVA|||||104.6|94.7|
91693368|NCT01540487|183281789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|106.8|||ANOVA|||||106.8|95.1|
91693369|NCT03503370|183281790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.8|||||Hazard ratio from Cox Proportional Hazard comparing the chlorhexidine group to the placebo group.|||1.80|0.39|
91693370|NCT03503370|183281791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91693371|NCT03503370|183281792|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.77|||||Hazard ratio from Cox Proportional Hazard comparing the chlorhexidine group to the placebo group.|||1.77|0.34|
91693372|NCT03483961|183281793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 2 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.0015
91693373|NCT03483961|183281793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0761||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 3 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1||||0.0761
91693374|NCT03483961|183281793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9317||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 4 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.9317
91693375|NCT03483961|183281793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 5 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||<.0001
91693376|NCT03483961|183281793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 6 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.0045
91693377|NCT03483961|183281793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1437||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 7 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.1437
91794902|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.675|0.688||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.688|-0.675|0.9846
91794903|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.304||||0.3845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.392||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.392|-1.000|0.3845
91904205|NCT02092350|183703385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||One-sided exact test|||The primary hypothesis was that the SVR12 rate in the Immediate Treatment plus Intensive PK arm would be \>45%.||||0.001
91693378|NCT03483961|183281793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3216||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 8 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.3216
91693379|NCT00734162|183281836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis is the difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants who met the outcome measure criterion, controlling for randomization age group.||||< 0.001
91693380|NCT05253573|183281873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.83||||||The overall number of participants analyzed reflects the cancer survivors and/or independent caregivers. Participants are not represented separately (as cancer survivors or caregivers) for each Arm. This is because the originally proposed statistical data analysis plan did not aim to analyze the data by each group of caregivers versus cancer patients/survivors (because the statistical power would be very low for doing so||2.83|1.21|
91693381|NCT01754129|183281904|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Missing values were replaced using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) technique for data of questionnaires. Missing data at Visit 3 was replaced with the (non-missing) data recorded at Visit 2.|Paired t-test|||Mean change from baseline to Visit 3||||<0.001
91693382|NCT01754129|183281904|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Visit 2||||<0.001
91693383|NCT01085630|183281919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2423|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2423
91904206|NCT00303979|183703407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|9.7|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #1: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEU/ARB).||9.7|7.0|<0.001
91693384|NCT01237041|183281921|SUPERIORITY|Univariate ANOVA||||||0.016||||||A priori threshold p\<0.05|ANOVA|Comparison of 3 dose-finding groups. Post-hoc comparisons between groups also done.||ANOVA to compare AUC of GH among groups||||.016
91693385|NCT01237041|183281922|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA of the 3 dose-finding groups. Data transformed using log(10) for analysis||||||0.043||||||A priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||Analysis of FFA Area Under Curve in dose-finding studies. Data were log-transformed before analysis.||||.043
91693386|NCT01237041|183281923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA, 3 dose-finding groups||||0.543
91693387|NCT01237041|183281924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA, 2 groups, essentially an unpaired t-test.||||.113
91693388|NCT00651261|183281941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96|||1-sided stratified log-rank|||||0.96|0.63|0.009
91693389|NCT00651261|183281942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||1-sided stratified log rank|||||0.93|0.66|0.0024
91693390|NCT00651261|183281944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
91693391|NCT00651261|183281945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0049|||||||1-sided stratified log rank|||||||0.0049
91693392|NCT02027545|183281947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.491
91693393|NCT02027545|183281948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.049
91693394|NCT01017874|183281970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.13|0.63|0.217
91693395|NCT01017874|183281971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.31|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.31|0.68|0.788
91693396|NCT01017874|183281974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.14|0.63|0.252
91693397|NCT01017874|183281975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.32|0.53|0.952
91705779|NCT06010732|183305910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|32.7||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Positive Control-Placebo|Based on previous studies we estimate the standard deviation of the differences between treatments in the crossover model to be 20 for % SMH recovery. With a sample size of 58 subjects completing the study, the study had 80% power to detect a difference between any two treatments of 7.5 for % SMH recovery, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||32.7|21.7|<0.001
91723642|NCT04950686|183340883|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.272
91723643|NCT04950686|183340883|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.689
91723644|NCT04950686|183340884|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.824|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.824
91723645|NCT04950686|183340884|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.271
91723646|NCT04950686|183340885|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.391
91723647|NCT04950686|183340885|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.952|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.952
91723648|NCT04950686|183340886|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.925
91723649|NCT04950686|183340886|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.153
91723650|NCT04950686|183340887|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.495|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.495
91723651|NCT04950686|183340887|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.229|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.229
91794904|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.748|0.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.450|-0.748|0.6204
91723652|NCT04950686|183340888|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.753|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.753
91723653|NCT04950686|183340888|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
91723654|NCT04950686|183340889|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.541
91723655|NCT04950686|183340889|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.887|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.887
91794905|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.221|1.192||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||1.192|-1.221|0.9810
91904207|NCT00303979|183703407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative improvement (%)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|9.6|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #2: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with beta-blockers.||9.6|7.7|<0.001
91693398|NCT01790984|183281989|OTHER||General linear mixed model|2.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing differences between 2 Groups on 2 Diets (NAFLD, Control,high \& low sugar diets).|Details of our statistical approach are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TAG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
91693399|NCT01790984|183281990|OTHER||General linear mixed model|11.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical analyses are given below.|The sample size for NAFLD \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B and triacylglycerol production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level) produced sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
91693400|NCT01790984|183281991|OTHER||General linear mixed model|110.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical analyses are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
91705780|NCT06010732|183305911|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|1.11||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(EFU)||1.32|0.93|0.230
91723656|NCT04950686|183340890|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.375
91723657|NCT04950686|183340890|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.293|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.293
91723658|NCT04950686|183340891|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91759981|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.64|-1.08||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.08|-19.64|
91904208|NCT00303979|183703407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative improvement (%)|79.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.5|89.0|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #3: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with aldosterone receptor antagonists.||89.0|70.5|<0.001
91794906|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.796||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.034|0.443||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.443|-2.034|0.2034
91794907|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.405||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.469|0.659||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.659|-1.469|0.4491
91794908|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.255||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.827|2.337||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||2.337|-1.827|0.8074
91794909|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.029||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.189|1.131||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||1.131|-3.189|0.3444
91794910|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.239|1.464||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||1.464|-2.239|0.6772
91865076|NCT04181736|183620590|OTHER||F-statistic|6.621||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Repeated Measures General Linear Model|||Test of the effect of guanfacine using a general linear model including a within subjects' effect for treatment (pre- versus post-treatment sessions) and for circuit function, with five repeated measures for each circuit measure defining the cognitive control circuit.||||0.020
91865077|NCT04181736|183620595|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|2.002||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in HDRS-17 depression scores from pre-treatment to week 2.||2.002|0.937|<0.001
91865078|NCT04181736|183620595|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|3.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.757|3.547||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in HDRS-17 depression scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||3.547|2.757|<0.001
91693401|NCT01790984|183281992|OTHER||General linear mixed model|0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical approach are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
91705364|NCT01306214|183305228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.09|-4.36||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in insulin dose at week 52 was the second step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model - Covariates: baseline insulin daily dose,baseline HbA1c Fixed effects: baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of Empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo.|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-4.36|-18.09|0.0003
91693402|NCT01790984|183281993|OTHER||General linear mixed model|10.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables|Details of our statistical analyses are described below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||>0.05
91705365|NCT01306214|183305229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.54|-1.24||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in body weight at week 52 was the third step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates and baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-1.24|-3.54|<0.0001
91705781|NCT06010732|183305911|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|5.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|6.85||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(EFU)||6.85|4.86|<0.001
91705782|NCT06010732|183305911|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|6.18||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(EFU)||6.18|4.37|<0.001
91865079|NCT04181736|183620596|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-1.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.724|-0.774||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in QIDS-SR depression scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||-0.774|-1.724|< 0.001
91705783|NCT06010732|183305912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.6||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Positive Control|||8.6|-2.5|0.272
91705784|NCT06010732|183305912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|40.3||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Placebo|||40.3|29.3|<0.001
91705785|NCT06010732|183305912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|37.3||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Positive Control-Placebo|||37.3|26.2|<0.001
91705786|NCT06010732|183305913|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|1.11||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(%CAR+100)||1.32|0.93|0.191
91705787|NCT06010732|183305913|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.94||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.98||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(%CAR+100)||0.98|0.91|0.003
91705788|NCT06010732|183305913|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.97||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.01||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(%CAR+100)||1.01|0.93|0.092
91705789|NCT06010732|183305914|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|1.01||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(∆Z)||1.13|0.90|0.905
91705790|NCT06010732|183305914|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.8||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(∆Z)||0.80|0.63|<0.001
91705791|NCT06010732|183305914|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.79||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(∆Z)||0.79|0.63|<0.001
91723659|NCT04950686|183340891|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.163
91723660|NCT04950686|183340892|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
91723661|NCT04950686|183340892|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.159
91723662|NCT04950686|183340893|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.064
91723663|NCT04950686|183340893|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.137|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.137
91723664|NCT04950686|183340894|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91723665|NCT04950686|183340894|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
91723666|NCT04950686|183340895|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
91723667|NCT04950686|183340895|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.152
91723668|NCT04950686|183340896|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
91723669|NCT04950686|183340896|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.090
91723670|NCT04950686|183340897|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.282|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.282
91723671|NCT04950686|183340897|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.532
91723672|NCT04950686|183340898|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.675
91794911|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.652||||0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.063|3.367||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.367|-2.063|0.6325
91865080|NCT04181736|183620597|OTHER||F-statistic|19.362|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Repeated Measures General Linear Model|||Test of the effect of guanfacine using a general linear model including a within subjects' effect for treatment (pre- versus post-treatment sessions) and for cognitive control function, with six repeated measures for behavioral tests of cognitive control.||||<0.001
91865081|NCT04181736|183620598|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.881||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|1.438||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in SWLS scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||1.438|0.324|0.002
91865082|NCT04181736|183620599|OTHER||F-statistic|11.913||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Repeated Measures General Linear Model|||Test of the effect of guanfacine using a general linear model including a within subjects' effect for treatment (pre- versus post-treatment sessions) and for quality with four repeated measures for domains of quality of life.||||0.003
91693403|NCT01790984|183281994|OTHER||General linear mixed model|0.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical analyses are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
91693404|NCT00375973|183282027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.23
91693405|NCT00375973|183282028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91693406|NCT00375973|183282029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.67
91693407|NCT00375973|183282030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
91693408|NCT00375973|183282031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
91693409|NCT00375973|183282032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91723673|NCT04950686|183340898|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.443
91723674|NCT04950686|183340899|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.685
91723675|NCT04950686|183340899|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.726|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.726
91723676|NCT04950686|183340900|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.282|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.282
91723677|NCT04950686|183340900|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.591
91723678|NCT04950686|183340901|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.675
91865083|NCT04181736|183620600|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.2||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|0.208||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in C-SSRS scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||0.208|-0.608|0.283
91904209|NCT00303979|183703407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|1.0||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #4: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with anticoagulation for AF.||4.2|-2.2|0.546
91693410|NCT00375973|183282033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91693411|NCT01691560|183282040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09||||0.4553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.32|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.32|-0.14|0.4553
91693412|NCT01691560|183282040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.30|-0.16|0.5689
91693413|NCT01691560|183282040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04||||0.7517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.27|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.27|-0.20|0.7517
91723679|NCT04950686|183340901|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.359
91723680|NCT04950686|183340902|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.rt-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a dental dam; range = 1-4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.685
91904210|NCT00303979|183703407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|81.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.2|91.7|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #5: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-P/CRT-D).||91.7|72.2|<0.001
91723681|NCT04950686|183340902|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
91723682|NCT04950686|183340903|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a dental dam; range = 1-4|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.460
91723683|NCT04950686|183340903|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.822|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
91723684|NCT04950686|183340904|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.671
91723685|NCT04950686|183340904|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.939|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.939
91723686|NCT04950686|183340905|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.655|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.655
91723687|NCT04950686|183340905|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.315
91723688|NCT04950686|183340906|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.966|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.966
91723689|NCT04950686|183340906|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.708|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.708
91723690|NCT04950686|183340907|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.887|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.887
91723691|NCT04950686|183340907|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
91723692|NCT04950686|183340908|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.217
91723693|NCT04950686|183340908|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.879|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.879
91723694|NCT04950686|183340909|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.866|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.866
91723695|NCT04950686|183340909|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.695|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.695
91723696|NCT04950686|183340910|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.940
91723697|NCT04950686|183340910|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.451|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.451
91723698|NCT04950686|183340911|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.442|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.442
91723699|NCT04950686|183340911|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.082
91723700|NCT04950686|183340912|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.236
91723701|NCT04950686|183340912|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.674
91723702|NCT04950686|183340913|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.135
91723703|NCT04950686|183340913|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.500
91723704|NCT04950686|183340914|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.956
91904211|NCT00303979|183703407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|62.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.1|65.1|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #6: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or CRT-D.||65.1|59.1|<0.001
91723705|NCT04950686|183340914|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.214|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.214
91723706|NCT04950686|183340915|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.337|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.337
91723707|NCT04950686|183340915|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.957
91723708|NCT04950686|183340916|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.086
91723709|NCT04950686|183340916|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.515
91723710|NCT04950686|183340917|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.597
91759982|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|-6.32||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.32|-24.83|
91865084|NCT05507333|183620638|OTHER||Proportion of clinically cured patients|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4073|0.7909|||||"The proportion of clinically cured patients at Day 7-14 was calculated and presented together with a two-sided 95% CI based on the Wilson score for the proportion of Yes with continuity correction."|"It was assumed that the true clinical cure rate was 54% in the treatment group, therefore a sample size of 24 patients was needed to obtain 80% power to show that the one-sided 95% CI for the clinical cure rate was above 30%. A sample size of 26 was used to account for patients with missing data.~Hypotheses for the primary endpoint:~Null hypothesis: Clinical cure rate is less than or equal to 30%.~Alternative hypothesis (one-sided): Clinical cure rate is above 30%"||0.7909|0.4073|
91904212|NCT00303979|183703407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|16.8|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #7: relative change in % of eligible patients with HF education.||16.8|12.6|<0.001
91693414|NCT01691560|183282040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.25|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.25|-0.21|0.8549
91693415|NCT01691560|183282040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05||||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.29|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.29|-0.18|0.6685
91693416|NCT01691560|183282040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||ANCOVA||Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.20|-0.26|0.8031
91693417|NCT01691560|183282041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.0467
91693418|NCT01691560|183282041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.1133
91693419|NCT01691560|183282041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2579||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.2579
91693420|NCT01691560|183282041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|0|0.6149
91693421|NCT01691560|183282041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.3259
91693422|NCT01691560|183282041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|0|0.5721
91723711|NCT04950686|183340917|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.551
91693423|NCT01691560|183282042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.36||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.69|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.69|0.04|0.0292
91693424|NCT01691560|183282042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.2|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.20|-0.44|0.4484
91693425|NCT01691560|183282042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.2|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.20|-0.45|0.4537
91693426|NCT01691560|183282042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.49||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.81|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.81|0.16|0.0037
91904213|NCT00303979|183703409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|19.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|39.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #1: Relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in ACEI/ARB for the aggregate practices.||39.8|-1.1|0.004
91693427|NCT01691560|183282042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.81|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Treatment as fixed factor, baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.81|0.16|0.0040
91693428|NCT01691560|183282042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.32|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.32|-0.32|0.9974
91693429|NCT01691560|183282043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|-5|0.8861
91693430|NCT01691560|183282043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.0641
91693431|NCT01691560|183282043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.1831||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.1831
91693432|NCT01691560|183282043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|-10|0.0871
91693433|NCT01691560|183282043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|-10|0.1690
91693434|NCT01691560|183282043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|-5|0.3829
91693435|NCT01691560|183282044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.80|-0.74|0.9421
91693436|NCT01691560|183282044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.60|-0.90|0.6918
91693437|NCT01691560|183282044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.13||||0.7421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.88|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.88|-0.63|0.7421
91693438|NCT01691560|183282044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18||||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.94|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.94|-0.58|0.6433
91693439|NCT01691560|183282044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.67|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.67|-0.86|0.8010
91693440|NCT01691560|183282044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.28||||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.03|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.03|-0.48|0.4692
91693441|NCT01691560|183282045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.31||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.16|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.16|-0.55|0.4797
91723712|NCT04950686|183340918|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.634|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.634
91723713|NCT04950686|183340918|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.308
91865085|NCT05507333|183620639|OTHER||Proportion with cont. clinical response|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5366|0.9729|||||"The proportion of participants with continued clinical response at Day 25 (Yes) was calculated and presented together with a two-sided 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.9729|0.5366|
91865086|NCT05507333|183620640|OTHER||Proportion with clin and mycol. cure|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2091|0.5927|||||"The proportion of participants with clinical and mycological cure at Day 7-14 (Yes) was calculated and presented with a 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of participants with Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.5927|0.2091|
91693442|NCT01691560|183282045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.29|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.29|-1.37|0.2023
91693443|NCT01691560|183282045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.2917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.39|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.39|-1.29|0.2917
91693444|NCT01691560|183282045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.85||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.69|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.69|0.00|0.0503
91693445|NCT01691560|183282045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.76||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.61|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.61|-0.09|0.0811
91693446|NCT01691560|183282045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09||||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.93|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.93|-0.75|0.8322
91693447|NCT00232739|183282086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Primary analysis posterior probability|0.9926||||||||||The primary analysis of comparing Sirolimus stent with POBA using Bayesian regression model yields that Sirolimus is superior to POBA in reducing the BAR risk.|Bayesian regression model|Multi-level Bayesian regression model was used in the secondary analysis|Secondary analysis for comparing Sirolimus stent with BMS1 and BMS2 signified that Sirolimus stent is superior to POBA, BMS1 and BMS2 in reducing the BAR risk.|Historical control groups consist of propensity-scored matched cohorts (100 patients each, based on Reference Vessel Diameter, lesion length, diabetes, left anterior artery diseased vessel, and gender) of plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), first generation (Palmaz-Schatz) bare metal stent (BMS1), and BX VELOCITY bare metal stent (BMS2). Study showed the risk of 6-month in-lesion binary angiographic restenosis (BAR) was much lower for the 2.25 Sirolimus stent compared with POBA, BMS1 or BMS2.||||
91723714|NCT04950686|183340919|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.415|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.415
91723715|NCT04950686|183340919|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.721|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.721
91723716|NCT04950686|183340920|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.261
91865087|NCT05507333|183620641|OTHER||Proportion with mycological cure|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3375|0.7286|||||"The proportion of participants with mycological cure at Day 7-14 (Yes) was calculated and presented with a 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of participants with Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.7286|0.3375|
91865088|NCT05507333|183620642|OTHER||Proportion with mycological cure|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4598|0.9384|||||"The proportion of participants with mycological cure at Day 25 (Yes) was calculated and presented with a 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of participants recorded as Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.9384|0.4598|
91865089|NCT05507333|183620643|OTHER||Proportion with absence of Candida|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3719|0.7603|||||"The proportion of participants that did not show Candida hyphae in the wet smear (absence of/Yes) at Day 7-14 was calculated and presented together with a 95% CI based on the Wilson score for the proportion of Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.7603|0.3719|
91723717|NCT04950686|183340920|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.369
91865090|NCT05507333|183620644|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|-3.23|||||The mean change in the score for composite vulvovaginal signs and symptoms from Screening to Day 7-14 was calculated and presented together with a 95% CI.|||-3.23|-5.77|
91865091|NCT05507333|183620645|OTHER||Proportion with reduction CVVS score|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6872|0.9697|||||"The proportion of participants having a reduction in signs and symptoms (CVVS scores) on Day 7-14 vs. Screening was calculated and presented with a 95% CI based on the Wilson score for the prop. with Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.9697|0.6872|
91693448|NCT00676364|183282170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We determined that we will need to enroll 43 children in each group, for a power of .80, alpha=0.05. We used a per protocol analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared||To assess the association between pain and anxiety with intervention group while controlling for other factors, linear regression was used.|P-value determined from linear regression models that include age, gender, number of needle sticks in previous 2 years and nurse reported difficulty in performing venipuncture.||||0.71
91693449|NCT01514292|183282174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Hence, the hypothesis is established as:~Ho: pi \< 71.5% Ha: pi \>71.5% Thus, the objective is to conclude that the proportion of G4 Sensor-YSI points in the present study meeting the 20 mg/dL/20% criterion is no worse than the existing FDA-approved SEVEN PLUS System. The null hypothesis will be rejected if pi observed in this study is greater than 71.5%, the G4 System performance is no worse than the historical performance of the existing FDA approved CGM system will be concluded."||||0.0001
91693450|NCT04157348|183282220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in remission rates|0.0121||||0.8773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1411|0.1653|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of remission rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|||0.1653|-0.1411|0.8773
91693451|NCT04157348|183282221|SUPERIORITY||difference in remission rates|0.0544|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0746|0.1834|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method||||0.1834|-0.0746|
91693452|NCT04157348|183282222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.4|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region. A \>1 odds ratio means Benralizumab is favored.|main remission||2.40|0.72|
91693453|NCT04157348|183282222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.29|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region. A \>1 odds ratio means Benralizumab is favored.|supportive remission||2.29|0.55|
91693454|NCT04157348|183282223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.44|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|sustained main remission||2.44|0.74|
91693455|NCT04157348|183282223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.34|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region. A \>1 odds ratio means Benralizumab is favored.|sustained supportive remission||2.34|0.64|
91693456|NCT04157348|183282224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.82|||Regression, Cox||The HR (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using a Cox regression model with Efron method to control for ties. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|relapse||1.82|0.53|
91693457|NCT04157348|183282225|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.9|||negative binomial model|marginal standardization method|The rate ratio (Benralizumab/Mepolizumab) and the corresponding 95% CI are calculated using a negative binomial model. The covariates in the model include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|relapse||1.90|0.56|
91723718|NCT04950686|183340921|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.124
91865092|NCT01960452|183620650|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute (spatially z-score normalized across all electrodes for each subject)||||||0.2791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only reporting values for approximate 10-20 channel CP1||||0.2791
91865093|NCT01960452|183620650|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute multiple comparisons correction across electrodes using threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE)||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91865094|NCT01960452|183620651|OTHER|Group comparison, for both absolute (spatially z-score normalized across all electrodes for each subject)||||||0.1069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only reporting values for approximate 10-20 channel CP1||||0.1069
91865095|NCT01960452|183620651|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute multiple comparisons correction across electrodes using threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE)||||||0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.546
91693458|NCT04157348|183282227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.54|||proportional odds model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab 30 mg vs. Mepolizumab 300 mg) and 95% CI are estimated using a proportional odds model. The covariates in the model include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|||2.54|0.75|
91693459|NCT04157348|183282228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.22|||proportional odds model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab 30 mg vs. Mepolizumab 300 mg) for higher % reduction and 95% CI are estimated using a proportional odds model. The covariates in the model include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|||3.22|0.96|
91865096|NCT01960452|183620652|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute (spatially z-score normalized across all electrodes for each subject)||||||0.2918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only reporting values for approximate 10-20 channel CP1||||0.2918
91723719|NCT04950686|183340921|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.794
91723720|NCT04950686|183340922|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
91723721|NCT04950686|183340922|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
91723722|NCT04950686|183340923|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.585|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.585
91723723|NCT04950686|183340923|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.338|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
91723724|NCT04950686|183340924|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.259|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.259
91723725|NCT04950686|183340924|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.950
91723726|NCT04950686|183340925|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.411
91723727|NCT04950686|183340925|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.491
91723728|NCT04950686|183340926|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.498
91723729|NCT04950686|183340926|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.573
91723730|NCT04950686|183340927|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.128
91723731|NCT04950686|183340927|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91723732|NCT04950686|183340928|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
91723733|NCT04950686|183340928|EQUIVALENCE|This arm will receive Health Aware for Young Adults in between the pretest and posttest questionnaire. Health Aware for Young Adults is a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program. The program contains the same health content as Media Aware for Young Adults but without the media literacy education components. The program is self-paced and includes four modules.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.638|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.638
91865097|NCT01960452|183620652|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute multiple comparisons correction across electrodes using threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE)||||||0.761|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.761
91723734|NCT04950686|183340929|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.841
91865098|NCT04820322|183620721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
91865099|NCT04820322|183620722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91865100|NCT04820322|183620723|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91865101|NCT04820322|183620724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.70
91693460|NCT04157348|183282229|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|0.1079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0225|0.2383|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of proportions (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|\>=50% reduction||0.2383|-0.0225|
91693461|NCT04157348|183282229|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|0.1569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0067|0.3017|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of proportions (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|100% reduction||0.3017|0.0067|
91693462|NCT04157348|183282229|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-0.0068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1555|0.1418|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of proportions (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|OCS dose \<=4 mg/day||0.1418|-0.1555|
91693463|NCT04157348|183282230|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rates|0.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0422|0.1341|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of response rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|any clinical response-definition 1||0.1341|-0.0422|
91693464|NCT04157348|183282230|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rates|0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0732|0.2312|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of response rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|complete response-definition 1||0.2312|-0.0732|
91693465|NCT04157348|183282231|SUPERIORITY||difference in remission rates|0.0554|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.2037|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of remission rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|main remission||0.2037|-0.0930|
91693466|NCT04157348|183282231|SUPERIORITY||difference in remission rates|0.0467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1021|0.1956|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of remission rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|supportive remission||0.1956|-0.1021|
91693467|NCT03020992|183282270|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.281|||Poisson regression|||"The Poisson regression allowed for a comparison of event rates adjusting for differences in time between prestudy/on-study periods.~Event rates were based on a Poisson model with generalized estimating equations and a log-link, including an offset term for time interval length, and with period and disease duration of axSpA (\<2 years/≥2 years) as covariates. A repeated statement was included for participants and assumed an exchangeable correlation structure between prestudy and on-study flares."||0.281|0.116|<0.001
91693468|NCT05000164|183282302|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|The upper limit of each 95% confidence interval was compared to 0.0 logMAR for distance.|Distance (4m)||-0.07|-0.17|
91693469|NCT05000164|183282302|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|The upper limit of each 95% confidence interval was compared to 0.17 logMAR for intermediate.|Intermediate (64cm)||0.04|-0.06|
91693470|NCT05000164|183282302|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|The upper limit of each 95% confidence interval was compared to 0.17 logMAR for near.|Near (40cm)||0.15|0.04|
91693471|NCT01006122|183282303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747||0.418|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||One sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects, baseline MWT as a covariate and participant as random effect.||1.12|-0.81|0.418
91865102|NCT04820322|183620725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
91693472|NCT01006122|183282304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.457||0.054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.32|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.15|-1.32|0.054
91693473|NCT01006122|183282304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.89|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.27|-0.89|0.247
91693474|NCT01006122|183282304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.457||0.095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 15 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.01|-1.19|0.095
91693475|NCT01006122|183282304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 20 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.75|-0.50|0.604
91865103|NCT04820322|183620726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
91865104|NCT04820322|183620727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
91865105|NCT04820322|183620728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91865106|NCT04820322|183620729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
91865107|NCT04820322|183620730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91865108|NCT04820322|183620731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
91865109|NCT04200313|183620743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91865110|NCT04200313|183620743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91693476|NCT01006122|183282304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.232|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.26|-0.95|0.232
91693477|NCT01006122|183282304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.093|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.23|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.02|-1.23|0.093
91693478|NCT01006122|183282304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.274|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.94|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.34|-0.94|0.274
91693479|NCT01006122|183282305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.03|-0.60|0.121
91693480|NCT01006122|183282305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.394|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.25|-0.38|0.394
91693481|NCT01006122|183282305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.073|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 15 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.04|-0.67|0.073
91693482|NCT01006122|183282305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.495|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 20 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.33|-0.34|0.495
91693483|NCT01006122|183282305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.46|-0.18|0.711
91693484|NCT01006122|183282305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.767|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.51|-0.14|0.767
91693485|NCT01006122|183282305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.698|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.48|-0.20|0.698
91693486|NCT01006122|183282308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.02|-0.34|0.127
91723735|NCT04950686|183340929|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.270
91693487|NCT01006122|183282308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.303|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.25|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.11|-0.25|0.303
91693488|NCT01006122|183282308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.738|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 15 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.27|-0.09|0.738
91693489|NCT01006122|183282308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.85|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.04|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 20 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.35|-0.04|0.850
91693490|NCT01006122|183282308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.631|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7 (SP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.24|-0.14|0.631
91723736|NCT04950686|183340930|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.940
91865111|NCT04200313|183620744|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with a 1% non-inferiority margin|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91865112|NCT04200313|183620744|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with a 1% non-inferiority margin|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91865113|NCT04200313|183620745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91865114|NCT04200313|183620745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91865115|NCT04200313|183620746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91865116|NCT04200313|183620746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91794912|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.5706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.606|2.007||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.007|-3.606|0.5706
91794913|NCT01227564|183468818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074||||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.485|2.337||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.337|-2.485|0.9513
91693491|NCT01006122|183282308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.16|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14 (SP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.04|-0.34|0.160
91693492|NCT01006122|183282308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.541|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21 (SP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.22|-0.18|0.541
91693493|NCT03493854|183282320|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.31|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of pertuzumab (Arm B) relative to the pertuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the pertuzumab Arm A SC dose is inferior to the pertuzumab Arm B IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of pertuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.31|1.14|
91693494|NCT03493854|183282321|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8. Non-inferiority was tested in hierarchical order after the primary outcome measure, to adjust for multiple statistical testing and control the type I error at one sided 5% significance level.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.43|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of trastuzumab (Arm B) relative to the trastuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the trastuzumab Arm B SC dose is inferior to the Arm A trastuzumab IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of trastuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.43|1.24|
91693495|NCT03493854|183282322|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only. tpCR was analyzed outside of a hypothesis-testing framework and according to the methodology outlined in the outcome measure description.|Difference in tpCR Rate|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|8.97|||||Difference in tpCR rate was calculated as Arm B: PH FDC SC minus Arm A: P+H IV.|||8.97|-8.67|
91693496|NCT03493854|183282323|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.11|||Log Rank|||||2.11|0.68|0.5216
91693497|NCT03493854|183282324|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.68|0.5992
91723737|NCT04950686|183340930|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.992|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.992
91865117|NCT04200313|183620747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91865118|NCT04200313|183620747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91865119|NCT04200313|183620748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91865120|NCT04200313|183620748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91865121|NCT04200313|183620749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91693498|NCT03493854|183282325|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.98|||Log Rank|||||1.98|0.72|0.4844
91693499|NCT03493854|183282326|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.88|||Log Rank|||||1.88|0.71|0.5474
91693500|NCT03493854|183282327|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.24|||Log Rank|||||2.24|0.61|0.6291
91693501|NCT03493854|183282328|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.72|||Log Rank|||||2.72|0.58|0.5609
91693502|NCT02712554|183282360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91693503|NCT02712554|183282360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91693504|NCT02712554|183282360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2344|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2344
91693505|NCT02712554|183282360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4737|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4737
91693506|NCT02712554|183282360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91693507|NCT02712554|183282360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91693508|NCT02712554|183282364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693509|NCT02712554|183282364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693510|NCT02712554|183282364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1267|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1267
91693511|NCT02712554|183282364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1767|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1767
91693512|NCT02712554|183282364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91723738|NCT04950686|183340931|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.470
91723739|NCT04950686|183340931|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.130
91723740|NCT04950686|183340932|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.931|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.931
91723741|NCT04950686|183340932|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.666
91723742|NCT04950686|183340933|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.822|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
91723743|NCT04950686|183340933|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.721|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.721
91723744|NCT04950686|183340934|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.540
91723745|NCT04950686|183340934|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.956
91723746|NCT04950686|183340935|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
91723747|NCT04950686|183340935|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.136
91723748|NCT04950686|183340936|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.829
91865122|NCT04200313|183620749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91865123|NCT04200313|183620750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
91865124|NCT04200313|183620750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
91904214|NCT00303979|183703409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #2: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in beta-blockers for the aggregate practices.||10.2|5.1|<0.001
91723749|NCT04950686|183340936|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.748|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.748
91723750|NCT04950686|183340937|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.490
91723751|NCT04950686|183340937|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.831|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.831
91865125|NCT00677365|183620900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.38||Repeated Measure Model|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference||-0.38|-1.54|0.0014
91865126|NCT00677365|183620901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.52|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio for need of anti-pseudomonal antimicrobials; Estimates are obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including terms for treatment, region, baseline P.aeruginosa density (log10 ), highest baseline MIC of levofloxacin against P. aeruginosa (log2 ), and baseline percent predicted FEV1 (quartiles)||0.52|0.09|0.0007
91865127|NCT00677365|183620902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.61||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|14.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference Between MP-376 240 mg and Placebo groups||14.17|3.05|0.0026
91865128|NCT00677365|183620903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.94||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.63|17.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference Between Placebo and MP-376 240 mg BID groups||17.25|4.63|0.0008
91865129|NCT00677365|183620904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|11.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference from MP-376 240 mg BID to placebo groups||11.67|-2.68|0.2174
91865130|NCT04102111|183620927|OTHER||Least Squares Means|37.4||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|95.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||95.8|-21.0|0.288
91693513|NCT02712554|183282364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693514|NCT02712554|183282364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0119|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0119
91693515|NCT02712554|183282364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0025|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0025
91693516|NCT02712554|183282364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1679|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1679
91693517|NCT02712554|183282364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0318|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0318
91693518|NCT02712554|183282364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||0.0002
91693519|NCT02712554|183282364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91693520|NCT02712554|183282365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693521|NCT02712554|183282365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693522|NCT02712554|183282365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0858|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0858
91693523|NCT02712554|183282365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2877|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.2877
91693524|NCT02712554|183282365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693525|NCT02712554|183282365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693526|NCT02712554|183282365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0009
91693527|NCT02712554|183282365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0001
91693528|NCT02712554|183282365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1130
91693529|NCT02712554|183282365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0575|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0575
91693530|NCT02712554|183282365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693531|NCT02712554|183282365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693532|NCT02712554|183282366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693533|NCT02712554|183282366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693534|NCT02712554|183282366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4025|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.4025
91693535|NCT02712554|183282366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3184|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.3184
91693536|NCT02712554|183282366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693537|NCT02712554|183282366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693538|NCT02712554|183282367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693539|NCT02712554|183282367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693540|NCT02712554|183282367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2628|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2628
91693541|NCT02712554|183282367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2262|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.2262
91693542|NCT02712554|183282367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693543|NCT02712554|183282367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693544|NCT02712554|183282368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693545|NCT02712554|183282368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693546|NCT02712554|183282368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1839|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1839
91693547|NCT02712554|183282368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1751|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1751
91693548|NCT02712554|183282368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693549|NCT02712554|183282368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693550|NCT02712554|183282369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693551|NCT02712554|183282369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693552|NCT02712554|183282369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4013|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.4013
91693553|NCT02712554|183282369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0736
91723752|NCT04950686|183340938|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
91693554|NCT02712554|183282369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693555|NCT02712554|183282369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91693556|NCT02712554|183282370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.001
91693557|NCT02712554|183282370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.001
91693558|NCT02712554|183282370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2223|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2223
91693559|NCT02712554|183282370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1638|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1638
91693560|NCT02712554|183282370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||0.0041
91693561|NCT02712554|183282370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.001
91693562|NCT02712554|183282371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0001
91693563|NCT02712554|183282371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693564|NCT02712554|183282371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2706|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2706
91693565|NCT02712554|183282371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5507|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.5507
91693566|NCT02712554|183282371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0047|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||0.0047
91693567|NCT02712554|183282371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693568|NCT02712554|183282372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0001
91693569|NCT02712554|183282372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693570|NCT02712554|183282372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0014
91693571|NCT02712554|183282372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0080
91693572|NCT02712554|183282372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693573|NCT02712554|183282372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693574|NCT02712554|183282373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0024
91693575|NCT02712554|183282373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0012
91693576|NCT02712554|183282373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0037
91693577|NCT02712554|183282373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0011
91693578|NCT02712554|183282373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693579|NCT02712554|183282373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693580|NCT02712554|183282374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693581|NCT02712554|183282374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693582|NCT02712554|183282374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0630
91693583|NCT02712554|183282374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4436|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.4436
91693584|NCT02712554|183282374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693585|NCT02712554|183282374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693586|NCT02712554|183282375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693587|NCT02712554|183282375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693588|NCT02712554|183282375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2335|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2335
91693589|NCT02712554|183282375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1808|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1808
91693590|NCT02712554|183282375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693591|NCT02712554|183282375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693592|NCT02712554|183282378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693593|NCT02712554|183282378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Treatment D: M366 37.5 mg/1625 mg, Treatment E: Placebo||||<0.0001
91693594|NCT02712554|183282378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1268|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1268
91693595|NCT02712554|183282378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0014
91693596|NCT02712554|183282378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91888724|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.3589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.37|0.3589
91693597|NCT02712554|183282378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693598|NCT02712554|183282379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693599|NCT02712554|183282379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693600|NCT02712554|183282379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0120
91693601|NCT02712554|183282379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||<0.0001
91693602|NCT02712554|183282379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693603|NCT02712554|183282379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91693604|NCT03830333|183282417|NON_INFERIORITY|Ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole is concluded to be non-inferior to meropenem + placebo if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference in percent response is above -12.5 percentage points.|Difference in percentages|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.8||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||8.8|-4.7|
91693605|NCT03830333|183282418|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|3.7||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||3.7|-12.6|
91693606|NCT03830333|183282419|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.7||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||6.7|-3.8|
91723753|NCT04950686|183340938|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.235
91723754|NCT04950686|183340939|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.682|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.682
91693607|NCT03830333|183282420|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.8||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||4.8|-8.0|
91693608|NCT03830333|183282421|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.4||||||Difference in percentage based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||10.4|-9.2|
91693609|NCT03830333|183282422|OTHER|Difference in percentage was based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method. Confidence Interval is displayed only when there are at least 4 participants in at least one treatment group.|Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|8.7||||||Gram-negative aerobes comparison: Based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.||8.7|-11.9|
91693610|NCT03830333|183282422|OTHER|Difference in percentage was based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method. Confidence Interval is displayed only when there are at least 4 participants in at least one treatment group.|Difference in percentages|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|8.5||||||All enterobacteriaceae comparison: Based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.||8.5|-12.5|
91693611|NCT03830333|183282422|OTHER|Difference in percentage was based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method. Confidence Interval is displayed only when there are at least 4 participants in at least one treatment group.|Difference in percentages|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|20.0||||||Gram-positive aerobes comparison: Based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.||20.0|-42.2|
91693612|NCT03830333|183282423|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|11.2||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||11.2|-12.6|
91693613|NCT03830333|183282424|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.4||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||4.4|-4.4|
91693614|NCT01445730|183282425|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91723755|NCT04950686|183340939|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.373
91693615|NCT01445730|183282426|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91693616|NCT01445730|183282427|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91693617|NCT01445730|183282428|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91693618|NCT01445730|183282429|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91693619|NCT01445730|183282430|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91693620|NCT01445730|183282431|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91693621|NCT01367886|183282432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.88||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91693622|NCT01367886|183282433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
91693623|NCT01367886|183282434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91723756|NCT04950686|183340940|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.63|0.24|0.242
91865131|NCT02542631|183620934|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size determination was based on the primary endpoint, A1C change from Baseline to Week 24. Assuming that the true mean difference in A1C change for Finesse versus Pen was -0.1% with a SD of 1.2%, a study population of 250 completers (125 per arm) was required to achieve a power of 90% for non-inferiority with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.14||Non-inferiority p-value was calculated with 2-sided comparison of the difference in treatment effects between Finesse and Pen with a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||0.14|-0.32|<0.0001
91693624|NCT01367886|183282435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0025
91693625|NCT01938092|183282441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91693626|NCT01938092|183282442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
91693627|NCT01938092|183282443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91693628|NCT00985504|183282444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||1.10|-1.87|0.612
91693629|NCT00985504|183282445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0||||This is the p-value for Cognition Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.504
91693630|NCT00985504|183282445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Behavior Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.665
91693631|NCT00985504|183282445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||This is the p-value for Emotional Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.489
91693632|NCT00985504|183282445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||95.0||||This is the p-value for Other Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.945
91693633|NCT00985504|183282446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.157
91693634|NCT00985504|183282446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Energy Level score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.119
91693635|NCT00985504|183282446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Motivation and Interest score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.184
91693636|NCT00985504|183282446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Cognitive Functioning score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.226
91693637|NCT00985504|183282446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Weight Gain score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.059
91693638|NCT00985504|183282446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Sleep score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.466
91693639|NCT00985504|183282446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Sexual Functioning score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.822
91693640|NCT00985504|183282446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Affect score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.599
91693641|NCT00985504|183282447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||This is the p-value for the PGI-I.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.723
91693642|NCT00985504|183282448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.410
91693643|NCT00985504|183282449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.880
91693644|NCT00985504|183282449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 8 (Inability to Feel) score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.224
91693645|NCT00985504|183282450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This is the p-value for the Total Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.910
91693646|NCT00985504|183282450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Motivation/Interest/Enthusiasm Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.882
91693647|NCT00985504|183282450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Wakefulness/Alertness Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.657
91693648|NCT00985504|183282450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Energy Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.457
91693649|NCT00985504|183282450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Ability to Focus/Sustain Attention Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.737
91693650|NCT00985504|183282450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Ability to Remember/Recall Information Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.404
91693651|NCT00985504|183282450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Ability to Find Words Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.808
91693652|NCT00985504|183282450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.431||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Sharpness/Mental Acuity Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.431
91693653|NCT00985504|183282451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821||95.0||||This is the p-value for the SDS Total Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.821
91693654|NCT00985504|183282451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 1 (Work) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.491
91904215|NCT00303979|183703409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|35.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #3: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in aldosterone antagonist for the aggregate practices.||35.5|24.6|<0.001
91693655|NCT00985504|183282451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 2 (Family) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.451
91693656|NCT00985504|183282451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 3 (Social) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.443
91693657|NCT00985504|183282451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 4 (Days Lost) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.719
91693658|NCT00985504|183282451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 5 (Days Underproductive) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.517
91693659|NCT00985504|183282452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.776
91693660|NCT00985504|183282453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The log-rank test was conducted using Kaplan-Meier Product-Limit method.||||0.691
91693661|NCT00985504|183282454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.724
91693662|NCT01465412|183282460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the least squares mean (LSM) Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.695|1.662||||||The analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, Body Mass Index (BMI) and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||1.662|0.695|
91693663|NCT01465412|183282460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|2.598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.334|5.06||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||5.060|1.334|
91693664|NCT01465412|183282461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.305|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.027||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.027|0.840|
91723757|NCT04950686|183340940|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|5.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.72|0.11|0.207
91723758|NCT04950686|183340941|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.52|0.51|0.576
91693665|NCT01465412|183282461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.434|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.643|3.198||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||3.198|0.643|
91693666|NCT01465412|183282462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|4.234||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||4.234|0.810|
91693667|NCT01465412|183282462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|2.392|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.306|4.382||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||4.382|1.306|
91693668|NCT01465412|183282463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|2.61||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.610|0.918|
91723759|NCT04950686|183340941|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.03|0.46|0.888
91723760|NCT04950686|183340942|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.45|0.22|0.467
91723761|NCT04950686|183340942|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.03|0.46|0.888
91693669|NCT01465412|183282463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.75||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||2.750|0.720|
91693670|NCT01465412|183282464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.555|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.617|3.917||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||3.917|0.617|
91693671|NCT01465412|183282464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|4.806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.77|8.335||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||8.335|2.770|
91693672|NCT01465412|183282465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.269|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.703|2.288||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.288|0.703|
91693673|NCT01465412|183282465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.316|2.977||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||2.977|1.316|
91693674|NCT01465412|183282466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.326|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.749|2.348||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.348|0.749|
91693675|NCT01465412|183282466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|4.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|11.187||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||11.187|1.460|
91693676|NCT01465412|183282467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.609|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.007|2.572||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.572|1.007|
91693677|NCT01465412|183282467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|2.231|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|5.896||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||5.896|0.844|
91693678|NCT03805412|183282476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.694
91693679|NCT03711786|183282477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|6.65|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||6.65|0.22|0.836
91693680|NCT03711786|183282478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.14|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||6.14|0.12|0.877
91693681|NCT03711786|183282479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|104.23|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||104.23|3.23|0.001
91693682|NCT03711786|183282480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.01|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||4.01|1.15|0.017
91723762|NCT04950686|183340943|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
91723763|NCT04950686|183340943|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.432|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.432
91723764|NCT04950686|183340944|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
91693683|NCT03711786|183282481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.8|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||1.80|0.45|0.759
91693684|NCT07091916|183282497|OTHER|This objective was for the purpose of gathering data pertaining to device safety over the first 2 weeks post-implant. There were no pre-specified performance criteria or hypotheses for this objective.|Proportion|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||descriptive statistics|||The first primary objective is to characterize the freedom from major complications related to the EV ICD System and/or procedure at 2 weeks post-implant. The endpoint is defined as a subject's first occurrence of a major complication related to the EV ICD System and/or procedure, as determined by an independent Clinical Events Committee (CEC), that occurs on or prior to 2 weeks (14 days) post-implant.||||
91693685|NCT07091916|183282498|OTHER|There were no hypotheses for this objective.|Proportion|100.0|||||||||||descriptive statistics|||The primary efficacy objective was to characterize the defibrillation efficacy at implant of the EV ICD System.||||
91693686|NCT05682729|183282514|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.03||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05. Wilks' Lambda F(3, 109) = .96, p = .41, ηp2 = .03.|ANCOVA|||We specifically compared the pre-to-post test change in accuracy on the FAM task across the four groups using a within-subjects ANCOVA and specifically a group by time (pre-to-post test) interaction. We controlled for age, gender, and children's executive function skills.||||.41
91693687|NCT05682729|183282514|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.004
91693688|NCT05682729|183282514|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.04||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.031
91693689|NCT05682729|183282514|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.01||||0.463|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.463
91693690|NCT05682729|183282514|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.02||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.186
91693691|NCT05682729|183282515|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.02||||0.605|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.605
91693692|NCT05682729|183282516|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.02||||0.618|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.618
91693693|NCT03100903|183282552|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, accounting for the treatment group as a source of variation. The effect 'treatment group' was considered as fixed.|Geometric Mean ratio (%)|71.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.57|84.73|||||"gMean ratio = gMean of BI 655130 high dose SC/gMean of BI 655130 high dose IV.~Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 23.7"|||84.73|60.57|
91723765|NCT04950686|183340944|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.794
91693694|NCT03100903|183282553|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, accounting for the treatment group as a source of variation. The effect 'treatment group' was considered as fixed.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio %|29.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.27|35.35|||||"gMean ratio = gMean of BI 655130 high dose SC/gMean of BI 655130 high dose IV.~Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6"|||35.35|24.27|
91723766|NCT04950686|183340945|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.277
91723767|NCT04950686|183340945|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.115
91693695|NCT03100903|183282554|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, accounting for the treatment group as a source of variation. The effect 'treatment group' was considered as fixed.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio %|70.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.26|83.2|||||"gMean ratio = gMean of BI 655130 high dose SC/gMean of BI 655130 high dose IV.~Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 23.9"|||83.20|59.26|
91693696|NCT04659993|183282555|SUPERIORITY|To test the change over the 8 weeks, a paired t-test (using the baseline and Visit 8 scores within the same patient) will be used; the expected difference in the CBI-B between the two scores would be no change. All statistical test used an alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.8||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.0||All statistical tests were performed with a significance level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To test the change over the 8 weeks, a paired t-test (using the baseline and Visit 8 scores within the same patient) will be used; the expected difference in the CBI-B between the two scores would be no change. All statistical test used an alpha of 0.05.||9.0|-7.3|0.8036
91723768|NCT02266576|183340969|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs month 6||||0.04
91723769|NCT02266576|183340969|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.||Baseline vs month 12||||0.02
91693697|NCT04659993|183282556|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test for Coronavirus Anxiety Scale. Statistical significance using alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.6|0.3632
91865132|NCT02542631|183620935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.14||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.14|0.81|0.26
91904216|NCT00303979|183703409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|1.0||||0.513||95.0|-3.6|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #4: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in anticoagulation for AF for the aggregate practices.||5.5|-3.6|0.513
91693698|NCT04659993|183282557|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of Purpose in life test. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|9.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.1|-11.3|0.7918
91693699|NCT04659993|183282558|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Anxious preoccupation Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.9|-6.2|0.7711
91693700|NCT04659993|183282558|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Cognitive avoidance Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-11.5|0.0772
91693701|NCT04659993|183282558|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Fatalism Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6||0.2452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-2.9|0.2452
91693702|NCT04659993|183282558|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Fighting spirit Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3||0.6099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.8|-10.5|0.6099
91693703|NCT04659993|183282558|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Helplessness/hopelessness Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-6.7|0.0913
91693704|NCT04850989|183282559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
91693705|NCT04850989|183282560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|-1.23|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
91693706|NCT04850989|183282561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
91693707|NCT04850989|183282562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
91693708|NCT04850989|183282563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||> 0.05
91693709|NCT00457002|183282584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23|||Mantel Haenszel|||To conclude superiority of apixaban versus enoxaparin on the primary efficacy endpoint, the upper bound of the two-sided 95.004% confidence interval (CI) for the relative risk (pa/ pe) must be less than 1.||1.23|0.62|0.4364
91693710|NCT00457002|183282584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.59||||||||0.59|-1.37|
91693711|NCT00457002|183282585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.63||||||Formal testing of noninferiority for the key secondary efficacy endpoint was not performed since the superiority of the primary efficacy endpoint was not demonstrated.||1.63|0.69|
91693712|NCT00457002|183282585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.81||||||||0.81|-0.61|
91693713|NCT00457002|183282586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.71||||||||1.71|0.70|
91693714|NCT00457002|183282586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.85||||||||0.85|-0.57|
91693715|NCT00457002|183282587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2||||||||1.20|0.78|
91723770|NCT02266576|183340970|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.||Baseline vs month 6 in physical component score||||0.004
91723771|NCT02266576|183340970|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.||Baseline vs month 12 in physical component score||||0.01
91723772|NCT02906618|183340984|OTHER|A mixed-effect analysis of variance model was applied to the log-transformed dose-adjusted AUC(0-∞) of LY3039478 after oral dosing and IV administration of 13C 15N 2H-LY3039478. The model contained a fixed effect for formulation (oral or IV) and a random effect for participant.|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.572|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.615||||||||0.615|0.532|
91723773|NCT04766333|183340991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||Healthcare Arm is the reference category|||1.23|0.17|<0.05
91723774|NCT03807843|183341008|OTHER||V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio|1.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.1|||Mixed Effects Model|||"Day 28 V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio~The ratio of V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR at Day 28 was derived from the mixed effects model used to determine GMFR."||2.1|1.2|0.004
91693716|NCT00457002|183282587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.17||||||||1.17|-1.65|
91693717|NCT00457002|183282588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22||||||||1.22|0.79|
91693718|NCT00457002|183282588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.29||||||||1.29|-1.52|
91723775|NCT03807843|183341008|OTHER||V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.8|||Mixed Effects Model|||"Day 56 V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio~The ratio of V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR at Day 56 was derived from the mixed effects model used to determine GMFR."||2.8|1.5|<0.001
91723776|NCT03807843|183341008|OTHER||V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio|1.3||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Mixed Effects Model|||"Day 196 V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio~The ratio of V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR at Day 196 was derived from the mixed effects model used to determine GMFR."||1.7|0.9|0.121
91865133|NCT02542631|183620936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|3.7||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ACNOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||3.70|-9.63|0.38
91693719|NCT00457002|183282589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.29||||||||1.29|0.65|
91693720|NCT00457002|183282589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.71||||||||0.71|-1.23|
91693721|NCT00457002|183282590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.05||||||||4.05|0.11|
91693722|NCT00457002|183282590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.16|
91693723|NCT00457002|183282591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16||||||||1.16|0.68|
91693724|NCT00457002|183282591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.48||||||||0.48|-1.25|
91693725|NCT00457002|183282592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.96||||||||0.96|0.26|
91693726|NCT00457002|183282592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-0.78|
91693727|NCT00457002|183282593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28||||||||1.28|0.84|
91693728|NCT00457002|183282593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.73||||||||1.73|-1.18|
91693729|NCT00457002|183282594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.43||||||||2.43|0.32|
91693730|NCT00457002|183282594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.26|
91723777|NCT02734667|183341024|SUPERIORITY||t statistic from GLM/regression|-0.47||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes between the CGM and control groups at 6 months while adjusting for participant gender, age, annual household income, days since diagnosis, and baseline A1c.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.64
91723778|NCT02734667|183341025|SUPERIORITY||t-statistic from GLM/regression results|-2.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes between the CGM and control groups at 6 months while adjusting for participant gender, age, annual household income, days since diagnosis, and baseline A1c.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.013
91723779|NCT02734667|183341026|SUPERIORITY||t-statistic from GLM/regression results|3.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes between the CGM and control groups at 6 months while adjusting for participant gender, age, annual household income, days since diagnosis, and baseline A1c.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.003
91723780|NCT05177094|183341040|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.40|-0.70|
91723781|NCT05177094|183341041|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.64|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.64|-0.66|
91723782|NCT05177094|183341042|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.46|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.46|-0.72|
91723783|NCT05177094|183341043|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.46|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.46|-0.98|
91723784|NCT05177094|183341044|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.18|-0.61|
91693731|NCT00457002|183282595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.43||||||||2.43|0.32|
91693732|NCT00457002|183282595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.26|
91693733|NCT00457002|183282596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.83||||||||0.83|0.11|
91693734|NCT00457002|183282596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.07||||||||-0.07|-0.62|
91693735|NCT00457002|183282597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||||||||1.37|0.65|
91693736|NCT00457002|183282597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.76||||||||0.76|-1.04|
91693737|NCT00457002|183282598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02||||||Note: Relative risk was not estimable (0.0); only risk difference could be estimated.||-0.02|-0.29|
91693738|NCT00457002|183282599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.16||||||||1.16|0.14|
91693739|NCT00457002|183282599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.47|
91693740|NCT00457002|183282600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference of event rates|0.29||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.57||The Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors will be used at the one-sided alpha=0.025 level.|Mantel Haenszel|||Adjusted difference of event rates takes the stratification factor into consideration: previous VTE (yes, no) and active or previous cancer (yes, no).||0.57|0.01|0.0437
91693741|NCT00457002|183282601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference of event rates|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.06||||||Adjusted difference of event rates takes the stratification factor into consideration: previous VTE (yes, no) and active or previous cancer (yes, no).||1.06|-0.33|
91693742|NCT00457002|183282602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjustted difference of event rates|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|1.33||||||Adjusted difference of event rates takes the stratification factor into consideration: previous VTE (yes, no) and active or previous cancer (yes, no).||1.33|-016|
91693743|NCT00457002|183282603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference of Event Rates|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.14||||||||2.14|-0.40|
91693744|NCT00457002|183282604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.61||||||||1.61|0.74|
91693745|NCT00457002|183282604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.07||||||||1.07|-0.66|
91723785|NCT05177094|183341045|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.24|-0.58|
91723786|NCT05177094|183341046|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.45|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.45|-0.68|
91723787|NCT05177094|183341047|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.77|-0.65|
91723788|NCT05177094|183341048|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|4.28|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||4.28|-10.43|
91723789|NCT05177094|183341049|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|7.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||7.00|-10.04|
91723790|NCT05177094|183341050|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.54|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.54|-0.32|
91723791|NCT05177094|183341051|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.65|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.65|-0.24|
91723792|NCT05177094|183341052|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|44.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.73|204.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||204.00|-114.73|
91723793|NCT05177094|183341053|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-98.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.86|34.49|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||34.49|-231.86|
91723794|NCT05177094|183341054|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.07|-0.05|
91723795|NCT05177094|183341055|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.09|
91723796|NCT00138294|183341059|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.91||||||Overall Effectiveness against MAARI during the Epidemic Period (2007-2008)||0.91|0.87|
91904217|NCT00303979|183703409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|58.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #5: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in CRT-P/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||58.8|37.9|<0.001
91723797|NCT00138294|183341060|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.71||||||Overall Effectiveness against MAARI during the Epidemic Period (2008-2009)||0.71|0.67|
91723798|NCT00138294|183341061|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.76||||||Overall Effectiveness against MAARI during the Epidemic Period (2008-2009)||0.76|0.73|
91723799|NCT02827708|183341070|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.6|-1.0|<0.0001
91723800|NCT02827708|183341070|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
91723801|NCT02827708|183341071|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.8|-3.2|<0.0001
91723802|NCT02827708|183341071|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.9|-3.5|<0.0001
91723803|NCT02827708|183341087|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||=|0.1834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.23||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.23|0.34|=0.1834
91723804|NCT02827708|183341088|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.04||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.04|0.17|=0.0610
91904218|NCT00303979|183703409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|70.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|80.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #6: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in ICD/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||80.8|61.0|<0.001
91904219|NCT00303979|183703409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|74.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #7: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in HF education for the aggregate practices.||74.2|27.1|<0.001
91693746|NCT00457002|183282613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Event rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.29|||||stratification factor: previous VTE (yes, no), and active or previous cancer (yes, no).|Adjusted difference in event rates in MI or stroke.||0.29|-0.30|
91693747|NCT00457002|183282613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3|||||stratification factor: previous VTE (yes, no), and active or previous cancer (yes, no).|Adjusted difference of event rates for myocardial infarction.||0.30|-0.11|
91693748|NCT00457002|183282613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in event rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.12||||||Adjusted difference in event rates for stroke.||0.12|-0.32|
91693749|NCT00457002|183282613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in event rates|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.28|||||stratification factor: previous VTE (yes, no), and active or previous cancer (yes, no).|Adjusted difference of event rates in thrombocytopenia.||0.28|-0.09|
91693750|NCT01234870|183282632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The MR images resulting from two different image acquisition techniques, including Non-Corrected Breath-Hold Shallow-Breathing and Motion-Corrected, were assessed independently by two radiologists (average of 7 years of experience in reading cardiac MRI) using the American Heart Association modified 16 segment model and were evaluated using a four point Likert scale (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, and 4 = excellent) for image quality||||<0.001
91693751|NCT01262287|183282634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91693752|NCT01262287|183282635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91904220|NCT00303979|183703409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|22.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Composite Score: The relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in composite score for the aggregate practices.||22.0|16.3|<0.001
91693753|NCT01262287|183282635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91693754|NCT00789373|183282709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.79|||Log Rank|||900 patients were planned to be enrolled in order to randomize 558 pts to maintenance therapy. This trial was powered for the primary endpoint, PFS (90% power, assuming 238 events with 52% censoring and a PFS Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.65, alpha=0.05). This trial was also powered for a secondary endpoint, OS (93% power, assuming 390 events with 30% censoring and an OS HR=0.70). Alpha was controlled for both a preliminary analysis (alpha=0.0001) and final analysis of OS (alpha=0.0499).||0.79|0.49|0.00006
91693755|NCT00789373|183282710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.51|0.0002
91693756|NCT00789373|183282711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96||The predefined alpha for the final analysis of OS is 0.0498 for the unadjusted log-rank test.|Log Rank||Unadjusted HR from Cox model with treatment as the only cofactor.|Type 1 (alpha) error was controlled for the analyses of both PFS and OS in order to maintain an overall two-sided alpha level of 0.05 using a statistical gatekeeping and alpha spending scheme. The unconditional statistical power of the final OS analysis was 93%.||0.96|0.64|0.0195
91693757|NCT04994691|183282720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.6|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. No Message|||2.60|1.38|0.000
91693758|NCT04994691|183282720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.13|||Regression, Logistic||Tailored Message vs. No Message|||2.13|1.06|0.023
91693759|NCT04994691|183282720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. Tailored Message|||1.66|0.94|0.124
91693760|NCT04994691|183282721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.97||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.84|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. No Message|||2.84|1.32|0.001
91693761|NCT04994691|183282721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.57||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.34|||Regression, Logistic||Tailored Message vs. No Message|||2.34|1.02|0.040
91693762|NCT04994691|183282721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. Tailored Message|||1.74|0.88|0.202
91693763|NCT04244084|183282726|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Site used as covariate||Mean differences (MMH-407 vs. Placebo) were compared||-0.17|-1.61|0.0155
91693764|NCT04244084|183282727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1839
91693765|NCT04244084|183282728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||Day used as independent strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0640
91693766|NCT04244084|183282729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1927
91693767|NCT04244084|183282730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||Day used as independent strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0014
91693768|NCT04244084|183282731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to Day 1 row."||||0.2009
91693769|NCT04244084|183282731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4717|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to Day 2 row."||||0.4717
91693770|NCT04244084|183282731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to Day 3 row."||||0.5144
91693771|NCT04244084|183282732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
91693772|NCT04244084|183282734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5981|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Systolic blood pressure/Visit 1 row."||||0.5981
91693773|NCT04244084|183282734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4913|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Systolic blood pressure/Visit 2 row."||||0.4913
91693774|NCT04244084|183282734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6441|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Systolic blood pressure/Visit 3 row."||||0.6441
91693775|NCT04244084|183282734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8186|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Diastolic blood pressure/Visit 1 row."||||0.8186
91693776|NCT04244084|183282734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8931|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Diastolic blood pressure/Visit 2 row."||||0.8931
91693777|NCT04244084|183282734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5887|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Diastolic blood pressure/Visit 3 row."||||0.5887
91693778|NCT04244084|183282735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4426|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Heart rate/Visit 1 row."||||0.4426
91693779|NCT04244084|183282735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5998|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Heart rate/Visit 2 row."||||0.5998
91693780|NCT04244084|183282735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Heart rate/Visit 3 row."||||0.9710
91693781|NCT04244084|183282736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6197|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Breathing rate/Visit 1 row."||||0.6197
91693782|NCT04244084|183282736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7042|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Breathing rate/Visit 2 row."||||0.7042
91693783|NCT04244084|183282736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7693|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Breathing rate/Visit 3 row."||||0.7693
91693784|NCT04244084|183282737|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91693785|NCT02268916|183282766|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered based on a two-sample t-test of the primary outcomes, changes in physical activity or social participant over 6 months. Based on previous literature, in order to detect an effect size of 0.28 with at least 70% power, we aimed to recruit at least 35 participants in each treatment group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|The outcome was adjusted for time of visit, visit x intervention group, age, gender, body mass index, insulin, depression, and time-up-and-go score.||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, the intervention group will have increased physical activity as measured by CHAMPS compared to the control group.||0.97|-0.18|=0.18
91693786|NCT02268916|183282767|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, intervention group will have improved participation as measured by satisfaction with participation in social roles.||1.06|-5.45|0.19
91693787|NCT02268916|183282767|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, intervention group will have improved participation as measured by satisfaction with participation in discretionary social activities.||2.48|-4.53|0.57
91693788|NCT02268916|183282767|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, intervention group will have improved participation as measured by the survey on the ability to participate in social roles and activities.||0.63|-5.52|0.12
91693789|NCT02268916|183282768|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at 6-month follow-up, the intervention group will have better performance than the control group in timed up and go test.||-0.02|-3.97|<0.05
91693790|NCT02268916|183282769|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at 6-month follow-up, the intervention group will have better performance than the control group in gait speed.||0.20|0.02|0.02
91865134|NCT02542631|183620937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||0.28|-0.28|0.99
91865135|NCT02542631|183620938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.93||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.93|0.64|0.71
91693791|NCT02268916|183282770|SUPERIORITY||Slope|40.04||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|72.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at 6-month follow-up, the intervention group will have better performance than the control group in six-minute walk test.||72.17|7.90|0.02
91693792|NCT04830969|183282784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.16
91693793|NCT04830969|183282785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.08
91693794|NCT04830969|183282786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.14
91693795|NCT04830969|183282786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.8
91693796|NCT04830969|183282787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||<0.01
91693797|NCT04830969|183282787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.09
91693798|NCT04830969|183282788|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||< 0.01
91693799|NCT04830969|183282788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.03
91693800|NCT04830969|183282789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||< 0.01
91904221|NCT00303979|183703410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.3||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|25.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #1: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ACEI/ARB for the aggregate practices.||25.9|-5.4|0.197
91693801|NCT04830969|183282789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.09
91693802|NCT04830969|183282790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.01
91693803|NCT04830969|183282790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.86
91693804|NCT04830969|183282790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.047
91693805|NCT04830969|183282790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.75
91693806|NCT04830969|183282791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.44
91693807|NCT04830969|183282791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.22
91693808|NCT04830969|183282791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.29
91693809|NCT04830969|183282791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.15
91693810|NCT04830969|183282792|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||<0.01
91693811|NCT04830969|183282792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.31
91693812|NCT04830969|183282792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.08
91693813|NCT04830969|183282792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.54
91693814|NCT04830969|183282793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.01
91693815|NCT04830969|183282793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.04
91693816|NCT04830969|183282793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.03
91693817|NCT04830969|183282793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.38
91693818|NCT04830969|183282794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.02
91693819|NCT04830969|183282794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.18
91693820|NCT04830969|183282794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.08
91693821|NCT04830969|183282794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.41
91693822|NCT04830969|183282795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.27
91693823|NCT04830969|183282796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.54
91693824|NCT04830969|183282797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.12
91693825|NCT04830969|183282798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91693826|NCT04830969|183282798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.07
91904222|NCT00303979|183703410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.6||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|21.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #2: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in beta-blockers for the aggregate practices.||21.7|-0.5|0.061
91723805|NCT00407511|183341116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of treatment/last observation carried forward (EOT/LOCF): value consists of the mean of the last 7 post-baseline visits scores. Mean change: the arithmetic mean change and p-value from the single sample t-test. If \< = 7 and \> = 4 post-baseline scores were available, the mean pain score was computed using the available scores. The mean was not calculated if there were less than 4 post-baseline scores prior to study termination.||||< 0.0001
91723806|NCT00407511|183341117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.6|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 4||-2.8|-3.6|< 0.0001
91723807|NCT00407511|183341117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.3|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8||-3.5|-4.3|< 0.0001
91904223|NCT00303979|183703410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|-1.1||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #3: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in aldosterone antagonist for the aggregate practices.||3.4|-5.7|0.622
91693827|NCT04830969|183282799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91693828|NCT04830969|183282799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.64
91693829|NCT04830969|183282800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
91693830|NCT04830969|183282800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.11
91693831|NCT04830969|183282801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||at baseline||||0.7
91693832|NCT04830969|183282801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.29
91693833|NCT04830969|183282802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91693834|NCT02748356|183282819|OTHER|1 sample t-test|||||=|0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is a single group comparison||||||=0.351
91693835|NCT03482635|183282878|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.202|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.202|-0.105|
91693836|NCT03482635|183282878|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.268|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.268|-0.069|
91693837|NCT03482635|183282878|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.226|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.226|-0.081|
91693838|NCT03482635|183282879|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.176|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.176|-0.276|
91693839|NCT03482635|183282879|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.28|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.280|-0.199|
91693840|NCT03482635|183282879|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.252|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.252|-0.204|
91693841|NCT03482635|183282880|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.258|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.258|-0.072|
91693842|NCT03482635|183282880|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.268|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.268|-0.069|
91693843|NCT03482635|183282880|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.226|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.226|-0.081|
91693844|NCT03482635|183282881|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.258|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\].|||0.258|-0.072|
91693845|NCT03482635|183282881|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.21|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\].|||0.210|-0.104|
91693846|NCT03482635|183282881|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.177|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\].|||0.177|-0.110|
91904224|NCT00303979|183703410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|6.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|12.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #4: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in anticoagulation for AF for the aggregate practices.||12.4|0.0|0.05
91693847|NCT03482635|183282882|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|21.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach. The model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and stratification factors (prior biologic treatment failure and concomitant corticosteroid therapy at Visit 2/randomisation), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||21.0|-21.6|0.9776
91693848|NCT03482635|183282882|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|22.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach. The model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and stratification factors (prior biologic treatment failure and concomitant corticosteroid therapy at Visit 2/randomisation), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||22.4|-19.6|0.8940
91693849|NCT03482635|183282882|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|22.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach. The model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and stratification factors (prior biologic treatment failure and concomitant corticosteroid therapy at Visit 2/randomisation), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements||22.1|-20.0|0.9241
91693850|NCT04681066|183282894|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.0415||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 2 and 3 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~Emax model analysis is shown here."||||0.3184
91693851|NCT04681066|183282894|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.1225||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1 and 3 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~Emax model analysis is shown here."||||0.3184
91693852|NCT04681066|183282894|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.208||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1 and 2 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~Emax model analysis is shown here."||||0.3184
91705792|NCT06010732|183305915|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.98||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(lesion depth)||1.09|0.88|0.721
91904225|NCT00303979|183703410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|-1.8||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|7.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #5: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in CRT-P/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||7.7|-11.2|0.711
91904226|NCT00303979|183703410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|22.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #6: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ICD/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||22.0|6.9|<0.001
91693853|NCT04681066|183282894|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.0415||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the sigEmax curve model based on data points for all 3 dosages, not just the 0.5mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5 and 6 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~sigEmax model analysis is shown here."||||0.2265
91693854|NCT04681066|183282894|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.1225||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the sigEmax curve model based on data points for all 3 dosages, not just the 1.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 4 and 6 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~sigEmax model analysis is shown here."||||0.2265
91693855|NCT04681066|183282894|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.208||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the sigEmax curve model based on data points for all 3 dosages, not just the 2.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 4 and 5 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~sigEmax model analysis is shown here."||||0.2265
91693856|NCT04681066|183282894|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.2671||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 8 and 9 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for only the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0764
91705793|NCT06010732|183305915|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.84||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(lesion depth)||0.84|0.68|<0.001
91723808|NCT00407511|183341117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12||-3.7|-4.5|< 0.0001
91865136|NCT02542631|183620939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.24||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and week 24 value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||0.24|-0.12|0.52
91865137|NCT02542631|183620940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|14.67||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in score as dependent variable, treatment as factor, and baseline score as a covariate was used to compare devices.||||14.67|3.65|0.001
91693857|NCT04681066|183282894|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.6561||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 7 and 9 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for only the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0764
91693858|NCT04681066|183282894|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.4668||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 7 and 8 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for only the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0764
91693859|NCT04681066|183282894|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.2671||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 11 and 12 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. sigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0574
91693860|NCT04681066|183282894|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.6561||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 10 and 12 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. sigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0574
91693861|NCT04681066|183282894|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.4668||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 10 and 11 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. sigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0574
91705794|NCT06010732|183305915|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(lesion depth)||0.86|0.69|<0.001
91693862|NCT04681066|183282895|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.3604||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the placebo data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 2, 3, \& 4 for the other data points (0.5mg/kg, 1.0mg/kg, and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
91693863|NCT04681066|183282895|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.5078||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1, 3, \& 4 for the other data points (placebo, 1.0mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
91693864|NCT04681066|183282895|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.834||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1, 2, \& 4 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
91693865|NCT04681066|183282895|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.7657||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1, 2, \& 3 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
91693866|NCT04681066|183282895|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.3604||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the placebo data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 6, 7, \& 8 for the other data points (0.5mg/kg, 1.0mg/kg, and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. SigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
91723809|NCT00407511|183341118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.7|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8, FAS. Week 8: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (49 to 63 days).||-3.7|-4.7|< 0.0001
91865138|NCT02542631|183620941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|8.32||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in score as dependent variable, treatment as factor, and baseline score as a covariate was used to compare devices.||||8.32|0.33|0.03
91865139|NCT02542631|183620942|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
91865140|NCT02641730|183620943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.674|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.383|||Mixed-Model for Repeated Measures|||||-4.383|-11.000|<0.001
91705366|NCT01306214|183305229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.63|-1.33||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in body weight at week 52 was the third step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates and baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|hypothesis test: H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo||-1.33|-3.63|<0.0001
91705795|NCT06010732|183305916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|1.84||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Positive Control|||1.84|-2.95|0.647
91705796|NCT06010732|183305916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|8.75||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Placebo|||8.75|3.95|<0.001
91705797|NCT06010732|183305916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|9.31||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Positive Control-Placebo|||9.31|4.49|<0.001
91705798|NCT00253370|183305921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of participants|0.409||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.284|0.544|||one-sample binomial test|||The study was designed to distinguish a response rate of 40% from 20%, the null hypothesis. With the planned sample size of 36 eligible patients, the study has 91% power based on a 0.09 level one-sided test.||0.544|0.284|0.0012
91705799|NCT03725033|183305994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.0028
91705800|NCT03725033|183305995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0805
91705801|NCT03725033|183305996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.99
91705802|NCT03725033|183305997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.79
91705803|NCT05079230|183306070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.178||||0.3276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.637|||stratified log-rank test|The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|Stratified hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI were calculated using the stratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.637|0.848|0.3276
91705804|NCT05079230|183306071|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.826||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.251|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.251|0.545|0.3616
91705805|NCT05079230|183306072|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.856||||0.4679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.307|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.307|0.560|0.4679
91705806|NCT05079230|183306073|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.946||||0.7903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.225|||Stratified Log Rank||The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|||1.225|0.730|0.7903
91705807|NCT05079230|183306076|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.189||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.945|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.945|0.727|0.4873
91705808|NCT05079230|183306077|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.154||||0.5842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.932|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.932|0.690|0.5842
91705809|NCT05079230|183306078|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.783||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|1.245|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 2-sided P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by the stratification factors at randomization (age, genetic risk group, and geographic region).|||1.245|0.492|0.3003
91705810|NCT05079230|183306079|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.21||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.36||The 2-sided P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by the stratification factors at randomization (age, genetic risk group, and geographic region).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.360|0.620|0.5790
91705811|NCT05079230|183306080|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.09||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.487|||Stratified Log Rank|The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|Stratified hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI are calculated using the stratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.487|0.799|0.5796
91705812|NCT05079230|183306081|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.271||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.704|||Stratified Log Rank|The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|Stratified hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI were calculated using the stratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.704|0.948|0.1026
91865141|NCT02641730|183620943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.468|-0.748|||Mixed-Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.748|-7.468|0.017
91865142|NCT02938923|183620973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.16|25.54||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.19|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||25.54|-21.16|0.853
91904227|NCT00303979|183703410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|38.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|53.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #7: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in HF education for the aggregate practices.||53.8|23.2|<0.001
91693867|NCT04681066|183282895|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.5078||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5, 7, \& 8 for the other data points (placebo, 1.0mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. SigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
91693868|NCT04681066|183282895|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.834||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5, 6, \& 8 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. SigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
91693869|NCT04681066|183282895|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.7657||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5, 6, \& 7 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
91693870|NCT04681066|183282906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0372|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld|||||||0.0372
91693871|NCT04681066|183282906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4918|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld|||||||0.4918
91693872|NCT04681066|183282906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6224|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld|||||||0.6224
91693873|NCT03868930|183282965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
91693874|NCT03868930|183282965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
91705813|NCT01782352|183306104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.82|<0.05
91705814|NCT01782352|183306104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.76|<0.05
91705815|NCT01782352|183306105|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.7|||Regression, Cox|||||1.70|0.86|<0.05
91705816|NCT01782352|183306105|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.59|<0.05
91705817|NCT01782352|183306106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.84|||Regression, Cox|||||1.84|0.81|<0.05
91705818|NCT01782352|183306106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.48|<0.05
91705819|NCT01782352|183306107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.86|<0.05
91865143|NCT02938923|183620973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.04||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.57|38.65||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.30|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||38.65|-28.57|0.767
91693875|NCT03868930|183282965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
91693876|NCT03868930|183282965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
91693877|NCT03868930|183282966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||0.0044
91693878|NCT03868930|183282966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||<.0001
91693879|NCT03868930|183282966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||0.0162
91693880|NCT03868930|183282966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||0.0009
91693881|NCT03868930|183282967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0140
91723810|NCT00407511|183341118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.1|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (\>= 78 days).||-4.1|-5.1|< 0.0001
91723811|NCT00407511|183341118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline value; mean change from Baseline was the arthmetic mean change and the p-value was from the single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
91723812|NCT00407511|183341119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.2|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (Day 49 to 63).||-3.4|-4.2|< 0.0001
91723813|NCT00407511|183341119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (\>= Day 78)||-3.7|-4.5|< 0.0001
91723814|NCT00407511|183341119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline value; mean change from Baseline was the arthmetic mean change and the p-value was from the single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
91723815|NCT00407511|183341122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.3|-14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 1: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 1 assessment if their visit fell within Days 4 to 10.||-14.0|-22.3|< 0.0001
91723816|NCT00407511|183341122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-32.4|-24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 2: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 2 assessment if their visit fell within Days 11 to 17.||-24.0|-32.4|< 0.0001
91723817|NCT00407511|183341122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-38.5|-30.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 3: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 3 assessment if their visit fell within Days 18 to 24.||-30.0|-38.5|< 0.0001
91865144|NCT02938923|183620973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.93|36.62||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df,112) = 0.17|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||36.62|-30.93|0.868
91865145|NCT02938923|183620973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.26|25.52||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = 0.05|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||25.52|-24.26|0.960
91705820|NCT01782352|183306107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.73|<0.05
91705821|NCT01782352|183306108|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.33|<0.05
91705822|NCT01782352|183306108|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.97|||Regression, Cox|||||1.97|0.56|<0.05
91705823|NCT01782352|183306109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.69|<0.05
91705824|NCT01782352|183306109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.67|<0.05
91705825|NCT00477607|183306110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.4|||Fisher Exact|No adjustments. Right one-sided p-value.||H0: pr(Hearing loss arm 1) = pr(Hearing loss arm 2)||11.4|0.4|0.89
91705826|NCT00477607|183306111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3999||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: mean (MDA arm 1) = mean (MDA Arm 2)||0.64|-1.03|0.63
91705827|NCT00477607|183306112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|114.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: mean(max dose arm 1) = mean(max dose arm 2)||114.6|-18.1|0.15
91705828|NCT00432276|183306113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit for the LS mean difference was less than +0.3%.|LS mean difference|-0.47|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.35|||ANCOVA||Least squares means are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule, and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|The analysis was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit for the LS mean difference was less than +0.3%.||-0.35||
91705829|NCT00432276|183306113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit for the LS mean difference was less than +0.3%.|LS mean difference|-0.42|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.28|||ANCOVA||Least squares means are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule, and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Comparison of Change from Baseline at Week 52. The null hypothesis was that the average change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 for the alogliptin 25 mg addition group is inferior to the average change for the pioglitazone titration group. The alternative hypothesis was that the change from Baseline in HbA1c for the alogliptin 25 mg addition group was non-inferior to the change for the pioglitazone titration group for at Week 52.||-0.28||
91705830|NCT00432276|183306114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.31||Statistical tests and resulting P-values are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule, and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 42.||-0.31|-0.57|<0.001
91705831|NCT00432276|183306122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-5.7||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and FPG as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-5.7|-16.2|<0.001
91705832|NCT00432276|183306123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|Extended Mantel Haenszel Test|Treatment comparison was performed using nonparametric, covariance-adjusted, extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||Comparison of incidence of marked hyperglycemia through Week 52.||||<0.001
91705833|NCT00432276|183306124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|Extended Mantel Haenszel Test|Treatment comparison was performed using nonparametric, covariance-adjusted, extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||Comparison of incidence of hyperglycemic rescue through Week 52.||||<0.001
91705834|NCT00432276|183306125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.4||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and proinsulin as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.4|-3.7|0.116
91705835|NCT00432276|183306126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.04||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and fasting insulin as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||2.04|-0.58|0.276
91705836|NCT00432276|183306127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.041|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|-0.018||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-0.018|-0.063|<0.001
91705837|NCT00432276|183306128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.073||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.193||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline fasting C-peptide as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.193|-0.047|0.230
91705838|NCT00432276|183306129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.188||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.455||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HOMA insulin resistance as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.455|-0.830|0.567
91693882|NCT03868930|183282967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1548||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.1548
91693883|NCT03868930|183282967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0302
91693884|NCT03868930|183282967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0158||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0158
91693885|NCT03868930|183282967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0034
91693886|NCT03868930|183282967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8776||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.8776
91693887|NCT03868930|183282967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0002
91693888|NCT03868930|183282967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0198||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0198
91693889|NCT03868930|183282967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0013
91693890|NCT03868930|183282967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy Group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
91693891|NCT03868930|183282967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||.0345
91693892|NCT03868930|183282967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5918||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.5918
91693893|NCT06047366|183282980|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||p \< 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91693894|NCT06047366|183282981|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||p \< 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance|Log Rank|||||||0.09
91693895|NCT02151851|183282982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.899|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.382|6.382||Difference of CZP + MTX versus Placebo + MTX (and corresponding p-value) was estimated from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and region.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.382|2.382|<0.001
91693896|NCT02151851|183282983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|16.352||Difference of CZP + MTX versus Placebo + MTX (and corresponding p-value) was estimated from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and region.|Regression, Logistic|||||16.352|3.570|<0.001
91693897|NCT02151851|183282984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.209|23.786||Difference of CZP + MTX versus Placebo + MTX (and corresponding p-value) was estimated from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and region.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.786|2.209|<0.001
91693898|NCT02640950|183282996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Paired t test for pre and post treatment scores for all subjects|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of pre and post treatment scores on MADRS||||<0.001
91693899|NCT02640950|183282997|OTHER|Descriptive Frequencies Analysis|||||||||||||||||A frequencies analysis was conducted to determine the number of participants that were diagnosed with BP I and BP II as well as the number of participants that developed an onset of maniac symptoms during the 7 week treatment period.|||
91693900|NCT00652626|183283011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.0|151.3|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-t, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||151.3|64.0|
91865146|NCT02938923|183620973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.42||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.97|42.82||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = 0.48|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||42.82|-25.97|0.630
91693901|NCT00652626|183283011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|67.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.7|101.8|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-t, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||101.8|44.7|
91693902|NCT00652626|183283011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.8|127.2|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-t, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||127.2|53.8|
91693903|NCT00652626|183283012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.8|148.8|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-inf, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||148.8|63.8|
91693904|NCT00652626|183283012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.7|102.7|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-inf, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||102.7|45.7|
91693905|NCT00652626|183283012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.5|127.1|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-inf, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||127.1|54.5|
91693906|NCT00652626|183283013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|127.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.3|245.7|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized Cmax, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||245.7|66.3|
91693907|NCT00652626|183283013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|84.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.3|158.5|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized Cmax, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||158.5|45.3|
91693908|NCT00652626|183283013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|107.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.9|207.0|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized Cmax, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||207.0|55.9|
91693909|NCT00652626|183283016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|101.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|143.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance model on the nature log-transformed CL/F obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||143.6|71.2|
91723818|NCT00407511|183341122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-45.2|-36.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 4: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 4 assessment if their visit fell within days 25 to 35.||-36.7|-45.2|< 0.0001
91723819|NCT00407511|183341122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-50.2|-41.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 8 assessment if their visit fell within Days 49 to 63.||-41.4|-50.2|< 0.0001
91723820|NCT00407511|183341122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-52.8|-44.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 12 assessment if their visit fell \>= Day 78.||-44.0|-52.8|< 0.0001
91723821|NCT00407511|183341122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline assessment. Mean change is the arithmetic mean change; p-value is from a single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
91723822|NCT00407511|183341123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-43.4|-33.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect. Subjects were included in the Week 8 assessment only if their visit fell within Days 49 and 63.||-33.9|-43.4|< 0.0001
91693910|NCT00652626|183283016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|144.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.6|202.7|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance model on the nature log-transformed CL/F obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||202.7|103.6|
91693911|NCT00652626|183283016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.4|143.9|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance model on the nature log-transformed CL/F obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||143.9|71.4|
91693912|NCT00652626|183283019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|169.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.2|262.5|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-t after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters"||262.5|109.2|
91693913|NCT00652626|183283019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|140.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.6|217.7|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-t after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||217.7|90.6|
91693914|NCT00652626|183283020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|166.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.6|254.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-inf after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||254.6|108.6|
91693915|NCT00652626|183283020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|141.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|216.2|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-inf after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||216.2|92.2|
91693916|NCT00652626|183283021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|141.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.2|274.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of Cmax after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||274.6|73.2|
91693917|NCT00652626|183283021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|105.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.5|204.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of Cmax after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||204.6|54.5|
91693918|NCT00652626|183283022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.52|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is Severe RI - Normal RF.|Comparison of Tmax after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.||0.52|0|0.1342
91693919|NCT00652626|183283022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is Severe RI - Normal RF.|Comparison of Tmax after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.||0.50|0|0.1017
91693920|NCT04003636|183283027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.95|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, disease status, site of origin with small strata collapsed|HR=Arm A/Arm B|||0.95|0.72|0.0034
91693921|NCT04003636|183283028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, disease status, site of origin with small strata collapsed|HR=Arm A/Arm B|||1.00|0.75|0.0225
91693922|NCT04003636|183283029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.2||||0.4735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0|Miettinen & Nurminen||Difference=Arm A minus Arm B|||5.6|-5.2|0.4735
91693923|NCT00915018|183283037|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.8934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.269|||Log Rank|||||1.269|0.813|0.8934
91904228|NCT00303979|183703410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Composite Score: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in composite score for the aggregate practices.||9.0|4.2|<0.001
91904229|NCT00303979|183703411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|26.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #1: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ACEI/ARB for the aggregate practices.||26.3|-5.3|0.190
91794914|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.043||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.043|-0.074|0.6054
91794915|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.4087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.084||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.084|-0.035|0.4087
91904230|NCT00303979|183703411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|14.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|28.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #2: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in beta-blockers for the aggregate practices.||28.4|0.1|0.048
91693924|NCT00915018|183283038|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.105|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.105|-0.048|0.5219
91693925|NCT00915018|183283039|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.974||||0.8431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.262|||Log Rank|||||1.262|0.752|0.8431
91693926|NCT00915018|183283040|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.032||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.029|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.029|-0.093|0.2360
91693927|NCT00915018|183283041|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.449||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.780|0.259|0.0036
91693928|NCT00300885|183283042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.915||95.0|0.94|1.41||According to protocol specified O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and 384 deaths at interim analysis (IA), one-sided alpha value for IA was 0.0046.|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using one-sided log-rank test (Sorafenib+C/P over Placebo+C/P) with overall alpha of 0.025 stratified by same stratification factors as randomization|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 30% improvement in median OS (i.e. HR of 0.76923, Sorafenib+C/P over Placebo+C/P -Null: theta\>=1, Alternative: theta\<=0.76923). With overall one-sided alpha of 0.025, 90% power and randomization of 1:1, one formal interim analysis and one final analysis were planned using O'Brien-Fleming type error spending function, and a total of 614 events (deaths) were required.||1.41|0.94|0.915
91693929|NCT00300885|183283043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.433||95.0|0.84|1.16|||Log Rank|||Two treatment groups compared using one-sided log-rank test (Sorafenib+C/P over Placebo+C/P) with alpha of 0.025 stratified by same stratification factors at randomization||1.16|0.84|0.433
91693930|NCT00300885|183283044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in response rate (CR+PR rate)|-3.65||||0.1015||95.0|-9.18|1.89||no adjustments|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||difference in response rates (Complete Response (CR) + Partial Response (PR)) = Placebo+C/P - Sorafenib+C/P|Objective response rate (ie. CR+PR rate) was compared between treatment arms using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with one-side alpha 0.025 adjusting for same stratification factors as randomization||1.89|-9.18|0.1015
91693931|NCT02582242|183283048|OTHER||Treatment difference at week 24|-0.09||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.06|||Mixed model for repeated measurements||Treatment difference at week 24: BIAsp 30 (TID) - BIAsp 30 (BID). Number of subjects contributed to the statistical analysis: N=217 for BIAsp 30 (TID) and N=213 for BIAsp 30 (BID).|The analysis was based on a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including changes from baseline in HbA1c at visit 6, 10, 14, 18, 22 and 26 (in week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24, respectively). The model included treatment, strata and region as fixed factors, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||0.06|-0.23|0.2601
91693932|NCT00603902|183283077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio, log|2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustments for baseline body weight.||||3.13|2.31|<0.0001
91693933|NCT00603902|183283078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-2.56|||ANCOVA|||||-2.56|-3.44|<0.0001
91693934|NCT02282631|183283093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"U=390.5 Z=-2.3 p=0.02~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."||||||0.02
91693935|NCT02282631|183283094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||"U=665.5 Z=-2.3 p=0.02~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91693936|NCT02282631|183283095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||"U=596.5 Z=-2.4 p=0.02~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91693937|NCT02282631|183283096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"U=955.0 Z=-2.5 p=0.01~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91693938|NCT02453334|183283099|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.87|0.30|0.0143
91693939|NCT02453334|183283099|OTHER||Percentage difference|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.01|-3.1||||||||-3.10|-28.01|
91693940|NCT02453334|183283101|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.50|1.19|0.0097
91693941|NCT02453334|183283101|OTHER||Percentage difference|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|28.51||||||Percentage difference||28.51|4.19|
91693942|NCT02453334|183283102|OTHER||Percentage difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|7.45||||||||7.45|-12.85|
91693943|NCT02453334|183283102|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||1.60|0.43|0.5758
91693944|NCT02453334|183283103|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.56||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.56|0.76|0.2772
91693945|NCT02453334|183283103|OTHER||Percentage difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|16.43||||||||16.43|-5.01|
91693946|NCT02453334|183283104|OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Log Rank|P-value was estimated using logrank test stratified by country||||||0.0011
91723823|NCT00407511|183341123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-45.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect. Subjects were included in the Week 12 assessment only if their visit fell \>=Day 78.||-35.9|-45.5|< 0.0001
91723824|NCT00407511|183341123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline assessment. Mean change= arithmetic mean change; p-value is from a single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
91794916|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.056||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.056|-0.046|0.8518
91794917|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.036||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.036|-0.085|0.4216
91693947|NCT02453334|183283105|OTHER||Percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|9.08||||||||9.08|-7.60|
91693948|NCT02453334|183283105|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.49|0.8924
91693949|NCT02453334|183283106|OTHER||Percentage difference|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.41|0.77||||||||0.77|-20.41|
91693950|NCT02453334|183283106|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country. Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||1.06|0.28|0.0740
91693951|NCT02453334|183283107|OTHER||Percentage difference|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.31|-0.91||||||||-0.91|-23.31|
91693952|NCT02453334|183283107|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.99||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation||||0.99|0.26|0.0446
91693953|NCT02453334|183283108|OTHER||Percentage difference|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-8.69||||||||-8.69|-30.90|
91693954|NCT02453334|183283108|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.63||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||||0.63|0.14|0.0010
91693955|NCT02453334|183283109|OTHER||Percentage difference|-21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.22|-9.51||||||||-9.51|-33.22|
91693956|NCT02453334|183283109|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.61||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||0.61|0.13|0.0009
91693957|NCT02453334|183283110|OTHER||Percentage difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.73|-4.26||||||||-4.26|-27.73|
91693958|NCT02453334|183283110|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||0.79|0.14|0.0093
91693959|NCT02453334|183283111|OTHER||Percentage difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|6.57||||||||6.57|-15.37|
91693960|NCT02453334|183283111|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.4786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.89||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||1.89|0.26|0.4786
91693961|NCT02453334|183283112|OTHER||Percentage difference|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.25|4.55||||||||4.55|-19.25|
91693962|NCT02453334|183283112|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.43||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||1.43|0.20|0.2084
91693963|NCT02453334|183283113|OTHER||Percentage difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|15.54||||||||15.54|-9.33|
91693964|NCT02453334|183283113|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||3.24|0.48|0.6508
91693965|NCT02453334|183283115|OTHER|||||||0.0063||||||P-value was estimated using logrank test stratified by pooled sites.|Log Rank|||||||0.0063
91693966|NCT02362672|183283123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||NKTR-181 (Double-blind Treatment Phase), Placebo (Double-blind Treatment Phase)||||0.0019
91693967|NCT00693498|183283130|OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||the reported value is for POD#1 assessment|Wald Wolfowitz|||||||<0.03
91693968|NCT00693498|183283130|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||for POD#2 assessment|Wald-Wolf|||||||0.29
91693969|NCT05483686|183283131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in percentage of participants with HIV transmission risk between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.19
91723825|NCT00407511|183341124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 1: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-0.7|-1.4|< 0.0001
91723826|NCT00407511|183341124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.2|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 2: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-1.5|-2.2|< 0.0001
91723827|NCT00407511|183341124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.9|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 3: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.2|-2.9|< 0.0001
91723828|NCT00407511|183341124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.2|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 4: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.5|-3.2|< 0.0001
91723829|NCT00407511|183341124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.3|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 5: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.6|-3.3|< 0.0001
91904231|NCT00303979|183703411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|5.8||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #3: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in aldosterone antagonist for the aggregate practices.||15.4|-3.9|0.240
91904232|NCT00303979|183703411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|6.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #4: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in anticoagulation for AF for the aggregate practices.||13.0|0.5|0.033
91693970|NCT05483686|183283132|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in ART adherence between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||=.24
91693971|NCT05483686|183283133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in condom use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.79
91693972|NCT05483686|183283134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in barriers to ART use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.81
91693973|NCT05483686|183283135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in barriers to PrEP use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.14
91693974|NCT05483686|183283136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in barriers to condom use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.81
91693975|NCT05483686|183283137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in social support between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.30
91693976|NCT05483686|183283138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in gender identity comfort between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.94
91904233|NCT00303979|183703411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|9.3||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|19.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #5: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in CRT-P/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||19.8|-1.3|0.085
91693977|NCT01369030|183283192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.000
91693978|NCT06152224|183283195|EQUIVALENCE|"Power analysis was determined based on a 4.3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups.~With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, standard deviation = 3, margin = 4.3, power = 0.8, alpha = 0.05, attrition = 25 percent."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.918|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline||||0.918
91693979|NCT06152224|183283200|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.801||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline||||0.801
91723830|NCT00407511|183341124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.4|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 6: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.6|-3.4|< 0.0001
91723831|NCT00407511|183341124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.5|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 7: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.8|-3.5|< 0.0001
91693980|NCT06152224|183283200|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.317||||||a priori threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline||||0.317
91693981|NCT06152224|183283201|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline Brink Score: Pressure||||<0.001
91693982|NCT06152224|183283201|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Pressure||||<0.001
91693983|NCT06152224|183283202|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Change from baseline in Brink Score: Vertical Displacement||||<0.001
91693984|NCT06152224|183283202|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Vertical Displacement||||<0.001
91693985|NCT06152224|183283203|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Duration Contraction||||<0.001
91693986|NCT06152224|183283203|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Duration Contraction||||<0.001
91693987|NCT06152224|183283213|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.035||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q1. The app was easy to use||||0.035
91693988|NCT06152224|183283213|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.063||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q2. It was easy for me to learn to use the app||||0.063
91693989|NCT06152224|183283213|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.587||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q11. I would use this app again||||0.587
91693990|NCT06152224|183283213|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.107||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q12. Overall, I am satisfied with this app||||0.107
91723832|NCT00407511|183341124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.6|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.8|-3.6|< 0.0001
91723833|NCT00407511|183341124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.7|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 9: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.9|-3.7|< 0.0001
91723834|NCT00407511|183341124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 10: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-3.0|-3.7|< 0.0001
91723835|NCT00407511|183341124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.8|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Visit 11: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-3.0|-3.8|< 0.0001
91723836|NCT00407511|183341124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-3.0|-3.7|< 0.0001
91723837|NCT00407511|183341124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF value consists of the mean of the last 7 post-baseline sleep scores; mean change = arithmetic mean change; p-value: from single sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
91904234|NCT00303979|183703411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|25.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #6: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ICD/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||25.8|9.3|<0.001
91723838|NCT01047501|183341136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-16.2||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|A sample size of 194 was required to provide 90.6% power to detect a difference of 15% between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo in percent change from baseline in fasting TG levels, assuming an SD of 45% in TG measurements and a significance level (p value) of 0.05, and 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority (p 0.025, 1-sided) of the LDL-cholesterol response between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo with a +6% margin. To accommodate a 10% drop-out rate, recruitment was planned for 648 randomized patients.||-16.2|-26.7|<0.0001
91723839|NCT01047501|183341136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-4.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-4.5|-15.7|0.0005
91723840|NCT01047501|183341137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo with a significance level of 0.05. Non-inferiority tests for percent change from baseline in LDL-C were performed between AMR101 and placebo to determine if AMR101 was statistically non-inferior to placebo with regard to increases in LDL-C. The pre-specified LDL-C criterion for noninferiority was the upper boundary 97.5% confidence interval not crossing the +6% threshold.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|A sample size of 194 was required to provide 90.6% power to detect a difference of 15% between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo in percent change from baseline in fasting TG levels, assuming an SD of 45% in TG measurements and a significance level (p value) of 0.05, and 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority (p 0.025, 1-sided) of the LDL-cholesterol response between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo with a +6% margin. To accommodate a 10% drop-out rate, recruitment was planned for 648 randomized patients.||-1.7|-10.5|0.0067
91723841|NCT01047501|183341137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo with a significance level of 0.05. Non-inferiority tests for percent change from baseline in LDL-C were performed between AMR101 and placebo to determine if AMR101 was statistically non-inferior to placebo with regard to increases in LDL-C. The pre-specified LDL-C criterion for noninferiority was the upper boundary 97.5% confidence interval not crossing the +6% threshold.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||0.5|-7.9|0.0867
91723842|NCT01047501|183341138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-9.9||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-9.9|-17.2|0.0001
91723843|NCT01047501|183341138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-1.7|-9.4|0.0140
91723844|NCT01047501|183341139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-17.0||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-17.0|-31.9|0.0001
91723845|NCT01047501|183341139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.5||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-2.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-2.5|-18.3|0.0170
91723846|NCT01047501|183341140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-15.7||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-15.7|-22.2|0.0001
91723847|NCT01047501|183341140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-4.5|-11.6|0.0004
91759983|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.56|-2.13||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.13|-20.56|
91904235|NCT00303979|183703411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|59.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|85.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #7: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in HF education for the aggregate practices.||85.2|33.9|<0.001
91904236|NCT00303979|183703411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|13.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Composite Score: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in composite score for the aggregate practices.||13.6|7.6|<0.001
91693991|NCT06152224|183283213|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.486||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q15. The app helped me manage my health effectively||||0.486
91693992|NCT03126630|183283218|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that there are no differences between the classes in the population. The purpose of the test is to evaluate how likely the observed frequencies would be assuming the null hypothesis is true.||||||0.27541|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27541
91693993|NCT03126630|183283221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Not enough events||Log Rank||||||0.0|0.1936
91693994|NCT03126630|183283222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.1952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.51|||Log Rank|||||4.51|0.73|0.1952
91693995|NCT06028438|183283227|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.06|||=|0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.48|-0.60|=0.822
91693996|NCT03150719|183283259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.4||||||||4.4|1.0|
91693997|NCT03150719|183283260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.9||||||||10.9|2.5|
91693998|NCT03150719|183283261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.0||||||||7.0|-4.9|
91693999|NCT01050582|183283319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.674|||Regression, Linear|Covariates: weight (wt) divided expected wt for age and height (ht), age, use of concomitant medication with growth effects, preexposure ht z-score.|Slope associated with treatment dummy variable with 1 indicating risperidone and 0 indicating other atypical antipychotics.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and other atypical antipsychotics groups in current height z-score.||0.674|0.220|<0.001
91694000|NCT01050582|183283320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.269|||Regression, Linear|Covariates: Tanner stage and gender|Slope associated with treatment dummy variable with 1 indicating risperidone and 0 indicating other atypical antipsychotics.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and other atypical antipsychotics groups in age (years) at current Tanner stage.||0.269|-0.711|0.378
91694001|NCT01050582|183283321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.865|||>|0.999||95.0|0.189|3.963|||Fisher Exact||Estimated OR is from a logistic regression model including factors for treatment arm, age, indication, and use of concomitant medication with growth effects.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and other atypical antipsychotics groups in frequency of retrospectively reported potentially prolactin-related adverse events||3.963|0.189|>0.999
91694002|NCT01019694|183283322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.02|13.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||13.19|6.02|< 0.0001
91694003|NCT01019694|183283322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.0009||95.0|2.57|9.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||9.91|2.57|0.0009
91694004|NCT01019694|183283323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.0006||95.0|2.29|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||8.28|2.29|0.0006
91694005|NCT01019694|183283323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.41|10.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||10.39|4.41|< 0.0001
91694006|NCT01019694|183283324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.71|11.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||11.09|4.71|< 0.0001
91694007|NCT01019694|183283324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.44|12.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||12.83|6.44|< 0.0001
91694008|NCT01019694|183283325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.94|12.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||12.37|5.94|< 0.0001
91694009|NCT01019694|183283325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.44|10.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||10.96|4.44|< 0.0001
91694010|NCT01019694|183283326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.9|14.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||14.76|7.90|< 0.0001
91694011|NCT01019694|183283326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.23|11.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||11.23|4.23|< 0.0001
91694012|NCT01019694|183283328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1167||95.0|-0.05|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.42|-0.05|0.1167
91694013|NCT01019694|183283328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0026||95.0|0.13|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.59|0.13|0.0026
91694014|NCT01019694|183283329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.2826||95.0|-0.11|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.38|-0.11|0.2826
91904237|NCT01958788|183703412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
91694015|NCT01019694|183283329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0013||95.0|0.16|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.66|0.16|0.0013
91865147|NCT02938923|183620973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.77|42.36||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = 0.44|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||42.36|-26.77|0.657
91694016|NCT01019694|183283330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0023||95.0|0.13|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.59|0.13|0.0023
91694017|NCT01019694|183283330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.25|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.71|0.25|< 0.0001
91694018|NCT01019694|183283331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0006||95.0|0.18|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.65|0.18|0.0006
91694019|NCT01019694|183283331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0004||95.0|0.2|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.68|0.20|0.0004
91694020|NCT01019694|183283332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0673||95.0|-0.02|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.47|-0.02|0.0673
91694021|NCT01019694|183283332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0245||95.0|0.04|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.54|0.04|0.0245
91694022|NCT01019694|183283334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.5695||95.0|-0.24|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.13|-0.24|0.5695
91694023|NCT01019694|183283334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3093||95.0|-0.28|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.09|-0.28|0.3093
91694024|NCT01019694|183283335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3578||95.0|-0.31|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.11|-0.31|0.3578
91694025|NCT01019694|183283335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7433||95.0|-0.18|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.25|-0.18|0.7433
91694026|NCT01019694|183283336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.524||95.0|-0.29|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.15|-0.29|0.524
91694027|NCT01019694|183283336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3171||95.0|-0.34|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.11|-0.34|0.3171
91694028|NCT01019694|183283337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2499||95.0|-0.38|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.10|-0.38|0.2499
91694029|NCT01019694|183283337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6144||95.0|-0.31|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.18|-0.31|0.6144
91694030|NCT01019694|183283338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5142||95.0|-0.16|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.33|-0.16|0.5142
91694031|NCT01019694|183283338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2691||95.0|-0.39|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.11|-0.39|0.2691
91865148|NCT02938923|183620973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.08||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|15.56||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||15.56|-25.72|0.627
91694032|NCT01019694|183283340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6236||95.0|-0.23|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.14|-0.23|0.6236
91694033|NCT01019694|183283340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3342||95.0|-0.28|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.09|-0.28|0.3342
91694034|NCT01019694|183283341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1884||95.0|-0.36|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.07|-0.36|0.1884
91694035|NCT01019694|183283341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6978||95.0|-0.17|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.26|-0.17|0.6978
91694036|NCT01019694|183283342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4197||95.0|-0.32|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.13|-0.32|0.4197
91694037|NCT01019694|183283342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3949||95.0|-0.33|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.13|-0.33|0.3949
91694038|NCT01019694|183283343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.299||95.0|-0.38|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.12|-0.38|0.299
91865149|NCT02938923|183620973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.86|15.86||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.91|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||15.86|-42.86|0.364
91865150|NCT02938923|183620973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.42||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|21.15||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.56|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||21.15|-38.00|0.574
91694039|NCT01019694|183283343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1404||95.0|-0.44|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.06|-0.44|0.1404
91694040|NCT01019694|183283344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.463||95.0|-0.36|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.16|-0.36|0.463
91694041|NCT01019694|183283344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.3824||95.0|-0.15|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.38|-0.15|0.3824
91694042|NCT01019694|183283345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8282||95.0|-0.036|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.045|-0.036|0.8282
91694043|NCT01019694|183283345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.6587||95.0|-0.032|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.050|-0.032|0.6587
91694044|NCT01019694|183283346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1185||95.0|-0.009|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.081|-0.009|0.1185
91694045|NCT01019694|183283346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.2651||95.0|-0.02|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.072|-0.020|0.2651
91694046|NCT01019694|183283347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5852||95.0|-0.058|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.033|-0.058|0.5852
91694047|NCT01019694|183283347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7242||95.0|-0.054|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.038|-0.054|0.7242
91694048|NCT01019694|183283348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0328||95.0|0.005|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||||0.110|0.005|0.0328
91694049|NCT01019694|183283348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8896||95.0|-0.058|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.050|-0.058|0.8896
91694050|NCT01019694|183283349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.402||95.0|-0.042|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.105|-0.042|0.402
91694051|NCT01019694|183283349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.659||95.0|-0.057|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.090|-0.057|0.659
91694052|NCT01019694|183283350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0893||95.0|-0.01|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.139|-0.010|0.0893
91723848|NCT01047501|183341141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-6.1||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-6.1|-12.3|0.0001
91723849|NCT01047501|183341141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-0.7|-6.9|0.0170
91694053|NCT01019694|183283350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.5424||95.0|-0.052|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.099|-0.052|0.5424
91694054|NCT01019694|183283351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6396||95.0|-0.104|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.064|-0.104|0.6396
91694055|NCT01019694|183283351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6455||95.0|-0.106|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.066|-0.106|0.6455
91723850|NCT05561140|183341182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|-10.9|=1.0000
91694056|NCT01019694|183283352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.2596||95.0|-0.038|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.141|-0.038|0.2596
91723851|NCT05561140|183341184|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-8.2|||=|0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for stratification factors.||-0.8|-15.6|=0.0297
91694057|NCT01019694|183283352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6659||95.0|-0.112|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.071|-0.112|0.6659
91694058|NCT01019694|183283354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.476||95.0|-0.4|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.19|-0.40|0.476
91694059|NCT01019694|183283354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6976||95.0|-0.35|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.23|-0.35|0.6976
91694060|NCT01019694|183283355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9506||95.0|-0.4|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.37|-0.40|0.9506
91694061|NCT01019694|183283355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.2362||95.0|-0.15|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.62|-0.15|0.2362
91694062|NCT01019694|183283356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5645||95.0|-0.3|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.54|-0.30|0.5645
91694063|NCT01019694|183283356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0163||95.0|0.1|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.95|0.10|0.0163
91694064|NCT01019694|183283357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4339||95.0|-0.6|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.26|-0.60|0.4339
91694065|NCT01019694|183283357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.4886||95.0|-0.28|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.59|-0.28|0.4886
91694066|NCT01019694|183283358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7637||95.0|-0.5|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.37|-0.50|0.7637
91694067|NCT01019694|183283358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.3755||95.0|-0.24|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.65|-0.24|0.3755
91694068|NCT00463047|183283367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.29|||Mixed effects ANOVA|Crossover analysis||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was:HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID15 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and oxycodone (OXY), respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.29|0.18|<0.0001
91694069|NCT00463047|183283368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID5 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.05|0.01|0.0081
91694070|NCT00463047|183283369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.13||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID10 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.13|0.05|<0.0001
91694071|NCT00463047|183283370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|0.3|0.45||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID10 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.45|0.30|<0.0001
91865151|NCT02938923|183620973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.51||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.96|12.94||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = -0.59|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||12.94|-23.96|0.557
91904238|NCT01958788|183703412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91705839|NCT00432276|183306130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.963|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.333|20.592||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HOMA beta cell function as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||20.592|5.333|<0.001
91694072|NCT00463047|183283371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.35||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID45 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.35|0.20|<0.0001
91694073|NCT00463047|183283372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.25||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID60 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.25|0.08|<0.0001
91694074|NCT00463047|183283379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|0.39|0.58|||ANOVA|||||0.58|0.39|<0.0001
91694075|NCT00463047|183283380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||ANOVA|||||1.16|0.70|<0.0001
91694076|NCT00463047|183283381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1966||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.1966
91694077|NCT00463047|183283382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0275||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0275
91694078|NCT00463047|183283383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0001
91694079|NCT00463047|183283384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||<0.0001
91694080|NCT00463047|183283385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0004
91694081|NCT00463047|183283386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0074
91694082|NCT00463047|183283387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|0.55|0.83||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||||0.83|0.55|<0.0001
91694083|NCT00463047|183283389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5054||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.3|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||3.3|0.7|0.3022
91694084|NCT00463047|183283390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4042||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|1.0|0.0268
91694085|NCT00463047|183283391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4631||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.8|1.2|0.0008
91694086|NCT00463047|183283392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3184||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|1.1|0.0084
91694087|NCT00463047|183283393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0788||||0.5283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Generalize estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.4|0.9|0.5283
91694088|NCT00463047|183283394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9491||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.3|0.7|0.7110
91694089|NCT00463047|183283395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5355||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|0.2|0.3288
91694090|NCT00463047|183283396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1485||||0.5145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.7|0.8|0.5145
91723852|NCT05561140|183341185|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-8.1|||=|0.3456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.7|-26.9|=0.3456
91904239|NCT01958788|183703412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91904240|NCT01958788|183703413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
91723853|NCT00221104|183341186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.29|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||1.29|0.73|0.8234
91723854|NCT00221104|183341187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.74|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||0.74|0.15|0.0047
91723855|NCT00221104|183341188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.91|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||1.91|0.81|0.3075
91723856|NCT00221104|183341189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.36||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.14|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||9.14|0.61|0.1986
91723857|NCT00221104|183341190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.22|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||2.22|0.45|0.9953
91723858|NCT02989389|183341197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.57||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.52|10.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-40||10.96|-29.52|0.215
91723859|NCT02989389|183341197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.79|-48.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-40||-48.43|-69.79|<0.001
91723860|NCT02989389|183341197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-87.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-90.21|-82.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-40||-82.92|-90.21|<0.001
91723861|NCT02989389|183341197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.69|-2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-42||-2.51|-33.69|0.015
91723862|NCT02989389|183341197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.23|-56.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-42||-56.92|-72.23|<0.001
91865152|NCT02938923|183620973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.65||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.64|12.35||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = -1.03|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||12.35|-39.64|0.302
91865153|NCT02938923|183620973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.14||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.33|18.06||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = -0.61|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||18.06|-34.33|0.541
91865154|NCT02938923|183620974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|357.72||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-375.75|1091.19||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.97|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1091.19|-375.75|0.336
91723863|NCT02989389|183341197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-88.97|-78.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-42||-78.38|-88.97|<0.001
91723864|NCT00088153|183341206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||After controlling for baseline age and weight changes|t-test, 2 sided|We also used a mixed model analysis of variance (PROC MIXED), to analyze longitudinal data.||Power analysis: We have previously demonstrated that normal female adolescents gain bone density at the rate of 0.039 +/- 0.0507 per year. The pooled SD in that study was 0.046. Based on these data, with a sample size of 110 girls with anorexia nervosa (AN), half of whom are randomized to receive estrogen and half placebo (with a 10% drop-out rate), there will be an 80% chance that we will detect an increase in bone density to 75% of normal in the girls who receive estrogen.||||<0.05
91723865|NCT00088153|183341207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between the groups for changes in P1NP levels over time||||>0.05
91723866|NCT00088153|183341208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p value was adjusted for age and weight changes|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ for changes in spine bone density z-scores over the study duration||||<0.05
91723867|NCT01063114|183341217|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|37.0||||||||37|16|
91723868|NCT01063114|183341217|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|38.0||||||||38|17|
91723869|NCT01063114|183341218|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence|46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|57.0||||||||57|34|
91694091|NCT00463047|183283397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4481||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.0|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.0|1.1|0.0191
91694092|NCT00463047|183283398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4396||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.8|1.2|0.0006
91694093|NCT00463047|183283399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3426||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|1.1|0.0044
91694094|NCT00463047|183283400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1448||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.4|0.9|0.2184
91694095|NCT00463047|183283401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9249||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.2|0.7|0.5808
91694096|NCT00463047|183283402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8908|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.2|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||2.2|1.7|<0.0001
91694097|NCT00463047|183283403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5841|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||1.8|1.4|<0.0001
91694098|NCT04278417|183283422|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of brolucizumab to PRP with respect to change from baseline in BCVA at Week 54, considering a non-inferiority margin of 4 ETDRS letters. Assuming that the BCVA changes follow a normal distribution with equal means between treatments, and a common standard deviation of 10 letters, for a one-sided alpha level of 0.025, with 300 subjects per arm there is \>99% power to reject the null hypothesis that brolucizumab 6 mg is inferior to PRP.|LS mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.4|||ANCOVA|||1||6.4|2.4|<0.001
91694099|NCT04278417|183283422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||2||||<0.001
91694100|NCT04278417|183283423|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.8|32.0|< 0.001
91694101|NCT04278417|183283425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants|-41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-34.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-34.2|-48.0|< 0.001
91694102|NCT04278417|183283428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|33.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 54||33.3|19.5|<0.001
91694103|NCT01732458|183283499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Ondansetron|-16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|2.0||||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events.||2.0|-34.0|
91694104|NCT01732458|183283499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Ondansetron|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|14.3||||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events.||14.3|-22.9|
91694105|NCT01732458|183283499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Ondansetron|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|6.3||||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events.||6.3|-30.3|
91694106|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Mastoid Process left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.002
91865155|NCT02938923|183620974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|936.93||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-147.56|2021.42||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.71|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2021.42|-147.56|0.090
91694107|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.018
91705840|NCT00432276|183306131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.04||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline body weight as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.04|-1.03|0.071
91705841|NCT00432276|183306132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.1||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.1|-8.6|0.058
91865156|NCT02938923|183620974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|579.21||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-515.36|1673.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.05|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1673.78|-515.36|0.297
91694108|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 left (BL 10) algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Bladder 10 left (BL 10) algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.020
91694109|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 right (BL 10) algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Bladder 10 right (BL 10) algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.025
91694110|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694111|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694112|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||=|0.139|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.139
91694113|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.011
91694114|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.010
91694115|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.06
91694116|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.050
91694117|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.068
91694118|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.049
91723870|NCT01063114|183341218|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|77.0||||||||77|54|
91694119|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.004
91694120|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Mastoid Process left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.297
91694121|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.855|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.855
91694122|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.594|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.594
91694123|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.929|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.929
91694124|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.725
91705842|NCT00432276|183306133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.4|-1.7|0.228
91705843|NCT00432276|183306134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.9||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.9|-6.5|0.132
91705844|NCT00432276|183306135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|1.0||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline triglycerides as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||1.0|-18.3|0.080
91705845|NCT00432276|183306136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0314||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.0012||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline free fatty acid as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.0012|-0.0640|0.059
91705846|NCT00432276|183306137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein A1 as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||2.6|-2.9|0.934
91705847|NCT00432276|183306138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein A2 as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.1|-1.3|0.070
91865157|NCT02938923|183620974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|383.36||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-266.06|1032.79||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 107) = 1.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1032.79|-266.06|0.245
91694125|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.725
91694126|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.398|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.398
91694127|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.186|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Upper Trapezius Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.186
91694128|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.833|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.833
91694129|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.469|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.469
91694130|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.399|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.399
91705848|NCT00432276|183306139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.2||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein B as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.2|-5.9|0.064
91723871|NCT01063114|183341219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.01024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test||||-2.9|-19.2|0.01024
91723872|NCT01063114|183341220|OTHER||3-Year Survival Probability|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.8|91.3||||||||91.3|75.8|
91723873|NCT01063114|183341220|OTHER||5-Year Survival Probability|79.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|88.5||||||||88.5|71.7|
91865158|NCT02938923|183620974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|836.64||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.04|1740.32||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 107) = 1.84|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1740.32|-67.04|0.069
91904241|NCT01958788|183703413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91723874|NCT03409367|183341223|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Regression, log-binomial||Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.|The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of atopic dermatitis does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio is equal to 1.||0.97|0.73|0.019
91723875|NCT03409367|183341224|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of parent-reported AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.90|0.65|0.002
91723876|NCT03409367|183341225|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15||Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.|Regression, log-binomial|||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD by modified UK Working Party criteria does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.15|0.65|0.323
91723877|NCT03409367|183341226|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD by CEQ does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.99|0.70|0.044
91723878|NCT03409367|183341227|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD with prescription or OTC therapies in the health record does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.84|0.55|0.0004
91694131|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.752|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.752
91694132|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.002
91694133|NCT05870371|183283501|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.003
91694134|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.41|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Rotation maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Rotation maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.002
91694135|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.92|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Rotation average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Rotation average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.046
91694136|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91723879|NCT03409367|183341228|EQUIVALENCE|The odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD, as operationalized here by the type of recommended treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations of 199 missing outcomes.|Regression, proportional odds|||The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms.||0.89|0.55|0.004
91723880|NCT03409367|183341229|EQUIVALENCE|Odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD, as operationalized here by the type of treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms.||0.93|0.56|0.013
91694137|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.043
91694138|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.52|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Flexion maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.018
91694139|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.45|||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Flexion average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.102
91694140|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.85|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Extension maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.160
91694141|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.48|||<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Extension average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.039
91694142|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Rotation maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Rotation maximum. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.001
91694143|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Rotation average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.002
91694144|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-4.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Lateral Flexion maximum. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.048
91694145|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Lateral Flexion average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.059
91705849|NCT00432276|183306140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein C-III as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-0.1|-1.0|0.022
91723881|NCT03409367|183341230|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of skin infections in the health record does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms.||1.17|0.73|0.509
91705850|NCT00432276|183306141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.78||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|5.22||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline PAI-1 as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||5.22|-1.65|0.308
91705851|NCT00432276|183306142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8209||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3209|0.679||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline hsCRP as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.6790|-2.3209|0.283
91794918|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.097||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.097|-0.028|0.2730
91794919|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.058||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.058|-0.048|0.8549
91705852|NCT00432276|183306143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.27||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline adiponectin as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-1.27|-4.57|<0.001
91705853|NCT00432276|183306144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.2||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||3.2|-15.4|0.197
91705854|NCT00207727|183306187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||The p-value was non estimable because the observed trend was in the opposite direction of that stated in the one sided alternative hypothesis|Jonckheere Terpstra|Jonckheere Terpstra nonparametric trend test procedure with 5% level of significance was be used to test for the monotonic trend.||Hypothesis: The null hypothesis of no effect among the treatment groups was tested against the alternative hypothesis that the cumulative number of newly Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions on cranial MRIs through Week 23 would decrease monotonically with dose at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.00
91705855|NCT00207727|183306188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||||||0.892
91705856|NCT00207727|183306188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||||||0.599
91705857|NCT00207727|183306188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||||||0.517
91705858|NCT00207727|183306188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||Hypothesis: The null hypothesis is no difference between any ustekinumab treatment groups and placebo at a significant level of 0.05 for comparison for each treatment group.||||0.967
91705859|NCT00207727|183306189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||||||0.720
91705860|NCT00207727|183306189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||||||0.152
91705861|NCT00207727|183306189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.431||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||||||0.431
91705862|NCT00207727|183306189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||Hypothesis: The null hypothesis is no difference between any ustekinumab treatment groups and placebo at a significant level of 0.05 for comparison for each treatment group with placebo..||||0.292
91705863|NCT03759366|183306190|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-5.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.13|||Repeated Measures Model||The least square mean change from baseline in QMG total score at Week 26 was calculated.|The observed change in QMG was analyzed with baseline QMG score and visits as covariates.||-3.13|-8.40|0.0004
91705864|NCT03759366|183306204|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-4.3||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-1.65|||Repeated Measures Model||The least square mean change from baseline in QMG total score at Week 52 was calculated.|The observed change in QMG was analyzed with baseline QMG score and visits as covariates.||-1.65|-6.93|0.0033
91705865|NCT01093651|183306227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for CD4+ T-cell count over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|Study subject was included in these models as a random variable to account for within-participant correlation.||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in CD4+ T-cell count between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
91705866|NCT01093651|183306228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for plasma HIV RNA copy number/mL over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in plasma HIV RNA copy number/mL between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
91705867|NCT01093651|183306229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for serum TNFR2 levels over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in serum TNFR2 levels between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
91723882|NCT03409367|183341231|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.18|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of asthma in the health record does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||2.18|0.50|0.900
91723883|NCT03409367|183341232|EQUIVALENCE|An ordinal OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.21|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).|The daily emollient is in the numerator and the natural skin is in the denominator.|The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1.||2.21|0.98|0.064
91723884|NCT03409367|183341233|EQUIVALENCE|An ordinal OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.3|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).|Daily emollient in the numerator and natural skin in the denominator.|The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1.||2.30|1.14|0.007
91723885|NCT03409367|183341234|EQUIVALENCE|The ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.18|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).|Daily moisturizer is the numerator and natural skin is the denominator.|The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1.||2.18|0.97|0.070
91723886|NCT03409367|183341235|EQUIVALENCE|Odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.91|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).||The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.||1.91|0.96|0.085
91723887|NCT03409367|183341236|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of immediate food allergy reactions does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.03|0.55|0.079
91723888|NCT03409367|183341237|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.66|||Regression, log-binomial|||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of food allergies does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.66|0.45|0.669
91723889|NCT03409367|183341238|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.95|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.||0.95|0.62|0.013
91904242|NCT01958788|183703413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91723890|NCT03409367|183341239|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.||0.94|0.67|0.009
91723891|NCT03409367|183341240|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.94|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations of 121 missing outcomes.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.94|0.63|0.012
91723892|NCT03409367|183341241|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations of 78 missing outcomes.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.10|0.73|0.303
91723893|NCT03279458|183341297|OTHER|least square regression analysis|correlation coefficient (R)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.97|||Regression, Linear|||||0.97|0.88|<0.05
91723894|NCT03018938|183341301|NON_INFERIORITY|If Lower limit (L) \>-0.4%, the Non-inferiority (NI) of basal insulin analog QD to insulin analog mid mixture BID is established; If Upper limit (U) \<0.4%, the NI of insulin analog mid mixture BID to basal insulin analog QD is established|LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0959||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.031|||ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.346|0.1009
91723895|NCT03018938|183341302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0891||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.026|||ANCOVA|||||-0.026|-0.376|0.0246
91723896|NCT03018938|183341303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.95|0.0941
91723897|NCT03018938|183341304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.72|0.8592
91694146|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Flexion maximum. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.57
91694147|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|=|0.931|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Flexion average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.931
91694148|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|=|0.558|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Extension maximum . The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.558
91694149|NCT05870371|183283502|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Extension average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.989
91694150|NCT05870371|183283503|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the strength of deep neck flexor muscles as measured by the Chattanooga Stabilizer Pressure Biofeedback in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694151|NCT05870371|183283503|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|=|0.437|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in improving the strength of deep neck flexor muscles measured by the Chattanooga Stabilizer Pressure Biofeedback in patients with chronic neck pain than applying A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.437
91694152|NCT05870371|183283504|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||=|0.919|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the respiratory function assessed by the portable spirometer (MIR Spirodoc) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.919
91694153|NCT05870371|183283504|OTHER||Dependence coefficients (β)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value corresponds to the comparison between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the respiratory function in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.010
91694154|NCT05870371|183283505|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||=|0.659|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the respiratory function assessed by the portable spirometer (MIR Spirodoc) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.659
91694155|NCT05870371|183283505|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the respiratory function in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.05
91723898|NCT03018938|183341305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2152||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.846|||ANCOVA|||||0.846|0.000|0.0497
91723899|NCT03018938|183341306|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1955||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|1.031|||ANCOVA|||||1.031|0.263|0.0010
91723900|NCT03018938|183341307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2191||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.7|||ANCOVA|||FBG||0.700|-0.161|0.2193
91723901|NCT03018938|183341307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3331||0.8014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|0.571|||ANCOVA|||PPG||0.571|-0.739|0.8014
91865159|NCT02938923|183620974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|453.28||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-459.13|1365.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 107) = 0.98|Difference between changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1365.68|-459.13|0.327
91694156|NCT05870371|183283506|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.28|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the respiratory function assessed by the portable spirometer (MIR Spirodoc) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.09
91694157|NCT05870371|183283506|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the respiratory function in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.005
91694158|NCT05870371|183283507|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total McGill Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Total McGill Score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain in the cervical spine in terms of its intensity and quality, i.e., its sensory, emotional and behavioral dimensions using the McGill Pain Questionnaire-short form (SFMPQ) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694159|NCT05870371|183283507|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Sensory Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Sensory Score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain in the cervical spine in terms of its intensity and quality, i.e., its sensory, emotional and behavioral dimensions using the McGill Pain Questionnaire-short form (SFMPQ) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694160|NCT05870371|183283507|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Affective Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Affective Score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain in the cervical spine in terms of its intensity and quality, i.e., its sensory, emotional and behavioral dimensions using the McGill Pain Questionnaire-short form (SFMPQ) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694161|NCT05870371|183283507|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.996|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total McGill score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of pain in terms of its intensity and quality in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.996
91694162|NCT05870371|183283507|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Sensory Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of pain in terms of its intensity and quality in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.968
91694163|NCT05870371|183283507|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.854|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Affective Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of pain in terms of its intensity and quality in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.854
91694164|NCT05870371|183283508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||||||<0.001
91694165|NCT05870371|183283508|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.952|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|||||=0.952
91694166|NCT05870371|183283509|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||||||<0.001
91723902|NCT03018938|183341308|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2033||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.891|||ANCOVA|||FBG||0.891|0.092|0.0160
91723903|NCT03018938|183341308|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3028||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|0.582|||ANCOVA|||PPG||0.582|-0.608|0.9661
91723904|NCT03018938|183341310|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2776||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.211|||ANCOVA|||||1.211|0.122|0.0166
91723905|NCT03018938|183341311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2864||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|1.316|||ANCOVA|||||1.316|0.192|0.0086
91904243|NCT01958788|183703414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment follow-up||||
91723906|NCT03018938|183341314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.77|0.89|0.2009
91723907|NCT03018938|183341315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.72|0.8054
91723908|NCT03018938|183341316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.7553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.8|0.7553
91865160|NCT02938923|183620975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.16||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-391.74|426.05||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.08|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||426.05|-391.74|0.934
91694167|NCT05870371|183283509|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|||||=0.989
91694168|NCT05870371|183283510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the functionality recorded with the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694169|NCT05870371|183283510|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.973|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of functionality recorded with the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.973
91694170|NCT05870371|183283511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Depression subscale of HADS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Depression subscale of HADS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694171|NCT05870371|183283511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the Anxiety subscale of HADS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Anxiety subscale of HADS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694172|NCT05870371|183283511|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Depression subscale of HADS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Depression subscale of HADS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.305
91694173|NCT05870371|183283511|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Anxiety subscale of HADS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Anxiety subscale of HADS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.137
91694174|NCT05870371|183283512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the kinesiophobia as measured by the Tampa Scale Kinesiophobia (TSK\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694175|NCT05870371|183283512|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|=|0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing kinesiophobia measured by the Tampa Scale Kinesiophobia (TSK\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.151
91694176|NCT05870371|183283512|OTHER||||||=|0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|McNemar|||||||=0.021
91723909|NCT02141113|183341358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779|||||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These changed scores show the total change in ADHD symptoms over the course of the trial. Higher values indiicate improved functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||.779
91723910|NCT02141113|183341359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|||||||ANOVA|||||||.834
91723911|NCT02141113|183341360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.705
91723912|NCT02141113|183341361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.322
91723913|NCT02141113|183341362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.043
91723914|NCT02141113|183341363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.212
91865161|NCT02938923|183620975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|562.64||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.02|1167.31||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.84|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1167.31|-42.02|0.068
91723915|NCT03921541|183341445|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91723916|NCT03921541|183341446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5961|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5961
91723917|NCT03921541|183341447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1087
91723918|NCT03921541|183341448|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91723919|NCT03921541|183341449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91865162|NCT02938923|183620975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|545.49||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.81|1155.79||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.77|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1155.79|-64.81|0.079
91865163|NCT02938923|183620975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.73||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-365.4|432.86||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 102) = 0.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||432.860|-365.40|0.867
91723920|NCT03921541|183341450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91723921|NCT03921541|183341452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
91723922|NCT03921541|183341453|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91723923|NCT03921541|183341454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91723924|NCT03921541|183341455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0208|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0208
91723925|NCT03921541|183341456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4434
91723926|NCT03921541|183341457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5301|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5301
91723927|NCT03921541|183341458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2515|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2515
91723928|NCT04633447|183341488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.6|||=|0.638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.9|-14.7|=0.638
91723929|NCT04333498|183341503|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-221.03||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-396.33|-45.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-45.73|-396.33|.014
91723930|NCT04333498|183341504|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1103.96||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-296.532|2502.722|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2502.722|-296.532|0.122
91723931|NCT04333498|183341505|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.61||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.614|3.391|||t-test, 2 sided|||Adherence percentage||3.391|-8.614|.218
91723932|NCT04333498|183341505|OTHER|Linear regression with generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Slope|0.046||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.128|||Regression, Linear|||||0.128|-0.036|0.272
91723933|NCT01565694|183341506|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91723934|NCT01565694|183341506|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
91723935|NCT01565694|183341507|OTHER|P-Value was obtained from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that Change from Baseline=0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91723936|NCT01565694|183341508|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.029
91723937|NCT01565694|183341508|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.026
91723938|NCT01565694|183341509|OTHER|From a Wilcoxon Signed Rank testing the null hypothesis is that the Median at Week 24 is equal to Baseline Median.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91723939|NCT01565694|183341510|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 in bladder volume at 30 cmH20.||||0.006
91723940|NCT01565694|183341510|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF in bladder volume at 30 cmH20.||||0.001
91723941|NCT01565694|183341511|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to week 24 in bladder volume at 40 cmH20.||||0.001
91723942|NCT01565694|183341511|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to week 24 LOCF in bladder volume at 40 cmH20.||||0.004
91723943|NCT01565694|183341512|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.003
91723944|NCT01565694|183341512|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.028
91723945|NCT01565694|183341513|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.068
91723946|NCT01565694|183341513|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.075
91723947|NCT01565694|183341514|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91723948|NCT01565694|183341514|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
91723949|NCT01565694|183341515|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91723950|NCT01565694|183341515|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
91723951|NCT01565694|183341516|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91723952|NCT01565694|183341516|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
91723953|NCT01565694|183341517|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91723954|NCT01565694|183341517|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
91723955|NCT01565694|183341518|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.010
91723956|NCT01565694|183341518|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.004
91723957|NCT01565694|183341519|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91723958|NCT01565694|183341519|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
91723959|NCT01565694|183341520|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.568
91865164|NCT02938923|183620975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|665.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.68|1225.81||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 102) = 2.36|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1225.81|105.68|0.020
91865165|NCT02938923|183620975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|632.02||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.38|1197.66||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 102) = 2.22|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1197.66|66.38|0.029
91865166|NCT02938923|183620976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|21.01||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 0.07|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||21.01|-19.61|0.946
91723960|NCT01565694|183341520|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.573
91723961|NCT00541229|183341561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.8||||0.004||95.0|-53.1|-10.5|||ANOVA|Model term: treatment||For this comparison, the mean in the placebo group was subtracted from the mean in the sitagliptin 200 mg group.||-10.5|-53.1|0.004
91723962|NCT00541229|183341561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-63.6|-20.2|||ANOVA|Model term: treatment||For this comparison, the mean in the placebo group was subtracted from the mean in the sitagliptin 100 mg group.||-20.2|-63.6|<0.001
91723963|NCT00541229|183341561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis stated that the lower bound of 80% one-sided confidence interval for the comparison in 24-hour WMG reduction between sitagliptin 200 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg is above -5 mg/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||||80.0|0.61|9999999.0|||||This is a 1-sided 80% confidence interval and the upper bound 9999999 was used here to indicate positive infinity.|This was pre-defined as a non-superiority test, i.e., to show that sitagliptin 200 mg is not superior to sitagliptin 100 mg. For this comparison, the mean in the sitagliptin 100 mg group was subtracted from the mean in the sitagliptin 200 mg group.||9999999|0.61|
91723964|NCT01312129|183341562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||=0.05 is the actual computed p-value via the ANOVA.|ANOVA|The ANOVA is comparing the % increase in BOLD response above baseline during cue presentation (Alcohol vs. Control) b/w placebo \& Sulfasalazine .||||||=.05
91723965|NCT02397837|183341569|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91723966|NCT02397837|183341570|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91723967|NCT02397837|183341571|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91723968|NCT02397837|183341572|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91723969|NCT02397837|183341573|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
91723970|NCT02397837|183341574|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
91723971|NCT02397837|183341575|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Tabulation of participants with suicidal acknowledgements over 12-week study|||
91723972|NCT02397837|183341576|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91723973|NCT02397837|183341577|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91723974|NCT02397837|183341578|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91723975|NCT04602000|183341630|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimated using CMH weights|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated using CMH test stratified by age (≥60 vs. \<60 years), baseline comorbidities (Yes vs. No) and region (US vs. EU vs. Other)|The 95% stratified Newcombe CI with CMH weights was presented.|||-4.5|-11.7|<0.0001
91723976|NCT01257542|183341648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.15||p-value was calculated using negative binomial regression model with treatment, site and baseline of cough count terms with log (exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Negative binomial regression|||Odds Ratio and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were assessed from the negative binomial regression model.||1.15|0.59|0.252
91723977|NCT01257542|183341649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.26||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on least-square (LS) means from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.||0.08|-0.60|0.134
91723978|NCT01257542|183341650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||1 hour: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.33|-0.45|0.768
91723979|NCT01257542|183341650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.23||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||2 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.23|-0.64|0.358
91723980|NCT01257542|183341650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||3 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.10|-0.74|0.139
91723981|NCT01257542|183341650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.25||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||4 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.25|-0.68|0.364
91723982|NCT01257542|183341650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||5 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||-0.02|-0.90|0.039
91723983|NCT01257542|183341650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.16||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||6 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.16|-0.75|0.206
91723984|NCT01257542|183341651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.45|-1.43|0.304
91723985|NCT01257542|183341652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||1 hour: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.97|-1.03|0.954
91723986|NCT01257542|183341652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.65||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||2 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.65|-1.54|0.426
91794920|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.5847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.068||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.068|-0.120|0.5847
91794921|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.163||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.163|-0.030|0.1740
91723987|NCT01257542|183341652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.45||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||3 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.60|-1.49|0.396
91723988|NCT01257542|183341652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||4 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.66|-1.63|0.402
91723989|NCT01257542|183341652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.69||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||5 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.38|-1.75|0.204
91723990|NCT01257542|183341652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.84||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||6 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.39|-2.06|0.179
91723991|NCT01257542|183341653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.39||p-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores controlling site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and the associated 95% CI were based on the weighted Gamma statistics.||0.39|-0.21|0.523
91723992|NCT01257542|183341654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.24||p-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores controlling site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and the associated 95% CI were based on the weighted Gamma statistics.||0.24|-0.35|0.796
91723993|NCT00693303|183341665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.27
91723994|NCT00195429|183341671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91723995|NCT00195429|183341672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.361||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||||||0.361
91723996|NCT04837521|183341688|SUPERIORITY||γ01|0.25||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||analysis completed using the 1 week follow up data|||||.03
91694177|NCT05870371|183283513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.24|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_physical subscale. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the FABQ\_physical subscale.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the perception of the fear and the effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.006
91694178|NCT05870371|183283513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.24|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_work subscale. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the FABQ\_work subscale.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the perception of the fear and the effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.001
91694179|NCT05870371|183283513|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.197|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_work subscale. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the FABQ\_work subscale. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of perception of fear and effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.197
91694180|NCT05870371|183283513|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_physical subscale. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the FABQ\_physical subscale. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of perception of fear and effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.066
91694181|NCT05870371|183283514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total PCS score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Total PCS score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694182|NCT05870371|183283514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Rumination subscale of PCS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Rumination subscale of PCS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694183|NCT05870371|183283514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Magnification subscale of PCS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Magnification subscale of PCS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694184|NCT05870371|183283514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Helplessness subscale of PCS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Helplessness subscale of PCS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694185|NCT05870371|183283514|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.871|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total PCS score. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Total PCS score. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|||=0.871
91865167|NCT02938923|183620976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.44||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|53.13||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 1.69|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||53.13|-4.25|0.094
91758702|NCT00235716|183410637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.63|-1.32|0.84
91865168|NCT02938923|183620976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.74||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|52.67||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 1.63|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||52.67|-5.19|0.107
91705868|NCT01093651|183306230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0002||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for SDF1-alpha levels over time and between the 2 groups achieved p\<0.0002.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in serum SDF1α levels between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||<0.0002
91865169|NCT02938923|183620976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.68|24.3||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 0.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||24.30|-14.68|0.627
91865170|NCT02938923|183620976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.91||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|52.01||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.81|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||52.01|-2.20|0.072
91865171|NCT02938923|183620976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.1||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|47.49||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.45|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||47.49|-7.29|0.149
91865172|NCT02938923|183620976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|12.95||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = -0.19|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||12.95|-15.71|0.849
91865173|NCT02938923|183620976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.47||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|35.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|(df, 110) = 1.15|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||35.78|-4.83|0.134
91865174|NCT02938923|183620976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.86||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|37.39||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 1.63|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||37.39|-3.68|0.107
91865175|NCT02938923|183620976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|13.17||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = -0.03|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||13.17|-13.64|0.973
91865176|NCT02938923|183620976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.49||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|33.54||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.50|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||33.54|-4.56|0.135
91865177|NCT02938923|183620976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.72||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|34.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.51|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||34.00|-4.55|0.134
91865178|NCT02938923|183620977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.76||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.55|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.76|-0.34|0.125
91865179|NCT02938923|183620977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.61||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.31|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.61|-1.90|0.758
91865180|NCT02938923|183620977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|1.41||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.75|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.41|-3.12|0.455
91865181|NCT02938923|183620977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 1.21|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.00|-0.72|0.229
91865182|NCT02938923|183620977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.16||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 0.46|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.16|-1.97|0.647
91865183|NCT02938923|183620977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.04||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -0.41|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.04|-3.12|0.680
91865184|NCT02938923|183620977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|2.97||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.96|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.97|-0.02|0.052
91865185|NCT02938923|183620977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.46||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.31|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.46|-1.79|0.754
91794922|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.103||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.103|-0.063|0.6255
91794923|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.7658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.131||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.131|-0.177|0.7658
91794924|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.240|-0.082|0.3309
91794925|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.6872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.166||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.166|-0.110|0.6872
91723997|NCT04837521|183341689|OTHER|The conditions were expected to be similar, and the primary interest of the analysis was changes over time across both groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|4.49||To estimate the mean improvement in PSFS across the entire sample, we calculated a posterior predictive distribution of within-person change scores between time fixed equal to 0 and equal to -1.|Bayesian framework|||PSFS scores were analyzed using mixed-effects linear growth models with time, treatment condition, and their interaction as predictors. Random effects modeled variation in intercepts, slopes over time, and their covariance. Time was specified as a continuous variable, centered on the final observation date. The SG group served as the reference level for the treatment factor. Models were estimated in a Bayesian framework using default priors in the brms package.||4.49|2.32|
91723998|NCT04470427|183341723|OTHER||VE|93.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|94.8|||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|VE (percent) is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the VE is above 30%.|VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|"Vaccine efficacy was defined as the percent reduction in the hazard of the primary endpoint (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).~Null hypothesis of Vaccine Efficacy ≤30%, 95% CI."||94.8|91.0|<.0001
91794926|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.202||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.202|-0.196|0.9752
91865186|NCT02938923|183620977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.06|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.00|-3.28|0.294
91865187|NCT02938923|183620977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 2.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.78|0.13|0.031
91865188|NCT02938923|183620977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.16||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 0.32|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.16|-1.56|0.752
91865189|NCT02938923|183620977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.71||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -1.22|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.71|-3.03|0.223
91865190|NCT02938923|183620978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.46||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 2.78|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.46|0.24|0.006
91865191|NCT02938923|183620978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.97||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.97|-0.81|0.863
91723999|NCT04470427|183341729|OTHER||VE|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.8|99.6|||VE||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||99.6|92.8|
91724000|NCT04470427|183341730|OTHER||VE|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5|84.2|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||84.2|79.5|
91724001|NCT04470427|183341731|OTHER|VE|VE|93.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.4|94.9|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||94.9|91.4|
91724002|NCT04470427|183341733|OTHER||VE|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.1|94.9|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||94.9|91.1|
91724003|NCT04470427|183341734|OTHER||VE|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5|84.3|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||84.3|79.5|
91724004|NCT04470427|183341735|OTHER||VE|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.6|68.5|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||68.5|56.6|
91724005|NCT04470427|183341741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of a booster as compared with mRNA-1273 after second dose based on Ratio of GMC is demonstrated if lower bound of 95% CI of Ratio of GMC ≥ 0.67.|Ratio of GMC|6.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.509|7.52||||||Ratio of GMC 28 days following the booster dose (BD-Day 29) compared with 28 days following second dose (Part A-Day 57).||7.520|6.509|
91865192|NCT02938923|183620978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.12||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.71|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.12|-1.67|0.091
91865193|NCT02938923|183620978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.44||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 2.65|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.44|0.21|0.009
91724006|NCT04470427|183341742|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of a booster as compared with mRNA-1273 after second dose based on SRR difference is demonstrated if lower bound of 95% CI of SRR difference \> -10%.|Difference in Seroresponse|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||||95% CI were calculated using adjusted Wald method for the paired binary data.|Seroresponse 28 days following the booster dose (BD-Day 29) compared with 28 days following second dose (Part A-Day 57)||1.8|0.1|
91724007|NCT01018979|183341745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analyze whether the mean fold increase from the baseline to the peak time change was significant or not.||||0.023
91724008|NCT01018979|183341745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analyze whether the mean fold increase from the baseline to the peak time change was significant or not.||||0.038
91865194|NCT02938923|183620978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.02||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 0.28|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.02|-0.76|0.778
91865195|NCT02938923|183620978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.19||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -1.55|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.19|-1.59|0.124
91865196|NCT02938923|183620978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.31||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 2.24|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.31|0.08|0.027
91865197|NCT02938923|183620978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.21|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.78|-0.97|0.833
91904244|NCT01958788|183703414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91724009|NCT00248547|183341755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.041
91724010|NCT01913353|183341765|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that Group 1 (after 2 doses of MVA-BN) is non-inferior to Group 2 (after 1 dose of ACAM2000) in terms of PRNT GMTs at the respective peak visit (Week 6 in Group 1 / Week 4 in Group 2) was predefined as '1/2 (i.e. 0.5)' for the GMT ratio (Group 1 / Group 2).|GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2)|1.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.562|2.397||||||||2.397|1.562|
91724011|NCT01913353|183341766|SUPERIORITY|Predefined threshold of clinical relevance for the area attenuation ratio (AAR): 40%|Area attenuation ratio (AAR)|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.6|98.3|||||The AAR, i.e. the reduction in MLA \[1 - MLA ratio (Group 1/Group 2)\] after scarification was to be significantly above 40%. The MLA ratio and the corresponding 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the shift for log-transformed MLAs.|||98.3|96.6|
91724012|NCT01260948|183341838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.13|103.53|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.53|94.13|
91759984|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|3.89||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.89|-14.61|
91724013|NCT01260948|183341839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.3|98.47|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.47|91.30|
91724014|NCT00768053|183341840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||F test for H0: ICC = 0|F test|||Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)||||0.000
91724015|NCT00768053|183341840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||standard error of measurement|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.75||||||Standardized response mean: standard error of measurement||0.75|0.57|
91724016|NCT00768053|183341842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 4||||<0.001
91724017|NCT00768053|183341843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 12||||<0.001
91724018|NCT00768053|183341844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Time-normalized average||||<0.001
91724019|NCT00768053|183341845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 4||||<0.001
91724020|NCT00768053|183341846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 12||||<0.001
91724021|NCT00768053|183341847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Time-normalized average||||<0.001
91724022|NCT00768053|183341848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Pain NRS value||||<0.001
91724023|NCT00768053|183341848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Functional disability NRS value||||<0.001
91724024|NCT00768053|183341848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Fatigue NRS value||||0.837
91724025|NCT00768053|183341848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Sleep NRS value||||0.035
91724026|NCT00768053|183341848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Physical well-being NRS value||||0.351
91724027|NCT00768053|183341848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Emotional well-being NRS value||||0.025
91865198|NCT02938923|183620978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.77|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.10|-1.67|0.080
91904245|NCT01958788|183703414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91724028|NCT00768053|183341848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Coping NRS value||||<0.001
91724029|NCT00768053|183341849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Pain NRS value||||<0.001
91724030|NCT00768053|183341849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Functional disability NRS value||||0.052
91724031|NCT00768053|183341849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Fatigue NRS value||||0.895
91724032|NCT00768053|183341849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Sleep NRS value||||0.153
91724033|NCT00768053|183341849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Physical well-being NRS value||||0.029
91724034|NCT00768053|183341849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Emotional well-being NRS value||||0.043
91724035|NCT00768053|183341849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Coping NRS value||||<0.001
91759985|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|-6.61||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.61|-25.15|
91724036|NCT00898807|183341898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values are two-sided and p\<0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model w/ random intercept for patient, visit indicator, treatment by visit interactions and adjusted for baseline NBRS-A \& cognition.|Negative numbers favor citalopram group.|Primary assessment of efficacy was based on intention-to-treat comparison of the difference in the NBRS-A scores at week 9 and comparison at week 9 for the CGIC. For the NBRS-A, the study was designed to have 85% power to detect a standardized difference at week 9 of 40% for citalopram compared to placebo at week 9.||-0.06|-1.80|0.036
91724037|NCT00898807|183341899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.69||All p-values are two-sided and p \<0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Proportional odds|estimated treatment effect from the proportional odds model|Positive numbers favors citalopram.|Primary assessment of efficacy was based on intention-to-treat comparison of the difference in the NBRS-A scores at week 9 and comparison at week 9 for the CGIC. For the CGIC proportional odds analysis, the study was designed to have power greater than 80% to detect a difference of 20% between citalopram and placebo in the proportions of patients who improve (or worsen).||3.69|1.23|0.007
91724038|NCT03928327|183341902|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.48|3.3|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect(treatment), random-effect(participants). Geometric mean ratios(GMR), 90% confidence interval(CI) calculated using exponentiation of treatment least squares means(LSMs) difference.|||3.30|2.48|
91724039|NCT03928327|183341903|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.11|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment) and random-effect (participants). GMR and 90% CI was calculated using exponentiation of treatment LSMs difference.|||0.11|0.07|
91794927|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.349||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.349|-0.064|0.1715
91724040|NCT03928327|183341904|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|7.56|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment) and random-effect (participants). GMR and 90% CI was calculated using exponentiation of treatment LSMs difference.|||7.56|5.20|
91724041|NCT03928327|183341905|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.07|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment) and random-effect (participants). GMR and 90% CI was calculated using exponentiation of treatment LSMs difference.|||0.07|0.04|
91724042|NCT01482221|183341909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.695||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|2.152||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.152|-4.519|0.630
91724043|NCT01482221|183341909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.701||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.563|2.134||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.134|-4.563|0.476
91724044|NCT01482221|183341910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.816||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.628|1.522||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.522|-5.628|0.630
91724045|NCT01482221|183341910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|4.485||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||4.485|-2.720|0.630
91724046|NCT01482221|183341911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|2.089||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.089|0.544|0.852
91724047|NCT01482221|183341911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|2.115||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.115|0.552|0.821
91694186|NCT05870371|183283514|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.887|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Rumination subscale of PCS. The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Rumination subscale of PCS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.887
91694187|NCT05870371|183283514|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.879|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Magnification subscale of PCS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Magnification subscale of PCS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.879
91724048|NCT01482221|183341912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.686|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.686|0.485|0.751
91724049|NCT01482221|183341912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.233|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.233|0.650|0.555
91724050|NCT01482221|183341913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|2.301|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.301|0.699|0.434
91865199|NCT02938923|183620978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.21||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 2.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.21|0.14|0.014
91865200|NCT02938923|183620978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -0.21|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.68|-0.84|0.834
91904246|NCT01958788|183703415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
91724051|NCT01482221|183341913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|1.334|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.334|0.377|0.286
91724052|NCT01482221|183341914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|3.007|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||3.007|0.672|0.357
91724053|NCT01482221|183341914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.84|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.840|0.622|0.463
91724054|NCT01482221|183341915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|2.031|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.031|0.532|0.911
91724055|NCT01482221|183341915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|1.613|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.613|0.382|0.509
91724056|NCT01482221|183341916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.238||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.609|2.264||Analysis for change in SDS total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.264|-2.609|0.889
91724057|NCT01482221|183341916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.264||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.477|2.501||Analysis for change in SDS total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.501|-2.477|0.992
91724058|NCT01482221|183341916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.301||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.448|3.678||Analysis for change in SDS total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.678|-1.448|0.392
91865201|NCT02938923|183620978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.01||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -1.94|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.01|-1.52|0.054
91865202|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.74||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.99|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.74|-0.25|0.326
91904247|NCT01958788|183703415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91904248|NCT01958788|183703415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91904249|NCT01958788|183703416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
91694188|NCT05870371|183283514|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.961|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Helplessness subscale of PCS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Helplessness subscale of PCS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.961
91724059|NCT01482221|183341916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.329||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.327|3.908||Analysis for changed in SDS total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.908|-1.327|0.333
91724060|NCT01482221|183341917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.34||Analysis for change in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.34|-0.49|0.728
91724061|NCT01482221|183341917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.29||Analysis for change in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.29|-0.54|0.562
91724062|NCT01482221|183341917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.19||Analysis for change in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.19|-0.64|0.283
91724063|NCT01482221|183341917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.55||Analysis for changed in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.55|-0.29|0.540
91724064|NCT01482221|183341918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|3.141|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||3.141|0.962|0.067
91724065|NCT01482221|183341918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|2.558|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||2.558|0.798|0.230
91724066|NCT01482221|183341919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.447|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||2.447|0.780|0.268
91724067|NCT01482221|183341919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.75|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||1.750|0.533|0.909
91724068|NCT01482221|183341920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.13||Analysis for change in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.13|-2.29|0.505
91724069|NCT01482221|183341920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.91||Analysis for change in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.91|-1.56|0.842
91724070|NCT01482221|183341920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.51||Analysis for change in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.51|-1.98|0.788
91724071|NCT01482221|183341920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|3.12||Analysis for changed in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.12|-0.42|0.133
91724072|NCT01846871|183341933|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91724073|NCT01846871|183341934|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
91724074|NCT01846871|183341935|OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0019
91724075|NCT01846871|183341936|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
91865203|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.54|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.49|-0.87|0.587
91724076|NCT00081458|183341954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91724077|NCT00081458|183341955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An efficacy responder was defined as achieving at least a 20% reduction from Baseline to Week 20 and maintained at Week 24 in weekly actual PN infusion volume.||||0.005
91724078|NCT03384966|183341956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|22.4|154.8||A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, based on an overall Type-I error rate of 0.05 adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni approach (two comparisons).|Chi-squared|||"The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of each selatogrel dose versus placebo. The proportion of responders for each of the two doses of selatogrel was compared to placebo.~No imputation was considered for handling missing values."||154.8|22.4|< 0.0001
91724079|NCT03384966|183341956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.1|162.3||A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, based on an overall Type-I error rate of 0.05 adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni approach (two comparisons).|Chi-squared|||"The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of each selatogrel dose versus placebo. The proportion of responders for each of the two doses of selatogrel was compared to placebo.~No imputation was considered for handling missing values in the main analysis."||162.3|23.1|< 0.0001
91724080|NCT03384966|183341960|OTHER|Logistic regression (Type III analysis)||||||0.1915|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1915
91724081|NCT03384966|183341962|OTHER||LS Mean difference with placebo|-27.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value significance level is set to 0.025, i.e. type I error (0.05) adjusted for multiplicity (2 comparisons) using a Bonferroni approach.||Longitudinal analysis of the treatment effect, from start of treatment to 8 hours after injection.||-19.6|-35.4|<.0001
91724082|NCT03384966|183341962|OTHER||LS Mean difference with placebo|-31.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-23.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value significance level is set to 0.025, i.e. type I error (0.05) adjusted for multiplicity (2 comparisons) using a Bonferroni approach||Longitudinal analysis of the treatment effect, from start of treatment up to 8 hours after injection.||-23.1|-39.0|<.0001
91865204|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.25||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.25|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.25|-1.12|0.213
91865205|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.83|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.78|-0.32|0.410
91904250|NCT01958788|183703416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91724083|NCT03925220|183342002|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio (PR)|2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.04||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on drinking alcohol"|Generalized estimation|||A sample size of 400 parents and children was calculated to yield 80% power to detect one or more differences between the intervention and control arms, of 45% in talking about alcohol, 20% about marijuana, and 20% about other drugs, using a two-sided Bonferroni-corrected 1.5% level of significance (based on estimates from the pilot trial).||4.04|2.02|<0.001
91724084|NCT03925220|183342002|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.45||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on using e-cigarettes or vaping"|Generalized estimation|||||3.45|1.67|<0.001
91724085|NCT03925220|183342002|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.43||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on using marijuana"|Generalized estimation|||||3.43|1.62|<0.001
91724086|NCT03925220|183342002|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.08||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on smoking cigarettes"|Generalized estimation|||||5.08|2.34|<0.001
91694189|NCT05870371|183283515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Physical Component Summary/PCS subscale of SF-12. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Physical Component Summary/PCS subscale of SF-12.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the quality of life as measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91694190|NCT05870371|183283515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Mental Component Summary/MCS subscale of SF-12. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Mental Component Summary/MCS subscale of SF-12.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the quality of life as measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91724087|NCT03925220|183342002|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.86||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on using other drugs"|Generalized estimation|||||3.86|1.58|<0.001
91865206|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.51||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.63|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.51|-0.99|0.527
91865207|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.28||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.23|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.28|-1.23|0.219
91705869|NCT01093651|183306231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for serum RANTES levels over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in serum RANTES levels between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
91724088|NCT03925220|183342002|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.06||"At 18 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on drinking alcohol"|Generalized estimation|||||2.06|1.02|0.04
91724089|NCT03925220|183342003|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio (PR)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.45||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported have warned your child about the dangers of drinking alcohol and using drugs"|Generalized estimation|||||1.45|1.18|<0.001
91724090|NCT03925220|183342003|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.83||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have talked to your child about how to handle offers of alcoholic drinks and drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.83|1.32|<0.001
91724091|NCT03925220|183342003|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.63||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have given your child rules to obey about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.63|1.73|<0.001
91724092|NCT03925220|183342003|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.25||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have lectured or given your child a speech about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.25|1.25|0.001
91724093|NCT03925220|183342003|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.9||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have made a comment to your child about how drinking alcohol and using drugs is bad if a character on TV is drinking or drunk'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.90|1.21|<0.001
91724094|NCT03925220|183342003|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.25||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.47||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have told your child stories of people who drink alcohol, have been drunk, or use drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.47|1.06|0.008
91724095|NCT03925220|183342003|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.1||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have told your child you would be disappointed in her/him if they were to drink alcohol or use drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.10|1.29|<0.001
91724096|NCT03925220|183342003|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.15||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have shown your child information on the web, TV, or in the news about the dangers of drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.15|1.24|<0.001
91724097|NCT03925220|183342003|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.93||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have asked your child about their thoughts and opinions about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.93|1.40|<0.001
91724098|NCT03925220|183342003|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||"At 18 months:~Parent-reported 'have given your child rules to obey about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.74|1.12|0.003
91724099|NCT03925220|183342003|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.38||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.78||"At 18 months:~Parent-reported 'have made a comment to your child about how drinking alcohol and using drugs is bad if a character on TV is drinking or drunk'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.78|1.06|0.01
91705870|NCT01093651|183306232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for area under the glucose tolerance curve over time and between the 2 groups achieved p\<0.04.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in area under the glucose tolerance curves between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||<0.04
91705871|NCT01093651|183306233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The non-paramteric test for adverse event cummulative frequency between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant)|Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test of cell frequencies||||>0.05
91724100|NCT03188185|183342021|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05 .|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.4||ALK 5461 was compared to placebo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline.Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was conducted for each stage separately, and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2).||0.4|-3.5|0.128
91724101|NCT03301714|183342024|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||baseline demographics, correlated errors due to repeated measures, and bias due to lost to follow-up were accounted for via Generalized Estimating Equation (statistical threshold \<0.01)|Regression, Linear||Mean change difference in oral health related quality of life among control, intervention 1: group-based oral health education and intervention 2: individual-based oral health education using motivational interviewing.|||||.000
91724102|NCT04465955|183342027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|0.227|||Random coefficient model|Covariates included terms for time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline fellow eye CNV status, baseline focality, and baseline GA lesion location||Rate of Change Difference Between NGM621 Q4W and Pooled Sham||0.227|-0.528|0.4345
91865208|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.93|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.69|-0.25|0.355
91865209|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.47||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.59|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.47|-0.88|0.554
91865210|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.26||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.24|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.26|-1.10|0.219
91694191|NCT05870371|183283515|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|=|0.564|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Physical Component Summary/PCS of SF-12. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Physical Component Summary/PCS subscale of SF-12. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of quality of life measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.564
91694192|NCT05870371|183283515|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to Mental Component Summary/MCS of SF-12. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Mental Component Summary/MCS of SF-12. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of quality of life measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.023
91694193|NCT05870371|183283516|OTHER||||||=|0.014||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.014
91694194|NCT05870371|183283516|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91694195|NCT05870371|183283516|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91724103|NCT04465955|183342027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155||||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.536|0.225|||Random coefficient model|Covariates included terms for time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline fellow eye CNV status, baseline focality, and baseline GA lesion location||Rate of Change Difference Between NGM621 Q8W and Pooled Sham||0.225|-0.536|0.4217
91724104|NCT04738487|183342041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.35||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.35|0.83|0.6712
91724105|NCT04738487|183342042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.13||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.13|0.82|0.3320
91724106|NCT04738487|183342043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.11|0.72|0.1646
91724107|NCT04253626|183342094|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91694196|NCT04495751|183283556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|1.1||||||||1.1|-3.5|
91694197|NCT04495751|183283557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.5|
91694198|NCT04495751|183283558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.7|
91694199|NCT04495751|183283559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-973.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3500.0|1553.0||||||||1553|-3500|
91694200|NCT04495751|183283560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|73.8||||||||73.8|-32.4|
91694201|NCT04495751|183283561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.2||||||||3.2|-2.2|
91694202|NCT04495751|183283562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||||||Quality of Life - Self-rate health||0.7|-0.2|
91694203|NCT04495751|183283562|SUPERIORITY|Quality of life - Ability to carry out social activities and roles|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||||||||0.6|-0.3|
91694204|NCT04495751|183283562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.5||||||Physical health (t score)||4.5|-2.7|
91694205|NCT04495751|183283562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.5||||||Global Mental health (t score||2.5|-5.4|
91694206|NCT04495751|183283563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.7|101.9||||||||101.9|-99.7|
91694207|NCT04495751|183283564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.5|
91694208|NCT00708461|183283565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1202||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.46||Adjusted for age, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, and smoking status as individual, fixed-effect covariates. 95% confidence intervals and p-values derived from t-statistics with 4 degrees of freedom, reflecting the group-randomized design.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, and smoking status as individual, fixed-effect covariates.||"The null hypothesis was no effect of the environmental intervention. The following power assumptions were made:~* Intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.016, estimated from an earlier study~* Variance of 118 kg, estimated from an earlier study~* Cohort N=400~* 15% attrition (by turnover) Using the external control and a worksite correlation of 0.2 gives a detectable difference of about 1.5 kg or 3 lb, or an effect size of 0.14. The effect size using internal control is 0.20."||0.46|-0.21|0.36
91694209|NCT02907177|183283566|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|1.27||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|2.654|||Negative binomial regression||Rate ratio is ponesimod 20 mg / DMF versus placebo /DMF|||2.654|0.608|0.5252
91694210|NCT01637922|183283631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|118.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.4||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.06|130.32||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||130.32|107.06|0.1638
91694211|NCT01637922|183283632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|114.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.812|124.164||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||124.164|104.812|0.0391
91694212|NCT01637922|183283633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|111.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.243|125.922||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||125.922|99.243|0.0603
91694213|NCT01637922|183283634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|117.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.89|129.5||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|S-Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. S-Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||129.50|106.89|0.1424
91694214|NCT01637922|183283635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|111.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.3||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.42|123.715||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|S-Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. S-Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||123.715|100.420|0.0367
91694215|NCT01637922|183283636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|111.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.7||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.577|124.888||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|S-Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. S-Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||124.888|99.577|0.0488
91694216|NCT01637922|183283637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.01098|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189801|0.16864||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of R-methadone and OOWS||0.168640|-0.189801|
91694217|NCT01637922|183283637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.10188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287471|0.092062||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of R-methadone and OOWS||0.092062|-0.287471|
91694218|NCT01637922|183283637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.03198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209893|0.148238||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of S-methadone and OOWS||0.148238|-0.209893|
91694219|NCT01637922|183283637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.0026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189172|0.194156||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of S-methadone and OOWS||0.194156|-0.189172|
91694220|NCT01637922|183283637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.03364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214505|0.149733||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and OOWS||0.149733|-0.214505|
91694221|NCT01637922|183283637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.14703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404929|0.135425||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and OOWS||0.135425|-0.404929|
91694222|NCT01637922|183283637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.05431|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.240578|0.136305||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and OOWS||0.136305|-0.240578|
91694223|NCT01637922|183283637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.09727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344024|0.163687||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and OOWS||0.163687|-0.344024|
91865211|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.95|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.68|-0.24|0.345
91694224|NCT01637922|183283637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.36105|||||||||||||Confidence interval is not provided due to sparse data. There was only 1 patient for this analysis.|Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of naloxone and OOWS||||
91694225|NCT01637922|183283638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|108.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.1||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.14|138.8||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||138.80|85.14|0.1642
91694226|NCT01637922|183283639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.7||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.48|116.27||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||116.27|73.48|0.1420
91694227|NCT01637922|183283640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|108.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.1||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.611|143.883||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||143.883|81.611|0.1915
91694228|NCT01637922|183283641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.04783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13275|0.224946||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of R-methadone and SOWS||0.224946|-0.132750|
91694229|NCT01637922|183283641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.39865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547072|-0.222288||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of R-methadone and SOWS||-0.222288|-0.547072|
91694230|NCT01637922|183283641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.11175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069336|0.284848||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of S-methadone and SOWS||0.284848|-0.069336|
91694231|NCT01637922|183283641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.16815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34787|0.025107||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of S-methadone and SOWS||0.025107|-0.347870|
91694232|NCT01637922|183283641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.0126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17016|0.194417||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and SOWS||0.194417|-0.170160|
91694233|NCT01637922|183283641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.02352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253932|0.29696||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and SOWS||0.296960|-0.253932|
91694234|NCT01637922|183283641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.05787|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24392|0.132819||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and SOWS||0.132819|-0.243920|
91694235|NCT01637922|183283641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.04052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218159|0.293233||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and SOWS||0.293233|-0.218159|
91694236|NCT01637922|183283641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.92231|||||||||||||Confidence interval is not provided due to sparse data. There was only 1 patient for this analysis.|Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of naloxone and SOWS||||
91694237|NCT01637922|183283642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|138.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.7||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.2|195.92||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||195.92|97.20|0.6889
91694238|NCT01637922|183283643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|132.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.1||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|189.16||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||189.16|93.32|0.6188
91724108|NCT04253626|183342098|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.88
91904251|NCT01958788|183703416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91724109|NCT04253626|183342099|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.27
91724110|NCT04253626|183342100|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.72
91724111|NCT04253626|183342101|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.009
91724112|NCT01022580|183342130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||unadj GEE|||||||0.89
91724113|NCT01022580|183342131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||unadj GEE|||||||0.33
91724114|NCT03720847|183342149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.|Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual increase in symptoms in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|||||.012
91724115|NCT03720847|183342150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.|Positive estimated value indicates a greater perimenstrual increase in the outcome in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.030
91724116|NCT03720847|183342151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual increase in symptoms in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.013
91724117|NCT03720847|183342152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual change in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.018
91724118|NCT03720847|183342153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual increase in symptoms in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.073
91724119|NCT03720847|183342154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.25
91724120|NCT03720847|183342155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.23
91724121|NCT01500096|183342156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.15
91724122|NCT01500096|183342156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms||||0.73
91724123|NCT01500096|183342157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.1329
91724124|NCT01500096|183342157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.1191
91724125|NCT01500096|183342158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7454|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.7454
91724126|NCT01500096|183342158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.7391
91724127|NCT01500096|183342159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6818|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.6818
91724128|NCT01500096|183342159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.0579
91724129|NCT01500096|183342160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.17
91724130|NCT01500096|183342160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.51
91724131|NCT01500096|183342161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7884|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.7884
91724132|NCT01500096|183342161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.5532
91724133|NCT01500096|183342162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9885|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.9885
91724134|NCT01500096|183342162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2898|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sides Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.2898
91724135|NCT01500096|183342163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the IL-6 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.60
91724136|NCT01500096|183342163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the IL-6 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.28
91724137|NCT01500096|183342163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR1 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.41
91724138|NCT01500096|183342163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR1 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.72
91724139|NCT01500096|183342163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR2 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.34
91724140|NCT01500096|183342163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR2 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.58
91724141|NCT01500096|183342164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 5 are significantly different between arms.||||0.31
91724142|NCT01500096|183342164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.71
91724143|NCT01500096|183342165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.18
91865212|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.43||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.69|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.43|-0.88|0.494
91865213|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.21||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.35|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.21|-1.11|0.180
91694239|NCT01637922|183283644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|112.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.5||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.85|167.67||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||167.67|74.85|0.3152
91694240|NCT01637922|183283645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|98.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.81|114.076||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NALOXONE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NALOXONE(BUP) alone on Day 1||114.076|85.810|0.0107
91694241|NCT01637922|183283646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|94.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.6||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.017|114.054||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NALOXONE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NALOXONE(BUP) alone on Day 1||114.054|78.017|0.0738
91694242|NCT00638404|183283648|OTHER|correlation of anxiety, anticipated pain medication use and anticipated pain to 24 hour evoked pain measured|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|anxiety to evoked pain is 0.24 (P\<.001); anticipated pain to evoked pain is 0.33 (P\<.001); anticipated pain medication to evoked pain is 0.33(P\<.001).||||||<.001
91694243|NCT00638404|183283648|OTHER|correlation of anxiety to evoked pain at 24 hour|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
91694244|NCT00638404|183283648|OTHER|correlation of anticipated pain medication 24 hour evoked pain measured|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
91694245|NCT00638404|183283648|OTHER|correlation of anticipated pain to 24 hour evoked pain measured|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
91694246|NCT00638404|183283649|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||preoperative questionnaire evaluating anticipated amount of pain medication potentially needed postoperatively; 0= none at all up to 100=as much as possible||||<.001
91694247|NCT00638404|183283650|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
91694248|NCT00638404|183283651|OTHER|Correlation of|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
91694249|NCT00459290|183283657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7912|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7912
91694250|NCT00459290|183283658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1545|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1545
91694251|NCT00459290|183283659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0648|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0648
91694252|NCT00687271|183283660|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-5.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-5.5|-14.6|
91694253|NCT00687271|183283660|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-12.5|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-12.5|-23.4|
91694254|NCT00687271|183283663|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.4|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-4.4|-12.7|
91694255|NCT00687271|183283663|OTHER||Diffence in Percentage Change|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-8.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-8.9|-18.9|
91724144|NCT01500096|183342165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.19
91694256|NCT00687271|183283664|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-3.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-3.9|-11.5|
91694257|NCT00687271|183283664|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-7.6|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-7.6|-16.8|
91694258|NCT00687271|183283665|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-4.1|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-4.1|-10.8|
91694259|NCT00687271|183283665|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-7.0|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-7.0|-15.1|
91694260|NCT00687271|183283666|OTHER||Dfferecne in Percentage Change|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.8|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||1.8|-6.6|
91694261|NCT00687271|183283666|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.4|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||4.4|-5.8|
91694262|NCT00687271|183283667|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||5.9|-7.7|
91724145|NCT01500096|183342166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.47
91724146|NCT01500096|183342166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.41
91865214|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.4|Difference between the changes of IADL of EX+T - EX+P|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.50|-0.75|0.693
91865215|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.43||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.98|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.43|-1.27|0.327
91865216|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.56||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.69|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.56|-1.15|0.493
91865217|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.49||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.39|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.49|-0.72|0.698
91865218|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.47||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.84|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.47|-1.17|0.404
91865219|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.55|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.60|-1.06|0.585
91865220|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.76||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.85|Difference between IADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.76|-0.31|0.399
91694263|NCT00687271|183283667|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|16.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||16.9|-4.6|
91694264|NCT02110758|183283690|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Access composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.025
91865221|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.98||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.59|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.98|-0.53|0.554
91694265|NCT02110758|183283690|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Affective Communication composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.69
91694266|NCT02110758|183283690|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Shared Decision-Making composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.013
91724147|NCT00924651|183342200|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.9148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.3327|||ANCOVA|||||0.3327|-0.3710|0.9148
91724148|NCT00835978|183342203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.578||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|2.448||A priori defined threshold for statistical significance was: alpha=0.10 (one-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR for the 2 treatment arms was compared with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ECOG performance status. The relative risk ratio estimator was used to contrast the treatment effects on the endpoint. Both a point estimate and a 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using a normal approximation.||2.448|1.017|0.0189
91724149|NCT00835978|183342204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.849||||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.348|||Log Rank|||||1.348|0.535|0.2444
91724150|NCT02383173|183342235|OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|Sandwich estimators were used to adjust for the small number of clusters.||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) analyses of post-intervention data were used to account for clustering. We adjusted for age, race, cancer, length of stay and study year.||||0.445
91724151|NCT00429299|183342256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An exploratory comparison between the combined two single anti-HER2 arms and the dual anti-HER2 arm was performed (Arm 3 versus Arms 1 and 2).|percentage of participants|25.0||||0.019||90.0|13.1|36.9||Exploratory analysis|Chi-squared||The estimated value represents the percentage of particpants in the CT plus trastuzumab treatment group with pathological complete response.|||36.9|13.1|0.019
91904252|NCT01958788|183703417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
91694267|NCT02110758|183283690|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Patient Self-Management composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.85
91694268|NCT02110758|183283690|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Exchanging Information composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.013
91694269|NCT02110758|183283690|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Overall Rating of Treatment Team composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.053
91694270|NCT02110758|183283692|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Hospitalizations, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Hospitalizations. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.2
91694271|NCT02110758|183283692|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Emergency Department (ED) Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month ED Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.62
91694272|NCT02110758|183283692|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Primary Care Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Primary Care Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.68
91724152|NCT00429299|183342256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|26.3||||||90.0|14.5|38.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of particpants in the CT plus lapatinib 1500 mg treatment group with pathological complete response.|||38.1|14.5|
91724153|NCT00429299|183342256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|46.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.4|58.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of particpants in the CT plus traztuzumab plus lapatinib 1000 mg treatment group with pathological complete response.|||58.9|34.4|
91694273|NCT02110758|183283692|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Specialist Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Specialist Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.03
91694274|NCT02074358|183283703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|425.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|219.8|630.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||630.7|219.8|<0.001
91694275|NCT02074358|183283703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|90.6||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|212.4||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for any secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||212.4|-31.3|0.131
91694276|NCT02074358|183283704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.21||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.3||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for other secondary endpoints since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for this first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|TGA Lag Time. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.30|-0.73|0.389
91724154|NCT04871113|183342273|OTHER||Emax|-1.848|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.225|-1.472|||||Emax is defined as maximum response.|||-1.472|-2.225|
91724155|NCT04871113|183342273|OTHER||EC50|68.578|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.866|121.29|||||EC50 is defined as the dose (in mg) that attains the 50% of the maximal effect.|||121.290|15.866|
91724156|NCT04871113|183342273|OTHER||s2e|0.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.368|||||e is defined as random error assumed to be normally distributed with mean zero and constant variance (s2).|||0.368|0.145|
91724157|NCT05630755|183342284|NON_INFERIORITY|A margin of 4 percentage points is used to define non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used|||The estimated difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|2.90|-1.86|0.003
91724158|NCT05630755|183342284|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.88||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used|||The estimated difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|2.90|-1.86|0.192
91724159|NCT04502524|183342303|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||For overall satisfaction, a reliable estimate could not be calculated using a logistic regression model as all the responses were the same in the Vet Flexiquit arm. We calculated the p-value using the Fisher's exact test.||||.999
91724160|NCT04502524|183342304|OTHER||Slope|0.05||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.56|||Regression, negative binomial|||||0.56|-0.46|0.852
91724161|NCT04502524|183342305|OTHER||Slope|-0.44||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.71|||Regression, negative binomial|||||0.71|-1.60|0.451
91724162|NCT04502524|183342306|OTHER||Slope|-0.73||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.003|||Regression, negative binomial|||||0.003|-1.46|0.508
91724163|NCT04502524|183342307|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.13|0.602
91865222|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.76||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.76|-0.76|0.998
91724164|NCT04502524|183342308|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.29|0.17|0.941
91724165|NCT04502524|183342309|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.12|0.09|0.612
91724166|NCT04502524|183342310|OTHER||Slope|0.56||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|2.26|||Regression, Linear|||||2.26|-1.13|0.504
91724167|NCT04502524|183342311|OTHER||Slope|0.11||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.61|||Regression, Linear|||||0.61|-0.40|0.670
91724168|NCT02965456|183342375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
91724169|NCT02965456|183342376|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
91724170|NCT02965456|183342377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression test (using Firth's Penalized Likelihood) with factors of treatment group and analysis center.||||0.007
91724171|NCT05073315|183342380|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Least Square Mean (GMR)|1.0516|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.2273||||||||1.2273|0.9010|
91724172|NCT05073315|183342381|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Least Square Mean Ratio|1.0044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8717|1.1574||||||||1.1574|0.8717|
91724173|NCT05073315|183342384|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|0.29||||||||0.29|-5.23|
91724174|NCT01529268|183342391|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.1|0.8|0.34
91724175|NCT01529268|183342392|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.90
91724176|NCT01529268|183342393|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Steatosis: patients with improvement||1.1|0.5|0.15
91724177|NCT01529268|183342394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Steatosis: change in score||0.4|-0.2|0.59
91724178|NCT01529268|183342395|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.9|1.1|0.03
91724179|NCT01529268|183342396|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.06
91724180|NCT01529268|183342397|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|0.4|0.29
91724181|NCT01529268|183342398|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.1|0.15
91724182|NCT01529268|183342399|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3|0.6|0.57
91724183|NCT01529268|183342400|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.76
91724184|NCT01529268|183342401|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.6|0.6|0.98
91724185|NCT01529268|183342402|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.24
91724186|NCT01529268|183342403|NON_INFERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by clinic and weight group||||18.3|0.4|0.29
91865223|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.73||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.88|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.73|-0.28|0.378
91865224|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.91||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.51|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.91|-0.53|0.608
91694277|NCT02074358|183283704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.16||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.06||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Lag Time. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.06|-0.38|0.142
91694278|NCT02074358|183283704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.35||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.52||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Time to Peak. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||3.52|-0.81|0.200
91694279|NCT02074358|183283704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|4.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.44||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Time to Peak. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||6.44|2.80|<0.001
91694280|NCT02074358|183283705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|21.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|37.2||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||37.2|4.9|0.014
91694281|NCT02074358|183283705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-6.4||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|0.8||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.8|-13.5|0.076
91694282|NCT02074358|183283706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.6||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||5.6|-5.6|0.996
91694283|NCT02074358|183283706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-3.6||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-3.6|-9.5|<0.001
91865225|NCT02938923|183620979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.11|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.69|-0.76|0.915
91865226|NCT02938923|183620980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.33||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.52|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.33|-1.36|0.602
91694284|NCT02074358|183283707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.12||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|PT (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-1.12|-2.16|<0.001
91694285|NCT02074358|183283707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.99||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|PT (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.99|-1.95|<0.001
91694286|NCT02074358|183283707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.89||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|PT (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-1.89|-3.30|<0.001
91724187|NCT01529268|183342404|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks in serum alanine aminotransferase on treatment group and baseline value of serum alanine aminotransferase.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-24.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline serum alanine aminotransferase||Adjusted difference in mean changes in serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT). The change in ALT is adjusted for the baseline ALT value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||-4|-44|0.02
91865227|NCT02938923|183620980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|1.56||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.75|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.56|-3.48|0.454
91694287|NCT02074358|183283707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.2||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|PT (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-1.20|-2.59|<0.001
91694288|NCT02074358|183283707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|8.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.29|10.66||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|aPTT. The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model and included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||10.66|6.29|<0.001
91694289|NCT02074358|183283707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.32||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|aPTT. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||3.32|1.28|<0.001
91694290|NCT02074358|183283708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.13||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|INR (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.130|-0.266|<0.001
91865228|NCT02938923|183620980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.09||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -1.13|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.09|-3.98|0.262
91865229|NCT02938923|183620980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.4||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.47|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.40|-1.47|0.639
91865230|NCT02938923|183620980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.59||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.78|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.59|-3.66|0.438
91694291|NCT02074358|183283708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.111||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|INR (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.111|-0.229|<0.001
91694292|NCT02074358|183283708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.239|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.173||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|INR (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.173|-0.305|<0.001
91694293|NCT02074358|183283708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|-0.11||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|INR (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.110|-0.242|<0.001
91694294|NCT02074358|183283709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect models|-0.239||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|0.146||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Anti-Xa Activity. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.146|-0.625|0.204
91694295|NCT02074358|183283709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect models|-0.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.048||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Anti-Xa Activity. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.048|-0.389|0.114
91694296|NCT02074358|183283719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.111|||||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment B versus Treatment A, and Treatment C versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.111|0.972|
91724188|NCT01529268|183342404|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in serum aspartate aminotransferase on treatment group and baseline value of serum aspartate aminotransferase.|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline serum aspartate aminotransferase.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST). The change in AST is adjusted for the baseline AST value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||-4|-26|0.008
91724189|NCT01529268|183342404|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase on treatment group and baseline value of gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase||Adjusted difference in mean changes in serum gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT). The change in GGT is adjusted for the baseline GGTvalue; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||-1|-13|0.02
91694297|NCT02074358|183283719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.112|||||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment C versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.112|0.938|
91724190|NCT01529268|183342405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-value and adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in weight (kg) on treatment group and baseline weight (kg).|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline weight (kg).||Adjusted difference in mean changes in weight (kg). The change in weight is adjusted for the baseline weight value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||1.1|-4.1|0.25
91724191|NCT01529268|183342406|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-0.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Adjusted difference in mean changes in body mass index (BMI). The change in BMI is adjusted for the baseline BMI value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||0.5|-1.1|0.42
91724192|NCT01529268|183342407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.1|0.11
91724193|NCT01529268|183342408|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in waist circumference on treatment group and baseline value of waist circumference.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|0.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline waist circumference (cm)||Adjusted difference in mean changes in waist circumference (cm). The change in waist circumference is adjusted for the baseline waist circumference value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||2.6|-2.3|0.89
91724194|NCT01529268|183342409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in fasting serum glucose on treatment group and baseline fasting serum glucose value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-4.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline serum glucose value.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in fasting serum glucose. The change in fasting serum glucose is adjusted for the baseline fasting serum glucose value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||3|-11|0.24
91724195|NCT01529268|183342410|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in fasting insulin on treatment group and baseline fasting insulin.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-6.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline fasting insulin.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in fasting insulin. The change in fasting insulin is adjusted for the baseline fasting insulin value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||6|-18|0.34
91724196|NCT01529268|183342411|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in HOMA-IR on treatment group and baseline HOMA-IR value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-2.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline HOMA-IR.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in HOMA-IR. The change in HOMA-IR is adjusted for the baseline HOMA-IR value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||1.0|-6.2|0.15
91724197|NCT01529268|183342412|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in systolic blood pressure on treatment group and baseline systolic blood pressure value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|1.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline systolic blood pressure.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in systolic blood pressure. The change in systolic blood pressure is adjusted for the baseline systolic blood pressure value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||4|-3|0.71
91724198|NCT01529268|183342413|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in diastolic blood pressure on treatment group and baseline diastolic blood pressure value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline diastolic blood pressure.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in diastolic blood pressure. The change in diastolic blood pressure is adjusted for the baseline diastolic blood pressure value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||1|-4|0.31
91759986|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|8.94||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.94|-10.32|
91865231|NCT02938923|183620980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|1.14||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -1.12|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.14|-4.14|0.265
91904253|NCT01958788|183703417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91694298|NCT02074358|183283721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.955|1.087|||||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment B versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.087|0.955|
91794928|NCT01227564|183468819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073||||0.4145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.25||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.250|-0.105|0.4145
91794929|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011||||0.5134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.022||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.022|-0.043|0.5134
91794930|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.6083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.041||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.041|-0.024|0.6083
91794931|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.9401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.027||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.027|-0.029|0.9401
91865232|NCT02938923|183620980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.07||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.59|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.07|-1.11|0.555
91865233|NCT02938923|183620980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.15||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.10|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.15|-2.39|0.917
91865234|NCT02938923|183620980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.52|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.68|-2.87|0.606
91694299|NCT02074358|183283721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.102|||||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment C versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.102|0.940|
91694300|NCT01164579|183283738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares (LS) Mean|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|0.31||2-sided p-value; alpha equals (=) 0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.31|-1.58|0.2696
91694301|NCT01164579|183283738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.3561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.46|0.41||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.41|-1.46|0.3561
91694302|NCT01164579|183283739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha= 0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.58|-2.52|0.0089
91694303|NCT01164579|183283739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|-0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha= 0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.76|-2.72|0.0038
91694304|NCT01164579|183283740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|0.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.69|-1.19|0.6576
91694305|NCT01164579|183283740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|0.74||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.74|-1.09|0.7565
91694306|NCT01164579|183283740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|0.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.01|-1.89|0.1038
91694307|NCT01164579|183283740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|-0.04||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.04|-1.98|0.0868
91694308|NCT01164579|183283740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.58|-2.62|0.0103
91694309|NCT01164579|183283740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|0.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.55|-1.53|0.4350
91694310|NCT01164579|183283741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.56|-1.36|0.4890
91794932|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.016||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.016|-0.051|0.2950
91794933|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.037||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.037|-0.031|0.8817
91794934|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.6072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.022||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.022|-0.037|0.6072
91865235|NCT02938923|183620980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.04||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.60|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.04|-1.09|0.549
91694311|NCT01164579|183283741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|1.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||1.02|-0.85|0.8817
91694312|NCT01164579|183283741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.27||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.27|-2.21|0.0351
91694313|NCT01164579|183283741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|-0.37||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.37|-2.28|0.0231
91694314|NCT01164579|183283741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|-1.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-1.08|-3.13|0.0008
91694315|NCT01164579|183283741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.32|-1.25||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-1.25|-3.32|0.0003
91694316|NCT01164579|183283742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.19||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.19|-0.96|0.2689
91904254|NCT01958788|183703417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91694317|NCT01164579|183283742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.57||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.57|-0.58|0.9935
91694318|NCT01164579|183283742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||0.01|-1.15|0.1086
91694319|NCT01164579|183283742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.49||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||0.49|-0.66|0.8092
91694320|NCT01164579|183283742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.12|-1.29|0.0463
91694321|NCT01164579|183283742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.08|-1.25|0.0624
91694322|NCT01164579|183283742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|-0.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.69|-1.90|0.0005
91694323|NCT01164579|183283742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|-0.65||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.65|-1.87|0.0008
91694324|NCT01164579|183283743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|0.71||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.71|-1.68|0.5019
91694325|NCT01164579|183283743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|0.14||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.14|-2.28|0.1462
91694326|NCT01164579|183283743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.72|-1.74|0.4900
91694327|NCT01164579|183283743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.76|-0.27|||mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.27|-2.76|0.0459
91694328|NCT01164579|183283744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|0.71||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.71|-1.68|0.5019
91794935|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.036||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.036|-0.060|0.6259
91794936|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.2807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.076||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.076|-0.023|0.2807
91794937|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.7224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.050|-0.035|0.7224
91794938|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.067||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.067|-0.080|0.8532
91794939|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.116||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.116|-0.038|0.3116
91794940|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.082||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.082|-0.049|0.6246
91865236|NCT02938923|183620980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|2.06||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.14|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.06|-2.38|0.887
91694329|NCT01164579|183283744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|0.14||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.14|-2.28|0.1462
91694330|NCT01164579|183283744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.72|-1.74|0.4900
91694331|NCT01164579|183283744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.76|-0.27||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.27|-2.76|0.0459
91694332|NCT01164579|183283745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.76|-0.89|0.8959
91724199|NCT01529268|183342414|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in self-reported Physical Health summary score on treatment group and baseline value of the Physical Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline self-reported Physical Health summary score.||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in self-reported Physical Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in Physical Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline Physical Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||3|-5|0.77
91694333|NCT01164579|183283745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.43|-1.25|0.4193
91694334|NCT01164579|183283745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.56|-1.13|0.5764
91724200|NCT01529268|183342414|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in Pyschosocial Health summary score on treatment group and baseline Psychosocial Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline Psychosocial Health summary score.||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in self-reported Psychosocial Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in Psychosocial Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline Psychosocial Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||3|-5|0.64
91724201|NCT01529268|183342414|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score on treatment group and baseline value of the parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-2.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|5.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score.||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||5|-9|0.58
91724202|NCT01529268|183342414|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score on treatment group and baseline value of the parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.0|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||5|-6|0.85
91724203|NCT01529268|183342415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
91724204|NCT02232698|183342422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91724205|NCT02232698|183342423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.9556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9556
91724206|NCT02232698|183342424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analysis of time spent \<55 mg/dL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91724207|NCT02232698|183342424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analysis of time spent \<40 mg/dL|ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91724208|NCT02232698|183342425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<70 mg/dL||||<0.0001
91724209|NCT02232698|183342425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<55 mg/dL||||<0.0001
91724210|NCT02232698|183342425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<40 mg/dL||||<0.0001
91865237|NCT02938923|183620980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.59||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.56|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.59|-2.87|0.574
91724211|NCT02232698|183342426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.5623|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \>180 mg/dL||||0.5623
91724212|NCT02232698|183342426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0247|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for time spent \>240 mg/dL||||0.0247
91724213|NCT02232698|183342427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
91724214|NCT02232698|183342430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia||||<0.0001
91724215|NCT02232698|183342430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0713|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia||||0.0713
91724216|NCT02232698|183342430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of total treatment satisfaction score||||<0.0001
91724217|NCT01068912|183342445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A step-down approach was applied to the primary analysis, with the higher dose of favipiravir first tested against placebo.|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Time required from first study drug administration to alleviation of the 6 primary influenza symptoms and fever. The primary influenza symptoms included cough, sore throat, headache, nasal congestion, body aches and pains, and fatigue. Symptoms were considered alleviated when all were decreased to ≤1 and decrease persisted unchanged ≥ 21.5 hours. Fever was considered alleviated when maintained at \< 38.0°C (age 20 to \< 65 years) or \< 37.8°C (age ≥ 65 years) ≥ 21.5 hours.||||.05
91865238|NCT02938923|183620981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.11||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.46|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||5.11|-3.19|0.649
91865239|NCT02938923|183620981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|8.23||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.86|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||8.23|-3.22|0.389
91794941|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.108||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.108|-0.092|0.8697
91694335|NCT01164579|183283745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|0.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.02|-1.69|0.1101
91865240|NCT02938923|183620981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|7.31||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.53|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||7.31|-4.22|0.598
91694336|NCT01164579|183283746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.76|-0.89|0.8959
91694337|NCT01164579|183283746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.43|-1.25|0.4193
91694338|NCT01164579|183283746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.56|-1.13|0.5764
91694339|NCT01164579|183283746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|0.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.02|-1.69|0.1101
91694340|NCT01164579|183283747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.16||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.16|-1.00|0.2351
91694341|NCT01164579|183283747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.08|-1.27|0.0631
91694342|NCT01164579|183283747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.38|-0.83|0.5369
91694343|NCT01164579|183283747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.08|-1.31|0.0620
91694344|NCT01164579|183283748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.16||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.16|-1.00|0.2351
91694345|NCT01164579|183283748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.08|-1.27|0.0631
91694346|NCT01164579|183283748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.38|-0.83|0.5369
91865241|NCT02938923|183620981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|5.02||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.42|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||5.02|-3.26|0.676
91694347|NCT01164579|183283748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.08|-1.31|0.0620
91694348|NCT01164579|183283749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.36|31.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||31.62|-5.36|0.2430
91694349|NCT01164579|183283749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.91|45.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||45.90|8.91|0.0147
91694350|NCT01164579|183283749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.25||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.51|46.54|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||46.54|9.51|0.0127
91694351|NCT01164579|183283749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.45||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.73|39.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||39.41|1.73|0.0724
91694352|NCT01164579|183283749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.85||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.63|46.35|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||46.35|10.63|0.0086
91694353|NCT01164579|183283749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.55||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.54|31.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||31.47|-6.54|0.2808
91694354|NCT01164579|183283749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.81|46.55|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||46.55|9.81|0.0115
91694355|NCT01164579|183283749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.56||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|34.12|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||34.12|-3.94|0.1921
91694356|NCT01164579|183283749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.81|46.55|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||46.55|9.81|0.0115
91694357|NCT01164579|183283749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5||0.1203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|36.79|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||36.79|-1.05|0.1203
91694358|NCT01164579|183283750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.68|32.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||32.62|7.68|0.0078
91724218|NCT04822194|183342446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses using an approximate effect size (d=.70) previously reported for within and between-subjects behavioral analyses of longitudinal reappraisal training data indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=.05) to detect between-group effects require 36 per group.||||0.053
91724219|NCT04822194|183342447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed models on natural log of RMSSD, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses using an approximate effect size (d=.70) previously obtained for within and between-subjects analyses of respiratory sinus arrhythmia data indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=.05) to detect between-group effects should be achieved with 36 per group.||||0.741
91724220|NCT04822194|183342448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model, p-value above reflects a group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses using a within-subject fMRI effect size estimate for right amygdala affective reactivity from a meta-analysis of Human Connectome Project data of approx. d=.70, applying to between-subjects effects as well, indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=0.05) to detect between-group effects should be achieved with 36 participants per group.||||0.021
91724221|NCT04822194|183342449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|We ran linear mixed models, p-value reflects a group by session interaction for the UGRS composite scores.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses of an effect size (d=.70) previously reported for within and between-subjects analyses of questionnaire outcomes (i.e., depressive symptoms, grief rumination, perceived stress, reappraisal usage) indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=0.05) for between-group effects should be achieved with 36 per group.||||0.724
91724222|NCT04822194|183342449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on counterfactuals adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.835
91724223|NCT04822194|183342449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on injustice adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups.||||0.090
91724224|NCT04822194|183342449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on meaning adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.983
91724225|NCT04822194|183342449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on reaction adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.760
91724226|NCT04822194|183342449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on relations adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups.||||0.402
91865242|NCT02938923|183620981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|8.19||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.85|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||8.19|-3.24|0.394
91724227|NCT04822194|183342450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|We ran a linear mixed model, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.092
91865243|NCT02938923|183620981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|7.35||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.55|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||7.35|-4.15|0.585
91865244|NCT02938923|183620981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|4.65||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.26|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||4.65|-3.56|0.794
91724228|NCT04822194|183342451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran a linear mixed model, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.585
91724229|NCT04822194|183342452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.70
91724230|NCT04822194|183342453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on emotional problems adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups.||||0.696
91724231|NCT04822194|183342453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on emotional well-being adjusted for covariates, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.452
91724232|NCT04822194|183342453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran a linear mixed model on energy adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.650
91724233|NCT04822194|183342453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on general health perceptions adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.224
91724234|NCT04822194|183342453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on pain adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference in groups||||0.256
91724235|NCT04822194|183342453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on physical function adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.984
91724236|NCT04822194|183342453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on physical health adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.363
91724237|NCT04822194|183342453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on social functioning adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.045
91694359|NCT01164579|183283750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.68|32.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||32.62|7.68|0.0078
91694360|NCT01164579|183283750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.37||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.43|46.56|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||46.56|12.43|0.0044
91694361|NCT01164579|183283750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|33.43|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||33.43|0.79|0.0845
91694362|NCT01164579|183283750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.14|42.35|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||42.35|6.14|0.0275
91694363|NCT01164579|183283750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.91||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.71|43.63|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||43.63|7.71|0.0186
91694364|NCT01164579|183283750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.82|53.22|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||53.22|17.82|0.0009
91694365|NCT01164579|183283750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.72||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.95|43.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||43.24|7.95|0.0169
91694366|NCT01164579|183283750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.91|45.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||45.90|8.91|0.0147
91694367|NCT01164579|183283750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.18||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|33.11|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||33.11|-3.68|0.1882
91694368|NCT01164579|183283750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.91|45.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||45.90|8.91|0.0147
91694369|NCT01164579|183283750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.18||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|33.11|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||33.11|-3.68|0.1882
91694370|NCT01164579|183283751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|16.35|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||16.35|0.78|0.0700
91694371|NCT01164579|183283751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|7.48|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||7.48|-1.77|0.3102
91694372|NCT01164579|183283751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.73|40.3|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||40.30|11.73|0.0027
91694373|NCT01164579|183283751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.88|29.75|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||29.75|3.88|0.0324
91694374|NCT01164579|183283751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|29.67|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||29.67|0.13|0.0969
91694375|NCT01164579|183283751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.04||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.09|31.84|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||31.84|2.09|0.0606
91694376|NCT01164579|183283751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|29.93|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||29.93|-4.60|0.2276
91694377|NCT01164579|183283751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|25.76|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||25.76|-7.90|0.3827
91694378|NCT01164579|183283751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.18|29.2|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||29.20|-4.18|0.2177
91694379|NCT01164579|183283751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.29|31.12|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||31.12|-2.29|0.1558
91694380|NCT01164579|183283751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.89|17.36|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||17.36|-14.89|0.8997
91694381|NCT01164579|183283751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.36||0.2587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.34|28.76|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||28.76|-5.34|0.2587
91694382|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.13||||||Baseline||0.13|-0.56|
91694383|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.43||||||Baseline||0.43|-0.19|
91694384|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.5||||||Month 1||-0.50|-1.38|
91694385|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|-0.22||||||Month 1||-0.22|-1.01|
91694386|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.7||||||Month 2||-0.70|-1.73|
91694387|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|-0.18||||||Month 2||-0.18|-1.20|
91694388|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.29||||||Month 3||-0.29|-1.33|
91694389|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.12||||||Month 3||0.12|-0.94|
91694390|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.61||||||Month 6||-0.61|-1.75|
91694391|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.63||||||Month 6||-0.63|-1.73|
91694392|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|-0.61||||||Month 9||-0.61|-1.81|
91694393|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.13||||||Month 9||-0.13|-1.33|
91694394|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|-0.51||||||Month 12||-0.51|-1.69|
91865245|NCT02938923|183620981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|8.16||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.76|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||8.16|-3.62|0.449
91865246|NCT02938923|183620981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.64||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.57|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||7.64|-4.20|0.567
91865247|NCT02938923|183620981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|4.65||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.26|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||4.65|-3.56|0.794
91865248|NCT02938923|183620981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|7.75||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.64|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||7.75|-3.97|0.526
91865249|NCT02938923|183620981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|7.23||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.45|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||7.23|-4.55|0.654
91865250|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.98||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.53|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P) on Physical Health domain|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.98|-1.72|0.597
91865251|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|1.04||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.33|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC) on Physical Health domain|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.04|-5.41|0.184
91865252|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|0.44||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.71|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC) on Physical Health domain|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||0.44|-6.07|0.089
91694395|NCT01164579|183283752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|-0.29||||||Month 12||-0.29|-1.51|
91865253|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|3.28||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.47|Difference in the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.28|-2.01|0.635
91865254|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.46||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.46|-5.76|0.242
91865255|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|0.85||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.51|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.85|-6.42|0.132
91865256|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.81||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 1.31|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||3.81|-0.77|0.193
91865257|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|4.75||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.86|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||4.75|-1.86|0.390
91694396|NCT01164579|183283753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.45||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.45|-1.31|0.0010
91865258|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|3.25||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.04|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||3.25|-3.39|0.965
91904255|NCT01958788|183703418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
91694397|NCT01164579|183283753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.24||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.24|-1.10|0.0102
91694398|NCT01164579|183283753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-0.64||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.64|-1.52|<0.0001
91694399|NCT01164579|183283753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|-0.2||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.20|-1.08|0.0175
91794942|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072||||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.176||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.176|-0.032|0.1707
91794943|NCT01227564|183468820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.129||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.129|-0.049|0.3732
91865259|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.82||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 1.30|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.82|-0.79|0.195
91694400|NCT01164579|183283753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|-0.23||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.23|-1.13|0.0125
91694401|NCT01164579|183283753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||0.05|-0.84|0.1457
91694402|NCT01164579|183283753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|-0.57||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.57|-1.48|0.0003
91694403|NCT01164579|183283753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.58|-1.49|0.0002
91694404|NCT01164579|183283753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|-0.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.69|-1.63|<0.0001
91694405|NCT01164579|183283753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.14|-0.2||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.20|-1.14|0.0196
91694406|NCT01164579|183283753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|-0.52||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.52|-1.50|0.0007
91694407|NCT01164579|183283753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.35||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.35|-1.32|0.0049
91694408|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.15||||||Baseline||0.15|-0.53|
91694409|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.36||||||Baseline||0.36|-0.24|
91694410|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.42||||||Month 1||-0.42|-1.40|
91694411|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|-0.14||||||Month 1||-0.14|-1.01|
91694412|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|-0.73||||||Month 2||-0.73|-1.82|
91694413|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|-0.13||||||Month 2||-0.13|-1.25|
91694414|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-0.38||||||Month 3||-0.38|-1.55|
91694415|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|0.11||||||Month 3||0.11|-1.12|
91694416|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.13|-0.72||||||Month 6||-0.72|-2.13|
91694417|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|-0.57||||||Month 6||-0.57|-1.91|
91694418|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|-0.39||||||Month 9||-0.39|-1.84|
91694419|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.13||||||Month 9||0.13|-1.30|
91694420|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|-0.39||||||Month 12||-0.39|-1.84|
91694421|NCT01164579|183283754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|0.11||||||Month 12||0.11|-1.43|
91694422|NCT01164579|183283755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.35||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.35|-1.32|0.0046
91694423|NCT01164579|183283755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|-0.15||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.15|-1.11|0.0303
91694424|NCT01164579|183283755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|-0.68||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.68|-1.69|0.0001
91694425|NCT01164579|183283755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|-0.18||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.18|-1.17|0.0255
91694426|NCT01164579|183283755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.39||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.39|-1.39|0.0035
91724238|NCT04822194|183342454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422|||||||ANCOVA|Ran a repeated measures ANCOVA of logged IL-6 serum, p-value above reflects time by ER group interaction effect.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.422
91724239|NCT04822194|183342454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||ANCOVA|Ran a repeated measures ANCOVA of TNFα, p-value above reflects time by ER group interaction effect.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.438
91724240|NCT01257438|183342489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Greenwood's estimate of variance|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.79|||Log Rank|||Subjects at risk (at 6 months) is a calculation in Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analyses that refers to subjects who have not had ACPP failure through the 6 months (i.e., are event-free through 6 months).||0.79|0.44|<0.001
91794944|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.028||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.028|-0.040|0.7259
91794945|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.3517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.051||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.051|-0.018|0.3517
91865260|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|4.63||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.81|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||4.63|-1.93|0.418
91865261|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.13||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.10|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.13|-3.46|0.921
91865262|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|4.88||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.77|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||4.88|-0.26|0.078
91694427|NCT01164579|183283755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.05|-1.05|0.0683
91694428|NCT01164579|183283755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|-0.78||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.78|-1.81|<0.0001
91724241|NCT01257438|183342490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is based on a non-inferiority Farrington and Manning Exact Test. The non-inferiority margin is 0.075 (or 7.5%).||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Farrington and Manning Exact Test|The non-inferiority margin is 0.075 (or 7.5%)||||||0.007
91694429|NCT01164579|183283755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.56|-1.59|0.0006
91694430|NCT01164579|183283755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|-0.62||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.62|-1.67|0.0004
91694431|NCT01164579|183283755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.05|-1.10|0.0706
91724242|NCT02965833|183342494|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0073|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.0073
91724243|NCT03976375|183342513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb (immediate prior therapy versus not the immediate prior therapy), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50)|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status|||1.23|0.78|0.4342
91724244|NCT03976375|183342514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12||Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb (immediate prior therapy versus not the immediate prior therapy), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50)|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.12|0.70|0.1563
91724245|NCT03976375|183342515|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage vs Docetaxel|8.4||||0.01818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|16.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen and Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb (immediate prior therapy versus not the immediate prior therapy), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%)|||16.3|0.5|0.01818
91724246|NCT03976375|183342516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage vs Lenvatinib|10.2||||0.06009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|19.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||19.9|-3.1|0.06009
91694432|NCT01164579|183283755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.58|-1.67|0.0008
91724247|NCT03976375|183342520|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.36||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||2.60|-5.32|0.4998
91724248|NCT03976375|183342521|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.86||||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||1.44|-9.16|0.1531
91724249|NCT03976375|183342522|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.48||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|7.27|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, timing of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||7.27|-2.31|0.3084
91865263|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|3.43||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.02|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||3.43|-3.51|0.982
91694433|NCT01164579|183283755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|-0.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.12|-1.21|0.0466
91694434|NCT01164579|183283756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.04||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.34|50.68||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||50.68|14.34|0.0032
91694435|NCT01164579|183283756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.81|46.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||46.55|9.81|0.0115
91694436|NCT01164579|183283756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.81|50.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||50.02|18.81|0.0002
91694437|NCT01164579|183283756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.55|41.03||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||41.03|6.55|0.0231
91694438|NCT01164579|183283756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.81|50.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||50.02|18.81|0.0002
91694439|NCT01164579|183283756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.69||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.43|38.61||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||38.61|3.43|0.0493
91694440|NCT01164579|183283756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.88||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.92|50.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||50.43|17.92|0.0005
91694441|NCT01164579|183283756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.07|41.37||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||41.37|6.07|0.0270
91694442|NCT01164579|183283756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.8|51.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||51.12|15.80|0.0018
91694443|NCT01164579|183283756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.22||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.02|41.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||41.96|5.02|0.0363
91694444|NCT01164579|183283756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.16|53.64||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||53.64|19.16|0.0005
91694445|NCT01164579|183283756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.08||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.04|44.5||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||44.50|8.04|0.0177
91694446|NCT01164579|183283757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.66||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.62|38.42||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||38.42|6.62|0.0197
91694447|NCT01164579|183283757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.09|19.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||19.76|-7.09|0.4379
91694448|NCT01164579|183283757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.92||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.4|46.34||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||46.34|10.40|0.0093
91694449|NCT01164579|183283757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|31.73||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||31.73|-2.75|0.1669
91694450|NCT01164579|183283757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.92||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.4|46.34||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||46.34|10.40|0.0093
91694451|NCT01164579|183283757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.64||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|37.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||37.55|2.53|0.0596
91694452|NCT01164579|183283757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.51|52.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||52.96|16.51|0.0017
91694453|NCT01164579|183283757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.04||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.36|46.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||46.69|10.36|0.0097
91694454|NCT01164579|183283757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.11||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.68|53.26||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||53.26|16.68|0.0016
91694455|NCT01164579|183283757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.13||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.28|46.91||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||46.91|10.28|0.0102
91694456|NCT01164579|183283757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.51|52.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||52.96|16.51|0.0017
91694457|NCT01164579|183283757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.74|41.19||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||41.19|4.74|0.0381
91724250|NCT03976375|183342523|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.04||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-2.35|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||-2.35|-13.73|0.0058
91724251|NCT03976375|183342524|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.89||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|7.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||7.01|-1.23|0.1681
91724252|NCT03976375|183342525|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.31|0.63|0.6145
91724253|NCT03976375|183342526|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||0.98|0.38|0.0398
91724254|NCT03976375|183342527|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.85|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status|||1.85|0.59|0.8724
91724255|NCT03976375|183342528|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.16||Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.16|0.49|0.1944
91724256|NCT03976375|183342529|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.41|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.41|0.71|0.9837
91724257|NCT03976375|183342530|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.16|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.16|0.60|0.2903
91724258|NCT01590875|183342617|EQUIVALENCE|Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose|||||<|0.01|||||||no relevant statistical analysis|||Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose||||<0.01
91724259|NCT01590875|183342618|EQUIVALENCE|Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose|||||<|0.01|||||||kappa statistic|||Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose||||< 0.01
91724260|NCT05643794|183342634|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.54||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.16|||Longitudinal linear mixed effect model||The difference presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo.|||0.16|-1.24|0.129
91724261|NCT05643794|183342637|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.51||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.58|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The difference presented is RLZ 24 weeks minus PBO 24 weeks.|||0.58|-1.60|0.358
91724262|NCT05643794|183342638|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-8.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|-2.96|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The difference presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo|||-2.96|-13.84|0.003
91724263|NCT05643794|183342639|SUPERIORITY||Differences from Placebo|0.05||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.64|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The differences presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo.|||0.64|-0.55|0.878
91724264|NCT05643794|183342640|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.28||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.31|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The difference presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo.|||0.31|-0.86|0.352
91904256|NCT01958788|183703418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91694458|NCT01164579|183283758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|25.4||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||25.40|0.15|0.0959
91694459|NCT01164579|183283758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.58|9.19||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||9.19|-8.58|0.9544
91694460|NCT01164579|183283758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.81|42.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||42.55|11.81|0.0036
91694461|NCT01164579|183283758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.04|21.16||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||21.16|-4.04|0.2640
91794946|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.035||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.035|-0.024|0.7311
91794947|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.6446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.026||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.026|-0.041|0.6446
91794948|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.066||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.066|-0.002|0.0640
91694462|NCT01164579|183283758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|34.95||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||34.95|2.72|0.0544
91794949|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012||||0.4057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.041||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.041|-0.017|0.4057
91794950|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015||||0.5742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.037||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.037|-0.066|0.5742
91794951|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.093||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.093|-0.013|0.1336
91794952|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.5734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.058||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.058|-0.033|0.5734
91794953|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.071||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.071|-0.104|0.7067
91794954|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.132||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.132|-0.049|0.3600
91694463|NCT01164579|183283758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.92||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.96|23.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||23.38|-5.96|0.3290
91865264|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|1.15||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.32|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||1.15|-5.85|0.187
91694464|NCT01164579|183283758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.59|48.09||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||48.09|13.59|0.0032
91694465|NCT01164579|183283758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|33.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||33.43|0.79|0.0845
91694466|NCT01164579|183283758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.72||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.44|48.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||48.72|13.44|0.0037
91694467|NCT01164579|183283758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.36||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.91|37.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||37.02|2.91|0.0540
91724265|NCT02421211|183342660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|6.5||||||||6.5|3.4|
91724266|NCT02421211|183342661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|2.8||||||||2.8|2.0|
91724267|NCT02421211|183342662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|3.8||||||||3.8|2.4|
91724268|NCT02421211|183342663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.0||||||||2.0|1.5|
91724269|NCT02421211|183342664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|1.9||||||||1.9|1.4|
91724270|NCT02421211|183342665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|2.0||||||||2.0|1.6|
91724271|NCT00315822|183342692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.68|0.52|0.80
91724272|NCT02969018|183342709|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.232||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.33|-4.95||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.95|-12.33|0.0005
91724273|NCT02969018|183342709|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.206||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.99|0.3||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-6.99|0.0963
91724274|NCT02969018|183342709|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.76|-3.37||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.37|-10.76|0.0046
91724275|NCT02969018|183342709|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.238||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.63|0.77||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-6.63|0.0963
91904257|NCT01958788|183703418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
91694468|NCT01164579|183283758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.7|50.39||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||50.39|16.70|0.0010
91694469|NCT01164579|183283758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.66||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.92|35.71||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||35.71|3.92|0.0401
91694470|NCT01164579|183283759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.83|55.99||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||55.99|19.83|0.0005
91694471|NCT01164579|183283759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.09||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.87|51.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||51.38|14.87|0.0028
91694472|NCT01164579|183283759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.21|42.45||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||42.45|9.21|0.0105
91694473|NCT01164579|183283759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.13||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.33|28.3||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||28.30|-8.33|0.3700
91694474|NCT01164579|183283759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.11|55.53||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||55.53|24.11|<0.0001
91694475|NCT01164579|183283759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|36.59||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||36.59|-0.40|0.1076
91724276|NCT02969018|183342709|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.63|-6.51||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.51|-13.63|<0.0001
91724277|NCT02969018|183342709|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.79|-2.33||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.33|-9.79|0.0158
91724278|NCT02969018|183342709|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.163||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.24|-1.09||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-8.24|0.0488
91724279|NCT02969018|183342710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|33.87|||||||Logistic regression|33.87|2.95|
91724280|NCT02969018|183342710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|7.36|||||||Logistic regression|7.36|0.61|
91724281|NCT02969018|183342710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.71|30.48|||||||Logistic regression|30.48|2.71|
91724282|NCT02969018|183342710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|7.55|||||||Logistic regression|7.55|0.59|
91724283|NCT02969018|183342710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.8|160.68|||||||Logistic regression|160.68|10.80|
91724284|NCT02969018|183342710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|7.55|||||||Logistic regression|7.55|0.59|
91724285|NCT02969018|183342710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|12.74|||||||Logistic regression|12.74|1.17|
91724286|NCT02969018|183342711|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.43|-6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.57|-11.43|<0.0001
91694476|NCT01164579|183283759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.21||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.13|50.75||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||50.75|17.13|0.0008
91694477|NCT01164579|183283759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.74|44.1||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||44.10|8.74|0.0139
91694478|NCT01164579|183283759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.16|53.64||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||53.64|19.16|0.0005
91694479|NCT01164579|183283759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.08||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.04|44.5|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||44.50|8.04|0.0177
91694480|NCT01164579|183283759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.8|51.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||51.12|15.80|0.0018
91694481|NCT01164579|183283759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.22||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.02|41.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||41.96|5.02|0.0363
91694482|NCT01164579|183283760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.66|30.1||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||30.10|5.66|0.0160
91694483|NCT01164579|183283760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43||0.2798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|14.8||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||14.80|-3.06|0.2798
91694484|NCT01164579|183283760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.81|42.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||42.55|11.81|0.0036
91694485|NCT01164579|183283760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.23|17.79||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||17.79|-6.23|0.4287
91694486|NCT01164579|183283760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|34.95||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||34.95|2.72|0.0544
91694487|NCT01164579|183283760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.51||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|32.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||32.69|1.39|0.0732
91694488|NCT01164579|183283760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.61||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.79|39.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||39.72|4.79|0.0360
91694489|NCT01164579|183283760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.85||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.35|25.07||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||25.07|-7.35|0.3688
91694490|NCT01164579|183283760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.63|42.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||42.76|7.63|0.0182
91694491|NCT01164579|183283760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.29|31.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||31.12|-2.29|0.1558
91694492|NCT01164579|183283760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.51|51.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||51.05|16.51|0.0012
91694493|NCT01164579|183283760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|30.42||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||30.42|-1.74|0.1426
91694494|NCT01164579|183283761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|12.52||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||12.52|-0.75|0.1449
91694495|NCT01164579|183283761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|7.48||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||7.48|-1.77|0.3102
91694496|NCT01164579|183283761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.32|26.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||26.55|3.32|0.0342
91694497|NCT01164579|183283761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|10.51||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||10.51|-4.80|0.5400
91694498|NCT01164579|183283761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19||0.2759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|25.13||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||25.13|-5.10|0.2759
91694499|NCT01164579|183283761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.02|-0.45||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||-0.45|-21.02|0.0859
91694500|NCT01164579|183283761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|31.73||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||31.73|0.06|0.0985
91694501|NCT01164579|183283761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05||0.9628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.86|13.61||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||13.61|-12.86|0.9628
91694502|NCT01164579|183283761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.19||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.31|35.84||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||35.84|2.31|0.0612
91694503|NCT01164579|183283761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.36||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.08|11.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||11.43|-16.08|0.7807
91694504|NCT01164579|183283761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|34.95||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||34.95|2.72|0.0544
91865265|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|4.58||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.76|Difference of the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||4.58|-0.26|0.080
91865266|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|2.83||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.28|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.83|-3.76|0.781
91865267|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|0.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.56|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.69|-5.94|0.121
91865268|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.73||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.45|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||3.73|-0.57|0.148
91865269|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|2.45||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.39|Differences between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||2.45|-3.64|0.699
91865270|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|0.89||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.4|Difference in the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||0.89|-5.24|0.163
91865271|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.69|-0.51|0.137
91865272|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|2.29||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.46|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.29|-3.68|0.648
91865273|NCT02938923|183620982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|0.72||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.50|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.72|-5.29|0.135
91865274|NCT02938923|183620983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.058||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = -0.23|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive AR(1) covariance structure.||0.058|-0.073|0.821
91865275|NCT02938923|183620983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.108||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = 0.27|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive AR(1) covariance structure.||0.108|-0.082|0.789
91865276|NCT02938923|183620983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.116||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = 0.42|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive AR(1) covariance structure.||0.116|-0.075|0.672
91865277|NCT02938923|183620983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.009||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = -0.38||Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|0.009|-0.013|0.703
91865278|NCT02938923|183620983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.014||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = -0.25||Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|0.014|-0.017|0.803
91865279|NCT02938923|183620983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.016||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = 0.01||Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|0.016|-0.015|0.991
91694505|NCT01164579|183283761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.32|20.18||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||20.18|-8.32|0.4937
91724287|NCT02969018|183342711|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.48|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.51|-10.48|<0.0001
91724288|NCT00827242|183342723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.004||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91794955|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.090|-0.065|0.7454
91794956|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.100|-0.113|0.9037
91794957|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.181||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.181|-0.040|0.2082
91794958|NCT01227564|183468821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.127||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.127|-0.063|0.5044
91865280|NCT03663205|183620984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.912|||One-sided, Log Rank Test||Stratified by stratification factors: disease stage (IIIB or IV) and the level of PD-L1 expression in tumor cells (\>=50%, 1% to 49%, \<1%)|||0.912|0.465|0.0054
91865281|NCT03663205|183620991|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.1|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC13 coughing score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in coughing score||3.1|-7.4|
91865282|NCT03663205|183620991|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC13 dyspnea score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in dyspnea score||2.1|-4.4|
91865283|NCT03663205|183620991|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.2|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC13 chest pain score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in chest pain score||1.2|-7.6|
91865284|NCT03663205|183620992|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|8.7|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in Global Health Status/Quality of Life score||8.7|-0.9|
91865285|NCT05932407|183620995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0||||||Crude hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablets to SSRIs for intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Crude hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group relative to the control group (SSRI Treatment group) was calculated by the rate of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group divided by the rate of SSRI Treatment group.||2.0|0.1|
91865286|NCT05932407|183620995|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted hazard ratio was adjusted from crude hazard ratio by covariance 1 (age and gender), and covariance 2 (antithrombotic drug administration, NSAID administration, and hypertension).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||||||Adjusted hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablets to SSRIs for intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Adjusted hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group relative to the control group (SSRI Treatment group) was calculated by the rate of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group divided by the rate of SSRI Treatment group.||1.9|0.1|
91865287|NCT03812614|183621055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the change in HbA1c as a function of time (included using restricted cubic splines), the interaction between time and intervention arm, baseline A1c and whether PT-SP live together (stratification variables), baseline insulin use, age, vital hunger, and preferred language.||1.14|-0.05|0.07
91865288|NCT03812614|183621056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the change in A1c as a function of time (included using restricted cubic splines), the interaction between time and intervention arm, baseline A1c and whether PT-SP live together (stratification variables), baseline insulin use, age, vital hunger, and preferred language||0.64|-0.67|0.96
91724289|NCT00827242|183342724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.029||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 4 weeks between treatment groups for BII. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
91724290|NCT00827242|183342725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.057||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for BII. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.057
91724291|NCT00827242|183342726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.002||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS storage subscore. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91724292|NCT00827242|183342727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.02||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS voiding subscore. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.020
91724293|NCT00827242|183342728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.233||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS nocturia question. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.233
91724294|NCT00827242|183342729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.013||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS QoL Index. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
91724295|NCT00827242|183342730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||The p-value associates with difference between treatment groups for the 7 response categories.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Results were adjusted for baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \< 20\]; severe \[total IPSS \>= 20\]||||||0.021
91724296|NCT00827242|183342731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||The p-value associates with difference between treatment groups for the 7 response categories.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Results were adjusted for baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \< 20\]; severe \[total IPSS \>= 20\]||||||0.009
91724297|NCT00827242|183342732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.146||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 1 week between treatment groups for IPSS. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
91724298|NCT00827242|183342733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.003||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 4 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91865289|NCT03812614|183621057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient SBP was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||3.38|-6.40|0.55
91724299|NCT00827242|183342734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IIEF-EF domain score. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91724300|NCT00827242|183342735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||The p-value associates with mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for Qmax. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ranked ANOVA|||||||0.300
91724301|NCT00827242|183342738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||The p-value associates with mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for PVR volume. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ranked ANOVA|||||||0.500
91724302|NCT01479530|183342761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.92|0.0228
91724303|NCT01479530|183342762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.61|<0.0001
91724304|NCT01479530|183342763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.75|0.0075
91724305|NCT01479530|183342764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-3.05|0.0317
91865290|NCT03812614|183621058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|10.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient SBP was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||10.91|0.57|0.03
91724306|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.82|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose; mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual. Sample sizing calculated based on results from previous methodology studies performed using the same cold pain test; primary criteria was ability to detect a significant gabapentin effect over placebo.||4.38|-3.82|
91724307|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.53|4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose; mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.68|-3.53|
91865291|NCT03812614|183621059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient diabetes distress was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.58|-2.15|0.76
91724308|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose; mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.22|-3.99|
91724309|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||5.44|-1.15|
91724310|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.48|-7.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-7.89|-14.48|
91724311|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|8.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||8.78|2.20|
91724312|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.53|4.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.08|-5.53|
91724313|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.74|-9.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-9.13|-18.74|
91724314|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.01|7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||7.78|-2.01|
91724315|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.32|6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||6.96|-5.32|
91724316|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.14|-7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-7.09|-19.14|
91724317|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||7.60|-4.45|
91865292|NCT03812614|183621060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient diabetes distress was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.46|-2.11|0.72
91865293|NCT03812614|183621061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient health eating was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.29|-0.76|0.38
91724318|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.39|2.32||||||4 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||2.32|-7.39|
91724319|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.44|-4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-4.73|-14.44|
91724320|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.85|4.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.85|-4.85|
91724321|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.23|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.22|-3.23|
91724322|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.19|-3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-3.75|-11.19|
91724323|NCT01119222|183342765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||3.45|-3.99|
91724324|NCT01119222|183342766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.04|-4.24|
91724325|NCT01119222|183342766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.07|-5.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.79|-13.07|
91724326|NCT01119222|183342766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.48|-2.80|
91759987|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.95|-0.59||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.59|-19.95|
91865294|NCT03812614|183621062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient physical activity was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.74|-1.11|0.70
91865295|NCT03812614|183621063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient diabetes medication adherence was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.74|-0.53|0.75
91865296|NCT03812614|183621063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient blood pressure medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.91|-0.98|0.94
91865297|NCT03812614|183621063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient cholesterol medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.61|-1.46|0.42
91865298|NCT03812614|183621064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient self-efficacy was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.52|-0.54|0.96
91694506|NCT00507455|183283795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in PdetQmax.|LS Mean Difference|-6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|2.37|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||2.37|-14.67|
91694507|NCT00507455|183283795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in PdetQmax.|LS Mean Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|3.84|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||3.84|-13.85|
91694508|NCT00507455|183283797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec for Qmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in Qmax.|LS Mean Difference|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.85|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||2.85|0.50|
91694509|NCT00507455|183283797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec for Qmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in Qmax.|LS Mean Difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.37|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||3.37|0.98|
91694510|NCT06110494|183283840|OTHER|Pairwise comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test of log10 transformed CFU reduction data to compare the antimicrobial effectiveness.||||||0.05||||||Pairwise comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test of log 10 transformed data to compare the antimicrobial effectiveness of Fer/H2O2 in comparison with the negative (saline) and positive (NaOCl) controls with P values set at \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample size estimate was calculated in Pass Software 2021, using a test that compares the ratio of two means from independent samples using data that has been log-normalized. An alpha of 0.05 and power of 80% was assumed, with means and standard deviations pulled from previous studies that employed similar methodology. This produced a required sample size of 16 for each group. Pairwise comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test to compare the antimicrobial effectiveness.||||0.05
91694511|NCT01605552|183283877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 0.61|||.21
91694512|NCT01605552|183283878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 1.33|||.019
91694513|NCT01605552|183283879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 0.78|||.09
91694514|NCT01605552|183283880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 0.43|||.43
91694515|NCT01737710|183283881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.55||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percent of participants that were seroprotected against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||3.55|0.92|0.082
91724327|NCT01944774|183342784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.291||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|1.457||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.457|0.058|0.133
91865299|NCT03812614|183621065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient activation was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||9.78|-3.92|0.40
91694516|NCT01737710|183283882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.56||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percent of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups|Fisher Exact|||||2.56|0.26|0.801
91794959|NCT01227564|183468822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.17||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.17|-0.23|0.7687
91794960|NCT01227564|183468822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.24|-0.16|0.6804
91794961|NCT01227564|183468822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.18|-0.17|0.9452
91694517|NCT01737710|183283883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.71||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||5.71|0.75|0.177
91694518|NCT01737710|183283884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.61||Null hypothesis: the fold differences in geometric mean titers against influenza B are not different between the two groups.|ANCOVA|||||1.61|0.96|0.092
91694519|NCT01737710|183283885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.11||Null hypothesis: the fold differences in geometric mean titers against influenza H1N1 are not different between the two groups.|ANCOVA|||||1.11|0.32|0.103
91694520|NCT01737710|183283886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8||Null hypothesis: the fold differences in geometric mean titers against influenza H3N2 are not different between the two groups.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|0.60|0.895
91694521|NCT01737710|183283887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.97||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.97|0.54|>0.999
91694522|NCT01737710|183283888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.63||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.63|0.09|0.253
91694523|NCT01737710|183283889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.58||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.58|0.06|0.218
91694524|NCT01737710|183283890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.94||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.94|0.84|0.140
91694525|NCT01737710|183283891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.65||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.65|0.24|0.791
91694526|NCT01737710|183283892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.92||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.92|0.47|0.833
91694527|NCT01737710|183283893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.38||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.38|0.40|0.378
91694528|NCT01737710|183283894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.62||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.62|0.21|0.783
91694529|NCT01737710|183283895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.39|||Fisher Exact|Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.||||1.39|0.13|0.143
91694530|NCT03935425|183283909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91694531|NCT00885664|183283911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91694532|NCT00885664|183283912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91694533|NCT00885664|183283913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
91694534|NCT00885664|183283914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
91694535|NCT00885664|183283915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
91694536|NCT00885664|183283916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91694537|NCT00885664|183283917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91694538|NCT00885664|183283918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91694539|NCT00885664|183283919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91904258|NCT00962390|183703419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.4678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||Statistical testing was 2-sided and the 5% significant level was used.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and site.|S-equol treatment group minus placebo group.|Week 4, Treatment Effect||1.1|-0.5|0.4678
91904259|NCT00962390|183703419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||Statistical testing was 2-sided and the 5% significant level was used.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and site.|S-equol treatment group minus placebo group.|Week 4, Treatment Effect||1.1|-0.5|0.4892
91694540|NCT00885664|183283920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91694541|NCT00885664|183283921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
91694542|NCT01342770|183283922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.06
91694543|NCT00921557|183283937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percent change from baseline to week 24||||<0.001
91694544|NCT00921557|183283937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percent change from baseline to week 48||||<0.001
91694545|NCT00921557|183283938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage of participants experiencing primary safety outcome||||>0.99
91694546|NCT00911612|183283957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||Not adjusted since only one comparison was made.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance was used to compare drug with placebo adjusting for baseline geometric center at 24 hours , BMI, and 7 alpha CHO.||||0.22
91694547|NCT00911612|183283958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance was used to compare drug with placebo adjusting for BMI and 7 alpha HCO.||||0.02
91694548|NCT02560922|183283999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.18|-1.45|0.128
91694549|NCT02560922|183283999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.06|-1.73|0.068
91694550|NCT02560922|183284000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.77|-6.01|0.129
91694551|NCT02560922|183284000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.44|-7.07|0.084
91694552|NCT02560922|183284001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.91|-4.14|0.209
91694553|NCT02560922|183284001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.63|-5.03|0.128
91694554|NCT02560922|183284002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.51|-2.18|0.222
91694555|NCT02560922|183284002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.33|-2.60|0.128
91694556|NCT02560922|183284003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||3.82|-0.40|0.111
91694557|NCT02560922|183284003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||2.88|-1.42|0.502
91694558|NCT02560922|183284004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||2.66|-1.15|0.433
91694559|NCT02560922|183284004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||3.86|-0.45|0.120
91694560|NCT02560922|183284005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.09|21.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||21.53|9.09|0.001
91694561|NCT02560922|183284005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.08|18.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||18.27|5.08|<0.001
91694562|NCT02560922|183284006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.57|-1.57|0.356
91694563|NCT02560922|183284006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.15|-2.19|0.087
91694564|NCT02560922|183284007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||1.41|0.61|<0.001
91694565|NCT02560922|183284007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||1.09|0.24|0.002
91694566|NCT02560922|183284008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between-group difference in self-reported change in symptoms (from baseline) at 3 months||-0.95|-1.60|<0.001
91694567|NCT02560922|183284008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between-group difference in self-reported change in symptoms (from baseline) at 9 months||-0.51|-1.24|<0.001
91694568|NCT01422889|183284053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value was not calculated for the ION Registry 12 month cardiac events. For the protocol specified primary endpoint analysis including data pooled from the PERSEUS SV, PERSEUS WH and TE Prove patient populations please see the citations.||||2.2% (23/1028) of ION Registry subjects experienced CD/MI related to the ION stent at 12 months||||
91694569|NCT01422889|183284054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|2.6|||||ONE_SIDED|||||A p-value was not calculated for the ION Registry 2 year cardiac events. For the protocol specified secondary endpoint analysis including data pooled from the PERSEUS SV, PERSEUS WH and TE Prove patient populations please see the citations.||||2.6% (27/1054) of ION Registry subjects experienced ARC ST Definite/Probable related to the ION stent at 2 years.||||
91694570|NCT00086138|183284058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.97|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses compared data collected from the CGIC of participants who received sertraline who had a score equal to or better than the CGIC of participants who received the placebo intervention.||1.97|0.52|0.98
91694571|NCT00086138|183284059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.04|||Chi-squared|||||5.04|0.84|0.11
91694572|NCT01014169|183284092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34||||||||1.34|0.95|
91694573|NCT01014169|183284093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.25||||||||1.25|0.99|
91694574|NCT01014169|183284094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||||95.0|1.0|1.25||||||||1.25|1.00|
91694575|NCT04873934|183284097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-55.4|-38.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.5|-55.4|< 0.001
91694576|NCT04873934|183284098|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.29|8.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.91|3.29|< 0.001
91694577|NCT04873934|183284099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|-36.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 90||-36.7|-47.3|< 0.001
91694578|NCT04873934|183284099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 270||-24.3|-37.4|< 0.001
91694579|NCT04873934|183284099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-31.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 330||-31.0|-44.5|< 0.001
91694580|NCT04873934|183284100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-40.8|||ANCOVA|||||-40.8|-52.7|< 0.001
91694581|NCT04873934|183284101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-32.2|||ANCOVA|||||-32.2|-42.4|< 0.001
91694582|NCT04873934|183284102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|22.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.25|6.33|< 0.001
91865300|NCT03812614|183621066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient satisfaction with SP support was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.68|-0.18|0.11
91694583|NCT04873934|183284103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|9.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Achieving LDL-C \< 100 mg/dL||9.99|1.92|< 0.001
91694584|NCT04873934|183284103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.97|13.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Achieving LDL-C \< 55 mg/dL||13.65|4.97|< 0.001
91694585|NCT04873934|183284104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-30.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-30.3|-44.8|< 0.001
91694586|NCT04873934|183284104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.4||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||3.1|-16.0|0.188
91694587|NCT04873934|183284104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-31.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-31.4|-44.0|< 0.001
91694588|NCT04873934|183284104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-20.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-20.7|-30.2|< 0.001
91694589|NCT04873934|183284104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.4||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||5.7|-38.4|0.145
91694590|NCT04873934|183284104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.5||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||8.1|-1.2|0.141
91694591|NCT04873934|183284104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.0||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||5.3|-15.2|0.339
91694592|NCT04873934|183284105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-23.9|-33.0|< 0.001
91694593|NCT04873934|183284105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.1||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||0.2|-4.5|0.078
91694594|NCT04873934|183284105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-32.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-32.8|-47.5|< 0.001
91694595|NCT04873934|183284105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-30.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-30.2|-45.3|< 0.001
91694596|NCT04873934|183284105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||3.8|-0.1|0.065
91694597|NCT04873934|183284105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.7||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||5.3|-22.8|0.222
91694598|NCT04873934|183284106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||-4.2|-23.8|0.005
91694599|NCT04873934|183284107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.93|||proportional odds model|||||0.93|0.20|0.031
91694600|NCT04873934|183284108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.039||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|-0.001|||ANCOVA|||||-0.001|-0.077|0.043
91694601|NCT04873934|183284109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.43|0.346
91694602|NCT00953654|183284120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|The degrees of freedom were adjusted when the sphericity assumption was violated based on Mauchly's test.||Effects of RET and AET were compared to WL using a 3 condition by 3 time ANCOVA. An a priori statistical power analysis showed that a sample of 30 patients would provide a statistical power of .80 to detect a condition-by-time interaction for PSWQ scores assuming a two-tailed alpha value of 0.05, a correlation across repeated measures of 0.75 and a desire to detect a standardized effect size of 0.65.||||<0.05
91694603|NCT02915705|183284131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45|||ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) mean, standard error (SE), confidence interval (CI), and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included RGI-C as the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline age stratification factor as independent variables and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.||1.45|0.83|< 0.0001
91865301|NCT03812614|183621067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient perception of supportive and non-supportive behaviors was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.55|-0.19|0.34
91865302|NCT03812614|183621069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.||1.23|-2.67|0.47
91865303|NCT03812614|183621070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.||0.27|-0.78|0.35
91865304|NCT03812614|183621071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient healthy eating was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.01|-1.00|0.06
91865305|NCT03812614|183621072|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|||0.54|-1.22|0.45
91904260|NCT00962390|183703419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||Statistical testing was 2-sided and the 5% significant level was used.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and site.|S-equol treatment group minus placebo group.|Week 4, Treatment Effect||1.0|-0.8|0.8185
91865306|NCT03812614|183621073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient diabetes medication adherence was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.35|-0.86|0.40
91904261|NCT00766090|183703448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.153|||ANCOVA|||||0.153|0.064|<0.001
91694604|NCT02915705|183284132|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|211.7||Odds ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value were per logistic regression model, which included treatment group and baseline age stratification factor as independent variables and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||211.7|7.2|< 0.0001
91694605|NCT02915705|183284133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|206.3||Odds ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value were per generalized linear mixed model, which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline age stratification factor as factors, baseline RSS total score as a continuous covariate.|generalized linear mixed model|||||206.3|5.6|0.0002
91694606|NCT02915705|183284134|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.33|||GEE model|||Per generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, which included RGI-C as the dependent variable, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline age stratification factor as factors, baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate, with exchangeable covariate structure.||1.33|0.72|< 0.0001
91694607|NCT02915705|183284135|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.94||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included treatment group and baseline age stratification factor as independent variables and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-1.74|< 0.0001
91694608|NCT02915705|183284136|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.83||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline age stratification factor as factors, baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|GEE model|||||-0.83|-1.59|< 0.0001
91694609|NCT02915705|183284137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.72||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline age stratification factor as factors; and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|GEE model|||||0.72|0.07|0.0162
91694610|NCT02915705|183284138|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.37||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline age stratification factor as factors; and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|GEE model|||||1.37|0.57|< 0.0001
91694611|NCT02915705|183284139|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||GEE model|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for recumbent length/standing height Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, age and baseline recumbent length/standing height Z score as continuous covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.||0.24|0.01|0.0408
91904262|NCT00766090|183703448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.142|||ANCOVA|||||0.142|0.054|<0.001
91904263|NCT00766090|183703448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.161|||ANCOVA|||||0.161|0.014|0.020
91904264|NCT00766090|183703448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (0.025, 1-sided significance level) for the mean difference in trough FEV1 of FF 200 µg OD versus FF 100 µg BID was greater than -110 milliliters.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.056|||ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.035|0.641
91904265|NCT00766090|183703448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.205|||ANCOVA|||||0.205|0.059|<0.001
91904266|NCT03591354|183703575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91794962|NCT01227564|183468822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.23|-0.27|0.8825
91694612|NCT02915705|183284140|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.14||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29|||GEE model|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for recumbent length/standing height Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, age and baseline recumbent length/standing height Z score as continuous covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.||0.29|0.00|0.0490
91794963|NCT01227564|183468822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.24|-0.28|0.8791
91794964|NCT01227564|183468822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.20|-0.24|0.8628
91794965|NCT01227564|183468822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.26|-0.35|0.7843
91794966|NCT01227564|183468822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.6||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.60|-0.04|0.0857
91794967|NCT01227564|183468822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.3878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.39||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.39|-0.15|0.3878
91794968|NCT01227564|183468822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.45|-0.39|0.8918
91865307|NCT03812614|183621073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient blood pressure medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.88|-0.90|0.98
91865308|NCT03812614|183621073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient cholesterol medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.61|-1.42|0.43
91865309|NCT03812614|183621074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|||0.01|-1.00|0.06
91694613|NCT02915705|183284141|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.02||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.99|||ANCOVA|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included change from baseline for growth velocity Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline RSS total score stratification as factors, baseline Z score and age as continuous covariates.||1.99|0.06|0.0386
91794969|NCT01227564|183468822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.76||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.76|-0.09|0.1233
91865310|NCT03812614|183621075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|6.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient activation was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||6.49|-7.22|0.92
91694614|NCT02915705|183284142|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.12||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.88|||ANCOVA|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included change from baseline for growth velocity Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline RSS total score stratification as factors, baseline Z score and age as continuous covariates.||1.88|0.37|0.0047
91694615|NCT02915705|183284143|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 1||1.27|0.81|< 0.0001
91694616|NCT02915705|183284143|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 4||1.27|0.79|< 0.0001
91694617|NCT02915705|183284143|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 8||0.97|0.58|< 0.0001
91694618|NCT02915705|183284143|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.81|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 16||0.81|0.44|< 0.0001
91694619|NCT02915705|183284143|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.72|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||0.72|0.30|< 0.0001
91694620|NCT02915705|183284143|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.89|||GEE model|||Week 32||0.89|0.51|< 0.0001
91694621|NCT02915705|183284143|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||GEE model||Difference (burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||0.91|0.51|< 0.0001
91694622|NCT02915705|183284143|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82|||GEE model|||Week 52||0.82|0.39|< 0.0001
91694623|NCT02915705|183284143|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||GEE model|||Week 64||0.90|0.49|< 0.0001
91694624|NCT02915705|183284145|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||ANCOVA||Difference (KRN23 - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|||0.91|0.58|< 0.0001
91694625|NCT02915705|183284148|SUPERIORITY||difference|48.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.53|60.02|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 1||60.02|36.53|< 0.0001
91694626|NCT02915705|183284148|SUPERIORITY||difference|21.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.01|30.16|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 4||30.16|12.01|< 0.0001
91694627|NCT02915705|183284148|SUPERIORITY||difference|15.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|25.15|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 8||25.15|6.35|0.0010
91694628|NCT02915705|183284148|SUPERIORITY||difference|12.97||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|22.53|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 16||22.53|3.41|0.0078
91694629|NCT02915705|183284148|SUPERIORITY||difference|10.89||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|19.19|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||19.19|2.59|0.0101
91694630|NCT02915705|183284148|SUPERIORITY||difference|6.23||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|14.02|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 32||14.02|-1.55|0.1165
91694631|NCT02915705|183284148|SUPERIORITY||difference|11.21||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|21.44|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||21.44|0.98|0.0317
91694632|NCT02915705|183284148|SUPERIORITY||difference|5.01||||0.3044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|14.56|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 52||14.56|-4.55|0.3044
91694633|NCT02915705|183284148|SUPERIORITY||difference|8.7||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|15.68|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D|Week 64||15.68|1.72|0.0145
91694634|NCT02915705|183284150|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.02|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 4||2.02|1.28|< 0.0001
91694635|NCT02915705|183284150|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.64|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 8||1.64|1.19|< 0.0001
91694636|NCT02915705|183284150|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||GEE model|||Week 16||1.48|0.84|< 0.0001
91694637|NCT02915705|183284150|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.41|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||1.41|0.80|< 0.0001
91694638|NCT02915705|183284150|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51|||GEE model|||Week 32||1.51|0.98|< 0.0001
91694639|NCT02915705|183284150|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||1.60|1.10|< 0.0001
91694640|NCT02915705|183284150|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.54|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 52||1.54|0.97|< 0.0001
91694641|NCT02915705|183284150|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.54|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 64||1.54|0.96|< 0.0001
91694642|NCT02915705|183284152|SUPERIORITY||difference|-92.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.4|-53.66|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 16||-53.66|-131.40|< 0.0001
91694643|NCT02915705|183284152|SUPERIORITY||difference|-85.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.37|-44.76|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||-44.76|-126.37|< 0.0001
91694644|NCT02915705|183284152|SUPERIORITY||difference|-95.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.05|-55.84|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||-55.84|-136.05|< 0.0001
91904267|NCT01499953|183703720|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypotheses for non-inferiority test using ∆=4.5% for the difference between incidence rates were H0: πrivaroxaban-πfondaparinux ≥ 4.5%, H1: πrivaroxaban-πfondaparinux \< 4.5% where πfondaparinux and πrivaroxaban were the incidence rates of CIAC confirmed VTE complications up to Day 45 in the treatment groups. Rejection of the null hypothesis would have concluded that rivaroxaban was not inferior to fondaparinux. To calculate the p-value, an asymptotic test for non-inferiority was used.||||||0.0252|||||||asymptotic test for non-inferiority|||||||0.0252
91694645|NCT02915705|183284152|SUPERIORITY||difference|-111.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.08|-70.49|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 52||-70.49|-152.08|< 0.0001
91694646|NCT02915705|183284152|SUPERIORITY||difference|-146.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-191.61|-101.52|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 64||-101.52|-191.61|< 0.0001
91694647|NCT02915705|183284155|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-5.02||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-0.75|||GEE model|||Pain Interference Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||-0.75|-9.29|0.0212
91694648|NCT02915705|183284155|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.68||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|5.89|||GEE model|||Physical Function Mobility Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||5.89|-0.52|0.1009
91694649|NCT02915705|183284155|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-3.25||||0.1676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|1.37|||GEE model|||Fatigue Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||1.37|-7.86|0.1676
91694650|NCT02915705|183284156|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.26||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|2.09|||GEE model|||Pain Interference Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||2.09|-6.61|0.3091
91694651|NCT02915705|183284156|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.9||||0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.59|||GEE model|||Physical Function Mobility Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||5.59|-1.80|0.3145
91694652|NCT02915705|183284156|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.08||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|4.06|||GEE model|||Fatigue Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||4.06|-6.21|0.6810
91694653|NCT02915705|183284157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.01||||0.9862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8|||GEE model|||GEE model includes change from baseline for FPS-R as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline FPS-R as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure. The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.||0.80|-0.79|0.9862
91694654|NCT02915705|183284158|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.05||||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.68|||GEE model|||GEE model includes change from baseline for FPS-R as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline FPS-R as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure. The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.||0.68|-0.58|0.8786
91694655|NCT02915705|183284159|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|43.46||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|87.17|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||87.17|-0.26|0.0514
91694656|NCT02915705|183284160|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|45.55||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|89.02|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||89.02|2.09|0.0399
91694657|NCT02915705|183284161|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|6.72||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|13.82|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||13.82|-0.37|0.0633
91724328|NCT01944774|183342784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.492||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|2.788||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.788|0.087|0.423
91904268|NCT03734016|183703735|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority testing for ORR was performed using a stratified Wald test based on the stratified Mantel-Haenszel response ratio estimate against the non-inferiority margin of 0.8558 on the log scale.|Response ratio|1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.22|||Stratified Wald test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Response ratio is the estimated ratio of the overall response rate of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||1.22|1.04|<0.0001
91865311|NCT03812614|183621076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient satisfaction with SP support was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.99|0.21|0.02
91865312|NCT03812614|183621077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient perception of supportive and non-supportive behaviors was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.70|-0.01|0.06
91865313|NCT03812614|183621078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.|Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|4.57|-2.19|0.49
91865314|NCT03812614|183621079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.||1.66|-0.09|0.08
91865315|NCT02518048|183621099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.76||Least Square Means difference from ANOVA with treatment group as fixed effect and subject as random effect (105 treated sites per treatment group).|ANOVA|||A last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach was used to account for drop-outs and missing values in the analysis of end of treatment values.||-1.76|-2.58|<0.001
91865316|NCT02518048|183621102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.32||Least Square Means difference from ANOVA with treatment group as fixed effect and subject as random effect (105 treated sites per treatment group)|ANOVA|||Total Skin Thickness: LEO 90100 vs. Betesil®||-0.32|-0.53|<0.001
91865317|NCT02518048|183621102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.41||Least Square Means difference from ANOVA with treatment group as fixed effect and subject as random effect (105 treated sites per treatment group)|ANOVA|||Echo-Poor Band Thickness: LEO 90100 vs. Betesil®||-0.41|-0.69|<0.001
91904269|NCT03734016|183703735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Superiority testing was performed using a 2-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0035
91724329|NCT01944774|183342785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.276||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|1.385||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.385|0.055|0.118
91865318|NCT04505410|183621113|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91865319|NCT05123027|183621116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.62||Threshold for significance: p\< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary outcome was analyzed with a longitudinal mixed effects negative binomial model incorporating the total score at earlier time points as well as 180 days. Fixed effect covariates included baseline score, treatment, days, site, stratum, and an interaction between treatment and days. A random effect was included to account for correlation within each participant.||1.62|0.30|0.399
91865320|NCT05123027|183621117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45||Threshold for significance: p\< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was modeled similar to the primary outcome, an over dispersed Poisson regression model with fixed effect covariates for treatment arm, treatment days, site, and stratum with an interaction between treatment arm and treatment days. Note that no baseline score covariate was included as all participants will be considered to have achieved 0 steps at baseline. A random intercept was included for each subject to account for repeated measures.||1.45|0.83|0.53
91865321|NCT05654662|183621118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||0.0032
91865322|NCT05654662|183621119|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.6|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|||-2.6|-10.6|0.0013
91865323|NCT05654662|183621120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0181|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||0.0181
91904270|NCT03734016|183703736|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority testing for ORR was performed using a stratified Wald test based on the stratified Mantel-Haenszel response ratio estimate against the non-inferiority margin of 0.8558 on the log scale.|Response ratio|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.22|||Stratified Wald test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Response ratio is the estimated ratio of the overall response rate of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||1.22|1.05|<0.0001
91865324|NCT05654662|183621120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0541|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||0.0541
91865325|NCT05654662|183621121|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.0|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-1.0|-6.7|0.0091
91865326|NCT05654662|183621121|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.8|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-1.8|-8.8|0.0031
91865327|NCT05654662|183621122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
91694658|NCT02915705|183284162|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|7.27||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|14.52|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||14.52|0.01|0.0496
91694659|NCT01022307|183284175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis showed that the effect size was small, with a 50% chance of detecting a p \< 0.05 effect requiring 247 subjects.|||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||F-test|Greenhouse Geisser correction.||F-test evaluating effects of Group||||< 0.04
91694660|NCT04818034|183284176|OTHER|paired t-test|paired t-test|0.965|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.0||0.965|ONE_SIDED|96.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.965
91694661|NCT02186873|183284180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.18|58.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.99|35.18|<0.001
91694662|NCT01399047|183284205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.105||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.243|||Prescott's test||Mycophenolate was tolerated in 17/19 subjects (89.5%, 95% CI: 66.9% - 98.7%), while placebo was tolerated in 19/19 subjects (100%, 95% CI: 82.4% - 100%). The difference in tolerability rates was 10.5% (95% CI: -3.3% - 24.3%, p=0.21).|The primary outcome variable was tolerability, defined as the proportion of subjects able to complete 8 weeks on the assigned treatment. Tolerability was compared among the treatment groups using Prescott's test. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the tolerability of mycophenolate, placebo, and their difference.||0.243|-0.033|0.21
91694663|NCT01399047|183284206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|3.28|||Prescott's test|||||3.28|-4.67|0.72
91694664|NCT01399047|183284207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Prescott's test|||||||0.78
91724330|NCT01944774|183342785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.644||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|3.999||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.999|0.104|0.636
91724331|NCT01944774|183342786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.517||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|2.93||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.930|0.091|0.456
91724332|NCT01944774|183342786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.508||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.883||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.883|0.090|0.445
91724333|NCT01944774|183342787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.518||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|2.941||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.941|0.091|0.458
91724334|NCT01944774|183342787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|4.144||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.144|0.107|0.664
91724335|NCT01944774|183342788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.959
91724336|NCT01944774|183342788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.961
91724337|NCT01944774|183342789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.960
91724338|NCT01944774|183342789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.962
91724339|NCT01944774|183342790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.950
91724340|NCT01944774|183342790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.962
91724341|NCT01944774|183342791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.949
91865328|NCT05654662|183621122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
91865329|NCT05654662|183621122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
91865330|NCT05654662|183621123|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.01|-0.05|0.0051
91865331|NCT05654662|183621123|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.01|-0.07|0.0034
91865332|NCT05654662|183621123|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.02|-0.08|0.0022
91865333|NCT05654662|183621124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
91865334|NCT05654662|183621124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
91865335|NCT05654662|183621124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
91865336|NCT05654662|183621125|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.04|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.04|-0.12|<0.0001
91865337|NCT05654662|183621125|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.07|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.07|-0.18|<0.0001
91865338|NCT05654662|183621125|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.08|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.08|-0.20|<0.0001
91865339|NCT05654662|183621126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
91865340|NCT05654662|183621126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
91865341|NCT05654662|183621126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
91865342|NCT05654662|183621127|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.06|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.06|-0.25|0.0012
91865343|NCT05654662|183621127|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.05|-0.29|0.0058
91694665|NCT01399047|183284208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Prescott's test|||||||0.98
91694666|NCT01399047|183284209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91694667|NCT04532619|183284223|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.89||Computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.89|0.10|0.014
91865344|NCT05654662|183621127|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.16|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.16|-0.42|<0.0001
91865345|NCT05654662|183621128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
91694668|NCT04532619|183284224|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.32||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.32|-0.41|0.80
91694669|NCT04532619|183284225|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.07||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||-0.07|-0.51|0.009
91865346|NCT05654662|183621128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
91865347|NCT05654662|183621128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
91865348|NCT05654662|183621129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.06|-0.26|0.0022
91865349|NCT05654662|183621129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.04|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.04|-0.30|0.0099
91865350|NCT05654662|183621129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.16|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.16|-0.45|<0.0001
91865351|NCT05247034|183621169|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865352|NCT05247034|183621169|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91865353|NCT05247034|183621169|OTHER|||||||0.0125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0125
91865354|NCT05247034|183621170|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For 1 Hz||||>0.05
91865355|NCT05247034|183621170|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||5 and 10 Hz||||>0.05
91865356|NCT05247034|183621170|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For 1, 5 and 10 Hz||||>0.05
91865357|NCT05247034|183621170|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For 1, 5 and 10 Hz||||>0.05
91865358|NCT05247034|183621171|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865359|NCT05247034|183621171|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Friedman|||||||0.042
91865360|NCT05247034|183621171|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Friedman|||||||0.015
91865361|NCT05247034|183621172|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Z Test|||||||>0.05
91694670|NCT04532619|183284226|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.38||calculated p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.38|-0.04|0.118
91865362|NCT05247034|183621172|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Z Test|||||||>0.05
91865363|NCT05247034|183621172|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Z Test|||||||>0.05
91865364|NCT05247034|183621173|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865365|NCT05247034|183621173|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91865366|NCT05247034|183621173|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91865367|NCT05247034|183621174|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91724342|NCT01944774|183342791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.962
91724343|NCT01944774|183342792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|4.609||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.609|0.042|0.491
91794970|NCT01227564|183468822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.55||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.55|-0.19|0.3302
91865368|NCT05247034|183621174|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91865369|NCT05247034|183621174|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91865370|NCT05247034|183621175|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865371|NCT05247034|183621175|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91865372|NCT05247034|183621175|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91694671|NCT04532619|183284227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology. A logistic link function was used for this binary outcome.||||.24
91724344|NCT01944774|183342792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.531||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|6.444||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.444|0.044|0.619
91724345|NCT01944774|183342793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.444||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|4.708||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.708|0.042|0.501
91724346|NCT01944774|183342793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.567||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|6.895||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.895|0.047|0.656
91865373|NCT05247034|183621176|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865374|NCT05247034|183621176|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91865375|NCT05247034|183621176|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91865376|NCT05247034|183621177|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865377|NCT05247034|183621177|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91865378|NCT05247034|183621177|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Friedman|||||||>0.05
91865379|NCT05247034|183621178|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865380|NCT05247034|183621178|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91865381|NCT05247034|183621178|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Friedman|||||||>0.05
91865382|NCT05247034|183621179|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865383|NCT05247034|183621179|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91865384|NCT05247034|183621179|OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0027
91865385|NCT05247034|183621180|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865386|NCT05247034|183621180|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91865387|NCT05247034|183621180|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0430
91865388|NCT05247034|183621181|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865389|NCT05247034|183621181|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91865390|NCT05247034|183621181|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91865391|NCT05247034|183621182|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865392|NCT05247034|183621182|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91865393|NCT05247034|183621182|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91865394|NCT05247034|183621183|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865395|NCT05247034|183621183|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91865396|NCT05247034|183621183|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91865397|NCT05247034|183621184|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865398|NCT05247034|183621184|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91865399|NCT05247034|183621184|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91865400|NCT05247034|183621185|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865401|NCT05247034|183621185|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91865402|NCT05247034|183621185|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91865403|NCT05247034|183621186|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
91865404|NCT05247034|183621186|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
91694672|NCT04532619|183284228|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.33||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|1.98||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||1.98|-4.64|0.43
91724347|NCT01944774|183342794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.733||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|8.832||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.832|0.061|0.807
91694673|NCT04532619|183284229|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.06||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.15||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.15|-4.27|0.07
91694674|NCT01515865|183284247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|9.8|||Fisher Exact|||||9.8|-37.6|0.3145
91694675|NCT00386360|183284272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.231||||0.7096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.995|1.458|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.458|-0.995|0.7096
91694676|NCT00386360|183284273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.543||||0.2973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|1.571|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.571|-0.485|0.2973
91694677|NCT00386360|183284274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.485||||0.1275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|1.11|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.110|-0.141|0.1275
91694678|NCT00386360|183284275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.664||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|2.025|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.025|-0.697|0.3360
91865405|NCT05247034|183621186|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91694679|NCT00386360|183284276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.334||||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|1.219|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.219|-0.551|0.4565
91694680|NCT00386360|183284277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.611||||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.252|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.252|-0.030|0.0614
91694681|NCT00386360|183284278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.258|1.138|||ANOVA|LS means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.138|-1.258|0.9212
91724348|NCT01944774|183342794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.567||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|6.895||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.895|0.047|0.656
91724349|NCT01944774|183342795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|8.445||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.445|0.058|0.779
91724350|NCT01944774|183342795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.567||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|6.895||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.895|0.047|0.656
91904271|NCT03734016|183703736|SUPERIORITY|Superiority testing was performed using a 2-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0007
91694682|NCT00386360|183284279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.231|4.31|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||4.310|2.231|<0.0001
91904272|NCT03734016|183703737|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was tested with a non-inferiority margin (hazard ratio) of 1.33 with the use of a stratified Wald test based on the four randomization stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86|||Stratified Wald test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||0.86|0.49|<0.0001
91904273|NCT03734016|183703737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0024
91724351|NCT03491917|183342842|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is delta = 0.05.|||||<|0.01||||||The average difference in AUC was 0.023 (two-sided 95% CI: -0.012, 0.059; non-inferiority p \< 0.01 for non-inferiority margin delta = -0.05).|t-test, 2 sided|df: 417.0 for FFDM, 424.6 for DBT plus S-View, and (1, 18.9) for the difference.||The primary endpoint for this study was a non-inferior per-subject average area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) requiring correct lesion localization for DBT (digital breast tomosynthesis) plus S-View (synthesized view) versus FFDM (full field digital mammography). AUCs for each reader were estimated in each review condition based on per-subject probability of malignancy (POM) scores requiring correct lesion localization.||||<0.01
91724352|NCT03998462|183342855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91724353|NCT03998462|183342856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
91724354|NCT03998462|183342857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
91724355|NCT05710224|183342858|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.99||p-value, GMT Ratio, and CI are calculated using t-distribution with the variance estimate from serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t-distribution|||DENV-1 GMT Ratio (V181/Butantan - DV)||0.99|0.76|<0.001
91724356|NCT05710224|183342858|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|8.35||p-value, GMT ratio, and CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t-distribution|||DENV-2 GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV)||8.35|6.03|<0.001
91724357|NCT05710224|183342858|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.45||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.53||p-value, GMT ratio, and CI were calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t- distribution|||DENV-3 GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV)||0.53|0.39|1.000
91724358|NCT05710224|183342858|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.35||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.42||p-value, GMT ratio, and CI were calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t-distribution|||DENV-4 GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV)||0.42|0.29|1.000
91724359|NCT05710224|183342859|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan-DV) to be \>-10 percentage points|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.3||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-1 Difference in percentage (V181 - Butantan-DV)||1.3|-1.8|<0.001
91724360|NCT05710224|183342859|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan - DV) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in Percentage|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|18.5||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-2 Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan-DV)||18.5|12.0|<0.001
91724361|NCT05710224|183342859|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan-DV) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in percentage|-3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.6||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-3 Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan-DV)||-1.6|-5.8|<0.001
91724362|NCT05710224|183342859|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan - DV) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in Percentage|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.8||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-4 Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||-0.8|-6.7|<0.001
91724363|NCT05710224|183342861|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.2||||||Erythema: Difference in Percentage (V181-Butantan - DV)||7.2|1.4|
91724364|NCT05710224|183342861|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.9||||||Pain: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV).||3.9|-4.3|
91724365|NCT05710224|183342861|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3||||||Swelling: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||2.3|-1.1|
91724366|NCT05710224|183342862|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.3||||||Arthralgia: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||3.3|-5.5|
91724367|NCT05710224|183342862|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.1||||||Fatigue: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||3.1|-7.5|
91724368|NCT05710224|183342862|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.9||||||Headache: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||1.9|-8.2|
91724369|NCT05710224|183342862|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-2.7||||||Myalgia: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||-2.7|-13.1|
91724370|NCT05710224|183342862|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-2.3||||||Pyrexia: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||-2.3|-8.2|
91724371|NCT05710224|183342862|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.8||||||Rash: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||11.8|1.9|
91865406|NCT05879991|183621210|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|76.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.21|82.65|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean zongertinib / adjusted geometric mean \[14C\]zongertinib)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 7.9|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale.~The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included the effect 'subjects' as a random effect and 'treatment' as a fixed effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||82.65|70.21|
91724372|NCT04615507|183342885|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of the mean is below the predefined threshold +0.00 logMAR for Distance.|Mean estimate|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.083|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.083|-0.180|
91724373|NCT04615507|183342885|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of the mean is below the predefined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Intermediate.|Mean estimate|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|-0.017|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.017|-0.115|
91904274|NCT03734016|183703738|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was tested with a noninferiority margin (hazard ratio) of 1.33 with the use of a stratified Wald test based on the four randomization stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Stratified Wald test||Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||0.86|0.49|<0.0001
91724374|NCT04615507|183342885|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of the mean is below the predefined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Near.|Mean estimate|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.121|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.121|0.022|
91724375|NCT04615507|183342886|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of the LSM is above the predefined threshold 32 points.|Least-square mean|59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|66.8|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom||||66.8|52.3|
91724376|NCT04615507|183342886|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-Inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above -5 points.|Least-square mean difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|10.2|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|LSM difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||10.2|0.9|
91724377|NCT05887401|183342901|SUPERIORITY|ITT analysis using linear mixed models comparing MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months). We fit a linear mixed model that included a random effect for participant and predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up) and all 4 factors.|Mean Difference (Net)|61.45||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|112.95||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|Mixed Models Analysis|DF(2, 119)|The positive parameter estimate indicates an increase in MVPA over time for the full sample.|||112.95|9.95|0.02
91724378|NCT05887401|183342901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.36||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.89|113.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1, 69)|Green food monitoring (reference) vs red food monitoring; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of simplified dietary monitoring (green vs. red) on MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||113.61|-70.89|0.65
91724379|NCT05887401|183342901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-60.05||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.4|32.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,70)|Nutrition goals (yes; reference) vs no goals provided; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (dietary goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of dietary goals (yes vs. no) on MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||32.39|-152.40|0.20
91724380|NCT05887401|183342901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|29.52||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.07|122.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,70)|Supportive text messages (yes; reference) vs no text messages; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (supportive text messages) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of text messages (yes vs. no) on MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||122.11|-63.07|0.53
91694683|NCT00386360|183284280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|2.14|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.140|0.748|<0.0001
91694684|NCT00386360|183284281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.408||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|2.348|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.348|0.469|0.0036
91694685|NCT00386360|183284282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.458||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.541|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.541|0.375|0.0087
91694686|NCT00386360|183284283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.957|-19.123|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||-19.123|-59.957|0.0002
91694687|NCT00386360|183284284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.269|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-29.238|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||-29.238|-51.300|<0.0001
91694688|NCT00386360|183284285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.092||||0.1385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.213|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||0.213|-0.030|0.1385
91694689|NCT03018080|183284295|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.238|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.472|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The reported grade 3/4 toxicity rate with weekly paclitaxel was 0.35. If it became evident that the grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicity rate on either arm convincingly exceeded 0.35, the study arm would have been halted. Convincing evidence of exceeding 0.35 was based on Bayesian methods and continuous monitoring, where the stopping rule would have held enrollment if the posterior probability at any point exceeded 0.50 or higher.||0.472|0.082|
91694690|NCT03018080|183284295|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.566|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The reported grade 3/4 toxicity rate with weekly paclitaxel was 0.35. If it became evident that the grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicity rate on either arm convincingly exceeded 0.35, the study arm would have been halted. Convincing evidence of exceeding 0.35 was based on Bayesian methods and continuous monitoring, where the stopping rule would have held enrollment if the posterior probability at any point exceeded 0.50 or higher.||0.566|0.126|
91694691|NCT03018080|183284296|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.419|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.419|0.055|
91904275|NCT03734016|183703738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0024
91694692|NCT03018080|183284296|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.421|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.665|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method|||0.665|0.203|
91694693|NCT03018080|183284297|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.9|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||6.9|1.4|
91694694|NCT03018080|183284297|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.8|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||6.8|1.4|
91694695|NCT03018080|183284298|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|27.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7||Upper limit of the confidence interval is not reached due to censoring rate||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.||||9.7|
91694696|NCT03018080|183284298|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|14.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.|||14.0|6.8|
91904276|NCT03734016|183703739|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-8.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.6|||Chi-squared||Rate difference is the zanubrutinib rate minus the ibrutinib rate.|||-3.6|-12.4|0.0004
91724381|NCT05887401|183342901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.26|72.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,70)|Lesson delivery once (reference) vs weekly; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (lesson delivery) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of lesson timing (once vs. weekly) on MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||72.27|-113.26|0.66
91724382|NCT05887401|183342902|SUPERIORITY|ITT analysis using linear mixed models comparing self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months). We fit a linear mixed model that included a random effect for participant and predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up) and all 4 factors.|Mean Difference (Net)|44.87||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.39|75.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(2,127)|The positive parameter estimate indicates an increase in self-reported MVPA over time for the full sample.|||75.43|14.39|0.004
91724383|NCT05887401|183342902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.32||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.96|28.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,72)|Green food monitoring (reference) vs red food monitoring; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of simplified dietary monitoring (green vs. red) on self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||28.32|-58.96|0.47
91724384|NCT05887401|183342902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.02||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|59.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,73)|Nutrition goals (yes; reference) vs no goals provided; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in self-reported MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (dietary goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of dietary goals (yes vs. no) on self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||59.7|-27.67|0.47
91724385|NCT05887401|183342902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.72||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.09|53.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,71)|Supportive text messages (yes; reference) vs no text messages; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in self-reported MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (supportive text messages) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of text messages (yes vs. no) on self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||53.52|-34.09|0.66
91724386|NCT05887401|183342902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.04|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,72)|Lesson delivery once (reference) vs weekly; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in self-reported MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (lesson delivery) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of lesson timing (once vs. weekly) on self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||1.73|-86.04|0.06
91724387|NCT05887401|183342903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.49||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|5.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,61)|The positive parameter estimate indicates an increase in HEI score over time for the full sample.|ITT analysis using linear mixed models comparing HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months). We fit a linear mixed model that included a random effect for participant and predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up) and all 4 factors.||5.54|-0.56|0.109
91794971|NCT01227564|183468823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|3.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||3.97|-0.67|0.1597
91724388|NCT05887401|183342903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,68)|Green food monitoring (reference) vs red food monitoring; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in HEI score.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of simplified dietary monitoring (green vs. red) on HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||5.08|-7.42|0.71
91794972|NCT01227564|183468823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.91||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.91|-4.01|0.2130
91865407|NCT05879991|183621215|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.12|30.79|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean zongertinib / adjusted geometric mean \[14C\]zongertinib)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 16.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included the effect 'subjects' as a random effect and 'treatment' as a fixed effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||30.79|22.12|
91865408|NCT05879991|183621216|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|76.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.92|83.59|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean zongertinib / adjusted geometric mean \[14C\]zongertinib)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 7.9|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included the effect 'subjects' as a random effect and 'treatment' as a fixed effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||83.59|70.92|
91904277|NCT03734016|183703742|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.72|||||Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||0.72|0.41|
91904278|NCT03734016|183703745|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.11|||||Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||1.11|0.51|
91865409|NCT02668692|183621217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||=|0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|10.95|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis of the FAS.||10.95|0.35|=0.68
91865410|NCT02668692|183621217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||=|0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|10.72||Treatment comparison by Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact||Odds of 'overall improvement' in LEO 80185 gel group relative to Dovobet® ointment group.|Statistical analysis of the PPAS.||10.72|0.34|=0.68
91865411|NCT02668692|183621218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.74|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for the FAS.||0.74|0.11|=0.009
91904279|NCT03734016|183703746|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.0||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.77|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL at Week 24. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix.||5.77|0.23|0.0338
91694697|NCT03018080|183284299|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.854|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method|||0.854|0.430|
91694698|NCT03018080|183284299|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.632|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|0.837|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method|||0.837|0.384|
91865412|NCT02668692|183621218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.63||Treatment comparison by Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact||Odds of 'overall improvement' in LEO 80185 gel group relative to Dovobet® ointment group.|Statistical analysis of the PPAS.||0.63|0.08|=0.003
91865413|NCT05464069|183621230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Significant level \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.160
91865414|NCT03442309|183621238|NON_INFERIORITY|NI margin for arrest difference of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.01||||||||0.01|-.22|
91904280|NCT03734016|183703746|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34||||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL at Week 48. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.06|-1.37|0.3304
91904281|NCT03734016|183703746|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|4.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||4.12|-0.47|0.1189
91694699|NCT03018080|183284300|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|8.3|||||"The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months).~The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response."|||8.3|5.6|
91694700|NCT03018080|183284300|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.3|||||"The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months).~The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response."|||8.3|2.6|
91694701|NCT03612596|183284302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91694702|NCT03612596|183284303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91694703|NCT03612596|183284304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91694704|NCT03612596|183284305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91694705|NCT03612596|183284306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91694706|NCT03612596|183284307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Please note that this analysis was not powered and was used to characterize effect size (d = 1.26) rather than test efficacy.||||||0.53
91724389|NCT05887401|183342903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|6.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,68)|Nutrition goals (yes; reference) vs no goals provided; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in HEI score over time.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (dietary goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of dietary goals (yes vs. no) on HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||6.69|-5.82|0.89
91694707|NCT03612596|183284308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Please note that this analysis was not powered and was used to characterize effect size (d = 1.16) rather than test efficacy.||||||0.44
91694708|NCT03612596|183284309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Please note that this analysis was not powered and was used to characterize effect size (d = 0.67) rather than test efficacy.||||||0.93
91724390|NCT05887401|183342903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.66||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|9.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,68)|Supportive text messages (yes; reference) vs no text messages; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in HEI score over time.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (supportive text messages) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of text messages (yes vs. no) on HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||9.93|-2.61|0.25
91865415|NCT03442309|183621239|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority OR (OR δ, 0.63)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.08||||||||1.08|0.82|
91865416|NCT04615273|183621256|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis included treatment arm, region, baseline age group, gender, concomitant oral estrogen, Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency (AGHD) onset as factors \& baseline trunk percent fat as the covariates. Multiple imputation method was used to impute missing data.||-1.14|-2.94|<.0001
91694709|NCT03612596|183284310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91694710|NCT03612596|183284311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91694711|NCT03612596|183284312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91694712|NCT03612596|183284313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91694713|NCT03612596|183284314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91865417|NCT05465239|183621260|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis of metabolic energy consumption using the unpowered vs powered walker for control subjects.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.001
91724391|NCT05887401|183342903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,68)|Lesson delivery once (reference) vs weekly; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in HEI score over time.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (lesson delivery) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of lesson timing (once vs. weekly) on HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||4.45|-8.11|0.57
91724392|NCT02743494|183342986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|96.4|0.56|0.86|||Stratified log-rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Placebo.|||0.86|0.56|0.0003
91724393|NCT02743494|183342987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.03|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Placebo.|||1.03|0.070|0.1064
91724394|NCT01112267|183343067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0367|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value for percentage of participants with reduction in pain intensity was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups||||||0.0367
91724395|NCT01112267|183343068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095||||||p-value for change in reduction in pain intensity at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.0095
91724396|NCT01112267|183343069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0202||||||p-value for percentage of participants with pain relief at Day 8 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Chi-squared|||||||0.0202
91724397|NCT01112267|183343069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102||||||p-value for percentage of participants with pain relief at Day 15 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Chi-squared|||||||0.0102
91794973|NCT01227564|183468823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.16||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||2.16|-2.06|0.9616
91794974|NCT01227564|183468823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|4.62||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||4.62|-1.06|0.2143
91865418|NCT05465239|183621260|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis of metabolic energy consumption using the unpowered vs powered walker for subjects with walking disabilities.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91865419|NCT03314740|183621330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.14|||cox model|||||1.14|0.5|0.265
91724398|NCT01112267|183343069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4652||||||p-value for percentage of participants with pain relief at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Chi-squared|||||||0.4652
91724399|NCT01112267|183343070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3524||||||p-value for change from Baseline in physical conditioning at Day 29 was calculated using for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3524
91724400|NCT01112267|183343070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224||||||p-value for change from Baseline in role physical at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0224
91724401|NCT01112267|183343070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5712||||||p-value for change from Baseline in bodily pain at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5712
91724402|NCT01112267|183343070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0395||||||p-value for change from Baseline in general health at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0395
91724403|NCT01112267|183343070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0524||||||p-value for change from Baseline in vitality at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0524
91904282|NCT03734016|183703746|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.3274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|3.44|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||3.44|-1.15|0.3274
91724404|NCT01112267|183343070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||||||p-value for change from Baseline in social functioning at Day 29 was calculated using for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.115
91724405|NCT01112267|183343070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7788||||||p-value for change from Baseline in role emotional at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7788
91724406|NCT01112267|183343070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7776||||||p-value for change from Baseline in mental health at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7776
91724407|NCT01112267|183343070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||||||p-value for change from Baseline in Reptd. health transition at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0047
91724408|NCT01112267|183343071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0527||||||p-value for change from Baseline in ODI- Korean version at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0527
91724409|NCT01112267|183343072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0917||||||p-value for investigator's global assessment on investigational product at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0917
91724410|NCT01112267|183343073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5632||||||p-value for participant's global assessment on investigational product at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.5632
91865420|NCT03314740|183621330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.55|||cox- model|||||1.55|0.68|0.904
91794975|NCT01227564|183468823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.2151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.12||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.12|-4.87|0.2151
91794976|NCT01227564|183468823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.51||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||2.51|-2.61|0.9704
91794977|NCT01227564|183468823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.7857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.95||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||3.95|-3.00|0.7857
91794978|NCT01227564|183468823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|0.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.87|-6.45|0.1323
91794979|NCT01227564|183468823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|1.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.97|-4.29|0.4618
91865421|NCT00971087|183621372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|3D + s2D will be considered non-inferior to 2D FFDM if the lower limit one-sided 95% CI for the difference in AUCs (3DS minus 2D FFDM) is greater than -0.05. That is, our null hypothesis is that the AUC for 3D + s2D is 0.05 less than the AUC for 2D FFDM. A difference of 0.05 is considered a clinically significant difference.||||||0.009|||||||MRMC ROC Analysis|||A multi-reader, multi-case ROC analysis will be used to compare 3D + s2D to 2D FFDM. The areas under the curve (AUC) will be used to compare ROC performance.||||0.009
91865422|NCT00971087|183621373|NON_INFERIORITY|A multi-reader, multi-case ROC analysis will be used to compare 3DS to 2D FFDM. The areas under the curve (AUC) will be used to compare ROC performance. 3DS will be considered non-inferior to 2D FFDM if the lower limit onesided 95% CI for the difference in AUCs (3DS minus 2D FFDM) is greater than -0.05.||||||0.045|||||||MRMC ROC Analysis|||||||0.045
91865423|NCT01447719|183621383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sensitivity|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|98.0|||||95% CI calculated by Wilson score method|Proportion of subjects who had a positive scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||98|78|
91865424|NCT01447719|183621384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|100.0|||||95% CI calculated by Wilson score method|Proportion of subjects who had a negative scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||100|80|
91694714|NCT04632069|183284329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|repeated measures linear regression: time periods: -14 to Day 0, Day 1-18(independent variable); daily po volumes (Dependent Variable)||Daily change in po feeding volumes expressed as po ml/kg/d \[reported as the mean daily change from Day 1 to 18 during NAC/NAC+taVNS minus baseline mean daily change Day -14 to day 0 (before treatment)\] Null hypothesis: there will be no significant difference in daily change in po feeding volume (ml/kg/d) from baseline to during treatment Power analysis: Estimated +0.2 ml/kg/d before taVNS, and +3ml/kg/d during the 18days of NAC+taVNS treatment, requiring 10 infants with power of 80%, a=0.05.||||0.009
91694715|NCT04632069|183284330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test|mean difference between \[GSH\] Day 4 of NAC and \[GSH\] at baseline|\[GSH\] at baseline compared with \[GSH\] at day 4 of NAC- by paired t-test in which each participant's \[GSH\] is compared at 2 time points Null hypothesis: the \[GSH\] in the basal ganglia will be no different after Day 4 of NAC than \[GSH\] at baseline Power calculation:With 80% power, alpha of 0.05, we would need 7 patients to show a significant change in basal ganglia \[GSH\] of 0.14 +/- 0.13mM from baseline to Day 4 of NAC (paired t-test).||||0.01
91694716|NCT02573181|183284331|OTHER|Difference in percentage with AEs|Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|15.8|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||15.8|-7.4|
91694717|NCT02573181|183284333|OTHER|Difference in % with fatigue|Fatigue difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.8|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||8.8|-10.7|
91724411|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|115.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.04|125.22|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||125.22|107.04|
91724412|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Astellas Ratio|103.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.91|112.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||112.12|95.91|
91724413|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astellas Ratio X 100|99.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|107.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||107.89|92.30|
91724414|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio|103.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.83|112.11|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 and Cmax parameters||112.11|95.83|
91724415|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X100|101.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.03|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 and parameters||110.0|94.03|
91865425|NCT01447719|183621385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Correlation coefficient|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||A one-sided test (rho \> 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha=0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|Asymptotic standard error and 95 percent CI used Fisher z-transformation.||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation of the median semiquantitative read (three readers) and the quantitative IHC measurement of cortical amyloid plaque density averaged across six brain regions.||0.85|0.62|<0.0001
91694718|NCT02573181|183284333|OTHER|Difference in % with arthralgia|Arthralgia difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.4|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.4|-10.2|
91694719|NCT02573181|183284333|OTHER|Difference in % with myalgia|Myalgia difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.3|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||13.3|-3.9|
91694720|NCT02573181|183284333|OTHER|Difference in % with headache|Headache difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|6.4|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.4|-11.4|
91724416|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr Reddys Ratio X 100|111.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.26|120.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||120.70|103.26|
91724417|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|116.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.27|125.49|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||125.49|107.27|
91865426|NCT01447719|183621386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sensitivity|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|100.0||||||Proportion of subjects who had a positive scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||100|80|
91865427|NCT01447719|183621387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|100.0||||||Proportion of subjects who had a negative scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||100|78|
91865428|NCT03969563|183621415|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence based on non-significant difference between MBSR and Brain Health groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.694|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.694
91694721|NCT03412734|183284340|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|37.34||p-value is adjusted for baseline BV (Bacterial Vaginosis)|Regression, Logistic|||We hypothesized that chlorhexidine would have a lower bacterial count compared to iodine. Our sample size was calculated to be 71 patients per arm to detect a 22% difference in cultures defined as contaminated at 90 minutes from surgical preparation.||37.34|3.02|<0.001
91694722|NCT03777436|183284347|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|20.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. 2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Two-sided p-values were based on the CMH test.|||30.9|9.2|0.0003
91694723|NCT03777436|183284348|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|15.2||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights. 2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Two-sided p-values were based on the CMH test.|||23.6|6.9|0.0004
91694724|NCT03777436|183284349|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights. 2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Two-sided p-values were based on the CMH test.|||39.3|15.4|<0.0001
91694725|NCT03777436|183284350|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.942||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-1.47|||MMRM||Based on MMRM model.|||-1.47|-5.18|0.0005
91694726|NCT03777436|183284351|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.1|||MMRM||Based on MMRM model.|||-1.1|-4.2|0.0008
91694727|NCT03777436|183284352|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-10.0|||MMRM||Based on MMRM model.|||-10.0|-20.3|<0.0001
91694728|NCT01562782|183284423|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups in the primary outcome- the mean fold change in plasma VLDL triglyceride palmitate, 0-4 hours. A power calculation was based on data obtained in 15 overweight subjects. Assuming a mean absolute difference of 2.7 in South Asians and 1.0 in Caucasians and a standard deviation of 2.0 for both, group sample sizes of 16 and 16 were expected to achieve 80% power to detect a difference of 1.7 using a 2-sided Mann-Whitney test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The equivalence test was used to compare the fold change in plasma VLDL triglyceride palmitate in Caucasians and South Asians.||||0.05
91694729|NCT01562782|183284424|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The equivalence test was used to compare 1) the fold change in triglycerides in South Asians and Caucasians and 2) the fold change in VLDL triglycerides in South Asians and Caucasians.||||<0.05
91694730|NCT01562782|183284425|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The equivalence test is used to compare levels after the sugar beverage of 1) glucose at 1 hour 2) lactate at 1 hour 3) NEFA at 2 hours in South Asians vs Caucasians.||||<0.05
91694731|NCT01562782|183284426|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91794980|NCT01227564|183468823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|6.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||6.22|-1.74|0.2622
91794981|NCT01227564|183468823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.4499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|2.55||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.55|-5.64|0.4499
91865429|NCT03969563|183621416|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence based on non-significant difference between MBSR vs Brain Health group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.837
91865430|NCT04424316|183621436|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|74.6||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||74.6|31.3|
91694732|NCT01562782|183284427|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91724418|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|111.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.27|120.81|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||120.81|103.27|
91724419|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|113.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.3|123.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||123.08|105.30|
91865431|NCT04424316|183621437|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|54.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|69.5||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||69.5|33.2|
91694733|NCT01562782|183284428|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson or Spearman's rank test|||The equivalence test was used to analyze the relationship between the primary outcome, fold change in VLDL TG palmitate, and the listed levels of biomarkers of carbohydrate and fat metabolism. The correlation analysis was performed on data from each study group separately.||||<0.05
91694734|NCT01562782|183284429|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91694735|NCT01562782|183284430|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91694736|NCT01562782|183284431|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91694737|NCT01562782|183284432|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91694738|NCT02649439|183284437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4852|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4852
91694739|NCT02649439|183284438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3269|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3269
91694740|NCT02649439|183284441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0255||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in monocyte nonclassical between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.0255
91694741|NCT02649439|183284441|OTHER|||||||0.0021||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in monocyte nonclassical PD-L1+ between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.0021
91694742|NCT02649439|183284441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0486||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in monocyte PD-1+ between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.0486
91694743|NCT02649439|183284442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7317||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in CD4 between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.7317
91694744|NCT02649439|183284442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7545||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in CD8 between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.7545
91694745|NCT02649439|183284442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in Treg between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.5310
91694746|NCT02649439|183284442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8451||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in NK between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.8451
91694747|NCT02649439|183284442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9377||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in MDSC between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.9377
91694748|NCT02649439|183284443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2012||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2012
91694749|NCT02649439|183284443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4891||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4891
91694750|NCT02649439|183284443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4609||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of Tregs in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4609
91694751|NCT02649439|183284443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of NK in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0012
91794982|NCT01227564|183468823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.91||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.91|-3.21|0.8454
91794983|NCT01227564|183468824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.96||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.96|-0.18|0.1796
91794984|NCT01227564|183468824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.69||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.69|-0.49|0.7281
91724420|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Mylan Ratio X 100|103.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.08|112.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||112.40|96.08|
91724421|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Panacea Ratio x 100|100.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|108.21|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||108.21|92.50|
91724422|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.28|110.29|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||110.29|94.28|
91794985|NCT01227564|183468824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.75||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.75|-0.26|0.3347
91794986|NCT01227564|183468824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.20|-0.43|0.3425
91794987|NCT01227564|183468824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.4501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.52||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.52|-1.16|0.4501
91904283|NCT03734016|183703746|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Role Functioning Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||3.66|-2.40|0.6821
91724423|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|96.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.05|104.09|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||104.09|89.05|
91724424|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|98.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|106.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||106.12|90.72|
91724425|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|101.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.27|110.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||110.19|94.27|
91724426|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|109.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.42|119.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||119.25|100.42|
91724427|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Astellas Ratio X 100|99.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.28|109.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||109.03|91.28|
91724428|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astellas Ratio X 100|101.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.99|111.06|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||111.06|92.99|
91724429|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio X 100|106.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.17|116.06|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||116.06|97.17|
91724430|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X 100|104.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.25|113.75|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||113.75|95.25|
91724431|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr Reddy Ratio X 100|110.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.66|120.24|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||120.24|100.66|
91724432|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.82|118.02|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||118.02|98.82|
91724433|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|103.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.56|112.94|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||112.94|94.56|
91724434|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|105.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.48|115.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||115.23|96.48|
91724435|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Mylan Ration X 100|98.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.82|107.28|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||107.28|89.82|
91724436|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Panacea Ratio X 100|93.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.96|102.65|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||102.65|85.96|
91724437|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|95.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.69|104.74|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||104.74|87.69|
91724438|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|95.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.56|104.58|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||104.58|87.56|
91724439|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|97.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.34|107.71|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||107.71|89.34|
91724440|NCT02014103|183343074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Pancea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|102.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.36|111.51|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||111.51|93.36|
91724441|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|141.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.73|160.16|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||160.16|125.73|
91724442|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Astellas Ratio X 100|104.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.33|117.45|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||117.45|92.33|
91724443|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astellas Ratio X 100|116.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.87|130.87|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||130.87|102.87|
91865432|NCT04424316|183621438|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|64.5||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||64.5|30.3|
91865433|NCT04424316|183621439|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|49.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|62.8||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||62.8|31.4|
91724444|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio X 100|108.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.51|122.94|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||122.94|96.51|
91724445|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X 100|94.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.33|106.16|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||106.16|83.33|
91724446|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr. Reddys Ratio X 100|136.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.82|153.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||153.70|120.82|
91724447|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|122.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.37|138.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||138.04|108.37|
91724448|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|130.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.43|147.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||147.04|115.43|
91724449|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|150.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.77|170.18|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||170.18|133.77|
91724450|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Mylan Ratio X 100|89.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.52|101.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||101.30|79.52|
91724451|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Panacea Ratio X 100|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.71|107.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||107.90|84.71|
91724452|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|110.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|124.96|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|||124.96|98.10|
91794988|NCT01227564|183468824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.9227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.75||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.75|-0.68|0.9227
91794989|NCT01227564|183468824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.45|-0.51|0.3450
91794990|NCT01227564|183468824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.45|-1.58|0.2740
91865434|NCT04424316|183621440|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.5|93.9||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||93.9|57.5|
91865435|NCT04424316|183621441|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|73.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|86.8||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||86.8|50.3|
91724453|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|106.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.44|120.15|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||120.15|94.44|
91724454|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|123.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.3|139.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||139.23|109.30|
91794991|NCT01227564|183468824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.82||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.82|-0.92|0.9140
91694752|NCT02649439|183284443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0825||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of MDSC in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0825
91694753|NCT02649439|183284443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5988||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5988
91694754|NCT02649439|183284443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.||||||0.5920
91694755|NCT02649439|183284443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6221||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.6221
91694756|NCT02649439|183284443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7334||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7334
91724455|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|115.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.68|130.62|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||130.62|102.68|
91865436|NCT04424316|183621442|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|70.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.4|83.6||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||83.6|49.4|
91694757|NCT02649439|183284443|OTHER|||||||0.791||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of Tregs in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7910
91694758|NCT02649439|183284443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5186||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of NK in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5186
91694759|NCT02649439|183284443|SUPERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the % of MDSC in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5186
91694760|NCT02649439|183284443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9097||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.9097
91694761|NCT02649439|183284443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7334||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7334
91694762|NCT00945035|183284451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study Primary Hypothesis: The plasma etoricoxib AUC(0-∞) and Cmax values following a single-dose administration of the 120 mg etoricoxib (30%) URC formulation will be bioequivalent to the plasma AUC(0-∞) and Cmax of 120 mg etoricoxib (20%) in the FMI formulation following single-dose administration (geometric mean ratio \[GMR\] no less than 0.8 and no greater than 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.02||||||90.0|0.97|1.07||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (B/A); A=FMI Formulation (20%), Final Market Image; B=URC Formulation (30%), Unmilled Roller Compaction||1.07|0.97|
91694763|NCT00945035|183284452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study Primary Hypothesis: The plasma etoricoxib AUC(0-∞) and Cmax values following a single-dose administration of the 120 mg etoricoxib (30%) URC formulation will be bioequivalent to the plasma AUC(0-∞) and Cmax of 120 mg etoricoxib (20%) in the FMI formulation following single-dose administration (geometric mean ratio \[GMR\] no less than 0.8 and no greater than 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.95|1.11||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (B/A); A=FMI Formulation (20%), Final Market Image; B=URC Formulation (30%), Unmilled Roller Compaction||1.11|0.95|
91694764|NCT00812981|183284490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio of HI antibodies against the A/Indonesia/05/2005 strain between the two groups (1562902A CP Group over 1562902A NP Group), being below (\<) 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMT ratio for HI antibodies: To demonstrate that the NP 1562902A vaccine was non-inferior to the CP 1562902A vaccine, with respect to HI antibody GMT against the A/Indonesia/05/2005 strain, 42 days following vaccination.||0.99|0.71|
91694765|NCT02589639|183284548|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of empagliflozin 10 mg against placebo was tested for change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment at the level of α=0.05 (2-sided)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.73|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) comparing the change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment||"The statistical model was:~Change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks = overall mean + baseline HbA1c + treatment + baseline renal function + type of insulin therapies + random error"|Adjusted Mean Difference calculated as (Empagliflozin 10 mg - Placebo)|-0.73|-1.11|<0.0001
91694766|NCT02589639|183284548|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of empagliflozin 25 mg against placebo was tested for change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment at the level of α=0.05 (2-sided)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.82|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) comparing the change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment|Adjusted Mean Difference calculated as (Empagliflozin 10 mg - Placebo)|The statistical model was: Change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks = overall mean + baseline HbA1c + treatment + baseline renal function + type of insulin therapies + random error||-0.82|-1.18|<0.0001
91694767|NCT02505217|183284603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.007
91694768|NCT03517540|183284606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.63|0.25|0.688
91694769|NCT03517540|183284606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.99|0.51|0.985
91694770|NCT03517540|183284606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.84|0.3|0.870
91694771|NCT03517540|183284606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.61|0.41|0.710
91694772|NCT03517540|183284607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.61|0.08|0.136
91694773|NCT03517540|183284607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.9|0.24|0.747
91694774|NCT03517540|183284607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.63|0.18|0.784
91694775|NCT03517540|183284607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.69|0.4|0.521
91794992|NCT01227564|183468824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.24|-0.18|0.0923
91794993|NCT01227564|183468824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.35|-1.11|0.8482
91865437|NCT04424316|183621443|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|82.5||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||82.5|50.6|
91865438|NCT04424316|183621459|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|86.7||||||Vaccine efficacy within 90 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||86.7|37.1|
91865439|NCT04424316|183621459|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|80.3||||||Vaccine efficacy within 120 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||80.3|28.6|
91694776|NCT00615550|183284615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.92|0.33|0.020
91694777|NCT00615550|183284616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for composite score data.||||0.048
91694778|NCT00615550|183284616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.39||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for RDS data.||0.92|0.17|0.026
91694779|NCT00615550|183284617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for births \<=27 6/7 weeks data.||0.97|0.25|0.036
91694780|NCT00615550|183284617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for \<= 34 6/7 weeks data.||0.92|0.42|0.016
91694781|NCT00615550|183284617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for \<36 weeks data.||1.16|0.68|0.376
91694782|NCT00615550|183284618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.35|0.14|0.431
91694783|NCT00615550|183284619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for birth weight \< 1500 grams data.||0.85|0.26|0.01
91694784|NCT00615550|183284619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for birth weight \< 2500 grams data.||1.11|0.62|0.213
91694785|NCT01408303|183284620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference relative to olive oil|-2.95|||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|p-value from ANCOVA with factors for treatment, statin use and potency, and baseline value as a covariate, and adjusted using Hommel's procedure.||||||<0.05
91694786|NCT01408303|183284620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference relative to olive oil|-6.0|||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|p-value from ANCOVA with factors for treatment, statin use and potency, and baseline value as a covariate, and adjusted using Hommel's procedure.||||||<0.0001
91694787|NCT02644668|183284621|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.13|0.9086
91694788|NCT02644668|183284621|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.4361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.18|0.4361
91694789|NCT02644668|183284622|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.749||0.5382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.55|-12.43|0.5382
91694790|NCT02644668|183284622|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.099||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|11.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.18|-9.19|0.8464
91694791|NCT02644668|183284623|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|11.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.506||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.70|0.68|0.0378
91694792|NCT02644668|183284623|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|13.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.913||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|24.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.97|1.33|0.0298
91694793|NCT02644668|183284624|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.69|10.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.52|-19.69|0.5461
91694794|NCT02644668|183284624|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.175||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.56|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-31.56|0.0672
91694795|NCT02644668|183284625|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.928||0.6849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|-2.23|0.6849
91865440|NCT04424316|183621459|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|76.8||||||Vaccine efficacy within 150 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||76.8|23.9|
91694796|NCT02644668|183284625|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|-2.96|0.3091
91694797|NCT02644668|183284626|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.75|-0.53|0.2878
91694798|NCT02644668|183284626|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.8512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-1.34|0.8512
91694799|NCT02644668|183284627|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.528||0.7612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|4.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.52|-6.08|0.7612
91694800|NCT02644668|183284627|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.231||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.70|-9.91|0.3502
91724456|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|112.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.32|127.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||127.20|100.32|
91865441|NCT04424316|183621459|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|74.6||||||Vaccine efficacy within 180 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||74.6|23.8|
91694801|NCT02644668|183284628|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.484||0.4684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.30|-13.86|0.4684
91694802|NCT02644668|183284628|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|24.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.55||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|50.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||50.74|-0.95|0.0584
91694803|NCT02644668|183284629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||1.43|0.13|0.1686
91694804|NCT02644668|183284629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||2.30|0.20|0.5259
91694805|NCT02644668|183284630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||4.40|0.34|0.7655
91694806|NCT02644668|183284630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||6.25|0.41|0.4920
91694807|NCT05763875|183284642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.88|-29.86|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-29.86|-40.88|<0.0001
91694808|NCT05763875|183284642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.62|-42.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-42.20|-53.62|<0.0001
91694809|NCT05763875|183284642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.63|-32.26|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-32.26|-42.63|<0.0001
91694810|NCT05763875|183284642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.51|-45.28|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-45.28|-56.51|<0.0001
91694811|NCT05763875|183284643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.91|-40.72|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-40.72|-53.91|<0.0001
91694812|NCT05763875|183284643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.28|-56.87|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-56.87|-70.28|<0.0001
91694813|NCT05763875|183284643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.16|-43.94|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-43.94|-56.16|<0.0001
91694814|NCT05763875|183284643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.09|-60.92|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-60.92|-74.09|<0.0001
91694815|NCT05763875|183284644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-73.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.76|-64.56|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-64.56|-81.76|<0.0001
91694816|NCT05763875|183284644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-74.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.51|-65.37|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-65.37|-84.51|<0.0001
91694817|NCT05763875|183284644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-76.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.12|-68.62|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-68.62|-85.12|<0.0001
91694818|NCT05763875|183284644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.77|-70.17|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-70.17|-88.77|<0.0001
91694819|NCT05763875|183284645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.98|-25.98|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-25.98|-34.98|<0.0001
91694820|NCT05763875|183284645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-36.82|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-36.82|-47.83|<0.0001
91694821|NCT05763875|183284645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.07|-27.89|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-27.89|-36.07|<0.0001
91694822|NCT05763875|183284645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.28|-39.44|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-39.44|-50.28|<0.0001
91694823|NCT05763875|183284646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|-19.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-19.36|-30.32|<0.0001
91694824|NCT05763875|183284646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.27|-26.44|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-26.44|-41.27|<0.0001
91694825|NCT05763875|183284646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.07|-21.09|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-21.09|-32.07|<0.0001
91865442|NCT04424316|183621459|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|48.6||||||Vaccine efficacy within 360 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||48.6|-11.1|
91694826|NCT05763875|183284646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.46|-28.67|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-28.67|-43.46|<0.0001
91694827|NCT05763875|183284647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-24.65|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-24.65|-33.30|<0.0001
91694828|NCT05763875|183284647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-32.22|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-32.22|-41.10|<0.0001
91694829|NCT05763875|183284647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.08|-26.23|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-26.23|-34.08|<0.0001
91724457|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Astellas Ratio X 100|101.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|114.57|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|||114.57|90.37|
91724458|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astella Ratio X 100|113.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.82|127.83|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||127.83|100.82|
91724459|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio X 100|99.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.06|111.64|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||111.64|88.06|
91724460|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X 100|95.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.89|107.61|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||107.61|84.89|
91724461|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr Reddy Ratio X 100|111.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.59|125.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||125.00|98.59|
91724462|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|99.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.38|112.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||112.04|88.38|
91694830|NCT05763875|183284647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.12|-34.43|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-34.43|-43.12|<0.0001
91694831|NCT05763875|183284648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.92|-23.57|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-23.57|-36.92|<0.0001
91694832|NCT05763875|183284648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.18|-29.12|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-29.12|-41.18|<0.0001
91694833|NCT05763875|183284648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-25.59|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-25.59|-39.10|<0.0001
91694834|NCT05763875|183284648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.44|-31.31|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-31.31|-43.44|<0.0001
91694835|NCT05763875|183284649|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.757||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.882|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||0.882|0.650|0.0002
91694836|NCT05763875|183284649|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.748||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.898|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||0.898|0.622|0.0010
91694837|NCT05763875|183284649|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.753|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.871|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||0.871|0.652|<0.0001
91694838|NCT05763875|183284649|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.746||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.893|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||0.893|0.622|0.0008
91694839|NCT04015518|183284658|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||6.3|-27.4|0.2179
91694840|NCT04015518|183284658|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||2.2|-31.5|0.0883
91694841|NCT04015518|183284658|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.1414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||4.3|-29.4|0.1414
91694842|NCT04015518|183284658|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.4514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||8.6|-19.1|0.4514
91724463|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|113.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.18|128.28|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||128.28|101.18|
91694843|NCT04015518|183284658|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.212||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2120
91865443|NCT04424316|183621460|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|25.7||||||Vaccine efficacy within 90 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||25.7|-10.1|
91865444|NCT04424316|183621460|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|20.7||||||Vaccine efficacy within 120 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||20.7|-9.8|
91694844|NCT04015518|183284658|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1057||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1057
91694845|NCT04015518|183284658|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.5241||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.5241
91694846|NCT04015518|183284658|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.2773||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2773
91694847|NCT04015518|183284658|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.3867||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.3867
91724464|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|118.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.96|133.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||133.08|104.96|
91694848|NCT04015518|183284659|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|7.1|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||7.1|-19.3|
91694849|NCT04015518|183284659|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|8.0|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||8.0|-18.8|
91694850|NCT04015518|183284659|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|9.7|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||9.7|-16.6|
91904284|NCT03734016|183703746|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Role Functioning Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||5.00|-1.40|0.2701
91694851|NCT04015518|183284659|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|1.4|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||1.4|-20.3|
91694852|NCT04015518|183284660|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||9.6|-17.7|0.5595
91694853|NCT04015518|183284660|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.8968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||14.5|-12.7|0.8968
91694854|NCT04015518|183284660|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.5456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||9.5|-17.9|0.5456
91694855|NCT04015518|183284660|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||3.5|-19.0|0.1762
91694856|NCT04015518|183284660|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1726||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1726
91694857|NCT04015518|183284660|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.2353||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2353
91694858|NCT04015518|183284660|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1346||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1346
91724465|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Mylan|89.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.61|100.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||100.93|79.61|
91724466|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Panacea Ratio X 100|102.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.15|115.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||115.55|91.15|
91724467|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|106.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|119.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||119.88|94.55|
91865445|NCT04424316|183621460|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|20.1||||||Vaccine efficacy within 150 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||20.1|-6.5|
91865446|NCT04424316|183621460|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|16.0||||||Vaccine efficacy within 180 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||16.0|-9.5|
91865447|NCT04424316|183621460|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|14.6||||||Vaccine efficacy within 360 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||14.6|-6.6|
91694859|NCT04015518|183284660|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.195||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1950
91694860|NCT04015518|183284660|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1681||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1681
91694861|NCT04015518|183284661|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.5|-1.8|0.2812
91694862|NCT04015518|183284661|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.3357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.6|-1.7|0.3357
91694863|NCT04015518|183284661|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.4|-2.0|0.1809
91694864|NCT04015518|183284661|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.9|-1.1|0.8322
91694865|NCT04015518|183284661|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.4035||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.4035
91724468|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|114.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.68|128.92|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||128.92|110.68|
91904285|NCT03734016|183703747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.91||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.87|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Fatigue Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.87|-4.70|0.1778
91694866|NCT04015518|183284661|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.2563||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2563
91694867|NCT04015518|183284661|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.681||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.6810
91694868|NCT04015518|183284661|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.4665||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.4665
91694869|NCT04015518|183284661|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.5565||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.5565
91694870|NCT04015518|183284662|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.281|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.281|-0.170|
91694871|NCT04015518|183284662|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.432|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.432|-0.048|
91694872|NCT04015518|183284662|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.496|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.496|0.020|
91694873|NCT04015518|183284662|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.314|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.314|-0.067|
91724469|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|118.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.48|133.74|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||133.74|105.48|
91904286|NCT03734016|183703747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.62|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Fatigue Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||2.62|-3.32|0.8174
91694874|NCT04015518|183284662|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0613||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0613
91724470|NCT02014103|183343075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|103.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.13|116.81|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||116.81|92.13|
91724471|NCT05638737|183343077|SUPERIORITY|One-sided test where a negative change in relative to baseline is favourable|%-change in relative to base vs placebo|7.5||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|20.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Participant as random effect; treatment, visit and trt:vis interaction as fixed effects; baseline ALT as covariate. Model uses log-scaled variables.||||20.5|-4.1|0.893
91724472|NCT05638737|183343078|SUPERIORITY|One-sided test where a negative change in relative to baseline is favourable|%-change in relative to base vs placebo|-0.9||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Participant as random effect; treatment, visit and trt:vis interaction as fixed effects; baseline Pro-C3 as covariate. Model uses log-scaled variables||||6.1|-7.5|0.396
91724473|NCT03712852|183343120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17|||||||Multiple univariate analyses for each variable were performed. GT was analyzed by non-parametric Cliff's delta tests to assess group dominance and by a Heteroscedastic ANOVA with Games-Howell posthoc tests. A sensitivities analysis with different types of robust analyses (M-estimators and High Breakdown LTS Estimators, both with Huber's, Hampel's and Biweight's loss functions) was conducted to get an effect-size estimate by means of Bootstrap Bias Corrected and accelerated (BCa) 95% Confidence Intervals.|1.17|0.68|
91724474|NCT03712852|183343121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.55|||||||This outcome was analyzed by posthoc Nemenyi's tests|3.55|3.00|
91724475|NCT03712852|183343122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.46|||||||This outcome was analyzed by posthoc Nemenyi's tests|2.46|-0.46|
91724476|NCT03712852|183343123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.69|||||||This outcome was analyzed by posthoc Nemenyi's tests|0.69|-0.40|
91724477|NCT03712852|183343124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|3.81|||||||CAL was analyzed with both Nemenyi's tests and a Moderated Regression (Treatment by Baseline values)|3.81|2.96|
91724478|NCT04307394|183343132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.957
91724479|NCT00447278|183343152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|-2.25||P-value for Change from Baseline at 6 Months. P-value is not adjusted and the threshold is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure analysis with terms for corresponding baseline T-score, treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-2.25|-6.47|<0.001
91724480|NCT00447278|183343152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|-2.63||P-value for Change from Baseline: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-2.63|-6.56|<0.001
91724481|NCT00447278|183343153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-1.13||P-value for Change from Baseline: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.13|-5.08|0.002
91724482|NCT00447278|183343154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|-1.15||P-value for Comfort Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.15|-4.92|0.002
91724483|NCT00447278|183343154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.2||P-value for Comfort Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.20|-4.01|0.031
91724484|NCT00447278|183343154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.77||P-value for Resilience Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.77|-1.68|0.629
91724485|NCT00447278|183343154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.38||P-value for Resilience Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.38|-3.30|0.421
91724486|NCT00447278|183343154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.05||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|1.34||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.34|-3.44|0.388
91724487|NCT00447278|183343154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.29||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|0.09||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.09|-4.66|0.059
91724488|NCT00447278|183343154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-1.04||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.04|-6.09|0.006
91724489|NCT00447278|183343154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.91||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|-0.33||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.33|-5.49|0.027
91724490|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.073||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.131||P-value for Total Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.131|0.014|0.015
91724491|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.085||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.143||P-value for Total Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.143|0.027|0.004
91724492|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.094||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.192||P-value for Home Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.192|-0.005|0.063
91724493|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.075||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.172||P-value for Home Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.172|-0.022|0.131
91724494|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.052||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.124||P-value for Daily Living Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.124|-0.020|0.156
91724495|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.072||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.143||P-value for Daily Living Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.143|0.001|0.046
91724496|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.084||P-value for Risk Taking Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.084|-0.003|0.068
91724497|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.028||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.073||P-value for Risk Taking Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.073|-0.016|0.212
91724498|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.121||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.208||P-value for School Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.208|0.034|0.006
91724499|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.236||P-value for School Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.236|0.064|<0.001
91724500|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.125||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.24||P-value for Self-Concept Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.240|0.009|0.034
91724501|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.119||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.233||P-value for Self-Concept Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.233|0.005|0.040
91724502|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.085||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.166||p-value for Social Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.166|0.003|0.042
91724503|NCT00447278|183343155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.048||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.134||P-value for Social Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.134|-0.038|0.271
91724504|NCT00447278|183343156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.307||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|4.44||P-value for Total Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||4.440|0.173|0.034
91724505|NCT00447278|183343156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.072||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|5.202||P-value for Total Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||5.202|0.942|0.005
91724506|NCT00447278|183343156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.721||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|2.899||P-value for Inattention Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.899|0.544|0.004
91724507|NCT00447278|183343156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.269|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|3.453||P-value for Inattention Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||3.453|1.086|<0.001
91724508|NCT00447278|183343156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.58||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.515|1.676||P-value for Hyperactivity Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.676|-0.515|0.298
91865448|NCT04424316|183621461|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|43.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|57.7||||||Vaccine efficacy at 210 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||57.7|25.6|
91724509|NCT00447278|183343156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.865||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|1.956||P-value for Hyperactivity Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.956|-0.225|0.119
91724510|NCT00447278|183343157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.104||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.329||P-value for Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.329|-0.122|0.366
91724511|NCT00447278|183343157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.169||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.407||P-value for Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.407|-0.070|0.165
91724512|NCT00447278|183343158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.35||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.04||P-value for Achievement Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.04|-4.74|0.054
91724513|NCT00447278|183343158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|-1.26||P-value for Achievement Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.26|-6.16|0.003
91724514|NCT00447278|183343158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.74||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.14||P-value for Comfort Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.14|-3.33|0.033
91724515|NCT00447278|183343158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.88||P-value for Comfort Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.88|-4.12|0.003
91724516|NCT00447278|183343158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||P-value for Resilience Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.50|-1.50|0.623
91724517|NCT00447278|183343158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|2.29||P-value for Resilience Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.29|-1.96|0.880
91865449|NCT04424316|183621461|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|54.1||||||Vaccine efficacy at 240 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||54.1|21.3|
91694875|NCT04015518|183284662|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0628||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0628
91694876|NCT04015518|183284662|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.1449||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1449
91694877|NCT04015518|183284662|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.046||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0460
91724518|NCT00447278|183343158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.5||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.50|-3.31|0.149
91724519|NCT00447278|183343158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.78||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.98||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.98|-4.58|0.003
91724520|NCT00447278|183343158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.62||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-0.52||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.52|-4.71|0.015
91724521|NCT00447278|183343158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-0.98||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.98|-5.26|0.004
91724522|NCT00447278|183343159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.39||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|6.6||P-value for Achievement Change at 4 Month LOCF. Achievement was derived from the academic achievement subdomain only.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||6.60|-1.83|0.263
91724523|NCT00447278|183343159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.36||P-value for Achievement Change at 6 Month LOCF. Achievement was derived from the academic achievement subdomain only.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||4.36|-3.60|0.848
91724524|NCT00447278|183343159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|2.64||P-value for Statisfaction Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.64|-3.01|0.895
91724525|NCT00447278|183343159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|-0.19||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.19|-6.22|0.038
91724526|NCT00447278|183343159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|2.98||P-value for Comfort Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.98|-3.59|0.854
91724527|NCT00447278|183343159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.26||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|0.92||P-value for Comfort Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.92|-5.45|0.161
91724528|NCT00447278|183343159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|1.58||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.58|-2.98|0.540
91865450|NCT04424316|183621461|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|49.9||||||Vaccine efficacy at 270 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||49.9|16.1|
91724529|NCT00447278|183343159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.98||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.44||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.44|-4.40|0.106
91724530|NCT00447278|183343159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|3.08||P-value for Resilience Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||3.08|-2.49|0.833
91724531|NCT00447278|183343159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.34||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.54||P-value for Resilience Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.54|-5.21|0.110
91724532|NCT03677401|183343161|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.||||||0.158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 10||||0.158
91724533|NCT03677401|183343162|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.||||||0.75|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4||||0.750
91724534|NCT03677401|183343163|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation||||||0.674|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 2||||0.674
91724535|NCT03677401|183343164|SUPERIORITY|P-values, least squares means (LS Mean) and standard deviations (LS SD) from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.060
91724536|NCT03677401|183343164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||P-values, LS Mean and LS SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.401
91724537|NCT03677401|183343164|SUPERIORITY|P-values, LS Mean and LS SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.185|||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||||0.185
91724538|NCT03677401|183343164|SUPERIORITY|P-values, LS Mean and LS SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.164|||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.164
91724539|NCT03677401|183343165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 2||||0.283
91724540|NCT03677401|183343165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4||||0.701
91724541|NCT03677401|183343165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 10||||0.033
91724542|NCT03677401|183343166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.797
91724543|NCT03677401|183343167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.845
91724544|NCT03677401|183343168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.385
91724545|NCT03677401|183343168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.786
91724546|NCT03677401|183343168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.502
91724547|NCT03677401|183343169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.197
91724548|NCT03677401|183343169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.694
91724549|NCT03677401|183343169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.916
91724550|NCT02810327|183343173|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The MUSC Bioinformatics Core analyzed group genomic data for variant association with COPD severity score, including single variant association or type of variant association with symptoms. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using statistical package SAS 9.4 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).||||0.054
91724551|NCT06262607|183343174|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|21.53|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||21.53|-9.54|0.4422
91724552|NCT01692756|183343183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.33
91724553|NCT01692756|183343184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
91724554|NCT01692756|183343185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.93
91724555|NCT01692756|183343186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
91724556|NCT01692756|183343187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
91724557|NCT01692756|183343188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.003
91724558|NCT01692756|183343189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.007
91724559|NCT01692756|183343190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.63
91724560|NCT01692756|183343191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
91724561|NCT01692756|183343192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.62
91724562|NCT01692756|183343193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.02
91724563|NCT01692756|183343194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.20
91724564|NCT01692756|183343195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.87
91724565|NCT04925934|183343204|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.8|||=|0.7474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||17.0|-11.4|=0.7474
91724566|NCT04925934|183343204|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.1|||=|0.9942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|14.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||14.1|-14.2|=0.9942
91724567|NCT04925934|183343205|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|37.2|||=|0.1626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|74.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, randomization stratification factors and Baseline CLASI-A score in the model.||74.7|-0.3|=0.1626
91724568|NCT04925934|183343205|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|24.1|||=|0.2873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|55.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, randomization stratification factors and Baseline CLASI-A score in the model.||55.8|-7.5|=0.2873
91724569|NCT04925934|183343206|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|8.6|||=|0.322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|22.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||22.7|-5.6|=0.3220
91724570|NCT04925934|183343206|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.9|||=|0.7364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||17.0|-11.2|=0.7364
91724571|NCT04925934|183343207|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|11.7|||=|0.2805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|29.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K only) and Baseline OGC dose included in the model.||29.4|-6.1|=0.2805
91724572|NCT04925934|183343207|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|9.4|||=|0.3926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|27.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K only) and Baseline OGC dose included in the model.||27.3|-8.6|=0.3926
91724573|NCT04925934|183343208|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|16.5|||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.0|29.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||29.0|4.0|=0.0370
91724574|NCT04925934|183343208|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.9|||=|0.4939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.7|16.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||16.4|-6.7|=0.4939
91865451|NCT04424316|183621461|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|47.1||||||Vaccine efficacy at 360 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||47.1|15.2|
91865452|NCT01116895|183621484|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|28.2|||ANOVA|||||28.2|-32.6|0.89
91865453|NCT01116895|183621484|OTHER||Least square mean difference|4.5||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|35.3|||ANOVA|||||35.3|-26.2|0.77
91724575|NCT04425018|183343220|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.6||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|29.0|||Fisher Exact||"Estimate and corresponding Wald 95% confidence interval of the difference in pCR response rates (%) between the Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Margetuximab and Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab arms."|||29.0|-5.8|0.188
91724576|NCT04425018|183343221|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|40.1|||Fisher Exact||"Estimate and corresponding Wald 95% confidence interval of the difference in pCR response rates (%) between the Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Margetuximab and Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab arms among HR+ subjects"|||40.1|-2.2|0.0715
91724577|NCT04425018|183343222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|26.1|||Fisher Exact||"Estimate and corresponding Wald 95% confidence interval of the difference in pCR response rates (%) between the Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Margetuximab and Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab arms among HR- subjects."|||26.1|-36.5|0.7754
91724578|NCT01327703|183343255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of Panzytrat® versus Kreon® exceeded -10%.|Treatment difference|-2.08||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|4.02||As there was only a single pre-specified primary analysis, there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model analysis method was used for comparison using log-transformed percent CFA as the response variable, fixed effect factors for treatment, period, treatment sequence and pooled site and participant within treatment sequence as a random effect.||4.02|-7.23|0.4590
91724579|NCT00849472|183343285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|17.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.64|27.55|||||The estimated value (EV) represents the percentage of participants with pCR. Participants with missing data were excluded from the denominator (n=89; 4 participants with missing data) for the calculation of the EV.|||27.55|10.64|
91724580|NCT05942040|183343300|OTHER|Pre-post test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.16|0.43|0.17
91724581|NCT06461455|183343308|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.04||Since a non-inferiority hypothesis is being tested, confidence limit is more appropriate than p-value in assessing the results against the predefined non-inferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, and lens sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference=LID230451-ULTRA MFfA. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||0.04||
91724582|NCT03010501|183343361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||According to predefined comparisons, outcomes of the 80% and 120% Food Energy Density interventions were compared to the outcome of the baseline (100%) intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91865454|NCT01116895|183621484|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.7||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|22.8|||ANOVA|||||22.8|-36.2|0.65
91865455|NCT03995979|183621489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The P-value was calculated using a paired t test|Paired t-test|||A compositional analysis with species-level alpha diversity will be performed between the three conditions (Pre-Dietary Restriction, Dietary Restriction, and Post-Dietary Restriction,) with ANOVA testing. Furthermore, a differential abundance analysis will be performed to further identify and confirm prevalent organisms associated with the experimental dietary restriction.||||0.05
91724583|NCT03010501|183343362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||According to predefined comparisons, intake by weight in the 80% intervention was compared to the 100% intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91724584|NCT03010501|183343362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||According to predefined comparisons, intake by weight in the 120% intervention was compared to the 100% intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
91724585|NCT03010501|183343363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||According to predefined comparisons, outcomes of the 80% and 120% Food Energy Density interventions were compared to the outcome of the baseline (100%) intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91694878|NCT04015518|183284662|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0677||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0677
91724586|NCT02347787|183343367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Determination of targeted sample size was based on detecting a between-arm difference in mean change in SF-12 Physical Component Summary of 3 points, which is the minimal clinically significant difference for this instrument. To achieve at least 80% power with a type I error rate of 5%, we required 444 total participants. To account for 25% attrition, we aimed to accrue 592 participants.||||0.30
91724587|NCT02347787|183343368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||0.9|-1.3|0.21
91724588|NCT02347787|183343369|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.4|-0.7|0.21
91794994|NCT01227564|183468824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.64||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.64|-0.49|0.2840
91794995|NCT01227564|183468825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.92||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.92|-4.90|0.1767
91794996|NCT01227564|183468825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-1.29||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||-1.29|-7.23|0.0057
91724589|NCT02347787|183343370|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.2|||Regression, Linear|||||1.2|-2.2|0.21
91724590|NCT02347787|183343371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.8|||Regression, Linear|||||1.8|-14.3|0.21
91724591|NCT02347787|183343372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.41
91724592|NCT02347787|183343373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91724593|NCT02347787|183343374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.6|0.98
91724594|NCT02347787|183343376|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91724595|NCT02347787|183343377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
91724596|NCT02347787|183343378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.04
91724597|NCT02347787|183343380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
91724598|NCT02347787|183343381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
91724599|NCT01917773|183343382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Reported MIs and SDs in healthy volunteers from an adult study were used to calculate sample size (1). A sample size of 13 patients was deemed adequate to detect a 25% change in MI with 80% power.~Reference: Rao SS, Kavelock R, Beaty J, Ackerson K, et al. Effects of fat and carbohydrate meals on colonic motor response. Gut. Feb 2000;46(2):205-211."||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze change in MI at 15 minutes. Values were considered to be significant if P \<0.05.||||0.087
91724600|NCT01917773|183343382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze change in MI at 30 minutes. Values were considered to be significant if P \<0.05.||||0.552
91724601|NCT01917773|183343382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze change in MI at 45 minutes. Values were considered to be significant if P \<0.05.||||0.807
91724602|NCT00544882|183343394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 2 time point. p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.6346
91865456|NCT05652010|183621490|OTHER|Comparative study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.576||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2634|1.2659||P=0.164 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model. As it was an exploratory study no adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.|P=0.164 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|||1.2659|0.2634|0.164
91724603|NCT00544882|183343394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2757|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 4 time point.||||0.2757
91724604|NCT00544882|183343394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1321|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 6 time point.||||0.1321
91724605|NCT00544882|183343394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5543|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Days 19-20 time point.||||0.5543
91724606|NCT00544882|183343394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 23 time point.||||0.3940
91724607|NCT00544882|183343394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7891|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 24 time point.||||0.7891
91724608|NCT00544882|183343394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4829|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 25 time point.||||0.4829
91724609|NCT00544882|183343394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4526|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 27 time point.||||0.4526
91865457|NCT05652010|183621491|OTHER||Binominal|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|Exact test in the binomial distribution tested if the proportion of very satisfied/satisfied was sign. different from 50% when using a 5% test level|The binomial proportion is based on subjects that have answered the questions. Exact test in the binomial distribution.|||0.97|0.75|<0.0001
91724610|NCT00544882|183343394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2485|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 28 time point.||||0.2485
91865458|NCT05652010|183621492|OTHER|The binomial proportion is based on subjects that have answered the questions. Exact test in the binomial distribution.|Binominal|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Exact test in the binominal distribution|Exact test in the binomial distribution tested if the proportion of YES was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level||||0.92|0.66|<0.0001
91865459|NCT05652010|183621493|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.259||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.855||P=0.027 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model|P=0.027 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|||0.855|0.078|0.027
91865460|NCT04763772|183621501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|4.8|||Regression, Linear|||||4.8|-14|0.2
91865461|NCT04564209|183621569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||ANOVA|||||||.455
91724611|NCT00544882|183343394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 2 time point.||||0.6252
91724612|NCT00544882|183343394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 4 time point.||||0.4003
91724613|NCT00544882|183343394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8841|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 6 time point.||||0.8841
91724614|NCT00544882|183343396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8892|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 2 time point. p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.8892
91724615|NCT00544882|183343396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 4 time point.||||0.7678
91724616|NCT00544882|183343396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5782|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 6 time point.||||0.5782
91724617|NCT00544882|183343396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8083|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Days 19-20 time point.||||0.8083
91724618|NCT00544882|183343396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 23 time point.||||1.0000
91724619|NCT00544882|183343396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 24 time point.||||0.4122
91724620|NCT00544882|183343396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 25 time point.||||0.6675
91724621|NCT00544882|183343396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 27 time point.||||0.8445
91724622|NCT00544882|183343396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 28 time point.||||0.3772
91724623|NCT00544882|183343396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 2 time point.||||0.1918
91724624|NCT00544882|183343396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 4 time point.||||0.6675
91724625|NCT00544882|183343396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9226|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 6 time point.||||0.9226
91724626|NCT00544882|183343397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0979|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 2 time point. p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.0979
91724627|NCT00544882|183343397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 4 time point.||||0.0629
91865462|NCT04564209|183621570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||ANOVA|||||||.415
91865463|NCT04564209|183621571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||ANOVA|||||||.443
91865464|NCT04564209|183621572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||ANOVA|||||||.457
91865465|NCT04564209|183621573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||ANOVA|||||||.099
91865466|NCT04564209|183621574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||ANOVA|||||||.338
91865467|NCT04564209|183621575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||ANOVA|||||||.723
91865468|NCT04564209|183621577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.578
91724628|NCT00544882|183343397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8464|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 6 time point.||||0.8464
91724629|NCT00544882|183343397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6316|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Days 19-20 time point.||||0.6316
91724630|NCT00544882|183343397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 23 time point.||||0.3000
91724631|NCT00544882|183343397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0955|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 24 time point.||||0.0955
91724632|NCT00544882|183343397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1523|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 25 time point.||||0.1523
91724633|NCT00544882|183343397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2809|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 27 time point.||||0.2809
91724634|NCT00544882|183343397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8829|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 28 time point.||||0.8829
91724635|NCT00544882|183343397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 2 time point.||||0.9262
91865469|NCT04564209|183621578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.998
91865470|NCT04564209|183621579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.864
91724636|NCT00544882|183343397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7811|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 -Day 4 time point.||||0.7811
91724637|NCT00544882|183343397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3703|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 6 time point.||||0.3703
91865471|NCT03735979|183621582|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||"The P-value is the posterior probability that study drug has a higher benefit than control. The a priori threshold for a successful trial is 0.985.~The posterior probability that argatroban was better than placebo was 0.002."|Bayesian|Primary analysis compared treatment group with placebo, with adjustment for baseline NIHSS score in a Bayesian normal dynamic linear model.|The posterior mean of study treatment minus placebo.|||||0.002
91724638|NCT00308685|183343403|OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|5.163||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.478|7.847||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline FEV1 as covariate and fixed effects of pooled center and treatment group.||7.847|2.478|0.0002
91724639|NCT01121575|183343435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|69.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.22|88.44|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / crizotinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for crizotinib AUClast for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUClast was based on data from 11 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-06260182.||88.44|54.22|
91724640|NCT01121575|183343436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|78.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.9|105.54|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / crizotinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for crizotinib AUC10 for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUC10 was based on data from 6 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-06260182.||105.54|58.90|
91724641|NCT01121575|183343438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ration of adjust geometric mean|70.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.71|91.12|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / crizotinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for crizotinib Cmax for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of Cmax was based on data from 11 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-06260182.||91.12|54.71|
91724642|NCT01121575|183343441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|117.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.97|213.61|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / dacomitinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for dacomitinib AUClast for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUClast was based on data from 3 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-05199265.||213.61|64.97|
91759988|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.34|-10.06||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-10.06|-29.34|
91759989|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|-3.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.04|-22.25|
91759990|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|2.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.04|-17.24|
91759991|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.99|-9.68||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-9.68|-28.99|
91759992|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|19.16||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||19.16|3.18|
91759993|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|15.15||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.15|-0.78|
91724643|NCT01121575|183343442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|121.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.2|211.66|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / dacomitinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for dacomitinib AUC24 for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUC24 was based on data from 3 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-05199265.||211.66|70.20|
91724644|NCT01121575|183343444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|130.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.46|206.73|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / dacomitinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for dacomitinib Cmax for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of Cmax was based on data from 3 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-05199265.||206.73|82.46|
91724645|NCT02583269|183343452|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||Overall FACT G score p value baseline to week 8||||0.76
91865472|NCT03735979|183621582|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||"The P-value is the posterior probability that study drug has a higher benefit than control. The a priori threshold for a successful trial is 0.985.~The posterior probability that eptifibitide was better than placebo was 0.04."|Bayesian|Primary analysis compared treatment group with placebo, with adjustment for baseline NIHSS score in a Bayesian normal dynamic linear model.|The posterior mean of study treatment minus placebo.|||||0.04
91865473|NCT05423730|183621599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|57.2|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||57.20|-49.75|
91904287|NCT03734016|183703747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.6294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.89|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.89|-1.48|0.6294
91694879|NCT04015518|183284663|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.256|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.256|-0.069|
91694880|NCT04015518|183284663|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.405|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.405|0.018|
91694881|NCT04015518|183284663|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.303|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.303|-0.042|
91694882|NCT04015518|183284663|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.113|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.25|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.250|-0.018|
91694883|NCT04015518|183284663|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0536||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0536
91724646|NCT02583269|183343452|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Fact G functional well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.25
91724647|NCT02583269|183343452|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||FACT G emotional well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.18
91724648|NCT02583269|183343452|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||Fact G physical well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.87
91724649|NCT02583269|183343452|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Fact G social well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.22
91865474|NCT05423730|183621600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.96|63.9|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||63.90|-47.96|
91724650|NCT02583269|183343460|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
91724651|NCT02583269|183343461|OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline v. 4 weeks log IL-8||||0.119
91724652|NCT02583269|183343461|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline v. 8 weeks log IL-8||||0.414
91724653|NCT02583269|183343462|OTHER|||||||0.851|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline v. 4 weeks p value log VEGF||||0.851
91904288|NCT03734016|183703747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.96|-1.99|0.4933
91724654|NCT02583269|183343462|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. 8 weeks p value log VEGF||||0.688
91724655|NCT03244189|183343465|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.2||||||||1.20|0.77|
91724656|NCT03244189|183343466|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.37||||||||1.37|0.72|
91724657|NCT03244189|183343467|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.29||||||||2.29|0.91|
91724658|NCT04167670|183343519|NON_INFERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Percentage Difference|-0.3||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|6.76|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan dual therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Noninferiority of vonoprazan dual therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||6.76|-7.39|0.0037
91724659|NCT04167670|183343519|NON_INFERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Percentage Difference|5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|12.62|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan triple therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Noninferiority of vonoprazan triple therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||12.62|-0.75|<0.0001
91724660|NCT04167670|183343520|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.54|52.56|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan dual therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Superiority of vonoprazan dual therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||52.56|20.54|<0.0001
91904289|NCT03734016|183703747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.43||||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|1.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Pain Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||1.66|-4.51|0.3643
91724661|NCT04167670|183343520|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.74|48.12|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan triple therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Superiority of vonoprazan triple therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||48.12|17.74|<0.0001
91724662|NCT04167670|183343521|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|8.7||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|15.44|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan dual therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Superiority of vonoprazan dual therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||15.44|1.86|0.0063
91724663|NCT04167670|183343521|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|12.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|18.81|||Farrington and Manning test|||Superiority of vonoprazan triple therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.|The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan triple therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|18.81|5.72|0.0001
91724664|NCT05399485|183343528|SUPERIORITY||[Difference in Least square (LS) Mean]|-1.1||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum (stable prophylactic migraine medication use throughout randomization), month, and month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.38|-1.73|0.0021
91724665|NCT05399485|183343529|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.3||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.9||P-value \>0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Mantel Haenszel|||The percentages of participants with reductions were compared between treatment groups using Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation with stratification by randomization stratum (stable prophylactic migraine medication use throughout randomization; yes, no).||15.9|-1.4|0.0989
91759994|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|7.65||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.65|-8.28|
91759995|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|9.61||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.61|-6.14|
91759996|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.51|22.71||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||22.71|5.51|
91759997|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|13.92||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.92|-3.38|
91724666|NCT02642679|183343574|OTHER|We set alpha=0.05/3=0.17 to account for multiple outcomes for sample size and power calculations. With 10 patients in each group, we had 95% power to detect an improvement of 2 points in VAS score assuming a common standard deviation of 1 point with a two sided two sample t-test each at alpha=0.17 level.|||||||||||||||||A student t-test was used for correlated samples to determine if there were significant differences in pain. Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) was used for statistical analysis. Data that were considered normally distributed are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and percentage. P-values \<0.05 were considered significant.|||
91724667|NCT02642679|183343575|OTHER|We set alpha=0.05/3=0.17 to account for multiple outcomes for sample size and power calculations. With 10 patients in each group, we will have 80% power to detect an improvement in re-epithelialization from 14.6 days to 10 days assuming a common standard deviation of 2.9 days.|||||||||||||||||A student t-test was used for correlated samples to determine if there were significant differences in healing rate. Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) was used for statistical analysis. Data that were considered normally distributed are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and percentage. P-values \<0.05 were considered significant.|||
91724668|NCT02642679|183343576|OTHER|We set alpha=0.05/3=0.17 to account for multiple outcomes for sample size and power calculations. With 10 patients in each group, we will have 95% power to detect an improvement of 2 points in VSS score assuming a common standard deviation of 1 point.|||||||||||||||||A student t-test was used for correlated samples to determine if there were significant differences in healing quality. Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) was used for statistical analysis. Data that were considered normally distributed are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and percentage. P-values \<0.05 were considered significant.|||
91694884|NCT04015518|183284663|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0476||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0476
91724669|NCT06059066|183343612|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Willingness to repeat procedure immediately after received intradetrusor BTX-A injections||||0.57
91724670|NCT06059066|183343612|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Willingness to repeat procedure asses 6-weeks after intradetrusor BTX-A injections||||0.83
91724671|NCT06059066|183343613|OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in total ICIQ-SF score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.59
91694885|NCT04015518|183284663|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.1076||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1076
91694886|NCT04015518|183284663|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0606||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0606
91694887|NCT04015518|183284663|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0824||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0824
91694888|NCT04015518|183284664|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.211|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.422|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.422|0.040|
91794997|NCT01227564|183468825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-0.57||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||-0.57|-5.69|0.0176
91794998|NCT01227564|183468825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|2.61||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||2.61|-3.98|0.6790
91794999|NCT01227564|183468825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|3.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||3.20|-3.62|0.9028
91865475|NCT05423730|183621601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.67|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||0.67|-1.95|
91694889|NCT04015518|183284664|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.339|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.339|-0.018|
91694890|NCT04015518|183284664|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.328|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.328|-0.022|
91694891|NCT04015518|183284664|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.282|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.282|0.009|
91694892|NCT04015518|183284664|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0333||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0333
91694893|NCT04015518|183284664|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0221||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regime"||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0221
91705367|NCT01306214|183305230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non- inferiority margin was 0.3%, one-sided.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|-0.13||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|H0: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo \>0.3 Ha: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo ≤0.3||-0.13|-0.62|<0.0001
91694894|NCT04015518|183284664|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0707||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0707
91724672|NCT06059066|183343613|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in ICIQ QoL score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.29
91724673|NCT06059066|183343614|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in total NBSS-SF score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.57
91724674|NCT06059066|183343614|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF QoL score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.42
91724675|NCT06059066|183343614|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF incontinence domain score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.24
91795000|NCT01227564|183468825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.47||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||2.47|-3.36|0.7600
91795001|NCT01227564|183468825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|1.86||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.86|-4.51|0.4089
91865476|NCT05423730|183621602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|43.09|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||43.09|-9.45|
91724676|NCT06059066|183343614|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF storage and voiding domain score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.93
91724677|NCT06059066|183343614|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF consequences domain score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.64
91724678|NCT06059066|183343615|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91724679|NCT06059066|183343616|OTHER||||||<|2e-05||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in post-procedural pain as compared to baseline||||<0.00002
91724680|NCT03928704|183343720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.16|2.00|<0.001
91865477|NCT05423730|183621603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|28.4|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||28.40|-3.31|
91865478|NCT05423730|183621604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|27.69|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||27.69|-0.77|
91724681|NCT03928704|183343721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|5.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.54|1.71|<0.001
91724682|NCT03928704|183343722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.51|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.04|-0.98|||ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-2.04|<0.001
91724683|NCT03928704|183343722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.91||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.61|||ANCOVA|||||0.61|-2.42|0.220
91724684|NCT03928704|183343723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|6.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.26|2.17|<0.001
91724685|NCT03928704|183343724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|9.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.93|2.06|<0.001
91724686|NCT03928704|183343725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|12.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.23|2.41|<0.001
91724687|NCT03928704|183343726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|5.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.84|1.87|<0.001
91724688|NCT03928704|183343727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.48|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.99|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||||-0.97|-1.99|<0.001
91724689|NCT03928704|183343727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.25||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-2.26|0.019
91724690|NCT03928704|183343728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.42|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-2.42|<0.001
91724691|NCT03928704|183343728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.09||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.65|||ANCOVA|||||0.65|-2.83|0.199
91865479|NCT05423730|183621605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.92|21.24|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||21.24|-21.92|
91724692|NCT03928704|183343729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.63|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.66|-1.61|||ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-3.66|<0.001
91795002|NCT01227564|183468825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|1.15||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.15|-5.49|0.1964
91795003|NCT01227564|183468825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|1.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.09|-4.58|0.2234
91795004|NCT01227564|183468825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.12||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.12|-3.52|0.6186
91795005|NCT01227564|183468825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.5853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.06||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.06|-3.60|0.5853
91795006|NCT01227564|183468825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.75||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.75|-3.23|0.5541
91795007|NCT01227564|183468826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.93||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.93|-2.09|0.9370
91795008|NCT01227564|183468826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.2597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|0.88||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.88|-3.19|0.2597
91795009|NCT01227564|183468826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.14||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.14|-2.38|0.4852
91865480|NCT04881461|183621616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.17||Adjusted P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The endpoint analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The trial was designed to have 86% power for the primary endpoint using the primary (trial product) estimand."||3.17|0.60|0.0036
91724693|NCT03928704|183343729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.84||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.89|||ANCOVA|||||0.89|-4.56|0.170
91724694|NCT03928704|183343730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.83|||ANCOVA|||||5.83|2.08|<0.001
91724695|NCT03928704|183343730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|7.27||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.95|||ANCOVA|||||13.95|0.60|0.035
91795010|NCT01227564|183468826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.4542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.22|-2.69|0.4542
91795011|NCT01227564|183468826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|0.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.97|-3.04|0.3061
91795012|NCT01227564|183468826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.3082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.84||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.84|-2.61|0.3082
91795013|NCT01227564|183468826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.87|-3.09|0.2672
91795014|NCT01227564|183468826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||-0.07|-4.15|0.0427
91795015|NCT01227564|183468826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|0.15||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.15|-3.37|0.0716
91795016|NCT01227564|183468826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.7184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.0||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.00|-2.09|0.7184
91795017|NCT01227564|183468826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.7004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|3.03||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.03|-2.06|0.7004
91795018|NCT01227564|183468826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.6723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.71||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.71|-1.77|0.6723
91724696|NCT03928704|183343731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-0.52|<0.001
91724697|NCT03928704|183343731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.5||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-1.07|0.086
91724698|NCT03928704|183343732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.06|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-1.88|=0.013
91865481|NCT04881461|183621617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.39||Adjusted P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction.|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The endpoint analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The trial was designed to have 95% power for this key secondary endpoint using the primary (trial product) estimand."||0.39|-0.04|0.1111
91694895|NCT04015518|183284664|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0578||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0578
91724699|NCT03928704|183343733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.62|1.84|<0.001
91724700|NCT04764539|183343787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.294|<|0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.276|0.796||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group - iPad Pro group)|The Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) will not increase from baseline for the either the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||0.796|-1.276|<0.555
91865482|NCT04881461|183621618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.67||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||2.67|-0.01|0.0417
91865483|NCT04881461|183621619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.3||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass SLIT drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.30|-0.15|0.4984
91904290|NCT03734016|183703747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.43||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|0.77|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Pain Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.77|-5.62|0.1363
91694896|NCT04015518|183284664|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0771||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0771
91694897|NCT04015518|183284665|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.427|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.427|-0.005|
91694898|NCT04015518|183284665|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.401|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.401|-0.032|
91694899|NCT04015518|183284665|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.471|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.471|0.032|
91724701|NCT04764539|183343787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5383|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.659|<|0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|1.548||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||1.548|-0.471|<0.2128
91724702|NCT04764539|183343787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.298|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.365|<|0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.915|1.511||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||1.511|-0.915|<0.533
91724703|NCT04764539|183343788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.388|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.763|4.539||Sample size too small for statistical power. In addition, automated speech recognition for child speech had a very poor state-of-the-art at the time of this study.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group - VR goggles group)|The percentage of correctly transcribed words using automatic speech recognition will not increase from baseline for the either the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||4.539|-1.763|<0.289
91865484|NCT04881461|183621620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.4438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.27||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.27|-0.12|0.4438
91724704|NCT04764539|183343789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.4296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.68|42.66||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group - iPad Pro group)|Articulation Accuracy does not statistically differ for the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||42.66|-49.68|0.4296
91724705|NCT04764539|183343789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.19|<|0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|65.2||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||65.2|-25.7|<0.294
91795019|NCT01227564|183468827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.68||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.68|-1.58|0.9535
91865485|NCT04881461|183621621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.38|0.01|0.0363
91795020|NCT01227564|183468827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.65||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.65|-1.63|0.9914
91795021|NCT01227564|183468827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.44||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.44|-1.39|0.9682
91904291|NCT03734016|183703747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Diarrhoea Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.84|-4.01|0.2001
91724706|NCT04764539|183343789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.9|<|0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|66.36||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||66.36|-33.86|<0.419
91795022|NCT01227564|183468827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.64||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.64|-2.96|0.2008
91904292|NCT03734016|183703747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Diarrhoea Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.43|-4.12|0.1121
91724707|NCT04764539|183343790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.63|<|0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.436|9.096||Sample size to small for statistical power.|ANOVA||difference = (iPad group mean - VR goggles group mean)|||9.096|-6.436|<0.659
91724708|NCT04764539|183343791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.67|<|0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.91|84.7|||ANOVA|Sample size too small for statistical power.|Difference = (iPad Pro group - VR Goggles group)|||84.7|-68.91|<0.789
91724709|NCT04764539|183343791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.94|<|0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.85|101.17||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||101.17|-40.85|<0.304
91724710|NCT04764539|183343791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.26|<|0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.91|88.43||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||88.43|-43.91|<0.403
91724711|NCT04764539|183343792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|<|0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|6.11||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group - iPad Pro group)|The response to treatment stimuli will not increase from baseline for the either the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||6.11|-10.79|<0.485
91724712|NCT04764539|183343792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.94|<|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|11.9||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||11.9|-0.569|<0.065
91724713|NCT04764539|183343792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|<|0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|17.53||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||17.53|-10.85|<0.549
91724714|NCT01137812|183343812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and sitagliptin of 0.0% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.025, it was estimated that 234 patients per group would provide approximately 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with the non-inferiority margin of 0.3, comparing canagliflozin with sitagliptin.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||If the hypothesis of non-inferiority of canagliflozin to sitagliptin at Week 52 was demonstrated (ie, upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the treatment difference \[canagliflozin minus sitagliptin\] was less than 0.3) and the upper bound was less than 0.0, the superiority of the canagliflozin dose relative to sitagliptin would be concluded.||-0.250|-0.500|<0.05
91724715|NCT01137812|183343813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.48|1.30|
91724716|NCT01137812|183343814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.89|-18.24|||ANCOVA|||||-18.24|-29.89|<0.001
91724717|NCT01137812|183343815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-3.3|<0.001
91865486|NCT04881461|183621622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.31||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand.."||2.31|0.06|0.0329
91724718|NCT01137812|183343816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.883|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.642|-4.175|||ANCOVA|||||-4.175|-7.642|<0.001
91724719|NCT01137812|183343817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.3|||ANCOVA|||||5.3|-9.8|0.554
91724720|NCT01137812|183343818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.3|||ANCOVA|||||9.3|4.6|<0.001
91724721|NCT02265744|183343827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9745|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.9745
91865487|NCT04881461|183621623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.79||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||2.79|0.66|0.0016
91724722|NCT02265744|183343827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6217|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.6217
91724723|NCT02265744|183343827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8295|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.8295
91724724|NCT02265744|183343827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9439|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.9439
91724725|NCT00923702|183343861|NON_INFERIORITY|To test for non-inferiority of antibody concentrations in different dose groups, log-transformed mean MFIs in linear regression models were used to obtain MFI ratios and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Antibody titres at months 0, 7, 12, 36 and 48 were compared and non-inferiority was inferred when the lower bound of the confidence interval of the ratio of the immunogenicity measures exceeded 0.5.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||ONE_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||The lower bound of the 95% CI ratio of immunogeneicity measures was used instead. No p-values were estimated.|||||
91724726|NCT00923702|183343862|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91724727|NCT01086475|183343866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91724728|NCT01086475|183343867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.927
91724729|NCT01086475|183343868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
91724730|NCT02448043|183343902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.532
91724731|NCT02448043|183343903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.523
91724732|NCT02448043|183343904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing baseline values of both arms to completion values of both arms||||0.912
91694900|NCT04015518|183284665|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.367|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.367|0.024|
91795023|NCT01227564|183468827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.7988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.6||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.60|-2.07|0.7988
91795024|NCT01227564|183468827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.87|-2.27|0.3764
91865488|NCT04881461|183621624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.92||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.92|-0.42|0.4502
91865489|NCT04881461|183621625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.23||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.23|-0.14|0.1177
91694901|NCT04015518|183284665|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0158||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0158
91694902|NCT04015518|183284665|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.012||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0120
91694903|NCT04015518|183284665|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0429||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0429
91724733|NCT02448043|183343905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline nail brittleness values and completion values||||0.062
91724734|NCT02337946|183343984|SUPERIORITY||Difference of PFS rate between groups|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|19.0|||||||Agresti-Caffo method was used for estimation of 95% CI.|19.0|-17.2|
91865490|NCT04881461|183621626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.79||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.79|-0.37|0.4604
91795025|NCT01227564|183468827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.4177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|1.25||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.25|-2.98|0.4177
91694904|NCT04015518|183284665|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0229||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0229
91694905|NCT04015518|183284665|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.03||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0300
91694906|NCT04015518|183284666|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-0.2|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||-0.2|-37.2|
91694907|NCT04015518|183284666|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|-0.2|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||-0.2|-38.3|
91694908|NCT04015518|183284666|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-7.8|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||-7.8|-45.5|
91694909|NCT04015518|183284666|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|10.2|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||10.2|-21.1|
91694910|NCT02046005|183284667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.51||We compared the PRE-RA group (PRE-RA arm and PRE-RA Plus arm combined) to the Comparison arm for the primary composite outcome at the 3 primary post-intervention time points using generalized estimating equations (GEE).|generalized estimating equations||PRE-RA group (combined PRE-RA arm and PRE-RA Plus arm) compared to Comparison arm (reference)|"In the primary analysis, we combined the PRE-RA and PRE-RA Plus arms into a single PRE-RA group and compared it to the Comparison arm (aka General Rheumatoid Arthritis Education)"||1.51|1.01|0.043
91694911|NCT00468481|183284772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|384.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|282.42|486.98|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as factor and Baseline (RBC folate) as covariate|Difference = DRSP/EE/MTHF - YAZ|The null hypothesis was that the difference between DRSP/EE/MTHF and Yaz treatment groups in the RBC folate levels at week 24 was 0.||486.98|282.42|<0.0001
91694912|NCT00468481|183284773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.87|||<|0.0001||95.0|14.04|23.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as factor and Baseline (plasma folate) as covariate|Difference =DRSP/EE/MTHF - YAZ|The null hypothesis was that the difference between DRSP/EE/MTHF and Yaz treatment groups in the plasma folate levels at week 24 was 0.||23.70|14.04|<0.0001
91694913|NCT01068730|183284852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.07|106.23|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares (LS) means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||106.23|99.07|
91724735|NCT02337946|183343985|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.43|||Regression, Multivariable Cox|The Cox regression model was adjusted by stratification factors except for study sites.||||1.43|0.60|0.7349
91724736|NCT02337946|183343986|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.88|||Regression, Multivariable Cox|The Cox regression model was adjusted by stratification factors except for study sites.||||2.88|0.69|0.3485
91724737|NCT02337946|183343988|SUPERIORITY||Multivariable Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33|||Regression, Multivariable Cox|The Cox regression model was adjusted by stratification factors except for study sites.||||1.33|0.60|0.5901
91724738|NCT02949934|183343994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates were age, baseline AUDIT score, baseline drinks per day, and whether participant participated before vs. during the COVID-19 pandemic.||Analysis was an ANCOVA testing the interaction between rs4680 genotype and medication group.||||0.013
91724739|NCT02949934|183343995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates were age, baseline AUDIT score, and baseline drinks per day.||Analysis was an ANCOVA testing the interaction between rs4680 genotype and medication group||||0.014
91724740|NCT02949934|183343996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model testing interaction between rs4680 genotype, medication group, and time, controlling for scanner||||||0.062
91724741|NCT02949934|183343997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model testing interaction between rs4680 genotype, medication group, and time, controlling for scanner||||||0.83
91724742|NCT02949934|183343997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model testing interaction between medication group and time, controlling for scanner||||||0.026
91724743|NCT03971422|183344049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.586|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.091|-1.249||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.249|-4.091|<0.001
91724744|NCT03971422|183344049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.619|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.994|-1.163||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.163|-3.994|<0.001
91724745|NCT03971422|183344050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.765|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.882||p-value is nominal. Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Wald test||The OR of responder rates is estimated and tested between treatment groups using logistic regression model with treatment group, Baseline MG-ADL score and stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+). An OR \> 1 favours rozanolixizumab.|||14.882|2.100|<0.001
91724746|NCT03971422|183344050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.273|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.653|11.791||p-value is nominal. Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Wald test||The OR of responder rates is estimated and tested between treatment groups using logistic regression model with treatment group, Baseline MG-ADL score and stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+). An OR \> 1 favours rozanolixizumab.|||11.791|1.653|<0.001
91724747|NCT03971422|183344051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.901|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.634|-1.245||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.245|-6.634|<0.001
91724748|NCT03971422|183344051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.525|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.303|-2.968||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-2.968|-8.303|<0.001
91724749|NCT03971422|183344052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.483|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.614|-1.584||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.584|-5.614|<0.001
91724750|NCT03971422|183344052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.756|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.821|-2.859||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-2.859|-6.821|<0.001
91795026|NCT01227564|183468827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.68||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.68|-2.67|0.6494
91795027|NCT01227564|183468827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.18||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.18|-2.54|0.4674
91694914|NCT01068730|183284852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.16|103.31|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||103.31|96.16|
91694915|NCT01068730|183284852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|7062.8||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
91694916|NCT01068730|183284852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|7245.2||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
91694917|NCT01068730|183284852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11680.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C||||
91694918|NCT01068730|183284852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)]|11641.0||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D||||
91694919|NCT01068730|183284853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|101.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.36|106.11|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||106.11|96.36|
91694920|NCT01068730|183284853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|98.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.94|103.59|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||103.59|93.94|
91694921|NCT01068730|183284853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1013.6||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
91694922|NCT01068730|183284853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1024.9||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
91694923|NCT01068730|183284853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1643.8||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C||||
91694924|NCT01068730|183284853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1621.6||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D||||
91694925|NCT01068730|183284863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|103.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.75|106.75|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||106.75|99.75|
91694926|NCT01068730|183284863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.08|102.92|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||102.92|96.08|
91694927|NCT01068730|183284863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|6907.1||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
91694928|NCT01068730|183284863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|7127.4||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
91694929|NCT01068730|183284863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11391.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C||||
91694930|NCT01068730|183284863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11327.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D||||
91694931|NCT02498444|183284883|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.64|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression model demonstrating associations between treatment groups and outcomes (chest tube duration in days and length of stay in days)||||1.64|1.02|0.03
91694932|NCT02498444|183284884|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51||Poisson regression model demonstrating associations between treatment groups and outcomes (chest tube duration in days and length of stay in days)|Poisson regression|||||1.51|1.00|0.0498
91694933|NCT02498444|183284885|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 0||||0.05
91694934|NCT02498444|183284885|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 12||||<0.01
91724751|NCT03971422|183344053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.441|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.804|-4.089||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-4.089|-21.804|<0.001
91724752|NCT03971422|183344053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.596|-6.45||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-6.450|-23.596|<0.001
91724753|NCT03971422|183344054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.65||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.058|-0.134||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-0.134|-18.058|0.012
91724754|NCT03971422|183344054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.822|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.759|-5.936||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-5.936|-23.759|<0.001
91724755|NCT03971422|183344055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.958|-4.998||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-4.998|-18.958|<0.001
91724756|NCT03971422|183344055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.705|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.787|-3.998||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-3.998|-17.787|<0.001
91724757|NCT03083379|183344085|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalency is defined as no statistically significant difference in dorsal region redistribution of ventilation following breath cycle 1, 2, and 3 lung expansion therapy sequences.||||||0.9|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||.90
91724758|NCT00327171|183344090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.5043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.58|||Log Rank||Estimated using Cox proportional Hazard model using treatment as the factor|||1.58|0.80|0.5043
91724759|NCT00327171|183344093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.093||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.48|||Log Rank||Estimated using Cox proportional Hazard model using treatment as the factor (4mg/kg vs. 2mg/kg)|||1.48|0.81|0.5592
91724760|NCT00327171|183344094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.64|||Log Rank||Estimated using Cox proportional Hazard model using treatment as the factor (4 mg/kg vs. 2mg/kg)|||1.64|0.77|0.5457
91724761|NCT01363440|183344098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.35|15.04|||ANCOVA|||||15.04|9.35|<.0001
91724762|NCT01363440|183344098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.73|13.17|||ANCOVA|||||13.17|7.73|<.0001
91724763|NCT01363440|183344099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|34.7|57.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.0|34.7|.0001
91724764|NCT01363440|183344099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|27.2|50.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.3|27.2|.0001
91724765|NCT01363440|183344100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|24.1|44.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.4|24.1|<0.0001
91724766|NCT01363440|183344100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.5|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.1|13.5|<.0001
91724767|NCT01363440|183344101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.0|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|9.0|<.0001
91724768|NCT01363440|183344101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.4|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|4.4|0.0017
91724769|NCT01363440|183344102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-110.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-141.3|-80.22|||ANCOVA|||||-80.22|-141.3|<.0001
91724770|NCT01363440|183344102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-113.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-144.2|-82.75|||ANCOVA|||||-82.75|-144.2|<.0001
91724771|NCT01363440|183344103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.19||||0.0168||97.5|0.33|10.04|||ANCOVA|||||10.04|0.33|0.0168
91724772|NCT01363440|183344103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.36||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|8.93|||ANCOVA|||||8.93|-0.21|0.0323
91724773|NCT01363440|183344104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.86||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.82|7.54|||ANCOVA|||||7.54|-1.82|0.1702
91724774|NCT01363440|183344104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.83|6.13|||ANCOVA|||||6.13|-2.83|0.4067
91724775|NCT03695094|183344114|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.725|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.586|0.896|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model (ANOVA) included the fixed effects of treatment group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed after the analysis. The geometric mean ratio and the respective 90% confidence interval (CI) was derived for the Inducers group vs the Neutral-control group from the ANOVA model using least-squares means difference.||0.896|0.586|
91724776|NCT03695094|183344116|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.504|0.801|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model (ANOVA) included the fixed effects of treatment group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed after the analysis. The geometric mean ratio and the respective 90% confidence interval (CI) was derived for the Inducers group vs the Neutral-control group from the ANOVA model using least-squares means difference.||0.801|0.504|
91724777|NCT01795937|183344135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|198.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|182.43|216.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison faldaprevir+itraconazole : faldaprevir||216.09|182.43|
91724778|NCT01795937|183344136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|180.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|165.68|196.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison faldaprevir+itraconazole : faldaprevir.||196.93|165.68|
91724779|NCT01795937|183344137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|946.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|797.61|1123.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison atorvastatin+faldaprevir : atorvastatin.||1123.07|797.61|
91724780|NCT01795937|183344138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|3372.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2961.95|3840.47|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison atorvastatin+faldaprevir : atorvastatin.||3840.47|2961.95|
91724781|NCT01795937|183344141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1358.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1224.32|1508.29|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison atorvastatin+faldaprevir : atorvastatin.||1508.29|1224.32|
91795028|NCT01227564|183468827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|1.81||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.81|-3.85|0.4709
91795029|NCT01227564|183468827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||4.07|-1.70|0.4128
91724782|NCT01795937|183344142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1466.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1277.62|1682.95|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison rosuvastatin+faldaprevir : rosuvastatin.||1682.95|1277.62|
91724783|NCT01795937|183344143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|3288.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2782.04|3887.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison rosuvastatin+faldaprevir : rosuvastatin.||3887.63|2782.04|
91724784|NCT01795937|183344144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1678.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1468.52|1917.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison rosuvastatin+faldaprevir : rosuvastatin.||1917.89|1468.52|
91724785|NCT03927157|183344150|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.39|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.39|0.17|<0.001
91724786|NCT03927157|183344151|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|0.16|<0.001
91724787|NCT03927157|183344152|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|0.14|0.001
91724788|NCT03927157|183344153|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
91724789|NCT03927157|183344154|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.27|0.001
91724790|NCT00303628|183344213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified log rank test. The above P value was for one-sided test|Log Rank|||||||0.876
91724791|NCT00303628|183344214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|||||two-sided stratified log rank test p value|Log Rank|||||||0.299
91865491|NCT04881461|183621627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.15||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.15|-0.01|0.0549
91865492|NCT04881461|183621628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.93||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.93|0.30|0.0049
91865493|NCT04881461|183621629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.95||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.95|0.54|0.0004
91865494|NCT04881461|183621630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.63||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.63|0.25|0.0054
91865495|NCT04881461|183621631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.71||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.71|0.52|0.0002
91904293|NCT01624259|183703752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying a serial gatekeeping strategy.~This calculation assumed a 0 difference in HbA1c between the 1.5 mg LY2189265 1.5-mg arm and 1.8 mg liraglutide, 0.4% margin of noninferiority, common Standard Deviation (SD) of 1.3% for change from baseline in HbA1c, 0.05 two-sided significance level, and 25% dropout rate at 26 weeks."|LS Mean Difference|-0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||1-sided raw p-value (no multiplicity adjustment).|Mixed Models Analysis|||To show noninferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 relative to 1.8 mg liraglutide with 90% power, 222 completers (444 total) at 26 weeks were required. Noninferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 relative to 1.8 mg liraglutide was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in mean change in HbA1c between the 1.5 mg LY2189265 arm and 1.8 mg liraglutide arm was below 0.4%.||0.07|-0.19|<0.001
91904294|NCT01624259|183703752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||1-sided raw p-value (no multiplicity adjustment)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||0.07|-0.19|0.186
91694935|NCT02498444|183284885|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 24||||0.14
91694936|NCT02498444|183284886|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 0||||0.23
91694937|NCT02498444|183284886|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 12||||0.27
91694938|NCT02498444|183284886|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 24||||0.65
91694939|NCT02498444|183284887|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 0||||0.37
91694940|NCT02498444|183284887|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 12||||<0.01
91694941|NCT02498444|183284887|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 24||||0.30
91694942|NCT01073605|183284931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02922|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02922
91694943|NCT01073605|183284931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74299|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74299
91694944|NCT01073605|183284931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00467|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00467
91694945|NCT01073605|183284933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00125|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 year||||0.00125
91694946|NCT01073605|183284933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25995|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 year||||0.25995
91694947|NCT01073605|183284933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 year||||0.00008
91694948|NCT01073605|183284933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03273|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 years||||0.03273
91694949|NCT01073605|183284933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68581|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 years||||0.68581
91724792|NCT03158688|183344219|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox model hazard ratio|0.63||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|0.854||alpha level of 0.025|Log Rank||KdD/Kd|Stratification factors used in the Log-rank p-value (1-sided) and the Cox model hazard ratio (KdD/Kd) were as assessed at randomization: International Staging System stage at screening (Stage 1 or 2 vs Stage 3); prior proteasome inhibitor exposure (yes vs no); number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>= 2).||0.854|0.464|0.0014
91724793|NCT03158688|183344220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.925||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.184|3.129|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||KdD/Kd|"Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method.~P-values were calculated using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test."||3.129|1.184|0.0040
91724794|NCT03158688|183344221|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.819|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.364|25.858|||||KdD/Kd|Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method.||25.858|2.364|
91724795|NCT03158688|183344222|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.784||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.033|||Log Rank||KdD/Kd|"Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using the stratified Cox proportional hazards models.~1-sided p-value from the log-rank test controlling for the randomization stratification factors."||1.033|0.595|0.0417
91724796|NCT03158688|183344231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.007|9.656|||||KdD/Kd|Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method.||9.656|2.007|
91694950|NCT01073605|183284933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 years||||0.00530
91694951|NCT01073605|183284933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57556|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.57556
91694952|NCT01073605|183284933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63956|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.63956
91694953|NCT01073605|183284933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16421|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.16421
91694954|NCT01073605|183284937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.0001
91694955|NCT01073605|183284937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.58324
91694956|NCT01073605|183284937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||<0.0001
91694957|NCT01073605|183284942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.39||There is no adjustment for multiplicity of treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance took into account the patient covariates age and gender.||||1.39|-0.05|0.0681
91724797|NCT03158688|183344232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.35|||linear mixed effects model||The overall treatment difference (KdD - Kd)|Analysis was performed based on a linear mixed effects model. The model included fixed effects of treatment (all baseline responses were modeled with a dummy treatment), baseline QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score, randomization stratification factors (ISS stage at screening (Stage 1 or 2 vs Stage 3), prior proteasome inhibitor exposure (yes vs no), number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs ≥ 2)), interaction between treatment and time, and random effects of participant intercept and random slope of time.||2.35|-2.52|0.9480
91724798|NCT02942407|183344233|NON_INFERIORITY|Due to a lower recruitment rate than anticipated in the early stage of the trial, the sample size was curtailed from 760 to 230 patients. Thus, under the initial protocol assumptions, the study is considered under-powered for the two-sided upper 95% CI on the HR to rule-out the non-inferiority margin of 1.40.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.3|||Regression, Cox|Cox model was adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment (apixaban vs warfarin)|Time from randomization to first occurrence of outcome was modeled. If no event, censored at earliest of: most recent date of evaluation of outcome, month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), or end of study date (July 27, 2019).|Exploratory analysis due to failure to reach initial sample size: Non-inferiority (NI) null hypothesis: HR \>= 1.4 (Non-inferiority).||2.3|0.63|0.321
91724799|NCT02942407|183344233|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis due to lack of achieving initial sample size.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.3||If upper limit of 95% confidence interval \< 1 this would be considered evidence of superiority.|Regression, Cox|Cox model was adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment (apixaban vs warfarin).|Time from randomization to first occurrence of outcome was modeled. If no event, censored at earliest of: most recent date of evaluation of outcome, month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), or end of study date (July 27, 2019).|||2.3|0.63|0.583
91904295|NCT01624259|183703753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.26||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison from ANCOVA model at 26 weeks.||1.26|0.17|0.010
91694958|NCT01073605|183284942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.74||There is no adjustment for multiplicity of treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance took into account the patient covariates age and gender.||||0.74|-0.65|0.8971
91694959|NCT01073605|183284942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.02||There is no adjustment for multiplicity of treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance took into account the patient covariates age and gender.||||0.02|-1.27|0.0583
91694960|NCT03491462|183284944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6208|||||||Gehan's extended Wilcoxon's test|||||||0.6208
91694961|NCT00402688|183284978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is a risk difference of 0.2.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.063||||||95.0|-0.089|0.215|||||Difference in success rates (levofloxacin 500mg for 4 weeks minus levofloxacin 750mg for 2 weeks ).|||0.215|-0.089|
91724800|NCT02942407|183344235|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.93||No p-value provided as analysis is considered exploratory due to study being under powered.||||Hazard ratios (apixaban vs warfarin) and 95% confidence intervals obtained using Cox model adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment. Time from randomization to first occurrence of the composite outcome/censoring date modeled. Those that did not experience the outcome are censored at the earliest of the following: 1) most recent date of evaluation of all of the components, 2) month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), and end of study date (July 27, 2019).||2.93|0.74|
91724801|NCT02942407|183344244|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.17||No p-value provided as analysis is considered exploratory due to study being under powered.||||Hazard ratios (apixaban vs warfarin) and 95% confidence intervals obtained using Cox model adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment. Time from randomization to first occurrence of the composite outcome/censoring date modeled. Those that did not experience the outcome are censored at the earliest of the following: 1) most recent date of evaluation of all of the components, 2) month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), and end of stud date (July 27, 2019).||2.17|0.67|
91724802|NCT05887908|183344246|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferirority margin = 15.0%|Difference in success proportion|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|32.0||If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group difference \> -15.0%, non-inferiority is concluded. If non-inferiority is declared, a test for superiority will be performed. If the lower bound of the 95% CI \> 0.0%, superiority will be declared.|||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||32.0|10.9|
91724803|NCT05887908|183344246|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferirority margin = 15.0%|Difference in success proportion|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|23.7||If non-inferiority of the cefepime/nacubactam group is declared, a non-inferiority hypothesis test for the aztreonam/nacubactam group will be performed. For this analysis, the same approach as that used for the cefepime/nacubactam group will be used.|||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||23.7|-1.2|
91724804|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|9.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EA||9.9|-3.2|
91724805|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EA||14.0|1.1|
91904296|NCT01624259|183703754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison from ANCOVA model.||0.45|0.05|0.013
91724806|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|11.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT||11.3|-2.7|
91724807|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT||10.0|-6.6|
91724808|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|18.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP||18.1|-4.1|
91724809|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|16.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP||16.0|-9.5|
91724810|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|36.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||36.6|12.0|
91724811|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|24.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||24.9|-4.2|
91724812|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|54.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||54.1|1.8|
91724813|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|61.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||61.6|1.1|
91724814|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|16.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||16.3|-1.3|
91724815|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|14.7|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||14.7|-5.6|
91724816|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|13.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||13.9|-20.3|
91724817|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|5.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||5.2|-45.4|
91724818|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|24.4|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||24.4|-1.7|
91724819|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|20.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||20.9|-8.7|
91724820|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|23.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||23.1|-31.9|
91724821|NCT05887908|183344247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|37.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||37.9|-28.8|
91724822|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA||6.3|-2.8|
91724823|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA||7.2|-3.5|
91724824|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT||6.4|-4.6|
91724825|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT||6.0|-7.1|
91724826|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|11.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC||11.8|-3.3|
91724827|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC||13.0|-3.9|
91724828|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP||12.1|-4.5|
91724829|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP||12.3|-6.6|
91724830|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||6.0|-4.2|
91724831|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||8.3|-4.1|
91724832|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|20.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||20.3|-13.9|
91724833|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|36.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||36.0|-12.6|
91904297|NCT01624259|183703755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|4.56||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison from ANCOVA model.||4.56|-5.69|0.828
91724834|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||10.5|-3.5|
91724835|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||9.6|-6.9|
91724836|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|16.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||16.8|-15.9|
91724837|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|12.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||12.6|-36.0|
91904298|NCT01624259|183703756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|1.41||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value from pairwise comparison of LS means at 26 weeks from REML-based MMRM.||||1.41|-5.91|0.228
91724838|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|13.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||13.1|-4.5|
91724839|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|14.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||14.2|-5.3|
91724840|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||38.0|-6.0|
91724841|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|37.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||37.3|-20.5|
91724842|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|17.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||17.8|-2.6|
91724843|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||17.8|-5.0|
91724844|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|17.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||17.6|-23.6|
91724845|NCT05887908|183344248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|22.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||22.3|-30.9|
91724846|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA||10.5|-1.7|
91724847|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|14.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA||14.3|3.9|
91724848|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT||11.9|-1.3|
91724849|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|11.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT||11.2|-4.2|
91724850|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|32.7|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC||32.7|12.2|
91724851|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|22.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC||22.5|-2.0|
91724852|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.7|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP||19.7|-2.0|
91724853|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|14.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP||14.8|-10.4|
91724854|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||10.5|-3.5|
91724855|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||14.5|2.3|
91724856|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||38.0|-6.0|
91724857|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|43.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||43.5|-8.3|
91724858|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|16.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||16.5|-0.1|
91724859|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|15.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||15.1|-3.9|
91724860|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|13.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||13.9|-20.3|
91865496|NCT03988621|183621632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.03||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean HSCN scale scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to decrease by 0.65 (95% CI: -1.27 to -0.03) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|||-0.03|-1.27|0.04
91724861|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|12.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||12.6|-36.0|
91724862|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|25.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|37.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||37.5|13.5|
91724863|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|23.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||23.3|-5.5|
91724864|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|48.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||48.5|-3.4|
91724865|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|56.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||56.0|-4.4|
91724866|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|25.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||25.9|0.3|
91724867|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|19.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||19.3|-10.1|
91724868|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|22.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||22.6|-30.4|
91724869|NCT05887908|183344249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|31.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||31.5|-34.0|
91724870|NCT05887908|183344250|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|54.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||54.3|-16.0|
91724871|NCT05887908|183344250|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.9||||||95.0|-13.0|62.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||62.1|-13.0|
91724872|NCT05887908|183344251|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|54.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||54.3|-16.0|
91724873|NCT05887908|183344251|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.9||||||95.0|-13.0|62.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||62.1|-13.0|
91724874|NCT05887908|183344252|OTHER|Desriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|78.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||78.1|12.8|
91724875|NCT05887908|183344252|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|60.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||60.5|-18.4|
91724876|NCT05887908|183344253|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|54.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||54.3|-16.0|
91724877|NCT05887908|183344253|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|62.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||62.1|-13.0|
91724878|NCT03928743|183344254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.87|1.71|<0.001
91724879|NCT03928743|183344255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|4.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.93|1.59|<0.001
91724880|NCT03928743|183344256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.28|1.65|<0.001
91724881|NCT03928743|183344257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.59|-1.48|<0.001
91724882|NCT03928743|183344258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|9.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.39|1.93|<0.001
91724883|NCT03928743|183344259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|15.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.65|2.67|<0.001
91724884|NCT03928743|183344260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|4.65|2.51|7.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.57|2.51|<0.001
91724885|NCT03928743|183344261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.63|-1.48|<0.001
91724886|NCT03928743|183344262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.96|-2.00|<0.001
91724887|NCT03928743|183344263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.68|-2.36|<0.001
91724888|NCT03928743|183344264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.09|1.67|<0.001
91724889|NCT03928743|183344265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.28||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.08|-0.47|0.006
91865497|NCT03988621|183621633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.05||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|8.98||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Self Care Inventory scale scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to increase by 5.05 (95% CI: 1.12 to 8.98) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|||8.98|1.12|0.01
91724890|NCT03928743|183344266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.38|-1.79|0.003
91724891|NCT03928743|183344267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.68|1.30|0.006
91724892|NCT02762604|183344299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|15.12|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in normal pace gait speed pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||15.12|-19.36|
91724893|NCT02762604|183344299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|32.97|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in gait speed during walking while talking pre and post intervention||32.97|1.40|
91724894|NCT02762604|183344300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.99|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in the number of correct letters generated pre to post intervention as a function intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery).|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in correct letters generated pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||2.99|0.21|
91724895|NCT02762604|183344301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|16.85|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery).|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the functional activation/deactivation pattern (factor score) during imagery of walking-while talking (relative to walking and talking alone) pre and post intervention - as a function of of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||16.85|-12.04|
91724896|NCT02762604|183344302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|13.07|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change pre to post intervention between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in trails a time pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||13.07|-14.15|
91724897|NCT02762604|183344303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.92|27.51|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change pre to post intervention between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in trails b time pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||27.51|-51.92|
91724898|NCT02762604|183344304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.12|26.47|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change pre to post intervention between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in trails B minus A time pre and post intervention.||26.47|-48.12|
91724899|NCT02762604|183344305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.79|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in correct letter number sequences pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||0.79|-2.65|
91904299|NCT01624259|183703757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.86||P-value of treatment comparison at Week 26 is from repeated generalized linear mixed model (GLM model).|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Treatment comparison for HbA1c levels ≤6.5%||1.86|0.81|0.322
91904300|NCT01624259|183703757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.63||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|P-value of treatment comparison at Week 26 is from repeated generalized linear mixed model (GLM model).||Treatment comparison for HbA1c levels \<7.0%.||1.63|0.64|0.925
91724900|NCT02762604|183344306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|26.78|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in Stroop interference pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||26.78|-24.00|
91724901|NCT02762604|183344307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.94|163.47|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in flanker interference pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||163.47|-149.94|
91724902|NCT02762604|183344308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|24.41|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in stride length during walking while talking pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||24.41|5.99|
91724903|NCT02762604|183344309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.2|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in gait variability during walking while talking pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||-0.20|-3.73|
91724904|NCT02762604|183344311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|10.84|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in total free recall pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||10.84|-5.98|
91724905|NCT02762604|183344312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|2.0|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in delayed figure copy recall pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||2.00|-5.88|
91724906|NCT02762604|183344313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|7.28|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in word fluency pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||7.28|-20.01|
91724907|NCT02762604|183344314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|17.97|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in semantic fluency pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||17.97|-6.51|
91724908|NCT02762604|183344315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|16.03||||||A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in digit symbol substitution performance pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)|The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|16.03|-16.10|
91795030|NCT01227564|183468827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.9478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|2.58||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.58|-2.41|0.9478
91724909|NCT02762604|183344317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|18.42|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in immediate maze performance pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||18.42|-11.14|
91724910|NCT02762604|183344318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.65|27.18|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in delayed maze performance pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||27.18|-20.65|
91724911|NCT02762604|183344319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.9|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in maze errors pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||0.90|-0.45|
91724912|NCT02762604|183344320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|2.26|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in depressive symptoms pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||2.26|-1.74|
91724913|NCT02762604|183344321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|1.49|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in anxiety symptoms pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||1.49|-3.38|
91904301|NCT01624259|183703758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|6.92|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||||6.92|-4.06|0.608
91724914|NCT02762604|183344322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.12|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in cortical thickness pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||0.12|-0.04|
91724915|NCT01405911|183344331|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-4.36|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-4.36|-9.85|<0.001
91724916|NCT01405911|183344331|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-9.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|-6.33|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-6.33|-11.82|<0.001
91724917|NCT01405911|183344331|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.97||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|0.67|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.67|-4.61|0.143
91724918|NCT01405911|183344332|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-17.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.55|-13.86|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-13.86|-21.55|<0.001
91724919|NCT01405911|183344332|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.32|-12.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-12.50|-20.32|<0.001
91724920|NCT01405911|183344332|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.3||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|4.82|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||4.82|-2.22|0.469
91724921|NCT01059851|183344363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"AUC(0-∞) GMR = AUC(0-∞) GM for Severe Renal Impairment Participants ÷ AUC(0-∞) GM for Healthy Participants.~A 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR was computed from the ANCOVA model. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR was contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then the hypothesis would be met and the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant would be similar in both groups of participants. That is, if the true ratio of the GM AUC(0-∞) is greater than 0.50 and no more than 2.00."|AUC(0-∞) Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.6|||ANCOVA|||"The geometric mean (GM) for each participant group and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for AUC(0-∞) using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The AUC(0-∞) geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the 2 participant groups was used to test the primary hypothesis, which was that the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant following a single oral dose would be similar between participants with renal impairment and healthy matched control participants."||1.60|0.93|
91795031|NCT01227564|183468828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 54.||2.35|-3.40|0.7146
91865498|NCT03988621|183621634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-2.52||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean PSS scale scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to decrease by 4.50 (95% CI: -6.48 to -2.52) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|||-2.52|-6.48|<0.0001
91865499|NCT03988621|183621635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.16||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|4.73||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Active Coping Subscale||4.73|-0.41|0.099
91865500|NCT03988621|183621635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.62||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference may not be consistent with difference sample means presented in outcome measure data table.|Avoidance Coping Subscale||0.62|-2.38|0.25
91865501|NCT03988621|183621635|SUPERIORITY|The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Minimization Coping Subscale||1.18|-1.81|0.68
91865502|NCT03988621|183621636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.32||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|1.04||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Health Score||1.04|-3.68|0.27
91865503|NCT03988621|183621636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.53||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Mental Health scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to increase by 3.35 (95% CI: 0.17 to 6.53) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|Mental Health Score||6.53|0.17|0.04
91865504|NCT03988621|183621639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3472||||0.5433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5153|3.5218|||Regression, zero inflated poisson||Estimation accounts for the zero-inflated distribution of hospitalization count, thus estimate is inconsistent with mean values in the Outcome Measure Data table|||3.5218|0.5153|0.5433
91865505|NCT03988621|183621640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0143||||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7766|1.3247|||Zero-inflated poisson regression|||||1.3247|0.7766|0.9173
91724922|NCT04937387|183344367|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0449|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.147|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline trough FEV1 value, visit, and interaction terms for baseline trough FEV1-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.147|-0.030|
91724923|NCT04937387|183344367|OTHER||Posterior Mean|0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.025|0.115|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 and FF/VI 100/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.115|0.025|
91865506|NCT03988621|183621641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6486|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6486
91865507|NCT03988621|183621642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6791
91865508|NCT02905331|183621662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91865509|NCT02905331|183621663|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91865510|NCT02905331|183621668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91724924|NCT04937387|183344367|OTHER||Posterior Median|0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.123|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 and FF/VI 100/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.123|0.005|
91724925|NCT04937387|183344368|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0455|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.084|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline trough FEV1 value, visit, and interaction terms for baseline trough FEV1-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.084|-0.094|
91724926|NCT04937387|183344368|OTHER||Posterior Mean|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.071|0.103|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 and FF/VI 200/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.103|-0.071|
91724927|NCT04937387|183344368|OTHER||Posterior Median|0.023||||||95.0|-0.086|0.11|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 and FF/VI 200/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.110|-0.086|
91724928|NCT04937387|183344369|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0823|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.134|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline ACQ-7 total score, visit, and interaction terms for baseline ACQ-7 total score-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.134|-0.190|
91724929|NCT04937387|183344369|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0832|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.276|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline ACQ-7 total score, visit, and interaction terms for baseline ACQ-7 total score-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.276|-0.052|
91724930|NCT01039675|183344370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|UMEC/VI will be declared non-inferior to placebo in terms of weighted mean pulse rate if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval around the estimated treatment difference for weighted mean pulse rate is less than the non-inferiority margin of +10bpm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.5|||||Estimated from repeated measures analysis of covariance.|||4.5|-5.5|
91724931|NCT06901544|183344395|OTHER|Comparison of 28-day mortality between groups using chi-squared test.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91724932|NCT06901544|183344396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|2.207|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.207|-0.567|0.243
91724933|NCT06901544|183344397|OTHER|Comparison of mean PCT levels between groups using two-sample t-test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.97||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.40|0.54|0.037
91724934|NCT01807520|183344401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-14.3|||Mixed model reapeated measures|||||-14.3|-39.1|<0.0001
91904302|NCT02273726|183703792|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference in least square (LS) means from MI ANCOVA model between the 2 treatment groups lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.591|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with MI||Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation (MI) strategy by combining the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and other randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening hemoglobin (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.591|0.365|<0.0001
91724935|NCT01807520|183344401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.2|-23.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-23.5|-45.2|<0.0001
91724936|NCT01258855|183344405|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
91724937|NCT01258855|183344406|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
91724938|NCT01258855|183344409|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
91724939|NCT01258855|183344410|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
91724940|NCT02400736|183344428|SUPERIORITY|"Proportion of steady workers in each group was analyzed using a logistic regression model to calculate an odds ratio and 95% Confidence Interval. Adhering to the principle of intent-to-treat, participants were retained in the arm to which they were randomized for the 12-month follow-up period despite discontinuing the treatment intervention or exiting the study early. Missing data was counted as not worked."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|5.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Using SamplePower 3.0 to estimate the statistical power, the target sample size of 120 (60 per group) provided 84% power to detect a 25% or greater absolute difference between groups in the percent of participants achieving 'steady worker' status (e.g., 40% in IPS vs. 15% in control arm), at the .05 level of significance, assuming a 10% attrition.||5.43|1.14|0.02
91724941|NCT02400736|183344429|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis.||||||0.003||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total mean time worked was compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.003
91724942|NCT02400736|183344430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||0.005
91724943|NCT02400736|183344431|SUPERIORITY|a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
91724944|NCT02400736|183344432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of treatment on outcome was analyzed using longitudinal mixed-effects regression model.Group by time interaction tested for treatment effect.||||||0.853
91724945|NCT02400736|183344433|SUPERIORITY|a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91724946|NCT02400736|183344434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of treatment on outcome was analyzed using longitudinal mixed-effects regression model.Group by time interaction tested for treatment effect.||The effect of treatment on each of secondary outcome measures were analyzed using a longitudinal mixed-effects regression model. The group by time interaction tested for the treatment effect.||||0.47
91724947|NCT02400736|183344435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062
91724948|NCT02400736|183344436|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.3||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</= 0.05 or lower. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||>0.3
91724949|NCT02400736|183344437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91724950|NCT02400736|183344438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91724951|NCT01771913|183344439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.310
91724952|NCT01771913|183344440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
91724953|NCT01771913|183344441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.103
91724954|NCT01779362|183344459|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||All analyses were conducted with values on a log scale and re-exponentiated for presentation.|Regression, Linear|Measures of ß-cell response were modeled simultaneously with insulin sensitivity (M/I) using 2-df seemingly unrelated regression models.||Seemingly unrelated regression was used to compare treatment arms on the combination of insulin sensitivity (M/I as calculated from the hyperglycemic clamp) and insulin secretion (steady-state C-peptide and ACPRmax as co-primary; ACPRg as major secondary,). See statistical analysis plan for further details and R code.||||>0.05
91724955|NCT01779362|183344460|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91724956|NCT01779362|183344461|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91724957|NCT01779362|183344462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For all 3 secondary outcomes at M12, p\<0.001, with the Liraglutide+Metformin group different from the 3 others (all p\<0.001).|ANOVA|||Analyses were completed on a log scale and re-exponentiated for display.||||<0.001
91724958|NCT01177410|183344467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.369||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|5.467|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.467|1.027|0.0432
91865511|NCT01223352|183621703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.2||No statistical test of hypothesis was set for this study. The analysis of PK data was carried out descriptively|||b.i.d. bosentan regimen was taken as reference|||1.20|0.61|
91724959|NCT01177410|183344467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.267||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|3.115|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.115|0.515|0.6059
91724960|NCT01177410|183344468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.232||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|4.664|||Proportional Odds Model|||Proportional odds model was used to compare the number of months the subjects are responders.||4.664|1.068|0.0327
91724961|NCT01177410|183344468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.148||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|2.483|||Proportional Odds Model|||||2.483|0.531|0.7260
91865512|NCT01223352|183621704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05||No statistical hypothesis tests were set for this study. The analysis of PK data was carried out descriptively.|||b.i.d. bosentan regimen was taken as reference|||1.05|0.48|
91724962|NCT00471354|183344469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.293
91724963|NCT00471354|183344470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0||||P-value for Correlation with Language Scores|Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.276
91724964|NCT00471354|183344470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value for Correlation with Math Scores.|Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.110
91724965|NCT00471354|183344470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||P-value for Correlation with Science Scores.|Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.464
91724966|NCT00471354|183344471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Language Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91724967|NCT00471354|183344471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Math Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91724968|NCT00471354|183344471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Science Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91724969|NCT00471354|183344471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Total Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91724970|NCT00471354|183344472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91724971|NCT00471354|183344473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91724972|NCT00471354|183344475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91724973|NCT05558410|183344476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91724974|NCT05558410|183344477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2781|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2781
91724975|NCT05558410|183344478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91724976|NCT05558410|183344479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91724977|NCT05558410|183344480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91724978|NCT05558410|183344481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||||<0.0001
91724979|NCT05558410|183344482|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91724980|NCT05558410|183344483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91724981|NCT05558410|183344484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0237
91865513|NCT02577354|183621732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wald asymptotic test of proportions|Cui p-value adjustment for sample size re-estimation at interim analysis; Multiple imputation utilized for 3 participants lost to follow-up.||||||0.138
91865514|NCT02577354|183621733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
91865515|NCT02577354|183621734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0499||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Friedman's regression analysis|Multiple Imputation utilized for 3 participants lost to follow-up.||||||0.0499
91694962|NCT00402688|183284978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is a risk difference of 0.2.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.045||||||95.0|-0.106|0.195|||||Difference in success rates (levofloxacin 500mg for 4 weeks minus levofloxacin 750mg for 3 weeks).|||0.195|-0.106|
91694963|NCT00927862|183284986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on power calculations and feasibility, the minimum recruitment target for the randomized, PG-guided comparison was set at 500 patients. All qualifying parallel control patients were included, anticipated to number ≥1000. For hypothesis 1, the power to exclude inferiority of the modified PG arm vs standard PG arm at a margin (delta) of 5% with 250 patients per group at a 2-sided alpha \<0.05 is 87%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.20.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparisons between groups for primary endpoints were made using the unpaired T-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons between groups for primary endpoints were made using the unpaired T-test. All consented, randomized patients who were successfully genotyped and received at least one dose of warfarin with at least one post-dose INR were included in efficacy analyses (modified intention to treat \[mITT\]).||||<0.05
91724982|NCT05558410|183344485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.0080
91724983|NCT01336972|183344489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
91724984|NCT01336972|183344489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paited t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
91724985|NCT01336972|183344489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91724986|NCT01336972|183344489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91724987|NCT01336972|183344489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91724988|NCT01336972|183344489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91724989|NCT01336972|183344489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91724990|NCT01336972|183344489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91724991|NCT01336972|183344489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
91724992|NCT01336972|183344489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91724993|NCT01336972|183344489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91694964|NCT00820248|183284995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of panitumumab vs cisplatin|The log rank test stratified by the stratification factors at randomization was used to compare the difference in PFS between two treatment arms.||1.50|0.60|0.83
91865516|NCT02577354|183621736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91865517|NCT02577354|183621737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91865518|NCT02577354|183621738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91865519|NCT02577354|183621739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91694965|NCT00820248|183284996|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48|||Log Rank||hazard ratio for panitumumab vs cisplatin|||1.48|0.54|0.66
91694966|NCT04157296|183285017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.226|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftIFG (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91694967|NCT04157296|183285017|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.309|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightIFG (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91694968|NCT04157296|183285017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftParietal (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91724994|NCT01336972|183344489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91724995|NCT01336972|183344490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91724996|NCT01336972|183344490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91724997|NCT01336972|183344490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91724998|NCT01336972|183344490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91724999|NCT01336972|183344490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91725000|NCT01336972|183344490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91725001|NCT01336972|183344490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91725002|NCT01336972|183344491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91725003|NCT01336972|183344491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91795032|NCT01227564|183468828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.33||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 54.||1.33|-4.60|0.2733
91865520|NCT02577354|183621740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.335
91865521|NCT02577354|183621748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Wald asymptotic test of proportions|Multiple imputation used for three participants lost to follow-up.||||||0.048
91865522|NCT02577354|183621749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"P-value for Satisfied with Treatment. Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91865523|NCT02577354|183621751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91865524|NCT04173247|183621760|OTHER|A t-test with 180 degrees of freedom to compare the mean DLQI score over the 6 weeks in arm1 to the mean DLQI score over six weeks in arm2.||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.28
91865525|NCT06097494|183621764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||||Calculated as the odds of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having with depression versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.15|1.01|
91694969|NCT04157296|183285017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightParietal (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91694970|NCT04157296|183285017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftdACC (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91694971|NCT04157296|183285017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.067|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightdACC (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91694972|NCT04157296|183285017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftInsula (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91694973|NCT04157296|183285017|SUPERIORITY|rightInsula (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightInsula (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91694974|NCT04157296|183285017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||TCN (Change in Connectivity \[post minus pre\])||||
91694975|NCT04157296|183285018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.241
91694976|NCT04157296|183285019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.233
91694977|NCT04157296|183285020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.042
91694978|NCT04157296|183285021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.349
91725004|NCT01336972|183344491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91725005|NCT01336972|183344491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding||||>0.05
91725006|NCT01336972|183344491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91725007|NCT01336972|183344491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91725008|NCT01336972|183344491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
91725009|NCT01336972|183344491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91725010|NCT01336972|183344492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||<0.05
91865526|NCT06097494|183621765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.3|||||Calculated as the odds of people diagnosed with vitiligo having anxiety compared to people not diagnosed with vitilligo.|||1.30|1.09|
91865527|NCT06097494|183621766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.17|||||Calculated as the odds of people diagnosed with vitiligo having anxiety or depression compared to people not diagnosed with vitilligo.|||1.17|1.03|
91865528|NCT06097494|183621767|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.32|||||Adjusted incident rate ratio for increased primary care use was calculated by comparing patients with vitiligo versus matched controls not having vitiligo,using negative binomial regression.|||1.32|1.26|
91865529|NCT06097494|183621769|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.2|||||Hazard ratios for mental health referrals was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.20|0.93|
91865530|NCT06097494|183621770|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.15|||||Hazard ratios for unemployment was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.15|0.76|
91904303|NCT02273726|183703793|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was established when the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference of LS means between the 2 treatment groups using the MMRM model lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|0.687|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using a mixed model of repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening Hb (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.687|0.404|<0.0001
91865531|NCT06097494|183621771|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.24|||||Hazard ratios for time off work was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.24|1.06|
91865532|NCT06097494|183621772|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.31|||||Hazard ratios for sleep disturbance was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.31|1.02|
91725011|NCT01336972|183344492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
91725012|NCT01336972|183344492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
91725013|NCT01336972|183344492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||<0.05
91725014|NCT01336972|183344492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||||>0.05
91725015|NCT01336972|183344492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|paired t-test|||||||>0.05
91725016|NCT01336972|183344492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91725017|NCT01336972|183344492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91725018|NCT01336972|183344492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91725019|NCT01336972|183344492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91725020|NCT01336972|183344496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Comparison of all treatment groups versus Baseline at Final Treatment||||<0.05
91725021|NCT01336972|183344496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Comparison of all treatment groups versus Baseline at Post Treatment||||<0.05
91725022|NCT01336972|183344496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
91865533|NCT05683158|183621794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Mean difference between two groups of movement unit in forward direction|To determine the sample size, the G\*Power software was utilized, incorporating an effect size (d) of 1.9, alpha level of 0.05, and power of 0.8. A sample size of six individuals per group was considered sufficient to achieve adequate statistical power, which are α ≤ 0.05, power = 0.8, and β = 0.2.||||<.001
91865534|NCT05683158|183621794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Statistics difference among forward, ipsilateral and contralateral directions in within group|To determine the sample size, the G\*Power software was utilized, incorporating an effect size (d) of 1.9, alpha level of 0.05, and power of 0.8. A sample size of six individuals per group was considered sufficient to achieve adequate statistical power, which are α ≤ 0.05, power = 0.8, and β = 0.2.||||<.001
91865535|NCT04109066|183621808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||"Stratified by PD-L1 by SP142 (\< 1% vs. \>= 1%), AC Dose-Frequency Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT.~Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm A over Arm B) using Mantel-Haenszel method."|Arm A over Arm B||3.27|1.29|0.0021
91865536|NCT04109066|183621808|OTHER||Adjusted Difference of pCR Rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|16.9|||||"Strata adjusted difference in pCR (Arm A-B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.~Stratified by PD-L1 by SP142 (\< 1% vs. \>= 1%), AC Dose-Frequency Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT."|||16.9|4.0|
91865537|NCT04109066|183621809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|6.11|||||Stratified by AC Dose-Frequency. Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT. Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm A over Arm B) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|Arm A over Arm B||6.11|1.58|
91865538|NCT04109066|183621809|OTHER||Adjusted Difference of pCR Rates|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|37.5|||||"Strata adjusted difference in pCR (Arm A-B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.~Stratified by AC Dose-Frequency Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT."|||37.5|10.7|
91865539|NCT04099732|183621815|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|183.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.35|204.56|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 16.5.|Relative bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||204.56|164.35|
91865540|NCT04099732|183621816|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|174.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.73|195.68|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.7|Relative bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||195.68|154.73|
91865541|NCT04099732|183621817|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|119.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.84|129.15|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.1.|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||129.15|109.84|
91865542|NCT04099732|183621818|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|119.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.68|131.94|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.9.|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||131.94|107.68|
91865543|NCT04099732|183621819|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|186.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|169.7|204.71|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.1.|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||204.71|169.70|
91865544|NCT04099732|183621820|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|120.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.78|130.23|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.1|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||130.23|110.78|
91865545|NCT02994927|183621856|NON_INFERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving disease remission at Week 26 and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|12.8|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||12.8|-6.0|< 0.0001
91865546|NCT02994927|183621856|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving disease remission at Week 26 and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|3.4|||=|0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|12.8|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||12.8|-6.0|= 0.2387
91694979|NCT03980145|183285023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||Statistical significance set at .05|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is no difference between the two groups||||.405
91694980|NCT03980145|183285023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is no difference between pretest and posttest||||.133
91694981|NCT03980145|183285023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Evaluated the difference between the pretest and posttest within the conventional physical therapy group||||.050
91694982|NCT03980145|183285023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.124||p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni correction|ANOVA|||Evaluating the impact of whether comfortable walking speed for both groups combined resulted in a significant improvement in walking speed||.124|.015|.017
91694983|NCT03980145|183285024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of the impact between the two arms looking an improved walking endurance||||.369
91694984|NCT03980145|183285024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Evaluation of impact of end-effector robotic training alone||||.710
91694985|NCT03980145|183285024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||ANOVA|||Evaluating the impact of conventional therapy on walking endurance Null hypothesis is no difference between pretest and posttest||||.682
91725023|NCT01336972|183344496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||<0.05
91725024|NCT01336972|183344496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
91725025|NCT01336972|183344496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91725026|NCT01336972|183344496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91725027|NCT01336972|183344496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91904304|NCT02273726|183703794|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.3||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI analyzed was from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||14.3|0.9|
91725028|NCT01336972|183344497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||<0.05
91725029|NCT01336972|183344497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||<0.05
91725030|NCT01336972|183344497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
91725031|NCT01336972|183344497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||<0.05
91725032|NCT01336972|183344497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Test to compare PostTreatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||>0.05
91725033|NCT01336972|183344497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91725034|NCT01336972|183344497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91725035|NCT01336972|183344497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||<0.05
91725036|NCT01336972|183344498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired te-test|||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||<0.05
91725037|NCT01336972|183344498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
91725038|NCT01336972|183344498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
91725039|NCT01336972|183344498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
91725040|NCT01336972|183344498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||<0.05
91725041|NCT01336972|183344498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
91725042|NCT01336972|183344498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
91725043|NCT01336972|183344498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91725044|NCT01336972|183344498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91725045|NCT01336972|183344498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91725046|NCT03446573|183344499|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of switching to DTG + 3TC compared to continuation of TBR (as per FDA snapshot algorithm) was to be concluded if the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in virologic failure rates between the two treatment arms was smaller than 4%.|Adjusted difference in proportion (ADP)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor:Baseline third agent (protease inhibitor \[PI\], non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor \[NNRTI\], and integrase inhibitor \[INI\]).|||0.7|-1.2|
91725047|NCT03446573|183344500|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of switching to DTG + 3TC compared to continuation of TBR (as per FDA snapshot algorithm) was to be concluded when the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -8%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.9|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor: Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, and INSTI).|||3.9|-3.4|
91725048|NCT03446573|183344526|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.057||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.164|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.164|0.960|0.257
91725049|NCT03446573|183344526|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.062||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.205|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.205|0.936|0.350
91725050|NCT03446573|183344526|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.979||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.037|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.037|0.924|0.473
91725051|NCT03446573|183344526|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.956||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.026|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.026|0.891|0.212
91725052|NCT03446573|183344528|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.977||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.102|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.102|0.866|0.700
91725053|NCT03446573|183344528|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.971||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|1.129|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.129|0.835|0.700
91725054|NCT03446573|183344528|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.969||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.036|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.036|0.907|0.356
91865547|NCT02994927|183621857|NON_INFERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving sustained disease remission at Week 52, and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions (avacopan minus prednisone) was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|22.3|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||22.3|2.6|< 0.0001
91865548|NCT02994927|183621857|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving sustained disease remission at Week 52, and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions (avacopan minus prednisone) was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|12.5|||=|0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|22.3|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||22.3|2.6|= 0.0066
91725055|NCT03446573|183344528|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.991||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.071|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.071|0.916|0.814
91725056|NCT03446573|183344529|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.958||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.106|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.106|0.830|0.560
91725057|NCT03446573|183344529|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.055||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.229|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.229|0.906|0.489
91725058|NCT03446573|183344531|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.165||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.384|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.384|0.981|0.081
91725059|NCT03446573|183344531|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.981||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.175|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.175|0.819|0.834
91725060|NCT03446573|183344532|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.017||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.130|0.915|0.758
91725061|NCT03446573|183344532|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.999||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.116|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.116|0.894|0.985
91725062|NCT03446573|183344534|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.015||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.139|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.139|0.904|0.806
91725063|NCT03446573|183344534|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.019||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.142|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.142|0.909|0.745
91725064|NCT03446573|183344535|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.935||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.052|||Mixed Model Reported Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.052|0.830|0.264
91725065|NCT03446573|183344535|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.996||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.098|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.098|0.903|0.932
91725066|NCT03446573|183344537|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.15||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.281|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.281|1.032|0.011
91725067|NCT03446573|183344537|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.007||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.121|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.121|0.905|0.895
91725068|NCT03446573|183344545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 24 has been presented|||0.57|0.00|0.047
91725069|NCT03446573|183344545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 48 has been presented|||0.68|-0.05|0.094
91725070|NCT03446573|183344545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 24 has been presented|||-0.68|-2.01|<0.001
91725071|NCT03446573|183344545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 48 has been presented|||-1.09|-2.59|<0.001
91725072|NCT03446573|183344545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 24 has been presented|||4.3|-0.1|0.066
91725073|NCT03446573|183344545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 48 has been presented|||5.8|0.0|0.046
91725074|NCT03446573|183344545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0381||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0117|0.0646|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 24 has been presented|||0.0646|0.0117|0.005
91725075|NCT03446573|183344545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0292||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0025|0.0559|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 48 has been presented|||0.0559|0.0025|0.032
91725076|NCT03446573|183344547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 96 has been presented|||0.57|-0.22|0.386
91725077|NCT03446573|183344547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 144 has been presented|||0.61|-0.34|0.573
91725078|NCT03446573|183344547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 96 has been presented|||-1.04|-2.70|< 0.001
91725079|NCT03446573|183344547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 144 has been presented|||-1.14|-2.77|< 0.001
91725080|NCT03446573|183344547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 96 has been presented.|||4.4|-0.3|0.082
91725081|NCT03446573|183344547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 144 has been presented|||3.2|-2.3|0.765
91725082|NCT03446573|183344547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0151||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0136|0.0438|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 96 has been presented|||0.0438|-0.0136|0.301
91865549|NCT03533257|183621886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3654|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.3654
91694986|NCT03980145|183285024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons - Bonferroni|ANOVA|||Evaluating the impact of whether both groups combined resulted in a significant change in walking distance||||.568
91694987|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||Outcome specific to the physical domain|ANOVA|||Evaluation of the physical domain||||.594
91694988|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||ANOVA|||Pretest- Posttest End Effector Robotic Training Comparison for the Physical Domain||||.061
91694989|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||ANOVA|||Pretest posttest comparison of conventional training group for physical domain||||.812
91694990|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||ANOVA|||Combined conventional and end-effector training for outcomes in the physical domain||||.235
91694991|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment of changes in the MFIS Cognitive domain||||.465
91694992|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||ANOVA|||Within group differences for the End Effector Robotic Training Group for the Cognitive Domain||||.165
91725083|NCT03446573|183344547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0126||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0133|0.0384|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 144 has been presented|||0.0384|-0.0133|0.340
91725084|NCT03446573|183344548|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 24 has been presented|||1.0|-5.3|0.173
91694993|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for the conventional group within the cognitive domain of the MFIS||||.682
91694994|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|9.67||p value adjusted using a Bonferroni correction|ANOVA|||Combined group outcomes comparing pretest to posttest for the cognitive domain||9.67|1.12|.017
91694995|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||ANOVA|||Between group comparison for the MFIS Psychological Subscale||||.052
91694996|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison for the end-effector robotic training group for the MFIS Psychological subscale||||.483
91694997|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for the conventional physical therapy group for the MFIS Psychological subscale||||.056
91694998|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.313||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|2.619||p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni correction|ANOVA|||Change in MFIS for all subjects from pre to posttest for the psychological subscale||2.619|.016|.048
91694999|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment of differences in total score||||.010
91695000|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|||Within assessment of change in total fatigue score||||.089
91725085|NCT03446573|183344548|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 48 has been presented|||1.0|-5.5|0.168
91725086|NCT03446573|183344550|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 96 has been presented.|||-4.7|-14.0|<0.001
91725087|NCT03446573|183344550|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 144 has been presented.|||-1.7|-9.4|0.005
91725088|NCT03446573|183344551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 24 has been presented|||0.00|-0.03|0.027
91725089|NCT03446573|183344551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 48 has been presented|||0.00|-0.03|0.061
91725090|NCT03446573|183344553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 96 has been presented|||-0.01|-0.06|0.004
91725091|NCT03446573|183344553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 144 has been presented|||0.00|-0.03|0.094
91725092|NCT03446573|183344554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 24 has been presented|||3.1|0.4|0.012
91725093|NCT03446573|183344554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 48 has been presented|||3.3|-0.1|0.059
91725094|NCT03446573|183344554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 24 has been presented|||-3.7|-6.3|<0.001
91725095|NCT03446573|183344554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-3.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 48 has been presented|||-3.4|-6.1|<0.001
91725096|NCT03446573|183344556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 96 has been presented|||6.7|1.5|0.002
91725097|NCT03446573|183344556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 148 has been presented|||3.8|-0.1|0.064
91725098|NCT03446573|183344556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-3.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 96 has been presented|||-3.8|-6.7|<0.001
91725099|NCT03446573|183344556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 144 has been presented|||-2.8|-6.2|<0.001
91725100|NCT03446573|183344557|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|5.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 24 has been presented.|||5.70|3.03|<0.001
91725101|NCT03446573|183344557|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|5.81|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 48 has been presented.|||5.81|3.18|<0.001
91725102|NCT03446573|183344559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|6.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 96 has been presented.|||6.43|3.47|<0.001
91725103|NCT03446573|183344559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|5.85|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 144 has been presented.|||5.85|2.32|<0.001
91725104|NCT03446573|183344560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0017||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0119|0.0085|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0085|-0.0119|0.741
91725105|NCT03446573|183344560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0015||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0094|0.0123|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0123|-0.0094|0.792
91865550|NCT03533257|183621887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6698|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.6698
91725106|NCT03446573|183344561|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0003||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0121|0.0126|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0126|-0.0121|0.965
91725107|NCT03446573|183344561|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0109||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0247|0.0029|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0029|-0.0247|0.120
91865551|NCT03533257|183621888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.3086
91865552|NCT03533257|183621889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5552|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.5552
91865553|NCT03533257|183621890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0361|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.0361
91725108|NCT03446573|183344562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||1.2|-1.4|0.879
91725109|NCT03446573|183344562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.8|-1.9|0.414
91865554|NCT03533257|183621891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3585|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.3585
91865555|NCT03533257|183621892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8996|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.8996
91725110|NCT03446573|183344563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.2|-2.5|0.102
91725111|NCT03446573|183344563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.2|-2.8|0.093
91725112|NCT00471107|183344607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Power analysis was based on WMS-III Word Lists performance. With an effect comparable to the effect on verbal fluency in an earlier study of left frontal TDCS in healthy subjects, it would require 10 subjects per group (30 total) for a significance level of 0.05 and 80% power.||||>0.05
91725113|NCT06204887|183344634|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91725114|NCT03833167|183344651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.07243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by baseline Extracapsular extension (yes versus no) and Cortical bone invasion (yes versus no) with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline Extracapsular extension (yes versus no) and Cortical bone invasion (yes versus no) with small strata collapsed.|||1.10|0.53|0.07243
91725115|NCT03833167|183344652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.48|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline Extracapsular extension (yes versus no) and Cortical bone invasion (yes versus no) with small strata collapsed.|||2.48|0.87|
91725116|NCT03833167|183344653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|2.09||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|Log Rank||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|||2.09|-8.91|0.2227
91725117|NCT03833167|183344654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|1.42||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|Log Rank||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|||1.42|-7.19|0.1874
91725118|NCT03003962|183344674|OTHER|"The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for PD-L1 expression (TC 25% to 49% versus \>= 50%) and histology and smoking status (squamous vs. non-squamous + never smoker vs.~non-squamous + former/current smoker) and using the rank tests of association approach."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|0.989|||Stratified Log-rank test||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.989|0.706|0.037
91904305|NCT02273726|183703795|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|9.7||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI analyzed was from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||9.7|-4.3|
91725119|NCT03003962|183344675|OTHER|"The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for PD-L1 expression (TC 25% to 49% versus \>= 50%) and histology and smoking status (squamous vs. non-squamous + never smoker vs.~non-squamous + former/current smoker) and using the rank tests of association approach."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.151|||Stratified log-rank test||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.151|0.793|0.628
91725120|NCT04337021|183344741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Chi-squared|||There were no statistical differences between the two treatment groups (chi-square=0.43, p=0.513)||||0.513
91865556|NCT05525104|183621906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.041
91865557|NCT05525104|183621907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
91865558|NCT05525104|183621911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91865559|NCT06149338|183621916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
91865560|NCT06149338|183621916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91865561|NCT06149338|183621917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||< 0.0001
91725121|NCT04337021|183344742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.184
91725122|NCT04337021|183344743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.525
91725123|NCT04337021|183344744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.723
91725124|NCT04337021|183344745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.569
91725125|NCT06375655|183344746|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91725126|NCT06375655|183344747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.901509||||0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|10.25|||Fisher Exact|||This analysis did not power the study||10.25|0.41|0.5007
91725127|NCT06375655|183344748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3986|232.3218|||Fisher Exact|||||232.3218|0.3986|0.3497
91725128|NCT06375655|183344749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91865562|NCT06149338|183621918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.0041
91865563|NCT06149338|183621918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91865564|NCT06149338|183621919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7895||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7895
91865565|NCT02865538|183621970|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.4641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.30|-0.12|0.4641
91865566|NCT02865538|183621970|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.9894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.21|||LS means difference||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.21|-0.21|0.9894
91865567|NCT02865538|183621970|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|-0.09|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.09|-0.52|0.0199
91695001|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment of change in total score||||.50
91695002|NCT03980145|183285025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.464||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.678|16.251|||ANOVA|||Combined assessment of all subject improvement in total MFIS score||16.251|2.678|0.10
91695003|NCT03980145|183285026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis set for no difference between groups Assessment of between group differences for the physical subscale||||.071
91695004|NCT03980145|183285026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.84||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.02|23.66|||ANOVA|||With group assessment of change on the physical subscale of the MSIS||23.66|6.02|.005
91695005|NCT03980145|183285026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|18.85|||ANOVA|||With group assessment of change on the physical subscale of the MSIS||18.85|8.30|.001
91695006|NCT03980145|183285026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.21||||2.6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.367|19.04||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni|ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of change on the physical subscale of the MSIS||19.04|9.367|.000026
91695007|NCT03980145|183285026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||Pretest measures were statistically different between the two groups|ANOVA|||Between group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||||.084
91695008|NCT03980145|183285026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||||.412
91695009|NCT03980145|183285026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22||||0.00018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.59|28.85|||ANOVA|||Within group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||28.85|15.59|.00018
91695010|NCT03980145|183285026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.19||||0.00049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.013|19.38|||ANOVA|||Combined group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||19.38|7.013|.00049
91695011|NCT03980145|183285027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is no difference between the two groups||||.352
91695012|NCT03980145|183285027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment||||.079
91695013|NCT03980145|183285027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment||||.393
91695014|NCT03980145|183285027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.116|||ANOVA|Adjusted for multiple mean comparisons||Evaluating the impact of whether fast walking speed for both groups combined resulted in a significant improvement in walking speed||.116|.001|.048
91695015|NCT03980145|183285028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment for the HADS Anxiety Subscale||||.117
91695016|NCT03980145|183285028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|3.407|||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for HADS Anxiety Subscale||3.407|.093|.041
91695017|NCT03980145|183285028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for HADS Anxiety Subscale||||.150
91695018|NCT03980145|183285028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.518||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.646||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of HADS Anxiety Subscale||2.646|.390|.012
91695019|NCT03980145|183285029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||ANOVA|||||||.239
91695020|NCT03980145|183285029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between groups for differences in sensory pain score||||.667
91695021|NCT03980145|183285029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||Between group differences in affective pain||||.770
91695022|NCT03980145|183285030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment of LLFDI Disability Frequency||||.136
91695023|NCT03980145|183285030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833|||||||ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of improvement in LLFDI Disability Frequency||||.833
91695024|NCT03980145|183285030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.996||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|13.781|||ANOVA|||Between Group Assessment of improvement in LLFDI Disability Limitations||13.781|.212|.044
91695025|NCT03980145|183285030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of improvement in LLFDI Disability Limitations||||.212
91695026|NCT03980145|183285031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||ANOVA|||Between group comparison for the LLDFI Function||||.338
91695027|NCT03980145|183285031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.508||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|12.28|||ANOVA|||Within group assessment of LLFDI Function||12.28|2.73|.007
91695028|NCT03980145|183285031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for changes in LLFDI Function||||.067
91695029|NCT03980145|183285031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|9.08||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Combined group improvement in LLFDI Function||9.08|2.90|.001
91695030|NCT02088905|183285033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of ECBI Problem Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.080
91695031|NCT02088905|183285033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of ECBI Intensity Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.026
91695032|NCT02088905|183285033|OTHER|Type III Tests of Fixed Effects|||||<|0.001||||||Mixed Model Analysis - Significance of Timepoint within the model in determining the effectiveness of assigned treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Analysis of ECBI Intensity Scores, with variables of Timepoint, Treatment Assignment, and Timepoint\*Treatment Assignment interaction. Random intercept used.||||<.001
91695033|NCT02088905|183285033|OTHER|Type III Tests of Fixed Effects||||||0.182||||||Mixed Model Analysis - Significance of Treatment Assignment within the model in determining the effectiveness of assigned treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Analysis of ECBI Intensity Scores, with variables of Timepoint, Treatment Assignment, and Timepoint\*Treatment Assignment interaction. Random intercept used.||||.182
91695034|NCT02088905|183285033|OTHER|Type III Tests of Fixed Effects||||||0.015||||||Mixed Model Analysis - Significance of Treatment Assignment and Timepoint Interaction Term within the model in determining the effectiveness of assigned treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Analysis of ECBI Intensity Scores, with variables of Timepoint, Treatment Assignment, and Timepoint\*Treatment Assignment interaction. Random intercept used.||||.015
91695035|NCT02088905|183285034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of PSI Parental Distress between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.203
91695036|NCT02088905|183285034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of PSI Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||0.17
91865568|NCT02865538|183621970|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.11|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.11|-0.34|0.3907
91865569|NCT02865538|183621970|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.5393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.38|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.38|-0.17|0.5393
91865570|NCT02865538|183621970|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.7931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.24|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.24|-0.33|0.7931
91865571|NCT02865538|183621970|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|-0.35|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-0.35|-0.92|0.0004
91865572|NCT02865538|183621970|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.13|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.13|-0.45|0.3739
91865573|NCT02865538|183621971|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.077||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|10.42|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||10.42|0.16|0.0900
91865574|NCT02865538|183621971|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.053||0.1487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.55|0.63|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.63|-9.55|0.1487
91865575|NCT02865538|183621971|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-10.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.015||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|-5.15|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-5.15|-15.20|0.0012
91695037|NCT02088905|183285034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of PSI Difficult Child between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||0.308
91695038|NCT02088905|183285034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of PSI Total Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.413
91695039|NCT02088905|183285036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Total Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||0.271
91695040|NCT02088905|183285036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Awareness Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.434
91695041|NCT02088905|183285036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Cognition Scores between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.298
91695042|NCT02088905|183285036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Communication Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.294
91695043|NCT02088905|183285036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Motivation between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.441
91695044|NCT02088905|183285036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Restricted and Repetitive Behavior Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.204
91695045|NCT02088905|183285038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of DPICS Negative Skills between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||<.001
91695046|NCT02088905|183285038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of DPICS Positive Skills between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority. Data transformed using a square root transformation.||||<.001
91695047|NCT04922255|183285044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91695048|NCT04922255|183285045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.50
91695049|NCT04922255|183285046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
91695050|NCT04922255|183285047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.70
91695051|NCT04922255|183285048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91695052|NCT00648115|183285062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson chi square|7.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91695053|NCT02064816|183285108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.277763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.56|||Mann-Whitney Non Parametric test|||||1.56|-0.46|0.277763
91695054|NCT02064816|183285109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|1.3492||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3495|2.3489|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||2.3489|0.3495|0.0083
91695055|NCT02064816|183285109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.3367||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3534|2.32|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 8||2.3200|0.3534|0.0079
91695056|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.4003||||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5992|1.3998|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||ISRs subscale Week 4||1.3998|-0.5992|0.4311
91695057|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.08479||||0.8635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.885|1.0546|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||ISRs subscale Week 8||1.0546|-0.8850|0.8635
91695058|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3245||||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2927|0.6437|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||ISRs subscale Week 12||0.6437|-1.2927|0.5099
91695059|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.07079||||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8452|0.7036|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Global side-effect subscale: Week 4||0.7036|-0.8452|0.8574
91695060|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.1897||||0.6338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5926|0.972|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Global side-effect subscale: Week 8||0.9720|-0.5926|0.6338
91695061|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.4097||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3734|1.1929|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Global side-effect subscale: Week 12||1.1929|-0.3734|0.3042
91695062|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.4083||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9008|0.08419|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Benefits: Week 4||0.08419|-0.9008|0.1038
91695063|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.1358||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|0.3653|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Benefits: Week 8||0.3653|-0.6370|0.5940
91695064|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.05809||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5651|0.4489|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Benefits: Week 12||0.4489|-0.5651|0.8217
91795033|NCT01227564|183468828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.3969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|1.46||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 54.||1.46|-3.62|0.3969
91795034|NCT01227564|183468828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.8566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|2.92||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 86.||2.92|-2.43|0.8566
91795035|NCT01227564|183468828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.42||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 86.||1.42|-3.98|0.3460
91865576|NCT02865538|183621971|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.142||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.37|-0.9|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.90|-11.37|0.0548
91865577|NCT02865538|183621971|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|6.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.337||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|12.15|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||12.15|1.03|0.0522
91865578|NCT02865538|183621971|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.329||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.61|0.48|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.48|-10.61|0.1326
91865579|NCT02865538|183621971|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-12.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.73|-6.83|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-6.83|-17.73|0.0004
91865580|NCT02865538|183621971|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.408||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.47|-2.11|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-2.11|-13.47|0.0253
91695065|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.5909||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0873|2.269|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Description of pain: Week 4||2.2690|-1.0873|0.4890
91695066|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.7689||||0.3719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4607|0.9229|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Description of pain: Week 8||0.9229|-2.4607|0.3719
91695067|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.1422||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5521|1.8364|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Description of pain: Week 12||1.8364|-1.5521|0.8690
91695068|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.6544||||0.8328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4393|6.7482|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||VAS: Week 4||6.7482|-5.4393|0.8328
91695069|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.2294||||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|3.9212|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||VAS: Week 8||3.9212|-8.3800|0.4764
91695070|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-5.4196||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5939|0.7547|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||VAS: Week 12||0.7547|-11.5939|0.0852
91695071|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.006873||||0.9639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2918|0.3055|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Rating of pain: Week 4||0.3055|-0.2918|0.9639
91695072|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.08689||||0.5715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3886|0.2148|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Rating of pain: Week 8||0.2148|-0.3886|0.5715
91695073|NCT02064816|183285110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2224||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5256|0.0809|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Rating of pain: Week 12||0.08090|-0.5256|0.1502
91695074|NCT01757184|183285125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0271|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test at α=0.05.||A sample size of 50 randomized participants (approximately 25 participants per treatment group) provided 97% power to detect a statistically significant difference between sebelipase alfa and placebo, using Fisher's exact test at α=0.05.||||0.0271
91695075|NCT01757184|183285126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91695076|NCT01757184|183285127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91695077|NCT01757184|183285128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
91695078|NCT01757184|183285129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0375
91695079|NCT01757184|183285130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91695080|NCT01757184|183285131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91695081|NCT01757184|183285132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4216|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4216
91695082|NCT01757184|183285133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0068
91695083|NCT04468347|183285136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|The two-way ANOVA included cognitive and amyloid status, and their interaction as fixed effects.||||||<0.0001
91695084|NCT04468347|183285136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|The two-way ANOVA included cognitive and amyloid status, and their interaction as fixed effects.||||||0.0005
91695085|NCT04468347|183285136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.2161|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|The two-way ANOVA included cognitive and amyloid status, and their interaction as fixed effects.||||||0.2161
91695086|NCT04468347|183285137|OTHER|||||||0.1998|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1998
91725129|NCT06375655|183344750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6909776||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4025454|1.1860776||Value at 1 month|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.1860776|0.4025454|0.2302
91725130|NCT06375655|183344750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6909776||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4025454|1.1860776||Value at 3 months|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.1860776|0.4025454|0.3
91725131|NCT06375655|183344750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6909776||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4025454|1.1860776||Value at 6 months|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.1860776|0.4025454|0.3
91725132|NCT06375655|183344751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.01692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 1 month postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.01692
91725133|NCT06375655|183344751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 2 months postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.7
91725134|NCT06375655|183344751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 3 months postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.3
91725135|NCT06375655|183344751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 6 months postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.15
91725136|NCT00567580|183344761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level = 0.001|Z test|||Alternative hypotheses: 10% improvement in 5-year FFP in Arm 2 and 20% improvement in Arm 3, both relative to Arm 1, which has an assumed 5-year FFP of 70%. Sample size of 1587 (529/arm) with overall one-sided 0.025 alpha provides 90% power. Interim analyses (reported here) tested at one-sided significance level of 0.001. P\<0.001 indicates comparison crossed interim efficacy boundary. See Limitations and Caveats section.||||<0.001
91725137|NCT00567580|183344761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Z-test|||Alternative hypotheses: 10% improvement in 5-year FFP in Arm 2 and 20% improvement in Arm 3, both relative to Arm 1, which has an assumed 5-year FFP of 70%. Sample size of 1587 (529/arm) with overall one-sided 0.025 alpha provides 90% power. Interim analyses (reported here) tested at one-sided significance level of 0.001. P\<0.001 indicates comparison crossed interim efficacy boundary. See Limitations and Caveats section.||||0.003
91865581|NCT02865538|183621972|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|4.0|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||4.0|-1.2|0.3796
91865582|NCT02865538|183621972|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|0.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||0.3|-4.9|0.1413
91865583|NCT02865538|183621972|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|-2.9|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||-2.9|-8.1|0.0007
91725138|NCT00567580|183344761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test|||Alternative hypotheses: 10% improvement in 5-year FFP in Arm 2 and 20% improvement in Arm 3, both relative to Arm 1, which has an assumed 5-year FFP of 70%. Sample size of 1587 (529/arm) with overall one-sided 0.025 alpha provides 90% power. Interim analyses (reported here) tested at one-sided significance level of 0.001. P\<0.001 indicates comparison crossed interim efficacy boundary. See Limitations and Caveats section.||||<0.001
91865584|NCT02865538|183621972|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|-0.4|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||-0.4|-5.8|0.0624
91725139|NCT00567580|183344762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.45|0.72||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.72|0.45|<0.001
91725140|NCT00567580|183344762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.51|0.89||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||0.89|0.51|<0.001
91725141|NCT00567580|183344762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|0.51||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.51|0.30|<0.001
91725142|NCT00567580|183344763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.39|1.39||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.39|0.39|0.137
91725143|NCT00567580|183344763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.16|0.95||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||0.95|0.16|0.007
91725144|NCT00567580|183344763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.12|0.68||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.68|0.12|<0.001
91865585|NCT02865538|183621972|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|3.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||3.3|-0.7|0.2930
91865586|NCT02865538|183621972|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|-0.4|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||-0.4|-4.4|0.0512
91865587|NCT02865538|183621972|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|-3.0|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||-3.0|-7.0|<0.0001
91865588|NCT02865538|183621972|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|-1.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||-1.3|-5.5|0.0080
91725145|NCT00567580|183344764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|1.01||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.01|0.14|0.010
91725146|NCT00567580|183344764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|2.3||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||2.30|0.14|0.177
91725147|NCT00567580|183344764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.06|0.71||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.71|0.06|<0.001
91725148|NCT00567580|183344765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.49|1.22||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.22|0.49|0.105
91725149|NCT00567580|183344765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.36|1.06||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||1.06|0.36|0.022
91725150|NCT00567580|183344765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.29|0.81||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.81|0.29|<0.001
91725151|NCT00567580|183344766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.35|1.43||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.43|0.35|0.137
91725152|NCT00567580|183344766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|1.54||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||1.54|0.30|0.141
91865589|NCT02865538|183621973|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|1.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||1.80|-0.12|0.1482
91865590|NCT02865538|183621973|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.09|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.09|-1.99|0.0734
91865591|NCT02865538|183621973|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.74|-0.86|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.86|-2.74|0.0022
91865592|NCT02865538|183621973|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589||0.066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|-0.12|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.12|-2.08|0.0660
91865593|NCT02865538|183621973|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.613||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|2.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|2.20|0.15|0.0593
91865594|NCT02865538|183621973|OTHER||LS means difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.614||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|0.1|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.10|-1.95|0.1354
91865595|NCT02865538|183621973|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|-1.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-1.20|-3.21|0.0005
91865596|NCT02865538|183621973|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.43|-0.34|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-0.34|-2.43|0.0309
91695087|NCT04468347|183285138|OTHER|||||||0.0646|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0646
91695088|NCT00994461|183285139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by H. pylori status was employed for the comparison of celecoxib and loxoprofen with placebo. The multiplicity of test was not adjusted because these comparisons were for the secondary objective.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by H. pylori status was employed. Continuous correction was used.||Hypothesis testing was conducted with significant p-value level of under 0.05.||||<0.0001
91695089|NCT04586244|183285151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0925|||||||paired t-test|The paired t-test used n-1 degrees of freedom, where n is the number of evaluable paired samples.||||||0.0925
91695090|NCT01779440|183285175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The P-Value of 0.65 was calculated from the difference between groups for the above outcome variable.|Chi-squared|||||||0.65
91695091|NCT00550745|183285177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||||95.0|0.91|1.73|||||Relative risk (ZOSTAVAX™/placebo) of proportion of subjects reporting ≥ 1 serious AE through 42 Days postvaccination and 95% Confidence Interval were based on Miettinen and Nurminen \[Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat Med 1985;4:213-26\] method.|||1.73|0.91|
91695092|NCT00550745|183285178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||||95.0|0.98|1.32|||||Relative risk (ZOSTAVAX™/placebo) of proportion of subjects reporting ≥ 1 serious AE through 6 months postvaccination and 95% Confidence Interval were based on Miettinen and Nurminen \[Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat Med 1985;4:213-26\] method.|||1.32|0.98|
91695093|NCT00764660|183285180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.2|||Repeated Measures Model||Repeated Measures Model with factors for treatment, pooled centers, assessment and assessment by treatment interaction.|||8.2|-3.4|0.41
91695094|NCT00764660|183285181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-1.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.7|||Repeated Measures Model||Repeated Measures Model with factors for treatment, pooled centers, assessment and assessment by treatment interaction.|||1.7|-5.5|0.30
91695095|NCT00764660|183285182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Chi-squared|Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) Distribution with terms for treatment and region||||1.33|0.57|0.52
91695096|NCT00764660|183285183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31|||Chi-squared|ZINB Distribution with terms for treatment and region||||1.31|0.71|0.81
91695097|NCT00764660|183285184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.12||Model with factors treatment and pooled centers as stratum.|Kaplan-Meier|||||2.12|0.81|0.26
91695098|NCT00764660|183285185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|5.7|||Repeated Measures Model|Repeated Measures Model with factors for treatment, pooled centers, assessment and assessment by treatment interaction.||||5.7|-9.9|0.59
91695099|NCT00764660|183285186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|An Odds Ratio (SCH 900435/Placebo) \>1 means SCH 900435 has a higher probability of achieving complete abstinence.||||3.43|0.65|0.34
91695100|NCT00764660|183285189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.88||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|12.06|||Contrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) Model with terms for treatment, pooled centers, assessment by treatment interaction.|||12.06|-6.30|0.54
91695101|NCT00764660|183285190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|6.15|||cLDA Model||cLDA Model with terms for treatment, pooled centers, assessment by treatment interaction.|||6.15|-12.35|0.51
91695102|NCT00764660|183285191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-9.17||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|-0.07|||cLDA Model||cLDA Model with terms for treatment, pooled centers, assessment by treatment interaction.|||-0.07|-18.27|0.05
91695103|NCT00769067|183285205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|0.914||2-Sided.|Log Rank|Adjusted for the stratification factors: EGFR status, KRAS status and baseline ECOG performance status.|The estimated HR was for the Dacomitinib arm versus the Erlotinib arm.|"Total 128 events (progression/death) provided 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.45 (Erlotinib versus Dacomitinib arm) with 1-sided alpha=0.10.This represented a 45% improvement in true median PFS.~HR and 95% confidence interval estimated from stratified Cox Regression;2-sided p-value was based on stratified log-rank test with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status, Kirsten Rat Sarcoma status (KRAS), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) as stratification factors"||0.914|0.472|0.012
91695104|NCT00769067|183285206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||2-Sided.|Chi-squared|Unadjusted.||||||0.011
91725153|NCT00567580|183344766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.21|1.03||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.03|0.21|0.014
91725154|NCT00567580|183344767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.54|1.38||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.38|0.54|0.235
91725155|NCT00567580|183344767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.61|1.6||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||1.60|0.61|0.481
91725156|NCT00567580|183344767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.53|1.35||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.35|0.53|0.213
91725157|NCT00567580|183344768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.81|3.37||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for entry PSA level, pathology, seminal vesicle involvement, Gleason score, race, and age.|Reference level = PBRT Alone|Acute grade 2+ acute adverse events||3.37|1.81|<0.001
91725158|NCT00567580|183344768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.03|1.77||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for entry PSA level, pathology, seminal vesicle involvement, Gleason score, race, and age.|Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Acute grade 2+ acute adverse events||1.77|1.03|0.007
91725159|NCT00567580|183344768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.16|3.6||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Univariate model was used due to the low number of events.|Reference level = PBRT Alone|Acute grade 3+ acute adverse events||3.60|1.16|0.002
91725160|NCT00567580|183344768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|2.27||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Univariate model was used due to the low number of events.|Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Acute grade 3+ adverse events||2.27|0.975|0.025
91725161|NCT00567580|183344769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.88|1.26||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|Late grade 2+ adverse events||1.26|0.88|0.268
91725162|NCT00567580|183344769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.32||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Late grade 2+ adverse events||1.32|0.93|0.101
91725163|NCT00567580|183344769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.8||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|Late grade 3+ adverse events||1.80|0.83|0.119
91865597|NCT02865538|183621974|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88||0.3768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|8.5|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||8.5|-27.8|0.3768
91865598|NCT02865538|183621974|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.89||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.1|-6.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||-6.8|-43.1|0.0248
91865599|NCT02865538|183621974|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-43.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.1|-25.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||-25.8|-62.1|0.0001
91865600|NCT02865538|183621974|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-42.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.43||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.9|-23.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||-23.8|-61.9|0.0004
91725164|NCT00567580|183344769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.65||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Late grade 3+ adverse events||1.65|0.82|0.170
91725165|NCT00845182|183344830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91725166|NCT00845182|183344830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91725167|NCT04621760|183344833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.51
91725168|NCT04621760|183344834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|one sided Fisher's exct test, given small cell sizes.||||||0.62
91725169|NCT04621760|183344835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used due to small sample size||||||0.207
91725170|NCT04621760|183344836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used due to small cell size||||||0.496
91865601|NCT02865538|183621974|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|35.1|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||35.1|-14.2|0.4819
91725171|NCT04621760|183344837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion correctly identifying PrEP is a daily pill to prevent HIV"||||0.02
91725172|NCT04621760|183344837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion correctly responding to prompt: PrEP is for all adults"||||0.01
91725173|NCT04621760|183344837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified: PrEP will not work if taken once a week"||||<0.01
91725174|NCT04621760|183344837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test of proportion who correctly identified PrEP does not prevent STDs other than HIV"||||<0.01
91725175|NCT04621760|183344837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified, PrEP side effects do not last forever"||||<0.01
91725176|NCT04621760|183344837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified, A baby could be norm to HIV discordant parents without transmitting HIV"||||0.03
91725177|NCT04621760|183344837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified There is medication you can take after sex to prevent HIV"||||<0.01
91725178|NCT04621760|183344837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test for proportion who correctly identified PrEP efficacy is \> 95%"||||0.29
91865602|NCT02865538|183621974|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.77||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.1|22.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||22.2|-27.1|0.8694
91865603|NCT02865538|183621974|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.79||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.6|0.7|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||0.7|-48.6|0.1105
91725179|NCT04621760|183344838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.04
91725180|NCT04621760|183344839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.02
91725181|NCT04621760|183344840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.05
91725182|NCT04621760|183344841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.03
91725183|NCT04621760|183344842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.07
91725184|NCT04621760|183344843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.10
91725185|NCT04621760|183344844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong negative skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with highest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.22
91725186|NCT04621760|183344845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used due to small cell size||||||0.51
91725187|NCT04621760|183344846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use PrEP||||0.90
91725188|NCT04621760|183344846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use abstinence||||0.75
91725189|NCT04621760|183344846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use PEP||||0.32
91725190|NCT04621760|183344846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use HIV testing||||0.40
91725191|NCT04621760|183344846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use STD testing||||0.34
91725192|NCT04621760|183344846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use Treatment as Prevention||||0.10
91725193|NCT04621760|183344847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91725194|NCT04621760|183344848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||"Comparing proportions in response to prompt The information was easy to understand"||||0.26
91725195|NCT04621760|183344848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||"Comparing proportions in response to prompt: I got all of the information I needed"||||0.26
91725196|NCT04621760|183344848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
91725197|NCT04621760|183344848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||"Comparing proportions in response to prompt: The information felt useful to me"||||0.17
91725198|NCT04621760|183344849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of abstinence method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.74
91725199|NCT04621760|183344849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of condoms method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.59
91725200|NCT04621760|183344849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of PEP method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.66
91725201|NCT04621760|183344849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of PrEP method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.49
91725202|NCT04621760|183344849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of HIV testing method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.94
91725203|NCT04621760|183344849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of STD testing method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.95
91725204|NCT04621760|183344849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of Treatment as prevention method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.39
91725205|NCT04621760|183344855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.13
91725206|NCT04621760|183344856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91725207|NCT01028560|183344858|OTHER||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||The above is the slope for immunotherapy group . The (quadratic) slope is for 1 month increase in time.|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||0.63|-0.24|0.38
91725208|NCT01028560|183344858|OTHER||Slope|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above (quadratic) slope is for control group|The above is the (quadratic) slope is for control group and is for 1 month increase in time.|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection were smoothed over two month period with median score values.||0.99|0.11|0.013
91795036|NCT01227564|183468828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.82||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 86.||1.82|-2.86|0.6582
91865604|NCT02865538|183621974|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5||0.239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.2|7.4|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||7.4|-44.2|0.2390
91865605|NCT06946888|183621975|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.837||||||This is the first week of tracking. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.837
91888725|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.43|0.7604
91725209|NCT01028560|183344858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|12.03||Post estimation means were tested between the intervention arms after LME model at year 1 and the p- values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction.|contrast testing post mixed model||The difference is IT-Control group and the confidence interval is Bonferroni CI|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection between immunotherapy and control groups were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||12.03|-11.76|0.978
91725210|NCT01028560|183344858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|12.38||Post estimation means were tested between the intervention arms after LME model at year 2 and the p- value was unadjusted p value|contrast testing post mixed model]||The difference is IT-Control group and the confidence interval is Bonferroni CI|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection between immunotherapy and control groups were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||12.38|-15.83|0.77
91725211|NCT01028560|183344858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.54|15.84||Post estimation means were tested between the intervention arms after LME model at year 3 and the p- values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction.|contrast testing post mixed model||The difference is IT-Control group and the confidence interval is Bonferroni CI|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection between immunotherapy and control groups were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||15.84|-19.54|0.80
91725212|NCT01028560|183344859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||Chi-square test (proportion of new sensitizations versus unchanged or lost sensitizations in each group, intention-to treat analysis).|Chi-squared|||||||0.677
91725213|NCT01028560|183344860|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.56||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|3.29||Test of parallelism (group x time) hypothesis P-value.|covariance pattern (rep. measure) model|Within group difference p-values ( baseline vs 3-years) in control and intervention arm were 0.56 and 0.20 respectively.|The estimated slope reported is for year 3 from the covariance pattern model with autoregressive covariance structure.|Covariance Pattern Model with autoregressive covariance structure with REML (Restricted Estimation of Maximum Likelihood) with time and role as categorical variable was modeled.||3.29|-2.18|0.5460
91725214|NCT01028560|183344861|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.27||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.96||Poisson regression model for treatment arm adjusting for gender, race and history of hospitalization was used to analyze the corticosteroid burst and the time period contributed by each child in years were fitted as offset.|Poisson regression|Poisson regression model with robust variance with contributed person years used as offset was modeled.||Null hypothesis = Incidence rate of CSB in each group are same. Poisson regression adjusting for gender, race and history of hospitalization was used to analyze the corticosteroid burst.||1.96|0.82|0.289
91725215|NCT01960842|183344864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-3.5|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-3.50|-5.78|<0.001
91725216|NCT01960842|183344865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|6.95|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||6.95|4.21|<0.001
91725217|NCT01960842|183344866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-7.7|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-7.7|-16.3|<0.001
91725218|NCT01960842|183344867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from score = 4|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The p-value is based on a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the hypothesis of no change (score = 4).||||<0.001
91725219|NCT01960842|183344868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from score = 4|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The p-value is based on a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the hypothesis of no change (score = 4).||||<0.001
91725220|NCT01960842|183344869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||0.4|-4.0|=0.101
91725221|NCT01960842|183344870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.1|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||1.1|-5.3|=0.182
91795037|NCT01227564|183468830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.7537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|13.36||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||13.36|-18.36|0.7537
91725222|NCT01960842|183344871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.09|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-0.09|-1.90|=0.032
91795038|NCT01227564|183468830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.51||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.86|3.65||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||3.65|-28.86|0.1266
91865606|NCT06946888|183621975|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.428||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.428
91865607|NCT06946888|183621975|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.269||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.269
91888726|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.07|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.66|0.1106
91725223|NCT01960842|183344872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-10.6|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Mobility Domain analysis.||-10.6|-27.8|<0.001
91725224|NCT01960842|183344872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|0.3|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Emotional Well-Being Domain analysis.||0.3|-13.3|=0.059
91725225|NCT01960842|183344872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|||=|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|0.6|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Stigma Domain analysis.||0.6|-15.6|=0.070
91725226|NCT01960842|183344872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||=|0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.2|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Social Support Domain analysis.||4.2|-7.3|=0.591
91725227|NCT01960842|183344872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-7.3|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Cognition Domain analysis.||-7.3|-20.7|<0.001
91725228|NCT01960842|183344872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||=|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.4|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Communication Domain analysis.||6.4|-4.2|=0.670
91725229|NCT01960842|183344872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-10.3|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Bodily Discomfort Domain analysis.||-10.3|-25.2|<0.001
91725230|NCT01960842|183344873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.1|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||0.1|-9.8|=0.056
91725231|NCT01960842|183344874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-0.2|-1.6|=0.011
91725232|NCT01960842|183344875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.9|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-1.9|-4.4|<0.001
91725233|NCT01960842|183344876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-3.47|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-3.47|-5.83|<0.001
91725234|NCT01960842|183344877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-3.44|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-3.44|-5.73|<0.001
91725235|NCT00896233|183344931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.99||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.99|0.81|
91725236|NCT00896233|183344931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.98||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.98|0.71|
91725237|NCT00896233|183344931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.98||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||0.98|0.78|
91725238|NCT00896233|183344931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.98||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||0.98|0.75|
91725239|NCT00896233|183344932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.99||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.99|0.80|
91725240|NCT00896233|183344932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.99||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.99|0.78|
91725241|NCT00896233|183344932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.0||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||1.00|0.87|
91725242|NCT00896233|183344932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.0||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||1.00|0.88|
91725243|NCT02697422|183344935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91725244|NCT02697422|183344936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91725245|NCT02697422|183344937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91725246|NCT02697422|183344938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Smoker/tobacco use results were calculated using logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|||Smoker/tobacco use results were calculated using logistic regression. A P value of .90 was found comparing smoking/tobacco use in intervention vs control participants. A difference was not reported between intervention and control because smoking/ tobacco use was a binary variable.||||0.90
91725247|NCT02697422|183344939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91725248|NCT02697422|183344940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91725249|NCT02697422|183344941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91725250|NCT02697422|183344942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91725251|NCT02697422|183344943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91725252|NCT02697422|183344944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91888727|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.45|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-0.43|0.9776
91725253|NCT02068599|183344946|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|4.26||||0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|9.66||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||9.66|-1.13|0.1213
91725254|NCT02068599|183344946|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.74||||0.5231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|7.11||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||7.11|-3.62|0.5231
91725255|NCT02068599|183344947|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|17.86||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|43.98||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||43.98|-8.26|0.1795
91725256|NCT02068599|183344947|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|9.0||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|34.96||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||34.96|-16.95|0.4956
91725257|NCT02068599|183344948|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.61||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|9.08||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||9.08|-1.87|0.1963
91725258|NCT02068599|183344948|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.06||||0.4584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|7.5||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||7.50|-3.39|0.4584
91725259|NCT02068599|183344949|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|23.51||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.83|122.84||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||122.84|-75.83|0.6420
91725260|NCT02068599|183344949|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-50.4||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.72|47.92||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||47.92|-148.72|0.3141
91725261|NCT02068599|183344950|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.16||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|15.63||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||15.63|-9.31|0.6184
91725262|NCT02068599|183344950|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-3.48||||0.5775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.78|8.81||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||8.81|-15.78|0.5775
91725263|NCT02068599|183344951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.099||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=50% responder rate||1.099|0.345|0.1011
91725264|NCT02068599|183344951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.819||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=50% responder rate||1.819|0.615|0.8400
91725265|NCT02068599|183344951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.494||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=30% responder rate||1.494|0.531|0.6607
91725266|NCT02068599|183344951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.441||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=30% responder rate||1.441|0.520|0.5777
91725267|NCT02068599|183344952|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.94||||0.4316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|13.79||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||13.79|-5.90|0.4316
91795039|NCT01227564|183468830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96||||0.6724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.34|18.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||18.41|-28.34|0.6724
91725268|NCT02068599|183344952|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.51||||0.6126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|12.26||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||12.26|-7.24|0.6126
91725269|NCT02068599|183344953|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.01||||0.9208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.257||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||0.257|-0.232|0.9208
91795040|NCT01227564|183468830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.89|-5.5||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||-5.50|-53.89|0.0170
91904306|NCT02273726|183703796|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa (roxadustat - epoetin alpha) was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|-14.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.514|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.64|-11.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using a MMRM with baseline as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-11.695|-17.640|<0.0001
91888728|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.22|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.65|0.3239
91725270|NCT02068599|183344953|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.04||||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.284||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||0.284|-0.200|0.7344
91725271|NCT02068599|183344953|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.21||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.486||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||0.486|-0.056|0.1199
91725272|NCT02068599|183344953|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.06||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.334||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||0.334|-0.204|0.6357
91725273|NCT02068599|183344954|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.77||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.377|7.916||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||7.916|-2.377|0.2906
91725274|NCT02068599|183344954|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.41||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.707|6.518||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||6.518|-3.707|0.5892
91725275|NCT02068599|183344954|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.82||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.678|6.315||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||6.315|-4.678|0.7699
91725276|NCT02068599|183344954|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.74||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.721|7.193||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||7.193|-3.721|0.5320
91725277|NCT02068599|183344955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|1.433||5% level of significance|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||For the responder analyses, participants with missing values were deemed non-responders. Analysis performed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) method where binary variable responder rate (Yes/No) was modeled through logit link function, with treatment, center, week, and treatment\*week as explanatory factors. The unstructured working correlation structure was applied.||1.433|0.501|0.5358
91725278|NCT02068599|183344955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.423||5% level of significance|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||For the responder analyses, participants with missing values were deemed non-responders. Analysis performed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) method where binary variable responder rate (Yes/No) was modeled through logit link function, with treatment, center, week, and treatment\*week as explanatory factors. The unstructured working correlation structure was applied.||2.423|0.870|0.1532
91725279|NCT03019588|183344962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.36|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|||1.36|0.58|0.2900
91725280|NCT03019588|183344963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|||2.74|1.14|0.9954
91725281|NCT03019588|183344964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-6.0||||0.7884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|9.3|||Z-test|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|||9.3|-21.6|0.7884
91725282|NCT00106535|183344968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91725283|NCT00106535|183344968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91725284|NCT00106535|183344969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91725285|NCT00106535|183344969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91725286|NCT00106535|183344970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91795041|NCT01227564|183468830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.94||||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.67|30.78||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||30.78|-92.67|0.3196
91795042|NCT01227564|183468830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.97||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.64|-0.31||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||-0.31|-129.64|0.0490
91795043|NCT01227564|183468830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.04||||0.2969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|46.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||46.79|-14.70|0.2969
91865608|NCT06946888|183621975|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.015||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.015
91725287|NCT00106535|183344970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91725288|NCT00106535|183344979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||<0.0001
91725289|NCT00106535|183344979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||<0.0001
91725290|NCT00106535|183344980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.96|-43.56|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region and original treatment group.||||-43.56|-96.96|<0.0001
91725291|NCT00106535|183344980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.69|-59.22|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region and original treatment group.||||-59.22|-112.69|<0.0001
91725292|NCT00106535|183344982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-148.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.22|-90.98|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region.||||-90.98|-205.22|<0.0001
91725293|NCT00106535|183344982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-181.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.6|-124.21|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region.||||-124.21|-238.60|<0.0001
91725294|NCT00106535|183345007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5212.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3139.4|7285.16|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region.||||7285.16|3139.40|<0.0001
91725295|NCT00106535|183345007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7092.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5066.16|9119.36||Adjusted for region.|ANOVA|||||9119.36|5066.16|<0.0001
91725296|NCT00106535|183345023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||0.0023
91725297|NCT00106535|183345023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|||||||<0.0001
91725298|NCT00106535|183345024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||0.0001
91725299|NCT00106535|183345024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||<0.0001
91725300|NCT06042855|183345080|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\>1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.03|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.03|0.89|
91725301|NCT06042855|183345081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|6.38||||||No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||6.38|0.32|
91795044|NCT01227564|183468830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.2||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.42|5.03||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||5.03|-57.42|0.0973
91795045|NCT01227564|183468831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|5.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||5.10|-7.94|0.6653
91725302|NCT06042855|183345084|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.78|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.78|0.82|
91725303|NCT06042855|183345085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.31|0.66|
91725304|NCT06042855|183345086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.41|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.41|0.57|
91725305|NCT06042855|183345087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.42|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.42|0.78|
91725306|NCT06042855|183345088|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||Day 7||1.32|0.85|
91725307|NCT06042855|183345088|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||||||Day 14||1.28|0.85|
91725308|NCT06042855|183345088|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.53||||||Day 28||1.53|0.94|
91725309|NCT06042855|183345088|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.48||||||Day 90||1.48|0.91|
91795046|NCT01227564|183468831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.15||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||9.15|-4.20|0.4613
91865609|NCT06946888|183621975|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.163||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.163
91725310|NCT06042855|183345088|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.77||||||Day 120||1.77|1.06|
91725311|NCT06042855|183345088|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.66||||||Day 180||1.66|1.02|
91725312|NCT06042855|183345089|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||||||Day 7||1.15|0.86|
91725313|NCT06042855|183345089|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||||||Day 14||1.21|0.87|
91725314|NCT06042855|183345089|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92||||||Day 28||0.92|0.58|
91725315|NCT06042855|183345089|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||||||Day 90||1.02|0.70|
91725316|NCT06042855|183345089|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99||||||Day 120||0.99|0.68|
91725317|NCT06042855|183345089|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||Day 180||1.01|0.70|
91725318|NCT06042855|183345090|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06||||||Day 7||1.06|0.70|
91725319|NCT06042855|183345090|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.14||||||Day 14||1.14|0.79|
91725320|NCT06042855|183345090|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.1||||||Day 28||1.10|0.69|
91725321|NCT06042855|183345090|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25||||||Day 90||1.25|0.80|
91725322|NCT06042855|183345090|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08||||||Day 120||1.08|0.70|
91725323|NCT06042855|183345090|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.04||||||Day 180||1.04|0.66|
91725324|NCT06042855|183345091|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.09||||||Day 7||1.09|0.70|
91725325|NCT06042855|183345091|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||||||Day 14||0.98|0.65|
91725326|NCT06042855|183345091|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85||||||Day 28||0.85|0.47|
91725327|NCT06042855|183345091|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08||||||Day 90||1.08|0.70|
91725328|NCT06042855|183345091|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96||||||Day 120||0.96|0.62|
91725329|NCT06042855|183345091|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.95||||||Day 180||0.95|0.61|
91725330|NCT06042855|183345092|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22||||||Day 7||1.22|0.83|
91725331|NCT06042855|183345092|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13||||||Day 14||1.13|0.76|
91725332|NCT06042855|183345092|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.8||||||Day 28||0.80|0.45|
91725333|NCT06042855|183345092|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9||||||Day 90||0.90|0.59|
91725334|NCT06042855|183345092|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97||||||Day 120||0.97|0.61|
91725335|NCT06042855|183345092|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||||||Day 180||0.94|0.62|
91725336|NCT06042855|183345093|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43||||||Day 7||1.43|0.95|
91725337|NCT06042855|183345093|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||||||Day 14||1.25|0.87|
91725338|NCT06042855|183345093|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.59||||||Day 28||1.59|0.99|
91865610|NCT06946888|183621975|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.14||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.140
91725339|NCT06042855|183345093|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.35||||||Day 90||1.35|0.89|
91725340|NCT06042855|183345093|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.48||||||Day 120||1.48|0.98|
91725341|NCT06042855|183345093|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.46||||||Day 180||1.46|0.96|
91725342|NCT06042855|183345094|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||||||Day 7||1.26|0.96|
91725343|NCT06042855|183345094|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||||||Day 14||1.14|0.87|
91725344|NCT06042855|183345094|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||||||Day 28||1.07|0.81|
91725345|NCT06042855|183345094|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||||||Day 90||1.07|0.76|
91725346|NCT06042855|183345094|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06||||||Day 120||1.06|0.78|
91725347|NCT06042855|183345094|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.04||||||Day 180||1.04|0.75|
91725348|NCT06042855|183345095|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference in MTU (Active - Placebo)\<0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||||The mean time unwell is estimated from receipt of study drug to study day 14. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.28|-0.21|
91725349|NCT06042855|183345096|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference days benefit (Active - Placebo)\>0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26|||||The interval is a highest density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.26|-0.34|
91725350|NCT06100250|183345118|OTHER|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 66|Estimation parameter represents the average of the differences between the paired observations (post-intervention score minus pre-intervention score)|Null hypothesis = Mean difference between the paired STI-related knowledge scores (pre-intervention and post-intervention) is 0||||0.01
91725351|NCT06100250|183345120|OTHER|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 47|Estimation parameter represents the average of the differences between the paired observations (post-intervention score minus pre-intervention score)|Null hypothesis = Mean difference between the paired self-efficacy for specimen self-collection scores (pre-intervention and post-intervention) is 0||||<0.01
91725352|NCT05259033|183345130|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with region and randomised treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.|Estimated treatment difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy strategy||-0.33|-0.56|<0.0001
91725353|NCT05537571|183345136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.19|-77.39|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-77.39|-88.19|<0.0001
91725354|NCT05537571|183345136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.68|-76.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-76.0|-86.68|<0.0001
91725355|NCT05537571|183345136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.88|-80.26|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-80.26|-90.88|<0.0001
91725356|NCT05537571|183345137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.7|-77.57|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-77.57|-88.7|<0.0001
91725357|NCT05537571|183345137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.18|-73.17|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-73.17|-84.18|<0.0001
91865611|NCT06946888|183621975|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.079||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.079
91904307|NCT02273726|183703797|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was fixed as a difference of -0.75.|LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.869||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with MI||Treatment comparison was made using the MI strategy by combining the results of ANCOVA model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and other randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening Hb (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.869|0.503|<0.0001
91904308|NCT02273726|183703798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.975||0.00091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.842|-6.445||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Rank ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison was made using an ANCOVA model with baseline iron repletion status, treatment, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-6.445|-33.842|0.00091
91725358|NCT05537571|183345137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.43|-77.49|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-77.49|-88.43|<0.0001
91725359|NCT05537571|183345138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.25|-73.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-73.1|-85.25|<0.0001
91725360|NCT05537571|183345138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.81|-65.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-65.8|-77.81|<0.0001
91725361|NCT05537571|183345138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.09|-71.15|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-71.15|-83.09|<0.0001
91795047|NCT01227564|183468831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|5.61||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||5.61|-4.18|0.7710
91904309|NCT02273726|183703799|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups was 1.8.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|0.97|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||Analysis was done using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb and other stratification factors except mean qualifying screening Hb (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.970|0.466|0.0337
91904310|NCT02273726|183703800|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa (roxadustat - epoetin alpha) was less than 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.739||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using MMRM with baseline as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||2.142|-0.760|0.3500
91904311|NCT03697720|183703813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Paired t-tests were used to compare worst menstrual pain rating across diary day (0-10 numeric rating scale) from baseline and at 6-8 maths followup.||||<0.0001
91904312|NCT03697720|183703814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||.119
91904313|NCT02414399|183703826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.29||Alpha =0.045 (to account for .005 alpha spending at interim analysis)|Regression, Cox||azithromycin is the numerator and placebo is the denominator|Death or rehospitalization||1.29|.64|0.58
91904314|NCT02414399|183703826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.58|||Regression, Cox||Azithromycin-numerator and placebo-denominator|Death alone||1.58|0.39|0.49
91725362|NCT05537571|183345139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.55|-8.09|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.09|-18.55|<0.0001
91725363|NCT05537571|183345139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.02|-4.68|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-4.68|-15.02|=0.0002
91725364|NCT05537571|183345139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-9.82|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-9.82|-20.1|<0.0001
91725365|NCT05537571|183345140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.62|-7.08|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.08|-17.62|<0.0001
91725366|NCT05537571|183345140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|-3.44|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-3.44|-13.85|=0.0013
91725367|NCT05537571|183345140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-8.84|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.84|-19.2|<0.0001
91725368|NCT05537571|183345141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|-5.73|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-5.73|-16.81|<0.0001
91725369|NCT05537571|183345141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|-1.69|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-1.69|-12.64|=0.0106
91725370|NCT05537571|183345141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|-7.15|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.15|-18.04|<0.0001
91725371|NCT05537571|183345142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.9|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.07|-9.72|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-9.72|-54.07|=0.0051
91725372|NCT05537571|183345142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7|||=|0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.62|-7.81|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.81|-51.62|=0.0081
91725373|NCT05537571|183345142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1|||=|0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.89|-3.33|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-3.33|-46.89|=0.0241
91725374|NCT05537571|183345143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.8|||=|0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.86|-10.76|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-10.76|-48.86|=0.0023
91725375|NCT05537571|183345143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.4|||=|0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.23|-8.58|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.58|-46.23|=0.0046
91725376|NCT05537571|183345143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||=|0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.67|-7.24|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.24|-44.67|=0.0068
91725377|NCT05537571|183345144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.7|||=|0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.91|-8.46|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.46|-48.91|=0.0057
91904315|NCT02414399|183703826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.47|||Regression, Cox||numerator-azithromycin denominator-placebo|Rehospitalization alone||1.47|.70|.94
91904316|NCT02414399|183703834|SUPERIORITY|We modelled azithromycin resistance in E coli at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up by randomisation group using generalised estimating equations with a Poisson link and exchangeable correlation structure, including site in the model. Models included an interaction term between randomisation group and follow-up timepoint (month 3 or month 6) to test whether an effect on resistance waned with time.||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||M0||||0.77
91725378|NCT05537571|183345144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.13|-6.16||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-6.16|-46.13|
91725379|NCT05537571|183345144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.93|-4.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-4.2|-43.93|0.0179
91725380|NCT03837938|183345158|NON_INFERIORITY|According to the protocol and SAP non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%.|Difference in rates Levopront®-Libexin®|5.81|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.17|||||||Difference in daytime resolved rates Levopront® (Test) vs Libexin® (Control) was reported|||-7.17|
91725381|NCT03837938|183345159|NON_INFERIORITY|According to the protocol and SAP non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|difference in rates Levopront®-Libexin®|5.43|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.31|||||||Difference in daytime resolved rates Levopront® (Test) vs Libexin® (Control) was reported|||-7.31|
91725382|NCT03837938|183345160|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91725383|NCT03837938|183345161|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||=|0.861|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.861
91725384|NCT03837938|183345162|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Daytime at Visit 2, Day 4||||<0.001
91904317|NCT02414399|183703834|SUPERIORITY|We modelled azithromycin resistance in E coli at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up by randomisation group using generalised estimating equations with a Poisson link and exchangeable correlation structure, including site in the model. Models included an interaction term between randomisation group and follow-up timepoint (month 3 or month 6) to test whether an effect on resistance waned with time.||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 3||||0.088
91725385|NCT03837938|183345162|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Daytime at Visit 3, Day 8||||<0.001
91725386|NCT03837938|183345162|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Nightime at Visit 2, Day 4||||<0.001
91725387|NCT03837938|183345162|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Nighttime at Visit 3, Day 8||||<0.001
91904318|NCT02414399|183703834|SUPERIORITY|We modelled azithromycin resistance in E coli at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up by randomisation group using generalised estimating equations with a Poisson link and exchangeable correlation structure, including site in the model. Models included an interaction term between randomisation group and follow-up timepoint (month 3 or month 6) to test whether an effect on resistance waned with time.||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||M6||||0.44
91725388|NCT03837938|183345163|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Visit 2, Day 4||||<0.001
91725389|NCT03837938|183345163|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||at Visit 3, Day 8||||<0.001
91725390|NCT03837938|183345164|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin is defined as 20%|||||=|0.336|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||||||=0.336
91725391|NCT06394323|183345176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Welch's t test, 2 sided|The Welch's t test statistic was -1.25 and the degrees of freedom were 84.67.|The mean difference was calculated by subtracting the mean DCS of the SOC arm from the mean DCS of the MyChoice intervention arm (MyChoice mean - SOC mean).|The null hypothesis is that the mean DCS for the MyChoice and SOC arms are equal.||1.9|-8.9|0.2157
91725392|NCT01501513|183345190|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91725393|NCT05675020|183345194|OTHER|The descriptive analysis yields frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. The statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS V27.0. We analyzed the percentage of correct responses for knowledge survey questions from pre- and post-intervention survey responses.|||||||||||||||||Participant data was collected from the REDCap pre- and post-intervention questionnaires completed by the adolescents and parents/legal guardians that participated in the project. Data was collected from October to December 2022. The sample size was nine parent-adolescent dyads. Descriptive analysis was used to assess differences in sociodemographic variables, including age, gender, race, material status, employment status, salary, height, and weight. The descriptive analysis yields frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. The statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS V27.0.|||
91725394|NCT01778985|183345201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91725395|NCT01778985|183345202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91725396|NCT01778985|183345203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91725397|NCT01778985|183345204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(18)=1.78, p=0.088||||||0.088
91904319|NCT01704287|183703861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1); lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% Upper Limit of Normal (ULN)\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|||0.73|0.46|<0.0001
91725398|NCT01778985|183345205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91725399|NCT01778985|183345206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||||||t(28)=0.11, p=0.91|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91725400|NCT01778985|183345207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||t(18)=1.69, p=.10|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91725401|NCT01778985|183345208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||t(10)=2.76, p=0.020|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91725402|NCT01778985|183345209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||||||t(23)=0.28, p=0.78|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91725403|NCT01778985|183345210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||||||t(28)=0.67, p=0.51|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
91725404|NCT01778985|183345211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||t(23)=1.23, p=0.24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91725405|NCT01778985|183345212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91725406|NCT01778985|183345213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91725407|NCT01778985|183345214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91725408|NCT01778985|183345215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91725409|NCT01778985|183345216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91725410|NCT01778985|183345217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91725411|NCT01778985|183345218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91725412|NCT01778985|183345219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91725413|NCT01778985|183345220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91725414|NCT05788328|183345225|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.05|113.29|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 80mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 4). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||113.29|66.05|
91725415|NCT05788328|183345225|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|82.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.1|108.24|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 240mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 7). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||108.24|63.10|
91725416|NCT05788328|183345226|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|85.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.96|112.94|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 80mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 4). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||112.94|64.96|
91725417|NCT05788328|183345226|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.28|106.55|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 240mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 7). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||106.55|61.28|
91725418|NCT05788328|183345227|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|229.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|185.23|283.37|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 80 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 5). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||283.37|185.23|
91725419|NCT05788328|183345227|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|214.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|173.38|265.94|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 240 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 8). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||265.94|173.38|
91725420|NCT05788328|183345228|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|213.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|170.46|266.29|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 80 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 5). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||266.29|170.46|
91725421|NCT05788328|183345228|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|232.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|185.88|290.38|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 240 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 8). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||290.38|185.88|
91725422|NCT05788328|183345236|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|45.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.97|60.27|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 80mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 4). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||60.27|33.97|
91725423|NCT05788328|183345236|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|47.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.62|63.19|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 240mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 7). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||63.19|35.62|
91795048|NCT01227564|183468831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.02||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|8.04||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||8.04|-1.99|0.2328
91725424|NCT05788328|183345241|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|176.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.51|229.6|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 80 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 5). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||229.60|135.51|
91725425|NCT05788328|183345241|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|221.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|170.26|288.48|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 240 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 8). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||288.48|170.26|
91725426|NCT01286324|183345287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91725427|NCT01286324|183345288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91795049|NCT01227564|183468831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.3693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.58||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||2.58|-0.97|0.3693
91888729|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.6736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.37|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.57|0.6736
91725428|NCT01286324|183345289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for State Subscale||||0.47
91725429|NCT01286324|183345289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value for Trait Subscale||||0.45
91725430|NCT01286324|183345290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||P value is adjusted based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91725431|NCT05278065|183345306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.09||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|12.98|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||12.98|3.20|.004
91725432|NCT05278065|183345306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|13.87|||t-test, 2 sided||Paired t-test|Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||13.87|-0.40|.060
91725433|NCT05278065|183345306|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.932||||0.766|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.766
91725434|NCT05278065|183345306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|6.19|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at Wk 8 and Wk 16 for experimental arm||6.19|-3.41|0.533
91725435|NCT05278065|183345306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.69||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|4.84|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at Wk 8 and Wk 16 for control arm||4.84|-12.21|0.296
91725436|NCT05278065|183345306|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.075||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.14
91725437|NCT05278065|183345306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|14.71|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 16 for experimental arm||14.71|4.24|.002
91725438|NCT05278065|183345306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|10.01|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||10.01|-3.91|.291
91725439|NCT05278065|183345306|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.834||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.067
91865612|NCT06946888|183621975|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.151||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.151
91865613|NCT06946888|183621976|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.63||||||This is the first week of tracking. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.63
91725440|NCT05278065|183345307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.71|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||1.71|-0.07|.068
91725441|NCT05278065|183345307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.32|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||2.32|-2.32|1.00
91725442|NCT05278065|183345307|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.66||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.44
91795050|NCT01227564|183468831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.56||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||2.56|-1.09|0.4220
91725443|NCT05278065|183345308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.447||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|1.078|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||1.078|-0.184|.145
91725444|NCT05278065|183345308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.95|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||3.95|-1.50|0.280
91725445|NCT05278065|183345308|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.802||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.38
91725446|NCT05278065|183345309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.250|-0.077|0.268
91725447|NCT05278065|183345309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.198|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.198|-0.291|0.624
91725448|NCT05278065|183345309|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.17
91725449|NCT05278065|183345310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.219|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.219|-0.374|0.574
91725450|NCT05278065|183345310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.252|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.252|-0.020|.077
91725451|NCT05278065|183345310|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.193||||0.149|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.149
91725452|NCT05278065|183345311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.116||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.396|0.163|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.163|-0.396|0.376
91725453|NCT05278065|183345311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.78|-0.036|0.065
91725454|NCT05278065|183345311|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.486||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.006
91904320|NCT01704287|183703861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.6||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|||0.60|0.37|<0.0001
91904321|NCT01704287|183703861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|||1.05|0.66|0.1247
91725455|NCT05278065|183345312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.483|0.576|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.576|-0.483|0.849
91725456|NCT05278065|183345312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.302||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|0.102|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.102|-0.706|.107
91904322|NCT01704287|183703862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.10|0.67|0.1173
91725457|NCT05278065|183345312|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.19
91725458|NCT05278065|183345313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.929|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.760|-0.929|0.828
91725459|NCT05278065|183345313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.762||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|2.33|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||2.33|-0.81|0.249
91725460|NCT05278065|183345313|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.857||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.17
91725461|NCT05278065|183345314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|8.89|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||8.89|-9.25|0.965
91904323|NCT01704287|183703862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.96||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||0.96|0.57|0.0106
91725462|NCT05278065|183345314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|17.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||17.6|-11.1|0.522
91725463|NCT05278065|183345314|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.41||||0.781|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.781
91725464|NCT02070991|183345322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between maci. and placebo|10.08||||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.07|33.26|||Fisher Exact|||||33.26|-15.07|0.3372
91725465|NCT02070991|183345323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (ratio of geom. means)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.08||||||||1.08|0.55|
91725466|NCT02070991|183345324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (ratio of geom. means)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36||||||||1.36|0.64|
91725467|NCT02070991|183345325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.9||||||||4.9|-4.3|
91725468|NCT02070991|183345326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.6||||||||3.6|-2.2|
91725469|NCT02070991|183345327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.7||||||||3.7|-4.2|
91725470|NCT02070991|183345328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.69||||||||0.69|0.11|
91725471|NCT02070991|183345329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.6||||||||3.6|-4.5|
91725472|NCT04999020|183345330|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-15.38||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.55|8.48|||Barnard's unconditional exact test|||||8.48|-38.55|0.4192
91725473|NCT03296345|183345372|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-2.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.3|-28|0.004
91725474|NCT03296345|183345373|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91725475|NCT03296345|183345374|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91725476|NCT03296345|183345376|OTHER|A Wilcoxon sign-rank, given non parametric data, was used to compare the intervention and historical control groups for statistical significance, while a student's t-test was used to estimate effect size||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91725477|NCT06038643|183345386|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using False Discovery Rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91725478|NCT06038643|183345389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||We conducted one-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) to assess the effect of group (intervention vs. control) on post-intervention secondary outcomes, including cognition (Test My Brain Digital Neuropsychology Toolkit). Covariates in all models included age, sex, years of education, APOE4 status, and baseline scores.||||<0.01
91725479|NCT00699751|183345419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|0.827|||Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of overall survival, and also for the secondary endpoints, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.827|0.578|0.00005
91725480|NCT00699751|183345420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.169|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.22|||Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of time to total ALP progression, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.22|0.131|<0.00001
91795051|NCT01227564|183468831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.25|9.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||9.23|-24.25|0.3728
91795052|NCT01227564|183468831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07||||0.3452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.05|8.91||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||8.91|-25.05|0.3452
91795053|NCT02376283|183468874|OTHER|A p value \< 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.Comparison of means between groups assessed using ANOVA allowing comparison of more than 2 means and enabled assessment made of the relationship between different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic,rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points.P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|||Continuous variables expressed as mean ± SD (standard deviation) and categorical variables as frequencies (%).Continuous variables analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test.||||<0.05
91795054|NCT02376283|183468874|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups assessed using ANOVA allowing comparison of more than 2 means and enabled assessment made of the relationship between different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA F(3,36) = 12.282||STEMI- clop vs prasl vs tic||||< 0.0001
91795055|NCT02376283|183468874|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups assessed using ANOVA allowing comparison of more than 2 means and enabled assessment made of the relationship between different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic,rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points.P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|ANOVA F(2,40) = 29.097||NSTEMI- clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor||||< 0.0001
91795056|NCT02376283|183468875|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel active metabolite vs prasugrel active metabolite vs ticagrelor parent compound and active metabolite), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic, rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points. P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SEM (Standard Error of Measurement) and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||<0.05
91725481|NCT00699751|183345421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725482|NCT00699751|183345421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725483|NCT00699751|183345421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=30%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=30%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725484|NCT00699751|183345421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725485|NCT00699751|183345422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725486|NCT00699751|183345422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725487|NCT00699751|183345422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725488|NCT00699751|183345423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Total ALP normalization|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Total ALP normalization, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725489|NCT00699751|183345424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Percentage Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725490|NCT00699751|183345425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline to week 12|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline to week 12, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725491|NCT00699751|183345426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Percentage change from baseline|ANCOVA|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725492|NCT00699751|183345427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline during the 24 week treatment|ANCOVA|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline during the 24 week treatment, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725493|NCT00699751|183345428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.643|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.768||Time to Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) progression|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to PSA progression, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.768|0.539|<0.00001
91865614|NCT06946888|183621976|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.608||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.608
91725494|NCT00699751|183345429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725495|NCT00699751|183345429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.106
91725496|NCT00699751|183345429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.032
91725497|NCT00699751|183345430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725498|NCT00699751|183345430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.002
91725499|NCT00699751|183345430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.005
91865615|NCT06946888|183621976|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.244||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.244
91795057|NCT02376283|183468875|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel active metabolite vs prasugrel active metabolite vs ticagrelor parent compound and active metabolite), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||=|0.123|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA F(6,56)=1.707||STEMI- different drugs (as stated above)||||=0.123
91888730|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.6136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.34|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.58|0.6136
91695105|NCT00769067|183285209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.822||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.151||2-Sided.|Log Rank|Adjusted by stratification factors: EGFR status, KRAS status and baseline ECOG performance status.|The estimated HR was for the Dacomitinib arm versus the Erlotinib arm.|HR and its 95% confidence interval were estimated from stratified Cox Regression and 2-sided p-value was based on the stratified log-rank test with EGFR status, KRAS status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.||1.151|0.587|0.252
91695106|NCT00594100|183285258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.095|||One-Sample Binomial|Significance test was based on a one-sample binomial test|95% Confidence Interval is exact binomial using Clopper-Pearson method. Standard Error is from Normal approximation.|The EMPiRE Study tested the null hypothesis that the true MAE rate was greater than or equal to an Objective Performance Criterion (OPC) of 11.83% versus the alternative hypothesis that the true MAE rate was less than the OPC. The sample size was calculated based on 80% power and a Type I error rate of 0.025. The OPC was calculated from results of published carotid artery stenting studies that utilized distal embolic protection systems.||0.095|0.027|0.002
91695107|NCT05656534|183285277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.10|-0.20|.19
91695108|NCT05656534|183285278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.38|||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures analysis of variable with session (pre-treatment vs. post-treatment) as a within-subjects variable and treatment arm as a between-subjects variable. Standardized residual scores reflecting startle reactivity to unpredictable threat (\> no-threat) was the dependent variable.||1.38|0.07|0.03
91695109|NCT05656534|183285279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.01
91695110|NCT05656534|183285280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.2|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA modeling session (pre. vs. post) by treatment arm||A session (pre vs. post) by treatment arm (suvorexant vs. placebo) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. The effect of session was then probed within each treatment arm.||1.20|-0.01|<.05
91695111|NCT00302848|183285281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations for VTE risk showed that 50,000 patients should be sufficient to exclude a twofold risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||<|0.05||95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis: HR ≥ 2 (VTE of DRSP vs. LNG)||1.8|0.6|<0.05
91695112|NCT02801617|183285283|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 2 mmHg analysis by protocol||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.861
91695113|NCT02801617|183285283|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the TIOP with differences of no more than 2 mmHg||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
91695114|NCT02801617|183285284|NON_INFERIORITY|intention-to-treat analysis (ITT)||||||0.329|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.329
91695115|NCT02801617|183285285|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.388|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.388
91695116|NCT02801617|183285286|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.125|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.125
91695117|NCT02801617|183285287|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.434|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.434
91695118|NCT02801617|183285288|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0
91695119|NCT02801617|183285289|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.039|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.039
91695120|NCT03421210|183285298|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Differences in brain activation in response to personal smoking versus standard smoking cues were examined.||||0.001
91695121|NCT01057810|183285301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED|95.87|0.88|1.39|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = ipilimumab over placebo|||1.39|0.88|0.3667
91695122|NCT01057810|183285302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.8|||||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||0.80|0.55|
91695123|NCT01057810|183285303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.87|0.52|0.83|||||HR = Ipilimumab over placebo|||0.83|0.52|
91695124|NCT01057810|183285304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.87|0.71|1.35|||||HR = Ipilimumab over placebo|||1.35|0.71|
91904324|NCT01704287|183703862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.12||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.12|0.67|0.2905
91795058|NCT02376283|183468875|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel active metabolite vs prasugrel active metabolite vs ticagrelor parent compound and active metabolite), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic, rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points. P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|ANOVA F(4,62)=18.932||NSTEMI- different drugs (as stated above)||||<0.0001
91795059|NCT02376283|183468876|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA) and different time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic, rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points. P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||<0.05
91795060|NCT02376283|183468876|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA) and different time points.|||||=|0.81||||||STEMI- clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor|ANOVA|ANOVA F(3,17) = 0.321||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||=0.810
91795061|NCT02376283|183468876|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||NSTEMI- clopi vs pras vs tic|ANOVA|ANOVA F(2,25) = 14.103||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||< 0.0001
91795062|NCT02378025|183468877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
91795063|NCT02378025|183468878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
91795064|NCT02378025|183468879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
91795065|NCT02378025|183468880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.25
91795066|NCT02378025|183468881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.22
91695125|NCT00267969|183285307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91695126|NCT00267969|183285307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control for the multiplicity for the primary endpoint analysis, the Holm's procedure was used at an overall significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05. Sample Size: With 750 patients (250 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in the primary endpoint between ustekinumab groups and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight \[\<=90kg vs \> 90 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power is \>99% at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91695127|NCT00267969|183285308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91695128|NCT00267969|183285308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint and the two comparisons for the 1st second endpoint analyses need to be significant first|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91695129|NCT00267969|183285309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and patient's baseline weight (≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg) as factors in the model||||||<0.001
91695130|NCT00267969|183285309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint and the two comparisons for the 1st second endpoint analyses need to be significant first|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and patient's baseline weight (≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg) as factors in the model||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91695131|NCT00267969|183285310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91695132|NCT00267969|183285310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91795067|NCT02378025|183468882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.41
91795068|NCT00744471|183468934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.69||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.69|-1.87|<0.001
91795069|NCT00744471|183468934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.1||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.10|-2.28|<0.001
91695133|NCT00267969|183285310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||To control the overall multiplicity, the combined groups was tested first and each dose will then be tested; but the primary and the 1st 2 secondary endpoint analyses need to be significant before this endpoint can be tested|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between combined maintenance group and the combined withdrawal group, ustekinumab 90 mg maintenance group and the withdrawal group, ustekinumab 45 mg maintenance group and the withdrawal group at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||0.001
91695134|NCT00862823|183285311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined so there was an 80% chance that a 90% pairwise interval for 2 equivalent formulations would satifsy the FDA criteria for AUC and Cmax of log (0.8), log (1.2).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||<|0.05||90.0||||Bioequivalent measurew were log-transformed|log transformation|||||||<0.05
91695135|NCT01309360|183285315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91695136|NCT01309360|183285315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91695137|NCT01309360|183285315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91695138|NCT01309360|183285316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0
91695139|NCT01309360|183285317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
91695140|NCT01309360|183285317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91695141|NCT01309360|183285317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
91695142|NCT01309360|183285318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.675
91695143|NCT01309360|183285318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.087
91695144|NCT01309360|183285318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.348
91695145|NCT01309360|183285319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.247
91695146|NCT01309360|183285319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91695147|NCT01309360|183285319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91695148|NCT01309360|183285320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
91695149|NCT01309360|183285320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
91695150|NCT01309360|183285320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91695151|NCT00942890|183285330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91695152|NCT00942890|183285336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91695153|NCT02308540|183285353|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.31||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|0.17|0.0025
91695154|NCT02308540|183285353|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.74||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.45|0.38|0.4540
91695155|NCT02308540|183285353|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|4.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.46|8.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.94|2.46|0.0003
91695156|NCT02308540|183285353|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|2.22||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|4.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.24|1.16|0.0460
91695157|NCT02308540|183285353|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.76||||0.3365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.22|0.47|0.3365
91695158|NCT02308540|183285353|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.56||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.87|0.37|0.0313
91695159|NCT02308540|183285353|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.08||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.79|0.65|0.8060
91695160|NCT02308540|183285353|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|1.74||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|3.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.58|0.84|0.2044
91695161|NCT02308540|183285353|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.67||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|3.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.02|0.93|0.1490
91695162|NCT02308540|183285353|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.15|0.59|0.7565
91695163|NCT02308540|183285354|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.75||||0.2653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.31|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.31|0.54|0.2653
91695164|NCT02308540|183285354|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.69||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.2|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.20|0.45|0.2059
91725500|NCT00699751|183345431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Percentage change from baseline in PSA at Week 12|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline in PSA at Week 12, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.160
91725501|NCT00699751|183345432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline up to Week 12|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline up to Week 12, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.004
91725502|NCT00699751|183345433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Percentage change from baseline in PSA at EOT|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline in PSA at EOT, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.009
91725503|NCT00699751|183345434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline in PSA response During the 24 Week Treatment Period|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline in PSA response During the 24 Week Treatment Period, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91725504|NCT00699751|183345435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.00012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.814||Time to first Skeletal Related Event (SRE)|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of time to first SRE, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||0.814|0.529|0.00012
91725505|NCT00699751|183345436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.639||||8e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.8||Time to External Beam Radiotherapy|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of time to EBRT, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||0.8|0.511|0.00008
91725506|NCT00699751|183345437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.344||||0.00191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.695||stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Receiving Radio-isotope, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||0.695|0.17|0.00191
91725507|NCT00699751|183345438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847||||0.53277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.426||Time to Pathological Bone Fracture|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Pathological Bone Fracture, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||1.426|0.504|0.53277
91725508|NCT00699751|183345439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||0.89567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|2.07||Time to Surgical Intervention|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Surgical Intervention, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||2.07|0.435|0.89567
91725509|NCT00699751|183345440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.14486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|1.145||Time to Spinal Cord Compression|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Spinal Cord Compression, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||1.145|0.404|0.14486
91725510|NCT00699751|183345441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.727||||0.00932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|0.925||Time to Other Cancer Treatment|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Other Cancer Treatment, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.925|0.571|0.00932
91725511|NCT00699751|183345442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.00187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.873||Time to Marked Deterioration of ECOG PS|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Marked Deterioration of ECOG PS, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.873|0.546|0.00187
91725512|NCT00294398|183345462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91725513|NCT01181479|183345486|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of AG200-15 and Lessina for cycles 1-6.||||||0.067|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.067
91725514|NCT02114684|183345492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison of culture negative results at week 8||||0.46
91725515|NCT02114684|183345492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison of culture negative results at month 6||||0.43
91725516|NCT02114684|183345493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.018
91725517|NCT02114684|183345494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91888731|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.08|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.70|0.1141
91725518|NCT02114684|183345495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||There are significantly more adverse events in the active arm|Mantel Haenszel|||Comparison of the number of adverse events in the two arms, controlling for HIV status||||0.01
91725519|NCT02114684|183345495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Comparison of the 8-week culture conversion rates in the two arms, controlling for HIV status||||0.45
91725520|NCT02114684|183345496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
91725521|NCT03345095|183345505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-2.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.5|-8.6|0.0004
91725522|NCT03345095|183345506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.16|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.16|-1.27|0.15
91725523|NCT00223821|183345507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|25.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with baseline frequency of incontinent episodes as the covariate, was used to compare the treatment groups.||The effectiveness of each intervention was calculated by comparing the weekly frequency of incontinent episodes (derived from seven-day bladder diaries) during baseline to that in the immediate post-intervention period (week 8). The primary analysis was based on intent-to-treat, in which post-treatment frequency of incontinence for non-completers was derived from the most recent week of diaries.||25.54|-5.13|.16
91725524|NCT00223821|183345508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|24.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with baseline frequency of incontinent episodes as the covariate, was used to compare the treatment groups.||||24.33|-10.73|.37
91725525|NCT06875115|183345532|SUPERIORITY|The primary outcome (5-D Itch Scale score) will be analyzed by comparing the change from baseline to 4 weeks between the laser acupuncture group and the sham laser group. Continuous variables will be summarized as mean ± standard deviation. Between-group comparisons will be performed using independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests, as appropriate. A two-sided p value \< 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Primary Outcome Analysis||||<0.05
91725526|NCT06922760|183345535|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.411|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.411
91725527|NCT06922760|183345535|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.161|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.161
91795070|NCT00744471|183468934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-1.16||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.16|-2.34|<0.001
91725528|NCT06922760|183345536|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
91725529|NCT06922760|183345536|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5
91725530|NCT02564978|183345542|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate was the difference in rates of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.39
91725531|NCT02564978|183345543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.03|-0.06|0.48
91725532|NCT02564978|183345543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.04|-0.24|0.15
91888732|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.14|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.62|0.2185
91888733|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.6191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6191
91725533|NCT02564978|183345543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes (Study eye + QFE) together. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.01|-0.09|0.15
91725534|NCT02564978|183345544|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate was the difference in rates of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.61
91725535|NCT02564978|183345544|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate was the difference in rates of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.43
91725536|NCT02564978|183345544|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||Study eye + QFE: study \& qualifying fellow eyes analyzed as separate observations. Estimate: difference in rate of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between treatment and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on study and qualifying fellow eyes together. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.89
91725537|NCT02564978|183345545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in BCVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.9|-0.4|0.44
91725538|NCT02564978|183345545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in BCVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.2|-0.8|0.21
91725539|NCT02564978|183345545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes together (Study eye + QFE). Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in BCVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.8|-0.4|0.52
91725540|NCT02564978|183345546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in LLVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.9|-0.4|0.48
91725541|NCT02564978|183345546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in LLVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.1|-0.9|0.09
91795071|NCT00744471|183468935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.61||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-1.74|<0.001
91865616|NCT06946888|183621976|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.052||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.052
91865617|NCT06946888|183621976|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.229||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.229
91865618|NCT06946888|183621976|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.184||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.184
91865619|NCT06946888|183621976|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.148||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.148
91865620|NCT06946888|183621976|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.143||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.143
91865621|NCT06946888|183621977|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.333||||||This is the first week of tracking. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.333
91904325|NCT01704287|183703863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.10|0.68|0.1146
91904326|NCT01704287|183703863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.9||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||0.90|0.55|0.0023
91758703|NCT00235716|183410637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.21||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.21|-1.72|0.84
91725542|NCT02564978|183345546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes together (Study eye + QFE). Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in LLVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.7|-0.4|0.54
91725543|NCT02564978|183345547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rate of change of central retinal thickness as measured on OCT between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||1.8|-0.4|0.20
91725544|NCT02564978|183345547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.1||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rate of change of central retinal thickness as measured on OCT between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||3.1|0.4|0.02
91725545|NCT02564978|183345547|SUPERIORITY|Number of eyes contributing to this analysis exceeds the number of eyes contributing to the study eye only analysis since one participant had relevant data for the qualifying fellow eye but not the study eye.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes together (Study eye + QFE). Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rate of change of central retinal thickness as measured on OCT between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||2.0|0.0|0.06
91725546|NCT02370394|183345614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|5.75|||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances handled by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom||CAS Victimization Total Score at Follow Up||5.75|-14.02|0.4016
91725547|NCT02370394|183345614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.46||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|24.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in CAS Victimization Total score from Baseline to Follow Up||24.82|4.11|0.0072
91725548|NCT02370394|183345615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Safety Behavior Change Score at Follow Up||0.12|-0.21|0.6011
91795072|NCT00744471|183468935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.92||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.92|-2.06|<0.001
91795073|NCT00744471|183468935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.04||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.04|-2.17|<0.001
91795074|NCT00744471|183468936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.13||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.51|0.001
91795075|NCT00744471|183468936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.25||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.64|<0.001
91795076|NCT00744471|183468936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.28||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.66|<0.001
91795077|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.88||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.88|-1.93|<0.001
91795078|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.2||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.20|-2.26|<0.001
91795079|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.85|<0.001
91795080|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.02||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.11|<0.001
91725549|NCT02370394|183345615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change is Safety Behavior Change Score from Baseline to Follow Up||0.15|-0.16|0.9116
91725550|NCT02370394|183345616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.8646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances handled by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom||EOR Number of issues Effective at Accomplishing at Follow Up||1.36|-1.62|0.8646
91725551|NCT02370394|183345616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Number of Issues Effective at Accomplishing from Baseline to Follow Up||0.82|-2.54|0.3045
91725552|NCT02370394|183345617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Motivation Scale at Follow Up||||0.9085
91725553|NCT02370394|183345617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Motivation Scale from Baseline to Follow Up||||0.3256
91725554|NCT02370394|183345618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Readiness at Follow Up||||0.4085
91725555|NCT02370394|183345618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2467|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Readiness from Baseline to Follow Up||||0.2467
91725556|NCT05890586|183345689|SUPERIORITY|The posterior was based on a covariate adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression with skeptical prior. The baseline hazard was a degree 5 M-spline function.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07|||||Hazard ratios greater than one favored the active intervention for a faster time to recovery.|||1.07|0.86|
91725557|NCT05890586|183345690|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.88|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|||2.88|0.03|
91725558|NCT05890586|183345693|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||||Hazard ratios less than one favor the active intervention of inhaled fluticasone furoate. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|The posterior was based on a covariate adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression with skeptical prior. The baseline hazard was a degree 5 M-spline function.||1.7|0.6|
91725559|NCT05890586|183345694|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.98|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Adjustment variables are randomization assignment, age (as restricted cubic spline), sex, duration of symptoms prior to receipt of study drug, calendar time (as restricted cubic spline), vaccination status, geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.||1.98|0.74|
91725560|NCT05890586|183345695|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.06|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Adjustment variables are randomization assignment, age (as restricted cubic spline), sex, duration of symptoms prior to receipt of study drug, calendar time (as restricted cubic spline), vaccination status, geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.||2.06|0.53|
91725561|NCT05890586|183345696|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.22|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Adjustment variables are randomization assignment, age (as restricted cubic spline), sex, duration of symptoms prior to receipt of study drug, calendar time (as restricted cubic spline), vaccination status, geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.||2.22|0.74|
91725562|NCT05890586|183345697|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.83|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.83|0.51|
91725563|NCT05890586|183345697|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.21|0.70|
91725564|NCT05890586|183345697|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.03|0.55|
91725565|NCT05890586|183345697|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.39|0.68|
91725566|NCT05890586|183345698|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.6|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.60|1.04|
91795081|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.48||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.48|-2.57|<0.001
91725567|NCT05890586|183345698|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.51|0.98|
91725568|NCT05890586|183345698|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.35|0.84|
91725569|NCT05890586|183345698|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.47|0.92|
91725570|NCT05890586|183345699|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.29|0.80|
91725571|NCT05890586|183345699|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.47|0.84|
91725572|NCT05890586|183345699|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.46|0.80|
91725573|NCT05890586|183345699|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.44|0.77|
91725574|NCT05890586|183345700|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.16|0.70|
91725575|NCT05890586|183345700|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.10|0.63|
91725576|NCT05890586|183345700|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.99|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||0.99|0.54|
91725577|NCT05890586|183345700|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.18|0.66|
91725578|NCT05890586|183345701|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.37|0.85|
91725579|NCT05890586|183345701|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.44|0.85|
91725580|NCT05890586|183345701|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.24|0.70|
91725581|NCT05890586|183345701|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.37|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.37|0.78|
91725582|NCT05890586|183345702|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.05|0.68|
91725583|NCT05890586|183345702|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.11|0.70|
91725584|NCT05890586|183345702|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.21|0.72|
91725585|NCT05890586|183345702|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.29|0.75|
91725586|NCT05890586|183345703|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio, log|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.6|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.60|1.05|
91725587|NCT05890586|183345703|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.52|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.52|1.00|
91725588|NCT05890586|183345703|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.27|0.84|
91865622|NCT06946888|183621977|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.273||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.273
91904327|NCT01704287|183703863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.07|0.66|0.1490
91725589|NCT05890586|183345703|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.21|0.80|
91725590|NCT05890586|183345704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.31|-0.43|
91725591|NCT05890586|183345705|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimated means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.52|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.52|-0.37|
91725592|NCT01952678|183345723|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.7|-17.3|1.0000
91904328|NCT01704287|183703864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1-Positive Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.28|0.66|0.3113
91725593|NCT01952678|183345723|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|12.1|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||12.1|-25.8|0.4608
91725594|NCT01952678|183345723|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.7|-17.3|1.0000
91725595|NCT01952678|183345723|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.7|-17.3|1.0000
91725596|NCT01952678|183345724|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.9|-17.5|1.0000
91725597|NCT01952678|183345724|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|12.2|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||12.2|-26.1|0.4599
91725598|NCT01952678|183345724|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.9|-17.5|1.0000
91725599|NCT01952678|183345724|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.9|-17.5|1.0000
91725600|NCT01952678|183345725|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|22.0|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||22.0|-22.0|1.0000
91725601|NCT01952678|183345725|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|20.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.8|-20.8|1.0000
91725602|NCT01952678|183345725|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|18.5|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||18.5|-23.0|1.0000
91725603|NCT01952678|183345725|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|20.8|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.8|-20.8|1.0000
91725604|NCT01952678|183345726|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|22.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||22.8|-22.8|1.0000
91725605|NCT01952678|183345726|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.2||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|26.2|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||26.2|-16.7|0.5187
91725606|NCT01952678|183345726|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|21.5|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||21.5|-21.5|1.0000
91725607|NCT01952678|183345726|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.7123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|23.9|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||23.9|-19.1|0.7123
91725608|NCT01952678|183345727|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|15.3|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||15.3|-13.3|1.0000
91725609|NCT01952678|183345727|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|9.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||9.8|-17.7|0.5731
91725610|NCT01952678|183345727|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||13.8|-13.8|1.0000
91725611|NCT01952678|183345727|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.7|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||14.7|-12.8|0.8340
91725612|NCT01952678|183345728|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|15.6|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||15.6|-13.5|1.0000
91725613|NCT01952678|183345728|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.8429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|12.0|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||12.0|-16.1|0.8429
91725614|NCT01952678|183345728|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.8214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|15.0|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||15.0|-13.0|0.8214
91725615|NCT01952678|183345728|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.6577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|16.1|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||16.1|-12.0|0.6577
91725616|NCT00422461|183345766|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|0.36|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||0.36|-5.97|0.0822
91904329|NCT01704287|183703864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Positive Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.99||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||0.99|0.50|0.0208
91725617|NCT00422461|183345766|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-0.85|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-0.85|-8.47|0.0170
91725618|NCT00422461|183345766|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-2.48|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-2.48|-11.45|0.0026
91725619|NCT00422461|183345767|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-0.32|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-0.32|-5.09|0.0264
91725620|NCT00422461|183345767|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|-1.77|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-1.77|-7.35|0.0016
91725621|NCT00422461|183345767|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|-3.89|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-3.89|-10.03|<0.0001
91725622|NCT00422461|183345768|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|4.05|||ANCOVA|||For SBP||4.05|-3.79|0.9479
91725623|NCT00422461|183345768|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||For SBP||-0.72|-8.78|0.0215
91725624|NCT00422461|183345768|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.0886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|0.53|||ANCOVA|||For SBP||0.53|-7.39|0.0886
91795082|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.41||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.41|-2.50|<0.001
91795083|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.53||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.65|<0.001
91795084|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.08||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.08|-2.20|<0.001
91795085|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-1.45||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.45|-2.56|<0.001
91904330|NCT01704287|183703864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Positive Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.00|0.50|0.0496
91725625|NCT00422461|183345768|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.41|||ANCOVA|||For DBP||1.41|-4.30|0.3173
91725626|NCT00422461|183345768|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|-0.99|||ANCOVA|||For DBP||-0.99|-6.64|0.0087
91795086|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.88||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.88|-2.10|<0.001
91725627|NCT00422461|183345768|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||For DBP||-1.15|-6.76|0.0062
91725628|NCT00422461|183345770|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|4.31|||ANCOVA|||For cuff SBP||4.31|-5.51|0.8091
91795087|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.25||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.25|-2.46|<0.001
91725629|NCT00422461|183345770|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.8809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|4.48|||ANCOVA|||For cuff SBP||4.48|-5.21|0.8809
91725630|NCT00422461|183345770|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||For cuff SBP||-0.29|-10.04|0.0382
91725631|NCT00422461|183345770|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|0.29|||ANCOVA|||For cuff DBP||0.29|-6.35|0.0731
91725632|NCT00422461|183345770|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-1.22|||ANCOVA|||For cuff DBP||-1.22|-7.77|0.0077
91725633|NCT00422461|183345770|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||For cuff DBP||-1.00|-7.58|0.0111
91725634|NCT00422461|183345772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|1.44|||ANCOVA|||||1.44|-5.32|0.2567
91725635|NCT00422461|183345772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-6.29|0.0860
91725636|NCT00422461|183345772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-7.85|0.0103
91725637|NCT00908388|183345788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||(1-Posterior probability of meeting performance goal given the data)|Bayesian adaptive|||||||.006
91725638|NCT01454063|183345814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001||95.0|0.475|0.678||p-value based on the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS - Placebo) adjusted for randomization strata.||||0.678|0.475|<0.0001
91725639|NCT01454063|183345815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076|<|0.0001||95.0|-7.307|-3.091||p-value based on the generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS302-placebo) adjusted for randomization strata.||||-3.091|-7.307|<0.0001
91725640|NCT01454063|183345816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0514||||||Treatment comparisons based on CMH test adjusting for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0514
91725641|NCT01454063|183345817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||Treatment comparisons based on CMH test adjusting for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0034
91725642|NCT01454063|183345818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||||||Treatment comparisons based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified by randomization strata. For subjects without a score due to inability to read the ETDRS chart, the log score will be imputed as 1.6 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0963
91725643|NCT01454063|183345819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0532||||||Treatment comparisons are based on generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0532
91725644|NCT01454063|183345820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91725645|NCT03055195|183345914|OTHER||Proportions Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC versus Placebo SC has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
91725646|NCT03055195|183345916|OTHER||Proportion Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|12.6|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 4 has been presented.|||12.6|-14.0|
91725647|NCT03055195|183345916|OTHER||Proportion Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 8 has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
91725648|NCT03055195|183345916|OTHER||Proportion Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 12 has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
91725649|NCT03055195|183345916|OTHER||Proportion Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 16 has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
91725650|NCT03055195|183345916|OTHER||Proportion Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|14.4|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 20 has been presented.|||14.4|-3.3|
91725651|NCT00421733|183345948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||||||There were no P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA using treatment group as the factor and baseline FMV UACR as the covariate.||||||0.071
91725652|NCT00421733|183345948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||There were no P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as the factor and baseline FMV UACR as the covariate.||||||0.229
91725653|NCT00421733|183345948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||There were no P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA using treatment group as the factor and baseline FMV UACR as the covariate.||||||0.053
91725654|NCT00421733|183345949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.102
91725655|NCT00421733|183345949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
91725656|NCT00421733|183345950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22|||ANCOVA|2-way ANCOVA: baseline UACR as covariate; fixed factors for treatment group, stratification level, and treatment by stratification level interaction||||0.22|-0.26|0.855
91725657|NCT00421733|183345950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.08|||ANCOVA|2-way ANCOVA: baseline UACR as covariate; fixed factors for treatment group, stratification level, and treatment by stratification level interaction||||-0.08|-0.57|0.009
91725658|NCT00421733|183345951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as the factor and baseline iPTH as covariate.||||||<0.001
91725659|NCT00421733|183345951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as the factor and baseline iPTH as covariate.||||||<0.001
91725660|NCT01524705|183346056|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon||||<|0.024||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used due to nonnormality distribution|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two-tailed t test with type I error = 0.05, a sample of 110 participants (55 per group) would give 90% power to detect a difference of a mean change from baseline of 5 CV units (SD = 8) between control and treatment groups. An ANCOVA model, adjusting for baseline value and clinical site, was to be performed. If residual values from the ANCOVA indicated nonnormality in distribution by Shapiro-Wilk testing, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was used instead.||||<0.024
91725661|NCT01524705|183346058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91725662|NCT01524705|183346059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91725663|NCT00412451|183346063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.001||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|999.999|||Fisher Exact|||||999.999|0.001|0.131
91725664|NCT00412451|183346063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.562||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|2.4|||Fisher Exact|||||2.400|0.132|0.670
91725665|NCT00412451|183346063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.346||||0.372||95.0|0.07|1.703|||Fisher Exact|||||1.703|0.070|0.372
91725666|NCT04018001|183346121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0115|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0115
91725667|NCT04018001|183346121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.410198||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0492535|1.8953079||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.8953079|1.0492535|0.0227
91725668|NCT04018001|183346122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3564|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3564
91725669|NCT04018001|183346122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9022||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7534|1.0803||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Cox|||||1.0803|0.7534|0.2629
91725670|NCT04018001|183346123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0123
91725671|NCT04018001|183346123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|0.0300853||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0092322|0.0509385||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0509385|0.0092322|0.0047
91725672|NCT04018001|183346124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
91725673|NCT04018001|183346124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7910474||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3167136|2.4362554||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.4362554|1.3167136|0.0002
91725674|NCT04018001|183346125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4071
91725675|NCT04018001|183346125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.0104065||||0.6143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.030062|0.0508746||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0508746|-0.030062|0.6143
91725676|NCT04018001|183346126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0010
91725677|NCT04018001|183346126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5211586||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1594614|1.9956882||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.9956882|1.1594614|0.0025
91725678|NCT04018001|183346127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4595|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4595
91725679|NCT04018001|183346127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1225||||0.3354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8873|1.4201||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Cox|||||1.4201|0.8873|0.3354
91725680|NCT04018001|183346128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1130
91725681|NCT04018001|183346128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.0151242||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003908|0.0341568||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0341568|-0.003908|0.1194
91795088|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.37||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.37|-2.57|<0.001
91725682|NCT04018001|183346129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0200
91725683|NCT04018001|183346129|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4143816||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0221455|1.9571335||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.9571335|1.0221455|0.0364
91725684|NCT04018001|183346130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9031
91725685|NCT04018001|183346130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.008587||||0.6376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044317|0.0271416||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0271416|-0.044317|0.6376
91725686|NCT04018001|183346131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3584|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3584
91725687|NCT04018001|183346131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1077385||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8489444|1.4454238||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.4454238|0.8489444|0.4510
91725688|NCT04018001|183346132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0624|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0624
91725689|NCT04018001|183346133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4914|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4914
91725690|NCT03767894|183346202|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired sample t-test)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Baseline scores compared to Post Unassisted condition (ARAT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device).||||0.24
91725691|NCT03767894|183346202|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired sample t-test)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Post Unassisted condition (ARAT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device) compared to Post Assisted condition (ARAT performed assisted with the use of the MyHand device).||||0.207
91725692|NCT03767894|183346203|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired sample t-test)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05|Paired sample T-test|2-tailed||Baseline scores compared to Post Unassisted condition (UEMF performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device).||||0.026
91725693|NCT03767894|183346205|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired Wilcoxon)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Baseline scores compared to Post Unassisted condition (BBT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device) of the impaired (hemiparetic) hand.||||0.442
91725694|NCT03767894|183346205|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired Wilcoxon)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Post Unassisted condition (BBT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device) compared to Post Assisted condition (BBT performed assisted with the use of the MyHand device).||||1.0
91725695|NCT00387127|183346208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of par. with CR|10.7||||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3||From exact test that common odds ratio equals 1|Fisher Exact||Complete response was defined as the percentage of participants achieving a CR as determined by an independent radiological review.|||37.3|-13.4|0.3658
91725696|NCT00387127|183346209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of par. with CR|28.8||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|53.6||From exact test that common odds ratio equals 1|Fisher Exact||Complete response was defined as the percentage of participants achieving a CR as determined by the investigator.|||53.6|5.7|0.0130
91795089|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.56||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-1.75|<0.001
91795090|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.92||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.92|-2.12|<0.001
91795091|NCT00744471|183468937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.01||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.01|-2.20|<0.001
91795092|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.88||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.88|-1.93|<0.001
91795093|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.2||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.20|-2.26|<0.001
91795094|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.85|<0.001
91795095|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-1.02||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.08|<0.001
91795096|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.46||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.46|-2.52|<0.001
91795097|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-1.48||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.48|-2.54|<0.001
91795098|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.63||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.71|<0.001
91795099|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-1.12||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.12|-2.21|<0.001
91795100|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.52||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.52|-2.60|<0.001
91695165|NCT02308540|183285354|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.5664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.54|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.54|0.55|0.5664
91695166|NCT02308540|183285354|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.31|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.31|0.57|0.4456
91695167|NCT02308540|183285354|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.74||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.14|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.14|0.52|0.2189
91695168|NCT02308540|183285354|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.6||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.03|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.03|0.38|0.0970
91695169|NCT02308540|183285354|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.76||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|2.79|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||2.79|1.02|0.0713
91725697|NCT00387127|183346218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in overall response rate|16.3||||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|42.1||From exact test that common odds ratio equals 1|Fisher Exact||Overall response was defined as the percentage of participants achieving a PR or CR as determined by the investigator.|||42.1|-8.6|0.1969
91725698|NCT00002874|183346257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.98||One-sided significance level = 0.046 to preserve overall significance level of 0.05 for the study.|Log Rank||Stratifying variables were fixed covariates: prior hormone therapy (yes/no), entry prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (1.6-4.0 vs. 0.2-1.5), PSA nadir after surgery (\< 0.5 vs. \>= 0.5), positive surgical margins (yes/no). Reference level = placebo arm.|||0.98|0.59|0.020
91725699|NCT00002874|183346258|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53|||Gray's test|One-sided test|||Reference level = placebo arm|1.53|0.79|0.289
91725700|NCT00002874|183346259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.58|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||0.58|0.40|<0.001
91725701|NCT00002874|183346260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.46|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||1.46|0.85|0.213
91725702|NCT00002874|183346261|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91725703|NCT00002874|183346262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.87|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||0.87|0.46|0.002
91725704|NCT00002874|183346263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.74|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||0.74|0.32|<0.001
91725705|NCT00002874|183346264|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.71|||Log Rank|One-side test|||Reference level = placebo arm|0.71|0.50|< 0.001
91795101|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.99||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.99|-2.11|<0.001
91725706|NCT00002874|183346265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Acute radiotherapy toxicity||||0.060
91725707|NCT00002874|183346265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Chi-squared|||Hormone therapy and late radiotherapy toxicity||||0.029
91725708|NCT01734928|183346339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.77|||Based on Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.77|0.49|0.001
91904331|NCT01704287|183703864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Negative Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.76||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.76|0.65|0.6043
91725709|NCT01734928|183346340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test with stratification factors as above Cox model.|Based on Cox proportional hazards model, comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups, stratified by age, prior number of anti-myeloma regimens, and beta-2 macroglobulin at Screening.|||1.15|0.77|0.571
91725710|NCT01734928|183346342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.02|||Unstratified log-rank test|The p-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Based on Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups|||1.02|0.56|0.064
91725711|NCT02357485|183346368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline vs 1 year Post-treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.004
91725712|NCT02357485|183346369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline vs 1 year Post-treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91725713|NCT02357485|183346370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
91725714|NCT02357485|183346371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91725715|NCT00397930|183346372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Between-group differences are expressed as differences in mean Post-Pre change for the global sleep quality PSQI score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-intervention PSQI score as the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-intervention PSQI score as the covariate.|The negative estimated value indicates that the mean Post-Pre change for the YOCAS group was less than that of the Control group.|"H0: There is no statistically significant difference in global sleep quality between post-treatment cancer survivors under the standardized yoga intervention and control protocol at the 0.05 two-sided significance level.~Ha: There is a statistically significant difference in global sleep quality between post-treatment cancer survivors under the standardized yoga intervention and control protocol at the 0.05 two-sided significance level."||||0.009
91725716|NCT00505362|183346384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91725717|NCT00505362|183346385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91725718|NCT02400580|183346389|OTHER|||||||0.517|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.517
91725719|NCT02400580|183346391|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.508
91725720|NCT01060111|183346397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6207|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.||||||0.6207
91725721|NCT01060111|183346397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferioirity was to be concluded if the ratio of percentage decrease in migraine episodes was greater than 0.7. Power of calculation was 0.9, significance level was 0.025.|Ratio of percentage decrease|0.95||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.737|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.737|0.519|0.5
91725722|NCT01060111|183346398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7247|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.||||||0.7247
91725723|NCT01060111|183346399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9872|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.||||||0.9872
91725724|NCT01060111|183346400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4326||||||Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.|ANOVA|||||||0.4326
91725725|NCT00976391|183346434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - preprandial lispro insulin) is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.00|-0.32|<0.0001
91725726|NCT04676646|183346442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.86|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicated increased odds of response on SZC compared to placebo.|||6.86|2.89|<0.001
91725727|NCT04676646|183346443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|7.55|||GEE model||An odds ratio \>1 indicated increased odds of response on SZC compared to placebo.|||7.55|2.78|<0.001
91725728|NCT04676646|183346444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.52|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicated increased odds of response on SZC compared to placebo.|||7.52|2.50|<0.001
91725729|NCT04676646|183346445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001||95.0|0.37|0.71|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors SZC to be associated with a longer time to first hyperkalaemia episode than placebo.|||0.71|0.37|<0.001
91725730|NCT04676646|183346446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.73|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio less than 1 favored SZC to be associated with a longer time to first instance of a decrease of spironolactone dose due to hyperkalaemia than placebo.|||0.73|0.17|0.006
91725731|NCT04676646|183346447|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|4.63|||t-test, 2 sided||A least-squares mean difference greater than 0 favors SZC compared to placebo.|||4.63|-6.64|0.724
91725732|NCT04270760|183346449|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-70.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.12|-65.9||Adjusted p-value is reported based on the Hochberg procedure to control the type I error for multiple comparisons. Each individual adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 1 versus (vs) Group 5||-65.90|-75.12|<0.001
91904332|NCT01704287|183703864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Negative Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.04||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.04|0.37|0.0335
91904333|NCT01704287|183703864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Negative Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.13||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.13|0.44|0.1504
91725733|NCT04270760|183346449|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-97.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.98|-92.77||Adjusted p-value is reported based on the Hochberg procedure to control the type I error for multiple comparisons. Each individual adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 2 vs Group 5||-92.77|-101.98|<0.001
91725734|NCT04270760|183346449|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-101.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.79|-96.47||Adjusted p-value is reported based on the Hochberg procedure to control the type I error for multiple comparisons. Each individual adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 3 vs Group 5||-96.47|-105.79|<0.001
91725735|NCT04270760|183346449|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-100.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.16|-95.82|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 4 vs Group 5||-95.82|-105.16|< 0.001
91725736|NCT04270760|183346450|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-68.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.27|-62.67|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 1 vs Group 5||-62.67|-74.27|<0.001
91725737|NCT04270760|183346450|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-96.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.92|-90.33|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 2 vs Group 5||-90.33|-101.92|<0.001
91725738|NCT04270760|183346450|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-100.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.74|-95.02|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 3 vs Group 5||-95.02|-106.74|<0.001
91725739|NCT04270760|183346450|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-85.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.83|-80.06|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 4 vs Group 5||-80.06|-91.83|< 0.001
91725740|NCT04270760|183346451|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-23.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.874|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.176|-12.143|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 1 vs Group 5||-12.143|-35.176|<0.001
91725741|NCT04270760|183346451|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.875|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.036|-11.0|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 2 vs Group 5||-11.000|-34.036|<0.001
91725742|NCT04270760|183346451|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.967|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.962|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.656|-11.278|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 3 vs Group 5||-11.278|-34.656|<0.001
91725743|NCT04270760|183346451|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-24.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.969|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.399|-12.993|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 4 vs Group 5||-12.993|-36.399|< 0.001
91725744|NCT04270760|183346451|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-24.856|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.119|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.853|-12.859|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 1 vs Group 5||-12.859|-36.853|<0.001
91725745|NCT04270760|183346451|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-21.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.59|-9.598|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 2 vs Group 5||-9.598|-33.590|<0.001
91725746|NCT04270760|183346451|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-27.421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.565|-15.277|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 3 vs Group 5||-15.277|-39.565|<0.001
91695170|NCT02308540|183285354|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.71||||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.35|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.35|0.42|0.3443
91695171|NCT02308540|183285354|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.76||||0.3278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.23|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.23|0.48|0.3278
91695172|NCT02308540|183285354|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.65||||0.2039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.16|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.16|0.40|0.2039
91695173|NCT02308540|183285355|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|0.74|0.2550
91695174|NCT02308540|183285355|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.2||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.43|1.01|0.0865
91695175|NCT02308540|183285355|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|0.43|0.0006
91695176|NCT02308540|183285355|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|0.33|<0.0001
91695177|NCT02308540|183285355|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.68|0.47|<0.0001
91695178|NCT02308540|183285355|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|0.41|<0.0001
91695179|NCT02308540|183285355|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.5234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.45|0.85|0.5234
91695180|NCT02308540|183285355|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.36|0.22|<0.0001
91695181|NCT02308540|183285355|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.72||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.87|0.60|0.0040
91695182|NCT02308540|183285355|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.58||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.73|0.46|0.0001
91795102|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.32|-2.45|<0.001
91725747|NCT04270760|183346451|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-27.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.232|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.24|-14.801|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 4 vs Group 5||-14.801|-39.240|<0.001
91725748|NCT04270760|183346452|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-18.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.779|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.303|-11.477|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 1 vs Group 5||-11.477|-26.303|<0.001
91725749|NCT04270760|183346452|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-16.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.778|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.107|-9.284|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 2 vs Group 5||-9.284|-24.107|<0.001
91725750|NCT04270760|183346452|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-17.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.825|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.139|-10.131|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 3 vs Group 5||-10.131|-25.139|<0.001
91725751|NCT04270760|183346452|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-18.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.839|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.303|-11.241|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 4 vs Group 5||-11.241|-26.303|< 0.001
91725752|NCT04270760|183346452|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-20.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.443|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.757|-11.323|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 1 vs Group 5||-11.323|-28.757|<0.001
91725753|NCT04270760|183346452|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-17.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.442|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.774|-8.345|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 2 vs Group 5||-8.345|-25.774|<0.001
91725754|NCT04270760|183346452|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-19.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.336|-10.682|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 3 vs Group 5||-10.682|-28.336|<0.001
91725755|NCT04270760|183346452|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-21.839|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.517|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-12.979|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 4 vs Group 5||-12.979|-30.700|<0.001
91904334|NCT04024228|183703886|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.28||||||A/H1N1: 60-64 years||2.28|1.58|
91725756|NCT05156125|183346454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|29.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 13 weeks||29.05|2.58|0.0184
91725757|NCT05156125|183346454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|25.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 13 weeks||25.58|-0.03|0.0410
91725758|NCT05156125|183346455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.73|34.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 13 weeks||34.42|5.73|0.0070
91725759|NCT05156125|183346455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|30.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||30.67|2.75|0.0162
91725760|NCT05156125|183346456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|31.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.37|0.65|0.0448
91725761|NCT05156125|183346456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.0||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|30.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||30.58|0.23|0.0417
91725762|NCT05156125|183346457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|23.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.38|-0.99|0.0499
91725763|NCT05156125|183346457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.94|33.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||33.53|7.94|0.0011
91725764|NCT05156125|183346458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||||0.0072
91725765|NCT05156125|183346458|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||||<0.0001
91725766|NCT02993302|183346471|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91725767|NCT02993302|183346472|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
91725768|NCT02993302|183346473|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91725769|NCT00997126|183346479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.657
91725770|NCT01755637|183346480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean Ratio of treatments|114.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.49|130.16|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||130.16|100.49|
91904335|NCT04024228|183703886|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.08||||||A/H3N2: 60-64 years||2.08|1.38|
91695183|NCT02308540|183285357|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 1|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.13|2.66||||||||2.66|-5.13|
91695184|NCT02308540|183285357|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 5|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|7.95||||||||7.95|-1.10|
91695185|NCT02308540|183285357|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 6A|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.94|-2.97||||||||-2.97|-20.94|
91695186|NCT02308540|183285357|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 6B|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|-1.01||||||||-1.01|-15.0|
91695187|NCT02308540|183285357|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 7F|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.95|1.1||||||||1.10|-7.95|
91695188|NCT02308540|183285357|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 9V|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.17|2.9||||||||2.90|-9.17|
91695189|NCT02308540|183285357|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 14|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|6.27||||||||6.27|-4.00|
91695190|NCT02308540|183285357|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 19A|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.38|0.17||||||||0.17|-12.38|
91695191|NCT02308540|183285357|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 19F|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.22|4.33||||||||4.33|-4.22|
91695192|NCT02308540|183285357|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 23F|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.77|0.4||||||||0.40|-12.77|
91695193|NCT02308540|183285359|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 1|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.55|36.11||||||||36.11|-15.55|
91695194|NCT02308540|183285359|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 5|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.56|18.56||||||||18.56|-18.56|
91695195|NCT02308540|183285359|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 6B|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.35|22.97||||||||22.97|-12.35|
91695196|NCT02308540|183285359|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 14|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.15|24.01||||||||24.01|-12.15|
91695197|NCT02308540|183285359|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 19A|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.41|11.01||||||||11.01|-26.41|
91695198|NCT02308540|183285359|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 19F|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.64|22.97||||||||22.97|-11.64|
91725771|NCT01755637|183346481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|107.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.03|167.13|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||167.13|69.03|
91725772|NCT01755637|183346482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range of 70% -143%.|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|111.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.76|130.68|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||130.68|94.76|
91725773|NCT01755637|183346483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0167||||0.0011||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The values were not adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as = (Experimental-Reference)|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.0011
91795103|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-1.7||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.70|-2.82|<0.001
91795104|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.71||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.71|-1.82|<0.001
91795105|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.03||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.03|-2.15|<0.001
91888734|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6169
91695199|NCT01421225|183285414|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the number of hours would be the same (no effect of control).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a paired t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||We tested the number of nighttime (10 PM - 8 AM) hours glucose was in the target range (110-200 mg/dL) on each of the two nights for which the patient was followed (one night under Standard Insulin Pump Therapy; one night under Closed-loop Insulin Therapy)||||0.12
91695200|NCT01814696|183285420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.605||||||a prior threshold p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.605
91695201|NCT01814696|183285421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.604|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Heart failure related ED visits||||0.604
91695202|NCT01814696|183285421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Non-heart failure related ED visits||||1.000
91695203|NCT01814696|183285421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.677|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All cause ED visits||||0.677
91695204|NCT01814696|183285422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.341|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.341
91695205|NCT01814696|183285422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.042
91695206|NCT01814696|183285423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.497|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||All cause||||0.497
91725774|NCT01755637|183346484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|112.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.65|121.12|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||121.12|103.65|
91725775|NCT01755637|183346485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|113.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.4|123.71|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||123.71|103.40|
91795106|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.4||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.40|-2.51|<0.001
91795107|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.72||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.72|-1.85|<0.001
91725776|NCT01755637|183346486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range of 70% -143%.|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|114.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.99|126.93|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||126.93|102.99|
91725777|NCT03338023|183346501|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of LY2963016 to Lantus® was demonstrated at the 0.4% noninferiority margin and over 80 percent power.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.32|
91725778|NCT03338023|183346502|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of Lantus® to LY2963016 was demonstrated at the 0.4% noninferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.32|
91725779|NCT03338023|183346503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Morning Meal Glucose||3.4|-17.0|0.191
91725780|NCT03338023|183346503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Morning Meal Glucose||5.5|-21.2|0.250
91888735|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.9911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.11|0.9911
91725781|NCT03338023|183346503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Mid-Day Meal Glucose||-1.5|-24.7|0.028
91725782|NCT03338023|183346503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal Glucose||9.7|-16.8|0.599
91725783|NCT03338023|183346503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Evening Meal Glucose||2.5|-24.4|0.109
91725784|NCT03338023|183346503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime Glucose||8.6|-19.4|0.452
91695207|NCT01814696|183285423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Heart failure related||||0.413
91695208|NCT01814696|183285423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.944|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-heart failure ED visits||||0.944
91725785|NCT03338023|183346503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||0300 Am Glucose||3.5|-18.3|0.180
91725786|NCT03338023|183346504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.787
91725787|NCT03338023|183346505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.201
91725788|NCT03338023|183346506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-0.4|0.885
91725789|NCT03338023|183346507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Pre-meal Standard Deviation||3.6|-10.6|0.328
91695209|NCT01814696|183285424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||All cause||||0.057
91695210|NCT01814696|183285424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Heart failure related||||0.236
91695211|NCT01814696|183285424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non heart failure related||||0.236
91695212|NCT01814696|183285425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||All cause||||0.034
91695213|NCT01814696|183285425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Heart failure related||||0.196
91695214|NCT01814696|183285425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non heart failure related||||0.210
91695215|NCT01814696|183285426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91695216|NCT02105987|183285450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following Baseline stratification factor: Original ART third agent class (PI, NNRTI, or INI).|||2.4|-9.1|
91695217|NCT02105987|183285452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following Baseline stratification factor: Original ART third agent class (PI, NNRTI, or INI).|||1.4|-2.0|
91695218|NCT02105987|183285457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.23|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of cholesterol is presented|||0.23|-0.02|0.096
91695219|NCT02105987|183285457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of LDL cholesterol is presented|||0.18|-0.03|0.167
91695220|NCT02105987|183285457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of HDL cholesterol is presented|||0.06|-0.02|0.317
91695221|NCT02105987|183285457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of triglycerides is presented|||0.27|-0.05|0.187
91725790|NCT03338023|183346507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Daily Mean Standard Deviation||3.0|-6.5|0.467
91725791|NCT03338023|183346508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.7|0.090
91725792|NCT03338023|183346509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-2.6|0.089
91725793|NCT03338023|183346510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.770
91725794|NCT03338023|183346511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.3|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Inconvenience of Regimen Transformed Score||3.3|-3.9|0.879
91725795|NCT03338023|183346511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.5|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Lifestyle Flexibility Transformed Score||4.5|-5.9|0.788
91725796|NCT03338023|183346511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.3|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Hypoglycemic Control Transformed Score||3.3|-4.5|0.775
91725797|NCT03338023|183346511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.6|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Glycemic Control Transformed Score||5.6|-3.6|0.681
91725798|NCT03338023|183346511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.9|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Insulin Delivery Device Satisfaction Transformed Score||3.9|-3.1|0.819
91725799|NCT03338023|183346511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Total Transformed Score||2.3|-3.9|0.605
91725800|NCT02030418|183346541|SUPERIORITY|"The primary safety hypothesis is:~H0: CFR ≤ 86% vs. H1: CFR \> 86% Where CFR is the Complication Free Rate. The CFR is estimated as a binomial proportion and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of CFR is calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method. The null hypothesis is rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower bound of this CI exceeds the Performance Goal (PG) of 86%."|binomial proportion|93.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|95.9|||1-sided exact test for binomial proporti|||||95.9|89.9|<0.001
91725801|NCT02030418|183346542|SUPERIORITY|"The primary effectiveness hypothesis is:~H0: Rate ≤ 85.0% vs. H1: Rate \> 85.0%~where Rate is the proportion of subjects experiencing success, and success is defined as: pacing threshold voltage ≤ 2.0 V at 0.4 ms at 6-month visit and sensed R-wave amplitude either ≥ 5.0 mV at the 6-month visit or ≥ value at implant."|binomial proportion|93.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|96.0||The null hypothesis is rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower bound of the CI exceeds the Performance Goal (PG) of 85%.|1-sided exact test for binomial proporti|||||96.0|89.9|<0.001
91725802|NCT02030418|183346543|OTHER|"The hypothesis is intended to test whether the mean slope is within 35% of 1. The hypothesis is stated as follows:~H0: absolute value (Mean Slope - 100%) ≥ equivalence margin, equal to 35%~H1: absolute value (Mean Slope - 100%) \< equivalence margin, equal to 35%~The calculation of slope for individual subjects in the CAEP exercise protocol is done by setting the y-intercept to zero."|Slope|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.93|||two 1-sided test (TOST)|||||0.93|0.73|0.001
91725803|NCT00567112|183346593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio of OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||1.05|0.92|>0.200
91725804|NCT00567112|183346594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio of OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.19|||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||1.19|0.80|>0.200
91725805|NCT00567112|183346595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio of OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.98|||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||0.98|0.86|0.026
91725806|NCT00567112|183346596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.72|||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||0.72|0.49|<0.001
91725807|NCT00567112|183346597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||||>0.200
91725808|NCT00567112|183346598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||||>0.200
91725809|NCT00567112|183346599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||||<0.001
91725810|NCT00567112|183346600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||||>0.200
91725811|NCT00762177|183346601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725812|NCT00762177|183346602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725813|NCT00762177|183346603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725814|NCT00762177|183346604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725815|NCT00762177|183346605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725816|NCT00762177|183346606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725817|NCT00762177|183346607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725818|NCT00762177|183346608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||the tongue will be scrapped 5 times with the edge of a tongue depressor. The depressor is vortex in sterile phosphate buffered saline(PBS) and the sample is then sonicated using a Branson 450A sonicator with a cup horn for 30 seconds. Samples diluted (10 fold) in PBS and plated using a spiral systems autoplate 4000 spiral plater on CFAT Agar||||0.05
91725819|NCT00762177|183346609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725820|NCT00762177|183346610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725821|NCT00762177|183346611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725822|NCT00762177|183346612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725823|NCT00762177|183346613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725824|NCT00762177|183346614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725825|NCT00762177|183346615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725826|NCT00762177|183346616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725827|NCT00762177|183346617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725828|NCT00762177|183346618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725829|NCT00762177|183346619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725830|NCT00762177|183346620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725831|NCT00762177|183346621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725832|NCT00762177|183346622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725833|NCT00762177|183346623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725834|NCT00762177|183346624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91725835|NCT04180696|183346644|SUPERIORITY|Endpoint for statistical analysis is the proportion Improved.||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
91865623|NCT06946888|183621977|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.424||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.424
91865624|NCT06946888|183621977|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.482||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.482
91725836|NCT04180696|183346645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|2.455|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds logistic regression model. Baseline NYHA class and time included as fixed covariates.||Due to limited number of subjects with NYHA class III or IV during follow-up, class III, IV, and death were grouped as a single category for analysis.||2.455|0.579|0.63
91725837|NCT04180696|183346646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|3.175|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for NYHA class and sex.||||3.175|0.492|0.64
91725838|NCT04180696|183346647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
91725839|NCT04180696|183346648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.817||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|5.056|||Regression, Cox|||||5.056|0.206|0.98
91725840|NCT04906421|183346662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided||ITT Population analysis||||0.0018
91725841|NCT04906421|183346662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||ITT Population Analysis||||0.0035
91725842|NCT04906421|183346662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|t-test, 1 sided|One-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0001
91725843|NCT04906421|183346662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0003
91725844|NCT04906421|183346663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0087||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided||ITT Population Analysis||||0.0087
91725845|NCT04906421|183346663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||ITT Population Analysis||||0.0173
91725846|NCT04906421|183346663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0022
91725847|NCT04906421|183346663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0044
91725848|NCT04906421|183346664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0102
91725849|NCT04906421|183346664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||Subgroup Fibrosis Stage F2 at Baseline Population Analysis||||0.59
91725850|NCT04906421|183346664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-Sided||Subgroup Fibrosis Stage F3 at Baseline Population Analysis||||0.0032
91725851|NCT04906421|183346664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||Subgroup Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at Baseline Population Analysis||||0.0764
91725852|NCT04906421|183346665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0043
91725853|NCT04906421|183346666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0018
91695222|NCT02105987|183285458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio is presented|||0.25|-0.04|0.175
91695223|NCT02105987|183285459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.5|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis for total score is presented|||3.5|1.3|<0.001
91695224|NCT02105987|183285459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis for general satisfaction/clinical subscale score is presented|||1.7|0.4|0.002
91695225|NCT02105987|183285459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis for lifestyle/ease subscale is presented|||1.8|0.8|<0.001
91695226|NCT02105987|183285460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|8.16|||ANCOVA|||||8.16|4.86|<0.001
91695227|NCT02105987|183285461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|-5.11|||ANCOVA|||||-5.11|-8.64|<0.001
91695228|NCT02105987|183285462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.17|<0.001
91695229|NCT02105987|183285463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.31|0.375
91695230|NCT02105987|183285464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.30|-0.93|0.749
91695231|NCT02105987|183285465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.9||Bone specific alkaline phosphatase|ANCOVA|||||0.90|0.82|<0.001
91695232|NCT02105987|183285465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.96||Osteocalcin|ANCOVA|||||0.96|0.85|0.002
91695233|NCT02105987|183285465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.04||Procollagen 1 n-terminal propeptide|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.15|0.001
91695234|NCT02105987|183285465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96||Type I collagen c-telopeptides|ANCOVA|||||0.96|0.86|0.001
91695235|NCT02105987|183285466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.72||Fatty acid binding protein 2|ANCOVA|||||0.72|0.57|<0.001
91695236|NCT02105987|183285466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|1.08||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24||Interleukin 6|ANCOVA|||||1.24|0.93|0.311
91695237|NCT02105987|183285466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96||Soluble CD14|ANCOVA|||||0.96|0.89|<0.001
91695238|NCT02105987|183285466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|1.01||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08||Soluble vasc cell adhesion molecule 1|ANCOVA|||||1.08|0.95|0.742
91695239|NCT02105987|183285467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.19|0.84|0.999
91695240|NCT02105987|183285468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|0.91|0.981
91695241|NCT02105987|183285469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|0.85|0.640
91695242|NCT02105987|183285470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.87|0.645
91695243|NCT02105987|183285471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.97|0.577
91695244|NCT02105987|183285472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.03|||ANCOVA|||||1.03|0.98|0.687
91695245|NCT01303172|183285486|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.54||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.87|||Log Rank|||The difference between the two treatment groups was tested with a two-sided log-rank test and a Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI and associated p-value.||0.87|0.33|0.011
91695246|NCT02099110|183285506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.30|-0.63|<0.001
91695247|NCT02099110|183285506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.27||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.27|-0.60|<0.001
91695248|NCT02099110|183285506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.27||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.27|-0.61|<0.001
91695249|NCT02099110|183285506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.30|-0.63|<0.001
91695250|NCT02099110|183285507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs Ertugliflozin 5 mg|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|5.5|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||5.5|-11.7|
91695251|NCT02099110|183285507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Ertugliflozin 15 mg|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|6.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.8|-10.6|
91695252|NCT02099110|183285507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.1|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||10.1|-7.4|
91695253|NCT02099110|183285507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||7.0|-10.5|
91695254|NCT02099110|183285508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Ertugliflozin 5 mg|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.6|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.6|-3.3|
91695255|NCT02099110|183285508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Ertugliflozin 15 mg|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.0|-3.0|
91695256|NCT02099110|183285508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.9|-2.9|
91695257|NCT02099110|183285508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.4|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.4|-2.5|
91725854|NCT04906421|183346667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||<0.0001
91725855|NCT00990769|183346693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation concluded that 20 patients in each group would have 80% power to detect a mean difference of 4 ± 4 with alpha equal to 0.05, as would be determined by a two-sample T test.||||>0.05
91725856|NCT01214720|183346699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.61|0.0002
91725857|NCT01214720|183346700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|3.62||||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.6|||Chi-squared|Approximate 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.||||11.6|-4.3|0.3621
91725858|NCT01214720|183346701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2087||95.0|0.74|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.74|0.2087
91725859|NCT04625972|183346703|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|33.31||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.92|64.68|||Poisson regression||Primary Analysis Estimates are based on Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment and the log of follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||64.68|-25.92|0.212
91725860|NCT04625972|183346703|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|43.28||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|67.37|||Poisson regression||Final Analysis Estimates are based on Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment and the log of follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||67.37|1.40|0.044
91725861|NCT04625972|183346705|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|100.0||||0.664|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1836.98||||Poisson regression||||||-1836.98|0.664
91725862|NCT04625972|183346706|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|13.9||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|30.21|||Poisson regression|||||30.21|-6.23|0.163
91725863|NCT04625972|183346708|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|25.75||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-343.53|87.57|||Poisson regression|||||87.57|-343.53|0.744
91725864|NCT00433290|183346716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 4 Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Model: Change=Treatment,NSAID use, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, Treatment\*Visit, Baseline\*Visit||Null hypothesis=the difference in the BPI average pain score between the duloxetine and placebo treatment goups at the last visit of the treatment phase is zero.||||<0.001
91725865|NCT00433290|183346716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 7 Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Model: Change=Treatment,NSAID use, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, Treatment\*Visit, Baseline\*Visit||Null hypothesis=the difference in the BPI average pain score between the duloxetine and placebo treatment goups at the last visit of the treatment phase is zero.||||<0.001
91725866|NCT00433290|183346716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Model: Change=Treatment,NSAID use, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, Treatment\*Visit, Baseline\*Visit||Null hypothesis=the difference in the BPI average pain score between the duloxetine and placebo treatment goups at the last visit of the treatment phase is zero.||||<0.001
91725867|NCT00433290|183346717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: PGI-Improvement=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, baseline severity and NSAID used for main effect p-values.||||||0.164
91725868|NCT00433290|183346718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (change = endpoint - baseline)|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.016
91725869|NCT00433290|183346719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Week 13 value minus baseline value.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.068
91725870|NCT00433290|183346720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Week 13 value minus baseline value.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.064
91725871|NCT00433290|183346721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Change in Weekly 24-Hour Average Pain. Change = endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.008
91725872|NCT00433290|183346721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value for Change in Weekly 24-Hour Worst Pain. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.047
91725873|NCT00433290|183346722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.009
91725874|NCT00433290|183346723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91725875|NCT00433290|183346724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.897
91725876|NCT00433290|183346724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||<0.001
91725877|NCT00433290|183346724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.004
91725878|NCT00433290|183346724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for General Health Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.051
91725879|NCT00433290|183346724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.508
91725880|NCT00433290|183346724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.019
91725881|NCT00433290|183346724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||P-value for Role-Emotional Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.415
91725882|NCT00433290|183346724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for Role-Physical Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.006
91725883|NCT00433290|183346724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||P-value for Social Functioning Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.342
91725884|NCT00433290|183346724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||P-value for Vitality Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.135
91725885|NCT00433290|183346725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209||95.0||||P-value for EQ-5D Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treament, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effect p-value.||||||0.209
91725886|NCT00433290|183346726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Week 13 value minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.871
91725887|NCT00433290|183346727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.138
91725888|NCT00433290|183346728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91725889|NCT00433290|183346729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91725890|NCT00433290|183346730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91725891|NCT00433290|183346730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for direct analgesic effect. The null hypothesis was tested by testing a1=0 versus a1≠0.|Regression, Linear|||Path analysis was used to test null hypothesis that change in BPI average pain severity depends on improvement of BDI or HADS-A, versus improvement in BPI average pain severity is due to a direct analgesic effect of treatment and not dependent on improvement in depression or anxiety symptoms. Model:Change in BPI average pain score=a0+a1\*treatment group+a2\*change in BDI total+a3\*change in HADS-A+a4\*BL of BPI average pain+a5\*BL of BDI total+a6\*BL of HADS-A.||||0.002
91725892|NCT00433290|183346731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91725893|NCT00433290|183346732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.050
91904336|NCT04024228|183703886|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.74||||||B1: 60-64 years||1.74|1.30|
91725894|NCT00433290|183346733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.913
91725895|NCT00433290|183346734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.066
91725896|NCT00433290|183346735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91725897|NCT00433290|183346736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.260
91725898|NCT00433290|183346737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.489
91725899|NCT00433290|183346738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.131
91725900|NCT00433290|183346739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.082
91725901|NCT00433290|183346741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Alkaline Phosphatase Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91725902|NCT00433290|183346741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for AST Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
91725903|NCT00433290|183346741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for GGT Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.023
91725904|NCT00433290|183346742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
91725905|NCT00433290|183346743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
91725906|NCT00433290|183346744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0||||P-value for SBP Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.285
91725907|NCT00433290|183346744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||P-value for DBP Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.668
91725908|NCT00433290|183346745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91725909|NCT00433290|183346746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
91725910|NCT00504309|183346755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Tukey p-values were used for post hoc comparisons.||Fasting triglycerides (mg/dL) were measured on two consecutive days and averaged for analysis at the end of each treatment period. The null hypothesis was that triglycerides did not differ between groups.||||0.002
91904337|NCT04024228|183703886|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.04||||||B2: 60-64 years||2.04|1.53|
91904338|NCT04024228|183703886|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.15||||||A/H1N1: \>=65 years||2.15|1.44|
91725911|NCT00504309|183346755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cholesterol values were compared as the average of two fasting values at the end of each treatment. Cholesterol values included LDL-C, HDL-C, total cholesterol, and calculated ratios.||||> 0.05
91725912|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.4||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||2.40|1.30|
91725913|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.59||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||2.59|1.42|
91725914|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.49||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||2.49|1.37|
91725915|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.92||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.92|1.05|
91725916|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.46|0.80|
91725917|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.41|0.77|
91725918|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.08|0.59|
91725919|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.3||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.30|0.72|
91725920|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.0||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.00|0.55|
91725921|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.04||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.04|0.57|
91725922|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.02||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||2.02|1.09|
91725923|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.28||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||2.28|1.25|
91725924|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.48||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||2.48|1.36|
91725925|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.56||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.56|0.85|
91904339|NCT04024228|183703886|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.65||||||A/H3N2: \>=65 years||2.65|1.74|
91725926|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.54||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.54|0.83|
91725927|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.68||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.68|0.91|
91725928|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.05||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.05|0.57|
91725929|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.47||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.47|0.81|
91725930|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.93||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||0.93|0.51|
91725931|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||0.85|0.47|
91725932|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.03||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||2.03|1.10|
91725933|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.65||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||2.65|1.45|
91725934|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.74||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||2.74|1.50|
91725935|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.69||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.69|0.93|
91725936|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.78||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.78|0.97|
91725937|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.84||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.84|1.01|
91725938|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.14||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.14|0.62|
91725939|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.40|0.77|
91725940|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.86||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||0.86|0.47|
91725941|NCT05067270|183346768|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.83||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||0.83|0.46|
91725942|NCT00983957|183346795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.023|1.195|||||Point estimates and 90% Confidence Interval (CIs) for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.195|1.023|
91725943|NCT00983957|183346796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.16|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.160|0.988|
91725944|NCT00983957|183346797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.07|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.070|0.951|
91904340|NCT04024228|183703886|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.79||||||B1: \>=65 years||1.79|1.34|
91725945|NCT00983957|183346798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.018|1.234|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.234|1.018|
91725946|NCT00983957|183346801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.135|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.135|0.988|
91725947|NCT00983957|183346806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.115|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.063|1.171|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.171|1.063|
91725948|NCT01560416|183346808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.79
91725949|NCT01560416|183346810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.68
91725950|NCT05894564|183346813|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\>1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.10|0.88|
91725951|NCT05894564|183346814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.65|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||5.65|0.05|
91795108|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.01||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.01|-2.15|<0.001
91795109|NCT00744471|183468938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.27|-2.40|<0.001
91725952|NCT05894564|183346817|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\<1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.28|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.28|0.31|
91725953|NCT05894564|183346818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.87|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.87|0.56|
91795110|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
91795111|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-1.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.19|-2.23|<0.001
91725954|NCT05894564|183346819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.16|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.16|0.25|
91725955|NCT05894564|183346820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.74|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.74|0.33|
91725956|NCT05894564|183346821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.21|0.71|
91795112|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
91795113|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.08||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.08|-2.12|<0.001
91795114|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-1.6||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.60|-2.64|<0.001
91795115|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.43||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.43|-2.46|<0.001
91795116|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.64||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.72|<0.001
91695258|NCT02099110|183285509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.22||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-1.22|-2.48|<0.001
91695259|NCT02099110|183285509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.64||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained logitudinal data analysis|||||-1.64|-2.90|<0.001
91695260|NCT02099110|183285510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-8.23||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|-2.65||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-2.65|-13.82|0.004
91695261|NCT02099110|183285510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-11.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.35|-6.23||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-6.23|-17.35|<0.001
91695262|NCT02099110|183285510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|-12.77||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-12.77|-24.03|<0.001
91695263|NCT02099110|183285510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-23.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.76|-17.53||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-17.53|-28.76|<0.001
91695264|NCT02099110|183285511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|6.4||Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.40|2.68|<0.001
91695265|NCT02099110|183285511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.83||Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.83|1.68|<0.001
91695266|NCT02099110|183285511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.54||Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.54|1.92|<0.001
91695267|NCT02099110|183285511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.||||3.89|1.69|<0.001
91695268|NCT02099110|183285512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|7.61||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|18.13||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||18.13|-2.90|0.155
91695269|NCT02099110|183285512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-4.87||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.54|5.8||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||5.80|-15.54|0.369
91695270|NCT02099110|183285512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|1.81||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|12.27||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||12.27|-8.66|0.734
91695271|NCT02099110|183285512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-9.59||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.17|0.98||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the least squares means|||||0.98|-20.17|0.075
91695272|NCT02099110|183285513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-2.76||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-0.83||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.83|-4.69|0.005
91695273|NCT02099110|183285513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-3.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-1.09||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-1.09|-4.94|0.002
91695274|NCT00961350|183285578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|3.8||||0.02||95.0|1.8|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.|The proportion is from the PA32540 treatment group.|The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects with gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint was analyzed with the CMH test stratified by NSAID use (COX-2/Other NSAID/No) at randomization. A sample size of 250 subjects/treatment would provide 86% power to detect the difference of 8% between EC aspirin 325 mg (13%) and PA32540 (5%) with a 2-sided significance of 5%; and, provides adequate power to test the key secondary endpoints in sequential order.||6.8|1.8|0.020
91695275|NCT00961350|183285579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers and/or duodenal ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||0.002
91695276|NCT00961350|183285580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects with Treatment Success was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
91695277|NCT00961350|183285581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects discontinuing from the study due to NSAID-associated upper GI adverse events was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||0.002
91725957|NCT05894564|183346821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.19|0.67|
91725958|NCT05894564|183346821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.19|0.61|
91725959|NCT05894564|183346821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.28|0.61|
91725960|NCT05894564|183346821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.49|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.49|0.70|
91725961|NCT05894564|183346822|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.27|0.80|
91725962|NCT05894564|183346822|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.26|0.77|
91725963|NCT05894564|183346822|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.67|
91725964|NCT05894564|183346822|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.36|0.77|
91725965|NCT05894564|183346822|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.33|0.76|
91725966|NCT05894564|183346823|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.09|0.65|
91725967|NCT05894564|183346823|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.32|0.74|
91725968|NCT05894564|183346823|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.21|0.64|
91725969|NCT05894564|183346823|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.73|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.73|0.87|
91725970|NCT05894564|183346823|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.64|0.85|
91795117|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.09||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.09|-2.18|<0.001
91725971|NCT05894564|183346824|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.33|0.74|
91725972|NCT05894564|183346824|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.1|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.10|0.59|
91725973|NCT05894564|183346824|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.12|0.59|
91725974|NCT05894564|183346824|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.62|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.62|0.83|
91795118|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.35||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.35|-2.43|<0.001
91795119|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.77||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.77|-1.93|<0.001
91725975|NCT05894564|183346824|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.34|0.70|
91725976|NCT05894564|183346825|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.34|0.79|
91725977|NCT05894564|183346825|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.32|0.74|
91725978|NCT05894564|183346825|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.20|0.64|
91725979|NCT05894564|183346825|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.34|0.70|
91725980|NCT05894564|183346825|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.25|0.64|
91725981|NCT05894564|183346826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.01|0.61|
91725982|NCT05894564|183346826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.11|0.64|
91725983|NCT05894564|183346826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.12|0.63|
91725984|NCT05894564|183346826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.12|0.60|
91725985|NCT05894564|183346826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.24|0.67|
91725986|NCT05894564|183346827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.27|0.81|
91725987|NCT05894564|183346827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.18|0.76|
91725988|NCT05894564|183346827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.72|
91725989|NCT05894564|183346827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.26|0.79|
91725990|NCT05894564|183346827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.01|0.64|
91725991|NCT05894564|183346828|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference in MTU (Active - Placebo)\<0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.26|||||The mean time unwell is estimated from receipt of study drug to study day 14. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.26|-0.56|
91725992|NCT05894564|183346829|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference days benefit (Active - Placebo)\>0))|Difference in model estimated means|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.68|||||The interval is a highest density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.68|-0.29|
91725993|NCT00758043|183346855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR24planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of -10.5%).|Difference in proportions|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.1||||||Primary efficacy analysis was based on CI estimates (using the normal approximation, confidence limits were constructed for the difference in proportions) to rule out the inferiority of the T12/PR24/eRVR+ treatment regimen relative to the T12/PR48/eRVR+ treatment regimen. SVR24 was defined as undetectable HCV RNA at end of treatment through 24 weeks after the last planned dose.||11.1|-2.1|
91904341|NCT04024228|183703886|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.03||||||B2: \>=65 years||2.03|1.52|
91725994|NCT00758043|183346855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR24planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of -10.5%).|Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.2||||||SVR24 was defined as below the limit of quantitation at 24 weeks after the planned end of treatment. For subjects who had missing data at week 24 after the planned end of treatment, the week 12 data or the last follow-up time point after week 12 was carried forward for determining SVR24.||8.2|-4.3|
91725995|NCT00758043|183346856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR at Week 72 planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of 10.5%).|Difference in Proportion|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.8||||||||6.8|-7.7|
91725996|NCT00758043|183346856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR at Week 72 planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of 10.5%).|Odds Ratio, log|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.82||||||||1.82|0.49|
91725997|NCT03197935|183346870|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in pCR rate|16.5||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|27.1||(one-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs. IC1/2/3) and clinical stage at presentation (Stage II vs. III).||27.10|5.91|0.0044
91725998|NCT03197935|183346871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pCR|19.5||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|34.83||(one-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||34.83|4.17|0.0206
91725999|NCT03197935|183346872|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of EFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint is descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.21|||Stratified log-rank test|||"Stratified analysis. Strata are:~Tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs IC1/2/3) and AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III)."||1.21|0.47|
91726000|NCT03197935|183346873|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of EFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint is descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.18|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.18|0.26|
91726001|NCT03197935|183346874|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of DFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.3|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: Tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs IC1/2/3) and AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.30|0.44|
91726002|NCT03197935|183346875|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of DFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.43|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.43|0.23|
91726003|NCT03197935|183346876|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoints of OS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.04|||Stratified log-rank test|||"Stratified analysis. Strata are:~Tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs IC1/2/3) and AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III)."||1.04|0.30|
91726004|NCT03197935|183346877|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoints of EFS, DFS and OS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.91|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.91|0.26|
91726005|NCT03593629|183346884|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was defined as -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|2.37|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-5.05||||||||||-5.05|
91726006|NCT03593629|183346885|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin is defined as -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.88||||||||||-8.88|
91726007|NCT03593629|183346886|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin is defined as -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.15|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.89||||||||||-6.89|
91726008|NCT00669331|183346947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio Mannitol:Control|0.92||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, region and baseline PE rate as predictors and log of follow-up time as an offset variable|For rate ratio, Mannitol rate is the numerator, Control rate is the denominator|||1.08|0.78|0.3115
91795120|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.15||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12 :Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.15|-2.31|<0.001
91726009|NCT00669331|183346948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference across the 52 weeks|-2.4||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-0.05|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|Model included treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region and baseline SGRQ Total score.|difference calculated Mannitol-control. Negative difference is in favour of mannitol since lower scores indicate improved quality of life.|||-0.05|-4.76|0.0457
91726010|NCT00669331|183346949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.91||||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, region and baseline pulmonary exacerbation rate as predictors, log follow-up as offset|Rate ratio is for mannitol vs control.|||1.08|0.77|0.2754
91726011|NCT00669331|183346950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model was stratified by region and baseline PE rate||||0.96|0.63|0.0218
91726012|NCT00669331|183346951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.88||||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.16|||Negative binomial model|treatment, region and baseline pulmonary exacerbation rate as predictors, and with log of follow-up time as the offset variable||Analysed using a negative binomial model with treatment, region and baseline pulmonary exacerbation rate as predictors, and with log of follow-up time as the offset variable||1.16|0.67|0.3602
91726013|NCT00669331|183346952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ls mean difference across 52 weeks|2.76||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region and baseline sputum weight (g).|Difference mannitol-control|||5.33|0.19|0.0355
91795121|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.32|-2.47|<0.001
91695278|NCT00961350|183285582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO and by baseline heartburn severity at randomization.||The proportion of subjects who had no heartburn at 6 months (regardless of the presence or absence of heartburn at baseline) was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
91695279|NCT03867201|183285583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-2.83|0.015
91695280|NCT02986282|183285591|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.0600326|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0799661|-0.0449876|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||It was calculated that the study sample size of 79 subjects would be needed to detect a difference of 0.1 in the ABI measured in sinus rhythm and during atrial fibrillation, with a two-tailed α of 0.05 and a (1-β) of 0.90. Our initial estimate of sample size of 115 patients incorporated an assumption of dropout. Intra-observer variability was calculated using intra-class correlation coefficient.||-0.0449876|-0.0799661|<0.05
91695281|NCT02986282|183285592|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.0249837|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039992|-0.0100226|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.0100226|-0.039992|<0.05
91695282|NCT03467217|183285595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|32.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value of ALT.||||32.7|-30.6|.95
91695283|NCT03467217|183285596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value of GGT.||||6.0|-11.0|0.56
91695284|NCT03467217|183285597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|19.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline AST value.||||19.8|-10.3|0.53
91695285|NCT03467217|183285598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|37.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline ALT value.||||37.5|-20.8|0.57
91695286|NCT03467217|183285599|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for the baseline ALT value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|36.7|||ANCOVA|||||36.7|9.7|0.25
91695287|NCT03467217|183285600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline HOMA-IR value.||||6.8|0.0|0.05
91695288|NCT03467217|183285601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline weight value.||||2.5|-1.5|0.64
91695289|NCT03467217|183285602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline BMI value.||||0.6|-0.6|0.98
91695290|NCT03467217|183285603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline waist circumference value.||||5.3|-0.5|0.10
91695291|NCT03467217|183285604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline waist-to-hip ratio.||||0.05|0.00|0.08
91695292|NCT03467217|183285605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline PedsQOL Physical Health score.||||9.0|-2.8|0.29
91695293|NCT03467217|183285606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Exact conditional binomial test|||||||0.17
91695294|NCT03467217|183285607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline total cholesterol value.||||8.7|-13.9|0.64
91695295|NCT03467217|183285608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|39.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline triglyceride value.||||39.7|-25.6|0.67
91695296|NCT03467217|183285609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline HDL cholesterol value.||||1.5|-3.4|0.45
91695297|NCT03467217|183285610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline LDL cholesterol value.||||9.4|-10.3|0.93
91695298|NCT03467217|183285611|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|20.1|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PedsQOL Psychosocial Health score.||||20.1|-2.5|0.29
91695299|NCT01113385|183285620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||p value reflects the difference in mean FSPF pre vs post galactose treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91695300|NCT03233529|183285622|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.7|-3.1|<0.0001
91695301|NCT03233529|183285623|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48404||0.042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0420
91695302|NCT03233529|183285624|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37855||0.1519|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.1519
91695303|NCT03233529|183285625|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32552||0.0007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0007
91695304|NCT03233529|183285626|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44266||0.0871|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0871
91695305|NCT03233529|183285627|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.3641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48603||0.0055|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0055
91695306|NCT03233529|183285628|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49359||0.0238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0238
91695307|NCT03233529|183285629|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68659||0.0042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0042
91695308|NCT03233529|183285636|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.4|-2.7|< 0.0001
91726014|NCT00669331|183346953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff across post-baseline visits|-0.44||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region and baseline ESS score|Negative change indicates an improvement in ESS score. Difference calculated Mannitol - Control.|||0.11|-0.99|0.1159
91726015|NCT00669331|183346954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.56||||0.6677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.01|42.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model of absolute change from baseline in FEV1. Model includes terms for treatment, visit, trt\*visit, region and baseline value|ls mean difference Mannitol-Control|||42.13|-27.01|0.6677
91888736|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.05|0.3360
91695309|NCT03233529|183285637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 8|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.6|-1.3|< 0.0001
91726016|NCT00669331|183346961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.61||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.09|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.09|0.34|0.0928
91726017|NCT01428713|183347005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|536.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|162.12||0.01||||||P value \< 0.05 is considered significant in this study|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing PBAC score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for TA|||||0.01
91726018|NCT01428713|183347005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|430.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|157.35||0.03||||||P value \< 0.05 is considered significant for this study|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing PBAC score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for COCP|||||0.03
91726019|NCT01428713|183347005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.03||||||P value \< 0.05 is considered significant for this study|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing Peds QL score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for TA|||||0.03
91695310|NCT03233529|183285637|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 15|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.8|-1.4|< 0.0001
91695311|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 2|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.1|-1.6|0.0188
91695312|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 3|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.4|-1.9|0.0014
91695313|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 4|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0003
91695314|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 5|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.8|-2.2|< 0.0001
91695315|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 6|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0003
91695316|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 7|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.8|-2.3|< 0.0001
91695317|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 8|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.1|-2.5|< 0.0001
91695318|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 9|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.2|-2.6|< 0.0001
91726020|NCT01428713|183347005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing Peds QL score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for COCP|||||0.01
91695319|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 10|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.3|-2.7|< 0.0001
91695320|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 11|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.9|-2.3|< 0.0001
91695321|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 12|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.5|-2.9|< 0.0001
91695322|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 13|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.2|-2.6|< 0.0001
91726021|NCT00875667|183347010|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9||Stratification factors were: time from diagnosis to first dose, time from last prior anti-lymphoma therapy to first dose, prior stem cell transplant, and MIPI at baseline|Stratified Log Rank Test|||||0.90|0.43|0.012
91726022|NCT00875667|183347011|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.85||Stratification factors were: time from diagnosis to first dose, time from last prior anti-lymphoma therapy to first dose, prior stem cell transplant, and MIPI at baseline|Stratified Log Rank Test||The weights are based on observed events at the time the third DMC meeting was held and based on the difference between observed and expected events at the time of the primary analysis.|||0.85|0.43|0.003
91726023|NCT00875667|183347012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91695323|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 14|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.0|-2.4|< 0.0001
91695324|NCT03233529|183285638|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 15|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.2|-2.7|< 0.0001
91695325|NCT01177293|183285644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|89.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.74|97.43||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1155 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||97.43|82.74|
91695326|NCT01177293|183285645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|99.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.1|116.87||||||||116.87|85.10|
91695327|NCT01177293|183285646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.57|94.42||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1278 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||94.42|79.57|
91695328|NCT02237196|183285705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5038||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.49|||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Model adjusts for Site, Baseline TNSS AUC, and Baseline Cat exposure (low vs high)||||0.49|-1.51|0.314
91695329|NCT02901067|183285717|SUPERIORITY|This is a secondary outcome thus no power analysis was done.|||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that the experimental group would present less fibrinolysis shutdown than the control group in all times measured.||||>0.05
91695330|NCT02901067|183285722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91695331|NCT02901067|183285725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that the experimental group would have less pulmonary embolism events than the control group.||||0.10
91695332|NCT02901067|183285726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that the experimental group would have a lower incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the control group.||||0.046
91695333|NCT02049814|183285739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of 95% CI of Least Square Mean (LS mean) of HbA1C Changes was less than 0.4%, it was considered that the non-inferiority was established.||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0001
91695334|NCT02307279|183285808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for stratification factors, and baseline weight|Difference in adjusted mean taken for comparability between the two groups (treatment - placebo)|Simple Superiority, H0: μ (Placebo) -μ (Gelesis100) = 0||-0.90|-3.24|0.0007
91695335|NCT02307279|183285808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1193|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for stratification factors, and baseline weight||Super-Superiority (\>3% difference), H0: μ(Placebo)-μ(Gelesis100) \< 3%||||0.1193
91726024|NCT00875667|183347013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91726025|NCT00875667|183347014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.29|0.421
91695336|NCT02307279|183285809|SUPERIORITY|The performance goal for body weight responders was set at 35%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Proportion Test|||H0: π (Gelesis100)\< 0.35||||<0.0001
91695337|NCT02307279|183285809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for stratification factors and baseline weight||"OR-trt refers to the odds ratio of being a body weight responder for Gelesis100 vs. Placebo.~H0: OR-trt= 1."||3.01|1.34|0.0008
91695338|NCT01339923|183285841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of MenC-CRM was determined following co-administration of MenC-CRM and rMenB+OMV NZ vs MenC-CRM control group at 1 month after 2nd vaccination for serogroup C.||3.9|-6.4|
91695339|NCT01339923|183285841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of MenC-CRM was determined following co-administration of MenC-CRM and rMenB+OMV NZ vs MenC-CRM control group at 1 month after booster vaccination for serogroup C.||7.6|-5.2|
91695340|NCT00828568|183285859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence limit around the difference in proportion of patients considered a Treatment Success between test and reference products was calculated using Blackwelder's method with Yate's continuity correction. If the 90% confidence interval for the test to reference ratio for the primary endpoint was within -0.20 to +0.20, then the test product would have been declared therapeutically equivalent to the reference product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.85||||||90.0|-5.37|15.08||||||||15.08|-5.37|
91695341|NCT00828568|183285861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91695342|NCT00828568|183285861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
91726026|NCT00875667|183347015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.74|||Log Rank|||||1.74|0.52|0.875
91726027|NCT00875667|183347016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
91726028|NCT00875667|183347017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.465
91726029|NCT00875667|183347018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.45|0.005
91726030|NCT00875667|183347019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.46|0.003
91695343|NCT00460811|183285863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||0.0002
91695344|NCT00460811|183285863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||0.0036
91695345|NCT00460811|183285863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||<0.0001
91695346|NCT00460811|183285863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||0.0008
91695347|NCT03515811|183285876|OTHER||Percentage and confidence interval|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|19.2|||||95% CI: 5.0%-19.2%|||19.2|5.0|
91695348|NCT03515811|183285876|OTHER||Percentage and confidence interval|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||||95% CI: 0.0%-7.0%|||7.0|0.0|
91695349|NCT03515811|183285877|OTHER||Percentage and confidence interval|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|12.2|||||95% CI: 3.1%-12.2%|||12.2|3.1|
91695350|NCT01197534|183285900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
91726031|NCT00875667|183347020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.54|0.046
91726032|NCT00875667|183347021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.58|0.095
91726033|NCT00875667|183347022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|7.85|||Log Rank|||||7.85|1.95|<0.001
91726034|NCT00875667|183347023|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.42|||Log Rank|||||3.42|1.24|<0.004
91726035|NCT00875667|183347024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.62|0.519
91726036|NCT00875667|183347025|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.67|0.558
91726037|NCT01967277|183347062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: µL ≤ µs Versus Ha: µL \> µs||||<0.001
91695351|NCT01197534|183285901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.12|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|0.04|<0.001
91695352|NCT01197534|183285902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.18|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|0.07|<0.001
91695353|NCT01197534|183285902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.15|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.15|0.05|<0.001
91726038|NCT03300336|183347066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a logit link and a binomial distribution|Odds in intervention numerator vs odds in usual care denominator|Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the 7 post-baseline timepoints), and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics. Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table.||0.93|0.64|0.01
91726039|NCT03300336|183347067|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a log link and negative binomial distribution.|The rate ratio compares the intervention rate in the numerator vs the usual care rate in the denominator|Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the 7 post-baseline time points), a site-level random effect and random effects for each of the time periods. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics. Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table.||1.15|0.97|0.25
91726040|NCT03300336|183347068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.33||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care group: 5 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 18 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||5.33|-2.70|0.52
91904342|NCT04490395|183703909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|3.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.62|-0.26|0.044
91695354|NCT01197534|183285903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.1|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.10|0.03|<0.001
91726041|NCT03300336|183347069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|6.25||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care group: 5 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 18 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||6.25|-3.14|0.66
91726042|NCT03300336|183347070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|3.7||a priori threshold for significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect.. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care group: 5 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 14 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||3.70|-4.74|0.81
91726043|NCT03300336|183347071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.32||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a logit link and a binomial distribution|Odds in intervention numerator vs odds in usual care denominator|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 0 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 5 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||2.32|0.55|0.74
91726044|NCT03300336|183347072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 14 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 33 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||0.06|-0.03|0.40
91726045|NCT03300336|183347073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 7 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 23 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||0.07|-0.01|0.18
91726046|NCT03300336|183347074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|7.98||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 1 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 4 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||7.98|-6.38|0.83
91795122|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.4||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24 : ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.52|<0.001
91726047|NCT03300336|183347075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|3.96||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 2 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 6 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||3.96|-1.05|0.25
91726048|NCT03300336|183347076|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.99||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a logit link and a binomial distribution|Odds in intervention numerator vs odds in usual care denominator|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 1 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 3 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||1.99|0.68|0.59
91726049|NCT03300336|183347077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|3.69||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 11 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 20 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||3.69|-1.71|0.47
91904343|NCT04490395|183703910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-0.15|0.056
91904344|NCT04490395|183703911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.28|-1.75|0.377
91904345|NCT04490395|183703912|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects change over time|F test (1,15) df|1.381||||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Change over time||Only 9 cases had any data available per group, and some had missing values and were not included in each analysis.|Within subjects change over time.|||0.258
91904346|NCT04490395|183703912|SUPERIORITY|Between group analysis|F test (1,15) df|0.246||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||||Between group analysis|||0.627
91726050|NCT03300336|183347078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.62||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 2 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 7 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||1.62|-1.76|0.94
91726051|NCT02384460|183347083|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.549||p-value is for Type 3 chi-square test for comparison between treatments.|Cox Model Analysis|||Cox proportional hazards model compares treatment groups with baseline target wound size, target wound age, and EB type as covariates.||1.549|0.651|0.985
91726052|NCT02384460|183347084|OTHER|Multiple imputation was implemented by 2 steps. The first step used Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a logistic regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline target wound size, target wound age, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 010005 and the number of imputations was 5.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.733||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.474||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||Comparison between treatment groups of complete closure of target wound within 3 months was performed using a logistic regression model with multiple imputation with EB type, baseline target wound size, and baseline target wound age as covariates.||1.474|0.365|0.39
91726053|NCT02384460|183347085|OTHER|Multiple imputation was implemented by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get the monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a logistic regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation method: treatment, EB type, baseline target wound size, target wound age, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.633||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|3.517||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Analysis at Month 1 visit. Comparison between treatment groups of complete closure of target wound within 1 month was performed using a logistic regression model with multiple imputation with EB type, baseline target wound size, and baseline target wound age as covariates.||3.517|0.758|0.212
91759998|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|8.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.59|-8.68|
91759999|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|12.15||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.15|-4.99|
91760000|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.38|24.93||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||24.93|6.38|
91904347|NCT04490395|183703912|SUPERIORITY||F test (1,15) df|0.005||||0.947|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Time x Condition interaction|Time x Condition interaction|||0.947
91904348|NCT04490395|183703913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.98|-1.85|0.038
91904349|NCT04490395|183703914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-6.05|0.07
91904350|NCT04490395|183703915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-1.19|0.43
91904351|NCT04490395|183703916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-.194|0.72
91904352|NCT04490395|183703917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|-0.35|0.341
91904353|NCT04490395|183703918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|-2.35|0.25
91760001|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|14.86||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||14.86|-3.81|
91760002|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.97|9.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.59|-8.97|
91760003|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|13.77||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.77|-4.69|
91760004|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|28.27||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||28.27|9.03|
91695355|NCT01197534|183285903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.03||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.07|0.00|0.033
91726054|NCT02384460|183347085|OTHER|Multiple imputation was implemented by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a logistic regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline target wound size, target wound age, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.891||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|1.821||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Analysis at Month 2 visit. Comparison between treatment groups of complete closure of target wound within 2 months was performed using a logistic regression model with multiple imputation with EB type, baseline target wound size, and baseline target wound age as covariates.||1.821|0.436|0.802
91726055|NCT02384460|183347086|OTHER|Multiple imputation was used by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a linear regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|LS means difference|0.682||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.873|4.238||The p-value is calculated based on the hypothesis testing for the difference of least-squares (LS)-means between treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Analysis. The MMRM approach (using restricted maximum likelihood \[REML\] estimation) was used on each multiply-imputed data set. The model included treatment, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, EB type, visit, and visit-treatment interaction as the fixed effects.||4.238|-2.873|0.706
91726056|NCT02384460|183347087|OTHER|Multiple imputation was used by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a linear regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|LS means difference|0.128||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.116|1.861||The p-value is calculated based on the hypothesis testing for the difference of LS-means between treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM Analysis. The MMRM approach (using REML estimation) was used on each multiply-imputed data set. The model included treatment, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, EB type, visit, and visit-treatment interaction as the fixed effects.||1.861|-2.116|0.9
91726057|NCT02384460|183347088|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.445||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|2.752||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants experiencing improvement in itching versus non-improvement (including missing) was compared between the 2 treatment groups for Day 7 using the logistic regression model with baseline itching score, and EB type as covariates.||2.752|0.759|0.262
91726058|NCT02384460|183347089|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.596||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|1.1||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants experiencing improvement in pain versus non-improvement (including missing) was compared between the 2 treatment groups for Day 7 using the logistic regression model with baseline pain score and EB type as covariates.||1.1|0.323|0.098
91726059|NCT01004393|183347106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.161
91726060|NCT02933476|183347112|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||We compared off therapy UPDRS III scores at baseline to one and four weeks after stimulation.||||>0.05
91726061|NCT02933476|183347113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
91726062|NCT02933476|183347114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91726063|NCT01179516|183347148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.488||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|2.14||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure for each dose was applied to compare 10 mg and 15 mg vortioxetine to placebo. Efficacy endpoints were tested for each dose in sequential order at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||2.14|-3.71|0.597
91904354|NCT00938717|183703919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|8.84||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week APC 3 + 1 Responders. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data.||8.84|2.44|<0.0001
91726064|NCT01179516|183347148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.501||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|2.46||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||2.46|-3.44|0.745
91726065|NCT01179516|183347149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.232||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.995|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.995|0.761|0.396
91726066|NCT01179516|183347149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.212||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.963|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.963|0.748|0.435
91726067|NCT01179516|183347150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.21|-0.38|0.554
91888737|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9638
91726068|NCT01179516|183347150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.25|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.25|-0.35|0.739
91726069|NCT01179516|183347151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.261||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|3.5|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||3.50|-5.43|0.670
91726070|NCT01179516|183347151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.295||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.26|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||6.26|-2.80|0.451
91726071|NCT01179516|183347152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.291||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|2.211|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS total score.||||2.211|0.754|0.352
91726072|NCT01179516|183347152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.116||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.928|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS total score.||||1.928|0.646|0.694
91726073|NCT01179516|183347153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|1.55|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||1.55|-3.38|0.464
91726074|NCT01179516|183347153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|3.3|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||3.30|-1.91|0.600
91726075|NCT01668537|183347154|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that the FD formulation is non-inferior to the LF formulation in terms of ELISA GMTs at the peak visit (Week 6) was predefined as '1.5' for the GMT ratio (LF/FD). Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper 95% CI of the GMT ratio (LF/FD) is entirely below 1.5|GMT ratio (LF/FD)|0.796|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|0.896||||||||0.896|0.707|
91726076|NCT02122952|183347181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Pediatric Neuromuscular Clinical Research \[PNCR\], Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 0 participants were able to sit independently.||||<0.001
91726077|NCT01659541|183347186|OTHER|Statistical analyses were performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test. A p value was calculated.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analyses will be performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test.||Each patient was served as their own control (Pre-Implant); comparisons was made at various points in the study (Week #28, #40 and #52).||||<0.05
91726078|NCT01659541|183347187|OTHER|Statistical analyses were performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test. A p value was calculated.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analyses will be performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test.||Each patient was served as their own control (Pre-Implant); comparisons were made at various points in the study (Week #28, #40 and #52).||||<0.05
91726079|NCT01659541|183347188|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant)) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week ##28, #40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
91726080|NCT01659541|183347189|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week #28, #40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
91726081|NCT01659541|183347190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week #28 ,#40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. Paired t test. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
91726082|NCT01659541|183347191|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week #28, #40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
91726083|NCT02184156|183347224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91795123|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.78||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24 :Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.78|-1.91|<0.001
91726084|NCT02184156|183347225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91726085|NCT02405962|183347228|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|0.08|<0.05
91865625|NCT06946888|183621977|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.627||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.627
91904355|NCT00938717|183703920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.03||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week CSBM 3 + 1 Responders. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data.||7.03|2.50|<0.0001
91726086|NCT00086307|183347257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|12.541||This is the omnibus effect of drug.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and a first order autoregressive covariance structure was used to examine depressive symptoms over time. Fixed factors for drug, time, and a time by drug interaction were included in the model along with the intercept. No random factors were included because the subject factor did not contribute significantly to the model. Baseline symptoms were used as a covariate.||12.541|1.111|.018
91726087|NCT00086307|183347257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|12.541||The significance level was adjusted using a Bonferroni correction.|Post hoc simple effects test||The pramipexole group had a lower MADRS score than the pramipexole and escitalopram group.|Post-hoc simple effects tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the pramipexole group to the pramipexole and escitalopram combination group.||12.541|1.111|.014
91726088|NCT00086307|183347257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|9.066||The significance level was adjusted using a Bonferroni correction.|Post hoc simple effects test||The escitalopram group had a lower MADRS score than the pramipexole and escitalopram group.|Post-hoc simple effects tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the escitalopram group to the pramipexole and escitalopram combination group.||9.066|-2.360|.454
91726089|NCT00086307|183347257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.162||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.942|8.888||The significance level was adjusted using a Bonferroni correction.|Post hoc simple effects test||The pramipexole group had a lower MADRS score than the escitalopram group.|Post-hoc simple effects tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the pramipexole group to the escitalopram group.||8.888|-1.942|.349
91726090|NCT03158311|183347263|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.25 points|Least Square mean (LS Mean)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.139|||P-Value is one-sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||||||-0.139|<0.001
91726091|NCT03158311|183347263|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.25 points|LS Mean|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.027|||P-Value is one-sided|MMRM||||||-0.027|<0.001
91726092|NCT03158311|183347264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.052||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.052|-0.046|0.892
91726093|NCT03158311|183347264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.115||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.115|0.018|0.007
91726094|NCT03158311|183347264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.047||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.047|-0.050|0.945
91726095|NCT03158311|183347264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.114||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.114|0.018|0.007
91726096|NCT03158311|183347264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.06||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.060|-0.041|0.713
91726097|NCT03158311|183347264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.146||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.146|0.046|<0.001
91726098|NCT03158311|183347265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.067||P-value is one-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.067|-0.113|0.308
91726099|NCT03158311|183347265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.012||P-value is one-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.012|-0.169|0.044
91726100|NCT03158311|183347265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.06||P-value is one sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.060|-0.125|0.245
91726101|NCT03158311|183347265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|-0.032||P-value is one sided|MMRM|||Week 24||-0.032|-0.216|0.004
91726102|NCT03158311|183347266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.115||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||||0.115|-0.079|0.719
91726103|NCT03158311|183347266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.179||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||||0.179|-0.015|0.097
91726104|NCT03158311|183347267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.61||P-value is one sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model via Generalized estimating equations (GEE)||||1.61|0.94|0.061
91726105|NCT03158311|183347267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.46||P-value is one-sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model via GEE||||1.46|0.85|0.227
91726106|NCT03158311|183347268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.49||P-value is one sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model via the GEE||||1.49|0.91|0.108
91726107|NCT03158311|183347268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.7||P-Value is one sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model via the GEE||||1.70|1.03|0.013
91726108|NCT03158311|183347269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.049||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.049|-0.055|0.908
91904356|NCT00938717|183703921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.6||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week Abdominal Pain Responders. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data.||3.60|1.91|<0.0001
91904357|NCT00938717|183703922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|4.49||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 6/12 Week APC + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 86% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||4.49|2.22|<0.0001
91904358|NCT02807480|183703956|OTHER|Correlation between conflict approach behavior and GAD-7 scores at baseline|Pearson correlation|0.23||||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||.088
91904359|NCT02807480|183703956|OTHER||Pearson correlation|-0.2||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline response time during conflict with baseline GAD-7 scores.||||.134
91904360|NCT02807480|183703956|OTHER||Pearson correlation|0.12||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline striatum response to points (reward) with baseline GAD-7 scores.||||.032
91904361|NCT02807480|183703956|OTHER||Pearson correlation|-0.12||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline right amygdala activity during negative images with baseline GAD7 scores||||0.375
91904362|NCT02807480|183703956|OTHER||Pearson correlation|0.06||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline right dlPFC activity during conflict decision-making with baseline GAD-7 scores.||||.651
91695356|NCT01197534|183285904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||<0.001
91904363|NCT02807480|183703956|OTHER|Correlation of baseline striatum response to negative pictures with baseline GAD-7 scores.|Pearson correlation|-0.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||.008
91904364|NCT02807480|183703957|OTHER||Slope|-1.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-0.41||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0071.|Regression, Linear||Those with lower levels of baseline left amygdala response to positive picture outcomes had favorable GAD symptom improvements in BA and limited GAD symptom improvements in EXP.|Assess left amygdala response to positive picture decision outcomes as a predictor of GAD-7 symptom improvement: time x L. Amyg x treatment-arm interaction||-0.41|-2.62|.007
91904365|NCT02807480|183703957|OTHER||Slope|0.36||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.97|||Regression, Linear|||Baseline approach behavior during conflict trials predicting trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time main effect||0.97|-0.24|0.238
91904366|NCT02807480|183703957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.37|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship between baseline approach behavior on conflict trials and the trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time x treatment interaction effect||0.37|-1.36|.262
91904367|NCT02807480|183703957|OTHER||Slope|2.37||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|6.19|||Regression, Linear|||relationship between baseline response time on conflict trials and trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time main effects||6.19|-1.44|.222
91695357|NCT01197534|183285904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||<0.001
91726109|NCT03158311|183347269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.104||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.104|0.001|0.046
91904368|NCT02807480|183703957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|6.02|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time x treatment interaction effect||6.02|-6.48|.942
91904369|NCT02807480|183703957|OTHER||Slope|-0.05||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effects||1.1|-1.2|.932
91904370|NCT02807480|183703957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.53|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction effects||1.53|-1.7|.922
91904371|NCT02807480|183703957|OTHER||Slope|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.99|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effects||.99|-.99|.998
91904372|NCT02807480|183703957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.88||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.57|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction||.57|-2.34|.234
91904373|NCT02807480|183703957|OTHER||Slope|-0.03||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.47|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during conflict decisions with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effects||1.47|-1.53|.967
91904374|NCT02807480|183703957|OTHER||Slope|0.74||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.91|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during conflict decision-making with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction effect||2.91|-1.43|0.504
91904375|NCT02807480|183703957|OTHER||Slope|-1.68||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|4.84|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration (AAC conflict RTpost-RTpre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_Change interaction||4.84|-8.21|0.612
91726110|NCT03158311|183347269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.056||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.056|-0.047|0.870
91726111|NCT03158311|183347269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.109||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.109|0.006|0.028
91726112|NCT03158311|183347269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.083||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.083|-0.026|0.303
91726113|NCT03158311|183347269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.148||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.148|0.041|<0.001
91726114|NCT03158311|183347270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.087||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.087|-0.048|0.563
91726115|NCT03158311|183347270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.129||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.129|-0.005|0.068
91726116|NCT03158311|183347270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.062||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.062|-0.076|0.844
91726117|NCT03158311|183347270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.125||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.125|-0.010|0.097
91726118|NCT03158311|183347270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.074||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.074|-0.067|0.927
91726119|NCT03158311|183347270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.159||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.159|0.019|0.013
91726120|NCT00724503|183347278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis tested for the primary efficacy endpoint is rate of progression (months) of SIRT/FOLFOX treatment versus FOLFOX is equal for both groups. The two-sided alternative hypothesis tested with 95% confidence is PFS rate for SIRT/FOLFOX treatment lower to that of FOLFOX.||1.12|0.77|0.551
91726121|NCT00724503|183347279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||A sample size of at least 450 patients for the SIRFLOX study was estimated to be needed to detect an increase in the median PFS at any site from 9.4 months to 12.5 months with 80% power and 95% confidence. Taking into account the number of patients who might receive the alternative treatment or lack of imaging data, the sample size was increased to 530. The Null hypothesis is no difference between the treatment arms with respect to PFS.||||< 0.05
91726122|NCT01186419|183347283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0765
91726123|NCT01033071|183347290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-7.6|-3.1||"Overall Type 1 error rate of 0.05 controlled using 'Closed Testing' principle (hypothesis of all treatment groups equal first tested at 0.05 significance level; upon rejection of this hypothesis, pairwise comparison was tested at the 0.05 level."|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-3.1|-7.6|<0.001
91726124|NCT01033071|183347290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-4.6||"Overall Type 1 error rate of 0.05 controlled using 'Closed Testing' principle (hypothesis of all treatment groups equal first tested at 0.05 significance level; upon rejection of this hypothesis, pairwise comparison was tested at the 0.05 level."|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.6|-9.2|<0.001
91888738|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.03|0.1610
91726125|NCT01033071|183347293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-4.7||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.7|-9.4|<0.001
91726126|NCT01033071|183347293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-6.6||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.6|-11.5|<0.001
91726127|NCT01033071|183347295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-4.3||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.3|-8.5|<0.001
91726128|NCT01033071|183347295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.7||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.7|-11.0|<0.001
91726129|NCT00727064|183347308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||<0.001
91726130|NCT00727064|183347309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||<0.001
91726131|NCT00727064|183347310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.004
91726132|NCT00727064|183347311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.018
91726133|NCT00727064|183347312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.081
91726134|NCT00727064|183347313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.427
91758704|NCT00235716|183410637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.06||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.06|-1.88|0.84
91726135|NCT00666978|183347323|SUPERIORITY|The x2 test was used to determine whether there was a difference between treatment groups (bupropion SR vs placebo) in verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at week 26, imputing the missing participants as smokers.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.35||All tests of statistical significance were two-sided, and all P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided||Raw proportions were used to estimate the verified cessation rate in each group and corresponding odds ratio along with its 95% confidence interval .|Based on our previous studies, sample size was determined a priori assuming a two-sided x2 test with a type I error rate of .05, a power of 80%, and a cotinine-verified abstinence rate of 15% in the placebo group and 25% in the bupropion SR group at week 26, with the assumption that those lost to follow-up would be imputed as smokers.||2.35|0.82|.23
91726136|NCT00666978|183347324|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99||This reflects Week 7.|Regression, Logistic||This reflects Week 7.|||0.99|0.95|0.0022
91726137|NCT00666978|183347325|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis relied on examining quit rates using linear regression, where the hydroxybupropion was a significant predictor of smoking cessation. CYP2B6 genotype was not a direct significant predictor of cessation in either the placebo or bupropion arm.|Regression, Linear||Bupropion adherent individuals with higher hydroxybupropion levels were more likely to be abstinent at Weeks 3, 7 and 26 compared to individuals with lower hydroxybupropion levels.|||||<0.05
91726138|NCT00299221|183347336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparing ISHLT biopsy score between groups at 1 year||||0.44
91726139|NCT03676725|183347341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17||||0.017|ONE_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Women with PMS vs. without PMS.||||0.017
91726140|NCT03676725|183347341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Women with PMS and with ADHD vs. other women||||0.001
91726141|NCT03676725|183347341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ADHD vs. no ADHD||||0.8
91726142|NCT01579305|183347344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is pre-defined as 15% i.e., if the difference in responder rates is significantly greater than -15% (i.e., the lower confidence limit is greater than -15%), statistical non-inferiority of VOLBELLA® to Restylane-L® is established.|Difference in responder rates|4.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.7||||||Difference in responder rates is calculated as the responder rate at Month 3 for VOLBELLA® minus the responder rate at Month 3 for Restylane-L®.|The null hypothesis is that VOLBELLA® is inferior to Restylane-L® in terms of responder rate at Month 3, and the alternative hypothesis is that VOLBELLA® is inferior to Restylane-L® in terms of responder rate at Month 3 with 15% pre-defined non-inferiority margin. To test the null hypothesis, a difference in responder rates of these products (VOLBELLA® - Restylane-L®) at Month 3 and a 1-sided 97.5% Wald confidence interval for the difference is calculated.|||-6.7|
91726143|NCT02734147|183347385|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Other|||||||0.631
91726144|NCT02734147|183347386|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Other|||||||0.640
91726145|NCT02734147|183347387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91726146|NCT02734147|183347388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.655
91726147|NCT02734147|183347389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.133
91726148|NCT02734147|183347390|OTHER|||||||0.566|||||||Other|||||||0.566
91726149|NCT02734147|183347391|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91726150|NCT01835756|183347474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91726151|NCT01835756|183347475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91726152|NCT00888849|183347521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69||0.7774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|10.9||Adjusted for multiplicity via the Bonferroni-Holm method|ANOVA|||||10.9|-19.4|0.7774
91726153|NCT00888849|183347522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.5||Adjusted for multiplicity via Bonferroni-Holm procedure|ANOVA|||||4.5|1.4|0.0008
91726154|NCT00888849|183347523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||Adjusted for multiplicity via Bonferroni-Holm procedure|ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.7774
91726155|NCT05064800|183347524|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|233.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|172.14|315.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 2 was Test. Natural log-transformed Cmax of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects; participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||315.54|172.14|
91726156|NCT05064800|183347525|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|169.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.25|211.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 2 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinf of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||211.35|135.25|
91760005|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|18.78||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||18.78|-0.64|
91760006|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|9.28||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.28|-10.00|
91760007|NCT01393639|183411990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|16.29||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||16.29|-2.91|
91726157|NCT05064800|183347526|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|160.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.19|214.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 2 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUClast of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model.The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||214.90|119.19|
91726158|NCT05064800|183347527|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|171.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.51|231.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 3 was Test. Natural log-transformed Cmax of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects; participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||231.77|127.51|
91726159|NCT05064800|183347528|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|169.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.25|211.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 3 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinf of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||211.35|135.25|
91726160|NCT05064800|183347529|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|160.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.19|214.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 3 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUClast of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model.The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||214.90|119.19|
91726161|NCT02508207|183347544|OTHER|||||||0.7151||||||p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7151
91726162|NCT02508207|183347545|OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
91726163|NCT02508207|183347546|OTHER|||||||0.3345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.||||||0.3345
91726164|NCT02508207|183347547|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91726165|NCT00395512|183347589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.33||ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy variable was defined as change from Baseline in HbA1c level at Week 26. The null hypothesis was that the average change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 26 for the A25 + P30 group would be equal to the average changes for the P30 alone and A25 alone groups; further, under the null hypothesis, the average change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 26 for the A12.5 + P30 group was equal to the average change for the P30 alone group.||-0.33|-0.78|<0.001
91726166|NCT00395512|183347589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53||ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.001
91726167|NCT00395512|183347589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.18||ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.63|<0.001
91726168|NCT00395512|183347590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 20 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 12.5 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-0.12|-0.55|0.003
91904376|NCT02807480|183703957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.08||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|13.92|||Regression, Linear|||change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RTpost-RTpre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over 10 sessions: RT\_Change x Time x Treatment interaction||13.92|-3.76|.259
91726169|NCT00395512|183347590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 20 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-0.30|-0.74|<0.001
91726170|NCT00395512|183347590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 20 between Alogliptin 25 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-0.51|-0.94|<0.001
91726171|NCT00395512|183347591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-2.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and Baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 26 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 12.5 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-2.0|-20.3|0.017
91726172|NCT00395512|183347591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.8|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and Baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 26 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-3.8|-22.0|0.006
91726173|NCT00395512|183347591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-15.4|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and Baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 26 between Alogliptin 25 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-15.4|-33.5|<0.001
91904377|NCT02807480|183703957|OTHER||Slope|-0.53||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) in predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.30|-1.35|.209
91726174|NCT01222351|183347644|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the rate of cognitive decline between participants with and without amyloid.|Slope|-0.034||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||latent growth curve model|Latent growth curve models tested cognitive decline rate by amyloid status.|B weights were the estimates for the association between Aβ and cognitive change.|||||0.02
91726175|NCT02021318|183347652|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus darbepoetin alfa, margin = -15% (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference was \>-15%).|Difference in percentage|11.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.66|17.36||||||A generalized linear model as an approximation for the Miettinen and Nurminen method, adjusted for stratification factors (actual) was used to estimate the difference of proportions and 95% confidence interval.||17.36|5.66|
91726176|NCT02021318|183347653|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = -0.75 (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the least square mean difference (LSM) is \> -0.75 g/dL).|LSM Difference|0.015||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.162|-0.131|0.839
91726177|NCT02021318|183347654|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.403|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline LDL, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||-0.296|-0.510|<0.001
91726178|NCT02021318|183347655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on cardiovascular history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||0.78|0.26|0.004
91726179|NCT02021318|183347656|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = -3 (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference is \> -3 points).|LSM Difference|-1.284||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|-0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit (weeks 8, 12 and 28) visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PF, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||-0.145|-2.423|0.027
91726180|NCT02021318|183347657|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = -3 (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference is \> -3 points).|LSM Difference|-0.457||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.656|0.742|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit (weeks 8, 12 and 28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 VT, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||0.742|-1.656|0.454
91726181|NCT02021318|183347658|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = 1 mmHg (non-inferiority is concluded if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference is \< 1).|LSM Difference|-0.372||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.587|0.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline MAP, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||0.842|-1.587|0.547
91726182|NCT02021318|183347659|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (hazard ratio margin of 1.3). Non-Inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.22|0.56|0.336
91888739|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.14|0.5763
91726183|NCT02021318|183347660|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.136||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.299|1.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline MAP, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||1.026|-1.299|0.818
91726184|NCT02021318|183347661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on cardiovascular history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is lower than 1.||1.26|0.60|0.452
91726185|NCT02021318|183347662|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.038||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.157|-0.081|0.529
91726186|NCT02021318|183347663|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.96|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on cardiovascular history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.96|1.38|<0.001
91726187|NCT02021318|183347664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.98|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.98|1.39|<0.001
91726188|NCT02021318|183347665|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.051||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.194|-0.091|0.478
91726189|NCT02021318|183347665|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.003||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.143|-0.149|0.969
91695358|NCT01197534|183285905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|14.8|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||14.80|3.42|<0.001
91795124|NCT00744471|183468939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.97||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24 :Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.97|-2.09|<0.001
91795125|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
91888740|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|0.00|0.0599
91695359|NCT01197534|183285905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|8.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||8.65|1.88|<0.001
91695360|NCT01197534|183285906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|16.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||16.65|3.23|<0.001
91695361|NCT01197534|183285906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|14.71|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||14.71|2.81|<0.001
91695362|NCT01197534|183285907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.91||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No Response, moderate response and good response are included in the model, with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.91|2.06|<0.001
91695363|NCT01197534|183285907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.37||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No Response, moderate response and good response are included in the model, with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.37|1.77|<0.001
91695364|NCT01197534|183285908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.46|1.73|<0.001
91695365|NCT01197534|183285908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.94|1.46|<0.001
91695366|NCT01197534|183285909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Residuals from ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country and background use of DMARD.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country and background use of DMARD, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.904
91726190|NCT02021318|183347665|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.009||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 72-80 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.157|-0.140|0.910
91726191|NCT02021318|183347665|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.024||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.188|-0.140|0.775
91726192|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.087||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.185|-0.012|0.086
91726193|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.391|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.391|0.165|<0.001
91726194|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.586|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.586|0.284|<0.001
91726195|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.422|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.590|0.254|<0.001
91795126|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-1.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.19|-2.23|<0.001
91795127|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
91865626|NCT06946888|183621977|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.806||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.806
91865627|NCT06946888|183621977|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.786||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.786
91726196|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.556|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.556|0.205|<0.001
91726197|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 10- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.505|0.155|<0.001
91726198|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.482|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.482|0.119|0.001
91726199|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.159||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.336|-0.018|0.079
91726200|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.183||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.361|0.005|0.044
91726201|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.173||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.336|0.010|0.037
91726202|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.085||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.253|-0.083|0.319
91726203|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.03||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.129|-0.190|0.709
91726204|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.061||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.097|-0.219|0.450
91726205|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.065||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.101|-0.231|0.440
91726206|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.014||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.184|-0.157|0.874
91726207|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.131||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.302|-0.039|0.132
91726208|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.187||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.351|0.024|0.024
91726209|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.022||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 44- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.197|-0.153|0.807
91726210|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.012||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.185|-0.160|0.890
91726211|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.029||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.144|-0.201|0.746
91795128|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.08|-2.10|<0.001
91795129|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.59||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.59|-2.61|<0.001
91795130|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.49||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.49|-2.51|<0.001
91726212|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.032||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 56- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.139|-0.202|0.715
91726213|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.066||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.242|-0.110|0.463
91726214|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.002||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 64- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.184|-0.187|0.987
91726215|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.104||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 68- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.281|-0.074|0.251
91726216|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.067||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.251|-0.117|0.473
91726217|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.022||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 76- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.160|-0.204|0.813
91726218|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.045||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 80- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.134|-0.223|0.622
91795131|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.76||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.76|-1.83|<0.001
91795132|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.19|-2.26|<0.001
91904378|NCT02807480|183703957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.53||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.73|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) in predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change x Treatment interaction||2.73|0.33|0.013
91795133|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.46||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.46|-2.53|<0.001
91795134|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.0||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.00|-2.11|<0.001
91795135|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.37||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.37|-2.49|<0.001
91795136|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.72||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.72|-2.83|<0.001
91795137|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.75||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.75|-1.87|<0.001
91795138|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-1.02||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.14|<0.001
91795139|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.36||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.36|-2.47|<0.001
91795140|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.74||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.74|-1.86|<0.001
91795141|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.05||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.05|-2.17|<0.001
91795142|NCT00744471|183468940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.36||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.36|-2.47|<0.001
91795143|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
91695367|NCT01197534|183285909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Residuals from ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country and background use of DMARD.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country and background use of DMARD, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.342
91695368|NCT01197534|183285910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.48||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.48|1.47|<0.001
91795144|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.45||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-0.83|<0.001
91795145|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
91904379|NCT02807480|183703958|OTHER||Slope|-2.95||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-0.84||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline emotional conflict, a computational parameter reflecting avoidance relative to reward value, as a predictor of the linear trajectory of symptom change over time: time x EC interaction||-0.84|-5.06|0.006
91795146|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.65|<0.001
91795147|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.5||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-0.88|<0.001
91795148|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.36||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.36|-0.73|<0.001
91795149|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.39|0.054
91795150|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.29||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.68|<0.001
91795151|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.26||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.65|<0.001
91795152|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.15||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.55|<0.001
91795153|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.4||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-0.81|<0.001
91904380|NCT02807480|183703958|OTHER||Slope|-1.02||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.36|||Regression, Linear|||Assess avoidance behavior on conflict trials as a predictor of PROMIS Anxiety symptom improvement: time x avoidance interaction||-0.36|-1.68|0.003
91795154|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.73|<0.001
91795155|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.45|0.008
91795156|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
91795157|NCT00744471|183468941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.05||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.43|0.012
91795158|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
91795159|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.45||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-0.83|<0.001
91795160|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
91795161|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.65|<0.001
91795162|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.5||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-0.87|<0.001
91795163|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.76|<0.001
91795164|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.03||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.43|0.022
91795165|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.67|<0.001
91795166|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.26||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.65|<0.001
91795167|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.60|<0.001
91904381|NCT02807480|183703958|OTHER||Slope|-1.88||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.87||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0071.|Regression, Linear|||Assess left dlPFC response to baseline negative picture decision outcomes as a predictor of PROMIS Anxiety symptom improvement: time x L. dlPFC interaction||-0.87|-2.89|.007
91726219|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.045||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.227|-0.138|0.632
91726220|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.055||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 88- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.242|-0.133|0.568
91726221|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.034||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 92- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.226|-0.158|0.729
91726222|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.025||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.218|-0.168|0.797
91726223|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 100- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.090|-0.310|0.280
91726224|NCT02021318|183347666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.037||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 104- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.251|-0.177|0.733
91726225|NCT02021318|183347667|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.026||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.170|-0.119|0.727
91726226|NCT02021318|183347667|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.001||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.148|-0.151|0.985
91904382|NCT02807480|183703958|OTHER||Slope|1.02||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.68|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms||1.68|0.36|.003
91904383|NCT02807480|183703958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.54||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interaction||0.4|-1.48|.258
91726227|NCT02021318|183347667|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.003||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 72-80 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.154|-0.148|0.965
91726228|NCT02021318|183347667|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.016||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.157|-0.188|0.856
91726229|NCT02021318|183347669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.22|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||2.22|1.36|<0.001
91726230|NCT02021318|183347672|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||1.50|0.98|0.079
91726231|NCT02021318|183347673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.11|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||2.11|0.79|0.300
91726232|NCT02021318|183347677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.54|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||2.54|0.99|0.055
91726233|NCT02021318|183347680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||1.00|0.51|0.052
91726234|NCT02021318|183347690|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.068||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.012|-0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 12-28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||-0.124|-2.012|0.027
91904384|NCT02807480|183703958|OTHER||Slope|1.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|5.69|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x approach behavior interaction||5.69|-3.08|.56
91695369|NCT01197534|183285910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.65||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.65|0.63|0.001
91904385|NCT02807480|183703958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.77||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|5.41|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT (response time) during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x treatment x RT interaction||5.41|-8.95|.629
91695370|NCT01197534|183285911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.2||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.20|0.97|<0.001
91695371|NCT01197534|183285911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.08||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.08|0.83|<0.001
91695372|NCT02593097|183285919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Hills-Armitage|||||||0.83
91695373|NCT02593097|183285920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||McNemar|||||||0.16
91695374|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||A priori threshold p \< 0.05|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.00005
91695375|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00005
91695376|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695377|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695378|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695379|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91726235|NCT02021318|183347690|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.603||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.606|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 36-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||0.401|-1.606|0.239
91726236|NCT02021318|183347691|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.528||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.127|1.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 12-28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An AnS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||1.072|-2.127|0.517
91726237|NCT02021318|183347691|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.947||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.771|0.877|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 36-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An AnS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||0.877|-2.771|0.308
91726238|NCT02021318|183347692|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.904||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.032|2.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12-28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An total score, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||2.224|-4.032|0.570
91695380|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695381|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695382|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91795168|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.47||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-0.88|<0.001
91695383|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91695384|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695385|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695386|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695387|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695388|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695389|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91726239|NCT02021318|183347692|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.767||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.354|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 36-52 -The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An total score, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||1.820|-5.354|0.334
91726240|NCT02021318|183347694|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.784||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.481|3.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline EQ-5D 5L VAS, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||3.049|-1.481|0.497
91726241|NCT02021318|183347705|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.05||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.93|0.902
91726242|NCT02021318|183347707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.29|0.79|0.960
91726243|NCT02021318|183347709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.25|0.79|0.939
91726244|NCT02021318|183347710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.27|0.77|0.948
91795169|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.39||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.79|<0.001
91695390|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91695391|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0093
91695392|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695393|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91695394|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695395|NCT02811965|183285939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91726245|NCT02021318|183347711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.17|0.75|0.568
91726246|NCT01740427|183347718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|0.718||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Stratified Log Rank|||||0.718|0.463|<0.000001
91726247|NCT01740427|183347719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.428||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|2.03||1-sided p-value is from exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Stratified analysis: Stratified by disease site (visceral vs non-visceral) per randomization.||2.030|1.008|0.0224
91726248|NCT01740427|183347720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.594||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.347||1-sided p-value is from exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Stratified analysis: Stratified by disease site (visceral vs non-visceral) per randomization.||2.347|1.080|0.0090
91726249|NCT01740427|183347722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.619|3.722||1-sided p-value is from exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Stratified analysis: Stratified by disease site (visceral, non-visceral) per randomization.||3.722|1.619|<0.0001
91695396|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||A priori threshold p\<0.05.|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.00005
91695397|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695398|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91726250|NCT01740427|183347723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.571|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|0.737|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for ER positive||0.737|0.443|<0.0001
91726251|NCT01740427|183347723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.405||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.751|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for ER Negative||0.751|0.218|0.0030
91904386|NCT02807480|183703958|OTHER||Slope|-0.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.09|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS ANXIETY trajectory: time x striatum interaction effects||1.09|-1.51|0.75
91695399|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695400|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695401|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695402|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695403|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91795170|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.53|<0.001
91795171|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.28||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.68|<0.001
91795172|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.71|<0.001
91695404|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
91695405|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00005
91695406|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695407|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695408|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695409|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695410|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695411|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91695412|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092
91695413|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0044
91695414|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695415|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
91695416|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91695417|NCT02811965|183285940|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00005
91695418|NCT01554527|183285941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.07
91695419|NCT01554527|183285942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.34
91695420|NCT01554527|183285943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.93
91695421|NCT01554527|183285944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.5
91695422|NCT01554527|183285945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.25
91695423|NCT03627546|183285970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
91695424|NCT03627546|183285971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0007
91695425|NCT01537042|183285981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.44||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.88|||ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed for the log-transformed PLMI ratio with treatment and region as factors and Baseline as a covariate.||||0.88|0.22|0.0232
91695426|NCT02837731|183285996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-2.53|0.021
91695427|NCT02837731|183285997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01|||Fisher Exact||Converted Estimated Value of -12.4% to decimal value of -0.124.|||-0.01|-0.27|0.042
91695428|NCT02837731|183285998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1642||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.0|||Chi-squared||Converted Estimated Value of -16.42% to decimal value of -0.1642.|||0|-0.33|0.044
91695429|NCT02837731|183285999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||||0.85|-6.67|0.113
91695430|NCT02837731|183286000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.08|9.22|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||9.22|-154.08|
91695431|NCT02837731|183286001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.91||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|22.68|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||22.68|-52.50|0.426
91695432|NCT02837731|183286002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.34|0.453
91695433|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.0328|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||Age||||0.0328
91695434|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.7128|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sex||||0.7128
91695435|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.0465|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||Body mass index||||0.0465
91695436|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.8872|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||Duration of illness||||0.8872
91695437|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.0388|||||||Fisher Exact|||Smoking history||||0.0388
91695438|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.4855|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications||||0.4855
91695439|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.663|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Liver disorder||||0.6630
91695440|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.2067|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Renal disorder||||0.2067
91695441|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.8749|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Cardiovascular disorder||||0.8749
91695442|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Blood disorder||||0.4820
91726252|NCT01740427|183347723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.68|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Rb Positive||0.680|0.416|<0.0001
91726253|NCT01740427|183347723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675||||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|1.481|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Rb Negative||1.481|0.308|0.3237
91726254|NCT01740427|183347723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.555|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|0.705|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Cyclin D1 Positive||0.705|0.437|<0.0001
91726255|NCT01740427|183347723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|3.461|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Cyclin D1 Negative||3.461|0.287|0.9964
91726256|NCT01740427|183347723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.518|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 Positive||0.670|0.400|<0.0001
91726257|NCT01740427|183347723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|1.364|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 Negative||1.364|0.392|0.3221
91795173|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.47|0.010
91904387|NCT02807480|183703958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.27||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|3.09|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment x striatum interaction effects||3.09|-0.54|.169
91695443|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.6355|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Respiratory disorder||||0.6355
91695444|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.8193|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Diabetes mellitus||||0.8193
91695445|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.5723|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Uveitis||||0.5723
91695446|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Inflammatory bowel disease||||1.0000
91695447|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Psoriasis||||1.0000
91695448|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.0144|||||||Fisher Exact|||Past Illnesses||||0.0144
91695449|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Allergy history||||1.0000
91695450|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.3928|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adalimumab self-injection status||||0.3928
91695451|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.2735|||||||Fisher Exact|||Prior medications - NSAIDs||||0.2735
91695452|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.8875|||||||Fisher Exact|||Prior medications - Biological products||||0.8875
91695453|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Fisher Exact|||Prior medications - Adrenal corticosteroids||||0.2540
91695454|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.0226|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs||||0.0226
91695455|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drug: NSAIDs||||1.0000
91695456|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.2481|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - DMARDs||||0.2481
91695457|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.1558|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - Methotrexate||||0.1558
91695458|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - salazosulfapyridine||||1.0000
91695459|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - Adrenal corticosteroids||||0.0094
91695460|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant therapy||||1.0000
91695461|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||0.8836|||||||Fisher Exact|||Human leukocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) test result||||0.8836
91695462|NCT01329380|183286035|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||BASDAI at start of treatment||||1.0000
91695463|NCT06868654|183286043|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.56|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy, prior bortezomib and revised international staging system (R-ISS) at screening, with a covariate of treatment.|||0.56|0.11|
91695464|NCT01270464|183286098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0507||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.259||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.259|0.060|0.0018
91726258|NCT01740427|183347723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|0.742|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 HScore\<175||0.742|0.455|<0.0001
91726259|NCT01740427|183347723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.255||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.65|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 HScore\>=175||0.650|0.100|0.0022
91726260|NCT01740427|183347723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.742|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Ki67 \<=20%||0.742|0.379|0.0002
91726261|NCT01740427|183347723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|0.791|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Ki67 \>20%||0.791|0.409|0.0007
91726262|NCT01740427|183347727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||||0.051|-0.004|0.0925
91726263|NCT01740427|183347728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.325||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||||1.98|-2.63|0.7822
91695465|NCT01270464|183286098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0508||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.215||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.215|0.016|0.0237
91726264|NCT01740427|183347730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.33775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.177||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Stratified Log Rank|||||1.177|0.777|0.337750
91888741|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.06|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.15|0.3916
91904388|NCT02807480|183703958|OTHER||Slope|0.15||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.31|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x amygdala interaction||1.31|-1.00|0.792
91695466|NCT01270464|183286099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.237||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.237|0.023|0.0174
91695467|NCT01270464|183286099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.155||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.155|-0.058|0.3731
91695468|NCT01270464|183286100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1212||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.472||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.472|-0.005|0.0552
91695469|NCT01270464|183286100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1215||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.27||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.270|-0.209|0.8020
91695470|NCT01270464|183286102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|-0.14||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.140|-0.577|0.0014
91695471|NCT01270464|183286102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1108||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|-0.019||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.019|-0.456|0.0329
91695472|NCT01270464|183286103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1582||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.67||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.670|0.047|0.0241
91695473|NCT01270464|183286103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1591||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.591||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.591|-0.036|0.0822
91726265|NCT01740427|183347731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.208706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.124||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Stratified Log Rank|||||1.124|0.755|0.208706
91726266|NCT00963508|183347734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91726267|NCT00963508|183347735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0005
91695474|NCT01270464|183286104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.085||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.085|0.009|0.0160
91726268|NCT00165698|183347736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Symbols rank sum test|||||||0.26
91726269|NCT00165698|183347737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Symbols rank sum test|||||||0.19
91695475|NCT01270464|183286104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.089||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.089|0.012|0.0094
91695476|NCT01270464|183286105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2551||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.126|-0.121||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.121|-1.126|0.0151
91695477|NCT01270464|183286105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2559||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.152|-0.144||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.144|-1.152|0.0119
91695478|NCT01270464|183286106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.542|-0.447||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.447|-0.542|0.0000
91695479|NCT01270464|183286106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0243||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.275||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.275|-0.370|0.0000
91726270|NCT00165698|183347738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Symbols rank sum test|||||||0.31
91726271|NCT00165698|183347739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.869
91726272|NCT00165698|183347740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.174
91726273|NCT00165698|183347741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.000
91726274|NCT00165698|183347742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.000
91726275|NCT00165698|183347743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.000
91726276|NCT02641353|183347747|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.3|93.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment B / Treatment A) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the bioavailability between the apremilast oral suspension and tablet formulation an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax.||93.2|77.3|
91726277|NCT02641353|183347747|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|78.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|86.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment C / Treatment B) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the effect of food on the PK of apremilast oral suspension formulation, an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax.||86.0|71.2|
91904389|NCT02807480|183703958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.73||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.96|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interaction||0.96|-2.41|.396
91695480|NCT00863343|183286139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.94|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.94|0.59|
91695481|NCT00863343|183286139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|0.99|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.99|0.97|
91695482|NCT00863343|183286140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.92|0.63|
91695483|NCT00863343|183286140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||1.0|0.98|
91695484|NCT00863343|183286141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.96|0.70|
91795174|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.25||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.66|<0.001
91695485|NCT00863343|183286141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.997||||||95.0|0.98|1.0|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||1.0|0.98|
91695486|NCT00863343|183286142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.90|0.60|
91695487|NCT00863343|183286142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||1.0|0.98|
91695488|NCT01322490|183286143|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value is from a stratified log-rank test for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF placebo vs. Placebo Control with Treatment Arm included in model. Stratification is by randomization strata.||||||0.4742||||||The overall type-one error probability for the entire trial was designed as a one-sided P=0.025. There were two main overall comparisons, which necessitated a type-one error probability to 0.0125 for each comparison using a Bonferroni correction.|Log Rank|The primary analysis method was a stratified log-rank test, and was performed using the ITT Set analyzing data according to the randomized arm.||||||0.4742
91695489|NCT01322490|183286143|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value is from a stratified log-rank test for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF vs. Placebo Control with Treatment Arm included in model. Stratification is by randomization strata.||||||0.5885||||||The overall type-one error probability for the entire trial was designed as a one-sided P=0.025. There were two main overall comparisons, which necessitated a type-one error probability to 0.0125 for each comparison using a Bonferroni correction.|Log Rank|The primary analysis method was a stratified log-rank test, and was performed using the ITT Set analyzing data according to the randomized arm.||||||0.5885
91695490|NCT01322490|183286144|SUPERIORITY|Odds Ratio and Wald 95% CI estimates are for odds of alive without event for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF placebo vs. Placebo Control and are from a logistic regression model with Treatment Arm included in model stratified by randomization strata.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7144|1.2867|||||The Alive Without Event endpoint was analyzed using stratified logistic regression. The 95% CI on the odds ratio estimate was computed as the measure of the magnitude of effect.|||1.2867|0.7144|
91695491|NCT01322490|183286144|SUPERIORITY|Odds Ratio and Wald 95% CI estimates are for odds of alive without event for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF vs. Placebo Control and are from a logistic regression model with Treatment Arm included in model stratified by randomization strata.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6647|1.2026|||||The Alive Without Event endpoint was analyzed using stratified logistic regression. The 95% CI on the odds ratio estimate was computed as the measure of the magnitude of effect.|||1.2026|0.6647|
91695492|NCT02484456|183286145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
91695493|NCT02484456|183286146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
91695494|NCT02484456|183286147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
91695495|NCT02484456|183286148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91695496|NCT02484456|183286149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
91695497|NCT02484456|183286150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
91695498|NCT02484456|183286151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
91889171|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F||0.82|0.64|
91695499|NCT02484456|183286152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91695500|NCT02484456|183286153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
91695501|NCT02484456|183286154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
91695502|NCT02484456|183286155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
91695503|NCT02484456|183286156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
91695504|NCT02484456|183286157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
91695505|NCT02484456|183286158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91695506|NCT02484456|183286159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
91695507|NCT02484456|183286160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91695508|NCT02484456|183286161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
91695509|NCT02484456|183286162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91695510|NCT02484456|183286163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91695511|NCT02484456|183286164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
91726278|NCT02641353|183347748|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.0|92.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment B / Treatment A) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the bioavailability between the apremilast oral suspension and tablet formulation an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t.||92.5|83.0|
91795175|NCT00744471|183468942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.13||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.53|0.001
91795176|NCT04706416|183468965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.48|||Fisher Exact|||||1.48|0.26|0.297
91795177|NCT04706416|183468965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.30|0.19|0.541
91695512|NCT02484456|183286165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
91795178|NCT04706416|183468966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.91|||Fisher Exact|||||0.91|0.15|0.039
91795179|NCT04706416|183468966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.07|0.09|0.081
91795180|NCT04706416|183468967|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.0|-1.0|0.643
91795181|NCT04706416|183468967|SUPERIORITY||β-coefficient|-4.27||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|-2.87|||Regression, Linear|||||-2.87|-5.67|0.001
91795182|NCT04706416|183468968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.19|||Fisher Exact|||||1.19|0.25|0.133
91795183|NCT04706416|183468969|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|4.0||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12.0|-1.0|0.092
91695513|NCT02484456|183286166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
91795184|NCT04706416|183468970|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.0|-2.0|0.834
91795185|NCT04706416|183468971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.001||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.52|||Fisher Exact|||||1.52|0|0.149
91795186|NCT04706416|183468972|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||Fisher Exact|||||0.80|0.12|0.015
91795187|NCT01484054|183469001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points(CLUE) was used.|Least square mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A with PVP lenses is non-inferior to etafilcon A control lenses for the Overall Quality of Lens Vision at 7-9 days of follow-up.||5.20|-3.20|
91795188|NCT01484054|183469002|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points(CLUE) was used.|Least square mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|10.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A with PVP lenses is non-inferior to etafilcon A control lenses for the Overall Lens Comfort at 7-9 days of follow-up.||10.19|-0.79|
91795189|NCT01484054|183469003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points(CLUE) was used.|Least square mean difference|9.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.829|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|13.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho: The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for Handling at 7-9 days follow-up.||13.07|5.81|
91795190|NCT03737851|183469027|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|2.584||||||Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||2.584|0.559|
91695514|NCT02484456|183286167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
91695515|NCT02484456|183286168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91726279|NCT02641353|183347748|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|115.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.2|121.7|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment C / Treatment B) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the effect of food on the PK of apremilast oral suspension formulation, an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t.||121.7|109.2|
91795191|NCT03737851|183469027|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|1.421||||||Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||1.421|0.266|
91795192|NCT03496571|183469038|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-95.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.0|-68.0|||ANCOVA|||||-68|-122|<0.001
91795193|NCT03496571|183469038|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-102.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.0|-76.0|||ANCOVA|||||-76|-128|<0.001
91795194|NCT03496571|183469038|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-98.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.0|-76.0|||ANCOVA|||||-76|-121|<0.001
91795195|NCT03496571|183469039|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|76.0|||Fisher Exact|||||76|27|<0.001
91795196|NCT03496571|183469039|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|62.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|82.0|||Fisher Exact|||||82|34|<0.001
91795197|NCT03496571|183469039|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|74.0|||Fisher Exact|||||74|36|<0.001
91795198|NCT03496571|183469040|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-20.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-40|0.05
91795199|NCT03496571|183469040|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-33.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-13.0|||ANCOVA|||||-13|-53|0.002
91795200|NCT03496571|183469040|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-26.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA|||||-9|-44|0.004
91795201|NCT03119701|183469043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|8.19||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.19|0.21|0.78
91795202|NCT03119701|183469044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.52|0.28|0.57
91795203|NCT03119701|183469045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91695516|NCT01908829|183286186|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05||P values for pairwise comparisons were from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. P \< 0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.05|-0.47|=0.001
91695517|NCT01908829|183286187|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14||P values for pairwise comparisons are from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. P \< 0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 4 differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% CIs are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.52|<0.001
91695518|NCT01908829|183286187|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.18||P values for pairwise comparisons are from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. P \< 0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 8 differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% CIs are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.18|-0.60|<0.001
91695519|NCT01908829|183286187|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 12 differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% CIs are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.46|=0.001
91695520|NCT01908829|183286188|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.06|-0.47|=0.010
91695521|NCT01908829|183286188|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.19|-0.65|<0.001
91726280|NCT02641353|183347749|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.2|92.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment B / Treatment A) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the bioavailability between the apremilast oral suspension and tablet formulation an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞.||92.6|83.2|
91726281|NCT02641353|183347749|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|121.7|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment C / Treatment B) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the effect of food on the PK of apremilast oral suspension formulation, an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞.||121.7|109.0|
91726282|NCT02641353|183347750|OTHER||Median Difference|0.25||||0.1508|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Treatment B - Treatment A) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% confidence interval (CI) of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||0.50|0.00|0.1508
91795204|NCT03119701|183469047|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
91795205|NCT03119701|183469050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Exact Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test||||||0.3620
91795206|NCT03119701|183469053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 5, and Day 6.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||<.0001
91795207|NCT03119701|183469053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Baseline visit|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.13
91795208|NCT03119701|183469053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Day 1|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.0035
91795209|NCT03119701|183469053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Day 9|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.009
91904390|NCT02807480|183703958|OTHER||Slope|-1.55||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x dlPFC interaction||-0.4|-2.7|.009
91695522|NCT01908829|183286188|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.23||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.23|-0.70|<0.001
91726283|NCT02641353|183347750|OTHER||Median Difference|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|3.25|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Treatment C - Treatment B) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.25|1.27|<0.0001
91726284|NCT02547935|183347757|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
91726285|NCT02547935|183347758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|-25.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline UACR value and log-baseline UACR value-by-week interaction.||-25.8|-48.2|<0.001
91726286|NCT02547935|183347758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-5.2||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline UACR value and log-baseline UACR value-by-week interaction.||-5.2|-34.1|0.011
91726287|NCT02547935|183347759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.26||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline total body weight value and log-baseline total body weight value-by-week interaction.||1.26|-1.32|0.953
91726288|NCT02547935|183347759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.44||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline total body weight value and log-baseline total body weight value-by-week interaction.||0.44|-2.17|0.193
91726289|NCT02547935|183347760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|5.4||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e.anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||5.4|-17.5|0.298
91726290|NCT02547935|183347760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|9.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e.anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||9.8|-13.6|0.746
91726291|NCT02547935|183347761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline UACR and pooled randomisation strata.||4.8|1.8|<0.001
91726292|NCT02547935|183347761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.0||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline UACR and pooled randomisation strata.||3.0|1.1|0.013
91795210|NCT03119701|183469053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Day 13|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.10
91795211|NCT03119701|183469054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||Patients with an observation below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) value at baseline for CD73 were set to have the LLOQ value (LLOQ = 4 ng/ml) at baseline for subgroup determination purposes (2-fold increase in CD73 from baseline). Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2 ng/mL.||||0.66
91795212|NCT03119701|183469055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||Observations of zero were imputed as 1 pg/ml before logarithmic transformation.||||0.3
91795213|NCT04090957|183469092|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.42||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 4; E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.20|-16.64|0.0436
91904391|NCT02807480|183703958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.84|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment dlPFC interaction||1.84|-1.28|0.724
91726293|NCT02547935|183347762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|11.2||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline HbA1c and pooled randomisation strata.||11.2|2.6|<0.001
91726294|NCT02547935|183347762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline HbA1c and pooled randomisation strata.||3.8|0.8|0.167
91726295|NCT02547935|183347763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.2||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios, included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline SBP value and log-baseline SBP value-by-week interaction.||-1.2|-8.3|0.009
91726296|NCT02547935|183347763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios, included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline SBP value and log-baseline SBP value-by-week interaction.||0.8|-6.4|0.122
91726297|NCT02547935|183347764|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.05||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||0.05|-0.38|0.142
91726298|NCT01398475|183347765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.1|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF1 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.10|0.951|
91726299|NCT01398475|183347765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.09|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.09|0.947|
91795214|NCT04090957|183469092|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.21||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-1.98|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 4; E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-1.98|-18.44|0.0117
91726300|NCT01398475|183347765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.827|0.953|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fed divided by TF2 fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||0.953|0.827|
91726301|NCT01398475|183347766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.1|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF1 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.10|0.868|
91726302|NCT01398475|183347766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.852|1.08|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.08|0.852|
91726303|NCT01398475|183347766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|0.925|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fed divided by TF2 fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||0.925|0.727|
91726304|NCT01398475|183347767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The median difference was calculated as TF1 fasted minus RF fasted.|||0.500|-0.250|0.719
91726305|NCT01398475|183347767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The median difference was calculated as TF2 fasted minus RF fasted.|||0.750|-0.250|0.960
91726306|NCT01398475|183347767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The median difference was calculated as TF2 fed minus TF2 fasted.|||2.00|0|0.006
91726307|NCT03461861|183347781|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0056||0.007567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0886|-0.0774|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis (H0) of this superiority trials asserts that there is no true difference in functional connectivity between the interventions of placebo and AGB101, and the alternative hypothesis (H1) states that there is a difference between the interventions of placebo and AGB101. A type I error is the error of rejecting H0 when it is actually true.||-0.0774|-0.0886|0.007567
91726308|NCT03461861|183347782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.900593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis (H0) of this trial asserts that there is no true difference in AVLT between the interventions of placebo and AGB101, and the alternative hypothesis (H1) states that there is a difference between the interventions of placebo and AGB101. A type I error is the error of rejecting H0 when it is actually true.||4.52|1.72|0.900593
91726309|NCT01928771|183347783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.71|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.71|0.42|<0.001
91726310|NCT01928771|183347783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.64|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.64|0.37|<0.001
91726311|NCT01928771|183347784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.7||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||1.0|0.5|0.047
91726312|NCT01928771|183347784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.83||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||1.16|0.59|0.268
91795215|NCT04090957|183469092|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-12.2||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.69|-3.71|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 12; E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-3.71|-20.69|0.0029
91726313|NCT01928771|183347785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.61||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.01|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations resulting in ER/hospitalization in the previous year, and use of OCS||||1.01|0.37|0.053
91726314|NCT01928771|183347785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.67|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations resulting in ER/hospitalization in the previous year, and use of OCS||||0.67|0.2|<0.001
91726315|NCT01928771|183347786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.78|0.37|<0.001
91726316|NCT01928771|183347786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations from the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.90|0.43|0.01
91726317|NCT01928771|183347787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, number of exacerbations in the previous year, region, use of OCS||Time to first exacerbation||0.82|0.49|<0.001
91726318|NCT01928771|183347787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.78|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, number of exacerbations from the previous year, region, use of OCS||Time to first exacerbation||0.78|0.46|<0.001
91726319|NCT01928771|183347788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.196|0.016|0.022
91726320|NCT01928771|183347788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.249|0.068|0.001
91726321|NCT01928771|183347789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.083|-0.134|0.644
91726322|NCT01928771|183347789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.208|-0.003|0.057
91726323|NCT01928771|183347790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.12|-0.27|0.442
91795216|NCT04090957|183469092|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.49||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.04|-6.94|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 12; E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-6.94|-24.04|0.0001
91726324|NCT01928771|183347790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.06|-0.45|0.012
91795217|NCT04090957|183469093|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.7786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 4; E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.12|-0.20|0.7786
91795218|NCT04090957|183469093|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.17||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 4; E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.01|-0.33|0.0310
91795219|NCT04090957|183469093|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.7941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 12; E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.12|-0.21|0.7941
91726325|NCT01928771|183347791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.08|-0.48|0.169
91726326|NCT01928771|183347791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.01|-0.57|0.043
91726327|NCT01928771|183347792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma medication use, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.10|-1.16|0.1
91726328|NCT01928771|183347792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma medication use, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.07|-1.21|0.081
91726329|NCT01928771|183347793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|37.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Morning PEF change from baseline to Week 48||37.43|9.20|0.001
91726330|NCT01928771|183347793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.46||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|30.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Morning PEF change from baseline to Week 48||30.83|2.08|0.025
91726331|NCT01928771|183347794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|35.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Evening PEF change from baseline to Week 48||35.65|7.86|0.002
91726332|NCT01928771|183347794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.18||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|33.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Evening PEF change from baseline to Week 48||33.28|5.09|0.008
91726333|NCT01928771|183347795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline proportion of nights with nocturnal awakenings, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.04|-0.05|0.964
91726334|NCT01928771|183347795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline proportion of nights with nocturnal awakenings, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.01|-0.11|0.012
91726335|NCT01928771|183347796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.04|-0.34|0.111
91726336|NCT01928771|183347796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.10|-0.48|0.003
91726337|NCT01928771|183347797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.27|-0.27|0.99
91726338|NCT01928771|183347797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.05|-0.48|0.107
91726339|NCT01928771|183347801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates treatment, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment||||0.37|-0.02|0.081
91726340|NCT01928771|183347801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates treatment, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment||||0.5|0.1|0.004
91795220|NCT04090957|183469093|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 12; E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.18|-0.51|<.0001
91795221|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|7.7|||Chi-squared|||1\_Week 1, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||7.7|-8.0|0.9666
91795222|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|11.7|||Chi-squared|||2\_Week 1, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||11.7|-4.4|0.3759
91795223|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.6|||Chi-squared|||3\_Week 1, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||5.6|-3.9|0.7164
91865628|NCT06946888|183621977|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.497||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.497
91695523|NCT01908829|183286188|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.22||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.22|-0.67|<0.001
91695524|NCT01908829|183286189|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.96||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during Week 4 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.96|0.79|=0.005
91726341|NCT01407367|183347827|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.94||calculated p-value. Results adjusted for gender, race, age, BMI, MAP, eGFR, smoking history, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, education employment status, health literacy and RAAS use.|Regression, Cox|||||0.94|0.16|.04
91726342|NCT01407367|183347828|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.99||calculated p-value. Results adjusted for gender, race, age, BMI, MAP, eGFR, smoking history, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, education employment status, health literacy and RAAS use.|Regression, Cox|||||1.99|0.53|0.86
91726343|NCT01271855|183347829|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|0.93||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The z-score is a standardized version of the Wilcoxon test statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 signal the two groups have meaningfully different pain scores. Other values would fail to reject the null hypothesis.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the visual analogue pain score scale (VAS) between participants in the Glycerin suppository group and those in the Belladonna and opioid suppository group 24-hours after delivery.||||.35
91726344|NCT01271855|183347830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.21|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of taking additional pain medications between participants in the Glycerin suppository group and those in the Belladonna and opioid suppository group 24-hours after delivery.||6.21|0.57|.30
91795224|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.7|||Chi-squared|||4\_Week 1, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||3.7|-4.9|0.7859
91795225|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||0.6744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|11.6|||Chi-squared|||5\_Week 2, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||11.6|-7.5|0.6744
91904392|NCT02807480|183703958|OTHER||Slope|-4.99||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|2.8|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interaction||2.80|-12.79|.209
91726345|NCT01271855|183347831|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|2.34||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The z-score is a standardized version of the Wilcoxon test statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 signal the two groups have meaningfully different satisfaction scores. Other values fail to reject the null hypothesis|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the pain satisfaction score between participants in the Glycerin suppository group and those in the Belladonna and opioid suppository group at discharge||||.02
91726346|NCT00004859|183347851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
91726347|NCT00126737|183347852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.395||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-1.38|||ANCOVA|Co-variates entered into the model were BMI and WOMAC function subscale.||||-1.38|-11.41|0.0129
91726348|NCT00126737|183347852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.174||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|0.079|||ANCOVA|Covariates entered into the model were BMI and WOMAC function||||0.079|-10.43|0.0535
91726349|NCT00126737|183347853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.545||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|8.659|||ANCOVA|||||8.659|0.432|0.0307
91726350|NCT00126737|183347855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.94||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.655|72.215|||ANCOVA|Total disease (co-morbidity) as covariate was entered into the model||||72.215|7.655|0.0158
91726351|NCT00126737|183347855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.97|94.54|||ANCOVA|Total disease (co-morbidity) as covariate was entered into the model||||94.54|29.97|0.0002
91726352|NCT00126737|183347855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.95||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.54|75.36|||ANCOVA|Total disease (co-morbidity) as covariate was entered into the model||||75.36|12.54|0.0056
91726353|NCT00126737|183347856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.129||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.767|45.492|||ANCOVA|Kellgren Lawrence Scale was entered into the model||||45.492|10.767|0.0018
91726354|NCT00126737|183347856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.71||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.675|43.746|||ANCOVA|Kellgren Lawrence scale was entered into the model||||43.746|9.675|0.0024
91726355|NCT00126737|183347856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.747||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|36.325|||ANCOVA|Kellgren Lawrence Scale was entered into the model||||36.325|1.169|0.0368
91726356|NCT03882801|183347857|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Geometric Means Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.17|||||Back transformed least squares mean and confidence interval from linear mixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values.|||1.17|0.73|
91726357|NCT01567085|183347860|OTHER|Exact binomial test|||||<|0.001||||||The p-value was calculated from an exact binomial test, where the null hypothesis was that the true failure rate = 40%.|Exact binomial test|Exact 95% confidence interval (3.6, 17.2)||Analysis of post-transplantation treatment failure rate||||< 0.001
91726358|NCT04193176|183347863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|-3.67|||ANCOVA|||||-3.67|-19.67|0.004
91795226|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|12.0|||Chi-squared|||6\_Week 2, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||12.0|-6.9|0.5931
91726359|NCT00324857|183347866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Please note that although the outcome is measured using a Likert scale, for the analysis we dichotomized the results.~P-value not adjusted for multiple comparison. Lastly, \<0.05 is the actual computed P-value."|Regression, Logistic|||Comparisons of the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics (TKR) across the 4 intervention groups were performed using chi-square tests for categorical data and analysis of variance for continuous variables. Willingness were compared across the groups over time using mixed-effect logistic regressions for dichotomous outcomes.||||<0.05
91726360|NCT00944645|183347868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis I: The Cmax of nicotinuric acid (NUA) following the administration of MK0524A (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of NUA Cmax is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.93|1.03||||||"MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||1.03|0.93|
91726361|NCT00944645|183347869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis II: The total urinary excretion of niacin and niacin metabolites following the administration of MK0524 (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of total urinary excretion of niacin and its metabolites is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.89|0.98||||||"MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||0.98|0.89|
91726362|NCT00944645|183347870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis III: The AUC0-infinity of laropiprant following the administration of MK0524A (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of MK0524 AUC0-∞ is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.95|1.05||||||"Group B: MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~Group A: MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||1.05|0.95|
91726363|NCT00944645|183347871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis IV: The Cmax of laropiprant following the administration of MK0524A (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of MK0524 Cmax is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02||||||95.0|0.96|1.09||||||"MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||1.09|0.96|
91726364|NCT03537729|183347874|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.91||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.91|0.18|<.01
91795227|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.1|||Chi-squared|||7\_Week 2, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||7.1|-7.5|0.9640
91795228|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.9|||Chi-squared|||8\_Week 2, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||5.9|-8.2|0.7449
91795229|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|15.4|||Chi-squared|||9\_Week 3, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||15.4|-5.1|0.3271
91795230|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|17.0|||Chi-squared|||10\_Week 3, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||17.0|-3.2|0.1842
91795231|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.7716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.9|||Chi-squared|||11\_Week 3, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||6.9|-9.4|0.7716
91795232|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.2934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.0|||Chi-squared|||12\_Week 3, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||13.0|-3.9|0.2934
91795233|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|17.8|||Chi-squared|||13\_Week 4, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||17.8|-3.1|0.1701
91865629|NCT06946888|183621978|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.857||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.857
91904393|NCT02807480|183703958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|12.68||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|23.13|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interaction||23.13|2.23|0.017
91904394|NCT02807480|183703958|OTHER||Slope|-0.58||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.43|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.43|-1.59|.259
91904395|NCT02807480|183703958|OTHER||Slope|1.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.54|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||2.54|-0.39|.150
91695525|NCT01908829|183286189|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during Week 8 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.86|0.66|<0.001
91695526|NCT01908829|183286189|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during Week 12 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.97|0.70|=0.021
91695527|NCT01908829|183286189|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during EoT 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.96|0.71|=0.014
91695528|NCT01908829|183286190|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|8.16||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||8.16|-0.43|<0.078
91695529|NCT01908829|183286190|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|16.4||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||16.40|5.98|<0.001
91795234|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|19.8|||Chi-squared|||14\_Week 4, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||19.8|-0.8|0.0723
91795235|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||0.1258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|15.2|||Chi-squared|||15\_Week 4, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||15.2|-1.9|0.1258
91795236|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.2||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|19.9|||Chi-squared|||16\_Week 4, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||19.9|2.5|0.0126
91795237|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|21.5|||Chi-squared|||17\_Week 5, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||21.5|0.4|0.0436
91795238|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.8|||Chi-squared|||18\_Week 5, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||27.8|7.3|0.0010
91795239|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.9|||Chi-squared|||19\_Week 5, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||15.9|-2.7|0.1623
91795240|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|26.1|||Chi-squared|||20\_Week 5, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||26.1|7.0|0.0009
91695530|NCT01908829|183286190|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|12.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|18.12||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||18.12|6.65|<0.001
91695531|NCT01908829|183286190|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|16.99||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||16.99|6.06|<0.001
91695532|NCT01908829|183286191|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.16||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.16|-0.73|=0.003
91695533|NCT01908829|183286192|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
91695534|NCT01908829|183286192|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.25||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 8 djusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.25|-0.65|<0.001
91695535|NCT01908829|183286192|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.05|-0.47|=0.004
91695536|NCT01908829|183286192|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.07|-0.47|=0.003
91695537|NCT01908829|183286193|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during Week 4 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.94|0.76|=0.003
91795241|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|20.4|||Chi-squared|||21\_Week 6, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||20.4|-0.7|0.0677
91795242|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|28.7|||Chi-squared|||22\_Week 6, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||28.7|8.2|0.0005
91795243|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.8432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|9.0|||Chi-squared|||23\_Week 6, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||9.0|-11.0|0.8432
91795244|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.6|||Chi-squared|||24\_Week 6, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||24.6|4.0|0.0073
91795245|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|17.7|||Chi-squared|||25\_Week 7, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||17.7|-3.5|0.1894
91695538|NCT01908829|183286193|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during Week 8 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.86|0.63|<0.001
91726365|NCT03537729|183347874|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.37||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.37|-0.35|.96
91726366|NCT03537729|183347874|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.18||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||-0.18|-0.89|<.01
91726367|NCT03537729|183347874|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.38||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.38|-0.09|.23
91726368|NCT03537729|183347874|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.22|-0.25|.90
91726369|NCT03537729|183347874|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.07||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.07|-0.38|.17
91726370|NCT03537729|183347874|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.28|-0.16|.58
91726371|NCT03537729|183347874|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.37||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.37|-0.06|.15
91695539|NCT01908829|183286193|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during Week 12 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.99|0.69|=0.038
91758705|NCT00235716|183410638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.63|-3.55|0.94
91758706|NCT00235716|183410638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|1.7||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.70|-2.47|0.94
91758707|NCT00235716|183410638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|1.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.63|-2.57|0.94
91758708|NCT00235716|183410638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|3.07||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||3.07|-1.09|0.94
91758709|NCT00235716|183410638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.99||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.99|-2.16|0.94
91758710|NCT00235716|183410638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.99||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.99|-3.14|0.94
91758711|NCT00235716|183410639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.79||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-0.23||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.23|-3.35|0.12
91758712|NCT00235716|183410639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.94||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.94|-1.18|0.86
91758713|NCT00235716|183410639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.42||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.42|-1.70|0.86
91758714|NCT00235716|183410639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.19||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||3.19|0.11|0.14
91758715|NCT00235716|183410639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.02||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.02|-2.07|0.86
91888742|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.10|0.9602
91695540|NCT01908829|183286193|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during EoT 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.97|0.69|=0.022
91695541|NCT01908829|183286194|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.19||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.19|-0.72|=0.001
91695542|NCT01908829|183286194|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.35||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.35|-0.93|<0.001
91695543|NCT01908829|183286194|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.22||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.22|-0.82|=0.001
91695544|NCT01908829|183286194|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.25||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.25|-0.83|<0.001
91695545|NCT01908829|183286195|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.07||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.07|-0.46|=0.008
91695546|NCT01908829|183286195|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.13||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.13|-0.55|=0.002
91695547|NCT01908829|183286195|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.08||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.08|-0.47|=0.006
91726372|NCT03537729|183347874|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.29||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.29|-0.11|.37
91695548|NCT01908829|183286195|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.12|-0.51|=0.002
91695549|NCT01908829|183286196|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.08|0.87|=0.545
91695550|NCT01908829|183286196|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.95|0.70|=0.010
91695551|NCT01908829|183286196|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.94|0.67|=0.007
91695552|NCT01908829|183286196|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.92|0.66|=0.003
91695553|NCT01908829|183286197|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.08|-0.10|=0.836
91695554|NCT01908829|183286197|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.07||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.07|-0.12|=0.617
91695555|NCT01908829|183286197|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.02||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.02|-0.17|=0.134
91726373|NCT03537729|183347875|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||-0.01|-0.07|.04
91760008|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.02|-0.37|
91760009|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.11||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.11|-0.46|
91795246|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|26.1|||Chi-squared|||26\_Week 7, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||26.1|5.6|0.0028
91726374|NCT03537729|183347875|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.01|-0.07|.10
91726375|NCT03537729|183347875|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.04|-0.03|.69
91726376|NCT03537729|183347876|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.65||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.99||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for cues divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means for two arms was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.99|0.44|0.04
91726377|NCT03537729|183347876|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.90|0.39|.01
91726378|NCT03537729|183347876|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for cues. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.35|0.60|.61
91726379|NCT03537729|183347876|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|1.26||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.88||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for cues divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.88|0.84|.26
91865630|NCT06946888|183621978|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.684||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.684
91904396|NCT02807480|183703959|OTHER||Slope|-3.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.47||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Assess emotional conflict, a computational parameter reflecting avoidance relative to reward value, as a predictor of PROMIS Depression scores. Time x EC interaction.||-1.47|-5.57|0.001
91904397|NCT02807480|183703959|OTHER||Slope|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.95||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline left dlPFC response to negative pictures as a predictor of PROMIS depression symptom improvement: time x L. dlFPC interaction.||-0.95|-2.91|<.001
91726380|NCT03537729|183347876|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.79||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.19|0.53|.25
91795247|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.4844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|13.8|||Chi-squared|||27\_Week 7, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||13.8|-6.5|0.4844
91795248|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|28.4|||Chi-squared|||28\_Week 7, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||28.4|7.6|0.0009
91695556|NCT01908829|183286197|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.03||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EOT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.03|-0.16|=0.174
91695557|NCT01908829|183286198|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.08|0.93|=0.993
91695558|NCT01908829|183286198|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.07||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.07|0.90|=0.736
91695559|NCT01908829|183286198|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.02|0.85|=0.121
91760010|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.1||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.10|-0.45|
91760011|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.52|
91760012|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.0||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.00|-0.35|
91760013|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.18||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.53|
91760014|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.07||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.07|-0.31|
91760015|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.17|-0.54|
91760016|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.09|-0.47|
91760017|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.56|
91760018|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.01|-0.39|
91760019|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.25|-0.63|
91760020|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.05|-0.34|
91795249|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|18.9|||Chi-squared|||29\_Week 8, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||18.9|-2.2|0.1220
91795250|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|25.0|||Chi-squared|||30\_Week 8, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||25.0|4.4|0.0058
91695560|NCT01908829|183286198|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.03|0.86|=0.172
91695561|NCT01908829|183286204|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-1.10|-4.68|=0.002
91695562|NCT01908829|183286204|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.6||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-2.60|-6.40|<0.001
91695563|NCT01908829|183286204|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-3.62||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-3.62|-7.56|<0.001
91695564|NCT01908829|183286204|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|-3.04||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-3.04|-6.88|<0.001
91695565|NCT01908829|183286205|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.55||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.55|0.29|=0.021
91695566|NCT01908829|183286205|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.06||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.06|0.56|=0.010
91695567|NCT01908829|183286205|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.33||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.33|1.65|<0.001
91695568|NCT01908829|183286205|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.95||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.95|1.35|=0.001
91795251|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|14.4|||Chi-squared|||31\_Week 8, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||14.4|-5.9|0.4151
91795252|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|31.2|||Chi-squared|||32\_Week 8, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||31.2|10.3|0.0001
91795253|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|26.9|||Chi-squared|||33\_Week 9, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||26.9|6.6|0.0015
91865631|NCT06946888|183621978|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.333||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.333
91865632|NCT06946888|183621978|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.09||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.090
91865633|NCT06946888|183621978|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.545||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.545
91865634|NCT06946888|183621978|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.251||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.251
91695569|NCT01908829|183286206|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.78||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.78|1.02|=0.003
91695570|NCT01908829|183286206|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|5.4||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.40|1.29|=0.001
91726381|NCT03537729|183347876|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.63||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for cues. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.94|0.42|.03
91726382|NCT03537729|183347877|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|1.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline.|Cues minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.60|-5.03|.31
91795254|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|25.5|||Chi-squared|||34\_Week 9, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||25.5|5.1|0.0036
91904398|NCT02807480|183703959|OTHER||Slope|-2.02||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.13||Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline striatum response to monetary outcomes as a predictor of improvement in depressive symptoms: time x treatment x striatum interaction.||-0.13|-3.9|.036
91795255|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|15.9|||Chi-squared|||35\_Week 9, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||15.9|-5.4|0.3330
91795256|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|27.5|||Chi-squared|||36\_Week 9, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||27.5|6.2|0.0023
91795257|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|22.7|||Chi-squared|||37\_Week 10, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||22.7|2.6|0.0146
91795258|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|24.1|||Chi-squared|||38\_Week 10, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||24.1|4.3|0.0055
91795259|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|18.8|||Chi-squared|||39\_Week 10, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||18.8|-3.1|0.1635
91795260|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|25.2|||Chi-squared|||40\_Week 10, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||25.2|3.3|0.0119
91795261|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.5|||Chi-squared|||41\_Week 11, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||26.5|6.5|0.0014
91695571|NCT01908829|183286206|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.87||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||6.87|2.55|<0.001
91695572|NCT01908829|183286206|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.39||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||6.39|2.20|<0.001
91695573|NCT01908829|183286207|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.83||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.83|0.05|=0.044
91695574|NCT01908829|183286207|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.46||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.46|0.55|=0.012
91695575|NCT01908829|183286207|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|5.67||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.67|1.54|=0.001
91795262|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|27.6|||Chi-squared|||42\_Week 11, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||27.6|7.8|0.0006
91795263|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|25.8|||Chi-squared|||43\_Week 11, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||25.8|4.1|0.0075
91795264|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|29.3|||Chi-squared|||44\_Week 11, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||29.30|7.6|0.0010
91795265|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|29.9|||Chi-squared|||45\_Week 12, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||29.9|10.0|0.0001
91795266|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|30.3|||Chi-squared|||46\_Week 12, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||30.3|10.5|<0.0001
91795267|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|22.7|||Chi-squared|||47\_Week 12, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||22.7|0.7|0.0392
91795268|NCT04090957|183469097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|30.6|||Chi-squared|||48\_Week 12, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||30.6|8.5|0.0007
91795269|NCT04090957|183469098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.7283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|12.0|||Chi-squared|||1\_Week 4, CID, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||12.0|-8.4|0.7283
91795270|NCT04090957|183469098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|27.0|||Chi-squared|||2\_Week 4, CID, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||27.0|6.4|0.0017
91795271|NCT04090957|183469098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|19.3|||Chi-squared|||3\_Week 4, MCID, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||19.3|-1.5|0.0950
91795272|NCT04090957|183469098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|2.0|||Chi-squared|||4\_Week 4, MCID, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||2.0|-17.8|0.1208
91795273|NCT04090957|183469098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-2.1|||Chi-squared|||5\_Week 4, Worsen/No change, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-2.1|-19.3|0.0154
91888743|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.11|0.9676
91695576|NCT01908829|183286207|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|5.29||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.29|1.27|=0.001
91695577|NCT01908829|183286208|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|=|0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|2.43||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||2.43|-1.35|=0.575
91695578|NCT01908829|183286208|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|=|0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|3.58||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.58|-0.36|=0.109
91695579|NCT01908829|183286208|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.32||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.32|0.20|=0.032
91695580|NCT01908829|183286208|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|=|0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|3.87||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.87|-0.15|=0.069
91695581|NCT01908829|183286209|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.36||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.36|0.10|=0.037
91726383|NCT03537729|183347877|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||2.66|-4.23|.66
91726384|NCT03537729|183347877|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.17||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||4.17|-2.30|.57
91726385|NCT02504775|183347926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameter was compared between products using a linear mixed effects model including terms for product, period, sequence as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of Averages of Tylenol/Mejoral|94.704|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.329|101.54|||ANOVA|||||101.540|88.329|
91726386|NCT02504775|183347927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameter was compared between products using a linear mixed effects model including terms for product, period, sequence as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of Averages of Tylenol/Mejoral|95.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.826|102.574|||ANOVA|||||102.574|89.826|
91795274|NCT04090957|183469098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.2|||Chi-squared|||6\_Week 4, Worsen/No change, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.2|-17.6|0.0461
91865635|NCT06946888|183621978|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.701||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.701
91865636|NCT06946888|183621978|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.08||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.080
91865637|NCT06946888|183621979|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.636||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.636
91865638|NCT06946888|183621979|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.909||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.909
91865639|NCT06946888|183621979|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.627||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.627
91904399|NCT02807480|183703959|OTHER||Slope|-1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.58||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x approach behavior interaction||-0.58|-1.85|<.001
91904400|NCT02807480|183703959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.0|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interaction||0.00|-1.81|.049
91695582|NCT01908829|183286209|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.76||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||2.76|-0.57|=0.199
91695583|NCT01908829|183286209|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.31||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.31|0.92|=0.003
91795275|NCT04090957|183469098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|22.0|||Chi-squared|||7\_Week 12, CID, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||22.0|-0.5|0.0629
91695584|NCT01908829|183286209|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.15||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.15|0.81|=0.004
91695585|NCT01908829|183286210|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.6|0.2|<0.001
91695586|NCT01908829|183286210|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.5|0.0|=0.019
91695587|NCT01908829|183286210|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.7|0.3|<0.001
91695588|NCT01908829|183286210|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.6|0.2|=0.001
91695589|NCT01908829|183286211|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
91695590|NCT01908829|183286211|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
91695591|NCT01908829|183286211|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.2|-0.4|<0.001
91695592|NCT01908829|183286211|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
91795276|NCT04090957|183469098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|29.6|||Chi-squared|||8\_Week 12, CID, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||29.6|7.5|0.0012
91795277|NCT04090957|183469098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|5.5|||Chi-squared|||9\_Week 12, MCID, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||5.5|-15.3|0.3552
91795278|NCT04090957|183469098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-3.2|||Chi-squared|||10\_Week 12, MCID, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-3.2|-22.9|0.0103
91904401|NCT02807480|183703959|OTHER||Slope|0.6||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.81|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x RT interaction||4.81|-3.6|.778
91695593|NCT01908829|183286213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.19|<0.001
91695594|NCT01908829|183286213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.98||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.98|1.25|<0.001
91695595|NCT01908829|183286213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.95||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.95|1.21|=0.001
91695596|NCT01908829|183286213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.9||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.90|1.20|<0.001
91695597|NCT01908829|183286214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||=|0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.63||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.63|0.95|=0.119
91726387|NCT02504775|183347928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameter was compared between products using a linear mixed effects model including terms for product, period, sequence as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of Averages of Tylenol/Mejoral|106.132|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.151|132.283|||ANOVA|||||132.283|85.151|
91726388|NCT00504556|183347978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.367
91726389|NCT00504556|183347978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.104
91865640|NCT06946888|183621979|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.474||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.474
91726390|NCT00504556|183347978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.864
91865641|NCT06946888|183621979|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.378||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.378
91726391|NCT00504556|183347978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.002
91726392|NCT00504556|183347978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||1.000
91726393|NCT00504556|183347978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||0.029
91726394|NCT00504556|183347978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||0.807
91726395|NCT00504556|183347978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||0.002
91726396|NCT00504556|183347978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||1.000
91726397|NCT00504556|183347978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||0.119
91726398|NCT00504556|183347978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||1.000
91726399|NCT00504556|183347978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||0.023
91726400|NCT01623752|183348066|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.278
91726401|NCT01623752|183348066|OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.222
91726402|NCT01623752|183348067|OTHER|||||||0.251|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.251
91695598|NCT01908829|183286214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.98||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.98|1.23|<0.001
91695599|NCT01908829|183286214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.82||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.82|1.14|=0.002
91695600|NCT01908829|183286214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.17|=0.001
91695601|NCT01908829|183286215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.5||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.50|0.88|=0.305
91695602|NCT01908829|183286215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.76||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.76|1.06|=0.014
91695603|NCT01908829|183286215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.76||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.76|1.07|=0.012
91695604|NCT01908829|183286215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.64||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.64|1.02|=0.036
91695605|NCT01908829|183286216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.88||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.88|1.18|=0.001
91695606|NCT01908829|183286216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.18||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.18|1.31|<0.001
91695607|NCT01908829|183286216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.61||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.61|1.47|<0.001
91695608|NCT01908829|183286216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.3||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.30|1.34|<0.001
91726403|NCT01623752|183348067|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.218
91726404|NCT01623752|183348070|OTHER|||||||0.675|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.675
91726405|NCT01623752|183348070|OTHER|||||||0.357|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.357
91726406|NCT01623752|183348071|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.106
91795279|NCT04090957|183469098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|1.9|||Chi-squared|||11\_Week 12, Worsen/No change, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||1.9|-13.5|0.1383
91726407|NCT01623752|183348071|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.181
91726408|NCT01623752|183348072|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.015
91726409|NCT01623752|183348072|OTHER|||||||0.969|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.969
91726410|NCT01623752|183348073|OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.489
91726411|NCT01623752|183348073|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.386
91726412|NCT01623752|183348074|OTHER|||||||0.364|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.364
91795280|NCT04090957|183469098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|2.3|||Chi-squared|||12\_Week 12, Worsen/No change, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||2.3|-13.3|0.1706
91795281|NCT04090957|183469099|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.15||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.04|-0.34|0.1565
91904402|NCT02807480|183703959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.38||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|8.31|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x treatment x RT interaction||8.31|-5.56|.696
91695609|NCT01908829|183286217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.82||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.82|1.14|=0.003
91695610|NCT01908829|183286217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.93||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.93|1.18|=0.001
91695611|NCT01908829|183286217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.13||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.13|1.27|<0.001
91695612|NCT01908829|183286217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.91||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.91|1.17|=0.001
91695613|NCT01908829|183286218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.79||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.79|1.13|=0.003
91695614|NCT01908829|183286218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.12|=0.004
91695615|NCT01908829|183286218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.96||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.96|1.15|=0.003
91695616|NCT01908829|183286218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.11|=0.006
91695617|NCT01908829|183286219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.66|0.99|=0.065
91726413|NCT01623752|183348074|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.849
91726414|NCT05987540|183348105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8125|||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank|||||||.8125
91726415|NCT05987540|183348108|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilconxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||>0.9999
91726416|NCT04053452|183348109|OTHER||Area under the curve|0.7262|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.|||||
91726417|NCT04053452|183348110|OTHER||Area under the curve|0.6667|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.|||||
91726418|NCT04053452|183348111|OTHER||Area under the curve|0.7083|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.|||||
91726419|NCT04053452|183348112|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5005|0.4791||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4791|-0.5005|
91726420|NCT04053452|183348112|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1628|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6503|0.4222||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4222|-0.6503|
91726421|NCT04053452|183348112|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.185|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|0.1829||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.1829|-0.5490|
91726422|NCT04053452|183348112|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0512|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3411|0.5017||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.5017|-0.3411|
91726423|NCT04053452|183348112|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0476|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4335|0.5592||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.5592|-0.4335|
91726424|NCT04053452|183348112|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5092|0.304||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.3040|-0.5092|
91726425|NCT04053452|183348112|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3057|0.4137||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4137|-0.3057|
91795282|NCT04090957|183469099|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.14||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.33|0.1823
91795283|NCT04090957|183469099|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.23||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.00|-0.46|0.0460
91795284|NCT04090957|183469099|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.24||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.01|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.01|-0.47|0.0417
91795285|NCT04090957|183469101|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.08||||0.4616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.09|-0.24|0.4616
91904403|NCT02807480|183703959|OTHER||Slope|0.44||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.71|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x striatum interaction effects||1.71|-0.84|.503
91695618|NCT01908829|183286219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.79|1.11|=0.004
91695619|NCT01908829|183286219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.07|1.30|<0.001
91695620|NCT01908829|183286219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.94|1.24|<0.001
91695621|NCT01430403|183286236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.92|||Odds Ratio|Adjusted for Site, dosing group and treatment step|Placebo serves as the reference group. Values \< 1 represent more exacerbations in the placebo arm.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the arms. Power calculation is described in detail in the study protocol.||0.92|0.25|0.03
91695622|NCT01430403|183286237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.64|||Odds Ratio|Adjusted for Site, dosing group and treatment step|ICS Boost serves as the reference group. Values \< 1 represent more exacerbations in the ICS arm.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the arms. Power calculation is described in detail in the study protocol.||1.64|0.33|0.45
91695623|NCT01430403|183286238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|5.22|||Chi-squared||Adjusted for site|||5.22|2.38|<0.01
91695624|NCT01430403|183286239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear Regression|0.004||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||F-Test|||||0.11|-0.10|0.94
91695625|NCT01430403|183286239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear Regression|-0.13||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.13|||F-Test|||||0.13|-0.40|0.33
91695626|NCT01430403|183286240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.87|0.552
91695627|NCT01430403|183286240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.44|||Chi-squared|||||1.44|0.87|0.37
91695628|NCT01430403|183286241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.07|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization CASI, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||0.07|-1.11|0.09
91695629|NCT01430403|183286242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization CASI, site and dosing group||||0.34|-0.86|0.39
91695630|NCT01430403|183286243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.78|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1 % predicted, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||2.78|-3.42|0.84
91695631|NCT01430403|183286244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|5.51|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1 % predicted, site and dosing group.||||5.51|-0.76|0.14
91695632|NCT01430403|183286245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.99|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1:FVCx100, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.99|-1.49|0.78
91695633|NCT01430403|183286246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.91|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1:FVCx100, site and dosing group.||||2.91|-0.61|0.20
91695634|NCT01430403|183286247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization ACT, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.90|0.32|0.006
91795286|NCT04090957|183469101|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.2||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.04|-0.37|0.0112
91795287|NCT04090957|183469101|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.07|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.07|-0.32|0.2773
91795288|NCT04090957|183469101|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.4881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.11|-0.29|0.4881
91795289|NCT04090957|183469103|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.02||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.040|-0.08|0.7875
91795290|NCT04090957|183469103|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.04||||0.3092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.1|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.10|-0.02|0.3092
91795291|NCT04090957|183469103|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.01||||0.9129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.06|-0.08|0.9129
91865642|NCT06946888|183621979|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.768||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.768
91865643|NCT06946888|183621979|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.909||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.909
91889172|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.62|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F||0.62|0.44|
91695635|NCT01430403|183286248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.86|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization ACT, site and dosing group.||||0.86|-0.76|0.89
91695636|NCT01430403|183286249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.41|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization C-ACT, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.41|0.00|0.05
91695637|NCT01430403|183286250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization C-ACT, site and dosing group||||1.30|-0.15|0.12
91695638|NCT01430403|183286251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.72|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||0.72|0.19|0.63
91695639|NCT01430403|183286252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.46|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site and dosing group||||3.46|0.29|0.99
91695640|NCT01430403|183286253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.35|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.35|0.39|0.31
91695641|NCT01430403|183286254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.02|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site and dosing group||||1.02|0.23|0.06
91695642|NCT01430403|183286255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.72|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||2.72|-3.08|0.90
91695643|NCT01430403|183286256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|2.71|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for site and dosing group.||||2.71|-3.26|0.86
91695644|NCT02677922|183286264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|11.85|||Chi-squared|||||11.85|1.99|0.0003
91695645|NCT02677922|183286267|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.59||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.30|0.1083
91695646|NCT02677922|183286269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|27.31|||Chi-squared|||||27.31|2.74|<0.001
91695647|NCT02677922|183286270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.1943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.2|||Chi-squared|||||4.20|0.74|0.1943
91695648|NCT02677922|183286273|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.87|||Log Rank|Unstratified log-rank test|Cox proportional hazards regression model|||1.87|0.52|0.9720
91695649|NCT02677922|183286274|OTHER|Confidence interval of difference|Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|22.5|||||The CI for the difference was derived using Greenwood's variance estimate.|||22.5|-17.3|
91695650|NCT00637000|183286289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|The statistical method used was a group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||To test the primary study hypothesis that neither soluble film formulation would precipitate an opioid withdrawal syndrome, peak COWS score in the 23.5 hour period after the initial soluble film administration were compared to pre-administration baseline COWS scores (30 minutes prior to soluble film administration) using a group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||<0.0001
91695651|NCT00637000|183286290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.000
91695652|NCT00637000|183286291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.035
91695653|NCT00637000|183286292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91695654|NCT00637000|183286293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91795292|NCT04090957|183469103|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.02||||0.8023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.06|-0.09|0.8023
91795293|NCT04090957|183469105|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.23||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.05|-0.41|0.0084
91795294|NCT04090957|183469105|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.21||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.04|-0.39|0.0146
91795295|NCT04090957|183469105|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.3||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.09|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.09|-0.51|0.0029
91795296|NCT04090957|183469105|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.3||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.08|-0.51|0.0045
91795297|NCT04090957|183469107|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.34||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-1.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-1.05|-5.63|0.0026
91795298|NCT04090957|183469107|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.03||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-1.75|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-1.75|-6.31|0.0002
91904404|NCT02807480|183703959|OTHER||Slope|-0.9||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.22|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x amygdala interaction||.22|-2.02|.114
91695655|NCT00637000|183286294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.006
91695656|NCT00637000|183286295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91695657|NCT00637000|183286296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91695658|NCT00637000|183286297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.762
91695659|NCT00637000|183286298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91695660|NCT00637000|183286299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.349
91695661|NCT00637000|183286300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.028
91695662|NCT00637000|183286301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91695663|NCT00637000|183286302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91695664|NCT00637000|183286303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.117
91695665|NCT00637000|183286304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91795299|NCT04090957|183469107|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.01||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-0.26|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.26|-5.75|0.0295
91795300|NCT04090957|183469107|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.73||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|0.06|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.06|-5.53|0.0564
91795301|NCT04090957|183469109|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.24||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.42|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.42|0.06|0.0051
91795302|NCT04090957|183469109|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.22||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.40|0.04|0.0126
91795303|NCT04090957|183469109|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.14||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.35|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.35|-0.07|0.2372
91795304|NCT04090957|183469109|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.2||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.42|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.42|-0.01|0.0644
91795305|NCT04090957|183469111|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.5631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.12|0.5631
91795306|NCT04090957|183469111|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.11||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.02|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.02|-0.20|0.0174
91795307|NCT04090957|183469111|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.10|-0.10|0.9992
91795308|NCT04090957|183469111|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.04|-0.17|0.2941
91904405|NCT02807480|183703959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.48||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.11|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interaction||2.11|-1.15|.561
91904406|NCT02807480|183703959|OTHER||Slope|-1.54||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.42|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x dlPFC interaction||-0.42|-2.66|.007
91726426|NCT04053452|183348112|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4028|0.57||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.5700|-0.4028|
91726427|NCT04053452|183348112|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6503|0.2838||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.2838|-0.6503|
91726428|NCT04053452|183348112|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2396|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5714|0.195||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.1950|-0.5714|
91888744|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6397
91695666|NCT00637000|183286305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.238
91695667|NCT03660189|183286307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91695668|NCT03660189|183286307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91726429|NCT04053452|183348112|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0671|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4667|0.3336||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.3336|-0.4667|
91726430|NCT04053452|183348112|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7018|0.3193||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.3193|-0.7018|
91726431|NCT04053452|183348112|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0246|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3506|0.4596||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4596|-0.3506|
91695669|NCT03660189|183286309|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91695670|NCT03660189|183286312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.91
91695671|NCT03660189|183286313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
91695672|NCT03660189|183286317|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91695673|NCT03660189|183286318|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91695674|NCT04513080|183286319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
91695675|NCT04513080|183286319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
91695676|NCT04513080|183286320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
91695677|NCT04513080|183286320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
91695678|NCT04513080|183286320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
91695679|NCT04513080|183286320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
91726432|NCT04053452|183348113|OTHER|Median at wrist|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7686494||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.360
91726433|NCT04053452|183348113|OTHER|Median at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9315228||||0.521|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.521
91726434|NCT04053452|183348113|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7949528||||0.245|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.245
91726435|NCT04053452|183348113|OTHER|Median at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8603349||||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.541
91726436|NCT04053452|183348113|OTHER|Median at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8767973||||0.415|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.415
91726437|NCT04053452|183348113|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Odds Ratio, log|0.7613965||||0.504|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.504
91726438|NCT04053452|183348113|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8061505||||0.393|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.393
91726439|NCT04053452|183348113|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8336885||||0.222|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.222
91726440|NCT04053452|183348113|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1214848||||0.615|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.615
91726441|NCT04053452|183348113|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9898411||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.926
91726442|NCT04053452|183348113|OTHER|C6|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9402829||||0.519|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.519
91726443|NCT04053452|183348113|OTHER|C7|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9347906||||0.379|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.379
91726444|NCT04053452|183348113|OTHER|Vagus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8968658||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.511
91726445|NCT04053452|183348114|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.057735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4273|0.3293||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.3293|-0.4273|
91726446|NCT04053452|183348114|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0359442|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|0.5248||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.5248|-0.5480|
91726447|NCT04053452|183348114|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1429483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1938|0.4763||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.4763|-0.1938|
91726448|NCT04053452|183348114|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3955939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6811|-0.0874||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||-0.0874|-0.6811|
91726449|NCT04053452|183348114|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3681051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7032|0.1185||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.1185|-0.7032|
91726450|NCT04053452|183348114|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.4938292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7112|-0.1978||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||-0.1978|-0.7112|
91726451|NCT04053452|183348114|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1304373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2201|0.5014||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.5014|-0.2201|
91726452|NCT04053452|183348114|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.3273268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0679|0.6612||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.6612|-0.0679|
91726453|NCT04053452|183348114|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0552157|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4213|0.361||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.3610|-0.4213|
91726454|NCT04053452|183348114|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1666667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5389|0.2057||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.2057|-0.5389|
91726455|NCT04053452|183348114|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3194892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6539|0.2288||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.2288|-0.6539|
91726456|NCT04053452|183348114|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.4959498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|-0.2065||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||-0.2065|-0.6860|
91726457|NCT04053452|183348114|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3228883|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6487|0.0||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.0000|-0.6487|
91726458|NCT04053452|183348115|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1415346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.735|0.4247||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.4247|-0.7350|
91795309|NCT04090957|183469113|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.06||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.12|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.12|-0.24|0.7112
91726459|NCT04053452|183348115|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1987845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4377|0.8004||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.8004|-0.4377|
91726460|NCT04053452|183348115|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0789747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5256|0.3778||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.3778|-0.5256|
91726461|NCT04053452|183348115|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1621509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3591|0.5606||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5606|-0.3591|
91726462|NCT04053452|183348115|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1499412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3901|0.6374||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.6374|-0.3901|
91726463|NCT04053452|183348115|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0140441|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5773|0.5407||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5407|-0.5773|
91726464|NCT04053452|183348115|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.01383297|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5288|0.5485||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5485|-0.5288|
91726465|NCT04053452|183348115|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2935683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6968|0.2414||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.2414|-0.6968|
91726466|NCT04053452|183348115|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1067521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5204|0.6392||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.6392|-0.5204|
91726467|NCT04053452|183348115|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0549235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4633|0.5594||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5594|-0.4633|
91795310|NCT04090957|183469113|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1||||0.3618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.08|-0.28|0.3618
91795311|NCT04090957|183469113|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.01||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.21|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.21|-0.23|0.9933
91904407|NCT02807480|183703959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.65||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.17|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x treatment dlPFC interaction||2.17|-0.87|0.403
91726468|NCT04053452|183348115|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2597622|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6816|0.1857||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.1857|-0.6816|
91726469|NCT04053452|183348115|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0129034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4476|0.4025||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.4025|-0.4476|
91726470|NCT04053452|183348115|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02457737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3506|0.4596||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.4596|-0.3506|
91726471|NCT04053452|183348116|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1704986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.6584||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.6584|-0.3950|
91726472|NCT04053452|183348116|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1704986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.6584||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.6584|-0.3950|
91726473|NCT04053452|183348116|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.09040847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3821|0.5979||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.5979|-0.3821|
91726474|NCT04053452|183348116|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02501955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4158|0.479||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4790|-0.4158|
91726475|NCT04053452|183348116|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0349215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5033|0.443||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4430|-0.5033|
91726476|NCT04053452|183348116|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5458|0.4037||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4037|-0.5458|
91726477|NCT04053452|183348116|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2239171|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6514|0.2935||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.2935|-0.6514|
91726478|NCT04053452|183348116|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0805076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5371|0.2974||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.2974|-0.5371|
91726479|NCT04053452|183348116|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2910126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2791|0.7651||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.7651|-0.2791|
91726480|NCT04053452|183348116|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02342428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4531|0.5267||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.5267|-0.4531|
91726481|NCT04053452|183348116|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.06536087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2786|0.4454||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4454|-0.2786|
91726482|NCT04053452|183348116|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2207792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2459|0.6708||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.6708|-0.2459|
91726483|NCT04053452|183348116|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.14415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2333|0.4899||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4899|-0.2333|
91726484|NCT04053452|183348117|OTHER|Median at wrist|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9310743||||0.548|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.548
91726485|NCT04053452|183348117|OTHER|Median at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9310743||||0.548|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.548
91726486|NCT04053452|183348117|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23944918||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.250
91726487|NCT04053452|183348117|OTHER|Median at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9613236||||0.874|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.874
91726488|NCT04053452|183348117|OTHER|Median at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9442314||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.698
91726489|NCT04053452|183348117|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.193941||||0.665|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.665
91726490|NCT04053452|183348117|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0524489||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.820
91795312|NCT04090957|183469113|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.099||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.26|-0.18|0.9024
91904408|NCT02807480|183703959|OTHER||Slope|-1.51||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|5.73|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interaction||5.73|-8.76|0.681
91726491|NCT04053452|183348117|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21669122||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.193
91726492|NCT04053452|183348117|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2994068||||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.314
91726493|NCT04053452|183348117|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1015629||||0.405|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.405
91726494|NCT04053452|183348117|OTHER|C6|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9140133||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.389
91726495|NCT04053452|183348117|OTHER|C7|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7982946||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.139
91726496|NCT04053452|183348117|OTHER|Vagus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9330042||||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.622
91726497|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Median at wrist, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2641183|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2344|0.7511||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.7511|-0.2344|
91726498|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Median at forearm, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02596308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4859|0.5555||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.5555|-0.4859|
91726499|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.05162687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3342|0.417||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4170|-0.3342|
91726500|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Median at humerus, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1714461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6473|0.2723||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.2723|-0.6473|
91726501|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Median at axilla, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0531775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|0.4451||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4451|-0.5830|
91726502|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1371924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3592|0.6944||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.6944|-0.3592|
91726503|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0134595|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5145|0.4627||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4627|-0.5145|
91726504|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.01313517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5056|0.4833||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4833|-0.5056|
91695680|NCT04513080|183286320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
91695681|NCT04513080|183286320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
91695682|NCT00403481|183286339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91695683|NCT00403481|183286340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<0.0001 for both daytime and nighttime. No multiplicity adjustments.|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91695684|NCT00403481|183286341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91695685|NCT00403481|183286342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||||||0.0001
91695686|NCT00403481|183286344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91695687|NCT00403481|183286345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<0.0001 applies to both the daytime and nighttime analyses|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91695688|NCT00403481|183286346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91695689|NCT00403481|183286347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<0.0001 applies to both 4 hour and 6 hour analyses|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91695690|NCT02477332|183286391|SUPERIORITY||Estimated target dose|32.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|60.0|27.5|42.5|||Regression, Logistic|Target dose was based on this estimated dose response. The 60% CI included the 20 - 80th percentile of target dose estimated in the bootstrap samples.|Min dose with effect size \>15%|||42.5|27.5|<.05
91695691|NCT02977572|183286417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Based upon previous results, the investigators considered that the need for an intubation could be reduced by 15% \[19% in the CPAP group (control) vs. 4% in the NIV group (study)\]. The estimated sample size was 55 participants in each group (confidence interval \[1-α\] = 90% and power \[1-β\] = 85%).||||1.000
91695692|NCT01075256|183286427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|2.46||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no diference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||2.46|-6.70|0.3628
91865644|NCT06946888|183621979|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.449||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.449
91695693|NCT01075256|183286427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|4.83||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||4.83|-4.45|0.9361
91695694|NCT01075256|183286427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|2.3||||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|6.92||No adustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.92|-2.31|0.3257
91695695|NCT01075256|183286428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.6674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|3.68||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||3.68|-5.73|0.6674
91695696|NCT01075256|183286428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|4.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is the high concentration minus placebo such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||4.81|-4.74|0.9888
91695697|NCT01075256|183286428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1||||0.6599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|5.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||5.81|-3.69|0.6599
91695698|NCT01075256|183286429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|6.54||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.54|-6.34|0.9759
91695699|NCT01075256|183286429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|6.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.06|-6.97|0.8903
91695700|NCT01075256|183286429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6||||0.8662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|5.93||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.||5.93|-7.04|0.8662
91726505|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1196495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5876|0.3467||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.3467|-0.5876|
91726506|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3682|0.3885||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.3885|-0.3682|
91726507|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|C6, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1194695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.6686||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.6686|-0.4220|
91726508|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|C7, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0593456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5651|0.454||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4540|-0.5651|
91695701|NCT01075256|183286430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.8419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|5.66||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||5.66|-6.93|0.8419
91726509|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Vagus, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1920694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|0.238||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.238|-0.5490|
91865645|NCT06946888|183621980|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.593||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.593
91865646|NCT06946888|183621980|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.994||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.994
91865647|NCT06946888|183621980|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.959||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.959
91904409|NCT02807480|183703959|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.61||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|15.46|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interaction||15.46|-4.24|.264
91695702|NCT01075256|183286430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3||||0.9147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.72||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.72|-6.03|0.9147
91695703|NCT01075256|183286430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|7.33||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||7.33|-5.36|0.7600
91695704|NCT01075256|183286431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.5||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|9.24||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.24|-8.28|0.9124
91695705|NCT01075256|183286431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|8.14||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level||8.14|-9.13|0.9083
91695706|NCT01075256|183286431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|7.77||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||7.77|-9.73|0.8231
91695707|NCT01075256|183286432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.4||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|16.09||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||16.09|-9.32|0.5946
91695708|NCT01075256|183286432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.51|12.6||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||12.60|-12.51|0.9944
91726510|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Median at wrist, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.3150905|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||||
91726511|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Median at forearm, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1203751|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||||
91726512|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2526605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1865|0.643||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.6430|-0.1865|
91726513|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Median at humerus, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.073601|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5806|0.4223||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.4223|-0.5806|
91726514|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Median at axilla, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.01369735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5619|0.5236||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.5236|-0.5619|
91726515|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2685663|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2488|0.7683||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.7683|-0.2488|
91726516|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1802776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2573|0.6027||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.6027|-0.2573|
91726517|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2571327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2595|0.6227||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.6227|-0.2595|
91726518|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0684867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5757|0.3944||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.3944|-0.5757|
91726519|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1929429|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1828|0.555||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.5550|-0.1828|
91726520|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|C6, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1975146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3557|0.7344||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.7344|-0.3557|
91726521|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|C7, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0754722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|0.5083||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.5083|-0.6150|
91726522|NCT04053452|183348118|OTHER|Vagus, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0706753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5042|0.3963||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.3963|-0.5042|
91726523|NCT01421134|183348119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.8|-10.2|<0.0001
91726524|NCT01421134|183348120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-0.96|<0.0001
91726525|NCT01421134|183348121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-3.1|<0.0001
91726526|NCT01421134|183348122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-7.2|0.0001
91726527|NCT01421134|183348123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-6.1|<0.0001
91726528|NCT01421134|183348124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.615|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.251|13.459|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was based on a logistic regression of response, with treatment group, baseline MADRS total score, and pooled center as fixed effects.|||13.459|3.251|<0.0001
91726529|NCT01421134|183348125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.105|8.663|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.663|2.105|<0.0001
91726530|NCT06083493|183348157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91904410|NCT02807480|183703959|OTHER||Slope|-0.43||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.51|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.51|-1.38|.367
91726531|NCT06083493|183348158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
91726532|NCT01810952|183348196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||This is the p-value for Day 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91726533|NCT01810952|183348197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
91726534|NCT01810952|183348198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Comparison of the 5 day averages resulted in a p-value of 0.06.|t-test, 2 sided|||Daily values for each protocol were compared using t-tests.||||0.06
91726535|NCT01810952|183348199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in binomial proportions|||||0.795||||||Comparison of the number of participants in each group with glucose value \<70 mg/dL resulted in p-value 0.795.|Chi-squared|||||||0.795
91726536|NCT01810952|183348200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Comparison between groups of percent of glucose values \>180 mg/dL.|Chi-squared|||Values in each group were compared by Chi squared.||||0.055
91726537|NCT02618187|183348220|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.766|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.766
91726538|NCT02618187|183348220|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.037
91726539|NCT02618187|183348220|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.313
91726540|NCT02618187|183348220|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.384
91865648|NCT06946888|183621980|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.946||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.946
91865649|NCT06946888|183621980|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.715||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.715
91865650|NCT06946888|183621980|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.422||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.422
91865651|NCT06946888|183621980|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.379||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.379
91904411|NCT02807480|183703959|OTHER||Slope|0.88||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.25|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||2.25|-0.50|.211
91726541|NCT02618187|183348220|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.237|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.237
91726542|NCT02618187|183348221|SUPERIORITY|Weekly SER-287, after Placebo Pre-Treat. tested against Daily placebo, after Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.257
91726543|NCT02618187|183348221|SUPERIORITY|Daily SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat. tested against Daily Placebo, After Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.001
91726544|NCT02618187|183348221|SUPERIORITY|Weekly SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat. tested against Daily Placebo, After Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.001
91726545|NCT02618187|183348221|SUPERIORITY|Weekly SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat. tested against Weekly SER-287, After Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.009
91726546|NCT02618187|183348221|SUPERIORITY|Daily SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat., tested against Weekly SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.168
91726547|NCT02618187|183348222|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|13.3||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|30.54|||Fisher Exact|||||30.54|-3.87|0.4923
91726548|NCT02618187|183348222|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|40.0||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.21|64.79|||Fisher Exact|||||64.79|15.21|0.0237
91726549|NCT02618187|183348222|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|17.6||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|35.77|||Fisher Exact|||||35.77|-0.47|0.2579
91726550|NCT02618187|183348223|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|24.2||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|53.53|||Fisher Exact|||||53.53|-5.04|0.1973
91726551|NCT02618187|183348223|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|30.9||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|60.96|||Fisher Exact|||||60.96|0.86|0.1783
91726552|NCT02618187|183348223|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|14.4||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|40.81|||Fisher Exact|||||40.81|-11.93|0.6195
91726553|NCT03055507|183348262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.4|0.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.5|-2.4|<0.05
91726554|NCT04560309|183348274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.993
91726555|NCT04560309|183348275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.883
91726556|NCT04560309|183348276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.034
91726557|NCT04560309|183348277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
91726558|NCT04560309|183348278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.423
91726559|NCT04560309|183348279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.216
91726560|NCT04560309|183348280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.001
91726561|NCT04560309|183348281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.043
91695709|NCT01075256|183286432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|9.38||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.38|-16.06|0.5998
91695710|NCT01075256|183286433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.7952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|8.09||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||8.09|-10.51|0.7952
91695711|NCT01075256|183286433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|6.76||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.76|-11.56|0.6010
91695712|NCT01075256|183286433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.7976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|8.1||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||8.10|-10.48|0.7976
91695713|NCT01075256|183286434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.7||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|11.68||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||11.68|-10.38|0.9060
91695714|NCT01075256|183286434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|9.25||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.25|-12.63|0.7575
91726562|NCT04560309|183348282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.011
91726563|NCT04560309|183348283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.975
91726564|NCT04560309|183348284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
91904412|NCT02807480|183703960|OTHER||Slope|0.74||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.41|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS score: time x approach behavior interaction||1.41|0.08|0.028
91695715|NCT01075256|183286434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.6727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.42|8.73||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||8.73|-13.42|0.6727
91695716|NCT02115581|183286437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.267
91695717|NCT02115581|183286438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91726565|NCT04560309|183348285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.549
91726566|NCT04560309|183348286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.645
91726567|NCT04560309|183348287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||After induction to anesthesia||||0.330
91726568|NCT04560309|183348287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||5 minutes after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.352
91726569|NCT04560309|183348287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||2 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.544
91726570|NCT04560309|183348287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||6 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.022
91726571|NCT04560309|183348287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||24 hour after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.038
91726572|NCT04560309|183348288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.200
91726573|NCT04560309|183348289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.720
91726574|NCT04560309|183348290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
91726575|NCT04560309|183348291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.044
91795313|NCT04090957|183469115|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.16||||0.8961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.74|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.74|-1.05|0.8961
91795314|NCT04090957|183469115|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.9619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.81|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.81|-0.99|0.9619
91695718|NCT01294241|183286439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008||||||Post-hoc superiority analysis: Wounds that were either evaluated controversially (n=2) or as being equal (n=2) were excluded from the analysis of the primary efficacy variable.|Two-sided exact binomial test|||The intra-individual difference in reepithelialization of wound (halves) was tested using a two-sided exact binomial test. The test was performed at a significance level of 5% for the null-hypothesis of no difference δ = 0 against the hypotheses δ ≠ 0: H0: δ = 0 H1: δ ≠ 0||||=0.008
91695719|NCT01294241|183286440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.21||||||Post-hoc superiority analysis|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The intra-individual difference in median percentage of wound epithelialization was tested using a two-sided Wilcoxon test.||||=0.21
91695720|NCT01294241|183286441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Post-hoc superiority analysis|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The intra-individual difference in median percentage of wound epithelialization was tested using a two-sided Wilcoxon test.||||0.33
91695721|NCT02748213|183286455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|2.2||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|14.56|||Chi-squared||The approximate 95% CI for the difference in response (CR or PR) rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson correction.|||14.56|-10.17|0.717
91695722|NCT02748213|183286457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.99|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) calculated using Herceptin + Taxotere arm as reference.|||0.99|0.53|0.0449
91695723|NCT02748213|183286459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.32|||Log Rank||HR calculated using Herceptin + Taxotere arm as reference.|||1.32|0.56|0.4758
91695724|NCT03291431|183286480|OTHER|Chi-Square comparison of frequencies|Pearson Chi-Square|0.17||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91695725|NCT03291431|183286481|OTHER||Slope|-0.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Rate of change compared between groups using linear mixed modeling.|Linear mixed modeling||||0.68
91695726|NCT03291431|183286482|OTHER|||||||0.34||||||p-value \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91695727|NCT03291431|183286483|OTHER|Linear mixed modeling|Slope|-1.99||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Rate of change compared between groups using linear mixed modeling.|||||0.70
91695728|NCT03291431|183286484|OTHER||Slope|0.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling||||0.11
91695729|NCT03850483|183286485|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|0.43||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.43|-1.71|0.1641
91695730|NCT03850483|183286485|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|1.26||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.26|-0.89|0.6100
91695731|NCT03850483|183286485|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.45||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.45|-1.70|0.1686
91695732|NCT03850483|183286485|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|0.25||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-1.87|0.1051
91695733|NCT03850483|183286485|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.88||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.88|-1.37|0.3583
91695734|NCT03850483|183286485|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|0.29||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-1.88|0.1131
91695735|NCT03850483|183286485|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.47||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.64|0.1812
91695736|NCT03850483|183286486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|17.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.9|-10.6|0.3747
91695737|NCT03850483|183286486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|25.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||25.9|-6.6|0.2430
91695738|NCT03850483|183286486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|17.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.9|-10.6|0.3747
91695739|NCT03850483|183286486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|0.0665|-1.3|31.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||31.5|-1.3|0.0665
91695740|NCT03850483|183286486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|25.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||25.5|-12.1|0.3423
91695741|NCT03850483|183286486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|30.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||30.9|-4.7|0.1271
91726576|NCT04560309|183348292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.349
91795315|NCT04090957|183469115|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.2||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.92|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.92|-1.33|0.8920
91795316|NCT04090957|183469115|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.73||||0.2826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.89|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||1.89|-0.43|0.2826
91795317|NCT04090957|183469117|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.87||||0.9039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.86|19.12|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||19.12|-26.86|0.9039
91795318|NCT04090957|183469117|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.24||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.12|20.63|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||20.63|-25.12|0.9660
91904413|NCT02807480|183703960|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.55||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interaction||0.39|-1.49|0.251
91904414|NCT02807480|183703960|OTHER||Slope|-0.26||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|3.96|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x RT interaction||3.96|-4.49|0.902
91904415|NCT02807480|183703960|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.23||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|9.01|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x treatment x RT interaction||9.01|-4.55|.519
91695742|NCT03850483|183286486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.2|21.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||21.1|-13.2|0.4010
91695743|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|10.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||10.4|-11.2|0.4225
91695744|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||5.0|-14.0|0.7483
91695745|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||4.8|-14.0|0.7539
91695746|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||4.8|-14.0|0.7539
91695747|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|8.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||8.9|-6.4|0.5000
91695748|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.2125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|13.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||13.2|-3.4|0.2125
91695749|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.2267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|12.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||12.2|-3.5|0.2267
91695750|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.6|-14.0|0.7592
91695751|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||5.5|-14.0|0.7299
91695752|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|9.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||9.4|-11.3|0.4463
91695753|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.8|-14.0|0.7539
91695754|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.7009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|5.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||5.9|-10.1|0.7009
91695755|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|15.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||15.6|-4.5|0.2507
91695756|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|14.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||14.3|-4.8|0.2993
91695757|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||5.5|-14.0|0.7363
91695758|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|12.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||12.3|-10.5|0.5369
91695759|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||5.0|-14.0|0.7483
91695760|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||5.0|-14.0|0.7483
91695761|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|11.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.6|-13.7|0.5990
91695762|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.7926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.4|4.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||4.9|-16.4|0.7926
91695763|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|17.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||17.6|-9.0|0.3402
91695764|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|5.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||5.7|-14.4|0.7364
91695765|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||0.3009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|17.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||17.7|-7.4|0.3009
91695766|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|15.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||15.9|-8.1|0.3400
91695767|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|21.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||21.1|-4.8|0.1631
91695768|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|13.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||13.0|-17.8|0.6214
91695769|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|13.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||13.0|-17.8|0.6214
91695770|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5||||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|11.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||11.7|-17.9|0.6413
91795319|NCT04090957|183469117|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.73||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.55|23.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||23.08|-34.55|0.8708
91795320|NCT04090957|183469117|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.15||||0.3357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|46.77|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||46.77|-12.48|0.3357
91795321|NCT04090957|183469119|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.76|21.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||21.96|12.76|< 0.0001
91904416|NCT02807480|183703960|OTHER||Slope|-0.64||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.64|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with SDS trajectory: time x striatum interaction effects||0.64|-1.92|.326
91904417|NCT02807480|183703960|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.26||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.05|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with SDS trajectory: time x treatment x striatum interaction effects||3.05|-0.53|.168
91865652|NCT06946888|183621980|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.302||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.302
91795322|NCT04090957|183469119|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|23.98|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||23.98|14.80|<0.0001
91795323|NCT04090957|183469119|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.05|22.83|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||22.83|12.05|<0.0001
91695771|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.1|13.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||13.1|-13.1|0.5000
91695772|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.5134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|15.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||15.2|-12.6|0.5134
91695773|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.4|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||12.5|-13.4|0.4468
91695774|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.2778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|23.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||23.9|-6.8|0.2778
91695775|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|21.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||21.0|-14.5|0.4571
91695776|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|16.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||16.7|-15.3|0.4741
91695777|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.5153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|16.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||16.7|-14.8|0.5153
91695778|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|5.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||5.3|-21.1|0.8287
91695779|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.5675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|14.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||14.2|-17.8|0.5675
91695780|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|23.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||23.2|-9.8|0.2648
91695781|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|20.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||20.8|-11.8|0.3792
91695782|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.4438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.3|23.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||23.1|-16.3|0.4438
91695783|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.3|9.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||9.4|-23.3|0.7014
91695784|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.5841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.7|15.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||15.0|-19.7|0.5841
91695785|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|15.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||15.3|-15.3|0.5000
91695786|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|12.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||12.3|-17.5|0.5834
91695787|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|27.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||27.2|-6.4|0.1534
91695788|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|24.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||24.9|-8.8|0.2720
91695789|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.1|10.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||10.4|-25.1|0.6815
91695790|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|22.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||22.0|-14.4|0.3900
91695791|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.0|15.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||15.9|-20.0|0.5865
91695792|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||0.3087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|18.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||18.9|-8.2|0.3087
91695793|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|20.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||20.9|-8.2|0.3137
91695794|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|34.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||34.8|2.7|0.0245
91695795|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|26.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||26.0|-3.0|0.1119
91695796|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.2|20.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||20.4|-13.2|0.4140
91695797|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|28.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||28.5|-7.2|0.2356
91695798|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.5|21.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||21.5|-11.5|0.3638
91695799|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|22.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||22.9|-5.2|0.1613
91695800|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|31.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||31.4|-0.5|0.0557
91795324|NCT04090957|183469119|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|25.89|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||25.89|14.50|<0.0001
91795325|NCT04090957|183469120|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|-4.7|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-4.70|-11.86|<0.0001
91795326|NCT04090957|183469120|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-4.61|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-4.61|-11.90|< 0.0001
91865653|NCT06946888|183621981|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.913||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.913
91865654|NCT06946888|183621981|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.802||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.802
91865655|NCT06946888|183621981|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.605||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.605
91865656|NCT06946888|183621981|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.35||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized Estimating Equations were used to analyze repeated measures data and to assess the interaction effect between group and time. Potential interfering factors such as age and years of work experience were controlled during the analysis, and the effect size (Cohen's d) and its 95% confidence interval were calculated to assist in interpreting the clinical significance. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version XX or R version XX, and the significance level was set at p \< 0.05.||||0.350
91865657|NCT06946888|183621981|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||1||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||1.000
91865658|NCT06946888|183621981|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.744||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.744
91865659|NCT06946888|183621981|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.202||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.202
91695801|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|38.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||38.3|5.6|0.0114
91695802|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|28.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||28.1|-1.8|0.0753
91726577|NCT04560309|183348293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.950
91726578|NCT04560309|183348294|SUPERIORITY|The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05||||||0.862|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.862
91726579|NCT04560309|183348295|SUPERIORITY|The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05||||||0.075|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.075
91726580|NCT01860404|183348302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.871
91726581|NCT01860404|183348303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.140
91726582|NCT01860404|183348304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.267
91795327|NCT04090957|183469120|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-7.68||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-3.29|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-3.29|-12.07|0.0002
91795328|NCT04090957|183469120|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.51||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-0.82|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.82|-10.21|0.0181
91795329|NCT04090957|183469121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.01||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.08|0.8862
91795330|NCT04090957|183469121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.02||||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.04|-0.09|0.6013
91795331|NCT04090957|183469121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.01||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.07|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.07|-0.08|0.9723
91795332|NCT04090957|183469121|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.03||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.11|0.5778
91795333|NCT04090957|183469122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|5.86||||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.5|101.23|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||101.23|-89.50|0.9865
91795334|NCT04090957|183469122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-7.05||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.73|90.63|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||90.63|-104.73|0.9814
91726583|NCT01860404|183348305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.476
91726584|NCT01860404|183348306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.581
91726585|NCT01860404|183348307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.203
91726586|NCT01860404|183348308|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91726587|NCT01860404|183348309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.482
91726588|NCT01860404|183348310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.393
91726589|NCT01860404|183348311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.629
91726590|NCT01860404|183348312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.624
91726591|NCT01860404|183348313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2554|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2554
91726592|NCT01860404|183348314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7964|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7964
91726593|NCT01860404|183348315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7749|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7749
91726594|NCT01860404|183348316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0036
91726595|NCT01860404|183348317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0053
91726596|NCT01860404|183348318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8234|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8234
91726597|NCT02187055|183348348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was a treatment difference larger than -13% at the population level|Difference in response rate|-7.73||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|98.34|-16.29|0.83|||Normal approximation to proportions|Multiplicity-adjusted||||0.83|-16.29|0.2101
91726598|NCT02187055|183348348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was a treatment difference larger than -13% at the population level|Difference in response rate|-5.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|98.34|-13.98|2.98|||Normal approximation to proportions|Multiplicity-adjusted||||2.98|-13.98|0.0512
91726599|NCT02187055|183348348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was a treatment difference larger than -13% at the population level|Difference in response rate|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.34|-6.4|10.86|||Normal approximation to proportions|Multiplicity adjusted||||10.86|-6.40|<0.0001
91795335|NCT04090957|183469122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-46.46||||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-167.23|74.3|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||74.30|-167.23|0.6049
91795336|NCT04090957|183469122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-71.64||||0.3717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.08|58.81|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||58.81|-202.08|0.3717
91795337|NCT04090957|183469123|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.93||||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|10.74|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||10.74|-6.89|0.8439
91795338|NCT04090957|183469123|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|5.66||||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|14.61|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||14.61|-3.28|0.2727
91795339|NCT04090957|183469123|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.86||||0.6389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|6.81|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||6.81|-14.53|0.6389
91795340|NCT04090957|183469123|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|5.52||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|16.88|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||16.88|-5.84|0.4544
91795341|NCT04090957|183469124|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.57||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.02|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||1.02|0.13|0.0084
91795342|NCT04090957|183469124|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.77||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.2|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||1.20|0.33|0.0002
91795343|NCT04090957|183469124|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.19||||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.72|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.72|-0.33|0.6337
91795344|NCT04090957|183469124|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.44||||0.1287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.98|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.98|-0.10|0.1287
91795345|NCT04090957|183469125|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.45||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|1.86|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||1.86|-6.76|0.3445
91695803|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.5635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.1|15.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||15.2|-20.1|0.5635
91726600|NCT02187055|183348349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.41||||||||4.41|1.23|
91726601|NCT02187055|183348349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.49||||||||3.49|0.33|
91865660|NCT06946888|183621981|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.918||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.918
91865661|NCT03550170|183621998|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established using the prespecified margin of inferiority of 10 points on the total composite score of the Fatigue Impact Scale.|Slope|4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|9.11|||||Comparison of teleconference to one-to-one at 6 months.|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) served as the primary analysis tool for modeling the longitudinal scores of the primary outcome - Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS).||9.11|0.67|
91865662|NCT03550170|183621998|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established using the prespecified margin of inferiority of 10 points on the total composite score of the Fatigue Impact Scale.|Slope|6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|11.26|||||Comparison of internet to one-to-one at 6 months.|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) served as the primary analysis tool for modeling the longitudinal scores of the primary outcome - Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS).||11.26|0.98|
91865663|NCT03550170|183621999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
91865664|NCT05850052|183622000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.79|||proportional-odds cumulative logit model|||||1.79|0.85|0.26
91726602|NCT02187055|183348349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.68||||||||0.68|-2.51|
91795346|NCT04090957|183469125|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.03||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|4.4|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||4.40|-4.33|0.9998
91865665|NCT05850052|183622001|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.27|||proportional-odds cumulative logit model|||||1.27|0.82|0.86
91865666|NCT05850052|183622002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|30.0|||Fisher Exact|||||30|0.32|0.36
91865667|NCT06037668|183622042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1134||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.1134
91726603|NCT02187055|183348350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.18||||||||4.18|1.08|
91865668|NCT06037668|183622043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.003100
91695804|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.6201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.3|14.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||14.5|-20.3|0.6201
91695805|NCT03850483|183286487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.4792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.6|17.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||17.0|-17.6|0.4792
91695806|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.79|||MMRM|||Week 1: Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.79|-0.25|0.8038
91726604|NCT02187055|183348350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.48||||||||3.48|0.40|
91726605|NCT02187055|183348350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.86||||||||0.86|-2.24|
91726606|NCT02187055|183348351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.5||||||||0.50|0.16|
91726607|NCT02187055|183348351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.39||||||||0.39|0.05|
91726608|NCT02187055|183348351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.28|
91726609|NCT02187055|183348352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.51||||||||0.51|0.15|
91726610|NCT02187055|183348352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.46||||||||0.46|0.10|
91726611|NCT02187055|183348352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.23|
91726612|NCT02187055|183348353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|2.56||||||||2.56|-4.99|
91795347|NCT04090957|183469125|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.38||||0.4874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|2.76|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||2.76|-7.51|0.4874
91865669|NCT06037668|183622044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.050300
91865670|NCT06037668|183622045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1178||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.1178
91865671|NCT06037668|183622046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1003||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.1003
91865672|NCT06037668|183622047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4832||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.4832
91865673|NCT06356285|183622075|EQUIVALENCE|Quasibinominal models were used as the outcomes are bounded count variables. Accepting a two-sided p-value adjusted for 3 comparisons, the study was designed with 80% power to detect a minimal detectable effect size between the trial arms and control for the primary outcome.|Odds Ratio, log|0.05||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A two-sided p-value, as shown in the table, which was adjusted for 3 comparisons|Quasibinominal regression|||||||0.017
91904418|NCT02807480|183703960|OTHER||Slope|-0.5||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.35|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x amygdala interaction||0.35|-1.34|.248
91904419|NCT02807480|183703960|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.44|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interaction||1.44|-0.84|0.603
91726613|NCT02187055|183348353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|2.04||||||||2.04|-5.59|
91726614|NCT02187055|183348353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|3.4||||||||3.40|-4.53|
91726615|NCT02187055|183348354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|1.15||||||||1.15|-7.95|
91726616|NCT02187055|183348354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|1.43||||||||1.43|-7.55|
91726617|NCT02187055|183348354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|5.14||||||||5.14|-4.45|
91695807|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.81|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.81|-0.22|0.8267
91695808|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.6|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.60|-0.43|0.6039
91695809|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.62|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.62|-0.41|0.6339
91695810|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.31|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.31|-0.68|0.2666
91726618|NCT02187055|183348355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|0.94||||||||0.94|-8.29|
91695811|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.26|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.26|-0.70|0.2257
91726619|NCT02187055|183348355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|1.48||||||||1.48|-7.59|
91726620|NCT02187055|183348355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|5.47||||||||5.47|-4.24|
91726621|NCT02187055|183348356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|2.93||||||||2.93|-6.03|
91726622|NCT02187055|183348356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|2.47||||||||2.47|-6.51|
91695812|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-0.81|0.1306
91695813|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.31|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.31|0.09|0.9704
91695814|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|1.09|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.09|-0.16|0.8890
91726623|NCT02187055|183348356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|4.18||||||||4.18|-5.11|
91726624|NCT02187055|183348357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-9.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.68|-3.3||||||||-3.30|-15.68|
91726625|NCT02187055|183348357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-0.83||||||||-0.83|-12.94|
91726626|NCT02187055|183348357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|9.07||||||||9.07|-3.86|
91726627|NCT02187055|183348358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|0.84||||||||0.84|-13.32|
91726628|NCT02187055|183348358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|3.37||||||||3.37|-10.69|
91726629|NCT02187055|183348358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|9.68||||||||9.68|-4.51|
91726630|NCT02187055|183348359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|0.85||||||||0.85|-13.29|
91726631|NCT02187055|183348359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|3.09||||||||3.09|-10.94|
91726632|NCT02187055|183348359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|9.39||||||||9.39|-4.79|
91726633|NCT02187055|183348360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|0.0||||||||0.00|-12.05|
91726634|NCT02187055|183348360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-0.87||||||||-0.87|-12.90|
91726635|NCT02187055|183348360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|5.44||||||||5.44|-7.17|
91726636|NCT02187055|183348361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|2.18||||||||2.18|-11.92|
91726637|NCT02187055|183348361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|1.52||||||||1.52|-12.49|
91726638|NCT02187055|183348361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rresponse rate|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.47||||||||6.47|-7.70|
91726639|NCT02187055|183348362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|-1.75||||||||-1.75|-14.84|
91726640|NCT02187055|183348362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|0.44||||||||0.44|-12.72|
91726641|NCT02187055|183348362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|8.52||||||||8.52|-4.22|
91726642|NCT02187055|183348363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-0.93||||||||-0.93|-12.61|
91726643|NCT02187055|183348363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|3.1||||||||3.10|-8.09|
91726644|NCT02187055|183348363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|10.23||||||||10.23|-1.68|
91726645|NCT02187055|183348364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.148||||||||0.148|-0.011|
91726646|NCT02187055|183348364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.105||||||||0.105|-0.054|
91726647|NCT02187055|183348364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.037||||||||0.037|-0.122|
91726648|NCT02187055|183348365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|2.55||||||||2.55|-10.68|
91726649|NCT02187055|183348365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|5.44||||||||5.44|-7.87|
91726650|NCT02187055|183348365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|9.43||||||||9.43|-3.72|
91726651|NCT02187055|183348366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.11||||||||-0.11|-2.28|
91726652|NCT02187055|183348366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.01||||||||0.01|-2.16|
91726653|NCT02187055|183348366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.2||||||||1.20|-0.97|
91795348|NCT04090957|183469125|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.17||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|5.26|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||5.26|-5.61|0.9964
91904420|NCT02807480|183703960|OTHER||Slope|-0.85||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x dlPFC interaction||0.18|-1.89|.107
91795349|NCT04090957|183469126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.94||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|-0.76|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.76|-7.12|0.0119
91726654|NCT02187055|183348367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.85||||||||0.85|-1.74|
91726655|NCT02187055|183348367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.11||||||||2.11|-0.48|
91726656|NCT02187055|183348367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.56||||||||2.56|-0.04|
91726657|NCT02187055|183348368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.39||||||||0.39|-2.22|
91726658|NCT02187055|183348368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.42||||||||0.42|-2.19|
91726659|NCT02187055|183348368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.34||||||||1.34|-1.27|
91726660|NCT02187055|183348369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.87||||||||0.87|-1.52|
91726661|NCT02187055|183348369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.58||||||||1.58|-0.80|
91726662|NCT02187055|183348369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.91||||||||1.91|-0.47|
91726663|NCT02187055|183348370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.8||||||||-0.80|-3.25|
91726664|NCT02187055|183348370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.47||||||||-0.47|-2.91|
91726665|NCT02187055|183348370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.55||||||||1.55|-0.89|
91726666|NCT02187055|183348371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.05||||||||-0.05|-2.27|
91726667|NCT02187055|183348371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.82||||||||0.82|-1.40|
91726668|NCT02187055|183348371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.98||||||||1.98|-0.25|
91726669|NCT02187055|183348372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.68||||||||0.68|-1.71|
91726670|NCT02187055|183348372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.05||||||||1.05|-1.33|
91726671|NCT02187055|183348372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.57||||||||1.57|-0.83|
91726672|NCT02187055|183348373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.45||||||||0.45|-2.20|
91726673|NCT02187055|183348373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.51||||||||1.51|-1.13|
91726674|NCT02187055|183348373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.39||||||||2.39|-0.26|
91726675|NCT02187055|183348374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.39||||||||0.39|-2.54|
91726676|NCT02187055|183348374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.16||||||||2.16|-0.76|
91726677|NCT02187055|183348374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.24||||||||3.24|0.30|
91726678|NCT02187055|183348375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.08||||||||1.08|-1.55|
91726679|NCT02187055|183348375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.62||||||||1.62|-1.01|
91726680|NCT02187055|183348375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.86||||||||1.86|-0.78|
91726681|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.279|1.427||||||Work hours missed due to problems||1.427|-2.279|
91726682|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.783|1.044||||||Work hours missed due to problems||1.044|-2.783|
91726683|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.349|1.462||||||Work hours missed due to problems||1.462|-2.349|
91726684|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.928|2.346||||||Work hours missed other reason||2.346|-2.928|
91795350|NCT04090957|183469126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.77||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.62|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-1.62|-7.93|0.0017
91795351|NCT04090957|183469126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.56||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-0.66|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.66|-8.46|0.0186
91795352|NCT04090957|183469126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.79||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|0.24|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.24|-7.81|0.0687
91795353|NCT04090957|183469127|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|39.41|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||39.41|16.40|<0.0001
91904421|NCT02807480|183703960|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.8|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x treatment x dlPFC interaction||1.80|-1.47|0.846
91726685|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.832|3.64||||||Work hours missed other reason||3.640|-1.832|
91726686|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.911||||||Work hours missed other reason||3.911|-1.520|
91726687|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|9.37||||||Hours worked in past 7 days||9.370|0.520|
91726688|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.736|7.43||||||Hours worked in past 7 days||7.430|-1.736|
91795354|NCT04090957|183469127|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|44.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.53|56.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||56.44|33.53|<0.0001
91795355|NCT04090957|183469127|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|29.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.13|42.71|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||42.71|17.13|<0.0001
91795356|NCT04090957|183469127|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|49.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.92|62.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||62.37|35.92|<0.0001
91795357|NCT04090957|183469128|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.02|-0.07|0.0004
91795358|NCT04090957|183469128|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.05|-0.10|<0.0001
91695815|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-0.66|0.4506
91695816|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.69|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.69|-0.53|0.5840
91726689|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|2.454||||||Hours worked in past 7 days||2.454|-6.650|
91726690|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|0.786||||||Problems affecting productivity||0.786|-0.373|
91795359|NCT04090957|183469128|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.03||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.00|-0.06|0.0898
91695817|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.08|-1.17|0.0769
91726691|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.607||||||Problems affecting productivity||0.607|-0.578|
91695818|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.13|-1.39|0.0242
91695819|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.23|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.23|-1.49|0.0127
91726692|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.784|0.4||||||Problems affecting productivity||0.400|-0.784|
91726693|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.587||||||Problem affecting daily activities||0.587|-0.112|
91726694|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.357||||||Problem affecting daily activities||0.357|-0.341|
91726695|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.122||||||Problem affecting daily activities||0.122|-0.582|
91726696|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.748|3.553||||||% work time missed due to health||3.553|-5.748|
91726697|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.339|2.067||||||% work time missed due to health||2.067|-7.339|
91726698|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.283|3.207||||||% work time missed due to health||3.207|-6.283|
91726699|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.726|7.858||||||% impairment while working due to health||7.858|-3.726|
91726700|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.777|6.068||||||% impairment while working due to health||6.068|-5.777|
91726701|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.839|3.998||||||% impairment while working due to health||3.998|-7.839|
91726702|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.664|8.877||||||% overall work impairment due to health||8.877|-4.664|
91726703|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.164|8.58||||||% overall work impairment due to health||8.580|-5.164|
91726704|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.307|6.51||||||% overall work impairment due to health||6.510|-7.307|
91795360|NCT04090957|183469128|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.04|-0.10|<0.0001
91795361|NCT04090957|183469129|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.08|-0.18|<0.0001
91795362|NCT04090957|183469129|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.09|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.09|-0.18|<0.0001
91795363|NCT04090957|183469129|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.11|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.11|-0.23|<0.0001
91795364|NCT04090957|183469129|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.08|-0.20|<0.0001
91695820|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.6693|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.93|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.93|-0.54|0.6693
91726705|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.118|5.873||||||% activity impairment due to health||5.873|-1.118|
91726706|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.411|3.573||||||% activity impairment due to health||3.573|-3.411|
91726707|NCT02187055|183348376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.818|1.225||||||% activity impairment due to health||1.225|-5.818|
91726708|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.011||||||Utility score||0.011|-0.057|
91795365|NCT04090957|183469130|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.22||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|-0.78|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.78|-11.67|0.0220
91795366|NCT04090957|183469130|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-11.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|-6.21|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-6.21|-17.02|<0.0001
91795367|NCT04090957|183469130|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-9.17|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-9.17|-22.70|<0.0001
91795368|NCT04090957|183469130|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-13.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.63|-6.74|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-6.74|-20.63|<0.0001
91795369|NCT04090957|183469131|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.86||||0.7531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|8.42|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||8.42|-4.69|0.7531
91795370|NCT04090957|183469131|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.7||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|3.79|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||3.79|-9.18|0.5548
91695821|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.96|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.96|-0.55|0.6742
91695822|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.4486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.67|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.67|-0.79|0.4486
91695823|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-0.93|0.3219
91726709|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.013||||||Utility score||0.013|-0.054|
91695824|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.39|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.39|-2.21|0.0096
91726710|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.036||||||Utility score||0.036|-0.031|
91726711|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.042||||||Mobility score||0.042|-0.098|
91726712|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.06||||||Mobility score||0.060|-0.079|
91726713|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.089||||||Mobility score||0.089|-0.051|
91726714|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.127||||||Self-care score||0.127|-0.014|
91726715|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.114||||||Self-care score||0.114|-0.027|
91726716|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.058||||||Self-care score||0.058|-0.083|
91726717|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.084||||||Usual activities score||0.084|-0.062|
91726718|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.129||||||Usual activities score||0.129|-0.018|
91726719|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.118||||||Usual activities score||0.118|-0.029|
91726720|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.091||||||Pain/discomfort score||0.091|-0.041|
91726721|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.116||||||Pain/discomfort score||0.116|-0.015|
91795371|NCT04090957|183469131|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.81||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|14.99|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||14.99|-1.36|0.1170
91795372|NCT04090957|183469131|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.55||||0.8885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|6.87|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||6.87|-9.97|0.8885
91795373|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.45||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12, Vasomotor Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.04|-0.95|0.0781
91795374|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.78||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.28|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12, Vasomotor Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.28|-1.27|0.0011
91795375|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.76||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.17|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52, Vasomotor Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.17|-1.35|0.0085
91795376|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.75||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52, Vasomotor Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.14|-1.35|0.0127
91695825|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-1.64|0.0862
91695826|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|-0.36|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.36|-2.15|0.0111
91695827|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.97|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.97|-0.68|0.6107
91695828|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.15|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.15|-0.54|0.7240
91695829|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.74|-0.91|0.4300
91695830|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.0|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.00|-1.66|0.0501
91695831|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|-0.3|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.30|-2.23|0.0157
91695832|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.83|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.83|0.0645
91695833|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|0.06|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.06|-1.84|0.0621
91695834|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.62|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.62|-1.21|0.2959
91695835|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.69|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.69|-0.19|0.9043
91695836|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|0.45|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.45|-1.38|0.2014
91695837|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.19|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.19|-1.66|0.0948
91695838|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.06|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.06|-2.21|0.0416
91695839|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.14|-0.03|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.03|-2.14|0.0454
91695840|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.31|-0.2|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.20|-2.31|0.0256
91695841|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-1.36|0.2326
91695842|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.99|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.99|-0.95|0.5141
91695843|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.25|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.25|-1.64|0.1124
91695844|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.70|0.0983
91695845|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|-0.07|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.07|-2.46|0.0412
91904422|NCT02807480|183703960|OTHER||Slope|-2.26||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|5.37|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interaction||5.37|-9.89|.561
91695846|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.13|-2.47|0.0340
91695847|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.44|-0.09|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.09|-2.44|0.0379
91695848|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|0.36|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.36|-1.91|0.1291
91695849|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|1.3|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.30|-1.03|0.5776
91695850|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|0.27|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.27|-2.00|0.1044
91695851|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-2.23|0.0608
91695852|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.84|-0.18|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.18|-2.84|0.0309
91695853|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.85|-0.26|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.26|-2.85|0.0242
91695854|NCT03850483|183286488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|-0.09|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.09|-2.69|0.0394
91695855|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|10.97|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||10.97|-5.86|0.6917
91695856|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|15.69|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||15.69|-1.09|0.9241
91695857|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|13.42|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||13.42|-3.21|0.8443
91695858|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.82|10.86|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||10.86|-5.82|0.6911
91695859|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.79||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.56|6.31|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||6.31|-9.56|0.3676
91695860|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.13|1.5|||MMRM|||Week 1: Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.50|-14.13|0.0915
91695861|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.96|1.65|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.65|-13.96|0.0970
91695862|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.9389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|18.97|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||18.97|-0.59|0.9389
91726722|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.091||||||Pain/discomfort score||0.091|-0.041|
91726723|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.103||||||Anxiety/depression score||0.103|-0.046|
91795377|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.6211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||5\_Week 12, Psychosocial Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.21|-0.46|0.6211
91795378|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.16||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||6\_Week 12, Psychosocial Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.17|-0.50|0.4544
91726724|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.083||||||Anxiety/depression score||0.083|-0.066|
91695863|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.9295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|19.02|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors||19.02|-1.06|0.9295
91695864|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.7308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.15|13.45|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||13.45|-6.15|0.7308
91695865|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.6199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.01|11.64|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||11.64|-8.01|0.6199
91695866|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.13|1.04|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.04|-19.13|0.0699
91695867|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.79|-1.48|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.48|-21.79|0.0300
91695868|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.15|-2.98|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.98|-23.15|0.0168
91695869|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.7083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|14.57|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||14.57|-7.30|0.7083
91695870|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.66|19.75|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.75|-2.66|0.8955
91695871|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.35|17.37|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||17.37|-4.35|0.8386
91695872|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.4371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.93|9.84|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||9.84|-11.93|0.4371
91695873|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.42|-5.92|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-5.92|-35.42|0.0108
91695874|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.75||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.43|3.55|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||3.55|-25.43|0.1066
91695875|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.76||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.54|-1.55|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.55|-30.54|0.0344
91695876|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|17.13|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||17.13|-10.30|0.6594
91695877|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.85|19.36|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.36|-8.85|0.7307
91726725|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.055||||||Anxiety/depression score||0.055|-0.094|
91726726|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.934|2.648||||||VAS score||2.648|-2.934|
91695878|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.78|15.61|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||15.61|-11.78|0.5914
91695879|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.13|1.49|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.49|-26.13|0.0709
91726727|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|4.016||||||VAS score||4.016|-1.556|
91726728|NCT02187055|183348377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.425|4.171||||||VAS score||4.171|-1.425|
91726729|NCT02187055|183348378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|0.808||||||||0.808|-1.706|
91726730|NCT02187055|183348378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|2.325||||||||2.325|-0.178|
91726731|NCT02187055|183348378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|2.779||||||||2.779|0.266|
91726732|NCT00441896|183348400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7391
91726733|NCT00441896|183348400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5370
91726734|NCT00441896|183348400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9080
91695880|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.55|-3.01|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-3.01|-34.55|0.0253
91904423|NCT02807480|183703960|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.45||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.7|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interaction||15.70|-4.80|.297
91695881|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.89|2.15|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||2.15|-28.89|0.0780
91695882|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.36||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.17|5.83|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||5.83|-25.17|0.1516
91695883|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.45|14.81|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||14.81|-15.45|0.4861
91695884|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.48|26.55|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||26.55|-4.48|0.8795
91695885|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.11||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.22|9.94|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||9.94|-20.22|0.2867
91695886|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.86|4.69|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||4.69|-25.86|0.1267
91695887|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.48|0.26|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.26|-34.48|0.0526
91695888|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.26|2.68|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||2.68|-31.26|0.0827
91695889|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.26||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.12|0.86|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.86|-33.12|0.0592
91695890|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.03||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.72|14.16|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||14.16|-15.72|0.4657
91695891|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.6612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.52|19.26|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.26|-11.52|0.6612
91695892|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.03||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.42|6.48|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||6.48|-23.42|0.1749
91695893|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.39|5.8|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||5.80|-24.39|0.1548
91695894|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.67|-1.28|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.28|-40.67|0.0400
91695895|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.82|-3.39|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-3.39|-41.82|0.0267
91695896|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.63||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.42|-2.89|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.89|-41.42|0.0295
91695897|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.38||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.3|8.05|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||8.05|-26.30|0.1903
91695898|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.65||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.21|19.06|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.06|-16.21|0.5530
91726735|NCT00441896|183348400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2539|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2539
91726736|NCT00441896|183348400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6657|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6657
91795379|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.32||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.08|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||7\_Week 52, Psychosocial Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.08|-0.72|0.1349
91695899|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.37||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.92|3.4|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||3.40|-30.92|0.0933
91695900|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.37|-1.65|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.65|-36.37|0.0360
91695901|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.46||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.85|-2.23|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.23|-46.85|0.0354
91695902|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.07||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.77|-4.46|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-4.46|-47.77|0.0239
91695903|NCT03850483|183286490|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.11||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.84|-2.38|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.38|-45.84|0.0342
91695904|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.52|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.52|-0.91|0.3279
91695905|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.56|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.56|-0.88|0.3566
91695906|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|0.21|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.29|0.1165
91726737|NCT00441896|183348401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4249|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4249
91726738|NCT00441896|183348401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4177|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4177
91726739|NCT00441896|183348401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3033|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3033
91726740|NCT00441896|183348401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3014
91726741|NCT00441896|183348401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1839
91726742|NCT01301092|183348409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.443|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.395|0.497|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||0.497|0.395|
91726743|NCT01301092|183348410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|2.41|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||2.41|1.84|
91726744|NCT01301092|183348411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.08|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||1.08|0.858|
91726745|NCT01301092|183348412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.924|1.19|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||1.19|0.924|
91726746|NCT03277274|183348421|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.579|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.579
91726747|NCT03277274|183348421|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
91726748|NCT03277274|183348421|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.020
91726749|NCT03277274|183348421|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.031|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.031
91726750|NCT03277274|183348422|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.151|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.151
91726751|NCT03277274|183348422|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.017
91726752|NCT03277274|183348422|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.129|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.129
91726753|NCT03277274|183348422|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
91726754|NCT03277274|183348423|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.138
91726755|NCT03277274|183348423|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.029
91726756|NCT03277274|183348423|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.201|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.201
91726757|NCT03277274|183348423|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
91795380|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.08||||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||8\_Week 52, Psychosocial Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.49|-0.33|0.8875
91726758|NCT01793129|183348439|SUPERIORITY|This trial estimated the probability that the intervention has no effect on the outcome (or conversely, the probability that id does), given the data obtained in the trial and any prior evidence.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.0|||||The relative risk estimate was calculated by dividing risk under hypothermia by risk under normothermia.|Whole-body Hypothermia vs. Normothermia (Normothermia is the comparison group)|To get estimates of RR from the Bayesian logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of the outcome were generated for all infants assuming the infants were treated with and without hypothermia and with/without severe encephalopathy. Next subject level RR values were estimated for all infants and 2.5, 50, and 97.5 percentiles were calculated.|2.00|0.74|
91726759|NCT03548415|183348474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306||||||The p-value was analyzed using the nonparametric test, Van Elteren test with IGF-1 level as stratification factor.|Van Elteren test|||||||0.306
91726760|NCT01230814|183348485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for VVC was p\<0.020 (two-sided).|Clustered chi-squared statistic||For the relative risk estimate, the metronidazole plus miconazole arm represented the numerator and the placebo arm represented the denominator such that a relative risk \<1 indicates a lower percentage of positive test visits in the treated arm.|Each participant within a study arm was considered a cluster, with observations at a maximum of 6 visits. The percentage of visits at which VVC was detected was compared between metronidazole plus miconazole arm versus placebo arm using a chi-squared statistic adjusted for clustering using the method of Donner and Klar (2000).||1.37|0.62|0.690
91726761|NCT01230814|183348486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.87||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for BV was p\<0.030 (two-sided).|clutstered chi-squared statistic||For the relative risk estimate, the metronidazole plus miconazole arm represented the numerator and the placebo arm represented the denominator such that a relative risk \<1 indicates a lower percentage of test visits in the treated arm.|Each participant within a study arm was considered a cluster, with observations at a maximum of 6 visits. The percentage of visits at which BV was detected was compared between metronidazole plus miconazole arm versus placebo arm using a chi-squared statistic adjusted for clustering using the method of Donner and Klar (2000).||0.87|0.48|0.005
91726762|NCT00676052|183348509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.117||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.117|0.017|0.009
91726763|NCT00676052|183348509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.147||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.147|0.047|<0.001
91726764|NCT00676052|183348509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.118||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.118|0.019|0.007
91726765|NCT00676052|183348509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.132||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.132|0.032|0.001
91795381|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.08||||0.8109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||9\_Week 12, Physical Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.24|-0.40|0.8109
91695907|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.55|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.55|-0.85|0.3633
91695908|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.56|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.56|-0.83|0.3766
91695909|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.2|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.20|-1.22|0.1179
91695910|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.8647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.2|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.20|-0.24|0.8647
91695911|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.52|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.52|-0.90|0.3294
91695912|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.23|0.1231
91695913|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.13|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.13|-1.37|0.0878
91695914|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.1225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.20|0.1225
91695915|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.56|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.56|-0.85|0.3663
91695916|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.14|-1.27|0.0929
91695917|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.51|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.51|-0.95|0.3111
91695918|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.4745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.69|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.69|-0.74|0.4745
91695919|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.42|-1.03|0.2409
91695920|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.37|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.37|-1.13|0.2018
91695921|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.59|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.59|-0.83|0.3925
91695922|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.73|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.73|-0.66|0.5348
91695923|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.09|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.09|-1.33|0.0739
91726766|NCT00676052|183348509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.187||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.187|0.086|<0.001
91726767|NCT00676052|183348510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.146||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.146|0.065|<0.001
91726768|NCT00676052|183348510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.147||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.147|0.067|<0.001
91726769|NCT00676052|183348510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.163||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.163|0.083|<0.001
91726770|NCT00676052|183348510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.193||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.193|0.112|<0.001
91795382|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||10\_Week 12, Physical Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.44|-0.20|0.6184
91695924|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.62|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.62|-0.84|0.4014
91695925|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.93|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.93|-0.56|0.6588
91695926|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.52|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.52|-1.00|0.2997
91695927|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.46|||MMRM|||Week 4:MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.46|-1.08|0.2518
91695928|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.45|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.45|-1.00|0.2634
91726771|NCT00676052|183348510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.216||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.216|0.135|<0.001
91726772|NCT00676052|183348510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.157||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.157|0.056|<0.001
91726773|NCT00676052|183348510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.192||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV, Day 28||0.192|0.092|<0.001
91726774|NCT00676052|183348510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.174||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.174|0.074|<0.001
91726775|NCT00676052|183348510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.193||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.193|0.092|<0.001
91726776|NCT00676052|183348510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.220|0.120|<0.001
91726777|NCT00676052|183348511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.237||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.237|0.094|<0.001
91795383|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.25||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.13|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||11\_Week 52, Physical Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.13|-0.63|0.2548
91695929|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.36|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.36|-1.11|0.1999
91695930|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.33|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.33|-1.13|0.1847
91695931|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.4569|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.71|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.71|-0.81|0.4569
91695932|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|1.22|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.22|-0.27|0.8536
91695933|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.4812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 6:MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.74|-0.79|0.4812
91695934|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.42|-1.13|0.2276
91726778|NCT00676052|183348511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.258||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.258|0.115|<0.001
91795384|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.09||||0.8282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.48|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||12\_Week 52, Physical Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.48|-0.30|0.8282
91695935|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.14|-1.34|0.0895
91726779|NCT00676052|183348511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.268||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.268|0.127|<0.001
91795385|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.27||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||13\_Week 12, Sexual Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.20|-0.75|0.3299
91795386|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.22||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||14\_Week 12, Sexual Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.25|-0.69|0.4800
91795387|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.39||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||15\_Week 52, Sexual Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.17|-0.96|0.2133
91795388|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.14||||0.8116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.73|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||16\_Week 52, Sexual Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.73|-0.44|0.8116
91695936|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.04|-1.58|0.0411
91695937|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-1.40|0.0928
91695938|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|0.12|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.12|-1.48|0.0799
91726780|NCT00676052|183348511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.244|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.315||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.315|0.172|<0.001
91726781|NCT00676052|183348511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.301|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.372||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.372|0.229|<0.001
91726782|NCT00676052|183348511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.258||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.258|0.098|<0.001
91726783|NCT00676052|183348511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.219|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|0.298||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.298|0.139|<0.001
91726784|NCT00676052|183348511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.27||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.270|0.111|<0.001
91726785|NCT00676052|183348511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.232|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.312||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.312|0.152|<0.001
91726786|NCT00676052|183348511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.294|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.373||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.373|0.214|<0.001
91726787|NCT00676052|183348512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.182||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.182|0.015|0.021
91726788|NCT00676052|183348512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.233||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.233|0.067|<0.001
91695939|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.7872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|1.11|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.11|-0.39|0.7872
91726789|NCT00676052|183348512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.094||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.177||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.177|0.011|0.026
91726790|NCT00676052|183348512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.247||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.247|0.080|<0.001
91726791|NCT00676052|183348512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.319||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.319|0.152|<0.001
91726792|NCT01243424|183348523|NON_INFERIORITY|This was the first step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach. The upper bound of the confidence interval (CI) of the Hazard ratio (HR) of linagliptin vs. glimepiride was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority. All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.47|0.84|1.14||P-values derived from Wald´s Chi-square test for non-inferiority were calculated.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazard model with factor treatment was applied to compare linagliptin with glimepiride||||1.14|0.84|<0.0001
91726793|NCT01243424|183348523|SUPERIORITY|This was the second step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.47|0.84|1.14||P-values derived from Wald´s Chi-square test.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazard model with factor treatment was applied to compare linagliptin with glimepiride.||||1.14|0.84|0.3813
91726794|NCT01243424|183348524|SUPERIORITY|This was the third step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.47|0.86|1.14||P-values derived from Wald´s Chi-square test for non-inferiority.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazard model with factor treatment was applied to compare linagliptin with glimepiride.||||1.14|0.86|0.4334
91726795|NCT01243424|183348525|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.47|1.43|1.96||p-value derived from logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression with factor for treatment.|||1.96|1.43|<0.0001
91726796|NCT01243424|183348526|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.47|1.11|1.48||p-value derived from logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression with factor for treatment.|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.48|1.11|0.0004
91695940|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.6294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.92|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.92|-0.61|0.6294
91695941|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.8|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.80|-0.76|0.5174
91904424|NCT02807480|183703960|OTHER||Slope|-0.18||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.79|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS cores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.79|-1.15|.712
91695942|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-0.98|0.3136
91695943|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.18|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.18|-1.42|0.1020
91695944|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.37|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.37|-1.20|0.1923
91695945|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|0.18|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.18|-1.44|0.0997
91695946|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.45|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.45|-1.08|0.2497
91695947|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.47|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.47|-1.08|0.2568
91695948|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.64|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.64|-0.95|0.3730
91695949|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|-0.26|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.26|-1.76|0.0137
91695950|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|-0.44|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.44|-2.06|0.0055
91695951|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.4|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.40|-1.99|0.0069
91695952|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|0.34|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.34|-1.34|0.1648
91726797|NCT01243424|183348530|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.5249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09||p-value derived from Wald´s chi-square test.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio and confidence interval derived from Cox regression with factor treatment.|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.09|0.85|0.5249
91726798|NCT01243424|183348531|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.03|||ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline HbA1c.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||-0.03|-0.15|0.0023
91726799|NCT01243424|183348532|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-4.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline FPG.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||-4.8|-9.7|<0.0001
91695953|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.51|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.51|-1.02|0.2931
91695954|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-1.01|0.3047
91695955|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.38|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.38|-1.22|0.1924
91695956|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.02|-1.52|0.0465
91795389|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.23||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.08|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||17\_Week 12, Total MENQOL, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.08|-0.53|0.1853
91904425|NCT02807480|183703960|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.56||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.97|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||1.97|-0.84|0.431
91695957|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|-0.47|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.47|-2.08|0.0048
91795390|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.26||||0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||18\_Week 12, Total MENQOL, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.57|0.1176
91795391|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.43||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.06|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||19\_Week 52, Total MENQOL, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.06|-0.79|0.0176
91795392|NCT04090957|183469132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.6909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||20\_Week 52, Total MENQOL, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.25|-0.49|0.6909
91795393|NCT02247531|183469186|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.157||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.313|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.313|0.001|0.0479
91795394|NCT02247531|183469186|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.087||||0.2739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.243|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.243|-0.069|0.2739
91795395|NCT02247531|183469187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.9|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||3.9|-4.8|0.8400
91795396|NCT02247531|183469187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.3||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.7|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||5.7|-3.1|0.5587
91904426|NCT02807480|183703961|OTHER||Slope|-6.42||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|5.3|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment PSWQ score: approach behavior main effect||5.30|-18.15|.276
91695958|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|-0.21|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.21|-1.78|0.0186
91695959|NCT03850483|183286492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.08|-1.61|0.0675
91695960|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.3232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.39|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.39|-0.69|0.3232
91695961|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.03|0.0736
91695962|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.07|0.0743
91695963|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.04|-1.03|0.0641
91695964|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.5|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.50|-0.71|0.3887
91795397|NCT02247531|183469188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.09|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||1.09|-0.88|0.8358
91795398|NCT02247531|183469188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.26||||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.74|-1.25|0.6117
91795399|NCT02247531|183469189|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.7||||0.4651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.5|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.5|-1.2|0.4651
91695965|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.08|-1.15|0.0767
91695966|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.38|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.38|-0.89|0.2529
91904427|NCT02807480|183703961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.69||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|23.5|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment PSWQ score: treatment x approach behavior interaction||23.50|-12.12|.520
91795400|NCT02247531|183469189|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.3||||0.7885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.1|-1.6|0.7885
91795401|NCT02247531|183469190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|0.7|0.6892
91795402|NCT02247531|183469190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.6|0.9104
91795403|NCT02247531|183469191|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.1||||0.8931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||1.5|-1.8|0.8931
91795404|NCT02247531|183469191|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.1||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||0.5|-2.8|0.1754
91795405|NCT02247531|183469192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|0.7|0.3707
91795406|NCT02247531|183469192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.6|0.8382
91865674|NCT05265065|183622079|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference) and a one-sided significance level of 5%.~The sample size calculation assumed an estimated seroresponse rate of 95% in both half- and full-dose arms, a non- inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference), a one-sided significance level of5%, and no loss to follow- up. Under this scenario, a sample size of 100 per arm provides 90% power to compare seroresponse rates between arms under the non-inferiority framework."|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.0|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference) and a one-sided significance level of 5%.||2.0|-7.7|
91695967|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.67|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.67|-0.61|0.5304
91695968|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.43|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.43|-0.87|0.2920
91695969|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.2593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-0.70|0.2593
91695970|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-0.70|0.4310
91695971|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.69|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.69|-0.59|0.5477
91695972|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.24|0.0696
91695973|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-0.82|0.3583
91695974|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.01|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.01|-0.56|0.6826
91695975|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.74|-0.84|0.4570
91695976|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.59|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.59|-1.03|0.3265
91695977|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-1.00|0.3039
91695978|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.42|-1.23|0.2086
91695979|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.44|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.44|-1.22|0.2172
91695980|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-1.16|0.2855
91865675|NCT05265065|183622081|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|11.3|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||11.3|-16.1|
91865676|NCT05265065|183622081|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|3.2|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||3.2|-9.5|
91695981|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.8372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|1.36|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.36|-0.34|0.8372
91695982|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.4792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.84|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.84|-0.89|0.4792
91695983|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|0.65|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.65|-1.12|0.3331
91695984|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.47|0.1080
91695985|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.02|-1.61|0.0455
91695986|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|0.1|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.10|-1.49|0.0761
91695987|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.14|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.14|-1.80|0.0273
91695988|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|1.2|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.20|-0.57|0.7214
91795407|NCT02247531|183469193|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.35||||0.6841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|7.85|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||7.85|-5.16|0.6841
91695989|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.06|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.06|-0.75|0.6132
91695990|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.02|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.02|-0.83|0.5704
91695991|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.3449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.67|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.67|-1.10|0.3449
91695992|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.94|0.0|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.00|-1.94|0.0493
91695993|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.35|-1.55|0.1490
91695994|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.02|-1.96|0.0540
91695995|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|0.71|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.71|-1.32|0.3119
91795408|NCT02247531|183469193|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.07||||0.7443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|7.52|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||7.52|-5.37|0.7443
91904428|NCT02807480|183703961|OTHER||Slope|-50.0||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.65|27.65|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PSWQ score: RT main effect||27.65|-127.65|.199
91795409|NCT02247531|183469194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.12||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|6.52|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA, and sex.||6.52|-6.28|0.9713
91795410|NCT02247531|183469194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.72||||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|4.63|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA, and sex.||4.63|-8.08|0.5945
91795411|NCT02247531|183469195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.22||||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.27|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.27|-0.83|0.2438
91795412|NCT02247531|183469195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.03||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|3.07|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.07|-1.01|0.3202
91695996|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.86|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.86|-1.20|0.3947
91795413|NCT02247531|183469196|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|2.64||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.14|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||5.14|0.14|0.0388
91865677|NCT05265065|183622081|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|16.1|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||16.1|-17.1|
91865678|NCT05265065|183622082|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.04|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||1.04|0.86|0.228
91695997|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|0.93|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.93|-1.18|0.4205
91695998|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.02|-2.02|0.0472
91695999|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.55|-0.6|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.60|-2.55|0.0044
91696000|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|-0.41|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.41|-2.32|0.0098
91696001|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|0.32|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.32|-1.71|0.1285
91696002|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.72|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.72|-1.27|0.3243
91795414|NCT02247531|183469196|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|2.2||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|4.68|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||4.68|-0.29|0.0833
91795415|NCT02247531|183469197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.04||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.91|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.91|-1.84|0.4795
91696003|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.82|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.82|-1.20|0.3795
91696004|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|0.72|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.72|-1.35|0.3070
91696005|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.22|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.22|-1.74|0.1014
91696006|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|-0.69|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.69|-2.75|0.0033
91696007|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|-0.17|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.17|-2.18|0.0280
91795416|NCT02247531|183469197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.6||||0.6822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|3.45|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.45|-2.26|0.6822
91795417|NCT02247531|183469198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.04||||0.5227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.14|-0.07|0.5227
91795418|NCT02247531|183469198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.02||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.13|-0.09|0.7475
91795419|NCT02247531|183469199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.049||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.252|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.252|-0.153|0.6333
91795420|NCT02247531|183469199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.025||||0.8105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.23|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.230|-0.180|0.8105
91726800|NCT01243424|183348533|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.47|-1.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline LDL cholesterol.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|LDL cholesterol, this was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||2.1|-1.3|0.6400
91726801|NCT01243424|183348533|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline HDL cholesterol.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|HDL cholesterol, this was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.0|0.0|0.0497
91726802|NCT01243424|183348533|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline total cholesterol.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|Total cholesterol, this was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.6|-2.4|0.6823
91726803|NCT01243424|183348534|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.7|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline FPG.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||2.7|-9.6|0.2678
91726804|NCT01243424|183348535|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline creatinine.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||0.01|-0.03|0.5165
91726805|NCT01243424|183348536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline eGFR.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.8|0.2|0.5165
91726806|NCT01243424|183348537|OTHER||geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|0.97||||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.03|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline UACR.|gMean ration= Linagliptin mean/ Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.03|0.91|0.2921
91726807|NCT01243424|183348539|EQUIVALENCE|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.13||||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.46|44.71|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effects of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline ISR.|Mean difference= Linagliptin mean- Glimepiride mean|||44.71|-36.46|0.8402
91726808|NCT01243424|183348540|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms for treatment as a fixed effect with Wald confidence Interval was used.|Linagliptin vs. Glimepiride odds is presented.|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.18|0.86|0.9112
91726809|NCT00710554|183348543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.34||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.11|||ANCOVA|||The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. Due to the low power of the test for interaction, the test was performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments.||0.11|-0.79|0.139
91726810|NCT00710554|183348544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.86||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|1.5|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean Neuropathic Pain Scale score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||1.50|-7.22|0.198
91726811|NCT00710554|183348545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.83||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||-0.23|-1.43|0.007
91795421|NCT02247531|183469199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.34||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.584|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.584|0.097|0.0063
91795422|NCT02247531|183469199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.182||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.422|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.422|-0.058|0.1359
91696008|NCT03850483|183286494|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-1.98|0.0781
91696009|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|9.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||9.1|-9.4|0.4216
91865679|NCT05265065|183622083|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||1.15|0.77|0.537
91696010|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|9.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||9.1|-9.4|0.4216
91696011|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||5.0|-12.5|0.7362
91696012|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|4.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||4.7|-12.5|0.7417
91696013|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|8.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||8.0|-5.9|0.5000
91696014|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|16.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||16.9|-0.8|0.0714
91696015|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|15.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||15.7|-1.1|0.0813
91696016|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|4.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.7|-12.5|0.7417
91696017|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|4.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.7|-12.5|0.7417
91696018|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.6|9.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||9.6|-9.6|0.5000
91696019|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|9.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||9.1|-9.4|0.4216
91696020|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|5.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||5.9|-9.4|0.6894
91865680|NCT05265065|183622083|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||1.11|0.89|0.922
91865681|NCT05265065|183622083|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.93|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||0.93|0.54|0.014
91696021|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|14.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||14.3|-4.2|0.2518
91696022|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|20.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||20.3|-0.3|0.0565
91696023|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.0|-11.0|0.4446
91696024|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|1.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||1.9|-16.5|0.9001
91696025|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.0|-11.0|0.5000
91696026|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.0|-11.0|0.4446
91696027|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||12.5|-10.5|0.5054
91696028|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|16.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||16.9|-8.2|0.3401
91696029|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|27.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||27.5|0.1|0.0489
91696030|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|8.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||8.4|-14.8|0.6349
91696031|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|4.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||4.4|-17.2|0.8253
91696032|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||12.5|-12.5|0.5000
91696033|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|19.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||19.1|-8.3|0.2709
91696034|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||12.5|-10.5|0.5054
91696035|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|9.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||9.3|-12.9|0.6319
91696036|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|18.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||18.1|-6.4|0.3199
91696037|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.7306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.1|6.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||6.1|-19.1|0.7306
91696038|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.7306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.1|6.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||6.1|-19.1|0.7306
91696039|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.6|2.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||2.7|-20.6|0.8808
91696040|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|13.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||13.7|-13.7|0.4644
91696041|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|20.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||20.9|-3.4|0.1534
91696042|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.4867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|11.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||11.4|-10.0|0.4867
91696043|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|25.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||25.9|0.4|0.0435
91795423|NCT01068652|183469262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The treatment comparison was based on a non-inferiority criterion and the following hypotheses were tested: H0: μDetemir - μBIAsp 30 ≥0.4% against the alternative hypothesis (Detemir non-inferior to BIAsp 30) HA: μDetemir - μBIAsp 30 \<0.4% where μBIAsp 30 and μDetemir are the mean HbA1c after 50 weeks of treatment with the two treatment regimens.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.3406||95.0|-0.12|0.34|||ANCOVA|||To investigate the effect of different treatments, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse HbA1c at week 50 with treatment group (2 categories: insulin detemir and aspart; BIAsp 30), country and pre-trial OAD(s) treatment (one OAD vs. more OADs) as factors and HbA1c at baseline (week 0) as a covariate. The treatment difference was estimated and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was calculated.||0.34|-0.12|0.3406
91795424|NCT03170232|183469279|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|159.7||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-400.6|266.2|||Repeated measures random coefficient|||||266.2|-400.6|0.679
91795425|NCT02537574|183469301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.70|0.61|0.940
91795426|NCT02537574|183469301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.48|0.383
91795427|NCT01593722|183469309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91795428|NCT05014490|183469387|EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. The level of significance was set to the standard value of 5% (0.05) for all statistical tests.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|110.37|||||The ratio of geometric LSmeans with corresponding 90% CI calculated from the exponential of the difference between the test and reference products for the ln-transformed parameters should be within the acceptance interval of 80.00 - 125.00%.|||110.37|94.54|
91795429|NCT05014490|183469388|EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. The level of significance was set to the standard value of 5% (0.05) for all statistical tests.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.97|101.54|||||The ratio of geometric LSmeans with corresponding 90% CI calculated from the exponential of the difference between the test and reference products for the ln-transformed parameters should be within the acceptance interval of 80.00 - 125.00%.|||101.54|96.97|
91795430|NCT02017171|183469400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9||p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|linear model for correlated errors||Treatment difference = Allopurinol-Placebo|||1.9|-1.9|0.999
91795431|NCT02017171|183469401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values. The confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo|||2.2|-1.6|
91795432|NCT02017171|183469402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values. The confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo|||2.3|-1.7|
91795433|NCT02017171|183469403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||0.4|-1.5|
91795434|NCT02017171|183469404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||0.5|-1.0|
91795435|NCT02017171|183469405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Hazard ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||2.9|0.5|
91865682|NCT04778410|183622101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1794|||||||One Group Chi-Square test|The p-value was based on one group Chi-Square test for the null hypothesis CR rate was 0.19 at one-sided alpha of 0.1 in Cohort 2.||||||0.1794
91865683|NCT04084574|183622154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|6.9||The threshold for statistical significance is p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference in mean blood pressure change from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||6.9|-16.8|0.3968
91696044|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|8.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||8.4|-14.8|0.6349
91696045|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||12.5|-12.6|0.4565
91795436|NCT02017171|183469406|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||1.8|1.0|
91795437|NCT02017171|183469407|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||||Ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|1.6|1.0|
91865684|NCT04084574|183622155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.07926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||0.44|-0.33|0.07926
91696046|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||12.5|-12.5|0.5000
91696047|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||21.8|-5.7|0.1765
91696048|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|15.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||15.2|-14.0|0.5013
91726812|NCT00710554|183348546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.08||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.68|||ANCOVA|||The change in the dynamic allodynia pain score from baseline to the end of treatment was analysed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and country and treatment group as factors.||0.68|-0.52|0.795
91865685|NCT04084574|183622157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.3||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|58.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||58.6|-34.2|0.0673
91865686|NCT04084574|183622158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|189.3||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.8|136.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||136.4|-157.8|0.8821
91904429|NCT02807480|183703961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|93.87||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|236.88|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PSWQ score: treatment x RT interaction||236.88|-4.14|.191
91795438|NCT02017171|183469408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Hazard Ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||4.5|0.8|
91865687|NCT04084574|183622159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.6479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||3.1|-2.0|0.6479
91865688|NCT04084574|183622160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.8||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|24.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference in mean blood pressure change from baseline for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||24.0|-10.0|0.4044
91904430|NCT02807480|183703961|OTHER||Slope|27.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|50.26|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PSWQ trajectory: striatum main effect||50.26|4.45|0.021
91904431|NCT02807480|183703961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.47||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.94|27.0|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment x striatum interaction effects||27.00|-37.94|.734
91696049|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.8||||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.7|5.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||5.9|-20.7|0.7969
91696050|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.4|10.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||10.6|-16.4|0.6424
91696051|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|23.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||23.6|-0.7|0.0620
91696052|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|13.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||13.4|-7.0|0.3402
91696053|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|17.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||17.6|-4.5|0.1743
91696054|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|23.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||23.6|-0.7|0.0620
91696055|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.3534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|15.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||15.4|-7.8|0.3534
91696056|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.2508|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|18.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||18.8|-5.5|0.2508
91696057|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|13.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||13.6|-8.2|0.4238
91696058|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.2696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|19.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||19.3|-6.2|0.2696
91696059|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|15.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||15.3|-8.6|0.3648
91696060|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.7||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|22.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||22.2|-3.8|0.1267
91696061|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|24.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||24.4|-2.5|0.0832
91696062|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.2099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||21.3|-5.7|0.2099
91696063|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|17.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||17.4|-8.0|0.3474
91696064|NCT03850483|183286498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|21.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||21.6|-4.0|0.2124
91696065|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|27.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||27.9|-0.3|0.0544
91696066|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|19.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||19.6|-6.3|0.2697
91696067|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|31.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||31.0|2.0|0.0286
91696068|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|20.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||20.8|-4.7|0.1512
91696069|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.9|7.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||7.4|-21.9|0.7900
91696070|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|24.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||24.0|-8.5|0.3137
91696071|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|22.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||22.6|-10.9|0.3789
91696072|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|28.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||28.5|-1.0|0.0636
91696073|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.1435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|24.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||24.5|-4.9|0.1435
91696074|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.9|42.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||42.4|8.9|0.0058
91696075|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|38.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||38.9|6.5|0.0112
91696076|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|21.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||21.3|-10.8|0.3349
91696077|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|27.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||27.7|-6.1|0.2065
91865689|NCT04084574|183622161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.91||0.2374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|3.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.60|-0.97|0.2374
91865690|NCT04084574|183622162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.62||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.71|8.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from 12 weeks to 24 weeks for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||8.33|-13.71|0.6188
91865691|NCT04084574|183622163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from 12 weeks to 24 weeks for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||0.03|-2.82|0.0546
91865692|NCT04084574|183622164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from 12 weeks to 24 weeks for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||0.98|-0.98|1.00
91865693|NCT04084574|183622165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.49|-0.89|1.00
91696078|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|29.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||29.1|-5.6|0.1871
91795439|NCT00945854|183469411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91865694|NCT01385202|183622187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Primary effectiveness rate|70.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|78.4||In the worst-case scenario analysis, over seventy-percent (70.2%, 80/114) of the primary effectiveness cohort (PEC) were free from documented symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias during their effectiveness evaluation period.|Fisher Exact|The lower bound of the 95% confidence intervals was 60.9%, significantly higher than the pre-determined performance goal of 50% (p\<0.0001).|The confidence intervals above are the 95% exact binomial confidence intervals.|The null hypothesis was that the rate of freedom from documented symptomatic AF/AFL/AT at 12 months would be less than or equal to the pre-determined performance criterion of 50%. The alternative hypothesis was that the rate of freedom from documented symptomatic AF/AFL/AT at 12 months would be greater than the pre-determined performance criterion of 50%.||78.4|60.9|<0.0001
91865695|NCT01385202|183622187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Primary effectiveness rate|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|82.0|||||The 95% confidence intervals above were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method.|||82|66|
91865696|NCT04068792|183622196|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.467|2.416||||||||2.416|-4.467|
91865697|NCT04214834|183622238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Given that the model was on the log scale, mean difference and 95% confidence interval were derived from 1,000 bootstrap resamples.|A logarithmic transformation was applied to the outcome, centers were added as random effects to account for variation between them.||4.29|1.70|<0.001
91865698|NCT04967599|183622248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.81
91865699|NCT04967599|183622249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.46
91696079|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|31.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||31.4|-4.9|0.1245
91865700|NCT04967599|183622250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.49
91865701|NCT04967599|183622251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.59
91865702|NCT04967599|183622252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.29
91865703|NCT04967599|183622253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.49
91865704|NCT02510235|183622319|NON_INFERIORITY|"To declare non-inferiority between treatments, a change in the SANDE overall score of 12 mm was required, with an estimated standard deviation of 13 (approximately 70% of the mean at 28 ± 4 days after treatment).~The left inferior limits of confidence interval were determined and compared with the non-inferiority limit defined in the testing hypothesis.~Testing Hypothesis:~H0: meanHyaluronic - meanLubricin ≤ - 12~/ H1: meanHyaluronic - meanLubricin \> - 12"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.87||||Student t-test for unpaired data.|||Values at Day 28 ± 4 (end of treatment) for the SANDE overall VAS score were compared between treatment groups using a Student's t-test for unpaired data.|||-8.87|
91795440|NCT04437368|183469455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2838|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.195|0.777|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.777|-0.195|
91865705|NCT02510235|183622321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.8226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|6.11|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score||Foreign Body Sensation in the Study Eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||6.11|-7.66|0.8226
91696080|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|33.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||33.7|-4.7|0.1280
91795441|NCT04437368|183469455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2843|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.206|0.769|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.769|-0.206|
91696081|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.4|50.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||50.5|12.4|0.0030
91696082|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|40.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||40.6|3.1|0.0235
91696083|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|24.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||24.1|-13.6|0.3728
91795442|NCT04437368|183469455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.017|1.299|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||1.299|0.017|
91795443|NCT04437368|183469455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3791|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.189|1.49|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||1.490|0.189|
91865706|NCT02510235|183622321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|9.44|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Burning/Stinging in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||9.44|-3.13|0.3178
91795444|NCT04437368|183469455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4954|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.177|1.512|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||1.512|-0.177|
91795445|NCT04437368|183469455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4887|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.078|1.746|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||1.746|0.078|
91696084|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.0|43.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||43.6|4.0|0.0153
91696085|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.2543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|27.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||27.8|-8.8|0.2543
91696086|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|26.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||26.4|-10.2|0.2785
91696087|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.1434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|33.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||33.7|-7.4|0.1434
91696088|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.1||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.8|54.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||54.1|12.8|0.0015
91696089|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|43.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||43.9|3.4|0.0242
91696090|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.1||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|54.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||54.1|10.0|0.0037
91696091|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|36.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||36.7|-4.9|0.1037
91696092|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|22.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||22.5|-17.7|0.4607
91696093|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|31.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||31.9|-8.0|0.1725
91726813|NCT00710554|183348547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.14||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09|||ANCOVA|||The change in the punctate allodynia pain threshold force from baseline to the end of treatment was analysed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and country and treatment group as factors.||0.09|-0.37|0.233
91726814|NCT00710554|183348548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.762||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||The two treatment groups were compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The initial model incorporated treatment and centre group as factors. The odds ratio together with its 95% CI and associated p-value are presented.||2.88|1.08|0.023
91726815|NCT00710554|183348549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.25||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.21|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean Brief Pain Inventory (short form) score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.21|-0.72|0.288
91696094|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|43.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||43.6|0.2|0.0451
91795446|NCT04437368|183469455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.976|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4813|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.803|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||1.803|0.150|
91795447|NCT04437368|183469455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4573|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|2.022|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||2.022|0.445|
91795448|NCT04437368|183469456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2808|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.441|3.979|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||3.979|-0.441|
91696095|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.3|62.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||62.9|21.3|0.0003
91696096|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|47.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||47.6|3.8|0.0239
91696097|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.8||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|41.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||41.2|-2.1|0.0643
91696098|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.6676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|15.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||15.9|-25.9|0.6676
91696099|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|37.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||37.8|-4.2|0.0898
91696100|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|32.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||32.9|-10.1|0.2707
91696101|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|31.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||31.0|-14.2|0.2981
91696102|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.0|51.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||51.4|8.0|0.0110
91696103|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.1|53.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||53.2|9.1|0.0083
91696104|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|27.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||27.5|-18.3|0.4217
91696105|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.5152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|23.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||23.2|-20.8|0.5152
91696106|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.7002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.1|11.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||11.7|-33.1|0.7002
91696107|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.6||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|47.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||47.9|5.2|0.0169
91696108|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.9||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|46.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||46.2|3.2|0.0283
91696109|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.3|57.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||57.1|14.3|0.0020
91696110|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|51.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||51.5|8.4|0.0095
91696111|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0||||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|42.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||42.6|-2.7|0.0798
91696112|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|31.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||31.8|-11.3|0.2848
91696113|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.5062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|23.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||23.1|-21.1|0.5062
91696114|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.9||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.7|55.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||55.3|16.7|0.0012
91795449|NCT04437368|183469456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2349|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.863|3.412|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||3.412|-0.863|
91696115|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.3|57.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||57.4|17.3|0.0007
91696116|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|47.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.6|65.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||65.1|24.6|0.0001
91904432|NCT02807480|183703961|OTHER||Slope|-9.79||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.11|6.53|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: amygdala main effect||6.53|-26.11|.231
91696117|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.9||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.5|48.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||48.7|9.5|0.0039
91696118|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.3895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|26.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||26.5|-17.5|0.3895
91696119|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1||||0.2793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|31.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||31.8|-11.8|0.2793
91696120|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.5||||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.4|12.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||12.2|-28.4|0.7027
91696121|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.4|55.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||55.2|15.4|0.0009
91696122|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.1|43.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||43.2|4.1|0.0205
91696123|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.6|65.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||65.7|24.6|0.0001
91696124|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.5|62.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||62.9|21.5|0.0002
91696125|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.5||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.3|3.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||3.2|-38.3|0.9209
91696126|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.9||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.4|8.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||8.7|-34.4|0.7930
91696127|NCT03850483|183286499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.1||||0.6156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.0|20.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||20.1|-28.0|0.6156
91696128|NCT01222520|183286531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|9.14|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.09|11.18|||ANCOVA|||||11.18|7.09|<0.0001
91696129|NCT01222520|183286532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|14.88|||<|0.0001||95.0|11.82|17.94|||ANCOVA|||||17.94|11.82|<0.0001
91696130|NCT01222520|183286533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91696131|NCT01222520|183286534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91795450|NCT04437368|183469456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4177|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.386|4.468|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||4.468|-0.386|
91696132|NCT01222520|183286535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91696133|NCT01222520|183286536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91696134|NCT01222520|183286537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91696135|NCT04081610|183286549|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. through the incidence of AD.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.409|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
91696136|NCT04081610|183286550|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the tolerability of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit-dose manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. using the ICO score.||||||0.442|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.442
91696137|NCT04081610|183286550|EQUIVALENCE|F=2.606, 15.926||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Final vs initial Eye Comfort Index||||0.009
91696138|NCT04081610|183286550|EQUIVALENCE|F=3.051, 19.336||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Final vs initial Eye Comfort Index||||0.002
91696139|NCT04081610|183286551|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. through changes in BCVA.||||||0.904|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.904
91696140|NCT04081610|183286551|EQUIVALENCE|F=-1.414, 1.061||||||0.157|||||||Sign test|||Final vs initial VA||||0.157
91696141|NCT04081610|183286551|EQUIVALENCE|||||||1|||||||Sign test|||Final vs initial VA||||1.000
91696142|NCT04081610|183286552|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. by changes in corneal and conjunctival staining with fluorescein.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91696143|NCT04081610|183286552|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (2)= 6.400||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||Final vs initial fluorescein staining||||0.041
91696144|NCT04081610|183286552|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (2)=0.814||||||0.665|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.665
91696145|NCT04081610|183286553|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. by changes of corneal and conjunctival staining with lysamine green.||||||0.713|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.713
91696146|NCT04081610|183286553|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (3)=14.345||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||Final vs initial lissamine green staining||||0.002
91696147|NCT04081610|183286553|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (2)=0.506||||||0.777|||||||Chi-squared|||Final vs initial lissamine green staining||||0.777
91696148|NCT04081610|183286554|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. by changes in conjunctival hyperemia.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
91696149|NCT04081610|183286554|EQUIVALENCE|F=4.167, 1||||||0.031|||||||Fisher Exact|||Final vs initial conjunctival hyperemia||||0.031
91696150|NCT04081610|183286554|EQUIVALENCE|No significant change was observed.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Final vs initial conjunctival hyperemia||||1.000
91904433|NCT02807480|183703961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.55||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.48|41.58|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment amygdala interaction||41.58|-24.48|.602
91904434|NCT02807480|183703961|OTHER||Slope|-19.29||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.07|23.68|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: dlPFC main effect||23.68|-62.07|.369
91726816|NCT00710554|183348550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.01||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean EuroQol-5D score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre groups as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.04|-0.06|0.617
91726817|NCT00710554|183348551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.459||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|4.09|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean EuroQol-5D score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre groups as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||4.09|-5.60|0.76
91726818|NCT00710554|183348552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.38||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.09|||ANCOVA|||The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an ANCOVA with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments.||0.09|-0.85|0.112
91726819|NCT00292370|183348577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91726820|NCT03737032|183348597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-TBS dmPFC activation will not vary by TBS condition. This is tested using the main effect of condition in a repeated measures model.||||0.80
91726821|NCT03737032|183348598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with time (pre or post), condition (cTBS, iTBS, sham TBS), and time\*condition effects.||Null hypothesis: pre-post change in positive affect will not vary by TBS condition. This is tested using the interaction of time\*condition in a repeated measures model.||||0.23
91726822|NCT03737032|183348599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-TBS functional connectivity between the dmPFC and ventral striatum (VS) will not vary by TBS condition. This is tested using the main effect of condition in a repeated measures model.||||0.84
91726823|NCT01368185|183348605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% change SUA from baseline|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Percent change of month 3 SUA minus baseline SUA.|Comparison between Month 3 and Baseline||||<0.01
91726824|NCT01368185|183348606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.0001
91726825|NCT01368185|183348607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% change DBP from Baseline|-7.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Percent change of month 3 DBP minus baseline DBP (n=1239).|Comparison between Month 3 and Baseline||||<0.01
91726826|NCT01368185|183348608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% change SBP from Baseline|-9.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Percent change of month 3 SBP minus baseline SBP (n=1245).|Comparison between Month 3 and Baseline||||<0.01
91726827|NCT04535362|183348614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.93
91726828|NCT04535362|183348615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.68
91726829|NCT04535362|183348617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.37
91726830|NCT04535362|183348618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.20
91795451|NCT04437368|183469456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3857|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.099|3.655|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||3.655|-1.099|
91795452|NCT04437368|183469462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|8.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||8.1|-10.3|
91795453|NCT04437368|183469462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.3|3.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||3.7|-16.3|
91696151|NCT00497289|183286560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3654|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3654
91696152|NCT00497289|183286561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0264
91696153|NCT04606394|183286562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Data outcome reported was the number and percentage of subject test days with DPI Failure in subjects in suboptimal PIF (\<60 L/min) versus normal PIF subjects. Statistical analysis performed was a comparison between rates of DPI Failure in the 2 groups.||||0.33
91696154|NCT04606394|183286563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Data outcome reported was the number and percentage of subject test days with DPI Failure in subjects in suboptimal PIF (\<60 L/min) versus normal PIF subjects. Statistical analysis performed was a comparison between rates of DPI Failure in the 2 groups.||||0.04
91696155|NCT02920008|183286591|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3287|||||||Stratified log-rank|||||||= 0.3287
91696156|NCT03852264|183286630|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|6.38|||||Contrast reflecting Pet Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||6.38|-1.29|
91726831|NCT02421510|183348626|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.25||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.48|< 0.001
91726832|NCT02421510|183348626|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.24||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline A1C- by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.47|< 0.001
91760021|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.2||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.20|-0.59|
91904435|NCT02807480|183703961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|9.12||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.05|54.29|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment x dlPFC interaction||54.29|-36.05|.684
91696157|NCT03852264|183286630|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|5.45|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||5.45|-2.18|
91696158|NCT03852264|183286630|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.93|2.83|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Pet Dog Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||2.83|-4.93|
91696159|NCT03852264|183286631|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3482|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.476|1.211|||||Contrast reflecting Pet Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||1.211|-0.476|
91696160|NCT03852264|183286631|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0635|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.931|0.803|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||0.803|-0.931|
91696161|NCT03852264|183286631|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.319|0.445|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Pet Dog Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||0.445|-1.319|
91696162|NCT03852264|183286632|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-101.0|99.5|||||Contrast reflecting Pet Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||99.5|-101|
91696163|NCT03852264|183286632|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-225.0|-15.5|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||-15.5|-225|
91696164|NCT03852264|183286632|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-115.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-223.0|-16.2|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Pet Dog Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||-16.2|-223|
91696165|NCT02411396|183286641|OTHER|In order to eliminate bias from the naïve estimation on the treatment effects due to the confounders, time varying propensity score model was developed. This balanced the covariates between the two arms at each single acute visit of each patient. A sub classification on the propensity scores was used to estimate the potential outcome for each arm and the average treatment effects (ATE). Bootstrapping was employed to estimate the standard error of ATE.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|124.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|118.3|130.9||||||This analysis is to compare outcome measure between ED or IC visits by using time varying propensity score method developed by our group to adjust imbalance of covariates between the two arms. Each patient can have multiple visits to the facility of choice.||130.9|118.3|
91696166|NCT02411396|183286642|OTHER|In order to eliminate bias from the naïve estimation on the treatment effects due to the confounders, time varying propensity score model was developed. This balanced the covariates between the two arms at each single acute visit of each patient. A sub classification on the propensity scores was used to estimate the potential outcome for each arm and the average treatment effects (ATE). Bootstrapping was employed to estimate the standard error of ATE.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|6.41|||||VOC in patients with SCD whom went to EDs represents the numerator, VOC in patients with SCD whom went to ICs represents the denominator for Odds Ratio.|||6.41|4.13|
91696167|NCT02411396|183286643|OTHER|In order to eliminate bias from the naïve estimation on the treatment effects due to the confounders, time varying propensity score model was developed. This balanced the covariates between the two arms at each single acute visit of each patient. A sub classification on the propensity scores was used to estimate the potential outcome for each arm and the average treatment effects (ATE). Bootstrapping was employed to estimate the standard error of ATE.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.72|||||VOC in patients with SCD whom went to ICs represents the numerator, VOC in patients with SCD whom went to EDs represents the denominator for Odds Ratio.|||2.72|1.84|
91696168|NCT01631149|183286646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The individual scores obtained during surgery were averaged.~The average values were compared using a t-test between treatments."||||<0.001
91760022|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.12|-0.51|
91726833|NCT02421510|183348627|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Percentage difference|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|23.43||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|P-values were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the different levels of the randomization stratification factors of insulin delivery method (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<=8.5%, \>8.5%). The 95% Confidence Limits (CL) were calculated using asymptotic Wald method. Only positively adjudicated severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were included in the analysis.||23.43|9.17|< 0.001
91726834|NCT02421510|183348627|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Percentage difference|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.06|24.35||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|P-values were obtained from a CMH test stratified by the different levels of the randomization stratification factors of insulin delivery method (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%). The 95% CL were calculated using asymptotic Wald method.||24.35|10.06|< 0.001
91726835|NCT02421510|183348628|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.44||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects.||-1.44|-2.53|< 0.001
91760023|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.16|-0.55|
91865707|NCT02510235|183622321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.52||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|11.3|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Itching in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||11.30|1.74|0.0085
91865708|NCT02510235|183622321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41||||0.3124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|10.13|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Pain in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||10.13|-3.31|0.3124
91865709|NCT02510235|183622321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.76||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|13.12|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Sticky feeling in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||13.12|0.40|0.0377
91865710|NCT02510235|183622321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|8.83|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Blurred vision in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||8.83|-4.62|0.5321
91865711|NCT02510235|183622321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|10.68|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Photophobia in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||10.68|-6.04|0.5790
91865712|NCT02510235|183622321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.13||||0.3383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.41|49.68|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Total ocular tolerability score in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||49.68|-17.41|0.3383
91865713|NCT02510235|183622322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.6484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.19|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study Eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||3.19|-5.07|0.6484
91726836|NCT02421510|183348628|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-2.04|||MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects.||-2.04|-3.12|< 0.001
91726837|NCT02421510|183348629|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.847|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-1.53||Threshold for significance \<=0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline mean daily bolus insulin dose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-1.53|-4.86|< 0.001
91726838|NCT02421510|183348629|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|-1.93||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline mean daily bolus insulin dose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-1.93|-5.25|< 0.001
91726839|NCT02421510|183348630|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-11.0||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-11|-32.2|< 0.001
91726840|NCT02421510|183348630|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-15.1||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-15.1|-36.2|< 0.001
91726841|NCT02421510|183348631|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.7||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DTSQs total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||2.7|1.3|< 0.001
91726842|NCT02421510|183348631|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DTSQs total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||2.4|1|< 0.001
91726843|NCT02421510|183348632|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DDS2 total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||0|-0.6|0.025
91726844|NCT02421510|183348632|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<=8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DDS2 total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.2|-0.7|0.003
91865714|NCT02510235|183622323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.51|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study Eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.51|-0.71|0.7408
91726845|NCT03203512|183348634|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment effect: p\<0.001; period effect : p=0.552; treatment x period interaction: p=0.622|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total EV numbers detected by NTA between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total EV numbers.||||<0.001
91726846|NCT03203512|183348635|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Treatment: p=0.001; period: p=0.646; treatment x period interaction: p=0.267|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total PS+EV numbers detected by FCM between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total PS+EV numbers.||||=0.001
91726847|NCT03203512|183348636|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Treatment: p=0.002; period: p=0.350; treatment x period interaction: p=0.572|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of PDEV numbers detected by FCM between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on PDEV numbers.||||=0.002
91795454|NCT04437368|183469462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|4.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||4.1|-14.5|
91696169|NCT02016105|183286663|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted response rates were estimated using a logistic regression model including treatment, body weight strata, region and prior systemic therapy. The 95% CI for the rate difference was derived based on the normal approximation and standard error computed using the delta method.To conclude equivalent efficacy, the 95% CI had to be entirely within the interval \[-18%, 18%\].|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|11.15||||||||11.15|-7.46|
91696170|NCT02016105|183286664|EQUIVALENCE|"LS means, SE and 95% CI were estimated by a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, body weight strata, region and prior systemic therapy, as fixed factors and baseline PASI score as covariate.~Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2017 and Humira treatment was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\]."|LS means difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|4.84||||||||4.84|-3.15|
91696171|NCT02016105|183286665|EQUIVALENCE|LSM, SE and 95% CI were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, body weight strata, region and prior systemic therapy as fixed effects and baseline PASI score as covariate. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2017 and Humira was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\].|LS means difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|5.08||||||||5.08|-2.78|
91696172|NCT03521115|183286700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|b=-.91, controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.01
91696173|NCT03521115|183286700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.10
91696174|NCT03521115|183286700|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|5.129||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||.077
91696175|NCT03521115|183286701|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.001
91696176|NCT03521115|183286701|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controlled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.01
91760024|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.01||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.01|-0.38|
91726848|NCT03203512|183348636|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EDEV numbers detected by FCM between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EDEV numbers.|||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.362; treatment x period interaction: p=0.225|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91726849|NCT03203512|183348637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.010; treatment x period: p=0.608|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting lag time for TF-dependent thrombin generation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
91726850|NCT03203512|183348638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.073; treatment x period: p=0.667|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting TF-dependent thrombin peak concentration between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
91726851|NCT03203512|183348639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.138; treatment x period: p=0.872|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting the time to reach peak TF-dependent thrombin concentration between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
91726852|NCT03203512|183348640|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.015||||||Treatment: p=0.015; period: p=0.059; treatment x period: p=0.220|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting TF-dependent velocity index between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||=0.015
91726853|NCT03203512|183348641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.118; treatment x period: p=0.802|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting TF-dependent endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
91904436|NCT02807480|183703961|OTHER||Slope|9.6||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|37.59|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ cores over the 10 sessions: Behavior\_change main effect||37.59|-18.39|.487
91726854|NCT03203512|183348642|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to ADP between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
91726855|NCT03203512|183348642|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to epinephrine between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
91726856|NCT03203512|183348642|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to TRAP-6 between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
91795455|NCT04437368|183469462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.7|-1.6|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||-1.6|-21.7|
91726857|NCT03203512|183348642|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to U46619 between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
91795456|NCT04437368|183469462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.4|0.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||0.5|-18.4|
91726858|NCT03203512|183348643|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to CRP-XL between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
91726859|NCT03203512|183348644|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs in affecting endpoint for ex vivo thrombus formation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on the pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs.||||>0.05
91726860|NCT03203512|183348644|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs in affectingamximum for ex vivo thrombus formation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on the pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs.||||>0.05
91795457|NCT04437368|183469462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.1|-1.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||-1.7|-22.1|
91795458|NCT04437368|183469462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|6.9|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||6.9|-12.7|
91795459|NCT04437368|183469462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|2.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||2.7|-17.9|
91904437|NCT02807480|183703961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-46.34||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.5|-4.18|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||-4.18|-88.5|.033
91904438|NCT02807480|183703961|OTHER||Slope|39.53||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.2|173.85|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: RT\_change main effect||173.85|-94.2|.546
91726861|NCT03203512|183348645|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs in affecting area under curve for ex vivo thrombus formation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on the pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs.||||>0.05
91726862|NCT03203512|183348646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: \<0.001; period: p=0.978; treatment x period interaction: p=0.140|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EPA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EPA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
91726863|NCT03203512|183348646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.699; treatment x period interaction: p=0.114|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DHA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DHA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
91726864|NCT03203512|183348646|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011||||||Treatment: p=0.011; period: p=0.381; treatment x period interaction: p=0.762|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of oleic acid in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on oleic acid in circulating EV total lipids.||||=0.011
91726865|NCT03203512|183348646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.512; treatment x period interaction: p=0.812|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on AA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
91726866|NCT03203512|183348646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.160; treatment x period interaction: p=0.132|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total n-3 PUFA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total n-3 PUFA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
91726867|NCT03203512|183348646|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013||||||Treatment: p=0.013; period: p=0.500; treatment x period interaction: p=0.522|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total MUFA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total MUFA in circulating EV total lipids.||||=0.013
91726868|NCT03203512|183348647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.169; treatment x period interaction: p=0.629|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EPA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EPA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91726869|NCT03203512|183348647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.262; treatment x period interaction: p=0.150|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DHA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DHA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91726870|NCT03203512|183348647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.302; treatment x period interaction: p=0.385|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DPA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DPA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91726871|NCT03203512|183348647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.793; treatment x period interaction: p=0.522|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of linoleic acid in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on linoleic acid in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91726872|NCT03203512|183348647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.956; treatment x period interaction: p=0.238|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of dihomo-γ-linolenic acid (DGLA) in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DGLA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91726873|NCT03203512|183348647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.457; treatment x period interaction: p=0.613|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on AA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91726874|NCT03203512|183348647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.134; treatment x period interaction: p=0.260|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total n-3 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total n-3 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91795460|NCT04437368|183469462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|12.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||12.5|-7.4|
91795461|NCT04437368|183469462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|9.6|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||9.6|-11.1|
91795462|NCT04437368|183469462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|11.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||11.5|-8.7|
91795463|NCT04437368|183469462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.8|7.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||7.8|-13.8|
91865715|NCT02510235|183622324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.8596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.87|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study Eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.87|-0.78|0.8596
91865716|NCT02510235|183622325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.2|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Eyelid - Meibomian glands in Study eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.20|-0.16|0.7891
91865717|NCT02510235|183622325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.14|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Eyelid - Erythema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.14|-0.24|0.6075
91865718|NCT02510235|183622325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.6639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Eyelid - Oedema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.21|-0.14|0.6639
91865719|NCT02510235|183622325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Conjunctiva - Erythema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value is not duplicated or triplicated, reflecting the global outcome consistent with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.29|-0.10|0.3482
91865720|NCT02510235|183622325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Conjunctiva - Oedema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline (Visit 2 - Day 1) across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.09|-0.34|0.2422
91726875|NCT03203512|183348647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.917; treatment x period interaction: p=0.603|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total n-6 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total n-6 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91726876|NCT03203512|183348648|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016||||||Treatment: p=0.016; period: p=0.566; treatment x period interaction: p=0.659|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma TAG between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma TAG.||||=0.016
91795464|NCT00495131|183469485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference between 2 groups SVR estimation: 24 weeks (60%), 48 weeks (75%) alfa erros: 0.05, power: 0.80||||< 0.001
91865721|NCT02510235|183622325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.14|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Lens in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.14|-0.11|0.8645
91795465|NCT01539317|183469538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phase II: During Blinded 4 weeks||||0.0149
91865722|NCT02510235|183622325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Cornea transparency in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.04|-0.11|0.3790
91904439|NCT02807480|183703961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-89.96||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-327.39|147.67|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x RT\_change interaction||147.67|-327.39|.443
91795466|NCT01539317|183469538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phase III||||0.412
91795467|NCT01539317|183469539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Desire||||0.66
91795468|NCT01539317|183469539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arousal (S)||||0.11
91726877|NCT03203512|183348648|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.014||||||Treatment: p=0.014; period: p=0.842; treatment x period interaction: p=0.943|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma LDL-C between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma LDL-C.||||=0.014
91726878|NCT03203512|183348648|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.077||||||Treatment: p=0.077; period: p=0.921; treatment x period interaction: p=0.793|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma TC between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma TC.||||=0.077
91726879|NCT03203512|183348648|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.379||||||Treatment: p=0.379; period: p=0.938; treatment x period interaction: p=0.341|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma HDL-C between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma HDL-C.||||=0.379
91726880|NCT03203512|183348649|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.285||||||Treatment: p=0.285; period: p=0.954; treatment x period interaction: p=0.528|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma TC/HDL-C ratio between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma TC/HDL-C ratio.||||=0.285
91726881|NCT03203512|183348650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period effect: p=0.011; treatment x period interaction: p=0.033|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of SBP between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on SBP.||||<0.001
91726882|NCT03203512|183348650|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Treatment: p=0.002; period: p=0.952; treatment x period interaction: p=0.114|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBP between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DBP.||||=0.002
91726883|NCT04098302|183348663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
91795469|NCT01539317|183469539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arousal (L)||||0.15
91726884|NCT04098302|183348664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
91726885|NCT04098302|183348665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91795470|NCT01539317|183469539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arousal (C)||||0.28
91726886|NCT04098302|183348666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
91726887|NCT05061706|183348667|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|-3.02|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.02|-6.03|<0.0001
91726888|NCT05061706|183348668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.33|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.33|-0.72|<0.0001
91726889|NCT00191152|183348669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.145
91726890|NCT00191152|183348670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.361
91726891|NCT00191152|183348671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.145
91795471|NCT01539317|183469539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Orgasm||||0.07
91795472|NCT01539317|183469539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain||||0.004
91726892|NCT00191152|183348672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.385
91726893|NCT00191152|183348673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.377
91726894|NCT00191152|183348674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.446
91726895|NCT00191152|183348675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.785
91726896|NCT00191152|183348676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.364
91726897|NCT00191152|183348677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.446
91726898|NCT00191152|183348678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.990
91726899|NCT00191152|183348679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.117
91726900|NCT00191152|183348680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.801||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.801
91726901|NCT00191152|183348681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.190
91726902|NCT00114777|183348682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-7.2|9.4|||||The treatment differences between each belatacept treatment group and cyclosporin group was tested at the 0.027 significance level for participant and graft survival (based on 10% non-inferiority margin).|||9.4|-7.2|
91726903|NCT00114777|183348682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.0|11.4|||||The treatment differences between each belatacept treatment group and cyclosporin group was tested at the 0.027 significance level for participant and graft survival (based on 10% non-inferiority margin).|||11.4|-5.0|
91726904|NCT00114777|183348683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|-14.4||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-24.0|-4.7|||Chi-squared||A continuity-corrected chi-squared test at the significance level 0.027 was performed to assess the effect of each belatacept regimen compared with cyclosporin A.|||-4.7|-24|0.0018
91726905|NCT00114777|183348683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|-8.5||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-18.0|0.9|||Chi-squared||A continuity-corrected chi-squared test at the significance level 0.027 was performed to assess the effect of each belatacept regimen compared with cyclosporin A.|||0.9|-18|0.0616
91795473|NCT01539317|183469539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Enjoyment||||0.54
91795474|NCT01539317|183469539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Partner||||0.92
91795475|NCT01539317|183469540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Each of 8 site comparisons had its own P-value and a value of \<0.001 was the difference at the most tender sites|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91795476|NCT00364130|183469569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.38
91795477|NCT00364130|183469570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
91865723|NCT02510235|183622326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.21|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.21|-0.26|0.8363
91865724|NCT02510235|183622327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.02|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline (Visit 2 - Day 1) across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||1.02|-0.62|0.6248
91865725|NCT02510235|183622328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.6153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.49|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline (Visit 2 - Day 1) across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.49|-0.82|0.6153
91888745|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.05|0.3400
91726906|NCT01181128|183348719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.13|||negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is no difference between the individualized (tailored) prophylaxis regimen and the on-demand regimen. The sample size of this study was mainly based on clinical rather than statistical considerations. However it was projected to have \> 90% power at the 2-sided 0.05 level of significance to detect a 60% reduction in annualized bleeding episodes, based upon this hypothesis test.||0.13|0.05|<0.001
91726907|NCT01181128|183348725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.46|||negative binomial model|||||0.46|0.12|<0.001
91726908|NCT04477486|183348758|SUPERIORITY|Comparing against a historical reference of 12.5% CRR.|||||<|0.001|||||||Exact Binomial Distribution|||||||<0.001
91726909|NCT01543503|183348772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.851|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.112|-0.589|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor: Analysis is based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline in DAS28-ESR at 24 weeks as dependent variable; therapy, site country, and treatment as fixed effects; DAS28-ESR at baseline as covariates.||-0.589|-1.112|<0.001
91726910|NCT01543503|183348773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|-0.617|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in DAS28-ESR as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; DAS28-ESR at baseline as covariates.||-0.617|-1.204|<0.001
91726911|NCT01543503|183348774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.513|-10.947|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for ESR at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in ESR as a dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; ESR at baseline as the covariate.||-10.947|-15.513|<0.001
91726912|NCT01543503|183348774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.648|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.419|-9.876|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for ESR at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in ESR, as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; ESR at baseline as the covariate.||-9.876|-15.419|<0.001
91726913|NCT01543503|183348775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.673|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.271|-3.074|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CRP at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in CRP as a dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CRP at baseline as the covariate.||-3.074|-10.271|<0.001
91726914|NCT01543503|183348775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.116||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.074|3.842|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CRP at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in CRP as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CRP at baseline as the covariate.||3.842|-6.074|0.659
91726915|NCT01543503|183348776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.576||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.078|-0.075|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SJC at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in SJC as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SJC at baseline as the covariate.||-0.075|-1.078|0.024
91726916|NCT01543503|183348776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.752||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.238|-0.267|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SJC at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in SJC, as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SJC, at baseline as the covariate.||-0.267|-1.238|0.002
91726917|NCT01543503|183348777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.408|0.169|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for TJC at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in TJC as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; TJC at baseline as the covariate.||0.169|-1.408|0.123
91795478|NCT00364130|183469571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
91795479|NCT00364130|183469572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||||||The outcome was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.27
91795480|NCT00364130|183469573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.84
91795481|NCT00364130|183469574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.66
91795482|NCT00364130|183469575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.70
91795483|NCT00364130|183469576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||Outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.98
91795484|NCT04616027|183469577|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|99.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.15|141.6||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||141.60|70.15|
91795485|NCT04616027|183469577|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.51|145.63||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||145.63|70.51|
91795486|NCT04616027|183469577|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|146.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.16|208.22||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||208.22|103.16|
91795487|NCT04616027|183469577|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.31|143.92||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||143.92|71.31|
91795488|NCT04616027|183469578|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|111.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.52|156.93||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||156.93|79.52|
91795489|NCT04616027|183469578|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|120.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.49|173.38||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||173.38|83.49|
91795490|NCT04616027|183469578|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|134.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.46|190.62||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||190.62|94.46|
91795491|NCT04616027|183469578|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|100.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.89|141.87||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||141.87|71.89|
91795492|NCT04616027|183469579|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|111.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.6|154.86||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||154.86|79.60|
91795493|NCT04616027|183469579|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|116.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.76|164.56||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||164.56|82.76|
91795494|NCT04616027|183469579|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|134.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.56|187.85||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||187.85|96.56|
91795495|NCT04616027|183469579|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.63|141.3||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||141.30|72.63|
91795496|NCT04616027|183469580|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.89|115.94||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||115.94|88.89|
91795497|NCT04616027|183469580|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|110.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.05|126.37||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||126.37|96.05|
91795498|NCT04616027|183469580|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|120.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.63|137.77||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||137.77|105.63|
91795499|NCT04616027|183469580|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|127.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.26|145.12||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||145.12|111.26|
91795500|NCT04221230|183469661|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.4|-3.8|0.121
91795501|NCT00191646|183469728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Using a two-sided log-rank test with a Type I error of 0.05, 636 events for PFS out of the 919 patients would give an 80% statistical power under the alternative hypothesis that the hazard ratio of the G/C arm versus the P/C arm was 0.08.||||0.199
91795502|NCT00191646|183469729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.771
91795503|NCT00191646|183469729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.784
91795504|NCT00191646|183469730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.621
91795505|NCT00191646|183469731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.013
91795506|NCT00252629|183469761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change of fatigue complaint from baseline (before treatment) to post treatment ( after 3 weeks treatment) on either therapeutic CPAP or sham CPAP was compared with student t-test.||||0.0002
91795507|NCT00252629|183469762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change of pain symptom from baseline (before treatment) to post treatment ( after 3 weeks treatment) on either therapeutic CPAP or sham CPAP was compared with student t-test.||||0.0008
91795508|NCT00252629|183469763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change of cognitive dysfunction complaint from baseline (before treatment) to post treatment ( after 3 weeks treatment) on either therapeutic CPAP or sham CPAP was compared with student t-test.||||0.004
91795509|NCT00252629|183469764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p value was based on t-test||||0.0001
91795510|NCT00395538|183469771|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the cn.BV/TV between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.015||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BV/TV at biopsy baseline, year 1, 2 \& 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, covariate for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2. No bone biopsy baseline covariate was included because it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.015
91904440|NCT02807480|183703962|OTHER||Slope|-1.01||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.19|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: approach behavior main effect||1.19|-3.22|.357
91795511|NCT00395538|183469771|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the cn.BV/TV between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, because the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BV/TV at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included because it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
91795512|NCT00395538|183469771|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the cn.BV/TV between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.649||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Cn.BV/TV change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Cn.BV/TV, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.649
91795513|NCT00395538|183469772|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.N between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Po.N values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.371||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, because the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.N at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.371
91696177|NCT03521115|183286701|SUPERIORITY||F|0.85|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91696178|NCT03521115|183286702|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.22|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.10
91696179|NCT03521115|183286702|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
91696180|NCT03521115|183286702|SUPERIORITY||F|0.43|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91696181|NCT03521115|183286703|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.16|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controlled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<.10
91696182|NCT03521115|183286703|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controlled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
91696183|NCT03521115|183286703|SUPERIORITY||F|1.55|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91696184|NCT03521115|183286704|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
91726918|NCT01543503|183348777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.216||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.039|-0.393|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for TJC at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in TJC as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; TJC at baseline as the covariate.||-0.393|-2.039|0.004
91726919|NCT01543503|183348778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.475|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.481|-1.469|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CDAI score at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in CDAI the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-1.469|-5.481|<0.001
91726920|NCT01543503|183348778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.708|-2.492|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CDAI score at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in CDAI as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-2.492|-6.708|<0.001
91726921|NCT01543503|183348778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.229||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.806|-0.652|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SDAI score at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in SDAI as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-0.652|-5.806|0.014
91726922|NCT01543503|183348778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.245||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.121|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SDAI score at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in SDAI as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-0.370|-6.121|0.027
91726923|NCT01543503|183348779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.655|-5.404|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for Physician Global Assessment score at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity at baseline as covariates.||-5.404|-12.655|<0.001
91726924|NCT01543503|183348779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.13|-6.345|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for Physician Global Assessment score at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity at baseline as covariates.||-6.345|-14.130|<0.001
91726925|NCT01543503|183348783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91726926|NCT01543503|183348787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.146||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|-0.024|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in HAQ-DI as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; HAQ-DI at baseline as covariates.||-0.024|-0.269|0.020
91726927|NCT01543503|183348787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.164||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|-0.026|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in HAQ-DI as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; HAQ-DI at baseline as covariates.||-0.026|-0.301|0.020
91726928|NCT01543503|183348788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.893||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.457|-0.329|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in FACIT-F score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; FACIT-F score at baseline as covariates.||-0.329|-7.457|0.032
91726929|NCT01543503|183348788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.787||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.763|1.189|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in FACIT-F score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; FACIT-F score at baseline as covariates.||1.189|-6.763|0.168
91726930|NCT01543503|183348789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.661||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.912|-1.411|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in participant's VAS score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; participant's VAS score at baseline as covariates.||-1.411|-9.912|0.009
91726931|NCT01543503|183348789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.802|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.245|-5.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in participant's VAS score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; participant's VAS score at baseline as covariates.||-5.360|-14.245|<0.001
91726932|NCT01543503|183348791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.108||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.017|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Patient's Global Assessment of Disease at baseline as covariates.||-1.200|-9.017|0.010
91726933|NCT01543503|183348791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.161|-3.372|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Patient's Global Assessment of Disease at baseline as covariates.||-3.372|-12.161|<0.001
91865726|NCT00450216|183622329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.3||CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (yes/no) and prior upper gastrointestinal (UGI) ulcer history (yes/no) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of participants developing gastric ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of gastric ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative number of participants developing gastric ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history.||15.3|4.4|<0.0001
91726934|NCT00514917|183348837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.65||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Log Rank|P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity of tests.|The hazard ratio Leuprolide+Bicalutamide vs. Docetaxel+Leuprolide+Bicalutamide was estimated using an un-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \>1 indicates a lower risk of Docetaxel+Leuprolide, compared to Leuprolide.|"Null hypothesis: No difference between new treatment combination (Docetaxel+Leuprolide+Bicalutamide) and conventional treatment (Leuprolide+Bicalutamide).~The study was sized to have 90% power to detect a difference between treatment arms at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level with 186 events and anticipating 10% non-evaluable participants."||1.65|1.00|0.0501
91726935|NCT01666314|183348857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1078
91726936|NCT01666314|183348858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.145||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9895|18.7606|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 favors orteronel.|||18.7606|0.9895|0.0355
91726937|NCT04739709|183348914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91726938|NCT04739709|183348915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91726939|NCT04739709|183348917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91726940|NCT04739709|183348918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91726941|NCT04739709|183348919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91726942|NCT04739709|183348920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91726943|NCT04739709|183348921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91726944|NCT04739709|183348922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91726945|NCT04739709|183348923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91726946|NCT04739709|183348924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91726947|NCT04739709|183348925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-1.3|-1.8|<0.001
91726948|NCT04739709|183348926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
91726949|NCT04739709|183348927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
91726950|NCT04739709|183348928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.01|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.01|-0.06|0.017
91726951|NCT04739709|183348929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.04|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.04|-0.10|<0.001
91726952|NCT04739709|183348930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.06|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.06|-0.11|<0.001
91726953|NCT04739709|183348931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91726954|NCT03403517|183349012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.859||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.082|||Fisher Exact|||||1.082|0.682|0.213
91726955|NCT03403517|183349016|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.977|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.715|||Fisher Exact|||||1.715|0.557|>0.999
91726956|NCT03403517|183349017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.160
91726957|NCT01245751|183349049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Week 6 GMT value for Group 1 is statistically non-inferior to Group 2 for the prespecified clinically relevant 1.5-fold ratio if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided)|Longitudinal regression model|The analyzed GMT ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age and vaccination group||Week 6 analysis||1.15|0.97|<0.001
91726958|NCT01245751|183349050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.66||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided)|Longitudinal regression model|The analyzed GMFR, 95% confidence interval, and P-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age||A booster dose induces a statistically acceptable VZV antibody response if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is \>1.0.||1.66|1.44|<0.001
91726959|NCT02391584|183349095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p\<0.025 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91726960|NCT02391584|183349099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91726961|NCT02391584|183349100|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91726962|NCT02391584|183349101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91726963|NCT02391584|183349102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91726964|NCT01301001|183349104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.7|0.07
91726965|NCT01301001|183349105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.9|0.76
91726966|NCT01301001|183349106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.5|0.36
91726967|NCT03992482|183349120|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.000
91726968|NCT03992482|183349121|OTHER|||||||0.0044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0044
91726969|NCT03992482|183349122|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
91726970|NCT03636269|183349123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.41|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||2.41|1.08|0.020
91726971|NCT03636269|183349124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||2.74|1.14|0.010
91726972|NCT03636269|183349125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-4.3|0.171
91726973|NCT03636269|183349126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.7|0.002
91795514|NCT00395538|183469772|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.N between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.129||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Ct.Po.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Ct.Po.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.129
91795515|NCT00395538|183469772|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.N between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.538||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.N at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.538
91795516|NCT00395538|183469773|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.BFR/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.009||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|A baseline covariate not added to model since it would over-parameterize the model.||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.009
91904441|NCT02807480|183703962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|3.47|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: treatment x approach behavior interaction||3.47|-2.74|.812
91726974|NCT04250363|183349152|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.00284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.6|1.85|0.00284
91726975|NCT04250363|183349152|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.00367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.8|2.00|0.00367
91726976|NCT04250363|183349152|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|23.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.7|1.90|0.0137
91726977|NCT04250363|183349152|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.00349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.47|0.00349
91726978|NCT04250363|183349152|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.6||||0.00594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|129.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||129|3.19|0.00594
91726979|NCT01507103|183349153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|-0.04||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.65||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.65|-0.72|0.794
91726980|NCT01507103|183349153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|-0.2||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.43||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.43|-0.82|0.794
91726981|NCT01507103|183349153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|0.16||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.82||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.82|-0.49|0.794
91726982|NCT01507103|183349153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|0.02||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.57||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+/GrB+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.57|-0.52|0.654
91726983|NCT01507103|183349153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|-0.19||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.31||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+/GrB+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.31|-0.69|0.654
91696185|NCT03521115|183286704|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.02|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91865727|NCT00450216|183622330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|17.6||CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (yes/no) and prior UGI ulcer history (yes/no) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the number of participants developing UGI (i.e., gastric and/or duodenal) ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of UGI ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative number of participants developing UGI ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history.||17.6|6.1|<0.0001
91696186|NCT03521115|183286705|SUPERIORITY||b|0.299|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.01
91696187|NCT03521115|183286706|SUPERIORITY||b|0.268|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations|||Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<.03
91696188|NCT03521115|183286707|SUPERIORITY||b|0.075|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91696189|NCT03521115|183286708|SUPERIORITY||b|0.051|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91696190|NCT03521115|183286709|SUPERIORITY||b|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations|||Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
91696191|NCT03521115|183286710|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91696192|NCT01080118|183286723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.05|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.05|.05|.001
91696193|NCT01080118|183286723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91696194|NCT00839527|183286729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-1.07|<0.0001
91726984|NCT01507103|183349153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|0.21||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.74||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+/GrB+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.74|-0.31|0.654
91726985|NCT01507103|183349154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|-0.03||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.67|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category: CD8+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.67|-0.73|0.921
91760025|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.27|-0.67|
91726986|NCT01507103|183349154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|-0.2||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.44|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category: CD8+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.44|-0.83|0.921
91726987|NCT01507103|183349154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|0.17||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.83|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category: CD8+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.83|-0.50|0.921
91726988|NCT01507103|183349154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|0.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category:CD8+/GrB+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline=Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.58|-0.54|0.890
91726989|NCT01507103|183349154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|-0.19||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.31|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category:CD8+/GrB+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline=Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.31|-0.70|0.890
91726990|NCT01507103|183349154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|0.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.74|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category:CD8+/GrB+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline=Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.74|-0.32|0.890
91795517|NCT00395538|183469773|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.BFR/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
91795518|NCT00395538|183469773|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.BFR/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.374||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.374
91865728|NCT00450216|183622331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.8||CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (yes/no) and prior UGI ulcer history (yes/no) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the number of participants developing duodenal ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative number of participants developing duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prio UGI ulcer history at randomization.||6.8|1.0|0.0006
91726991|NCT05075772|183349165|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans (%)|46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.3|55.9|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of SC injection (T))/(gMean of IV infusion (R)).~Intra-matched-pair geometric coefficient of variation=28.2."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included a fixed effect for treatment assignment and a random effect for matching pair (each matched pair in the study was assigned a number for the analysis).||55.9|38.3|
91726992|NCT05075772|183349166|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans (%)|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.2|31.1|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of SC injection (T))/(gMean of IV infusion (R)). Intra-matched-pair geometric coefficient of variation=22.5"|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included a fixed effect for treatment assignment and a random effect for matching pair (each matched pair in the study was assigned a number for the analysis).||31.1|23.2|
91726993|NCT05075772|183349167|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans (%)|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.0|56.6|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of SC injection (T))/(gMean of IV infusion (R)).~Intra-matched-pair geometric coefficient of variation=27.7."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this secondary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included a fixed effect for treatment assignment and a random effect for matching pair (each matched pair in the study was assigned a number for the analysis).||56.6|39.0|
91726994|NCT00927186|183349175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The pre-specified significance level 0.05 was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91726995|NCT00927186|183349176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91726996|NCT00927186|183349177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91726997|NCT00927186|183349177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91865729|NCT04244175|183622355|SUPERIORITY|RRatio was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and the Baseline seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference|0.11|||=|0.986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.38|10.61|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||10.61|-10.38|=0.986
91865730|NCT04244175|183622355|SUPERIORITY|RRatio was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and the Baseline seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference|1.42|||=|0.823|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.04|11.87|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||11.87|-9.04|=0.823
91865731|NCT04244175|183622355|SUPERIORITY|RRatio was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and the Baseline seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference|0.76|||=|0.888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|9.76|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||9.76|-8.23|=0.888
91904442|NCT02807480|183703962|OTHER||Slope|2.01||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|20.45|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: RT main effect||20.45|-16.42|.826
91726998|NCT00927186|183349178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91726999|NCT00927186|183349178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727000|NCT00927186|183349179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91727001|NCT00927186|183349179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91865732|NCT04244175|183622356|SUPERIORITY|The percent reduction relative to Placebo was calculated.|Percent reduction relative to Placebo|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|19.3||||||CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||19.3|-12.0|
91904443|NCT02807480|183703962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.89||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.42|25.64|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: treatment x RT interaction||25.64|-31.42|.838
91727002|NCT00927186|183349180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727003|NCT00927186|183349180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727004|NCT00927186|183349180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91727005|NCT00927186|183349180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91904444|NCT02807480|183703962|OTHER||Slope|-0.68||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|4.14|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with BDI-II post-treatment: striatum main effect||4.14|-5.51|.776
91727006|NCT00927186|183349181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727007|NCT00927186|183349181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727008|NCT00927186|183349182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91727009|NCT00927186|183349182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91727010|NCT00927186|183349183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727011|NCT00927186|183349183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727012|NCT00927186|183349183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91727013|NCT00927186|183349183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91727014|NCT00927186|183349184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727015|NCT00927186|183349184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727016|NCT00927186|183349185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
91727017|NCT00927186|183349185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91904445|NCT02807480|183703962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|6.4|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x striatum interaction effects||6.40|-7.79|.844
91696195|NCT00839527|183286729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a one-sided t-test testing at the 0.025 level of significance whether or not the difference of least square means (albiglutide - pioglitazone) is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.40|0.10|0.2685
91865733|NCT04244175|183622356|SUPERIORITY|The percent reduction relative to Placebo was calculated.|Percent reduction relative to Placebo|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|16.2||||||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||16.2|-16.1|
91904446|NCT02807480|183703962|OTHER||Slope|0.88||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.79|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: amygdala main effect||5.79|-4.03|.719
91696196|NCT02295020|183286738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
91696197|NCT02295020|183286739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.232
91696198|NCT02295020|183286740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.311
91696199|NCT02295020|183286742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.449
91696200|NCT02295020|183286743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.860
91696201|NCT02295020|183286744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.735
91696202|NCT02295020|183286745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.479
91696203|NCT02295020|183286746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.323
91696204|NCT02295020|183286747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.878
91865734|NCT04244175|183622356|SUPERIORITY|The percent reduction relative to Placebo was calculated.|Percent reduction relative to Placebo|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|15.8||||||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||15.8|-11.4|
91696205|NCT02751450|183286751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.882|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff as a covariate|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|All statistical analyses were conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.||-0.882|-1.150|<0.0001
91696206|NCT00943150|183286769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91696207|NCT00943150|183286770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD3+ at 0 weeks||||0.33
91696208|NCT00943150|183286770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD3+ at 3 weeks||||0.02
91696209|NCT00943150|183286770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD3+ at 6 weeks||||0.71
91696210|NCT00943150|183286770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD68+ at 0 weeks||||0.67
91696211|NCT00943150|183286770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD68+ at 3 weeks||||0.01
91696212|NCT00943150|183286770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD68+ at 6 weeks||||0.48
91696213|NCT00943150|183286771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1128||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1128
91696214|NCT00943150|183286772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0898||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0898
91696215|NCT00943150|183286773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||Intraoperative narcotic use comparison||||0.0760
91696216|NCT00943150|183286773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||Postoperative narcotic use comparison||||0.5900
91865735|NCT04244175|183622357|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression with treatment group and Baseline seizure frequency as covariates was used to calculate the Odds ratio, 90% confidence interval, and p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||=|0.587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.616|2.618|||Regression, Logistic|||CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||2.618|0.616|=0.587
91696217|NCT00943150|183286774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4589||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4589
91696218|NCT00943150|183286775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.999
91696219|NCT00943150|183286776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0412
91696220|NCT00937040|183286807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline AISRS total score. Change from baseline to endpoint uses the latest non-missing score after baseline for each subject.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint. Each outcome involved with gate-keeping will be numbered with a Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number from 01-16.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence#01. The primary efficacy was tested at the 0.05 level of significance. To control the overall Type I error at 0.05, the secondary efficacy endpoints were tested in a fixed sequence if the preceding null hypothesis was rejected. No further hypotheses could be tested when the preceding null hypothesis was not rejected. All nominal p-values were presented even though the formal testing procedure stopped at the primary endpoint. No unqualified statements can be made.||||<0.001
91696221|NCT00937040|183286808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#02.||||0.206
91696222|NCT00937040|183286809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#03.||||0.348
91696223|NCT00937040|183286810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#04.||||0.324
91696224|NCT00937040|183286811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#05.||||0.631
91727018|NCT00927186|183349186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91865736|NCT04244175|183622357|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression with treatment group and Baseline seizure frequency as covariates was used to calculate the Odds ratio, 90% confidence interval, and p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.303|||=|0.554|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.624|2.723|||Regression, Logistic|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||2.723|0.624|=0.554
91696225|NCT00937040|183286812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#06.||||<0.001
91696226|NCT00937040|183286813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#07.||||<0.001
91696227|NCT00937040|183286814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#08.||||0.008
91696228|NCT00937040|183286815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#09.||||0.372
91696229|NCT00937040|183286816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores controlling for center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#10.||||<0.001
91696230|NCT00937040|183286817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value was determined using CMH general association controlling for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#11.||||0.008
91696231|NCT00937040|183286818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#12.||||<0.001
91696232|NCT00937040|183286819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#13.||||0.003
91696233|NCT00937040|183286820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#14.||||0.016
91696234|NCT00937040|183286821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#15.||||0.092
91696235|NCT00937040|183286822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||P-value was determined by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores controlling for center. Missing/unknown responses are not included in the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#16.||||0.284
91727019|NCT00927186|183349186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91696236|NCT00937040|183286823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|||P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint||||<0.001
91696237|NCT00937040|183286824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|||P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint||||0.319
91696238|NCT00937040|183286825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|||P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint||||0.007
91696239|NCT02477826|183286826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93||||||||0.93|0.67|
91696240|NCT02477826|183286826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||||1.12|0.81|
91696241|NCT02477826|183286826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
91696242|NCT02477826|183286826|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||||0.97|0.60|
91727020|NCT00927186|183349186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91727021|NCT00927186|183349186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
91727022|NCT00927186|183349187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727023|NCT00927186|183349187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91696243|NCT02477826|183286826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.93||||||||0.93|0.59|
91696244|NCT02477826|183286826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.72||||||||0.72|0.52|
91696245|NCT02477826|183286826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.89||||||||0.89|0.49|
91696246|NCT02477826|183286827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.91||||||||0.91|0.67|
91696247|NCT02477826|183286827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05||||||||1.05|0.78|
91696248|NCT02477826|183286827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.01||||||||1.01|0.74|
91696249|NCT02477826|183286827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79||||||||0.79|0.51|
91696250|NCT02477826|183286827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||||||||0.96|0.63|
91696251|NCT02477826|183286827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.87||||||||0.87|0.64|
91727024|NCT00927186|183349188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
91696252|NCT02477826|183286827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.14||||||||1.14|0.64|
91727025|NCT00927186|183349188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
91727026|NCT00927186|183349189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727027|NCT00927186|183349189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727028|NCT00927186|183349189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91727029|NCT00927186|183349189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91727030|NCT00927186|183349190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727031|NCT00927186|183349190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91865737|NCT04244175|183622357|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression with treatment group and Baseline seizure frequency as covariates was used to calculate the Odds ratio, 90% confidence interval, and p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.286|||=|0.513|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||2.420|0.684|=0.513
91696253|NCT01342523|183286833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving CIS vs No CIS. We hypothesized that CIS would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to No CIS.||1.17|0.88|.825
91727032|NCT00927186|183349191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.906
91727033|NCT00927186|183349191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.159
91865738|NCT04244175|183622358|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is from Fisher's exact test for number of responders.|||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher's exact test|||CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||||>0.999
91865739|NCT04244175|183622358|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is from Fisher's exact test for number of responders.|||||=|0.618|||||||Fisher's exact test|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||||=0.618
91865740|NCT04244175|183622358|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is from Fisher's exact test for number of responders.|||||=|0.422|||||||Fisher's exact test|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||||=0.422
91696254|NCT01342523|183286833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.36||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving NRT vs No NRT. We hypothesized that NRT would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to No NRT.||1.36|1.02|.028
91727034|NCT00927186|183349192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
91727035|NCT00927186|183349192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727036|NCT00927186|183349192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
91727037|NCT00927186|183349192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
91727038|NCT00927186|183349193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.502
91727039|NCT00927186|183349193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.597
91727040|NCT00927186|183349194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
91727041|NCT00927186|183349194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.358
91727042|NCT00927186|183349195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.647
91727043|NCT00927186|183349195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.120
91727044|NCT00927186|183349195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.695
91727045|NCT00927186|183349195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91727046|NCT00927186|183349196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727047|NCT00927186|183349196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727048|NCT00927186|183349197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91727049|NCT00927186|183349197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.198
91727050|NCT00927186|183349198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
91727051|NCT00927186|183349198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727052|NCT00927186|183349198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
91727053|NCT00927186|183349198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
91727054|NCT00927186|183349199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
91727055|NCT00927186|183349199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.052
91727056|NCT00927186|183349200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.906
91727057|NCT00927186|183349200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.159
91727058|NCT00927186|183349201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.979
91696255|NCT01342523|183286833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving Email Messaging vs No Email Messaging. We hypothesized that Email Messaging would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to No Email Messaging.||1.13|0.85|.755
91795519|NCT00395538|183469774|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
91727059|NCT00927186|183349201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91795520|NCT00395538|183469774|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
91727060|NCT00927186|183349201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.695
91727061|NCT00927186|183349201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.853
91727062|NCT00927186|183349202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727063|NCT00927186|183349202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727064|NCT00927186|183349203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91727065|NCT00927186|183349203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91727066|NCT00927186|183349204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727067|NCT00927186|183349204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727068|NCT00927186|183349204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91727069|NCT00927186|183349204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91727070|NCT00927186|183349205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label."|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91727071|NCT00927186|183349206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91727072|NCT00927186|183349207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label at 6 months."|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91727073|NCT00927186|183349207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label at 24 months."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
91727074|NCT00927186|183349208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91727075|NCT00927186|183349209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.906
91727076|NCT00927186|183349210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.536
91727077|NCT00927186|183349210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
91727078|NCT00927186|183349211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727079|NCT00927186|183349212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91727080|NCT00927186|183349213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727081|NCT00927186|183349214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91727082|NCT00927186|183349215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727083|NCT00927186|183349215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91727084|NCT00927186|183349216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91696256|NCT01342523|183286833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.33||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving the Full SmokeFree.gov Website vs the Lite SmokeFree.gov Website . We hypothesized that the Full SmokeFree.gov Website would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to the LiteSmokeFree.gov Website .||1.33|0.996|.057
91696257|NCT01342523|183286833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.555||95.0|0.83|1.11||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving the Full Cessation Booklet vs the Brief Cessation Booklet We hypothesized that the Full Cessation Booklet would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to the Brief Cessation Booklet.||1.11|0.83|.555
91727085|NCT00927186|183349217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.079
91727086|NCT00927186|183349218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727087|NCT00927186|183349218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91727088|NCT00927186|183349219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91727089|NCT00927186|183349220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.079
91727090|NCT00927186|183349221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
91795521|NCT00395538|183469774|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.168||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.168
91696258|NCT00305084|183286845|OTHER||MDT|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||All data regarding safety were registered and analyzed by descriptive analyses. Summary table were generated to document the safety|at least 3 patients per cohort had to be enrolled with expansion to 6 in presence of Dose Limiting Toxicity(DLT) (stop escalation if 2 or more DLTs at the same dose level). With a projection to achieve the highest level of NGR-hTNF, without significative toxicity (1.6 μg/m2) a planned sample of 20-25 patients was expected. DLTs were defined as: any severe toxicity clearly related to the administration of NGR-hTNF. The patient was defined assessable, according to the standard analysis, if he/she received at least one infusion of the investigational product. Maximal Tollerated Dose (MTD) was defined as the dose which produces DLTs in 2 or more patients out of 6 and will be recommended for phase II trials.|||
91727091|NCT00927186|183349221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.268
91904447|NCT02807480|183703962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.33||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|4.07|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x amygdala interaction||4.07|-8.74|.464
91727092|NCT00927186|183349222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727093|NCT00927186|183349223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
91727094|NCT00927186|183349224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
91727095|NCT00927186|183349224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.092
91727096|NCT00927186|183349225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 1 month.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91727097|NCT00927186|183349225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 3 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91727098|NCT00927186|183349225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 6 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91727099|NCT00927186|183349226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91727100|NCT00927186|183349227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 1 month.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91727101|NCT00927186|183349227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 3 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91727102|NCT00927186|183349227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 6 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91727103|NCT00927186|183349228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91727104|NCT00927186|183349229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 1 month.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91727105|NCT00927186|183349229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 3 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91727106|NCT00927186|183349229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 6 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91727107|NCT00927186|183349230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91727108|NCT01145222|183349231|SUPERIORITY|Overall comparison between remimazolam and midazolam||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91727109|NCT00604383|183349234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
91727110|NCT01429623|183349301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||<|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.25|||Log Rank|||||3.25|0.74|<0.16
91727111|NCT01429623|183349302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.61
91727112|NCT01429623|183349303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.32
91727113|NCT01429623|183349304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.97
91865741|NCT04244175|183622360|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||-0.1|-0.8|=0.021
91696259|NCT01218087|183286868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following the first interim analysis of the first 40 infants, the sample size calculation was revised. A revised sample size of 62 infants (31 per treatment arm) was based on an observed reduction of 41% to 11% in the experimental group with a goal p value of 0.01.||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91696260|NCT00529373|183286924|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.53|||Generalized linear model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. Generalized linear model for binary data with cloglog link and terms for time interval, treatment, stratum, and geographic region. cloglog link = complementary log log transformation of probability of an event up to the time-point.||0.53|0.40|<0.001
91727114|NCT00793611|183349319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|19 degrees of freedom||ITT between group differences in change scores compared for behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy groups. Power analysis: This is a pilot study underpowered find between group differences based on our power analysis(a 20% difference between groups would require 88 women, assuming 80% power and α=0.05 based on Freeman's study cited later). The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility of the larger study and determine the appropriate control intervention and outcomes||||.07
91865742|NCT04244175|183622360|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.1|-0.5|=0.342
91696261|NCT00529373|183286925|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.71|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.71|0.39|<0.001
91696262|NCT00529373|183286926|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.87|0.68|<0.001
91696263|NCT00529373|183286927|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.55|||Generalized linear model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. Generalized linear model for binary data with cloglog link and terms for time interval, treatment, stratum, and geographic region. cloglog link = complementary log log transformation of probability of an event up to the time-point.||0.55|0.42|<0.001
91696264|NCT00529373|183286928|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.67|0.40|<0.001
91696265|NCT00529373|183286929|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.83|0.66|<0.001
91727115|NCT00793611|183349320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||intent to treat.||||.17
91727116|NCT00793611|183349321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||intent to treat||||.009
91865743|NCT04244175|183622360|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.0|-0.6|=0.059
91904448|NCT02807480|183703962|OTHER||Slope|5.91||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|13.75|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: dlPFC main effect||13.75|-1.93|.135
91696266|NCT00529373|183286930|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.07||||||||4.07|-2.3|
91696267|NCT00529373|183286931|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.16|
91696268|NCT00529373|183286935|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|13.93|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg vs Placebo||13.93|3.9|<0.001
91696269|NCT00529373|183286936|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|26.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.49|36.4|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg vs Placebo||36.40|16.49|<0.001
91696270|NCT00529373|183286937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.09|-0.14|
91696271|NCT00529373|183286937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.12|-0.12|
91727117|NCT04299425|183349346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91727118|NCT04299425|183349347|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91727119|NCT04299425|183349349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91727120|NCT04299425|183349350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91727121|NCT00601107|183349426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.22||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons or a prior significance threshold.|Regression, Exact Logistic|||Estimate of the log odds, relative to the Placebo, in participants with at least 50 % reduction in PASI score at Week 12 or early termination was analyzed using exact logistic regression model adjusted for site and baseline PASI strata (\<=16, \>16).||4.22|0.17|1.000
91696272|NCT00529373|183286937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.09|-0.17|
91696273|NCT00529373|183286937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.08||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.08|-0.50|
91696274|NCT00529373|183286938|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.38||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.38|-0.16|
91696275|NCT00529373|183286938|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.44||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.44|-0.15|
91696276|NCT00529373|183286938|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.54||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.54|-0.15|
91696277|NCT00529373|183286938|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.62||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.62|-0.24|
91696278|NCT00529373|183286939|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.15|-0.08|
91696279|NCT00529373|183286939|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.21|-0.06|
91696280|NCT00529373|183286939|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.17|-0.12|
91696281|NCT00529373|183286939|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.28||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.28|-0.09|
91696282|NCT00529373|183286940|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.84||||||||4.84|-1.8|
91865744|NCT04244175|183622360|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.1|-0.9|=0.040
91904449|NCT02807480|183703962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.09||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.65|2.47|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x dlPFC interaction||2.47|-14.65|.158
91696283|NCT00529373|183286941|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.04|
91696284|NCT00529373|183286942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.4|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.40|0.19|<0.001
91696285|NCT00529373|183286943|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.01||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW versus Placebo. The mixed model contained fixed effects for treatment, region, stratum, treatment-year interaction and random effect intercept and slope (year) and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.03|0.00|0.041
91696286|NCT00529373|183286944|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||Logistic model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW versus Placebo. Treatment comparison for height loss at any time during the treatment period. The logistic model contained terms for treatment, geographic region and stratum.||0.98|0.81|0.014
91696287|NCT00529373|183286945|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.75|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.75|0.90|<0.001
91696288|NCT00529373|183286945|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|2.61|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.61|2.37|<0.001
91696289|NCT00529373|183286945|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|4.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.62|4.31|<0.001
91696290|NCT00529373|183286945|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|6.64|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.64|6.25|<0.001
91696291|NCT00529373|183286945|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.11|9.12|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.12|8.11|<0.001
91696292|NCT00529373|183286945|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|10.29|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.29|8.70|<0.001
91696293|NCT00529373|183286946|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|3.46|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.46|2.47|<0.001
91696294|NCT00529373|183286946|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|4.22|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.22|3.93|<0.001
91696295|NCT00529373|183286946|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.87|6.23|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.23|5.87|<0.001
91696296|NCT00529373|183286946|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.62|8.06|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.06|7.62|<0.001
91696297|NCT00529373|183286946|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|10.27|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.27|9.16|<0.001
91696298|NCT00529373|183286946|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.23|12.23|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||12.23|10.23|<0.001
91696299|NCT00529373|183286947|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.03|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.03|0.95|<0.001
91696300|NCT00529373|183286947|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.37|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.37|2.05|<0.001
91696301|NCT00529373|183286947|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|4.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.57|4.19|<0.001
91904450|NCT02807480|183703962|OTHER||Slope|1.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|7.11|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II cores over the 10 sessions: Behavior\_change main effect||7.11|-4.78|.690
91696302|NCT00529373|183286947|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|6.68|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.68|6.24|<0.001
91696303|NCT00529373|183286947|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.82|9.02|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.02|7.82|<0.001
91696304|NCT00529373|183286947|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|9.53|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.53|7.54|<0.001
91696305|NCT00529373|183286948|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.46|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.46|1.03|<0.001
91696306|NCT00529373|183286948|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|3.7|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.70|3.31|<0.001
91696307|NCT00529373|183286948|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.17|6.65|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24||6.65|6.17|<0.001
91696308|NCT00529373|183286948|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.98|9.57|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36||9.57|8.98|<0.001
91696309|NCT00529373|183286948|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|12.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.66|13.22|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48||13.22|11.66|<0.001
91696310|NCT00529373|183286948|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|13.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|15.04|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60||15.04|12.58|<0.001
91727122|NCT00601107|183349426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.992||95.0|0.13|4.14||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons or a prior significance threshold.|Regression, Exact Logistic|||Estimate of the log odds, relative to the Placebo, in participants with at least 50 % reduction in PASI score at Week 12 or early termination was analyzed using exact logistic regression model adjusted for site and baseline PASI strata (\<=16, \>16).||4.14|0.13|0.992
91727123|NCT00601107|183349426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.59||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons or a prior significance threshold.|Regression, Exact Logistic|||Estimate of the log odds, relative to the Placebo, in participants with at least 50 % reduction in PASI score at Week 12 or early termination was analyzed using exact logistic regression model adjusted for site and baseline PASI strata (\<=16, \>16).||4.59|0.15|1.000
91727124|NCT00682838|183349434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.50
91727125|NCT02864914|183349442|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.19|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.19|0.50|
91727126|NCT02864914|183349442|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.32|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.32|0.23|
91727127|NCT02864914|183349442|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.41|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.41|0.52|
91727128|NCT02864914|183349443|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.73|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.73|0.41|
91727129|NCT02864914|183349443|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.55|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.55|0.30|
91727130|NCT02864914|183349443|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.05|0.45|
91727131|NCT02864914|183349443|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.86|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.86|0.20|
91727132|NCT02864914|183349443|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.76|0.56|
91727133|NCT02864914|183349444|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.76|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||2.76|1.74|
91865745|NCT04244175|183622360|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.1|-0.8|=0.152
91696311|NCT00529373|183286949|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.55|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.55|0.67|<0.001
91795522|NCT00395538|183469775|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.BFR/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.BFR/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.083||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.083
91795523|NCT00395538|183469775|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.BFR/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
91904451|NCT02807480|183703962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.37||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|6.25|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||6.25|-8.99|.715
91696312|NCT00529373|183286949|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.84|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.84|0.85|<0.001
91696313|NCT00529373|183286949|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.47|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.47|1.38|<0.001
91727134|NCT02864914|183349444|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.36|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.36|1.77|
91727135|NCT02864914|183349444|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.12|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.12|1.11|
91727136|NCT02864914|183349444|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.66|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||2.66|1.48|
91727137|NCT02864914|183349445|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.72|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.72|0.37|
91727138|NCT02864914|183349446|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|4.71|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.71|3.46|
91727139|NCT02864914|183349447|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|3.74|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||3.74|2.81|
91696314|NCT00529373|183286949|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.51|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.51|0.89|0.001
91727140|NCT02864914|183349448|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.88|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.88|0.56|
91727141|NCT02864914|183349448|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.85|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.85|0.29|
91865746|NCT04244175|183622360|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.1|-0.8|=0.044
91696315|NCT00529373|183286949|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.54|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||5.54|1.46|0.001
91696316|NCT00529373|183286950|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|6.2|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.2|5.37|<0.001
91696317|NCT00529373|183286950|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|4.37|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.37|3.67|<0.001
91696318|NCT00529373|183286950|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.11|8.13|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.13|7.11|<0.001
91696319|NCT00529373|183286950|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|11.06|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||11.06|7.96|<0.001
91696320|NCT00529373|183286951|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|2.68|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.68|2.11|<0.001
91696321|NCT00529373|183286951|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|4.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.57|3.84|<0.001
91696322|NCT00529373|183286951|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.41|6.3|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.30|5.41|<0.001
91696323|NCT00529373|183286951|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.09|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.09|7.00|<0.001
91696324|NCT00529373|183286952|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.59|1.83|<0.001
91696325|NCT00529373|183286952|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|4.78|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.78|3.87|<0.001
91696326|NCT00529373|183286952|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|6.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.62|5.56|<0.001
91696327|NCT00529373|183286952|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|11.19|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||11.19|6.97|<0.001
91696328|NCT00529373|183286953|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|3.9|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12||3.90|2.98|<0.001
91727142|NCT02864914|183349448|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.29|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.29|0.34|
91727143|NCT02864914|183349448|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.97|0.61|
91727144|NCT02864914|183349449|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.65|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.65|0.43|
91727145|NCT02864914|183349450|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|4.75|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.75|3.44|
91727146|NCT02864914|183349451|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|3.95|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||3.95|2.83|
91727147|NCT03501277|183349466|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative bioavailability (BA) determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|Least Square Mean (LSM) difference|1.0706||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.023|1.1204|||ANOVA|||||1.1204|1.0230|0.014
91727148|NCT03501277|183349466|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|1.0276||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9817|1.0757|||ANOVA|||||1.0757|0.9817|0.326
91727149|NCT03501277|183349466|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|LSM diiference|0.9594||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8837|1.0415|||ANOVA|||||1.0415|0.8837|0.405
91727150|NCT03501277|183349466|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|0.9257||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8523|1.0053|||ANOVA|||||1.0053|0.8523|0.124
91727151|NCT03501277|183349467|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|LSM difference|1.0157||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0009|1.0308|||ANOVA|||||1.0308|1.0009|0.081
91795524|NCT00395538|183469775|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.BFR/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.164||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.164
91865747|NCT04244175|183622360|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.1|-0.7|=0.199
91727152|NCT03501277|183349467|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of AUC(0-72) for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|1.0009||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9862|1.0158|||ANOVA|||||1.0158|0.9862|0.922
91727153|NCT03501277|183349467|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of AUC(0-72) for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|LSM difference|1.0486||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0051|1.0939|||ANOVA|||||1.0939|1.0051|0.066
91727154|NCT03501277|183349467|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of AUC(0-72) for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|1.0267||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9839|1.0714|||ANOVA|||||1.0714|0.9839|0.308
91727155|NCT00098293|183349514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-3.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-9.5|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentages stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-9.5|
91795525|NCT00395538|183469776|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.MS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.031||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.031
91795526|NCT00395538|183469776|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
91795527|NCT00395538|183469776|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.178||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.178
91795528|NCT00395538|183469777|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.BFR/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.BFR/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
91865748|NCT04244175|183622360|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.1|-0.7|=0.171
91904452|NCT02807480|183703962|OTHER||Slope|5.14||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|36.65|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: RT\_change main effect||36.65|-26.38|.740
91727156|NCT00098293|183349514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-4.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-10.9|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentages stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-10.9|
91696329|NCT00529373|183286953|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|6.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.59|5.47|<0.001
91727157|NCT00098293|183349515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-4.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-10.5|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-10.5|
91865749|NCT04244175|183622360|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.0|-0.7|=0.125
91865750|NCT04244175|183622361|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|||=|0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.2|-0.3|=0.767
91865751|NCT04244175|183622361|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.5|0.0|=0.178
91696330|NCT00529373|183286953|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.81|9.16|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.16|7.81|<0.001
91696331|NCT00529373|183286953|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.15|14.36|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||14.36|9.15|<0.001
91727158|NCT00098293|183349515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-4.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-11.2|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-11.2|
91727159|NCT00098293|183349516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 400 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.22|0.64|0.4485
91865752|NCT04244175|183622361|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.3|-0.1|=0.542
91696332|NCT00529373|183286954|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.08||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.31|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.31|-0.14|0.083
91727160|NCT00098293|183349516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 50 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates were used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.15|0.61|0.2724
91865753|NCT04244175|183622361|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.0|-0.6|=0.106
91727161|NCT00098293|183349517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 400 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates were used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.19|0.65|0.3943
91865754|NCT04244175|183622361|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.4|-0.2|=0.663
91727162|NCT00098293|183349517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 50 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates were used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.07|0.59|0.1289
91727163|NCT00098293|183349518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1077||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.329|||ANCOVA|||Change at week 48: P-value was calculated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment least squares means (LS means) adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.329|-0.094|0.2741
91727164|NCT00098293|183349518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1162||0.3899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.328|||ANCOVA|||Change at week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.328|-0.128|0.3899
91865755|NCT04244175|183622361|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.2|-0.4|=0.488
91865756|NCT04244175|183622361|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.0|-0.7|=0.100
91865757|NCT04244175|183622361|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.3|-0.3|=0.969
91904453|NCT02807480|183703962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.98||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|46.14|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x RT\_change interaction||46.14|-48.10|.966
91727165|NCT00098293|183349519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1002||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.307|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.307|-0.086|0.2693
91727166|NCT00098293|183349519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1121||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.309|||ANCOVA|||Week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.309|-0.131|0.4270
91727167|NCT00098293|183349520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.827||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|45.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD4 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||45.63|7.04|0.0075
91727168|NCT00098293|183349520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.419||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.02|57.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD4 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||57.86|13.02|0.0020
91795529|NCT00395538|183469777|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.BFR/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.022||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.022
91865758|NCT04244175|183622361|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.1|-0.4|=0.344
91904454|NCT02573870|183703976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p-values were not presented as non-inferiority was assessed by confidence interval (CI).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.153|1.663|||||Treatment difference is calculated as active minus placebo and the non-inferiority bound was 10 bpm for Day 42|||1.663|-6.153|
91727169|NCT00098293|183349521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|166.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.13|215.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD8 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||215.46|117.13|<0.0001
91727170|NCT00098293|183349521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|172.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.471|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.21|222.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD8 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||222.23|122.21|<0.0001
91727171|NCT00098293|183349522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45|||Log Rank|||Week 48: P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio was calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and the two randomization strata, HIV-1 RNA at screening and geographic region. Hazard ratio \< 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.45|0.83|0.5874
91727172|NCT00098293|183349522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4|||Log Rank|||Week 96: P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio was calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and the two randomization strata, HIV-1 RNA at screening and geographic region. Hazard ratio \< 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.40|0.86|0.4811
91727173|NCT00098293|183349529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-10.2|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-10.2|
91727174|NCT00098293|183349529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-5.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-12.8|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-12.8|
91727175|NCT00098293|183349530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.4|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-6.4|
91727176|NCT00098293|183349530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.4|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-7.4|
91727177|NCT00098293|183349531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.9|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-7.9|
91865759|NCT04244175|183622362|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||-0.2|-0.7|=0.010
91696333|NCT00529373|183286954|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.05||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.4|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.40|-0.31|0.129
91696334|NCT00529373|183286954|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.21||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|2.67|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.67|-0.25|0.104
91696335|NCT00529373|183286954|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.55||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|8.02|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.02|-4.92|0.617
91696336|NCT00529373|183286955|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-58.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.68|-53.3|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6.||-53.30|-64.68|<0.001
91696337|NCT00529373|183286955|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-60.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.4|-53.61|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12.||-53.61|-66.40|<0.001
91696338|NCT00529373|183286955|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.23|-40.17|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24.||-40.17|-53.23|<0.001
91696339|NCT00529373|183286955|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-44.67||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.62|-36.72|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36.||-36.72|-52.62|0.050
91696340|NCT00529373|183286955|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-18.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.44|-0.01|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48.||-0.01|-37.44|0.050
91696341|NCT00529373|183286956|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.11|-47.28|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6.||-47.28|-56.11|<0.001
91696342|NCT00529373|183286956|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-53.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.39|-48.79|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12.||-48.79|-58.39|<0.001
91696343|NCT00529373|183286956|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-56.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.52|-50.84|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24.||-50.84|-62.52|<0.001
91696344|NCT00529373|183286956|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-59.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.04|-52.23|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36.||-52.23|-66.04|<0.001
91696345|NCT00529373|183286956|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-44.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.72|-27.36|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48.||-27.36|-61.72|<0.001
91696346|NCT00529373|183286957|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-11.27|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-11.27|-17.00|<0.001
91696347|NCT00529373|183286957|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|-8.79|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-8.79|-15.22|<0.001
91696348|NCT00529373|183286957|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|-5.13|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-5.13|-13.45|<0.001
91696349|NCT00529373|183286957|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.87|-3.41|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-3.41|-11.87|<0.001
91696350|NCT00529373|183286957|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.34|10.79|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||10.79|-12.34|0.896
91696351|NCT00529373|183286958|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.47|-25.39|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-25.39|-33.47|<0.001
91696352|NCT00529373|183286958|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.54|-21.34|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-21.34|-30.54|<0.001
91696353|NCT00529373|183286958|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.41|-11.12|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-11.12|-21.41|<0.001
91696354|NCT00529373|183286958|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|-6.19|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-6.19|-18.03|<0.001
91696355|NCT00529373|183286958|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|9.45|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||9.45|-16.12|0.610
91696356|NCT00529373|183286959|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.34|0.95|0.182
91696357|NCT00529373|183286960|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.55|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.55|0.9|0.235
91696358|NCT00529373|183286961|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.29|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.29|0.97|0.127
91696359|NCT00529373|183286962|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.89|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.89|0.59|0.857
91696360|NCT00529373|183286963|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.59|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.59|0.76|0.606
91696361|NCT00529373|183286964|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.6|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.6|0.98|0.074
91696362|NCT00529373|183286965|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.29|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.29|0.97|0.127
91696363|NCT00529373|183286966|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.52|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.52|0.89|0.277
91696364|NCT00529373|183286967|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.15|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.15|0.58|0.256
91696365|NCT00529373|183286968|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||2.57|0.29|0.794
91727178|NCT00098293|183349531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-11.5|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-11.5|
91727179|NCT03193307|183349547|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T1/R1) ratio (%)|153.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.34|174.7|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =21.4."|||174.70|134.34|
91727180|NCT03193307|183349548|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T1/R1) ratio (%)|115.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.559|128.502|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 16.7."|||128.502|104.559|
91727181|NCT03193307|183349549|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|104.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.092|107.613|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =4.3."|||107.613|102.092|
91727182|NCT03193307|183349550|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|102.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.66|104.92|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 3.3."|||104.92|100.66|
91727183|NCT03193307|183349551|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|114.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.266|119.183|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=7.0."|||119.183|109.266|
91727184|NCT03193307|183349552|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|110.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.8|115.83|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 7.3."|||115.83|105.80|
91795530|NCT00395538|183469777|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.BFR/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.172||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.172
91795531|NCT00395538|183469778|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.MS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
91795532|NCT00395538|183469778|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.018||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.018
91795533|NCT00395538|183469778|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.155||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.155
91904455|NCT00257725|183703977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
91904456|NCT00257725|183703978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
91904457|NCT00257725|183703979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
91904458|NCT01858532|183703980|OTHER||||||=|0.029|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||=0.029
91727185|NCT03193307|183349553|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T1/R1) ratio (%)|154.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.81|177.58|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 22.4."|||177.58|133.81|
91727186|NCT02186171|183349573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|12.2||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||12.2|9.6|< 0.0001
91865760|NCT04244175|183622362|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.1|-0.4|=0.376
91865761|NCT04244175|183622362|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||-0.1|-0.5|=0.044
91865762|NCT04244175|183622362|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.3|-1.0|=0.005
91696366|NCT00529373|183286969|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.7|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.7|1.02|0.034
91696367|NCT00529373|183286970|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.97|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||3.97|0.93|0.081
91696368|NCT00529373|183286971|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.01|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.01|0.92|<0.001
91727187|NCT02186171|183349574|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 12 months in total hip and femoral neck to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.7||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||3.7|2.3|< 0.0001
91727188|NCT02186171|183349575|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 12 months in total hip and femoral neck to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.3||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||3.3|1.5|< 0.0001
91865763|NCT04244175|183622362|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.2|-0.5|=0.549
91696369|NCT00529373|183286971|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.37|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.37|2.05|<0.001
91696370|NCT00529373|183286971|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|4.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.57|4.20|<0.001
91865764|NCT04244175|183622362|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.1|-0.7|=0.048
91696371|NCT00529373|183286971|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.28|6.72|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.72|6.28|<0.001
91696372|NCT00529373|183286971|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.02|8.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.57|8.02|<0.001
91696373|NCT00529373|183286971|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|10.38|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.38|9.72|<0.001
91696374|NCT00529373|183286972|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.54|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.54|0.66|<0.001
91696375|NCT00529373|183286972|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.85|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.85|0.87|<0.001
91795534|NCT00395538|183469779|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.72||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.720
91795535|NCT00395538|183469779|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.944||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.944
91795536|NCT00395538|183469779|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.73||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.730
91795537|NCT00395538|183469780|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.N between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.019||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Tb.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Tb.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.019
91795538|NCT00395538|183469780|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.N between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.017||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Tb.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Tb.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.017
91865765|NCT04244175|183622362|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||-0.3|-1.0|=0.005
91904459|NCT01858532|183703980|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.654|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|0.878|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||0.878|0.488|=0.005
91904460|NCT01858532|183703981|OTHER||||||=|0.289|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||=0.289
91696376|NCT00529373|183286972|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.5|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.50|1.42|<0.001
91696377|NCT00529373|183286972|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.96|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.96|1.40|<0.001
91696378|NCT00529373|183286972|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.11|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.11|1.54|0.001
91696379|NCT00529373|183286973|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.45|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. the Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.45|0.24|<0.001
91696380|NCT00529373|183286974|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.75|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.75|0.60|<0.001
91865766|NCT04244175|183622362|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.2|-0.5|=0.549
91696381|NCT00529373|183286975|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.74|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.74|0.94|<0.001
91696382|NCT00529373|183286975|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|2.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.62|2.38|<0.001
91696383|NCT00529373|183286975|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|4.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.62|4.31|<0.001
91696384|NCT00529373|183286975|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.26|6.65|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.65|6.26|<0.001
91696385|NCT00529373|183286975|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.24|8.73|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.73|8.24|<0.001
91696386|NCT00529373|183286975|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|10.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.59|9.99|<0.001
91696387|NCT00529373|183286976|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.42|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.42|1.06|<0.001
91696388|NCT00529373|183286976|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|3.7|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.70|3.31|<0.001
91696389|NCT00529373|183286976|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.16|6.65|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24||6.65|6.16|<0.001
91696390|NCT00529373|183286976|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.95|9.54|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.54|8.95|<0.001
91696391|NCT00529373|183286976|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|12.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.76|12.51|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||12.51|11.76|<0.001
91696392|NCT00529373|183286976|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|14.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.11|15.01|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||15.01|14.11|<0.001
91696393|NCT00529373|183286977|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.39|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.39|2.40|<0.001
91696394|NCT00529373|183286977|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|4.15|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.15|3.87|<0.001
91696395|NCT00529373|183286977|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|6.11|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.11|5.75|<0.001
91696396|NCT00529373|183286977|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|7.91|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||7.91|7.48|<0.001
91727189|NCT02186171|183349576|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 6 months at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck BMD in order to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|9.7||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||9.7|7.6|< 0.0001
91696397|NCT00529373|183286977|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.08|9.61|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.61|9.08|<0.001
91795539|NCT00395538|183469780|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.N between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.843||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Tb.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Tb.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.843
91795540|NCT00395538|183469781|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Sp between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.013||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Sp at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.013
91795541|NCT00395538|183469781|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Sp between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.025||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Sp at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.025
91795542|NCT00395538|183469781|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Sp between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.608||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Sp at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.608
91904461|NCT01858532|183703981|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.779||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||1.060|0.573|0.112
91904462|NCT01858532|183703982|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||0.089
91696398|NCT00529373|183286977|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.55|11.19|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||11.19|10.55|<0.001
91696399|NCT00529373|183286986|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.1|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||4.10|1.43|<0.001
91696400|NCT00529373|183286987|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|7.05|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||7.05|4.06|<0.001
91696401|NCT00529373|183286988|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.72|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||4.72|0.86|0.005
91696402|NCT00529373|183286989|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|4.9|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||4.90|2.35|<0.001
91696403|NCT00529373|183286990|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|7.5|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||7.50|3.79|<0.001
91696404|NCT00529373|183286991|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-62.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.99|-44.5|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-44.50|-79.99|<0.001
91696405|NCT00529373|183286992|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.56|-10.83|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-10.83|-42.56|0.001
91696406|NCT00529373|183286993|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.67||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.01|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||3.01|0.32|0.016
91696407|NCT00529373|183286994|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-25.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.92|-14.12|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-14.12|-35.92|<0.001
91696408|NCT00529373|183286995|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-64.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.8|-41.07|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-41.07|-87.80|<0.001
91696409|NCT00529373|183286996|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|11.28|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||11.28|5.79|<0.001
91696410|NCT00529373|183286997|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.41|13.74|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||13.74|8.41|<0.001
91696411|NCT00529373|183286998|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|12.78|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||12.78|8.05|<0.001
91865767|NCT04244175|183622362|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||-0.1|-0.7|=0.048
91696412|NCT00529373|183286999|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|13.06|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||13.06|6.91|<0.001
91696413|NCT00529373|183287000|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|14.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|18.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||18.59|11.29|<0.001
91696414|NCT00529373|183287001|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.33|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.33|0.47|0.366
91727190|NCT02186171|183349577|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 6 months at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck BMD in order to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||2.0|0.8|< 0.0001
91696415|NCT00529373|183287002|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.4|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.4|0.92|0.246
91727191|NCT02186171|183349578|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 6 months at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck BMD in order to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|=|0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||2.1|0.4|= 0.0033
91865768|NCT04244175|183622363|SUPERIORITY|Changes from Baseline in QOLIE-31 Overall Scores was compared using an ANCOVA model with the Baseline score as a covariate and treatment group included in the model as fixed effects in the mITT population. This estimand included available post-Baseline response data that occurred before discontinuation of treatment or the addition of rescue medication.|LS Mean Difference|-0.49|||=|0.829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.23|3.26|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||3.26|-4.23|=0.829
91904463|NCT01858532|183703982|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.801||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|0.999|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||0.999|0.642|0.049
91696416|NCT00529373|183287003|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.03|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||2.03|0.32|0.638
91696417|NCT00529373|183287004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.36|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.36|1.02|0.029
91696418|NCT00529373|183287005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.17|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.17|0.95|0.341
91696419|NCT00529373|183287006|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.68|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.68|0.9|0.198
91696420|NCT00529373|183287007|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.26|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.26|0.7|0.798
91696421|NCT00529373|183287008|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.71|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.71|1.1|0.005
91696422|NCT00529373|183287009|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.5|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.5|0.99|0.059
91696423|NCT00529373|183287010|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.9|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||2.9|0.89|0.114
91696424|NCT00529373|183287011|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.31|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.31|0.99|0.159
91696425|NCT00529373|183287012|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.46|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.46|0.93|0.178
91696426|NCT00529373|183287013|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
91696427|NCT00529373|183287014|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05||||||||0.05|0.01|
91696428|NCT00529373|183287015|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.11||||||||0.11|0.03|
91696429|NCT00529373|183287016|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06||||||||0.06|0.02|
91696430|NCT01385137|183287037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.44|||Regression, Linear|||||0.44|-0.79|0.58
91696431|NCT01385137|183287039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.04|||Regression, Linear|||||3.04|-7.30|0.42
91727192|NCT01245062|183349579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.64||P-value from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|Log Rank||Investigator-Assessed PFS. HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Trametinib compared with CT. HR from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|||0.64|0.31|<0.0001
91727193|NCT01245062|183349579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.6||P-value from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|Log Rank||Independent Review PFS. HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Trametinib compared with CT. HR from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|||0.60|0.29|<0.0001
91727194|NCT06025695|183349598|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroconversion rate between the HRV PCV-free group and HRV group is greater than or equal to -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-0.55|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate between HRV PCV-free Group minus HRV Group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of HRV PCV-free Group as compared to HRV Group in terms of seroconversion rates 1 month post-Dose 2.||-0.55|-6.93|
91727195|NCT06025695|183349599|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of anti-RV IgA Ab GMC between the HRV PCV-free group and HRV group is greater than or equal to 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||||The comparison is done using the group GMC ratio (HRV PCV-free/HRV) (ANOVA model applied to the log10-transformed titers). The ANOVA model included the group as a fixed effect.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the HRV PCV-free Group as compared to HRV Group in terms of serum anti-RV IgA Ab concentrations 1 month post-Dose 2.||0.84|0.60|
91727196|NCT06025695|183349600|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in the percentage between the HRV PCV-free group and HRV group is greater than or equal to -10%.|Difference in percentage|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|-1.92|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in in the percentage between HRV PCV-free Group minus HRV Group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of HRV PCV-free Group as compared to HRV Group in terms of percentage of participants with anti-RV IgA antibody concentrations \>=90 U/mL 1 month post-Dose 2.||-1.92|-10.81|
91727197|NCT01452347|183349604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|74.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||||95.0|68.08|80.91|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||80.91|68.08|
91727198|NCT01452347|183349605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|84.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||||95.0|70.32|101.44|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||101.44|70.32|
91727199|NCT01452347|183349606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|95.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||||95.0|88.69|102.84|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||102.84|88.69|
91727200|NCT01452347|183349607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|103.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||||95.0|86.4|123.4|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||123.40|86.40|
91727201|NCT01452347|183349608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||<0.001
91727202|NCT01452347|183349609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||0.05
91865769|NCT04244175|183622363|SUPERIORITY|Changes from Baseline in QOLIE-31 Overall Scores was compared using an ANCOVA model with the Baseline score as a covariate and treatment group included in the model as fixed effects in the mITT population. This estimand included available post-Baseline response data that occurred before discontinuation of treatment or the addition of rescue medication.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.87|3.46|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||3.46|-3.87|=0.927
91904464|NCT01858532|183703983|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||0.89|0.58|0.002
91727203|NCT01452347|183349610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||0.46
91727204|NCT01452347|183349611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||0.65
91696432|NCT01385137|183287040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|5.6|||Regression, Linear|||||5.60|-4.17|0.77
91696433|NCT01385137|183287041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|5.44|||Regression, Linear|||||5.44|-1.16|0.21
91696434|NCT02347774|183287109|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.0736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01989||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0346|0.1127|||Least Mean Squared (SE)||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1127|0.0346|0.0002
91696435|NCT02347774|183287109|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02006||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0416|0.1204|||Least Mean Squared (SE)||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1204|0.0416|0.0001
91696436|NCT02347774|183287110|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0417|0.1224||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|I||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures model including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1224|0.0417|<0.0001
91727205|NCT05762744|183349612|OTHER|Unpaired two-tailed t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.37||||||The t-test was conducted on the logarithms of the variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the order of FSIGTs (saline or exenatide-stimulated) does not affect the response during an FSIGT||||0.37
91727206|NCT05762744|183349613|OTHER|Two-tailed unpaired t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The order of FSIGT (exenatide-stimulated or saline) does not affect the response to an FSIGT.||||0.66
91727207|NCT05762744|183349614|OTHER|Two-tailed unpaired t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the order of testing (exenatide-stimulated or saline FSIGT) does not affect data obtained in the FSIGTs.||||0.55
91727208|NCT05762744|183349615|OTHER|Unpaired, two-tailed t-test to test the null hypothesis||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The order of FSIGTs (exenatide-stimulated or saline) does not affect the response during an FSIGT||||0.45
91727209|NCT05762744|183349616|OTHER|Two-tailed unpaired t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.86||||||The t-test was conducted on the logarithms of the variable|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the order of FSIGT (exenatide or saline) does not affect the response during an FSIGT||||0.86
91727210|NCT05762744|183349617|OTHER|Two-tailed p-test for unpaired data||||||0.44||||||The t-test was conducted on the logarithms of the variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The order of FSIGTs (exenatide-stimulated or saline) does not affect the response to an FSIGT||||0.44
91727211|NCT05762744|183349618|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: no differences between the two groups with respect to exenatide's effect on first-phase insulin secretion.~t-test conducted on logarithms of the values"||||0.41
91904465|NCT01858532|183703984|OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||0.446
91696437|NCT02347774|183287110|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02069||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0433|0.1246||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures model including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1246|0.0433|0.0001
91727212|NCT05762744|183349618|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference between two groups with respect to exenatide's effect on first phase insulin secretion||||0.38
91727213|NCT05762744|183349619|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the two genotype groups do not differ with respect to the effect of exenatide on the rate of glucose disappearance||||0.80
91727214|NCT05762744|183349619|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the two genotype groups do not differ with respect to the effect of exenatide on the rate of glucose disappearance during an FSIGT||||0.98
91904466|NCT01858532|183703984|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.215|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||1.215|0.643|0.447
91904467|NCT00514514|183703985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|2.82|< 0.0001
91904468|NCT02081534|183704024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
91727215|NCT01350973|183349620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2491|4.983||An ANCOVA model was employed, using the baseline triglyceride level as covariate and the treatment group as an independent variable.|ANCOVA|||||4.9830|-4.2491|0.8760
91727216|NCT01350973|183349620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9442|-6.7637||An ANCOVA model was employed, using the baseline triglyceride level as covariate and the treatment group as an independent variable.|ANCOVA|||||-6.7637|-15.9442|< 0.0001
91727217|NCT02507284|183349631|NON_INFERIORITY|Results for the secondary safety endpoint, adverse events (AEs) in study subjects, was performed using a test for non-inferiority with a threshold of 0.50. The null hypothesis is that the treatment minus placebo proportion difference is greater than (or equal to) the margin of 0.50 and the alternative hypothesis is that the difference is less than 0.50.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.025||||0.5|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.50
91727218|NCT01260324|183349632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.01|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 18 to 34||0.01|0.01|
91727219|NCT01260324|183349632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.01|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 35 to 44||0.01|0.01|
91727220|NCT01260324|183349632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.04|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 45 to 54||0.04|0.03|
91727221|NCT01260324|183349632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.09|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 55 to 64||0.09|0.07|
91727222|NCT01260324|183349632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.14|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 65 to 74||0.14|0.11|
91727223|NCT01260324|183349632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.21|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age ≥75||0.21|0.15|
91727224|NCT01260324|183349632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.13|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 18 to 34||0.13|0.06|
91727225|NCT01260324|183349632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.16|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 35 to 44||0.16|0.08|
91727226|NCT01260324|183349632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.45|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 45 to 54||0.45|0.30|
91727227|NCT01260324|183349632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|5.47|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 65 to 74||5.47|2.68|
91727228|NCT01260324|183349632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|8.22|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age ≥75||8.22|4.00|
91727229|NCT01260324|183349633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Female||0.05|0.04|
91795543|NCT00395538|183469782|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Th values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.043||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.043
91865770|NCT04244175|183622363|SUPERIORITY|Changes from Baseline in QOLIE-31 Overall Scores was compared using an ANCOVA model with the Baseline score as a covariate and treatment group included in the model as fixed effects in the mITT population. This estimand included available post-Baseline response data that occurred before discontinuation of treatment or the addition of rescue medication.|LS Mean Difference|-0.35|||=|0.859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|2.88|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||2.88|-3.57|=0.859
91865771|NCT04244175|183622364|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.013|||=|0.788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.096|0.069|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-2)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-2)||0.069|-0.096|=0.788
91727230|NCT01260324|183349633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Male||0.06|0.05|
91727231|NCT01260324|183349633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.22|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Male||2.22|1.50|
91727232|NCT01260324|183349634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2003||0.05|0.04|
91696438|NCT04075682|183287127|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus their not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.25||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.25|-0.73|0.60
91727233|NCT01260324|183349634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2004||0.05|0.04|
91727234|NCT01260324|183349634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2005||0.05|0.04|
91727235|NCT01260324|183349634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2006||0.05|0.04|
91727236|NCT01260324|183349634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2007||0.05|0.04|
91795544|NCT00395538|183469782|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.334||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.334
91795545|NCT00395538|183469782|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.269||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Ct.Th change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Ct.Th, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.269
91865772|NCT04244175|183622364|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.077|||=|0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.006|0.16|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-2)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-2)||0.160|-0.006|=0.126
91865773|NCT04244175|183622364|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.032|||=|0.461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.039|0.103|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-2)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-2)||0.103|-0.039|=0.461
91865774|NCT04244175|183622364|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.032|||=|0.661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.154|0.089|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-3)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-3)||0.089|-0.154|=0.661
91865775|NCT04244175|183622364|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.115|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.237|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-3)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-3)||0.237|-0.008|=0.124
91865776|NCT04244175|183622364|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.041|||=|0.518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.064|0.146|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-3)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-3)||0.146|-0.064|=0.518
91727237|NCT01260324|183349634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2004||0.96|0.61|
91727238|NCT01260324|183349634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2005||0.91|0.58|
91727239|NCT01260324|183349634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2006||1.12|0.68|
91727240|NCT01260324|183349634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2007||1.19|0.72|
91865777|NCT03636490|183622376|OTHER|We tested an association between change in urinary sodium excretion rate with stress and ratio of awake-to-asleep urinary sodium excretion rate.|unstandardized B coefficients|0.0021||||0.0032||95.0|0.0007|0.0034|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, mean DBP during the baseline period, and 24-hour creatinine clearance.||||0.0034|0.0007|0.0032
91696439|NCT04075682|183287127|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus their not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.66|-2.22|0.29
91696440|NCT04075682|183287127|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.16||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.16|-1.67|0.73
91727241|NCT01260324|183349635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Northeast||0.06|0.04|
91727242|NCT01260324|183349635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Midwest||0.05|0.04|
91727243|NCT01260324|183349635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate South||0.06|0.05|
91727244|NCT01260324|183349635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate West||0.05|0.04|
91865778|NCT03636490|183622377|OTHER|We tested an association between ratio of awake-to-asleep urinary sodium excretion rate and SBP dipping.|unstandardized B coefficients|0.8244||||0.037||95.0|0.0487|1.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, BMI, smoking, alcohol use, glucose, 24-hr sodium and potassium excretion, 24-hr creat clear, and FENa|Data are unstandardized B coefficients (95% CI)|||1.6000|0.0487|0.037
91705368|NCT01306214|183305230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|-0.13||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-0.13|-0.62|0.0005
91727245|NCT01260324|183349635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.56|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Northeast||0.56|0.31|
91727246|NCT01260324|183349635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.84|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Midwest||0.84|0.56|
91727247|NCT01260324|183349635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio West||0.93|0.57|
91727248|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.1|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Diabetes||0.10|0.08|
91865779|NCT02585323|183622402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|13.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|24.5|||ANCOVA|||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing time in MVPA at 13 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline MVPA, diagnosis, and blocking.||24.5|1.6|0.05
91727249|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Smoking||0.14|0.08|
91727250|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Obesity||0.06|0.03|
91865780|NCT02585323|183622403|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-29.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.8|16.7|||ANCOVA|||||16.7|-75.8|0.05
91865781|NCT02585323|183622404|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.9|||ANCOVA|||||4.9|-7.8|0.05
91865782|NCT02585323|183622405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|2.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.5|||ANCOVA|||||9.5|-4.2|0.05
91696441|NCT04075682|183287127|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.74||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.74|-2.34|0.77
91696442|NCT04075682|183287127|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.88||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.88|-1.43|0.51
91696443|NCT04075682|183287127|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.01||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.01|0.02|0.05
91727251|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.09|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Nitrates||0.09|0.06|
91727252|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.18|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Anti-platelet agents||0.18|0.12|
91727253|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.17|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Diuretics||0.17|0.09|
91727254|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Recent PDE-5 inhibitors use||0.04|0.01|
91727255|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.25|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Diabetes||2.25|1.47|
91727256|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.85|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Smoking||2.85|0.63|
91727257|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.81|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Obesity||0.81|0.23|
91727258|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Nitrates||0.94|0.42|
91727259|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.94|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Anti-platelet agents||2.94|1.53|
91865783|NCT02585323|183622406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-3.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|7.2|||ANCOVA|||||7.2|-14.9|0.05
91865784|NCT02585323|183622407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|2.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.8|||ANCOVA|||||8.8|-3.3|0.05
91865785|NCT02585323|183622408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.9|||ANCOVA|||||7.9|-5.0|0.05
91865786|NCT02585323|183622409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-0.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-1.7|0.05
91865787|NCT02585323|183622410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-2.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-6.6|0.05
91865788|NCT02585323|183622411|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.2|0.05
91865789|NCT02585323|183622412|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|0.2|0.05
91696444|NCT04075682|183287127|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|2.02||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.02|-3.84|0.54
91696445|NCT04075682|183287127|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|5.17||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.17|-1.13|0.21
91696446|NCT04075682|183287127|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|1.83||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.83|-3.97|0.47
91727260|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.43|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Diuretics||3.43|1.46|
91727261|NCT01260324|183349636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.04|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Recent PDE-5 inhibitors use||1.04|0.31|
91727262|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.39|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other retinal disorders||0.39|0.28|
91727263|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.16|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Glaucoma||0.16|0.11|
91727264|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.41|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Cataract||0.41|0.08|
91727265|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.17|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Visual disturbances||1.17|0.83|
91727266|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.46|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Blindness and low vision||2.46|1.60|
91727267|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.23|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other disorders of eye||0.23|0.16|
91727268|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.27|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries||0.27|0.18|
91727269|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Acute sinusitis||0.08|0.05|
91727270|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other dermatoses||0.08|0.05|
91727271|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.1|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other disorders of bone and cartilage||0.10|0.06|
91727272|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.14|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Symptoms involving head and neck||0.14|0.10|
91727273|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.18|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other ill defined and unknown causes of morbidity and mortality||0.18|0.10|
91865790|NCT02585323|183622413|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.05
91727274|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|9.38|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other retinal disorders||9.38|4.72|
91727275|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.81|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Glaucoma||3.81|1.77|
91727276|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.68|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Cataract||1.68|1.02|
91727277|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|19.3|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Visual disturbances||19.30|10.40|
91727278|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|34.5|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Blindness and low vision||34.50|6.60|
91795546|NCT00395538|183469783|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Ar between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Ar values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.358||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.358
91727279|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.82|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other disorders of eye||2.82|1.44|
91795547|NCT00395538|183469783|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Ar between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.76||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.760
91865791|NCT02585323|183622414|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|0.05
91865792|NCT02585323|183622415|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.1|0.05
91865793|NCT02585323|183622416|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.6|0.05
91865794|NCT02585323|183622417|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.1|0.05
91727280|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.31|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries||2.31|0.64|
91727281|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.74|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Acute sinusitis||1.74|0.96|
91727282|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.77|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other dermatoses||1.77|1.02|
91727283|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.77|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other disorders of bone and cartilage||1.77|0.98|
91727284|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.84|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Symptoms involving head and neck||1.84|1.02|
91727285|NCT01260324|183349637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.49|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Ill defined and unknown causes of morbidity and mortality||2.49|1.08|
91727286|NCT01260324|183349638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Recent use||0.07|0.03|
91727287|NCT01260324|183349638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Any use (includes chronic and non-chronic use)||0.08|0.04|
91727288|NCT01260324|183349638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Chronic use||0.08|0.03|
91727289|NCT01260324|183349638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.11|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Non-chronic use||0.11|0.03|
91696447|NCT04075682|183287128|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.24||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.24|-0.68|0.57
91696448|NCT04075682|183287128|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.14||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.14|-2.63|0.08
91696449|NCT04075682|183287128|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.77||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment, comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||0.77|-1.97|0.39
91795548|NCT00395538|183469783|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Ar between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.57||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.570
91795549|NCT00395538|183469784|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.Ar between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Po.Ar values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.166||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.166
91795550|NCT00395538|183469784|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.Ar between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.895||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.895
91795551|NCT00395538|183469784|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.Ar between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.282||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.282
91865795|NCT03364127|183622424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.51|||ANCOVA|Full information maximum likelihood for missing data and to retain participants for intention to treat model. Adjusted for baseline value.||||.51|-.76|0.702
91865796|NCT03364127|183622425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.79|||ANCOVA|Full information maximum likelihood for missing data and to retain participants for intention to treat model. Adjusted for baseline value.||||.79|-.58|0.77
91727290|NCT01260324|183349638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.1|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Never use||0.10|0.08|
91727291|NCT01160744|183349646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.55|0.1318
91727292|NCT01160744|183349646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.64|0.5215
91727293|NCT01160744|183349647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|2.78|||Chi-squared|||||2.78|0.90|0.1797
91727294|NCT01160744|183349647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.45|4.86|||Chi-squared|||||4.86|1.45|0.0070
91795552|NCT00395538|183469785|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.O.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
91795553|NCT00395538|183469785|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.O.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
91795554|NCT00395538|183469785|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.O.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.68||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.680
91795555|NCT00395538|183469786|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.006
91795556|NCT00395538|183469786|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.004
91865797|NCT03364127|183622426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.09|||ANCOVA|Full information maximum likelihood for missing data and to retain participants for intention to treat model. Adjusted for baseline value.||||4.09|-1.76|0.436
91865798|NCT03364127|183622427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.72||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|6.54||Kaplan-Meier curves by treatment arm were examined to determine the rates of return to baseline over the 12-week follow-up period .|Log Rank|||Goal was to assess duration of effect among those who showed a response to the intervention (1.5 or greater decrease in PIN).||6.54|1.13|0.017
91865799|NCT02278211|183622428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.76|||Log Rank|||||1.76|0.89|0.20
91727295|NCT01160744|183349648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.74|0.8916
91727296|NCT01160744|183349648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.68|0.6847
91727297|NCT01160744|183349651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|5.02|||Chi-squared|||||5.02|1.22|0.0316
91727298|NCT01160744|183349651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|2.52|||Chi-squared|||||2.52|0.74|0.3962
91727299|NCT01160744|183349652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1571
91727300|NCT01160744|183349652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1597
91727301|NCT03156621|183349673|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-19.9||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis|MMRM||p-value vs Placebo|||-19.9|-51.2|<0.0001
91727302|NCT03156621|183349674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-17.3||p-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis|MMRM|||||-17.3|-42.3|< 0.0001
91727303|NCT03156621|183349675|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-18.2||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis|MMRM|||||-18.2|-47.6|< 0.0001
91727304|NCT03156621|183349676|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-14.0||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis.|MMRM|||||-14.0|-38.9|< 0.0001
91727305|NCT03156621|183349677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|12.2|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|48.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||48.8|3.1|= 0.0004
91727306|NCT03156621|183349678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|36.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|308.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||308.9|4.3|= 0.0010
91727307|NCT03156621|183349679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-15.2|||Regression model|||||-15.2|-41.5|< 0.0001
91727308|NCT03156621|183349680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.7|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3||Maximum likelihood estimate does not exist||Exact Conditional Logistic Regression||||||3.3|= 0.0017
91727309|NCT03156621|183349681|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|=|0.3541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.3||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis.|MMRM|||||11.3|-4.1|= 0.3541
91727310|NCT03156621|183349682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|2.6||||||||2.6|-25.2|
91727311|NCT03156621|183349683|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.7||||||||10.7|-3.6|
91727312|NCT03156621|183349684|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-19.9||||||||-19.9|-51.2|
91727313|NCT03156621|183349685|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-17.3||||||||-17.3|-43.3|
91727314|NCT03156621|183349686|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-18.2||||||||-18.2|-47.6|
91727315|NCT03156621|183349687|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-14.0||||||||-14.0|-28.9|
91727316|NCT03156621|183349688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-15.2||||||||-15.2|-41.5|
91727317|NCT03156621|183349689|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.3||||||||11.3|-4.1|
91727318|NCT03156621|183349690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|2.6||||||||2.6|-25.2|
91727319|NCT03156621|183349691|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.7||||||||10.7|-3.6|
91727320|NCT03156621|183349692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|48.8||||||≥15% reduction||48.8|3.1|
91727321|NCT03156621|183349692|SUPERIORITY|≥ 30% reduction|Odds Ratio (OR)|36.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|308.9||||||||308.9|4.3|
91727322|NCT03156621|183349692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3||Maximum likelihood estimate does not exist|||||≥ 50% reduction|||3.3|
91727323|NCT03156621|183349693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-0.6|
91727324|NCT03016403|183349712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.98||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.98|0.52|0.0057
91727325|NCT03016403|183349713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.73||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|Linear mixed models (LMM) have been used with time and the interaction between time and group as fixed effects. A structure of random effects that includes random intercepts for patients was used. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points. A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.73|0.19|0.0243
91727326|NCT03016403|183349714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.31||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.23|-4.39||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of an interaction between time and intervention arm.|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|Linear mixed models (LMM) have been used with time and the interaction between time and group as fixed effects. A structure of random effects that includes random intercepts for patients was used. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points. A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||-4.39|-26.23|0.0061
91760026|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.15||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.15|-0.30|
91760027|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.63|
91760028|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.64|
91865800|NCT02278211|183622429|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.43||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|5.12|||Log Rank|||||5.12|1.15|0.02
91865801|NCT02997202|183622482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.679||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|1.005|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were conditioning regimen intensity MAC vs RIC/NMA, time from transplant to randomization (30 to 60 days vs 61 to 90 days), and the presence of MRD (present vs absent/unknown) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.005|0.459|0.0518
91865802|NCT02997202|183622483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846||||0.4394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|1.293|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were conditioning regimen intensity MAC vs RIC/NMA, time from transplant to randomization (30 to 60 days vs 61 to 90 days), and the presence of MRD (present vs absent/unknown) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.293|0.554|0.4394
91696450|NCT04075682|183287128|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|2.47||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.47|-1.45|0.61
91696451|NCT04075682|183287128|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.97|-2.23|0.90
91696452|NCT04075682|183287128|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.97|0.13|0.04
91696453|NCT04075682|183287128|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.48||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.48|-2.14|0.64
91696454|NCT04075682|183287128|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|3.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.20|-2.91|0.92
91758716|NCT00235716|183410639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.63|-3.71|0.03
91758717|NCT00235716|183410640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13||p-value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for vitamin E group relative to the placebo group.|||1.13|0.67|0.31
91758718|NCT00235716|183410640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24||p-value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for the memantine group relative to the placebo group.|||1.24|0.91|0.47
91758719|NCT00235716|183410640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.54||p-value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for the vitamin E + memantine group relative to the placebo group.|||1.54|0.57|0.80
91865803|NCT02997202|183622486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.308||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1352|4.6922|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine \& Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||4.6922|1.1352|0.0209
91696455|NCT04075682|183287128|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.52||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||0.52|-5.02|0.11
91696456|NCT04075682|183287129|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.82||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.82|-1.48|0.57
91696457|NCT04075682|183287129|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.27||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial warnings (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial warnings (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.27|-3.22|0.39
91696458|NCT04075682|183287129|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|3.04||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.04|-3.35|0.92
91696459|NCT04075682|183287130|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.53|-1.33|0.40
91727327|NCT03016403|183349715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.73||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.73|4.27||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||4.27|-19.73|0.21
91865804|NCT02997202|183622487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|1.261|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were conditioning regimen intensity MAC vs RIC/NMA, time from transplant to randomization (30 to 60 days vs 61 to 90 days), and the presence of MRD (present vs absent/unknown) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.261|0.686|0.6417
91865805|NCT02997202|183622488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8938||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5574|1.433|||Fine-Grays model|||"aGVHD II to IV:~Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate."||1.4330|0.5574|0.6410
91865806|NCT02997202|183622488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4254||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6103|3.3289|||Fine-Grays model|||"aGVHD III to IV:~Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate."||3.3289|0.6103|0.4128
91865807|NCT02997202|183622489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.236||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9116|1.6757|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.6757|0.9116|0.1725
91727328|NCT03016403|183349716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.05||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||3.05|-0.01|0.052
91727329|NCT03016403|183349717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.36||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.36|-0.52|0.214
91865808|NCT02997202|183622490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.236||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9116|1.6757|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.6757|0.9116|0.1725
91865809|NCT02997202|183622491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.4537||||0.2029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5126|23.2687|||Fine-Grays Model|||MRD Eradication||23.2687|0.5126|0.2029
91865810|NCT02997202|183622491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7073||||0.4077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3116|1.6055|||Fine-Grays Model|||MRD 10\^-4 Detection||1.6055|0.3116|0.4077
91727330|NCT03016403|183349718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-0.87||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||-0.87|-7.45|0.0134
91727331|NCT03016403|183349719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.12||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.12|-0.9|0.42
91758720|NCT02249182|183410648|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% confidence intervals (CI) were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.61|122.13||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 12 to \< 18 Years old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||122.13|90.61|
91865811|NCT02997202|183622492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2243|0.6199|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||0.6199|0.2243|<0.001
91865812|NCT02997202|183622493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4848||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9886|2.23|||Fine-Grays model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||2.2300|0.9886|0.0568
91865813|NCT04631016|183622558|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.024||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.015|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.063|-0.015|0.216
91865814|NCT04631016|183622561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.57|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.57|0.186
91865815|NCT04631016|183622582|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.067||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.017|0.116||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger correction has been used for degrees of freedom approximation in the generation of model.||Results are based on the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis at Week 12.||0.116|0.017|0.044
91865816|NCT04631016|183622582|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.07||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.02|0.12||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger correction has been used for degrees of freedom approximation in the generation of model.||Results are based on the MMRM analysis at Week 28.||0.120|0.020|0.036
91865817|NCT04704869|183622597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||||1.17|0.81|
91904469|NCT01480284|183704073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was judged based on the one-sided test of the model, y(Δ) = Baseline + Group ( Δ= -1.0). The adjusted mean values of the TDF group and the ETV group were calculated, and the adjusted mean value and two-sided 95% confidence interval of differences between the TDF group and the ETV group were calculated. Non-inferiority was also to be confirmed when the upper limit of the calculated two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than the non-inferiority limit value of 1.0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||p-value was compared with the significance level of 0.025|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.28|<0.0001
91904470|NCT01480284|183704074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.39|||||CI and estimate difference is provided for change from Baseline in serum HBV DNA level at Week 48.|||0.39|-0.40|
91696460|NCT04075682|183287130|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.86||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial health warning labels (HWLs) (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.86|-1.83|0.99
91795557|NCT00395538|183469786|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.904||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.904
91795558|NCT00395538|183469787|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.OS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
91795559|NCT00395538|183469787|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.OS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
91795560|NCT00395538|183469787|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.OS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.01||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.010
91795561|NCT00395538|183469788|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.ES/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
91795562|NCT00395538|183469788|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.ES/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
91904471|NCT04746833|183704085|EQUIVALENCE|mean of Summit will be equal to mean of control||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.91
91904472|NCT04746833|183704086|OTHER|||||||||||||||||descriptive statistic of system use|simple descriptive findings for evaluation of feasibility of the Sumit app|||
91865818|NCT04490109|183622626|SUPERIORITY|The ANCOVA model for primary endpoint change from Baseline to Week 4 in average WI-NRS will have treatment group and Baseline weekly average WI-NRS as explanatory variables. Hypothesis will be tested using a Dunnett Testing Method, applying pairwise comparisons of each group to vehicle using a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10. Treatment effect will be estimated as least squares means using vehicle as reference and adjusted using Dunnett Testing Method and presented with one-sided 90% CI.||||||0.0148|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 576 subjects may be enrolled to account for 16.7% drop out rate prior to completing the study. A total of 160 evaluable subjects per group are required to achieve at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.65 in mean WI-NRS change from Baseline to Week 4 between one of two active doses of B244 and vehicle control when assuming a standard deviation of 2.5 and applying a Dunnett Testing Method at a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10.||||0.0148
91865819|NCT04490109|183622626|SUPERIORITY|The ANCOVA model for primary endpoint change from Baseline to Week 4 in average WI-NRS will have treatment group and Baseline weekly average WI-NRS as explanatory variables. Hypothesis will be tested using a Dunnett Testing Method, applying pairwise comparisons of each group to vehicle using a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10. Treatment effect will be estimated as least squares means using vehicle as reference and adjusted using Dunnett Testing Method and presented with one-sided 90% CI.||||||0.0143|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 576 subjects may be enrolled to account for 16.7% drop out rate prior to completing the study. A total of 160 evaluable subjects per group are required to achieve at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.65 in mean WI-NRS change from Baseline to Week 4 between one of two active doses of B244 and vehicle control when assuming a standard deviation of 2.5 and applying a Dunnett Testing Method at a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10.||||0.0143
91865820|NCT04490109|183622628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0205
91696461|NCT04075682|183287130|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|4.48||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||4.48|-0.78|0.17
91696462|NCT04075682|183287131|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.57|-0.69|0.45
91696463|NCT04075682|183287131|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.66|-1.61|0.41
91696464|NCT04075682|183287131|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.20|-3.08|0.08
91727332|NCT03016403|183349720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.34||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||3.34|0.2|0.0269
91758721|NCT02249182|183410648|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|65.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.62|76.37||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||76.37|56.62|
91696465|NCT04075682|183287131|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.09||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.09|-2.14|0.52
91696466|NCT04075682|183287131|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.51||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.51|-1.82|0.75
91727333|NCT03016403|183349721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.32||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||4.32|0.8|0.0044
91727334|NCT04641975|183349746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|4.59|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with change from baseline at week 12 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.||4.59|-0.15|0.121
91727335|NCT04641975|183349747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.91||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.47|18.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||18.46|-49.47|0.430
91727336|NCT04641975|183349747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.91||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.47|18.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||18.46|-49.47|0.430
91727337|NCT04641975|183349748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.08||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.23|58.38|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||58.38|-53.23|0.935
91727338|NCT04641975|183349748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.08||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.23|58.38|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||58.38|-53.23|0.935
91727339|NCT04641975|183349749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||-0.10|-1.99|0.073
91795563|NCT00395538|183469788|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.ES/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.020
91865821|NCT04490109|183622629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0044
91865822|NCT04490109|183622629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0077
91865823|NCT04490109|183622630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0400
91904473|NCT04746833|183704087|EQUIVALENCE|standard null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.50
91795564|NCT00395538|183469789|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.AjAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
91696467|NCT04075682|183287131|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.33||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.33|-3.82|0.64
91696468|NCT04075682|183287131|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.45||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.45|-2.17|0.91
91696469|NCT04075682|183287131|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.6||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.60|-3.29|0.50
91696470|NCT04075682|183287131|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.41||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.41|0.86|0.007
91696471|NCT04075682|183287131|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|4.4||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.40|-2.22|0.52
91696472|NCT04075682|183287131|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.23||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.23|-3.89|0.86
91727340|NCT04641975|183349749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||-0.20|-1.80|0.044
91865824|NCT04490109|183622630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0486|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0486
91727341|NCT04641975|183349750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.64|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA as performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||0.64|-0.74|0.910
91727342|NCT04641975|183349750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.64|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA as performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||0.64|-0.74|0.910
91727343|NCT04641975|183349751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|3.99|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||3.99|0.97|0.012
91727344|NCT04641975|183349751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.82|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||3.82|1.10|0.007
91865825|NCT04490109|183622632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0246
91865826|NCT04490109|183622632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0366|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0366
91727345|NCT04641975|183349752|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.2||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|1.02|||Binomial regression|||Without LOCF: From a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex and region as factors and the log baseline rate of number of dry days (the log of the ratio of dry days at baseline and number of diary days at baseline) as covariate.||1.02|0.04|0.105
91727346|NCT04641975|183349752|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.22||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.05|||Binomial regression|||With LOCF: From a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex and region as factors and the log baseline rate of number of dry days (the log of the ratio of dry days at baseline and number of diary days at baseline) as covariate.||1.05|0.05|0.111
91795565|NCT00395538|183469789|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.AjAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.022||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.022
91904474|NCT03593850|183704099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91727347|NCT01657500|183349771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|See above|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Main outcome measure was endothelial cell loss at 6 months after EK. Sample size and statistical power calculations for testing equivalence of means within 10% range were performed at 80% power/0.025 level of significance. 20% variability was assumed. 6-month endothelial cell loss) should not differ significantly for surgeon-prepared versus eye bank-prepared tissue. Assuming pairs of corneas matched by pt. diagnosis and other characteristics, the required sample size was 34 donor pairs.||||< 0.05
91727348|NCT03892915|183349788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.93||||||||1.93|0.73|
91865827|NCT04490109|183622633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0467|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0467
91727349|NCT03892915|183349789|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91727350|NCT03892915|183349791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.5||||||||6.50|0.53|
91727351|NCT03892915|183349792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|16.64||||||||16.64|0.45|
91727352|NCT03892915|183349793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.83||||||||0.83|0.05|
91727353|NCT00449007|183349808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Difference between 6 months and baseline for Bupropion treated group.~Due to the low number of participants, the results are unreliable."||||1.0
91727354|NCT03566550|183349811|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
91865828|NCT04490109|183622634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0293|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0293
91865829|NCT04490109|183622635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0045
91904475|NCT03593850|183704100|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis was performed according to pre-defined significant difference of p \< 0.01||||||0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.392
91904476|NCT03593850|183704101|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis was performed according to pre-defined significant difference of p \< 0.01||||||0.802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.802
91904477|NCT03593850|183704102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91696473|NCT04075682|183287131|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.43||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.43|-4.15|0.61
91696474|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.96||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.96|0.82|0.29
91696475|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.85||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||1.85|0.77|0.43
91727355|NCT03566550|183349812|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91727356|NCT03566550|183349813|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91727357|NCT03566550|183349814|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
91727358|NCT03566550|183349815|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91727359|NCT00986583|183349819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of medians|1.34||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.72||This is for the primary comparison at 20 minute|ANCOVA||Ratio of medians of myoglobin measured at 20 minute for statin users vs. non-statin users|||1.72|1.05|0.018
91727360|NCT03518203|183349825|EQUIVALENCE|A binomial test was used to test 6 month survival in study cohort against an 18% historical rate.|Proportion|0.714|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91727361|NCT00345592|183349847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.503||||||||1.503|0.684|
91727362|NCT00137280|183349848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.58|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison group is the control (denominator)|||3.58|1.47|<0.01
91727363|NCT00137280|183349849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.03
91727364|NCT00137280|183349850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.34|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison group is the control (denominator)|||4.34|1.22|<0.01
91865830|NCT04490109|183622635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0043
91865831|NCT04490109|183622636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0026
91727365|NCT00137280|183349851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.11
91727366|NCT05001165|183349852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||||0.7|-0.1|
91727367|NCT05001165|183349853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.14|0.84|
91727368|NCT05001165|183349854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.64|<0.05
91727369|NCT05001165|183349855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.73|
91727370|NCT05001165|183349856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.68|
91727371|NCT05001165|183349857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.51|0.88|
91727372|NCT05001165|183349858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|0.99|
91727373|NCT05001165|183349859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.34|
91727374|NCT03467945|183349864|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|81.4421|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.2805|88.1079||||||||88.1079|75.2805|
91727375|NCT03467945|183349864|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|102.293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8819|106.9028||||||||106.9028|97.8819|
91727376|NCT03467945|183349864|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|81.0112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8823|87.6417||||||||87.6417|74.8823|
91727377|NCT03467945|183349865|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|102.293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8819|106.9028||||||||106.9028|97.8819|
91727378|NCT03467945|183349865|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|105.7255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1665|110.49||||||||110.4900|101.1665|
91727379|NCT03467945|183349865|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.7533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5812|101.1135||||||||101.1135|92.5812|
91727380|NCT03467945|183349866|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|77.6923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.383|85.7606||||||||85.7606|70.3830|
91727381|NCT03467945|183349866|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|108.0819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.237|114.2609||||||||114.2609|102.2370|
91795566|NCT00395538|183469789|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.AjAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.228||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.228
91795567|NCT00395538|183469790|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.O.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.O.Th values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.004
91795568|NCT00395538|183469790|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.O.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.006
91904478|NCT03593850|183704102|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.429||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Fixed factors: group, covariates: pain before (VAS2), age in years, age at menarche, duration of menses, usual pain, anxiety before, hours with pain.|||Adjusted means: music 3.131 (99% CI 2.62, 3.999) and silence 4.56 (99% CI 3.581, 5.538), F= 8.44, R-square 54.5%|||0.006
91904479|NCT03593850|183704103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91904480|NCT03593850|183704103|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.721||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Fixed factor: Groups Covariates: Pain before, pain after, age, age menarche, menses duration, usual pain, anxiety before, anxiety after, hours pain|Adjusted means: music 2.58 (99% CI 1.339, 3.829), and silence 3.305 (1.728, 4.881); F 0.827, R-square 27.2%|||||0.370
91904481|NCT03593850|183704104|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups was pre-defined as p \> 0.01||||||0.377|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.377
91904482|NCT03593850|183704105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
91696476|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||2.20|0.63|0.60
91727382|NCT03467945|183349866|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|79.4367|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.9633|87.6861||||||||87.6861|71.9633|
91727383|NCT03467945|183349867|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|108.0819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.237|114.2609||||||||114.2609|102.2370|
91727384|NCT03467945|183349867|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|93.6828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6166|99.0386||||||||99.0386|88.6166|
91727385|NCT03467945|183349867|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|115.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.131|121.9658||||||||121.9658|109.1310|
91727386|NCT03467945|183349868|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|82.6022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5513|89.1314||||||||89.1314|76.5513|
91727387|NCT03467945|183349868|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|101.8499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8819|106.9028||||||||106.9028|97.8819|
91727388|NCT03467945|183349868|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|81.0112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8823|87.6417||||||||87.6417|74.8823|
91727389|NCT03467945|183349869|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|101.8499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.5947|106.2906||||||||106.2906|97.5947|
91727390|NCT03467945|183349869|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|105.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.49|110.533||||||||110.5330|101.4900|
91727391|NCT03467945|183349869|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.1619|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.1443|100.3546||||||||100.3546|92.1443|
91696477|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.33||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||2.33|0.67|0.48
91727392|NCT03336866|183349907|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91727393|NCT03336866|183349907|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91727394|NCT03336866|183349907|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91727395|NCT03336866|183349907|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 26. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91795569|NCT00395538|183469790|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.O.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.67||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.670
91795570|NCT00395538|183469791|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.MAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
91865832|NCT04490109|183622636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0005
91865833|NCT04490109|183622637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0348|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0348
91904483|NCT03593850|183704106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.168
91696478|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.91||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.91|0.34|0.62
91696479|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|10.52||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||10.52|0.88|0.079
91795571|NCT00395538|183469791|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
91904484|NCT03593850|183704107|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups was pre-defined as p \> 0.01||||||0.642|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.642
91696480|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.12|0.87|0.10
91696481|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.61|0.52|0.52
91696482|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.17||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.17|0.55|0.54
91758722|NCT02249182|183410648|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|94.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.51|107.27||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||107.27|82.51|
91758723|NCT02249182|183410648|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|127.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.89|170.45||||||AUCtau of LDV for the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||170.45|94.89|
91758724|NCT02249182|183410648|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|82.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.34|110.3||||||AUCtau of LDV for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||110.30|61.34|
91758725|NCT02249182|183410648|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|120.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.18|155.73||||||AUCtau of LDV for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||155.73|93.18|
91865834|NCT04490109|183622637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0173
91696483|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.61|0.53|0.33
91727396|NCT03336866|183349907|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91727397|NCT03336866|183349907|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91727398|NCT03336866|183349907|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91727399|NCT03336866|183349907|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 26. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91727400|NCT03336866|183349908|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91758726|NCT02249182|183410648|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|159.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.89|185.37||||||AUCtau of SOF for the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||185.37|137.89|
91865835|NCT04490109|183622638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0228
91865836|NCT04490109|183622638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0015
91865837|NCT04490109|183622639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0003
91865838|NCT04490109|183622640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0195
91696484|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.11|0.38|0.55
91696485|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.14||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.14|0.18|0.44
91696486|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.98||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation models for pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.98|0.84|0.2510
91696487|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.95||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||1.95|0.82|0.2822
91696488|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.47||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for multiple imputation models for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||2.47|0.72|0.3558
91696489|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.51||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||2.51|0.73|0.3291
91758727|NCT02249182|183410648|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|129.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.79|151.32||||||AUCtau of SOF for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||151.32|110.79|
91758728|NCT02249182|183410648|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|187.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.41|245.82||||||AUCtau of SOF for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||245.82|143.41|
91865839|NCT04490109|183622641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0365|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0365
91904485|NCT03593850|183704108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91865840|NCT04490109|183622642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0086
91865841|NCT04490109|183622642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0035
91865842|NCT04490109|183622643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0074
91865843|NCT04490109|183622643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0008
91865844|NCT04163991|183622644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|-0.21||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.21|-1.47|0.0296
91865845|NCT04163991|183622644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|-0.18||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.18|-1.44|0.0355
91865846|NCT04163991|183622644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|-0.18||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.18|-1.44|0.0364
91758729|NCT00360568|183410708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91865847|NCT04163991|183622644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|-0.13||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.13|-1.41|0.0478
91865848|NCT04163991|183622655|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.64||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.94||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.94|0.43|0.0584
91865849|NCT04163991|183622655|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.76||||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.11||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||1.11|0.51|0.2274
91758730|NCT00360568|183410709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.394
91865850|NCT04163991|183622655|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.77||||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.14||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||1.14|0.52|0.2794
91758731|NCT00360568|183410710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91758732|NCT00360568|183410711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91758733|NCT00360568|183410712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.055
91865851|NCT04163991|183622655|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.57||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.85||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.85|0.39|0.0199
91758734|NCT00360568|183410713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.766
91758735|NCT00360568|183410714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.571
91758736|NCT00360568|183410715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.583
91865852|NCT04163991|183622656|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.64||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.79||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.79|0.52|0.0007
91865853|NCT04163991|183622656|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.76||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.76|0.50|0.0003
91865854|NCT04163991|183622656|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.74||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.74|0.48|0.0001
91865855|NCT04163991|183622656|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.59||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.59|0.38|< 0.0001
91865856|NCT04163991|183622657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|8.0||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||8.0|0.2|0.7750
91865857|NCT04163991|183622657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.5||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||(Lower limit of 90% CI is \< 0.1.) Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||5.5|0.1|0.6974
91865858|NCT04163991|183622657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.7||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||5.7|0.1|0.9318
91904486|NCT03593850|183704109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91696490|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.09||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.09|0.38|0.7818
91696491|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.73||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||9.73|0.84|0.0912
91696492|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.66|0.81|0.1361
91696493|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.07||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.07|0.46|0.7200
91696494|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.53|0.62|0.3737
91904487|NCT03593850|183704110|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.307
91727401|NCT03336866|183349908|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91727402|NCT03336866|183349908|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91758737|NCT00360568|183410716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91904488|NCT03593850|183704111|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.318
91696495|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|8.9||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||8.90|0.75|0.1345
91696496|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.67||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||7.67|0.50|0.3318
91727403|NCT03336866|183349908|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 26. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91727404|NCT03336866|183349908|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91727405|NCT03336866|183349908|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91727406|NCT03336866|183349908|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91727407|NCT00032487|183349919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis tested was for equivalence. We assumed 86% power with 21% of effect size and the sample size 1700 with 5% drop out rate.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99|||Log Rank|||It was hypothesized 21% reduction in intensive glycemic control group compared to standard control group on primary cardiovascular composite outcomes.||.99|.79|<0.05
91727408|NCT01125748|183349938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|33.6||||||||33.6|5.0|
91758738|NCT00360568|183410717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.670
91758739|NCT00360568|183410718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.341
91865859|NCT04163991|183622657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|5.1||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||5.1|0.2|0.9108
91865860|NCT04163991|183622658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|10.6||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||10.60|0.10|0.9805
91904489|NCT03593850|183704112|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.954|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954
91696497|NCT04075682|183287132|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.7||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.70|0.23|0.7017
91696498|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.31||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||4.31|1.42|0.001
91696499|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.3||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||3.30|1.09|0.025
91727409|NCT01028391|183349940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||||95.0|-0.76|-0.26|||||This is a difference in least squares means, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0 of the 24-week base study) HbA1c.|||-0.26|-0.76|
91727410|NCT01028391|183349941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||||95.0|-16.3|-0.7|||||This is a difference in least squares means, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0 of the 24-week base study) FPG.|||-0.7|-16.3|
91727411|NCT01107457|183349942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.079
91727412|NCT01107457|183349942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91727413|NCT01107457|183349942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91727414|NCT01107457|183349942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91727415|NCT01107457|183349943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91727416|NCT01107457|183349943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91727417|NCT01107457|183349943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91727418|NCT01107457|183349943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91727419|NCT01227395|183350022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.696
91727420|NCT01227395|183350023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.334|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between Male and Female  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.334
91727421|NCT01227395|183350024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drugs  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91727422|NCT01227395|183350025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91727423|NCT01227395|183350026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Allergies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without allergies in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.015
91727424|NCT01227395|183350027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91727425|NCT01227395|183350028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between Male and Female  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.290
91727426|NCT01227395|183350029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.003
91727427|NCT01227395|183350030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Allergies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without allergies in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.707
91758740|NCT00360568|183410719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.220
91696500|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.06||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||3.06|0.62|0.44
91696501|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||3.97|0.81|0.15
91865861|NCT04163991|183622658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|10.6||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||10.60|0.10|0.9805
91696502|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.58||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.58|0.39|0.76
91696503|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.8||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.80|0.16|0.77
91696504|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.61|0.72|0.17
91705369|NCT01306214|183305230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non- inferiority margin was 0.3%, one-sided.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|-0.22||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|H013: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo \>0.3 Ha13: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo ≤0.3||-0.22|-0.70|<0.0001
91727428|NCT00809146|183350059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assay sensitivity established by extensive review of lorazepam efficacy data. Noninferiority margin of 10% established by both clinical and statistical reasoning.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.16|||one-sided z statistic|||The null hypothesis of inferiority was tested with a one-sided z statistic. Sample size was estimated assuming independent proportions, 2 interim analyses, 70% control event rate; 90% power; a noninferiority margin of 10%; and a 1-sided test with type I error probability of 0.025. A sample size of 890 (445 per treatment group) was inflated by 15% (1024 subjects) to account for inadvertent repeated enrollment of the same subjects. Repeated enrollments of the same subject were not analyzed.||0.16|0.04|<0.001
91727429|NCT00809146|183350060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34||||||||1.34|0.70|
91727430|NCT00809146|183350061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||||0.98|0.79|
91865862|NCT04163991|183622658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.01||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|20.09||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||20.09|0.45|0.3407
91904490|NCT03593850|183704113|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.258
91865863|NCT04163991|183622658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|10.6||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||10.60|0.10|0.9805
91865864|NCT05541484|183622700|OTHER|Spearman's ρ given non-normal variable distributions|||||<|0.0001||||||Spearman's ρ given non-normal variable distributions|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
91696505|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.57|0.14|0.22
91705370|NCT01306214|183305230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|-0.22||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.22|-0.70|<0.0001
91727431|NCT00809146|183350062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||||||||0.95|0.65|
91727432|NCT00809146|183350063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.56||||||All participants were included in this analysis of rate of recurrence because this is the most clinically relevant denominator, although, by definition, only participants who stopped could have recurrent seizures.||1.56|0.74|
91727433|NCT00809146|183350064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.98||||||||1.98|0.42|
91727434|NCT00809146|183350065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.7||||||||10.70|0.30|
91727435|NCT00809146|183350067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91727436|NCT00809146|183350068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91727437|NCT01049828|183350069|OTHER|The analysis is based on a threshold-free cluster enhancement permutation technique.|||||<|0.01||||||all correlations were transformed into z scores using Fisher's transformation and a t test evaluated group differences.|Fisher Exact|The analysis is based on a threshold-free cluster enhancement permutation technique.||Null hypothesis: Fisher's transform z scores for a seed region were comparable between the control and non-bothered tinnitus groups.||||<0.01
91727438|NCT03572218|183350089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
91727439|NCT03572218|183350090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
91727440|NCT03572218|183350091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.03
91727441|NCT03572218|183350091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.02
91727442|NCT03572218|183350091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FNE||||0.19
91727443|NCT03572218|183350092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.11
91727444|NCT03572218|183350092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.03
91727445|NCT03572218|183350092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FNE||||0.53
91727446|NCT03572218|183350093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91727447|NCT03572218|183350094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91727448|NCT03572218|183350095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite for Total score||||0.84
91727449|NCT03572218|183350095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Physical Function Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.82
91727450|NCT03572218|183350095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Self Esteem Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.39
91727451|NCT03572218|183350095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Sexual Life Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.42
91758741|NCT00360568|183410720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.174
91865865|NCT00626795|183622719|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower confidence limit greater or equal to -12.5% indicates non-inferiority.|Difference in percentage|4.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|10.71|||||Estimated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, stratifying by country and disease (impetigo/SITL).|||10.71|-1.59|
91865866|NCT00626795|183622719|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower confidence limit greater or equal to -12.5% indicates non-inferiority.|Difference in percentage|-3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|3.57|||||Estimated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, stratifying by country and disease (impetigo/SITL).|||3.57|-10.28|
91865867|NCT04499521|183622729|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.5||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM A Bladder D2cc||0.50|-0.27|
91696506|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|10.37||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||10.37|1.15|0.02
91727452|NCT03572218|183350095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Work Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.64
91727453|NCT03572218|183350095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Public Distress Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.59
91727454|NCT03572218|183350096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite for Total score||||0.58
91727455|NCT03572218|183350096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Physical Function Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.89
91727456|NCT03572218|183350096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Self Esteem Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.90
91727457|NCT03572218|183350096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Sexual Life Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.16
91727458|NCT03572218|183350096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Work Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.68
91795572|NCT00395538|183469791|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.712||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.712
91727459|NCT03572218|183350096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Public Distress Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.72
91727460|NCT03572218|183350097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91727461|NCT03572218|183350098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91727462|NCT03572218|183350099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
91727463|NCT03572218|183350100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
91727464|NCT03572218|183350101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
91904491|NCT03593850|183704114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
91727465|NCT03572218|183350102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
91727466|NCT03572218|183350103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
91727467|NCT03572218|183350104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
91727468|NCT03572218|183350105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
91727469|NCT03572218|183350106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
91727470|NCT03572218|183350107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.94
91727471|NCT03572218|183350107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.64
91727472|NCT03572218|183350108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Scale||||0.58
91727473|NCT03572218|183350108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Affect||||0.49
91727474|NCT03572218|183350108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maladaptive Eating||||0.96
91727475|NCT03572218|183350108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Healthy Lifestyle||||0.71
91865868|NCT04499521|183622729|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.96||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM B Bladder D2cc||0.96|-0.94|
91865869|NCT04499521|183622729|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.16||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM A Rectum D2cc||0.16|-0.54|
91865870|NCT04499521|183622729|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.29||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM B Rectum D2cc||0.29|-0.67|
91904492|NCT03593850|183704115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
91696507|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|26.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||26.53|1.12|0.04
91865871|NCT04734197|183622750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; the sample size of approximately 280-350 subjects (between 40 and 50 subjects per each of the 7 treatment groups) was based on medical judgement.||||0.0040
91696508|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.47||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.47|0.10|0.56
91696509|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.68||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.68|0.11|0.46
91696510|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.27||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||4.27|1.56|0.0002
91696511|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||3.12|1.14|0.0135
91696512|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||3.12|0.73|0.2619
91705371|NCT02686814|183305246|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3-6 Month compared to Baseline||||0.7646
91705372|NCT02686814|183305246|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.8984|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||1 Year compared to Baseline||||0.8984
91865872|NCT04734197|183622751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3111|||||||Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||"Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis included fixed effects of baseline TBUT, age, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.~Least squares means (LSMs) of the absolute TBUT change from baseline and their 95% CIs were estimated from the MMRM model for each treatment group."||||0.3111
91904493|NCT03593850|183704116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.885
91865873|NCT04734197|183622752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2027||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"MMRM analysis included fixed effects of baseline Schirmer test score, age, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.~LSMs of the absolute change from baseline in Schirmer test score and their 95% CIs were estimated from the MMRM model for each treatment group."||||0.2027
91696513|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.24||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||4.24|1.01|0.0474
91696514|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.07||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.07|0.42|0.8094
91696515|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.7978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.44||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.44|0.20|0.7978
91696516|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.15||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.15|0.85|0.1016
91705373|NCT02686814|183305246|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||2 Year compared to Baseline||||0.8457
91705374|NCT02686814|183305246|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3 Year compared to Baseline||||0.1309
91727476|NCT03572218|183350108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exercise Avoidance||||0.41
91727477|NCT03572218|183350109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Scale||||0.61
91727478|NCT03572218|183350109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Affect||||0.73
91727479|NCT03572218|183350109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maladaptive Eating||||0.94
91727480|NCT03572218|183350109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Healthy Lifestyle||||0.47
91727481|NCT03572218|183350109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exercise Avoidance||||0.99
91727482|NCT03572218|183350110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91727483|NCT03572218|183350111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91727484|NCT03572218|183350112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91727485|NCT03572218|183350113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
91727486|NCT03572218|183350114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global||||0.83
91727487|NCT03572218|183350114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Restraint||||0.69
91727488|NCT03572218|183350114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Concern||||0.30
91904494|NCT03593850|183704117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
91727489|NCT03572218|183350114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight Concern||||0.99
91727490|NCT03572218|183350114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Shape Concern||||0.36
91727491|NCT03572218|183350115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global||||0.30
91727492|NCT03572218|183350115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Restraint||||0.69
91727493|NCT03572218|183350115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Concern||||0.70
91727494|NCT03572218|183350115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight Concern||||0.26
91865874|NCT04310423|183622774|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment x Time interaction for alcohol cue-induced alcohol craving.||||0.036
91727495|NCT03572218|183350115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Shape Concern||||0.18
91727496|NCT03572218|183350116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dietary Restraint||||0.69
91727497|NCT03572218|183350116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.28
91727498|NCT03572218|183350116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.02
91727499|NCT03572218|183350117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dietary Restraint||||0.29
91727500|NCT03572218|183350117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.34
91727501|NCT03572218|183350117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.001
91727502|NCT03572218|183350118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
91727503|NCT03572218|183350119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
91865875|NCT04310423|183622775|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way Treatment x Time interaction||||>0.05
91865876|NCT04310423|183622776|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment x Time interactions||||>0.05
91727504|NCT03572218|183350120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91727505|NCT03572218|183350121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
91727506|NCT03572218|183350122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self-Reported Weighing||||0.46
91727507|NCT03572218|183350122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Food/Drink||||0.12
91727508|NCT03572218|183350122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Calories||||0.42
91727509|NCT03572218|183350122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Activity||||0.03
91727510|NCT03572218|183350123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self-Reported Weighing||||0.23
91727511|NCT03572218|183350123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Food/Drink||||0.90
91727512|NCT03572218|183350123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Calories||||0.36
91727513|NCT03572218|183350123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Activity||||0.29
91727514|NCT03572218|183350124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91727515|NCT03572218|183350125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.27
91727516|NCT03572218|183350125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.13
91727517|NCT03572218|183350125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FNE||||0.65
91727518|NCT03572218|183350126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91727519|NCT03572218|183350127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7
91727520|NCT03572218|183350128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
91727521|NCT03572218|183350129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91758742|NCT00360568|183410721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.259
91758743|NCT00360568|183410722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.922
91758744|NCT00360568|183410723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.258
91758745|NCT00360568|183410724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.104
91758746|NCT00360568|183410725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.650
91758747|NCT00360568|183410726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.759
91758748|NCT00360568|183410727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
91758749|NCT00360568|183410728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.899
91865877|NCT04310423|183622777|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment x Time interactions||||>0.05
91865878|NCT04310423|183622778|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Main effect of treatment on alcohol cue-elicited brain activation||||<0.001
91865879|NCT00303459|183622824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.2508|TWO_SIDED|97.31|0.582|1.187|||Log Rank|||||1.187|0.582|0.2508
91727522|NCT03572218|183350130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total||||0.81
91727523|NCT03572218|183350130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Function||||0.86
91727524|NCT03572218|183350130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self Esteem||||0.87
91727525|NCT03572218|183350130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sexual Life||||0.73
91727526|NCT03572218|183350130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work||||0.95
91727527|NCT03572218|183350130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Public Distress||||0.19
91727528|NCT03572218|183350131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
91727529|NCT03572218|183350132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91727530|NCT03572218|183350133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91727531|NCT03572218|183350134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.71
91727532|NCT03572218|183350134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.72
91865880|NCT00303459|183622825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.8385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.380|0.673|0.8385
91727533|NCT03572218|183350135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91865881|NCT00303459|183622826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.8||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|37.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||37.8|5.9|0.0106
91727534|NCT03572218|183350136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Scale||||0.52
91727535|NCT03572218|183350136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Affect||||0.02
91727536|NCT03572218|183350136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maladaptive Eating||||0.63
91727537|NCT03572218|183350136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exercise Avoidance||||0.74
91865882|NCT00303459|183622827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk of improvement|0.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.61|||Fisher Exact|||||1.61|0.60|1.0000
91865883|NCT00303459|183622828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|1.344|||Log Rank|||||1.344|0.544|0.4974
91727538|NCT03572218|183350136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Healthy Lifestyle||||0.49
91727539|NCT03572218|183350137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
91727540|NCT03572218|183350138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91727541|NCT03572218|183350139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global||||0.35
91727542|NCT03572218|183350139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Restraint||||0.46
91727543|NCT03572218|183350139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Concern||||0.33
91727544|NCT03572218|183350139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight Concern||||0.18
91727545|NCT03572218|183350139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Shape Concern||||0.16
91727546|NCT03572218|183350140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dietary Restraint||||0.82
91727547|NCT03572218|183350140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.45
91727548|NCT03572218|183350140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.007
91727549|NCT03572218|183350141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self-Reported Weighing||||0.23
91727550|NCT03572218|183350141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Food/Drink||||0.48
91727551|NCT03572218|183350141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Calories||||0.89
91727552|NCT03572218|183350141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Activity||||0.30
91727553|NCT03572218|183350142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||BWL component||||0.32
91727554|NCT03572218|183350143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
91727555|NCT06765889|183350165|OTHER||Bayes Factor (BF₁₀)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91865884|NCT00303459|183622829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage change over placebo|-23.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.69|-11.79|||Repeated measures analysis|||||-11.79|-33.69|0.0003
91865885|NCT00303459|183622830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.39|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.39|-0.42|0.9566
91865886|NCT00303459|183622831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.076|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.076|-0.036|0.5571
91865887|NCT00303459|183622832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.0|-3.7|0.4086
91865888|NCT02492711|183622865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|0.979|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Cox Proportional Model|||0.979|0.593|0.0334
91865889|NCT02492711|183622866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.165|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Cox Proportional Model|||1.165|0.774|0.6204
91727556|NCT06765889|183350168|OTHER||Mean (of both conditions)|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91727557|NCT02935036|183350218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.33||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5947
91727558|NCT02935036|183350219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.75||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2912
91727559|NCT02935036|183350220|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|2.4||||0.692|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6920
91727560|NCT03606213|183350244|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||P-value week 14 versus baseline (Cohort A, arm 1; placebo)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91727561|NCT01697501|183350258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57|||univariate logistic analysis|||||2.57|0.29|0.7831
91727562|NCT01697501|183350259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.67|||univariate logistic analysis|||||7.67|0.66|0.1951
91727563|NCT01697501|183350260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Chi Square|||||||0.2642
91727564|NCT01697501|183350261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Chi Square|||||||0.0672
91727565|NCT03074643|183350324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.16
91727566|NCT03074643|183350324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.45
91795573|NCT00395538|183469792|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.OS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.OS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.029||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.029
91727567|NCT03074643|183350325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.81
91727568|NCT03074643|183350325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.80
91727569|NCT03074643|183350326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.56
91727570|NCT03074643|183350326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.96
91727571|NCT03074643|183350327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.76
91727572|NCT03074643|183350327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.45
91727573|NCT03074643|183350328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.75
91727574|NCT03074643|183350328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.95
91727575|NCT03074643|183350329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.06
91727576|NCT03074643|183350329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.22
91727577|NCT03074643|183350330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.48
91727578|NCT03074643|183350330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.22
91727579|NCT00215553|183350344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.794
91727580|NCT00215553|183350344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.236
91727581|NCT00215553|183350344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.396
91727582|NCT00215553|183350345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.346||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.346
91727583|NCT00215553|183350345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.286
91727584|NCT00215553|183350345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.964
91727585|NCT00215553|183350346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on ranks||||||0.028
91727586|NCT00215553|183350346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on ranks||||||0.147
91727587|NCT00215553|183350346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on ranks||||||0.293
91727588|NCT03142334|183350347|OTHER|HR and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value was based on log-rank test stratified by metastasis status, ECOG PS, US participant within M0 group by investigator.|Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastasis status, ECOG PS, and US participant within M0 group by investigator was used to calculate HR and 95% CIs.|||0.87|0.53|0.0010
91727589|NCT02006654|183350432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.36||Corrected for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects of country, MMSE stratum-by-week, treatment-by-week, base treatment stratum-by-week, and baseline score-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favor of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for idalopirdine at significance level 5%.||0.36|-1.45|0.2365
91727590|NCT02006654|183350433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.23||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects of country, MMSE stratum-by-week, treatment-by-week, base treatment stratum-by-week, and baseline score-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favor of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested at significance level 5%.||0.23|-0.09|0.4064
91705375|NCT02686814|183305246|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||4 Year compared to Baseline||||0.5000
91865890|NCT02492711|183622868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.87|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Cox Proportional Model|||0.870|0.556|0.0014
91865891|NCT01474122|183622871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.194||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.861|||negative binomial-2 regression (NB-2)||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in macitentan 3 mg and in placebo|||1.861|0.766|0.434
91705376|NCT02686814|183305247|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.2783|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3-6 Month compared to Baseline||||0.2783
91705377|NCT02686814|183305247|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||1 Year compared to Baseline||||0.0674
91705378|NCT02686814|183305247|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||2 Year compared to Baseline||||0.0371
91705379|NCT02686814|183305247|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.6953|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3 Year compared to Baseline||||0.6953
91705380|NCT02686814|183305247|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||4 Year compared to Baseline||||>0.9999
91705381|NCT00571103|183305276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Slope|-0.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Linear mixed effects|||||1|-1|0.05
91705382|NCT02368886|183305277|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34||1-sided|Fisher Exact|||||0.34|0.00|0.0434
91705383|NCT02368886|183305278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.47|0.1241
91705384|NCT02368886|183305279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.57|0.3797
91705385|NCT02368886|183305280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.55|0.4614
91705386|NCT02368886|183305285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7319|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7319
91705387|NCT04767529|183305287|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|22.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|41.4||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparison between the EFX 28 mg and placebo group|% difference from placebo (efruxifermin 28 mg - placebo)|Comparison between proportion of participants in efruxifermin 28 mg group who met the primary endpoint vs the placebo group||41.4|3.8|0.025
91705388|NCT04767529|183305287|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|22.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|43.3||Threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors is used for comparison between the EFX 50 mg and placebo group|% difference from placebo (efruxifermin 50 mg - placebo)|Comparison between proportion of participants in efruxifermin 50 mg group who met the primary endpoint vs the placebo group||43.3|1.6|0.036
91705389|NCT04767529|183305288|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|21.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|45.0||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo group||||45.0|-1.3|0.070
91705390|NCT04767529|183305288|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|72.7||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo group||Week 96||72.7|31.2|<0.001
91705391|NCT04767529|183305289|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|31.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|50.9||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparison between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo group||Week 24||50.9|12.9|0.002
91705392|NCT04767529|183305289|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|61.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|79.4||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo groups||Week 24||79.4|44.1|<0.001
91705393|NCT04767529|183305289|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|38.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|60.7||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo groups||Week 96||60.7|17.2|0.002
91705394|NCT04767529|183305289|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|33.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|55.8||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo group||Week 96||55.8|10.5|0.006
91705395|NCT04767529|183305290|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|20.0||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|39.5||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo group||Week 24||39.5|0.4|0.053
91795574|NCT00395538|183469792|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.OS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
91795575|NCT00395538|183469792|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.OS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.104||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.104
91795576|NCT00395538|183469793|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.ES/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.ES/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.088||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.088
91795577|NCT00395538|183469793|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.ES/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.009||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.009
91795578|NCT00395538|183469793|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.ES/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.325||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.325
91865892|NCT01474122|183622871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.208||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.886|||NB-2||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in macitentan 10 mg and in placebo|||1.886|0.773|0.407
91865893|NCT01474122|183622872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.831||||0.5668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.564|||Chi-squared|||||1.564|0.442|0.5668
91865894|NCT01474122|183622872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.789||||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.484|||Chi-squared|||||1.484|0.420|0.4624
91865895|NCT01474122|183622873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.216||||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|2.582|||Chi-squared|||||2.582|0.572|0.6117
91705396|NCT04767529|183305290|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|19.9||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|41.2||Threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo groups||Week 24||41.2|-1.5|0.069
91865896|NCT01474122|183622873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.048||||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|2.264|||Chi-squared|||||2.264|0.485|0.9047
91865897|NCT01474122|183622874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.347
91865898|NCT01474122|183622874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.165
91865899|NCT01474122|183622875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.339
91705397|NCT04767529|183305290|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|19.0||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|42.8||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo groups||Week 96||42.8|-4.8|0.123
91865900|NCT01474122|183622875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.312
91865901|NCT01474122|183622876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.319
91865902|NCT01474122|183622876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.221
91865903|NCT02163694|183622877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Log-rank test|||PFS was compared between the treatment groups using the log-rank test, stratified by prior platinum therapy (Yes versus No) and receptor status (estrogen receptor \[ER\] and/or progesterone receptor \[PgR\] positive versus ER/PgR negative).||||0.003
91696517|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.36|0.15|0.1570
91696518|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|8.18||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||8.18|1.11|0.0297
91705398|NCT04767529|183305290|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|70.2||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo groups||Week 96||70.2|27.7|<0.001
91727591|NCT02006654|183350434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.92||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects of country, MMSE stratum-by-week, treatment-by-week, base treatment stratum-by-week, and baseline score-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested at significance level 5%.||1.92|-0.57|0.4064
91727592|NCT00676689|183350460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|0.971|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|0.993||||||||0.993|0.889|
91727593|NCT00676689|183350461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|0.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|0.978||||||Freedom from Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Event (MACCE) at 6 months in the valve implant population.||0.978|0.851|
91727594|NCT00676689|183350462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|87.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Overall functional improvement at 6 months for patients in the valve implant population with baseline and 6 month data.||||
91727595|NCT01487161|183350471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.2|||Longitudinal mixed effect model|||||0.2|-1.2|0.1249
91727596|NCT01487161|183350472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.3|||Longitudinal mixed effect model|||||0.3|-1.1|0.2002
91727597|NCT01487161|183350473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.8|||Longitudinal mixed effect model|||||0.8|-0.7|0.5541
91705399|NCT04767529|183305291|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|-4.71||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM: fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariate for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 28 mg and placebo groups||-4.71|-9.09|<0.001
91727598|NCT04595370|183350565|OTHER||F test statistics|1.07||||0.3645|||||||F-Test|||||||0.3645
91727599|NCT04595370|183350566|OTHER||Percent difference between treatment|-33.606||||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.53|17.644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.644|-62.530|0.1588
91727600|NCT04595370|183350566|OTHER||Percent difference between treatment|-11.826||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.195|62.634|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||62.634|-52.195|0.6846
91727601|NCT04595370|183350566|OTHER||Percent difference between treatment|-36.127||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.85|16.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.066|-64.850|0.1398
91865904|NCT02163694|183622877|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|0.728||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|||A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by prior platinum therapy (Yes versus No) and receptor status (estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) positive versus ER/PgR negative) was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval comparing the two treatment arms.||0.900|0.590|0.003
91727602|NCT03520387|183350572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.7|-10.2|
91727603|NCT03520387|183350572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||-1.6|-11.0|
91727604|NCT03520387|183350573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6059.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2832.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12467.0|349.1|||||This is an analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on CHANGE in step counts, after adjustment for age and baseline step counts. Positive values show increased steps with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||349.1|-12467.0|
91865905|NCT02163694|183622878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.410
91795579|NCT00395538|183469794|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.AjAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 3 participants with non-missing Ec.AjAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
91795580|NCT00395538|183469794|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.AjAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
91795581|NCT00395538|183469794|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.AjAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.974||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.974
91904495|NCT00119041|183704141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.153|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.025 using Bonferroni correction for 2 statistical tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons were made between the intervention and control groups at baseline||||>0.153
91696519|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|21.73||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||21.73|1.28|0.0213
91696520|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.9648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.74||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.74|0.20|0.9648
91696521|NCT04075682|183287133|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6512|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||||0.6512
91696522|NCT04075682|183287134|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.85||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.85|-0.75|0.41
91727605|NCT03520387|183350573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2081.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2983.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4666.6|8830.4|||||This is an analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on CHANGE in step counts, after adjustment for age and baseline step counts.Positive values show increased steps with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||8830.4|-4666.6|
91696523|NCT04075682|183287134|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.21||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.21|-3.55|0.08
91865906|NCT02163694|183622878|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|0.914||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.333|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|||A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by prior platinum therapy (Yes versus No) and receptor status (estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) positive versus ER/PgR negative) was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval comparing the two treatment arms.||1.333|0.737|0.410
91696524|NCT04075682|183287134|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|1.29||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.29|-2.42|0.55
91696525|NCT04075682|183287134|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.86||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.86|-1.47|0.38
91696526|NCT04075682|183287134|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|2.28||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.28|-3.35|0.71
91696527|NCT04075682|183287134|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.83||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.83|0.59|0.02
91705400|NCT04767529|183305291|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|-7.02||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM:fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariates for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 50 mg and placebo groups||-7.02|-11.47|<0.001
91705401|NCT04767529|183305291|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-1.18||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM:fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariates for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 28 mg and placebo groups||-1.18|-6.39|0.005
91705402|NCT04767529|183305291|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|-3.25||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM:fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariates for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 50 mg and placebo groups||-3.25|-8.38|<0.001
91705403|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-51.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.17|-32.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-32.11|-71.17|<0.001
91705404|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.63|-35.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-35.71|-74.63|<0.001
91727606|NCT03520387|183350574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.1|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.1|-5.2|
91727607|NCT03520387|183350574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||3.6|-4.2|
91727608|NCT03520387|183350575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|10.1|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with LRFA vs. simulated LRFA.|PROMIS physical health scores||10.1|-8.1|
91727609|NCT03520387|183350575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|12.9|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with AcTIVE-CBT vs. TBSCE|PROMIS physical health scores||12.9|-0.4|
91727610|NCT03520387|183350575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|12.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with LRFA vs. simulated LRFA.|PROMIS mental health scores||12.7|-5.4|
91727611|NCT03520387|183350575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with AcTIVE-CBT vs. TBSCE|PROMIS mental health scores||10.6|-7.0|
91865907|NCT02163694|183622879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202||||||Nominal P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ER/PgR status and prior platinum therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.202
91727612|NCT03520387|183350576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|1.9|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate lower doses with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||1.9|-7.7|
91727613|NCT03520387|183350576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.0|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate lower doses with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||1.0|-7.5|
91727614|NCT03520387|183350577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age. Positive scores indicate perceived benefit with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||1.7|-1.4|
91727615|NCT03520387|183350577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate perceived benefit with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||1.5|-1.3|
91727616|NCT03520387|183350578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate less pain with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.7|-5.5|
91727617|NCT03520387|183350578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate less pain with AcTIVE-CBT vs. TBSCE|||2.6|-5.4|
91727618|NCT03520387|183350579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age. Positive scores indicate more satisfaction with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.0|-0.5|
91727619|NCT03520387|183350579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.8|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age. Positive scores indicate more satisfaction with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||2.8|-0.4|
91727620|NCT03520387|183350580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-637.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|433.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1636.2|362.1|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months adjusting for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate greater activity with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||362.1|-1636.2|
91727621|NCT03520387|183350580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|572.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|334.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.3|1343.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months adjusting for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate more satisfaction with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||1343.6|-199.3|
91727622|NCT00541775|183350581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<=|0.001||95.0|-0.7|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with a term for treatment, and a covariate for baseline value.||||-0.32|-0.70|<=0.001
91727623|NCT00541775|183350582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<=|0.001||95.0|-27.6|-8.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with a term for treatment, and a covariate for baseline value.||||-8.1|-27.6|<=0.001
91865908|NCT02163694|183622880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715||||||Nominal P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ER/PgR status and prior platinum therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.715
91865909|NCT02163694|183622881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.004
91696528|NCT04075682|183287134|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|3.76||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.76|-3.85|0.98
91696529|NCT04075682|183287134|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.95||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.95|-6.2|0.31
91696530|NCT04075682|183287134|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|2.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.97|-4.58|0.68
91696531|NCT04075682|183287135|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.36|-0.81|0.45
91696532|NCT04075682|183287135|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.7||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.70|-0.64|0.5767
91705405|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.73|-20.27||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-20.27|-65.73|<0.001
91727624|NCT00541775|183350583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9|<=|0.001||95.0|-46.0|-15.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with a term for treatment, and a covariate for baseline value.||||-15.0|-46.0|<=0.001
91727625|NCT04913675|183350591|NON_INFERIORITY|This outcome measure was analyzed using a hypothetical estimand and assessing non-inferiority of 500 mg IM dose versus 500 mg IV using a non-inferiority margin of 3.5 percent (%) on the risk difference scale. A post-hoc weekly imputation algorithm imputes the missing outcome iteratively for each week, where missing outcomes at Day 8, 15, 22, 29 are imputed.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|3.26|||||Analysis was performed using a binomial regression model with identity link function and with treatment (Sotrovimab 500mg IM, 500mg IV), age (\<65, =\>65 years old) and gender (male, female) as covariates.|||3.26|-1.15|
91727626|NCT04913675|183350591|NON_INFERIORITY|This outcome measure was analyzed using a hypothetical estimand and assessing non-inferiority of 500 mg IM vs 500 mg IV using a non-inferiority margin of 3.5 percent (%) on the risk difference scale. A pre-specified daily imputation algorithm imputed the missing outcome iteratively for each study day starting with Day 2 and ending at Day 29.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|3.56|||||Analysis was performed using a binomial regression model with identity link function and with treatment (Sotrovimab 500mg IM, 500mg IV), age (\<65, =\>65 years old) and gender (male, female) as covariates.|||3.56|-1.23|
91865910|NCT02163694|183622881|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|0.737||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.908|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|Stratified by prior platinum therapy (yes vs no) and receptor status (ER and/or PgR positive vs ER/PgR negative).||||0.908|0.597|0.004
91727627|NCT04913675|183350609|NON_INFERIORITY|This outcome measure was analyzed using a hypothetical estimand and assessing non-inferiority of IM dose versus IV using a non-inferiority margin of 3.5% on the risk difference scale. Weekly imputation algorithm imputes the missing outcome iteratively for each week, where missing outcomes at Day 8, 15, 22, 29 are imputed.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.28|||||Post-hoc analysis was performed using a binomial regression model with identify link function and with treatment (Sotrovimab 500 mg IM, 500 mg IV), age (\<65, \>-65 years old), and sex (male, female) as covariates.|||3.28|-1.56|
91727628|NCT04913675|183350612|EQUIVALENCE|IM dose was assessed for equivalence to IV based on the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment ratio falling within equivalence bounds of 0.5 to 2.0.|Ratio of least square(LS) geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07|||||LS geometric mean was calculated for 500mg IV versus IM by using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Model with treatment group (sotrovimab 500mg IM, 500mg IV), age (\<65, =\>65 years old), gender (male, female) and Baseline viral load as covariates.|||1.07|1.00|
91795582|NCT00395538|183469795|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.O.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.O.Th values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.004
91795583|NCT00395538|183469795|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.O.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.023||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.023
91795584|NCT00395538|183469795|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.O.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.288||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.288
91795585|NCT00395538|183469796|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.MAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.202||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.202
91795586|NCT00395538|183469796|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.486||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.486
91795587|NCT00395538|183469796|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.535||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.535
91865911|NCT03884101|183622882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5550121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.24|0.83|0.5550121
91727629|NCT05181657|183350661|OTHER|The intervention effect was determined via a two sided, 0.05 level of significance, multivariable Poisson regression model, with Intervention group as the primary predictor.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.78||"Alpha significance levels used:~For the primary predictor (i.e., intervention group): alpha=0.05; For covariates: alpha=0.10; For interactions: alpha=0.15"|Poisson Regression||The estimate refers to the relative risk of getting a COVID-19 test onsite (Intervention/Control). Also, the above estimate is from the unadjusted Poisson regression model (i.e., model not adjusted for covariates and interactions).|To assess whether the active intervention was more successful than the control condition at increasing COVID-19 testing, we used univariable and multivariable Poisson regression models, with whether one received onsite testing right after the intervention as the outcome and intervention group as the main predictor. Potential clustering due to the randomization by week was accounted for by specifying an exchangeable correlation structure for participants who were recruited during the same week.||1.78|1.18|<0.05
91727630|NCT00694122|183350663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|277.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|164.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|631.6|||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments were made. T-test type: Paired samples t-test (df=14) was performed using 15 within subject differences.|The comparative measures was defined as (mean AUC of glargine (Lantus)) minus (mean AUC of NPH).|||631.6|-75.9|<0.05
91727631|NCT00694122|183350664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91727632|NCT00694122|183350668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91727633|NCT00063232|183350673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||paired t-test|||"self-controlled comparison of NASH activity index at 48 weeks and baseline. Null hypothesis is no change."||||<0.001
91727634|NCT00063232|183350674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||self-controlled comparison of serum aminotransferase levels at 48 weeks and baseline. Null hypothesis: No change||||0.04
91795588|NCT00395538|183469797|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.OS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.OS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
91795589|NCT00395538|183469797|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.OS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
91727635|NCT00063232|183350675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.04
91727636|NCT03339453|183350676|NON_INFERIORITY|95% Confidence Interval of the treatment differences in treatment success rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.52||||||||1.52|-1.52|
91727637|NCT03632720|183350697|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was greater (\>) -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.54||||||Serogroup A||3.54|-1.78|
91727638|NCT03632720|183350697|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.28||||||Serogroup C||2.28|-2.24|
91727639|NCT03632720|183350697|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.36||||||Serogroup Y||2.36|-2.33|
91727640|NCT03632720|183350697|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.81||||||Serogroup W||1.81|-3.22|
91727641|NCT03834883|183350745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91727642|NCT03834883|183350746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
91727643|NCT03834883|183350747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
91727644|NCT03834883|183350748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91727645|NCT03834883|183350749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91727646|NCT03834883|183350750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91727647|NCT03834883|183350752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
91727648|NCT03834883|183350753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
91727649|NCT03834883|183350754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
91727650|NCT03834883|183350755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
91727651|NCT03834883|183350756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91727652|NCT03738215|183350758|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.89||Adjusted P-Value (based on truncated Hochberg with parameter=0.9)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures||||-0.89|-4.17|0.0050
91727653|NCT03738215|183350758|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.12||Adjusted P-Value (based on truncated Hochberg with parameter=0.9)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures||||0.12|-3.16|0.0727
91696533|NCT04075682|183287136|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.36|-0.98|0.36
91696534|NCT04075682|183287136|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.99||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||0.99|-1.64|0.63
91696535|NCT04075682|183287136|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.12|-1.62|0.79
91727654|NCT03738215|183350759|SUPERIORITY||Lease Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.07||Adjusted P-Value (based on Hochberg procedure)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures||||-0.07|-0.49|0.0727
91727655|NCT03738215|183350759|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03||Adjusted P-Value (based on Hochberg procedure)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||0.03|-0.39|0.0944
91727656|NCT03211858|183350762|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SAR341402 over NovoLog/NovoRapid was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between SAR341402 and NovoLog/NovoRapid was \<0.3%. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, using a hierarchical step down testing procedure, the inverse non-inferiority of NovoLog/NovoRapid over SAR341402 was tested and was demonstrated if lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between SAR341402 and NovoLog/NovoRapid was \> -0.3%.|LS Mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.039|||||SAR341402 vs NovoLog/NovoRapid|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group (SAR341402, NovoLog/NovoRapid), the randomization strata of geographical region, type of diabetes and prior use of NovoLog/NovoRapid as fixed categorical effects, as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline HbA1c value.||0.039|-0.192|
91727657|NCT00004228|183350780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"A Cox model was used to assess evidence of a difference in event-free survival comparing regimens A1+A2 (A: CCG BFM) to regimens B1+B2 (B: NHL/BFM-95) while adjusting for the other intervention through stratification."||||.97
91727658|NCT00004228|183350780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"A Cox model was used to assess evidence of a difference in event-free survival comparing A1+B1 (1: no intensification) to A2 +B2 (2: intensification), while adjusting for the other intervention through stratification."||||.63
91727659|NCT01934231|183350803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Cure|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.85|97.55|||||"The estimated parameter represents the rate of cure, calculated as (number of participants with an outcome of Cure/number of participants analyzed) \* 100."|||97.55|69.85|
91727660|NCT02457546|183350809|NON_INFERIORITY|"The statistical hypothesis for testing the treatment difference was presented as follows:~H0: Δ ≤ -0.10 tested against the alternative hypothesis Ha: Δ \> -0.10. where:~* Δ is the difference between the success rates of Experimental (Evicel®) and Control (DuraSeal™) (Experimental minus Control)~* -0.10 is the non-inferiority difference PC is the proportion of success in DuraSeal™ Control subjects and PE is the proportion of success in EVICEL® subjects."|Difference in Success Rates|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.4||||||||14.4|-1.8|
91727661|NCT01750281|183350859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.61|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.61|0.80|0.584
91727662|NCT01750281|183350859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.31|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.31|0.65|0.690
91727663|NCT01750281|183350860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|2.13|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||2.13|0.97|0.126
91727664|NCT01750281|183350860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.78|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.78|0.80|0.485
91727665|NCT00564070|183350918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.37|42.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|General linear model, controlling for baseline values|The Mean Difference was calculated as percent adherence to glucose monitoring for the CBT-AD Arm minus the adherence to glucose monitoring for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm.|Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data; analyses are reported for the acute outcomes of glucose monitoring (i.e., 4 month)||42.9|17.37|<.0001
91865912|NCT03884101|183622883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1792058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.10|0.77|0.1792058
91865913|NCT03884101|183622884|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was that the hazard ratio was equal to 1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.2459875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.26|0.83|0.2459875
91865914|NCT03884101|183622884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.5875597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.26|0.83|0.5875597
91865915|NCT03884101|183622885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.21552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.12|0.77|0.21552
91865916|NCT03884101|183622886|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.2||||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||3.5|-11.9|0.8569
91865917|NCT03884101|183622887|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0||||0.4999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.7|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||6.7|-6.7|0.4999
91865918|NCT03884101|183622888|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.77||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-0.36|||cLDA model|||||-0.36|-7.17|0.0302
91727666|NCT00564070|183350919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.15|||ANCOVA|General linear model; Controlling for baseline values|The Mean Difference was calculated as percent of HbA1c for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm minus percent of HbA1c for the CBT-AD Arm.|Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data; results are reported for HbA1c at the acute outcome (i.e., 4 months)||1.15|.29|=.001
91865919|NCT03884101|183622889|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.29||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|0.72|||cLDA model|||||0.72|-5.31|0.1355
91865920|NCT05061017|183622894|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91865921|NCT05061017|183622895|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91865922|NCT01651000|183622959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91865923|NCT01651000|183622960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91865924|NCT01651000|183622961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91865925|NCT05412004|183622970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-20.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.82|-14.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-14.20|-25.82|<0.001
91865926|NCT05412004|183622970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-23.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.61|-17.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-17.93|-29.61|<0.001
91865927|NCT05412004|183622971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-47.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.76|-29.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-29.55|-65.76|<0.001
91727667|NCT00564070|183350920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.22|31.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Mean Difference was calculated as percent pill adherence via MEMs for the CBT-AD Arm minus the percent pill adherence for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm.|Analyses are reported for the acute outcomes of MEMs monitoring (4 month). Higher percentages represent better adherence.||31.14|10.22|<0.0001
91865928|NCT05412004|183622971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-56.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.73|-38.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-38.70|-73.73|<0.001
91865929|NCT05412004|183622972|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.76|54.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.79|30.76|<0.001
91865930|NCT05412004|183622972|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.55|60.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||60.65|36.55|<0.001
91865931|NCT05412004|183622973|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.27|39.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||39.22|18.27|<.001
91865932|NCT05412004|183622973|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.12|44.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.31|22.12|<0.001
91865933|NCT05412004|183622974|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-70.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.619|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.94|-49.31||||||||-49.31|-90.94|
91865934|NCT05412004|183622974|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-61.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.921|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.66|-37.93||||||||-37.93|-84.66|
91865935|NCT05412004|183622975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-2.03||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep Disturbance||-0.12|-3.95|0.037
91727668|NCT00564070|183350921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|10.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|General linear model, controlling for baseline values.|The Mean Difference was calculated as MADRS unit scale for the CBT-AD Arm minus the MADRS unit scale for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm.|Analyses are reported for the acute outcomes of depression as assessed on the MADRS at acute outcome.||10.56|2.33|=.002
91727669|NCT00564070|183350922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.32|||ANCOVA|using GLM|The Mean Difference was calculated as CGI unit scale for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm minus the CGI unit scale for the CBT-AD Arm.|||1.32|.16|=.01
91727670|NCT00564070|183350923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|36.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that differences in glucose monitoring adherence would continue to be superior in the CBT-AD condition compared to ETAU||36.1|8.6|=.002
91727671|NCT00564070|183350924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that the CBT-AD condition would maintain higher medication adherence over follow up compared to ETAU||26.1|6.5|=.001
91795590|NCT00395538|183469797|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.OS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.328||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.328
91795591|NCT00395538|183469798|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.ES/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.ES/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
91795592|NCT00395538|183469798|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.ES/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
91795593|NCT00395538|183469798|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.ES/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.789||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.789
91795594|NCT00395538|183469799|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.AjAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.AjAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.651||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.651
91865936|NCT05412004|183622975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-3.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-1.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep Related Impairment||-1.17|-5.69|0.003
91727672|NCT00564070|183350925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that the lower depression scores would remain in the CBT arm compared to ETAU over follow up.||7.2|-1.2|.16
91865937|NCT05412004|183622975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-1.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep Disturbance||-1.58|-6.21|<0.001
91865938|NCT05412004|183622975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-4.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-1.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep-Related Impairment||-1.56|-6.97|0.002
91727673|NCT00564070|183350926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that depression scores would remain lower in the CBT-AD arm compared to the ETAU arm||1.1|-.1|.10
91727674|NCT00564070|183350927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that glucose control (HbA1C) would remain superior in the CBT-AD arm compared to the ETAU arm over follow up.||1.2|.6|.03
91727675|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.71|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.71|-1.19|
91727676|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.88|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.88|-1.34|
91727677|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-1.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.00|-1.53|
91727678|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-1.16|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.16|-1.63|
91727679|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-1.32|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.32|-1.76|
91795595|NCT00395538|183469799|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.AjAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.58||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.580
91795596|NCT00395538|183469799|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.AjAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.338||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.338
91795597|NCT00395538|183469800|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.020
91795598|NCT00395538|183469800|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.11||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.110
91727680|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.31|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-1.31|-1.81|
91727681|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.67|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.67|-2.19|
91727682|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.23|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.23|-1.62|
91727683|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.68|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.68|-2.09|
91727684|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.7|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.70|-2.09|
91727685|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.88|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.88|-2.27|
91727686|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.10|-2.50|
91727687|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.85|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.85|-2.29|
91727688|NCT01655069|183350943|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.17|-2.83|
91727689|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.73|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||1.73|0.97|
91727690|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.83|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||1.83|1.02|
91727691|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.16|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.16|1.27|
91727692|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.24|1.36|
91727693|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.67|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.67|1.74|
91727694|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.77|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.77|1.79|
91727695|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.49|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.49|2.19|
91865939|NCT05412004|183622976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-16.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.99|-14.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-14.19|-17.99|<0.001
91865940|NCT05412004|183622976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-17.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-15.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-15.28|-19.29|<.001
91696536|NCT04075682|183287136|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.37||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.37|-0.84|0.4491
91696537|NCT04075682|183287136|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.8713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.06||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.06|-1.26|0.8713
91696538|NCT04075682|183287136|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.66|-1.66|0.99
91696539|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.37||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.37|0.02|0.04
91696540|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.11|-1.85|0.08
91705406|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-47.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.39|-25.24||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-25.24|-70.39|<0.001
91727696|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.89|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.89|0.17|
91758750|NCT02611817|183410770|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|13.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by electronic data capture (EDC) stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||23.7|3.8|0.008
91865941|NCT05412004|183622977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.22||ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.21|0.752
91696541|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.19||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.19|-0.74|0.65
91865942|NCT05412004|183622977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.51||ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-1.57|0.350
91696542|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.11|-0.66|0.30
91696543|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.26||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.26|-1.68|0.78
91696544|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.83||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.83|0.12|0.03
91696545|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.04||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.04|-1.92|0.95
91696546|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|1.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.36|-2.91|0.48
91696547|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.07||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.07|-2.86|0.37
91727697|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.27|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.27|0.52|
91727698|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.10|0.39|
91727699|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.05|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||4.05|1.34|
91727700|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.43|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||4.43|1.70|
91727701|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.85|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.85|1.05|
91727702|NCT01655069|183350944|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.53|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||5.53|2.34|
91727703|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.69|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.69|-1.27|
91727704|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.86|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.86|-1.44|
91795599|NCT00395538|183469800|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.764||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.764
91795600|NCT00395538|183469801|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.227||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.227
91795601|NCT00395538|183469801|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.194||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.194
91865943|NCT05412004|183622978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|-4.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-4.77|-10.48|<0.001
91727705|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.02|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-1.02|-1.60|
91865944|NCT05412004|183622978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-0.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-0.65|-6.75|0.017
91727706|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.93|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.93|-1.51|
91727707|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.21|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.21|-1.80|
91727708|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.22|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.22|-1.83|
91727709|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-1.43|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.43|-2.22|
91727710|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.13|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.13|-1.73|
91727711|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.4|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.40|-1.48|
91727712|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.17|-1.46|
91727713|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.28|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.28|-1.53|
91727714|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.38|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.38|-1.80|
91727715|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.44|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.44|-1.92|
91727716|NCT01655069|183350945|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.00|-2.59|
91727717|NCT01655069|183350946|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||0.17|-1.65|
91727718|NCT01655069|183350946|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.36|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.36|-2.23|
91727719|NCT01655069|183350946|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.22|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.22|-2.06|
91865945|NCT03781089|183622979|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
91865946|NCT03781089|183622980|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
91696548|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.34||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.34|0.12|0.0192
91696549|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.29||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.29|-1.48|0.1860
91705407|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|14.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||14.17|7.92|<0.001
91758751|NCT02611817|183410771|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|7.3||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by EDC stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||17.5|-3.0|0.167
91865947|NCT02246127|183622995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||1.32|0.32|0.229
91865948|NCT02246127|183622996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.19|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||2.19|0.90|0.135
91865949|NCT02246127|183622997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||1.75|0.77|0.474
91865950|NCT02246127|183622999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.001
91705408|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|15.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||15.57|9.35|<0.001
91705409|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|10.23||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||10.23|1.84|0.005
91758752|NCT02611817|183410772|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|27.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|42.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by EDC stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||42.3|11.9|0.002
91865951|NCT02246127|183623001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.012
91865952|NCT02246127|183623002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.001
91865953|NCT02246127|183623003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.37|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||2.37|0.86|0.168
91865954|NCT02246127|183623005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.072
91865955|NCT02246127|183623007|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.73|||Log Rank|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||2.73|0.94|0.079
91865956|NCT03370913|183623054|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction from Baseline|-77.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were for 2-sided test against 0.|t-test, 2 sided|Superiority was tested by1-sample t-test to test null hypothesis that change is \>=0. Only negative changes represent efficacy.|77% reduction|Change from baseline in the ABR for all bleeds (post-baseline EEP value - baseline value)||||<0.0001
91865957|NCT05257603|183623081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615|<|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|5.72|||ANOVA|||||5.72|3.24|<0.99
91865958|NCT05257603|183623082|OTHER||||||<|0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.29
91865959|NCT05257603|183623083|OTHER||||||<|0.99|||||||ANOVA|||A one-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean difference in key presses from time 1 to time 2 between the intervention (RPCW) and Control conditions.||||<0.99
91865960|NCT05257603|183623084|OTHER||||||<|0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.45
91865961|NCT05257603|183623085|OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Given the exploratory nature of the analysis we were looking for a trend in improvement in emotion regulation (i.e., p\<.10) following the intervention condition compared to control.|ANOVA|||||||<.10
91865962|NCT05257603|183623086|OTHER||||||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA was used to provide preliminary information for estimating sample sizes needed for a larger Stage II efficacy trial. The current pilot RCT was not powered to find significant effects.||||<.10
91727720|NCT01655069|183350946|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.38|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.38|-2.18|
91727721|NCT01655069|183350946|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.12|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.12|-1.95|
91727722|NCT01655069|183350946|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-1.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.00|-2.93|
91727723|NCT01655069|183350946|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-0.93|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.93|-3.48|
91727724|NCT00835042|183350948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.5||||||90.0|85.8|99.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.8|85.8|
91727725|NCT00835042|183350949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.9||||||90.0|92.2|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|92.2|
91727726|NCT00835042|183350950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.1||||||90.0|92.3|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|92.3|
91795602|NCT00395538|183469801|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.434||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.434
91727727|NCT00835042|183350951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0||||||90.0|99.3|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111|99.3|
91727728|NCT00835042|183350952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.1||||||90.0|96.4|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|96.4|
91727729|NCT00835042|183350953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.3||||||90.0|96.7|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|96.7|
91727730|NCT00835042|183350954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.0||||||90.0|81.8|101.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101|81.8|
91727731|NCT00835042|183350955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.9||||||90.0|94.6|103.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103|94.6|
91727732|NCT00835042|183350956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|97.6|108.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||108|97.6|
91727733|NCT02571244|183350977|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85||||||||1.85|0.99|
91727734|NCT02571244|183350978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91727735|NCT02571244|183350979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
91727736|NCT02571244|183350980|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.95||||||||1.95|1.08|
91727737|NCT02571244|183350981|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.92||||||||1.92|1.07|
91727738|NCT00185900|183350982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91727739|NCT02362412|183351096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.3||p-value was not adjusted|||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||2.3|-3.4|
91727740|NCT02362412|183351097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.9|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||1.9|-1.7|
91727741|NCT02362412|183351098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.4|-0.3|
91727742|NCT02362412|183351099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.4|-0.3|
91727743|NCT02362412|183351101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.5|-0.5|
91727744|NCT02362412|183351102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.5|-0.5|
91727745|NCT02057666|183351196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.406||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.903|||Log Rank|Stratified as per randomisation.|Stratified as per randomisation.|||0.903|0.182|0.027
91727746|NCT02057666|183351197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.465||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|3.355|||Log Rank|||||3.355|0.065|0.448
91727747|NCT01348490|183351206|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0||||||0.025||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0250
91727748|NCT01348490|183351206|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0||||||0.0163||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0163
91727749|NCT01348490|183351206|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0|||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91727750|NCT01348490|183351206|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0||||||0.2019||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2019
91727751|NCT01348490|183351207|OTHER|||||||0.6887||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.6887
91727752|NCT01348490|183351207|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91727753|NCT01348490|183351207|OTHER|||||||0.8701||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.8701
91727754|NCT01348490|183351211|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91727755|NCT01348490|183351212|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0028
91727756|NCT00286455|183351230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.31||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint (HbA1c) as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=325 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.5% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.31|-0.76|<0.001
91727757|NCT00286455|183351230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.35|||ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint (HbA1c) as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=325 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.5% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.35|-0.80|<0.001
91727758|NCT00286455|183351231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.14||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.14|-0.39|<0.001
91727759|NCT00286455|183351231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.21||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.21|-0.46|<0.001
91727760|NCT00286455|183351232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.23|-0.57|<0.001
91727761|NCT00286455|183351232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.68|<0.001
91727762|NCT00286455|183351233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.25|-0.63|<0.001
91727763|NCT00286455|183351233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.35||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.35|-0.73|<0.001
91727764|NCT00286455|183351234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.27|-0.68|<0.001
91727765|NCT00286455|183351234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.74|<0.001
91727766|NCT00286455|183351235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.24|-0.67|<0.001
91727767|NCT00286455|183351235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.27|-0.70|<0.001
91727768|NCT00286455|183351236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-5.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.0|-21.5|0.002
91727769|NCT00286455|183351236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-10.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.4|-27.0|<0.001
91727770|NCT00286455|183351237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-10.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.1|-26.7|<0.001
91727771|NCT00286455|183351237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-13.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-13.0|-29.7|<0.001
91727772|NCT00286455|183351238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-9.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.7|-27.1|<0.001
91727773|NCT00286455|183351238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-15.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-15.7|-33.2|<0.001
91727774|NCT00286455|183351239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.7|-26.8|0.001
91727775|NCT00286455|183351239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.2|-32.4|<0.001
91795603|NCT00395538|183469802|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
91795604|NCT00395538|183469802|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
91795605|NCT00395538|183469802|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.787||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.787
91795606|NCT00395538|183469803|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.082||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.082
91865963|NCT05257603|183623087|OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||A priori threshold for a trend set at p\<.10 for condition effect (intervention v control).|ANOVA|||An exploratory repeated measures ANOVA with time (4) as the within-subjects variable and condition (2) as the between-subjects variable was conducted to provide preliminary information for estimating sample sizes needed for a larger Stage II efficacy trial. The current pilot RCT was not powered to find significant effects.||||<.10
91904496|NCT00119041|183704141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.025 using Bonferroni correction for 2 statistical tests.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.025 using Bonferroni correction for 2 statistical tests.||Comparisons were made between the intervention and control groups at 18 months||||>0.25
91696550|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.26||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.26|-0.49|0.3863
91696551|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.61|-0.89|0.5710
91696552|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.6||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||0.60|-2.06|0.2797
91727776|NCT00286455|183351240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-6.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.2|-26.8|0.002
91727777|NCT00286455|183351240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-10.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.8|-31.6|<0.001
91727778|NCT00286455|183351241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-8.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.7|-30.9|<0.001
91727779|NCT00286455|183351241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.2|-34.6|<0.001
91727780|NCT00286455|183351242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-8.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.0|-30.6|<0.001
91727781|NCT00286455|183351242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-12.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.9|-35.7|<0.001
91727782|NCT00286455|183351243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-9.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.0|-34.1|<0.001
91727783|NCT00286455|183351243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-15.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-15.1|-40.4|<0.001
91727784|NCT00286455|183351244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.569||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|1.262|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.262|0.257|0.165
91727785|NCT00286455|183351244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.739|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.739|0.138|0.008
91795607|NCT00395538|183469803|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.057||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.057
91795608|NCT00395538|183469803|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.547||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.547
91795609|NCT00395538|183469804|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.922||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.922
91727786|NCT00286455|183351245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.194||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.516|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.516|0.073|0.001
91727787|NCT00286455|183351245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.405|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.405|0.052|<0.001
91904497|NCT02319668|183704147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) Mean difference|0.2||||0.2965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.58|-0.18|0.2965
91696553|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.55||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.55|0.12|0.0312
91696554|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.5086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.39||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.39|-1.19|0.5086
91696555|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.99||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.99|-1.86|0.9474
91696556|NCT04075682|183287137|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.16||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.16|-2.36|0.5018
91696557|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.21||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.21|-0.31|0.25
91727788|NCT00286455|183351246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|0.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.2|-15.3|0.056
91727789|NCT00286455|183351246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-5.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.5|-21.1|<0.001
91727790|NCT00286455|183351247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||9.4|-7.8|0.850
91727791|NCT00286455|183351247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||11.2|-6.2|0.571
91727792|NCT00286455|183351248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|7.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.0|-7.8|0.917
91727793|NCT00286455|183351248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|1.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.7|-13.2|0.133
91727794|NCT00286455|183351249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|4.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.3|-12.1|0.348
91727795|NCT00286455|183351249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|2.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.2|-14.3|0.152
91727796|NCT00286455|183351250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|1.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.4|-11.7|0.120
91727797|NCT00286455|183351250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.1|-12.1|0.104
91727798|NCT00286455|183351251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.8|-10.9|0.247
91727799|NCT00286455|183351251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.6|-12.3|0.129
91727800|NCT00286455|183351252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|2.67||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.67|-4.14|0.671
91727801|NCT00286455|183351252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|1.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.27|-5.57|0.218
91727802|NCT00286455|183351253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|5.14||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.14|-2.07|0.403
91795610|NCT00395538|183469804|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High between the year 1 and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.342||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.342
91795611|NCT00395538|183469804|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.449||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.449
91727803|NCT00286455|183351253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|4.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.93|-2.35|0.487
91727804|NCT00286455|183351254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|6.08||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.08|-0.88|0.143
91727805|NCT00286455|183351254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.57||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.57|-3.46|0.974
91727806|NCT00286455|183351255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|4.71||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.71|-2.78|0.612
91727807|NCT00286455|183351255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|2.74||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.74|-4.82|0.587
91727808|NCT00286455|183351256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.99||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.99|-2.00|0.514
91727809|NCT00286455|183351256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|3.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.22|-2.83|0.899
91727810|NCT00286455|183351257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.58||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.58|-3.09|0.885
91727811|NCT00286455|183351257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|3.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.46|-3.28|0.958
91727812|NCT00286455|183351258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.018||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.018|-0.084|0.003
91795612|NCT01557894|183469905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANCOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using univariate ANCOVA, with pre-intervention scores as covariates, and group as a fixed factor||||||<0.01
91795613|NCT01557894|183469906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANCOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using univariate ANCOVA, with pre-intervention scores as covariates, and group as a fixed factor||||||<0.01
91795614|NCT01557894|183469907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using univariate ANCOVA, with pre-intervention scores as covariates, and group as a fixed factor.||||||<0.01
91795615|NCT01557894|183469908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91795616|NCT01557894|183469909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91795617|NCT03402659|183469910|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105548||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26973|0.14777|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.14777|-0.26973|0.564
91795618|NCT03402659|183469911|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||4.8|-6.0|0.823
91795619|NCT03402659|183469912|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.6|-0.4|0.806
91795620|NCT03402659|183469913|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.5|-1.0|0.489
91795621|NCT03402659|183469914|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||-1.8|-35.8|0.031
91795622|NCT03402659|183469915|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||-0.5|-3.6|0.012
91795623|NCT03402659|183469916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-117.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|314.0||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-738.9|504.2|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||504.2|-738.9|0.709
91795624|NCT03402659|183469917|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.03||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|10.7|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||10.7|-52.7|0.192
91795625|NCT03402659|183469918|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.43||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||1.6|-43.6|0.068
91795626|NCT03402659|183469919|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.11||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.7|42.4|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||42.4|-262.7|0.156
91795627|NCT03402659|183469920|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.0|-0.0|0.590
91795628|NCT02128828|183469926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
91727813|NCT00286455|183351258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|-0.038||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.038|-0.105|<0.001
91795629|NCT00090051|183469928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.96|||Log Rank|non-stratified|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to the fludarabine+cyclophosphamide(FC) group.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the 2 treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that progression-free survival was longer in the fludarabine+cyclophosphamide+rituximab (FCR) group.||0.96|0.60|0.0218
91795630|NCT00090051|183469929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2874||95.0|||||Log Rank|non-stratified||||||0.2874
91865964|NCT05257603|183623088|OTHER||||||<|0.098|||||||ANOVA|||An exploratory repeated measures ANOVA with time (4) as the within-subjects variable and condition (2) as the between-subjects variable was conducted to provide preliminary information for estimating sample sizes needed for a larger Stage II efficacy trial.||||<.098
91865965|NCT03279978|183623100|OTHER||Slope|0.7124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0694|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5702|0.8546||||||Dose proportionality for AUC0-24 of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). In this study AUCtau,1 = AUC0-24|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.8546|0.5702|
91865966|NCT03279978|183623100|OTHER||Slope|0.5964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0575|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4777|0.7151||||||Dose proportionality for AUC0-24 of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). In this study AUCtau,1 = AUC0-24|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7151|0.4777|
91865967|NCT03279978|183623101|OTHER||Slope|0.6445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5124|0.7766||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7766|0.5124|
91865968|NCT03279978|183623101|OTHER||Slope|0.6223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0715|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4747|0.7699||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7699|0.4747|
91865969|NCT03279978|183623102|OTHER||Slope|0.6401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0909|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4545|0.8258||||||Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.8258|0.4545|
91865970|NCT03279978|183623102|OTHER||Slope|0.5811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0864|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4013|0.7609||||||Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7609|0.4013|
91904498|NCT00365456|183704163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0045||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|1.021||No multiplicity correction of the significance level was performed as only one primary endpoint was planned.|ANCOVA|Estimation allowing for unequal variance in the two treatment groups and robust estimates for the standard errors were obtained.||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used including treatment group, stratum and pooled centre as fixed effects and log (BMD at Baseline III (month 24)) as a covariate (log-normally distributed data assumed). Least square mean change from baseline III (month 24), 95% confidence interval and p-value for the treatment effect (PTH (1-84) vs. Risedronate) was calculated. Superiority was claimed if lower limit of the interval was above 1. Results were back-transformed from the log scale.||1.021|1.003|0.010
91904499|NCT04754802|183704171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.5063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.4|||ANCOVA|||||6.4|-3.2|.5063
91904500|NCT04754802|183704172|SUPERIORITY||Other|-0.015||||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.107|||Wald Normal Approximation (Z)|Wald Normal Approximation (Z) for difference between two proportions||||0.107|-0.137|.8077
91795631|NCT00090051|183469931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Log Rank|non-stratified||||||0.0002
91865971|NCT03279978|183623103|OTHER||Slope|0.6005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0722|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4534|0.7477||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7477|0.4534|
91865972|NCT03279978|183623103|OTHER||Slope|0.5799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0656|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4441|0.7156||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7156|0.4441|
91795632|NCT00090051|183469934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8842||95.0|||||Log Rank|non-stratified||||||0.8842
91727814|NCT00286455|183351259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.038||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.038|-0.099|<0.001
91727815|NCT00286455|183351259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|-0.021||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.021|-0.083|0.001
91727816|NCT00286455|183351260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|-0.032||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.032|-0.103|<0.001
91727817|NCT00286455|183351260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|-0.037||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.037|-0.109|<0.001
91727818|NCT00286455|183351261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.007||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.007|-0.084|0.021
91795633|NCT00090051|183469936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.80|0.54|<.0001
91795634|NCT00090051|183469937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.74|0.5976
91795635|NCT00090051|183469938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.79|||Log Rank|||||0.79|0.54|<.0001
91795636|NCT00090051|183469939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.35|||Chi-squared|||||3.35|1.39|0.0005
91727819|NCT00286455|183351261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|-0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.001|-0.079|0.043
91727820|NCT00286455|183351262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|-0.069||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.069|-0.255|<0.001
91727821|NCT00286455|183351262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|-0.065||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.065|-0.254|0.001
91795637|NCT00090051|183469940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.46|0.3085
91795638|NCT00090051|183469941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.51|0.0007
91795639|NCT00090051|183469942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.55|0.0002
91865973|NCT04159519|183623105|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment arm, visit, baseline value, and treatment-by-visit interaction with an unstructured covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.1062|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0485|0.2609||||||Comparison with reference arm||0.2609|-0.0485|
91795640|NCT03646643|183469950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.97||A priori threshold \<0.05. Multiple comparisons adjustments: not needed.|Log Rank||The distal CS to LA connection elimination group had fewer recurrences (6.7%) compared with the standard group (46.7%), which translated to an 88% lower hazard of recurrence compared with the standard group.|Power calculation: assuming alpha 0.05, power 0.8, 1:1 randomization, and estimated relative risk of 14.4 for AF susceptibility with rate-dependent CS-LA conduction block, we anticipated a minimum sample size of 6 patients per group would be necessary to detect a difference using the log-rank test. Additional patients were recruited to account for potential losses to follow-up and a smaller detectable difference.||0.97|0.02|0.047
91795641|NCT02840240|183469958|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority deltas were defined a priori as 1.1 for the ratio in geometric means of opioid consumption converted to IV morphine equivalents (ie, no more than 10% difference between group's median doses) and 1 point for pain score (ie, no more than 1 point worse).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||||0.69|-1.07|0.003
91795642|NCT02840240|183469959|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority deltas were defined a priori as 1.1 for the ratio in geometric means of opioid consumption converted to IV morphine equivalents (ie, no more than 10% difference between group's median doses) and 1 point for pain score (ie, no more than 1 point worse).|Ratio of geometric means|2.12||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|18.54|||Regression, Linear|||Comparisons of opioid consumption were conducted independently for each study site. This analysis is for patients at the Cleveland Clinic main campus.||18.54|0.21|0.77
91865974|NCT04159519|183623106|OTHER|Comparison|Least square mean difference|-0.0343|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2527|0.1841|||Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM)|MMRM with fixed effects for treatment arm, visit, baseline value, and treatment-by-visit interaction with an unstructured covariance structure.||Comparison with reference arm||0.1841|-0.2527|
91727822|NCT00286455|183351263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|-0.034||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.034|-0.138|0.001
91727823|NCT00286455|183351263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|-0.032||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.032|-0.137|0.002
91727824|NCT00286455|183351264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.137||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.137|-0.568|0.230
91727825|NCT00286455|183351264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.200|-0.508|0.393
91727826|NCT00286455|183351265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.515||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.515|-0.348|0.703
91727827|NCT00286455|183351265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.717||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.717|-0.153|0.203
91727828|NCT00286455|183351266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.569||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.569|-0.232|0.408
91727829|NCT00286455|183351266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.417||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.417|-0.391|0.949
91727830|NCT00286455|183351267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.380|-0.440|0.886
91727831|NCT00286455|183351267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.317||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.317|-0.510|0.645
91727832|NCT00286455|183351268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.239||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.239|-0.378|0.656
91727833|NCT00286455|183351268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.347|0.275||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.275|-0.347|0.819
91758753|NCT02611817|183410773|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|4.3||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by EDC stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||20.3|-11.6|0.591
91758754|NCT00265317|183410774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.3206|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.575|1.404||Primary analysis was based on an unstratified 1-sided log rank test with alpha=0.1|Log Rank|||Sample size for randomized portion of study determined based on these assumptions: median PFS (erlotinib)=10 weeks, accrual time=12 months. With 6 months follow-up, study was powered to detect a difference in PFS of 5 weeks. 1-sided log rank test comparing the 2 treatment groups with 115 events of PD or death among a target sample size of 126 participants (63 per group) achieved 80% power at a 10% significance level to detect a 50% improvement in PFS from 10 to 15 weeks.||1.404|0.575|0.3206
91758755|NCT00265317|183410775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.546||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|8.954|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||95% confidence interval (CI) calculated based on f-distribution||8.954|0.267|0.6251
91758756|NCT00265317|183410776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|1.485||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.485|0.572|0.3732
91758757|NCT00265317|183410778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.066||||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.612||p-value from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.612|0.705|0.6171
91727834|NCT00286455|183351269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.253||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.253|-0.411|0.642
91727835|NCT00286455|183351269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.338||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.338|-0.332|0.986
91727836|NCT00286455|183351270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.686||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|4.571|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.571|0.622|0.305
91727837|NCT00286455|183351270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.349||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|6.321|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.321|0.873|0.091
91727838|NCT00286455|183351271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.704||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.694|8.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||8.100|1.694|0.001
91727839|NCT00286455|183351271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.305||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.505|7.255|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.255|1.505|0.003
91795643|NCT02840240|183469959|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority deltas were defined a priori as 1.1 for the ratio in geometric means of opioid consumption converted to IV morphine equivalents (ie, no more than 10% difference between group's median doses) and 1 point for pain score (ie, no more than 1 point worse).|Ratio of geometric means|0.32||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.16|||Regression, Linear|||Comparisons of opioid consumption were conducted independently for each study site. This analysis is for patients at the Cleveland Clinic Fairview hospital.||3.16|0.03|0.09
91795644|NCT02840240|183469960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.5|24.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.3|0.5|0.11
91795645|NCT02840240|183469961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.2|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|0.2|0.60
91795646|NCT04824365|183469984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1438||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6213|-0.0545|||ANOVA|two-way ANOVA||||-0.0545|-0.6213|0.0197
91795647|NCT04824365|183469985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1129||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1843|0.2605|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.2605|-0.1843|0.736
91727840|NCT00286455|183351272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.905||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.359|6.21|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.210|1.359|0.006
91727841|NCT00286455|183351272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.552|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.068|10.017|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||10.017|2.068|<0.001
91727842|NCT00286455|183351273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.663||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.367|5.188|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.188|1.367|0.004
91727843|NCT00286455|183351273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.671|6.429|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.429|1.671|<0.001
91727844|NCT00286455|183351274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.331||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.714|10.947|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||10.947|1.714|0.002
91727845|NCT00286455|183351274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.732||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.862|12.025|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||12.025|1.862|0.001
91795648|NCT04824365|183469986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1049||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1069|0.5193|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.5193|0.1069|0.0030
91795649|NCT04824365|183469987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.704|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|2.302|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||2.302|1.105|<0.0001
91795650|NCT04824365|183469988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3362|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9672|2.298|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||2.298|0.9672|<0.0001
91795651|NCT04824365|183469989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2473|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.477|2.452|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||2.452|1.477|<0.0001
91795652|NCT04824365|183469990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2382||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9521|-0.01413|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||-0.01413|-0.9521|0.0435
91795653|NCT04824365|183469991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2711||0.8509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5862|0.4841|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.4841|-0.5862|0.8509
91727846|NCT00286455|183351275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.766||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|11.16|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||11.160|0.685|0.153
91727847|NCT00286455|183351275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.632||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|18.354|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||18.354|1.169|0.029
91727848|NCT00286455|183351276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|Mantel Haenszel|Odd's Ratio and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.102
91727849|NCT00286455|183351276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|Mantel Haenszel|Odd's Ratio and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.063
91727850|NCT00286455|183351277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.93|-0.18|0.186
91727851|NCT00286455|183351277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.89||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.89|-0.22|0.237
91727852|NCT00286455|183351278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.50|-0.74|0.702
91727853|NCT00286455|183351278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.93|-0.32|0.338
91727854|NCT00286455|183351279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.72||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.72|-0.74|0.978
91727855|NCT00286455|183351279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.74|-0.73|0.991
91727856|NCT00286455|183351280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.61||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.61|-1.16|0.539
91727857|NCT00286455|183351280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.49||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.49|-1.29|0.379
91727858|NCT00286455|183351281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.5|-4.4|0.616
91727859|NCT00286455|183351281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.8|-6.4|0.930
91727860|NCT00286455|183351282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|6.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.0|-5.3|0.915
91727861|NCT00286455|183351282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.7|-4.8|0.745
91727862|NCT00286455|183351283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.5|-3.4|0.466
91727863|NCT00286455|183351283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||9.6|-1.5|0.154
91727864|NCT00286455|183351284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.9|-5.1|0.774
91727865|NCT00286455|183351284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.1|-5.2|0.761
91727866|NCT00286455|183351285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.7|-4.2|0.559
91727867|NCT00286455|183351285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||8.0|-4.1|0.523
91727868|NCT00286455|183351286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.2|-7.4|0.739
91727869|NCT00286455|183351286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.6|-9.3|0.388
91727870|NCT04826731|183351287|OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nonparametric testing was utilized due to non-standard distribution and reduced sample size. Comparison between groups was made by Mann-Whitney U testing. Spearman's rho was utilized for correlation analysis. No subgroup analyses were planned for the study.||||0.374
91727871|NCT04826731|183351288|OTHER|||||||0.635|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nonparametric testing was utilized due to non-standard distribution and reduced sample size. Comparison between groups was made by Mann-Whitney U testing. Spearman's rho was utilized for correlation analysis. No subgroup analyses were planned for the study.||||0.635
91727872|NCT02933151|183351302|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14|||||Reference group is usual care|||1.14|0.92|
91727873|NCT02596893|183351304|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.9||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||3.9|-9.7|0.2523
91727874|NCT02596893|183351304|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.8||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||11.8|-3.0|0.1626
91727875|NCT02596893|183351304|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.1||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.3|-9.1|0.4420
91727876|NCT02596893|183351305|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.6||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.0|-9.5|0.1799
91727877|NCT02596893|183351305|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.4||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||4.9|-9.4|0.2309
91727878|NCT02596893|183351305|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.1||||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||4.6|-9.1|0.3264
91727879|NCT02596893|183351306|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-11.7||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||-1.1|-22.0|0.0299
91727880|NCT02596893|183351306|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-9.9||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||0.7|-20.3|0.0582
91727881|NCT02596893|183351306|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-9.7||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||1.0|-20.1|0.0741
91727882|NCT02596893|183351307|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-5.8||||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||4.0|-15.5|0.2493
91727883|NCT02596893|183351307|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.8||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||8.2|-11.8|0.7160
91727884|NCT02596893|183351307|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-5.8||||0.2452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||4.1|-15.5|0.2452
91727885|NCT02596893|183351308|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.3||||0.7541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||7.1|-9.8|0.7541
91727886|NCT02596893|183351308|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-3.7||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||4.6|-12.0|0.3784
91727887|NCT02596893|183351308|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-4.4||||0.2865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||3.8|-12.6|0.2865
91727888|NCT02596893|183351309|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified CMH|-2.2||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values were based on the unstratified CMH test when 1 and only 1 of the 2 treatment groups being compared had no subjects in a stratum.|The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|2-sided 95% CI were based on the unstratified Newcombe method.||7.0|-11.3|0.3572
91727889|NCT02596893|183351309|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|4.7||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||18.9|-8.8|0.2823
91727890|NCT02596893|183351309|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|0.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||13.7|-12.8|> 0.9999
91727891|NCT02596893|183351310|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-0.5||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.9|-6.7|0.8031
91727892|NCT02596893|183351310|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|1.4||||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||7.3|-5.1|0.5583
91795654|NCT04824365|183469992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3177||0.6738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4921|0.76|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.7600|-0.4921|0.6738
91727893|NCT02596893|183351310|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.0||||0.6123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|6.8|-7.2|0.6123
91727894|NCT02596893|183351311|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-10.6||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||-1.4|-19.6|0.0239
91795655|NCT04824365|183469993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2832||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2478|0.8669|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.8669|-0.2478|0.2753
91727895|NCT02596893|183351311|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.0||||0.8334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||8.7|-10.8|0.8334
91727896|NCT02596893|183351311|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-3.9||||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||5.8|-13.5|0.4383
91727897|NCT02596893|183351312|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.6||||0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with CMH weights.|||5.9|-8.3|0.3573
91727898|NCT02596893|183351312|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-2.0||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.1|-8.7|0.2221
91727899|NCT02596893|183351312|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-2.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.6|-8.7|0.2578
91727900|NCT02596893|183351315|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|0.5||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights|||10.0|-8.9|0.9141
91727901|NCT02596893|183351315|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-3.6||||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.6|-12.8|0.4286
91727902|NCT02596893|183351315|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.7||||0.5591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||6.6|-12.0|0.5591
91727903|NCT03280615|183351316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher exact test was performed||||0.257
91727904|NCT03280615|183351317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Fisher Exact|||A mixed linear regression model for repeated measures was performed to test if the outcome behaved differently in both treatment groups||||0.231
91727905|NCT03280615|183351318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed linear regression model for repeated measures was performed to test if the outcome behaved differently in both treatment groups||||0.043
91727906|NCT03052257|183351319|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||||0.30|0.15|<0.0001
91727907|NCT00090402|183351331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age and body mass index||||||0.83
91727908|NCT02327143|183351388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares|0.448|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.395|0.508|||||Absolute bioavailability of LY2835219 following the administration of 200 mg LY2835219 (oral) with 0.4 mg \[13C8\]-LY2835219 (IV).|||0.508|0.395|
91727909|NCT02123511|183351391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1232|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1232
91727910|NCT02123511|183351392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0422
91727911|NCT02123511|183351393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5634|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5634
91727912|NCT02123511|183351394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
91795656|NCT04824365|183469994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2636|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.948|-0.9043|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||-0.9043|-1.948|<0.0001
91795657|NCT03739840|183469997|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|-5.6|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|19.2||Adjusted p-values are from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||19.2|-38.1|=0.687
91696558|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.57|-1.63|0.34
91696559|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.92||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||0.92|-1.26|0.76
91696560|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.63||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.63|-0.42|0.15
91696561|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.66|-1.66|1.00
91696562|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.43||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.43|0.38|0.01
91705410|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|13.65||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||13.65|5.30|<0.001
91705411|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.28|-4.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-4.53|-24.28|0.005
91727913|NCT02123511|183351395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.22
91727914|NCT02123511|183351396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
91727915|NCT02123511|183351397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.95
91727916|NCT02123511|183351398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
91727917|NCT02123511|183351399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.48
91727918|NCT02123511|183351400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3824|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3824
91758758|NCT00265317|183410779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|44.3||||||Percentage of participants surviving at 1 year in the Sunitinib + Erlotinib Treatment Group, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method||44.3|19.7|
91758759|NCT00265317|183410779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|54.2||||||Percentage of participants surviving at 1 year in the Erlotinib + Placebo Treatment Group, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method||54.2|30.1|
91758760|NCT00265317|183410807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.748||||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|1.591|||Log Rank|||Positive EGFR Expression||1.591|0.351|0.2247
91758761|NCT00265317|183410807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.184||||0.6797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|2.414|||Log Rank|||Negative EGFR Expression||2.414|0.581|0.6797
91696563|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.8||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.80|-1.56|0.58
91696564|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.35||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.35|-3.47|0.39
91696565|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.35||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.35|-3.05|0.45
91705412|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Median Difference (Net)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-3.76|-23.50|0.007
91705413|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|14.04||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||14.04|-13.86|0.990
91727919|NCT01423084|183351401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of hSBA GMTs against H44/76 strain if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs against H44/76 strain||1.23|0.82|
91727920|NCT01423084|183351401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of hSBA GMTs against 5/99 strain if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination ) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs against 5/99 strain||1.1|0.77|
91727921|NCT01423084|183351401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of hSBA GMTs against NZ 98/254 strain if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination ) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.09||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs against NZ98/254 strain||1.09|0.6|
91727922|NCT01423084|183351409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of ELISA GMCs against vaccine antigen 287-953 if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination ) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs||1.02|0.67|
91727923|NCT01133977|183351417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75||||||The current study was not powered or designed to determine superiority of the '20 mg Lenvatinib + Dacarbazine (Phase 2)' arm compared with 'Dacarbazine (Phase 2) ' arm.||0.75|0.23|
91727924|NCT02462057|183351421|EQUIVALENCE|The anticipated sample size of 3500 provided 80% power to detect a 3% pairwise difference between the proportions of participants who enrolled in HF with significance testing conducted at the Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.005 (0.05/10) to account for the 10 pairwise between-arm comparisons and pessimistically allowing for up to 10% further exclusions. The baseline monthly enrolment rate was estimated at ∼1%/month.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91727925|NCT01791205|183351447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.538||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|19.33||The relation between retention rate and duration of disease for phase II was estimated with the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|||The relation between retention rate and DAS28 (\<2.6 vs \<3.2) was assayed with the Cox regression.||19.33|0.65|0.1194
91727926|NCT01791205|183351448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3895|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.3895
91727927|NCT01791205|183351449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.211||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|2.086|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.086|0.703|0.4900
91727928|NCT01791205|183351450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Delta|-0.042||||0.6908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.167|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.167|-0.251|0.6908
91727929|NCT01791205|183351451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||||0.0210
91727930|NCT03615534|183351484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line TG levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: TG= 240.4 mg/dl, HDL-C = 31.8 mg/dl, ApoA1 = 144.6 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline TG level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline HDL-C, ApoA1levels.||||0.0001
91727931|NCT03615534|183351485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line TC levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: TC=199.9 mg/dl, Non HDL-C= 168.0 mg/dl, d-LDL-C= 119.1 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline TC level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline Non HDL-C and d-LDL-C.||||0.060
91727932|NCT03615534|183351485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line HDL-C levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: HDL-C = 31.8 mg/dL,TG= 240.4 mg/dL, ApoA1 = 144.6 mg/dL.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline HDL-C level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baselineTG, ApoA1levels.||||0.0001
91727933|NCT03615534|183351485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line d-LDL-C levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: d-LDL-C= 119.1 mg/dl.TC=199.9 mg/dl, Non HDL-C= 168.0 mg/dl,||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline d-LDL-C level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline TC and Non HDL-C .||||0.334
91727934|NCT03615534|183351485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line Non HDL-C levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: Non HDL-C= 168.0 mg/dl,TC=199.9 mg/dl, d-LDL-C= 119.1 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline Non HDL-C level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline TC and d-LDL-C.||||0.012
91727935|NCT03615534|183351485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line RC levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values:RC=48.9,TC=199.9, Non HDL-C=168.0, d-LDL-C=119.1, ApoB=133.1mg/dl||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline RC level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baselineTC, Non HDL-C, d-LDL-C, and ApoB.||||0.001
91727936|NCT03615534|183351486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line ApoA1 levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: ApoA1 = 144.6 mg/dl, TG= 240.4 mg/dl, HDL-C = 31.8 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline ApoA1 level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline TG and HDL-C levels.||||0.058
91727937|NCT03615534|183351486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line ApoB levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values:ApoB=133.1, RC=48.9,TC=199.9, Non HDL-C=168.0, d-LDL-C=119.1mg/dl||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline ApoB level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baselineTC, Non HDL-C, dLDL-C, and RC .||||0.067
91758762|NCT00265317|183410807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.632||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.627|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Expression||1.627|0.245|0.1693
91758763|NCT00265317|183410809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.628|||Log Rank|||Positive EGFR Expression||1.628|0.458|0.3223
91758764|NCT00265317|183410809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|2.474|||Log Rank|||Negative EGFR Expression||2.474|0.362|0.4608
91758765|NCT00265317|183410809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.632||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.627|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Expression||1.627|0.245|0.1693
91758766|NCT00265317|183410811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|2.031|||Log Rank|||No EGFR Gene Copy Number Increase||2.031|0.542|0.5526
91758767|NCT00265317|183410811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.344|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Gene Copy Number Increase||1.344|0.380|0.1529
91758768|NCT00265317|183410813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|2.085|||Log Rank|||No EGFR Gene Amplification||2.085|0.557|0.5839
91758769|NCT00265317|183410813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.344|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Gene Amplification||1.344|0.380|0.1529
91865975|NCT03493542|183623128|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.58|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 6||1.58|1.28|<0.0001
91865976|NCT03493542|183623128|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.55|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 11||1.55|1.25|<0.0001
91696566|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.21||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.21|-0.13|0.1147
91696567|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.53|-1.41|0.3721
91696568|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.8827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.03||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.03|-0.89|0.8827
91696569|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.4335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.87||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.87|-0.80|0.4335
91696570|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.84||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||0.84|-2.07|0.4063
91696571|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.03||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.03|0.35|0.0132
91758770|NCT00265317|183410815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.6324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|2.608|||Log Rank|||Wild Type EGFR Gene Mutation||2.608|0.516|0.6324
91758771|NCT00265317|183410815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.424|||Log Rank|||Indeterminate EGFR Gene Mutation||1.424|0.464|0.2413
91758772|NCT00265317|183410817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|2.91|||Log Rank|||Mutated KRAS Gene Mutation||2.910|0.079|0.2077
91696572|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.3949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.75||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.75|-1.08|0.3949
91696573|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.72||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.72|-2.50|0.7145
91696574|NCT04075682|183287138|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.6081|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||||0.6081
91696575|NCT04075682|183287139|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.64||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.64|-1.15|0.58
91696576|NCT04075682|183287139|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.57|-1.98|0.82
91705414|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|13.71||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||13.71|-14.07|0.980
91705415|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.58|-11.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-11.71|-33.58|<0.001
91705416|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-11.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-11.74|-33.56|<0.001
91705417|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.72|9.56||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||9.56|-21.72|0.443
91705418|NCT04767529|183305292|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.77|7.36||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||7.36|-23.77|0.299
91795658|NCT03739840|183469997|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|6.5|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|28.7||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||28.7|-22.7|=0.687
91696577|NCT04075682|183287139|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.24||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||4.24|-0.90|0.20
91696578|NCT04075682|183287139|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation analysis are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.66|-0.77|0.8800
91696579|NCT04075682|183287139|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Median Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.50|-1.30|0.8864
91696580|NCT04075682|183287139|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.2748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|3.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.12|-0.89|0.2748
91696581|NCT04075682|183287140|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.7||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be lower in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||2.70|0.45|0.83
91696582|NCT04075682|183287140|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.18||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||7.18|1.14|0.03
91705419|NCT04767529|183305301|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|2.72||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in body weight (kg)||2.72|-1.96|0.750
91705420|NCT04767529|183305301|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|-0.09||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in body weight (kg)||-0.09|-4.75|0.042
91705421|NCT04767529|183305301|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (28 mg EFX - placebo) in body weight (kg)||5.29|-2.90|0.564
91727938|NCT03615534|183351487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line FSG levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: FSG= 95.7 mg/dl.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline FSG level as a covariate.||||0.001
91727939|NCT03615534|183351488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line eGFR levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: eGFR= 88.0 ml/min per 1.73 m\^2.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline eGFR level as a covariate.||||0.786
91727940|NCT03615534|183351489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line serum uric acid levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: serum uric acid= 5.0 mg/dl.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline serum uric acid level as a covariate.||||0.0001
91727941|NCT03615534|183351490|OTHER|||||||0.201||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line AST levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|"Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: AST= 18.1 IU/L.~."||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline AST level as a covariate.||||0.201
91727942|NCT03615534|183351490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line ALT levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: ALT= 16.0 IU/L.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline ALT level as a covariate.||||0.033
91727943|NCT03615534|183351490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.511||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line CK levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: CK= 28.0 IU/L.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline CK level as a covariate.||||0.511
91727944|NCT03615534|183351491|OTHER|||||||0.434||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line diastolic blood pressure levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: diastolic blood pressure= 80.0 mmHg.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline diastolic blood pressure level as a covariate.||||0.434
91727945|NCT03615534|183351491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line systolic blood pressure levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: systolic blood pressure= 121.5 mmHg.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline systolic blood pressure level as a covariate.||||0.966
91727946|NCT03757715|183351561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.16
91727947|NCT03757715|183351562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.42
91758773|NCT00265317|183410817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162||||0.6439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|2.531|||Log Rank|||Wild Type KRAS Gene Mutation||2.531|0.534|0.6439
91758774|NCT00265317|183410817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825||||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|1.489|||Log Rank|||Indeterminate KRAS Gene Mutation||1.489|0.457|0.2664
91758775|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|2.36||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/C||2.360|0.541|0.7423
91758776|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.598||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.236||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/T||1.236|0.290|0.1570
91758777|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.7954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|4.819||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: T/T||4.819|0.131|0.7954
91758778|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.833||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.401|1.732||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: G/G||1.732|0.401|0.6210
91758779|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.5268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.64||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: G/T||1.640|0.385|0.5268
91758780|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011||||0.9753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|2.027||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: T/T||2.027|0.504|0.9753
91758781|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.378||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.85||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: T/A||0.850|0.168|0.0141
91758782|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.236||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|35.9||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: A/A||35.90|0.139|0.5596
91758783|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.2788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.288||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/C||1.288|0.422|0.2788
91758784|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|3.286||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/T||3.286|0.352|0.8971
91758785|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.775||||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|2.388||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/C||2.388|0.251|0.6559
91904501|NCT00701090|183704173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4%, i.e., Sitagliptin was declared non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between group difference (sitagliptin minus glimepiride) was less than 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.16|||||ANCOVA model with terms: treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c.|||0.16|-0.03|
91795659|NCT03739840|183469997|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|6.3|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|28.6||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||28.6|-22.9|=0.687
91904502|NCT00701090|183704174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.7|||||ANCOVA model terms: treatment, country, and baseline.|||6.7|-0.9|
91696583|NCT04075682|183287140|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.44||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be lower in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.44|0.15|0.18
91696584|NCT04075682|183287140|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|12.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be lower for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||12.57|0.08|0.99
91696585|NCT04075682|183287140|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.82||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.||These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.82|0.29|0.86
91696586|NCT04075682|183287140|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.8045|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be lower in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||||0.8045
91696587|NCT04075682|183287140|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||||0.0205
91696588|NCT04075682|183287140|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be lower in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||||0.1918
91705422|NCT04767529|183305301|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in body weight (kg)||2.14|-6.02|0.348
91705423|NCT04767529|183305302|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||0.4|-4.5|0.102
91727948|NCT01122680|183351609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0043||95.0|0.036|0.19||First step of closed testing procedure, where the active treatments are compared to placebo. If this statisical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R5 minus Placebo||0.190|0.036|0.0043
91727949|NCT01122680|183351609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1484||95.0|-0.021|0.135||Second step of closed testing procedure. If this statisical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R2.5 minus Placebo||0.135|-0.021|0.1484
91727950|NCT01122680|183351609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0664||95.0|-0.005|0.138||This test is considered as descriptive.|Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R1.25 minus Placebo||0.138|-0.005|0.0664
91727951|NCT01122680|183351609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||||95.0|-0.031|0.124|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R5 minus Tio R1.25||0.124|-0.031|
91727952|NCT01122680|183351609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||||95.0|-0.014|0.126|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R5 minus Tio R2.5||0.126|-0.014|
91727953|NCT01122680|183351609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||||95.0|-0.088|0.069|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R2.5 minus Tio R1.25||0.069|-0.088|
91727954|NCT05529173|183351635|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91727955|NCT02777190|183351705|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin of 4 hours|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.09|ONE_SIDED|97.5||6.7|||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided two-sample t-test with alpha=0.025|Difference calculated as oral minus vaginal|||6.7||0.09
91696589|NCT04075682|183287140|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be lower for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||||0.99
91705424|NCT04767529|183305302|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||-0.8|-5.8|0.009
91727956|NCT02777190|183351706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91727957|NCT02777190|183351707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91727958|NCT02777190|183351708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91727959|NCT02777190|183351709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91727960|NCT02777190|183351710|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91727961|NCT02777190|183351711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
91727962|NCT02777190|183351713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.40
91727963|NCT02777190|183351714|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91727964|NCT02777190|183351715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
91727965|NCT02777190|183351716|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91727966|NCT02777190|183351717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91727967|NCT01452789|183351718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||van Elteren|||||||<0.05
91727968|NCT01452789|183351719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||van Elteren|||||||<0.05
91727969|NCT01452789|183351720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.05
91727970|NCT00066170|183351722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Dunnett's|||||||<0.001
91727971|NCT00066170|183351722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Dunnett's|||||||<0.001
91727972|NCT00754559|183351739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact Binomial Test|||Null hypothesis: Proportion of participants reaching LDAS (≤ 3.2) at Week 24 equals (=) expected proportion of 42%.||||<0.001
91727973|NCT04000724|183351793|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.54||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.18|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||0.18|-1.26|0.141
91727974|NCT04000724|183351793|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.51||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.14|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||0.14|-1.16|0.123
91727975|NCT04000724|183351794|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.24||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.07|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||.07|-.56|.127
91727976|NCT04000724|183351794|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.02||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.3|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||.30|-.34|.899
91727977|NCT00472641|183351804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Random Regression Mixed Effects Modeling|||||||<0.00001
91727978|NCT00472641|183351805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Random Regression Mixed Effects Modeling|||||||<0.00001
91727979|NCT00309244|183351811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set to meet regulatory requirement of 250 subjects per arm with 52-week data, resulting in \> 90% power for a non-inferiority test of the difference in 12-month change of HbA1c scores between treatment groups with non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, standard deviation of 1.2 and 1-sided alpha of 0.025. Allowing for a 25% drop-out rate, 677 subjects were randomized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.05|
91758786|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939||||0.8563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.889||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/T||1.889|0.466|0.8563
91865977|NCT03493542|183623128|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.7|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 16||1.70|1.37|<0.0001
91696590|NCT04075682|183287140|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||||0.6873
91696591|NCT04075682|183287141|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.41|-1.12|0.37
91696592|NCT04075682|183287142|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.10|0.90|0.92
91696593|NCT04075682|183287142|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||1.11|0.90|0.95
91696594|NCT04075682|183287142|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||1.14|0.85|0.85
91705425|NCT04767529|183305302|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.5||Threshold for significance set at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX 28 mg and placebo group|Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||-0.5|-6.2|0.021
91758787|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.382||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.12||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: T/T||1.120|0.130|0.668
91758788|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.309||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs35636987 Genotype: C/C||1.309|0.488|0.3681
91758789|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|2.237||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/C||2.237|0.331|0.7520
91758790|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|1.098||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/T||1.098|0.276|0.0833
91758791|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.564||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|5.506||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: T/T||5.506|0.444|0.4772
91758792|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.034||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|2.048||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/G||2.048|0.522|0.9235
91696595|NCT04075682|183287142|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.13|0.84|0.75
91865978|NCT03493542|183623128|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.9|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 18||1.90|1.45|<0.0001
91865979|NCT03493542|183623149|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 6||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
91865980|NCT03493542|183623149|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 11||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
91696596|NCT04075682|183287142|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.20|0.78|0.78
91696597|NCT04075682|183287142|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.82||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.82|0.94|0.11
91696598|NCT04075682|183287142|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.22|0.80|0.93
91705426|NCT04767529|183305302|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX 50 mg and placebo group|Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||-3.7|-9.4|<0.001
91705427|NCT02636699|183305316|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates (%)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.8|||Wald|||Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Newcombe 95% confidence interval (CI). P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Newcombe 95% CI of the difference in response rates ≥15%.||29.8|12.4|<0.001
91705428|NCT02636699|183305317|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates (%)|19.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|38.4|||Wald|||"Screening ED subgroup 1:~Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Newcombe 95% CI. P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Newcombe 95% CI of the difference in response rates \>0."||38.4|-6.4|0.105
91705429|NCT02636699|183305317|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates (%)|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|30.8|||Wald|||"Screening ED subgroup 2:~Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Newcombe 95% CI. P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Newcombe 95% CI of the difference in response rates \>0."||30.8|12.1|<0.001
91865981|NCT03493542|183623149|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 16||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
91696599|NCT04075682|183287142|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.23|0.78|0.86
91696600|NCT04075682|183287142|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.22||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.22|0.81|0.94
91795660|NCT03739840|183470001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||=|0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.38||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.38|0.39|=0.803
91696601|NCT04075682|183287142|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.78||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.78|0.93|0.13
91696602|NCT04075682|183287142|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.41||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.41|0.70|0.96
91696603|NCT04075682|183287142|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.36|0.72|0.95
91705430|NCT02636699|183305318|OTHER||Difference in Median CRD|297.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.0|317.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||The treatment effect was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference in median CRDs at Month 12.||317.0|130.0|<0.001
91705431|NCT03004924|183305375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|7.7||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.9|||Fisher Exact|||||16.9|-1.6|0.127
91705432|NCT03004924|183305376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|-3.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|5.9|||Fisher Exact|||||5.9|-12.8|0.500
91795661|NCT03739840|183470001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||=|0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.65||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||2.65|0.27|=0.772
91904503|NCT00701090|183704175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-10.9|||Miettinen &Nurminen method||Miettinen \&Nurminen method was used for the 95% confidence interval|||-10.9|-19.3|<0.001
91705433|NCT02867202|183305390|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data analysis was performed with SPSS version 22.0, using two-sided test, and a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
91696604|NCT00955955|183287147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Score Reduction|-5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7||0.05||95.0|||||SPCD|Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD)|These results reflect the mean score reduction for the pooled Deplin sample.|Hypothesis 1: There will be a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the degree of improvement, as measured by the change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) score from baseline to endpoint, using the sequential parallel comparison design \[51\]; with a greater degree of reduction in HAM-D-17 scores in the 6(S)-5-MTHF 15 mg qd group than in the placebo group, with the change on placebo being estimated from Trials 1 and 2.||||.05
91696605|NCT03423173|183287154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.04|0.46|
91696606|NCT03423173|183287154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.38|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.38|0.60|
91696607|NCT03423173|183287154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.96|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||0.96|0.41|
91696608|NCT03423173|183287154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.71|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.71|0.98|
91696609|NCT03423173|183287154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.88|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||0.88|0.51|
91696610|NCT03423173|183287154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.15|0.65|
91696611|NCT03423173|183287154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.78|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.78|0.91|
91696612|NCT03423173|183287154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.33|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.33|0.68|
91696613|NCT03423173|183287154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.71|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.71|0.87|
91696614|NCT03423173|183287154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.82|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||0.82|0.46|
91696615|NCT03423173|183287154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.17|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||2.17|1.22|
91696616|NCT03423173|183287154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||1.35|0.75|
91696617|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rates Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|6.06|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 120||6.06|-4.99|
91696618|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.19|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 120||3.19|-6.90|
91696619|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|2.69|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 120||2.69|-7.45|
91696620|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|15.3|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 270||15.30|0.64|
91696621|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|7.65|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 270||7.65|-4.67|
91696622|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|1.04|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 270||1.04|-14.00|
91696623|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|5.29|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 120||5.29|-3.87|
91696624|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|3.17|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 120||3.17|-5.24|
91696625|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|2.58|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 120||2.58|-6.05|
91696626|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|7.44|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 270||7.44|-2.12|
91696627|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|5.24|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 270||5.24|-3.41|
91696628|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|3.17|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 270||3.17|-6.67|
91696629|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|9.06|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 120||9.06|-3.07|
91696630|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|4.44|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 120||4.44|-6.17|
91696631|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|2.03|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 120||2.03|-9.74|
91696632|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|14.56|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 270||14.56|-1.03|
91696633|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|10.23|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 270||10.23|-4.28|
91696634|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|4.39|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 270||4.39|-11.97|
91696635|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|1.55|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 120||1.55|-7.68|
91696636|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|5.62|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 120||5.62|-5.47|
91696637|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|7.81|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 120||7.81|-1.52|
91696638|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|5.69|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 270||5.69|-9.14|
91795662|NCT03739840|183470001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.08||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.08|0.33|=0.989
91696639|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|8.95|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 270||8.95|-6.90|
91696640|NCT03423173|183287155|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|10.18|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 270||10.18|-4.68|
91696641|NCT03423173|183287156|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.42|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.42|0.56|
91696642|NCT03423173|183287156|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.28|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.28|0.51|
91696643|NCT03423173|183287156|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.16|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.16|0.46|
91696644|NCT03423173|183287156|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.86|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.86|1.02|
91696645|NCT03423173|183287156|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.87|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||0.87|0.48|
91696646|NCT03423173|183287156|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.21|0.66|
91696647|NCT03423173|183287156|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.94|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.94|1.00|
91696648|NCT03423173|183287156|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.21|0.64|
91696649|NCT03423173|183287156|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.71|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.71|0.88|
91904504|NCT00701090|183704176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA model terms: treatment, country, and baseline.|||-1.6|-2.3|<0.001
91696650|NCT03423173|183287156|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.18|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||1.18|0.58|
91795663|NCT03739840|183470002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||=|0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.18||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.18|0.61|=0.425
91795664|NCT03739840|183470002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||=|0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.85||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate||2.85|0.53|=0.625
91795665|NCT03739840|183470002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||=|0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.34||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate||4.34|0.84|=0.125
91904505|NCT00701090|183704177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.9|||||The parameter estimate and 95% CI represent the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 30 in the Sitagliptin group vs. the Glimepiride group, computed using a logistic regression model controlling for treatment, country and baseline A1C.|||0.90|0.47|
91696651|NCT03423173|183287156|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.14|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||2.14|1.07|
91696652|NCT03423173|183287156|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.78|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||1.78|0.88|
91696653|NCT01062113|183287178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|56.1||The difference in the efficacy rates was tested using normal distribution at a significance level of 2-sided 5%. 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the efficacy rates was calculated using normal approximation.|asymptotic z-test|||||56.1|20.3|<0.0001
91696654|NCT01062113|183287180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
91696655|NCT01062113|183287181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91696656|NCT03655470|183287209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.30
91696657|NCT03063086|183287211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.208|0.137|<0.0001
91696658|NCT03063086|183287211|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.195|0.123|<0.0001
91696659|NCT03063086|183287216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|0.086|<0.0001
91696660|NCT05481125|183287253|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.1 logMAR|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.024||Since a non-inferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the non-inferiority margin.|||Mean difference (Clareon/Clareon Toric minus Eyhance/Eyhance Toric). Upper Confidence Limit is presented.|||-0.024||
91696661|NCT03702010|183287259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline VAS||||0.112
91696662|NCT03702010|183287259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After first stimulation VAS||||0.323
91696663|NCT03702010|183287259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After second stimulation||||0.760
91696664|NCT03702010|183287259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Follow-up||||0.624
91696665|NCT03702010|183287260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After first stimulation||||0.589
91696666|NCT03702010|183287260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After second stimulation||||0.704
91696667|NCT03702010|183287260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Follow-up||||0.908
91696668|NCT03702010|183287261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.231
91696669|NCT03702010|183287261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After first stimulation||||0.663
91696670|NCT03702010|183287261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After second stimulation||||0.998
91696671|NCT03702010|183287261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Follow-up||||0.713
91696672|NCT04791319|183287268|SUPERIORITY||MH weights|7.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|26.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||||26.2|-12.1|0.489
91696673|NCT04791319|183287268|SUPERIORITY||MH Weights|7.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|23.7|||Chi-squared|||||23.7|-9.4|0.448
91696674|NCT04791319|183287268|SUPERIORITY||MH Weights|42.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|61.1|||Chi-squared|||||61.1|22.9|0.001
91696675|NCT01704651|183287309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
91696676|NCT01704651|183287310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91696677|NCT00791661|183287314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (fed/fasted)|0.92||||||95.0|||||Mixed-effect model|Based on mixed effect model with panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.||||||
91696678|NCT00791661|183287316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (fed/fasted)|0.81||||||95.0|||||Mixed-effect model|Based on mixed effect model with panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.||||||
91904506|NCT00701090|183704178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||||The parameter estimate and 95% CI represent the odds of having A1C \<6.5% at Week 30 in the Sitagliptin group vs. the Glimepiride group, computed using a logistic regression model controlling for treatment, country and baseline A1C.|||0.95|0.47|
91795666|NCT03739840|183470003|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.25|||=|0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.08|20.36||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value are based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Hodges Lehmann nonparametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% asymptotic confidence intervals are provided for the effect difference between each PSL dose and placebo.||20.36|-17.08|=0.737
91795667|NCT03739840|183470003|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.17|||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|21.91||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value are based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Hodges Lehmann nonparametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% asymptotic confidence intervals are provided for the effect difference between each PSL dose and placebo.||21.91|-10.00|=0.458
91795668|NCT03739840|183470003|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.31|||=|0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|28.21||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value are based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Hodges Lehmann nonparametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% asymptotic confidence intervals are provided for the effect difference between each PSL dose and placebo.||28.21|-10.92|=0.341
91795669|NCT02788474|183470004|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.00066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00282||0.8146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00621|0.00488||random coefficient regression (random slopes and intercepts) model including sex, age and height as covariates (Due to the low number of measurements per patient, baseline CRPM was included as a response rather than as a covariate in the analysis)|random coefficient regression|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominators degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as Nintedanib minus Placebo|"The rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM was assumed to be linear in each subject over the 12 weeks of treatment. The intercepts and slopes were assumed to be normally distributed with arbitrary covariance matrix.~Since the distribution of the data was not normal, a log10 transformation was performed before conducting the statistical analyses.~Significance tests were based on least-square means using 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (2-sided α=0.05)."||0.00488|-0.00621|0.8146
91795670|NCT02788474|183470005|OTHER||slope estimate|22.001||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.83|57.58|||Regression, Logistic||Slope estimate is the monthly rate of change in CRPM up to week 12|To assess the association between disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death) and the change in the Extracellular matrix (ECM) biomarker CRPM in the first 12 weeks, a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM and the monthly rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM in the first 12 weeks as covariates was applied for placebo-treated patients only to evaluate the potential of CRPM as a prognostic biomarker.||57.58|-11.83|0.2084
91795671|NCT02788474|183470005|OTHER||slope estimate|-45.566||||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.55|16.37|||Regression, Logistic||Slope estimate is the monthly rate of change in CRPM up to week 12|To assess how nintedanib treatment affected the association between disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death) and the change in CRPM in the first 12 weeks, a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM, the monthly rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM up to Week 12, treatment and treatment-CRPM slope interaction as covariates was applied.||16.37|-109.55|0.1537
91795672|NCT02788474|183470005|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.769||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess whether the overall treatment regimen affected disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death), a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM and randomised treatment as covariates was applied.||1.27|0.46|0.3116
91795673|NCT02788474|183470005|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.772||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess whether the monthly rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM in the first 12 weeks could explain the effect of treatment on disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death), a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM, the rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM in the first 12 weeks and randomised treatment as covariates was applied.||1.27|0.46|0.3175
91795674|NCT02788474|183470006|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.00121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00273|0.00515||random coefficient regression model (C1M (negative reciprocal root-transformed)) with fixed effects for gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.|random coefficient regression||Difference calculated as Nintedanib minus Placebo. Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-Components variance-covariance matrix.|"The rate of change (slope) in blood C1M was assumed to be linear in each subject over the 12 weeks of treatment.~Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix."||0.00515|-0.00273|0.5469
91795675|NCT02788474|183470007|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.00307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00262||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00823|0.00209||random coefficient regression model (C3M (log10-transformed)) with fixed effects for gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.|random coefficient regression||Difference calculated as Nintedanib minus Placebo. Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-Components variance-covariance matrix.|"The rate of change (slope) in blood C3M was assumed to be linear in each subject over the 12 weeks of treatment.~Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix."||0.00209|-0.00823|0.2429
91795676|NCT02694523|183470019|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||32.4|17.5|<0.001
91795677|NCT02694523|183470020|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||30.1|16.6|<0.001
91795678|NCT02694523|183470021|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|45.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|61.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||61.1|28.9|<0.001
91795679|NCT02694523|183470022|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||24.9|13.0|<0.001
91696679|NCT00791661|183287320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-8.1||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.0|6.8||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 15 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||6.8|-23.0|0.368
91696680|NCT00791661|183287320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-16.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.2|-1.1||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 30 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-1.1|-32.2|0.079
91696681|NCT00791661|183287320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-25.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.9|-10.5||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 45 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-10.5|-40.9|0.007
91696682|NCT00791661|183287320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diffrence in least squares mean|-36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.0|-20.5||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-20.5|-52.0|<.001
91696683|NCT00791661|183287320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-19.7||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.2|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg fed minus LS mean for placebo fed.|||2.7|-42.2|0.147
91696684|NCT00791661|183287320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|12.3||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|25.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|Difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was calculated as LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg minus LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg fed.|||25.2|-0.5|0.114
91696685|NCT00791661|183287320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-28.9||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.9|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for placebo fed minus LS mean for placebo.|||-7.9|-49.9|0.026
91696686|NCT00791661|183287320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-57.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-73.3|-41.9||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 80 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-41.9|-73.3|<.001
91696687|NCT00791661|183287320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-15.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.5|-0.1||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 100 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-0.1|-30.5|0.099
91727980|NCT00309244|183351812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of pooled site and treatment as fixed effects and baseline weight as covariate||-0.7|-2.4|0.0002
91727981|NCT00309244|183351813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of pooled site and treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate||-6.1|-29.3|0.0029
91727982|NCT00309244|183351814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.774||||0.2793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|1.231|||Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression analysis with the terms of treatment and baseline HbA1c in the model||1.231|0.486|0.2793
91727983|NCT00309244|183351815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.423|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.581|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||0.581|0.307|<0.001
91727984|NCT00309244|183351816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.409||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.78|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||0.780|0.215|0.0066
91795680|NCT02694523|183470023|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|23.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||23.9|9.5|<0.001
91795681|NCT02694523|183470024|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|46.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||46.9|18.8|<0.001
91696688|NCT00791661|183287320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.8|-27.0||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 140 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-27.0|-60.8|<.001
91795682|NCT02694523|183470025|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|46.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||46.9|18.8|<0.001
91795683|NCT02694523|183470026|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|55.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||55.8|22.0|<0.001
91795684|NCT01058265|183470039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PCS between two groups.||||0.487
91795685|NCT01058265|183470040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in MCS between two groups.||||0.817
91795686|NCT02169284|183470057|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Nucleus P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.208
91795687|NCT02169284|183470057|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Cytoplasm P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.208
91795688|NCT02169284|183470057|OTHER|||||||0.272|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Membrane P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.272
91795689|NCT02169284|183470057|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Entire Cell P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.220
91795690|NCT02169284|183470058|OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Nucleus P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.361
91795691|NCT02169284|183470058|OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Cytoplasm P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.383
91795692|NCT02169284|183470058|OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Membrane P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.427
91795693|NCT02169284|183470058|OTHER|||||||0.416|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Entire Cell P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.416
91795694|NCT02169284|183470059|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||1.000
91696689|NCT00791661|183287320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-59.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-75.1|-43.7||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 170 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-43.7|-75.1|<.001
91696690|NCT00520533|183287445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Biological T1/2 at Week 1 and Week 5.||||0.194
91696691|NCT00520533|183287446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Effective T1/2 at Week 1 and Week 5.||||0.172
91795695|NCT02169284|183470059|OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 8 - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||0.199
91795696|NCT02169284|183470059|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Surgery visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||<0.001
91795697|NCT02169284|183470060|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||1.000
91795698|NCT02169284|183470060|OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 8 - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||0.288
91795699|NCT02169284|183470060|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Surgery visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||<0.001
91727985|NCT00309244|183351817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Generalized Estimation Equation|Based on Poisson distribution||||||0.0027
91727986|NCT00309244|183351818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0591|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|Based on Poission distribution||||||0.0591
91795700|NCT02169284|183470061|OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||P-value between groups at Baseline||||0.792
91795701|NCT02169284|183470061|OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||P-value between groups at surgery visit||||0.261
91795702|NCT02169284|183470062|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of e-cadherin in Benign Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.721
91795703|NCT02169284|183470062|OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of e-cadherin in Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.108
91795704|NCT02169284|183470063|OTHER|||||||0.444|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of KI-67 in Benign Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.444
91795705|NCT02169284|183470063|OTHER|||||||0.663|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of KI-67 in Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.663
91795706|NCT02169284|183470064|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Difference in p-ERK between Normal and Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||1.000
91795707|NCT02169284|183470064|OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Difference in Cytoplasm p-ERK between Normal and Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.792
91795708|NCT02169284|183470064|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Difference in Entire Cell p-ERK between Normal and Tumor Tissue, p-value between arms||||1.000
91795709|NCT02169284|183470065|OTHER|||||||0.772|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.772
91795710|NCT01367119|183470067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-values take into account variability across treatments and within subject.||||0.171
91795711|NCT01367119|183470068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-values take into account variability across treatments and within subject.||||0.258
91795712|NCT01367119|183470069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for nausea||||0.091
91795713|NCT01367119|183470069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for headache||||0.763
91795714|NCT01367119|183470069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for myalgia||||0.356
91795715|NCT01367119|183470069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for visual disturbance||||0.093
91865982|NCT03493542|183623149|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 18||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
91865983|NCT02765412|183623158|OTHER|multilevel model|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.78||Two-sided test; the a priori threshold being 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for age, gender, race, comorbidities, implementation group, travel distance, and VAMC indicator|OR corresponding to the interaction between implementation group and lung cancer risk, a ratio of odds ratios. The OR for screening based on lung cancer risk in the SI group versus the OR for screening based on lung cancer risk in the II group|||0.78|0.58|0.081
91727987|NCT04223687|183351832|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91795716|NCT01367119|183470069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for confusion||||0.003
91795717|NCT01367119|183470069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for recovery room agitation||||0.860
91795718|NCT02675231|183470128|SUPERIORITY|The abemaciclib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant arm will be compared to the standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm first, and the abemaciclib doublet arm will be compared to the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm only if the test for the triplet vs the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm is significant.||||||0.0506|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior systemic regimens for advanced breast cancer (2 to 3 versus(vs) \>3) and status of disease(measurable vs non-measurable).||PFS analysis was planned after approximately 165 PFS events occurred in the enrolled population, yielding greater than or equal to (≥) 80% power assuming a Hazard ration (HR) of 0·667 at an experiment-wise 2-sided alpha level of 0·2.||||0.0506
91795719|NCT02675231|183470128|SUPERIORITY|The abemaciclib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant arm will be compared to the standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm first, and the abemaciclib doublet arm will be compared to the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm only if the test for the triplet vs the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm is significant.||||||0.7695|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior systemic regimens for advanced breast cancer (2 to 3 versus(vs) \>3) and status of disease(measurable vs non-measurable).||PFS analysis was planned after approximately 165 PFS events occurred in the enrolled population, yielding greater than or equal to (≥) 80% power assuming a Hazard ration (HR) of 0·667 at an experiment-wise 2-sided alpha level of 0·2.||||0.7695
91795720|NCT02675231|183470129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.3|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.30|0.36|0.241
91795721|NCT02675231|183470129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.36|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.36|0.38|0.313
91865984|NCT02765412|183623159|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.46||Two-sided test; the a priori threshold being 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Satisfaction rating on a scale of 0 to 10; Difference is Arm 1 - Arm 2|Simple t-test comparing mean satisfaction ratings between arms||0.46|-0.16|0.35
91865985|NCT03734029|183623163|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.5085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4012|0.6444||Two-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test, Hazard ratio and 95% CI from stratified Cox proportional hazards model using stratification factors: HER2 status, number of prior lines of chemotherapy, hormone Receptor/CDK status, as defined by IXRS.|Log Rank|||||0.6444|0.4012|<0.0001
91865986|NCT03952520|183623251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|48.1|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||48.1|26.5|
91865987|NCT03952520|183623252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.1|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||2.1|2.0|
91865988|NCT03952520|183623254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||0.4|-0.2|
91865989|NCT03952520|183623255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.0|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||2.0|-3.1|
91865990|NCT03952520|183623256|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|26.5|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||26.5|5.0|
91795722|NCT02675231|183470130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.08|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.08|0.42|0.104
91795723|NCT02675231|183470130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.1|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.10|0.43|0.120
91727988|NCT04223687|183351833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91727989|NCT04223687|183351834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91727990|NCT04223687|183351835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
91727991|NCT04223687|183351836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91795724|NCT02675231|183470131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.0|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.00|0.42|0.049
91795725|NCT02675231|183470131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.12|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.12|0.48|0.153
91795726|NCT02675231|183470136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||||||0.232
91795727|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.689|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Global health status||||0.689
91727992|NCT04223687|183351837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727993|NCT04223687|183351838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91795728|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.141|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scales: Physical functioning||||0.141
91795729|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.095|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Role functioning||||0.095
91795730|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.591|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Emotional functioning||||0.591
91795731|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.935|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Cognitive functioning||||0.935
91795732|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.578|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Social functioning||||0.578
91795733|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.308|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Fatigue||||0.308
91727994|NCT04223687|183351839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91795734|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Nausea and vomiting||||0.043
91795735|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Pain||||0.026
91727995|NCT04223687|183351840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91795736|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.276|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Dyspnoea||||0.276
91795737|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Insomnia||||0.041
91795738|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.262|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Appetite loss||||0.262
91795739|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.285|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Constipation||||0.285
91795740|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Diarrhoea||||< 0.001
91727996|NCT04223687|183351841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91727997|NCT04223687|183351842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91727998|NCT04223687|183351843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91727999|NCT04223687|183351844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91728000|NCT04223687|183351845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91728001|NCT02945046|183351852|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|2.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.42|-2.72|0.9093
91728002|NCT02945046|183351852|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|0.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-4.49|0.1345
91865991|NCT03952520|183623257|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.0|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||10.0|-6.9|
91865992|NCT03952520|183623259|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|13.8|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||13.8|-1.5|
91865993|NCT03635567|183623261|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.71||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (hazard ratio \[HR\]) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.71|0.47|<0.0001
91865994|NCT03635567|183623262|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.74||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.74|0.50|<0.0001
91865995|NCT03635567|183623263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
91865996|NCT03635567|183623264|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.74|0.49|<0.0001
91865997|NCT03635567|183623265|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.77||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value based on log-rank test provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.77|0.52|<0.0001
91865998|NCT03635567|183623266|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.78||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.78|0.44|<0.0001
91795741|NCT02675231|183470137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Financial difficulties||||0.180
91865999|NCT03635567|183623267|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|22.3||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Treatment comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||22.3|7.4|0.0001
91866000|NCT03635567|183623270|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.74|0.49|<0.0001
91866001|NCT05157841|183623276|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL and bupivacaine HCI|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-164.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.74|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.3|-109.6|||ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||The superiority of EXPAREL to bupivacaine hydrochloric acid (HCI) was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||-109.6|-218.3|<0.00001
91866002|NCT05157841|183623277|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL and bupivacaine HCI|Least square mean difference|0.39|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.55|||ANCOVA|||The superiority of EXPAREL to bupivacaine hydrochloric acid (HCI) was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||0.55|0.28|<0.00001
91866003|NCT05157841|183623278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|12.62|||ANCOVA|||||12.62|2.01|0.0003
91866004|NCT05157841|183623279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.93|||Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as main effect and site as categorical and age as continuous covariates.||||0.93|0.45|0.0089
91728003|NCT03907579|183351872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|z= -3.861||||||0.0001
91696692|NCT03307252|183287462|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|100.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.84|114.15|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|114.15|88.84|
91728004|NCT03319654|183351875|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE)-model with an exchangeable correlation structure and a logit link function was used to analyze the probability of live birth and clinical pregnancy respectively. All IUI cycles are used in this model with correction for the fact that cycles of the same couple are not independent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.9985|||GEE-model|||The null hypothesis is: there is no association between % total Sperm DNA Fragmentation and live birth.||0.9985|0.90|0.04
91696693|NCT03307252|183287462|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|93.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.12|102.06|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|102.06|86.12|
91728005|NCT03319654|183351875|OTHER||Area under the ROC curve|0.576|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Receiver Operating Characteristics curve|||||||>0.05
91728006|NCT03259308|183351882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.027
91728007|NCT03259308|183351882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.014
91728008|NCT03259308|183351883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.001
91795742|NCT02675231|183470138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model: Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||||||0.033
91728009|NCT03259308|183351883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.003
91728010|NCT03259308|183351884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
91795743|NCT02675231|183470138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model: Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||||||0.275
91795744|NCT02675231|183470139|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM Model|||||||0.546
91795745|NCT02675231|183470139|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM Model|||||||0.620
91866005|NCT05157841|183623280|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0||Worst pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariate of age.||||0.0|-1.7|0.0296
91728011|NCT03259308|183351884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
91728012|NCT03259308|183351885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
91728013|NCT03259308|183351885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
91728014|NCT03259308|183351886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.002
91728015|NCT03259308|183351886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.017
91728016|NCT00066937|183351906|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline to each timepoint||||||<.05
91728017|NCT00066937|183351907|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline scores to each period of follow-up (post-treatment, 3-months, 6 months)||||||<.05
91728018|NCT00066937|183351908|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline scores to each period of follow-up (post-treatment, 3-months, 6 months)||||||<.05
91728019|NCT00066937|183351909|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline scores to each period of follow-up (post-treatment, 3-months, 6 months)||||||<.05
91728020|NCT03389750|183351911|EQUIVALENCE|An F-test was used to assess for significant differences among the 13 dose conditions.||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F = 7.06 (DF=12)||||||.0001
91728021|NCT06868667|183351919|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.52|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy, prior bortezomib and revised international staging system (R-ISS) at screening, with a covariate of treatment.|||1.52|0.11|
91728022|NCT01027754|183351946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91728023|NCT01027754|183351947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91728024|NCT01027754|183351956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91866006|NCT05157841|183623280|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.1||Worst pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-2.1|-3.6|<0.00001
91866007|NCT05157841|183623280|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.5||Worst pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-2.5|-4.1|<0.00001
91866008|NCT05157841|183623280|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3||Worst pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-1.3|-3.0|<0.00001
91866009|NCT05157841|183623280|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6||Average pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.6|-0.9|0.3419
91696694|NCT03307252|183287462|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|82.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.96|89.46|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|89.46|76.96|
91696695|NCT03307252|183287462|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|113.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.62|131.72|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|131.72|97.62|
91696696|NCT03307252|183287463|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|131.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.93|148.97|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|148.97|115.93|
91696697|NCT03307252|183287463|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|119.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.03|130.39|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|130.39|110.03|
91696698|NCT03307252|183287463|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|108.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.68|117.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|117.03|100.68|
91696699|NCT03307252|183287463|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|348.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|299.64|404.31|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|404.31|299.64|
91696700|NCT03307252|183287464|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|125.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.99|138.43|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|138.43|113.99|
91696701|NCT03307252|183287464|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|101.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.59|108.3|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|108.30|94.59|
91728025|NCT05033561|183351962|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
91758793|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.501||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|1.126||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/A||1.126|0.223|0.0845
91758794|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.724||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|10.47||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: A/A||10.47|0.284|0.5493
91866010|NCT05157841|183623280|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.3||Average pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-1.3|-2.5|<0.00001
91758795|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|3.987||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/G||3.987|0.492|0.5210
91758796|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.108||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/A||1.108|0.261|0.0854
91728026|NCT05033561|183351962|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
91728027|NCT05033561|183351963|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
91728028|NCT05033561|183351963|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
91728029|NCT01557244|183351976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment group, baseline maximum cystometric bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.0001
91728030|NCT01557244|183351976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline maximum cystometric bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||<.0001
91728031|NCT01557244|183351976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline maximum cystometric bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||<.0001
91728032|NCT01557244|183351976|OTHER||Difference in Least square (LS) Mean|-29.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.42|13.31||||||||13.31|-71.42|
91866011|NCT05157841|183623280|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.6||Average pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-1.6|-2.8|<0.00001
91866012|NCT05157841|183623280|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.9||Average pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-0.9|-2.1|<0.00001
91795746|NCT02220998|183470143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 120 per treatment group provided 90% power to establish non-inferiority in the SVR12 rates between the SOF/VEL group and the SOF+RBV group. It was based on the assumptions that the non-inferiority margin is 10%, both groups have a SVR12 rate of 94%, and the significance level is 0.025 one-sided.|Difference in proportions|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|10.3|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||10.3|0.2|
91866013|NCT00624442|183623286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|1.0||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|8.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||8|-7|0.8842
91866014|NCT00624442|183623286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|27.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||27|10|<0.0001
91904507|NCT00324753|183704179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value based on a test of any treatment difference by site.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was run using the xtlogit command in Stata and was adjusted for all of the reported baseline characteristics.||||||.005
91728033|NCT01557244|183351976|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.87|38.23||||||||38.23|-45.87|
91728034|NCT01557244|183351977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2334|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline detrusor pressure at maximum bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.2334
91728035|NCT01557244|183351977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5087|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline detrusor pressure at maximum bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.5087
91728036|NCT01557244|183351977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3333|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline detrusor pressure at maximum bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.3333
91728037|NCT01557244|183351977|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|6.33||||||||6.33|-7.28|
91728038|NCT01557244|183351977|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|7.6||||||||7.60|-5.96|
91728039|NCT01557244|183351979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0336|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder volume at first IDC and baseline weight.||||0.0336
91728040|NCT01557244|183351979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0327|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder volume at first IDC and baseline weight.||||0.0327
91728041|NCT01557244|183351979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder volume at first IDC and baseline weight.||||0.0017
91728042|NCT01557244|183351979|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.75|27.19||||||||27.19|-48.75|
91728043|NCT01557244|183351979|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-15.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.15|19.64||||||||19.64|-50.15|
91696702|NCT03307252|183287464|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|130.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.82|143.1|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|143.10|119.82|
91696703|NCT03307252|183287464|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|107.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.57|118.27|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|118.27|97.57|
91696704|NCT03307252|183287465|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|106.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.51|118.15|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|118.15|96.51|
91696705|NCT03307252|183287465|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|271.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|246.74|299.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|299.03|246.74|
91696706|NCT03307252|183287465|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|100.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.62|107.39|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|107.39|94.62|
91696707|NCT03307252|183287465|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|223.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|203.79|244.55|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|244.55|203.79|
91696708|NCT03307252|183287466|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|121.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.43|147.33|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|147.33|100.43|
91696709|NCT03307252|183287466|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|95.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.03|109.11|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|109.11|83.03|
91696710|NCT03307252|183287466|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|80.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.01|88.08|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|88.08|73.01|
91728044|NCT01557244|183351980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder compliance and baseline weight.||||0.0679
91728045|NCT01557244|183351980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1233|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder compliance and baseline weight.||||0.1233
91728046|NCT01557244|183351980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder compliance and baseline weight.||||0.0019
91728047|NCT01557244|183351980|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|4.89||||||||4.89|-14.81|
91866015|NCT00624442|183623286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|47.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|38.0|56.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||56|38|<0.0001
91728048|NCT01557244|183351980|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|3.95||||||||3.95|-15.85|
91728049|NCT01557244|183351981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0116|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0116
91728050|NCT01557244|183351981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0765|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0765
91728051|NCT01557244|183351981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0061
91728052|NCT01557244|183351981|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.97||||||||0.97|-1.16|
91728053|NCT01557244|183351981|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.31||||||||1.31|-0.74|
91728054|NCT01557244|183351982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0787|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of catheterizations per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0787
91728055|NCT01557244|183351982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0727|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of catheterizations per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0727
91728056|NCT01557244|183351982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0666|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of catheterizations per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0666
91728057|NCT01557244|183351982|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.54||||||||0.54|-0.45|
91728058|NCT01557244|183351982|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.52||||||||0.52|-0.49|
91728059|NCT01557244|183351983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions and catheterizations combined per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0111
91795747|NCT02220998|183470143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||P-value was stratified by cirrhosis status and prior treatment experience.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The superiority of SOF/VEL for 12 weeks over SOF+RBV for 12 weeks was to be tested if the efficacy of SOF/VEL for 12 weeks was demonstrated to be statistically noninferior to SOF+RBV for 12 weeks (ie, if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the strata-adjusted difference in the proportions between groups was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of -10%).||||0.018
91795748|NCT00873860|183470152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||||||Change at Day 92: p-value was based on analysis of variance (ANOVA).|ANOVA|||||||0.573
91795749|NCT00873860|183470152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||||||Change at Day 92: p-value was based on ANOVA.|ANOVA|||||||0.640
91795750|NCT00873860|183470152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||||||Change at Day 92: p-value was based on ANOVA.|ANOVA|||||||0.224
91795751|NCT00873860|183470153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4686||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.4686
91904508|NCT01299376|183704182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-squares Means|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-4.2|||Contrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.||||-4.2|-7.5|<0.001
91728060|NCT01557244|183351983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0171|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions and catheterizations combined per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0171
91728061|NCT01557244|183351983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions and catheterizations combined per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0028
91728062|NCT01557244|183351983|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.53|
91728063|NCT01557244|183351983|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.84||||||||0.84|-0.54|
91728064|NCT01557244|183351984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0496|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0496
91728065|NCT01557244|183351984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0002
91728066|NCT01557244|183351984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||<.0001
91728067|NCT01557244|183351984|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.19||||||||1.19|-0.09|
91728068|NCT01557244|183351984|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.77||||||||0.77|-0.52|
91728069|NCT01557244|183351985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of urgency episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0298
91728070|NCT01557244|183351985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1417|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of urgency episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.1417
91728071|NCT01557244|183351985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6219|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of urgency episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.6219
91728072|NCT01557244|183351985|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.32||||||||0.32|-1.28|
91728073|NCT01557244|183351985|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.52||||||||0.52|-1.24|
91728074|NCT01557244|183351986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7986|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition and baseline weight.||||0.7986
91728075|NCT01557244|183351986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2313|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition and baseline weight.||||0.2313
91728076|NCT01557244|183351986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7571|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition and baseline weight.||||0.7571
91728077|NCT01557244|183351986|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.11|42.0||||||||42.00|-42.11|
91696711|NCT03307252|183287466|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|115.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.8|141.94|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|141.94|93.80|
91696712|NCT03307252|183287467|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|218.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|180.19|264.36|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|264.36|180.19|
91696713|NCT03307252|183287467|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|135.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.83|154.84|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|154.84|117.83|
91696714|NCT03307252|183287467|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|112.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.26|123.35|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|123.35|102.26|
91696715|NCT03307252|183287467|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|1125.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|914.63|1384.0|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|1384.00|914.63|
91696716|NCT03307252|183287468|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|218.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|180.19|264.36|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|264.36|180.19|
91696717|NCT03307252|183287468|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|104.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.97|122.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|122.03|89.97|
91696718|NCT03307252|183287468|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|122.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.68|139.69|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|139.69|107.68|
91696719|NCT03307252|183287468|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|116.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.07|130.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|130.03|105.07|
91728078|NCT01557244|183351986|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|15.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|56.63||||||||56.63|-26.50|
91728079|NCT01557244|183351987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0610
91728080|NCT01557244|183351987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0048
91728081|NCT01557244|183351987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0100
91728082|NCT01557244|183351987|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-16.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.14|30.29||||||||30.29|-63.14|
91728083|NCT01557244|183351987|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|48.57||||||||48.57|-46.00|
91728084|NCT01557244|183351988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition or catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.2246
91728085|NCT01557244|183351988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition or catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0003
91728086|NCT01557244|183351988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition or catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0161
91728087|NCT01557244|183351988|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-18.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|24.53||||||||24.53|-61.00|
91795752|NCT00873860|183470153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.3170
91795753|NCT00873860|183470153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1664||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.1664
91795754|NCT00873860|183470153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3234||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.3234
91795755|NCT00873860|183470153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3133||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.3133
91904509|NCT01299376|183704193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-7.7||Model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-7.7|-12.8|<0.001
91696720|NCT03307252|183287469|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|87.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.08|99.64|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|99.64|76.08|
91696721|NCT03307252|183287469|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|122.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.25|137.09|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|137.09|110.25|
91696722|NCT03307252|183287469|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|101.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.65|109.7|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|109.70|93.65|
91696723|NCT03307252|183287469|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|428.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|359.78|509.7|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|509.70|359.78|
91696724|NCT03307252|183287470|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|92.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.28|99.76|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|99.76|85.28|
91696725|NCT03307252|183287470|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|83.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.32|90.08|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|90.08|78.32|
91696726|NCT03307252|183287470|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|124.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.11|146.43|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|146.43|105.11|
91728088|NCT01557244|183351988|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|18.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.93|60.65||||||||60.65|-22.93|
91728089|NCT01313676|183352024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.042|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.042|0.739|0.137
91728090|NCT01313676|183352024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|26.1|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||26.1|-4.2|
91728091|NCT01313676|183352024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.081|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.081|0.767|0.284
91728092|NCT01313676|183352024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|23.3|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||23.3|-8.1|
91728093|NCT01313676|183352024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.139|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.139|0.813|0.655
91728094|NCT01313676|183352024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|18.7|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||18.7|-13.9|
91728095|NCT01313676|183352024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.964||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.149|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.149|0.808|0.681
91795756|NCT00873860|183470153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2108||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.2108
91696727|NCT03307252|183287471|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|112.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.23|121.92|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|121.92|104.23|
91696728|NCT03307252|183287471|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|108.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.22|116.43|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|116.43|101.22|
91696729|NCT03307252|183287471|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|340.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|288.63|402.1|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|402.10|288.63|
91728096|NCT01313676|183352024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|19.2|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||19.2|-14.9|
91728097|NCT01313676|183352024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.085|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.085|0.767|0.299
91728098|NCT01313676|183352024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|23.3|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||23.3|-8.5|
91728099|NCT01313676|183352025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15|1|0.019
91728100|NCT01313676|183352025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14|1|0.026
91728101|NCT01313676|183352025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5|-8|0.654
91728102|NCT01313676|183352025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7|-6|0.913
91728103|NCT01313676|183352025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16|3|0.004
91728104|NCT01313676|183352026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.143|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.143|0.750|0.475
91728105|NCT01313676|183352026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of CV event|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|25.0|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||25.0|-14.3|
91728106|NCT01313676|183352026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.896||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.111|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.111|0.723|0.317
91728107|NCT01313676|183352026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of CV event|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|27.7|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||27.7|-11.1|
91728108|NCT01313676|183352026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.217|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.217|0.802|0.908
91728109|NCT01313676|183352026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|19.8|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||19.8|-21.7|
91696730|NCT03307252|183287472|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|100.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.59|108.51|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|108.51|93.59|
91795757|NCT00873860|183470160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||||||ACQ score \<=0.75, Day 92: Fisher exact test was used to compare all arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.934
91795758|NCT00873860|183470160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592||||||ACQ score \<=0.75, Day 169: Fisher exact test was used to compare all arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.592
91795759|NCT00873860|183470165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 92: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91795760|NCT00873860|183470165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6022||||||Day 92: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6022
91795761|NCT00873860|183470165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 92: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91795762|NCT00873860|183470165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 169: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91795763|NCT00873860|183470165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 169: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91795764|NCT00873860|183470165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 169: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91866016|NCT00624442|183623286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|70.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||70|46|<0.0001
91696731|NCT03307252|183287472|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|131.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.37|143.37|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|143.37|120.37|
91696732|NCT03307252|183287472|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|106.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.87|117.19|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|117.19|96.87|
91696733|NCT03307252|183287473|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|260.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|237.96|284.32|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|284.32|237.96|
91696734|NCT03307252|183287473|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|101.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.15|107.66|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|107.66|95.15|
91696735|NCT03307252|183287473|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|215.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|197.53|234.63|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|234.63|197.53|
91696736|NCT01052480|183287474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
91696737|NCT01578239|183287496|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.289||Derived from a two-sided test between the two groups|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is expressed as Lu-DOTA-Tyr-Octreotate / Octreotide LAR and estimated from the corresponding Cox model.|||0.289|0.108|<0.0001
91795765|NCT00873860|183470166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.551
91795766|NCT00873860|183470166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.492
91795767|NCT00873860|183470166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.983
91795768|NCT00873860|183470166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.991
91795769|NCT00873860|183470166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.900
91795770|NCT00873860|183470166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.673
91795771|NCT00873860|183470167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.546
91795772|NCT00873860|183470167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.534
91866017|NCT00624442|183623286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|59.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|72.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||72|47|<0.0001
91795773|NCT00873860|183470167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.847
91795774|NCT00873860|183470167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.987
91795775|NCT00873860|183470167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.992
91795776|NCT00873860|183470167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.688
91795777|NCT00591266|183470223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|-9.09||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.09|-13.29|<0.001
91795778|NCT00591266|183470223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-8.81|-13.00|<0.001
91795779|NCT00591266|183470224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|-8.1||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-8.10|-13.93|<0.001
91795780|NCT00591266|183470224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|-6.63||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-6.63|-12.48|<0.001
91795781|NCT00591266|183470225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|-6.11||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.11|-8.84|<0.001
91795782|NCT00591266|183470225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-6.28||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.28|-9.01|<0.001
91795783|NCT00591266|183470226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-3.23||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.23|-6.62|<0.001
91795784|NCT00591266|183470226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-3.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.88|-7.28|<0.001
91795785|NCT00591266|183470227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|-9.41||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.41|-13.86|<0.001
91795786|NCT00591266|183470227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|-8.95||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.95|-13.39|<0.001
91795787|NCT00591266|183470228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-6.5||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.50|-9.47|<0.001
91795788|NCT00591266|183470228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-6.55||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.55|-9.52|<0.001
91795789|NCT00591266|183470229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-7.34||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.34|-12.07|<0.001
91795790|NCT00591266|183470229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|-7.31||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.31|-12.03|<0.001
91795791|NCT00591266|183470230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-4.57||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.57|-7.94|<0.001
91795792|NCT00591266|183470230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|-4.6||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.60|-7.96|<0.001
91795793|NCT00591266|183470231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|-9.92||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.92|-14.63|<0.001
91696738|NCT01578239|183287497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0141
91696739|NCT01578239|183287498|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.60|0.3039
91795794|NCT00591266|183470231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|-9.23||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.23|-13.93|<0.001
91696740|NCT01578239|183287499|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio of Lu-DOTA-Tyr-Octreotate vs. Octreotide LAR|||1.17|0.60|0.3039
91696741|NCT01578239|183287500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.242|||Log Rank|||||0.242|0.077|<0.0001
91696742|NCT02347813|183287506|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.750
91696743|NCT00251303|183287594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.959
91696744|NCT01106677|183287605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and placebo of 0.5% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.05, it was estimated that 86 subjects per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate superiority of canagliflozin over placebo.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.758|-0.481|||ANCOVA|||||-0.481|-0.758|<0.001
91696745|NCT01106677|183287605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and placebo of 0.5% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.05, it was estimated that 86 subjects per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate superiority of canagliflozin over placebo.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|-0.636|||ANCOVA|||||-0.636|-0.914|<0.001
91696746|NCT01106677|183287605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|-0.516||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-0.516|-0.795|
91696747|NCT01106677|183287606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.50|1.50|<0.001
91696748|NCT01106677|183287606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.77|2.85|<0.001
91696749|NCT01106677|183287607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.76|-23.81|||ANCOVA|||||-23.81|-35.76|<0.001
91696750|NCT01106677|183287607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.055|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.25|-34.26|||ANCOVA|||||-34.26|-46.25|<0.001
91696751|NCT01106677|183287607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-16.69||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-16.69|-28.70|
91728110|NCT01313676|183352026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.033||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.281|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.281|0.834|0.763
91728111|NCT01313676|183352026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|16.6|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||16.6|-28.1|
91728112|NCT01313676|183352026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.155|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.155|0.761|0.545
91696752|NCT01106677|183287608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.601|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.14|-27.16|||ANCOVA|||||-27.16|-49.14|<0.001
91696753|NCT01106677|183287608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-36.29|||ANCOVA|||||-36.29|-58.40|<0.001
91696754|NCT01106677|183287608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.608|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.56|-28.55||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-28.55|-50.56|
91696755|NCT01106677|183287609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-3.1|<0.001
91696756|NCT01106677|183287609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-3.5|<0.001
91696757|NCT01106677|183287609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|
91696758|NCT01106677|183287610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.979|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-3.439|||ANCOVA|||||-3.439|-7.280|<0.001
91696759|NCT01106677|183287610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.504|-4.653|||ANCOVA|||||-4.653|-8.504|<0.001
91696760|NCT01106677|183287610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.273|-1.413||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-1.413|-5.273|
91696761|NCT01106677|183287611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.702||95.0|-9.9|6.7|||ANCOVA|||||6.7|-9.9|0.702
91728113|NCT01313676|183352026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|23.9|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||23.9|-15.5|
91728114|NCT01654250|183352029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square(LS) Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point, and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-3.1|-10.9|<0.001
91728115|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-3.7|-12.7|<0.001
91696762|NCT01106677|183287611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-13.0|0.274
91728116|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
91728117|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-8.3|-17.3|<0.001
91696763|NCT01106677|183287611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|6.1||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||6.1|-10.6|
91696764|NCT01106677|183287612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|3.6|<0.001
91696765|NCT01106677|183287612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|5.4|<0.001
91696766|NCT01106677|183287612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.4||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||4.4|-1.7|
91696767|NCT01106677|183287613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a discontinuation rate of 35% at Week 52, with a 2:2:2:1 treatment assignment ratio for canagliflozin 100 mg, canagliflozin 300 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo, it was estimated that 360 subjects would need to be randomly assigned to each of the 3 active treatment groups and approximately 180 subjects to the placebo group to demonstrate non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.122|||ANCOVA|||||0.122|-0.119|
91696768|NCT01106677|183287613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a discontinuation rate of 35% at Week 52, with a 2:2:2:1 treatment assignment ratio for canagliflozin 100 mg, canagliflozin 300 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo, it was estimated that 360 subjects would need to be randomly assigned to each of the 3 active treatment groups and approximately 180 subjects to the placebo group to demonstrate non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.031|||ANCOVA|||||-0.031|-0.273|
91696769|NCT01106677|183287614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.394|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|-3.857|||ANCOVA|||||-3.857|-13.25|<0.001
91696770|NCT01106677|183287614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.404|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.24|-12.81|||ANCOVA|||||-12.81|-22.24|<0.001
91696771|NCT01106677|183287615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-3.0|<0.001
91696772|NCT01106677|183287615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-3.4|<0.001
91696773|NCT01106677|183287616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.464|-1.276|||ANCOVA|||||-1.276|-4.464|<0.001
91728118|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||<0.001
91696774|NCT01106677|183287616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.589|-2.389|||ANCOVA|||||-2.389|-5.589|<0.001
91696775|NCT01106677|183287617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|-3.9|0.466
91696776|NCT01106677|183287617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.4|||ANCOVA|||||9.4|-3.1|0.323
91696777|NCT01106677|183287618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|8.0|||ANCOVA|||||8.0|2.5|<0.001
91696778|NCT01106677|183287618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|10.1|||ANCOVA|||||10.1|4.5|<0.001
91696779|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|3.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.659|6.009||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||6.009|2.659|
91728119|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-7.8|-16.8|<0.001
91728120|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||<0.001
91758797|NCT00265317|183410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.9198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|2.489||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: A/A||2.489|0.365|0.9198
91758798|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|2.014||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/C||2.014|0.473|0.9486
91758799|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961||||0.9084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.897||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/T||1.897|0.487|0.9084
91758800|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.876||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|15.48||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: T/T||15.48|0.534|0.2009
91795795|NCT00591266|183470232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|-6.79||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.79|-9.98|<0.001
91728121|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effect and participant intercept as a random effect.||-3.3|-12.3|<0.001
91795796|NCT00591266|183470232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-6.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.64|-9.82|<0.001
91795797|NCT00591266|183470233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-6.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.22|-11.45|<0.001
91728122|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||<0.001
91728123|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose: Nominal p-value -treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.1|-7.9|0.133
91795798|NCT00591266|183470233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-6.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.30|-11.51|<0.001
91795799|NCT00591266|183470234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-4.0||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.00|-7.88|<0.001
91795800|NCT00591266|183470234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-4.61||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.61|-8.47|<0.001
91795801|NCT00591266|183470235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|5.26||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.26|2.15|<0.001
91795802|NCT00591266|183470235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.03|2.05|<0.001
91795803|NCT00591266|183470236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|6.02||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|2.08|<0.001
91795804|NCT00591266|183470236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|6.75||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.75|2.25|<0.001
91795805|NCT00591266|183470237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.02||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.02|1.71|<0.001
91795806|NCT00591266|183470237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|4.82||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.82|2.01|<0.001
91795807|NCT01074047|183470291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||Log Rank|The p-value is two-sided from an unstratified log-rank test|The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG performance status and cytogenetic risk status.|||1.02|0.69|0.0829
91728124|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose: Adjusted p-value were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
91795808|NCT01074047|183470291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.03|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG performance status and cytogenetic risk status.|||1.03|0.69|0.1009
91795809|NCT01074047|183470292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|21.0|||||Estimates of the 1-year (365 day) survival probabilities and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented by treatment group. The CI for the difference in the 1-year survival probabilities was derived using Greenwoods variance estimate.|||21.0|3.5|
91795810|NCT01074047|183470293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05|||Log Rank|2 sided unstratified|The hazard ratio is from an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Median is estimated from a Kaplan-Meier distribution of EFS||1.05|0.72|0.1495
91728125|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.6|-7.4|0.206
91866018|NCT00624442|183623286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|80.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|89.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||89|71|<0.0001
91728126|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose: Adjusted p-values are generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
91728127|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||2.9|-6.0|0.496
91728128|NCT01654250|183352030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose: Adjusted p-value were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
91728129|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.4|-2.6|0.007
91728130|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-1.4|-3.6|<0.001
91728131|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-1.2|-3.4|<0.001
91866019|NCT00624442|183623286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis based on the following model: Change from baseline = Concentration + Baseline + Error, treating patients as random effect||"All available concentration data are used in the model as a continuous variable.~p-value based on individual plasma concentration of CK-1827452 vs. corresponding systolic ejection time PD assessment (not binned based on plasma concentration)"||||<0.0001
91728132|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.6|-2.8|0.003
91728133|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.2|-2.0|0.097
91728134|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.7|-1.5|0.490
91866020|NCT00624442|183623287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|1.0||||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||2|-1|0.3665
91728135|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.3|-1.9|0.164
91728136|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.9|-4.6|0.004
91728137|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-2.1|-5.8|<0.001
91728138|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-2.1|-5.8|<0.001
91904510|NCT02463071|183704197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.55|-16.88|||ANCOVA|Baseline TG and statin usage were included as covariates.||||-16.88|-36.55|<0.0001
91866021|NCT00624442|183623287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|1.0|||<|0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||3|0|<0.0357
91866022|NCT00624442|183623287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|3.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||5|1|0.0004
91866023|NCT00624442|183623287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|3.0||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||4|1|0.0086
91866024|NCT00624442|183623287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|2.0||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||5|0|0.032
91866025|NCT00624442|183623287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|6.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||6|3|<0.0001
91728139|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.1|-3.8|0.042
91728140|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.4|-3.3|0.118
91728141|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.9|-2.7|0.342
91795811|NCT01074047|183470294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.66|||Log Rank|2 sided unstratified|The hazard ratio is from an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Median is estimated from a Kaplan-Meier distribution of RFS||1.66|0.75|0.5832
91866026|NCT00624442|183623287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis based on the following model: Change from baseline = Concentration + Baseline + Error, treating patients as random effect||"All available concentration data are used in the model as a continuous variable.~p-value based on individual plasma concentration of CK-1827452 vs. corresponding fractional shortening PD assessment (not binned based on plasma concentration)"||||<0.0001
91866027|NCT04243759|183623325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
91866028|NCT04243759|183623326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within subjects comparison of drinks per drinking day with full intervention app access versus daily assessment via the app only||0.95|-0.24|.232
91866029|NCT04757753|183623327|NON_INFERIORITY|"πN = 2-year successful treatment rate of PA1704 πR = 2-year successful treatment rate of BioRoot™ RCS Δ = πN - πR ΔL = non-inferiority margin fixed to 13% or 0.13~Hypotheses are :~H0 : Δ ≤ -ΔL H1 : Δ \> -ΔL The χ2 of Dunnett \& Gent is used to assess the non-inferiority"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0074|0.0087||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||The statistical analysis was done on the proportion difference of the treatment efficacy, defined on loose criteria, at 24 months, in PP population.||0.0087|-0.0074|0.03
91888746|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.05|0.3472
91904511|NCT02463071|183704197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.93|-22.92|||ANCOVA|Baseline TG and statin usage were included as covariates.||||-22.92|-42.93|<0.0001
91728142|NCT01654250|183352031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.9|-1.8|0.962
91728143|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|47.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||47.1|3.4|0.024
91904512|NCT00617604|183704232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|10.3||||||||10.3|-2.5|
91696780|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.838||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.838|0.813|
91696781|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.994||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.994|0.440|
91696782|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|2.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.449|3.276||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.276|1.449|
91696783|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.528||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.528|0.676|
91696784|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.012||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.012|0.448|
91696785|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.742|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.156|2.626||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.626|1.156|
91728144|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|57.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||57.9|14.2|0.001
91758801|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.098||||0.7863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|2.175||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305845 Genotype: G/G||2.175|0.554|0.7863
91696786|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|0.458||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.458|0.204|
91696787|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.248||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.248|0.110|
91696788|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|0.818||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.818|0.363|
91795812|NCT01074047|183470295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5384|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value is from Fishers exact test||||||0.5384
91904513|NCT00617604|183704233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|5.0||||||||5.0|-3.1|
91904514|NCT00617604|183704234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|10.1||||||||10.1|-4.0|
91888747|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9160
91696789|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.254|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.381||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.381|0.170|
91795813|NCT01074047|183470297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0376|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value is from Fishers exact test||||||0.0376
91795814|NCT01074047|183470321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Ratio|0.79||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||negative binomial regression analysis|||||1.02|0.62|0.0721
91795815|NCT01711372|183470345|OTHER||||||||||||||Chi-squared|||AUC or ROC for Groundskeeper Game|AUC of ROC is 0.78|||
91795816|NCT01711372|183470346|OTHER||||||||||||||||||AUC of ROC. Proportion of accurate ADHD diagnoses is 0.76|||
91795817|NCT01711372|183470347|OTHER|AUC of ROC|||||||||||||||||AUC of ROC. Proportion of accurate ADHD diagnosis is 0.62|||
91795818|NCT01659658|183470350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||=|0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.01||P-value was calculated from the unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test to compare hematologic response rate between the treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was derived from a logistic regression model with treatment and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio was based on the Wald approximation.|Statistical analysis was planned to be collected and analyzed in a combined manner for the non-ixazomib arm groups versus ixazomib group in this outcome measure.||2.01|0.60|=0.7623
91904515|NCT00617604|183704235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.5||||||||2.5|-0.6|
91904516|NCT00617604|183704236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|4.7||||||||4.7|-14.9|
91705434|NCT03924505|183305391|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|2.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.35||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05|Negative Binomial Regression|We adjusted for baseline rate due to baseline differences.|The incidence rate ratio estimates the effect of facilitation for implementation effectiveness and dissemination of best practice recommendations, as compared to dissemination of best practice recommendations.|||2.35|1.42|<0.01
91705435|NCT03924505|183305392|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.97||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.3||A priori threshold for statistical signicance is p\<0.05|Negative Binomial Regression||The incidence rate ratio estimates the effect of facilitation for implementation effectiveness and dissemination of best practice recommendations, as compared to dissemination of best practice recommendations.|||3.30|1.18|0.01
91705436|NCT03924505|183305393|OTHER|Testing for differences in means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-0.7|0.68
91705437|NCT03743402|183305419|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in MME/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|5.88|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=(pain self-management)-(usual care)|A priori power calculations indicated 90% power to detect an average 24 MME/day difference between arms.||5.88|-10.55|0.58
91705438|NCT03743402|183305420|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PEG score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.52|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management)-(usual care)|A priori power calculations indicated 90% power to detect a 1.2-point average difference in PEG score between arms.||0.52|-0.51|0.98
91705439|NCT03743402|183305421|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in average MME/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|8.29|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=(pain self-management)-(usual care)|||8.29|-5.69|0.72
91705440|NCT03743402|183305422|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected PEG score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.05|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.05|-1.11|0.07
91705441|NCT03743402|183305423|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PSEQ score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|18.04|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||18.04|-13.83|0.80
91705442|NCT03743402|183305424|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PSEQ score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|8.09|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||8.09|0.56|0.02
91705443|NCT03743402|183305425|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PHQ-8 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.82|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.82|-2.53|0.75
91705444|NCT03743402|183305426|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PHQ-8 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.87|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.87|-1.87|0.48
91705445|NCT03743402|183305427|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in GAD-7 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.81|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.81|-1.31|0.64
91705446|NCT03743402|183305428|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in GAD-7 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.51|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.51|-0.94|0.65
91705447|NCT03743402|183305429|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PGIC score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.1|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.10|0.12|0.02
91696790|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.252||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.252|0.112|
91696791|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.436|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.655||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.655|0.290|
91696792|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.541|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|0.811||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.811|0.361|
91866030|NCT03816397|183623360|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 118 subjects (59 in each group) provides 88% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2.0 for the time to treatment failure comparing the group randomized to discontinue adalimumab to the group randomized to continue using adalimumab, assuming a median time until treatment failure of 10 weeks in the group that discontinues adalimumab (Arm 1) and of 20 weeks in the group that continues on adalimumab (Arm 2), an equal allocation between groups, and a 10% total loss to follow-up.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|21.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Log Rank||For the HR, the numerator is the placebo group (stop adalimumab) and the denominator is the adalimumab group (continue adalimumab).|A Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare time to treatment failure between the adalimumab and placebo groups up to the primary endpoint of 48 weeks, with country and conventional DMARD use included as fixed effects in the model. The null hypothesis was an hazard ratio (HR) of 1. Hypothesis testing was based on a permutation test of the log hazard ratio (100,000 replicates). The model was checked for the assumption of proportional hazards by assessing Schoenfeld residuals.||21.2|3.6|<0.0001
91904517|NCT00617604|183704237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.5|0.0||||||||0.0|-18.5|
91795819|NCT01659658|183470351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||=|0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38||P-value was calculated from the unstratified CMH test to make comparisons between the 2 treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was derived from a logistic regression model with treatment and 95% CI for the odds ratio was based on the Wald approximation.|||1.38|0.41|=0.3510
91696793|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.188|2.676||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.676|1.188|
91705448|NCT03743402|183305430|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PGIC score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.88|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.88|0.77|<0.01
91705449|NCT03743402|183305431|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in POMI score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.31|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.31|-0.13|0.42
91705450|NCT03743402|183305432|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in POMI score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.36|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.36|-0.10|0.26
91705451|NCT03743402|183305433|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PODS score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|6.66|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||6.66|-3.47|0.54
91705452|NCT03743402|183305434|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PODS score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.21|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||2.21|-1.26|0.59
91705453|NCT03743402|183305435|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in opioid craving score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.57|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.57|-0.66|0.90
91705454|NCT03743402|183305436|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PSEQ score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.32|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.32|-1.03|0.30
91705455|NCT03743402|183305437|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of the relative risk of 30% reduction from baseline equal exactly to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.53|||Regression, Poison||relative risk = (pain self-management)/(usual care)|||6.53|0.68|0.20
91705456|NCT03743402|183305438|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of the relative risk of 30% reduction from baseline equal exactly to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.32|||Regression, Poison||relative risk = (pain self-management)/(usual care)|||3.32|0.54|0.53
91705457|NCT03411902|183305445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
91728145|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|56.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||56.6|12.8|0.002
91728146|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|51.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||51.1|7.4|0.009
91728147|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||34.4|-9.3|0.261
91728148|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|37.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||37.0|-6.7|0.175
91728149|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|40.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||40.5|-3.2|0.094
91728150|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|45.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||45.1|0.1|0.049
91728151|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||56.9|11.9|0.003
91728152|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|55.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||55.4|10.5|0.004
91795820|NCT01659658|183470353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||=|0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.29||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|1.29|0.52|=0.389
91866031|NCT04496752|183623365|EQUIVALENCE|Weighted Cohen's kappa statistics were computed between DCTClock-pen and MMSE, and between DCTClock-tablet and MMSE. A TOST (two one-sided test) of equivalence was planned, with a difference in kappa of 0.2 specified a priori as significant.|Difference in Cohen's Kappa|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.19|||||The difference is Cohen's kappa is (tablet - pen). The confidence interval is estimated with a nonparametric bootstrap (5000 samples).|||0.19|-0.05|
91866032|NCT04679389|183623438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91728153|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|49.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||49.5|4.5|0.019
91795821|NCT01659658|183470354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|1.09|0.52|=0.135
91795822|NCT01659658|183470355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.21||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|1.21|0.48|0.2421
91866033|NCT04679389|183623439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
91866034|NCT04679389|183623440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
91728154|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||31.1|-13.9|0.451
91728155|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||32.2|-12.7|0.394
91866035|NCT04679389|183623441|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91866036|NCT04679389|183623444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91866037|NCT04679389|183623445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91866038|NCT02777593|183623446|OTHER|Performance goal tested using Exact method calculation to estimate the 95% one-sided lower confidence level (95% LCL) on the proportion of participants with primary endpoint success. If the 95% LCL exceeded 0.64, then the the null hypothesis was to be rejected and the PG was met.|95% Exact Lower Confidence Limit|0.751|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||"Primary endpoint success was defined as the proportion of analysis-eligible participants without a primary endpoint event and with 12-Month imaging performed.~Results were tested against a performance goal (PG) of 0.64 (i.e. 64%), derived from historical GORE TAG® and Conformable TAG® data.~Additionally, using a one-sided alpha of 0.05 and Exact Test, minimum power of 80%, the sample needed was 70 patients. With attrition, 85 patients were required."||||
91866039|NCT05954546|183623447|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.72|||||Hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Encorafenib+Binimetinib (RWD) relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (CTD) (reference).||1.72|0.62|
91866040|NCT03904576|183623454|OTHER||Difference of least squares means (T-R)|-7.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.082|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.949|-3.661||||||Mixed effects model including effects for 'treatment', 'period' and 'subject' as well as covariates 'period baseline' and 'subject baseline'.||-3.661|-10.949|
91866041|NCT03904576|183623454|OTHER||Difference in %|-24.396|||||||||||||Difference of least squares means in % (ratio to Placebo) (T-R)/R\*100%|Mixed effects model including effects for 'treatment', 'period' and 'subject' as well as covariates 'period baseline' and 'subject baseline'.||||
91866042|NCT04881110|183623455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|14.5|8.0|<0.001
91866043|NCT04881110|183623455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.9|||Chi-squared||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|2.90|1.26|<0.001
91866044|NCT04881110|183623456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.01|-0.8|0.06
91904518|NCT00617604|183704238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|3.8||||||||3.8|-7.6|
91904519|NCT00617604|183704239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|4.6||||||||4.6|-8.2|
91904520|NCT00617604|183704240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|5.0||||||||5.0|-1.3|
91696794|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.246||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.246|0.555|
91696795|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.551|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.826||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.826|0.367|
91696796|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.426|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.14||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.140|0.950|
91696797|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|3.295|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.196|4.944||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.944|2.196|
91705458|NCT03411902|183305446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.745
91705459|NCT03411902|183305447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.163
91705460|NCT03411902|183305448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91705461|NCT03411902|183305449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pertaining to Radius 33 BMD||||0.337
91705462|NCT03411902|183305449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pertaining to Radius UD BMD||||0.238
91866045|NCT04881110|183623457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|7.4|-14.3|0.52
91904521|NCT00617604|183704241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|10.4||||||||10.4|-1.2|
91696798|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|2.303||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.303|1.026|
91696799|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.526||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.526|0.679|
91696800|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|2.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.754|3.959||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.959|1.754|
91696801|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.311|0.7||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.7|0.311|
91696802|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.309|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|0.463||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.463|0.206|
91696803|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.203||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||1.203|0.532|
91696804|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.662|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|0.992||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.992|0.442|
91795823|NCT01659658|183470356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|0.97|0.39|=0.036
91696805|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.142|2.572||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.572|1.142|
91696806|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|2.589|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.723|3.889||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.889|1.723|
91904522|NCT00617604|183704243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|7.2||||||||7.2|-3.3|
91728156|NCT01654250|183352032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||30.8|-14.1|0.466
91758802|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.243||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.442||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: G/T||2.442|0.633|0.5267
91705463|NCT03411902|183305450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.860
91705464|NCT01693185|183305452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||We wished to be able to distinguish a difference of 7.5 min,|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Recovery time in patients administered remifentanil alone will be significantly shorter than that in patients administered midazolam-meperidine combination for colonoscopy.||||< 0.001
91705465|NCT00419159|183305463|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|4.929|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||4.929|0.657|0.253
91705466|NCT00419159|183305464|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.382||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|1.083|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.083|0.135|0.070
91705467|NCT00419159|183305465|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.312|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.312|0.505|0.399
91705468|NCT00419159|183305465|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.001||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.617|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.617|0.620|0.995
91758803|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|6.208||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: T/T||6.208|0.049|0.6240
91758804|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.254||||0.4882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.384||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEFR/rs1870377 Genotype: T/T||2.384|0.660|0.4882
91758805|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.189||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: T/A||1.189|0.290|0.1307
91758806|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.236||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|35.9||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: A/A||35.90|0.139|0.5596
91758807|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.7966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.833||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/C||1.833|0.628|0.7966
91758808|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.954||||0.9224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.484||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/T||2.484|0.366|0.9224
91758809|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.9317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|3.025||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/C||3.025|0.363|0.9317
91758810|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.8696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|2.044||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/T||2.044|0.546|0.8696
91758811|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|2.554||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: T/T||2.554|0.453|0.8694
91758812|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.652||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs3563987 Genotype: C/C||1.652|0.654|0.8708
91758813|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.157||||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|3.026||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/C||3.026|0.442|0.7667
91758814|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.401|1.422||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/T||1.422|0.401|0.3822
91758815|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.419||||0.5089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|4.04||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: T/T||4.040|0.498|0.5089
91758816|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.326||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|2.544||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/G||2.544|0.691|0.3944
91758817|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.416||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/A||1.416|0.339|0.3103
91758818|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|8.294||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: A/A||8.294|0.089|0.8942
91758819|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|3.304||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/G||3.304|0.466|0.6650
91758820|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.779||||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.475||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/A||1.475|0.412|0.4415
91758821|NCT00265317|183410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.458||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|4.06||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: A/A||4.060|0.523|0.4682
91758822|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.289||||0.7301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|5.47||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: C/C||5.470|0.304|0.7301
91758823|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.592||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||PDGFRB/rs2304060 C/A||1.592|0.390|0.5013
91758824|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|1.578||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: A/A||1.578|0.298|0.3680
91758825|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|1.467||2-sided, unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/C||1.467|0.371|0.3804
91758826|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.247||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/T||1.247|0.261|0.1507
91758827|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0772||||||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: T/T||||0.0772
91795824|NCT01659658|183470357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69|||=|0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.99||P-value was calculated from the unstratified CMH test to compare vital organ response rate between the 2 treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and 95% CI for the odds ratio was based on the Wald approximation.|||3.99|0.72|=0.2260
91795825|NCT01659658|183470358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|||1.12|0.52|=0.163
91866046|NCT04881110|183623458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|1.2|-3.6|0.33
91904523|NCT00617604|183704248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|14.6||||||||14.6|-2.7|
91696807|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|4.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.757|6.589||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||6.589|3.757|
91696808|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.547||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.547|0.881|
91705469|NCT00419159|183305466|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.203||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.923|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.923|0.752|0.441
91705470|NCT00419159|183305466|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.547||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|2.708|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||2.708|0.884|0.126
91705471|NCT00419159|183305467|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.529||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|1.523|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.523|0.184|0.238
91705472|NCT00419159|183305468|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.044||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|3.099|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||3.099|0.352|0.938
91705473|NCT00419159|183305469|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.474||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|2.484|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||2.484|0.875|0.145
91705474|NCT00419159|183305469|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.151||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.903|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||1.903|0.696|0.583
91705475|NCT00419159|183305470|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.447|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||1.447|0.521|0.588
91705476|NCT00419159|183305470|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|1.191|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||1.191|0.314|0.148
91705477|NCT01017601|183305476|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.50
91705478|NCT01017601|183305477|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.96
91705479|NCT01017601|183305478|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
91705480|NCT01017601|183305479|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91705481|NCT04964986|183305481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.041
91705482|NCT04964986|183305483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24||||<0.001
91705483|NCT04964986|183305483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 52||||<0.001
91705484|NCT04964986|183305487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24||||0.002
91705485|NCT04964986|183305487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 52||||<0.001
91705486|NCT04964986|183305489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||paired t-test|||Fat absorption increase at Week 4||||0.294
91705487|NCT04964986|183305489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||paired t-test|||Fat absorption increase at Week 48||||0.155
91705488|NCT04964986|183305489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||paired t-test|||Carbohydrate absorption at Week 4||||0.260
91705489|NCT04964986|183305489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||paired t-test|||Carbohydrate absorption at Week 48||||0.024
91705490|NCT04964986|183305489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||paired t-test|||Protein absorption at Week 4||||0.096
91705491|NCT04964986|183305489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||paired t-test|||Protein absorption at Week 48||||0.075
91705492|NCT04964986|183305490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||paired t-test|||Week 4||||0.063
91705493|NCT04964986|183305490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||paired t-test|||Week 48||||0.112
91705494|NCT04964986|183305491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.306
91705495|NCT04964986|183305492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3346||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7887|0.8748|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Calcium, Week 4||0.8748|-0.7887|0.704
91705496|NCT04964986|183305492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.104||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7442|0.8896|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Calcium, Week 48||0.8896|-2.7442|0.488
91705497|NCT04964986|183305492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.219||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.896|0.313|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Magnesium, Week 4||0.313|-0.896|0.382
91705498|NCT04964986|183305492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.566||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.279|-0.165|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Magnesium, Week 48||-0.165|-5.279|0.059
91696809|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.166||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.166|0.665|
91795826|NCT01659658|183470361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|0.96|0.49|=0.025
91795827|NCT01659658|183470362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|0.88|0.38|=0.010
91696810|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|3.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|4.264||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.264|2.430|
91696811|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.417||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.417|0.808|
91696812|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.954||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.954|0.544|
91696813|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.891|3.33||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.330|1.891|
91696814|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.31||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.310|0.178|
91696815|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.234||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.234|0.134|
91696816|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|0.856||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.856|0.489|
91705499|NCT04964986|183305492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|33.116||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.51|51.861|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Sodium, Week 4||51.861|5.510|0.004
91758828|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.284||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304061 Genotype: G/G||1.284|0.339|0.2149
91758829|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.9491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|2.26||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/RS2304061 Genotype: G/A||2.260|0.466|0.9491
91758830|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.8114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|1.881||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/A||1.881|0.447|0.8114
91904524|NCT00617604|183704249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|2.2||||||||2.2|-11.2|
91904525|NCT00617604|183704250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|14.7||||||||14.7|-4.4|
91728157|NCT03777176|183352118|SUPERIORITY|The negative binomial regression used region and treatment group as fixed effects, and Baseline hypoglycemic rate as covariate and number of hypoglycemic events during Weeks 2-4 as dependent variable.|Event rate ratio|0.85||||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.36|||Negative binomial regression|||The primary analysis was performed as a negative binominal regression analysis on the difference of the SMPG-detected hypoglycemia episode rate between treatment groups over the Weeks 2-4.||1.36|0.54|0.5028
91728158|NCT03777176|183352119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|4.39||The P value should be interpreted with caution given the procedural issues (hypoglycemia at the beginning of the test, test meals not being the same, and some children only having 1 test) which affected the preplanned statistical evaluation.|ANCOVA|||||4.39|-2.71|0.6433
91728159|NCT03777176|183352120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|6.78||There was 1 missing value at Baseline for the dasiglucagon + standard of care group.|ANCOVA|||||6.78|-6.48|0.9653
91728160|NCT03777176|183352121|SUPERIORITY||Event rate ratio|0.93||||0.8114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.74|||Negative binominal regression|The negative binomial regression used region and treatment group as fixed effects, and Baseline hypoglycemic rate as covariate.||||1.74|0.49|0.8114
91728161|NCT00378560|183352133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.2|97.6|||||Binomial probability conditional on the fixed number of events.|||97.6|59.2|
91728162|NCT00378560|183352134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91728163|NCT00378560|183352135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91728164|NCT00378560|183352136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91728165|NCT00378560|183352137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91728166|NCT02070380|183352138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|47.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|60.7||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||60.7|34.5|<0.0001
91728167|NCT02070380|183352138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|7.3||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|16.5||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||16.5|-2.0|0.1295
91728168|NCT02070380|183352138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|79.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|91.0||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment"||91.0|67.1|<0.0001
91728169|NCT02070380|183352138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage MH better minus DM better|-2.1||||0.7503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|10.7||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||10.7|-15.0|0.7503
91728170|NCT02070380|183352138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|66.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.8|79.5||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment"||79.5|52.8|<0.0001
91728171|NCT02070380|183352138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|-2.1||||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|9.6||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||9.6|-13.8|0.7297
91758831|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.577||||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|1.221||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/T||1.221|0.273|0.1379
91758832|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.859||||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|13.51||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: T/T||13.51|0.256|0.5341
91758833|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932||||0.8564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|2.014||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/A||2.014|0.431|0.8564
91758834|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|1.788||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/G||1.788|0.355|0.5766
91758835|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.467||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.557||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: G/G||1.557|0.140|0.2043
91866047|NCT04881110|183623459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.1|-1.7|0.10
91728172|NCT02070380|183352139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91728173|NCT02070380|183352139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8238||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||0.8238
91728174|NCT02070380|183352139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91728175|NCT02070380|183352139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4597||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.4597
91728176|NCT02070380|183352139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91728177|NCT02070380|183352139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8145||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.8145
91728178|NCT02070380|183352140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.0020
91866048|NCT04881110|183623460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|3.5|-2.8|0.81
91728179|NCT02070380|183352140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
91795828|NCT00674973|183470386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||Log Rank|||Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the Hazard Ratio (erlotinib compared with placebo), including 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs).||1.10|0.63|0.1909
91795829|NCT00763048|183470396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91728180|NCT02070380|183352140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.0001
91728181|NCT02070380|183352140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
91728182|NCT02070380|183352140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91728183|NCT02070380|183352140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5811|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.5811
91728184|NCT02070380|183352141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91728185|NCT02070380|183352141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
91728186|NCT02070380|183352141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91728187|NCT02070380|183352141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
91904526|NCT04029961|183704252|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
91728188|NCT02070380|183352141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.0023
91728189|NCT02070380|183352141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
91728190|NCT02070380|183352142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91728191|NCT02070380|183352142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
91728192|NCT02070380|183352142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91728193|NCT02070380|183352142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7503|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.7503
91728194|NCT02070380|183352142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91728195|NCT02070380|183352142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5983|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.05 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.5983
91728196|NCT02070380|183352143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||<0.0001
91728197|NCT02070380|183352143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6898|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.6898
91728198|NCT02070380|183352143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
91728199|NCT02070380|183352143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.1156
91728200|NCT02070380|183352143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91728201|NCT02070380|183352143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7726|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7726
91728202|NCT02070380|183352144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.0002
91728203|NCT02070380|183352144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
91728204|NCT02070380|183352144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
91728205|NCT02070380|183352144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
91728206|NCT02070380|183352144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
91728207|NCT02070380|183352144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.0003
91728208|NCT03850431|183352145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.139||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|1.357|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.357|0.956|0.145
91728209|NCT03850431|183352145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.912|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.35|0.912|0.298
91728210|NCT03850431|183352145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.178||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.452|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.452|0.955|0.127
91728211|NCT03850431|183352145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.37|0.911|0.286
91728212|NCT03850431|183352145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.504|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.504|0.925|0.183
91728213|NCT03850431|183352145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.595|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.595|0.903|0.209
91904527|NCT04029961|183704253|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
91728214|NCT03850431|183352145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.144||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.638|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.638|0.799|0.463
91728215|NCT03850431|183352145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.331||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.822|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.822|0.972|0.074
91728216|NCT03850431|183352145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.169||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.577|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.577|0.867|0.306
91728217|NCT03850431|183352145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.565|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.565|0.845|0.373
91728218|NCT03850431|183352146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.923||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.03|0.826|0.153
91728219|NCT03850431|183352146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.911||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.068|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.068|0.777|0.252
91728220|NCT03850431|183352146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.941||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.088|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.088|0.815|0.413
91728221|NCT03850431|183352146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.946||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.079|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.079|0.83|0.41
91728222|NCT03850431|183352146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.887||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.027|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.027|0.766|0.11
91728223|NCT03850431|183352146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.833||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.062|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.062|0.654|0.14
91728224|NCT03850431|183352146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.882||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.184|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.184|0.657|0.404
91728225|NCT03850431|183352146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|1.027|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.027|0.538|0.072
91728226|NCT03850431|183352146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.778||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.008|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.008|0.6|0.057
91728227|NCT03850431|183352146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.932||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.247|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.247|0.697|0.637
91728228|NCT03760640|183352155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.35|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-2.35|0.339
91728229|NCT03760640|183352156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.90|1.10|0.011
91728230|NCT03760640|183352157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.14|-1.02|0.557
91728231|NCT03760640|183352158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.15|0.548
91728232|NCT03760640|183352160|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.94|-0.97|0.577
91728233|NCT05463705|183352161|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system), an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.96||||||||1.96|0.88|
91728234|NCT05463705|183352161|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system),72,73 an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||||||||1.52|0.66|
91728235|NCT05463705|183352162|SUPERIORITY|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system), an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.61||||||||1.61|0.83|
91795830|NCT00763048|183470397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91728236|NCT05463705|183352162|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system), an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.3||||||||1.30|0.64|
91728237|NCT05463705|183352163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in HbA1c %|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.07|
91728238|NCT05463705|183352163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in HbA1c %|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.34||||||||0.34|-0.22|
91728239|NCT03071965|183352201|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0881||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.120|-0.226|0.5455
91728240|NCT06399471|183352220|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.126||||||One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Ten Meter Walking Test.||||0.126
91728241|NCT06399471|183352220|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the Rheo when used during Ten Meter Walking Test.||||0.015
91728242|NCT06399471|183352220|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.852|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Ten Meter Walking Test.||||0.852
91795831|NCT00763048|183470398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91795832|NCT00763048|183470399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91866049|NCT04881110|183623461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|5.8|-5.8|0.99
91866050|NCT04881110|183623462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|22.9|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|22.9|-32.6|0.72
91866051|NCT04881110|183623463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|-0.07|-0.7|0.02
91866052|NCT04881110|183623464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.3|-0.04|0.12
91728243|NCT06399471|183352221|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Two Meter Walking Test.||||0.003
91795833|NCT00763048|183470400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91795834|NCT00763048|183470401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91795835|NCT00763048|183470402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91795836|NCT00763048|183470403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91795837|NCT00763048|183470404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91705500|NCT04964986|183305492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|20.727||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.758|55.828|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Sodium, Week 48||55.828|-27.758|0.337
91705501|NCT04964986|183305492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.618||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.87|14.931|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Potassium, Week 4||14.931|-11.870|0.724
91705502|NCT04964986|183305492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.19||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.88|3.737|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Potassium, Week 48||3.737|-18.880|0.115
91795838|NCT00518687|183470425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|18.5||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|55.8||A 1-sided p-value \<0.025 implies that the V710 vaccine efficacy is statistically significantly greater than 20%|Exact 1-sided binomial test||VE = 1 - Relative Risk of V710 compared with placebo|||55.8|-48.6|0.584
91705503|NCT04964986|183305492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.297||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.551|52.617|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Urea, Week 4||52.617|-39.551|0.707
91705504|NCT04964986|183305492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.487||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.956|-20.068|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Urea, Week 48||-20.068|-159.956|0.009
91705505|NCT04964986|183305492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.281||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|0.96|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Creatinine, Week 4||0.960|-0.649|0.572
91705506|NCT04964986|183305492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.136||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.073|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Creatinine, Week 48||1.073|-1.060|0.981
91705507|NCT04964986|183305493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24||||0.066
91705508|NCT04964986|183305493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||paired t-test|||Week 52||||0.015
91705509|NCT00803205|183305500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3264|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3264
91705510|NCT00803205|183305501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78124||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.756|6.264||The p-value is the LS-mean for the comparison between active treatment and placebo. The level of significance was 0.04998.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean estimates based on mixed model for repeated measures (Weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40 and 48) of relative change in percent-predicted FEV1 as the dependent variable; independent variables including Baseline percent-predicted FEV1, treatment, visit, interactions between treatment and visit and between Baseline percent-predicted FEV1 and visit; and stratification factors of Baseline age, Baseline inhaled antibiotics, and Baseline percent-predicted FEV1.||6.2640|-0.7560|0.1235
91728244|NCT06399471|183352221|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.027|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the Rheo when used during Two Meter Walking Test.||||0.027
91728245|NCT06399471|183352221|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.425|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Two Meter Walking Test.||||0.425
91728246|NCT06399471|183352222|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedman's test with multiple comparison correction||||||0.006|||||||Non-parametric Friedman's test with mult|||The Non-parametric Friedman's test was used to compare the survey results between the participants using the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.006
91728247|NCT06399471|183352222|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedman's test with multiple comparison correction||||||0.236|||||||Non-parametric Friedman's test with mult|||The Non-parametric Friedman's test was used to compare the survey results between the participants using the Power Knee and the Rheo.||||0.236
91728248|NCT06399471|183352222|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedman's test with multiple comparison correction||||||0.118|||||||Non-parametric Friedman's test with mult|||The Non-parametric Friedman's test was used to compare the survey results between the participants using the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.118
91728249|NCT06399471|183352223|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.687|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee, the C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used during Stance Time Asymmetry Index test.||||0.687
91888748|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.5948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.13|0.5948
91728250|NCT06399471|183352224|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.082|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee, the C-Leg 4.0, and Rheo when used during the Narrowing beam walking test.||||0.082
91728251|NCT06399471|183352225|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.943|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the reported falls when for when the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo were used.||||0.943
91728252|NCT06399471|183352226|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.535|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Physiological cost index for when the Power Knee, the C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo were used.||||0.535
91728253|NCT06399471|183352227|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.229|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Stair Ascent Speed for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.229
91728254|NCT06399471|183352228|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.528|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Stair Descent Speed for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.528
91728255|NCT06399471|183352229|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.144|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Ascent Speed between the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.144
91728256|NCT06399471|183352229|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Ascent Speed between the Power Knee and the Rheo.||||0.024
91728257|NCT06399471|183352229|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.949|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Ascent Speed between the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.949
91728258|NCT06399471|183352230|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Descent Speed for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.051
91728259|NCT06399471|183352231|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.367|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Steps per Day for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.367
91728260|NCT02662582|183352232|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.0||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.2|47.2||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least square means (LSMeans), LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||47.2|-71.2|0.734
91728261|NCT02662582|183352233|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.0219||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0694|0.0256||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0256|-0.0694|0.438
91728262|NCT02662582|183352233|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.0325||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0663|0.0014||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0014|-0.0663|0.114
91728263|NCT02662582|183352234|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.75||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|3.24||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||3.24|-1.75|0.612
91728264|NCT02662582|183352234|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.29||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|2.14||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||2.14|-1.55|0.789
91795839|NCT00518687|183470426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.1|-0.1|0.997
91866053|NCT04881110|183623465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|2.3|-8.5|0.25
91866054|NCT04881110|183623466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|115.1|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|115.1|59.9|<0.001
91795840|NCT00518687|183470427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|12.9||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|50.0||A 1-sided p-value \<0.025 implies that the V710 vaccine efficacy is statistically significant|Exact 1-sided binomial test||VE = 1 - Relative Risk of V710 compared with placebo|||50.0|-50.8|0.347
91795841|NCT00518687|183470428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|29.3||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|51.2||A 1-sided p-value \<0.025 implies that the V710 vaccine efficacy is statistically significant|Exact 1-sided binomial test||VE = 1 - Relative Risk of V710 compared with placebo|||51.2|-1.8|0.032
91795842|NCT01442038|183470430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.099||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): acute coronary syndrome (ACS) versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.099|0.818|0.48
91795843|NCT01442038|183470431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|1.691||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying PCI: ACS versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.691|0.244|0.40
91795844|NCT01442038|183470432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.994||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying PCI: ACS versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.994|0.579|0.82
91795845|NCT01442038|183470433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.256||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying PCI: ACS versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.256|0.745|0.81
91795846|NCT00137631|183470439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.58|||<|0.05||95.0|0.33|1.01|||negative binomial regression|||||1.01|0.33|< 0.05
91795847|NCT00137631|183470440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||<|0.05||95.0|1.05|1.68|||generalized estimating equations|Tests intervention efficacy over all study periods (baseline, 3-months, and 6-months)||||1.68|1.05|< 0.05
91696817|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.284||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.284|0.163|
91795848|NCT00137631|183470441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||<|0.05||95.0|0.69|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.98|0.69|< 0.05
91795849|NCT00137631|183470442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.49|||<|0.05||95.0|0.28|0.87|||generalized estimating equations|Tests intervention efficacy over all study periods (baseline, 3-months, and 6-months)||||0.87|0.28|< 0.05
91795850|NCT00137631|183470443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8|||<|0.05||95.0|0.42|1.53|||generalized estimating equations|Tests intervention efficacy over all study periods (baseline, 3-months, and 6-months)||||1.53|0.42|< 0.05
91696818|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.145||||||95.0|0.109|0.191||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.191|0.109|
91696819|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.668||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.668|0.381|
91696820|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.997||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.997|0.570|
91728265|NCT02662582|183352235|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.72||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|1.7||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.70|-0.26|0.225
91728266|NCT02662582|183352235|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.92||||0.064||90.0|0.11|1.174||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.174|0.11|0.064
91728267|NCT02662582|183352236|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.052||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.167||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.167|-0.063|0.447
91728268|NCT02662582|183352237|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Dyspnea) at Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0|-1.7|0.099
91728269|NCT02662582|183352237|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.2||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Dyspnea) at isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.2|-1.3|0.255
91728270|NCT02662582|183352237|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.6||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Leg Effort) at Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.6|-1.1|0.651
91888749|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.06|0.3755
91728271|NCT02662582|183352237|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Leg Effort) at isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.5|-1.0|0.591
91728272|NCT02662582|183352238|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0286||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0061|0.0511||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0511|0.0061|0.040
91728273|NCT02662582|183352238|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|0.0185||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0031|0.0401||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0401|-0.0031|0.155
91728274|NCT02662582|183352239|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.001||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0459|0.0479||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0479|-0.0459|0.972
91728275|NCT02662582|183352239|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.0118||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0471|0.0236||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0236|-0.0471|0.578
91728276|NCT02662582|183352240|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.65||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.26||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.26|-1.55|0.235
91728277|NCT02662582|183352240|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.57||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.19||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.19|-1.33|0.215
91728278|NCT02662582|183352241|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.77||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.77|-0.38|0.280
91728279|NCT02662582|183352241|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.46||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|1.4||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.40|-0.49|0.424
91728280|NCT02662582|183352242|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.039||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0099|0.0879||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0879|-0.0099|0.187
91728281|NCT02662582|183352242|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0488||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0163|0.114||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.1140|-0.0163|0.213
91728282|NCT02662582|183352243|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4||||0.64||90.0|-2.1|1.2||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.2|-2.1|0.640
91728283|NCT02662582|183352243|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|1.1||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.1|-2.5|0.487
91728284|NCT02662582|183352244|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.095||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.189||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.189|0.000|0.100
91728285|NCT02662582|183352244|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.133||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.213||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.213|0.053|0.008
91728286|NCT02662582|183352245|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.051||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.052|0.154||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.154|-0.052|0.408
91728287|NCT02662582|183352245|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.094||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.013|0.174||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.174|0.013|0.058
91728288|NCT02662582|183352246|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.44||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|6.73||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||6.73|-3.85|0.648
91728289|NCT02662582|183352246|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.85||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.12|5.82||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||5.82|-4.12|0.775
91728290|NCT02662582|183352247|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.1||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|4.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||4.0|-1.9|0.544
91728291|NCT02662582|183352247|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|5.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||5.0|-0.7|0.216
91728292|NCT02662582|183352248|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.4||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|1.6||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.6|-16.5|0.171
91728293|NCT02662582|183352248|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|10.7||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||10.7|-10.3|0.976
91758836|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|1.317||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/G||1.317|0.214|0.1626
91758837|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.006||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/C||2.006|0.484|0.9680
91758838|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.3587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|1.92||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: C/C||1.920|0.171|0.3587
91758839|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.742||||0.4635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|1.662||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/G||1.662|0.331|0.4635
91758840|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|2.069||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/A||2.069|0.476|0.9834
91866055|NCT04881110|183623467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.01|-0.09|0.18
91795851|NCT02611960|183470444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.19||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis.|Stratified Log-Rank Test|||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis.||1.19|0.67|0.2262
91795852|NCT02611960|183470445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis.|Stratified Log-Rank Test|||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis.||1.75|0.94|0.9419
91866056|NCT04881110|183623468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|18.1|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|18.1|-0.6|0.06
91696821|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.756|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.083|3.647||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.647|2.083|
91696822|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.211||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.211|0.694|
91696823|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.815||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.815|0.466|
91696824|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.624|2.843||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.843|1.624|
91696825|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|3.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.764|4.836||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.836|2.764|
91696826|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.606||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.606|0.920|
91696827|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.081||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.081|0.619|
91728294|NCT02662582|183352249|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|4.9||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||4.9|-6.1|0.844
91696828|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.152|3.773||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.773|2.152|
91728295|NCT02662582|183352249|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|4.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||4.0|-5.8|0.751
91728296|NCT02662582|183352250|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.9||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.9|-0.5|0.590
91728297|NCT02662582|183352250|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.9||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.9|-0.3|0.399
91728298|NCT02662582|183352251|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.09||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.01||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.01|-0.20|0.151
91728299|NCT02662582|183352252|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.007||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.056||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.056|-0.070|0.857
91728300|NCT02662582|183352253|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.56||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|3.17||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||3.17|-0.05|0.110
91728301|NCT02662582|183352254|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.07||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.57|13.71||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||13.71|-9.57|0.766
91728302|NCT02662582|183352254|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.94||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.66|13.54||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||13.54|-7.66|0.642
91728303|NCT01691482|183352270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.049|0.067|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.067|0.049|
91728304|NCT01691482|183352270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.062|0.08|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.080|0.062|
91728305|NCT01691482|183352270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.044|0.062|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.062|0.044|
91728306|NCT01691482|183352270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.053|0.071|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.071|0.053|
91728307|NCT01691482|183352274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.049|0.067|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.067|0.049|
91728308|NCT01691482|183352274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.062|0.08|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.080|0.062|
91728309|NCT01691482|183352274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.044|0.062|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.062|0.044|
91728310|NCT01691482|183352274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.062||||||95.0|0.053|0.071|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.071|0.053|
91758841|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.353||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|1.725||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: A/A||1.725|0.072|0.1764
91795853|NCT02611960|183470446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-1.9||||0.63479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|8.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentage = 0 versus H1: difference in percentage \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by presence of liver metastasis.||8.9|-12.7|0.63479
91795854|NCT00351000|183470475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.956
91795855|NCT00351000|183470476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
91795856|NCT00085709|183470477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|The interim analysis only reported a p-value for testing whether the hazard ratio was not equal to 1.5.||Interim futility analysis of the alternative hypothesis for disease-free survival. The design specified a hazard ratio of (observation: GO) of 1.5.||||<0.001
91795857|NCT00085709|183470478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0025||95.0|||||Test of difference of proportions|||Interim futility analysis alternative hypothesis based on the design specification that the 7+3+GO arm would have a 12% increase in CR rate.||||<0.0025
91795858|NCT04131556|183470480|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|67.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.5|77.16|||ANOVA|||||77.16|59.50|
91866057|NCT04881110|183623469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|2.6|-0.09|0.06
91795859|NCT04131556|183470480|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|62.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.73|70.9|||ANOVA|||||70.90|54.73|
91795860|NCT04131556|183470481|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.75|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of tmax was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of tmax between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||1.75|0.75|<.001
91696829|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.332|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|0.44||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.440|0.251|
91696830|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.224|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.296||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.296|0.169|
91696831|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.003||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.003|0.588|
91696832|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|0.889||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.889|0.509|
91696833|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.345|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.772|3.102||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.102|1.772|
91795861|NCT04131556|183470481|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of tmax was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of tmax between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||1.25|0.75|<.001
91866058|NCT04881110|183623471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|28.3|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|28.3|21.8|<0.001
91866059|NCT05215054|183623472|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95%CI of the difference of changes from baseline between test device and control is inferior or equal to 0.5.||||||||||||||||Difference of changes from baseline in WSRS score for Gana V versus Sculptra|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95%CI of the difference of changes from baseline between test device and control is inferior or equal to 0.5.To assess assay sensitivity, the proportion of responders with Gana V®, defined as improvement of ≥1-grade in the WSRS when compared to D0 pre-injection must be ≥50% at the 6 months visit after baseline.|||
91866060|NCT02933489|183623484|EQUIVALENCE|H0: DBT = AB-MR|Wald interval with Bonett-Price Laplace|0.007||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0022|0.0116|||McNemar||"Wald interval with Bonett-Price Laplace, described in :~Fagerland MW, Lydersen S, Laake P. Recommended tests and confidence intervals for paired binomial proportions. Statist. Med. 2014; 33:2850-75."|The proportion of participants who had an invasive cancer, verified by pathology, detected by each modality (the invasive cancer detection rates) will be made using exact McNemar's test.||0.0116|0.0022|0.002
91866061|NCT02933489|183623485|EQUIVALENCE|PPV DBT = PPV AB-MR||||||0.15||||||"Generalized estimating equation (GEE) regression with the p-value from the resulting score test.~5 secondary comparisons were planned: alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01 for p-value significance"|Leisenring|Leisenring W, Alonzo T, Pepe MS. Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs. Biometrics. 2000;56:345-351||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||||0.15
91866062|NCT02933489|183623486|EQUIVALENCE|H0: DBT short term follow-up rate = AB-MR short term follow-up rate|||||<|0.0001||||||To adjust for multiplicity, using the Bonferroni correction, secondary comparisons are compared against an adjusted alpha level of 0.05/5=0.01 corresponding to the 5 secondary comparisons outlined in the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|McNemar|exact p-value||The exact p-value from McNemar's test is reported for for comparing the DBT against the AB-MR short term follow-up rates||||<0.0001
91866063|NCT02933489|183623486|EQUIVALENCE|H0: DBT additional imaging rate =AB-MR additional imaging rate||||||0.02||||||To adjust for multiplicity, using the Bonferroni correction, secondary comparisons are compared against an adjusted alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01, corresponding to the 5 secondary comparisons outlined in the SAP|McNemar|exact p-values||The exact p-value from McNemar's test is reported for for comparing the DBT against the AB-MR additional imaging rates||||0.02
91696834|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|3.485|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.633|4.614||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.614|2.633|
91696835|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|2.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.817|3.789||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.789|1.817|
91696836|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.58||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.580|0.760|
91696837|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.282||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.282|0.615|
91696838|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|3.052||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.052|1.473|
91728311|NCT01691482|183352275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.058|0.076|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.076|0.058|
91758842|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.209||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/G||1.209|0.422|0.2018
91728312|NCT01691482|183352275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.061|0.079|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.079|0.061|
91728313|NCT01691482|183352275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.06|0.078|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.078|0.060|
91728314|NCT01691482|183352275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.055|0.073|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.073|0.055|
91728315|NCT01691482|183352276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.2|0.255|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.255|0.200|
91728316|NCT01691482|183352276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.203|0.258|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.258|0.203|
91728317|NCT01691482|183352276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.204|0.259|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.259|0.204|
91728318|NCT01691482|183352276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.19|0.245|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.245|0.190|
91728319|NCT01953354|183352277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91728320|NCT01953354|183352278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91866064|NCT02933489|183623487|EQUIVALENCE|Sensitivity DBT = Sensitivity AB-MR||||||0.001||||||The comparison of the sensitivity of AB-MR and DBT uses a two-sided exact McNemar's test to account for the paired design 5 secondary comparisons were planned: alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01 for p-value significance|McNemar|||||||0.001
91728321|NCT01953354|183352279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.242
91728322|NCT01953354|183352280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.550
91728323|NCT01953354|183352283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.550
91728324|NCT01953354|183352284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.633
91728325|NCT00806026|183352290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.2||This analysis was step 1 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS symptom severity score with baseline value, region \[United states (US) or European union (EU)\], treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-3.20|-5.90|<0.0001
91728326|NCT00806026|183352290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS symptom severity score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||0.7|-2.0|0.3603
91728327|NCT00806026|183352290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.9||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS symptom severity score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-1.9|-4.5|<0.0001
91728328|NCT00806026|183352291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was step 2 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by geographical region (US or EU) was used to analyze CGI-I responder status.||||<0.0001
91728329|NCT00806026|183352291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: CMH test stratified by geographical region (US or EU) was used to analyze CGI-I responder status.||||0.4393
91758843|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.4592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.354|9.673||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/A||9.673|0.354|0.4592
91866065|NCT02933489|183623487|EQUIVALENCE|Specificity DBT = Specificity AB-MR|||||<|0.001||||||The comparison of the Specificity of AB-MR and DBT uses a two-sided exact McNemar's test to account for the paired design 5 secondary comparisons were planned: alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01 for p-value significance|McNemar|||||||<0.001
91866066|NCT04780581|183623500|EQUIVALENCE|log-rank statistic test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.1|||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of equal survival curves. Estimates of rate and risk ratios are shown with 95% confidence intervals. All the p-values are 2-sided and shown without adjustment for multiple testing, and p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.).||5.1|0.2|0.984
91728330|NCT00806026|183352291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: CMH test stratified by geographical region (US or EU) was used to analyze CGI-I responder status.||||0.0022
91728331|NCT00806026|183352292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was step 6 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Log Rank|||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus pregabalin 300 mg: Stratified log rank test by block (40 weeks versus 52 weeks of active treatment) was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0826
91728332|NCT00806026|183352292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was step 3 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Log Rank|||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus pregabalin 300 mg: Stratified log rank test by block (40 weeks versus 52 weeks of active treatment) was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0012
91728333|NCT00806026|183352294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.332|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.76|-8.74||This analysis was step 7 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze SSQ-Subjective WASO score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-8.74|-25.76|<0.0001
91728334|NCT00806026|183352294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.408||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|7.58||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze SSQ-Subjective WASO score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||7.58|-9.73|0.8075
91728335|NCT00806026|183352294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|3.91||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze SSQ-Subjective WASO score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||3.91|-13.05|0.2906
91728336|NCT00806026|183352300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.3||This analysis was step 8 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS-NDI with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||6.30|-9.30|0.7073
91728337|NCT00806026|183352300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.9||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS-NDI with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||9.9|-5.1|0.5299
91728338|NCT00806026|183352300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.5||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS-NDI with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-0.5|-15.2|0.0354
91728339|NCT00806026|183352302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.45||This analysis was step 9 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze limb pain-VAS with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-0.45|-1.55|0.0004
91758844|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.184||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/T||1.184|0.373|0.1593
91758845|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.327||||0.5897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|3.755||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/C||3.755|0.469|0.5897
91758846|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.309||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs34586048 Genotype: C/C||1.309|0.488|0.3681
91758847|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|1.336||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/T||1.336|0.423|0.3235
91866067|NCT04780581|183623500|EQUIVALENCE|Log-rank method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.1||||||||9.1|-8.8|
91866068|NCT04780581|183623501|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.0|||Chi-squared|||||3.0|0.4|0.833
91866069|NCT04780581|183623501|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|11.5||||||||11.5|-14.2|
91866070|NCT04780581|183623502|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.3|||Chi-squared|||non-invasive mechanical ventilation||9.3|0.2|0.661
91696839|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.26||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.260|0.610|
91696840|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.298||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.298|0.622|
91696841|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.451|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.105||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.105|1.000|
91696842|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|0.603||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.603|0.289|
91696843|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.338|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|0.487||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.487|0.235|
91696844|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.165||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.165|0.561|
91696845|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.479||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.479|0.233|
91728340|NCT00806026|183352302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.12||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze limb pain-VAS with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.99|0.1242
91728341|NCT00806026|183352302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.01||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze limb pain-VAS with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||0.01|-1.12|0.0553
91866071|NCT04780581|183623502|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.9||||||non-invasive mechanical ventilation||6.9|-10.2|
91866072|NCT04780581|183623502|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||Chi-squared|||high-flow oxygen requirements||2.2|0.2|0.549
91866073|NCT04780581|183623502|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|15.1||||||high-flow oxygen requirements||15.1|-8.2|
91866074|NCT04780581|183623502|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.3|||Chi-squared|||Invasive mechanical ventilation or intubation requirements analysis||3.3|0.4|0.809
91728342|NCT03733483|183352319|EQUIVALENCE|Maximum likelihood estimates in a repeated measures model were used to assess the effect of insufficient sleep on P1NP levels. Change in P1NP in response to insufficient sleep was assessed using values measured every two hours on two, 24-h profiles obtained at baseline and on night 6 of sleep restriction. Circadian rhythmicity was included in the repeated-measures model as diurnal variation has been documented in prior studies. Data are presented as estimate ± standard error of the estimate.||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91728343|NCT03733483|183352320|EQUIVALENCE|Maximum likelihood estimates in a repeated measures model were used to assess the effect of insufficient sleep on CTX levels. Change in CTX in response to insufficient sleep was assessed using values measured every two hours on two, 24-h profiles obtained at baseline and on night 6 of sleep restriction. Circadian rhythmicity was included in the repeated-measures model as diurnal variation has been documented in prior studies. Data are presented as estimate ± standard error of the estimate.||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91728344|NCT00147537|183352328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||binomial test|||A one-sided p-value for H0: objective response rate \<=0.28 using exact binomial test at level 0.05.||||=0.027
91728345|NCT00147537|183352329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||binomial test|||A One-sided p-value for H0: objective response rate \<=0.30 using exact binomial test at level 0.05.||||=0.121
91728346|NCT01927861|183352359|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline (week 0) in the height SDS after 104 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline height SDS as a covariate.||0.88|0.38|< 0.0001
91728347|NCT00987935|183352427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|2.296|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.296|0.802|
91728348|NCT00987935|183352428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.014|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.014|0.730|
91728349|NCT00987935|183352432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.186|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.932|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||1.932|0.728|
91728350|NCT00987935|183352433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.489|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||1.489|0.593|
91728351|NCT00452530|183352441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.0003||||||1-sided P-value|Yanagawa, Tango, and Hiejima test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the secondary endpoint at a 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI of the secondary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority was then tested at the 1-sided α=0.025 level.||||0.0003
91728352|NCT00452530|183352441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.04||||||95.0|-2.03|-0.05|||Inverse variance method|||Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the secondary endpoint at a 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI of the secondary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority was then tested at the 1-sided α=0.025 level.||-0.05|-2.03|
91728353|NCT00452530|183352442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-0.33||||0.3014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.29|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Major bleeding||0.29|-0.95|0.3014
91728354|NCT00452530|183352442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-0.91||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.38|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|CRNM||0.38|-2.20|0.1668
91728355|NCT00452530|183352442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-1.24||||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.18|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Major or CRNM||0.18|-2.66|0.0881
91728356|NCT00452530|183352442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-1.39||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|0.51|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Any bleeding||0.51|-3.29|0.1412
91728357|NCT00452530|183352443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.74||P-value was statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Yanagawa, Tango, and Hiejima test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI on primary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority for the endpoint was then tested at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the key secondary endpoint at 1-sided α=0.025 level.||0.74|0.51|<0.0001
91728358|NCT00452530|183352443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.74|-5.79||P-value is statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Yanagawa, Tango, and Hiejima test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI on primary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority for the endpoint was then tested at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the key secondary endpoint at 1-sided α=0.025 level.||-5.79|-12.74|<0.0001
91728359|NCT02222181|183352448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.23
91728360|NCT02222181|183352449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91728361|NCT02222181|183352450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
91728362|NCT02222181|183352451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91728363|NCT02222181|183352452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
91728364|NCT02222181|183352453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91728365|NCT02222181|183352454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91795862|NCT04131556|183470482|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|81.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.88|89.4|||ANOVA|||||89.40|73.88|
91866075|NCT04780581|183623502|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|11.1||||||Invasive mechanical ventilation or intubation requirements analysis||11.1|-13.0|
91866076|NCT04780581|183623503|EQUIVALENCE|T-test|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||5|-5|0.908
91866077|NCT04780581|183623504|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5|||Chi-squared|||Secondary infections||2.5|0.3|0.758
91866078|NCT04780581|183623504|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|13.7||||||Secondary infections||13.7|-10.1|
91696846|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.342|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.494||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.494|0.237|
91696847|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|0.801||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.801|0.382|
91696848|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.169||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.169|0.562|
91696849|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.347|2.78||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.780|1.347|
91696850|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.147||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.147|0.558|
91696851|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.184||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.184|0.568|
91728366|NCT02191397|183352455|NON_INFERIORITY|A one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the between-treatment difference (bupropion XL-escitalopram) was compared with the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 2.2. If the upper limit of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was below 2.2, then it indicated that bupropion was not inferior in efficacy to escitalopram.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.94||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Observed Cases (OC) dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.94|-0.27|0.139
91728367|NCT02191397|183352456|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.33||P-value was estimated from a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables.|GEE model|||||1.33|0.55|0.479
91728368|NCT02191397|183352457|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.1||P-value was estimated from a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model|||||1.10|0.48|0.129
91866079|NCT04780581|183623504|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|12.3|||Chi-squared|||Hyperglycaemia||12.3|1.4|0.007
91866080|NCT04780581|183623504|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-5.6||||||Hyperglycaemia||-5.6|-31.8|
91866081|NCT04780581|183623504|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.4|||Chi-squared|||Psychotic states||4.4|-8.5|0.319
91728369|NCT02191397|183352458|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.24||P-value was estimated from a GEE model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model|||||1.24|0.55|0.354
91728370|NCT02191397|183352459|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.34||P-value was estimated from a GEE model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model|||||1.34|0.54|0.489
91728371|NCT02191397|183352460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.16||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.16|-0.70|0.627
91728372|NCT02191397|183352460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.66||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.66|0.08|0.037
91728373|NCT02191397|183352460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.78||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.78|-0.40|0.143
91696852|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.917||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.917|0.915|
91728374|NCT02191397|183352460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|2.4||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.40|-0.81|0.330
91728375|NCT02191397|183352460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|2.4||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.40|-0.69|0.278
91728376|NCT02191397|183352461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.16|-0.09|0.579
91728377|NCT02191397|183352461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.26||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.26|-0.04|0.163
91728378|NCT02191397|183352461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.34|0.00|0.050
91728379|NCT02191397|183352461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.26||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.26|-0.09|0.337
91728380|NCT02191397|183352461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.20|-0.14|0.714
91758848|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.7463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|2.355||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/G||2.355|0.303|0.7463
91758849|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.724||||0.4179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.593||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: rs740751 Genotype: C/C||1.593|0.330|0.4179
91866082|NCT04780581|183623505|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||Chi-squared|||||2.3|0.4|0.962
91758850|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973||||0.9423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|2.05||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: C/T||2.050|0.462|0.9423
91866083|NCT04780581|183623505|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|14.9||||||||14.9|-14.2|
91904528|NCT04029961|183704254|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
91728381|NCT02191397|183352462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.18||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.18|-0.50|0.358
91728382|NCT02191397|183352462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.75||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.75|-0.04|0.081
91728383|NCT02191397|183352462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.99||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.99|-0.02|0.062
91728384|NCT02191397|183352462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.85||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.85|-0.10|0.118
91728385|NCT02191397|183352462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.71||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.71|-0.19|0.252
91728386|NCT02191397|183352463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.35|-0.20|0.573
91728387|NCT02191397|183352463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.58||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.58|-0.13|0.209
91728388|NCT02191397|183352463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.58||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.58|-0.25|0.427
91728389|NCT02191397|183352463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.48||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.48|-0.40|0.851
91728390|NCT02191397|183352463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.66||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.66|-0.25|0.370
91728391|NCT02191397|183352464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.37|-0.16|0.438
91728392|NCT02191397|183352464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.66||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.66|0.07|0.014
91728393|NCT02191397|183352464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.5||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.50|-0.11|0.207
91728394|NCT02191397|183352464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.54||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.54|-0.07|0.137
91904529|NCT04029961|183704255|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
91866084|NCT03990883|183623507|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|3.7|||McNemar|||||3.7|-2.96|<0.0001
91696853|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|2.388|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.658|3.438||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.438|1.658|
91696854|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.416||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.416|0.688|
91696855|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.46||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.460|0.701|
91696856|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.634|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|2.366||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.366|1.128|
91696857|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.592||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.592|0.288|
91696858|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.424|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.61||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.610|0.294|
91696859|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|0.99||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.990|0.473|
91696860|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.473||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.473|0.714|
91696861|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.385||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.385|1.150|
91696862|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|2.339||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.339|1.115|
91728395|NCT02191397|183352464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.46||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.46|-0.14|0.299
91728396|NCT02191397|183352465|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.13|-0.10|0.804
91728397|NCT02191397|183352465|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.28||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.28|-0.02|0.079
91728398|NCT02191397|183352465|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.38|0.01|0.036
91728399|NCT02191397|183352465|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.31||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.31|-0.08|0.248
91728400|NCT02191397|183352465|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.35|-0.04|0.110
91728401|NCT02191397|183352466|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.78||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.75||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.75|0.35|0.545
91728402|NCT02191397|183352466|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.54||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.54|0.58|0.822
91728403|NCT02191397|183352466|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.86||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.86|0.38|0.007
91728404|NCT02191397|183352466|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.29|0.54|0.417
91728405|NCT02191397|183352466|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.4||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.40|0.49|0.485
91728406|NCT00728182|183352483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Data were cubic root transformed and modelled with multiple linear regression.||Comparison of the summed volume of new FLAIR lesions in the NA-1 and placebo treated groups.||||0.445
91728407|NCT00728182|183352484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.53||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.74|||Generalized linear model|With log link and negative bnomial distribution.||Comparison of the total number of new ischemic lesions on DWI for NA-1 versus placebo treated groups.||0.74|0.38|0.018
91728408|NCT00728182|183352485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.59||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.83|||Generalized linear model|With log link and negative binomial distribution.||Comparison of the total number of new FLAIR lesions in the NA-1 versus placebo treated groups.||0.83|0.42|0.048
91728409|NCT00728182|183352486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Data were cubic root transformed and modelled with multiple linear regresion.||Comparison of the summed volume of new ischemic lesions on DWI.||||0.306
91728410|NCT00728182|183352487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared|||Number of patients obtaining a score on the NIHSS of 0-1 at Day 30.||1.1|0.9|0.43
91728411|NCT00728182|183352488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the number of patients with mRS scores of 0-2 at Day 30 for NA-1 and placebo treated groups.||1.1|0.9|1.00
91728412|NCT00728182|183352489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.023
91728413|NCT00728182|183352490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.36||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.73|||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|||||0.73|0.17|0.027
91728414|NCT00728182|183352491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.36||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.75|||Generalized linear model|||||0.75|0.17|0.046
91728415|NCT00728182|183352492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91728416|NCT00728182|183352493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2.0|1.1|0.02
91728417|NCT00728182|183352494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.7|0.95|0.18
91728418|NCT03856177|183352495|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.071
91728419|NCT01898091|183352496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxin rank sum test|||Simulations determined power to detect significant difference defined as a mean difference of 1 unit (MTS scale). Feasibility study provided proportion of patients in control and neem group with change scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 as (5%, 10%, 10%, 45% and 30%) and (15%, 20%, 30%, 25% and 10%), respectively. Simulated 10,000 trials using multinomial distributions by the percentages above, with 20 patients per group, provided 80% power to detect 0.9 unit difference using a one-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.84
91728420|NCT01933425|183352497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|0.07|<0.05
91728421|NCT01933425|183352498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|0.06|<0.05
91728422|NCT03888482|183352500|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|Difference = DDT2 - Clariti|||0.01||
91795863|NCT04131556|183470482|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.92|85.79|||ANOVA|||||85.79|70.92|
91728423|NCT04679818|183352514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.43|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-1.43|0.895
91728424|NCT04679818|183352515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.66|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-2.66|0.228
91728425|NCT04679818|183352516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.65|||generalized linear mixed effects model|||||1.65|0.40|0.565
91728426|NCT04679818|183352517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.54|||Generalized linear mixed effects model|||||3.54|0.62|0.379
91728427|NCT04679818|183352518|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.97|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.97|0.30|0.039
91728428|NCT04679818|183352519|NON_INFERIORITY|We tested noninferiority of NOL to routine care on the Ramsey score using an a priori-defined noninferiority delta of 1.2 for the proportional odds ratio; NOL would be deemed noninferior if the upper confidence limit for the odds ratio was \<1.2.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.82|||proportional odds model|||||1.82|0.35|0.169
91728429|NCT04679818|183352520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.63|||Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.63|0.63|0.967
91728430|NCT02205359|183352525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.013|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect, Standard Error reported on log hazard scale|||1.013|0.779|0.077
91728431|NCT02205359|183352526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.032|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect, Standard Error reported on log hazard scale|||1.032|0.752|0.12
91728432|NCT02205359|183352527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.082|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect, Standard Error reported on log hazard scale|||1.082|0.759|0.28
91728433|NCT02205359|183352528|SUPERIORITY|Endpoint for statistical analysis is the proportion Improved.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.026|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Standard Error is on log-odds ratio scale|||1.026|0.768|0.11
91728434|NCT02205359|183352529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect||||1.16|0.85|0.89
91728435|NCT02205359|183352530|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.07||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.89|||ANCOVA|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect||||0.89|-1.03|0.88
91728436|NCT02205359|183352531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.0013||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0068|0.0094|||ANCOVA|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect||||0.0094|-0.0068|0.75
91728437|NCT02205359|183352532|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.15||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75|||negative binomial regression|Stratified by NYHA class||||1.75|0.75|0.52
91728438|NCT00480025|183352538|SUPERIORITY|RMF included: 1) Number of chemotherapy cycles received (1, 2 vs. 3, 4), if any; 2) Pathological stage of the disease (IB vs. II vs. IIIA); 3) Type of lymph-node sampling (minimal lymph-node sampling vs. systematic radical mediastinal lymphadenectomy); 4) ECOG performance status randomization (0, 1 vs. 2); 5) Smoking status ( 100 cigarettes a lifetime vs. \> 100 cigarettes and current smoker vs. \>100 cigarettes and past smoker).|Treatment Efficacy|1.024||||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.177||2-sided p-value of Likelihood Ratio test from RMF-adjusted Cox regression, Efron method used to handle ties.|Regression, Cox|Overall population objective reached if p-value \< 2.56%/4% in absence/presence of statistically significant effect in the No-CT population.||Analysis compared DFS PYAR between groups for period from 1st treatment dose to DLP. A Cox model was used to evaluate treatment efficacy (TE). TE was calculated as PYAR in GSK1572932 Group (PYAR1) divided by PYAR in Placebo Group (PYAR2), and weighed for adjustment factors. This comparison in all patients (overall population) also included taking into account stratification by previous CT vs. No-CT treatment and weighing using randomization-minimization factors (RMF) as regressors.||1.177|0.891|0.7379
91728439|NCT00480025|183352539|SUPERIORITY|RMF taken into account included: 1) Number of chemotherapy cycles received (1, 2 vs. 3, 4), if any; 2) Pathological stage of the disease (IB vs. II vs. IIIA); 3) Type of lymph-node sampling (minimal lymph-node sampling vs. systematic radical mediastinal lymphadenectomy); 4) ECOG performance status randomization (0, 1 vs. 2); 5) Smoking status ( 100 cigarettes a lifetime vs. \> 100 cigarettes and current smoker vs. \> 100 cigarettes and past smoker).|Treatment Efficacy|0.97||||0.7572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.179||2-sided p-value of Likelihood Ratio test from RMF-adjusted Cox regression, Efron method used to handle ties.|Regression, Cox|No-CT population objective reached if p-value \< 2.56%/4% in absence/presence of statistically significant effect in the No-CT population.||Analysis compared DFS PYAR between groups for the period from 1st treatment dose to DLP. A Cox model was used to evaluate treatment efficacy (TE). TE was calculated as PYAR in GSK1572932 No-CT Group (PYAR1) divided by PYAR in Placebo No-CT Group (PYAR2) and weighed for adjustment factors. This comparison in all patients (overall population) also included taking into account weighing using randomization-minimization factors (RMF) as regressors.||1.179|0.797|0.7572
91728440|NCT03681093|183352570|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.7||Adjusted p-value is reported. The adjusted p-value was obtained from the Dunnet Multiplicity Correction applied to control the Type I error for the primary analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.70|-0.59|0.979
91728441|NCT03681093|183352570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.39||Adjusted p-value is reported. The adjusted p-value was obtained from the Dunnet Multiplicity Correction applied to control the Type I error for the primary analysis.|MMRM|||||0.39|-0.88|0.656
91728442|NCT03681093|183352571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.14||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||1.14|0.15|0.012
91728443|NCT03681093|183352571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.94||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||0.94|-0.04|0.074
91866085|NCT03990883|183623508|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|3.71||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||3.71|-3.71|<0.0001
91866086|NCT03990883|183623509|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.96||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|4.07||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||4.07|-9.99|0.025
91888750|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9752
91728444|NCT03681093|183352572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.881||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|14.93||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||14.93|-4.49|0.288
91728445|NCT03681093|183352572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.936||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|7.65||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||7.65|-11.99|0.661
91728446|NCT03681093|183352573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.809||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|4.21||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||4.21|-2.98|0.735
91795864|NCT04131556|183470483|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|83.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.12|91.64|||ANOVA|||||91.64|76.12|
91728447|NCT03681093|183352573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.821||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|8.13||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||8.13|0.89|0.015
91728448|NCT00368849|183352585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.63
91728449|NCT00368849|183352586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.09
91728450|NCT00368849|183352587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.46|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.46
91728451|NCT00368849|183352588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||The secondary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.84
91866087|NCT03990883|183623510|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|7.52||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||7.52|-8.42|0.009
91866088|NCT03990883|183623511|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|3.11||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||3.11|-3.85|<0.0001
91866089|NCT03990883|183623512|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.16||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||3.16|-4.05|<0.0001
91866090|NCT02720068|183623558|OTHER|Difference in Percentage|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|22.9|||||Confidence interval based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||22.9|-7.3|
91866097|NCT04664881|183623600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.71
91866098|NCT04664881|183623601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cardiovascular Death||||0.99
91866099|NCT04664881|183623601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Hospitalization for Myocardial Infarction||||0.36
91866100|NCT04664881|183623601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Arrhythmias||||0.13
91866101|NCT04664881|183623601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cardiac Arrest||||0.99
91866102|NCT04868656|183623605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); adjusted length of stay (greater than or equal to 4.7 days versus less than 4.7 days); prior implementation of STRIDE (yes vs. no).||0.8|-5.0|0.15
91866103|NCT04868656|183623606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.6|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); adjusted length of stay (greater than or equal to 4.7 days versus less than 4.7 days); prior implementation of STRIDE (yes vs. no).||16.6|-6.0|0.34
91866104|NCT04868656|183623607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Model includes the arm indicator variable only; model does not include stratification variables due to potential for overfitting.||2.5|0.1|0.23
91866105|NCT06603766|183623703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
91866106|NCT06603766|183623704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
91866107|NCT06603766|183623705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91866108|NCT06603766|183623706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.032
91866109|NCT06603766|183623707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91866110|NCT06603766|183623708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91866111|NCT05785130|183623715|SUPERIORITY|T0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||T0|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||0.74
91866112|NCT05785130|183623715|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|133.57||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||T1|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||0.75
91866113|NCT05785130|183623715|SUPERIORITY|T|Median Difference (Final Values)|235.93|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||T2|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||<0.01
91866114|NCT05785130|183623715|SUPERIORITY|T3|Median Difference (Final Values)|214.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||T3|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||<0.01
91866115|NCT03351998|183623716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|365.55||0.6051|TWO_SIDED||||||signed rank test|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.6051
91904530|NCT04029961|183704256|OTHER|"A univariate analysis comparing the proportion of each arm that indicated an item was met, evaluated for each item at each time point."|||||<|0.05|||||||Univariate analysis|||"The statistical test described below was only performed on the top 10 items on the scale rated the highest in importance by participants. The top 10 items were determined by computing the mean rating for each item (participants gave each item a rating from '1' - '9' with higher values representing greater importance) and selecting the 10 items with the largest mean values, excluding the item the radiation oncologist who will be treating me as that item was not addressed in either intervention."||||<0.05
91904531|NCT03086265|183704257|OTHER|||||||0.7934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7934
91866116|NCT03351998|183623716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|213.0||0.9434|TWO_SIDED||||||signed rank test|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.9434
91866117|NCT03351998|183623716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|179.54||0.9408|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.9408
91866118|NCT03351998|183623717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||0.7458|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.7458
91866119|NCT03351998|183623717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.4056|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.4056
91866120|NCT03351998|183623717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.1932|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.1932
91866121|NCT02624050|183623721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|log-binomial regression|||||||0.01
91866122|NCT02624050|183623722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold of significance was \<0.05|log binomial regression|||||||0.37
91866123|NCT02624050|183623727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277||||||"Because the data were skewed, the natural logarithmic transformation was used prior to analysis for inference.~Threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05"|Ratio of Geometric Means|This p-value is for 15 min after induction of anesthesia||||||0.277
91728452|NCT00368849|183352589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||The secondary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.76
91866124|NCT03547271|183623732|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|GMT ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.842|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||0.842|0.565|
91866125|NCT03547271|183623732|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|GMT ratio|4.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.58|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||5.58|4.00|
91866126|NCT03547271|183623732|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|Slope|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.78|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||1.78|1.33|
91866127|NCT03547271|183623732|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|GMT ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.04|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||2.04|1.55|
91728453|NCT01902303|183352590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.5000
91866128|NCT03547271|183623733|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|-6.56|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||-6.56|-17.74|
91904532|NCT03086265|183704266|OTHER|||||||0.6876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6876
91904533|NCT03086265|183704267|OTHER|||||||0.7549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7549
91904534|NCT03086265|183704268|OTHER|||||||0.6479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6479
91904535|NCT03086265|183704269|OTHER|||||||0.8322|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8322
91728454|NCT01902303|183352591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3835|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3835
91758851|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.353||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|1.725||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs7407451 Genotype: T/T||1.725|0.072|0.1764
91758852|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|1.501||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/G||1.501|0.201|0.2352
91758853|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.9674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|2.003||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/A||2.003|0.485|0.9674
91866129|NCT03547271|183623733|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|9.62|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||9.62|4.44|
91866130|NCT03547271|183623733|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|4.7|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction|Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||4.70|-0.49|
91866131|NCT03547271|183623733|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|5.77|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||5.77|0.34|
91866132|NCT04835363|183623750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.029
91866133|NCT04835363|183623751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.148
91866134|NCT04835363|183623752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.012
91866135|NCT04835363|183623753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.078
91866136|NCT04835363|183623754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
91728455|NCT05058456|183352619|OTHER|The primary safety hypothesis is: H0: ΠS \> PGS vs. HA: ΠS ≤ PGS where ΠS is the proportion of patients who experience a MAE within 30 days of procedure and PGS is the Safety Performance Goal. All subjects in whom a Mini S IVL catheter was introduced into the vasculature will be included in the analysis (i.e., it is an intent-to-treat analysis). The hypothesis will be tested using a one-sided Exact Binomial Test at α=0.025.|||||<|0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.025
91795865|NCT04131556|183470483|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|80.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.26|88.16|||ANOVA|||||88.16|73.26|
91866137|NCT04835363|183623755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.797
91866138|NCT04835363|183623756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.358
91866139|NCT04835363|183623757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.055
91866140|NCT04835363|183623758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.496
91866141|NCT04835363|183623759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.241
91866142|NCT04835363|183623760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91866143|NCT04835363|183623761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.019
91866144|NCT04835363|183623762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||ANOVA|||ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES||||0.141
91866145|NCT04835363|183623762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||ANOVA|||DISENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES||||0.496
91866146|NCT01992913|183623786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||"Fisher's exact Test, right-sided probability based on a directional hypothesis."|Fisher Exact|||We conducted a 2 X 2 chi-square analysis of differences in proportion.||||<.05
91866147|NCT01992913|183623786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|7.13|||Chi-squared|ChiSq = 3.6562, df = 1|OR, iCBT / TAU in job attainment|Chis Sq: group (iCBT/TAU) X Job attained (Yes/No)||7.13|0.97|<.06
91866148|NCT01992913|183623787|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effects logistic regression model was conducted on a binary work variable, with a random intercept, using the baseline measure as a binary covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|df (1, 30) for the group X assessment interaction, adjusting for baseline differences in hours worked at the start of the intervention.||Compare the groups on proportions in employment at the 6 month assessment points.||.89|-2.67|<0.33
91728456|NCT05058456|183352620|OTHER|The primary effectiveness hypothesis is: H0: ΠE ≤ PGE vs. HA: ΠE \> PGE, where ΠE is the proportion of target lesions with technical success and PG is the effectiveness Performance Goal. One-sided statistical significance level of 0.025 = α. The hypothesis will be tested using a one-sided Exact Binomial Test.|||||<|0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.025
91866149|NCT01992913|183623787|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effects logistic regression model was conducted on a binary work variable, with a random intercept, using the baseline measure as a binary covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|F (1, 130) = 1.0, p\<0.37, for the group X assessment interaction, adjusting for baseline differences in hours worked at the start of the intervention.||Compare the groups on proportions in employment at the 12 month assessment points.||2.19|-1.14|<.54
91866150|NCT01992913|183623787|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effects logistic regression model was conducted on a binary work variable, with a random intercept, using the baseline measure as a binary covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|F (1, 130) = 1.0, p\<0.37, for the group X assessment interaction, adjusting for baseline differences in hours worked at the start of the intervention.||Compare the groups on proportions in employment at the 18 month assessment point.||1.73|-1.32|<0.71
91866151|NCT01992913|183623789|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the baseline assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.19
91866152|NCT01992913|183623789|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the 6 month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42|<|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.99
91866153|NCT01992913|183623789|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the 12 month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|<|0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.94
91866154|NCT01992913|183623789|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the baseline assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.14
91904536|NCT03086265|183704271|OTHER|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
91728457|NCT02802865|183352628|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.75|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.75|1.18|0.007
91728458|NCT02802865|183352629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91728459|NCT02802865|183352630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91728460|NCT02802865|183352631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91728461|NCT02802865|183352632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||Chi-squared|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for this conception.||||0.709
91728462|NCT02802865|183352633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Chi-squared|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for clinical pregnancy.||||0.356
91728463|NCT02802865|183352635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Chi-squared|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for live birth.||||0.356
91728464|NCT02802865|183352636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for pregnancy loss.||||0.486
91728465|NCT03931785|183352639|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.08||||0.7467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.58|||MMRM||MD-7246 minus placebo|||0.58|-0.42|0.7467
91728466|NCT03931785|183352639|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.43||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.93|||MMRM||MD-7246 minus placebo|||0.93|-0.07|0.0941
91795866|NCT04131556|183470486|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of Tlag was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of Tlag between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||0.25|0.13|0.006
91888751|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.9188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9188
91728467|NCT03931785|183352639|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.8098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.56|||MMRM||MD-7246 minus placebo|||0.56|-0.44|0.8098
91728468|NCT03931785|183352640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|15.0|||||Difference in responder rate (MD-7246 - placebo). 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences in responder rates were obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||15.0|-12.9|
91728469|NCT03931785|183352640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|2.6|||||Difference in responder rate (MD-7246 - placebo). 95% CIs for differences in responder rates were obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||2.6|-25.3|
91728470|NCT03931785|183352640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|6.8|||||Difference in responder rate (MD-7246 - placebo). 95% CIs for differences in responder rates were obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||6.8|-21.2|
91728471|NCT03931785|183352640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.043||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.839|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for response (MD-7246 : placebo)|||1.839|0.591|0.8852
91728472|NCT03931785|183352640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.634||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.117|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for response (MD-7246 : placebo)|||1.117|0.360|0.1152
91728473|NCT03931785|183352640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.749||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|1.317|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for response (MD-7246 : placebo)|||1.317|0.425|0.3157
91728474|NCT01292473|183352646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.16||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||1.16|-2.54|0.4637
91728475|NCT01292473|183352646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.04||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-1.24||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.24|-4.85|0.0011
91728476|NCT01292473|183352646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|-3.13||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.13|-6.49|<0.0001
91728477|NCT01292473|183352647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.73||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.07||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||1.07|-6.53|0.1575
91728478|NCT01292473|183352647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.69||||0.0001||95.0|-11.49|-3.88||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-3.88|-11.49|0.0001
91728479|NCT01292473|183352647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|-8.66||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-8.66|-16.13|<0.0001
91728480|NCT01292473|183352648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.01||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.09||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||0.09|-4.11|0.0603
91795867|NCT04131556|183470486|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of Tlag was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of Tlag between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||0.25|0.13|0.011
91866155|NCT05485935|183623918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.94||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.24|72.64||The pass criteria were based on results analysing the 2 primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the H0 on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||72.64|19.24|0.001
91866156|NCT05485935|183623919|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||0.35|0.07|<0.001
91866157|NCT05485935|183623920|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||0.40|0.04|<0.001
91866158|NCT05485935|183623921|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|47.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||47.6|9.5|0.004
91866159|NCT04093869|183623924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|14.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Full alpha of 0.05 was allocated to this as the sole primary outcome.|Regression, Linear||A negative mean difference would represent a better outcome in the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||14|-6|0.40
91866160|NCT04093869|183623925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|85.0|||||A positive value for the estimate represents a greater distance walked for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||85|-44|
91866161|NCT04093869|183623926|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-316.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|336.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-979.0|346.0|||||A positive value for the estimate would represent more steps per day for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||346|-979|
91866162|NCT04093869|183623927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|34.0||||||||34|-5|
91866163|NCT04093869|183623928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||||A negative value for the estimate would represent a better QOL survey score for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||0.11|-0.1|
91866164|NCT04093869|183623929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.3|||||A negative value for the estimate would represent a better Frailty index score for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||0.30|-0.22|
91866165|NCT04093869|183623930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||||||||0.17|-0.20|
91866166|NCT04093869|183623931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.13|
91866167|NCT04093869|183623932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.12|
91866168|NCT04093869|183623933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.6|||||A positive value for the estimate represents better self-efficacy for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||1.60|-0.83|
91866169|NCT03662022|183623939|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.95|||<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.4|2.23||The significance level was determined at 0.017, to account for the fact that we made three comparisons, thus conclusions can be drawn by examining if the 98.3% CI for the incidence rate ratio (IRR) contains the critical value of 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.23|0.40|<0.017
91866170|NCT03662022|183623939|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.34|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.87|0.34|0.017
91866171|NCT03662022|183623939|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.58|||<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.22|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.56|0.22|<0.017
91866172|NCT05275556|183623940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.23||Threshold for significance is 0.025.|Poisson Regression|||||0.23|0.07|0.0002
91866173|NCT05275556|183623941|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03||Threshold for significance is 0.025.|Resampling based|||||0.03|-0.15|0.09
91866174|NCT05275556|183623942|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Threshold for significance is 0.025.||||11.2|-0.3|0.031
91795868|NCT00145600|183470501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM Event-free survival estimate|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.953||||||||0.953|0.820|
91866175|NCT05275556|183623943|OTHER||rate|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866176|NCT05275556|183623944|OTHER|2 sided test for differences between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Permutation test|||||||0.169
91866177|NCT05275556|183623945|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analysis: 52.4 in Colonoscopy (Standard of Care), 59.6 in CAD-e Device|||
91904537|NCT03086265|183704272|OTHER|||||||0.3346|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3346
91904538|NCT03086265|183704273|OTHER|||||||0.5513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5513
91904539|NCT03086265|183704274|OTHER|||||||0.1927|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1927
91795869|NCT00145600|183470501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.95||||||||0.950|0.739|
91728481|NCT01292473|183352648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-2.36||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-2.36|-6.65|<0.0001
91728482|NCT01292473|183352648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-4.93||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.93|-9.26|<0.0001
91728483|NCT01292473|183352649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.05||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Placebo and Omalizumab 75 mg.||2.05|1.00|0.0478
91728484|NCT01292473|183352649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.26||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||2.26|1.12|0.0101
91728485|NCT01292473|183352649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.03||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||3.03|1.48|<0.0001
91728486|NCT01292473|183352650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3419||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||||0.3419
91728487|NCT01292473|183352650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0010
91795870|NCT00145600|183470501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.933||||||||0.933|0.400|
91866178|NCT05275556|183623946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.4||Nominal p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||9.4|-0.2|0.0578
91866179|NCT05275556|183623947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||2.0|-1.5|0.7813
91795871|NCT00145600|183470501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.793|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|0.86||||||||0.860|0.726|
91795872|NCT00145600|183470502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3097||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3097
91866180|NCT05275556|183623948|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17||||||||0.17|0.05|
91866181|NCT05275556|183623949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.9||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||12.9|3.7|0.0004
91904540|NCT03086265|183704275|OTHER|||||||0.6483|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6483
91904541|NCT03086265|183704276|OTHER|||||||0.5625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5625
91728488|NCT01292473|183352650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
91728489|NCT01292473|183352651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4366||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||||0.4366
91728490|NCT01292473|183352651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0045
91728491|NCT01292473|183352651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
91795873|NCT00145600|183470502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795874|NCT00145600|183470502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91795875|NCT00145600|183470502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795876|NCT00145600|183470502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91795877|NCT00145600|183470502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795878|NCT00145600|183470502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0197||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0197
91866182|NCT05275556|183623950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.1||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||9.1|-1|0.1185
91728492|NCT01292473|183352652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.48||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.65||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-0.65|-4.32|0.0082
91728493|NCT01292473|183352652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|-1.9||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.90|-5.61|<0.0001
91728494|NCT01292473|183352652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-5.27||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-5.27|-9.03|<0.0001
91728495|NCT01292473|183352653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.68||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.45||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||0.45|-3.82|0.1207
91728496|NCT01292473|183352653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.51||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|-0.38||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-0.38|-4.64|0.0215
91728497|NCT01292473|183352653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.79||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|-1.73||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-1.73|-5.85|0.0004
91728498|NCT01292473|183352654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1361||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||||0.1361
91728499|NCT01292473|183352654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0905||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0905
91866183|NCT05275556|183623951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|9.2||nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||9.2|-0.4|0.0752
91728500|NCT01292473|183352654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg.||||<0.0001
91728501|NCT00337194|183352709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91728502|NCT00337194|183352710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91728503|NCT00159874|183352748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.13|5.09|||ANCOVA||Least square mean difference of -7.02 was calculated as ' Sildenafil Medium Dose - Low Dose'|Analyses were performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight, day of assessment and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||5.09|-19.13|0.253
91728504|NCT00159874|183352748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|1.93|||ANCOVA||Least square mean difference of -9.84 was calculated as ' Sildenafil High Dose - Low Dose'|Analyses were performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight, day of assessment and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||1.93|-21.60|0.100
91758854|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|1.686||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: A/A||1.686|0.235|0.3524
91758855|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809||||0.6652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|2.124||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/T||2.124|0.308|0.6652
91758856|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.839||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|1.618||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/G||1.618|0.436|0.5931
91758857|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.475||||0.2625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.813||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: G/G||1.813|0.125|0.2625
91758858|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.239||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/G||1.239|0.400|0.2168
91758859|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.987||||0.9802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|2.759||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/A||2.759|0.353|0.9802
91758860|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.652||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|1.122||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/T||1.122|0.378|0.1145
91728505|NCT00159874|183352748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|9.11|||ANCOVA||Least square mean difference of -2.82 was calculated as ' Sildenafil High Dose - Medium Dose'|Analyses were performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight, day of assessment and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||9.11|-14.75|0.640
91728506|NCT01104870|183352765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Primary comparisons are between Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 3 and Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 2. The study is not powered to test for a difference between Dose Group 2 \& Dose Group 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peak total pulmonary resistance index (TPRI) is defined as the TPRI value observed during exercise at the highest matching wattage achieved at both Baseline and Week 12. Where peak wattage cannot be matched, the closest higher wattage will be chosen for comparison.||||0.95
91728507|NCT01104870|183352765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Primary comparisons are between Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 3 and Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 2. The study is not powered to test for a difference between Dose Group 2 \& Dose Group 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peak total pulmonary resistance index (TPRI) is defined as the TPRI value observed during exercise at the highest matching wattage achieved at both Baseline and Week 12. Where peak wattage cannot be matched, the closest higher wattage will be chosen for comparison.||||0.27
91728508|NCT00276380|183352791|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The homogeneity of the Odds Ratio (OR) across centres was assessed by the Breslow Day test.|The association between treatment and response after adjustment for the pooled centres was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||1.48|0.46|0.52
91728509|NCT00276380|183352792|OTHER|Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The homogeneity of the Odds Ratio (OR) across centres was assessed by the Breslow Day test.|The association between treatment and response after adjustment for the pooled centres was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||1.57|0.47|0.623
91728510|NCT00276380|183352792|OTHER|Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The homogeneity of the Odds Ratio (OR) across centres was assessed by the Breslow Day test.|The association between treatment and response after adjustment for the pooled centres was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||1.3|0.42|0.3
91728511|NCT00276380|183352794|OTHER|||||||0.207||||||Treatment effect was derived using a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28||||0.207
91795879|NCT00145600|183470502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795880|NCT00145600|183470503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91866184|NCT05275556|183623953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.8194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.6||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||2.6|-3.2|0.8194
91866185|NCT05275556|183623954|OTHER|Test for difference|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.39||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.69||Nominal p-value|Exact poisson|||||1.69|1.14|0.0008
91866186|NCT02360371|183623993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||Mixed methods|||||||0.567
91866187|NCT02360371|183623994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Mixed Model|||||||0.805
91866188|NCT01499368|183624003|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority: The Lower limit is not lower than -15%||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91866189|NCT01499368|183624004|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.05
91728512|NCT00276380|183352794|OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84||||0.590
91728513|NCT00276380|183352794|OTHER|Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.||||||0.814|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 168||||0.814
91728514|NCT00276380|183352795|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28||||0.240
91728515|NCT00276380|183352795|OTHER|||||||0.441||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84||||0.441
91728516|NCT00276380|183352795|OTHER|||||||0.645||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 168||||0.645
91728517|NCT00276380|183352796|OTHER|||||||0.623||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28||||0.623
91728518|NCT00276380|183352796|OTHER|||||||0.338||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84||||0.338
91728519|NCT00276380|183352796|OTHER|||||||0.828||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 168||||0.828
91728520|NCT03654326|183352798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.03||Based on the longitudinal analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including factors for average pelvic pain scores at baseline cycle, stratum, treatment, cycle, interaction of stratum-by-cycle, and the interaction of treatment-by-cycle as covariates|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.01|0.066
91795881|NCT00145600|183470503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.46|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795882|NCT00145600|183470503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
91795883|NCT00145600|183470503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795884|NCT00145600|183470503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91866190|NCT01527188|183624018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-198.18||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.82|-6.55|||ANCOVA|||||-6.55|-389.82|0.0427
91866191|NCT01527188|183624018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-171.82||||0.0793||95.0|-363.87|20.24|||ANCOVA|||||20.24|-363.87|0.0793
91904542|NCT03086265|183704277|OTHER|||||||0.2827|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2827
91904543|NCT03086265|183704278|OTHER|||||||0.8426|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8426
91728521|NCT03654326|183352799|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced one or more adverse events|Difference in % vs Placebo|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|31.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||31.3|3.4|
91728522|NCT03654326|183352800|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants who discontinued study drug due to an adverse event|Difference in % vs Placebo|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||9.0|-0.9|
91728523|NCT03654326|183352801|OTHER|The difference in least squares mean was based on the longitudinal analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including factors for average pelvic pain scores at baseline cycle, stratum, treatment, cycle, interaction of stratum-by-cycle, and the interaction of treatment-by-cycle as covariates|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-1.18|
91728524|NCT03654326|183352802|OTHER|The difference in least squares mean was based on the longitudinal analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including factors for average pelvic pain scores at baseline cycle, stratum, treatment, cycle, interaction of stratum-by-cycle, and the interaction of treatment-by-cycle as covariates|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.03||||||||0.03|-1.04|
91728525|NCT05287685|183352803|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary pre-post outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.29
91728526|NCT05287685|183352803|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.34
91795885|NCT00145600|183470503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795886|NCT00145600|183470503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3624||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3624
91795887|NCT00145600|183470503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795888|NCT00145600|183470504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0254||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0254
91795889|NCT00145600|183470504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.44|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795890|NCT00145600|183470504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0004
91795891|NCT00145600|183470504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.32||||0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0001
91866192|NCT01527188|183624018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-118.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.9|69.04|||ANCOVA|||The statistical test is not applicable due to the step-down approach performed to address the multiplicity issue.||69.04|-305.90|
91728527|NCT05287685|183352803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.02
91728528|NCT05287685|183352803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.04
91728529|NCT05287685|183352804|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.88
91728530|NCT05287685|183352804|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.87
91728531|NCT05287685|183352804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.10
91728532|NCT05287685|183352804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.90
91728533|NCT05287685|183352805|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis to test whether groups had equivalent levels of satisfaction with treatment (defined as the groups not being significantly different at the level of p\<.05).||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups.||||.80
91795892|NCT00145600|183470504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795893|NCT00145600|183470504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795894|NCT00145600|183470504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0014
91795895|NCT00145600|183470504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.26||||0.0061||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0061
91795896|NCT00145600|183470505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0687||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0687
91795897|NCT00145600|183470505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||||||<0.0001
91795898|NCT00145600|183470505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9478||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.9478
91795899|NCT00145600|183470505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795900|NCT00145600|183470505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2999||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2999
91795901|NCT00145600|183470505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795902|NCT00145600|183470505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3121
91795903|NCT00145600|183470505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91866193|NCT01527188|183624019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-125.61||||0.0323||95.0|-240.53|-10.69|||ANCOVA|||||-10.69|-240.53|0.0323
91904544|NCT03086265|183704279|OTHER|||||||0.9856|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9856
91866194|NCT01527188|183624019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-122.23||||0.0376||95.0|-237.38|-7.08|||ANCOVA|||||-7.08|-237.38|0.0376
91866195|NCT01527188|183624019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-91.18||||0.1119||95.0|-203.74|21.38|||ANCOVA|||||21.38|-203.74|0.1119
91866196|NCT04518943|183624048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-634.0||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1924.0|655.0|||linear mixed model|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignment, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||655|-1924|0.418
91866197|NCT04518943|183624048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1697.0||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3000.0|-385.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||-385|-3000|0.033
91696863|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.177|3.087||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.087|1.177|
91696864|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.533||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.533|0.583|
91696865|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.763|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|1.245||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.245|0.468|
91728534|NCT05287685|183352806|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.35
91728535|NCT05287685|183352806|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.049
91728536|NCT05287685|183352806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.45
91728537|NCT05287685|183352806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.20
91696866|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|2.956||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.956|1.119|
91728538|NCT05287685|183352807|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.006
91728539|NCT05287685|183352807|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.011
91728540|NCT05287685|183352807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.22
91728541|NCT05287685|183352807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.25
91758861|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.946||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/A||3.946|0.360|0.7725
91795904|NCT00145600|183470506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0014
91904545|NCT03086265|183704280|OTHER|||||||0.8112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8112
91904546|NCT03086265|183704281|OTHER|||||||0.6587|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6587
91904547|NCT03086265|183704282|OTHER|||||||0.4143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4143
91904548|NCT03086265|183704283|OTHER|||||||0.4324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4324
91696867|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.481||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.481|0.568|
91696868|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.396||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.396|0.524|
91696869|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.203|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.943||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.943|0.745|
91696870|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.496|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.794||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.794|0.310|
91696871|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.641||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.641|0.250|
91696872|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.528||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.528|0.596|
91696873|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.481|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.758||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.758|0.306|
91696874|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.279|0.722||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.722|0.279|
91728542|NCT04829214|183352808|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9|=|0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|5.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||The percentage of responders will be compared between the two groups using the Mantel Haenszel test controlling for category of duration of tinnitus and category of baseline TFI overall score. The primary efficacy analysis will be conducted for the comparison of OTO-313 and placebo, using a 2-sided test and an alpha level of 5%. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) around the common risk difference will also be provided.||5|-26|=0.385
91728543|NCT04543786|183352846|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|One-way||||||0.0048
91795905|NCT00145600|183470506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91758862|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687||||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.473||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/A||1.473|0.321|0.3286
91758863|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.976||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.028||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/G||2.028|0.470|0.9480
91904549|NCT03086265|183704284|OTHER|||||||0.7221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of preoperative scores.||||0.7221
91904550|NCT03086265|183704284|OTHER|||||||0.0336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of postoperative scores.||||0.0336
91904551|NCT00688155|183704285|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test of mean differences from baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Physical activity training versus no physical activity training;|ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of physical activity training vs no physical activity training||||0.66
91904552|NCT00688155|183704285|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided tests of mean differences from baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for physical activity training is 0.55|ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of physical activity training versus no physical activity training||||0.55
91696875|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.002||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.002|0.398|
91696876|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.304||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.304|0.500|
91696877|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.193|3.102||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.102|1.193|
91696878|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|1.541||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.541|0.611|
91696879|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.46||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.460|0.561|
91728544|NCT04543786|183352847|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91728545|NCT04543786|183352848|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 4.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91728546|NCT04543786|183352849|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91728547|NCT04543786|183352851|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||<0.001
91795906|NCT00145600|183470506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0282||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0282
91728548|NCT04543786|183352852|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
91728549|NCT04543786|183352853|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
91728550|NCT04543786|183352854|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
91728551|NCT04543786|183352855|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
91728552|NCT02046200|183352860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0563|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0563
91728553|NCT02046200|183352861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0342|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0342
91728554|NCT02046200|183352862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1597|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1597
91728555|NCT02046200|183352863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7617|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7617
91728556|NCT02046200|183352864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
91728557|NCT02046200|183352865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
91728558|NCT02046200|183352866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
91728559|NCT02046200|183352867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91795907|NCT00145600|183470506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.35||||0.0002||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0002
91795908|NCT00145600|183470506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0038||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0038
91866198|NCT04518943|183624048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|820.0||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-347.0|1988.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1988|-347|0.248
91866199|NCT04518943|183624048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1121.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.0|2323.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of advice vs no advice factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.|Positive values represent a positive effect of requests for advice on steps compared to no request for advice.|2323|82|0.125
91866200|NCT04518943|183624049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares change in efficacy from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.|Positive values represent a positive effect of financial rewards compared to non-financial rewards.|0.70|-1.05|0.739
91866201|NCT04518943|183624049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of financial rewards compared to non-financial rewards.|This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares change in efficacy from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.39|-1.42|0.347
91866202|NCT04518943|183624049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery-based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares change in efficacy from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.57|-0.35|0.293
91904553|NCT00688155|183704285|EQUIVALENCE|Two Sided Test of Mean Difference from baseline|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of cognitive training versus no cognitive training||||0.95
91904554|NCT00688155|183704285|EQUIVALENCE|Two Sided Test of Mean Difference from baseline|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of cognitive training versus no cognitive training||||0.48
91904555|NCT00688155|183704287|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided tests of marginal means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of physical activity training versus no physical activity training.||||0.23
91866203|NCT04518943|183624049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery-based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.30|-0.67|0.599
91866204|NCT04518943|183624049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|2.4|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares efficacy at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.40|0.58|0.007
91904556|NCT00688155|183704287|EQUIVALENCE|Two Sided Test of Mean Difference from baseline|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of cognitive training versus no cognitive training||||0.42
91904557|NCT00445224|183704302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.041
91904558|NCT00445224|183704303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA for group and time||||.049
91904559|NCT03184077|183704304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91904560|NCT03184077|183704305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91728560|NCT02046200|183352868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
91728561|NCT02046200|183352869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
91904561|NCT03184077|183704306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||This is a calculated p value|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91904562|NCT04136184|183704307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.7593||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9552|-18.5635|||MMRM|||||-18.5635|-30.9552|0.00000001
91904563|NCT04136184|183704308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-19.7352||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6301|-13.8403|||MMRM|||||-13.8403|-25.6301|0.00000001
91904564|NCT04136184|183704309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-70.42||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.17|-65.66|||MMRM|||||-65.66|-75.17|0.00000001
91904565|NCT04136184|183704310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-66.65||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.59|-61.71|||MMRM|||||-61.71|-71.59|0.00000001
91904566|NCT04136184|183704311|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.3542||||0.00012203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8691|-4.8394|||MMRM|||||-4.8394|-13.8691|0.00012203
91728562|NCT02046200|183352870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
91728563|NCT02965976|183352886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.773
91728564|NCT02965976|183352887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.773
91728565|NCT02965976|183352888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.368
91728566|NCT02965976|183352889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987
91728567|NCT02965976|183352890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.423
91728568|NCT02965976|183352891|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91728569|NCT00407030|183352904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.9||Due to the hierarchical testing no adjustment of type I error was necessary.|ANCOVA|Independent variables in the model were treatment, baseline TWSTRS-Total score, gender, age, pre-treatment of cervical dystonia, and pooled center.||Hierarchical testing: Primary null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 1st hypothesis lead to test of 2nd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 2nd hypothesis lead to test of 3rd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units). 3 separate models were used to test these hypotheses which results in different LS means estimates.||-5.9|-12.0|<0.001
91728570|NCT00407030|183352910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-4.6||Due to the hierarchical testing no adjustment of type I error was necessary.|ANCOVA|Independent variables in the model were treatment, baseline TWSTRS-Total score, gender, age, pre-treatment of cervical dystonia, and pooled center.||Hierarchical testing: Primary null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 1st hypothesis lead to test of 2nd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 2nd hypothesis lead to test of 3rd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units). 3 separate models were used to test these hypotheses which results in different LS means estimates.||-4.6|-10.4|<0.001
91728571|NCT00407030|183352911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.6||Due to the hierarchical testing no adjustment of type I error was necessary.|ANCOVA|Independent variables in the model were treatment, baseline TWSTRS-Total score, gender, age, pre-treatment of cervical dystonia, and pooled center.||Hierarchical testing: Primary null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 1st hypothesis lead to test of 2nd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 2nd hypothesis lead to test of 3rd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units). 3 separate models were used to test these hypotheses which results in different LS means estimates.||4.6|-2.1|0.447
91728572|NCT01370642|183352919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|40.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by Interleukin 28B (IL28B) and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||40.5|17.2|<0.001
91904567|NCT04136184|183704312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.8202||||1.873e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8927|-6.7477|||MMRM|||||-6.7477|-16.8927|0.00001873
91728573|NCT01370642|183352919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|28.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|40.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||40.0|17.4|<0.001
91728574|NCT01370642|183352920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|41.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||41.5|18.1|<0.001
91728575|NCT01370642|183352920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|41.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||41.0|18.3|<0.001
91728576|NCT01370642|183352921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|78.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|85.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving RVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||85.3|68.2|<0.001
91728577|NCT01370642|183352921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|76.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.7|84.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving RVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||84.1|66.7|<0.001
91728578|NCT01370642|183352922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|58.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving cEVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||58.9|37.2|<0.001
91758864|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.3844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|2.282||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: G/G||2.282|0.125|0.3844
91904568|NCT04136184|183704313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.94||||0.00052447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-1.8|||MMRM|||Week 35||-1.80|-6.08|0.00052447
91904569|NCT04136184|183704313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-8.21||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|-5.76|||MMRM|||Week 66||-5.76|-10.65|0.00000001
91728579|NCT01370642|183352922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|60.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving cEVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||60.0|38.5|<0.001
91904570|NCT04136184|183704314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|5.305||||5.58e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.195|7.416|||MMRM|||||7.416|3.195|0.00000558
91904571|NCT04136184|183704315|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.02407897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||MMRM|||||-0.0|-0.4|0.02407897
91696880|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|2.03||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.030|0.798|
91728580|NCT01370642|183352923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|27.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving undetectable HCV RNA at EOT between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||27.3|8.1|<0.001
91728581|NCT01370642|183352923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|27.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving undetectable HCV RNA at EOT between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||27.8|9.3|<0.001
91728582|NCT01370642|183352924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|4.1||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||13.7|-5.4|0.385
91728583|NCT01370642|183352924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-2.2||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|8.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||8.1|-12.6|0.670
91728584|NCT01370642|183352924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with anemia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||9.5|-17.5|0.557
91728585|NCT01370642|183352924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-12.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with anemia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||1.2|-26.2|0.072
91728586|NCT01370642|183352924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|7.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with bilirubin increased Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||7.9|-7.9|>0.999
91728587|NCT01370642|183352924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|14.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with bilirubin increased Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||14.2|-3.3|0.220
91728588|NCT01370642|183352924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.3||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|28.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with GI Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||28.7|1.3|0.032
91728589|NCT01370642|183352924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.6||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with GI Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||19.4|-8.4|0.432
91728590|NCT01370642|183352924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.2||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|21.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with neutropenia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||21.8|-5.8|0.252
91728591|NCT01370642|183352924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.5||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with neutropenia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||14.4|-13.4|0.942
91728592|NCT01370642|183352925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 2|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-3.0|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 2 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-3.0|-3.5|
91728593|NCT01370642|183352925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 2|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-3.2|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 2 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-3.2|-3.7|
91728594|NCT01370642|183352925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 4|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.7|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 4 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-2.7|-3.3|
91758865|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.662||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|1.153||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/G||1.153|0.381|0.1373
91904572|NCT04136184|183704316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|82.6991||||2e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6431|110.7551|||MMRM|||||110.7551|54.6431|0.00000020
91904573|NCT04096274|183704340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.014
91904574|NCT04096274|183704341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.023
91904575|NCT04096274|183704342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.188
91728595|NCT01370642|183352925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 4|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.8|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 4 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-2.8|-3.4|
91728596|NCT01370642|183352925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 8|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.6|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 8 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.6|-2.2|
91728597|NCT01370642|183352925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 8|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.7|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 8 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.7|-2.3|
91728598|NCT01370642|183352925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 12|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 12 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.1|-1.7|
91728599|NCT01370642|183352925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 12|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 12 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.1|-1.7|
91728600|NCT01370642|183352925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 24|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 24 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-0.5|-1.1|
91728601|NCT01370642|183352925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 24|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 24 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-0.6|-1.2|
91728602|NCT01378273|183352944|SUPERIORITY|We assumed no effect of treatment on death, but that Epo will lead to a decrease in the rate of NDI. If we assume a multiplicative reduction in the NDI rate of 0.45 then we expect a treated NDI rate of 12 percent and an overall rate of death+NDI of 30.4% as compared to the control rate of 40.4% corresponding to an overall treatment rate ratio of 0.75. This leads to a sample size of 376 evaluated subjects per arm or a total evaluated sample size of 752 subjects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|0.81|1.32||A two-sided type I error of 0.05 with no formal adjustment for multiple comparisons unless otherwise specified (such as with safety outcomes).|GEE Wald test based on logistic regressi|adjustments were made for gestational age at birth and recruitment site as a fixed effect.|The numerator is the Epo group, denominator is the control group|We evaluated the primary outcome of death or neurodevelopmental impairment using generalized estimating equations to account for potential correlation within siblings from the same pregnancy, with adjustment for gestational age at birth and recruitment site as a fixed effect. The primary analysis included infants with complete data and excluded data from infants known to be alive but in whom neurodevelopmental outcomes were not assessed.||1.32|0.81|0.05
91728603|NCT01378273|183352945|OTHER|SAEs were defined prospectively. The rate of total SAEs observed through hospital discharge were compared after accounting for potential within-sibship correlation (with multiple gestations) using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with robust standard errors. We used a GEE Wald test based on Poisson or logistic regression for total SAE count and individual events respectively. All other non-categorical data were assessed with GEE regression models appropriate for continuous outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22||Statistical significance was set at 0.05 for the efficacy analysis and for the final safety analysis comparing the rate of total SAEs between treatment groups, and 0.031 for death and 0.004 for the ten individual SAEs due to sequential monitoring.|Poisson regression|Adjusted for multiple gestation and gestational age|Epo is numerator and Control is denominator|We hypothesized that Epo would be safe, with no excess of SAEs compared to control infants. Sample size was based on the primary outcome, severe neurodevelopmental impairment or death.||1.22|0.83|0.05
91728604|NCT01378273|183352946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a Wald's test and declared significant if p \< 0.05.|Generalized estimating equation|Adjusted for gestational age at birth and treatment assignment.||For all statistical comparisons between groups, Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with robust standard errors and a working independence correlation structure for infants included from a multiple gestation were used. A GEE-based Wald test was used to examine differences in the global brain injury severity score between treatment groups, with adjustment for gestational age (GA) at birth used to stratify treatment randomization (24+0 to 25+6 vs. 26+0 to 27+6 in weeks+days of GA).||||0.36
91795909|NCT00145600|183470506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795910|NCT00145600|183470506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1474||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1474
91795911|NCT00145600|183470506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91904576|NCT04096274|183704343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.782
91904577|NCT01462435|183704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|446.946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|122.2935|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|206.567|687.324|||ANCOVA|||||687.324|206.567|<0.001
91904578|NCT01462435|183704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|316.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|121.5971||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.136|555.155|||ANCOVA|||||555.155|77.136|0.010
91866205|NCT04518943|183624049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.7|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.70|0.86|0.002
91866206|NCT04518943|183624049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|1.94|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 12. It compares efficacy at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.94|0.10|0.068
91866207|NCT04518943|183624049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.14|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.14|-0.76|0.740
91866208|NCT04518943|183624050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.47|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation in week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator..||0.47|-0.19|0.481
91904579|NCT01462435|183704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|313.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|122.5676||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.202|554.037|||ANCOVA|||||554.037|72.202|0.011
91696881|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|2.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.474|3.851||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.851|1.474|
91696882|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.915||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.915|0.754|
91696883|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.821||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.821|0.689|
91696884|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|2.516||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.516|0.987|
91696885|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|0.805||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.805|0.316|
91696886|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.754||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.754|0.293|
91758866|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.114||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|3.667||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/A||3.667|0.339|0.8586
91904580|NCT01462435|183704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.043
91758867|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935||||0.8478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.861||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/G||1.861|0.470|0.8478
91795912|NCT00145600|183470507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0281||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0281
91696887|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.662|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.056||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.056|0.414|
91696888|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.492||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.492|0.583|
91696889|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|2.071||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.071|0.831|
91696890|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.407|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.249||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.249|0.880|
91904581|NCT01462435|183704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.109
91728605|NCT01378273|183352947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a Wald's test and declared significant if p \< 0.007.|Generalized estimating equation|Adjusted for gestational age at birth and treatment assignment.||For statistical inference, we utilized generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors to appropriately account for potential correlation of biomarkers for same-birth siblings. Each respective GEE model adjusted for gestational age at birth and treatment assignment as fixed factors associated with the original study design. Biomarker levels at each follow-up time point were analysed using separate GEE models. Epo levels were log-transformed in all statistical analyses.||||<0.001
91758868|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.634||||0.2445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|1.401||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/A||1.401|0.287|0.2445
91758869|NCT00265317|183410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.155||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|18.59||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: A/A||18.59|0.072|0.9191
91758870|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.121||||0.8563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|3.847||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: C/C||3.847|0.326|0.8563
91758871|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.7375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|2.064||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: C/A||2.064|0.599|0.7375
91758872|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.8066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.147||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs234060 Genotype: A/A||2.147|0.375|0.8066
91758873|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|1.708||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/C||1.708|0.449|0.6945
91758874|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.067||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|2.122||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/T||2.122|0.536|0.8536
91758875|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.732||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.283|26.42||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: T/T||26.42|0.283|0.3657
91758876|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|1.483||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304061 Genotype: G/G||1.483|0.424|0.4657
91758877|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.364||||0.4168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|2.9||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304061 Genotype: G/A||2.900|0.641|0.4168
91758878|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908||||0.7836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.809||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/A||1.809|0.456|0.7836
91758879|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.8531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|1.863||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/T||1.863|0.472|0.8531
91758880|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|13.07||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: T/T||13.07|0.412|0.3272
91758881|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.972||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/A||1.972|0.491|0.9630
91758882|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.227||||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|2.656||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/G||2.656|0.567|0.6003
91758883|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.769||||0.6703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|2.58||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: G/G||2.580|0.229|0.6703
91758884|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.106||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|2.525||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/G||2.525|0.485|0.8100
91866209|NCT04518943|183624050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares intrinsic motivation in week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.52|-0.16|0.388
91696891|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|5.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|7.365||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||7.365|4|
91696892|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|1.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.481||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.481|0.804|
91758885|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.076||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|2.141||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/C||2.141|0.541|0.8335
91758886|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|2.141||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: C/C||2.141|0.268|0.5980
91758887|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.9287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|2.199||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/G||2.199|0.487|0.9287
91758888|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.053||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|2.106||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/A||2.106|0.526|0.8842
91758889|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|4.028||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: A/A||4.028|0.316|0.8501
91758890|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.229||||0.4118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|2.017||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/G||2.017|0.749|0.4118
91758891|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.286||||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|1.596||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/A||1.596|0.051|0.1299
91758892|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.2||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/T||1.200|0.399|0.1859
91758893|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.672||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|10.44||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/C||10.44|1.291|0.0091
91758894|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.652||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs34586048 Genotype: C/C||1.652|0.654|0.8708
91758895|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.681||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/T||1.681|0.590|0.9888
91758896|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.891||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/G||2.891|0.360|0.9702
91758897|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|2.032||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: C/C||2.032|0.466|0.9419
91758898|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.112||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.252||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: C/T||2.252|0.549|0.7677
91758899|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|4.028||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: T/T||4.028|0.316|0.8501
91758900|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.782||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/G||1.782|0.322|0.5233
91758901|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.297||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/A||2.297|0.549|0.7500
91758902|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232||||0.6614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|3.142||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: A/A||3.142|0.483|0.6614
91758903|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.779||||0.2552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|4.855||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/T||4.855|0.652|0.2552
91758904|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.088||||0.7931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|2.052||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/G||2.052|0.577|0.7931
91758905|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.449||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|1.331||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: G/G||1.331|0.152|0.1365
91758906|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.447||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/G||1.447|0.504|0.5544
91758907|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.721||||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.021||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/A||5.021|0.590|0.3132
91758908|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.263||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|2.113||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/T||2.113|0.755|0.3698
91728606|NCT04128228|183352985|OTHER|"Single group: All individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment.~Brain responses were examined at baseline in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) with and without early trauma (AUD/ET, AUD/NT), as well as in moderate drinkers (MD) with and without early trauma (MD/ET, MD/NT)."|F value for the 2 X 2 Group Interaction|5.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2 × 2 × 3 Linear Mixed Model was conducted with Early Trauma Group (ET, NT) and Drinking Group (AUD, MD) as between-subjects factors, and Condition (stress, alcohol, neutral) as the within-subjects factor.|Linear Mixed Model|||A regions of interest (ROI) analysis was conducted to evaluate brain activity in the right ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VmPFC, BA10), a region identified a priori. The VmPFC ROI was defined using the Yale-Brodmann atlas in the BioImage Suite application, from which the beta value for the VmPFC ROI was obtained for a Linear Mixed Model analysis.||||<0.05
91728607|NCT04128228|183352986|OTHER|Single group (all individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment). Hormone responses were examined at baseline in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) with and without early trauma (AUD/ET, AUD/NT), as well as in moderate drinkers (MD) with and without early trauma (MD/ET, MD/NT).|F value|4.79|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91728608|NCT04128228|183352987|OTHER|Single Group|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||.95|.53|<0.05
91728609|NCT04128228|183352988|OTHER|Single Group. All individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment.|t value|-3.35|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91728610|NCT04128228|183352989|OTHER|Single Group (All individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment.)|t value|-2.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91795913|NCT00145600|183470507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795914|NCT00145600|183470507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0050
91795915|NCT00145600|183470507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795916|NCT00145600|183470507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0005
91866210|NCT04518943|183624050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.34|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.34|-0.38|0.926
91904582|NCT01462435|183704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.183
91728611|NCT01117350|183352990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|8.93||"If superiority not demonstrated, switching from superiority to non-inferiority considered.~Conclusion of non-inferiority reached if lower limit of 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (insulin glargine - liraglutide) \> or = to - 3.5%"|Chi-squared|||"Superiority testing~H0: Rate measured with insulin glargine = rate measured with liraglutide~H1: Rate measured with insulin glargine ≠ rate measured with liraglutide~Sample size calculation (465 randomized patients per arm) was based on the assumption of an expected success rate of 46% with insulin glargine and 35% with liraglutide, an alpha risk of 5% (2-sided) and a power of 90%, taking into account an estimated non evaluability rate of 10%."||8.93|-3.88|0.439
91728612|NCT01064622|183353035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22||Reported p-value is one-sided. p\<0.10 required for statistical significance.|Log Rank|Stratified by Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|Hazard ratio is for (gemcitabine hydrochloride plus vismodegib)/(gemcitabine hydrochloride plus placebo), adjusted for Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|||1.22|0.55|0.15
91728613|NCT01064622|183353036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.46|||Log Rank|Stratified by Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|Hazard ratio is for (gemcitabine hydrochloride plus vismodegib)/(gemcitabine hydrochloride plus placebo), adjusted for Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|||1.46|0.64|0.37
91795917|NCT00145600|183470507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.37||||0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0001
91795918|NCT00145600|183470507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0552||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0552
91795919|NCT00145600|183470507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795920|NCT00145600|183470508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91795921|NCT00145600|183470508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.53|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795922|NCT00145600|183470508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxan signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91795923|NCT00145600|183470508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.68|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795924|NCT00145600|183470508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0017
91795925|NCT00145600|183470508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795926|NCT00145600|183470509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2758||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2758
91795927|NCT00145600|183470509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795928|NCT00145600|183470509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1731||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1731
91795929|NCT00145600|183470509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91904583|NCT01462435|183704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91904584|NCT01462435|183704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91904585|NCT01462435|183704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
91904586|NCT01462435|183704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91866211|NCT04518943|183624050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.20|-0.54|0.446
91728614|NCT01064622|183353037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-value for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Karnofsky performance status and disease status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.42
91728615|NCT05330429|183353045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.9323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|2.691|||Unstratified Log-rank Test|2-Sided P-value was based on unstratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||2.691|0.339|0.9323
91728616|NCT05330429|183353048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|1.6|||||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||1.600|0.056|
91728617|NCT02931539|183353058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|42.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.74|22.80|<0.001
91728618|NCT02931539|183353059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|9.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|16.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.88|2.02|0.013
91728619|NCT02931539|183353074|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.357|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value comparing treatment groups was calculated from the log rank test by Kaplan-Meier Method.|Stratified Cox regression model was used as transplant type and baseline plasma CMV DNA level as stratification factors.|||2.357|0.549|0.647
91728620|NCT02059642|183353084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM: Model of Repeated Measures||||0.66|-4.87|0.1358
91728621|NCT06097273|183353086|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.086|1.229||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.229|1.086|
91728622|NCT06097273|183353086|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>1.|GMR|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.094|1.22||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.220|1.094|
91728623|NCT06097273|183353086|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.999|1.13||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.130|0.999|
91728624|NCT06097273|183353086|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|1.122||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.122|1.007|
91728625|NCT06097273|183353086|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.414|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.322|1.513||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.513|1.322|
91728626|NCT06097273|183353086|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.414|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.333|1.5||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.500|1.333|
91904587|NCT01462435|183704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91904588|NCT01462435|183704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91904589|NCT01462435|183704349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91728627|NCT06097273|183353086|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|1.465||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.465|1.300|
91728628|NCT06097273|183353086|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.454||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.454|1.310|
91728629|NCT06097273|183353086|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.063|1.175||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.175|1.063|
91904590|NCT01462435|183704349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
91728630|NCT06097273|183353086|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.167||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.167|1.070|
91728631|NCT06097273|183353086|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.969|1.047||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.047|0.969|
91758909|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.411||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|1.423||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/A||1.423|0.119|0.1495
91758910|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.613||||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|3.332||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/A||3.332|0.781|0.1911
91758911|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|1.636||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/G||1.636|0.384|0.5259
91758912|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.331||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|1.339||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: G/G||1.339|0.082|0.0996
91904591|NCT01462435|183704349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
91696893|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.031||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.031|0.559|
91728632|NCT06097273|183353086|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|1.042||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.042|0.973|
91728633|NCT06097273|183353086|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.156|1.278||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.278|1.156|
91866212|NCT04518943|183624050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.42|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.42|-0.27|0.711
91904592|NCT01462435|183704350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91904593|NCT01462435|183704350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
91904594|NCT01462435|183704350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
91728634|NCT06097273|183353086|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.163|1.27||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.270|1.163|
91728635|NCT06097273|183353086|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.109|1.201||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.201|1.109|
91728636|NCT06097273|183353086|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|1.195||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.195|1.115|
91728637|NCT06097273|183353087|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.641|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.526|1.765||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.765|1.526|
91728638|NCT06097273|183353087|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.641|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.51|1.783||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.783|1.510|
91728639|NCT06097273|183353087|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.219|1.404||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.404|1.219|
91728640|NCT06097273|183353087|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.308|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.207|1.418||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.418|1.207|
91728641|NCT06097273|183353088|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in seroconversion rate (SCR) in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.4||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||8.4|2.4|
91728642|NCT06097273|183353088|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.9|8.8||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||8.8|1.9|
91728643|NCT06097273|183353088|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.1||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||7.1|1.0|
91728644|NCT06097273|183353088|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5|7.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||7.6|0.5|
91728645|NCT06097273|183353088|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.2||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||7.2|1.9|
91728646|NCT06097273|183353088|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.5||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||7.5|1.5|
91795930|NCT00145600|183470509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0846||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0846
91904595|NCT01462435|183704351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91904596|NCT01462435|183704351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91904597|NCT01462435|183704351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91904598|NCT01462435|183704352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91904599|NCT01462435|183704352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91866213|NCT04518943|183624050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.15|-0.55|0.345
91866214|NCT04518943|183624050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.36|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.36|-0.33|0.928
91904600|NCT01462435|183704352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91696894|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.577|4.751||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||4.751|2.577|
91696895|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.334||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.334|0.722|
91696896|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.95||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.95|0.513|
91696897|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|2.513|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.846|3.421||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.421|1.846|
91696898|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.201|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.272||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.272|0.149|
91696899|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.189||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.189|0.103|
91696900|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.645|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|0.873||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.873|0.476|
91696901|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.245||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.245|0.134|
91728647|NCT06097273|183353088|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.4||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||0.4|-3.3|
91758913|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.259||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/G||1.259|0.450|0.2755
91696902|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.174||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.174|0.095|
91696903|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.463|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.628||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.628|0.341|
91696904|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.696|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.943||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.943|0.514|
91696905|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.368|4.343||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.343|2.368|
91696906|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.218||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.218|0.665|
91696907|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|0.868||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.868|0.472|
91696908|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|2.303|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.121||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.121|1.7|
91696909|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|4.608|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.398|6.249||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||6.249|3.398|
91696910|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|1.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.753||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.753|0.954|
91696911|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|1.249||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.249|0.677|
91728648|NCT06097273|183353088|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|0.7||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||0.7|-3.6|
91758914|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.85||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253|18.78||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/A||18.78|1.253|0.0120
91728649|NCT06097273|183353088|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|21.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||21.0|14.8|
91795931|NCT00145600|183470509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.46|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795932|NCT00145600|183470510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4263||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4263
91795933|NCT00145600|183470510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795934|NCT00145600|183470510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91866215|NCT04518943|183624050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 24. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.16|-0.55|0.372
91728650|NCT06097273|183353088|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.3|21.4||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||21.4|14.3|
91728651|NCT06097273|183353088|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|17.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||17.6|11.6|
91728652|NCT06097273|183353088|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.1|18.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||18.0|11.1|
91728653|NCT06097273|183353088|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|11.2||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||11.2|6.0|
91728654|NCT06097273|183353088|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.6|11.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||11.6|5.6|
91728655|NCT06097273|183353088|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||4.7|0.6|
91728656|NCT06097273|183353088|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|5.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||5.0|0.3|
91728657|NCT06097273|183353089|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in seroresponse rate (SRR) in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|15.5||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||15.5|10.0|
91728658|NCT06097273|183353089|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SRR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.6|15.9||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||15.9|9.6|
91728659|NCT06097273|183353089|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SRR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|10.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||10.6|5.5|
91728660|NCT06097273|183353089|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SRR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.2|11.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||11.0|5.2|
91795935|NCT00145600|183470510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795936|NCT00145600|183470510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0468||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0468
91795937|NCT00145600|183470510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91728661|NCT04359680|183353118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.029||||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4696|2.2546|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2546|0.4696|0.9434
91795938|NCT00145600|183470511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91795939|NCT00145600|183470511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.26||||0.0019||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0019
91795940|NCT00145600|183470511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91795941|NCT00145600|183470511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.16||||0.0704||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0704
91795942|NCT00145600|183470511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0200
91795943|NCT00145600|183470511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795944|NCT00145600|183470512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7192||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7192
91795945|NCT00145600|183470512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91728662|NCT04359680|183353119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1162||||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6623|1.8813|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.8813|0.6623|0.6805
91728663|NCT04359680|183353121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3459|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3459
91728664|NCT02722330|183353130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
91728665|NCT02722330|183353131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Ease of communication||||<0.0001
91728666|NCT02722330|183353131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Reverberation||||<0.0001
91728667|NCT02722330|183353131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Background noise||||<0.0001
91696912|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.436|4.496||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||4.496|2.436|
91696913|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|0.38||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.38|0.207|
91728668|NCT02722330|183353131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Aversiveness||||0.0004
91696914|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.271||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.271|0.147|
91696915|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.975||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.975|0.529|
91696916|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.966||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.966|0.524|
91696917|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.886|3.474||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.474|1.886|
91696918|NCT00972816|183287620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.597|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.646|4.89||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||4.89|2.646|
91728669|NCT02722330|183353131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Global score||||<0.0001
91728670|NCT02722330|183353132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech scale||||<0.0001
91728671|NCT02722330|183353132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Spatial scale||||<0.0001
91728672|NCT02722330|183353132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Qualities scale||||<0.0001
91728673|NCT02722330|183353133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
91728674|NCT02722330|183353134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||<0.0001
91728675|NCT02722330|183353134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||<0.0001
91728676|NCT02722330|183353134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||<0.0001
91728677|NCT02722330|183353134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||<0.0001
91728678|NCT02722330|183353134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||<0.0001
91728679|NCT02722330|183353134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||<0.0001
91728680|NCT02722330|183353134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||<0.0001
91728681|NCT02722330|183353134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||<0.0001
91728682|NCT02722330|183353134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||<0.0001
91728683|NCT02722330|183353135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||<0.0001
91728684|NCT02722330|183353135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||<0.0001
91728685|NCT02722330|183353135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||<0.0001
91728686|NCT02722330|183353135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||<0.0001
91728687|NCT02722330|183353135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||<0.0001
91866216|NCT04518943|183624051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.3|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares phq8 mental health scores in week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.3|-1.60|0.767
91904601|NCT02248259|183704361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|113.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.522|128.376|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||128.376|100.522|
91696919|NCT03806933|183287628|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.51||P-values were based on Wald Chi-Square tests for hazard ratios.|Wald Chi-square test||Hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. 95% CIs were calculated based on individual Wald tests.|||1.51|0.7|= 0.881
91696920|NCT03806933|183287628|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.05||P-values were based on Wald Chi-Square tests for hazard ratios.|Wald Chi-square test||HR was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. 95% CIs were calculated based on individual Wald tests.|||1.05|0.49|= 0.089
91696921|NCT03806933|183287628|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.83|||Wald Chi-square test|P-values were based on Wald Chi-Square tests for hazard ratios.|HR was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. 95% CIs were calculated based on individual Wald tests.|||0.83|0.38|0.0035
91696922|NCT05088603|183287640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.106
91696923|NCT05088603|183287641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91696924|NCT05088603|183287642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91696925|NCT05088603|183287644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.529|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.529
91696926|NCT05088603|183287645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91696927|NCT05088603|183287646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.502
91696928|NCT05088603|183287647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.431
91696929|NCT05088603|183287648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.434
91696930|NCT05088603|183287649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.159
91696931|NCT05088603|183287650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
91696932|NCT02162719|183287661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.6||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.91||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with or without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.40|0.0372
91696933|NCT02162719|183287662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.59||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.16||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with or without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.30|0.1753
91728688|NCT02722330|183353135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||<0.0001
91728689|NCT02722330|183353135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||<0.0001
91728690|NCT02722330|183353135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||<0.0001
91696934|NCT02162719|183287663|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Unstratified Analysis)|0.76||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.46|0.3636
91728691|NCT02722330|183353135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||<0.0001
91728692|NCT02722330|183353136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.002
91728693|NCT02722330|183353137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0024
91728694|NCT02722330|183353138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 50 dB||||<0.0001
91728695|NCT02722330|183353138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 65 dB||||<0.0001
91728696|NCT02722330|183353138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 80 dB||||<0.0001
91728697|NCT02722330|183353139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||All variable had the same p value (\<0.0001).|Wolcoxon Signed rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 50 dB||||<0.0001
91728698|NCT02722330|183353139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 65 dB||||<0.0001
91728699|NCT02722330|183353139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 80 dB||||<0.0001
91728700|NCT02722330|183353140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.036
91728701|NCT02722330|183353141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.065
91728702|NCT02722330|183353142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||0.47
91728703|NCT02722330|183353142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||0.16
91728704|NCT02722330|183353142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||0.59
91728705|NCT02722330|183353142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||0.034
91728706|NCT02722330|183353142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||0.25
91728707|NCT02722330|183353142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||0.023
91728708|NCT02722330|183353142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||0.028
91866217|NCT04518943|183624051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|2.69|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares phq8 mental health scores in week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.69|-1.12|0.500
91866218|NCT04518943|183624051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|2.61|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24, and interactions between factors and weeks.||2.61|-1.43|0.631
91866219|NCT04518943|183624051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|1.44|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1.44|-2.69|0.620
91866220|NCT04518943|183624051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|2.12|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of pre-commitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.12|-1.77|0.886
91866221|NCT04518943|183624051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|-2.03|-2.03|1.88|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.88|-2.03|0.950
91866222|NCT04518943|183624051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.51|0.61|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 12. It compares phq mental health scores at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.61|-3.51|0.248
91866223|NCT04518943|183624051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|0.79|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 24. It compares phq mental health scores at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.79|-3.25|0.317
91696935|NCT02162719|183287664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.8||||0.3607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.28||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with/without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||1.28|0.50|0.3607
91696936|NCT02162719|183287665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.73||||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.65||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with/without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||1.65|0.32|0.4422
91696937|NCT02162719|183287666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Unstratified Analysis)|1.13||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.47|||Log Rank|||||2.47|0.52|0.7599
91866224|NCT04518943|183624052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1685.0|1616.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1616|-1685|0.972
91904602|NCT02248259|183704361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|87.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.839|99.452|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||99.452|77.839|
91904603|NCT02248259|183704361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.636|94.021|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||94.021|84.636|
91904604|NCT02248259|183704361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.592|97.396|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis of CD 13896||97.396|88.592|
91696938|NCT03854370|183287705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of all four groups prior to surgical scrub.||||0.23
91696939|NCT03854370|183287705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine post surgical scrub||||0.31
91696940|NCT03854370|183287705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Chlorhexidine versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.35
91696941|NCT03854370|183287705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.61
91696942|NCT03854370|183287706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of all four groups prior to surgical scrub||||.59
91696943|NCT03854370|183287706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.05
91696944|NCT03854370|183287706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.13
91696945|NCT03854370|183287706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post surgical scrub||||0.99
91696946|NCT03854370|183287707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of all four groups prior to surgical scrub||||0.45
91696947|NCT03854370|183287707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||all groups were negative for cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine post surgical scrub||||0.99
91696948|NCT03854370|183287707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post surgical scrub||||0.99
91696949|NCT03854370|183287707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post surgical scrub||||0.99
91728709|NCT02722330|183353142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||0.0075
91728710|NCT02722330|183353142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||0.0035
91728711|NCT02722330|183353143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||0.12
91728712|NCT02722330|183353143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||0.072
91728713|NCT02722330|183353143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||0.56
91728714|NCT02722330|183353143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||0.16
91728715|NCT02722330|183353143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||0.39
91728716|NCT02722330|183353143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||0.11
91728717|NCT02722330|183353143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||0.38
91728718|NCT02722330|183353143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||0.014
91696950|NCT03854370|183287708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine at post procedure||||0.61
91696951|NCT03854370|183287708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
91696952|NCT03854370|183287708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
91696953|NCT03854370|183287709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine at post procedure||||0.32
91728719|NCT02722330|183353143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||0.71
91728720|NCT02722330|183353144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.48
91728721|NCT02722330|183353145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.11
91696954|NCT03854370|183287709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
91696955|NCT03854370|183287709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post procedure||||0.50
91696956|NCT03854370|183287710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
91696957|NCT03854370|183287710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
91696958|NCT03854370|183287710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
91696959|NCT00394836|183287732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|31.0|||||Response rate is calculated as the number of responses divided by the number of participants treated \* 100.|||31|4|
91728722|NCT02722330|183353146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 50 dB||||0.017
91728723|NCT02722330|183353146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 65 dB||||0.095
91728724|NCT02722330|183353146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 80 dB||||0.57
91728725|NCT02722330|183353147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 50 dB||||0.096
91728726|NCT02722330|183353147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 65 dB||||1.00
91728727|NCT02722330|183353147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 80 dB||||0.41
91728728|NCT01755156|183353153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.34|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-0.34|-0.75|<0.001
91728729|NCT01755156|183353154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in 1 or more treatment groups.|||9.8|-8.8|
91728730|NCT01755156|183353155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.1|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in 1 or more treatment groups.|||1.1|-6.6|
91728731|NCT01755156|183353156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.3||||||||12.3|-3.3|
91728732|NCT01755156|183353157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|-14.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-3.4|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-3.4|-25.6|0.011
91728733|NCT01755156|183353158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-9.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-2.3|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-2.3|-16.7|0.010
91728734|NCT01755156|183353161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference (%)|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|28.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||28.0|10.1|<0.001
91728735|NCT01755156|183353162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference (%)|4.2||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||10.5|-1.8|0.164
91728736|NCT01755156|183353165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-27.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-10.8|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-10.8|-44.8|0.001
91696960|NCT00394836|183287732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|19.0||||||||19|5|
91696961|NCT03692325|183287751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91696962|NCT01560234|183287784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.0|||Regression, Linear||AUC (nmol\*h/L) 5 to 30 μg|||1.00|0.63|
91696963|NCT01560234|183287785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.04|||Regression, Linear||AUC(0-t) (nmol\*h/L) 5 to 30 μg|||1.04|0.65|
91696964|NCT01560234|183287786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.04|||Regression, Linear||Cmax (nmol/L) 0.5 to 30 μg|||1.04|0.87|
91696965|NCT01560234|183287787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|99.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.76|151.32|||ANCOVA||Cohort 1/0.15 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||151.32|65.76|
91696966|NCT01560234|183287787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|92.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.21|141.27|||ANCOVA||Cohort 2/1.5ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||141.27|61.21|
91696967|NCT01560234|183287787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|145.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.11|221.28|||ANCOVA||Cohort 4/5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||221.28|96.11|
91696968|NCT01560234|183287787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|106.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.42|169.93|||ANCOVA||Cohort 3/1.5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||169.93|66.42|
91696969|NCT01560234|183287787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|223.76||||||95.0|144.98|345.35|||ANCOVA||Cohort 5/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour plasma||345.35|144.98|
91696970|NCT01560234|183287787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|228.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|150.36|346.41|||ANCOVA||Cohort 7/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour plasma||346.41|150.36|
91696971|NCT01560234|183287787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|684.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|495.31|944.65|||ANCOVA||Cohort 6 and 8/30 μg vs Placebo|24 hour plasma||944.65|495.31|
91795946|NCT00145600|183470512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8663||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.8663
91696972|NCT01560234|183287788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|95.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|126.28|||ANCOVA||Cohort 1/0.15 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||126.28|72.70|
91696973|NCT01560234|183287788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|91.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.53|121.0|||ANCOVA||Cohort 2/0.5 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||121.00|69.53|
91696974|NCT01560234|183287788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|112.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.3|153.35|||ANCOVA||Cohort 3/1.5 ug vs Placebo|48 hour Plasma||153.35|82.30|
91696975|NCT01560234|183287788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|120.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.04|158.18|||ANCOVA||Cohort 4/5 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||158.18|91.04|
91696976|NCT01560234|183287788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|102.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.02|136.87|||ANCOVA||Cohort 5/15 ug vs Placebo|48 hour placebo||136.87|77.02|
91696977|NCT01560234|183287788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|146.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|111.39|193.62|||ANCOVA||Cohort 7/15 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||193.62|111.39|
91696978|NCT01560234|183287788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|240.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|193.82|297.28|||ANCOVA||Cohort 6 and 8/30 ug|48 hour plasma||297.28|193.82|
91696979|NCT01560234|183287790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|114.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.83|378.78|||ANCOVA||Cohort 1/0.15 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||378.78|34.83|
91696980|NCT01560234|183287790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|81.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.96|268.7|||ANCOVA||Cohort 2/0.5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||268.70|24.96|
91696981|NCT01560234|183287790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|81.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.63|322.42|||ANCOVA||Cohort 3/1.5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||322.42|20.63|
91696982|NCT01560234|183287790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|304.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.61|1209.33|||ANCOVA||Cohort 4/5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||1209.33|76.61|
91696983|NCT01560234|183287790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|193.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.01|636.49|||ANCOVA||Cohort 5/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||636.49|59.01|
91696984|NCT01560234|183287790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|467.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|142.77|1533.92|||ANCOVA||Cohort 7/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||1533.92|142.77|
91696985|NCT01560234|183287790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|1087.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|317.19|3727.57|||ANCOVA||Cohort 6 and 8/30 μg vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||3727.57|317.19|
91696986|NCT02028767|183287791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.662|102.639||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log scale: sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects; subjects within sequences as random effect"|||102.639|94.662|0.0000
91696987|NCT02028767|183287791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.783|102.796||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment as fixed effects"|Analysis with fixed effects for all terms||102.796|94.783|<0.0001
91696988|NCT02028767|183287792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.856|102.107||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects; subjects within sequences as random effect"|||102.107|95.856|0.0000
91728737|NCT01755156|183353166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|3.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.9|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||6.9|0.5|0.025
91728738|NCT01755156|183353168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier difference %|-1.2||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.7|||Log Rank|||||4.7|-7.0|0.654
91728739|NCT03142451|183353172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.749||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.68|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||3.68|0.75|0.0031
91795947|NCT00145600|183470512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91866225|NCT04518943|183624052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2428.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4134.0|-722.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery-based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||-722|-4134|0.019
91866226|NCT04518943|183624052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|418.0||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-999.0|1836.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1836|-999|0.627
91866227|NCT04518943|183624052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|195.0||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1417.0|1807.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of advice vs no advice factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1807|-1417|0.842
91866228|NCT06408870|183624059|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|103.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.08|106.75|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 9.0."|The statistical model applied was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with 'subjects within sequence' as a random effect and 'sequence,' 'period,' and 'treatment' as fixed effects.||106.75|101.08|
91866229|NCT06408870|183624060|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.83|110.01|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 14.5."|The statistical model applied was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with 'subjects within sequence' as a random effect and 'sequence,' 'period,' and 'treatment' as fixed effects.||110.01|100.83|
91866230|NCT06408870|183624061|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|103.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.95|106.65|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 9.1."|The statistical model applied was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with 'subjects within sequence' as a random effect and 'sequence,' 'period,' and 'treatment' as fixed effects.||106.65|100.95|
91904605|NCT02248259|183704361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.796|103.584|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||103.584|95.796|
91696989|NCT02028767|183287792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.877|102.15||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment as fixed effects"|Analysis with fixed effects for all terms||102.150|95.877|<0.0001
91866231|NCT04174170|183624072|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.03||||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|4.16|||MMRM|||||4.16|-2.09|0.5165
91866232|NCT04174170|183624072|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.71||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|2.46|||MMRM|||||2.46|-3.88|0.6593
91728740|NCT03142451|183353173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.434||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by Analysis Center||||1.434|1.022|0.0273
91866233|NCT04174170|183624073|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.03||||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.31||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.31|-0.25|0.8215
91866234|NCT04174170|183624073|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.03||||0.8584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.26||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.26|-0.31|0.8584
91904606|NCT02248259|183704361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|104.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.783|110.278|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||110.278|98.783|
91904607|NCT02248259|183704362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|93.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.377|108.217|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||108.217|80.377|
91904608|NCT02248259|183704362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|76.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.482|97.141|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||97.141|60.482|
91795948|NCT00145600|183470512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7626||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7626
91728741|NCT03142451|183353174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|1.425||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by Analysis Center||||1.425|1.028|0.0171
91795949|NCT00145600|183470512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795950|NCT00145600|183470513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4807||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4807
91795951|NCT00145600|183470513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795952|NCT00145600|183470513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0824||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0824
91866235|NCT04174170|183624074|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-4.16||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.69||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.69|-11.00|0.2331
91696990|NCT02028767|183287793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.549|102.156||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects; subjects within sequences as random effect"|||102.156|94.549|0.0000
91728742|NCT03142451|183353175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.626||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|12.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||12.77|2.46|0.0039
91696991|NCT02028767|183287793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.603|102.252|||ANOVA|The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment as fixed effects"|Analysis with fixed effects for all terms||102.252|94.603|<0.0001
91696992|NCT00083759|183287804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.089
91696993|NCT00083759|183287805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.171
91696994|NCT00083759|183287806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.526
91696995|NCT03567005|183287820|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 0.05. With a sample size of 36 (18 per sequence group), there was approximately 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in distance visual acuity with assumed standard deviation of 0.098 for paired difference (one-sided alpha=0.05).|Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.02||||||||0.02||
91696996|NCT03567005|183287821|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 1.0. With a sample size of 48 (24 per sequence group), there was approximately 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in subjective overall vision with assumed standard deviation of 2.29 for paired differences (one-sided alpha=0.05).|LSM Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||||||||-0.3|
91696997|NCT05338502|183287860|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean (LSM) Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|1.02|||ANOVA|||Fasted State||1.02|0.797|
91696998|NCT05338502|183287860|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.12|||ANOVA|||Fed state||1.12|0.876|
91696999|NCT05338502|183287861|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.05|||ANOVA|||Fasted state||1.05|0.829|
91697000|NCT05338502|183287861|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.888|1.13|||ANOVA|||Fed State||1.13|0.888|
91728743|NCT03142451|183353176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 4||4.09|1.16|0.0004
91728744|NCT03142451|183353176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 8||4.56|1.62|<0.0001
91728745|NCT03142451|183353177|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.685||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|2.616||P-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 4||2.616|1.085|0.0201
91728746|NCT03142451|183353177|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.191||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.492||P-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 8||1.492|0.951|0.1278
91697001|NCT05338502|183287863|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.985|||ANOVA|||Fasted State||0.985|0.680|
91697002|NCT05338502|183287863|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.782|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.645|0.949|||ANOVA|||Fed state||0.949|0.645|
91697003|NCT01290679|183287894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR12|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|41.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVR12 between the treatment groups.||41.2|23.3|<0.001
91697004|NCT01290679|183287895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|38.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVRW72 between the treatment groups.||38.5|20.2|<0.001
91697005|NCT01290679|183287896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR24|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|40.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||40.5|22.5|<0.001
91697006|NCT01290679|183287897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR4|32.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|41.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVR4 between the treatment groups.||41.0|23.5|<0.001
91697007|NCT01290679|183287924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-16.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3081||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1502|-4.4025|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC60||-4.4025|-29.1502|0.008
91758915|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.274||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|2.457||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/G||2.457|0.661|0.4663
91866236|NCT04174170|183624074|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-8.83||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.82|-1.85||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-1.85|-15.82|0.0134
91888752|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6379
91904609|NCT02248259|183704362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|78.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.304|92.052|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||92.052|67.304|
91697008|NCT01290679|183287924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-18.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4715||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4933|-4.1801|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC72||-4.1801|-33.4933|0.012
91728747|NCT00382863|183353195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Null hypothesis = proportion of subjects in treatment group who successfully achieved an improvement of at least 1.0 ml/kg/min at 6 months is less than or equal to the Control group. Subjects who withdrew for cardiac-related reasons were classified as non-responders.||||0.502
91728748|NCT00382863|183353196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||The null hypothesis = the proportion of subjects in the treatment group who successfully achieved an improvement of at least 45 m at 6 months from baseline is less than or equal to that of the Control group. Withdrawals due to cardiac reasons are counted as non-responders.||||0.044
91728749|NCT00382863|183353197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||The null hypothesis = the proportion of treatment subjects who successfully achieved an improvement of at least 7 points at 6 months is equal to or less than that of the control group. Withdrawals due to cardiac reasons are counted as non-responders.||||0.184
91728750|NCT00382863|183353198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated survival for the treatment group was 93%. Estimated survival for the control group was 91.5%. A non-inferiority margin of 7.5%. Final test alpha level of 0.04825.||||||0.012|||||||Exact binomial test|One-sided||The null hypothesis = survival in the treatment group at 12 months is not equivalent to that of the Control group.||||0.012
91728751|NCT00382863|183353199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Class change from baseline.||||0.052
91728752|NCT00382863|183353200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91728753|NCT00382863|183353201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.032
91728754|NCT00382863|183353202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Improvement of at least 1.0 ml/kg/min from baseline.||||0.540
91728755|NCT00382863|183353203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Improvement of at least 45 m from baseline.||||0.067
91728756|NCT00382863|183353204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Improvement of at least 7 points from baseline.||||0.031
91728757|NCT00382863|183353205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier actuarial time-to-first-event analysis||||0.109
91728758|NCT00382863|183353206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.031
91728759|NCT00382863|183353207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.179
91728760|NCT00382863|183353208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.070
91728761|NCT00382863|183353209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.015
91728762|NCT00382863|183353210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.032
91728763|NCT00382863|183353212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.627
91728764|NCT00382863|183353213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.386
91697009|NCT01290679|183287925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-282.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.4927||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.1252|-75.1949|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC60||-75.1949|-489.1252|0.008
91697010|NCT01290679|183287925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-324.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.026||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-567.708|-81.0182|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC72||-81.0182|-567.7080|0.009
91728765|NCT00382863|183353214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.154
91728766|NCT00382863|183353215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||1.000
91728767|NCT00382863|183353216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.939
91728768|NCT00382863|183353217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.012
91728769|NCT00382863|183353218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
91728770|NCT00382863|183353219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.772
91728771|NCT01879826|183353239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|With a power of 0.8 and an acceptable type I error size of 0.05, 38 patients per group was estimated to achieve significance||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
91728772|NCT01879826|183353240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|With a power of 0.8 and an acceptable type I error size of 0.05, 38 patients per group was estimated to achieve significance.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91728773|NCT02197065|183353261|OTHER||Proportion|0.2|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||This was a pilot feasibility study and we were only powered to determine the frequency of troponin elevation in the entire study population, not to compare the frequency of a rise in troponin in the two study arms. Thus Aim 1 applies to the entire study cohort.||||
91728774|NCT02197065|183353262|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91728775|NCT02197065|183353263|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91728776|NCT01651208|183353265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We hypothesized that in the MINT group, at least 70% of subjects will reach an MPR of 0.80 while in the DVD group, the proportion will remain at or below 55%. Our sample size estimates showed that, using a conservative 2-sided test at the 5% Alpha level and a 90% power, we will be able to detect a significant 15% difference (70% - 55%) with a sample of 217 in each study group.||||<0.01
91728777|NCT01651208|183353266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean MMAS-4 score is similar in both intervention arms||||<0.01
91728778|NCT01837550|183353310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To ensure a between-group effect of 80% at the 5% significance level it was estimated that 60 participants need to be included in the study. An effect size of Cohen's d=0.80 was expected. The expected standardized mean difference on the HHIE formed the basis for the obtained power.||||||0.685|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.685
91866237|NCT00412607|183624207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of mortality|13.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||17.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval is a one-sided with upper confidence level = 17.5% computed using the exact binomial test.|"Assumptions for sample size calculation: 10% attrition rate, Type I error of 0.05, anticipated 12-month mortality rate is 0.19, a region of indifference of 0.07, power of 0.8; the required sample size is 249 per nQuery Exact test for single proportion method.~The null hypothesis is that the 12-month mortality rate is greater than or equal to 0.26; the alternative is that the rate is less than 0.26. This hypothesis is evaluated with one-sided exact binomial test at α= 0.05."||17.5||
91866238|NCT04675034|183624217|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.968|0.67|||ANCOVA|Least Square (LS) mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.670|-0.968|0.360
91866239|NCT04675034|183624217|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.619|0.027|||ANCOVA|Least Square mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% CIs are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.027|-1.619|0.029
91866240|NCT04675034|183624217|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|0.009|||ANCOVA|Least Square mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% CIs are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.009|-1.618|0.026
91866241|NCT04675034|183624217|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.423|0.245|||ANCOVA|Least Square mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% CIs are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.245|-1.423|0.083
91697011|NCT01290679|183287926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Differences|-282.436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.9894||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-488.415|-76.4566|||Piecewise linear model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC60||-76.4566|-488.4150|0.007
91728779|NCT02633527|183353342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.0|-13.4|0.0899
91904610|NCT02248259|183704362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|95.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.092|111.964|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||111.964|81.092|
91697012|NCT01290679|183287926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-329.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|123.408||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-571.3389|-87.0695|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC72||-87.0695|-571.3389|0.008
91728780|NCT02633527|183353342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-0.7|||ANOVA|||||-0.7|-15.1|0.0310
91904611|NCT02248259|183704362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|86.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.731|93.309|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||93.309|80.731|
91697013|NCT01290679|183287927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-186.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|121.4741||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-425.4109|51.7059|||Piecewise linear model|||Time Missed from Work AUC60||51.7059|-425.4109|0.125
91697014|NCT01290679|183287927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-188.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|141.1702||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.507|89.104|||Piecewise linear model|||Time Missed from Work AUC72||89.1040|-465.5070|0.183
91697015|NCT04431908|183287928|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Specificity|89.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866242|NCT04024059|183624256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.737|||=|0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|4.195|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.195|0.719|=0.22
91866243|NCT04024059|183624256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.035|||=|0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|2.461|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.461|0.435|=0.938
91866244|NCT04024059|183624257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.783|||=|0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|4.336|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.336|0.733|=0.202
91866245|NCT04024059|183624257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||=|0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|3.336|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.336|0.571|=.474
91866246|NCT04024059|183624258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.669|||=|0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|1.497|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.497|0.299|=0.328
91904612|NCT02248259|183704362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|107.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.764|125.812|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||125.812|91.764|
91728781|NCT02633527|183353342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-0.9|||ANOVA|||||-0.9|-15.3|0.0268
91728782|NCT02633527|183353342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-1.3|||ANOVA|||||-1.3|-15.8|0.0209
91728783|NCT02633527|183353343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-1.0|0.1305
91866247|NCT04024059|183624258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.724|||=|0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.627|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.627|0.322|=0.435
91866248|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Accuracy|0.6587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.7408||||||||0.7408|0.5690|
91866249|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.8736|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866250|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Specificity|0.4872|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866251|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.7917|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866252|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.6333|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866253|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.1212|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866254|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Specificity|0.9032|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866255|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.3077|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866256|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.7434|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866257|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866258|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Specificity|0.8833|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866259|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.1765|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866260|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.9725|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866261|NCT03512301|183624315|OTHER||Quadratic Weighted Kappa|0.4446|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2791|0.6101||||||||0.6101|0.2791|
91866262|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER|Linear Regression. Power calculations for linear regression between CAMCI and MoCA were found to be sufficiently powered with a Pearson's R of at least 0.3 at 80% power and that equated to a test-set size of 98.|Pearson Correlation|0.5073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3892|0.6091|||||Linear Regression Equation: \[CAMCI Score\] = -5.42 + 1.40 X \[MoCA Score\]|||0.6091|0.3892|
91866263|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Accuracy|0.5556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4644|0.644||||||||0.6440|0.4644|
91866264|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.9747|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866265|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Specificity|0.3913|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866266|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.5625|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866267|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866268|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.1905|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866269|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Specificity|0.9841|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866270|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.9231|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866271|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.5487|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866272|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.6667|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91728784|NCT02633527|183353343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-1.0|0.1376
91866273|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Specificity|0.8917|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866274|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.2353|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91904613|NCT02248259|183704363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|113.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.505|128.427|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||128.427|100.505|
91728785|NCT02633527|183353343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.0090
91728786|NCT02633527|183353343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||||0.0|-1.1|0.0546
91728787|NCT02633527|183353344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.3|0.0708
91728788|NCT02633527|183353344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.4|0.0309
91728789|NCT02633527|183353344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.5|0.0148
91728790|NCT02633527|183353344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.6|0.0136
91866275|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.9817|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866276|NCT03512301|183624316|OTHER||Quadratic Weighted Kappa|0.3931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2401|0.5461||||||||0.5461|0.2401|
91866277|NCT02231749|183624340|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|22.2|||DerSimonian and Laird Test|||||22.2|9.8|<0.0001
91866278|NCT02231749|183624341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.44|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.44|<0.0001
91866279|NCT02231749|183624342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|99.1|0.64|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.64|0.0331
91866280|NCT02231749|183624343|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|7.2||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.7|||DerSimonian and Laird Test|||||12.7|1.8|0.0191
91866281|NCT02231749|183624344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.49|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.49|0.0003
91866282|NCT02231749|183624345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|99.1|0.79|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.79|0.8498
91866283|NCT04602611|183624348|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of negative binomial model|0.0547||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|0.4773||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Negative binomial|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; coefficient was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated coefficient was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|The study was designed with co-primary objectives evaluating acute care utilization (ACU) and 6-month OS rate. Power/sample size were calculated based on the OS objective. The overall type I error rate was alpha=0.05; the co-primary objectives were powered at the 2-sided alpha=0.025 significance level. Three hundred evaluable subjects would have provided \>=93% power to detect a 20% reduction in ACU (assuming there were 6 ACUs per year in SOC arm). The study did not achieve targeted enrollment.||0.4773|-0.3680|0.80
91866284|NCT04602611|183624349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made in this analysis.||The study was designed with co-primary objectives evaluating acute care utilization (ACU) and 6-month OS rate. Power/sample size were calculated based on the OS objective. The overall type I error rate was alpha=0.05; the co-primary objectives were powered at the 2-sided alpha=0.025 significance level. Three hundred evaluable subjects would have provided \>=93% power to detect a 20% reduction in ACU (assuming there were 6 ACUs per year in SOC arm). The study did not achieve targeted enrollment.|The proportions of evaluable subjects surviving at 6 months were analyzed in a 2x2 contingency table using Fisher's Exact test. In the SOC arm, 52/87(60%) evaluable subjects were alive at 6 months and 35/87 (40%) were not. In the ONN + SOC arm, 58/95 (61%) evaluable subjects were alive at 6 months and 37/95 (39%) were not. The p-value estimated using Fisher's Exact test on this 2x2 contingency table was p=0.88.|||0.88
91866285|NCT04602611|183624350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made in this analysis.|||The proportions of evaluable subjects surviving at 12 months were analyzed in a 2x2 contingency table using Fisher's Exact test. In the SOC arm, 23/87(26%) evaluable subjects were alive at 12 months and 64/87(74%) were not. In the ONN + SOC arm, 28/95 (29%) evaluable subjects were alive at 6 months and 67/95 (71%) were not. The p-value estimated using Fisher's Exact test on this 2x2 contingency table was p=0.74.|||0.74
91866286|NCT04602611|183624351|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of negative binomial model|0.1574||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3905|0.7054||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Negative binomial|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; coefficient was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated coefficient was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.7054|-0.3905|0.57
91866287|NCT04602611|183624352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.309||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank|Unadjusted log-rank test|The estimated hazard ratio was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care; the model was estimated without adjustments (the sole covariate was treatment).|||1.309|0.570|0.45
91866288|NCT04602611|183624353|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of negative binomial model|-0.4194||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0763|0.2374||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Negative binomial|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; coefficient was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated coefficient was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.2374|-1.0763|0.21
91904614|NCT02248259|183704363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|87.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.763|99.37|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||99.370|77.763|
91697016|NCT04431908|183287928|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Sensitivity|42.55|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91795953|NCT00145600|183470513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795954|NCT00145600|183470513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0496||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0496
91795955|NCT00145600|183470513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91904615|NCT02248259|183704363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.478|93.859|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||93.859|84.478|
91904616|NCT02248259|183704363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.278|96.889|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||96.889|88.278|
91697017|NCT04431908|183287928|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Accuracy|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91697018|NCT04431908|183287930|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Specificity|88.73|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91697019|NCT04431908|183287930|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Sensitivity|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91697020|NCT04431908|183287930|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Accuracy|88.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91697021|NCT00554515|183287974|SUPERIORITY|Comparison against historical control ORR of 14%.||||||0.042|||||||exact binomial test|||||||0.042
91697022|NCT00554515|183287975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between ISM good and poor risk subgroups. ISM good risk ORR reported under primary endpoint.||||0.39
91697023|NCT00554515|183287976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||exact binomial test|||Test against the historical ORR was conducted in the overall study population as secondary analyses.||||0.0014
91697024|NCT00554515|183287979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between MSKCC subgroups.||||.89
91697025|NCT00554515|183287981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between tumor type subgroups||||.33
91697026|NCT00554515|183287982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between clear cell histology subgroups||||.89
91697027|NCT00554515|183287983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between CA-9 score subgroups||||.19
91697028|NCT00554515|183287984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between PD-L1 tumor subgroups||||0.01
91697029|NCT00554515|183287985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between B7-H3 tumor subgroups||||.08
91697030|NCT00554515|183287986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between CA-9 SNP subgroups||||.28
91728791|NCT06091956|183353346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||McNemar|||||||0.008
91795956|NCT00145600|183470514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0157||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0157
91795957|NCT00145600|183470514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795958|NCT00145600|183470514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0014
91795959|NCT00145600|183470514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91866289|NCT04602611|183624354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|6.15||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was estimated without adjustments (the sole covariate was treatment).|The estimated odds ratio was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||6.15|1.75|<0.01
91866290|NCT04602611|183624355|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.6939||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9538|0.5659||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; slope was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated slope was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.5659|-5.9538|0.11
91866291|NCT04602611|183624356|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1197||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0315|0.4378||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|This univariate model was not adjusted for other covariates; this model was estimated using 84 degrees of freedom.|The estimated slope was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.4378|-0.0315|0.09
91866292|NCT03839446|183624373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.65|||Regression, Cox||Intermediate / Favorable vs Poor|Cytogenetic status||3.65|0.18|0.777
91866293|NCT03839446|183624373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||Percent of blasts present in the bone marrow.||1.01|0.96|0.200
91866294|NCT03839446|183624373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||% CD33 expression in leukemia blasts||0.99|0.94|0.014
91866295|NCT03839446|183624374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.86|||Regression, Cox||Intermediate / Favorable vs Poor|Cytogenetic status||3.86|0.17|0.801
91866296|NCT03839446|183624374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||% bone marrow blasts||1.01|0.95|0.168
91728792|NCT06091956|183353347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.629
91904617|NCT02248259|183704363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.791|103.583|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||103.583|95.791|
91904618|NCT02248259|183704363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|104.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.861|110.336|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||110.336|98.861|
91728793|NCT06091956|183353350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.175
91728794|NCT06091956|183353351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91728795|NCT00318136|183353357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of patients|3.2||||||90.0|0.3|13.5|||Blyth-Still-Casella|||||13.5|0.3|
91728796|NCT02844075|183353402|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||For sample size calculation, Minimax design to evaluate the null hypothesis that the true pCR rate will be 10% and the alternative hypothesis that the pCR rate≥ 30%, with type I error (α) level of 10% and type II error (β) of 0.10. If 1 or more successes are observed in the first 16 patients, accrual for that stratum will be continued until a total of 25 patients. If, of these 25 patients, 5 or more pCR, an additional investigation is warranted. Allowing for a follow-up loss rate of 10 %, the total sample size is expected as 28. For biomarker evaluation, the categorical groups were investigated to evaluated possible association with response and/or survival. Associations were analyzed by χ2 test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze survival outcomes (EFS, OS, and DFS). To compare PD-L1 expression between paired pre- and post-neoadjuvant treatment with associated of pCR, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||
91728797|NCT03163264|183353408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.45||"Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance. Note: Estimated p-value was calculated at 0.050"|Mixed Models Analysis|This analysis was in our grant and protocol paper but was added late to clinicaltrials.gov.||||3.45|0|0.050
91728798|NCT03163264|183353408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance. Note: Estimated p-value was calculated at 0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The investigators will also use repeated measures modeling based on mixed models using baseline and follow up data to adjust for characteristics||||||0.05
91795960|NCT00145600|183470514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1478||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1478
91795961|NCT00145600|183470514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795962|NCT00145600|183470515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0831||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0831
91795963|NCT00145600|183470515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.25||||0.0027||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0027
91866297|NCT03839446|183624374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||% CD33 expression in leukemia blasts||0.99|0.94|0.015
91866298|NCT03142009|183624385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.04|-.45|.021
91866299|NCT03142009|183624386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-.01|.075
91866300|NCT04319887|183624387|OTHER||||||||||||||||||statistical analysis section may be deleted|||
91866301|NCT03982186|183624397|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|-2.3|||=|0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.97|1.38|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.38|-5.97|= 0.848
91866302|NCT03982186|183624397|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|7.4|||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|13.68|||Mantel Haenszel|||||13.68|1.07|= 0.027
91866303|NCT03982186|183624397|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|9.1|||=|0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.16|14.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||||14.07|4.16|= 0.917
91866304|NCT03982186|183624397|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|-6.7|||=|0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.67|1.25|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.25|-14.67|= 0.917
91866305|NCT04039113|183624470|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.06||1-sided p-value|Negative Binomial|||||1.06|0.64|0.1042
91866306|NCT04039113|183624470|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11||2-sided p-value|Negative Binomial|||||1.11|0.61|0.2085
91866307|NCT00353496|183624482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.73||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified according to progression status at baseline and prior therapy.||||0.73|0.30|<0.001
91866308|NCT02502266|183624597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|0.995|||||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib and Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib and Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Experimental regimens with at least a 17% reduction in the estimated PFS event rate (compared to standard chemotherapy) (HR estimate \< 0.83) were recommended for further evaluation in the phase III trial.||0.995|0.424|
91866309|NCT02502266|183624597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.284|||||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Experimental regimens with at least a 17% reduction in the estimated PFS event rate (compared to standard chemotherapy) (HR estimate \< 0.83) were recommended for further evaluation in the phase III trial.||1.284|0.539|
91866310|NCT02502266|183624597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.773|||||The hazard ratio estimate compares Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Experimental regimens with at least a 17% reduction in the estimated PFS event rate (compared to standard chemotherapy) (HR estimate \< 0.83) were recommended for further evaluation in the phase III trial.||1.773|0.745|
91866311|NCT02502266|183624598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.597|1.06||The log rank test was stratified by the factors provided at randomization|Log Rank||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib and Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib and Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.060|0.597|0.145
91866312|NCT02502266|183624598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||1|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.726|1.0|||Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified by the factors provided at randomization.|The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.00|0.726|1.0
91866313|NCT02502266|183624599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.771|1.368||No p-values are provided because testing each of these null hypotheses was conditioned on first rejecting hypothesis concerning PFS.|||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib and Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib and Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.368|0.771|
91866314|NCT02502266|183624599|OTHER|No p-values are provided because testing each of these null hypotheses was conditioned on first rejecting hypothesis concerning PFS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.795|1.413||No p-values are provided because testing each of these null hypotheses was conditioned on first rejecting hypothesis concerning PFS.|||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.413|0.795|
91866315|NCT05030584|183624682|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS-means|-1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.05||The type I error rate was controlled at a one-sided α=0.025 level.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||"For category Change from baseline."||-1.05|-2.04|<0.0001
91866316|NCT02532621|183624702|NON_INFERIORITY|"Cumulative patency at 6 months was evaluated using the estimated patency from a Kaplan Meier survival analysis. The test statistic took the following form:~Z-test statistic = (P - 0.75) / SE (P) Where, (P) represents the Kaplan Meier estimate of cumulative patency at 6 months, and the standard error SE (P) is estimated using the method of Peto et al (1977)."|Cumulative patency|92.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||A one-sided p-value of 0.025 was considered evidence of statistical significance for the primary study endpoint.|one-sided binomial exact test|||"The primary endpoint was evaluated by comparison with a performance goal of 75% that was determined from medical literature.~The sample size of 158 patients was estimated as follows:~* Kaplan-Meier estimate of cumulative patency rate at 6 months (exact binomial estimation for sample size)~* Type I error (alpha): 0.025 (one-sided)~* 80% Statistical power~* 8% Lost-to-follow up rate"||||<0.001
91904619|NCT01180478|183704372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||Log Rank|||The expected recurrence rate in the WL-assisted TURBT group was 35%.14 To detect a clinically relevant difference in recurrence detection rates ≥10% at a 5% significance level and a power of 80%, the required sample size per treatment was calculated to be 329 patients (658 patients in total).||||0.585
91904620|NCT01180478|183704373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.742
91795964|NCT00145600|183470515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0135||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0135
91866317|NCT00709956|183624733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.5||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|9.4||If the primary endpoint reaches significance, treatment effect of the secondary endpoint is determined at a 2-sided nominal of 0.05. Since hierarchy of the endpoints to be tested has been predefined, no correction for multiple testing will be applied|Generalized linear model|Subject (sequence), treatment, and period as fixed effect||With a sample size of at least 63 patients and based on the assumptions on the primary endpoint (normal distribution, SD of the difference of 30 m) the study was designed to detect a significant treatment effect with 90% power, assuming a difference exceeding 12.5 m between the mean values of the 6MWD following the iloprost power 15 treatment and the one following the placebo treatment.||9.4|-12.3|0.7883
91866318|NCT04079517|183624736|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing mean difference in symptom score (95% confidence intervals). Post hoc analysis. Not powered, but to give an indication of differences between standard dose (20mg) and the non-approved dose (10mg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Post hoc analysis. Not powered, but to give an indication on differences in symptom score between standard dose (20mg) and the non-approved dose (10mg).||Post hoc analysis. Not powered, but to give an indication on differences between standard dose (20mg) and the non-approved dose (10mg).|||
91795965|NCT00145600|183470515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.27||||0.0024||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0024
91866319|NCT04940624|183624737|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-15.64|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|0.24||The p-value was calculated by Rank Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model using treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||0.24|-31.30|=0.061
91866320|NCT04940624|183624738|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-14.29|||=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.51|1.53||The p-value was calculated by the Rank ANCOVA model using treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||1.53|-30.51|=0.089
91866321|NCT04940624|183624739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years).||||7.96|1.30|=0.010
91866322|NCT04940624|183624740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was based on CMH test stratified by age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years).||||9.49|1.36|=0.008
91866323|NCT04940624|183624742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.72|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||||4.72|1.33|=0.004
91866324|NCT04940624|183624743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.87|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||||4.87|1.37|=0.003
91866325|NCT04940624|183624744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||=|0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.26|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||Alertness||2.26|0.56|=0.741
91866326|NCT04940624|183624744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||=|0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.02|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||Communication||2.02|0.54|=0.901
91866327|NCT04940624|183624744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||=|0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.28|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||Disruptive Behaviors||2.28|0.58|=0.693
91866328|NCT04940624|183624745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.03|||=|0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|1.52||P-value was based on MMRM analysis with change from baseline as outcome and baseline score as fixed continuous effect; treatment group, age stratum, analysis visit, and analysis visit by treatment group interaction as fixed categorical effects.|MMRM|||||1.52|-7.59|=0.189
91866329|NCT04940624|183624746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|7.13|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||||7.13|1.87|<0.001
91866330|NCT04940624|183624747|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-9.97|||=|0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.01|7.87|||ANCOVA|The Rank ANCOVA model used treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||7.87|-29.01|=0.565
91866331|NCT04940624|183624748|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-8.13|||=|0.637|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-26.31|10.13|||ANCOVA|The Rank ANCOVA model used treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||10.13|-26.31|=0.637
91697031|NCT03139578|183288000|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.625 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of 0.625, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Cumulative Odds Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.06|||Generalized linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was utilized to address the multiple comparisons of different base curves.|Cumulative odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.06|0.46|
91866332|NCT04940624|183624749|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|5.4|||||A linear model with treatment group and age stratum as factors and baseline percentage as a covariate was used for analysis.|||5.40|-3.81|
91866333|NCT04940624|183624750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.2||||||||11.2|0.1|
91866334|NCT04940624|183624751|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.0|||||Least square mean difference was estimated using a linear model with treatment group and age stratum as factors.|||1.0|-3.1|
91866335|NCT04479787|183624752|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||<0.0001
91866336|NCT04479787|183624753|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||< 0.0001
91866337|NCT04479787|183624754|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
91866338|NCT04479787|183624755|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
91866339|NCT04479787|183624756|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||<0.0001
91866340|NCT04479787|183624757|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||<0.0001
91866341|NCT04479787|183624758|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
91866342|NCT04479787|183624759|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
91866343|NCT05648890|183624760|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between MMSE and TEGEST test before operation.||||<0.0001
91866344|NCT05648890|183624761|OTHER|Spearman's ran correlation coefficient was used .|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's ran correlation coefficient|Spearman's ran correlation coefficient was used for correlation between two quantities.||Correlation between MMSE and TEGEST after operation||||< .001
91866345|NCT05648890|183624762|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between TEGEST and Clock drawing test before operation.|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||<0.0001
91866346|NCT05648890|183624763|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between TEGEST and clock drawing test after operation.||||<0.001
91866347|NCT05648890|183624764|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficien|||Correlation between MMSE and Clock drawing test before operation.||||<0.001
91697032|NCT03139578|183288000|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.625 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of 0.625, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Cumulative Odds Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.52|||Generalized linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was utilized to address the multiple comparisons of different base curves.|Cumulative odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||2.52|0.34|
91697033|NCT03139578|183288001|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 70% was used for no difference in lens power requirement.|Proportion (%)|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|81.1|98.1|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||98.1|81.1|
91697034|NCT03139578|183288001|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 70% was used for no difference in lens power requirement.|Proportion (%)|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|68.3|92.1|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||92.1|68.3|
91866348|NCT05648890|183624764|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test before operation.||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Clock drawing before operation.||||0.023
91866349|NCT05648890|183624765|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between Clock drawing test and MMSE after operation.||||<0.0001
91866350|NCT05648890|183624766|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation of Clinical frailty scale with MMSE before operation.||||<0.0001
91866351|NCT05648890|183624766|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation of Clinical frailty scale with TEGEST before operation.||||<0.0001
91866352|NCT05648890|183624766|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation of Clinical frailty scale with Clock drawing test before operation.||||<0.0001
91866353|NCT05648890|183624767|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.562|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Respondents living at a house or in apartment and relationships with Clinical frailty scale.||||.562
91866354|NCT05648890|183624768|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test was used.||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Respondents living with with family or alone and relationship with Clinical frailty scale.||||0.129
91866355|NCT05648890|183624769|OTHER|Mann-Whintney test was used.||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Relationship between respondents living at home with stairs and respondents living at home with an elevator and Clinical frailty scale.||||0.019
91866356|NCT05550636|183624770|OTHER||adjusted gMean Ratio (%)|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.3|107.4|||||Adjusted gMean ratio of test/reference (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 23.9%|The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoint was logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model includes effects accounting for the sources of variation: treatment. The effect 'subjects' is considered as random, whereas the treatment effect is considered as fixed. Quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval.||107.4|79.3|
91866357|NCT05550636|183624771|OTHER||adjusted gmean Ratio (%)|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.9|88.2|||||Adjusted gMean ratio of test/reference (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 19.4%|The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoint was logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model includes effects accounting for the sources of variation: treatment. The effect 'subjects' is considered as random, whereas the treatment effect is considered as fixed. Quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval.||88.2|68.9|
91866358|NCT05550636|183624772|OTHER||adjusted gmean Ratio (%)|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.9|104.9|||||Adjusted gMean ratio of test/reference (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 24.4|The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoint was logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model includes effects accounting for the sources of variation: treatment. The effect 'subjects' is considered as random, whereas the treatment effect is considered as fixed. Quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval.||104.9|76.9|
91866359|NCT06393127|183624835|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.07|111.36|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of T / adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 18.8|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects within sequences as random effect, sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||111.36|99.07|
91904621|NCT01180478|183704374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|The analysis was performed by using the Fisher exact test, because the criteria for using the Chi square test were not met.||The statistical analyses refers to comparison of the different 8 categories (one variable) mentioned of the Clavien grading of perioperative complications between Narrow Band Imaging and White Light Trans Urethral Resection.||||0.170
91728799|NCT03163264|183353409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|3.39||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|This analysis was in our grant and protocol paper but was added late to clinicaltrials.gov.||||3.39|-0.13|0.069
91758916|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867||||0.7097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|1.848||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/A||1.848|0.406|0.7097
91866360|NCT06393127|183624836|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|113.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.7|125.05|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of T / adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 32.8|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects within sequences as random effect, sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||125.05|102.70|
91728800|NCT03163264|183353409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.76||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The investigators will also use repeated measures modeling based on mixed models using baseline and follow up data to adjust for characteristics||||3.76|0.21|0.028
91728801|NCT03163264|183353410|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|11.18||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|21.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.45|0.92|0.033
91728802|NCT03163264|183353411|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|11.08||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|23.2||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted|||23.2|-1.05|0.073
91728803|NCT03163264|183353413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.48||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|-0.05|0.065
91728804|NCT03163264|183353414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.37||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|-0.52|0.378
91728805|NCT03163264|183353416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.25|154.95||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||154.95|-138.25|0.911
91728806|NCT03163264|183353417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.83||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.15|173.81||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||173.81|-108.15|0.648
91728807|NCT03163264|183353418|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|10.32||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.73|70.37||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||70.37|-49.73|0.736
91728808|NCT03163264|183353419|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|19.36||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.09|79.8||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||79.8|-41.09|0.53
91728809|NCT04565756|183353438|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Since the primary objective of the study was to evaluate ocular safety and tolerability, no formal hypothesis testing was performed for any continuous or categorical variables. All statistical analyses were descriptive in nature and any statistical inferences were carried out according to the analysis plan and interpreted in view of the exploratory nature of the study.|Since the primary objective of the study was to evaluate ocular safety and tolerability, no formal hypothesis testing was performed for any continuous or categorical variables.|||
91866361|NCT06393127|183624837|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|104.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.1|111.14|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of T / adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 18.5|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects within sequences as random effect, sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||111.14|99.10|
91866362|NCT02446600|183624838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.105||The p-value is one-sided. Per the protocol, the statistical significance threshold was \<0.025. Type 1 error was controlled using hierarchical testing strategy.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified by the minimization factors provided at randomization|The hazard ratio estimate compares olaparib+cedirinib to chemotherapy. If olaparib+cedirinib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm II was suspended for futility at the interim analysis so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.105|0.663|0.077
91728810|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.07|0.61|
91728811|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.87|
91728812|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.96||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.96|1.03|
91728813|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.84|0.46|
91728814|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.20|0.66|
91728815|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.04||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.04|1.02|
91728816|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.32|0.82|
91795966|NCT00145600|183470515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9848||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.9848
91904622|NCT01180478|183704375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the numbers in 'Bleeding' between NBI and WL||||0.311
91728817|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.39||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.86|
91795967|NCT00145600|183470515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.16||||0.0974||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0974
91795968|NCT00145600|183470516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0040
91866363|NCT00357682|183624849|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.24||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57|||Accelerated Failure Time|||Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) analysis comparing time to primary event in low dose PPI (20mg) patients to high dose PPI (80mg) patients. Included in AFT model are stratification factors (Barrett's length, age group and presence of baseline intestinal metaplasia) and aspirin randomisation group.||1.57|0.98|0.068
91728818|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.39||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.79|
91728819|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.34||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.34|0.77|
91728820|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.79|
91866364|NCT00357682|183624849|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.27||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.58|||Accelerated Failure Time|||Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) analysis comparing time to primary event in aspirin patients to non-aspirin patients. Included in AFT model are stratification factors (Barrett's length, age group and presence of baseline intestinal metaplasia) and PPI randomisation group.||1.58|1.01|0.037
91866365|NCT00357682|183624850|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.36||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.82|||Accelerated Failure Time|||All recordings of death, regardless of the cause are used in this analysis and both PPI groups are compared.||1.82|1.01|0.039
91697035|NCT03139578|183288001|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 80% was used for the lens power requirement difference within ±0.25 D.|Proportion (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|90.5|100.0|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||100|90.5|
91697036|NCT03139578|183288001|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 80% was used for the lens power requirement difference within ±0.25 D.|Proportion (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|90.5|100.0|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||100.0|90.5|
91697037|NCT03139578|183288002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.7|-0.3|
91697038|NCT03139578|183288002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.5|-0.5|
91697039|NCT03139578|183288003|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.3|-0.4|
91697040|NCT03139578|183288003|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.5|-0.2|
91697041|NCT03139578|183288004|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.4|-0.1|
91697042|NCT03139578|183288004|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.3|-0.2|
91697043|NCT03139578|183288005|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.5|-0.5|
91697044|NCT03139578|183288005|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.4|-0.6|
91697045|NCT03139578|183288006|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.1 was used. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was lower than a non-inferiority margin of 0.1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.012|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.012|-0.009|
91728821|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.4||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.40|0.74|
91728822|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.97|0.57|
91866366|NCT00357682|183624850|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.25||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.7|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 163 deaths in the aspirin comparison with all-cause mortality as the endpoint. Median follow-up is 8.9 years IQR: (8.2 , 10.0) Range: (0 , 11.5)||1.70|0.92|0.159
91866367|NCT00357682|183624851|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.04||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 81 diagnoses in the PPI dose comparison with adenocarcinoma oesophageal cancer as the endpoint. Median follow-up is 8.7 years IQR: (8.1 , 9.9)||1.61|0.67|0.864
91866368|NCT00357682|183624851|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.02||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.64|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 70 diagnoses of adenocarcinoma in the aspirin comparison. Median follow-up is 8.8 years, IQR: (8.1 , 10), Range: (0 , 11.5)||1.64|0.64|0.921
91866369|NCT00357682|183624852|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant.|Time Ratio|1.36||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.02|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 103 such diagnoses in the PPI dose comparison. Median follow-up is 8.7 years IQR: (8.1 , 9.9) Range: (0 , 11.48)||2.02|0.92|0.119
91697046|NCT03139578|183288006|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.1 was used. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was lower than a non-inferiority margin of 0.1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|-0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.009|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.009|-0.012|
91728823|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.11|0.65|
91728824|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMCratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.56|0.84|
91866370|NCT00357682|183624852|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.51||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.29|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are a total of 92 conversions to HGD in the aspirin comparison. Median follow-up is 8.8 years IQR (8.1 , 10.0) Range (0 , 11.5)||2.29|1.00|0.053
91866371|NCT04955431|183624914|OTHER|We performed a 2-way Repeated Measures ANOVA to compare changes in blood IL-6 levels from baseline to post simulated firefighting on control days (Normal Sleep) and experimental days (Sleep Restriction).|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91728825|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.94||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.94|0.97|
91728826|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.55||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.55|0.78|
91728827|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.19|0.54|
91758917|NCT00265317|183410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.607||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|3.158||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: A/A||3.158|0.117|0.5340
91866372|NCT04955431|183624915|OTHER|RM-ANOVA|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91866373|NCT02112916|183624932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.091|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = hazard rate for Arm B/hazard rate for Arm A|To compare the EFS of the randomized patients (T-ALL+T-LLy) on Arm A vs Arm B. Study was designed to accrue 1200 eligible, evaluable randomized patients (to provide 90.5% power to detect an improvement in 4-year EFS from 85% to 90% with an alpha of 0.05 (one-sided log-rank test) (Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.6483). Study was closed to accrual early due to results from AALL0434 for nelarabine.||1.091|0.561|0.074
91866374|NCT04098575|183625024|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91866375|NCT04098575|183625025|OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.835
91866376|NCT04098575|183625026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Antihypertensive drugs||||<0.001
91866377|NCT04098575|183625026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Lipid-lowering agents||||<0.001
91866378|NCT04098575|183625026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Antiplatelet, anticoagulant drugs||||<0.001
91866379|NCT04098575|183625026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Glucose-lowering therapies||||<0.001
91866380|NCT04098575|183625027|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: \< 65||||<0.001
91866381|NCT04098575|183625027|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: 65 ≤ 75||||0.001
91866382|NCT04098575|183625027|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: 75 - 80||||<0.001
91866383|NCT04098575|183625027|OTHER||||||<|0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: \> 80||||<0.002
91866384|NCT04098575|183625028|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91866385|NCT04098575|183625029|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91904623|NCT01180478|183704375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the numbers in 'Fever' between NBI and WL||||0.666
91697047|NCT03793842|183288007|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 1 J/min||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
91697048|NCT03793842|183288008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
91697049|NCT03793842|183288009|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 1 cm H20|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91697050|NCT03793842|183288010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91697051|NCT03793842|183288011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91866386|NCT04098575|183625030|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91866387|NCT04098575|183625031|OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.475
91866388|NCT04098575|183625032|OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.475
91866389|NCT04098575|183625033|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Insulin||||<0.001
91866390|NCT04098575|183625033|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Metformin||||<0.001
91866391|NCT04098575|183625033|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|||Acarbose||||0.157
91697052|NCT02549287|183288016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.55||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.2||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.20|-0.11|0.12
91866392|NCT04098575|183625033|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfonylurea||||<0.001
91697053|NCT02549287|183288017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.41||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.03||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.03|-0.20|0.14
91697054|NCT02549287|183288018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.44||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.07||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.07|-0.20|0.20
91697055|NCT02549287|183288019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.07||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.43||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.43|-0.58|0.77
91697056|NCT02549287|183288020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.35||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.97|||Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.97|-0.27|0.29
91697057|NCT02549287|183288021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.49||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.06||Other \[Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)\]|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.06|-0.08|0.15
91728828|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.05||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.05|0.61|
91866393|NCT04098575|183625033|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Chi-squared|||Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors||||0.071
91866394|NCT04098575|183625033|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||Chi-squared|||Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists||||0.317
91866395|NCT04098575|183625033|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Sodium-glucose transport protein-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors other than empagliflozin||||<0.001
91697058|NCT02549287|183288022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.11||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.52||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.52|-0.73|0.61
91697059|NCT02549287|183288023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.22||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.32||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.32|-0.76|0.47
91697060|NCT02549287|183288024|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.2||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||2.20|-3.70|0.65
91697061|NCT02549287|183288025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.69||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.69|-0.59|0.64
91697062|NCT02549287|183288026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.29||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.29|-0.79|0.44
91697063|NCT02549287|183288027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.25||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.89||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.89|-0.39|0.47
91697064|NCT02549287|183288028|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|3.22||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||3.22|-3.57|0.63
91697065|NCT01377922|183288103|OTHER|Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction, and double-blind baseline QMG score as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients.||||||0.0452|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Pairwise contrast at Day 14 from MMRM model.||||||0.0452
91697066|NCT01377922|183288104|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Pairwise contrast at Day 14 from MMRM model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction, and double-blind baseline SGI score as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients||||0.0028
91697067|NCT01377922|183288105|OTHER|||||||0.6274|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction, and double-blind baseline T25FW walking speed as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients.||||0.6274
91697068|NCT01377922|183288106|OTHER|||||||0.0267|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients||||0.0267
91697069|NCT00665431|183288108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority margin (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|3.34|||ANCOVA|||||3.34|-5.94|
91866396|NCT04098575|183625034|OTHER||||||<|0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.002
91866397|NCT04098575|183625037|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.000
91866398|NCT02567435|183625092|SUPERIORITY||3-Year EFS|65.8||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.44
91866399|NCT02567435|183625093|SUPERIORITY||3-Year OS|78.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.56
91866400|NCT02166463|183625098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Used a one-sided log-rank test between 2 arms||Assuming a 3-year EFS of 82% (5-year EFS of 78.4%, long term EFS of 76%) for standard arm, the study will have approximately 86% power for detecting an 8% improvement in 3-year EFS in the Bv-AVEPC arm (3-year EFS of 90%, 5-year EFS of 88.0%, long term EFS of 86.7%) in log rank test.||||0.0001
91904624|NCT01180478|183704375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison in the number of 'UTI' between NBI and WL||||0.569
91697070|NCT00665431|183288109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.60|-6.82|
91697071|NCT00665431|183288110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|-1.41|
91728829|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.25||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.25|0.73|
91728830|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.64||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.64|0.87|
91728831|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|4.74||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.74|2.76|
91866401|NCT06415045|183625194|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|115.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.55|124.58|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 13.5|Relative bioavailability of Nerandomilast administered in fed state (Test) compared with Nerandomilast administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||124.58|106.55|
91866402|NCT06415045|183625195|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|85.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.8|107.06|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 39.4|Relative bioavailability of Nerandomilast administered in fed state (Test) compared with Nerandomilast administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||107.06|68.80|
91904625|NCT01180478|183704375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison in the number of 'Bladder cramps' between NBI and WL||||0.111
91728832|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.68|0.40|
91728833|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.20|0.10|
91728834|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.59||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.59|0.80|
91795969|NCT00145600|183470516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91728835|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.23|0.62|
91728836|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.15||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.52|
91728837|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|4.54||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.54|2.68|
91795970|NCT00145600|183470516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0012
91866403|NCT06415045|183625196|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|115.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.38|124.46|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 13.5|Relative bioavailability of Nerandomilast administered in fed state (Test) compared with Nerandomilast administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||124.46|106.38|
91904626|NCT01180478|183704375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||||||||||Comparison in the number of 'DVT' between NBI and WL|Non of the participants/patients had DVT. Therefore, the p-value is not available|||
91697072|NCT02547220|183288120|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|34.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference in percentage was calculated by the difference in percentage of new or worsening TG at 6 months between CINRYZE and placebo|||34.5|-29.4|0.6857
91697073|NCT03771560|183288157|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|6.4|||Paired Sample t-test|||The parent-reported change in mean ABC total score from baseline to week 12.||6.4|-11.3|0.56
91697074|NCT03771560|183288158|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.6|||Paired Sample t-test|||The teacher-reported change in mean ABC total score from baseline to week 12.||7.6|-5.2|0.68
91697075|NCT03771560|183288159|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|1.6|||Paired Sample t-test|||The parent-reported change in mean SRS total score from baseline to week 12.||1.6|-17.3|0.095
91697076|NCT03771560|183288160|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The teacher-reported change in mean SRS total score from baseline to week 12.||13.5|-7.0|0.95
91697077|NCT03771560|183288161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.5|||Paired Sample t-test|||The parent-reported change in mean PedsQL total score from baseline to week 12.||3.5|-5.2|0.69
91904627|NCT01180478|183704375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison in the number of 'CVA/TIA' between NBI and WL||||0.500
91904628|NCT01180478|183704375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||||||||||Comparison in the number of 'Lung embolism' between NBI and WL|Non of the participants/patients had a lung embolism. Therefore, no p-value was available|||
91697078|NCT02887183|183288162|OTHER||Least Squared Geometric Mean Ratio|0.632|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5865|0.681|||ANCOVA|||||0.6810|0.5865|<.0001
91697079|NCT02887183|183288163|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|-7.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-7.15|||ANCOVA|||LAVi||-7.15|-7.98|<.0001
91697080|NCT02887183|183288163|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|-12.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|-11.58|||ANCOVA|||LVEDVi||-11.58|-12.92|<.0001
91697081|NCT02887183|183288163|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|-15.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|-14.55|||ANCOVA|||LVESVi||-14.55|-16.03|<.0001
91697082|NCT02887183|183288164|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|9.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.84|9.9|||ANCOVA|||||9.90|8.84|<.001
91697083|NCT02887183|183288165|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LVESVi, LVEDVi, LAVi. LVEF||||<.0001
91697084|NCT02887183|183288166|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LVESVi, LVEDVi, LAVi. LVEF||||<.0001
91697085|NCT02887183|183288167|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||<.0001
91697086|NCT02887183|183288167|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0003
91697087|NCT02887183|183288167|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.0956
91728838|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.68|0.40|
91758918|NCT00265317|183410826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGF-C Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.2702
91904629|NCT01180478|183704375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison in the number of 'Sepsis' between NBI and WL||||0.500
91904630|NCT01180478|183704375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison in the number of 'Acute Abdomen' between NBI and WL||||1.000
91697088|NCT02887183|183288168|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||0.0060
91697089|NCT02887183|183288168|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0012
91697090|NCT02887183|183288168|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.0181
91697091|NCT02887183|183288169|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||0.2498
91697092|NCT02887183|183288169|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0495
91697093|NCT02887183|183288169|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.2685
91697094|NCT02887183|183288170|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||0.0029
91697095|NCT02887183|183288170|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0011
91697096|NCT02887183|183288170|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.0012
91697097|NCT02887183|183288171|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|9.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.94|10.69|||ANCOVA|||||10.69|7.94|<.0001
91697098|NCT03634033|183288172|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on adoption and sustainability using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.17||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|29.05||A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|16 degrees of freedom for the t-test comparing two independent groups, n=9 each.||Given 18 sites (9 in each arm) available in Michigan, in the comparison of site-level outcome of adoption and sustainability, the detectable effect size with power of 0.80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance was d=1.41.||29.05|-7.27|0.22
91697099|NCT03634033|183288173|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on beneficiaries ADLs at exit using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.73||A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|F-test was used built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering via a random effect of site.|IF minus IF+EF|Adjusted means at month 9 were calculated adjusting for baseline value of the outcome and nesting of participants within sites.||0.73|-0.16|0.73
91697100|NCT03634033|183288174|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries IADLs using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.72||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|F-test was used built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.|IF minus IF+EF|Post-intervention means were compared adjusting for baseline values and nesting of participants within sites.||0.72|-0.11|0.15
91697101|NCT03634033|183288175|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries pain at exit using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.39||Threshold for statistical significance was.05; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|F-test was used built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.|IF minus IF+EF|||0.39|-0.23|0.61
91697102|NCT03634033|183288176|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries depression (baseline to exit) using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|LS Means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||F-test|F-test was used (related to the t-test arithmetically), built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.||||0.24|0.01|0.04
91758919|NCT00265317|183410826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7354||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGF-C ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.7354
91758920|NCT00265317|183410828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-2 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||<0.0001
91866404|NCT00391443|183625253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.097|||Log Rank|||||1.097|0.658|0.2110
91866405|NCT00391443|183625254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk reduction|0.17||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.39|||Fisher Exact|||||0.39|-0.13|0.2542
91728839|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.20|0.11|
91728840|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.23||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.23|1.15|
91728841|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.72||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.72|0.89|
91728842|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.13||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.13|0.53|
91728843|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.08||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.08|1.28|
91728844|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.30|0.81|
91728845|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.83||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.83|0.47|
91728846|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.63||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.63|1.51|
91728847|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.79|
91728848|NCT01026038|183353462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.72||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.72|0.38|
91728849|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728850|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.429
91728851|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.314
91728852|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728853|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.552
91728854|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.499
91728855|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.376
91866406|NCT03373916|183625308|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
91728856|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.633
91795971|NCT00145600|183470516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91795972|NCT00145600|183470516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8108||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.8108
91795973|NCT00145600|183470516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91866407|NCT03373916|183625309|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91866408|NCT03373916|183625310|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
91866409|NCT03373916|183625311|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91866410|NCT03373916|183625312|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
91866411|NCT01260896|183625359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.54|113.54|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||113.54|100.54|
91904631|NCT01180478|183704375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison in the number of 'Other perioperative complication' between NBI and WL||||0.170
91904632|NCT01180478|183704376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.553
91866412|NCT01260896|183625360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.37|110.55|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110.55|100.37|
91904633|NCT02114164|183704460|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91697103|NCT03634033|183288177|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on beneficiaries fall rates at exit after an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|0.93|0.18
91697104|NCT03634033|183288177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45||Threshold for statistical significance was .05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Odds ratio for IF versus IF+EF|Occurrence of falls was analyzed with adjustment for baseline and nesting of participants within sites.||1.45|0.93|.18
91697105|NCT03634033|183288178|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on beneficiaries ED Visits at exit after an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for baseline and nesting of participants within sites.||||1.22|0.79|0.86
91697106|NCT03634033|183288179|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries hospitalizations (baseline to exit) using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||F-test|F-test was used (related to the t-test arithmetically), built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.||||1.42|0.72|0.95
91697107|NCT03634033|183288180|SUPERIORITY|Examination of clinician attitude on facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) at exit when using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|10.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed modeling was used to account for nesting of clinicians within sites.||10.14|0.09|0.05
91697108|NCT03634033|183288181|OTHER|Examination of clinician self-efficacy on facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) (baseline to exit) when using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.97||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Nesting of clinicians within site was adjusted for as a random effect.||||0.97|-0.51|0.54
91697109|NCT03634033|183288184|SUPERIORITY|Pre-/post-intervention comparison.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-1.42|||t-test, 2 sided||Pre minus post|Pain||-1.42|-3.96|<.01
91697110|NCT03634033|183288184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.91||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||ADL||4.91|-2.80|.58
91697111|NCT03634033|183288184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.91||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||IADL||4.91|-2.80|.44
91697112|NCT03634033|183288184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|4.77||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Pre minus post|Depression||4.77|-1.85|.38
91697113|NCT03634033|183288185|SUPERIORITY|Self-efficacy|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.6||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Pre minus post|Self-efficacy change baseline (month-0) to exit (month-4).||-0.60|-1.02|<0.01
91697114|NCT03634033|183288186|OTHER|Score on scale.|Mean|8.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
91697115|NCT03634033|183288186|OTHER||Mean|7.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.06|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with format||||<.01
91697116|NCT03634033|183288186|OTHER||Mean|8.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference from zero|||Satisfaction with newness of content for caregiver||||<.01
91697117|NCT03634033|183288186|OTHER||Mean|7.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference from zero|||Satisfaction with newness of content for clinician||||<.01
91697118|NCT03634033|183288186|OTHER||Mean|7.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference from zero|||Intent to use new information||||<.01
91697119|NCT06366087|183288187|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.724|||Mixed Models Analysis||Bioequivalence will be considered met if the 90% CI of the ratio for AUCinf lies within 80.00 to 125.00%.|||0.724|0.670|
91697120|NCT06366087|183288188|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.697|||Mixed Models Analysis||Bioequivalence will be considered met if the 90% CI of the ratio for AUCt lies within 80.00 to 125.00%.|||0.697|0.640|
91697121|NCT06366087|183288189|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.088|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.136|0.088|
91697122|NCT06366087|183288190|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.189|0.120|
91904634|NCT02114164|183704461|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91904635|NCT02114164|183704462|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Comparison at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91866413|NCT01260896|183625361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8|108.73|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.73|97.80|
91795974|NCT00145600|183470517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM Event-free survival estimate|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|0.944||||||||0.944|0.805|
91904636|NCT02114164|183704462|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Comparison at 60 minutes|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
91697123|NCT06366087|183288191|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.217|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.309|0.217|
91697124|NCT06366087|183288192|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.318|0.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.416|0.318|
91697125|NCT06366087|183288193|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.396|0.492|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.492|0.396|
91697126|NCT06366087|183288194|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.608|0.532|
91697127|NCT06366087|183288195|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.524|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.620|0.524|
91697128|NCT00504725|183288230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||We will use two way ANOVA (looking for effects due to drug and time) with a p value of 0.05 indicative of statistical significance.|ANOVA|||IL-6||||0.39
91697129|NCT00504725|183288230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||IL-8||||0.18
91697130|NCT00504725|183288230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||IL-10||||0.14
91697131|NCT00504725|183288231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
91697132|NCT00504725|183288232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||Baseline Pain Level Score|Fisher Exact|||||||0.44
91697133|NCT00504725|183288232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||4 Hour Pain Level Score|Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91697134|NCT00504725|183288232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||24 Hour Pain Level Score|Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
91697135|NCT00504725|183288232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||Pain Level Score at Discharge|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
91697136|NCT01435018|183288233|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority is defined as demonstrating that the 48-week PFS rate in ET+ART is within 15 percent of PTX+ART. The selection of the 15 percent non-inferiority margin was a combination of clinical judgment and statistical reasoning. A poll of the sites was conducted to derive the maximum treatment difference that is considered clinically relevant (i.e. largest acceptable difference in order to gain the advantages (e.g. cost) of the experimental chemotherapy)."|Cumulative rate difference|-30.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-8.3|||||Confidence interval (CI) estimation was stratified by screening CD4 count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. CI stratified by country was not performed due to small number of observations.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 PFS rate with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||-8.3|-52.3|
91697137|NCT01435018|183288234|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority is defined as demonstrating that the 48-week PFS rate in BV+ART is within 15 percent of PTX+ART. The selection of the 15 percent non-inferiority margin was a combination of clinical judgment and statistical reasoning. A poll of the sites was conducted to derive the maximum treatment difference that is considered clinically irrelevant (i.e. largest acceptable difference in order to gain the advantages (e.g. cost) of the experimental chemotherapy)."|Cumulative rate difference|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-7.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 PFS rate with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||-7.4|-32.3|
91697138|NCT01435018|183288234|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority is defined as demonstrating that the 48-week PFS rate in BV+ART is within 15 percent of PTX+ART. The selection of the 15 percent non-inferiority margin was a combination of clinical judgment and statistical reasoning. A poll of the sites was conducted to derive the maximum treatment difference that is considered clinically irrelevant (i.e. largest acceptable difference in order to gain the advantages (e.g. cost) of the experimental chemotherapy)."|Cumulative rate difference|-20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-7.9|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by country using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative PFS rate with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||-7.9|-32.2|
91697139|NCT01435018|183288235|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|31.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||31.4|-1.9|
91795975|NCT00145600|183470517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.95||||||||0.950|0.739|
91904637|NCT02114164|183704462|OTHER|||||||0.712||||||Comparison at end of procedure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.712
91795976|NCT00145600|183470517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.933||||||||0.933|0.400|
91697140|NCT01435018|183288236|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|17.2|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||17.2|-0.4|
91697141|NCT01435018|183288238|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|28.8||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of IERC-confirmed KS progression with 95% two-sided confidence interval.|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|28.8|3.7|
91697142|NCT01435018|183288239|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|4.3|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of AIDS-defining events with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||4.3|-34.4|
91697143|NCT01435018|183288240|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|6.6|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of AIDS-defining events with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||6.6|-13.3|
91697144|NCT01435018|183288241|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|10.6|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of HIV-1 RNA virologic failure with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-1.9|
91697145|NCT01435018|183288242|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|11.0|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of HIV-1 RNA virologic failure with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||11.0|-0.1|
91697146|NCT01435018|183288245|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|43.0|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, or AIDS defining event.||43.0|-4.1|
91697147|NCT01435018|183288246|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|27.0|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, or AIDS defining event.||27.0|1.8|
91697148|NCT01435018|183288247|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|47.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, or virologic failure.||47.4|0.9|
91697149|NCT01435018|183288248|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.3|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, or virologic failure.||31.3|6.3|
91697150|NCT01435018|183288249|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|47.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, virologic failure, or KS-IRIS.||47.4|0.9|
91697151|NCT01435018|183288250|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|29.3|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, virologic failure, or KS-IRIS.||29.3|6.2|
91697152|NCT01435018|183288251|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|61.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of change in KS treatment.||61.4|13.6|
91697153|NCT01435018|183288252|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|22.7|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of change in KS treatment.||22.7|-0.4|
91697154|NCT01435018|183288253|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|31.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||31.4|-1.9|
91795977|NCT00145600|183470517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.853||||||||0.853|0.716|
91866414|NCT01260896|183625362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|114.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.29|119.35|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||119.35|109.29|
91728857|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.658||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.658
91728858|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.544
91728859|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728860|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728861|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.859
91728862|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.197
91728863|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.198
91728864|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.443
91728865|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.261
91728866|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.687
91904638|NCT02114164|183704463|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Comparison at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
91728867|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.671
91728868|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.253
91728869|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.074
91728870|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.323
91904639|NCT02114164|183704463|OTHER|||||||0.75||||||Comparison at 60 minutes|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
91728871|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.489
91728872|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.607
91728873|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.549
91728874|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.864
91728875|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.859
91728876|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.836
91728877|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728878|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.297
91728879|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.145
91728880|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.517
91758921|NCT00265317|183410828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-2 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||<0.0001
91758922|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|1.921||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High CSF-1R expression||1.921|0.159|0.1667
91758923|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.451||||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|3.944||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low CSF-1R expression||3.944|0.534|0.7688
91758924|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.574||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate CSF-1R expression||1.574|0.503|0.3498
91795978|NCT00736879|183470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1672|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.37||Tested at alpha=0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-1.02|<0.0001
91866415|NCT01260896|183625363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|108.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.84|111.79|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||111.79|104.84|
91904640|NCT02114164|183704463|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Comparison at end of procedure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
91728881|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.323
91728882|NCT01026038|183353463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.489
91728883|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=38 degree C to \<=39 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC||||0.075
91728884|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=38 degree C to \<=39 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC||||0.345
91728885|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=38 degree C to \<=39 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC||||0.628
91728886|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=39 degree C to \<=40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.592
91728887|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=39 degree C to \<=40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.608
91728888|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=39 degree C to \<=40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728889|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728890|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.333
91728891|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.215
91728892|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.714
91728893|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.397
91728894|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.215
91728895|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.714
91728896|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.397
91728897|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.161
91728898|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.226
91728899|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728900|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.161
91728901|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.226
91728902|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728903|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728904|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728905|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.237
91904641|NCT02114164|183704464|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||Comparison at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91904642|NCT02114164|183704464|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Comparison at 60 minutes|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91904643|NCT02114164|183704464|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Comparison at end of procedure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
91728906|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.045
91728907|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.285
91728908|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728909|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.174
91728910|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.125
91728911|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.058
91795979|NCT00736879|183470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1679|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.41|||ANCOVA|Tested at alpha=0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment.||||-0.41|-1.07|<0.0001
91795980|NCT00736879|183470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Tested at alpha=0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment.||||-0.50|-1.17|<0.0001
91866416|NCT01260896|183625364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|102.85|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.85|92.92|
91866417|NCT02879318|183625399|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.25||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.1.|Log Rank|stratified by ECOG performance status and prior adjuvant therapy.||||1.25|0.71|0.72
91728912|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.092
91728913|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728914|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728915|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728916|NCT01026038|183353464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91728917|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.0||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.00|0.56|
91728918|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.28|0.73|
91728919|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.79||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.79|0.92|
91728920|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.0||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.00|0.49|
91728921|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.27|0.62|
91728922|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.94||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.94|0.84|
91728923|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.03||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.03|0.58|
91728924|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.33||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.33|0.76|
91728925|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.8||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.80|0.93|
91728926|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.58||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.58|0.69|
91866418|NCT02879318|183625400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.29|||Log Rank|||||1.29|0.75|0.91
91866419|NCT02879318|183625401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by ECOG performance status and prior adjuvant chemotherapy||||2.72|0.81|0.28
91697155|NCT01435018|183288254|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|17.2|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||17.2|-0.4|
91728927|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.97||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.97|0.86|
91904644|NCT02114164|183704465|OTHER|Number of interventions required by the anesthesiologists were compared between the AirSeal and standard Endopath groups using zero-inflated Poisson regression||||||0.41|||||||Zero-inflated Poisson regression|||||||0.41
91697156|NCT01435018|183288255|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.4|||||Hazard ratio for ET+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count.|||3.4|1.1|
91697157|NCT01435018|183288256|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||||Hazard ratio for BV+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count.|||2.2|1.1|
91697158|NCT01435018|183288257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||||Odds ratio for ET+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count.|||0.7|0.1|
91697159|NCT01435018|183288258|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||Odds ratio for BV+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count and country.|||1.3|0.5|
91697160|NCT03937908|183288278|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.01
91697161|NCT03937908|183288278|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.23
91697162|NCT03937908|183288278|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.001||||||Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.001
91697163|NCT03937908|183288278|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.05
91697164|NCT03937908|183288278|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.07
91697165|NCT03937908|183288278|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.09
91697166|NCT03937908|183288278|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.003
91697167|NCT03937908|183288278|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.10
91697168|NCT03937908|183288278|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.11
91697169|NCT03937908|183288279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.82
91697170|NCT03937908|183288279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.40
91728928|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.03||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.03|0.77|
91728929|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.78||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.78|0.42|
91904645|NCT02114164|183704466|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91697171|NCT03937908|183288279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.20
91697172|NCT03937908|183288279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.48
91697173|NCT03937908|183288279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.20
91697174|NCT03937908|183288279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.32
91904646|NCT02114164|183704467|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91728930|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.23||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.23|0.67|
91866420|NCT02382003|183625402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||=Positive\~No-training, 0.030=Positive\~50/50 training, 0.833=50/50\~No-training Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Positive\~No-training, 2=df Positive\~50/50 training, 2=df 50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 7.053=Positive\~50/50 training, 0.366=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.005
91866421|NCT02382003|183625402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.449||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|||||=Neutral\~Anxiety prime Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime|=Neutral\~Anxiety prime|Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.799
91904647|NCT01901575|183704500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.15|0.65|0.8|||Fisher Exact|||"null hypothesis:~Remifentanil IVPCA sedation in patients undergoing ablation of the idiopathic ventricular tachycardia does not cause suppression of PVC's"||0.8|0.65|0.05
91728931|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.25||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.25|1.11|
91728932|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.68||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.68|0.66|
91728933|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.44||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.44|0.97|
91728934|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.51||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.51|0.85|
91728935|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.56|
91728936|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.52||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.74|
91728937|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.01||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.01|0.87|
91728938|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.73||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||3.73|1.80|
91728939|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.79||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.79|0.88|
91728940|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.74||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.74|0.32|
91728941|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.87|0.61|
91728942|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.09||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.09|0.68|
91728943|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.15||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.15|0.59|
91728944|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.87|
91728945|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.20|0.69|
91728946|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.10|0.57|
91866422|NCT02382003|183625402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.085||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx, 0.026=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut, 0.094=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Anx, 0.170=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Neut, No-train(all)\~50/50(all)≥ 0.136|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx, 7.328=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut, 4.722=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Anx, 3.547=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Neut, No-train(all)\~50/50(all)≤3.988|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.011
91866423|NCT02382003|183625403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.551||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||"=Positive\~No-training, 0.130=Positive\~50/50 training, 0.269=50/50\~No-training~Alpha = .05"|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=Positive\~No-training, 2=Positive\~50/50 training, 2=50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 4.075=Positive\~50/50 training, 2.630=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.003
91866424|NCT02382003|183625403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.933||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime||Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.140
91904648|NCT04013789|183704516|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was set at 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model||DACP FreshTech minus DACP|||0.03||
91728947|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.02||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||3.02|1.52|
91728948|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.3||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.30|1.16|
91728949|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.14|0.51|
91728950|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.33||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.33|2.23|
91728951|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.17|0.61|
91728952|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.4||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.40|0.19|
91728953|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratrio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.66||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.66|1.25|
91728954|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.94||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.94|0.91|
91728955|NCT01026038|183353465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.13|0.47|
91728956|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.76||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.76|0.23|
91728957|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.99||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.99|0.30|
91728958|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.86||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.86|0.38|
91728959|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.99||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.99|0.43|
91728960|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.22||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.22|0.54|
91866425|NCT02382003|183625403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.018||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx,0.049=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut,Positive(all)\~No-train+Anx≥0.198,50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≥0.104,0.014=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut,0.627=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx,0.021=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Anx,0.764=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Neut,Pos+Neut\~50/50(all)≥0.067|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx,6.041=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut,Positive(all)\~No-train+Anx≤3.240,50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≤4.534,8.525=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut,0.933=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx,7.686=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Anx,0.537=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Neut,Pos+Neut\~50/50(all)≤5.395|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.049
91866426|NCT02382003|183625404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||=Positive\~No-training, Positive\~50/50 training\<0.001, 0.124=50/50\~No-training Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Positive\~No-training, 2=df Positive\~50/50 training, 2=df 50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 31.921=Positive\~50/50 training, 4.175=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||<0.001
91866427|NCT02382003|183625404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.634||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|||||=Neutral\~Anxiety prime Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime|=Neutral\~Anxiety prime|Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.728
91866428|NCT02382003|183625404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.034|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, 0.026=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx, 0.002=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut, 0.091=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train(all)≥ 0.081, Positive(all)\~50/50(all)\< 0.001|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, 7.306=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx, 12.672=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut, 4.802=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train(all)≤5.037, Positive(all)\~50/50(all)≥16.239|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||<0.001
91728961|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.79|0.50|
91728962|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.19||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.19|0.56|
91728963|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.06||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.06|0.58|
91728964|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.13||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.13|0.46|
91728965|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.55||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.55|0.38|
91728966|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.00|0.50|
91728967|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.72||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.72|0.42|
91728968|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.68||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.68|0.29|
91728969|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.10|0.40|
91728970|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.64||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.64|0.49|
91728971|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.12||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.12|0.70|
91758925|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.687||||0.9497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|9.143||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High PDGFRalpha expression||9.143|0.790|0.9497
91904649|NCT01488279|183704518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|480.8||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1147.6|1126.0|||ANOVA|||2X2 crossover design with baseline values. To compare the means between Sitagliptin and Placebo, a sequential three step testing process used. The results of the third step, the direct treatment comparisons are presented.||1126.0|-1147.6|.983
91904650|NCT01488279|183704521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.935||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.585|4.568|||ANOVA|||||4.568|-4.585|.997
91904651|NCT01488279|183704522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.9||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.9|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.0|-156.9|.460
91904652|NCT04784897|183704528|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9289||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6585|1.3102|||Log Rank|||Main comparison is between Brilacidin 5-dose and Pooled Placebo||1.3102|0.6585|0.7273
91904653|NCT04784897|183704528|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8968||||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5464|1.472|||Log Rank|||Secondary comparison between Brilacidin 3-dose and Pooled Placebo||1.4720|0.5464|0.5975
91697175|NCT03937908|183288279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.35
91728972|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.14||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.14|0.60|
91728973|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.21||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.21|0.30|
91728974|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.89||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.89|0.43|
91904654|NCT01846728|183704547|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91904655|NCT01846728|183704548|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||0.66
91904656|NCT01846728|183704549|OTHER|Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91728975|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.67||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.67|0.42|
91728976|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.16||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.16|0.40|
91728977|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|7.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|19.78||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||19.78|2.86|
91728978|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.31||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.31|0.22|
91728979|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.21||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.21|0.02|
91904657|NCT01846728|183704550|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||0.98
91904658|NCT01846728|183704551|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||0.66
91904659|NCT00496730|183704568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91904660|NCT00496730|183704569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91904661|NCT00496730|183704570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91904662|NCT03962738|183704582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|5.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.54|2.17|<0.001
91904663|NCT03962738|183704583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||<.001
91904664|NCT03962738|183704584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.99|1.03|0.037
91904665|NCT03962738|183704584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|5.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.17|2.16|<0.001
91904666|NCT03962738|183704584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|4.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.62|1.89|<0.001
91904667|NCT03962738|183704585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|0.81|0.197
91904668|NCT03962738|183704585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.50|1.01|0.044
91697176|NCT03937908|183288279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.52
91697177|NCT03937908|183288279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.13
91697178|NCT03937908|183288280|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.34
91728980|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.3||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.30|0.53|
91866429|NCT02382003|183625405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.924|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||=Positive\~No-training, Positive\~50/50 training\< 0.001, 0.100=50/50\~No-training Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Positive\~No-training, 2=df Positive\~50/50 training, 2=df 50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 15.288=Positive\~50/50 training, 4.605=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||< 0.001
91866430|NCT02382003|183625405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.011||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|||||=Neutral\~Anxiety prime Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime|=Neutral\~Anxiety prime|Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.135
91866431|NCT02382003|183625405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.402||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx\<0.048, Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut\<0.001, 0.055=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≥0.139, 0.034=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut, 0.340=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx, Pos(all)\~50/50(all)≥ 0.087|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, 6.076=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx, 14.525=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut, 5.811=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≤3.950, 6.770=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut, 2.158=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx, Pos(all)\~50/50(all)≤4.876|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.009
91866432|NCT05934292|183625410|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.31|||||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||2.31|0.98|
91866433|NCT05934292|183625410|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.74|||Geometric Mean Ratio||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.74|0.74|
91866434|NCT05934292|183625410|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.78|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||2.78|1.10|
91866435|NCT05934292|183625410|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.77|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.77|0.77|
91728981|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.97||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.97|0.50|
91728982|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.07||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.07|0.39|
91728983|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|8.09||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||8.09|2.18|
91728984|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.13||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.13|0.33|
91728985|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.31||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.31|0.07|
91728986|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.4||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||6.40|1.51|
91728987|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.69||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.69|0.96|
91697179|NCT03937908|183288280|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.08
91697180|NCT03937908|183288280|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.23
91866436|NCT05934292|183625411|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.46|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||2.46|1.05|
91866437|NCT05934292|183625411|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.72|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.72|0.37|
91728988|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.37||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.27|
91728989|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.98||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||5.98|1.39|
91728990|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.28||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.28|0.58|
91728991|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.92||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.92|0.17|
91728992|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.39||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.39|1.50|
91728993|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.05||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.05|0.75|
91866438|NCT05934292|183625411|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.54|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||2.54|0.80|
91728994|NCT01026038|183353466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.89||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.89|0.26|
91728995|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.73||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.73|0.04|
91904669|NCT03962738|183704585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.83|1.08|0.023
91904670|NCT03962738|183704586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.17|0.73|0.268
91728996|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.64||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.64|0.04|
91728997|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.46||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||5.46|0.19|
91728998|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.85||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||5.85|0.17|
91728999|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.72||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.72|0.15|
91729000|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.37||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||5.37|0.10|
91729001|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.25||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||6.25|0.23|
91758926|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.386||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|1.173||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low PDGFRalpha expression||1.173|0.127|0.0401
91758927|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.862||||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.524||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate PDGFRalpha expression||1.524|0.487|0.3128
91758928|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.823||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|2.488||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High PDGFRbeta expression||2.488|0.273|0.3650
91758929|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|3.48||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low PDGFRbeta expression||3.480|0.408|0.6105
91758930|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.502||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate PDGFRbeta expression||1.502|0.488|0.3027
91758931|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914||||0.4436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|3.184||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGF expression||3.184|0.262|0.4436
91758932|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.4582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|3.062||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGF expression||3.062|0.296|0.4582
91866439|NCT05934292|183625411|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.78|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.78|0.78|
91866440|NCT05934292|183625412|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.37|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls.|||1.37|0.71|
91866441|NCT05934292|183625412|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.04|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls.|||1.04|0.34|
91866442|NCT05934292|183625412|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.27|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls.|||1.27|0.64|
91866443|NCT05934292|183625412|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.78|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls.|||1.78|0.78|
91729002|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.92||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.92|0.17|
91866444|NCT05934292|183625415|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.02|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.02|0.43|
91866445|NCT05934292|183625415|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.35|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.35|0.58|
91866446|NCT05934292|183625415|OTHER||Geomtric Mean ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.91|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||0.91|0.36|
91866447|NCT05934292|183625415|OTHER||Geomtric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.29|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.29|0.57|
91866448|NCT05934292|183625416|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.67|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.67|0.83|
91697181|NCT03937908|183288280|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.14
91866449|NCT05934292|183625416|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.5|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.50|0.78|
91866450|NCT05934292|183625416|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.89|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||0.89|0.50|
91697182|NCT03937908|183288280|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.28
91866451|NCT05934292|183625416|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.97|||||GMR and 90% CI for AUC0-inf were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.97|1.00|
91866452|NCT05934292|183625421|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.74|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.74|0.14|
91866453|NCT05934292|183625421|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.22|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.22|0.04|
91904671|NCT03962738|183704586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.82|1.26|0.006
91697183|NCT03937908|183288280|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.17
91697184|NCT03937908|183288280|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.98
91697185|NCT03937908|183288280|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.16
91866454|NCT05934292|183625422|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.74|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.74|0.14|
91866455|NCT05934292|183625422|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.22|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.22|0.04|
91866456|NCT05934292|183625423|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.55|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.55|0.16|
91904672|NCT03962738|183704586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.61|1.50|<0.001
91729003|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.43||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||4.43|0.11|
91729004|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|12.35||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||12.35|0.48|
91729005|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|9.05||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||9.05|0.45|
91729006|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.14||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||5.14|0.13|
91729007|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.8||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.80|0.04|
91729008|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.03||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.03|0.12|
91729009|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|14.92||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||14.92|0.48|
91729010|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.36||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.36|0.23|
91729011|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.84||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||4.84|0.31|
91729012|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.65||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||6.65|0.23|
91729013|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.17||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.17|0.17|
91729014|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.24||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.24|0.07|
91729015|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.08||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.08|0.06|
91729016|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.97||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.97|0.79|
91904673|NCT03962738|183704587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.58|0.61|0.535
91729017|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.88|0.38|
91729018|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.77||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.77|0.27|
91729019|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.9||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.90|0.85|
91729020|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.48||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.48|0.49|
91795981|NCT00736879|183470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5481||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.65||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||By applying sequential testing procedure, the testing was performed since the primary endpoint was significant.||-0.65|-2.81|0.0018
91904674|NCT03962738|183704587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.03|1.04|0.036
91904675|NCT03962738|183704587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|1.12|0.018
91904676|NCT03962738|183704588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.65|0.76|0.199
91904677|NCT03962738|183704588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.32|0.77|0.305
91904678|NCT03962738|183704588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.24|0.71|0.426
91904679|NCT03962738|183704589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.82|0.87|0.135
91904680|NCT03962738|183704589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.30|0.95|0.080
91866457|NCT05934292|183625423|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.36|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.36|0.06|
91866458|NCT02890355|183625427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.78||a priori threshold for statistical significance, one sided p=0.02|Log Rank|||||1.78|0.85|0.28
91866459|NCT02890355|183625429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.02|||Log Rank|||||2.02|0.96|0.09
91866460|NCT03391466|183625445|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI) as data collected on case report forms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.398|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|0.514||Stratified (randomization factors) log-rank p-value.|Log Rank|Stratified (randomization stratification factors) log-rank test.|Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)), stratified using randomization stratification factors.|||0.514|0.308|<0.0001
91866461|NCT03391466|183625446|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, one-sided tailed test, stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI) as data collected on case report forms.|Difference in ORR|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|42.1||Stratified (randomization factor) CMH test p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified (randomization factor) CMH test.|95% CI for the difference in ORR was from Wilson's score method with continuity correction.|||42.1|23.2|<0.0001
91729021|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.45||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.45|0.20|
91729022|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.87|
91729023|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.03|0.79|
91729024|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.06|0.76|
91866462|NCT03391466|183625447|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted IPI as data collected on case report forms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.007||Stratified log-rank (randomization factor) p-value.|Log Rank|Stratified (randomization factor) log-rank test.|Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.||The Rho family spending function with parameter (Rho = 6) was used to allocate alpha between the interim and primary OS analysis. Given that fewer than the anticipated 210 events were observed at the data cutoff date for the primary OS analysis (25 January 2023), the efficacy boundary for the primary OS analysis was recalculated using the Rho family spending function based on the actual observed event numbers (177 deaths) resulting in an efficacy boundary at 1-sided significance level of 0.0249.|1.007|0.530|0.027
91866463|NCT03391466|183625448|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted IPI as data collected on case report forms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.736||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.108||Stratified (randomization stratification factors) log-rank test.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care.|||1.108|0.488|0.0695
91866464|NCT03391466|183625449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.487||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted IPI as data collected on case report forms.|Log Rank|Stratified (randomization stratification factors) log-rank test.|Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.487|0.290|<0.0001
91904681|NCT03962738|183704589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.98|0.061
91729025|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|76.14||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||76.14|3.56|
91795982|NCT00736879|183470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5474||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.6||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.60|-2.76|0.0024
91697186|NCT03937908|183288281|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.04
91697187|NCT03937908|183288281|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.01
91697188|NCT03937908|183288281|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.06
91697189|NCT03937908|183288281|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.08
91729026|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|9.06||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||9.06|0.56|
91697190|NCT03937908|183288281|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dicaffeoylquinic acids||||0.56
91866465|NCT03391466|183625450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|0.545|||||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.545|0.327|
91866466|NCT03391466|183625451|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|0.669|||||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.669|0.383|
91697191|NCT03937908|183288281|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.21
91697192|NCT03937908|183288281|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.05
91697193|NCT03937908|183288281|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.05
91697194|NCT03937908|183288281|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.23
91697195|NCT03937908|183288281|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.16
91697196|NCT03937908|183288282|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.7
91697197|NCT03937908|183288282|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.09
91697198|NCT03937908|183288282|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiaticoside||||0.4
91697199|NCT03937908|183288282|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassoside||||0.6
91697200|NCT03937908|183288282|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.4
91795983|NCT00736879|183470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5598||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.63||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-2.83|0.0022
91697201|NCT03937908|183288282|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dicaffeoylquinic acids||||0.1
91697202|NCT03937908|183288282|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.9
91697203|NCT03937908|183288282|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.03
91697204|NCT03937908|183288282|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.9
91697205|NCT03937908|183288282|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.6
91697206|NCT03937908|183288282|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.4
91697207|NCT03937908|183288282|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.8
91866467|NCT03391466|183625452|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.532|||||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.532|0.318|
91697208|NCT03937908|183288283|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||1 hour||||0.1
91697209|NCT03937908|183288283|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||2 hours||||0.1
91697210|NCT03937908|183288283|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 hours||||0.3
91697211|NCT03937908|183288283|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||4 hours||||0.5
91697212|NCT03937908|183288283|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 hours||||0.5
91904682|NCT03962738|183704590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.71|0.342
91729027|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.78||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.78|0.02|
91866468|NCT03391466|183625453|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|23.9||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||23.9|12.3|<0.0001
91729028|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|7.07||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||7.07|0.22|
91729029|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.74||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.74|0.03|
91729030|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.84||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.84|0.02|
91729031|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|16.98||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||16.98|1.35|
91729032|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.23||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.23|0.28|
91866469|NCT03391466|183625453|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|9.8||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|17.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||17.0|2.6|0.0124
91697213|NCT03875092|183288284|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.52|||||Based on unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate, due to small sample size.|||0.52|0.24|
91729033|NCT01026038|183353467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.85||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.85|0.05|
91729034|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.38||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.38|0.80|
91729035|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.30|0.76|
91729036|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.30|0.69|
91866470|NCT03391466|183625453|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|4.4||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Month 9.||12.0|-3.3|0.2655
91697214|NCT03875092|183288285|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.7|||||Based on unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate, due to small sample size.|||0.70|0.28|
91697215|NCT03875092|183288286|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|51.6|||||Based on unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method, due to small sample size.|||51.6|19.9|
91697216|NCT02163226|183288309|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.03
91729037|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.90|0.49|
91729038|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.01||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.01|0.55|
91729039|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.59||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.59|0.79|
91729040|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.63||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.63|0.98|
91729041|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.27||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.27|0.76|
91866471|NCT03391466|183625454|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|18.2||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||18.2|8.0|<0.0001
91697217|NCT02163226|183288309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.19
91697218|NCT02163226|183288309|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
91697219|NCT02163226|183288309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.89
91697220|NCT02163226|183288309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.07
91904683|NCT03962738|183704590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.76|0.377
91795984|NCT00736879|183470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.859||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-3.6||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-26.7|0.0103
91866472|NCT03391466|183625454|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|5.1||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||11.0|-0.9|0.1253
91866473|NCT03391466|183625455|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|0.081||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.138||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||0.138|0.024|0.0112
91866474|NCT03391466|183625455|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|0.028||||0.3703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.091||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||0.091|-0.034|0.3703
91866475|NCT03391466|183625456|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|18.8||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures Differences in Change from Baseline.||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||18.8|8.5|<0.0001
91697221|NCT02163226|183288309|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.03
91697222|NCT02163226|183288309|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.19
91697223|NCT02163226|183288309|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
91697224|NCT02163226|183288309|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.89
91697225|NCT02163226|183288309|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.07
91697226|NCT02163226|183288310|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.01
91697227|NCT02163226|183288310|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.15
91697228|NCT02163226|183288310|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
91697229|NCT02163226|183288310|OTHER|2 sided p valued||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.78
91866476|NCT03391466|183625456|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|11.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|17.1||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||17.1|5.4|0.0004
91697230|NCT02163226|183288310|OTHER|2 sided p valued||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.04
91697231|NCT02163226|183288310|OTHER|2 sided p valued||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.01
91697232|NCT02163226|183288310|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.15
91697233|NCT02163226|183288310|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
91697234|NCT02163226|183288310|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.78
91697235|NCT02163226|183288310|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.04
91795985|NCT00736879|183470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.816|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-14.3||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-14.3|-37.2|<0.0001
91904684|NCT03962738|183704590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.72|0.63|0.862
91697236|NCT01585324|183288313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8333|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test for the efficacy of SVR achievement (Yes/No), treatment adjustment and baseline hemoglobin value was used.||||||0.8333
91697237|NCT01585324|183288315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0867
91697238|NCT01585324|183288317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6492|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6492
91697239|NCT01585324|183288319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0333
91697240|NCT03625466|183288320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.6||||||||2.6|-5.5|
91697241|NCT01058993|183288330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student t-test-comparison means of normal subjects \& controls.||||||<0.05
91697242|NCT01058993|183288330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Ratio paired t-test|Ratio paired t-test for comparison of baselines and responses for each category of leukocytes||The patients' leukocyte counts before and after plerixafor were compared.||||<0.05
91697243|NCT03214380|183288379|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Margin = 0.4 for HbA1c|Least Square Mean Difference (LSMean)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.05|
91697244|NCT03214380|183288380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||||-5.5|-18.1|<0.001
91697245|NCT03214380|183288381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-9.5|||ANCOVA|||||-9.5|-25.3|<0.001
91697246|NCT02230696|183288390|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|94.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.77|104.52|||Trial and Error approach|||||104.52|84.77|
91697247|NCT02230696|183288391|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|94.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.86|105.54|||Trial and Error approach|||||105.54|84.86|
91697248|NCT00614523|183288393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Anderson-Gill model|Anderson-Gill model using the model-based variance estimate and stratified by the randomization stratification factors|Romiplostim /Placebo|||1.05|0.66|0.13
91697249|NCT00614523|183288394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.766|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.88|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates.|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.88|0.66|<0.001
91795986|NCT00736879|183470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.962|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-20.8||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-20.8|-44.3|<0.0001
91866477|NCT03391466|183625456|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|3.8||||0.2549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures Differences in Change from Baseline.||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Month 9.||10.0|-2.3|0.2549
91904685|NCT03962738|183704592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|15.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.65|0.75|0.112
91795987|NCT00736879|183470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8681|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.56|-24.61||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-24.61|-59.56|<0.0001
91904686|NCT03962738|183704592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|30.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.55|2.68|<0.001
91697250|NCT00614523|183288395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.922||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.99|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates.|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.99|0.86|0.026
91697251|NCT00614523|183288396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.8|||Poisson Regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.8|0.68|<0.001
91697252|NCT00614523|183288397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|51.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for stratification factors.|Romiplostim /Placebo|||51.8|4.7|<0.001
91697253|NCT00614523|183288398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.402||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.91|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates|Romiplostim /Placebo|||1.91|1.03|0.032
91697254|NCT00614523|183288402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.639|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.71|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.71|0.57|<0.001
91697255|NCT00748189|183288475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.72|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios are obtained using the Pike estimator.|||0.72|0.45|<0.001
91697256|NCT00748189|183288478|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank||hazard ratios are obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with O+CHL treatment compared with chlorambucil|||1.17|0.65|0.363
91697257|NCT00748189|183288491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized chlorambucil Cmax values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of Cmax/Dose|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.94|||||Ratio of Cmax/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized chlorambucil Cmax values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||0.94|0.53|
91697258|NCT00748189|183288491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized PAAM Cmax values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of Cmax/Dose|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.99|||||Ratio of Cmax/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized PAAM Cmax values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||0.99|0.63|
91697259|NCT00748189|183288492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-6) values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.4|||||Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-6) values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||1.40|0.77|
91697260|NCT00748189|183288492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-inf) values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of AUC(0-inf)/Dose|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.5|||||Ratio of AUC(0-inf)/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-inf) values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||1.50|0.82|
91697261|NCT00748189|183288492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized PAAM AUC(0-6) values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.1|||||Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized PAAM AUC(0-6) values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||1.10|0.72|
91697262|NCT04481191|183288501|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Concomitant-use Group - Staggered-use Group) being \> -10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.9||One-sided p-value|Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference indicates Concomitant-use Group % - Staggered-use Group %||0.9|-4.0|< 0.001
91697263|NCT04481191|183288501|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Concomitant-use Group - Staggered-use Group) being \> -10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.5||One-sided p-value|Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference indicates Concomitant-use Group % - Staggered-use Group %||1.5|-4.3|< 0.001
91697264|NCT04481191|183288501|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Concomitant-use Group - Staggered-use Group) being \> -10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0||One-sided p-value|Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference indicates Concomitant-use % - Staggered-use %||3.0|-1.6|< 0.001
91697265|NCT01598090|183288515|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Lambda/RBV/TVR to Alfa/RBV/TVR was not established because the lower limit of the 95% CI was less than the predefined non-inferiority margin of -12%. As a result, key secondary endpoints were not tested hierarchically to compare treatment groups.||||||0.0855||||||Non-inferiority testing is based on lower limit of confidence interval.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0855
91697266|NCT03628339|183288525|OTHER||% Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.35|115.06||||||||115.06|89.35|
91697267|NCT03628339|183288526|OTHER||% Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|101.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.24|114.66||||||||114.66|89.24|
91697268|NCT03628339|183288527|OTHER||% Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|103.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.91|123.56||||||||123.56|86.91|
91697269|NCT00355147|183288538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, strata, baseline score, randomized group, month and the group by month interaction|This score represents change from baseline to six months across the groups.|This is an analysis of the outcome, Stroke Specific Quality of Life Overall Total Score.||||0.69
91697270|NCT00355147|183288538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for site, strata, baseline value, treatment group, month of assessment, treatment group x month, random subject effect|Mixed Models Analysis||This score represents change from baseline to three months across groups.|This is an analysis of the Perceived Energy Domain within the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Measure||||0.05
91729042|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.05|0.58|
91729043|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.21||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.21|0.67|
91729044|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.25|0.70|
91729045|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.46||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.46|0.73|
91729046|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.43||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.43|0.83|
91729047|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.20|0.70|
91729048|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.61|
91729049|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.15||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.51|
91729050|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.03||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.03|0.46|
91729051|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.44||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.44|0.56|
91729052|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.37||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.74|
91729053|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.23||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.23|0.67|
91729054|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.29||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.29|0.63|
91729055|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.06||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.06|2.40|
91729056|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.66||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.66|0.39|
91729057|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.22|0.12|
91729058|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.78||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.78|1.11|
91729059|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.06|0.66|
91729060|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.78|0.45|
91729061|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.62||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.62|0.84|
91729062|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.87|0.45|
91729063|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.79|0.36|
91758933|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.548||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGF expression||1.548|0.536|0.3720
91729064|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.4||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.40|0.71|
91729065|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.31|0.66|
91795988|NCT00736879|183470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1963|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.27|-30.03||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-30.03|-66.27|<0.0001
91795989|NCT00736879|183470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1796|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.67|-42.5||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-42.50|-78.67|<0.0001
91795990|NCT00736879|183470525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|34.3||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c.||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||34.3|3.6|0.0157
91795991|NCT00736879|183470525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|23.8||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||23.8|-6.2|0.2512
91795992|NCT00736879|183470525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.069||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|30.3||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||30.3|-1.3|0.0726
91795993|NCT00736879|183470526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7954||0.3163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.77||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.77|-2.37|0.3163
91697271|NCT00355147|183288539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by site, strata, baseline score, treatment group, month and group by month interaction|The score is the change from baseline to six months between groups.|||||0.66
91697272|NCT00355147|183288540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|51.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.31|0.88|0.06
91697273|NCT00355147|183288540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|10.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Within group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Diabetes Medication||10.96|1.08|0.036
91795994|NCT00736879|183470526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8154|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Following a sequential testing procedure, this comparison was not statistically tested, ie, the previous comparison did not meet the criterion for statistical significance.||0.99|-2.22|
91795995|NCT00736879|183470526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Following a sequential testing procedure, this comparison was not statistically tested, ie, the previous comparison did not meet the criterion for statistical significance.||0.16|-3.09|
91795996|NCT02869438|183470576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||0.161|-0.007|0.0707
91729066|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.39||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.63|
91729067|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.7||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.70|0.41|
91795997|NCT02869438|183470576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||0.104|-0.077|0.7747
91904687|NCT03962738|183704592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|34.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||34.55|3.01|<0.001
91904688|NCT03962738|183704593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.46|0.343
91697274|NCT00355147|183288540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group attention control group intervention pre post comparison compliance with Diabetes Medication||2.70|0.10|0.407
91697275|NCT00355147|183288541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Between Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Statin Medication||4.48|0.54|0.05
91697276|NCT00355147|183288541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|12.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Statin Medication||12.76|2.81|0.0001
91729068|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.38||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.38|0.82|
91729069|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.69||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.69|1.46|
91729070|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.28|0.74|
91866478|NCT00220805|183625467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy comparison for the change in LogMAR from baseline to endpoint was a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment group and center as fixed factors (main effect model).||||0.49
91866479|NCT00220805|183625468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for centers (including a Breslow-Day test for homogeneity of odd ratios across centers)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.76
91866480|NCT00220805|183625469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for centers (including a Breslow-Day test for homogeneity of odd ratios across centers)||||||0.13
91866481|NCT00220805|183625470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.21|0.90
91866482|NCT00220805|183625472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted to centers||||||0.74
91866483|NCT00692913|183625478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|0.12|0.35|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) level stratum, age, and region.||||0.35|0.12|<0.001
91866484|NCT00692913|183625479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-9.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-14.49|-4.93|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-4.93|-14.49|<0.001
91866485|NCT00692913|183625480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares mean|-7.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-10.95|-3.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-3.20|-10.95|<0.001
91866486|NCT00692913|183625481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|0.13|0.35|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||0.35|0.13|<0.001
91866487|NCT00692913|183625482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.01||||0.047||95.0|0.01|2.0|||Traditional Longitudinal data analysis|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.|FOSAVANCE minus Referred-Care. Analysis was for Lumbar Spine.|||2.00|0.01|0.047
91729071|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.02||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.02|0.59|
91729072|NCT01026038|183353468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.10|0.58|
91729073|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.7||||||Serotype 4: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-3.5|
91866488|NCT00692913|183625482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.82||||0.035||95.0|0.06|1.58|||Traditional Longitudinal data analysis|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.|FOSAVANCE minus Referred-Care. Analysis was for Total Hip.|||1.58|0.06|0.035
91866489|NCT00692913|183625483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of falls (falls/patient-year)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.675||95.0|-0.12|0.19|||Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression|Adjusted by the terms for treatment, baseline 25(OH) D level stratum, age, and region and offset variable of log (total patient-years in the study).||||0.19|-0.12|0.675
91729074|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 4: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
91729075|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6||||||Serotype 4: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-6.8|
91729076|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.3||||||Serotype 6B: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-3.7|
91729077|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.4||||||Serotype 6B: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.6|
91758934|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.397||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGF-C expression||3.397|0.350|0.5586
91866490|NCT00692913|183625484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.35||||0.001||95.0|-13.19|-3.54|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-3.54|-13.19|0.001
91866491|NCT00692913|183625485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-11.94|-4.21|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-4.21|-11.94|<0.001
91866492|NCT00195403|183625554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in PGA at Month 3 was evaluated using paired t-test.||||<0.0001
91904689|NCT03962738|183704593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.98|1.37|<0.001
91729078|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.5||||||Serotype 6B: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.4|
91729079|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.6||||||Serotype 9V: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.6|
91729080|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 9V: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
91729081|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.5||||||Serotype 9V: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.7|
91729082|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.6||||||Serotype 14: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.7|
91729083|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.5||||||Serotype 14: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.7|
91729084|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.5||||||Serotype 14: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.7|
91729085|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.6||||||Serotype 18C: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.6|
91729086|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.3||||||Serotype 18C: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-3.7|
91866493|NCT00195403|183625555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in number of joints with tenderness, pain, and limitation of motion or swelling at Month 3 were evaluated using paired t-test.||||<0.0001
91866494|NCT05288348|183625566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|11.33||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed methods ANOVA||||11.33|-6.19|0.56
91729087|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.4||||||Serotype 18C: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-6.6|
91866495|NCT05288348|183625566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|9.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed methods ANOVA||Adjusted for age, sex, respiratory rate and injury type||9.48|-10.5|0.92
91729088|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.5||||||Serotype 19F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||4.5|-6.2|
91729089|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.5||||||Serotype 19F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||7.5|-4.8|
91729090|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.5||||||Serotype 19F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||9.5|-4.8|
91729091|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.7||||||Serotype 23F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-3.5|
91729092|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.4||||||Serotype 23F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.6|
91758935|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|2.266||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGF-C expression||2.266|0.313|0.3652
91758936|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.554||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGF-C expression||1.554|0.493|0.3301
91758937|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.5605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|3.636||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGFR1 expression||3.636|0.331|0.5605
91758938|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.599||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.236||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGFR1 expression||2.236|0.160|0.2132
91866496|NCT05288348|183625567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.14||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.66|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANOVA||VNRS @ 60min||3.37|-17.66|0.18
91697277|NCT00355147|183288541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|8.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Attention Control Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Statin Medication.||8.01|1.83|0.0004
91697278|NCT00355147|183288542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|6.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Between Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Hypertension Medication||6.40|0.86|0.096
91697279|NCT00355147|183288542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|7.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Hypertension Medication||7.48|1.81|0.0004
91697280|NCT00355147|183288542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Attention Group Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Hypertension Medication.||3.21|0.77|0.21
91697281|NCT01146379|183288543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a prior threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P value was not corrected for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis used hierarchical linear modeling to examine the rate of change in ARAT over time. The null hypothesis was that all groups would change at a similar rate.||||.01
91697282|NCT01146379|183288543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis then asked which groups were different from the Low Movement Dose group||||.036
91697283|NCT01146379|183288543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis asked if the Low Movement Dose group was different from the High Movement Dose group||||0.679
91697284|NCT01146379|183288543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis tested if the Low Movement Dose group was different from the Individual Maximum High Movement Dose group||||0.209
91697285|NCT03557931|183288544|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|1.88|||MMRM Method|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis model is performed with change from baseline (least square (LS) Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at week 12 as response; treatment, site (pooled where necessary), visit, treatment\*visit, and visit\*baseline as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate.|Cohen's d Effect Size was defined as: (t-value for the least squares mean pairwise difference of ASP4345 50 mg vs placebo) \* sqrt(1/n\[PLACEBO\] + 1/n\[ASP4345\]). The Cohen's d Effect Size value for ASP4345 50 mg vs placebo is 0.035.|1.88|-1.51|0.858
91697286|NCT03557931|183288544|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|1.36|||0.775|||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (LS Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at week 12 as response; treatment, site (pooled where necessary), visit, treatment\*visit, and visit\*baseline as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate.|Cohen's d Effect Size was defined as: (t-value for the least squares mean pairwise difference of ASP4345 150 mg vs placebo) \* sqrt(1/n\[PLACEBO\] + 1/n\[ASP4345\]). The Cohen's d Effect Size value for ASP4345 150 mg vs placebo is - 0.053.|1.36|-1.93|
91697287|NCT03557931|183288550|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.41|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model is performed with change from baseline (LS Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at the Week 12 timepoint as response, treatment and site (pooled where necessary) and baseline as a covariate.||3.41|-1.90|0.639
91697288|NCT03557931|183288550|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|2.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline (LS Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at the Week 12 timepoint as response, treatment and site (pooled where necessary) and baseline as a covariate.||2.01|-3.11|0.721
91729093|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.5||||||Serotype 23F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.7|
91697289|NCT02805179|183288557|SUPERIORITY|Compared to historical controls||||||0.03|||||||1-sided binomial test|||||||0.03
91697290|NCT02157376|183288593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference is larger than -0.05, the non-inferiority claim will be met.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.5|||Pearson's Chi-square||The difference in treatment group percentages is given by Cimetidine minus Esomeprazole.|Assuming a bleeding percent of 6.3% for the active comparator, a risk reduction of 3.7% for esomeprazole, and a 5% non-inferiority margin, 150 patients per treatment arm will provide 94% power to demonstrate non-inferiority. The null hypothesis is that the bleeding rate for iv esomeprazole 40 mg bid exceeds the rate for iv cimetidine by an amount at least as large as 5%.||6.5|-2.8|0.393
91697291|NCT02703467|183288618|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91697292|NCT02729051|183288657|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the (FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI+UMEC) treatment difference is above -50 milliliter (mL) then FF/UMEC/VI was to be considered non-inferior to FF/VI+UMEC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0161|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.05|||||MMRM method included covariates of Baseline FEV1, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), visit, geographical region, treatment, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline interaction.|||0.050|-0.013|
91697293|NCT02729051|183288658|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||||Analysis included covariates of treatment group, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), geographical region, visit, Baseline, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|||1.20|0.71|
91697294|NCT02729051|183288659|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8327|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.728|||||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of Baseline SGRQ, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), visit, geographical region, treatment, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline.|||0.728|-2.540|
91729094|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.4||||||Serotype 1: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.5|
91729095|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.3||||||Serotype 1: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-3.6|
91729096|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.3||||||Serotype 1: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-6.5|
91729097|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.6||||||Serotype 3: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||9.6|-1.7|
91729098|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.2||||||Serotype 3: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.2|-3.7|
91729099|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.5||||||Serotype 3: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||4.5|-9.6|
91729100|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.3||||||Serotype 5: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||11.3|-2.0|
91729101|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.6||||||Serotype 5: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||5.6|-4.9|
91729102|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|3.2||||||Serotype 5: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||3.2|-12.5|
91729103|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 6A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
91729104|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 6A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
91795998|NCT02869438|183470576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||0.173|-0.014|0.0969
91866497|NCT05288348|183625567|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.92||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANOVA||VNRS @ 60 min Adjusted for sex and injury type||15.10|-9.30|0.63
91866498|NCT05288348|183625567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.59||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.39|1.21||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||VNRS @ 90 min||1.21|-22.39|0.08
91866499|NCT05288348|183625567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.36||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Method ANOVA|Adjusted for ISS|VNRS @90min adjusted||20.80|-6.13|0.28
91729105|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.6||||||Serotype 6A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-6.6|
91729106|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.4||||||Serotype 7F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.6|
91795999|NCT02869438|183470576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average over Day 28, 56, and 84|||0.135|-0.022|0.1558
91729107|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.6||||||Serotype 7F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.5|
91729108|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.7||||||Serotype 7F:Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-6.5|
91729109|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.7||||||Serotype 19A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-3.6|
91866500|NCT05288348|183625567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VNRS @ 120 min||4.56|-23.60|0.18
91866501|NCT05288348|183625567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Method ANOVA||VNRS @ 120min adjusted for sex, HR, RR, and injury type||10.20|-20.70|0.50
91729110|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.6||||||Serotype 19A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.6|
91729111|NCT01026038|183353471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6||||||Serotype 19A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-6.8|
91729112|NCT03782103|183353490|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product upper bounds must be less than 0.5.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6033|0.0334||||||Groin 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and the predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.0334|-0.6033|
91729113|NCT03782103|183353490|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5415|3.1655||||||Groin 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||3.1655|2.5415|
91729114|NCT03782103|183353491|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product average treatment effect upper bounds cannot be more than 0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0577|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1457|0.2611||||||Abdomen 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.2611|-0.1457|
91729115|NCT03782103|183353491|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8208|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6153|2.0264||||||Abdomen 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.0264|1.6153|
91729116|NCT01712074|183353525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8697||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.424|1.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.814|-0.424|0.4256
91866502|NCT05288348|183625568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||PGA @ 30 min|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91729117|NCT01712074|183353526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7149||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.013|4.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.401|-0.013|0.2027
91729118|NCT03478787|183353549|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met if the lower bound of the 96.25% confidence interval (CI) of adjusted treatment difference is above -12%.|Adjusted percentage difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|96.25|-2.2|18.6|||||Across the strata, 96.25% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||18.6|-2.2|
91866503|NCT05288348|183625569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|1.89|||General Addative Model|||"SPID 30~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||1.89|-4.77|0.39
91729119|NCT03478787|183353550|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|38.8||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||38.8|20.8|< 0.001
91729120|NCT03478787|183353551|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|26.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|36.5||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||36.5|15.9|< 0.001
91729121|NCT03478787|183353552|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.8||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||38.8|20.9|< 0.001
91796000|NCT02869438|183470577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176||||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline RV, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.||||0.153|-0.505|0.2847
91866504|NCT05288348|183625569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.95|||General Additive Model|||"SPID 30, Adjusted Analysis~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||4.95|-1.50|0.29
91729122|NCT03478787|183353553|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|28.3||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||28.3|11.7|< 0.001
91729123|NCT02792257|183353556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.328|-0.152|||Regression, Linear||standard error NOT standard error of the mean|Efficacy is assessed by fitting a longitudinal linear GEE model with the co primary outcomes and with time, treatment arm, and their interaction. Analyses are adjusted for site and for use of antidepressants and antipsychotics at baseline. The treatment by week interaction is the coefficient of interest and represents the difference in change in outcome per week between the two arms.||-0.152|-1.328|.015
91866505|NCT05288348|183625569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|6.47|||Generalized Additive Model|||SPID @ 60min last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value||6.47|-6.63|0.98
91866506|NCT05288348|183625569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|6.98|||Generalized Additive Model|||"SPID 60 Adjusted~Last observed carried forward to address missingness"||6.98|-5.76|0.85
91866507|NCT05288348|183625569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.26||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|11.28|||Generalized Additive Model|||SPID @ 90 mn last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value||11.28|-8.75|0.8
91729124|NCT02792257|183353557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.21|||Regression, Linear||standard error not standard error of the mean|Efficacy is assessed by fitting a longitudinal linear GEE model with the co primary outcomes and with time, treatment arm, and their interaction. Analyses are adjusted for site and for use of antidepressants and antipsychotics at baseline. The treatment by week interaction is the coefficient of interest and represents the difference in change in outcome per week between the two arms.||0.21|-2.73|.094
91729125|NCT02792257|183353558|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|The original analytic plan called for a logistic regression of ever/never SAE as a function of treatment assignment.|not standard error of the mean just standard error.|||1.79|0.73|.57
91729126|NCT01245049|183353674|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the Non-inferiority of the Boostrix Polio Group compared to the Repevax Group in terms of booster response to diphtheria, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups'difference \[Repevax Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] was computed. Non-inferiority criterion: Upper limit of the 95% CI of the groups' difference in booster response rate ≤10%.|Percentage difference|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|3.14|||Standardized asymptotic|||Non-inferiority in terms of booster response to D||3.14|-3.55|
91729127|NCT01245049|183353674|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the Non-inferiority of the Boostrix Polio Group compared to the Repevax Group in terms of booster response to tetanus, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference \[Repevax Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] was computed. Non-inferiority criterion: Upper limit of the 95% CI of the groups' difference in booster response rate ≤10%.|Percentage difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|4.9||||||Non-inferiority in terms of booster response to T||4.9|-2.43|
91729128|NCT01245049|183353676|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of the corresponding objective: Upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMT ratio for the groups' (Repevax Group divided by Boostrix-Polio Group) was lower than or equal to (≤) 2.|Difference in adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Immune response difference to anti-Polio 1 antigen||1.28|0.65|
91729129|NCT01245049|183353676|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of the corresponding objective: UL of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio for the groups' (Repevax Group divided by Boostrix-Polio Group) ≤ 2.|Difference in adjusted GMT ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Immune response difference to anti-Polio 2 antigen||1.12|0.54|
91729130|NCT01245049|183353676|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of the corresponding objective: UL of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio for the groups' (Repevax Group divided by Boostrix-Polio Group) ≤ 2.|Difference in adjusted GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.84|||ANCOVA|||Immune response difference to anti-Polio 3 antigen||1.84|0.93|
91729131|NCT01197300|183353723|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|3.7||||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.242|44.642||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score Change at Month 18||44.642|-37.242|0.8505
91729132|NCT01197300|183353723|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|21.752||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.126|57.63||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score Change at Month 24||57.630|-14.126|0.2180
91866508|NCT05288348|183625569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.44||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|9.92|||Generalized Additive Model|||"SPID 90 min Adjusted~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||9.92|-10.2|0.92
91729133|NCT01197300|183353724|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|2.36||||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.886|7.606||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC Change at Month 18||7.606|-2.886|0.3544
91729134|NCT01197300|183353724|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|1.179||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.281|7.639||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC Change at Month 24||7.639|-5.281|0.7050
91729135|NCT01197300|183353725|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|121.129||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.0|533.258||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Total body BMC Change at Month 18||533.258|-291.000|0.5310
91758939|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.537||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGFR1 expression||1.537|0.530|0.3605
91866509|NCT05288348|183625569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.18||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|16.9|||Generalized Additive Model|||SPID @ 120 min last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value||16.90|-10.45|0.64
91866510|NCT05288348|183625569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-2.15||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|11.3|||Generalized Additive Model|||"SPID 120 Adjusted~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||11.30|-15.60|0.75
91866511|NCT05288348|183625570|SUPERIORITY||z statistic|0.46||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.96|||two sided test of proportion|||||1.96|-1.96|0.64
91866512|NCT05288348|183625571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.22||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.66|||General Additive Models|||||0.66|-1.11|0.61
91866513|NCT05288348|183625571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.28||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.65|||General Additive Model|||6 item screener adjusted analysis||0.65|-1.23|0.54
91866514|NCT05288348|183625572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.46|||Ordinal Polytomous Logisitic Regression|||Healthcare Professional Global Assessment of method of pain control at 30 min.||4.46|1.24|0.009
91866515|NCT05288348|183625572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.29|||Ordinal polytomous logistic regression|||Healthcare Professional Global Assessment of method of pain control at 30 min. adjusted for ISS and Race||4.29|1.18|0.01
91866516|NCT05288348|183625573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.26|0.22|0.96
91697295|NCT02729051|183288660|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.25|||||Include covariates of treatment group, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators/ day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), geographical region, visit, Baseline dyspnea index (BDI) focal score, BDI focal score/ visit and treatment/ visit interactions.|||1.25|0.72|
91697296|NCT02729051|183288661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1773|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|0.485|||||Analysis included covariates of BDI focal score, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), visit, geographical region, treatment, visit by treatment and visit by BDI Focal score interactions.|||0.485|-0.211|
91697297|NCT02729051|183288662|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.12|0.68|
91697298|NCT02702388|183288663|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio of ORR as of Week 24 response (18 mg vs 24 mg) along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method, stratified by the randomization stratification factors. The test was performed per the 95% CI using the noninferiority margin of 0.4. Noninferiority will be declared if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the odds ratio is greater than 0.4.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.96||||||||0.96|0.26|
91697299|NCT00596817|183288696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.21|||Cox-model|Cox-model using an exact method to handle ties||||3.21|1.26|0.0035
91697300|NCT00596817|183288697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.23||A nominal p-value is provided.|Cox-Model|||||3.23|1.35|0.0010
91697301|NCT00596817|183288698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.77||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.77|-3.36|0.0020
91758940|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.4438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|2.784||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGFR2 expression||2.784|0.304|0.4438
91866517|NCT05288348|183625573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.04|||||Adjusted for age, sex and SpO2|||5.04|0.17|
91866518|NCT05288348|183625574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|24.92||||||||24.92|0.04|
91697302|NCT00596817|183288699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.24||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-2.39|0.0171
91758941|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.122||||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|3.125||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGFR2 expression||3.125|0.403|0.5699
91866519|NCT05288348|183625574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.28|||||Adjusted for Heart Rate and Injury Severity Score|||14.28|0|
91866520|NCT05288348|183625575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.37||||||||8.37|0.39|
91866521|NCT05288348|183625575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.6|||||Adjusted for SpO2|||8.60|0.39|
91866522|NCT05288348|183625577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.12||||||||5.12|0.02|
91697303|NCT00596817|183288700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.05||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-2.30|0.0612
91697304|NCT00596817|183288701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.57|0.0002
91697305|NCT00596817|183288702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.35||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|11.56||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||11.56|1.13|0.025
91697306|NCT00596817|183288703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.13||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|19.52||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||19.52|4.73|0.002
91697307|NCT00596817|183288704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.78||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.78|-2.12|0.3642
91697308|NCT00869622|183288706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0229
91697309|NCT01314872|183288728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares (LS) means|-0.46||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.01|-0.92|0.056
91697310|NCT01314872|183288728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.45||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.03|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.03|-0.93|0.064
91866523|NCT05288348|183625577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.56|||||Adjusted for heart rate|||4.56|0.02|
91866524|NCT05288348|183625578|SUPERIORITY||difference of proportion|0.135|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91866525|NCT05288348|183625579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.61|||Regression, Cox|||||1.61|0.69|0.90
91866526|NCT05288348|183625579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.81|||Regression, Cox|||Adjusted for Race and ISS||1.81|0.75|0.48
91866527|NCT05288348|183625581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.15|||Non parametric General Addative Model|||||0.15|-0.15|0.99
91866528|NCT05288348|183625581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||Non Parametric General Additive Model|||Adjusted||0.15|-0.16|0.96
91866529|NCT05288348|183625582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||Non Parametric General Additive Model|||||0.16|-0.17|0.84
91866530|NCT05288348|183625582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||Adjusted||0.16|-0.19|0.84
91866531|NCT05288348|183625583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||||0.22|-0.17|0.81
91866532|NCT05288348|183625583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.22|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||Adjusted||0.22|-0.20|0.91
91866533|NCT05288348|183625584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.03||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.18|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||||0.18|-0.25|0.74
91697311|NCT01314872|183288728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.18|-1.11|0.007
91697312|NCT01314872|183288728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.44|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.44|-1.37|< 0.001
91729136|NCT01197300|183353725|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|65.674||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-344.067|475.415||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Total body BMC Change at Month 24||475.415|-344.067|0.7347
91729137|NCT01197300|183353726|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-147.68||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-394.41|99.049||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum P1NP Change at Month 18||99.049|-394.410|0.4143
91866534|NCT05288348|183625584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||Adjusted||0.18|-0.30|0.63
91866535|NCT00003222|183625603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||This is a test for differences between the response rates of the two arms. The null hypothesis is that the arms have equal response rates and the alternative hypothesis is that they are different.||||0.13
91729138|NCT01197300|183353726|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-132.437||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.452|21.579||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum P1NP Change at Month 24||21.579|-286.452|0.1266
91758942|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.3147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.528||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGFR2 expression||1.528|0.489|0.3147
91866536|NCT00003222|183625604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||This is a test for differences between the response rates of the two arms. The null hypothesis is that the arms have equal response rates and the alternative hypothesis is that they are different.||||0.004
91866537|NCT05714059|183625712|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c, from baseline to end of 3-month study period was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of -0.38% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
91697313|NCT01314872|183288728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.54||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.07|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.07|-1.02|0.026
91758943|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|3.581||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGFR3 expression||3.581|0.281|0.5015
91866538|NCT05714059|183625712|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of -0.50% with a margin of 0.4%. A significance level of 0.025 (one-sided) was used|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.6|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.6|-0.8|<0.001
91866539|NCT05714059|183625713|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 65.3% with a margin of 7.5%.|Mean value (Final Values)|71.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|73.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||73.3|69.5|<0.001
91866540|NCT05714059|183625713|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 73.7% with a margin of 7.5%.|Mean value (Final Values)|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|81.8|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||81.8|78.7|<0.001
91866541|NCT05714059|183625714|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 0.71% with a margin of 2%.|Mean value (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) from last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was estimated for this endpoint.|||0.4|0.3|<0.001
91904690|NCT03962738|183704593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|1.42|<0.001
91904691|NCT03962738|183704594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.26|0.62|0.605
91697314|NCT01314872|183288733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.28||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.12|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.12|-0.68|0.167
91697315|NCT01314872|183288733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.17|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.17|-0.97|0.005
91697316|NCT01314872|183288733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.33|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.33|-1.11|< 0.001
91697317|NCT01314872|183288733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.32|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.32|-1.10|< 0.001
91697318|NCT01314872|183288733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.04|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.87|0.030
91697319|NCT01314872|183288734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.18||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.25|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.25|-0.61|0.401
91697320|NCT01314872|183288734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.48||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.05|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.05|-0.91|0.029
91697321|NCT01314872|183288734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.18|-1.02|0.005
91697322|NCT01314872|183288734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.58||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.16|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.16|-1.01|0.007
91697323|NCT01314872|183288734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.11|-0.78|0.140
91697324|NCT01314872|183288735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.18||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.49|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.49|-0.84|0.598
91758944|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|3.025||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGFR3 expression||3.025|0.334|0.4887
91758945|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.818||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|1.414||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGFR3 expression||1.414|0.473|0.2432
91758946|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.446||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|4.101||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected FGF expression||4.101|0.048|0.2321
91697325|NCT01314872|183288735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.67||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.01|-1.35|0.052
91904692|NCT03962738|183704594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|1.12|0.015
91697326|NCT01314872|183288735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.76||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.10|-1.43|0.024
91697327|NCT01314872|183288735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.58|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.58|-1.90|< 0.001
91697328|NCT01314872|183288735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.94||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.26|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.26|-1.62|0.007
91697329|NCT01314872|183288736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.03||||||||0.03|-1.00|
91697330|NCT01314872|183288736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.58||||||||-0.58|-1.62|
91697331|NCT01314872|183288737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.71|
91697332|NCT01314872|183288737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.21||||||||0.21|-0.64|
91697333|NCT01314872|183288738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.56|
91697334|NCT01314872|183288738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.48|
91697335|NCT01314872|183288739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.08||||||||-0.08|-1.45|
91697336|NCT01314872|183288739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.56||||||||-0.56|-1.93|
91697337|NCT00860249|183288770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.017||95.0||||We used the Bonferroni calculation to adjust for the planned multiple comparisons among the three groups.|Chi-squared|||Please note that no analyses were performed as the trial was stopped due to low enrollment.||||<0.017
91697338|NCT00860249|183288771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.017||95.0||||We intended to use a Bonferroni calculation to adjust for multiple comparisons among study arms.|Chi-squared|||Please note that no analyses were performed as the trial was stopped due to low enrollment.||||<0.017
91697339|NCT02579343|183288802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-value above was calculated. Does not reference threshold for clinical significance.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||.05
91697340|NCT02579343|183288803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||.05
91697341|NCT04984278|183288804|SUPERIORITY||Combined least mean square difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|=|0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.48|=0.0048
91866542|NCT05714059|183625714|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 0.86% with a margin of 2%.|Mean value (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) were summarized from last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period for this endpoint|||0.3|0.1|<0.001
91866543|NCT05714059|183625715|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% by a simple superiority test|Mean value (Final Values)|71.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|73.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||73.3|69.5|<0.001
91904693|NCT03962738|183704594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.74|0.432
91697342|NCT05406479|183288855|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis testing of non-inferiority the confidence interval should be compared to the non-inferiority margin. More specifically, non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference in means QTc 24 hours after treatment administration (BE-PEP - SDR-PEP) is below the non-inferiority limit of +10 ms. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the two groups, but the p-value returned should not be used to conclude non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.146|4.76||||||Adults||4.76|-5.146|
91697343|NCT05406479|183288855|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis testing of non-inferiority the confidence interval should be compared to the non-inferiority margin. More specifically, non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference in means QTc 24 hours after treatment administration (BE-PEP - SDR-PEP) is below the non-inferiority limit of +10 ms. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the two groups, but the p-value returned should not be used to conclude non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|20.185||||||Adolescents (13-17)||20.185|0.926|
91697344|NCT05406479|183288855|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis testing of non-inferiority the confidence interval should be compared to the non-inferiority margin. More specifically, non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference in means QTc 24 hours after treatment administration (BE-PEP - SDR-PEP) is below the non-inferiority limit of +10 ms. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the two groups, but the p-value returned should not be used to conclude non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.374|7.525||||||Children (5-12)||7.525|-3.374|
91697345|NCT04932655|183288877|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|103.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.88|109.98||||||||109.98|96.88|
91697346|NCT04932655|183288877|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|109.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.9|116.82||||||||116.82|102.9|
91697347|NCT04932655|183288877|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|102.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.57|109.64||||||||109.64|96.57|
91697348|NCT04932655|183288878|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|98.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.33|100.65||||||||100.65|96.33|
91729139|NCT01197300|183353727|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-17.691||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.925|6.543||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||BSAP Change at Month 18||6.543|-41.925|0.2123
91729140|NCT01197300|183353727|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-3.662||||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.479|14.155||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||BSAP Change at Month 24||14.155|-21.479|0.4852
91729141|NCT01197300|183353728|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-4.661||||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.647|7.325||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum NTX Change at Month 18||7.325|-16.647|0.9009
91729142|NCT01197300|183353728|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-2.558||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.864|3.747||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum NTX Change at Month 24||3.747|-8.864|0.9472
91758947|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.316||||0.7143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|3.292||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||No detected FGF expression||3.292|0.526|0.7143
91697349|NCT04932655|183288878|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|98.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.74|101.07||||||||101.07|96.74|
91758948|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|1.465||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate FGF expression||1.465|0.486|0.2812
91904694|NCT03962738|183704595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.96|0.79|0.166
91697350|NCT04932655|183288878|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|100.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.15|102.54||||||||102.54|98.15|
91796001|NCT02869438|183470578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.9|-83.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline eosinophils counts, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.||||-83.06|-118.9|<0.0001
91866544|NCT05714059|183625715|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% by a simple superiority test|Mean value (Final Values)|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|81.8|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||81.8|78.7|<0.001
91866545|NCT04899674|183625716|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans [%]|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|103.8|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of BI 1358894 + bupropion)/(gMean of bupropion alone). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=13.9."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||103.8|86.3|
91904695|NCT03962738|183704595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.68|0.396
91697351|NCT04932655|183288879|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.33|100.71||||||||100.71|96.33|
91697352|NCT04932655|183288879|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|99.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.85|101.26||||||||101.26|96.85|
91697353|NCT04932655|183288879|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|100.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.05|102.5||||||||102.50|98.05|
91697354|NCT00379080|183288896|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Cox|||VEGFR2||||0.04
91697355|NCT00379080|183288896|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Cox|||PIGF||||0.04
91697356|NCT00379080|183288896|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Cox|||CAIX||||0.02
91697357|NCT00379080|183288896|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||sFLT\_1||||0.05
91697358|NCT00379080|183288896|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Cox|||sFLT\_1||||0.01
91697359|NCT00379080|183288896|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||VEGFR2||||0.05
91697360|NCT01089608|183288897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.01||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-16.30|0.072
91697361|NCT06175026|183288905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.37||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the health messages would not elicit different levels of perceived message effectiveness compared to the neutral messages.||1.37|1.13|<0.001
91796002|NCT02869438|183470579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 3|||0.08|-0.049|0.6384
91697362|NCT06175026|183288905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.26||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the environment messages would not elicit different perceived message effectiveness than the control messages.||1.26|1.03|<.001
91697363|NCT06175026|183288905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.41||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the health and environment messages would not elicit different perceived message effectiveness than the control messages.||1.41|1.17|<0.001
91697364|NCT06175026|183288905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.223||This p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (considering 3 tests among intervention arms) using the Bonferroni Holm method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.223|-0.018|.1892
91697365|NCT06175026|183288905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.08||This p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (considering 3 tests among intervention arms) using the Bonferroni Holm method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.08|-.17|.47
91697366|NCT06175026|183288905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03||This p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (considering 3 tests among intervention arms) using the Bonferroni Holm method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.03|-.27|.051
91697367|NCT01028014|183288909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||P values comparing differences across groups, as well as within group changes, were all \>0.05.P-values were not adjusted for multiple testing; p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Using difference in EMG amplitude as primary outcome, assuming standard deviation of 6, we had greater than 80% power to detect a 10-microvolt change in urethral muscle activity with sample size of 9 participants per group. Due to non-normality and small sample sizes, non-parametric tests were used and data presented as median (IQR). Kruskal-Wallis p-values are reported to compare median scores across groups. Wilcoxon sign-test p-values are reported to evaluate 2-week change within groups.||||>0.05
91697368|NCT01028014|183288910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||P values comparing differences across groups, as well as within group changes, were all \>0.05.P-values were not adjusted for multiple testing; p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Using difference in EMG amplitude as primary outcome, assuming standard deviation of 6, we had greater than 80% power to detect a 10-microvolt change in urethral muscle activity with sample size of 9 participants per group. Due to non-normality and small sample sizes, non-parametric tests were used and data presented as median (IQR). Kruskal-Wallis p-values are reported to compare median scores across groups. Wilcoxon sign-test p-values are reported to evaluate 2-week change within groups.||||>0.05
91904696|NCT03962738|183704595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|0.81|0.181
91697369|NCT00425061|183288921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-5.2||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|15.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with baseline as a covariate, long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) use (Inhaled Corticosteroid \[ICS\] only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||15.2|-25.6|0.612
91697370|NCT00425061|183288923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.0||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.482
91697371|NCT00425061|183288923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.492
91697372|NCT00425061|183288923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.323
91697373|NCT00425061|183288923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 84: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.226
91697374|NCT00425061|183288923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.256
91697375|NCT00425061|183288924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA model was based on the log 2 transformed methacholine challenge test values with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||3.9|-0.3|0.090
91697376|NCT00425061|183288924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.1||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: ANCOVA model was based on the log 2 transformed methacholine challenge test values with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||5.0|-0.8|0.144
91697377|NCT00425061|183288926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.4|0.354
91697378|NCT00425061|183288926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.4|-0.4|0.900
91697379|NCT00425061|183288926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.4|-0.4|0.921
91729143|NCT01197300|183353729|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-1.482||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.805|0.841||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum TRAP-5b Change at Month 18||0.841|-3.805|0.4600
91697380|NCT00425061|183288926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 84: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.6|-0.2|0.388
91758949|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|7.96||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected FLT3 expression||7.960|0.248|0.6504
91904697|NCT03962738|183704596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.64|0.79|0.233
91904698|NCT03962738|183704596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.94|0.092
91904699|NCT03962738|183704596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.92|1.11|0.017
91697381|NCT00425061|183288926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.7|-0.2|0.249
91697382|NCT00425061|183288927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.267
91697383|NCT00425061|183288928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.029
91697384|NCT02111577|183288951|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.042||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.213|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.213|0.895|0.596
91697385|NCT02111577|183288951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.204|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.204|0.891|0.648
91697386|NCT02111577|183288952|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.105|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.105|0.746|0.335
91697387|NCT02111577|183288952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.067|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.067|0.725|0.192
91697388|NCT02111577|183288953|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.312||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.762|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.762|0.976|0.071
91697389|NCT02111577|183288953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.283||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|1.712|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.712|0.961|0.09
91697390|NCT02111577|183288954|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.461||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.134|||Log Rank|||Stratified||2.134|1|0.049
91697391|NCT02111577|183288954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.436||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|2.077|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||2.077|0.993|0.053
91697392|NCT02111577|183288955|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.13|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.13|0.779|0.501
91697393|NCT02111577|183288955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.131|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.131|0.781|0.512
91697394|NCT02111577|183288956|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.136|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.136|0.863|0.886
91796003|NCT02869438|183470579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 7|||0.109|-0.016|0.148
91866546|NCT04899674|183625717|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans[%]|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.3|110.7|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of BI 1358894 + bupropion)/(gMean of bupropion alone).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=31.5."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||110.7|74.3|
91866547|NCT04899674|183625718|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans [%]|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.7|104.3|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of BI 1358894 + bupropion)/(gMean of bupropion alone).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=13.9."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||104.3|86.7|
91866548|NCT03593356|183625722|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.179||0.717|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.717
91866549|NCT03593356|183625725|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.789.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.784
91866550|NCT03593356|183625726|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.807||0.474|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.474
91866551|NCT03593356|183625733|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.871|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.791.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.871
91866552|NCT03593356|183625734|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.871|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.646.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.871
91866553|NCT03593356|183625735|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.872|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.872
91866554|NCT03593356|183625738|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.184|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.184
91866555|NCT03593356|183625741|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.415|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.427.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.415
91904700|NCT03962738|183704597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.724
91697395|NCT02111577|183288956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.145|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.145|0.875|0.992
91697396|NCT02111577|183288957|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.184|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.184|0.847|0.994
91796004|NCT02869438|183470579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||0.101|-0.049|0.4959
91904701|NCT03962738|183704597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.240
91904702|NCT03962738|183704597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.548
91904703|NCT03962738|183704598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.719
91904704|NCT03962738|183704598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.823
91697397|NCT02111577|183288957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|1.18|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.18|0.851|0.982
91697398|NCT02111577|183288958|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.077||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.277|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.277|0.909|0.392
91697399|NCT02111577|183288958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.262|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.262|0.905|0.439
91758950|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.838||||0.3266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|1.876||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||No detected FLT3 expression||1.876|0.375|0.3266
91866556|NCT03593356|183625742|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.567|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.541.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.567
91866557|NCT02379351|183625977|OTHER|This pilot study is primarily descriptive statistics||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|Data analysis will use mostly descriptive statistics - parametric and nonparametric statistics will be used as indicated (Chi-squared)||||||.1
91866558|NCT02379351|183625978|NON_INFERIORITY|Likert Scale of Provider Satisfaction|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Data analysis will use mostly descriptive statistics: parametric and nonparametric statistics will be used as indicated.|||Likert Scale of Provider Satisfaction|||<0.01
91866559|NCT04977583|183626013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2625||0.6243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.904|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This test is comparing Arm 1 (screening) to Arm 2 (awareness)||1.904|0.679|0.6243
91866560|NCT04977583|183626013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2553||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|2.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This test compares Arm 1 (screening) to arm 3 (assistance)||2.469|0.908|0.1146
91866561|NCT04977583|183626014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2078||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.447|||Poisson|We used total needs as an offset||This test is comparing Arm 1 (screening) to Arm 2 (awareness)||1.447|0.641|0.856
91866562|NCT04977583|183626014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1999||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.681|||Poisson|||This test is comparing Arm 1 (screening) to Arm 3 (assistance)||1.681|0.768|0.5248
91904705|NCT03962738|183704598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.612
91758951|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.896||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.598||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate FLT3 expression||1.598|0.502|0.3597
91758952|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.342||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|4.297||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected KIT expression||4.297|0.419|0.6907
91758953|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|1.731||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Participants with no detected KIT expression||1.731|0.265|0.1990
91758954|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.896||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.598||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate KIT expression||1.598|0.502|0.3597
91758955|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|6.765||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected RET expression||6.765|0.071|0.3757
91758956|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.3723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.358|2.13||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||No detected RET expression||2.130|0.358|0.3723
91758957|NCT00265317|183410829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|1.523||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate RET expression||1.523|0.501|0.3263
91758958|NCT00265317|183410830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-3 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||<0.0001
91758959|NCT00265317|183410830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-3 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||<0.0001
91758960|NCT00265317|183410832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||sKIT Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||<0.0001
91758961|NCT00265317|183410832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||sKIT Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||<0.0001
91758962|NCT00265317|183410837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3681||95.0||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.3681
91758963|NCT00265317|183410838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5982||95.0||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.5982
91758964|NCT00265317|183410839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9807||95.0||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.9807
91758965|NCT00265317|183410840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3945||||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.3945
91758966|NCT02510001|183410880|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The primary dose escalation analysis was to find the MTD, which was defined as the dose of PF-02341066 in combination with PD-0325901 at which no more than one out of six patients experience a DLT (dose limiting toxicity). The DLT was based on observed toxicity in cycle 1, and was defined as an almost certainly or probably drug-related adverse event to PF-02341066 and/or PD-0325901.~The MTD for the PD 0325901/PF-02341066 combination was 8mg BD(days1-21) and 200mg BD continuously in a 28 day cycle (Dose Level 4)."|||
91758967|NCT02510001|183410882|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The primary dose escalation analysis was to find the MTD, which was defined as the dose of PF-02341066 in combination with Binimetinib at which no more than one out of six patients experience a DLT (dose limiting toxicity). The DLT was based on observed toxicity in cycle 1, and was defined as an almost certainly or probably drug-related adverse event to PF-02341066 and/or Binimetinib.|"Binimetinib 30mg BD on days 1 - 21 every 28 days with Crizotinib 250 mg OD continuously is the MTD, the recommended dose and schedule for further evaluation in our and other trials.~This was as only one DLT was experienced in 6 evaluable patients at this final dose escalation level."|||
91758968|NCT04120402|183410906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91758969|NCT04120402|183410907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.014
91758970|NCT04120402|183410908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91758971|NCT04120402|183410909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.518
91758972|NCT04120402|183410910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.028
91758973|NCT00921843|183410919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91758974|NCT00711971|183410920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Significance for the BDI test at 26-28 weeks||||.29
91758975|NCT00711971|183410920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Significance for BDI at 34-36 weeks gestation||||.51
91758976|NCT00711971|183410920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||BDI score at 6-8 weeks postpartum||||.56
91866563|NCT04977583|183626015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||This is Arm 1 compared to Arm 2||1.400|0.536|.5582
91866564|NCT04977583|183626015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.381|||Regression, Logistic|||This is Arm 1 compared to Arm 3||1.381|0.528|0.5196
91866565|NCT04977583|183626016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2794||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|2.454|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||2.454|0.821|0.2105
91866566|NCT04977583|183626016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2816||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4574|1.379|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.379|0.4574|.4143
91866567|NCT04977583|183626017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9665|1.0336|||ANOVA|||This arm 1 compared to arm 2||1.0336|0.9665|0.9775
91697400|NCT02111577|183288959|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.238|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.238|0.857|0.754
91697401|NCT02111577|183288959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.009||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.207|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.207|0.844|0.924
91866568|NCT04977583|183626017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176||0.3194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9832|1.0534|||ANOVA|||This arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.0534|0.9832|0.3194
91866569|NCT04977583|183626018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1613||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7497|1.4107|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||1.4107|0.7497|0.8623
91866570|NCT04977583|183626018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1626||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9962|1.8844|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.8844|0.9962|0.0534
91866571|NCT04977583|183626019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.464||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1304|40.5121|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||40.5121|0.1304|0.5701
91866572|NCT04977583|183626019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.467||0.3016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2571|80.8746|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||80.8746|0.2571|0.3016
91866573|NCT04977583|183626020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2438||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|2.454|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||2.454|0.944|0.0870
91866574|NCT04977583|183626020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2897||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|3.264|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||3.264|1.048|0.0354
91866575|NCT04977583|183626021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.3063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|1.553|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||1.553|0.246|0.3063
91866576|NCT04977583|183626021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3946||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|1.803|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.803|.256|.4378
91866577|NCT04977583|183626022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8265||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1006|2.5687|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||2.5687|0.1006|0.4134
91866578|NCT04977583|183626022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.819|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8283||0.4705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3588|9.223|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||9.2230|0.3588|0.4705
91866579|NCT04977583|183626023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2684||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.044|2.987|||Mixed Models Analysis||This analysis is arm 1 compared to arm 3. Arm 3 is the numerator and arm 1 is the denominator.|||2.987|1.044|0.0347
91866580|NCT04977583|183626024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3489||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|3.436|||Mixed Models Analysis||This analysis compares arm 1 to arm 2. Arm 2 is the numerator and Arm 1 is the denominator|||3.436|0.875|0.1160
91866581|NCT04977583|183626024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3475||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.202|4.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.695|1.202|0.0134
91866582|NCT04977583|183626025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.512|16.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||This analysis is arm 1 compared to compared to arm 3. Arm 3 is the numerator and arm 1 is denominator.|||16.570|1.512|0.0094
91866583|NCT04977583|183626025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6532||0.3377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|6.746|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is a comparison of arm 1 and arm 2. Arm 2 is the numerator and arm 1 is the denominator.|||6.746|0.521|0.3377
91866584|NCT00979459|183626028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Administration of a single dose of two 40 mg MK-1006 FCT is similar to a single dose of four 20 mg MK-1006 DFC will be satisfied if the 90% confidence interval for the AUC(0 to infinity) geometric mean ratio (FCT/DCF) is contained within (0.70, 1.43).|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.99||||||||0.99|0.86|
91866585|NCT00979459|183626029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Administration of a single dose of two 40 mg MK-1006 FCT is similar to a single dose of four 20 mg MK-1006 DFC will be satisfied if the 90% confidence interval for the Cmax geometric mean ratio (FCT/DCF) is contained within (0.70, 1.43).|Geometric mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.24||||||||1.24|0.92|
91866586|NCT00786864|183626063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p=|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p=0.001
91866587|NCT00786864|183626064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p<0.001
91866588|NCT00786864|183626065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p<0.001
91697402|NCT02111577|183288960|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.497|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.497|0.563|0.732
91697403|NCT02111577|183288960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.485|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.485|0.561|0.713
91758977|NCT00711971|183410921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Gestational diabetes mellitus||||.06
91758978|NCT00711971|183410921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hypertension or preeclampsia||||.12
91758979|NCT00711971|183410921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Induced labor||||.20
91758980|NCT00711971|183410921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||Cesarean section||||.08
91758981|NCT00711971|183410921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||Spontaneous vaginal delivery||||.88
91758982|NCT00711971|183410921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Operative vaginal delivery||||.32
91758983|NCT00711971|183410922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91758984|NCT00711971|183410923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||||||.81
91866589|NCT00786864|183626066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p<0.01
91866590|NCT02422615|183626067|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.593||||4.1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.732|||Log Rank|||||0.732|0.480|0.00000041
91866591|NCT02422615|183626068|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.724||||0.00455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.924|||Log Rank|||||0.924|0.568|0.00455
91866592|NCT02422615|183626069|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.492|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|0.703||||||||0.703|0.345|
91866593|NCT01288443|183626080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Each treatment group was compared to placebo using ANCOVA-derived contrasts.~A hierarchical testing procedure was applied to ensure strong control of overall Type-I error rate at 0.05 level. Order was following:~1. Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus placebo~2. Alirocumab 300 mg Q4W versus placebo~3. Alirocumab 100 mg Q2W versus placebo~4. Alirocumab 200 mg Q4W versus placebo~5. Alirocumab 50 mg Q2W versus placebo~Testing continued only when high-order test was statistically significant at 5% level"||||<0.0001
91866594|NCT01288443|183626080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91866595|NCT01288443|183626080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91866596|NCT01288443|183626080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91904706|NCT03962738|183704599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.04|0.037
91697404|NCT02111577|183288961|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.587|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.587|0.5|0.694
91697405|NCT02111577|183288961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|1.562|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.562|0.496|0.661
91796005|NCT02869438|183470580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.8667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 3|||0.073|-0.062|0.8667
91866597|NCT01288443|183626080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91866598|NCT04327843|183626092|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed||||||0.001
91866599|NCT04327843|183626093|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.43
91866600|NCT04327843|183626094|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.07||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.07
91866601|NCT04327843|183626095|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.10
91866602|NCT04327843|183626096|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.75||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.75
91866603|NCT04327843|183626097|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||1.00
91866604|NCT04327843|183626099|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.75||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.75
91796006|NCT02869438|183470580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.2734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 7|||0.115|-0.033|0.2734
91866605|NCT04327843|183626100|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.14
91866606|NCT01617369|183626104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test performed. Null hypothesis is that no difference in clearance 30 min and 4 hr after HS inhalation exists||||<.05
91866607|NCT02438137|183626113|SUPERIORITY|In multiple linear regression models, the effect of DMF treatment on mean RDI change (beta-coefficient) was -11.3 respiratory events per hour (p=0.0124).|beta-coefficient for treatment effect|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0124|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Multiple linear regression models were used to calculate treatment effect (DMF or placebo) on mean RDI change, controlling for change in age, gender, BMI, time spent in supine sleep, and time spent in REM sleep.|A mixed effects model, which treated RDI as a repeated measure and used individual ID as random effect, adjusted for age, gender, BMI, time spent in supine sleep, was also conducted. In this model, the effect of DMF compared to placebo, controlling for all other covariates, is a 28% decrease in Month 4 RDI (p=0.033).|||0.0124
91866608|NCT00945321|183626115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.93||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||Hochberg's step-up procedure was applied to preserve the overall alpha level for the primary hypothesis that involved comparison at two oral dose levels.|two one-sided tests|The P-value obtained was the maximum of two P-values from two one-sided tests (GMR (Oral/IV) ≤0.80 vs. GMR\>0.80 and GMR≥1.25 vs. GMR\<1.25).||||1.02|0.84|0.001
91904707|NCT03962738|183704599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.06|1.75|<.001
91904708|NCT03962738|183704599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|5.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.06|2.11|<.001
91904709|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||ANOVA|||Work Functioning||||0.162
91904710|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.356
91904711|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696|||||||ANOVA|||Energy and Vitality||||0.696
91697406|NCT02111577|183288962|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.895||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.027|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.027|0.781|0.111
91697407|NCT02111577|183288962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.044|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.044|0.798|0.184
91866609|NCT00945321|183626115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.15||Hochberg's step-up procedure was applied to preserve the overall alpha level for the primary hypothesis that involved comparison at two oral dose levels|two one-sided tests|The P-value obtained was the maximum of two P-values from two one-sided tests (GMR (Oral/IV) ≤0.80 vs. GMR\>0.80 and GMR≥1.25 vs. GMR\<1.25).||||1.15|0.96|<0.001
91866610|NCT00945321|183626115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|1.76||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.76|1.23|
91866611|NCT00945321|183626115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.32||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.32|0.88|
91866612|NCT00945321|183626115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.46||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.46|1.01|
91866613|NCT00945321|183626115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.75||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.75|1.16|
91904712|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings and Concerns||||0.914
91697408|NCT02111577|183288963|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.11|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.11|0.795|0.46
91904713|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms||||0.226
91697409|NCT02111577|183288963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|1.118|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.118|0.807|0.534
91697410|NCT02111577|183288964|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.845||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.355|||Log binomial model|||Stratified||1.355|0.528|0.485
91697411|NCT02111577|183288965|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.601|||Log binomial model|||Stratified||1.601|0.529|0.768
91729144|NCT01197300|183353729|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.41||||0.9236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|1.603||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum TRAP-5b Change at Month 24||1.603|-2.423|0.9236
91729145|NCT01197300|183353730|OTHER|The number and percentage of patients with new vertebral fractures during the 12 month Extension period was presented by Core treatment group. Between-treatment differences were evaluated using Fisher's exact test.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||New vertebral fractures at Month 12 Extension||||1.0000
91729146|NCT01197300|183353731|OTHER|The number and percentage of patients with new morphometric vertebral fractures during the 12 month extension period was presented by core treatment group. Between-treatment differences will be evaluated using Fisher's exact test.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||New morphometric vertebral fractures at Month 12 Extension||||1.0000
91729147|NCT01197300|183353732|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73||||0.3971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|173.07||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 15||173.07|0.13|0.3971
91729148|NCT01197300|183353732|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 18||999.99|0.01|0.6046
91729149|NCT01197300|183353732|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 21||999.99|0.01|0.6046
91697412|NCT04501640|183288973|OTHER||Geomteric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|57.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.21|70.47|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||70.47|46.21|
91697413|NCT04501640|183288973|OTHER||Geometric LSMean Ratio|61.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.06|72.47|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||72.47|52.06|
91729150|NCT01197300|183353732|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|38.04||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 24||38.04|0.05|0.8750
91758985|NCT00711971|183410924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis test was used for outliers; Tukey multiple comparisons test was also used.||||||<.001
91758986|NCT00711971|183410925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||||||.39
91758987|NCT00711971|183410926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||.19
91729151|NCT01197300|183353733|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.01||||0.9231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline bone age as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||2nd metacarpal cortical width chge from BL1 at Month 24||0.17|-0.18|0.9231
91729152|NCT01197300|183353733|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.11||||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.1||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Extension baseline bone age as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||2nd metacarpal cortical width chge from BL2 at Month 24||0.10|-0.32|0.2694
91729153|NCT02255279|183353753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis: Demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of aTIV to TIV:~H0 : μAi - μBi ≤ -0.176 (Null) H1 : μAi - μBi \>-0.176 (alternative) (i= H1N1, H3N2, B) μA and μB are means of log10-transformed titers 21 days after last vaccination of the aTIV \& TIV vaccine groups respectively. NI is claimed if LL of 95% CI for GMT ratios is \>0.67.~Significance level is α = 2.5% (1-sided), which needs no further adjustment for multiplicity as to reach NI, above hypothesis needs to be rejected for all 3 strains."|Ratio of GMTs|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.51|||ANCOVA|||Geometric mean titers (GMTs), in H1N1 strain of all the tree strains in Subjects 6 to \< 72 months of Age.||5.51|3.00|
91729154|NCT02255279|183353753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis: Demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of aTIV to TIV:~H0 : μAi - μBi ≤ -0.176 (Null) H1 : μAi - μBi \>-0.176 (alternative) (i= H1N1, H3N2, B) μA and μB are means of log10-transformed titers 21 days after last vaccination of the aTIV \& TIV vaccine groups respectively. NI is claimed if LL of 95% CI for GMT ratios is \>0.67.~Significance level is α = 2.5% (1-sided), which needs no further adjustment for multiplicity as to reach NI, above hypothesis needs to be rejected for all 3 strains."|Ratio of GMTs|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.25|||ANCOVA|||Geometric mean titers (GMTs), in H3N2 strain of all three homologous virus strains in Subjects 6 to \< 72 months of Age.||3.25|2.05|
91729155|NCT02255279|183353753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis: Demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of aTIV to TIV:~H0 : μAi - μBi ≤ -0.176 (Null) H1 : μAi - μBi \>-0.176 (alternative) (i= H1N1, H3N2, B) μA and μB are means of log10-transformed titers 21 days after last vaccination of the aTIV \& TIV vaccine groups respectively. NI is claimed if LL of 95% CI for GMT ratios is \>0.67.~Significance level is α = 2.5% (1-sided), which needs no further adjustment for multiplicity as to reach NI, above hypothesis needs to be rejected for all 3 strains."|Ratio of GMTs|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|6.2|||ANCOVA|||Geometric mean titers (GMTs), in B strain of all three homologous virus strains in Subjects 6 to \< 72 months of Age.||6.20|3.52|
91729156|NCT02255279|183353754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The following hypotheses should be tested to demonstrate non-inferiority of aTIV to TIV:~H0i: πi1 \> πi2-0.1 vs. H1i: πi1 \> πi2- 0.1 where H0i and H1i represent the null and the alternative hypothesis (respectively) of the non- inferiority objective and πi1 and πi2 represent the seroresponse rates 21 days after last immunization of the aTIV and TIV vaccine groups respectively in the i-th strain (H1N1, H3N2, B). The non-inferiority criterion is -0.1 (i.e., -10%)."|Vaccine Group Differences|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|26.3|||Loglinear model|Binary data were analyzed using loglinear models with a qualitative factor for vaccine group (αik, i = A, B) and center (δlk, k=1).||Percentage of subjects achieving seroconversion in H1N1 strain after last vaccination with aTIV or TIV in naïve and non-naive subjects.||26.3|8.1|
91729157|NCT02255279|183353754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The following hypotheses should be tested to demonstrate non-inferiority of aTIV to TIV:~H0i: πi1 \> πi2-0.1 vs. H1i: πi1 \> πi2- 0.1 where H0i and H1i represent the null and the alternative hypothesis (respectively) of the non- inferiority objective and πi1 and πi2 represent the seroresponse rates 21 days after last immunization of the aTIV and TIV vaccine groups respectively in the i-th strain (H1N1, H3N2, B). The non-inferiority criterion is -0.1 (i.e., -10%)."|Vaccine Group Differences|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|21.0|||Loglinear model|Binary data were analyzed using loglinear models with a qualitative factor for vaccine group (αik, i = A, B) and center (δlk, k=1).||Percentage of subjects achieving seroconversion in H3N2 strain after last vaccination with aTIV or TIV in naive and non-naive subjects.||21|-1.8|
91729158|NCT02255279|183353754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The following hypotheses should be tested to demonstrate non-inferiority of aTIV to TIV:~H0i: πi1 \> πi2-0.1 vs. H1i: πi1 \> πi2- 0.1 where H0i and H1i represent the null and the alternative hypothesis (respectively) of the non- inferiority objective and πi1 and πi2 represent the seroresponse rates 21 days after last immunization of the aTIV and TIV vaccine groups respectively in the i-th strain (H1N1, H3N2, B). The non-inferiority criterion is -0.1 (i.e., -10%)."|Vaccine Group Differences|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|68.5|||Loglinear model|Binary data were analyzed using loglinear models with a qualitative factor for vaccine group (αik, i = A, B) and center (δlk, k=1).||Percentage of subjects achieving seroconversion in B strains after last vaccination with aTIV or TIV in naïve and non naive subjects.||68.5|47.5|
91729159|NCT01052428|183353783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4568||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.4568
91729160|NCT01052428|183353784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1967||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.1967
91866614|NCT00945321|183626116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.56||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.56|1.13|
91904714|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Work Functioning||||0.310
91729161|NCT01052428|183353785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.55
91729162|NCT01052428|183353786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.21
91729163|NCT01052428|183353787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.006
91729164|NCT01052428|183353788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.16
91729165|NCT01052428|183353789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.001
91729166|NCT00871000|183353792|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-polio type 1 antibody titers ≥ 8 was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against poliovirus type 1, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
91729167|NCT00871000|183353792|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-polio type 2 antibody titers ≥ 8 was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against polio type 2, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
91729168|NCT00871000|183353792|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-polio type 3 antibody titers ≥ 8 was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.72||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against polio type 3, one month after vaccination.||2.72|-2.61|
91729169|NCT00871000|183353793|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: Upper limit (UL) of the standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-D antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL was lower than or equal to (≤) 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against diphtheria, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
91729170|NCT00871000|183353793|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against tetanus, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
91729171|NCT03400787|183353809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||p\<0.025 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the responder rate for the Latera implant treatment was not superior to the sham treatment. A maximum sample size of 124 evaluable subjects is required for 90% power and preserving a 2.5% (one-sided) type I error rate.||||0.0001
91729172|NCT02837952|183353822|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|72.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.075|95.707|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on LS Mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, gender, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR) as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||95.707|50.075|<0.001
91758988|NCT00711971|183410927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91866615|NCT00945321|183626116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.25|0.86|
91904715|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.684
91904716|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||ANOVA|||Energy and Vitality||||0.864
91796007|NCT02869438|183470580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.7252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||0.098|-0.068|0.7252
91866616|NCT00945321|183626116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.34||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.34|0.96|
91866617|NCT00945321|183626116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.68||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.68|1.16|
91697414|NCT04501640|183288974|OTHER||Geomteric LSMean Ratio|53.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.02|66.05|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||66.05|43.02|
91697415|NCT04501640|183288974|OTHER||Geomteric LSMean Ratio|59.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.48|70.7|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||70.70|49.48|
91758989|NCT00711971|183410928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
91758990|NCT00887549|183410938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|1.021|||Regression, Cox|The Cox model, based upon participant level data, included PFS as dependent variable and TS score in the nucleus as independent variable.||||1.021|1.008|<0.0001
91758991|NCT01919801|183410982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.633||||||Test was performed using a weighted log-rank test called the Peto-Prentice test with a global 2-sided significance level of 5% after adjusting for stratification factors (race, and severity) in the ITT population.|Adjusted Peto-Prentice|||A total of 121 participants were analysed, however 3 participants did not receive the study medication and were censored at time 0.||||0.633
91758992|NCT01059994|183410992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91758993|NCT01059994|183410993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91758994|NCT01677858|183410994|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg/m²)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91758995|NCT00988091|183411010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.33||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|10.24||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because there was a single treatment comparison for the primary endpoint. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate and study center as a stratification variable.||A treatment difference of \>=7.0 mm and a pooled SD of 27.6 mm, requires a sample size of 244 subjects/treatment to complete the trial at 80% power at a two-sided significance level of 5%. To account for 18% dropout rate, the sample size was increased to 298/arm (total of 596). The primary null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||10.24|0.41|0.034
91758996|NCT00988091|183411011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.89||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|7.08||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate and study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||7.08|-1.29|0.175
91758997|NCT00988091|183411012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.777||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.136||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||1.136|0.532|0.193
91758998|NCT00988091|183411013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887||95.0||||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis included study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||||0.887
91758999|NCT00988091|183411015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|8.98||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate and study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||8.98|-0.99|0.116
91759000|NCT00988091|183411016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|1.044||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.\[||1.044|0.483|0.081
91759001|NCT03078855|183411022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.98|||Regression, Cox||The EFS hazard ratio was adjusted for enrolling site, continuous age at randomization, and (via stratification) 3 randomization strata: non-follicular histology, follicular (FL) with low/intermediate FLIPI score and FL with high FLIPI score.|||1.98|0.83|0.26
91866618|NCT05495945|183626159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91729173|NCT02837952|183353823|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|26.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.895|33.005|||ANCOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on least square (LS) mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||33.005|19.895|< 0.001
91866619|NCT05495945|183626160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91697416|NCT04501640|183288975|OTHER||Geometric LSMean Ratio|38.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.78|56.59|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||56.59|26.78|
91697417|NCT04501640|183288975|OTHER||Geometric LSMean Ratio|47.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.76|72.24|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||72.24|31.76|
91697418|NCT04590586|183288987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.35|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by baseline score of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), and geographic region.|Hazard ratio (Lanadelumab vs. placebo) from a Cox regression model including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||2.35|0.59|0.6672
91697419|NCT04590586|183288988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.24|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by baseline score of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), and geographic region.|Hazard ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) from a Cox regression model including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.24|0.77|0.8779
91697420|NCT04590586|183289000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.3773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.9|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||4.9|-12.9|0.3773
91697421|NCT04590586|183289000|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.28|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.28|0.52|
91697422|NCT04590586|183289001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.3|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||5.3|-11.2|0.4846
91697423|NCT04590586|183289001|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.37|0.51|
91697424|NCT04590586|183289002|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.6|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||7.6|-7.3|0.9665
91866620|NCT05495945|183626161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
91697425|NCT04590586|183289002|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.74|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.74|0.59|
91697426|NCT04590586|183289003|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.46|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|Day 8||1.46|0.71|0.9119
91796008|NCT02869438|183470580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||0.164|-0.014|0.0976
91866621|NCT05495945|183626162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91866622|NCT05155306|183626163|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|89.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.5|99.7|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.067.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||99.7|79.5|
91697427|NCT04590586|183289003|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.58|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|Day 15||1.58|0.75|0.6475
91697428|NCT04590586|183289003|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.48|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|Day 29||1.48|0.64|0.9071
91697429|NCT04590586|183289004|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.66|0.80|0.4507
91796009|NCT02869438|183470580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||0.122|-0.077|0.6536
91866623|NCT05155306|183626163|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|101.9|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.022.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||101.9|94.4|
91866624|NCT05155306|183626163|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|202.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|180.1|227.5|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.069.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||227.5|180.1|
91866625|NCT05155306|183626163|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|173.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.3|190.8|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.055.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||190.8|158.3|
91866626|NCT05155306|183626164|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.6|99.0|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.106.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||99.0|69.6|
91866627|NCT05155306|183626164|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.7|112.0|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.070.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.0|88.7|
91866628|NCT05155306|183626164|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|153.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.0|187.3|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.121.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||187.3|126.0|
91697430|NCT04590586|183289005|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.53|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.53|0.64|0.9741
91904717|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings and Concerns||||0.412
91697431|NCT04590586|183289006|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.7|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.70|0.64|0.8754
91697432|NCT04590586|183289007|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.9695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.1|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 8||9.1|-8.7|0.9695
91697433|NCT04590586|183289007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.59|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 8||1.59|0.64|
91729174|NCT02837952|183353823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.196|10.632|||ANCOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||10.632|5.196|< 0.001
91904718|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms||||0.025
91904719|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANOVA|||Work Functioning||||0.619
91904720|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.824
91904721|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||Energy and Vitality||||0.476
91697434|NCT04590586|183289007|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.6236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|7.1|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 15||7.1|-11.9|0.6236
91697435|NCT04590586|183289007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.37|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 15||1.37|0.59|
91904722|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings and Concerns||||0.352
91697436|NCT04590586|183289007|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||0.1664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.5|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 29||2.5|-14.9|0.1664
91729175|NCT02837952|183353823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|51.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.075|66.258|||ANCOVA|||0 to 16 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||66.258|37.075|< 0.001
91729176|NCT02837952|183353823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.139|36.508|||ANCOVA|||8 to 16 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||36.508|18.139|< 0.001
91866629|NCT05155306|183626164|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|121.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.6|147.8|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.120.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||147.8|99.6|
91866630|NCT05155306|183626165|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.4|100.4|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.066.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.4|80.4|
91866631|NCT05155306|183626165|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|100.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.8|104.1|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.021.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.1|96.8|
91866632|NCT05155306|183626165|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|202.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|179.6|228.5|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.072.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||228.5|179.6|
91866633|NCT05155306|183626165|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|172.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.2|187.7|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.050.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||187.7|158.2|
91866634|NCT04121741|183626166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.864|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for FMD% (singing video intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of FMD% for singing coach intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.864
91866635|NCT04121741|183626166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.913|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for FMD% (singing coach intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of FMD% for singing video intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.913
91866636|NCT04121741|183626167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for RHI (singing video intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of RHI for singing coach intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.290
91904723|NCT03962738|183704600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms||||0.044
91697437|NCT04590586|183289007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.15|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 29||1.15|0.45|
91697438|NCT04590586|183289008|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.3|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||8.3|-9.3|0.9043
91697439|NCT04590586|183289008|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.54|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.54|0.62|
91697440|NCT01893281|183289024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91697441|NCT00910208|183289027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.82
91697442|NCT00910208|183289028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91697443|NCT00910208|183289029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91697444|NCT00910208|183289030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
91697445|NCT00910208|183289031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91697446|NCT00910208|183289032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91697447|NCT00737204|183289033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91904724|NCT02170779|183704601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91904725|NCT02170779|183704602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.738
91729177|NCT02837952|183353823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|138.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.045|186.261|||ANCOVA|||0 to 48 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||186.261|91.045|< 0.001
91729178|NCT02837952|183353824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value Method was based on Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by sex and baseline categorical PSR.|Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91729179|NCT02837952|183353825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value Method was based on Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by sex and baseline categorical PSR.|Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91729180|NCT01959919|183353826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.907||||0|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between ease of using clotting factor treatment score at Final visit (Month 8) and baseline visit||||0.000
91729181|NCT01959919|183353827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.411|5.733|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between time for reconstructing the drug at Final visit (Month 8) and baseline visit||5.733|3.411|0.000
91729182|NCT01959919|183353828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.789||||0|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between burden of clotting factor treatment score at Final Visit Month 8 and baseline visit||||0.000
91796010|NCT02869438|183470580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||0.188|-0.004|0.0595
91796011|NCT02869438|183470580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average of Day 28, 56, 84.|||0.147|-0.02|0.1377
91796012|NCT02869438|183470581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 3|||2.58|0.85|0.1604
91796013|NCT02869438|183470581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 7|||2.19|0.76|0.3400
91796014|NCT02869438|183470581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||2.70|0.93|0.0924
91729183|NCT01959919|183353829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.98||||0|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between impact of clotting factor treatment score at Final Visit Month 8 and baseline visit||||0.000
91729184|NCT01959919|183353830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.445||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between risk associated with clotting factor treatment score at Final Visit Month 8 and baseline visit||||0.001
91729185|NCT02003898|183353855|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority test with an A1C margin of 0.4% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.098||||||||0.098|-0.03|
91796015|NCT02869438|183470581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||2.71|0.91|0.1052
91796016|NCT02869438|183470581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||2.21|0.77|0.3271
91796017|NCT02869438|183470581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||2.29|0.77|0.3017
91729186|NCT03721107|183353990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.9||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|21.9||P-value is from a 1-sided Pearson chi-square test with Yates' correction with null hypothesis that the difference in proportions Blautix - placebo \<=0 versus the difference is \>0. The significance level for rejection of the null hypotheses is 0.10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||21.9|-6.0|0.152
91729187|NCT03721107|183353990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.6||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|18.0||P-value is from a 1-sided Pearson chi-square test with Yates' correction with null hypothesis that the difference in proportions Blautix - placebo \<=0 versus the difference is \>0. The significance level for rejection of the null hypotheses is 0.10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||18.0|-6.8|0.216
91729188|NCT02991859|183354008|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|19.39|||||FF E0 (Response of Placebo participants)|||19.39|9.39|
91729189|NCT02991859|183354008|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.21|25.4|||||Emax-Maximum Dose response|||25.40|8.21|
91729190|NCT02991859|183354008|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|48.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.21|129.32|||||ED50-Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||129.32|18.21|
91729191|NCT02991859|183354008|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|19.39|||||FP E0-Response of Placebo participants|||19.39|9.39|
91796018|NCT02869438|183470582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|-0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||-0.105|-0.481|0.0024
91796019|NCT02869438|183470582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|-0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||-0.195|-0.609|0.0002
91796020|NCT02869438|183470582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.312||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.554|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||-0.07|-0.554|0.0117
91796021|NCT02869438|183470582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.472||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||-0.213|-0.731|0.0004
91796022|NCT02869438|183470582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|-0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average of Day 28, 56, 84.|||-0.188|-0.603|0.0002
91904726|NCT02170779|183704603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8434|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8434
91697448|NCT00737204|183289034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure analysis||||.01
91697449|NCT00737204|183289035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>=|0.805||95.0|||||Paired t-tests|||Null hypothesis: CD4 levels for both the Armodafinil and Placebo groups will not change significantly between baseline and week 4.||||>=.805
91796023|NCT02869438|183470583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.229||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.832|-3.626|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||-3.626|-10.832|0.0001
91697450|NCT03605862|183289042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4009|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis was stratified by time from onset of symptoms, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung conditions||||||0.4009
91697451|NCT03605862|183289043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1923|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis was stratified by time from onset of symptoms, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung conditions||||||0.1923
91697452|NCT03605862|183289044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2057|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2057
91697453|NCT03605862|183289045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0712|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from symptom onset at Baseline, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||0.0712
91697454|NCT03605862|183289046|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for study day 2||||1.0000
91697455|NCT03605862|183289046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9142|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for study day 3||||0.9142
91697456|NCT03605862|183289046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for study day 7||||0.0132
91697457|NCT03605862|183289047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1239|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for day 2||||0.1239
91697458|NCT03605862|183289047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for day 3||||0.1022
91697459|NCT03605862|183289047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for day 7||||0.46213
91697460|NCT03605862|183289050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from symptom onset at first dose, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||0.0140
91796024|NCT02869438|183470583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.942||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.538|-1.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||-1.346|-10.538|0.0115
91796025|NCT02869438|183470583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.599||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-3.898|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||-3.898|-13.3|0.0004
91904727|NCT02170779|183704604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.638|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.638
91697461|NCT03605862|183289051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from onset at first dose, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||0.0112
91697462|NCT03605862|183289052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from onset at first dose, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||<0.0001
91697463|NCT00778869|183289053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student t-test|||||||<0.05
91697464|NCT01582178|183289088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.89
91697465|NCT00570063|183289089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.49|13.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent confidence interval (CI) were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures spatial power covariance structure (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||13.27|-16.49|0.86
91697466|NCT00570063|183289090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.71|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.24|-5.71|0.65
91697467|NCT00570063|183289091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.10|-4.59|0.93
91697468|NCT00570063|183289092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.21|7.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||7.69|-6.21|0.86
91697469|NCT00570063|183289093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.92|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||2.79|-7.92|0.43
91697470|NCT00570063|183289094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.16|-4.76|0.91
91697471|NCT00570063|183289095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.43|-3.17|0.78
91697472|NCT00570063|183289096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||2.39|-2.11|0.92
91866637|NCT04121741|183626167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.462|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for RHI (singing coach intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of RHI for singing video intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.462
91697473|NCT00570063|183289097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.54|-1.85|0.60
91697474|NCT00570063|183289098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.53|-2.65|0.81
91697475|NCT00570063|183289099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||0.76|-0.84|0.93
91697476|NCT00570063|183289100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.||1.14|-1.13|0.99
91697477|NCT00570063|183289101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.158|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.844|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.546|1.231||||||Change at Day 21: Cried||1.231|-1.546|
91697478|NCT00570063|183289101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.444|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.078|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.329|2.218||||||Change at Day 21: Felt blue or depressed||2.218|-1.329|
91697479|NCT00570063|183289101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.544|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.561|8.649||||||Change at Day 21: Irritability||8.649|-5.561|
91697480|NCT00570063|183289101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.573|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.955|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.287|5.433||||||Change at Day 21: Manifest psychosis||5.433|-4.287|
91697481|NCT00570063|183289101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.556|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.096|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.892|4.003||||||Change at Day 21: Personal neatness||4.003|-2.892|
91697482|NCT00570063|183289101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.327|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.202|0.547||||||Change at Day 21: Refused to speak||0.547|-1.202|
91697483|NCT00570063|183289101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.632|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.749|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.152|3.889||||||Change at Day 21: Retardation||3.889|-5.152|
91697484|NCT00570063|183289101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.572|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.771||||||Change at Day 21: Said he/she was no good||0.771|-1.110|
91697485|NCT00570063|183289101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.561|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.887|3.764||||||Change at Day 21: Social competence||3.764|-4.887|
91729192|NCT02991859|183354008|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.21|25.4|||||FP Emax-Maximum Dose response|||25.40|8.21|
91796026|NCT02869438|183470583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.257||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.133|-3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average of Day 28, 56, 84.|||-3.38|-11.133|0.0003
91904728|NCT02170779|183704605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.492
91697486|NCT00570063|183289101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.447|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.934|6.694||||||Change at Day 21: Social interest||6.694|-7.934|
91697487|NCT00570063|183289102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.712|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.42|25.845||||||||25.845|-14.42|
91697488|NCT00570063|183289112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.849|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.807|6.109||||||||6.109|-7.807|
91697489|NCT00570063|183289113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.195|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.307|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.5|11.114||||||||11.114|-19.50|
91697490|NCT00570063|183289114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.273|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.488|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.01|5.465||||||Change at Day 21: Parkinsonism||5.465|-6.010|
91697491|NCT00570063|183289114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.182|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.008|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.13|4.766||||||Change at Day 21: Dyskinesia||4.766|-5.130|
91697492|NCT00570063|183289114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.932|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.425|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.275|1.411||||||Change at Day 21: Dystonia||1.411|-3.275|
91697493|NCT00570063|183289114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.705|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.652|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.013|3.422||||||Change at Day 21: Akathisia||3.422|-2.013|
91697494|NCT00570063|183289115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.291|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.203|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|1.688||||||Change at Day 4||1.688|-2.270|
91697495|NCT00570063|183289115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.327|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.349|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.892|2.547||||||Change at Day 7||2.547|-1.892|
91697496|NCT00570063|183289115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.436|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.448|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.946|2.817||||||Change at Day 14||2.817|-1.946|
91697497|NCT00570063|183289115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.763|1.963||||||Change at Day 21||1.963|-1.763|
91729193|NCT02991859|183354008|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|1081.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|448.0|2609.66|||||FP ED50-Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||2609.66|448.00|
91729194|NCT02991859|183354008|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|19.39|||||BUD E0-Response of Placebo participants|||19.39|9.39|
91729195|NCT02991859|183354008|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.21|25.4|||||BUD Emax-Maximum Dose response|||25.40|8.21|
91729196|NCT02991859|183354008|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|1467.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|546.51|3939.84|||||BUD ED50-Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||3939.84|546.51|
91729197|NCT02991859|183354009|OTHER||Exponential power-law model|176.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.87|190.38|||||FF E0-Response of Placebo participants|||190.38|162.87|
91729198|NCT02991859|183354009|OTHER||exponential power-law model|899.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|698.36|1101.62|||||FF ED50 Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached|||1101.62|698.36|
91697498|NCT01031680|183289152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0473|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.37||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate for each endpoint|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.37|-0.56|<0.0001
91866638|NCT04121741|183626168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for fRHI (singing video intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of fRHI for singing coach intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.005
91697499|NCT01031680|183289153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|12.9||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|with age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event as stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||12.9|7.0|<0.0001
91697500|NCT01031680|183289154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7898||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.42||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.42|-3.52|0.0126
91697501|NCT01031680|183289155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.64|-1.89||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.89|-2.64|<0.0001
91697502|NCT01031680|183289156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8203||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.34||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.34|-3.56|0.0174
91697503|NCT01031680|183289157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.126|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|16.6||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value and stratum (gender)||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||16.6|8.3|<0.0001
91729199|NCT02991859|183354009|OTHER||exponential power-law model|176.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.87|190.38|||||FP E0-Response of Placebo participants|||190.38|162.87|
91729200|NCT02991859|183354009|OTHER||exponential power-law model|1986.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1574.7|2397.39|||||FP ED50 - Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||2397.39|1574.70|
91729201|NCT02991859|183354009|OTHER||exponential power-law model|176.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.87|190.38|||||BUD E0 - Response of Placebo participants|||190.38|162.87|
91729202|NCT02991859|183354009|OTHER||exponential power-law model|1927.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1698.47|2156.37|||||BUD ED50 - Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||2156.37|1698.47|
91729203|NCT02991859|183354010|OTHER||Emax Model|289.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.82|354.64|||||ED20 Cortisol Suppression 0-24 Hours Weighted Mean|||354.64|224.82|
91729204|NCT02991859|183354010|OTHER||Emax Model|194.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.82|517.28|||||ED80 for AMP PC20|||517.28|72.82|
91729205|NCT02991859|183354011|OTHER||Emax Model|639.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|506.94|771.79|||||ED20 for Cortisol Suppression 0-24 Hours Weighted Mean|||771.79|506.94|
91729206|NCT02991859|183354011|OTHER||Emax Model|4325.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1792.02|10438.64|||||ED80 for AMP PC20|||10438.64|1792.02|
91729207|NCT02991859|183354012|OTHER||Emax Model|620.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|546.79|694.2|||||ED20 for Cortisol Suppression 0-24 Hours Weighted Mean|||694.20|546.79|
91729208|NCT02991859|183354012|OTHER||Emax Model|5869.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2186.03|15759.35|||||ED80 for AMP PC20|||15759.35|2186.03|
91729209|NCT00425854|183354073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Likelihood|0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.238|||||Maximum Likelihood estimates. The clinical benefit rate for Cohort A was calculated by relating the number of patients with CB to all treated patients in Cohort B. The CI is an exact Clopper Pearson CI.|||0.238|0.001|
91759002|NCT03194646|183411044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.26||||||||-1.26|-2.44|
91759003|NCT03194646|183411044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-1.8||||||||-1.80|-2.87|
91759004|NCT03194646|183411044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.1||||||||-1.10|-2.51|
91796027|NCT02869438|183470584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.414||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.492|15.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline FeNO value, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.||||15.321|-4.492|0.2825
91796028|NCT02869438|183470594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.365||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|-0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline PGI-S score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||-0.081|-0.649|0.0120
91904729|NCT02170779|183704606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis refers to the physical component of the MSIS-29||||0.144
91697504|NCT00789698|183289163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a non-inferiority analysis. Lurasidone will be declared as effective as quetiapine XR in preventing relapse if the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence limit for the hazard ration of lurasidone vs. quetiapine is no greater than an equivalence hazard ratio margin of 1.93.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.295||There is no hypothesis tested. Since this was a non-inferiority study, the upper bound of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio was compared to the pre-specified margin of 1.93 to demonstrate the non-inferiority of lurasidone compared to Quetiapine XR.|COX Proportional Hazards Model|||Comparison of time to relapse of psychotic symptoms between LUR-LUR and QXR-QXR as analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model.||1.295|0.410|
91697505|NCT01921101|183289167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
91697506|NCT00150488|183289173|OTHER|Compared to baseline|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91697507|NCT05129293|183289194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for disease duration, SymptoMScreen depression and anxiety scores, and Test of Everyday Cognition baseline performance||||||0.229
91697508|NCT05129293|183289195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for disease duration, SymptoMScreen depression and anxiety scores, and Test of Everyday Cognition baseline performance||||||0.040
91697509|NCT05129293|183289196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for disease duration, SymptoMScreen depression and anxiety scores, and Test of Everyday Cognition baseline performance||||||0.266
91697510|NCT00519428|183289197|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis: Dual Treatment (escitalopram + bupropion) will result in greater improvement over 12 weeks than either monotherapy (i.e., two analyses: 1) dual treatment will outperform escitalopram monotherapy; 2) dual treatment will outperform bupropion monotherapy).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"Each individual test will require the calculated p to be \< .0916 to declare that comparison to be significant. Since the hypothesis requires both comparisons to be significant, this produces an over-all alpha of .05."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Dual Treatment (escitalopram + bupropion) will result in greater improvement over 12 weeks than either monotherapy (i.e., two analyses: 1) dual treatment will outperform escitalopram monotherapy; 2) dual treatment will outperform bupropion monotherapy). Therefore each analysis will be done twice and it will be required that both analyses be significant to declare the over-all study significant.||||.05
91697511|NCT00519428|183289199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||escitalopram + bupropion vs. escitalopram: F(1,159) = 1.93, ns escitalopram + bupropion vs. bupropion: F (1,157) = 1.99, ns|ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline score and country||To test the hypothesis that escitalopram + bupropion would have superior efficacy relative to each monotherapy, the group receiving both medications was separately compared to each monotherapy group, covarying for baseline score and country||||.0916
91697512|NCT01729338|183289210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||Compared baseline to 3 months|paired t-test|||||||0.45
91697513|NCT01729338|183289210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||paired t-test|compares baseline to month 5||||||0.19
91697514|NCT01729338|183289211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||baseline, 3 month|paired t-test|||||||0.1
91697515|NCT01729338|183289211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||paired t-test|baseline, month 5||||||0.09
91796029|NCT02869438|183470595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.88|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, region.|For Day 84|Responder analysis: responder is defined as Very much improved, improved, and minimally improved.||5.88|1.50|0.0018
91904730|NCT02170779|183704606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This refers to the psychological analysis for the MSIS-29.||||0.953
91697516|NCT00688701|183289214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|-0.3||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||"To detect a difference of 0.5% in change in HbA1c at Week 12 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 120 patients per group would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 1.2% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%), BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.300|-0.785|<0.0001
91697517|NCT00688701|183289214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.903|-0.423||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||"To detect a difference of 0.5% in change in HbA1c at Week 12 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 120 patients per group would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 1.2% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%), BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.423|-0.903|<0.0001
91697518|NCT01953874|183289229|OTHER|The primary analysis was based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and therefore the power calculation was approximated using the approach of Tang.||||||0.916|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint was a composite measure of global rank order response based on survival time, freedom from CV hospitalization, and improvement in functional capacity measured by percent change in 6MWD from baseline to 6 months. The plan was to randomize up to 215 subjects. However, due to safety issues observed in SERVE-HF, randomization was stopped at 126 subjects.||||0.916
91904731|NCT02170779|183704607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.915
91904732|NCT02170779|183704608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
91796030|NCT02869438|183470596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, region.|For Day 84|Responder analysis: responder is defined as Very much improved, improved, and minimally improved.||5.09|1.24|0.0107
91796031|NCT05323656|183470600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.077||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.98|22.0|||ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group|Null hypothesis: the mean best percentage change in the tumour size between the treatment groups are the same. With 25 patients per treatment group, using a 2-sided t-test, there will be 85% power to detect a 20% mean difference between the treatment groups in best percentage change in tumour size, with an estimated standard deviation of 30% and a 2 sided alpha of 20%.||22.0|-11.98|0.7008
91796032|NCT05323656|183470601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.1023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis: The risk for progression, as defined by RECIST v1.1, is the same between treatment groups. If the true hazard ratio is 0.5, approximately 38 progression events as defined by RECIST v1.1 will be required to have \> 80% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in PFS with 2-sided p\<0.2||0.89|0.38|.1023
91796033|NCT05323656|183470602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.89||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.3|21.3||a priori threshold for significance (0.2) not met.|ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.|Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline CAF levels does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline CAFs level with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline.||21.3|-2.3|0.2986
91866639|NCT04121741|183626168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for fRHI (singing coach intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of fRHI for singing video intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.570
91697519|NCT00653133|183289284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in reported complications associated with the placement of continuous peripheral nerve block catheters between ultrasound imaging guided placement and nerve stimulator guided placement.||||<0.05
91697520|NCT01669174|183289366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|106.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.64|107.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||107.58|104.64|<0.001
91697521|NCT01669174|183289366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|107.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.18|109.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||109.35|106.18|<0.001
91697522|NCT01669174|183289366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|108.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.31|111.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 16||111.00|106.31|<0.001
91697523|NCT01669174|183289366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|106.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.39|108.93|||ANCOVA|||Week 24||108.93|104.39|<0.001
91697524|NCT01953601|183289381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.1||||0.6734|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.3|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.4|-0.3|0.6734
91697525|NCT01953601|183289381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|0.4||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|97.51|0.0|0.8|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.8|0.0|0.0141
91697526|NCT01953601|183289383|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|8.31|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||8.31|0.40|
91697527|NCT01953601|183289383|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|9.09|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||9.09|1.33|
91697528|NCT01953601|183289384|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|5.1|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||5.10|-0.84|
91796034|NCT05323656|183470603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.48||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.86|23.52|||ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.|Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline CD8+ TILs does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline CD8+ TILs level with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline.||23.52|-9.86|0.5918
91866640|NCT01084863|183626178|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence was predefined based on acceptance criteria, 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.64|116.78||||||||116.78|93.64|
91866641|NCT03473223|183626189|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.925||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8126|1.0538||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0538|0.8126|0.121
91697529|NCT01953601|183289384|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|8.99|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||8.99|2.35|
91697530|NCT01953601|183289385|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|2.68|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||2.68|-16.16|
91697531|NCT01953601|183289385|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-10.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|-1.04|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||-1.04|-20.16|
91697532|NCT01953601|183289386|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|0.61|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||0.61|-6.03|
91697533|NCT01953601|183289386|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|0.71|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||0.71|-6.01|
91697534|NCT01953601|183289387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.301||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|97.51|1.005|1.684|||Regression, Cox||HR = Arm A / Arm C||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment, background AD treatment (use, no use), sex, APOE4 status (carrier, non-carrier) and baseline use of Vitamin E as categorical covariates and age and baseline MMSE value as continuous covariates.|1.684|1.005|0.0222
91729210|NCT00425854|183354078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical benefit rate|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27|||Maxium Likelihood||Maximum Likelihood estimates. The clinical benefit rate for Cohort A was calculated by relating the number of patients with CB to all treated patients in Cohort A. The confidence interval (CI) is an exact Clopper Pearson CI.|||0.27|0.02|
91729211|NCT01725308|183354089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a model where the total MADRS score at baseline is a covariate and the treatment group and bipolar disorder diagnosis (Type I/ II) are fixed effects.||-0.2|-4.7|0.034
91729212|NCT01725308|183354096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||At End of Treatment Period I/Week 8: An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a model where the total HAM-D17 score at baseline is a covariate and the treatment group and bipolar disorder diagnosis (Type I/II) are fixed effects.||-0.1|-3.3|0.033
91729213|NCT00562861|183354165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F value|1.88||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
91729214|NCT00655356|183354168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||<.00001
91697535|NCT01953601|183289387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.382||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|97.51|1.067|1.79|||Regression, Cox||HR = Arm B / Arm C||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment, background AD treatment (use, no use), sex, APOE4 status (carrier, non-carrier) and baseline use of Vitamin E as categorical covariates and age and baseline MMSE value as continuous covariates.|1.790|1.067|0.0050
91697536|NCT01953601|183289388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.0||||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.3|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.4|-0.3|0.9109
91729215|NCT00655356|183354169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||.0075
91729216|NCT01623154|183354173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Slope|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|0.993||95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|Deming Regression|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.993|0.987|
91729217|NCT01623154|183354173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Intercept|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||Deming Regression|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.17|-0.25|
91729218|NCT01623154|183354173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Slope|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|0.993|||Regression, Linear|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.993|0.987|
91729219|NCT01623154|183354173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Intercept|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.18|||Regression, Linear|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.18|-0.24|
91729220|NCT01623154|183354173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Slope|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||Passing-Bablock|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||1.000|0.990|
91866642|NCT03473223|183626190|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.971||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8442|1.1171||1-sided p-value|Negative binomial regression model|||||1.1171|0.8442|0.341
91796035|NCT05323656|183470604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.2135|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|22.02|||ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.|Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline number of regulatory T-cells in tumour tissue does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline number of regulatory T-cells in tumour tissue level with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline.||22.02|-0.34|0.2135
91729221|NCT01623154|183354173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|Intercept|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.01|||Passing-Bablok|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.||0.01|-0.30|
91729222|NCT01623154|183354173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Described previously|Relative Sensitivity, %|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.8|100.0|||||95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|Comparison of UHR Values obtained by UBit-IR300 and POCone were used to identify participants' H.pylori infection status. Participants with UHR value ≥ 10.0μg/min were considered positive for H.Pylori.||100|85.8|
91729223|NCT01623154|183354173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Provided previously|Relative Specificity, %|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.9|100.0|||||95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||100|94.9|
91729224|NCT04349098|183354175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.79|0.39|0.6750
91729225|NCT02151604|183354194|OTHER||Pearson's coefficient|-0.57||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|||Correlation with field of irradiation||||0.041
91729226|NCT02151604|183354196|OTHER||Pearson's coefficient|0.6||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.60|Pearson's Correlation Analysis|0.60||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of alveolar volume (VA)||||0.037
91729227|NCT02151604|183354196|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.70||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide(TLCO)||||0.012
91729228|NCT02151604|183354196|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.85||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|R = -0.85||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of residual volume (RV)||||0.032
91729229|NCT02151604|183354196|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.95||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|R = -0.95||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of functional residual capacity (FRC)||||0.004
91729230|NCT02151604|183354196|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.88||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|Pearson's correlation coefficient = -0.88||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of inspiratory capacity(IC)||||0.012
91729231|NCT00561821|183354214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729232|NCT00561821|183354214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729233|NCT00561821|183354214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729234|NCT00561821|183354215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0146
91729235|NCT00561821|183354215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0234
91729236|NCT00561821|183354215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0102
91729237|NCT00561821|183354216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729238|NCT00561821|183354216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729239|NCT00561821|183354216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729240|NCT00561821|183354217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91729241|NCT00561821|183354217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0213||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0213
91729242|NCT00561821|183354217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0135
91729243|NCT00561821|183354218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91729244|NCT00561821|183354218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91729245|NCT00561821|183354218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91796036|NCT05323656|183470608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.448|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.24|0.85||||||No formal test of significance undertaken.||0.85|0.24|
91866643|NCT03473223|183626191|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8132|1.0106||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0106|0.8132|0.038
91866644|NCT03473223|183626192|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8511|1.0224||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0224|0.8511|0.069
91729246|NCT00561821|183354219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729247|NCT00561821|183354219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729248|NCT00561821|183354219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729249|NCT00561821|183354220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729250|NCT00561821|183354220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91796037|NCT05323656|183470611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.17|30.36|||ANCOVA|The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.||Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline PD-L1 CPS with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.2.||30.36|5.17|0.0782
91796038|NCT05323656|183470612|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.578||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.22
91796039|NCT05323656|183470612|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.395||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.20
91729251|NCT00561821|183354220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729252|NCT00561821|183354221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91796040|NCT05323656|183470613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.069||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.037
91796041|NCT05323656|183470613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.123
91796042|NCT05323656|183470614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.017||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.41
91866645|NCT03473223|183626193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.827||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6399|1.0695||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0695|0.6399|0.074
91904733|NCT02170779|183704609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91904734|NCT02367066|183704610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|0.98||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|0.90|0.02
91729253|NCT00561821|183354221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91796043|NCT05323656|183470614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.023||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.11
91796044|NCT03880461|183470621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91796045|NCT03880461|183470622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91796046|NCT03880461|183470623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.108
91796047|NCT04718103|183470713|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region and baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) and offset of log (total time in the study in years).|Rate Ratio|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.73|||Negative Binomial Distribution|||To demonstrate the superiority of GSK3511294 100 mg SC + SoC following two doses (at Week 0 and at Week 26) compared with placebo + SoC, assessed by the annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations measured over the study intervention period of 52 weeks.||0.73|0.36|<0.001
91796048|NCT04718103|183470714|SUPERIORITY||Least-square (LS) means|-2.31||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To demonstrate the superiority of GSK3511294 100 mg SC + SoC following two doses (at Week 0 and at Week 26) compared with placebo + SoC, assessed by SGRQ Total Score measured over the study intervention period of 52 weeks.||1.23|-5.84|0.200
91729254|NCT00561821|183354221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729255|NCT00561821|183354222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729256|NCT00561821|183354222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729257|NCT00561821|183354222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91866646|NCT03473223|183626194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7801|1.0603||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0603|0.7801|0.113
91866647|NCT03473223|183626195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.153||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7867|1.6886||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.6886|0.7867|0.767
91866648|NCT02549352|183626264|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|23.71|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|||23.71|2.58|<0.001
91904735|NCT02367066|183704611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|0.99||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.92|0.06
91904736|NCT02367066|183704612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.41|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.96|1.03||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.96|0.41
91729258|NCT00561821|183354223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729259|NCT00561821|183354223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729260|NCT00561821|183354223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729261|NCT00561821|183354224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6317||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6317
91729262|NCT00561821|183354224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6355||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6355
91729263|NCT00561821|183354224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7865||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7865
91796049|NCT04718103|183470715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least-Square Mean|-0.11||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.11|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ACQ-5 score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ACQ-5 score and visit by treatment group.||0.11|-0.33|0.333
91796050|NCT04718103|183470716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least-Square Means|0.056||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.154|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, visit, visit by baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and visit by treatment group.||0.154|-0.043|0.267
91796051|NCT04718103|183470717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square means|-0.21||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ANSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ANSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.09|-0.52|0.173
91796052|NCT04718103|183470718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square means|-0.21||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ADSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ADSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.07|-0.48|0.138
91796053|NCT04718103|183470719|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region and baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1.|Rate Ratio|0.42||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.13|||Negative binomial distribution|||||1.13|0.16|0.087
91796054|NCT02393690|183470733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0787|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0787
91796055|NCT02393690|183470734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0787|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0787
91796056|NCT02393690|183470735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1764|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1764
91796057|NCT02393690|183470736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0756|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0756
91796058|NCT05298306|183470740|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.52||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change from baseline VAS score at 0.25 hours||0.52|-1.02|0.5196
91904737|NCT02367066|183704613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|0.99||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.85|0.06
91904738|NCT02367066|183704614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|1.13||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.99|0.18
91729264|NCT00561821|183354225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4033||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4033
91729265|NCT00561821|183354225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4153||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4153
91729266|NCT00561821|183354225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6271||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6271
91904739|NCT02367066|183704615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.89|0.98||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|0.89|0.04
91904740|NCT02367066|183704617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS MEan Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.91|1.06||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.91|0.37
91729267|NCT00561821|183354226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729268|NCT00561821|183354226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729269|NCT00561821|183354226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91729270|NCT00561821|183354227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0243||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0243
91729271|NCT00561821|183354227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0242
91729272|NCT00561821|183354227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0007
91697537|NCT01953601|183289388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.3||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.1|0.7|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.7|-0.1|0.0824
91697538|NCT01953601|183289389|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.0||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.2|0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.2|-0.2|0.9510
91697539|NCT01953601|183289389|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.0||||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.2|0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.2|-0.2|0.9392
91697540|NCT01953601|183289390|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.4||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.0|0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.2|-1.0|0.1133
91697541|NCT01953601|183289390|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.2|0.0|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.0|-1.2|0.0310
91697542|NCT01953601|183289391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.06|-0.04|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|-0.04|-0.06|<0.0001
91697543|NCT01953601|183289391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.07|-0.05|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|-0.05|-0.07|<0.0001
91697544|NCT01953601|183289392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-1.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-2.4|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.4|-2.4|0.0960
91697545|NCT01953601|183289392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-1.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-3.2|-0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|-0.2|-3.2|0.0110
91697546|NCT01246349|183289394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.373||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.871|23.103|||Regression, Linear|||Published results comprise baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations for both the MI and control group (reported above), as well as the absolute attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in self-efficacy \[WEL\] change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6 month follow-up).||23.103|-5.871|0.24
91697547|NCT01246349|183289395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||Results published comprise baseline and follow-up BMI z-score means and standard deviations for both the MI and control groups (reported above), as well as the attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in BMI change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6-month follow-up)||||0.56
91697548|NCT01246349|183289396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||Results published comprise baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations for both the MI and control group (reported above), as well as the attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in waist circumference change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6-month follow-up).||||0.09
91697549|NCT01246349|183289398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.265||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.301|2.668|||Regression, Linear|||"Based on previous research , baseline CDSS means were expected between 5 - 6.5 with a SD of 3 - 4. It was hypothesized that an attributable effect of 1.5 would be detected.~Published results comprise baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations for both the MI and control group (reported above), as well as the absolute attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in self-efficacy \[CDSS\] change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6 month follow-up)."||2.668|-2.301|0.88
91904741|NCT02367066|183704619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.0|1.04||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|1.00|0.06
91697550|NCT02991729|183289399|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority limit was 1 point on the questionnaire scale.||||||0.929||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.929
91904742|NCT02367066|183704620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.03||2-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.01|0.45
91866649|NCT02549352|183626265|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|5.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|10.51|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.51|3.32|<0.001
91697551|NCT02991729|183289400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Decisional conflict was measured in 2 separate time points in the experimental group - both prior to and following genetic counseling. This analysis compares decisional conflict in the routine care group (after counseling only) to the experimental group following decision aid completion but prior to genetic counseling (first row, second column in above table).||||0.369
91697552|NCT02991729|183289400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Decisional conflict was measured in 2 separate time points in the experimental group - both prior to and following genetic counseling. This analysis compares decisional conflict in the routine care group (after counseling only) to the experimental group following decision aid completion and genetic counseling (second row, second column in above table).||||0.003
91697553|NCT02991729|183289400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Decisional conflict was measured in 2 separate time points in the experimental group - both prior to and following genetic counseling. This analysis compares decisional conflict pre-genetic counseling/post-decision aid to post-genetic counseling.||||0.003
91697554|NCT05537441|183289403|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|0.64||||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||2 proportion Z-test|||||||0.216
91697555|NCT05537441|183289404|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-0.61||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||2 proportion Z-test|||Previously vaccinated||||0.34
91697556|NCT05537441|183289404|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-0.45||||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||2 proportion Z-test|||Previously unvaccinated||||0.247
91697557|NCT01905553|183289405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The magnitude effect of food on the pharmacokinetic parameters was evaluated by calculating the point estimate and 90% CIs between Treatment A (test treatment, fed) and Treatment B (reference treatment, fasted).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.77||||||||0.770|0.670|
91697558|NCT01905553|183289406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The magnitude effect of food on the pharmacokinetic parameters was evaluated by calculating the point estimate and 90% CIs between Treatment A (test treatment, fed) and Treatment B (reference treatment, fasted).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.769||||||||0.769|0.670|
91697559|NCT01905553|183289407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The magnitude effect of food on the pharmacokinetic parameters was evaluated by calculating the point estimate and 90% CIs between Treatment A (test treatment, fed) and Treatment B (reference treatment, fasted).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.449|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.53||||||||0.530|0.380|
91697560|NCT05225298|183289411|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant|log binomial model|||||||0.90
91697561|NCT05225298|183289412|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant|log binomial model|||||||0.94
91697562|NCT05225298|183289413|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||log binomial model|||||||0.053
91697563|NCT03962790|183289415|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the credible interval (CrI) of the mean difference between Test and Control was greater than -5.|Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|4.65|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||4.65|-4.37|
91697564|NCT03962790|183289416|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is established if the lower limit of the 95% credible interval is above -5 points in CLUE Scale.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|2.06|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||2.06|-4.07|
91697565|NCT03962790|183289417|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the CrI of the mean difference between Test and Control was less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.01|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||0.010|-0.012|
91697566|NCT03962790|183289417|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the CrI of the mean difference between Test and Control was less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.002|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0057|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.009|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||0.009|-0.014|
91697567|NCT03962790|183289418|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the CrI of the mean difference between Test and Control was greater than -1.|Posterior Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.34|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||0.34|-0.32|
91697568|NCT02877095|183289419|OTHER|||||||||||||||||All subjects on study received active drug.|Total count of events is provided.|||
91697569|NCT02223650|183289420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.07||P-value is calculated for one-sided hypothesis test.|ANCOVA|Comparison of mean 8-wk distance control using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline distance control pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study IXT treatment|Difference in mean distance control (overminus - observation) and 95% CI from ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline control, pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study treatment for IXT. + difference suggests observation group worse than overminus group|||-0.07|-1.42|0.01
91697570|NCT02223650|183289421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.19||P-value is calculated for one-sided hypothesis test.|ANCOVA|Comparison of mean 8-wk near control using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline near control pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study IXT treatment.|Comparison of mean 8-wk distance control using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline near control pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study IXT treatment.|||0.19|-0.68|0.14
91866650|NCT02549352|183626266|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|15.61|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||15.61|3.70|<0.001
91866651|NCT02549352|183626267|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.36||Negative binominal regression with treatment group and pooled site as factors and log baseline count as offset variable.|Mantel Haenszel||0.037% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.36|0.25|<0.001
91866652|NCT03614663|183626327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.321
91866653|NCT03614663|183626328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.149
91866654|NCT03614663|183626329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.607
91697571|NCT02223650|183289424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|45.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||45|-6|0.07
91697572|NCT02223650|183289432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|24.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||24|-23|0.54
91697573|NCT01767506|183289434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|11.9|||Regression, Logistic||||The null hypothesis was that we could further decrease infection to 1% or less in more of the communities in the surveillance intervention arm, compared to control communities.|11.9|0.56|>0.05
91697574|NCT01767506|183289435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91697575|NCT01608087|183289437|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|96.58|||||TWO_SIDED|93.93|88.54|105.35|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R1) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|105.35|88.54|
91697576|NCT01608087|183289437|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|91.68|||||TWO_SIDED|93.93|83.5|100.65|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.65|83.50|
91697577|NCT01608087|183289437|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|94.92|||||TWO_SIDED|93.93|87.14|103.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(R1/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|103.40|87.14|
91697578|NCT01608087|183289438|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|98.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.97|107.64|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R1) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|107.64|90.97|
91697579|NCT01608087|183289438|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|91.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.02|100.01|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.01|84.02|
91866655|NCT03614663|183626330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.426
91866656|NCT03614663|183626331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.02
91866657|NCT03614663|183626332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.091
91866658|NCT03614663|183626333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.135
91866659|NCT03614663|183626334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.056
91866660|NCT05274321|183626339|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval.||||||0.22||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.22
91866661|NCT05274321|183626340|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval. .||||||0.02||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.02
91888753|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.16|0.4967
91888754|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.17|0.3492
91866662|NCT05274321|183626341|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval.||||||0.03||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.03
91866663|NCT05274321|183626342|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval.||||||0.25||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.25
91866664|NCT01105975|183626367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.9|92.1|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||92.1|64.9|<0.001
91866665|NCT01105975|183626368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.2|-6.7|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-6.7|-21.2|0.002
91866666|NCT01105975|183626369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.6|69.8|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||69.8|43.6|<0.001
91866667|NCT01105975|183626369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.6|||<|0.001||90.0|84.5|110.8|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||110.8|84.5|<0.001
91866668|NCT01105975|183626369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|131.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.5|145.2|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||145.2|118.5|<0.001
91866669|NCT01105975|183626370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.6|-10.5|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-10.5|-24.6|<0.001
91729273|NCT00561821|183354228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0199||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0199
91866670|NCT01105975|183626370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|-19.2|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-19.2|-33.2|<0.001
91866671|NCT01105975|183626370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.0|-32.7|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-32.7|-47.0|<0.001
91904743|NCT01010633|183704637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|22.9|||Chi-squared|||||22.9|5.7|<0.001
91729274|NCT00561821|183354228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0316||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0316
91866672|NCT01105975|183626371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.3|||<|0.001||90.0|66.2|92.4|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||92.4|66.2|<0.001
91866673|NCT01105975|183626371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.2|101.8|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||101.8|75.2|<0.001
91866674|NCT01105975|183626372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|-4.2|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-4.2|-18.3|0.009
91866675|NCT01105975|183626372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.6|-6.4|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-6.4|-20.6|0.002
91866676|NCT04868617|183626384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.3|=0.015
91866677|NCT04868617|183626385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.5|=0.035
91866678|NCT05441449|183626386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91866679|NCT05441449|183626386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91866680|NCT05441449|183626386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91866681|NCT05441449|183626387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.043
91866682|NCT05441449|183626387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.281
91866683|NCT05441449|183626387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91866684|NCT05441449|183626388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.352
91866685|NCT05441449|183626388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91866686|NCT05441449|183626389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.374
91866687|NCT05441449|183626389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
91866688|NCT05441449|183626389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.196
91866689|NCT04612244|183626413|NON_INFERIORITY|"PT will be deemed to be non-inferior to PC if it can be established that the posterior probability Pr(HA \| data) \> Ψeff, where Ψeff is a pre-specified threshold value that controls the one-sided type I error rate (under simulation) at level 0.05. In the absence of missing data, the posterior distributions for PT and PC would be conjugate Beta distributions."||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint for this study is Treatment Success, which will be analyzed as a test of non-inferiority of the event rate at 12 months using a noninferiority margin of 15%.~The null and alternative hypotheses are:~H0: PT ≤ PC - 0.15 versus HA: PT \> PC - 0.15 where PT is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Pulsed Field Group and PC is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Thermal (Control) Group."||||0.05
91888755|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.10|0.7136
91904744|NCT01010633|183704639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|40.7|||Chi-squared|||||40.7|21.4|<0.001
91729275|NCT00561821|183354228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
91729276|NCT05170061|183354255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||see above|t-test, 2 sided|paired analysis||Sequential analysis: if the first analysis (paired t-test to determine superiority of nebivolol/valsartan over valsartan ) reached p\< 0.05, the superiority of nebivolol over valsartan was tested (paired-t test); if the second comparison reached p \< 0.05, the superiority of nebivolol/valsartan over nebivolol was tested (paired-t test)||||0.05
91729277|NCT05170061|183354256|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91796059|NCT05298306|183470740|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.44||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change in VAS score from baseline at 0.5 hours||0.44|-1.09|0.3983
91796060|NCT05298306|183470740|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.5||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change from baseline VAS score at 0.75 hours||0.5|-1.03|0.4890
91796061|NCT05298306|183470740|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.56||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change from baseline VAS score at 1 hour||0.56|-0.97|0.5903
91796062|NCT05298306|183470740|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.7352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.64||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 1.5 hours||0.64|-0.90|0.7352
91796063|NCT05298306|183470740|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 2 hours||0.61|-0.92|0.6892
91796064|NCT05298306|183470740|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.76||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 2.5 hours||0.76|-0.78|0.9767
91796065|NCT05298306|183470740|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Median Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.3964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.09||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 3 hours||1.09|-0.44|0.3964
91796066|NCT05298306|183470740|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 3.5 hours||0.98|-0.55|0.5669
91866690|NCT04612244|183626415|SUPERIORITY|"The null and alternative hypotheses are provided below. H0: PT ≤ PC versus HA: PT \> PC where PT is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Pulsed Field Group, and PC is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Thermal Group.~Modeling will be identical primary endpoint and superiority concluded if the posterior probability Pr(HA \| data) \> Ψeff, sup, where the threshold Ψeff,sup is a pre-specified threshold value that controls the one-sided type I error rate at level 0.025."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.708||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The secondary effectiveness endpoint for the ADVENT Trial is Treatment Superiority uses the same definition as the primary effectiveness endpoint for Treatment Success, but the test is for superiority between MITT subjects in the PFA and Thermal Groups.||||0.025
91729278|NCT05170061|183354257|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729279|NCT05170061|183354258|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729280|NCT05170061|183354259|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729281|NCT05170061|183354260|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729282|NCT05170061|183354261|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729283|NCT05170061|183354262|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729284|NCT05170061|183354263|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729285|NCT05170061|183354264|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729286|NCT05170061|183354265|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91866691|NCT03260569|183626418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91729287|NCT05170061|183354266|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729288|NCT05170061|183354267|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729289|NCT05170061|183354268|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729290|NCT05170061|183354269|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729291|NCT05170061|183354270|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729292|NCT05170061|183354271|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91866692|NCT03777657|183626453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.94||The superiority boundary at the primary overall survival analysis was predefined using the O'Brien-Fleming boundary approximated using the Hwang-Shih-DeCani spending function at 0.0092.|One-sided Log Rank Test|One-Sided Log-Rank Test stratified by regions (Asia versus Europe/North America) and presence of peritoneal metastasis (yes vs no).|The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.94|0.59|0.0056
91729293|NCT05170061|183354272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729294|NCT05170061|183354273|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729295|NCT05170061|183354274|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729296|NCT05170061|183354275|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729297|NCT05170061|183354276|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91729298|NCT03443401|183354284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|80.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance at \<0.05|Spearman's rho|||||||0.004
91729299|NCT03443401|183354285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|80.0||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance \<0.05|Spearman's rho|||||||0.027
91729300|NCT00530257|183354295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||We used a Bonferroni correct to adjust for up to 5 measures across domains and use a p-value of \<=0.01. With a sample of 30 subjects the analytic model was able to detect a difference of large effect size (Cohen's d= \>0.655)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated the data for cross over effects. No statistical significant sequence effect were seen for our endpoints and hence we combined the data from both periods of the crossover design There was evidence against the assumption of normality for performance on some of the measures of attention. Thus we used the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test to compare performance on OROS-methylphenidate versus placebo.||||<0.01
91729301|NCT00530257|183354296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
91729302|NCT00530257|183354297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||This p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated the data for cross over effects. No statistical significant sequence effect were seen for our endpoints and hence we combined the data from both periods of the crossover design There was evidence against the assumption of normality for performance on some of the measures of attention. Thus we used the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test to compare performance on OROS-methylphenidate versus placebo.||||<0.05
91729303|NCT00530257|183354299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||We did not correct for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|We used a paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to compare the medication versus placebo.||||<0.05
91729304|NCT00530257|183354301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
91729305|NCT00530257|183354302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||The p value adjusts for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91729306|NCT00530257|183354303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
91729307|NCT00530257|183354304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
91729308|NCT00530257|183354305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
91729309|NCT00530257|183354306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
91729310|NCT04392362|183354321|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin or delta was calculated as -0.12(-12%)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.8982|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||0.05 was the level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the AHA method is inferior to the SIM method but not lower than a pre calculated noninferiority delta of -0.12 (-12 %) and a 95% one sided confidence interval. Only 33 (instead of 151 for a power of 95%) patients could be enrolled with 25 in the SIM and 8 in the AHA arms, which resulted in an estimated power test of 59.08%.||||0.8982
91729311|NCT03160573|183354335|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test Flavored Rinse, Placebo Flavored Rinse||||<0.00001
91729312|NCT03160573|183354335|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test Unflavored Rinse, Placebo Unflavored Rinse||||<0.00001
91729313|NCT02336555|183354343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.452||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.076|0.172||Linear mixed model with a posterior probability evaluation for the treatment effect|Linear mixed model|One-sided p-value and a posterior probability greater than 90% that the treatment effect is less than 0.||||0.172|-1.076|0.075
91729314|NCT02336555|183354344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|2.58|||||Logistic regression model with factors for treatment \& baseline pain intensity|||2.580|0.446|
91729315|NCT01537432|183354345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.565|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|0.768|||Fisher Exact|||||0.768|0.363|<0.001
91729316|NCT03704922|183354361|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
91729317|NCT03093246|183354366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimated Equations|||||||<0.05
91729318|NCT03093246|183354367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimated Equations|||||||<0.05
91729319|NCT03093246|183354368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimated Equations|||||||<0.05
91729320|NCT00830336|183354457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.08||||||90.0|95.41|111.37|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111.37|95.41|
91729321|NCT00830336|183354458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.84||||||90.0|99.33|112.77|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112.77|99.33|
91729322|NCT00830336|183354459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|107.04||||||90.0|99.96|114.62|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114.62|99.96|
91729323|NCT00835549|183354465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.6||||||90.0|94.8|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|94.8|
91729324|NCT00835549|183354466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0||||||90.0|98.5|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105|98.5|
91729325|NCT00835549|183354467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0||||||90.0|98.7|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105|98.7|
91729326|NCT04526158|183354468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||significance threshold = 0.0167 due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.6|0.0|0.031
91866693|NCT03777657|183626454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92||The one sided P value boundary for superiority of overall survival in all randomized participants at final analysis was 0.0226 based on 776 actual observed deaths.|One-Sided Log-Rank Test|One-Sided Log-Rank test stratified by region (Asia vs Europe/North America), PD-L1 expression (\<5% vs ≥5%), and presence of peritoneal metastasis.|The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region, PD-L1 expression, and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.92|0.70|0.0011
91729327|NCT04526158|183354468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||significance threshold = 0.0167 due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-0.7|0.002
91729328|NCT04526158|183354468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||significance threshold = 0.0167 due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.4|-1.0|<0.001
91729329|NCT04526158|183354469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI intensity, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.3|-0.2|0.736
91729330|NCT04526158|183354469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI intensity, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
91729331|NCT04526158|183354469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI intensity, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
91729332|NCT04526158|183354470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Physical function, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.4|-0.4|0.829
91866694|NCT03777657|183626455|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.83|||||The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.83|0.56|
91866695|NCT03777657|183626456|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.04|||||Odds ratio between arms weas calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by regions (Asia versus Europe/North America) and presence of peritoneal metastasis.|||2.04|1.03|
91866696|NCT03777657|183626457|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9|||||The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region, PD-L1 expression, and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.90|0.67|
91866697|NCT03777657|183626458|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72|||||Odds ratio between arms were calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by regions (Asia versus Europe/North America), PD-L1 expression and presence of peritoneal metastasis.|||1.72|1.03|
91866698|NCT03777657|183626461|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.94|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 4||3.94|-0.33|
91729333|NCT04526158|183354470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Physical function, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.9|0.2|0.005
91729334|NCT04526158|183354470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Physical function, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.0|0.2|0.004
91729335|NCT04526158|183354471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Anxiety, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.8|0.0|0.079
91729336|NCT04526158|183354471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Anxiety, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.2|-0.6|0.296
91729337|NCT04526158|183354471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Anxiety, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.0|0.005
91729338|NCT04526158|183354472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS fatigue, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.7|-0.3|0.464
91729339|NCT04526158|183354472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS fatigue, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.1|-1.1|0.019
91729340|NCT04526158|183354472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS fatigue, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.3|-1.3|0.002
91729341|NCT04526158|183354473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS sleep disturbance, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.4|-0.5|0.889
91729342|NCT04526158|183354473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS sleep disturbance, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.1|0.004
91729343|NCT04526158|183354473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS sleep disturbance, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.1|0.006
91729344|NCT04526158|183354474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS social roles and activities, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.5|-0.4|0.76
91729345|NCT04526158|183354474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS social roles and activities, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.4|0.6|<0.001
91729346|NCT04526158|183354474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS social roles and activities, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.3|0.5|<0.001
91729347|NCT04526158|183354475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PHQ8, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.6|-0.7|0.89
91796067|NCT05298306|183470740|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.62||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 4 hours||0.62|-0.91|0.7006
91866699|NCT03777657|183626461|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.74|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 6||4.74|0.29|
91729348|NCT04526158|183354475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PHQ8, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.3|-1.5|0.003
91729349|NCT04526158|183354475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PHQ8, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.5|0.007
91729350|NCT04526158|183354476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PCL5, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.9|-1.6|0.886
91729351|NCT04526158|183354476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PCL5, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.4|-3.7|0.017
91729352|NCT04526158|183354476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PCL5, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.5|-3.9|0.013
91729353|NCT04526158|183354477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.3|-0.1|0.437
91729354|NCT04526158|183354477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.5|-0.9|<0.001
91729355|NCT04526158|183354477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.6|-1.0|<0.001
91866700|NCT03777657|183626461|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|3.16||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 4||3.16|-0.27|
91729356|NCT04526158|183354478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-1.2||Used confidence interval to determine significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Logistic mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-1.2|-13.9|
91729357|NCT04526158|183354478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|17.6||Used confidence interval to determine significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Logistic mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||17.6|6.4|
91729358|NCT04526158|183354478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|25.4||Used confidence interval to determine significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Logistic mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||25.4|13.6|
91729359|NCT00677040|183354479|EQUIVALENCE|t-test to determine if tissue oxygen measurements are equivalent between treated and nontreated breast|t-test|0.35||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91729360|NCT00677040|183354479|OTHER||t-test|0.35||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5
91866701|NCT03777657|183626461|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.43|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 6||4.43|0.49|
91729361|NCT01725282|183354481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6|||||An analysis of covariance model with the baseline as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.|||3.6|-3.1|
91729362|NCT01725282|183354481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.8|||||An analysis of covariance model with the baseline as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.|||2.8|-4.0|
91729363|NCT01725282|183354481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.6|||||An analysis of covariance model with the baseline as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.|||4.6|-2.1|
91729364|NCT04576481|183354492|SUPERIORITY||F-Statistic|1.18||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of Variance statistical testing.||||0.32
91729365|NCT04576481|183354493|SUPERIORITY||F-Statistic|0.25||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.78
91729366|NCT04576481|183354494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
91729367|NCT04576481|183354495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
91729368|NCT04576481|183354496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
91729369|NCT02739828|183354524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0001
91729370|NCT02739828|183354525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||< 0.0001
91729371|NCT02739828|183354526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0004
91729372|NCT02739828|183354527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain at its worst. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0005
91729373|NCT02739828|183354527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain on average. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0006
91729374|NCT02739828|183354528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain at its worst. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0004
91729375|NCT02739828|183354528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain on average. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0016
91866702|NCT03777657|183626462|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|1.15|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Fatigue at Cycle 4||1.15|-3.79|
91729376|NCT02739828|183354529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain at its worst. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0003
91729377|NCT02739828|183354529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain on average. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0094
91866703|NCT03777657|183626462|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-0.24|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Fatigue at Cycle 6||-0.24|-5.78|
91866704|NCT03777657|183626463|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.31|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Index-Score at Cycle 4||0.31|-2.53|
91866705|NCT03777657|183626463|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.12|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Index-Score at Cycle 6||-0.12|-3.12|
91729378|NCT02739828|183354533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0278|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0278
91729379|NCT02739828|183354534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0215
91729380|NCT02739828|183354535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1652|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1652
91729381|NCT02739828|183354539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||1.0000
91729382|NCT02739828|183354540|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||1.0000
91729383|NCT02739828|183354541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.5000
91729384|NCT02739828|183354542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1797
91729385|NCT02739828|183354543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4531|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.4531
91729386|NCT02739828|183354544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0313
91729387|NCT02739828|183354545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3438|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.3438
91729388|NCT02739828|183354546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4531|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.4531
91729389|NCT02739828|183354547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0156
91729390|NCT02739828|183354548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0386|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0386
91729391|NCT02739828|183354549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3438|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.3438
91729392|NCT02739828|183354550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1250
91729393|NCT02739828|183354551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0625
91729394|NCT02739828|183354552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0625
91729395|NCT02739828|183354553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1250
91729396|NCT04191733|183354579|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority analysis was demonstrated when the 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval (CI) limit was less than 1.25.|||||<|0.0001||||||one-sided p-value|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91729397|NCT04191733|183354580|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided test with 5% alpha was used to demonstrate non-inferiority with greater than 99% power. The non-inferiority margin was 3.75 minutes.||||||0.1004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A gatekeeping strategy was used to control family-wise type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant with a 1-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.1004
91729398|NCT02349477|183354599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|This is the p-value output from the logistic regression model where medication group predicted the discrete variable for no heavy drinking days.||This analysis compares between Gabapentin and Placebo, the number of individuals who reported no heavy drinking days throughout the entire trial, corrected for %dCDT.||||.028
91729399|NCT02349477|183354600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|This is the p-value output from the logistic regression model where medication group predicted the discrete variable for abstinence.||This analysis compares between Gabapentin and Placebo, the number of individuals who reported no drinking days (abstinence) throughout the entire trial, corrected for %dCDT.||||.053
91729400|NCT02349477|183354601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||For the High AWS group, a chi squared analysis compares the number of individuals with no heavy drinking days between medication groups.||||.001
91729401|NCT02349477|183354601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||For the Low AWS group, a chi squared analysis compares the number of individuals with no heavy drinking days between medication groups.||||.67
91866706|NCT03777657|183626463|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.11|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dysphagia/Odynophagia Scale at Cycle 4||0.11|-3.13|
91729402|NCT02202577|183354602|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.38|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.35||This is the calculated p-value for the intention to treat analysis of primary outcome. A 1-tailed p value of \<0.05 was selected for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||"We estimated a cesarean related surgical site infection rate of 7.5% with povidone-iodine and hypothesized chlorhexidine-alcohol treatment to be superior based on existing literature. We considered a 50% reduction to be significant. We performed our power analysis assuming~1-directional effects in favor of chlorhexidine, which best fit our hypothesis. Using a 1-tailed alpha of 0.05 and an 80% power to detect a difference, we estimated that 466 subjects would be required in each group."||1.35||0.38
91729403|NCT02202577|183354602|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.26|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.25||This is the calculated p-value for the per protocol analysis of primary outcome. A 1-tailed p value of \<0.05 was selected for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Per Protocol Analysis||1.25||0.26
91729404|NCT01714063|183354604|OTHER|We used a paired T-test for statistical analysis to compare the filter dose. Using the 1% significance level and assuming a between-subject standard deviation of 60 lg (27%) for the difference between coordinated and doses, 32 subjects are sufficient to detect a 45 lg (20%) difference with 95% confidence.uncoordinated filter|||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91729405|NCT00563316|183354619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It would be concluded that panitumumab did not have a clinically important effect on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan if the 90% confidence intervals of the ratio of geometric means for the Cmax and AUC values for irinotecan with and without concomitant panitumumab administration fell within the interval of 70% to 143%.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.074|||||Ratio of Cycle 2 : Cycle 1|||1.074|0.894|
91729406|NCT00563316|183354620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It would be concluded that panitumumab did not have a clinically important effect on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan if the 90% confidence intervals of the ratio of geometric means for the Cmax and AUC values for irinotecan with and without concomitant panitumumab administration fell within the interval of 70% to 143%.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|0.985|||||Ratio of Cycle 2 : Cycle 1|||0.985|0.819|
91729407|NCT00563316|183354621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It would be concluded that panitumumab did not have a clinically important effect on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan if the 90% confidence intervals of the ratio of geometric means for the Cmax and AUC values for irinotecan with and without concomitant panitumumab administration fell within the interval of 70% to 143%.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|0.983|||||Ratio of Cycle 2 : Cycle 1|||0.983|0.818|
91866707|NCT03777657|183626463|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|0.76|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dysphagia/Odynophagia Scale at Cycle 6||0.76|-2.31|
91866708|NCT03777657|183626463|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.2|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Pain/Discomfort Scale at Cycle 4||-0.20|-4.26|
91729408|NCT03511209|183354626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Compared CBTI plus Taper method A to CBTI plus Taper method B||4.64|0.98|0.056
91729409|NCT03511209|183354627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (CBTI plus Taper method A vs. CBTI plus Taper method B) by Time (6 Months vs. Baseline)||||1.44|-3.57|0.405
91729410|NCT02628145|183354628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91729411|NCT02628145|183354629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.88
91729412|NCT02628145|183354630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.068
91729413|NCT02628145|183354631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
91729414|NCT02628145|183354632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
91729415|NCT02628145|183354633|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91729416|NCT02628145|183354634|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91729417|NCT02628145|183354635|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91729418|NCT02628145|183354636|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91729419|NCT02628145|183354638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91729420|NCT02757963|183354641|OTHER||Proportion|0.883|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|0.912|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|||0.912|0.849|
91729421|NCT02757963|183354642|OTHER||Proportion|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.904|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8||0.904|0.846|
91729422|NCT02757963|183354642|OTHER||Proportion|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|0.917|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 and BPE/BPO \>=3||0.917|0.854|
91729423|NCT02757963|183354642|OTHER||Proportion|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|0.9|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 or BPE/BPO \>=3||0.900|0.843|
91729424|NCT02757963|183354643|OTHER||Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.926|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8||0.926|0.870|
91729425|NCT02757963|183354643|OTHER||Proportion|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|0.934|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm BPE/BPO \>=3||0.934|0.873|
91729426|NCT02757963|183354643|OTHER||Proportion|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|0.935|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 and BPE/BPO \>=3||0.935|0.873|
91729427|NCT02757963|183354643|OTHER||Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.925|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm PSS \>=8 or BPE/BPO \>=3||0.925|0.870|
91866709|NCT03777657|183626463|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.27|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Pain/Discomfort Scale at Cycle 6||0.27|-4.03|
91697580|NCT01608087|183289438|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|92.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.18|100.74|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(R1/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.74|85.18|
91697581|NCT01608087|183289439|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|101.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.74|111.14|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R1) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|111.14|92.74|
91697582|NCT01608087|183289439|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|93.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.12|99.81|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|99.81|87.12|
91697583|NCT01608087|183289439|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|91.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.91|100.54|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(R1/R2) \* 100||Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for R1 and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the inter-subject ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.54|83.91|
91697584|NCT00908791|183289454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|exact McNemar test for paired binary data.||||||0.003
91697585|NCT00908791|183289455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||McNemar|||||||0.41
91697586|NCT00908791|183289456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||bowker's test of symmetry|||||||0.48
91697587|NCT00908791|183289457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||The Sign-Rank test for paired data.||||0.029
91697588|NCT00908791|183289458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
91729428|NCT02757963|183354644|OTHER||Proportion|0.362|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.386|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8||0.386|0.337|
91697589|NCT00908791|183289459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Other|||||||>0.05
91697590|NCT00908791|183289460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Other|||||||>0.05
91697591|NCT00722566|183289534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming ORRs are 35.5% for both SC and IV, one-sided alpha level of 0.025, and approximately 80% power, approximately 216 subjects (144 SC:72 IV) are needed to show non-inferiority of SC to IV VELCADE.|ORR_SQ - 0.6 ORR_IV|16.8||||0.00201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|27.1|||Farrrington and Manning|CONOR P. FARRINGTON AND GODFREY MANNING STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, VOL. 9, 1447-1454(1990).||In this trial, non-inferiority is defined as retaining 60% of the IV (active control) treatment effect as measured by ORR. The non-inferiority hypothesis can be stated as: H0: ORRSC - 0.60 ORRIV \<0 vs. H1: ORRSC - 0.60 ORRIV ≥0 (non-inferiority).||27.1|6.1|0.00201
91697592|NCT00401544|183289536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|71.0||||||95.0|63.0|80.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||80|63|
91729429|NCT02757963|183354644|OTHER||Proportion|0.368|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.395|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm BPE/BPO \>=3||0.395|0.341|
91697593|NCT00401544|183289536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.0||||||95.0|54.0|72.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||72|54|
91697594|NCT00401544|183289537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|73.0||||||95.0|64.0|81.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||81|64|
91697595|NCT00401544|183289537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|62.0||||||95.0|54.0|71.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||71|54|
91697596|NCT00401544|183289542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|36.0||||||95.0|27.0|44.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||44|27|
91697597|NCT00401544|183289542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|38.0||||||95.0|29.0|47.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||47|29|
91697598|NCT00401544|183289543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|35.0||||||95.0|27.0|44.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||44|27|
91697599|NCT00401544|183289543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|39.0||||||95.0|30.0|47.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||47|30|
91697600|NCT00401544|183289544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|26.0||||||95.0|15.0|38.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||38|15|
91697601|NCT00401544|183289544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|31.0||||||95.0|19.0|42.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||42|19|
91697602|NCT00401544|183289544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.0||||||95.0|17.0|40.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||40|17|
91697603|NCT00401544|183289544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|25.0||||||95.0|14.0|36.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||36|14|
91866710|NCT03777657|183626463|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|0.99|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dietary Restrictions Scale at Cycle 4||0.99|-2.85|
91697604|NCT00401544|183289545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|68.0||||||95.0|59.0|76.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||76|59|
91697605|NCT00401544|183289545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|59.0||||||95.0|50.0|68.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||68|50|
91697606|NCT00401544|183289546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|53.0||||||95.0|44.0|62.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||62|44|
91697607|NCT00401544|183289546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|74.0||||||95.0|66.0|82.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||82|66|
91697608|NCT02780713|183289572|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|17.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.79|24.58||||||||24.58|11.79|
91697609|NCT02780713|183289572|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|36.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.84|55.2||||||||55.20|23.84|
91697610|NCT02780713|183289572|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.84|34.48||||||||34.48|16.84|
91697611|NCT02780713|183289573|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|31.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.77|39.12||||||||39.12|25.77|
91697612|NCT02780713|183289573|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|54.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.16|69.6||||||||69.60|42.16|
91697613|NCT02780713|183289573|SUPERIORITY||Pecentage|41.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.79|48.86||||||||48.86|34.79|
91697614|NCT01931475|183289591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||||||||-0.2|-0.80|
91729430|NCT02757963|183354644|OTHER||Proportion|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|0.406|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 and BPE/BPO \>=3||0.406|0.349|
91729431|NCT02757963|183354644|OTHER||Proportion|0.355|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.379|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 or BPE/BPO \>=3||0.379|0.332|
91729432|NCT02757963|183354645|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.58||||||||0.58|0.51|
91866711|NCT03777657|183626463|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.77|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dietary Restrictions Scale at Cycle 6||0.77|-3.42|
91697615|NCT01931475|183289592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.19||||||||-0.19|-0.54|
91697616|NCT01931475|183289593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-1.35|||||Total Score|||-1.35|-5.62|
91697617|NCT01931475|183289593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.21|||||Pain|||-0.21|-1.21|
91697618|NCT01931475|183289593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.78|||||Physical Function|||-0.78|-3.95|
91697619|NCT01931475|183289593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.16|||||Stiffness|||-0.16|-0.62|
91697620|NCT01931475|183289594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.15||||||||-0.15|-0.41|
91697621|NCT01931475|183289595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.34|||||BPI Severity of Worst Pain|||-0.34|-1.07|
91697622|NCT01931475|183289595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.03|||||BPI Severity of Least Pain|||0.03|-0.60|
91697623|NCT01931475|183289595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.11|||||BPI Severity of Right Now Pain|||-0.11|-0.82|
91697624|NCT01931475|183289596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.02|||||BPI Interference Average Score|||-0.02|-0.53|
91697625|NCT01931475|183289596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.19|||||General activity|||-0.19|-0.94|
91697626|NCT01931475|183289596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05|||||Mood|||-0.05|-0.74|
91697627|NCT01931475|183289596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.11|||||Walking ability|||-0.11|-0.82|
91697628|NCT01931475|183289596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.06|||||Normal work (includes both work outside the home and housework)|||0.06|-0.68|
91697629|NCT01931475|183289596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.21|||||Relations with other people|||0.21|-0.34|
91697630|NCT01931475|183289596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.14|||||Sleep|||0.14|-0.57|
91697631|NCT01931475|183289596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.27|||||Enjoyment of life|||0.27|-0.40|
91697632|NCT01931475|183289598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Total Effect|97.49||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Path analysis for the direct analgesic effect was used to test the null hypothesis that the change in BPI average pain severity depends on the improvement of HADS-D or HADS-A, versus the alternative that the improvement in BPI average pain severity is due to a direct analgesic effect of the treatment and not dependent upon the improvement in depression and anxiety symptoms.||||0.002
91697633|NCT02821338|183289601|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval falls within 80.00-125.00%|Test/Reference ratio|0.9863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9598|1.0134||||||90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio of test/reference||1.0134|0.9598|
91697634|NCT02821338|183289602|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval falls within 80.00-125.00%|Test/Reference Ratio|0.9785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9484|1.0095||||||||1.0095|0.9484|
91866712|NCT03777657|183626463|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|0.09|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Upper Gastro-Intestinal Symptoms at Cycle 4||0.09|-3.28|
91866713|NCT03777657|183626463|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.06|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Upper Gastro-Intestinal Symptoms at Cycle 6||0.06|-3.55|
91697635|NCT02821338|183289603|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval falls within 80.00-125.00%|Test/Reference Ratio|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0079|1.0877||||||||1.0877|1.0079|
91697636|NCT02225860|183289607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The analysis of the primary and secondary outcome was based on an intention to treat principle. Copeptin was measured in each subject at baseline and week 2 and the change from baseline to end point (delta) was calculated for all subjects. The delta copeptin between subjects in the intervention and control arms was compared with a two sample t test for independent groups. One sample t-tests of the delta were used to examine whether there was any change over time for each group separately."||||<0.01
91697637|NCT02225860|183289608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The analysis of the primary and secondary outcome was based on an intention to treat principle. Copeptin was measured in each subject at baseline and week 2 and the change from baseline to end point (delta) was calculated for all subjects. The delta copeptin between subjects in the intervention and control arms was compared with a two sample t test for independent groups. One sample t-tests of the delta were used to examine whether there was any change over time for each group separately."||||<0.01
91697638|NCT01250873|183289610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.30|1.06|
91697639|NCT01250873|183289611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.28|||ANOVA|||||1.28|1.01|
91697640|NCT01250873|183289612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.00|-0.50|0.8281
91697641|NCT01250873|183289613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.39|||ANOVA|||||1.39|1.17|
91697642|NCT01250873|183289614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.36|||ANOVA|||||1.36|1.10|
91697643|NCT01250873|183289615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.00|0.00|0.3125
91697644|NCT00422695|183289685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91697645|NCT00422695|183289685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91697646|NCT03514485|183289717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.25||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.25|-0.34|
91866714|NCT02760654|183626496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91697647|NCT03514485|183289717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.18||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.18|-0.34|
91866715|NCT02760654|183626497|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91697648|NCT03514485|183289717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.04||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.04|-0.48|
91697649|NCT03514485|183289717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.9||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.9|-0.44|
91697650|NCT03514485|183289717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.09|-0.36|
91697651|NCT03514485|183289718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.55||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.55|-0.39|
91697652|NCT03514485|183289718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.88||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.88|0.04|
91697653|NCT03514485|183289718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.23||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.23|-1.06|
91866716|NCT02760654|183626498|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91866717|NCT02760654|183626499|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91866718|NCT02760654|183626500|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91729433|NCT01887600|183354660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.48|58.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Please note Odds Ratio and CI are shown in percentages.|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was adjusted by region, history of of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular or thromboembolic (CV) disease, baseline Hb and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Superiority of roxadustat versus placebo was to be declared if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the CMH odds ratio was higher than 1.||58.93|20.48|<0.001
91729434|NCT01887600|183354661|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.692|||<|0.001||95.0|1.52|1.86|||ANCOVA|||The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with Multiple Imputations (MI) model, adjusting for covariates was used for the analysis. The model included treatment as fixed factor, region and history of CV disease as class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates. Superiority of roxadustat versus placebo was considered successful if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference between treatment arms (roxadustat minus placebo) was higher than 0.||1.86|1.52|<0.001
91729435|NCT01887600|183354662|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences. Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit interaction as continuous covariates.||1.78|1.41|<0.001
91866719|NCT02760654|183626501|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91866720|NCT02760654|183626502|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91697654|NCT03514485|183289718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.67||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.67|-1.39|
91697655|NCT03514485|183289718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.18||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.18|-0.95|
91697656|NCT03514485|183289719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.28||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.28|-0.53|
91729436|NCT01887600|183354663|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat versus placebo was considered successful if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference between treatment arms (roxadustat minus placebo) is below 0.|Least squares mean difference|-0.701|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.83|-0.57||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences. Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures has been applied up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms and overall mean effects during the period (weeks 12 to 28). The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline LDL as continuous variables.||-0.57|-0.83|<0.001
91697657|NCT03514485|183289719|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.26||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.26|-0.45|
91697658|NCT03514485|183289719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.10|-0.60|
91759005|NCT04765202|183411227|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|14.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|40.21|||Fisher Exact||Difference was calculated as (percent area of wound closure in SOMA Tx site) - ((percent area of wound closure in AG Tx site). 95% CI was derived using the normal approximation to binomial distribution.|Comparison of complete wound closure without additional autografting at Month 2 in AG TX site and SOMA TX site in Cohort 1 Group 1.||40.21|-11.64|1.0000
91697659|NCT03514485|183289719|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.01||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.01|-0.57|
91697660|NCT03514485|183289719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.04||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.04|-0.72|
91866721|NCT02760654|183626503|EQUIVALENCE|Descriptive statistics (Mean, SD) were calculated for the 7 items of the Adapted Acceptability E-Scale|Calculated Mean and Standard Deviation|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91866722|NCT02760654|183626504|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91866723|NCT02760654|183626505|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91866724|NCT01574716|183626506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.6562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.5|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|||1.50|0.77|= 0.6562
91866725|NCT01574716|183626507|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.57|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|||1.57|0.82|=0.4469
91729437|NCT01887600|183354664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.33||Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority is declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||0.33|0.17|<0.001
91729438|NCT01887600|183354665|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.127|||=|0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.44||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures has been applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms and overall mean effects throughout the evaluation period (weeks 12 to 28). The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline SF-36 VT, baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.44|-0.19|=0.093
91729439|NCT01887600|183354666|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.713|||=|0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.98||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences. Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures has been applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms and overall mean effects throughout the evaluation period (weeks 12 to 28). The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline SF-36 PF, baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.98|-0.56|=0.27
91866726|NCT01574716|183626508|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.3153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.83|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|||1.83|0.82|0.3153
91866727|NCT01574716|183626509|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.6|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|10.9|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|Difference equal to (=) (MORAb 8.0 mg/kg + Gemcitabine/Docetaxel) minus (Placebo + Gemcitabine/Docetaxel). Confidence interval based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||10.9|-12.0|= 1.000
91866728|NCT02502526|183626543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91866729|NCT02502526|183626544|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91729440|NCT01887600|183354667|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo (roxadustat minus placebo) is below 2 mmHg.|Least squares mean difference|0.842|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.08||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms with overall mean effects throughout the evaluation period (weeks 20 to 28). The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline MAP, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||2.08|-0.40|=0.182
91729441|NCT01887600|183354668|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.3 (hazard ratio).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||=|0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.16|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||2.16|0.77|=0.334
91729442|NCT01887600|183354669|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.59|||=|0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Annualized eGFR slope over time was estimated by a random slopes and intercepts model using all available eGFR values adjusted on baseline Hb, region, CV history at Baseline and the interaction terms.||1.75|-0.57|=0.316
91729443|NCT01887600|183354670|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.638|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.84||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences|Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Level of Hb Over Weeks 28 to 36. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits over weeks 28 to 36. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV History, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.84|1.44|<0.001
91729444|NCT01887600|183354671|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.604|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.82||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Level of Hb Over Weeks 44 to 52. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits over weeks 44 to 52. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.82|1.39|<0.001
91866730|NCT02502526|183626544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.605
91866731|NCT02502526|183626545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.520
91866732|NCT02502526|183626545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.817
91866733|NCT01074294|183626561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.19||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, trial center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between Least Squares (LS) means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||3.19|-1.80|0.5845
91866734|NCT01074294|183626562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.18||The p-value was derived using ANCOVA model with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||1.18|-1.37|0.8832
91866735|NCT01074294|183626563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.86||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, trial center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||1.86|-0.72|0.3864
91866736|NCT01074294|183626564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.58||The p value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, trial center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.58|0.10|0.0061
91866737|NCT01074294|183626565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.46||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|ANCOVA||This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||2.46|-1.64|0.6932
91866738|NCT01074294|183626566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.2781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.28||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||2.28|-0.66|0.2781
91697661|NCT03514485|183289720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.19||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||4.19|0.58|
91697662|NCT03514485|183289720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|6.43||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||6.43|2.54|
91697663|NCT03514485|183289720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.84||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.84|-2.78|
91697664|NCT03514485|183289720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|-1.12||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-1.12|-5.03|
91697665|NCT03514485|183289720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.31||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||3.31|-0.48|
91697666|NCT03514485|183289721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.54||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.54|-0.19|
91697667|NCT03514485|183289721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.35|-0.28|
91697668|NCT03514485|183289721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.01|-0.68|
91729445|NCT01887600|183354672|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.492|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.85||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Level of Hb Over Weeks 96 to 104. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits over weeks 96 to 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.85|1.14|<0.001
91729446|NCT01887600|183354673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|19.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.98|30.15|||Regression, Cox|||Time to Achieve the First Hb Response. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||30.15|11.98|<0.001
91729447|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.396|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.5||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 1. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||0.50|0.29|<0.001
91759006|NCT04765202|183411227|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Difference was calculated as (percent area of wound closure in SOMA Tx site) - ((percent area of wound closure in AG Tx site). 95% CI was derived using the normal approximation to binomial distribution.|Comparison of complete wound closure without additional autografting at Month 2 in AG TX site and SOMA TX site in Cohort 1 Group 2.||0|0|
91697669|NCT03514485|183289721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.08||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.08|-0.48|
91697670|NCT03514485|183289721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.14||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.14|-0.48|
91697671|NCT03514485|183289722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.29||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.29|-0.11|
91697672|NCT03514485|183289722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.34||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.34|-0.03|
91697673|NCT03514485|183289722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.18||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.18|-0.19|
91697674|NCT03514485|183289722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.09|-0.23|
91697675|NCT03514485|183289722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.26||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.26|-0.09|
91697676|NCT03514485|183289723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.65||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.65|0.00|
91697677|NCT03514485|183289723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.45||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.45|-0.12|
91697678|NCT03514485|183289723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.18|-0.40|
91697679|NCT03514485|183289723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.29||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.29|-0.20|
91697680|NCT03514485|183289723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.5||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.50|-0.08|
91697681|NCT03514485|183289724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.69||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.69|-0.19|
91697682|NCT03514485|183289724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.63||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.63|-0.14|
91759007|NCT04929249|183411229|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-60.0|-46.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-46.0|-60.0|<0.001
91866739|NCT01074294|183626566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.49||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||2.49|-1.15|0.4673
91866740|NCT01074294|183626566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.79||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||2.79|-1.54|0.5719
91697683|NCT03514485|183289724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.30|-0.49|
91866741|NCT01074294|183626566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.83||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||2.83|-1.70|0.6262
91697684|NCT03514485|183289724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.24||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.24|-0.43|
91697685|NCT03514485|183289724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.54||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.54|-0.24|
91697686|NCT03075891|183289728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.032
91697687|NCT02461524|183289763|OTHER||Percentage|2.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||8.7|||Exact binomial test|||"The primary safety endpoint was tested against a predetermined safety Performance Goal (PG) using the following statistical hypotheses:~H0: p ≥ 20% vs. H1: p \< 20% where p is the proportion of subjects experiencing a Major Adverse Event (MAE) within 30 days of the index procedure in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Stent graft system and 20% is the safety PG."||8.7||<0.001
91697688|NCT02461524|183289764|OTHER|Single-arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Percentage|100.0||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.8||||Based on exact binomial distribution|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint was tested against a predetermined effectiveness PG using following statistical hypotheses:~H0: q ≤ 80% vs. H1: q \> 80% where q is the proportion of subjects who have a successful aneurysm treatment in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo AAA Stent graft system and 80% is the effectiveness PG."|||95.8|0.001
91697689|NCT02278939|183289830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||This was an intention to treat analysis using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment to account for unequal group sample sizes|ANOVA|||Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in weight (kg) compared to the control from baseline to 3-months||||0.003
91697690|NCT02278939|183289831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This was an intention to treat analysis using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment to account for unequal group sample sizes|ANOVA|||Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a statistically greater reduction in percent weight compared to the control from baseline to 3-months||||.001
91697691|NCT02278939|183289832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||This was an intention to treat analysis using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment to account for differences in group sample sizes|ANOVA|||Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a statistically greater reduction in BMI compared to the control from baseline to 3 months||||.002
91697692|NCT00930774|183289858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=0.748||||||0.527
91697693|NCT00930774|183289859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=0.286||||||0.835
91729448|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.938|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 2. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.07|0.81|<0.001
91697694|NCT00930774|183289860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=0.054||||||0.983
91697695|NCT00930774|183289861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||||||df = 3,83; F=0.701|ANOVA|||||||0.554
91697696|NCT00930774|183289862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757||||||df = 3,83; F=0.395|ANOVA|||||||0.757
91697697|NCT00930774|183289863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=1.236||||||0.302
91697698|NCT00930774|183289864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83. F=6.343||||||0.001
91697699|NCT00930774|183289864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91697700|NCT00930774|183289865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=3.797||||||0.013
91697701|NCT00930774|183289865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91697702|NCT00712881|183289896|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|2-sided, binomial proportions|||||||0.154
91729449|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.471|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.64||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 4. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.64|1.30|<0.001
91729450|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.827|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.02||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 6. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.02|1.64|<0.001
91729451|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.058|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.25||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 8. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.25|1.87|<0.001
91729452|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.949|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.14||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 10. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.14|1.75|<0.001
91866742|NCT01074294|183626566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.2638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.87||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||3.87|-1.06|0.2638
91866743|NCT01074294|183626567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.37||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.37|-0.52|0.3804
91866744|NCT01074294|183626567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.6422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.39||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.39|-0.86|0.6422
91866745|NCT01074294|183626567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.55||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.55|-1.00|0.6707
91729453|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.28||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 12. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.28|1.90|<0.001
91866746|NCT01074294|183626567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.6638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.64||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.64|-1.04|0.6638
91866747|NCT01074294|183626567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.2252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.36||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||2.36|-0.56|0.2252
91866748|NCT01074294|183626567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.7||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.70|-1.14|0.6970
91729454|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.051|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.24||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 14. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.24|1.86|<0.001
91866749|NCT01074294|183626568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.6008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.11||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.11|-0.64|0.6008
91866750|NCT01074294|183626568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.27||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.27|-0.72|0.5859
91729455|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.987|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.19||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 16. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.19|1.79|<0.001
91729456|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.841|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.05||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 18. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.05|1.64|<0.001
91729457|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.824|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.04||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 20. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.04|1.61|<0.001
91697703|NCT03200704|183289905|NON_INFERIORITY|90% power, 2.5% one-sided significance level,5% non-inferiority margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||"Hypothesis:~H0: QT ≤ QC - 0.05 H1: QT \> QC - 0.05"||||<0.0001
91697704|NCT01680861|183289909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.32
91729458|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.651|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|1.87||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 22. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.87|1.43|<0.001
91729459|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.447|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.67||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 24. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.67|1.23|<0.001
91729460|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.561|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 28. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|1.34|<0.001
91729461|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.587|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.81||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change From BL to week 32. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.81|1.37|<0.001
91729462|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|1.92||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb Change from BL to week 36. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.92|1.46|<0.001
91729463|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.645|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.88||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 40. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.88|1.41|<0.001
91729464|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.699|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.94||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 44. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.94|1.45|<0.001
91697705|NCT01680861|183289910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
91697706|NCT01680861|183289911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
91697707|NCT01680861|183289912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91697708|NCT01680861|183289913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91697709|NCT01680861|183289914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91697710|NCT04967885|183289917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91697711|NCT01011465|183289919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that both groups will have similar rise in SBP in response to stress.||||0.03
91866751|NCT01074294|183626568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.7406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.34||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.34|-0.96|0.7406
91866752|NCT01074294|183626568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.37||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.37|-1.14|0.8568
91904745|NCT00097773|183704649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.66||There was no significant interaction with ciprofloxacin in this analysis.|Regression, Cox||risk of exacerbation comparing cycled therapy to culture-based therapy|The primary analysis compared the pooled Cycled Therapy group (n=152) vs. the Pooled culture-based therapy group (n=152). The null hypothesis was no difference between groups in the risk of pulmonary exacerbation requiring IV antibiotics or hospitalization. Assuming a total sample size of 300 (150 per group), the study provided 80% power to detect at least a 40% reduction in the risk of exacerbation in the cycled group as compared to the culture-based group at the two-sided alpha level of 5%.||1.66|0.54|0.86
91697712|NCT01011465|183289919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.89||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that both groups will have similar rise in SBP in response to stress.||||0.89
91729465|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.446|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.69||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change From BL to week 48. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.69|1.20|<0.001
91729466|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.89||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 52. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.89|1.39|<0.001
91729467|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.91||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 56. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.91|1.37|<0.001
91729468|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.634|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.94||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 60. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.94|1.33|<0.001
91697713|NCT01011465|183289919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.52||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that both groups will have similar rise in SBP in response to stress.||||0.52
91729469|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.73||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 64. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.73|1.08|<0.001
91729470|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.499|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.82||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change From BL to week 68. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.82|1.18|<0.001
91697714|NCT01011465|183289920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups will have similar PANAS negative affect score change in response to stress.||||0.43
91697715|NCT01011465|183289920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups will have similar PANAS negative affect score change in response to stress.||||0.08
91697716|NCT01011465|183289920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that both groups will have similar PANAS negative affect score change in response to stress.||||0.25
91729471|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.438|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 72. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|1.10|<0.001
91759008|NCT04929249|183411230|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the one-sided 98.75% confidence interval did not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Difference in percentage|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.3|-3.0|||Normal approx. to binomial distribution||||Upper limit of one-sided 98.75% CI (-3.0%)|-3.0|-18.3|
91697717|NCT01011465|183289921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.83||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups had similar threat/challenge scores during the speech task.||||0.83
91866753|NCT01074294|183626568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.6044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.64||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||1.64|-0.96|0.6044
91866754|NCT01074294|183626568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.66||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.66|-1.08|0.6772
91866755|NCT01074294|183626569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.7881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.15||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.15|-0.87|0.7881
91697718|NCT01011465|183289921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups had similar threat/challenge scores during the speech task.||||0.56
91697719|NCT01011465|183289921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.95||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups had similar threat/challenge scores during the speech task.||||0.95
91697720|NCT00926848|183290040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91697721|NCT00926848|183290041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91697722|NCT00926848|183290042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91697723|NCT00926848|183290043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91697724|NCT00926848|183290044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91697725|NCT00926848|183290045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91697726|NCT01551264|183290046|OTHER|P-value by chi-square comparing the Kaplan-Meier recurrence-free survival probability at 1.2 years post treatment with robust estimate of standard error due to the a priori assumption that data from bilateral limbs are correlated.||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91697727|NCT03482453|183290061|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least square means (LS means) for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90 percent (%) Confidence Intervals (CIs) of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7108|1.0921||||||||1.0921|0.7108|
91697728|NCT03482453|183290061|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9637|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8361|1.1107||||||||1.1107|0.8361|
91866756|NCT01074294|183626569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.19||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.19|-1.38|0.8841
91697729|NCT03482453|183290062|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9317|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8458|1.0263||||||||1.0263|0.8458|
91697730|NCT03482453|183290067|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.0153|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8977|1.1483||||||||1.1483|0.8977|
91697731|NCT03482453|183290067|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9506|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.0339||||||||1.0339|0.8740|
91697732|NCT03482453|183290068|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8861|1.0408||||||||1.0408|0.8861|
91866757|NCT01074294|183626569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.17||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.17|-1.61|0.7589
91866758|NCT01074294|183626569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.5375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.93||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.93|-1.01|0.5375
91866759|NCT01074294|183626569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.08||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||2.08|-0.92|0.4456
91866760|NCT01074294|183626569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.89||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.89|-1.21|0.6670
91866761|NCT01074294|183626570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.01||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.01|-0.97|0.9708
91866762|NCT01074294|183626570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.63||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.63|-0.65|0.3970
91866763|NCT01074294|183626571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.5||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Falling Asleep: Week 7||1.50|0.68|0.9568
91866764|NCT01074294|183626571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.6308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Falling Asleep: Week 9||1.31|0.63|0.6308
91866765|NCT01074294|183626571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.6698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Falling Asleep: Week 11||1.32|0.64|0.6698
91866766|NCT01074294|183626571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.2012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Staying Asleep: Week 7||1.15|0.50|0.2012
91866767|NCT01074294|183626571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.16||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Staying Asleep: Week 9||1.16|0.52|0.2365
91866768|NCT01074294|183626571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Staying Asleep: Week 11||0.96|0.44|0.0312
91866769|NCT01074294|183626571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.81||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Waking Up Too Early: Week 7||1.81|0.69|0.6408
91866770|NCT01074294|183626571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.96||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Waking Up Too Early: Week 9||1.96|0.79|0.3467
91866771|NCT01074294|183626571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.59||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Waking Up Too Early: Week 11||1.59|0.65|0.9437
91866772|NCT01074294|183626572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.12||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||2.12|-1.30|0.6357
91759009|NCT04929249|183411231|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8|-42.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-42.3|-52.8|<0.001
91759010|NCT04929249|183411232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|-49.8|||Regression, Linear|||||-49.8|-59.0|<0.001
91759011|NCT04929249|183411233|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|-44.9|||Regression, Linear|||||-44.9|-52.9|<0.001
91759012|NCT04929249|183411234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.07|81.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||81.16|22.07|<0.001
91759013|NCT04929249|183411235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.72|44.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.66|6.72|<0.001
91759014|NCT04929249|183411236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.18|42.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.19|14.18|<0.001
91697733|NCT04740827|183290100|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-1.59|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, treatment group, visit, region and number of classes of failed prior treatments as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.59|-3.27|<0.0001
91697734|NCT04740827|183290101|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.52|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, treatment group, visit, region and number of classes of failed prior treatments as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.52|-3.19|<0.0001
91697735|NCT04740827|183290102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|8.79|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and p-value are based on logistic regression with treatment group, region, baseline monthly migraine days, and number of classes of failed prior prophylactic treatments (2 and \>2) as explanatory variables.|||8.79|3.02|<0.0001
91697736|NCT04740827|183290103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|8.14|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and p-value are based on logistic regression with treatment group, region, baseline monthly migraine days, and number of classes of failed prior prophylactic treatments (2 and \>2) as explanatory variables.|||8.14|2.85|<0.0001
91697737|NCT04740827|183290104|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.42|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.42|-3.15|<0.0001
91759015|NCT04929249|183411237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.51|63.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||63.24|19.51|<0.001
91697738|NCT04740827|183290105|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.32|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.32|-3.05|<0.0001
91759016|NCT04929249|183411238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-26.3|-33.8|<0.001
91759017|NCT04929249|183411238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||9.5|3.6|<0.001
91759018|NCT04929249|183411238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-44.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|-39.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-39.3|-49.1|<0.001
91759019|NCT04929249|183411238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-10.0|-23.8|<0.001
91759020|NCT04929249|183411238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-10.9|-24.7|<0.001
91759021|NCT04929249|183411238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-37.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-37.8|-47.5|<0.001
91759022|NCT04929249|183411238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||-18.0|-25.8|<0.001
91759023|NCT04929249|183411239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-49.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-43.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-43.9|-56.0|<0.001
91759024|NCT04929249|183411239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||4.4|1.8|<0.001
91759025|NCT04929249|183411239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-52.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-46.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-46.7|-58.1|<0.001
91759026|NCT04929249|183411239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-2.8|-6.5|<0.001
91759027|NCT04929249|183411239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-15.8|-34.8|<0.001
91759028|NCT04929249|183411239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-32.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-32.9|-39.7|<0.001
91759029|NCT04929249|183411239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||-6.8|-10.7|<0.001
91759030|NCT04929249|183411240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.61|||proportional odds model|||||2.61|0.43|0.899
91759031|NCT04929249|183411241|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.008||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.039|||Regression, Linear|||||0.039|-0.055|0.727
91759032|NCT01009086|183411251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759033|NCT01009086|183411251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759034|NCT01009086|183411251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759035|NCT01009086|183411252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759036|NCT01009086|183411252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759037|NCT01009086|183411252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759038|NCT01009086|183411253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759039|NCT01009086|183411253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759040|NCT01009086|183411253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759041|NCT01009086|183411254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759042|NCT01009086|183411254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759043|NCT01009086|183411254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759044|NCT01009086|183411255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759045|NCT01009086|183411255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759046|NCT01009086|183411255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91759047|NCT01009086|183411256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.017
91759048|NCT01009086|183411256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91866773|NCT01074294|183626572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.48||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||2.48|-1.56|0.6536
91866774|NCT01074294|183626572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.9475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.06||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||2.06|-2.20|0.9475
91866775|NCT01074294|183626572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.3973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.29||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||3.29|-1.31|0.3973
91866776|NCT01074294|183626572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|3.91||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||3.91|-0.96|0.2336
91866777|NCT01074294|183626572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.4553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.44||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||3.44|-1.55|0.4553
91904746|NCT00097773|183704649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.54|||Regression, Cox||risk of exacerbation comparing oral cipro to oral placebo|A secondary comparison was between the pooled oral cipro (n=152)and pooled placebo groups (n=152. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||2.54|0.82|0.20
91904747|NCT00097773|183704650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.28||95.0|0.49|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|No interaction with ciprofloxacin usage was observed.|odds of a positive culture comparing cycled therapy to culture-based therapy|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between pooled cycled and culture-based treatment groups in the odds of a Pa positive culture over the 18 month study.||1.23|0.49|0.28
91729472|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.54||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 76. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.54|0.83|<0.001
91729473|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 80. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|1.11|<0.001
91729474|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.374|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.75||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 84. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.75|0.99|<0.001
91904748|NCT00097773|183704650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.71|||Regression, Logistic||odds of a positive culture comparing the cipro group to the placebo group|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between pooled cipro and placebo treatment groups in the odds of a Pa positive culture over the 18 month study.||1.71|0.71|0.67
91904749|NCT00097773|183704651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.11|||Regression, Cox|No interaction with ciprofloxacin usage was observed.|Hazard ratio comparing cycled to culture based therapy|The analysis compared the pooled Cycled Therapy group (n=152) vs. the Pooled culture-based therapy group (n=152). The null hypothesis was no difference between groups in the risk of pulmonary exacerbation.||1.11|0.58|0.18
91729475|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.171|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.55||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 88. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.55|0.79|<0.001
91729476|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.382|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 92. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|0.98|<0.001
91729477|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.563|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.97||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 96. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.97|1.15|<0.001
91759049|NCT01009086|183411256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91729478|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.448|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.83||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 100. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.83|1.06|<0.001
91866778|NCT01074294|183626573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.27||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.27|-0.70|0.5647
91866779|NCT01074294|183626573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.12||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.12|-1.15|0.9739
91866780|NCT01074294|183626573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.09||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.09|-1.40|0.8077
91866781|NCT01074294|183626573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.6119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.65||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.65|-0.98|0.6119
91904750|NCT00097773|183704651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.78|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio comparing cipro to placebo.|This analysis was between the pooled oral cipro (n=152)and pooled placebo groups (n=152. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||1.78|0.94|0.12
91904751|NCT04305275|183704664|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.533||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.0|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||0.00|-2.14|0.0491
91904752|NCT04305275|183704665|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.01|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||-0.01|-1.60|0.0468
91729479|NCT01887600|183354674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.347|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.79||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 104. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.79|0.90|<0.001
91729480|NCT01887600|183354675|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.614|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.81||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to average Hb weeks 28-36. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 36. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 28 to 36 period based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.81|1.42|<0.001
91729481|NCT01887600|183354676|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.594|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.81||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to average Hb weeks 44-52. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 52. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 44 to 52 period based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.81|1.38|<0.001
91729482|NCT01887600|183354677|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.452|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from BL to average Hb weeks 96-104. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 96 to 104 period based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.80|1.10|<0.001
91729483|NCT01887600|183354681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.945|||=|0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.20|0.74|=0.643
91759050|NCT01192828|183411257|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.235
91759051|NCT01192828|183411258|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.701|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis assumed.||||0.701
91759052|NCT01192828|183411259|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.190
91759053|NCT01192828|183411260|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.052
91759054|NCT01192828|183411261|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis assumed.||||0.014
91759055|NCT01192828|183411263|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.541|||||||Spearman's rank correlation|||Null hypothesis assumed|Spearman's rank correlation rho is 0.179, with p value 0.541, N is 14|||.541
91729484|NCT01887600|183354683|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.23|||Regression, Cox|||Time to start rescue therapy within first 24 weeks. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.23|0.08|<0.001
91729485|NCT01887600|183354684|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.343|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.55|0.21|<0.001
91729486|NCT01887600|183354685|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.045|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.01|||ANCOVA|||The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was applied including treatment as fixed factor, region and history of CV disease as class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||0.01|-0.10|=0.128
91866782|NCT01074294|183626573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.76||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||1.76|-0.94|0.5513
91866783|NCT01074294|183626573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.4185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.95||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.95|-0.81|0.4185
91866784|NCT01074294|183626574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.09||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.09|-0.80|0.7556
91729487|NCT01887600|183354686|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-10.429|||=|0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.81|4.95|||ANCOVA|||The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was applied included treatment arm, region, CV history as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||4.95|-25.81|=0.183
91729488|NCT01887600|183354687|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.17|0.06|<0.001
91729489|NCT01887600|183354688|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.99|0.29|=0.045
91729490|NCT01887600|183354697|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.374|||=|0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.4||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The Mixed Model of Repeated Measures included treatment, visit (week 8, week 12 and week 28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||1.40|-0.65|=0.475
91729491|NCT01887600|183354698|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.704|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.38||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 28. The model includes treatment, visit (week 8, week 12 and week 28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Ans, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates. Baseline FACT-An Ans is defined as the FACT-An Ans value on day 1.||3.38|0.02|=0.047
91729492|NCT01887600|183354699|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.086|||=|0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 12 to 28 period based on this MMRM model.The model includes treatment, visit (week8, week12 and week28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Total Score, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||5.46|-1.29|=0.225
91729493|NCT01887600|183354710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995|||=|0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||Time to doubling of serum Creatinine. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.32|0.75|=0.973
91729494|NCT01887600|183354711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995|||=|0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3|||Regression, Cox|||Time to CKD progression. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.30|0.76|=0.972
91729495|NCT01887600|183354712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.905|||=|0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.16|0.70|=0.439
91729496|NCT03688139|183354713|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|0.23||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
91729497|NCT03688139|183354713|OTHER|This analysis tested whether the course of LPP was associated with the course of BADS over the 9-week treatment period in the Engage group.|Slope|0.03||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.14
91729498|NCT03688139|183354714|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|-0.06||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.69
91729499|NCT03688139|183354715|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|-0.03||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.69
91729500|NCT03688139|183354716|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|-0.45||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.39
91729501|NCT03688139|183354717|OTHER|This analysis tested the hypothesis that change in LPP for each assessment interval would predict severity of anhedonia at the next assessment in Engage but not in Supportive Therapy.|difference in slopes|-0.1||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.58
91866785|NCT01074294|183626574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.59||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.59|-0.60|0.3710
91866786|NCT01074294|183626574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.21||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.21|-0.99|0.8464
91866787|NCT01074294|183626574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.91||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.91|-0.53|0.2664
91904753|NCT04305275|183704665|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.3124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.46|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, Pre-dose||0.46|-1.41|0.3124
91697739|NCT04740827|183290106|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-1.93|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.93|-3.43|<0.0001
91904754|NCT04305275|183704665|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.81|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 5 Hours Post-dose||0.81|-1.61|0.5148
91904755|NCT04305275|183704665|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.91|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 8 Hours Post-dose||0.91|-1.45|0.6452
91697740|NCT04740827|183290107|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-1.86|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.86|-3.36|<0.0001
91697741|NCT04740827|183290108|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|17.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.348|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.05|22.3|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||22.30|13.05|<0.0001
91729502|NCT03688139|183354717|OTHER|This analysis tested the hypothesis that change in SHAPS for each assessment interval would predict severity of anhedonia at the next assessment in Engage but not in Supportive Therapy.|difference in slopes|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.96
91729503|NCT00498485|183354724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis = drug-treated would have a higher global impression of change than placebo treated.||||<0.04
91729504|NCT00452400|183354735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0233||95.0|0.008|0.113|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.113|0.008|0.0233
91729505|NCT00452400|183354735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0003||95.0|0.044|0.149|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.149|0.044|0.0003
91729506|NCT00452400|183354735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.175|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.072|<0.0001
91729507|NCT00452400|183354735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.185|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.080|<0.0001
91729508|NCT00452400|183354736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0004||95.0|0.039|0.137|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|0.039|0.0004
91729509|NCT00452400|183354736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.186|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.088|<0.0001
91729510|NCT00452400|183354736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.176|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.080|<0.0001
91729511|NCT00452400|183354736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.218|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|0.120|<0.0001
91904756|NCT04305275|183704665|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.2|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||0.20|-1.73|0.1171
91866788|NCT01074294|183626574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.42||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||2.42|-0.17|0.0876
91866789|NCT01074294|183626574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.77||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.77|-0.89|0.5119
91904757|NCT04305275|183704665|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.73|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||1.73|-0.50|0.2724
91729512|NCT00452400|183354737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0011||95.0|0.034|0.136|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.136|0.034|0.0011
91729513|NCT00452400|183354737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.07|0.173|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.070|<0.0001
91729514|NCT00452400|183354737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.175|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.075|<0.0001
91729515|NCT00452400|183354737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.179|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.077|<0.0001
91729516|NCT00452400|183354738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0127||95.0|0.024|0.197|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.024|0.0127
91729517|NCT00452400|183354738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.261|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.261|0.087|<0.0001
91866790|NCT01074294|183626575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.18||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.18|-1.03|0.8986
91866791|NCT01074294|183626575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.55||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.55|-1.02|0.6850
91904758|NCT04305275|183704666|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.658||0.8784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.21|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||1.21|-1.42|0.8784
91904759|NCT04305275|183704666|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.3|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, Pre-dose||2.30|-0.44|0.1795
91729518|NCT00452400|183354738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.255|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.084|0.0001
91729519|NCT00452400|183354738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.258|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.084|0.0001
91729520|NCT00452400|183354739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0836||95.0|-0.012|0.192|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|-0.012|0.0836
91729521|NCT00452400|183354739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0011||95.0|0.068|0.274|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.274|0.068|0.0011
91729522|NCT00452400|183354739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0037||95.0|0.049|0.25|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.049|0.0037
91759056|NCT01192828|183411265|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis assumed||||0.014
91759057|NCT01192828|183411266|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis assumed||||0.012
91759058|NCT01192828|183411267|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.160
91759059|NCT01192828|183411268|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91759060|NCT03037983|183411271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38||||0.849|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.849
91759061|NCT03037983|183411273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|||||t = 0.287|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.782
91866792|NCT01074294|183626575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.1||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.10|-1.61|0.7108
91866793|NCT01074294|183626575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.9236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.36||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.36|-1.50|0.9236
91729523|NCT00452400|183354739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0047||95.0|0.046|0.251|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.251|0.046|0.0047
91866794|NCT01074294|183626575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.8576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.61||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||1.61|-1.35|0.8576
91866795|NCT01074294|183626575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.37||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.37|-1.67|0.8483
91866796|NCT01074294|183626576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.15||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||0.15|-0.22|0.6976
91866797|NCT01074294|183626576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||0.17|-0.25|0.6986
91866798|NCT01074294|183626576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||0.19|-0.30|0.6507
91697742|NCT04740827|183290109|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|17.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.308|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.34|22.42|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||22.42|13.34|<0.0001
91697743|NCT04740827|183290110|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-3.05|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-3.05|-6.37|<0.0001
91697744|NCT04740827|183290111|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.786|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-2.85|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-2.85|-5.94|<0.0001
91697745|NCT04740827|183290112|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.912|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|-4.63|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, treatment group, visit, region and number of classes of failed prior treatments as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-4.63|-8.22|<0.0001
91729524|NCT00452400|183354740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0695||95.0|-0.008|0.195|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|-0.008|0.0695
91697746|NCT00784550|183290120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91697747|NCT00784550|183290121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91697748|NCT00784550|183290122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91697749|NCT00784550|183290123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91697750|NCT00784550|183290124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91697751|NCT00784550|183290125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Mastery domain|ANCOVA|||||||0.069
91729525|NCT00452400|183354740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0018||95.0|0.061|0.264|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.061|0.0018
91729526|NCT00452400|183354740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0008||95.0|0.072|0.272|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.272|0.072|0.0008
91697752|NCT00784550|183290125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||Fatigue domain|ANCOVA|||||||0.470
91697753|NCT00784550|183290125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||Emotional function domain|ANCOVA|||||||0.394
91796068|NCT05298306|183470740|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.67||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 5 hours||0.67|-0.87|0.7940
91796069|NCT05298306|183470740|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.||Change from baseline VAS score at 6 hours|Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|0.61|-0.92|0.6892
91796070|NCT00144027|183470758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.57||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|47.53|||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression predicting 6-month adherence, controling for baseline depression, extrapyramidal side effects, and baseline adherence.||||47.53|1.21|0.03
91796071|NCT05080660|183470759|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.73|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.73|-0.26|
91796072|NCT05080660|183470760|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.76|-0.39|
91796073|NCT05080660|183470761|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.47|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.47|-0.23|
91866799|NCT01074294|183626576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||0.20|-0.32|0.6550
91866800|NCT01074294|183626576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.38||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||0.38|-0.15|0.3959
91697754|NCT00784550|183290125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.879||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Dyspnea domain||||||0.879
91697755|NCT02715700|183290126|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.01||||||||1.01|0.90|
91697756|NCT02715700|183290127|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.03||||||||1.03|0.88|
91697757|NCT02715700|183290128|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03||||||||1.03|0.93|
91697758|NCT02715700|183290130|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.06||||||||1.06|0.90|
91697759|NCT02715700|183290131|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.1||||||||1.10|0.86|
91697760|NCT02715700|183290132|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04||||||||1.04|0.91|
91697761|NCT02715700|183290134|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.03||||||||1.03|0.90|
91697762|NCT02715700|183290135|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.05||||||||1.05|0.87|
91697763|NCT02715700|183290136|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.03||||||||1.03|0.92|
91697764|NCT04166591|183290161|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||binomial test|||||||<0.01
91697765|NCT04166591|183290161|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
91697766|NCT04166591|183290161|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
91697767|NCT04166591|183290161|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
91697768|NCT04166591|183290162|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
91697769|NCT04166591|183290162|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.||||||0.12|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.12
91697770|NCT04166591|183290162|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
91697771|NCT04166591|183290162|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
91697772|NCT03535194|183290167|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|78.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||78.7|68.2|<0.001
91729527|NCT00452400|183354740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0006||95.0|0.077|0.281|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.077|0.0006
91729528|NCT00452400|183354741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.204|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.078|<0.0001
91729529|NCT00452400|183354741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.099|0.225|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.225|0.099|<0.0001
91866801|NCT01074294|183626576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.35||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||0.35|-0.23|0.6763
91866802|NCT01074294|183626577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.91||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.91|-0.37|0.4089
91697773|NCT03535194|183290168|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.7|73.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.3|62.7|<0.001
91729530|NCT00452400|183354741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.275|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.275|0.151|<0.0001
91729531|NCT00452400|183354741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.277|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.277|0.151|<0.0001
91729532|NCT00452400|183354742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.231|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.097|<0.0001
91729533|NCT00452400|183354742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.237|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.237|0.102|<0.0001
91729534|NCT00452400|183354742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.284|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.152|<0.0001
91729535|NCT00452400|183354742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.292|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.292|0.157|<0.0001
91729536|NCT00452400|183354743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.373|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.373|0.150|<0.0001
91729537|NCT00452400|183354743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.171|0.395|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.395|0.171|<0.0001
91697774|NCT03535194|183290169|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|81.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.1|87.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||87.0|76.1|<0.001
91697775|NCT03535194|183290170|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|55.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.8|47.6|<0.001
91697776|NCT03535194|183290171|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|19.3|<0.001
91697777|NCT03535194|183290172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|53.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|59.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.3|47.7|<0.001
91729538|NCT00452400|183354743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.421|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.421|0.201|<0.0001
91729539|NCT00452400|183354743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.192|0.416|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.416|0.192|<0.0001
91729540|NCT00452400|183354744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.409|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.409|0.167|<0.0001
91729541|NCT00452400|183354744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.401|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.159|<0.0001
91729542|NCT00452400|183354744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.416|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.416|0.178|<0.0001
91729543|NCT00452400|183354744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|0.164|0.407|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.407|0.164|<0.0001
91697778|NCT03535194|183290173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|-2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.88|-7.01|<0.001
91729544|NCT00452400|183354745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.176|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.090|<0.0001
91796074|NCT05080660|183470762|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.34|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.34|-0.67|
91866803|NCT01074294|183626578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||Week 11 data is included here. The planned sample size of 225 participants (150 in brexipiprazole arm and 75 in the placebo arm) yielded at least 80% power to detect effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.05 using a two-sided z-test.|||0.20|-0.80|0.2331
91866804|NCT01074294|183626579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.00|-0.01|0.0670
91697779|NCT03535194|183290174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.80|-16.51|<0.001
91866805|NCT01074294|183626580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|1.98||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||1.98|-30.5|0.0849
91697780|NCT03535194|183290175|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|-6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.55|-12.63|<0.001
91697781|NCT03535194|183290176|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.642|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.72|||ANCOVA|||||4.72|2.20|<0.001
91697782|NCT03535194|183290177|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.35|||ANCOVA|||||5.35|2.56|<0.001
91697783|NCT03535194|183290178|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|65.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|70.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||70.8|59.3|<0.001
91697784|NCT03535194|183290180|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.96|||ANCOVA|||||3.96|-4.96|0.826
91697785|NCT03535194|183290182|NON_INFERIORITY|10% non-inferiority margin was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.9|-1.4|<0.0001
91697786|NCT03535194|183290183|NON_INFERIORITY|10% non-inferiority margin was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.6|-3.4|<0.0001
91697787|NCT01665157|183290205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||||||Not significant|ANOVA|||||||0.435
91697788|NCT01665157|183290206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.046
91697789|NCT01665157|183290206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: Low-residue diet package and 2L PEG vs. Self-controlled diet and 2L PEG provides same preparation quality."||||0.024
91697790|NCT01665157|183290206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.041
91697791|NCT01665157|183290209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91697792|NCT01665157|183290210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91697793|NCT01665157|183290211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91697794|NCT04304235|183290215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91697795|NCT02217410|183290229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095||||0.8976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.263|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 3|||0.263|-0.067|0.8976
91697796|NCT02217410|183290229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.8836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.271|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 6|||0.271|-0.084|0.8836
91697797|NCT02217410|183290229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.272|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 9|||0.272|-0.085|0.8822
91697798|NCT02217410|183290229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.273|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 12|||0.273|-0.087|0.8821
91697799|NCT00626821|183290237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.553|2.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.073|1.553|<0.0001
91697800|NCT01471340|183290239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The projected sample size provided 90% power at a 2.5% alpha level (one-sided) to determine non-inferiority of MF/F and MF. For analysis of the first SAO in participants, MF/F MDI BID was considered non-inferior to MF MDI BID if the upper bound for the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR) of MF/F MDI BID versus MF MDI BID was lower than 2.0 (noninferiority margin).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.94|||Cox proportional-hazard model||The HR and 95% CI were based on the Cox proportional-hazard model with covariates of treatment (MF/F or MF) and ICS dose level (200 or 400 mcg).|Pertains only to the First SAO; pooled MF/F treatments and pooled MF treatments||1.94|0.76|0.411
91697801|NCT01471340|183290240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.98|||Cox proportional-hazard model|Superiority of MF/F MDI BID vs MF MDI BID was determined if the HR was less than 1 and achieved statistical significance (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|The HR and 95% CI were based on the Cox proportional-hazard model with covariates of treatment (MF/F or MF) and ICS dose level (200 or 400 mcg).|Pertains only to the First SAEX; pooled MF/F treatments and pooled MF treatments||0.98|0.80|0.021
91796075|NCT05080660|183470763|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.5|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.50|-0.35|
91796076|NCT05080660|183470764|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.55|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.55|-0.35|
91796077|NCT05080660|183470765|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|4.88|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||4.88|-0.88|
91796078|NCT05080660|183470766|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|6.38|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||6.38|-0.29|
91796079|NCT05080660|183470767|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.5|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.50|-0.23|
91866806|NCT01074294|183626581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.6||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||2.60|-3.52|0.7663
91866807|NCT01074294|183626582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.51||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|33.29||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||33.29|1.73|0.0298
91866808|NCT01074294|183626583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.01|-0.05|0.2563
91904760|NCT04305275|183704666|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.17|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 5 Hours Post-dose||1.17|-2.15|0.5588
91697802|NCT05875025|183290243|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.36||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.99|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, included treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; PPR2 at baseline as a covariate.||||4.99|-2.28|0.442
91697803|NCT05875025|183290244|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, included treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; PPR4 at baseline as a covariate.||||3.12|-1.73|0.553
91697804|NCT01098500|183290246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.5|||||Prevalence percentage is the number of patients with an ALT \>=3 times ULN divided by all patients that were tested at baseline (30 days prior to initiation of TKI drug).|||3.5|0.9|
91697805|NCT01098500|183290247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate (IR)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|9.0|||||Incidence rate (IR) is the number of patients with an ALT \>=3 times ULN after initiation of TKI divided by person time contributed by all patients with normal ALT (\<1 times ULN) at baseline. IR expressed per 100 person years.|||9.0|3.3|
91697806|NCT01098500|183290248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4|||||Prevalence percentage is the number of patients with Hy's Law divided by all patients that were tested at baseline (30 days prior to initiation of TKI drug).|||1.4|0.1|
91697807|NCT01098500|183290249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate (IR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||||Incidence rate (IR) is the number of patients with Hy's Law after initiation of TKI divided by person time contributed by all patients with normal ALT, AST, ALP, and BIL (\< 1 times ULN) at baseline. IR is expressed per 100 person years.|||2.0|0.0|
91697808|NCT02218736|183290258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0095
91697809|NCT02218736|183290259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0345
91697810|NCT02218736|183290260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.430
91697811|NCT03452488|183290261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic.||||0.2437
91697812|NCT03452488|183290261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic||||0.2000
91697813|NCT03452488|183290261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Adjusted Bayesian Imputation|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.3240
91697814|NCT03452488|183290261|SUPERIORITY|Gait Speed Based on Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||||0.5123|||||||Adjusted Bayesian Imputation|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.5123
91697815|NCT03452488|183290261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on MI and Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.6920
91697816|NCT03452488|183290261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on MI and Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.0850
91697817|NCT03452488|183290262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-score based on Mixed Model Analysis||||0.9408
91697818|NCT03452488|183290262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-score based on Mixed Model Analysis||||0.9485
91697819|NCT03452488|183290262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9848|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-Score Based on Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.9848
91697820|NCT03452488|183290262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-Score Based on Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.5017
91697821|NCT03452488|183290263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (dominant hand)||||0.5200
91866809|NCT01074294|183626584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.67||||0.6644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|20.06||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||20.06|-31.4|0.6644
91866810|NCT01074294|183626585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.8418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.45||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.45|-0.56|0.8418
91866811|NCT01074294|183626586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.18||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.18|-0.69|0.2513
91866812|NCT01074294|183626587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.71||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.71|-0.48|0.7037
91866813|NCT01074294|183626588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.7572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.23||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||0.23|-0.17|0.7572
91697822|NCT03452488|183290263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3577|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (dominant hand)||||0.3577
91697823|NCT03452488|183290263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9237|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test at Month 6 Based on Multiple Imputation (dominant hand)||||0.9237
91697824|NCT03452488|183290263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7629|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test at Month 6 Based on Multiple Imputation (dominant hand)||||0.7629
91697825|NCT03452488|183290263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5695|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Change from Baseline in Handgrip Strength Test (left hand)||||0.5695
91697826|NCT03452488|183290263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3523|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (Left hand)||||0.3523
91697827|NCT03452488|183290263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5652|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (Right hand)||||0.5652
91697828|NCT03452488|183290263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2472|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (Right hand)||||0.2472
91697829|NCT03452488|183290264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9859||||||Statistical Analysis of Change from Baseline in ALM|ANCOVA|||||||0.9859
91697830|NCT03452488|183290264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis of Change from Baseline in ALM||||0.4040
91729545|NCT00452400|183354745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.215|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.215|0.128|<0.0001
91729546|NCT00452400|183354745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.247|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.162|<0.0001
91697831|NCT03452488|183290265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1219|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1219
91697832|NCT03452488|183290265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0520
91697833|NCT03452488|183290266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8917|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8917
91697834|NCT03452488|183290266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2172||0.6317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.777|16.778|||ANCOVA|||||16.778|-26.777|0.6317
91697835|NCT03452488|183290267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3762
91697836|NCT03452488|183290267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0543
91697837|NCT03452488|183290268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8824|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8824
91697838|NCT03452488|183290268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1578|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1578
91697839|NCT03452488|183290269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0511|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0511
91697840|NCT03452488|183290269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2771|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2771
91697841|NCT03452488|183290270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8084|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8084
91697842|NCT03452488|183290270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7266
91697843|NCT03452488|183290271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2312|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2312
91697844|NCT03452488|183290271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2701|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2701
91697845|NCT03452488|183290272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8934|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8934
91697846|NCT03452488|183290272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3526|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3526
91697847|NCT03315286|183290282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
91697848|NCT03315286|183290283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91697849|NCT03315286|183290284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline results are reported here.||||0.6
91697850|NCT03315286|183290284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month data is reported here||||0.3
91697851|NCT03315286|183290285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline data is reported here.||||0.2
91697852|NCT03315286|183290285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month data is reported here||||0.4
91697853|NCT03315286|183290286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline data is reported here||||0.07
91866814|NCT01074294|183626588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.17||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||0.17|-0.28|0.6132
91866815|NCT01074294|183626588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.27||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||0.27|-0.25|0.9312
91866816|NCT01074294|183626588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.8073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||0.24|-0.30|0.8073
91697854|NCT03315286|183290286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month data is reported here||||0.0002
91697855|NCT02989649|183290338|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-1.05|||Regression, Linear||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 6||-1.05|-1.44|<0.001
91697856|NCT02989649|183290339|OTHER|||||||0.423|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Prior therapy of diabetes mellitus, Ever used or Never used||||0.423
91697857|NCT02989649|183290339|OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Sex, Male or Female||||0.747
91697858|NCT02989649|183290339|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Age, \<45 or \>=45 to \<65 years or \>=65 years||||<0.001
91697859|NCT02989649|183290339|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Cardiovascular risk group, Yes or No||||0.990
91697860|NCT02989649|183290339|OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Therapy type, Monotherapy or Combined therapy||||0.841
91697861|NCT02989649|183290339|OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Baseline BMI, \<25 or 25 to \<30 or \>=30 kg/m\^2||||0.847
91697862|NCT02989649|183290339|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Initial glycemic control, \<7% or \>=7%||||<0.001
91697863|NCT02989649|183290342|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.62|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 3||-0.62|-1.29|
91729547|NCT00452400|183354745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.246|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.159|<0.0001
91729548|NCT00452400|183354746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.243|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.243|0.131|<0.0001
91729549|NCT00452400|183354746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.271|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.271|0.159|<0.0001
91729550|NCT00452400|183354746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.163|0.273|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.273|0.163|<0.0001
91729551|NCT00452400|183354746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.304|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.304|0.191|<0.0001
91729552|NCT00452400|183354747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.1|0.219|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.100|<0.0001
91697864|NCT02989649|183290342|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.39|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 6||-0.39|-1.36|
91697865|NCT02989649|183290343|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.72|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 3||-0.72|-1.18|
91904761|NCT04305275|183704666|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.796||0.5036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|2.13|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 8 Hours Post-dose||2.13|-1.06|0.5036
91697866|NCT02989649|183290343|OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-1.05|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 6||-1.05|-1.44|
91697867|NCT00281632|183290347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Reponse rate|31.0||||||95.0|16.3|48.1|||||50% Response Rate (Normalized and Non-Normalized)|||48.1|16.3|
91697868|NCT00281632|183290351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|17.6||||||95.0|3.8|43.4|||||Response rate (CR+PR)|||43.4|3.8|
91697869|NCT00281632|183290351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|21.1||||||95.0|6.1|45.6|||||Response rate (CR+PR)|||45.6|6.1|
91697870|NCT00281632|183290351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|19.4||||||95.0|8.2|36.0|||||Response rate (CR+PR)|||36.0|8.2|
91866817|NCT01074294|183626588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||0.29|-0.26|0.9168
91866818|NCT01074294|183626588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.25||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||0.25|-0.34|0.7432
91697871|NCT01876784|183290371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Vandetanib 300 mg vs Placebo|A multiple testing procedure (MTP) with an alpha-exhaustive recycling strategy was employed to provide adequate control of type I error.||1.03|0.55|0.080
91697872|NCT00732758|183290389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline 25(OH)D, race, BMI, diet vitamin D, gender, pubertal status, and sunlight exposure.||||||0.003
91697873|NCT00732758|183290390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|unadjusted p-values||||||0.51
91697874|NCT00732758|183290391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91697875|NCT00732758|183290392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91697876|NCT00373958|183290393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-3.6||||||95.0|-7.3|-0.1||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-0.1|-7.3|
91729553|NCT00452400|183354747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.253|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.253|0.134|<0.0001
91729554|NCT00452400|183354747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.262|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.262|0.144|<0.0001
91729555|NCT00452400|183354747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.145|0.264|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.145|<0.0001
91796080|NCT05080660|183470768|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.37|-0.39|
91796081|NCT05080660|183470769|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.81|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.81|-0.21|
91796082|NCT05080660|183470770|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.9|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.90|-0.31|
91697877|NCT00373958|183290393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-5.5||||||95.0|-10.9|-0.1||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-0.1|-10.9|
91697878|NCT00373958|183290393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-7.9||||||95.0|-12.4|-4.0||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-4.0|-12.4|
91697879|NCT00373958|183290393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-2.7|3.5||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.5|-2.7|
91697880|NCT00373958|183290393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-4.7|1.2||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-4.7|
91697881|NCT00373958|183290393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|3.4||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.4|-2.4|
91697882|NCT00373958|183290393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-3.6||||||95.0|-8.5|1.2||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-8.5|
91697883|NCT00373958|183290394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.68||||||95.0|0.57|0.8||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.80|0.57|
91697884|NCT00373958|183290394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.74||||||95.0|0.61|0.89||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.89|0.61|
91796083|NCT05080660|183470771|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|12.52|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||12.52|-0.24|
91697885|NCT00373958|183290394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.62|0.85||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.85|0.62|
91697886|NCT00373958|183290394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.6|0.86||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.86|0.60|
91729556|NCT00452400|183354748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.209|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.101|<0.0001
91796084|NCT05080660|183470772|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||12.18|-1.90|
91796085|NCT05080660|183470773|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.27|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.27|-0.32|
91796086|NCT05080660|183470774|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.13|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.13|-0.52|
91866819|NCT01074294|183626589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.42||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||2.42|0.60|0.6014
91866820|NCT01074294|183626589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.63||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||1.63|0.64|0.9225
91697887|NCT00373958|183290394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.68||||||95.0|0.57|0.81||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.81|0.57|
91697888|NCT00373958|183290394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.18||||||95.0|0.98|1.41||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.41|0.98|
91697889|NCT00373958|183290394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.65||||||95.0|0.54|0.78||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.78|0.54|
91697890|NCT00373958|183290395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|0.1||||||95.0|-2.9|3.1||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15μg/mL threshold was calculated.||3.1|-2.9|
91697891|NCT00373958|183290395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-8.3|7.0||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||7.0|-8.3|
91697892|NCT00373958|183290395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-4.3|3.5||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.5|-4.3|
91697893|NCT00373958|183290395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|1.7||||||95.0|-2.1|5.6||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 40.5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||5.6|-2.1|
91697894|NCT00373958|183290395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-5.2|3.4||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 16.5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.4|-5.2|
91697895|NCT00373958|183290395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.1||||||95.0|-6.4|2.0||||||For Pertussis PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 26 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.0|-6.4|
91729557|NCT00452400|183354748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.239|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.239|0.131|<0.0001
91796087|NCT05080660|183470775|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|98.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.95|250.88|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||250.88|-51.95|
91796088|NCT05080660|183470776|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|123.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.51|293.69|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||293.69|-46.51|
91796089|NCT05080660|183470777|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.05|-0.06|
91796090|NCT05080660|183470778|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.07|-0.07|
91796091|NCT01977937|183470793|OTHER|Differences in average pre-operative \& total post-operative average VAS scores were compared between groups using an unpaired Mann-Whitney rank sum test. Hospitalization outcomes including number of days to transition off PCA, number of days with Foley catheter, \& episodes of nausea, emesis, or POSS \> 3 were compared between groups using an unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test. Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05 for all unpaired parametric and non-parametric comparisons.||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||D'Agostino \& Pearson normality test was used to assess for normal distribution. Experimental \& control groups were assessed for significant differences in age, hospital days, \& spinal levels fused using unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test. Differences in weight \& BMI were assessed using unpaired Mann-Whitney rank sum test. Differences in average VAS scores on the operative day, each post-operative day, and average total daily opioid were compared using an unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test.||||0.07
91904762|NCT04305275|183704666|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.79|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||1.79|-1.15|0.6636
91729558|NCT00452400|183354748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.284|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.178|<0.0001
91729559|NCT00452400|183354748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.286|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.286|0.177|<0.0001
91729560|NCT00452400|183354749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.264|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.140|<0.0001
91729561|NCT00452400|183354749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.169|0.294|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.294|0.169|<0.0001
91729562|NCT00452400|183354749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.172|0.295|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.295|0.172|<0.0001
91729563|NCT00452400|183354749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.197|0.322|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.322|0.197|<0.0001
91729564|NCT00452400|183354750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.228|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.101|<0.0001
91729565|NCT00452400|183354750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.252|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.125|<0.0001
91729566|NCT00452400|183354750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.266|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.266|0.140|<0.0001
91729567|NCT00452400|183354750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.265|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.265|0.137|<0.0001
91729568|NCT00452400|183354751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.2392||95.0|-0.03|0.121|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.121|-0.030|0.2392
91729569|NCT00452400|183354751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.222|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.222|0.072|0.0001
91729570|NCT00452400|183354751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.099|0.253|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.253|0.099|<0.0001
91697896|NCT00373958|183290396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15μg/mL threshold was calculated.||1.7|-1.6|
91729571|NCT00452400|183354751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0001||95.0|0.076|0.228|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.076|0.0001
91729572|NCT00452400|183354752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0309||95.0|0.008|0.162|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.162|0.008|0.0309
91729573|NCT00452400|183354752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.25|||ANCOVA||Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.098|<0.0001
91697897|NCT00373958|183290396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-7.1|3.8||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0μg/mL threshold was calculated.||3.8|-7.1|
91697898|NCT00373958|183290396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -5%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-4.5|2.9||||||For Measles the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1.10 I.V. threshold was calculated.||2.9|-4.5|
91697899|NCT00373958|183290396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -5%.|Difference|3.6||||||95.0|-4.7|11.9||||||For Mumps the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1.10 I.V. threshold was calculated.||11.9|-4.7|
91697900|NCT00373958|183290396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -5%.|Difference|1.2||||||95.0|-4.4|6.9||||||For Rubella the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥15 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||6.9|-4.4|
91697901|NCT00373958|183290396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|4.8||||||95.0|-3.4|13.0||||||For Varicella the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1.09 I.V. threshold was calculated.||13.0|-3.4|
91729574|NCT00452400|183354752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0002||95.0|0.072|0.228|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.072|0.0002
91729575|NCT00452400|183354752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0006||95.0|0.059|0.214|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.059|0.0006
91729576|NCT00452400|183354753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.215||95.0|-0.031|0.137|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.031|0.2150
91729577|NCT00452400|183354753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0024||95.0|0.046|0.212|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.046|0.0024
91729578|NCT00452400|183354753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.023||95.0|0.014|0.184|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.014|0.0230
91796092|NCT01977937|183470794|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in the average total daily opioid were compared between groups using an unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test||||0.02
91866821|NCT01074294|183626589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.3||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.30|0.58|0.4803
91729579|NCT00452400|183354753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0333||95.0|0.007|0.177|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.007|0.0333
91729580|NCT00452400|183354754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2158||95.0|-0.031|0.137|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.031|0.2158
91729581|NCT00452400|183354754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0024||95.0|0.046|0.212|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.046|0.0024
91729582|NCT00452400|183354754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0013||95.0|0.055|0.225|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.225|0.055|0.0013
91729583|NCT00452400|183354754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0376||95.0|0.005|0.174|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.174|0.005|0.0376
91729584|NCT00452400|183354755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.916||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|25.34|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||25.340|2.070|0.0211
91729585|NCT00452400|183354755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.951||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.581|32.99|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||32.990|9.581|0.0004
91796093|NCT03911843|183470820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||the p-value of significance was calculated using the analysis system|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91866822|NCT01074294|183626589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.27||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.27|0.65|0.5876
91866823|NCT01074294|183626589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.18|0.64|0.3727
91729586|NCT00452400|183354755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.832|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.607|49.546|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||49.546|26.607|<.0001
91729587|NCT00452400|183354755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.282|34.845|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||34.845|11.282|0.0001
91729588|NCT00452400|183354756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.283||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.911|22.803|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||22.803|-1.911|0.0973
91796094|NCT03911843|183470820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91796095|NCT03911843|183470821|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91796096|NCT03911843|183470822|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91866824|NCT01074294|183626589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.23||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.23|0.71|0.6265
91729589|NCT00452400|183354756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.824|34.842|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||34.842|9.824|0.0005
91729590|NCT00452400|183354756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.192|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.054|50.409|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||50.409|26.054|<.0001
91729591|NCT00452400|183354756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.403|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.814|38.002|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.002|12.814|<.0001
91729592|NCT00452400|183354757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.237|0.196|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|-1.237|0.1541
91729593|NCT00452400|183354757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|0.859|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.859|-0.583|0.7065
91729594|NCT00452400|183354757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.671|-0.258|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.258|-1.671|0.0076
91729595|NCT00452400|183354757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.138|0.311|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.311|-1.138|0.2626
91866825|NCT01074294|183626590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.03||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||3.03|0.40|0.8586
91729596|NCT03378635|183354768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo was evaluated inferentially using a pairwise two-sided log rank test. Kaplan-Meier estimate with 95% CI, p-value based on treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo using a two-sided log-rank test stratified by injection site. Treatment groups without censoring utilized a distribution free method to compute the confidence interval for median time.||||<0.001
91729597|NCT03378635|183354769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value was \<0.001 at all time points (10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes)|Fisher Exact|||Pairwise test of independent binomial proportions with Fisher's Exact test comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.001
91866826|NCT01074294|183626590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.8984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.99||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||1.99|0.46|0.8984
91759062|NCT01853878|183411285|EQUIVALENCE|P-value of the Wald test from a Cox regression model to test H0 = { HR=1} (Y = Time to Event)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.592||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|35.167|||Regression, Cox|||Estimates of Hazard Ratio (HR) and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained by Cox regression modelling.The Likelihood ratio test was used to compare the groups. The Cox proportional hazard regression was stratified by previous treatment \[Chemotherapy (CT) vs. no-CT\] and disease stage.||35.167|0.600|0.1422
91759063|NCT01846741|183411300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 3 months||||0.008
91759064|NCT01846741|183411300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 months||||0.040
91759065|NCT01846741|183411300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 months||||0.033
91759066|NCT01846741|183411300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 3 months||||0.500
91759067|NCT01846741|183411300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 6 months||||0.750
91759068|NCT01846741|183411300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 12 months||||0.156
91759069|NCT01846741|183411300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 3 months||||0.938
91759070|NCT01846741|183411300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 6 months||||0.250
91759071|NCT01846741|183411300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 12 months||||0.999
91759072|NCT01846741|183411300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.057
91729598|NCT03378635|183354770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value was \<0.001 at all time points (10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes)|ANCOVA|||Plasma glucose (PG) change from baseline at rescue was carried forward in patients who required rescue intravenous (IV) glucose before reaching PG recovery. Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA, with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline PG as covariate. Group difference was evaluated inferentially following an a priori defined hierarchical test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis.||||<0.001
91729599|NCT03378635|183354771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo was evaluated using a Kaplan-Meier estimate with 95% confidence interval, p-value based on a pairwise two-sided log-rank test versus placebo.||||<0.001
91729600|NCT03378635|183354772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.171|||ANCOVA|||The log-transformed AUC endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline plasma glucose modeled as a covariate. The least squares means treatment group differences were back-transformed (anti-logged) for presentation as a ratio of the treatment group geometric means, with their corresponding 95% confidence interval.||0.171|0.1|<0.001
91729601|NCT03378635|183354773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.033|||ANCOVA|||Least square mean ratio for GlucaGen: dasiglucagon||1.033|0.801|0.144
91729602|NCT03378635|183354774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.844||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|0.951|||ANCOVA|||Least square mean ratio for GlucaGen: dasiglucagon||0.951|0.749|0.006
91796097|NCT02819518|183470825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy (taxane versus \[vs\] gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs. no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, tumor PD-L1 status, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.98|0.70|0.0120
91904763|NCT04305275|183704666|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.15|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 29||2.15|-0.87|0.3999
91729603|NCT02474901|183354782|EQUIVALENCE|Looked for statistically-significant difference in numbers of adverse events between the two groups, used a p-value of 0.05 as the cutoff value for significance.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Groups were compared with Yates-corrected chi-square test or Fisher exact test for binary or categorical variables.||||||<0.05
91729604|NCT01044693|183354811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo. We hypothesized that if NO-mediated vasodilation contributes to the BP-lowering effect of nebivolol then BP will be lowered by nebivolol and sildenafil, but not by metoprolol in autonomic failure patients.||||0.036
91729605|NCT01044693|183354811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo. We hypothesized that if NO-mediated vasodilation contributes to the BP-lowering effect of nebivolol then BP will be lowered by nebivolol and sildenafil, but not by metoprolol in autonomic failure patients.||||<0.001
91729606|NCT01044693|183354811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo. We hypothesized that if NO-mediated vasodilation contributes to the BP-lowering effect of nebivolol then BP will be lowered by nebivolol and sildenafil, but not by metoprolol in autonomic failure patients.||||>0.05
91729607|NCT01044693|183354812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo.||||0.607
91729608|NCT01044693|183354813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo.||||0.597
91729609|NCT01044693|183354814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The main comparisons were between the negative chronotropic effect of nebivolol and metoprolol at the time when BP-lowering effects were maximal.||||0.996
91729610|NCT01316900|183354822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.142|0.039|<0.001
91729611|NCT01316900|183354822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.141||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Tio 18 µg.|||0.141|0.039|<0.001
91729612|NCT01316900|183354822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.140|0.036|<0.001
91729613|NCT01316900|183354822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.140|0.036|<0.001
91729614|NCT01703221|183354829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.63|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior oral antihyperglycemic agent (AHA), time, time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-0.63|-0.96|<0.001
91729615|NCT01703221|183354829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.61|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-0.61|-0.94|<0.001
91796098|NCT02819518|183470826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.91||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.91|0.62|0.0016
91796099|NCT02819518|183470827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.88||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.88|0.50|0.0018
91866827|NCT01074294|183626590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.74||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.74|0.57|0.9778
91729616|NCT01703221|183354829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Omarigliptin will be considered non-inferior to sitagliptin if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in least squares means for change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 (omarigliptin minus sitagliptin) is not more than 0.3% (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in the least squares means|-0.02||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||0.12|-0.15|0.792
91729617|NCT01703221|183354834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-36.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.46|-25.33|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-25.33|-48.46|<0.001
91729618|NCT01703221|183354834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-39.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.28|-28.23|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-28.23|-51.28|<0.001
91729619|NCT01703221|183354834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|2.86||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|12.39|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||12.39|-6.67|0.555
91796100|NCT02819518|183470828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, tumor PD-L1 status, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||1.05|0.76|0.0797
91729620|NCT01703221|183354835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-12.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.78|-6.78|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-6.78|-17.78|<0.001
91729621|NCT01703221|183354835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-14.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.04|-8.98|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-8.98|-20.04|<0.001
91866828|NCT01074294|183626590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.7315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.50|0.56|0.7315
91866829|NCT01074294|183626590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.6518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.42||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.42|0.57|0.6518
91729622|NCT01703221|183354835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|2.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|6.73|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||6.73|-2.27|0.330
91729623|NCT03061214|183354885|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was less than 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.70|-1.00|<.0001
91729624|NCT03061214|183354885|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was less than 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.36|-0.66|<.0001
91729625|NCT03061214|183354885|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.70|-1.00|<.0001
91866830|NCT01074294|183626590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.23|0.55|0.3472
91904764|NCT04305275|183704666|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.776||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|2.22|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||2.22|-0.88|0.3933
91729626|NCT03061214|183354885|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.36|-0.66|<.0001
91729627|NCT06844812|183354970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.001
91729628|NCT06844812|183354971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.021
91729629|NCT06844812|183354972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.003
91796101|NCT02819518|183470829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||1.04|0.72|0.0563
91729630|NCT06844812|183354973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91729631|NCT06844812|183354974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91729632|NCT02006836|183354976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: GI of pomelo for diabetic patients - GI of pomelo for healthy people = 0 H1: GI of pomelo for diabetic patients - GI of pomelo for healthy people \> 0 α=5%||||0.005
91796102|NCT02819518|183470830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.95|0.55|0.0093
91796103|NCT02819518|183470831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR (%) vs. Control|3.8||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||10.6|-3.2|0.1413
91796104|NCT02819518|183470832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR (%) vs. Control|6.1||||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|14.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||14.0|-2.1|0.0725
91866831|NCT01074294|183626591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.16||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||2.16|0.44|0.9577
91729633|NCT02006836|183354977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0：∆g after breakfast- ∆g before breakfast = 0 H1：∆g after breakfast- ∆g before breakfast \> 0 α=5%~* g of breasfast without pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after breakfast - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this breakfast.~* g of breasfast with pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after breakfast - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this breakfast."||||>0.05
91729634|NCT02006836|183354978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0：∆g after lunch - ∆g before lunch = 0 H1：∆g after lunch - ∆g before lunch \> 0 α=5%~* g of lunch without pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after lunch - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this lunch.~* g of lunch with pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after lunch - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this lunch."||||>0.05
91729635|NCT02006836|183354979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0：∆g after dinner- ∆g before dinner = 0 H1：∆g after dinner- ∆g before dinner \> 0 α=5%~* g of dinner without pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after dinner - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this dinner.~* g of dinner with pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after dinner - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this dinner."||||>0.05
91729636|NCT02006836|183354980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: AUC||||>0.05
91796105|NCT02819518|183470833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR(%) vs. Control|12.1||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||23.4|0.4|0.0213
91796106|NCT02819518|183470837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR (%) vs. control|4.7||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo) adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||11.8|-2.4|0.0966
91866832|NCT01074294|183626591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.27||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||2.27|0.63|0.5864
91729637|NCT02683954|183354981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality of numerical data distribution was examined by the Shapiro-Wilk. Normally distributed numerical variables were presented as mean±SD and inter-group differences were compared using unpaired t test. Skewed numerical variables were presented as median and interquartile range and between-group differences were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. Ordinal data were compared using the chi-squared test for trend. Correlations among numerical variables were tested by Spearman rank correlation.||||0.05
91729638|NCT02410200|183354982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0090
91866833|NCT01074294|183626591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.6||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.60|0.57|0.8723
91729639|NCT01500135|183355022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.88||Logistic regression model with treatment, type of surgery (Peripheral Arterial Disease, Arterio Venous Graft) and current use of Clopidogrel or other similar anti-platelet drugs (yes/no) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.88|0.68|0.276
91729640|NCT01500135|183355023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.82||Logistic regression model with treatment, type of surgery (Peripheral Arterial Disease, Arterio Venous Graft) and current use of Clopidogrel or other similar anti-platelet drugs (yes/no) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.40|0.684
91729641|NCT01500135|183355024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value was adjusted using Hochberg's adjustment for multiplicity.|Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.8|0.7|0.684
91729642|NCT01362530|183355062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.01
91866834|NCT01074294|183626591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.52||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.52|0.65|0.9872
91729643|NCT01362530|183355063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.05
91729644|NCT01362530|183355064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.01
91729645|NCT01362530|183355065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.01
91729646|NCT01557569|183355066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.413|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Due to skewed data, Kruskal Wallis Test was used.||||<0.05
91729647|NCT02254460|183355067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Treatment difference]|1.74||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.34|||ANOVA||Treatment difference from ANOVA of log transformed data. Back transformed data are presented. This therefore represents the iron absorption ratio of the Micronutrient Fortified Drink (Test) to the Non-Fortified Drink (Control).|||3.34|0.90|0.0944
91759073|NCT01846741|183411300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.031
91759074|NCT01846741|183411300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.625
91759075|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0008
91759076|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizure Score||||0.0544
91759077|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.0207
91759078|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.0163
91759079|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.0156
91759080|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.0742
91759081|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.0884
91759082|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0007
91759083|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizure||||0.1173
91759084|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery||||0.0214
91759085|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity||||0.0114
91759086|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery||||0.0078
91759087|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery||||0.0875
91759088|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery||||0.1526
91729648|NCT01633112|183355073|SUPERIORITY|For each of the 2 FTY720 doses, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the ARRs between subjects treated with FTY720 and those treated with GA versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference between the 2 treatment arms. In order to preserve the Type I experiment-wise error rate, the null hypothesis was rejected if the observed p-value for the between-treatment comparison was less than the significance level as specified in the multiplicity adjustment procedure.||||||0.0138|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, geographical region, number of relapses in the previous year, baseline EDSS, and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count.||H01: µ FTY 0.5 mg = µ GA versus HA1: µ FTY 0.5 mg ≠µ GA H02: µ FTY 0.25 mg = µ GA versus HA2: µ FTY 0.25 mg ≠µ GA||||0.0138
91729649|NCT01633112|183355073|SUPERIORITY|For each of the 2 FTY720 doses, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the ARRs between subjects treated with FTY720 and those treated with GA versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference between the 2 treatment arms. In order to preserve the Type I experiment-wise error rate, the null hypothesis was rejected if the observed p-value for the between-treatment comparison was less than the significance level as specified in the multiplicity adjustment procedure.||||||0.4153|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, geographical region, number of relapses in the previous year, baseline EDSS, and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count.||H01: µ FTY 0.5 mg = µ GA versus HA1: µ FTY 0.5 mg ≠µ GA H02: µ FTY 0.25 mg = µ GA versus HA2: µ FTY 0.25 mg ≠µ GA||||0.4153
91729650|NCT01633112|183355074|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for treatment, geog. region, age, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses.||||||<0.0001
91729651|NCT01633112|183355074|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for treatment, geog. region, age, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses.||||||<0.0001
91729652|NCT01633112|183355076|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA with covariates: adjusted for treatment, age, region, number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline T2 lesion volume.||||||<0.0001
91729653|NCT01633112|183355076|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA with covariates: adjusted for treatment, age, region, number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline T2 lesion volume.||||||0.0060
91729654|NCT01633112|183355077|OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, age, geog. region, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses .||||||0.0167
91796107|NCT02819518|183470838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR (%) vs. Control|5.0||||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo) adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||13.1|-3.2|0.1164
91729655|NCT01633112|183355077|OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, age, geog. region, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses.||||||0.0011
91729656|NCT01633112|183355078|OTHER|||||||0.0052|||||||ANCOVA|ranked ANCOVA with covariates: treatment, region, age, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion volume, and number ofrelapses experienced in the previous year.||||||0.0052
91866835|NCT01074294|183626591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.3171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.23||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.23|0.52|0.3171
91866836|NCT01074294|183626591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.27||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.27|0.60|0.4782
91729657|NCT01633112|183355078|OTHER|||||||0.0636|||||||ANCOVA|ranked ANCOVA with covariates: treatment, region, age, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion volume, and number ofrelapses experienced in the previous year.||||||0.0636
91729658|NCT01633112|183355079|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||adjusted for treatment, region, age, proper baseline T1 lesion variable, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count and number of previous year relapses.|Regression, Logistic|pair-wise comparisons between treatment groups using a logistic regression model.||||||0.0011
91729659|NCT01633112|183355079|OTHER|||||||0.0146||||||adjusted for treatment, region, age, proper baseline T1 lesion variable, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count and number of previous year relapses.|Regression, Logistic|pair-wise comparisons between treatment groups using a logistic regression model.||||||0.0146
91729660|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729661|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729662|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729663|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729664|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729665|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729666|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729667|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729668|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91866837|NCT01074294|183626592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.7232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.19||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||3.19|0.45|0.7232
91866838|NCT01074294|183626592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.13||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||2.13|0.46|0.9860
91697902|NCT00373958|183290397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.75|1.17||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b (PRP) the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.17|0.75|
91697903|NCT00373958|183290398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08||||||For Measles the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.85|
91697904|NCT00373958|183290398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||||||For Mumps the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.14|0.87|
91697905|NCT00373958|183290398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1||||||For Varicella the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.92|
91697906|NCT00373958|183290399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||||||For Rubella the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.00|0.62|
91697907|NCT01552915|183290404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.2|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.2|-4.3|0.0717
91697908|NCT01552915|183290404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-9.4|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-9.4|-15.1|<0.0001
91697909|NCT01552915|183290404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-7.3|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-7.3|-13.0|<0.0001
91697910|NCT01552915|183290405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6165
91796108|NCT02819518|183470839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR (%) vs. Control|10.8||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo) adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||22.3|-0.7|0.0327
91697911|NCT01552915|183290405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91697912|NCT01552915|183290405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91697913|NCT01777568|183290409|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||GEE model||Relative Risk: 80% (numerator) vs. 30% (denominator)|||1.14|0.85|0.85
91697914|NCT01777568|183290410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.66|0.047
91697915|NCT00282113|183290422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||95.0|||||Mixed-effects regression|||||||>0.5
91697916|NCT00282113|183290423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91697917|NCT00282113|183290424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91697918|NCT03382834|183290426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that tamoxifen would enhance the HIV transcription effect of vorinostat (i.e., log10 change would be greater in Arm A than Arm B)||||||0.68
91697919|NCT03382834|183290428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91697920|NCT02120833|183290452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91697921|NCT02120833|183290452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.4360
91697922|NCT02120833|183290452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.01||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.01|-2.51|0.0510
91697923|NCT02120833|183290453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0004
91697924|NCT02120833|183290453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0213
91697925|NCT02120833|183290453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.7698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.37|||ANCOVA|The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.37|-0.50|0.7698
91697926|NCT02120833|183290454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0003
91697927|NCT02120833|183290454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.6063
91697928|NCT02120833|183290454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.48|-1.27|0.3686
91697929|NCT02120833|183290455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91697930|NCT02120833|183290455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6118|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.6118
91697931|NCT02120833|183290455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.31|-1.98|0.1485
91697932|NCT02120833|183290456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91697933|NCT02120833|183290456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.2447
91697934|NCT02120833|183290456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.25|-2.95|0.0216
91697935|NCT02120833|183290457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91697936|NCT02120833|183290457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0476
91697937|NCT02120833|183290457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.2349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.64||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.64|-2.52|0.2349
91697938|NCT02120833|183290458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.7842
91697939|NCT02120833|183290458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6083|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.6083
91697940|NCT02120833|183290458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.22|-0.08|0.3599
91697941|NCT02120833|183290459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0001
91697942|NCT02120833|183290459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0317
91697943|NCT02120833|183290459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.33||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.33|-0.42|0.8037
91697944|NCT02120833|183290460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91697945|NCT02120833|183290460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0244
91697946|NCT02120833|183290460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.06|-0.80|0.0900
91697947|NCT02120833|183290461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91697948|NCT02120833|183290461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0065
91729669|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729670|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91866839|NCT01074294|183626592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.95||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.95|0.52|0.9858
91866840|NCT01074294|183626592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.78||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.78|0.58|0.9466
91866841|NCT01074294|183626592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.6962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.0||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||2.00|0.63|0.6962
91866842|NCT01074294|183626592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.7637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.51||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.51|0.57|0.7637
91866843|NCT01074294|183626593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.3631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.33||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||2.33|0.73|0.3631
91697949|NCT02120833|183290461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.16|-0.97|0.1561
91697950|NCT02120833|183290462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91697951|NCT02120833|183290462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0049
91697952|NCT02120833|183290462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|15.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||15.07|-3.88|0.2409
91697953|NCT02120833|183290463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91697954|NCT02120833|183290463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.2386
91697955|NCT02120833|183290463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|17.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||17.32|1.28|0.0241
91697956|NCT02120833|183290464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91729671|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91697957|NCT02120833|183290464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0696
91697958|NCT02120833|183290464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|17.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||17.52|0.46|0.0394
91697959|NCT02120833|183290465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91697960|NCT02120833|183290465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0772
91697961|NCT02120833|183290465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|15.63||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||15.63|1.33|0.0213
91697962|NCT02120833|183290466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91866844|NCT01074294|183626593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.35||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||2.35|0.78|0.2786
91866845|NCT01074294|183626593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.62||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.62|0.72|0.7062
91866846|NCT01074294|183626593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.35||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.35|0.67|0.7844
91796109|NCT01505647|183470848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMT induced by ZOSTAVAX™ (AMP) vaccine is statistically non-inferior to that induced by the current process vaccine if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.2||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided). The P-value was not adjusted.|Longitudinal regression model|The analyzed GMT ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age and vaccination group||The hypothesis tested is that the GMT at Week 6 postvaccination with ZOSTAVAX™ (AMP) vaccine is non-inferior to that with the current process vaccine||1.20|0.98|<0.001
91904765|NCT04305275|183704667|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.167||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-0.47|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||-0.47|-5.14|0.0193
91697963|NCT02120833|183290466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0172
91866847|NCT01074294|183626593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.48||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.48|0.77|0.6940
91904766|NCT04305275|183704667|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.277||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-0.4|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15||-0.40|-5.51|0.0243
91796110|NCT01505647|183470849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided). The P-value was not adjusted.|t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis tested was that ZOSTAVAX™ (AMP) induces an acceptable GMFR in VZV antibody titer from prevaccination to 6 weeks postvaccination||||<0.001
91697964|NCT02120833|183290466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.48||0.1968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|11.58||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||11.58|-2.46|0.1968
91697965|NCT02120833|183290467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91729672|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729673|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91796111|NCT02750943|183470867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-25.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.682|-19.998||From ANCOVA analysis with treatment group, gender and baseline MGI stratification as factors baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-19.998|-30.682|<0.0001
91729674|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.0005
91796112|NCT05419908|183470911|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-7.79||Least square (LS) mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||||-7.79|-16.89|<0.001
91697966|NCT02120833|183290467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0712
91729675|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0051
91729676|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729677|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.0051
91729678|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729679|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91866848|NCT01074294|183626593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.39||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.39|0.76|0.8697
91904767|NCT04305275|183704667|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.209||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.14|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||-0.14|-4.98|0.0385
91729680|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.0068
91729681|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729682|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91729683|NCT01633112|183355080|OTHER|||||||0.4595|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.4595
91729684|NCT01633112|183355081|OTHER|||||||0.1045|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, region, age, the number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline normalized brain volume||||||0.1045
91866849|NCT01500200|183626594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to PBO using stage-specific MMRM for change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using pre-specified weights.||Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified weights (0.6/0.4 for Stage 1/Stage 2). Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2.||||0.014
91729685|NCT01633112|183355081|OTHER|||||||0.1358|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, region, age, the number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline normalized brain volume||||||0.1358
91729686|NCT04019704|183355103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91729687|NCT01550965|183355104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.08|18.73|||paired t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing for the first ranked primary outcome was performed in a hierarchical order using the two-sided paired t-test for mean change equal to zero.||18.73|16.08|<0.001
91729688|NCT01550965|183355105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1383.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1586.36|-1181.26|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing for the second ranked primary outcome was performed in a hierarchical order using the two-sided paired t-test for mean change equal to zero.||-1181.26|-1586.36|<0.001
91729689|NCT01550965|183355106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1297.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1562.17|-1033.36|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||-1033.36|-1562.17|<0.001
91796113|NCT05419908|183470912|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.466|-0.802||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.802|-1.466|<0.001
91729690|NCT01550965|183355107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4308.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4985.13|-3631.51|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||-3631.51|-4985.13|<0.001
91729691|NCT01550965|183355108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-4.78|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.78|-9.83|<0.001
91729692|NCT01550965|183355109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|27.25|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Effectiveness.||27.25|21.50|<0.001
91729693|NCT01550965|183355109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.42|22.48|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Side Effects.||22.48|15.42|<0.001
91729694|NCT01550965|183355109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|8.5|||Paired t-test, 2 sided)|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Convenience.||8.50|3.89|<0.001
91729695|NCT01550965|183355109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.55|25.64|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Global Satisfaction.||25.64|19.55|<0.001
91729696|NCT01550965|183355110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-4.27|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for overall UC-related outpatient utilization.||-4.27|-5.42|<0.001
91729697|NCT01550965|183355110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for overall UC-related outpatient utilization during emergency department visits.||0.09|-0.11|0.830
91729698|NCT01550965|183355110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.66|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for overall UC-related outpatient utilization during primary care doctor visits.||-0.66|-1.18|<0.001
91729699|NCT01550965|183355111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants with absence of blood in stool from week 0 to week 26.||||<0.001
91729700|NCT01550965|183355112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|12.02|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 2.||12.02|10.21|<0.001
91729701|NCT01550965|183355112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|16.56|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 8.||16.56|14.20|<0.001
91729702|NCT01550965|183355112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.57|15.96|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||15.96|13.57|<0.001
91729703|NCT01550965|183355112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.08|18.73|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 26.||18.73|16.08|<0.001
91729704|NCT01550965|183355113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.57|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 2.||-0.57|-0.69|<0.001
91729705|NCT01550965|183355113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-1.0|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 8.||-1.00|-1.16|<0.001
91888756|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.10|0.8163
91697967|NCT02120833|183290467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.15||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||14.15|0.70|0.0313
91697968|NCT02397122|183290527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.259
91697969|NCT02397122|183290527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.097
91697970|NCT02397122|183290527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.070
91697971|NCT02397122|183290528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.067
91697972|NCT02397122|183290528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.130
91697973|NCT02397122|183290528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.128
91697974|NCT02397122|183290529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.298
91697975|NCT02397122|183290529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.152
91697976|NCT02397122|183290529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.317
91697977|NCT02397122|183290530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.136
91697978|NCT02397122|183290530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.041
91697979|NCT02397122|183290530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.064
91697980|NCT02397122|183290531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.245
91697981|NCT02397122|183290531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.099
91697982|NCT02397122|183290531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Mann-Whitney U|||||||0.077
91697983|NCT02397122|183290532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.946
91697984|NCT02397122|183290532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.001
91697985|NCT02397122|183290532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.001
91697986|NCT02438826|183290533|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.8||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|1.17||Cui, Hung, Wang (CHW) procedure applied|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|-2.77|0.334
91697987|NCT02438826|183290534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.297||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.028||Cui, Hung, Wang (CHW) procedure applied|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.028|0.830|0.170
91697988|NCT02438826|183290535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946||||||Chui, Hung, Wang (CHW) procedure applied)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.946
91697989|NCT02438826|183290536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|2.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.309|0.987|0.057
91697990|NCT02438826|183290537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.141||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|2.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.314|0.563|0.713
91697991|NCT02438826|183290538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.856|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.856|0.548|0.979
91697992|NCT02438826|183290539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.788||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.440|0.431|0.437
91697993|NCT01500187|183290552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.636|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: there is no intergroup difference (α=0.05) in DIAGNOdent reading at baseline||||0.636
91697994|NCT01500187|183290552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: there is no intergroup difference (α=0.05) in DIAGNOdent reading at three months||||0.001
91697995|NCT01500187|183290552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.423|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: there is no intergroup difference (α=0.05) in DIAGNOdent reading at six months||||0.423
91697996|NCT02784613|183290553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Differences in pre- and post-treatment scores were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for non-parametric matched pairs. All tests of significance were 2-tailed. All analyses were performed in Stata®, version 13.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91697997|NCT00586820|183290559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91697998|NCT00586820|183290560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between the groups from immediate pre-PCI and 8 hours post PCI.||||0.019
91697999|NCT00586820|183290560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between the groups from immediate pre-PCI and 16 hours post-PCI.||||0.007
91698000|NCT00688662|183290574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-3.3||The primary analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the factor of interest and clinical center and PSH status as covariates. A Wald test using a two-tailed significance level of 0.0499 was conducted.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted and unadjusted risk differences with two-sided 95% confidence intervals are reported in the manuscript.|The unadjusted risk difference and confidence interval was -14.3% (-27.3%, -1.2%).|The trial was designed to test for an overall absolute difference of at least 30% in the primary outcome ('success') in patients treated with sphincterotomy compared to those treated with sham. Using a 2:1 allocation, an assumed 10% non-adherence rate, and one interim analysis for efficacy using O'Brien and Fleming boundaries and futility using conditional power, the study required 214 patients to be randomized to ensure greater than 90% likelihood of identifying this difference.||-3.3|-28.0|0.01
91698001|NCT00688662|183290575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|5.9||A confidence interval approach was used for examining this outcome.||||Only patients with abnormal manometry were included in this subgroup analysis.||5.9|-24.1|
91698002|NCT01483027|183290576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.88|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a log-rank test||0.88|0.54|0.0013
91698003|NCT01483027|183290577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.77|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a log-rank test.||0.77|0.46|<0.0001
91729706|NCT01550965|183355113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.77|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||-0.77|-0.95|<0.001
91729707|NCT01550965|183355113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-1.06|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 26.||-1.06|-1.23|<0.001
91729708|NCT01550965|183355114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-2.99|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 2.||-2.99|-3.46|<0.001
91729709|NCT01550965|183355114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-3.76|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 8.||-3.76|-4.37|<0.001
91729710|NCT01550965|183355114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-2.66|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||-2.66|-3.36|<0.001
91729711|NCT01550965|183355114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-3.72|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 26.||-3.72|-4.43|<0.001
91729712|NCT01550965|183355115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.11|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 2.||0.11|0.08|<0.001
91729713|NCT01550965|183355115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.15|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 8.||0.15|0.11|<0.001
91796114|NCT05419908|183470912|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.948|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.362|-0.535||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.535|-1.362|<0.001
91729714|NCT01550965|183355115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.14|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||0.14|0.10|<0.001
91729715|NCT01550965|183355115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.17|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 26.||0.17|0.12|<0.001
91729716|NCT01550965|183355116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-5.18|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 2.||-5.18|-12.07|<0.001
91729717|NCT01550965|183355116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-8.16|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 8.||-8.16|-16.27|<0.001
91729718|NCT01550965|183355116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.82|-7.4|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-7.40|-15.82|<0.001
91729719|NCT01550965|183355116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-7.35|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 26.||-7.35|-15.50|<0.001
91729720|NCT01550965|183355117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-13.12|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 2.||-13.12|-20.00|<0.001
91729721|NCT01550965|183355117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|-18.97|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 8.||-18.97|-26.93|<0.001
91904768|NCT04305275|183704667|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.221||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|1.08|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 29||1.08|-3.81|0.2682
91729722|NCT01550965|183355117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|-17.67|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-17.67|-25.69|<0.001
91729723|NCT01550965|183355117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.33|-20.58|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 26.||-20.58|-28.33|<0.001
91729724|NCT01550965|183355118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-14.57|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 2.||-14.57|-22.10|<0.001
91729725|NCT01550965|183355118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.08|-22.0|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 8.||-22.00|-31.08|<0.001
91729726|NCT01550965|183355118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.97|-20.7|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||-20.70|-29.97|<0.001
91729727|NCT01550965|183355118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-24.93|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 26.||-24.93|-33.50|<0.001
91904769|NCT04305275|183704667|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.233||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|3.59|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||3.59|-1.34|0.3649
91729728|NCT01550965|183355119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.47|-15.85|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 2.||-15.85|-20.47|<0.001
91729729|NCT01550965|183355119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-22.56|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 8.||-22.56|-28.30|<0.001
91729730|NCT01550965|183355119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.33|-21.5|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-21.50|-27.33|<0.001
91729731|NCT01550965|183355119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.28|-24.16|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 26.||-24.16|-30.28|<0.001
91796115|NCT05419908|183470912|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|-0.741||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.741|-1.504|<0.001
91729732|NCT03464461|183355218|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.9844|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9844
91729733|NCT03464461|183355219|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.158|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1580
91729734|NCT03464461|183355220|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.873|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8730
91796116|NCT05419908|183470913|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.28|||<|0.001||95.0|-17.02|-9.54||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-9.54|-17.02|<0.001
91796117|NCT05419908|183470913|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-7.27||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-7.27|-16.30|<0.001
91796118|NCT05419908|183470913|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.42|||<|0.001||95.0|-17.0|-7.83||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-7.83|-17.00|<0.001
91729735|NCT03464461|183355221|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.074|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0740
91729736|NCT03464461|183355222|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.0984|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0984
91729737|NCT05524948|183355223|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as experimental dentifrice minus reference dentifrice.|||-0.90|-1.71|<0.0001
91796119|NCT05419908|183470914|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-29.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-29.1|-50.5|<0.001
91796120|NCT05419908|183470914|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-23.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-23.0|-47.9|<0.001
91729738|NCT05524948|183355224|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-569.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|97.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-763.11|-376.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-376.17|-763.11|<0.0001
91729739|NCT05524948|183355225|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-418.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-547.56|-290.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-290.15|-547.56|<0.0001
91729740|NCT05524948|183355225|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-108.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.626||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.66|-44.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||-44.15|-173.66|0.0012
91729741|NCT05524948|183355225|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-26.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.909||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.64|19.29|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||19.29|-71.64|0.2561
91729742|NCT05524948|183355226|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-721.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|94.584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-909.31|-533.86|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-533.86|-909.31|<0.0001
91729743|NCT05524948|183355227|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-567.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-703.03|-432.75|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-432.75|-703.03|<0.0001
91729744|NCT05524948|183355227|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-105.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.15|-56.62|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||-56.62|-154.15|<0.0001
91729745|NCT05524948|183355227|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-38.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.201||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.04|13.97|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||13.97|-90.04|0.1498
91729746|NCT05524948|183355228|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.77|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as experimental dentifrice minus reference dentifrice.|||-1.77|-2.58|<0.0001
91729747|NCT05524948|183355229|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-396.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.541|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-586.51|-207.41|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-207.41|-586.51|<0.0001
91729748|NCT05524948|183355230|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-341.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.446|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-485.1|-197.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-197.64|-485.10|<0.0001
91729749|NCT05524948|183355230|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-74.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.905||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.62|-32.68|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||-32.68|-115.62|0.0006
91796121|NCT05419908|183470914|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-47.9|-22.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-22.1|-47.9|<0.001
91698004|NCT03010800|183290581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0469||||||One subject experienced incontinence with the Yoni.Fit in place (#8) (9.2 g Pad Wt. Without and 17.3 g Pad Wt. With). This was attributed to incorrect Yoni.Fit sizing. This subject was not included in the p-value calculation.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis is that the pad weights With Yoni.Fit and Without Yoni.Fit are equivalent.~A one-sided Wilcoxson paired T-test of the group means will be performed. If the p-value is significant, the null hypothesis will be rejected."||||0.0469
91729750|NCT05524948|183355230|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|27.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.942||0.2834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.49|79.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||79.45|-23.49|0.2834
91729751|NCT05524948|183355231|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.28|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as the experimental dentifrice minus the reference dentifrice.|||-1.28|-1.83|<0.0001
91729752|NCT05524948|183355232|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-322.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.778|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-457.27|-188.23|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-188.23|-457.27|<0.0001
91796122|NCT05419908|183470915|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.15|81.0||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||81.00|49.15|<0.001
91796123|NCT05419908|183470915|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|48.5|||<|0.001||95.0|30.37|66.59||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||66.59|30.37|<0.001
91796124|NCT05419908|183470915|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.76|69.24||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||69.24|35.76|<0.001
91796125|NCT05419908|183470916|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|69.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|84.21||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||84.21|53.70|<0.001
91729753|NCT05524948|183355233|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-250.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.838|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.35|-165.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-165.30|-335.35|<0.0001
91796126|NCT05419908|183470916|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|50.7|||<|0.001||95.0|31.93|69.42||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||69.42|31.93|<0.001
91796127|NCT05419908|183470916|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|57.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.99|75.01||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||75.01|39.99|<0.001
91796128|NCT05419908|183470917|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|54.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.47|70.84||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||70.84|37.47|<0.001
91698005|NCT04463251|183290582|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.37|
91729754|NCT05524948|183355233|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.439||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.05|0.99|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||0.99|-92.05|0.0550
91729755|NCT05524948|183355233|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.036||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.36|18.99|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||18.99|-84.36|0.2124
91729756|NCT05524948|183355234|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.87|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as experimental dentifrice minus reference dentifrice.|||-0.87|-1.52|<0.0001
91796129|NCT05419908|183470917|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|47.8|||<|0.001||95.0|29.62|65.99||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||65.99|29.62|<0.001
91796130|NCT05419908|183470917|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|47.5|||<|0.001||95.0|28.86|66.14||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||66.14|28.86|<0.001
91796131|NCT05419908|183470918|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|49.7|||<|0.001||95.0|33.54|65.79||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||65.79|33.54|<0.001
91729757|NCT05155085|183355235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.8|-9.8|0.4662
91796132|NCT05419908|183470918|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.83|59.85||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||59.85|27.83|<0.001
91729758|NCT05155085|183355236|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.9|-32.2|0.3968
91729759|NCT05155085|183355237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|21.6|||Fisher Exact|||||21.6|-15.2|0.7625
91729760|NCT03460704|183355239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean rate ratio|1.004||||0.97889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.349|||negative binomial model|||The number of NCFB pulmonary exacerbations was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial model including treatment, country, and baseline use of stable concomitant therapy with oral macrolides as fixed effects and log-exposure time on treatment as an offset.||1.349|0.747|0.97889
91729761|NCT01767857|183355248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.613
91729762|NCT01767857|183355249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91729763|NCT01767857|183355250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Global Health Status/Qol||||0.541
91796133|NCT05419908|183470918|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|42.5|||<|0.001||95.0|26.34|58.66||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||58.66|26.34|<0.001
91729764|NCT01767857|183355250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Pain||||0.560
91729765|NCT01767857|183355250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Fatigue||||0.603
91729766|NCT01767857|183355250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Appetite Loss||||0.485
91729767|NCT01767857|183355251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.210
91729768|NCT01767857|183355252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.768
91729769|NCT01421459|183355255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary treatment comparison was to compare LY2963016 versus Lantus at the non-inferiority margin of +0.4%. If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval on the change from baseline to 24-week endpoint HbA1c for LY2963016 versus Lantus was below +0.4%, then LY2963016 would be declared non-inferior to Lantus.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.175|||ANCOVA|||||0.175|-0.070|0.403
91796134|NCT05419908|183470919|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|62.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.56|79.05||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||79.05|46.56|<0.001
91796135|NCT05419908|183470919|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|63.47||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||63.47|28.85|<0.001
91729770|NCT01421459|183355257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||P-value is for 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.382
91729771|NCT01421459|183355257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||P-value is for 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.910
91729772|NCT01421459|183355257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0||||P-value is for 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.869
91729773|NCT01421459|183355257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for 16 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.345
91729774|NCT01421459|183355257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for 20 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.161
91729775|NCT01421459|183355257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||P-value is for 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.097
91729776|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value is at Morning Pre-Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.837
91729777|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P-value is for Morning 2 hrs PP Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.620
91729778|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal at Baseline|ANCOVA|||||||0.107
91729779|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2 hrs PP Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.258
91729780|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for Evening Pre-Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.161
91729781|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0||||P-value is for Bed Time at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.725
91729782|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0||||P-value is for 0300 hrs at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.543
91729783|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0||||P-value is for Morning Pre-Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 wk.|ANCOVA|||||||0.265
91729784|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is for Morning 2 hrs PP Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.050
91729785|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.040
91729786|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2 hrs PP Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.366
91729787|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485||95.0||||P-value is for Evening Pre-Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.485
91729788|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0||||P-value is for Bed Time at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.537
91729789|NCT01421459|183355258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878||95.0||||P-value is for 0300 hrs at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.878
91729790|NCT01421459|183355259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.779
91729791|NCT01421459|183355259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.788
91729792|NCT01421459|183355260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.687
91729793|NCT01421459|183355260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value is for change at 4 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.036
91729794|NCT01421459|183355260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0||||P-value is for change at 8 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.323
91729795|NCT01421459|183355260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||P-value is for change at 12 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.368
91729796|NCT01421459|183355260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value is for change at 16 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.089
91796136|NCT05419908|183470919|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|57.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.57|73.43||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||73.43|41.57|<0.001
91729797|NCT01421459|183355260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||P-value is for change at 20 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.041
91729798|NCT01421459|183355260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0||||P-value is for change at 24 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.330
91729799|NCT01421459|183355260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 24 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.334
91729800|NCT01421459|183355261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0||||P-value is for Behavior domain at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.726
91729801|NCT01421459|183355261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||95.0||||P-value is for Behavior domain at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.502
91796137|NCT05419908|183470920|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|61.5|||<|0.001||95.0|45.4|77.55||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||77.55|45.40|<0.001
91866850|NCT01500200|183626594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to PBO using stage-specific MMRM for change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using pre-specified weights.||Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified weights (0.6/0.4 for Stage 1/Stage 2). Within each stage ALKS 5461 8mg/8mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 8mg/8mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 8mg/8mg S2 vs Placebo S2.||||0.699
91729802|NCT01421459|183355261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0||||P-value is for Behavior domain at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.437
91729803|NCT01421459|183355261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0||||P-value is for Worry domain at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.237
91729804|NCT01421459|183355261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||P-value is for Worry domain at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.860
91729805|NCT01421459|183355261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966||95.0||||P-value is for Worry domain at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.966
91729806|NCT01421459|183355261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0||||P-value is for ALBSS Total Score at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.313
91729807|NCT01421459|183355261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||P-value is for ALBSS Total Score at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.683
91729808|NCT01421459|183355261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0||||P-value is for ALBSS Total Score at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.765
91729809|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||95.0||||P-value is for Inconvenience of Regimen at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.983
91729810|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||P-value is for Inconvenience of Regimen at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.371
91796138|NCT05419908|183470920|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|43.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.53|62.69||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||62.69|23.53|<0.001
91796139|NCT05419908|183470920|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.5|||<|0.001||95.0|33.92|71.08||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||71.08|33.92|<0.001
91729811|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757||95.0||||P-value is for Inconvenience of Regimen at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.757
91729812|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||P-value is for Lifestyle Flexibility at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.890
91729813|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||95.0||||P-value is for Lifestyle Flexibility at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.326
91729814|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831||95.0||||P-value is for Lifestyle Flexibility at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.831
91729815|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic Control at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.507
91729816|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic Control at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.690
91729817|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic Control at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.307
91729818|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value is for Glycemic Control at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.902
91729819|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||P-value is for Glycemic Control at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.109
91729820|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||95.0||||P-value is for Glycemic Control at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.754
91729821|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Deliver Device at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.088
91729822|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Delivery Device at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.456
91729823|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Delivery Device at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.531
91729824|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value is for ITSQ Total Score at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.393
91729825|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||P-value is for ITSQ Total Score at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.296
91729826|NCT01421459|183355262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0||||P-value is for ITSQ Total Score at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.662
91729827|NCT01421459|183355263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.393
91729828|NCT01421459|183355264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Dose at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANOVA|||||||0.185
91796140|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Work||-1.60|-3.45|<0.001
91904770|NCT04305275|183704668|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|0.9|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||0.90|-3.41|0.2478
91729829|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at Baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.661
91729830|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at Baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.394
91729831|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.688
91729832|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
91866851|NCT00112359|183626598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.98||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|12.47||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 14.||12.47|3.50|0.0006
91866852|NCT00112359|183626599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.43||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 42.||11.43|1.22|0.0154
91904771|NCT04305275|183704668|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.4486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.47|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, Pre-dose||1.47|-3.29|0.4486
91904772|NCT04305275|183704668|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.352||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.19|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 5 Hours Post-dose||1.19|-4.22|0.2662
91729833|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 8 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.409
91729834|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at 8 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.090
91729835|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.319
91729836|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.463
91904773|NCT04305275|183704668|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.282||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.57|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 8 Hours Post-dose||2.57|-2.56|0.9965
91904774|NCT04305275|183704668|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.222||0.8437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.2|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||2.20|-2.68|0.8437
91729837|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 16 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.128
91729838|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 16 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.261
91729839|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 20 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.218
91904775|NCT04305275|183704668|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.14|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 29||2.14|-2.78|0.7960
91904776|NCT04305275|183704668|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.52|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||4.52|0.05|0.0456
91729840|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 20 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.092
91729841|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7%% at 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.186
91729842|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.174
91729843|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.340
91729844|NCT01421459|183355265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.293
91729845|NCT01421459|183355266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594||95.0||||P-value is for Total Hypoglycemic with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Chi-squared|||||||0.594
91729846|NCT01421459|183355266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Chi-squared|||||||0.462
91729847|NCT01421459|183355267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995||95.0||||P-value is for Total Hypoglycemia with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.995
91729848|NCT01421459|183355267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal Hypoglycemia with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.686
91729849|NCT01421459|183355268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.285
91729850|NCT01421459|183355268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.047
91729851|NCT01421459|183355268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0||||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.882
91729852|NCT01421459|183355268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value is for 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.179
91729853|NCT01421459|183355268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.314
91904777|NCT02456662|183704705|SUPERIORITY|Based on previous work as well as anecdotal data from our clinic population, we expect vomiting to occur in approximately 30% of our patients who take their doxycycline the night before their procedure. To have 80% power to detect a 50% decrease in nausea and vomiting, we will need 122 patients in each arm of the study.||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00
91729854|NCT01421459|183355268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline to 24 weeks (Overall).|Chi-squared|||||||0.100
91729855|NCT01421459|183355269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.176
91729856|NCT01421459|183355269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0||||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.999
91904778|NCT01353079|183704716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.834|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.298|-0.369|||ANCOVA|||||-0.369|-1.298|<0.05
91904779|NCT01353079|183704717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.857|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.388|-0.326|||ANCOVA|||||-0.326|-1.388|<0.05
91904780|NCT01353079|183704718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.771|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.213|-0.329|||ANCOVA|||||-0.329|-1.213|<0.05
91729857|NCT01421459|183355269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0||||P-value is for 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.618
91729858|NCT01421459|183355269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint (LOCF).|Chi-squared|||||||0.874
91729859|NCT01421459|183355269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.233||95.0||||P-value is for Overall (Baseline to 24 weeks).|Chi-squared|||||||>0.233
91729860|NCT00967499|183355272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4010
91729861|NCT00967499|183355273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5672|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5672
91729862|NCT00967499|183355274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0570
91729863|NCT00967499|183355275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5150
91729864|NCT00967499|183355276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3601||||||P-values are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test with gender adjustment for the ranks of the change from baseline values.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3601
91729865|NCT00967499|183355277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3453|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||24 hours postdose||||0.3453
91729866|NCT00967499|183355277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7874|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||48 hours postdose||||0.7874
91729867|NCT00967499|183355277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8485|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||72 Hours Postdose||||0.8485
91729868|NCT02899754|183355278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome assessed at 1 month post-intervention||||0.18
91729869|NCT02899754|183355280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91729870|NCT02899754|183355281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91729871|NCT02899754|183355282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91796141|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.42||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Work||-1.42|-3.15|<0.001
91729872|NCT02899754|183355283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91729873|NCT02899754|183355284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91729874|NCT02899754|183355285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||chi-square test||||0.01
91729875|NCT02899754|183355286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91729876|NCT02592655|183355330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that one windlass tourniquet is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as the 10 cm wide tourniquet tape.~Participant count of 18 to accommodate for missing windlass tourniquet ultrasound data."||||0.002
91729877|NCT02592655|183355330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that one windlass tourniquet is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as two windlass tourniquets.~Participant count of 18 to accommodate for missing windlass tourniquet ultrasound data."||||0.008
91729878|NCT02592655|183355330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that the 10 cm wide tourniquet tape is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as using two windlass tourniquets.~Participant count of 18 to accommodate for missing windlass tourniquet ultrasound data."||||0.5
91729879|NCT02592655|183355330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that using the pneumatic tourniquet is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as using two windlass tourniquets.~Participant count of 17 to accommodate for missing ultrasound data."||||0.5
91729880|NCT03000166|183355337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
91729881|NCT03000166|183355338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
91729882|NCT03000166|183355339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
91729883|NCT03000166|183355340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91729884|NCT05259722|183355386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.28|-8.86|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-8.86|-23.28|<0.001
91729885|NCT05259722|183355387|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|20.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype. Missing data was imputed as non-response. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||20.78|4.34|=0.003
91729886|NCT05259722|183355388|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|17.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype. Missing data was imputed as non-response. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||17.87|3.31|=0.004
91729887|NCT05259722|183355389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-0.20|-1.12|=0.005
91729888|NCT05259722|183355390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-0.10|-1.08|=0.018
91729889|NCT05259722|183355391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|22.86|||ANCOVA|||The AUC was analysed using a robust ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed as non-response. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||22.86|5.81|<0.001
91796142|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Work||-1.20|-3.03|<0.001
91904781|NCT01353079|183704719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.788|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.291|-0.284|||ANCOVA|||||-0.284|-1.291|<0.05
91729890|NCT05259722|183355392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|334.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|195.69|472.26|||ANCOVA|||The AUC was analysed using a robust ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||472.26|195.69|<0.001
91729891|NCT05259722|183355393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.55|-16.36|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-16.36|-32.55|<0.001
91729892|NCT00420056|183355401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4854|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4854
91729893|NCT00420056|183355402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7090
91729894|NCT00420056|183355405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.0638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0449|0.1726||||||FLT-PET response versus Objective response||0.1726|-0.0449|
91729895|NCT00420056|183355405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.1864|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2316|0.6045||||||FDG-PET response versus Objective response||0.6045|-0.2316|
91729896|NCT00420056|183355419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5954|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus Ki-67||||0.5954
91729897|NCT00420056|183355419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus Cyclin D1||||0.1286
91729898|NCT00420056|183355419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus phospho-Rb||||0.0956
91729899|NCT00420056|183355419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus FLT-PET SUVmax||||0.2800
91729900|NCT00420056|183355419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4921|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus FDG-PET SUVmax||||0.4921
91729901|NCT03072875|183355451|OTHER|Descriptive statistic.|||||||||||||||||Quantitative data (descriptive statistic) from the USAQ were used to determine feasibility. Specifically, we established an a priori mean score of 3.5 or greater on the USAQ to determine feasibility.|||
91729902|NCT00907088|183355453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
91729903|NCT03726879|183355458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.21||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value =0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.21|0.37|0.1846
91729904|NCT03726879|183355459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.46||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value =0.002|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.46|0.67|0.9551
91729905|NCT03726879|183355462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.59|||Log Rank|||All Participants||1.59|0.50|
91729906|NCT03726879|183355462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.32|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC1/2/3||4.32|0.65|
91729907|NCT03726879|183355462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.22|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC0 Participants||1.22|0.27|
91729908|NCT03726879|183355462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.82|||Log Rank|||ER/PgR Negative Participants||2.82|0.58|
91729909|NCT03726879|183355462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.36|||Log Rank|||ER/PgR Positive Participants||1.36|0.24|
91729910|NCT03726879|183355463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.32|||Log Rank|||All Participants||1.32|0.38|
91729911|NCT03726879|183355463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.69|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC1/2/3||3.69|0.51|
91729912|NCT03726879|183355463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.02|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC0||1.02|0.19|
91729913|NCT03726879|183355464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||Log Rank|||All Participants||2.00|0.40|
91729914|NCT03726879|183355464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.33|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC1/2/3||7.33|0.42|
91729915|NCT03726879|183355464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.59|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC0||1.59|0.21|
91729916|NCT03726879|183355478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|26.42|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Missing||26.42|0.22|
91729917|NCT03726879|183355478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Mutated||1.90|0.23|
91729918|NCT03726879|183355478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.87|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Wildtype||1.87|0.45|
91729919|NCT03726879|183355479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|18.91|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Missing||18.91|0.07|
91729920|NCT03726879|183355479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.92||||||PIK3CA-Mutated||1.92|0.19|
91729921|NCT03726879|183355479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.55|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Wildtype||1.55|0.33|
91729922|NCT03726879|183355480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Upper limit of the CI was not evaluable due to low number of events||Regression, Cox||The estimated value is \>999.99|PIK3CA-Missing|||0.00|
91729923|NCT03726879|183355480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.53|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Mutated||3.53|0.10|
91729924|NCT03726879|183355480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.09|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Wildtype||2.09|0.33|
91729925|NCT02496156|183355481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.39||||||This is a computed p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Missing data treatment was done using multiple imputation methods when data were determined to be Missing Completely at Random or Missing at Random. Assumptions underlying each statistical test were evaluated before proceeding with specific analyses.|For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||<0.39
91729926|NCT02496156|183355482|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Computed p-value exceeded the .05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||||For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||>0.05
91729927|NCT02496156|183355483|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||This is a computed p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See description of analysis below.|For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||>0.05
91729928|NCT02496156|183355484|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Computed p-value|ANCOVA|Difference in post-test scores with baseline Knowledge test score as the covariate.||||||>0.05
91729929|NCT02496156|183355486|SUPERIORITY|See analysis description below.|||||>|0.05||||||Computed p-value|ANOVA||||For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||>0.05
91729930|NCT00507507|183355487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 192 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference. The sample size provided at least 85% power to detect a difference of 30% between the groups, assuming response rates of 30% and 60% in the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups, respectively.||||0.016
91796143|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.46||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Social Activities||-1.46|-3.19|<0.001
91796144|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-1.47||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Social Activties||-1.47|-3.21|<0.001
91796145|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.29||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Social Activties||-1.29|-3.09|<0.001
91729931|NCT00507507|183355488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 48: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.050
91729932|NCT00507507|183355488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 96 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.009
91796146|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-1.31||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Leisure Activities||-1.31|-2.99|<0.001
91904782|NCT02347488|183704735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|3.32|||ANCOVA|||Average displacement difference in cm, tape vs. tube-holder. 17 participants was the estimated enrollment needed to detect a difference of 1 SD from the mean between the 2 fixation techniques at 80% power; additional enrollment was included to increase the power of results and to include a larger variety of patients undergoing different surgical procedures.||3.32|2.88|<0.001
91796147|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.55||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Leisure Activties||-1.55|-3.19|<0.001
91796148|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.62||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Leisure Activties||-0.62|-2.66|0.002
91796149|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-1.78||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Sleep||-1.78|-4.08|<0.001
91796150|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-1.57||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Sleep||-1.57|-3.86|<0.001
91729933|NCT00507507|183355488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 144 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.030
91729934|NCT00507507|183355489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 48: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 48 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.703
91729935|NCT00507507|183355489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 96 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.034
91729936|NCT00507507|183355489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 144 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.011
91729937|NCT00507507|183355489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 192 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.007
91729938|NCT00507507|183355490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.010
91729939|NCT00507507|183355491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.019
91729940|NCT00507507|183355492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.186
91729941|NCT00507507|183355493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.070
91729942|NCT00507507|183355494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 48: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 48 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.467
91729943|NCT00507507|183355494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 96 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||1.000
91796151|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.54||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Sleep||-1.54|-3.67|<0.001
91729944|NCT00507507|183355494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.529||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 144 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.529
91729945|NCT00507507|183355494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 192 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.451
91729946|NCT00507507|183355495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBeAg loss between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.496
91729947|NCT00507507|183355495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBeAg loss between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.119
91796152|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.81||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Mood||-0.81|-2.67|<0.001
91796153|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.16||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Mood||-1.16|-3.09|<0.001
91796154|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.88||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Mood||-0.88|-2.69|<0.001
91796155|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.97||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Concentration||-0.97|-2.86|<0.001
91796156|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-3.21|-1.25||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Concentration||-1.25|-3.21|<0.001
91796157|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.88||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Concentration||-0.88|-2.91|<0.001
91729948|NCT00507507|183355495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBeAg loss between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.365
91729949|NCT00507507|183355496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with seroconversion to anti-HBe between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.496
91729950|NCT00507507|183355496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with seroconversion to anti-HBe between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.119
91796158|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.46||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Relations With Others||-0.46|-2.20|0.003
91796159|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.9||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Relations With others||-0.90|-2.80|<0.001
91796160|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.77||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Relations With Others||-0.77|-2.66|<0.001
91796161|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.06||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.13||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Sexuality||0.13|-2.25|0.081
91729951|NCT00507507|183355496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with seroconversion to anti-HBe between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.244
91796162|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Sexuality||0.00|-2.80|0.050
91796163|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.51||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.19||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Sexuality||-0.19|-2.84|0.026
91729952|NCT00289900|183355500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-9.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-9.6|-16.8|<0.001
91796164|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.79||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Enjoyment of Life||-0.79|-2.51|<0.001
91796165|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-1.18||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Enjoyment of Life||-1.18|-2.97|<0.001
91796166|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.78||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Enjoyment of Life||-0.78|-2.88|<0.001
91796167|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.97||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week4: Overall Quality of Life||-0.97|-2.86|<0.001
91796168|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.61||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Overall Quality of Life||-1.61|-3.41|<0.001
91796169|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.41||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Overall Quality of Life||-1.41|-3.31|<0.001
91796170|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.23||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||-1.23|-2.73|<0.001
91729953|NCT00289900|183355500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-7.8|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-7.8|-13.8|<0.001
91729954|NCT00289900|183355500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-2.1|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-2.1|-8.1|<0.001
91729955|NCT00289900|183355500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-1.2|-7.2|0.007
91729956|NCT00289900|183355501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|22.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||22.6|17.2|<0.001
91729957|NCT00289900|183355501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|23.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||23.6|19.0|<0.001
91729958|NCT00289900|183355501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|24.4|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||24.4|19.8|<0.001
91729959|NCT00289900|183355501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|25.3|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||25.3|20.7|<0.001
91729960|NCT00289900|183355502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-13.3|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free confidence interval (CI) based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-13.3|-21.2|<0.001
91729961|NCT00289900|183355502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-11.9|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-11.9|-19.1|<0.001
91729962|NCT00289900|183355502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-7.0|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-7.0|-13.7|<0.001
91729963|NCT00289900|183355502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.4|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-3.4|-10.2|<0.001
91729964|NCT00289900|183355503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-6.0|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-6.0|-12.1|<0.001
91729965|NCT00289900|183355503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-2.9|-8.0|<0.001
91729966|NCT00289900|183355503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.4||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||2.9|-2.2|0.771
91729967|NCT00289900|183355503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|2.4||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.0|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||5.0|-0.2|0.065
91729968|NCT00289900|183355504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least Squares Mean|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-3.5|-10.2|<0.001
91729969|NCT00289900|183355504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-0.2|-5.8|0.037
91729970|NCT00289900|183355504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|2.8||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||5.6|0.0|0.047
91866853|NCT00112359|183626602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.294|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.288|14.299||Analysis based on two-sided test with an 0.025 a priori threshold for statistical significance as part of the methods used to control the family-wise type 1 error.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.), and Day 0 FEV1. Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in percent change in FEV1 at Day 28.||14.299|6.288|<0.0001
91866854|NCT00112359|183626603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.453|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.115|-0.791||Analysis based on 2-sided test with an 0.025 a priori threshold for statistical significance as part of methods used to control family-wise type 1 error.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change in log10 PA CFUs in sputum at Day 28.||-0.791|-2.115|< 0.0001
91729971|NCT00289900|183355504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Sqaures Mean|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||7.5|2.0|<0.001
91729972|NCT00289900|183355505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-6.3|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-6.3|-12.1|<0.001
91729973|NCT00289900|183355505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-2.8|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-2.8|-7.7|<0.001
91729974|NCT00289900|183355505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.9||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||1.5|-3.3|0.476
91729975|NCT00289900|183355505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.2||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||2.7|-2.2|0.845
91729976|NCT00289900|183355506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|11.4|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||11.4|6.6|<0.001
91729977|NCT00289900|183355506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|9.7|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||9.7|5.8|<0.001
91729978|NCT00289900|183355506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||10.9|7.0|<0.001
91729979|NCT00289900|183355506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|12.7|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||12.7|8.7|<0.001
91729980|NCT00289900|183355507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-1.2|-6.0|0.003
91729981|NCT00289900|183355507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||1.5|-2.5|0.595
91729982|NCT00289900|183355507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||6.2|2.2|<0.001
91729983|NCT00289900|183355507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|8.1|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||8.1|4.1|<0.001
91729984|NCT00289900|183355508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-14.2|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-14.2|-24.2|<0.001
91796171|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-1.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||-1.40|-3.02|<0.001
91729985|NCT00289900|183355508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-16.6|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-16.6|-25.0|<0.001
91729986|NCT00289900|183355508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-19.4|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-19.4|-27.8|<0.001
91729987|NCT00289900|183355508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-20.0|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-20.0|-28.6|<0.001
91729988|NCT00289900|183355509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.5|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||7.5|-9.6|0.500
91866855|NCT00112359|183626604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2364||95.0||||Analysis based on 2-sided test with an 0.025 a priori threshold for statistical significance as part of methods used to control family-wise type 1 error.|Fisher Exact|Comparison by treatment for proportion of subjects using additional (nonprotocol-specified) antipseudomonal antibiotics at least once during study.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in number of participants using additional (nonprotocol-specified) antipseudomonal antibiotics during study.||||0.2364
91729989|NCT00289900|183355509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.8|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||13.8|0.0|0.083
91729990|NCT00289900|183355509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|18.8|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||18.8|5.2|0.005
91729991|NCT00289900|183355509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|22.8|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||22.8|9.8|<0.001
91729992|NCT00289900|183355510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-9.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-9.9|-15.6|<0.001
91729993|NCT00289900|183355510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-8.4|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-8.4|-13.2|<0.001
91729994|NCT00289900|183355510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.0|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-4.0|-8.8|0.001
91729995|NCT00289900|183355510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-3.2|-8.0|<0.001
91729996|NCT00289900|183355511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-1.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-0.5|-2.3|0.008
91729997|NCT00289900|183355512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.7||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-0.0|-1.4|0.042
91729998|NCT00289900|183355513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.1||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.4|-0.5|0.346
91729999|NCT00289900|183355514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.7|-0.2|0.556
91730000|NCT00289900|183355515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.1||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.8|-0.1|0.134
91730001|NCT00289900|183355516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.1||||0.134||95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.8|-0.1|0.134
91730002|NCT00289900|183355517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.1||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-0.3|0.5625
91730003|NCT00289900|183355518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.7||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.7|0.1|0.0233
91730004|NCT00289900|183355519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1||||0.7858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.6|-0.4|0.7858
91730005|NCT00289900|183355520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|18.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||18.0|9.4|
91730006|NCT00289900|183355521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.4|-2.6|
91730007|NCT00289900|183355522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||14.7|8.9|
91730008|NCT00289900|183355523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-0.8|
91730009|NCT00289900|183355524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1||||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.5|-0.4|0.4997
91730010|NCT02656173|183355527|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis, including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.82|<0.001
91730011|NCT02656173|183355528|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.17|||mixed model repeated measure|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) was used for analysis, which included the baseline as a covariate, treatment group, analysis visits and region as a fixed effect, subject as random effect and including interaction of \[treatment group x visit\] for FAS.||-0.17|-0.78|<0.001
91730012|NCT02656173|183355529|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.28||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.07|-0.63|0.112
91730013|NCT02656173|183355530|SUPERIORITY||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Statistics|1.75||||0.186|||||||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance|||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance (RANCOVA), including the rank score for change from Baseline to End of Treatment stratified by region as the dependent variable, treatment group and region as fixed factors and the rank score for baseline stratified by region as a covariate for FAS.||||0.186
91759089|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0031
91759090|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizure||||0.0828
91759091|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery||||0.0092
91698006|NCT04463251|183290582|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.37|
91698007|NCT04463251|183290583|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.87|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.87|0.34|
91698008|NCT04463251|183290583|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.95|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.95|0.37|
91698009|NCT04463251|183290584|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation"|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.34|
91698010|NCT04463251|183290584|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.98|0.38|
91698011|NCT04463251|183290585|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation"|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.34|
91698012|NCT04463251|183290585|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.98|0.38|
91698013|NCT04463251|183290586|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.81||||||"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."|"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|0.81|0.34|
91698014|NCT04463251|183290586|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.74|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.74|0.31|
91759092|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity||||0.0096
91759093|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery||||0.0234
91759094|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery||||0.0284
91759095|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery||||0.0679
91759096|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0003
91730014|NCT02656173|183355531|SUPERIORITY||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Statistics|0.09||||0.76|||||||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance|||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance (RANCOVA), including the rank score for change from Baseline to End of Treatment stratified by region as the dependent variable, treatment group and region as fixed factors and the rank score for baseline stratified by region as a covariate for FAS.||||0.760
91730015|NCT02656173|183355532|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.03||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.11|-0.18|0.646
91730016|NCT02656173|183355533|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|17.84|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||17.84|6.33|<0.001
91730017|NCT02656173|183355534|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.26|-1.04|0.001
91730018|NCT02656173|183355535|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Daytime Frequency. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.19|0.006
91730019|NCT02656173|183355535|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.08||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Nighttime Frequency. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.03|-0.19|0.174
91730020|NCT02656173|183355535|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.26||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Urgency. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.50|0.037
91730021|NCT02656173|183355535|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.18||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Urgency Incontinence. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.04|-0.32|0.014
91730022|NCT02656173|183355536|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.44|-1.94|0.002
91730023|NCT02656173|183355537|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Storage Subscale. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.43|-1.13|<0.001
91796172|NCT05419908|183470921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.13||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||-1.13|-2.83|<0.001
91730024|NCT02656173|183355537|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.3||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Voiding Subscale-1. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.13|-0.72|0.167
91730025|NCT02656173|183355537|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.42||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Voiding Subscale-2. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.09|-0.93|0.103
91730026|NCT02656173|183355537|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Quality of Life (QoL) Item. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.51|0.009
91730027|NCT02656173|183355538|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|-2.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-2.13|-6.91|<0.001
91730028|NCT02656173|183355539|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||4.44|1.13|<0.001
91730029|NCT03449147|183355547|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-1.14||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|14.02||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||14.02|-14.27|0.875
91730030|NCT03449147|183355547|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-14.64||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.07|-1.43||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||ERR relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||-1.43|-26.07|0.031
91730031|NCT03449147|183355550|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-3.03||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|12.12||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||12.12|-16.14|0.677
91796173|NCT05419908|183470922|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.375|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|2.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Getting to Sleep||2.100|0.651|<0.001
91796174|NCT05419908|183470922|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.827||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Getting to Sleep||1.827|0.505|<0.001
91730032|NCT03449147|183355550|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-15.79||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.27|-2.5||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||ERR relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||-2.50|-27.27|0.022
91796175|NCT05419908|183470922|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.895||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.599||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Getting to Sleep||1.599|0.190|0.014
91698015|NCT04463251|183290587|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.75|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.75|0.29|
91698016|NCT04463251|183290587|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.75|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.75|0.30|
91698017|NCT00877487|183290668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-11.4|||ANCOVA|||||-11.4|-19.1|<0.0001
91698018|NCT00877487|183290669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91698019|NCT00877487|183290670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91730033|NCT03449147|183355551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.85||Comparison based on logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ total score, and the interaction of baseline LCQ total score by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.85|0.97|0.077
91904783|NCT05293743|183704752|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.67||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3.82.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions between the control arm and the experimental arm during the study's intervention period. In this test, brace wear was measured by parent-reported brace logs.||||0.67
91698020|NCT03425396|183290688|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|9.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||9.6|-16.8|
91730034|NCT03449147|183355551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.96||Comparison based on logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ total score, and the interaction of baseline LCQ total score by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|1.02|0.040
91730035|NCT03449147|183355552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.4||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline 24-hour coughs per hour and the interaction of baseline 24-hour coughs per hour as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.75|0.872
91730036|NCT03449147|183355552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.83||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline 24-hour coughs per hour and the interaction of baseline 24-hour coughs per hour as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|0.96|0.082
91730037|NCT03449147|183355553|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.83||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||1.83|0.96|
91796176|NCT05419908|183470922|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.423|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.308|3.539||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||3.539|1.308|<0.001
91698021|NCT03425396|183290688|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|1.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||1.2|-27.4|
91698022|NCT03425396|183290688|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|7.4|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||7.4|-19.6|
91796177|NCT05419908|183470922|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.291|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.251||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||3.251|1.31|<0.001
91698023|NCT03425396|183290688|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-44.1|
91698024|NCT03425396|183290689|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|11.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||11.2|-14.3|
91698025|NCT03425396|183290689|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|9.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||9.0|-16.8|
91698026|NCT03425396|183290689|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|12.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.3|-12.3|
91698027|NCT03425396|183290689|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-44.1|
91698028|NCT03425396|183290690|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|16.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||16.8|-22.5|
91698029|NCT03425396|183290690|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|14.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.2|-23.3|
91698030|NCT03425396|183290690|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|22.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||22.6|-13.0|
91698031|NCT03425396|183290690|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|28.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||28.9|-40.4|
91698032|NCT03425396|183290691|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.4|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||13.4|-10.0|
91698033|NCT03425396|183290691|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|9.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||9.7|-16.2|
91698034|NCT03425396|183290691|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|18.5|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||18.5|-0.3|
91698035|NCT03425396|183290691|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatm,ent difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|20.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||20.6|-34.9|
91698036|NCT03425396|183290692|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|12.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.6|-12.6|
91698037|NCT03425396|183290692|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|10.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||10.2|-16.3|
91698038|NCT03425396|183290692|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|17.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||17.7|-4.5|
91698039|NCT03425396|183290692|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|20.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||20.7|-35.3|
91698040|NCT03425396|183290693|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|13.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||13.3|-27.3|
91698041|NCT03425396|183290693|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|8.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||8.6|-29.2|
91698042|NCT03425396|183290693|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|19.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||19.2|-19.0|
91698043|NCT03425396|183290693|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|28.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||28.9|-40.4|
91698044|NCT03425396|183290694|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|7.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||7.8|-18.6|
91698045|NCT03425396|183290694|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-0.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-0.6|-29.6|
91698046|NCT03425396|183290694|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|4.4|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||4.4|-23.2|
91698047|NCT03425396|183290694|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-44.1|
91730038|NCT03449147|183355553|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.09||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||2.09|1.08|
91730039|NCT03449147|183355554|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.69||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||1.69|0.93|
91730040|NCT03449147|183355554|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.39||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||2.39|1.31|
91730041|NCT03449147|183355555|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.05||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly VAS score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly VAS score by visit as covariates.||2.05|1.14|
91730042|NCT03449147|183355555|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||||95.0|1.23|2.22||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly VAS score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly VAS score by visit as covariates.||2.22|1.23|
91730043|NCT00954538|183355560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91730044|NCT00954538|183355561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.27|||Linear Fixed Effects Model||Difference = AD group value - HE group value|A 90% confidence interval was calculated for the group difference (AD - HE) using the model results. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval is above 0, then the hypothesis that \[18F\]MK-3328 can discriminate between AD patients and cognitively normal elderly controls as measured by regional tracer uptake following single IV doses of \[18F\]MK-3328 is supported.||0.27|-0.04|
91796178|NCT05419908|183470922|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.433|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.334|3.532||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||3.532|1.334|<0.001
91730045|NCT01866150|183355579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.2||||0.8222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.0|||Pearson's chi-squared|||A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved DAS28 remission.||12.0|-9.5|0.8222
91730046|NCT01866150|183355580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.7||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|13.6|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at Month 3. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved DAS28 remission.||13.6|-6.2|0.4727
91730047|NCT01866150|183355580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|2.6||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|13.1|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at last visit. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved DAS28 remission.||13.1|-8.0|0.6349
91730048|NCT01866150|183355581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.9||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|10.4|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at Month 3. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved LDA.||10.4|-12.1|0.8769
91730049|NCT01866150|183355581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.4||||0.5649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|15.0|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at Month 6. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved LDA.||15.0|-8.2|0.5649
91730050|NCT01866150|183355581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.9||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|20.2|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at the last visit. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved LDA.||20.2|-0.3|0.0556
91730051|NCT01866150|183355582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at Month 3. Analysis used a mixed model with month, cohort, baseline DAS28 score; cohort-by-month and cohort-by-baseline DAS28 score as fixed effects. Within-participant repeated measurements were incorporated with an unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.20|-0.40|0.5195
91730052|NCT01866150|183355582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at Month 6. Analysis used a mixed model with month, cohort, baseline DAS28 score; cohort-by-month and cohort-by-baseline DAS28 score as fixed effects. Within-participant repeated measurements were incorporated with an unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.12|-0.47|0.2420
91796179|NCT05419908|183470922|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.877||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|1.789||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Awake Following Sleep||1.789|-0.034|0.059
91796180|NCT05419908|183470922|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.457||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|2.335||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Awake Following Sleep||2.335|0.579|0.001
91796181|NCT05419908|183470922|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.113||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|2.12||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Awake Following Sleep||2.120|0.107|0.031
91698048|NCT03425396|183290695|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|12.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.7|-13.1|
91866856|NCT00112359|183626605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.71||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|15.11||"Primary endpoint analysis based on 2-sided test with an 0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.~A gate-keeping procedure to control family-wise Type 1 error was established a priori for primary and key secondary endpoints."|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||"Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 28.~A sample size of 70 participants per treatment group provided approximately 77% power to detect an 8-point difference in CFQ-R RSS score between treatment groups, assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 20 and a Type I error rate of 0.05."||15.11|4.31|0.0005
91866857|NCT00112359|183626606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|Comparison by treatment group for proportion of participants hospitalized at least once between Day 0 and Day 42 (or 14 days after last study dose).||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in number of participants hospitalized at least once during the study.||||0.0640
91866858|NCT00312208|183626608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.978||95.0|0.86|1.16||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates.|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.86|0.978
91866859|NCT00312208|183626609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.371||95.0|0.75|1.11||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.75|0.371
91866860|NCT03066609|183626616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|153.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.02|438.67|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||438.67|54.02|<0.0001
91866861|NCT03066609|183626616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|557.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|187.2|1663.4|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||1663.4|187.2|<0.0001
91866862|NCT03066609|183626617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|75.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.81|222.72|||Regression, Logistic|||IGA||222.72|25.81|<0.0001
91866863|NCT03066609|183626617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|149.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.83|432.42|||Regression, Logistic|||IGA||432.42|51.83|<0.0001
91866864|NCT03066609|183626618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|114.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.94|489.59|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 90||489.59|26.94|<0.0001
91866865|NCT03066609|183626618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|246.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.41|1037.1|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 90||1037.1|58.41|<0.0001
91698049|NCT03425396|183290695|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|7.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||7.8|-20.7|
91698050|NCT03425396|183290695|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|11.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||11.6|-15.1|
91698051|NCT03425396|183290695|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|20.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||20.7|-35.3|
91698052|NCT03425396|183290696|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|13.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||13.3|-27.3|
91698053|NCT03425396|183290696|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|5.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||5.9|-32.4|
91866866|NCT04191824|183626633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.1||In order to maintain an overall alpha of 0.05 and account for two interim analyses, a two-sided alpha of 0.0492 was used for assessing the statistical significance in the final analysis of this primary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|-2.7|0.7769
91866867|NCT04191824|183626634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.106|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.151|||Chi-squared|||||0.151|0.061|<0.0001
91866868|NCT04191824|183626635|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.12|||Chi-squared|||||0.120|-0.006|0.0753
91866869|NCT04191824|183626636|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.002||||0.8044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.016|||Chi-squared|||||0.016|-0.013|0.8044
91866870|NCT04191824|183626637|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.052||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.002|||Chi-squared|||||0.002|-0.105|0.0570
91866871|NCT04191824|183626638|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.045||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.072|||Chi-squared|||||0.072|0.018|0.0012
91866872|NCT04191824|183626639|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.006||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.055|||Chi-squared|||||0.055|-0.066|0.8483
91866873|NCT01324310|183626643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|124.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.2|140.5|||ANOVA||"Geometric means ratio (Romidepsin + Ketoconazole/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||140.5|110.2|
91866874|NCT01324310|183626644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|123.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.6|139.6|||ANOVA|||||139.6|109.6|
91866875|NCT01324310|183626645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|124.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|142.4|||ANOVA|||||142.4|109.0|
91866876|NCT01324310|183626646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|109.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.9|126.4|||ANOVA|||||126.4|94.9|
91866877|NCT01324310|183626647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.485|0.095|||Wilcoxon signed- rank|||"Note: The median, median difference (romidepsin + ketoconazole minus romidepsin) and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodges-Lehmann Estimate. The P-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test."||0.095|-0.485|0.7422
91866878|NCT03170882|183626652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847|||=|0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.341|||Log Rank||HR obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age,international staging system(ISS),prior lines of therapy. HR\<1 was deemed to indicate better PFS in Ixazomib+Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide+Dexamethasone arm.|||1.341|0.535|=0.477
91866879|NCT03170882|183626653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.427|||=|0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|2.677|||Log Rank||HR obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age, ISS and prior lines of therapy. HR \<1 was deemed to indicate longer survival time in Ixazomib + Dexamethasone arm as compared to Pomalidomide + Dexamethasone arm.|||2.677|0.761|=0.265
91866880|NCT03170882|183626654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR was based on logistic regression model with treatment group as categorical predictor variable and age, ISS and prior lines of therapy. OR \>1 was deemed to indicate better response in Ixazomib+Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide+Dexamethasone arm.|||1.90|0.43|=0.634
91698054|NCT03425396|183290696|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|15.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||15.6|-25.7|
91698055|NCT03425396|183290696|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|28.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||28.9|-40.4|
91698056|NCT03425396|183290697|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-1.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-1.0|-44.1|
91698057|NCT03425396|183290697|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|4.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||4.9|-32.2|
91866881|NCT03170882|183626656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|1.073|||||HR was obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age, ISS, prior lines of therapy. HR \>1 was deemed to indicate quicker response time in Ixazomib + Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide + Dexamethasone arm.|||1.073|0.288|
91698058|NCT03425396|183290697|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|1.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||1.1|-43.1|
91698059|NCT03425396|183290697|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|23.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||23.2|-43.8|
91698060|NCT03425396|183290698|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|3.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||3.1|-37.2|
91698061|NCT03425396|183290698|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|1.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||1.2|-34.3|
91730053|NCT01866150|183355582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at the last visit. Analysis used a mixed model with month, cohort, baseline DAS28 score; cohort-by-month and cohort-by-baseline DAS28 score as fixed effects. Within-participant repeated measurements were incorporated with an unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.15|-0.45|0.3264
91698062|NCT03425396|183290698|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-4.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-4.3|-46.9|
91698063|NCT03425396|183290698|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|19.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||19.7|-48.5|
91730054|NCT01866150|183355584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.81||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-1.18|||General Linear Model|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with cohort as a factor.||-1.18|-16.44|0.0237
91730055|NCT00600704|183355589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.379|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.096|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.569|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was based on a two-sided alpha error of .05 and 80% power. After applying the protocol in two equal groups of 10 patients, the analysis showed that the study requires 60 patients per group. However, we decided to enroll up to 100 patients per group to allow for patient attrition or missing data, and also in order to look for differences with regards to transfusion between patient subgroups.||0.569|0.189|<0.05
91866882|NCT03170882|183626657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.361|||Log Rank||HR: obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age,ISS,prior lines of therapy. HR\<1 was deemed to indicate better disease progression prevention in Ixazomib+Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide+Dexamethasone arm.|||1.361|0.506|=0.459
91866883|NCT03213457|183626665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.711|8.176||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||8.176|3.711|< 0.001
91698064|NCT03425396|183290699|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|6.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||6.0|-45.1|
91698065|NCT03425396|183290699|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|5.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||5.9|-40.2|
91698066|NCT03425396|183290699|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-36.8|
91698067|NCT03425396|183290699|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|33.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||33.2|-47.0|
91698068|NCT03425396|183290700|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|13.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||13.2|-40.4|
91730056|NCT00600704|183355589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.129|||Regression, Linear||The mean difference between groups B and A is adjusted for age, gender, BMI and preoperative HCT, while BSA, weight, height, postoperative HCT were not included in the final model to avoid collinearity.|Null hypothesis :restrictive fluid protocol does not have any effect concerning the mean number of PRC units transfused.||1.129|0.465|<0.05
91730057|NCT01644331|183355616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.315
91796182|NCT05419908|183470922|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.203||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|2.088||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Behaviour Following Wakening||2.088|0.317|0.008
91866884|NCT03213457|183626665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.968|6.331||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 12||6.331|2.968|< 0.001
91866885|NCT03213457|183626666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.275|2.605||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||2.605|1.275|< 0.001
91866886|NCT03213457|183626666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|2.326||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 12||2.326|1.146|0.007
91866887|NCT03213457|183626667|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.809||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.809|-1.180|< 0.001
91698069|NCT03425396|183290700|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|14.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.6|-32.7|
91866888|NCT03213457|183626668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.845||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.845|-1.190|< 0.001
91698070|NCT03425396|183290700|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|14.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.9|-38.2|
91698071|NCT03425396|183290700|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|30.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||30.9|-50.3|
91698072|NCT00601172|183290705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.6||p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|Pooled Z test||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||6.6|-4.6|0.7273
91730058|NCT01644331|183355617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||0.34|0.03|0.021
91730059|NCT01644331|183355618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.99||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This a repeated measure analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||3.44|-1.47|0.430
91698073|NCT00601172|183290706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.8||p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|Pooled Z test||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||3.8|-1.8|0.4771
91866889|NCT03213457|183626669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.156|-0.823||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.823|-1.156|< 0.001
91866890|NCT03213457|183626670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|-0.08||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.080|-0.367|0.002
91866891|NCT03213457|183626671|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.085||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.085|-0.329|< 0.001
91866892|NCT03213457|183626672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.05||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.050|-0.270|0.004
91866893|NCT03213457|183626673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.283|-0.746||P-value for test of difference at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.746|-4.283|0.005
91866894|NCT03213457|183626674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.298|0.088||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||0.088|-0.298|0.284
91698074|NCT00601172|183290707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.6|||Pooled Z test|p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||6.6|-4.6|0.7273
91698075|NCT00601172|183290708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|6.0||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.5||p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|Pooled Z test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||11.5|0.5|0.0317
91698076|NCT00601172|183290709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||||0.0560
91698077|NCT00601172|183290709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0443|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||||0.0443
91698078|NCT00601172|183290709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1709|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||||0.1709
91698079|NCT00601172|183290710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|-1.8||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.3|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||2.3|-5.9|0.3986
91698080|NCT00601172|183290710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|-0.9||||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.0|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||1.0|-2.7|0.3545
91698081|NCT00601172|183290710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|-1.8||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.3|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||2.3|-5.9|0.3986
91698082|NCT00601172|183290711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (%)|-0.9||||0.6795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.5|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||3.5|-5.4|0.6795
91698083|NCT00601172|183290711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (%)|-0.9||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.4|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||1.4|-3.1|0.4507
91698084|NCT00601172|183290711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (%)|-0.9||||0.6795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.5|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||3.5|-5.4|0.6795
91698085|NCT00601172|183290712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|2.1||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.0|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||8.0|-3.8|0.4846
91698086|NCT00601172|183290712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8||||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.9|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||3.9|-2.3|0.6101
91698087|NCT00601172|183290712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|2.1||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.0|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||8.0|-3.8|0.4846
91698088|NCT00601172|183290713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|3.8||||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.9|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||8.9|-1.2|0.1356
91866895|NCT03213457|183626675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.083||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||0.083|-0.279|0.286
91866896|NCT03213457|183626676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|-0.066||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.066|-0.375|0.005
91904784|NCT05293743|183704752|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.23||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3.70.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions between the control arm and the experimental arm during the study's intervention period. In this test, brace wear was measured by iButton temperature sensors.||||0.23
91904785|NCT05293743|183704753|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.86||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 6.68.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions when the experimental arm is wearing the Dynamic Bar versus the Standard Bar during the study period. In this test, brace wear was measured by parent-reported brace logs.||||0.86
91698089|NCT00601172|183290713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|8.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|15.4|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||15.4|0.9|0.0280
91698090|NCT00601172|183290713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|8.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|15.4|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||15.4|0.9|0.0280
91698091|NCT00601172|183290714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.5|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||5.5|-7.3|0.7799
91698092|NCT00601172|183290714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|0.5||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.2|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||4.2|-3.2|0.7883
91698093|NCT00601172|183290714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.5|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||5.5|-7.3|0.7799
91698094|NCT00601172|183290715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.3||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|0.0|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||0.0|-15|0.0507
91698095|NCT00601172|183290715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.5|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||0.5|-9.9|0.0800
91698096|NCT00601172|183290715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.3||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|0.0|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||0.0|-15|0.0507
91698097|NCT00601172|183290716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.9|4.7|||||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Nausea Impact: Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg; Cycle 1 (0-120 hours)||4.7|-9.9|
91698098|NCT00601172|183290716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|0.7||||||97.5|-5.2|6.6|||||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Vomiting Impact: Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg; Cycle 1 (0-120 hours)||6.6|-5.2|
91698099|NCT00601172|183290717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1572|||||||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg: (0-120 hours) in Cycle 1||||0.1572
91698100|NCT00601172|183290717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2908|||||||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg: (0-24 hours) in Cycle 1||||0.2908
91698101|NCT00601172|183290717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1572|||||||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg: (24-120 hours) in Cycle 1||||0.1572
91866897|NCT03213457|183626677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.773|-0.216||P-value for test of difference at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.216|-4.773|0.032
91904786|NCT05293743|183704753|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.21||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 6.94.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions when the experimental arm is wearing the Dynamic Bar versus the Standard Bar during the study period. In this test, brace wear was measured by iButton temperature sensors.||||0.21
91904787|NCT04391036|183704759|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||McNemar|||This was a paired analysis comparing successful insertion of the high and low Eudragit® Films. The McNemar's test statistic is based on the discordant pairs (number of participants with high successful, low unsuccessful versus low successful, high unsuccessful).||||>.99
91698102|NCT05896527|183290807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.4839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.37|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 200 mg BID compared to Placebo|||2.37|0.07|0.4839
91698103|NCT05896527|183290807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.49|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 400 mg BID compared to Placebo|||6.49|0.51|0.4111
91698104|NCT05896527|183290807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.7744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.99|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 600 mg QD compared to Placebo|||4.99|0.36|0.7744
91698105|NCT05896527|183290807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|12.37|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 800 mg BID compared to Placebo|||12.37|1.15|0.0164
91698106|NCT01279070|183290809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the BADS(Total score and Key search subtest),linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML.An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject.The dependent variable comprised the measures at 16 weeks while the baseline value of the BADS,intervention group(REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group),time and the interaction term (time×treatment)were included as covariates.||0.7|0.1|<0.05
91698107|NCT01279070|183290810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the BADS(Total score and Key search subtest),linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood(REML).An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject.The dependent variable comprised the measures at 40 weeks while the baseline value of the BADS,intervention group(REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group),time and the interaction term (time×treatment)were included as covariates.||0.7|0.1|<0.05
91698108|NCT01279070|183290811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the LSP, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 16 weeks while the baseline value of the LSP, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.6|0.06|<0.05
91698109|NCT01279070|183290812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the LSP, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 40 weeks while the baseline value of the LSP, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.6|0.09|<0.05
91698110|NCT01279070|183290813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the PANSS, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 16 weeks while the baseline value of the PANSS, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.7|0.01|<0.05
91698111|NCT01279070|183290814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups, standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR) assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the PANSS, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 40 weeks while the baseline value of the PANSS, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.7|0.01|<0.05
91698112|NCT01683266|183290905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Stepwise closed testing approach was used to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.185||||||Analysis was performed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; baseline HbA1c and baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.185|-0.098|
91698113|NCT01683266|183290908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|0.287||||||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analyzed using MMRM model with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; pre-injection SMPG value and pre-injection SMPG value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.287|-0.982|
91698114|NCT00090220|183290934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|88.7||||||95.0|78.1|94.8|||||Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||94.8|78.1|
91698115|NCT00090220|183290960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|94.8||||||95.0|79.9|99.4|||||Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||99.4|79.9|
91698116|NCT00090220|183290968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|84.7||||||95.0|67.5|93.7|||||Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||93.7|67.5|
91730060|NCT01644331|183355619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-493.21||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1176.96|190.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||190.55|-1176.96|0.157
91698117|NCT00823043|183290983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91698118|NCT00823043|183290984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
91698119|NCT00823043|183290985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
91698120|NCT00823043|183290986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
91698121|NCT02651155|183290987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Values of CI|1.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||Van Elteren Test|SBM was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|CI was estimated by inverting the hypothesis test.|||1.0|0.1|0.003
91698122|NCT00526669|183291092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Biomarker: TS|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.10
91730061|NCT01644331|183355620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Chi-squared|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||||0.206
91730062|NCT01644331|183355621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan Meier|0.98||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.96|0.334
91698123|NCT00526669|183291092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||Biomarker: DPD|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.097
91730063|NCT01644331|183355622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.148
91730064|NCT01644331|183355623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.334
91730065|NCT01644331|183355624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.67||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||0.45|-1.79|0.241
91730066|NCT01644331|183355625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.28||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||0.82|-0.26|0.303
91730067|NCT01644331|183355626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||||||24 hours|Chi-squared|||||||0.471
91730068|NCT01644331|183355626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||||||48 hrs|Chi-squared|||||||0.585
91730069|NCT01644331|183355626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||72 hrs|Chi-squared|||||||0.120
91730070|NCT01644331|183355627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.037
91698124|NCT00526669|183291092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Biomarker: EGFR/HER1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.10
91698125|NCT00526669|183291092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||Biomarker: HER2|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.26
91698126|NCT00526669|183291092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0||||Biomarker: HER3|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.38
91698127|NCT00526669|183291093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|29.2|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response or partial response.|||29.2|9.6|
91698128|NCT00526669|183291094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|40.3|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who achieved progression-free survival.|||40.3|17.9|
91698129|NCT04259424|183291136|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.15
91698130|NCT01489254|183291171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To conclude study sensitivity the combined active treatment groups Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg needed to be superior to placebo.|Ratio (or Ratio of estimated means)|0.488|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.651|||||Ratio of combined Glatiramer 20 mg + Copaxone 20 mg to placebo and 95% confidence interval.|Estimates represent the mean total lesions during months 7 through 9 and were estimated from the fitted random effect generalized linear model (longitudinal model) with a negative binomial distribution and logaritmic link function. To assess study sensitivity, data of the active treatment groups and placebo were included in the model, resulting in the ratios and 95% CIs for the combined Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg treatment group and the individual treatments over placebo.||0.651|0.365|
91730071|NCT01644331|183355628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.373
91730072|NCT01644331|183355629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan Meier|0.26||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.32|||Log Rank|||||0.32|0.21|0.709
91759097|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0728
91759098|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.0005
91698131|NCT01489254|183291171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To conclude equivalence between Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg, efficacy in the combined active treatment groups needed to be superior to placebo (confirming study sensitivity) and the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated ratio of Glatiramer 20 mg to Copaxone 20 mg needed to be fully enclosed in the prespecified equivalence margin (0.727 - 1.375).|Ratio (or Ratio of estimated means)|1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.36|||||Ratio of Glatiramer 20 mg to Copaxone 20 mg and 95% confidence interval.|Estimates represent the mean total lesions during months 7 through 9 and were estimated from the fitted random effect generalized linear model (longitudinal model) with a negative binomial distribution and logaritmic link function including Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg treatment groups to assess study equivalence.||1.360|0.883|
91698132|NCT01981954|183291172|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 MCC Analysis||||<0.001
91698133|NCT01981954|183291174|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline=0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.003
91698134|NCT01981954|183291175|OTHER|||||||0.744||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.744
91698135|NCT01981954|183291176|OTHER|||||||0.352||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.352
91730073|NCT03829514|183355630|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Signal intensity data were loess normalized and normalized data were used to perform a limma t-test with empirical Bayes smoothing to standard errors|||Proteins were identified and quantified using EncyclopeDIA and visualized with Scaffold DIA using 1% false discovery thresholds at both the protein and peptide level. Protein exclusive intensity values were assessed for quality using an in-house ProteiNorm app, a tool for systematic evaluation of normalization methods, imputation of missing values and comparisons of multiple differential abundance methods . Cyclic loess normalization. The normalized data were used to perform statistical analysis using linear models for microarray data (limma) with empirical Bayes (eBayes) smoothing to the standard errors. Proteins with p-value \< 0.05 were considered significant.|||0.05
91730074|NCT01339091|183355631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the ITT population is greater than -10% the NI of dalbavancin to vancomycin/linezolid will be concluded.|Difference in Proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.9|||||Confidence intervals were adjusted for fever at baseline|||7.9|-4.6|
91730075|NCT03992872|183355661|SUPERIORITY|The significance of the difference between groups in seroconversion rates was assessed using a Fisher's exact test. The percentage who seroconverted in each group was presented along with its 95% CI calculated using the Wilson method. The Newcombe method was use to estimate the 95% confidence interval for the difference between groups in the percentage of subjects who seroconverted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|11.4|||Fisher Exact|||||11.4|-11.4|1
91730076|NCT03992872|183355662|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P- value = NE (Not estimable due to lack of response; all baseline values in this group were \<LOD and imputed as LOD/2, or 7.5)||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\]~NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
91759099|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.0005
91759100|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.0078
91759101|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.0078
91759102|NCT01846741|183411301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.0273
91759103|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.0192
91759104|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue||||0.8069
91759105|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2416|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being||||0.2416
91698136|NCT01981954|183291177|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||<0.001
91698137|NCT01981954|183291178|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.177
91759106|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning||||0.1111
91759107|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning||||0.0014
91759108|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects||||0.3247
91866898|NCT03213457|183626678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.774|-0.508||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.508|-1.774|< 0.001
91866899|NCT03213457|183626679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.978|-0.788||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.788|-1.978|< 0.001
91866900|NCT03213457|183626680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.002|-0.915||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.915|-2.002|< 0.001
91866901|NCT00747565|183626733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ETDRS line scores used for statistical comparisons with mean Snellen values reported above.||||<0.0001
91698138|NCT01981954|183291179|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analyis||||0.025
91698139|NCT01981954|183291180|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.050
91698140|NCT01981954|183291181|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.567
91866902|NCT00712179|183626768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.981|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at different speeds with 15% body weight support will have no effect on EMG pattern.||||0.981
91698141|NCT01981954|183291182|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.001
91866903|NCT00712179|183626768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at self selected speed at 0%, 15% and 30% of body weight support will have no effect on EMG pattern||||0.84
91698142|NCT01981954|183291183|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||<0.001
91698143|NCT01981954|183291184|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.004
91698144|NCT01981954|183291185|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.001
91698145|NCT01981954|183291186|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.001
91698146|NCT01981954|183291203|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.688
91796183|NCT05419908|183470922|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.597||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|2.556||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Behaviour Following Wakening||2.556|0.639|0.001
91698147|NCT01981954|183291204|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.610
91698148|NCT01981954|183291205|OTHER|||||||0.562||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.562
91698149|NCT01981954|183291206|OTHER|||||||0.657||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.657
91698150|NCT01981954|183291207|OTHER|||||||0.631||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.631
91698151|NCT01981954|183291208|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.410
91698152|NCT01981954|183291209|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.940
91698153|NCT01981954|183291210|OTHER|||||||1||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||1.000
91698154|NCT01981954|183291211|OTHER|||||||0.575||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.575
91698155|NCT01981954|183291212|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.031
91698156|NCT01981954|183291213|OTHER|||||||0.721||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.721
91866904|NCT00712179|183626768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at different speeds with 30% body weight support will have no effect on EMG pattern.||||0.16
91730077|NCT03992872|183355662|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|3.11||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.23|||ANOVA|P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 8: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||6.23|1.55|0.0019
91730078|NCT03992872|183355662|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.88||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.46|||ANOVA|P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.46|0.54|0.6223
91796184|NCT05419908|183470922|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.842||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|1.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Behaviour Following Sleep||1.800|-0.116|0.084
91866905|NCT00712179|183626768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at fastest comfortable speeds with different amount of body weight supports will not affect the EMG pattern.||||0.073
91866906|NCT00712179|183626768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Modification of non-paretic leg loading and movement by the therapist will have no effect on EMG pattern of paretic leg.||||<0.001
91866907|NCT00712179|183626768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Modification of paretic leg loading and movement by the therapist will have significant effect on EMG pattern of non-paretic leg.||||0.94
91866908|NCT01128595|183626782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.701||||||||0.701|0.330|
91866909|NCT01128595|183626782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|0.73||||||||0.730|0.355|
91698157|NCT04016779|183291219|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.2|-6.2|0.0040
91866910|NCT01128595|183626782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.388||||||||0.388|0.001|
91866911|NCT01128595|183626782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.143||||||||0.143|-0.198|
91866912|NCT01128595|183626782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.501||||||||0.501|0.140|
91866913|NCT01128595|183626785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.636||||||||0.636|0.332|
91866914|NCT01128595|183626785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.638||||||||0.638|0.330|
91866915|NCT01128595|183626785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.327||||||||0.327|0.009|
91866916|NCT01128595|183626785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14||||||||0.140|-0.140|
91866917|NCT01128595|183626785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.464||||||||0.464|0.168|
91698158|NCT04016779|183291220|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.2|-0.7|0.0023
91698159|NCT04016779|183291221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|5.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|16.1|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||16.1|-5.0|0.3030
91698160|NCT04016779|183291222|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.0076
91698161|NCT04016779|183291223|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|10.7||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|22.1|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||22.1|-1.0|0.0744
91698162|NCT04016779|183291224|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.8|-0.9|0.9205
91698163|NCT04016779|183291225|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.9|-4.0|0.0015
91698164|NCT04016779|183291226|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.1|-2.7|0.0380
91698165|NCT04016779|183291227|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|12.4||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.8|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||23.8|0.6|0.0395
91698166|NCT04016779|183291228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|6.4||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.5|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||17.5|-5.0|0.2736
91698167|NCT04016779|183291229|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-4.8|0.0468
91698168|NCT04016779|183291230|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.4462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.8|0.4462
91698169|NCT04016779|183291231|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-5.9|0.0100
91698170|NCT04016779|183291232|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-3.7|0.2186
91698171|NCT04016779|183291233|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-4.5|0.0344
91698172|NCT04016779|183291234|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.8|-1.1|0.3680
91698173|NCT04016779|183291235|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.7|0.6361
91698174|NCT04016779|183291236|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-4.0|0.1708
91698175|NCT04016779|183291237|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-6.0|0.0094
91698176|NCT04016779|183291238|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-6.1|0.0104
91698177|NCT04016779|183291239|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-4.9|0.0178
91698178|NCT04016779|183291240|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-5.8|0.0187
91698179|NCT00979875|183291241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|2.55||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||2.55|1.70|<0.0001
91698180|NCT00979875|183291241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|5.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.88|7.12||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||7.12|3.88|<0.0001
91866918|NCT01128595|183626786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.393||||||||0.393|0.031|
91866919|NCT01128595|183626786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.536||||||||0.536|0.147|
91866920|NCT01128595|183626786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.477|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.672||||||||0.672|0.282|
91698181|NCT00979875|183291241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|4.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.05|5.6||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||5.60|3.05|<0.0001
91698182|NCT00979875|183291242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-38.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.31|-24.55||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||-24.55|-53.31|<0.0001
91698183|NCT00979875|183291242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-26.43||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.81|-12.05||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||-12.05|-40.81|0.0032
91698184|NCT00979875|183291242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-42.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.53|-27.76||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||-27.76|-56.53|<0.0001
91698185|NCT01945970|183291247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||0.40|-1.09|0.36
91866921|NCT01128595|183626786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.463||||||||0.463|0.066|
91698186|NCT01945970|183291248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||1.28|-0.24|0.18
91759109|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0826
91866922|NCT01128595|183626786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.343||||||||0.343|-0.072|
91866923|NCT01128595|183626787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.215||||||||0.215|-0.037|
91866924|NCT01128595|183626787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.371||||||||0.371|0.101|
91866925|NCT01128595|183626787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.398||||||||0.398|0.127|
91698187|NCT01945970|183291249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||-0.19|-1.59|0.014
91759110|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.1040
91759111|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.0094
91759112|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue||||0.5874
91759113|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1508|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being||||0.1508
91759114|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning||||0.0136
91759115|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning||||0.0015
91866926|NCT01128595|183626787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.312||||||||0.312|0.036|
91866927|NCT01128595|183626787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.171||||||||0.171|-0.118|
91796185|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.0||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Loss of Interest in Sex||0.3|-0.3|0.881
91796186|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Loss of Interest in Sex||0.2|-0.6|0.383
91796187|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Loss of Interest in Sex||0.2|-0.6|0.301
91796188|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Psychological||-0.4|-4.5|0.020
91796189|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Psychological||-1.2|-5.4|0.003
91796190|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Psychological||-1.0|-5.2|0.005
91796191|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Physical||0.9|-1.2|0.732
91866928|NCT00366249|183626800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis tested for non-inferiority. Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mehrotra and Railker|-5.5||||||95.0|-11.0|0.1|||||Adjusted for Perfusion, Extent, Depth/tissue loss, Infection, and Sensation (PEDIS) score|Analysis provided for Cure||0.1|-11.0|
91698188|NCT01945970|183291250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||0.31|-1.30|0.22
91698189|NCT01945970|183291251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||1.53|-0.11|0.09
91796192|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.7||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Physical||0.6|-1.9|0.282
91796193|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Physical||0.5|-1.7|0.254
91796194|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Vasomotor||-1.4|-2.7|<0.001
91796195|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Vasomotor||-1.1|-2.4|<0.001
91796196|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.3||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Vasomotor||-1.3|-2.6|<0.001
91796197|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Total Symptom Score||-1.0|-8.2|0.013
91796198|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Total Symptom Score||-3.1|-10.7|<0.001
91796199|NCT05419908|183470923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-2.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Total Symptom Score||-2.8|-9.9|<0.001
91796200|NCT05419908|183470924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Work/School||-0.8|-2.7|<0.001
91796201|NCT05419908|183470924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.3||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Work/School||-1.3|-2.8|<0.001
91866929|NCT00366249|183626802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis tested for non-inferiority. Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mehrotra and Railkar|-6.7||||||95.0|-12.3|-1.1|||||Adjusted for PEDIS score|Analysis provided for Cure||-1.1|-12.3|
91866930|NCT00366249|183626804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis tested for non-inferiority. Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mehrotra and Railkar|-6.3||||||95.0|-13.6|1.0|||||Adjusted for PEDIS score|||1.0|-13.6|
91866931|NCT00246805|183626809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|61.0|||Z-test for proportions|||VRS ON vs. VRS OFF||61|36|<0.0001
91866932|NCT01371994|183626832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Based on a Log-rank test stratified by (pooled) center and Baseline daily pad usage (≤ 3 and \> 3).||The treatment difference in the primary efficacy variable was tested using a log-rank test stratified by (pooled) center and by Baseline daily pad usage (≤3 and \>3) at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.1745
91866933|NCT01371994|183626833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4833|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison at Week 4||||0.4833
91866934|NCT01371994|183626833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5761|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison at Week 8||||0.5761
91698190|NCT01945970|183291252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||0.37|-1.13|0.32
91698191|NCT01945970|183291253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||4.39|-0.61|0.14
91698192|NCT01945970|183291254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||1.62|-2.41|0.69
91698193|NCT01945970|183291255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||2.95|-2.06|0.72
91698194|NCT01945970|183291256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||2.88|-1.15|0.39
91698195|NCT01945970|183291257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||1.24|-1.75|0.74
91698196|NCT01945970|183291258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||0.88|-2.12|0.41
91698197|NCT01945970|183291259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects||1.54|-1.11|0.74
91698198|NCT01945970|183291260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||1.17|-1.84|0.66
91698199|NCT01945970|183291261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||0.30|-2.70|0.11
91698200|NCT01945970|183291262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||1.73|-0.93|0.55
91698201|NCT02738879|183291263|NON_INFERIORITY|Hypothesis A: After 30 weeks, continuing sitagliptin is non-inferior relative to withdrawing sitagliptin on the change from baseline in A1C. Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference is less than 0.3%.|Between Group Difference in the LSM|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.34|||LDA|||A longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model included terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening. Least Squares Means = LSM||-0.34|-0.58|
91698202|NCT02738879|183291263|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis B: After 30 weeks, continuing sitagliptin results in a greater reduction of A1C relative to withdrawing sitagliptin.|Between Group Difference in the LSM|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.34|||LDA|||A LDA model included terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening.||-0.34|-0.58|< 0.001
91698203|NCT02738879|183291264|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.73|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98|||Negative Binomial Model|||Calculated via the Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||0.98|0.54|= 0.039
91698204|NCT02738879|183291265|OTHER|95% CI|Between Group Difference in Percentages|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-2.3|
91698205|NCT02738879|183291266|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-4.1|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.9|-11.2|= 0.250
91698206|NCT02738879|183291267|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in the LSM|-8.0|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-1.5|||LDA model|||The analysis is based on a LDA model including terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening.||-1.5|-14.6|= 0.016
91698207|NCT02738879|183291268|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.81|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.99|||Negative Binomial Model|||Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||0.99|0.67|= 0.041
91698208|NCT02738879|183291269|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.83|||=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||Negative Binomial Model|||Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||1.37|0.51|= 0.473
91759116|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3522|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects||||0.3522
91866935|NCT01371994|183626833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0592|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison at Week 12||||0.0592
91730079|NCT03992872|183355662|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.88||||0.6444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.55||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.55|0.50|0.6444
91730080|NCT03992872|183355662|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.89||||0.6198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.41||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 57: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.41|0.57|0.6198
91796202|NCT05419908|183470924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Work/School||-0.8|-2.5|<0.001
91796203|NCT05419908|183470924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Social Life||-0.6|-2.2|<0.001
91730081|NCT03992872|183355662|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.89||||0.6451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.45||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 182: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.45|0.55|0.6451
91730082|NCT03992872|183355663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 8~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||0.0211
91796204|NCT05419908|183470924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Social Life||-1.1|-2.7|<0.001
91866936|NCT01371994|183626833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||||0.0390
91730083|NCT03992872|183355663|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
91730084|NCT03992872|183355663|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 57.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
91730085|NCT03992872|183355663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1124|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 182.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||0.1124
91730086|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1 : Subjects with Titer \>=40"||||>0.9999
91730087|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 1: Subjects with Titer \>=160"||||>0.9999
91796205|NCT05419908|183470924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Social Life||-0.7|-2.4|<0.001
91796206|NCT05419908|183470924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Family Life/Home Responsibilities||-0.4|-2.2|0.005
91866937|NCT01371994|183626835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.38|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison at Week 4||0.38|-0.14|0.3604
91730088|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||1.0000
91730089|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0257|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 8 : Subjects with Titer \>=40"||||0.0257
91730090|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 8: Subjects with Titer \>=160"||||0.0370
91730091|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1806|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 8: Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||0.1806
91730092|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subjects with Titer \>=40"||||1.0000
91730093|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 22: Subjects with Titer \>=160"||||1.0000
91730094|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0797|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 22: Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||0.0797
91730095|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>=40"||||1.0000
91866938|NCT01371994|183626835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.52|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison at Week 8||0.52|-0.03|0.0761
91730096|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>=160"||||1.0000
91730097|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1284|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>= 640"||||0.1284
91730098|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 57: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||1.0000
91730099|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6411|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 57: Subject with Titer\>=160"||||0.6411
91730100|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5382|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 57: Subject with Titer\>=640"||||0.5382
91730101|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4915|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 182: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||0.4915
91730102|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 182: Subject with Titer \>= 160"||||>0.9999
91730103|NCT03992872|183355664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 182: Subject with Titer \>= 640"||||0.5520
91730104|NCT03992872|183355665|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.51||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.19||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||2.19|1.05|0.0277
91730105|NCT03992872|183355665|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.83||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.86||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||2.86|1.17|0.0088
91730106|NCT03992872|183355665|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.68||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.82||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||2.82|1.01|0.0475
91730107|NCT03992872|183355666|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 22.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.00
91730108|NCT03992872|183355666|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.00
91730109|NCT03992872|183355667|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|45.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.~P-value = NE~NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|||"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\]~NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
91730110|NCT03992872|183355667|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|47.34|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.~P-value = NE NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|||"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\] NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
91796207|NCT05419908|183470924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.9||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Family Life/Home Responsibilities||-0.9|-2.5|<0.001
91796208|NCT05419908|183470924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Family Life/Home Responsibilities||-0.7|-2.4|<0.001
91866939|NCT01371994|183626835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.64|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison at Week 12||0.64|0.07|0.0149
91730111|NCT03992872|183355667|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|55.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.~P-value = NE NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|||"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\] NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
91698209|NCT02738879|183291270|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-1.2|||=|0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Percentages and difference in percentages were calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by AHA treatment at screening. Includes imputed events after participants discontinued from the study medication, using a Gamma frailty model. The bootstrap method was used to obtain the CI and p-value.||3.7|-6.2|= 0.624
91698210|NCT02738879|183291271|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|25.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||25.7|11.6|< 0.001
91698211|NCT02738879|183291272|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in the LSM|-6.5|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-1.0|||LDA|||Analysis was based on a LDA model including terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening.||-1.0|-11.9|= 0.020
91698212|NCT02738879|183291273|OTHER|95% CI|Between Group Difference in Percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||5.0|-9.1|
91698213|NCT02738879|183291274|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.76|||=|0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.44|||Negative Binomial Model|||The analysis was calculated via the Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||1.44|0.40|= 0.394
91698214|NCT02738879|183291275|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-1.2|||=|0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||The analysis included imputed events after participants discontinued from the study medication, using a Gamma frailty model. Proportions and difference in proportions were calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by AHA treatment at screening. The bootstrap method was used to obtain the CI and p-value.||5.8|-8.2|= 0.740
91730112|NCT03992872|183355669|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 22.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
91730113|NCT03992872|183355669|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
91796209|NCT05419908|183470924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Global Functional Impairment||-2.0|-6.9|<0.001
91866940|NCT01371994|183626835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.52|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||0.52|0.02|0.0325
91698215|NCT02738879|183291276|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-0.7|||=|0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Percentages and difference in percentages were calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by AHA treatment at screening. The analysis included imputed events after subjects discontinued from the study medication, using a Gamma frailty model. The bootstrap method was used to obtain the CI and p-value.||3.2|-4.7|= 0.712
91698216|NCT02738879|183291277|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|5.3|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||10.1|0.5|= 0.030
91698217|NCT01044290|183291308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||<|0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||.7|-1.1|<0.61
91698218|NCT01044290|183291308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||2.0|.2|<.02
91698219|NCT01044290|183291309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||1.1|-1.2|=.9
91698220|NCT01044290|183291309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||<|0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable||Comparison at 5 weeks.||1.1|-1.2|<.97
91796210|NCT05419908|183470924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Global Functional Impairment||-3.6|-8.0|<0.001
91796211|NCT05419908|183470924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Global Functional Impairment||-2.8|-7.8|<0.001
91698221|NCT01044290|183291310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||<|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable||Comparison at 5 weeks||1.5|-1.4|<.91
91698222|NCT01044290|183291310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||=|0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable||Comparison at 5 weeks||0.9|-2.1|=.42
91698223|NCT01044290|183291311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||=|0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||2.8|-1.5|=.58
91698224|NCT01044290|183291311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||2.2|-2.1|<.97
91730114|NCT03992872|183355670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||<0.0001
91730115|NCT03992872|183355670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subject with Titer \>= 160"||||<0.0001
91796212|NCT05419908|183470925|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Days Lost||0.6|-0.5|0.936
91866941|NCT01371994|183626837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.19|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||1.19|-0.60|0.5186
91730116|NCT03992872|183355670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subject with Titer \>= 640"||||<0.0001
91730117|NCT03992872|183355670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||<0.0001
91730118|NCT03992872|183355670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subject with Titer \>= 160"||||<0.0001
91730119|NCT03992872|183355670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subject with Titer \>=640"||||<0.0001
91730120|NCT03992872|183355670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||<0.0001
91730121|NCT03992872|183355670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subjects with Titer \>= 160"||||<0.0001
91730122|NCT03992872|183355670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29 : Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||<0.0001
91730123|NCT03992872|183355671|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|23.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.54|46.35||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||46.35|11.54|<0.0001
91730124|NCT03992872|183355671|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|172.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.6|279.19||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||279.19|106.60|<0.0001
91730125|NCT03992872|183355671|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|118.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.76|227.16||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naive alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||227.16|61.76|<0.0001
91730126|NCT03992872|183355672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 22.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||<0.0001
91730127|NCT03992872|183355672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||<0.0001
91796213|NCT05419908|183470925|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Days Lost||0.1|-0.1|0.884
91730128|NCT00062764|183355678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.004
91730129|NCT00889005|183355705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.927
91730130|NCT05122143|183355712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||Treatment D (A+B) versus Treatment C|ANCOVA|||"Treatment A + B were pooled to Treatment D for the Primary endpoint. The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of the AM-301 nasal spray (treatment D= A+B) and no treatment (C) in reducing nasal symptoms induced from HDM allergen exposure.~The TNSS value from the baseline exposure (at screening exposure visit 2) was subtracted from the TNSS value of the treatment exposure to obtain change from baseline. A lower value resembles less symptoms."||||0.0085
91730131|NCT03766906|183355717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pretest to posttest change was significantly greater than 0 at P \< 0.05.|||||.003
91730132|NCT03766906|183355718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than zero at P\<0.05.|||||.022
91730133|NCT03766906|183355719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||.016
91730134|NCT03766906|183355720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||.002
91730135|NCT03766906|183355721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.626|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|The statistical analyses for the Student Self-Efficacy, in terms of type of statistical test, method, and the comments which we state within-subjects paired t-tests, are the same for each of the three subscales that make up Student Self-Efficacy (i.e., Relevance to schoolwork, Future aspirations, and Family support).||||.626
91698225|NCT01044290|183291312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||2.4|-.6|.25
91698226|NCT01044290|183291312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||3.1|.05|<.05
91698227|NCT01044290|183291313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable. Sex item omitted from scale.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||1.8|-1.0|<.57
91698228|NCT01044290|183291313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable. Sex item omitted from scale.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||2.7|-0.03|=0.055
91698229|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern. Statistically, the test of prolongation is equivalent to a non-inferiority test versus placebo by crossover design, with an non-inferiority margin of 10 ms.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.99|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.635||||||"Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 0.5 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).~Power Calculation:~Enrollment of 72 subjects would provide at least 84% power to conclude a negative effect, given that up to 16 subjects may withdraw early prior to beginning to replace subjects (at least 56 subjects evaluable), and assuming a standard deviation of ΔΔQTcF of 7 msec and an underlying effect of 5 msec."||0.635||
91698230|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.59|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.2||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 1 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.200||
91698231|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.795||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 2 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.795||
91698232|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.42|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.044||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 3 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.044||
91698233|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.792||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 4 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.792||
91698234|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.45|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.074||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 6 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.074||
91730136|NCT03766906|183355721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.||The statistical analyses for the Student Self-Efficacy, in terms of type of statistical test, method, and the comments which we state within-subjects paired t-tests, are the same for each of the three subscales that make up Student Self-Efficacy (i.e., Relevance to schoolwork, Future aspirations, and Family support).||||.909
91796214|NCT05419908|183470925|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Days Lost||0.1|-0.4|0.124
91698235|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.83|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.79||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 8 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||0.790||
91698236|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.03|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.65||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 12 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.650||
91698237|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.53|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.131||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 24 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.131||
91796215|NCT05419908|183470925|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Days Unproductive||0.0|-1.8|0.052
91796216|NCT05419908|183470925|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9||||0.06||95.0|-1.7|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Days Unproductive||0.0|-1.7|0.060
91796217|NCT05419908|183470925|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Days Unproductive||0.0|-1.7|0.049
91698238|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.815||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 0.5 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.815||
91698239|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|2.36|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.997||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 1 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.997||
91698240|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|2.18|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.812||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 2 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.812||
91698241|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|2.59|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.228||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 3 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||4.228||
91698242|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|3.04|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.674||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 4 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||4.674||
91698243|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.63|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.259||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 6 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.259||
91698244|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.07|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.566||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 8 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.566||
91866942|NCT01371994|183626837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.17|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||1.17|-0.52|0.4521
91698245|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.82|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.459||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 12 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.459||
91698246|NCT03613649|183291329|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.72|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.415||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 24 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.415||
91698247|NCT03613649|183291334|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.19|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.257|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 1 h after dose.|||8.257|
91730137|NCT03766906|183355721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.905|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|The statistical analyses for the Student Self-Efficacy, in terms of type of statistical test, method, and the comments which we state within-subjects paired t-tests, are the same for each of the three subscales that make up Student Self-Efficacy (i.e., Relevance to schoolwork, Future aspirations, and Family support).||||.905
91730138|NCT03766906|183355722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||.054
91730139|NCT03766906|183355723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||<.001
91730140|NCT03766906|183355724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||<.001
91759117|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0240
91759118|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.0353
91866943|NCT01371994|183626839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.47|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||0.47|-0.07|0.1493
91698248|NCT03613649|183291334|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.79|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.86|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 2 h after dose.|||8.860|
91698249|NCT03613649|183291334|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.62|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.683|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 3 h after dose.|||8.683|
91698250|NCT03613649|183291334|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.63|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.698|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 4 h after dose.|||8.698|
91698251|NCT02783729|183291365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Geometric Mean(LSGM) Ratio|0.773|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.889||Based on mixed effect model repeated measurement (MMRM) model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||||0.889|0.672|= 0.0003
91698252|NCT02783729|183291365|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.723|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.832||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||||0.832|0.628|< 0.0001
91698253|NCT02783729|183291366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.61|8.54||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||||8.54|5.61|< 0.0001
91866944|NCT01371994|183626839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.44|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||0.44|-0.07|0.1499
91698254|NCT02783729|183291366|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.57|9.49||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||||9.49|6.57|< 0.0001
91698255|NCT02783729|183291367|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-23.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.068|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.98|-17.95||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||||-17.95|-29.98|< 0.0001
91698256|NCT02783729|183291367|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-25.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.36|-19.34|||MMRM|||||-19.34|-31.36|< 0.0001
91698257|NCT02783729|183291368|SUPERIORITY|Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|LSM Difference|-6.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.298|=|0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|-2.15|||MMRM|||||-2.15|-11.15|= 0.0038
91698258|NCT02783729|183291368|SUPERIORITY|Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|LSM Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.309|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|-3.47|||MMRM|||||-3.47|-12.53|= 0.0005
91796218|NCT01298531|183470964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.27||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.17|-10.38|||ANCOVA|Not specifed.||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)with Baseline NSAID score and treatment as explanatory variables. The hypothesis tested for the primary endpoint was as follows: H0: ΔETN = ΔPlacebo; H1: ΔETN ≠ ΔPlacebo.||-10.38|-44.17|0.0019
91796219|NCT01298531|183470965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.78||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.99|-4.57|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of secondary endpoints was an ANCOVA using linear regression with Baseline NSAID score and MMRM was run using the model and using the repeated measures for the changes from Baseline in each outcome at Week 8.||-4.57|-34.99|0.0115
91730141|NCT00836901|183355725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|97.7||||||90.0|93.19|102.43|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.43|93.19|
91866945|NCT01371994|183626841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.23|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||1.23|-0.16|0.1279
91866946|NCT01371994|183626841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.23|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||1.23|-0.11|0.1038
91698259|NCT02783729|183291369|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.029|=|0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-1.72||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline posture stability of body sway as a covariate.|MMRM|||Zolpidem Tartrate Extended Release 6.25 mg v Lemborexant 5 mg||-1.72|-17.53|= 0.0171
91698260|NCT02783729|183291369|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-2.81||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline posture stability of body sway as a covariate.|MMRM|||Zolpidem Tartrate Extended Release 6.25 mg v Lemborexant 10 mg||-2.81|-18.67|= 0.008
91698261|NCT02783729|183291370|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.874|||=|0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.981||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.981|0.78|= 0.0218
91698262|NCT02783729|183291370|OTHER||LSGM Ratio|0.818|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.917||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.917|0.729|= 0.0006
91698263|NCT02783729|183291370|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.634|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.724||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.724|0.556|< 0.0001
91698264|NCT02783729|183291370|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.594|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|0.677||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.677|0.521|< 0.0001
91698265|NCT02783729|183291370|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.544|=|0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|-1.17||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||-1.17|-11.15|= 0.0154
91698266|NCT02783729|183291370|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-15.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.542|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|-10.05||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||-10.05|-20.01|< 0.0001
91698267|NCT02783729|183291370|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.876|=|0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|-2.08||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||-2.08|-13.36|= 0.0073
91866947|NCT01371994|183626843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.8876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|3.63|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||3.63|-4.19|0.8876
91698268|NCT02783729|183291370|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.883|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-3.45|||MMRM|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||-3.45|-14.75|= 0.0016
91698269|NCT02783729|183291370|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|10.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.094|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|16.32||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||16.32|4.18|= 0.001
91698270|NCT02783729|183291370|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.085|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.04|29.15||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||29.15|17.04|< 0.0001
91698271|NCT02783729|183291370|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|19.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.63|26.2||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||26.2|12.63|< 0.0001
91698272|NCT02783729|183291370|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.456|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.32|30.88||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||30.88|17.32|< 0.0001
91698273|NCT02783729|183291371|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.898|||=|0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|0.977||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.977|0.825|= 0.0122
91698274|NCT02783729|183291371|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.902||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.902|0.763|< 0.0001
91698275|NCT02783729|183291371|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.882|||=|0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.978||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.978|0.796|= 0.0176
91698276|NCT02783729|183291371|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.811|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.899||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.899|0.732|< 0.0001
91698277|NCT02783729|183291371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.484|=|0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|16.91||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||16.91|-0.68|= 0.0706
91759119|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0361
91759120|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue||||0.1921
91698278|NCT02783729|183291371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.481|=|0.1949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|2.98||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||2.98|-14.61|= 0.1949
91698279|NCT02783729|183291371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|14.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.241|=|0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|24.73||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||24.73|4.16|= 0.0059
91698280|NCT02783729|183291371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.241|=|0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|15.65||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||15.65|-4.92|= 0.3064
91698281|NCT02783729|183291371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.325|=|0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|3.88||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baselines sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||3.88|-17.02|= 0.2174
91698282|NCT02783729|183291371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.313|=|0.0949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|19.31||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||19.31|-1.55|= 0.0949
91698283|NCT02783729|183291371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.207|=|0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.01|5.36||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||5.36|-19.01|= 0.2718
91698284|NCT02783729|183291371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.206|=|0.2317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|19.61||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||19.61|-4.75|= 0.2317
91866948|NCT01371994|183626843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.21|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||3.21|-8.10|0.3950
91866949|NCT01371994|183626845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|6.81|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||6.81|-2.82|0.4126
91698285|NCT02783729|183291372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063|=|0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.71||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.71|-3.46|= 0.1963
91698286|NCT02783729|183291372|SUPERIORITY|Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate|LSM Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|3.78|||MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||3.78|-0.38|= 0.1093
91698287|NCT02783729|183291372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.247|=|0.2196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|0.92||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.92|-3.98|= 0.2196
91698288|NCT02783729|183291372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.246|=|0.4013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.49||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||3.49|-1.4|= 0.4013
91698289|NCT02783729|183291373|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.85|||=|0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|0.961||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.961|0.752|= 0.0092
91698290|NCT02783729|183291373|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.795|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|0.899||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.899|0.704|= 0.0002
91698291|NCT02783729|183291373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.711|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.71|-28.09||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-28.09|-38.71|< 0.0001
91866950|NCT01371994|183626845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.6959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|5.85|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||5.85|-3.92|0.6959
91698292|NCT02783729|183291373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-42.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.705|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.57|-36.97||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-36.97|-47.57|< 0.0001
91730142|NCT00836901|183355726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.28||||||90.0|97.09|101.53|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.53|97.09|
91866951|NCT01371994|183626847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|8.91|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||8.91|-2.26|0.2402
91698293|NCT02783729|183291373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-21.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.01|-17.3||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-17.3|-26.01|< 0.0001
91730143|NCT00836901|183355727|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|97.64||||||90.0|96.12|99.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||99.19|96.12|
91866952|NCT01371994|183626847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||6.70|-4.50|0.6980
91866953|NCT01371994|183626849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.89|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||6.89|-2.80|0.4067
91698294|NCT02783729|183291373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-28.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.219|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.68|-23.98||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-23.98|-32.68|< 0.0001
91698295|NCT02783729|183291373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|44.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.291|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.59|50.51||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||50.51|37.59|< 0.0001
91698296|NCT02783729|183291373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.46|63.34||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||63.34|50.46|< 0.0001
91698297|NCT02783729|183291374|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.666|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|10.31||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||SE: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||10.31|7.7|< 0.0001
91698298|NCT02783729|183291374|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.664|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|12.9||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||SE: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||12.9|10.3|< 0.0001
91698299|NCT02783729|183291375|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-16.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.23|-11.6||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-11.6|-21.23|< 0.0001
91698300|NCT02783729|183291375|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-17.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.57|-12.96||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-12.96|-22.57|< 0.0001
91698301|NCT02783729|183291375|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|34.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.673|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.95|41.36||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||41.36|26.95|< 0.0001
91698302|NCT02783729|183291375|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|38.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.672|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.64|46.05||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||46.05|31.64|< 0.0001
91698303|NCT02783729|183291376|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.815|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.891||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.891|0.745|< 0.0001
91698304|NCT02783729|183291376|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.753|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|0.823||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.823|0.689|< 0.0001
91730144|NCT00836901|183355728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|94.59||||||90.0|85.64|104.47|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.47|85.64|
91730145|NCT00836901|183355729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|94.44||||||90.0|87.83|101.54|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.54|87.83|
91698305|NCT02783729|183291376|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|0.837||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.837|0.671|< 0.0001
91698306|NCT02783729|183291376|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.689|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.769||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.769|0.618|< 0.0001
91698307|NCT02783729|183291376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.764|=|0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|-3.06||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-3.06|-21.76|= 0.0093
91698308|NCT02783729|183291376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-26.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.762|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.68|-16.99||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-16.99|-35.68|< 0.0001
91698309|NCT02783729|183291376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.573|=|0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.42|-0.55||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-0.55|-22.42|= 0.0396
91698310|NCT02783729|183291376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.574|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.51|-9.63||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-9.63|-31.51|= 0.0002
91698311|NCT02783729|183291376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|19.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.619|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.03|30.08||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baselines sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||30.08|8.03|= 0.0007
91698312|NCT02783729|183291376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|34.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|45.52||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baselines sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||45.52|23.5|< 0.0001
91730146|NCT00836901|183355730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|94.08||||||90.0|87.19|101.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.52|87.19|
91730147|NCT01220687|183355731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0012
91730148|NCT01220687|183355732|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.18|||Poisson|||||2.18|1.68|<0.0001
91730149|NCT04250207|183355743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Other (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test)|||||||0.0065
91730150|NCT04250207|183355743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||Other (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test)|||||||0.0344
91730151|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3587|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline||||0.3587
91866954|NCT01371994|183626849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.8507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|5.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||5.10|-4.21|0.8507
91698313|NCT02783729|183291376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|23.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.565|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|36.45||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||36.45|10.68|= 0.0003
91698314|NCT02783729|183291376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|37.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.565|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.94|50.71||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||50.71|24.94|< 0.0001
91698315|NCT02783729|183291377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122|=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|5.97||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||5.97|1.56|= 0.0008
91698316|NCT02783729|183291377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.64|9.04||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||9.04|4.64|< 0.0001
91698317|NCT02783729|183291377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.19||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.19|2.02|= 0.0005
91730152|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5724|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline||||0.5724
91730153|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3703|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.3703
91730154|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||> 0.9999
91730155|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3703|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||0.3703
91730156|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||> 0.9999
91730157|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0257|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0257
91730158|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7263|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.7263
91730159|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0607|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0607
91730160|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0460
91730161|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0111
91730162|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0011
91730163|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0200
91730164|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0476|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0476
91866955|NCT01371994|183626850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|Based on a Log-rank test stratified by (pooled) center.||||||0.2700
91866956|NCT01830595|183626854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91866957|NCT01830595|183626856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91904788|NCT04391036|183704760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||This was a paired analysis comparing difficulty of insertion of the high and low Eudragit® Films. The McNemar's test is based on discordant pairs (high was not difficult, low was difficult versus low was not difficult, high was difficult).|McNemar|||||||.45
91904789|NCT04391036|183704761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|This was an overall Fisher's exact test so the analysis applies to all categories.||||||.26
91904790|NCT05314712|183704791|OTHER|Linear Mixed Model (repeated measures model) of sleep trouble||||||||||||There was no hypothesis test. All participants received the 7-week intervention - there was no comparison group. A variable selection approach (AIC) was used for including the final variables in the model.||||Since all participants in this pilot study received in the intervention and data was collected pre and post intervention, there was no hypothesis test. Under the assumption that the likert scale data was treated as continuous, the data was analyzed using a linear mixed model. Variables in final model were included after variable selection (details below).|Using an exhaustive search of all models (dredge) that could be formed from predictor variables partner sleep rating, perceived stress, DASS scale, 8-item diet scale, amount of screen time, amount of time between bed time and wake time, amount of time to fall asleep, hours of sleep, sleep rating score, indicator variable if the child played outside, bed time, and wake time, adult height in inches, adult BMI, adult's highest education attained, the number of children in the household, grade of the child, child height in inches, child BMI, age of the child, and gender of the child, requiring the the timing of the survey be in the model, and accounting for repeated measurements over time, using AIC as the selection criterion we looked for the model with the smallest AIC value. The final sleep trouble model included the covariates timing of survey, DASS scale, and indicator variable if child played outside.|||
91911181|NCT05103332|183718569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-7.6||MMRM: Fixed factors: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black/all other races); Covariates: Baseline (BA) 24-hour mean SBP using ABPM \& BA estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort \& handle primary \& key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for SBP, assessed using ABPM, while participants were on \& within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-7.6|-16.5|<0.0001
91698318|NCT02783729|183291377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|7.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.77||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||9.77|4.6|< 0.0001
91698319|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|0.41|||=|0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|7.04||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.04|-6.22|= 0.9028
91698320|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|2.49|||=|0.4699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.18||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||9.18|-4.2|= 0.4699
91698321|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|5.58|||=|0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|11.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||11.31|-0.14|= 0.0566
91730165|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0065
91730166|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0344
91730167|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0250
91730168|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0733|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0733
91730169|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.0072
91730170|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1124|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.1124
91730171|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.0199
91796220|NCT01298531|183470966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of secondary endpoints was an ANCOVA using linear regression with Baseline NSAID score and MMRM was run using the model as detailed for the primary endpoint and using the repeated measures for the changes from Baseline in each outcome at Week 4.||-0.18|-1.68|0.0153
91866958|NCT01830595|183626857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91866959|NCT03280030|183626874|OTHER|Success criteria is considered based on point estimated Hazard ratio|Hazard Ratio, log|1.326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|2.818||||||||2.818|0.624|
91866960|NCT01983683|183626900|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%|Difference between 2 proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||1.3|-10.7|
91730172|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2331|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.2331
91730173|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.0024
91730174|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1672|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.1672
91866961|NCT01983683|183626900|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%|Difference between 2 proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Sensitivity analysis with imputation for a single day with missing UBM data between one day before end-of-treatment (EOT) and 2 days after EOT||2.3|-9.6|
91730175|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.0047
91730176|NCT04250207|183355744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.0625
91730177|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2434|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.2434
91730178|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2126|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.2126
91698322|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.57|||=|0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|13.44||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||13.44|1.71|= 0.0122
91730179|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||0.0790
91730180|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3043|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||0.3043
91866962|NCT01983683|183626901|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%|Difference between 2 proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.6|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson' score method|||0.6|-10.4|
91866963|NCT01983683|183626902|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above zero|Difference between 2 proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.4|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||9.4|-6.1|
91866964|NCT01983683|183626903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.24||two-sided p-value (alpha 5%) based on log-rank test stratified by first occurrence / first recurrence and geographical region.|Log Rank|||||1.24|0.86|0.7794
91866965|NCT01983683|183626904|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.044||||0.6871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA model for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the diarrhea domain scores||0.17|-0.26|0.6871
91866966|NCT01983683|183626904|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.025||||0.7833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA model for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the abdominal symptoms domain scores||0.20|-0.15|0.7833
91866967|NCT01983683|183626904|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.061||||0.4145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.21||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA model for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the other symptoms domain scores||0.21|-0.09|0.4145
91866968|NCT01983683|183626905|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.2|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||4.2|-6.5|
91866969|NCT01983683|183626906|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||3.3|-6.5|
91866970|NCT01983683|183626907|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|16.4|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||16.4|1.1|
91866971|NCT01983683|183626908|SUPERIORITY|Sensitivity analysis|Difference between 2 proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|10.9|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||10.9|-5.5|
91698323|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|4.42|||=|0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.34||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||11.34|-2.5|= 0.2176
91698324|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|6.47|||=|0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|13.49||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||13.49|-0.55|= 0.0773
91730181|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0357|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0357
91730182|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0803|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0803
91730183|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0150
91730184|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0012
91730185|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0314|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0314
91730186|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0019
91866972|NCT03400150|183626911|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.025
91866973|NCT02278185|183626969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||The difference between metabolic syndrome and treatment were evaluated with the Chi-square test|This study did not meet it's target accrual goal and thus is underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference between the two groups.|||0.46
91866974|NCT02278185|183626969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||Cohort characteristics for Metabolic Syndrome were summarized by event and arm using counts and percentages for categorical variables and the mean, standard deviation, median, and quartiles for continuous variables. The difference between metabolic syndrome and treatment were evaluated with the Chi-square test. P-values are reported based on a null hypothesis of no difference against a two-sided alternative. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Inst|Cohort characteristics for Metabolic Syndrome, the SPPB, the SHIM/FACT-P, and PSA were summarized by event and arm using counts and percentages for categorical variables and the mean, standard deviation, median, and quartiles for continuous variables. The difference between metabolic syndrome and treatment were evaluated with the Chi-square test. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was utilized to examine the difference between Month 1 and Month 12 SPPB scores. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess the difference of SHIM/FACT-P scores and PSA between arms. These tests were chosen to account for the non-normal distributions of the continuous variables. The difference between PSA progression between arms was examined using the Fisher Exact Test. A heat map of scores ordered by the highest average score was also created. P-values are reported based on a null hypothesis of no difference against a two-sided alternative. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Inst|||0.46
91730187|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0170
91730188|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0021
91730189|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0127
91730190|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0014
91866975|NCT02278185|183626980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The results are presented in the following format: N Mean (Std Dev) Median (Q1, Q3). In all cases (Overall, Arm 1, and Arm 2) we fail to reject the null hypothesis that the samples come from the same population of scores at Month 1 versus Month 12 at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.5
91698325|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|8.85|||=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|15.02||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||15.02|2.68|= 0.0054
91698326|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|10.89|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|17.17||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||17.17|4.61|= 0.0008
91698327|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|6.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|11.14||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||11.14|2.66|= 0.003
91698328|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.5|||=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|11.81||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||11.81|3.19|= 0.0016
91730191|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0677|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0677
91730192|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0243|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0243
91730193|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1867|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.1867
91730194|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.0250
91730195|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3213|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.3213
91730196|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.0298
91730197|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1449|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.1449
91730198|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0947|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.0947
91730199|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5181|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.5181
91730200|NCT04250207|183355745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1898|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.1898
91730201|NCT04250207|183355746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0021
91698329|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|2.22|||=|0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|7.01||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.01|-2.56|= 0.3643
91730202|NCT04250207|183355746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1696|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1696
91698330|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|2.82|||=|0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|7.66||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem, Lemborexant 10 mg||7.66|-2.02|= 0.2553
91698331|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|9.69|||=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|15.4||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||15.4|3.98|= 0.0016
91698332|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.29|||=|0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.79||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||12.79|1.8|= 0.0128
91730203|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4872|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.4872
91730204|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4634|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.4634
91730205|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.605|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.6050
91698333|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|8.16|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|13.81||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||13.81|2.51|= 0.0051
91730206|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4762|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.4762
91730207|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||> 0.9999
91730208|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||> 0.9999
91730209|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4227|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.4227
91730210|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.6796|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.6796
91866976|NCT02722434|183627004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1228|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1228
91866977|NCT02722434|183627005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91698334|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|5.76|||=|0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|11.18||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||11.18|0.34|= 0.0389
91698335|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|34.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.46|42.06||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||42.06|26.46|< 0.0001
91698336|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|47.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.02|55.13||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||55.13|40.02|< 0.0001
91698337|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|4.89|||=|0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|13.28||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||13.28|-3.49|= 0.2534
91698338|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|18.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|26.4||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO: Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||26.4|10.1|< 0.0001
91698339|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.06|30.35||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||30.35|14.06|< 0.0001
91698340|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|24.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.16|32.1||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||32.1|16.16|< 0.0001
91698341|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|9.59|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|17.81||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||17.81|1.36|= 0.023
91698342|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|11.43|||=|0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|19.48||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||19.48|3.38|= 0.0058
91698343|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.3|||=|0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|13.33||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5||13.33|1.27|= 0.0222
91698344|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|10.84|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|17.11||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||17.11|4.57|= 0.0013
91698345|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|0.21|||=|0.9495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|6.58||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||6.58|-6.17|= 0.9495
91698346|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|3.72|||=|0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|10.32||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO: First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||10.32|-2.88|= 0.2708
91698347|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.91|||=|0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|14.96||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||14.96|0.86|= 0.0322
91698348|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.69|||=|0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|14.71||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||14.71|0.68|= 0.0363
91698349|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|0.05|||=|0.9885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|7.24||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.24|-7.14|= 0.9885
91698350|NCT02783729|183291378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|-0.16|||=|0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|6.99||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||6.99|-7.31|= 0.9651
91698351|NCT02783729|183291379|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.47||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-0.47|-1.73|= 0.0006
91698352|NCT02783729|183291379|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.46||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-0.46|-1.71|= 0.0007
91698353|NCT02783729|183291379|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301|=|0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.91||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.91|-0.28|= 0.2951
91698354|NCT02783729|183291379|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303|=|0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.92||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.92|-0.26|= 0.2744
91730211|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4642|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.4642
91698355|NCT02783729|183291380|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063|=|0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.82||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline FSS as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.82|-3.35|= 0.2348
91698356|NCT02783729|183291380|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.067|=|0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.93||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline FSS as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.93|-3.26|= 0.2745
91698357|NCT02783729|183291380|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005|=|0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.6||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||1.6|-2.35|= 0.711
91698358|NCT02783729|183291380|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009|=|0.7854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.71||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||1.71|-2.26|= 0.7854
91698359|NCT02783729|183291381|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|30.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.505|=|0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|55.31||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||55.31|6.23|= 0.0141
91698360|NCT02783729|183291381|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|39.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.542|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.05|64.29||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||64.29|15.05|= 0.0016
91698361|NCT02783729|183291381|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.779|=|0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.34|3.9||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||3.9|-42.34|= 0.1031
91698362|NCT02783729|183291381|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.813|=|0.3825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|12.86||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||12.86|-33.5|= 0.3825
91698363|NCT02783729|183291381|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|28.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.626|=|0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.18|147.8||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||147.8|-90.18|= 0.6348
91698364|NCT02783729|183291381|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|50.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.702|=|0.4026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|169.97||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||169.97|-68.3|= 0.4026
91730212|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4645|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.4645
91730213|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.2744|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.2744
91730214|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.7026|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.7026
91730215|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.7817|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.7817
91698365|NCT02783729|183291381|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-203.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.171|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-315.56|-91.15||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||-91.15|-315.56|= 0.0004
91698366|NCT02783729|183291381|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-181.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.255|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.71|-68.96||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||-68.96|-293.71|= 0.0016
91698367|NCT02783729|183291382|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.141|=|0.9936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.16|8.09||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||8.09|-8.16|= 0.9936
91698368|NCT02783729|183291382|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.154|=|0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|2.3||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||2.3|-14|= 0.1595
91698369|NCT02783729|183291382|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.894|=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|20.38||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||20.38|5.09|= 0.0011
91698370|NCT02783729|183291382|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.913|=|0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|14.6||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||14.6|-0.76|= 0.0774
91698371|NCT02783729|183291382|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|=|0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.12||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||1.12|-0.42|= 0.3726
91698372|NCT02783729|183291382|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394|=|0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.33||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.33|-1.22|= 0.2579
91698373|NCT02783729|183291382|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.11||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||2.11|0.66|= 0.0002
91730216|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.9285|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.9285
91698374|NCT02783729|183291382|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372|=|0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.32||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||1.32|-0.14|= 0.112
91698375|NCT03421145|183291388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91698376|NCT03421145|183291389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91698377|NCT03421145|183291390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91698378|NCT03421145|183291391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91698379|NCT03421145|183291392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91698380|NCT00474201|183291394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Students paired, two-tailed T-test||"Null hypothesis: lopinavir-ritonavir does not alter gemfibrozil pharmacokinetics.~A sample size of 13 healthy subjects yielded 81% power to detect a clinically relevant change of 30% in gemfibrozil AUC with concomitant lopinavir-ritonavir (alpha = 0.05; beta = 0.2). Gemfibrozil pharmacokinetic parameters derived pre- and post lopinavir-ritonavir exposure (Days 1 and 14, respectively) were compared using a paired Students t test."||||<0.0001
91698381|NCT00750139|183291397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The first primary efficacy analyses will use the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after stratification by pooled clinical site. The test will be conducted with the FAS at a one-sided level of significance of α = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The first primary efficacy hypotheses tests are:~H01: p1 ≤ p01 vs. H1: p1 \> p01 where p01 and p1 denote the proportions of complete cure in the placebo 2wks and NAFT-500 groups, respectively."||||0.010
91698382|NCT00750139|183291397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The second primary efficacy analyses will use the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after stratification by pooled clinical site. The test will be conducted with the FAS at a one-sided level of significance of α = 0.025|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The second primary efficacy hypotheses tests are:~H02: p2 ≤ P02 vs. H2: P2 \> p02 where p02 and p2 are denote proportions of complete cure in the placebo 4wks and Naftin 1% groups, respectively"||||0.001
91698383|NCT01082211|183291447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Assuming a 3-year rate of 25% using a chi-squared test, a sample size of 55 patients will ensure at least 90% probability of detecting a reduction in the 3-year ipsilateral in-breast recurrence rate from 25% to 9%, with a significance level of 0.05 (1-sided). In-breast recurrence will be estimated using the cumulative incidence method.||||0.0002
91866978|NCT02722434|183627006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sensory Subscale||||0.79
91698384|NCT01082211|183291455|OTHER||Effect size|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Functional status||||
91698385|NCT01082211|183291455|OTHER||Effect size|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Cosmetic||||
91698386|NCT01082211|183291455|OTHER||Effect size|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Breast-specific pain||||
91698387|NCT01082211|183291456|OTHER||Effect size|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Functional status||||
91698388|NCT01082211|183291456|OTHER||Effect size|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Cosmetic||||
91698389|NCT01082211|183291456|OTHER||Effect size|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Breast-specific pain||||
91698390|NCT01082211|183291458|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Spearman rank-order correlation test|||||||0.054
91698391|NCT01082211|183291458|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Spearman rank-order correlation test|||||||0.044
91698392|NCT01082211|183291458|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Spearman rank-order correlation test|||||||0.087
91698393|NCT04338269|183291480|OTHER|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.28|0.83|0.7844
91698394|NCT04338269|183291480|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||1.29|0.84|0.7195
91698395|NCT04338269|183291481|OTHER|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.27|0.70|0.6902
91698396|NCT04338269|183291481|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7853||95.0|0.71|1.27|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|||1.27|0.71|0.7853
91698397|NCT04338269|183291482|OTHER|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.27|0.83|0.8037
91698398|NCT04338269|183291482|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|||1.27|0.83|0.7894
91698399|NCT04338269|183291483|OTHER|Difference in Overall Response Rates|Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.68||||0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio 95% CI was constructed using the Wald method. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor containing the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis|||5.10|-12.45|0.4306
91698400|NCT04338269|183291484|OTHER|Difference in Overall Response Rates|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio 95% CI was constructed using the Wald method. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor containing the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis|||1.43|0.70|0.9893
91698401|NCT04338269|183291485|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.05|0.47|0.0816
91698402|NCT04338269|183291485|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1099||95.0|0.49|1.08|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.08|0.49|0.1099
91698403|NCT04338269|183291486|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.54|0.70|0.8354
91698404|NCT04338269|183291486|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.55|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.55|0.71|0.8159
91698405|NCT00174967|183291487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91698406|NCT00174967|183291487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91730217|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0135|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.0135
91698407|NCT00174967|183291487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91698408|NCT00174967|183291488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91698409|NCT00174967|183291488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91698410|NCT00174967|183291488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91730218|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.6992|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.6992
91698411|NCT00174967|183291489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91698412|NCT00174967|183291489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91759121|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being||||0.1639
91698413|NCT00174967|183291489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91698414|NCT00174967|183291490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91698415|NCT00174967|183291490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91698416|NCT00174967|183291490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91698417|NCT00174967|183291491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698418|NCT00174967|183291491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91866979|NCT02722434|183627006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Motor Subscale||||0.43
91866980|NCT02722434|183627006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Autonomic Subscale||||0.97
91698419|NCT00174967|183291491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698420|NCT00174967|183291492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698421|NCT00174967|183291492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698422|NCT00174967|183291492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698423|NCT00174967|183291493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698424|NCT00174967|183291493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91730219|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0135|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||0.0135
91698425|NCT00174967|183291493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698426|NCT00174967|183291494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698427|NCT00174967|183291494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698428|NCT00174967|183291494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698429|NCT00174967|183291495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698430|NCT00174967|183291495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91730220|NCT04250207|183355747|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.5154|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||0.5154
91730221|NCT04250207|183355748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1209|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1209
91730222|NCT04250207|183355748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7116|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7116
91759122|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1738|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning||||0.1738
91759123|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning||||0.0401
91698431|NCT00174967|183291495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698432|NCT00174967|183291496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698433|NCT00174967|183291496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698434|NCT00174967|183291496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698435|NCT02730377|183291499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Test for no treatment difference is based on using a generalised log-rank test for interval censored failure time data.||||<.0001
91698436|NCT03917472|183291539|SUPERIORITY|(1-sided)|LS mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.9|||ANOVA|||||2.9|-0.6|0.099
91698437|NCT03917472|183291539|NON_INFERIORITY|(4-letter margin) (1-sided)|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91698438|NCT03917472|183291540|SUPERIORITY|(1-sided); Week 52|LS mean difference|-41.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-23.8|||ANOVA|||||-23.8|-58.9|<0.001
91698439|NCT03917472|183291541|SUPERIORITY|(1-sided) Week 52|Difference - %|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|28.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||||28.6|12.5|<0.001
91698440|NCT03917472|183291548|OTHER|Descriptive|Difference - %|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||≥ 5 letters gain from baseline or BCVA ≥ 84 letters at Week 52||17.0|1.7|
91759124|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects||||0.2753
91698441|NCT03917472|183291548|OTHER|Descriptive|Difference - %|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||≥ 10 letters gain from baseline or BCVA ≥ 84 letters at Week 52||17.0|-1.5|
91698442|NCT03917472|183291548|OTHER|Descriptive|Difference - %|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||≥ 15 letters gain from baseline or BCVA ≥ 84 letters at Week 52||14.3|-2.7|
91698443|NCT03917472|183291549|OTHER|descriptive; week 12|Difference - %|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|16.5|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||16.5|0.2|
91698444|NCT03917472|183291549|OTHER|descriptive; week 24|Difference - %|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|14.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||14.9|-3.0|
91698445|NCT03917472|183291549|NON_INFERIORITY|(10% margin); week 52|Difference - %|6.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|16.1||(10% margin) (1-sided)|Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||16.1|-3.9|0.002
91698446|NCT03917472|183291550|OTHER|descriptive; week 12|Difference - %|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||6.6|-2.5|
91698447|NCT03917472|183291550|OTHER|descriptive; week 24|Difference - %|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.7|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||7.7|-3.0|
91698448|NCT03917472|183291550|OTHER|descriptive; week 52|Difference - %|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.8|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||9.8|-2.0|
91730223|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0915|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||0.0915
91796221|NCT01298531|183470967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.0|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of secondary endpoints was an ANCOVA using linear regression with Baseline NSAID score and MMRM was run using the model as detailed for the primary endpoint and using the repeated measures for the changes from Baseline in each outcome at Week 8.||0.00|-1.76|0.0510
91698449|NCT01154296|183291554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted risk ratio (aRR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented risk ratios, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The aRRs reported are based on the multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Mantel Haenszel|||A total of 2039/2505 participants randomized to the counseling group and 2032/2507 to the information-only group had complete follow-up STI data. Cumulative STI incidence was 250/2039 (12.3%) in the counseling group and 226/2032 (11.1%) in the information-only group (aRR, 1.12; 95%CI, 0.94-1.33).||1.33|0.94|
91698450|NCT01154296|183291555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||1.09|0.90|
91698451|NCT01154296|183291556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||1.13|0.86|
91698452|NCT01154296|183291557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.94|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||0.94|0.82|
91698453|NCT01154296|183291558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||1.05|0.90|
91730224|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.3282|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||0.3282
91730225|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0648|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.0648
91698454|NCT01154296|183291559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Risk Ratio (aRR)|1.14||||||95.0|0.89|1.46||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented risk ratios, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The aRRs reported are based on the multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.46|0.89|
91698455|NCT04934189|183291570|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.295|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.184||0.08|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.08
91866981|NCT00336505|183627088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.5667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.9|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||8.9|-4.8|0.5667
91698456|NCT04934189|183291571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.417|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month follow-up mean) was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.005
91698457|NCT04934189|183291573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.103|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||0.40
91730226|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.031|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.0310
91730227|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0187|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0187
91730228|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0036
91730229|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0687|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0687
91730230|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0016
91730231|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0218|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.0218
91730232|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0013|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.0013
91730233|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0348|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.0348
91888757|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.17|0.2825
91730234|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.1028
91730235|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.8677|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.8677
91730236|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4401|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.4401
91730237|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.5926|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.5926
91730238|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0732|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.0732
91698458|NCT04934189|183291574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month follow-up) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.49
91698459|NCT04934189|183291576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.195|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.41||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.21
91698460|NCT04934189|183291577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.47
91698461|NCT04934189|183291579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.16
91698462|NCT04934189|183291580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0481|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.926||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.38
91698463|NCT04934189|183291582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.73||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.35
91698464|NCT04934189|183291583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.335|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.05||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.17
91698465|NCT04934189|183291587|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for gender nonaffirmation was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|2.18||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
91698466|NCT04934189|183291587|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for internalized transphobia was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|1.29||||0.1|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significant was p \<.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.10
91698467|NCT04934189|183291587|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for identity nondisclosure was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|0.17||||0.43|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.43
91730239|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.2497|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.2497
91730240|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.2453|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.2453
91730241|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||> 0.9999
91730242|NCT04250207|183355749|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||> 0.9999
91730243|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0093|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||0.0093
91759125|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0056
91759126|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.1173
91759127|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.0268
91698468|NCT04934189|183291587|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for negative expectations was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.68||||0.25|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.25
91698469|NCT04934189|183291587|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for community connection was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.36||||0.36|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.36
91698470|NCT04934189|183291587|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for pride was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.09||||0.47|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.47
91698471|NCT04934189|183291588|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for gender nonaffirmation was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|3.76|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided||||"A series of one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean for each of the five gender minority stress subscales measured. See below for T-scores and associated p-values for each statistical test.~Nonaffirmation (t = 3.76; p = .001) Internalized Transphobia (t = 2.01; p = .02) Negative Expectations (t = 2.06; p =.02) Community Connection (t = -0.82; p =.21) Pride (t = .01; p = .50 )"|||<.001
91698472|NCT04934189|183291588|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for internalized transphobia was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|2.01||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
91698473|NCT04934189|183291588|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for identity nondisclosure was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|1.61||||0.06|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.06
91698474|NCT04934189|183291588|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for negative expectations was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|2.06||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
91698475|NCT04934189|183291588|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for community connection was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.818||||0.21|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.21
91698476|NCT04934189|183291588|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for pride was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|0.009||||0.5|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.50
91698477|NCT04934189|183291591|OTHER||Chi-squared|5.59||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05|Chi-squared|||For this categorical data, chi-square tests of independence were performed to compare post-treatment (i.e., 3 month followup) vs 6 month followup numbers of participants reporting freedom from sexual victimization over a 6 month time period||||.04
91698478|NCT04934189|183291591|OTHER|For this categorical data, chi-square tests of independence were performed to compare post-treatment (i.e., 3 month followup) vs 6 month followup numbers of participants reporting any exposure to nonpenetrative sexual assault over a 6 month time period|Chi-squared|0.21||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|Chi-squared|||||||.55
91698479|NCT04934189|183291591|OTHER|For this categorical data, chi-square tests of independence were performed to compare post-treatment (i.e., 3 month followup) vs 6 month followup numbers of participants reporting exposure to rape over a 6 month time period|Chi-squared|0.11||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|Chi-squared|||||||.59
91698480|NCT04934189|183291593|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.38
91698481|NCT04934189|183291594|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.265|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.25|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.25
91698482|NCT01194999|183291595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No significant difference from baseline to final follow-up.||||0.001
91698483|NCT03834974|183291608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in change in intent to tan outdoors 10 or more times in the next year.||||<0.0286
91698484|NCT03834974|183291608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0937|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in change in in intent to tan later in life.||||0.0937
91698485|NCT03834974|183291612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in tanning outside at follow-up||||<0.0002
91698486|NCT03330262|183291652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91698487|NCT03330262|183291653|OTHER|Ho: mean change = 0||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
91698488|NCT03330262|183291653|OTHER|Ho: mean change = 0||||||0.869|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.869
91698489|NCT03330262|183291654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.448
91698490|NCT03330262|183291655|OTHER|This test evaluated whether the change in ABC was significant for the BALCAP condition##. Ho: mean = 0||||||0.273|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.273
91698491|NCT03330262|183291655|OTHER|This test evaluated if the change in ABC score was significant for the control group.||||||0.796|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.796
91698492|NCT03330262|183291656|OTHER|Ho: Mean change in score = 0||||||0.189|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.189
91698493|NCT03330262|183291656|OTHER|Ho: mean change = 0||||||0.713|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.713
91698494|NCT01647516|183291677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.262||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|10.984|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||10.984|0.969|0.0482
91698495|NCT01647516|183291677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|8.661|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||8.661|0.722|0.1422
91698496|NCT01647516|183291678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.158||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|4.263|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||4.263|1.093|0.0207
91698497|NCT01647516|183291678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.947||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|3.946|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||3.946|0.961|0.0648
91698498|NCT01647516|183291679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model, adjusting for baseline Mayo score and prior anti-TNF (yes or no).||||||0.0042
91698499|NCT01647516|183291679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1415|||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model, adjusting for baseline Mayo score and prior anti-TNF (yes or no).||||||0.1415
91698500|NCT01647516|183291680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.861||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.572|9.484|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||9.484|1.572|0.0023
91698501|NCT01647516|183291680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.647||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|6.621|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||6.621|1.058|0.0348
91698502|NCT01647516|183291681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.332||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.323|14.186|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||14.186|1.323|0.0108
91698503|NCT01647516|183291681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.443||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.706|17.365|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||17.365|1.706|0.0021
91698504|NCT01647516|183291682|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.871|8.678|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.678|1.871|0.0002
91698505|NCT01647516|183291682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.154||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|4.763|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||4.763|0.974|0.0571
91904791|NCT05314712|183704791|OTHER|Mixed effects linear regression model of hours slept||||||||||||There was no hypothesis test. All participants received the 7-week intervention - there was no comparison group. A variable selection approach (AIC) was used for including the final variables in the model.||||Since all participants in this pilot study received in the intervention and data was collected pre and post intervention, there was no hypothesis test. The data was analyzed using a mixed effects linear regression model. Variables in final model were included after variable selection (details below).|Using an exhaustive search of all models (dredge) that could be formed from predictor variables partner sleep rating, perceived stress, DASS scale, 8-item diet scale, amount of screen time, amount of time between bed time and wake time, amount of time to fall asleep, hours of sleep, sleep rating score, indicator variable if the child played outside, bed time, and wake time, adult height in inches, adult BMI, adult's highest education attained, the number of children in the household, grade of the child, child height in inches, child BMI, age of the child, and gender of the child, requiring the the timing of the survey be in the model, and accounting for repeated measurements over time, using AIC as the selection criterion we looked for the model with the smallest AIC value. The final model for hours slept included the covariates number of children in the household, indicator variable if child played outside, and baseline hours slept.|||
91904792|NCT04360551|183704848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.244
91904793|NCT04360551|183704849|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.5
91904794|NCT03496012|183704860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|2.9|||=|0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|15.0|||Fisher's Exact|||||15|-3.1|=0.354
91904795|NCT03496012|183704860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|4.6|||=|0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.8|||Fisher's Exact|||||12.8|-1.4|=0.245
91730244|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||> 0.9999
91730245|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.0006
91904796|NCT03496012|183704862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|32.2||||||||32.2|5.3|
91730246|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.3449|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.3449
91730247|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0028
91730248|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0028
91730249|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0001
91904797|NCT03496012|183704862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|23.0||||||||23|3.5|
91904798|NCT03496012|183704863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|21.0||||||||21|-17.2|
91904799|NCT03496012|183704863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|30.1||||||||30.1|0.3|
91904800|NCT02232802|183704908|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, Cmax values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|least square mean difference ratio|99.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.28|102.65|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Statistical comparison for Anti-FXa||102.65|96.28|
91904801|NCT02232802|183704908|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, Cmax was subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean difference ratio|91.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.65|96.73|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Statistical comparison on Anti-FIIa||96.73|86.65|
91698506|NCT01647516|183291683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.557||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.444|8.762|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||8.762|1.444|0.0046
91698507|NCT01647516|183291683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.428||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.384|8.494|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||8.494|1.384|0.0064
91698508|NCT03886519|183291687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.03||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 eyes of a participant and baseline trichiasis severity.||||1.03|0.52|0.07
91698509|NCT04964544|183291695|OTHER||Percentage|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.9|92.3|||||Proportion of participants|Proportion of participants with overall correct initial TASS assessment, with mitigations, worst case imputation (Self-Selection Population)||92.3|88.9|
91698510|NCT04964544|183291696|OTHER||Percentage|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|98.8|||||Proportion of participants|Proportion of participants with overall correct final TASS assessment, with mitigations, worst case imputation (Per Protocol Population)||98.8|97.1|
91698511|NCT04964544|183291697|OTHER||Mean percent change from paseline|-35.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.63|-34.33||||||||-34.33|-36.63|
91698512|NCT04143594|183291730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6||||0.7178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|13.2||P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing and the B/F/TAF groups, and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||13.2|-18.4|0.7178
91730250|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0028
91730251|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
91730252|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.0028
91698513|NCT04143594|183291730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|9.3||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||9.3|-23.4|0.3900
91698514|NCT04143594|183291730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.2||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|9.1||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||9.1|-23.5|0.3797
91730253|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
91730254|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0011|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.0011
91730255|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0094|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.0094
91730256|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1281|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.1281
91730257|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0051|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.0051
91730258|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1313|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.1313
91730259|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0268|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.0268
91730260|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.3652|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.3652
91730261|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1854|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||0.1854
91730262|NCT04250207|183355750|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||> 0.9999
91730263|NCT04250207|183355751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0259|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0259
91730264|NCT04250207|183355751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0068
91730265|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4435|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.4435
91698515|NCT04143594|183291731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.5||||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.8||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||4.8|-15.9|0.2398
91698516|NCT04143594|183291731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.4||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|3.4||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||3.4|-18.3|0.1639
91698517|NCT04143594|183291731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.7||||0.2307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.9||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||4.9|-16.3|0.2307
91698518|NCT04143594|183291732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-6.7||||0.3142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|7.3||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||7.3|-20.7|0.3142
91698519|NCT04143594|183291732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.2||||0.3009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|6.8||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||6.8|-21.3|0.3009
91698520|NCT04143594|183291732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.6||||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|6.7||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||6.7|-21.8|0.2859
91698521|NCT04143594|183291733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.1||||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|9.0||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||9.0|-23.2|0.3686
91698522|NCT04143594|183291733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-16.5||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|1.0||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||1.0|-34.0|0.0887
91866982|NCT00336505|183627090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||>|0.9999||95.0|-4.5|5.1|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||5.1|-4.5|>0.9999
91866983|NCT01185600|183627113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.142
91866984|NCT01185600|183627114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0391|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0391
91698523|NCT04143594|183291733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.4||||0.4949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|10.7||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||10.7|-21.5|0.4949
91730266|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3402|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.3402
91730267|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||> 0.9999
91730268|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0655|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0655
91730269|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0903|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0903
91730270|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0216
91730271|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0020
91730272|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0676|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0676
91866985|NCT01185600|183627115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.372
91866986|NCT01185600|183627116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1007
91866987|NCT01185600|183627117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0964
91866988|NCT01185600|183627118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1739
91730273|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0029
91730274|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0335|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0335
91730275|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0053
91730276|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0608|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0608
91730277|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0071|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0071
91698524|NCT04143594|183291734|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.08||||0.5755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.37||P-value was from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.37|-0.20|0.5755
91698525|NCT04143594|183291734|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.02||||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.29|-0.25|0.8697
91698526|NCT04143594|183291734|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.06||||0.7052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.35||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.35|-0.23|0.7052
91698527|NCT04143594|183291735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.02||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.30|-0.26|0.8942
91698528|NCT04143594|183291735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02||||0.9058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.25|-0.28|0.9058
91698529|NCT04143594|183291735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.04||||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.35||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.35|-0.27|0.8129
91730278|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4406|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.4406
91730279|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1716|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.1716
91730280|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9856|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.9856
91904802|NCT02232802|183704909|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-t values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean difference ratio|102.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.67|105.15|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FXa statistical comparison||105.15|100.67|
91730281|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2229|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.2229
91730282|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8817|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.8817
91730283|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2081|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.2081
91730284|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7335|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.7335
91730285|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5367|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.5367
91730286|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.5550
91730287|NCT04250207|183355752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8718|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.8718
91730288|NCT05263791|183355757|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective to prove the non-inferiority in between the Airmod and reference device is determined by the difference between AirRR and ManCRR.|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t Test|||Hypothesis: airRR-mancRR ≦ -3, In the target of p\<0.05 indicates significance.||||<0.001
91730289|NCT05263791|183355758|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis tested is demonstrated airRR non-inferior to acoRR when the capnostream is less sensitive.|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t Test|||"In this study, a non-inferiority test was conducted during periods of reduced sensitivity in capnography to compare respiratory rate measurements using the Airmod device (airRR) versus manually scored auscultation sounds (referred to as acoRR, implying manARR in the statistical analysis plan). The research physician identified periods of reduced sensitivity in capnography."||||<0.001
91730290|NCT05263791|183355760|SUPERIORITY|This analysis were examined to assess the responsiveness of Airmod and Capnography.|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t Test|||The hypothesis tested whether the response times obtained with the Airmod device were equal to those recorded with Capnography.||||<0.001
91698530|NCT04143594|183291736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.04||||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.33|-0.25|0.7864
91730291|NCT05263791|183355761|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective to prove the non-inferiority in between the Airmod and reference device is determined by the difference between AirRR and ManCRR by subjects.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t Test|||Hypothesis: airRR-mancRR ≦ -2, In the target of p\<0.05 indicates significance.||||<0.05
91730292|NCT04135443|183355813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.027||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|2.063|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.063|0.511|0.94
91730293|NCT04135443|183355815|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.064||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.455
91730294|NCT04135443|183355816|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.026||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.702
91730295|NCT04135443|183355817|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.049||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.375
91730296|NCT04135443|183355818|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.076||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.313
91730297|NCT04135443|183355819|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.890
91730298|NCT02554474|183355839|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|19.3||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing time in MVPA at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline MVPA, diagnosis, and blocking.||19.3|-0.5|
91730299|NCT02554474|183355840|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|32.6||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing sedentary time at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline sedentary time, diagnosis, and blocking.||32.6|-53.4|
91730300|NCT02554474|183355841|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing time in the Fatigue Severity Scale at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline fatigue score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.01|-0.63|
91730301|NCT02554474|183355842|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.13||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing pain at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for pain score, diagnosis, and blocking.||-0.13|-4.78|
91730302|NCT02554474|183355843|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.35||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the PHQ-9 scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||1.35|-1.78|
91730303|NCT02554474|183355844|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|4.18||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Partners In Health Scale scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||4.18|-1.02|
91730304|NCT02554474|183355845|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Sitting at Work index scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.16|-0.05|
91730305|NCT02554474|183355846|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.37||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Sitting at Leisure index scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.37|-0.37|
91730306|NCT02554474|183355847|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.99||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Walking index scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.99|0.08|
91730307|NCT02770365|183355859|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|12.53|||Wald's method|||||12.53|-2.92|
91730308|NCT02770365|183355860|EQUIVALENCE|the proportion of subjects with treatment success based on the improvement of the Most Bothersome Symptom (MBS) of vulvo-vaginal atrophy at Day 8.|equivalence ratio|0.94||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.35|4.31|||Wald's method|||||4.31|-12.35|0.05
91730309|NCT00489476|183355878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0212
91730310|NCT00489476|183355878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0106
91730311|NCT00489476|183355879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0123
91730312|NCT00489476|183355879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0228
91730313|NCT00489476|183355880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0409
91730314|NCT04003389|183355887|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline at Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment \& smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight \& baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||LSMeans (LSM), standard errors (SE), confidence intervals (CI)||0.21|-0.36|0.0604
91730315|NCT04003389|183355887|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.11||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.45|0.239
91730316|NCT04003389|183355889|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.014||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.014|0.001|0.029
91730317|NCT04003389|183355889|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.007||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.007|-0.006|0.867
91730318|NCT04003389|183355889|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.012||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.012|0.001|0.027
91730319|NCT04003389|183355889|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.008||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.008|-0.003|0.410
91730320|NCT04003389|183355889|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.087||95.0|-0.001|0.011||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.011|-0.001|0.087
91730321|NCT04003389|183355889|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.259||95.0|-0.002|0.009||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.009|-0.002|0.259
91698531|NCT04143594|183291736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.05||||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.21||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.21|-0.31|0.7013
91698532|NCT04143594|183291736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.22||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.62|-0.18|0.2753
91796222|NCT01298531|183470969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.209||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with baseline score and treatment group included as covariates.||0.65|0.07|0.0066
91796223|NCT01298531|183470970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.7||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.01|-16.38|||ANCOVA|||The changes from baseline in the continuous endpoints of mini BASDAI was analyzed using ANCOVA. The total NSAID score for the first 8 weeks of randomized treatment was calculated as an AUC using the linear trapezoidal rule.||-16.38|-91.01|0.0053
91796224|NCT01298531|183470971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.963||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||8.01|1.10|0.0324
91796225|NCT01298531|183470974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.696||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect. Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||7.27|1.00|0.0501
91796226|NCT01298531|183470976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.103||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect. Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||8.54|1.13|0.0284
91796227|NCT01298531|183470978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|9.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect. Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||9.72|0.47|0.3291
91796228|NCT01298531|183470979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS CRP score fitting baseline ASDAS CRP score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.44|-1.11|<0.0001
91796229|NCT01298531|183470980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS CRP score fitting baseline ASDAS CRP score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.28|-1.09|0.0011
91796230|NCT01298531|183470982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS ESR score fitting baseline ASDAS ESR score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.24|-0.90|0.0011
91796231|NCT01298531|183470983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS ESR score fitting baseline ASDAS ESR score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.22|-1.11|0.0037
91866989|NCT01185600|183627119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7205|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7205
91866990|NCT01185600|183627120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Binomial|1.64||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided||"Using Negative Binomial Regression the following ratio and corresponding 95% CI were obtained:~(# of AE's, Unwashed Group / (# of AE's, Washed Group) = 1.64 95% C.I. = \[1.06 - 2.55\]"|||2.55|1.06|0.0176
91698533|NCT04143594|183291737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.08||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.34||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.34|-0.19|0.5640
91730322|NCT04003389|183355890|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.102||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.102|-0.006|0.079
91796232|NCT01298531|183470987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BAS-G score fitting baseline BAS-G score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.40|-2.20|0.0050
91796233|NCT01298531|183470988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BAS-G score fitting baseline BAS-G score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.16|-2.33|0.0256
91796234|NCT01298531|183470990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline total back pain fitting baseline total back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.01|-2.00|0.0474
91796235|NCT01298531|183470991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline total back pain fitting baseline total back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.20|-2.36|0.0212
91796236|NCT01298531|183470993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline nocturnal back pain fitting baseline nocturnal back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.21|-2.40|0.0198
91796237|NCT01298531|183470994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline nocturnal back pain fitting baseline nocturnal back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.32|-2.69|0.0132
91866991|NCT05405244|183627121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Snack intake||||0.45
91866992|NCT05405244|183627121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Milkshake intake||||0.28
91866993|NCT05405244|183627122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pleasantness||||0.89
91866994|NCT05405244|183627122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Desire to consume||||<0.001
91866995|NCT03455985|183627143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
91698534|NCT04143594|183291737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.01||||0.9555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.26|-0.28|0.9555
91698535|NCT04143594|183291737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.14||||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.46||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.46|-0.19|0.4025
91698536|NCT04143594|183291738|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|12.0||||0.7751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|97.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||97|-73|0.7751
91698537|NCT04143594|183291738|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.0||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.0|75.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||75|-79|0.9549
91698538|NCT04143594|183291738|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|44.0||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|120.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||120|-33|0.2603
91698539|NCT04143594|183291739|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-31.0||||0.4827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.0|57.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||57|-119|0.4827
91698540|NCT04143594|183291739|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-12.0||||0.7963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.0|81.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||81|-106|0.7963
91698541|NCT04143594|183291739|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-22.0||||0.6169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.0|67.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||67|-111|0.6169
91698542|NCT04143594|183291740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|21.0||||0.6614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|115.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||115|-73|0.6614
91698543|NCT04143594|183291740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|20.0||||0.6791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|115.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||115|-75|0.6791
91698544|NCT04143594|183291740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|27.0||||0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|120.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||120|-65|0.5563
91730323|NCT04003389|183355890|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.053||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.053|-0.052|0.980
91698545|NCT04143594|183291741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|32.0||||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|140.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||140|-75|0.5492
91698546|NCT04143594|183291741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|17.0||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|115.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Difference in LSM||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||115|-80|0.7220
91698547|NCT04143594|183291741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.0||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|110.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||110|-118|0.9486
91698548|NCT01023256|183291768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.095
91730324|NCT04003389|183355890|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.042||95.0|0.002|0.094||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.094|0.002|0.042
91730325|NCT04003389|183355890|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.386||95.0|-0.025|0.065||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.065|-0.025|0.386
91759128|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final||||0.4406
91698549|NCT01023256|183291768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||<0.0001
91866996|NCT03455985|183627144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
91866997|NCT03455985|183627145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91866998|NCT03455985|183627146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.39
91866999|NCT00754065|183627147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||F-statistic|9.3218||||0.0024||||||Comparison of EV/DNG vs. EE/NGM|ANOVA|||2-way ANOVA model with treatment and pain strata (headache and pelvic pain) as factors||||0.0024
91867000|NCT04353492|183627266|OTHER|tested by a lower tailed test at 0.05 significance level|||||<|0.0001|||||||negative binomial regresion|||The null hypothesis (H0): ARR \>= 0.18||||<0.0001
91867001|NCT00857766|183627289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.42||||0.065||95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference is calculated as FSC 250/50 minus Placebo and is adjusted for treatment, investigator, sex, smoking status, age, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, treatment by sex interaction, age by BMI interaction, and baseline value.|||0.03|-0.88|0.065
91867002|NCT00857766|183627290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares analysis|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.469||95.0|-2.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-2.3|0.469
91867003|NCT00857766|183627291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares analysis|127.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.5|<|0.001||95.0|57.0|197.0|||ANCOVA|||||197|57|<0.001
91698550|NCT01023256|183291768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.003
91698551|NCT01023256|183291770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.421
91698552|NCT01023256|183291770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.003
91730326|NCT04003389|183355890|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.156||95.0|-0.016|0.099||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.099|-0.016|0.156
91730327|NCT04003389|183355890|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.084||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.084|-0.028|0.328
91730328|NCT04003389|183355891|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.497||95.0|-0.005|0.009||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.009|-0.005|0.497
91730329|NCT04003389|183355891|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.878||95.0|-0.007|0.006||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.006|-0.007|0.878
91867004|NCT01961609|183627292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|65.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.375|52.4|76.7|||two-sided binomial exact test||A Bonferroni adjustment adjusting for 8 analyses have been applied.|||76.7|52.4|<0.0001
91867005|NCT01988402|183627309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91867006|NCT00571649|183627338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.771||||0.0211||95.0|0.618|0.962||Hochberg procedure: A 2-sided p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant, if the 1-sided p-value of the other primary efficacy outcome measure was less than 0.025, elsewise a p-value of less than 0.025 would be considered significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||A sample size of 2876 valid patients per group was estimated to obtain a joint power of at least 90% for both primary endpoints (91.4% for superiority) with 4% event rate at day 35 for comparator and 40% relative risk reduction.||0.962|0.618|0.0211
91867007|NCT00571649|183627339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rivaroxaban would be considered at least as effective as the comparator if the upper limit of the CI (Confidence Interval) was less than 1.5|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.968||||0.0025||95.0|0.713|1.314||Hochberg procedure: A 1-sided p-value of less than 0.025 would be considered significant, if the 2-sided p-value of the other primary efficacy outcome measure was less than 0.05, elsewise a p-value of less than 0.0125 would be considered significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||A sample size of 2876 valid patients per group was estimated to obtain a joint power of at least 90% for both primary endpoints (98.6% power for non-inferiority) with 1.8% event rate at day 10 for comparator and 35% relative risk reduction.||1.314|0.713|0.0025
91867008|NCT00571649|183627340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.931||||0.3758||95.0|0.795|1.091||Test hierarchy: A p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant, if the tests for the two primary efficacy outcome measures were significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||||1.091|0.795|0.3758
91867009|NCT00571649|183627341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.991||||0.9473||95.0|0.753|1.304||"Test hierarchy: A p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant, if the tests for the 2 primary efficacy outcomes and for Composite endpoint of VTE (any DVT, non fatal PE) and all-cause mortality up to Day 35 + 6 days were significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||||1.304|0.753|0.9473
91867010|NCT00571649|183627350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.455|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.854|3.251||2-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||There was no sample size estimation as this was not planed as confirmatory analysis||3.251|1.854|<0.0001
91867011|NCT00571649|183627351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.272|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.628|3.171||2-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There was no sample size estimation as this was not planed as confirmatory analysis||3.171|1.628|<0.0001
91867012|NCT02397096|183627359|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine/Lamivudine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (DOR/3TC/TDF) once daily (QD) ISG is concluded to be non-inferior to baseline regimen DSG if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -8 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|-3.784|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.877|0.31|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.||Superiority of an immediate switch to DOR/3TC/TDF over continuation of the baseline regimen was defined by a lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates being greater than zero (contingent upon satisfying the multiplicity criteria).|0.310|-7.877|
91867013|NCT02397096|183627360|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-14.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.92|-10.38|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid-lowering therapy at Study Day 1 and treatment.|||-10.38|-18.92|<0.0001
91867014|NCT02397096|183627361|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-23.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-18.05|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid-lowering therapy at Study Day 1 and treatment.|||-18.05|-28.00|<0.0001
91904803|NCT02232802|183704909|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-t values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|least square mean difference ratio|92.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.72|97.25|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FIIa comparison||97.25|87.72|
91904804|NCT02232802|183704910|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-inf values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean ratio|104.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.68|106.9|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FXA comparison||106.9|101.68|
91867015|NCT02397096|183627362|NON_INFERIORITY|DOR/3TC/TDF QD ISG is concluded to be non-inferior to baseline regimen DSG if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -8 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|-0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.706|2.952|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.||Superiority of an immediate switch to DOR/3TC/TDF over continuation of the baseline regimen was defined by a lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates being greater than zero (contingent upon satisfying the multiplicity criteria).|2.952|-4.706|
91867016|NCT02397096|183627363|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|23.5|||||95% CIs were calculated based on t-distribution.|||23.5|-31.6|
91867017|NCT02397096|183627364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|15.4|||||95% Confidence Intervals were based on t-distribution.|||15.4|-41.1|
91867018|NCT02397096|183627365|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.977|0.864|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||0.864|-7.977|
91867019|NCT02397096|183627366|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.427|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.591|3.738|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||3.738|-4.591|
91867020|NCT02397096|183627367|NON_INFERIORITY|DOR/3TC/TDF QD ISG is concluded to be non-inferior to baseline regimen DSG if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -4 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|-0.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.529|2.064|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||2.064|-2.529|
91867021|NCT03275285|183627379|SUPERIORITY|For PFS, the nominal significance levels at primary analysis was determined using alpha-spending function in order to control overall 1-sided type 1 error at 2.5%. The 1-sided nominal significance level to declare overwhelming efficacy at primary analysis (103 PFS events) was 0.005. Because the median PFS was not reached at the primary analysis, it was described at the final analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.318|0.889||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.005.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>1) \& revised international staging system stage (I/II vs III vs not classified) as per IRT.|Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|Statistical analysis for comparison of PFS between the Kd and IKd arms based on primary analysis.||0.889|0.318|0.0007
91867022|NCT03275285|183627380|SUPERIORITY|The 1-sided nominal significance level to declare overwhelming efficacy at primary analysis was 0.004. Because the median PFS was not reached at the primary analysis, it was described at the final analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.548||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.317|0.948||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.004.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>1) \& revised international staging system stage (I/II vs III vs not classified) as per IRT.|Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|Statistical analysis for comparison of PFS between the Kd and IKd arm based on primary analysis.||0.948|0.317|0.0016
91904805|NCT02232802|183704910|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-inf values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean ratio|90.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.38|95.8|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FIIa comparison||95.8|85.38|
91698553|NCT01023256|183291770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.065
91698554|NCT01023256|183291771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||||||P values \<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|Patients with missing values were not included||||||0.243
91698555|NCT01023256|183291771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|Fisher Exact|Patients with missing values were not included||||||<0.0001
91698556|NCT01023256|183291771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||||||P values \<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|Patients with missing values were not included.||||||0.135
91867023|NCT03275285|183627381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.4|0.418|0.792|||||Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.792|0.418|
91698557|NCT00308087|183291775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6182||95.0||||"Exact Conditional Test is stratified on the number~\> of prior therapies (1 or 2, 3 or more prior therapies)."|2-sided Exact Conditional Test|||||||0.6182
91730330|NCT04003389|183355892|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.082||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.082|-0.042|0.527
91730331|NCT04003389|183355892|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.872||95.0|-0.066|0.056||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.066|0.872
91730332|NCT02514746|183355906|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.5||||||Difference at Year 3||4.5|-7.5|
91730333|NCT02514746|183355906|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.5||||||Difference at Year 4||6.5|-7.4|
91796238|NCT01298531|183470996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASFI score fitting baseline BASFI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.11|-1.50|0.0237
91698558|NCT00308087|183291778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5501||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank analysis is a comparison between treatment groups of the distribution of time to first progressive disease or death.||||0.5501
91698559|NCT00308087|183291779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8217||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank analysis is a comparison between treatment groups of the distribution of time to first progressive disease or death.||||0.8217
91698560|NCT01967706|183291781|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|88.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.64|114.03|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS:mCC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||114.03|68.64|
91698561|NCT01967706|183291782|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|98.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.61|119.46|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS:mCC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||119.46|80.61|
91730334|NCT02514746|183355907|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||Geometric mean titer ratio at Year 3||1.1|0.9|
91796239|NCT01298531|183470997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASFI score fitting baseline BASFI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.09|-1.74|0.0297
91867024|NCT03275285|183627382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.4|0.424|0.832|||||Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.832|0.424|
91867025|NCT03275285|183627383|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the Type I error rate from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints. No further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS and testing on subsequent endpoints were continued only if the null hypothesis for the previously tested endpoint was rejected.||||||0.193||||||One-sided p-value based on Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Threshold for statistical significance level at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One sided p-value was stratified based on randomization factors according to IRT.||Statistical analysis for comparison of Overall Response between the Kd and IKd arms based on primary analysis.||||0.1930
91698562|NCT01154088|183291783|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|12.25||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups A as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||12.25|-1.41|
91730335|NCT02514746|183355907|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||Geometric mean titer ratio at Year 4||1.1|0.9|
91730336|NCT02514746|183355908|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.8||||||Difference at 7 days post booster vaccination||2.8|-8.1|
91730337|NCT02514746|183355908|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0||||||Difference at 28 days post booster vaccination||3.0|-3.3|
91730338|NCT02514746|183355909|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||Geometric mean titer ratio 7 days after booster dose||1.0|0.5|
91730339|NCT02514746|183355909|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9||||||Geometric mean titer ratio 28 days after booster dose||0.9|0.6|
91730340|NCT02514746|183355910|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.5||||||Difference at 7 days post booster vaccination||4.5|-8.0|
91698563|NCT01154088|183291783|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|3.25||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups C as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||3.25|-4.11|
91698564|NCT01154088|183291783|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|6.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|10.78||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups W-135 as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||10.78|3.28|
91698565|NCT01154088|183291783|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|11.58||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups Y as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||11.58|2.63|
91867026|NCT03275285|183627390|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.425|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.672|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.672|0.269|
91867027|NCT03275285|183627391|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.757|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.757|0.324|
91867028|NCT03275285|183627392|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.471|||||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|1.471|0.888|
91698566|NCT01154088|183291784|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.17||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups A, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||1.17|0.92|
91698567|NCT01154088|183291784|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.37||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups C, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||1.37|0.96|
91730341|NCT02514746|183355910|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.0||||||Difference at 28 days post booster vaccination||3.0|-4.4|
91759129|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7926|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional Well Being Final||||0.7926
91759130|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final||||0.0987
91759131|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning Final||||0.0361
91759132|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final||||0.0615
91759133|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0024
91759134|NCT01846741|183411302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.0155
91759135|NCT01846741|183411304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||3 months||||0.0625
91759136|NCT01846741|183411304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1094|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||6 months||||0.1094
91759137|NCT01846741|183411304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||12 months||||0.0342
91759138|NCT01846741|183411304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||18 Months||||0.5417
91759139|NCT01399866|183411315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.574
91759140|NCT01399866|183411315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.747
91698568|NCT01154088|183291784|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups W-135, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||1.04|0.8|
91796240|NCT01298531|183470998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from each baseline BASDAI component score fitting each baseline component score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.23|-2.09|0.0152
91796241|NCT01298531|183470999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from each baseline BASDAI component score fitting each baseline component score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.09|-2.22|0.0344
91796242|NCT01298531|183471001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline PGA score fitting baseline PGA score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.52|-2.16|0.0017
91796243|NCT01298531|183471002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline PGA score fitting baseline PGA score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.16|-2.07|0.0233
91698569|NCT01154088|183291784|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.99||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups Y, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||0.99|0.78|
91698570|NCT02949843|183291808|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis is that each arm has equal rates of smoking history.||||0.6
91796244|NCT01298531|183471011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|4.901|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using logistic regression with baseline score and treatment group included as covariates.||4.901|0.822|0.1260
91796245|NCT01298531|183471014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates. Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect.||6.08|1.00|0.0498
91796246|NCT01298531|183471016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.1601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.15|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASMI score fitting baseline BASMI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||0.15|-0.87|0.1601
91867029|NCT03275285|183627393|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.233|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||1.233|0.740|
91698571|NCT05831644|183291809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124||||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.285|0.037|||ANOVA|||The primary endpoint (RHI score) was compared between treatments using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment and period as fixed effects and subjects as random effect.||0.037|-0.285|0.1925
91698572|NCT05831644|183291810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94||||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.392|1.513|||ANOVA|||The secondary pharmacodynamic endpoint (AI) was analysed using a similar ANOVA model as for the primary endpoint.||1.513|-11.392|0.1941
91698573|NCT03085238|183291819|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint will be analyzed using a unilateral one sample test for binomial proportion at the 5% level.||||||0.1309|||||||unilateral one sample test for binomial|||H0: M-Trap freedom MAE incidence \<= 90% - Non-inferiority margin (25%)||||0.1309
91698574|NCT03085238|183291820|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint will be analyzed using a unilateral one sample test for binomial proportion at the 5% level.||||||0.0181|||||||unilateral one sample test for binomial|||H0: M-Trap freedom MAE incidence \<= 90% - Non-inferiority margin (25%)||||.0181
91698575|NCT00977314|183291881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The endpoint was the calculated difference between the HINT result for the unaided condition prior to the 30-day trial period (Day 1) and the HINT result using the SoundBite (aided) at the end of the 30-day trial period (Day 30).||||<0.001
91698576|NCT00288600|183291893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Need of Exchange transfusion following the AAP criteria||||0.765
91698577|NCT03600194|183291920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Design\*Therapy interaction term||||||.019
91698578|NCT00556933|183291923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
91698579|NCT00556933|183291924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||||||0.45
91796247|NCT01298531|183471017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.27|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASMI score fitting baseline BASMI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||0.27|-0.86|0.2967
91796248|NCT01298531|183471023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|6.75|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline in chest expansion mobility score fitting baseline chest expansion mobility score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||6.75|-1.94|0.2735
91796249|NCT01298531|183471024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.34|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline in chest expansion mobility score fitting baseline chest expansion mobility score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||1.34|0.02|0.0422
91796250|NCT02360995|183471042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.652
91796251|NCT02360995|183471043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91796252|NCT02360995|183471044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91796253|NCT02360995|183471045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.533
91796254|NCT02360995|183471046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91796255|NCT02360995|183471047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91796256|NCT04622735|183471048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0031
91796257|NCT04622735|183471048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6787|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6787
91796258|NCT02476422|183471068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|8.3|||ANCOVA|||||8.3|-1.8|0.211
91796259|NCT00994318|183471081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.95|||Log Rank|||"FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily).~Three primary comparisons using a hierarchical step-down procedure on the log-rank test to preserve the overall alpha level of 0.05, performed in the following order:~1. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with oral iron.~2. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with FCM (low ferritin target).~3. FCM (low ferritin target) compared with oral iron."||0.95|0.44|0.026
91796260|NCT00994318|183471081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||Log Rank|||"FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400-600mcg/L) compared with FCM targeting low ferritin level (100 - 200 mcg/L).~Three primary comparisons using a hierarchical step-down procedure on the log-rank test to preserve the overall alpha level of 0.05, performed in the following order:~1. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with oral iron.~2. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with FCM (low ferritin target).~3. FCM (low ferritin target) compared with oral iron."||1.05|0.45|0.082
91796261|NCT00994318|183471081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.93|||Log Rank|||"Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. Time to initiation of additional or alternative anaemia management without taking into account the Hb trigger.~FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily)."||0.93|0.39|0.020
91796262|NCT00994318|183471081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.88|||Log Rank|||"Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. Time to initiation of additional or alternative anaemia management taking into account the Hb trigger based on local laboratory data, instead of central laboratory data.~FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily)."||0.88|0.43|0.008
91796263|NCT00994318|183471081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.1|||Log Rank|||"Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. Time to initiation of additional or alternative anaemia management taking into account the Hb trigger based on subjects with a complete set of Hb values from central laboratory.~FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily)"||1.10|0.45|0.12
91796264|NCT02545075|183471088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5059|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided p-value based on unstratified chi-square test||||||0.5059
91796265|NCT02545075|183471089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided unstratified chi-square||||||0.6202
91796266|NCT02545075|183471090|SUPERIORITY||Stratified cox proportional hazard model|1.13||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.45|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value from Log-rank Test stratified by M substage (M1a+M1b vs. M1c)||||1.45|0.87|0.7267
91796267|NCT02545075|183471091|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|0.9||||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value from Log-rank Test stratified by M substage (M1a+M1b vs. M1c) and BRAF mutation status as entered into the IVRS||||1.15|0.71|0.2503
91796268|NCT02545075|183471092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.55|0.64|0.9932
91796269|NCT02545075|183471093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9738|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|2.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.03|0.48|0.9738
91796270|NCT06400979|183471115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
91796271|NCT06400979|183471116|SUPERIORITY|To assess the reduction of nausea following aromatherapy, pre- and post- aromatherapy scores were compared using paired t-tests||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
91796272|NCT06400979|183471117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91796273|NCT06400979|183471118|OTHER|Perceived effectiveness of aromatherapy for patient satisfaction were compared with respect to post-aromatherapy scores and pre-post changes in scores using two-sample t-tests||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|73.4|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91796274|NCT06400979|183471119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91796275|NCT06400979|183471120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91796276|NCT02343081|183471132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming an intrasubject CV of 15%, an enrollment of 16 subjects was selected to provide a minimum of 80% power for the 90% CI of the ratio of the mean for Cmax for Temozolomide reference and test to fall within the 80-125% confidence range.|Cmax|94.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.69|107.69|||ANOVA|Primary parameters were analyzed using ANOVA. A linear, mixed model for crossover designs (two-period, two-sequence, two-treatment) was used.|Cmax Test/Reference Ratio|Bioequivalence assessment was made for the 90% CI for the ratio of log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters μT / μR and with the two one-sided Schuirmann T-test procedure under the null hypothesis||107.69|82.69|<0.05
91796277|NCT02343081|183471136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming an intrasubject CV of 15%, an enrollment of 16 subjects was selected to provide a minimum of 80% power for the 90% CI of the means ratio for AUC0-t for Temozolomide reference and test to fall within the 80-125% confidence range.|AUC0-t|100.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.81|104.28|||ANOVA||AUC0-t Test/Reference Ratio|||104.28|97.81|<0.05
91796278|NCT02343081|183471137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming an intrasubject CV of 15%, an enrollment of 16 subjects was selected to provide a minimum of 80% power for the 90% CI of the means ratio for AUC0-inf for Temozolomide reference and test to fall within the 80-125% confidence range.|AUC0-inf|101.53|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|104.54|||ANOVA||AUC0-inf Test/Reference Ratio|||104.54|98.60|<0.05
91796279|NCT00277446|183471179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The two groups tested were baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment with the soy isoflavone supplement."||||<0.03
91796280|NCT00277446|183471180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The two groups tested were baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment with the soy isoflavone supplement."||||0.02
91698580|NCT00556933|183291925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
91698581|NCT00556933|183291926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.463|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.463
91698582|NCT00556933|183291927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.67
91698583|NCT00556933|183291928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.193
91698584|NCT00556933|183291929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.422
91698585|NCT00556933|183291930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.871
91698586|NCT00556933|183291931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.068
91698587|NCT00556933|183291932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
91698588|NCT00556933|183291933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
91698589|NCT00556933|183291934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.40
91698590|NCT00746564|183291936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recordings|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.0|100.0||||||"The sensitivity was calculated for each recording and for each subject as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recordings/Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded on surface ECG"||100|100|
91698591|NCT00746564|183291937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of clinical recordings|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.7|100.0||||||"The sensitivity was calculated for each recording during the treadmill test and for each subject as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recordings/Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded on surface ECG"||100|95.7|
91698592|NCT00746564|183291938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recordings|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|100.0||||||"The sensitivity was calculated for each recording and for each subject during the hand to hand and hand to shoulder maneuvers as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recordings/Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded on surface ECG"||100|95.5|
91698593|NCT00746564|183291939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recordings|98.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.7|100.0||||||"The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each recording and for each subject during the in-clinic recording at rest as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recording / Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded by device during in-clinic recording"||100|96.7|
91759141|NCT01399866|183411316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.94
91698594|NCT00746564|183291940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recording|77.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.9|88.4||||||"The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each recording and for each subject for the in-clinic recording during the treadmill exercise as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recording / Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded by device during in-clinic recording"||88.4|65.9|
91698595|NCT00746564|183291941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of recordings|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.3|91.7||||||"The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each recording and for each subject during Hand to Hand and Hand to Shoulder Maneuvers as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recording / Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded by device during in-clinic recording"||91.7|78.3|
91698596|NCT00746564|183291942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of interpretable recording|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0||||||"The proportion of recording time during which the device recording was interpretable was calculated for each weekly Patient Activator recording and for each subject as follows:~Duration (sec) of interpretable recording / Total duration of recording time (sec)"||100|98.5|
91698597|NCT00746564|183291943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of interpretable recording|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.9|92.6||||||"The proportion of recording time during which the device recording was interpretable for each automatically triggered/symptom driven recording and for each subject was calculated as follows:~Duration of interpretable recording / Total duration of recording time"||92.6|91.9|
91698598|NCT00746564|183291944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of inappropriate recordings|86.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|91.0||||||||91.0|79.4|
91698599|NCT00746564|183291945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of inappropriate recordings|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.1|76.2||||||||76.2|48.1|
91698600|NCT03689374|183291972|NON_INFERIORITY|The responses were analyzed using an ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline value as a covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomized treatment, using a regression model including randomized treatment group and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates. The prespecified non inferiority margin was 0.3%-point.|Treatment difference|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.2|||t-distributed test|The non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the one-sided p-value from a t-distributed test.||||-0.20|-0.38|<0.0001
91759142|NCT01399866|183411317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.818
91759143|NCT01399866|183411318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.123
91759144|NCT01399866|183411319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.473
91759145|NCT04146935|183411343|OTHER|Mixed model repeated measures||||||0.4147||||||Visit 1 (baseline) to visit 4 (peak)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4147
91759146|NCT04146935|183411344|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
91759147|NCT04146935|183411345|OTHER|Mixed model repeated measures||||||0.6957|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6957
91759148|NCT04146935|183411346|OTHER|||||||0.0092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0092
91759149|NCT04146935|183411347|OTHER|Mixed model repeated measures||||||0.1383|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1383
91759150|NCT04146935|183411348|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures||||||0.0572|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0572
91759151|NCT04038567|183411361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.2||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.20|-1.14|
91759152|NCT04038567|183411361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.04||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for his vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.04|-2.39|
91796281|NCT00277446|183471181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The two groups tested were baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment with the soy isoflavone supplement."||||0.88
91796282|NCT01680887|183471182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.403
91796283|NCT00573248|183471184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smokers versus nonsmokers) ANOVA for each diary item||||<0.025
91796284|NCT00573248|183471185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smoker versus nonsmoker) ANOVA||||<0.025
91796285|NCT00573248|183471186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smokers versus nonsmokers) ANOVA for each diary item||||<0.025
91796286|NCT00573248|183471187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smokers versus nonsmokers) ANOVA for each diary item||||<0.025
91796287|NCT02536833|183471193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|3.65|||ANCOVA|||||3.65|-6.57|0.575
91796288|NCT02536833|183471193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|4.09|||ANCOVA|||||4.09|-6.63|0.643
91796289|NCT02536833|183471193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|5.75|||ANCOVA|||||5.75|-5.07|0.901
91796290|NCT02536833|183471194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|2.33|||ANCOVA|||||2.33|-8.31|0.271
91796291|NCT02536833|183471194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|5.32|||ANCOVA|||||5.32|-6.06|0.898
91796292|NCT02536833|183471194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|6.18|||ANCOVA|||||6.18|-4.74|0.795
91867030|NCT03275285|183627394|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|[Stratified Hazard Ratio]|0.683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.941|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|\[Not specified\]||0.941|0.496|
91867031|NCT03275285|183627395|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.663|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|0.895|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|\[Not specified\]||0.895|0.491|
91796293|NCT02536833|183471195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|2.26|||ANCOVA|||||2.26|-7.74|0.283
91796294|NCT02536833|183471195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|3.86|||ANCOVA|||||3.86|-6.82|0.588
91796295|NCT02536833|183471195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|4.76|||ANCOVA|||||4.76|-5.76|0.853
91796296|NCT02536833|183471196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|2.49|||ANCOVA|||||2.49|-8.26|0.292
91796297|NCT02536833|183471196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|5.83|||ANCOVA|||||5.83|-5.34|0.931
91888758|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.03|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.18|0.1603
91698601|NCT00986921|183292008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||t-test, 1 sided|Data was not distributed normally. After log transformation, the log values were distributed normally.||||3|0|0.05
91796298|NCT02536833|183471196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|5.76|||ANCOVA|||||5.76|-4.92|0.878
91796299|NCT02536833|183471197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|6.16|||ANCOVA|||||6.16|-3.83|0.648
91796300|NCT02536833|183471197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|1.75|||ANCOVA|||||1.75|-8.02|0.209
91796301|NCT02536833|183471197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|5.33|||ANCOVA|||||5.33|-4.78|0.915
91796302|NCT02536833|183471198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|5.36|||ANCOVA|||||5.36|-5.16|0.969
91796303|NCT02536833|183471198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|1.61|||ANCOVA|||||1.61|-8.89|0.174
91796304|NCT02536833|183471198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|5.59|||ANCOVA|||||5.59|-4.97|0.908
91796305|NCT02536833|183471199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.10|0.334
91796306|NCT02536833|183471199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-0.04|0.124
91796307|NCT02536833|183471199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|0.02|0.032
91796308|NCT02536833|183471200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.24|||ANCOVA|||||3.24|-8.00|0.405
91796309|NCT02536833|183471200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|8.16|||ANCOVA|||||8.16|-4.37|0.552
91796310|NCT02536833|183471200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.68|||ANCOVA|||||6.68|-4.91|0.763
91796311|NCT02536833|183471201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.71|||ANCOVA|||||1.71|-9.50|0.173
91796312|NCT02536833|183471201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|7.36|||ANCOVA|||||7.36|-5.12|0.724
91796313|NCT02536833|183471201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|5.53|||ANCOVA|||||5.53|-6.17|0.914
91796314|NCT02536833|183471202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.12|0.529
91796315|NCT02536833|183471202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.08|0.259
91796316|NCT02536833|183471202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.21|0.807
91796317|NCT02536833|183471203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.73||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-17.44|0.049
91796318|NCT02536833|183471203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|3.43|||ANCOVA|||||3.43|-15.49|0.211
91796319|NCT02536833|183471203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.24|3.78|||ANCOVA|||||3.78|-14.24|0.254
91796320|NCT02536833|183471204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.26||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.82|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||||-0.69|-19.82|0.036
91796321|NCT02536833|183471204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.07||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|3.05|||ANCOVA|||||3.05|-17.18|0.170
91796322|NCT02536833|183471204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|2.74|||ANCOVA|||||2.74|-15.33|0.171
91796323|NCT02536833|183471205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.72|||ANCOVA|||||0.72|0.06|0.021
91796324|NCT02536833|183471205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.55|||ANCOVA|||||0.55|-0.07|0.131
91867032|NCT00115934|183627418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.1||||0.013||95.0|-17.8|-2.4|||Fisher Exact||The risk difference is defined as the percent of subjects with events in the RVPAS group minus the percent of subjects with events in the MBTS group.|The original sample size of 456 was based on 85% power, with a two-sided, two sample test of proportions (anticipating 28% MBTS subjects with events, 16% RVPAS subjects with events), and an alpha of 0.05. The critical p-value was 0.044 because four interim analyses were performed. The target trial size was increased from 466 to 554 to account for crossovers. The stopping boundary was crossed at the 4th interim look; however, the trial was not halted, because all subjects were enrolled.||-2.4|-17.8|0.013
91796325|NCT02536833|183471205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.35|0.789
91796326|NCT00910988|183471210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||This p-value corresponds to the two way interaction between time and order and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is alpha equal to 0.05. There was no 3 way interaction.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with time as the repeated measure, drug assignment as a fixed factor, and order as a fixed factor.||The hypothesis being tested is whether there is a significant effect of one or both antipsychotics on whole body insulin sensitivity. Sample size was calculated using power calculations to detect significant effects of treatment on insulin sensitivity. Drug assignment is a 2-level fixed factor (olanzapine vs ziprasidone) as is order (drug first vs placebo first). Baseline of the dependent variable as well as baseline DEXA total fat were entered into the model as covariates.||||0.001
91796327|NCT00910988|183471213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p-value corresponds to the 3 way interaction between time, drug (olanzapine vs ziprasidone), and order (drug first vs placebo first) and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that olanzapine and ziprasidone would result in acute decreases in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo at adipose tissue, which was measured by evaluating the rate of appearance of labeled glycerol. The alternative hypothesis is that olanzapine, but not ziprasidone, would result in acute decreases in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo at adipose tissue.||||0.57
91796328|NCT02766465|183471215|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing severe vaso-occlusive pain (VOC) with hospitalization or parenteral opioid drugs in outpatient setting between two biologically assigned arms during the first year after biologic assignment. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in biologically assigned arms during the first year after assignment.||||<0.001
91867033|NCT00115934|183627419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.06
91796329|NCT02766465|183471215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing significant cerebrovascular event between two biologically assigned arms during the first year after biologic assignment. Significant cerebrovascular event includes stroke, transient ischemic attack, and seizure. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in biologically assigned arms during the first year after assignment.||||0.027
91796330|NCT02766465|183471215|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing severe Vaso-occlusive pain (VOC) with hospitalization or parenteral opioid drugs in outpatient setting between two biologically assigned arms during the second year after biologic assignment. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in biologically assigned arms during the second year after assignment.||||< 0.001
91796331|NCT02766465|183471216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing 6MWD from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.869
91796332|NCT02766465|183471217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing TRJV from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.636
91796333|NCT02766465|183471219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Physical Function changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.242
91867034|NCT00115934|183627420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91867035|NCT00115934|183627421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91867036|NCT00115934|183627422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91867037|NCT00115934|183627423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91867038|NCT00115934|183627424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||0.004
91867039|NCT00115934|183627425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
91698602|NCT00986921|183292009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A threshold value of p of 0.05 was considered significant.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that the groups would vary, with a p values of less than 0.05.||||0.49
91698603|NCT00986921|183292010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91698604|NCT04445714|183292017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-1.03|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||-1.03|-1.34|<.0001
91698605|NCT04445714|183292018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.51|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||-1.51|-2.66|<.0001
91730342|NCT04003142|183355923|SUPERIORITY|Least squares Mean (LSM), Standard error (SE), Confidence interval (CI), Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM), Change from Baseline (CFB), Dependent variable (dv), Treatment (tr), Week (wk), Baseline (bl), Weight (wt)|Least squares (LS) Mean difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.91|-2.73|<0.001
91730343|NCT04003142|183355923|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|-3.45|-1.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.64|-3.45|<0.001
91730344|NCT04003142|183355923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
91730345|NCT04003142|183355923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
91730346|NCT04003142|183355924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001||95.0|-2.94|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.78|-2.94|<0.001
91730347|NCT04003142|183355924|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.46|-3.60|<0.001
91730348|NCT04003142|183355924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
91796334|NCT02766465|183471220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Anxiety changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.343
91867040|NCT00115934|183627426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91867041|NCT00115934|183627427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91867042|NCT00115934|183627428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91867043|NCT00115934|183627429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.54||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91867044|NCT00115934|183627430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91698606|NCT04445714|183292019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.91|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||1.91|-2.34|0.8416
91698607|NCT04445714|183292020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-15.4|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||-15.4|-33.4|<.0001
91698608|NCT02396420|183292028|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91698609|NCT02396420|183292029|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91698610|NCT02396420|183292030|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91698611|NCT02396420|183292031|OTHER|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|||
91730349|NCT04003142|183355924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
91730350|NCT04003142|183355925|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.021||95.0|-0.27|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.02|-0.27|0.021
91730351|NCT04003142|183355925|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001||95.0|-0.41|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.16|-0.41|<0.001
91730352|NCT04003142|183355925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
91730353|NCT04003142|183355925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
91730354|NCT04003142|183355926|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.049||95.0|-0.33|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||0.00|-0.33|0.049
91730355|NCT04003142|183355926|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001||95.0|-0.45|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.13|-0.45|<0.001
91730356|NCT04003142|183355926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
91698612|NCT02396420|183292032|OTHER|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|||
91698613|NCT02396420|183292033|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91698614|NCT02396420|183292034|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91698615|NCT02396420|183292035|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91867045|NCT00115934|183627431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Poisson regression|The offset parameter used in the poisson regression was the log of the number of patients in each treatment arm.||||||0.003
91867046|NCT00115934|183627432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Poisson Regression|The offset parameter used in this analysis was the log of the number of patients per treatment arm.||||||0.20
91698616|NCT02396420|183292036|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91698617|NCT02396420|183292037|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91698618|NCT02396420|183292038|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91698619|NCT02396420|183292039|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91730357|NCT04003142|183355926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
91730358|NCT04003142|183355927|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||0.8|-2.1|0.381
91730359|NCT04003142|183355927|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.6|-3.5|0.007
91730360|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.51|-2.09|0.001
91867047|NCT00115934|183627433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Poisson Regression|The offset parameter used in this analysis was the log of the number of patients per treatment arm.||||||0.002
91867048|NCT00115934|183627434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Poisson regression|The offset parameter used in this analysis was the log of the number of patients per treatment arm.||||||0.03
91698620|NCT02396420|183292040|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91698621|NCT02396420|183292041|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91698622|NCT02396420|183292042|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91698623|NCT02396420|183292043|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91698624|NCT02396420|183292044|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91698625|NCT01273623|183292048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91730361|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001||95.0|-2.51|-0.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.91|-2.51|<0.001
91730362|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|-2.65|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.87|-2.65|<0.001
91730363|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|-2.86|-1.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.08|-2.86|<0.001
91730364|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|-2.63|-0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.84|-2.63|<0.001
91759153|NCT04038567|183411361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.23||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.23|-1.12|
91698626|NCT01640379|183292051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.09||Judged by type one error limit alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||The odds ratio is for the difference in chlamydia or gonorrhea (CT/GC) rates between arms at ninety days after intervention.|A comparison of Chlamydia or Gonorrhea positivity at 90 days post intervention.||1.09|0.15|0.070
91698627|NCT01640379|183292051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.98||Judged by type one error limit alpha = 0.05.|generalized estimating equations||The odds ratio is for the difference in rate of change over time between arms, so is the difference in the odds increment for those receiving TECH N intervention versus the control group.|"We used generalized estimating equations to test for a difference in the trend of chlamydia or gonorrhea (CT/GC) rates over the study period.~The null hypothesis is that rates of CT/GC for women in the intervention arm were changing over the study period similarly to CT/GC rates in the control arm."||0.98|0.39|0.043
91698628|NCT01640379|183292052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|92.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|230.1|||Chi-squared|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, baseline STI status (any vs none), insurance, and if woman had prior pregnancy.|Odds ratio is interpretable as the expected chance of having a 72 follow-up for intervention women compared to women in the control arm, given similar age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, baseline STI status, insurance, and pregnancy history.|H0: Women in TECHN arm had 72 hour visit with same frequency as women in control arm.||230.1|37.0|<0.001
91698629|NCT01640379|183292052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for intervention arm relative to control.|H0: Women in TECHN arm reported complete adherence to medication regimen (yes or no) with same frequency as women in control arm.||1.05|0.36|0.084
91730365|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|-3.29|-1.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.50|-3.29|<0.001
91730366|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001||95.0|-2.79|-0.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.90|-2.79|<0.001
91796335|NCT02766465|183471221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Depression changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.491
91867049|NCT04440228|183627462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||Assumptions of ANOVA were violated, so we conducted a Related-Samples Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks|ANOVA|F=6.54, df=3||Repeated measures ANOVA examining change over time across the three partner school districts.||||0.088
91867050|NCT04440228|183627463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.373|||Regression, Linear|||We conducted paired t-tests to evaluate simple pre-to-post changes in the primary outcome measures. We fitted linear mixed-effects regression models for each outcome variable, specifying random intercepts for participant ID to account for repeated measures and within-individual clustering. The core model included a binary post-training indicator as the primary predictor, along with the baseline value of the corresponding outcome as a covariate.||0.373|0.036|<0.05
91867051|NCT04440228|183627464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.219|||Regression, Linear|||We conducted paired t-tests to evaluate simple pre-to-post changes in the primary outcome measures. We fitted linear mixed-effects regression models for each outcome variable, specifying random intercepts for participant ID to account for repeated measures and within-individual clustering. The core model included a binary post-training indicator as the primary predictor, along with the baseline value of the corresponding outcome as a covariate.||0.219|-0.064|.277
91730367|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-1.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.72|-3.61|<0.001
91730368|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.85|-2.71|<0.001
91730369|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001||95.0|-3.59|-1.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.73|-3.59|<0.001
91796336|NCT02766465|183471222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing fatigue score changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.003
91867052|NCT04440228|183627465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.083|||Regression, Linear|||We conducted paired t-tests to evaluate simple pre-to-post changes in the primary outcome measures. We fitted linear mixed-effects regression models for each outcome variable, specifying random intercepts for participant ID to account for repeated measures and within-individual clustering. The core model included a binary post-training indicator as the primary predictor, along with the baseline value of the corresponding outcome as a covariate.||0.083|-0.082|0.996
91730370|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001||95.0|-2.77|-0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.83|-2.77|<0.001
91698630|NCT01640379|183292052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for the chances of partner notification among TECH N recipients, relative to those in control arm.|H0: Women in TECHN arm notified their partners about their diagnoses more often than women in the control arm.||2.34|0.36|0.867
91698631|NCT01640379|183292052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for partners of TECH-N recipients versus partners of women in control arm.|H0: Partners of women receiving the TECH-N intervention were treated more often than the partners of women in the control arm.||1.19|0.33|0.153
91698632|NCT01640379|183292052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for women in the TECH-N arm relative to women in the control arm.|H0: Women in the TECHN arm practiced temporary sexual abstinence for two weeks after their diagnosis more often than those in the control arm.||1.06|0.86|0.351
91698633|NCT04223635|183292053|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Interval (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.38|157.69|||||For the comparison, moderate HI represents the numerator and normal HF represents the denominator.|||157.69|54.38|
91698634|NCT04223635|183292055|OTHER|Least squares means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Least Square Mean|147.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.39|227.07|||||For the comparison, moderate HI represents the numerator and normal HF represents the denominator.|||227.07|95.39|
91698635|NCT04223635|183292056|OTHER|Least squares means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Least Square Mean|142.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.21|223.79|||||For the comparison, moderate HI represents the numerator and normal HF represents the denominator.|||223.79|91.21|
91698636|NCT02122887|183292083|OTHER|χ² (1) =4.57, Cramer's V=.24|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||we hypothesised that following intervention, those undergoing intervention will be more likely to see justice on both sides, compared to control group||||<0.05
91867053|NCT04503681|183627483|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.1|-1.1|0.473
91867054|NCT04503681|183627484|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.8|-0.8|0.338
91867055|NCT03442777|183627528|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.99||controlled for type of ward (ICU/Non-ICU)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.99|0.41|0.04
91698637|NCT02122887|183292084|EQUIVALENCE|we compared participants levels of tension (in their interaction with an outgroup member in trail 2) in an interaction test between perspective-taking levels and group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|df=1||||||>0.05
91698638|NCT02122887|183292085|EQUIVALENCE|we compared participants levels of empathy (in their interaction with an outgroup member in trail 2) in an interaction test between perspective-taking levels and group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91698639|NCT03320850|183292086|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.35|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||2.35|-0.15|0.0845
91867056|NCT02866942|183627532|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||McNemar|||||||0.26
91698640|NCT03320850|183292086|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.633||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.08|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||3.08|0.59|0.0041
91867057|NCT00372775|183627537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.8|||||Two-Sided Confidence Interval (CI) from Exact Method using the F Distribution|||8.8|0.0|
91867058|NCT00372775|183627539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR (percent)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.9|||||Two-Sided CI from Exact Method using the F Distribution|||21.9|0.1|
91867059|NCT00372775|183627542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|34.3|||||Probability of survival along with the corresponding 2-sided confidence interval for the log \[-log(one-year survival rate)\] calculated using a normal approximation and then back transformed to give a confidence interval for the one-year survival|||34.3|14.0|
91867060|NCT01561300|183627553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Tea-placebo|Null hypothesis: no difference between Tea and Control.||0.17|-2.16|0.09
91867061|NCT01561300|183627554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Tea- Control|Null hypothesis: no difference between Tea and Control.||1.66|-2.44|0.70
91796337|NCT02766465|183471223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Sleep Disturbance changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.594
91698641|NCT03320850|183292086|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.632||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.44|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||2.44|-0.05|0.0600
91698642|NCT03320850|183292086|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.11|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||2.11|-0.37|0.1702
91698643|NCT03320850|183292088|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.95|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.95|-0.48|0.2361
91698644|NCT03320850|183292088|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.98|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.98|-0.41|0.1985
91698645|NCT03320850|183292088|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.607||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.84|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.84|-0.56|0.2923
91698646|NCT03320850|183292088|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.74|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.74|-0.66|0.3769
91698647|NCT03320850|183292089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.107||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.87|18.77|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||18.77|-32.87|0.5911
91698648|NCT03320850|183292089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.956||0.5375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.52|17.52|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||17.52|-33.52|0.5375
91698649|NCT03320850|183292089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.764||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.47|23.81|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||23.81|-26.47|0.9173
91698650|NCT03320850|183292089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|9.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.981||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|34.9|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||34.90|-16.24|0.4730
91698651|NCT02002533|183292097|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||exact binomial test|The percentage is greater than or equal to 40%.||||||>0.9999
91698652|NCT02002533|183292098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735|||||||exact binomial test|||||||0.7350
91796338|NCT02766465|183471224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing social roles score changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.003
91698653|NCT02002533|183292099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0845|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91698654|NCT02002533|183292100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.1808|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||The estimated value is BBT minus HEAL.|||||0.1808
91698655|NCT02002533|183292101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is BBT minus HEAL.|||||0.14
91698656|NCT02002533|183292102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|For baseline of 0.7.||||||0.005
91698657|NCT02002533|183292102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||At baseline 1.3.|ANCOVA|||||||0.092
91698658|NCT02002533|183292102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.556|TWO_SIDED|||||At baseline of 1.5.|ANCOVA|||||||0.556
91698659|NCT02002533|183292102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Grouped by baseline interaction.|ANCOVA||The estimated value is grouped by baseline interaction parameter.|||||0.007
91698660|NCT02002533|183292103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.000
91698661|NCT02002533|183292104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.295
91698662|NCT02002533|183292105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.573
91698663|NCT02002533|183292106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.558||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Group difference (BBT - HEAL) in mean post-pre change.|||||0.015
91698664|NCT02002533|183292106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Group difference (BBT - HEAL) in mean post-pre change.|||||0.094
91698665|NCT02002533|183292106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.326||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Group difference (BBT - HEAL) in mean post-pre change.|||||0.114
91730371|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001||95.0|-3.3|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.37|-3.30|<0.001
91730372|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.74|-2.79|<0.001
91867062|NCT01561300|183627555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.75||Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis||Tea-placebo|Null hypothesis: no difference between Tea and Control.||0.75|-1.15|0.66
91730373|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.35|-3.40|<0.001
91730374|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.002||95.0|-2.71|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.59|-2.71|0.002
91730375|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001||95.0|-3.57|-1.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.45|-3.57|<0.001
91796339|NCT02766465|183471225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing pain interference score changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.071
91867063|NCT00724126|183627599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.03
91867064|NCT00724126|183627600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.02
91867065|NCT03577106|183627626|OTHER||||||<|0.005||||||t(20)=3.3, p\<0.005|paired t-test|||Mean difference using a paired t-test||||<0.005
91698666|NCT02002533|183292106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||This is an arm by baseline interaction parameter.|||||0.027
91698667|NCT03796442|183292110|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect 1-year AVMPG of 12.6±4.3mmHg for the study prosthesis and 11.9±4.3mmHg for the control prosthesis, with a 1-sided type I error of 2.5% and a noninferiority margin of 3mmHg. The noninferiority margin was determined by the values of 15mmHg for AVMPG of clinically significant aortic stenosis and 12mmHg for AVMPG of the control prosthesis.||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the AvalusTM was inferior to the CEPME based on the AVMPG at 1-year echocardiographic follow-up, with a non-inferiority margin of 3mmHg. The result for the primary endpoint was presented with 97.5% one-sided confidence interval for mean difference between groups. The non-inferiority test was performed using a t-test which compared mean difference between groups with the non-inferiority margin under the one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||0.0004
91698668|NCT02031640|183292138|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|0.034||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.095|||ANCOVA|||||0.095|-0.027|0.272
91698669|NCT02031640|183292138|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.045||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.106|||ANCOVA|||||0.106|-0.015|0.1415
91698670|NCT02031640|183292138|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.015||||0.6356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.046|||ANCOVA|||||0.046|-0.075|0.6356
91730376|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001||95.0|-2.96|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.86|-2.96|<0.001
91730377|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001||95.0|-3.69|-1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.60|-3.69|<0.001
91730378|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001||95.0|-2.91|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.81|-2.91|<0.001
91730379|NCT04003142|183355928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.52|-3.61|<0.001
91730380|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.001||95.0|-0.21|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.05|-0.21|0.001
91867066|NCT03601715|183627638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests.|ANOVA|||Based on a pilot test with eight subjects, we calculated that we would need 18 subjects to give 90% power to detect the most efficient arrangement with a α level of .05. Considering losses to follow up , we increased the sample size by 10%.|Effect size was calculated through partial eta squared and correlated using Cohen index (.1 to .3 as small, .3 to .5 as medium, and over .5 as large).|||<0.05
91867067|NCT03601715|183627639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests.|ANOVA|||Based on a pilot test with eight subjects, we calculated that we would need 18 subjects to give 90% power to detect the most efficient arrangement with a α level of .05. Considering losses to follow up , we increased the sample size by 10%.|Effect size was calculated through partial eta squared and correlated using Cohen index (.1 to .3 as small, .3 to .5 as medium, and over .5 as large).|||<0.05
91867068|NCT03601715|183627640|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests.|ANOVA|||Based on a pilot test with eight subjects, we calculated that we would need 18 subjects to give 90% power to detect the most efficient arrangement with a α level of .05. Considering losses to follow up , we increased the sample size by 10%.|Effect size was calculated through partial eta squared and correlated using Cohen index (.1 to .3 as small, .3 to .5 as medium, and over .5 as large).|||<0.05
91698671|NCT02031640|183292138|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.04||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.02|0.1932
91698672|NCT02031640|183292139|OTHER|The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction.|LSM Difference|10.616||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.489|17.744|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||17.744|3.489|0.0036
91698673|NCT02031640|183292139|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.419||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.309|15.53|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction||15.53|1.309|0.0204
91698674|NCT02031640|183292139|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.004||||0.0984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.121|13.129|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction||13.129|-1.121|0.0984
91698675|NCT02031640|183292139|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|12.512||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.435|19.589|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction||19.589|5.435|0.0006
91698676|NCT02031640|183292140|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.147||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.866|16.429|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||16.429|1.866|0.0139
91698677|NCT02031640|183292140|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.17||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.914|16.425|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||16.425|1.914|0.0133
91698678|NCT02031640|183292140|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.088||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.191|11.367|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||11.367|-3.191|0.2704
91698679|NCT02031640|183292140|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|10.301||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.073|17.53|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||17.53|3.073|0.0053
91698680|NCT02031640|183292141|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|-0.363|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.363|-1.044|<0.0001
91698681|NCT02031640|183292141|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.691|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.352|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.352|-1.029|<0.0001
91796340|NCT02766465|183471226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Pain Intensity changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.146
91698682|NCT02031640|183292141|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.651||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|-0.309|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.309|-0.994|0.0002
91698683|NCT02031640|183292141|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.801|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.138|-0.464|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.464|-1.138|<0.0001
91698684|NCT02031640|183292142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|-0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.033|-0.265|0.0119
91698685|NCT02031640|183292142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.102||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.014|-0.217|0.0854
91698686|NCT02031640|183292142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.189||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|-0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.072|-0.306|0.0016
91698687|NCT02031640|183292142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|-0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.101|-0.332|0.0003
91698688|NCT01895270|183292169|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.42
91698689|NCT02091375|183292175|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-22.79||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.06|-5.43|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach.|||-5.43|-41.06|0.0123
91698690|NCT02091375|183292176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (2-5 years, 6-12 years, and 13-18 years).||||4.30|0.93|0.0784
91698691|NCT00537316|183292200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.032
91698692|NCT00782184|183292215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|21.0|||Regression, Logistic|||COMPARISON BETWEEN GROUPS FOR NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS REACHING LDL-C GOAL OF \<70 MG/DL||21.0|3.4|<0.001
91698693|NCT00782184|183292216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.15|-8.84|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) Model|||||-8.84|-21.15|<0.001
91698694|NCT00782184|183292217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|13.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.9|3.3|<0.001
91698695|NCT00782184|183292218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.0|2.0|<0.001
91698696|NCT00782184|183292219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.97|||LDA Model|||||-3.97|-12.50|<0.001
91698697|NCT00782184|183292220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.13||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|9.93|||LDA Model|||||9.93|-5.67|0.593
91867069|NCT01478594|183627644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.718|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|An interim futility analysis was to be performed when approximately 83 PFS events (50% of the total PFS events) were observed. The Lans DeMets beta spending function with an O'Brien-Fleming boundary was used to derive the futility boundary. If the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was greater than 1.0581, enrollment was to be stopped. With this futility stopping rule, the adjusted study power was 78.6%.||1.718|0.693|0.706
91867070|NCT01478594|183627646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.116||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|2.218|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|||2.218|0.561|0.754
91867071|NCT01478594|183627647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).||||||0.718
91904806|NCT02232802|183704911|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % non-parametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|least square mean ratio|0.0||||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % non-parametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FXa comparison||0.5|-0.5|0.7642
91698698|NCT00782184|183292221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.48||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|6.37|||LDA Model|||||6.37|-1.41|0.211
91698699|NCT00782184|183292222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-11.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.32|-5.92|||LDA Model|||||-5.92|-17.32|<0.001
91698700|NCT00782184|183292223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|-9.44|||LDA Model|||||-9.44|-22.77|<0.001
91698701|NCT00782184|183292224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|-5.08|||LDA Model|||||-5.08|-14.96|<0.001
91698702|NCT00782184|183292225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.83|-6.59|||LDA Model|||||-6.59|-19.83|<0.001
91698703|NCT00782184|183292226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-2.88|||LDA Model|||||-2.88|-12.50|0.002
91867072|NCT01478594|183627648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.389||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|3.194|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|||3.194|0.604|0.437
91698704|NCT00782184|183292227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|8.06|||LDA Model|||||8.06|2.44|<0.001
91698705|NCT00782184|183292228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-7.52|||LDA Model|||||-7.52|-18.31|<0.001
91698706|NCT00782184|183292229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.68||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|21.86|||LDA Model|||||21.86|-16.50|0.785
91698707|NCT01730534|183292246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.172||95.0|0.84|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.84|0.172
91698708|NCT01730534|183292247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.005||95.0|0.73|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.73|0.005
91698709|NCT01730534|183292248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.001||95.0|0.67|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||||0.87|0.67|<0.001
91698710|NCT01730534|183292249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.198||95.0|0.82|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.82|0.198
91698711|NCT01369108|183292285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in anatomic form||||0.8
91698712|NCT01369108|183292285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in margin adaptation||||0.89
91698713|NCT01369108|183292285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in margin discoloration||||0.79
91698714|NCT01369108|183292285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in surface integrity||||0.18
91698715|NCT01369108|183292285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in secondary caries||||0.66
91698716|NCT01369108|183292286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.522|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in sensitivity to cold||||0.522
91698717|NCT01369108|183292286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.449|||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis no difference in biting pressure||||.449
91698718|NCT01895608|183292287|OTHER|non-parametric statistic: Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples||||||0.562|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.562
91698719|NCT01895608|183292287|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.414
91698720|NCT01895608|183292288|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.181|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.181
91867073|NCT01478594|183627649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.358|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|||1.358|0.746|0.967
91867074|NCT01478594|183627652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|2.375|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.375|0.746|
91867075|NCT01478594|183627652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.575|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|1.16|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.160|0.285|
91867076|NCT01478594|183627653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.608|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|4.073|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||4.073|0.635|
91867077|NCT01478594|183627653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|1.521|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.521|0.375|
91867078|NCT01478594|183627654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.1|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.100|0.366|
91867079|NCT01478594|183627654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|2.646|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.646|0.614|
91867080|NCT01478594|183627655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.507|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.507|0.345|
91867081|NCT01478594|183627655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.597|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|3.795|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.795|0.672|
91867082|NCT01478594|183627656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.627|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.564|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||4.564|0.580|
91698721|NCT01895608|183292288|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||1.000
91698722|NCT01895608|183292289|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in fall risk as measured by dynamic gait index following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||1.000
91698723|NCT01895608|183292289|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.662|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in fall risk as measured by dynamic gait index following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.662
91867083|NCT01478594|183627656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.779|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|1.531|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.531|0.397|
91867084|NCT01478594|183627657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.946|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|5.956|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||5.956|0.636|
91867085|NCT01478594|183627657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.538|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.538|0.422|
91698724|NCT01895608|183292290|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in static balance as measured by sensory organization test following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.05
91867086|NCT01478594|183627658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|1.991|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.991|0.303|
91867087|NCT01478594|183627658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|2.501|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.501|0.615|
91867088|NCT01478594|183627659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|2.63|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.630|0.343|
91867089|NCT01478594|183627659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.918|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.918|0.503|
91867090|NCT01478594|183627660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|3.214|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.214|0.468|
91867091|NCT01478594|183627660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|3.396|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.396|0.447|
91867092|NCT01478594|183627661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|2.1|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.100|0.307|
91698725|NCT01895608|183292290|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in static balance as measured by sensory organization test following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.171
91796341|NCT02766465|183471227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing 28-Day Pain Diary Average Pain Intensity changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.649
91867093|NCT01478594|183627661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.505|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|3.873|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.873|0.585|
91867094|NCT01478594|183627662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|2.385|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.385|0.356|
91867095|NCT01478594|183627662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|3.22|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.220|0.462|
91867096|NCT01478594|183627663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|2.512|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.512|0.334|
91698726|NCT01895608|183292291|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in gait speed following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.313
91867097|NCT01478594|183627663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|3.455|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.455|0.554|
91867098|NCT01478594|183627664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|4.32|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||4.320|0.548|
91867099|NCT01478594|183627664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.744|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|1.85|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.850|0.299|
91867100|NCT01970007|183627675|OTHER||Freedom from MAE rate (%)|96.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.5|98.6|||One-sided Exact binomial test||One-sided Exact binomial test|||98.6|93.5|<0.0001
91867101|NCT01970007|183627676|OTHER||12-month quantitative patency rate (%)|89.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.1|93.4|||Binomial test for one proportion||Binomial test for one proportion|||93.4|85.1|<0.0001
91867102|NCT01970007|183627677|OTHER||Change from Baseline Mean|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.6||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity|paired t-test|A paired t-test with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm's procedure to control for a family-wise Type I error rate of 0.05.||||-2.6|-3.5|<0.0001
91698727|NCT01895608|183292291|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.852|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in gait speed following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.852
91698728|NCT01895608|183292292|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in balance confidence following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.263
91698729|NCT01895608|183292292|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.181|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in balance confidence following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.181
91698730|NCT02833844|183292320|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-56.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.55|-52.28||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-52.28|-61.55|< 0.0001
91698731|NCT02833844|183292321|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-75.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.1|-68.4||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-68.4|-82.1|< 0.0001
91730381|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.08|-0.24|<0.001
91730382|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001||95.0|-0.28|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.07|-0.28|0.001
91730383|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.07|-0.28|0.001
91730384|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.067||95.0|-0.23|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||0.01|-0.23|0.067
91730385|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.11|-0.35|<0.001
91730386|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.03|-0.30|0.020
91796342|NCT02766465|183471228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing ASCQ-Me Stiffness changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.207
91698732|NCT02833844|183292322|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|65.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|71.1||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by statin use stratification factor. For testing, nonachievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as reference.|Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.||71.1|57.8|< 0.0001
91730387|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.43|<0.001
91730388|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.04|-0.32|0.012
91730389|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001||95.0|-0.42|-0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
91730390|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.02|-0.31|0.030
91730391|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.14|-0.43|<0.001
91867103|NCT01970007|183627678|OTHER||Change from Baseline Mean|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.7||p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|pair t-test|A paired t-test with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm's procedure to control for a family-wise Type I error rate of 0.05||||-3.7|-4.7|<0.0001
91698733|NCT02833844|183292323|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|71.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.7|76.7||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by statin use stratification factor. For testing, nonachievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as a reference.|Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.||76.7|65.7|< 0.0001
91730392|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.02|-0.28|0.095
91730393|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.11|-0.41|<0.001
91730394|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.03|-0.28|0.109
91698734|NCT02833844|183292324|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-50.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.88|-46.99||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-46.99|-54.88|< 0.0001
91730395|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
91796343|NCT02766465|183471229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FEV1 changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.596
91867104|NCT05230433|183627684|OTHER||Percent Consumed|86.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||High fat agents were weighed pre- and post- providing the shake to the participant. All containers were tared to take into account straw, lid, and glass weight. Percentage of high-fat challenge consumed was calculated by post-shake weight / pre-shake weight. 13 out of 15 partcipants drank \>75% of the shake.||||0.15
91698735|NCT02833844|183292325|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-47.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.11|-44.35||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-44.35|-51.11|< 0.0001
91698736|NCT02833844|183292326|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-38.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-34.94||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-34.94|-41.30|< 0.0001
91698737|NCT02833844|183292327|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-26.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.17|-19.4||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-19.40|-34.17|< 0.0001
91698738|NCT02833844|183292328|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-22.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|-13.88||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-13.88|-31.03|< 0.0001
91730396|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02||95.0|-0.35|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.03|-0.35|0.020
91730397|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001||95.0|-0.47|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
91730398|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean diferrence|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012||95.0|-0.37|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.05|-0.37|0.012
91730399|NCT04003142|183355929|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001||95.0|-0.47|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
91796344|NCT02766465|183471230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FVC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.684
91698739|NCT02833844|183292329|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|8.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|11.89||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||11.89|4.83|< 0.0001
91698740|NCT02833844|183292330|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-22.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|-14.26||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-14.26|-30.04|< 0.0001
91698741|NCT01646021|183292336|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.6|||Log Rank|||||0.60|0.35|< 0.0001
91698742|NCT01646021|183292338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||=|0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.54|= 0.0621
91698743|NCT02347891|183292353|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.65|||ANOVA|||Definition of Improvement (DOI) at week 40||2.65|0.08|0.60
91698744|NCT02347891|183292353|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.82|||ANOVA|||Percent patients reaching Total improvement score of ≥40 at Week 40||1.82|0.16|0.61
91698745|NCT02347891|183292353|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.47|||ANOVA|||Percent of patient with major improvement TIS ≥60 at Week 40||1.47|0|0.23
91698746|NCT02347891|183292354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||Mean Total Improvement Score (TIS) during Randomized Phase at Week 40||||0.92
91698747|NCT02347891|183292355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.47|||ANOVA|||Definition of Improvement (DOI) at Week 64||1.47|0|0.23
91698748|NCT02347891|183292355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.51|||ANOVA|||Percent patients reaching Total improvement score of ≥40 at Week 64||2.51|0.19|0.99
91698749|NCT02347891|183292355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.47|||ANOVA|||Percent of patient with major improvement TIS ≥60 at Week 64||1.47|0|0.23
91698750|NCT02347891|183292356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|||Mean Total Improvement Score (TIS) after Open Label Phase at 64 Week||||0.62
91698751|NCT00614120|183292358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is concluded if the two-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for treatment difference in mean change in HbA1c between lira 1.8mg + met and glim + met is below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.06|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.23|0.11||Non-inferiority; \<.0001. In order to protect the overall Type I error rate when testing for non-inferiority of the three doses of lira + met to glim + met, the comparisons will be invoked sequentially for descending doses of liraglutide.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate.|The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either superiority or non-inferiority. Statistical significance on a 2.5% level.|"Based on standard normal theory, the sample size needed in order to be able to show that lira + met is non-inferior to glim + met when using a 1:1 randomisation and a non-inferiority criteria of 0.4% with a power of at least 85%, is tabulated below using different SD of HbA1c.~Assuming a drop out rate of 25%, the total number of subjects to be randomised is 896 (224 for each dose of the liraglutide + metformin group and 224 subjects in metformin+glimepiride treatment group) with a SD of 1.2%."||0.11|-0.23|<0.0001
91698752|NCT00614120|183292358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is concluded if the two-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for treatment difference in mean change in HbA1c between lira 1.2mg + met and glim + met is below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.03|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.14|0.2||In order to protect the overall Type I error rate when testing for non-inferiority of the three doses of lira + met to glim + met, the comparisons will be invoked sequentially for descending doses of liraglutide.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate.|The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either superiority or non-inferiority. Statistical significance on a 2.5% level.|"Based on standard normal theory, the sample size needed in order to be able to show that lira + met is non-inferior to glim + met when using a 1:1 randomisation and a non-inferiority criteria of 0.4% with a power of at least 85%, is tabulated below using different SD of HbA1c.~Assuming a drop out rate of 25%, the total number of subjects to be randomised is 896 (224 for each dose of the liraglutide + metformin group and 224 subjects in metformin+glimepiride treatment group) with a SD of 1.2%."||0.20|-0.14|<.0001
91698753|NCT00614120|183292358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is concluded if the two-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for treatment difference in mean change in HbA1c between lira 0.6mg + met and glim + met is below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.25||||0.0421||95.0|0.08|0.42||In order to protect the overall Type I error rate when testing for non-inferiority of the three doses of lira + met to glim + met, the comparisons will be invoked sequentially for descending doses of liraglutide.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate.|The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either superiority or non-inferiority.|"Based on standard normal theory, the sample size needed in order to be able to show that lira + met is non-inferior to glim + met when using a 1:1 randomisation and a non-inferiority criteria of 0.4% with a power of at least 85%, is tabulated below using different SD of HbA1c.~Assuming a drop out rate of 25%, the total number of subjects to be randomised is 896 (224 for each dose of the liraglutide + metformin group and 224 subjects in metformin+glimepiride treatment group) with a SD of 1.2%."||0.42|0.08|0.0421
91730400|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001||95.0|-18.9|-5.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.43|-18.90|<0.001
91730401|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001||95.0|-22.44|-8.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-8.91|-22.44|<0.001
91698754|NCT04257032|183292379|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|105.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.94|113.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 9.9|Relative bioavailability||113.35|97.94|
91698755|NCT04257032|183292380|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|114.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.22|125.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 14.0|Relative bioavailability||125.81|104.22|
91698756|NCT04257032|183292381|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|108.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.26|116.73|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 11.3|Relative bioavailability||116.73|100.26|
91698757|NCT04257032|183292382|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|108.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.84|118.76|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 12.9|Relative bioavailability||118.76|99.84|
91698758|NCT04257032|183292383|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|104.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.34|112.23|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 10.6|Relative bioavailability||112.23|97.34|
91698759|NCT04257032|183292384|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|108.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.37|117.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 11.5|Relative bioavailability||117.12|100.37|
91698760|NCT00792688|183292388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0062
91698761|NCT00792688|183292388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0331||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0331
91698762|NCT03386994|183292420|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.0002
91698763|NCT03386994|183292420|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.0007
91698764|NCT03386994|183292420|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||<0.0001
91698765|NCT03386994|183292420|OTHER|||||||0.6839|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||0.6839
91698766|NCT03386994|183292421|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Timepoint: T0||||||0.0020
91730402|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|-7.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-7.13|-22.09|<0.001
91698767|NCT03386994|183292421|OTHER|||||||0.1385|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Timepoint: T6||||||0.1385
91698768|NCT03386994|183292421|OTHER|||||||0.0233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Timepoint: T12||||||0.0233
91698769|NCT03386994|183292422|OTHER|||||||0.156||||||Timepoint: T0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1560
91698770|NCT03386994|183292422|OTHER|||||||0.3144||||||Timepoint: T6|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3144
91698771|NCT03386994|183292422|OTHER|||||||0.2019||||||Timepoint: T12|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2019
91698772|NCT03386994|183292423|OTHER|||||||0.0075||||||Timepoint: T0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0075
91698773|NCT03386994|183292423|OTHER|||||||0.0361||||||Timepoint: T6|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0361
91698774|NCT03386994|183292423|OTHER|||||||0.4794||||||Timepoint: T12|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4794
91698775|NCT03386994|183292424|OTHER|||||||0.0333|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0333
91698776|NCT03386994|183292426|OTHER|||||||0.4711|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.4711
91698777|NCT03386994|183292426|OTHER|||||||0.4095|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.4095
91698778|NCT03386994|183292426|OTHER|||||||0.0435|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||0.0435
91698779|NCT03386994|183292426|OTHER|||||||0.5479|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||0.5479
91698780|NCT03386994|183292428|OTHER|||||||0.7486|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.7486
91698781|NCT03386994|183292428|OTHER|||||||0.7652|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.7652
91698782|NCT03386994|183292428|OTHER|||||||0.0037|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||0.0037
91698783|NCT03386994|183292428|OTHER|||||||0.6119|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||0.6119
91698784|NCT03386994|183292429|OTHER|||||||0.1581|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.1581
91698785|NCT03386994|183292429|OTHER|||||||0.1581|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.1581
91698786|NCT03386994|183292429|OTHER|||||||0.7165|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||0.7165
91698787|NCT03386994|183292429|OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||1.0000
91698788|NCT03386994|183292430|OTHER|||||||0.0733|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0733
91698789|NCT03386994|183292432|OTHER|||||||0.0207|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0207
91698790|NCT03386994|183292433|OTHER|||||||0.0942|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0942
91698791|NCT03386994|183292434|OTHER|||||||0.0747|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0747
91698792|NCT03386994|183292436|OTHER|||||||0.1282|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1282
91698793|NCT03386994|183292437|OTHER|||||||0.7471|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7471
91698794|NCT03395184|183292480|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|14.3||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.0|24.5|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum (min) risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar 2000)|||24.5|4.0|0.0119
91698795|NCT03395184|183292480|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|21.4||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|32.9|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||32.9|10.0|0.0012
91730403|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.45|-8.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-8.45|-23.45|<0.001
91867105|NCT05230433|183627685|OTHER|No test vs. control groups.||||||0.65||||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Pearson Correlation|||Fold change from 60 to 180 minutes of average medium chain acylcarnitine was calculated for each participant. Pearson correlation between BMI percentile and fold change was calculated.|Pearson Correlation between both secondary outcomes reported: BMI percentile and fold change between acylcarnitine at 60 minutes and 180 minutes post the high fat challenge.|||0.65
91867106|NCT04250194|183627688|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was 10%.|absolute difference in percentage points|5.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|17.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|One-sided two-sample z-test||Difference in diagnostic accuracy = navigational bronchoscopy % - transthoracic biopsy %|||17.2|-6.5|0.003
91867107|NCT03500549|183627708|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using a mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM). The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean Hb changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|3.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|5.34||Superiority was tested at the 5% level. MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||5.34|2.33|<0.0001
91867108|NCT03500549|183627709|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis was based on prespecified non-inferiority margins (NIM) and non-inferiority was achieved if the lower confidence limit or upper confidence limit of the 95% CI of the treatment difference met the prespecified NIM of -20%. Stratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified (Miettinen-Nurminen) method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6253|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|0.7677||Non-inferiority was tested at the 2.5% level.|Miettinen-Nurminen|||||0.7677|0.4830|<0.0001
91698796|NCT03395184|183292494|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|13.3||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|25.7|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||25.7|1.0|0.0390
91698797|NCT03395184|183292494|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|29.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.2|42.2|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||42.2|17.2|0.0001
91698798|NCT03395184|183292495|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.55|-1.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and baseline disease activity/extent as factors, and baseline SES-CD score as a covariate.||||-1.48|-4.55|0.0007
91698799|NCT03395184|183292495|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|-3.26|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and baseline disease activity/extent as factors, and baseline SES-CD score as a covariate.||||-3.26|-6.62|<.0001
91698800|NCT03395184|183292496|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|13.9||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|25.6|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||25.6|2.1|0.0279
91698801|NCT03395184|183292496|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.1|43.9|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||43.9|19.1|<.0001
91698802|NCT03395184|183292497|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|2.5||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|9.3|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||9.3|-4.3|0.2922
91698803|NCT03395184|183292497|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|7.4||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|15.2|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||15.2|-0.4|0.0449
91698804|NCT03395184|183292498|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|5.8||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|13.3|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||13.3|-1.6|0.0998
91698805|NCT03395184|183292498|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|11.8||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|20.9|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||20.9|2.8|0.0111
91698806|NCT02060058|183292501|OTHER|The evaluation of SVR rate was based on full-analysis-set (FAS) and modified intention-to-treat population (mITT). FAS population included subjects receiving ≥ 1 dose of any antiviral agents (boceprevir and/or PEG-IFN, and/or RBV). MITT population included subjects receiving ≥ 1 dose of boceprevir.||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91698807|NCT02017717|183292533|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||log-rank test stratified|||||1.36|0.89|0.3791
91698808|NCT02017717|183292534|SUPERIORITY||Difference of OS rates at 12 months|-0.5||||0.9208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.7|||Z test with variance estimation based on|Greenwood formula using log(-log) transformation||||9.7|-10.8|0.9208
91698809|NCT02017717|183292536|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.35||||||||2.35|1.50|
91698810|NCT02017717|183292537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.59||||||||0.59|0.15|
91698811|NCT02017717|183292538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||log-rank test stratified|||||1.36|0.89|0.3791
91698812|NCT00765895|183292562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by clinic||||||0.86
91698813|NCT00970632|183292570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was for the primary comparison and assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91698814|NCT00970632|183292570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.023||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was secondary in nature and assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
91698815|NCT00970632|183292571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.2|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91698816|NCT00970632|183292571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.3|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91698817|NCT00970632|183292572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.055||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.055
91698818|NCT00970632|183292572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.055||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.055
91698819|NCT00970632|183292573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91698820|NCT00970632|183292573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.026||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
91698821|NCT00970632|183292574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.08||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.080
91698822|NCT00970632|183292574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.118||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.118
91698823|NCT00970632|183292575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.022||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.022
91698824|NCT00970632|183292575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.546||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.546
91698825|NCT00970632|183292576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.003||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 1 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91698826|NCT00970632|183292576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.005||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 1 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91867109|NCT03500549|183627710|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis was based on prespecified NIM and non-inferiority was achieved if the lower confidence limit or upper confidence limit of the 95% CI of the treatment difference met the prespecified NIM of 10.|LS mean difference|-163.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.91|-137.3||Non-inferiority was tested at the 2.5% level. MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||-137.30|-189.91|<0.0001
91867110|NCT03500549|183627711|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis was based on prespecified NIM and non-inferiority was achieved if the lower confidence limit or upper confidence limit of the 95% CI of the treatment difference met the prespecified NIM of 20.|LS mean difference|-4.63||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-181.3|172.04||Non-inferiority was tested at the 2.5% level. MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||172.04|-181.30|0.9557
91698827|NCT00970632|183292577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91698828|NCT00970632|183292577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91698829|NCT00970632|183292578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.003||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91698830|NCT00970632|183292578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.026||95.0||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
91698831|NCT00970632|183292579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The p-value associated with difference between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.001
91698832|NCT00970632|183292579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||95.0||||The p-value associated with difference between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.114
91698833|NCT00970632|183292580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The p-value associated with difference between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and a stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.004
91698834|NCT00970632|183292580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||||||The p-value associated with difference between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.452
91698835|NCT00970632|183292581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of Treatment Group Differences|-4.4||||0.005||||||The p-value associated with the testing for differences in medians between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Van Elteren Tests|P-values testing for differences of medians between placebo and active treatment were based on the Van Elteren test, stratifying by region.||||||0.005
91698836|NCT00970632|183292581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of Treatment Group Differences|-2.2||||0.457||||||The p-value associated with the testing for differences in medians between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 without adjustments for multiplicity.|Van Elteren Tests|P-values testing for differences of medians between placebo and active treatment were based on the Van Elteren test, stratifying by region.||||||0.457
91698837|NCT00970632|183292582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.0|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91698838|NCT00970632|183292582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.699||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.699
91698839|NCT00970632|183292583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using rank transformed data.||||||0.009
91698840|NCT00970632|183292583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA using rank transformed data.||||||0.014
91698841|NCT00970632|183292586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using rank transformed data.||||||0.303
91698842|NCT00970632|183292586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA using rank transformed data.||||||0.146
91698843|NCT03192995|183292587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.91
91698844|NCT03192995|183292588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
91698845|NCT03192995|183292589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.32
91698846|NCT03192995|183292590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.541
91698847|NCT03192995|183292591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.82||||||||3.82|0.24|
91796345|NCT02766465|183471231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FEV1/FVC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.863
91904807|NCT02232802|183704911|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % non-parametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|least square mean ratio|0.0||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FIIa comparison||0.5|-0.5|0.9464
91698848|NCT01286168|183292602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.02
91698849|NCT01286168|183292603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.03
91698850|NCT01286168|183292604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.003
91698851|NCT01286168|183292605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.13
91698852|NCT01286168|183292606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.45
91698853|NCT01286168|183292607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. Unadjusted p-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient.||||0.02
91698854|NCT01286168|183292607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. P-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient. P-value was adjusted for side- and drain-specific variables: indication (cancer or prophylaxis), operation (mastectomy only, mastectomy+SLNB, mastectomy +ALND), and drain duration.||||0.02
91698855|NCT01286168|183292608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Likelihood-ratio test|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. Due to zero events in the antisepsis side for this endpoint, p-value was derived from likelihood-ratio test comparing the intercept only model to the model with intercept and treatment side included.||||0.004
91698856|NCT01286168|183292609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. Unadjusted p-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient.||||0.003
91698857|NCT01286168|183292609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. P-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient. P-value was adjusted for side- and drain-specific variables: indication (cancer or prophylaxis), operation (mastectomy only, mastectomy+SLNB, mastectomy +ALND), and drain duration.||||0.003
91698858|NCT01871402|183292691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data from the ITT population.||||||<0.001
91698859|NCT01871402|183292692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance (\<0.001) was achieved for each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevation).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
91698860|NCT01871402|183292693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91698861|NCT01871402|183292694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance (\<0.001) was achieved for each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevations).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
91698862|NCT04594941|183292697|OTHER||Least Sqaure (LS) Mean Difference|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.754||0.8452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.431|1.133|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Median of Readers: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.133|-1.431|0.8452
91698863|NCT04594941|183292697|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.109||0.989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.899|1.868|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"SPE VS HPLC: Reader 1~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.868|-1.899|0.9890
91698864|NCT04594941|183292697|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.854||0.3852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.204|0.698|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 2: SPE VS HPLC~Reader 2: Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||0.698|-2.204|0.3852
91698865|NCT04594941|183292697|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.968||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.735|1.554|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 3: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on MMRM model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.554|-1.735|0.9260
91698866|NCT04594941|183292698|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.109||0.8452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.104|1.667|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Median of Readers: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.667|-2.104|0.8452
91730404|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001||95.0|-23.16|-7.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-7.86|-23.16|<0.001
91796346|NCT02766465|183471232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing VC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.455
91698867|NCT04594941|183292698|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.793|2.747|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 1: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||2.747|-2.793|0.9890
91698868|NCT04594941|183292698|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.256||0.3852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.241|1.027|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 2: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.027|-3.241|0.3852
91698869|NCT04594941|183292698|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.424||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.552|2.285|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 3: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||2.285|-2.552|0.9260
91698870|NCT04594941|183292699|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||<0.0001
91698871|NCT04594941|183292699|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||<0.0001
91698872|NCT04594941|183292699|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||<0.0001
91698873|NCT04594941|183292699|OTHER|||||||0.0072|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0072
91698874|NCT04594941|183292699|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||0.0051
91698875|NCT04594941|183292699|OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||0.0023
91698876|NCT04594941|183292699|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0002
91730405|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001||95.0|-27.91|-12.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-12.59|-27.91|<0.001
91904808|NCT02232802|183704917|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|103.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.22|106.73||||||||106.73|101.22|
91698877|NCT04594941|183292699|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||<0.0001
91730406|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-16.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92|<|0.001||95.0|-24.04|-8.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-8.63|-24.04|<0.001
91730407|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-21.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92|<|0.001||95.0|-29.36|-13.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-13.94|-29.36|<0.001
91730408|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|-7.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-7.98|-23.27|<0.001
91730409|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-22.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001||95.0|-30.52|-15.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-15.24|-30.52|<0.001
91730410|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001||95.0|-22.38|-7.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-7.19|-22.38|<0.001
91730411|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-22.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.25|-15.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-15.07|-30.25|<0.001
91867111|NCT03500549|183627712|OTHER|Non-inferiority was not assessed because of the prespecified hierarchical testing. Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|11.87||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.49|18.25||MRMM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||18.25|5.49|0.0005
91698878|NCT04594941|183292699|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||<0.0001
91698879|NCT04594941|183292700|OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0089
91698880|NCT04594941|183292700|OTHER|||||||0.0207|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||0.0207
91698881|NCT04594941|183292700|OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||0.0089
91698882|NCT04594941|183292700|OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.732
91698883|NCT04594941|183292700|OTHER|||||||0.0083|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||0.0083
91698884|NCT04594941|183292700|OTHER|||||||0.0412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Reader 3||||0.0412
91698885|NCT04594941|183292700|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0001
91698886|NCT04594941|183292700|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||<0.0001
91698887|NCT04594941|183292700|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||<0.0001
91730412|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|-7.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-7.09|-22.86|<0.001
91730413|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-21.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001||95.0|-29.34|-13.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-13.60|-29.34|<0.001
91730414|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.33|-6.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-6.43|-22.33|<0.001
91730415|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|<|0.001||95.0|-28.5|-12.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-12.65|-28.50|<0.001
91730416|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.003||95.0|-20.14|-4.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-4.14|-20.14|0.003
91730417|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-19.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.71|-11.755||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-11.755|-27.71|<0.001
91730418|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|-6.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-6.54|-22.25|<0.001
91698888|NCT04594941|183292702|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 1||1.0000|1.0000|
91698889|NCT04594941|183292702|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.6957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1696|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 2||1.0000|0.1696|
91698890|NCT04594941|183292702|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 3||1.0000|1.0000|
91698891|NCT04594941|183292702|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.4615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0699|0.993|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 1||0.9930|-0.0699|
91698892|NCT04594941|183292702|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 2||1.0000|1.0000|
91698893|NCT04594941|183292702|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 3||1.0000|1.0000|
91698894|NCT04594941|183292702|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.8811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6567|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 1||1.0000|0.6567|
91698895|NCT04594941|183292702|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.8828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6614|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 2||1.0000|0.6614|
91867112|NCT03500549|183627713|OTHER|Stratified CMH chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|0.6745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5452|0.8039|||||The difference in percentage and 95% CI is calculated based on stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method stratified by randomization factor so it it is not a direct difference of two reporting groups.|||0.8039|0.5452|
91867113|NCT03500549|183627714|OTHER|Stratified CMH chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|0.6639|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5309|0.7968|||||The difference in percentage and 95% CI is calculated based on stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method stratified by randomization factor so it it is not a direct difference of two reporting groups.|||0.7968|0.5309|
91904809|NCT02232802|183704918|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|Geometric least square mean ratio|108.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.93|113.46||||||||113.46|103.93|
91730419|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001||95.0|-27.93|-12.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-12.27|-27.93|<0.001
91698896|NCT04594941|183292702|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.8811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6567|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 3||1.0000|0.6567|
91698897|NCT03408444|183292709|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted upper confidence limit is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 0.08 mm difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||-0.020|-0.106|
91698898|NCT03408444|183292709|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted upper confidence limit is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 0.08 mm difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||-0.013|-0.100|
91698899|NCT03408444|183292709|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted upper confidence limit is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|-0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 0.08 mm difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||-0.062|-0.149|
91698900|NCT03408444|183292710|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted lower confidence limit is above 0.|Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 79% power to detect a 0.20 D difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||0.21|-0.04|
91698901|NCT03408444|183292710|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted lower confidence limit is above 0.|Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 79% power to detect a 0.20 D difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||0.25|-0.01|
91730420|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07|<|0.001||95.0|-22.96|-6.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-6.96|-22.96|<0.001
91904810|NCT02232802|183704919|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|Geometric least square mean ratio|102.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.51|108.28||||||||108.28|97.51|
91730421|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.13|-12.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-12.18|-28.13|<0.001
91867114|NCT03500549|183627715|OTHER|Stratified CMH chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|0.3043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1493|0.4593|||||The difference in percentage and 95% CI is calculated based on stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method stratified by randomization factor so it it is not a direct difference of two reporting groups.|||0.4593|0.1493|
91867115|NCT03500549|183627716|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-21.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.49|-11.36||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||-11.36|-32.49|0.0002
91867116|NCT03500549|183627717|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||-0.01|-0.28|0.0369
91867117|NCT03500549|183627718|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|59.1||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.88|101.32||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||101.32|16.88|0.0069
91867118|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|18.62||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|37.13||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Global Health Status/QoL: Difference in LS mean||37.13|0.12|0.0486
91698902|NCT03408444|183292710|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted lower confidence limit is above 0.|Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 79% power to detect a 0.20 D difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||0.35|0.09|
91698903|NCT02045862|183292801|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.21||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.69|<0.001
91796347|NCT02766465|183471233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing TLC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.767
91796348|NCT02766465|183471234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing RV changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.241
91796349|NCT02766465|183471235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing ERV changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.268
91867119|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|12.86||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|20.86||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Physical functioning: Difference in LS mean||20.86|4.86|0.0023
91867120|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|24.43||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.84|40.01||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Role functioning: Difference in LS mean||40.01|8.84|0.0027
91796350|NCT02766465|183471236|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing IC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||>0.999
91796351|NCT02766465|183471237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FRC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.832
91698904|NCT02045862|183292801|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.11||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.11|-0.37|0.002
91867121|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|4.11||||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|19.8||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Emotional functioning: Difference in LS mean||19.80|-11.58|0.6013
91698905|NCT02045862|183292802|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.2||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-0.77|<0.001
91698906|NCT02045862|183292802|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.71|0.004
91698907|NCT02045862|183292803|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|15.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|22.69|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||22.69|8.99|<0.001
91698908|NCT02045862|183292803|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|19.57|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||19.57|5.98|<0.001
91730422|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07|<|0.001||95.0|-21.62|-5.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-5.65|-21.62|<0.001
91730423|NCT04003142|183355930|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-18.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|<|0.001||95.0|-26.89|-10.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-10.98|-26.89|<0.001
91796352|NCT02766465|183471238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing DLCO changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.370
91698909|NCT02045862|183292804|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|-5.05|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-5.05|-10.05|<0.001
91698910|NCT02045862|183292804|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|-2.12|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.12|-7.09|<0.001
91730424|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.881||||0.02||95.0|1.11|3.233||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||3.233|1.110|0.020
91730425|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.645|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.585|4.498||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||4.498|1.585|<0.001
91730426|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.464|||<|0.001||95.0|1.535|4.001||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.001|1.535|<0.001
91796353|NCT02766465|183471239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05;|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing oxygen saturation changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.094
91796354|NCT02766465|183471241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD in patients who received different donor type at transplant||||0.313
91867122|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|9.56||||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|23.64||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Cognitive functioning: Difference in LS mean||23.64|-4.52|0.1792
91698911|NCT02045862|183292805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.82|0.28|<0.001
91698912|NCT02045862|183292805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.86|0.32|<0.001
91730427|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.464|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.534|4.004||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.004|1.534|<0.001
91796355|NCT02766465|183471242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of chronic GVHD in patients who received different donor type at transplant||||0.233
91698913|NCT02045862|183292807|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.84|||Mixed Effects Poisson-Negative Binomial|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary day at EoT as the offset variable.||0.84|0.54|<0.001
91698914|NCT02045862|183292807|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97|||Mixed Effects Poisson-Negative Binomial|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary day at EoT as the offset variable.||0.97|0.61|0.029
91796356|NCT01907100|183471244|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.555||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.907|||Proportional hazards mode||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from proportional hazards model stratified by tumour histology (epithelioid vs. biphasic).|Phase II Part||0.907|0.340|0.0174
91867123|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|11.27||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|24.92||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Social functioning: Difference in LS mean||24.92|-2.38|0.1039
91904811|NCT02232802|183704920|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|114.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.29|129.08||||||||129.08|102.29|
91796357|NCT01907100|183471244|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.3||one-sided p-value|Proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from a non-stratified proportional hazards model.|"Phase III part:~A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the comparison of treatment arms (Nintedanib vs Placebo).~If the hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours nintedanib."||1.30|0.79|0.5430
91796358|NCT01907100|183471245|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|1.412|||Proportional hazards mode||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from proportional hazards model stratified by tumour histology (epithelioid vs. biphasic).|Phase II||1.412|0.433|0.4132
91730428|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.367|||<|0.001||95.0|1.502|3.762||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||3.762|1.502|<0.001
91730429|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.894|||<|0.001||95.0|1.835|4.609||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.609|1.835|<0.001
91904812|NCT02232802|183704921|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.8554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|= 0.8554
91698915|NCT02045862|183292808|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.49||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.49|-4.76|<0.001
91698916|NCT02045862|183292808|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.72||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.72|-2.57|<0.001
91698917|NCT02045862|183292809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.01|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate||2.01|1.26|<0.001
91698918|NCT02045862|183292809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.75|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.75|1.08|0.009
91698919|NCT02045862|183292810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.05|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariates.||2.05|1.26|<0.001
91698920|NCT02045862|183292810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.85|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariates.||1.85|1.14|0.002
91698921|NCT02045862|183292811|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.21||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.65|<0.001
91698922|NCT02045862|183292811|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate||0.09|-0.36|0.009
91698923|NCT02045862|183292812|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.79|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of urgency incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable||0.79|0.48|<0.001
91698924|NCT02045862|183292812|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of urgency incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary day at EoT as the offset variable||0.96|0.58|0.023
91698925|NCT02045862|183292813|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-1.46||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.46|-4.51|<0.001
91730430|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.902|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.829|4.657||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.657|1.829|<0.001
91730431|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.218|||<|0.001||95.0|2.025|5.172||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.172|2.025|<0.001
91730432|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.153|||<|0.001||95.0|1.375|3.394||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.394|1.375|<0.001
91698926|NCT02045862|183292813|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.61||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.61|-2.47|0.006
91698927|NCT02045862|183292815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.8|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.8|1.14|0.002
91698928|NCT02045862|183292815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.73|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.73|1.09|0.007
91698929|NCT02045862|183292816|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||-0.41|-1.16|<0.001
91698930|NCT02045862|183292816|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.77|0.037
91698931|NCT02045862|183292818|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.37|-1.10|<0.001
91698932|NCT02045862|183292818|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.76|0.036
91698933|NCT02045862|183292819|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-0.19|0.059
91698934|NCT02045862|183292819|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.19|0.068
91698935|NCT02045862|183292820|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of nocturia episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of nocturia episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days as the offset variable||1.01|0.81|0.067
91730433|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.074|||<|0.001||95.0|1.957|4.878||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.878|1.957|<0.001
91730434|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.002||95.0|1.31|3.228||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.228|1.310|0.002
91730435|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.908|||<|0.001||95.0|1.856|4.599||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.599|1.856|<0.001
91867124|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-20.74||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.29|-6.19||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue: Difference in LS mean||-6.19|-35.29|0.0062
91867125|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|8.35||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Nausea and vomiting: Difference in LS mean||8.35|-8.38|0.9975
91867126|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-2.76||||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.36|14.85||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Pain: Difference in LS mean||14.85|-20.36|0.7554
91867127|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-14.57||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|0.76||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnoea: Difference in LS mean||0.76|-29.90|0.0620
91867128|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|0.32||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.67|16.3||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Insomnia: Difference in LS mean||16.30|-15.67|0.9686
91867129|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-7.95||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|7.33||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Appetite loss: Difference in LS mean||7.33|-23.23|0.3002
91867130|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|1.79||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|19.29||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Constipation: Difference in LS mean||19.29|-15.70|0.8374
91867131|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-1.38||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|16.52||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Diarrhoea: Difference in LS mean||16.52|-19.28|0.8775
91867132|NCT03500549|183627719|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-7.4||||0.3066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|6.95||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Financial difficulties: Difference in LS mean||6.95|-21.76|0.3066
91867133|NCT03500549|183627720|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank-sum test P-value for the comparison between treatments is based on median using stratified non-parametric analysis. The 95% CI is constructed using Hodges-Lehmann Estimation of Location Shift.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||4.0|2.0|<0.0001
91867134|NCT06688357|183627746|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.99||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||t (13) = 1.920. Only 1 comparison with 2 means, thus no adjustment necessary|t-test, 2 sided|||Independent sample t-test conducted to examine difference in pre-post intervention change scores for the active vs sham intervention groups. Cohen's d was calculated to determine effect size.||||.077
91867135|NCT06688357|183627747|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.779||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = 1.504; only 1 comparison of 2 values, thus no adjustment is necessary|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-test; Cohen's d effect size||||.159
91698936|NCT02045862|183292820|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.131||95.0|0.82|1.03|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of nocturia episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of nocturia episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary day as the offset variable.||1.03|0.82|0.131
91867136|NCT06688357|183627748|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.356||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|||||t (13) = 0.688; only 1 comparison, adjustment not necessary|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||independent samples t-test, cohen's d effect size||||.503
91698937|NCT02045862|183292821|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-1.34|0.055
91698938|NCT02045862|183292821|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-1.39|0.048
91698939|NCT02045862|183292822|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.69|0.002
91698940|NCT02045862|183292822|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.55|0.039
91698941|NCT02045862|183292823|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Rate ratio of number of pads during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of pads divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.76|0.45|<0.001
91698942|NCT02045862|183292823|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Rate ratio of number of pads during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of pads divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.99|0.58|0.044
91698943|NCT02045862|183292824|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.18|-4.78|0.001
91698944|NCT02045862|183292824|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.15|-3.52|0.072
91698945|NCT02045862|183292826|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|6.96|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.96|2.56|<0.001
91698946|NCT02045862|183292826|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.04|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.04|0.68|0.010
91698947|NCT02045862|183292827|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|8.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.20|2.99|<0.001
91698948|NCT02045862|183292827|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.6|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.60|0.43|0.022
91730436|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.113||||0.001||95.0|1.349|3.332||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.332|1.349|0.001
91698949|NCT02045862|183292828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|7.38|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.38|2.65|<0.001
91698950|NCT02045862|183292828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|6.13|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.13|1.43|0.002
91698951|NCT02045862|183292829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|7.83|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.83|2.47|<0.001
91698952|NCT02045862|183292829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.93|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.93|0.62|0.016
91698953|NCT02045862|183292830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.59|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.59|0.77|0.006
91698954|NCT02045862|183292830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.93|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.93|-0.87|0.287
91698955|NCT02045862|183292832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.47|<0.001
91698956|NCT02045862|183292832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.05|-0.36|0.011
91698957|NCT02045862|183292844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||2.15|1.26|<0.001
91698958|NCT02045862|183292844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.67|0.97|0.080
91698959|NCT02045862|183292845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.78|1.49|<0.001
91698960|NCT02045862|183292845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.57|1.37|<0.001
91698961|NCT02045862|183292846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.43|1.36|<0.001
91730437|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.594|||<|0.001||95.0|1.653|4.104||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.104|1.653|<0.001
91730438|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.891||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.973||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.973|1.210|0.005
91904813|NCT02232802|183704922|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|geometric least square mean ratio|100.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.27|102.47||||||||102.47|99.27|
91698962|NCT02045862|183292846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.92|1.08|0.014
91867137|NCT06688357|183627749|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.922||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = 1.893; only one comparison of 2 scores, thus no adjustment for multiple comparisons was necessary|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Independent sample t-test used to examine pre-post intervention change scores in active vs sham groups; Cohen's d was calculated to estimate effect size||||0.08
91867138|NCT06688357|183627750|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.793||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|||||t (13) = 1.533; only 1 comparison, no adjustment necessary|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-test, Cohen d effect size||||.149
91867139|NCT06688357|183627751|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.905||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = 1.749; only 1 comparison with 2 values, thus no adjustment for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||independent sample t-test was used to examine difference in Post-Pre intervention change in the Active vs the Sham groups; Effect size was estimated using Cohen's d.||||.104
91867140|NCT06688357|183627752|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.267||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = -.516; only 1 comparison of 2 means, no adjustment needed|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-tests examining Post-Baseline differences for the Active vs the Sham groups; Effect size computed using Cohen's d score||||.614
91867141|NCT06688357|183627753|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.652||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = -1.260; only 1 comparison of 2 values, no need for adjustment|t-test, 2 sided|||independent samples t-test, effect size computation (cohen's d)||||.230
91698963|NCT02045862|183292847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.41|1.34|<0.001
91698964|NCT02045862|183292847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio wa from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.95|1.06|0.019
91698965|NCT02045862|183292848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.19|1.26|<0.001
91698966|NCT02045862|183292848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.62|0.94|0.133
91698967|NCT02045862|183292849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.03|1.18|0.002
91698968|NCT02045862|183292849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.95|1.12|0.006
91698969|NCT02045862|183292850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.29|1.24|<0.001
91698970|NCT02045862|183292850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||1.77|0.94|0.109
91698971|NCT02045862|183292851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.25|1.26|<0.001
91698972|NCT02045862|183292851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.16|1.22|<0.001
91698973|NCT02045862|183292852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.62|1.50|<0.001
91867142|NCT00227266|183627775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman's correlation|0.93|||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's correlation|||MHFMS-Extend was not normally distributed at p=0.048. Test-retest reliability of MHFMS-Extend measurements from the first (S1) to the second (S2) screening visit was analyzed using Spearman's correlation.||||<0.001
91867143|NCT05890794|183627823|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.85||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.842|58.858||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PPi.||58.858|22.842|0.0005
91888759|NCT02942004|183669963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.414||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|-2.07|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.07|-11.64|0.0054
91698974|NCT02045862|183292852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.36|1.35|<0.001
91698975|NCT02045862|183292853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||2.54|1.46|<0.001
91867144|NCT05890794|183627823|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error|Difference in LS Means|-11.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.681|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-5.82||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for PPi.||-5.82|-16.52|<0.0001
91867145|NCT05890794|183627824|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.831|40.941||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PLP.||40.941|20.831|<0.0001
91867146|NCT05890794|183627824|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|-22.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.289||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|-9.2||Significant test: two-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for PLP.||-9.20|-35.81|0.0024
91867147|NCT05890794|183627825|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4335.66||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6652.753|-2018.576||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for ALP activity.||-2018.576|-6652.753|0.0019
91904814|NCT02232802|183704923|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|geometric least square mean ratio|95.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|105.6||||||||105.6|85.7|
91904815|NCT02232802|183704924|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % nonparametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is the difference between median tmax in Test IMP versus Reference IMP arms.|||0.5|-0.25|= 0.6857
91904816|NCT02232802|183704930|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|111.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.89|117.17||||||||117.17|105.89|
91796359|NCT01907100|183471245|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.7306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58||one-sided p-value|Proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from a non-stratified proportional hazards model.|"Phase III:~A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the comparison of treatment arms (Nintedanib vs Placebo).~If the hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours nintedanib."||1.58|0.79|0.7306
91904817|NCT02232802|183704931|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|113.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.47|120.53||||||||120.53|107.47|
91904818|NCT02232802|183704936|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % nonparametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is the difference between median tmax in Test IMP versus Reference IMP arms.|||0.13|-0.13|= 0.9217
91904819|NCT00885703|183704942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Testing discontinuation of any dose Fluconazole (pooled by treatment and dose) versus discontinuation of Ampho B (pooled). The null hypothesis is the two treatments have the same proportion of discontinuation.||||0.0012
91904820|NCT00885703|183704943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|||Among 4 treatment arms, comparison of three categorical groups: (CM negative, CM negative after switching treatment, and CM Positive/Died/Lost to Follow-up) at week 10. The null hypothesis is the 4 treatment arms have no differences at week 10.||||0.012
91904821|NCT00885703|183704944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in quantitative CSF culture among 4 treatment arms. The null hypothesis is the 4 treatment arms have the same change in CSF culture from entry to week 2.||||0.019
91904822|NCT00885703|183704945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0894||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival from entry to week 24 between Fluconazole 1200mg arm and Ampho B arm. The null hypothesis is there is no difference in survival between these two arms.||||0.0894
91698976|NCT02045862|183292853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||2.09|1.20|0.001
91904823|NCT00885703|183704945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival from entry to week 24 between Fluconazole 1600mg arm and Ampho B arm. The null hypothesis is there is no difference in survival between these two arms.||||0.4828
91698977|NCT02045862|183292854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.26|1.28|<0.001
91698978|NCT02045862|183292854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.86|1.06|0.019
91698979|NCT02045862|183292855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.46|1.40|<0.001
91867148|NCT05890794|183627826|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.25||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.319|48.812||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for urine PEA.||48.812|-2.319|0.0693
91867149|NCT05890794|183627826|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|-8.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.986||0.7086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.88|40.35||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for urine PEA.||40.35|-57.88|0.7086
91867150|NCT05890794|183627827|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|187.43||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.516|338.344||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PL.||338.344|36.516|0.0199
91698980|NCT02045862|183292855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.09|1.19|0.001
91730439|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.314|||<|0.001||95.0|2.108|5.265||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.265|2.108|<0.001
91730440|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.027||95.0|1.06|2.566||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.566|1.060|0.027
91730441|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.347|||<|0.001||95.0|1.507|3.683||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.683|1.507|<0.001
91730442|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.792||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|2.799||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.799|1.153|0.010
91904824|NCT00885703|183704945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1766||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival from entry to week 24 between Fluconazole 2000mg arm and Ampho B arm. The null hypothesis is there is no difference in survival between these two arms.||||0.1766
91730443|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.819|||<|0.001||95.0|1.805|4.441||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.441|1.805|<0.001
91730444|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.357|||<|0.001||95.0|1.513|3.699||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.699|1.513|<0.001
91730445|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.131|||<|0.001||95.0|1.999|4.95||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.950|1.999|<0.001
91730446|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.373||||0.152||95.0|0.891|2.122||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.122|0.891|0.152
91730447|NCT04003142|183355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09|||<|0.001||95.0|1.351|3.252||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.252|1.351|<0.001
91730448|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.915||||0.951||95.0|0.036|23.464||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.464|0.036|0.951
91698981|NCT02045862|183292856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.34|1.33|<0.001
91698982|NCT02045862|183292856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.89|1.08|0.012
91698983|NCT02004886|183292891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-13.3|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and baseline 24-hour WMG value as a covariate.||||-13.3|-38.4|<0.001
91698984|NCT02004886|183292891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.1|-41.1|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and baseline 24-hour WMG value as a covariate.||||-41.1|-66.1|<0.001
91698985|NCT02004886|183292891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-13.6|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and baseline 24-hour WMG value as a covariate.||||-13.6|-38.4|<0.001
91698986|NCT02004886|183292894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-0.9|-35.7|0.04
91698987|NCT02004886|183292894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.9|-26.3|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-26.3|-60.9|<0.001
91698988|NCT02004886|183292894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|8.5|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||8.5|-25.7|0.320
91698989|NCT02004886|183292896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.7|0.751
91730449|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.889||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|58.864||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||58.864|0.364|0.362
91796360|NCT01907100|183471246|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.58||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and one-sided p-value are obtained from an un-adjusted logistic regression model (Nintedanib vs Placebo).|Odds ratio above 1 favours nintedanib.||Exact 95% CI by Clopper and Pearson.|1.58|0.76|0.3189
91904825|NCT00346073|183704953|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective of non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between the two groups (Boostrix Group - Adacel Group) were greater than or equal to (≥) -10%|Difference in percentage|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.84||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine compared to Adacel™ vaccine, with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-diphtheria (anti-D) antibody concentrations greater than or equal to (≥) 0.1 IU/mL, one month after vaccination.||0.84|-1.47|
91796361|NCT01907100|183471247|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.55||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and one-sided p-value are obtained from an un-adjusted logistic regression model (Nintedanib vs Placebo).|Odds ratio above 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.55|0.40|0.7512
91904826|NCT00346073|183704953|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective of non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between the two groups (Boostrix Group - Adacel Group) were greater than or equal to (≥) -10%|Difference in percentage|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.11||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine compared to Adacel™ vaccine, with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-tetanus (anti-T) antibody concentrations greater than or equal to (≥) 0.1 IU/mL, one month after vaccination.||0.11|-0.9|
91698990|NCT02004886|183292896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.0|0.581
91698991|NCT02004886|183292896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.8|0.918
91698992|NCT02004886|183292898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|5.6|||ANCOVA|||||5.6|-21.1|0.253
91698993|NCT02004886|183292898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-26.0|0.070
91698994|NCT02004886|183292898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-12.8|||ANCOVA|||||-12.8|-39.5|<0.001
91698995|NCT02004886|183292899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.6|-34.0|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-34.0|-145.6|0.002
91698996|NCT02004886|183292899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-191.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-246.4|-135.9|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-135.9|-246.4|<0.001
91698997|NCT02004886|183292899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-97.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.4|-42.9|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-42.9|-152.4|0.001
91698998|NCT02004886|183292900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-1.5|0.408
91698999|NCT02004886|183292900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-3.1|0.741
91699000|NCT02004886|183292900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-2.8|0.906
91699001|NCT02004886|183292901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|25.3|||ANCOVA|||||25.3|-30.4|0.857
91699002|NCT02004886|183292901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|26.9|||ANCOVA|||||26.9|-30.3|0.906
91699003|NCT02004886|183292901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|20.8|||ANCOVA|||||20.8|-34.0|0.630
91730450|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.775||||0.138||95.0|0.785|12.87||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.870|0.785|0.138
91867151|NCT05890794|183627827|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|-12.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.767||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.92|6.89||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for PL.||6.89|-31.92|0.2034
91699004|NCT02822573|183292902|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (RMANCOVA) models with covariates of treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, baseline outcome level, age stratification and an unstructured covariance matrix. The primary objective was assessed using a linear contrast of group effect at 24 weeks.||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||With a sample size of 266, there was 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 2 words for HVLT-R total recall score (SD=4.26, effect size=0.47) with a two-sided 5% level of significance. This calculation assumed an ANCOVA model analysis with 25% dropout and 2% missing data at end of treatment. A single interim analysis for futility occurred after 138 participants, with stopping rule of two-sided p-value \< 0.0154. This design required 3.5% more than fixed design, increasing total to 276.||||0.32
91699005|NCT04789291|183292978|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|102.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.34|106.29|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 4.8.|Relative bioavailability of BI 1595043 administered in fed state (Test) compared with BI 1595043 administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||106.29|99.34|
91699006|NCT04789291|183292979|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|77.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.77|86.76|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 15.5.|Relative bioavailability of BI 1595043 administered in fed state (Test) compared with BI 1595043 administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||86.76|69.77|
91730451|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.342||||0.704||95.0|0.291|6.914||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.914|0.291|0.704
91730452|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.798||||0.741||95.0|0.194|3.079||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||3.079|0.194|0.741
91867152|NCT05890794|183627828|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.868|2.084||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in fold change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PL/PLP ratio.||2.084|-3.868|0.5195
91867153|NCT05890794|183627828|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of fold change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in fold change form baseline (LS Means) between dose levels of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for PL/PLP ratio.||1.33|0.69|<0.0001
91867154|NCT04538352|183627830|OTHER|p value of contrast difference compared from MDI to Semaglutide group at specific time point, testing whether contrast difference is equal to 0, which means there is no difference between two groups. The determination of statistical significance was made using Bonferroni-adjusted p-value, setting the significance threshold at 0.01 after multiplicity correction.||||||0.009||||||p value is adjusted for the multiple comparison. The significance threshold is set to 0.01.|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|||"Linear mixed effect model was conducted for each endpoint to assess mean change at each time point, with time, treatment groups, the interaction of treatment groups and time, and baseline variables included and adjusted in each model.~Mean change difference between patients with MDI and those with Semaglutide (MDI - Semaglutide)"||||0.009
91888760|NCT02942004|183669963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|0.45|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-8.86|0.0763
91888761|NCT02942004|183669963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.673||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|0.99|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.99|-9.60|0.1101
91730453|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.292||||0.134||95.0|0.809|7.443||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.443|0.809|0.134
91730454|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.474||||0.062||95.0|1.039|15.712||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||15.712|1.039|0.062
91730455|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.184||||0.004||95.0|2.025|26.875||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||26.875|2.025|0.004
91699007|NCT04789291|183292980|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|103.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.73|106.89|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 4.9.|Relative bioavailability of BI 1595043 administered in fed state (Test) compared with BI 1595043 administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||106.89|99.73|
91796362|NCT00667602|183471270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC)|Percentage Difference|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between one dose of MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 for serogroup C at 1 month following the 12 months vaccination was greater than -10% .||-1|-15|
91867155|NCT04538352|183627831|OTHER|p value of contrast difference compared from MDI to Semaglutide group at specific time point, testing whether contrast difference is equal to 0, which means there is no difference between two groups. The determination of statistical significance was made using Bonferroni-adjusted p-value, setting the significance threshold at 0.01 after multiplicity correction.|||||<|0.001||||||p value is adjusted for the multiple comparison. The significance threshold is set to 0.01.|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|||"Linear mixed effect model was conducted for each endpoint to assess mean change at each time point, with time, treatment groups, the interaction of treatment groups and time, and baseline variables included and adjusted in each model.~Mean change difference between patients with MDI and those with Semaglutide (MDI - Semaglutide)"||||<0.001
91867156|NCT03301467|183627844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-1.9|0.9670
91867157|NCT03301467|183627845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test||"Test for normality showed that mean change and mean percent change were not normally distributed. As per SAP, Van Elteren's test was then applied to test mean percent change.~SAP=Statistical Analysis Protocol"|||||0.3083
91867158|NCT03301467|183627846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4591|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi square general association statistic||||||0.4591
91867159|NCT03301467|183627847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3106|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi square general association statistic||||||0.3106
91904827|NCT00346073|183704954|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective of non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between the two groups (Boostrix Group - Adacel Group) were greater than or equal to (≥) -10%|Difference in percentage|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.0||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine compared to Adacel™ vaccine, with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-tetanus (anti-T) antibody concentrations greater than or equal to (≥) 1.0 IU/mL, one month after vaccination.||0|-1.97|
91904828|NCT00346073|183704956|SUPERIORITY||Booster response|77.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.9|79.3||||||"Demonstration that anti-PT booster response occurred in at least 80% of adults receiving a single dose of Boostrix® vaccine, one month after vaccination.~Criterion for evaluation: one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with a booster response was greater than or equal to (≥) 80%."||79.3|74.9|
91904829|NCT00346073|183704956|SUPERIORITY||Booster response|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.8|97.7||||||"Demonstration that anti-FHA booster response occurred in at least 80% of adults receiving a single dose of Boostrix® vaccine, one month after vaccination.~Criterion for evaluation: one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with a booster response was greater than or equal to (≥) 80%."||97.7|95.8|
91867160|NCT03301467|183627848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.5|0.3368
91867161|NCT03301467|183627849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.7|0.0401
91867162|NCT03301467|183627850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.84||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|21.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||21.85|-0.16|0.0534
91867163|NCT03301467|183627851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.67||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|19.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||19.78|1.56|0.0221
91904830|NCT00346073|183704956|SUPERIORITY||Booster response|93.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.8|94.4||||||"Demonstration that anti-PRN booster response occurred in at least 80% of adults receiving a single dose of Boostrix® vaccine, one month after vaccination.~Criterion for evaluation: one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with a booster response was greater than or equal to (≥) 80%."||94.4|91.8|
91699008|NCT02447497|183292983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.1|||Paired t-test|||48 hours post treatment time point. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||4.10|0.51|<0.0001
91699009|NCT02447497|183292983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.75|||Paired t-test|||48 hours post treatment. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the groin. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||5.75|0.60|0.0001
91699010|NCT02447497|183292983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.75|||Paired t-test|||72 hours post treatment. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFUcm2 on the groin. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||3.75|0.17|0.0001
91699011|NCT02447497|183292983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.04|||Paired t-test|||72 hours post treatment. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFUcm2 on the groin. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||5.04|0.13|0.0001
91699012|NCT02017912|183292987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5567||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.321|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.920|-1.321|0.7208
91699013|NCT02017912|183292988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.187|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.360|-2.187|0.6410
91699014|NCT00985959|183293006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall response rate (%)|69.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.9|79.2||Significance level 5% one-tailed. Threshold response rate 35%|Binominal test|||||79.2|58.9|<0.0001
91699015|NCT02235077|183293043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.20|-0.11|0.5688
91699016|NCT02235077|183293044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.86|||Regression, Linear|||||0.86|-0.35|0.4155
91699017|NCT02235077|183293045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.81|||Chi-squared|||||1.81|0.83|0.3039
91699018|NCT02235077|183293046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07|||Regression, Linear|||||0.07|-0.09|0.7673
91699019|NCT02235077|183293047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|319.2||||0.5734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-797.4|1435.8|||Regression, Linear|||||1435.8|-797.4|0.5734
91699020|NCT02235077|183293048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.3528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.01|||Regression, Linear|||||1.01|-3.05|0.3528
91699021|NCT02235077|183293049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||||0.25|-0.02|0.0846
91730456|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.217||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.305|18.806||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||18.806|1.305|0.028
91699022|NCT02235077|183293050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.17||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.98|1.65|||Regression, Linear|||||1.65|-25.98|0.0842
91699023|NCT02235077|183293051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.7628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|0.56|0.7628
91699024|NCT02235077|183293052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.95|||Regression, Linear|||||2.95|-5.02|0.6102
91699025|NCT02235077|183293053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.99|0.29|0.5818
91699026|NCT03852628|183293054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modeled the probability of having a reduction in AUD||The Placebo arm served as the reference group.||1.22|0.02|0.08
91699027|NCT03852628|183293055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modeled the probability of reduction in PTSD symptom.||The placebo arm served as the reference group.||2.97|0.20|0.690
91699028|NCT03852628|183293056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modeled the probability of have both a reduction in PTSD and AUD||The Placebo arm served as the reference group.||2.66|0.15|0.52
91699029|NCT04064411|183293070|NON_INFERIORITY|"Noninferiority margin = 2.0% for abaloparatide-sMTS compared with abaloparatide-SC.~Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated treatment difference (abaloparatide-sMTS minus abaloparatide-SC) in the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months was above -2.0% using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis."|Least Squares Means (LSM) Difference|-3.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0089|-2.4331|||||LSM Difference = abaloparatide-sMTS minus abaloparatide-SC|||-2.4331|-5.0089|
91699030|NCT01672710|183293085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|14.2|||ANCOVA|||||14.2|-0.3|<0.05
91699031|NCT05239494|183293093|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Shapiro-Wilks|||This study used a ±50 VAS scale, with values in the positive and negative range indicating that the contact lenses were comfortable or uncomfortable, respectively. A score of zero on this scale indicated neutral CL comfort.||||<0.001
91699032|NCT03155178|183293103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.07|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.07|-0.53|0.13
91699033|NCT03155178|183293103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.3|||Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||0.30|-0.23|0.78
91730457|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.802||||0.044||95.0|1.157|17.075||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.075|1.157|0.044
91730458|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.342||||0.519||95.0|0.551|3.382||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.382|0.551|0.519
91730459|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.961||||0.117||95.0|0.863|4.741||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.741|0.863|0.117
91699034|NCT03155178|183293103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.29|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.29|-0.38|0.77
91699035|NCT03155178|183293103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.17|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.17|-0.45|0.37
91699036|NCT03155178|183293103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.58|||Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||0.58|-0.20|0.33
91699037|NCT03155178|183293103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.39|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.39|-0.25|0.65
91730460|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.471||||0.393||95.0|0.612|3.687||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.687|0.612|0.393
91730461|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.087||||0.086||95.0|0.923|5.043||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.043|0.923|0.086
91867164|NCT03301467|183627852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.2638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|11.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||11.08|-3.08|0.2638
91730462|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.774||||0.168||95.0|0.798|4.143||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.143|0.798|0.168
91867165|NCT03301467|183627853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.82||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|9.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||9.77|-2.14|0.2069
91867166|NCT03301467|183627854|SUPERIORITY||LSM UPCR Ratio|0.98||||0.9284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM UPCR Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.45|0.67|0.9284
91904831|NCT02687542|183704980|OTHER|Bayesian Dose Response Analysis|Bayesian Dose Reponse Estimate|-0.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6162||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.713|0.304||Bayesian Predictive Test for Emax (the additive increase over Placebo in the response of PF-06649751 at a theoretically infinite dose) Monotonicity|Bayesian Dose Response Analysis|Estimate and 90% credible interval of Bayesian dose response difference from placebo||||0.304|-1.713|0.5776
91796363|NCT00667602|183471271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC)|Percentage difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between one dose of MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 for serogroup C at 1 month following the 12 months vaccination was greater than -10%.||-2|-13|
91867167|NCT03301467|183627855|SUPERIORITY||LSM UPCR Ratio|0.86||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM UPCR Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.21|0.60|0.3778
91867168|NCT03301467|183627856|SUPERIORITY||LSM MCP-1 Ratio|0.76||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM MCP-1 Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.04|0.55|0.0810
91730463|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.374||||0.03||95.0|1.112|5.41||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.410|1.112|0.030
91730464|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.605||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|3.971||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.971|0.681|0.287
91730465|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.108||||0.08||95.0|0.936|5.076||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.076|0.936|0.080
91730466|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.599||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.636||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.636|0.730|0.247
91730467|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.481||||0.017||95.0|1.201|5.441||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.441|1.201|0.017
91699038|NCT03155178|183293104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.24|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.24|-0.63|0.38
91699039|NCT03155178|183293104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.45|||Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||0.45|-0.30|0.68
91699040|NCT03155178|183293104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.45|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.45|-0.47|0.97
91699041|NCT03155178|183293104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.65|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.65|-0.27|0.40
91699042|NCT03155178|183293104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.03||Using a Hochberg Step-up procedure the critical p value is 0.17|Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||1.03|0.05|0.03
91699043|NCT03155178|183293104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.87|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.87|-0.03|0.07
91699044|NCT02195310|183293142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7007|||||||Fisher Exact Test (2-sided)|||||||0.7007
91730468|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.728||||0.212||95.0|0.744|4.236||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.236|0.744|0.212
91867169|NCT03301467|183627857|SUPERIORITY||LSM MCP-1 Ratio|0.87||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM MCP-1 Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.15|0.66|0.3233
91867170|NCT03301467|183627858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.6025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||7.9|-4.6|0.6025
91730469|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.536||||0.002||95.0|1.666|8.207||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.207|1.666|0.002
91867171|NCT03301467|183627858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0422||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1043|0.0198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L Index Score||0.0198|-0.1043|0.1797
91867172|NCT03301467|183627859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||3.8|-7.9|0.4898
91867173|NCT03301467|183627859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0199||||0.4826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0757|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L Index Score||0.0360|-0.0757|0.4826
91904832|NCT00857532|183704994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Attention correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 attention score."||||0.021
91730470|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.701||||0.225||95.0|0.733|4.169||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.169|0.733|0.225
91730471|NCT04003142|183355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.049||||0.006||95.0|1.42|7.125||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.125|1.420|0.006
91730472|NCT04806373|183355937|OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.863
91730473|NCT04806373|183355938|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in pleural drainage volume day 1 post-TSP||||0.005
91730474|NCT04806373|183355939|OTHER|||||||0.891|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Borg dyspnea scale day 3 post-TSP||||0.891
91730475|NCT04806373|183355940|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain score at day 3 post-TSP||||0.899
91730476|NCT04806373|183355941|OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.809
91730477|NCT04806373|183355942|OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
91699045|NCT00834639|183293150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.36||||||90.0|93.68|101.18|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.18|93.68|
91699046|NCT00834639|183293151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.59||||||90.0|97.07|104.24|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.24|97.07|
91699047|NCT00834639|183293152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.36||||||90.0|97.35|103.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.46|97.35|
91699048|NCT05010512|183293163|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if the least squares means difference upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject as a random effect. Difference = DT1 minus Infuse|||0.01||
91699049|NCT00805870|183293175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.298|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.521|46.978|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that no difference is observed in quadriceps muscle strength between the fish oil and control groups.||46.978|-63.521|>0.05
91867174|NCT03301467|183627860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4019||||0.8161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0402|3.844|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Physical Component Score||3.8440|-3.0402|0.8161
91867175|NCT03301467|183627860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0052||||0.9982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5994|4.6099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Mental Component Score||4.6099|-4.5994|0.9982
91867176|NCT03301467|183627861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1518||||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3192|3.0156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Physical Component Score||3.0156|-3.3192|0.9242
91699050|NCT00805870|183293176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.417|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.823|1.132|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the amount of force applied to the quadriceps to elicit pain or discomfort between the fish oil and control groups.||1.132|-4.823|>0.05
91730478|NCT04806373|183355943|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.808
91867177|NCT03301467|183627861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0283||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4972|5.5537|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Mental Component Score||5.5537|-3.4972|0.6534
91867178|NCT02798471|183627864|NON_INFERIORITY|The edoxaban-to-comparator hazard ratio will be computed with 95% confidence interval (CI) (two-sided) based on this model. Edoxaban will be considered non-inferior to comparator if the upper limit of the 95% CI is ≤1.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.719|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for the composite primary efficacy endpoint||1.719|0.594|0.9694
91867179|NCT02347332|183627960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.8329
91867180|NCT02347332|183627961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3576|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.3576
91904833|NCT00857532|183704994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Initiation/Perseveration correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 initiation/perseveration score."||||0.077
91699051|NCT00805870|183293177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.093|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.373|42.344|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in creatine kinase activity between the fish oil and the control groups.||42.344|-156.373|>0.05
91699052|NCT00805870|183293178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.417|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in interleukin-6 concentration between the fish oil and control groups.||0.417|-0.374|>0.05
91730479|NCT04806373|183355944|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
91730480|NCT04806373|183355945|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.714
91867181|NCT02347332|183627962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.467
91867182|NCT02347332|183627963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.243
91867183|NCT02347332|183627964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6289|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.6289
91867184|NCT01759862|183628025|SUPERIORITY|Our calculations showed that by enrolling 50 patients we will be able to detect a 25cc/min absolute difference in eGFR between the two arms with power above 80%, and a two-sided Type I probability error of \<0.05.||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to treat analysis||||0.32
91730481|NCT04806373|183355946|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91730482|NCT03382873|183355947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91730483|NCT03382873|183355948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex were used as independent predictors in the model.||Compares the change for the GLB/GLB intervention sequence to the GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest)||||0.0001
91867185|NCT01759862|183628026|SUPERIORITY|Enrolling 25 patients in each group will allow us to detect a difference of 200ng/mg cr in urinary NGAL levels between the two groups with a power of 80% and a two-sided type I probability error of 0.05.||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.95
91867186|NCT01759862|183628027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.67
91699053|NCT00380081|183293212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91699054|NCT00380081|183293213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91730484|NCT03382873|183355949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9476|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex used as independent predictors in the model.||Comparison of the GLB/GLB intervention sequence to the GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest).||||0.9476
91867187|NCT01499849|183628035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.7||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. For the CR delayed the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05; no further adjustment for multiplicity were required for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.7|1.3|<0.001
91867188|NCT01499849|183628036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR-acute was tested only if the result for the primary endpoint, CR delayed, was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.8|1.2|0.005
91867189|NCT01499849|183628037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.6||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR overall was tested only if both CR delayed and CR acute were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.6|1.3|0.001
91867190|NCT02646618|183628039|NON_INFERIORITY|We set δ=2% as a relative margin to the 5% weight loss as clinically meaningful cut point and because 2% is not so small a difference in average weight loss between study conditions that we would have to recruit a prohibitively large sample.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|0.6|0.0038
91867191|NCT02646618|183628040|NON_INFERIORITY|We set δ=2% as a relative margin to the 5% weight loss as clinically meaningful cut point and because 2% is not so small a difference in average weight loss between study conditions that we would have to recruit a prohibitively large sample.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-0.4|0.1485
91867192|NCT02646618|183628042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2480
91867193|NCT02646618|183628047|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in energy (kcal/day) intake, the study is powered at 90% to detect whether the Get Social condition is not inferior to the Traditional condition with a noninferiority margin of 182 kcal/day (SD=500 kcal/day)|Mean Difference (Net)|93.0||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|237.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||237|-50|0.2025
91699055|NCT00380081|183293214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91867194|NCT02646618|183628048|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in energy (kcal/day) intake, the study is powered at 90% to detect whether the Get Social condition is not inferior to the Traditional condition with a noninferiority margin of 182 kcal/day (SD=500 kcal/day)|Mean Difference (Net)|-75.0||||0.3323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-226.0|77.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||77|-226|0.3323
91867195|NCT02646618|183628050|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity minutes per day at 12 months, the noninferiority margin is 9.2 min/day(SD=25 min/day). However, we could not analyze the data in that manner and used the test described above.||||||0.3905|||||||Generalized estimating equation|||We examined the proportion of participants engaging in 150+ minutes/week of moderate/vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) using generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and incorporating repeated measures over time. For participants missing MVPA at either follow-up timepoint, we used a baseline observation carried forward approach to impute their activity level (150+ vs \<150 MVPA mins/week) at that timepoint.||||0.3905
91888762|NCT02942004|183669963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.618||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.87|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.87|-6.50|0.6167
91699056|NCT00380081|183293215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91699057|NCT00380081|183293216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91699058|NCT00380081|183293217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91699059|NCT00380081|183293218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The outcome noted above reflects the all-night sleep quality rating of study subjects who had a scheduled awakening after approximately 4 hours of sleep, were kept awake for 30 minutes and then allowed to return to bed and to sleep. After 4 hours, they were awakened again and disconnected from the PSG apparatus. Morning testing was conducted that included the Sleep Quality questionnaire. Evaluation of the results should reflect the nature of the study and the scheduled sleep disturbance.||||<0.001
91699060|NCT00380081|183293219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.004
91699061|NCT00380081|183293220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
91699062|NCT00380081|183293221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91730485|NCT03382873|183355950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||ANOVA|Treatment group, time and their interaction were fixed effects and participants were random effects||||||0.0112
91730486|NCT03382873|183355951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex used as independent predictors in the model.||Comparison of GLB/GLB intervention sequence to GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest).||||0.9085
91699063|NCT00380081|183293222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91699064|NCT00380081|183293223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.790
91699065|NCT00380081|183293224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.083
91699066|NCT00380081|183293225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.072
91699067|NCT00380081|183293225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Period effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91699068|NCT00380081|183293226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
91699069|NCT02231879|183293228|SUPERIORITY|This is a two-sided test, with the null hypothesis that the distribution of the difference scores is the same in both arms.||||||0.65||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, since this is the only pre-specified primary analysis. P\<=0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This was a pre-specified primary analysis plan, and the two arms are compared with a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test on the primary outcome. This is non-standard (since both arms contain both treatment groups), however, it is a valid test by randomization since it is a permutation test. The statistic of TISS in Period 1 minus TISS in Period 2 was chosen so that even if there are carry-over effects this will give a valid test.||||0.65
91730487|NCT03382873|183355952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2063|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex used as independent predictors in the model.||Comparison between the GLB/GLB intervention sequence and the GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest)||||0.2063
91730488|NCT02470377|183355957|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesis was that either Target 1 (Occipital) or Target 2 (Vermis) would be more effective than the control target (Cerebellar hemisphere) but that there may be baseline differences in participants who chose Target 1 vs Target 2.||||||0.0439||||||Only p-values \<0.05 were considered significant|ANOVA|One way ANOVA, immediate DHI changes used for calculation.||This was an N-of-1 pilot study in which all participants received one session of each of 3 targets and chose which of the 3 led to the most acute reduction in intensity of rocking. The participants were treated with the target that they chose and then completed post stimulation diaries.||||0.0439
91867196|NCT02646618|183628051|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity minutes per day at 12 months, the noninferiority margin is 9.2 min/day(SD=25 min/day). However, we could not analyze the data in that manner and used the test described above.||||||0.4741|||||||Generalized estimating equation|||We examined the proportion of participants engaging in 150+ minutes/week of moderate/vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) using generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and incorporating repeated measures over time. For participants missing MVPA at either follow-up timepoint, we used a baseline observation carried forward approach to impute their activity level (150+ vs \<150 MVPA mins/week) at that timepoint.||||0.4741
91867197|NCT03885232|183628087|SUPERIORITY|We applied a mixed zero-inflated beta regression model that included a fixed binary factor for treatment arm, a random effect for clinic to account for correlation within clinics, and unbalanced parent demographics across study arms.|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.6|||Generalized linear mixed effects regress|Generalized linear mixed effects regression models||||1.60|0.68|0.9
91867198|NCT03885232|183628088|SUPERIORITY||Other|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Calculated individual survey means for vaccine hesitant parents who participated in the survey. Survey consisted of 15 questions with a 7-point Likert scale. We then created a dichotomous variable where 1 = mean \> or equal to 6; 0 = mean \< 6.||||<0.05
91699070|NCT02231879|183293228|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, one-sided test, a priori significance set at 0.025|McNemar|||Maintenance of absolute lymphocyte count greater than 1000 cells/microliter measured 3 hours after a dose for plerixafor as compared to G-CSF||||<0.0001
91699071|NCT02231879|183293228|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.40 which was estimated to be about 50% of the effect size of G-CSF versus placebo.||||||0.023||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, one-sided test, a priori significance set at 0.025|McNemar|||Maintenance of absolute neutrophil counts \>500 cells/microliter for G-CSF versus plerixafor measured as the proportion of successes (75% of measured) while on G-CSF minus the proportion on plerixafor||||0.023
91699072|NCT00459706|183293231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95 percent (%) two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the difference (AI minus PFS) of mean subject satisfactions (α = 2.5%).~Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI \> -1."|Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA=analysis of variance||Non-inferiority of autoinjector (AI) over prefilled syringe (PFS) was assessed on the primary endpoint. Hypothesis tested was H0: AI minus PFS less than or equal to (≤) -1. The alternate hypothesis was H1: AI minus PFS greater than (\>) -1.||1.50|0.71|<0.001
91699073|NCT00459706|183293232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95% two-sided CI of the difference (AI minus PFS) of mean subject satisfactions (α = 2.5%).~Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI \> -1."|Mean Difference (Net)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of AI over PFS was assessed on the primary endpoint. The hypotheses tested was as follows:~H0: AI - PFS ≤ -1 H1: AI - PFS \> -1"||1.64|0.85|<0.001
91699074|NCT00459706|183293233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.05|||GEE Model+Logit Link+Binomial Distributn|GEE=Generalized estimating equation Distribn=distribution||||3.05|0.98|0.058
91699075|NCT00459706|183293234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.43|||GEE Model+Logit Link+Binomial Distributn|||||3.43|1.12|0.019
91730489|NCT02470377|183355958|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesis was that either Target 1 (Occipital) or Target 2 (Vermis) would be more effective than the control target (Cerebellar hemisphere) but that there may be baseline differences in participants who chose Target 1 vs Target 2.||||||0.0316|||||||ANOVA|One way ANOVA, immediate MBRS changes used for calculation.||This was an N-of-1 pilot study in which all participants received one session of each of 3 targets and chose which of the 3 led to the most acute reduction in intensity of rocking. The participants were treated with the target that they chose and then completed post stimulation diaries.||||0.0316
91699076|NCT00459706|183293235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.27|-0.04|0.160
91699077|NCT00459706|183293236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficients|-0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.29|||Regression, Linear|||Female versus male (reference).||-0.29|-1.20|0.001
91699078|NCT00459706|183293237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.18||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||Participants at High School/Baccalaureate Level versus participants with only Reading/Writing Capacity (reference).||0.26|-0.62|0.676
91699079|NCT00459706|183293237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||Participants at University Level versus participants with only Reading/Writing Capacity (reference).||0.60|-0.59|0.676
91699080|NCT00459706|183293238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||-0.05|-0.52|0.020
91699081|NCT00459706|183293239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||-0.09|-0.61|0.008
91699082|NCT00459706|183293240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.32|0.02|0.030
91730490|NCT02470377|183355959|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesis was that either Target 1 (Occipital) or Target 2 (Vermis) would be more effective than the control target (Cerebellar hemisphere) but that there may be baseline differences in participants who chose Target 1 vs Target 2.||||||0.1754|||||||ANOVA|One way ANOVA, immediate HADS changes used for calculation.||This was an N-of-1 pilot study in which all participants received one session of each of 3 targets and chose which of the 3 led to the most acute reduction in intensity of rocking. The participants were treated with the target that they chose and then completed post stimulation diaries.||||0.1754
91730491|NCT02539394|183355971|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.394
91867199|NCT03885232|183628089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.64|||Generalized linear mixed effects regress|Adjusted for: study arm, study period (pre vs. post), years in practice, provider type, interaction between study arm and study period||"1. Ho: No difference in the proportion of clinicians using presumptive and Motivational Interviewing techniques between intervention and control.~2. Ho: No difference in the proportion of clinicians time spent talking to vaccine hesitant parents between intervention and control."||5.64|0.66|<0.05
91867200|NCT03333109|183628108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-1.77|0.002
91699083|NCT00459706|183293241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Self-injection Experience versus No Self-injection Experience (reference).||-0.18|-1.03|0.006
91699084|NCT00459706|183293242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.06||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.18|-0.05|0.278
91867201|NCT03333109|183628108|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.93|-2.45|<0.001
91699085|NCT00459706|183293243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.03||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.21|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.21|-0.15|0.749
91699086|NCT00459706|183293244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.08||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.02|-0.18|0.105
91699087|NCT00459706|183293245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.01||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.12|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.12|-0.10|0.819
91699088|NCT00459706|183293246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.39||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|||All categories, by 1-unit increments.||-0.09|-0.69|0.012
91699089|NCT00459706|183293247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.1||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||2 DMARDs versus 1 DMARD (reference).||0.32|-0.52|0.541
91699090|NCT00459706|183293247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.14||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.68|||Regression, Linear|||3 DMARDs versus 1 DMARD (reference).||0.68|-0.97|0.541
91699091|NCT00459706|183293247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|1.72||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|4.25|||Regression, Linear|||At least 4 DMARDs versus 1 DMARD (reference).||4.25|-0.82|0.541
91699092|NCT00459706|183293248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.15||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||Prior Injection Experience versus No Prior Injection Experience (reference)||0.25|-0.55|0.465
91699093|NCT00459706|183293249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.15|||ANOVA|||||0.15|-0.97|0.154
91699094|NCT00459706|183293250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.56|||ANOVA|||||0.56|-0.12|0.212
91699095|NCT00459706|183293251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||ANOVA|||||0.37|-0.39|0.965
91699096|NCT00459706|183293252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.50|-0.25|0.519
91699097|NCT00459706|183293253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.57|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||Day 84||2.57|1.33|<0.001
91699098|NCT00459706|183293254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.29|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.29|1.14|0.007
91699099|NCT00459706|183293255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.92|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.92|1.26|0.002
91730492|NCT02539394|183355971|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.017
91730493|NCT02539394|183355971|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.015
91730494|NCT02539394|183355971|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.125
91699100|NCT00459706|183293256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.46|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||3.46|1.65|<0.001
91699101|NCT00459706|183293257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.83|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.83|1.50|<0.001
91699102|NCT00459706|183293258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.78|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.78|1.44|<0.001
91699103|NCT00459706|183293259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.72|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.72|0.90|0.184
91699104|NCT00459706|183293260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.85|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.85|0.94|0.106
91699105|NCT00459706|183293261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.96|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.96|0.93|0.112
91699106|NCT00459706|183293262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.24|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.24|1.21|0.002
91699107|NCT00459706|183293263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.78|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.78|0.41|<0.001
91867202|NCT03333109|183628109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for stratification factor after missing data were imputed as non-response (NRI).||||2.07|1.12|0.007
91867203|NCT03333109|183628109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for stratification factor after missing data were imputed as non-response (NRI).||||3.15|1.55|<0.001
91867204|NCT03333109|183628110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-2.07|<0.001
91699108|NCT00459706|183293264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.94|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.94|0.47|0.022
91699109|NCT00459706|183293265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.89|0.46|0.009
91699110|NCT00459706|183293266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.88|0.45|0.007
91699111|NCT00459706|183293267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.92|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.92|0.47|0.014
91699112|NCT00459706|183293268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.88|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.88|1.53|<0.001
91699113|NCT00459706|183293269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.91|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.91|1.57|<0.001
91699114|NCT00459706|183293270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.25|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||4.25|2.23|<0.001
91699115|NCT00459706|183293271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.62|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.62|1.35|<0.001
91699116|NCT00459706|183293272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.34|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.34|0.18|<0.001
91699117|NCT00459706|183293273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.36|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.36|0.19|<0.001
91867205|NCT03333109|183628110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-2.71|<0.001
91867206|NCT03333109|183628111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.56|-2.99|0.004
91867207|NCT03333109|183628111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.36|-4.07|<0.001
91699118|NCT00459706|183293274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.36|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.36|0.20|<0.001
91699119|NCT00459706|183293275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.11|0.61|0.196
91699120|NCT00459706|183293276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.42|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.42|1.25|0.001
91699121|NCT00459706|183293277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.42|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.42|0.21|<0.001
91699122|NCT00459706|183293278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.56|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.56|0.29|<0.001
91699123|NCT00459706|183293279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.896
91699124|NCT00459706|183293279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.166
91699125|NCT00459706|183293280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.069
91699126|NCT00459706|183293280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.015
91699127|NCT00459706|183293281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.069
91699128|NCT00459706|183293281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.015
91699129|NCT00459706|183293282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.652
91699130|NCT00459706|183293282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.459
91699131|NCT00459706|183293283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.652
91867208|NCT01447706|183628114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.18|0.007
91867209|NCT01447706|183628114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.98|||Log Rank|||||2.98|1.08|0.023
91867210|NCT00918203|183628115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.93|||Log Rank|||||1.93|0.86|0.2133
91867211|NCT00918203|183628118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.57|||Log Rank|||||1.57|0.68|0.8731
91867212|NCT00918203|183628119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4721
91867213|NCT04066075|183628128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||The p-value represents the difference between telerehabilitation and usual care.|Multilevel linear regression model|||Multilevel modeling in linear regression analyses accounted for within-patient correlations for the 3 assessments at baseline, 1-month and 4-months. Rasch analysis using the method of successive dichotomizations was applied to estimate person measures. Power calculation: a matched pairs t-test revealed 18 subjects per group would detect a within-subject mean improvement of 0.14-logits with 0.17-logits standard deviation for the differences, 0.80 power and 0.05 type 1 error probability.||||0.73
91867214|NCT05601882|183628155|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|15.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||15.5|6.6|<0.0001
91867215|NCT05601882|183628156|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||24.2|12.5|<0.0001
91867216|NCT05601882|183628157|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||20.0|9.4|<0.0001
91867217|NCT05601882|183628158|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||23.0|10.2|<0.0001
91867218|NCT05601882|183628159|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||16.9|9.6|<0.0001
91867219|NCT05601882|183628160|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||9.1|3.8|<0.0001
91867220|NCT05601882|183628161|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||18.8|9.4|<0.0001
91867221|NCT05601882|183628162|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||23.3|13.9|<0.0001
91730495|NCT02539394|183355972|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.043
91867222|NCT05601882|183628163|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||13.1|5.4|<0.0001
91867223|NCT05501600|183628207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.004
91867224|NCT05501600|183628208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081616|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.081616
91867225|NCT00650078|183628212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.64||The p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment, geographic region, gender, and median age class as factors.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|1.39|0.0010
91730496|NCT02539394|183355972|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.606|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.606
91730497|NCT02539394|183355972|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.155|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.155
91699132|NCT00459706|183293283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.459
91699133|NCT00459706|183293284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.652
91867226|NCT00650078|183628213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.6||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-6.1||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test p-value|Hodges-Lehman method|The difference between the treatment groups was assessed using the median and the 95% CI of the median computed using the Hodges Lehmann method.||||-6.1|-31.7|0.0015
91867227|NCT03367156|183628216|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||Linear Model|||||0.7|-0.8|0.48
91867228|NCT03367156|183628217|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||Linear Model|||||1|-0.7|>0.99
91867229|NCT03367156|183628218|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||Linear Model|||||1.6|-0.7|0.97
91867230|NCT03367156|183628219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||Linear Model|||||1.0|-0.8|0.78
91867231|NCT03367156|183628220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.6|||Linear Model|||||9.6|-10.6|0.93
91867232|NCT03367156|183628221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Linear Model|||||1.8|-0.6|0.93
91867233|NCT03367156|183628222|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||Linear Model|||||1.1|-0.9|0.82
91699134|NCT00459706|183293284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.459
91699135|NCT00459706|183293285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.023
91867234|NCT03367156|183628223|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|6.9|||Linear Model|||||6.9|-17.9|0.38
91867235|NCT03762850|183628224|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|0.51|<0.0001
91699136|NCT00459706|183293285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||<0.001
91699137|NCT00459706|183293286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.038
91699138|NCT00459706|183293286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||<0.001
91867236|NCT03762850|183628225|OTHER||Slope difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.94|-0.03|0.0582
91867237|NCT03762850|183628226|OTHER||Slope difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|0.07|0.0369
91867238|NCT00092534|183628233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent relative risk reduction|96.6||||||95.0|88.2|99.6|||||Confidence Interval (CI) based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter|||99.6|88.2|
91867239|NCT03244800|183628312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91867240|NCT03244800|183628313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91867241|NCT03244800|183628314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91699139|NCT00459706|183293287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.018
91699140|NCT00459706|183293287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.019
91699141|NCT00459706|183293288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.049
91699142|NCT00459706|183293288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.736
91699143|NCT00459706|183293289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.033
91699144|NCT00459706|183293289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.730
91867242|NCT03244800|183628315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91867243|NCT03244800|183628316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91867244|NCT03244800|183628317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|72.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.03|1.61|0.040
91867245|NCT02195232|183628378|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91867246|NCT00622700|183628386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.869||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure, starting with the test of teriflunomide 14 mg versus placebo was used. Time to conversion to CDMS was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.869|0.379|0.0087
91867247|NCT00622700|183628386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.628||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.949||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure was used. The second step was the test of teriflunomide 7 mg versus placebo for time to conversion to CDMS. Time to conversion to CDMS was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.949|0.416|0.0271
91867248|NCT00622700|183628387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|0.822||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure was used. The third step was the test of teriflunomide 14 mg versus placebo for time to conversion to DMS. This was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.822|0.515|0.0003
91904834|NCT00857532|183704994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Construction correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 construction score."||||0.364
91904835|NCT00857532|183704994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Conceptualization correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 conceptualization score."||||0.266
91699145|NCT00459706|183293290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.838
91867249|NCT00622700|183628387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.871||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure was used. The fourth step was the test of teriflunomide 7 mg versus placebo for time to conversion to DMS. This was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.871|0.540|0.0020
91867250|NCT03611556|183628407|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-8.0||||0.3614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|12.1||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test was stratified by cluster of differentiation 73 (CD73) level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||80% Confidence Interval 2-Sided: -20.9 to 5.2|12.1|-27.6|0.3614
91867251|NCT03611556|183628407|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|3.8||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.7||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test was stratified by CD73 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||80% Confidence Interval 2-Sided: -7.4 to 15.0|20.7|-13.2|0.6503
91867252|NCT03611556|183628414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.983|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.983|0.790|
91867253|NCT03611556|183628414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.131|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.131|0.498|
91867254|NCT03611556|183628416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.837|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.837|0.726|
91904836|NCT00857532|183704994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Memory correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 memory score."||||0.152
91904837|NCT00857532|183704994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for DRS-2 Total correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 total score."||||0.041
91867255|NCT03611556|183628416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.719|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|1.105|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.105|0.468|
91867256|NCT03611556|183628420|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|21.9||||||||21.9|-25.2|
91904838|NCT00857532|183704995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0411||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Amyloid beta correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and amyloid beta."||||0.0411
91904839|NCT00857532|183704995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Tau correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and tau."||||0.5800
91904840|NCT00857532|183704995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8164||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Phospho-Tau correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and phospho-tau."||||0.8164
91699146|NCT00459706|183293290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.483
91699147|NCT00459706|183293291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.466
91867257|NCT03611556|183628420|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|27.0||||||||27.0|-12.6|
91867258|NCT03611556|183628420|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|13.9||||||||13.9|-58.3|
91867259|NCT03611556|183628420|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|26.6||||||||26.6|-39.1|
91867260|NCT03611556|183628421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.173|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.985|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.985|0.676|
91867261|NCT03611556|183628421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|0.968|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||0.968|0.377|
91904841|NCT02187471|183705048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.23|||Difference of means|||||0.23|-0.52|0.4601
91904842|NCT02187471|183705048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.03|||Difference of means|||||-0.03|-0.77|0.0350
91904843|NCT02187471|183705048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.37|||Difference of means|||||-0.37|-1.12|0.0001
91699148|NCT00459706|183293291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.035
91699149|NCT00459706|183293292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.784
91699150|NCT00459706|183293292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.006
91867262|NCT03611556|183628421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|3.917|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||3.917|0.622|
91867263|NCT03611556|183628421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.472|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|3.576|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||3.576|0.638|
91867264|NCT03611556|183628423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|1.693|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.693|0.584|
91699151|NCT00459706|183293293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.843
91699152|NCT00459706|183293293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.461
91699153|NCT00459706|183293294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.150
91699154|NCT00459706|183293294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.002
91699155|NCT00459706|183293295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.934
91699156|NCT00459706|183293295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.656
91730498|NCT02539394|183355972|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.019
91730499|NCT02539394|183355973|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.250
91796364|NCT00667602|183471272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|79.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:8, prevaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||79|64|
91796365|NCT00667602|183471272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:8, one month postvaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||13|3|
91867265|NCT03611556|183628423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.973|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||0.973|0.366|
91699157|NCT00459706|183293296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.934
91699158|NCT00459706|183293296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.656
91699159|NCT00459706|183293297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.934
91867266|NCT03611556|183628423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|5.437|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||5.437|0.716|
91699160|NCT00459706|183293297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.656
91699161|NCT00459706|183293298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||<0.001
91699162|NCT00459706|183293298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||<0.001
91699163|NCT01322035|183293315|EQUIVALENCE|95% confidence limits from standard deviation of the mean were used as the equivalence.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|95% confidence limits from standard deviation||||||<0.05
91699164|NCT00535847|183293323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.259|37.884||||||Stratified Analysis (Mantel-Haenszel)- The Mantel-Haenszel estimator provides an estimate of the common odds ratio for the association between eRVR and SVR across the prior response strata.||37.884|4.259|
91705511|NCT00497770|183305541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A pre-specified logistic regression was used to assess non-inferiority of DCR in African American participants compared with Caucasian participants. The DCR for African Americans was to be considered non-inferior to the DCR for Caucasians if the upper bound of the confidence interval (CI) of the odds ratio (OR) for African American versus Caucasian was \<1.78 which corresponds to a difference in proportions of approximately 14% assuming the DCR in the reference group to be 50%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.58||Adjusted:baseline characteristics, income, marital/insurance status, comorbid, time between end of 1st line therapy and start of pemetrexed, prior platinum- or Paclitaxel-containing regimen, number of cycles and best response during 1st line therapy.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.580|0.427|
91730500|NCT02539394|183355973|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.478
91730501|NCT02539394|183355973|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.019
91730502|NCT02539394|183355973|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.049
91867267|NCT03611556|183628423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.707|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||3.707|0.550|
91867268|NCT04027439|183628439|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.138|1.235|||ANCOVA|||||1.235|1.138|<0.0001
91867269|NCT04027439|183628439|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.134|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|1.181|||ANCOVA|||||1.181|1.088|<0.0001
91867270|NCT04027439|183628439|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.134|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|1.181|||ANCOVA|||||1.181|1.089|<0.0001
91699165|NCT00715728|183293343|EQUIVALENCE|Our primary outcome was the rate of core rewarming during the surgery. Groups were compared on mean rewarming rate in a linear mixed effects regression model with within-subject change of core temperature over time as random effect. Using those model results, equivalence on the mean rate of rewarming for the resistive and warm air systems was assessed with the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing approach and equivalence delta of 0.2 degrees C/hours.||||||0.91||||||Two 1-tailed tests were conducted. P-value for lower delta was 0.91. Equivalence will be claimed if p-values for upper and lower delta are both lower than 0.05 ⁄ 2 = 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|"Two 1-tailed tests were conducted to assess equivalence. See  Type of Statistical Test."||A total of 46 patients (23 per group) were needed to have 90% power to demonstrate equivalence of the two warming methods on final intra-operative temperature at the 0.05 significance level using the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing technique and an equivalence region of 0.5 degrees C per hour, assuming a SD of 0.5 degrees C/hour for each group and zero true difference.||||0.91
91699166|NCT00715728|183293343|EQUIVALENCE|Our primary outcome was the rate of core rewarming during the surgery. Groups were compared on mean rewarming rate in a linear mixed effects regression model with within-subject change of core temperature over time as random effect. Using those model results, equivalence on the mean rate of rewarming for the resistive and warm air systems was assessed with the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing approach and equivalence delta of 0.2 degrees C/hours.|||||<|0.001||||||Two 1-tailed tests were conducted. P-value for lower delta was 0.91. Equivalence will be claimed if p-values for upper and lower delta are both lower than 0.05 ⁄ 2 = 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||A total of 46 patients (23 per group) were needed to have 90% power to demonstrate equivalence of the two warming methods on final intra-operative temperature at the 0.05 significance level using the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing technique and an equivalence region of 0.5 degrees C per hour, assuming a SD of 0.5 degrees C/hour for each group and zero true difference.||||<0.001
91699167|NCT00715728|183293344|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is defined as 0.5 °C. Non-inferiority at the 0.025 significance level will be claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is higher than the -0.5 °C.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14||P-value was adjusted for preoperative oral temperature and ASA physical status.|t-test, 1 sided||Non-inferiority will be established, at the 0.025 significance level, if the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval for the difference is above -0.5 °C.|Null hypothesis is the Hot dog resistive heating system is inferior to the Bair Hugger forced air system. Mean difference (95% CI) of the intraoperative TWA temperature between the groups (resistive heating versus forced-air) will be adjusting for preoperative oral temperature and ASA physical status.||0.14|-0.37|0.018
91699168|NCT01820572|183293366|SUPERIORITY|difference between belatacept and CNI|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.4||||||||10.4|-8.6|
91699169|NCT01820572|183293367|SUPERIORITY|difference between belatacept and CNI|Difference in Proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|9.0||||||||9.0|-9.9|
91730503|NCT02539394|183355974|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.376
91867271|NCT04027439|183628439|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.084||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.128|||ANCOVA|||||1.128|1.041|0.0001
91867272|NCT04027439|183628440|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.228||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|1.365|||ANCOVA|||||1.365|1.105|0.0004
91904844|NCT02187471|183705048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.98|||Difference of means|||||0.98|0.22|0.0019
91699170|NCT02105246|183293388|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis compared the proportion of eligible patients who participated in cardiac rehab after referral to home-based vs. referral to center-based programs.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = no difference in proportion of patients who participate in cardiac rehab after referral to home-based vs. facility-based programs||||0.80
91699171|NCT02105246|183293389|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis compared Baseline to 3-month change in 6-minute walk test distance among subjects who participated in home-based cardiac rehab vs. subjects who participated in center-based cardiac rehab|Median Difference (Final Values)|196.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This comparison was unadjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: 3-month change in 6MWT distance is not inferior among participants enrolled in home-based vs. facility-based cardiac rehab.||||<0.001
91699172|NCT02105246|183293390|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis compared 6-month change in 6-minute walk test distance among subjects who participated in home-based vs. center-based cardiac rehab.|Median Difference (Final Values)|159.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: 6-month change in 6MWT distance is not inferior among participants enrolled in home-based vs. facility-based cardiac rehab.||||0.03
91699173|NCT00387010|183293391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.54|-4.64|0.3223
91699174|NCT05356533|183293409|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91867273|NCT04027439|183628440|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.228||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.365|||ANCOVA|||||1.365|1.104|0.0004
91904845|NCT02187471|183705048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.72|||Difference of means|||||0.72|-0.04|0.0761
91699175|NCT05356533|183293409|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91730504|NCT02539394|183355974|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.013
91730505|NCT02539394|183355974|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.049
91867274|NCT04027439|183628440|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.196||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.326|||ANCOVA|||||1.326|1.080|0.0012
91867275|NCT04027439|183628440|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.121||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.009|1.246|||ANCOVA|||||1.246|1.009|0.0348
91867276|NCT04027439|183628440|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.055||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.172|||ANCOVA|||||1.172|0.949|0.3106
91867277|NCT04027439|183628441|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.154||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.301|||ANCOVA|||||1.301|1.024|0.0208
91730506|NCT02539394|183355974|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.300
91867278|NCT04027439|183628441|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.2||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|1.353|||ANCOVA|||||1.353|1.064|0.0041
91867279|NCT04027439|183628441|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.167||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.311|||ANCOVA|||||1.311|1.039|0.0108
91867280|NCT04027439|183628441|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.087||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965|1.225|||ANCOVA|||||1.225|0.965|0.1641
91867281|NCT04027439|183628442|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.229||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.102|1.369|||ANCOVA|||||1.369|1.102|0.0005
91867282|NCT04027439|183628442|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.231||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.372|||ANCOVA|||||1.372|1.104|0.0005
91699176|NCT05356533|183293410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91699177|NCT05356533|183293411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91699178|NCT05356533|183293412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91699179|NCT05356533|183293413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91699180|NCT05356533|183293414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91699181|NCT01167881|183293418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.87|-4.05||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-4.05|-4.87|<0.0001
91699182|NCT01167881|183293419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested through a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the treatment effect of empagliflozin minus the effect of glimepiride in change from baseline in HbA1c. The null-hypothesis of material inferiority of empagliflozin was rejected if the confidence interval is entirely below the non-inferiority margin 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-0.01|-0.20|<0.0001
91699183|NCT01167881|183293419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|-0.01||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-0.01|-0.20|0.0153
91699184|NCT01167881|183293420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.06|0.173||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline HbA1c (\<8.5 / \>=8.5).||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||0.173|0.060|<0.0001
91699185|NCT01167881|183293421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|-4.2||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline SBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-4.2|-7.0|<0.0001
91699186|NCT01167881|183293422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.5|-1.8||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline DBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-1.8|-3.5|<0.0001
91796366|NCT00667602|183471272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|86.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:4, prevaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||86|73|
91796367|NCT00667602|183471272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:4, one month postvaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||5|-2|
91796368|NCT00667602|183471274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenC \> 0.5).|Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the Geometric Mean Titers, prevaccination at 12 months of age, MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY-CRM197 to MenC Geometric Mean Titers for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||1.12|0.76|
91796369|NCT00667602|183471274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenC \> 0.5).|Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the Geometric Mean Titers, one month postvaccination at 12 months of age, MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY-CRM197 to MenC Geometric Mean Titers for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||0.93|0.57|
91796370|NCT00667602|183471276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenjugate \> 0.5).|Ratio|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.43|13.0|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the GMTs (prevaccination), MenACWY was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY to MenC GMTs for serogroup C was greater than 0.5 .||13|8.43|
91796371|NCT00667602|183471276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenjugate \> 0.5).|Ratio|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|10.0|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the GMTs (one month postvaccination), MenACWY was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY to MenC GMTs for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||10|6.35|
91796372|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
91796373|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
91867283|NCT04027439|183628442|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.188||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.320|1.070|0.0022
91867284|NCT04027439|183628442|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.106||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.233|||ANCOVA|||||1.233|0.993|0.0658
91904846|NCT02187471|183705050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|1.68|||Difference of means|||||1.68|-4.86|0.3407
91730507|NCT02539394|183355975|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.037
91796374|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||5|-3|
91796375|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-3|
91867285|NCT04027439|183628450|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.183|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.234|||ANCOVA|||||1.234|1.134|<0.0001
91867286|NCT04027439|183628450|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.190|1.092|<0.0001
91867287|NCT04027439|183628450|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.131|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.084|1.18|||ANCOVA|||||1.180|1.084|<0.0001
91867288|NCT04027439|183628450|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.08||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|1.126|||ANCOVA|||||1.126|1.036|0.0004
91867289|NCT04027439|183628451|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.123|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.078|1.169|||ANCOVA|||||1.169|1.078|<0.0001
91867290|NCT04027439|183628451|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.078||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.122|||ANCOVA|||||1.122|1.035|0.0004
91699187|NCT01167881|183293423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested through a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the treatment effect of empagliflozin minus the effect of glimepiride in change from baseline in HbA1c. The null-hypothesis of material inferiority of empagliflozin was rejected if the confidence interval is entirely below the non-inferiority margin 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||0.02|-0.16|<0.0001
91699188|NCT01167881|183293424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.16|-4.46||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||-4.46|-5.16|<0.0001
91699189|NCT01167881|183293425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.077|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.04|0.148||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline HbA1c (\<8.5 / \>=8.5).||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||0.148|0.040|<0.0001
91699190|NCT01167881|183293426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.3|-4.4||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline SBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||-4.4|-7.3|<0.0001
91699191|NCT01167881|183293427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.7|-2.0||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline DBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||-2.0|-3.7|<0.0001
91730508|NCT02539394|183355975|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.858
91730509|NCT02539394|183355975|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.042
91730510|NCT02539394|183355975|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.031
91730511|NCT02539394|183355976|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.343
91730512|NCT02539394|183355976|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.022
91730513|NCT02539394|183355976|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.018
91867291|NCT04027439|183628451|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.081||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.125|||ANCOVA|||||1.125|1.039|0.0002
91867292|NCT04027439|183628451|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.041||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|1.083|||ANCOVA|||||1.083|1.001|0.0437
91867293|NCT04027439|183628452|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.087||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|1.139|||ANCOVA|||||1.139|1.038|0.0006
91867294|NCT04027439|183628452|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.083||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.034|1.135|||ANCOVA|||||1.135|1.034|0.0010
91867295|NCT04027439|183628452|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.096||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.149|||ANCOVA|||||1.149|1.047|0.0002
91867296|NCT04027439|183628452|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.039||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.088|||ANCOVA|||||1.088|0.993|0.0971
91867297|NCT04027439|183628453|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.145|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.106|1.185|||ANCOVA|||||1.185|1.106|<0.0001
91867298|NCT04027439|183628453|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.109|1.189|||ANCOVA|||||1.189|1.109|<0.0001
91867299|NCT04027439|183628453|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.099|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.137|||ANCOVA|||||1.137|1.062|<0.0001
91867300|NCT04027439|183628453|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.088|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.052|1.126|||ANCOVA|||||1.126|1.052|<0.0001
91730514|NCT02539394|183355976|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.008
91867301|NCT04027439|183628454|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|1.189|||ANCOVA|||||1.189|1.113|<0.0001
91867302|NCT04027439|183628454|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.146|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.109|1.185|||ANCOVA|||||1.185|1.109|<0.0001
91867303|NCT04027439|183628454|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|1.144|||ANCOVA|||||1.144|1.071|<0.0001
91867304|NCT04027439|183628454|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.094|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.13|||ANCOVA|||||1.130|1.059|<0.0001
91867305|NCT04027439|183628455|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.066|1.141|||ANCOVA|||||1.141|1.066|<0.0001
91867306|NCT04027439|183628455|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.078|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|1.116|||ANCOVA|||||1.116|1.042|<0.0001
91867307|NCT04027439|183628455|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.067||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.104|||ANCOVA|||||1.104|1.032|0.0002
91904847|NCT02187471|183705050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|-2.15|||Difference of means|||||-2.15|-8.69|0.0012
91904848|NCT02187471|183705050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.665||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|-1.13|||Difference of means|||||-1.13|-7.66|0.0083
91904849|NCT02187471|183705050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.677||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|6.09|||Difference of means|||||6.09|-0.48|0.0946
91904850|NCT02187471|183705050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.24|||Difference of means|||||2.24|-4.30|0.5384
91867308|NCT04027439|183628455|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.048||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|1.084|||ANCOVA|||||1.084|1.013|0.0066
91904851|NCT02187471|183705052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.5|0.0030
91904852|NCT02187471|183705052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-2.3|<0.0001
91867309|NCT04035447|183628504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with Therapy (ST)||||0.519
91867310|NCT04035447|183628504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with Therapist (SWT)||||0.150
91867311|NCT04035447|183628504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Improvement (Item 13)||||0.309
91867312|NCT04035447|183628506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.696
91904853|NCT02187471|183705052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.7|0.0001
91730515|NCT02539394|183355977|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.280
91730516|NCT02539394|183355977|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.483
91730517|NCT02539394|183355977|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.070
91867313|NCT04035447|183628507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350
91867314|NCT04035447|183628508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||Fisher Exact|||Outcomes were compared at post-intervention visit: 3-month (A2) for intervention participants, 9-month (A4) for waitlist control participants.||||0.274
91867315|NCT04035447|183628509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||Outcomes were compared at post-intervention visit: 3-month (A2) for intervention participants, 9-month (A4) for waitlist control participants.||||0.600
91867316|NCT04035447|183628510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.1848|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.18||||||0.1848
91867317|NCT04035447|183628511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.6153|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.07||||||0.6153
91867318|NCT04035447|183628512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1||0.0563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.28||||||0.0563
91867319|NCT04035447|183628513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.0265|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.31||||||0.0265
91867320|NCT04035447|183628513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.2084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.18||||||0.2084
91867321|NCT04035447|183628514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4||0.3512|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of -0.13||||||0.3512
91867322|NCT05966155|183628536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-1.54|0.677
91867323|NCT05966155|183628537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-1.4|0.1264
91867324|NCT05966155|183628538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The by-group means and the estimated mean difference are independently rounded to the nearest tenth. As a result, the mean difference it not exactly equivalent to the difference in the two reported means.|||1.1|-0.4|0.3692
91904854|NCT02187471|183705052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.3562
91904855|NCT02187471|183705052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.1|0.0862
91904856|NCT02187471|183705053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.7|0.5183
91904857|NCT02187471|183705053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.9|0.2669
91699192|NCT02294175|183293517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. The interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied to the F test degrees of freedom due to violation of the sphericity assumption (p\<.05 for Mauchly's W).||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether the reduction of bacterial CFUs over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.029
91699193|NCT02294175|183293518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. This interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied to the F test degrees of freedom due to violation of the sphericity assumption (p\<.05 for Mauchly's W).||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether the reduction of bacterial CFUs over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.037
91699194|NCT02294175|183293519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. This interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether the reduction of bacterial CFUs over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.012
91867325|NCT05966155|183628539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8492|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8492
91867326|NCT05966155|183628540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0246
91699195|NCT02294175|183293520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.397
91699196|NCT02294175|183293521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. The interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether change in MMP-9 over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.661
91699197|NCT02294175|183293522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. The interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether change in IL6 over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.979
91699198|NCT02294175|183293523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.999
91699199|NCT02294175|183293524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.415
91730518|NCT02539394|183355977|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.200
91730519|NCT02539394|183355978|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.148
91730520|NCT02539394|183355978|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.040
91730521|NCT02539394|183355978|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.042
91867327|NCT05966155|183628541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0111
91867328|NCT05966155|183628542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0776|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0776
91867329|NCT05966155|183628543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0014
91867330|NCT00174252|183628645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|93.7|||||95% CI was estimated using the F-distribution.|"Applies to no."||93.7|74.2|
91730522|NCT02539394|183355978|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.319|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.319
91730523|NCT02539394|183355979|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.161
91730524|NCT02539394|183355979|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.763|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.763
91730525|NCT02539394|183355979|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.178
91867331|NCT00174252|183628645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|14.0||||||95.0|6.3|25.8|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using the F-distribution.|"Applies to yes."||25.8|6.3|
91867332|NCT00174252|183628659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.002
91867333|NCT00174252|183628660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.023||95.0||||Bilateral test multiple comparison threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.023
91867334|NCT00174252|183628661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.708||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.708
91867335|NCT00174252|183628662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.325||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.325
91904858|NCT02187471|183705053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.3|-0.8|0.4630
91867336|NCT05509816|183628672|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The least square means (LSMs) and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the geometric least square means (GLSMs) and ratio between GLSMs. These were reported along with the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio.|A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||1.02|0.849|
91867337|NCT05509816|183628673|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the GLSMs and ratio between GLSMs. These were reported along with the 90% CI for the ratio.|A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||1.16|0.989|
91867338|NCT05509816|183628674|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.777|0.868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||0.868|0.777|
91867339|NCT05509816|183628675|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||1.12|0.828|
91867340|NCT00979121|183628704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in % of pts alive at 60 days|4.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.2||The monitoring boundaries were designed to have a low probability of stopping for futility before 750 patients. The maximum sample size was 1000 patients. Efficacy stopping was based on mortality; futility stopping was based on mortality and VFDs.|Proc lifetest|Proc lifetest was used to calculate mortality mean and variance due to one subject lost to follow up who was censored.||Hospital mortality to day 60 was estimated using the Kaplan Meier estimate, with patients discharged home before day 60 considered alive at day 60. The analysis was stratified by co-enrolled treatment assignments for 81 patients also enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of two different nutritional strategies. A maximum of 1000 patients were to be enrolled, providing a 92% probability of rejecting the null hypothesis for the effect on mortality if a true difference in mortality was 9%.||10.2|-2.3|0.21
91867341|NCT00979121|183628705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.96||95.0|-1.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Ventilator, ICU free, and organ failure free days were analyzed by analysis of variance, utilizing treatment assignment where applicable.||1.5|-1.6|0.96
91867342|NCT02130557|183628745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.547||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|2.233||1-sided p-value based on CMH test for general association between treatment and response with stratification by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3) at time of randomization. Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the odds ratio adjusted for sokal risk group and region are based on Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits.|A total sample size of 500 Ph+ participants is required for the study to provide \>= 90% power to detect at least 15% difference (assuming 25% in the imatinib vs 40% in the bosutinib arm) in the MMR rates at 12 months (48 weeks) with a 1-sided alpha of 2.5%, and 2 interim futility analyses at 33% and 66% of patients with adequate follow-up with early stopping for futility only (non-binding, O'Brien-Fleming analog beta spending function).||2.233|1.072|0.0100
91867343|NCT02130557|183628746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.418||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|2.037||1-sided p-value based on CMH test for general association between treatment and response with stratification by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3) at time of randomization. Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.0125.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for the odds ratio adjusted for sokal risk group and region are based on Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits.|If the primary analysis was significant, each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was tested via Bonferroni's procedure at the 1-sided level of 0.0125.||2.037|0.986|0.0303
91867344|NCT02130557|183628747|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.44|||||Hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the treatment effect (Bosutinib compared with Imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group at randomization and region) Cox proportional hazards model for the hazard of the respective event.|The medians have not been reached in either arm, as such, the premature estimated hazard ratio is provided.||2.44|0.49|
91867345|NCT02130557|183628748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.61||1-sided p-value based on CMH test for general association between treatment and response with stratification by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3) at time of randomization. Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.0125.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for the odds ratio adjusted for sokal risk group and region are based on Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits.|If the primary analysis was significant, each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was tested via Bonferroni's procedure at the 1-sided level of 0.0125.||2.610|1.160|0.0037
91867346|NCT02130557|183628749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.13|||||Hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the treatment effect (Bosutinib compared with Imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group at randomization and region) Cox proportional hazards model for the hazard of the respective event.|The medians have not been reached in either arm, as such, the premature estimated hazard ratio is provided.||1.13|0.14|
91904859|NCT02187471|183705053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.5|0.9280
91904860|NCT02187471|183705053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.7|0.7089
91904861|NCT02187471|183705053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0|-1.1|0.0669
91904862|NCT02187471|183705053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.2|-1.3|0.0081
91904863|NCT02187471|183705053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-1.0|0.0867
91904864|NCT02187471|183705053|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.9066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.6|0.9066
91904865|NCT02187471|183705053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.8|0.3509
91904866|NCT02187471|183705054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6203||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.404|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.404|0.970|0.0004
91867347|NCT02130557|183628750|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.17||1-sided p-value based on Gray's test for comparing cumulative incidence function between treatment arms stratified by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3). Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.0125.|Gray's test||The hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the proportional subdistribution hazards model stratified by Sokal risk group and region.|If each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially via the Holm's testing procedure at the 1-sided family wise level of 0.025. If one member of the short-term family was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially at 1-sided 0.0125.||1.17|0.35|0.0749
91867348|NCT02130557|183628751|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.73||1-sided p-value based on log-rank test for comparing survival curves between treatment arms stratified by sokal risk group and region. OS was not tested as EFS was not significant.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the treatment effect (Bosutinib compared with Imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group at randomization and region) Cox proportional hazards model for the hazard of the respective event.|If each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially via the Holm's testing procedure at the 1-sided family wise level of 0.025. If one member of the short-term family was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially at 1-sided 0.0125.||1.73|0.37|0.2827
91867349|NCT01532999|183628764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks. Data structure involved repeated measures over time nested within participant, who in turn, was nested within a therapy group. Models included a random intercept, a random slope, and fixed effects for treatment condition, time, and the stratification variable (site). Rejection of the null hypothesis of no treatment effect if this interaction was statistically significant (two-tailed α = .05).||||0.5
91867350|NCT01532999|183628765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.57
91867351|NCT01532999|183628767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.4
91867352|NCT01532999|183628768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.8
91904867|NCT02187471|183705054|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|2.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6209|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.265|3.701|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||3.701|1.265|<0.0001
91904868|NCT02187471|183705054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6215|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.401|3.84|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||3.840|1.401|<0.0001
91904869|NCT02187471|183705054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6245||0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.659|0.792|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.792|-1.659|0.4877
91699200|NCT02294175|183293525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.993
91904870|NCT02187471|183705054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6252||0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.364|1.089|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.089|-1.364|0.8263
91904871|NCT02187471|183705054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7345||0.7567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.213|1.669|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.669|-1.213|0.7567
91904872|NCT02187471|183705054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7349||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|2.735|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||2.735|-0.149|0.0787
91904873|NCT02187471|183705054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7358||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.758|2.129|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||2.129|-0.758|0.3516
91699201|NCT02294175|183293526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.990
91699202|NCT02548351|183293527|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.043|||Log Rank|||||1.043|0.635|0.1028
91867353|NCT01532999|183628769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.4
91904874|NCT02187471|183705054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7372||0.5344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.905|0.988|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.988|-1.905|0.5344
91904875|NCT02187471|183705054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7379||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.055|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||2.055|-0.840|0.4107
91904876|NCT02187471|183705055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01369||0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0066|0.0471|||ANCOVA|||||0.0471|-0.0066|0.1394
91904877|NCT02187471|183705055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01369||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0058|0.048|||ANCOVA|||||0.0480|-0.0058|0.1237
91904878|NCT02187471|183705055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01371||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0117|0.0655|||ANCOVA|||||0.0655|0.0117|0.0049
91904879|NCT02187471|183705055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01378||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0454|0.0086|||ANCOVA|||||0.0086|-0.0454|0.1824
91699203|NCT02548351|183293527|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.772||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.994|||Log Rank|||||0.994|0.600|0.0444
91699204|NCT02548351|183293528|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|3.6|<0.0001
91699205|NCT02548351|183293528|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.0|5.8|<0.0001
91699206|NCT02548351|183293529|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.7||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.4|3.0|0.0004
91699207|NCT02548351|183293529|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.8|5.2|<0.0001
91699208|NCT03226769|183293609|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.9788||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Computer Usage||||0.9788
91699209|NCT03226769|183293609|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.6571||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Reading||||0.6571
91699210|NCT03226769|183293609|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.471||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Leisure Activities||||0.4710
91699211|NCT03226769|183293609|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.736||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Social Activities||||0.7360
91699212|NCT03226769|183293609|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4999||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Driving||||0.4999
91699213|NCT03226769|183293609|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1159||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Outdoor Activities||||0.1159
91699214|NCT03226769|183293609|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4567||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Frequency of Outdoor Activities||||0.4567
91699215|NCT03226769|183293609|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3439||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Time Spent to Take Care of Eyes||||0.3439
91699216|NCT03226769|183293609|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3331||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Bothered With Amount of Time Taking Care of Eyes||||0.3331
91699217|NCT03226769|183293609|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4774||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Bothered by Appearance||||0.4774
91699218|NCT03226769|183293610|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.5457||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Red Eyes||||0.5457
91699219|NCT03226769|183293610|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.9786||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Blurred Vision||||0.9786
91699220|NCT03226769|183293610|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3894||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Dry Eyes||||0.3894
91699221|NCT03226769|183293610|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.0591||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Itchy Eyes||||0.0591
91699222|NCT03226769|183293610|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1818||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Burning Eyes||||0.1818
91699223|NCT03226769|183293610|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4284||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Gritty Eyes||||0.4284
91904880|NCT02187471|183705055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01378||0.2036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0446|0.0095|||ANCOVA|||||0.0095|-0.0446|0.2036
91904881|NCT02187471|183705056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.87|0.0006
91867354|NCT01532999|183628770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.35
91699224|NCT03226769|183293610|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1051||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Painful Eyes||||0.1051
91730526|NCT02539394|183355979|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.091|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.091
91730527|NCT02539394|183355980|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.602|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.602
91730528|NCT02539394|183355980|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.302
91867355|NCT01532999|183628771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Mixed effects logistic regression analysis.||||0.3
91699225|NCT03226769|183293610|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.7998||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Watery Eyes||||0.7998
91699226|NCT03226769|183293610|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1229||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Swollen Eyelids||||0.1229
91699227|NCT03226769|183293610|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3907||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Red Eyelids||||0.3907
91699228|NCT03226769|183293610|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.0336||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Crusty Eyelids||||0.0336
91699229|NCT01516008|183293611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|76.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|101.7||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group.|||101.7|51.0|<0.001
91699230|NCT01516008|183293611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|90.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|116.1||P-value is adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group.|||116.1|65.1|<0.001
91867356|NCT01532999|183628772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Mixed effects logistic regression analysis.||||0.7
91867357|NCT02678689|183628793|SUPERIORITY|The two-sample T-test with unequal variance was conducted at a significance level of 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, unequal variance|||||||< 0.0001
91904882|NCT02187471|183705056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.20|<0.0001
91699231|NCT01516008|183293612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Log Rank|Stratified by center||||||<0.001
91699232|NCT01516008|183293612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Log Rank|Stratified by center||||||<0.001
91730529|NCT02539394|183355980|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.114
91867358|NCT02678689|183628794|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.091|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.393|||Cox Model Wald Test||Hazard ratio is based on Cox proportional hazards model with a factor of study group|||0.393|0.021|<.0001
91867359|NCT02678689|183628795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Cox Model Wald Test||Hazard ratio is based on Cox proportional hazards model with a factor of study group|||0.000|0.000|0.0032
91730530|NCT02539394|183355980|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.005
91730531|NCT02539394|183355981|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.933
91730532|NCT02539394|183355981|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.950
91730533|NCT02539394|183355981|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.059
91867360|NCT02678689|183628796|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, unequal variance|||||||<.0001
91867361|NCT02678689|183628797|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, unequal variance|||||||<.0001
91867362|NCT02678689|183628798|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.209||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.735|||Cox Model Wald Test|The p value is a test that the hazard ratio equal to 1.|"Hazard ratio is based on Cox proportional hazards model with a factor of study group.~Hazard Ratio (HR) 190-203 vs DEM-CHILD."|||0.735|0.059|0.0081
91867363|NCT01958021|183628814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||3.29e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.720|0.429|0.00000329
91867364|NCT01958021|183628815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.765||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.932|||Log Rank|||||0.932|0.628|0.004
91867365|NCT01958021|183628816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.000155|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.000155
91867366|NCT01958021|183628817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.018
91867367|NCT00490139|183628822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.00|0.71|0.048
91867368|NCT00490139|183628822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.13|0.81|0.610
91867369|NCT00490139|183628823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.02|0.77|
91867370|NCT00490139|183628823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.05|0.80|
91867371|NCT00490139|183628824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.03|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.03|0.62|0.078
91699233|NCT01516008|183293613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||12 hours||||<0.001
91699234|NCT01516008|183293613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||12 hours||||<0.001
91699235|NCT01516008|183293613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||24 hours||||0.001
91699236|NCT01516008|183293613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||24 hours||||<0.001
91730534|NCT02539394|183355981|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.042
91867372|NCT00490139|183628824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (tras followed by lap versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.16|0.71|0.433
91904883|NCT02187471|183705056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.63|-1.27|<0.0001
91699237|NCT01516008|183293613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||48 hours||||<0.001
91867373|NCT00490139|183628825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.03|0.70|
91867374|NCT00490139|183628825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (tras followed by lap versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.04|0.71|
91867375|NCT00490139|183628826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.96||||||||0.96|0.68|
91867376|NCT00490139|183628826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1||||||||1.10|0.79|
91699238|NCT01516008|183293613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||48 hours||||<0.001
91699239|NCT01516008|183293613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||72 hours||||0.001
91867377|NCT00490139|183628827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to distant recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.852|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.02||||||||1.02|0.71|
91699240|NCT01516008|183293613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||72 hours||||<0.001
91699241|NCT01516008|183293614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||0.001
91699242|NCT01516008|183293614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||<0.001
91699243|NCT01516008|183293614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||<0.001
91699244|NCT01516008|183293614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||<0.001
91730535|NCT02539394|183355981|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.032
91730536|NCT02539394|183355981|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.014
91730537|NCT02539394|183355981|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.030
91699245|NCT01516008|183293614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
91699246|NCT01516008|183293614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
91699247|NCT01516008|183293614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
91699248|NCT01516008|183293614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
91699249|NCT01516008|183293615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||<0.001
91699250|NCT01516008|183293615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||<0.001
91699251|NCT01516008|183293615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||0.021
91699252|NCT01516008|183293615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||<0.001
91730538|NCT02539394|183355981|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.039
91699253|NCT01516008|183293615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
91699254|NCT01516008|183293615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
91699255|NCT01516008|183293615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
91730539|NCT02539394|183355982|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.121|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of Pre-operative Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.121
91699256|NCT01516008|183293615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
91699257|NCT01516008|183293616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|22.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID12 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID12 in placebo group.|12 hours||22.0|11.1|<0.001
91699258|NCT01516008|183293616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|24.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID12 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID12 in placebo group.|12 hours||24.6|13.6|<0.001
91699259|NCT01516008|183293616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|46.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID24 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID24 in placebo group.|24 hours||46.2|23.2|<0.001
91699260|NCT01516008|183293616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.5|54.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID24 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID24 in placebo group.|24 hours||54.6|31.5|<0.001
91699261|NCT01516008|183293616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|122.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.8|162.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID72 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID72 in placebo group.|72 hours||162.9|81.8|<0.001
91699262|NCT01516008|183293616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|138.57|||<|0.001||95.0|97.8|179.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID72 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID72 in placebo group.|72 hours||179.4|97.8|<0.001
91699263|NCT01516008|183293617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR12 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR12 in placebo group|12 hours||9.3|5.0|<0.001
91699264|NCT01516008|183293617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|9.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR12 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR12 in placebo group|12 hours||9.3|4.9|<0.001
91699265|NCT01516008|183293617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR24 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR24 in placebo group|24 hours||19.8|10.6|<0.001
91699266|NCT01516008|183293617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|20.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR24 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR24 in placebo group|24 hours||20.2|10.9|<0.001
91699267|NCT01516008|183293617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|45.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR48 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR48 in placebo group|48 hours||45.3|24.3|<0.001
91699268|NCT01516008|183293617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|44.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR48 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR48 in placebo group|48 hours||44.2|23.0|<0.001
91699269|NCT01516008|183293617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.4|73.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR72 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR72 in placebo group|72 hours||73.8|39.4|<0.001
91730540|NCT02539394|183355982|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD1 Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.006
91730541|NCT02539394|183355982|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.329|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD2 Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.329
91730542|NCT02539394|183355982|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.687|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of 4-6 weeks Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.687
91730543|NCT02539394|183355983|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.066|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of Pre-operative Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.066
91730544|NCT02539394|183355983|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.252|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD1 Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.252
91730545|NCT02539394|183355983|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD2 Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.100
91730546|NCT02539394|183355983|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.279|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of 4-6 weeks Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.279
91699270|NCT01516008|183293617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|70.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR72 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR72 in placebo group|72 hours||70.8|36.2|<0.001
91699271|NCT01516008|183293618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|30.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID12 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID12 in the placebo group|12 hours||30.9|16.4|<0.001
91867378|NCT00490139|183628827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to distant recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||||||||1.16|0.81|
91867379|NCT00490139|183628828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to CNS recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31||||||||1.31|0.74|
91867380|NCT00490139|183628828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to CNS recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31||||||||1.31|0.74|
91867381|NCT04640974|183628831|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91867382|NCT04640974|183628832|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91867383|NCT04640974|183628833|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91867384|NCT03801148|183628851|EQUIVALENCE|Natural log (ln)-transformed-Cmax, was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric least square mean (LSM) ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.|Geometric LSM ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9171|1.0473||||||||1.0473|0.9171|
91867385|NCT03801148|183628851|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed-Cmax, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0737|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0025|1.1501||||||||1.1501|1.0025|
91867386|NCT03801148|183628852|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUClast, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0455|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.007|1.0855||||||||1.0855|1.0070|
91867387|NCT03801148|183628852|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUClast, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0192|1.1046||||||||1.1046|1.0192|
91867388|NCT03801148|183628853|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infobs, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infobs.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0553|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0186|1.0933||||||||1.0933|1.0186|
91904884|NCT02187471|183705056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.07|0.0158
91699272|NCT01516008|183293618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|33.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID12 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID12 in the placebo group|12 hours||33.6|18.9|<0.001
91699273|NCT01516008|183293618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|65.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID24 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID24 in the placebo group|24 hours||65.4|34.4|<0.001
91867389|NCT03801148|183628853|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infobs, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infobs.|GMR|1.0468|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0027|1.0929||||||||1.0929|1.0027|
91867390|NCT03801148|183628854|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infpred, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infpred.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0555|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0188|1.0935||||||||1.0935|1.0188|
91867391|NCT03801148|183628854|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infpred, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infpred.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0472|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0029|1.0934||||||||1.0934|1.0029|
91867392|NCT06212752|183628856|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.27|||||GMR and associated 96% confidence interval (Cl) were calculated using the Welch's t test. GMR was calculated as geometric mean (GM) of Pembrolizumab Formulated with Berahyaluronidase Alfa to GM of Pembrolizumab.|||1.27|0.95|
91867393|NCT06212752|183628857|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|GMR|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.88|||||GMR and associated 95% CI were calculated using the Welch's t test. GMR was calculated as geometric mean (GM) of Pembrolizumab Formulated with Berahyaluronidase Alfa to GM of Pembrolizumab.|||1.88|1.14|
91904885|NCT02187471|183705056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.6819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.25|0.6819
91904886|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.2|<0.0001
91699274|NCT01516008|183293618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|58.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|74.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID24 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID24 in the placebo group|24 hours||74.2|43.0|<0.001
91699275|NCT01516008|183293618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|111.12|||<|0.001||95.0|76.3|145.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID48 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID48 in the placebo group|48 hours||145.9|76.3|<0.001
91699276|NCT01516008|183293618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|124.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|159.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID48 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID48 in the placebo group|48 hours||159.2|89.2|<0.001
91699277|NCT01516008|183293618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|178.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.4|235.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID72 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID72 in the placebo group|72 hours||235.4|122.4|<0.001
91699278|NCT01516008|183293618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|192.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.2|248.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID72 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID72 in the placebo group|72 hours||248.9|135.2|<0.001
91699279|NCT01516008|183293619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||||||<0.001
91699280|NCT01516008|183293619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||||||<0.001
91699281|NCT01217476|183293620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.80|0.66|0.4039
91867394|NCT04162210|183628868|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.47|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test were adjusted for previous treatment with anti-CD38, ISS staging and number of prior lines of therapy.|HR was estimated using the Cox Proportional Hazards. HR stratified log-rank test were adjusted for previous treatment with anti-CD38, international staging system (ISS) staging and number of prior lines of therapy.|||1.47|0.72|0.558
91699282|NCT01217476|183293621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.56|0.52|
91699283|NCT02805660|183293625|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.||||||0.537|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.537
91699284|NCT02805660|183293625|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.|||||>|0.999|||||||Exact Test|||||||>0.999
91699285|NCT02805660|183293625|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.||||||0.283|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.283
91699286|NCT02805660|183293625|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.||||||0.025|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.025
91699287|NCT02572076|183293636|OTHER|Pilot study- no sample size was calculated|number of subjects with adequate cleansi|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|100.0||||||patients had partial bowel preparation to mimic poor bowel cleansing before the colonoscopy procedure at baseline, MCS was used during the procedure to clean the colon.||100|66|
91699288|NCT02778074|183293637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91699289|NCT03963232|183293647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.32|-2.32|<.0001
91730547|NCT02539394|183355984|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The means Pre-operative NDI for the two populations is equal||||0.145
91730548|NCT02539394|183355984|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The means 4-6 weeks NDI for the two populations is equal||||0.234
91730549|NCT02539394|183355989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91730550|NCT02301793|183355999|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-values were calculated by reiterating the multiple outputation procedure 1000 times, we estimated the odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals conditional on the floor and nurse.|Regression, Logistic|||The hypothesis comparing the different educational arms was evaluated using an intention-to-treat approach (i.e. all nurses were included regardless of training completion) accounting for clustering in the data and comparing rates of VTE prophylaxis dose non-administration at baseline and during the Post-Education period. Two per-protocol sensitivity analyses were performed. They compared the Baseline vs. Post-Education periods for nurses who received training and nurses who completed training.||||0.05
91699290|NCT03963232|183293648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.674|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.557|||GLIMMIX|||30% responder||3.557|2.010|<.0001
91699291|NCT03963232|183293648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.869|3.293|||GLIMMIX|||50% responder||3.293|1.869|<.0001
91699292|NCT03963232|183293648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.824|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.007|3.972|||GLIMMIX|||75% responder||3.972|2.007|<.0001
91699293|NCT03963232|183293648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.309|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.989|5.504|||GLIMMIX|||100% responder||5.504|1.989|<.0001
91699294|NCT03963232|183293649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|8.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.95|5.20|<.0001
91699295|NCT03963232|183293650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.31|-2.25|<.0001
91699296|NCT03963232|183293651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.29|-2.35|<.0001
91699297|NCT03963232|183293652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.81|1.92|<.0001
91867395|NCT02941549|183628903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.9||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|20.7|||ANCOVA|||||20.7|-34.5|0.5946
91699298|NCT03963232|183293653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-1.15|<.0001
91699299|NCT03963232|183293654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|-14.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.56|-23.21|<.0001
91699300|NCT03963232|183293655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.73|-14.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.75|-23.73|<.0001
91699301|NCT03963232|183293656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.22|<.0001
91699302|NCT03963232|183293657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1021||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.43|0.0284
91699303|NCT03963232|183293658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2484||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|-6.05|||ANCOVA|||||-6.05|-18.81|0.0001
91699304|NCT00356135|183293661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.91|||<|0.0001||95.0|-19.1|-8.73|||ANOVA|Treatment and study sites are fixed effects and MPA right before the randomization treatment period is a covariate in the model.|Mean Difference is for Prasugrel 10/10 mg arm minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg arm.|||-8.73|-19.10|<0.0001
91730551|NCT02301793|183356003|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-values were calculated by reiterating the multiple outputation procedure 1000 times, we estimated the odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals conditional on the floor and nurse.|Regression, Logistic|||The hypothesis comparing the different educational arms was evaluated using an intention-to-treat approach (i.e. all nurses were included regardless of training completion) accounting for clustering in the data and comparing rates of VTE prophylaxis dose non-administration at baseline and during the Post-Education period. Two per-protocol sensitivity analyses were performed. They compared the Baseline vs. Post-Education periods for nurses who received training and nurses who completed training.||||0.05
91730552|NCT00761137|183356004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Primary outcome was analyzed by a mixed-effects ANOVA model employing subject as a random factor as well as visit and treatment as fixed factors. Intention-to-treat (ITT) sample was analyzed. Unweighted means and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) are reported, which represent treatment group means adjusted for the effect of visit and removing the intra-subject variability. For all analyses, significance level was set at 5%."||||0.6
91796376|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
91699305|NCT00356135|183293661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|-19.26|-8.71|||ANCOVA|||||-8.71|-19.26|<0.0001
91699306|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|3.35||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||3.35|-8.22|0.4055
91699307|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-17.51||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-17.51|-29.30|<0.0001
91699308|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|0.32||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||0.32|-8.82|0.0680
91699309|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-23.94||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|Comparison of MPA to 20 uM ADP at 24 hours||-23.94|-33.20|<0.0001
91904887|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.6|0.2005
91699310|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|-9.65||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.65|-19.96|<0.0001
91699311|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.87|-9.32||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.32|-19.87|<0.0001
91699312|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-9.22||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.22|-20.30|<0.0001
91730553|NCT00834587|183356009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.1||||||90.0|92.4|106.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.2|92.4|
91730554|NCT00834587|183356010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.7||||||90.0|98.8|102.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.6|98.8|
91730555|NCT00834587|183356011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.6||||||90.0|98.8|102.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.5|98.8|
91730556|NCT00834587|183356012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.7||||||90.0|97.3|106.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.3|97.3|
91730557|NCT00834587|183356013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.2||||||90.0|96.5|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.0|96.5|
91730558|NCT00834587|183356014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.1||||||90.0|96.5|101.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.8|96.5|
91730559|NCT00581100|183356028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].||||||<0.0001
91730560|NCT00581100|183356028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91730561|NCT00581100|183356029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].||||||<0.0001
91730562|NCT00581100|183356029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91730563|NCT00581100|183356030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
91796377|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, for any of the antigens, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
91867396|NCT02941549|183628903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1||||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|16.8|||ANCOVA|||||16.8|-36.9|0.7309
91867397|NCT02941549|183628904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.308||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-2.11|0.0763
91730564|NCT00581100|183356030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
91730565|NCT00581100|183356030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91730566|NCT00581100|183356030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91730567|NCT00581100|183356031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.007
91730568|NCT00581100|183356031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.006
91730569|NCT00581100|183356031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91730570|NCT00581100|183356031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91730571|NCT00581100|183356032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
91867398|NCT02941549|183628904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.727||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.554|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.100|-1.554|0.0058
91867399|NCT03983434|183628924|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.62
91867400|NCT03983434|183628925|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
91904888|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.3|-1.0|0.0010
91867401|NCT03983434|183628926|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
91867402|NCT03983434|183628927|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.079|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.079
91867403|NCT03983434|183628928|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.47|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.47
91867404|NCT03983434|183628930|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.03
91867405|NCT03983434|183628931|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.14
91867406|NCT03983434|183628932|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.074|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.074
91699313|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.59|-9.22||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.22|-20.59|<0.0001
91867407|NCT03983434|183628933|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91867408|NCT03983434|183628934|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
91867409|NCT03983434|183628935|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.98|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.98
91867410|NCT01536093|183628936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91867411|NCT01536093|183628937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
91904889|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.0|0.2|0.0030
91699314|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|3.14||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||3.14|-5.85|0.5501
91699315|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.55|-12.37||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-12.37|-21.55|<0.0001
91867412|NCT01536093|183628938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91867413|NCT01536093|183628939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
91867414|NCT01536093|183628940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
91867415|NCT01536093|183628941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91867416|NCT00811941|183628972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.35|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 110 participants in the placebo group and 320 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. Null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||0.35|-2.10|0.160
91867417|NCT00811941|183628973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|2.23|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 110 participants in the placebo group and 320 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||2.23|-9.17|0.232
91867418|NCT00811941|183628974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values were imputed using individual-patient predicted values of TAC derived from the MMRM model.||1.41|0.59|0.689
91867419|NCT00811941|183628975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.0|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 104 participants in the placebo group and 306 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.00|-0.37|0.046
91867420|NCT00811941|183628976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.08|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 104 participants in the placebo group and 306 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment by- time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.08|-0.36|0.217
91730572|NCT00581100|183356032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
91867421|NCT00811941|183628977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.93||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.05|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 108 participants in the placebo group and 319 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.05|0.83|0.273
91867422|NCT00811941|183628978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.99||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 108 participants in the placebo group and 318 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed ALAT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.10|0.90|0.916
91867423|NCT00811941|183628979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.29|||Adjusted change from Baseline - Month 13||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 97 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.29|-2.85|0.017
91867424|NCT00811941|183628980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|-0.42|||Adjusted change from Baseline - Month 13||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 97 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.42|-12.53|0.036
91867425|NCT00811941|183628981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.52|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values were imputed using individual-patient predicted values of TAC derived from the MMRM model.||1.52|0.67|0.976
91867426|NCT00811941|183628982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.01|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 52||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 95 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.01|-0.44|0.056
91867427|NCT00811941|183628983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.029||95.0|-0.5|-0.03|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 52||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 95 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment by- time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-0.50|0.029
91867428|NCT00811941|183628984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 98 participants in the placebo group and 259 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.90|0.67|0.001
91867429|NCT00811941|183628985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.88||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 97 participants in the placebo group and 259 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.99|0.79|0.037
91904890|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.2|0.3351
91730573|NCT00581100|183356032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91730574|NCT00581100|183356032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91730575|NCT00581100|183356033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.069
91730576|NCT00581100|183356033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.006
91699316|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|0.42||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||0.42|-8.58|0.0752
91699317|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|-15.64||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-15.64|-24.81|<0.0001
91867430|NCT03802994|183628990|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between groups were compared using the paired t test|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences between groups were compared using the paired t test||||<0.05
91867431|NCT03802994|183628990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91867432|NCT03802994|183628990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91867433|NCT03802994|183628991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91867434|NCT03802994|183628991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91904891|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.1|<0.0001
91730577|NCT00581100|183356033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91796378|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-6|
91867435|NCT03802994|183628992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91730578|NCT00581100|183356033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91730579|NCT00581100|183356034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91867436|NCT03802994|183628993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91730580|NCT00581100|183356034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91867437|NCT02029235|183629031|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: No difference between groups~Power analysis: A sample size of 16 in each group had an 80% power to detect a difference in means of 10 mm."||||0.24
91867438|NCT02029235|183629032|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: No difference between groups||||0.06
91867439|NCT04057820|183629065|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for study design (i.e., fixed time effect and random site effect) and randomization scheme stratification indicator.||||0.65|0.46|<0.0001
91730581|NCT00581100|183356035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
91867440|NCT04057820|183629066|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.47|||Mixed-effect Poisson w/ robust err var|The model adjusted for study design (i.e., fixed time effect and random site effect) and randomization scheme stratification indicator.||||0.47|0.30|<0.0001
91867441|NCT04057820|183629067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.9||||||||4.9|-0.4|
91867442|NCT04057820|183629068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|37.9||||||||37.9|8.1|
91867443|NCT04057820|183629069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.76||||||||1.76|0.37|
91867444|NCT04057820|183629070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-0.3|
91867445|NCT04057820|183629071|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.99||||||||3.99|0.94|
91867446|NCT04057820|183629072|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.48||||||||2.48|1.13|
91867447|NCT04057820|183629073|SUPERIORITY||Incidence ratio ratio (IRR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for study design (i.e., fixed time effect and random site effect) and randomization scheme stratification indicator.||||0.64|0.49|
91867448|NCT04057820|183629075|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47||||||||1.47|0.71|
91888763|NCT02942004|183669963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.777||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|-0.14|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-11.14|0.0447
91888764|NCT02942004|183669963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.726||0.1908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|1.81|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.81|-8.99|0.1908
91867449|NCT03211247|183629112|OTHER||Proportion difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.36|44.49|||Wald test||The 2-sided Farrington-Manning 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates was calculated.|Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Farrington-Manning 95% confidence interval (CI). P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Farrignton-Manning 95% CI of the difference in response rates ≥15%.||44.49|22.36|<0.001
91867450|NCT02415127|183629118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5442||||||From a repeated-measures ANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit with baseline score and investigative site as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix, testing ACTIMMUNE® vs placebo.|ANCOVA|||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were tested in a hierarchical manner. Each endpoint was tested in sequential order and the current endpoint must have shown statistical significance (p \< 0.05) prior to performing testing the next endpoint. The primary endpoint, FARS-mNeuro, was to be tested first, followed by the key secondary endpoint, ADL, followed by the other secondary endpoints, T25FW, FARS-mNeuro responder rate, and FARStot.||||0.5442
91867451|NCT05120856|183629129|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.106369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4985347||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.083479|-0.129259||This is the p value for the overall group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model compared groups' change across all time points Time was coded as a continuous variable (i.e., 0, 4, 8, and 16).|This is the effect estimate for the group x time interaction.|||-0.129259|-2.083479|.026
91867452|NCT05120856|183629129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.737||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.098|22.149|||t-test, 2 sided|||planned between-group post-hoc comparison at 4-week follow-up||22.149|-12.098|.565
91867453|NCT05120856|183629129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.891||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.774|14.077|||t-test, 2 sided|||Planned post-hoc comparison between groups at 8-week follow-up||14.077|-20.774|.706
91904892|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.7|0.0782
91699318|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|-7.5||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-7.50|-17.21|<0.0001
91699319|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|-5.79||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-5.79|-15.79|<0.0001
91867454|NCT05120856|183629129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.394||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.332|11.491|||t-test, 2 sided|||Planned post-hoc comparison between groups at 16-week follow-up||11.491|-25.332|.461
91867455|NCT05120856|183629129|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4798||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0229626|-0.1419329||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||In an additional sensitivity analysis, past-week alcohol use data was excluded if a participant reported having been in residential/inpatient treatment where they could not access alcohol for the whole of the past week at the time of follow-up. This resulted in data for one participant in the ApBM group being excluded at week 8, and 1 control being excluded at week 16.||-0.1419329|-2.0229626|.0252
91867456|NCT05120856|183629130|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05||This is the p value for the time x group interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the test for the overall CEQ-F scores||0.05|-0.08|.633
91867457|NCT05120856|183629130|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05||This is for the time x group interaction for the intensity subscale|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is for the test of the CEQ-F Intensity subscale score||0.05|-0.11|.411
91867458|NCT05120856|183629130|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06||p value for the time x group interaction for Imagery subscale|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of CEQ-F Imagery subscale score||0.06|-0.08|.808
91867459|NCT05120856|183629130|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08||This is the p value for the time x group interaction for the Intrusiveness subscale score|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is for the analysis of the CEQ-F Intrusiveness subscale score||0.08|-0.09|.886
91867460|NCT05120856|183629131|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.212||This is the p value for the time x group interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.212|-0.046|.207
91867461|NCT05120856|183629132|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.3||This is the p value for the group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.300|-0.352|.876
91867462|NCT05120856|183629133|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.004||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.004|-0.142|.064
91867463|NCT05120856|183629134|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.22||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.220|-0.338|.679
91867464|NCT05120856|183629136|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.24||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.240|-0.097|.403
91867465|NCT05120856|183629137|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.021||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects model analysis of psychological well-being ratings.||0.021|-0.126|.161
91867466|NCT05120856|183629137|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.042||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects model analysis of physical well-being ratings||0.042|-0.099|.425
91904893|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.1|-0.9|0.0068
91904894|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|0.1|0.0169
91699320|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.41|-7.72||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-7.72|-17.41|<0.0001
91699321|NCT00356135|183293662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-6.82||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.82|-16.80|<0.0001
91699322|NCT00356135|183293663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean of MPA 20 uM ADP at the end of Clopidogrel open label of patients on chronic clopidogrel at the time of qualifying events was compared to the mean MPA of patients not using clopidogrel at this time.||||0.1824
91699323|NCT00356135|183293663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1101|||||||F-test|||The variance of MPA 20 uM ADP at the end of Clopidogrel open label of patients on chronic clopidogrel at the time of qualifying events was compared to the variance of MPA for patients not using clopidogrel at this time.||||0.1101
91699324|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|3.37||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||3.37|-9.50|0.3466
91699325|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-20.33||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-20.33|-33.40|<0.0001
91730582|NCT00581100|183356035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
91699326|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|-1.6||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-1.60|-13.04|0.0127
91730583|NCT00581100|183356035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91730584|NCT00581100|183356035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91730585|NCT00581100|183356036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
91730586|NCT00581100|183356036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
91699327|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.99|-28.42||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-28.42|-39.99|<0.0001
91699328|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.58|-11.09||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-11.09|-25.58|<0.0001
91699329|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|-12.26||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-12.26|-27.09|<0.0001
91730587|NCT00581100|183356036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91730588|NCT00581100|183356036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91730589|NCT00581100|183356037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change-\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91904895|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.1|0.1481
91699330|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|-14.77||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-14.77|-28.42|<0.0001
91699331|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.61|-15.63||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-15.63|-29.61|<0.0001
91699332|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6||||0.4954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|6.38||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||6.38|-3.11|0.4954
91699333|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-6.24||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.24|-15.92|<0.0001
91699334|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|1.74||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||1.74|-8.31|0.1971
91699335|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|-10.75||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-10.75|-20.98|<0.0001
91730590|NCT00581100|183356037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change-\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91730591|NCT00581100|183356038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
91867467|NCT05120856|183629137|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.027||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects model analysis of quality of life ratings||0.027|-0.106|.247
91730592|NCT00581100|183356038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
91867468|NCT05120856|183629138|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.369||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|23.97||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.97|-16.68|.725
91867469|NCT05630833|183629177|OTHER||Lower 10th percentile (%)|48.2|||||||||||||Lower 10th percentile of therapeutic successes was calculated from the predictive distribution.|As defined in Statistical Analysis Plan, consistency with the global studies is demonstrated if the success criterion for gepotidacin is set to require a therapeutic response rate greater than lower 10th percentile value of the predictive distribution.||||
91867470|NCT03044158|183629217|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (adjusted)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01||||||||2.01|1.21|
91699336|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|-7.32||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-7.32|-18.81|<0.0001
91699337|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|-6.09||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.09|-17.91|0.0001
91730593|NCT00581100|183356039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
91730594|NCT00581100|183356039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
91867471|NCT03044158|183629218|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (adjusted)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.66||||||||1.66|0.99|
91867472|NCT03044158|183629219|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio (adjusted)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62||||||||0.62|0.39|
91867473|NCT03044158|183629220|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (adjusted)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.12||||||||2.12|1.04|
91867474|NCT03044158|183629221|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio (adjusted)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.56||||||||0.56|0.21|
91867475|NCT03044158|183629222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.35||||||||1.35|0.44|
91867476|NCT05485805|183629281|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-5.95|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.946|-1.954|||ANCOVA|||||-1.954|-9.946|= 0.004
91867477|NCT05485805|183629281|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.161|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.161|10.161|||ANCOVA|||||10.161|2.161|= 0.003
91699338|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-6.32||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.32|-15.64|<0.0001
91796379|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-6|
91796380|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 1, one month postvaccination), given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
91796381|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 1, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
91796382|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 2, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-2|
91796383|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 2, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-3|
91867478|NCT05485805|183629281|OTHER||Geometric LS means|25.936|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.317|31.556|||ANCOVA|||||31.556|20.317|< 0.001
91867479|NCT05485805|183629281|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-3.476|||=|0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|3.457|||ANCOVA|||||3.457|-10.41|= 0.325
91904896|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.1|<0.0001
91699339|NCT00356135|183293664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|-5.09||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-5.09|-14.67|<0.0001
91699340|NCT00356135|183293665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||P-value for MPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0005
91699341|NCT00356135|183293665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for RPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||<0.0001
91699342|NCT00356135|183293665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for MPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0150
91699343|NCT00356135|183293665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152||95.0||||P-value for RPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0152
91699344|NCT00356135|183293665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0||||P-value for MPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0153
91699345|NCT00356135|183293665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0||||P-value for RPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0018
91730595|NCT00581100|183356040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91867480|NCT05485805|183629281|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.211|||=|0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.798|4.22|||ANCOVA|||||4.22|-3.798|= 0.918
91867481|NCT05485805|183629281|OTHER||Geometric LS means|32.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.484|37.71|||ANCOVA|||||37.71|26.484|< 0.001
91867482|NCT05485805|183629281|OTHER||Geometric LS means|22.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.753|28.166|||ANCOVA|||||28.166|16.753|< 0.001
91867483|NCT05485805|183629281|OTHER||Geometric LS means|26.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.529|31.765|||ANCOVA|||||31.765|20.529|< 0.001
91867484|NCT05485805|183629281|OTHER||Geometric LS means|28.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.921|34.32|||ANCOVA|||||34.32|22.921|< 0.001
91867485|NCT05485805|183629281|OTHER||Geometric LS means|22.671|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.966|28.375|||ANCOVA|||||28.375|16.966|< 0.001
91904897|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.1|-0.8|0.0088
91699346|NCT05270395|183293686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.02||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|46.69|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||46.69|1.38|0.02
91699347|NCT05270395|183293687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||4.56|0.40|0.63
91699348|NCT05270395|183293688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||1.46|0.06|0.13
91699349|NCT05270395|183293689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||2.24|0.13|0.40
91699350|NCT05270395|183293690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|9.62|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||9.62|0.51|0.29
91699351|NCT05270395|183293691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|14.32|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||14.32|0.88|0.07
91699352|NCT05270395|183293692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|18.89|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||18.89|0.82|0.09
91699353|NCT05270395|183293693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|6.43|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||6.43|0.46|0.42
91699354|NCT05270395|183293694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.42|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||9.42|0.87|0.08
91699355|NCT05270395|183293695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|34.49|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||34.49|1.99|0.004
91699356|NCT03055494|183293696|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed in this study|difference in percentages|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.3|88.8|||95% confidence interval|"Statistical analysis of no response of skin histology/K16 expression to treatment at Week 12"|||"A patient with missing assessment was considered as having a yes response of skin histology/K16 expression to treatment regardless of the reason for missing data (eg, premature study discontinuation, missed visit, administrative issues). However, missing baseline value was not imputed."|88.8|63.3|
91699357|NCT03055494|183293697|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed in this study|difference in percentages|55.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.3|69.3|||95% confidence interval|||||69.3|42.3|
91699358|NCT05027048|183293727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|211.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|410.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|inverse Gaussian distribution and log li|Inverse Gaussian distribution and log link fit to estimate the effect size and 95% CIs|Inverse gaussian regression with a log link was used to calculate the mean reduction in blood loss in the calcium group relative to placebo group.|||410|-33|<0.05
91699359|NCT05027048|183293728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||Regression (poisson with robust SE)|||||1.03|0.48|
91699360|NCT05027048|183293729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.23|||Poisson regression with robust SE|||||1.23|0.46|
91699361|NCT05027048|183293730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.56||||||||1.56|0.2|
91699362|NCT05027048|183293731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Data were log transformed to approximate a normal distribution prior to linear regression.||||0.2|-3.6|
91699363|NCT05027048|183293733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.415
91699364|NCT05027048|183293734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.566|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.566
91699365|NCT05027048|183293736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA used to analyze differences between groups.||||0.348
91699366|NCT05027048|183293737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA.||Repeated measures ANOVA used to assess for difference between groups in the % change from baseline heart rate.||||0.011
91699367|NCT05027048|183293739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91699368|NCT05027048|183293740|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Note: a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model was generated in NONMEM using 6 venous blood ionized calcium measurements per participant at random times. The change in ionized calcium was defined as a measured value minus the measured baseline for the patient.~Once the two-compartment pharmacokinetic model was generated, NONMEM was used to generate a predicted ionized calcium concentration at 10 minutes (Tmax) for each participant to generate mean and 95% confidence interval."|||
91730596|NCT00581100|183356040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91730597|NCT00581100|183356041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91730598|NCT00581100|183356041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91730599|NCT00581100|183356042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91730600|NCT00581100|183356042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<Table 8-14\> Change from baseline in Physician and Patient Assessment of Nail Psoriasis Activity Visual Analog Scale (VAS)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91730601|NCT00581100|183356043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91867486|NCT05485805|183629282|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.602|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.548|-0.656|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||-0.656|-2.548|< 0.001
91699369|NCT05027048|183293742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|356.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|159.0|515.0|||Inverse Gaussian regression, log link||Reduction in blood loss was calculated by inverse Gaussian regression with a log link as detailed in the description of statistical methods for the primary outcome.|||515|159|<0.05
91699370|NCT03051516|183293761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV16 persistence by study arm.||||0.89
91699371|NCT03051516|183293761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV18/45 persistence by study arm.||||0.65
91699372|NCT03051516|183293761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV31/33/52/58 persistence by study arm.||||0.056
91699373|NCT03051516|183293761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV35/39/51/56/59 persistence by study arm.||||0.38
91699374|NCT03051516|183293761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||This p-value compares overall HPV persistence and is not specific to HPV genotype.|Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91699375|NCT03051516|183293762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
91699376|NCT03051516|183293763|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.135|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of fever or chills.||||0.135
91699377|NCT03051516|183293763|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of headache.||||0.640
91699378|NCT03051516|183293763|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.838|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of fatigue.||||0.838
91699379|NCT03051516|183293763|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.917|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of muscle aches.||||0.917
91699380|NCT03051516|183293763|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of pain at injection site.||||0.005
91699381|NCT03051516|183293763|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of tenderness at injection site.||||0.001
91699382|NCT03051516|183293763|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of swelling at injection site.||||0.004
91699383|NCT03051516|183293763|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.133|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of medical attention/medication required.||||0.133
91699384|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV16, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.93
91699385|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV18, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.77
91699386|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV31, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.57
91699387|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV33, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.73
91699388|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV45, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.998
91699389|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV52, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.93
91730602|NCT00581100|183356043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91730603|NCT00993473|183356068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the rate of all hypoglycemia in the Lantus group to the rate in the NPH group was \<1.15. Superiority would be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI was \<1. The margin for noninferiority corresponded to one-half of the 30% difference in hypoglycemia event rate considered as a clinically significant difference by American Diabetes Association 2005 Working Group on Hypoglycemia."|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.44|||Generalized Linear Model|"A stepwise closed testing approach was used for the primary all hypoglycemia outcome analysis to assess noninferiority and superiority sequentially."|Risk ratio between treatment groups (Lantus/NPH) estimated by Generalized Linear Model with fixed effect terms for randomization strata and treatment.|"The sample size was calculated to ensure sufficient power so that the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the Lantus /NPH ratio would not exceed 1.15 based on an expected overall rate of all hypoglycemia of 80 events per patient-year of exposure to NPH insulin and to Lantus. It was planned to randomize at least 45 and up to approximately 60 patients in each of the 2 treatment groups so that at least 70 patients would complete the 24 weeks of treatment."||1.44|0.97|
91867487|NCT05485805|183629282|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.976|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|1.923|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||1.923|0.029|= 0.043
91867488|NCT05485805|183629282|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.766|7.427|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||7.427|4.766|< 0.001
91699390|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV58, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.95
91699391|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of any HPV type, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.91
91699392|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV16, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.22
91699393|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV18, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.27
91730604|NCT00839930|183356089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|93.39||||||90.0|87.33|99.86|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.86|87.33|
91730605|NCT00839930|183356090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.14||||||90.0|91.04|101.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.52|91.04|
91867489|NCT05485805|183629282|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.31|||=|0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.332|1.951|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||1.951|-1.332|= 0.711
91867490|NCT05485805|183629282|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.626|||=|0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.575|0.323|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.323|-1.575|= 0.196
91867491|NCT05485805|183629282|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.744|8.402|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||8.402|5.744|< 0.001
91867492|NCT05485805|183629282|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.406|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.055|7.757|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||7.757|5.055|< 0.001
91904898|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.3|-0.9|0.0005
91699394|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV31, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.72
91699395|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV33, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.71
91699396|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV45, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.11
91699397|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV52, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.58
91699398|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV58, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.81
91699399|NCT03051516|183293764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of any HPV type, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.73
91699400|NCT05139303|183293812|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91699401|NCT04507256|183293826|OTHER|Bioavailability|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf|68.69|||||||||||||The bioavailability of AZD7442 Dose 1 administered by IM was, calculated as the ratio of geometric mean AUCinf after IM to IV, for mAb AZD8895.|Bioavailability of AZD8895 at the end of study (Day 361)||||
91730606|NCT00839930|183356091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.64||||||90.0|92.13|101.37|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.37|92.13|
91867493|NCT05485805|183629282|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.471|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.141|6.801|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||6.801|4.141|< 0.001
91904899|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.0|0.0627
91904900|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.2|0.3064
91699402|NCT04507256|183293826|OTHER|Bioavailability|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf|65.02|||||||||||||The bioavailability of AZD7442 Dose 1 administered by IM was, calculated as the ratio of geometric mean AUCinf after IM to IV, for mAb AZD1061.|Bioavailability of AZD1061 at the end of study (Day 361)||||
91699403|NCT02858180|183293844|OTHER||Proportion|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.5|98.3||||||||98.3|59.5|
91699404|NCT00844480|183293847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
91699405|NCT00574249|183293852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Level of significance 5%; no adjustment for multiple comparisons necessary.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided CMH test stratified by country at the alpha level 0.05. Centers were pooled by country (Sweden and Finland pooled due to few participants).||Comparison of the proportion of participants in the adalimumab + calcipotriol/betamethasone group vs. the adalimumab + placebo group.||||0.086
91699406|NCT00574249|183293853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.565
91699407|NCT00574249|183293854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91699408|NCT00574249|183293855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91730607|NCT02500836|183356092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||<0.0001
91730608|NCT02500836|183356093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||<0.0001
91730609|NCT03253627|183356125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.460
91730610|NCT03253627|183356125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.896
91867494|NCT05485805|183629282|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.383|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.033|8.732|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||8.732|6.033|< 0.001
91867495|NCT05485805|183629282|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|7.131|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||7.131|4.43|< 0.001
91867496|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.586|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.903|-0.269|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||-0.269|-0.903|< 0.001
91867497|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.454|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.771|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.771|0.136|= 0.005
91867498|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.369|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.923|2.815|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.815|1.923|< 0.001
91867499|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.169|||=|0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.719|0.382|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.382|-0.719|= 0.548
91699409|NCT00574249|183293856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91699410|NCT00574249|183293857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91699411|NCT00574249|183293858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.74||||0.204||95.0|-5.3|24.78|||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA. For confidence interval and difference estimate, adalimumab + calcipotriol/betamethasone minus adalimumab + placebo was used.||||24.78|-5.30|0.204
91699412|NCT00574249|183293859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.55||||0.272||95.0|-48.92|13.82|||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA. Confidence interval and difference estimated from adalimumab + calcipotriol/betamethasone minus adalimumab + placebo.||||13.82|-48.92|0.272
91699413|NCT00574249|183293860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.413
91867500|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.132|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.186|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.186|-0.451|= 0.415
91867501|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.823|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.377|3.268|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||3.268|2.377|< 0.001
91867502|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.201|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.748|2.654|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.654|1.748|< 0.001
91867503|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.791|2.683|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.683|1.791|< 0.001
91867504|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.654|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.202|3.106|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||3.106|2.202|< 0.001
91867505|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.068|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.615|2.521|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.521|1.615|< 0.001
91699414|NCT00574249|183293861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91730611|NCT03253627|183356126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.374
91699415|NCT00574249|183293862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.028
91699416|NCT00574249|183293863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.228
91867506|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.338|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.133|-0.542|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||-0.542|-2.133|< 0.001
91904901|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.2|<0.0001
91867507|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|1.016|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.813|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||1.813|0.22|= 0.012
91867508|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.982|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.864|7.101|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||7.101|4.864|< 0.001
91699417|NCT00574249|183293864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||< 0.001
91699418|NCT00574249|183293865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.001
91699419|NCT00574249|183293866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.764
91699420|NCT00574249|183293867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.437
91699421|NCT00574249|183293868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.740
91699422|NCT00574249|183293869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.634
91699423|NCT03197870|183293870|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypotheses was tested in the modified intent-to-treat population using a Fisher's Exact Test with a 2-sided 5% significance level. razuprotafib 15 mg twice daily was tested first. If this was found to be statistically significant, then razuprotafib 15 mg once daily will be tested for statistical significance, at the same significance level.||||||0.495||||||Missing data was imputed using last observation carried forward; baseline values were not carried forward.|Fisher Exact|||The primary hypotheses tested was that razuprotafib 15 mg twice daily and razuprotafib 15 mg once daily will be superior to placebo in the improvement of diabetic retinopathy as measured by the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study severity scale change from baseline at 48 weeks.||||0.495
91699424|NCT01542034|183293891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.702|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.808|4.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by pooled study center.|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||4.880|2.808|<0.001
91730612|NCT03253627|183356126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.236
91730613|NCT03253627|183356127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.180
91730614|NCT03253627|183356127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.822
91730615|NCT03253627|183356128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||.715
91730616|NCT03253627|183356128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.861
91730617|NCT03253627|183356128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||.790
91730618|NCT03253627|183356129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.452
91867509|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.048|||=|0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.428|0.332|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||0.332|-2.428|= 0.136
91867510|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.321|||=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.119|0.477|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||0.477|-1.119|= 0.43
91867511|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.999|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.881|8.116|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||8.116|5.881|< 0.001
91867512|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|4.934|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.798|6.07|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||6.07|3.798|< 0.001
91867513|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.661|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.543|6.779|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||6.779|4.543|< 0.001
91867514|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.951|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.816|7.085|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||7.085|4.816|< 0.001
91867515|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|4.613|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.478|5.749|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||5.749|3.478|< 0.001
91867516|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.963|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.254|-0.673|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||-0.673|-3.254|= 0.003
91867517|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|1.641|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.933|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||2.933|0.35|= 0.013
91867518|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.377|11.006|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||11.006|7.377|< 0.001
91867519|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.642|||=|0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.881|0.597|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||0.597|-3.881|= 0.15
91867520|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.322|||=|0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.617|0.972|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||0.972|-1.617|= 0.625
91867521|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|10.833|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.02|12.645|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||12.645|9.02|< 0.001
91867522|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.707|9.392|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||9.392|5.707|< 0.001
91867523|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|8.869|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.055|10.683|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||10.683|7.055|< 0.001
91867524|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.351|11.031|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||11.031|7.351|< 0.001
91867525|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.228|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.386|9.07|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||9.07|5.386|< 0.001
91867526|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.398|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.185|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||-0.61|-4.185|= 0.009
91867527|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.4|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.189|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||4.189|0.61|= 0.009
91867528|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|11.898|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.384|14.412|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||14.412|9.384|< 0.001
91867529|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.225|||=|0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.327|0.877|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||0.877|-5.327|= 0.159
91867530|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.002|||=|0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.792|1.795|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||1.795|-1.792|= 0.998
91867531|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|14.298|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.787|16.809|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||16.809|11.787|< 0.001
91867532|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.673|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.12|12.226|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||12.226|7.12|< 0.001
91867533|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.387|14.413|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||14.413|9.387|< 0.001
91867534|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|12.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.523|14.623|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||14.623|9.523|< 0.001
91867535|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.675|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.123|12.227|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||12.227|7.123|< 0.001
91867536|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.949|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.803|-0.095|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||-0.095|-5.803|= 0.043
91867537|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|3.694|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|6.55|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||6.55|0.837|= 0.011
91867538|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|16.504|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.49|20.517|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||20.517|12.49|< 0.001
91867539|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-3.437|||=|0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.389|1.515|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||1.515|-8.389|= 0.173
91867540|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.744|||=|0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.119|3.608|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||3.608|-2.119|= 0.61
91867541|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|20.197|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.189|24.206|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||24.206|16.189|< 0.001
91867542|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|13.067|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.992|17.143|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||17.143|8.992|< 0.001
91730619|NCT03253627|183356129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.253
91730620|NCT03253627|183356129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.469
91867543|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|17.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.236|21.261|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||21.261|13.236|< 0.001
91867544|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|16.761|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.69|20.831|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||20.831|12.69|< 0.001
91867545|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|13.812|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.738|17.886|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||17.886|9.738|< 0.001
91867546|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.312|||=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.635|4.011|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||4.011|-8.635|= 0.473
91867547|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|27.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.188|35.973|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||35.973|18.188|< 0.001
91867548|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-6.928|||=|0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|4.044|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||4.044|-17.9|= 0.215
91867549|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.468|||=|0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.876|8.813|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||8.813|-3.876|= 0.445
91867550|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|20.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.122|29.183|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||29.183|11.122|< 0.001
91867551|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|24.933|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.914|33.952|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||33.952|15.914|< 0.001
91867552|NCT05485805|183629283|OTHER||Geometric LS means|22.621|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.594|31.648|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||31.648|13.594|< 0.001
91867553|NCT05485805|183629284|OTHER||||||=|0.963|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.963
91867554|NCT05485805|183629284|OTHER||||||=|0.118|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.118
91867555|NCT05485805|183629284|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867556|NCT05485805|183629284|OTHER||||||=|0.244|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.244
91867557|NCT05485805|183629284|OTHER||||||=|0.139|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.139
91867558|NCT05485805|183629284|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867559|NCT05485805|183629284|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867560|NCT05485805|183629284|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867561|NCT05485805|183629284|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867562|NCT05485805|183629284|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867563|NCT05485805|183629286|OTHER||||||=|0.647|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.647
91867564|NCT05485805|183629286|OTHER||||||=|0.714|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.714
91867565|NCT05485805|183629286|OTHER||||||=|0.065|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.065
91867566|NCT05485805|183629286|OTHER||||||=|0.742|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.742
91867567|NCT05485805|183629286|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867568|NCT05485805|183629286|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867569|NCT05485805|183629286|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867570|NCT05485805|183629286|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867571|NCT05485805|183629286|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867572|NCT05485805|183629287|OTHER||||||=|0.162|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.162
91904902|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.7|0.0868
91904903|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.3|-1.1|0.0004
91699425|NCT01542034|183293892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center.||The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||||<0.001
91730621|NCT03253627|183356130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.628|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.628
91730622|NCT03253627|183356130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.345
91867573|NCT05485805|183629287|OTHER||||||=|0.319|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.319
91867574|NCT05485805|183629287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867575|NCT05485805|183629287|OTHER||||||=|0.343|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.343
91867576|NCT05485805|183629287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867577|NCT05485805|183629287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867578|NCT05485805|183629287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91904904|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|0.1|0.0271
91730623|NCT03253627|183356130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.384
91867579|NCT05485805|183629287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867580|NCT05485805|183629287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867581|NCT05485805|183629288|OTHER||||||=|0.162|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.162
91867582|NCT05485805|183629288|OTHER||||||=|0.319|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.319
91867583|NCT05485805|183629288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867584|NCT05485805|183629288|OTHER||||||=|0.343|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.343
91730624|NCT03253627|183356131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||.398
91730625|NCT03253627|183356131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.811
91730626|NCT03253627|183356131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.027
91867585|NCT05485805|183629288|OTHER||||||=|0.772|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.772
91867586|NCT05485805|183629288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867587|NCT05485805|183629288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867588|NCT05485805|183629288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867589|NCT05485805|183629288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867590|NCT05485805|183629288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91867591|NCT05485805|183629291|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.14|||=|0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.44|= 0.334
91867592|NCT05485805|183629291|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|0.04|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.25|= 0.783
91867593|NCT05485805|183629291|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.08|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.5|= 0.687
91867594|NCT05485805|183629291|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.02|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.53|= 0.927
91867595|NCT05485805|183629291|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.1|||=|0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.4|= 0.492
91867596|NCT05485805|183629291|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.04|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||ANCOVA|||||0.37|-0.46|= 0.836
91867597|NCT05485805|183629291|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.11|||=|0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.53|= 0.611
91867598|NCT05485805|183629291|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.19|||=|0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.6|= 0.371
91867599|NCT05485805|183629291|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.07|||=|0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.49|= 0.752
91867600|NCT05485805|183629291|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.21|||=|0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.63|= 0.321
91867601|NCT04218357|183629299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||GEE|Generalized Estimating Equation with standard errors, and an unstructured correlation matrix with medication and time as within-subject factors.||All outcomes were assessed in real-time in the laboratory testing probenecid compared to placebo condition during the alcohol administration procedure.||||0.05
91867602|NCT05048394|183629347|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a difference of 0.|||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91867603|NCT05048394|183629348|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a difference of 0.||||||0.14||||||Threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91867604|NCT05037513|183629352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|62.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.2|0.8|<0.05
91867605|NCT05037513|183629353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|62.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.2|0.8|<0.05
91904905|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.3|0.6838
91904906|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|-0.454|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.454|-1.129|<0.0001
91904907|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1718||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.007|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.007|-0.667|0.0552
91904908|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1718||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.275|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.275|-0.950|0.0004
91705512|NCT01080391|183305555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.834||Analysis was stratified by β2 microglobulin levels (\< 2.5 mg/L vs. ≥ 2.5 mg/L), prior bortezomib (no vs. yes), and prior lenalidomide (no vs. yes)|Log Rank|The stopping boundary for this analysis was 0.0127 based on 1-sided significance level (O'Brien-Fleming with Lan-DeMets spending function).||||0.834|0.570|< 0.0001
91867606|NCT06140290|183629390|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|108.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.2|115.94|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||115.94|101.20|
91867607|NCT06140290|183629391|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.02|134.22|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||134.22|108.02|
91867608|NCT06140290|183629392|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|115.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.17|126.38|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||126.38|105.17|
91867609|NCT06140290|183629393|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|106.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.33|114.73|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||114.73|99.33|
91867610|NCT06140290|183629394|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.76|108.38|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA (Analysis of variance) model with treatment as a fixed effect.||108.38|77.76|
91867611|NCT06140290|183629394|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.33|122.19|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||122.19|86.33|
91867612|NCT06140290|183629395|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|86.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.42|107.37|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||107.37|69.42|
91867613|NCT06140290|183629395|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.99|124.7|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||124.70|76.99|
91867614|NCT06140290|183629396|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.1|107.68|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||107.68|73.10|
91867615|NCT06140290|183629396|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.74|120.83|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||120.83|78.74|
91904909|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1729||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.801|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.801|0.122|0.0077
91904910|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.3014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.518|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.518|-0.161|0.3014
91904911|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|14.3|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||14.3|4.9|<0.0001
91699426|NCT01542034|183293893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|8.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|20.148|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||20.148|3.620|<0.001
91867616|NCT06140290|183629397|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|94.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.01|112.17|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||112.17|79.01|
91867617|NCT06140290|183629397|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.04|124.16|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||124.16|86.04|
91888765|NCT02942004|183669964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.7|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||11.7|1.3|0.0131
91699427|NCT01542034|183293894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and Baseline PR-SMFIS total scale score.||If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||||<0.001
91699428|NCT02612610|183293895|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.05|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||Estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate.||0.05|-0.54|0.0971
91699429|NCT02612610|183293895|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.04|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||Estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate.||0.04|-0.54|0.0928
91699430|NCT02612610|183293895|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.16|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||Estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.76|0.0027
91699431|NCT02612610|183293896|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.09|-0.47|0.1914
91699432|NCT02612610|183293896|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.23|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.23|-0.33|0.7099
91730627|NCT03163667|183356207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.07905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.2||One-sided p-value comparing the treatment groups was based on a stratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio comparing treatment groups (experimental over control) is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CB-839+Everolimus (CBE), and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors Placebo+Everolimus (PboE).|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) Prognostic Risk (favorable versus intermediate/poor risk) and number of prior therapies with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI; 1 versus \> 1). Due to stratification cells having \< 10 events, TKI stratification factor was removed for analysis.||1.20|0.34|0.07905
91730628|NCT03163667|183356207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.28||One-sided p-value comparing the treatment groups was based on an unstratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio comparing treatment groups (experimental over control) is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CBE, and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors PboE.|Unstratified analysis||1.28|0.37|0.1184
91730629|NCT03163667|183356208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.4801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5||P-value comparing the treatment groups is based on a stratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CBE, and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors PboE.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors are MSKCC Prognostic Risk (favorable vs intermediate/poor risk) and number of prior therapies with a TKI (1 vs \> 1). Due to stratification cells having \< 10 events, TKI stratification factor was removed for analysis.||1.50|0.42|0.4801
91699433|NCT02612610|183293896|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.24|-0.80|0.0003
91699434|NCT02612610|183293897|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 24-hour Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.10|-0.71|0.0099
91699435|NCT02612610|183293897|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.02|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 24-hour Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.02|-0.58|0.0695
91699436|NCT02612610|183293897|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.31|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.31|-0.93|0.0001
91699437|NCT02612610|183293898|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.04|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 24-hour Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.04|-0.52|0.0991
91699438|NCT02612610|183293898|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.03|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 24-hour Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.03|-0.53|0.0811
91699439|NCT02612610|183293898|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.19|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.19|-0.76|0.0014
91699440|NCT02612610|183293899|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.07|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Awake Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate. ."||0.07|-0.50|0.1468
91699441|NCT02612610|183293899|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Awake Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.20|-0.36|0.5874
91699442|NCT02612610|183293899|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.21|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.21|-0.78|0.0008
91699443|NCT02612610|183293900|OTHER||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|-0.39||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.07|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Awake Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.07|-0.70|0.0177
91730630|NCT03163667|183356208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.56||P-value comparing the treatment groups is based on an unstratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio comparing treatment groups (experimental over control) is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CBE, and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors PboE.|Unstratified analysis||1.56|0.44|0.5603
91867618|NCT02036970|183629406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74||||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.22|12.74||The p-value comparison is for the difference in the change in 6WMD from baseline at Week 16 for bardoxolone methyl relative to placebo in participants with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Net) = Bardoxolone methyl - Placebo.|Overall treatment effect in participants with PAH. Mean overall treatment effect across all visits for change from baseline in 6MWD was estimated and compared with placebo through 16 weeks of treatment using mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was assumed. Data from Wks 4, 8, 12, and 16 used in the model with the change from baseline at Wk16 as primary endpoint.||12.74|-16.22|0.8133
91904912|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|13.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||13.2|3.8|0.0004
91699444|NCT02612610|183293900|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Awake Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.00|-0.63|0.0498
91699445|NCT02612610|183293900|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.27|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Awake Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.27|-0.92|0.0004
91699446|NCT02612610|183293902|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||1.9|-14.8|0.1318
91699447|NCT02612610|183293902|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.4917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|5.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Cough Severity VAS: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||5.4|-11.3|0.4917
91699448|NCT02612610|183293902|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.8||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-1.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-1.4|-18.2|0.0228
91699449|NCT02612610|183293903|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||6.2|-11.5|0.5540
91699450|NCT02612610|183293903|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Cough Severity VAS: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||5.6|-12.0|0.4702
91730631|NCT00855166|183356227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3885|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.31||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided)|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum (gender) as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.31|-2.84|<0.0001
91730632|NCT00855166|183356228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6162||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-0.31||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Results of key secondary endpoints are interpreted using Hochberg's method|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum (gender) as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.31|-2.74|0.0143
91699451|NCT02612610|183293903|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.7||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-1.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-1.7|-19.8|0.0197
91699452|NCT02612610|183293904|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||4.0|-12.9|0.3020
91699453|NCT02612610|183293904|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|2.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Cough Severity VAS: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.0|-14.8|0.1365
91699454|NCT02612610|183293904|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-2.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-2.6|-19.7|0.0108
91888766|NCT02942004|183669964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.6|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||11.6|1.4|0.0095
91730633|NCT00855166|183356229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3731||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.74||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Results of key secondary endpoints are interpreted using Hochberg's method|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum (gender) as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.74|-2.22|0.0001
91730634|NCT00855166|183356230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.309|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|36.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Results of key secondary endpoints are interpreted using Hochberg's method|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value and stratum (gender).||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||36.7|15.9|<0.0001
91888767|NCT02942004|183669964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.5|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||7.5|1.1|0.0323
91867619|NCT02036970|183629406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.54|17.2||The p-value comparison is for the difference in the change in 6WMD from baseline at Week 16 for bardoxolone methyl relative to placebo in participants with pulmonary hypertension (PH)|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Net) = Bardoxolone methyl - Placebo.|Overall treatment effect in participants with PH. Mean overall treatment effect across all visits for change from baseline in 6MWD was estimated \& compared with placebo through 16 wks of treatment using mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment \& visit as fixed factors. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was assumed. Data from Wks 4, 8, 12, and 16 were used in the model with the change from baseline at Wk 16 as the primary endpoint||17.20|-23.54|0.759
91867620|NCT02298842|183629407|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 60 was chosen to meet the FDA pH requirements that the lower 95% confidence limit on the proportion of platelet test units with pH\> 6.2 will be at least 95%. This will be achieved if zero failures (pH\<=6.2) is seen.|Simple sample proportion|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.1||||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"A success is defined as pH22°C at Day 5 and Day 7 being at least 6.2. A one-sided 95% lower confidence limit will be used to assess the proportion of successes at Day 5 and Day 7. If the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval exceeds 0.95, the Test product will meet the FDA acceptance criteria."|||95.1|
91867621|NCT02298842|183629408|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 60 was chosen to meet the FDA pH requirements that the lower 95% confidence limit on the proportion of platelet test units with pH\> 6.2 will be at least 95%. This will be achieved if zero failures (pH\<=6.2) is seen.|Simple sample proportion|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.1||||Exact Bionomial Confidence Interval||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"A success is defined as pH22°C at Day 5 and Day 7 being at least 6.2. A one-sided 95% lower confidence limit will be used to assess the proportion of successes at Day 5 and Day 7. If the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval exceeds 0.95, the Test product will meet the FDA acceptance criteria."|||95.1|
91867622|NCT02298842|183629409|NON_INFERIORITY|If the 97.5% upper limit of the confidence interval is less than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.099|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6367|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||16.738|||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that P-selectin's mean difference, Test - 1.25 \* Control, is greater than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is less than 0.||16.738||
91867623|NCT02298842|183629410|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.418|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5531|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.544||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that ESC's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-1.544|
91867624|NCT02298842|183629411|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7882|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.499||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that HSR's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-2.499|
91867625|NCT02298842|183629412|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.056|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|40.02||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that Morphology's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||40.020|
91759154|NCT04038567|183411362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.16||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.16|-2.12|
91867626|NCT02298842|183629413|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% upper limit of the confidence interval is less than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.314|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0422|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||13.981|||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that P-selection's mean difference, Test - 1.25 \* Control, is greater or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is less than 0.||13.981||
91867627|NCT02298842|183629414|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.422|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.407||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that ESC's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-4.407|
91867628|NCT02298842|183629415|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.389|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0544|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.915||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that HSR's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-4.915|
91904913|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|15.1|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||15.1|5.7|<0.0001
91699455|NCT02612610|183293905|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.3509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|4.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||4.4|-12.3|0.3509
91699456|NCT02612610|183293905|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-16.6|0.0519
91699457|NCT02612610|183293905|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-7.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-7.5|-24.3|0.0003
91730635|NCT00855166|183356231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5652||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.34||Exploratory. Model including fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, gender and rescue medication as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Percent change in BMD from baseline to week 102 evaluated via longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood.|Natural logarithms of baseline and week 102 values were used.|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||1.34|-0.89|0.7013
91730636|NCT00855166|183356232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6473||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.35||Exploratory. Model including fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, gender and rescue medication as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Percent change in BMD from baseline to week 102 evaluated via longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood.|Natural logarithms of baseline and week 102 values were used.|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.35|-2.21|0.1521
91730637|NCT00855166|183356233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4428||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.43||Exploratory. Model including fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, gender and rescue medication as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Percent change in BMD from baseline to week 102 evaluated via longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood.|Natural logarithms of baseline and week 102 values were used.|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.43|-1.32|0.3105
91730638|NCT03769116|183356242|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann treatment diff|6.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|12.58|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis conducted on changes from baseline.||12.58|2.08|< 0.0001
91730639|NCT03769116|183356243|OTHER||LSM Change Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|=|0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.7|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures|||||2.7|-1.0|= 0.3730
91730640|NCT03769116|183356251|OTHER||LSM Change Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|=|0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.4|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures|||Change from baseline - Age Group: 4-5 years old||4.4|0.5|= 0.0172
91730641|NCT03769116|183356251|OTHER||LSM Change Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|=|0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures|||Change from baseline - Age Group: 6-7 years old||1.6|-3.0|= 0.5384
91730642|NCT02214212|183356270|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|5.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model used an unstructured correlation matrix, adjusting for treatment, time (linear) and the interaction as fixed effects.|The reported effect size has been expressed as the modelled difference in sleep efficiency improvement from day 1 to day 10. A positive effect size indicates a higher score in the white-light arm.|||5.37|-5.69|.955
91888768|NCT02942004|183669964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.3|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||5.3|0.9|0.0931
91730643|NCT02214212|183356271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.29|-4.90|.807
91730644|NCT02214212|183356272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment, time (pre/post), site, FIM admit cognitive/motor, and the treatment/time as fixed effects.||||4.43|-5.38|.847
91730645|NCT02214212|183356273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance by mixed-effects regression adjusts for time (pre/post), site, FIM admit cognitive, FIM admit motor as fixed effects.||||8.56|-2.29|.252
91730646|NCT02214212|183356274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|-3.08|.722
91730647|NCT02214212|183356275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.25||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|-6.13|.253
91730648|NCT02214212|183356276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment, time (pre/post), site, FIM admit cognitive/motor, and the treatment/time as fixed effects.|A positive effect size indicates a higher score in the bright white light (BWL) intervention arm.|||0.44|-1.21|.351
91730649|NCT02214212|183356277|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model used an unstructured correlation matrix, adjusting for treatment, time (linear) and the interaction as fixed effects|The reported effect size has been expressed as the modelled difference in the Makley scale score improvement from day 1 to day 10. A positive effect size indicates a higher score in the white-light arm.|||0.03|-0.03|.910
91730650|NCT02214212|183356278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.857||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment time (pre/post)||||2.32|-1.93|0.19
91730651|NCT02214212|183356279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment, time (pre/post), FIM admit cognitive, site, FIM admit motor as mixed effects.||||5.24|-14.83|.345
91730652|NCT04903093|183356281|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|96.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.43|110.03||||||Test: Abrocitinib 200 mg oral suspension formulation 1; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||110.03|85.43|
91730653|NCT04903093|183356281|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|62.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.85|72.07||||||Test: Famotidine 40 mg tablet + Abrocitinib 200 mg commecial tablet; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||72.07|54.85|
91730654|NCT04903093|183356282|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|100.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.28|124.74||||||Test: Abrocitinib 200 mg oral suspension formulation 1; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||124.74|80.28|
91730655|NCT04903093|183356282|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|15.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.46|19.36||||||Test: Famotidine 40 mg tablet + Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||19.36|12.46|
91730656|NCT03657407|183356302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|2.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||2.0|-0.71|0.17
91730657|NCT03657407|183356303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||9.5|-5.4|0.29
91730658|NCT03657407|183356304|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.31||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|4.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||4.5|-43.1|0.05
91867629|NCT02298842|183629416|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.05|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|36.821||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that Morphology's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||36.821|
91867630|NCT02232737|183629459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.26||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.12 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-3.26|-7.41|<0.0001
91867631|NCT02232737|183629459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-5.57||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.03 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-5.57|-9.51|<0.0001
91730659|NCT03657407|183356305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||1.7|0.42|0.42
91730660|NCT03926247|183356311|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|LSM Final Difference|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' depression/anxiety symptoms would decrease overtime.||-0.008|-0.087|=0.019
91730661|NCT03926247|183356312|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.643|=|0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|0.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' PTSD symptoms would decrease overtime.||0.372|-2.161|=0.168
91730662|NCT03926247|183356313|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' stress would decrease overtime.||-0.000|-0.140|=0.051
91730663|NCT03926247|183356314|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|=|0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' social support would increase overtime.||0.023|-0.106|=0.211
91730664|NCT03926247|183356315|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' access to resources would increase overtime.||0.201|-0.008|=0.074
91730665|NCT03926247|183356316|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)=|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' difficulty accessing resources would decrease overtime.||0.017|-0.257|=0.089
91730666|NCT03926247|183356317|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|=|0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' quality of life would increase overtime.||0.030|-0.461|=0.086
91730667|NCT05226884|183356318|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
91730668|NCT05226884|183356319|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
91730669|NCT05226884|183356320|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
91730670|NCT05226884|183356321|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||||||||||||||The defocus curve is generated based on measurements over a dioptric range.|||
91730671|NCT05226884|183356322|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
91730672|NCT01539525|183356360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|-0.038|||Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Parameter estimated is the linear effect of time (in months)|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||-0.038|-0.118|<0.001
91730673|NCT01539525|183356360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0004|0.011|||Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Parameter estimated is the quadratic effect of time (in months)|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||0.011|-0.0004|0.066
91867632|NCT03849937|183629460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91867633|NCT03849937|183629460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091||||||Time 1 to Time 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.091
91867634|NCT03849937|183629460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Time 2 to Time 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91867635|NCT03849937|183629461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Effective Communication||||<.001
91730674|NCT01539525|183356360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|-0.004||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x linear time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||-0.004|-0.151|0.038
91730675|NCT01539525|183356360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|-0.023||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.025|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x linear time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||-0.023|-0.157|0.008
91867636|NCT03849937|183629461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Appropriate Communication||||<.001
91867637|NCT03849937|183629461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Recognizes elderspeak||||<.001
91867638|NCT03849937|183629461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Recognizes person-centered communication||||<.001
91867639|NCT00065182|183629522|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.007||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.248|||Log Rank||Unadjusted hazard ratio.|||1.248|0.813|0.9460
91867640|NCT00065182|183629522|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|1.21|||||Adjusted hazard ratio.|||1.210|0.788|
91904914|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.6|-5.8|0.6449
91867641|NCT02568215|183629547|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|8.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|42.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|wald|||The primary PE analysis tests the null hypothesis PE equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis PE not equal to zero using a 2-sided alpha equal 0.05 level Wald test of the equality of log cumulative hazard functions at the week 80 visit for the pooled VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||42.6|-45.1|0.70
91867642|NCT02568215|183629547|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.3|35.5||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the low-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||35.5|-85.3|
91867643|NCT02568215|183629547|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|59.3||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the high-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||59.3|-30.7|
91867644|NCT02568215|183629549|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|78.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|94.4||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant less than 1||94.4|17.3|
91867645|NCT02568215|183629549|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.5|70.2||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant 1-3||70.2|-187.5|
91867646|NCT02568215|183629549|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.1|43.3||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant \> 3||43.3|-83.1|
91867647|NCT04732000|183629572|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1373||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Mann Whitney test, 2-sided|||||||0.5490
91699458|NCT02612610|183293906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1387|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1387
91699459|NCT02612610|183293906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7238|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.7238
91699460|NCT02612610|183293906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0144
91699461|NCT02612610|183293906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0922|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0922
91730676|NCT01539525|183356360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.022||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x quadratic time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||0.022|0.001|0.031
91867648|NCT05580003|183629605|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|101.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.71|107.18|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUCinf||107.18|95.71|
91867649|NCT05580003|183629605|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.28|108.5|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUCinf||108.50|97.28|
91867650|NCT05580003|183629605|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.32|104.8|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUClast||104.80|91.32|
91867651|NCT05580003|183629605|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|109.7|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUClast||109.70|95.60|
91867652|NCT05580003|183629606|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|67.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.13|77.65|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|||77.65|58.13|
91867653|NCT05580003|183629606|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|74.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.14|85.67|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|||85.67|64.14|
91867654|NCT05580003|183629642|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.98|87.09|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUCinf||87.09|60.98|
91730677|NCT01539525|183356360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0005||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.021||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.025.|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x quadratic time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||0.021|0.002|0.010
91730678|NCT01539525|183356361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.551|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated odds ratio is for Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|||1.551|0.559|0.810
91730679|NCT01539525|183356361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.968||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.617|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated odds ratio is for Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|||1.617|0.579|0.990
91730680|NCT01539525|183356362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.258||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|3.871|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary drug and pregnancy status|odds ratio estimate is for Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|||3.871|0.409|0.465
91730681|NCT01539525|183356362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.749||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|2.732|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio estimate is for Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|||2.732|0.205|0.490
91730682|NCT02691494|183356373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.248|67.387||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||67.387|12.248|< 0.001
91730683|NCT02691494|183356373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.042|61.431||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||61.431|13.042|< 0.001
91730684|NCT02691494|183356374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-194.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91730685|NCT02691494|183356374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-164.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91730686|NCT02691494|183356375|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|84.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.99|92.37||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||92.37|75.99|< 0.001
91730687|NCT02691494|183356375|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|56.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.77|64.91||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||64.91|47.77|< 0.001
91730688|NCT02691494|183356376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-252.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91730689|NCT02691494|183356376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-226.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91730690|NCT02691494|183356377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-196.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91730691|NCT02691494|183356377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-186.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91730692|NCT02691494|183356378|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|19.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|44.32||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||44.32|-5.99|0.146
91730693|NCT02691494|183356378|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|29.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.62|50.71||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||50.71|7.62|0.017
91730694|NCT02691494|183356379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-194.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91730695|NCT02691494|183356379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-125.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91730696|NCT01694771|183356397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.144|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.144|0.090|<0.0001
91730697|NCT01694771|183356398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.088|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (551), Tio+Olo 5ug (548).||0.088|0.037|<0.0001
91730698|NCT01694771|183356399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.147|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.147|0.090|<0.0001
91730699|NCT01694771|183356400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio + Placebo|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.192|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.192|0.100|<0.0001
91730700|NCT01694771|183356401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio + Placebo|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.106|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (551), Tio+Olo 5ug (548).||0.106|0.019|0.0047
91730701|NCT01694771|183356402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio + Placebo|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.201|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.201|0.106|<0.0001
91730702|NCT01694771|183356403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|8.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.192||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.159|12.759|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12: Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||12.759|4.159|0.0001
91867655|NCT05580003|183629642|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.35|85.52|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUCinf||85.52|68.35|
91867656|NCT05580003|183629642|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|73.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.7|82.27|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUClast||82.27|65.70|
91730703|NCT01694771|183356404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12: Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||-0.250|-0.706|<.0001
91867657|NCT05580003|183629642|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|75.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.36|85.13|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUClast||85.13|66.36|
91867658|NCT05580003|183629643|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.21|97.75|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|||97.75|60.21|
91904915|NCT02187471|183705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.5|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||5.5|-3.9|0.7340
91904916|NCT02187471|183705059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.4816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.028|||ANCOVA|||||0.028|-0.060|0.4816
91904917|NCT02187471|183705059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.020|-.109|0.0044
91730704|NCT01694771|183356405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|-0.002|||ANCOVA|||"Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||-0.002|-0.164|0.0442
91867659|NCT05580003|183629643|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|70.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.7|93.67|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|||93.67|53.70|
91867660|NCT02392234|183629696|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|5.8|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||5.8|3.7|< 0.0001
91867661|NCT02392234|183629696|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|7.8|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||7.8|5.7|< 0.0001
91867662|NCT02392234|183629697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|12.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||12.2|7.2|<0.0001
91867663|NCT02392234|183629697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|13.6|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||13.6|8.7|<0.0001
91867664|NCT02392234|183629699|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|9.9|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||9.9|6.3|<0.0001
91904918|NCT02187471|183705059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.030|-0.119|0.0010
91904919|NCT02187471|183705059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.103|||ANCOVA|||||0.103|0.014|0.0094
91730705|NCT01694771|183356406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||"Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||-0.200|-0.586|<.0001
91867665|NCT02392234|183629699|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|13.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||13.2|9.6|<0.0001
91867666|NCT02392234|183629700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.3|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||-2.3|-6.7|<0.0001
91867667|NCT02392234|183629700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-7.3|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||-7.3|-11.7|<0.0001
91867668|NCT03509909|183629732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
91867669|NCT03683576|183629740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674||||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.142|||Regression, Logistic||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||1.142|0.398|0.1425
91904920|NCT02187471|183705059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.055|||ANCOVA|||||0.055|-0.034|0.6527
91730706|NCT03759379|183356464|EQUIVALENCE|H0: No difference between vutrisiran and external placebo comparator (APOLLO): difference (vutrisiran - placebo) = 0|LS Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.78|-12.22||P=3.542E-12|ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||Multiple imputation estimates and p-value derived per combining least squares (LS) estimates per Rubin's rules based on 100 datasets where missing Month 9 values were imputed using a regression procedure including select baseline variables. LS estimates derived from analysis of covariance model, controlling for categorical factors (treatment, genotype, age of disease onset) and continuous covariate (baseline value).||-12.22|-21.78|<0.0000001
91867670|NCT03683576|183629740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.677||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.149|||Regression, Logistic||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||1.149|0.399|0.1482
91867671|NCT03683576|183629740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.651||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||1.100|0.385|0.1086
91867672|NCT03683576|183629741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.06|-0.36|0.1647
91867673|NCT03683576|183629741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.07|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||0.07|-0.37|0.1737
91867674|NCT03683576|183629741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.03|-0.40|0.0879
91867675|NCT03683576|183629742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016||||0.7718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.123|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.123|-0.091|0.7718
91867676|NCT03683576|183629742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041||||0.4562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.149|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||0.149|-0.067|0.4562
91867677|NCT03683576|183629742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.180|-0.030|0.1631
91867678|NCT03683576|183629743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.719||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|0.995|||Regression, Cox||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.995|0.519|0.0466
91867679|NCT03683576|183629743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.071|||Regression, Cox||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||1.071|0.558|0.1222
91867680|NCT03683576|183629743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|0.967|||Regression, Cox||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.967|0.505|0.0304
91867681|NCT03683576|183629744|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.797||||0.3382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|1.268|||Negative binomial regression model||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||1.268|0.501|0.3382
91867682|NCT03683576|183629744|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.748||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.195|||Negative binomial regression model||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||1.195|0.469|0.2248
91867683|NCT03683576|183629744|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.889||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|1.397|||Negative binomial regression model||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||1.397|0.565|0.6090
91867684|NCT03683576|183629745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.081|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.081|-0.127|0.6645
91867685|NCT03683576|183629745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.144|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||0.144|-0.074|0.5288
91867686|NCT03683576|183629745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.182|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.182|-0.025|0.1362
91867687|NCT03683576|183629746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.122||||0.3957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.007|20.251|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||20.251|-8.007|0.3957
91867688|NCT03683576|183629746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.948||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|28.474|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||28.474|-0.578|0.0598
91867689|NCT03683576|183629746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.588||||0.4376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.522|19.698|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||19.698|-8.522|0.4376
91867690|NCT02350634|183629756|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.429|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||<0.001
91867691|NCT02350634|183629757|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.681|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||<0.001
91867692|NCT02350634|183629758|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.644||||0.00278|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.00278
91867693|NCT02350634|183629759|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.437||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.12
91867694|NCT02350634|183629760|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.324||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.0712
91730707|NCT03759379|183356465|EQUIVALENCE|H0: No difference between vutrisiran and external placebo comparator (APOLLO): difference (vutrisiran - placebo) = 0|LS Mean Difference|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-10.8||P=5.426E-09|ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||Multiple imputation estimates and p-value derived per combining least squares (LS) estimates per Rubin's rules based on 100 datasets where missing Month 9 values were imputed using a regression procedure including select baseline variables. LS estimates derived from analysis of covariance model, controlling for categorical factors (treatment, genotype, age of disease onset baseline NIS) and continuous covariate (baseline value).||-10.8|-21.7|<0.0000001
91796384|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 3, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-3|
91796385|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0||Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Polio 3, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-2|
91796386|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0||Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 0.15 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
91796387|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 0.15 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
91796388|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0||Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 1.0 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
91867695|NCT02350634|183629761|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.564||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.0958
91730708|NCT03759379|183356466|EQUIVALENCE|H0: No difference between vutrisiran and external placebo comparator (APOLLO): difference (vutrisiran - placebo) = 0|LS Mean Difference|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.193||P=3.103E-05|ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||Multiple imputation estimates and p-value derived per combining least squares (LS) estimates per Rubin's rules based on 100 datasets where missing Month 9 values were imputed using a regression procedure including select baseline variables. LS estimates derived from analysis of covariance model, controlling for categorical factors (treatment, genotype, age of disease onset, baseline NIS) and continuous covariate (baseline value).||0.193|0.070|<0.0000001
91730709|NCT04924608|183356473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Fisher Exact|The ORR will be compared at the end of Cycle 16 between selumetinib vs placebo with the 2-sided significance level 0.047.||||||0.0112
91730710|NCT04924608|183356474|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis is based on a MMRM model for repeated measures, Kenward-Roger method is used to estimate the degrees of freedom.||||0.1|-1.6|0.070
91867696|NCT02350634|183629762|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|-0.189||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.558
91867697|NCT02823028|183629778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.779
91867698|NCT00859781|183629779|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.26||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.52|||Fisher Exact||Direction = 177Lu-J591 + Ketoconazole proportion free of radiographically evident metastases minus 111ln-J591 + Ketoconazole proportion free of radiographically evident metastases.|||0.52|0.008|0.08
91730711|NCT04924608|183356475|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1||nominal|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis is based on a MMRM model for repeated measures, Kenward-Roger method is used to estimate the degrees of freedom.||supplementary analysis is not controlled for multiplicity.||-0.1|-1.3|0.024
91730712|NCT04924608|183356476|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis is based on a MMRM model for repeated measures, Kenward-Roger method is used to estimate the degrees of freedom.||||1.1|-1.2|0.918
91904921|NCT01206062|183705060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.64|<0.001
91730713|NCT03727022|183356505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|1.58||||||||1.58|-7.19|
91867699|NCT02307682|183629781|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.3|-2.5|0.0003
91730714|NCT03727022|183356506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|3.24||||||||3.24|-3.24|
91730715|NCT03727022|183356507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.65||||||||1.65|-5.84|
91730716|NCT03727022|183356508|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.54||||||||3.54|-4.05|
91730717|NCT03727022|183356509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|6.23||||||||6.23|-4.64|
91730718|NCT03727022|183356510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|2.23||||||||2.23|-8.64|
91730719|NCT03727022|183356511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|4.03||||||||4.03|-8.75|
91730720|NCT03727022|183356512|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|3.11||||||||3.11|-11.21|
91730721|NCT03031912|183356540|SUPERIORITY||Fold difference|42.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.49|58.43|||ANOVA|||V920 vs. placebo in Cohorts 1 to 5 combined||58.43|31.49|<0.001
91730722|NCT03031912|183356541|SUPERIORITY||Fold difference|208.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.57|376.72|||ANOVA|||||376.72|115.57|<0.001
91867700|NCT02307682|183629781|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.8|-2.1|<0.0001
91867701|NCT02307682|183629782|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.3|-2.4|0.0001
91904922|NCT01206062|183705061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.60|0.003
91904923|NCT01206062|183705062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.34|0.58
91730723|NCT04097743|183356578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
91730724|NCT04097743|183356579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.81
91730725|NCT04097743|183356580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.39
91730726|NCT04097743|183356581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
91730727|NCT04097743|183356582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
91730728|NCT04097743|183356583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.49
91730729|NCT04097743|183356584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
91730730|NCT04097743|183356585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
91730731|NCT04097743|183356586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91730732|NCT04975230|183356618|OTHER||Cohen's D|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-0.37|0.0227
91730733|NCT05562934|183356638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5651||||||Single best candidate model is the one with the lowest adjusted p-value of the 5 candidate models|Multiple Comparisons Procedure-MOD|||||||0.5651
91730734|NCT05562934|183356639|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.6955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|8.21|||ANCOVA|||||8.21|-5.48|0.6955
91730735|NCT05562934|183356640|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.18|||ANCOVA|||||7.18|-4.90|0.7108
91730737|NCT03997383|183356656|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|14.693||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|28.692||P-value was determined by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test,stratified by baseline tafamidis use.Analysis was performed on the 100 multiply-imputed datasets.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference estimated by the Hodges-Lehmann method, stratified by baseline tafamidis use. Analysis was performed on the 100 multiply-imputed datasets.|||28.692|0.693|0.0162
91730738|NCT03997383|183356657|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.709|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.796||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|7.242||P-value was analyzed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) as described in the Statistical analysis plan.|MMRM|||||7.242|0.176|0.0397
91730739|NCT03997383|183356658|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Win Ratio|1.27||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.61|||Z-test|P-value was analyzed by a z-test using the mean and variance of the log-transformed win ratio estimate.||||1.61|0.99|0.0574
91730740|NCT03997383|183356659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.602|||Andersen-Gill||HR was derived using an Andersen-Gill model, including the treatment arm, type of ATTR amyloidosis, baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and age as covariates.|||1.602|0.620|0.9888
91730741|NCT03997383|183356660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.883||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.341|||Modified Andersen-Gill|P-value was derived using the modified Andersen-Gill model stratified by baseline tafamidis use.|HR was derived using the modified Andersen-Gill model stratified by baseline tafamidis use, including treatment arm, type of ATTR amyloidosis, baseline NYHA class, and age as covariates.|||1.341|0.582|0.5609
91730742|NCT01302834|183356772|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 1.45 (hazard ratio scale; IMRT + Cetuximab / IMRT + Cisplatin). If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was \<1.45, non-inferiority would be concluded. Design was based on a group sequential design with 3 interim analyses, one-sided 0.05, and 80% power.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.94|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||1.94||
91867702|NCT02307682|183629782|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.9|-1.9|<0.0001
91867703|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||0.9|-1.4|
91867704|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.1|-1.4|
91867705|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||1.2|-1.4|
91904924|NCT01206062|183705064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.67|.10
91904925|NCT01735279|183705077|OTHER|Test t Student|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91730743|NCT01302834|183356773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.29|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||2.29|1.29|0.0002
91730744|NCT01302834|183356774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.05||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.1|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||3.10|1.35|0.0005
91730745|NCT01302834|183356775|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.36||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||2.36|0.94|0.09
91867706|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||1.2|-1.7|
91904926|NCT01735279|183705077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.84|||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91904927|NCT01735279|183705077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
91904928|NCT01735279|183705077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
91904929|NCT00806195|183705078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis associated with the safety objective was that the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for this difference in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction during the first 7 days after any vaccination (PMenACWY+Routine Vaccines-PRoutine Vaccines) was ≥ 6%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||MenACWY-CRM 197 administered concomitantly with routine vaccines was considered noninferior to routine vaccines alone with respect to severe systemic reactions if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY-CRM197 vaccine plus routine vaccines group minus routine vaccines only group) in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction during the first 7 days (days 1-7) after any vaccination was \<6%.||6.4|-0.8|
91730746|NCT01302834|183356776|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.58||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||1.58|0.61|0.95
91730747|NCT01302834|183356778|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91730748|NCT01302834|183356786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.79
91730749|NCT01302834|183356789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5438||||||One-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5438
91730750|NCT01302834|183356793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7108||||||One-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7108
91730751|NCT01302834|183356808|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.2571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.34||One-sided significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by treatment arm.|Reference level = non-variant|||1.34|0.56|0.2571
91730752|NCT01302834|183356809|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.3704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.38||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by treatment arm.|Reference level = non-variant|||1.38|0.64|0.3704
91730753|NCT01302834|183356810|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.46|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|Variant||2.46|0.49|
91730754|NCT01302834|183356810|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||||95.0|0.79|1.53|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|Non-variant||1.53|0.79|
91730755|NCT01302834|183356810|OTHER|||||||0.989||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Testing Cox proportional hazards model interaction term for KRAS variant status and treatment arm.||||0.9890
91730756|NCT01302834|183356811|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||||95.0|0.5|2.04|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|Variant||2.04|0.50|
91730757|NCT01302834|183356811|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.73|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|Non-variant||1.73|0.94|
91699462|NCT02612610|183293906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3812|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3812
91699463|NCT02612610|183293906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0088|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0088
91699464|NCT02612610|183293906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0653|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0653
91699465|NCT02612610|183293906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6443|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.6443
91730758|NCT01302834|183356811|OTHER|||||||0.5556||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Testing Cox proportional hazards model interaction term for KRAS variant status and treatment arm.||||0.5556
91730759|NCT05528510|183356815|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|27.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||27.6|14.5|<0.001
91730760|NCT05528510|183356816|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|39.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||39.2|21.6|<0.001
91730761|NCT05528510|183356817|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|31.9|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||31.9|16.6|<0.001
91796389|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 1.0 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-4|
91867707|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||1.2|-1.8|
91867708|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||1.6|-1.5|
91867709|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||1.5|-1.8|
91730762|NCT05528510|183356818|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|40.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||40.5|21.6|<0.001
91730763|NCT05528510|183356819|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|26.9|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||26.9|12.4|<0.001
91730764|NCT05528510|183356820|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|35.1|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||35.1|16.7|<0.001
91730765|NCT05528510|183356820|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|36.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||36.2|17.9|<0.001
91730766|NCT05528510|183356821|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|40.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||40.5|18.5|<0.001
91730767|NCT05528510|183356821|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|35.3|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||35.3|14.3|<0.001
91730768|NCT05528510|183356822|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|37.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||37.6|18.5|<0.001
91867710|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||2.1|-1.1|
91867711|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||1.0|-2.2|
91867712|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||1.2|-2.2|
91867713|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||1.3|-2.1|
91867714|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||1.6|-1.9|
91867715|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||1.7|-1.9|
91867716|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||2.2|-1.4|
91867717|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||1.3|-2.4|
91699466|NCT02612610|183293906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1511|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1511
91699467|NCT02612610|183293907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0045
91699468|NCT02612610|183293907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0947|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0947
91699469|NCT02612610|183293907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0080
91730769|NCT05528510|183356822|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|42.3|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||42.3|23.1|<0.001
91730770|NCT05528510|183356823|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|32.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|43.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||43.4|21.3|<0.001
91730771|NCT05528510|183356823|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|41.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||41.0|20.0|<0.001
91730772|NCT01856478|183356825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.18||Null hypothesis: Afatinib and methotrexate have an equal response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||"Linear regression stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate the OR of response and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||5.18|1.47|0.0016
91759155|NCT04038567|183411362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.49||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.49|-1.80|
91730773|NCT01856478|183356826|SUPERIORITY|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib on PFS compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.627||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|0.823||Null hypothesis: Afatinib and methotrexate are equally effective in terms of PFS.|Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|||0.823|0.478|0.0005
91730774|NCT01856478|183356827|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881||||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.129|||Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||1.129|0.687|0.3162
91730775|NCT01856478|183356828|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15|||Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||1.15|0.54|0.2121
91730776|NCT01856478|183356829|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.49|||Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||1.49|0.67|0.9888
91867718|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||2.5|-1.2|
91867719|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||0.8|-2.9|
91867720|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||1.6|-2.1|
91867721|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||1.6|-2.2|
91867722|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||2.1|-1.9|
91867723|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||1.9|-2.1|
91867724|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||2.2|-1.8|
91867725|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.3|-2.5|
91867726|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.8|-2.1|
91867727|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||1.8|-2.2|
91867728|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||1.9|-2.2|
91867729|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||1.5|-2.5|
91867730|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||1.4|-2.7|
91867731|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||1.9|-2.1|
91699470|NCT02612610|183293907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0283|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0283
91699471|NCT02612610|183293907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1493|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1493
91699472|NCT02612610|183293907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0026
91699473|NCT02612610|183293907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0652|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0652
91699474|NCT02612610|183293907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3601|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3601
91699475|NCT02612610|183293907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0086
91699476|NCT02612610|183293908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3893|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3893
91699477|NCT02612610|183293908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2803|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2803
91699478|NCT02612610|183293908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0427|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0427
91699479|NCT02612610|183293908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0209|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0209
91699480|NCT02612610|183293908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3401
91759156|NCT04038567|183411362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.49||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.49|-0.48|
91867732|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||1.9|-2.2|
91867733|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||1.7|-2.3|
91867734|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||1.9|-2.2|
91867735|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||2.0|-2.1|
91867736|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||1.9|-2.2|
91867737|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||2.3|-2.0|
91867738|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.8|-2.4|
91867739|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||2.4|-1.8|
91867740|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||2.1|-2.1|
91867741|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||2.7|-1.5|
91867742|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||2.8|-1.4|
91867743|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||2.7|-1.5|
91867744|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||2.4|-1.8|
91867745|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||2.5|-1.8|
91867746|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||2.4|-1.9|
91867747|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||2.5|-1.9|
91699481|NCT02612610|183293908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0031
91867748|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||2.5|-1.8|
91867749|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||2.5|-1.9|
91867750|NCT02307682|183629787|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||2.7|-1.6|
91867751|NCT02307682|183629788|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||1.1|-1.9|
91867752|NCT02307682|183629788|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||1.6|-1.5|
91867753|NCT02307682|183629788|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||1.6|-1.8|
91699482|NCT02612610|183293908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0283|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0283
91699483|NCT02612610|183293908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6233|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.6233
91699484|NCT02612610|183293908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0001
91699485|NCT02612610|183293909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4925|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4925
91699486|NCT02612610|183293909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9007
91699487|NCT02612610|183293909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1602|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1602
91699488|NCT02612610|183293909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3440
91867754|NCT02307682|183629788|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||1.8|-1.7|
91867755|NCT02307682|183629789|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 48||1.2|-2.0|
91867756|NCT02307682|183629789|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 48||1.8|-1.6|
91867757|NCT02307682|183629789|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 96||1.7|-1.9|
91867758|NCT02307682|183629789|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 96||1.9|-1.7|
91867759|NCT02307682|183629790|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||2.5|-1.7|
91867760|NCT02307682|183629790|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||2.5|-1.7|
91867761|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||4.2|-4.2|
91867762|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||5.8|-2.8|
91867763|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||5.9|-4.4|
91867764|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||10.0|-1.2|
91904930|NCT00806195|183705079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis associated with the SAE safety objective was that the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the MenACWY and routine vaccine groups in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one SAE (PMenACWY + Routine Vaccines - PRoutine Vaccines) was ≥5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||MenACWY-CRM 197 administered concomitantly with routine vaccines was considered non inferior to routine vaccines alone with respect to serious adverse events if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY vaccine plus routine vaccines group minus routine vaccines only group) of the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one serious adverse event was \<5%.||1.5|-0.9|
91699489|NCT02612610|183293909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9876|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9876
91699490|NCT02612610|183293909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0993|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0993
91867765|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||5.9|-5.9|
91867766|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||11.0|-0.5|
91867767|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||8.0|-3.7|
91699491|NCT02612610|183293909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5968|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.5968
91867768|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||8.3|-3.8|
91867769|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||6.1|-5.9|
91699492|NCT02612610|183293909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8726|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.8726
91699493|NCT02612610|183293909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4092|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4092
91699494|NCT02612610|183293910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0781|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0781
91699495|NCT02612610|183293910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7098|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.7098
91699496|NCT02612610|183293910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0068|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0068
91699497|NCT02612610|183293910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1284|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1284
91699498|NCT02612610|183293910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.267|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2670
91867770|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||9.9|-2.4|
91699499|NCT02612610|183293910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0013
91699500|NCT02612610|183293910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4343|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4343
91699501|NCT02612610|183293910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5384|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.5384
91759157|NCT04038567|183411363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.01||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.01|-1.66|
91699502|NCT02612610|183293910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0822|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0822
91699503|NCT02612610|183293911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0006
91699504|NCT02612610|183293911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0223|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0223
91867771|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||7.3|-4.2|
91699505|NCT02612610|183293911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0001
91730777|NCT01856478|183356830|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.34|||Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||1.34|0.62|0.6260
91730778|NCT01856478|183356831|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|12.36|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as \[Afatinib\]-\[Methotrexate\]|||12.36|3.45|0.0005
91730779|NCT01856478|183356832|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.8||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|0.84|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as \[Afatinib\]-\[Methotrexate\]|||0.84|-8.39|0.1090
91730780|NCT01856478|183356833|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.9||||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as \[Afatinib\]-\[Methotrexate\]|||1.85|-9.73|0.1819
91730781|NCT01856478|183356834|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.222|||||||Regression, Logistic||Afatinib versus Methotrexate|Stratified logistic regression model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No) was used to compare the number of patients that of improved vs. not improved (i.e. stable and worsened) between the two treatment groups.||||0.222
91730782|NCT01856478|183356835|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic||Afatinib versus Methotrexate|Stratified logistic regression model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No) was used to compare the number of patients that of improved vs. not improved (i.e. stable and worsened) between the two treatment groups.||||0.012
91867772|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||13.4|0.8|
91867773|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||8.5|-4.3|
91867774|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||9.4|-3.4|
91730783|NCT01856478|183356836|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Stratified logistic regression model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No) was used to compare the number of patients that of improved vs. not improved (i.e. stable and worsened) between the two treatment groups.||||0.008
91730784|NCT01856478|183356837|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Stratified logistic regression model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No) was used to compare the number of patients that of improved vs. not improved (i.e. stable and worsened) between the two treatment groups.||||0.091
91730785|NCT05032820|183356838|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of Patients Achieving CR/sCR|65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.2|78.4||p-value is calculated using Fisher's exact test and is a one-sided test with a 5% significance level that tests whether the proportion of successes is greater than 10%.|Fisher Exact|One-sided test with a 5% significance level that tests whether the proportion of successes is greater than 10%.||||78.4|51.2|<0.0001
91730786|NCT04108208|183356854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.233|||=|0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.705|||Log Rank|||||0.705|0.077|=0.0052
91867775|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||7.2|-5.0|
91867776|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||14.4|1.5|
91867777|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||7.0|-5.4|
91867778|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||14.5|2.1|
91867779|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||8.1|-4.4|
91867780|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|15.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||15.1|2.0|
91867781|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.1|-5.2|
91867782|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|13.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||13.8|0.7|
91867783|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.1|-6.8|
91867784|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||15.0|2.2|
91699506|NCT02612610|183293911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0165|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0165
91867785|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||9.2|-3.9|
91867786|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||11.4|-1.5|
91867787|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||7.1|-5.9|
91867788|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||9.7|-3.1|
91867789|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.5|-6.5|
91730787|NCT04770272|183356880|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis uses Bayesian statistics for proportions, and is based on non-informative uniform (beta) priors for the pCR rates pA and pB in arms A (experimental) and B (control) respectively. Similar to a proof-of-concept trial, a dual criterion to simultaneously test for significant and relevant superiority at different levels of certainty was used, by requiring posterior probabilities, conditional on observed response counts xA, xB respectively in the two arms.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1307|0.0663||||||This was a randomized, open-label, adaptive, two arm, multicenter phase II trial that enrolled female and male patients with primary TNBC (defined as ER/PR \< 10% and HER2-negative) with tumor stages cT1c - cT4d (cN0 and cN+). Patients were randomized to Arm A and B, stratified by PD-L1 expression on immune cells (IC-status) and anatomic tumor stage (Anatomic Stage Groups I, II and III). PD-L1 status was determined by central pathology using the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay.||0.0663|-0.1307|
91730788|NCT04770272|183356882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0411|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1497|0.0689||||||||0.0689|-0.1497|
91730789|NCT04770272|183356883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1957|0.2524||||||||0.2524|-0.1957|
91730790|NCT04770272|183356884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.051||||||||0.051|-0.153|
91730791|NCT04770272|183356885|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.044||||||||0.044|-0.127|
91730792|NCT04770272|183356886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.034||||||||0.034|-0.166|
91730793|NCT04770272|183356887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|-0.14|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||-0.14|-0.326|
91730794|NCT04770272|183356888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.15|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.15|-0.078|
91730795|NCT04770272|183356889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|-0.054|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||-0.054|-0.245|
91730796|NCT04770272|183356890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.055|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.055|-0.157|
91730797|NCT04770272|183356891|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.018|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.018|-0.022|
91796390|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Hep B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-3|
91730798|NCT04770272|183356892|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.034|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.034|-0.017|
91730799|NCT04770272|183356893|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.148|||||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|-0.148|-0.31|
91730800|NCT04770272|183356894|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.163|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.163|-0.052|
91730801|NCT04770272|183356895|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.343|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|-0.238|||||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|-0.238|-0.447|
91730802|NCT04770272|183356896|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.146|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.146|-0.076|
91730803|NCT04770272|183356897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.43|||Regression, Cox|||||3.43|0.69|0.290
91730804|NCT04770272|183356898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.89|||Regression, Cox|||||6.89|0.39|0.495
91730805|NCT04770272|183356899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.38|||Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox Regression.||||2.38|0.64|0.529
91730806|NCT02363946|183356903|OTHER||alpha estimate|9.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte AD00370||||
91730807|NCT02363946|183356903|OTHER||beta estimate|1.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|1.218|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte AD00370|R-square (r\^2)=0.98|1.218|1.128|
91730808|NCT02363946|183356903|OTHER||alpha estimate|9.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte ARC-MLP||||
91730809|NCT02363946|183356903|OTHER||beta estimate|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.153|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte ARC-MLP|R-square (r\^2)=0.98|1.153|1.054|
91730810|NCT02363946|183356905|OTHER||alpha estimate|11.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte AD00370||||
91730811|NCT02363946|183356905|OTHER||beta estimate|1.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|1.249|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte AD00370|R-square (r\^2)=0.96|1.249|1.112|
91867790|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||11.4|-1.3|
91867791|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|10.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||10.2|-2.9|
91867792|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||12.3|-0.4|
91867793|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||9.0|-4.2|
91867794|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||11.9|-0.2|
91867795|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||9.9|-3.0|
91867796|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||11.4|-1.1|
91730812|NCT02363946|183356905|OTHER||alpha estimate|12.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte ARC-MLP||||
91867797|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||12.8|-1.5|
91867798|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||11.6|-1.0|
91867799|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||8.6|-5.1|
91867800|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|15.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||15.4|2.7|
91867801|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||9.4|-3.7|
91730813|NCT02363946|183356905|OTHER||beta estimate|1.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.215|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte ARC-MLP|R-square (r\^2)=0.96|1.215|1.080|
91867802|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||10.3|-2.2|
91867803|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||10.9|-3.0|
91730814|NCT02363946|183356906|OTHER||alpha estimate|11.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte AD00370||||
91730815|NCT02363946|183356906|OTHER||beta estimate|1.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.249|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte AD00370|R-square (r\^2)=0.96|1.249|1.110|
91730816|NCT02363946|183356906|OTHER||alpha estimate|12.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte ARC-MLP||||
91867804|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||14.6|1.9|
91867805|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.3|-5.1|
91867806|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|12.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||12.5|-0.0|
91867807|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||12.3|-1.2|
91867808|NCT02307682|183629791|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||13.8|1.4|
91867809|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||6.9|-4.3|
91699507|NCT02612610|183293911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6255|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.6255
91699508|NCT02612610|183293911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0085|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0085
91699509|NCT02612610|183293911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0722|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0722
91699510|NCT02612610|183293911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3577|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3577
91699511|NCT02612610|183293911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0006
91699512|NCT02612610|183293912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3845|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3845
91699513|NCT02612610|183293912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1177|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1177
91699514|NCT02612610|183293912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0236|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0236
91699515|NCT02612610|183293912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0192|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0192
91867810|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||12.2|0.6|
91867811|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||6.7|-6.6|
91867812|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||8.0|-4.7|
91867813|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||7.1|-6.2|
91867814|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|12.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||12.7|-0.8|
91699516|NCT02612610|183293912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3301|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3301
91867815|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||7.7|-6.0|
91867816|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||12.2|-1.5|
91867817|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.0|-6.5|
91867818|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||12.2|-1.8|
91867819|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||9.5|-4.0|
91867820|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||11.3|-3.5|
91867821|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||8.2|-5.9|
91867822|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||11.2|-3.4|
91867823|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.9|-8.2|
91867824|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||10.5|-3.2|
91867825|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.8|-7.3|
91730817|NCT02363946|183356906|OTHER||beta estimate|1.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.081|1.245|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte ARC-MLP|R-square (r\^2)=0.95|1.245|1.081|
91730818|NCT05213624|183356929|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|118.14|||||BI 764198 (comparator) vs. Placebo (reference)|Logistic regression utilizing corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||118.14|1.59|
91730819|NCT05213624|183356929|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|19.48|||||BI 764198 (comparator) vs. Placebo (reference)|Logistic regression utilizing corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||19.48|0.16|
91730820|NCT05213624|183356929|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|73.57|||||BI 764198 (comparator) vs. Placebo (reference)|Logistic regression utilizing corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||73.57|0.86|
91730821|NCT05213624|183356930|OTHER||Relative difference|-39.82||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.17|-17.36||Nominal and unadjusted|ANCOVA||"Comparison vs Placebo~Calculated as (exp(difference of least square means) - 1) \* 100."|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the change in UPCR from baseline to Week 12 with corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||-17.36|-56.17|0.0024
91730822|NCT05213624|183356930|OTHER||Relative difference|-4.57||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.92|35.77||Nominal and unadjusted|ANCOVA||"Comparison vs Placebo~Calculated as (exp(difference of least square means) - 1) \* 100."|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the change in UPCR from baseline to Week 12 with corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||35.77|-32.92|0.7906
91730823|NCT05213624|183356930|OTHER||Relative difference|-23.27||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.83|8.7||Nominal and unadjusted|ANCOVA||"Comparison vs Placebo~Calculated as (exp(difference of least square means) - 1) \* 100."|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the change in UPCR from baseline to Week 12 with corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||8.70|-45.83|0.1325
91730824|NCT01602380|183356935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|0.999||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease and measurable disease at baseline.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours fulvestrant.|If the true PFS HR for comparison of fulvestrant vs. anastrozole was 0.69 (likely to correspond to a 45% prolongation of PFS) the study had 90% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference for PFS with a one-sided type 1 error of 2.5% (two-sided 5%).||0.999|0.637|0.0486
91730825|NCT01602380|183356936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.966||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.206||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease and measurable disease at baseline.|A HR of \<1 favours fulvestrant.|65% OS maturity||1.206|0.773|0.7579
91730826|NCT01602380|183356937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.614||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.614|0.716|0.7290
91730827|NCT01602380|183356939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rato of EDoR|1.52||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.26||2-sided p-value|Method of Ellis et al|||||2.26|1.03|0.0367
91730828|NCT01602380|183356940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.253||||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.932||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.932|0.815|0.3045
91730829|NCT01602380|183356942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of EDoCB|1.26||||0.0561||95.0|0.99|1.59||2-sided p-value|Method of Ellis et al|||||1.59|0.99|0.0561
91730830|NCT01602380|183356943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced/metastatic disease and measurable/non-measurable disease at baseline|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours fulvestrant.|Comparative statistical analysis for time to deterioration of TOI score is presented (fulvestrant versus anastrozole).||1.11|0.70|0.2846
91730831|NCT01602380|183356943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced/metastatic disease and measurable/non-measurable disease at baseline|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours fulvestrant.|Comparative statistical analysis for time to deterioration of FACT-B total score is presented (fulvestrant versus anastrozole).||1.03|0.66|0.0844
91730832|NCT00787800|183356968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
91730833|NCT00787800|183356970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
91730834|NCT00787800|183356972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91730835|NCT03369704|183356977|OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.62||"H0: Omalizumab is not different to placebo with respect to mean nasal symptom score over the severe symptom period.~H1: Omalizumab is different to placebo with respect to mean nasal symptom score over the severe symptom period."|ANCOVA||nasal symptom score|||-0.62|-1.44|<0.001
91730836|NCT03369704|183356978|OTHER||ANCOVA|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.24|||||Nasal Ocular Symptom|||-1.24|-2.55|
91730837|NCT03369704|183356978|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.55|||||Ocular symptom|||-0.55|-1.18|
91730838|NCT03369704|183356979|OTHER||ANCOVA|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.64|||||nasal symptom medication score|||-0.64|-1.55|
91730839|NCT03369704|183356979|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.58|||||ocular symptom medication score|||-0.58|-1.32|
91730840|NCT03369704|183356979|OTHER||ANCOVA|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.375|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.31|||||nasal ocular symptom medication score|||-1.31|-2.78|
91730841|NCT03369704|183356980|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.26|||||sneezing score|||-0.26|-0.54|
91730842|NCT03369704|183356980|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.16|||||rhinorrhea score|||-0.16|-0.51|
91730843|NCT03369704|183356980|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.13|||||nasal congestion score|||-0.13|-0.45|
91730844|NCT03369704|183356981|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3|||||itchy eye score|||-0.30|-0.63|
91867826|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||8.6|-5.2|
91867827|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||6.6|-7.8|
91867828|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||10.0|-4.8|
91867829|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||9.2|-4.4|
91867830|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.2|-7.1|
91730845|NCT03369704|183356981|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23|||||watery eye score|||-0.23|-0.57|
91867831|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.2|-7.9|
91730846|NCT03369704|183356982|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2|||||score for impairment of daily activities|||-0.20|-0.48|
91730847|NCT03369704|183356983|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.0|||van Elteren test||Nasal symptom free days|||5.0|1.0|0.005
91796391|NCT00667602|183471277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC)|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Hep B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-4|
91867832|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||9.2|-4.5|
91867833|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.1|-6.8|
91867834|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.4|-5.8|
91867835|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||8.2|-6.1|
91867836|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.6|-8.6|
91867837|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||7.1|-7.0|
91730848|NCT03369704|183356983|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.5|||van Elteren test||Ocular symptom free days|||6.5|2.0|<0.001
91730849|NCT03369704|183356984|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.75|||logistic regression||Completely nasal symptom free patients|||9.75|1.21|0.005
91730850|NCT03369704|183356985|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01|||||Nasal rescue mediation score|||-0.01|-0.14|
91730851|NCT03369704|183356985|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.0|||||Ocular rescue medication score|||0.00|-0.16|
91730852|NCT03369704|183356985|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||||Nasal ocular rescue medication score|||-0.04|-0.28|
91730853|NCT03369704|183356986|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.5|||van Elteren test||Nasal rescue mediation free days|||3.5|0.0|0.011
91867838|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||11.0|-3.5|
91867839|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||10.8|-3.0|
91699517|NCT02612610|183293912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0008
91699518|NCT02612610|183293912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0285|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0285
91699519|NCT02612610|183293912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3856|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3856
91699520|NCT02612610|183293912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0001
91699521|NCT02612610|183293913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2441|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2441
91699522|NCT02612610|183293913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.5055
91699523|NCT02612610|183293913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1602|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1602
91699524|NCT02612610|183293913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2721|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2721
91699525|NCT02612610|183293913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9763|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9763
91699526|NCT02612610|183293913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0993|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0993
91699527|NCT02612610|183293913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4575|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4575
91699528|NCT02612610|183293913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9706|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9706
91730854|NCT03369704|183356986|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.8|||van Elteren test||Ocular rescue medication free days|||4.8|0.0|0.074
91699529|NCT02612610|183293913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3258|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3258
91867840|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||13.0|-1.4|
91867841|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||9.5|-4.1|
91867842|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||9.7|-4.8|
91867843|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||12.3|-1.6|
91867844|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||8.6|-5.4|
91867845|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||9.4|-4.8|
91699530|NCT02612610|183293914|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.54|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Sleep Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.54|-0.53|0.9858
91699531|NCT02612610|183293914|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.52|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Sleep Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.52|-0.53|0.9813
91699532|NCT02612610|183293914|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.42|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Sleep Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.42|-0.65|0.6746
91699533|NCT02612610|183293915|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.24|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Sleep Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.24|-0.88|0.2583
91699534|NCT02612610|183293915|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.56|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Sleep Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.56|-0.55|0.9826
91699535|NCT02612610|183293915|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.17|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Sleep Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.17|-0.98|0.1672
91699536|NCT02612610|183293916|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.68|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Sleep Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.68|-0.4|0.6102
91699537|NCT02612610|183293916|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.61|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Sleep Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.61|-0.46|0.7782
91699538|NCT02612610|183293916|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.28||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.83|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Sleep Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.83|-0.27|0.3167
91867846|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.2|-5.0|
91867847|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||7.4|-6.9|
91867848|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||8.5|-5.1|
91867849|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||10.1|-3.9|
91699539|NCT02612610|183293917|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.7|-0.1|0.1545
91699540|NCT02612610|183293917|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.7|-0.1|0.2013
91730855|NCT03369704|183356986|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||van Elteren test||Nasal ocular rescue medication free days|||4.0|0.0|0.098
91867850|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||9.1|-5.0|
91904931|NCT00806195|183705079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis associated with the SAE safety objective was that the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the MenACWY and routine vaccine groups in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one SAE (PMenACWY + Routine Vaccines - PRoutine Vaccines) was \<5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||MenACWY-CRM 197 administered concomitantly with routine vaccines was considered non inferior to routine vaccines alone with respect to serious adverse events if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY vaccine plus routine vaccines group minus routine vaccines only group) of the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one serious adverse event was \<5%.||1.3|-0.8|
91730856|NCT03369704|183356987|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.0|||van Elteren test||Nasal rescue mediation used|||0.0|-4.5|0.006
91730857|NCT03369704|183356987|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.0|||van Elteren test||Ocular rescue medication used|||-1.0|-12.0|0.012
91730858|NCT03369704|183356988|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.33|||||JRQLQ I|||-0.33|-0.66|
91867851|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||11.8|-2.5|
91867852|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||10.6|-3.4|
91867853|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||12.2|-1.6|
91867854|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||11.2|-3.0|
91867855|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||12.7|-1.9|
91730859|NCT03369704|183356988|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.33|||||JRQLQ II|||-0.33|-0.69|
91730860|NCT03369704|183356988|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4|||||JRQLQ III|||-0.4|-0.8|
91759158|NCT04038567|183411363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.14||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.14|-2.81|
91904932|NCT03634397|183705084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|9.14||P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Regression, Linear||The delta values of the outcome from baseline 2 to post-treatment 1 were directly modeled using linear regression with adjustment for age, female sex, and the hemisphere affected by the stroke.|||9.14|2.31|<.05
91699541|NCT02612610|183293917|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.4|0.9962
91699542|NCT02612610|183293918|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.4|0.7328
91699543|NCT02612610|183293918|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.4|0.7635
91699544|NCT02612610|183293918|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-0.9|0.0951
91699545|NCT02612610|183293919|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.7|0.5797
91699546|NCT02612610|183293919|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-0.9|0.2499
91699547|NCT02612610|183293919|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.1|0.0612
91699548|NCT02612610|183293920|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.7|0.5358
91699549|NCT02612610|183293920|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-0.8|0.3129
91699550|NCT02612610|183293920|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.0|0.1046
91699551|NCT02612610|183293921|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.7|0.5796
91699552|NCT02612610|183293921|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.0|0.1430
91699553|NCT02612610|183293921|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.2|0.0221
91730861|NCT06401551|183356992|NON_INFERIORITY|Study success will be concluded if the upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence interval does not exceed the noninferiority margin of 0.1 logMAR.|Difference in Means|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0123|||ONE_SIDED|95.1||-0.0055||The upper boundary of the confidence interval is reported instead of a p-value.|t-test, 1 sided|The upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence limit will be compared to the margin, 0.10 logMAR.|Difference in Means = CPO Pro IOL minus CPO|||-0.0055||
91730862|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||||||||1.10|0.60|
91730863|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.02||||||||3.02|1.64|
91867856|NCT02307682|183629792|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||12.6|-1.0|
91699554|NCT02612610|183293922|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.1562
91867857|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||6.0|-7.7|
91699555|NCT02612610|183293922|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.1|0.0710
91699556|NCT02612610|183293922|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.2|0.0274
91699557|NCT02612610|183293923|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.8|0.4464
91699558|NCT02612610|183293923|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-0.9|0.3320
91699559|NCT02612610|183293923|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.1|0.0792
91699560|NCT02612610|183293924|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.8|0.4716
91699561|NCT02612610|183293924|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.8|0.4371
91699562|NCT02612610|183293924|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.1907
91730864|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.84||||||||1.84|1.01|
91730865|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05||||||||1.05|0.48|
91730866|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.13||||||||1.13|0.32|
91730867|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.73||||||||0.73|0.16|
91730868|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.02||||||||1.02|0.51|
91730869|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08||||||||1.08|0.51|
91867858|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||8.7|-5.3|
91867859|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||6.8|-7.4|
91867860|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||5.3|-8.9|
91730870|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.9||||||||0.90|0.39|
91730871|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.31||||||||1.31|0.64|
91867861|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||5.9|-8.1|
91904933|NCT03634397|183705086|OTHER|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|4.24||P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Regression, Linear|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.||||4.24|-2.58|<.05
91904934|NCT03634397|183705087|OTHER|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|4.53||P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Regression, Linear|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|||4.53|-2.29|<.05
91904935|NCT02446314|183705103|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||= .04
91699563|NCT02612610|183293925|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-0.9|0.2772
91699564|NCT02612610|183293925|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.1|0.1132
91699565|NCT02612610|183293925|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.2|0.0737
91699566|NCT02612610|183293926|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.8|0.6266
91699567|NCT02612610|183293926|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.1769
91699568|NCT02612610|183293926|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.3|0.0313
91699569|NCT02612610|183293927|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.2058
91699570|NCT02612610|183293927|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.2|0.0665
91730872|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.27||||||||1.27|0.61|
91730873|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.78||||||||1.78|0.83|
91730874|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.45||||||||1.45|0.57|
91867862|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||8.8|-4.8|
91730875|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|67.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.58|99.97||||||||99.97|45.58|
91730876|NCT02037984|183357017|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.21|43.24||||||||43.24|13.21|
91730877|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.7||||||||0.70|0.39|
91730878|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.41||||||||2.41|1.33|
91904936|NCT02446314|183705104|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
91904937|NCT02446314|183705105|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
91904938|NCT02446314|183705106|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
91904939|NCT02446314|183705107|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
91730879|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.16||||||||1.16|0.65|
91904940|NCT01671111|183705117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.0560
91730880|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.74||||||||0.74|0.35|
91730881|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.58||||||||0.58|0.17|
91730882|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34||||||||0.34|0.08|
91730883|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.67||||||||0.67|0.34|
91730884|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82||||||||0.82|0.39|
91730885|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.97||||||||0.97|0.42|
91730886|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||||||||1.21|0.60|
91730887|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||||||||0.95|0.46|
91730888|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.6||||||||1.60|0.77|
91730889|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.07||||||||1.07|0.43|
91730890|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|44.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.42|65.43||||||||65.43|30.42|
91730891|NCT02037984|183357018|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|15.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.58|27.26||||||||27.26|8.58|
91730892|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.07||||||||1.07|0.57|
91730893|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.68||||||||3.68|1.95|
91867863|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||4.7|-9.8|
91730894|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.07||||||||2.07|1.11|
91730895|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.02||||||||1.02|0.46|
91730896|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.64||||||||0.64|0.17|
91730897|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.23||||||||0.23|0.05|
91730898|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.04||||||||1.04|0.51|
91730899|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3||||||||1.30|0.59|
91730900|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.6||||||||1.60|0.66|
91730901|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39||||||||1.39|0.66|
91730902|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.39||||||||1.39|0.64|
91730903|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.84||||||||1.84|0.84|
91730904|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.23||||||||1.23|0.46|
91730905|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|77.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.6|116.6||||||||116.60|51.60|
91730906|NCT02037984|183357019|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|15.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.46|28.98||||||||28.98|8.46|
91730907|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.93||||||||0.93|0.50|
91730908|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.02||||||||3.02|1.62|
91730909|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||||||||1.31|0.71|
91730910|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79||||||||0.79|0.36|
91730911|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.94||||||||0.94|0.26|
91730912|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.77||||||||0.77|0.17|
91730913|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.85||||||||0.85|0.42|
91730914|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.16||||||||1.16|0.54|
91730915|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14||||||||1.14|0.48|
91730916|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||||||||0.95|0.46|
91730917|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.02||||||||1.02|0.48|
91730918|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.29||||||||1.29|0.60|
91730919|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.12||||||||1.12|0.43|
91730920|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|56.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.66|83.52||||||||83.52|37.66|
91730921|NCT02037984|183357020|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|25.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.18|46.78||||||||46.78|14.18|
91730922|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09||||||||1.09|0.58|
91730923|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|3.49||||||||3.49|1.86|
91730924|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.46||||||||1.46|0.79|
91730925|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.76||||||||0.76|0.34|
91730926|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.65||||||||0.65|0.17|
91904941|NCT01671111|183705118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.1232
91730927|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.38||||||||0.38|0.08|
91730928|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.84||||||||0.84|0.41|
91867864|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||8.6|-5.3|
91904942|NCT01671111|183705119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.1319
91699571|NCT02612610|183293927|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.4|0.0155
91699572|NCT02612610|183293928|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.0|0.2458
91699573|NCT02612610|183293928|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.2|0.0662
91699574|NCT02612610|183293928|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.4|0.0197
91699575|NCT02612610|183293929|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.8|-0.2|0.1921
91699576|NCT02612610|183293929|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.8|-0.2|0.2428
91699577|NCT02612610|183293929|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.6|0.7383
91699578|NCT02612610|183293930|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.4033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.9|-0.4|0.4033
91699579|NCT02612610|183293930|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.9|-0.4|0.4599
91699580|NCT02612610|183293930|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.0|0.2837
91699581|NCT02612610|183293931|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.8|-0.6|0.8084
91699582|NCT02612610|183293931|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.6108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.8|0.6108
91699583|NCT02612610|183293931|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.9|0.4220
91699584|NCT02612610|183293932|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.7|0.8457
91699585|NCT02612610|183293932|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.9|0.4044
91867865|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.6|-9.7|
91867866|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.3|-11.4|
91867867|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.1|-7.6|
91904943|NCT01671111|183705120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.8061
91904944|NCT01671111|183705121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.2297
91699586|NCT02612610|183293932|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.0|0.3031
91699587|NCT02612610|183293933|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.7|0.9126
91699588|NCT02612610|183293933|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.2|0.1136
91699589|NCT02612610|183293933|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.0|-1.4|0.0352
91699590|NCT02612610|183293934|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.1|0.1718
91699591|NCT02612610|183293934|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.3|0.0651
91730929|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.01||||||||1.01|0.46|
91730930|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.22||||||||1.22|0.51|
91730931|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.05||||||||1.05|0.50|
91730932|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.8||||||||0.80|0.37|
91867868|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||10.0|-4.4|
91867869|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||6.9|-7.2|
91867870|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||7.8|-6.3|
91904945|NCT01671111|183705122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.1248
91867871|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||9.2|-4.7|
91699592|NCT02612610|183293934|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.2|0.0848
91730933|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.44||||||||1.44|0.66|
91730934|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.28||||||||1.28|0.49|
91730935|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|68.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.81|102.84||||||||102.84|45.81|
91730936|NCT02037984|183357021|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|20.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.88|36.88||||||||36.88|10.88|
91730937|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|6.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.5|-16.3|
91730938|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|32.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||32.5|-4.1|
91730939|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|5.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||5.7|-22.8|
91730940|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91730941|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91699593|NCT02612610|183293935|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.8|0.6715
91867872|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||10.3|-3.9|
91730942|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91730943|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91730944|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91730945|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91730946|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91730947|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91730948|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91730949|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91730950|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
91730951|NCT02037984|183357025|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.1|99.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||99.5|85.1|
91730952|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|5.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||5.6|-20.4|
91730953|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|30.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||30.6|-10.0|
91730954|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|10.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||10.3|-18.8|
91730955|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
91867873|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.3|-12.6|
91867874|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.9|-12.7|
91867875|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.6|-8.1|
91699594|NCT02612610|183293935|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.3514
91699595|NCT02612610|183293935|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.1|0.2809
91867876|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||7.9|-6.2|
91699596|NCT02612610|183293936|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.9|0.6022
91699597|NCT02612610|183293936|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4456
91699598|NCT02612610|183293936|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4629
91699599|NCT02612610|183293937|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.3749
91699600|NCT02612610|183293937|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0854
91699601|NCT02612610|183293937|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.1|0.2672
91699602|NCT02612610|183293938|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.8|0.7255
91699603|NCT02612610|183293938|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0918
91699604|NCT02612610|183293938|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.2|0.1263
91699605|NCT02612610|183293939|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4058
91867877|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.9|-9.6|
91699606|NCT02612610|183293939|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0828
91867878|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.4|-9.1|
91867879|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.1|-11.1|
91699607|NCT02612610|183293939|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.4|0.0575
91699608|NCT02612610|183293940|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4163
91699609|NCT02612610|183293940|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0882
91699610|NCT02612610|183293940|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.4|0.0961
91699611|NCT02612610|183293941|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 LCQ Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||1.9|-0.3|0.1630
91699612|NCT02612610|183293941|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.7601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 LCQ Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||1.3|-1.0|0.7601
91699613|NCT02612610|183293941|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 LCQ Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||3.2|0.9|0.0004
91699614|NCT02612610|183293942|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 LCQ Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.3|-0.2|0.0941
91699615|NCT02612610|183293942|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 LCQ Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.2|-0.3|0.1321
91699616|NCT02612610|183293942|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 LCQ Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.7|0.2|0.0192
91699617|NCT02612610|183293943|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination LCQ Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.4|-0.1|0.0626
91699618|NCT02612610|183293943|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination LCQ Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.3|-0.2|0.0967
91699619|NCT02612610|183293943|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination LCQ Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||3.1|0.7|0.0028
91730956|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.5|
91730957|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.5|
91730958|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
91730959|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
91730960|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
91730961|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.5|
91730962|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
91699620|NCT02612610|183293944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3182|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28 PGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.3182
91730963|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
91730964|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
91730965|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.8|93.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||93.6|65.8|
91730966|NCT02037984|183357026|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.1|98.1|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||98.1|75.1|
91730967|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.7|-15.5|
91730968|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|40.2|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||40.2|12.6|
91730969|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.0|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||14.0|-8.0|
91730970|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
91730971|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
91730972|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.7|-15.5|
91730973|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
91730974|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
91730975|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
91730976|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
91730977|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
91730978|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
91730979|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.7|-15.5|
91730980|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
91730981|NCT02037984|183357027|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|99.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||99.5|85.7|
91867880|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.5|-10.4|
91730982|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
91730983|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|35.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||35.5|1.7|
91796392|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC4, one month postvaccination)given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-13|
91867881|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.7|-8.0|
91867882|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.8|-9.7|
91867883|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||7.9|-5.5|
91699621|NCT02612610|183293944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28 PGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.5021
91699622|NCT02612610|183293944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0665|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28 PGIC: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0665
91699623|NCT02612610|183293945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0872|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56 PGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0872
91699624|NCT02612610|183293945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0994|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56 PGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0994
91699625|NCT02612610|183293945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56 PGIC: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0009
91699626|NCT02612610|183293946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination PGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0037
91699627|NCT02612610|183293946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0166|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination PGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0166
91699628|NCT02612610|183293946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||<0.0001
91699629|NCT02612610|183293947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0396|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination CGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0396
91699630|NCT02612610|183293947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0751|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination CGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0751
91699631|NCT02612610|183293947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination CGIC: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0010
91730984|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-1.2|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||-1.2|-31.4|
91730985|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
91730986|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
91867884|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.5|-7.2|
91730987|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
91796393|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7(PNC 6B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-1|-12|
91796394|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7(PnC 9V, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 or MenC was considered non-inferior, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than -10%.||2|-11|
91867885|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||8.4|-5.8|
91867886|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.9|-7.2|
91867887|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.5|-7.9|
91867888|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||7.9|-6.6|
91867889|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.2|-9.4|
91867890|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.0|-10.0|
91867891|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||8.2|-6.2|
91867892|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||9.3|-5.5|
91867893|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||9.6|-5.1|
91867894|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.9|-5.0|
91867895|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||10.3|-3.9|
91730988|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
91730989|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
91730990|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
91867896|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||8.1|-6.1|
91867897|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||8.9|-5.1|
91867898|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||8.4|-5.9|
91867899|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||5.8|-8.5|
91867900|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.7|-9.7|
91904946|NCT04556136|183705144|NON_INFERIORITY|This non-inferiority study was designed to demonstrate the ability of the phototherapy kiosk to safely administer UVB radiation to participants with varying levels of 25(OH)D and achieve comparable levels of serum 25(OH)D in a similar population of adults randomized to receive RDA of 600 IU vitamin D oral supplementation daily. It is important to evaluate device equivalence to standard of care in the maintenance of sufficient levels of vitamin D in adults 18 - 70 years old.||||||0.01||||||Threshold for significance \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect sizes for significant differences were included as eta squared (ŋ2) values.||The intent-to-treat analysis plan was carried out with all available subject data points. No interim analysis was performed. Exploratory data analyses were conducted on serum vitamin D levels of participants assigned to either the oral supplementation or kiosk group. Analysis was restricted to participants with valid baseline serum vitamin D data and at least one follow-up blood draw. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess the normality of the data distribution.||||0.01
91904947|NCT03492554|183705168|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial test|||H0: Specificity = 92% H1: Specificity \> 92 Under the assumption that the true population specificity is 96.5%, 226 subjects who were diagnosed with SR based on the 12-lead ECG reference strip and where the device algorithm classification produced a result of AF or SR was calculated to provide at least 80% power to reject its null hypothesis, using a one-sided type I error of 0.025. To obtain readable waveforms approximately 300 subjects with no known diagnosis of AF were enrolled.||||<0.0001
91904948|NCT03492554|183705169|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial test|||H0: Sensitivity = 90% H1: Sensitivity \> 90% Under the assumption that the true population sensitivity is 95%, 231 subjects who were diagnosed with AF based on the 12-lead ECG reference strip and where the device algorithm classification produced a result of AF or SR was calculated to provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis, using a one-sided type I error of 0.025. To obtain readable waveforms, a minimum of 260 subjects with a known diagnosis of AF were enrolled.||||<0.0001
91699632|NCT02612610|183293948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8464|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"1 Year Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses was compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for the gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.8464
91699633|NCT02612610|183293948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7687|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"1 Year Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses was compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.7687
91699634|NCT02612610|183293948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4364|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"1 Year Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses was compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.4364
91699635|NCT02612610|183293949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9966|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"6 Month Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.9966
91867901|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.5|-7.9|
91867902|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.5|-9.1|
91699636|NCT02612610|183293949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6372|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"6 Month Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.6372
91730991|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
91730992|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
91730993|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
91730994|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|3.9|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||3.9|-19.2|
91730995|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
91730996|NCT02037984|183357028|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.9|99.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||99.5|85.9|
91867903|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||11.2|-2.9|
91867904|NCT02307682|183629793|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||8.0|-6.6|
91867905|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.2|-1.4|
91867906|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||4.0|-0.5|
91867907|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.5|-2.6|
91867908|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.9|-1.7|
91867909|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-3.3|
91730997|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
91730998|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|32.0|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||32.0|-5.5|
91730999|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|5.2|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||5.2|-24.2|
91731000|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
91731001|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
91731002|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
91731003|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
91731004|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
91731005|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
91731006|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
91731007|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|3.0|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||3.0|-22.1|
91731008|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
91731009|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
91731010|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
91731011|NCT02037984|183357029|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.5|98.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||98.3|78.5|
91731012|NCT04350866|183357049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|21.11|||Regression, Logistic|||pre-training to implementation||21.11|8.99|<0.0001
91731013|NCT04350866|183357049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|||pre-implementation to implementation||3.00|0.81|0.18
91731014|NCT04350866|183357049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||pre-implementation to implementation||2.22|1.17|0.003
91731015|NCT04350866|183357049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||pre-implementation to implementation||1.76|0.77|0.48
91731016|NCT04350866|183357052|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91731017|NCT04350866|183357052|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.83|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Minneapolis VAMC||||<0.0001
91867910|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.7|-3.2|
91867911|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.4|-3.0|
91731018|NCT04350866|183357052|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.79|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Philadelphia VAMC||||<0.0001
91867912|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.1|-2.4|
91867913|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.4|-2.2|
91867914|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||5.3|-0.3|
91731019|NCT04350866|183357052|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.6|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Durham VAMC||||<0.0001
91731020|NCT04350866|183357052|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|1.01|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baltimore VAMC||||<0.0001
91731021|NCT04350866|183357053|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||All Sites||||<0.0001
91731022|NCT04350866|183357053|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Minneapolis VAMC||||<0.0001
91731023|NCT04350866|183357053|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Philadelphia VAMC||||<0.0001
91731024|NCT04350866|183357053|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Durham VAMC||||<0.0001
91731025|NCT04350866|183357053|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baltimore VAMC||||<0.0001
91731026|NCT06433908|183357114|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.9649|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8695|1.0707||||||||1.0707|0.8695|
91731027|NCT06433908|183357115|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.2941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1795|1.4199||||||||1.4199|1.1795|
91731028|NCT06433908|183357116|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.2329|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1171|1.3608||||||||1.3608|1.1171|
91731029|NCT06433908|183357117|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.9475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7746|1.159||||||||1.1590|0.7746|
91731030|NCT06433908|183357118|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.2032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.162|1.2459||||||||1.2459|1.1620|
91731031|NCT06433908|183357119|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.1273|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0229|1.2423||||||||1.2423|1.0229|
91731032|NCT03768414|183357197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.72|0.41
91731033|NCT00124306|183357207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.5||||||IC Symptom Index - change from baseline to 12 weeks||-0.5|-2.5|
91731034|NCT00124306|183357207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2||||||IC Problem Index - change from baseline to 12 weeks||-0.2|-2.3|
91731035|NCT00124306|183357207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.3||||||Wisconsin Symptom Survey - change from baseline to 12 weeks||-1.3|-6.3|
91731036|NCT04153149|183357218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718|||=|0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.929|||Modified Andersen-Gill Model|||Analysis done using a modified Andersen-Gill model with a robust variance. The model included treatment group, ATTR amyloidosis disease type, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, age group, and log-transformed baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) as covariates.||0.929|0.555|=0.0118
91731037|NCT04153149|183357219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.672|||=|0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|0.929|||Modified Andersen-Gill Model|||Analysis done using a modified Andersen-Gill model with a robust variance. The model included treatment group, ATTR amyloidosis disease type, NYHA class, age group, and log-transformed baseline NT-proBNP as covariates.||0.929|0.487|=0.0162
91731038|NCT04153149|183357220|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|26.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|=|7.97e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.38|39.55|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline 6-MWT as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline tafamidis use, treatment-by-baseline tafamidis use interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to amyloidosis disease progression and death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||39.55|13.38|=0.0000797
91731039|NCT04153149|183357221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|32.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.03|50.15|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline 6-MWT as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to amyloidosis disease progression and death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||50.15|14.03|=0.0005
91731040|NCT04153149|183357222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.2|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline KCCQ-OS as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline tafamidis use, treatment-by-baseline tafamidis use interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||9.20|2.40|=0.0008
91731041|NCT04153149|183357223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|13.4|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline KCCQ-OS as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||13.40|3.98|=0.0003
91731042|NCT04153149|183357225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|8.7|||=|0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing change value in NYHA Class due to death were imputed as worsened. All other missing were imputed using multiple imputation approach.|Adjusted difference in percentage of stable or improved (vutrisiran - placebo) participants was estimated. Adjusted difference, 95% CI, and p-value were derived from multiple imputation procedure by combining estimates per Rubin's rules.|||16.1|1.3|=0.0217
91731043|NCT04153149|183357226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|12.5|||=|0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing change value in NYHA Class due to death were imputed as worsened. All other missing were imputed using multiple imputation approach.|Adjusted difference in percentage of stable or improved (vutrisiran - placebo) participants was estimated. Adjusted difference, 95% CI, and p-value were derived from multiple imputation procedure by combining estimates per Rubin's rules.|||22.2|2.7|=0.0121
91731044|NCT00266032|183357252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.0|-20.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean of Yaz flexible regimen minus mean of Yaz standard was tested|Primary variable was tested for the hypothesis, whether the means are equal against the alternative (means are different) at a level of significance of alpha = 0.05 (t-test). For power calculation, a normal distribution, a absolute difference of 10 days, a Standard Deviation of 28 days and a drop-out rate of 40% was assumed.||-20|-29|<0.0001
91731045|NCT00124657|183357279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.0||||||1-year progression-free survival (n=8)||1.00|0.48|
91731046|NCT00124657|183357279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.57||||||1-year progression-free survival (n=12)||0.57|0.09|
91731047|NCT00124657|183357279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.602||||||1-year progression free survival (n=20)||0.602|0.198|
91731048|NCT00124657|183357279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.285||||||2-year progression free survival (n=20)||0.285|0.015|
91731049|NCT00124657|183357279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.077|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.341||||||1-year progression free survival (n=21)||0.341|0.039|
91796395|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 14, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-3|
91731050|NCT00124657|183357279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.077|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.341||||||2-year progression free survival (n=21)||0.341|0.039|
91731051|NCT03533491|183357328|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants from pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change in the proportion of users is different from zero.|||||.044
91731052|NCT03533491|183357329|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion who use from pretest to posttest is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether the proportion who use from pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.532
91731053|NCT03533491|183357330|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants who use from pretest to posttest is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.370
91867915|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.2|-2.6|
91731054|NCT03533491|183357331|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants that use from pretest to posttest is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether proportion who use from pretest to posttest is different from zero.||||||.020
91731055|NCT03533491|183357332|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.773
91731056|NCT03533491|183357333|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.978|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.978
91867916|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||4.6|-1.8|
91867917|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||3.3|-2.9|
91867918|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.6|-2.3|
91867919|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.1|-2.0|
91867920|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.7|-1.0|
91867921|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.4|-1.5|
91867922|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.5|0.0|
91867923|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.9|-2.1|
91867924|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||6.3|-0.7|
91867925|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.2|-2.2|
91867926|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.2|-1.4|
91867927|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.9|-3.2|
91867928|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||4.3|-2.7|
91867929|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.0|-3.3|
91731057|NCT03533491|183357334|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.745
91731058|NCT03533491|183357335|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.132
91731059|NCT03533491|183357336|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.551
91731060|NCT03533491|183357337|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.255
91731061|NCT03533491|183357338|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|||||||A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||
91867930|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.8|-2.5|
91731062|NCT03533491|183357339|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.198
91731063|NCT03533491|183357340|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.770
91731064|NCT03533491|183357341|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.834
91731065|NCT03533491|183357342|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.175
91731066|NCT02412982|183357380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.092
91731067|NCT00803049|183357382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.824||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.128||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.128|0.602|0.2079
91731068|NCT00803049|183357382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.152||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 14 mg vs.Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.152|0.591|0.3039
91731069|NCT00803049|183357382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.8271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.26||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.260|0.736|0.8271
91731070|NCT00803049|183357383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961||||0.8017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.362||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.362|0.678|0.8017
91731071|NCT00803049|183357383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.117||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 14 mg vs. Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.117|0.559|0.1866
91731072|NCT00803049|183357383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.357||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.357|0.767|0.8763
91731073|NCT01272219|183357387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-5.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-4.95|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment, country, sex, pre-diabetes status at screening, baseline BMI stratum and an interaction between pre-diabetes status at screening and BMI stratum as fixed factors, and the baseline value as covariate.|Null-hypothesis: no treatment difference between treatment arms, i.e. liraglutide 3.0 mg and liraglutide placebo. Liraglutide 3.0 mg was considered superior to placebo in inducing and maintaining weight loss, if the estimated treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg - liraglutide placebo) was statistically significantly smaller than zero.||-4.95|-5.82|<0.0001
91759159|NCT04038567|183411363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.15||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response to symptoms. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||2.15|-0.52|
91759160|NCT04038567|183411364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.91||||||||0.91|-1.23|
91759161|NCT04038567|183411364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.15||||||||-0.15|-2.29|
91759162|NCT04038567|183411364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.37||||||||0.37|-1.77|
91867931|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.6|-2.4|
91867932|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.3|-1.5|
91699637|NCT02612610|183293949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2155|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"6 Month Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.2155
91699638|NCT02612610|183293950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7559|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"4 Week Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.7559
91699639|NCT02612610|183293950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5091|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"4 Week Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.5091
91699640|NCT02612610|183293950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.279|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"4 Week Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.2790
91867933|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.6|-3.5|
91867934|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.9|-2.9|
91867935|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.1|-2.4|
91699641|NCT02612610|183293951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3887|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Twice Daily Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.3887
91699642|NCT02612610|183293951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2333|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Twice Daily Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.2333
91699643|NCT02612610|183293951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0534|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Twice Daily Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.0534
91699644|NCT02612610|183293952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6115|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Never responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.6115
91699645|NCT02612610|183293952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Never responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
91699646|NCT02612610|183293952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Never responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
91699647|NCT02612610|183293953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0||||||"A p-value of zero was calculated if all participants (100%) had No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses in both comparison groups."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0
91699648|NCT02612610|183293953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
91699649|NCT02612610|183293953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
91731074|NCT01272219|183357388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|5.6|||Regression, Logistic||The model included treatment, country, sex, pre-diabetes status at screening, BMI stratum and an interaction between pre-diabetes status at screening and BMI stratum as fixed factors, and the baseline value as covariate.|Null-hypothesis: no treatment difference between treatment arms, i.e. liraglutide 3.0 mg and liraglutide placebo. Liraglutide 3.0 mg was considered superior to placebo in inducing and maintaining weight loss as assessed by the proportion of subjects losing ≥5% of their fasting baseline weight, if the estimated odds ratio (liraglutide 3.0 mg/liraglutide placebo) was statistically significantly greater than one.||5.60|4.12|<0.0001
91731075|NCT01272219|183357389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|5.32|||Regression, Logistic||The model included treatment, country, sex, pre-diabetes status at screening, BMI stratum and an interaction between pre-diabetes status at screening and BMI stratum as fixed factors, and the baseline value as covariate.|Null-hypothesis: no treatment difference between treatment arms, i.e. liraglutide 3.0 mg and liraglutide placebo. Liraglutide 3.0 mg was considered superior to placebo in inducing and maintaining weight loss as assessed by the proportion of subjects losing \>10% of their fasting baseline weight, if the estimated odds ratio (liraglutide 3.0 mg/liraglutide placebo) was statistically significantly greater than one.||5.32|3.54|<0.0001
91731076|NCT01272219|183357390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment estimate|2.681|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.856|3.872|||Weibull analysis||The treatment estimate was the factor that the time to event is multiplied with for liraglutide 3.0 mg compared to placebo.|If the estimated time-to-event ratio (liraglutide 3.0 mg/ placebo), as assessed by the survival endpoint describing the time until onset of T2DM ('diabetes-free time'), is statistically significantly \>1, then liraglutide 3.0 mg was to be considered superior to placebo in delaying the onset of T2DM in subjects with pre-diabetes at baseline. Weibull model was used; included treatment, sex and BMI stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline FPG as a covariate.||3.872|1.856|<.0001
91731077|NCT00392288|183357477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2696||95.0||||Due to usage of a-priori ordered hypotheses, adjustment of p-values is not necessary. The pre-specified significance level was 0.05. The tests were carried out two-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in FEV1 = baseline FEV1 + age \[yrs\] + treatment + pooled center + previous corticosteroid therapy + holding chamber||This is an analysis of the change from baseline to week 12 or last visit. In this pairwise comparison Ciclesonide was compared with Placebo by testing the average effect of Ciclesonide 40 and Ciclesonide 80 versus Placebo. As statistical test a t-test was used to compare the corresponding least-square means of both treatment groups.||||0.2696
91731078|NCT00392288|183357477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0703||95.0||||Due to usage of a-priori ordered hypotheses, adjustment of p-values is not necessary. The pre-specified significance level was 0.05. The tests were carried out two-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in FEV1 = baseline FEV1 + age \[yrs\] + treatment + pooled center + previous corticosteroid therapy + holding chamber||This is an analysis of the change from baseline to week 12 or last visit. A t-test was used to compare the least-square means of Ciclesonide 80 versus Placebo.||||0.0703
91731079|NCT00392288|183357477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9146||95.0||||Due to usage of a-priori ordered hypotheses, adjustment of p-values is not necessary. The pre-specified significance level was 0.05. The tests were carried out two-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in FEV1 = baseline FEV1 + age \[yrs\] + treatment + pooled center + previous corticosteroid therapy + holding chamber||This is an analysis of the change from baseline to week 12 or last visit. As statistical test a t-test was used to compare the corresponding least-square means of Ciclesonide 40 versus Placebo.||||0.9146
91731080|NCT02544763|183357480|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.4|55.8||||||||55.8|40.4|
91731081|NCT02544763|183357480|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|54.8||||||||54.8|39.0|
91731082|NCT02544763|183357480|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|36.5||||||||36.5|14.9|
91731083|NCT02544763|183357480|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.699|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.861|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.861|0.567|=0.0009
91731084|NCT02544763|183357480|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.715|||=|0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.881|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.881|0.580|=0.0018
91867936|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||6.7|-1.3|
91731085|NCT02544763|183357481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||=|0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (1-6, 7-11, 12-17 and 18-65 years).||||4.00|0.95|=0.0692
91867937|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.5|-3.1|
91867938|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.9|-2.9|
91731086|NCT02544763|183357481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||=|0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (1-6, 7-11, 12-17 and 18-65 years).||||4.67|1.12|=0.0245
91731087|NCT02544763|183357482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||=|0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.07|||nominal|The global impression of change was analyzed using an ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||4.07|1.24|=0.0074
91731088|NCT02544763|183357482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||=|0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.2|||nominal|The global impression of change is analyzed using an ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.20|0.98|=0.0580
91867939|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.7|-2.6|
91867940|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.3|-2.7|
91867941|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.2|-3.1|
91867942|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.0|-2.1|
91731089|NCT02544763|183357483|SUPERIORITY|Model includes the total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (Baseline and treatment period), treatment and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The log transformed number of days seizures were reported by period is included as an offset.|Percentage reduction|0.519|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.602||||||||0.602|0.447|
91731090|NCT02544763|183357483|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|0.524|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.607||||||||0.607|0.452|
91731091|NCT02544763|183357483|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|0.846||||||||0.846|0.632|
91867943|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.1|-4.8|
91867944|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.9|-4.6|
91867945|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||5.4|-2.6|
91867946|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.4|-3.7|
91867947|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.4|-3.7|
91867948|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.2|-4.1|
91867949|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.5|-2.2|
91867950|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.1|-3.0|
91867951|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.9|-2.9|
91867952|NCT02307682|183629794|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.6|-3.6|
91731092|NCT02544763|183357483|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.709|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|0.873|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.873|0.576|=0.0013
91731093|NCT02544763|183357483|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.716|||=|0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|0.882|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.882|0.582|=0.0018
91731094|NCT03109769|183357496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The sample size was calculated as 44 participants. Sample size calculation was carried out through a pilot study on 30 participants with the group I mean=1.31, SD=0.39 and group II mean=1.62, SD=0.30, with ⍺=0.05 and 80% power.~The null hypothesis was: there is no difference in plaque index and gingival index between verbal oral hygiene instructions and oral hygiene instructions using mobile applications in patients with orthodontic fixed appliances."||||0.0444
91731095|NCT03109769|183357496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1373||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in plaque index within the first group (mobile phone application) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~plaque index at 4 weeks - plaque index at baseline"|||||0.0002
91731096|NCT03109769|183357496|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0932||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in plaque index within the second group (verbal oral hygiene instructions) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~plaque index at 4 weeks - plaque index at baseline"|||||0.0283
91731097|NCT03109769|183357497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The sample size was calculated as 44 participants. Sample size calculation was carried out through a pilot study on 30 participants with the group I mean=1.31, SD=0.39 and group II mean=1.62, SD=0.30, with ⍺=0.05 and 80% power.~The null hypothesis was: there is no difference in plaque index and gingival index between verbal oral hygiene instructions and oral hygiene instructions using mobile applications in patients with orthodontic fixed appliances."||||0.0283
91731098|NCT03109769|183357497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1177||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in gingival index within the first group (mobile phone application) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~gingival index at 4 weeks - gingival index at baseline"|||||0.0002
91796396|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7( PNC 18C, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-2|-19|
91796397|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 19F, one month postvaccination), given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-2|-17|
91796398|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 23F, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||1|-12|
91867953|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.2|-3.7|
91867954|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.4|-2.6|
91867955|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.3|-3.3|
91867956|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.9|-3.0|
91867957|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.4|-4.6|
91867958|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.6|-3.5|
91731099|NCT03109769|183357497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1014||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in gingival index within the second group (verbal oral hygiene instructions) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~gingival index at 4 weeks - gingival index at baseline"|||||0.4809
91731100|NCT02528305|183357498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.474
91731101|NCT02528305|183357499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.174
91731102|NCT02528305|183357500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.303
91731103|NCT02528305|183357501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
91731104|NCT02528305|183357502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Total body fat||||||0.092
91731105|NCT02528305|183357502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Trunk fat||||||0.101
91699650|NCT01260272|183293954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.033
91699651|NCT01260272|183293955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0468||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0468
91699652|NCT01260272|183293956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2114||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.2114
91731106|NCT02528305|183357503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of systolic blood pressure||||||0.771
91731107|NCT02528305|183357503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of diastolic blood pressure||||||0.028
91731108|NCT02528305|183357504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Physical Function||||||0.099
91731109|NCT02528305|183357504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Social Function||||||0.566
91731110|NCT02528305|183357504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Mental Health||||||0.246
91731111|NCT02528305|183357504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Pain||||||0.145
91731112|NCT02528305|183357504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Change in Health||||||0.085
91796399|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC4, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-12|
91731113|NCT02528305|183357504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Physical Role Limitation||||||0.114
91731114|NCT02528305|183357504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Mental Role Limitation||||||0.841
91731115|NCT02528305|183357504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Energy/Vitality||||||0.366
91867959|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.9|-4.2|
91699653|NCT01260272|183293957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.1727||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.1727
91699654|NCT01260272|183293958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.7498||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.7498
91699655|NCT01260272|183293959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2615||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.2615
91699656|NCT01260272|183293960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.6915||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.6915
91731116|NCT02528305|183357504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Health Perception||||||0.745
91731117|NCT02528305|183357505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.310
91731118|NCT02528305|183357506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91731119|NCT02528305|183357507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
91731120|NCT02528305|183357508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.793
91731121|NCT02528305|183357509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.513
91731122|NCT02528305|183357510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
91731123|NCT01308788|183357511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4414||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.4414
91731124|NCT01308788|183357512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7820
91731125|NCT01308788|183357513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5496||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5496
91731126|NCT01308788|183357514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2930
91731127|NCT01308788|183357515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5058
91731128|NCT01308788|183357516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6156||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.6156
91731129|NCT01308788|183357517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5443||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5443
91731130|NCT01308788|183357518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7847||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7847
91731131|NCT01308788|183357519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1331||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1331
91731132|NCT01308788|183357520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5431||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5431
91731133|NCT01308788|183357521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0684||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.0684
91731134|NCT01308788|183357522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2500
91731135|NCT01308788|183357523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6896||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.6896
91731136|NCT01308788|183357524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7965||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7965
91731137|NCT00322218|183357526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8578|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.8578
91731138|NCT04101331|183357612|OTHER|||||||0.051||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.051
91731139|NCT04101331|183357613|OTHER|||||||0.051||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.051
91731140|NCT04101331|183357614|OTHER|||||||0.112||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.112
91731141|NCT04101331|183357616|OTHER|||||||0.537||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.537
91731142|NCT02579759|183357666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.06|-0.68|0.008
91731143|NCT02579759|183357666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.287|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.39|0.14|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.14|-0.39|0.287
91731144|NCT02579759|183357666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.013|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.59|-0.03|||Longitudinal mixed model|||"This analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: Longitudinal model where the effect of each treatment over time (baseline, 6, 12 and 15 months) was estimated through a mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) assuming time from baseline (Time) and Time-by-Treatment full interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect and considering Time as continuous linear effect~3. Missing value imputation: No imputation"||-0.03|-0.59|0.013
91731145|NCT02579759|183357666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.05|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.42|0.03|||Longitudinal mixed model|||"This analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: Longitudinal model where the effect of each treatment over time (baseline, 6, 12 and 15 months) was estimated through a mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) assuming time from baseline (Time) and Time-by-Treatment full interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect and considering Time as continuous linear effect~3. Missing value imputation: No imputation"||0.03|-0.42|0.05
91731146|NCT02579759|183357666|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose effect:~Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.04|-0.31|0.013
91731147|NCT02579759|183357667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.016|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.91|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.03|-0.91|0.016
91796400|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC6B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||0|-11|
91796401|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 9V, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-10|
91796402|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC14, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-4|
91867960|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.0|-5.0|
91867961|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.4|-4.1|
91867962|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||4.7|-2.3|
91867963|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.1|-3.9|
91796403|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC18C, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-6|-24|
91731148|NCT02579759|183357667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.084|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|0.08|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.08|-0.65|0.084
91731149|NCT02579759|183357667|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose effect:~Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.04|-0.41|0.015
91731150|NCT02579759|183357668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.162|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.23|-1.01|0.162
91731151|NCT02579759|183357668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.556|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|0.39|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.39|-0.66|0.556
91731152|NCT02579759|183357668|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.09|-0.43|0.204
91731153|NCT02579759|183357669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.232|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.25|0.38|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.38|-1.25|0.232
91731154|NCT02579759|183357669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.868|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.74|0.64|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.64|-0.74|0.868
91731155|NCT02579759|183357669|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.17|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.17|-0.53|0.322
91867964|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.2|-1.8|
91731156|NCT02579759|183357670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.377|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.43|0.62|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.62|-1.43|0.377
91731157|NCT02579759|183357670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.334|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.21|0.48|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.48|-1.21|0.334
91731158|NCT02579759|183357670|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.23|-0.62|0.373
91867965|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.7|-3.5|
91699657|NCT01260272|183293961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1060
91699658|NCT01546571|183293964|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91699659|NCT00478699|183293986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.298|||Log Rank|||Based on the relevant clinical evidence of the prognostic and predictive value of BRCA1, proposes the present study with which it is intended to demonstrate that adjuvant chemotherapy Individualized based on BRCA1 expression (Experimental arm), it is more effective than chemotherapy without individualize based (Control arm) in patients with completely resected stage II-IIIA NSCLC.||1.298|0.689|0.73
91699660|NCT00478699|183293987|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|79.3||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|95.1|||Log Rank|||Control Arm v Experimental Arm||95.1|63.5|0.753
91731159|NCT02579759|183357674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.023|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.58|0.0|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0|-0.58|0.023
91731160|NCT02579759|183357674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.162|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.09|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.09|-0.4|0.162
91867966|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.4|-3.6|
91731161|NCT02579759|183357678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.77|5.68|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||5.68|0.77|0.097
91867967|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.6|-3.2|
91731162|NCT02579759|183357678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.42|2.7|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||2.7|0.42|0.865
91731163|NCT02579759|183357679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.99|11.62|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||11.62|0.99|0.026
91867968|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.5|-3.2|
91867969|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||5.3|-2.6|
91867970|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||5.9|-2.1|
91731164|NCT02579759|183357679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5|3.16|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||3.16|0.5|0.569
91731165|NCT02943499|183357685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To examine between-group differences in pre- vs. post-treatment cue reactivity, the post-treatment PCC BOLD response for the smoking vs neutral contrast was subtracted from the baseline response. The groups were then compared directly on this measure using a t-test.||||0.92
91699661|NCT00478699|183293987|SUPERIORITY|The initial hyphotesis were the disease free survival were longest under 65 vs upper 65.|Median Difference (Final Values)|38.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|38.7|||Log Rank|||Control Arm v Experimental Arm||38.7|28|0.025
91699662|NCT01508130|183293988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.6451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.49|||Wald residual chi-square test||Due to the non-interventional study design, the Cox model included a propensity score as a covariate (incorporated important demographics and baseline characteristics) to account for the potential imbalance between treatment groups.|||1.49|0.78|0.6451
91699663|NCT01508130|183293988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Wald residual chi-square test||Without Propensity Score as a Covariate.|||1.34|0.78|0.8826
91699664|NCT01508130|183293989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.49|||Multiple Logistic Regression||A multiple logistic regression model including a propensity score as a covariate (incorporated important demographics and baseline characteristics) was used for the treatment comparison.|||1.49|0.58|0.7695
91731166|NCT00666263|183357708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squared means|35.13||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.81|61.46|||ANOVA|Fixed effects ANOVA with factors for sequence (1 or 2), nested within sequence, period (Cross-Over Period 1 or 2), \& treatment (IGIV, 10% or placebo)||||61.46|8.81|0.005
91731167|NCT00666263|183357709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91731168|NCT00666263|183357711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squared means|32.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.01|51.06|||ANOVA|||||51.06|14.01|<0.001
91731169|NCT00666263|183357712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91731170|NCT00666263|183357716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|6.03||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|9.92|||ANOVA|||||9.92|2.14|0.002
91731171|NCT00666263|183357718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-15.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.37|-6.77|||ANOVA|||||-6.77|-24.37|<0.001
91796404|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC19F, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-1|-17|
91867971|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.9|-4.3|
91867972|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.8|-3.6|
91867973|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.8|-3.7|
91731172|NCT00666263|183357720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-26.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.96|-13.26|||ANOVA|||||-13.26|-38.96|<0.001
91867974|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.7|-3.7|
91867975|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.1|-2.2|
91867976|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.3|-2.9|
91731173|NCT00666263|183357722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-216.6||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-490.41|57.22|||ANOVA|||||57.22|-490.41|0.059
91731174|NCT00666263|183357724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91731175|NCT00666263|183357725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.021
91731176|NCT00586157|183357736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Z-test|||||||<.001
91731177|NCT00586157|183357737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Z-test|||||||.001
91731178|NCT00586157|183357738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Z-test|||||||.003
91731179|NCT02853136|183357756|OTHER||Adjusted geometric Mean ratio [%]|3107.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2332.9|4140.1|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric Mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] = adjusted gMean T2/ adjusted gMean R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] =42.7.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||4140.10|2332.90|
91731180|NCT02853136|183357757|OTHER||Adjusted geometric Mean ratio [%]|659.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|489.791|886.676|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric Mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] = adjusted gMean T2/ adjusted gMean R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\]=44.8.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||886.676|489.791|
91731181|NCT02853136|183357758|OTHER||Adjusted geometric Mean ratio [%]|3103.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2330.5|4132.65|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric Mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] = adjusted gMean T2/ adjusted gMean R2.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] =42.7."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||4132.65|2330.50|
91867977|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.8|-3.5|
91867978|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||7.3|-1.6|
91867979|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.2|-2.3|
91867980|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.7|-2.2|
91867981|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.8|-4.8|
91867982|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.9|-3.8|
91867983|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.7|-3.1|
91867984|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||6.4|-2.8|
91867985|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.2|-3.4|
91867986|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.6|-2.8|
91867987|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||2.5|-6.6|
91867988|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||3.8|-6.1|
91867989|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||3.1|-5.6|
91867990|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.9|-2.9|
91867991|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.1|-5.8|
91867992|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.5|-3.2|
91699665|NCT01508130|183293989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.92|||Multiple Logistic Regression||Without Propensity Score as a Covariate|||1.92|0.84|0.2594
91699666|NCT01508130|183293996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.64|||Wald residual chi-square test||95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.|||1.64|0.64|0.9156
91699667|NCT01508130|183293997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.5649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.36|||Wald residual chi-square test||95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.|||1.36|0.57|0.5649
91699668|NCT03403751|183294053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.649
91731182|NCT00841815|183357759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|96.43||||||90.0|91.4|101.74|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.74|91.40|
91731183|NCT00841815|183357760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.94||||||90.0|95.6|106.58|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.58|95.60|
91731184|NCT00841815|183357761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.11||||||90.0|95.08|105.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.40|95.08|
91796405|NCT00667602|183471278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC23F, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||0|-13|
91796406|NCT00667602|183471283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|78.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||78|63|
91796407|NCT00667602|183471283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||6|-3|
91796408|NCT00667602|183471283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||7|-2|
91796409|NCT00667602|183471283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||1|-11|
91731185|NCT02732145|183357782|OTHER|"Question: Determination of sensitivity of the Vulvoscopy Index as a measure of the sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Sensitivity (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"The Sensitivity of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
91731186|NCT02732145|183357782|OTHER|"Question: Determination of specificity of the Vulvoscopy index as a measure of the specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Specificity (2x2 Table)|0.9609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5794|1.0|||||"The Specificity of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9609 (Range: 0.5794 - 1.0000)"|"Parameter: Specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.5794|
91796410|NCT00667602|183471283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|39.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||39|24|
91796411|NCT00667602|183471283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
91867993|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||5.0|-4.2|
91867994|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||6.7|-3.2|
91867995|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.2|-5.8|
91867996|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.6|-5.2|
91867997|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||4.1|-5.5|
91867998|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||4.4|-5.3|
91867999|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.4|-5.7|
91868000|NCT02307682|183629795|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||7.3|-3.4|
91868001|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||5.5|-2.4|
91868002|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||6.8|-1.8|
91796412|NCT00667602|183471283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||11|-3|
91868003|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.8|-4.1|
91868004|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||6.8|-1.7|
91868005|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||6.5|-2.3|
91868006|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||7.9|-0.9|
91868007|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||4.0|-5.4|
91868008|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.2|-6.2|
91699669|NCT03403751|183294056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.871
91699670|NCT03403751|183294057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.420
91796413|NCT00667602|183471283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||-5|-22|
91699671|NCT03403751|183294058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.448
91699672|NCT03403751|183294059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.579
91699673|NCT03403751|183294060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
91699674|NCT03403751|183294063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91699675|NCT03403751|183294064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91699676|NCT03403751|183294065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91699677|NCT03403751|183294066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91699678|NCT01623037|183294069|OTHER||sucess proportion|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.7|83.6||||||||83.6|55.7|
91699679|NCT04442269|183294094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.201||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0768|0.3256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3256|0.0768|0.0022
91699680|NCT03559868|183294112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Ordinary one-way ANOVA Bartlett's test||For IL10||||<0.01
91699681|NCT01817582|183294199|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.3||||0.6199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||1.3|-0.7|0.6199
91699682|NCT01817582|183294199|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||1.2|-0.9|0.8070
91699683|NCT01817582|183294199|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.8068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||0.9|-1.1|0.8068
91699684|NCT01817582|183294200|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.4||||0.2296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|2.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||2.8|-11.6|0.2296
91699685|NCT01817582|183294200|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.9||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|2.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||2.5|-12.3|0.1890
91699686|NCT01817582|183294200|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.8836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||6.7|-7.7|0.8836
91699687|NCT03053063|183294218|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.9||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.2||Difference between SEL 18 mg vs Placebo, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for baseline (BL) diabetes mellitus status and BL Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||8.2|-4.4|0.5572
91699688|NCT03053063|183294218|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.5||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||6.5|-6.0|0.9272
91699689|NCT03053063|183294221|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|3.8||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|10.6||Difference between SEL 18 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||10.6|-3.1|0.2850
91699690|NCT03053063|183294221|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.2||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||8.2|-5.3|0.6731
91699691|NCT03053063|183294223|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.7||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.0||Difference between SEL 18 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||2.0|-5.5|0.3650
91699692|NCT03053063|183294223|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-0.4||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.6||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||3.6|-4.3|0.8557
91699693|NCT00197002|183294241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seropositivity rates \[Havrix+Prevnar Group minus Havrix Group\] was computed. The anti-HAV seropositivity rates in the Havrix+Prevnar Group were considered as non-inferior to the seropositivity rates in the Havrix Group, if the lower limit of the 95% CI was not lower (≥) than -5%.~The non-inferiority was concluded if both non-inferiority criteria (for seropositivity rates and GMCs) were met."|Difference in seropositivity rate|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|2.45||||||"Difference in seropositivity rates for anti-HAV:~To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Havrix® vaccine co-administered with Prevnar™ vaccine (Havrix+Prevnar Group), compared to Havrix® vaccine administered alone (Havrix Group), in terms of seropositivity rates and geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-HAV antibody, one month after Dose 2 of Havrix® vaccine (Month 7-10)."||2.45|-5.78|
91699694|NCT00197002|183294242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The standardized two-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (Havrix+Prevnar Group divided by Havrix Group) was computed. The anti-HAV GMC in the Havrix+Prevnar Group was considered as non-inferior to the anti-HAV GMC in the Havrix Group if the lower limit of the 95% CI was not lower than (≥) 0.5.~The non-inferiority of the anti-HAV immune response in Havrix+Prevnar Group compared to Havrix Group was concluded if both non-inferiority criteria (for seropositivity rates and GMCs) were met."|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Havrix® vaccine co-administered with Prevnar™ vaccine (Havrix+Prevnar Group), compared to Havrix® vaccine administered alone (Havrix Group), in terms of seropositivity rates and geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-HAV antibody, one month after Dose 2 of Havrix® vaccine (Month 7-10).||1.31|0.63|
91868009|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.3|-5.4|
91868010|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||6.4|-2.9|
91868011|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.9|-5.2|
91699695|NCT03569293|183294262|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|63.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|69.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.8|57.1|<0.001
91699696|NCT03569293|183294262|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|60.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.2|46.4|<0.001
91699697|NCT03569293|183294263|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|60.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.0|47.2|<0.001
91699698|NCT03569293|183294263|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|46.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.4|33.2|<0.001
91699699|NCT03569293|183294264|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|55.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||55.0|41.3|<0.001
91699700|NCT03569293|183294264|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|47.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||47.5|33.5|<0.001
91699701|NCT03569293|183294265|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||64.1|51.5|<0.001
91699702|NCT03569293|183294265|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.6|51.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.7|38.6|<0.001
91699703|NCT03569293|183294266|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|62.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.3|68.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.3|56.3|<0.001
91868012|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||8.8|-1.4|
91868013|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.3|-6.8|
91868014|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||5.8|-4.7|
91868015|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.4|-5.0|
91868016|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.0|-6.1|
91868017|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||7.7|-1.8|
91868018|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.8|-2.7|
91868019|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.0|-5.9|
91796414|NCT00667602|183471283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (four-fold rise in titers), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||-4|-17|
91868020|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.9|-4.7|
91868021|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.5|-5.7|
91868022|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.3|-6.5|
91868023|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.9|-2.7|
91699704|NCT03569293|183294266|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|53.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.4|40.7|<0.001
91699705|NCT03569293|183294267|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.7|50.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.0|37.7|<0.001
91868024|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.4|-4.3|
91868025|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.3|-4.6|
91868026|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||6.6|-3.9|
91868027|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.1|-4.0|
91868028|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.2|-3.8|
91904949|NCT03492554|183705170|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial|||H0: agreement proportion of visual display= 0.8 H1: agreement proportion of visual display\> 0.8 Under the assumption that the true population agreement proportion of visual display was 90%, 88 subjects would provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error of 0.05. To account for obtaining readable waveforms, approximately 140 subjects (70 SR; 70 AF) were randomly selected.||||<0.0001
91699706|NCT03569293|183294267|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|40.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.5|28.6|<0.001
91699707|NCT03569293|183294268|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|23.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.9|14.6|<0.001
91731187|NCT02732145|183357782|OTHER|"Question: Determination of diagnostic accuracy of the Vulvoscopy index as a measure of the diagnostic value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Diagnostic Accuracy (2x2 Table)|0.9695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6313|1.0|||||"The Diagnostic accuracy of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9695 (Range: 0.6313 - 1.0000)"|"Parameter: Diagnostic accuracy of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.6313|
91731188|NCT02732145|183357782|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Determination of positive predictive value of the Vulvoscopy index for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|PPV (2x2 Table)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|1.0|||||"Positive predictive value of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.8780 (Range: 0.2270 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Positive predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.2270|
91731189|NCT02732145|183357782|OTHER|"Question: Determination of negative predictive value of the Vulvoscopy index for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|NPV (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"Negative predictive value of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.0000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Negative predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
91731190|NCT02732145|183357782|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the diagnostic accuracy of the Vulvoscopy Index as an outcome measure of the diagnostic value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, and histopathology?"||||||0.6108|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the diagnostic accuracy between TRIV using the Vulvoscopy Index and histopathology for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||||0.6108
91868029|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.6|-4.5|
91868030|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.8|-3.8|
91868031|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||7.3|-2.9|
91731191|NCT02732145|183357783|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
91731192|NCT02732145|183357783|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9628|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9628
91868032|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||7.9|-2.8|
91699708|NCT03569293|183294268|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||18.8|10.3|<0.001
91699709|NCT03569293|183294269|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||12.5|3.8|<0.001
91731193|NCT02732145|183357783|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9152|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9152
91731194|NCT02732145|183357783|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
91731195|NCT02732145|183357783|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed with vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8862|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8862
91731196|NCT02732145|183357783|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
91731197|NCT02732145|183357783|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3319|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3319
91731198|NCT02732145|183357783|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8662|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8662
91731199|NCT02732145|183357783|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of specific vulvar lesions among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar lesions specific for dermatosis in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
91731200|NCT02732145|183357784|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.5399|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.5399
91731201|NCT02732145|183357784|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9248|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9248
91731202|NCT02732145|183357784|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9839|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9839
91731203|NCT02732145|183357784|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.7537|||||||t|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.7537
91731204|NCT02732145|183357784|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.2054|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.2054
91731205|NCT02732145|183357784|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.6409|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.6409
91731206|NCT02732145|183357784|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9753|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9753
91731207|NCT02732145|183357784|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8986|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8986
91731208|NCT02732145|183357784|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of specific vulvar lesions among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy)?||||||0.0017|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar lesions specific for dermatosis in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy).||||0.0017
91731209|NCT02732145|183357785|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for vulvar complaints (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar complaints (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
91731210|NCT02732145|183357785|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for Marinoff Index (mean) among patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9899|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for Marinoff Index (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9899
91731211|NCT02732145|183357785|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9686|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9686
91796415|NCT00667602|183471283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (four-fold rise in titers), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||1|-11|
91796416|NCT00667602|183471285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC)|Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.83|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the Geometric Mean Titers at one month postvaccination at 12 months of age, MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY-CRM197 to MenC Geometric Mean Titers for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||1.83|0.96|
91699710|NCT03569293|183294270|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||17.8|8.1|<0.001
91699711|NCT03569293|183294271|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-20.1|-30.3|<0.001
91731212|NCT02732145|183357785|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.7055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.7055
91731213|NCT02732145|183357785|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8852|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8852
91731214|NCT02732145|183357785|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
91731215|NCT02732145|183357785|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3351|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3351
91796417|NCT01436162|183471293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||1.3|-2.3|0.583
91796418|NCT01436162|183471294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||0.7|-1.9|0.354
91796419|NCT02567552|183471307|OTHER|||||||0.3395|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3395
91796420|NCT02567552|183471308|OTHER|||||||0.1523|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1523
91796421|NCT02567552|183471309|OTHER|||||||0.1189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between groups||||0.1189
91796422|NCT02567552|183471311|OTHER|||||||0.2042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2042
91796423|NCT02567552|183471312|OTHER|||||||0.6262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6262
91868033|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.5|-5.5|
91796424|NCT02567552|183471313|OTHER|||||||0.2301|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2301
91868034|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.3|-5.1|
91868035|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||6.7|-4.3|
91699712|NCT03569293|183294271|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-18.9|-29.3|<0.001
91699713|NCT03569293|183294272|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|60.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.6|45.2|<0.001
91699714|NCT03569293|183294272|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|41.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|49.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.7|33.9|<0.001
91699715|NCT03569293|183294273|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|56.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.1|41.0|<0.001
91699716|NCT03569293|183294273|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.5|30.9|<0.001
91699717|NCT03569293|183294274|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.4|60.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.3|45.4|<0.001
91699718|NCT03569293|183294274|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|46.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.2|30.4|<0.001
91699719|NCT03569293|183294275|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|60.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.4|44.7|<0.001
91731216|NCT02732145|183357785|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8673
91796425|NCT02567552|183471314|OTHER|||||||0.5118|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5118
91796426|NCT02567552|183471315|OTHER|||||||0.8371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8371
91796427|NCT02567552|183471316|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91796428|NCT02567552|183471317|OTHER|||||||0.3107|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3107
91796429|NCT02567552|183471318|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
91699720|NCT03569293|183294275|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|50.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.9|34.4|<0.001
91699721|NCT03569293|183294276|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|61.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||61.3|44.9|<0.001
91699722|NCT03569293|183294276|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.2|36.2|<0.001
91699723|NCT03569293|183294277|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.6|20.0|<0.001
91699724|NCT03569293|183294277|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|19.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.6|10.4|<0.001
91699725|NCT03569293|183294278|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-45.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.549|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.82|-33.15|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-33.15|-58.82|<0.001
91699726|NCT03569293|183294278|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-36.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.66|-23.81|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.81|-49.66|<0.001
91699727|NCT03569293|183294279|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-47.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.716|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.37|-41.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-41.70|-52.37|<0.001
91699728|NCT03569293|183294279|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-39.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.738|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.91|-34.15|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-34.15|-44.91|<0.001
91731217|NCT02732145|183357785|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8673
91904950|NCT03492554|183705171|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial|||H0: agreement proportion of R wave amplitude = 0.8 H1: agreement proportion of R wave amplitude \> 0.8 Under the assumption that the true population agreement proportion of R wave amplitude was 90%, 88 subjects would provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error of 0.05. To account for obtaining readable waveforms, approximately 140 subjects (70 SR; 70 AF) were randomly selected.||||<0.0001
91796430|NCT05032859|183471321|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|H0: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is equal between tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream; H1: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is different between the tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream.||3.32|1.54|<0.0001
91796431|NCT05032859|183471322|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by vIGA-AD score at Baseline (vIGA-AD scores of 3 or 4) and age group (2-6 yrs, 7-11 yrs, 12-17 yrs, 18+ yrs)|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||3.00|1.53|<0.0001
91699729|NCT03569293|183294280|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|58.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|65.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||65.3|51.9|<0.001
91731218|NCT02732145|183357785|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (mean) with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
91731219|NCT02732145|183357785|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Parameter: The difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8472
91731220|NCT02732145|183357787|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for vulvar complaints (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar complaints (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
91731221|NCT02732145|183357787|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for Marinoff Index (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for Marinoff Index (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9629
91731222|NCT02732145|183357787|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9155|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9155
91796432|NCT05032859|183471323|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|-5.02|||ANCOVA|age\*vIGA cohort and treatment as categorical covariates, and baseline %BSA as a continuous covariate||||-5.02|-8.17|<0.0001
91731223|NCT02732145|183357787|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.4913|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.4913
91731224|NCT02732145|183357787|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8866
91731225|NCT02732145|183357787|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
91731226|NCT02732145|183357787|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3335
91796433|NCT05032859|183471324|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.34||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.||Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|3.94|1.39|0.0013
91796434|NCT05032859|183471325|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.17||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||3.50|1.34|0.0015
91868036|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.6|-5.2|
91731227|NCT02732145|183357787|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8666
91731228|NCT02732145|183357787|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8666
91731229|NCT02732145|183357787|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (median) with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
91731230|NCT02732145|183357787|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Parameter: The difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8144
91731231|NCT02732145|183357788|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for vulvar complaints in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.5403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar complaints (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.5403
91731232|NCT02732145|183357788|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for Marinoff Index in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for Marinoff Index (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9248
91731233|NCT02732145|183357788|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9839|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9839
91731234|NCT02732145|183357788|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.5124|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.5124
91731235|NCT02732145|183357788|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.2058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.2058
91731236|NCT02732145|183357788|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.6412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.6412
91731237|NCT02732145|183357788|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9753
91731238|NCT02732145|183357788|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3621|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3621
91731239|NCT02732145|183357788|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8987|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8987
91731240|NCT02732145|183357788|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy)?||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar lesions specific for dermatosis (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy).||||0.0018
91904951|NCT01478360|183705173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.5392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.617|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.285|-0.617|0.5392
91731241|NCT02732145|183357788|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.4409|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Parameter: The difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.4409
91731242|NCT02732145|183357789|OTHER|"Question: Determination of sensitivity of the N-S-P Scheme as a measure of the sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Sensitivity (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"The Sensitivity of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.0000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
91759163|NCT04038567|183411365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|1.25||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.25|-4.41|
91731243|NCT02732145|183357789|OTHER|"Question: Determination of specificity of the N-S-P Scheme as a measure of the specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Specificity (2x2 Table)|0.9609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5794|1.0|||||"The Specificity of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9609 (Range: 0.5794 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.5794|
91731244|NCT02732145|183357789|OTHER|"Question: Determination of diagnostic accuracy of the N-S-P Scheme as a measure of the diagnostic value of the Three Rings Vulvoscopy, in relation to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Diagnostic Accuracy (2x2 Table)|0.9695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6313|1.0|||||"The Diagnostic accuracy of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9695 (Range: 0.6313 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Diagnostic accuracy of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.6313|
91731245|NCT02732145|183357789|OTHER|"Question: Determination of positive predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|PPV (2x2 Table)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|1.0|||||"Positive predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.8780 (Range: 0.2270 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Positive predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.2270|
91731246|NCT02732145|183357789|OTHER|"Question: Determination of negative predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|NPV (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"Negative predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.0000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Negative predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
91731247|NCT02732145|183357789|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the diagnostic accuracy of the N-S-P Scheme as an outcome measure of the diagnostic value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, and histopathology?"||||||0.6108|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the diagnostic accuracy between TRIV using the N-S-P Scheme and histopathology for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||||0.6108
91731248|NCT02732145|183357790|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9286|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9286
91731249|NCT02732145|183357790|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8618|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8618
91731250|NCT02732145|183357790|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9786|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9786
91731251|NCT02732145|183357790|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||1.0000
91731252|NCT02732145|183357790|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8634|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8634
91731253|NCT02732145|183357790|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.7992|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.7992
91731254|NCT02732145|183357790|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.3912|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.3912
91731255|NCT02732145|183357790|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6152|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6152
91731256|NCT02732145|183357790|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6108|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6108
91731257|NCT02732145|183357790|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||1.0000
91731258|NCT02732145|183357790|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.7912|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.7912
91868037|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.4|-4.6|
91699730|NCT03569293|183294280|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|59.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.4|45.2|<0.001
91699731|NCT03569293|183294281|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|60.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.5|45.9|<0.001
91699732|NCT03569293|183294281|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|54.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.4|39.0|<0.001
91699733|NCT03569293|183294282|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-40.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.732|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.75|-35.03|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-35.03|-45.75|<0.001
91699734|NCT03569293|183294282|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-33.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.758|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.44|-27.61|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-27.61|-38.44|<0.001
91699735|NCT03569293|183294283|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|45.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.1|24.8|<0.001
91699736|NCT03569293|183294283|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|41.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.6|21.4|<0.001
91699737|NCT03569293|183294284|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.8|30.8|<0.001
91699738|NCT03569293|183294284|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.1|19.7|<0.001
91699739|NCT03569293|183294285|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|79.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||79.4|53.8|<0.001
91699740|NCT03569293|183294285|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|62.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.6|75.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||75.4|48.6|<0.001
91699741|NCT03569293|183294286|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|70.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.2|44.6|<0.001
91699742|NCT03569293|183294286|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|39.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|52.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||52.6|25.6|<0.001
91699743|NCT03569293|183294287|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|60.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.6|32.6|<0.001
91699744|NCT03569293|183294287|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|53.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.1|24.3|<0.001
91699745|NCT03569293|183294288|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|63.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|75.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||75.9|51.8|<0.001
91699746|NCT03569293|183294288|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|56.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.7|30.9|<0.001
91699747|NCT03569293|183294289|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.7|67.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.8|41.7|<0.001
91699748|NCT03569293|183294289|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|58.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.3|32.0|<0.001
91699749|NCT03569293|183294290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|60.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.2|34.0|<0.001
91699750|NCT03569293|183294290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|48.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.6|23.2|<0.001
91699751|NCT03569293|183294291|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.1|11.0|<0.001
91699752|NCT03569293|183294291|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|16.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||16.4|2.5|0.008
91699753|NCT03569293|183294292|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.9|2.1|0.015
91699754|NCT03569293|183294292|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.5||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|13.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||13.9|-0.9|0.086
91699755|NCT03569293|183294293|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|10.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.4|0.2|0.045
91699756|NCT03569293|183294293|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.5|0.5|0.040
91699757|NCT03569293|183294294|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-11.5|-32.6|<0.001
91699758|NCT03569293|183294294|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-11.5|-32.7|<0.001
91699759|NCT03569293|183294295|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.7|69.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.4|37.7|<0.001
91699760|NCT03569293|183294295|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.4|18.1|<0.001
91699761|NCT03569293|183294296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|71.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||71.1|42.0|<0.001
91699762|NCT03569293|183294296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.1|16.9|<0.001
91699763|NCT03569293|183294297|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|66.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.7|35.1|<0.001
91699764|NCT03569293|183294297|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|52.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||52.6|18.8|<0.001
91868038|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.3|-4.7|
91868039|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.2|-4.8|
91868040|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.2|-4.8|
91868041|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||7.7|-3.1|
91868042|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||8.7|-2.9|
91868043|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.4|-4.5|
91868044|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.4|-4.6|
91868045|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.9|-4.5|
91868046|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.4|-4.5|
91868047|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||8.7|-3.1|
91868048|NCT02307682|183629796|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||7.2|-4.7|
91699765|NCT03569293|183294298|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|71.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||71.3|37.4|<0.001
91699766|NCT03569293|183294298|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|56.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.4|19.8|<0.001
91699767|NCT03569293|183294299|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.3|69.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.1|33.3|<0.001
91699768|NCT03569293|183294299|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|28.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.2|8.0|0.006
91796435|NCT01876810|183471344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results are considered significant at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
91699769|NCT03569293|183294300|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||42.5|19.9|<0.001
91796436|NCT01876810|183471344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
91868049|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.5|-7.7|
91868050|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.8|-8.5|
91868051|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.6|-8.9|
91868052|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.6|-7.7|
91868053|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.4|-8.9|
91868054|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.0|-10.0|
91868055|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||5.5|-6.3|
91868056|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.4|-6.2|
91868057|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.0|-10.4|
91868058|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.8|-9.4|
91868059|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.9|-4.6|
91699770|NCT03569293|183294300|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||24.6|6.9|0.001
91699771|NCT03569293|183294301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.16|-28.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-28.68|-56.16|<0.001
91699772|NCT03569293|183294301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.76|-19.99|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-19.99|-47.76|<0.001
91699773|NCT03569293|183294302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.09|-31.58|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-31.58|-52.09|<0.001
91699774|NCT03569293|183294302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.17|-27.52|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-27.52|-48.17|<0.001
91699775|NCT03569293|183294303|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|69.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.4|40.3|<0.001
91699776|NCT03569293|183294303|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|65.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||65.3|34.8|<0.001
91699777|NCT03569293|183294304|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|69.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.2|21.0|<0.001
91868060|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||5.7|-6.6|
91868061|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||5.7|-6.5|
91904952|NCT00529451|183705212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.25 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.25||||||||-1.25|-3.63|
91868062|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||7.4|-4.9|
91868063|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||7.5|-3.9|
91868064|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||11.5|-1.0|
91699778|NCT03569293|183294304|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|72.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||72.5|26.7|<0.001
91868065|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||3.4|-8.5|
91868066|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.4|-6.0|
91868067|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||6.4|-5.2|
91699779|NCT03569293|183294305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.54|-28.31|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-28.31|-49.54|<0.001
91699780|NCT03569293|183294305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.44|-21.96|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-21.96|-43.44|<0.001
91699781|NCT03569293|183294306|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.7|71.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||71.8|31.7|<0.001
91699782|NCT03569293|183294306|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|62.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||62.8|26.7|<0.001
91699783|NCT03569293|183294307|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|25.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|43.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.0|7.3|0.006
91699784|NCT03569293|183294307|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.8||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|34.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||34.2|-2.6|0.093
91699785|NCT05072106|183294309|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|96.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.09|115.62|||||The reported results are the same as the ones reported in the CSR of the trial.|||115.62|81.09|
91699786|NCT05072106|183294310|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|79.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.78|98.32||||||||98.32|64.78|
91699787|NCT05072106|183294311|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.12|97.82||||||||97.82|64.12|
91699788|NCT05072106|183294312|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|125.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.71|154.36||||||||154.36|101.71|
91699789|NCT05072106|183294313|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|106.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.63|152.8||||||||152.8|74.63|
91699790|NCT05072106|183294314|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|104.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.49|158.44||||||||158.44|69.49|
91699791|NCT05072106|183294315|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|88.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.62|119.19||||||||119.19|65.62|
91699792|NCT05072106|183294316|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.8|119.96||||||||119.96|54.8|
91699793|NCT05072106|183294317|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|80.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.26|118.72||||||||118.72|54.26|
91699794|NCT05072106|183294318|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|123.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.36|182.49||||||||182.49|83.36|
91699795|NCT05072106|183294319|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|120.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.79|224.13||||||||224.13|64.79|
91699796|NCT05072106|183294320|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|120.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.79|224.13||||||||224.13|64.79|
91699797|NCT05072106|183294321|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|188.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.93|266.26||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M1 dose-normalized Cmax.||266.26|132.93|
91699798|NCT05072106|183294322|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|245.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.4|451.65||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M1 dose-normalized AUC0-t.||451.65|133.4|
91699799|NCT05072106|183294323|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|104.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.07|117.05||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M4 dose-normalized Cmax.||117.05|94.07|
91796437|NCT01876810|183471345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91868068|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.0|-7.4|
91868069|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.5|-8.8|
91868070|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.2|-8.4|
91868071|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.3|-9.5|
91699800|NCT05072106|183294324|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|91.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.39|116.04||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M4 dose-normalized AUC0-t.||116.04|71.39|
91868072|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.6|-8.6|
91868073|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.2|-8.8|
91699801|NCT02276053|183294347|OTHER||Retention rate|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.0|93.1|||||"Confidence intervals for the 6-month retention rate were calculated using Greenwood's formula.~Addition of a note: Not all patients had an Observation Period of 6 months."|The retention rate was derived using Kaplan-Meier methodology where patients who completed the study were censored at the date of last administration of LCM in the study.||93.1|79.0|
91699802|NCT02059434|183294359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.149||All statistical comparisons were two-sided hypothesis tests, and the significance level was set at 0.05 without multiplicity adjustment|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to trough FEV1 was analyzed by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for cross-over designs with sequence, treatment group and period as fixed effect factors, subject within sequence as random effect, and screening and baseline FEV1 value of each period as covariates||0.149|0.060|<0.0001
91699803|NCT02059434|183294359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.223||All statistical comparisons were two-sided hypothesis tests, and the significance level was set at 0.05 without multiplicity adjustment|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to trough FEV1 was analyzed by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for cross-over designs with sequence, treatment group and period as fixed effect factors, subject within sequence as random effect, and screening and baseline FEV1 value of each period as covariates||0.223|0.133|<0.0001
91699804|NCT00771264|183294366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Mean values were analyzed for significant change using a 2-sided paired t-test and proportions were analyzed using chi-square methodology.||Mean values were analyzed for significant change using a 2-sided paired t test and proportions were analyzed using chi-square methodology. Median values were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test with p\<0.05 considered statistically significant. A sample size estimate of 214 subjects, 107 per arm, was calculated using a 2-sided Fisher's exact binomial test based on an estimated 60% responder rate in the PTNS group and a 40% in the sham group with a 5% significance level and 80% power.||||0.05
91699805|NCT02928770|183294367|OTHER|||||||0.0559|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparison between baseline and experimental (Nastent) conditions||||||0.0559
91699806|NCT02759055|183294395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.003|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.008|0.998|<0.05
91699807|NCT01424514|183294405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.36||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 1 h in WM 0-60 TSS||0.36|-0.60|
91699808|NCT01424514|183294405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.51||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 24 h in WM 0-60 TSS||0.51|-0.45|
91699809|NCT01424514|183294405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.51||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 1 h in Maximum TSS||0.51|-0.58|
91699810|NCT01424514|183294405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.72||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 24 h in Maximum TSS||0.72|-0.51|
91796438|NCT01876810|183471345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91868074|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||6.1|-6.8|
91904953|NCT00529451|183705213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.25 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.34||||||||0.34|-2.06|
91796439|NCT01876810|183471346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.7||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA on Drug X Cue X Time were used|participants self-reportd VAS craving at the time of neutral cue presentation|||||0.4
91796440|NCT01876810|183471346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA on Drug X Cue X Time were used||||||0.4
91699811|NCT01424514|183294407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.54||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for WM 0-60 TSS||0.54|-0.30|
91699812|NCT01424514|183294407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.57||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Maximum TSS||0.57|-0.39|
91699813|NCT01424514|183294411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.08||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in WM 0-60 sneezing||0.08|-0.14|
91699814|NCT01424514|183294411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in WM 0-60 sneezing||0.09|-0.13|
91699815|NCT01424514|183294411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 24 h in WM 0-60 sneezing||0.11|-0.20|
91699816|NCT01424514|183294411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.14||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in Maximum sneezing||0.14|-0.28|
91699817|NCT01424514|183294411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in Maximum sneezing||0.13|-0.15|
91699818|NCT01424514|183294411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 24 h in Maximum sneezing||0.16|-0.20|
91699819|NCT01424514|183294412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 2 h in AR||0.07|-0.03|
91699820|NCT01424514|183294412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.02||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 2 h in AR||-0.02|-0.13|
91699821|NCT01424514|183294412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 25 h in AR||0.08|-0.04|
91699822|NCT01424514|183294413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14 in AR||0.26|-0.36|
91699823|NCT01424514|183294414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.6||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in WM 0-60 TOSS||0.60|-0.06|
91699824|NCT01424514|183294414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.53||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in WM 0-60 TOSS||0.53|-0.32|
91699825|NCT01424514|183294414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.63||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 24 h in WM 0-60 TOSS||0.63|-0.22|
91699826|NCT01424514|183294414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.68||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in Maximum TOSS||0.68|-0.30|
91699827|NCT01424514|183294414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.86||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in Maximum TOSS||0.86|-0.34|
91699828|NCT01424514|183294414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.73||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 24 h in Maximum TOSS||0.73|-0.15|
91699829|NCT02653170|183294424|SUPERIORITY||difference-in-differences (DID) p-value|0.025||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|PROC MIXED MODEL including main effects of intervention group (UC, SWSCM, SWSCM+VSSP website) and time (7-day and 90-day) plus the interaction term|The DID estimates contrasting the 90-day minus 7-day differences in each group are as follows: SWSCM vs Usual Care = 0.970 (p=0.335), SWSCM+VSSP vs Usual Care = 3.370 (p\<0.001), SWSCM+VSSP vs SWSCM = 2.400 (p=0.016)|Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.025
91699830|NCT02653170|183294425|SUPERIORITY||difference-in-differences (DID) p-value|0.562||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|PROC MIXED MODEL including main effects of intervention group (UC, SWSCM, SWSCM+VSSP website) and time (7-day and 90-day) plus the interaction term|The DID estimates contrasting the 90-day minus 7-day differences in each group are as follows: SWSCM vs Usual Care = -1.064 (p=0.422), SWSCM+VSSP vs Usual Care = 0.258 (p=0.844), SWSCM+VSSP vs SWSCM = 1.322 (p=0.309)|Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.562
91796441|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 4||0.94|0.48|
91796442|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 6B||1.04|0.64|
91796443|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 9V||1.23|0.74|
91904954|NCT00529451|183705214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.25 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.28||||||||-0.28|-2.67|
91868075|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.1|-5.9|
91699831|NCT02653170|183294426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.789
91868076|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.0|-6.6|
91699832|NCT02653170|183294427|SUPERIORITY||difference-in-differences (DID) p-value|0.042||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis||The DID estimates contrasting the 90-day minus 7-day differences in each group are as follows: SWSCM vs Usual Care = -1.651 (p=0.558), SWSCM+VSSP vs Usual Care = 5.023 (p=0.073), SWSCM+VSSP vs SWSCM = 6.674 (p=0.016)|Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.042
91699833|NCT02653170|183294428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.993
91699834|NCT01473394|183294438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.117|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.886|-3.347|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-3.347|-6.886|<0.00001
91699835|NCT01473394|183294439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.622|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.845|-0.399|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.399|-0.845|<0.00001
91699836|NCT01473394|183294440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as the 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.|||17.4|3.0|0.0047
91699837|NCT03875482|183294459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|59.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.4|69.6|||Chi-squared|||The variable was analyzed using the Chi-square test. Both null hypotheses corresponding to the co-primary endpoints must be rejected simultaneously under a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||69.6|48.4|<0.001
91699838|NCT03875482|183294460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|68.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|79.7|||Chi-squared|||The variable was analyzed using the Chi-square test. Both null hypotheses corresponding to the co-primary endpoints must be rejected simultaneously under a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||79.7|57.2|<0.001
91699839|NCT03875482|183294461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|36.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|46.2|||Chi-squared|||The ranked secondary efficacy endpoints at Week 16 were to be tested between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups among the ITT Population in a hierarchical order only if the null hypotheses for both primary endpoints had been rejected.||46.2|26.2|<0.001
91699840|NCT03875482|183294462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|47.2|||Chi-squared|||The ranked secondary efficacy endpoints at Week 16 were to be tested between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups among the ITT Population in a hierarchical order only if the null hypotheses for both primary endpoints and for the first secondary endpoint had been rejected.||47.2|27.1|<0.001
91699841|NCT03875482|183294463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.956|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.936|-26.346|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements||Risankizumab - placebo|"Risankizumab vs placebo at Week 4~Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements (MMRM): The repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including the baseline value and observed measurements at all post-baseline visits. The mixed model included the categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates."||-26.346|-45.936|<0.001
91731259|NCT02732145|183357790|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||1.0000
91759164|NCT04038567|183411365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|2.42||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for hig vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||2.42|-3.26|
91759165|NCT04038567|183411365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.33||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||4.33|-1.35|
91868077|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.4|-5.7|
91868078|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.1|-9.0|
91868079|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 64||5.5|-7.2|
91868080|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.7|-6.6|
91868081|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||8.3|-4.3|
91904955|NCT02303704|183705224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to check the equality of means|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value less than 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|two compare two independent quantitative groups||Null hypothesis was there is no significant difference between the means of two groups||||<0.05
91699842|NCT03875482|183294463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.326|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.501|-49.439|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements||Risankizumab - placebo|"Risankizumab vs placebo at Week 16~Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements (MMRM): The repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including the baseline value and observed measurements at all post-baseline visits. The mixed model included the categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates."||-49.439|-70.501|<0.001
91699843|NCT04777201|183294467|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.54|||Paired t-test||Difference is the result of study eye minus fellow eye.|No formal hypothesis testing was planned for this study. The paired t-tests were for reference purposes and thus not considered formal. The test was 2-sided, with the null hypothesis of no difference in percent change from baseline between the study eye and fellow eye in each patient.||1.54|-1.14|0.7702
91699844|NCT04777201|183294468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.6305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.38|||Paired t-test||Difference is the result of study eye minus fellow eye.|No formal hypothesis testing was planned for this study. The paired t-tests were for reference purposes and thus not considered formal. The test was 2-sided, with the null hypothesis of no difference in percent change from baseline between the study eye and fellow eye in each patient.||1.38|-0.84|0.6305
91699845|NCT00507819|183294478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.73
91699846|NCT00507819|183294479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.37
91699847|NCT00507819|183294480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91699848|NCT00507819|183294481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.04
91699849|NCT02357706|183294498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.537|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"Comparison of AHI/ oxygen desaturation index (ODI) of Device A compared with Device B.~Efficacy is defined as a residual AHI and ODI on each night of the trial. PSG scored AHI and ODI will be collected on both trial nights (excluding the ramp period); and compared using the Paired T test"||||0.537
91699850|NCT02357706|183294498|NON_INFERIORITY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs~The expected difference mu is 0 events/hr The Non-Inferiority Margin delta is 0.75 events/hr (A difference of 1 event per hour is seen as clinically significant. 0.75 has been chosen to ensure any AHI change is seen)."|Mean Difference (Net)|1.24||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91699851|NCT02357706|183294499|NON_INFERIORITY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs~The expected difference mu is 0 events/hr The Non-Inferiority Margin delta is 0.75 events/hr (A difference of 1 event per hour is seen as clinically significant. 0.75 has been chosen to ensure any AHI change is seen)."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.69||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.205
91699852|NCT02357706|183294499|NON_INFERIORITY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs~The expected difference mu is 0 events/hr The Non-Inferiority Margin delta is 0.75 events/hr (A difference of 1 event per hour is seen as clinically significant. 0.75 has been chosen to ensure any AHI change is seen)."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.69||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.134
91699853|NCT02275780|183294522|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine is concluded to be non-inferior to darunavir + ritonavir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|3.913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|9.415|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||9.415|-1.590|
91699854|NCT02275780|183294523|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine is concluded to be non-inferior to darunavir + ritonavir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|7.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|13.656|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||13.656|0.508|
91868082|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.1|-6.3|
91868083|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.6|-7.2|
91868084|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.3|-8.5|
91868085|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|10.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||10.2|-2.4|
91868086|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||7.8|-5.1|
91868087|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||9.6|-2.5|
91796444|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 14||1.01|0.45|
91796445|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.31|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 18C||1.31|0.70|
91796446|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.77|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 19F||0.77|0.40|
91796447|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.05|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 23F||1.05|0.64|
91868088|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||9.0|-3.5|
91868089|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||9.0|-3.0|
91868090|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||6.4|-5.8|
91868091|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.5|-6.6|
91868092|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.1|-6.0|
91699855|NCT02275780|183294524|OTHER||Mean treatment difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|35.0|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||35.0|-20.8|
91699856|NCT02275780|183294525|OTHER||Mean treatment difference|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|49.3|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||49.3|-14.5|
91699857|NCT02275780|183294526|OTHER||Treatment Difference (mg/dL)|-14.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|-11.06|||ANCOVA|Terms for Baseline lipid level and treatment group||||-11.06|-18.15|<0.0001
91699858|NCT02275780|183294527|OTHER||Treatment Difference (mg/dL)|-19.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|-15.35|||ANCOVA|Terms for Baseline lipid level and treatment group||||-15.35|-23.33|<0.0001
91699859|NCT02275780|183294536|OTHER||Treatment Difference|4.169|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.404|9.743|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||9.743|-1.404|
91699860|NCT02275780|183294537|OTHER||Treatment Difference|7.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|14.232|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||14.232|0.980|
91699861|NCT03960866|183294538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
91699862|NCT03369067|183294542|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
91699863|NCT03369067|183294542|OTHER|||||||0.089||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.089
91904956|NCT02303704|183705225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to check the equality of means between the two groups|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91868093|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||9.5|-2.8|
91868094|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.0|-4.3|
91868095|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||7.8|-4.7|
91868096|NCT02307682|183629797|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||9.0|-3.8|
91868097|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||8.4|-24.2|
91731260|NCT02732145|183357791|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.253|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.2530
91868098|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||-1.1|-31.9|
91868099|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||3.0|-30.4|
91868100|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||-2.9|-35.0|
91731261|NCT02732145|183357791|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8338|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8338
91731262|NCT02732145|183357791|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.0019|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.0019
91868101|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-3.1|-36.3|
91868102|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-8.3|-40.7|
91868103|NCT02307682|183629798|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-1.7||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||-1.7|-38.0|0.0159
91904957|NCT02303704|183705226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to check the equality of means|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|To compare the means between the two groups, to find out the significant difference between Group I and II.||Null Hypothesis: The dose of nor-adrenaline on weaning from CPB is same for Group I and II.||||<0.05
91868104|NCT02307682|183629798|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-10.5||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||-10.5|-45.1|0.0008
91868105|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|22.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||22.3|-11.8|
91868106|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|20.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||20.5|-14.1|
91868107|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||-7.2|-44.3|
91868108|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-11.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||-11.6|-47.5|
91868109|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||5.9|-29.2|
91868110|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||5.5|-29.8|
91868111|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||-0.7|-39.6|
91868112|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||-4.2|-42.1|
91868113|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||0.7|-35.5|
91868114|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|-1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||-1.7|-37.6|
91868115|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|-8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||-8.0|-46.6|
91731263|NCT02732145|183357791|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6541|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6541
91731264|NCT02732145|183357791|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8224|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8224
91731265|NCT02732145|183357791|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.0064|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.0064
91796448|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.8|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 4||2.80|1.39|
91868116|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|-10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||-10.9|-48.2|
91868117|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||8.9|-27.5|
91868118|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||7.5|-30.3|
91868119|NCT02307682|183629798|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-4.6||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-4.6|-43.1|0.0075
91868120|NCT02307682|183629798|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.47||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-10.4||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-10.4|-47.6|0.0012
91868121|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||2.4|-33.6|
91731266|NCT02732145|183357791|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9723|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9723
91731267|NCT02732145|183357791|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8161|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8161
91868122|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||3.3|-33.4|
91699864|NCT03369067|183294542|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.024
91699865|NCT03369067|183294543|OTHER|||||||0.095||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.095
91699866|NCT03369067|183294543|OTHER|||||||0.104||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.104
91699867|NCT03369067|183294543|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
91699868|NCT03369067|183294544|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91699869|NCT03369067|183294544|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699870|NCT03369067|183294544|OTHER|||||||0.065||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.065
91699871|NCT03369067|183294545|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699872|NCT03369067|183294545|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699873|NCT03369067|183294545|OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.063
91699874|NCT03369067|183294546|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699875|NCT03369067|183294546|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91731268|NCT02732145|183357791|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.1165|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.1165
91699876|NCT03369067|183294546|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699877|NCT03369067|183294547|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699878|NCT03369067|183294547|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699879|NCT03369067|183294547|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699880|NCT03369067|183294548|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699881|NCT03369067|183294548|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91904958|NCT02303704|183705227|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to chek the equality of means between the two groups|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91699882|NCT03369067|183294548|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91904959|NCT02303704|183705228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||p- value less than 0.05 was considered as significant difference in proportion between the two groups|Chi-squared|two compare the qualitative data between two groups||Null Hypothesis:The proportion of IABP use is same between the two groups||||<0.05
91699883|NCT03369067|183294549|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91731269|NCT02732145|183357791|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6339|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6339
91731270|NCT02732145|183357791|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9724|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9724
91731271|NCT02732145|183357791|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.0016|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.0016
91731272|NCT02732145|183357792|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the age of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||Parameter: The difference in the age of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731273|NCT02732145|183357793|EQUIVALENCE|Is there a difference in the weight of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||The difference in the weight of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731274|NCT02732145|183357794|EQUIVALENCE|Is there a difference in the height of patients from different groups.||||||0.0557|||||||ANOVA|||The difference in the height of patients from different groups.||||0.0557
91904960|NCT02303704|183705229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value \<0.05 was considered to be significant i.e. operative mortality is not same between the two groups|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test was used because 1 cell (25%) have expected count less than 5.||Null Hypothesis: Operative mortality ratio is same in both groups||||<0.05
91699884|NCT03369067|183294549|OTHER|||||||0.062||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.062
91699885|NCT03369067|183294549|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91731275|NCT02732145|183357795|EQUIVALENCE|Is there a difference in the body mass index of patients from different groups.||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||The difference in the body mass index of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731276|NCT02732145|183357796|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of patients older than 65 years in different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of patients older than 65 years between different groups.||||0.0000
91731277|NCT02732145|183357796|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of menopausal patients among different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of menopausal patients among different groups.||||0.0000
91731278|NCT02732145|183357796|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of domicile country (Croatia) as a country of birth among patients from different groups.||||||0.3708|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of domicile country (Croatia) as a country of birth among patients from different groups.||||0.3708
91731279|NCT02732145|183357796|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of patients educated equally or less than 12 years among different groups?||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of patients educated equally or less than 12 years among different groups.||||0.0180
91731280|NCT02732145|183357796|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in marital status among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of marital status among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731281|NCT02732145|183357796|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the nulliparity among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the nulliparity among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731282|NCT02732145|183357796|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the multiparity among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the multiparity among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91699886|NCT03369067|183294550|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.015
91699887|NCT03369067|183294550|OTHER|||||||0.199||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.199
91731283|NCT02732145|183357796|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the number of abortions among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the number of abortions among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731284|NCT02732145|183357796|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the using of contraception among patients from different groups?||||||0.1323|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the using of contraception among patients from different groups.||||0.1323
91759166|NCT04038567|183411370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.78||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.78|-0.62|
91699888|NCT03369067|183294550|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.025
91731285|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.3158|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain of the vulva (burning, stinging, soreness, irritation, itching, inflammation, aching) among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.3158
91731286|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp pain of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp pain in the vulva (stabbing, sticking, knife-like pain, paper-cuts pain) among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0007
91731287|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731288|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
91731289|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar burning among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0147|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar burning among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0147
91731290|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.8456|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.8456
91731291|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0076|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0076
91796449|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|3.84|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 6B||3.84|2.41|
91731292|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of irritation of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0423|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of irritation of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0423
91731293|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the knife-like pain in the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0457|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the knife-like pain in the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0457
91731294|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the paper-cuts pain of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the paper-cuts pain of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0430
91731295|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the stabbing of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0134|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the stabbing of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0134
91731296|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sticking of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0581|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of sticking of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0581
91731297|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of itching of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of itching of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0002
91731298|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the feeling of inflammation of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?|t-test proportion|0.0||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the feeling of inflammation of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0852
91731299|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aching of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aching of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0001
91731300|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the association of different symptoms of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of association of different vulvar symptoms among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0000
91731301|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91796450|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 9V||1.62|0.98|
91699889|NCT03369067|183294551|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.059
91699890|NCT03369067|183294551|OTHER|||||||0.064||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.064
91731302|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus stinging in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus stinging in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0008
91699891|NCT03369067|183294551|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
91731303|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731304|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91699892|NCT03369067|183294552|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
91699893|NCT03369067|183294552|OTHER|||||||0.074||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.074
91699894|NCT03369067|183294552|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
91699895|NCT03369067|183294553|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.023
91699896|NCT03369067|183294553|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699897|NCT03369067|183294553|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.016
91699898|NCT03369067|183294554|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699899|NCT03369067|183294554|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699900|NCT03369067|183294554|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699901|NCT03369067|183294555|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699902|NCT03369067|183294555|OTHER|||||||0.081||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.081
91699903|NCT03369067|183294555|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699904|NCT03369067|183294556|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699905|NCT03369067|183294556|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91759167|NCT04038567|183411370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.92||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.92|-0.47|
91699906|NCT03369067|183294556|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699907|NCT03369067|183294557|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699908|NCT03369067|183294557|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699909|NCT03369067|183294557|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699910|NCT03369067|183294558|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699911|NCT03369067|183294558|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699912|NCT03369067|183294558|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699913|NCT03369067|183294559|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699914|NCT03369067|183294559|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699915|NCT03369067|183294559|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699916|NCT03369067|183294560|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699917|NCT03369067|183294560|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699918|NCT03369067|183294560|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699919|NCT03369067|183294561|OTHER|||||||0.124||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.124
91699920|NCT03369067|183294561|OTHER|||||||0.187||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.187
91699921|NCT03369067|183294561|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.040
91699922|NCT03369067|183294562|OTHER|||||||0.108||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.108
91699923|NCT03369067|183294562|OTHER|||||||0.053||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.053
91699924|NCT03369067|183294562|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
91796451|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|6.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|9.79|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 14||9.79|4.53|
91699925|NCT03369067|183294563|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.080
91699926|NCT03369067|183294563|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.038
91699927|NCT03369067|183294563|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.016
91699928|NCT03369067|183294564|OTHER|||||||0.111||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.111
91699929|NCT03369067|183294564|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.130
91699930|NCT03369067|183294564|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
91699931|NCT03369067|183294565|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699932|NCT03369067|183294565|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699933|NCT03369067|183294565|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699934|NCT03369067|183294566|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699935|NCT03369067|183294566|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.044
91699936|NCT03369067|183294566|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91868123|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||-1.1|-38.9|
91868124|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||-0.7|-39.4|
91868125|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||-0.5|-37.0|
91731305|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||There was a statistically significant difference at p\<0.001. Patients with vulvar dermatosis had significantly more often itching than the feeling of inflammation of the vulva.|t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731306|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731307|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731308|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731309|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731310|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731311|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731312|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8591|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8591
91796452|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.24|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 18C||3.24|1.68|
91731313|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.009|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0090
91731314|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0212|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0212
91731315|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0057|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0057
91731316|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.0977|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0977
91699937|NCT03369067|183294567|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699938|NCT03369067|183294567|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699939|NCT03369067|183294567|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699940|NCT03369067|183294568|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699941|NCT03369067|183294568|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699942|NCT03369067|183294568|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699943|NCT03369067|183294569|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699944|NCT03369067|183294569|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699945|NCT03369067|183294569|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91796453|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|4.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|6.07|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 19F||6.07|3.29|
91699946|NCT03369067|183294570|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699947|NCT03369067|183294570|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.141
91699948|NCT03369067|183294570|OTHER|||||||0.149||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
91699949|NCT03369067|183294571|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699950|NCT03369067|183294571|OTHER|||||||0.094||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.094
91699951|NCT03369067|183294571|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699952|NCT03369067|183294572|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91699953|NCT03369067|183294572|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699954|NCT03369067|183294572|OTHER|||||||0.033||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.033
91699955|NCT03369067|183294573|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91699956|NCT03369067|183294573|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699957|NCT03369067|183294573|OTHER|||||||0.111||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.111
91699958|NCT03369067|183294574|OTHER|||||||0.118||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.118
91699959|NCT03369067|183294574|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699960|NCT03369067|183294574|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699961|NCT03369067|183294575|OTHER|||||||0.116||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.116
91699962|NCT03369067|183294575|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699963|NCT03369067|183294575|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699964|NCT03369067|183294576|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
91699965|NCT03369067|183294576|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699966|NCT03369067|183294576|OTHER|||||||0.193||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.193
91699967|NCT03369067|183294577|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699968|NCT03369067|183294577|OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.106
91699969|NCT03369067|183294577|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699970|NCT03369067|183294578|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699971|NCT03369067|183294578|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699972|NCT03369067|183294578|OTHER|||||||0.157||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.157
91699973|NCT03369067|183294579|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699974|NCT03369067|183294579|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699975|NCT03369067|183294579|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699976|NCT03369067|183294580|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699977|NCT03369067|183294580|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699978|NCT03369067|183294580|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699979|NCT03369067|183294581|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699980|NCT03369067|183294581|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699981|NCT03369067|183294581|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699982|NCT03369067|183294582|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91796454|NCT01298544|183471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.63|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 23F||2.63|1.65|
91699983|NCT03369067|183294582|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699984|NCT03369067|183294582|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699985|NCT03369067|183294583|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699986|NCT03369067|183294583|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699987|NCT03369067|183294583|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91699988|NCT03369067|183294584|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699989|NCT03369067|183294584|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699990|NCT03369067|183294584|OTHER|||||||0.073||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.073
91699991|NCT03369067|183294585|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699992|NCT03369067|183294585|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699993|NCT03369067|183294585|OTHER|||||||0.064||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.064
91699994|NCT03369067|183294586|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699995|NCT03369067|183294586|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699996|NCT03369067|183294586|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699997|NCT03369067|183294587|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91796455|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-7.3|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||-7.3|-29.4|
91796456|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||3.0|-3.1|
91731317|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.0143|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0143
91868126|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||6.1|-31.4|
91868127|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-7.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||-7.6|-46.7|
91699998|NCT03369067|183294587|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91699999|NCT03369067|183294587|OTHER|||||||0.104||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.104
91700000|NCT03369067|183294588|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91700001|NCT03369067|183294588|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91700002|NCT03369067|183294588|OTHER|||||||0.198||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.198
91700003|NCT03369067|183294589|OTHER|||||||0.105||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.105
91700004|NCT03369067|183294589|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91731318|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.2059|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.2059
91868128|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||-3.4|-41.6|
91700005|NCT03369067|183294589|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91700006|NCT03369067|183294590|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91700007|NCT03369067|183294590|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91700008|NCT03369067|183294590|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91700009|NCT05129475|183294604|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.3|133.74|||||Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|||133.74|109.30|
91700010|NCT05129475|183294605|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|119.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.75|131.68|||||Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|||131.68|108.75|
91700011|NCT05129475|183294606|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|161.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.05|186.44|||||Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|||186.44|139.05|
91700012|NCT01899742|183294615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.131|0.045|<0.001
91700013|NCT01899742|183294616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.122|0.024|0.004
91700014|NCT00135798|183294617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0477||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||ITT analysis of pTVR: 0/13 Standard care vs. 11/46 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.0477
91700015|NCT00135798|183294617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||ITT analysis of LADR-treated: 5/24 Genotypes 1,4,6 vs 6/22 Genotypes 2,3||||0.6090
91700016|NCT00135798|183294618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2014||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||ITT analysis of CVR: 1/16 Standard care vs. 12/63 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.2014
91868129|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||3.9|-33.8|
91868130|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||6.2|-32.6|
91731319|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.682|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.6820
91731320|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.2059|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.2059
91731321|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
91731322|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0344|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0344
91731323|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0023|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0023
91731324|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus itching in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.5675|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus itching in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.5675
91731325|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0037|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0037
91796457|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.3|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||7.3|-5.9|
91796458|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.1|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||3.1|-10.3|
91731326|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0005|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0005
91796459|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-1.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||-1.0|-22.7|
91731327|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
91731328|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.1201|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.1201
91731329|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0123|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0123
91731330|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0188|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0188
91731331|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.003|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0030
91731332|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.2155|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.2155
91731333|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.1508|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.1508
91731334|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6364|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6364
91796460|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.6|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||0.6|-7.1|
91796461|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.3|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||2.3|-4.5|
91796462|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|37.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||37.0|12.7|
91796463|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|7.715|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||7.715|-0.011|
91796464|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.6|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||19.6|1.9|
91868131|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.3|-10.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||-10.5|-49.3|
91868132|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||-6.8|-46.0|
91700017|NCT00135798|183294618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9513||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||ITT analysis of LADR-treated: 6/31 Genotypes 1,4,6 vs 6/32 Genotypes 2,3||||0.9513
91700018|NCT00135798|183294619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0274||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||PP analysis of pTVR: 0/13 Standard care vs. 11/44 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.0274
91700019|NCT00135798|183294619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||PP analysis of LADR-treated: 5/23 G1,4,6 vs 6/21 G2,3||||0.6011
91700020|NCT00135798|183294620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||PP analysis of CVR: 0/20 Standard care vs. 13/59 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.0153
91700021|NCT00135798|183294620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8065||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||PP analysis of LADR-treated: 7/30 G1,4,6 vs 6/29 G2,3||||0.8065
91700022|NCT01663779|183294724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.0|||Chi-squared|||||7|3|<0.01
91700023|NCT05845567|183294733|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|139.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.73|149.86||||||||149.86|129.73|
91796465|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|40.5|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||40.5|19.4|
91796466|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|41.5|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||41.5|17.9|
91868133|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||-0.4|-38.2|
91700024|NCT05845567|183294734|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|117.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.24|124.0||||||||124.00|112.24|
91700025|NCT05845567|183294735|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|117.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.13|123.92||||||||123.92|112.13|
91868134|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||3.7|-35.0|
91868135|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||-4.5|-45.0|
91700026|NCT01869699|183294768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||We estimated that 20 patients per group would provide 80% power for detecting a difference in means of 0.6 degrees Celsius, with a pooled SD of 0.67 degrees, using a two group t test and a two sided alpha level of 0.05. A previous RCT of IV acetaminophen in healthy male volunteers with induced fever found a core temperature difference of 0.60 degrees with a common SD of 0.67 degrees Celsius.||-0.18|-0.76|0.002
91700027|NCT01869699|183294769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1|-10|0.03
91700028|NCT01869699|183294770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-8.0|||ANCOVA|||||-8|-25|<0.001
91700029|NCT01869699|183294771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12|-4|0.42
91700030|NCT01869699|183294772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1|0.002
91700031|NCT01869699|183294773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-10.0|||ANCOVA|||||-10|-38|0.001
91700032|NCT01869699|183294774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1|-15|0.02
91700033|NCT01041976|183294846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91700034|NCT01041976|183294847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91700035|NCT01252563|183294872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91700036|NCT01252563|183294872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91796467|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.9|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||13.9|1.2|
91796468|NCT01298544|183471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||13.0|1.8|
91796469|NCT02160782|183471425|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group least squares (LS) means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in sBA levels between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-117.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.828||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.38|-2.18|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in fasting sBA levels was evaluated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 sBA as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the MITT population, which included all participants who were enrolled, received study drug through Week 18, and had a reduction from baseline in sBA of ≥50% at the Week 12 or Week 18 measurement.||-2.18|-232.38|0.0464
91796470|NCT02160782|183471426|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-87.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|119.979||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.37|-42.09||Data for this analysis were obtained from 31 participants at baseline; 29 of those participants contributed Week 18 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in sBA levels was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population.||-42.09|-133.37|0.0005
91700037|NCT01252563|183294872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91700038|NCT01252563|183294872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91700039|NCT01252563|183294873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91700040|NCT01252563|183294873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91700041|NCT01252563|183294873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91700042|NCT01252563|183294873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91700043|NCT01252563|183294876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with complication(s) and participants without complication in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
91700044|NCT01252563|183294877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between male and female in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
91700045|NCT01252563|183294878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was angina pectoris as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with angina pectoris and participants without angina pectoris in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.036
91700046|NCT01252563|183294879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was dyslipidaemia as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with dyslipidaemia and participants without dyslipidaemia in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.020
91700047|NCT01252563|183294880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was antihypertensive as a concomitant drug. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants receiving antihypertensive and participants receiving no antihypertensive in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.049
91700048|NCT01252563|183294881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was ARB as a concomitant drug. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants receiving ARB and participants receiving no ARB in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.043
91700049|NCT01252563|183294882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was diabetes mellitus as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with diabetes mellitus and participants without diabetes mellitus in the efficacy."||||<0.001
91700050|NCT01252563|183294883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was chronic kidney disease as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with chronic kidney disease and participants without chronic kidney disease in the efficacy."||||<0.001
91700051|NCT01252563|183294884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was myocardial infarction as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with myocardial infarction and participants without myocardial infarction in the efficacy."||||0.039
91700052|NCT01252563|183294885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was metabolic syndrome as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with metabolic syndrome and participants without metabolic syndrome in the efficacy."||||<0.001
91700053|NCT01252563|183294886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was ambulatory SBP at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between ambulatory SBP at baseline and the number of participants who achieved the target blood pressure specified in the guidelines."||||<0.001
91700054|NCT01252563|183294888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91700055|NCT01252563|183294888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91796471|NCT02160782|183471427|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ItchRO(Obs) scores between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.704|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9114|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.051|-1.357|||Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Obs) score was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population. ItchRO scores range from 0 to 4; the higher score indicates increasing itch severity.||-1.357|-2.051|< 0.0001
91904961|NCT01034540|183705230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.959||||||Values were not normally distributed, thus analyses were performed on ranked values and medians (IQL) are presented.|ANOVA|All tests of statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed (p\<0.05).||An evaluable sample of 19 subjects provided 80% power (5% alpha-level, 2-tailed) to detect a 2.1 unit difference between control and active in MISI, assuming a 3.0 unit standard deviation (SD). Repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess responses to treatment. Initial repeated measures models contained terms of treatment period, and sequence as fixed effects, with subject modeled as random effect; models were reduced until only significant terms or treatment remained.||||0.959
91731335|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.5277|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.5277
91731336|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.2041|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.2041
91731337|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.0412|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0412
91731338|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.7978|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.7978
91731339|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.3094|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.3094
91731340|NCT02732145|183357797|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.073|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0730
91731341|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 24 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.4038|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 24 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis or vulvodynia.||||0.4038
91731342|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 12 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.7299|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 12 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis or vulvodynia.||||0.7299
91904962|NCT01034540|183705231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|All tests of statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed (p\<0.05).||||||0.037
91731343|NCT02732145|183357797|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than six months among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.7241|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than six months among patients with vulvar dermatosis or vulvodynia.||||0.7241
91731344|NCT02732145|183357798|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the sexual activity among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the sexual activity among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731345|NCT02732145|183357798|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of dyspareunia as a cause of sexual inactivity among patients from different groups?||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of dyspareunia as a cause of sexual inactivity among patients from different groups.||||0.0006
91731346|NCT02732145|183357798|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of sexual inactivity due to dyspareunia and lack of a sexual partner among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of sexual inactivity due to dyspareunia and lack of a sexual partner among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731347|NCT02732145|183357799|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of dyspareunia among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of dyspareunia among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731348|NCT02732145|183357799|EQUIVALENCE|Parameter: The difference in the degree of dyspareunia (Marinoff Index) among sexually active patients with vulvodynia or vulvar dermatosis who had dyspareunia.||||||0.2999|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the degree of dyspareunia (Marinoff Index) among sexually active patients with vulvodynia or vulvar dermatosis who had dyspareunia.||||0.2999
91731349|NCT02732145|183357800|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731350|NCT02732145|183357800|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the penetration in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0347|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the penetration in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0347
91700056|NCT01252563|183294888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91731351|NCT02732145|183357800|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated through sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7068|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated through sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7068
91700057|NCT01252563|183294888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91700058|NCT01252563|183294889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
91700059|NCT01252563|183294889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
91700060|NCT01252563|183294889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
91700061|NCT01252563|183294889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
91700062|NCT03036098|183294976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified weighted log-rank test||||0.97|0.64|0.0032
91700063|NCT03036098|183294983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.88|||Log Rank|Stratified weighted log-rank test||||0.88|0.59|0.0018
91700064|NCT03036098|183294984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96|||Log Rank|Stratified weighted log-rank test||||0.96|0.63|0.0171
91700065|NCT01632904|183295007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.04|||Chi-squared|||||4.04|0.82|0.139
91700066|NCT04769466|183295015|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-Test||||0.020
91700067|NCT04769466|183295016|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-Test||||0.223
91700068|NCT04769466|183295017|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test||||0.036
91700069|NCT04769466|183295018|OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.131
91700070|NCT04769466|183295019|OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.351
91700071|NCT04769466|183295020|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
91731352|NCT02732145|183357800|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated after sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0025|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated after sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0025
91731353|NCT02732145|183357801|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of use of vaginal tampon among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of use of vaginal tampon among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91700072|NCT04769466|183295021|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-Test||||0.400
91700073|NCT04769466|183295023|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91700074|NCT04769466|183295025|OTHER|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.459
91700075|NCT04769466|183295026|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.033
91700076|NCT04769466|183295027|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.103
91700077|NCT04769466|183295028|OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.494
91700078|NCT04769466|183295029|OTHER|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.214
91700079|NCT04769466|183295030|OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.199
91700080|NCT04769466|183295033|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91700081|NCT04769466|183295034|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91700082|NCT04542499|183295039|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.653||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||1.653|0.553|<0.0001
91700083|NCT04542499|183295040|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.475|-0.41||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-0.410|-1.475|0.0006
91700084|NCT04542499|183295041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.139||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 2||0.139|-0.600|0.2216
91700085|NCT04542499|183295041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.515||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 5||0.515|-0.316|0.6379
91700086|NCT04542499|183295041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.042||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||1.042|0.122|0.0132
91700087|NCT04542499|183295041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.821||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 11||0.821|-0.106|0.1299
91796472|NCT02160782|183471428|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ItchRO(Pt) scores between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.072|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9931|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.645|-1.498|||Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Pt) score was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population. ItchRO scores range from 0 to 4; the higher score indicates increasing itch severity.||-1.498|-2.645|< 0.0001
91700088|NCT04542499|183295041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.698|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|1.202||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 14||1.202|0.194|0.0068
91700089|NCT04542499|183295041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.469||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 18||1.469|0.469|0.0002
91700090|NCT04542499|183295041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|1.389||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 22||1.389|0.369|0.0008
91700091|NCT04542499|183295041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.653||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||1.653|0.553|<0.0001
91700092|NCT04542499|183295042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.461||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 2||0.461|-0.245|0.5471
91700093|NCT04542499|183295042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.166||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 5||0.166|-0.640|0.2488
91700094|NCT04542499|183295042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.252|-0.384||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||-0.384|-1.252|0.0002
91700095|NCT04542499|183295042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|-0.307||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 11||-0.307|-1.199|0.0010
91700096|NCT04542499|183295042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.403|-0.405||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 14||-0.405|-1.403|0.0004
91700097|NCT04542499|183295042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.528|-0.52||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 18||-0.520|-1.528|<0.0001
91700098|NCT04542499|183295042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.493|-0.465||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 22||-0.465|-1.493|0.0002
91700099|NCT04542499|183295042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.475|-0.41||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.410|-1.475|0.0006
91700100|NCT04542499|183295043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I||1.2|-0.4|0.3265
91700101|NCT04542499|183295043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II||-0.2|-2.2|0.0203
91700102|NCT04542499|183295043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III||-0.5|-4.3|0.0118
91904963|NCT01034540|183705231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||||||All tests of statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed (p\<0.05).|ANOVA|||||||0.073
91868136|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||-3.4|-43.9|
91868137|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||-0.5|-38.4|
91868138|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||8.0|-31.5|
91700103|NCT04281784|183295085|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0421||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0047|0.0777||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Occurrence of discussion regressed on randomization condition, adjusted for ADRD status, hospital, and time between study start \& randomization date.|Robust standard error|Usual care = reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||0.0777|0.0047|0.027
91700104|NCT04281784|183295087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.404|||Regression, Linear|Outcome (days alive and out of ICU) regressed on Arm/Group (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for hospital and ADRD status|Robust (HC3) standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.404|-0.560|0.750
91700105|NCT04281784|183295088|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.338|||Regression, Linear|Outcome (days alive and out of hospital) regressed on Arm/Group (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for hospital and ADRD status|Robust (HC3) standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.338|-1.060|0.312
91700106|NCT04281784|183295089|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.043||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Readmission (0, 1) regressed on randomization condition (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for ADRD status, and hospital site.|Robust standard error|Usual care = reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||0.043|-0.020|0.475
91700107|NCT04281784|183295090|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.009||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.025||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|ICU care (0,1) regressed on randomization condition (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for ADRD status, and hospital site.|Robust standard error|Usual care = reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||0.025|-0.043|0.610
91700108|NCT04281784|183295091|SUPERIORITY|Higher cost indicates worse outcome. Missing if cost data unavailable from Finance Office.|Slope|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.135|||other type of regression|Generalized linear model (gamma family, log link); Outcome on study arm (0=control, 1=intervention) adjusted for hospital and ADRD status, robust SEs.|Robust standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.135|-0.092|0.710
91700109|NCT04281784|183295092|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.899||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.275|2.249||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Died within 30 days after randomization regressed on randomization condition (0=usual care, 1=intervention) adjusted for hospital and ADRD status|Robust standard error|Usual care=reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||2.249|-1.275|0.588
91700110|NCT04281784|183295093|SUPERIORITY|Higher cost indicates worse outcome. Missing if cost data unavailable from Finance Office.|Slope|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.107|||other type of regression|Generalized linear model (gamma family, log link); Outcome on study arm (0=control, 1=intervention) adjusted for hospital and ADRD status, robust SEs.|Robust standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.107|-0.162|0.685
91700111|NCT04488497|183295105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91700112|NCT04488497|183295106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91700113|NCT04488497|183295107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
91700114|NCT04488497|183295108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91700115|NCT04488497|183295109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
91700116|NCT04488497|183295110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91700117|NCT04488497|183295111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
91700118|NCT04322539|183295112|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.662|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.8||Raw unadjusted p-value was obtained by using a stratified log-rank test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||The HR between 2 treatment groups (fruquintinib vs placebo), together with its 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI), was calculated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||0.800|0.549|< .001
91868139|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|-7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||-7.4|-47.3|
91700119|NCT04322539|183295113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.321|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|0.386||Raw unadjusted p-value was obtained by using a stratified log-rank test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||The HR between the 2 treatment groups (fruquintinib vs placebo), together with its 95% CI, was calculated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||0.386|0.267|< .001
91700120|NCT04322539|183295114|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|1.5||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7||p-value was calculated from a stratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference and its 95% CI were calculated using the Wald method from Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test to account for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||2.7|0.4|.059
91731354|NCT02732145|183357801|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the use of vaginal tampon in symptomatic patients, who use vaginal tampons?||||||0.6552|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the use of vaginal tampon in symptomatic patients, who use vaginal tampons.||||0.6552
91731355|NCT02732145|183357801|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of cycling among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of cycling among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0002
91731356|NCT02732145|183357801|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the cycling in symptomatic patients, who ride a bicycle?||||||0.2877|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the cycling in symptomatic patients, who ride a bicycle.||||0.2877
91700121|NCT04322539|183295115|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|46.0||p-value was calculated from a stratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference and its 95% CI were calculated using the Wald method from Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test to account for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||46.0|32.8|<.001
91700122|NCT04322539|183295121|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wald test|||CminSS Based on the Starting Dose for OS Exposure-Response Analyses||||0.0600
91700123|NCT04322539|183295121|OTHER|||||||0.8065|||||||Wald test|||CminSS Based on the Adjusted RDI for OS Exposure-Response Analyses||||0.8065
91700124|NCT04322539|183295122|OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr Dermatological toxicity for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.265
91700125|NCT04322539|183295122|OTHER|||||||0.0159|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr3+ Dermatological Toxicity for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.0159
91700126|NCT04322539|183295122|OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr Proteinuria for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.484
91700127|NCT04322539|183295122|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr3+ Proteinuria for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.642
91700128|NCT04322539|183295122|OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr Hemorrhage for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.166
91700129|NCT02111746|183295128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.934
91700130|NCT02111746|183295129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
91700131|NCT02111746|183295130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91700132|NCT02111746|183295131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.512
91700133|NCT02111746|183295132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.449
91700134|NCT02111746|183295133|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91700135|NCT02111746|183295134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.774
91700136|NCT02111746|183295135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
91700137|NCT02111746|183295136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.202
91700138|NCT01702532|183295154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.9||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-0.99||The comparison between treatments was conducted in a hierarchical order; consequently no adjustment of the significance level (5%) for multiplicity was needed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model contains pre-provocation baseline, pre-dosing post-provocation craving score, and the terms treatment groups and center as fixed|Comment: The confidence interval is for the difference between treatments groups|Null hypotheses considered change in craving score means from pre-dose post-provocation at 50 seconds to be equal for the two treatment groups.||-0.99|-8.80|0.0141
91700139|NCT03617861|183295156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.12
91700140|NCT03617861|183295156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.65
91700141|NCT03617861|183295156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0574
91700142|NCT03617861|183295157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.85
91700143|NCT03617861|183295157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.82
91700144|NCT03617861|183295157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1451|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.1451
91700145|NCT03617861|183295158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.85
91700146|NCT03617861|183295158|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||1.0
91700147|NCT03617861|183295158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4233|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.4233
91700148|NCT03617861|183295159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.92
91700149|NCT03617861|183295159|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||1.0
91700150|NCT03617861|183295159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3891|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.3891
91700151|NCT03617861|183295160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Secretin vs Healthy Placebo||||0.004
91700152|NCT03617861|183295160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.03
91700153|NCT03617861|183295160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0355|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0355
91700154|NCT03617861|183295161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nausea: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.5
91700155|NCT03617861|183295161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nausea: Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.16
91700156|NCT03617861|183295161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANCOVA|||Nausea: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0016
91700157|NCT03617861|183295161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fullness: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.10
91700158|NCT03617861|183295161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fullness: Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.30
91700159|NCT03617861|183295161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||Fullness: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0002
91700160|NCT03617861|183295161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bloating: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.41
91731357|NCT02732145|183357801|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of wearing tight clothes among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of wearing tight clothes among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0001
91731358|NCT02732145|183357801|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to wearing of tight clothes in symptomatic patients, who wear tight clothes?||||||0.4754|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to wearing of tight clothes in symptomatic patients, who wear tight clothes.||||0.4754
91731359|NCT02732145|183357801|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort depending on the menstrual cycle in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.1082|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort depending on the menstrual cycle in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.1082
91731360|NCT02732145|183357801|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort before starting menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.0179|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort before starting menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.0179
91700161|NCT03617861|183295161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bloating Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.67
91731361|NCT02732145|183357801|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.5722|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.5722
91731362|NCT02732145|183357801|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort after menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.6148|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort after menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.6148
91731363|NCT02732145|183357801|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort between two menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.5307|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort between two menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.5307
91868140|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||-4.2|-44.3|
91731364|NCT02732145|183357801|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during urination?||||||0.1546|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during urination.||||0.1546
91731365|NCT02732145|183357801|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar complaints during urination after sexual intercourse in symptomatic patients, who are sexually active?||||||0.1019|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar complaints during urination after sexual intercourse in symptomatic patients, who are sexually active.||||0.1019
91731366|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of problems associated with urination and defecation between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of problems associated with urination and defecation between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731367|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of dysuria between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of dysuria between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731368|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent dysuria between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent dysuria between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731369|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent dysuria between patients from different groups?||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent dysuria between patients from different groups.||||0.0003
91731370|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of urinary incontinence between patients from different groups?||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of urinary incontinence between patients from different groups.||||0.0010
91731371|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups?||||||0.1859|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups.||||0.1859
91731372|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups?||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups.||||0.0003
91868141|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||3.9|-34.2|
91700162|NCT03617861|183295161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||ANCOVA|||Bloating: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0330
91700163|NCT03617861|183295161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Abdominal Pain: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.25
91731373|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups?||||||0.0015|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups.||||0.0015
91731374|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups?||||||0.0013|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups.||||0.0013
91731375|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups?||||||0.5673|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups.||||0.5673
91731376|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of urgency between patients from different groups?||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of urgency between patients from different groups.||||0.0065
91731377|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent urgency between patients from different groups?||||||0.083|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent urgency between patients from different groups.||||0.0830
91796473|NCT02160782|183471429|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ItchRO(Obs) between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.122|-0.844|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ItchRO(Obs) as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||-0.844|-2.122|< 0.0001
91868142|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||7.1|-32.1|
91731378|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent urgency between patients from different groups?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent urgency between patients from different groups.||||0.0001
91731379|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of nocturia between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of nocturia between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731380|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent nocturia between patients from different groups?||||||0.2315|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent nocturia between patients from different groups.||||0.2315
91731381|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent nocturia between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent nocturia between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731382|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of recurrent cystitis between patients from different groups?||||||0.0539|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of recurrent cystitis between patients from different groups.||||0.0539
91731383|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of constipation between patients from different groups?||||||0.0379|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of constipation between patients from different groups.||||0.0379
91731384|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent constipation between patients from different groups?||||||0.1485|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent constipation between patients from different groups.||||0.1485
91731385|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent constipation between patients from different groups?||||||0.4155|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent constipation between patients from different groups.||||0.4155
91731386|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of diarrhea between patients from different groups?||||||0.0092|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of diarrhea between patients from different groups.||||0.0092
91731387|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent diarrhea between patients from different groups?||||||0.0192|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent diarrhea between patients from different groups.||||0.0192
91731388|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent diarrhea between patients from different groups?||||||0.5253|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent diarrhea between patients from different groups.||||0.5253
91731389|NCT02732145|183357802|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the irritable colon between patients from different groups?||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the irritable colon between patients from different groups.||||0.0060
91731390|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of any associated symptom or disease among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of any associated symptom or disease among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731391|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a frequent headache among patients from different groups?||||||0.3957|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a frequent headache among patients from different groups.||||0.3957
91731392|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of chronic fatigue among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of chronic fatigue among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731393|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of lumbar pain among patients from different groups?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of lumbar pain among patients from different groups.||||0.0001
91731394|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fibromyalgia among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of fibromyalgia among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731395|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of energy loss among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of energy loss among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731396|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sleep disorders among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of sleep disorders among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731397|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of pelvic pain among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of pelvic pain among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731398|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of unintended weight loss among patients from different groups?||||||0.1764|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of unintended weight loss among patients from different groups.||||0.1764
91731399|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of endometriosis among patients from different groups?||||||0.3127|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of endometriosis among patients from different groups.||||0.3127
91731400|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of D-D-D Triad among patients from different groups?"||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The difference in the difference in the incidence of D-D-D Triad (Dysmenorrhoea-Dyspareunia-Dysuria) among patients from different groups."||||0.0028
91868143|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-11.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-11.3|-50.6|
91868144|NCT02307682|183629798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-5.9|-46.2|
91731401|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hypertension among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of hypertension among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731402|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of genital herpes among patients from different groups?||||||0.9323|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of genital herpes among patients from different groups.||||0.9323
91731403|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of thyroid disease among patients from different groups?||||||0.0011|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of thyroid disease among patients from different groups.||||0.0011
91731404|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of drug allergy among patients from different groups?||||||0.2756|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of drug allergy among patients from different groups.||||0.2756
91731405|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of recurrent attacks of sinusitis among patients from different groups?||||||0.0105|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of recurrent attacks of sinusitis among patients from different groups.||||0.0105
91731406|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of HPV infection among patients from different groups, who were tested for HPV?||||||0.2128|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of HPV infection among patients from different groups, who were tested for HPV.||||0.2128
91731407|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of abnormal PAP smear among patients from different groups?||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of abnormal PAP smear among patients from different groups.||||0.0018
91731408|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of genital warts among patients from different groups?||||||0.2524|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of genital warts among patients from different groups.||||0.2524
91731409|NCT02732145|183357803|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of conization or LETZ among patients from different groups?||||||0.2452|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of conization or LETZ among patients from different groups.||||0.2452
91731410|NCT02732145|183357804|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any previous treatment between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.1583|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any previous treatment between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.1583
91731411|NCT02732145|183357804|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antifungals between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.038|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antifungals among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0380
91731412|NCT02732145|183357804|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antifungals between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.6468|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antifungals among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.6468
91731413|NCT02732145|183357804|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antibiotics between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antibiotics among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.4670
91868145|NCT02307682|183629799|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-1.2||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-1.2|-37.7|0.0183
91868146|NCT02307682|183629799|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-4.4||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-4.4|-40.4|0.0075
91868147|NCT02307682|183629800|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-4.1|-42.4|
91700164|NCT03617861|183295161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Abdominal Pain: Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.57
91700165|NCT03617861|183295161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2375|||||||ANCOVA|||Abdominal Pain: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.2375
91731414|NCT02732145|183357804|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antibiotics between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.2131|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antibiotics among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.2131
91731415|NCT02732145|183357804|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with corticosteroids between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with corticoids among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0000
91796474|NCT02160782|183471430|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ItchRO(Pt) between the treatment groups was statistically significant. While the number of participants included in analysis for the end point indicates 28, there were only 14; n = 5 for ItchRO(Pt): MRX and n = 9 for ItchRO(Pt): placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4641||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.009|-0.967|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ItchRO (Pt) was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ItchRO(Pt) as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||-0.967|-3.009|0.0013
91700166|NCT03409107|183295336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.56|||ANCOVA|One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \<= 0 versus alternative: difference \> 0.|Treatment group comparisons were based on a ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, Baseline hemoglobin, and region.|||1.56|1.23|<0.0001
91700167|NCT03409107|183295337|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response rate|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.63||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \> 0|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment group comparisons were based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for treatment group and region.|||0.63|0.49|<0.0001
91868148|NCT02307682|183629800|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.0|-38.3|
91700168|NCT03409107|183295338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.36||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|8.56||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis:(Daprodustat-Placebo) \<= 0 vs alternative: difference \> 0.|ANCOVA||Treatment group comparisons were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, Baseline score, and region.|||8.56|2.17|0.0005
91731416|NCT02732145|183357804|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antidepressant between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.0962|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antidepressant among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0962
91731417|NCT02732145|183357805|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91868149|NCT02307682|183629801|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||0.7|-32.6|
91868150|NCT02307682|183629801|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||-3.3|-36.5|
91868151|NCT02307682|183629801|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||-1.5|-36.4|
91904964|NCT01721876|183705234|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided test of the hypothesis was performed at a 0.05 level of significance. An odds ratio (OR) = 1 would indicate that the odds of achieving CR+CRi with Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine is equal to the odds of achieving CR+CRi with Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine , whereas an OR ≠ 1 would indicate the opposite. H0, CR+CRi: OR = 1 vs. Ha, CR+CRi: OR ≠ 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8751||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2432|2.8281|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Common odds ratio is calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate adjusting for the two stratification factors (baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and type of AML). If odds ratio is above 1 then it favours Volasertib+Low-dose Cytarabine.|This analysis was exploratory and descriptive.||2.8281|1.2432|0.0024
91731418|NCT02732145|183357805|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731419|NCT02732145|183357805|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731420|NCT02732145|183357805|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731421|NCT02732145|183357805|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731422|NCT02732145|183357805|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731423|NCT02732145|183357805|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91796475|NCT02160782|183471431|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALP levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-27.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|118.33||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|17.2||Data for this analysis were obtained from 31 participants at baseline; 29 of those participants contributed Week 18 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALP levels was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population.||17.2|-72.8|0.2163
91700169|NCT03409107|183295339|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response rate|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.52||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment group comparisons are based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for treatment group, and region|||0.52|0.37|<0.0001
91700170|NCT03409107|183295340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in treatment effect|38.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|54.55|||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment difference has been reported.||||54.55|25.00|
91731424|NCT02732145|183357805|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0009|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva.||||0.0009
91731425|NCT02732145|183357805|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0289|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva.||||0.0289
91700171|NCT03409107|183295341|SUPERIORITY||Difference in treatment effect|0.768|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.806||One-sided superiority p-value from the van Elteren test|van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate of the treatment difference stratified by region has been presented.|||0.806|0.729|<0.0001
91700172|NCT03409107|183295342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.55||One-sided superiority p-value from the MMRM model|MMRM||Treatment group comparisons were based on MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline Hb and Baseline Hb by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.55|1.16|<0.0001
91700173|NCT03409107|183295343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.3||One-sided p-value was based on Wald test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat/Placebo) \>=1 versus alternative: ratio\<1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group and region.|||0.30|0.02|0.0002
91731426|NCT02732145|183357805|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0134|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0134
91731427|NCT02732145|183357805|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0037|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0037
91731428|NCT02732145|183357805|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva?||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0080
91731429|NCT02732145|183357805|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0579|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0579
91868152|NCT02307682|183629801|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||-1.8|-36.9|
91700174|NCT03409107|183295344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|9.0||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Tired/Low Energy/Weak domain.|||9.00|2.83|<0.0001
91731430|NCT02732145|183357805|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.072|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0720
91700175|NCT03409107|183295344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.93||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.57||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Chest Pain/Shortness of Breath Domain.|||5.57|0.28|0.0152
91700176|NCT03409107|183295344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.79||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.63||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Cognitive Domain.|||6.63|0.95|0.0045
91700177|NCT03409107|183295344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.61||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|7.09||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Difficulty Sleeping|||7.09|-1.87|0.1267
91700178|NCT03409107|183295344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.09||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Difficulty Standing for Long Periods of Time|||9.09|0.20|0.0203
91700179|NCT03409107|183295344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.68||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|5.39||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Severity of Shortness of Breath While Sitting or Resting|||5.39|-0.04|0.0266
91700180|NCT03409107|183295344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|4.96||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Time with Shortness of Breath While not Doing an Activity|||4.96|-0.94|0.0907
91700181|NCT03409107|183295345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-rhEPO) \>=0 versus alternative: difference \<0|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.02|-0.28|0.0391
91700182|NCT03409107|183295346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.57||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|6.26||One sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 vs. alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||6.26|-1.12|0.0858
91700183|NCT03409107|183295347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.36||One sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you feel full of life?.|||0.36|-0.02|0.0357
91700184|NCT03409107|183295347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you have a lot of energy?.|||0.35|-0.01|0.0328
91700185|NCT03409107|183295347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.37||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you feel worn out?.|||0.37|0.00|0.0252
91700186|NCT03409107|183295347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.42||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you feel tired?.|||0.42|0.10|0.0010
91731431|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91868153|NCT02307682|183629802|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||0.1|-0.8|
91731432|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731433|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731434|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731435|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731436|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731437|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731438|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fissures the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of fissures of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731439|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731440|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of smoothness of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731441|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients within different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731442|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0.0632|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0632
91731443|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731444|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients within different groups?||||||0.0043|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0043
91868154|NCT02307682|183629802|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-0.2|-1.0|
91868155|NCT02307682|183629802|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-0.2|-1.1|
91868156|NCT02307682|183629802|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||0.0|-0.9|
91868157|NCT02307682|183629802|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-0.3|-1.3|
91868158|NCT02307682|183629802|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-0.3|-1.1|
91868159|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|17.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||17.5|-3.3|
91868160|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||10.9|-10.2|
91868161|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|12.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||12.6|-8.4|
91868162|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||9.2|-12.5|
91700187|NCT03409107|183295354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus. alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Based on MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.07|-0.02|0.1098
91700188|NCT03409107|183295355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.4||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 vs. alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||8.40|0.60|0.0120
91731445|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Typ), evaluated with Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91868163|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||10.0|-11.2|
91868164|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||7.9|-13.9|
91868165|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||11.4|-11.1|
91868166|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||6.5|-16.1|
91868167|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|20.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||20.3|-1.6|
91700189|NCT03409107|183295356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|3.22||"One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \>= 0 versus alternative:~difference \<0"|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline SBP and Baseline SBP by time and treatment by time interactions.|||3.22|-2.42|0.6106
91700190|NCT03409107|183295356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.49||"One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \>= 0 versus alternative:~difference \< 0"|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline DBP and Baseline DBP by time and treatment by time interactions.|||3.49|0.12|0.9819
91868168|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||18.5|-3.4|
91868169|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|7.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||7.6|-14.7|
91868170|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||5.3|-17.9|
91700191|NCT03409107|183295356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.13||"One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \>= 0 versus alternative:~difference \<0"|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline MAP and Baseline MAP by time and treatment by time interactions.|||3.13|-0.51|0.9215
91700192|NCT03409107|183295357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response rate|0.06||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \<= 0 versus alternative: difference \> 0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed for treatment group comparison.|||0.13|-0.02|0.0680
91700193|NCT05174949|183295397|SUPERIORITY|We performed a linear regression analysis (generalized estimating equations) in which we compared both intervention groups to the sham group and added a time interaction term|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.4||Anode compared to sham: p = 0.0516 Cathode compared to sham: p \<.0001 . Anode change over time compared to sham p=0.0255 Cathode change over time compared to sham p\<.0001|Generalized Estimating Equations||Anode mean change = 4.13 std = 4.29 CLM = 0.5-7.7 Cathode mean change = 5.38 std = 3.58 CLM=2.4-8.4|We will report first anode compared to sham and then cathode compared to sham||8.4|2.4|<0.0001
91700194|NCT05174949|183295398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-16.2||anode compared to sham p= 0.0020 cathode compared to sham p = 0.0088 anode over time anode compared to sham p \<.0001 Cathode over time compared to sham p \<.0001|Regression, Cox||anode -24.2 (-32.2, -16.2) cathode -22.2 (-30.6, -13.8)|We compared anode to sham We compared cathode to sham We compared the change over time of anode to sham We compared the change over time of cathode to shal||-16.2|-32.2|0.0020
91700195|NCT05174949|183295399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Compare anode to sham p= 0.0001 Compare cathode to sham p=0.1073 Compare anode change in time to sham p=0.0938 Compare cathode change in time to sham 0.0068|Regression, Linear|Using generalized estimating equations with group and time component|Anode = 0.077 (0.00, 0.10) Cathode = -.0.125 (-0.32 0.07 )|e compare anode to sham We compare cathode to sham||0.10|0.00|0.0001
91700196|NCT02951533|183295400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91700197|NCT01537068|183295474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test of Within-subjects effects|2.95||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures of ANOVA||||||0.09
91700198|NCT01537068|183295476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared|6.32||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91759168|NCT04038567|183411370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.39||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.39|-1.00|
91868171|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|12.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||12.9|-8.8|
91700199|NCT03724877|183295493|OTHER||Adjusted hazard ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38|||Regression, Cox||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted forced expiratory volume1 (FEV1).|||1.38|0.79|
91700200|NCT03724877|183295494|OTHER||Adjusted HR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Regression, Cox||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|||1.09|0.87|
91700201|NCT03724877|183295495|OTHER||Adjusted HR|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.07|||Regression, Cox||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|||2.07|1.03|
91700202|NCT03724877|183295496|OTHER||Adjusted rate ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||Negative binomial regression model||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|Moderate/ sever exacerbation||1.04|0.83|
91700203|NCT03724877|183295496|OTHER||Adjusted rate ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.28|||Negative binomial regression model||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|Severe exacerbation||1.28|0.70|
91700204|NCT04017832|183295497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.1|-0.3|0.0078
91700205|NCT04017832|183295497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.6|-0.8|<0.0001
91700206|NCT04017832|183295497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.8|-1.1|< 0.0001
91700207|NCT01565369|183295543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.8547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0282|<|0.0001||95.0||||evaluated at the .05 significance level|Fleiss' kappa|||Fleiss' kappa||||<0.0001
91796476|NCT02160782|183471432|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ALP levels between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.44||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.6|72.6|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ALP levels was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ALP as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||72.6|-52.6|0.7455
91700208|NCT00125242|183295561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||effect size|7.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||the reported effect size is a d-index value|Effect sizes were calculated - this is a comparison of perfomance in baseline (repeated measurements prior to treatment) relative to peformance following treatment||||
91700209|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.44||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|14.9|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as a covariate.~Least squares (LS) mean differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||14.9|-14.3|0.97
91700210|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|15.5|||ANCOVA|||||15.5|-8.6|0.58
91700211|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|18.0|||ANCOVA|||||18.0|-6.1|0.33
91700212|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|29.8|||ANCOVA|||||29.8|5.4|0.005
91700213|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|30.2|||ANCOVA|||||30.2|6.2|0.003
91700214|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|36.1|||ANCOVA|||||36.1|7.2|0.003
91700215|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|40.7|||ANCOVA|||||40.7|11.9|<0.001
91700216|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.46||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|27.6|||ANCOVA|||||27.6|-5.6|0.20
91700217|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|37.1|||ANCOVA|||||37.1|4.0|0.015
91700218|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|39.0|||ANCOVA|||||39.0|5.9|0.008
91700219|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|36.3|||ANCOVA|||||36.3|7.6|0.003
91700220|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.46||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|38.8|||ANCOVA|||||38.8|5.6|0.009
91700221|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|39.8|||ANCOVA|||||39.8|11.0|<0.001
91700222|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|42.3|||ANCOVA|||||42.3|13.5|<0.001
91700223|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|54.1|||ANCOVA|||||54.1|25.1|<0.001
91700224|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|54.5|||ANCOVA|||||54.5|25.8|<0.001
91700225|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|60.1|||ANCOVA|||||60.1|27.1|<0.001
91700226|NCT01340027|183295643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|48.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|64.7|||ANCOVA|||||64.7|31.9|<0.001
91700227|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.03|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.03|-1.40|0.062
91700228|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.56|||ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.63|0.91
91700229|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.98|0.20
91700230|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.58|||ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.62|0.96
91700231|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.39|0.007
91700232|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.59|0.016
91700233|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.68|0.007
91700234|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-0.87|0.91
91700235|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.94|0.76
91796477|NCT02160782|183471433|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALT levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.54||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|30.9||Data for this analysis were obtained from 31 participants at baseline; 29 of those participants contributed Week 18 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALT levels was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population.||30.9|-33.4|0.9358
91868172|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|13.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||13.8|-8.7|
91868173|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||14.1|-8.4|
91868174|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||11.5|-11.7|
91731446|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of papillae of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of papillae of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731447|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0697|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0697
91731448|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0319|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0319
91731449|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7273|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7273
91731450|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731451|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731452|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.2203|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.2203
91731453|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
91731454|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
91731455|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.1456|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.1456
91731456|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.1133|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.1133
91868175|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|13.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||13.6|-8.8|
91868176|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||10.9|-12.2|
91868177|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|11.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||11.7|-10.7|
91868178|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||7.8|-15.0|
91868179|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|15.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||15.9|-6.1|
91700236|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.82|0.99
91700237|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.82|0.77
91700238|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.61|0.058
91700239|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.57|||ANCOVA|||||0.57|-0.85|0.69
91700240|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.21|0.17
91700241|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.84|0.73
91700242|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.62|0.012
91700243|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-1.80|0.018
91700244|NCT01340027|183295644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||||-0.28|-1.89|0.009
91700245|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.82||Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|P-values are from pairwise comparisons of the combination/active treatment groups vs. solifenacin 5 mg/placebo within a stratified rank ANCOVA model.||The ANCOVA model including the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline measurement as a covariate was used to calculate point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for change from Baseline within each treatment group and for differences between combination treatment groups and solifenacin 5 mg as well as for differences between active treatment groups and placebo.||0.82|-1.00|0.51
91700246|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.83|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.83|-0.57|0.21
91700247|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.74|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.74|-0.68|0.89
91700248|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.38||P values were calculated from a pairwise comparison of the combination treatment groups vs solifenacin succinate 5 mg or placebo within the ANCOVA model.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.38|-1.06|0.001
91700249|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.52|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.52|-1.04|0.058
91700250|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.38|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.38|-0.17|0.15
91700251|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.73|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.73|-0.91|0.41
91700252|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.3|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.30|-0.88|0.44
91700253|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.04|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.04|-0.95|0.85
91700254|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.533||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.74|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.74|-1.36|0.83
91700255|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.95|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.95|-0.80|0.56
91868180|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||13.1|-10.0|
91700256|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.03|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.03|-1.07|0.48
91700257|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.07|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.07|-0.67|0.13
91731457|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91796478|NCT02160782|183471434|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ALT levels between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.53||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|55.2|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ALT levels was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ALT as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||55.2|-25.1|0.4472
91796479|NCT02160782|183471435|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in total bilirubin levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.424||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.08|||Student's t-test|||||0.08|-1.01|0.0893
91796480|NCT02160782|183471436|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in total bilirubin between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.6|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in total bilirubin was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 total bilirubin as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||0.6|-0.88|0.7
91796481|NCT02160782|183471437|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in direct bilirubin levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.012||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.11|||Student's t-test|||||-0.11|-0.9|0.0139
91796482|NCT02160782|183471438|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in direct bilirubin between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.9517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.53|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in direct bilirubin levels was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 direct bilirubin as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||0.53|-0.56|0.9517
91796483|NCT00729924|183471439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The hypothesis was that the ratio of the 4-hour CSF concentration value to the partial plasma area-under-the-curve 0-4h value would differ between participants with ABCB1 C/C and T/T genotypes.||||0.43
91868181|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|12.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||12.1|-10.5|
91868182|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|11.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||11.1|-12.2|
91868183|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|13.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||13.2|-9.5|
91731458|NCT02732145|183357806|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Middle versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0058|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Middle versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0058
91796484|NCT00729924|183471440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We explored post-hoc whether the ratio of the 4-hour CSF concentration value to the 2-hour plasma concentration differs between participants with ABCB1 C/C and T/T genotypes.||||0.43
91796485|NCT00413400|183471441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||treatment effect (etanercept vs. placebo) using ANCOVA including baseline CRP, age, and race||||0.20
91796486|NCT00413400|183471442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes calculated for each timepoint and repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for age and race performed||||0.92
91796487|NCT00413400|183471443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes were calculated for each time point, then repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for age and race performed||||0.02
91796488|NCT00413400|183471444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||repeated measures ANCOVA|||percent change calculated then repeated measures ANCOVA performed controlling for age and race||||0.02
91796489|NCT00413400|183471445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for baseline value, age, race||||0.46
91796490|NCT00413400|183471446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91796491|NCT00413400|183471447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91796492|NCT00413400|183471448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for baseline value, age, race||||0.59
91796493|NCT00413400|183471449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes calculated then repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for age and race performed||||<0.0001
91731459|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731460|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731461|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731462|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Mons Pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731463|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731464|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731465|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of Mons Pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731466|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731467|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91796494|NCT00413400|183471450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes calculated then repeated measures ANCOVA performed controlling for age and race||||0.08
91731468|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of Mons Pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0016
91731469|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731470|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91796495|NCT00413400|183471451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for baseline value, age, and race||||0.55
91796496|NCT00891462|183471465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.086|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|0.05|<0.0001
91796497|NCT00891462|183471465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.08|<0.0001
91868184|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|13.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||13.1|-10.6|
91700258|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.62|TWO_SIDED|2.0|-0.78|0.99|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.99|-0.78|0.62
91700259|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.63|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.63|-1.16|0.34
91700260|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.74|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.74|-1.12|0.24
91700261|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.61|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.61|-0.26|0.88
91700262|NCT01340027|183295645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.95|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.95|-0.99|0.83
91700263|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.39|0.69|0.42
91700264|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.00|0.72|0.48
91700265|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|0.67|0.69
91731471|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0014|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0014
91731472|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731473|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0414|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesion of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0414
91868185|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|12.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||12.4|-10.6|
91700266|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.69|0.61|0.95
91700267|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.21|1.14|0.015
91700268|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|1.11|0.023
91700269|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|0.84|0.16
91700270|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.45|0.73
91700271|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.72|0.45|0.70
91700272|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.99|0.74|0.26
91700273|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.63|0.69
91700274|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.89|0.73|0.29
91700275|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.45|0.75|0.31
91700276|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|0.70|0.45
91700277|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.64|0.64
91700278|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.94|1.18|0.013
91700279|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.66|1.16|0.017
91700280|NCT01340027|183295648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.45|0.88|0.11
91700281|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.56|0.16|0.52
91731474|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0898|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0898
91731475|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0008
91731476|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0587|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0587
91731477|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||1.0000
91731478|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.1352|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.1352
91731479|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.1352|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesion of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.1352
91796498|NCT01083485|183471479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||A P value was not part of the analysis plan. A within SD 1.7, and expected treatment difference of 0 and a non-inferiority margin was -1.0 meaning that OXN PR can be one unit inferior to OXY PR and still be considered non-inferior.|ANCOVA|The primary efficacy endpoint was analysed on the PP data using a mixed-model repeat measure analysis of covariance RMANCOVA.||The sample size was calculated for a significance level of 2.5% (1 sided) with 90% power. A within SD 1.7, and expected treatment difference of 0 and a non-inferiority margin of 1.0 were assumed.||0.3|-0.5|
91731480|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0002|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0002
91731481|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731482|NCT02732145|183357807|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Labia Majora versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0854|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Labia Majora versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0854
91731483|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731484|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731485|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91796499|NCT01948310|183471500|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
91731486|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy.. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91796500|NCT01948310|183471500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||0-14 weeks||||0.03
91796501|NCT01948310|183471500|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
91796502|NCT01948310|183471500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||0.005
91796503|NCT01948310|183471501|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
91731487|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0.0199|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Anterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0199
91731488|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731489|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Labia Minora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Labia Minora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91796504|NCT01948310|183471501|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||>0.05
91700282|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.99|0.23|0.48
91700283|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.81|0.32|0.93
91700284|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|25.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.60|1.47|0.013
91700285|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|25.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.77|1.17|0.031
91700286|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|15.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.58|0.95|0.059
91700287|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.58|0.48|0.36
91700288|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.17|0.05|0.26
91700289|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.31|0.08|0.33
91700290|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.68|0.17|0.94
91700291|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|0.09|0.29
91700292|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.05|0.15
91700293|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.34|0.06|0.11
91700294|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.89|0.09|0.26
91700295|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|16.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.17|0.44|0.28
91700296|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|15.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.46|0.37|0.36
91700297|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|9.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.72|0.29|0.56
91700298|NCT01340027|183295650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.76|0.15|0.84
91700299|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.38|0.16|0.48
91700300|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.17|0.25|0.58
91700301|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.28|0.34|0.93
91700302|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.16||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|105.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||105.30|1.40|0.023
91700303|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.48||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|83.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.24|1.08|0.042
91700304|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.03||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|79.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||79.19|1.03|0.047
91700305|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.90|0.52|0.23
91700306|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.01|0.058
91700307|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.02|0.15
91700308|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.99|0.04|0.55
91700309|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.48|0.02|0.11
91700310|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.05|0.01|0.054
91700311|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.01|0.059
91700312|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.02|0.12
91700313|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|35.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.46|0.11|0.64
91796505|NCT01948310|183471501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||0.03
91868186|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|13.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||13.5|-10.4|
91700314|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|27.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.42|0.09|0.76
91796506|NCT01948310|183471501|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||>0.05
91796507|NCT01948310|183471502|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
91868187|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||11.2|-11.9|
91700315|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|26.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.47|0.08|0.79
91700316|NCT01340027|183295651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.77|0.04|0.55
91700317|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.71||All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|P-values are from pairwise comparisons of the combination/active treatment groups vs. solifenacin 5 mg/placebo within a stratified rank ANCOVA model.||The ANCOVA model including the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline measurement as a covariate was used to calculate point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for change from Baseline within each treatment group and for differences between combination treatment groups and solifenacin 5 mg as well as for differences between active treatment groups and placebo.||0.71|-1.24|0.25
91700318|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.81|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.70|0.35
91700319|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.72|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.72|-0.74|1.0
91700320|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.41|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.41|-1.08|0.003
91700321|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.59|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.59|-1.04|0.12
91700322|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.38|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.38|-0.21|0.24
91796508|NCT01948310|183471502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||0-14 weeks||||0.13
91796509|NCT01948310|183471502|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
91796510|NCT01948310|183471502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||0.013
91796511|NCT05015530|183471535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||α-diversity assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test||||0.908
91796512|NCT02600351|183471587|NON_INFERIORITY|With a 10% non-inferiority margin, a sample size of 90 participants per treatment group was required to provide at least 90% power to establish non-inferiority at the 1-sided 0.025 level, assuming the SVR12 rates were 98% for both groups.|Difference in percentages|-18.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|3.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.2|-40.7|0.065
91868188|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|14.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||14.6|-9.7|
91700323|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.78|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.78|-0.94|0.54
91700324|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.22|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.22|-1.10|0.95
91700325|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.07|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.07|-1.11|0.74
91700326|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.82|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.82|-1.43|0.89
91700327|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.96|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.96|-0.96|0.82
91700328|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.593||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.9|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.90|-1.44|0.58
91700329|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.04|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.04|-0.93|0.46
91700330|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.96|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.96|-0.97|0.95
91796513|NCT02600351|183471587|NON_INFERIORITY|With a 10% non-inferiority margin, a sample size of 125 participants per treatment group was required to provide at least 90% power to establish non-inferiority at the 1-sided 0.025 level, assuming the SVR12 rates were 95% for both groups.|Difference in percentages|-11.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.8|-32.1|0.25
91796514|NCT00567593|183471619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||||||.01
91796515|NCT01272284|183471632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion successful|85.4|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.81|78.1||||Fisher Exact|||The final significance level is 0.04191 accounting for one interim analysis conducted at 80% of final information, thus a 95.81% Confidence Limit (CL) was used.|||78.1|<0.0001
91904965|NCT01721876|183705235|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine was tested against 1. The null hypothesis, H0,OS, was that the hazards are equal between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine, whereas the alternative hypothesis, Ha,OS, was that the hazards are not equal between the 2 treatment arms. H0, OS: HR = 1 vs. Ha, OS: HR ≠ 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||P-value is calculated from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0-1 vs. 2) and type of AML (denovo vs. secondary).|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG and type of AML. If hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours volasertib.|This analysis was exploratory and descriptive.||1.2|0.8|0.7571
91700331|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.65|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.65|-1.32|0.18
91700332|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.8|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.80|-1.24|0.21
91700333|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.6|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.60|-0.43|0.72
91731490|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731491|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fissures of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of fissures of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731492|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fissures of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of fissures of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731493|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Anterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731494|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91700334|NCT01340027|183295652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.98|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.98|-1.15|0.92
91700335|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||-0.45|-2.06|0.002
91731495|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of smoothness of Labia Minora among patients from different groups?||||||0.0024|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The frequency of smoothness of Labia Minora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0024
91796516|NCT01086423|183471649|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|3.76||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™ -IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-D, one month after the third vaccine dose.||3.76|-1.88|
91700336|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-1.15|0.16
91700337|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-1.91|<0.001
91700338|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.80|0.001
91700339|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.70|-2.03|<0.001
91868189|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||11.3|-11.7|
91700340|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-1.78|0.017
91731496|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0.0205|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0205
91731497|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0158|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0158
91868190|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|11.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||11.7|-12.2|
91731498|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0001
91731499|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.028|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0280
91731500|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731501|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91796517|NCT01086423|183471649|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-T, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.56|
91796518|NCT01086423|183471650|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-7.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|-2.13||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-PRP antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||-2.13|-14.44|
91868191|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||13.9|-9.3|
91700341|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-1.98|0.004
91700342|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.22|||ANCOVA|||||1.22|-0.63|0.53
91700343|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.01|||ANCOVA|||||1.01|-0.83|0.85
91700344|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.83|||ANCOVA|||||0.83|-1.01|0.84
91700345|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.59|||ANCOVA|||||1.59|-0.00|0.050
91868192|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|14.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||14.0|-9.8|
91868193|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||8.7|-14.5|
91868194|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|10.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||10.1|-13.7|
91700346|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-1.38|0.33
91868195|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||13.7|-10.0|
91700347|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|-0.48|0.44
91700348|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-1.24|0.28
91700349|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.47|||ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.14|0.42
91700350|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.23|-1.37|0.16
91700351|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.73|||ANCOVA|||||0.73|-1.10|0.70
91700352|NCT01340027|183295653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.464||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-1.30|0.40
91700353|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.01|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.01|-0.30|0.062
91700354|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.22|0.15
91700355|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.30|0.007
91700356|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.29|0.017
91700357|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.35|<0.001
91700358|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-0.41|<0.001
91700359|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.29|0.070
91700360|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.05|0.15
91700361|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.12|0.57
91700362|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.16|0.89
91700363|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.02|0.086
91700364|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.19|0.88
91700365|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.11|0.61
91700366|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.20|0.58
91700367|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.18|0.76
91700368|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.077||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.25|0.23
91700369|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.30|0.15
91700370|NCT01340027|183295654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.18|0.94
91700371|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.3|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.30|-0.99|0.29
91700372|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|-0.12|0.15
91796519|NCT01086423|183471651|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-Polio type 1 antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.51|
91796520|NCT01086423|183471651|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-Polio type 2 antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.51|
91700373|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.48|0.99
91700374|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|-0.54|0.76
91700375|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.71|0.30
91700376|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.72|0.43
91700377|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.83|0.40
91700378|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-1.08|0.24
91700379|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.98|0.36
91700380|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-1.49|0.020
91700381|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-1.33|0.011
91700382|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-1.84|0.004
91700383|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-1.00|0.18
91700384|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-1.35|0.015
91700385|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-1.41|0.006
91700386|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.59|<0.001
91700387|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-1.59|0.003
91700388|NCT01340027|183295655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-1.68|0.004
91700389|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.09|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.09|-0.60|0.15
91700390|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.25|||ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.33|0.78
91700391|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.37|0.58
91700392|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.37|0.60
91700393|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.63|0.017
91700394|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.60|0.16
91700395|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.61|0.13
91700396|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.35|0.81
91700397|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.48|0.67
91700398|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.45|||ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.33|0.77
91700399|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.30|0.81
91700400|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.60|0.30
91700401|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.34|0.99
91731502|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731503|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731504|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731505|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
91731506|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0006|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0006
91731507|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
91731508|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0003|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0003
91731509|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
91731510|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.3053|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.3053
91731511|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7758|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7758
91796521|NCT01086423|183471651|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-Polio type 3 antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.51|
91796522|NCT01086423|183471652|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.89||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-PT antigens, one month after the third vaccine dose.||1.89|-3.74|
91731512|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.6676|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.6676
91731513|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.4577|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.4577
91700402|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-0.38|0.82
91731514|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.1681|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.1681
91731515|NCT02732145|183357808|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of Labia Minora versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8848|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Labia Minora versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8848
91731516|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731517|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731518|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731519|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731520|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91700403|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.38|0.84
91700404|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.64|0.080
91700405|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.60|0.30
91700406|NCT01340027|183295656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.62|0.26
91731521|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening among the patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731522|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91796523|NCT01086423|183471652|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-0.11||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-FHA antigens, one month after the third vaccine dose.||-0.11|-6.75|
91700407|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.2|-0.5|0.38
91700408|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.85
91700409|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.6|0.024
91700410|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.005
91700411|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.003
91700412|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.8|0.004
91700413|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.15
91700414|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.4|0.99
91700415|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.5|0.67
91700416|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.44
91700417|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.88
91700418|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.5|0.53
91700419|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|1.0
91700420|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.6|0.084
91700421|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.7|0.030
91796524|NCT01086423|183471652|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.04||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-PRN antigens, one month after the third vaccine dose.||3.04|-4.6|
91700422|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.020
91700423|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.017
91700424|NCT01340027|183295657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.6|0.26
91700425|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|4.95|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||4.95|1.04|0.040
91700426|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|0.63|0.73
91700427|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.30|1.00|0.050
91796525|NCT02652767|183471662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.158|||ANCOVA|||A mixed model of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response, and participants, eyes of the participant as random factor, treatment and baseline LogMAR value as covariates in the model. P-value is used to assess the significance of the difference between All-GS010 and All-Sham with respect to change of LogMAR from baseline.||0.158|-0.182|0.8890
91796526|NCT01130103|183471674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||caps total score at weeks 5 and 10||.85|.30|.01
91796527|NCT01130103|183471674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||rate of change in CAPS total from week 5 to week 10||.74|.43|<.001
91700428|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.59|0.81|0.21
91700429|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.66|1.11|0.021
91700430|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.40|0.79|0.19
91700431|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.57|0.74
91700432|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|0.58|0.57
91700433|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|0.77|0.19
91700434|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.41|0.69
91700435|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.99|0.55|0.90
91700436|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.55|1.01|0.048
91700437|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.22|0.60|0.67
91700438|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|0.95|0.070
91700439|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.98|0.77|0.23
91700440|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.19|1.06|0.034
91731523|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731524|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731525|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731526|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Urethral Meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731527|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Hymenal Remnants in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0001
91731528|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Bartholin's Gland Opening among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731529|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731530|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0.0023|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0023
91731531|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731532|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0.0235|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of Urethral Meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0235
91731533|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0.0021|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0021
91731534|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91731535|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0.0038|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0038
91731536|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0.0019|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0019
91731537|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91868196|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|11.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||11.8|-12.2|
91731538|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0.0198|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy.. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0198
91796528|NCT01130103|183471678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|129.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||treatment group effect: remission rate at weeks 5 and 10||129|1.23|.03
91796529|NCT01130103|183471678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|176.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||rate of change over time in remission rate from week 5 to 10||176|2.44|0.007
91796530|NCT03091777|183471708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91796531|NCT03091777|183471708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91868197|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|14.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||14.7|-9.1|
91868198|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||12.3|-11.3|
91868199|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|11.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||11.5|-11.9|
91868200|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|11.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||11.7|-12.0|
91868201|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|9.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||9.8|-13.2|
91700441|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|0.76|0.20
91868202|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||11.0|-12.6|
91868203|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|13.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||13.3|-9.8|
91868204|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||12.8|-11.1|
91868205|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|7.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||7.6|-15.6|
91700442|NCT01340027|183295658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.55|0.68
91700443|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.12|0.64|0.62
91700444|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.17|0.82|0.25
91700445|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.91|0.11
91700446|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.97|1.10|0.020
91700447|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.05|1.15|0.012
91700448|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.10|0.95|0.072
91796532|NCT00089674|183471709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.2|7.1|||ANCOVA|||||7.1|6.2|<0.0001
91796533|NCT00089674|183471710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.5|4.4||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||4.4|3.5|<0.0001
91700449|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.44|0.77|0.29
91700450|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.49|0.94
91700451|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.81|0.46|0.80
91700452|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.28|0.59|0.67
91700453|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.80|0.55|1.0
91700454|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.31|0.59|0.66
91700455|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.40|0.73|0.35
91700456|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.82|0.19
91700457|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.28|0.99|0.054
91700458|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.38|1.04|0.038
91700459|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|0.87|0.12
91700460|NCT01340027|183295659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.70|0.36
91700461|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.43|0.06|0.32
91700462|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.61|0.21|0.65
91700463|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.13|0.39
91700464|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.67|0.10|0.22
91700465|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.22|0.04|0.082
91700466|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|0.04|0.36
91700467|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.71|0.42|0.51
91700468|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.36|0.19|0.99
91700469|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.59|0.24|0.96
91700470|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.30|0.12|0.57
91700471|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.95|0.28|0.93
91700472|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.79|0.06|0.37
91700473|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.13|0.20|0.74
91700474|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.59|0.12|0.46
91700475|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|0.10|0.28
91700476|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.04|0.11
91700477|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.66|0.04|0.40
91700478|NCT01340027|183295660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.85|0.39|0.50
91700479|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||1.7|-8.0|0.21
91700480|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.7|-5.2|0.54
91796534|NCT00089674|183471711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.4|5.1||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||5.1|4.4|<0.0001
91796535|NCT00089674|183471712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.4|8.4||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||8.4|7.4|<0.0001
91700481|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-8.9|0.016
91700482|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-9.3|0.011
91700483|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||||-2.8|-10.7|<0.001
91700484|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-11.6|0.005
91700485|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-9.4|0.056
91700486|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.9|-7.1|0.56
91700487|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-7.5|0.48
91700488|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-9.8|0.13
91700489|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-6.0|0.61
91700490|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-9.9|0.12
91700491|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-7.3|0.31
91700492|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-10.9|0.012
91700493|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-11.3|0.008
91700494|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-12.8|0.001
91731539|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of papillae of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of papillae of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0004
91759169|NCT04038567|183411371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.27||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||2.27|-0.45|
91700495|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-13.5|0.004
91700496|NCT01340027|183295661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-11.4|0.035
91700497|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||3.20|0.63|0.40
91700498|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.55|0.89
91700499|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.33|0.63|0.57
91700500|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.66|0.70|0.36
91700501|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.83|0.15
91700502|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.59|0.67|0.31
91700503|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.95|0.42|0.81
91700504|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.08|0.75|0.19
91700505|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.77|0.56|0.59
91700506|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.71|0.83|0.13
91700507|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|0.78|0.20
91700508|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.34|0.94|0.070
91700509|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|0.81|0.17
91759170|NCT04038567|183411371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.38||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.38|-1.33|
91759171|NCT04038567|183411371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.99||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.99|-1.72|
91731540|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of papillae of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0.0053|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of papillae of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0053
91731541|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0010
91731542|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0010
91796536|NCT00089674|183471713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.4|5.4||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||5.4|4.4|<0.0001
91731543|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91796537|NCT00089674|183471714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.4|6.1||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||6.1|5.4|<0.0001
91796538|NCT00089674|183471715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.1048||95.0|0.46|1.08||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.46|0.1048
91731544|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0208|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0208
91731545|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0007
91731546|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0208|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0208
91796539|NCT00089674|183471716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.0125||95.0|0.18|0.78||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|||||0.78|0.18|0.0125
91796540|NCT00089674|183471717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7961||95.0|0.57|1.55||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Cox|||||1.55|0.57|0.7961
91796541|NCT00089674|183471718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.7961||95.0|0.44|1.11||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.44|0.7961
91796542|NCT01476644|183471740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
91796543|NCT04105543|183471749|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.22||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|4.24|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for MDADI Composite Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||4.24|-12.64|0.173
91796544|NCT04105543|183471749|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.998||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.43|7.39|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for MDADI Composite Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||7.39|-28.43|0.225
91796545|NCT04105543|183471750|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.09|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for Stimulated Saliva Flow Baseline to 3 months (n=8)||0.09|-0.246|0.779
91796546|NCT04105543|183471750|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.049||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.12|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Stimulated Saliva Flow Baseline to 6 months (n=4)||0.12|-0.218|0.465
91796547|NCT04105543|183471751|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.444||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|4.4|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for EORTC QLQ-C30 Functional Score Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||4.4|-14.4|0.213
91796548|NCT04105543|183471751|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.667||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|20.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for EORTC QLQ-C30 Functional Scores Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||20|-17.8|0.686
91796549|NCT04105543|183471751|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.846||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|12.82|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Score Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||12.82|-0.769|0.498
91796550|NCT04105543|183471751|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|10.256||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.39|35.89|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scores Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||35.89|-15.39|0.416
91796551|NCT04105543|183471751|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.33||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.84|16.67|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||16.67|-20.84|0.778
91796552|NCT04105543|183471751|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|25.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Scores Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||25|-25|0.89
91796553|NCT04105543|183471752|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.5|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for XeQOL Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||9.5|-2|0.138
91796554|NCT04105543|183471752|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|16.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for XeQOL Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||16|-10|0.225
91796555|NCT04105543|183471753|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for Xerostomia Inventory Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||5|-3|0.674
91796556|NCT04105543|183471753|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Xerostomia Inventory Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||6|-6|0.892
91796557|NCT00471146|183471760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.309||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.025 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for extent of disease (locally advanced cancer versus metastatic cancer).||1.309|0.786|0.5436
91796558|NCT00471146|183471761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.5203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.298||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.025 significance level was used.The p-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for extent of disease (locally advanced cancer versus metastatic cancer).||1.298|0.779|0.5203
91796559|NCT00471146|183471762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Differences in OR between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified for extent of disease (locally advanced cancer versus metastatic cancer).||10.1|1.0|0.038
91796560|NCT02001181|183471788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.8|-40.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model for repeated measures analysis included all the participants in FAS.||||-40.8|-62.8|<0.0001
91731547|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0007
91731548|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.004|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0040
91796561|NCT02520661|183471795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22||||||treatment relevant change in number of ED visits by 14 days||1.22|0.62|
91796562|NCT02520661|183471795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.3||||||treatment relevant change in number of ED visits by 30 days||1.30|0.72|
91796563|NCT02301988|183471824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.77||||0.519||95.0|-8.99|16.54|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified Analysis||16.54|-8.99|0.519
91796564|NCT02301988|183471825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.29||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|32.1|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||32.10|-25.52|0.7817
91796565|NCT02301988|183471826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.7||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|21.35|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||21.35|-5.95|0.2234
91796566|NCT02301988|183471827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.96||||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.91|27.99|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||27.99|-33.91|0.8169
91796567|NCT02301988|183471828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|11.11||||0.1607||95.0|-5.64|27.85|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||27.85|-5.64|0.1607
91796568|NCT02301988|183471829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|23.68||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.57|60.94|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified Analysis||60.94|-13.57|0.1486
91796569|NCT02301988|183471830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.09||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|27.2|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||27.20|-15.01|0.4980
91796570|NCT02301988|183471831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.66||||0.3032||95.0|-12.25|31.58|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||31.58|-12.25|0.3032
91796571|NCT02301988|183471833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.2||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|22.76|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||22.76|-14.37|0.6280
91796572|NCT02301988|183471834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.33||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.04|49.71|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||49.71|-33.04|0.6291
91700510|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.92|0.92|0.084
91700511|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.02|0.043
91700512|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.58|1.22|0.013
91700513|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.97|0.99|0.053
91700514|NCT01340027|183295662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.26|0.63|0.39
91700515|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.9|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||7.9|-2.1|0.26
91700516|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.0|||ANCOVA|||||6.0|-2.3|0.38
91700517|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differrence|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|0.7|0.022
91700518|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|1.3|0.010
91700519|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|10.5|||ANCOVA|||||10.5|2.3|0.002
91700520|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.6|||ANCOVA|||||11.6|1.7|0.008
91700521|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.2|||ANCOVA|||||10.2|0.3|0.037
91700522|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-7.7|0.50
91700523|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.0|||ANCOVA|||||7.0|-4.4|0.65
91700524|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|-2.4|0.25
91700525|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.1|-5.7|0.76
91700526|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.8|-3.6|0.47
91700527|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.0|||ANCOVA|||||6.0|-3.9|0.67
91700528|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.0|||ANCOVA|||||9.0|-0.9|0.11
91700529|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|-0.2|0.062
91700530|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.6|||ANCOVA|||||10.6|0.7|0.025
91700531|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|0.2|0.041
91700532|NCT01340027|183295663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.1|||ANCOVA|||||10.1|-1.2|0.12
91700533|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.08|0.52|0.92
91700534|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.77|0.58|0.98
91700535|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|0.70|0.45
91700536|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.53|0.79|0.24
91700537|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.09|1.19|0.012
91700538|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|0.70|0.32
91700539|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|0.72|0.27
91700540|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.04|0.24|0.064
91700541|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.61|0.59|0.57
91700542|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.68|0.59|0.55
91700543|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.13|0.58|0.75
91700544|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.53|0.72
91700545|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.58|0.74
91700546|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|0.71|0.34
91700547|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|0.80|0.19
91731549|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0012|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0012
91731550|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731551|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0048|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0048
91731552|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0007
91731553|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0048|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0048
91731554|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0007
91731555|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0131|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0131
91731556|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0423|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0423
91731557|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0021|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0021
91731558|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
91731559|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
91731560|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0091|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0091
91731561|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0002|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0002
91731562|NCT02732145|183357809|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
91868206|NCT02307682|183629803|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||8.0|-15.8|
91868207|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-3.3|-16.4|
91868208|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-7.3|-21.3|
91868209|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-2.2|-14.6|
91868210|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-9.5|-20.9|
91700548|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.94|1.22|0.012
91700549|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.47|0.72|0.25
91700550|NCT01340027|183295664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.75|0.74|0.21
91700551|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.92|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.92|-0.56|0.63
91700552|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-0.43|0.56
91700553|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|-0.15|0.14
91700554|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.30|0.08|0.027
91700555|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|-0.14|0.13
91700556|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.46|||ANCOVA|||||1.46|0.00|0.049
91700557|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.66|||ANCOVA|||||1.66|0.22|0.011
91700558|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.01|||ANCOVA|||||1.01|-0.67|0.70
91700559|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.56|||ANCOVA|||||1.56|-0.10|0.084
91700560|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.49|||ANCOVA|||||1.49|-0.18|0.12
91700561|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|-0.39|0.36
91731563|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0013|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0013
91868211|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-2.4|-13.8|
91868212|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-8.7|-18.9|
91868213|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-3.7|-16.8|
91796573|NCT01535664|183471846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|7.2||A step-down procedure using the primary statistical analysis was followed. If the p-value for the overall gait was less than 0.05, then overall balance was tested in the same manner. Otherwise, the testing procedure was stopped.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment.||The co-primary efficacy variable was overall gait. This novel composite score was created from standardized individual NeuroCom test results (Z-scores). Overall gait was the average of WA, TW, and SQT; a higher score is indicative of better performance.||7.20|0.87|0.015
91796574|NCT01535664|183471847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||||2.8|0.7|0.003
91700562|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.36|||ANCOVA|||||1.36|-0.32|0.23
91700563|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|-0.21|0.16
91700564|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.52|||ANCOVA|||||1.52|0.07|0.032
91700565|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.76|||ANCOVA|||||1.76|0.30|0.006
91700566|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.52|||ANCOVA|||||1.52|0.07|0.031
91700567|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.90|0.24|0.012
91700568|NCT01340027|183295672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.10|0.45|0.002
91700569|NCT03518619|183295692|OTHER|This is a single group design. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted.|||||<|0.05||||||This is a calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91700570|NCT03518619|183295693|OTHER|This is a single group design. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted.|||||<|0.01||||||This is a calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
91700571|NCT01752634|183295722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|4.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.73|1.14|0.0200
91700572|NCT01752634|183295722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.52|||<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|13.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.08|3.25|<0001
91700573|NCT01752634|183295722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|13.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.56|3.42|<.0001
91700574|NCT01752634|183295723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.81|0.74|0.1650
91700575|NCT01752634|183295723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|15.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.34|2.12|0.0006
91796575|NCT01535664|183471848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|7.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.495||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.507|12.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||||12.950|2.507|0.006
91796576|NCT01535664|183471849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||||0.54|0.19|<.001
91796577|NCT01535664|183471850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|3.84||A step-down procedure using the primary statistical analysis was followed. If the p-value for the overall gait was less than 0.05, then overall balance was tested in the same manner. Otherwise, the testing procedure was stopped.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||The co-primary efficacy variable was overall balance. This novel composite score was created from standardized individual NeuroCom test results (Z-scores). Overall balance was a weighted average of SOT, LOS, and ADT.||3.84|-8.60|0.434
91796578|NCT01857583|183471864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|33.6|||ANCOVA|||||33.6|-10.0|
91700576|NCT01752634|183295723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|27.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.00|3.33|<.0001
91700577|NCT01752634|183295724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.6421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.36|0.36|0.6421
91700578|NCT01752634|183295724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.36||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|21.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.47|1.89|0.0029
91700579|NCT01752634|183295724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.74||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|36.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.84|3.13|0.0002
91700580|NCT01752634|183295725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.53|0.3763
91700581|NCT01752634|183295725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.98|0.0008
91700582|NCT01752634|183295725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-1.02|0.0004
91700583|NCT01752634|183295726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.83|0.02|0.0482
91700584|NCT01752634|183295726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.83|2.05|0.0003
91700585|NCT01752634|183295726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|7.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.69|2.91|<0.0001
91700586|NCT01752634|183295727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.16|0.9195
91700587|NCT01752634|183295727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.32|0.0278
91796579|NCT01857583|183471864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|42.1|||ANCOVA|||||42.1|-10.2|
91700588|NCT01752634|183295727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.40|0.0013
91700589|NCT01752634|183295728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|7.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.36|1.15|0.0245
91700590|NCT01752634|183295728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|18.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.25|3.11|<.0001
91731564|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0001
91868214|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-13.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-13.4|-25.8|
91700591|NCT01752634|183295728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|17.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.22|2.97|<.0001
91700592|NCT01752634|183295729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.3149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.91|0.13|0.3149
91700593|NCT01752634|183295729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.58|0.04|0.0056
91700594|NCT01752634|183295729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.14||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.50|0.04|0.0021
91700595|NCT01752634|183295730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|0.26|0.1678
91700596|NCT01752634|183295730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.79|0.17|0.0108
91700597|NCT01752634|183295730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.65|0.13|0.0025
91700598|NCT03339726|183295773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.662||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.662|-0.205|0.300
91700599|NCT03339726|183295773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.564||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.564|-0.311|0.569
91700600|NCT03339726|183295773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|0.333||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.333|-0.537|0.645
91700601|NCT03339726|183295774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|0.759||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.759|-0.267|0.346
91700602|NCT03339726|183295774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.539||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.539|-0.498|0.938
91700603|NCT03339726|183295774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|0.289||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.289|-0.741|0.389
91700604|NCT03339726|183295775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.57|||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.33|0.607
91700605|NCT03339726|183295775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.86|-0.06|0.085
91700606|NCT03339726|183295775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.74|-0.17|0.220
91700607|NCT03339726|183295776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.66|-0.40|0.633
91700608|NCT03339726|183295776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.56|-0.52|0.952
91731565|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
91731566|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0008
91796580|NCT00859027|183471877|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||One way ANOVA|||Percent change in femoral neck BMD from baseline||||0.004
91700609|NCT03339726|183295776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.42|-0.65|0.678
91700610|NCT03339726|183295777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.88|-0.11|0.126
91796581|NCT00859027|183471877|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||One way ANOVA|||Percent change in total hip BMD from baseline||||0.001
91796582|NCT00859027|183471877|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||One way ANOVA|||Percent change in lumbar spine BMD from baseline||||0.04
91796583|NCT00859027|183471877|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for the femoral neck BMD||||<0.01
91796584|NCT00859027|183471877|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for total hip BMD||||<0.01
91796585|NCT00859027|183471878|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for NTX||||0.015
91868215|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||9.9|-2.0|
91700611|NCT03339726|183295777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.78|-0.22|0.270
91700612|NCT03339726|183295777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.39|-0.60|0.676
91700613|NCT03339726|183295778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.73|-0.31|0.421
91700614|NCT03339726|183295778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.52|-0.54|0.970
91700615|NCT03339726|183295778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.3||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.30|-0.74|0.401
91700616|NCT03339726|183295779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.85|-0.23|0.257
91731567|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0251|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0251
91731568|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0006|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0006
91731569|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0211|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0211
91731570|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.3067|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.3067
91731571|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0295|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0295
91796586|NCT00859027|183471878|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for CTX||||0.01
91796587|NCT02775903|183471879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1838|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.1838
91796588|NCT02775903|183471880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.6180
91796589|NCT02775903|183471881|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.7016|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor)||||||0.7016
91796590|NCT02775903|183471882|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.6076|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.6076
91796591|NCT02775903|183471883|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.384|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.3840
91731572|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0149|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0149
91731573|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0007
91731574|NCT02732145|183357809|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0295|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0295
91731575|NCT02732145|183357810|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening between patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening between patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731576|NCT02732145|183357810|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of coarse AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.0071|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of coarse AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0071
91796592|NCT02775903|183471884|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.8961|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.8961
91796593|NCT02775903|183471885|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.3591|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.3591
91796594|NCT02775903|183471886|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.9031|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.9031
91731577|NCT02732145|183357810|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of slow AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of slow AWR occurrence between patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0010
91731578|NCT02732145|183357810|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of provoked erythema among patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of provoked erythema among patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0036
91731579|NCT02732145|183357810|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sharply bordered AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.0032|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of sharply bordered AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0032
91731580|NCT02732145|183357810|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731581|NCT02732145|183357810|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91796595|NCT02775903|183471888|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.2409|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very intermediate vs poor).||||||0.2409
91731582|NCT02732145|183357810|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Inner Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Inner Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731583|NCT02732145|183357810|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of Ring sign between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?"||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of Ring sign, aceto-whitening of all structures of the Inner Vulvar Ring, between the patients from different groups and positive AWR."||||0.0000
91796596|NCT02775903|183471889|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.0688|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (intermediate vs poor).||||||0.0688
91796597|NCT02775903|183471890|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.4894|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.4894
91796598|NCT02775903|183471892|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.0381|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (intermediate vs poor).||||||0.0381
91731584|NCT02732145|183357810|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0856|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0856
91796599|NCT02775903|183471894|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.8973|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.8973
91796600|NCT02775903|183471894|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.0691|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (intermediate vs poor).||||||0.0691
91796601|NCT03552965|183471926|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=1.14, SD=0.378, Range=1, 25th percentile=1, Median=1, 75th percentile=1, n=7 Robust: Mean=1.17, SD=0.577, Range=2, 25th percentile=1, Median=1, 75th percentile=1, n=12"|||
91796602|NCT03552965|183471927|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=2, SD=0.894, Range=2, 25th percentile=1, Median=2, 75th percentile=3, n=6 Robust: Mean=2.91, SD=1.136, Range=3, 25th percentile=2, Median=3, 75th percentile=4, n=11"|||
91868216|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.9|-4.3|
91868217|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-6.0|-19.1|
91868218|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-17.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-17.6|-29.7|
91731585|NCT02732145|183357810|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.4290
91731586|NCT02732145|183357810|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0124|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0124
91731587|NCT02732145|183357810|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731588|NCT02732145|183357810|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731589|NCT02732145|183357810|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.1918|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.1918
91731590|NCT02732145|183357810|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731591|NCT02732145|183357810|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731592|NCT02732145|183357810|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.5822|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.5822
91731593|NCT02732145|183357810|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731594|NCT02732145|183357810|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731595|NCT02732145|183357810|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.4975|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.4975
91731596|NCT02732145|183357811|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence among patients from different groups, in which the AWR was positive?||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence (positive AWR) among patients from different groups, in which the AWR was positive.||||0.0003
91731597|NCT02732145|183357812|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence among patients with positive AWR from different groups?||||||0.0004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence among patients with positive AWR from different groups.||||0.0004
91731598|NCT02732145|183357812|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia, with positive AWR?||||||0.0231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia, with positive AWR.||||0.0231
91731599|NCT02732145|183357812|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between the patients with normal vulva and impaired vulvar skin, with positive AWR?||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between the patients with normal vulva and impaired vulvar skin, with positive AWR.||||0.0006
91731600|NCT02732145|183357812|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with normal vulva and vulvodynia, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with normal vulva and vulvodynia, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91868219|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||3.4|-8.7|
91868220|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||0.4|-11.2|
91700617|NCT03339726|183295779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.58||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.58|-0.50|0.877
91700618|NCT03339726|183295779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.27|-0.80|0.329
91700619|NCT03339726|183295780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.80|-0.37|0.469
91700620|NCT03339726|183295780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.62|-0.57|0.924
91700621|NCT03339726|183295780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.40|-0.78|0.532
91700622|NCT03339726|183295781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.44||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.44|-0.78|0.579
91700623|NCT03339726|183295781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.35|-0.88|0.394
91700624|NCT03339726|183295781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.52|-0.71|0.760
91700625|NCT03339726|183295782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.539||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.539|-0.320|0.616
91700626|NCT03339726|183295782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.508||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.508|-0.359|0.734
91700627|NCT03339726|183295782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.395||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.395|-0.465|0.874
91700628|NCT03339726|183295783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.53|0.750
91700629|NCT03339726|183295783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.66|-0.26|0.390
91700630|NCT03339726|183295783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.73|-0.18|0.236
91731601|NCT02732145|183357813|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731602|NCT02732145|183357813|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91700631|NCT03339726|183295784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.43|-0.63|0.707
91731603|NCT02732145|183357813|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Perineum among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Perineum among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91868221|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-1.0|-14.3|
91731604|NCT02732145|183357813|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0128|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0128
91731605|NCT02732145|183357813|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731606|NCT02732145|183357813|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0635|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0635
91796603|NCT03552965|183471928|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=2.5, SD=0.577, Range=1, 25th percentile=2, Median=2.5, 75th percentile=3, n=4 Robust: Mean=2.33, SD=1.225, Range=3, 25th percentile=1, Median=2, 75th percentile=3.5, n=9"|||
91796604|NCT03552965|183471929|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=1.83, SD=0.753, Range=2, 25th percentile=1, Median=2, 75th percentile=2.25, n=6 Robust: Mean=2.33, SD=1, Range=3, 25th percentile=1.5, Median=2, 75th percentile=3, n=9"|||
91700632|NCT03339726|183295784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.48|-0.59|0.839
91731607|NCT02732145|183357813|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0429
91731608|NCT02732145|183357813|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0011|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0011
91731609|NCT02732145|183357813|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0936|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0936
91796605|NCT03552965|183471930|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=2, SD=0.707, Range=2, 25th percentile=1.5, Median=2, 75th percentile=2.5, n=5 Robust: Mean=2.38, SD=1.188, Range=3, 25th percentile=1.25, Median=2, 75th percentile=3.75, n=8"|||
91796606|NCT03552965|183471931|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=15.5, SD=23.76242, Range=75, 25th percentile=0, Median=5, 75th percentile=21.25, n=10 Robust: Mean=14.1346, SD=17.87095, Range=52.5, 25th percentile=0, Median=6.25, 75th percentile=27.5, n=13"|||
91700633|NCT03339726|183295784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.48|0.864
91731610|NCT02732145|183357813|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||1.0000
91731611|NCT02732145|183357813|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0429
91731612|NCT02732145|183357813|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0429
91731613|NCT02732145|183357814|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91796607|NCT03552965|183471932|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=45.625, SD=30.68744, Range=71.25, 25th percentile=11.25, Median=58.125, 75th percentile=71.25, n=6 Robust: Mean=64.3182, SD=15.0142, Range=48.75, 25th percentile=66.25, Median=70, 75th percentile=71.25, n=11"|||
91700634|NCT03339726|183295785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.44|0.794
91700635|NCT03339726|183295785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.63||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.63|-0.38|0.628
91700636|NCT03339726|183295785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.56|-0.45|0.820
91700637|NCT03339726|183295786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.79||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.79|-0.27|0.330
91700638|NCT03339726|183295786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.66|-0.40|0.631
91700639|NCT03339726|183295786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.40|-0.66|0.625
91700640|NCT03339726|183295787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.87|-0.22|0.240
91700641|NCT03339726|183295787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.60|-0.50|0.865
91700642|NCT03339726|183295787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.27|-0.82|0.316
91700643|NCT03339726|183295788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.74|-0.38|0.529
91700644|NCT03339726|183295788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.56|0.997
91700645|NCT03339726|183295788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.74|0.532
91731614|NCT02732145|183357814|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731615|NCT02732145|183357814|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731616|NCT02732145|183357814|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91796608|NCT03552965|183471933|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=60, SD=23.68412, Range=60, 25th percentile=38.125, Median=68.75, 75th percentile=77.5, n=5 Robust: Mean=54.8611, SD=29.91815, Range=80, 25th percentile=24.375, Median=66.25, 75th percentile=80, n=9"|||
91700646|NCT03339726|183295789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.83|0.468
91731617|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0318|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0318
91868222|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-6.2|-19.3|
91868223|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-2.2|-13.2|
91868224|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-4.9|-15.9|
91868225|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||0.9|-11.5|
91868226|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-5.6|-17.7|
91868227|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||6.7|-5.1|
91700647|NCT03339726|183295789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.23|-1.00|0.218
91868228|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||2.4|-8.7|
91868229|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-5.5|-17.8|
91868230|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-9.7|-21.2|
91700648|NCT03339726|183295789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.45||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.45|-0.77|0.604
91700649|NCT03681990|183295790|OTHER|Mixed Model ANOVA with subject as a random effect.||||||0.34||||||F test|ANOVA|||||||0.34
91700650|NCT00308750|183295796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
91731618|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0318|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0318
91731619|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91700651|NCT00308750|183295796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
91700652|NCT00308750|183295800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.96
91700653|NCT00308750|183295800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.15
91700654|NCT00308750|183295800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.92
91700655|NCT00308750|183295800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.97
91700656|NCT00308750|183295800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.71
91700657|NCT00308750|183295800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.66
91700658|NCT00308750|183295800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||0.93
91731620|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||1.0000
91700659|NCT00308750|183295800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||0.33
91700660|NCT00308750|183295800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.19
91796609|NCT03552965|183471934|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=31.67, SD=31.38139, Range=85, 25th percentile=5.625, Median=25, 75th percentile=56.875, n=6 Robust: Mean=54.0278, SD=24.57274, Range=67.5, 25th percentile=33.75, Median=62.5, 75th percentile=72.5, n=9"|||
91796610|NCT03552965|183471935|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=50.75, SD=30.29284, Range=72.5, 25th percentile=21.875, Median=48.75, 75th percentile=80.625, n=5 Robust: Mean=38.4375, SD=26.69897, Range=66.25, 25th percentile=15, Median=29.375, 75th percentile=68.75, n=8"|||
91700661|NCT00308750|183295800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.40
91700662|NCT00308750|183295800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.63
91700663|NCT00308750|183295800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.55
91700664|NCT00308750|183295801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.93
91700665|NCT00308750|183295801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.86
91700666|NCT00308750|183295801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.69
91700667|NCT00308750|183295801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.77
91700668|NCT00308750|183295801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.83||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.83
91700669|NCT00308750|183295801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.78
91700670|NCT00308750|183295801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||1.00
91700671|NCT00308750|183295801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||0.91
91700672|NCT00308750|183295801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.49
91796611|NCT05108922|183471936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|100.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with treatment, Apolipoprotein (ApoE) ε4 Carrier Status, baseline amyloid Level, baseline age as factors.||100.0|5.30|<0.001
91700673|NCT00308750|183295801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.53
91700674|NCT00308750|183295801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.80
91700675|NCT00308750|183295801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.85
91700676|NCT00308750|183295802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.87
91700677|NCT00308750|183295802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.05
91700678|NCT00308750|183295805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
91700679|NCT00308750|183295805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
91700680|NCT05007041|183295856|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-0.96||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|7.1|||Difference in proportions|The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.||The null hypothesis is simultaneous vaccination with RZV and allV4 is inferior (i.e., RZV and allV4 will have a higher proportion) to RZV and HD-IIV4 with regard to the proportion of adults with at least one severe (Grade 3) solicited local or systemic reactogenicity event on days 1-8 after RZV dose||7.10|-8.94|0.0037
91700681|NCT05007041|183295857|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|4.69||||||||4.69|-20.22|
91700682|NCT05007041|183295858|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|12.47||||||||12.47|-7.29|
91700683|NCT05007041|183295859|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|1.74||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|7.77||The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Difference in proportions|||Number of Participants With at Least One Severe (Grade 3) Solicited Local Reactogenicity Event After SHINGRIX® Dose 1 in Each Study Group||7.77|-4.04|0.0031
91700684|NCT05007041|183295860|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|0.6|||Difference in proportions|||||0.60|-13.10|
91796612|NCT05108922|183471937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.18||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|100.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with treatment, ApoE ε4 Carrier Status, baseline amyloid Level, baseline age as factors.||100.0|2.04|0.008
91700685|NCT05007041|183295861|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|13.11|||Difference in proportions|||||13.11|-1.32|
91700686|NCT05007041|183295862|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.47|||Difference in proportions|The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.||||2.47|-10.90|<0.0001
91700687|NCT05007041|183295863|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-5.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.64|6.28|||Difference in proportions|||||6.28|-17.64|
91796613|NCT05108922|183471938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-45.691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6132|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.84|-36.54||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for endpoint measures: Change (CHG) = Baseline + ApoE ε4 Carrier Status + Baseline Age + Treatment|ANCOVA|||||-36.54|-54.84|<0.001
91868231|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.0|-8.0|
91868232|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||-3.4|-13.7|
91868233|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-0.7|-12.6|
91868234|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-3.8|-16.0|
91868235|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||0.7|-9.9|
91868236|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||-3.4|-13.9|
91868237|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-1.2|-13.1|
91868238|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-6.0|-17.8|
91868239|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||8.4|-2.5|
91868240|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.7|-6.7|
91868241|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-1.6|-12.8|
91868242|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-7.0|-18.2|
91868243|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.5|-7.0|
91868244|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||-0.7|-11.4|
91868245|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-0.1|-11.8|
91868246|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-6.4|-17.0|
91700688|NCT05007041|183295864|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|3.89|||Difference in proportions|||||3.89|-10.50|
91904966|NCT01721876|183705236|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine was tested against 1. The null hypothesis, H0,OS, was that the hazards are equal between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine, whereas the alternative hypothesis, Ha,OS, was that the hazards are not equal between the 2 treatment arms. H0, OS: HR = 1 vs. Ha, OS: HR ≠ 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||P-value is calculated from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0-1 vs. 2) and type of AML (denovo vs. secondary).|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG and type of AML. If hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours volasertib.|This analysis was exploratory and descriptive.||1.2|0.8|0.6718
91796614|NCT05108922|183471939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-48.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.99|-38.44||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using ANCOVA model for endpoint measures: Percent change (PCHG) = Baseline + ApoE ε4 Carrier Status + Baseline Age + Treatment|ANCOVA|||||-38.44|-57.99|<0.001
91796615|NCT05108922|183471940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-40.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.551|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.87|-18.64||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using ANCOVA model for endpoint measures: CHG = Baseline + ApoE ε4 Carrier Status + Baseline Age + Treatment|ANCOVA|||||-18.64|-61.87|<0.001
91700689|NCT05007041|183295865|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.7|||Difference in proportions|||||0.70|-2.16|
91700690|NCT05007041|183295866|OTHER|The proportion and 95% exact binomial confidence interval between vaccine groups.|Difference in proportions|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|0.6|||Difference in proportions|||||0.60|-6.36|
91700691|NCT02901275|183295900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||No covariate or correction for multiple comparisons. a priori statistical threshold is p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
91700692|NCT02901275|183295901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||No covariates or correction for multiple comparisons. a priori threshold is p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
91700693|NCT02901275|183295902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||No covariate or correction for multiple comparisons. a priori threshold for significance is p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
91700694|NCT01258075|183295910|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.29|||ANCOVA|Based on a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment and previous type 2 diabetes treatment stratum as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.29|-0.54|0.5494
91700695|NCT05870956|183295939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|932.88||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1880.17|3745.94|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||3745.94|-1880.17|0.516
91700696|NCT05870956|183295939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4902.02||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|767.6|9036.43|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||9036.43|767.60|0.020
91700697|NCT05870956|183295939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2727.38||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|323.48|5131.27|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5131.27|323.48|0.026
91700698|NCT05870956|183295939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5462.41||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2520.93|8403.9|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||8403.90|2520.93|0.000
91700699|NCT05870956|183295940|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-303.94||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1074.77|466.9|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||466.90|-1074.77|0.439
91700700|NCT05870956|183295940|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2772.06||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|422.1|5122.02|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5122.02|422.10|0.021
91700701|NCT05870956|183295940|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|456.79||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-458.64|1372.21|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||1372.21|-458.64|0.328
91700702|NCT05870956|183295940|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|620.87||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-771.77|2013.51|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||2013.51|-771.77|0.382
91700703|NCT05870956|183295941|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.9|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||8.9|-4.0|0.463
91700704|NCT05870956|183295941|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|16.8|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||16.8|2.5|0.008
91700705|NCT05870956|183295941|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|15.3|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||15.3|2.8|0.005
91700706|NCT05870956|183295941|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|11.7|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||11.7|1.1|0.019
91700707|NCT05870956|183295942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.5|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5.5|-4.3|0.801
91700708|NCT05870956|183295942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.8|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||14.8|2.7|0.005
91700709|NCT05870956|183295942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.2|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||8.2|-1.4|0.170
91700710|NCT05870956|183295942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.4|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5.4|-2.6|0.489
91700711|NCT02091986|183295962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline FEV1, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.006
91868247|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||0.1|-10.1|
91796616|NCT05108922|183471941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-23.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.231|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.35|-15.6||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.60|-32.35|<0.001
91796617|NCT05108922|183471942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-25.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.381|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.49|-17.15||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.15|-34.49|<0.001
91796618|NCT05108922|183471943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|20.81||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with 1 (Screening) value, ApoE4 Status, Age, Treatment, Time, and Treatment-by-time interaction as factors. Variance-Covariance structure = Unstructured|Regression, Logistic|||||20.81|3.37|<0.001
91796619|NCT05108922|183471944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|99.99||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|5.71|<.001
91868248|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||-0.0|-10.0|
91700712|NCT02091986|183295962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline FEV1, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.063
91700713|NCT02091986|183295962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline FEV1, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.373
91700714|NCT02091986|183295963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.001
91700715|NCT02091986|183295963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.195
91700716|NCT02091986|183295963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.032
91700717|NCT02091986|183295964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||<0.001
91700718|NCT02091986|183295964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.005
91700719|NCT02091986|183295964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.326
91700720|NCT02091986|183295965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.276
91700721|NCT02091986|183295965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.759
91700722|NCT02091986|183295965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.165
91700723|NCT02091986|183295966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.724
91700724|NCT02091986|183295966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.909
91796620|NCT05108922|183471945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-26.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.479|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.78|-13.73||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.73|-39.78|<0.001
91700725|NCT02091986|183295966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.811
91700726|NCT02091986|183295967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.134
91700727|NCT02091986|183295967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.985
91700728|NCT02091986|183295967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.128
91700729|NCT02091986|183295968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.684
91700730|NCT02091986|183295968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.621
91700731|NCT02091986|183295968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.929
91868249|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||0.5|-11.7|
91700732|NCT02091986|183295969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.664
91700733|NCT02091986|183295969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.747
91868250|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-6.3|-17.3|
91868251|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.5|-4.0|
91868252|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||-0.3|-9.7|
91700734|NCT02091986|183295969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.913
91700735|NCT02091986|183295970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.015
91700736|NCT02091986|183295970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.342
91700737|NCT02091986|183295970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.138
91700738|NCT02091986|183295974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||ANCOVA|The explanatory variables included in the model are: treatment group, baseline overall PAQLQ(S) score, region and age group||||||0.098
91700739|NCT02091986|183295974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||ANCOVA|The explanatory variables included in the model are: treatment group, baseline overall PAQLQ(S) score, region and age group||||||0.367
91700740|NCT02091986|183295974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||ANCOVA|The explanatory variables included in the model are: treatment group, baseline overall PAQLQ(S) score, region and age group||||||0.449
91700741|NCT00606554|183295976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91700742|NCT00606554|183295980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91700743|NCT00606554|183295983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
91700744|NCT00915876|183295984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91700745|NCT01662791|183295990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the groups for \>12 ppm.||||1.0
91700746|NCT01662791|183295991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for mobility sub-scale.||||0.235
91700747|NCT01662791|183295991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for activities of daily living sub-scale.||||0.206
91868253|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-0.1|-11.4|
91868254|NCT02307682|183629804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-6.2|-16.4|
91700748|NCT01662791|183295991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for emotional well-being sub-scale.||||0.641
91700749|NCT01662791|183295991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for stigma sub-scale.||||0.446
91700750|NCT01662791|183295991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for social support sub-scale.||||0.466
91700751|NCT01662791|183295991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for cognition sub-scale.||||0.205
91700752|NCT01662791|183295991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for communication sub-scale.||||0.153
91700753|NCT01662791|183295991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for bodily discomfort sub-scale.||||0.730
91700754|NCT01662791|183295991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for summary index sub-scale.||||0.334
91700755|NCT01662791|183295992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for mobility sub-scale.||||0.167
91700756|NCT01662791|183295992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for activities of daily living sub-scale.||||0.159
91700757|NCT01662791|183295992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for emotional well-being sub-scale.||||0.041
91700758|NCT01662791|183295992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for stigma sub-scale.||||0.190
91700759|NCT01662791|183295992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for social support sub-scale.||||1.0
91868255|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.6|-7.9|
91868256|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||7.4|-4.1|
91868257|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.3|-10.0|
91868258|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||4.5|-7.7|
91868259|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.3|-7.6|
91868260|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||5.8|-5.4|
91700760|NCT01662791|183295992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for cognition sub-scale.||||0.160
91700761|NCT01662791|183295992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for communication sub-scale.||||0.276
91700762|NCT01662791|183295992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for bodily discomfort sub-scale.||||0.351
91700763|NCT01662791|183295992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for summary index sub-scale.||||0.186
91700764|NCT01662791|183295993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for constipation sub-scale.||||0.303
91700765|NCT01662791|183295993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for dyspepsia sub-scale.||||0.518
91700766|NCT01662791|183295993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for abdominal discomfort sub-scale.||||0.800
91700767|NCT01662791|183295993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for diarrhea sub-scale.||||0.736
91700768|NCT01662791|183295993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for GERD sub-scale.||||0.570
91700769|NCT01662791|183295993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for nausea and vomiting sub-scale.||||0.394
91700770|NCT01662791|183295994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for constipation sub-scale.||||0.056
91700771|NCT01662791|183295994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for dyspepsia sub-scale.||||0.380
91700772|NCT01662791|183295994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for abdominal discomfort sub-scale.||||0.244
91700773|NCT01662791|183295994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for diarrhea sub-scale.||||0.279
91700774|NCT01662791|183295994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for GERD sub-scale.||||0.554
91700775|NCT01662791|183295994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for nausea and vomiting sub-scale.||||0.351
91700776|NCT01662791|183295995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between the two groups at baseline for depression||||0.872
91700777|NCT01662791|183295995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between the two groups at baseline for anxiety.||||0.835
91700778|NCT02496091|183296001|OTHER||95% confidence interval (using the exact|92.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.8|95.5||||||Only descriptive statistics The implant success rate is analyzed on an implant level (i.e. percent of successful implants) as well as subject level (i.e. percentage of subjects with no unsuccessful implants). This proportion is presented together with a 95% confidence interval (using the exact Binomial approach) and an average follow-up time.||95.5|88.8|
91868261|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.6|-8.3|
91868262|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||1.9|-10.0|
91700779|NCT02272842|183296007|SUPERIORITY|The study had 80% power to detect a standardized effect size of 0.22 and had 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.28. In these calculations, we assumed a loss to follow-up of 10%. Details on the samples size calculations are also presented in the previously published protocol paper.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|>|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.87||The main analysis was the change in cognitive scores from baseline until the end of the intervention.|t-test, 2 sided||This is the P-value for the effect on the cognitive scores.|||.87|-.54|>.16
91796621|NCT05108922|183471946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1187||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|0.199||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.199|-16.060|0.0558
91796622|NCT05108922|183471947|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of interest: 5 Centiloids|LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1187|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|0.199||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.199|-16.060|
91796623|NCT05108922|183471948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|-3.88||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.88|-20.19|0.004
91796624|NCT05108922|183471949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91904967|NCT01721876|183705237|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.7|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG and type of AML. If hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours volasertib.|||2.7|0.7|
91700780|NCT02272842|183296017|SUPERIORITY|the means were compared using Students t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||>|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.94||"Mean difference -0.5 points in the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence - Fourth Edition.~95 % Confidence Interval of the mean difference: (-1.97, 0.94)"|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing mean differences between the two study arms||0.94|-1.97|>.3
91700781|NCT04464720|183296025|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing pre and post intervention PM2.5||||0.050
91700782|NCT04464720|183296028|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing pre v post intervention NO2||||0.043
91700783|NCT04464720|183296031|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing FVC pre and post intervention||||0.056
91700784|NCT04464720|183296032|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Comparing FEV1 pre and post intervention||||0.058
91700785|NCT04464720|183296034|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing FeNO pre v post intervention||||0.058
91700786|NCT02156895|183296048|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total duration of treatment with Inlyta as factor||||1.24|0.97|0.1244
91700787|NCT02156895|183296054|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total duration of treatment with Inlyta as factor||||1.2|1.02|0.0109
91700788|NCT03728985|183296071|NON_INFERIORITY|Performance Goal 80%|Absolute Percentage with Success|77.5||||0.5908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.6|84.1|||Fisher Exact||The lower estimated confidence interval above the Performance Goal of 80% would be considered success.|||84.1|69.6|0.5908
91700789|NCT03728985|183296072|NON_INFERIORITY|Performance Goal 68%|Percentage with Success|70.6||||0.7017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.4|78.7|||Fisher Exact|||||78.7|61.4|0.7017
91700790|NCT02417961|183296109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|98.2||||||95.0|93.81|99.79|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an APFS at home (Week 12)|||99.79|93.81|
91700791|NCT02417961|183296109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.99|99.98|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an APFS at home (Week 16)|||99.98|94.99|
91700792|NCT02417961|183296109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.64|96.92|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 and 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an APFS at home (Week 12 and 16)|||96.92|86.64|
91700793|NCT02417961|183296110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.21|99.98|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients returned functional APFS administered at home (Week 12)|||99.98|95.21|
91700794|NCT02417961|183296110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.99|99.98|||Clopper Pearson Exact CI|One sample confidence interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients returned functional APFS administered at home (Week 16)|||99.98|94.99|
91700795|NCT02417961|183296111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.13|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0)|Percentage of mulfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0)|||3.13|0.00|
91700796|NCT02417961|183296111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.67|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 4)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 4)|||4.67|0.02|
91700797|NCT02417961|183296111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.16|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 8)|||3.16|0.00|
91700798|NCT02417961|183296111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.13|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12)|||3.13|0.00|
91700799|NCT02417961|183296111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.33|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 16)|||3.33|0|
91700800|NCT02417961|183296111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.59|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 8)|||1.59|0.01|
91700801|NCT02417961|183296111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.63|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12 to 16)|||1.63|0.00|
91700802|NCT02417961|183296111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.97|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 16)|||0.97|0.00|
91700803|NCT01390428|183296116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.01|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment (HI)/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 1||2.01|0.73|
91700804|NCT01390428|183296116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.61|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 10||2.61|1.05|
91759172|NCT04038567|183411372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.30|-1.30|
91904968|NCT03805750|183705243|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.52
91700805|NCT01390428|183296116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.19|11.56|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 1||11.56|2.19|
91700806|NCT01390428|183296116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|8.93|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 10||8.93|2.60|
91700807|NCT01390428|183296116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|19.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.11|48.51|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 1||48.51|8.11|
91700808|NCT01390428|183296116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|11.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|22.35|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 10||22.35|6.10|
91700809|NCT01390428|183296117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|2.01|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 1||2.01|0.35|
91700810|NCT01390428|183296117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|2.27|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 10||2.27|0.83|
91700811|NCT01390428|183296117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|7.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.74|21.27|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 1||21.27|2.74|
91700812|NCT01390428|183296117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.84|12.57|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 10||12.57|2.84|
91700813|NCT01390428|183296117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|15.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.02|38.25|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 1||38.25|6.02|
91700814|NCT01390428|183296117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|13.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.0|28.21|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 10||28.21|6.00|
91700815|NCT01390428|183296119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|2.24|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|||2.24|1.54|
91700816|NCT01390428|183296119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|6.82|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|||6.82|1.31|
91700817|NCT01390428|183296121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.63|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|||2.63|1.40|
91700818|NCT01390428|183296121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|7.11|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|||7.11|1.81|
91700819|NCT01390428|183296121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|9.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.98|17.51|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|||17.51|4.98|
91700820|NCT05897827|183296123|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 3.75.|Mean|3.93||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|4.13||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.13|3.73|0.074
91700821|NCT05897827|183296124|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 75.|Mean|75.47||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.12|79.83||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||79.83|71.12|0.827
91700822|NCT05897827|183296125|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 3.75.|Mean|4.01||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|4.17||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.17|3.84|0.003
91700823|NCT05897827|183296126|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 3.75.|Mean|4.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|4.18||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.18|3.85|0.002
91700824|NCT05897827|183296130|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.42||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|0.03|0.03
91700825|NCT05897827|183296130|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.36|0.95
91700826|NCT05897827|183296131|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in LGBTQ+ Inclusivity, Awareness, and Advocacy, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|0.46|<0.001
91700827|NCT05897827|183296131|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in LGBTQ+ Inclusivity, Awareness, and Advocacy, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|0.10|0.01
91700828|NCT05897827|183296131|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Identity-Affirming Practices, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.41||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|0.11|0.001
91700829|NCT05897827|183296131|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Identity-Affirming Practices, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.24||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.03|0.01
91700830|NCT05897827|183296131|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Inclusivity in Restrooms and Changing Options, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.68||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|0.18|0.001
91868263|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|16.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||16.2|5.0|
91868264|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|15.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||15.4|4.7|
91868265|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||1.7|-9.8|
91868266|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-3.0|-14.9|
91868267|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||8.4|-2.1|
91868268|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||5.1|-6.3|
91868269|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||6.1|-5.8|
91868270|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.5|-8.4|
91868271|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.4|-6.4|
91868272|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||3.0|-7.8|
91868273|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.7|-9.6|
91700831|NCT05897827|183296131|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Inclusivity in Restrooms and Changing Options, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.86||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|0.02|0.04
91868274|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.9|-10.2|
91868275|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||9.9|-1.0|
91868276|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.5|-3.3|
91868277|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.1|-6.2|
91700832|NCT05897827|183296132|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.04||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.50|0.10
91868278|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.5|-6.4|
91868279|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.7|-2.2|
91868280|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||7.4|-3.2|
91904969|NCT00493220|183705245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (natural log-transformed)|111.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.57|115.12|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Placebo SC|||115.12|108.57|
91700833|NCT05897827|183296132|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.07||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.55|0.14
91700834|NCT05897827|183296132|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.01||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.39|0.07
91700835|NCT05897827|183296132|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.22||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.18|0.85
91700836|NCT05897827|183296132|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.01||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.30|0.06
91700837|NCT05897827|183296132|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.14|0.51
91700838|NCT05897827|183296132|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.53||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|0.13|0.001
91700839|NCT05897827|183296132|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.55||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|0.01|0.04
91700840|NCT05897827|183296132|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.19|0.36
91700841|NCT05897827|183296132|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.16|0.62
91731621|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0389|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0389
91731622|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0389|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0389
91731623|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||1e-05|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.00001
91731624|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731625|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731626|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0008
91731627|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731628|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731629|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0005|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0005
91731630|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731631|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731632|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.4505|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.4505
91731633|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731634|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91868281|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||8.1|-3.5|
91731635|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||1.0000
91731636|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0534|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0534
91731637|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731638|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0534|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0534
91731639|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731640|NCT02732145|183357814|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0005|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0005
91868282|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.8|-5.8|
91868283|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.8|-6.6|
91731641|NCT02732145|183357815|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731642|NCT02732145|183357815|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731643|NCT02732145|183357815|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731644|NCT02732145|183357815|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731645|NCT02732145|183357815|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731646|NCT02732145|183357815|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731647|NCT02732145|183357815|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Vestibule among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Vestibule among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91731648|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's line in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.8545|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's line in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.8545
91731649|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.8569|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.8569
91868284|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.1|-5.8|
91868285|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.1|-6.4|
91731650|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.2478|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.2478
91731651|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.2478|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.2478
91731652|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1627|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1627
91731653|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.5943|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.5943
91731654|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.7161|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.7161
91731655|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.3301|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.3301
91796625|NCT05108922|183471950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.96|-4.93||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.93|-21.96|0.002
91796626|NCT05108922|183471951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|11.34||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with 1 (Screening) value, ApoE4 Status, Age, Treatment, Time, and Treatment-by-time interaction as factors. Variance-Covariance structure = Unstructured.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.34|1.93|<0.001
91700842|NCT05897827|183296133|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.32|0.08
91700843|NCT05897827|183296133|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.12||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.55|0.20
91700844|NCT05897827|183296133|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.14|0.74
91700845|NCT05897827|183296133|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.12|0.55
91700846|NCT05897827|183296133|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.22|0.40
91700847|NCT05897827|183296133|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.13||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.37|0.36
91700848|NCT05897827|183296133|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.6||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|0.18|<0.001
91700849|NCT05897827|183296133|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.39||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-0.16|0.41
91700850|NCT05897827|183296133|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.22|0.92
91700851|NCT05897827|183296133|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.44||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|-0.16|0.37
91700852|NCT05897827|183296134|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.59||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|0.28|<0.001
91700853|NCT05897827|183296134|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|0.29|<0.001
91700854|NCT04599933|183296136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.916|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.663|5.113|||Regression, Logistic|||All treatment comparisons for primary and secondary endpoints related to BDCVA were conducted with a logistic regression model including fixed effects of baseline BDCVA at 40 cm as a covariate and treatment.||5.113|1.663|<0.01
91700855|NCT04599933|183296137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.035|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.736|5.305|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.305|1.736|<0.01
91700856|NCT04599933|183296138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.751|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.694|8.379|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.379|2.694|<0.01
91700857|NCT04599933|183296139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.422|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.923|6.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.090|1.923|<0.01
91700858|NCT01643798|183296163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91700859|NCT01643798|183296163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91700860|NCT01643798|183296164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.0003
91700861|NCT01643798|183296164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.794
91700862|NCT01911780|183296169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean, comparison|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-5.3|||LOCF-ANCOVA|Last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used as the imputation method|Model includes baseline DBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.|||-5.3|-9.7|<0.0001
91700863|NCT01911780|183296170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean, comparison|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.5||Additional information, the p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|LOCF-ANCOVA||Model includes baseline SBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.|||-4.5|-12.7|<0.0001
91700864|NCT01911780|183296171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.1||Additional information, the p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Non-completers considered failures (NCF) was used as the imputation method.|Exact 95 % confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson. Logistic regression includes treatment and center.|||7.1|1.4|0.0052
91868286|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||2.6|-8.7|
91700865|NCT01911780|183296173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.3|||mixed-effects model repeated measures||As a linear covariate, and treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||2.3|-3.1|
91868287|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||10.7|0.3|
91700866|NCT01911780|183296174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.1|||mixed-effects model repeated measures||Model includes baseline SBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||6.1|-1.5|
91700867|NCT03833804|183296186|NON_INFERIORITY|The investigators conducted a noninferiority analysis using a prespecified margin of 0.5%. The noninferiority margin was selected based on expert input from addiction medicine clinicians and implementation scientists, who agreed that a 0.5% absolute difference in the composite intervention rate would be clinically acceptable given the workflow and scalability benefits of automation. The margin was chosen to reflect a reasonable balance between clinical impact and operational gain.|z-test|0.86||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||One-sided independent samples z-test|||||||0.20
91700868|NCT02677896|183296191|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|rPFS Treatment Comparison||0.50|0.30|<0.0001
91700869|NCT02677896|183296192|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazards model|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||Log Rank|||rPFS Treatment Comparision||0.50|0.30|<0.0001
91700870|NCT02677896|183296193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.81|||Log Rank|P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Significance level is 0.04. Hazard ratio and 95 % CI are estimated by cox proportional hazards model.|||0.81|0.53|<0.0001
91700871|NCT02677896|183296194|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.26||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Time to PSA Progression Treatment Comparison||0.26|0.13|<0.0001
91700872|NCT02677896|183296195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.48|||||Hazard ratio and 95 % CI are estimated by cox proportional hazards model.|||0.48|0.31|
91700873|NCT02677896|183296196|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|50.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3|55.7||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PSA Undetectable Rate Treatment Comparison||55.7|45.3|<0.0001
91700874|NCT02677896|183296197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|28.2||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR Treatment Comparison||28.2|10.4|<0.0001
91700875|NCT02677896|183296198|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.88||||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Time to Deterioration of Urinary Symptoms Treatment Comparison||1.08|0.72|0.2162
91868288|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||7.2|-3.2|
91700876|NCT02677896|183296199|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.52||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.8|||Log Rank|||Time to SSE Treatment Comparison||0.80|0.33|0.0026
91700877|NCT02677896|183296200|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.36|||Log Rank|||Time to Castration Resistance Treatment Comparison||0.36|0.22|<0.0001
91700878|NCT02677896|183296201|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.96||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||Log Rank|||Time to Deterioration of QoL in FACT-P Treatment Comparison||1.14|0.81|0.6548
91700879|NCT02677896|183296202|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.92||||0.2715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Log Rank|||Time to Pain Progression Based on BPI-SF Treatment Comparison||1.07|0.78|0.2715
91700880|NCT02729038|183296211|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.507|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.902|2.519|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs participants with moderate renal function has been presented.|||2.519|0.902|
91700881|NCT02729038|183296211|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.924|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.151|3.215|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs participants with Severe/ESRD not on hemodialysis|||3.215|1.151|
91700882|NCT02729038|183296212|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.421|3.969|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (before hemodialysis)|||3.969|1.421|
91700883|NCT02729038|183296212|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|4.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.438|6.81|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (after hemodialysis)|||6.810|2.438|
91700884|NCT02729038|183296213|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.467|2.977|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs participants with moderate renal function has been presented.|||2.977|0.467|
91700885|NCT02729038|183296213|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.575|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.624|3.975|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs .participants with Severe/ESRD not on hemodialysis|||3.975|0.624|
91700886|NCT02729038|183296214|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|5.681|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (before hemodialysis)|||5.681|0.891|
91796627|NCT05108922|183471952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.34||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|30.54||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with 1 (Screening) value, ApoE4 Status, Age, Treatment, Time, and Treatment-by-time interaction as factors. Variance-Covariance structure = Unstructured.|Regression, Logistic|||||30.54|1.32|0.022
91796628|NCT05108922|183471953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.333||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-1.59||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.59|-27.07|0.028
91796629|NCT05108922|183471954|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of interest: 5 Centiloids.|LS Mean difference (Final Values)|7.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|15.889||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.889|-0.226|
91796630|NCT01854658|183471986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
91796631|NCT01854658|183471986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
91868289|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.7|-6.1|
91700887|NCT02729038|183296214|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|5.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.363|15.062|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (after hemodialysis)|||15.062|2.363|
91700888|NCT02729038|183296236|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.501|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|2.52|||||Normal Vs Moderate|||2.520|0.894|
91700889|NCT02729038|183296236|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.139|3.212|||||Normal Vs Severe/ESRD not on hemodialysis|||3.212|1.139|
91700890|NCT02729038|183296237|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.414|3.989|||||Normal Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (before hemodialysis)|||3.989|1.414|
91700891|NCT02729038|183296237|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|4.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.422|6.831|||||Normal Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (after hemodialysis)|||6.831|2.422|
91700892|NCT03687372|183296267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|6.22||P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A summary of the wart clearance at Visit 10.||6.22|1.67|0.0003
91700893|NCT03687372|183296268|SUPERIORITY|P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.52|1.30|0.0024
91700894|NCT03687372|183296269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|20.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20.8|7.5|<0.0001
91700895|NCT03687372|183296270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.65|1.55|0.0009
91796632|NCT01854658|183471986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
91700896|NCT03687372|183296271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91700897|NCT01482962|183296288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.08||P-value was stratified using disease type, International Prognostic Index (IPI) Score and region as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.08|0.33|0.038
91700898|NCT01482962|183296289|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|1.178|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) was based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors: disease type, IPI Score and region with treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.178|0.637|0.177
91700899|NCT01482962|183296290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.369|||Stratified Log-rank Test||Hazard ratio (HR) was based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors: disease type, IPI Score and region with treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.369|0.707|0.338
91700900|NCT01482962|183296295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.329|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors: disease type, IPI Score and region with treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.329|0.679|0.362
91700901|NCT01152359|183296316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-0.8|<0.05
91700902|NCT01152359|183296317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-4.9|0.66
91700903|NCT01152359|183296318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-4.1|0.65
91796633|NCT01854658|183471986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
91796634|NCT01854658|183471986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
91796635|NCT01854658|183471986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
91796636|NCT02007512|183472059|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.257|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.257|0.535|0.3631
91796637|NCT02007512|183472059|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.586|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.586|0.659|0.9212
91796638|NCT02007512|183472060|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.442||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.955|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||0.955|0.205|0.0335
91796639|NCT02007512|183472060|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.554||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|1.363|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.363|0.225|0.1936
91796640|NCT02007512|183472077|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.7378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.438|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.438|0.599|0.7378
91868290|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||1.9|-9.0|
91796641|NCT02007512|183472077|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.483|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.483|0.632|0.8817
91868291|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.1|-1.9|
91868292|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.4|-3.9|
91868293|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.6|-4.7|
91868294|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.1|-5.2|
91700904|NCT01210495|183296375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.2872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.274||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by tumor invasion and geographic region.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated reduction in hazard rate to favor Axitinib; hazard ratio greater than (\>) 1 indicated reduction to favor Placebo.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the true median OS was 5 months vs. the alternative hypothesis that the true median OS was at least 8.3 months (i.e., 66 percent \[%\] improvement in median OS).||1.274|0.646|0.2872
91700905|NCT01210495|183296376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.618||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.871||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by tumor invasion and geographic region.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \<1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Axitinib; a hazard ratio \>1 indicated a reduction in favor of Placebo.|||0.871|0.438|0.0039
91700906|NCT01210495|183296377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.172||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|13.265||ORR for the 2 treatment arms was compared with a significance level of 0.025 using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test for stratified analyses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk ratio and confidence interval (CI) were based on the Mantel-Haenszel estimator; risk ratio was adjusted for geographical region and vascular invasion and extra hepatic spread.|||13.265|0.759|0.0914
91700907|NCT01210495|183296378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.621||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.889||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by tumor invasion and geographic region.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \<1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Axitinib; a hazard ratio \>1 indicated a reduction in favor of Placebo.|||0.889|0.434|0.006
91700908|NCT01210495|183296380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.65||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.319|5.326||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by geographical region and vascular invasion and extra hepatic spread.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Ratio and CI based on the Mantel-Haenszel estimator; risk ratio was adjusted for geographical region and vascular invasion and extra hepatic spread.|||5.326|1.319|0.0025
91700909|NCT01210495|183296389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.89||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-5.08||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-5.08|-18.70|0.0006
91700910|NCT01210495|183296390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|-2.94||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-2.94|-12.27|0.0014
91700911|NCT01210495|183296391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.78||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-1.78|-4.76|<0.0001
91700912|NCT01210495|183296392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.21||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G PWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-2.21|-5.26|<0.0001
91796642|NCT02007512|183472078|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.522||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|1.217|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.217|0.224|0.1270
91796643|NCT02007512|183472078|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.961|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||0.961|0.143|0.0359
91868295|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||7.3|-3.3|
91868296|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.8|-5.7|
91796644|NCT05402020|183472086|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||||Ratio calculated as \[Tio/Olo\]/\[ICS/LABA\]|Univariate proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to event (first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations) between the two treatment groups. In the event that there were baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) were included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or ICS/LABA).||1.15|0.87|
91868297|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||9.7|-1.7|
91700913|NCT01210495|183296392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.52||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G SWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.52|-3.07|0.1642
91700914|NCT01210495|183296392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.84||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G EWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.84|-1.80|0.4759
91700915|NCT01210495|183296392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.21||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G FWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-0.21|-3.92|0.0288
91700916|NCT01210495|183296393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.99||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-1.99|-7.93|0.0011
91700917|NCT01210495|183296394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-5.42||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-5.42|-15.49|<0.0001
91700918|NCT01210495|183296395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.252||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.698||The p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test.|1-sided, unstratified log-rank test||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \<1 indicates reduction in hazard rate to favor Axitinib, hazard ratio \>1 indicates reduction to favor Placebo.|||1.698|0.923|0.9182
91700919|NCT01210495|183296396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.04|||Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-0.04|-0.20|0.0024
91700920|NCT01210495|183296397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|-1.15|||Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-1.15|-12.91|0.0193
91700921|NCT00640653|183296434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.96||The significance criterion was set at alpha = .05.|generalized linear regression|Log link was specified|Treatment was coded as 1 vs health control coded as 0.|With alpha = .05, 2-tailed, and 37.4% of the control group initiating sexual intercourse by 24-month follow-up, a total sample size of 563 participants completing the trial was projected to provide power of 80% to detect a difference of 16.8% in self-reported sexual intercourse between an HIV intervention condition and the health promotion control condition.||0.96|0.48|.03
91700922|NCT02938949|183296439|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91700923|NCT02938949|183296440|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||> 0.20
91700924|NCT02938949|183296441|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.20
91700925|NCT01500213|183296460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. For the CR delayed the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05; no further adjustment for multiplicity were required for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.1|1.0|0.043
91700926|NCT01500213|183296461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR-acute was tested only if the result for the primary endpoint, CR delayed, was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.0|0.8|0.233
91700927|NCT01500213|183296462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR overall was tested only if both CR delayed and CR acute were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||1.9|1.0|0.084
91700928|NCT04027075|183296463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.02|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.02|0.51|.962
91700929|NCT04027075|183296464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.18|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||1.18|0.19|.109
91700930|NCT04027075|183296465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.29|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||3.29|0.75|.227
91904970|NCT00493220|183705245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (natural log-transformed)|60.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.06|62.62|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Intravenous|||62.62|59.06|
91868298|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||5.6|-5.3|
91868299|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.9|-1.3|
91868300|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.0|-4.3|
91868301|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||5.2|-6.4|
91868302|NCT02307682|183629805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||0.9|-10.8|
91868303|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.6|-7.7|
91868304|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||0.4|-11.4|
91868305|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.2|-9.3|
91700931|NCT04027075|183296466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.87|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.87|0.50|.681
91700932|NCT04027075|183296467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.42|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.42|0.58|.650
91796645|NCT05402020|183472087|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.85|||||Ratio calculated as \[Tio/Olo\]/\[ICS/LABA\]|Univariate proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to event (triple therapy escalation) between the two treatment groups. In the event that there were baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) were included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or ICS/LABA).||0.85|0.53|
91796646|NCT05402020|183472088|OTHER||Incidence difference|-37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-15.8|||||Incidence difference calculated as \[incidence rate of Tio/Olo\]-\[incidence rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||-15.8|-60.1|
91868306|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.2|-9.8|
91868307|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-1.5|-11.5|
91868308|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-2.3|-12.8|
91868309|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-1.1|-11.8|
91700933|NCT04027075|183296468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.73|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.73|0.73|.304
91700934|NCT04027075|183296469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.0|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||3.00|0.69|0.97
91796647|NCT05402020|183472088|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||||Ratio calculated as \[incidence rate of Tio/Olo\]/\[incidence rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||0.85|0.51|
91868310|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-2.9|-14.4|
91904971|NCT00493220|183705245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|54.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.82|56.01|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||Placebo SC/Intravenous|||56.01|52.82|
91700935|NCT04027075|183296470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.005
91700936|NCT04027075|183296471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.460
91700937|NCT04027075|183296472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.851|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.851
91700938|NCT04027075|183296473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.977
91700939|NCT04027075|183296474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.456
91700940|NCT04027075|183296475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.874|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.874
91700941|NCT04027075|183296476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.069
91700942|NCT04027075|183296477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.658|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.658
91700943|NCT04027075|183296478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.783|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.783
91700944|NCT00195494|183296513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact||E+M (49.8%) - M (27.8%) creates the risk difference estimated value.|||||<0.001
91700945|NCT00195494|183296514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact||E+M (79.7%) - M (58.7%) creates the risk difference estimated value.|||||<0.001
91700946|NCT00347919|183296557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|2.7||||0.3724||90.0|-11.0|16.3|||Chi-squared||Difference in the percentage of independently-evaluated PD between lapatinib and combination therapy (lapatinib plus pazopanib)|||16.3|-11.0|0.3724
91700947|NCT00347919|183296557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|5.4||||0.2578||90.0|-8.4|19.2|||Chi-squared||Difference in the percentage of investigator-evaluated PD between lapatinib and combination therapy (lapatinib plus pazopanib)|||19.2|-8.4|0.2578
91700948|NCT00347919|183296558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7488||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7488
91700949|NCT01187498|183296585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A power analysis indicated that a sample size of 70 per group would provide 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 0.05 to declare two means equivalent, assuming a mean voiding frequency of 8.2 for behavioral treatment, a mean voiding frequency of 8.0 for drug therapy, and a standard deviation of 2.3 for both groups. Equivalence was defined as ±15% of the drug therapy posttreatment mean.|Difference of the Means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||The estimated parameter of dispersion is the standard error of the regression coefficient which measured the adjusted difference of the group means.|The primary analysis was an equivalence analysis to compare the two treatment groups on posttreatment 24- hour voiding frequency using a margin of ±15% of the drug group mean. Schuirmann's two one-sided tests (TOST) approach was used first to examine completers and then repeated using last observation carried forward to include participants who did not complete therapy. Adjusting the test to regression, the analyses were repeated using baseline voiding frequency as a covariate.||||.001
91700950|NCT01187498|183296586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of the Means|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.05||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.05
91700951|NCT01187498|183296587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Group Means|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.05
91796648|NCT05402020|183472089|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.93|||||Ratio calculated as \[Tio/Olo\]/\[ICS/LABA\]|Univariate proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to event (first hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia after initiation of study drug) between the two treatment groups. In the event that there were baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) were included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or ICS/LABA).||1.93|0.36|
91868311|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||8.3|-2.8|
91904972|NCT00493220|183705246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|-0.75|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||HYLENEX SC minus Placebo SC|||-0.75|-1.25|<0.01
91700952|NCT01187498|183296588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Group Means|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.33||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.33
91700953|NCT01187498|183296589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.84||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.84
91700954|NCT01187498|183296590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Weighted Group Means|-0.0563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1249||0.69||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.69
91700955|NCT01187498|183296591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between Group Weighted Means|-0.1563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1009||0.16||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.16
91700956|NCT01187498|183296592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Weighted Group Means|0.1079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1625||0.56||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.56
91700957|NCT01187498|183296593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Weighted Group Means|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1265||0.65||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.65
91700958|NCT01187498|183296594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.01
91700959|NCT01187498|183296595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Group Proportions|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group proportions.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure.||||.02
91700960|NCT01970475|183296596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was tested by comparing the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the RR of ACR20 at week 24 between ABP 501 and adalimumab with an equivalence margin of (0.738, 1/0.738).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.133|||||Based on a generalized linear model adjusted for geographic region and prior biological use for RA as covariates in the model.|The study hypothesis was that there were no clinically meaningful differences between ABP 501 and adalimumab in risk ratio (RR) of ACR20 at week 24.||1.133|0.954|
91700961|NCT03495154|183296666|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|Percentage and confidence interval|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.5||||||Number of participants with hernia recurrence within 12 months following Parietene™ DS Composite Mesh use in ventral hernia repair||8.5|1.0|
91700962|NCT03495154|183296667|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of with ADEs at discharge. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91700963|NCT03495154|183296667|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 1 month. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91700964|NCT03495154|183296667|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 3 months. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91700965|NCT03495154|183296667|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 12 months. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91700966|NCT03495154|183296667|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 24 months. Adverse Device Effects (ADEs) are inclusive of both procedure and device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91700967|NCT03495154|183296668|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|% of Subjects with Recurrence within 1M|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.9||||||||2.9|0|
91700968|NCT03495154|183296668|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|% of Subjects with Recurrence within 3M|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0||||||||3.0|0|
91700969|NCT03495154|183296668|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|% of Subjects with Recurrence within 24M|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.6||||||||9.6|1.2|
91700970|NCT05633992|183296690|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.17|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 3||1.17|0.75|<0.001
91868312|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.5|-3.4|
91868313|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||0.9|-9.7|
91700971|NCT05633992|183296690|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 7F||1.33|0.88|<0.001
91868314|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-1.3|-12.3|
91731656|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.3301|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.3301
91796649|NCT05402020|183472090|OTHER||Annualized rate ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03|||||Annualized rate ratio calculated as \[annualized rate of Tio/Olo\]/\[annualized rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||1.03|0.81|
91796650|NCT05402020|183472091|OTHER||Annualized rate ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||Annualized rate ratio calculated as \[annualized rate of Tio/Olo\]/\[annualized rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||1.18|0.87|
91796651|NCT03180684|183472163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0071|||||||Clopper Pearson|A 1-sided p-value was calculated to prove superiority over historical control of 2%. Superiority of VGX-3100 alone was declared if p-value is \<0.025.||||||0.0071
91796652|NCT03180684|183472163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Clopper Pearson|1-sided p-value was calculated to prove superiority over historical control of 2%.Superiority of VGX-3100+imiquimod was declared if p-value is \<0.025.||||||0.0004
91796653|NCT01460368|183472202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|2.63|||||Treatment comparison at 2 hours.|||2.63|-1.38|
91796654|NCT01460368|183472202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|5.71|||||Treatment comparison at 4 hours.|||5.71|1.67|
91796655|NCT01460368|183472202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.12|11.16|||||Treatment comparison at 6 hours.|||11.16|7.12|
91796656|NCT01460368|183472202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1|11.07|||||Treatment comparison at 8 hours.|||11.07|7.10|
91796657|NCT01460368|183472202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.14|1.85|||||Treatment comparison at 12 hours.|||1.85|-2.14|
91796658|NCT01460368|183472202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.63|5.63|||||Treatment comparison at 24 hours.|||5.63|1.63|
91796659|NCT01460368|183472203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.21|10.94|||||Treatment comparison at 2 hours.|||10.94|5.21|
91796660|NCT01460368|183472203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.69|13.43|||||Treatment comparison at 4 hours.|||13.43|7.69|
91796661|NCT02047227|183472204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.235||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4741|0.003|||Poisson Regression Model|||||0.003|-0.4741|0.054
91796662|NCT01385371|183472215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
91796663|NCT01385371|183472216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.2|-0.7|0.001
91796664|NCT01385371|183472217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.5|-1.4|<0.001
91796665|NCT01385371|183472218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.027||95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||0.0|-0.2|0.027
91796666|NCT01385371|183472219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.22||A zero-inflated log-normal mixed distribution model was used with treatment, baseline asthma status, age category (\<18 or \>=18 years) and pollen region as covariates.|Zero-Inflated Log-Normal Model|||||-0.22|-0.73|0.0003
91796667|NCT01385371|183472220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.2|-0.9|<0.001
91796668|NCT01385371|183472221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.31||A zero-inflated log-normal mixed distribution model was used with treatment, baseline asthma status, age category (\<18 or \>=18 years) and pollen region as covariates.|Zero-Inflated Log-Normal Model|||||-0.31|-0.94|0.0001
91796669|NCT01385371|183472222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||0.6|-0.4|0.644
91700972|NCT05633992|183296690|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.36|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 8||1.36|0.93|<0.001
91700973|NCT05633992|183296690|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 9N||1.29|0.86|<0.001
91700974|NCT05633992|183296690|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.14|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 10A||2.14|1.28|<0.001
91700975|NCT05633992|183296690|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.92|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 11A||1.92|1.20|<0.001
91700976|NCT05633992|183296690|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.72|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 12F||2.72|1.43|<0.001
91700977|NCT05633992|183296690|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.0|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 17F||2.00|1.28|<0.001
91700978|NCT05633992|183296690|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 19A||1.45|0.93|<0.001
91700979|NCT05633992|183296690|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.77|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 20A||1.77|1.18|<0.001
91731657|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1627|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1627
91796670|NCT02436681|183472263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91796671|NCT02436681|183472265|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0468|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.0468
91796672|NCT02436681|183472267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.014|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.014
91796673|NCT02436681|183472268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.018|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.018
91868315|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||6.2|-4.2|
91868316|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||1.7|-8.4|
91868317|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.2|-6.2|
91700980|NCT05633992|183296690|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.76|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 22F||1.76|1.10|<0.001
91868318|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.4|-7.5|
91868319|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||0.7|-9.5|
91868320|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-0.6|-10.6|
91868321|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.3|-10.2|
91868322|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-0.8|-12.2|
91700981|NCT05633992|183296690|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 33F||1.12|0.68|<0.001
91700982|NCT05633992|183296690|NON_INFERIORITY|For serotype 15B, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.89|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 15B||1.89|1.07|<0.001
91731658|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.4742|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.4742
91731659|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1822|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1822
91868323|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.3|-6.6|
91868324|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||0.1|-10.0|
91731660|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1822|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1822
91904973|NCT00493220|183705246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|1.71|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Placebo SC minus Intravenous|||1.71|1.27|<0.01
91868325|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||1.4|-9.4|
91700983|NCT05633992|183296690|SUPERIORITY|For serotype 15C, a conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 15C||2.70|1.56|<0.001
91700984|NCT05633992|183296691|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|36.9|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 6A||36.9|17.8|<0.001
91700985|NCT05633992|183296691|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|43.0|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 15A||43.0|23.6|<0.001
91700986|NCT05633992|183296691|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|46.4|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 16F||46.4|29.8|<0.001
91700987|NCT05633992|183296691|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|40.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 23A||40.6|17.4|<0.001
91700988|NCT05633992|183296691|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|46.7|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 23B||46.7|29.3|<0.001
91700989|NCT05633992|183296691|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|35.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 24F||35.6|18.3|<0.001
91700990|NCT05633992|183296691|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|57.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|64.4|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 31||64.4|49.3|<0.001
91700991|NCT05633992|183296691|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|54.1|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 35B||54.1|39.5|<0.001
91700992|NCT02339155|183296730|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) or the ratio of anti-PA Ab (attributable to AVA) GMCs between the AVA and the AVA + raxibacumab groups at Week 4 is less than 1.5, non-inferiority was to be established.|Ratio|1.18||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.35|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.35|1.03|0.0016
91700993|NCT02339155|183296731|OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.22|||t-test, 1 sided||Week 8|||1.22|0.98|
91700994|NCT02339155|183296731|OTHER||Ratio|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.07|||t-test, 1 sided||Week 26|||1.07|0.89|<0.0001
91700995|NCT02102100|183296768|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9436|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least square means and standard errors were calculated to describe the patterns of means for each outcome. Effect slices were tested to explain significant interactions in the models. Pairwise comparisons of least square means were used to describe significant main effects.||||<.0001
91700996|NCT05014815|183296769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by PD-L1 expression (\<1% of tumor cells (TC) vs 1-49% TC vs \>= 50% TC) and histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|The HR and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by PD-L1 expression (\<1% of tumor cells (TC) vs 1-49% TC vs \>= 50% TC) and histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||1.33|0.74|0.4698
91731661|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0927|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0927
91868326|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-2.7|-13.6|
91731662|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.036|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0360
91796674|NCT02103218|183472269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.62
91904974|NCT00493220|183705246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.26|2.76|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Placebo SC minus Intravenous|||2.76|2.26|<0.01
91904975|NCT00493220|183705247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|101.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.95|105.12|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Placebo SC|||105.12|98.95|
91904976|NCT00493220|183705247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|106.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.61|110.07|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Intravenous|||110.07|103.61|
91904977|NCT00493220|183705247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|104.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.59|107.92|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||Placebo SC/Intravenous|||107.92|101.59|
91700997|NCT05014815|183296770|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.26|||||The Mantel-Haenszel common OR and its 95% CI were estimated using a normal approximation of the log odds ratio and the Robins-Breslow-Greenland variance, stratified by PD-L1 expression and histology.|||1.26|0.47|
91700998|NCT05014815|183296772|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||||The HR and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by PD-L1 expression (\<1% of tumor cells (TC) vs 1-49% TC vs \>= 50% TC) and histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||1.34|0.67|
91700999|NCT02634268|183296850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.93|76.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average six minute walk test distance at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month six minute walk test distance between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||76.6|7.93|.02
91701000|NCT02634268|183296851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average Modified Borg Scale score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month Modified Borg Scale score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.09|-0.63|.0008
91701001|NCT02634268|183296852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average body weight at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month body weight between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.34|-2.33|0.0008
91701002|NCT02634268|183296853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 PCS at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month SF-12 PCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||2.60|0.35|0.01
91701003|NCT02634268|183296854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 MCS at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month SF-12 MCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||1.89|-0.84|0.45
91701004|NCT02634268|183296855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average Framingham Risk Score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.||Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month Framingham Risk Score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.10|-0.71|0.009
91701005|NCT02634268|183296856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average waist circumference at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month waist circumference between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||0.26|-2.12|0.13
91731663|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.072|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0720
91731664|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||1.0000
91731665|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.4833|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.4833
91731666|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.3594|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.3594
91731667|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.5987|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.5987
91731668|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.4164|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.4164
91731669|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.072|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0720
91731670|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0148|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0148
91868327|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.5|-5.1|
91904978|NCT00493220|183705248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 95% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|101.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.64|104.98|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Placebo SC|||104.98|98.64|
91731671|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0085|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0085
91868328|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||2.8|-6.2|
91731672|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.1918|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.1918
91731673|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.3037|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.3037
91731674|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.4833|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.4833
91868329|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||1.2|-9.4|
91868330|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-0.8|-11.5|
91868331|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.0|-7.3|
91904979|NCT00493220|183705248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|106.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.67|110.33|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Intravenous|||110.33|103.67|
91868332|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||2.1|-7.9|
91731675|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.3594|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.3594
91731676|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0877|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0877
91731677|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.7726|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.7726
91731678|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0191|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0191
91731679|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0287|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0287
91731680|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.6374|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.6374
91731681|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.7512|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.7512
91731682|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.2734|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.2734
91731683|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0287|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0287
91731684|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.8732|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.8732
91731685|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0602|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0602
91868333|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||0.7|-10.5|
91868334|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-1.8|-12.5|
91868335|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.0|-6.0|
91868336|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.9|-6.3|
91868337|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-0.4|-10.1|
91868338|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-2.3|-12.2|
91868339|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.3|-5.2|
91868340|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||3.5|-5.8|
91868341|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||1.8|-8.4|
91868342|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||1.5|-8.5|
91868343|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||0.2|-9.8|
91731686|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0079|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0079
91701006|NCT02634268|183296857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average 12 month systolic blood at 12 months between control and intervention groups|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month systolic blood pressure between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||1.84|-3.02|0.64
91868344|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||-0.7|-10.4|
91868345|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.0|-7.4|
91868346|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-1.1|-11.0|
91701007|NCT02634268|183296858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average BMI at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month BMI between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.17|-0.85|0.004
91731687|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.2081|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.2081
91731688|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.8732|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.8732
91868347|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.1|-4.9|
91868348|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||1.4|-7.6|
91868349|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||5.1|-5.3|
91868350|NCT02307682|183629806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||0.8|-8.5|
91868351|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||0.2|-14.1|
91868352|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-0.3|-15.3|
91904980|NCT00493220|183705248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|105.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.87|108.42|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||Placebo SC/Intravenous|||108.42|101.87|
91904981|NCT04376827|183705269|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|1.41|||log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 80% CI: estimated by Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline UPCR level (\<3 mg/mg and \>=3 mg/mg).|||1.41|0.27|0.7807
91904982|NCT04376827|183705270|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|3.85|||long-rank test||Hazard ratio and 80% CI: estimated by Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline UPCR level (\<3 mg/mg and \>=3 mg/mg).|||3.85|0.62|0.4654
91904983|NCT01798589|183705326|OTHER|Bioequivalence is assessed based on concordance between the 2 allergen using Kappa statistic|Concordance|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|90.2||||||||90.2|41.6|
91904984|NCT03600142|183705354|NON_INFERIORITY|For WLHIV (n=55), chi-square tests were used to assess differences between conditions in the proportion of participants who were retained in HIV care at 3 months post enrollment.||||||0.963|||||||Chi-squared|||We were aware that our resources of time and funding would not be sufficient to detect a significant difference in the HIV care outcome, and that we would only be able to detect observational signals of impact. We aimed for a minimum of 50 WLHIV, which is considered an adequate sample to assess feasibility and acceptability in a pilot intervention study. Given an estimated 5% HIV prevalence among women presenting for ANC, this required us to enroll 1000 female participants.||||0.963
91701008|NCT02634268|183296859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Symptom score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.||Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month SGRQ-C Symptom score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|0.36|-4.87|0.09
91904985|NCT02318667|183705388|OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0074
91904986|NCT02318667|183705389|OTHER|||||||0.1506|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1506
91904987|NCT01101438|183705417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.84|0.93
91701009|NCT02634268|183296860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Activity score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month SGRQ-C Activity score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||0.56|-5.19|0.12
91759173|NCT04038567|183411372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.27||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.27|-1.33|
91904988|NCT01101438|183705418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.87|0.94
91904989|NCT01101438|183705419|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.83|0.88
91759174|NCT04038567|183411372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.05||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.05|-.55|
91759175|NCT04038567|183411373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.41||||||||0.41|-1.41|
91904990|NCT00709111|183705444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||The p-value is one-sided with a nominal level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank, 1-sided|||The change in CD4+ T-cell count from baseline to week 24 was compared against the null hypothesis of change \<20 cells/mm\^3. The study was powered to yield 80% power to show that there was \>=20 cells/mm\^3 increase in CD4+ T-cell count assuming an underlying change in CD4+ T-cell counts induced by MVC of 50 cells/mm\^3, a standard deviation of 60 cells/mm\^3 around the mean CD4+ T-cell count change, 10% lost-to-follow-up or premature MVC discontinuation rate, and one-sided type 1 error of 0.05.||||0.97
91904991|NCT00139776|183705525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||"Null hypothesis for primary outcome is that there is no difference in the number of flares observed between the 2 treatment arms of celecoxib 200mg continuous use and celecoxib 200mg intermittent use.~Sample size calculation: Sufficient number of participants were randomized to provide at least 80% power to detect an estimated effect size of 0.2 using a 2-sided t-test at a 0.05 significant level."||||<0.0001
91904992|NCT00139776|183705526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis||||<0.0001
91904993|NCT00139776|183705527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||<0.0001
91759176|NCT04038567|183411373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.55||||||||0.55|-1.27|
91868353|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-2.2|-16.6|
91868354|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-5.4|-19.7|
91868355|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-1.6|-14.8|
91904994|NCT00139776|183705528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||<0.0001
91904995|NCT00139776|183705529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 4||||<0.001
91904996|NCT00139776|183705529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 8||||<0.001
91701010|NCT02634268|183296861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.72||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Impact score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month SGRQ-C Impact score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.25|-5.19|0.03
91701011|NCT02634268|183296862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Total score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month SGRQ-C Total score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.28|-4.55|0.03
91701012|NCT00628095|183296914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0221||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.13|||Normal Approximation method|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Power of 80% and a Type I error at 0.10 in a 1-sided test was calculated. Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the CE-224,535 and placebo arm groups, on the percentage of ACR 20 responders at Week 12.|Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.13|-0.17|0.591
91701013|NCT00628095|183296915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.1232||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|-0.02|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 2: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||-0.02|-0.22|0.941
91701014|NCT00628095|183296915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0622||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.05|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 4: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.05|-0.18|0.742
91701015|NCT00628095|183296915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.004||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.12|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 8: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.12|-0.11|0.482
91701016|NCT00628095|183296916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0072||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.06|||Barnard exact test|||Week 2: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.06|-0.08|0.989
91904997|NCT00139776|183705529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 12||||<0.001
91701017|NCT00628095|183296916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0096||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.07|||Barnard exact test|||Week 4: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.07|-0.08|0.957
91701018|NCT00628095|183296916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0044||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.09|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 8: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.09|-0.08|0.473
91701019|NCT00628095|183296916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.057||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.03|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 12: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.03|-0.15|0.793
91904998|NCT00139776|183705529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 16||||0.003
91904999|NCT00139776|183705529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 20||||0.022
91905000|NCT00139776|183705529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 24||||0.047
91905001|NCT00139776|183705530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 4||||<0.001
91905002|NCT00139776|183705530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 8||||0.001
91796675|NCT02103218|183472270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||logistic GEE|||Results from logistic GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares predicted probabilities converted to %, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.15
91796676|NCT02103218|183472271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||logistic GEE|||Results from logistic GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares predicted probabilities converted to %, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.47
91796677|NCT02103218|183472272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||logistic GEE|||Results from logistic GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares predicted probabilities converted to %, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.29
91905003|NCT00139776|183705530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 12||||0.096
91905004|NCT00139776|183705530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.338||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 16||||0.338
91905005|NCT00139776|183705530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.832||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 20||||0.832
91905006|NCT00139776|183705530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.972||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 24||||0.972
91905007|NCT00139776|183705531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0046||95.0||||Overall p-value Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.0046
91905008|NCT00139776|183705532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0102||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||0.0102
91701020|NCT00628095|183296917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0377||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.09|||Barnard exact test|||Week 2: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.09|-0.00|0.121
91701021|NCT00628095|183296917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0141||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.07|||Barnard exact test|||Week 4: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.07|-0.05|0.421
91701022|NCT00628095|183296917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0566||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.12|||Barnard exact test|||Week 8: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.12|0.01|0.058
91701023|NCT00628095|183296917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0377||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.09|||Barnard exact test|||Week 12: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.09|-0.00|0.121
91701024|NCT00628095|183296925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 2: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||1.0000
91701025|NCT00628095|183296925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 4: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||1.0000
91701026|NCT00628095|183296925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 8: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||1.0000
91701027|NCT00628095|183296925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 12: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||0.0637
91701028|NCT00628095|183296925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 14: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||0.0637
91701029|NCT01005888|183296936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Observed number of attacks.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91701030|NCT01005888|183296936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Normalized number of attacks.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91701031|NCT01005888|183296937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0||||Period 1.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91701032|NCT01005888|183296937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0||||Period 2.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91701033|NCT01005888|183296938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0008
91701034|NCT01005888|183296939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
91701035|NCT01005888|183296940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91701036|NCT01005888|183296941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91905009|NCT00139776|183705533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||0.0012
91905010|NCT00139776|183705534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||<0.0001
91905011|NCT00139776|183705535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Total WOMAC score||||<0.001
91905012|NCT00139776|183705535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||||95.0|0.21|2.99|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|Total WOMAC score - Continuous use||2.99|0.21|
91905013|NCT00139776|183705535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||||95.0|3.6|6.38|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|Total WOMAC score - Intermittent use||6.38|3.60|
91905014|NCT00139776|183705535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC pain subscale||||<0.001
91868356|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-3.9|-17.4|
91868357|NCT02307682|183629807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-10.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-2.5||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-2.5|-17.3|0.0030
91868358|NCT02307682|183629807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-10.9||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-10.9|-25.3|<0.0001
91868359|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||19.0|5.2|
91868360|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|18.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||18.2|3.8|
91868361|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-3.1|-17.7|
91868362|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-16.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-16.1|-30.5|
91868363|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||9.0|-4.8|
91868364|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.5|-11.8|
91868365|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.1|-12.0|
91868366|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-3.2|-18.0|
91868367|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||0.8|-12.5|
91701037|NCT01005888|183296942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Visit 1 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91868368|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-2.4|-16.2|
91868369|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-0.6|-15.7|
91868370|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-5.5|-20.5|
91701038|NCT01005888|183296942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 4 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91701039|NCT01005888|183296942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Week 8 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91701040|NCT01005888|183296942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0028||95.0||||Week 12 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0028
91701041|NCT01005888|183296943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Visit 1 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91701042|NCT01005888|183296943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 4 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91868371|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|13.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||13.0|-0.8|
91868372|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||6.6|-7.5|
91868373|NCT02307682|183629807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-10.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-3.3||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-3.3|-17.4|0.0020
91868374|NCT02307682|183629807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-13.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-6.1||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-6.1|-20.7|0.0001
91868375|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.1|-5.4|
91868376|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||1.2|-11.8|
91868377|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||3.7|-10.3|
91868378|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||0.4|-14.1|
91868379|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.3|-10.1|
91868380|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||-0.6|-14.0|
91868381|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-0.1|-14.7|
91868382|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-5.4|-19.5|
91796678|NCT02103218|183472273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||<0.001
91868383|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||13.5|0.3|
91868384|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||8.4|-4.9|
91868385|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-1.7|-15.7|
91868386|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-5.6|-19.8|
91701043|NCT01005888|183296943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 8 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91701044|NCT01005888|183296943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Week 12 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91701045|NCT01043705|183296944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sided Fisher's exact test.|0.0044||||0.0023|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.009|||Fisher Exact|||||0.009||0.0023
91701046|NCT01043705|183296944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-sided Fisher's Exact Text|0.002||||0.0052|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||Fisher Exact|||||0.01||0.0052
91731689|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0852|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0852
91731690|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0125|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0125
91731691|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0125|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0125
91731692|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.2714|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.2714
91731693|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.1692|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.1692
91731694|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0772|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0772
91731695|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.5762|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.5762
91731696|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.5762|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.5762
91868387|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||7.2|-5.9|
91701047|NCT01043705|183296944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-sided Fisher's Exact Test|0.006||||0.0176|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.014|||Fisher Exact|||||0.014||0.0176
91701048|NCT01043705|183296944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher's Exact Test|0.7||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3764
91701049|NCT01043705|183296945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate compared to performance goal|4.4||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.8|||1-sided Chi-square|||||5.8|3.3|0.0005
91701050|NCT01043705|183296945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate compared to a performance goal|3.1||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.1|||1-sided Chi-square test|||||5.1|1.7|0.0444
91731697|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||1.0000
91701051|NCT01043705|183296945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate compared to performance goal|5.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|5.4|||1-sided Chi-squared test|||All types of mechanical complications combined.||5.4|3.8|0.0006
91701052|NCT01043705|183296945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Descriptive|5.4||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|7.5|||Chi-squared|||All mechanical complications, retrospective, non-TYRX cohort||7.5|3.7|0.0745
91701053|NCT02635542|183296948|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
91701054|NCT02635542|183296949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91701055|NCT02003963|183296951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91701056|NCT01323010|183296975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.689
91701057|NCT01323010|183296976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.591
91701058|NCT01323010|183296977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Method: ANOVA with repetead measures for non parametric data proposed by Brunner and Piri.||||||0.150
91701059|NCT01323010|183296978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
91731698|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0078|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0078
91731699|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.6862|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.6862
91905015|NCT00139776|183705535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||||95.0|0.06|0.67|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC pain subscale - Continuous use||0.67|0.06|
91905016|NCT00139776|183705535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||||95.0|0.88|1.49|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC pain subscale - Intermittent use||1.49|0.88|
91905017|NCT00139776|183705535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC stiffness subscale||||0.004
91905018|NCT00139776|183705535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|-0.02|0.25|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC stiffness subscale - Continuous use||0.25|-0.02|
91905019|NCT00139776|183705535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|0.26|0.53|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC stiffness subscale - Intermittent use||0.53|0.26|
91701060|NCT01323010|183296979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.108
91701061|NCT01323010|183296981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.122
91701062|NCT01323010|183296983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Method: ANOVA with repetead measures for non paramteric data proposed by Brunner and Piri.||||||0.164
91701063|NCT01323010|183296984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.165
91701064|NCT01323010|183296985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.436
91796679|NCT02103218|183472274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Omnibus overall test for any group x time interaction was p = 0.77.|linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.02
91905020|NCT00139776|183705535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC physical function subscale||||0.002
91905021|NCT00139776|183705535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||||95.0|0.13|2.14|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC physical function subscale - Continuous use||2.14|0.13|
91905022|NCT00139776|183705535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||||95.0|2.42|4.43|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC physical function subscale - Intermittent use||4.43|2.42|
91905023|NCT00139776|183705536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2712||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep disturbance||||0.2712
91905024|NCT00139776|183705536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8737||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Snoring||||0.8737
91701065|NCT01323010|183296986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.046
91701066|NCT01323010|183296987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.723
91701067|NCT01323010|183296988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.235
91701068|NCT01323010|183296989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.284
91701069|NCT01323010|183296990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.905
91701070|NCT01323010|183296993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.892
91701071|NCT01323010|183296994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.195
91701072|NCT01323010|183296995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.203
91701073|NCT01323010|183296996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91701074|NCT01203826|183297038|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|P-value based on Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||Change is relative to Baseline in Study ENB-006-09 (NCT00952484). The RGI-C score represents evaluations of skeletal X-rays at each post-treatment study timepoint in Study ENB-008-10 compared with pre-treatment X-rays from Study ENB-006-09, using an ordinal scale. Therefore, no Baseline data for RGI-C are available.||||0.0005
91701075|NCT01785849|183297043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.71|56.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH category (\< 600, ≥ 600 to ≤ 1000, and \> 1000 pg/mL), recent cinacalcet use within 8 weeks before randomization (yes and no), and region (North America and non-North America) was used to compare the primary endpoint of proportion of participants with \> 30% reduction from baseline in PTH during the EAP between etelcalcetide and placebo.||56.31|18.71|<0.001
91701076|NCT01785849|183297044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.47|42.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH category, recent cinacalcet use within 8 weeks before randomization, and region.||||42.48|11.47|<0.001
91701077|NCT01785849|183297045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-71.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.77|-64.46|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-64.46|-77.77|<0.001
91905025|NCT00139776|183705536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7703||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Awaken short of breath||||0.7703
91905026|NCT00139776|183705536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3769||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Quantity of sleep||||0.3769
91905027|NCT00139776|183705536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4075||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep adequacy||||0.4075
91905028|NCT00139776|183705536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5854||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Somnolence||||0.5854
91796680|NCT02103218|183472275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.67
91796681|NCT02103218|183472276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.45
91796682|NCT02103218|183472277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.70
91868388|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||2.6|-9.8|
91701078|NCT01785849|183297046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-7.23|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-7.23|-9.52|<0.001
91701079|NCT01785849|183297047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-14.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.73|-10.25|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-10.25|-19.73|<0.001
91701080|NCT01785849|183297048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-7.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|-2.59|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-2.59|-12.31|0.003
91701081|NCT02880865|183297049|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages of participants with seropositivity between the two groups (concurrent administration minus separate administration) at 56 days post-vaccination was \> -10% for both measles and rubella results.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2||||||The primary hypotheses evaluated the non-inferiority of the concomitant administration of MMR and CD-JEV vaccines (Group 1) to MMR and CD-JEV vaccines given 2 months apart (Group 2) in children 9 months of age at 56 days in terms of percentage of participants achieving seropositivity to measles and rubella assuming a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||2.2|-2.1|
91701082|NCT02880865|183297050|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of participants with seropositivity between the two groups (concurrent administration minus separate administration) at 56 days post-vaccination was \> -10% for both measles and rubella results.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||||||The primary hypotheses evaluated the non-inferiority of the concomitant administration of MMR and CD-JEV vaccines (Group 1) to MMR and CD-JEV vaccines given 2 months apart (Group 2) in children 9 months of age at 56 days in terms of percentage of participants achieving seropositivity to measles and rubella assuming a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||1.0|-0.3|
91701083|NCT02880865|183297051|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants with seropositivity for mumps at 56 days post-vaccination between Group 1 and Group 2 were compared using a non-inferiority test. Non-inferiority of Group 1 to Group 2 in terms of seropositivity for mumps was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference of seropositivity rates between the two groups (concurrent administration minus separate administration) at 56 days post-vaccination was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1||||||||2.1|-2.0|
91701084|NCT02880865|183297052|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||||Group 1/Group 2 ratio obtained using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with log10-transformed antibody concentration as dependent variable and treatment group as the explanatory variable adjusted for log10-transformed baseline antibody concentration.|||1.2|0.9|
91701085|NCT02880865|183297053|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||||Group 1/Group 2 ratio obtained using an ANCOVA method with log 10-transformed antibody concentration as dependent variable and treatment group as explanatory variable adjusted for log 10-transformed baseline antibody concentration.|||1.1|0.9|
91701086|NCT02880865|183297054|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2|||||Group 1 - Group 2|||2.2|-2.1|
91701087|NCT02880865|183297055|OTHER||Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.9|||||Group 1 - Group 2|||4.9|-1.8|
91701088|NCT02880865|183297056|OTHER||Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||||Group 1 - Group 2|||1.0|-0.3|
91701089|NCT02880865|183297057|OTHER||Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|11.3||||||||11.3|-3.1|
91701090|NCT02880865|183297058|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||||Group 1 / Group 2 ratio obtained using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with log 10-transformed antibody concentration as dependent variable and treatment group as explanatory variable adjusted for log 10-transformed baseline antibody titer.|||1.4|1.0|
91701091|NCT03379753|183297065|OTHER||U statistic|984.5||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91701092|NCT04450407|183297102|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.4%. Non-inferiority is achieved if the upper limit of the 90% CI (Confidence Interval) is below 0.4.|LS Mean Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.32||||||||0.32|0.01|
91868389|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||2.5|-11.2|
91905029|NCT00139776|183705536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8358||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep problems index I||||0.8358
91905030|NCT00139776|183705536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5878||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep problems index II||||0.5878
91868390|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-1.0|-15.3|
91868391|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.6|-8.9|
91868392|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||1.7|-11.2|
91868393|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.7|-10.8|
91868394|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-3.5|-17.3|
91868395|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||11.0|-2.3|
91905031|NCT00139776|183705537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC total score||||<0.001
91905032|NCT00139776|183705537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC pain subscale||||<0.001
91905033|NCT00139776|183705537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC stiffness subscale||||<0.001
91905034|NCT00139776|183705537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC physical function subscale||||<0.001
91701093|NCT00715104|183297113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Subjects with 2-fold increase|16.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|30.7||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD3+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD3+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||30.7|1.7|1.000
91905035|NCT00139776|183705538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1437||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|by general association||Analysis across all 3 sleep scores for Period III||||0.1437
91905036|NCT00139776|183705539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Physical function||||<0.0001
91905037|NCT00139776|183705539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Role physical||||<0.0001
91905038|NCT00139776|183705539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Bodily pain||||<0.0001
91905039|NCT00139776|183705539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3097||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||General health||||0.3097
91905040|NCT00139776|183705539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0139||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Vitality||||0.0139
91905041|NCT00139776|183705539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1303||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Social functioning||||0.1303
91905042|NCT00139776|183705539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1404||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Role emotional||||0.1404
91905043|NCT00139776|183705539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4015||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Mental health||||0.4015
91905044|NCT00139776|183705539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Physical component summary||||<0.0001
91905045|NCT00139776|183705539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0301||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Mental component summary||||0.0301
91868396|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||2.6|-9.8|
91868397|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||0.7|-13.2|
91868398|NCT02307682|183629807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-6.6|-19.7|
91868399|NCT02307682|183629808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574||||||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-test row mean score (scores=table) stratified by age categories (\<75, ≥75 years) and baseline fluid status)||||||0.0574
91868400|NCT02307682|183629808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-test row mean score (scores=table) stratified by age categories (\<75, ≥75 years) and baseline fluid status)||||||0.0012
91868401|NCT02307682|183629809|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-6.5||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.3||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for age categories (\<75, \>=75 years) and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for the treatment difference estimated using bootstrap method.|||0.3|-13.2|0.0331
91868402|NCT02307682|183629809|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-10.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-3.5||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for age categories (\<75, \>=75 years) and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for the treatment difference estimated using bootstrap method.|||-3.5|-17.1|0.0013
91868403|NCT02307682|183629810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||2.3|-0.5|
91868404|NCT02307682|183629810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||2.1|-0.9|
91868405|NCT02307682|183629810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.4|-1.8|
91868406|NCT02307682|183629810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.4|-1.9|
91868407|NCT02307682|183629810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.9|-1.6|
91868408|NCT02307682|183629810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.7|-1.9|
91868409|NCT02307682|183629810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||2.7|-1.2|
91868410|NCT02307682|183629810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|nalyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||3.0|-0.9|
91868411|NCT03905694|183629824|OTHER|Not applied|Least Squares (LS) Mean|-71.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.52|-66.42|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) includes scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6) and baseline spot urinary oxalate:creatine ratio as fixed effects. Autoregressive (1) was used to model the within-patient error.||-66.42|-77.52|
91868412|NCT00705406|183629867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.188|||Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic|P-value is from a Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.|Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI are based the Cox Regression Model including parameters for treatment, controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.|||1.188|0.723|0.222
91868413|NCT00705406|183629868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren test|P-value for comparisons at all time points. P-value was based on the van Elteren test controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||>0.05
91868414|NCT00705406|183629869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren test|P-value is based on van Elteren test controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||0.421
91731700|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0563|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0563
91868415|NCT00705406|183629870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic|P-values are from a Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||0.885
91731701|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0563|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0563
91731702|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.1692|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.1692
91731703|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.1822|||||||t|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.1822
91731704|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.022|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0220
91731705|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.022|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0220
91731706|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.022|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0220
91731707|NCT02732145|183357815|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0078|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0078
91731708|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hyperkeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyperkeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731709|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of parakeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of parakeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91796683|NCT02103218|183472278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.42
91868416|NCT00705406|183629871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||0.306
91868417|NCT00975585|183629887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|-0.058|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis is adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses have non-inferior (less than or equal to) average corneal staining than lotrafilcon B after two weeks of wear.||0.031|-0.058|
91731710|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of acanthosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of acanthosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731711|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of epidermal atrophy in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of epidermal atrophy in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731712|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731713|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731714|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of lymphocytes in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0105|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of lymphocytes (infiltrates) in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0105
91701094|NCT00715104|183297113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Subjects with 2-fold increase|18.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|34.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD3+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD3+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||34.3|3.5|1.000
91701095|NCT00715104|183297113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Subjects with 2-fold increase|70.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|88.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD3+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD3+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||88.3|52.3|<0.001
91701096|NCT00715104|183297114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|20.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|37.2||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD4+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD4+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||37.2|4.0|1.000
91701097|NCT00715104|183297114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|32.4||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|51.6||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD4+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD4+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||51.6|13.1|0.014
91868418|NCT00975585|183629888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.25|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|-0.021|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses are non-inferior (less than or equal to)in visual acuity to lotrafilcon B contact lenses after two weeks of wear.||-0.010|-0.021|
91701098|NCT00715104|183297114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|79.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|96.0||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD4+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD4+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||96.0|62.8|<0.001
91705513|NCT01080391|183305556|SUPERIORITY|The stopping boundary for this analysis was 0.0231 based on 1-sided significance level (O'Brien-Fleming with Lan-DeMets spending function).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.945|||Log Rank|Analysis was stratified by β2 microglobulin levels (\< 2.5 mg/L vs. ≥ 2.5 mg/L), prior bortezomib (no vs. yes), and prior lenalidomide (no vs. yes).||The final analysis of OS was to be performed after 510 deaths occur. A total of 510 deaths would provide 85% power to detect, with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025, a hazard ratio of 0.765 corresponding to a 23.5% reduction in risk for death for CRd versus Rd (39.2 vs. 30.0 months, respectively).||0.945|0.667|0.0045
91731715|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of mastocytes in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0064|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mastocytes in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0064
91731716|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731717|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hyalinization in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731718|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hyperpigmentation in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0342|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyperpigmentation in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0342
91868419|NCT00975585|183629889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|0.117|0.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses have a higher rating of overall comfort than lotrafilcon B after two weeks of wear.||0.402|0.117|
91868420|NCT00975585|183629890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|-0.218|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is lotrafilcon B at 2 weeks minus lotrafilcon B at 4 weeks. Analysis adjusted for duration of wear, stie, duration of wear by site interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that lotrafilcon B contact lenses have a lower rating of overall comfort after 4 weeks of wear compared to after 2 weeks of wear.||0.098|-0.218|
91868421|NCT00975585|183629891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-0.123|-0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses are non-inferior in limbal redness 5 to lotrafilcon B contact lenses after two weeks of wear.||-0.051|-0.123|
91731719|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of elongated dermal papillae in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0148|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of elongated dermal papillae in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0148
91731720|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of blood vessels in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of blood vessels in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731721|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731722|NCT02732145|183357816|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91731723|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91731724|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain of the vulva on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull (slow) pain of the vulva (burning, stinging, soreness, irritation, itching, inflammation, aching) depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||1.0000
91731725|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar burning depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.3533|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar burning depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.3533
91731726|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.5641|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.5641
91731727|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9684|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9684
91731728|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8599|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8599
91731729|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9402|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9402
91731730|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8389|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8389
91796684|NCT02103218|183472279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.63
91796685|NCT02103218|183472280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Omnibus overall test for any group x time interaction was p = 0.78.|count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.05
91731731|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7617|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7617
91731732|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the sharp pain of the vulva depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.4613|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the sharp (fast) pain of the vulva (knife-like pain, paper-cuts pain, stabbing, sticking) depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.4613
91731733|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0331|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Parameter: The incidence of the vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0331
91731734|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9402|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9402
91731735|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9139|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9139
91731736|NCT02732145|183357817|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8925|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8925
91731737|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
91731738|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6921|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull (slow) pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6921
91796686|NCT02103218|183472281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.50
91796687|NCT02103218|183472283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.86
91796688|NCT02103218|183472284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.46
91868422|NCT00975585|183629892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-0.068|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses are non-inferior in bulbar redness to lotrafilcon B contact lenses after two weeks of wear.||0.008|-0.068|
91868423|NCT00975585|183629893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-0.411|-0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by stie interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses have less frequency of dryness than lotrafilcon B contact lenes after two weeks of wear.||-0.117|-0.411|
91868424|NCT00683800|183629896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.98|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-1.98|-3.80|<0.001
91731739|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar burning on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.1848|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar burning depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.1848
91731740|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.9048|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.9048
91731741|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.3953|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.3953
91796689|NCT02103218|183472285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.70
91868425|NCT00683800|183629897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-1.82|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-1.82|-3.77|<0.001
91868426|NCT00683800|183629898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-0.16|-0.40|<0.001
91701099|NCT00715104|183297115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|35.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|53.9||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD8+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD8+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||53.9|16.3|0.002
91796690|NCT02103218|183472286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.29
91868427|NCT00683800|183629899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-0.18|-0.44|<0.001
91868428|NCT00683800|183629900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|0.72|||||The 90% CI for excess risk was obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk of DVS SR 100 mg over placebo per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||0.72|-2.86|
91701100|NCT00715104|183297115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|29.7||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|47.7||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD8+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD8+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||47.7|11.7|0.036
91701101|NCT00715104|183297115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|83.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.3|98.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD8+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD8+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||98.3|69.3|<0.001
91701102|NCT00715104|183297116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is for the visit effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization groups, visits (up to 12-weeks Post-RP), and randomization groups × visits interaction were included in the mixed model.||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||<0.001
91701103|NCT00715104|183297117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is for the visit effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization groups, visits (up to 12-weeks Post-RP), and randomization groups × visits interaction were included in the mixed model.||Repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach was used. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.173
91701104|NCT00715104|183297118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 24 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.667
91701105|NCT00715104|183297118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 48 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.191
91701106|NCT00715104|183297118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 72 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.699
91868429|NCT00683800|183629901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants achieving a response as defined by minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at week 12 was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||<0.001
91731742|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0921|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0921
91731743|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6734|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6734
91731744|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.3458|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.3458
91731745|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.5304|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.5304
91796691|NCT02103218|183472287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.43
91796692|NCT02443519|183472295|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.6||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.9||Significance threshold set a priori at .025 to adjust for two co-primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates greater reduction in the proportino of people with Severe MIDAS scores (Score \>=21) in the MBCT-M group vs. the WL/TAU group.|||3.9|-0.7|.027
91796693|NCT02443519|183472296|SUPERIORITY||Slope|14.1|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|21.8||Significance threshold set a priori at .025 to account for two co-primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|Positive slope indicated larger reductions in HDI in the MBCT-M group compared to the WL/TAU group.|||21.8|0.8|<.004
91868430|NCT00683800|183629902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% hot flush reduction from baseline at 4-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||5.36|2.24|<0.001
91731746|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp (fast) pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0012
91731747|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0002
91868431|NCT00683800|183629902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% hot flush reduction from baseline at 12-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||4.10|1.75|<0.001
91868432|NCT00683800|183629903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|7.81|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 75% hot flush reduction from baseline at 4-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||7.81|2.47|<0.001
91868433|NCT00683800|183629903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 75% hot flush reduction from baseline at 12-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||5.09|1.96|<0.001
91731748|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0218|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0218
91731749|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0297|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0297
91731750|NCT02732145|183357818|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6468|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6468
91796694|NCT02443519|183472297|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.8||Threshold for statistical significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL/TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs. 4) interaction with Treatment and Time in the model|A positive slope indicates greater reduction in headache days in the MBCT-M group vs. the WL/TAU group.|||2.8|-3.7|.773
91701107|NCT00715104|183297119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 24 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.086
91701108|NCT00715104|183297119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 48 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.432
91731751|NCT02732145|183357819|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.2045|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.2045
91731752|NCT02732145|183357819|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.7469|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.7469
91731753|NCT02732145|183357819|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of lymphocytes in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.4271|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of lymphocytes in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.4271
91731754|NCT02732145|183357819|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.3607|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.3607
91731755|NCT02732145|183357819|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.8672|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.8672
91731756|NCT02732145|183357820|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0045|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0045
91731757|NCT02732145|183357820|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0032|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0032
91731758|NCT02732145|183357820|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.1067|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.1067
91868434|NCT00683800|183629904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A log-rank test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
91731759|NCT02732145|183357820|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of inflammatory cells in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.8672|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.8672
91868435|NCT00683800|183629905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 6)||-1.00|-3.07|<0.001
91731760|NCT02732145|183357820|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of blood vessels in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0219|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of blood vessels in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0219
91731761|NCT02732145|183357820|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.8213|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.8213
91731762|NCT02732145|183357820|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0613|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0613
91731763|NCT04204902|183357829|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90 percentage Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00 percentage - 125.00 percentage|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|91.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.21|99.84||||||||99.84|83.21|
91731764|NCT04204902|183357830|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90 percentage Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00 percentage - 125.00 percentage|Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|90.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.99|99.61||||||||99.61|82.99|
91731765|NCT04204902|183357831|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90 percentage Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00 percentage - 125.00 percentage|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|104.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.17|115.0||||||||115.00|95.17|
91731766|NCT03715829|183357843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.53|-13.96||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare ritlecitinib 200mg - 50mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. Hochberg adjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-13.96|-32.53|<0.0001
91731767|NCT03715829|183357843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.53|-13.93||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare ritlecitinib 100mg - 50mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. Hochberg adjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-13.93|-32.53|<0.0001
91731768|NCT03715829|183357843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.23|-10.93||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare the ritlecitinib 50 mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. Hochberg adjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-10.93|-30.23|0.0003
91731769|NCT03715829|183357843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.77|-5.61||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare the ritlecitinib 30 mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. One-sided unadjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-5.61|-27.77|0.0068
91731770|NCT03715829|183357843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.02|4.91||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare the ritlecitinib 10 mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. One-sided unadjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||4.91|-15.02|0.2015
91731771|NCT05273437|183357876|OTHER|We conducted a Bayesian Regression for all available participants, then visualized the results. (N x 16 table, N: number of participants).|Credibility interval|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Bayesian Regression|We explicitly sought 80% credibility of at least 100 steps more within the 3-hour increment in comparison to the intervention.|We decided that 100 steps/3 hours is the minimum value of the MAP intervention effect estimate and that an INUS condition is valid only if there is at least an 80% chance of achieving an effect beyond 100 steps/3 hours.|We hypothesized that some individuals have their own time and decision-policy-specific response pattern regardless of day elapsed since the beginning of the intervention. We did not hypothesize the direction of the effect variation.|The decision point was the unit of analysis. For the Bayesian Regression, we used Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Four sampling chains were used when performing Bayesian modeling. The number of estimation samples and target acceptance rate were gradually increased until numerical stability was achieved. The number of estimation samples was increased by multiplied by 2, as advised by previous literature, depending on the ratio of convergence diagnostics R̂ \> 1.1. We used 100 steps increase during 3 hours as the effect threshold value. We assumed that there is an effect only if the estimated effect is more than 80% probable (i.e., the credibility interval is over 100 steps/3 hours) and the Maximum A Posteriori Point (MAP) of the effect is more than 100 steps/3 hours. Otherwise, there is no effect. Among the models with effects, we clipped to 1000 steps/3hours as a maximum if the MAP was greater than 1000 steps/3 hours.|||
91796695|NCT02443519|183472298|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in headache attack pain intensity in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||0.16|-0.14|.888
91868436|NCT00683800|183629905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.51|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 12)||-1.51|-4.12|<0.001
91868437|NCT00683800|183629906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 6)||-0.12|-0.51|0.002
91868438|NCT00683800|183629906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 12)||-0.11|-0.54|0.003
91731772|NCT03647137|183357877|OTHER||Standardized β Coefficient|-2.256||||0.00468|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is derived from model comparison between the FEOVB model and the FEOVB\*PIB interaction model.|ChiSq Goodness of Fit Test|||L-DOPA sensitivity outcome measure was modeled with 3-level hierarchical ordinal logistic regression. The null model contained only striatal DTBZ as predictor of group, the FEOVB model additionally had FEOVB tracer, and interaction model had in addition an interaction term between FEOVB and PIB tracer. Model comparisons were performed using Chi-Square goodness of fit test.||||0.00468
91731773|NCT03900650|183357899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.32|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.01
91731774|NCT03900650|183357900|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.377||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value tests the effect of the study arms on number of sex events.|ANOVA|||||||.770
91731775|NCT00829868|183357901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|109.0||||||90.0|99.3|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||120|99.3|
91905046|NCT04223843|183705551|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.425|||ANCOVA|Model included fixed categorical effects of treatment and the fixed continous effect of baseline FEV1 AUC0-3.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean FEV1 AUC0-3 change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.425|0.246|<0.0001
91701109|NCT00715104|183297119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 72 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.249
91701110|NCT00715104|183297120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is based on the treatment effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model includes randomization group, visit, and randomization group × visit interaction, with subject as a random effect.||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.950
91796696|NCT02443519|183472299|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.45||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|12.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in Pain Catastrophizing Scale in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||12.42|2.48|.035
91701111|NCT00715104|183297121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is based on the treatment effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model includes randomization group, visit, and randomization group × visit interaction, with subject as a random effect||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.048
91701112|NCT01668966|183297156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.101
91701113|NCT01668966|183297156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.139
91701114|NCT01668966|183297156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.116
91701115|NCT01668966|183297156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.167
91701116|NCT01668966|183297156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.210
91701117|NCT01668966|183297156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.343
91701118|NCT01668966|183297156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.533
91731776|NCT00829868|183357902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|101.0||||||90.0|97.5|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|97.5|
91701119|NCT01668966|183297156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.593
91701120|NCT01668966|183297156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.044
91701121|NCT01668966|183297156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.243
91701122|NCT01668966|183297156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.009
91701123|NCT01668966|183297157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1853|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.1853
91701124|NCT01668966|183297157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2992|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.2992
91731777|NCT00829868|183357903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|100.0||||||90.0|96.2|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|96.2|
91701125|NCT01668966|183297157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2249|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.2249
91701126|NCT01668966|183297157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3102|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.3102
91701127|NCT01668966|183297157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2164|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.2164
91701128|NCT01668966|183297157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8822|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.8822
91701129|NCT01668966|183297157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7649|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.7649
91701130|NCT01668966|183297157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.6050
91701131|NCT01668966|183297157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4478|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.4478
91701132|NCT01668966|183297157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4821|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.4821
91701133|NCT01668966|183297157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0522|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.0522
91701134|NCT01668966|183297158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.0624
91701135|NCT01668966|183297158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0616|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.0616
91701136|NCT01668966|183297158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.2480
91701137|NCT01668966|183297158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5393|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.5393
91701138|NCT01668966|183297158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1401|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.1401
91701139|NCT01668966|183297158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.0679
91701140|NCT01668966|183297158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6017|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.6017
91701141|NCT01668966|183297158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4772|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.4772
91731778|NCT01603368|183357921|OTHER|Student's t-test|||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.001
91905047|NCT04223843|183705551|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.409|||ANCOVA|Model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the fixed continuous effect of baseline FEV1 AUC0-3h.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean FEV1 AUC0-3h change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.409|0.233|<0.0001
91731779|NCT01554904|183357925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.4||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.32|297.16|||paired t test|||The null hypothesis is that the snore index would not be different after 6 weeks of treatment compared to baseline. The comparison group is the subjects completing the 6 weeks of training and the second sleep study.||297.16|27.32|0.02
91731780|NCT01554904|183357926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.584||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||Participants completing 6 weeks of training and the second sleep study. The null hypothesis was that the AHI would not be different after 6 weeks of training compared to baseline.||0.584|-2.28|0.22
91701142|NCT01668966|183297158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4877|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.4877
91731781|NCT00967486|183357961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91796697|NCT02443519|183472300|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.05||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.83|4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicates a greater improvement in Chronic Pain Acceptance in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||4.74|-10.83|.572
91868439|NCT00683800|183629907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Total score was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.64|-3.05|<0.001
91868440|NCT00683800|183629907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Anxiety scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.51|-0.99|<0.001
91701143|NCT01668966|183297158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.0624
91701144|NCT01668966|183297158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||<0.0001
91701145|NCT01668966|183297159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2388|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.2388
91701146|NCT01668966|183297159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1084|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.1084
91701147|NCT01668966|183297159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.0321
91731782|NCT01469156|183357962|OTHER|Visually significant ocular or systemic AEs were predominantly mild or moderate. No significant safety signals were observed in either group.High- and standard-dose ranibizumab were generally well tolerated without evidence of ocular or systemic severe adverse events, including arterial thromboembolic events.|data survey|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.0||28 ocular and non-ocular adverse events collected, in mild to moderate nature|t-test, 2 sided|||Purpose was to determine safety and efficacy of intravitreal high-dose ranibizumab in the treatment of active PCV.|Visually significant ocular or systemic AEs that were either reported by subjects or identified by imaging and/or ocular exam|28|0|0.05
91731783|NCT03773562|183357985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-responders||||0.04
91868441|NCT00683800|183629907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Depression scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.45|-0.89|<0.001
91701148|NCT01668966|183297159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.0203
91701149|NCT01668966|183297159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0193|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.0193
91701150|NCT01668966|183297159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6235|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.6235
91701151|NCT01668966|183297159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2814|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.2814
91701152|NCT01668966|183297159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3391|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.3391
91701153|NCT01668966|183297159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1605|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.1605
91701154|NCT01668966|183297159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4312|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.4312
91701155|NCT01668966|183297162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.934
91701156|NCT01668966|183297162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.624
91701157|NCT01668966|183297162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.642
91701158|NCT01668966|183297162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.952
91701159|NCT01668966|183297162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.928
91701160|NCT01668966|183297162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.832
91701161|NCT01668966|183297162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.315
91701162|NCT01668966|183297162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.485
91701163|NCT01668966|183297162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.246
91701164|NCT01668966|183297162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.375
91701165|NCT01668966|183297162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.185
91701166|NCT01668966|183297163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.445
91731784|NCT03773562|183357987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-Responders||||0.002
91731785|NCT03773562|183357988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-responders||||0.01
91731786|NCT03773562|183357990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0003
91731787|NCT03773562|183357991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0003
91731788|NCT03773562|183357992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0003
91731789|NCT03773562|183357993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0033
91868442|NCT00683800|183629907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Sexual Dysfunction scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.02|-0.13|0.162
91868443|NCT00683800|183629907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Psychological scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 was outcome variable, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.00|-1.84|<0.001
91701167|NCT01668966|183297163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.414
91701168|NCT01668966|183297163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.401
91701169|NCT01668966|183297163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.920
91701170|NCT01668966|183297163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.834
91701171|NCT01668966|183297163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.539|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.539
91701172|NCT01668966|183297163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.246
91701173|NCT01668966|183297163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.602
91701174|NCT01668966|183297163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.218
91701175|NCT01668966|183297163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.208
91701176|NCT01668966|183297163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.101
91701177|NCT01668966|183297164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.565
91701178|NCT01668966|183297164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.637
91731790|NCT03773562|183357994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0041
91731791|NCT03773562|183357995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0046
91731792|NCT01854762|183358037|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.4|||Fisher Exact||||Kaplan-Meier estimates for the proportion of patients without virological failure by weeks 2, 4 and 6, and at delivery, using treatment-related discontinuation equal failure analysis|7.4|1.3|<0.01
91731793|NCT05078112|183358040|OTHER|||||||0.000393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000393
91731794|NCT03996395|183358048|OTHER||Descriptive statistic|71.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91731795|NCT03555994|183358071|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-105.7||||0.023||90.0|-178.8|-32.6|||ANCOVA|||||-32.6|-178.8|0.023
91731796|NCT03555994|183358072|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-25.87||||0.008||90.0|-40.88|-10.86|||ANCOVA|||||-10.86|-40.88|0.008
91731797|NCT03555994|183358073|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-21.99||||0.008||90.0|-34.55|-9.43|||ANCOVA|||||-9.43|-34.55|0.008
91731798|NCT03555994|183358074|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-35.06||||0.07||90.0|-66.54|-3.58|||ANCOVA|||||-3.58|-66.54|0.070
91731799|NCT03555994|183358074|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-11.72||||0.03||90.0|-20.13|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.30|-20.13|0.030
91731800|NCT03379870|183358090|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed Consonant Nucleus Consonant (CNC) Word scores obtained 12-months post-activation to evaluate differences between groups. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis to control for potential floor or ceiling effects (e.g., scores \<20%).||||||0.768||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.768
91731801|NCT03379870|183358091|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed BKB-SIN scores obtained 12-months post-activation to evaluate differences between groups. Scores range from -6 to +21 and lower scores are better.||||||0.529||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.529
91731802|NCT03379870|183358092|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed SSQ scores obtained pre-operatively and at 12-months post-activation to evaluate benefit of cochlear implantation.||||||0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.010
91731803|NCT03379870|183358093|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed receptive language scores pre-operatively and 12-months post activation to test for change over time and differences between groups.|||||>|0.069||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.069
91731804|NCT03379870|183358094|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed articulation scores pre-operative and 12-months post activation to test for change over time and differences between groups.||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect of test point (pre-operative vs post-activation)||||||.02
91731805|NCT03379870|183358095|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed expressive language scores pre-operatively and 12-months post activation to test for change over time and differences between groups.||||||0.007||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect of test point (pre-operative vs post activation)||||||.007
91731806|NCT01373281|183358100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine efficacy|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|66.4||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %). The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups (exact method by Breslow \& Day). The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 25%.||66.4|43.8|
91868444|NCT00683800|183629907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Somatic scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.01|-0.46|0.066
91905048|NCT04223843|183705552|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures including fixed categorial effect of treatment at each visit and fixed continuous effect of baseline at each visit.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean trough FEV1 change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.286|0.117|<0.0001
91905049|NCT04223843|183705552|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures including fixed categorial effect of treatment at each visit and fixed continuous effect of baseline at each visit.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean trough FEV1 change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.299|0.135|<0.0001
91701179|NCT01668966|183297164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.594
91701180|NCT01668966|183297164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.788
91701181|NCT01668966|183297164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.329
91701182|NCT01668966|183297164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.716
91701183|NCT01668966|183297164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.119
91701184|NCT01668966|183297164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.201
91701185|NCT01668966|183297164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.087
91701186|NCT01668966|183297164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.116
91701187|NCT01668966|183297164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.070
91701188|NCT01668966|183297165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3299|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.3299
91701189|NCT01668966|183297165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9247|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.9247
91701190|NCT01668966|183297165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9602|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.9602
91701191|NCT01668966|183297165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2773|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.2773
91701192|NCT01668966|183297165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5031|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.5031
91701193|NCT01668966|183297165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8109|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.8109
91701194|NCT01668966|183297165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.2540
91701195|NCT01668966|183297165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3794|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.3794
91701196|NCT01668966|183297165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8687|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.8687
91701197|NCT01668966|183297165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4685|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.4685
91701198|NCT01668966|183297165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.0511
91701199|NCT01573767|183297166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|11.4||Inference for VI 12.5 µg versus (vs) placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for VI 25 µg vs placebo; inference for VI 6.25 µg vs placebo was dependent on SS having been achieved for VI 12.5 µg vs placebo.|ANCOVA|||||11.4|-2.7|0.227
91701200|NCT01573767|183297166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.5|||ANCOVA|||||13.5|-0.6|0.073
91701201|NCT01573767|183297166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.5|||ANCOVA|||||12.5|-1.6|0.127
91701202|NCT01573767|183297167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.024||||||||0.024|-0.138|
91701203|NCT01573767|183297167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.096||||||||0.096|-0.063|
91701204|NCT01573767|183297167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.051||||||||0.051|-0.110|
91701205|NCT01573767|183297168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.0||||||||6.0|-10.5|
91701206|NCT01573767|183297168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.6||||||||9.6|-6.9|
91701207|NCT01573767|183297168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|17.0||||||||17.0|0.4|
91701208|NCT01573767|183297169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.3||||||||12.3|-1.2|
91701209|NCT01573767|183297169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.2||||||||14.2|0.7|
91701210|NCT01573767|183297169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||||95.0|0.4|14.0||||||||14.0|0.4|
91701211|NCT01573767|183297170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|13.1||||||||13.1|-6.1|
91868445|NCT00683800|183629907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Vasomotor scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.50|-0.79|<0.001
91701212|NCT01573767|183297170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|17.4||||||||17.4|-1.8|
91701213|NCT01573767|183297170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|14.9||||||||14.9|-4.4|
91868446|NCT00683800|183629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Total score was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.18|-2.57|<0.001
91868447|NCT00683800|183629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Anxiety scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.41|-0.90|<0.001
91868448|NCT00683800|183629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Depression scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
91868449|NCT00683800|183629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Sexual Dysfunction scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.04|-0.13|0.282
91868450|NCT00683800|183629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Psychological scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.82|-1.66|<0.001
91905050|NCT03901105|183705553|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|1.785||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline CDR-SB score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||1.785|1.028|0.0313
91905051|NCT03901105|183705554|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.886||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for MMSE CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||1.886|0.962|.0833
91905052|NCT03901105|183705554|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.77||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.122|2.796||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for ADAS-Cog11 CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||2.796|1.122|.0141
91905053|NCT03901105|183705554|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.776||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for FAQ CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||1.776|0.984|.0639
91905054|NCT03901105|183705554|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|2.02||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for CDR Global CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||2.020|0.815|.2814
91701214|NCT01573767|183297171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|15.6||||||||15.6|-3.7|
91701215|NCT01573767|183297171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.3||||||||19.3|0.0|
91701216|NCT01573767|183297171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||||95.0|-2.7|16.7||||||||16.7|-2.7|
91701217|NCT01573767|183297172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|7.5||||||||7.5|-7.2|
91701218|NCT01573767|183297172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.7||||||||15.7|1.0|
91701219|NCT01573767|183297172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|17.2||||||||17.2|2.3|
91701220|NCT02961062|183297183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.54|-4.71|||Kenward-Roger method|||||-4.71|-17.54|0.005
91701221|NCT02961062|183297184|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.29|-2.83|||Kenward-Roger method|||||-2.83|-14.29|0.017
91701222|NCT01629823|183297196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.5||Comparison of 5cm group to control. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Both the 5 and 10cm groups were compared to the control group, \<1cm H₂O||1.50|0.44|0.51
91701223|NCT01629823|183297196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.52|||Regression, Linear|||||1.52|0.47|0.57
91796698|NCT02443519|183472301|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.65||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|6.46||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicates a smaller decrease in the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||6.46|-11.76|.609
91868451|NCT00683800|183629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Somatic scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.41|0.140
91868452|NCT00683800|183629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Vasomotor scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.26|-0.56|<0.001
91796699|NCT02443519|183472302|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.45||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|13.91||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in Headache Specific Locus of Control Scale score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||13.91|2.99|.022
91868453|NCT00683800|183629909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Total score was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.00|-2.42|<0.001
91868454|NCT00683800|183629909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Anxiety scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.30|-0.81|<0.001
91868455|NCT00683800|183629909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Depression scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.40|-0.83|<0.001
91868456|NCT00683800|183629909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Sexual Dysfunction scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.01|-0.17|0.082
91868457|NCT00683800|183629909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Psychological scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.75|-1.61|<0.001
91868458|NCT00683800|183629909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Somatic scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.21|-0.25|0.865
91868459|NCT00683800|183629909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Vasomotor scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.29|-0.61|<0.001
91868460|NCT00683800|183629910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
91868461|NCT00683800|183629911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
91868462|NCT00683800|183629912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
91868463|NCT00683800|183629913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
91868464|NCT00683800|183629914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
91868465|NCT00683800|183629915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
91868466|NCT00683800|183629916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
91868467|NCT00683800|183629917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
91701224|NCT00455520|183297202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-1.7|-0.92|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance Model with factors of treatment, country, prior opioid use, and baseline dose level and start of DB pain score as factors.||-0.92|-1.7|<0.001
91796700|NCT02443519|183472303|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.01||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|3.53||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicates a greater improvement in Headache Management Self-Efficacy Scale score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||3.53|-7.56|.124
91796701|NCT02443519|183472304|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.48||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.33||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in PROMIS-Depression score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||6.33|0.63|.017
91868468|NCT00683800|183629918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
91868469|NCT00683800|183629919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
91868470|NCT00683800|183629920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
91701225|NCT04601103|183297216|OTHER|Generalized Fisher's Exact Test was used to detect an association between the 3 treatment groups and the incidence of sloughing||||||0.916|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.916
91701226|NCT02719938|183297229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.415
91868471|NCT00683800|183629921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
91701227|NCT02719938|183297230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
91701228|NCT02719938|183297231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.409
91701229|NCT02719938|183297232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
91701230|NCT02719938|183297233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91701231|NCT02719938|183297234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91701232|NCT02719938|183297235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516
91701233|NCT01032239|183297299|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|-0.667||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.0|-0.1667|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To test the null hypothesis the sample size needed was 44 evaluable patient (22 per arm) with a power of 80 %.||-0.1667|-1.000|0.0140
91868472|NCT00683800|183629922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|2.9|||||The 90% CI for excess risk is obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk over placebo of DVS SR 100 mg per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||2.9|-0.68|
91868473|NCT00683800|183629924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|6.71|||||The 90% CI for excess risk is obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk over placebo of DVS SR 100 mg per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||6.71|-2.08|
91701234|NCT01032239|183297300|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|-0.6||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.2000|-1.0000|0.0042
91701235|NCT01032239|183297301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0540
91701236|NCT01032239|183297302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6256
91701237|NCT01032239|183297303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3676|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3676
91701238|NCT01032239|183297304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Actual Pain||||0.0380
91701239|NCT01032239|183297304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Least Pain||||0.0136
91701240|NCT01032239|183297304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Worst Pain||||0.2427
91701241|NCT01032239|183297305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7661|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7661
91701242|NCT01032239|183297306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Utility Score||||0.0197
91701243|NCT01032239|183297306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS||||0.3807
91701244|NCT01032239|183297307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PCS||||0.1068
91701245|NCT01032239|183297307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MCS||||0.6824
91701246|NCT01032239|183297308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2105|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2105
91701247|NCT04713592|183297328|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|17.2|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|29.3||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||29.3|5.0|=0.006
91868474|NCT00683800|183629925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.51|3.67|||||The 90% CI for excess risk is obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk over placebo of DVS SR 100 mg per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||3.67|-3.51|
91868475|NCT03542305|183629963|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|104.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.73|136.31|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Mild renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||136.31|79.73|
91868476|NCT03542305|183629963|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|118.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.43|154.24|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Moderate renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||154.24|91.43|
91868477|NCT03542305|183629963|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|141.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.82|203.66|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Severe renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||203.66|97.82|
91868478|NCT03542305|183629964|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|100.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.48|152.02|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Mild renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||152.02|66.48|
91868479|NCT03542305|183629964|OTHER||Slope|88.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.18|123.06|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Moderate renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||123.06|64.18|
91701248|NCT04713592|183297330|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|39.7||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||39.7|15.4|<0.001
91701249|NCT04713592|183297331|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|32.1||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||32.1|11.5|<0.001
91701250|NCT04713592|183297332|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|32.2||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||32.2|9.1|<0.001
91701251|NCT04713592|183297333|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|24.3||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||24.3|8.2|<0.001
91701252|NCT01056198|183297343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.208||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The BWAT-m scores were compared at each of the 4 treatment weeks and at the end of the follow-up using a mixed-effects ANCOVA for the intent-to-treat population. Treatment and treatment week, as well as their interaction, were defined as fixed effects with subject as a random effect. The BWAT-m score at baseline was used as a covariate.||||=0.208
91701253|NCT01056198|183297344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2737||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no differences between the 2 treatments with the alternative of non-zero differences. 48 evaluable subjects is sufficient to detect an effect size of 0.80.||||=0.2737
91701254|NCT01056198|183297345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2741||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no differences between the 2 treatments with the alternative of non-zero differences. 48 evaluable subjects is sufficient to detect an effect size of 0.80.||||=0.2741
91701255|NCT01056198|183297346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0164||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test, 2-sided, alpha = 0.05||||=0.0164
91701256|NCT01056198|183297347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.9392||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test, 2-sided, alpha = 0.05||||=0.9392
91701257|NCT02431806|183297352|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.8035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.64|-3.41|0.8035
91701258|NCT02431806|183297352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.8681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.31|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.31|-2.80|0.8681
91701259|NCT02431806|183297352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.47||||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|1.58|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.58|-4.52|0.3439
91701260|NCT02431806|183297353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.29|-0.25|0.8788
91701261|NCT02431806|183297353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.29|-0.26|0.9230
91701262|NCT02431806|183297353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.13|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.13|-0.42|0.2895
91701263|NCT00742508|183297358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.449|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|24.51|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the 24 h assessment.|||24.51|-5.75|
91701264|NCT00742508|183297358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|23.79|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Morning assessment.|||23.79|-8.68|
91701265|NCT00742508|183297358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.645|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|8.2|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Afternoon assessment.|||8.20|-12.04|
91868480|NCT03542305|183629964|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|92.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.58|150.63|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Severe renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||150.63|56.58|
91868481|NCT01619059|183629975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||Tested at alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-0.52|<0.0001
91868482|NCT01619059|183629976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.576||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|3.1||Secondary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.05, applying the hierarchical order for the sequential testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-14.9|0.2014
91868483|NCT01619059|183629977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.713|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|3.6||||||||3.6|-11.0|
91868484|NCT01619059|183629978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|21.0||||||||21.0|3.4|
91868485|NCT03170648|183630041|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||T2 (post) vs.T1(pre)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91868486|NCT04241848|183630045|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5xSTS), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.007
91701266|NCT00742508|183297358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|31.87|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Night assessment.|||31.87|-3.45|
91868487|NCT04241848|183630045|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5xSTS), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.240
91701267|NCT00742508|183297358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|10.92|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Waking assessment.|||10.92|-10.12|
91796702|NCT02443519|183472305|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.82||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|5.68||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in PROMIS-Anxiety score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||5.68|-0.03|.259
91868488|NCT04241848|183630045|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5xSTS), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.04
91868489|NCT04241848|183630048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.129
91868490|NCT04241848|183630048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.250
91868491|NCT04241848|183630048|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.073
91868492|NCT04241848|183630049|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.091|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Ten Meter Walk Test (10MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.091
91701268|NCT00742508|183297358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.16|36.93|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Sleeping assessment.|||36.93|13.16|
91701269|NCT00742508|183297358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.62||||95.0|-29.94|29.03|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax assessment.|||29.03|-29.94|
91868493|NCT04241848|183630049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Ten Meter Walk Test (10MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.296
91868494|NCT04241848|183630049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Ten Meter Walk Test (10MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.427
91868495|NCT04241848|183630050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test, from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.063
91868496|NCT04241848|183630050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test, from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.447
91701270|NCT00742508|183297358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|28.28|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmin assessment.|||28.28|-11.67|
91868497|NCT04241848|183630050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test, from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.096
91868498|NCT04241848|183630051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step Length of Paretic (Pa) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.035
91868499|NCT04241848|183630051|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.677|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step Length of Paretic (Pa) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.677
91868500|NCT04241848|183630051|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Step Length of Paretic (Pa) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.022
91868501|NCT04241848|183630052|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.098|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step lengths of the non-paretic (NP) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.098
91868502|NCT04241848|183630052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step lengths of the non-paretic (NP) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.666
91868503|NCT04241848|183630052|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Step lengths of the non-paretic (NP) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.007
91868504|NCT04241848|183630053|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of the Stair Climb Power Test (SCPT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.001
91868505|NCT04241848|183630053|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of the Stair Climb Power Test (SCPT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.009
91868506|NCT04241848|183630053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of the Stair Climb Power Test (SCPT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.018
91868507|NCT02962102|183630133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.52
91868508|NCT02962102|183630133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
91868509|NCT02962102|183630134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91868510|NCT02962102|183630134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91905055|NCT03901105|183705555|OTHER|||||||0.0305||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between CDR-SB least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||.0305
91905056|NCT03901105|183705555|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between MMSE least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||<0.0001
91701271|NCT00742508|183297358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.15|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax/PDmin assessment.|||0.15|-0.63|
91796703|NCT02443519|183472306|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL/TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs. 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicated a larger decrease in MIDI scores in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU|||-0.3|-1.6|.007
91868511|NCT02962102|183630135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91868512|NCT02962102|183630135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91868513|NCT03414684|183630174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.84|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that hazard ratio corresponds to the effect of treatment on Arm A|||1.84|0.49|0.88
91701272|NCT00742508|183297378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.833|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|15.63|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the 24 h assessment.|||15.63|-11.20|
91868514|NCT03414684|183630175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.18|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to the effect of treatment on Arm A|||4.18|0.29|1
91868515|NCT03414684|183630177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.5|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||1.50|0.43|0.49
91868516|NCT03414684|183630178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.43|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||3.43|0.32|1
91868517|NCT03414684|183630179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.12|||Log Rank||Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||2.12|0.13|0.36
91868518|NCT03414684|183630180|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.43|||Log Rank||Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||3.43|0.43|0.68
91868519|NCT03414684|183630181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.62|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||1.62|0.18|0.27
91701273|NCT00742508|183297378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|16.84|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Morning assessment.|||16.84|-17.95|
91701274|NCT00742508|183297378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.885|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|5.86|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Afternoon assessment.|||5.86|-15.71|
91868520|NCT03414684|183630182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|7.78|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||7.78|0.08|1
91868521|NCT03414684|183630184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.16|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||2.16|0.26|0.61
91868522|NCT03414684|183630185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.93|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||5.93|0.10|1
91868523|NCT03414684|183630187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.89|||Log Rank||Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||3.89|0.14|0.73
91868524|NCT04038580|183630202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that all sockets would have the same SCS||||0.553
91868525|NCT04038580|183630203|SUPERIORITY|Frustration sub-scale||||||0.536|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that all sockets would be the same||||0.536
91868526|NCT04038580|183630203|SUPERIORITY|Perceived Response||||||0.598|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.598
91868527|NCT04038580|183630203|SUPERIORITY|Social Burden||||||0.072|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.072
91868528|NCT04038580|183630203|SUPERIORITY|Ambulation Sub-scale||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
91905057|NCT03901105|183705555|OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between ADAS-Cog11 least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||0.0006
91868529|NCT04038580|183630203|SUPERIORITY|Prosthesis Utility||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.037
91868530|NCT04038580|183630203|SUPERIORITY|Residual Limb Health||||||0.254|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.254
91868531|NCT04038580|183630203|SUPERIORITY|Appearance||||||0.032|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.032
91868532|NCT04038580|183630203|SUPERIORITY|Sounds||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.352
91868533|NCT04038580|183630203|SUPERIORITY|Well-being||||||0.077|||||||ANOVA|||||||.077
91731807|NCT01373281|183358103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|55.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|62.3||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||62.3|47.3|
91731808|NCT01373281|183358104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|57.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|65.2||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||65.2|49.0|
91731809|NCT01373281|183358105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|54.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|61.7||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||61.7|46.8|
91731810|NCT05796245|183358125|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.2|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||5.20|0.39|
91868534|NCT04038580|183630204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as fixed factor and participant as random factor||||||0.95
91868535|NCT04038580|183630205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with sockets as fixed effect and subjects as random effect||||||.853
91731811|NCT05796245|183358125|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.34|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||5.34|0.38|
91868536|NCT04038580|183630206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as a fixed factor and subjects as a random factor||||||0.565
91868537|NCT04038580|183630208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as fixed factor and subjects as random factor||||||.374
91868538|NCT04038580|183630210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as a fixed factor and subjects as a random factor||||||.574
91868539|NCT01855750|183630243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.180|0.720|0.5167
91868540|NCT01855750|183630244|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|1.279|||Log Rank|||||1.279|0.704|0.7311
91868541|NCT01855750|183630245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.5027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.183|||Log Rank|||||1.183|0.710|0.5027
91731812|NCT05796245|183358125|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.11|-0.20|
91731813|NCT05796245|183358125|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.9|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||4.90|0.54|
91731814|NCT05796245|183358125|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.26|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||5.26|0.55|
91731815|NCT05796245|183358125|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||0.39|-0.10|
91731816|NCT05796245|183358125|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.67|||||Crude Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||5.67|1.05|
91731817|NCT05796245|183358125|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.99|||||Crude Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||5.99|1.02|
91731818|NCT05796245|183358125|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.32|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.32|-0.06|
91868542|NCT01855750|183630246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967||||0.8229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.296|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square|||||1.296|0.722|0.8229
91868543|NCT01855750|183630247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.407|||Log Rank|||||1.407|0.754|0.8549
91868544|NCT01855750|183630248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.358||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|1.654|||Log Rank|||||1.654|1.115|0.0021
91868545|NCT03160885|183630298|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|16.4||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||16.4|5.8|<0.001
91868546|NCT03160885|183630299|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|27.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||27.3|15.8|<0.001
91868547|NCT03160885|183630300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|20.9||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'Composite', subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Reduction of Worst Daily Pruritus NRS weekly average ≥4 at Week 16 was tested after the sequential testing of IGA 0/1 and EASI75 if these tests showed statistical significance||20.9|10.3|<0.001
91868548|NCT03160885|183630301|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using the Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-10.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included.||-10.1|-18.0|<0.001
91868549|NCT03160885|183630302|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included.||-2.6|-5.2|<0.001
91731819|NCT05796245|183358126|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set Note: Hazard ratio, risk ratio, and risk difference for the Comparative analysis set (IPTW weighted) and for the Comparative matched analysis set could not be calculated. Also, crude hazard ratio and crude risk ratio could not be calculated.||0.00|-0.01|
91868550|NCT03160885|183630303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|54.9||Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||54.9|13.4|0.004
91868551|NCT03160885|183630303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.9||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|40.9||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.~P value was considered non-significant"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This test was not statistically significant and hence next maintenance endpoint in the sequential testing procedure was not evaluated|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||40.9|-1.2|0.084
91868552|NCT03160885|183630304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|50.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment are considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||50.0|17.3|<0.001
91868553|NCT03160885|183630304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|46.4||Test not evaluated for statistical significance. Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||46.4|13.7|0.001
91868554|NCT03160885|183630307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|36.1||"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||36.1|22.5|<0.001
91868555|NCT03160885|183630308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|17.0||"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||17.0|8.3|<0.001
91868556|NCT03160885|183630309|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-7.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change will be imputed as 0.||-7.5|-12.2|<0.001
91731820|NCT05796245|183358127|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|12.49|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||12.49|0.12|
91731821|NCT05796245|183358127|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|17.14|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||17.14|0.12|
91731822|NCT05796245|183358127|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.01|-0.05|
91868557|NCT03160885|183630310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.6||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||11.6|4.4|<0.001
91868558|NCT03160885|183630311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|25.1||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by region and disease severity.|||25.1|12.8|<0.001
91868559|NCT03160885|183630312|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.8||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 1 change will be imputed as 0.||-0.8|-1.7|<0.001
91868560|NCT03160885|183630313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|26.2||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||26.2|13.9|<0.001
91868561|NCT03160885|183630314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|36.3||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||36.3|21.4|<0.001
91701275|NCT00742508|183297378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|26.59|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Night assessment.|||26.59|-7.11|
91701276|NCT00742508|183297378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.78|7.88|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Waking assessment.|||7.88|-14.78|
91701277|NCT00742508|183297378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.36|22.76|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Sleeping assessment.|||22.76|13.36|
91701278|NCT00742508|183297378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.902|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.17|17.26|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax assessment.|||17.26|-32.17|
91701279|NCT00742508|183297378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|15.8|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmin assessment.|||15.80|-13.61|
91701280|NCT00742508|183297378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.3|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax/PDmin assessment.|||0.30|-0.54|
91701281|NCT00742508|183297379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.187|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|4.86|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the 24 h assessment.|||4.86|-12.84|
91701282|NCT00742508|183297379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.962|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|2.95|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Morning assessment.|||2.95|-13.50|
91868562|NCT03835754|183630319|OTHER|Confidence internal is 88.8%, upper bound limit 99.2%|Clopper Pearson exact confidence interva|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.8|99.2||||||||99.2|88.8|
91701283|NCT00742508|183297379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|6.94|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Afternoon assessment.|||6.94|-10.89|
91701284|NCT00742508|183297379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.665|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|6.03|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Night assessment.|||6.03|-14.32|
91701285|NCT00742508|183297379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|5.47|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Waking assessment.|||5.47|-11.45|
91701286|NCT00742508|183297379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.686|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|9.89|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Sleeping assessment.|||9.89|-16.12|
91701287|NCT00742508|183297379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.749|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.41|0.41|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax assessment.|||0.41|-20.41|
91701288|NCT00742508|183297379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|13.15|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmin assessment.|||13.15|-16.00|
91701289|NCT00742508|183297379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.03|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax/PDmin assessment.|||0.03|-0.71|
91888769|NCT02942004|183669964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.0|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||10.0|1.3|0.0139
91701290|NCT02426749|183297399|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91701291|NCT02484651|183297423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was performed with a power of 0.80 and an α of 0.05, considering the primary hypothesis of a reduction in the BIS variability (measured as the standard deviation). A 25% reduction on the BIS variability (standard deviation) was considered clinically relevant, and gave a minimum sample size of 26 per group.||||0.651
91868563|NCT01728324|183630376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|81.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.34|85.87|||z-test|A stratified one sample z-test with 50% reference for PegIFN-ineligible and 71% for PegIFN-eligible patients was performed.|The adjusted response rate was tested against the historical control SVR rate of 68% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 76.3, 85.9).|The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 achieved with 24 weeks of treatment with DBV/FDV/RBV in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with PegIFN from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was an average of 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible) and 50% (for PegIFN-ineligible patients), weighted by the sample size in each stratum.||85.87|76.34|<0.0001
91868564|NCT01728324|183630376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|75.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.63|81.14|||z-test|A stratified one sample z-test with 50% reference for PegIFN-ineligible and 71% for PegIFN-eligible patients was performed.||The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 achieved with 16 weeks of treatment of non-cirrhotic and 24 weeks of treatment of cirrhotic patients was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with PegIFN from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was an average of 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible) and 50% (for PegIFN-ineligible patients), weighted by the sample size in each stratum.||81.14|70.63|0.0020
91868565|NCT01728324|183630377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR12 Rates difference|6.4||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|14.2|||Koch's method|Adjusted for PegIFN eligibility using Koch's method, with continuity correction.||Koch's stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel methods were used to compare durations, adjusting for stratification factors.||14.2|-1.4|0.0532
91868566|NCT01728324|183630378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR4 Rates difference|3.6||||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.9|||Koch´s method|Adjusted for PegIFN eligibility using Koch´s method, with continuity correction.||Koch's stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel methods were used to compare durations, adjusting for stratification factors.||10.9|-3.7|0.1671
91868567|NCT01728324|183630379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR24 Rates difference|-6.9||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.1|||Koch´s method|Adjusted for PegIFN eligibility using Koch´s method, with continuity correction.||Koch's stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel methods were used to compare durations, adjusting for stratification factors.||1.1|-14.8|0.0447
91868568|NCT01787032|183630383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|373.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|346.029|403.507|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||403.507|346.029|
91868569|NCT01787032|183630383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|266.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|243.267|292.914|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||292.914|243.267|
91868570|NCT01787032|183630384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|261.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|211.692|322.633|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||322.633|211.692|
91905058|NCT03901105|183705555|OTHER|||||||0.0097||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between FAQ least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||0.0097
91905059|NCT00922480|183705561|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0001
91868571|NCT01787032|183630384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|213.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|175.783|259.051|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||259.051|175.783|
91731823|NCT05796245|183358127|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|6.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|45.94|||||Crude Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set Note: Hazard ratio, risk ratio, and risk difference for the comparative matched analysis set could not be calculated.||45.94|0.81|
91868572|NCT01787032|183630385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|372.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|345.456|402.477|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||402.477|345.456|
91868573|NCT01787032|183630385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|266.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|242.955|292.456|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||292.456|242.955|
91905060|NCT00922480|183705562|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0001
91731824|NCT05796245|183358127|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|7.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|53.51|||||Crude Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||53.51|0.93|
91905061|NCT02161575|183705567|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-30.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-20.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Confidence Interval for the Median Change form Baseline||The null hypothesis was that the change in CSRT from baseline to Day 90 was zero||-20.50|-59.50|<0.0001
91701292|NCT02484651|183297424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis applies to the propofol effect-site concentration. Sample size calculation was performed with a power of 0.80 and an α of 0.05 also a reduction in the propofol drug consumption (measured as the average effect-site concentration) during maintenance of anesthesia. A reduction on propofol mean effect-site concentration of 20% was considered clinically relevant, giving a minimum of 34 patients per group||||<0.001
91868574|NCT00853593|183630416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.951|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.906||||||The Model 4396 lead will be considered safe if the proportion of subjects free of Model 4396 lead-related complications at one month post-implant is greater than 80% (i.e. the one sided 95% lower confidence bound must be at least 80%).||||.906|
91868575|NCT00853593|183630417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.8||||||||1.8||
91905062|NCT01970488|183705582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference of PASI percent improvement from baseline to Week 16 between ABP 501 and adalimumab with an equivalence margin of ± 15.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|3.02||||||||3.02|-7.39|
91905063|NCT00509067|183705620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||alpha set at P \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Time (0, 4, 8, 12, 16 wks) x Treatment (Drug, Placebo) Effect: F(1, 33)=0.01.||||||0.93
91701293|NCT02484651|183297424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This statistical analysis applies to the remifentanil effect-site concentration.~Sample size calculation was performed with a power of 0.80 and an α of 0.05 also a reduction in the remifentanil drug consumption (measured as the average effect-site concentration) during maintenance of anesthesia. A reduction on on remifentanil average effect-site concentration of 20% was considered clinically relevant, giving a minimum of 24 patients per group"||||0.245
91701294|NCT02484651|183297425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that PQRS overall recovery at 15 minutes was independent from the study group.||||0.419
91701295|NCT02484651|183297425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that PQRS overall recovery at 40 minutes was independent from the study group.||||0.107
91701296|NCT02484651|183297426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that PQRS satisfaction with anesthetic care was independent of the study group.||||0.669
91701297|NCT04972968|183297433|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|0.878||P-value \<= 0.05|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at Baseline (\>= 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)\].||||0.878|0.273|0.012
91701298|NCT04972968|183297433|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.443||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|0.794||P-value \<= 0.01|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at Baseline (\>= 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)\]||||0.794|0.248|0.004
91701299|NCT04972968|183297433|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.419||P-value \<= 0.001|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at Baseline (\>= 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)\]||||0.419|0.094|<0.001
91868576|NCT00853593|183630418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.7||||||||2.7||
91905064|NCT00509067|183705621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||alpha level set at .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Time (0, 8, 16 weeks) x Group (Drug, Placebo) Effect: F(1, 32.8)=1.48..||||||0.23
91701300|NCT04972968|183297434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.7||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid (GC) use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent); Length of prior GC treatment for PMR (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year)\].|||41.4|-4.0|0.107
91701301|NCT04972968|183297434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|41.0||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent); Length of prior GC treatment for PMR (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year)\].|||41.0|-3.1|0.092
91701302|NCT04972968|183297434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|41.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|62.3||P-value ≤ 0.001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent); Length of prior GC treatment for PMR (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year)\].|||62.3|21.4|< 0.001
91701303|NCT04972968|183297435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-88.67||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.04|30.71|||ANCOVA|P-value based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors.|95% CI based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[GC use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent);|||30.71|-208.04|0.144
91701304|NCT04972968|183297435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-164.76||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.62|-45.89||P-value ≤ 0.01|ANCOVA||P-value and 95% CI are based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone\] equivalent);|||-45.89|-283.62|0.007
91731825|NCT05796245|183358127|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.1|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.10|-0.04|
91868577|NCT00853593|183630419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|0.967||||||||.967|.887|
91868578|NCT00853593|183630420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|0.993||||||||.993|.944|
91868579|NCT00853593|183630421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.987||||||||.987|.930|
91868580|NCT00853593|183630422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|0.979||||||||.979|.917|
91868581|NCT00853593|183630428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.7||||||||2.7||
91868582|NCT03229408|183630455|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.004|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.004
91868583|NCT03229408|183630456|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||Unpaired T-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.03
91868584|NCT03229408|183630457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||0.180
91868585|NCT03229408|183630458|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002|||||||Unpaired T-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.002
91868586|NCT03229408|183630459|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.04
91796704|NCT03635788|183472320|SUPERIORITY|The study had approximately 80% power to show superiority of the LA ART compared to daily SOC with respect to the Step 2, week 48, cumulative probability of regimen failure|Cumulative probability difference|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-32.4|-4.3|||||Treatment difference was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC. 98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of regimen failure in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.||-4.3|-32.4|
91868587|NCT03229408|183630460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.003|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.003
91868588|NCT03229408|183630461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0004|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.0004
91868589|NCT03229408|183630462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.007
91868590|NCT06193590|183630463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
91868591|NCT06193590|183630464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1
91868592|NCT06193590|183630466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91868593|NCT01367236|183630487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Regression, Linear|||24 weeks||||0.68
91868594|NCT01367236|183630487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Linear|||48 weeks||||0.43
91905065|NCT00509067|183705621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||alpha set at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Time (0, 8, 16, weeks) x Group (Drug, Placebo) Effect: F(1, 32.8)=1.48.||||||0.23
91905066|NCT01022242|183705628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8861|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8861
91905067|NCT02243865|183705629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6938|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||||||0.6938
91701305|NCT04972968|183297435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-182.55||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-300.52|-64.58||P-value ≤ 0.01|ANCOVA||P-value and 95% CI based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)|||-64.58|-300.52|0.003
91701306|NCT04972968|183297436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.08||P-value \<= 0.05|ANCOVA|P-value based on ANCOVA adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)||||-0.08|-3.08|0.039
91701307|NCT04972968|183297436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.16||P-value \<= 0.001|ANCOVA|P-value based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|95% CI based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|||-1.16|-4.15|<0.001
91701308|NCT04972968|183297436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.52||P-value \<= 0.001|ANCOVA|P-value based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|95% CI based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|||-1.52|-4.49|<0.001
91701309|NCT03649178|183297443|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
91701310|NCT03649178|183297444|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
91701311|NCT03649178|183297445|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91701312|NCT04120584|183297446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91701313|NCT04120584|183297447|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91701314|NCT03660475|183297459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.967
91701315|NCT03660475|183297460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.836
91701316|NCT03660475|183297461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.166
91701317|NCT03660475|183297462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638
91701318|NCT03660475|183297463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.122
91701319|NCT03660475|183297464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.200
91701320|NCT03660475|183297465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.085
91701321|NCT03660475|183297467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.903
91701322|NCT03660475|183297468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.898
91701323|NCT03660475|183297469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.221
91701324|NCT03660475|183297470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
91701325|NCT00794040|183297489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|68.16||priori threshold p\<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||68.16|2.00|0.006
91701326|NCT00794040|183297490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.09||priori threshold \<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||0.09|-1.32|0.085
91701327|NCT00794040|183297491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.74||priori threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||10.74|-1.30|0.124
91701328|NCT00794040|183297492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|4.8||priori threshold p\<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||4.80|-4.76|0.993
91868595|NCT01367236|183630488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0009
91868596|NCT02628626|183630513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
91868597|NCT02628626|183630514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks||||0.24
91868598|NCT02628626|183630515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks||||0.44
91868599|NCT02628626|183630516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
91868600|NCT02628626|183630517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks||||0.56
91868601|NCT02628626|183630518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
91868602|NCT02628626|183630519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||Small (staining only)||||0.11
91868603|NCT02628626|183630519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Moderate (requires change of underwear)||||0.06
91868604|NCT02628626|183630519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||Large (requires complete change of clothes)||||0.36
91868605|NCT02628626|183630520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
91868606|NCT02628626|183630521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
91868607|NCT02628626|183630522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
91868608|NCT02628626|183630523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.39
91905068|NCT02243865|183705630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6557|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the 1st month of the three month post treatment investigation duration||||0.6557
91731826|NCT05796245|183358128|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|17.61|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||17.61|0.16|
91731827|NCT05796245|183358128|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|19.79|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||19.79|0.17|
91701329|NCT00794040|183297493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.19||priori threshold p\<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||2.19|-4.23|0.598
91731828|NCT05796245|183358128|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.03|-0.12|
91731829|NCT05796245|183358128|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|45.68|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||45.68|0.15|
91731830|NCT05796245|183358128|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|34.94|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||34.94|0.12|
91731831|NCT05796245|183358128|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||0.26|-0.10|
91731832|NCT05796245|183358128|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|19.93|||||Crude Hazard Ratio Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||19.93|0.37|
91731833|NCT05796245|183358128|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|19.31|||||Crude Risk Ratio Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||19.31|0.37|
91731834|NCT05796245|183358128|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.10|-0.05|
91731835|NCT05796245|183358129|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.85|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||1.85|0.02|
91868609|NCT02628626|183630524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
91868610|NCT02628626|183630525|SUPERIORITY|approximately 4 weeks post-treatment||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
91868611|NCT02628626|183630526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANCOVA|||Lifestyle Score||||0.67
91905069|NCT02243865|183705630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the 2nd month of the three month post treatment investigation duration||||0.515
91701330|NCT04687072|183297494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.5||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|7.0||The p-value was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference in percentages and 95% confidence interval (CI) (Klingenberg approach) were presented.|||7.0|-14.7|0.5081
91701331|NCT04687072|183297495|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.4925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||0.000|0.000|0.4925
91701332|NCT04687072|183297496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.5||||0.9314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|10.0||The p-value was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference in percentages and 95% CI (Klingenberg approach) were presented.|||10.0|-11.7|0.9314
91701333|NCT04687072|183297497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.7||||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.2||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test p-value was used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference in percentage and 95% CI (Klingenberg approach) are presented.|||8.2|-12.4|0.7379
91701334|NCT04687072|183297498|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|16.8|||||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|16.8|-9.3|
91701335|NCT04687072|183297499|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||0.000|0.000|0.7260
91731836|NCT05796245|183358129|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.99|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||1.99|0.02|
91731837|NCT05796245|183358129|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.0|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.00|-0.17|
91731838|NCT05796245|183358129|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|6.0|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||6.00|0.07|
91731839|NCT05796245|183358129|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|6.61|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||6.61|0.08|
91868612|NCT02628626|183630526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||Coping Score||||0.80
91868613|NCT02628626|183630526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||Depression Score||||0.49
91868614|NCT02628626|183630526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||Embarrassment Score||||0.60
91868615|NCT02628626|183630527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks post-treatment||||0.78
91868616|NCT05116163|183630547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Difference in the mean of percent of quality metrics achieved in the intervention arm minus the control arm.|||||<0.001
91868617|NCT05116163|183630548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1164|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1164
91701336|NCT04687072|183297500|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|13.0|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|||13.0|-9.6|
91701337|NCT04687072|183297503|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.2929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||1.000|0.000|0.2929
91701338|NCT04687072|183297504|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||1.000|0.000|0.1475
91701339|NCT04687072|183297505|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|WHO Classified Bleeding Event Grade ≥1||2.000|-2.000|0.7677
91868618|NCT05116163|183630549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Intervention group mean - control group mean|||||0.6781
91868619|NCT05116163|183630550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Intervention group mean - control group mean|||||0.4795
91868620|NCT05116163|183630551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of 3-month vs. baseline adherence scores in patients of providers in the intervention arm vs. control||||0.056
91868621|NCT05116163|183630552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
91868622|NCT05116163|183630553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.3957|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean from intervention arm - control arm.|||||0.3957
91868623|NCT05116163|183630554|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.64||||||Comparing the incidence rate of ED visits for the intervention vs. control arms.||1.64|0.63|
91868624|NCT05116163|183630555|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.36||||||Incidence rate ratio comparing incidence rates of outpatient visits in the intervention vs. control arms.||1.36|1.07|
91701340|NCT04687072|183297506|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|7.3|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|IWG Complete Response||7.3|-11.8|
91701341|NCT04687072|183297506|OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|20.2|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|IWG Response||20.2|-4.6|
91701342|NCT04687072|183297506|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|13.3|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|Initial Response||13.3|-9.7|
91701343|NCT04687072|183297508|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|5.7|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|||5.7|-15.6|
91701344|NCT04545567|183297521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91701345|NCT04545567|183297522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91701346|NCT04545567|183297523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91701347|NCT04545567|183297524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91701348|NCT04545567|183297525|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91701349|NCT04545567|183297526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91701350|NCT04545567|183297527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91701351|NCT04545567|183297528|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91701352|NCT04545567|183297529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91701353|NCT04545567|183297530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91701354|NCT04545567|183297531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91701355|NCT04545567|183297532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
91701356|NCT04545567|183297533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91701357|NCT04545567|183297534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91701358|NCT04545567|183297535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91701359|NCT04545567|183297536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91701360|NCT04545567|183297537|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91701361|NCT04545567|183297538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91701362|NCT04545567|183297539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
91701363|NCT04545567|183297540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91701364|NCT03979807|183297541|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.17|||||Cox proportional hazard model. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios. Umeclidinium/Vilanterol is Reference Group.|||1.17|1.06|
91868625|NCT05116163|183630556|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|9.73||||||Incidence rate ratio comparing the incidence rates of hospitalizations in the intervention vs. control arm patients.||9.73|1.69|
91868626|NCT05116163|183630557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post vs. pre IAT d-scores comparing the intervention vs. control arms.||||0.3882
91868627|NCT05116163|183630558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing post vs. pre IAT d-scores between the intervention and control groups.||||0.3615
91868628|NCT05116163|183630559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9432|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing post vs pre IAT d-scores in the intervention vs. control arms.||||0.9432
91868629|NCT05116163|183630560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1453|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post vs pre IAT d-scores for the intervention vs. control arms.||||0.1453
91868630|NCT05613907|183630594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.885||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|-6.15|||ANOVA|||||-6.150|-37.050|0.005
91868631|NCT05613907|183630594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.512||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.895|-0.705|||ANOVA|||||-0.705|-34.895|0.040
91868632|NCT05613907|183630594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.668||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.829|13.429|||ANOVA|||||13.429|-5.829|0.940
91731840|NCT05796245|183358129|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||0.21|-0.10|
91868633|NCT05613907|183630595|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-0.862||||0.388|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant difference in the EuroQol 5-D domains at 1 year compared to baseline.||||0.388
91868634|NCT05613907|183630596|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-0.033||||0.974|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no statistical difference in patient self-reported ability to perform basic self-care||||0.974
91868635|NCT05613907|183630597|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-1.564||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||The null hypothesis is no improvement in ability to perform usual activities at 1 year.||||0.118
91868636|NCT05613907|183630598|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-2.364||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.018
91868637|NCT05613907|183630599|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-1.311||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in anxiety and/or depression compared to the initial visit.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.190
91868638|NCT05613907|183630600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.604||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.762|-2.39|||ANOVA|||||-2.390|-50.762|0.027
91701365|NCT02754674|183297542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91701366|NCT02754674|183297543|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91701367|NCT02754674|183297544|SUPERIORITY|Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyze intergroup differences. The paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze differences between pre- and postoperative values. The statistical significance level was set at .05.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to assess the normality of the data distribution. Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyze intergroup differences. The paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze differences between pre- and postoperative values. Pearson's Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used to analyze categorical variables between groups. The statistical significance level was set at .05.||||>0.05
91701368|NCT02754674|183297545|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91701369|NCT02754674|183297546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
91701370|NCT03626363|183297553|SUPERIORITY|We sought to have up to 20 participants complete each group so that we could have a statistical power of 0.89 to detect about a 4 burst per minute difference with an alpha of 0.05. We would have had sympathetic nerve data on up to 18 more of the 21 participants that we were not allowed to post-test in the spring of 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance with 2 groups (MBSR and SME) and 2 time points (Pre vs. Post). Outcome data reported is the change in the mean number of bursts per minute of muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) from pre to post.||||0.51
91701371|NCT03626363|183297554|SUPERIORITY|To detect a 0.5 meter per second change in carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity with at least 80% power with an alpha of 0.05 we should have had at least 12 participants complete measurements in each group (MBSR and SME). We fell a little short of that in the MBSR group and met the 12 participants in the SME group. The number of participants we were able to study from pre to post was limited by COVID-19 restrictions.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance with 2 groups (MBSR and SME) and 2 time points (Pre vs. Post). Outcome data reported is the change in carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity in meters per second from pre to post. We had 21 participants in the spring of 2020 that were were not allowed to bring into the laboratory for post testing during COVID-19 restrictions which led to our limited sample size.||||0.25
91701372|NCT02100670|183297618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean|-9.23||||0.4144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.45|12.98||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||12.98|-31.45|0.4144
91701373|NCT02100670|183297619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.58||||0.8761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|21.5||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||21.50|-18.34|0.8761
91701374|NCT02100670|183297619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.61||||0.8164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.46|24.67||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||24.67|-19.46|0.8164
91701375|NCT02100670|183297619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.03||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|23.33||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||23.33|-21.27|0.9279
91701376|NCT02100670|183297619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.81||||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.26|11.64||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed.|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||11.64|-33.26|0.3442
91868639|NCT05613907|183630600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.715||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.837|-3.394|||ANOVA|||||-3.394|-51.837|0.024
91868640|NCT05613907|183630600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.535||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.374|11.836|||ANOVA|||||11.836|-13.374|1.000
91868641|NCT05613907|183630601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.052||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|-6.15|||ANOVA|||||-6.150|-37.050|0.048
91868642|NCT05613907|183630601|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.751||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.893|13.751|||ANOVA|||||13.751|-12.893|1.000
91868643|NCT05613907|183630601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.186||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.762|29.333|||ANOVA|||||29.333|-4.762|0.163
91701377|NCT02100670|183297624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.1||||0.5404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.48||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.48|0.81|0.5404
91701378|NCT02100670|183297624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|0.9||||0.4639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.20|0.67|0.4639
91701379|NCT02100670|183297624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.09||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.43|0.84|0.5118
91701380|NCT02100670|183297625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|0.93||||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.31||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.31|0.67|0.6918
91701381|NCT02100670|183297625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.23||||0.2389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.73||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.73|0.87|0.2389
91701382|NCT02100670|183297625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.0||||0.9817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.37||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.37|0.74|0.9817
91701383|NCT02100670|183297626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.06||||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.43||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to cooling sensation. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.43|0.79|0.7003
91701384|NCT02100670|183297626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.01||||0.9565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to cooling sensation. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.35|0.75|0.9565
91701385|NCT02100670|183297626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.07||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to cooling sensation. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.40|0.82|0.6216
91701386|NCT02100670|183297630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|2.43||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.7||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to complete pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||5.70|1.04|0.0408
91701387|NCT02100670|183297630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.31||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.65||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to complete pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||2.65|0.65|0.4507
91701388|NCT02100670|183297630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.38||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.61||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to complete pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||2.61|0.73|0.3150
91701389|NCT01556997|183297636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||The statistical model was an analysis of covariance model with treatment as the main effect and baseline DBP (\<100 mmHg versus ≥100 mmHg), current type 2 diabetes status (yes versus no), and race (black versus non-black) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
91701390|NCT01556997|183297637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||The statistical model was an analysis of covariance model with treatment as the main effect and baseline DBP (\<100 mmHg versus ≥100 mmHg), current type 2 diabetes status (yes versus no), and race (black versus non-black) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
91868644|NCT05080777|183630602|EQUIVALENCE|Group, Time, and Group x Time effect tests were performed using MLM.||||||0.295||||||.P-value shown is based on the Group x Time F statistic used in multilevel modeling (MLM)|Multilevel modeling (MLM)|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no group differences, no time differences, and no group x time differences, in changes over time between the two treatment groups. Because this was a pilot and feasibility study, no power calculations were conducted.||||0.295
91868645|NCT05080777|183630603|EQUIVALENCE|Group, time, and group x time effect tests were performed using multilevel modeling (MLM).||||||0.57||||||P-value shown is based on the group x time F statistic used in MLM.|MLM|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no group differences, no time differences, and no group x time differences, in changes over time between the two treatment groups. Because this was a pilot and feasibility study, no power calculations were conducted.||||0.570
91731841|NCT05796245|183358129|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|15.22|||||Crude Hazard Ratio Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||15.22|0.28|
91905070|NCT02243865|183705630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3256|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the 3rd month of the three month post treatment investigation duration||||0.3256
91905071|NCT02243865|183705630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4086|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the final four weeks of the three month post treatment investigation duration.||||0.4086
91905072|NCT03654976|183705638|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89||||0.5412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.31|||Negative binomial regression||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|The number of clinically relevant asthma exacerbations was analyzed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time in years in the efficacy period as offset. The model included treatment, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. No missing data approach was applied.||1.31|0.60|0.5412
91905073|NCT03654976|183705639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7713||||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.44|||Marginal logistic regression||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|A marginal logistic regression model with a generalized estimating approach was analyzed using treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. Baseline visit was included as a covariate. No missing data approach was applied.||1.44|0.41|0.4156
91731842|NCT05796245|183358129|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|15.08|||||Crude Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||15.08|0.29|
91731843|NCT05796245|183358129|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.09|-0.05|
91731844|NCT03257657|183358147|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
91731845|NCT03257657|183358149|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91796705|NCT03635788|183472321|SUPERIORITY|The study had at least 80% power to show superiority of the LA ART compared to daily SOC with respect to the Step 2, week 48, cumulative probability of virologic failure|cumulative probability difference|-21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-33.5|-9.3|||||Treatment difference was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of virologic failure in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.||-9.3|-33.5|
91905074|NCT03654976|183705640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8477||||0.4146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.26|||Marginal logistic regression||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|A marginal logistic regression model with a generalized estimating approach was analyzed using treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. Baseline visit is included as a covariate. No missing data approach was applied.||1.26|0.57|0.4146
91731846|NCT03257657|183358151|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91731847|NCT02014467|183358161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|5.18|||ANCOVA|||||5.18|3.67|<0.0001
91731848|NCT02014467|183358161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7495||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.7495
91731849|NCT02014467|183358162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|3.96|||ANCOVA|||||3.96|2.45|<0.0001
91731850|NCT02014467|183358162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9029||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.9029
91731851|NCT02014467|183358163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.80|1.72|<0.0001
91731852|NCT02014467|183358163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.1070
91731853|NCT02014467|183358164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.20|0.98|<0.0001
91731854|NCT02014467|183358164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4369||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.4369
91731855|NCT02014467|183358165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.39|4.32|||ANCOVA|||||4.32|2.39|<0.0001
91731856|NCT02014467|183358165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6082||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.6082
91731857|NCT02014467|183358166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|3.88|||ANCOVA|||||3.88|2.74|<0.0001
91731858|NCT02014467|183358166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3513||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.3513
91731859|NCT02014467|183358167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.27|||ANCOVA|||||3.27|1.96|<0.0001
91731860|NCT02014467|183358167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.541||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.5410
91731861|NCT02014467|183358168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|5.72|||ANCOVA|||||5.72|3.71|<0.0001
91731862|NCT02014467|183358168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3957||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.3957
91701391|NCT05459558|183297638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
91905075|NCT03654976|183705641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.7|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||12 SQ-HDM - placebo|A 'mixed-effect model repeated measurement' model was analysed using treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. Baseline visit was included as a covariate. No missing data approach was applied.||1.70|-1.47|0.8829
91701392|NCT05459558|183297638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
91701393|NCT05459558|183297639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
91701394|NCT05459558|183297639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
91701395|NCT05459558|183297640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.62|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-1.62|-1.88|<0.0001
91701396|NCT05459558|183297640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.61|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-1.61|-1.87|<0.0001
91701397|NCT05459558|183297640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-1.81||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.81|-2.08|<0.0001
91701398|NCT05459558|183297640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.9||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.90|-2.18|<0.0001
91701399|NCT05459558|183297641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.62|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-0.62|-1.00|<0.0001
91701400|NCT05459558|183297641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-0.41|-0.79|<0.0001
91701401|NCT05459558|183297641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-1.31||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.31|-2.06|<0.0001
91701402|NCT05459558|183297641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.44||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.44|-2.19|<0.0001
91701403|NCT05459558|183297642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-2.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 4||-2.05|-2.41|<0.0001
91701404|NCT05459558|183297642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-2.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 4||-2.05|-2.41|<0.0001
91701405|NCT05459558|183297642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-2.31|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 8||-2.31|-2.69|<0.0001
91701406|NCT05459558|183297642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-2.44|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 8||-2.44|-2.81|<0.0001
91701407|NCT05459558|183297642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-1.91|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 4||-1.91|-2.22|<0.0001
91701408|NCT05459558|183297642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.89|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 4||-1.89|-2.20|<0.0001
91701409|NCT05459558|183297642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-2.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 8||-2.13|-2.45|<0.0001
91701410|NCT05459558|183297642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-2.25|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 8||-2.25|-2.57|<0.0001
91701411|NCT05459558|183297642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.5|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 4||-0.50|-0.76|<0.0001
91701412|NCT05459558|183297642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.51|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 4||-0.51|-0.77|<0.0001
91701413|NCT05459558|183297642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.57|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 8||-0.57|-0.81|<0.0001
91701414|NCT05459558|183297642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.57|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 8||-0.57|-0.81|<0.0001
91701415|NCT05459558|183297643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.82|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 4||-0.82|-0.97|<0.0001
91701416|NCT05459558|183297643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.79|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 4||-0.79|-0.95|<0.0001
91701417|NCT05459558|183297643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-1.01|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 8||-1.01|-1.15|<0.0001
91701418|NCT05459558|183297643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-1.07|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 8||-1.07|-1.22|<0.0001
91701419|NCT05459558|183297643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.8|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 4||-0.80|-0.93|<0.0001
91796706|NCT03635788|183472322|SUPERIORITY||cumulative probability diffeence|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-31.6|-6.9||||||Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of treatment-related failure in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.|Treatment difference was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|-6.9|-31.6|
91796707|NCT03635788|183472323|SUPERIORITY|The proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/ml was compared by Fisher's Exact Test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-8.1|||Fisher Exact||||Treatment difference in the proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/ml was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.|-8.1|-35.6|<0.001
91796708|NCT03635788|183472324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-12.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference in the proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 200 copies was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.|The proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 200 copies/ml was compared by Fisher's Exact Test.||-12.8|-36.1|<0.001
91796709|NCT03635788|183472329|SUPERIORITY||Cumulative probability difference|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-21.3|4.5|||||Treatment difference in cumulative of permanent treatment discontinuation was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of permanent treatment discontinuation in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.||4.5|-21.3|
91796710|NCT05595382|183472340|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures of likelihood to enroll (on a 1 to 7 scale with higher numbers indicating a greater likelihood) pre/post intervention||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom (1, 359)||||||.001
91796711|NCT05595382|183472341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom (1, 358)||Repeated measures ANOVA comparing mood (rated on a 1-10 scale with higher scores indicating better mood) given to participants before and after the study manipulation by group||||.357
91796712|NCT05595382|183472342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||ANOVA|||||||.102
91796713|NCT03722173|183472343|OTHER|Since the main focus was on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range was not specified; no hypothesis was tested.|gMeans ratio (T/R) %|141.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.64|154.71|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment' was used.|Standard error of the mean is actually an intra-individual coefficient variation (CV). Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t distribution.|Point estimates for the ratios of the geometric means (gMeans) (T/R) for AUC0-tz and their 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. The difference between the expected means for log(T) - log(R) were estimated by the difference in the corresponding adjusted means (Least Squares Means).||154.71|129.64|
91796714|NCT03722173|183472344|OTHER|Since the main focus was on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range was not specified; no hypothesis was tested.|gMeans ratio (T/R) %|113.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.47|125.32|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment' was used.|Standard error of the mean is actually an intra-individual coefficient variation (CV). Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t distribution.|Point estimates for the ratios of the gMeans (T/R) for Cmax and their 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. The difference between the expected means for log(T) - log(R) were estimated by the difference in the corresponding adjusted means (Least Squares Means).||125.32|102.47|
91796715|NCT03722173|183472345|OTHER|Since the main focus was on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range was not specified; no hypothesis was tested.|gMeans ratio (T/R) %|142.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.3|155.93|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment' was used.|Standard error of the mean is actually an intra-individual coefficient variation (CV). Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t distribution.|Point estimates for the ratios of the gMeans (T/R) for AUC0-∞ and their 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. The difference between the expected means for log(T) - log(R) were estimated by the difference in the corresponding adjusted means (Least Squares Means).||155.93|130.30|
91796716|NCT04571515|183472346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|46.6|||Emax|||||46.6|9.9|0.003
91796717|NCT04571515|183472346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|45.3|||Emax|||||45.3|13.8|<0.001
91796718|NCT04571515|183472346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|46.2|||Emax|||||46.2|14.4|<0.001
91796719|NCT04571515|183472346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|48.6|||Emax|||||48.6|13.5|<0.001
91796720|NCT04571515|183472347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.4|
91796721|NCT04571515|183472347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9||||||||0.9|-1.5|
91796722|NCT04571515|183472347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||||||||0.6|-1.8|
91796723|NCT04571515|183472347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||||||||1.3|-1.1|
91796724|NCT04571515|183472348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|23.1|||Emax|||||23.1|7.3|<0.001
91796725|NCT04571515|183472348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|22.9|||Emax|||||22.9|9.3|<0.001
91796726|NCT04571515|183472348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|23.4|||Emax|||||23.4|9.7|<0.001
91796727|NCT04571515|183472348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|24.7|||Emax|||||24.7|9.4|<0.001
91731863|NCT02014467|183358169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-56.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.38|-52.65||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-CTX at Month 6|||-52.65|-61.38|<0.0001
91731864|NCT02014467|183358169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-52.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|-59.38|-46.17||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-CTX at Month 12|||-46.17|-59.38|<0.0001
91731865|NCT02014467|183358170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-56.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.6|-52.7||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-PINP at Month 6|||-52.70|-61.60|<0.0001
91731866|NCT02014467|183358170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-51.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.26|-45.91||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-PINP at Month 12|||-45.91|-56.26|<0.0001
91731867|NCT01217892|183358195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided) applying Hochberg's method across the two Dapagliflozin BID groups.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05 using Hochberg's method to control the overall Type I error across hypotheses in the two Dapagliflozin BID groups, two-sided)||-0.05|-0.38|0.0106
91796728|NCT04571515|183472349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.208
91796729|NCT04571515|183472349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.005
91796730|NCT04571515|183472349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.192
91905076|NCT03654976|183705642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.96|||Generalised linear mixed model||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|The odds of having an improved outcome was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included treatment, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. No missing data approach was applied.||3.96|1.29|0.0044
91905077|NCT03654976|183705643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.62||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.74|||Generalised linear mixed model||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|The odds of having an improved outcome was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included treatment, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. No missing data approach was applied.||2.74|0.96|0.0698
91731868|NCT01217892|183358195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided) applying Hochberg's method across the two Dapagliflozin BID groups.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05 using Hochberg's method to control the overall Type I error across hypotheses in the two Dapagliflozin BID groups, two-sided)||-0.18|-0.52|<0.0001
91731869|NCT01217892|183358196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-1.10|-2.53|<0.0001
91731870|NCT01217892|183358196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3636|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.46||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-1.46|-2.89|<0.0001
91731871|NCT01217892|183358197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-9.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-9.7|-21.7|<0.0001
91796731|NCT04571515|183472349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.067
91796732|NCT04571515|183472349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.059
91796733|NCT04571515|183472349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||<0.001
91796734|NCT04571515|183472349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.017
91796735|NCT04571515|183472349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.002
91796736|NCT04571515|183472350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.051
91796737|NCT04571515|183472350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.035
91796738|NCT04571515|183472350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.016
91731872|NCT01217892|183358197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-10.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-10.7|-22.7|<0.0001
91731873|NCT01217892|183358198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.132||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-4.2||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-4.2|-16.5|0.0010
91731874|NCT01217892|183358198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-9.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-9.1|-21.4|<0.0001
91731875|NCT01217892|183358199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.097||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|24.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||24.1|0.2|0.0455
91701420|NCT05459558|183297643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.8|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 4||-0.80|-0.93|<0.0001
91701421|NCT05459558|183297643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.9|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 8||-0.90|-1.04|<0.0001
91701422|NCT05459558|183297643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.95|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 8||-0.95|-1.08|<0.0001
91731876|NCT01217892|183358199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.153||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|28.9||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||28.9|4.8|0.0062
91731877|NCT00831389|183358201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median change in PG concentration due to exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.791
91731878|NCT00831389|183358202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median tally of hypoglycemic events immediately following exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.5
91731879|NCT00831389|183358203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median tally of nocturnal hypoglycemic events following exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.25
91868646|NCT05080777|183630604|EQUIVALENCE|Group, time, and time x group effect tests were performed using multilevel modeling (MLM).||||||0.461||||||P-value shown is based on the group x time F statistic used in MLM.|MLM|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no group differences, no time differences, and no group x time differences, in changes over time between the two treatment groups. Because this was a pilot and feasibility study, no power calculations were conducted.||||0.461
91888770|NCT02942004|183669964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.9|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||6.9|1.0|0.0460
91701423|NCT05175131|183297684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA||Mean difference of Mebeverine+Simethicone combination to Mebeverine. Adjusted least squares mean (difference between Mebeverine+Simethicone combination and Mebeverine) from ANCOVA is presented here|ANCOVA was used for primary end point analysis. The model included the change from baseline of the NRS\_11 score as dependent variable and treatment and site as independent factors, and baseline NRS-11 as covariate.||1.8|0.3|0.0042
91701424|NCT05175131|183297684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.4|||ANCOVA||Adjusted least squares mean (difference between Mebeverine+Simethicone combination and Mebeverine) from ANCOVA is presented here|Mean difference of Mebeverine+Simethicone combination to Simethicone. ANCOVA was used for primary end point analysis. The model included the change from baseline of the NRS\_11 score as dependent variable and treatment and site as independent factors, and baseline NRS-11 as covariate.||2.4|0.9|<0.0001
91701425|NCT05711381|183297689|OTHER|PK parameters of HM15912 from the severe renal impairment group (Cohort 2) were to be estimated and compared to the control group (Cohort 1, normal renal function). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was to be used to compare log transformed PK parameters. The estimates of mean difference and corresponding 90% CIs, as well as each exponentiation of estimates, were to be presented to provide the estimates of GMR.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.41||||||||1.41|0.59|
91868647|NCT03789656|183630638|OTHER|||||||0.6285|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||The primary efficacy endpoint was completed with the Efficacy Analysis Set (EAS), which included all treated subjects in Group 1. The median (Interquartile range) for change from baseline in IGF-1xULN to Week 13/EoT and p-value from the Wilcoxon signed rank test were presented. Baseline was defined as the mean of all IGF-1xULN values prior to first dose. Last on treatment assessment was used for EoT if subject discontinued before Week 13.||||0.6285
91868648|NCT03789656|183630639|OTHER|||||||0.3877|||||||exact binomial test assuming the null pr|Null proportion = 0.5||||||0.3877
91868649|NCT05256797|183630644|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.71||||||Hazard ratio||0.71|0.66|
91868650|NCT04484623|183630651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.73||P-Value presented to 3 decimal places from one-sided stratified Log-Rank test adjusting for the number of lines of prior therapy (1 vs. 2/3 vs. \>=4) and prior bortezomib (yes or no) according to IVRS strata.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy (1 vs. 2/3 vs. \>=4) and prior bortezomib (yes or no) according to IVRS strata with a covariate of treatment.|||0.73|0.37|<0.001
91868651|NCT05886777|183630684|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.782|1.249|||||GMRs and 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by exponentiating mean differences of logarithms of titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.249|0.782|
91868652|NCT05886777|183630685|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.697|1.162|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean differences of the logarithms of titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.162|0.697|
91868653|NCT05886777|183630686|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 was evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.605|1.168|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean differences of the logarithms of titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.168|0.605|
91868654|NCT05886777|183630687|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 was evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.618|1.014|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.014|0.618|
91868655|NCT05886777|183630688|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.785|1.423|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.423|0.785|
91868656|NCT05886777|183630689|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.909|1.402|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.402|0.909|
91905078|NCT00117598|183705646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.63|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|Two null hypotheses (Ho) tested: 1. PFS distributions for temsirolimus 175/75 mg and investigator's choice treatment groups are identical. 2. PFS distributions for temsirolimus 175/25 mg and investigator's choice treatment groups are identical. Alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each test was that PFS distributions differed.||0.63|0.25|<0.0001
91905079|NCT00117598|183705646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.65|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.65|0.26|<0.0001
91905080|NCT00117598|183705647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0019
91731880|NCT00831389|183358204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0669||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median peak post-prandial PG for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.0669
91731881|NCT00831389|183358205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2256||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median nadir PG immediately following exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.2256
91731882|NCT00831389|183358206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median overnight nadir PG for the OL and CL arms do not differ.||||0.791
91731883|NCT00831389|183358207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2036||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median percentage of time PG is within euglycemic range for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.2036
91731884|NCT00831389|183358208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6221||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median percentage of time PG is above euglycemic range for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.6221
91796739|NCT04571515|183472350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.180
91731885|NCT00831389|183358209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median percentage of time PG is below euglycemic range for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.021
91731886|NCT00831389|183358210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median tally of hypoglycemic events over 48 hour in-patient period for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.0176
91731887|NCT01592747|183358251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed controlling for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) subtype. Odds ratio was calculated for placebo vs. memantine full dose.||1.8|0.7|0.6590
91731888|NCT01592747|183358251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed controlling for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) subtype. Odds ratio was calculated for placebo vs. Memantine reduced dose||1.7|0.7|0.7839
91731889|NCT01592747|183358253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1||||0.8136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.8136
91796740|NCT04571515|183472351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.022
91796741|NCT04571515|183472351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.028
91868657|NCT05886777|183630690|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.773|1.434|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.434|0.773|
91905081|NCT00117598|183705647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6179|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6179
91731890|NCT01592747|183358253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.9244
91731891|NCT01592747|183358254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.7611
91731892|NCT01592747|183358254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.3176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.3176
91731893|NCT01592747|183358255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.9020
91731894|NCT01592747|183358255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.4||||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.1|0.1279
91731895|NCT01592747|183358256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.4|0.4144
91731896|NCT01592747|183358256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4212
91731897|NCT01592747|183358257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.9|0.6238
91731898|NCT01592747|183358257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||0.5957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.5|0.5957
91731899|NCT01592747|183358258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.6|0.8640
91731900|NCT01592747|183358258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.4|0.4362
91731901|NCT01592747|183358259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.7182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.8|0.7182
91731902|NCT01592747|183358259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.8|0.8390
91731903|NCT01592747|183358260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.7||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.1|0.0813
91731904|NCT01592747|183358260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4365
91731905|NCT01592747|183358261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4213
91731906|NCT01592747|183358261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4267
91731907|NCT01592747|183358262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.3713||95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.3713
91731908|NCT01592747|183358262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.4||||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|0.2855
91731909|NCT00456365|183358342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91731910|NCT00456365|183358343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91731911|NCT00456365|183358344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.69
91731912|NCT00456365|183358345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.21
91796742|NCT04571515|183472351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.007
91796743|NCT04571515|183472351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.005
91796744|NCT06624449|183472355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91796745|NCT05098938|183472357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.716
91796746|NCT05098938|183472358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.102
91796747|NCT05098938|183472359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.712
91796748|NCT05098938|183472360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.575
91796749|NCT00942448|183472363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.2|||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of superiority of diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25mg/ml and 50 mg/ml compared to Placebo with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours following drug administration).~A sample size of 60 in each group had 95% power to detect a difference between diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25 mg/ml and placebo in means of 15 mm, assuming that the common standard deviation was 22.5 and using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level."||||< 0.001
91868658|NCT05886777|183630691|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.807|1.515|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.515|0.807|
91701426|NCT05711381|183297690|OTHER|PK parameters of HM15912 from the severe renal impairment group (Cohort 2) were to be estimated and compared to the control group (Cohort 1, normal renal function). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was to be used to compare log transformed PK parameters. The estimates of mean difference and corresponding 90% CIs, as well as each exponentiation of estimates, were to be presented to provide the estimates of GMR.|Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.68||||||||1.68|0.93|
91868659|NCT05886777|183630692|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A, RSV B as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ4) \<=ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.769|1.288|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.288|0.769|
91868660|NCT05886777|183630693|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A, RSV B as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ4) \<=ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.836|1.429|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.429|0.836|
91701427|NCT01892085|183297722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.015
91701428|NCT01892085|183297722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.339
91731913|NCT00928720|183358346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
91731914|NCT00721110|183358364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.0|54.0||Significant if P \< 0.003 for efficacy and P \> 0.5311 for futility; 97.5% confidence intervals adjusted for group sequential design to maintain the overall alpha of 0.025 for each primary intervention.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline 6-minute walk distance||The effect of lidocaine on 6-minute walk distance on the 2nd postoperative morning was assessed using analysis of covariance. We expected the control group's mean 6-minute walk distance to be 300 meters with a standard deviation (SD) of about 20% of the mean for each group. Assuming a correlation of 0.5 between baseline and 2nd postoperative day, a maximum 128 total patients (32 for each group) was needed to have 80% power at the 0.025 significance level to detect effects of 36 meters or more.||54|-52|0.96
91731915|NCT00721110|183358364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-65.0|44.0||97.5% confidence interval adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain theoverall α of 0.025 for each primary intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline 6-minute walk distance||The effect of ketamine on 6-minute walk distance on the 2nd postoperative morning was assessed using analysis of covariance. We expected the control group's mean 6-minute walk distance to be 300 meters with a standard deviation (SD) of about 20% of the mean for each group. Assuming a correlation of 0.5 between baseline and 2nd postoperative day, a maximum 128 total patients (32 for each group) was needed to have 80% power at the 0.025 significance level to detect effects of 36 meters or more.||44|-65|0.54
91731916|NCT00721110|183358365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.3|1.3||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Groups compared on VRS scores at PACU admit using a t test.||1.3|-3.3|0.20
91701429|NCT01892085|183297723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.024
91701430|NCT01892085|183297723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.317
91701431|NCT01892085|183297724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.031
91731917|NCT00721110|183358365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|1.9||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine compared to placebo at PACU admit using a t test||1.9|-2.8|0.54
91731918|NCT00721110|183358365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.5|0.8||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on pain severity at postoperative care unit discharge was assessed using a t test.||0.8|-2.5|0.11
91731919|NCT00721110|183358365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|2.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative care unit discharge pain severity was assessed using a t test.||2.0|-1.4|0.56
91701432|NCT01892085|183297724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.298
91701433|NCT01892085|183297725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.05
91701434|NCT01892085|183297725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Marginalized 2 part model|||||||0.27
91701435|NCT01892085|183297726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.069
91701436|NCT01892085|183297726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.244
91701437|NCT01892085|183297727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.094
91701438|NCT01892085|183297727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Marginalized 2 part model|||||||0.235
91701439|NCT01892085|183297728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.123
91701440|NCT01892085|183297728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.210
91701441|NCT01892085|183297729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.143
91701442|NCT01892085|183297729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.196
91701443|NCT01892085|183297730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.185
91701444|NCT01892085|183297730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.183
91701445|NCT01892085|183297731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.229
91701446|NCT01892085|183297731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.170
91701447|NCT01892085|183297732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.314
91701448|NCT01892085|183297732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.162
91701449|NCT01892085|183297733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.377
91701450|NCT01892085|183297733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.149
91701451|NCT01892085|183297734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91701452|NCT01892085|183297735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.82
91701453|NCT01892085|183297736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||00.22
91701454|NCT01892085|183297737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
91701455|NCT01892085|183297738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
91701456|NCT01892085|183297739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.77
91701457|NCT01892085|183297740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91701458|NCT01892085|183297741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
91701459|NCT01892085|183297742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91701460|NCT01472757|183297743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.013
91701461|NCT01472757|183297743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Calculated p-value was less than 0.001.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91701462|NCT01472757|183297743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Calculated p-value was less than 0.001.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91701463|NCT01472757|183297744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91701464|NCT01472757|183297744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91701465|NCT01472757|183297744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91701466|NCT01472757|183297745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91701467|NCT01472757|183297745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91701468|NCT01472757|183297745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
91701469|NCT00480493|183297764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|9.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Confidence scores were also compared using random-effect, mixed regression models to determine whether changes over time differed significantly between groups.|A 2 sided t-test was used to determine if the change in Confidence score was significantly different between the groups.||9.24|-4.32|0.468
91701470|NCT00480493|183297765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.05||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|25.11|||t-test, 2 sided||Concern scores were also compared using random-effect, mixed regression models to determine whether changes over time differed significantly between groups.|A 2 sided t-test was used to determine if there were significant differences in Concern between the two groups at 12 months.||25.11|-15.47|0.634
91701471|NCT00480493|183297766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.8|||t-test, 2 sided||We also used a random-effect, mixed regression models to look for between group changes over time.|The difference in the Worry score at 12 months was compared between the groups using a 2 sided t-test.||3.80|-8.76|0.430
91701472|NCT03747302|183297767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
91701473|NCT03747302|183297768|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean scores for behavioral intent to vaccine: negative values: smaller values indicate more likely to vaccinate.||||>.05
91701474|NCT00738062|183297792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at randomization.||||||0.438
91701475|NCT00738062|183297793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHDAS Composite value at randomization.||||||0.554
91701476|NCT00738062|183297794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Composite value at baseline.||||||0.198
91701477|NCT00738062|183297795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at randomization.||||||0.286
91701478|NCT00738062|183297796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at randomization.||||||0.251
91701479|NCT00738062|183297797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.708
91701480|NCT00738062|183297798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.873
91701481|NCT00738062|183297799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.252
91701482|NCT00738062|183297800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.330
91701483|NCT00033657|183297814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.48
91701484|NCT01683422|183297816|SUPERIORITY|The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||In the RTOG 9812 (NCT00003591) for unresectable pancreatic cancer, a one-year survival rate of 43% was observed. There were 109 analyzable patients on NCT00003591 with 61 still at risk for death at one year. Using the method of Dixon and Simon, a sample size of 39 analyzable patients followed over 12 months will ensure at least 90% probability of detecting a minimum of 17% improvement in the one-year survival rate compared to NCT00003591 at the 0.10 significance level (with a one-sided test).||||0.1
91868661|NCT05886777|183630694|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.594|1.19|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.190|0.594|
91868662|NCT05886777|183630695|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.632|1.125|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.125|0.632|
91905082|NCT00117598|183705648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||1.28|0.46|0.3053
91905083|NCT00117598|183705648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.9515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.62|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||1.62|0.60|0.9515
91905084|NCT00117598|183705649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.01|||||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||9.01|0.14|
91905085|NCT00117598|183705649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.3|||||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||13.3|0.10|
91905086|NCT00117598|183705651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.56|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.56|0.23|<0.0001
91701485|NCT01225289|183297835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91701486|NCT01162122|183297839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.24||||||||1.24|1|
91701487|NCT01162122|183297839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.17||||||||1.17|0.95|
91701488|NCT01162122|183297839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||||||||1.05|0.85|
91701489|NCT01162122|183297839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11||||||||1.11|0.92|
91701490|NCT01162122|183297839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08||||||||1.08|0.9|
91701491|NCT01162122|183297839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||||||||1.07|0.89|
91701492|NCT01162122|183297839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1||||||||1.1|0.91|
91701493|NCT01162122|183297839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05||||||||1.05|0.87|
91701494|NCT01162122|183297839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05||||||||1.05|0.87|
91701495|NCT01162122|183297840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.49||||||||1.49|1.32|
91701496|NCT01162122|183297840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|1.7||||||||1.7|1.52|
91701497|NCT01162122|183297840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.21||||||||1.21|1.08|
91701498|NCT01162122|183297841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|11.3||||||||11.3|7.1|
91701499|NCT01162122|183297841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|14.9||||||||14.9|10.5|
91701500|NCT01162122|183297841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (B strain)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.4||||||||7.4|3.0|
91701501|NCT01162122|183297842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.46||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.46|1.29|
91701502|NCT01162122|183297842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.68||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.68|1.51|
91701503|NCT01162122|183297842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.2||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.2|1.08|
91701504|NCT01162122|183297843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|10.9||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||10.9|6.9|
91868663|NCT05886777|183630696|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.123|1.801|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.801|1.123|
91868664|NCT05886777|183630697|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.977|1.651|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.651|0.977|
91868665|NCT05886777|183630698|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.61|1.208|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.208|0.610|
91868666|NCT05886777|183630699|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 was evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7, 3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.764|1.34|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.340|0.764|
91868667|NCT05886777|183630700|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.914|3.232|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||3.232|1.914|
91868668|NCT05886777|183630701|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.049|1.612|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.612|1.049|
91905087|NCT00117598|183705651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.6|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.60|0.26|<0.0001
91905088|NCT00117598|183705652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.67|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.67|0.23|0.0004
91701505|NCT01162122|183297843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|14.8||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||14.8|10.6|
91701506|NCT01162122|183297843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.2||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||7.2|2.9|
91701507|NCT01162122|183297847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.52||||||||1.52|1.25|
91759177|NCT04038567|183411373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.42||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.42|-0.40|
91701508|NCT01162122|183297847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.72||||||||1.72|1.44|
91701509|NCT01162122|183297847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||||||||1.21|1.03|
91701510|NCT01162122|183297848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|14.6||||||||14.6|7.5|
91868669|NCT05886777|183630702|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.155|2.165|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||2.165|1.155|
91905089|NCT00117598|183705652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.04|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||1.04|0.40|0.0712
91905090|NCT00545064|183705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.2||0.001||95.0|-0.6|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in GSS-SYMP-6 score = 7"||7.0|-0.6|0.001
91731920|NCT00721110|183358365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|2.2||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 1 pain severity assessed using a t test.||2.2|-0.9|0.20
91731921|NCT00721110|183358365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|1.7||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 1 pain severity was assessed using a t test.||1.7|-1.4|0.79
91731922|NCT00721110|183358365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|1.7||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 2 pain severity was assessed using a t test.||1.7|-1.1|0.55
91905091|NCT00545064|183705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.2||0.097||95.0|-0.6|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in GSS-SYMP-6 = 0"||7.0|-0.6|0.097
91701511|NCT01162122|183297848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|17.2||||||||17.2|9.8|
91701512|NCT01162122|183297848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%|Group difference (B strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.5||||||||8.5|1.4|
91701513|NCT01162122|183297849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.45||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.45|1.2|
91701514|NCT01162122|183297849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.68||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.68|1.42|
91701515|NCT01162122|183297849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.21|1.03|
91731923|NCT00721110|183358365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|1.8||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 2 pain severity was assessed using a t test.||1.8|-1.1|0.47
91731924|NCT00721110|183358366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|7.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on intraoperative opioid consumption was assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||7|-7|0.63
91701516|NCT01162122|183297853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|13.3||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||13.3|6.4|
91701517|NCT01162122|183297853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|16.6||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||16.6|9.5|
91701518|NCT01162122|183297853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.3||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||8.3|1.5|
91701519|NCT01162122|183297854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.63||||||||1.63|1.29|
91701520|NCT01162122|183297854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio (H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.5||||||||1.5|1.23|
91701521|NCT01162122|183297854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥0.67.|GMT Ratio (B strain-overall)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.21||||||||1.21|0.98|
91796750|NCT00942448|183472363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|31.7|||ANCOVA|||||31.7|18.4|0.001
91905092|NCT00545064|183705658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|<|0.001||95.0|-12.3|-10.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in IOP = -4"||-10.7|-12.3|<0.001
91731925|NCT00721110|183358366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|5.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on intraoperative opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||5|-10|0.27
91868670|NCT05886777|183630703|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.64|4.604|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||4.604|2.640|
91868671|NCT05886777|183630704|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.131|1.808|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.808|1.131|
91868672|NCT05886777|183630705|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.06|1.773|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.773|1.060|
91868673|NCT05886777|183630706|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.673|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.300|0.673|
91868674|NCT05886777|183630707|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.74|1.281|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.281|0.740|
91868675|NCT04172675|183630726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.61|||Unstratified Log rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||0.61|0.13|=0.0007
91868676|NCT00378898|183630733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.047
91868677|NCT01429454|183630738|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.36||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.51
91868678|NCT01429454|183630739|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.10
91868679|NCT02000752|183630740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.98|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|7.59||||t-test, 1 sided||||||7.59|<0.001
91731926|NCT00721110|183358366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.0|5.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative care unit opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||5|-15|0.28
91868680|NCT02000752|183630741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91868681|NCT02000752|183630742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|2.13||||0.16|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.01||||t-test, 1 sided||||||1.01|0.16
91868682|NCT02000752|183630743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84||||0.2|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.84||||t-test, 2 sided||||||0.84|0.2
91868683|NCT00918333|183630815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91868684|NCT03392194|183630822|OTHER|The purpose of this small pilot randomized control trial (RCT) was to assess feasibility and acceptability of conducting community based sleep hygiene and yoga interventions, to be scaled and tested in a future, larger RCT.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.02||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.35|50.39|||t-test, 2 sided|Due to main findings, analysis to explore potential mediators of effect were not pursued, despite original plan to explore explanatory variables.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in change in sleep duration between the two intervention arms.||50.39|-46.35|0.932
91868685|NCT02927249|183630840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.56||||||||1.56|0.91|
91868686|NCT02927249|183630841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.69||||||||1.69|0.74|
91868687|NCT02927249|183630842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.52||||||||1.52|0.83|
91905093|NCT00545064|183705658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|<|0.001||95.0|-12.3|-10.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in IOP = 0"||-10.7|-12.3|<0.001
91905094|NCT00074581|183705688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio estimate presented (0.07) is a comparison of the early-ART arm (numerator) to the delayed-ART arm (denominator), thus indicating a 93% lower risk of infection among all linked partner infections, during the entire study.|||0.22|0.02|<0.0001
91868688|NCT01706159|183630917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.3056||90.0|0.01|3.05||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||A sample size of 90 subjects, with a 2:1 (active:placebo) randomization ratio, would ensure 80% power to detect a difference between active treatment and placebo at Week 8 with a 2-sided significance level of 10% based on a Fisher's exact test.||3.05|0.01|0.3056
91868689|NCT03371017|183630922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.73|0.5891
91701522|NCT01162122|183297854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio(H3N2/Brisbane-high risk group)|1.35||||||95.0|1.13|1.61||||||||1.61|1.13|
91701523|NCT01162122|183297854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio(H3N2/Wisconsin-high risk group|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5||||||||1.5|1.1|
91701524|NCT01162122|183297854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio (B strain-high risk group)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.3||||||||1.3|0.95|
91731927|NCT00721110|183358366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.0|4.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative care unit opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||4|-15|0.22
91731928|NCT00721110|183358366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.0|21.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 1 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||21|-13|0.76
91731929|NCT00721110|183358366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.0|14.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 1 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||14|-19|0.66
91731930|NCT00721110|183358366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.0|10.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 2 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||10|-5|0.30
91731931|NCT00721110|183358366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.0|8.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 2 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||8|-5|0.79
91796751|NCT00942448|183472376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|30.8|||ANCOVA|||"The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of superiority of diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25mg/ml and 50 mg/ml compared to Placebo with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours following drug administration).~A sample size of 60 in each group had 95% power to detect a difference between diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25 mg/ml and placebo in means of 15 mm, assuming that the common standard deviation was 22.5 and using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level."||30.8|17.6|< 0.001
91868690|NCT03371017|183630923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.76|0.6139
91731932|NCT00721110|183358367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|0.41||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared||numerator: lidocaine; denominator: control|Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on PACU (postoperative care unit) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.41|-0.28|0.58
91731933|NCT00721110|183358367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|0.36||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared||Numinator: ketamine; denominator: nonketamine|Ketamine versus nonketamine on PACU (postoperative care unit) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.36|-0.32|0.87
91731934|NCT00721110|183358367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|0.44||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on POD 1 (first postoperative day) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.44|-0.31|0.61
91868691|NCT03371017|183630924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|2.69||||0.6264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|13.51|||Z-test|||||13.51|-8.14|0.6264
91868692|NCT03371017|183630925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.76||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|14.07|||Z-test|||||14.07|-6.55|0.4750
91868693|NCT03371017|183630926|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.15||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|11.75|||Z-test|||||11.75|-9.45|0.8315
91701525|NCT01162122|183297855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.67||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.67|1.33|
91701526|NCT01162122|183297855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio(H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.52||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.52|1.25|
91701527|NCT01162122|183297855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain-overall)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.21||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.21|0.99|
91868694|NCT03371017|183630927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.37||||0.7738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|10.69|||Z-test|||||10.69|-7.96|0.7738
91701528|NCT01162122|183297855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2/Brisbane-high risk)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.61||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.61|1.15|
91701529|NCT01162122|183297855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio(H3N2/Wisconsin-high risk)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.48||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.48|1.1|
91701530|NCT01162122|183297855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain-high risk)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.31|0.97|
91701531|NCT01162122|183297856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|15.9||||||||15.9|6.7|
91701532|NCT01162122|183297856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference(H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|16.6||||||||16.6|7.3|
91701533|NCT01162122|183297856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Slope|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|8.4||||||||8.4|-0.4|
91701534|NCT01162122|183297856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference(H3N2/Brisbane-high risk|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|19.9||||||||19.9|4.8|
91701535|NCT01162122|183297856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference(H3N2Wisconsin-high risk|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|20.2||||||||20.2|5.0|
91701536|NCT01162122|183297856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (B strain-high risk)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.8||||||||11.8|-2.1|
91701537|NCT01162122|183297857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|16.9||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||16.9|8.1|
91701538|NCT01162122|183297857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference(H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.1||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||17.1|8.1|
91701539|NCT01162122|183297857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain-overall)|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|8.8||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||8.8|0.4|
91701540|NCT01162122|183297857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference(H3N2/Brisbane-high risk|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.6||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||19.6|5.2|
91701541|NCT01162122|183297857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference(H3N2/Wisconsin-highrisk|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|20.3||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||20.3|5.8|
91701542|NCT01162122|183297857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain-high risk)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.8||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||11.8|-1.6|
91868695|NCT03371017|183630928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.67|0.1387
91868696|NCT03371017|183630929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.78|0.7317
91868697|NCT03371017|183630930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|11.31||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|22.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.37|0.24|0.0337
91868698|NCT03371017|183630931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-1.15||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|9.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.34|-11.63|0.9755
91868699|NCT03371017|183630932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.48|0.1359
91868700|NCT03371017|183630933|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.63|0.8225
91868701|NCT03371017|183630936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|11.67||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|21.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.87|1.47|0.0172
91701543|NCT05127304|183297866|OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.639
91701544|NCT05127304|183297866|OTHER|||||||0.535|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.535
91701545|NCT05127304|183297866|OTHER|||||||0.337|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.337
91701546|NCT05127304|183297866|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.058
91701547|NCT05127304|183297866|OTHER|||||||0.192|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.192
91701548|NCT05127304|183297866|OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.176
91701549|NCT05127304|183297867|OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.313
91701550|NCT05127304|183297868|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.021
91701551|NCT05127304|183297869|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.022
91701552|NCT05127304|183297869|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.124
91701553|NCT05127304|183297869|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.043
91701554|NCT05127304|183297869|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.990
91701555|NCT05127304|183297869|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.039
91701556|NCT05127304|183297869|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||<0.001
91701557|NCT05127304|183297870|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.163
91701558|NCT05127304|183297871|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.037
91701559|NCT05127304|183297872|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.017
91701560|NCT05127304|183297872|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.098
91701561|NCT05127304|183297872|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.036
91701562|NCT05127304|183297872|OTHER|||||||0.894|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.894
91701563|NCT05127304|183297872|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.036
91701564|NCT05127304|183297872|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.001
91701565|NCT05127304|183297873|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.162
91701566|NCT05127304|183297874|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.037
91701567|NCT05127304|183297875|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.065
91701568|NCT05127304|183297875|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.102
91701569|NCT05127304|183297875|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.100
91701570|NCT05127304|183297875|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.189
91701571|NCT05127304|183297875|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.024
91701572|NCT05127304|183297875|OTHER|||||||0.767|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.767
91701573|NCT05127304|183297876|OTHER|||||||0.357|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.357
91701574|NCT05127304|183297877|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.002
91701575|NCT05127304|183297877|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.420
91701576|NCT05127304|183297877|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.002
91701577|NCT05127304|183297877|OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.304
91701578|NCT05127304|183297877|OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.326
91701579|NCT05127304|183297877|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.007
91701580|NCT05127304|183297878|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.520
91868702|NCT03371017|183630937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|0.18||||0.8679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|9.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis||9.77|-9.41|0.8679
91868703|NCT03371017|183630938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.46|0.2846
91868704|NCT03371017|183630939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.61|0.9853
91868705|NCT03371017|183630940|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.21|0.63|0.4117
91701581|NCT05127304|183297879|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.037
91701582|NCT05127304|183297880|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.060
91701583|NCT05127304|183297880|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.177
91701584|NCT05127304|183297880|OTHER|||||||0.834|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.834
91701585|NCT05127304|183297880|OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.121
91701586|NCT05127304|183297880|OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.159
91701587|NCT05127304|183297880|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.289
91701588|NCT05127304|183297880|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.055
91701589|NCT05127304|183297880|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
91701590|NCT05127304|183297880|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
91701591|NCT05127304|183297881|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.066
91701592|NCT05127304|183297881|OTHER|||||||0.193|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.193
91701593|NCT05127304|183297881|OTHER|||||||0.117|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.117
91701594|NCT05127304|183297881|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.250
91701595|NCT05127304|183297881|OTHER|||||||0.431|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.431
91701596|NCT05127304|183297881|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.129
91701597|NCT05127304|183297881|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.236
91701598|NCT05127304|183297881|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
91701599|NCT05127304|183297881|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
91701600|NCT05127304|183297882|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.057
91701601|NCT05127304|183297882|OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.182
91701602|NCT05127304|183297882|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.083
91701603|NCT05127304|183297882|OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.245
91701604|NCT05127304|183297882|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.386
91701605|NCT05127304|183297882|OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.115
91701606|NCT05127304|183297882|OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.237
91701607|NCT05127304|183297882|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
91701608|NCT05127304|183297882|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
91868706|NCT03371017|183630941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.3|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.30|0.68|0.7215
91731935|NCT00721110|183358367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.34|0.41||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on POD 1(first postoperative day) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.41|-0.34|0.79
91731936|NCT00721110|183358367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.13||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.38|0.12||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on PACU (postoperative care unit) vomiting assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.12|-0.38|0.26
91731937|NCT00721110|183358367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|0.19||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on PACU (postoperative care unit) vomiting assessed using a Pearson chi square test.||0.19|-0.31|0.71
91731938|NCT00721110|183358367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.36||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 1 vomiting assessed using a Pearson chi square test.||0.36|-0.23|0.52
91731939|NCT00721110|183358367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.07||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.38|||Chi-squared|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 1 vomiting assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.38|-0.22|0.44
91731940|NCT00721110|183358368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.14|2.2||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine was compared to nonlidocaine on mean VRS fatigue score using a t test.||2.2|-2.14|0.96
91731941|NCT00721110|183358368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8|2.57||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine was compared to nonketamine on mean VRS fatigue score using a t test.||2.57|-1.80|0.59
91888771|NCT02942004|183669965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.454||0.4389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.75|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.75|-4.01|0.4389
91731942|NCT02951481|183358369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
91731943|NCT02951481|183358370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
91731944|NCT02951481|183358371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.023
91731945|NCT02951481|183358372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91731946|NCT02951481|183358373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91731947|NCT02951481|183358374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91731948|NCT02951481|183358375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91731949|NCT02951481|183358376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
91731950|NCT01051661|183358377|SUPERIORITY|The non-inferiority objective was met if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI for the Vaccine Efficacy Improvement (VEI) was \> -33%. Furthermore, the superiority objective was met if the LL of the 95% CI for the VEI was \>0.|Vaccine efficacy increase|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.53|93.39||||||Evaluation of the relative protective efficacy of 2 doses of Arepanrix™ vaccine (Arepanrix 2D Group) compared to two doses of GSK2340273A vaccine (GSK2340273A Group) beginning 14 days after Dose 1 vaccination (for each subject enrolled) and continuing until study conclusion on Day 385.||93.39|18.53|
91731951|NCT01051661|183358405|OTHER||Adjusted GMT ratios|5.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|6.41||||||Adjusted Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios of Hemagglutination Inhibition (HI) antibody post vaccination between Arepanrix 2D Group and GSK2340273A Group for A/California influenza strain (Arepanrix 2D Group/GSK2340273A Group).||6.41|4.92|
91731952|NCT01051661|183358405|OTHER||Adjusted GMT ratios|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||||||Adjusted Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios of Hemagglutination Inhibition (HI) antibody post vaccination between Arepanrix 1D Group and GSK2340273A Group for A/California influenza strain (Arepanrix 1D Group/GSK2340273A Group).||1.19|0.93|
91731953|NCT01916226|183358445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.3||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||Estimating the standard deviation of CFB in rTNSS over 2 weeks to be approximately 2.6, a two-sample t-test with α=0.05 suggests that a sample size of 144 participants per arm would provide 90% power to show a difference of 1.0 between treatments.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.7|0.278
91731954|NCT05430919|183358513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.229|-1.385|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5714-5715 900 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-1.385|-3.229|<0.0001
91731955|NCT05430919|183358514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.634|-1.658|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5715 600 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-1.658|-3.634|<0.0001
91731956|NCT05430919|183358514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.51||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.478|-0.539|||ANCOVA||REGN5715 300 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-0.539|-2.478|0.0023
91731957|NCT05430919|183358530|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.411|-52.95|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5714-5715 900 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-52.950|-73.411|<0.0001
91731958|NCT05430919|183358530|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-56.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.806|-45.204|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5715 600 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-45.204|-66.806|<0.0001
91731959|NCT05430919|183358530|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.304|-24.343|||ANCOVA||REGN5715 300 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-24.343|-45.304|<0.0001
91731960|NCT01852214|183358621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
91731961|NCT01852214|183358622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.086
91731962|NCT04105725|183358639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||negative binomial regression|||||||<0.05
91731963|NCT00553475|183358658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0075||95.0|-1.09|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and the CLcr strata as factors and baseline values as covariates.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.17|-1.09|0.0075
91731964|NCT00553475|183358658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.0254||95.0|-1.39|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and the CLcr strata as factors and baseline values as covariates.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.09|-1.39|0.0254
91731965|NCT00553475|183358659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.8731||95.0|-3.67|3.12|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.12|-3.67|0.8731
91731966|NCT00553475|183358659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.6337||95.0|-3.62|5.94|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.94|-3.62|0.6337
91731967|NCT00553475|183358660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.4398||95.0|-7.44|3.24|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.24|-7.44|0.4398
91731968|NCT00553475|183358660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.9153||95.0|-7.96|7.14|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.14|-7.96|0.9153
91731969|NCT00553475|183358661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.4873||95.0|-2.75|5.76|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.76|-2.75|0.4873
91731970|NCT00553475|183358661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56||||0.4008||95.0|-3.42|8.53|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.53|-3.42|0.4008
91731971|NCT00553475|183358662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.5372||95.0|-2.13|4.09|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||4.09|-2.13|0.5372
91731972|NCT00553475|183358662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.348||95.0|-2.29|6.47|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||6.47|-2.29|0.3480
91731973|NCT00553475|183358663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06||||0.0544||95.0|-0.1|10.21|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.21|-0.10|0.0544
91731974|NCT00553475|183358663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.15||||0.0278||95.0|0.89|15.42|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||15.42|0.89|0.0278
91731975|NCT00553475|183358664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.7394||95.0|-4.52|6.37|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||6.37|-4.52|0.7394
91731976|NCT00553475|183358664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.5712||95.0|-5.49|9.93|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.93|-5.49|0.5712
91731977|NCT00553475|183358665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0058||95.0|-1.14|-0.19|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups as factors and baseline values as covariates||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.19|-1.14|0.0058
91731978|NCT00553475|183358665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0333||95.0|-1.23|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups as factors and baseline values as covariates||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.05|-1.23|0.0333
91731979|NCT00553475|183358666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.153||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.153
91731980|NCT00553475|183358666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.059
91731981|NCT00553475|183358667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0287||95.0|-0.82|-0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.05|-0.82|0.0287
91731982|NCT00553475|183358667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0073||95.0|-1.29|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.20|-1.29|0.0073
91731983|NCT00553475|183358668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0021||95.0|-1.0|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.22|-1.00|0.0021
91731984|NCT00553475|183358668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.78|-0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.69|-1.78|<0.0001
91796752|NCT00942448|183472376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|31.7|||ANCOVA|||"The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of superiority of diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25mg/ml and 50 mg/ml compared to Placebo with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours following drug administration).~A sample size of 60 in each group had 95% power to detect a difference between diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25 mg/ml and placebo in means of 15 mm, assuming that the common standard deviation was 22.5 and using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level."||31.7|18.4|<0.001
91796753|NCT01859143|183472404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence criterion for fever within 7 days of vaccination mentioned that the upper limit of 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for difference in percentage of participants with fever \>=101 degrees F should be less than 5 percentage points.|Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.6|||||A two-sided 95% CI was constructed using the exact method based on the score statistic proposed by Chan and Zhang.|||2.6|-5.3|
91796754|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|23.9|||||Any symptom within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||23.9|-1.9|
91796755|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3|||||Fever \>100 degrees F within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||3.3|-4.9|
91796756|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>102 degrees F within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
91796757|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>103 degrees F within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
91796758|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|17.7|||||Runny nose within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||17.7|-2.6|
91796759|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.6|||||Sore throat within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.6|-2.2|
91731985|NCT00553475|183358669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0026||95.0|-0.99|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.21|-0.99|0.0026
91731986|NCT00553475|183358669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.69|-0.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.58|-1.69|<0.0001
91796760|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7|||||Cough within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.7|-9.3|
91905095|NCT00074581|183705689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.53|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio estimate presented (0.31) is a comparison of the early-ART arm (numerator) to the delayed-ART arm (denominator), thus indicating a 69% lower risk of infection among all partner infections, during the entire study.|||0.53|0.19|<0.0001
91731987|NCT00553475|183358670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0012||95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.25|-1.03|0.0012
91731988|NCT00553475|183358670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.67|-0.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-1.67|<0.0001
91731989|NCT00553475|183358671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0011||95.0|-1.04|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-1.04|0.0011
91796761|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Vomiting within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
91796762|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.3|||||Muscle aches within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.3|-8.0|
91796763|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.4|||||Chills within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.4|-4.1|
91796764|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.8|||||Decreased activity (tiredness) within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||9.8|-6.5|
91796765|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|11.9|||||Headache within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.9|-7.8|
91796766|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|24.4|||||Any symptom within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||24.4|-1.6|
91796767|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9|||||Fever \>100 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||3.9|-4.5|
91868707|NCT01586104|183631033|OTHER|With 20 patients, there is 80% power to detect a difference of 100% with Standard lung RT versus 93% with IMRT assuming a standard deviation of 8 (as seen for the whole heart), a one tailed test and a Bonferroni correction for 4 statistical tests so that each test is done at p\<0.0125.|||||<|0.0125||||||The reported p value was calculated. The statistical analysis performed is attached to the outcome measure reported.|Bonferroni corrected at p<0.0125|||Feasibility will be defined as an enrolled patient receiving the IMRT treatment as planned. It is expected that the treatment will be feasible in at least 90% of patients. If the treatment is feasible in 16 or more out of 20 patients, then the treatment will be declared feasible. If the true feasibility rate is 90%, then there is a 4.3% chance that 15 or fewer feasible patients will be observed.|Lung-metastases-free survival will be estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves (minimum period of six months).|||<0.0125
91868708|NCT06214052|183631048|OTHER||Emax|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||||||||||||||||
91868709|NCT06214052|183631048|OTHER||EC50|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.0||||||||||||||||
91868710|NCT05325294|183631052|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.38% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||0.1|-0.2|0.133
91868711|NCT05325294|183631052|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.5% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
91868712|NCT05325294|183631053|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% with a margin of -7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|68.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|70.7|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||70.7|66.6|<0.001
91701609|NCT05127304|183297883|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.189
91868713|NCT05325294|183631053|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% with a margin of -7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.7|79.4|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||79.4|75.7|<0.001
91868714|NCT05325294|183631054|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.71% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.5|0.3|<0.001
91868715|NCT05325294|183631054|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.86% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.3|0.2|<0.001
91868716|NCT05325294|183631055|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|68.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|70.7|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||70.7|66.6|<0.001
91701610|NCT05127304|183297883|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.314
91731990|NCT00553475|183358671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.72|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.60|-1.72|<0.0001
91868717|NCT05325294|183631055|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.7|79.4|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||79.4|75.7|<0.001
91868718|NCT04649047|183631056|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.23|-5.6|0.036
91868719|NCT04649047|183631057|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||-0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.10|-1.02|-0.77
91868720|NCT04649047|183631058|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42||||-0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.85|-7.69|-0.51
91868721|NCT04649047|183631059|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.03|-0.32|0.49
91868722|NCT04649047|183631060|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.54||||-0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|2.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.82|-19.9|-0.48
91868723|NCT04649047|183631061|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.46||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.0|384.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||384.7|-256|0.13
91701611|NCT05127304|183297883|OTHER|||||||0.203|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.203
91701612|NCT05127304|183297883|OTHER|||||||0.379|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.379
91701613|NCT05127304|183297883|OTHER|||||||0.815|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.815
91701614|NCT05127304|183297883|OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.205
91701615|NCT05127304|183297883|OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.556
91701616|NCT05127304|183297883|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||0.189
91731991|NCT00553475|183358672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.18|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.40|-1.18|<0.0001
91731992|NCT00553475|183358672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.68|-0.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-1.68|<0.0001
91731993|NCT00553475|183358673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.0003||95.0|-1.12|-0.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.12|0.0003
91731994|NCT00553475|183358673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.0002||95.0|-1.66|-0.52|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.52|-1.66|0.0002
91731995|NCT00553475|183358674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0008||95.0|-1.07|-0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.28|-1.07|0.0008
91731996|NCT00553475|183358674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0014||95.0|-1.51|-0.36|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.36|-1.51|0.0014
91731997|NCT00553475|183358675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.0003||95.0|-1.12|-0.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.12|0.0003
91731998|NCT00553475|183358675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.0036||95.0|-1.44|-0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.28|-1.44|0.0036
91731999|NCT00553475|183358676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0005||95.0|-1.1|-0.31|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.31|-1.10|0.0005
91796768|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3|||||Fever \>=101 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||3.3|-4.9|
91732000|NCT00553475|183358676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0034||95.0|-1.46|-0.29|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.29|-1.46|0.0034
91732001|NCT00553475|183358677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0023||95.0|-1.02|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.22|-1.02|0.0023
91732002|NCT00553475|183358677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.0105||95.0|-1.36|-0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.18|-1.36|0.0105
91732003|NCT00553475|183358678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0016||95.0|-1.05|-0.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.25|-1.05|0.0016
91732004|NCT00553475|183358678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.0111||95.0|-1.37|-0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.18|-1.37|0.0111
91732005|NCT00553475|183358679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.6118||95.0|-5.23|3.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.08|-5.23|0.6118
91732006|NCT00553475|183358679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.59||||0.0109||95.0|1.76|13.42|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||13.42|1.76|0.0109
91732007|NCT00553475|183358680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49||||0.4602||95.0|-2.47|5.45|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.45|-2.47|0.4602
91796769|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>102 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
91701617|NCT05127304|183297884|OTHER|||||||0.483|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.483
91796770|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>103 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
91796771|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|18.6|||||Runny nose within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||18.6|-1.8|
91796772|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.2|||||Sore throat within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.2|-5.3|
91796773|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.7|||||Cough within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||5.7|-8.6|
91796774|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.6|||||Vomiting within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||2.6|-5.3|
91796775|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.8|||||Muscle aches within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.8|-7.8|
91796776|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.5|||||Chills within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||5.5|-3.3|
91796777|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.2|||||Decreased activity (tiredness) within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.2|-5.3|
91796778|NCT01859143|183472405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|12.0|||||Headache within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||12.0|-8.7|
91796779|NCT00760214|183472409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-5.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-5.78|-11.04|<.001
91796780|NCT00760214|183472409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|-6.39||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-6.39|-11.66|<.001
91796781|NCT00760214|183472410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-3.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.78|-6.85|<.001
91796782|NCT00760214|183472410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-4.12||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.12|-7.21|<.001
91796783|NCT00760214|183472411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|-2.01||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.01|-7.64|<.001
91796784|NCT00760214|183472411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|-1.66||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.66|-7.27|0.002
91868724|NCT04649047|183631062|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.02|0.98|0.88
91701618|NCT05127304|183297884|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.002
91701619|NCT05127304|183297884|OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.123
91701620|NCT05127304|183297884|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.003
91701621|NCT05127304|183297884|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.170
91701622|NCT05127304|183297884|OTHER|||||||0.582|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.582
91701623|NCT05127304|183297884|OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.887
91701624|NCT05127304|183297884|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
91701625|NCT05127304|183297884|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
91796785|NCT00760214|183472412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|-0.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-4.61|0.003
91796786|NCT00760214|183472412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|-1.24||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.24|-4.89|0.001
91796787|NCT00760214|183472413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|-0.68||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-6.87|0.017
91796788|NCT00760214|183472413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.36||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-6.50|0.029
91796789|NCT00760214|183472414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-4.15|0.052
91796790|NCT00760214|183472414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-0.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-4.49|0.022
91796791|NCT00760214|183472415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-1.59||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.59|-7.46|0.003
91796792|NCT00760214|183472415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|-1.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.35|-7.18|0.004
91796793|NCT00760214|183472416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.68||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-4.60|0.008
91796794|NCT00760214|183472416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-1.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.04|-4.93|0.003
91796795|NCT00760214|183472417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-2.77||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.77|-9.12|<.001
91796796|NCT00760214|183472417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|-2.67||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.67|-8.96|<.001
91796797|NCT00760214|183472418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-0.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.88|-5.15|0.006
91796798|NCT00760214|183472418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.65||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-5.89|<.001
91796799|NCT00760214|183472419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-5.6||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.60|-12.15|<.001
91796800|NCT00760214|183472419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-4.95||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.95|-11.46|<.001
91796801|NCT00760214|183472420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-3.17||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.17|-8.19|<.001
91796802|NCT00760214|183472420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-2.82||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.82|-7.81|<.001
91796803|NCT00700570|183472423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1341
91796804|NCT00700570|183472425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0010
91796805|NCT03875768|183472514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Results presented are unadjusted.||The expected effect size is 0.5. The investigators hypothesize that the intervention will lead to an increase in average DASH score of 2 units. The investigators used a standard deviation for 2 units for both intervention and attention control groups since higher variability may be observed with a bigger sample size than the pilot study.||0.50|-0.44|0.89
91796806|NCT03875768|183472515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Results presented are unadjusted.||The expected effect size for change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) between intervention and control group is 0.6 based on the pilot study. With a 90% power and a type I error rate (alpha) of .01, the investigators can detect the expected effect size with the proposed sample size of 121 per study arm.||1.4|-5.3|0.26
91796807|NCT03875768|183472516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Results presented are unadjusted.||The expected effect size for change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between intervention and control group is 0.75 based on the pilot study. With a 90% power and a type I error rate (alpha) of .01, the investigators can detect the expected effect size with the proposed sample size of 121 per study arm.||1.2|-3.1|0.39
91796808|NCT01925274|183472519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.71||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.4|12.0|||Chi-squared|||||12.0|-83.4|0.164
91796809|NCT05896748|183472628|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|0.998|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within CAB||0.998|0.901|
91796810|NCT05896748|183472628|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.877|0.995|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within CAB||0.995|0.877|
91796811|NCT05896748|183472628|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.872|1.0|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within CAB||1.000|0.872|
91868725|NCT04649047|183631063|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.94|-0.10|0.61
91868726|NCT04649047|183631064|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.18|0.82|0.78
91868727|NCT04649047|183631065|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|7.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.16|-0.32|0.58
91732008|NCT00553475|183358680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.97||||0.1625||95.0|-1.61|9.54|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.54|-1.61|0.1625
91732009|NCT00553475|183358681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.25|-0.46|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-1.25|<0.0001
91732010|NCT00553475|183358681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0273||95.0|-1.19|-0.07|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.07|-1.19|0.0273
91732011|NCT00553475|183358682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.0013||95.0|-2.87|-0.71|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.71|-2.87|0.0013
91732012|NCT00553475|183358682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.0062||95.0|-3.65|-0.61|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.61|-3.65|0.0062
91732013|NCT00553475|183358683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0068||95.0|-1.03|-0.17|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.17|-1.03|0.0068
91732014|NCT00553475|183358683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0707||95.0|-1.17|0.05|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.05|-1.17|0.0707
91732015|NCT00553475|183358684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.0013||95.0|-3.76|-0.93|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.93|-3.76|0.0013
91732016|NCT00553475|183358684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.0087||95.0|-4.67|-0.68|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.68|-4.67|0.0087
91732017|NCT00553475|183358685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27||||0.0056||95.0|-12.4|-2.14|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.14|-12.40|0.0056
91732018|NCT00553475|183358685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.49||||0.0427||95.0|-14.74|-0.25|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.25|-14.74|0.0427
91732019|NCT00553475|183358686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0365||95.0|-0.4|-0.01|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.01|-0.40|0.0365
91732020|NCT00553475|183358686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0073||95.0|-0.65|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-0.65|0.0073
91868728|NCT04649047|183631066|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.94|-0.10|0.61
91732021|NCT00553475|183358687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37||||0.0019||95.0|-10.38|-2.36|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.36|-10.38|0.0019
91732022|NCT00553475|183358687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78||||0.1907||95.0|-9.45|1.89|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.89|-9.45|0.1907
91868729|NCT04649047|183631067|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.83||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.16|-1.50|0.46
91732023|NCT00553475|183358688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9905||95.0|-5.37|5.43|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.43|-5.37|0.9905
91732024|NCT00553475|183358688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.44||||0.2532||95.0|-3.19|12.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.08|-3.19|0.2532
91796812|NCT05896748|183472628|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.943|1.059|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Ctau within CAB||1.059|0.943|
91796813|NCT05896748|183472629|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.056|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within RPV||1.056|0.952|
91796814|NCT05896748|183472629|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|1.002|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within RPV||1.002|0.921|
91796815|NCT05896748|183472629|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|0.973|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within RPV||0.973|0.885|
91868730|NCT04649047|183631068|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|7.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.73|0.43|0.71
91796816|NCT05896748|183472629|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.955|1.053|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Ctau within RPV||1.053|0.955|
91868731|NCT04649047|183631069|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.67||||-0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-8.12|-0.52
91868732|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.7695||95.0|-0.856|1.15||Alpha for significance=0.05 for all tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the physician treatment arm."||1.15|-.856|.7695
91868733|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.0878||95.0|-1.88|0.13||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister treatment arm."||.13|-1.88|.0878
91868734|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.635||95.0|-0.76|1.25||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/physician treatment arm."||1.25|-.76|.635
91905096|NCT01843972|183705762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|97.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.963|119.809|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' divided by the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 solution (part II)'.|Only extensive CYP2D6 metabolisers were selected: 12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' and 7 (all investigated) subjects of group 'BI 691751 solution (part II) '.||119.809|79.963|
91905097|NCT01843972|183705762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|111.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.596|139.576|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of the poor metabolisers divided by the geometric mean of the extensive metabolisers.|Comparison of poor metabolisers (5 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet poor metabolizers (part II)') and extensive metabolisers (12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)').||139.576|88.596|
91868735|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.897||95.0|-1.0709|0.9394||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the older adult treatment arm."||.9394|-1.0709|.897
91905098|NCT01843972|183705763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|101.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.593|127.351|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' divided by the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 solution (part II)'.|Only extensive CYP2D6 metabolisers were selected: 12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' and 7 (all investigated) subjects of group 'BI 691751 solution (part II) '.||127.351|80.593|
91905099|NCT01843972|183705763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|92.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.662|125.119|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of the poor metabolisers divided by the geometric mean of the extensive metabolisers.|Comparison of poor metabolisers (5 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet poor metabolizers (part II)') and extensive metabolisers (12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)').||125.119|68.662|
91905100|NCT01843972|183705764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was non-confirmatory testing.|Slope|1.0233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8265|1.2201|||Regression, Linear|||||1.2201|0.8265|
91701626|NCT05127304|183297885|OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Any COPD exacerbation||||0.205
91701627|NCT05127304|183297885|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Severe COPD exacerbation||||0.454
91701628|NCT05127304|183297886|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Rao-Scott test|||||||0.060
91701629|NCT00955968|183297909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.4||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||2.40|0.19|0.54
91701630|NCT00955968|183297910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.01||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||4.01|0.11|0.66
91701631|NCT00955968|183297912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.81||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||2.81|0.09|0.44
91701632|NCT00955968|183297913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.6||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||1.60|0.54|0.79
91701633|NCT00955968|183297914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.52||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||1.52|0.54|0.71
91701634|NCT00955968|183297915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.8||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||0.80|0.42|<0.001
91701635|NCT00955968|183297916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank|||||1.03|0.72|0.10
91705514|NCT01080391|183305557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.411|5.001|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test with β2 macroglobulin level, prior bortezomib, and prior lenalidomide as stratification factors.|The odds ratio and 95% CI were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.|||5.001|2.411|< 0.0001
91705515|NCT01080391|183305558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.897||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.08|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test with β2 macroglobulin level, prior bortezomib, and prior lenalidomide as stratification factors.|The odds ratio and 95% CI were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.|||3.08|1.17|0.0044
91705516|NCT02638051|183305594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Objective Response Rate (ORR)"||||0.0140
91868736|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.9823||95.0|-1.0164|0.9939||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the physician/older adult treatment arm."||.9939|-1.0164|.9823
91868737|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.3337||95.0|-1.4979|0.5124||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/older adult treatment arm."||.5124|-1.4979|.3337
91868738|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.694||95.0|-0.8049|1.2054||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/older adult/physician treatment arm."||1.2054|-.8049|.694
91868739|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Actual Intercept value|54.9056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077|<|0.0001||95.0|53.9003|55.9109||this is the Intercept value for the GLMM evaluating all combinations of treatment and time- in other words, this is the mean well-being t-score across all combinations of tx and time. Estimates in these analyses are deviations from this intercept.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the intercept (all tx=0).||55.9109|53.9003|<.0001
91868740|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.1152||95.0|-0.1254|0.01383||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This test evaluates the effect of time (measured as weeks since baseline).||.01383|-.1254|.1152
91905101|NCT01843972|183705765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was non-confirmatory testing.|Slope|0.9686|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8107|1.1266|||Regression, Linear|||Dose proportionality of BI 691751 was explored using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).||1.1266|0.8107|
91701636|NCT00474045|183297956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority can only be declared if the non-inferiority criterion was fulfilled for both (FAS and Per-protocol) analysis sets. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the estimated treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.4||95.0|-0.21|0.08||P-value for superiority was calculated.|Regression, Linear|Treatment, country, pregnancy (preg.) status at randomisation (random.)-fixed. HbA1c at rand.(covariate) \& at rand. by preg. status (interaction)|Estimated treatment differences for IDet versus NPH at Visit P4 with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Non-inferiority was established but superiority was not established.|Non-inferiority analysis with a null hypothesis stated that the difference between treatments, IDet-NPH, was equal to or larger than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. In case non-inferiority was established it was also investigated if IDet was superior to NPH with a null hypothesis stating that the difference between IDet and NPH treatment groups is equal to or greater than 0.||0.08|-0.21|0.400
91705517|NCT02638051|183305595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to All Adverse Events rate"||||0.0016
91705518|NCT02638051|183305595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Abdominal pain rate"||||>0.05
91905102|NCT01843972|183705766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|95.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.414|122.511|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' divided by the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 solution (part II)'.|Only extensive CYP2D6 metabolisers were selected: 12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' and 7 (all investigated) subjects of group 'BI 691751 solution (part II) '.||122.511|74.414|
91905103|NCT01843972|183705766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|109.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.376|142.894|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of the poor metabolisers divided by the geometric mean of the extensive metabolisers.|Comparison of poor metabolisers (5 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet poor metabolizers (part II)') and extensive metabolisers (12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)').||142.894|84.376|
91905104|NCT01843972|183705766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was non-confirmatory testing.|Slope|1.0312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.179|||Regression, Linear|||||1.1790|0.833|
91868741|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.3555||95.0|-0.1022|0.03699|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Physician treatment arm\*time."||.03699|-.1022|.3555
91905105|NCT02774616|183705773|NON_INFERIORITY|A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the complication-free rate is greater than 90.0% in the population.||||||0.0004|||||||exact binomial|||"Serious Adverse Device Effects (SADE) possibly or securely related to the Ilivia ICD family until the 3- month follow-up are counted for this primary endpoint. The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%"||||0.0004
91705519|NCT02638051|183305595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Gastrointestinal reactions"||||>0.05
91705520|NCT02638051|183305595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Damage of hepatic or renal function"||||>0.05
91705521|NCT02638051|183305595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0215|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Bone marrow depression"||||0.0215
91868742|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.0546||95.0|-0.00136|0.1379||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister treatment arm\*time."||.1379|-.00136|.0546
91701637|NCT00474045|183297957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority can only be declared if the non-inferiority criterion was fulfilled for both (FAS and Per-protocol) analysis sets. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the estimated treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.122||95.0|-0.34|0.04||P-value for superiority was calculated|Regression, Linear|Treatment, country, preg. status at rand.(fixed factors),HbA1c at rand.(covariate),HbA1c at rand. by preg. status (interaction)|Estimated treatment differences for IDet versus NPH at Visit P4 with the corresponding 95% CI was calculated. Non-inferiority was established but superiority was not established.|Non-inferiority analysis with a null hypothesis stated that the difference between treatments, IDet-NPH, was equal to or larger than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. In case non-inferiority was established it was also investigated if IDet was superior to NPH with a null hypothesis stating that the difference between IDet and NPH treatment groups is equal to or greater than 0.||0.04|-0.34|0.122
91868743|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.4616||95.0|-0.04364|0.09557||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Sister/Physician treatment arm\*time."||.09557|-.04364|.4616
91701638|NCT02135107|183298003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.||||||<0.001
91701639|NCT02135107|183298004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at a two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.||Comparison at Week 12||||<0.001
91701640|NCT02135107|183298004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.||Comparison at Week 24||||<0.001
91701641|NCT02135107|183298005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.49|||Log Rank|||||0.49|0.23|<0.001
91701642|NCT02135107|183298006|SUPERIORITY||Group difference|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-6.8|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.|Group difference (percentage of participants) = Arm D (percentage of participants) - Arm C (percentage of participants) 95% CI was calculated based on normal approximation.|||-6.8|-23.5|<0.001
91701643|NCT02135107|183298009|SUPERIORITY||Group difference|0.0|||=|0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.5||P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||Group difference (percentage of participants) = Arm D (percentage of participants) - Arm C (percentage of participants) 95% CI was calculated based on normal approximation.|||3.5|-3.5|=0.992
91701644|NCT02278120|183298014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.553|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|0.694|||Log Rank|||||0.694|0.441|<0.0000001
91701645|NCT02278120|183298015|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.712||||0.00973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.948||One-sided stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||0.948|0.535|0.00973
91701646|NCT02278120|183298016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00098|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.000980
91701647|NCT02278120|183298017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
91701648|NCT00808639|183298027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pathologic response rate|49.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|38.0|61.0||||||This study used a Simon's optimal two-stage design. Of 39 eligible patients, if 18 achieved PaR, the treatment would be declared effective. A two-sided 80% CI was estimated considering the two-stage design based on Atkinson and Brown methods.||61|38|
91701649|NCT02266472|183298030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00 %.|ratio of the adjusted means|99.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.4|101.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed 10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||101.89|96.40|<0.0001
91701650|NCT02266472|183298031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints,using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00 %.|ratio of the adjusted means|101.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.54|106.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed 10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||106.19|96.54|<0.0001
91705522|NCT02638051|183305596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Better QoL"||||0.0053
91705523|NCT02638051|183305596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0527|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to No Change"||||0.0527
91705524|NCT02638051|183305596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Worse QoL"||||>0.05
91705525|NCT03611582|183305611|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-10.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|-8.57|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-8.57|-11.97|<.0001
91705526|NCT03611582|183305611|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|-11.0|||MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||-11.00|-14.34|<0.0001
91705527|NCT03611582|183305612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|9.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||9.26|4.04|<0.0001
91705528|NCT03611582|183305612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.64|17.81|||MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||17.81|7.64|<0.0001
91905106|NCT02774616|183705774|NON_INFERIORITY|A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the complication-free rate is greater than 90.0% in the population.||||||0.0019|||||||exact binomial|||"Serious Adverse Device Effects (SADE) possibly or securely related to the Plexa ICD lead until the 6-month follow-up are counted for this primary endpoint. The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%"||||0.0019
91905107|NCT02774616|183705776|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint evaluates the rate of appropriate right ventricular sensing of all patients in which a sensing measurement was performed. The following hypothesis has been defined: Ho: Rate of appropriate sensing through 3 months post-implant ≤ 93.0% Ha: Rate of appropriate sensing through 3 months post-implant \> 93.0%|||||<|0.0001||||||A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the rate of appropriate sensing is greater than 93.0% in the population.|exact binomial|||||||<0.0001
91905108|NCT02774616|183705777|NON_INFERIORITY|A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the rate of appropriate pacing is greater than 93.0% in the population.|||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binomial|||"This secondary hypothesis evaluates the rate of appropriate right ventricular pacing of all patients in which a pacing measurement was performed. The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: Rate of appropriate pacing through 3 months post-implant ≤ 93.0% Ha: Rate of appropriate pacing through 3 months post-implant \> 93.0%"||||<0.0001
91732025|NCT00553475|183358689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.4538||95.0|-5.05|2.26|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.26|-5.05|0.4538
91732026|NCT00553475|183358689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84||||0.2782||95.0|-7.97|2.3|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.30|-7.97|0.2782
91732027|NCT00553475|183358690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.0177||95.0|0.06|0.59|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.59|0.06|0.0177
91732028|NCT00553475|183358690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.3661||95.0|-0.2|0.55|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.55|-0.20|0.3661
91732029|NCT00553475|183358691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62||||0.0511||95.0|-0.03|11.26|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.26|-0.03|0.0511
91732030|NCT00553475|183358691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.65||||0.0173||95.0|1.72|17.59|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||17.59|1.72|0.0173
91732031|NCT00553475|183358692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79||||0.1123||95.0|-0.89|8.47|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.47|-0.89|0.1123
91732032|NCT00553475|183358692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79||||0.0206||95.0|1.2|14.38|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||14.38|1.20|0.0206
91732033|NCT00553475|183358693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.0269||95.0|-6.67|-0.41|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.41|-6.67|0.0269
91732034|NCT00553475|183358693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.4183||95.0|-6.24|2.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.60|-6.24|0.4183
91796817|NCT05896748|183472630|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|0.99|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within CAB||0.990|0.897|
91796818|NCT05896748|183472630|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.965|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within CAB||0.965|0.860|
91796819|NCT05896748|183472630|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.857|0.966|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within CAB||0.966|0.857|
91796820|NCT05896748|183472630|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.074|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Cmax within CAB||1.074|0.938|
91732035|NCT00553475|183358694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0148||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0148
91732036|NCT00553475|183358694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0063
91796821|NCT05896748|183472631|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|0.982|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within RPV||0.982|0.895|
91796822|NCT05896748|183472631|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|0.963|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within RPV||0.963|0.876|
91796823|NCT05896748|183472631|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|0.952|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within RPV||0.952|0.861|
91796824|NCT05896748|183472631|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|0.986|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Cmax within RPV||0.986|0.891|
91868744|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.1592||95.0|-0.0198|0.1194||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Older Adult treatment arm\*time."||.1194|-.0198|.1592
91868745|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.4899||95.0|-0.09396|0.04526|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Physician/Older Adult treatment arm\*time."||.04526|-.09396|.4899
91868746|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.000697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.9842||95.0|-0.06891|0.0703||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/older adult treatment arm\*time."||.0703|-.06891|.9842
91868747|NCT04837937|183631099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.7217||95.0|-0.08216|0.05705||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Sister/Older Adult/Physician treatment arm\*time."||.05705|-.08216|.7217
91868748|NCT04837937|183631100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.55||0.21||95.0|-1.9|0.42||Threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.05.|2-sided paired t-Test|||Univariate ANOVA- analytic variable is change in PROMIS Anxiety score from baseline to T3. Test is a paired T-Test.||.42|-1.90|.21
91732037|NCT00553475|183358695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0818||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0818
91732038|NCT00553475|183358695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0075||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0075
91732039|NCT00553475|183358696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0013||95.0|-1.07|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-1.07|0.0013
91732040|NCT00553475|183358696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.0152||95.0|-1.34|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.14|-1.34|0.0152
91732041|NCT00773461|183358697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91732042|NCT00773461|183358697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||ITT Population (Sensitivity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91732043|NCT00773461|183358698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Comparison of ACR 50 responders in placebo and Tocilizumab groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91732044|NCT00773461|183358698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0345||||||Comparison of ACR 70 responders in placebo and Tocilizumab groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0345
91732045|NCT00773461|183358700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.8||p value was calculated using the difference between core set values of the two arms.|ANCOVA|||Placebo + DMARDs Vs Tocilizumab + DMARDs analysis for Swollen Joint Count||-2.8|-6.6|<0.0001
91732046|NCT00773461|183358700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-6.1||p value was calculated using the difference between core set values of the two arms.|ANCOVA|||Placebo + DMARDs Vs Tocilizumab + DMARDs analysis for Tender Joint Count||-6.1|-11.3|<0.0001
91868749|NCT04837937|183631101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.54||0.0021||95.0|-5.28|-1.2||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|2-sided dependent sample t-test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Zarit Caregiver Burden Score, Baseline to 1-month post-intervention. Test was a 2-sided dependent samples t-test.||-1.20|-5.28|.0021
91868750|NCT04837937|183631102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1||0.1||95.0|-2.62|0.25||Alpha for statistical significance was 0.05|2-Sided Paired T Test|||Univariate ANOVA- analytic variable is change in PROMIS Fatigue score from baseline to T3. Test is a paired T-Test.||.25|-2.62|.10
91868751|NCT04837937|183631103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.83||0.9754||95.0|-1.36|1.41|||2-sided paired (dependent sample) t-test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in PROMIS short form General Self Efficacy T-Score, baseline to one month post-intervention. Test is a 2-sided paired (dependent sample) t-test.||1.41|-1.36|.9754
91796825|NCT05896748|183472632|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.906|0.983|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||0.983|0.906|
91868752|NCT04837937|183631105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1296|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.91||0.77||95.0|-0.74|1.0||Threshold for significance is 0.05|2-sided Paired T-Test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in T-Score between baseline and 1 month post-intervention. Test is a 2-sided paired t-test.||1.00|-.74|.77
91732047|NCT00773461|183358701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-12.9|||ANCOVA|||||-12.9|-25.3|<0.0001
91732048|NCT00773461|183358702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14.0|-24.5|<0.0001
91796826|NCT05896748|183472632|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|0.995|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||0.995|0.895|
91868753|NCT04837937|183631106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7618|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.16||0.1694||95.0|-0.33|1.85||alpha threshold for significance was 0.05.|two-sided paired T-Test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in T-score between baseline and one month post-intervention. Test is a two-sided paired t-test.||1.85|-.33|.1694
91868754|NCT04837937|183631111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.44||0.76||||||Alpha for Significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Avoiding Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.76
91868755|NCT04837937|183631111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.33||0.13||||||Alpha for significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Compromising Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.13
91732049|NCT00773461|183358703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-12.7|||ANCOVA|||||-12.7|-25.2|<0.0001
91732050|NCT00773461|183358704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7384|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1464|-1.3303|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3303|-2.1464|<0.0001
91732051|NCT00773461|183358705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-33.7|||ANCOVA|||||-33.7|-44.7|<.0001
91732052|NCT00773461|183358707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|1.8|0.0003
91732053|NCT00773461|183358708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.3||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.5|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|-139.5|0.0599
91732054|NCT00773461|183358709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.956|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.125|16.786|||ANCOVA|||||16.786|9.125|<0.0001
91732055|NCT00773461|183358710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||||-0.28|-0.56|<0.0001
91732056|NCT00913835|183358714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.478|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior platinum treatment, platinum-refractory versus platinum-resistance reaction.||||1.478|0.751|0.8049
91732057|NCT00913835|183358715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.115||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|1.618|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior platinum treatment, platinum-refractory versus platinum-resistance reaction.||||1.618|0.768|0.6346
91732058|NCT00913835|183358716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6190
91732059|NCT00107575|183358739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91732060|NCT00107575|183358740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||expected count ratio|0.81||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||a priori p-value was p \< .05|generalized estimating equations|Negative binomial model controlling for sex, motivation to change drinking, and baseline drinking||||0.98|0.67|.027
91732061|NCT00107575|183358741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.18
91732062|NCT00107575|183358742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.95
91732063|NCT00107575|183358743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.76
91796827|NCT05896748|183472632|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|0.994|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||0.994|0.876|
91796828|NCT05896748|183472632|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.105|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||1.105|0.979|
91796829|NCT05896748|183472633|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.932|1.002|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||1.002|0.932|
91796830|NCT05896748|183472633|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|0.989|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||0.989|0.922|
91868756|NCT04837937|183631111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.76|<|0.0001||||||Alpha for significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Forcing Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||<.0001
91868757|NCT04837937|183631111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.62||0.86||||||Alpha for Significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Problem Solving Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.86
91868758|NCT04837937|183631111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.32||||||Alpha for significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Yielding Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.32
91732064|NCT02947984|183358760|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Progression free survival is not significantly different by dose level in the overall cohort.||||0.234
91732065|NCT02947984|183358760|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Progression free survival is not significantly different by dose level in the subgroup receiving treatment due to a sub-total resection||||.820
91732066|NCT02947984|183358760|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Progression free survival is not significantly different by dose level in the sub-group receiving treatment due to recurrent disease||||.061
91732067|NCT04378153|183358776|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.17||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants changing assigned regimen is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||5.7|-0.7|0.1215
91732068|NCT03345550|183358777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline||||.24
91732069|NCT03345550|183358777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||1 month analysis||||.43
91732070|NCT03345550|183358777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||3 month||||.54
91796831|NCT05896748|183472633|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|0.991|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||0.991|0.907|
91796832|NCT05896748|183472633|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.058|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||1.058|0.972|
91796833|NCT06138145|183472678|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91796834|NCT06138145|183472678|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||<0.05
91796835|NCT06138145|183472678|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91732071|NCT03345550|183358780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.31
91732072|NCT01149460|183358792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|111.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.54|123.29|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.29|100.54|
91732073|NCT01149460|183358793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.34|103.82|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.82|96.34|
91732074|NCT01149460|183358794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.38|103.78|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.78|96.38|
91732075|NCT01149460|183358795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|103.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.87|109.41|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.41|97.87|
91732076|NCT01149460|183358796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.14|101.31|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.31|97.14|
91732077|NCT01149460|183358797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.04|101.19|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.19|97.04|
91732078|NCT00734032|183358813|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.514|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.59|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as adjusted geometric mean ratio of placebo and SB-480848 40 mg. Dunnett adjustment was used for comparison of each dose group to placebo.|||0.590|0.449|<.001
91732079|NCT00734032|183358813|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.421|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.483|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as adjusted geometric mean ratio of placebo and SB-480848 80 mg. Dunnett adjustment was used for comparison of each dose group to placebo.|||0.483|0.367|<.001
91732080|NCT00734032|183358813|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.375|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as adjusted geometric mean ratio of placebo and SB-480848 160 mg. Dunnett adjustment was used for comparison of each dose group to placebo.|||0.375|0.284|<.001
91732081|NCT00137449|183358819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|50.0||||||95.0|31.3|68.7|||F distribution|||||68.7|31.3|
91796836|NCT00857415|183472686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89||A one-sided test (rho \> 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha=0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Correlation test||Asymptotic standard error and 95 percent CI used Fisher z-transformation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation of the median semiquantitative read (three readers) and the quantitative IHC measurement of cortical amyloid plaque density averaged across six brain regions.||0.89|0.58|<0.0001
91796837|NCT00857415|183472687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|100.0|||||95% CI calculated by Wilson score method|Proportion of subjects who had a negative scan based on majority of 3 blinded readers||100|91|
91796838|NCT03614975|183472730|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||A/H1N1|Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91796839|NCT03614975|183472730|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||A/H3N2|Chi-squared|||||||0.64
91796840|NCT03614975|183472730|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||B/Colorado|Chi-squared|||||||0.64
91796841|NCT03614975|183472730|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||B/Phuket|Chi-squared|||||||0.23
91796842|NCT03614975|183472731|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1:Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.42
91796843|NCT03614975|183472731|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1: Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91796844|NCT03614975|183472731|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.42
91796845|NCT03614975|183472731|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.94
91868759|NCT04837937|183631112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.18||0.0012||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in total Negotiation Knowledge score, Baseline 1-month. Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.||||.0012
91905109|NCT00545402|183705786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2611|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2611
91905110|NCT00545402|183705788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7091|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7091
91732082|NCT00137449|183358819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|56.7||||||95.0|37.4|74.5|||F distribution|||||74.5|37.4|
91732083|NCT00137449|183358819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|53.3||||||95.0|40.0|66.3|||F distribution|||Null hypothesis that the true CBR \<=20% vs the alternative hypothesis that the true clinical benefit rate is at least 35%. The sample size is determined using a single-stage design with an alpha level of 10% \& 90% power. If \>=17 CR, PR or SD for at least 24 weeks are observed, null hypothesis can be rejected with a 20% target false positive error rate. If \<= 16 CR, PR,or SD for at least 24 weeks are observed, null hypothesis can not be rejected with a target false negative error rate of 10%.||66.3|40.0|
91732084|NCT00137449|183358821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR rate (percentage)|10.0||||||95.0|2.1|26.5|||F distribution||PR or CR responding tumor measurements confirmed by repeat studies performed at \> 4 weeks after the criteria for response first met.|||26.5|2.1|
91732085|NCT00137449|183358821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR rate (percentage)|16.7||||||95.0|5.6|34.7|||F distribution||PR or CR responding tumor measurements confirmed by repeat studies performed at \> 4 weeks after the criteria for response first met.|||34.7|5.6|
91732086|NCT00137449|183358821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR rate (percentage)|13.3||||||95.0|5.9|24.6|||F distribution||PR or CR responding tumor measurements confirmed by repeat studies performed at \> 4 weeks after the criteria for response first met.|||24.6|5.9|
91732087|NCT00137449|183358823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|27.0||||||95.0|22.0|73.1|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Median reported is progression free survival weeks.||73.1|22.0|
91732088|NCT00137449|183358823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|35.1||||||95.0|24.4|51.6|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Median reported is progression free survival weeks.||51.6|24.4|
91732089|NCT00137449|183358823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|33.6||||||95.0|24.1|49.0|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Median reported is progression free survival weeks.||49.0|24.1|
91732090|NCT00137449|183358824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|57.0||||||95.0|24.1|73.1|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Time to progression in weeks reported as median.||73.1|24.1|
91732091|NCT00137449|183358824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|42.1||||||95.0|26.1|65.9|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Time to progression in weeks reported as median.||65.9|26.1|
91732092|NCT00137449|183358824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|42.1||||||95.0|26.1|65.9|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Time to progression in weeks reported as median.||65.9|26.1|
91732093|NCT00137449|183358826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 year survival rate|60.0||||||95.0|40.5|75.0|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||75.0|40.5|
91868760|NCT04837937|183631112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.933|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.33||0.0018||||||alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Negotiation Knowledge Interests score, Baseline 1-month. Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.||||.0018
91868761|NCT04837937|183631112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.69||0.91||||||Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Negotiation Knowledge Power score, Baseline 1-month.||||.91
91868762|NCT04837937|183631112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.35||0.11||||||Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Negotiation Knowledge Rights score, Baseline 1-month.||||.11
91732094|NCT00137449|183358826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 year survival rate|79.7||||||95.0|60.3|90.3|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||90.3|60.3|
91732095|NCT00137449|183358826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 year survival rate|69.7||||||95.0|56.3|79.7|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||79.7|56.3|
91732096|NCT02296099|183358830|EQUIVALENCE|The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized.||||||0.014||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the pain scores between the two groups.||||0.014
91732097|NCT01356940|183358840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.586||||0.586|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||P values above 0.05 are considered statistically not significant in this study|||||0.586
91732098|NCT02272985|183358846|OTHER||||||=|0.03||||||the p value was calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.03
91732099|NCT02272985|183358847|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Left frontal gray matter:||||0.001
91732100|NCT02272985|183358847|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Right frontal gray matter:||||0.08
91732101|NCT02489279|183358850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a General Linear Model (GLM) with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report the Group x Time interaction.||||0.026
91732102|NCT02489279|183358850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.0075
91732103|NCT02489279|183358850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.25
91732104|NCT02489279|183358851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a GLM with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report the Group x Time interaction.||||0.014
91732105|NCT02489279|183358851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.0005
91732106|NCT02489279|183358851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.21
91732107|NCT02489279|183358852|SUPERIORITY|||||||1e-06|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a GLM with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report only a main effect of Time.||||0.000001
91796846|NCT03614975|183472731|OTHER|||||||0.87||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado :Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.87
91796847|NCT03614975|183472731|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado : Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.77
91868763|NCT04837937|183631114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.73|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.09|-1.07||Threshold for significance is alpha=0.05.|2-sided dependent sample t-test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in negative affect score, baseline-1 month post-intervention. Test is a 2 sided dependent sample t-test.||-1.07|-3.09|<.0001
91868764|NCT04837937|183631114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.344|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86||0.4305||95.0|-0.52|1.21|||2-sided dependent sample t-test|||Univariate ANOVA of change in positive affect score between baseline-1 month post-intervention. Test is a 2-sided dependent sample t-test.||1.21|-.52|.4305
91732108|NCT02489279|183358853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00018|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a GLM with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report only a main effect of Time.||||0.00018
91732109|NCT03707821|183358868|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores. Non-inferiority was declared in the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 5.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.5|||Bayesian normal random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 224 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at he 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||8.5|-2.0|
91732110|NCT03707821|183358869|NON_INFERIORITY|A cumulative odds ratio non-inferiority margin of 2 was used. This margin is based on a 10% difference if the proportion of subjects that report a higher rating/experience.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.15|||Bayesian random -effects model|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior proportion mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 40 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect a 10% difference in proportion of subjects that reported at higher rating (Strongly Agree and Agree) with the Test compared to the Control lens at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulation-based methods (alpha=0.05).||0.15|0.02|
91732111|NCT03707821|183358870|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 points was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||Bayesian Normal Random effects model|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 30 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect a 0.05 difference in LogMAR visual acuity at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.04|
91796848|NCT03614975|183472731|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91796849|NCT03614975|183472731|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.21
91796850|NCT03614975|183472732|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.49
91868765|NCT06072170|183631119|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.659|0.998||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.998|0.659|
91868766|NCT06072170|183631119|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.843|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.713|0.973||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of 7-Hydroxy-Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.973|0.713|
91868767|NCT06072170|183631119|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.637|0.984||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Paynantheine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.984|0.637|
91868768|NCT06072170|183631119|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.814|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|0.994||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciogynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.994|0.633|
91868769|NCT06072170|183631119|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.039||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciociliatine Dose Adjusted Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.039|0.720|
91905111|NCT00382018|183705791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.47|||Log Rank|||Hazard Ration of overall survival compared Arm C2 to Arm C1.||1.47|0.69|0.98
91868770|NCT06072170|183631121|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|1.123||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.123|0.768|
91905112|NCT00382018|183705792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32|||Log Rank|||Hazard Ratio of progression free survival compared Arm C2 to Arm C1||1.32|0.64|0.64
91732112|NCT03707821|183358871|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 90% was used. Lower limit of 95% credible interval was compared to 90%|Mean Percentage of Acceptable Fitting|99.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0|||Bayesian Beta-Binomial Model|model for correlated data||It was calculated that 100 participants were required to show that the acceptable lens fitting for the Test lens would be superior to 90% with at least 80% power. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||100|98.5|
91796851|NCT03614975|183472732|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.23
91796852|NCT03614975|183472732|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.10
91796853|NCT03614975|183472732|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.86
91796854|NCT03614975|183472732|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.73
91796855|NCT03614975|183472732|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
91796856|NCT03614975|183472732|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.36
91796857|NCT03614975|183472732|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
91796858|NCT01390220|183472733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided||||||0.0109
91732113|NCT03707821|183358872|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.008|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|model for correlated data|mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 224 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect 5% difference between the Test and Control lens with respect to the proportion of eyes with Grade 3 or higher slit lamp findings across all study visits. Sample size was determined using simulations methods. Sample size for this study was primarily driven by the slit lamp findings.||0.008|-0.007|
91868771|NCT06072170|183631121|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.821|1.134||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of 7-Hydroxy-Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.134|0.821|
91868772|NCT06072170|183631121|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.249||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Paynantheine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.249|0.901|
91868773|NCT06072170|183631121|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.222||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciogynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.222|0.870|
91868774|NCT06072170|183631121|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|1.178||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciociliatine Dose Adjusted Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.178|0.844|
91868775|NCT06072170|183631122|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|1.143||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.143|0.775|
91868776|NCT06072170|183631122|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.134||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of 7-Hydroxy-Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.134|0.815|
91868777|NCT06072170|183631122|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|1.207||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Paynantheine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.207|0.866|
91868778|NCT06072170|183631122|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.145||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciogynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.145|0.790|
91868779|NCT06072170|183631122|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.859|1.191||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciociliatine Dose Adjusted Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.191|0.859|
91868780|NCT06072170|183631126|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.16|30.78||||||||30.78|6.16|
91868781|NCT06072170|183631129|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squared Mean|45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|61.67|||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for High Visual Analog Scale (Emax)||61.67|30.20|<0.001
91868782|NCT06307457|183631133|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all age groups.||||0.031
91868783|NCT06307457|183631134|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all age groups.||||0.012
91868784|NCT06307457|183631135|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all CCI scores.||||0.061
91868785|NCT06307457|183631136|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all CCI scores.||||0.080
91905113|NCT01984164|183705797|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect size|-13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-3.7|||||effect size p-value = 0.008|All analyses were conducted using the intention-to-treat principle. Results are provided as adjusted least-square means with SE and effect size (ES) estimates (calculated from mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) as the adjusted difference in cognitive change between the 2 groups over the study period).||-3.7|-23.6|
91732114|NCT03707821|183358873|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores. Non-inferiority was declared in the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 5.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|6.3|||Bayesian normal random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|Sample Size was based on primary endpoints only.||6.3|-1.3|
91868786|NCT06307457|183631137|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all number of comorbidities.||||0.2
91868787|NCT06307457|183631138|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all number of comorbidities.||||0.093
91732115|NCT03707821|183358874|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores. Non-inferiority was declared in the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 5.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.295|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|12.54|||Bayesian normal random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|Sample Size was based on primary endpoints only.||12.54|3.48|
91732116|NCT01432444|183358875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was derived from Exact McNemar test.|McNemar|||Inpatient hospitalization for retrospective period (Months 4-6) and prospective period (Months 4-6) for closed or open unit.||||<.0001
91732117|NCT01432444|183358876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from T-test of Mean=0.|t-test|Mean duration was derived as the cumulative duration divided by the number of inpatient non-psychiatric hospitalization.||Statistical analyses for Week 4, 12 and 24.||||<.0001
91732118|NCT01432444|183358877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from T-test of Mean=0.|t-test, 2 sided|Mean duration was derived as the cumulative duration divided by the number of inpatient non-psychiatric hospitalization.||Statistical analyses for Week 4, Week 12 and Week 24.||||<.0001
91732119|NCT01432444|183358878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from T-test of Mean=0.|t-test, 2 sided|Mean duration was derived as the cumulative duration divided by the number of inpatient non-psychiatric hospitalization.||Statistical analysis for Week 4, 12 and 24.||||<.0001
91732120|NCT01432444|183358879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from t-test of mean=0.|t-test|||Statistical analysEs for Week 4, 12 and 24.||||<.0001
91732121|NCT02378480|183358890|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.9|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||4.9|-6.3|
91732122|NCT02378480|183358891|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.2|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.2|-3.2|
91732123|NCT02378480|183358892|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.9|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||6.9|-1.0|
91732124|NCT03802916|183358906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074||||||A p-value was calculated for the one-sample proportion test.|One-sample proportion test|||One-sample proportion test to determine if the overall preference for deferiprone DR was greater than chance (i.e., a 50% preference for each formulation)||||0.0074
91732125|NCT03802916|183358906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||A p-value was calculated for the one-sample proportion test.|One-sample proportion test|||One-sample proportion test to determine if the overall preference for deferiprone DR was greater than chance (i.e., a 50% preference for each formulation)||||0.0002
91796859|NCT01390220|183472734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided||||||0.0043
91732126|NCT02743221|183358928|OTHER|This was a non-comparative study.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.06|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model with adjustment for the stratification factors (RAS status, performance status ECOG)||||1.06|0.48|0.09
91732127|NCT02743221|183358929|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
91732128|NCT02743221|183358930|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.74||||||||2.74|0.49|
91732129|NCT02743221|183358931|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91732130|NCT02743221|183358932|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.98|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.98|0.32|0.04
91732131|NCT01946880|183358942|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.214||||||||0.214|-0.068|
91732132|NCT01946880|183358944|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.279||||||||0.279|-0.116|
91732133|NCT01946880|183358945|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.36||||||||0.360|-0.091|
91732134|NCT01946880|183358946|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.475|0.333||||||||0.333|-0.475|
91732135|NCT01946880|183358947|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.249||||||The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.||0.249|-0.286|
91732136|NCT01946880|183358948|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.497||||||||0.497|-0.090|
91732137|NCT01946880|183358949|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.211||||||||0.211|-0.056|
91796860|NCT01390220|183472735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0124
91796861|NCT01390220|183472736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier estimates.||||0.0124
91732138|NCT01946880|183358950|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.284||||||||0.284|-0.041|
91796862|NCT00943124|183472737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.14||||||90.0|1.09|1.2||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.20|1.09|
91796863|NCT00943124|183472738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.11||||||90.0|1.05|1.16||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.16|1.05|
91868788|NCT06307457|183631139|OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with cardiac disease comorbidity reported.||||>0.9
91868789|NCT06307457|183631139|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with vascular disease comorbidity reported.||||0.9
91868790|NCT06307457|183631139|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with metabolic disease comorbidity reported.||||0.4
91868791|NCT06307457|183631140|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants cardiac disease comorbidity reported.||||0.7
91732139|NCT01946880|183358951|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.206||||||||0.206|-0.285|
91732140|NCT01946880|183358952|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.289||||||||0.289|-0.118|
91732141|NCT01946880|183358953|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.212||||||||0.212|-0.103|
91732142|NCT01946880|183358956|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.149||||||||0.149|-0.028|
91732143|NCT01946880|183358957|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.134||||||||0.134|-0.020|
91796864|NCT00943124|183472739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.97||||||90.0|0.93|1.0||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.00|0.93|
91796865|NCT00943124|183472740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.87|0.97||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||0.97|0.87|
91796866|NCT00943124|183472741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.02||||||90.0|0.99|1.04||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.04|0.99|
91868792|NCT06307457|183631140|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with vascular disease comorbidity reported.||||0.3
91868793|NCT06307457|183631140|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with metabolic disease comorbidity reported.||||0.7
91868794|NCT06307457|183631141|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for visceral disease status.||||0.005
91868795|NCT06307457|183631142|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for visceral disease status.||||0.005
91868796|NCT06307457|183631143|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for bone disease status.||||0.14
91732144|NCT01946880|183358958|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the SLICC/DI score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||0.1|-0.1|
91732145|NCT01946880|183358958|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the SLICC/DI score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||0.1|-0.1|
91732146|NCT01946880|183358958|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the SLICC/DI score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||0.1|-0.2|
91732147|NCT01946880|183358959|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.059||||||||0.059|-0.019|
91732148|NCT01946880|183358961|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|5.45|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the FACIT fatigue score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||5.45|-2.24|
91732149|NCT01946880|183358961|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|6.21|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the FACIT fatigue score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||6.21|-1.13|
91796867|NCT00943124|183472742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.08||||||90.0|1.02|1.14||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.14|1.02|
91868797|NCT06307457|183631144|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for bone disease status.||||0.2
91868798|NCT06307457|183631145|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for endocrine status.||||0.047
91868799|NCT06307457|183631146|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for endocrine status.||||0.041
91868800|NCT01613417|183631260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on primary endpoint. 185 patients were deemed necessary for the lower limit of the observed 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference to exceed -5% with 85% power.|Percentage PH better minus GV better|0.5||||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.6||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in percentage ProHance better minus percentage Gadovist/Gadavist better (%)|||5.6|-4.6|0.8516
91732150|NCT01946880|183358961|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|7.28|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the FACIT fatigue score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||7.28|-0.17|
91732151|NCT01946880|183358962|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.92|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PF score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||2.92|-1.82|
91732152|NCT01946880|183358962|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|4.03|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PF score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||4.03|-1.14|
91732153|NCT01946880|183358962|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.67|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PF score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||4.67|-0.71|
91732154|NCT01946880|183358963|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.32|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PCS score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||4.32|-1.03|
91732155|NCT01946880|183358963|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|5.02|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PCS score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||5.02|-0.69|
91732156|NCT01946880|183358963|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.82|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PCS score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||5.82|0.22|
91732157|NCT03131479|183359040|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-9.21||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.88|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used. Baseline is defined to be the measurement collected on Day -1.||||1.45|-19.88|0.154
91732158|NCT03131479|183359040|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-6.05||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.65|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.55|-16.65|0.343
91732159|NCT03131479|183359040|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-21.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.79|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.55|-31.79|0.001
91868801|NCT01613417|183631260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on primary endpoint. 185 patients were deemed necessary for the lower limit of the observed 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference to exceed -5% with 85% power.|Percentage PH better minus GV better|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in percentage ProHance better minus percentage Gadovist/Gadavist better (%)|||3.8|-3.8|1.0
91868802|NCT01613417|183631260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on primary endpoint. 185 patients were deemed necessary for the lower limit of the observed 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference to exceed -5% with 85% power.|Percentage PH better minus GV better|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in percentage ProHance better minus percentage Gadovist/Gadavist better (%)|||1.5|-0.5|1.0
91868803|NCT01613417|183631261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91905114|NCT00427349|183705807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||one sample binomial test|The study result was compared to a null hypothesis of 20% 4-month progression free survival rate using one sample binomial test||The null hypothesis is that the 4-month progression free survival rate is 20%. Alternatively, AMG 706 will be considered worthy of further study if its true progression-free survival rate is 40% or better at 4 months (alternative hypothesis).||||<0.001
91732160|NCT03131479|183359040|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-35.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.0|-25.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||-25.11|-46.00|0.000
91732161|NCT04439903|183359053|OTHER||Intercept|1.9726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8238||0.61532|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.61532
91732162|NCT04439903|183359053|OTHER||Slope|-0.68016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0084||0.5128|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 1: Number of simulations per participant per week.|||||0.5128
91732163|NCT04439903|183359053|OTHER||Slope|0.15238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3629||0.68197|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 2: Minutes of interaction with the Web-Based Simulation Tool per participant per week.|||||0.68197
91868804|NCT01613417|183631261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91732164|NCT04439903|183359054|OTHER||Intercept|-0.49527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44535||0.28789|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28789
91732165|NCT04439903|183359054|OTHER||Slope|0.16785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11745||0.17848|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 1: Number of simulations per participant per week.|||||0.17848
91732166|NCT04439903|183359054|OTHER||Slope|-0.06091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042266||0.17514|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 2: Minutes of interaction with the Web-Based Simulation Tool per participant per week.|||||0.17514
91732167|NCT04439903|183359055|OTHER||Intercept|-0.28825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59949||0.63929|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.63929
91732168|NCT04439903|183359055|OTHER||Slope|-0.14422|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1581||0.37964|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 1: Number of simulations per participant per week.|||||0.37964
91732169|NCT04439903|183359055|OTHER||Slope|0.06718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056895||0.26057|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 2: Minutes of interaction with the Web-Based Simulation Tool per participant per week.|||||0.26057
91732170|NCT01111552|183359056|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.3|||=|0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-5.9|=0.595
91732171|NCT01111552|183359056|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||=|0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-4.4|=0.869
91732172|NCT01111552|183359057|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||=|0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.6|-0.7|=0.856
91732173|NCT01111552|183359057|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||=|0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.7|-0.6|=0.838
91732174|NCT01111552|183359058|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.2|||=|0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.6|=0.765
91732175|NCT01111552|183359058|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2|||=|0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-1.2|=0.760
91732176|NCT05135754|183359059|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.35|0.046
91732177|NCT05135754|183359060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.78|3.45|<0.001
91732178|NCT05135754|183359061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.02|25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.00|15.02|<0.001
91732179|NCT05135754|183359062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.94|2.71|<0.001
91732180|NCT05135754|183359063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.26|20.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.35|8.26|<0.001
91732181|NCT05135754|183359064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
91732182|NCT05135754|183359065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.81|1.55|0.004
91732183|NCT00373360|183359066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
91732184|NCT00373360|183359067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.008
91732185|NCT00373360|183359068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
91732186|NCT00373360|183359069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.531
91732187|NCT00373360|183359070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
91732188|NCT00373360|183359071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.500
91732189|NCT00373360|183359072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
91732190|NCT00373360|183359073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||1.000
91732191|NCT00373360|183359074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0
91732192|NCT00373360|183359075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
91732193|NCT00373360|183359076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.031
91732194|NCT00373360|183359077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.031
91732195|NCT00373360|183359078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.004
91732196|NCT00373360|183359079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.063
91732197|NCT00373360|183359080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change Between Baseline and Week 8||||0.203
91732198|NCT00373360|183359084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||0.250
91732199|NCT00373360|183359085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.207
91732200|NCT00373360|183359086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.297
91732201|NCT00373360|183359087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.004
91759178|NCT04038567|183411374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|7.91||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||7.91|-3.25|
91759179|NCT04038567|183411374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|10.4||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||10.40|-0.76|
91759180|NCT04038567|183411374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.56||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||5.56|-5.60|
91868805|NCT01613417|183631261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91868806|NCT01613417|183631262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91868807|NCT01613417|183631262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6875|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6875
91868808|NCT01613417|183631262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91868809|NCT01613417|183631263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91868810|NCT01613417|183631263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91868811|NCT01613417|183631263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91868812|NCT01613417|183631264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91868813|NCT01613417|183631264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91868814|NCT01613417|183631264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91868815|NCT01613417|183631265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2758|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.2758
91868816|NCT01613417|183631265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.0676
91868817|NCT01613417|183631265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.5267
91868818|NCT01613417|183631266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6201|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.6201
91868819|NCT01613417|183631266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4514|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.4514
91868820|NCT01613417|183631266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7722|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.7722
91868821|NCT01613417|183631267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||0.3173
91868822|NCT01613417|183631267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||0.5637
91868823|NCT01613417|183631267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||0.0455
91868824|NCT01613417|183631268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||McNemar test of difference (ProHance minus Gadovist/Gadavist) in accuracy for tumor characterization||||0.6949
91868825|NCT01613417|183631268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1317|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||McNemar test of difference (ProHance minus Gadovist/Gadavist) in accuracy for tumor characterization||||0.1317
91868826|NCT01613417|183631268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||McNemar test of difference (ProHance minus Gadovist/Gadavist) in accuracy for tumor characterization||||0.0124
91868827|NCT00047385|183631269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|0.932||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Weighted log-rank (details below)|Weights in weighted log-rank statistic increased linearly from zero at randomization to full weight at 4 years and thereafter.||"Alternative hypothesis: LDCT screening reduces lung cancer mortality relative to chest x-ray.~Power: 90% for a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality."||0.932|0.733|0.004
91868828|NCT00047385|183631270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|0.988||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Only one analysis performed.|Weighted log-rank (details below)|Weights in weighted log-rank statistic increased linearly from zero at randomization to full weight at 4 years and thereafter.||Alternative hypothesis: LDCT screening reduced all-cause mortality relative to chest x-ray.||0.988|0.864|0.02
91868829|NCT00047385|183631271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.23|||||Denominator: LDCT Group Numerator: CXR Group|||1.23|1.03|
91868830|NCT02095145|183631299|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.190
91868831|NCT02095145|183631299|OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
91868832|NCT02095145|183631302|OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 13 p-value||||0.948
91868833|NCT02095145|183631302|OTHER|||||||0.711|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 26 p-value||||0.711
91868834|NCT02095145|183631302|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 39 p-value||||0.038
91868835|NCT02095145|183631302|OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 52 p-value||||0.445
91868836|NCT02095145|183631303|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 13 p-value||||0.743
91868837|NCT02095145|183631303|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 26 p-value||||0.305
91868838|NCT02095145|183631303|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 39 p-value||||0.111
91868839|NCT02095145|183631303|OTHER|||||||0.395|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 52 p-value||||0.395
91868840|NCT02095145|183631304|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 13||||0.743
91868841|NCT02095145|183631304|OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 26||||0.527
91868842|NCT02095145|183631304|OTHER|||||||0.879|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 39||||0.879
91868843|NCT02095145|183631304|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 52||||0.810
91868844|NCT02095145|183631305|OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Comparison of both arms at baseline||||0.556
91701651|NCT02266472|183298032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|99.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.69|104.87|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||104.87|93.69|<0.0001
91701652|NCT02266472|183298033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|108.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.17|113.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||113.17|104.17|<0.0001
91701653|NCT02266472|183298034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|98.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.18|101.67|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||101.67|96.18|
91701654|NCT02266472|183298035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|101.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.53|106.45|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||106.45|96.53|
91701655|NCT03197324|183298037|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|100.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.49|116.56|||||Digoxin group is the denominator and Digoxin with Bexagliflozin is the numerator. Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||116.56|86.49|
91701656|NCT03197324|183298040|SUPERIORITY|Compare if co-administration of digoxin with bexagliflozin had significant impact on the PK of digoxin|Ratio of Geometric LSM|106.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.82|117.53|||||Digoxin group is the denominator and Digoxin with Bexagliflozin is the numerator. Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||117.53|95.82|
91701657|NCT00710684|183298051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.5|-1.9|0.279
91701658|NCT00710684|183298051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35mg versus placebo at Week 24||-0.3|-2.7|0.012
91701659|NCT00710684|183298052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.3|-0.4|0.711
91701660|NCT00710684|183298052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.2|-0.5|0.462
91732202|NCT00637156|183359104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.113||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.201||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P(p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.201|0.022|1.000
91701661|NCT00710684|183298053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||1.1|-5.8|0.174
91701662|NCT00710684|183298053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||2.7|-3.6|0.776
91701663|NCT00710684|183298054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||0.7|-1.2|0.631
91868845|NCT02095145|183631305|OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||comparison of both arms at Week 26||||0.647
91868846|NCT02095145|183631305|OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||comparison of both arms at end of study, week 52||||0.948
91868847|NCT02095145|183631306|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.580
91701664|NCT00710684|183298054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||-0.4|-2.2|0.006
91868848|NCT02095145|183631307|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Benign core p-value||||0.344
91868849|NCT02095145|183631307|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Adjacent core p-value||||0.371
91868850|NCT02095145|183631307|OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Tumor core p-value||||0.766
91868851|NCT02095145|183631308|OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Benign (Nuc)||||0.304
91868852|NCT02095145|183631308|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Adjacent (Nuc)||||0.230
91868853|NCT02095145|183631308|OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Tumor (Nuc)||||0.298
91868854|NCT02095145|183631308|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Benign (Cyt)||||0.247
91868855|NCT02095145|183631308|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Adjacent (Cyt)||||0.093
91868856|NCT02095145|183631308|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Tumor (Cyt)||||0.066
91868857|NCT02095145|183631308|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Benign (Cell)||||0.247
91868858|NCT02095145|183631308|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Adjacent (Cell)||||0.128
91796868|NCT00943124|183472743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.77||||||90.0|0.72|0.82||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||0.82|0.72|
91868859|NCT02095145|183631308|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Tumor (Cell)||||0.128
91868860|NCT02095145|183631309|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||0.297
91905115|NCT00736255|183705851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null Hypothesis:LDX and NRT will not facilitate smoking cessation compared to NRT and placebo.~Alternate Hypothesis: LDX and NRT will facilitate smoking cessation compared to NRT and placebo.~This is a one tailed, proof of concept study so there is no formal power analysis, however if we see a signal for treatment effect, we would like to do further investigation by conducting a separate trial."||||0.54
91868861|NCT02095145|183631309|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.233
91868862|NCT02095145|183631309|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||0.371
91868863|NCT02095145|183631309|OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.198
91868864|NCT02095145|183631309|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.233
91868865|NCT02095145|183631309|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||0.074
91868866|NCT02095145|183631309|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.234
91868867|NCT02095145|183631309|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.233
91868868|NCT02095145|183631309|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||0.233
91868869|NCT02095145|183631310|OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||0.167
91868870|NCT02095145|183631310|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.391
91868871|NCT02095145|183631310|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||0.713
91868872|NCT02095145|183631310|OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.452
91868873|NCT02095145|183631310|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.391
91868874|NCT02095145|183631310|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||0.713
91868875|NCT02095145|183631310|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.344
91868876|NCT02095145|183631310|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.391
91868877|NCT02095145|183631310|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||0.713
91868878|NCT02095145|183631311|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Benign p-value||||0.865
91868879|NCT02095145|183631311|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Adjacent p-value||||1.000
91868880|NCT02095145|183631311|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Tumor p-value||||0.066
91868881|NCT02095145|183631312|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||1.000
91868882|NCT02095145|183631312|OTHER|||||||0.903|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.903
91868883|NCT02095145|183631312|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||1.000
91868884|NCT02095145|183631312|OTHER|||||||0.269|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.269
91868885|NCT02095145|183631312|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.066
91868886|NCT02095145|183631312|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||1.000
91868887|NCT02095145|183631312|OTHER|||||||0.425|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.425
91868888|NCT02095145|183631312|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.270
91868889|NCT02095145|183631312|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||1.000
91868890|NCT02095145|183631313|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||0.625
91868891|NCT02095145|183631313|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.128
91868892|NCT02095145|183631313|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||0.045
91732203|NCT00637156|183359104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of overall success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated. If the posterior probability is at least 0.95, a claim of superiority can be made.||||0.993
91732204|NCT00637156|183359105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.088||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.167||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the NDI success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.167|0.012|1.000
91732205|NCT00637156|183359105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of NDI success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.990
91732206|NCT00637156|183359106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.119||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the neurological success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.119|-0.014|1.000
91732207|NCT00637156|183359106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of neurological success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.931
91732208|NCT00637156|183359107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.021||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.062||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the neck pain success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.062|-0.019|1.000
91732209|NCT00637156|183359107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of neck pain success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.852
91732210|NCT00637156|183359108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.008||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.056||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the arm pain success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.056|-0.073|0.997
91732211|NCT00637156|183359108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of arm pain success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.395
91796869|NCT00943124|183472744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.89|0.94||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||0.94|0.89|
91796870|NCT02992132|183472746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.0||||||Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM), with the dependent variable being the change from Baseline in CMAI total score.||15.0|-4.8|
91796871|NCT02992132|183472746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.5||||||Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM), with the dependent variable being the change from Baseline in CMAI total score.||10.5|-8.5|
91796872|NCT02448810|183472748|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.5|1.1||P-value is based on a one-sided log-rank test.|Log Rank||||Hazard Ratio and 70% CI are based on a Cox proportional hazards model with a covariate for treatment (imalumab vs SoC).|1.1|0.5|0.246
91796873|NCT02448810|183472748|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.5|1.4||P-value is based on a one-sided log-rank test.|Log Rank||||Hazard Ratio and 70% CI are based on a Cox proportional hazards model with a covariate for treatment (imalumab vs SoC).|1.4|0.5|0.354
91868893|NCT02095145|183631313|OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.105
91868894|NCT02095145|183631313|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.066
91868895|NCT02095145|183631313|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||0.005
91868896|NCT02095145|183631313|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.129
91868897|NCT02095145|183631313|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.066
91868898|NCT02095145|183631313|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||0.013
91868899|NCT02095145|183631314|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Benign p-value||||0.143
91732212|NCT00637156|183359109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.024||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.088||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the SF-36 PCS success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.088|-0.042|1.000
91732213|NCT00637156|183359109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.767||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of SF-36 PCS success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.767
91732214|NCT00637156|183359110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.024||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.067||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the SF-36 MCS success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.067|-0.120|0.945
91732215|NCT00637156|183359111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.017||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.04||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the FSU success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.040|-0.072|0.997
91732216|NCT00637156|183359111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of FSU success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.271
91732217|NCT00637156|183359112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.013||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.04||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the gait success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.040|-0.013|1.000
91732218|NCT00637156|183359112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of gait success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.859
91732219|NCT00637156|183359113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|0.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.548||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean difference (µ1- µ0) and the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval were presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"Superiority comparison of the operative time in two treatment groups was assessed. The null hypothesis is H0: μ1 = μ0 and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: μ1 ≠ μ0, where μ0 and μ1 denote the mean in control group the investigational group, respectively. Should the posterior probability of superiority P(μ1- μ0 \< 0\|data) be at least 97.5%, the superiority would be claimed."||0.548|0.252|0.0
91732220|NCT00637156|183359114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|11.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|22.44|||Bayesian model||The posterior mean difference (µ1- µ0) and the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval were presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"Superiority comparison of the blood loss in two treatment groups was assessed.The null hypothesis is H0: μ1 = μ0 and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: μ1 ≠ μ0, where μ0 and μ1 denote the mean in control group the investigational group, respectively. Should the posterior probability of superiority P(μ1- μ0 \< 0\|data) be at least 97.5%, the superiority would be claimed."||22.440|0.560|0.02
91868900|NCT02095145|183631314|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Adjacent p-value||||0.037
91868901|NCT02095145|183631314|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Tumor p-value||||0.111
91868902|NCT02095145|183631315|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 13||||0.068
91868903|NCT02095145|183631315|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 26||||0.004
91868904|NCT02095145|183631315|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 39||||0.002
91868905|NCT02095145|183631315|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 52||||<0.001
91868906|NCT02095145|183631316|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 13||||1.000
91868907|NCT02095145|183631316|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 26||||0.180
91868908|NCT02095145|183631316|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 39||||0.620
91868909|NCT02095145|183631316|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 52||||0.536
91868910|NCT02095145|183631318|OTHER|||||||0.231|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change in Tumor Volume from baseline to end of study per arm||||0.231
91868911|NCT00229970|183631371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.022||95.0|0.01|0.16|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and using the baseline Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV1) as a covariate.||||0.16|0.01|0.022
91868912|NCT00229970|183631371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001||95.0|0.09|0.24|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and using the baseline Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV1) as a covariate.||||0.24|0.09|<0.001
91868913|NCT01767467|183631400|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was met if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the Geometric Mean (GM) ratio (GSK1437173A vaccine over placebo) for anti-gE ELISA antibody concentrations at Month 2 was greater than (\>) 3.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Concentration|29.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.09|41.96||The p-value is relative to the null hypothesis Ho: Vaccine / Placebo = 1|Repeated measurement model|||The objective aimed to evaluate anti-gE humoral immune responses at Month 2 following a two-dose administration of the GSK1437173A vaccine, as compared to placebo, in subjects with haematologic malignancies excluding subjects with Non-Hodgkin B-cell Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia.||41.96|21.09|<0.0001
91868914|NCT00853580|183631419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
91868915|NCT00853580|183631420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
91868916|NCT00853580|183631421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
91732221|NCT00637156|183359115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.058||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean difference (µ1- µ0) and the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval were presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"Superiority comparison of the hospital stay in two treatment groups was assessed.The null hypothesis is H0: μ1 = μ0 and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: μ1 ≠ μ0, where μ0 and μ1 denote the mean in control group the investigational group, respectively. Should the posterior probability of superiority P(μ1- μ0 \< 0\|data) be at least 97.5%, the superiority would be claimed."||0.058|-0.258|0.892
91732222|NCT04548219|183359135|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|1.06||||||||1.06|0.775|
91732223|NCT04548219|183359136|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|1.1||||||||1.10|0.761|
91732224|NCT04548219|183359137|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.1||||||||1.10|0.760|
91868917|NCT00853580|183631422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
91868918|NCT00853580|183631423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
91868919|NCT00853580|183631424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.99
91868920|NCT00853580|183631425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.90
91868921|NCT00853580|183631426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
91868922|NCT00853580|183631427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
91868923|NCT00853580|183631428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
91868924|NCT00853580|183631429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.09
91868925|NCT00853580|183631430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
91868926|NCT00853580|183631431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
91868927|NCT00853580|183631432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
91868928|NCT00853580|183631433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
91868929|NCT00853580|183631434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.20
91868930|NCT00853580|183631435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.50
91868931|NCT00853580|183631436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
91868932|NCT00853580|183631437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
91868933|NCT00853580|183631438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.73
91868934|NCT01700205|183631439|OTHER|A priori power analyses determined that a sample size of 94 is required to detect a difference of 0.67 with 90% power and a 5% type 1 error rate. We conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses on the 113 infants using separate generalized estimating equations that included treatment group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age), and group × time interaction for each type of Z score (0.5-12.5 mos).|Slope|-0.018|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0363|-0.0002|||Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE analysis conducted with group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age, 0.5-12.5 months) and their interaction.||||-0.0002|-0.0363|<0.05
91868935|NCT01700205|183631440|OTHER|A priori power analyses determined that a sample size of 94 is required to detect a difference of 0.67 with 90% power and a 5% type 1 error rate. We conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses on the 113 infants using separate generalized estimating equations that included treatment group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age), and group × time interaction for each type of Z score (0.5-12.5 mos). We provide below the parameter estimates for WLZ scores only.|Slope|-0.023||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0362|-0.0093|||Generalized Estimating Equations|GEE analysis conducted on each type of Z score separately with group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age; 0.5-12.5 months) and their interaction.||||-0.0093|-0.0362|0.001
91868936|NCT01700205|183631441|OTHER|A priori power analyses determined that a sample size of 94 is required to detect a difference of 0.67 with 90% power and a 5% type 1 error rate. We conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses on the 113 infants using separate generalized estimating equations that included treatment group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age), and group × time interaction for each type of Z score (0.5-12.5 mos).|Slope|-0.02||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.019|||Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE analysis conducted with group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age, 0.5-12.5 months) and their interaction||||0.019|-0.058|0.32
91868937|NCT01700205|183631442|OTHER|ANOVA with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor were conducted on intent-to-treat sample|||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|We conducted a ANOVA with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subject factor.||ANOVAs were conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as the between-subjects factor.||||<0.05
91868938|NCT01700205|183631443|OTHER|ANOVA was conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on the intent-to-treat sample.||||||0.72|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|ANOVA was conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on the intent-to-treat sample.||Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor||||0.72
91732225|NCT02657356|183359185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.012||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.69|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: screening 6MWT, day 1 hemoglobin, treatment grp, # of PAH medications, time, interactions btwn treatment \& time, and screening 6MWT \& time|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||0.98|-26.69|0.0683
91732226|NCT02657356|183359186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.984||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.895|||Chi-squared||Estimated from Cox Regression adjusted by baseline PAH medication status (0-1 vs 2) as the covariate. Hazard ratio \>1 indicates a beneficial effect that favors bardoxolone methyl.|||2.895|1.360|0.0004
91732227|NCT00834574|183359187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|97.2|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|97.2|
91732228|NCT00834574|183359188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0||||||90.0|101.0|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||114|101|
91732229|NCT00834574|183359189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0||||||90.0|101.0|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||114|101|
91732230|NCT00500331|183359211|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response: Change= Baseline+Treatment|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change= Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg, GSK189075 250 mg, GSK189075 500 mg, GSK189075 1000 mg||||<0.001
91732231|NCT00500331|183359211|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg, GSK189075 250 mg, GSK189075 500 mg||||<0.001
91732232|NCT00500331|183359211|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg, GSK189075 250 mg||||<0.001
91732233|NCT00500331|183359211|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg||||<0.001
91796874|NCT00136604|183472756|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The lower limit (LL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the percentage of subjects with SBA-MenC titre ≥ 1:128 between the Tritanrix-Hepb/Hib-MenAC-TT Group and (minus) the TRITANRIX-HEPB+Mencevax + Meningitec control group was above -10%.|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.05||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of a fourth dose of the Tritanrix-HepB/Hib-MenAC-TT vaccine versus a fourth dose of the Tritanrix-HepB/Hiberix and Meningitec vaccine given concomitantly in terms of the percentage of subjects with an SBA-MenC titre ≥ 1:128.||3.05|-1.53|
91732234|NCT00500331|183359211|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg||||<0.001
91732235|NCT00500331|183359211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.44||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 50 mg||-0.44|-1.02|<0.001
91732236|NCT00500331|183359211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.35||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 100 mg||-0.35|-0.94|<0.001
91732237|NCT00500331|183359211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.44||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 250 mg||-0.44|-1.03|<0.001
91732238|NCT00500331|183359211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.61||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 500 mg||-0.61|-1.19|<0.001
91732239|NCT00500331|183359211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.77||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 1000 mg||-0.77|-1.36|<0.001
91732240|NCT00500331|183359211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.47||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. Pioglitazone 30 mg||-0.47|-1.05|<0.001
91732241|NCT00856557|183359234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is equal distribution of proportion of successful encounters among groups||||0.33
91868939|NCT01700205|183631444|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||||0.72|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||0.72
91868940|NCT01700205|183631445|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||||0.02|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||0.02
91868941|NCT03335488|183631449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.1|||Fisher Exact|||||28.1|0.0|1.0000
91796875|NCT00136604|183472758|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The lower limit (LL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in seroprotection (anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 µg/mL) between the Tritanrix-Hepb/Hib-MenAC-TT Group and (minus) the Tritanrix-Hepb/Mencevax+Tritanrix-HepB/Hiberix Group was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.05||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the Tritanrix-HepB/Hib-MenAC-TT vaccine versus the Tritanrix-HepB/Hiberix vaccine when used as a booster vaccine in Tritanrix-HepB/Hib-MenAC-TT primed subjects in terms of the percentage of subjects with an anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 µg/mL.||3.05|-1.53|
91868942|NCT03335488|183631451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8464|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Initial Treatment Period Week 1||||0.8464
91868943|NCT03335488|183631451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Initial Treatment Period Week 2||||0.1040
91701665|NCT00710684|183298054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 36||1.2|-1.3|0.947
91701666|NCT00710684|183298054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||0.0|-2.5|0.057
91701667|NCT00710684|183298054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||1.5|-1.6|0.925
91701668|NCT00710684|183298054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||-0.2|-3.1|0.024
91701669|NCT00710684|183298055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||0.1|-0.4|0.387
91701670|NCT00710684|183298055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||MMRM|||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||-0.1|-0.5|0.018
91701671|NCT00710684|183298055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 36||0.6|-0.3|0.439
91701672|NCT00710684|183298055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||0.2|-0.6|0.336
91701673|NCT00710684|183298055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||0.8|-0.2|0.190
91701674|NCT00710684|183298055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||0.4|-0.5|0.787
91701675|NCT00710684|183298056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||1.4|-4.0|0.337
91701676|NCT00710684|183298056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||3.0|-1.7|0.596
91701677|NCT00710684|183298056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 36||2.7|-4.4|0.634
91701678|NCT00710684|183298056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.6|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||5.6|-1.4|0.238
91701679|NCT00710684|183298056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||1.8|-6.0|0.292
91701680|NCT00710684|183298056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||6.2|-1.0|0.161
91701681|NCT00710684|183298057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||2.1|-0.8|0.396
91701682|NCT00710684|183298057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||3.2|0.3|0.019
91701683|NCT00710684|183298057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||3.2|-0.3|0.110
91701684|NCT00710684|183298057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||3.7|0.3|0.024
91701685|NCT00710684|183298057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo ate Week 36||2.0|-2.1|0.944
91701686|NCT00710684|183298057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||3.8|0.1|0.037
91905116|NCT00457015|183705863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Blocked Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The primary efficacy analysis compared the change from baseline in MSCS Score at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the nonparametric Blocked Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.010
91905117|NCT00457015|183705864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Blocked Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The analysis compared the TOS at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the nonparametric Blocked Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.003
91796876|NCT04795622|183472781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|2.4365||||||||2.4365|0.7530|
91796877|NCT04795622|183472782|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-0.0856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2395|0.0683||||||X-axis||0.0683|-0.2395|
91796878|NCT04795622|183472782|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2268|0.1608||||||Y-axis||0.1608|-0.2268|
91796879|NCT04795622|183472782|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|0.1791|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1551|0.5133||||||Z-axis||0.5133|-0.1551|
91796880|NCT03963401|183472795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.94|38.52|||Normal approximation, Dunnett's method|||||38.52|3.94|0.1172
91732242|NCT00856557|183359234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Considering all encounters (n=179) of all physicians for who outcomes were measured (n=111) together, are encounters in which physicians contextualized the plan of care more likely to be associated with target health outcome achievement than encounters in which physicians did not, controlling for clustering of encounters within physicians. (Generalized logistic mixed model, with random intercept for physician)||||.036
91732243|NCT00856557|183359235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.99
91732244|NCT00856557|183359236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
91732245|NCT02301897|183359237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.0008
91732246|NCT02301897|183359237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||<0.001
91732247|NCT02301897|183359238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0719|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.0719
91732248|NCT02301897|183359238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.0004
91732249|NCT02301897|183359239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0167|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0167
91796881|NCT03963401|183472795|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.26|37.5|||Normal approximation, Dunnett's Method|||||37.50|9.26|0.0197
91732250|NCT02301897|183359239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1257|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.1257
91732251|NCT02301897|183359239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9754|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.9754
91732252|NCT02301897|183359239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7672|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.7672
91732253|NCT02301897|183359239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2232|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2232
91732254|NCT02301897|183359239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4512|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4512
91732255|NCT02301897|183359239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3545|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.3545
91732256|NCT02301897|183359239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2482|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.2482
91732257|NCT02301897|183359240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0016
91732258|NCT02301897|183359240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0003
91732259|NCT02301897|183359240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6666|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.6666
91732260|NCT02301897|183359240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3612|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.3612
91732261|NCT02301897|183359240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0309|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0309
91732262|NCT02301897|183359240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0007
91732263|NCT02301897|183359240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0641|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.0641
91732264|NCT02301897|183359240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3743|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.3743
91796882|NCT03963401|183472795|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|31.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.65|44.93|||Normal approximation, Dunnett's Method|||||44.93|17.65|0.0006
91796883|NCT03963401|183472796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.09||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|39.19|||Normal approximation method|||||39.19|2.72|0.0588
91796884|NCT03963401|183472796|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|26.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.72|40.9|||Normal approximation method|||||40.90|11.72|0.0030
91796885|NCT03963401|183472796|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|31.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.93|45.5|||Normal approximation method|||||45.50|16.93|0.0003
91796886|NCT00337350|183472825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
91796887|NCT00337350|183472826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.05
91796888|NCT00337350|183472827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.21
91796889|NCT01231230|183472833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||mean difference from baseline relative to placebo||||< 0.001
91796890|NCT01231230|183472833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||mean difference from baseline relative to placebo||||<0.001
91796891|NCT01231230|183472833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||mean difference from baseline relative to placebo||||>0.05
91732265|NCT02301897|183359241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0049
91732266|NCT02301897|183359241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0064
91732267|NCT02301897|183359241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5637|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.5637
91796892|NCT01610271|183472834|SUPERIORITY|ABS was expected to be superior to Control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.05||a priori threshold was 0.05|Regression, Logistic|penalized maximum likelihood (Firth) logistic regression, because infection rate was very low (\<3%), as expected|The dispersion is the SE of the OR. ABS was the numerator group, Control was the denominator.|A sample size of 150 per group provided a power of 80% to detect a statistically significant (α≤0.05) 3% difference in SSI rate based on a historical infection rate of 6% in the facility where operations were performed.||2.05|0.01|0.067
91701687|NCT00710684|183298057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.9|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||2.9|-1.9|0.705
91701688|NCT00710684|183298057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||4.2|-0.3|0.088
91701689|NCT00710684|183298058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.6|-0.6|0.962
91701690|NCT00710684|183298058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||1.0|-0.1|0.134
91701691|NCT00710684|183298058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||0.7|-1.0|0.782
91701692|NCT00710684|183298058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||1.2|-0.3|0.268
91701693|NCT02832375|183298069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|-0.319|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariates.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|H0= no difference between experimental dentifrice and control dentifrice H1= a difference between experimental dentifrice and control dentifrice||-0.319|-0.577|<0.0001
91701694|NCT00514904|183298072|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|14.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.26|20.23||||||||20.23|10.26|
91732268|NCT02301897|183359241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0505|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0505
91732269|NCT02301897|183359241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4262|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4262
91868944|NCT03335488|183631451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0979|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Initial Treatment Period Week 3||||0.0979
91701695|NCT00514904|183298072|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|24.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.52|31.87||||||||31.87|17.52|
91701696|NCT00514904|183298072|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|11.08|||Difference in percentage|||||11.08|2.68|
91701697|NCT00514904|183298072|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|23.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.02|30.3||||||||30.3|18.02|
91701698|NCT00514904|183298073|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for assessment: upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio between Nimenrix Group and Mencevax ACWY Group being lower than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit ratio of 3.0 in the percentage of subjects with any grade 3 general symptoms.|Risk Ratio (RR)|3.34||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|20.25|||Chi-squared|||||20.25|0.56|0.2202
91732270|NCT02301897|183359241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1419|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1419
91732271|NCT02301897|183359241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4497|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.4497
91732272|NCT02301897|183359241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5371|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5371
91732273|NCT02301897|183359242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0069|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0069
91732274|NCT02301897|183359242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0059
91732275|NCT02301897|183359242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2117|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2117
91732276|NCT02301897|183359242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0006
91732277|NCT02301897|183359242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0788
91732278|NCT02301897|183359242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0080
91732279|NCT02301897|183359242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1516|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.1516
91732280|NCT02301897|183359242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0565|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.0565
91868945|NCT03335488|183631451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9808|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||End of Initial Treatment Period Week 4 - 0 Hr||||0.9808
91868946|NCT03335488|183631451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8329|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||End of Initial Treatment Period Week 4 - 4 Hr||||0.8329
91868947|NCT03335488|183631451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2544|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||End of Initial Treatment Period Week 4 - 8 Hr||||0.2544
91868948|NCT03335488|183631452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8579||||||P-value is from a t-test comparing log-transformed RAVICTI vs NaPBA values.|t-test|||||||0.8579
91868949|NCT03335488|183631453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7155||||||P-value is from a t-test comparing log-transformed RAVICTI vs NaPBA values.|t-test|||||||0.7155
91868950|NCT04941482|183631491|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|3.2|-1.9|<0.05
91732281|NCT02301897|183359243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0110
91732282|NCT02301897|183359243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0601|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0601
91732283|NCT02301897|183359243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2168|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2168
91732284|NCT02301897|183359243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0101
91732285|NCT02301897|183359243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2430
91732286|NCT02301897|183359243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0843|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0843
91732287|NCT02301897|183359243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5570
91732288|NCT02301897|183359243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5302|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5302
91732289|NCT02301897|183359244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0504
91868951|NCT04941482|183631492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Fatigue Severity Scale score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|2.5|-7.6|<0.05
91888772|NCT02942004|183669965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|1.78|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.78|-3.88|0.4645
91732290|NCT02301897|183359244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0151|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0151
91732291|NCT02301897|183359244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5932|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.5932
91732292|NCT02301897|183359244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0831|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0831
91732293|NCT02301897|183359244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1416|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1416
91732294|NCT02301897|183359244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0392|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0392
91732295|NCT02301897|183359244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8275|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8275
91732296|NCT02301897|183359244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8733|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8733
91732297|NCT02301897|183359245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0651|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0651
91732298|NCT02301897|183359245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0298
91732299|NCT02301897|183359245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.4005
91732300|NCT02301897|183359245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1114|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.1114
91732301|NCT02301897|183359245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1318|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1318
91732302|NCT02301897|183359245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0807|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0807
91732303|NCT02301897|183359245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4506|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.4506
91732304|NCT02301897|183359245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4614|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.4614
91732305|NCT02301897|183359246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0653|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0653
91732306|NCT02301897|183359246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0480
91732307|NCT02301897|183359246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.4010
91732308|NCT02301897|183359246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0772|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0772
91732309|NCT02301897|183359246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3206|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.3206
91905118|NCT00457015|183705865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis using the Log-Rank test was used to compare the time distribution between the 2 treatment groups.||||0.102
91905119|NCT03670953|183705868|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.97||"LSM, SE, CI and p-value from a MMRM with CFB in Good on time as outcome, baseline Good on time as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect and a treatment-by-visit interaction."|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||0.97|0.09|0.0194
91905120|NCT03670953|183705869|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||"LSM, SE, CI and p-value from a MMRM with CFB in Off time as outcome, baseline Off time as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect and a treatment-by-visit interaction."|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||-0.06|-0.90|0.0252
91732310|NCT02301897|183359246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1605|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1605
91732311|NCT02301897|183359246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5570
91732312|NCT02301897|183359246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3437|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.3437
91732313|NCT02301897|183359247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2624|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.2624
91732314|NCT02301897|183359247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0688|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0688
91732315|NCT02301897|183359247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2790
91732316|NCT02301897|183359247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6541|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.6541
91732317|NCT02301897|183359247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8559|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.8559
91905121|NCT03670953|183705870|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Percent difference|10.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|18.3||"P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pooled center comparing the percentage of Much or Very Much Improved participants between the treatment groups."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.3|3.5|0.0015
91732318|NCT02301897|183359247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4326|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4326
91732319|NCT02301897|183359247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1052|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.1052
91732320|NCT02301897|183359247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9206|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.9206
91732321|NCT02301897|183359248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1439|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.1439
91796893|NCT02038452|183472846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.16|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.16|-0.48|<0.001
91732322|NCT02301897|183359248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0670
91732323|NCT02301897|183359248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6761|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.6761
91732324|NCT02301897|183359248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0639|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0639
91732325|NCT02301897|183359248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2218|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2218
91732326|NCT02301897|183359248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4468|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4468
91732327|NCT02301897|183359248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7678|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.7678
91732328|NCT02301897|183359248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8922|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8922
91732329|NCT02301897|183359249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1262|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.1262
91732330|NCT02301897|183359249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2075|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.2075
91732331|NCT02301897|183359249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5904|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.5904
91732332|NCT02301897|183359249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2430
91732333|NCT02301897|183359249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7067|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.7067
91732334|NCT02301897|183359249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2725|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2725
91732335|NCT02301897|183359249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7016|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.7016
91732336|NCT02301897|183359249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8751|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8751
91732337|NCT02301897|183359250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0338
91732338|NCT02301897|183359250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0004
91732339|NCT02301897|183359250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0807|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0807
91732340|NCT02301897|183359250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0142
91732341|NCT02301897|183359250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0807|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0807
91732342|NCT02301897|183359250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0142
91732343|NCT02301897|183359250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1859|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Off-drug||||0.1859
91868952|NCT04941482|183631493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Mini-Mental State Examinationscore before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|1.3|-5.4|<0.05
91888773|NCT02942004|183669965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|0.13|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-5.24|0.0622
91701699|NCT00084318|183298087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.06|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year disease-free survival rate of 54.8% (47.9% to 61.7%).||Using the method of Dixon and Simon, 104 analyzable patients per arm were needed to detect a ≥ 33 reduction in the hazard rate for disease-free survival compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) with 80% power and one-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level. Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. \[RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group\]||1.06|0.54|0.05
91701700|NCT00084318|183298087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year disease-free survival rate of 54.8% (47.9% to 61.7%).||Using the method of Dixon and Simon, 104 analyzable patients per arm were needed to detect a ≥ 33 reduction in the hazard rate for disease-free survival compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) with 80% power and one-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level. Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.||0.96|0.50|0.01
91701701|NCT00084318|183298088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.03|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year survival rate of 64.7% (58.1% to 71.3%).|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided log-rank test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model. \[RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group\]||1.03|0.5|0.04
91701702|NCT00084318|183298088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year survival rate of 64.7% (58.1% to 71.3%).|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided log-rank test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model.||0.82|0.39|0.001
91701703|NCT00084318|183298092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.76|||Gray's test|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year failure rate of 19.9% (12.2% to 27.5%)|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year failure rates were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided Gray's test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model. \[RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group\]||1.76|0.63|0.66
91701704|NCT00084318|183298092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.87|||Gray's test|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year failure rate of 19.9% (12.2% to 27.5%)|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year failure rates were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided Gray's test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model.||1.87|0.72|0.86
91701705|NCT05537792|183298096|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.579|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.579
91701706|NCT05537792|183298096|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0008
91732344|NCT02301897|183359250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0896|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Off-drug||||0.0896
91732345|NCT02069847|183359294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.992
91701707|NCT05537792|183298096|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.5513|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5513
91701708|NCT05537792|183298096|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.00034|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.00034
91732346|NCT02069847|183359295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total number of budesonide subjects with 50% or greater esophageal stricture (N=4) vs total number of control subjects with 50% or greater esophageal structure (N=15)||||0.531
91732347|NCT00557440|183359305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0492||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.263||Statistical significance (two-sided) at 5% level. p-values were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Treatment, period, sequence and center as fixed effects, period baseline FEV1 as a covariate, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect.||||0.263|0.066|0.001
91732348|NCT04507763|183359310|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Change from Baseline at Month 12: For Early Referral||||0.001
91701709|NCT00224406|183298120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.022||||0.8541|ONE_SIDED|95.0||50.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||Repeated Measurements Analysis of PaO2/FiO2 ratio corrected for the altitude at 0 and 24hours after ICU admission using a one-sided test excluding missing data. Herein analysis at ICU Admission (Time 0).||50.26||0.8541
91701710|NCT00224406|183298120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.426||||0.6996|ONE_SIDED|95.0||55.17|||t-test, 1 sided|||Repeated Measurements Analysis of PaO2/FiO2 ratio corrected for the altitude at 0 and 24hours after ICU admission using a one-sided test excluding missing data. Herein analysis at 24 Hours Post ICU Admission.||55.17||0.6996
91701711|NCT00224406|183298121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.377||||0.8654|ONE_SIDED|95.0||47.15|||t-test, 1 sided|||ICU Admission (Time 0)||47.15||0.8654
91701712|NCT00224406|183298121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.386||||0.6789|ONE_SIDED|95.0||66.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||24 Hours Post ICU Admission||66.91||0.6789
91701713|NCT00224406|183298121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.968||||0.6345|ONE_SIDED|95.0||49.56|||t-test, 1 sided|||48 Hours Post ICU Admission||49.56||0.6345
91701714|NCT00224406|183298121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.908||||0.9858|ONE_SIDED|95.0||85.49|||t-test, 1 sided|||72 Hours Post ICU Admission||85.49||0.9858
91701715|NCT00224406|183298122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.867||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|11.302|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at ICU Admission (Time 0). One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||11.302|0.727|0.7985
91701716|NCT00224406|183298122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.837||||0.5606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|3.092|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 24h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||3.092|0.226|0.5606
91701717|NCT00224406|183298122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.716||||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|5.552|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 48h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||5.552|0.531|0.8786
91701718|NCT00224406|183298122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.337||||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|5.072|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 72h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||5.072|0.352|0.8499
91701719|NCT00224406|183298123|SUPERIORITY|at 24 hrs from mechanical ventilation|difference in event probability|0.0091||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1867|0.2049|||Log Rank|||||0.2049|-0.1867|0.7076
91701720|NCT00224406|183298123|SUPERIORITY||difference in event probability|-0.0316||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2092|0.146|||Log Rank|||at 48 hrs from mechanical ventilation||0.1460|-0.2092|0.7076
91701721|NCT00224406|183298123|SUPERIORITY||difference in event probability|-0.0661||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2314|0.0993|||Log Rank|||at 72 hrs from mechanical ventilation||0.0993|-0.2314|0.7076
91701722|NCT00224406|183298124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0364||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0858|0.0131|||Log Rank|||Analysis at 24 hours||0.0131|-0.0858|0.9632
91701723|NCT00224406|183298124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|0.0352||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1458|0.2162|||Log Rank|||Analysis at 48 h||0.2162|-0.1458|0.9632
91701724|NCT00224406|183298124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0179||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2143|0.1785|||Log Rank|||analysis at 72 h||0.1785|-0.2143|0.9632
91701725|NCT00224406|183298129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0566||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1188|0.0056|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 3 was reported.||0.0056|-0.1188|0.0111
91732349|NCT04507763|183359311|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Change from Baseline at Month 12: For Early Referral||||0.001
91701726|NCT00224406|183298129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0943||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|-0.0156|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 6 was reported.||-0.0156|-0.1730|0.0111
91701727|NCT00224406|183298129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.1132||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1985|-0.0279|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 9 was reported.||-0.0279|-0.1985|0.0111
91701728|NCT00224406|183298129|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1334||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2254|-0.0413|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 12 was reported.||-0.0413|-0.2254|0.0111
91701729|NCT01010009|183298132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Data was analysed by omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons utilizing the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||>0.05
91701730|NCT01010009|183298132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Data was analysed by omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons utilizing the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||<0.05
91701731|NCT01010009|183298133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Performance on each cognitive task was assessed via omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons.||||>0.05
91701732|NCT01010009|183298133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Performance on each cognitive task was assessed via omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons.||||>0.05
91701733|NCT01010009|183298134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||An omnibus ANOVA was carried out with a priori planned comparisons using the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||<0.05
91701734|NCT01010009|183298134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||An omnibus ANOVA was carried out with a priori planned comparisons using the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||<0.05
91701735|NCT03315455|183298158|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.084||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.084|0.016|<0.0001
91759181|NCT04038567|183411375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|9.37||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||9.37|-3.01|
91732350|NCT03322566|183359312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-18.5||||0.9948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-4.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method||Stratified by PD-L1 TPS ( \<50% vs. \>=50% ) and predominant tumor histology (squamous vs non-squamous);because of small sample size, the strata 'TPS \>= 50 percent Non-squamous' and 'TPS \>= 50% Squamous' were combined into one stratum.|||-4.3|-32.0|0.9948
91732351|NCT03322566|183359313|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.94305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by TPS (\<50% vs \>=50%) and predominant histology (squamous vs non-squamous), because of small sample size, the strata 'TPS \>= 50% Non-squamous' and 'TPS \>= 50% Squamous' were combined into one.|Regression, Cox|Efron's method of tie handling||||2.36|0.91|0.94305
91732352|NCT03322566|183359314|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.96272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.9||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 TPS (\<50% vs \>=50%) and predominant tumor histology (squamous vs non-squamous), because of small sample size, the strata (\<50% vs \>=50%) were combined into one stratum.|Regression, Cox|||||3.90|0.93|0.96272
91732353|NCT06045273|183359358|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Satterthwaite approximations|Also used a mixed models analysis||||||0.0006
91796894|NCT02038452|183472847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.17|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.17|-0.53|<0.001
91796895|NCT02038452|183472848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.09|-0.43|0.003
91701736|NCT03315455|183298158|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.082||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.082|0.015|<0.0001
91701737|NCT03315455|183298161|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.084||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.084|0.026|<0.0001
91701738|NCT03315455|183298161|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.092||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.092|0.028|<0.0001
91701739|NCT03315455|183298164|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.053||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.053|0.006|<0.0001
91701740|NCT03315455|183298164|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.059||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.059|0.007|<0.0001
91701741|NCT03315455|183298167|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.102||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.102|0.017|<0.0001
91701742|NCT03315455|183298167|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.084||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.084|0.013|<0.0001
91732354|NCT06045273|183359359|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0504|TWO_SIDED||||||Satterthwaite approximations|Also used a mixed models analysis||||||0.0504
91796896|NCT02038452|183472849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.3|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.30|-1.64|0.005
91701743|NCT03315455|183298170|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.163||Not controlled for Type I error|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|||0.163|0.016|<0.0001
91701744|NCT03315455|183298170|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.122||Not controlled for Type I error|ABR Ratio||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|||0.122|0.011|<0.0001
91701745|NCT03315455|183298175|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|14.68||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|29.46||Type I error controlled|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||29.46|-0.10|0.0515
91701746|NCT03315455|183298175|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|18.33||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|33.68||Type I error controlled|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||33.68|2.97|0.0204
91732355|NCT06045273|183359360|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.00134|TWO_SIDED||||||Satterthwaite approximations|Also used a mixed models analysis||||||0.00134
91732356|NCT02947048|183359365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Severity||||0.61
91732357|NCT02947048|183359365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Severity||||0.33
91732358|NCT02947048|183359365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Improvement||||0.61
91732359|NCT02947048|183359365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Improvement||||0.91
91732360|NCT03895372|183359406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.87||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|26.26||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||26.26|-4.50|0.2621
91732361|NCT03895372|183359406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.76||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|21.48||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||21.48|-7.07|0.2621
91732362|NCT03895372|183359406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.02||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.01|47.11||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||47.11|18.01|0.0004
91732363|NCT03895372|183359406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.62|60.56||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||60.56|30.62|<0.0001
91732364|NCT03895372|183359414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.82|23.42||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||23.42|-11.82|
91732365|NCT03895372|183359414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.61|13.29||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||13.29|-18.61|
91732366|NCT03895372|183359414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.32|47.52||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||47.52|14.32|
91732367|NCT03895372|183359414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.01|72.41||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||72.41|41.01|
91732368|NCT03895372|183359415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.52|20.77||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||20.77|-14.52|
91732369|NCT03895372|183359415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.67|17.01||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||17.01|-17.67|
91732370|NCT03895372|183359415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.86|43.26||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||43.26|8.86|
91732371|NCT03895372|183359415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|54.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.46|68.27||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||68.27|36.46|
91732372|NCT03895372|183359416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.52|20.77||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||20.77|-14.52|
91732373|NCT03895372|183359416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.67|17.01||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||17.01|-17.67|
91732374|NCT03895372|183359416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.86|43.26||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||43.26|8.86|
91732375|NCT03895372|183359416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|54.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.46|68.27||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||68.27|36.46|
91732376|NCT03895372|183359419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.42|2.51||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||2.51|-5.42|
91732377|NCT03895372|183359419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|0.42||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||0.42|-7.50|
91732378|NCT03895372|183359419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.05|-6.56||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-6.56|-13.05|
91732379|NCT03895372|183359419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.61|-9.04||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-9.04|-15.61|
91732380|NCT03895372|183359420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.61|6.35||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||6.35|-23.61|
91732381|NCT03895372|183359420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.98|1.94||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||1.94|-27.98|
91732382|NCT03895372|183359420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.02|-28.46||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-28.46|-53.02|
91732383|NCT03895372|183359420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-53.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.44|-40.63||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-40.63|-65.44|
91732384|NCT03895372|183359421|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|0.09||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||0.09|-2.52|
91732385|NCT03895372|183359421|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|0.05||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||0.05|-2.46|
91732386|NCT03895372|183359421|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|-2.43||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-2.43|-4.51|
91732387|NCT03895372|183359421|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|-2.61||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-2.61|-4.71|
91732388|NCT03895372|183359422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.52|32.87||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||32.87|-4.52|
91732389|NCT03895372|183359422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|44.64||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||44.64|2.62|
91732390|NCT03895372|183359422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.47|56.18||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||56.18|23.47|
91732391|NCT03895372|183359422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.62|63.69||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||63.69|30.62|
91732392|NCT03895372|183359423|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.82|-0.59||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-0.59|-7.82|
91732393|NCT03895372|183359423|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.89|-2.99||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-2.99|-9.89|
91732394|NCT03895372|183359423|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.4|-7.62||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-7.62|-13.40|
91732395|NCT03895372|183359423|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.68|-7.94||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-7.94|-13.68|
91701747|NCT03315455|183298177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|6.06||||0.3281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|18.4||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||18.40|-6.27|0.3281
91732396|NCT03685149|183359431|SUPERIORITY||percent reduction|72.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|82.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||82|56|<0.0001
91701748|NCT03315455|183298177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|14.01||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|26.59||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||26.59|1.44|0.0297
91701749|NCT03315455|183298180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-3.46||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.23|10.31||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||10.31|-17.23|0.6165
91701750|NCT03315455|183298180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-7.58||||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.48|6.33||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||6.33|-21.48|0.2797
91701751|NCT03315455|183298182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.05||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||0.09|-0.18|0.4890
91701752|NCT03315455|183298182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||0.06|-0.22|0.2454
91701753|NCT02407132|183298201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HbA1c from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value = 0.139; 12 months between-arms p-value = 0.013. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean HbA1c from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.038
91701754|NCT02407132|183298202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean BMI from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value = 0.552; 12 months between-arms p-value = 0.447. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean BMI from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.234
91701755|NCT02407132|183298203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean total chol from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value=0.598; 12 months between-arms p-value=0.073. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean Total Cholesterol (mg/dL) from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.019
91701756|NCT02407132|183298204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HDL from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value=0.009; 12 months between-arms p-value=0.201. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean HDL (mg/dL) from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.186
91701757|NCT02407132|183298205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.040
91701758|NCT02407132|183298206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed Effects Logistic Regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.312
91701759|NCT02407132|183298207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.622
91701760|NCT02407132|183298208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.957
91732397|NCT03685149|183359432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91732398|NCT03685149|183359433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91868953|NCT04941482|183631494|SUPERIORITY|Over 6 months, the number of patients who losted to follow-up of intervention and control group were respectively 9:0 (after 1 month), 9:0 (after 3 months), and 9:3 (after 6 months).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|14.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Barthel Index score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|14.7|-14.5|<0.05
91868954|NCT04941482|183631495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|3.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Physical domain score of Stroke Impact Scale before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|3.7|-18.8|<0.05
91868955|NCT04941482|183631496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-3.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Stroke Impact Scale score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|-0.3|-15.2|<0.05
91868956|NCT04200664|183631507|OTHER|Kendall tau b correlation analysis test was performed between the number of cognitive domains affected and the both ears 3-frequency pure tone average (at 0.5/1/2kHz) or both ears 4-frequency pure tone average (at 0.5/1/2/4kHz).|Kendall Tau-b|0.462||||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Kendall tau-b|Kendall tau b non-parametric correlation analysis was performed.||||||0.176
91868957|NCT00291694|183631509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
91868958|NCT00291694|183631510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups, two-sided. Endpoint not specifically powered for effect.||||0.053
91868959|NCT00291694|183631511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91868960|NCT00291694|183631512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91868961|NCT00291694|183631513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91732399|NCT03685149|183359434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.207
91732400|NCT02034565|183359451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|1.261||||||||1.261|0.756|
91732401|NCT02034565|183359452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.176||||||||1.176|0.938|
91732402|NCT02034565|183359453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.933|1.167||||||||1.167|0.933|
91732403|NCT03232567|183359464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2451|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2451
91868962|NCT03102034|183631563|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.0|90.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||90|56|
91732404|NCT03232567|183359464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0063
91732405|NCT03232567|183359464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0063
91732406|NCT03232567|183359465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4828
91732407|NCT03232567|183359465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0996|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0996
91732408|NCT03232567|183359465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0421
91732409|NCT03232567|183359467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0169|||||||Fisher Exact|||NasoVAX low dose vs placebo||||0.0169
91732410|NCT03232567|183359467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||NasoVAX medium dose vs placebo||||0.0063
91732411|NCT03232567|183359467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||NasoVAX high dose vs placebo||||<0.0001
91732412|NCT02655601|183359469|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791||||0.135|ONE_SIDED|95.0||95.0||Study was originally designed with 1 IA after approximately 42 deaths. An unplanned, 2nd IA was conducted to support a BTDR. The study was not terminated early as a result of either IAs. No further IA were conducted until the primary analysis.|Log Rank|89 study participants had passed away at the time of this analysis (41 in the RT/TMZ + BMX-001 arm and 48 in the Radiation Therapy/TMZ arm).||A 1-tailed logrank test was conducted at the 0.2 level. This test had 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.63 after 84 deaths were observed among the 160 randomized patients.||95||0.135
91732413|NCT02655601|183359481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.465|ONE_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 78 and 71 patients in Arms A and B, respectively, there was 80% power with a one-tailed chi-square test (α=0.05) to detect a reduction in grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia from 15% in Arm B (without BMX-001) to 3.7% in Arm A (with BMX-001). Given the small number of patients that experienced low platelet counts or thrombocytopenia, a one-tailed Fisher's exact test was performed instead.||||0.465
91732414|NCT02655601|183359482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978||||0.911|ONE_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A 1-tailed logrank test was conducted at the 0.2 level.||||0.911
91732415|NCT02655601|183359483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity adjusted Chi-Squared test was performed.||||||0.401
91732416|NCT02014376|183359489|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3699|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.3699
91701761|NCT02407132|183298209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.147
91701762|NCT02407132|183298210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.326
91701763|NCT01846221|183298214|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
91701764|NCT02304380|183298233|OTHER||Difference in differences|-0.0064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0469|0.034|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0340|-0.0469|
91701765|NCT02304380|183298234|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.0722|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0722|0.0290|
91701766|NCT02304380|183298235|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0109|0.0099|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0099|-0.0109|
91701767|NCT02304380|183298236|OTHER||Difference in differences|-0.0207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0318|0.0096||||||||0.0096|-0.0318|
91701768|NCT02304380|183298237|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0036|0.0289|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0289|0.0036|
91701769|NCT02304380|183298238|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0111|||||||Linear model difference in incidences.|0.0111|-0.0020|
91701770|NCT02304380|183298239|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0129|0.0431|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0431|-0.0129|
91732417|NCT04011241|183359497|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|173.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.58|195.21|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 17.6.|||195.21|154.58|
91701771|NCT02304380|183298240|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0328|0.0197|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0197|-0.0328|
91732418|NCT04011241|183359498|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|137.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.84|156.24|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 19.4.|||156.24|120.84|
91732419|NCT04011241|183359499|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|168.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.59|195.34|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 18.1.|||195.34|145.59|
91732420|NCT00086515|183359505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.53|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior AHA status (not on AHA, on monotherapy oral AHA, or on metformin-based oral combination AHA), and baseline A1C||||-0.53|-0.77|<0.001
91701772|NCT02304380|183298241|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0105|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0374|0.0163|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0163|-0.0374|
91701773|NCT02304380|183298242|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0031|0.0044|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0044|-0.0031|
91701774|NCT02304380|183298243|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1025|0.044||||Linear model difference in incidences.||||0.0440|-0.1025|
91701775|NCT02304380|183298244|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0579|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1492|0.0116|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0116|-0.1492|
91701776|NCT02304380|183298245|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.0134|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0134|0.0010|
91701777|NCT02304380|183298246|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0009|0.0107||||||||0.0107|0.0009|
91701778|NCT02304380|183298247|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0001|0.0106|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0106|0.0001|
91701779|NCT02304380|183298248|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0096|0.0017|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0017|-0.0096|
91701780|NCT02304380|183298249|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0178|-0.0043|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||-0.0043|-0.0178|
91701781|NCT02304380|183298250|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0036|0.0086|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0086|-0.0036|
91701782|NCT02304380|183298251|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.0284|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0284|0.0110|
91701783|NCT00328094|183298255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.97|||Chi-squared|||||1.97|0.85|0.23
91701784|NCT01349322|183298258|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is defined as a hazard ratio upper limit of 2.12.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.05|||Regression, Cox||Cause-specific hazard ratio; reference level = Arm 1.|"Assuming Arm 1 5-year IBR of 1.59%, for hypothesized upper bound hazard ratio (HR) of 2.12 (Arm 2 5-year IBR of 3.33%), 46 IBR events provide \>80% power to conclude non-inferiority with one-sided significance level = 0.05. Null hypothesis: HR ≥ 2.12 (inferior). Alternative hypothesis: HR \< 2.12 (non-inferior). See Limitations and Caveats section."||2.05|0.84|0.039
91701785|NCT01349322|183298259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.96
91701786|NCT01349322|183298260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.14
91701787|NCT01349322|183298261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.34
91732421|NCT00086515|183359506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-19.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior AHA status (not on AHA, on monotherapy oral AHA, or on metformin-based oral combination AHA), and baseline FPG||||-19.8|-31.0|<0.001
91868963|NCT03102034|183631563|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|47.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||47|3|
91701788|NCT01349322|183298263|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) of inferiority: the mean change in cosmetic subscale score in Arm 2 will be at least 0.4 standard deviations worse than in Arm 1. If H0 is rejected, then non-inferiority can be concluded.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13||One-side significance level = 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||0.13|-0.08|<0.0001
91732422|NCT00086515|183359507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.5|-40.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior AHA status (not on AHA, on monotherapy oral AHA, or on metformin-based oral combination AHA), and baseline 2-hour PMG||||-40.8|-60.5|<0.001
91732423|NCT01618708|183359527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.07|||=|0.7462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs Synvisc-One|Synvisc-One group was compared to placebo group using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach assuming missing data at random (MAR).||0.52|-0.38|= 0.7462
91732424|NCT02181413|183359561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|0.89|||Log Rank|P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, International Staging System (ISS) stage and response after transplantation.|HR was based on Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by pre-induction regimen, pre-induction ISS stage and response after transplantation. \<1 HR indicates better prevention of progression in Ixazomib arm compared to Placebo.|||0.890|0.582|0.002
91732425|NCT02181413|183359562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.025||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.332||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.332|0.789|0.850
91732426|NCT02181413|183359563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.466||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by pre-induction regimen, pre-induction international staging system (ISS), and response after transplantation at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and CI are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group as a categorical predictor variable and pre-induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation at screening as covariates.|CR||1.466|0.365|0.370
91732427|NCT02181413|183359564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|0.886||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||0.886|0.579|0.002
91701789|NCT04076059|183298273|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.222|||Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|||0.222|0.076|<0.0001
91701790|NCT04076059|183298274|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.556|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||0.556|0.196|<0.0001
91701791|NCT04076059|183298275|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.789||||0.7279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|2.998|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||2.998|0.208|0.7279
91701792|NCT04076059|183298276|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.276|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||0.276|0.107|<0.0001
91732428|NCT02181413|183359565|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.298||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.298|0.795|0.902
91732429|NCT02181413|183359566|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.833||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.005|||Log Rank|P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.005|0.690|0.056
91701793|NCT04076059|183298277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||||0.0036
91701794|NCT04076059|183298278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||||<0.0001
91701795|NCT04076059|183298279|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.797||||0.5899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.819|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||1.819|0.350|0.5899
91701796|NCT04076059|183298280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|66.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||66.9|40.1|<0.0001
91868964|NCT03102034|183631564|OTHER||% vaccinees with unsolicited AEs|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|44.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||44|10|
91868965|NCT03102034|183631564|OTHER||% placebo with unsolicited AEs|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|36.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||36|0|
91868966|NCT03102034|183631569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91868967|NCT03102034|183631570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91868968|NCT00989196|183631601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For the comparison of the PK profile of Human-cl rhFVIII with Kogenate, the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio or log-ratio of Human-cl rhFVIII over Kogenate for selected, dose independent or dose adjusted, PK parameters will be presented. In addition a formal statistical procedure will test whether the ratio of mean AUCs is within a 80 to 125% range to show bioequivalence.|Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.107||||||||1.107|0.874|
91868969|NCT05251363|183631617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test|||Ho: SADE-free rate ≤ 87.5% Ha: SADE-free rate \> 87.5% Used an exact binomial test comparing the observed proportion (overall SADE-free rate through 3 months) to the performance goal of 87.5%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall SADE-free rate must be greater than 87.5% to reject the null hypothesis (Ho), which would demonstrate evidence that the SADE-free rate is significantly higher than 87.5%.||||<0.0001
91732430|NCT02181413|183359567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.129||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage, and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.129|0.753|0.431
91701797|NCT04076059|183298281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-5.2||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||14.9|-25.4|0.8312
91701798|NCT04186806|183298282|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 1.5 cm|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3426|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2601|0.5749||The conclusion of the non-inferiority test is based on the 95% confidence interval and not on a p value. A p value was not computed.|Mixed Models Analysis||Non-inferiority testing was carried out using 95% confidence intervals.|||0.5749|-1.2601|
91701799|NCT02720744|183298341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|8.75||Each outcome measure for the 9.0 g, 7.5 g, and 6.0 g doses were tested at the 2-sided α level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-values were estimated using an MMRM with change from baseline (or its log transformation).|Difference from placebo was defined by the FT218 mean value minus placebo value.|||8.75|3.52|<0.001
91701800|NCT02720744|183298342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|11.23||Each outcome measure for the 9.0 g, 7.5 g, and 6.0 g doses were tested at the 2-sided α level of 0.05.|GLIMMIX model|P-values estimated with categorized CGI-Improvement response (very much or much improved versus other category) at the specific visit.||||11.23|2.76|<0.001
91701801|NCT02720744|183298343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|-3.98||Each outcome measure for the 9.0 g, 7.5 g, and 6.0 g doses were tested at the 2-sided α level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-values were estimated using an MMRM with change from baseline to the end of the respective treatment period.||||-3.98|-9.32|<0.001
91701802|NCT02122770|183298344|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.6|118.05||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric least square (LS) means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||118.05|82.60|
91701803|NCT02122770|183298345|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|110.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.34|118.69||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||118.69|102.34|
91701804|NCT02122770|183298346|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|110.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.53|119.43||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||119.43|102.53|
91701805|NCT02122770|183298347|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|113.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.35|149.74||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||149.74|85.35|
91868970|NCT05251363|183631618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test|||H0: Implant Success Rate ≤ 80% Ha: Implant Success Rate \> 80% Used an exact binomial test comparing the observed proportion (implant success rate) to the performance goal of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall implant success rate must be greater than 80% to reject the null hypothesis (Ho), which would demonstrate evidence that the rate of successful Solia S LBBA implants is significantly higher than 80.0%.||||< 0.0001
91701806|NCT02122770|183298347|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|159.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.97|282.96||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference||282.96|89.97|
91701807|NCT02122770|183298347|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|77.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.19|108.17||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||108.17|55.19|
91701808|NCT02122770|183298348|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|121.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.92|133.24||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||133.24|110.92|
91701809|NCT02122770|183298348|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|130.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.99|158.35||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference||158.35|106.99|
91701810|NCT02122770|183298348|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|101.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|113.23||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||113.23|90.72|
91701811|NCT02122770|183298349|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|122.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.13|134.82||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||134.82|112.13|
91701812|NCT02122770|183298349|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|130.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.99|158.35||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference||158.35|106.99|
91701813|NCT02122770|183298349|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|100.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.14|111.68||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||111.68|91.14|
91701814|NCT00767039|183298402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).|t-test, 2 sided|||Respiratory support were compared using a t-test for individual time points and Generalized Linear Model to account for correlations among repeated measures. Patient who survive \>/= 3 days were included in the analysis.||||< 0.05
91701815|NCT00767039|183298403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.95|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.95|0.19|<0.05
91701816|NCT00767039|183298404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).||||<0.05
91701817|NCT00767039|183298405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.96|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.96|0.25|<0.05
91701818|NCT00767039|183298406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.38|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.38|1.29|<0.01
91701819|NCT00767039|183298407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91701820|NCT00767039|183298408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).||||<0.05
91701821|NCT00767039|183298409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).||||<0.05
91732431|NCT02181413|183359568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.45|||||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.450|0.959|
91868971|NCT05251363|183631619|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Improvement in QOL Physical Function Scale ≤ 2.8 Ha: Improvement in QOL Physical Function Scale \> 2.8 Exact one-sample t-test comparing mean improvement in QOL from baseline to 12-mo post-implant to a goal of +2.8. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the improvement in QOL must be \> +2.8 to reject H0.||||<0.001
91868972|NCT03070392|183631631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.37|<0.0001
91701822|NCT00767039|183298410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91701823|NCT00767039|183298411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.89|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.89|0.71|>0.05
91701824|NCT00767039|183298412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.63|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.63|0.84|>0.05
91701825|NCT02505334|183298413|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg/day vs. liraglutide 0.9 mg/day was to be considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg/day minus liraglutide 0.9 mg/day) for change from baseline in HbA1c (% of HbA1c) was entirely below 0%, equivalent to a one-sided test with significance level of 2.5%.|Treatment difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Missing data was imputed using the LOCF method. The change from baseline in the response after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline response as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.55|<0.0001
91868973|NCT03070392|183631633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.58|0.0139
91701826|NCT02945254|183298507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
91701827|NCT02945254|183298508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91701828|NCT01711619|183298509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal alpha of 4% was predefined for the final analysis.|Fisher Exact|||Subjects with missing information were considered in the test and computation of the proportion for ITT.||||<0.0001
91701829|NCT01711619|183298510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal alpha of 5% was pre-defined for the final analysis.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.0001
91701830|NCT01711619|183298511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Nominal alpha of 5% was pre-defined for the final analysis.|Fisher Exact|||Subjects with missing information were considered in the test and computation for ITT.||||0.0002
91701831|NCT01711619|183298512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal alpha of 5% was pre-defined for the final analysis.|Fisher Exact|||Subjects with missing information were considered in the test and computation for ITT.||||<0.0001
91701832|NCT00783224|183298513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91701833|NCT00783224|183298513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91701834|NCT03422159|183298514|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on the results of the preliminary study of Marik et al, 5 we projected that the combination of ascorbic acid, thiamine, and hydrocortisone could reduce time to vasopressor discontinuation from 54 (+/-30 hours) vs 30 hours. For the additional primary outcome, we projected a greater change of SOFA score of 4 (+/-3) vs 2. Assuming a type 1 error of 5% (alpha of 0.05) and a power of 80%, this study would require a sample size of 94 patients.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91868974|NCT03861052|183631649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.27|<0.001
91701835|NCT01432275|183298548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Binomial test|Comparison to 27 participants that preferred their usual method to FreeStyle InsuLinx. Twelve(12) participants did not have a preference.||||||<0.0001
91701836|NCT01935700|183298556|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as no statistically significant difference (P value \> 0.05) in median survival between the colchicine group and the sorafenib treated group.||||||0.4593|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.4593
91701837|NCT01935700|183298556|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as no statistically significant difference (P value \> 0.05) in survival between the colchicine group and the sorafenib treated group.||||||0.329|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3290
91701838|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0552||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of pneumonia between two groups||||0.0552
91701839|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0184||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of biliary tract obstruction between two groups||||0.0184
91701840|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0931||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of cholangitis between two groups||||0.0931
91701841|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0506||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of peritonitis between two groups||||0.0506
91701842|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of sepsis between two groups||||1
91701843|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.5374||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of diarrhea between two groups||||0.5374
91701844|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of anorexia between two groups||||0.14
91701845|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.4584||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of abdominal pain between two groups||||0.4584
91701846|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of skin rash between two groups||||1
91732432|NCT02181413|183359570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||P-value was based on Fisher's exact test comparing conversion to MRD- at any time post study entry between treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.814
91701847|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome between two groups||||1
91701848|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hypertension between two groups||||1
91701849|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.5958||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hemorrhage between two groups||||0.5958
91701850|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hypoglycemia between two groups||||0.14
91701851|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hyperglycemia between two groups||||1
91701852|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hypocalcemia between two groups||||1
91701853|NCT01935700|183298557|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of pleural effusion between two groups||||1
91701854|NCT00475878|183298558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|.33|.19
91701855|NCT00475878|183298559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|5.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.84|-2.79|.18
91701856|NCT01438814|183298586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One-sided test relative to 0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.13|<0.0001
91701857|NCT01438814|183298586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8924||95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.13|0.8924
91701858|NCT01438814|183298587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8201||95.0|0.672|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c||||1.370|0.672|0.8201
91701859|NCT01438814|183298588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.022||||0.9397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.796|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes treatment and baseline HbA1c.||||1.796|0.582|0.9397
91732433|NCT02181413|183359571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||P-value was based on fisher's exact test comparing conversion to MRD- at any time post study entry between treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.805
91732434|NCT02181413|183359572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.612||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.969||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD- at Study Entry||0.969|0.386|0.034
91732435|NCT02181413|183359572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.92||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD+ at Study Entry||0.920|0.539|0.010
91732436|NCT02181413|183359573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.184||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD- at Study Entry||1.184|0.414|0.182
91732437|NCT02181413|183359573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.966||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.368||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD+ at Study Entry||1.368|0.682|0.847
91732438|NCT02181413|183359574|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.613||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.613|0.583|0.905
91732439|NCT02181413|183359579|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was from the significance test for the coefficient of the interaction between treatment and visit.||||0.2|-4.9|0.074
91732440|NCT04603560|183359634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.66|||||The odds ratio represents Social Norming vs Control.|Generalized estimating equation adjusting for clustering of patients within providers as well as provider panel size||1.66|0.54|
91732441|NCT04603560|183359634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.29|||||The odds ratio represents Pharmacist E-Detailing vs Control.|Generalized estimating equation adjusting for clustering of patients within providers as well as provider panel size||2.29|0.72|
91732442|NCT04603560|183359634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.56|||||The odds ratio represents Pharmacist e-detailing vs Social Norming.|Generalized estimating equation adjusting for clustering of patients within providers as well as provider panel size.||2.56|0.74|
91868975|NCT03861052|183631649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.08|-1.45|<0.001
91732443|NCT03514134|183359643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA||||||<0.001
91732444|NCT03514134|183359644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA||||||0.358
91732445|NCT03514134|183359645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA||||||0.029
91732446|NCT03514134|183359646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91732447|NCT03514134|183359646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91868976|NCT03861052|183631649|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.35|-1.71|<0.001
91732448|NCT03514134|183359647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Group by time interaction|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.70
91732449|NCT00775658|183359668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Before the study, we determined that a sample size of 18 would be adequate to detect a 20% difference in wheal and flare areas with 80% power and a significance level of 0.05.||||0.57
91732450|NCT00775658|183359669|SUPERIORITY|Sample size determined that 18 participants would provide 80% power to detect a 20% difference with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91732451|NCT04033640|183359716|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||K-sample test|The p-value was calculated using a nonparametric k-sample test on the equality of medians.||Comparison of SD Biosensor POC G6PD test results for capillary and venous samples||||<0.001
91732452|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20458||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6506|0.1809|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with sequence, period, regimen and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1809|-0.6506|0.259
91732453|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22075||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4853|0.4119|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4119|-0.4853|0.869
91868977|NCT03861052|183631650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|21.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.55|4.53|<0.001
91868978|NCT03861052|183631650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.73|54.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.71|7.73|<0.001
91868979|NCT03861052|183631650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|85.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|460.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||460.58|15.80|<0.001
91868980|NCT03861052|183631651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.1|-30.7|<0.001
91868981|NCT03861052|183631651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.8|-37.5|<0.001
91701860|NCT01438814|183298589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.3352||95.0|-2.1|6.1|||ANCOVA|||||6.1|-2.1|0.3352
91868982|NCT03861052|183631651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|30.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.9|-40.6|<0.001
91868983|NCT03861052|183631652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-13.2|||ANCOVA|||||-13.2|-21.4|<0.001
91868984|NCT03861052|183631652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-17.9|||ANCOVA|||||-17.9|-26.1|<0.001
91868985|NCT03861052|183631652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-22.2|||ANCOVA|||||-22.2|-30.5|<0.001
91701861|NCT01438814|183298590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308|||||||Fisher Exact|Fishers exact p-value presented due to small cell counts||||||0.0308
91701862|NCT01438814|183298591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0545||95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.0|0.0545
91701863|NCT01438814|183298592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.997||||0.9886||95.0|0.689|1.445|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.445|0.689|0.9886
91701864|NCT01438814|183298593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.797||||0.2108||95.0|0.558|1.137|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.137|0.558|0.2108
91868986|NCT03861052|183631653|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.1|-6.4|<0.001
91868987|NCT03861052|183631653|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.8|-9.1|<0.001
91868988|NCT03861052|183631653|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.0|-11.3|<0.001
91868989|NCT03861052|183631654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|26.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.46|7.88|<0.001
91701865|NCT01438814|183298594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.9972||95.0|0.712|1.402|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.402|0.712|0.9972
91701866|NCT01438814|183298595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.832||||0.2816||95.0|0.594|1.163|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.163|0.594|0.2816
91701867|NCT01438814|183298596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0011||95.0|0.25|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|0.25|0.0011
91701868|NCT01438814|183298597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.951||||0.7682||95.0|0.681|1.328|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.328|0.681|0.7682
91701869|NCT03887429|183298608|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||It was hypothesized that treatment with SXC-2023 would reduce impulsivity as measured by SSRT in chronic cigarette smokers abstaining from nicotine for 5 days.||||=.009
91701870|NCT03887429|183298609|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.015|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||It was hypothesized that 5 days of nicotine abstinence in chronic cigarette smokers would result in increased risk taking behavior as measured using DAVT in subjects receiving placebo as treatment.||||=.015
91701871|NCT03887429|183298609|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||It was hypothesized that 5 days of nicotine abstinence in chronic cigarette smokers would not result in increased risk taking behavior as measured using DAVT in subjects treated with SXC-2023.||||>.1
91701872|NCT05238025|183298617|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio resulting from a Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by age group. It is demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for VE is above 20%|Vaccine Efficacy|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|71.9||||||||71.9|-16.1|
91732454|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20968||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6441|0.2081|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2081|-0.6441|0.306
91759182|NCT04038567|183411375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|7.47||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||7.47|-4.92|
91868990|NCT03861052|183631654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.12|87.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||87.45|23.12|<0.001
91868991|NCT03861052|183631654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|82.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.84|171.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||171.52|39.84|<0.001
91868992|NCT03861052|183631655|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.28|-3.67|<0.001
91868993|NCT03861052|183631655|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.11|-4.43|<0.001
91868994|NCT03861052|183631655|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.25|-4.55|<0.001
91868995|NCT03861052|183631656|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.40|<0.001
91868996|NCT03861052|183631656|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.53|<0.001
91868997|NCT03861052|183631656|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.51|<0.001
91868998|NCT03861052|183631657|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.4|10.7|<0.001
91868999|NCT03861052|183631657|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.3|14.9|<0.001
91869000|NCT03861052|183631657|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.7|18.1|<0.001
91796897|NCT02038452|183472850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.87|0.22|0.018
91796898|NCT02038452|183472853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.23|-0.11|0.500
91796899|NCT02038452|183472854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.33|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.33|-0.07|0.21
91796900|NCT02038452|183472855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.166|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.166|-0.175|0.96
91796901|NCT02038452|183472856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.59|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||1.59|-0.02|0.055
91796902|NCT02038452|183472857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||2.20|0.55|0.76
91796903|NCT02038452|183472858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||3.77|0.73|0.23
91796904|NCT02038452|183472859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||3.98|0.41|0.66
91869001|NCT03861052|183631658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.2|11.7|<0.001
91869002|NCT03861052|183631658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|36.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||36.0|18.0|<0.001
91905122|NCT03670953|183705871|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||LSM, SE, CI and p-value from a MMRM with CFB in MDS-UPDRS Part III Score as outcome, baseline MDS-UPDRS Part III Score as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect and a treatment-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||1.7|-1.8|0.9587
91701873|NCT05238025|183298618|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio resulting from a Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by age group. It is demonstrated if the first primary outcome is met and the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for VE is above 20%|Vaccine Efficacy|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|74.3|||||Not formally tested, since the first primary outcome was not met|||74.3|34.7|
91796905|NCT02038452|183472860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|7.34|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||7.34|0.28|0.66
91796906|NCT02038452|183472861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||3.18|0.63|0.40
91796907|NCT02038452|183472862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.66|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||5.66|0.70|0.20
91796908|NCT02038452|183472863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.53|0.001
91796909|NCT02038452|183472864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.24||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.17|0.74
91796910|NCT02038452|183472865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.12||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.30|0.41
91796911|NCT02038452|183472866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.16|0.58
91869003|NCT03861052|183631658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.4|22.0|<0.001
91869004|NCT03678688|183631687|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|0.939|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||0.939|0.485|
91869005|NCT03678688|183631687|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|0.911|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||0.911|0.467|
91732455|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17956||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6174|0.1124|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1124|-0.6174|0.169
91796912|NCT02038452|183472867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.24||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-1.72|0.009
91796913|NCT02038452|183472868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.54||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-0.02|0.058
91732456|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0417|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19375||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4354|0.3521|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3521|-0.4354|0.831
91732457|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18403||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6161|0.1319|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1319|-0.6161|0.197
91732458|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1618||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4443|0.2133|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2133|-0.4443|0.480
91732459|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17458||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1875|0.5221|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.5221|-0.1875|0.345
91732460|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16583||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4874|0.1866|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1866|-0.4874|0.371
91732461|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1731|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18808||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5553|0.2092|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2092|-0.5553|0.364
91732462|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20294||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2762|0.5486|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.5486|-0.2762|0.507
91732463|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19276||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6381|0.1453|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1453|-0.6381|0.210
91732464|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14253||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5955|-0.0162|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.0162|-0.5955|0.039
91732465|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1538||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2991|0.326|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3260|-0.2991|0.931
91732466|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14608||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4133|0.1804|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1804|-0.4133|0.431
91796914|NCT02038452|183472869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.85||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.85|-0.79|0.95
91869006|NCT03678688|183631687|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|1.051|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||1.051|0.517|
91869007|NCT03678688|183631687|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.02|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||1.020|0.497|
91869008|NCT03678688|183631687|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.973|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||0.973|0.567|
91869009|NCT03678688|183631687|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|0.943|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||0.943|0.547|
91869010|NCT03678688|183631687|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|0.896|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||0.896|0.353|
91701874|NCT05238025|183298619|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio resulting from a Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by age group. It is demonstrated if both primary outcomes are met and the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for VE is above 20%|Vaccine Efficacy|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|64.7|||||Not formally tested, since the first primary outcome was not met|||64.7|25.8|
91701875|NCT02419612|183298641|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for for treatment, baseline HbA1c, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction.||||-0.18|-0.57|<0.001
91701876|NCT02419612|183298642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for for treatment, baseline body weight, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline body weight-by-visit interaction.||||-3.28|-4.84|<0.001
91701877|NCT02419612|183298643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.044||95.0|1.01|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c value||||2.29|1.01|0.044
91701878|NCT02419612|183298644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline SBP, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline SBP-by-visit interaction||||-1.0|-6.3|0.007
91701879|NCT02419612|183298645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.5||This endpoint did not meet the required number of events (n=10) in each treatment arm, hence was excluded from sequential testing.|Regression, Cox Proportional Hazards|||Time to treatment intensification was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model.||0.50|0.04|0.002
91701880|NCT02419612|183298646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68|||Regression, Cox Proportional Hazards|||Time to treatment intensification was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model.||0.68|0.39|<0.001
91701881|NCT02419612|183298647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.42|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c value.||||3.42|1.23|0.006
91701882|NCT02419612|183298648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68|||Regression, Cox Proportional Hazards|||||0.68|0.39|<0.001
91701883|NCT00191282|183298698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.866||95.0|||||Log Rank|||To achieve 80% power, 490 pts need to experience primary combined CV outcome to detect diff. between treatments, assuming: \>=18.5% reduction in incidence of outcomes, 18 mo. pt recruitment, 18 mo. pt follow-up, 10% annual drop-out rate, 2-yr outcome incidence rate of \>=40% (pts in least efficacious treatment), and nominal 2-sided signif. of 0.045.||||0.866
91732467|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13362||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5985|-0.0554|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.0554|-0.5985|0.020
91701884|NCT00191282|183298699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.715||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.715
91701885|NCT00191282|183298700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.914||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.914
91701886|NCT00191282|183298701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.706||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.706
91701887|NCT00191282|183298702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.982||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.982
91701888|NCT00191282|183298703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.816||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.816
91701889|NCT00191282|183298704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.948||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.948
91701890|NCT00191282|183298705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.581||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.581
91701891|NCT00191282|183298706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.647||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.647
91701892|NCT00191282|183298707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.525||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.525
91701893|NCT00191282|183298708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.800
91701894|NCT00191282|183298709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.662||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.662
91701895|NCT00191282|183298710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.863||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.863
91701896|NCT00191282|183298711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.471||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.471
91701897|NCT00191282|183298712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7168||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7168
91701898|NCT00191282|183298714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0860
91701899|NCT00191282|183298716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1424||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1424
91701900|NCT00191282|183298719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1957||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1957
91701901|NCT00191282|183298721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2434||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2434
91701902|NCT00191282|183298723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2617||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2617
91701903|NCT02921750|183298760|NON_INFERIORITY|In this non-inferiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 95% confidence interval, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test, for between-treatment differences (Exufiber - Aquacel Extra) in the mean percentage area change from baseline to 6 weeks. This means that if the lower limit of this confidence interval was found to be greater than 12%, non-inferiority will be established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.4||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|3.2|||Fisher Exact|||||3.2|-63.5|0.093
91869011|NCT03678688|183631687|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.871|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||0.871|0.338|
91869012|NCT03678688|183631727|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|3.175|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||3.175|0.626|
91869013|NCT03678688|183631727|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|2.151|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||2.151|0.362|
91869014|NCT03678688|183631727|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.385|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|2.656|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||2.656|0.736|
91701904|NCT04676412|183298768|OTHER|Percent difference and 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen and Nurminen method with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Difference in percentage|-8.4||||0.79262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|11.9|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentage =0 versus H1: difference in percentage \> 0||||11.9|-27.4|0.79262
91701905|NCT04676412|183298771|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.25||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|8.09|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||8.09|-8.59|0.9519
91701906|NCT04676412|183298772|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|8.81||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|18.11|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||18.11|-0.49|0.0628
91869015|NCT03678688|183631727|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.385|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|2.206|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||2.206|0.564|
91869016|NCT00799409|183631768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-22.3||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score adjusted by Hochberg's step up procedure|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-22.3|-35.0|<0.0001
91869017|NCT00799409|183631769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-22.2||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score adjusted by Hochberg's step up procedure|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-22.2|-34.4|<0.0001
91732468|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14418||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3775|0.2085|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2085|-0.3775|0.562
91732469|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13695||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.1056|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1056|-0.4510|0.216
91701907|NCT04676412|183298773|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|3.59||||0.3298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.87|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||10.87|-3.70|0.3298
91701908|NCT04676412|183298774|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|-0.28||||0.9594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|10.75|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||10.75|-11.32|0.9594
91732470|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17609||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3663|0.3495|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3495|-0.3663|0.962
91732471|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19001||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4218|0.3505|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3505|-0.4218|0.852
91732472|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18048||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5822|0.1514|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1514|-0.5822|0.241
91796915|NCT02038452|183472870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.26||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-0.45|0.35
91869018|NCT00799409|183631770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|7.4||P-Values are determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-Values at each timepoint are determined by using contrast statements in the repeated measures mixed model.|Placebo minus CONCERTA|||7.4|4.3|<0.0001
91869019|NCT00799409|183631771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|6.5||P-Values are determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-Values at each timepoint are determined by using contrast statements in the repeated measures mixed model.|Placebo minus CONCERTA|||6.5|3.8|<0.0001
91869020|NCT00799409|183631772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|13.3||P-Values are determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-Values at each timepoint are determined by using contrast statements in the repeated measures mixed model.|Placebo minus CONCERTA|||13.3|8.7|<0.0001
91732473|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17766||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4991|0.223|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2230|-0.4991|0.443
91732474|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1917||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5933|0.1859|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1859|-0.5933|0.295
91732475|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18209||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4303|0.3098|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3098|-0.4303|0.743
91732476|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16068||0.277||95.0|-0.504|0.1491|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1491|-0.5040|0.277
91905123|NCT03670953|183705872|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||LSM, SE, CI \& p-value from MMRM with CFB in MDS-UPDRS Part II \& III Scores as outcome, baseline MDS-UPDRS Part II and III Scores as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect \& a treatment-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||2.1|-2.2|0.9668
91905124|NCT00937937|183705874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||1-year overall survival estimate|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.49||||||one-year overall survival estimate.||0.49|0.27|
91732477|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0539|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17338||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4062|0.2985|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2985|-0.4062|0.758
91732478|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16468||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7724|-0.1031|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.1031|-0.7724|0.012
91869021|NCT00799409|183631773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-2.59||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-2.59|-3.72|<0.0001
91905125|NCT00937937|183705875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||6-month PFS estimate|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15||||||6-month PFS estimate.||0.15|0.03|
91701909|NCT04676412|183298775|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|-5.53||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|2.31|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||2.31|-13.37|0.1620
91701910|NCT04676412|183298776|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.26|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.26|0.47|0.9419
91701911|NCT04676412|183298777|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.38|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.38|0.43|0.9789
91701912|NCT04676412|183298778|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.28|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||3.28|0.36|0.8856
91701913|NCT04676412|183298779|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.75|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||3.75|0.64|0.3264
91701914|NCT04676412|183298780|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.46|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.46|0.70|0.4068
91869022|NCT00799409|183631774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-16.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.99|-12.06||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-12.06|-19.99|<0.0001
91869023|NCT00799409|183631775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|-17.47||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-17.47|-27.43|<0.0001
91905126|NCT00054704|183705878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.182||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|0.934||A linear mixed model included drug, visit and their interaction as fixed factors. Subject was a random factor. The test here is for the main effect of drug.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline score was a covariate. Restricted maximum likelihood estimates were used with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||The primary intent of this study was to compare the efficacy of riluzole to placebo in the treatment of overall depressive symptomatology of bipolar disorder subjects who were acutely depressed. Data from 8 riluzole and 11 placebo participants were analyzed due to missing data for one riluzole patient.||0.934|-12.590|.086
91905127|NCT05368961|183705927|OTHER|Null hypothesis; there is no difference in anxiety scores between usual care and distraction||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91905128|NCT05714982|183705936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
91732479|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14849||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4055|0.1981|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1981|-0.4055|0.490
91732480|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16023||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4263|0.2249|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2249|-0.4263|0.534
91732481|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15219||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5233|0.0953|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0953|-0.5233|0.169
91732482|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14118||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|0.0228|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0228|-0.5510|0.070
91869024|NCT00799409|183631776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.16||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.16|-1.69|0.1800
91732483|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15234||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.2242|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2242|-0.3950|0.579
91905129|NCT05714982|183705936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||General linear model|||||||.78
91905130|NCT05714982|183705937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
91905131|NCT05714982|183705937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||General linear model|||||||.66
91905132|NCT05714982|183705938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
91905133|NCT05714982|183705938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
91732484|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1447||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5387|0.0494|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0494|-0.5387|0.100
91732485|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13533||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.055|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0550|-0.4950|0.113
91869025|NCT00799409|183631777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.4||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.40|-2.25|0.0057
91905134|NCT05714982|183705939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||.001
91905135|NCT05714982|183705939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||General linear model|||||||.95
91905136|NCT05714982|183705940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
91905137|NCT05714982|183705940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
91905138|NCT05714982|183705941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.0001
91905139|NCT05714982|183705941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
91905140|NCT05714982|183705942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
91905141|NCT05714982|183705942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||General linear model|||||||.4
91905142|NCT05714982|183705943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||General linear model|||||||.03
91905143|NCT05714982|183705943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||General linear model|||||||.4
91905144|NCT05714982|183705944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||General linear model|||||||.61
91905145|NCT05714982|183705944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||General linear model|||||||.68
91905146|NCT05714982|183705945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||General linear model|||||||.4
91905147|NCT05714982|183705945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||General linear model|||||||.5
91905148|NCT05714982|183705946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||.001
91905149|NCT05714982|183705946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||General linear model|||||||.9
91869026|NCT00799409|183631778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.05|1.44||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||1.44|-14.05|0.1091
91869027|NCT00799409|183631779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.2653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.20|-0.70|0.2653
91869028|NCT00799409|183631780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.49||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|-2.17||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-2.17|-10.81|0.0038
91869029|NCT00799409|183631781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.75||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|-2.53||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-2.53|-6.96|0.0001
91869030|NCT00799409|183631782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.76||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|-1.47||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-1.47|-10.04|0.0092
91701915|NCT04676412|183298781|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|35.62|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||35.62|1.71|0.0020
91869031|NCT00799409|183631783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.9195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.33|-0.37|0.9195
91869032|NCT00799409|183631784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-19.39||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-19.39|-59.70|0.0002
91869033|NCT00799409|183631785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.04||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.04|-0.13|0.0002
91869034|NCT00799409|183631786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.03|-0.07|0.4625
91869035|NCT00799409|183631787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.05||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.05|-0.09|0.6262
91869036|NCT00799409|183631788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.08|-0.08|0.9980
91701916|NCT04676412|183298782|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.71084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.25|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of enrolling site and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.25|0.61|0.71084
91869037|NCT00799409|183631789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.02|-0.19|0.0151
91869038|NCT00799409|183631790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.03||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.03|-0.15|0.0043
91869039|NCT00799409|183631791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.00|-0.08|0.0371
91869040|NCT00799409|183631792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.01|-0.06|0.0965
91869041|NCT04323800|183631793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.42|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided p-value|Restricted Mean Survival Test statistic|||||||0.42
91869042|NCT04323800|183631794|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|19.0|||Chi-squared|||||19|-31|0.67
91869043|NCT04323800|183631795|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-47.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-100|0.06
91869044|NCT02949297|183631834|OTHER|One-sided Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence interval|Clopper-Pearson|80.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||95.0|||||One-sided Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence interval|||95||
91705529|NCT04494425|183305651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.75|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test.|HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitor use (yes versus no) and HER2 IHC expression (IHC 1+ versus IHC 2+/ISH-) and ties handled by Efron approach.|||0.75|0.52|<0.0001
91705530|NCT02242019|183305689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91705531|NCT02242019|183305690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91869045|NCT00731692|183631849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.80|0.544
91869046|NCT00458783|183631864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) distinct-effects model||||1.2|0.50|0.08
91869047|NCT00458783|183631865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.6||||||||1.6|0.25|
91869048|NCT00458783|183631866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.0||||||||2.0|0.26|
91869049|NCT00458783|183631867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.4||||||||1.4|0.59|
91869050|NCT00458783|183631868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.8||||||||1.8|0.43|
91869051|NCT00458783|183631869|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.8||||||||2.8|0.24|
91869052|NCT00458783|183631870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||||||||1.5|0.80|
91869053|NCT00458783|183631871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.1||||||||1.1|0.16|
91869054|NCT00458783|183631872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.7||||||||1.7|0.39|
91869055|NCT00458783|183631873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||||||||1.3|0.50|
91701917|NCT04676412|183298783|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.8197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.87|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of enrolling site and baseline PD-L1 status.||HR and 95% CIs were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).||3.87|0.61|0.81970
91701918|NCT04765722|183298794|SUPERIORITY||% change relative to placebo|18.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|160.1||The model included treatment group, week, the interaction between treatment group and week, and baseline log-transformed 24-hour cough frequency as fixed effects.|Generalized estimating equations|Hypothesis tests were two-sided, a p\<0.05 indicated statistical significance. We made no adjustments for multiple comparisons across outcomes.||The primary outcome was the change from baseline in log-transformed 24-hour cough frequency (coughs/hour) at week 14.||160.1|-46.4|0.99
91701919|NCT01458951|183298810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|13.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.9|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using non-responder imputation (NRI).||17.9|8.1|0.0005
91701920|NCT01458951|183298811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|16.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|24.1|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||24.1|9.5|0.0002
91701921|NCT01458951|183298812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|36.0|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||36.0|16.8|<0.0001
91701922|NCT01458951|183298813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|5.2||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.6|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||8.6|1.8|0.0425
91701923|NCT01458951|183298814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.2||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|18.1|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference in its percentage and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||18.1|8.3|0.0004
91701924|NCT01458951|183298815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|8.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.2|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||12.2|3.9|0.0090
91701925|NCT01458951|183298816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|3.3||||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.6|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||6.6|0.1|0.1408
91701926|NCT01458951|183298818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.||-0.6|-1.4|<0.0001
91701927|NCT01458951|183298818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.||-0.7|-1.6|<0.0001
91701928|NCT01458951|183298818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.||-0.9|-1.7|<0.0001
91732486|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14603||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3495|0.244|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2440|-0.3495|0.720
91869056|NCT00458783|183631874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.2||||||||3.2|0.18|
91701929|NCT01458951|183298819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group, prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region as factors and baseline as a covariate based on the observed-case data.||-1.0|-2.2|<0.0001
91701930|NCT00585013|183298820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value applies to all time points for all variables.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91869057|NCT00458783|183631875|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||Regression, Cox||The 95%CI is interim adjusted.|||1.29|0.94|0.9
91701931|NCT00585013|183298821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies for measurements at preoperative and 0 h time points.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91869058|NCT00458783|183631876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18|||Regression, Cox||The 95%CI is interim adjusted.|||1.18|0.85|0.07
91732487|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1387||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4649|0.0989|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0989|-0.4649|0.196
91732488|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20032||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6122|0.202|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2020|-0.6122|0.313
91732489|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21616||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.4646|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4646|-0.4140|0.908
91732490|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20531||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7214|0.1131|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1131|-0.7214|0.148
91732491|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17997||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7066|0.0249|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0249|-0.7066|0.067
91732492|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19419||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4599|0.3294|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3294|-0.4599|0.739
91732493|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18445||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7912|-0.0415|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.0415|-0.7912|0.031
91732494|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14369||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4952|0.0888|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0888|-0.4952|0.166
91732495|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15504||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2219|0.4083|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4083|-0.2219|0.552
91732496|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14727||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4641|0.1345|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1345|-0.4641|0.271
91732497|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16169||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5802|0.077|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0770|-0.5802|0.129
91732498|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17447||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2266|0.4825|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4825|-0.2266|0.468
91732499|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16572||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5401|0.1334|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1334|-0.5401|0.228
91732500|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13268||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4696|0.0696|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0696|-0.4696|0.141
91732501|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14317||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2975|0.2844|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2844|-0.2975|0.964
91869059|NCT01737398|183631877|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.73||||4e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|-13.03|||MMRM|||||-13.03|-26.43|0.00000004
91905150|NCT05714982|183705947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2||||||||1.2|.73|
91701932|NCT00585013|183298821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies to measurements at time points 12 h, 24 h, and 48 h.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91701933|NCT00585013|183298822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies to measurements at preoperative, 0 h, and 48 h time points.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91701934|NCT00585013|183298822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies to time points at 12 h and 24 h.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91701935|NCT00585013|183298823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Applies to all time points.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91701936|NCT03309696|183298828|EQUIVALENCE|A p value of \<.0.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value is not adjusted because it was a planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active tDCS - sham tDCS.|Examines the effect of tDCS preconditioning on P100 amplitudes. The effect size for this comparison was .33 (Cohen's).||||.055
91732502|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13599||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4699|0.0828|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0828|-0.4699|0.164
91732503|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13315||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4152|0.126|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1260|-0.4152|0.285
91732504|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14368||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3096|0.2744|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2744|-0.3096|0.903
91732505|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13647||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4388|0.1159|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1159|-0.4388|0.245
91732506|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45708||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|1.2948|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.2948|-0.5630|0.429
91732507|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49321||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9628|1.0419|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.0419|-0.9628|0.937
91732508|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46847||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1618|1.7423|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.7423|-0.1618|0.101
91732509|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43756||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3296|0.4488|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4488|-1.3296|0.321
91732510|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47214||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.428|0.491|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4910|-1.4280|0.328
91869060|NCT01737398|183631878|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.68||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.29|-5.06|||MMRM|||||-5.06|-18.29|0.0006
91869061|NCT02372799|183631896|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.4||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.27|||MMRM|||||2.27|-3.08|0.7662
91869062|NCT02372799|183631896|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-2.39||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.81|||MMRM|||||0.81|-5.60|0.1433
91701937|NCT03309696|183298828|EQUIVALENCE|A p value of \<.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because it was a planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sham tDCS - Sham tDCS and Active rTMS|Examines the effect of rTMS on the P100 amplitude. The calculated effect size is .35 (Cohen's).||||0.0418
91701938|NCT03309696|183298828|EQUIVALENCE|A p value less than 0.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value is not adjusted as this was a planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Effect of tDCS preconditioning on active rTMS: active tDCS preconditioning of active rTMS - sham tDCS preconditioning of active rTMS.|Examines the additive effect of tDCS preconditioning on the P100 amplitude after rTMS. The effect size for this comparison was 0.14.||||0.40
91701939|NCT03309696|183298828|EQUIVALENCE|A p value less than 0.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value was not adjusted for this planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active tDCS and Active rTMS - Sham tDCS and Sham rTMS.|Examines the combined effect of tDCS and rTMS on the P100 amplitude. The effect size for this comparison was .29 (Cohen's).||||.086
91701940|NCT05070468|183298848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.618
91701941|NCT05070468|183298849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.483
91701942|NCT05070468|183298850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.571
91732511|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44846||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4914|1.3314|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.3314|-0.4914|0.356
91732512|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1679||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5666|0.1158|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Paracingulte gyrus/BA32. Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1158|-0.5666|0.188
91732513|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18117||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3914|0.3449|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3449|-0.3914|0.899
91701943|NCT00577005|183298851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.05425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03211||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|We modeled the the change in thrice weekly cocaine urines using a mixed-effect ordinal regression approach with MIXOR.|Group x time interaction: Z=-1.68950 p = 0.09112|||||0.09
91701944|NCT00577005|183298852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04369||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|We modeled the the change in thrice weekly opioid urines using a mixed-effect ordinal regression approach with MIXOR.|Group x time interaction: Z= 0.58823 p = 0.55638|||||0.55
91701945|NCT00577005|183298853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||p-value \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Log Rank|Chi-Square 0.175. df = 1, p=0.676||||||0.67
91701946|NCT00577005|183298854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1557||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Significant p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Interaction of time x group: Z = -1.5671, p = 0.11708|||||0.11
91701947|NCT02453282|183298875|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|97.54|0.564|1.019||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.019|0.564|0.036
91701948|NCT02453282|183298875|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|98.77|0.611|1.173||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.173|0.611|0.202
91701949|NCT02453282|183298876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.722|1.534||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.534|0.722|0.705
91701950|NCT02453282|183298877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.421||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.421|0.836|0.523
91732514|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17208||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6032|0.0963|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0963|-0.6032|0.150
91732515|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19038||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|0.1048|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Paracingulte gyrus/BA3: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1048|-0.6690|0.148
91759183|NCT04038567|183411375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|6.3||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||6.30|-6.09|
91759184|NCT04038567|183411382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-0.13||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.13|-5.26|
91701951|NCT02453282|183298878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.067||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.067|0.725|0.194
91701952|NCT02453282|183298878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.213||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.213|0.834|0.952
91701953|NCT02453282|183298878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.371||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.371|0.931|0.218
91701954|NCT02453282|183298879|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.128||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.128|0.812|0.602
91705532|NCT05206734|183305708|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.46|||||HR was calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazard model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status, ethnicity and common childhood conditions. Reflects a comparison of the incidence rates between participants diagnosed with IBD and those without IBD.|||1.46|1.12|
91705533|NCT05206734|183305709|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.52|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||2.52|1.33|
91705534|NCT05206734|183305710|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.62|||||HR calculated using Cox regression models adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||2.62|1.02|
91705535|NCT05206734|183305711|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|4.43|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||4.43|1.76|
91705536|NCT05206734|183305713|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.58|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||1.58|1.12|
91705537|NCT05206734|183305714|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.75|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||2.75|1.29|
91705538|NCT00762034|183305715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.94896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.86|0.94896
91705539|NCT00762034|183305716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72997||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72997
91705540|NCT00762034|183305717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.20892|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20892
91705541|NCT00762034|183305718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.01206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.71|0.01206
91705542|NCT00762034|183305719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.67|0.006
91705543|NCT00762034|183305724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||95.0||||Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.667
91705544|NCT00762034|183305725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||p-value for FACT-L Total; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.815
91705545|NCT00762034|183305725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||p-value for FACT-L TOI; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.978
91705546|NCT00762034|183305726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for FACT/GOG-Ntx Total; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91705547|NCT00762034|183305726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for FACT/GOG-Ntx TOI; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91705548|NCT00762034|183305740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.681||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||0.681|0.338|<0.001
91705549|NCT00762034|183305741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.316||p-value is for TS Cytoplasm Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.316|0.654|0.673
91705550|NCT00762034|183305741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.521||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|1.729||p-value is for TS Cytoplasm Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.729|0.157|0.287
91705551|NCT00762034|183305741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.157||p-value is for TS Nucleus Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.157|0.498|0.2
91705552|NCT00762034|183305741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.738||p-value is for TS Nucleus Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.738|0.540|0.915
91705553|NCT00762034|183305742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.511||p-value for FR-α Cytoplasm Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.511|0.622|0.891
91705554|NCT00762034|183305742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.592||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|1.023||p-value for FR-α Cytoplasm Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.023|0.342|0.060
91705555|NCT00762034|183305742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88||p-value for FR-α Membrane Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.880|0.490|0.905
91796916|NCT02038452|183472871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.19|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.19|-0.54|<0.001
91732516|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20543||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4655|0.3695|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3695|-0.4655|0.817
91732517|NCT01892189|183359719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19513||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7361|0.057|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0570|-0.7361|0.091
91732518|NCT01052779|183359754|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-0.5 g/dL and superiority if the lower bound was ≥0 g/dL.|Treatment Difference|0.1||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.41||The p-value for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|ANOVA||The 95% CI for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was from an ANOVA model and adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|With LOCF Imputation: The p-value and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference in mean change in hemoglobin from Baseline (Day 1) to Week 5 were generated based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.||0.41|-0.21|0.515
91732519|NCT01052779|183359754|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-0.5 g/dL and superiority if the lower bound was ≥0 g/dL.|Treatment Difference|0.09||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.41||The p-value for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|ANOVA||The 95% CI for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was from an ANOVA model and adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|Without Imputation (Sensitivity Analysis): The p-value and two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference in mean change in hemoglobin from Baseline (Day 1) to Week 5 were generated based on an ANOVA model adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.||0.41|-0.23|0.587
91732520|NCT03524157|183359776|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferior if there are no differences greater than 20%.||||||0.273|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.273
91732521|NCT03524157|183359777|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%||||||0.788|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.788
91732522|NCT03524157|183359779|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
91732523|NCT03524157|183359780|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
91732524|NCT03524157|183359781|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
91796917|NCT02038452|183472872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.21|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.21|-0.59|<0.001
91796918|NCT02038452|183472873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.08|-0.44|0.005
91796919|NCT02038452|183472874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.38|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.38|-1.72|0.002
91869063|NCT02372799|183631897|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.04||||0.7387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||MMRM|||||0.22|-0.31|0.7387
91732525|NCT03524157|183359783|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
91796920|NCT02038452|183472875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.74|0.17|0.006
91796921|NCT02038452|183472876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.24|-0.13|0.58
91796922|NCT02038452|183472877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.35|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.35|-0.09|0.25
91796923|NCT02038452|183472878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.18|-0.17|0.93
91869064|NCT02372799|183631897|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.2||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.12|||MMRM|||||0.12|-0.52|0.2158
91796924|NCT02038452|183472879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.61|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||1.61|-0.01|0.052
91796925|NCT02038452|183472880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||2.88|0.58|0.53
91869065|NCT00089609|183631905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.02
91869066|NCT00357994|183631921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.76||Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline and the natural logarithm of the mean daily dose of rescue medication on valid symptom diary days as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-3.05|0.0015
91869067|NCT00357994|183631922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.17|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||3.17|0.56|0.0059
91732526|NCT03524157|183359784|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
91732527|NCT03524157|183359785|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91732528|NCT02743962|183359786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The control group reported a mean reduction in O'Leary-Sant Insterstitial Cystitis Symptom Score from baseline to 6 weeks that met the MCID (4 points), whereas the TW group reported a reduction of 1.5 times the MCID (ISCI score change: control group 4.25, + 0.95, TW group 6.2, + 0.83). From 6 to 12 weeks the control group reported no change in ISCI score (0 + 0.95) whereas the Therapeutic Wand group ISCI socre reduced by 1.8 +1.73.||||
91732529|NCT02743962|183359786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||There was a small mean baseline ICPI score difference of 1.2 points between the groups (control group 10.5, +, TW group 11.2, + 2.68). Both groups reported a reduction in their ICPI scores from baseline to twelve weeks; the control group nearly met the minimal clinically important difference of 4 points and the TW group reported nearly twice the control group's score change (mean change control group 3.75, + 2.44, TW group 7, + 1.87).||||
91732530|NCT04805593|183359794|SUPERIORITY|Superiority testing was conducted to confirm the proportion is higher than the targeted value of 50%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Test of Binomial Proportion|||||||<0.0001
91732531|NCT04805593|183359795|SUPERIORITY|Superiority testing was conducted to confirm the proportion is higher than the targeted value of 75%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Test of Binomial Proportion|||||||<0.0001
91732532|NCT04330859|183359839|SUPERIORITY||Agresti-Caffo|95.0||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|||||58.8 ± 7.2 (intervention) and 57.2 ± 11.2 (control; p = 0.0543)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0543
91732533|NCT03312543|183359871|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.328|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|0.09|<0.001
91732534|NCT03312543|183359871|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.341|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.39|0.21|<0.001
91732535|NCT03312543|183359871|OTHER|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.25|0.02|0.025
91732536|NCT03312543|183359872|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.349|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|0.11|<0.001
91732537|NCT03312543|183359872|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.328|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|0.13|<0.001
91869068|NCT00357994|183631923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-1.4|-12.6|0.0155
91732538|NCT03312543|183359872|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.16|-0.09|0.540
91732539|NCT03312543|183359873|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.532||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10|-0.17|0.627
91732540|NCT03312543|183359873|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|0.08|0.002
91732541|NCT03312543|183359873|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.42|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.42|0.06|0.009
91732542|NCT03312543|183359874|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.465|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.48|0.23|<0.001
91732543|NCT03312543|183359874|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.578|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|0.32|<0.001
91905151|NCT05714982|183705947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2||||||||1.2|.69|
91905152|NCT05714982|183705948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9||||||||.9|.3|
91905153|NCT05714982|183705948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||||1.7|.6|
91905154|NCT05714982|183705949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||General linear model|||||||.02
91869069|NCT00357994|183631924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the baseline CGI-S as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.1|-1.4|0.0258
91701955|NCT02453282|183298879|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.103||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.103|0.794|0.430
91701956|NCT02453282|183298879|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.157||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.157|0.828|0.802
91701957|NCT02453282|183298880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.143||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.143|0.667|0.324
91701958|NCT02453282|183298880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.541||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.541|0.911|0.207
91701959|NCT02453282|183298881|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.339||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.339|0.894|0.383
91701960|NCT02453282|183298881|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.136|1.678||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.678|1.136|0.001
91701961|NCT02453282|183298881|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.403||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.403|0.954|0.138
91701962|NCT02453282|183298882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.475||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.475|1.043|0.015
91705556|NCT00762034|183305742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.859||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|1.281||p-value for FR-α Membrane Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.281|0.575|0.455
91705557|NCT00734656|183305743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis - dutasteride does not affect blood alcohol following standardized dose of alcohol (0.8 gr/kg)||||0.28
91905155|NCT05714982|183705949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||General linear model|||||||.5
91905156|NCT05714982|183705950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
91905157|NCT05714982|183705950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||General linear model|||||||.004
91705558|NCT00734656|183305744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||null hypothesis: dutasteride pre-treatment does not reduce the sedative effect of alcohol||||0.010
91705559|NCT00734656|183305745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||null hypothesis: dutasteride pre-treatment does not reduce the stimulating effect of alcohol||||0.17
91705560|NCT00734656|183305746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis - A single 4 mg dose of dutasteride does not reduce serum 3a-androstanediol glucuronide levels||||<0.001
91705561|NCT03214679|183305748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
91705562|NCT01601067|183305753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.002
91705563|NCT01601067|183305754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||heavy drinking days|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.91
91705564|NCT02412878|183305769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.485|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.716|3.598||Progression-free survival, overall response, and overall survival were tested using a fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate below one-sided 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided p-value from CMH test stratified by the randomization factors (ISS stage at study entry, refractory to bortezomib treatment, and age).|Odds ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|||3.598|1.716|< 0.0001
91701963|NCT02453282|183298882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.485||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.485|1.054|0.010
91701964|NCT02453282|183298882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.179||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.179|0.845|0.984
91869070|NCT00357994|183631925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.8|-5.3|0.0086
91701965|NCT02453282|183298883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.437||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.437|0.582|0.698
91701966|NCT02453282|183298883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|1.363||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.363|0.549|0.534
91701967|NCT02453282|183298883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|1.496||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.496|0.601|0.820
91701968|NCT02453282|183298884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.0||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.000|0.480|0.050
91701969|NCT02453282|183298884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|0.959||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.959|0.464|0.029
91701970|NCT02453282|183298884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.43||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.430|0.661|0.887
91701971|NCT02453282|183298885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|0.908||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.908|0.462|0.012
91701972|NCT02453282|183298885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|1.048||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.048|0.543|0.093
91732544|NCT03312543|183359874|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.30|-0.07|0.224
91869071|NCT00357994|183631926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||5.6|-2.8|0.5020
91905158|NCT05714982|183705951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||General linear model|||||||0.3
91905159|NCT05714982|183705951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||General linear model|||||||0.5
91905160|NCT05714982|183705952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.1||||||||2.1|.99|
91701973|NCT02453282|183298885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.647||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.647|0.818|0.406
91905161|NCT05714982|183705952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6||||||||2.6|1.2|
91701974|NCT02453282|183298892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.975||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.975|0.597|0.030
91701975|NCT02453282|183298892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.994||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.994|0.606|0.045
91701976|NCT02453282|183298893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.08||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.080|0.746|0.255
91701977|NCT02453282|183298893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.132||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.132|0.787|0.534
91701978|NCT02453282|183298894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.131||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.131|0.824|0.663
91701979|NCT02453282|183298894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.027||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.027|0.746|0.103
91701980|NCT00985426|183298911|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%.|SPR Difference (%)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.3|||||SPR difference = SPR for HEPLISAV-B minus SPR for Engerix-B.|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference in seroprotection rates (SPR) between the HEPLISAV-B group and the Engerix-B group at 28 weeks was computed using the Newcombe score method with continuity correction.||14.3|1.7|
91701981|NCT00985426|183298911|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 0%.|SPR Difference (%)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.3||||||Two-sided 95% CIs of the difference in SPR between the HEPLISAV-B group and the Engerix-B group at 28 weeks was computed using the Newcombe score method with continuity correction.||14.3|1.7|
91701982|NCT00985426|183298916|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 0%.|SPR Difference (%)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|21.2||||||Two-sided 95% CIs of the difference in SPRs between the HEPLISAV group and the Engerix-B group at 28 weeks was computed using the Newcombe score method with continuity correction.||21.2|4.4|
91701983|NCT02327013|183298934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.5|||weighed z-score|Equally weighed LS z-score, combining results from stagewise MMRM, was compared to standard normal distribution.||The mean difference between treatment groups was estimated based on LS means for the treatment-by-visit interaction in stagewise MMRM analyses. In each stage, the REML-based MMRM model included site ID (stage 1 only), visit, treatment (placebo, vortioxetine 10mg, vortioxetine 20mg), baseline (for the stage) AISRS total score, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline (stage) AISRS total score-by-visit interaction, with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||3.5|-3.6|0.9723
91701984|NCT02327013|183298934|SUPERIORITY|The mean difference between treatment groups was estimated based on LS means for the treatment-by-visit interaction in stagewise MMRM analyses. In each stage, the REML-based MMRM model included site ID (stage 1 only), visit, treatment (placebo, vortioxetine 10mg, vortioxetine 20mg), baseline (for the stage) AISRS total score, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline (stage) AISRS total score-by-visit interaction, with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.8|||weighed z-score|Equally weighed LS z-score, combining results from stagewise MMRM, was compared to standard normal distribution.||||4.8|-2.8|0.6010
91701985|NCT02380859|183298977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||Group (real, sham) x Time (pre, 1d post) x Stepping Direction (forward, backward) ANOVA||||0.005
91701986|NCT01661933|183298991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693
91701987|NCT01661933|183298992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.837
91701988|NCT01661933|183298993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.99|ONE_SIDED||||||Binomial distribution|||The null hypothesis was that irrespective of hookworm infection, GC-1g would result in a 2-point or more deterioration in the Marsh score. A binomial (yes=deterioration or no=no deterioration) distribution was applied to pre- and post-GC-1g paired biopsies.||||=0.99
91701989|NCT01661933|183298994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed effects model.|||||||=0.005
91905162|NCT01911442|183705953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean, LS mean difference and the associated 95% Cl and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||3.0|-5.6|0.5463
91796926|NCT02038452|183472881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||3.34|0.61|0.41
91701990|NCT02063178|183299029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This randomized clinical trial was designed to have 90% power to detect a 4% weight loss percent difference at 12 months between the two study arms.||||<0.001
91701991|NCT02063178|183299030|OTHER|Correlation|||||<|0.0001|||||||Correlation|||The association between weight change percent and attendance was described using Spearman rank correlation.||||<0.0001
91732545|NCT05852340|183359921|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.81|109.35||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Strawberry Jam (Fasted)||109.35|95.81|
91732546|NCT05852340|183359921|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.94|103.79||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Yoghurt (Fasted)||103.79|90.94|
91732547|NCT05852340|183359921|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|99.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.28|106.46||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Applesauce (Fasted)||106.46|93.28|
91732548|NCT05852340|183359921|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|104.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.3|112.96||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Given with High Fat Meal||112.96|97.30|
91732549|NCT05852340|183359922|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|96.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.66|111.62||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Strawberry Jam (Fasted)||111.62|83.66|
91732550|NCT05852340|183359922|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.23|97.7||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Yoghurt (Fasted)||97.70|73.23|
91732551|NCT05852340|183359922|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|93.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.3|108.48||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Applesauce (Fasted)||108.48|81.30|
91796927|NCT02038452|183472883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||3.06|0.57|0.52
91796928|NCT02038452|183472884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||5.78|0.72|0.18
91701992|NCT02063178|183299031|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Correlation|||||||<0.0001
91701993|NCT02063178|183299032|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Correlation|||||||<0.0001
91701994|NCT00001656|183299046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||.04
91701995|NCT00001656|183299047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.21
91701996|NCT00001656|183299048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.35
91701997|NCT00001656|183299049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.19
91732552|NCT05852340|183359922|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|43.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.5|51.23||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Given with High Fat Meal||51.23|37.50|
91732553|NCT00071032|183359929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.22|||||Liberal Arm (numerator) compared to Restrictive Arm (denominator)|||1.22|0.84|
91732554|NCT00071032|183359930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-3.3|1.6|||||Liberal Arm (numerator) compared to Restrictive Arm (denominator)|||1.6|-3.3|
91732555|NCT04197583|183359945|OTHER||Proportion by group|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|0.995|||||For Tria subjects with stone management indication only|||0.995|0.948|
91732556|NCT00375713|183359949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-set threshold for non inferiority is -10%.|Difference in proportion of responders|0.00069213||||||95.0|-0.0875|0.0888||||||The lower bound of the 95% two sided confidence interval for the difference (Levocetirizine - Cetirizine) in percentage of responders is compared to the pre-set threshold for non inferiority (-10% which is equal to -0.1 for the proportion of responders). Standard method for estimation of the difference in proportions incl. confidence interval using normal approximation is used.||0.0888|-0.0875|
91732557|NCT00375713|183359950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4369||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Pruritus score is adjusted on pruritus Baseline score.||The mean daily pruritus score at Day 14 visit or at study completion was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including pruritus severity score of the day before the randomization as a covariate and treatment group as a factor||||0.4369
91796929|NCT02038452|183472885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
91796930|NCT02038452|183472886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.19|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.19|-0.59|<0.001
91796931|NCT02038452|183472887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.09|-0.46|0.003
91796932|NCT02038452|183472888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.48|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.48|-1.85|0.001
91796933|NCT02038452|183472889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.74|0.16|0.007
91796934|NCT02038452|183472890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.25|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.25|-0.15|0.63
91796935|NCT02038452|183472891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.35|-0.10|0.28
91869072|NCT00357994|183631927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.146|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding Baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||0.146|-0.005|0.0670
91869073|NCT00357994|183631928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||1.7|-10.7|0.1501
91869074|NCT00357994|183631929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.82|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.82|-0.98|0.8574
91869075|NCT00357994|183631930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-1.8|-19.1|0.0184
91796936|NCT02038452|183472892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.20|-0.18|0.900
91796937|NCT02038452|183472893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.59|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||1.59|-0.11|0.09
91796938|NCT02038452|183472894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||2.85|0.56|0.58
91796939|NCT02038452|183472895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||3.01|0.57|0.52
91796940|NCT02038452|183472897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||2.95|0.53|0.61
91869076|NCT00357994|183631931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-2.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-2.5|-20.6|0.0129
91869077|NCT00357994|183631932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.6|-9.0|0.5246
91869078|NCT00357994|183631933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||3.1|-12.0|0.2423
91796941|NCT02038452|183472898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.58|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||6.58|0.77|0.14
91796942|NCT02038452|183472899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.12|-0.93|0.014
91796943|NCT02038452|183472900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.26|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.26|-0.50|0.53
91796944|NCT02038452|183472901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.05|-0.44|0.015
91796945|NCT02038452|183472902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.23|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.23|-0.97|0.002
91796946|NCT02038452|183472903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.16|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.16|-0.60|0.25
91701998|NCT00001656|183299050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.59
91701999|NCT00001656|183299051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.72
91702000|NCT00001656|183299052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.27
91796947|NCT02038452|183472904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.57|145.59|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups performed on multiply imputed data||||145.59|-94.57|
91796948|NCT02038452|183472905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.84|187.31|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups on complete data.||||187.31|-104.84|
91796949|NCT02038452|183472906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.09|279.21|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups||||279.21|-37.09|
91702001|NCT00001656|183299053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||||||0.11
91702002|NCT00001656|183299054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91702003|NCT00001656|183299055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91702004|NCT00001656|183299057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91702005|NCT01313494|183299060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.095|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|Independent variables: treatment, baseline value of pre-bronchodilator FEV1, time and a treatment-by-time interaction.||The primary endpoint was tested in a confirmatory manner with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||0.095|0.046|<0.0001
91705565|NCT02412878|183305769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.466|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.707|3.563|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.|||3.563|1.707|<0.0001
91705566|NCT02412878|183305770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.883||Progression-free survival, overall response rate, and overall survival were tested using a fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate below one-sided 0.025 level.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified by the randomization factors (ISS stage at study entry, refractory to bortezomib treatment, and age).|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|To ensure proper control of type I error, analysis of PFS was performed under a group sequential design framework with the stopping boundaries constructed using the Lan-DeMets spending function with an O'Brien-Fleming approach. The inferential comparison between the 2 treatment groups for PFS used the 1-sided log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors. A 1-sided p-value was compared against the prespecified adjusted alpha value of 0.011 to determine significance.||0.883|0.544|0.0014
91705567|NCT02412878|183305770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.913|||Log Rank|One-sided unstratified log-rank test|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.913|0.567|0.0033
91705568|NCT02412878|183305771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.138||Progression-free survival, overall response, and overall survival were tested using a fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate below one-sided 0.025 level.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified by the randomization factors (ISS stage at study entry, refractory to bortezomib treatment, and age).|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|||1.138|0.563|0.1070
91705569|NCT02412878|183305771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.164|||Log Rank|One-sided unstratified log-rank test|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.164|0.578|0.1326
91705570|NCT02081014|183305777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705571|NCT02081014|183305777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705572|NCT02081014|183305777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705573|NCT02081014|183305778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705574|NCT02081014|183305778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705575|NCT02081014|183305778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705576|NCT02081014|183305779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point point ratio|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705577|NCT02081014|183305779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705578|NCT02081014|183305779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705579|NCT02081014|183305780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91796950|NCT02038452|183472907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.84|291.24|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups||||291.24|-120.84|
91796951|NCT02038452|183472908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||||0.02|-0.01|
91796952|NCT02038452|183472909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.027|||Regression, Linear|||||0.027|-0.034|
91796953|NCT02038452|183472910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.045|||Regression, Linear|||||0.045|-0.093|
91796954|NCT02035475|183472926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the incidence of detected lymphoceles whether the EndoWrist 1 Vessel Sealer or the Fenestrated Maryland BiPolar Instrument were used.||||0.412
91796955|NCT01302379|183472932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|97.5||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||97.5|-97.5|<0.05
91869079|NCT00357994|183631934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.4|-9.9|0.2243
91702006|NCT00550862|183299115|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Initial Phase 2 study: no a priori estimate of treatment effect available. Effect size estimated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hierarchical model applied and pairwise comparisons of the 10mg treatment group versus the placebo group, then 25 mg and 50 mg were performed.||All tests: Descriptive methods were used with nominal p values provided and 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91869080|NCT00357994|183631935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.8|-10.8|0.2407
91869081|NCT00357994|183631936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-6.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-6.8|-20.8|0.0002
91869082|NCT00357994|183631937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||6.9|-13.6|0.5213
91702007|NCT00550862|183299115|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Initial Phase 2 study: no a priori estimate of treatment effect available. Effect size estimated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hierarchical model applied and pairwise comparisons of the 10mg treatment group versus the placebo group, then 25 mg and 50 mg were performed.||All tests: Descriptive methods were used with nominal p values provided and 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91702008|NCT00550862|183299115|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Initial Phase 2 study: no a priori estimate of treatment effect available. Effect size estimated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hierarchical model applied and pairwise comparisons of the 10mg treatment group versus the placebo group, then 25 mg and 50 mg were performed.||All tests: Descriptive methods were used with nominal p values provided and 95% confidence intervals||||<0.0001
91702009|NCT00550862|183299116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91702010|NCT00550862|183299117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0005
91702011|NCT02248974|183299153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model uses a general linear mixed model with fixed effects for baseline Knowledge Scale score, time (discrete), arm, and a time-arm interaction term. The matrix of correlated residual terms assumes an unstructured format.||||0.01
91702012|NCT02248974|183299154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model uses a general linear mixed model with fixed effects for baseline KS score, time (discrete), arm, and a time-arm interaction term. The matrix of correlated residual terms assumes an unstructured format.||||0.47
91702013|NCT02248974|183299155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Used Wilcoxon 2-sample test to see if DA group had significantly better (i.e. lower) Decisional Conflict Scores than no-DA (Control) group.||||0.12
91702014|NCT02248974|183299156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Used Wilcoxon 2-sample test to see if DA group had significantly better (i.e. lower) Decisional Conflict Scores than no-DA (Control) group.||||0.79
91702015|NCT02248974|183299157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
91702016|NCT02248974|183299158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
91702017|NCT02248974|183299159|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91702018|NCT02248974|183299160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91702019|NCT02248974|183299161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91702020|NCT02248974|183299162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91702021|NCT02248974|183299163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91702022|NCT02248974|183299165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
91702023|NCT02248974|183299166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91702024|NCT02248974|183299170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91702025|NCT02248974|183299171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91702026|NCT02248974|183299172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91702027|NCT02248974|183299173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91702028|NCT02248974|183299174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91702029|NCT02248974|183299175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91702030|NCT02248974|183299177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91702031|NCT02248974|183299178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91702032|NCT02248974|183299179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91702033|NCT02248974|183299186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.98
91702034|NCT02248974|183299187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91702035|NCT01928797|183299193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.37
91869083|NCT00357994|183631938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.9|-0.4|0.3741
91702036|NCT01928797|183299194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91796956|NCT01842815|183472933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077||||||The value looked at for statistical significance is if p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t-tailed, paired t-test||This t-test is to test the statistical significance of the right side of the tattoo clearance vs. the left side of the tattoo clearance. It tests if there is a difference between the tattoo being treated twice per visit (right side) vs. being treated once per visit (left side).||||.0077
91796957|NCT01842815|183472934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00012||||||The value looked at for statistical significance is if p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t-tailed, paired t-test||This t-test is to test the statistical significance of the right side of the tattoo clearance vs. the left side of the tattoo clearance. It tests if there is a difference between the tattoo being treated twice per visit (right side) vs. being treated once per visit (left side).||||.00012
91702037|NCT03436199|183299196|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.064||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.136|||Farrington-Manning score test|The Miettinen-Nurminen method was used to obtain the 95% confidence intervals.||||0.136|-0.008|0.0811
91702038|NCT03436199|183299196|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.098||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.174|||Farrington-Manning score test|The Miettinen-Nurminen method was used to obtain the 95% confidence intervals.||||0.174|0.023|0.0104
91702039|NCT03436199|183299197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||0.21|0.02|0.0162
91702040|NCT03436199|183299197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||0.22|0.02|0.0142
91702041|NCT03436199|183299198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||0.27|-1.85|0.1424
91702042|NCT03436199|183299198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||1.06|-1.14|0.9467
91702043|NCT03436199|183299199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7389||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||7.560|0.726|0.0176
91702044|NCT03436199|183299199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8196||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|7.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||7.104|-0.046|0.0530
91702045|NCT00926536|183299206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|71.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Decrease in DAP in C-arm CT +DSA group when compared to DSA only|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91702046|NCT00926536|183299207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|158.3||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Decrease in CD in C-arm CT +DSA group when compared to DSA only|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
91702047|NCT00435487|183299208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority was based on whether the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference was less than or equal to 10%, the non-inferiority margin specified in the protocol.|Difference in proportion|-2.6||||||95.0|-8.59|3.4|||upper limit of 95% CI <= 10%||95% confidence interval (CI) is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper boundary of the 95% CI for the Dalteparin - Unfractioned Heparin difference was less than or equal to 10%.|Death after receiving 48 hours of study medication (Event date - First dose date) and on or before day 30 from baseline. Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||3.40|-8.59|
91702048|NCT00435487|183299208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority was based on whether the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference was less than or equal to 10%, the non-inferiority margin specified in the protocol.|Difference in proportion|1.25||||||95.0|-3.02|5.52|||upper limit of 95% CI <= 10%||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper boundary of the 95% CI for the Dalteparin - Unfractioned Heparin difference was less than or equal to 10%.|Non-fatal Myocardial Infarction after receiving 48 hours of study medication (Event date - First dose date) and on or before day 30 from baseline. Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.52|-3.02|
91702049|NCT00435487|183299208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority was based on whether the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference was less than or equal to 10%, the non-inferiority margin specified in the protocol.|Difference in proportion|-1.35||||||95.0|-8.62|5.93|||upper limit of 95% CI <= 10%||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper boundary of the 95% CI for the Dalteparin - Unfractioned Heparin difference was less than or equal to 10%.|Death or Non-fatal Myocardial Infarction after receiving 48 hours of study medication (Event date - First dose date) and on or before day 30 from baseline. Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.93|-8.62|
91702050|NCT00435487|183299209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.27||||1||95.0|-1.2|3.73|||Chi-squared||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial.|Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||3.73|-1.20|1.0000
91702051|NCT00435487|183299210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.05||||1||95.0|-6.05|5.95|||Chi-squared||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial.|Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.95|-6.05|1.0000
91705580|NCT02081014|183305780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705581|NCT02081014|183305780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705582|NCT02081014|183305781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point esimate ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91705583|NCT02081014|183305781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91869084|NCT00357994|183631939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-0.1|-2.4|0.0361
91869085|NCT00357994|183631940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.1|0.3578
91869086|NCT00357994|183631941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.4|-7.4|0.6088
91869087|NCT00357994|183631942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|18.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||18.9|4.0|0.0033
91702052|NCT00435487|183299211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.05||||1||95.0|-6.05|5.95|||Chi-squared||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial.|Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.95|-6.05|1.0000
91702053|NCT06350461|183299226|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -3.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6||One-sided test for non-inferiority|ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|The non-inferiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the per-protocol (PP) population.||0.6|-1.3|<0.0001
91702054|NCT06350461|183299227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue|||0.4|-0.4|0.733
91702055|NCT06350461|183299228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.9|-4.1|0.226
91702056|NCT06350461|183299229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata|Direction of the difference is Discontinue - Continue|||2.1|-1.8|0.857
91702057|NCT06350461|183299230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of the difference is Discontinue - Continue|||1.54|-0.25|0.16
91702058|NCT06350461|183299231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of the difference is Discontinue - Continue|||0.57|-1.04|0.56
91796958|NCT01842815|183472935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||The value looked at for statistical significance is if p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t-tailed, paired t-test||This t-test is to test the statistical significance of the right side of the tattoo clearance vs. the left side of the tattoo clearance. It tests if there is a difference between the tattoo being treated twice per visit (right side) vs. being treated once per visit (left side).||||.0034
91869088|NCT01767688|183631945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.11|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.11|0.79|
91869089|NCT01767688|183631946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.10|0.81|
91869090|NCT01767688|183631947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.28|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.28|0.51|
91702059|NCT06350461|183299232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|1.1||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.1|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants initiating acute antibiotics is the same in the Discontinue and Continue arms||6.1|-3.7|0.653
91702060|NCT06350461|183299233|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|0.5||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.4|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one hospitalization is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||3.4|-2.0|0.622
91702061|NCT06350461|183299234|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|-1.1||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.6|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||1.6|-4.1|0.623
91702062|NCT06350461|183299235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|11.7||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|20.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one AE is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||20.7|2.4|0.0165
91705584|NCT02081014|183305781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91705585|NCT02081014|183305782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91869091|NCT01767688|183631948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.15|0.93|
91869092|NCT01354444|183631979|OTHER||Coefficient|1.48||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.796|6.761|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compares immediate recall before and after 6 months between the treatment and placebo group.||6.761|-3.796|0.565
91869093|NCT01354444|183631980|OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in total Tau between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.481
91869094|NCT01354444|183631980|OTHER|||||||0.0562|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in Abeta42 between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.0562
91869095|NCT01354444|183631980|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in p-tau between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.314
91869096|NCT01354444|183631980|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in oligomeric Abeta between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.438
91702063|NCT06350461|183299236|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.74|||Poisson Regression|||Rate ratio, confidence interval, and p-value calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the HS-discontinue and HS-continue arms are 1135.7 and 1163.9 weeks, respectively. Ratio is Discontinue / Continue.||1.74|0.96|0.0958
91732558|NCT00375713|183359951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3549||95.0|||||ANCOVA|pruritus severity score at baseline has been used as a covariate.||The categorized duration of Pruritus at endpoint during the 14 day treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including pruritus severity score of the day before the randomization as a covariate and treatment group as a factor.||||0.3549
91732559|NCT00375713|183359952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7518||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified on the prurity severity score at the previous day of randomization.||||||0.7518
91732560|NCT00323622|183360001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (HR1/HR2)|16.8||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|32.4||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - GSK RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||32.40|-2.50|0.08
91732561|NCT00323622|183360001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (HR1/HR2)|11.8||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|35.18||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||35.18|-20.11|0.43
91796959|NCT01532973|183472943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.77|4.74||||||||4.74|3.77|
91796960|NCT01532973|183472943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.92|4.9||||||||4.90|3.92|
91869097|NCT00982072|183631982|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91702064|NCT06350461|183299237|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.17||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants changing assigned regimen is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||5.7|-0.7|0.1215
91702065|NCT02584998|183299241|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||In our power and sample size analysis, we assumed 15% screening rate in usual care, 25% with invitation, and 40% with mailed-FIT. A sample size of 500 (250/arm) will give 80% power for UC vs. screening invitation-reminder, and 152/arm will give a power of 80% for the screening invitation-reminder vs. mailed-FIT. Accounting for the possibility that up to 20% of participants could be ineligible post-randomization, we concluded that we should enroll 783 patients, 261 per arm, for this trial.||||<0.001
91702066|NCT04216589|183299275|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-3.06|||Regression, Linear|||The study was powered to detect an absolute IHTG change of -5% assuming a null change of 0%, a standard deviation of absolute IHTG change of 9%, and 37 evaluable participants.||-3.06|-5.41|<0.001
91702067|NCT04216589|183299276|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.04|-23.62||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-23.62|-39.04|<0.001
91702068|NCT04216589|183299280|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-2.17||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||-2.17|-3.36|<0.001
91702069|NCT04216589|183299281|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.75||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-1.75|-2.55|<0.001
91702070|NCT04216589|183299282|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-6.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-6.13|-9.48|<0.001
91702071|NCT04216589|183299283|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-5.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-5.03|-7.30|<0.001
91702072|NCT04216589|183299284|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-4.78||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-4.78|-8.54|<0.001
91702073|NCT04216589|183299285|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|-3.99||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-3.99|-7.07|<0.001
91702074|NCT04216589|183299286|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.82||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.25||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||0.25|-3.17|0.092
91702075|NCT04216589|183299288|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.259|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.17||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-0.17|-0.32|< 0.001
91702076|NCT04216589|183299289|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-5.09||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-5.09|-14.70|<0.001
91702077|NCT04216589|183299290|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-5.48||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-5.48|-12.26|<0.001
91702078|NCT04216589|183299291|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.1||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|2.89||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||2.89|-10.84|0.25
91702079|NCT04216589|183299292|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.4||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|-4.08||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-4.08|-19.79|0.004
91702080|NCT04216589|183299293|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.5||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|5.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||5.05|-7.14|0.73
91702081|NCT04216589|183299294|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.1||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|0.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||0.03|-13.85|0.051
91702082|NCT04216589|183299295|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.96||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|4.11||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||4.11|-0.02|0.053
91702083|NCT04216589|183299296|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.66||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.2||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||1.20|-2.76|0.43
91702084|NCT04216589|183299297|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|64.8||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.04|-7.53||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-7.53|-46.04|0.007
91702085|NCT04216589|183299298|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.3||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.29|-4.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-4.01|-33.29|0.014
91702086|NCT04216589|183299299|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|The GEE model used a log link and an unstructured correlation.|The risk ratio is comparing the estimated risk at Week 12 (0.55; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.72) to estimated risk at Baseline (0.77; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.90).|Comparison between Baseline and Week 12.||0.94|0.55|0.016
91702087|NCT04216589|183299299|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|The GEE model used a log link and an unstructured correlation.|The risk ratio is comparing the estimated risk at Week 24 (0.58; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.74) to estimated risk at Baseline (0.77; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.90).|Comparison between Baseline and Week 24.||0.98|0.58|0.033
91702088|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 1||3.0|-3.3|< 0.001
91702089|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|30.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar|Type 3||30.0|18.7|< 0.001
91702090|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 4||6.4|0.0|< 0.001
91702091|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 5||2.8|-3.9|< 0.001
91705586|NCT02081014|183305782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705587|NCT02081014|183305782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91705588|NCT02081014|183305783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705589|NCT02081014|183305783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705590|NCT02081014|183305783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705591|NCT02081014|183305784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91705592|NCT02081014|183305784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91705593|NCT02081014|183305784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91705594|NCT02081014|183305785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3693.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1520.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91705595|NCT02081014|183305785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7548.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1542.93||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91705596|NCT02081014|183305785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3854.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1533.95|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91705597|NCT02081014|183305786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-144.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|741.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91705598|NCT02081014|183305786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1665.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|696.97|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91705599|NCT02081014|183305786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1520.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|700.92|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91705600|NCT02081014|183305787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91705601|NCT02081014|183305787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91705602|NCT02081014|183305787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91702092|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6A||-1.6|-10.0|< 0.001
91702093|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6B||4.0|-5.7|< 0.001
91702094|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 7F||2.7|-1.1|< 0.001
91702095|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 9V||4.6|-1.9|< 0.001
91702096|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 14||4.7|-0.2|< 0.001
91702097|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 18C||4.7|-2.1|< 0.001
91702098|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19A||2.6|-1.9|< 0.001
91702099|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19F||1.9|-1.0|< 0.001
91702100|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 23F||6.5|-2.9|< 0.001
91702101|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 1||3.9|-2.0|< 0.001
91702102|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|28.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 3||28.3|16.5|< 0.001
91702103|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 4||5.4|-1.4|< 0.001
91702104|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 5||2.7|-4.1|< 0.001
91702105|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6A||2.8|-4.2|< 0.001
91702106|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6B||5.6|-3.7|< 0.001
91759185|NCT04038567|183411382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|0.67||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.67|-4.46|
91732562|NCT00323622|183360002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|14.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|30.28||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||30.28|-3.88|0.11
91732563|NCT00323622|183360002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|12.79||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|34.59||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||34.59|-16.27|0.35
91732564|NCT00323622|183360003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|19.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|31.93||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||31.93|4.62|0.01
91796961|NCT01532973|183472943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.08|4.05||||||||4.05|3.08|
91796962|NCT01532973|183472944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.69||||||||1.69|0.34|
91796963|NCT01532973|183472944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.74||||||||2.74|1.39|
91796964|NCT01532973|183472944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.05|3.39||||||||3.39|2.05|
91702107|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 7F||2.4|-1.7|< 0.001
91702108|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 9V||5.2|-1.1|< 0.001
91702109|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 14||3.1|-2.8|< 0.001
91702110|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 18C||5.9|-0.3|< 0.001
91702111|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19A||2.2|-2.5|< 0.001
91702112|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19F||0.9|-2.9|< 0.001
91702113|NCT02987972|183299345|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 23F||8.7|-0.1|< 0.001
91702114|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.81|0.64|
91702115|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.23|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.23|1.75|
91702116|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.16|0.92|
91702117|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.89|0.68|
91702118|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.63|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.63|0.47|
91702119|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.26|0.84|
91702120|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.92|0.73|
91702121|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.0|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||1.00|0.77|
91796965|NCT01532973|183472945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.68|3.72||||||||3.72|2.68|
91796966|NCT01532973|183472945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.44|4.47||||||||4.47|3.44|
91702122|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||1.03|0.75|
91702123|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.84|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||0.84|0.66|
91702124|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.92|0.73|
91702125|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||0.98|0.79|
91702126|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.13|0.84|
91702127|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|92.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.84|104.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||104.81|80.84|
91702128|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|34.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.5|41.54|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||41.54|28.50|
91705603|NCT02081014|183305788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91705604|NCT02081014|183305788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91705605|NCT02081014|183305788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91705606|NCT01026818|183305789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.06||The Type I error was controlled for multiplicity using a Bonferroni-Hommel procedure. First the largest p-value for the odds ratio to placebo was tested at the 5% level and in case of no rejection the second p-value was tested at the 2.5% level.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||A sample size of 412 randomized participants provided 84% power to detect a 20% difference in the proportions for the 3 treatment groups. The sample size allowed for a 20% withdrawal during the study.||2.06|0.63|0.675
91705607|NCT01026818|183305789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.65||The Type I error was controlled for multiplicity using a Bonferroni-Hommel procedure. First the largest p-value for the odds ratio to placebo was tested at the 5% level and in case of no rejection the second p-value was tested at the 2.5% level.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||A sample size of 412 randomized participants provided 84% power to detect a 20% difference in the proportions for the 3 treatment groups. The sample size allowed for a 20% withdrawal during the study.||1.65|0.48|0.704
91705608|NCT01026818|183305790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.99||P-value is for Month 9.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||3.99|1.16|0.016
91705609|NCT01026818|183305790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.85||P-value is for Month 9.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||2.85|0.79|0.210
91705610|NCT01026818|183305790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.28||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||2.28|0.79|0.273
91705611|NCT01026818|183305790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.29||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||2.29|0.80|0.259
91705612|NCT01026818|183305791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.83||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.83|0.76|0.007
91705613|NCT01026818|183305791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean differences|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|3.6||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.60|-0.41|0.118
91705614|NCT01026818|183305791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.31||P-value is for Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.31|-1.79|0.802
91705615|NCT01026818|183305791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.79||P-value is for Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.79|-2.23|0.830
91732565|NCT00323622|183360003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|7.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|26.44||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||26.44|-17.37|0.54
91732566|NCT00323622|183360004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|16.79||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|33.25||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||33.25|-3.75|0.10
91732567|NCT00323622|183360004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|6.31||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|32.99||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||32.99|-31.00|0.70
91732568|NCT02085720|183360030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data were given as means and standard deviations, unless otherwise stated. AHI was categorized as ≥ 5, ≥ 10, ≥ 15 and ≥ 20. The frequency distribution of responses on the SHQ and their relationship to AHI was assessed with the chi-squared analysis. The association of variables such as age, BMI, neck circumference, ESS and sleep health questionnaire responses versus AHI was evaluated using one-way analysis of variance and Pearson Correlation Analysis.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91732569|NCT05293314|183360078|OTHER|Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.|receiver operating characteristic|0.964|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|0.996|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.||0.996|0.932|<0.05
91732570|NCT05293314|183360078|OTHER|Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.|receiver operating characteristic|0.932|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|0.982|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.||0.982|0.879|<0.05
91759186|NCT04038567|183411382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.83||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.83|-3.31|
91759187|NCT02726022|183411385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.647
91869098|NCT03559205|183631989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Week Analysis||0.70|-0.74|0.96
91869099|NCT03559205|183631990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|2.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||2.04|-2.31|0.90
91702129|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.94|0.74|
91702130|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|2.18|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.18|1.71|
91702131|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.14|0.90|
91702132|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.94|0.72|
91702133|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.66|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.66|0.49|
91702134|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.10|0.74|
91759188|NCT02726022|183411385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.373
91759189|NCT02726022|183411386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.049
91759190|NCT02726022|183411386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.860
91732571|NCT05293314|183360079|OTHER|Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.|Sensitivity|86.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|95.2||||||Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.||95.2|77.1|
91732572|NCT05293314|183360079|OTHER|Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.|Sensitivity|86.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|95.2||||||Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.||95.2|77.1|
91732573|NCT05293314|183360080|OTHER|Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.|Specificity|92.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|98.8||||||Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.||98.8|86.2|
91732574|NCT05293314|183360080|OTHER|Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.|Specificity|73.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|91.9||||||Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.||91.9|56|
91732575|NCT00934180|183360081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|103.0||||||90.0|95.1|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|95.1|
91732576|NCT00934180|183360082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|101.0||||||90.0|95.3|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|95.3|
91732577|NCT00934180|183360083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|101.0||||||90.0|95.2|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108|95.2|
91732578|NCT02613507|183360084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||The boundary for statistical significance requires the p-value to be less than 0.0231|Stratified weighted Log-Rank|Stratified weighted using G \[rho=0, gamma=1\] Fleming and Harrington.||||||0.0006
91732579|NCT02613507|183360084|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|97.7|0.52|0.9|||Stratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||0.90|0.52|
91702135|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.91|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.91|0.72|
91702136|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.22|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||1.22|0.94|
91702137|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.97|0.71|
91702138|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.12|0.88|
91702139|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.92|0.73|
91732580|NCT02613507|183360084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Log Rank|regular stratified log-rank test p-value||||||0.0017
91732581|NCT02471144|183360117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|114.66|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||114.66|7.08|<.0001
91732582|NCT02471144|183360117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|98.93|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||98.93|6.31|<.0001
91732583|NCT02471144|183360118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.02|538.64|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||538.64|10.02|<.0001
91732584|NCT02471144|183360118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.48|329.52|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||329.52|6.48|<.0001
91732585|NCT02471144|183360119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.9|84.9|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||84.9|55.9|<.0001
91732586|NCT02471144|183360119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.8|80.9|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||80.9|50.8|<.0001
91759191|NCT02726022|183411387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.921
91702140|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||1.01|0.81|
91702141|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.37|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.37|1.01|
91702142|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|80.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.3|91.24|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||91.24|70.30|
91702143|NCT02987972|183299346|OTHER||GMC Ratio|32.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.25|39.78|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||39.78|27.25|
91702144|NCT02987972|183299347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.2||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||3.2|-3.1|
91702145|NCT02987972|183299347|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.0||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||5.0|-0.7|
91702146|NCT02987972|183299348|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.6|-0.8|
91702147|NCT02987972|183299348|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.6|-0.8|
91732587|NCT03977155|183360135|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.38|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.38|-1.00|0.3776
91732588|NCT03977155|183360135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.82||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.82|-0.73|
91732589|NCT03977155|183360135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.19||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.19|-1.41|
91732590|NCT03977155|183360135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.44||||||Statistical Analysis 4||1.44|-0.13|
91732591|NCT03977155|183360137|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.39|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.39|-0.45|0.8840
91732592|NCT03977155|183360137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.39||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.39|-0.60|
91732593|NCT03977155|183360137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.49||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.49|-0.43|
91732594|NCT03977155|183360137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.36||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.36|-0.63|
91732595|NCT03977155|183360138|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.4725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.29|-0.62|0.4725
91732596|NCT03977155|183360138|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.31||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.31|-0.71|
91732597|NCT03977155|183360138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.37|-0.62|
91732598|NCT03977155|183360138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.45||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.45|-0.60|
91732599|NCT03977155|183360139|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.51|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.51|-0.28|0.5693
91732600|NCT03977155|183360139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.63||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.63|-0.35|
91732601|NCT03977155|183360139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.51||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.51|-0.33|
91732602|NCT03977155|183360139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.51||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.51|-0.41|
91732603|NCT03977155|183360140|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.208||0.7603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.76|42.33|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||42.33|-57.76|0.7603
91732604|NCT03977155|183360140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.22|82.22||||||Statistical Analysis 2||82.22|-34.22|
91732605|NCT03977155|183360140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.91|21.07||||||Statistical Analysis 3||21.07|-87.91|
91732606|NCT03977155|183360140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|57.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|113.69||||||Statistical Analysis 4||113.69|1.16|
91732607|NCT03977155|183360141|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.10|-0.44|0.2149
91732608|NCT03977155|183360141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.29||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.29|-0.27|
91732609|NCT03977155|183360141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.01||||||Statistical Analysis 3||-0.01|-0.64|
91702148|NCT02987972|183299349|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|12.8|||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™.|||12.8|-0.3|
91869100|NCT03559205|183631990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|5.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Week Analysis||5.19|-1.17|0.21
91702149|NCT02987972|183299349|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|12.9|||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™.|||12.9|-0.2|
91702150|NCT02987972|183299350|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.7||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™.|||5.2|-3.9|0.772
91702151|NCT02987972|183299350|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.6||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™.|||7.0|-1.7|0.235
91702152|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.76|0.62|
91702153|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.28|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.28|1.75|
91702154|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.07|0.86|
91702155|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.96|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.96|0.78|
91702156|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.65|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.65|0.50|
91702157|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.39|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.39|1.06|
91702158|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.82|0.67|
91702159|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.95|0.74|
91702160|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.76|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.76|0.58|
91702161|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9||||||Type 18C|IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|0.90|0.72|
91702162|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.91|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.91|0.69|
91732610|NCT03977155|183360141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.65||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.65|0.02|
91732611|NCT03440385|183360180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.39|0.66|0.8125
91702163|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||0.85|0.65|
91702164|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.07|0.79|
91702165|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|27.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.64|31.4|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|type 22F||31.40|24.64|
91702166|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|25.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.61|28.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||28.92|22.61|
91702167|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.85|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.85|0.69|
91702168|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.39|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.39|1.84|
91702169|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.05|0.85|
91702170|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.95|0.77|
91732612|NCT03440385|183360181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.66|0.77|0.5400
91732613|NCT03440385|183360182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.95|0.85|0.2411
91869101|NCT03559205|183631990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|4.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||4.83|-2.95|0.63
91869102|NCT03559205|183631991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.63||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||6.26|-1.00|0.15
91702171|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.74|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.74|0.57|
91796967|NCT01532973|183472946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|4.58||||||||4.58|3.20|
91796968|NCT01532973|183472946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.98|5.36||||||||5.36|3.98|
91796969|NCT01532973|183472946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.92|4.3||||||||4.30|2.92|
91869103|NCT03559205|183631991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|6.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2 analysis||6.45|-2.02|0.30
91869104|NCT03559205|183631991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||5.90|-4.89|0.85
91702172|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.28|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.28|0.97|
91796970|NCT01532973|183472947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.54||||||||1.54|-0.09|
91796971|NCT01532973|183472947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.75|3.39||||||||3.39|1.75|
91796972|NCT01532973|183472947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|3.66||||||||3.66|2.02|
91869105|NCT03559205|183631992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Care and respect||0.74|-0.51|0.72
91869106|NCT03559205|183631992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Understanding \& engagement||0.83|-0.38|0.46
91869107|NCT03559205|183631993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||2-weeks||0.42|-0.13|0.30
91702173|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.86|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.86|0.70|
91702174|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.97|0.76|
91702175|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.7|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.70|0.53|
91702176|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.34|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.34|1.07|
91869108|NCT03559205|183631993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||3-months||0.52|-0.20|0.38
91869109|NCT03559205|183631994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.88|-1.48|0.61
91869110|NCT01335867|183632007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.14
91869111|NCT01335867|183632009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.24
91869112|NCT01335867|183632010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.20
91702177|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.94|0.71|
91702178|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||0.94|0.73|
91702179|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.35|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.35|0.99|
91796973|NCT01532973|183472948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.55|3.8||||||||3.80|2.55|
91796974|NCT01532973|183472948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|4.26||||||||4.26|3.00|
91796975|NCT01828320|183472985|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.08||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.34
91796976|NCT01828320|183472986|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.93
91796977|NCT01828320|183472987|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.01
91796978|NCT01828320|183472988|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.18||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.17
91869113|NCT01335867|183632011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.64
91869114|NCT01953692|183632024|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||one-sided p value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 10%. H0: p ≤ 0.10 versus H1: p \> 0.10||||>0.9999
91869115|NCT01953692|183632025|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||one-sided p-value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 25%. H0: p ≤ 0.25 versus H1: p \> 0.25||||>0.9999
91869116|NCT01953692|183632026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306||||||one-sided p-value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 10%. H0: p ≤ 0.10 versus H1: p \> 0.10||||0.0306
91869117|NCT01953692|183632027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7696||||||one-sided p-value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 25%. H0: p ≤ 0.25 versus H1: p \> 0.25||||0.7696
91869118|NCT00176202|183632072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91869119|NCT00176202|183632072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91869120|NCT00176202|183632073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.01
91869121|NCT00176202|183632073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91702180|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.31|29.68|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||29.68|23.31|
91869122|NCT00176202|183632074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||effect size|-1.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||In case of both risperidone and divalproex sodium.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91869123|NCT00176202|183632074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-1.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91869124|NCT00176202|183632075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||baseline is compared to LOCF to determine the p value.||||<0.01
91702181|NCT02987972|183299351|OTHER||GMC Ratio|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.32|27.25|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||27.25|21.32|
91702182|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.81|0.62|
91702183|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.63|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||1.63|1.27|
91702184|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.02|0.76|
91702185|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.84|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.84|0.63|
91702186|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.82|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.82|0.62|
91702187|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.22|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.22|0.93|
91702188|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.77|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.77|0.59|
91702189|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.79|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.79|0.60|
91702190|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||1.02|0.76|
91702191|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.08|0.81|
91702192|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||1.01|0.78|
91702193|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||1.10|0.85|
91702194|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.87|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||0.87|0.64|
91702195|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|149.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.23|172.06|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||172.06|130.23|
91702196|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|90.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.93|102.12|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||102.12|79.93|
91702197|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.93|0.71|
91869125|NCT00176202|183632075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91869126|NCT00731614|183632076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||Conducted a repeated measures ANOVA comparing CBT+mirror retraining with Supportive Therapy across 11 time points. The primary hypothesis was a group by time interaction. Due to missing data, a total of 9 and 14 participants, respectively could be included in analyses.||||.322
91869127|NCT02157948|183632094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Testing: The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference (denosumab CP4 - denosumab CP2) in percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months was compared with the non-inferiority margin of -1.44% for assessing non-inferiority.|Difference from CP2|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.57||One-sided p-value based on the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -1.44% for lumbar spine.|ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison was analyzed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline BMD value interaction. The effect of denosumab CP4 on lumbar spine BMD at 12 months relative to the effect of denosumab CP2 was estimated by the least-squares mean of the treatment difference (denosumab CP4 - denosumab CP2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.57|-0.72|< 0.001
91759192|NCT02726022|183411387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.962
91869128|NCT02157948|183632094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Testing: The lower and upper bounds of the same 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference were compared with the equivalence margin of ±1.44% for assessing equivalence.|Difference from CP2|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.57||Two-sided p-value based on the prespecified equivalence margin of ±1.44% for lumbar spine.|ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison was analyzed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline BMD value interaction. The effect of denosumab CP4 on lumbar spine BMD at 12 months relative to the effect of denosumab CP2 was estimated by the least-squares mean of the treatment difference (denosumab CP4 - denosumab CP2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.57|-0.72|< 0.001
91869129|NCT04119063|183632135|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
91869130|NCT04119063|183632136|OTHER|Paired t-test||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
91869131|NCT04119063|183632137|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91702198|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.68|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||1.68|1.31|
91702199|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||0.94|0.70|
91702200|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.79|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.79|0.60|
91702201|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.76|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.76|0.58|
91702202|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.95|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||0.95|0.72|
91702203|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.81|0.62|
91702204|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.88|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.88|0.67|
91702205|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.98|0.73|
91702206|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.24|0.93|
91702207|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.93|0.72|
91702208|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||1.03|0.79|
91702209|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.08|0.79|
91702210|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|131.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.05|151.0|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||151.00|114.05|
91702211|NCT02987972|183299352|OTHER||GMC Ratio|78.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.82|89.36|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||89.36|69.82|
91732614|NCT03440385|183360183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.34|0.67|0.7469
91869132|NCT04119063|183632138|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.242|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.242
91869133|NCT04119063|183632139|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.014
91869134|NCT00145470|183632155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0257||||||P-value based on the difference in the least squares (LS) means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0257
91869135|NCT00145470|183632158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 42||||0.0210
91702212|NCT01726036|183299365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
91702213|NCT01047332|183299366|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.530
91702214|NCT01047332|183299367|OTHER|||||||0.997|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.997
91702215|NCT03521817|183299370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.231
91702216|NCT00778102|183299404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rate|12.3||||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|35.5|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval calculated for difference based on Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference between groups in the collective percentage of participants with R0, R1, or R2.||35.5|-11.0|0.2707
91869136|NCT00145470|183632159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.0073
91869137|NCT00145470|183632160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3928|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 3||||0.3928
91869138|NCT00145470|183632160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7923|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 7||||0.7923
91869139|NCT00145470|183632160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0701|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 14||||0.0701
91869140|NCT00145470|183632160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1634|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 21||||0.1634
91869141|NCT00145470|183632160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 42||||0.0370
91869142|NCT00145470|183632160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 63||||0.0488
91869143|NCT00145470|183632160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 84||||0.0152
91869144|NCT00145470|183632161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3709|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 3||||0.3709
91869145|NCT00145470|183632161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8837|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 7||||0.8837
91905163|NCT01911442|183705953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.3592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures.||2.2|-6.1|0.3592
91905164|NCT01911442|183705954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1755|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This is due to rounding. the LSM for Lurasidone 20 mg/d at week 6 was -1.069 vs -0.734 for placebo group. So the LSM of the treatment difference between Lurasidone 20 mg/d and placebo was 0.335 if 3 decimals are reported.|||||0.1755
91869146|NCT00145470|183632161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1153|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 14||||0.1153
91869147|NCT00145470|183632161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0158|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 21||||0.0158
91869148|NCT00145470|183632161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0143|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 42||||0.0143
91869149|NCT00145470|183632161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 63||||0.0196
91869150|NCT00145470|183632161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 84||||0.0148
91869151|NCT00145470|183632162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0046
91869152|NCT00145470|183632163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.0006
91869153|NCT00145470|183632164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3497||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.3497
91869154|NCT00145470|183632165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7753||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.7753
91869155|NCT00145470|183632166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0073
91869156|NCT00145470|183632167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.0102
91869157|NCT00145470|183632168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3684||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.3684
91869158|NCT00145470|183632169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.9370
91869159|NCT00145470|183632170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2492||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.2492
91869160|NCT00145470|183632171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4683||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.4683
91869161|NCT00145470|183632172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5683||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.5683
91869162|NCT00145470|183632173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9693||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.9693
91869163|NCT00145470|183632174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6136||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.6136
91869164|NCT00145470|183632175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1586||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.1586
91905165|NCT01911442|183705954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2402|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2402
91905166|NCT01286454|183705984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|111.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.69|120.47||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg IR-BIC Fasted was test.||120.47|102.69|
91732615|NCT03440385|183360184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.97|0.75|0.4255
91869165|NCT00145470|183632176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Verbal Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.0550
91869166|NCT00145470|183632176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7469||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Visual Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.7469
91869167|NCT00145470|183632176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3253||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Processing Speed - CFB at Day 21||||0.3253
91905167|NCT01286454|183705984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.16|111.64||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||111.64|95.16|
91905168|NCT01286454|183705984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|70.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.52|76.74||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 15% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||76.74|64.52|
91905169|NCT01286454|183705984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|113.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.91|121.74||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fed was test.||121.74|105.91|
91905170|NCT01286454|183705985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|112.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.85|122.52||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg IR-BIC Fasted was test.||122.52|103.85|
91905171|NCT01286454|183705985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.48|112.65||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||112.65|95.48|
91905172|NCT01286454|183705985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|66.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.56|72.63||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 15% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||72.63|61.56|
91905173|NCT01286454|183705985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|28.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.09|30.78||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 20% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||30.78|26.09|
91732616|NCT03440385|183360185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.76|0.60|0.9313
91869168|NCT00145470|183632176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3885||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Social Acuity - CFB at Day 21||||0.3885
91869169|NCT00145470|183632176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5975||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Reasoning - CFB at Day 21||||0.5975
91869170|NCT00145470|183632176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Executive Functioning - CFB at Day 21||||0.0690
91905174|NCT01286454|183705985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|114.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.99|122.97||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fed was test.||122.97|106.99|
91905175|NCT01286454|183705986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|259.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|231.48|290.7||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg IR-BIC Fasted was test.||290.70|231.48|
91905176|NCT01286454|183705986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|134.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.31|151.09||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||151.09|120.31|
91905177|NCT01286454|183705986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|48.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.35|54.44||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 15% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||54.44|43.35|
91905178|NCT01286454|183705986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|14.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.83|16.11||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 20% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||16.11|12.83|
91905179|NCT01286454|183705986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|171.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.82|187.78||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fed was test.||187.78|115.82|
91905180|NCT01898689|183706013|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori equivalence region for the difference in means between the two concentrations was specified as +10 mA. This value was considered the minimal clinically relevant current since it approximates the tolerated electrical current range at baseline of the general population-in other words, natural variability and therefore a relatively small amount of current to detect.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|8.5||"P-values from the TOST procedure were 0.02 and 0.03 for the mean being inside the lower and upper boundaries, respectively.~(estimated mean difference of 0.2 mA; 90% CI 28.2 to 8.5)"|Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses were thus:~H0: m0.1%-m0.4% ≤ -10 or m0.1%-m0.4% ≥ 10 and Ha: -10 , m0.1%-m0.4% , 10 where m0.1% and m0.1% are the population means for tolerance to current under 0.1% and 0.4% ropivacaine, respectively.~With 24 evaluable subjects, we had 90% power at the 0.05 significance level to detect equivalence of 0.1% and 0.4% ropivacaine concentration on the mean tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation"||8.5|-8.2|0.02
91905181|NCT02101515|183706026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.93||||||||0.93|0.22|
91905182|NCT02101515|183706028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|8.4||||||||8.40|0.67|
91905183|NCT02101515|183706029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.45||||||||1.45|0.41|
91905184|NCT02101515|183706030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.62||||||||5.62|1.30|
91905185|NCT02101515|183706031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|13.92||||||||13.92|0.06|
91905186|NCT02101515|183706033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|42.9||||||||42.90|0.68|
91732617|NCT03440385|183360186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||2.31|0.70|0.4339
91732618|NCT03440385|183360187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||2.20|0.77|0.3330
91732619|NCT03440385|183360188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.47|0.74|0.8200
91732620|NCT03440385|183360189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.59|0.71|0.7776
91905187|NCT02101515|183706035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.54||||||||1.54|0.46|
91905188|NCT02101515|183706036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.49||||||||1.49|0.39|
91905189|NCT02101515|183706038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
91905190|NCT02101515|183706042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.77||||||||2.77|0.03|
91905191|NCT01289821|183706043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|43.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|80.0|33.19|55.09|||One-sample exact binomial test|||"Null hypothesis: True probability p of objective tumor response does not exceed p0, p0=0.4. H0: p\<=0.4 One-sided type I error probability of alpha=10%"||55.09|33.19|0.36
91732621|NCT03440385|183360190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no)||||2.11|0.92|0.1187
91732622|NCT03440385|183360191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no)||||2.26|0.72|0.4030
91732623|NCT03440385|183360192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.78|||Mantel Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.78|0.35|0.5630
91732624|NCT00488293|183360193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91732625|NCT00488293|183360194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.88
91732626|NCT00488293|183360195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91732627|NCT00488293|183360196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91732628|NCT00488293|183360197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
91732629|NCT00488293|183360198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91796979|NCT01828320|183472989|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.07||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.31
91905192|NCT02887404|183706052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6|-6|0.92
91905193|NCT02887404|183706053|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 15. The significance level for non-inferiority was 0.025|Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|3.0|||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|||||3|-21|<0.001
91905194|NCT02887404|183706053|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-23.0|5.0||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice.|Hodges-Lehmann estimator|||||5|-23|0.175
91732630|NCT00488293|183360199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91732631|NCT00488293|183360200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91732632|NCT00488293|183360201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91732633|NCT00488293|183360202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
91732634|NCT01425814|183360226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.298|||ANCOVA|||||0.298|0.219|<0.0001
91732635|NCT01425814|183360226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.273|||ANCOVA|||||0.273|0.194|<0.0001
91732636|NCT01425814|183360226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|0.242|||ANCOVA|||||0.242|0.164|<0.0001
91732637|NCT01425814|183360226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.141|||ANCOVA|||||0.141|0.062|<0.0001
91732638|NCT01358734|183360240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.789||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|3.718|||Log Rank|||||3.718|0.861|0.119
91732639|NCT01358734|183360240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.659||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.214|5.822|||Log Rank|||||5.822|1.214|0.014
91732640|NCT01358734|183360240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|2.653|||Log Rank|||||2.653|0.704|0.356
91732641|NCT00127439|183360276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power analysis indicated that when the mean difference equals to 1.2 times of standard deviation, a two-sided t-test at 0.05 level will have 80% power; and for a mean difference of 1.4 times of standard deviation the power increases to 91%. To test the null hypothesis that correlation will be 0 at 0.5 level, a two-sided test based on Fisher's Z transformation will yield a power of 89% in detecting correlations of 0.6 or above with n=24 or above.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91732642|NCT00127439|183360276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Pearson correlation of gait speed changes with directional difference of standardized kinematic scores (i.e. foot trajectory toe-off - degrees, foot trajectory toe-off - % cycle, foot trajectory initial contact - degrees, foot trajectory range - degrees, propulsive impulse N-s, minimum thigh angle - flexion degrees, minimum hip angle - extension degrees, trunk angle mid-stance)||||0.05
91732643|NCT00127439|183360277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91732644|NCT00127439|183360278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Provided previously||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91732645|NCT00127439|183360279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Provided previously||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91732646|NCT00127439|183360280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91732647|NCT00127439|183360281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91732648|NCT00127439|183360282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91732649|NCT00127439|183360283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91732650|NCT00127439|183360284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91732651|NCT00376558|183360285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91732652|NCT00376558|183360286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||delta bpnd|-12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The limbic striatum was our primary region of interest using an unpaired t test to compare BPND and deltaBPND between the treatment responders and non-responders.||||0.001
91905195|NCT02887404|183706054|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 1 The significance level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||This is a joint hypothesis testing. We tested non-inferiority on both secondary outcomes. If both showed significant non-inferiority, we tested superiority on both outcomes.|Regression, Linear|||||1|-0.8|<0.001
91905196|NCT02887404|183706054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|0.1||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice|Regression, Linear|||||0.1|-0.8|0.094
91905197|NCT02887404|183706072|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 9; significance level was 0.025|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.1|-0.3|<0.001
91905198|NCT02887404|183706072|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.1||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice|Wilcoxon sum rank test|||||0.1|-0.3|0.171
91905199|NCT02887404|183706073|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 1 significance level: 0.025|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||Regression, Linear||||The superiority test (this is a joint-hypothesis testing) showed a mean difference of -0.5 between treatment and control group with 97.5% CI of (-1.0, 0.0) and p-value of 0.025. The significance level was 0.025.|-0.1|-1.0|<0.001
91905200|NCT02887404|183706073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.0|0.0||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice|Regression, Linear|||||0.0|-1.0|0.025
91905201|NCT01092143|183706081|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.083|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.65||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|6.323||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 50 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||6.323|-0.157|0.0311
91905202|NCT01092143|183706081|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.589|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|6.732||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, trea||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 200 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||6.732|0.447|0.0126
91905203|NCT01092143|183706081|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.977|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.64||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|7.197||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 400 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||7.197|0.756|0.0078
91905204|NCT01092143|183706081|OTHER||Adjusted mean treatment differences|8.619|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.684|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.312|11.927||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with fluticasone propionate 110 mcg 2 puffs b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||11.927|5.312|<.0001
91905205|NCT01092143|183706081|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-5.536|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.653||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.783|-2.29||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 50 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with fluticasone propionate 220 mcg b.i.d., after 6 weeks.||-2.290|-8.783|0.9996
91905206|NCT01092143|183706081|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-5.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.606||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.185|-1.875||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 200 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with fluticasone propionate 220mcg b.i.d., after 6 weeks.||-1.875|-8.185|0.9991
91905207|NCT01092143|183706081|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-4.643|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.647||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.877|-1.408||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 400 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with fluticasone propionate 220 mcg b.i.d., after 6 weeks.||-1.408|-7.877|0.9975
91905208|NCT01092143|183706082|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.073|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.7413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.295||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.295|-0.149|0.7413
91905209|NCT01092143|183706082|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.136||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.136|-0.296|0.2335
91905210|NCT01092143|183706082|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.061|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.2933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.16||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.160|-0.282|0.2933
91905211|NCT01092143|183706082|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.116||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.561|-0.105||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||-0.105|-0.561|0.0021
91905212|NCT01092143|183706082|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.406|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.114||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|0.63||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.630|0.183|0.9998
91732653|NCT04620668|183360326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||<0.001
91732654|NCT04620668|183360326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within treatment group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||<0.001
91869171|NCT00145470|183632176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Working Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.7970
91869172|NCT00145470|183632176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8339||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Sustained Attention - CFB at Day 21||||0.8339
91732655|NCT04620668|183360326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from baseline to week 2 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.044
91732656|NCT04620668|183360326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from week 2 to week 4 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.001
91732657|NCT04620668|183360326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within control group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||0.731
91732658|NCT04620668|183360327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||<0.001
91732659|NCT04620668|183360327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within treatment group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||<0.001
91732660|NCT04620668|183360327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from baseline to week 2 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.05
91732661|NCT04620668|183360327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from week 2 to week 4 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.024
91732662|NCT04620668|183360327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within control group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||0.674
91732663|NCT04620668|183360328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||0.159
91732664|NCT04620668|183360329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||0.326
91732665|NCT04047355|183360332|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The placebo phase serves as the control condition and the propranolol phase serves as the treatment condition.|A post-hoc power analysis was conducted using G\*Power, v. 3.1, to determine the achieved power for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs.||||0.12
91732666|NCT04047355|183360332|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (r)|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91732667|NCT04047355|183360332|SUPERIORITY||Post-hoc power analysis|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The alpha error probability was set at α = 0.05 (two-tailed).|||||
91732668|NCT04047355|183360333|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The placebo phase serves as the control condition and the propranolol phase serves as the treatment condition.|A post-hoc power analysis was conducted using G\*Power, v. 3.1, to determine the achieved power for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs.||||0.07
91732669|NCT04047355|183360333|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (r)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91732670|NCT04047355|183360333|SUPERIORITY||Post-hoc power analysis|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The alpha error probability was set at α = 0.05 (two-tailed).|||||
91732671|NCT00427700|183360336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|33.0|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference between two drugs for ovulation induction.A sample size of 40 women per arm was calculated for this superiority trial, considering an alpha and beta error of 0.05 and 0.2, respectively, to find an absolute difference of 30% in the ovulation rate between groups, based on a previous study published by Mitwally and Casper (18) where the ovulation rate with CC was approximately 45%.||33|-9|0.3
91732672|NCT00427700|183360337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|34.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the mean values of progesterone between both groups.||34|-6|0.2
91732673|NCT05081843|183360368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.522|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.522|-0.056|0.05
91869173|NCT00145470|183632176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2101||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Composite Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.2101
91732674|NCT05081843|183360369|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.534||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.990|0.078|0.05
91732675|NCT05081843|183360370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.829|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.829|-0.177|0.05
91732676|NCT05081843|183360371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.756||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.31|0.208|0.05
91732677|NCT00835354|183360385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|89.2||||||90.0|86.2|92.2|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||92.2|86.2|
91732678|NCT00835354|183360386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|90.5||||||90.0|88.9|92.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||92.1|88.9|
91759193|NCT02726022|183411388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.052
91869174|NCT00145470|183632177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6914||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Verbal Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.6914
91869175|NCT00145470|183632177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8805||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Visual Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.8805
91869176|NCT00145470|183632177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4878||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Processing Speed - CFB at Day 84||||0.4878
91869177|NCT00145470|183632177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8051||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Social Acuity - CFB at Day 84||||0.8051
91869178|NCT00145470|183632177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1925||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Reasoning - CFB at Day 84||||0.1925
91869179|NCT00145470|183632177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0514||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Executive Functioning - CFB at Day 84||||0.0514
91869180|NCT00145470|183632177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9898||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Working Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.9898
91869181|NCT00145470|183632177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5683||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Sustained Attention - CFB at Day 84||||0.5683
91869182|NCT00145470|183632177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8907||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Composite Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.8907
91869183|NCT00145470|183632178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0613
91869184|NCT00145470|183632179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7493||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.7493
91869185|NCT00145470|183632180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4884||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.4884
91869186|NCT00145470|183632181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||PCS - Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.1280
91869187|NCT00145470|183632181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||MCS - Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0215
91869188|NCT00145470|183632182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1331||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||PCS - Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.1331
91869189|NCT00145470|183632182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2024||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||MCS - Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.2024
91869190|NCT02063659|183632184|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimator of difference|-53.955|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.955|-25.119|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||The primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the u5-HIAA at randomization.|Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo.|-25.119|-84.955|< 0.001
91869191|NCT02063659|183632184|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimator of difference|-89.662|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.104|-63.863|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||The primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the u5-HIAA at randomization.|Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo.|-63.863|-113.104|< 0.001
91869192|NCT04762277|183632192|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|23.4|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||23.4|-31.7|
91869193|NCT04762277|183632193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.5|-38.8|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||-38.8|-154.5|
91869194|NCT04762277|183632194|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.339|||||Risk difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference is calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.339|-0.129|
91905213|NCT01092143|183706082|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.253|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.47||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.470|0.037|0.9890
91869195|NCT04762277|183632195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-2.3|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||-2.3|-25.6|
91869196|NCT04762277|183632196|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-2.7|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as : Spesolimab- Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||-2.7|-36.9|
91869197|NCT04762277|183632197|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.186|||||Risk difference was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference is calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.186|-0.132|
91869198|NCT04762277|183632198|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.338|||||Risk Difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference was calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.338|-0.067|
91869199|NCT04762277|183632199|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.183|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.375|||||Risk Difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference was calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.375|-0.079|
91869200|NCT04762277|183632200|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.089|||||Risk Difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference was calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.089|-0.331|
91869201|NCT04762277|183632201|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.3|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||4.3|-4.4|
91869202|NCT04762277|183632202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|6.9|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||6.9|-9.5|
91869203|NCT00768716|183632230|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
91869204|NCT00768716|183632231|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91732679|NCT00835354|183360387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|90.7||||||90.0|89.1|92.3|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||92.3|89.1|
91869205|NCT00768716|183632232|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91869206|NCT00768716|183632234|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91869207|NCT00768716|183632235|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91905214|NCT01092143|183706082|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.272|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.494||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.494|0.050|0.9918
91905215|NCT01500525|183706105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.05
91759194|NCT02726022|183411388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.677
91869208|NCT00768716|183632236|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91869209|NCT05643885|183632239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
91869210|NCT05643885|183632240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
91869211|NCT05643885|183632241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
91869212|NCT05643885|183632242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
91905216|NCT01660451|183706106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|45.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.49|61.06||0.0001|Exact binomial test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||61.06|30.49|0.0001
91759195|NCT02726022|183411389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.720
91732680|NCT05472870|183360394|SUPERIORITY|One-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used to examine differences in the effects of cTMS on the SRS. A P value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust P values in post hoc analyses.|ANOVA|||All clinical behavioral data analysis was performed using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) software (version 25.0). A P value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. One-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used to examine differences in the effects of cTMS on the SRS.||||<0.001
91732681|NCT01385995|183360404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.24|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Controlled for period and baseline 2 hour OGTT glucose level.||Based on an intent to treat approach a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) was used to estimate the effect of therapy (CPAP or Sham) on the odds of normalization of Impaired Glucose Tolerance (IGT). This model provides an estimate of the odds ratio of normalizing the 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) with CPAP compared with Sham-CPAP.||3.24|0.52|0.57
91732682|NCT01385995|183360405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of glucose indices, in this case fasting glucose, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||3.0|-1.2|0.38
91732683|NCT01385995|183360405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|1.7|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between measures of glucose indices, in this case, 2 hour OGTT, and therapeutic CPAP vs. Sham.||1.7|-16.3|0.11
91732684|NCT01385995|183360405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.7|||Regression, Linear|||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of glucose indices, in this case fasting glucose, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=25.||2.7|-3.3|0.86
91732685|NCT01385995|183360405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of glucose indices, in this case 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) glucose, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N= 25.||1.3|-24.6|0.08
91732686|NCT01385995|183360406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case, fasting insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||0.5|-3.4|0.14
91759196|NCT02726022|183411389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.237
91869213|NCT05643885|183632243|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2303|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2303
91759197|NCT02726022|183411390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.184
91759198|NCT02726022|183411390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.889
91759199|NCT01124955|183411397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||,|0|||||||ANOVA|||||||0,05
91869214|NCT05643885|183632244|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7403|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.7403
91869215|NCT05643885|183632245|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2414|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2414
91869216|NCT05643885|183632246|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2592|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2592
91869217|NCT05643885|183632247|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4837|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.4837
91869218|NCT05643885|183632248|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1355|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.1355
91869219|NCT05643885|183632249|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6066|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.6066
91869220|NCT05643885|183632250|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3795|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.3795
91869221|NCT05643885|183632251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6618|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.6618
91869222|NCT05643885|183632252|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2337|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2337
91869223|NCT05643885|183632253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||<0.0001
91869224|NCT05643885|183632253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||<0.0001
91869225|NCT05643885|183632253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||laboratory or pathology visits||||<0.0001
91869226|NCT05643885|183632253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||<0.0001
91869227|NCT05643885|183632253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||<0.0001
91869228|NCT05643885|183632253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary/other services||||<0.0001
91869229|NCT05643885|183632254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
91869230|NCT05643885|183632255|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.729|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.7290
91869231|NCT05643885|183632256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3686|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||=0.3686
91869232|NCT05643885|183632256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2747|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||=0.2747
91869233|NCT05643885|183632256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1049|||||||Weighted t-test|||Laboratory or pathology visits||||=0.1049
91869234|NCT05643885|183632256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8425|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||=0.8425
91869235|NCT05643885|183632256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9755|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||=0.9755
91869236|NCT05643885|183632256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0582|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary or other services||||=0.0582
91869237|NCT05643885|183632257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9796|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.9796
91796980|NCT01828320|183472990|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.001||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.80
91869238|NCT05643885|183632258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0379|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||=0.0379
91732687|NCT01385995|183360406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||2.8|-23.3|0.12
91732688|NCT01385995|183360406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case fasting insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||0.5|-5.2|0.10
91732689|NCT01385995|183360406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-10.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||-10.9|-46.5|0.002
91732690|NCT01385995|183360407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|3.8|||Regression, Linear|||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||3.8|-17.6|0.18
91732691|NCT01385995|183360407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|1.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin resistance, in this case Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||1.8|-27.5|0.08
91732692|NCT01385995|183360408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and the Insulin Sensivity Index, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||9.8|-2.0|0.20
91732693|NCT01385995|183360408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and the Insulin Sensitivity Index (ISI(0,120)), between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||22.1|5.2|0.002
91732694|NCT02414841|183360409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.39|||Log Rank|Weighted|Performed as sensitivity analysis|||1.39|0.67|0.932
91732695|NCT02414841|183360410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.328
91732696|NCT05339659|183360445|OTHER|The point null hypothesis of the significance test was a difference in expected number of log ins of 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|9.44|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|A priori power calculations estimated detectable differences with 80% power with type 1 error rate=0.05, assuming a two-sided unequal variance t-test (standard deviations of 2.0 and 7.0 in the control and experimental arms, respectively) and a total sample of n=50 equally split between arms. Given a final sample size of 19 (7 control, 12 experimental), we re-calculated the detectable mean difference with these sample sizes (maintaining all other original assumptions), which is 6.51 sessions.||9.44|-2.33|0.219
91732697|NCT05339659|183360447|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average number of days of use between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.12||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.44|9.19|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||9.19|-53.44|0.153
91732698|NCT05339659|183360448|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is a relative difference=0.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.095||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.558|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.558|-0.352|0.727
91732699|NCT05339659|183360449|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.61|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.61|-0.60|0.325
91732700|NCT05339659|183360450|OTHER|The null hypothesis of the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.72|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.72|-1.28|0.745
91732701|NCT05339659|183360451|OTHER|The null hypothesis of the significance test is a risk difference=0.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.58||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.85|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.85|0.16|0.009
91796981|NCT01828320|183472991|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.04||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.96
91869239|NCT05643885|183632258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9034|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||=0.9034
91869240|NCT05643885|183632258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5452|||||||Weighted t-test|||Laboratory or pathology visits||||=0.5452
91869241|NCT05643885|183632258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1644|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||=0.1644
91869242|NCT05643885|183632258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||=0.0650
91869243|NCT05643885|183632258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3866|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary or other services||||=0.3866
91869244|NCT05643885|183632259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.566|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.5660
91869245|NCT05643885|183632260|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0425|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||=0.0425
91869246|NCT05643885|183632260|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8634|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||=0.8634
91869247|NCT05643885|183632260|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0399|||||||Weighted t-test|||Laboratory or pathology visits||||=0.0399
91869248|NCT05643885|183632260|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0996|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||=0.0996
91869249|NCT05643885|183632260|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7655|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||=0.7655
91869250|NCT05643885|183632260|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1499|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary or other services||||=0.1499
91869251|NCT05349721|183632272|OTHER||Treatment Difference|6.86||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|27.59|||ANCOVA|Estimates were derived from the ANCOVA model (following multiple imputation), where participant ranks served as the response variable.||||27.59|-13.86|0.516
91905217|NCT01660451|183706106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|27.08||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.83|39.57||0.0001|Exact binominal test|P-value was based on the original patients in the aggressive arm (for the first 34 patients), not including the additional recruited patients.||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||39.57|16.83|0.0001
91905218|NCT01660451|183706107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|59.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|67.32||0.001|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 40%.||67.32|50.60|<0.0001
91869252|NCT00108355|183632288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Initial estimation: median time to recurrence of ascites of 38 days in the study group and 20 days in the control group in a fixed duration of 6 months (5% type-I error (2 sided) and an 80% power). However, due to low accrual and based on randomized trials using vasoconstrictors in the prevention of PCD and a study that showed that midodrine leads to a significant improvement in effective arterial blood volume, each of which had sample sizes of 24-25 patients,we decided on a sample size of 30.||||<0.05
91869253|NCT01583166|183632291|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.837
91869254|NCT03960645|183632319|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|41.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.71|46.32||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio (%).||46.32|36.71|
91869255|NCT03960645|183632319|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|44.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.04|49.79||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||49.79|40.04|
91702217|NCT00778102|183299407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|-4.8||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|33.5|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval calculated for difference based on Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference between groups in the collective percentage of participants with complete or major histopathological response.||33.5|-43.0|0.7817
91869256|NCT03960645|183632319|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|40.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.77|44.76||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||44.76|36.77|
91869257|NCT03960645|183632319|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.95|49.34||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||49.34|39.95|
91869258|NCT03960645|183632320|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|67.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.45|71.56||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||71.56|63.45|
91869259|NCT03960645|183632320|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|64.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.95|67.75||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||67.75|60.95|
91869260|NCT03960645|183632320|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|69.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.88|72.66||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||72.66|65.88|
91869261|NCT03960645|183632320|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|65.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.79|68.57||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||68.57|61.79|
91869262|NCT03960645|183632320|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.4|92.14||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||92.14|65.40|
91869263|NCT03960645|183632320|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.76|76.96||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||76.96|50.76|
91869264|NCT03960645|183632320|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|69.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.57|82.88||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||82.88|58.57|
91869265|NCT03960645|183632320|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|56.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.32|68.96||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||68.96|46.32|
91869266|NCT03960645|183632322|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|51.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.48|57.97||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||57.97|46.48|
91869267|NCT03960645|183632322|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|57.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.48|63.36||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||63.36|52.48|
91869268|NCT03960645|183632322|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|48.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.03|53.94||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||53.94|43.03|
91905219|NCT01660451|183706108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|46.88||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.54|62.66||0.0001|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||62.66|31.54|0.0001
91905220|NCT01660451|183706108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|31.25||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.35|43.97||0.0001|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||43.97|20.35|0.0001
91905221|NCT01660451|183706109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|51.41||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.88|59.87||0.01|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 40%.||59.87|42.88|0.0039
91905222|NCT01660451|183706120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||||||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate was used to calculate change to Week 16 and 95% confidence interval.||2.5|0.5|
91732702|NCT05339659|183360454|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is a mean difference of 0 cigarettes/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|5.44|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline cigarettes/day.|mean difference=experimental-control|||5.44|-2.66|0.469
91732703|NCT05339659|183360455|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is a mean difference of 0 cigarettes/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|2.16|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline cigarettes/day.|mean difference=experimental-control|||2.16|-3.48|0.614
91732704|NCT05339659|183360456|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|2.38|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||2.38|-2.67|0.90
91732705|NCT05339659|183360457|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|1.93|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.93|-3.03|0.632
91732706|NCT05339659|183360458|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.94|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||-0.94|-3.55|0.227
91732707|NCT05339659|183360459|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|1.15|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.15|-3.58|0.274
91905223|NCT01660451|183706121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2||||||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate was used to calculate change to Week 16 and 95% confidence interval.||3.2|-0.7|
91905224|NCT04688775|183706122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.6|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the Number of Weekly Attacks: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo||2.6|-1.3|0.5048
91905225|NCT04688775|183706127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.17|||Regression, Cox|||||2.17|0.96|0.0772
91905226|NCT01536951|183706167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.239|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|2.12|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP 1 h postdose analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.12|-1.65|
91905227|NCT01536951|183706167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.079|3.69|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 1.5 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||3.69|-0.0790|
91905228|NCT01536951|183706167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.446|3.32|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 2 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||3.32|-0.446|
91905229|NCT01536951|183706167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|2.35|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 3 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.35|-1.42|
91905230|NCT01536951|183706167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|2.59|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 4 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.59|-1.18|
91905231|NCT01536951|183706167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.68|1.1|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 6 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||1.10|-2.68|
91905232|NCT01536951|183706167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.182|3.6|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 12 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||3.60|-0.182|
91905233|NCT01536951|183706167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.921|2.85|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 24 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.85|-0.921|
91732708|NCT05339659|183360463|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.39|-0.39|0.981
91732709|NCT05339659|183360464|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.43|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.43|-0.49|0.845
91732710|NCT05339659|183360465|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||Barnard's exact test||||risk difference=experimental-control|0.28|-0.47|0.560
91732711|NCT05339659|183360466|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.39|-0.39|0.981
91732712|NCT05339659|183360467|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.34|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.34|-0.49|0.632
91905234|NCT01536951|183706167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|14.5|||||LS mean difference (moxifloxacin minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 1 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||14.5|10.0|
91905235|NCT01536951|183706167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.74|13.3|||||LS mean difference (moxifloxacin minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 2 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||13.3|8.74|
91869269|NCT03960645|183632322|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|54.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.39|61.21||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||61.21|48.39|
91869270|NCT03960645|183632322|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|75.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.7|85.7||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||85.70|66.70|
91869271|NCT03960645|183632322|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.76|88.05||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||88.05|68.76|
91869272|NCT03960645|183632322|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.33|85.29||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||85.29|70.33|
91905236|NCT01536951|183706167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.87|13.4|||||LS mean difference (moxifloxacin minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 4 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||13.4|8.87|
91905237|NCT00698997|183706174|OTHER|Non- equivalence.|slope difference|1.01||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). Change-over-Time was modeled as a linear within-subject effect of time across all observed data for each participant. We fit splines to manage the differing lengths of time in parent-training versus direct treatment. In all analyses, site was included as a categorical covariate to account for potential differences. Effect sizes were reported following Cohen's recommendations as f2.||||.03
91759200|NCT03274518|183411401|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 20% in comparison to reference method (olHDF)||||||0.4534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4534
91759201|NCT03274518|183411402|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 20% in comparison to reference method (olHDF)||||||0.1179|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1179
91759202|NCT03274518|183411403|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 20% in comparison to reference method (olHDF)||||||0.3054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3054
91759203|NCT03274518|183411404|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower the ECW/TBW ratio, the lower pre-dialysis excess fluid. A non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 10% from reference method (olHDF)||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
91759204|NCT00781859|183411406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.24||comparing placebo and ocriplasmin|Fisher Exact|||||5.24|1.32|0.003
91759205|NCT01220180|183411425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91759206|NCT01220180|183411426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91759207|NCT01220180|183411427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91759208|NCT01220180|183411428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91759209|NCT01220180|183411429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91759210|NCT01220180|183411430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91759211|NCT01220180|183411431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91759212|NCT01220180|183411432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91759213|NCT00348309|183411449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.0||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-2.7|0.049
91759214|NCT00348309|183411449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.3||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.7|0.808
91759215|NCT00348309|183411449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.9|0.035
91759216|NCT00348309|183411449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.0|0.999
91759217|NCT00348309|183411449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-1.9|0.020
91759218|NCT00348309|183411449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.2|0.661
91759219|NCT00348309|183411450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-1.0|=0.056
91759220|NCT00348309|183411450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.4|=0.587
91759221|NCT00348309|183411450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|=0.004
91759222|NCT00348309|183411450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|=0.402
91759223|NCT00348309|183411450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|=0.002
91759224|NCT00348309|183411450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||=|0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.2|=0.478
91759225|NCT00348309|183411451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-2.0|=0.340
91759226|NCT00348309|183411451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-2.5|=0.079
91759227|NCT00348309|183411451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.5||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-1.7|=0.910
91759228|NCT00348309|183411451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.0||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-2.1|0.521
91759229|NCT00348309|183411451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||=|0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-0.5|=0.154
91759230|NCT00348309|183411451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.0||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-1.6|=0.836
91759231|NCT00348309|183411451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.2||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|-0.1|0.061
91905238|NCT05082376|183706198|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|8.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 2 hours post-treatment||8.8|6.6|<0.0001
91732713|NCT05339659|183360468|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.45|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.45|-0.48|>0.999
91732714|NCT03360344|183360529|OTHER|non-parametric tests were used as data was not normally distributed.||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxan signed Rank|||statistical analysis for wrist||||0.48
91732715|NCT03360344|183360529|OTHER|nonparametric test were used as the distribution was not normal.||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxan Signed Rank|||statistical analysis for forearm||||.99
91732716|NCT03360344|183360530|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||statistical analysis for forearm||||.001
91732717|NCT03360344|183360530|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||statistical analysis for wrist||||.001
91732718|NCT03360344|183360531|OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
91732719|NCT03360344|183360532|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
91732720|NCT03360344|183360533|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.001
91732721|NCT01765400|183360552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91732722|NCT01342666|183360556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2925|6.9383||We did only one comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||We compare de mean difference of the delta (final-basal levels) between groups. The values posted are the difference found in the tomato group in comparison of the control group. The mean represent the increment of HDL-c in the tomato group.|We test the effect of two daily roma tomatoes during one month in HDL-c levels. We estimate the sample size to have a 80% study power.||6.9383|3.2925|<0.0001
91732723|NCT01342666|183360556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|5.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.789|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.027|7.232||A priori p value of \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for adherence, smoking, age, gender, waist to hip ratio, triglycerides, body mass index, exercise, omega 3, alcohol, fish, simple sugars.|Parameters of the model: F= 4.06; r = 0.798; r2 = 0.638; p=0.001|||7.232|4.027|<0.0001
91732724|NCT00688740|183360561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.795||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|0.932||Pairwise stratified log-rank test on the number of positive axillary nodes as per randomization|Log Rank|||||0.932|0.679|0.0043
91796982|NCT01828320|183472992|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.83
91732725|NCT00688740|183360562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.742||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|0.898||Pairwise stratified log-rank test on the number of positive axillary nodes as per randomization|Log Rank|||||0.898|0.613|0.0020
91732726|NCT00895921|183360582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1139||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00943|0.47605||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||.47605|.00943|0.042
91732727|NCT00895921|183360583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.714||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.714|-0.208|0.269
91732728|NCT00895921|183360584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.705|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of akathisia rates between the two arms.||.705|.095|0.012
91732729|NCT01905540|183360585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The statistical comparison of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between the single-dose treatment groups (Treatments AQ and SS) was based on the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means. If the 90% CI was entirely contained within the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 then it was concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the relevant parameter. Doses were normalized to the SSP-004184AQ (40mg/kg) dose prior to statistical analysis.|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.244|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.081|1.43||||||||1.430|1.081|
91796983|NCT01828320|183472993|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.35||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.02
91732730|NCT01905540|183360586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The statistical comparison of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between the single-dose treatment groups (Treatments AQ and SS) was based on the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means. If the 90% CI was entirely contained within the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 then it was concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the relevant parameter. Doses were normalized to the SSP-004184AQ (40mg/kg) dose prior to statistical analysis.|Geometric LS Means|1.233|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.422||||||||1.422|1.070|
91732731|NCT01905540|183360587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The statistical comparison of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between the single-dose treatment groups (Treatments AQ and SS) was based on the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means. If the 90% CI was entirely contained within the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 then it was concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the relevant parameter. Doses were normalized to the SSP-004184AQ (40mg/kg) dose prior to statistical analysis.|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.344|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.135|1.592||||||||1.592|1.135|
91732732|NCT04770285|183360596|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.78||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.05|||MMRM|p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||||0.05|-3.60|0.0568
91732733|NCT04770285|183360597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.77||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.07|||MMRM|p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||||0.07|-1.61|0.0705
91796984|NCT01828320|183472994|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.28||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.04
91905239|NCT05082376|183706198|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|7.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 4 hours post-treatment.||7.9|5.8|<0.0001
91905240|NCT05082376|183706198|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|6.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 6 hours post-treatment.||6.2|4.0|<0.0001
91905241|NCT05082376|183706198|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|5.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 8 hours post-treatment.||5.8|3.6|<0.0001
91905242|NCT02568475|183706200|EQUIVALENCE|Continuous scale: score compares results before and after intervention without a cut parameter.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|7.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.12|0.059|0.046
91905243|NCT02568475|183706201|OTHER|This is a continuous scale with no clinical cut score/value. We tested mean differences between the two groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.6|2.9|0.001
91905244|NCT02504554|183706207|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing since this was an exploratory study.~the p-value listed is the actual result from analysis of the study data."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank analysis of symptoms at 10 weeks (end of treatment) vs. baseline||||<0.001
91905245|NCT02504554|183706208|OTHER|paired 2-sided t-test comparing baseline and 10 weeks (end of treatment)|||||<|0.001||||||no adjustment for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||||||<0.001
91905246|NCT02504554|183706210|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple comparisons~The p-value listed is the result for the actual analysis of the data."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing the baseline score vs. the score at 10 weeks (end of treatment).||||<0.001
91905247|NCT02504554|183706211|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple comparisons~the p-value listed is the actual result for the study results."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing scores at baseline vs. 10 weeks (end of treatment)||||<0.001
91905248|NCT02504554|183706213|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple comparisons~the p-value listed is the actual result for the analysis of the study data"|t-test, 2 sided|||2-sided t-test comparing the group at baseline vs. 18 weeks (8 weeks after end of treatment)||||<0.001
91905249|NCT02504554|183706214|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare scores at baseline vs. at 10 weeks (end of treatment)||||0.002
91905250|NCT00290186|183706220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.539||95.0|-1.5|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||3.3|-1.5|0.539
91905251|NCT00290186|183706221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||1.8|-1.6|0.921
91905252|NCT00290186|183706222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||5.1|-3.0|0.945
91905253|NCT00290186|183706223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.2|-5.1|0.342
91905254|NCT00290186|183706224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.6|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||8.6|-1.6|0.149
91905255|NCT00290186|183706225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||5.1|-3.0|0.685
91905256|NCT00290186|183706226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.0|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||3.0|-2.4|0.584
91905257|NCT00290186|183706227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||3.7|-1.5|0.498
91905258|NCT00290186|183706228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.2|-2.3|0.945
91905259|NCT00290186|183706229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.4|-2.1|0.932
91732734|NCT04770285|183360598|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.62||||0.3687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.74||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.74|-1.99|0.3687
91732735|NCT04770285|183360598|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.45||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.19||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.19|-3.10|0.0828
91905260|NCT00290186|183706230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||4.7|-0.2|0.051
91905261|NCT00290186|183706231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.8|-4.0|0.648
91905262|NCT00290186|183706232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||1.4|-4.7|0.473
91905263|NCT00290186|183706233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|114.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||114|-22|0.157
91905264|NCT00290186|183706234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|13.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||13|-15|0.876
91796985|NCT01828320|183472995|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.29||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.04
91796986|NCT01828320|183472996|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.44||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.03
91905265|NCT00290186|183706235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.0||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.0|41.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: negative values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||41|-198|0.167
91732736|NCT04770285|183360599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.38||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.38|-1.06|0.3549
91732737|NCT04770285|183360599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.28||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.53||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.53|-1.09|0.4948
91732738|NCT04770285|183360600|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.68||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.34||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||3.34|0.84|0.1420
91732739|NCT04770285|183360600|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.31||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.16||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||2.16|0.79|0.2939
91732740|NCT04770285|183360600|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.38||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.99||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.99|0.96|0.0884
91732741|NCT04770285|183360601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.19||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.06|-0.32|0.0039
91732742|NCT04770285|183360601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.32||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.15||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.15|-0.50|0.0003
91732743|NCT04770285|183360601|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.26||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.06||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.06|-0.46|0.0098
91732744|NCT04770285|183360602|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.02||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.61||p-value was calculated by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.61|-3.66|0.4463
91732745|NCT04770285|183360603|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.29||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.31||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.31|-2.28|0.0102
91732746|NCT04770285|183360603|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.58||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-0.54||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.54|-2.62|0.0029
91732747|NCT04770285|183360604|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.18||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.16||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||2.16|0.65|0.5757
91732748|NCT04770285|183360604|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.16||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.78||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||1.78|0.75|0.5102
91732749|NCT04770285|183360604|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.15||||0.5342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.79||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.79|0.74|0.5342
91732750|NCT04770285|183360605|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22||||||Week 8||1.22|0.82|
91732751|NCT04770285|183360605|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25||||||Week 10||1.25|0.88|
91732752|NCT02796651|183360678|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|0.055|<0.001
91732753|NCT02796651|183360678|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.117|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.171|0.064|<0.001
91732754|NCT02796651|183360678|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.216|0.107|<0.001
91732755|NCT02796651|183360678|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.175|0.069|<0.001
91732756|NCT02796651|183360678|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.009||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.039|-0.021|0.556
91732757|NCT02796651|183360678|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.053||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.085|0.021|0.001
91732758|NCT02796651|183360678|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.014||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.044|-0.016|0.365
91732759|NCT02796651|183360678|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.044||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.076|0.013|0.006
91732760|NCT02796651|183360678|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.005||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.036|-0.026|0.756
91732761|NCT02796651|183360678|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.039||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.008|-0.071|0.014
91732762|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.169|0.091|<0.001
91732763|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.206|0.128|<0.001
91732764|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.224|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.263|0.184|<0.001
91796987|NCT01828320|183472997|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.07||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.71
91869273|NCT03960645|183632322|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.78|85.15||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||85.15|69.78|
91869274|NCT03960645|183632322|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.16|87.0||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||87.00|56.16|
91869275|NCT03960645|183632322|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|66.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.79|82.34||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||82.34|53.79|
91869276|NCT03960645|183632322|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|57.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.04|70.91||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||70.91|46.04|
91869277|NCT03960645|183632322|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|55.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.65|68.42||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||68.42|44.65|
91869278|NCT03960645|183632323|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|26.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.45|31.93||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||31.93|21.45|
91869279|NCT03960645|183632323|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.23|32.78||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||32.78|22.23|
91905266|NCT00290186|183706236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.0||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.0|77.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: negative values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||77|-153|0.468
91905267|NCT01401842|183706260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the primary hypothesis, differences at follow-up between the two groups on lumbar extension muscular strength (Nm) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression models, accounting for the effects of cluster (platoon) and adjusting for baseline measures. The linear mixed-effects model treats the data as two levels (level 1 for individuals, level 2 for clusters), while also taking into account between-cluster variation.||||0.001
91905268|NCT01401842|183706261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the primary hypothesis, differences at follow-up between the two groups on core muscular endurance (seconds) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression models, accounting for the effects of cluster (platoon) and adjusting for baseline measures. The linear mixed-effects model treats the data as two levels (level 1 for individuals, level 2 for clusters), while also taking into account between-cluster variation.||||0.871
91869280|NCT03960645|183632323|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|29.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.74|32.74||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||32.74|25.74|
91869281|NCT03960645|183632323|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|29.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.47|33.93||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||33.93|26.47|
91869282|NCT03960645|183632323|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|64.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.63|75.49||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||75.49|54.63|
91869283|NCT03960645|183632323|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|42.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.55|50.34||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||50.34|36.55|
91869284|NCT03960645|183632323|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|64.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.3|70.61||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||70.61|59.30|
91869285|NCT03960645|183632323|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|46.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.57|55.64||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||55.64|39.57|
91869286|NCT00790699|183632337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||RM-ANOVA|||The results were evaluated to determine if any statistically significant changes in any of these measures between the first and final visit occurred and if these changes were associated with membership in the treatment or control group.||||>.05
91869287|NCT03732807|183632338|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|29.11|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.17|37.91|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||37.91|21.17|<0.000001
91869288|NCT03732807|183632338|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|20.78|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.65|29.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||29.18|13.65|<0.000001
91869289|NCT03732807|183632338|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|21.85|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.65|30.23|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||30.23|14.65|<0.000001
91869290|NCT03732807|183632338|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.75||||0.000154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.69|20.36|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||20.36|6.69|0.000154
91869291|NCT03732807|183632339|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|19.75|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.91|27.59|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||27.59|11.91|<0.000001
91869292|NCT03732807|183632339|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|11.33||||0.000526||95.0|4.93|17.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||17.74|4.93|0.000526
91869293|NCT03732807|183632339|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|11.88||||0.000311||95.0|5.42|18.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||18.33|5.42|0.000311
91869294|NCT03732807|183632339|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|9.09||||0.002922||95.0|3.1|15.07|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||15.07|3.10|0.002922
91869295|NCT03732807|183632340|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|20.24|||<|1e-06||95.0|13.23|28.49|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||28.49|13.23|<0.000001
91869296|NCT03732807|183632340|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|11.68||||0.000337||95.0|5.82|19.07|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||19.07|5.82|0.000337
91869297|NCT03732807|183632340|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.17||||0.000228||95.0|6.27|19.53|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||19.53|6.27|0.000228
91869298|NCT03732807|183632340|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|9.39||||0.001875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|16.46|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||16.46|3.86|0.001875
91905269|NCT01401842|183706262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the primary hypothesis, differences at follow-up between the two groups on core muscular endurance (seconds) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression models, accounting for the effects of cluster (platoon) and adjusting for baseline measures. The linear mixed-effects model treats the data as two levels (level 1 for individuals, level 2 for clusters), while also taking into account between-cluster variation.||||0.021
91905270|NCT00282295|183706263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than (\>) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.17||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-diphtheria toxoid (anti-D) antibody concentrations equal to or greater than (≥) 1.0 IU/mL one month after vaccination.||4.17|0.79|
91905271|NCT00282295|183706263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than (\>) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.48||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared toBoostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-tetanus toxoid (anti-T) antibody concentrations equal to or greater than (≥) 1.0 IU/mL one month after vaccination.||1.48|-1.4|
91905272|NCT00282295|183706264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than (\>) the pre-defined limit of 0.67|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to anti-pertussis toxoid (anti-PT) geometric mean antibody concentrations (GMCs) one month after vaccination.||1.03|0.84|
91905273|NCT00282295|183706264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of 0.67|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.84||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to anti-filamentous hemagglutinin (anti-FHA) GMCs one month after vaccination.||0.84|0.69|
91905274|NCT00282295|183706264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of 0.67|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to anti-pertactin (anti-PRN) GMCs one month after vaccination.||0.72|0.54|
91905275|NCT00282295|183706265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in booster response rate|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|1.15||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a booster response to PT one month after vaccination.||1.15|-9.91|
91905276|NCT00282295|183706265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in booster response rate|-3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|0.15||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a booster response to FHA one month after vaccination.||0.15|-7.03|
91905277|NCT00282295|183706265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in booster response rate|-1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|-1.25||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a booster response to PRN one month after vaccination.||-1.25|-5.25|
91869299|NCT03732807|183632341|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|42.96|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.68|54.25|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||54.25|31.68|<0.000001
91869300|NCT03732807|183632341|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|36.18|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.22|47.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||47.14|25.22|<0.000001
91905278|NCT00282295|183706266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|4.43||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccinecompared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine responseto meningococcal serogroup A one month after vaccination.||4.43|-4.85|
91732765|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.253|0.176|<0.001
91869301|NCT03732807|183632341|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|39.96|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|51.06|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||51.06|28.85|<0.000001
91905279|NCT00282295|183706266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|5.16||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccine compared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine responseto meningococcal serogroup C one month after vaccination.||5.16|-1.69|
91732766|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.265|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.304|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.304|0.226|<0.001
91732767|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.037||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.062|0.012|0.004
91869302|NCT03732807|183632341|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|32.72|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.95|43.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||43.50|21.95|<0.000001
91869303|NCT03345979|183632361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91869304|NCT03345979|183632361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91905280|NCT00282295|183706266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|1.82||||||95.0|-2.58|6.25||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccine compared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine response to meningococcal serogroup Y one month after vaccination.||6.25|-2.58|
91905281|NCT00282295|183706266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.45||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccine compared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine response to meningococcal serogroup W-135 one month after vaccination||6.45|0.96|
91905282|NCT04456764|183706415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Test for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.55
91905283|NCT04456764|183706416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|random agency and a random participant effect||||||0.12
91869305|NCT00734578|183632372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-4.5||||0.002||95.0|-7.5|-1.4||Both SPD503 groups were compared with placebo using Dunnett's adjustment. Each treatment comparison was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level (Dunnett's adjusted).|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between SPD503 AM or placebo and that there was no difference between SPD503 PM or placebo. 90% power was needed to detect an effect size of at least 0.4 between either SPD503 group and placebo.||-1.4|-7.5|0.002
91905284|NCT04456764|183706417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0986|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.0986
91905285|NCT04456764|183706418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.51
91905286|NCT04456764|183706419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.04
91732768|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.094|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.119|0.068|<0.001
91869306|NCT00734578|183632372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-5.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-8.3|-2.3||Both SPD503 groups were compared with placebo using Dunnett's adjustment. Each treatment comparison was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level (Dunnett's adjusted).|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between SPD503 AM or placebo and that there was no difference between SPD503 PM or placebo. 90% power was needed to detect an effect size of at least 0.4 between either SPD503 group and placebo.||-2.3|-8.3|<0.001
91869307|NCT00734578|183632373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.024
91869308|NCT00734578|183632373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.003
91905287|NCT04456764|183706420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.02
91905288|NCT03227471|183706427|OTHER|||||||0.9943||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.9943
91905289|NCT03227471|183706427|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905290|NCT03227471|183706427|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||< 0.0001
91905291|NCT03227471|183706427|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905292|NCT03227471|183706428|OTHER|||||||0.8869||||||P value within treatment.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.8869
91905293|NCT03227471|183706428|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905294|NCT03227471|183706429|OTHER|||||||0.6407||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.6407
91905295|NCT03227471|183706429|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905296|NCT03227471|183706444|OTHER|||||||0.5802||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.5802
91905297|NCT03227471|183706444|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905298|NCT03227471|183706444|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905299|NCT03227471|183706444|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905300|NCT03227471|183706445|OTHER|||||||0.8712||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.8712
91905301|NCT03227471|183706445|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905302|NCT03227471|183706446|OTHER|||||||0.8359||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.8359
91905303|NCT03227471|183706446|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91732769|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.084|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.110|0.059|<0.001
91905304|NCT03227471|183706447|OTHER|||||||0.9453||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.9453
91905305|NCT03227471|183706447|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905306|NCT03227471|183706447|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905307|NCT03227471|183706447|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905308|NCT03227471|183706448|OTHER|||||||0.7849||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.7849
91732770|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|0.109|<0.001
91732771|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.082|0.031|<0.001
91732772|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.071|0.023|<0.001
91732773|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.123|0.073|<0.001
91732774|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.009||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.016|-0.035|0.469
91869309|NCT00734578|183632374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.013
91732775|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.041||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.068|0.015|0.002
91732776|NCT02796651|183360679|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.051|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.076|0.025|<0.001
91732777|NCT02796651|183360680|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.159|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.213|0.105|<0.001
91732778|NCT02796651|183360680|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.224|0.116|<0.001
91732779|NCT02796651|183360680|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.219|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.274|0.163|<0.001
91869310|NCT00734578|183632374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||<0.001
91732780|NCT02796651|183360680|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.233|0.125|<0.001
91869311|NCT00734578|183632375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-1.7||||0.019||95.0|-3.2|-0.3||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.3|-3.2|0.019
91869312|NCT00734578|183632375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.0|-1.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-1.1|-4.0|<0.001
91869313|NCT00734578|183632376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.4||||0.002||95.0|-4.0|-0.9||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.9|-4.0|0.002
91869314|NCT00734578|183632376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-3.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.5|-1.5||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-1.5|-4.5|<0.001
91869315|NCT00734578|183632377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||<0.001
91869316|NCT00734578|183632377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||<0.001
91869317|NCT00734578|183632378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.4||||0.001||95.0|-3.9|-0.9||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.9|-3.9|0.001
91732781|NCT02796651|183360680|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.011||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.042|-0.020|0.488
91732782|NCT02796651|183360680|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.092|0.027|<0.001
91732783|NCT02796651|183360680|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.02||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.051|-0.011|0.206
91732784|NCT02796651|183360680|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.049||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.081|0.016|0.004
91732785|NCT02796651|183360680|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.009||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.041|-0.022|0.567
91732786|NCT02796651|183360680|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.039||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.007|-0.072|0.017
91732787|NCT02796651|183360681|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.075||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.141|0.008|0.027
91732788|NCT02796651|183360681|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.065||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.131|-0.001|0.054
91732789|NCT02796651|183360681|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.168|0.032|0.004
91732790|NCT02796651|183360681|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.059||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.123|-0.006|0.075
91732791|NCT02796651|183360681|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.01||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.028|-0.048|0.615
91732792|NCT02796651|183360681|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.025||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.065|-0.014|0.209
91732793|NCT02796651|183360681|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.016||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.022|-0.053|0.403
91732794|NCT02796651|183360681|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.035||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.074|-0.003|0.074
91732795|NCT02796651|183360681|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.006||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.032|-0.045|0.750
91732796|NCT02796651|183360681|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.041||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.003|-0.080|0.035
91732797|NCT00437073|183360683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|68.4|||||The estimated value indicates the percentage of participants with CNS OR in the Lapatinib plus Capecitabine treatment arm.|||68.4|13.9|
91869318|NCT00734578|183632378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.2||||0.003||95.0|-3.6|-0.7||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.7|-3.6|0.003
91869319|NCT00734578|183632379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-5.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-8.0|-2.2||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-2.2|-8.0|<0.001
91869320|NCT00734578|183632379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-4.7||||0.002||95.0|-7.6|-1.7||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-1.7|-7.6|0.002
91905309|NCT03227471|183706448|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905310|NCT03227471|183706449|OTHER|||||||0.7356||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.7356
91869321|NCT00734578|183632380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.971||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.971
91869322|NCT00734578|183632380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.502||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.502
91869323|NCT03883724|183632382|OTHER|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||Change in NPi pre- vs post-intervention comparing between group analysis||||0.3
91869324|NCT03883724|183632383|OTHER|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome|||||<|0.01||||||Change in nocturia frequency pre- vs post-intervention comparing between groups BBTI vs IC|ANCOVA|between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||Change in nocturia frequency pre- vs post-intervention comparing between group analysis||||<.01
91869325|NCT03883724|183632384|OTHER|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||||0.3
91869326|NCT02502461|183632464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7||Bonferroni correction|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|0.1|0.04
91869327|NCT01701401|183632482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 12 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91869328|NCT01701401|183632482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF+RBV 12 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91869329|NCT01701401|183632482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 24 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91869330|NCT01701401|183632482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF+RBV 24 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91869331|NCT02409680|183632494|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on preterm delivery.||0.98|0.81|0.012
91869332|NCT02409680|183632495|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.25|0.94|0.299
91869333|NCT02409680|183632496|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.90|0.171
91869334|NCT02409680|183632497|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.00|0.73|0.048
91869335|NCT02409680|183632498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.04|0.73|0.125
91869336|NCT02409680|183632499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.79|0.60|0.900
91869337|NCT02409680|183632500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.86|0.84|0.274
91869338|NCT02409680|183632501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.78|0.32|0.512
91869339|NCT02409680|183632502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.31|0.45|0.331
91869340|NCT02409680|183632504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.85|0.17|0.015
91869341|NCT02409680|183632505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.93|0.61|0.039
91869342|NCT02409680|183632506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.87|0.073
91869343|NCT02409680|183632507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.33|0.57|0.084
91869344|NCT02409680|183632508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.00|0.73|0.039
91869345|NCT02409680|183632509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.10|0.70|0.261
91869346|NCT02409680|183632510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.68|0.141
91869347|NCT02409680|183632511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.23|0.88|0.157
91869348|NCT05785832|183632530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-0.4|-0.8|<0.001
91869349|NCT05785832|183632531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|17.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||17|11|<0.001
91869350|NCT05785832|183632532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-15.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-15|-26|<0.001
91869351|NCT05785832|183632533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-11.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-11|-17|<0.001
91869352|NCT05785832|183632534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-6.6|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-6.6|-11.7|<0.001
91869353|NCT05785832|183632535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-0.4|-1.0|<0.001
91905311|NCT03227471|183706449|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905312|NCT03227471|183706450|OTHER|||||||0.394||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.3940
91905313|NCT03227471|183706450|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.0003
91905314|NCT03227471|183706450|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905315|NCT03227471|183706450|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905316|NCT03227471|183706451|OTHER|||||||0.4757||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.4757
91905317|NCT03227471|183706451|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905318|NCT03227471|183706452|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.0070
91905319|NCT03227471|183706452|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91905320|NCT00980200|183706463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.140|0.049|<0.001
91905321|NCT00980200|183706463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.185|||ANCOVA|||||0.185|0.095|<0.001
91905322|NCT00980200|183706463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.147|||ANCOVA|||||0.147|0.057|<0.001
91905323|NCT00980200|183706463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.170|0.080|<0.001
91905324|NCT01469182|183706472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|9.95||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||16.7|3.1|0.005
91905325|NCT01469182|183706473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|8.2|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||8.2|2.9|<0.001
91905326|NCT01469182|183706474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|10.5|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||10.5|5.5|<0.001
91905327|NCT01469182|183706475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|13.6|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||13.6|6.6|<0.001
91905328|NCT01469182|183706476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.4|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||7.4|3.3|<0.001
91905329|NCT01469182|183706477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.17||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||1.9|-2.1|0.861
91905330|NCT01469182|183706478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.15||||0.344||95.0|-1.5|3.3|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||3.3|-1.5|0.344
91905331|NCT01469182|183706479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.99||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||3.0|-1.5|0.382
91905332|NCT01469182|183706480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.46||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.4|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||4.4|0.3|0.029
91905333|NCT01785160|183706500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability (No formal testing was performed)|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|272.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|67.9||0.9999||95.0|199.69|370.66||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Raltegravir plus Faldaprevir and Raltegravir for the category Raltegravir||370.66|199.69|0.9999
91905334|NCT01785160|183706501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability(No formal testing was performed)|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|245.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.1||0.9973||95.0|168.46|358.404||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Raltegravir plus Faldaprevir and Raltegravir for the category Raltegravir||358.404|168.460|0.9973
91905335|NCT00549939|183706512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91905336|NCT00549939|183706512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.91
91905337|NCT00549939|183706514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|1.29||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Change in detrusor LPP was analyzed using a three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including 3 variables as fixed effects:~* treatment group (alfuzosin 0.1 mg/kg/day, alfuzosin 0.2 mg/kg/day or placebo),~* age/formulation group (2-7 years of age on solution, 8-16 years of age on solution or 8-16 years of age on tablets),~* anticholinergic/antimuscarinic use (yes or no),~and using centered baseline detrusor LPP as covariate."||1.29|-13.72|0.1040
91905338|NCT00549939|183706514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|0.39||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.39|-14.51|0.1040
91702218|NCT00778102|183299414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate (CR or PR)|18.9||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|40.0|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval calculated for difference based on Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference between groups in the collective percentage of participants with confirmed best overall response of CR or PR.||40.0|-2.1|0.0612
91702219|NCT04643964|183299447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. No covariates were included.||||.54
91702220|NCT04643964|183299448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. There was one covariate in this model: QIDS at Time 1.||||.92
91702221|NCT04643964|183299449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. There were three covariates in this model: QIDS at Time 1, gender, and COVID interference.||||.37
91702222|NCT04643964|183299450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. There was one covariate in this model: QIDS at Time 1.||||.87
91702223|NCT02368210|183299451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||||||<0.001
91702224|NCT02368210|183299452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05. The reported P-Value applies to the clinical sign of psoriasis: Scaling.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
91702225|NCT02368210|183299452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05. The reported P-Value applies to the clinical sign of psoriasis: erythema.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
91702226|NCT02368210|183299452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05. The reported P-Value applies to the clinical sign of psoriasis: Plaque Elevation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
91702227|NCT00078949|183299457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The literature has suggested that the ORR is approximately 50% for this patient population treated with DHAP. The treatment difference is defined as the response rate for the DHAP arm minus that of GDP arm. We would consider GDP to be non-inferior to DHAP if we are 95% sure that the true difference is less than 10%. In order to rule out that the 10% difference with 80% power, we need to accrue a total of 630 eligible patients. The actual sample size for this final analysis is 619 patients.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|6.7||p-value for non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.7|-9.0|0.005
91702228|NCT00078949|183299458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.55||95.0|-10.0|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|-10.0|0.55
91702229|NCT00078949|183299459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12|||Log Rank|||It was estimated that 240 patients will be eligible for the maintenance question, and randomized with a 1:1 ratio to either rituximab or observation. It is expected that the 2-year event-free survival will be 50% on the observation arm. In order to detect a 15% difference in the 2-year event-free survival with an 80% power using a two-sided 5% level test, 142 events are required to detect an HR of 0.622.||1.12|0.52|0.17
91702230|NCT02539134|183299476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.06||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.741|1.374|||Power model|||Day 1: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 1 was assessed using the power model. For Day 1, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the slope within (0.875, 1.125) for the dose range of 100 mg to 600 mg.||1.374|0.741|0.757
91702231|NCT02539134|183299476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.37||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.078|1.664|||Power model|||Day 14: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 14 was assessed using the power model. For Day 14, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.839, 1.161) for the dose range of 100 mg to 400 mg.||1.664|1.078|0.042
91702232|NCT02539134|183299477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.946|1.45|||Power model|||Day 1: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 1 was assessed using the power model. For Day 1, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.875, 1.125) for the dose range of 100 mg to 600 mg.||1.450|0.946|0.191
91702233|NCT02539134|183299477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.37||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.089|1.657|||Power model|||Day 14: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 14 was assessed using the power model. For Day 14, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.839, 1.161) for the dose range of 100 mg to 400 mg.||1.657|1.089|0.036
91702234|NCT02539134|183299478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.19||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.489|||Power model|||Day 1: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 1 was assessed using the power model. For Day 1, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.875, 1.125) for the dose range of 100 mg to 600 mg.||1.489|0.890|0.288
91702235|NCT02539134|183299479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.36||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.642|||Power model|||Day 14: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 14 was assessed using the power model. For Day 14, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.839, 1.161) for the dose range of 100 mg to 400 mg.||1.642|1.080|0.039
91702236|NCT04068688|183299571|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91702237|NCT04068688|183299571|OTHER|||||||0.914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.914
91702238|NCT04068688|183299572|OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.655
91702239|NCT04068688|183299572|OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.564
91702240|NCT04068688|183299573|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91702241|NCT04068688|183299573|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.705
91702242|NCT04068688|183299574|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.096
91702243|NCT04068688|183299574|OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.732
91905339|NCT00549939|183706515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|3.53||P-values was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Change in detrusor LPP was analyzed using a three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including 3 variables as fixed effects:~* treatment group (alfuzosin 0.1 mg/kg/day, alfuzosin 0.2 mg/kg/day or placebo),~* age/formulation group (2-7 years of age on solution, 8-16 years of age on solution or 8-16 years of age on tablets),~* anticholinergic/antimuscarinic use (yes or no),~and using centered baseline detrusor LPP as covariate."||3.53|-26.27|0.1338
91732798|NCT04918771|183360706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean time to resolution of ARVI symptoms||1.67|0.51|0.0003
91732799|NCT04918771|183360707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35||||0.3274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|7.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean AUC score for severity of ARVI (Clinically Diagnosed and/or PCR-confirmed).||7.06|-2.36|0.3274
91732800|NCT04918771|183360707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|11.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean AUC score for severity of ARVI (PCR-confirmed).||11.93|-1.34|0.1171
91732801|NCT04918771|183360708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91732802|NCT04918771|183360709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean time to Resolution of ARVI Symptoms was analysed.||1.00|0.16|0.0073
91732803|NCT04918771|183360710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91732804|NCT04918771|183360711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3627|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dosing Frequency of Antipyretics. Comparison for Day 1.||||0.3627
91732805|NCT04918771|183360711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dosing Frequency of Antipyretics. Comparison for Day 2.||||0.5578
91732806|NCT04918771|183360711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7688|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dosing Frequency of Antipyretics. Comparison for Day 3.||||0.7688
91732807|NCT04918771|183360712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4926|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4926
91905340|NCT00549939|183706515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|0.47||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-29.10|0.1152
91905341|NCT00549939|183706517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7889||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Change in detrusor compliance was analyzed using a three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including 3 variables as fixed effects:~* treatment group (alfuzosin 0.1 mg/kg/day, alfuzosin 0.2 mg/kg/day or placebo),~* age/formulation group (2-7 years of age on solution, 8-16 years of age on solution or 8-16 years of age on tablets),~* anticholinergic/antimuscarinic use (yes or no),~and using centered baseline detrusor compliance as covariate."||||0.7889
91905342|NCT00549939|183706517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7889||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7889
91732808|NCT04918771|183360713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severity distributions.||||0.021
91732809|NCT04918771|183360713|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for outcome distribution.||||1.00
91905343|NCT01360554|183706539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.093||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test|Stratified by epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status, Kirsten Rat Sarcoma status (KRAS), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG).|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status, KRAS, baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.093|0.797|0.195
91732810|NCT04918771|183360714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7848|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1.||||0.7848
91732811|NCT04918771|183360714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9596|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2.||||0.9596
91732812|NCT04918771|183360714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6902|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3.||||0.6902
91732813|NCT04918771|183360715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3266|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1.||||0.3266
91732814|NCT04918771|183360715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2.||||0.0930
91732815|NCT04918771|183360715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2308|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3.||||0.2308
91732816|NCT04918771|183360716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1/Systolic blood pressure.||||0.6610
91732817|NCT04918771|183360716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4884|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2/Systolic blood pressure.||||0.4884
91732818|NCT04918771|183360716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3494|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3/Systolic blood pressure.||||0.3494
91732819|NCT04918771|183360716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9531|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1/Diastolic blood pressure.||||0.9531
91732820|NCT04918771|183360716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5506|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2/Diastolic blood pressure.||||0.5506
91732821|NCT04918771|183360716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8259|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3/Diastolic blood pressure.||||0.8259
91732822|NCT04918771|183360717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
91732823|NCT02702999|183360735|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|18.0|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||18.0|0.9|
91732824|NCT02702999|183360736|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|18.0|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||18.0|0.9|
91732825|NCT02702999|183360737|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.5|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||10.5|0.4|
91732826|NCT02702999|183360738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|23.7|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||23.7|1.2|
91905344|NCT01360554|183706540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.268||One-sided P-value|1-sided stratified log-rank test|Stratified by EGFR status and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.268|0.848|0.643
91905345|NCT01360554|183706541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.035||Stratified by EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG.|1-sided stratified log-rank test|One-sided P-value|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.035|0.780|0.069
91905346|NCT01360554|183706542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.267||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test|Stratified by EGFR status and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.267|0.881|0.728
91905347|NCT01360554|183706543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.188||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Stratified by EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.188|0.887|0.638
91905348|NCT01360554|183706544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.312||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Stratified by EGFR status and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.312|0.886|0.775
91905349|NCT01360554|183706552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.9357||||||95.0|-4.278|0.407|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Global QoL. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.407|-4.278|
91905350|NCT01360554|183706552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|0.8067||||||95.0|-1.312|2.926|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.926|-1.312|
91905351|NCT01360554|183706552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model|0.73||||||95.0|-1.575|3.035|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 emotional functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.035|-1.575|
91905352|NCT01360554|183706552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|1.5289||||||95.0|-0.756|3.814|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 physical functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.814|-0.756|
91905353|NCT01360554|183706552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|1.2219||||||95.0|-1.975|4.419|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 role functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.419|-1.975|
91905354|NCT01360554|183706552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.497||||||95.0|-4.575|1.581|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 social functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.581|-4.575|
91905355|NCT01360554|183706553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|1.2851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|4.986|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Appetite loss. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.986|-2.416|
91905356|NCT01360554|183706553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-5.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.432|-3.414|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Constipation. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.414|-8.432|
91796988|NCT01828320|183472998|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.83
91702244|NCT04068688|183299575|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91702245|NCT04068688|183299575|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.705
91905357|NCT01360554|183706553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model|20.2564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.874|23.639|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Diarrhea. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||23.639|16.874|
91905358|NCT01360554|183706553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-4.5499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.719|-1.381|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Dysponea. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.381|-7.719|
91905359|NCT01360554|183706553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.6584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.442|1.125|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Fatigue. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.125|-4.442|
91905360|NCT01360554|183706553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.1469||||||95.0|-3.056|2.762|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Financial Difficulties. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.762|-3.056|
91905361|NCT01360554|183706553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-4.8711|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.998|-1.745|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Insomnia. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.745|-7.998|
91905362|NCT01360554|183706553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.4924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.485|1.5|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.500|-2.485|
91905363|NCT01360554|183706553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|0.3096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.646|3.265|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Pain. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.265|-2.646|
91905364|NCT01360554|183706554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|2.6381||||||95.0|0.172|5.104|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Trouble Swallowing as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||5.104|0.172|
91905365|NCT01360554|183706554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-4.2504||||||95.0|-7.178|-1.322|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Coughing as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.322|-7.178|
91905366|NCT01360554|183706554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model|-1.0764||||||95.0|-3.997|1.845|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Haemoptysis as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.845|-3.997|
91732827|NCT02702999|183360739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.1|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||2.1|0.03|
91732828|NCT02702999|183360740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||2.3|0.4|
91732829|NCT01287208|183360761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91732830|NCT01287208|183360764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91732831|NCT04910165|183360766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91732832|NCT04910165|183360767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91905367|NCT01360554|183706554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|9.3545||||||95.0|6.211|12.497|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Sore Mouth as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||12.497|6.211|
91905368|NCT01360554|183706554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.1762||||||95.0|-3.56|1.208|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Shortness of Breath as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.208|-3.560|
91905369|NCT01360554|183706554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.6378||||||95.0|-3.684|2.408|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Peripheral Neuropathy as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.408|-3.684|
91905370|NCT01360554|183706554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.3637||||||95.0|-4.546|1.819|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Alopecia as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.819|-4.546|
91905371|NCT01360554|183706554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.2163||||||95.0|-3.885|1.452|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Pain in Chest as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.452|-3.885|
91905372|NCT01360554|183706554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.1475||||||95.0|-3.902|1.607|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Pain in Arm or Shoulder as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.607|-3.902|
91905373|NCT01360554|183706554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.0687||||||95.0|-4.488|2.351|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Pain Other Parts as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.351|-4.488|
91905374|NCT01360554|183706554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|0.0322||||||95.0|-4.847|4.911|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Any Med for Pain as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.911|-4.847|
91905375|NCT01360554|183706555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.3886||||||95.0|-2.413|1.636|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for EQ-5D VAS. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.636|-2.413|
91905376|NCT00674583|183706556|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix Group minus Menjugate Group) in the percentages of subjects with vaccine response to rSBA-MenC is greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|5.75||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix group compared to the Menjugate group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the groups difference \[Nimenrix group minus Menjugate group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||5.75|-5.25|
91702246|NCT04068688|183299576|OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.442
91702247|NCT04068688|183299576|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.458
91702248|NCT04068688|183299577|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
91702249|NCT04068688|183299577|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91702250|NCT04068688|183299581|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91702251|NCT04068688|183299582|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
91702252|NCT04068688|183299583|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91702253|NCT04068688|183299583|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.171
91702254|NCT04068688|183299584|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
91702255|NCT04068688|183299584|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
91702256|NCT04068688|183299588|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91796989|NCT01828320|183472999|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.11||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.85
91796990|NCT01828320|183473000|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.02
91796991|NCT01828320|183473001|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.05
91796992|NCT01828320|183473002|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.88
91796993|NCT01828320|183473003|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.04||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.97
91869354|NCT05785832|183632536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||A hierarchical procedure was used to control for the overall type I error. Since the P value for this outcome was more than 0.05, no additional P values are provided for subsequent secondary outcomes.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.1|-0.4|
91869355|NCT05785832|183632537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.04|-0.09|
91702257|NCT04068688|183299588|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
91702258|NCT04679051|183299593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-tailed paired t-tests were used to compare variables between time in bed conditions.||||0.36
91702259|NCT04679051|183299594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing the two time in bed protocols.||||0.51
91702260|NCT04679051|183299595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing peak forearm blood flow between sleep protocols.||||0.03
91702261|NCT04679051|183299596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test used to compare carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (index of arterial stiffness) between sleep protocols.||||0.29
91702262|NCT04679051|183299597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of spatial ability following one day of aerobic exercise. The ANOVA test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|||A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the main effect of exercise (before vs. after exercise) on Manikin throughput scores.||||<0.001
91702263|NCT04679051|183299598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the change of executive function following one day of aerobic exercise. The ANOVA test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|||A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the main effect of exercise (before vs. after exercise) on the number of correct answers during a Stroop color-word test.||||0.04
91702264|NCT04679051|183299599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of spatial ability following one day of aerobic exercise. The ANOVA test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|||A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the main effect of exercise (before vs. after exercise) on throughput scores from a Switching task.||||0.02
91702265|NCT00231283|183299623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||||95.0|91.5|99.4|||Qualitative Comparison|Reported in qualitative/semi-quantitative comparitive fashion due to study design.||||99.4|91.5|
91702266|NCT00231283|183299624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.0||||||95.0|0.6|8.6|||No formal statistical testing|||||8.6|0.6|
91702267|NCT00231283|183299625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.0||||||95.0|0.6|8.5|||Descriptive statistics|||||8.5|0.6|
91702268|NCT00231283|183299626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|10.4||||||95.0|5.1|18.3|||Descriptive statistics|||||18.3|5.1|
91702269|NCT00772005|183299627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8514||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8514
91702270|NCT00772005|183299627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6995||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6995
91702271|NCT00772005|183299627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9766||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9766
91702272|NCT00772005|183299628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7596||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7596
91702273|NCT00772005|183299628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5620
91702274|NCT00772005|183299628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6688||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6688
91702275|NCT00772005|183299629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1894||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1894
91702276|NCT00772005|183299629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4582||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4582
91869356|NCT05785832|183632538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.0|-0.1|
91869357|NCT05785832|183632539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||1.2|-0.5|
91869358|NCT05785832|183632540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|21.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||21|1|
91869359|NCT05785832|183632541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|32.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||32|2|
91869360|NCT05785832|183632542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|33.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||33|12|
91869361|NCT05785832|183632543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|38.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||38|11|
91869362|NCT05785832|183632544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|33.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||33|11|
91869363|NCT05785832|183632545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|32.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||32|10|
91702277|NCT00772005|183299629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0327||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0327
91869364|NCT05785832|183632546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|31.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||31|9|
91869365|NCT05785832|183632547|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|12.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||12|7|
91869366|NCT05785832|183632548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.02|
91869367|NCT05785832|183632549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.01|-0.07|
91869368|NCT05785832|183632550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-2.7|-6.0|
91869369|NCT05785832|183632551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-10.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-10|-18|
91869370|NCT05785832|183632552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-2.7|-5.2|
91869371|NCT05785832|183632553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|24.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||24|8|
91869372|NCT05785832|183632554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|41.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||41|12|
91869373|NCT05785832|183632555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|45.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||45|21|
91869374|NCT05785832|183632558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|22.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||22|8|
91869375|NCT05785832|183632559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|0.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||0|-20|
91869376|NCT05785832|183632560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.4||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||3.4|-4.4|
91702278|NCT00772005|183299630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3275||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3275
91702279|NCT00772005|183299630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2597
91702280|NCT00772005|183299630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0039
91702281|NCT00772005|183299631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0713||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0713
91702282|NCT00772005|183299631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0431
91702283|NCT00772005|183299631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0063
91702284|NCT00772005|183299632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0619||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0619
91702285|NCT00772005|183299632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1137||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1137
91702286|NCT00772005|183299632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0598||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0598
91869377|NCT05785832|183632561|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||2.5|0.5|
91869378|NCT05785832|183632562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||4.7|-2.5|
91869379|NCT05785832|183632563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||0.7|-3.4|
91869380|NCT05785832|183632564|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||3.7|0.5|
91869381|NCT05785832|183632565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.1||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||11.1|-1.4|
91869382|NCT05785832|183632566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|4.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||4|-45|
91869383|NCT02921555|183632574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91869384|NCT02921555|183632574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91869385|NCT05986617|183632614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06429||||||2-tail t-test with non-equivalent variances|t-test, 2 sided|||Power calculation: 2 factor (group, time) ANOVA design with a group\*time interaction term to estimate the proposed sample size. Using a Cohen's effect size estimate for 2 groups with 5 time-points, a sample size of 40 per group will provide \>90% to detect a moderate effect size (0.25) for group, for time and for the group\*time interaction.||||.06429
91869386|NCT05293717|183632621|OTHER|This is an open-label study. No power calculation was performed.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91869387|NCT03052517|183632664|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.00|0.74|
91869388|NCT03052517|183632664|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.97|0.72|
91869389|NCT03052517|183632664|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.09|0.87|
91869390|NCT03052517|183632665|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.02|0.76|
91869391|NCT03052517|183632665|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.99|0.73|
91869392|NCT03052517|183632665|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.08|0.86|
91869393|NCT03052517|183632666|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.22|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.22|0.51|
91869394|NCT03052517|183632666|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.97|0.39|
91869395|NCT03052517|183632666|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.14|0.54|
91869396|NCT03052517|183632667|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.22|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.22|0.54|
91869397|NCT03052517|183632667|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.97|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.97|0.41|
91702287|NCT00772005|183299633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7093||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7093
91702288|NCT00772005|183299633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5129||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5129
91702289|NCT00772005|183299633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1097||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1097
91702290|NCT00772005|183299634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4291||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4291
91702291|NCT00772005|183299634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3195||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3195
91869398|NCT03052517|183632667|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.11|0.55|
91869399|NCT03052517|183632668|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.23|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||2.23|0.47|
91869400|NCT03052517|183632668|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.64|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||2.64|0.59|
91869401|NCT03052517|183632668|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||2.10|0.70|
91869402|NCT03052517|183632669|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.56|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||2.56|0.56|
91905377|NCT01263483|183706581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.166|-0.838||||||||-0.838|-1.166|
91905378|NCT01263483|183706581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.097|-0.796||||||||-0.796|-1.097|
91732833|NCT04910165|183360768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91732834|NCT04910165|183360769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91869403|NCT03052517|183632669|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.95|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||2.95|0.67|
91905379|NCT01263483|183706582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.123||||||||-0.123|-0.229|
91869404|NCT03052517|183632669|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.96|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.96|0.70|
91869405|NCT03052517|183632670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.047|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg /Placebo||1.047|0.626|
91869406|NCT03052517|183632670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.038|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /Placebo||1.038|0.622|
91869407|NCT03052517|183632670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /QAW039 150mg||1.200|0.821|
91905380|NCT01263483|183706582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|-0.133||||||||-0.133|-0.247|
91905381|NCT01263483|183706583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.421|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|-0.334||||||||-0.334|-0.507|
91702292|NCT00772005|183299634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1591||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1591
91702293|NCT00772005|183299635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7768||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7768
91702294|NCT00772005|183299635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4014||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4014
91732835|NCT04910165|183360770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91732836|NCT04910165|183360771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91905382|NCT01263483|183706583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.414|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|-0.324||||||||-0.324|-0.504|
91905383|NCT01263483|183706584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.738|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.871|-0.605||||||||-0.605|-0.871|
91905384|NCT01263483|183706584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.875|-0.623||||||||-0.623|-0.875|
91905385|NCT01263483|183706585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-5.52||||||||-5.52|-18.50|
91905386|NCT01263483|183706585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.93|-8.73||||||||-8.73|-21.93|
91905387|NCT01263483|183706586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.02|-8.27||||||||-8.27|-23.02|
91905388|NCT01263483|183706586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.68|-14.38||||||||-14.38|-29.68|
91905389|NCT01263483|183706587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|-10.5||||||||-10.50|-26.09|
91905390|NCT01263483|183706587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.34|-11.34||||||||-11.34|-27.34|
91905391|NCT01263483|183706588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.46|-5.6||||||||-5.60|-21.46|
91869408|NCT03052517|183632671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.125|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg /Placebo||1.125|0.667|
91869409|NCT03052517|183632671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.082|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /Placebo||1.082|0.643|
91869410|NCT03052517|183632671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.167|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /QAW039 150mg||1.167|0.794|
91869411|NCT00910962|183632701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.38|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.38|0.46|0.4110
91869412|NCT00910962|183632701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.74|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.74|0.60|0.9318
91869413|NCT00910962|183632701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.46|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.46|0.56|0.6805
91905392|NCT01263483|183706588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|-4.41||||||||-4.41|-21.53|
91905393|NCT01263483|183706589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.104||||||||0.104|-0.304|
91869414|NCT00910962|183632702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.34|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.34|0.39|0.2990
91869415|NCT00910962|183632702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.8235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.90|0.60|0.8235
91869416|NCT00910962|183632702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.51|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.51|0.52|0.6590
91869417|NCT00910962|183632708|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.8||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.09|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.59|0.151
91869418|NCT00910962|183632708|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.95||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.29|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.29|0.70|0.744
91869419|NCT00910962|183632708|SUPERIORITY||test to treatment ratio|0.87||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.14|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.14|0.66|0.317
91869420|NCT00910962|183632709|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|0.80|0.83
91869421|NCT00910962|183632709|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.08||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.39|||ANCOVA|||||1.39|0.84|0.56
91869422|NCT00910962|183632709|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.05||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|0.84|0.65
91869423|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||Test to reference ratio|0.77||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 24 hours||0.99|0.60|0.040
91869424|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 24 hours||0.85|0.52|0.001
91905394|NCT01263483|183706589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.167||||||||0.167|-0.239|
91732837|NCT04910165|183360772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91869425|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 24 hours||0.89|0.57|0.003
91869426|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.78|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 48 hours||0.78|0.40|<0.001
91869427|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.65|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 48 hours||0.65|0.33|<0.001
91869428|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.69|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 48 hours||0.69|0.38|<0.001
91869429|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.68||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 72 hours||1.01|0.45|0.059
91869430|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 72 hours||0.90|0.40|0.013
91869431|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.64||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 72 hours||0.92|0.45|0.015
91869432|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.7||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 2||1.03|0.48|0.073
91869433|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.7||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.04|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 2||1.04|0.48|0.075
91869434|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.99|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 2||0.99|0.50|0.044
91905395|NCT01263483|183706590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|0.292||||||||0.292|-0.267|
91905396|NCT01263483|183706590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.264|0.196||||||||0.196|-0.264|
91905397|NCT01263483|183706591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.191||||||||0.191|-0.268|
91905398|NCT01263483|183706591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|0.115||||||||0.115|-0.261|
91905399|NCT01263483|183706592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.252||||||||0.252|-0.183|
91905400|NCT01263483|183706592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.288||||||||0.288|-0.124|
91905401|NCT01263483|183706593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.28|-21.8||||||||-21.80|-41.28|
91905402|NCT01263483|183706593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.88|-22.57||||||||-22.57|-44.88|
91796994|NCT01828320|183473004|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||"Composite Risk Score of Functioning in Social Domain measured via Ecological Momentary Assessment: Alone"||||0.88
91869435|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.78||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 4||1.10|0.55|0.157
91869436|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.9||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 4||1.28|0.63|0.548
91905403|NCT01263483|183706594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.67|-50.09||||||||-50.09|-90.67|
91905404|NCT01263483|183706594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.1|-51.88||||||||-51.88|-93.10|
91905405|NCT01263483|183706595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.229|11.958||||||||11.958|2.229|
91869437|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.83||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 4||1.14|0.61|0.253
91869438|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.8||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.13|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 8||1.13|0.58|0.204
91869439|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.99||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.39|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 8||1.39|0.71|0.965
91869440|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.89||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 8||1.20|0.66|0.457
91869441|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.58||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.22|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 14||2.22|1.13|0.008
91905406|NCT01263483|183706595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|8.455||||||||8.455|-0.521|
91905407|NCT01263483|183706596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|1.144||||||||1.144|-0.045|
91905408|NCT01263483|183706596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|1.09||||||||1.090|-0.233|
91732838|NCT01813357|183360773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.684|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.684
91732839|NCT01441492|183360782|OTHER|||||||0.804|||||||Chi-squared|||the study is powered to be able to detect a 15% difference in the ≥ Grade II complication rate between the drain and no drain groups. A total of 342 evaluable patients will be needed for the two study groups (n=171 per group) in order to achieve 80% power to detect a 15% increase or decrease in the complication rate with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.804
91732840|NCT03863574|183360799|OTHER|Proof of Concept||||||0.7689|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7689
91732841|NCT03863574|183360799|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6007
91732842|NCT03863574|183360800|OTHER|||||||0.5238|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5238
91732843|NCT03863574|183360800|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
91732844|NCT03863574|183360801|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0476|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0476
91732845|NCT03863574|183360801|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0333|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0333
91732846|NCT03863574|183360802|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6845|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis||||0.6845
91732847|NCT03863574|183360802|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.4625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis||||0.4625
91732848|NCT03863574|183360802|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Lobular Inflammation||||0.1705
91732849|NCT03863574|183360802|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome variable: Lobular Inflammation||||0.3122
91732850|NCT03863574|183360802|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning||||0.1705
91732851|NCT03863574|183360802|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3877|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning||||0.3877
91732852|NCT03863574|183360803|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1705
91732853|NCT03863574|183360803|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.174|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1740
91732854|NCT03863574|183360804|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome variable: Alanine Aminotransferase||||0.8019
91732855|NCT03863574|183360804|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Alanine Aminotransferase||||0.5396
91732856|NCT03863574|183360804|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Aspartate Aminotransferase||||0.7740
91905409|NCT01263483|183706597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.65|-0.9||||||||-0.90|-36.65|
91905410|NCT01263483|183706597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.82|-2.27||||||||-2.27|-37.82|
91905411|NCT01131676|183706602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was chosen as 1.3 based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry - Diabetes Mellitus - Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.74|0.99||One-sided test with alpha = 0.0249|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|Primary objective was to establish the non-inferiority of All empagliflozin relative to placebo for time to first 3-point MACE. A 4-step hierarchical testing strategy was followed for the non-inferiority test of the primary endpoint and then the key secondary endpoint, each at a margin of 1.3, followed by test of superiority of primary and key secondary endpoints.||0.99|0.74|<0.0001
91905412|NCT01131676|183706602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.74|0.99||Two-sided test with alpha=0.0498|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.99|0.74|0.0382
91796995|NCT01828320|183473004|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.18||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||"Composite Risk Score of Functioning in Social Domain measured via Ecological Momentary Assessment: With a family member"||||0.43
91796996|NCT01828320|183473004|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.21||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||"Composite Risk Score of Functioning in Social Domain measured via Ecological Momentary Assessment: With a peer"||||0.37
91796997|NCT01828320|183473005|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.02
91796998|NCT01828320|183473006|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.07||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.49
91869442|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.38|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 14||2.38|1.21|0.002
91869443|NCT00910962|183632710|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.21|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 14||2.21|1.21|0.001
91869444|NCT00910962|183632711|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.69|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 24 hours||0.69|0.43|<0.001
91869445|NCT00910962|183632711|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.82|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 24 hours||0.82|0.50|<0.001
91732857|NCT03863574|183360804|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Aspartate Aminotransferase||||0.9221
91732858|NCT03863574|183360804|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Alkaline Phosphatase||||0.0030
91732859|NCT03863574|183360804|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Alkaline Phosphatase||||0.0177
91732860|NCT03863574|183360804|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Gamma Glutamyl Transferase||||0.1399
91732861|NCT03863574|183360804|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Gamma Glutamyl Transferase||||0.2384
91732862|NCT03863574|183360805|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2218|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Albumin||||0.2218
91732863|NCT03863574|183360805|OTHER|Proof-of-Concept||||||0.1483|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Albumin||||0.1483
91732864|NCT03863574|183360805|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Total Protein||||0.0839
91732865|NCT03863574|183360805|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2895|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Total Protein||||0.2895
91732866|NCT03863574|183360806|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Direct Bilirubin||||0.6808
91732867|NCT03863574|183360806|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Direct Bilirubin||||0.5351
91732868|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Triglyceride||||0.2329
91732869|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Triglyceride||||0.7211
91732870|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variables: Total Cholesterol||||0.6520
91732871|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.4302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Total Cholesterol||||0.4302
91732872|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9432|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: High-density Lipoprotein||||0.9432
91732873|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: High-density Lipoprotein||||0.2133
91732874|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Low-density lipoprotein||||0.2446
91732875|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Low-density lipoprotein||||0.7075
91732876|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2195|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Very low-density lipoprotein||||0.2195
91732877|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Very low-density lipoprotein||||0.7435
91732878|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: non-HDL Cholesterol||||0.5702
91732879|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: non-HDL Cholesterol||||0.6441
91732880|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Apo lipoprotein A1||||0.8415
91732881|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Apo lipoprotein A1||||0.0786
91732882|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Apo lipoprotein B||||0.8878
91732883|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome variable: Apo lipoprotein B||||0.3219
91732884|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6557|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Small dense LDL||||0.6557
91732885|NCT03863574|183360807|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Small dense LDL||||0.0763
91732886|NCT03863574|183360809|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6988|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6988
91732887|NCT03863574|183360809|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7413|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7413
91732888|NCT03863574|183360810|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2200
91732889|NCT03863574|183360810|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5798|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5798
91732890|NCT03863574|183360811|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.4981|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4981
91732891|NCT03863574|183360811|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8939|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8939
91732892|NCT03863574|183360812|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3605
91732893|NCT03863574|183360812|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8394
91869446|NCT00910962|183632711|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.73|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 24 hours||0.73|0.48|<0.001
91905413|NCT01131676|183706603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was chosen as 1.3 based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry - Diabetes Mellitus - Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.78|1.01||One-sided test with alpha = 0.0249|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|A 4-step hierarchical testing strategy was followed for the non-inferiority test of the primary endpoint and then the key secondary endpoint, each at a margin of 1.3, followed by test of superiority of primary and key secondary endpoints.||1.01|0.78|<0.0001
91905414|NCT01131676|183706603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.78|1.01||Two-sided test with alpha=0.0498|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|A 4-step hierarchical testing strategy was followed for the non-inferiority test of the primary endpoint and then the key secondary endpoint, each at a margin of 1.3, followed by test of superiority of primary and key secondary endpoints.||1.01|0.78|0.0795
91905415|NCT01131676|183706604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.33||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||2.33|0.70|0.4172
91905416|NCT01131676|183706605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.85|0.50|0.0017
91905417|NCT01131676|183706606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||1.04|0.87|0.2547
91905418|NCT01131676|183706607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.72||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.72|0.54|<0.0001
91905419|NCT01131676|183706608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.7||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.70|0.54|<0.0001
91905420|NCT02577406|183706611|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.1|||Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory|||1.10|0.67|0.2288
91905421|NCT02577406|183706612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|11.14||p-value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing the response rates between the AG-221 group and the combined CCR group with stratification factors of prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory status|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio from logistic regression|||11.14|3.32|<0.0001
91905422|NCT02577406|183706613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory status.|||0.95|0.55|0.0200
91905423|NCT02577406|183706619|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91905424|NCT02577406|183706620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91702295|NCT00772005|183299635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4016||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4016
91869447|NCT00910962|183632711|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.76||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.98|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 2||0.98|0.59|0.031
91869448|NCT00910962|183632711|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.88||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 2||1.13|0.68|0.315
91869449|NCT00910962|183632711|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.82||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 2||1.02|0.65|0.075
91905425|NCT02577406|183706621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91905426|NCT02577406|183706623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.67|||Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory status|||0.67|0.41|<0.0001
91905427|NCT01961349|183706636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91905428|NCT01961349|183706636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91905429|NCT01961349|183706637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91905430|NCT01961349|183706637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91905431|NCT02901574|183706667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.87||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|10.3||Threshold for significance is two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.30|-2.55|0.24
91905432|NCT02790138|183706681|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|21.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|37.5||The significance level was 0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test|||The Placebo IV and Vedolizumab IV 300 mg groups were analyzed using Fisher's Exact Test at Week 14.||37.5|4.9|0.013
91905433|NCT02790138|183706682|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|17.6|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|35.1||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||||35.1|0.3|=0.043
91732894|NCT03863574|183360813|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2665
91869450|NCT00910962|183632711|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.81||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 12||1.02|0.65|0.068
91869451|NCT00910962|183632711|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.97||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 12||1.22|0.78|0.824
91869452|NCT00910962|183632711|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.89||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.09|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 12||1.09|0.73|0.246
91869453|NCT00910962|183632712|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.21|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 72 hours||1.21|0.89|0.66
91869454|NCT00910962|183632712|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.07||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.25|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 72 hours||1.25|0.92|0.39
91869455|NCT00910962|183632712|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 72 hours||1.21|0.92|0.47
91869456|NCT00910962|183632713|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.99||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.78|0.92
91869457|NCT00910962|183632713|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.08||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.36|0.85|0.52
91869458|NCT00910962|183632713|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.03||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.27|0.84|0.76
91869459|NCT00910962|183632714|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.93||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For discharge/early withdrawal||1.20|0.72|0.57
91869460|NCT00910962|183632714|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.18|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For discharge/early withdrawal||1.18|0.72|0.52
91869461|NCT00910962|183632714|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.92||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For discharge/early withdrawal||1.16|0.74|0.50
91869462|NCT00910962|183632714|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.73||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.96|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 12||0.96|0.55|0.03
91869463|NCT00910962|183632714|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.81||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 12||1.07|0.61|0.14
91869464|NCT00910962|183632714|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 12||0.98|0.60|0.04
91869465|NCT00910962|183632715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|1.41|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Day 3-5 (visit 1)||1.41|-5.25|0.254
91869466|NCT00910962|183632715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.62|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Day 3-5 (visit 1)||0.62|-6.29|0.106
91869467|NCT00910962|183632715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|0.69|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Day 3-5 (visit 1)||0.69|-5.44|0.126
91869468|NCT00910962|183632715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.92|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 12||0.92|-4.74|0.184
91869469|NCT00910962|183632715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|0.43|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 12||0.43|-5.37|0.093
91869470|NCT00910962|183632715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|0.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 12||0.40|-4.78|0.096
91869471|NCT00910962|183632716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|9.62|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||9.62|-1.18|0.124
91869472|NCT00910962|183632716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.05||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|11.47|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||11.47|0.63|0.029
91869473|NCT00910962|183632716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.14||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.0|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||10.00|0.28|0.039
91869474|NCT00910962|183632717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.53||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.27|-2.79|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For LVEDV||-2.79|-40.27|0.025
91869475|NCT00910962|183632717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.65||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.58|0.29|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For LVEDV||0.29|-37.58|0.053
91869476|NCT00910962|183632717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.09||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.01|-3.18|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For LVEDV||-3.18|-37.01|0.021
91869477|NCT00910962|183632717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.82||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.51|-2.14|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For LVESV||-2.14|-29.51|0.024
91869478|NCT00910962|183632717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.22||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.14|-3.29|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For LVESV||-3.29|-31.14|0.016
91869479|NCT00910962|183632717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.52||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.91|-4.13|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For LVESV||-4.13|-28.91|0.010
91869480|NCT00910962|183632718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.21||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.51|5.09|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||5.09|-49.51|0.109
91869481|NCT00910962|183632718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.13||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.22|20.96|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||20.96|-35.22|0.614
91869482|NCT00910962|183632718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.67||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.52|10.18|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||10.18|-39.52|0.243
91869483|NCT00910962|183632719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.44|0.023
91869484|NCT00910962|183632719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.45|0.021
91905434|NCT02790138|183706683|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|25.5|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|41.4||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test|||Week 14||41.4|8.0|=0.004
91905435|NCT02790138|183706683|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|19.6|||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|37.0||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||Week 34.||37.0|1.9|=0.027
91905436|NCT02790138|183706684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|9.4|||||Hazard ratio for achieving PDAI remission.|||9.4|1.7|
91905437|NCT02790138|183706685|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|29.4|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|47.6||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||Week 14||47.6|8.0|=0.003
91905438|NCT02790138|183706685|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|21.6|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|39.8||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||Week 34||39.8|1.9|=0.026
91905439|NCT02790138|183706686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|2.02|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.93||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||2.93|1.11|=0.002
91905440|NCT02790138|183706686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.71|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.49||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||2.49|0.92|=0.020
91905441|NCT02790138|183706687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.34|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.94||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||1.94|0.74|=0.191
91905442|NCT02790138|183706687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.07|||=|0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.54||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||1.54|0.60|=0.766
91905443|NCT02790138|183706688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.57|||=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.31||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||2.31|0.83|=0.055
91905444|NCT02790138|183706688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.48|||=|0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.16||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||2.16|0.79|=0.095
91905445|NCT02790138|183706689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.14|||=|0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.67||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||1.67|0.61|=0.575
91905446|NCT02790138|183706689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.21|||=|0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 22||1.78|0.65|=0.403
91905447|NCT02790138|183706689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.6|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.34||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||2.34|0.85|=0.047
91905448|NCT02790138|183706690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.44|||=|0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.12||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||2.12|0.77|=0.119
91905449|NCT02790138|183706690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.15|||=|0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.69||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 22||1.69|0.62|=0.542
91732895|NCT03863574|183360813|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9133
91869485|NCT00910962|183632719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.42|0.011
91905450|NCT02790138|183706690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.22|||=|0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||1.78|0.65|=0.404
91905451|NCT01226459|183706703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|13.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Intent to Treat (ITT) population defined as all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group who received dispensed investigational product. Four participants in vehicle group and 3 participants in foam group had no hair information at Baseline. Statistical analysis is of the change from baseline to week 24 data.||13.1|5.0|<0.0001
91732896|NCT03863574|183360814|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7267
91732897|NCT03863574|183360814|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9211
91732898|NCT03863574|183360815|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8683|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8683
91732899|NCT03863574|183360815|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7436
91732900|NCT04938427|183360839|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-1.17|||=|0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|9.99||The p-value was calculated using Rank Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model using treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||9.99|-13.02|=0.785
91732901|NCT04938427|183360840|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|2.43|||=|0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|15.14||The p-value was calculated using the Rank ANCOVA model using the treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||15.14|-10.86|=0.778
91732902|NCT04938427|183360841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.87||||||||3.87|0.94|
91732903|NCT04938427|183360842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.05||||||||4.05|0.92|
91732904|NCT04938427|183360844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.13||||||||2.13|0.86|
91905452|NCT01226459|183706704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|14.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is of the change from baseline to week 12 data.||14.7|7.0|<0.0001
91905453|NCT01226459|183706705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04|||ANCOVA|||||1.04|0.35|<0.0001
91732905|NCT04938427|183360845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.21||||||||2.21|0.89|
91732906|NCT04938427|183360846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.3||||||Alertness Domain||2.30|0.85|
91869486|NCT00910962|183632720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.04|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.26|0.137
91869487|NCT00910962|183632720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.32|0.036
91869488|NCT00910962|183632720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.0|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-0.28|0.047
91905454|NCT03770091|183706706|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA performed||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6
91905455|NCT03770091|183706707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.59
91905456|NCT03770091|183706708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
91732907|NCT04938427|183360846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.48||||||Communication Domain||2.48|0.91|
91732908|NCT04938427|183360846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.43||||||Disruptive Behaviors Domain||3.43|1.06|
91732909|NCT04938427|183360847|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.24||||||||3.24|-2.20|
91732910|NCT04938427|183360848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.65||||||||2.65|1.06|
91732911|NCT04938427|183360849|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|4.16|||||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||4.16|-16.83|
91732912|NCT04938427|183360850|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|3.12|||||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||3.12|-16.67|
91732913|NCT04938427|183360851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|6.67|||||A linear model with treatment group and age stratum as factors and baseline percentage as a covariate was used for analysis.|||6.67|-1.74|
91732914|NCT04938427|183360852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.9||||||||8.9|1.9|
91732915|NCT04938427|183360853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.0||||||||2.0|-3.7|
91732916|NCT01107496|183360861|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 6 data.||12.00|1.00|0.0414
91732917|NCT01107496|183360862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 1 data.||7.00|0.00|0.0803
91732918|NCT01107496|183360863|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 data.||1.00|-1.00|0.5308
91732919|NCT01107496|183360863|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.2032
91869489|NCT00195819|183632721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.1||||0.06||95.0|-0.5|40.7|||Chi-squared|||||40.7|-0.5|0.060
91869490|NCT00195819|183632764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.387||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.387
91905457|NCT03770091|183706709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
91905458|NCT03770091|183706710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
91869491|NCT05794191|183632780|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|22.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.425|36.391||||||||36.391|5.425|
91869492|NCT05794191|183632781|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|34.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.249|51.275||||||||51.275|13.249|
91905459|NCT01854645|183706715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
91905460|NCT01854645|183706715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
91905461|NCT01854645|183706715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
91905462|NCT01854645|183706715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
91905463|NCT01854645|183706715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
91905464|NCT01854645|183706715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
91905465|NCT02064920|183706744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change in SD from Week 4 to Week 16|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.039|||||SD of average OCL repeated measurements after 12 weeks of treatment for Placebo + Donezepil treatment groups combined is hypothesized to be ≤ 0.1.|Change from Week 4 to Week 16 in Standard Deviation (SD) of OCL for Placebo + Donezepil treatment groups combined||0.039|-0.031|
91905466|NCT02109562|183706746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7261||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.982|-2.314||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 90 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.314|-9.982|0.0004
91905467|NCT02109562|183706746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.045|-3.429||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 120 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.429|-11.045|<0.0001
91905468|NCT02109562|183706747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0934||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|-0.143||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 90 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.143|-0.557|0.0002
91905469|NCT02109562|183706747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0928|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|-0.19||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 120 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.190|-0.602|<0.0001
91905470|NCT03023930|183706749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|proc logistic||||||<0.001
91905471|NCT03023930|183706750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Logistic|proc logistic||||||0.011
91905472|NCT00262522|183706786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by dosing regimen was used to assess the null hypothesis of no difference between the tablet and soft gel capsule (SGC). Sample size was 600 subjects (150 each in the 4 groups). Based on a projected 48% reporting treatment-emergent diarrhea in the QD arm and 32% in the BID arm within the SGC group, with a 12% reduction in the corresponding tablet groups, this sample size provided 80% power to determine a difference between the tablet and SGC.||||>0.100
91905473|NCT00262522|183706787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (QD minus BID, based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution) was used to assess noninferiority. The QD regimen was considered noninferior to the BID regimen if the lower limit of the confidence interval remained above -12%.|percentage of subjects responding|1.3||||0.715||95.0|-5.1|7.8|||normal approx. to the binomial distr.|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the once daily (QD) regimen was more than 12% lower than the response rate for the twice daily (BID) regimen. The planned sample size of 600 subjects (300 subjects in each of the QD and BID treatment regimens) provided over 90% power to reject the null hypothesis, i.e., to determine noninferiority based on the 12% margin.||7.8|-5.1|0.715
91869493|NCT05794191|183632782|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-5.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.408|26.302||||||||26.302|-50.408|
91869494|NCT05794191|183632783|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|9.274|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.883|43.961||||||||43.961|-46.883|
91869495|NCT05794191|183632784|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|17.169|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.994|28.536||||||||28.536|3.994|
91869496|NCT05794191|183632785|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|25.526|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|38.781||||||||38.781|9.400|
91869497|NCT05794191|183632786|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-7.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.076|18.569||||||||18.569|-42.076|
91869498|NCT05794191|183632787|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|11.442|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.916|41.871||||||||41.871|-34.916|
91869499|NCT05794191|183632788|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|8.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.705|11.086||||||||11.086|5.705|
91869500|NCT05794191|183632789|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|11.445|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.089|14.679||||||||14.679|8.089|
91869501|NCT05794191|183632790|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|7.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.427|12.493||||||||12.493|1.427|
91905474|NCT00262522|183706788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (QD minus BID, based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution) was used to assess noninferiority. The QD regimen was considered noninferior to the BID regimen if the lower limit of the confidence interval remained above -12%.|percentage of subjects responding|-4.3||||0.249||95.0|-11.5|2.8|||normal approx. to the binomial distr.|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the once daily (QD) regimen was more than 12% lower than the response rate for the twice daily (BID) regimen. The planned sample size of 600 subjects (300 subjects in each of the QD and BID treatment regimens) provided over 90% power to reject the null hypothesis, i.e., to determine noninferiority based on the 12% margin.||2.8|-11.5|0.249
91905475|NCT00262522|183706789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.269
91905476|NCT04722042|183706790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of word recognition over time (activation, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-activation) between groups (default versus place-based)||||0.557
91905477|NCT04722042|183706791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of spatial release from masking over time (1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-activation) between the groups (default versus place-based)||||0.208
91905478|NCT04722042|183706792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of spatial release from masking between the groups over time||||0.126
91905479|NCT04722042|183706793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of perceived benefit between the groups over time||||0.369
91905480|NCT04722042|183706794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91905481|NCT04722042|183706795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91905482|NCT04722042|183706796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91905483|NCT01877915|183706804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1||1.05|0.84|0.270
91905484|NCT01877915|183706810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.59|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1 (Fatal Bleeding)||2.59|0.41|0.951
91905485|NCT01877915|183706810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.34|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 2 (Bleeding in Critical Space with Potential for Permanent Disability)||1.34|0.33|0.253
91905486|NCT05314517|183706814|OTHER||Stratified Common Risk Difference|14.1||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|29.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.2|-1.0|0.1244
91905487|NCT04714073|183706820|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|218.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|194.06|246.72|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratio (%): BI 706321 + Itraconazole (Test Treatment(T))/BI 706321 alone (Reference Treatment (R)).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 18.1."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||246.72|194.06|
91905488|NCT04714073|183706821|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|156.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.04|180.89|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratio (%): BI 706321 + Itraconazole (Test Treatment(T))/BI 706321 alone (Reference Treatment (R)).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 22.1."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||180.89|135.04|
91905489|NCT04714073|183706822|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|223.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|198.61|250.66|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratio (%): BI 706321 + Itraconazole (Test Treatment(T))/BI 706321 alone (Reference Treatment (R)).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 17.5."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||250.66|198.61|
91905490|NCT01251653|183706876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|81.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.3||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.863|147.205|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Gemcitabine vs. Afatinib without Gemcitabine was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||147.205|44.863|0.4815
91905491|NCT01251653|183706876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|95.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.4||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.139|108.077|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||108.077|84.139|0.0149
91905492|NCT01251653|183706876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|88.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.2||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.778|94.964|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||94.964|81.778|0.0208
91905493|NCT01251653|183706877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|141.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7||0.8715|TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.848|172.495|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Gemcitabine vs. Afatinib without Gemcitabine was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||172.495|115.848|0.8715
91869502|NCT05794191|183632791|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-3.716|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.626|4.488||||||||4.488|-12.626|
91905494|NCT01251653|183706877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|77.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.8||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.516|87.473|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||87.473|68.516|0.6805
91732920|NCT01107496|183360863|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.0677
91732921|NCT01107496|183360863|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.0743
91732922|NCT01107496|183360863|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.0437
91732923|NCT01107496|183360863|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 6 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.1209
91732924|NCT01107496|183360864|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 2 data.||6.00|-4.00|0.6022
91732925|NCT01107496|183360864|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 3 data.||1.00|-10.0|0.0794
91732926|NCT01107496|183360864|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 4 data.||0.00|-10.0|0.0747
91732927|NCT01107496|183360864|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 5 data.||0.00|-12.0|0.0545
91732928|NCT01107496|183360865|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 6 data.||13.00|1.00|0.0349
91732929|NCT01107496|183360866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 1 data||0.00|-1.00|0.4038
91869503|NCT05794191|183632792|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|13.685|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.213|17.022||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 0-3 years||17.022|10.213|
91732930|NCT01107496|183360866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 2 data||0.00|-1.00|0.4460
91732931|NCT01107496|183360866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 3 data||0.00|-1.00|0.0549
91732932|NCT01107496|183360866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 4 data||0.00|-1.00|0.0759
91869504|NCT05794191|183632792|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|7.665|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.707|13.261||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 3-5 years||13.261|1.707|
91869505|NCT05794191|183632792|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-5.792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.691|3.26||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 5-7 years||3.260|-15.691|
91732933|NCT01107496|183360866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 5 data||0.00|-1.00|0.0342
91732934|NCT01107496|183360866|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 6 data||||0.0474
91732935|NCT02496000|183360869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0117|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|ANOVA model on the ranks||This outcome measure requires that the the mean differences of ORMD-0801 in each of the two arms be pooled.||||0.0117
91732936|NCT01877278|183360874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91732937|NCT01877278|183360874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91732938|NCT01877278|183360875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0001
91732939|NCT01877278|183360875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91732940|NCT01969058|183360876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in T-cell activation from baseline to week 14/16.||||0.030
91732941|NCT04262479|183360918|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Counting number of events.|||
91732942|NCT04262479|183360919|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Counting number of events|||
91732943|NCT04262479|183360920|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91732944|NCT04262479|183360921|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.05
91732945|NCT04262479|183360922|OTHER||||||<|0.61||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.61
91732946|NCT04262479|183360923|OTHER||||||<|0.3||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.30
91732947|NCT04262479|183360924|OTHER||||||<|0.002||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.002
91732948|NCT04262479|183360925|OTHER||||||<|0.72||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.72
91732949|NCT04262479|183360926|OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.03
91869506|NCT05794191|183632792|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|9.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.056|12.66||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: overall follow up||12.660|7.056|
91869507|NCT05794191|183632793|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|13.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.149|16.978||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 0-3 years||16.978|10.149|
91869508|NCT05794191|183632793|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|7.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.708|13.276||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 3-5 years||13.276|1.708|
91869509|NCT05794191|183632793|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-5.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.809|3.166||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 5-7 years||3.166|-15.809|
91796999|NCT01828320|183473007|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.60
91797000|NCT01828320|183473008|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.42
91797001|NCT01828320|183473009|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.01
91797002|NCT00866788|183473044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1601||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1601
91797003|NCT00866788|183473044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0003
91797004|NCT00866788|183473044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0473||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0473
91869510|NCT05794191|183632793|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|9.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|12.617||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: overall follow up||12.617|7.000|
91869511|NCT01079806|183632807|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|20.2||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.4|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||31.4|9.1|0.0049
91869512|NCT01079806|183632808|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.4|54.2|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||54.2|29.4|<0.0001
91797005|NCT00866788|183473045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1640
91797006|NCT00866788|183473045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0005
91797007|NCT00866788|183473045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0558||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0558
91797008|NCT00866788|183473046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1411||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1411
91797009|NCT00866788|183473046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0003
91797010|NCT00866788|183473046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0248||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0248
91797011|NCT00866788|183473047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5507||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.5507
91869513|NCT01079806|183632809|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|45.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|29.2|61.2|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||61.2|29.2|<0.0001
91869514|NCT01079806|183632810|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|50.5|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||50.5|25.9|<0.0001
91869515|NCT01079806|183632811|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|12.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|25.7|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||25.7|-1.5|0.11
91797012|NCT00866788|183473047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1525||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1525
91797013|NCT00866788|183473047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0449||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0449
91797014|NCT00866788|183473048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7261||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.7261
91797015|NCT00866788|183473048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.162
91797016|NCT00866788|183473048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6504||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.6504
91797017|NCT02349061|183473058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|7.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.63|1.41|0.0057
91797018|NCT02349061|183473059|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.23|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||||0.23|-2.94|0.0929
91797019|NCT02349061|183473060|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.383||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.271|0.506|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||||0.506|-1.271|0.3944
91797020|NCT02349061|183473061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.34|0.43|0.9939
91797021|NCT02349061|183473062|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-2.17||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|0.45|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||||0.45|-4.78|0.1032
91869516|NCT03739866|183632828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91869517|NCT03739866|183632828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91869518|NCT03739866|183632828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91869519|NCT03739866|183632828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91869520|NCT03739866|183632828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91869521|NCT01034306|183632842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0352||||||normal approximation to the binomial test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0352
91869522|NCT01034306|183632843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2472|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.2472
91869523|NCT01034306|183632844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1972
91905495|NCT01251653|183706877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|83.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.3||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.794|94.217|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||94.217|74.794|0.2327
91732950|NCT04262479|183360927|OTHER||||||<|0.044||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.044
91732951|NCT00791648|183360966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Pearson x2|||||||.75
91905496|NCT01251653|183706878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|136.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.3||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.09|165.29|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Gemcitabine with Afatinib vs. Gemcitabine without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||165.29|112.09|0.7759
91905497|NCT01251653|183706879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|118.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||0.3359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.81|147.88|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Gemcitabine with Afatinib vs. Gemcitabine without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||147.88|94.81|0.3359
91905498|NCT01251653|183706882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|93.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.5||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.352|107.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||107.890|81.352|0.0349
91905499|NCT01251653|183706882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|98.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.4||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.053|118.76|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||118.760|81.053|0.0405
91905500|NCT01251653|183706883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|90.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.566|104.901|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||104.901|78.566|0.0728
91905501|NCT01251653|183706883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|85.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.9||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.561|112.138|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||112.138|65.561|0.3294
91905502|NCT00847145|183706887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off levels for the vaccine antigen measles is ≥255 mIU/mL to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M (1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2a), if for the measles antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for Measles antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-5|
91905503|NCT00847145|183706887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off level for the vaccine antigen mumps is ≥10 Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay(ELISA) Antibody (Ab) units to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M(1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B(2a), if for the mumps antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for Mumps antigen was greater than -10%.||5|-5|
91905504|NCT00847145|183706887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off level for the vaccine antigen rubella is ≥10 IU/mL to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M(1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2a), if for the rubella antigen(two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for rubella antigen was greater than -10%.||1|-4|
91732952|NCT00791648|183360967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.56
91732953|NCT00791648|183360968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.71
91732954|NCT00791648|183360969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.11
91732955|NCT00791648|183360970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
91732956|NCT00791648|183360971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
91759232|NCT00348309|183411451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||=|0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.6||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.9|=0.566
91869524|NCT03057600|183632858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2252|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.2252
91869525|NCT03057600|183632858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9437|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.9437
91869526|NCT03057600|183632858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5797|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.5797
91905505|NCT00847145|183706887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off value for the vaccine antigen varicella is ≥1.25 gpELISA units/mL to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M(1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2a), if for the varicella antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for varicella antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-6|
91905506|NCT00847145|183706887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off level for the varicella vaccine antigen is ≥5 gp ELISA units/ml (seroprotection) to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M (1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2), if for the varicella antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of the subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off value for varicella antigen was greater than -10%.||7|-11|
91732957|NCT03396445|183360990|OTHER||Difference in Percent|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|32.8|||||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced a CR or PR (Arm 2b Boserolimab 30 mg Q3W + Pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W \[Endometrial\] - Arm 1a Boserolimab 30 mg Q3W \[Endometrial\])||32.8|-21.2|
91732958|NCT03396445|183360990|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|17.2|||||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced a CR or PR (Arm 2c Boserolimab 30 mg Q6W + Pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W \[Endometrial\] - Arm 1a Boserolimab 30 mg \[Endometrial\])||17.2|-32.1|
91732959|NCT03396445|183360990|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|38.4|||||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced a CR or PR (Arm 2b Boserolimab 30 mg Q3W + Pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W \[Endometrial\] - Arm 2c Boserolimab 30 mg Q6W + Pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W \[Endometrial\])||38.4|-11.7|
91732960|NCT02964377|183360995|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0482|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0482
91732961|NCT02964377|183360995|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0075
91732962|NCT02964377|183360995|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0083
91732963|NCT02964377|183360996|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0127|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0127
91732964|NCT02964377|183360996|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0202
91732965|NCT02964377|183360996|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
91732966|NCT02964377|183360997|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4 (Cohort 1)||||<0.0001
91732967|NCT02964377|183360997|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4 (Cohort 2)||||<0.0001
91869527|NCT03057600|183632858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0243|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.0243
91869528|NCT01604824|183632872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.486|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.31|-28.12||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-28.12|-79.31|= 0.0009
91732968|NCT02964377|183360997|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4 (Cohort 3)||||<0.0001
91732969|NCT02964377|183360997|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8 (Cohort 1)||||<0.0001
91869529|NCT01604824|183632872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.965|=|0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.21|17.35||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||17.35|-69.21|= 0.0056
91732970|NCT02964377|183360997|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8 (Cohort 2)||||<0.0001
91732971|NCT02964377|183360997|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8 (Cohort 3)||||<0.0001
91732972|NCT02964377|183361000|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.002
91732973|NCT02964377|183361000|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.001
91732974|NCT02964377|183361000|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
91732975|NCT02964377|183361000|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
91732976|NCT02964377|183361000|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
91732977|NCT02964377|183361000|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
91732978|NCT02964377|183361001|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
91732979|NCT02964377|183361001|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
91732980|NCT02964377|183361001|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
91869530|NCT01604824|183632873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.05|=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.39|-22.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||LS means (SE), mean difference, 95% CI, and p-values were derived from ANCOVA with treatment group as factor and baseline as covariate.||-22.7|-76.39|= 0.0021
91869531|NCT01604824|183632873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.876|=|0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.36|18.92||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||LS means (SE), mean difference, 95% CI, and p-values were derived from ANCOVA with treatment group as factor and baseline as covariate.||18.92|-70.36|= 0.0045
91905507|NCT01439282|183706926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.108||||||1-side P value was obtained|1-sample binomial test|||||||0.1080
91732981|NCT02964377|183361001|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
91732982|NCT02964377|183361001|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
91732983|NCT02964377|183361001|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
91732984|NCT02964377|183361002|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
91732985|NCT02964377|183361002|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
91732986|NCT02964377|183361002|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
91732987|NCT02964377|183361002|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
91732988|NCT02964377|183361002|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
91732989|NCT02964377|183361002|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
91732990|NCT02964377|183361003|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.012
91732991|NCT02964377|183361003|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
91732992|NCT02964377|183361003|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
91732993|NCT02964377|183361003|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.01
91732994|NCT02964377|183361003|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
91732995|NCT02964377|183361003|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
91732996|NCT02964377|183361005|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.01
91905508|NCT00916357|183706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||60 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0034
91732997|NCT02964377|183361005|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.019|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.019
91732998|NCT02964377|183361005|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.001
91732999|NCT02964377|183361005|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.05
91733000|NCT02964377|183361006|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.054||||||p-value for difference at Week 4|Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.054
91733001|NCT02964377|183361006|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.009
91733002|NCT02964377|183361007|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.025|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.025
91733003|NCT02964377|183361007|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.026|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.026
91733004|NCT02964377|183361008|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.006
91733005|NCT02964377|183361008|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.002
91733006|NCT00836706|183361015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.0||||||90.0|85.2|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||120|85.2|
91733007|NCT00836706|183361016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.0||||||90.0|88.7|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|88.7|
91733008|NCT00836706|183361017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.0||||||90.0|88.4|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|88.4|
91733009|NCT02989857|183361018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.54||P-value was calculated from the one-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated from stratified Cox regression model with placebo as the denominator, with two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.54|0.25|<0.0001
91733010|NCT02989857|183361025|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.12||P-value was calculated from the one-sided stratified log-rank test. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated from the stratified Cox regression model with placebo as the comparator, with two-sided 95% CI. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|||1.12|0.56|0.093
91733011|NCT02989857|183361026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466||||||P-value was calculated from 1-sided Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.466
91733012|NCT02989857|183361027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299||||||P-value was calculated from 1-sided Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.299
91733013|NCT02989857|183361032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.68||P-value was calculated from one-sided stratified log-rank test. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated from the stratified Cox regression model with placebo as the denominator, with two-sided 95% CI. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|||0.68|0.33|<0.0001
91733014|NCT02989857|183361033|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|17.73||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Physical Functioning||17.73|4.23|
91869532|NCT01604824|183632874|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.487|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.96|-23.77||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-23.77|-74.96|= 0.0016
91733015|NCT02989857|183361033|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|-0.52||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Pain||-0.52|-20.18|
91733016|NCT02989857|183361033|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|13.91||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Appetite Loss||13.91|-6.65|
91733017|NCT02989857|183361033|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|20.78||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Physical Functioning||20.78|3.85|
91733018|NCT02989857|183361033|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|17.04||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Pain||17.04|-8.74|
91733019|NCT02989857|183361033|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.46|10.11||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Appetite Loss||10.11|-17.46|
91797022|NCT02339285|183473074|OTHER|F-test; Treatment effect|||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(2, 29)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference baseline and the 4 week follow up in MADRS score between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between baseline and the 4 week follow up MADRS score between treatment groups."||||>0.10
91869533|NCT01604824|183632874|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.471|=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.12|15.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||15.60|-65.12|= 0.0063
91733020|NCT02989857|183361034|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|2.8||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Pain||2.80|-12.93|
91733021|NCT02989857|183361034|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|7.88||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Appetite Loss||7.88|-6.56|
91733022|NCT02989857|183361034|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|14.55||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Pain||14.55|-5.82|
91733023|NCT02989857|183361034|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.34|3.12||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Appetite Loss||3.12|-15.34|
91733024|NCT02541591|183361063|SUPERIORITY||Median ratio of final values|1.37||||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.98|||ANOVA|due to non normality of the residuals the data were log-transformed prior to the anova|the estimated mean difference obtained using the anova on the log-transformed data was back transformed thus yielding a ratio of median values|missing data were accounted for by multiple imputation||1.98|0.95|0.0881
91733025|NCT00123630|183361077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91733026|NCT01098747|183361086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-square (LS) mean difference|24.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.32|29.09||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI):based on LS means from analysis of variance(ANOVA). Type I error controlled at 5% significance level (2-sided) by testing primary endpoints sequentially: Ibuprofen sodium (IBU Na) versus(vs.) Placebo for SPRID 0-8 then time to meaningful relief(TMR), IBU Na vs. IBU (Advil and Motrin IB) for TMR. If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||29.09|19.32|<0.001
91733027|NCT01098747|183361087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|24.15||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level (2-sided) by testing primary endpoints sequentially: IBU Na vs. Placebo for SPRID 0-8 then TMR, IBU Na vs. IBU (Advil and Motrin IB) for TMR. If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||24.15|6.78|<0.001
91733028|NCT01098747|183361087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.06||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level (2-sided) by testing primary endpoints sequentially: IBU Na vs. Placebo for SPRID 0-8 then TMR, IBU Na vs. IBU (Advil and Motrin IB) for TMR. If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||2.06|1.22|<0.001
91869534|NCT01604824|183632875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.224|=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.85|-14.66||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-14.66|-46.85|= 0.0017
91869535|NCT01604824|183632875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.294|=|0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.11|-7.34||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-7.34|-37.11|= 0.0096
91869536|NCT01604824|183632876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.867|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.71|-27.74||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-27.74|-71.71|= 0.0005
91869537|NCT01604824|183632876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.545|=|0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.63|-22.03||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-22.03|-76.63|= 0.0037
91733029|NCT01098747|183361088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|23.46||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||23.46|6.51|<0.001
91733030|NCT01098747|183361088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.34||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||2.34|1.38|<0.001
91733031|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.60|0.10|0.007
91733032|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.42|0.06|0.010
91869538|NCT03758742|183632883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
91797023|NCT02339285|183473074|OTHER|F-test; Session effect|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(1, 31)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference baseline and the 4 week follow up in MADRS score between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between baseline and the 4 week follow up MADRS score between treatment groups."||||<0.001
91869539|NCT03617835|183632917|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|93.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.48|111.8|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.0.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||111.80|78.48|
91797024|NCT02339285|183473074|OTHER|F-test; Interaction effect (session x treatment)|||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(2,29)||||||>0.10
91888774|NCT02942004|183669965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.91|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.91|-2.40|0.8495
91888775|NCT02942004|183669965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.7063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|2.55|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.55|-3.75|0.7063
91888776|NCT02942004|183669965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.552||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|2.97|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.97|-3.19|0.9434
91888777|NCT02942004|183669965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.608||0.9701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|3.13|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.13|-3.25|0.9701
91888778|NCT02942004|183669965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.566||0.6307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.35|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.35|-3.86|0.6307
91888779|NCT02942004|183669965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.488||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|0.93|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.93|-4.97|0.1767
91888780|NCT02942004|183669965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.468||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|1.45|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.45|-4.37|0.3236
91888781|NCT02224703|183670036|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.743||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.971|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset. Null hypothesis was that the ratio of GWP42003-P to placebo would be 1.||0.971|0.568|0.0299
91888782|NCT02224703|183670036|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.702||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.916|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset. Null hypothesis was that the ratio of GWP42003-P to placebo would be 1.||0.916|0.538|0.0095
91888783|NCT02224703|183670037|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.749||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|0.965|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset.||0.965|0.581|0.0255
91888784|NCT02224703|183670037|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.799|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset.||0.799|0.481|0.0003
91888785|NCT02224703|183670038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-12, and 13-18 years).||||5.70|1.32|0.0069
91869540|NCT03617835|183632917|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|139.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.26|167.03|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.0.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||167.03|117.26|
91869541|NCT03617835|183632918|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|121.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.08|145.41|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.0.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||145.41|102.08|
91869542|NCT03617835|183632919|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|99.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.77|117.39|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.8.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||117.39|83.77|
91869543|NCT03617835|183632919|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|156.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.95|184.9|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.8.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||184.90|131.95|
91905509|NCT00916357|183706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||60 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.2600
91869544|NCT03617835|183632920|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|138.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.87|163.77|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.8.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||163.77|116.87|
91905510|NCT00916357|183706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated measures Analysis of Variance|||60 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0001
91905511|NCT00916357|183706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||90 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0039
91905512|NCT00916357|183706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||90 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.9300
91905513|NCT00916357|183706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||90 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0031
91905514|NCT00916357|183706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||120 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0190
91905515|NCT00916357|183706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||120 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.9200
91905516|NCT00916357|183706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||120 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0150
91905517|NCT00916357|183706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Peak postprandial glucose (PPG) values.||||0.0950
91905518|NCT00916357|183706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Peak postprandial glucose (PPG) values.||||0.6000
91905519|NCT00916357|183706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Peak postprandial glucose (PPG) values.||||0.0310
91905520|NCT00916357|183706936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
91905521|NCT00916357|183706936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.1800
91905522|NCT00916357|183706936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
91905523|NCT00916357|183706937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0045
91759233|NCT00348309|183411452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||=|0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.3|=0.414
91869545|NCT03617835|183632921|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|93.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.11|112.11|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||112.11|78.11|
91733033|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.84||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95 % CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.84|1.10|<0.001
91733034|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.8||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.80|0.27|<0.001
91759234|NCT00348309|183411452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-1.0|0.931
91869546|NCT03617835|183632921|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|139.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.64|167.4|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||167.40|116.64|
91869547|NCT03617835|183632922|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|121.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.28|145.37|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||145.37|101.28|
91869548|NCT02060487|183632971|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of sildenafil 20 mg TID versus sildenafil 5 mg TID was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 99.7% confidence interval (CI) for hazard ratio (HR) was less than 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.31|1.49|||||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.49|0.31|
91869549|NCT02060487|183632971|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of sildenafil 80 mg TID vs. sildenafil 5 mg TID was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 99.7% CI for HR was less than 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.22|1.21|||||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.21|0.22|
91869550|NCT02060487|183632971|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of sildenafil 80 mg TID vs. sildenafil 20 mg TID was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 99.7% CI for HR is less than 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.3|1.84|||||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.84|0.30|
91869551|NCT02060487|183632972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.33|1.21|||Wald test||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.21|0.33|0.035
91869552|NCT02060487|183632972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.22|0.89|||Wald test||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||0.89|0.22|<0.001
91869553|NCT02060487|183632972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.34|1.52|||Wald test||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.52|0.34|0.195
91869554|NCT02060487|183632973|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|15.0||||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|30.81|||MMRM|||||30.81|-0.80|0.0627
91869555|NCT02060487|183632973|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|18.9||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|34.86|||MMRM|||||34.86|2.99|0.0201
91869556|NCT02060487|183632973|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|3.9||||0.6254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|19.68|||MMRM|||||19.68|-11.85|0.6254
91869557|NCT02060487|183632974|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|21.3||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|40.45|||MMRM|||||40.45|2.25|0.0286
91869558|NCT02060487|183632974|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|20.5||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|39.65|||MMRM|||||39.65|1.30|0.0364
91869559|NCT02060487|183632974|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|-0.9||||0.9283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|18.19|||MMRM|||||18.19|-19.94|0.9283
91869560|NCT03387189|183632975|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for length of second stage cesarean section, fetal station, delivery method, use of instrumentation , parity, and gestational age|Y = Intervention + Time + Intervention\*Time + Covariates. Provided estimation parameter is the OR from the interaction term and can be interpreted as the differential change in odds of outcome from pre to post period associated with the intervention.|||0.91|0.17|0.031
91869561|NCT03387189|183632976|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.03|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for length of second stage cesarean section, fetal station, delivery method, use of instrumentation , parity, and gestational age|Y = Intervention + Time + Intervention\*Time + Covariates. Provided estimation parameter is the OR from the interaction term and can be interpreted as the differential change in odds of outcome from pre to post period associated with the intervention.|||4.03|0.53|0.465
91869562|NCT03387189|183632977|SUPERIORITY|alpha - 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.5|-20.4|0.01
91869563|NCT03387189|183632978|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.5|-76.0|0.75
91797025|NCT02339285|183473075|OTHER|F-test; Condition effect|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|F(2,21.595)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups."||||<0.05
91797026|NCT02339285|183473075|OTHER|F-test; Region effect (region defined as region of brain - frontal, parietal, occipital temporal)|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(3, 79.358)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups."||||<0.001
91797027|NCT02339285|183473075|OTHER|F-test; Interaction effect (region x condition)|||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(6, 68.284)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups."||||>0.10
91797028|NCT02339285|183473076|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG 4 weeks after completion of the intervention between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG 4 weeks after completion of the intervention between treatment groups."||||>0.10
91797029|NCT02053051|183473081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91797030|NCT00195273|183473084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6081||||||Calculated for 12 month analysis|ANOVA|Analysis of variance with treatment group and center as factors||||||0.6081
91797031|NCT00195273|183473087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4662|||||||ANOVA|Calculated for 3 month analysis||||||0.4662
91797032|NCT00810108|183473178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The geometric mean and 90% confidence interval assessed whether the crushed and whole tablet administration AUCs were equivalent.|Ratio of Crushed/Whole Tablet AUC|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lopinavir AUC was compared between whole tablet and crushed tablet administration by using a ratio of crushed/whole AUC.||0.69|0.45|<0.05
91797033|NCT01288027|183473208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||one sample t-test|||Statistical significance for change from Baseline was measured using one sample t-test||||0.1860
91797034|NCT02556203|183473217|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided Confidence interval|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2089302|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.7040824||||||"H0: HR(t)\>=1.20 for all time points t\>=0, (i.e. the hazard for the primary efficacy endpoint in the rivaroxaban-based treatment group is more than 20% larger than that in the antiplatelet-based control group)"||1.7040824||
91797035|NCT02556203|183473218|SUPERIORITY|2-sided Log Rank test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||=|0.04223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.81|||Log Rank|||||1.81|1.01|= 0.04223
91797036|NCT02556203|183473219|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||=|0.07745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.37|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.37|0.95|= 0.07745
91733035|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.60|1.84|<0.001
91733036|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.66|0.12|0.006
91733037|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.77||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.77|2.00|<0.001
91733038|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.60|0.05|0.022
91733039|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.79||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.79|2.00|<0.001
91733040|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.41|-0.15|0.369
91797037|NCT02556203|183473220|SUPERIORITY|2-sided Log Rank test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||=|0.01156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.8|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||1.80|1.08|= 0.01156
91797038|NCT02556203|183473221|SUPERIORITY|2-sided Log Rank test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||=|0.21595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.69|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||1.69|0.89|= 0.21595
91797039|NCT02556203|183473222|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78|||=|0.02216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.94|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.94|1.08|= 0.02216
91869564|NCT03387189|183632979|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.02
91869565|NCT03387189|183632982|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Risk Difference (RD)|0.116||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.24|||Fisher Exact|||||0.24|-0.01|0.10
91733041|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.60|1.78|<0.001
91869566|NCT03387189|183632984|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Risk Difference (RD)|0.028||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|17.8|||Fisher Exact|||||17.8|-0.12|0.81
91869567|NCT03387189|183632985|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||Fisher Exact|||||0.13|-0.11|1.0
91869568|NCT03697603|183632987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.1|-2.7|0.0312
91869569|NCT03697603|183632987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.4|-3.0|0.0089
91869570|NCT03697603|183632988|OTHER||Diff|5.5||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.8|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||13.8|-2.8|0.1964
91869571|NCT03697603|183632988|OTHER||Diff|5.5||||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.7|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||13.7|-2.8|0.1969
91869572|NCT04218864|183632989|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Linear Mixed regression models (LMM) have been used to identify any difference between the intervention and the control groups over time with regards to the continuous outcomes. Group (intervention vs. control), a 5-category time (baseline, 6 week, 3 month, 6 month, 12 month) and group-by-time interaction are covariates in the model. A random subject intercept is used to account for clustering within subject.||||>0.05
91869573|NCT04218864|183632990|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical analysis strategy is identical to that for the primary outcome.||||>0.05
91869574|NCT04218864|183632991|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical analysis strategy is identical to that for the primary outcome.||||>0.05
91869575|NCT04218864|183632992|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical analysis strategy is identical to that for primary outcome.||||>0.05
91869576|NCT04218864|183632993|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical Analysis strategy is identical to that for primary outcome measure.||||>0.05
91869577|NCT02222493|183633008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence test|Proportion Difference|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|5.11||||||Score statistic method||5.11|-9.92|
91869578|NCT02222493|183633008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence test|Proportion Difference|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.75|4.02||||||Score statistic method||4.02|-8.75|
91869579|NCT02542943|183633147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.13||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.134||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. For the Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment. For Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|||0.134|-0.400|0.4350
91869580|NCT02542943|183633147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.7605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.34||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. For the Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment. For Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|||0.340|-0.192|0.7605
91869581|NCT02542943|183633148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|0.031||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.031|-0.445|0.0873
91869582|NCT02542943|183633149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.4921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.13||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.130|-0.270|0.4921
91869583|NCT02542943|183633149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.8728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.216||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.216|-0.183|0.8728
91869584|NCT02542943|183633149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.4003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.115||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.115|-0.287|0.4003
91869585|NCT02542943|183633150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|0.000|0.8106
91869586|NCT02542943|183633150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.1656
91888786|NCT02224703|183670038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-12, and 13-18 years).||||4.62|1.06|0.0332
91869587|NCT02542943|183633150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|0.000|0.1419
91869588|NCT02542943|183633151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|0.000|0.5631
91733042|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.17||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.17|-0.42|0.420
91733043|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.45|1.58|<0.001
91733044|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.08|-0.54|0.151
91733045|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.33|1.43|<0.001
91869589|NCT02542943|183633151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|0.000|0.8423
91905524|NCT00916357|183706937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.4800
91733046|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.09|-0.56|0.160
91733047|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.10|1.16|<0.001
91733048|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.01||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.01|-0.67|0.055
91733049|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.88|0.91|<0.001
91733050|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-0.71|0.040
91733051|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.69|0.71|<0.001
91733052|NCT01098747|183361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||-0.08|-0.79|0.015
91733053|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|0.13|<0.001
91759235|NCT00348309|183411452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.4|0.485
91869590|NCT02542943|183633151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|0.000|0.4390
91905525|NCT00916357|183706937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0006
91869591|NCT02542943|183633152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|0.308||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.308|-0.611|0.5170
91869592|NCT02542943|183633152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17||||0.4538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.633||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.633|-0.284|0.4538
91869593|NCT02542943|183633152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.788|0.136||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.136|-0.788|0.1663
91905526|NCT00916357|183706938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
91905527|NCT00916357|183706938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0016
91905528|NCT00916357|183706938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.1000
91905529|NCT00916357|183706939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone + Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
91905530|NCT00916357|183706939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.3000
91905531|NCT00916357|183706939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
91869594|NCT02542943|183633153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.661|0.453||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.453|-0.661|0.7137
91905532|NCT00916357|183706940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
91905533|NCT00916357|183706940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.7700
91905534|NCT00916357|183706940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
91905535|NCT00916357|183706941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0100
91905536|NCT00916357|183706941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.8200
91905537|NCT00916357|183706941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0056
91869595|NCT02542943|183633153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.7353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.651||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.651|-0.460|0.7353
91905538|NCT00916357|183706942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>160 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.064
91905539|NCT00916357|183706942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>160 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.47
91905540|NCT00916357|183706942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>160 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.012
91905541|NCT00916357|183706942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>140 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.099
91905542|NCT00916357|183706942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>140 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.46
91759236|NCT00348309|183411452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-0.8|0.550
91905543|NCT00916357|183706942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>140 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.020
91905544|NCT00916357|183706942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \<70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.13
91733054|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|0.11|<0.001
91733055|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.19|0.70|<0.001
91733056|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.55||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.55|0.20|<0.001
91869596|NCT02542943|183633153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.361||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.361|-0.760|0.4843
91733057|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.75|1.18|<0.001
91733058|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.45|0.04|0.017
91733059|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.96||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.96|1.39|<0.001
91733060|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|0.05|0.015
91733061|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.98||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.98|1.41|<0.001
91733062|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.30|-0.11|0.362
91797040|NCT02556203|183473223|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||=|0.02702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.62|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.62|1.05|= 0.02702
91797041|NCT02556203|183473224|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84|||=|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.41|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.41|1.41|= 0.00001
91869597|NCT04701203|183633176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the primary efficacy endpoint, the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by etiology of hypoparathyroidism (postsurgical or other) was used to compare the proportion of participants meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus placebo groups. Participants without week 26 albumin-adjusted serum calcium or with \>25% (ie, \>7 days) missing diary data of active vitamin D or elemental calcium during the 4 weeks before week 26 were considered non-responders.||||<0.0001
91869598|NCT04701203|183633177|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0038
91869599|NCT04701203|183633178|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0055
91869600|NCT04701203|183633179|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0046
91869601|NCT04701203|183633180|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0061
91869602|NCT04701203|183633181|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0347
91733063|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.86||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.86|1.27|<0.001
91733064|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.14|-0.29|0.472
91733065|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.70|1.07|<0.001
91733066|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.05|-0.40|0.134
91733067|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.63|1.00|<0.001
91733068|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.05|-0.40|0.135
91733069|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.50|0.84|<0.001
91733070|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-0.49|0.036
91733071|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.26|0.61|<0.001
91733072|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.01||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.01|-0.46|0.064
91733073|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.18|0.52|<0.001
91733074|NCT01098747|183361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.02|-0.46|0.074
91733075|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.04||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.04|0.26|0.001
91759237|NCT00348309|183411452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.8|0.264
91759238|NCT00348309|183411452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.5|0.732
91759239|NCT00348309|183411452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-2.9|0.043
91759240|NCT00348309|183411452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-1.4|0.814
91759241|NCT00348309|183411453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.870
91759242|NCT00348309|183411453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.7|0.617
91905545|NCT00916357|183706942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \<70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.41
91797042|NCT00739999|183473225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Atorvastatin CL/F based on 70 kg BW|699.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|570.0|881.0|||non-linear mixed-effects model|Measures of parameter estimation uncertainty (95% CI) were determined by non-parametric bootstrap analysis.||Atorvastatin apparent clearance (CL/F) was described as a function of body weight using an allometric equation. The estimated parameter given is an extrapolation of the model for participants who weigh 70 kg.||881|570|
91797043|NCT00369122|183473273|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Based on a report by Laciano, et al. an SAE rate of 5% and AE rate of 35% were considered tolerable and an SAE rate \>=20% and AE rate \>=55% excessive. If there were \>=6 pts with SAES or \>=22 pts with AEs then the treatment would be rejected. This study design provides alpha of 0.05 and power of 90%.|||
91797044|NCT03633617|183473281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.58|71.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is dupilumab minus placebo|||71.04|39.58|<0.0001
91797045|NCT03633617|183473281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.44|68.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is dupilumab minus placebo|||68.54|43.44|<0.0001
91797046|NCT03633617|183473281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|65.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is dupilumab minus placebo|||65.79|41.20|<0.0001
91905546|NCT00916357|183706942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \<70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.46
91733076|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.46||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.75|0.18|0.001
91733077|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.01||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.01|1.82|<0.001
91733078|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.34|0.48|<0.001
91797047|NCT03633617|183473282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.32||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.107|-5.537|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-5.537|-19.107|0.0004
91797048|NCT03633617|183473282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.8393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.423|4.406|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||4.406|-5.423|0.8393
91797049|NCT03633617|183473282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.811|-5.022|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-5.022|-14.811|<0.0001
91797050|NCT03633617|183473283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-68.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.896|-49.615|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-49.615|-86.896|<0.0001
91733079|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|4.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.33|3.03|<0.001
91797051|NCT03633617|183473283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.098|-55.338|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-55.338|-103.098|<0.0001
91797052|NCT03633617|183473283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-88.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.194|-65.046|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-65.046|-112.194|<0.0001
91797053|NCT03633617|183473284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.222|-17.745|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-17.745|-57.222|0.0002
91905547|NCT00916357|183706943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.016
91905548|NCT00916357|183706943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.8800
91905549|NCT00916357|183706943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.011
91905550|NCT00916357|183706945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 10% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
91797054|NCT03633617|183473284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.35||||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.734|9.038|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||9.038|-17.734|0.5243
91797055|NCT03633617|183473284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.89||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.272|-9.513|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-9.513|-36.272|0.0008
91797056|NCT03633617|183473285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.759|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9061|-0.6127|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.6127|-0.9061|<0.0001
91797057|NCT03633617|183473285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.666|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7773|-0.5538|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-0.5538|-0.7773|<0.0001
91797058|NCT03633617|183473285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.682|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7929|-0.5707|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.5707|-0.7929|<0.0001
91905551|NCT00916357|183706945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 10% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||0.1800
91797059|NCT03633617|183473286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.741|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8842|-0.5978|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.5978|-0.8842|<0.0001
91797060|NCT03633617|183473286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.661|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7674|-0.554|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-0.5540|-0.7674|<0.0001
91797061|NCT03633617|183473286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.672|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7778|-0.5655|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.5655|-0.7778|<0.0001
91797062|NCT03633617|183473287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.84|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-1.84|-3.91|<0.0001
91797063|NCT03633617|183473287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-3.02|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-3.02|-4.86|<0.0001
91797064|NCT03633617|183473287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-2.93|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-2.93|-4.77|<0.0001
91797065|NCT03633617|183473288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|57.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.69|73.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||73.33|41.69|<0.0001
91797066|NCT03633617|183473288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|72.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|83.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||83.70|61.05|<0.0001
91797067|NCT03633617|183473288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|74.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.25|85.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||85.50|64.25|<0.0001
91797068|NCT03633617|183473289|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-1.73|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.7300|-2.7200|<0.0001
91797069|NCT03633617|183473289|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.11|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.1100|-2.4200|<0.0001
91797070|NCT03633617|183473289|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.15|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.1500|-2.4400|<0.0001
91797071|NCT03633617|183473290|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.27|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.2700|-1.7400|<0.0001
91797072|NCT03633617|183473290|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.255|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-1.05|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.0500|-1.7300|<0.0001
91797073|NCT03633617|183473290|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.275|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-1.07|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.0700|-1.8200|<0.0001
91797074|NCT03633617|183473291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|21.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.42|34.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||34.38|9.42|0.0017
91797075|NCT03633617|183473291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|38.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||38.09|17.20|<0.0001
91888787|NCT02224703|183670039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.78|||Regression, Logistic||Proportional odds modelling was carried out by including treatment group as a fixed factor. The estimated OR tested the null hypothesis that OR was equal to 1.|||3.78|1.08|0.0279
91888788|NCT02224703|183670039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|5.53|||Regression, Logistic||Proportional odds modelling was carried out by including treatment group as a fixed factor. The estimated OR tested the null hypothesis that OR was equal to 1.|||5.53|1.56|0.0009
91797076|NCT03633617|183473291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|39.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||39.46|18.36|<0.0001
91797077|NCT03633617|183473292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.368||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6388|-0.0975|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs Placebo|||-0.0975|-0.6388|0.0077
91797078|NCT03633617|183473292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1782|0.1485|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.1485|-0.1782|0.8586
91797079|NCT03633617|183473292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.309||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4703|-0.1471|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-0.1471|-0.4703|0.0002
91797080|NCT03633617|183473293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-0.03|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-0.03|-3.87|0.0467
91797081|NCT03633617|183473293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5469||95.0|-2.03|1.08|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||1.08|-2.03|0.5469
91797082|NCT03633617|183473293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.13|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.13|-3.0|0.0718
91797083|NCT03633617|183473294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.52|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-0.52|-2.93|0.0051
91797084|NCT03633617|183473294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.44|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.44|-1.38|0.3152
91797085|NCT03633617|183473294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.45|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.45|-2.30|0.0037
91797086|NCT03633617|183473295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|-2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-2.26|-23.21|0.0170
91797087|NCT03633617|183473295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.3||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|2.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||2.93|-5.51|0.5493
91797088|NCT03633617|183473295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.0||||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||5.02|-4.9|0.9887
91797089|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.28|<0.001
91797090|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.06|<0.001
91797091|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.23|-0.94|0.001
91733080|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.11|0.17|0.008
91733081|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.72||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.72|3.40|<0.001
91733082|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.06|0.10|0.017
91869603|NCT03147287|183633218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.55||We reported two-sided p-values corresponding to two-sided α level of 0.10. The test statistic and p-value were taken from the Cox proportional hazards model score test.|Log Rank|The SAP intended stratified tests and models, however one stratum was only 9 patients making implementation of stratification questionable.|We checked the proportional hazards assumption by visually assessing the plot of log( log(survival)) vs log of survival times according to treatment assignment for parallelism. This was done overall and according to stratum.|The primary objective was investigated by comparing the PFS distributions between two treatment arms using a logrank test with one-sided α level of 0.05 (H0: PFS1≤PFS2; HA: PFS1\>PFS2). Hazard ratios were estimated from a Cox PH model (F+P / F, so that HR\<1 indicates reduced hazard of PFS event with F+P), with two sided 90% CIs (Wald) to align with the design and testing.||1.55|0.79|0.62
91733083|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|4.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.75|3.42|<0.001
91733084|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.70|-0.26|0.359
91733085|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.45|3.06|<0.001
91733086|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.30|-0.70|0.436
91733087|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.14|2.66|<0.001
91733088|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.93|0.139
91733089|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|3.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.95|2.44|<0.001
91759243|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Q1||6.9|-5.2|0.789
91869604|NCT03147287|183633219|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is two sided, for hypothesis test with two-sided α=0.10|Fisher Exact|||The objective response was reported with two-sided 90% CI and compared between two treatment arms using a (unstratified) Fisher's exact test;||||1.000
91869605|NCT03137459|183633226|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.105|||||Analysis performed using GEE to account for clustering of participants within practices.|||.105|.014|
91869606|NCT03137459|183633226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.93|||||Determined using mixed effects models, accounting for clustering of participants in practices and adjusting for unbalanced covariates: education, employment, stage of change for each ACP behavior|||2.93|1.14|
91869607|NCT03137459|183633227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.15|||||Adjusted for clustering|||.150|.014|
91869608|NCT03137459|183633227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.0|||||Accounting for clustering and adjusted for covariates as described in primary outcome|||2.0|.96|
91869609|NCT03137459|183633228|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.201|||||Accounting for clustering|||.201|.066|
91869610|NCT03137459|183633228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.47|||||Accounting for clustering and adjusted for covariates as presenting for primary outcome|||2.47|1.22|
91869611|NCT03137459|183633229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.188||||||||.188|-.05|
91869612|NCT03137459|183633229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.85|||||Accounting for clustering and adjusting for covariates as described for primary outcome|||1.85|.72|
91733090|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.14|-0.95|0.144
91733091|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.58|2.01|<0.001
91733092|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.58||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-1.15|0.043
91733093|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.12|1.53|<0.001
91733094|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-1.16|0.044
91869613|NCT04921358|183633248|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by histological subtype (nonsquamous vs squamous), race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and PD-L1 expression (\<1% Tumor Cells (TC) vs \>=1% TC).|||1.39|0.75|
91733095|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.85|1.25|<0.001
91733096|NCT01098747|183361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.65||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.08|-1.23|0.027
91869614|NCT04921358|183633249|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by histological subtype (nonsquamous vs squamous), race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and PD-L1 expression (\<1% TC vs \>=1% TC).|||1.07|0.62|
91869615|NCT04921358|183633250|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.83|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by histological subtype (nonsquamous vs squamous), race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and PD-L1 expression (\<1% TC vs \>=1% TC).|||0.83|0.50|
91869616|NCT01256359|183633283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.498|1.138||p value \< 0.1 one-sided considered to be significant.|Regression, Cox||HR is Adjusted for M status, performance status|||1.138|0.498|0.130
91869617|NCT01256359|183633283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.723||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.465|1.123|||Regression, Cox||This includes all 83 patients but the analysis additionally adjusted for LDH, target lesion sum and time interval between randomisation and baseline CT scan as well as mstatus, performance status|This is a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome. This includes all 83 patients but the analysis additionally adjusted for LDH, target lesion sum and time interval between randomisation and baseline CT scan as well as mstatus, performance status||1.123|0.465|0.113
91869618|NCT01256359|183633283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3016||||||This analysis assesses if allowing for interval censoring is consistent with the primary outcome results.|Generalised log-rank|Generalised log-rank taking into account interval censoring, analysed using SAS package version 9.2. Method by Zhao and Sun, 2004||This is a sensitivity analysis, including all 83 randomised patients. Patients are assessed periodically for the response (progression), the time when the event occurred is not directly observed but is known to take place within some time interval. Progression is known only to have occurred at some time between visits, the exact time is not known. We carried out interval censored analysis to demonstrate if allowing for interval censoring gives a different interpretation of the primary outcome.||||0.3016
91869619|NCT01256359|183633283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.348||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.602|3.016|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted for centre|Sensitivity analysis adjusting for centre. All 83 randomised patients were included in analysis. Centres were the three biggest recruiters and all other 13 centres are combined.||3.016|0.602|0.305
91869620|NCT01256359|183633284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|31.4|||Log Rank||This is the estimated difference in PFS rate i.e. % difference between arms|||31.4|-3.4|0.187
91869621|NCT01256359|183633285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.373||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|2.369|||Regression, Cox|p value \< 0.1 one-sided considered to be significant.||||2.369|0.797|0.169
91869622|NCT01256359|183633286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Chi-squared|||Objective response rate calculated as number of patients with CR or PR over all patients randomised.||||0.059
91869623|NCT01256359|183633287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.84|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis adjusted for with Mstatus and Performance Score||1.84|0.71|0.318
91869624|NCT01256359|183633325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.649|1.612|||Regression, Cox||Analysis Adjusted for M status, performance status|This is a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome.||1.612|0.649|0.468
91869625|NCT01256359|183633326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.721||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.468|1.109|||Regression, Cox||Analysis was adjusted for mstatus, performance status|This is the per-protocol analysis of the primary outcome.||1.109|0.468|0.106
91869626|NCT01256359|183633327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.53||p-value is for the interaction term|Regression, Cox||HRs (95% CI) between treatment groups are given for Wild type and NRAS mutated separately. The above HR is for WT.|Model with interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables||1.53|0.25|0.824
91869627|NCT01256359|183633328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.6||p-value is for interaction term.|Regression, Cox|Model includes interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables|"HRs for treatment effect (AZD6244 vs Placebo ) are estimated for NRAS WT and NRAS mutated patients separately.~Hazard ratios (95%CI) given above are for NRAS WT patients."|||1.60|0.16|0.072
91797092|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.81|0.015
91797093|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.49|0.453
91797094|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.61|0.177
91869628|NCT01256359|183633328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.33|||||HR for NRAS mutated patients|||5.33|0.73|
91869629|NCT01256359|183633330|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for with Mstatus and Performance Score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.87|||Regression, Cox|||||1.87|0.68|0.348
91888789|NCT02057575|183670040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PG324 0.01% vs netarsudil|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91888790|NCT02057575|183670040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PG324 0.02% vs. netarsudil|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91888791|NCT02057575|183670040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 0.01% vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
91888792|NCT02057575|183670040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 0.02% vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
91888793|NCT00895895|183670109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change=Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) Japan baseline baseline times(\*)visit visit treatment treatment\*visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.3|-1.0|0.424
91888794|NCT00895895|183670109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change equals (=) MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.5|-1.8|0.849
91888795|NCT00895895|183670109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-2.2|0.520
91888796|NCT00895895|183670109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-2.6|0.258
91888797|NCT00895895|183670110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.9|-5.2|0.367
91888798|NCT00895895|183670110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||3.7|-3.3|0.910
91888799|NCT00895895|183670110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||6.0|-1.0|0.160
91888800|NCT00895895|183670110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||6.9|-0.1|0.060
91888801|NCT00895895|183670111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||3.1|-2.8|0.931
91888802|NCT00895895|183670111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.1|-5.8|0.054
91888803|NCT00895895|183670111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-4.6|0.246
91888804|NCT00895895|183670111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.7|-4.1|0.426
91888805|NCT00895895|183670112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.265
91888806|NCT00895895|183670112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.682
91888807|NCT00895895|183670112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
91888808|NCT00895895|183670112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.087
91888809|NCT00895895|183670112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.751
91869630|NCT01256359|183633331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.58||p-value is for interaction term.|Regression, Cox|Model includes interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables|"HRs for treatment effect (AZD6244 vs Placebo ) are estimated for NRAS WT and NRAS mutated patients separately.~Hazard ratios (95%CI) given above are for NRAS WT patients."|||1.58|0.24|0.797
91905552|NCT00916357|183706945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 10% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
91733097|NCT01098747|183361092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|3.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.18|2.27|<0.001
91733098|NCT01098747|183361092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.78|0.12|0.007
91733099|NCT01098747|183361092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|4.98||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.98|3.60|<0.001
91733100|NCT01098747|183361092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.87|-0.13|0.144
91733101|NCT01098747|183361092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|9.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||9.66|6.66|<0.001
91733102|NCT01098747|183361092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.85|-1.31|0.679
91797095|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.70|0.062
91869631|NCT01256359|183633331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.45|||||HR for NRAS mutated patients|||1.45|0.350|
91905553|NCT00916357|183706945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 50% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
91905554|NCT00916357|183706945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 50% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||0.7200
91702296|NCT00772005|183299636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5612||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5612
91702297|NCT00772005|183299636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9704||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9704
91702298|NCT00772005|183299636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2424||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2424
91702299|NCT00772005|183299637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8847||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8847
91702300|NCT00772005|183299637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2958||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2958
91702301|NCT00772005|183299637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2660
91702302|NCT00772005|183299638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0524||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0524
91702303|NCT00772005|183299638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0328||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0328
91702304|NCT00772005|183299638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0084||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0084
91733103|NCT01098747|183361092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|11.96||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-8: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||11.96|7.92|<0.001
91733104|NCT01098747|183361092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.67||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.79||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-8: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.79|-2.12|0.367
91733105|NCT01098747|183361093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.59|3.32|< 0.001
91733106|NCT01098747|183361093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.07|0.16|0.009
91733107|NCT01098747|183361093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|7.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.12|5.18|<0.001
91733108|NCT01098747|183361093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.20|-0.21|0.166
91733109|NCT01098747|183361093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|13.81||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||13.81|9.54|<0.001
91733110|NCT01098747|183361093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.24|-1.84|0.703
91702305|NCT00772005|183299639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3651||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3651
91702306|NCT00772005|183299639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0096
91702307|NCT00772005|183299639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0327||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0327
91702308|NCT00772005|183299640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2091||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2091
91702309|NCT00772005|183299640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0706||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0706
91702310|NCT00772005|183299640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3052||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3052
91702311|NCT00772005|183299641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9960
91702312|NCT00772005|183299641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3604
91702313|NCT00772005|183299641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9528||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9528
91702314|NCT00772005|183299642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9797||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9797
91702315|NCT00772005|183299642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6173||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6173
91905555|NCT00916357|183706945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 50% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
91733111|NCT01098747|183361093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|17.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||17.18|11.36|<0.001
91733112|NCT01098747|183361093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.00|-3.20|0.303
91759244|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|5.6||Week 12Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|-9.0|0.643
91759245|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|0.1||Week 24 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-14.7|0.052
91905556|NCT00111800|183706974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.01|-0.58|0.061
91702316|NCT00772005|183299642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5415||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5415
91702317|NCT00772005|183299643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3547||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3547
91702318|NCT00772005|183299643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6642||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6642
91702319|NCT00772005|183299643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7395||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7395
91702320|NCT00772005|183299644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8124||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8124
91702321|NCT00772005|183299644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8961
91702322|NCT00772005|183299644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4999||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4999
91702323|NCT00772005|183299654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4540
91702324|NCT00772005|183299654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3580
91702325|NCT00772005|183299654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6271||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6271
91702326|NCT00772005|183299655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1459||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1459
91702327|NCT00772005|183299655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6004
91702328|NCT00772005|183299655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0192
91702329|NCT00772005|183299656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8455||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8455
91702330|NCT00772005|183299656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8715||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8715
91702331|NCT00772005|183299656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0309||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0309
91869632|NCT01256359|183633332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.97||Model includes interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables. p-value is for interaction term.|Regression, Cox||"HRs for treatment effect (AZD6244 vs Placebo ) are estimated for NRAS WT and NRAS mutated patients separately.~Hazard ratios (95%CI) given above are for NRAS WT patients."|||1.97|0.18|0.120
91869633|NCT01256359|183633332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.38|||||HR for NRAS mutated patients|||5.38|0.73|
91869634|NCT03737110|183633347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by oral corticosteroid use at Run-In Baseline.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|||0.18|0.01|<0.0001
91869635|NCT03737110|183633348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.727||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.438|66.428||95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at run-in baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||66.428|2.438|0.0002
91869636|NCT03737110|183633348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|85.2|||||Differences between percentages are reported in percentage points. The 95% confidence intervals for the differences in percentages were based on a normal approximation.|||85.2|36.7|
91869637|NCT03737110|183633349|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.0||Two-sided p-value calculated using analysis of covariance with treatment, randomization strata and run-in baseline NRS weekly average category (NRS ≤ 2 versus NRS \>2) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference (rilonacept - placebo)|||68.0|34.5|< 0.0001
91797096|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.59|0.212
91869638|NCT03737110|183633350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.136|46.826||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at RI baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.826|2.136|0.0006
91869639|NCT03737110|183633350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.6|81.3|||||Differences between percentages are reported in percentage points. The 95% confidence intervals for the differences in percentages were based on a normal approximation.|||81.3|30.6|
91869640|NCT03737110|183633351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.37||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.317|53.188||95% CI and p-value were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at run-in baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.188|1.317|0.0022
91869641|NCT03737110|183633352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.051|38.981||95% CI and p-value were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at run-in baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.981|3.051|< 0.0001
91905557|NCT00111800|183706974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.24|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.24|-0.82|<0.001
91869642|NCT03737110|183633353|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|51.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|70.1||Two-sided p-value calculated using analysis of covariance with treatment, randomization strata and run-in baseline NRS weekly average category (NRS ≤ 2 versus NRS \>2) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference (rilonacept - placebo)|||70.1|33.8|< 0.0001
91869643|NCT03737110|183633354|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.3|55.8||Two-sided p-value calculated using analysis of covariance with treatment, randomization strata and run-in baseline NRS weekly average category (NRS ≤ 2 versus NRS \>2) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference (rilonacept - placebo)|||55.8|25.3|< 0.0001
91869644|NCT03737110|183633355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.522||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.262|218.552||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use at RI baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||218.552|4.262|0.0002
91869645|NCT03737110|183633356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.439|60.574||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at RI baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.574|3.439|< 0.0001
91869646|NCT03737110|183633357|SUPERIORITY||Difference|75.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.8|94.6|||normal approximation|||||94.6|56.8|< 0.0001
91869647|NCT03737110|183633358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.32||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|||0.32|0.05|< 0.0001
91869648|NCT03737110|183633359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|||0.22|0.02|< 0.0001
91869649|NCT03737110|183633360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.46||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test without stratification by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and without stratification by randomization strata.|||4.46|0.12|0.7447
91869650|NCT03737110|183633361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.87||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test without stratification by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and without stratification by randomization strata.|||1.87|0.07|0.2066
91869651|NCT03737110|183633362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Not estimable due to low number of participants with an event.|Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test without stratification by randomization strata.|Log Rank||||||0.00|0.0059
91733113|NCT01098747|183361094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|7.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||7.76|5.60|<0.001
91733114|NCT01098747|183361094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.84||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.84|0.29|0.007
91733115|NCT01098747|183361094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|12.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||12.08|8.79|<0.001
91733116|NCT01098747|183361094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|2.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.05|-0.32|0.152
91733117|NCT01098747|183361094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|19.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.23|23.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||23.43|16.23|<0.001
91733118|NCT01098747|183361094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-6: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.07|-3.12|0.690
91733119|NCT01098747|183361094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.77||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|1.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-8 Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.75|-5.29|0.323
91733120|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.01||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|3.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours-Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.00|-0.97|0.490
91733121|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.54||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.95||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.95|-1.88|0.623
91733122|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|24.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.51|35.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||35.22|13.51|<0.001
91702332|NCT00772005|183299657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2664||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2664
91733123|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|11.82||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|22.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||22.48|1.15|0.023
91759246|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|6.6||Week 24 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6|-14.0|0.481
91702333|NCT00772005|183299657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3528||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3528
91702334|NCT00772005|183299657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0380
91702335|NCT00772005|183299658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3316||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3316
91702336|NCT00772005|183299658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3490
91702337|NCT00772005|183299658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0926||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0926
91869652|NCT03737110|183633374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.108||Two-sided p value calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjudicated by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Participants who used ORT, corticosteroids or bailout rilonacept during the RW Period||0.108|0.002|< 0.0001
91869653|NCT01009645|183633427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.0167 as the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (three planned contrasts).|Contrast Analysis|Bonferroni correction used (3 planned contrasts)||Contrast analysis was used to assess difference in vaccination status. The first contrast assessed whether or not the three newly created messages (Fact Only (FO), Fact/Myth (FM), and Fact/Myth/Refutation (FMR)) were as a group significantly different than the control message.||||<0.05
91869654|NCT01009645|183633427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.0167 as the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (three planned contrasts).|Contrast Analysis|Bonferroni correction used (3 planned contrasts)||Contrast analysis was used to assess difference in vaccination status. The second contrast assessed whether the FO and FMR conditions were significantly different from the FM message.||||<0.05
91869655|NCT01009645|183633427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.0167 as the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (three planned contrasts).|Contrast Analysis|Bonferroni correction used (3 planned contrasts)||Contrast analysis was used to assess difference in vaccination status. The third contrast assessed whether the FO and the FMR message conditions were significantly different.||||<0.05
91869656|NCT01009645|183633428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|used Scheffe's post-hoc analysis||||||<0.05
91869657|NCT04237792|183633434|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.29|0.03|<0.001
91869658|NCT04237792|183633435|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.82|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.82|0.04|0.022
91905558|NCT00111800|183706974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.16|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.16|-0.74|0.002
91733124|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.99|73.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.70|48.99|<0.001
91733125|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|21.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|32.92||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||32.92|9.58|<0.001
91869659|NCT04237792|183633435|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.26|0.01|<0.001
91759247|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.2||Week 36 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-15.6|0.195
91869660|NCT04237792|183633436|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.59|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.59|0.02|0.006
91869661|NCT04237792|183633436|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|11.27|||Mantel Haenszel|||||11.27|0.25|0.597
91869662|NCT04237792|183633436|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.07|0.14|0.374
91869663|NCT04237792|183633436|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.44|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.44|0.02|0.001
91869664|NCT04237792|183633436|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.81|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.81|0.13|0.015
91869665|NCT04237792|183633436|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.87|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.87|0.10|0.024
91869666|NCT04237792|183633437|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91869667|NCT04237792|183633437|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91869668|NCT04237792|183633437|OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.225
91869669|NCT04237792|183633437|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.213
91869670|NCT04237792|183633437|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91869671|NCT04237792|183633437|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91869672|NCT04237792|183633437|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
91869673|NCT04237792|183633437|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91869674|NCT04237792|183633437|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91869675|NCT04237792|183633438|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.016
91869676|NCT04237792|183633438|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
91869677|NCT04237792|183633438|OTHER|||||||0.368|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.368
91869678|NCT04237792|183633438|OTHER|||||||0.358|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.358
91869679|NCT04237792|183633438|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.000
91869680|NCT04237792|183633438|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
91869681|NCT04237792|183633438|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.020
91869682|NCT04237792|183633438|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.000
91869683|NCT04237792|183633438|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
91869684|NCT04237792|183633439|OTHER|||||||0.884|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.884
91905559|NCT00111800|183706974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.5|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.50|-1.09|<0.001
91733126|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.59|83.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.71|61.59|<0.001
91733127|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|17.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.83|27.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||27.06|7.83|0.001
91733128|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.14|84.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.11|61.14|<0.001
91733129|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|11.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|19.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.93|3.47|0.013
91733130|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
91733131|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.01||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|14.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.75|1.27|0.041
91869685|NCT04237792|183633439|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.662
91869686|NCT04237792|183633439|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.236
91869687|NCT04237792|183633439|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.733
91869688|NCT04237792|183633439|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.128
91905560|NCT00111800|183706974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.55|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.55|-1.13|<0.001
91905561|NCT00111800|183706976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.37|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.37|-1.18|0.306
91869689|NCT04237792|183633439|OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.165
91869690|NCT04237792|183633439|OTHER|||||||0.752|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.752
91733132|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
91733133|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|0.23|0.073
91733134|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
91759248|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|10.7||Week 36 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.7|-12.9|0.857
91869691|NCT04237792|183633439|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.139
91869692|NCT04237792|183633439|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.051
91869693|NCT04237792|183633441|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.124
91869694|NCT04237792|183633441|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.186
91869695|NCT04237792|183633441|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.470
91869696|NCT04237792|183633441|OTHER|||||||0.845|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.845
91869697|NCT04237792|183633441|OTHER|||||||0.621|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.621
91869698|NCT04237792|183633441|OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.747
91869699|NCT04237792|183633441|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.218
91869700|NCT04237792|183633441|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.181
91869701|NCT04237792|183633441|OTHER|||||||0.984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.984
91869702|NCT04237792|183633442|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.048
91869703|NCT04237792|183633442|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.106
91869704|NCT04237792|183633442|OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.196
91733135|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|0.23|0.073
91733136|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
91869705|NCT04237792|183633442|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.940
91869706|NCT04237792|183633442|OTHER|||||||0.824|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.824
91869707|NCT04237792|183633442|OTHER|||||||0.678|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.678
91905562|NCT00111800|183706976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.04|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.04|-1.56|0.039
91733137|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|0.23|0.073
91733138|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|74.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.14|86.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.27|63.14|<0.001
91733139|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.84||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|14.1||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.10|1.57|0.035
91733140|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
91733141|NCT01098747|183361095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
91733142|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|20.01||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|31.24||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.24|8.79|0.004
91733143|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|14.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|24.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.43|4.26|0.003
91733144|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|69.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.67|81.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.40|57.67|<0.001
91759249|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|6.7||Week 48 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|-15.9|0.422
91759250|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|8.6||Week 48 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.6|-15.7|0.562
91759251|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|20.2||Week 12 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.2|-2.6|0.129
91759252|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|19.9||Week 12 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.9|-4.0|0.194
91869708|NCT04237792|183633442|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.129
91869709|NCT04237792|183633442|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.160
91869710|NCT04237792|183633442|OTHER|||||||0.872|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.872
91869711|NCT05553366|183633456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91869712|NCT05553366|183633457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0016
91869713|NCT05553366|183633458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0016
91869714|NCT05553366|183633459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1315
91869715|NCT05553366|183633460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0343|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0343
91869716|NCT05553366|183633461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||||0.0014
91869717|NCT05553366|183633462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0032
91869718|NCT05553366|183633463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8592|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8592
91869719|NCT05553366|183633464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9143|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9143
91869720|NCT05553366|183633465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.0205
91797097|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.54|-1.34|<0.001
91869721|NCT03274076|183633486|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|8.33|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 3 (severe) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Placebo = Rate of grade 3 (severe) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Tofacitinib.||8.33|0.19|
91869722|NCT03274076|183633487|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.71|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 12 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 12 in Tofacitinib||1.71|0.25|
91869723|NCT03274076|183633487|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|1.07|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 24 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 24 in Tofacitinib||1.07|0.26|
91869724|NCT03274076|183633487|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.49|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 36 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 36 in Tofacitinib||1.49|0.49|
91869725|NCT03274076|183633487|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.52|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Tofacitinib||1.52|0.52|
91869726|NCT03274076|183633488|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|21.77|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 36 in Placebo = Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 36 in Tofacitinib||21.77|0.68|
91869727|NCT03274076|183633488|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5169|6.7652|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 48 in Placebo = Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 48 in Tofacitinib||6.7652|0.5169|
91869728|NCT03274076|183633489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1978|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 12 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 12 in Tofacitinib.||||0.1978
91869729|NCT03274076|183633489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4665|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 24 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 24 in Tofacitinib.||||0.4665
91869730|NCT03274076|183633489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3063|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 36 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 36 in Tofacitinib.||||0.3063
91869731|NCT03274076|183633489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 48 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 48 in Tofacitinib.||||0.6000
91869732|NCT03274076|183633490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4535|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The CRISS score at week 12 in placebo = The CRISS score at week 12 in Tofacitinib.||||0.4535
91869733|NCT03274076|183633490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8392|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The CRISS score at week 24 in placebo = The CRISS score at week 24 in Tofacitinib.||||0.8392
91869734|NCT03274076|183633490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The CRISS score at week 48 in placebo = The CRISS score at week 48 in Tofacitinib.||||0.9212
91869735|NCT02909959|183633531|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.331|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.331
91888810|NCT00895895|183670113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||7.3|-3.9|0.553
91888811|NCT00895895|183670113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||5.2|-6.0|0.886
91888812|NCT00895895|183670113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||4.5|-6.6|0.712
91888813|NCT00895895|183670113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||6.4|-4.8|0.785
91888814|NCT00895895|183670114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.1|-0.5|0.251
91888815|NCT00895895|183670114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.3|-0.3|0.993
91733145|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|23.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.16|33.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||33.75|13.16|<0.001
91733146|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.77|84.67||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.67|62.77|<0.001
91733147|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|10.14||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|17.08||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.08|3.21|0.014
91733148|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
91733149|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.35||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|14.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.68|2.02|0.028
91733150|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
91733151|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.81||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|14.08||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.08|1.54|0.036
91733152|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
91733153|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
91733154|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
91759253|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|13.1||Week 24 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.1|-10.5|0.832
91759254|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|19.1||Week 24 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.1|-6.8|0.351
91888816|NCT00895895|183670114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-0.4|0.553
91888817|NCT00895895|183670114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-0.4|0.611
91888818|NCT00895895|183670115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.5|-1.5|0.340
91888819|NCT00895895|183670115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-0.8|0.630
91797098|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.35|-1.15|<0.001
91797099|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.98|0.004
91797100|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.95|0.007
91797101|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.37|-0.43|0.879
91905563|NCT00111800|183706976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.17|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.17|-1.34|0.130
91905564|NCT00111800|183706976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.69|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.69|-2.23|<0.001
91905565|NCT00111800|183706976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.46|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.46|-1.99|0.002
91905566|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.95|0.21|0.909
91905567|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.92|0.27|0.852
91905568|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.83|0.30|0.795
91905569|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.77|0.74|0.135
91905570|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|12.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||12.37|0.85|0.085
91905571|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.36|0.36|0.866
91905572|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.76|0.69|0.202
91905573|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.13|0.35|0.941
91905574|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||6.13|0.76|0.152
91905575|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|9.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.52|1.11|0.032
91905576|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||1.50|0.14|0.198
91702338|NCT00772005|183299659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8835||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8835
91797102|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.20|-0.60|0.330
91869736|NCT02909959|183633532|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.98
91905577|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.85|0.53|0.481
91869737|NCT02909959|183633533|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.797|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.797
91869738|NCT02909959|183633534|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.442|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.442
91869739|NCT02909959|183633535|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.373|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.373
91869740|NCT00822900|183633600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||Regression, Generalized linear|Adjusting for injury severity, sex, and age. the binomial distribution with the log link is used to estimate treatment effect as relative risk.|A risk ratio (equivalent to the relative risk) of less than 1.00 indicating fewer favorable outcomes in the progesterone group than in the placebo group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with favorable outcome in progesterone and placebo arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with favorable outcome in progesterone and placebo arms). Standard multiple imputation methods are used to account for missing data. The primary outcome measure is based on the stratified dichotomy approach.||1.06|0.85|0.35
91869741|NCT00822900|183633601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63|||||A hazard ratio of more than 1.00 indicating higher hazard of death from the progesterone group than in the placebo group.|The Cox proportional hazards model is used to compare these curves after adjustment for age, sex and injury severity.||1.63|0.86|
91869742|NCT00822900|183633603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.66|||||A risk ratio (equivalent to the relative risk) of more than 1.00 indicating more events in the progesterone group than in the placebo group.|||4.66|1.96|
91869743|NCT01968967|183633612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-54.0|||MMRM|||Least square (LS) mean difference and associated 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI), and p-value were derived from mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-54.0|-58.3|<0.001
91869744|NCT01968967|183633613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-33.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-33.5|-36.5|<0.001
91869745|NCT01968967|183633613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-29.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-29.8|-33.3|
91905578|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||2.78|0.36|0.991
91905579|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|9.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.48|1.41|0.008
91869746|NCT01968967|183633613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-22.8||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-22.8|-26.6|
91869747|NCT01968967|183633614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|-48.8|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-48.8|-52.9|<0.001
91869748|NCT01968967|183633614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-43.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.8|-48.5|
91869749|NCT01968967|183633614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-33.6||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-33.6|-38.6|
91869750|NCT01968967|183633615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.1|-48.0|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-48.0|-52.1|<0.001
91869751|NCT01968967|183633615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-43.1||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.1|-47.9|
91759255|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|12.5||Week 36 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.5|-13.3|0.949
91759256|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|22.6||Week 36 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.6|-6.0|0.253
91759257|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|11.4||Week 48 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.4|-16.2|0.735
91869752|NCT01968967|183633615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-33.3||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-33.3|-38.5|
91888820|NCT00895895|183670115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-0.8|0.678
91888821|NCT00895895|183670115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-1.3|0.518
91759258|NCT00348309|183411454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|32.0||Week 48 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.0|0.3|0.046
91759259|NCT00348309|183411455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.0||Week 12 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-2.3|0.914
91759260|NCT00348309|183411455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.4||Week 12 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-3.3|0.415
91759261|NCT00348309|183411455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.1||Week 36 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.9|0.063
91759262|NCT00348309|183411455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.3||Week 36 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-5.6|0.030
91759263|NCT00348309|183411455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.8||Week 48 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|-1.5|0.392
91759264|NCT00348309|183411455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.0||Week 48 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-3.7|0.557
91759265|NCT00348309|183411455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||Week 12 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.01|0.320
91759266|NCT00348309|183411455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01||Week 12 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.04|0.180
91759267|NCT00348309|183411455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||Week 36 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.02|0.498
91759268|NCT00348309|183411455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0||Week 36 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.06|0.081
91759269|NCT00348309|183411455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||Week 48 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.00|0.077
91759270|NCT00348309|183411455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03||Week 48 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.04|0.640
91759271|NCT00348309|183411456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.6|0.105
91759272|NCT00348309|183411456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.3|0.483
91869753|NCT01968967|183633616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2|-55.2|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-55.2|-60.2|<0.001
91905580|NCT00111800|183706978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used,P an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.24|0.76|0.161
91905581|NCT00111800|183706979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||6.30|0.50|0.380
91905582|NCT00111800|183706979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|9.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.11|0.72|0.145
91905583|NCT00111800|183706979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.62|0.26|0.906
91905584|NCT00111800|183706979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.91|0.41|0.509
91905585|NCT00111800|183706979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|11.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||11.14|0.89|0.077
91905586|NCT00111800|183706979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.72|0.63|0.254
91905587|NCT00111800|183706979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.62|0.55|0.396
91905588|NCT00111800|183706979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.00|0.45|0.590
91869754|NCT01968967|183633616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|-50.0||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-50.0|-56.1|
91905589|NCT00111800|183706979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|9.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.13|1.15|0.026
91905590|NCT00111800|183706979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|8.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||8.30|1.08|0.034
91905591|NCT00111800|183706980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9||||0.057||95.0|-30.2|0.5|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.5|-30.2|0.057
91905592|NCT00111800|183706980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.4||||0.003||95.0|-37.1|-7.6|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-7.6|-37.1|0.003
91905593|NCT00111800|183706980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-43.9|-14.5|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-14.5|-43.9|<0.001
91905594|NCT00111800|183706980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-24.6|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-24.6|-54.6|<0.001
91905595|NCT00111800|183706980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|-23.9|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-23.9|-53.8|<0.001
91733155|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
91759273|NCT00348309|183411457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.004
91869755|NCT01968967|183633616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-39.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-39.5|-46.2|
91869756|NCT01968967|183633617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-47.7|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-47.7|-55.9|<0.001
91869757|NCT01968967|183633617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|-38.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-38.8|-49.1|
91869758|NCT01968967|183633617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|-29.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-29.0|-40.2|
91869759|NCT01968967|183633618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-22.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-22.5|-34.4|<0.001
91869760|NCT01968967|183633618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-21.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-21.5|-40.6|
91869761|NCT01968967|183633618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|-13.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.7|-36.8|
91869762|NCT01968967|183633619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|7.0|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||7.0|4.5|<0.001
91869763|NCT01968967|183633619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|6.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||6.8|4.2|
91869764|NCT01968967|183633619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||6.7|3.7|
91869765|NCT01968967|183633620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-48.0||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-48.0|-53.3|
91869766|NCT01968967|183633620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.5|-37.8||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-37.8|-43.5|
91869767|NCT01968967|183633621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-13.2||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.2|-20.0|
91869768|NCT01968967|183633621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-12.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-12.6|-20.7|
91869769|NCT01968967|183633621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-9.0|-16.5|
91869770|NCT01968967|183633622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.3||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||4.3|2.4|
91869771|NCT01968967|183633622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|4.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||4.5|2.5|
91869772|NCT01968967|183633622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.9||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||4.9|2.7|
91797103|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.75|0.083
91869773|NCT01968967|183633623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||1.4|-0.9|
91869774|NCT01968967|183633623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.3|-0.1|
91869775|NCT01968967|183633623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.7|0.3|
91869776|NCT01968967|183633624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-13.2||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.2|-20.0|
91905596|NCT00111800|183706982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.51||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.66|15.65|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||15.65|-32.66|0.489
91905597|NCT00111800|183706982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.18||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|37.72|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||37.72|-9.37|0.237
91905598|NCT00111800|183706982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.31||||0.534||95.0|-15.79|30.42|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||30.42|-15.79|0.534
91702339|NCT00772005|183299659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9748||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9748
91869777|NCT01968967|183633624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-12.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-12.6|-20.7|
91869778|NCT01968967|183633624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-9.0|-16.5|
91869779|NCT01968967|183633625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-57.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-57.6|-63.1|
91797104|NCT00809354|183473328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.21|-0.59|0.360
91869780|NCT01968967|183633626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|-57.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-57.3|-68.3|
91733156|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
91733157|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
91733158|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
91733159|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
91733160|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
91733161|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
91869781|NCT01968967|183633627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|-58.5||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-58.5|-63.5|
91905599|NCT00111800|183706982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.27||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.64|29.17|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||29.17|-18.64|0.665
91905600|NCT00111800|183706982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.74||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|36.65|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||36.65|-11.18|0.295
91905601|NCT00111800|183706982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.31||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|9.94|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.94|-3.32|0.327
91733162|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
91733163|NCT01098747|183361096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
91759274|NCT00348309|183411457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.3|0.554
91759275|NCT00348309|183411458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|0.292
91905602|NCT00111800|183706982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.06||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|9.44|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.44|-3.31|0.345
91905603|NCT00111800|183706982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.0|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||6.00|-6.70|0.914
91733164|NCT01098747|183361097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
91733165|NCT01098747|183361097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.22||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||2.22|0.79|0.281
91733166|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-23.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.67|-11.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-11.20|-36.67|<0.001
91733167|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.21||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.70|-4.12|0.483
91733168|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-51.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.63|-38.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-38.22|-65.63|<0.001
91733169|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-3.61||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|0.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||0.75|-7.97|0.174
91733170|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-66.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.8|-53.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-53.35|-79.80|<0.001
91905604|NCT00111800|183706982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|4.29|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.29|-8.71|0.504
91905605|NCT00111800|183706982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.75||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|9.22|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.22|-3.71|0.403
91905606|NCT00111800|183706985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.08|-0.02|0.286
91733171|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-3.75||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|1.89||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.89|-9.38|0.240
91733172|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-61.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.21|-47.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-47.50|-75.21|<0.001
91733173|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.52||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|8.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.52|-5.47|0.668
91759276|NCT00348309|183411458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|0.297
91759277|NCT00348309|183411459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.598
91905607|NCT00111800|183706985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.03|-0.07|0.457
91905608|NCT00111800|183706985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.01|-0.09|0.136
91733174|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-60.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.28|-46.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.34|-74.28|<0.001
91733175|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|7.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.63|-7.44|0.980
91733176|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-59.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.05|-45.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-45.50|-73.05|<0.001
91733177|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.56||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|9.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.81|-6.68|0.711
91733178|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-56.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.84|-42.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-42.85|-70.84|<0.001
91733179|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.72||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|13.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.38|-5.94|0.445
91759278|NCT00348309|183411459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.073
91759279|NCT00348309|183411460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|0.02|0.006
91905609|NCT00111800|183706985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.01|-0.11|0.021
91905610|NCT00111800|183706985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.01|-0.09|0.094
91905611|NCT02752035|183707013|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.329|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Stratification factors were age group per IRT, risk groups and baseline FLT3 mutation status, with potential of strata pooling.||1.329|0.570|0.523
91905612|NCT02752035|183707014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.393|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Stratification factors were age group per IRT, risk groups and baseline FLT3 mutation status, with potential of strata pooling.||1.393|0.635|0.787
91905613|NCT02752035|183707016|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|8.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|23.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.0|-6.5|0.249
91905614|NCT02752035|183707017|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|50.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.0|16.6|<0.001
91905615|NCT02752035|183707018|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|8.5||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|17.1||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.1|-0.1|0.049
91759280|NCT00348309|183411460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.01|0.140
91759281|NCT00348309|183411470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1||Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.2|0.027
91905616|NCT02752035|183707019|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|16.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|32.4||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.4|1.1|0.032
91905617|NCT02752035|183707020|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-9.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|11.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.0|-29.8|0.340
91869782|NCT01968967|183633628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.6|-60.9||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-60.9|-66.6|
91869783|NCT01968967|183633629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-66.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|-63.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-63.6|-69.3|
91905618|NCT02752035|183707021|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|50.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|100.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||100.0|-61.0|0.221
91905619|NCT02752035|183707022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.58|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|||1.580|0.451|0.592
91905620|NCT02752035|183707023|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|1.658|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CR/CRh.||1.658|0.198|0.300
91905621|NCT02752035|183707023|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.411||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|1.504|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CR.||1.504|0.113|0.171
91905622|NCT02752035|183707023|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.62|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CRc||1.620|0.295|0.383
91905623|NCT02752035|183707023|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001||Upper limit of 95% confidence interval was not estimable due to insufficient number of participants.||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CRh.|||0.001|0.998
91905624|NCT02752035|183707023|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.628||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.229|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of response.||1.229|0.321|0.174
91905625|NCT02752035|183707024|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||ANCOVA|Using analysis of covariance including treatment, age group per IRT and baseline score as covariate.|Least square mean difference and P-value were calculated using AZA as reference.|||2.0|-1.1|0.560
91905626|NCT01111851|183707030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.01|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.01|0.99|
91733180|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-52.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.77|-38.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-38.81|-66.77|<0.001
91733181|NCT01098747|183361098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.05||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|16.84||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.84|-4.75|0.256
91759282|NCT00348309|183411470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.1|0.091
91869784|NCT01968967|183633630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7|-43.9||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.9|-47.7|
91905627|NCT01111851|183707031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.02|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.02|0.98|
91905628|NCT01111851|183707032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.03|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.03|0.97|
91905629|NCT01111851|183707033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.66|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.66|0.50|
91905630|NCT00073528|183707083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||p-value is from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for site of disease and time since prior adjuvant endocrine therapy at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment Hazard Ratio wase based on the log-rank test.|||0.96|0.53|0.019
91905631|NCT00073528|183707084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||p-value is from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for site of disease and time since prior adjuvant endocrine therapy at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment Hazard Ratio was based on the log-rank test.|||0.96|0.53|0.019
91905632|NCT04037748|183707123|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|95.6||||||||95.6|86.3|
91905633|NCT04037748|183707124|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.2|99.5||||||||99.5|88.2|
91905634|NCT04037748|183707126|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|100.0||||||||100.0|94.7|
91733182|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.34||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|11.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.34|1.34|0.078
91869785|NCT01968967|183633631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-9.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-9.3|-11.8|
91733183|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.74||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|8.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.49|-3.01|0.303
91733184|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.14|36.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.34|18.14|<0.001
91733185|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.66||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|17.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.63|-4.31|0.217
91733186|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|51.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||51.12|31.20|<0.001
91733187|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.86||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|21.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.04|-3.33|0.149
91869786|NCT01968967|183633632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||3.3|2.1|
91869787|NCT01968967|183633633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.5||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.5|-1.6|
91905635|NCT04037748|183707127|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|94.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|97.8||||||||97.8|92.0|
91733188|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.49|58.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||58.73|38.49|<0.001
91733189|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.55||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|17.13||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.13|-8.03|0.477
91733190|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|52.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.63|62.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||62.99|42.63|<0.001
91733191|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.14||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.77|10.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.50|-14.77|0.739
91759283|NCT00348309|183411470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||Week 36|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-1.1|0.268
91869788|NCT01968967|183633633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.3|-1.5|
91905636|NCT00053703|183707131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91759284|NCT00348309|183411470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||Week 36|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.1|0.318
91759285|NCT00348309|183411470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.6|0.030
91869789|NCT01968967|183633633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-1.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.0|-1.2|
91869790|NCT01968967|183633634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.3||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.3|
91869791|NCT01968967|183633634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.3|
91869792|NCT01968967|183633634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-0.3|
91869793|NCT01968967|183633635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.21|38.02||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||38.02|19.21|
91869794|NCT01968967|183633635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|16.86||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||16.86|9.84|
91869795|NCT01968967|183633635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.99|8.06||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||8.06|4.99|
91869796|NCT01968967|183633636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.74|121.25||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||121.25|61.74|
91869797|NCT01968967|183633636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.83|47.96||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||47.96|26.83|
91869798|NCT01968967|183633636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|34.47||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||34.47|18.90|
91869799|NCT04399837|183633714|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|3.041||||0.002|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: Dose effect is linear with the increase of dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.002
91869800|NCT04399837|183633714|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|3.033||||0.002|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 95% of the maximum effect is achieved at low dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.002
91869801|NCT04399837|183633714|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|3.088||||0.002|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at low dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.002
91869802|NCT04399837|183633714|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|2.977||||0.003|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 35% of the maximum effect is achieved at medium dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.003
91888822|NCT00895895|183670116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-0.7|0.953
91905637|NCT00397033|183707149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test with modified ridit scores, stratified by concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||||0.001
91905638|NCT00397033|183707149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test with modified ridit scores, stratified by concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||||0.008
91733192|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
91733193|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-6.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|5.65||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.65|-19.24|0.280
91905639|NCT00397033|183707150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-5.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.7|-5.1|<0.001
91905640|NCT00397033|183707150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.217||95.0|-2.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.6|-2.8|0.217
91905641|NCT00397033|183707151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.108||95.0|-2.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.2|-2.3|0.108
91905642|NCT00397033|183707151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.43||95.0|-1.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.7|-1.7|0.430
91905643|NCT00397033|183707152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.008||95.0|-6.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.0|-6.7|0.008
91905644|NCT00397033|183707152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.175||95.0|-4.8|0.9|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.9|-4.8|0.175
91905645|NCT00397033|183707153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.001||95.0|-4.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.1|-4.6|0.001
91905646|NCT00397033|183707153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.209||95.0|-2.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.6|-2.8|0.209
91905647|NCT00397033|183707155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.032||95.0|-6.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.3|-6.5|0.032
91905648|NCT00397033|183707155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.013||95.0|-6.8|-0.8|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.8|-6.8|0.013
91905649|NCT00397033|183707156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.232||95.0|-2.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.5|-2.0|0.232
91905650|NCT00397033|183707156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.31||95.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.6|-1.8|0.310
91905651|NCT00397033|183707157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.004||95.0|-3.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.6|-3.1|0.004
91905652|NCT00397033|183707157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.269||95.0|-1.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.5|-1.9|0.269
91733194|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
91733195|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-8.01||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|4.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.41|-20.44|0.202
91733196|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
91733197|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-8.61||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.02|3.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.80|-21.02|0.170
91733198|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
91733199|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-9.23||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|3.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.16|-21.62|0.140
91733200|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
91733201|NCT01098747|183361099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-9.23||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|3.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.16|-21.62|0.140
91733202|NCT01098747|183361100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.98||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.98|0.83|<0.001
91733203|NCT01098747|183361100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.24||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.24|-0.15|0.667
91733204|NCT00600340|183361116|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.042||||0.1983|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.689||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, stratified).||1.689||0.1983
91733205|NCT00600340|183361116|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.018||||0.007|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.261||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals. Non-inferiority margin was a HR of 1.33.|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, stratified).||1.261||0.0070
91733206|NCT00600340|183361116|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.2024|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.674||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals. Non-inferiority margin was a HR of 1.33.|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, unstratified).||1.674||0.2024
91759286|NCT00348309|183411470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.9|0.797
91869803|NCT04399837|183633714|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of spesolimab 300 mg every 12 weeks on prolonging the time to the first GPP flare up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.468||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|1.064||"One-sided p-value was computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~Threshold for statistical significance: one-sided p-value ≤ 0.01875."|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% Confidence Interval are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.|||1.064|0.206|0.0269
91869804|NCT04399837|183633714|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of spesolimab 300 mg every 4 weeks on prolonging the time to the first GPP flare up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.157||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.541||"One-sided p-value is computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~Threshold for statistical significance: One-sided p-value ≤0.0125."|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (confidence interval) are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.|||0.541|0.046|0.0005
91869805|NCT04399837|183633715|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: The proportion of patients who do not experience a GPP flare up to week 48 on BI 655130 300 mg every 4 weeks ≤ Placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|-0.159||"One-sided p-value was computed from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~one-sided alpha= 0.00625"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference=Spesolimab high dose-Placebo.|||-0.159|-0.621|0.0013
91869806|NCT04399837|183633716|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of BI 655130 300 mg every 4 weeks on prolonging the time to first worsening of PSS up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.424||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.197|0.914||"One-sided p-value was computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~one-sided alpha= 0.00625"|Log Rank||spesolimab high dose vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (confidence interval) are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.||0.914|0.197|0.0134
91869807|NCT04399837|183633717|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of BI 655130 300 mg every 4 weeks on prolonging the time to the first worsening of DLQI up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.259||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.62||One sided p-value was computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.|Log Rank||spesolimab high dose vs. Placebo|"Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (confidence interval) are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~one-sided alpha= 0.00625"||0.620|0.109|0.0010
91759287|NCT00622388|183411471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|20.0|||||Response rate is calculated as the number of responses divided by the number of participants treated, expressed as a percentage.|||20|5|
91759288|NCT00516165|183411532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||0.05
91888823|NCT00895895|183670116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.6|-0.7|0.956
91888824|NCT00895895|183670116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-1.1|0.216
91888825|NCT00895895|183670116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.5|-0.8|0.665
91888826|NCT00895895|183670117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.7|-0.6|0.373
91702340|NCT00772005|183299659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0883||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0883
91759289|NCT00516165|183411533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||<0.05
91888827|NCT00895895|183670117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.3|-1.0|0.781
91888828|NCT00895895|183670117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.6|-0.7|0.417
91888829|NCT00895895|183670117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.0|-1.3|0.853
91888830|NCT00895895|183670118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-2.6|0.428
91888831|NCT00895895|183670118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.5|-2.1|0.763
91888832|NCT00895895|183670118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.9|-2.7|0.312
91888833|NCT00895895|183670118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-3.0|0.215
91869808|NCT02831816|183633721|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 cfu/cm2 less than the active control.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.18||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.180|-0.221|
91869809|NCT02831816|183633721|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.76||||||Groin 10 minutes Average Treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.76|2.15|
91733207|NCT00600340|183361116|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.0612|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.386||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals. Non-inferiority margin was a HR of 1.33.|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, unstratified).||1.386||0.0612
91733208|NCT00600340|183361117|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027||||0.1534|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.606||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, stratified).||1.606||0.1534
91733209|NCT00600340|183361117|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.0085|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.273||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, stratified).||1.273||0.0085
91733210|NCT00600340|183361117|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.1778|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.623||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, unstratified).||1.623||0.1778
91733211|NCT00600340|183361117|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.126||||0.049|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.37||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, unstratified).||1.37||0.049
91733212|NCT00600340|183361123|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.67||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR) of objective response and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified)||0.67|0.33|< 0.0001
91733213|NCT00600340|183361123|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-9.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-9|-24|
91733214|NCT00600340|183361123|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.7||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.70|0.27|0.0006
91733215|NCT00600340|183361123|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as the DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-18|
91733216|NCT00600340|183361124|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of objective response and CMH test (stratified)||0.65|0.31|< 0.0001
91733217|NCT00600340|183361124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-10.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-10|-26|
91888834|NCT00895895|183670119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.5|-2.7|0.956
91869810|NCT02831816|183633722|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 cfu/cm2 less than the active control.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2085|0.1215||||||Abdomen 10 minutes average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.1215|-0.2085|
91869811|NCT02831816|183633722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.25||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.25|1.70|
91759290|NCT00516165|183411534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||<0.05
91759291|NCT00516165|183411535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
91759292|NCT00516165|183411536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
91759293|NCT00516165|183411537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
91759294|NCT00061633|183411541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was selected on the basis of clinical judgment and was deemed adequate to provide clinically meaningful descriptive results consistent with study objectives. This sample size was estimated to provide 39% power to test televancin's non-inferiority to vancomycin with respect to clinical response using a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||||||0.5289|||||||2-sided 95% confidence interval|||95% Confidence Interval: -0.1349 to 0.0485 No est. value. Parameter that was estimated: Risk Difference||||0.5289
91759295|NCT01431963|183411542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|43.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.85|55.96|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for all seizures.|||55.96|30.85|
91759296|NCT01431963|183411542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.02|54.09|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for A+B+C seizures.|||54.09|27.02|
91759297|NCT01431963|183411542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.63|56.72|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for A+B seizures.|||56.72|25.63|
91759298|NCT01431963|183411542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.29|84.41|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for C seizures.|||84.41|51.29|
91759299|NCT01431963|183411542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.39|97.48|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for D5 seizures.|||97.48|44.39|
91759300|NCT04254666|183411549|OTHER||||||||||||||||||pre and post scores for this measure are presented as the percent of foods correctly classified.|||
91759301|NCT01865448|183411625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2780
91759302|NCT01865448|183411625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8689|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.8689
91759303|NCT01865448|183411625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.4533
91759304|NCT01865448|183411626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71833|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.71833
91759305|NCT01865448|183411626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
91759306|NCT01865448|183411626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
91759307|NCT01865448|183411627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.51900
91759308|NCT01865448|183411627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
91759309|NCT01865448|183411627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
91759310|NCT01865448|183411628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24567|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.24567
91759311|NCT01865448|183411628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
91759312|NCT01865448|183411628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
91759313|NCT01865448|183411629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.9573
91759314|NCT01865448|183411629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5257|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.5257
91759315|NCT01865448|183411629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0657
91759316|NCT01865448|183411630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7474|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.7474
91759317|NCT01865448|183411630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3745|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.3745
91759318|NCT01865448|183411630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0476
91759319|NCT01865448|183411631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27444|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.27444
91759320|NCT01865448|183411631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
91759321|NCT01865448|183411631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
91759322|NCT01865448|183411632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28489|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.28489
91759323|NCT01865448|183411632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
91759324|NCT01865448|183411632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91759325|NCT01865448|183411633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04491|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.04491
91702341|NCT00772005|183299660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6948||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6948
91702342|NCT00772005|183299660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3345||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3345
91702343|NCT00772005|183299660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2447||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2447
91702344|NCT00772005|183299661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6115||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6115
91702345|NCT00772005|183299661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2233||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2233
91702346|NCT00772005|183299661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2343||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2343
91702347|NCT00772005|183299662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8228||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8228
91702348|NCT00772005|183299662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9373||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9373
91702349|NCT00772005|183299662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3190
91702350|NCT00772005|183299663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9769||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9769
91702351|NCT00772005|183299663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8374||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8374
91702352|NCT00772005|183299663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7061||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7061
91702353|NCT00772005|183299664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9577||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9577
91702354|NCT00772005|183299664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5106||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5106
91702355|NCT00772005|183299664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2655||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2655
91702356|NCT00772005|183299665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3825||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3825
91702357|NCT00772005|183299665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2003
91702358|NCT00772005|183299665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0625
91702359|NCT00772005|183299666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2981||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2981
91702360|NCT00772005|183299666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0104
91702361|NCT00772005|183299666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0150
91702362|NCT00772005|183299667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4608||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4608
91905653|NCT00397033|183707158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0|-3.2|-1.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.0|-3.2|<0.001
91905654|NCT00397033|183707158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.314||95.0|-1.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.5|-1.7|0.314
91905655|NCT00397033|183707159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.071||95.0|-1.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.1|-1.8|0.071
91869812|NCT02609048|183633740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-60.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.814|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.85|-49.13||Difference in mean,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-49.13|-72.85|<0.0001
91905656|NCT00397033|183707159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.099||95.0|-1.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.1|-1.7|0.099
91733218|NCT00600340|183361124|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.65||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.65|0.24|0.0003
91733219|NCT00600340|183361124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as the DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-19|
91733220|NCT00600340|183361125|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.63||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of objective response and CMH test (stratified)||0.63|0.31|< 0.0001
91733221|NCT00600340|183361125|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-11.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-11|-28|
91733222|NCT00600340|183361125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.7||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.70|0.27|0.0006
91733223|NCT00600340|183361125|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus DCR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-18|
91733224|NCT00600340|183361126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.6||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of objective response and CMH test (stratified)||0.60|0.29|< 0.0001
91733225|NCT00600340|183361126|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-13.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, unit in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-13|-30|
91733226|NCT00600340|183361126|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.65||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.65|0.24|0.0003
91733227|NCT00600340|183361126|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus DCR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, unit in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-19|
91869813|NCT02609048|183633740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-51.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-39.44||Difference in mean,p-value, and confidence intervals (CIs) estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-39.44|-63.30|<0.0001
91905657|NCT00397033|183707161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
91905658|NCT00397033|183707161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.083||95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.0|-0.6|0.083
91905659|NCT00397033|183707162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.003||95.0|-13.8|-2.9||The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity.|ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|One of the primary pairwise comparisons was paliperidone ER high dose vs. placebo. The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity. P-value for between treatment group comparisons is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.9|-13.8|0.003
91905660|NCT00397033|183707162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.187||95.0|-9.0|1.8||The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity.|ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|One of the primary pairwise comparisons was paliperidone ER low dose vs. placebo. The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity. P-value for between treatment group comparisons is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.||1.8|-9.0|0.187
91905661|NCT00397033|183707163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANOVA|P-value is from an ANOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher Scores indicate worsening.|||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91905662|NCT00397033|183707163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.029||95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANOVA|P-value is from an ANOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.0|-0.7|0.029
91905663|NCT00397033|183707165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-9.9|-3.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-3.7|-9.9|<0.001
91905664|NCT00397033|183707165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.066||95.0|-5.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.2|-5.8|0.066
91905665|NCT01020591|183707173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power and sample size calculations, based on the ability to detect treatment and evaluation group differences, were performed on Minitab™ V.15. 40 participants were estimated to be required for group allocation (20 in each group: evaluation;evaluation and treatment)for 80% power in at least 3 out of the 4 outcome measures. After 30 subjects, analysis determined that there would be no further statistically significant changes in results therefore, data collection was stopped at 30 subjects.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A two factor mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Group (Evaluation vs. Treatment) with repeated measures (pre vs. post test) was employed to test for main effects and all interactions for the Resistive Index||||<0.05
91905666|NCT02426476|183707191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Group by Time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models for repeated measures (PROC MIXED in SAS) were used to assess the effects of intervention group, time, and the group by time interaction. A directional (one-sided) hypothesis was tested for the Group-by-Time interaction. The covariance matrix that minimized the Akaike Information Criterion was used. Each outcome was evaluated separately. Models were adjusted for baseline depression score and race.||||<0.01
91905667|NCT02426476|183707192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Group by Time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
91905668|NCT02426476|183707193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Group by Time Interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models for repeated measures (PROC MIXED in SAS) were used to assess the effects of intervention group, time, and the group by time interaction. A directional (one-sided) hypothesis was tested for the Group-by-Time interaction. The covariance matrix that minimized the Akaike Information Criterion was used. Each outcome was evaluated separately. Models were adjusted for baseline depression score and race.||||<0.01
91905669|NCT04272892|183707202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.35|||<|0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||p values are calculated for original data (complete case) and each of the 5 imputed datasets. The p value range was 0.002 - 0.020. This is not multiple statistical analyses- it is just one with multiple imputations.|ANCOVA|Degrees of freedom for original data (complete case): 1,64. Degrees of freedom for imputed datasets: 1,80||||||<0.021
91905670|NCT04272892|183707203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|5.822|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of score at 8 week follow up with baseline score as covariate, effect of group||||5.822|-.106|0.059
91905671|NCT04272892|183707204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of sleep fragmentation at post-intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||6.0|-3.5|0.596
91759326|NCT01865448|183411633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
91759327|NCT01865448|183411633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
91759328|NCT01865448|183411634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24396|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.24396
91733228|NCT00600340|183361127|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.61|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for PFS (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.61|1.08|0.0066
91733229|NCT00600340|183361128|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.61|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for PFS (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.61|1.07|0.0094
91733230|NCT00600340|183361129|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.35||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TTF (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.35|0.94|0.1957
91733231|NCT00600340|183361130|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.34||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TTF (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.34|0.92|0.2583
91759329|NCT01865448|183411634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00162|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.00162
91869814|NCT02609048|183633740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-9.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.963||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.79|2.54||Difference in mean,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||2.54|-21.79|0.1167
91869815|NCT02609048|183633741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values were calculated from Fisher's exact test comparing each Seladelpar group with Placebo separately.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91869816|NCT02609048|183633741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||The p-values were calculated from Fisher's exact test comparing each Seladelpar group with Placebo separately.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0036
91869817|NCT02609048|183633741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1045||||||The p-values were calculated from Fisher's exact test comparing Seladelpar 200mg versus 50 mg.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1045
91869818|NCT02609048|183633742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|234.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.647||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.28|448.14||Difference between means, p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline AST assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in AST as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||448.14|21.28|0.0322
91869819|NCT02609048|183633742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|132.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.015||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|328.65||Difference between means, p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline AST assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in AST as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||328.65|-63.00|0.1764
91869820|NCT02609048|183633742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|101.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.504||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.21|312.98||Difference between means, p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline AST assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in AST as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||312.98|-109.21|0.3326
91869821|NCT02609048|183633743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|185.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.379||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|398.66||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline ALT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in ALT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||398.66|-27.10|0.0849
91869822|NCT02609048|183633743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|116.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|97.437||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.22|315.23||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline ALT assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in ALT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||315.23|-82.22|0.2409
91869823|NCT02609048|183633743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|69.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.295||0.5154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.47|284.03||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline ALT assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in ALT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||284.03|-145.47|0.5154
91869824|NCT02609048|183633744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-45.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.112||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.04|-20.64||Difference between means, p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline GGT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in GGT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-20.64|-70.04|0.0007
91869825|NCT02609048|183633744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-40.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.033||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.28|-18.28||Difference between means, p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline GGT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in GGT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-18.28|-63.28|0.0008
91869826|NCT02609048|183633744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.401||0.7155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.85|20.73||Difference between means, p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline GGT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in GGT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||20.73|-29.85|0.7155
91905672|NCT04272892|183707205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|8.612|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of sleep fragmentation at 8 week follow up with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||8.612|.431|0.031
91905673|NCT04272892|183707206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of wake after sleep onset post-intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||9.1|-7.8|0.885
91869827|NCT02609048|183633745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-34.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.342||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.4|-11.14||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline 5NT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in 5NT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-11.14|-57.40|0.0050
91869828|NCT02609048|183633745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-24.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.116||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.47|-4.21||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline 5NT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in 5NT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-4.21|-45.47|0.0199
91869829|NCT02609048|183633745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-9.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.442||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.77|13.9||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline 5NT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in 5NT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||13.90|-32.77|0.4161
91869830|NCT02609048|183633746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.626||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|23.79||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in total bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||23.79|-11.40|0.4780
91869831|NCT02609048|183633746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.043||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|4.41||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in total bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||4.41|-28.40|0.1459
91869832|NCT02609048|183633746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|18.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.521||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|35.57||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in total bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||35.57|0.82|0.0407
91869833|NCT02609048|183633747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|31.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.831||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.26|59.67||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in conjugated bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||59.67|3.26|0.0300
91869834|NCT02609048|183633747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.883||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.11|17.44||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in conjugated bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||17.44|-35.11|0.4979
91869835|NCT02609048|183633747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.591||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|68.02||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated for Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in conjugated bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||68.02|12.58|0.0058
91869836|NCT02609048|183633748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.362||0.7244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.03|14.08||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||14.08|-20.03|0.7244
91869837|NCT02609048|183633748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-14.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.819||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|1.8||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-30.10|0.0800
91869838|NCT02609048|183633748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|11.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|28.08||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||28.08|-5.73|0.1874
91869839|NCT02609048|183633749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-45.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.638|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-32.42||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline bone-specific AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-32.42|-59.50|<0.0001
91869840|NCT02609048|183633749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-34.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-21.48||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline bone-specific AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-21.48|-47.83|<0.0001
91869841|NCT02609048|183633749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.508||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.58|1.97||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline bone-specific AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||1.97|-24.58|0.0924
91905674|NCT04272892|183707207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|17.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of wake after sleep onset at 8 week follow up with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||17|-1|0.077
91869842|NCT02609048|183633750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-14.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.807||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.27|11.97||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TG assessment as a covariate, and percent change from baseline in TG as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||11.97|-40.27|0.2777
91869843|NCT02609048|183633750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-37.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.946||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.67|-12.95||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TG assessment as a covariate, and percent change from baseline in TG as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-12.95|-61.67|0.0039
91905675|NCT04272892|183707208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|18.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of sleep onset latency (median of 7 nights) at end of intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||18|2|0.014
91905676|NCT04272892|183707209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of PHQ9 score post-intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||3.5|.18|0.03
91905677|NCT04272892|183707210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|4.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of PHQ9 score at 8 week follow up with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||4.44|.149|0.036
91905678|NCT04272892|183707211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of GAD7 post-intervention, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||3.25|-0.03|0.054
91759330|NCT01865448|183411634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00162|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.00162
91759331|NCT01865448|183411635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82322|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.82322
91759332|NCT01865448|183411635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25908|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.25908
91759333|NCT01865448|183411635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25908|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.25908
91759334|NCT01865448|183411636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76435|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.76435
91759335|NCT01865448|183411636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18876|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.18876
91759336|NCT01865448|183411636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18876|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.18876
91759337|NCT01865448|183411637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.40485|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.40485
91759338|NCT01865448|183411637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
91759339|NCT01865448|183411637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
91759340|NCT01865448|183411638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13911|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.13911
91759341|NCT01865448|183411638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05726|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.05726
91759342|NCT01865448|183411638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05726|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.05726
91759343|NCT01865448|183411639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.60214|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.60214
91759344|NCT01865448|183411639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
91759345|NCT01865448|183411639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
91759346|NCT01865448|183411640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.66053
91759347|NCT01865448|183411640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
91759348|NCT01865448|183411640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.05
91759349|NCT01865448|183411641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.28743
91759350|NCT01865448|183411641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
91759351|NCT01865448|183411641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
91759352|NCT01865448|183411642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58561|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.58561
91759353|NCT01865448|183411642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
91759354|NCT01865448|183411642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91759355|NCT01865448|183411643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1953
91759356|NCT01865448|183411643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0351
91759357|NCT01865448|183411643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0795
91759358|NCT01865448|183411644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6664
91759359|NCT01865448|183411644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.431|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.4310
91759360|NCT01865448|183411644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0049
91759361|NCT01865448|183411645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2470
91759362|NCT01865448|183411645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2755
91759363|NCT01865448|183411645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8226|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.8226
91759364|NCT01865448|183411646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6779|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6779
91797105|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.23|<0.001
91797106|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.43|-1.13|<0.001
91797107|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.87|0.003
91797108|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.83|0.007
91797109|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.39|0.824
91797110|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.64|0.100
91797111|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.70|0.044
91797112|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.45|0.565
91797113|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.62|-1.40|<0.001
91797114|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.42|-1.20|<0.001
91797115|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-1.02|0.002
91905679|NCT04272892|183707212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.87|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of GAD7 at 8 week follow up, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||2.87|-.70|0.229
91905680|NCT04272892|183707213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|2.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of SIS index at post-intervention, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||2.73|-5.51|0.502
91759365|NCT01865448|183411646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3761|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.3761
91759366|NCT01865448|183411646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0281
91759367|NCT01865448|183411647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.8591
91759368|NCT01865448|183411647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0404
91759369|NCT01865448|183411647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0474
91759370|NCT01865448|183411648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3187|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.3187
91759371|NCT01865448|183411648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0482
91759372|NCT01865448|183411648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0394
91759373|NCT01865448|183411649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2813|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2813
91759374|NCT01865448|183411649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4421|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4421
91759375|NCT01865448|183411649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.3198
91759376|NCT01865448|183411650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2792
91759377|NCT01865448|183411650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1034
91759378|NCT01865448|183411650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9898|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.9898
91759379|NCT01865448|183411651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7047|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.7047
91759380|NCT01865448|183411651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4749|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4749
91759381|NCT01865448|183411651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.6014
91759382|NCT01865448|183411652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5932|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.5932
91759383|NCT01865448|183411652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.7140
91759384|NCT01865448|183411652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5827|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.5827
91759385|NCT01865448|183411653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2894
91759386|NCT01865448|183411653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2128|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2128
91759387|NCT01865448|183411653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0823
91869844|NCT02609048|183633750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|23.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.498||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|48.65||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TG assessment as a covariate, and percent change from baseline in TG as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||48.65|-2.33|0.0734
91869845|NCT02609048|183633751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-16.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.433||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|-7.07||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TC assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in TC as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-7.07|-25.16|0.0010
91733232|NCT00600340|183361131|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||0.77|0.43|0.0001
91733233|NCT00600340|183361132|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.75||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||0.75|0.41|0.0001
91733234|NCT00600340|183361133|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.02||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for DR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||2.02|0.99|0.0582
91733235|NCT00600340|183361134|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Arm B divided by hazard rate of Arm A.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.1||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Arm B divided by hazard rate of Arm A.|"HR of Arm B vs. Arm A for DR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||2.10|1.01|0.0429
91733236|NCT00725985|183361141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|0.584||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.584|0.248|<0.0001
91733237|NCT00725985|183361141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.327|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.509||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.509|0.210|< 0.0001
91733238|NCT00725985|183361142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.547||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.547|0.331|< 0.0001
91733239|NCT00725985|183361142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.497|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.633||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.633|0.390|< 0.0001
91733240|NCT00725985|183361143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||CUA lesions||-0.500|-0.971|<0.0001
91733241|NCT00725985|183361143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|-0.429|||ANCOVA|||CUA lesions||-0.429|-0.857|<0.0001
91869846|NCT02609048|183633751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-8.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.992||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|0.02||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TC assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in TC as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-16.27|0.0504
91905681|NCT04272892|183707214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|4.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of SIS index at 8 week follow up, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||4.0|-3.63|0.924
91733242|NCT00725985|183361143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||T1 Gd-Enhancing Lesions||-0.167|-0.333|<0.0001
91733243|NCT00725985|183361143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||T1 Gd-Enhancing Lesions||-0.167|-0.375|<0.0001
91733244|NCT00725985|183361143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.333|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||T2 Lesions||-0.167|-0.500|<0.0001
91733245|NCT00725985|183361143|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|-0.143|||ANCOVA|||T2 Lesions||-0.143|-0.429|<0.0001
91733246|NCT00725985|183361162|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.000|-37.200|<0.0001
91733247|NCT00725985|183361162|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.000|-117.300|<0.0001
91869847|NCT02609048|183633751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.317||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|0.81||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TC assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in TC as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||0.81|-16.80|0.0738
91733248|NCT02546323|183361190|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00445||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0191|-0.0016||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||-0.0016|-0.0191|0.020
91733249|NCT02546323|183361191|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00442||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0197|-0.0024||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||-0.0024|-0.0197|0.013
91733250|NCT02546323|183361192|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00903||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0339|0.0015||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||0.0015|-0.0339|0.073
91733251|NCT02546323|183361193|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00716||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0183|0.0097||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||0.0097|-0.0183|0.547
91733252|NCT02546323|183361194|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00272||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0139|-0.0032||Statistical significance of the MeanMean CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMean CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo||-0.0032|-0.0139|0.002
91733253|NCT02546323|183361195|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-35.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.426|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-30.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): LDL-C||-30.70|-40.23|<0.001
91733254|NCT02546323|183361195|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-21.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.441|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.68|-19.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): total cholesterol||-19.02|-24.68|<0.001
91733255|NCT02546323|183361195|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|7.64|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): HDL-C||7.64|2.35|<0.001
91733256|NCT02546323|183361195|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-19.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.671|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.86|-12.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Triglycerides||-12.44|-26.86|<0.001
91905682|NCT05318937|183707221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.9934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|4.09||The p-value was obtained using a MMRM model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and WAIS-IV at baseline as continuous covariates.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||4.09|-4.13|0.9934
91733257|NCT02546323|183361195|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-29.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.917|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.25|-25.72|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C||-25.72|-33.25|<0.001
91733258|NCT02546323|183361195|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-31.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.33|-27.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio||-27.16|-36.33|<0.001
91733259|NCT02546323|183361195|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-26.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.73|-22.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): ApoB||-22.50|-29.73|<0.001
91759388|NCT01865448|183411654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.3450
91759389|NCT01865448|183411654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1365
91759390|NCT01865448|183411654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0073
91759391|NCT01865448|183411655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2333
91759392|NCT01865448|183411655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4292|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4292
91759393|NCT01865448|183411655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3356|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.3356
91759394|NCT01865448|183411656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6830
91869848|NCT02609048|183633752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-17.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.848||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.32|-5.46||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline HDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in HDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-5.46|-29.32|0.0057
91869849|NCT02609048|183633752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378||0.8703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|10.08||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline HDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in HDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||10.08|-11.85|0.8703
91905683|NCT05470465|183707249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.1||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with paroxetine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-3.1||<0.001
91905684|NCT05470465|183707249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.1||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with escitalopram compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.1||0.001
91733260|NCT02546323|183361195|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.36|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): ApoA-I||4.36|0.02|0.047
91733261|NCT02546323|183361195|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-26.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.041|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.78|-22.76|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): ApoB/ApoA-I ratio||-22.76|-30.78|<0.001
91733262|NCT02546323|183361196|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-39.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.819|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.08|-35.94|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): LDL-C||-35.94|-43.08|<0.001
91733263|NCT02546323|183361196|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-25.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-23.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): total cholesterol||-23.23|-27.70|<0.001
91797116|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-1.02|0.002
91797117|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.40|-0.39|0.980
91733264|NCT02546323|183361196|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.73|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): HDL-C||5.73|1.60|<0.001
91869850|NCT02609048|183633752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-16.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.781||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-4.71||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline HDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in HDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-4.71|-28.30|0.0076
91733265|NCT02546323|183361196|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-18.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.26|-12.55|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Triglycerides||-12.55|-24.26|<0.001
91733266|NCT02546323|183361196|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-33.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.78|-30.78|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C||-30.78|-36.78|<0.001
91733267|NCT02546323|183361196|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-33.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.836|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|-30.32|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio||-30.32|-37.54|<0.001
91733268|NCT00863304|183361207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.62||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.65|<0.001
91797118|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.56|0.383
91869851|NCT02609048|183633753|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-14.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.981||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-2.66||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline LDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in LDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-27.05|0.0186
91905685|NCT05470465|183707250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.1||To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.1||0.002
91869852|NCT02609048|183633753|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-10.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.448||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|1.06||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline LDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in LDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||1.06|-21.17|0.0745
91869853|NCT02609048|183633753|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.0||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline LDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in LDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||7.00|-16.60|0.4131
91905686|NCT05470465|183707250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.5||To demonstrate an effect of escitalopram compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of escitalopram compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.5||0.003
91905687|NCT05470465|183707251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-4.1||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 6 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-4.1||<0.001
91905688|NCT05470465|183707251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.6||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 6 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.6||<0.001
91905689|NCT05470465|183707252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-5.9||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 12 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-5.9||<0.001
91733269|NCT00863304|183361207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.32|0.002
91733270|NCT00863304|183361207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.07||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.96|0.090
91733271|NCT00863304|183361207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.17||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-1.21|0.009
91733272|NCT00863304|183361207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.87|0.175
91797119|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.77|0.057
91733273|NCT00863304|183361208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.75||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.75|-1.71|<0.001
91733274|NCT00863304|183361208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.51||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.48|<0.001
91733275|NCT00863304|183361208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.94|0.067
91797120|NCT00809354|183473329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.59|0.312
91869854|NCT02609048|183633754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4667||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4667
91869855|NCT02609048|183633754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4667||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4667
91733276|NCT00863304|183361208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.26|0.002
91733277|NCT00863304|183361208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-1.03|0.031
91733278|NCT00863304|183361209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.50|<0.001
91733279|NCT00863304|183361209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.48|<0.001
91733280|NCT00863304|183361209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.02||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.30|0.078
91733281|NCT00863304|183361209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.019
91733282|NCT00863304|183361209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.34|0.029
91733283|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.94|0.029
91733284|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.73|0.214
91733285|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.32||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.21|<0.001
91733286|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.72||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.72|-0.18|0.234
91733287|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.93||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.93|0.04|0.034
91733288|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.7||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.70|-1.63|<0.001
91733289|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.49||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.42|<0.001
91869856|NCT02609048|183633755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0824||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0824
91869857|NCT02609048|183633755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0537||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0537
91869858|NCT02609048|183633755|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91869859|NCT02609048|183633756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0101
91797121|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.32|0.008
91797122|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.22|0.251
91797123|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.22|0.251
91797124|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.14|0.961
91797125|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.272
91797126|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.271
91733290|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.11|0.007
91733291|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.99|0.029
91797127|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.128
91797128|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.133
91797129|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.08|-0.35|0.002
91797130|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.06|-0.34|0.004
91797131|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.20|0.414
91797132|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.27|0.057
91869860|NCT02609048|183633756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0198||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0198
91869861|NCT02609048|183633756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5165||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5165
91869862|NCT02609048|183633757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0101
91733292|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.78|0.193
91797133|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.21|-0.06|0.277
91797134|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.21|0.328
91797135|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.30|0.026
91797136|NCT00809354|183473330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.15|0.864
91797137|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.31|0.927
91869863|NCT02609048|183633757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0055
91869864|NCT02609048|183633757|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91733293|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.73||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.73|-1.68|<0.001
91733294|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.32||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.28|0.001
91733295|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.14||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.10|0.011
91733296|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.06|0.017
91733297|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.3||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.30|-0.66|0.464
91733298|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.72||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.72|-1.72|<0.001
91869865|NCT02609048|183633759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.6||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline score as covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||2.6|-4.8|0.5379
91733299|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.54||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.55|<0.001
91733300|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.13||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.14|0.014
91869866|NCT02609048|183633759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.7||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline score as covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||3.7|-3.3|0.8949
91869867|NCT02609048|183633759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.2||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline score as covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||2.2|-4.9|0.4431
91869868|NCT02609048|183633760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|13.2||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model. Treatment group as factor, baseline score as a covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||13.2|-28.0|0.4674
91869869|NCT02609048|183633760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.99||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|9.4||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model. Treatment group as factor, baseline score as a covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||9.4|-27.4|0.3236
91869870|NCT02609048|183633760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|21.9||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model. Treatment group as factor, baseline score as a covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||21.9|-18.7|0.8723
91869871|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.0||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Cognitive Domain Score||6.0|0.8|0.0115
91869872|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.0||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Cognitive Domain Score||4.0|-0.5|0.1256
91869873|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Cognitive Domain Score||4.2|-0.9|0.1842
91869874|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain Score||7.2|0.1|0.0420
91759395|NCT01865448|183411656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8625|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.8625
91869875|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.9||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain Score||3.9|-2.4|0.6384
91733301|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.09|0.023
91733302|NCT00863304|183361210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.92|0.114
91759396|NCT01865448|183411656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0068
91888835|NCT00895895|183670119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.5|-2.6|0.988
91888836|NCT00895895|183670119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.4|-2.7|0.890
91888837|NCT00895895|183670119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-4.0|0.280
91888838|NCT00895895|183670120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-1.5|0.154
91888839|NCT00895895|183670120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-1.0|0.740
91888840|NCT00895895|183670120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.3|-1.4|0.179
91888841|NCT00895895|183670120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-0.6|0.543
91888842|NCT00895895|183670121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.4||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-739.7|618.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||618.8|-739.7|0.861
91888843|NCT00895895|183670121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-926.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1596.9|-256.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||-256.3|-1596.9|0.007
91888844|NCT00895895|183670121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|141.3||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-522.1|804.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||804.6|-522.1|0.676
91888845|NCT00895895|183670121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|230.6||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-449.7|910.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||910.9|-449.7|0.505
91888846|NCT00895895|183670122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||7.8|-2.2|0.267
91888847|NCT00895895|183670122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||8.6|-1.3|0.145
91888848|NCT00895895|183670122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||8.6|-1.2|0.139
91888849|NCT00895895|183670122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||7.2|-2.8|0.386
91888850|NCT00895895|183670123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||-0.1|-2.3|0.032
91888851|NCT00895895|183670123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.7|-0.5|0.264
91869876|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.5||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain Score||6.5|-0.6|0.1035
91869877|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.6967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Emotional Function Domain Score||2.4|-1.6|0.6967
91905690|NCT05470465|183707252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.7||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 12 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.7||0.003
91733303|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.94|0.029
91733304|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.73|0.214
91733305|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.32||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.21|<0.001
91733306|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.72||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.72|-0.18|0.234
91733307|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.93||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.93|0.04|0.034
91733308|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.67||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.59|<0.001
91733309|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.45||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.37|<0.001
91733310|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.13||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.05|0.012
91733311|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.07||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-1.00|0.023
91733312|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.78|0.175
91733313|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.63||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.55|<0.001
91759397|NCT01865448|183411657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3694|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.3694
91759398|NCT01865448|183411657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0291
91759399|NCT01865448|183411657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0402
91759400|NCT01865448|183411658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1226
91759401|NCT01865448|183411658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0472
91759402|NCT01865448|183411658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0197
91869878|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Emotional Function Domain Score||2.2|-1.3|0.6164
91733314|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.41||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.34|<0.001
91733315|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.03|0.017
91733316|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.06||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.99|0.027
91733317|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.15||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.78|0.190
91733318|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.68||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.68|-1.63|<0.001
91733319|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.6||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.60|-1.55|<0.001
91733320|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.99|0.034
91733321|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED|9.0|-1.12|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.12|0.009
91733322|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.04|0.023
91733323|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.64||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.60|<0.001
91797138|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.64|0.057
91869879|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.9548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Function Domain Score||1.9|-2.0|0.9548
91733324|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.39||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.35|<0.001
91797139|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.37|0.779
91733325|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.07||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.90|0.092
91733326|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.23||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.19|0.004
91733327|NCT00863304|183361211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.94|0.064
91869880|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.8286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.9||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Itch Domain Score||1.9|-2.4|0.8286
91869881|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.8||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Fatigue Domain Score||7.8|0.6|0.0226
91869882|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.1861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.4||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Fatigue Domain Score||1.4|-6.6|0.1861
91869883|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.7||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Fatigue Domain Score||5.7|-2.4|0.4159
91733328|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.27||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-1.12|0.001
91733329|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.23||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.09|0.003
91733330|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.39||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.25|<0.001
91733331|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.55||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-0.31|0.572
91733332|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.59||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.59|-0.27|0.467
91733333|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.83||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-1.74|<0.001
91869884|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.6||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Itch Domain Score||2.6|-1.3|0.4848
91733334|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.66||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.66|-1.58|<0.001
91733335|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.27||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-1.19|0.002
91733336|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.09||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-1.01|0.019
91733337|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.85|0.101
91869885|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.4048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Itch Domain Score||1.3|-3.1|0.4048
91869886|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms Domain Score||4.7|0.6|0.0141
91733338|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.78||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.78|-1.70|<0.001
91733339|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.54||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.47|<0.001
91869887|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms Domain Score||4.2|0.5|0.0138
91733340|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.08|0.009
91733341|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.08|0.008
91733342|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.85|0.101
91733343|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.83||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-1.79|<0.001
91733344|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.67||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.63|<0.001
91733345|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.21|0.003
91733346|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.08|0.016
91733347|NCT00863304|183361212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.06||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.91|0.082
91733348|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.27||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-1.12|0.001
91733349|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.23||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.09|0.003
91733350|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.39||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.25|<0.001
91733351|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.55||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-0.31|0.572
91733352|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.59||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.59|-0.27|0.467
91733353|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.82||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.82|-1.73|<0.001
91733354|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.7||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.70|-1.61|<0.001
91733355|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.16|0.003
91733356|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.03|0.015
91733357|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.91|0.053
91733358|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.75||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.75|-1.66|<0.001
91733359|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.65||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.65|-1.56|<0.001
91759403|NCT01865448|183411659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8969|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.8969
91869888|NCT02609048|183633761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.7911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.3||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms Domain Score||2.3|-1.8|0.7911
91869890|NCT02434328|183633793|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.0|-2.4|<0.0001
91869891|NCT02434328|183633794|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||0.5|-2.8|0.0003
91869892|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||0.0|-2.0|
91869893|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||0.2|-2.2|
91869894|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||0.4|-2.4|
91869895|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||0.6|-2.3|
91869896|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||0.0|-3.0|
91869897|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||0.6|-2.5|
91869898|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||0.5|-2.7|
91869899|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||0.7|-2.5|
91869900|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||0.4|-2.9|
91869901|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||0.5|-2.9|
91869902|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||0.1|-3.2|
91869903|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.0|-2.4|
91869904|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||1.1|-2.5|
91869905|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||1.1|-2.5|
91869906|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||1.0|-2.7|
91869907|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||1.2|-2.5|
91733360|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.07|0.009
91733361|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.14||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.05|0.011
91733362|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.95|0.035
91733363|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.85||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.85|-1.79|<0.001
91733364|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.76||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.76|-1.71|<0.001
91733365|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.11|0.008
91733366|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.21||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.16|0.005
91869908|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||1.2|-2.5|
91869909|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.1|-2.8|
91733367|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.12||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-1.07|0.013
91733368|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.81||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.81|-1.76|<0.001
91733369|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.63||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.58|<0.001
91733370|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.0||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.00|-0.95|0.050
91733371|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.34||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.29|<0.001
91733372|NCT00863304|183361213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.11|0.009
91733373|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.35|0.012
91759404|NCT01865448|183411659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7218|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.7218
91759405|NCT01865448|183411659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4536|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4536
91759406|NCT01865448|183411660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.8765
91759407|NCT01865448|183411660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5114|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.5114
91759408|NCT01865448|183411660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0237
91759409|NCT01865448|183411661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2914|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2914
91759410|NCT01865448|183411661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5594|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.5594
91905691|NCT05470465|183707253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-6.5||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo at day 5 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-6.5||<0.001
91797140|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.36|0.798
91869910|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||1.4|-2.5|
91869911|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||1.8|-2.1|
91905692|NCT05470465|183707253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-9.0||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of escitalopram compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of escitalopram compared to placebo at day 5 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-9.0||<0.001
91905693|NCT05470465|183707254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-8.5||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo at day 11 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-8.5||<0.001
91905694|NCT05470465|183707254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.8||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of escitalopram compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of escitalopram compared to placebo at day 11 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-3.8||<0.001
91905695|NCT00449670|183707293|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.81||||||95.0|0.66|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 1 and Lot 2).||1.01|0.66|
91905696|NCT00449670|183707293|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 1 and Lot 3).||1.06|0.69|
91905697|NCT00449670|183707293|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 1 and Lot 4).||1.05|0.68|
91869912|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||1.1|-2.9|
91869913|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||1.3|-2.6|
91733374|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.28|0.113
91733375|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.49|<0.001
91733376|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.01|0.076
91733377|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.37||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.37|0.06|0.007
91733378|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.56|<0.001
91869914|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||1.6|-2.4|
91869915|NCT02434328|183633799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||1.6|-2.5|
91888852|NCT00895895|183670123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-1.0|0.893
91888853|NCT00895895|183670123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.4|-0.7|0.525
91733379|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.26||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.58|<0.001
91733380|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.43|<0.001
91733381|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.29|0.102
91733382|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.31|0.066
91759411|NCT01865448|183411661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2532|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2532
91888854|NCT00895895|183670124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.9||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|123.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||123.5|-1.6|0.056
91759412|NCT01865448|183411662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.0528
91759413|NCT01865448|183411662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1920
91759414|NCT01865448|183411662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0011
91759415|NCT01865448|183411663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2999|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2999
91759416|NCT01865448|183411663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5184|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.5184
91759417|NCT01865448|183411663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0564
91759418|NCT01865448|183411664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.0783
91759419|NCT01865448|183411664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1263
91905698|NCT00449670|183707293|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 2 and Lot 3).||1.3|0.85|
91797141|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.33|0.980
91797142|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.60|0.098
91797143|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.26|0.709
91797144|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.65|0.01|0.045
91797145|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.41|-0.28|0.710
91797146|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.46|0.504
91797147|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.58|-0.11|0.183
91869916|NCT02434328|183633800|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||0.3|-2.4|
91869917|NCT02434328|183633800|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||0.7|-2.4|
91869918|NCT02434328|183633801|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 48||0.4|-2.5|
91905699|NCT00449670|183707293|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 2 and Lot 4).||1.29|0.84|
91797148|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.36|0.919
91797149|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.59|-0.09|0.152
91797150|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.24|-0.44|0.572
91797151|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.51|0.337
91797152|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.52|-0.16|0.299
91797153|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.50|-1.17|<0.001
91797154|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.55|-1.22|<0.001
91797155|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-1.01|<0.001
91797156|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.85|0.003
91733383|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.28||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.60|<0.001
91733384|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.21||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.53|<0.001
91733385|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.34|0.027
91733386|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.42|0.001
91733387|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.020
91733388|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.17||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.49|<0.001
91733389|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.43|0.001
91797157|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.50|0.341
91797158|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.71|0.031
91905700|NCT00449670|183707293|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 3 and Lot 4).||1.23|0.8|
91733390|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.328
91733391|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.41|0.002
91733392|NCT00863304|183361214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.022
91733393|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.35|0.012
91797159|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.49|0.349
91797160|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.29|0.780
91797161|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.58|-1.31|<0.001
91733394|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.28|0.113
91733395|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.49|<0.001
91733396|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.01|0.076
91733397|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.37||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.37|0.06|0.007
91869919|NCT02434328|183633801|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.||Week 12 to Week 96|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|0.8|-2.4|
91869920|NCT02434328|183633802|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.4|-2.5|
91869921|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.9|-5.1|
91905701|NCT02603120|183707365|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 260 participants per treatment group would provide at least 90% power to detect a noninferiority margin of 4% in difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Wk 48, between B/F/TAF group and ABC/DTG/3TC group. Sample size was based on assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Wk 48 and that the non-inferiority margin is 4%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.0|2.8|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||2.8|-1.0|
91905702|NCT02603120|183707365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
91905703|NCT02603120|183707366|NON_INFERIORITY|It would be concluded that B/F/TAF is noninferior to ABC/DTG/3TC if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.002% CI of the difference between treatment groups (B/F/TAF group -ABC/DTG/3TC group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-5.5|2.6|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||2.6|-5.5|
91905704|NCT02603120|183707366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.59
91733398|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.26||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.57|<0.001
91733399|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
91733400|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.13||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.45|<0.001
91733401|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.29|0.120
91733402|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.29|0.126
91733403|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.3||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.62|<0.001
91733404|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
91733405|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.41|0.003
91733406|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.38|0.009
91733407|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.32|0.052
91733408|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
91733409|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.15||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.48|<0.001
91733410|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.0||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.33|0.051
91905705|NCT02603120|183707367|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-35.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|-3.0|||ANOVA|||||-3|-67|0.031
91733411|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.41|0.003
91733412|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.32|0.069
91733413|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.57|<0.001
91733414|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.2||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.53|<0.001
91733415|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.37|0.012
91733416|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.36|0.020
91869922|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.0|-9.5|
91869923|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||0.3|-10.5|
91888855|NCT00895895|183670124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|83.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||83.5|-40.0|0.488
91888856|NCT00895895|183670124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.6|69.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||69.8|-52.6|0.783
91888857|NCT00895895|183670124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|79.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||79.8|-44.6|0.578
91733417|NCT00863304|183361215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.32|0.064
91733418|NCT03898180|183361269|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) CPS, and ECOG performance status (PS).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||1.14|0.72|0.4107
91733419|NCT03898180|183361270|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.48||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||1.48|0.87|0.3505
91733420|NCT03898180|183361271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||12.2|-4.0|
91733421|NCT03898180|183361274|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.07||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|1.44||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|cLDA model||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||1.44|-7.57|0.182
91759420|NCT01865448|183411664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6484|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.6484
91759421|NCT01865448|183411665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6896
91759422|NCT01865448|183411665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0980
91759423|NCT01865448|183411665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3526|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.3526
91759424|NCT01865448|183411666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9662|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.9662
91759425|NCT01865448|183411666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1450
91759426|NCT01865448|183411666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3811|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3811
91759427|NCT01865448|183411667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2643|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2643
91759428|NCT01865448|183411667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0761
91759429|NCT01865448|183411667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.1342
91869924|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.7|-8.4|
91869925|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.8|-8.8|
91869926|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.7|-5.2|
91905706|NCT02603120|183707369|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.276||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.827|||ANOVA|||||0.827|-0.275|0.33
91869927|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.3|-9.9|
91888858|NCT00895895|183670125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|76.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||76.1|-13.9|0.175
91905707|NCT02603120|183707371|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.143||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.248|||ANOVA|||||0.248|-0.534|0.47
91759430|NCT01865448|183411668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1410
91888859|NCT00895895|183670125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|65.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||65.4|-23.3|0.352
91888860|NCT00895895|183670125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|49.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||49.6|-38.1|0.797
91888861|NCT00895895|183670125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|33.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||33.9|-55.6|0.633
91888862|NCT00895895|183670126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.2||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|147.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||147.0|-4.7|0.066
91888863|NCT00895895|183670126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|94.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||94.7|-54.6|0.598
91888864|NCT00895895|183670126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.9|85.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||85.3|-62.9|0.766
91888865|NCT00895895|183670126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.8||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|109.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||109.1|-41.5|0.378
91888866|NCT00895895|183670127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|85.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||85.2|-40.2|0.481
91888867|NCT00895895|183670127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|65.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||65.9|-57.5|0.894
91888868|NCT00895895|183670127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|60.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||60.8|-61.5|0.991
91888869|NCT00895895|183670127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.9|36.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||36.9|-87.9|0.422
91888870|NCT00895895|183670128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.22|0.24|0.581
91888871|NCT00895895|183670128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|0.42|0.770
91888872|NCT00895895|183670128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.55|0.71|0.216
91888873|NCT00895895|183670128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.42|1.06|0.037
91888874|NCT01721954|183670132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis tested for the primary efficacy endpoint is overall survival (months) of SIRT/FOLFOX treatment versus FOLFOX is equal for both groups. The two-sided alternative hypothesis tested with 95% confidence is OS time for SIRT/FOLFOX treatment lower to that of FOLFOX.||||0.43
91869928|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||2.7|-10.5|
91733422|NCT03898180|183361275|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.16||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||2.16|1.24|0.0005
91733423|NCT01472185|183361298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.36||P-value is from a mixed effects model including terms for baseline HbA1c value, treatment group, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis||The estimation (LSM) is of the placebo-corrected change from baseline.|Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%, an effective sample size of 400 would provide at least 90% power to detect a statistically significant treatment difference of -0.5% (ranolazine vs. placebo) for the reduction of HbA1c from baseline at Week 24 based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 and 1:1 randomization.||-0.36|-0.76|< 0.0001
91733424|NCT02958865|183361303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|-0.89|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-0.89|-3.17|0.0017
91733425|NCT02958865|183361303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.01|-2.74|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-2.74|-5.01|< 0.0001
91733426|NCT02958865|183361303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.76|-3.46|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-3.46|-5.76|< 0.0001
91733427|NCT02958865|183361303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|-0.67|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there is no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm is declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect is below zero.||-0.67|-2.92|0.0045
91733428|NCT02958865|183361303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|-1.14|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-1.14|-3.41|0.0005
91733429|NCT02958865|183361303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|-2.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-2.08|-4.34|< 0.0001
91733430|NCT02958865|183361320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|19.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||19.5|-1.0|0.0626
91733431|NCT02958865|183361320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.6||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.9|41.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||||41.0|13.9|0.0027
91733432|NCT02958865|183361320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.2|46.5|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||46.5|20.2|0.0010
91733433|NCT02958865|183361320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|18.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||18.1|-4.0|0.0774
91733434|NCT02958865|183361320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.2|35.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||35.8|8.2|0.0055
91733435|NCT02958865|183361320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.2|35.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||35.8|8.2|0.0055
91733436|NCT02958865|183361321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.6||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|33.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||33.2|5.6|0.0111
91733437|NCT02958865|183361321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.2|47.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||47.4|20.2|0.0006
91733438|NCT02958865|183361321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.5|54.6|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||54.6|29.5|0.0001
91733439|NCT02958865|183361321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.8||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|33.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||||33.0|5.6|0.0101
91733440|NCT02958865|183361321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.0|44.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||44.8|17.0|0.0014
91733441|NCT02958865|183361321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.8||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.0|42.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||||42.6|17.0|0.0015
91733442|NCT02958865|183361322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|34.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||34.4|-3.4|0.0788
91733443|NCT02958865|183361322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.6|62.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||62.1|23.6|0.0002
91869929|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.3|-11.6|
91869930|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.9|-11.5|
91869931|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||1.8|-11.3|
91869932|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.8|-7.1|
91869933|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.5|-7.0|
91869934|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.4|-7.7|
91869935|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.2|-8.3|
91905708|NCT00253643|183707421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|||||Utilized a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model to assess the effect time (pre vs. post) and treatment (GTFO, GT, FO and Placebo) on FAS summary scores||||0.1521
91797162|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.29|<0.001
91869936|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.4|-7.9|
91869937|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.1|-9.9|
91905709|NCT00253643|183707422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model to assess the effect of time (pre vs. post) and treatment (GTFO, GT, FO and Placebo) on Ki-67||||0.1573
91905710|NCT04451161|183707435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants administered the CPSS-V to at least one student beginning of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as administered CPSS-V) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not at the beginning of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.591
91905711|NCT04451161|183707435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants administered the CPSS-V to at least one student by the end of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as administered CPSS-V) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.032
91905712|NCT04451161|183707435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants administered the CPSS-V to at least one student by the end of the sustainment phase.|Chi-squared|||One of the primary TF-CBT adoption outcomes (defined as administered CPSS-V) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student at the end of the sustainment phase, or they did not. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.054
91869938|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||2.3|-10.2|
91869939|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.0|-8.8|
91869940|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.5|-9.0|
91869941|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||2.8|-9.9|
91733444|NCT02958865|183361322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.5|60.5|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||60.5|23.5|0.0003
91733445|NCT02958865|183361322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|35.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||35.1|-4.0|0.0773
91733446|NCT02958865|183361322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.2||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|47.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||||47.0|5.6|0.0136
91733447|NCT02958865|183361322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.9|54.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||54.7|13.9|0.0015
91733448|NCT02958865|183361323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|11.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||11.8|-6.5|0.2259
91733449|NCT02958865|183361323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|17.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.7|-3.8|0.0820
91733450|NCT02958865|183361323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|22.3|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||22.3|-0.7|0.0649
91733451|NCT02958865|183361323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.3777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|9.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||9.7|-8.6|0.3777
91733452|NCT02958865|183361323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.9|28.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||||28.6|2.9|0.0212
91733453|NCT02958865|183361323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|18.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||18.4|-4.2|0.0742
91733454|NCT02958865|183361324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|17.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.1|-3.4|0.0872
91733455|NCT02958865|183361324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|27.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||27.5|3.0|0.0254
91733456|NCT02958865|183361324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|38.1|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||38.1|11.0|0.0034
91733457|NCT02958865|183361324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|15.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||15.4|-4.5|0.1565
91733458|NCT02958865|183361324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|26.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||26.2|1.7|0.0288
91733459|NCT02958865|183361324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|26.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||26.2|1.7|0.0288
91733460|NCT02958865|183361325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|11.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||11.8|-6.5|0.2259
91733461|NCT02958865|183361325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|17.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.7|-3.8|0.0820
91733462|NCT02958865|183361325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|22.3|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||22.3|-0.7|0.0649
91733463|NCT02958865|183361325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|6.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||6.1|-11.3|1.0000
91733464|NCT02958865|183361325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|26.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||26.2|1.7|0.0288
91733465|NCT02958865|183361325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|15.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||15.7|-4.4|0.1593
91733466|NCT00635050|183361362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91759431|NCT01865448|183411668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3774|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.3774
91759432|NCT01865448|183411668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.1811
91759433|NCT01865448|183411669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||<0.0001
91759434|NCT01865448|183411669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
91759435|NCT01865448|183411669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
91759436|NCT01865448|183411670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5893|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.5893
91759437|NCT01865448|183411670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0431
91759438|NCT01865448|183411670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0066
91759439|NCT01865448|183411671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||<0.0001
91759440|NCT01865448|183411671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
91759441|NCT01865448|183411671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
91759442|NCT01865448|183411672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.9850
91759443|NCT01865448|183411672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0049
91759444|NCT01865448|183411672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0062
91759445|NCT01865448|183411673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1946|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1946
91759446|NCT01865448|183411673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2337
91759447|NCT01865448|183411673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9188|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.9188
91759448|NCT01865448|183411674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7964|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.7964
91759449|NCT01865448|183411674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.7680
91759450|NCT01865448|183411674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.5669
91869942|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||0.3|-11.8|
91733467|NCT04380142|183361373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.05||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|mixed model repeated measures|||||3.05|0.46|0.0083
91869943|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||4.5|-7.9|
91869944|NCT02434328|183633803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.1|-8.8|
91733468|NCT04380142|183361374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.54||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.54|-3.03|0.0054
91733469|NCT04380142|183361375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|0.48||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|mixed model repeated measures|||||0.48|-3.65|0.1318
91733470|NCT04380142|183361376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31||The generalized linear mixed model: status = treatment country visit baseline treatment\*visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|generalized linear mixed model|||||0.31|0.04|<=0.001
91733471|NCT04380142|183361377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.16|||generalized linear mixed model|||||3.16|0.46|0.0091
91733472|NCT04380142|183361378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-2.78||ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-8.03|<=0.001
91733473|NCT04380142|183361379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|-0.05||ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-8.14|0.0470
91869945|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.8|-7.6|
91733474|NCT04380142|183361380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.1||ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.100|-0.001|0.0566
91733475|NCT04380142|183361381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.15||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||3.15|0.30|0.0184
91733476|NCT04380142|183361382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.7989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.55||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||1.55|-1.20|0.7989
91733477|NCT04380142|183361383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|1.15||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||1.15|-6.61|0.1656
91733478|NCT04380142|183361384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|1.73||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||1.73|-12.71|0.1347
91733479|NCT00209131|183361391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Other|||No analysis was conducted.||||<0.05
91733480|NCT04875533|183361397|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||||||Serotype 1: the ratio of GMT (GMR) (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.92|0.66|
91759451|NCT01865448|183411675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.0320
91759452|NCT01865448|183411675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0220
91759453|NCT01865448|183411675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4563|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4563
91759454|NCT01865448|183411676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72828|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.72828
91733481|NCT04875533|183361397|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||||||Serotype 3: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.99|0.79|
91797163|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.26|-0.99|<0.001
91797164|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.88|0.005
91733482|NCT04875533|183361397|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94||||||Serotype 4: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.94|0.67|
91733483|NCT04875533|183361397|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||Serotype 5: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.91|0.65|
91733484|NCT04875533|183361397|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.05|0.73|
91797165|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.26|-0.47|0.562
91797166|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.77|0.028
91797167|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.68|0.084
91797168|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.38|0.910
91869946|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||0.1|-13.0|
91733485|NCT04875533|183361397|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.08|0.77|
91733486|NCT04875533|183361397|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.93|0.75|
91733487|NCT04875533|183361397|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.02|0.76|
91797169|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.69|-1.40|<0.001
91797170|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.27|<0.001
91797171|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.55|-1.25|<0.001
91797172|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.88|0.003
91869947|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.4|-10.1|
91869948|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.3|-7.3|
91797173|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.72|0.039
91797174|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.74|0.032
91797175|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.20|-0.50|0.409
91869949|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.2|-11.2|
91869950|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.0|-10.7|
91869951|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.0|-9.6|
91869952|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.5|-9.4|
91869953|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.1|-12.1|
91869954|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.5|-9.9|
91869955|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.2|-10.3|
91797176|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.49|0.461
91797177|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.84|-1.59|<0.001
91797178|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.65|-1.40|<0.001
91869956|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||4.7|-8.7|
91869957|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.7|-8.0|
91733488|NCT04875533|183361397|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29||||||Serotype 14: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.29|0.92|
91797179|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.43|-1.17|<0.001
91869958|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.3|-9.8|
91733489|NCT04875533|183361397|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.85|0.62|
91733490|NCT04875533|183361397|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.86|0.63|
91869959|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER|Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.2|||Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.2|-9.6|
91869960|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.4|-8.8|
91869961|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.0|-8.4|
91869962|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||2.9|-10.4|
91869963|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||7.2|-6.5|
91905713|NCT04451161|183707435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants started TF-CBT with at least one student at the beginning of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as started TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not at the beginning of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.98
91797180|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.22|-0.97|0.002
91797181|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.58|0.281
91905714|NCT04451161|183707435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants started TF-CBT with at least one student by the end of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as started TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.068
91905715|NCT04451161|183707435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants started TF-CBT with at least one student by the end of the sustainment phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as started TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the sustainment phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.165
91905716|NCT04451161|183707435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants completed TF-CBT with at least one student by the end of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as completed TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.191
91905717|NCT04451161|183707435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants completed TF-CBT with at least one student at the end of the sustainment phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as completed TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the sustainment phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.86
91702363|NCT00772005|183299667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0807||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0807
91869964|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.1|-7.5|
91869965|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||3.1|-10.4|
91733491|NCT04875533|183361397|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.76|0.53|
91733492|NCT04875533|183361397|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.99|0.65|
91733493|NCT04875533|183361398|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.67||||||Serotype 8: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.67|0.50|
91733494|NCT04875533|183361398|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.53||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.53|1.80|
91733495|NCT04875533|183361398|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.06||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.06|1.44|
91733496|NCT04875533|183361398|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.04||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.04|1.39|
91733497|NCT04875533|183361398|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.64||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.64|1.72|
91733498|NCT04875533|183361398|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.98||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.98|1.33|
91797182|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.06|-0.81|0.023
91797183|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.79|0.031
91733499|NCT04875533|183361398|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.34||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.34|0.97|
91733500|NCT01299961|183361407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most involved side: Synovitis (S), tenosynovitis (T), and power Doppler (PD) of wrist (dorsal (D), palmar (P), and ulnar (U)); S and T of MCP 2,3 (P, plus D for T); PD of the MCP joints (P and D); S and PD of PIP 2, 3 (P, plus D for PD); S and PD for MTP 2, 4 (D). S and PD graded from 0 to 3, and max individual scores are 27 and 39, respectively. T graded on 0-1 scale; max T score is 5. High score is worse. The 7-joint US score is sum of T, S, and PD scores. Change calculated baseline- month 12.||||<0.01
91733501|NCT01299961|183361408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7 joints were scanned by power doppler ultra sound of the most affected side: wrist, MCP 2/3, PIP 2/3, and MTP 2/5. PDUS was scored semi-quantitatively on a scale of 0-3 (higher score is worse). The mean score of the 2-3 views obtained for each joint was added across all 7 joints, and the total PDUS (range 0-21) scores were calculated. The change from baseline to 12 months is calculated as the baseline PDUS minus 12 month PDUS.||||<0.01
91733502|NCT01299961|183361409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7 joints were scanned by grey-scale ultra sound of the most affected side: wrist, MCP 2/3, PIP 2/3, and MTP 2/5. GSUS was scored semi-quantitatively on a scale of 0-3 (higher score is worse). The mean score of the 2-3 views obtained for each joint was added across all 7 joints, and the total GSUS (range 0-21) scores were calculated. The change from baseline to 12 months is calculated as the baseline GSUS minus 12 month GSUS.||||0.19
91733503|NCT02904096|183361410|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimates for PA, PB, and PA-PB were reported together with one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for PA-PB constructed via the Farrington-Manning likelihood method. Here PA and PB are the percentage of subjects in Group A and B (Non-inferiority margin = 12%).|Difference in percentage|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.35||||||||3.35||
91797184|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.56|0.331
91797185|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.75|-1.47|<0.001
91869966|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.9|-9.6|
91869967|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.3|-5.0|
91869968|NCT02434328|183633804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||6.8|-7.0|
91733504|NCT02904096|183361411|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.35||||||||3.35||
91733505|NCT02904096|183361412|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Flexion (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Flexion (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733506|NCT02904096|183361412|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Flexion (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Flexion (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733507|NCT02904096|183361412|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Flexion (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Flexion (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.054
91733508|NCT02904096|183361412|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Flexion (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Flexion (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733509|NCT02904096|183361412|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Extension (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Extension (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.049
91797186|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.60|-1.33|<0.001
91797187|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.31|-1.03|<0.001
91733510|NCT02904096|183361412|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Extension (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Extension (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.003
91797188|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.26|-0.98|<0.001
91869969|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.6|-10.4|
91702364|NCT00772005|183299667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2959||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2959
91702365|NCT00772005|183299668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6759||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6759
91702366|NCT00772005|183299668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2418||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2418
91702367|NCT00772005|183299668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9808||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9808
91702368|NCT00772005|183299669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7599||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7599
91702369|NCT00772005|183299669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4543||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4543
91702370|NCT00772005|183299669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6040
91702371|NCT00772005|183299670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2476||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2476
91702372|NCT00772005|183299670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9490
91702373|NCT00772005|183299670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9035||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9035
91869970|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.7|-10.2|
91869971|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.3|-10.7|
91733511|NCT02904096|183361412|OTHER|||||||0.781|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Extension (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Extension (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.781
91733512|NCT02904096|183361412|OTHER|||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Extension (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Extension (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.573
91733513|NCT02904096|183361413|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733514|NCT02904096|183361413|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733515|NCT02904096|183361413|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733516|NCT02904096|183361413|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733517|NCT02904096|183361414|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733518|NCT02904096|183361414|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733519|NCT02904096|183361414|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733520|NCT02904096|183361414|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733521|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733522|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.001
91733523|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91869972|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||5.7|-8.4|
91733524|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.002
91733525|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733526|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733527|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733528|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733529|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.001
91733530|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733531|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733532|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
91733533|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.010
91733534|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.060
91733535|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.177
91733536|NCT02904096|183361415|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.177
91759455|NCT01618695|183411678|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.112|4.519|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95 percent (%) confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||4.519|-14.112|0.2330
91733537|NCT00980798|183361420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2365||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5357|0.0627||No adjustment for multiple comparisons necessary, as only 1 primary hypothesis was tested. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed-model regression analysis|The difference above is presented as the difference OROS hydromorphone HCl minus placebo, so negative scores favour OROS hydromorphone HCl.|The analysis was adjusted for baseline BPI item 5 score, time on study, and whether the primary affected joint was the hip or knee.|The F test for treatment tested the null hypothesis of no treatment difference. Assuming that 3 baseline measures and 7 post baseline measures were collected 81 patients were required per group to detect a difference of 1 point in the BPI measure with 90% power at a significance level of 5%. To allow for a drop-out rate of approximately 40%, the study planned to recruit 135 patients per group (i.e. 270 in total).||0.0627|-0.5357|0.1212
91733538|NCT02757768|183361437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.76|0.039
91733539|NCT02757768|183361438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.25|-0.46|0.558
91733540|NCT02757768|183361438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.89|0.007
91733541|NCT02757768|183361438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.76|0.041
91733542|NCT02757768|183361439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|9.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||9.37|-1.63|0.167
91733543|NCT02757768|183361439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|12.73|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||12.73|-0.15|0.056
91733544|NCT02757768|183361439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|16.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||16.01|1.97|0.012
91733545|NCT02757768|183361439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|9.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|15.98|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||15.98|2.53|0.007
91733546|NCT02757768|183361440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.38|-0.63|0.747
91733547|NCT02757768|183361440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.54|-0.72|0.393
91733548|NCT02757768|183361440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.38|-0.87|0.672
91733549|NCT02757768|183361440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.30|-0.90|0.640
91759456|NCT01618695|183411678|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.45||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.683|-7.251|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-7.251|-25.683|0.0003
91759457|NCT01618695|183411678|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.878|-16.235|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-16.235|-33.878|<0.0001
91759458|NCT01618695|183411679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3954|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3954
91759459|NCT01618695|183411679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
91759460|NCT01618695|183411679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91759461|NCT01618695|183411680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.27||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.067|1.671|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1.671|-18.067|0.0552
91759462|NCT01618695|183411680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-21.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.941|-11.368|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-11.368|-30.941|<0.0001
91869973|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||1.5|-12.3|
91869974|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.7|-9.9|
91869975|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||0.7|-12.8|
91733550|NCT02757768|183361441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.16|-0.68|0.222
91733551|NCT02757768|183361441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-1.18|0.003
91733552|NCT02757768|183361441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.17|-1.13|0.008
91733553|NCT02757768|183361441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-1.13|0.004
91733554|NCT02757768|183361442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.9|-0.6|0.723
91869976|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.8|-8.2|
91733555|NCT02757768|183361442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.0|-0.7|0.700
91733556|NCT02757768|183361442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-1.3|0.400
91759463|NCT01618695|183411680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-28.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.698|-19.794|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-19.794|-37.698|<0.0001
91759464|NCT00931606|183411692|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
91759465|NCT00931606|183411692|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
91759466|NCT00931606|183411692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||0.524
91759467|NCT00931606|183411692|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
91759468|NCT00931606|183411692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
91759469|NCT00931606|183411692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
91759470|NCT00931606|183411692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
91759471|NCT00931606|183411692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.236
91759472|NCT00931606|183411692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.429
91759473|NCT00931606|183411692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.519
91759474|NCT00931606|183411695|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
91759475|NCT00931606|183411695|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
91759476|NCT00931606|183411695|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
91759477|NCT00931606|183411695|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
91869977|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.2|-9.2|
91869978|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.6|-8.2|
91869979|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.0|-8.5|
91869980|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.2|-7.4|
91759478|NCT00931606|183411696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999, are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
91759479|NCT00931606|183411696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
91759480|NCT00931606|183411696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||0.206
91759481|NCT00931606|183411696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
91759482|NCT00931606|183411696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
91759483|NCT00931606|183411696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999, are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
91759484|NCT00931606|183411696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999, are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
91759485|NCT00931606|183411696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.429
91759486|NCT00931606|183411696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
91759487|NCT00931606|183411696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.143
91759488|NCT00931606|183411696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.519
91759489|NCT00931606|183411697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
91759490|NCT00931606|183411697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
91759491|NCT00931606|183411697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||0.206
91759492|NCT00931606|183411697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
91759493|NCT00931606|183411697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
91759494|NCT00931606|183411697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
91759495|NCT00931606|183411697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
91759496|NCT00931606|183411697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.429
91759497|NCT00931606|183411697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
91759498|NCT00931606|183411697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.143
91759499|NCT00931606|183411697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.519
91759500|NCT02391363|183411751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.08 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month PSWQ-A, controlling for baseline PSWQ-A.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate of .05."||||0.77
91759501|NCT02391363|183411752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 3.50 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month PSWQ-A, controlling for baseline PSWQ-A.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.07
91797189|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.41|0.781
91797190|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.71|0.057
91797191|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.08|-0.80|0.016
91797192|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.50|0.450
91797193|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.69|-1.47|<0.001
91797194|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.42|-1.20|<0.001
91797195|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-1.12|<0.001
91797196|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.26|-1.04|0.001
91797197|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.47|0.699
91797198|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.55|0.408
91797199|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.74|0.077
91797200|NCT00809354|183473331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.65|0.182
91797201|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.36|0.798
91797202|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.37|0.779
91797203|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.64|0.057
91869981|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.0|-9.8|
91797204|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.31|0.927
91797205|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.33|0.980
91797206|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.60|0.098
91797207|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.26|0.709
91797208|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.65|0.01|0.045
91797209|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.36|0.919
91797210|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.58|-0.11|0.183
91797211|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.46|0.504
91733557|NCT02757768|183361442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-1.0|0.812
91733558|NCT02757768|183361443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.9|-0.1|0.121
91733559|NCT02757768|183361443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-0.2|0.241
91733560|NCT02757768|183361443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-0.6|0.843
91733561|NCT02757768|183361443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.7|-0.4|0.679
91733562|NCT02757768|183361444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.7|0.175
91733563|NCT02757768|183361444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.2|-0.6|0.430
91733564|NCT02757768|183361444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.8|0.141
91733565|NCT02757768|183361444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.2|-0.7|0.288
91869982|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.8|-8.6|
91869983|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.1|-7.8|
91733566|NCT02757768|183361445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-0.3|0.128
91733567|NCT02757768|183361445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-0.4|0.054
91733568|NCT02757768|183361445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-0.4|0.079
91733569|NCT02757768|183361445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.4|0.148
91733570|NCT02757768|183361446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.39|-0.61|0.660
91733571|NCT02757768|183361446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.53|-0.72|0.767
91869984|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||9.2|-4.5|
91869985|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.9|-8.6|
91733572|NCT02757768|183361446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.34|-0.89|0.372
91733573|NCT02757768|183361446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.26|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.26|-0.92|0.272
91733574|NCT02757768|183361447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.80|-4.29|0.179
91733575|NCT02757768|183361447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.08|-6.60|0.006
91733576|NCT02757768|183361447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.06|-5.86|0.055
91733577|NCT02757768|183361447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.8|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.80|-5.02|0.154
91733578|NCT02757768|183361448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.87|-3.57|0.233
91733579|NCT02757768|183361448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.82|-1.89|0.698
91733580|NCT02757768|183361448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.40|-1.62|0.486
91733581|NCT02757768|183361448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.42|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.42|-2.52|0.968
91733582|NCT02757768|183361449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.78|-4.56|0.165
91733583|NCT02757768|183361449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|3.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.54|-2.02|0.592
91733584|NCT02757768|183361449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.92|-2.12|0.559
91733585|NCT02757768|183361449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|3.0|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.00|-2.94|0.985
91733586|NCT02757768|183361450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.72|-4.35|0.161
91733587|NCT02757768|183361450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.07|-2.36|0.798
91733588|NCT02757768|183361450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.95|-1.61|0.408
91733589|NCT02757768|183361450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.88|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.88|-2.60|0.919
91733590|NCT02757768|183361451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.91|-2.94|0.990
91733591|NCT02757768|183361451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.96|-2.12|0.554
91733592|NCT02757768|183361451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.73|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.73|-1.67|0.348
91869986|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||7.5|-5.8|
91869987|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.4|-5.1|
91905718|NCT04451161|183707436|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.783||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.064|8.915||Mixed model analysis was used (students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if BASIS+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing trauma PTSD symptoms (measured using CPSS-V) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the BASIS group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT reduced trauma-related PTSD symptoms over time, as measured by CPSS-V scores (higher scores indicate greater symptom severity).||8.915|-2.064|0.22
91733593|NCT02757768|183361451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|3.38|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.38|-2.89|0.876
91733594|NCT02757768|183361452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.95|-3.16|0.293
91733595|NCT02757768|183361452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.87|-2.52|0.773
91733596|NCT02757768|183361452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.11|-2.28|0.940
91733597|NCT02757768|183361452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.44|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.44|-2.86|0.516
91733598|NCT02757768|183361453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.4591
91733599|NCT02757768|183361453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.4073
91733600|NCT02757768|183361453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.7740
91733601|NCT02757768|183361453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.5121
91797212|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.41|-0.28|0.710
91869988|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||10.9|-2.8|
91869989|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.1|-9.3|
91869990|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||7.7|-6.1|
91869991|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||10.4|-3.0|
91905719|NCT04451161|183707436|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.774||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|10.443||Mixed model analysis was used (the students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if AC+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing trauma PTSD symptoms (measured using CPSS-V) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the AC group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT reduced trauma-related PTSD symptoms over time, as measured by CPSS-V scores (higher scores indicate greater symptom severity).||10.443|-.502|0.075
91905720|NCT04451161|183707437|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.855|2.904||Mixed model analysis was used (students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if BASIS+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing negative mood and feelings symptoms (measured using SMFQ) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the BASIS group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT decreased children's negative moods and feelings due to their trauma (higher score indicates more negative mood and feelings).||2.904|-.855|0.284
91905721|NCT04451161|183707437|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.951||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.786||Mixed model analysis was used (students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if AC+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing negative mood and feelings symptoms (measured using SMFQ) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the AC group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT decreased children's negative moods and feelings due to their trauma (higher score indicates more negative mood and feelings).||3.786|.03|.046
91905722|NCT03596866|183707438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||=|0.8672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.424||P-value from a 2-sided stratified log-rank test using the stratification factors: presence of intracranial central nervous system (CNS) metastases at baseline, and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|2-sided Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using the stratified Cox regression model with the same stratification factors.|||1.424|0.658|=0.8672
91905723|NCT03596866|183707439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.592|||=|0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|2.652||P-value was based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test using the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Log Rank||The HR was obtained using the stratified Cox regression model with the same stratification factors.|||2.652|0.956|=0.0713
91905724|NCT03596866|183707440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232|||=|0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.761||P-value was based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test using the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Log Rank||The HR was obtained using the stratified Cox regression model with the same stratification factors.|||1.761|0.862|=0.2501
91905725|NCT03596866|183707441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||=|0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.15||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|BIRC Assessed||1.15|0.42|=0.1555
91733602|NCT02757768|183361454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.2|0.223
91733603|NCT02757768|183361454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.2|0.598
91733604|NCT02757768|183361454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.3|0.312
91733605|NCT02757768|183361454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.2|0.525
91869992|NCT02434328|183633805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||10.0|-3.9|
91869993|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.4|-1.6|
91733606|NCT02757768|183361456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.34|-0.08|0.226
91869994|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.1|-2.3|
91869995|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2 mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-1.9|
91869996|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.3|-2.1|
91869997|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.3|-2.0|
91869998|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||2.2|-3.0|
91869999|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.3|-3.0|
91870000|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||2.5|-3.2|
91870001|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||3.3|-2.3|
91870002|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.6|-1.7|
91870003|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.4|-2.7|
91870004|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.2|-3.9|
91870005|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||2.3|-4.3|
91870006|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||3.9|-2.8|
91870007|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.2|-2.5|
91797213|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.59|-0.09|0.152
91733607|NCT02757768|183361456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.28|-0.14|0.501
91733608|NCT02757768|183361456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-0.22|0.984
91733609|NCT02757768|183361456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.18|0.780
91733610|NCT02757768|183361457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.8|-0.7|0.107
91733611|NCT02757768|183361457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|6.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.3|-1.3|0.190
91733612|NCT02757768|183361457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.3|-1.9|0.297
91733613|NCT02757768|183361457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.5|||ANCOVA|||EoT Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.5|-2.7|0.493
91733614|NCT00835367|183361458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|101.84||||||90.0|98.22|105.59|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.59|98.22|
91733615|NCT00835367|183361459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Slope|102.53||||||90.0|99.71|105.44|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.44|99.71|
91870008|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||4.5|-2.7|
91733616|NCT00835367|183361460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.49||||||90.0|99.75|105.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.30|99.75|
91733617|NCT00835367|183361461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|91.79||||||90.0|84.83|99.32|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||99.32|84.83|
91733618|NCT00835367|183361462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|95.85||||||90.0|92.54|99.27|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||99.27|92.54|
91733619|NCT00835367|183361463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.28||||||90.0|98.3|102.3|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only|||102.30|98.30|
91733620|NCT00835367|183361464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.74||||||90.0|100.35|105.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.19|100.35|
91733621|NCT00835367|183361465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.72||||||90.0|100.3|105.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.20|100.30|
91870009|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||2.6|-4.2|
91733622|NCT00835367|183361466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.28||||||90.0|98.25|102.35|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||102.35|98.25|
91733623|NCT00835172|183361467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0||||||90.0|92.1|112.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112|92.1|
91733624|NCT00835172|183361468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|96.8|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105|96.8|
91733625|NCT00835172|183361469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.0||||||90.0|99.3|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|99.3|
91733626|NCT04734210|183361470|OTHER|Exploratory, descriptive analysis||||||0.2933||||||The difference in response rates between each of the SURF-200 formulations and vehicle was compared by Fisher's exact method.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; approximately 120 subjects (approximately 40 subjects per each of the 3 treatment groups) were planned to be enrolled in the study. The sample size was based on medical judgment. No formal sample size calculation was performed, and the sample size was empirical. However, the sample size selected was considered sufficient to adequately characterize the general safety and efficacy profile of the study treatments.||||0.2933
91733627|NCT04734210|183361471|OTHER|Exploratory, descriptive analysis||||||0.1966||||||The difference in response rates between each of the SURF-200 formulations and vehicle was compared by Fisher's exact method.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; approximately 120 subjects (approximately 40 subjects per each of the 3 treatment groups) were planned to be enrolled in the study. The sample size was based on medical judgment. No formal sample size calculation was performed, and the sample size was empirical. However, the sample size selected was considered sufficient to adequately characterize the general safety and efficacy profile of the study treatments.||||0.1966
91733628|NCT04734210|183361472|OTHER|Exploratory, descriptive analysis||||||0.0213||||||The difference in response rates between each of the SURF-200 formulations and vehicle was compared by Fisher's exact method.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; approximately 120 subjects (approximately 40 subjects per each of the 3 treatment groups) were planned to be enrolled in the study. The sample size was based on medical judgment. No formal sample size calculation was performed, and the sample size was empirical. However, the sample size selected was considered sufficient to adequately characterize the general safety and efficacy profile of the study treatments.||||0.0213
91733629|NCT04023045|183361476|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
91733630|NCT04023045|183361477|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
91733631|NCT04023045|183361478|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
91733632|NCT04023045|183361479|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
91733633|NCT04023045|183361480|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
91870010|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.5|-2.5|
91870011|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.4|-2.5|
91870012|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||4.6|-2.4|
91733634|NCT04023045|183361481|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
91733635|NCT04023045|183361482|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
91733636|NCT04023045|183361483|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
91733637|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.951|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.951
91733638|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.458
91733639|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.071
91733640|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91733641|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.029
91733642|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.325
91733643|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91733644|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91733645|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.427
91733646|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.065
91733647|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91733648|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.027
91733649|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.303
91733650|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91733651|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91733652|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.286
91733653|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91733654|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.094
91733655|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.757
91733656|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.022
91733657|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91733658|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91733659|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.348
91733660|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.508
91733661|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.191
91733662|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
91733663|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.169
91733664|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.961|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.961
91733665|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.454
91733666|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91733667|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.068
91733668|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
91733669|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91733670|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.370
91733671|NCT02314923|183361513|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91733672|NCT02008617|183361518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91733673|NCT02008617|183361519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Rest||||0.86
91797214|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.24|-0.44|0.572
91733674|NCT02008617|183361519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plantar Flexion||||0.89
91733675|NCT02008617|183361520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91733676|NCT02008617|183361521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
91733677|NCT00976456|183361522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimation was that in the pemetrexed-carboplatin plus bevacizumab Arm the median PFS will be 5.5 months. A median PFS of 4 months (5.5 - 27%) had been regarded non-inferior. Assuming the accrual period of 24 months and the whole study duration of 42 months, 246 patients had to be recruited. According to the fact, that the required statistical power of 80% will be reached by occurrence of altogether 227 events, the final analysis was done at this time point.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|1.682|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.682|0.989|0.0583
91733678|NCT00976456|183361523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimation was that in the pemetrexed-carboplatin plus bevacizumab Arm the median PFS will be 5.5 months. A median PFS of 4 months (5.5 - 27%) had been regarded non-inferior. Assuming the accrual period of 24 months and the whole study duration of 42 months, 246 patients had to be recruited. According to the fact, that the required statistical power of 80% will be reached by occurrence of altogether 227 events, the final analysis was done at this time Point.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.499|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.499|0.794|0.3869
91733679|NCT00806585|183361525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.1||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.8|-3.1|0.253
91733680|NCT00806585|183361525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.1||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.9|-2.1|0.919
91733681|NCT00806585|183361525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.2||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.8|-2.2|0.829
91733682|NCT00806585|183361525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.1||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.2|-4.5|0.074
91733683|NCT00806585|183361525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.0||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||3.3|-1.3|0.393
91733684|NCT00806585|183361525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|2.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.4|-0.3|0.088
91733685|NCT00806585|183361525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.9||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.3|-0.4|0.108
91733686|NCT00806585|183361526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.9||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.1|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.1|-4.0|0.543
91733687|NCT00806585|183361526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.8||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.3|-4.9|0.246
91733688|NCT00806585|183361526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.4||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.7|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.7|-3.5|0.821
91733689|NCT00806585|183361526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-3.3|-10.7|<0.001
91733690|NCT00806585|183361526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|6.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||9.8|2.4|0.001
91797215|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.51|0.337
91702374|NCT00772005|183299671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9472||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9472
91870013|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.1|-3.1|
91870014|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.6|-3.5|
91870015|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||3.3|-3.8|
91870016|NCT02434328|183633806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||3.3|-3.8|
91870017|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.6|-2.6|
91870018|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.1|-2.2|
91870019|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-2.8|
91870020|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||1.7|-4.4|
91870021|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||4.9|-1.7|
91870022|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||2.8|-3.9|
91870023|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||3.8|-3.2|
91870024|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.5|-3.8|
91870025|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.2|-3.0|
91870026|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.1|-2.4|
91870027|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||6.5|-1.1|
91870028|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.3|-4.0|
91870029|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.7|-2.8|
91797216|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.52|-0.16|0.299
91797217|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.14|-0.82|0.005
91797218|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.38|-1.05|<0.001
91797219|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.25|<0.001
91797220|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.23|<0.001
91797221|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.57|0.177
91797222|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.76|0.014
91797223|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.52|0.286
91797224|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.33|0.952
91870030|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.5|-2.8|
91870031|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference of proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.7|-2.6|
91870032|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||4.3|-4.0|
91870033|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.6|-4.2|
91870034|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||3.7|-4.0|
91702375|NCT00772005|183299671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8335||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8335
91797225|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.21|-0.95|0.002
91797226|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.20|-0.94|0.003
91797227|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.52|-1.26|<0.001
91797228|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.55|-1.29|<0.001
91797229|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.36|0.972
91797230|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.69|0.096
91797231|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.72|0.069
91797232|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.39|0.902
91905726|NCT03596866|183707441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||=|0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.9||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Investigator Assessed||0.90|0.33|=0.0169
91905727|NCT03596866|183707444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||=|0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.84||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator at randomization per IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was stratified by best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator at randomization per IXRS.|||3.84|0.44|=0.6246
91905728|NCT03596866|183707446|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0778||||||P-value from a 2-sided stratified Gray's test using the stratification factors (at randomization per IxRS): presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline, and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Gray's Test|P-value is for the event type: Intracranial Disease Progression without Prior Systemic Progression or Death.||||||=0.0778
91905729|NCT04770532|183707449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec minus insulin degludec) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region and personal continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||-0.08|-0.37|<0.0001
91905730|NCT01431274|183707464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.146|0.100|<0.0001
91905731|NCT01431274|183707464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.14||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.140|0.094|<0.0001
91905732|NCT01431274|183707464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.132||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.132|0.086|<0.0001
91905733|NCT01431274|183707464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.116||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.116|0.070|<0.0001
91905734|NCT01431274|183707464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.080|<0.0001
91905735|NCT01431274|183707464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.037||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.037|-0.008|0.2169
91905736|NCT01431274|183707464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.13||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.130|0.085|<0.0001
91905737|NCT01431274|183707464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.029||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.029|-0.017|0.5849
91905738|NCT01431274|183707464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.039|-0.007|0.1863
91905739|NCT01431274|183707464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.014||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.014|-0.032|0.4352
91905740|NCT01431274|183707465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.106||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.106|0.059|<.0001
91905741|NCT01431274|183707465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.094||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.094|0.047|<0.0001
91905742|NCT01431274|183707465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.081||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.081|0.034|<0.0001
91905743|NCT01431274|183707465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.052|0.005|0.0174
91905744|NCT01431274|183707465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.070|0.023|0.0001
91905745|NCT01431274|183707465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.048||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.048|0.001|0.0407
91905746|NCT01431274|183707465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.077||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.077|0.030|<0.0001
91905747|NCT01431274|183707465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.035|-0.012|0.3326
91905748|NCT01431274|183707465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.053||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.053|0.006|0.0151
91905749|NCT01431274|183707465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.006||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.006|-0.041|0.1421
91905750|NCT01431274|183707466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|-0.608||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.608|-2.778|0.0022
91733691|NCT00806585|183361526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|5.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||8.9|1.5|0.006
91733692|NCT00806585|183361526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||10.4|3.0|<0.001
91905751|NCT01431274|183707466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.313|-0.153||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.153|-2.313|0.0252
91905752|NCT01431274|183707466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.113|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.052|-2.113|0.0620
91905753|NCT01431274|183707466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|0.618||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.618|-1.531|0.4051
91905754|NCT01431274|183707466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.649|0.507||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.507|-1.649|0.2988
91905755|NCT01431274|183707466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.731|0.407||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.407|-1.731|0.2249
91905756|NCT01431274|183707466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.195|-0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.042|-2.195|0.0418
91905757|NCT01431274|183707466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.552|0.633||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg)~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.633|-1.552|0.4097
91905758|NCT01431274|183707466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.664|0.515||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.515|-1.664|0.3013
91905759|NCT01431274|183707466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.2||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.200|-0.970|0.8355
91905760|NCT01431274|183707467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.684||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.684|0.155|0.0019
91905761|NCT01431274|183707467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.619||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.619|0.092|0.0082
91905762|NCT01431274|183707467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.681||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.681|0.152|0.0020
91905763|NCT01431274|183707467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.554||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.554|0.027|0.0307
91733693|NCT00806585|183361527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.4||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|5.5|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||5.5|-8.3|0.684
91733694|NCT00806585|183361527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.8||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.7|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||8.7|-5.0|0.597
91733695|NCT00806585|183361527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.9||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|5.8|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||5.8|-7.6|0.793
91733696|NCT00806585|183361527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.8||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|9.2|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||9.2|-7.6|0.854
91733697|NCT00806585|183361528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.5|-3.2|0.006
91870035|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.7|-3.5|
91870036|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.4|-4.5|
91870037|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.5|-3.6|
91733698|NCT00806585|183361528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.6|-3.3|0.004
91733699|NCT00806585|183361528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diffference in least squares means|-1.3||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.1|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.1|-2.6|0.066
91733700|NCT00806585|183361528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.6|-3.7|0.008
91733701|NCT00806585|183361529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.18||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.07|-0.44|0.152
91733702|NCT00806585|183361529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least sqaures means|-0.28||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.02|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.02|-0.54|0.035
91870038|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.6|-4.5|
91870039|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||2.6|-5.7|
91733703|NCT00806585|183361529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.22||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.04|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.04|-0.48|0.095
91733704|NCT00806585|183361529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.01|-0.63|0.045
91733705|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.56||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|14.72||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Foreign body sensation - Left eye||14.72|2.41|0.0129
91733706|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.58||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.45||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Foreign body sensation - Right eye||13.45|1.70|0.0077
91733707|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|9.62||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Burning/ Stinging - Left eye||9.62|-1.64|0.1589
91733708|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|8.35||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Burning/ Stinging - Right eye||8.35|-2.78|0.3167
91733709|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.96||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Itching - Left eye||3.96|-7.64|0.5243
91733710|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|6.82||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Itching - Right eye||6.82|-4.45|0.6714
91733711|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|0.53||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Pain - Left eye||0.53|-8.31|0.0828
91733712|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|3.62||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Pain - Right eye||3.62|-4.77|0.7823
91797233|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.22|-0.93|0.002
91797234|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.61|-1.33|<0.001
91797235|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.66|-1.38|<0.001
91797236|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.84|-1.55|<0.001
91797237|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.75|0.028
91733713|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.93||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.7||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Sticky feeling - Left eye||9.70|0.16|0.0432
91797238|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.81|0.013
91797239|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.58|0.217
91797240|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.53|0.351
91797241|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.28|-1.05|<0.001
91797242|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.45|-1.22|<0.001
91797243|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.62|-1.38|<0.001
91733714|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.35||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.0||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Sticky feeling - Right eye||11.00|1.70|0.0088
91733715|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.28||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|14.66||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Blurred vision - Left eye||14.66|3.90|0.0013
91733716|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.31||||0.00629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|10.92||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Blurred vision - Right eye||10.92|-0.30|0.00629
91733717|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|15.95||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Photophobia - Left eye||15.95|3.89|0.0020
91733718|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.95||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|13.97||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Photophobia - Right eye||13.97|1.93|0.0111
91733719|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.67||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|62.56||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Total score ocular tolerability - Left eye||62.56|0.78|0.0448
91733720|NCT02507934|183361530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.36||||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|56.37||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Total score ocular tolerability - Right eye||56.37|-3.66|0.0834
91733721|NCT02507934|183361532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.2317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.57|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Left eye - Day 7 ±1||0.57|-0.14|0.2317
91733722|NCT02507934|183361532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.6017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.41|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Right eye - Day 7 ±1||0.41|-0.70|0.6017
91733723|NCT02507934|183361532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.36|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Left eye - Day 14 ±1||1.36|0.11|0.0232
91733724|NCT02507934|183361532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.17|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Right eye - Day 14 ±1||1.17|0.03|0.0398
91733725|NCT02507934|183361532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.74|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Left eye - Day 21 ±1||1.74|0.36|0.0038
91733726|NCT02507934|183361532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.33|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - right eye||1.33|0.17|0.0135
91733727|NCT02507934|183361533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.83|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Left eye - Day 7±1||1.83|-0.66|0.3442
91733728|NCT02507934|183361533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.49|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Right eye - Day 7±1||1.49|-1.99|0.7720
91733729|NCT02507934|183361533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.44|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Left eye - Day 14±1||1.44|-1.49|0.9725
91733730|NCT02507934|183361533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.2111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.81|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.81|-3.54|0.2111
91733731|NCT02507934|183361533|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|0.86|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Left eye - Day 21±1||0.86|-3.06|0.2629
91733732|NCT02507934|183361533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.2862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.1|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Right eye - 21±1||1.10|-3.60|0.2862
91733733|NCT02507934|183361534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.24||||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|29.14|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Frequency - Day 7±1||29.14|-6.66|0.2075
91733734|NCT02507934|183361534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.16||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|35.76|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Frequency - Day 14±1||35.76|0.57|0.0435
91733735|NCT02507934|183361534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.58||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|41.93|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Frequency - Day 21±1||41.93|5.24|0.0133
91733736|NCT02507934|183361535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|21.69|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Severity - Day 7±1||21.69|-12.98|0.6130
91733737|NCT02507934|183361535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|28.18|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Severity - Day 14±1||28.18|-2.78|0.1047
91733738|NCT02507934|183361535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|30.04|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Severity - Day 21±1||30.04|-3.24|0.1108
91733739|NCT02507934|183361536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.81|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Left eye - Day 7±1||0.81|-0.40|0.4980
91797244|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.80|-1.57|<0.001
91905764|NCT01431274|183707467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.616||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.616|0.089|0.0088
91733740|NCT02507934|183361536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.83|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Right eye - Day 7±1||0.83|-0.18|0.1986
91733741|NCT02507934|183361536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.37|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Left eye - Day 14±1||0.37|-0.90|0.4067
91733742|NCT02507934|183361536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.5256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.42|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.42|-0.81|0.5256
91733743|NCT02507934|183361536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.17|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Left eye - Day 21±1||0.17|-1.12|0.1471
91733744|NCT02507934|183361536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.25|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Right eye - Day 21±1||0.25|-0.96|0.2455
91733745|NCT02507934|183361537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.85|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Left eye - Day 7±1||0.85|-1.98|0.4233
91733746|NCT02507934|183361537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.69|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Right eye - Day 7±1||1.69|-1.04|0.6335
91733747|NCT02507934|183361537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.51|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Left eye - Day 14±1||-0.51|-3.56|0.0103
91733748|NCT02507934|183361537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.27|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.27|-2.95|0.1006
91733749|NCT02507934|183361537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-0.85|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Left eye - Day 21±1||-0.85|-4.15|0.0041
91733750|NCT02507934|183361537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.06|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Right eye - Day 21±1||-0.06|-3.67|0.0429
91733751|NCT02507934|183361538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.2338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.19|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Left eye - Day 7±1||0.19|-0.75|0.2338
91733752|NCT02507934|183361538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.19|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Right eye - Day 7±1||0.19|-0.58|0.3081
91733753|NCT02507934|183361538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|5.74|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Left eye - Day 14±1||5.74|-2.57|0.4287
91733754|NCT02507934|183361538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|5.44|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Right eye - Day 14±1||5.44|-3.14|0.5765
91733755|NCT02507934|183361538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.15|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Left eye - Day 21±1||-0.15|-2.18|0.0259
91733756|NCT02507934|183361538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.37|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Right eye - Day 21±1||0.37|-2.23|0.1496
91733757|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Right - Day 7±1||||0.2342
91733758|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8874|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Left - Day 7±1||||0.8874
91733759|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 7±1||||0.0504
91733760|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Left - Day 7±1||||0.0814
91733761|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733762|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3855|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Left - Day 7±1||||0.3855
91733763|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733764|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733765|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4754|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Right - Day 7±1||||0.4754
91733766|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Left - Day 7±1||||0.2914
91870040|NCT02434328|183633807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||3.2|-4.9|
91870041|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.5|-3.5|
91870042|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.4|-4.4|
91870043|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.1|-5.0|
91905765|NCT01431274|183707467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.266||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.266|-0.259|0.9801
91905766|NCT01431274|183707467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.557||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.557|0.030|0.0289
91905767|NCT01431274|183707467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.6382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.33||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.330|-0.202|0.6382
91905768|NCT01431274|183707467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.3525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.391||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.391|-0.140|0.3525
91905769|NCT01431274|183707467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.203|-0.327|0.6457
91905770|NCT01431274|183707468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.056||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.056|0.009|0.0067
91905771|NCT01431274|183707468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.104|0.057|<0.0001
91905772|NCT01431274|183707468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.045||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.045|-0.002|0.0746
91797245|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.55|0.389
91905773|NCT01431274|183707468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.101||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.101|0.054|<0.0001
91733767|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733768|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733769|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733770|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733771|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733772|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733773|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733774|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91797246|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.72|0.087
91870044|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.2|-1.9|
91733775|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733776|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733777|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733778|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
91733779|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Right - Day 14±1||||0.2429
91733780|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5707|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Left - Day 14±1||||0.5707
91733781|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 14±1||||0.0092
91733782|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Left - Day 14±1||||0.0039
91733783|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Right - Day 14±1||||0.2882
91733784|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Left - Day 14±1||||0.4017
91733785|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91733786|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91733787|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0731|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Right - Day 14±1||||0.0731
91797247|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.74|0.072
91733788|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Left - Day 14±1||||0.0020
91733789|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91733790|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91797248|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.20|-0.57|0.340
91733791|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91733792|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91733793|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91733794|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91870045|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.8|-0.4|
91870046|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Number of subjects with \>=5 letter loss from baseline in BCVA (letters read) at each post-baseline visit - Week 24||7.8|-1.3|
91733795|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91733796|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91733797|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91733798|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91733799|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91733800|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91733801|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Right - Day 21±1||||0.1376
91733802|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Left - Day 21±1||||0.3252
91733803|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.0111
91733804|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.0049
91733805|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.1178
91733806|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Left - Day 21±1||||0.9042
91733807|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
91733808|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
91733809|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.0253
91733810|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Left - Day 21±1||||0.0016
91733811|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
91733812|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
91733813|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Right - Day 21±1||||0.3165
91733814|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Left - Day 21±1||||0.3165
91733815|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
91733816|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
91733817|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
91733818|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
91797249|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.06|<0.001
91733819|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
91733820|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
91733821|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
91905774|NCT01431274|183707468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.093||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.093|0.046|<0.0001
91733822|NCT02507934|183361539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
91733823|NCT02507934|183361540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.29|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Left eye - Day 7±1||2.29|-0.05|0.0599
91702376|NCT00772005|183299671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5674||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5674
91702377|NCT00772005|183299672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3536||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3536
91702378|NCT00772005|183299672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1940
91702379|NCT00772005|183299672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2129||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2129
91702380|NCT00772005|183299673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5840
91702381|NCT00772005|183299673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6028||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6028
91702382|NCT00772005|183299673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1426||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1426
91702383|NCT00772005|183299674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5989||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5989
91702384|NCT00772005|183299674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7411||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7411
91702385|NCT00772005|183299674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1566||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1566
91702386|NCT00772005|183299675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2610
91702387|NCT00772005|183299675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4457||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4457
91702388|NCT00772005|183299675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1342||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1342
91702389|NCT00772005|183299676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0974||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0974
91702390|NCT00772005|183299676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6640
91702391|NCT00772005|183299676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1507||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1507
91702392|NCT00772005|183299677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7649||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7649
91702393|NCT00772005|183299677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4866||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4866
91702394|NCT00772005|183299677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5002
91870047|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||7.3|-1.7|
91870048|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.9|-3.2|
91797250|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.39|-1.11|<0.001
91797251|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.69|-1.42|<0.001
91797252|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.87|-1.59|<0.001
91870049|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||8.3|-0.7|
91870050|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.6|-3.8|
91905775|NCT01431274|183707468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.035|-0.013|0.3549
91905776|NCT01431274|183707468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.113|0.065|<0.0001
91905777|NCT01431274|183707468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.025||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.025|-0.072|<0.0001
91905778|NCT01431274|183707468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.033|-0.080|<0.0001
91905779|NCT01431274|183707468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.032||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.032|-0.016|0.5018
91870051|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.0|-1.4|
91870052|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.7|-5.1|
91870053|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||6.7|-2.5|
91905780|NCT01431274|183707469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.152||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.152|0.104|<0.0001
91905781|NCT01431274|183707469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.15||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.150|0.102|<0.0001
91905782|NCT01431274|183707469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.135||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.135|0.087|<0.0001
91905783|NCT01431274|183707469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.12||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.120|0.072|<0.0001
91905784|NCT01431274|183707469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.133||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.133|0.085|<0.0001
91905785|NCT01431274|183707469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.041||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.041|-0.007|0.1569
91905786|NCT01431274|183707469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.137||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.137|0.089|<0.0001
91905787|NCT01431274|183707469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.8834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.026||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.026|-0.022|0.8834
91905788|NCT01431274|183707469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.039|-0.009|0.2129
91905789|NCT01431274|183707469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.01||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.010|-0.037|0.2702
91905790|NCT01431274|183707470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.166||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.166|0.117|<0.0001
91733824|NCT02507934|183361540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.3969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.66|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Right eye - Day 7±1||1.66|-0.68|0.3969
91733825|NCT02507934|183361540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.7225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.84|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Left eye - Day 14±1||1.84|-1.29|0.7225
91733826|NCT02507934|183361540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.62|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.62|-2.14|0.2690
91905791|NCT01431274|183707470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.139|0.090|<0.0001
91905792|NCT01431274|183707470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.143||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.143|0.094|<0.0001
91870054|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.4|-2.8|
91870055|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.8|-3.6|
91905793|NCT01431274|183707470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.123||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.123|0.074|<0.0001
91905794|NCT01431274|183707470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.117||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.117|0.067|<0.0001
91905795|NCT01431274|183707470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.047|-0.002|0.0717
91905796|NCT01431274|183707470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.146|0.097|<0.0001
91905797|NCT01431274|183707470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.051||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.051|0.002|0.0344
91905798|NCT01431274|183707470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.045||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.045|-0.005|0.1126
91905799|NCT01431274|183707470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.031||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.031|-0.018|0.6009
91905800|NCT01431274|183707471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.096||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.096|0.049|<0.0001
91733827|NCT02507934|183361540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.1|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Left eye - Day 21±1||2.10|-0.53|0.2344
91733828|NCT02507934|183361540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.24|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Right eye||2.24|-1.30|0.5953
91733829|NCT02507934|183361541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.11|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 7||2.11|-0.54|0.2193
91905801|NCT01431274|183707471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.087||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.087|0.039|<0.0001
91733830|NCT02507934|183361541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.18|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 8||2.18|0.51|0.0024
91733831|NCT02507934|183361541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.14|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 9||1.14|-0.49|0.4250
91870056|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.4|-4.0|
91733832|NCT02507934|183361541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.1275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.29|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 10||1.29|-0.17|0.1275
91733833|NCT02507934|183361541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.42|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 11||1.42|-0.09|0.0844
91733834|NCT02507934|183361541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.6|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 12||1.60|0.12|0.0238
91733835|NCT02507934|183361541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.61|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 13||1.61|0.05|0.0369
91733836|NCT02507934|183361541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.64|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 14||1.64|-0.61|0.3496
91733837|NCT03766399|183361566|OTHER||LS means difference|-0.44||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|12.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2||12.0|-12.9|0.9511
91733838|NCT03766399|183361566|OTHER||LS means difference|-7.87||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.3|4.59|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||4.59|-20.3|0.2849
91733839|NCT03766399|183361566|OTHER||LS means difference|-8.31||||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|4.14|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||4.14|-20.8|0.2595
91733840|NCT03766399|183361566|OTHER||LS means difference|-3.04||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|2.51|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Vs Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Placebo||2.51|-8.60|0.3604
91733841|NCT03766399|183361567|OTHER||LS means difference|-25.4||||0.7544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-166.0|115.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2||115|-166|0.7544
91733842|NCT03766399|183361567|OTHER||LS means difference|-73.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-214.0|67.6|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||67.6|-214|0.3750
91733843|NCT03766399|183361567|OTHER||LS means difference|-98.7||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-240.0|42.3|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||42.3|-240|0.2377
91733844|NCT03766399|183361567|OTHER||LS means difference|-50.4||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-102.0|1.61|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Vs Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Placebo||1.61|-102|0.1105
91733845|NCT03331354|183361568|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.87|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.016
91733846|NCT03331354|183361569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|Initial interview scores were used as control in the ANCOVA||||||.008
91733847|NCT03331354|183361570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|Change in confidence was evaluated using time one as a covariate.||||||.99
91733848|NCT03331354|183361570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|Interview scores at enrollment were used as a covariate||||||.99
91733849|NCT03331354|183361571|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Pearson Correlation|||This post-hoc analysis was performed on only the COMPASS group to determine the association between percent of the online system completed and change in interview scores||||<.001
91733850|NCT05889468|183361574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test, a non-parametric test, was used since the empirical distribution of data did not follow the normality assumption.||This was an intention-to-treat analysis.||||0.49
91733851|NCT05889468|183361575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||0.32
91733852|NCT05889468|183361577|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||>0.99
91733853|NCT05889468|183361578|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||>0.99
91733854|NCT05468918|183361581|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91733855|NCT05468918|183361582|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
91733856|NCT01251757|183361640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.034|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.034|0.011|<.001
91733857|NCT01251757|183361640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.042|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.042|0.019|<.001
91759502|NCT02391363|183411753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.92. (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month GAD-7, controlling for baseline GAD-7.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.34
91733858|NCT01251757|183361641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.029|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant was taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, baseline ACEI/ARB adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.029|0.002|0.022
91733859|NCT01251757|183361641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.05|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant was taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, baseline ACEI/ARB adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.050|0.023|<.001
91733860|NCT01251757|183361642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.24||Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.24|1.05|0.002
91733861|NCT01251757|183361642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.26||Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.26|1.06|<0.001
91733862|NCT01251757|183361643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.23||adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant was taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, baseline ACEI/ARB adherence|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.23|1.02|0.014
91733863|NCT01251757|183361643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.32||Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.32|1.10|<0.001
91733864|NCT01251757|183361644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||0.0|-1.0|.041
91733865|NCT01251757|183361644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||.5|-.5|.93
91733866|NCT01251757|183361645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||1.19|0.93|.404
91733867|NCT01251757|183361645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||1.09|.85|.54
91797253|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.42|0.762
91870057|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.4|-2.8|
91870058|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.7|-4.3|
91870059|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||5.8|-4.4|
91870060|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.6|-6.0|
91870061|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.5|-5.2|
91870062|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.6|-5.7|
91870063|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||3.4|-6.5|
91870064|NCT02434328|183633808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.8|-5.1|
91870065|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.6|-9.2|
91870066|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.7|-8.1|
91870067|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.5|-8.4|
91870068|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.7|-5.4|
91870069|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||4.0|-8.2|
91870070|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.3|-9.0|
91870071|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.5|-9.3|
91870072|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||2.8|-9.6|
91797254|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.72|0.056
91870073|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||2.2|-9.6|
91733868|NCT01251757|183361646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL subgroups.||0.7|-1.8|.38
91733869|NCT01251757|183361646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.|MeanLDL levels were sig lower for IVR+ participants than for UC participants. In subgroup analyses this difference was most pronounced in those individuals with baseline LDL levels above 100 mg/dL (adj diff=-3.6 mg/dL, 95%CI= (-5.9, -1.3), p=.002).|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL level subgroups.||-0.2|-2.7|.019
91733870|NCT01251757|183361647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL level subgroups.||1.13|0.93|.59
91733871|NCT01251757|183361647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.22||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.|Though higher for the IVR+ group, LDL control did not differ significantly between the IVR+ and UC arms. Among those with poor initial control, however, control was sig better for the IVR+ arm (OR = 1.21, 95%CI = (1.04, 1.42), p=.015).|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL level subgroups.||1.22|1.00|.058
91733872|NCT02284893|183361648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0008
91733873|NCT02284893|183361649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.175||0.0034|||||||Regression, Logistic|the analysis was by Zhang et.al. method with adjustment for baseline A1c.The measure of interest is NOT odds ratio but Risk Difference.||||||0.0034
91733874|NCT02284893|183361650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2891||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
91733875|NCT02284893|183361651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.682||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
91733876|NCT04992065|183361691|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-31.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.02|-20.87|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-20.87|-43.02|<.0001
91733877|NCT04992065|183361691|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-44.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.04|-33.79|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-33.79|-56.04|<.0001
91733878|NCT04992065|183361691|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.94|-50.72|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-50.72|-72.94|<.0001
91733879|NCT04992065|183361691|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|33.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.16|44.47||||||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||44.47|22.16|
91870074|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.2|-7.6|
91733880|NCT04992065|183361691|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|20.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|31.48||||||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||31.48|9.21|
91733881|NCT04992065|183361691|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|14.68||||||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||14.68|-7.81|
91733882|NCT00663260|183361717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1448||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.37|0.561
91870075|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.0|-7.5|
91733883|NCT00663260|183361717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1457||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.17||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.40|0.435
91733884|NCT00663260|183361718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|2.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||2.4|-29.7|
91733885|NCT00663260|183361718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.0||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||7.0|-25.0|
91733886|NCT00663260|183361719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4435|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.94||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-2.68|
91733887|NCT00663260|183361719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4395|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.29||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-3.03|
91733888|NCT04562090|183361743|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-3.16||Repeated Measures Analysis (RMA): CFB as response, treatment group (TG), visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.16|-4.30|<0.001
91733889|NCT04562090|183361746|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-1.99||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.99|-3.25|<0.001
91733890|NCT04562090|183361746|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-2.02||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.02|-2.93|<0.001
91797255|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.84|0.010
91797256|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.54|0.335
91733891|NCT04562090|183361746|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-2.3||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.30|-3.96|<0.001
91733892|NCT04562090|183361746|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-2.47||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.47|-3.39|<0.001
91733893|NCT04562090|183361746|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-2.56||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.56|-4.37|<0.001
91733894|NCT04562090|183361746|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-3.12||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.12|-4.06|<0.001
91733895|NCT04562090|183361747|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.44||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.44|-0.88|<0.001
91733896|NCT04562090|183361747|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.65||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.65|-0.97|<0.001
91797257|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.38|-1.18|<0.001
91797258|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.44|-1.24|<0.001
91797259|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.46|-1.25|<0.001
91870076|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.1|-5.4|
91870077|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.5|-7.7|
91870078|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.0|-7.7|
91870079|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||1.4|-10.8|
91870080|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||3.2|-8.9|
91870081|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||2.9|-9.5|
91870082|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.5|-7.9|
91870083|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.1|-8.1|
91870084|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.6|-5.6|
91870085|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||3.8|-8.3|
91870086|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.5|-7.4|
91870087|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.8|-6.5|
91870088|NCT02434328|183633809|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.1|-8.1|
91870089|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||-2.9|-32.6|
91870090|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-13.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||-13.4|-45.6|
91870091|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-13.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-13.7|-46.9|
91870092|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-21.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||-21.6|-58.9|
91870093|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|15.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||15.0|-20.9|
91797260|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.73|-1.52|<0.001
91797261|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.46|0.782
91797262|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.47|0.719
91797263|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.69|0.158
91797264|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.67|0.183
91797265|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.90|0.004
91870094|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-47.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.3|-29.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||-29.3|-66.3|
91870095|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||-5.4|-42.0|
91905802|NCT01431274|183707471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.070|0.023|0.0001
91797266|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.05|<0.001
91797267|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.48|-1.20|<0.001
91905803|NCT01431274|183707471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.054|0.007|0.0122
91797268|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.76|-1.48|<0.001
91797269|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.21|-0.51|0.408
91870096|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|-15.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||-15.0|-52.4|
91797270|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.67|0.097
91797271|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.79|0.018
91797272|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.64|0.132
91797273|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.26|-1.08|0.001
91797274|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.25|-1.07|0.002
91797275|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.37|-1.19|<0.001
91733897|NCT04562090|183361747|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.58||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.58|-1.17|<0.001
91733898|NCT04562090|183361747|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.78||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.78|-1.10|<0.001
91733899|NCT04562090|183361747|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.71||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.71|-1.35|<0.001
91733900|NCT04562090|183361747|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.81||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.81|-1.14|<0.001
91733901|NCT04562090|183361748|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.37||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.37|-0.58|<0.001
91733902|NCT04562090|183361748|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.38||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.38|-0.53|<0.001
91733903|NCT04562090|183361748|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.39||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.39|-0.67|<0.001
91733904|NCT04562090|183361748|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.37||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.37|-0.52|<0.001
91733905|NCT04562090|183361748|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.38||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.38|-0.68|<0.001
91733906|NCT04562090|183361748|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.45||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.45|-0.60|<0.001
91733907|NCT04562090|183361749|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.9||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.90|-1.31|<0.001
91870097|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-12.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||-12.9|-48.0|
91870098|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-44.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|-25.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||-25.9|-63.5|
91733908|NCT04562090|183361749|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.96||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.96|-1.25|<0.001
91733909|NCT04562090|183361749|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.99||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.99|-1.53|<0.001
91797276|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.55|-1.37|<0.001
91797277|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.42|-0.40|0.959
91797278|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.31|-0.51|0.618
91797279|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.11|-0.71|0.149
91797280|NCT00809354|183473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.22|-0.60|0.370
91797281|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.33|0.887
91797282|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.62|0.046
91797283|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.26|0.771
91797284|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.64|0.03|0.032
91797285|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.54|-0.13|0.223
91797286|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.39|0.718
91797287|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.45|0.495
91870099|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||-1.1|-37.3|
91870100|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-49.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-30.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-30.9|-68.9|
91797288|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.49|-0.18|0.371
91870101|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||-10.4|-45.8|
91870102|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-43.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-23.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||-23.7|-62.4|
91797289|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.40|0.647
91797290|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.62|0.073
91797291|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.55|0.161
91797292|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.33|0.961
91797293|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.42|0.697
91797294|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.62|0.139
91870103|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.5|-12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||-12.8|-49.5|
91870104|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|-26.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||-26.8|-64.9|
91733910|NCT04562090|183361749|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-1.05||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.05|-1.34|<0.001
91733911|NCT04562090|183361749|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.96||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.96|-1.54|<0.001
91733912|NCT04562090|183361749|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-1.12||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.12|-1.42|<0.001
91733913|NCT04562090|183361750|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.43||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.43|-3.50|<0.001
91733914|NCT04562090|183361750|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-2.65||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.65|-3.44|<0.001
91733915|NCT04562090|183361750|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-4.39||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-4.39|-5.80|<0.001
91733916|NCT04562090|183361750|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.9||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-3.90|-4.70|<0.001
91733917|NCT04562090|183361750|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-5.24||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-5.24|-6.78|<0.001
91733918|NCT04562090|183361750|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-4.98||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-4.98|-5.82|<0.001
91733919|NCT04562090|183361751|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.21||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.21|-2.73|<0.001
91733920|NCT04562090|183361751|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.81||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.81|-2.90|<0.001
91733921|NCT04562090|183361751|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.2||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.20|-4.20|<0.001
91733922|NCT04562090|183361751|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-2.37||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.37|-3.47|<0.001
91733923|NCT00432965|183361753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.02|||Fisher Exact|||Time Frame: Days 0-114||3.02|1.19|0.007
91733924|NCT01903863|183361755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91733925|NCT01903863|183361756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Intracranial hemorrhage|Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
91733926|NCT01903863|183361756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Surgical bleed|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
91733927|NCT01903863|183361756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Gastrointestinal hemorrhage|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
91733928|NCT01903863|183361757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91733929|NCT01903863|183361758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91870105|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||-5.4|-42.0|
91905804|NCT01431274|183707471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.061||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.061|0.014|0.0021
91870106|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.4|-28.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||-28.3|-66.4|
91905805|NCT01431274|183707471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.049||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.049|0.002|0.0347
91905806|NCT01431274|183707471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.08||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.080|0.032|<0.0001
91905807|NCT01431274|183707471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.4407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.033|-0.014|0.4407
91905808|NCT01431274|183707471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.040|-0.007|0.1777
91905809|NCT01431274|183707471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.017||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.017|-0.031|0.5641
91905810|NCT01431274|183707472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.104|0.057|<0.0001
91905811|NCT01431274|183707472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.099||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.099|0.051|<0.0001
91905812|NCT01431274|183707472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.062||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.062|0.014|0.0018
91905813|NCT01431274|183707472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.047|-0.000|0.0517
91905814|NCT01431274|183707472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.056||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.056|0.009|0.0072
91702395|NCT00772005|183299678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2076
91797295|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.64|0.120
91797296|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.44|0.637
91797297|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.72|0.028
91797298|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.74|0.024
91797299|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.51|0.339
91797300|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.50|0.381
91797301|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.51|0.438
91870107|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||-9.5|-46.5|
91870108|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4|-21.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||-21.4|-60.4|
91870109|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-12.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||-12.4|-49.6|
91870110|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.9|-23.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||-23.3|-61.9|
91870111|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||-10.3|-47.9|
91733930|NCT01903863|183361759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91733931|NCT01903863|183361760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91797302|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.66|0.111
91797303|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.72|0.059
91797304|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.57|0.282
91797305|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.37|0.927
91870112|NCT02434328|183633810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-23.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-23.3|-62.0|
91733932|NCT01903863|183361761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91733933|NCT01903863|183361762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91733934|NCT03909971|183361790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91733935|NCT05318287|183361849|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.083
91733936|NCT05318287|183361850|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.010
91733937|NCT05318287|183361851|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.160
91733938|NCT05318287|183361852|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.167
91733939|NCT05318287|183361853|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.012
91733940|NCT05318287|183361854|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.347
91733941|NCT05318287|183361855|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
91733942|NCT05318287|183361856|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91733943|NCT05318287|183361857|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.403|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.403
91733944|NCT05318287|183361858|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.194|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.194
91733945|NCT03537508|183361905|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|8.64||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||8.64|-4.38|
91733946|NCT03537508|183361905|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|13.6||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||13.60|4.80|
91733947|NCT03537508|183361905|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|8.44||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||8.44|0.68|
91733948|NCT03537508|183361905|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|4.45||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||4.45|-1.18|
91733949|NCT03537508|183361906|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|15.59||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||15.59|4.98|
91733950|NCT03537508|183361906|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.31|10.96||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||10.96|5.31|
91733951|NCT03537508|183361906|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|6.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|9.62||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||9.62|4.01|
91733952|NCT03537508|183361906|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|8.57||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||8.57|3.44|
91733953|NCT00391716|183361934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||The numerator is the number of subjects completely abstinent and the denominator is the number of subjects randomized, within each treatment group.|Mantel Haenszel|Extended Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for linear-by-linear association.||The extended Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for linear trend assesses the relationship between ROW and COLUMN of a single contingency table, where both row (dose: 0mg, 900mg, 1800mg) and column (response (0= non-abstinent, 1=abstinent), and at least 1 variable has more than 2 levels. It specifically tests linear dose-response without need for multiple comparisons.||||<0.04
91905815|NCT01431274|183707472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.066||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.066|0.019|0.0005
91733954|NCT00391716|183361934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||linear dose effects for rates of abstinence were assessed using the extended Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test for linear association.|Mantel Haenszel|The numerator is the number of subjects completely abstinent and the denominator is the number of subjects randomized, within each treatment group.||The extended Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for linear trend assesses the relationship between ROW and COLUMN of a single contingency table, where both row (dose: 0mg, 900mg, 1800mg) and column (response (0= heavy drinking, 1=no heavy drinking), and at least 1 variable has more than 2 levels. It specifically tests linear dose-response without need for multiple comparisons.||||<0.02
91733955|NCT00391716|183361935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cumulative means over 12 weeks|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91733956|NCT00391716|183361936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cumulative means over 12 weeks|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91733957|NCT00391716|183361937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003||||||Cumulative means over 12 weeks|ANOVA|||||||<0.003
91733958|NCT04632030|183361950|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.6|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.6|.69|
91733959|NCT04632030|183361950|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.55|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.55|1.28|
91733960|NCT04632030|183361951|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.47|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.47|1.28|
91870113|NCT02434328|183633811|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|-18.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-18.1|-54.0|
91870114|NCT02434328|183633812|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-17.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-17.6|-55.1|
91733961|NCT04632030|183361951|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|6.5|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.50|1.26|
91733962|NCT04632030|183361952|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.86|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.86|.59|
91733963|NCT04632030|183361952|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.67|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.67|.73|
91733964|NCT04632030|183361953|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.99|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||2.99|.53|
91733965|NCT04632030|183361953|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.13|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||5.13|.94|
91733966|NCT00964678|183361954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|20.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
91733967|NCT00964678|183361955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
91733968|NCT00964678|183361956|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|20.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91733969|NCT00964678|183361957|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|20.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91733970|NCT01323192|183361972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean of JNS001 minus LS mean of Placebo|||-2.4|-6.7|<0.0001
91733971|NCT01323192|183361973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA||LS mean of JNS001 minus LS mean of Placebo|||||0.0002
91733972|NCT01323192|183361974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91733973|NCT01323192|183361975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91733974|NCT01323192|183361976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA||LS mean of JNS001 minus LS mean of Placebo|||||0.0003
91733975|NCT01323192|183361977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4041
91733976|NCT01168596|183361983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|11.73|||Regression, Linear|||||11.73|-9.13|0.81
91733977|NCT01168596|183361984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|11.51|||Regression, Linear|||||11.51|-2.75|0.23
91733978|NCT01168596|183361985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|11.59|||Regression, Linear|||||11.59|-8.37|0.75
91733979|NCT01168596|183361986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|7.94|||Regression, Linear|||||7.94|-4.18|0.54
91733980|NCT01168596|183361987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|7.43|||Regression, Linear|||||7.43|-17.76|0.42
91733981|NCT01168596|183361988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.29|||Regression, Linear|||||1.29|-0.56|0.44
91733982|NCT01168596|183361989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.02||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|22.13|||Regression, Linear|||||22.13|-17.59|0.82
91733983|NCT01168596|183361990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|9.85|||Regression, Linear|||||9.85|-19.31|0.52
91733984|NCT01168596|183361991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.36|||Regression, Linear|||||2.36|-2.15|0.93
91733985|NCT01168596|183361992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.83|||Regression, Linear|||||0.83|-1.05|0.82
91733986|NCT01168596|183361993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|10.69|||Regression, Linear|||||10.69|-19.74|0.56
91733987|NCT01168596|183361994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|3.59|||Regression, Linear|||||3.59|-8.02|0.45
91733988|NCT01168596|183361995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|12.55|||Regression, Linear|||||12.55|-7.02|0.58
91733989|NCT01168596|183361996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||||1.11|-1.04|0.95
91733990|NCT01168596|183361997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||||0.69|-1.45|0.48
91733991|NCT01168596|183361998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.58|||Regression, Linear|||||0.58|-0.71|0.84
91733992|NCT01168596|183361999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.76|||Regression, Linear|||||1.76|-0.77|0.44
91733993|NCT01168596|183362000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.41|||Regression, Linear|||||1.41|-2.06|0.71
91733994|NCT01168596|183362001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.9|||Regression, Linear|||||1.90|-0.62|0.31
91733995|NCT01168596|183362002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.56|||Regression, Linear|||||1.56|-1.68|0.94
91733996|NCT01276704|183362003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||83% power to detect an absolute 2.5% reduction in Ki-67 for the treatment group compared with no reduction in the control group.||||0.72
91733997|NCT01276704|183362004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Standard threshold of P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
91733998|NCT01276704|183362005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Standard threshold of P \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
91870115|NCT02434328|183633813|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-14.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||-14.1|-47.6|
91733999|NCT00710593|183362007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|97.5||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|99.9|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||99.9|86.8|0.1613
91734000|NCT00710593|183362008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|96.8||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|99.9|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||99.9|89.0|0.0534
91734001|NCT00710593|183362009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|96.1||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.5|99.5|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||99.5|86.5|0.0427
91734002|NCT00710593|183362010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|92.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.4|97.5|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||97.5|83.4|0.0006
91734003|NCT00710593|183362011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants with at least 1 event|49.3||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-value is to test the proportions of subjects with at least one event among Group A during the study at Entry, Week 8 and Week 24 after vaccine was administered.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8305
91734004|NCT00710593|183362011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants with at least 1 event|46.7||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is to test the proportions of subjects with at least one event among Group B during the study at Entry, Week 8 and Week 24 after vaccine was administered.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8305
91734005|NCT00710593|183362019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|7.9||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.||||||1.000
91734006|NCT00710593|183362020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|1.6||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91734007|NCT00710593|183362021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|2.0||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91734008|NCT00710593|183362022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|4.5||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91734009|NCT00710593|183362023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|8.3||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91734010|NCT00710593|183362024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquistion rate|3.6||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91734011|NCT00710593|183362025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|6.3||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91870116|NCT02434328|183633813|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-16.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||-16.1|-50.8|
91870117|NCT02434328|183633814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||0.7|0.0|
91870118|NCT02434328|183633814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||0.6|-0.1|
91870119|NCT02434328|183633814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||0.6|0.0|
91870120|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||7.3|-11.6|
91870121|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||6.0|-13.6|
91870122|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||5.3|-14.3|
91870123|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||6.4|-13.7|
91734012|NCT00710593|183362026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|8.1||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91734013|NCT00710593|183362027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|1.02|0.0004
91734014|NCT00710593|183362028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|1.0|0.0012
91734015|NCT00710593|183362029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91734016|NCT03801525|183362074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|2.755|||Log Rank|||||2.755|0.219|0.6960
91734017|NCT03801525|183362081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.201||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|1.721|||Log Rank|||||1.721|0.023|0.1038
91734018|NCT03309202|183362082|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|130.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.57|167.6|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||167.60|101.57|
91734019|NCT03309202|183362082|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|117.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.46|150.93|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||150.93|91.46|
91734020|NCT03309202|183362082|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|130.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.63|167.7|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||167.70|101.63|
91734021|NCT03309202|183362083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|136.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.63|196.53|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||196.53|94.63|
91734022|NCT03309202|183362083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|124.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.2|179.03|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||179.03|86.20|
91734023|NCT03309202|183362083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|118.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.33|170.99|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||170.99|82.33|
91734024|NCT03309202|183362084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|124.7309|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.5275|188.5165|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||188.5165|82.5275|
91734025|NCT03309202|183362084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|147.0778|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.3132|222.2911|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||222.2911|97.3132|
91734026|NCT03309202|183362084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|224.7373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.6962|339.6647|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||339.6647|148.6962|
91734027|NCT03309202|183362085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.12|256.32|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||256.32|103.12|
91734028|NCT03309202|183362085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|172.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.56|272.35|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||272.35|109.56|
91734029|NCT03309202|183362085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|293.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|186.04|462.44|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||462.44|186.04|
91734030|NCT03309202|183362086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|169.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.02|277.32|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||277.32|104.02|
91734031|NCT03309202|183362086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|182.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.78|298.02|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||298.02|111.78|
91734032|NCT03309202|183362086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|266.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.08|434.8|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||434.80|163.08|
91734033|NCT03243084|183362103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||Threshold for significance is \<.05.|ANOVA|||A 2x2 ANOVA was used to measure change in HF-HRV by condition (10 Hz vs sham) and session (first vs second) as within subjects variables||||.319
91734034|NCT03243084|183362105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488||||||Threshold for significance is \<.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Investigators hypothesized that active stimulation would have a greater normalized pain change using a modulation index \[(Pre-Post)/(Pre+Post)\]||||.0488
91797306|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.65|0.094
91734035|NCT05870345|183362113|OTHER|Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||||||||||||||||Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||
91734036|NCT05870345|183362114|OTHER|Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||||||||||||||||Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||
91734037|NCT04562116|183362132|OTHER||Ratio|94.59||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.57|112.45||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caffeine||112.45|79.57|0.5789
91734038|NCT04562116|183362132|OTHER||Ratio|99.34||||0.9468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.66|117.96||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Metoprolol Tartrate||117.96|83.66|0.9468
91734039|NCT04562116|183362132|OTHER||Ratio|107.81||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.14|117.24||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Midazolam||117.24|99.14|0.1364
91734040|NCT04562116|183362132|OTHER||Ratio|92.13||||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.85|102.44||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Omeprazole||102.44|82.85|0.1915
91734041|NCT04562116|183362132|OTHER||Ratio|101.67||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.41|106.12||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Warfarin Sodium||106.12|97.41|0.5059
91734042|NCT04562116|183362133|OTHER||Ratio|95.82||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.72|113.75||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caffeine||113.75|80.72|0.6665
91734043|NCT04562116|183362133|OTHER||Ratio|99.15||||0.9316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.43|117.83||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Metoprolol Tartrate||117.83|83.43|0.9316
91905816|NCT01431274|183707472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.090|0.042|<0.0001
91734044|NCT04562116|183362133|OTHER||Ratio|107.75||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.12|117.13||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Midazolam||117.13|99.12|0.1371
91734045|NCT04562116|183362133|OTHER||Ratio|88.66||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.72|99.85||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Omeprazole||99.85|78.72|0.0962
91734046|NCT04562116|183362133|OTHER||Ratio|100.81||||0.6807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.45|104.29||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Warfarin Sodium||104.29|97.45|0.6807
91734047|NCT04562116|183362134|OTHER||Ratio|91.22||||0.3431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.3|107.63||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caffeine||107.63|77.30|0.3431
91734048|NCT04562116|183362134|OTHER||Ratio|91.05||||0.4277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.33|111.53||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Metoprolol Tartrate||111.53|74.33|0.4277
91734049|NCT04562116|183362134|OTHER||Ratio|94.79||||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.8|108.52||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Midazolam||108.52|82.80|0.4963
91734050|NCT04562116|183362134|OTHER||Ratio|88.24||||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.08|103.7||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Omeprazole||103.70|75.08|0.1931
91734051|NCT04562116|183362134|OTHER||Ratio|92.94||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.51|104.69||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Warfarin Sodium||104.69|82.51|0.2960
91797307|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.80|0.012
91797308|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.51|0.363
91797309|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.45|-0.32|0.742
91797310|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.53|0.436
91870124|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||14.6|-5.5|
91734052|NCT02908178|183362157|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.18|1.63||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and any complication in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.63|1.18|<.001
91734053|NCT02908178|183362157|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|2.27|8.75||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and lymphedema in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||8.75|2.27|<.001
91734054|NCT02908178|183362157|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.0|1.54||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and wound infection in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.54|1.00|<.001
91734055|NCT02908178|183362157|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.03|1.91||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and seroma in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.91|1.03|<.001
91734056|NCT02908178|183362157|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.04|1.65||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and pain in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.65|1.04|.003
91734057|NCT02908178|183362158|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared|||Testing the association between receipt of SLNB and receipt of mastectomy within 6 months of DCIS diagnosis.||||<.001
91734058|NCT02908178|183362159|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared|||Testing the association between receipt of SLNB and receipt of radiation therapy within 9 months of DCIS diagnosis.||||.48
91734059|NCT02908178|183362160|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.73|1.05||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and overall mortality in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.05|0.73|<.001
91734060|NCT02908178|183362161|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.0|1.2||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and any side effects in the matched Aim 2 cohort.||1.20|1.00|0.207
91734061|NCT02908178|183362161|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.12|2.11||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and lymphedema related complications in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||2.11|1.12|<.001
91734062|NCT02908178|183362161|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.1||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and any infection in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.10|0.87|0.113
91734063|NCT02908178|183362161|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.93|1.58||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and seroma in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.58|0.93|0.010
91734064|NCT02908178|183362161|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.98|1.25||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and pain in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.25|0.98|0.029
91734065|NCT02908178|183362162|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.54|2.35||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and breast cancer specific mortality.||2.35|0.54|0.861
91734066|NCT02908178|183362163|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.71|1.51||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and ipsilateral invasive breast cancer occurrence for the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.51|0.71|0.603
91734067|NCT02908178|183362164|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.81|1.69||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and treated recurrence in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.69|0.81|0.620
91734068|NCT01506726|183362165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon two sample test||||0.20|-2.08|0.230
91734069|NCT01506726|183362166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.347
91734070|NCT01506726|183362167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in IL-6 and change in hemoglobin in the salsalate group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.857
91734071|NCT01506726|183362167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in IL-6 and change in hemoglobin in the placebo group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.706
91734072|NCT01506726|183362167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in TNF and change in hemoglobin in the salsalate group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91734073|NCT01506726|183362167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in TNF and change in hemoglobin in the placebo group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
91797311|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.79|0.038
91797312|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.57|0.332
91905817|NCT01431274|183707472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.6619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.029||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.029|-0.018|0.6619
91797313|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.14|-0.47|0.284
91734074|NCT01506726|183362167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in CRP and change in hemoglobin in the salsalate group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
91734075|NCT01506726|183362167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in CRP and change in hemoglobin in the placebo group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.894
91734076|NCT01506726|183362168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|||||P value comparing change in IL6 between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.143
91734077|NCT01506726|183362168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|||||P value comparing the change in TNF between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257
91734078|NCT01506726|183362169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value comparing the change in EPO between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.535
91797314|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.50|0.224
91734079|NCT01506726|183362170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.232
91734080|NCT01506726|183362171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.076
91734081|NCT01506726|183362172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
91734082|NCT01506726|183362173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.187
91734083|NCT01506726|183362174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
91734084|NCT01506726|183362175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.619
91734085|NCT01506726|183362176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.642
91734086|NCT01506726|183362177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
91734087|NCT01506726|183362178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
91734088|NCT01506726|183362179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.375
91734089|NCT01506726|183362181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.398
91734090|NCT01506726|183362182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.412
91734091|NCT02231580|183362188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.104|||=|0.5743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.482|||MMRM|||Left hand position-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.482|0.823|=0.5743
91870125|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||4.7|-16.3|
91734092|NCT02231580|183362188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.141|||=|0.4349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.862|1.51|||MMRM|||Right hand position-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.510|0.862|=0.4349
91734093|NCT02231580|183362189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.035|||=|0.8937|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.675|1.587|||MMRM|||Left hand orientation-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.587|0.675|=0.8937
91734094|NCT02231580|183362189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.093|||=|0.636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.493|||MMRM|||Right hand orientation-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.493|0.800|=0.6360
91734095|NCT02231580|183362190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.247|||=|0.2865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.756|||MMRM|||Left hand grip force variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.756|0.886|=0.2865
91734096|NCT02231580|183362190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.16|||=|0.5338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.781|1.724|||MMRM|||Right hand grip force variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.724|0.781|=0.5338
91734097|NCT02231580|183362191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.693|||=|0.0864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.487|0.985|||MMRM|||Left hand isometric grip forces statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.985|0.487|=0.0864
91734098|NCT02231580|183362191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.686|||=|0.0399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.508|0.925|||MMRM|||Right hand isometric grip forces statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.925|0.508|=0.0399
91734099|NCT02231580|183362192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.509|||=|0.0574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|2.15|||MMRM|||Left finger IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.150|1.060|=0.0574
91870126|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||7.0|-13.1|
91734100|NCT02231580|183362192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.953|||=|0.8277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.662|1.372|||MMRM|||Right finger IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.372|0.662|=0.8277
91870127|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||8.5|-12.6|
91734101|NCT02231580|183362192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.238|||=|0.0162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.074|1.426|||MMRM|||Left finger IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.426|1.074|=0.0162
91734102|NCT02231580|183362192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.038|||=|0.632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|1.182|||MMRM|||Right finger IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.182|0.912|=0.6320
91760029|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.14||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.14|-0.59|
91870128|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||5.1|-15.2|
91734103|NCT02231580|183362193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.308|||=|0.3005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.014|||MMRM|||Left finger variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.014|0.85|=0.3005
91734104|NCT02231580|183362193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.177|||=|0.4793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.804|1.722|||MMRM|||Right finger variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.722|0.804|=0.4793
91734105|NCT02231580|183362193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.15|||=|0.2653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.934|1.416|||MMRM|||Left finger duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.416|0.934|=0.2653
91734106|NCT02231580|183362193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.045|||=|0.6777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.875|1.248|||MMRM|||Right finger duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.248|0.875|=0.6777
91734107|NCT02231580|183362194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.618|||=|0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.124|2.331|||MMRM|||Left finger IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.331|1.124|=0.0326
91734108|NCT02231580|183362194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.886|||=|0.6016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.605|1.299|||MMRM|||Right finger IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.299|0.605|=0.6016
91870129|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||3.8|-17.0|
91870130|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||7.9|-13.4|
91870131|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||3.7|-17.6|
91870132|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||7.5|-12.9|
91870133|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||5.4|-15.4|
91734109|NCT02231580|183362194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.242|||=|0.0152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.077|1.433|||MMRM|||Left finger IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.433|1.077|=0.0152
91734110|NCT02231580|183362194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.042|||=|0.6033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.186|||MMRM|||Right finger IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.186|0.915|=0.6033
91734111|NCT02231580|183362195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.657|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.086|2.529|||MMRM|||Left finger ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.529|1.086|=0.0520
91870134|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||5.9|-14.3|
91870135|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||6.4|-14.2|
91905818|NCT01431274|183707472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.038||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.038|-0.010|0.2401
91734112|NCT02231580|183362195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.916|||=|0.6978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.333|||MMRM|||Right finger ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.333|0.630|=0.6978
91734113|NCT02231580|183362195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.298|||=|0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.043|1.614|||MMRM|||Left finger ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.614|1.043|=0.0522
91734114|NCT02231580|183362195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.014|||=|0.9012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.837|1.229|||MMRM|||Right finger ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.229|0.837|=0.9012
91734115|NCT02231580|183362196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.198|||=|0.1779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.494|||MMRM|||Left finger TF statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.494|0.96|=0.1779
91797315|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.79|0.002
91870136|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||9.6|-10.7|
91870137|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||5.7|-14.8|
91870138|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||7.4|-13.1|
91870139|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||6.8|-14.1|
91870140|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||7.3|-13.5|
91870141|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||6.5|-14.6|
91870142|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|8.0|||ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||8.0|-12.6|
91870143|NCT02434328|183633815|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||7.7|-13.6|
91870144|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-0.3|-13.2|
91870145|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-3.0|-13.8|
91734116|NCT02231580|183362196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.966|||=|0.8036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.765|1.22|||MMRM|||Right finger TF statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.220|0.765|=0.8036
91734117|NCT02231580|183362197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.812|||=|0.0177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.706|0.935|||MMRM|||Left finger freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.935|0.706|=0.0177
91734118|NCT02231580|183362197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.967|||=|0.6491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|1.093|||MMRM|||Right finger freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.093|0.856|=0.6491
91734119|NCT02231580|183362198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.168|||=|0.6176|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.955|||MMRM|||Left hand IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.955|0.697|=0.6176
91734120|NCT02231580|183362198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.759|||=|0.4541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.411|1.399|||MMRM|||Right hand IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.399|0.411|=0.4541
91734121|NCT02231580|183362198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.119|||=|0.2018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.294|||MMRM|||Left hand IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.294|0.967|=0.2018
91734122|NCT02231580|183362198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.046|||=|0.6527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.234|||MMRM|||Right hand IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.234|0.886|=0.6527
91734123|NCT02231580|183362199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.929|||=|0.8279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.529|1.63|||MMRM|||Left hand variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.630|0.529|=0.8279
91734124|NCT02231580|183362199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.612|||=|0.2738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.292|1.283|||MMRM|||Right hand variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.283|0.292|=0.2738
91734125|NCT02231580|183362199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.018|||=|0.9218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.752|1.378|||MMRM|||Left hand duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.378|0.752|=0.9218
91734126|NCT02231580|183362199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.847|||=|0.5032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.561|1.277|||MMRM|||Right hand duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.277|0.561|=0.5032
91734127|NCT02231580|183362200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.14|||=|0.6759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.677|1.917|||MMRM|||Left hand IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.917|0.677|=0.6759
91734128|NCT02231580|183362200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.815|||=|0.5764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.444|1.496|||MMRM|||Right hand IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.496|0.444|=0.5764
91734129|NCT02231580|183362200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.115|||=|0.2127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.289|||MMRM|||Left hand IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.289|0.965|=0.2127
91870146|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-1.7|-12.2|
91797316|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.16|-0.45|0.355
91905819|NCT01431274|183707472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.015||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.015|-0.033|0.4601
91734130|NCT02231580|183362200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.059|||=|0.5661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.25|||MMRM|||Right hand IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.25|0.897|=0.5661
91734131|NCT02231580|183362201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.571|||=|0.0874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.018|2.424|||MMRM|||Left hand ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.424|1.018|=0.0874
91734132|NCT02231580|183362201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.18|||=|0.6431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.644|2.162|||MMRM|||Right hand ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.162|0.644|=0.6431
91734133|NCT02231580|183362201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.193|||=|0.0389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.038|1.371|||MMRM|||Left hand ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.371|1.038|=0.0389
91734134|NCT02231580|183362201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.138|||=|0.1641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.976|1.327|||MMRM|||Right hand ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.327|0.976|=0.1641
91734135|NCT02231580|183362202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.93|||=|0.5668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.755|1.147|||MMRM|||Left hand TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.147|0.755|=0.5668
91734136|NCT02231580|183362202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.978|||=|0.8686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.229|||MMRM|||Right hand TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.229|0.778|=0.8686
91905820|NCT01431274|183707473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.112||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.112|0.064|<0.0001
91734137|NCT02231580|183362203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.879|||=|0.1244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.765|1.009|||MMRM|||Left hand freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.009|0.765|=0.1244
91734138|NCT02231580|183362203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.919|||=|0.3535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|1.069|||MMRM|||Right hand freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.069|0.789|=0.3535
91734139|NCT02231580|183362204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|2.163|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.295|3.614|||MMRM|||Left foot IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.614|1.295|=0.015
91734140|NCT02231580|183362204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.274|||=|0.5136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.688|2.361|||MMRM|||Right foot IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.361|0.688|=0.5136
91797317|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.57|0.172
91797318|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.36|0.882
91905821|NCT01431274|183707473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.100|0.052|<0.0001
91734141|NCT02231580|183362204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.56|||=|0.0218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.139|2.137|||MMRM|||Left foot IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.137|1.139|=0.0218
91734142|NCT02231580|183362204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.251|||=|0.372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.899|||MMRM|||Right foot IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.899|0.825|=0.3720
91734143|NCT02231580|183362205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.911|||=|0.915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.017|3.592|||MMRM|||Left foot TD variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.592|1.017|=0.915
91734144|NCT02231580|183362205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.687|||=|0.2745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|3.737|||MMRM|||Right foot TD variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.737|0.762|=0.2745
91734145|NCT02231580|183362205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.598|||=|0.1148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.608|||MMRM|||Left foot TD duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.608|0.980|=0.1148
91734146|NCT02231580|183362205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.454|||=|0.308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|2.679|||MMRM|||Right foot TD duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.679|0.789|=0.3080
91734147|NCT02231580|183362206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|2.272|||=|0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.381|3.737|||MMRM|||Left foot IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.737|1.381|=0.0079
91734148|NCT02231580|183362206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.21|||=|0.0204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.686|2.133|||MMRM|||Right foot IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.133|0.686|=0.0204
91734149|NCT02231580|183362206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.564|||=|0.0204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.144|2.138|||MMRM|||Left foot IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.138|1.144|=0.0204
91734150|NCT02231580|183362206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.269|||=|0.3144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|1.884|||MMRM|||Right foot IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.884|0.856|=0.3144
91734151|NCT02231580|183362207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.914|||=|0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.167|3.141|||MMRM|||Left foot ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.141|1.167|=0.0324
91734152|NCT02231580|183362207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.462|||=|0.246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.515|||MMRM|||Right foot ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.515|0.85|=0.246
91905822|NCT01431274|183707473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.094||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.094|0.046|<0.0001
91870147|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-8.3|-20.8|
91734153|NCT02231580|183362207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.387|||=|0.1057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.935|||MMRM|||Left foot ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.935|0.994|=0.1057
91734154|NCT02231580|183362207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.074|||=|0.7342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.758|1.523|||MMRM|||Right foot ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.523|0.758|=0.7342
91734155|NCT02231580|183362208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.392|||=|0.1027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.943|||MMRM|||Left foot TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.943|0.997|=0.1027
91734156|NCT02231580|183362208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.158|||=|0.4494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.595|||MMRM|||Right foot TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.595|0.840|=0.4494
91734157|NCT02231580|183362209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.699|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.922|||MMRM|||Left foot freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.922|0.530|=0.0350
91734158|NCT02231580|183362209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.853|||=|0.3556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.136|||MMRM|||Right foot freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.136|0.640|=0.3556
91734159|NCT01380080|183362238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative probability difference|-0.06||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|2.94|||z-test|||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm B- arm A) in the Kaplan-Meier estimate for 24 week cumulative probability of death or unknown vital status with 95% confidence interval||2.94|-3.05|0.97
91734160|NCT02303821|183362265|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The objective of this endpoint was to compare the rate of CRi or better status against an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The rate of CRi or better status in the external control arm was 26.3% (95% CI: 15.1, 37.5) for B-Cell participants with treatment difference odds ratio of 2.082 (95% CI: 0.968, 4.477). For T-Cell participants the rate of CRi or better status was 18.6% (95% CI: 7.1, 30.0) with treatment difference odds ratio of 1.646 (95% CI: 0.639. 4.245).|||
91734161|NCT02303821|183362266|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The objective of this endpoint was to compare EFS in study 20140106 with EFS in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The median duration in months in the external control arm was 3.62 (95% CI: 1.55, 5.36) for B-cell participants, with a treatment difference hazard ration of 1.435 (95% CI: 0.976, 2.111). For T-Cell participants the median in months was 2.93 (95% CI: 0.95, 5.10) with a treatment difference hazard ratio of 1.404 (95% CI: 0.869, 2.270).|||
91734162|NCT02303821|183362267|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The objective of this endpoint was to compare the OS in study 20140106 with OS in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The median OS in months for the B-Cell participants in the external control arm was 8.59 (95% CI: 5.26, 10.59) with a treatment difference hazard ratio of 1.245 (95% CI: 0.805, 1.927). For the T-Cell participants the median OS in months was 7.04 (95% CI: 7.04, NE) with a treatment difference hazard ratio of 1.040 (95% CI: 0.641, 1.688).|||
91734163|NCT02303821|183362268|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The DOR in study 20140106 was estimated relative to the DOR in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The median DOR in months in the external control arm was 8.72 (95% CI: 5.07, 32.24) in B-Cell participants. For T-Cell participants the median DOR in months was 5.82 (95% CI: 1.22, 19.80).|||
91734164|NCT02303821|183362280|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The primary objective of this endpoint was to compare the percentage of participants achieving CR after the end of induction therapy in study 20140106 with the percentage of participants achieving CR in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). In the external control arm, 7.8% of B-Cell participants (95% confidence interval \[CI\]: 1.0%, 14.7%) achieved CR, with a treatment difference odds ratio of 2.04 (95% CI: 0.54, 7.66). For T-Cell participants, 9.1% (95% CI: 0.7%, 17.5%) achieved CR, with an odds ratio of 1.58 (95% CI: 0.47, 5.31).|||
91734165|NCT00210132|183362281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportions.||||0.99
91734166|NCT00210132|183362282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91734167|NCT00057577|183362373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Subdistribution hazard model|||||||=.038
91734168|NCT00057577|183362374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Subdistribution hazard model|||||||<0.01
91734169|NCT00937105|183362393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Probability of no-CIE|92.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.6|96.9|||Kaplan-Meier|Cumulative Unadjusted Probability of remaining CIE-free presented for entire cohort (both solution groups) to remain consistent with the primary aim||Cumulative Unadjusted Probability of Remaining Infiltrate Free in entire Cohort||96.9|88.6|
91870148|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||9.6|-2.9|
91734170|NCT00937105|183362394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.737||||0.3923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.156|||Regression, Cox|Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|referent is no substantial lens bioburden|To determine if microbial contamination of lenses is a risk factor for CIE||6.156|0.49|0.3923
91734171|NCT00937105|183362395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.316||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|10.393|||Regression, Cox|Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|referent is no corneal staining|||10.393|0.167|0.7943
91734172|NCT00937105|183362396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|2.822|||Regression, Cox|Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|referent is no substantial case bioburden|||2.822|0.161|0.5894
91734173|NCT00937105|183362397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.406||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|8.537||Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|Regression, Cox||referent is no substantial overall lid bioburden|||8.537|0.678|0.1742
91734174|NCT00937105|183362398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.22||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|24.7|||Regression, Cox|Multivariate model adjusted for solution, gender and age|referent is no substantial CNS lid bioburden|||24.70|1.10|0.04
91734175|NCT04983979|183362399|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.752|0.552||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.552|-0.752|
91734176|NCT04983979|183362400|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.65|||||Only the mean difference for the study end (week 12) is presented here|Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.65|-1.97|
91734177|NCT04983979|183362401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.83|99.13|||||Difference in change in systolic blood pressure between study arms.|Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||99.13|-48.83|
91734178|NCT04983979|183362401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.92|40.47|||||Difference in change in diastolic blood pressure between study arms.|Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||40.47|-22.92|
91797319|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.63|0.084
91870149|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-13.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-13.0|-25.5|
91870150|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||-0.4|-11.6|
91734179|NCT04983979|183362402|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.674||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.674|-0.174|
91870151|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-3.5|-16.5|
91870152|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-2.5|-13.6|
91734180|NCT04983979|183362403|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.00|0.00|
91734181|NCT04983979|183362404|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.674||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.674|-0.174|
91734182|NCT04983979|183362405|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|11.4||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||11.4|-19.5|
91734183|NCT03176173|183362419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0007
91734184|NCT03941093|183362488|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41|||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||1.41|0.83|0.5487
91734185|NCT05847686|183362503|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.0001
91734186|NCT05395936|183362513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91734187|NCT04795531|183362514|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec minus insulin degludec) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region and sulfonylureas (SU)/glinides use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||-0.08|-0.34|<0.0001
91734188|NCT00582907|183362595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Signed rank|||Based upon FMF colchicine controlled studies showing an \~80% decrease in attacks, we estimated, based on baseline attacks every 4 weeks, there would be a difference of 0.5 attacks per month between rilonacept and placebo. With a two-sided 5% significance level and power of 80% we aimed for 14 evaluable participants who completed at least 2 treatment courses. The null hypothesis is that there would be no significant differences in the number of attacks between use of rilonacept and placebo.||-0.1|-3.4|0.027
91734189|NCT00582907|183362595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||||95.0|0.39|0.85|||Bayesian modeling||Attacks while receiving rilonacept is the numerator and attacks while receiving placebo is the denominator. In Bayesian statistics credible interval equals confidence interval.|This analysis was done by Bayesian Statistics using a non-informative (neutral) prior (log normal distribution mean 9 \[SD 10\]). The null hypothesis was that the rilonacept/placebo FMF odds ratio of attacks was 1.||0.85|0.39|
91734190|NCT00582907|183362596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences between rilonacept and placebo in the occurence of injection site reactions. No power calculations for this outcome.||0|-4|0.047
91734191|NCT00582907|183362596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.17|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences between rilonacept and placebo in the occurence of infections. No power calculations for this outcome.||0.17|-0.56|0.13
91734192|NCT00582907|183362597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.32||95.0|-2.4|0.5|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences in the length of attacks during rilonacept vs. placebo treatment courses. Since this was a secondary outcome there were no power calculations performed.||0.5|-2.4|0.32
91734193|NCT00582907|183362598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in percent of courses|29.0||||0.004||95.0|||||McNemar|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the number of treatment courses without attacks between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||||0.004
91734194|NCT00582907|183362599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent of courses|40.0||||0.006||95.0|||||McNemar|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the number of treatment courses attaining at least a 50% decrease in attacks when compared to baseline between rilonacept and placebo courses.Since this was a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||||0.006
91734195|NCT00582907|183362600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log Rank|0.009||||0.009||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences between rilonacept and placebo in the number of days from the start of the treatment course until the development of the a second attack.||||0.009
91734196|NCT00582907|183362601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.5|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the erythrocyte sedimentation rate between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||12.5|-0.5|0.156
91734197|NCT00582907|183362602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.29|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no differences in the C-reactive protein levels between the treatment courses. Since this was a secondary outcome measure no power calculations were performed.||0.29|-0.03|0.22
91734198|NCT00582907|183362603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|29.4||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|78.1|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no differences between the platelet count between the rilonacept and placebo courses. Since this was a secondary outcome no power calculations were performed.||78.1|0.4|0.078
91734199|NCT00582907|183362604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|108.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|139.5|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no differences between the treatment arms in the fibrinogen level. Since this was a secondary outcome no power calculations were performed.||139.5|6.5|0.063
91734200|NCT00582907|183362605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no differences between the treatment arms in the serum amyloid A levels. Since this was a secondary outcome no power calculations were performed.||0|-4|0.50
91734201|NCT00582907|183362606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-2.3|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the physical health-related quality of life between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||-2.3|-11.1|0.021
91734202|NCT00582907|183362606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.9|||Signed Rank|||||3.9|-6.8|0.42
91734203|NCT00582907|183362607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.8|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the FMF Armenian Evaluation (severity) Score between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||9.8|-2.3|0.136
91734204|NCT00582907|183362608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the proportion of time participants were treated with rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||-1|-15|0.089
91734205|NCT00189423|183362656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.36|||Fisher Exact|||||2.36|1.07|0.019
91734206|NCT00189423|183362657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 5%||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value is for non-inferiority with a margin of 5% (exact binomial test)|Fisher Exact test, for non-inferiority|||||||0.0001
91734207|NCT00189423|183362657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.681
91734208|NCT00189423|183362663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
91734209|NCT01263119|183362669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|1.00|
91734210|NCT01263119|183362670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.16|1.07|
91734211|NCT01263119|183362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.50|-0.50|0.9551
91734212|NCT01263119|183362672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|1.10|
91734213|NCT01263119|183362673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|1.09|
91734214|NCT01263119|183362674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.02|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.02|-0.50|0.6094
91734215|NCT01263119|183362675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Squares (LS) geometric mean was based on pharmacodynamic AUCINR of warfarin.||1.05|1.02|
91734216|NCT01263119|183362676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Squares (LS) geometric mean was based on pharmacodynamic INRmax of warfarin.||1.08|1.01|
91734217|NCT02138825|183362677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|21.48||||0.2074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|51.71|||ANCOVA|||The evaluation of primary efficacy endpoint will be based on change from baseline in 6MWD using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline 6MWD, treatment arm and region as factors.||51.71|-8.75|0.2074
91734218|NCT02138825|183362678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3437|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||The difference in incidences in clinical worsening and mortality will be analyzed using Mantel-Haenszel weights, stratified by region.||||0.3437
91734219|NCT01690273|183362685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91734220|NCT01690273|183362685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91734221|NCT01690273|183362685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91734222|NCT01690273|183362685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9913|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9913
91734223|NCT01690273|183362685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0427
91734224|NCT01690273|183362685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1856|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1856
91734225|NCT01690273|183362686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91734226|NCT01690273|183362686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
91734227|NCT01690273|183362686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
91734228|NCT01690273|183362686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
91734229|NCT01690273|183362686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.935
91734230|NCT01690273|183362686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.876
91734231|NCT01690273|183362687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91734232|NCT01690273|183362687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
91734233|NCT01690273|183362687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
91734234|NCT01690273|183362687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.989|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.989
91734235|NCT01690273|183362687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
91734236|NCT01690273|183362687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.119
91734237|NCT01690273|183362688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91734238|NCT01690273|183362688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91734239|NCT01690273|183362688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.94
91734240|NCT01690273|183362688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.213
91734241|NCT01690273|183362688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91734242|NCT01690273|183362688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.900
91734243|NCT01690273|183362689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91734244|NCT01690273|183362689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91734245|NCT01690273|183362689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
91734246|NCT01690273|183362689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.874
91734247|NCT01690273|183362689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.057
91734248|NCT01690273|183362689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.526
91734249|NCT01690273|183362690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
91734250|NCT01690273|183362690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
91734251|NCT01690273|183362690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000
91734252|NCT01690273|183362690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
91734253|NCT01690273|183362690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.098
91734254|NCT01690273|183362690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.645
91734255|NCT01690273|183362691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91734256|NCT01690273|183362691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91734257|NCT01690273|183362691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
91734258|NCT01690273|183362691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
91734259|NCT01690273|183362691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
91734260|NCT01690273|183362691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.476
91734261|NCT01690273|183362692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
91734262|NCT01690273|183362692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91734263|NCT01690273|183362692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
91734264|NCT01690273|183362692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
91734265|NCT01690273|183362692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.995
91734266|NCT01690273|183362692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.985
91734267|NCT01690273|183362693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
91797320|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.47|0.405
91797321|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-0.99|<0.001
91870153|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-9.4|-21.5|
91734268|NCT01690273|183362693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7
91734269|NCT01690273|183362693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91734270|NCT01690273|183362693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
91734271|NCT01690273|183362693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.900
91734272|NCT01690273|183362693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.739
91734273|NCT01690273|183362694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
91734274|NCT01690273|183362694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
91734275|NCT01690273|183362694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
91734276|NCT01690273|183362694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.618
91734277|NCT01690273|183362694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
91734278|NCT01690273|183362694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.689
91734279|NCT01690273|183362695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8
91734280|NCT01690273|183362695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
91734281|NCT01690273|183362695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91870154|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||8.4|-3.2|
91870155|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-10.4|-22.4|
91734282|NCT01690273|183362695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
91734283|NCT01690273|183362695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.929
91734284|NCT01690273|183362695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.980
91734285|NCT01690273|183362696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
91734286|NCT01690273|183362696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000
91734287|NCT01690273|183362696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
91734288|NCT01690273|183362696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.997
91734289|NCT01690273|183362696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.970
91734290|NCT01690273|183362696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
91734291|NCT01690273|183362697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.997
91734292|NCT01690273|183362697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000
91734293|NCT01690273|183362697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.503
91734294|NCT01690273|183362697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.814
91734295|NCT01690273|183362697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.643
91734296|NCT01690273|183362697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
91734297|NCT01690273|183362698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.787
91734298|NCT01690273|183362698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.408
91734299|NCT01690273|183362698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.157
91734300|NCT01690273|183362698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.835
91734301|NCT01690273|183362698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.256
91734302|NCT01690273|183362698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.935
91734303|NCT01690273|183362699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.978
91734304|NCT01690273|183362699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.169
91734305|NCT01690273|183362699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91734306|NCT01690273|183362699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.993
91734307|NCT01690273|183362699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.105
91734308|NCT01690273|183362699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.335
91797322|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.42|-1.06|<0.001
91797323|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.64|-1.29|<0.001
91797324|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.65|-1.29|<0.001
91797325|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.25|-0.95|<0.001
91797326|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.32|-1.02|<0.001
91797327|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.51|-1.22|<0.001
91797328|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.60|-1.31|<0.001
91797329|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.86|0.003
91870156|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.1|-8.5|
91734309|NCT01383005|183362719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.494|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom is 1 for the independent variable 'viral load change from detectable to undetectable.'|Stepwise procedures forward and backward were used to select variables in the model using entry and exit probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1 respectively. Identical models were obtained by forward and backward selection procedures.|Statistical Analysis 1 presents the risk of a 'mean score \<5' on the HIVTSQ overall satisfaction dimension (see Outcome Measure 8) when correlated with a viral load change from 'detectable to undetectable' in the last model of the Wald test.||0.494|0.052|0.001
91734310|NCT01383005|183362719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.279||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.118|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom is 1 for the independent variable 'viral load change from undetectable to undetectable.'|Stepwise procedures forward and backward were used to select variables in the model using entry and exit probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1 respectively. Identical models were obtained by forward and backward selection procedures.|Statistical Analysis 2 presents the risk of a 'mean score \<5' on the HIVTSQ overall satisfaction dimension (see Outcome Measure 8) when correlated with a viral load change from 'undetectable to undetectable' in the last model of the Wald test.||1.118|0.070|0.072
91734311|NCT01383005|183362720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.996||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.992|0.999|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom is 1 for the independent variable 'time on LPV/r.'|Stepwise procedures forward and backward were used to select variables in the model using entry and exit probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1 respectively. Identical models were obtained by forward and backward selection procedures.|Statistical Analysis 1 presents the risk of a 'mean score \<5' on the HIVTSQ overall satisfaction dimension (see Outcome Measure 8) when correlated with time on treatment with LPV/r QD in the last model of the Wald test.||0.999|0.992|0.025
91734312|NCT02090764|183362748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||The treatment comparison was done using only the outcomes of Clinical success and Clinical failure. The p value of the chi square test (without continuity correction) was provided. The analysis was performed to test the superiority of ozenoxacin versus placebo.||||0.001
91734313|NCT02300233|183362751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-70.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.4|-55.3|||ANCOVA|||||-55.3|-85.4|<0.0001
91734314|NCT02300233|183362752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-943.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1197.0|-689.0|||ANCOVA|||||-689|-1197|<0.0001
91734315|NCT02300233|183362753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|96.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|467.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||467.79|19.71|<0.0001
91734316|NCT02300233|183362754|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|56.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|68.6|||ANCOVA|||||68.6|45.1|<0.0001
91734317|NCT02300233|183362755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.93||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|215.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||215.88|1.03|0.0474
91734318|NCT00744861|183362797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9905|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|site stratified||||||0.9905
91797330|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.24|<0.001
91797331|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.26|<0.001
91797332|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.73|-1.41|<0.001
91797333|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.06|<0.001
91797334|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.47|-1.21|<0.001
91797335|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.63|-1.36|<0.001
91734319|NCT04752566|183362835|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.97||Log Rank Test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization strata, with treatment group as the fixed effect. Firth's adjustment was applied if no event was observed in a treatment group.|||1.97|0.45|0.8938
91734320|NCT04752566|183362836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.17|0.27|0.8987
91734321|NCT04752566|183362836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||2.02|0.18|0.4083
91734322|NCT04752566|183362837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.54|0.24|0.6739
91734323|NCT02038647|183362854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.067||P-value tests the hypothesis of equal event times in both treatment arms obtained using the Log-rank test stratified by disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases.|Log Rank||The stratification factors were: disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases (yes or no) with treatment (Alisertib + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel) as a factor in the model.|||1.067|0.557|0.113
91905823|NCT01431274|183707473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.075|0.027|<0.0001
91905824|NCT01431274|183707473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.082||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.082|0.034|<0.0001
91905825|NCT01431274|183707473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.042|-0.006|0.1405
91905826|NCT01431274|183707473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.093||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.093|0.045|<0.0001
91905827|NCT01431274|183707473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.036||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.036|-0.012|0.3118
91905828|NCT01431274|183707473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.043|-0.005|0.1171
91905829|NCT01431274|183707473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.017||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.017|-0.031|0.5759
91905830|NCT01431274|183707474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.103||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.103|0.055|<0.0001
91905831|NCT01431274|183707474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.086|0.038|<0.0001
91734324|NCT02038647|183362856|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.341||P-value tests the hypothesis of equal event times in both treatment arms obtained using the Log-rank test stratified by disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases.|Log Rank||The stratification factors were: disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases (yes or no) with treatment (Alisertib + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel) as a factor in the model.|||1.341|0.652|0.714
91797336|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.83|-1.56|<0.001
91797337|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.23|-0.93|0.001
91797338|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.24|<0.001
91797339|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.24|<0.001
91797340|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.70|-1.40|<0.001
91797341|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.40|-1.17|<0.001
91797342|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-1.11|<0.001
91797343|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.32|<0.001
91797344|NCT00809354|183473333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.75|-1.51|<0.001
91797345|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.33|0.887
91797346|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.62|0.046
91905832|NCT01431274|183707474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.085||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.085|0.037|<0.0001
91797347|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.26|0.771
91797348|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.64|0.03|0.032
91797349|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.54|-0.13|0.223
91797350|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.39|0.718
91797351|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.45|0.495
91797352|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.47|0.389
91797353|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.68|0.035
91797354|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.56|0.155
91797355|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.30|-0.35|0.876
91797356|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.39|-0.33|0.864
91797357|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.54|0.338
91797358|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.66|0.101
91797359|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.46|0.605
91797360|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.78|0.013
91797361|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.84|0.005
91797362|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.57|0.199
91797363|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.50|0.363
91797364|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.47|0.613
91797365|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.53|0.416
91797366|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.66|0.143
91797367|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.60|0.245
91797368|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|-0.41|0.745
91797369|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.69|0.062
91797370|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.80|0.014
91905833|NCT01431274|183707474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.071||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.071|0.022|0.0002
91797371|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.52|0.367
91797372|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.39|-0.39|0.995
91797373|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.46|0.735
91797374|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.67|0.169
91797375|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.60|0.295
91797376|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.14|-0.47|0.284
91797377|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.50|0.224
91797378|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.79|0.002
91797379|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.16|-0.45|0.355
91797380|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.57|0.172
91797381|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.36|0.882
91797382|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.63|0.084
91797383|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.47|0.405
91797384|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.30|-0.94|<0.001
91797385|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.44|-1.09|<0.001
91797386|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.64|-1.30|<0.001
91797387|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.67|-1.32|<0.001
91797388|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.30|-1.02|<0.001
91797389|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.27|-0.99|<0.001
91797390|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.48|-1.19|<0.001
91797391|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.29|<0.001
91797392|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.20|-0.89|0.002
91797393|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.63|-1.32|<0.001
91797394|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.70|-1.39|<0.001
91797395|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.86|-1.55|<0.001
91797396|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.43|-1.18|<0.001
91797397|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.28|<0.001
91797398|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.58|-1.33|<0.001
91870157|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-2.9|||Regression, Logistic|Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-2.9|-15.7|
91797399|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.81|-1.56|<0.001
91797400|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.31|-1.02|<0.001
91797401|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.37|-1.08|<0.001
91797402|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.65|-1.36|<0.001
91797403|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.81|-1.52|<0.001
91797404|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.51|-1.29|<0.001
91870158|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||2.2|-9.8|
91870159|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-8.4|-21.3|
91870160|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.2|-6.1|
91797405|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.51|-1.30|<0.001
91797406|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.58|-1.36|<0.001
91797407|NCT00809354|183473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.79|-1.57|<0.01
91797408|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.08|0.469
91797409|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.18|0.387
91797410|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.11|0.887
91797411|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.01|0.084
91797412|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.018
91870161|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-10.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-10.5|-22.6|
91797413|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.783
91797414|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.762
91797415|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.017
91797416|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.20|0.207
91797417|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.27|0.020
91797418|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.13|0.941
91797419|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.18|0.494
91797420|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.089
91870162|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||5.1|-7.0|
91797421|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.18|0.467
91797422|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.774
91797423|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.06|0.315
91797424|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.088
91797425|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.084
91797426|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.066
91797427|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.073
91797428|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.16|0.682
91797429|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.30|0.014
91797430|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.28|0.027
91797431|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.14|0.871
91797432|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.301
91797433|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.23|0.181
91797434|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.30|0.013
91797435|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.28|0.031
91797436|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.15|0.874
91797437|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.19|0.447
91797438|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.27|0.059
91797439|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.23|0.196
91797440|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.18|0.360
91797441|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.13|0.845
91797442|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.23|0.076
91797443|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.12|0.957
91797444|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.19|0.404
91797445|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.03|0.128
91905834|NCT01431274|183707474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.068||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.068|0.019|0.0004
91905835|NCT01431274|183707474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.042|-0.006|0.1360
91905836|NCT01431274|183707474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.089|0.041|<0.0001
91905837|NCT01431274|183707474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.041||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.041|-0.007|0.1617
91905838|NCT01431274|183707474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.039|-0.010|0.2476
91905839|NCT01431274|183707474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.027||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.027|-0.021|0.8083
91905840|NCT01431274|183707475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.124||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.124|0.075|<0.0001
91905841|NCT01431274|183707475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.088|0.039|<0.0001
91734325|NCT02038647|183362857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.55||Stratification factors were disease subtypes (sensitive versus resistant/refractory), the presence of brain metastases and region.|Weighted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Logistic regression using ORR as dependent variable, treatment arm as independent variable and disease subtype (sensitive vs resistant/refractory) and presence of brain metastases as stratification factors.|||1.55|0.35|0.406
91734326|NCT02038647|183362858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|9999.99||Stratification factors were disease subtypes (sensitive versus resistant/refractory), the presence of brain metastases and region.|Weighted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Logistic regression using CRR as dependent variable, treatment arm as independent variable and disease subtype (sensitive vs resistant/refractory) and presence of brain metastases as stratification factors.|||9999.99|0.01|0.283
91734327|NCT02038647|183362859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.08||Stratification factors were disease subtypes (sensitive versus resistant/refractory), the presence of brain metastases and region.|Weighted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Logistic regression using DCR as dependent variable, treatment arm as independent variable and disease subtype (sensitive vs resistant/refractory) and presence of brain metastases as stratification factors.|||1.08|0.32|0.077
91760030|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.09||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.09|-0.54|
91905842|NCT01431274|183707475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.100|0.051|<0.0001
91797446|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.577
91734328|NCT01983111|183362889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the PP set, for a non-inferiority test of the reduction in the pain intensity score from Visit 1 (Baseline) to Week 6 of treatment, the lower limit of the 97.5% onesided confidence interval was compared to a clinical non-inferiority margin, -1.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79||0.2658|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.0|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||In the Per protocol set||3|-6|0.2658
91734329|NCT03097289|183362929|NON_INFERIORITY|"The acceptance criterion for the recovery (%) of platelets is the demonstration of non-inferiority by the rejection of the Null Hypothesis (H0) defined by the following hypotheses: Null Hypothesis H0: μd ≤ 0 where μd=μT-0.66\*μC Alternate Hypothesis H1: μd \>~Let Xi = (XTi-0.66\*XCi) be a difference if recovery for patient i. The sample mean and standard deviations of these observed differences will be used to construct the lower limit of a 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.18|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|4.03||||||||||4.03|
91734330|NCT03097289|183362930|NON_INFERIORITY|"The acceptance criterion for the survival (days) of platelets is the demonstration of non inferiority by the rejection of the null hypothesis (H0) defined by the following hypotheses:~Null Hypothesis H0: μd ≤ 0 where μd = μT-0.58 × μC Alternate Hypothesis H1: μd \> 0"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.39||||||||||0.39|
91734331|NCT00049543|183363009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.64|||Log Rank|||The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival distribution for overall survival by treatment arm are reported, and the log rank test stratified by the stratification factors at randomization (exclude center) was used to compare the difference in the overall survival between two treatment arms. Hazard ratio of comparison of study treatment arm to placebo and it 95% C.I. were reported.||1.64|0.94|0.14
91734332|NCT00049543|183363010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.61||Stratified by stratification factors at randomization (except center)|Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization (except center)||||1.61|0.93|0.15
91734333|NCT06203717|183363022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.06||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|15.23||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Paired-sample t-test|||||15.23|3.08|0.007
91734334|NCT06203717|183363023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|11.61|||Paired-sample t-test|||||11.61|3.93|0.0009
91734335|NCT05819398|183363053|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|1.1|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitor (TNFi) status at baseline, and categorical baseline dT count at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-trial participant measurements.||1.1|-41.9|
91734336|NCT05819398|183363053|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|3.9|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitor (TNFi) status at baseline, and categorical baseline dT count at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-trial participant measurements.||3.9|-39.5|
91734337|NCT05819398|183363053|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|17.5|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitor (TNFi) status at baseline, and categorical baseline dT count at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-trial participant measurements.||17.5|-26.0|
91734338|NCT05819398|183363053|OTHER|||||||0.697||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Linear model|No assumptions.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.697
91734339|NCT05819398|183363053|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Exponential: model|Assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.844
91734340|NCT05819398|183363053|OTHER|||||||0.256||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Emax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.256
91734341|NCT05819398|183363053|OTHER|||||||0.571||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod SigEmax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at the low dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.571
91734342|NCT05819398|183363053|OTHER|||||||0.232||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod BetaMod model|Assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and the maximum effect is achieved at the 70% of the high dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.232
91734343|NCT05819398|183363054|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|20.1|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||20.1|-39.2|
91760031|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.35||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.35|-0.81|
91797447|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.01|0.068
91797448|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.28|0.011
91797449|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.11|-0.36|<0.001
91797450|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.43|<0.001
91797451|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.36|<0.001
91797452|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.00|-0.27|0.043
91797453|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.31|0.007
91797454|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.38|<0.001
91797455|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.36|<0.001
91797456|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.074
91797457|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
91797458|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
91870163|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-5.0|-17.4|
91797459|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.23|-0.49|<0.001
91797460|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.21|0.236
91797461|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.24|0.112
91797462|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.11|-0.38|<0.001
91797463|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.39|<0.001
91797464|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.26|0.059
91797465|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.33|0.003
91797466|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.36|0.001
91797467|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-0.51|<0.001
91797468|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.27|0.055
91797469|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.28|0.038
91797470|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.33|0.007
91797471|NCT00809354|183473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
91797472|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.08|0.469
91797473|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.18|0.387
91797474|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.11|0.887
91797475|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.01|0.084
91797476|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.018
91797477|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.783
91797478|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.762
91797479|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.017
91797480|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.23|0.091
91797481|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.29|0.009
91797482|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.13|0.835
91797483|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.08|0.463
91797484|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.16|0.713
91797485|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.267
91797486|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.552
91797487|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.14|-0.12|0.885
91797488|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.00|-0.26|0.47
91797489|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.26|0.056
91797490|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.117
91797491|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.24|0.106
91870164|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||0.7|-11.3|
91870165|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-5.9|-18.9|
91797492|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.16|0.673
91905843|NCT01431274|183707475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.072||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.072|0.023|0.0001
91905844|NCT01431274|183707475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.064||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.064|0.015|0.0014
91905845|NCT01431274|183707475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.048||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.048|-0.001|0.0554
91905846|NCT01431274|183707475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.096||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.096|0.047|<0.0001
91905847|NCT01431274|183707475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.060|0.011|0.0041
91905848|NCT01431274|183707475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.053||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.053|0.004|0.0248
91905849|NCT01431274|183707475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.032||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.032|-0.017|0.5338
91905850|NCT01431274|183707476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.029|0.0017
91905851|NCT01431274|183707476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.186||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.186|0.090|<0.0001
91905852|NCT01431274|183707476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.098||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.098|0.002|0.0426
91905853|NCT01431274|183707476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.170|0.074|<0.0001
91905854|NCT01431274|183707476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.159||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.159|0.063|<0.0001
91702396|NCT00772005|183299678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9355||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9355
91797493|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.089
91797494|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.26|0.065
91797495|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.567
91797496|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.135
91797497|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.094
91797498|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.27|0.055
91797499|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.087
91905855|NCT01431274|183707476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.075|-0.021|0.2661
91797500|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.18|0.542
91797501|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.17|0.643
91797502|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.21|0.301
91797503|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.22|0.237
91797504|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.18|0.360
91797505|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.13|0.854
91797506|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.23|0.076
91797507|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.12|0.957
91797508|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.19|0.404
91797509|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.03|0.128
91797510|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.577
91797511|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.01|0.068
91797512|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.27|0.016
91797513|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
91797514|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.19|-0.44|<0.001
91797515|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.39|<0.001
91905856|NCT01431274|183707476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.198||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.198|0.102|<0.0001
91734344|NCT05819398|183363054|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|7.6|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||7.6|-52.0|
91734345|NCT05819398|183363054|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|21.6|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||21.6|-39.1|
91734346|NCT05819398|183363055|OTHER||Difference of least square means|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.4|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||9.4|-4.5|
91734347|NCT05819398|183363055|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.3|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||6.3|-7.5|
91734348|NCT05819398|183363055|OTHER||Difference of least square means|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.0|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||10.0|-3.9|
91734349|NCT05819398|183363055|OTHER|||||||0.887||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Linear model|No assumptions.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.887
91734350|NCT05819398|183363055|OTHER|||||||0.902||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Exponential: model|Assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.902
91734351|NCT05819398|183363055|OTHER|||||||0.866||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Emax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.866
91734352|NCT05819398|183363055|OTHER|||||||0.825||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod SigEmax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at the low dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.825
91734353|NCT05819398|183363055|OTHER|||||||0.634||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod BetaMod model|Assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and the maximum effect is achieved at the 70% of the high dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.634
91797516|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.27|0.037
91734354|NCT05819398|183363056|OTHER||Difference of least square means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|15.3|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||15.3|-6.1|
91797517|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.30|0.015
91797518|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||0.07|-0.22||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.08|-0.35|0.001
91870166|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||0.0|-11.4|
91734355|NCT05819398|183363056|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|5.5|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||5.5|-15.9|
91734356|NCT05819398|183363056|OTHER||Difference of least square means|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|18.5|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||18.5|-3.3|
91734357|NCT04887831|183363076|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|-0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1052||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.105||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using stratified CMH method to account for the presence of visceral metastasis (yes/no) and initial chemotherapy type (cisplatin/carboplatin) as the stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.105|-0.308|0.340
91734358|NCT04887831|183363077|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1078||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.203||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using stratified CMH method to account for the presence of visceral metastasis (yes/no) and initial chemotherapy type (cisplatin/carboplatin) as the stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.203|-0.220|0.938
91734359|NCT02180828|183363092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Yes||||||0.925|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.925
91734360|NCT02180828|183363093|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Yes||||||0.298|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.298
91734361|NCT02180828|183363094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% power and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05||||||0.147|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.147
91734362|NCT02180828|183363095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Yes||||||0.147|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.147
91734363|NCT02180828|183363096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
91734364|NCT02180828|183363097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91734365|NCT02180828|183363098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.658|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.658
91734366|NCT02180828|183363099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.123
91734367|NCT02180828|183363100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.274
91734368|NCT03674281|183363123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91734369|NCT03674281|183363123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91734370|NCT02448381|183363253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.04
91870167|NCT02434328|183633816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-8.3|-20.3|
91734371|NCT02448381|183363254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91734372|NCT02448381|183363255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||McNemar|||||||0.046
91734373|NCT02448381|183363256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.0009
91734374|NCT02448381|183363257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91734375|NCT01137890|183363258|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc dose|24.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was calculated as less than 0.01. Note: this is not an attempt to indicate a threshold|ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose on VAQ score|||||<0.01
91734376|NCT01137890|183363258|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Zon dose|0.34||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide dose on VAQ score|||||0.72
91734377|NCT01137890|183363258|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc x Zon|0.66||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine x Zonisamide interaction on VAQ scores|||||0.63
91734378|NCT01137890|183363259|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc dose|9.91|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was calculated as less than 0.01. Note: this is not an attempt to indicate a threshold|ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose on Behavioral Choice measure|||||<0.01
91734379|NCT01137890|183363259|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Zon dose|0.07||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide dose on Behavioral Choice measure|||||0.93
91734380|NCT01137890|183363259|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc x Zon|0.24||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose x Zonisamide dose interaction on Behavioral Choice measure|||||0.92
91734381|NCT01137890|183363260|SUPERIORITY||t-value for main effect of Group|1.51||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||Group (Zonisamide vs Placebo)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91734382|NCT01137890|183363260|SUPERIORITY|Day (Day 1-39)|t-value for main effect of Day|-3.2||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0015
91734383|NCT01137890|183363260|SUPERIORITY|Group\*Day interaction|t value for Group x Day interaction|-1.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91734384|NCT01137890|183363261|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc dose|21.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was calculated as less than 0.01. Note: this is not an attempt to indicate a threshold|ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose|||||<0.01
91734385|NCT01137890|183363261|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Zon dose|0.77||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide dose|||||0.48
91734386|NCT01137890|183363261|SUPERIORITY||F-value for the main effect of Zon x Coc|0.93||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide x Cocaine interaction on drug value (i.e., street value) measurement|||||0.46
91734387|NCT02621892|183363269|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.31|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.02
91734388|NCT02621892|183363271|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.86|||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.008
91734389|NCT02621892|183363272|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91734390|NCT02621892|183363273|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91734391|NCT02621892|183363274|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9|||<|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.003
91734392|NCT02735200|183363275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||the p value correspond to the pretreatment time frame.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91734393|NCT02735200|183363275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p value corresponds to the post treatment time frame.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91734394|NCT01838226|183363295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-1.3|0.50
91734395|NCT01838226|183363296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-1.3|
91734396|NCT01838226|183363297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.2||||||||-0.2|-4.9|
91734397|NCT00023595|183363298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||1.04|0.72|0.12
91734398|NCT00023595|183363299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.97|0.73|0.02
91734399|NCT00023595|183363300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.17|0.84|0.90
91734400|NCT00023595|183363301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.93|0.66|0.006
91734401|NCT00023595|183363302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||1.00|0.66|0.05
91734402|NCT00023595|183363303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.85|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.85|0.64|<0.001
91734403|NCT00023595|183363304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.82|0.64|<0.001
91734404|NCT00023595|183363305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.26|0.79|0.98
91734405|NCT00023595|183363306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|7.52|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||7.52|1.35|0.008
91734406|NCT00023595|183363307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.41|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||2.41|0.78|0.275
91734407|NCT00023595|183363308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.98|0.71|0.030
91734408|NCT00023595|183363309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.31|0.89|0.401
91734409|NCT00023595|183363310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.93|0.71|0.002
91734410|NCT00023595|183363326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.71|0.51|<0.001
91734411|NCT00023595|183363327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.13|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.13|0.73|0.414
91734412|NCT00023595|183363328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.73|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.73|0.55|<0.001
91734413|NCT00023595|183363329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||1.03|0.72|0.108
91734414|NCT00023595|183363330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.32|0.83|0.717
91734415|NCT00023595|183363331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.97|0.73|0.018
91734416|NCT00023595|183363347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.015
91734417|NCT00023595|183363347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91734418|NCT00023595|183363347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.011
91734419|NCT00023595|183363347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.44
91734420|NCT00023595|183363348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
91734421|NCT00023595|183363348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91734422|NCT00023595|183363348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91734423|NCT00023595|183363348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91734424|NCT00023595|183363348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91734425|NCT00023595|183363349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.31
91734426|NCT00023595|183363349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91734427|NCT00023595|183363349|SUPERIORITY|24 months||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
91734428|NCT00023595|183363349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.079
91734429|NCT00023595|183363350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91734430|NCT00023595|183363350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
91734431|NCT00023595|183363350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91734432|NCT00023595|183363350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
91734433|NCT00023595|183363350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91734434|NCT00023595|183363351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.063
91734435|NCT00023595|183363351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.187
91734436|NCT00023595|183363351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.168
91734437|NCT00023595|183363351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.050
91734438|NCT00023595|183363352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
91734439|NCT00023595|183363352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91734440|NCT00023595|183363352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91734441|NCT00023595|183363352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91734442|NCT00023595|183363352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91797519|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.34|0.002
91797520|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.00|-0.27|0.042
91797521|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.14|-0.40|<0.001
91734443|NCT00023595|183363353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.039
91734444|NCT00023595|183363353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91734445|NCT00023595|183363353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91734446|NCT00023595|183363353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91734447|NCT00023595|183363354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91734448|NCT00023595|183363354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91734449|NCT00023595|183363354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91734450|NCT00023595|183363354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91734451|NCT00023595|183363354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91734452|NCT00023595|183363355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91734453|NCT00023595|183363355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91734454|NCT00023595|183363355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91734455|NCT00023595|183363355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.024||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.024
91734456|NCT00023595|183363356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91734457|NCT00023595|183363356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91734458|NCT00023595|183363356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
91734459|NCT00023595|183363356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91734460|NCT00023595|183363356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91734461|NCT00023595|183363357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.051
91734462|NCT00023595|183363357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91734463|NCT00023595|183363357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.065
91734464|NCT00023595|183363357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.83
91734465|NCT00023595|183363358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
91734466|NCT00023595|183363358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91734467|NCT00023595|183363358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91734468|NCT00023595|183363358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91734469|NCT00023595|183363358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91734470|NCT00023595|183363359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.004
91734471|NCT00023595|183363359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.011
91734472|NCT00023595|183363359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.007
91734473|NCT00023595|183363359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.044
91734474|NCT00023595|183363360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91734475|NCT00023595|183363360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91734476|NCT00023595|183363360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91734477|NCT00023595|183363360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91734478|NCT00023595|183363360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91797522|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.40|<0.001
91870168|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||5.4|-2.5|
91870169|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.7|-6.1|
91870170|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-5.3|
91734479|NCT00023595|183363361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.050
91734480|NCT00023595|183363361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91734481|NCT00023595|183363361|SUPERIORITY|24 months||||||0.049|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
91734482|NCT00023595|183363361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.097
91734483|NCT00023595|183363362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
91734484|NCT00023595|183363362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91734485|NCT00023595|183363362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91870171|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||4.4|-4.5|
91870172|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||12.8|3.9|
91734486|NCT00023595|183363362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91734487|NCT00023595|183363362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91734488|NCT00023595|183363363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91734489|NCT00023595|183363363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
91870173|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||1.2|-7.9|
91734490|NCT00023595|183363363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91734491|NCT00023595|183363363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91734492|NCT00023595|183363364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91734493|NCT00023595|183363364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91734494|NCT00023595|183363364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91734495|NCT00023595|183363364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
91734496|NCT00023595|183363364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
91734497|NCT00023595|183363365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.205
91734498|NCT00023595|183363365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.017
91734499|NCT00023595|183363365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.028
91734500|NCT00023595|183363365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.123
91734501|NCT00023595|183363366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91734502|NCT00023595|183363366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91734503|NCT00023595|183363366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
91734504|NCT00023595|183363366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
91734505|NCT00023595|183363366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91734506|NCT00023595|183363367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||4 months|Chi-squared|P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.050
91734507|NCT00023595|183363367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91734508|NCT00023595|183363367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.039
91734509|NCT00023595|183363367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.074
91734510|NCT00023595|183363368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
91734511|NCT00023595|183363368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91734512|NCT00023595|183363368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
91734513|NCT00023595|183363368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91734514|NCT00023595|183363368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91734515|NCT00023595|183363369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.085
91734516|NCT00023595|183363369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
91734517|NCT00023595|183363369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.026
91734518|NCT00023595|183363369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.085
91734519|NCT00023595|183363370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91734520|NCT00023595|183363370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91734521|NCT00023595|183363370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91734522|NCT00023595|183363370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91734523|NCT00023595|183363370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91734524|NCT00023595|183363371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
91734525|NCT00023595|183363371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 month|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91734526|NCT00023595|183363371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91734527|NCT00023595|183363371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.018
91734528|NCT00023595|183363372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
91734529|NCT00023595|183363372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
91734530|NCT00023595|183363372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91734531|NCT00023595|183363372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91734532|NCT00023595|183363372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
91734533|NCT00023595|183363373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.023
91734534|NCT00023595|183363373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91797523|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-0.50|<0.001
91734535|NCT00023595|183363373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.077
91734536|NCT00023595|183363373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.170
91734537|NCT00023595|183363374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91734538|NCT00023595|183363374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91734539|NCT00023595|183363374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91734540|NCT00023595|183363374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91734541|NCT00023595|183363374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91734542|NCT00023595|183363375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.033
91734543|NCT00023595|183363375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91734544|NCT00023595|183363375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.015
91734545|NCT00023595|183363375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.051
91734546|NCT00023595|183363376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91734547|NCT00023595|183363376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
91734548|NCT00023595|183363376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
91734549|NCT00023595|183363376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
91734550|NCT00023595|183363376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91734551|NCT00023595|183363377|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
91734552|NCT00023595|183363377|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91734553|NCT00023595|183363377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91734554|NCT00023595|183363377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.037
91734555|NCT00023595|183363378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91734556|NCT00023595|183363378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91734557|NCT00023595|183363378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91734558|NCT00023595|183363378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91734559|NCT00023595|183363378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91734560|NCT00023595|183363379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
91734561|NCT00023595|183363379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91734562|NCT00023595|183363379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91734563|NCT00023595|183363379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
91734564|NCT00023595|183363380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91734565|NCT00023595|183363380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91734566|NCT00023595|183363380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91734567|NCT00023595|183363380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91734568|NCT00023595|183363380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91734569|NCT00023595|183363381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.029
91734570|NCT00023595|183363381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.042
91734571|NCT00023595|183363381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.30
91734572|NCT00023595|183363381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.20
91734573|NCT00023595|183363382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
91734574|NCT00023595|183363382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91870174|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||6.4|-1.0|
91870175|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.0|-5.5|
91905857|NCT01431274|183707476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|-0.014||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.014|-0.109|0.0119
91734575|NCT00023595|183363382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91734576|NCT00023595|183363382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91734577|NCT00023595|183363382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91734578|NCT00023595|183363383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
91734579|NCT00023595|183363383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91734580|NCT00023595|183363383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91734581|NCT00023595|183363383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91734582|NCT00023595|183363384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91734583|NCT00023595|183363384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91734584|NCT00023595|183363384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
91734585|NCT00023595|183363384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91734586|NCT00023595|183363384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91734587|NCT00023595|183363385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
91734588|NCT00023595|183363385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91734589|NCT00023595|183363385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91734590|NCT00023595|183363385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91734591|NCT00023595|183363386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91734592|NCT00023595|183363386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91734593|NCT00023595|183363386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91734594|NCT00023595|183363386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91734595|NCT00023595|183363386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
91734596|NCT00023595|183363387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.007
91734597|NCT00023595|183363387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91734598|NCT00023595|183363387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
91734599|NCT00023595|183363387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.060
91734600|NCT00023595|183363388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91734601|NCT00023595|183363388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91734602|NCT00023595|183363388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91734603|NCT00023595|183363388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91734604|NCT00023595|183363388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91734605|NCT00023595|183363389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Baseline|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.86
91734606|NCT00023595|183363389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||4 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.78
91734607|NCT00023595|183363389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||12 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.55
91734608|NCT00023595|183363389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||24 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.027
91734609|NCT00023595|183363389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||36 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.031
91734610|NCT00023595|183363390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Baseline|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.40
91734611|NCT00023595|183363390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||4 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.42
91734612|NCT00023595|183363390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||12 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.41
91734613|NCT00023595|183363390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||24 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.25
91734614|NCT00023595|183363390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||36 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.25
91734615|NCT00023595|183363391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.002
91734616|NCT00023595|183363391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.007
91734617|NCT00023595|183363391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.049
91734618|NCT00023595|183363391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.038
91734619|NCT00023595|183363392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
91797524|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.22|0.182
91797525|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.080
91797526|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.34|0.002
91797527|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.11|-0.37|<0.001
91734620|NCT00023595|183363392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91734621|NCT00023595|183363392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
91734622|NCT00023595|183363392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91734623|NCT00023595|183363392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91734624|NCT00023595|183363393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.036
91734625|NCT00023595|183363393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.043
91734626|NCT00023595|183363393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.018
91734627|NCT00023595|183363393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.037
91734628|NCT00023595|183363394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
91734629|NCT00023595|183363394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91734630|NCT00023595|183363394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91734631|NCT00023595|183363394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
91797528|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.30|0.016
91797529|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.40|<0.001
91797530|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.42|<0.001
91797531|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.27|-0.53|<0.001
91734632|NCT00023595|183363394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91734633|NCT00023595|183363395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.0002
91734634|NCT00023595|183363395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91734635|NCT00023595|183363395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91734636|NCT00023595|183363395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91734637|NCT00023595|183363396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91734638|NCT00023595|183363396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91734639|NCT00023595|183363396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91734640|NCT00023595|183363396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91734641|NCT00023595|183363396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91734642|NCT00023595|183363397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hospital costs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91734643|NCT00023595|183363397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Physician fees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91734644|NCT00023595|183363397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Total index cost|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91734645|NCT00023595|183363398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Hospital costs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91734646|NCT00023595|183363398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Physician fees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91734647|NCT00023595|183363398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Total index cost|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91734648|NCT02106832|183363404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7062||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.3928|1.2698|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 99.9% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 28/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||1.2698|0.3928|0.0511
91734649|NCT02106832|183363412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8662||||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.6206|1.209|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 95.1% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 28/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||1.2090|0.6206|0.3965
91734650|NCT00619866|183363415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.2|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.20|-0.81|0.2311
91870176|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.8|-5.6|
91870177|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.1|-6.0|
91870178|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||8.0|-0.5|
91905858|NCT01431274|183707476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|-0.025||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.025|-0.121|0.0029
91905859|NCT01431274|183707476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.059||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.059|-0.036|0.6408
91905860|NCT01431274|183707477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.27||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.270|0.173|<0.0001
91905861|NCT01431274|183707477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.242|0.145|<0.0001
91905862|NCT01431274|183707477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.233||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.233|0.136|<0.0001
91905863|NCT01431274|183707477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.162||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.162|0.065|<0.0001
91734651|NCT00619866|183363415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.14|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.14|-0.86|0.1521
91734652|NCT00619866|183363416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-0.77|0.2041
91734653|NCT00619866|183363416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.3375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.69|0.3375
91734654|NCT00619866|183363416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.04|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.04|-1.01|0.0354
91760032|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.34|-0.01|
91870179|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.2|-6.2|
91905864|NCT01431274|183707477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.205||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.205|0.108|<0.0001
91870180|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.1|-2.5|
91905865|NCT01431274|183707477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.085||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.085|-0.012|0.1355
91905866|NCT01431274|183707477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.199||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.199|0.102|<0.0001
91905867|NCT01431274|183707477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.076||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.076|-0.020|0.2562
91905868|NCT01431274|183707477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.119|0.022|0.0041
91905869|NCT01431274|183707477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.005||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.005|-0.091|0.0815
91905870|NCT01431274|183707478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.242|0.149|<0.0001
91905871|NCT01431274|183707478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.199||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.199|0.107|<0.0001
91905872|NCT01431274|183707478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.221||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.221|0.128|<0.0001
91905873|NCT01431274|183707478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.154||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.154|0.061|<0.0001
91905874|NCT01431274|183707478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.178||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.178|0.086|<0.0001
91797532|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.29|0.032
91734655|NCT00619866|183363416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.26|-0.71|0.3618
91870181|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||3.1|-5.9|
91870182|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.4|-4.4|
91797533|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.06|-0.33|0.006
91797534|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.32|0.009
91870183|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||2.1|-6.2|
91870184|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.5|-1.2|
91905875|NCT01431274|183707478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.067||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.067|-0.025|0.3727
91870185|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.3|-4.2|
91870186|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.2|-3.5|
91870187|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||4.3|-4.8|
91870188|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||5.2|-3.3|
91870189|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.9|-4.5|
91870190|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.0|-0.1|
91870191|NCT02434328|183633817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.6|-4.3|
91870192|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.5|-8.9|
91870193|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.5|-7.6|
91870194|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.7|-6.9|
91870195|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-2.7|-13.0|
91870196|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||6.2|-3.6|
91905876|NCT01431274|183707478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.175||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.175|0.082|<0.0001
91734656|NCT00619866|183363417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.78|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.78|-1.01|0.7990
91734657|NCT00619866|183363417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.5042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.59|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.59|-1.21|0.5042
91734658|NCT00619866|183363417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-1.63|0.1459
91734659|NCT00619866|183363417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.21|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-2.10|0.0163
91734660|NCT00619866|183363417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.18|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.18|-2.13|0.0207
91797535|NCT00809354|183473336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.41|<0.001
91734661|NCT00619866|183363417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.47|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.47|-2.42|0.0038
91734662|NCT00619866|183363418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.10|-0.18|0.5744
91734663|NCT00619866|183363418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.12|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.17|0.7280
91797536|NCT02437383|183473433|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.6||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates for site, baseline value, sex, race, treatment, visit, a treatment\*visit interaction, and an unstructured covariance structure.||||2.6|-6.2|0.414
91734664|NCT00619866|183363418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.03|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.32|0.0195
91734665|NCT00619866|183363418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.10|-0.19|0.5589
91734666|NCT00619866|183363418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.11|-0.20|0.5558
91734667|NCT00619866|183363418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.7121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.18|0.7121
91734668|NCT00619866|183363419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.03|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.54|0.0286
91734669|NCT00619866|183363419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.05|-0.45|0.1210
91734670|NCT00619866|183363419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.15|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.15|-0.68|0.0024
91734671|NCT00619866|183363419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.22|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.22|-0.76|0.0003
91734672|NCT00619866|183363419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.16|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.72|0.0021
91734673|NCT00619866|183363419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.80|0.0003
91734674|NCT00619866|183363420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.01|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.34|0.0603
91870197|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-3.1|-12.6|
91870198|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.7|-6.8|
91870199|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-0.3|-10.5|
91870200|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-0.4|-10.3|
91870201|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-0.5|-11.2|
91870202|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.6|-4.8|
91734675|NCT00619866|183363420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.06|-0.29|0.1855
91734676|NCT00619866|183363420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.12|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.12|-0.48|0.0012
91734677|NCT00619866|183363420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.03|-0.33|0.1002
91734678|NCT00619866|183363420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.36|0.0568
91734679|NCT00619866|183363420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.04|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.04|-0.33|0.1190
91734680|NCT03510273|183363476|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Adequacy of baseline image"||||||0.396|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.396
91734681|NCT03510273|183363476|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Squamous columnar junction visibility"||||||0.351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.351
91734682|NCT03510273|183363476|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Visible abnormal areas"||||||0.774|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.774
91734683|NCT03510273|183363476|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Location of the lesion"||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91797537|NCT04010539|183473510|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in microbiological success rates between treatment groups (Gepotidacin - Ceftriaxone plus azithromycin) was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for sex and sexual orientation combination. Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference was above -10.0%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.5||||||||5.5|-5.6|
91870203|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-3.9|-13.8|
91734684|NCT03510273|183363476|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Mosaic of the worst lesion"||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
91734685|NCT03510273|183363476|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Acetowhite changes"||||||0.881|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.881
91734686|NCT03510273|183363476|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Border of the worst lesion"||||||0.829|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.829
91734687|NCT03510273|183363476|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Possible diagnosis"||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91734688|NCT03510273|183363476|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Baseline histology"||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91734689|NCT03510273|183363476|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Size of the worst lesion (% coverage)"||||||0.493|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.493
91734690|NCT01474109|183363477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.103||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.834|||negative binomial-2 regression (NB-2)||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in Macitentan 3 mg and in Placebo|||1.834|0.663|0.706
91734691|NCT01474109|183363477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.268||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|2.106|||negative binomial-2 regression (NB-2)||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in Macitentan 10 mg and in Placebo|||2.106|0.763|0.360
91734692|NCT01474109|183363478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.875||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|1.606|||Chi-squared|||||1.606|0.477|0.6670
91734693|NCT01474109|183363478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.832||||0.5518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.524|||Chi-squared|||||1.524|0.454|0.5518
91734694|NCT01474109|183363479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.696||||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|1.518|||Chi-squared|||||1.518|0.319|0.3625
91870204|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.5|-7.1|
91870205|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||0.1|-11.1|
91870206|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||-0.5|-10.9|
91870207|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||0.6|-10.9|
91870208|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||-0.1|-11.0|
91870209|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-1.2|-12.5|
91702397|NCT00772005|183299678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1890
91734695|NCT01474109|183363479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|2.133|||Chi-squared|||||2.133|0.498|0.9362
91734696|NCT01474109|183363480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.1|0.863
91870210|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||-0.3|-10.7|
91702398|NCT00772005|183299679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6320
91702399|NCT00772005|183299679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8777||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8777
91702400|NCT00772005|183299679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4378||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4378
91702401|NCT00772005|183299680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5544||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5544
91702402|NCT00772005|183299680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4446||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4446
91702403|NCT00772005|183299680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4483||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4483
91702404|NCT00772005|183299681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1914||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1914
91702405|NCT00772005|183299681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2543||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2543
91702406|NCT00772005|183299681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9748||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9748
91702407|NCT00772005|183299682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5312||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5312
91870211|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-0.9|-12.4|
91870212|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.4|-7.0|
91870213|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||1.3|-10.5|
91870214|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||0.5|-11.4|
91905877|NCT01431274|183707478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.089|-0.004|0.0744
91905878|NCT01431274|183707478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.114||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.114|0.021|0.0047
91905879|NCT01431274|183707478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.022||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.022|-0.071|0.2945
91905880|NCT01431274|183707479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.255||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.255|0.155|<0.0001
91905881|NCT01431274|183707479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.206||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.206|0.107|<0.0001
91905882|NCT01431274|183707479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.242|0.142|<0.0001
91905883|NCT01431274|183707479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.174||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.174|0.074|<0.0001
91905884|NCT01431274|183707479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.193||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.193|0.094|<0.0001
91905885|NCT01431274|183707479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.062||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.062|-0.037|0.6103
91870215|NCT02434328|183633818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-0.3|-11.5|
91870216|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||0.2|-14.2|
91870217|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-2.5|-15.5|
91870218|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-2.6|-15.0|
91870219|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-9.0|-22.9|
91905886|NCT01431274|183707479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.186||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.186|0.087|<0.0001
91905887|NCT01431274|183707479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.098||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.098|-0.001|0.0559
91905888|NCT01431274|183707479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.118||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.118|0.018|0.0073
91870220|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||14.8|0.9|
91870221|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-13.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-13.1|-27.3|
91905889|NCT01431274|183707479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.025||0.4368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.030|-0.070|0.4368
91905890|NCT01431274|183707480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.196||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.196|0.098|<0.0001
91905891|NCT01431274|183707480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.027|0.0023
91905892|NCT01431274|183707480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.170|0.072|<0.0001
91905893|NCT01431274|183707480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.097|-0.001|0.0545
91734697|NCT01474109|183363480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.649
91870222|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.4|-10.4|
91870223|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-2.5|-16.7|
91870224|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-3.4|-15.8|
91734698|NCT01474109|183363481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.456
91734699|NCT01474109|183363481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.440
91734700|NCT01474109|183363482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.464
91734701|NCT01474109|183363482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.342
91734702|NCT02589938|183363483|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis of covariance (RMANCOVA) models were constructed to assess differences in each outcome adjusting for baseline outcome value, group, time, and group by time interaction assuming an unstructured covariance. The primary objective was assessed using a linear contrast of group effect at 4 weeks||||||0.0167|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint was to determine whether true acupuncture (TA) was more effective than sham acupuncture (SA) or standard oral hygiene (SOH) at treating xerostomia as assessed by the xerostomia questionnaire (XQ) at Week 4. The study was powered to detect a difference of 10 points with an assumed standard deviation (SD)=16 between each pair of groups on XQ.This assumed a t-test with a two-sided significance level of 0·0133 and 84% power with 20% dropout.||||0.0167
91734703|NCT04716894|183363486|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|197.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.9|208.15|||||Ratio (%) = T/R\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 7.0.|Relative bioavailability. Model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. Data were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random effect, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed effect.||208.15|187.90|
91734704|NCT04716894|183363487|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|143.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.92|168.6|||||Ratio (%) = T/R\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 22.1.|Relative bioavailability. Model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. Data were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random effect, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed effect.||168.60|121.92|
91734705|NCT04716894|183363488|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|201.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|192.23|211.52|||||Ratio (%) = T/R\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 6.5.|Relative bioavailability. Model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. Data were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random effect, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed effect.||211.52|192.23|
91734706|NCT00608062|183363490|OTHER|Repeated measurements of FMD were modeled using a general linear mixed model with maximum likelihood estimation. An unstructured covariance structure allowing for heterogeneity in the parameter estimate for each level of menopause stage was chosen for the model based on using AIC to compare various covariance structures.||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91734707|NCT00608062|183363492|OTHER|Similar analyses as primary outcome||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91870225|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-9.6|-23.4|
91734708|NCT00608062|183363493|OTHER|same analysis as primary outcome||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91734709|NCT01467466|183363506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.24|||Wald's Chi-Square|||||1.24|0.73|0.70
91734710|NCT01467466|183363507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Wald's Chi-Square|||||1.34|0.78|0.86
91734711|NCT00330733|183363524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired comparisons (follow-up vs baseline) and unpaired group comparisons were performed by Student's t tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests.||||<0.05
91734712|NCT01979185|183363567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.632|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.538|0.744|||Mixed-effects Model|||The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||0.744|0.538|
91759503|NCT02391363|183411754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 3.20 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month GAD-7, controlling for baseline GAD-7.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.08
91797538|NCT04010539|183473510|SUPERIORITY|The difference in microbiological success rates between treatment groups (Gepotidacin - Ceftriaxone plus azithromycin) was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for sex and sexual orientation combination. Superiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference was above 0.0%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|-0.1||||0.5072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.5|||1-sided p-value for Test of Superiority|||||5.5|-5.6|0.5072
91797539|NCT02314143|183473538|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|4.459|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio for dabrafenib followed by combination therapy versus combination therapy has been presented.|||4.459|0.224|1.0000
91797540|NCT02314143|183473538|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|10.166|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio for trametinib followed by combination therapy versus combination therapy has been presented.|||10.166|0.382|0.4216
91797541|NCT03194503|183473557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis applies to all three rows in the post-intervention column. ITT analysis: Multivariable analysis for Any TIAEs, Severe TIAEs, and Severe desaturation(\>20%)||0.92|0.47|0.015
91797542|NCT03194503|183473558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis applies to all three rows and is a per-protocol analysis: Multivariable analysis for Any TIAEs, Severe TIAEs, and Severe desaturation(\>20%)||1.20|0.50|0.250
91797543|NCT00457366|183473559|OTHER|We used an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline as the covariate to analyze the PANSS-EC at hour 2.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91797544|NCT04231318|183473560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0406|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0406
91797545|NCT04231318|183473560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0795|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0795
91870226|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||10.4|-3.3|
91870227|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|-11.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-11.8|-24.9|
91797546|NCT04231318|183473560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7601|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7601
91797547|NCT04231318|183473561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1942|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1942
91797548|NCT04231318|183473561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0957|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0957
91797549|NCT04231318|183473561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4526|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4526
91797550|NCT04231318|183473562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1309|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1309
91797551|NCT04231318|183473562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1700
91797552|NCT04231318|183473562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7609|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7609
91797553|NCT04231318|183473563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1000
91797554|NCT04231318|183473563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0423|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0423
91797555|NCT04231318|183473563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3830
91870228|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.2|-9.2|
91797556|NCT04231318|183473564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0298
91797557|NCT04231318|183473564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0217|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0217
91797558|NCT04231318|183473564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4451|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4451
91797559|NCT04231318|183473565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1197|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1197
91797560|NCT04231318|183473565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0008
91797561|NCT04231318|183473565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0223
91797562|NCT04231318|183473566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1067|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1067
91797563|NCT04231318|183473567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1715|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1715
91797564|NCT04231318|183473567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0736
91797565|NCT04231318|183473567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4098|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4098
91797566|NCT04231318|183473568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2718|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2718
91797567|NCT04231318|183473568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0182|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0182
91797568|NCT04231318|183473568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1131|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1131
91797569|NCT04231318|183473569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2143|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2143
91797570|NCT04231318|183473569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1628|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1628
91797571|NCT04231318|183473569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6036
91797572|NCT04231318|183473570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2220
91797573|NCT04231318|183473570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1410
91797574|NCT04231318|183473570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5418|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5418
91797575|NCT04231318|183473571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1619|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1619
91797576|NCT04231318|183473571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1683|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1683
91797577|NCT04231318|183473571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6969|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6969
91797578|NCT04231318|183473572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0701|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0701
91797579|NCT04231318|183473572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0925|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0925
91797580|NCT04231318|183473572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6981|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6981
91797581|NCT04231318|183473573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0275
91797582|NCT04231318|183473573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1738|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1738
91797583|NCT04231318|183473573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8364|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8364
91797584|NCT04231318|183473574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2227|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2227
91797585|NCT04231318|183473574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1114|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1114
91797586|NCT04231318|183473574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4635|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4635
91797587|NCT01916967|183473575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.65|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable||Difference in least squares (LS) means of Desloratadine 5 mg and Placebo||-0.65|-1.69|<0.001
91905894|NCT01431274|183707480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.099||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.099|0.001|0.0456
91870229|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-2.8|-16.3|
91870230|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||1.1|-12.5|
91870231|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-8.5|-21.9|
91905895|NCT01431274|183707480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.2949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.075|-0.023|0.2949
91905896|NCT01431274|183707480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.123||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.123|0.025|0.0029
91734713|NCT01979185|183363568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.543|0.73|||Mixed-effects Model|||The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||0.730|0.543|
91870232|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||7.5|-5.9|
91905897|NCT01431274|183707480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.12||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.120|0.022|0.0045
91760033|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.24|-0.10|
91760034|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.25||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.25|-0.10|
91760035|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.18|-0.17|
91760036|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.51||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.51|0.13|
91760037|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.27|-0.11|
91760038|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.34||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.34|-0.04|
91870233|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-8.1|-21.4|
91870234|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||5.4|-7.5|
91870235|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-3.4|-17.2|
91734714|NCT01979185|183363569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.526|0.672|||Mixed-effects Model|||The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||0.672|0.526|
91734715|NCT03620981|183363589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-4.3|-10.0|< 0.0001
91734716|NCT03620981|183363589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.7|-6.8|0.0175
91734717|NCT03620981|183363590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.0001
91734718|NCT03620981|183363590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0083
91734719|NCT03620981|183363591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH), Last observation carried forward (LOCF)||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.6|-1.2|< 0.0001
91734720|NCT03620981|183363591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH, LOCF||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.1|-0.8|0.0052
91734721|NCT05852470|183363604|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.1 logMAR|Difference in Means|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0167|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.067||Since a non-inferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the non-inferiority margin.|||Parameter Dispersion Type is Standard Error of the Difference in Means. Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL|||0.067|0.001|
91734722|NCT05852470|183363605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.061|||t-test, 1 sided||||Parameter Dispersion Type is Standard Error of the Difference in Means. Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL|-0.061|-0.120|<.001
91734723|NCT05852470|183363606|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|-0.089|||t-test, 1 sided||Parameter Dispersion Type is Standard Error of the Difference in Means. Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL|||-0.089|-0.169|<.001
91734724|NCT05852470|183363607|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|17.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.66||Upper limit is not applicable for testing.|The lower boundary of the confidence interval is reported instead of a p-value.|Miettinen-Nurminen||Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL||||8.66|
91734725|NCT04116489|183363624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5272|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.5272
91734726|NCT04116489|183363625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1657|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.1657
91734727|NCT04116489|183363626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2437|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.2437
91734728|NCT04116489|183363627|OTHER|||||||0.0373|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0373
91734729|NCT03781570|183363629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0544|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00517|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0648|-0.0441|||Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite's method was used to estimate degrees of freedom for the mixed effects model.||Comparing placebo vs. control for thermal pain ratings with mixed effects models controlling for the stimulus intensity and the familial structure of the data.||-0.0441|-0.0648|<0.001
91734730|NCT06028464|183363640|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|36.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.96|41.64|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 21.9|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||41.64|31.96|
91734731|NCT06028464|183363641|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|56.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.11|70.6|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 37.9.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||70.60|45.11|
91870236|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||2.3|-11.4|
91870237|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-4.1|-18.2|
91870238|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||3.5|-9.4|
91870239|NCT02434328|183633819|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-7.2|-21.3|
91870240|NCT01276509|183633831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.3393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.149|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 8||0.249|-0.149|0.3393
91870241|NCT01276509|183633831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.068|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 8||0.316|-0.068|0.1433
91870242|NCT01276509|183633831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.036|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 8||0.335|-0.036|0.0922
91905898|NCT01431274|183707480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.122||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.122|0.024|0.0035
91870243|NCT01276509|183633831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.158|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 12||0.225|-0.158|0.3864
91905899|NCT01431274|183707480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.9369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.047|-0.051|0.9369
91905900|NCT01431274|183707481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.217||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.217|0.119|<0.0001
91905901|NCT01431274|183707481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.154||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.154|0.056|<0.0001
91905902|NCT01431274|183707481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.152||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.152|0.054|<0.0001
91870244|NCT01276509|183633831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.131|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 12||0.253|-0.131|0.3005
91870245|NCT01276509|183633831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.198|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 12||0.176|-0.198|0.5385
91870246|NCT01276509|183633834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.1234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.052|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 8||0.299|-0.052|0.1234
91870247|NCT01276509|183633834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.2378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.092|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 8||0.234|-0.092|0.2378
91870248|NCT01276509|183633834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.062|0.266|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 8||0.266|-0.062|0.1529
91870249|NCT01276509|183633834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.3661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.146|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 12||0.222|-0.146|0.3661
91870250|NCT01276509|183633834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.136|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 12||0.246|-0.136|0.3169
91870251|NCT01276509|183633834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.116|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 12||0.248|-0.116|0.2755
91870252|NCT02962284|183633946|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91870253|NCT03926026|183633991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0|-1.5|0.0471
91870254|NCT00413283|183633995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.972
91870255|NCT00413283|183633995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.725
91870256|NCT00413283|183633995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.312
91870257|NCT00413283|183633996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91905903|NCT01431274|183707481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.096||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.096|-0.002|0.0585
91797588|NCT01916967|183473575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.61|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable||Difference in LS means of Desloratadine 10 mg and Placebo||-0.61|-1.66|<0.001
91870258|NCT00413283|183633996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91870259|NCT00413283|183633996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91870260|NCT00413283|183633997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91905904|NCT01431274|183707481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.090|-0.008|0.1042
91870261|NCT00413283|183633997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91870262|NCT00413283|183633997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.342
91870263|NCT00413283|183633998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.454
91870264|NCT00413283|183633998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.101
91905905|NCT01431274|183707481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.114||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.114|0.016|0.0097
91905906|NCT01431274|183707481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.161||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.161|0.063|<0.0001
91870265|NCT00413283|183633998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.199
91870266|NCT00413283|183633999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
91870267|NCT00413283|183633999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91870268|NCT00413283|183633999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
91870269|NCT01823224|183634001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated analysis of variance|||||||0.875
91870270|NCT01823224|183634002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Manova|||||||> 0.05
91870271|NCT01303796|183634007|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.226||one-sided|Kaplan-Meier|||The phase III part planned to randomize 485 patients, about 243 per arm (actual 241 patients per arm), over an estimated period of 24 months. Final analysis would occur at approximately 424 deaths, which was expected to be observed about 43 months after the accrual of the first patient. A stratified log rank analysis would have 90% power to detect a 27.5% reduction in the risk of death, i.e., a hazard ratio of 0.725, between Arm A and Arm C.||1.226|0.837|<0.0249
91870272|NCT01303796|183634007|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.35||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Presence of antecedent MDS or MPD (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: No (i.e., de novo) vs Presence of antecedent MDS or MPD"||1.35|0.86|<0.0249
91870273|NCT01303796|183634007|SUPERIORITY|Effects of treatments compared in AML patients with baseline WBC count ≥ 10 x 109/L vs WBC count ≤ 10 x 109/L|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.57|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.19||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Baseline peripheral WBC count ≥ 10 x 109/L (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: Baseline WBC count ≥ 10 x 109/L vs WBC count ≤ 10 x 109/L"||2.19|1.12|<0.0249
91870274|NCT01303796|183634007|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.32||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Baseline bone marrow blast percentage ≥ 50% (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: Baseline bone marrow blast percentage ≥ 50% vs Blast percentage ≤ 50%"||1.32|0.77|<0.0249
91870275|NCT01303796|183634007|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.73|||Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Unfavorable cytogenetics risk by SWOG (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: Unfavorable cytogenetics vs other"||1.73|0.94|<0.0249
91870276|NCT01303796|183634007|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.222|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|||||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): Region (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: EU vs US"||||<0.0249
91870277|NCT01303796|183634007|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.071|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|||||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): Age (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: ≥ 75 years old vs ≤ 75 years old"||||<0.0249
91870278|NCT01303796|183634007|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.956|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|||||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): Gender (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: Male vs Female"||||<0.0249
91870279|NCT01303796|183634007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0249||||||one-sided|Log Rank|Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.||"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): ECOG status (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: Status 2 vs \< 2"||||<0.0249
91870280|NCT01303796|183634007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0249||||||one-sided|Log Rank|Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.||"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): HCT-CI score (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: HCT-CI score 0-2 vs HCT-CI score \>2"||||<0.0249
91870281|NCT01303796|183634008|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|2.782|||Fisher Exact|||||2.782|0.645|0.1468
91870282|NCT01303796|183634013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0416|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0416
91734732|NCT06028464|183363642|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|36.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.91|41.74|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 22.3.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||41.74|31.91|
91734733|NCT03330847|183363646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.66|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib monotherapy.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.66|0.63|0.9403
91734734|NCT03330847|183363646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.88|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib monotherapy.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.88|0.52|0.9282
91734735|NCT03330847|183363646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.03|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.03|0.28|0.1274
91734736|NCT03330847|183363646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.26|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.26|0.23|0.2956
91734737|NCT03330847|183363646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.14|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||1.14|0.50|0.2959
91734738|NCT03330847|183363646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.8|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||0.80|0.28|0.0193
91797589|NCT02337738|183473595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.364|||ANCOVA||Estimated Value was reported for the difference between TVP-1012 1mg and Placebo (TVP-1012 1mg - Placebo).|||-0.364|-1.320|0.0006
91797590|NCT02337738|183473595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.122|||ANCOVA||Estimated Value was reported for the difference between TVP-1012 0.5mg and Placebo (TVP-1012 0.5mg - Placebo).|||-0.122|-1.070|0.0140
91870283|NCT01303796|183634014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1568|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1568
91870284|NCT01303796|183634015|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.013|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.226||one-sided|Log Rank|||||1.226|0.837|<0.0249
91870285|NCT02148705|183634028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|288.281|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.549|13984.356|||Fisher Exact|||||13984.356|35.549|<0.0001
91870286|NCT02148705|183634029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.044|||Chi-squared|||||0.044|0.003|<0.0001
91734739|NCT03330847|183363647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.6147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.39|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.39|0.53|0.6147
91905907|NCT01431274|183707481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.112||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.112|0.014|0.0120
91734740|NCT03330847|183363647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.68|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.68|0.48|0.7879
91870287|NCT02148705|183634030|SUPERIORITY||Test Statistics|23.1429|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Wilcoxon-Gehan Test|Analysis is adjusted for Overall TW Depths, TBSA Group, Center Group, and Number of TWs||||||<0.0001
91870288|NCT02148705|183634031|SUPERIORITY||estimate|6505.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|269.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5974.41|7037.19|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon tests pooled using Rubin´s rule||||7037.19|5974.41|<0.0001
91870289|NCT02824198|183634039|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the Geometric mean of titer ratios (GMTRs) (booster vs post-dose 3) was greater than (\>) 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.79||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||1.79|0.998|
91870290|NCT02824198|183634039|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \> 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|0.829||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||0.829|0.439|
91905908|NCT01431274|183707481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.105|0.007|0.0250
91734741|NCT03330847|183363647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.31|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.31|0.38|0.3695
91734742|NCT03330847|183363647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|1.58|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.58|0.29|0.4586
91734743|NCT03330847|183363647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.31|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||1.31|0.61|0.7452
91734744|NCT03330847|183363647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.0|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||1.00|0.37|0.1185
91734745|NCT01346592|183363663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.06|2.9||||||||2.9|2.06|
91734746|NCT01346592|183363663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|1.69|2.1||||||||2.1|1.69|
91734747|NCT01346592|183363663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.66|3.54||||||||3.54|2.66|
91734748|NCT01346592|183363663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.7|3.8||||||||3.8|2.7|
91797591|NCT01278160|183473638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||95.0|-0.24|0.22|||ANCOVA|The estimates were from a normal linear regression model with treatment and previous insulin as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||The null hypothesis is H0: μBIAsp 30 (2:1) - μBIAsp 30 (1:1) = 0 against the alternative hypothesis HA: μBIAsp 30 (2:1) - μBIAsp 30 (1:1) ≠ 0. This trial is an extension to BIAsp-3756 (NCT01123980), hence no particular sample size calculation was made.||0.22|-0.24|
91734749|NCT01346592|183363663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.14|2.65||||||||2.65|2.14|
91734750|NCT01346592|183363663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.72|3.62||||||||3.62|2.72|
91734751|NCT01346592|183363664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \>-10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|5.48|12.69||||||||12.69|5.48|
91734752|NCT01346592|183363664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \>-10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|1.58|6.55||||||||6.55|1.58|
91870291|NCT02824198|183634039|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \> 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.28||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.28|0.746|
91870292|NCT02824198|183634039|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \> 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.75||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.75|0.918|
91870293|NCT03883828|183634052|SUPERIORITY||Multivariable Linear Regression|-0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.15||Two-sided p-values equal to or less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||-0.15|-0.75|0.004
91870294|NCT03883828|183634053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Symptoms Domain||||||0.20
91870295|NCT03883828|183634053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Emotions Domain||||||0.05
91870296|NCT03883828|183634053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Functioning Domain||||||0.73
91870297|NCT02736188|183634088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.77||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||Week 8||2.77|-1.17|0.4287
91870298|NCT02736188|183634088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.21||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||2.21|-1.49|0.7031
91870299|NCT02736188|183634088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.32||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.32|-3.14|0.4253
91870300|NCT02736188|183634088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.9747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.38||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||3.38|-3.49|0.9747
91905909|NCT01431274|183707481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.056||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.056|-0.042|0.7889
91870301|NCT02736188|183634089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.47||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||0.47|-1.01|0.4721
91905910|NCT01431274|183707482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.237||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.237|0.138|<0.0001
91734753|NCT01346592|183363664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (B strain)|11.82|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|8.72|14.92||||||||14.92|8.72|
91870302|NCT02736188|183634089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.64||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||0.64|-1.02|0.6611
91870303|NCT02736188|183634089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.35|||GEE model|Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.||Week 24||0.35|-1.22|0.2760
91870304|NCT02736188|183634089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.13||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||1.13|-1.69|0.6977
91870305|NCT02736188|183634090|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.45||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.45|-0.04|0.0648
91870306|NCT02736188|183634090|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.74||||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.55||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.55|-0.06|0.0692
91870307|NCT02736188|183634090|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.44||||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.52||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.52|-0.65|0.4317
91870308|NCT02736188|183634090|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.34||||0.6416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.1||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||1.10|-1.78|0.6416
91870309|NCT02736188|183634091|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.78||||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|4.22||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||4.22|-2.65|0.6546
91870310|NCT02736188|183634091|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.64||||0.7054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.69||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||2.69|-3.97|0.7054
91870311|NCT02736188|183634091|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.5||||0.8441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|4.45||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||4.45|-5.45|0.8441
91870312|NCT02736188|183634091|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|4.15||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|8.9||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||8.90|-0.59|0.0864
91870313|NCT02736188|183634092|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.06||||0.8603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.78||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||0.78|-0.65|0.8603
91870314|NCT02736188|183634092|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.18||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.51||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||0.51|-0.86|0.6154
91870315|NCT02736188|183634092|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.47||||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.2||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.20|-0.25|0.1999
91870316|NCT02736188|183634092|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.03||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.18||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||1.18|-1.25|0.9568
91870317|NCT02736188|183634093|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.45||||0.5447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.90|-1.00|0.5447
91870318|NCT02736188|183634093|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.56||||0.5051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.09||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.09|-2.22|0.5051
91870319|NCT02736188|183634093|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.27||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|1.9||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.90|-1.36|0.7478
91870320|NCT02736188|183634093|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.41||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|2.04||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||2.04|-2.86|0.7429
91870321|NCT02736188|183634094|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.0||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|10.49||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||10.49|-6.48|0.6434
91870322|NCT02736188|183634094|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.99||||0.7118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|8.55||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||8.55|-12.53|0.7118
91870323|NCT02736188|183634094|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|4.15||||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|14.69||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||14.69|-6.39|0.4399
91870324|NCT02736188|183634094|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|7.98||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|28.37||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||28.37|-12.41|0.4430
91870325|NCT02736188|183634095|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.28||||0.6428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.46||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.46|-0.90|0.6428
91870326|NCT02736188|183634095|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.25||||0.7334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.21||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.21|-1.72|0.7334
91870327|NCT02736188|183634095|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.58||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.04||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||2.04|-0.89|0.4409
91870328|NCT02736188|183634095|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.99||||0.4687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|3.68||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||3.68|-1.69|0.4687
91905911|NCT01431274|183707482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.170|0.072|<0.0001
91905912|NCT01431274|183707482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.202||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.202|0.103|<0.0001
91905913|NCT01431274|183707482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.111||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.111|0.013|0.0134
91870329|NCT02736188|183634096|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.14||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.69||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||2.69|-0.41|0.1502
91870330|NCT02736188|183634096|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.2||||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|-1.89|-1.89|1.49||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.49|-1.89|0.8188
91870331|NCT02736188|183634096|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.8||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.17||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||3.17|-1.58|0.5122
91870332|NCT02736188|183634096|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.72||||0.7022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|4.4||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||4.40|-2.96|0.7022
91870333|NCT02736188|183634097|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.19||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.6||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.60|-1.22|0.7906
91870334|NCT02736188|183634097|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.66||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.07||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||2.07|-0.74|0.3531
91870335|NCT02736188|183634097|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.15||||0.8846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.23||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||2.23|-1.92|0.8846
91870336|NCT02736188|183634097|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.08||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.79||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||3.79|0.38|0.0168
91870337|NCT00768755|183634177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|1.36|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). Hazard ratio (HR): the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.360|0.508|0.3037
91870338|NCT00768755|183634177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.3565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.546|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). HR: the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.546|0.580|0.3565
91870339|NCT00768755|183634178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046||||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.69|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). HR: the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.690|0.648|0.5785
91870340|NCT00768755|183634178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.449||||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|2.285|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). HR: the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||2.285|0.919|0.9392
91797592|NCT01278160|183473639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed models analysis|0.2||||0.2569||95.0|-0.15|0.56||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before breakfast profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.56|-0.15|0.2569
91870341|NCT00768755|183634179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.753||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|2.935|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female).||2.935|1.047|0.0143
91734754|NCT01346592|183363664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|14.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|10.3|18.13||||||||18.13|10.3|
91734755|NCT01346592|183363664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|4.47|10.14||||||||10.14|4.47|
91734756|NCT01346592|183363664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (B strain)|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|8.11|14.1||||||||14.1|8.11|
91734757|NCT01346592|183363665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 GMT group ratios was \>0.667|Group ratio (H1N1 strain)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.62|0.93||||||||0.93|0.62|
91734758|NCT01346592|183363665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 GMT group ratios was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.68|0.86||||||||0.86|0.68|
91734759|NCT01346592|183363665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 GMT group ratios was \>0.667|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.8|1.11||||||||1.11|0.8|
91734760|NCT01346592|183363666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group differences was \> -10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-10.13|-0.47||||||||-0.47|-10.13|
91734761|NCT01346592|183363666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group differences was \> -10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-6.16|0.5||||||||0.5|-6.16|
91797593|NCT01278160|183473639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed models analysis|0.09||||0.812||95.0|-0.63|0.8||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is two hours after breakfast profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.80|-0.63|0.8120
91797594|NCT01278160|183473639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.35||||0.2843||95.0|-0.29|0.99||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before lunch profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.99|-0.29|0.2843
91870342|NCT00768755|183634179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.512||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.626|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using CMH test stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female).||2.626|0.870|0.0665
91870343|NCT00670488|183634185|OTHER||AUC0-48hr GMR|3.26||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 AUC 0-48 hr Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) AUC 0-48hr Geometric Mean (GM) ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.~AUC 0-48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
91870344|NCT00670488|183634185|OTHER||AUC 0-48hr GMR|3.18||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 AUC 0-48 hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) AUC 0-48hr GM ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.~AUC 0-48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
91734762|NCT01346592|183363666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group differences was \> -10%|Group difference (B strain)|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-7.01|2.0||||||||2|-7.01|
91734763|NCT01346592|183363667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|4.6||||||Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||4.6|2.86|
91734764|NCT01346592|183363667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|2.59||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.59|1.96|
91734765|NCT01346592|183363667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|5.59||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||5.59|3.86|
91734766|NCT01346592|183363667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|6.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||6.7|4.16|
91734767|NCT01346592|183363667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|3.56||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.56|2.69|
91734768|NCT01346592|183363667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|5.59||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||5.59|3.86|
91797595|NCT01278160|183473639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.3||||0.4614||95.0|-0.5|1.11||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is two hours after lunch profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||1.11|-0.50|0.4614
91797596|NCT01278160|183473639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.44||||0.1591||95.0|-0.17|1.04||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before dinner profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||1.04|-0.17|0.1591
91797597|NCT01278160|183473639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.03||||0.9327||95.0|-0.63|0.69||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is two hours after dinner profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.69|-0.63|0.9327
91797598|NCT01278160|183473639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|-0.25||||0.4063||95.0|-0.84|0.34||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is bedtime profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.34|-0.84|0.4063
91797599|NCT01278160|183473639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.3||||0.2198||95.0|-0.18|0.79||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is 2.00 - 4.00 a.m. profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.79|-0.18|0.2198
91797600|NCT01278160|183473639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|-0.04||||0.8424||95.0|-0.47|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before breakfast the following day profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.38|-0.47|0.8424
91797601|NCT01278160|183473640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7312||95.0|0.36|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for the HbA1c below 7% treatment target were included.|Responder analyses were based on logistics regression model using treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD or insulin glargine OD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||2.06|0.36|0.7312
91797602|NCT01278160|183473641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.1257||95.0|0.05|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|The estimates were from a normal linear regression model with treatment and previous insulin as factors, and baseline value as a covariate|The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for the HbA1c below or equal to 6.5% treatment target were included.|Responder analyses were based on logistics regression model using treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD or insulin glargine OD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.44|0.05|0.1257
91870345|NCT00670488|183634186|OTHER||Cmax GMR|2.59||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.~Cmax GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
91870346|NCT00670488|183634186|OTHER||Cmax GMR|2.67||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.~Cmax GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
91870347|NCT00670488|183634187|OTHER||C48hr GMR|4.33||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.~C48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
91870348|NCT00670488|183634187|OTHER||C48hr GMR|3.58||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.~C48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
91870349|NCT00670488|183634190|OTHER||AUC0-168hr GMR|1.91||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 AUC 0-168 hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day AUC 0-168hr GM ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.||||
91905914|NCT01431274|183707482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.136||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.136|0.037|0.0006
91870350|NCT00670488|183634190|OTHER||AUC 0-168hr GMR|1.54||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 AUC 0-168 hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day AUC 0-168hr GM ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.||||
91870351|NCT00670488|183634191|OTHER||Cmax GMR|1.95||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.||||
91797603|NCT01278160|183473642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.72||||0.1911||95.0|0.43|1.18|||Negative binomial regression model||For all episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||1.18|0.43|0.1911
91797604|NCT01278160|183473642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.61||||0.2949||95.0|0.66|3.92|||Negative binomial regression model||For nocturnal episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||3.92|0.66|0.2949
91797605|NCT01278160|183473642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.63||||0.077||95.0|0.38|1.05|||Negative binomial regression model||For diurnal episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||1.05|0.38|0.0770
91870352|NCT00670488|183634191|OTHER||Cmax GMR|1.33||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.||||
91870353|NCT00670488|183634192|OTHER||C48hr GMR|1.61||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.||||
91870354|NCT00670488|183634192|OTHER||C48hr GMR|1.86||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.||||
91870355|NCT00670488|183634192|OTHER||C48hr GMR|1.49||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.||||
91870356|NCT00670488|183634195|OTHER||GMR|0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.347||||||"pAkt Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)~= Day 15 Geometric Mean (GM) ÷ Baseline GM"||0.347|0.051|
91870357|NCT01480258|183634283|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-PRP ≥ 1.0 μg/mL||||<0.001
91870358|NCT01480258|183634283|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-HBsAg ≥10 mIU/mL||||<0.001
91870359|NCT01480258|183634283|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-Diphtheria ≥0.1 IU/mL||||<0.001
91870360|NCT01480258|183634283|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-Tetanus ≥0.1 IU/mL||||<0.001
91870361|NCT01480258|183634283|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-PT seroresponse||||<0.001
91870362|NCT01480258|183634283|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-FHA seroresponse||||<0.001
91870363|NCT01480258|183634283|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-FIM seroresponse||||<0.001
91870364|NCT01480258|183634283|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-PRN seroresponse||||<0.001
91870365|NCT01480258|183634283|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-IPV1 ≥1:8 dilution||||<0.001
91870366|NCT01480258|183634283|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-IPV2 ≥1:8 dilution||||<0.001
91870367|NCT01480258|183634283|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-IPV3 ≥1:8 dilution||||<0.001
91870368|NCT01480258|183634284|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.05|51.06||Stratification by country.|Miettinen & Nurminen|||||51.06|41.05|<0.001
91870369|NCT01480258|183634285|SUPERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than 0, it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was superior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.05|51.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratification by country.||||51.06|41.05|<0.001
91870370|NCT01480258|183634286|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in PRP response rate (based on Ab titre ≥1.0 μg/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|2.52|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-inferiority for PRP||2.52|-5.13|<0.001
91888875|NCT01721954|183670133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A sample size of at least 209 patients for the SIRFLOX study was estimated to be needed to detect an increase in the median PFS at any site from 9.4 months to 14.5 months with 80% power and 95% confidence. Taking into account the number of patients who might receive the alternative treatment or lack of imaging data, the sample size was increased to 209. The Null hypothesis is no difference between the treatment arms with respect to PFS.||||<0.05
91734769|NCT01346592|183363668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|14.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||14.7|6.1|
91734770|NCT01346592|183363668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|5.1||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||5.1|-0.12|
91734771|NCT01346592|183363668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|16.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||16.7|8.9|
91734772|NCT01346592|183363668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|22.6||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||22.6|12.9|
91734773|NCT01346592|183363668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|8.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||8.7|2.5|
91734774|NCT01346592|183363668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|23.1||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||23.1|14.4|
91734775|NCT01346592|183363669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|2.75||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.75|2.07|
91734776|NCT01346592|183363669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.06||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.06|1.72|
91797606|NCT01278160|183473642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.56||||0.1687||95.0|0.25|1.27|||Negative binomial regression model||For minor episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||1.27|0.25|0.1687
91870371|NCT01480258|183634286|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in HBsAg response rate (based on Ab titre ≥10 mIU/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|ifference in percentages|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for HBsAg||1.35|-2.66|<0.001
91870372|NCT01480258|183634286|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in Diphtheria response rate (based on Ab titre ≥0.1 IU/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.22|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for Diptheria||-0.22|-2.54|<0.001
91870373|NCT01480258|183634286|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in Tetanus response rate (based on Ab titre ≥0.1 IU/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for Tetanus||0.50|-0.95|<0.001
91870374|NCT01480258|183634286|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in the percentage of seroresponder participants for PT was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.49|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for PT||0.49|-1.75|<0.001
91870375|NCT01480258|183634286|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in the percentage of seroresponder participants for FHA was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-0.26|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for FHA||-0.26|-3.47|<0.001
91870376|NCT01480258|183634286|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in the percentage of seroresponder participants for PRN was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for PRN||0.39|-3.42|<0.001
91870377|NCT01480258|183634286|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in IPV1 response rate (based on Ab titre ≥8 (1/dil)) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.34|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for IPV1||0.34|-1.59|<0.001
91888876|NCT02278484|183670144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91870378|NCT01480258|183634286|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in IPV2 response rate (based on Ab titre ≥8 (1/dil)) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.49|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for IPV2||0.49|-0.96|<0.001
91870379|NCT01480258|183634286|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in IPV3 response rate (based on Ab titre ≥8 (1/dil)) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.82|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for IPV3||0.82|-1.20|<0.001
91870380|NCT01480258|183634287|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate for anti-rotavirus IgA GMT ratio (PR5I group/INFANRIX hexa group) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value and 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was greater than 0.50 (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that the Rotarix antigen response in the PR5I group was not inferior to the Rotarix antigen response in the INFANRIX hexa group.|Geometric Mean Titre (GMT) ratio|0.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.20|0.54|0.011
91870381|NCT01480258|183634288|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||||||ISR or systemic AE||1.4|-0.7|
91870382|NCT01480258|183634288|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||||95.0|-0.3|2.0||||||ISR or V-related systemic AE||2.0|-0.3|
91870383|NCT01480258|183634288|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.0||||||At least 1 ISR||6.0|-0.7|
91870384|NCT01480258|183634288|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.9||||||At least 1 solicited ISR||5.9|-0.9|
91870385|NCT01480258|183634288|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||||||At least 1 systemic AE||1.4|-1.1|
91870386|NCT01480258|183634288|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||||||At least 1 vaccine-related systemic AE||2.2|-0.5|
91870387|NCT01480258|183634288|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||||||At least 1 solicited systemic AE||2.2|-0.5|
91870388|NCT01480258|183634288|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||||95.0|-0.4|2.3||||||At least 1 vaccine-related solicited systemic AE||2.3|-0.4|
91870389|NCT01480258|183634289|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.3||||||Injection-site erythema||13.3|3.0|
91870390|NCT01480258|183634289|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.3||||||Injection-site pain||8.3|-1.5|
91870391|NCT01480258|183634289|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||||95.0|2.1|12.9||||||Injection-site swelling||12.9|2.1|
91888877|NCT01346072|183670146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Wilcoxon Two-Sample Test|Wilcoxon Two Sample Test was used with Exact Test two sided p value reported||||||0.853
91888878|NCT01346072|183670147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon Two-Sample Test|Wilcoxon Two Sample Test was used with Exact Test two sided p value reported||||||0.035
91734777|NCT01346592|183363669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (B strain)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.3||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.3|2.6|
91734778|NCT01346592|183363669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|3.71||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.71|2.79|
91734779|NCT01346592|183363669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.62||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.62|2.19|
91734780|NCT01346592|183363669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (B strain)|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.47||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.47|2.73|
91734781|NCT01346592|183363670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|12.4||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||12.4|6.3|
91734782|NCT01346592|183363670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.9||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||5.9|1.8|
91734783|NCT01346592|183363670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|13.3||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||13.3|8.1|
91734784|NCT01346592|183363670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|17.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||17.7|11.1|
91734785|NCT01346592|183363670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|9.1||||||superiority was concluded if the lower bound of 95% CI of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||9.1|4.5|
91870392|NCT01480258|183634290|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||||||Injection-site bruising||0.3|-2.5|
91870393|NCT01480258|183634290|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||||||Injection-site haemorrhage||1.6|-1.5|
91870394|NCT01480258|183634290|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.4||||||Injection-site induration||6.4|-1.2|
91734786|NCT01346592|183363670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|13.4||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||13.4|8.3|
91734787|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.12||||||No risk subjects.||3.12|2.3|
91870395|NCT01480258|183634290|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||||||Injection-site nodule||1.5|-0.8|
91734788|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.05||||||No risk subjects.||2.05|1.7|
91734789|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|3.44||||||No risk subjects.||3.44|2.68|
91734790|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.42||||||At risk subjects.||4.42|1.11|
91734791|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.72||||||At risk subjects.||3.72|1.61|
91734792|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|6.34||||||At risk subjects||6.34|1.88|
91734793|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratios (H1N1 strain)|3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|4.1||||||No risk subjects.||4.1|3.03|
91734794|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.59||||||No risk subjects.||2.59|2.15|
91734795|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|3.56||||||No risk subjects.||3.56|2.78|
91870396|NCT01480258|183634290|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||||95.0|-0.4|2.7||||||Injection-site warmth||2.7|-0.4|
91870397|NCT01480258|183634291|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.7||||||Crying||5.7|-1.3|
91870398|NCT01480258|183634291|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.8||||||Decreased appetite||8.8|-1.6|
91870399|NCT01480258|183634291|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.4||||||Irritability||5.4|-1.0|
91870400|NCT01480258|183634291|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.3||||||Pyrexia||11.3|1.5|
91870401|NCT01480258|183634291|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|9.8||||||Somnolence||9.8|1.7|
91870402|NCT01480258|183634291|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.9||||||Vomiting||6.9|-3.2|
91870403|NCT00659373|183634398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
91870404|NCT01543204|183634419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|35.97|||Wald asymptotic test|||||35.97|-15.97|0.4505
91870405|NCT00087022|183634449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.737
91870406|NCT00087022|183634450|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.012|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.012
91905915|NCT01431274|183707482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.084||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.084|-0.015|0.1670
91870407|NCT00087022|183634453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.022
91870408|NCT02686658|183634465|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) and square root transformation was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares means between groups calculated as (Sham) minus (Zimura).||||0.0072
91870409|NCT02686658|183634465|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) and square root transformation was used to compare treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.124||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares means between groups calculated as (Sham) minus (Zimura).||||0.0051
91870410|NCT02686658|183634466|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.39||||0.3464|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.3464
91870411|NCT02686658|183634466|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.883|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.8830
91870412|NCT02686658|183634467|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38||||0.8405|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.8405
91870413|NCT02686658|183634467|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.5017|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.5017
91870414|NCT03964974|183634499|SUPERIORITY|2-sided hypothesis tests were utilized to compare ISI score over time in the two treatment conditions.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.612||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|-1.104||This is the calculated p-value. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Persons in the CBTI-CB condition were hypothesized as realizing greater reduction in insomnia severity as measured by the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) over time compared to the Sleep Hygiene Education (SHE) condition. 80% power was estimated to detect a medium or larger effect size (d\>0.52) on sleep- and functioning-related outcomes, even with a more conservative alpha set at 0.017 (i.e., 0.05/3 for the 3 outcomes).|Parameter is estimated difference in final means, CBTi-CB - Control. Minus sign denotes greater decrease for CBTi-CB. Effect size for Time X Condition = 0.81|-1.104|-7.510|0.0041
91870415|NCT02660086|183634527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-0.6|0.70
91734796|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.68||||||At risk subjects.||5.68|1.28|
91734797|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|5.06||||||At risk subjects.||5.06|2.09|
91734798|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.3||||||At risk subjects.||5.3|1.44|
91734799|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|3.37||||||No risk subjects.||3.37|2.34|
91734800|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.28||||||No risk subjects.||2.28|1.83|
91734801|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|4.34||||||No risk subjects||4.34|3.22|
91734802|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.0||||||At risk subjects.||6|0.92|
91734803|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.45||||||At risk subjects.||5.45|1.57|
91734804|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|12.0||||||At risk subjects||12|2.52|
91734805|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.39||||||No risk subjects.||4.39|3.05|
91734806|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.99||||||No risk subjects||2.99|2.4|
91870416|NCT02660086|183634528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.3|0.20
91870417|NCT02660086|183634529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in systolic BP at 12 months||0.9|-3.6|0.24
91905916|NCT01431274|183707482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.146|0.048|0.0001
91734807|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|4.61||||||No risk subjects.||4.61|3.42|
91870418|NCT02660086|183634529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in systolic BP at 24 months||3.7|-0.7|0.19
91870419|NCT02660086|183634529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in diastolic BP at 12 months||0.1|-3.2|0.07
91870420|NCT02660086|183634529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in diastolic BP at 24 months||1.6|-1.5|0.94
91734808|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.31||||||At risk subjects.||7.31|1.02|
91734809|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|6.62||||||At risk subjects.||6.62|1.85|
91734810|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|12.0||||||At risk subjects.||12|2.32|
91870421|NCT02660086|183634530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in total cholesterol at 12 months||2.9|-5.6|0.54
91870422|NCT02660086|183634530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in total cholesterol at 24 months||6.7|-3.5|0.53
91870423|NCT02660086|183634531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL at 12 months||2.4|-4.8|0.51
91870424|NCT02660086|183634531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL at 24 months||5.7|-3.4|0.60
91870425|NCT02660086|183634532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in triglycerides at 12 months||5.1|-10.8|0.48
91734811|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.97||||||No risk subjects.||1.97|1.21|
91734812|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.82||||||No risk subjects||1.82|1.26|
91734813|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.38||||||No risk subjects||2.38|1.52|
91734814|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.4||||||At risk subjects||5.4|0.57|
91734815|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.89||||||At risk subjects||2.89|1.09|
91734816|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.54||||||At risk subjects||4.54|0.73|
91734817|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.05||||||No risk subjects||3.05|1.89|
91734818|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.85||||||No risk subjects.||1.85|1.29|
91734819|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.11||||||No risk subjects||2.11|1.36|
91734820|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.71||||||At risk subjects.||7.71|0.58|
91734821|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.89||||||At risk subjects||4.89|1.61|
91734822|NCT01346592|183363675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.67||||||At risk subjects||3.67|0.37|
91734823|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|12.0||||||No risk subjects.||12|5.4|
91734824|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.6||||||No risk subjects.||6.6|1.8|
91905917|NCT01431274|183707482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.115||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.115|0.017|0.0085
91734825|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|14.8||||||No risk subjects.||14.8|9.2|
91734826|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|18.7||||||At risk subjects.||18.7|-24|
91734827|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|18.9||||||At risk subjects.||18.9|-21.2|
91734828|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|29.5||||||At risk subjects.||29.5|-1.6|
91734829|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|17.7||||||No risk subjects.||17.7|10.7|
91734830|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.8||||||No risk subjects.||9.8|4.6|
91734831|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|16.4||||||No risk subjects||16.4|10.7|
91734832|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|19.2||||||At risk subjects.||19.2|-26.1|
91734833|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|27.3||||||At risk subjects.||27.3|-17.5|
91734834|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|29.2||||||At risk subjects.||29.2|-4.4|
91734835|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|14.5||||||No risk subjects.||14.5|7.2|
91734836|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.5||||||No risk subjects.||7.5|2.6|
91734837|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|15.8||||||No risk subjects.||15.8|9.5|
91734838|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|26.3||||||At risk subjects.||26.3|-24.7|
91734839|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|30.3||||||At risk subjects.||30.3|-26.9|
91734840|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|27.1||||||At risk subjects.||27.1|-16.9|
91734841|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|20.2||||||No risk subjects.||20.2|12.4|
91734842|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.5||||||No risk subjects||10.5|5.1|
91734843|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|18.6||||||No risk subjects||18.6|12|
91734844|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|25.5||||||At risk subjects||25.5|-27.1|
91734845|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|37.2||||||At risk subjects||37.2|-23.5|
91734846|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|38.0||||||At risk subjects.||38|-10.7|
91734847|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.4||||||No risk subjects.||10.4|-4.2|
91734848|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 subjects)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.9||||||No risk subjects.||11.9|-1.2|
91734849|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.1||||||No risk subjects.||15.1|2.9|
91734850|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|32.0||||||At risk subjects.||32|-42.4|
91734851|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|16.6||||||At risk subjects.||16.6|-41.2|
91734852|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|53.9||||||At risk subjects.||53.9|-7.1|
91734853|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.4||||||No risk subjects.||16.4|1|
91734854|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|16.1||||||No risk subjects.||16.1|2|
91870426|NCT02660086|183634532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in triglycerides at 24 months||11.5|-3.4|0.29
91734855|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||||||No risk subjects.||10|0|
91734856|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|43.0||||||At risk subjects.||43|-42.1|
91734857|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|28.7||||||At risk subjects||28.7|-41.5|
91870427|NCT02660086|183634533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL at 12 months||1.5|-1.9|0.80
91797607|NCT02979197|183473643|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-sample t-test was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib (arm 1) was non-inferior to half of the effect achieved with Amlodipine+Placebo (arm 2). The primary efficacy endpoint was considered met if the lower limits of the 97.5% one-side confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SBPday change in arm 1 and 50% of the mean change in arm 2 was less than 0.||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF method was used. Primary efficacy analysis was based on the difference between the Amlodipine+Celecoxib and Amlodipine+Placebo (arms 1 and 2, respectively) in the mean change in SBPday from Baseline to final (Day 13), where a subject completed the 14-day treatment plan, or to Day 6, where a subject was withdrawn from treatment before the Day 13 dose but after the Day 6 dose, or to baseline, where a subject was withdrawn before the Day 6 dose.||||0.024
91797608|NCT02979197|183473644|OTHER|ANOVA F-test was used to compare the mean changes in body weight from baseline to end of treatment among the three treatment arms. The omni-bus test was to conclude if any differences existed.||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in body weight was the 1st of the four secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.006
91797609|NCT02979197|183473645|SUPERIORITY|A two-sample t-test for superiority was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib lowered SBP24h to a greater degree than Amlodipine+Placebo.||||||0.826|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in SBP24h was the 2nd of the four secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.826
91797610|NCT02979197|183473646|SUPERIORITY|A two-sample t-test for superiority was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib lowered DBP24h to a greater degree than Amlodipine+Placebo.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in DBP24h was the 3rd of the 4 secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.500
91797611|NCT02979197|183473647|SUPERIORITY|A two-sample t-test for superiority was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib improved creatinine clearance to a greater degree than Amlodipine+Placebo.||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in creatinine clearance was the 4th of 4 secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.668
91797612|NCT02979197|183473648|SUPERIORITY|Differences in the occurrence of TEAEs between treatment arms were evaluated using Chi-square test.||||||0.675|||||||Chi-squared|Computed on the number of subjects who had at least one TEAE.||||||0.675
91797613|NCT02979197|183473648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Regression, Logistic|TEAE (1=at least one TEAE occurred for the subject; 0=otherwise) as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect.||||||0.555
91797614|NCT02979197|183473649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For this analysis, all values below the limit of quantification were treated as 0.||||0.226
91797615|NCT02979197|183473650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For this analysis, all values below the limit of quantification (BLQ) were treated as 0.04 ng/mL. Assignment of BLQ values to a nonzero number allowed computation of the log transformation. The selection of 0.04 ng/mL was based on the lower limit of quantification of the validated bioanalytical method (0.05 ng/mL) and selecting the next lowest number at the hundredth decimal place.||||0.215
91797616|NCT02979197|183473651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -3.48 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -5.4 to -1.6||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the Amlodipine+Celecoxib arm from baseline to Day 14.||||0.0005
91870428|NCT02660086|183634533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL at 24 months||1.3|-1.9|0.72
91870429|NCT02660086|183634534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in hemoglobin A1C at 12 months||0.1|-0.1|0.62
91870430|NCT02660086|183634534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in hemoglobin A1C at 24 months||0.1|0.0|0.40
91870431|NCT02660086|183634535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in green labeled purchases during 12 month intervention (months 1-12) compared to baseline 12 months||9.3|5.4|<0.001
91870432|NCT02660086|183634535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in green-labeled purhases during 12 month follow-up (months 13-24) compared to 12 month baseline||6.8|2.9|<0.001
91870433|NCT02660086|183634536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in red labeled purchases during 12 month intervention (months 1-12) compared to baseline 12 months||-2.7|-5.0|<0.001
91870434|NCT02660086|183634536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in red labeled purchases during 12-month follow up (months 13-24) compared to baseline 12 months||-2.0|-4.3|<0.001
91905918|NCT01431274|183707482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.14||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.140|0.041|0.0003
91797617|NCT02979197|183473651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.72 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -3.6 to 0.2||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the Amlodipine+Placebo arm from baseline to Day 14.||||0.0750
91797618|NCT02979197|183473651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.92 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -6.6 to 2.8||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the Placebo+Placebo arm from baseline to Day 14.||||0.4184
91797619|NCT02979197|183473651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2022|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.76 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -4.5 to 1.0||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the comparison between the Amlodipine+Celecoxib and Amlodipine+Placebo arms.||||0.2022
91797620|NCT02979197|183473651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.56 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -6.6 to 3.5||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the comparison between the Amlodipine+Celecoxib and Placebo+Placebo arms.||||0.5410
91797621|NCT02979197|183473651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9397|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = 0.19 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -4.9 to 5.2||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the comparison between the Amlodipine+Placebo and Placebo+Placebo arms.||||0.9397
91797622|NCT01920555|183473686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-0.43||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.43|-5.93|0.14
91797623|NCT01920555|183473686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|1.49||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.49|-3.75|0.79
91797624|NCT01920555|183473686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.79|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|-2.24||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-2.24|-7.35|<0.01
91870435|NCT02660086|183634537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in healthy purchasing score during 12 month intervention (months 1-12) compared to baseline 12 months||7.0|4.2|<0.001
91797625|NCT01920555|183473686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-1.15|-6.37|0.04
91797626|NCT01920555|183473686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|0.95||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.95|-5.04|0.72
91870436|NCT02660086|183634537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Healthy Purchasing Score during 12 month follow up (months 13-24) compared to baseline 12 months||5.3|2.6|<0.001
91870437|NCT02660086|183634538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.1||||||Change in HEI scores at 12 months.||4.1|-0.6|
91870438|NCT02660086|183634538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.8||||||Change in HEI scores at 24 months||3.8|-0.7|
91870439|NCT01377844|183634539|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.53||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||||-0.53|-1.06|< 0.0001
91905919|NCT01431274|183707482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.025||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.025|-0.074|0.3332
91870440|NCT01377844|183634540|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-3.04||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline systolic BP, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||||-3.04|-8.02|< 0.0001
91870441|NCT01377844|183634540|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.67||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.04||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline diastolic BP, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||||-1.04|-4.30|0.0015
91870442|NCT01377844|183634541|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.93||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline weight, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||||-0.93|-2.52|< 0.0001
91870443|NCT01377844|183634542|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.21||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 2||-0.21|-0.42|< 0.0001
91870444|NCT01377844|183634542|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.41||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 6||-0.41|-0.78|< 0.0001
91870445|NCT01377844|183634542|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.48||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 12||-0.48|-0.96|< 0.0001
91870446|NCT01377844|183634542|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.44||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 18||-0.44|-0.97|< 0.0001
91870447|NCT01377844|183634542|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.53||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 24||-0.53|-1.06|< 0.0001
91905920|NCT01431274|183707483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.201||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.201|0.105|<0.0001
91905921|NCT01431274|183707483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.029|0.0016
91734858|NCT01346592|183363676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|36.8||||||At risk subjects.||36.8|-29|
91905922|NCT01431274|183707483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.18||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.180|0.084|<0.0001
91734859|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|12.8||||||No risk subjects.||12.8|6.4|
91734860|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.4||||||No risk subjects.||6.4|1.8|
91870448|NCT01377844|183634542|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.66||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 36||-0.66|-1.21|< 0.0001
91870449|NCT01377844|183634542|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.7||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 48||-0.70|-1.28|< 0.0001
91870450|NCT01377844|183634542|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.68||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 60||-0.68|-1.27|< 0.0001
91870451|NCT01377844|183634542|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.64||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 72||-0.64|-1.22|< 0.0001
91870452|NCT01377844|183634542|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.69||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 84||-0.69|-1.27|< 0.0001
91870453|NCT01377844|183634542|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.73||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 96||-0.73|-1.31|< 0.0001
91870454|NCT01377844|183634543|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.7||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 2, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-1.70|-2.79|< 0.0001
91870455|NCT01377844|183634543|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.81||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 6, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-1.81|-3.09|< 0.0001
91870456|NCT01377844|183634543|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.77||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 12, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-1.77|-3.06|< 0.0001
91905923|NCT01431274|183707483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.089|-0.007|0.0926
91905924|NCT01431274|183707483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.103||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.103|0.008|0.0231
91905925|NCT01431274|183707483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.069||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.069|-0.026|0.3802
91905926|NCT01431274|183707483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.11||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.110|0.015|0.0105
91905927|NCT01431274|183707483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.028|0.0018
91905928|NCT01431274|183707483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.139|0.043|0.0002
91870457|NCT01377844|183634543|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.11||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 18, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-2.11|-3.30|< 0.0001
91870458|NCT01377844|183634543|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-2.02||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 24, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-2.02|-3.24|< 0.0001
91870459|NCT01653509|183634545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-911.48||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2712.65|889.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for TEV.||889.69|-2712.65|0.3061
91870460|NCT01653509|183634545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-150.99||||0.4035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-517.97|215.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments for MEV.||215.99|-517.97|0.4035
91870461|NCT01653509|183634546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.48||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for TEV (Day 1 to day 10).||4.93|0.02|0.0486
91870462|NCT01653509|183634546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for MEV.||0.82|-0.05|0.0799
91905929|NCT01431274|183707483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.5554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.034||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.034|-0.062|0.5554
91905930|NCT01431274|183707484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.228||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.228|0.127|<0.0001
91905931|NCT01431274|183707484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.134||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.134|0.033|0.0011
91905932|NCT01431274|183707484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.192||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.192|0.091|<0.0001
91905933|NCT01431274|183707484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.091||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.091|-0.009|0.1112
91905934|NCT01431274|183707484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.098||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.098|-0.003|0.0632
91905935|NCT01431274|183707484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.086|-0.014|0.1615
91905936|NCT01431274|183707484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.127||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.127|0.027|0.0027
91905937|NCT01431274|183707484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.144|0.044|0.0003
91905938|NCT01431274|183707484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.151||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.151|0.050|<0.0001
91905939|NCT01431274|183707484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.7925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.044||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.044|-0.057|0.7925
91734861|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|13.9||||||No risk subjects.||13.9|8.6|
91734862|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|14.9||||||At risk subjects.||14.9|-24.7|
91734863|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|20.7||||||At risk subjects.||20.7|-14.4|
91734864|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|23.4||||||At risk subjects.||23.4|-6.8|
91734865|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|18.1||||||No risk subjects.||18.1|11.3|
91734866|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|9.1||||||No risk subjects.||9.1|4.2|
91734867|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|16.1||||||No risk subjects.||16.1|10.5|
91797627|NCT01920555|183473686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.46||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.46|-3.18|0.80
91870463|NCT01653509|183634547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.14||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|5.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for TEV.||5.35|-1.06|0.1790
91870464|NCT01653509|183634547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for MEV.||1.00|-0.27|0.2446
91870465|NCT01214200|183634554|OTHER|For the analysis of differences between pre and post treatment a student's t-test was used and was checked with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.01
91905940|NCT01431274|183707485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.162||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.162|0.074|<0.0001
91905941|NCT01431274|183707485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.169||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.169|0.077|<0.0001
91734868|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|15.4||||||At risk subjects||15.4|-25.3|
91734869|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|24.2||||||At risk subjects.||24.2|-12.7|
91734870|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group differences (B strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|23.2||||||At risk subjects.||23.2|-7.8|
91734871|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|15.3||||||No risk subjects.||15.3|8.2|
91734872|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.4||||||No risk subjects.||7.4|2.5|
91734873|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|15.3||||||No risk subjects.||15.3|9.2|
91734874|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|20.2||||||At risk subjects.||20.2|-28.5|
91734875|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|33.5||||||At risk subjects.||33.5|-14.9|
91734876|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|19.7||||||At risk subjects.||19.7|-20.7|
91734877|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|20.1||||||No risk subjects.||20.1|12.6|
91734878|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.8||||||No risk subjects||9.8|4.6|
91734879|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|18.3||||||No risk subjects.||18.3|11.9|
91734880|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|20.2||||||At risk subjects.||20.2|-28.5|
91734881|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|33.5||||||At risk subjects.||33.5|-14.9|
91734882|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|29.3||||||At risk subjects.||29.3|-14|
91734883|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|9.5||||||No risk subjects.||9.5|-3.8|
91734884|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.0||||||No risk subjects.||10|-1.8|
91734885|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.5||||||No risk subjects.||12.5|1.5|
91734886|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|27.9||||||At risk subjects.||27.9|-40.7|
91734887|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|14.3||||||At risk subjects.||14.3|-38.4|
91870466|NCT02310581|183634574|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|104.973|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.2433||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.13|184.81|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||184.81|25.13|0.012
91734888|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|48.1||||||At risk subjects.||48.1|-7.9|
91734889|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|18.5||||||No risk subjects.||18.5|3|
91734890|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.6||||||No risk subjects.||15.6|2.2|
91734891|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.6||||||No risk subjects.||9.6|0|
91734892|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|35.0||||||At risk subjects.||35|-41.7|
91734893|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|23.4||||||At risk subjects.||23.4|-38.6|
91734894|NCT01346592|183363677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|31.0||||||At risk subjects.||31|-26.9|
91734895|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.76||||||No risk subjects.||2.76|1.91|
91734896|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.89||||||No risk subjects.||1.89|1.35|
91734897|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|3.31||||||No risk subjects.||3.31|2.57|
91734898|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.93||||||At risk subjects.||3.93|0.6|
91734899|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.61||||||At risk subjects.||4.61|0.89|
91734900|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.67||||||At risk subjects.||4.67|1.34|
91870467|NCT02310581|183634574|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|86.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.5385||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.94|162.69|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||162.69|9.94|0.028
91870468|NCT02310581|183634574|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.2459||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.36|144.33|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||144.33|-15.36|0.110
91870469|NCT02310581|183634577|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.739||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.76|24.04|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||24.04|4.76|0.005
91870470|NCT02310581|183634577|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5331||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|17.28|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||17.28|-1.17|0.085
91870471|NCT02310581|183634577|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7393||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|19.7|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||19.70|0.42|0.041
91905942|NCT01431274|183707485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.114||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.114|0.028|0.0012
91905943|NCT01431274|183707485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.137||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.137|0.050|<0.0001
91905944|NCT01431274|183707485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.121||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.121|0.031|0.0010
91734901|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|4.01||||||No risk subjects.||4.01|2.77|
91734902|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.45||||||No risk subjects||2.45|1.75|
91734903|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|3.49||||||No risk subjects||3.49|2.72|
91734904|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.5||||||At risk subjects.||4.5|0.65|
91734905|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|7.51||||||At risk subjects.||7.51|1.38|
91734906|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.98||||||At risk subjects.||3.98|1.1|
91734907|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.21||||||No risk subjects.||3.21|2.1|
91734908|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|2.52||||||No risk subjects.||2.52|1.71|
91734909|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|4.33||||||No risk subjects.||4.33|3.22|
91734910|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.4||||||At risk subjects.||4.4|0.45|
91734911|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|8.66||||||At risk subjects.||8.66|0.94|
91734912|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.4||||||At risk subjects.||4.4|0.45|
91734913|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|4.54||||||No risk subjects.||4.54|2.97|
91734914|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|3.37||||||No risk subjects.||3.37|2.29|
91734915|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (B strain)|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|4.65||||||No risk subjects.||4.65|3.46|
91734916|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.4||||||At risk subjects.||4.4|0.45|
91734917|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|13.0||||||At risk subjects.||13|1.43|
91734918|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|8.15||||||At risk subjects.||8.15|1.67|
91870472|NCT02310581|183634578|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1991||3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.98|43.35|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||43.35|9.98|0003
91905945|NCT01431274|183707485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.092|0.003|0.0384
91905946|NCT01431274|183707485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.185||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.185|0.097|<0.0001
91905947|NCT01431274|183707485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.04||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.040|-0.049|0.8428
91797628|NCT01920555|183473686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|-0.44||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.44|-5.97|0.14
91870473|NCT02310581|183634578|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8429||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|37.56|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||37.56|5.65|0.009
91870474|NCT02310581|183634578|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1997||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.46|38.83|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||38.83|5.46|0.011
91870475|NCT02310581|183634579|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|63.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.3971||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.45|101.31|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||101.31|26.45|0.001
91870476|NCT02310581|183634579|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.5979||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.48|86.09|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||86.09|14.48|0.007
91870477|NCT02310581|183634579|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.3984||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.45|94.31|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||94.31|19.45|0.004
91870478|NCT00887224|183634581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Significance declared if p-value ≤0.05. The estimated probability obtained via Kaplan-Meier estimate.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91905948|NCT01431274|183707485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.02||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.020|-0.065|0.3048
91905949|NCT01431274|183707485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.063||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.063|-0.027|0.4311
91870479|NCT00887224|183634583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 1||0.08|-0.09|0.9627
91870480|NCT00887224|183634583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 2||0.21|-0.02|0.1046
91905950|NCT01431274|183707486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.139||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.139|0.057|<0.0001
91905951|NCT01431274|183707486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.149||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.149|0.063|<0.0001
91905952|NCT01431274|183707486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.091||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.091|0.010|0.0136
91702408|NCT00772005|183299682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7522||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7522
91702409|NCT00772005|183299682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3183||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3183
91702410|NCT00772005|183299683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5879||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5879
91702411|NCT00772005|183299683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.891||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8910
91702412|NCT00772005|183299683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1795||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1795
91702413|NCT00772005|183299684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6378||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6378
91734919|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.04||||||No risk subjects.||2.04|0.89|
91734920|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.22||||||No risk subjects.||2.22|1.14|
91734921|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.15||||||No risk subjects.||2.15|1.3|
91870481|NCT00887224|183634583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 3||0.25|0.02|0.0228
91870482|NCT00887224|183634583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 4||0.29|0.05|0.0064
91870483|NCT00887224|183634583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.39||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 6||0.39|0.11|<0.001
91905953|NCT01431274|183707486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.116||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.116|0.035|0.0003
91905954|NCT01431274|183707486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.101||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.101|0.016|0.0065
91905955|NCT01431274|183707486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.089||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.089|0.005|0.0277
91905956|NCT01431274|183707486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.164||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.164|0.081|<0.0001
91905957|NCT01431274|183707486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.7116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.034||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.034|-0.049|0.7116
91905958|NCT01431274|183707486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.016||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.016|-0.065|0.2332
91905959|NCT01431274|183707486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.059||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.059|-0.025|0.4374
91905960|NCT01431274|183707487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.244||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.244|0.077|0.0002
91734922|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|10.0||||||At risk subjects.||10|0.29|
91905961|NCT01431274|183707487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.228||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.228|0.053|0.0017
91905962|NCT01431274|183707487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.21||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.210|0.046|0.0022
91905963|NCT01431274|183707487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.259||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.259|0.093|<0.0001
91734923|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.01||||||At risk subjects.||4.01|0.33|
91734924|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.94||||||At risk subjects.||3.94|0.53|
91734925|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.39||||||No risk subjects||3.39|1.48|
91734926|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.46||||||No risk subjects.||2.46|1.26|
91734927|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.04||||||No risk subjects||2.04|1.24|
91870484|NCT00887224|183634583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.43||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 10||0.43|0.12|<0.001
91870485|NCT00887224|183634583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.47||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||0.47|0.19|<0.001
91905964|NCT01431274|183707487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.194||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.194|0.022|0.0141
91905965|NCT01431274|183707487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.118||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.118|-0.053|0.4581
91734928|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|18.0||||||At risk subjects.||18|0.34|
91734929|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.92||||||At risk subjects.||7.92|0.49|
91734930|NCT01346592|183363678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.16||||||At risk subjects.||2.16|0.23|
91734931|NCT01346592|183363681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|4.95||||||GMTs were considered to be statistically significantly higher if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||4.95|3.34|
91734932|NCT01346592|183363681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.18||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval around the vaccine group ratio is \>1.0||2.18|1.74|
91734933|NCT01346592|183363681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.39||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||2.39|1.73|
91734934|NCT01346592|183363681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.82||||||95.0|3.14|4.64||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||4.64|3.14|
91734935|NCT01346592|183363681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.68||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||2.68|2.15|
91870486|NCT00887224|183634583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.49||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 18||0.49|0.17|<0.001
91905966|NCT01431274|183707487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.293||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.293|0.124|<0.0001
91734936|NCT01346592|183363681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.29||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||2.29|1.65|
91734937|NCT00402987|183363808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.0003||95.0|5.5|17.9|||generalized linear model|p-value was calculated using Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||Null hypothesis: No difference in SPID2 (PI-VAS) at two hours between celecoxib 100 mg and placebo. Sample size was based on an expected effect size of 0.42 (from earlier studies), 80% power and an alpha of 0.05.||17.9|5.5|0.0003
91734938|NCT00402987|183363809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.212
91734939|NCT00402987|183363809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.056
91734940|NCT00402987|183363809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
91734941|NCT00402987|183363809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
91734942|NCT00402987|183363809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734943|NCT00402987|183363809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734944|NCT00402987|183363809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734945|NCT00402987|183363809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91870487|NCT00887224|183634583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.62||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 22||0.62|0.25|<0.001
91870488|NCT00887224|183634583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.61||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||0.61|0.28|<0.001
91905967|NCT01431274|183707487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.105||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.105|-0.064|0.6335
91905968|NCT01431274|183707487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.034||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.034|-0.129|0.2530
91734946|NCT00402987|183363809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734947|NCT00402987|183363809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734948|NCT00402987|183363809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734949|NCT00402987|183363809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734950|NCT00402987|183363810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized Linear Model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
91734951|NCT00402987|183363810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734952|NCT00402987|183363810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.006
91734953|NCT00402987|183363810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.007
91734954|NCT00402987|183363810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.014
91734955|NCT00402987|183363810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.012
91870489|NCT00887224|183634584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.47||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 1||0.47|-0.41|0.8853
91905969|NCT01431274|183707487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.153||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.153|-0.017|0.1188
91734956|NCT00402987|183363810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.365
91734957|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized Linear Model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.180
91734958|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.069
91734959|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.010
91734960|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
91734961|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734962|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734963|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734964|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91797629|NCT01920555|183473686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.96||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.96|-4.65|0.72
91797630|NCT01920555|183473687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.15||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|2.14||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.14|-12.44|0.33
91797631|NCT01920555|183473687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|4.72||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||4.72|-9.03|0.53
91797632|NCT01920555|183473687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.85||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|-3.15||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-3.15|-16.56|0.02
91797633|NCT01920555|183473687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.72||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|-0.93||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.93|-14.52|0.08
91797634|NCT01920555|183473688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.22|-1.83|0.08
91797635|NCT01920555|183473688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.51||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.51|-1.02|0.82
91797636|NCT01920555|183473688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.54||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.54|-2.02|0.00720
91870490|NCT00887224|183634584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.52||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 2||1.52|0.23|0.0081
91870491|NCT00887224|183634584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.47||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 3||1.47|0.28|0.0038
91870492|NCT00887224|183634584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.03||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 4||2.03|0.76|<0.001
91905970|NCT01431274|183707488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.217||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.217|0.057|0.0008
91905971|NCT01431274|183707488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.209||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.209|0.042|0.0032
91870493|NCT00887224|183634584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.39||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 6||2.39|0.86|<0.001
91905972|NCT01431274|183707488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.183||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.183|0.027|0.0085
91905973|NCT01431274|183707488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.235||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.235|0.077|0.0001
91734965|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734966|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734967|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734968|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734969|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.096
91734970|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.034
91734971|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.022
91734972|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.010
91797637|NCT01920555|183473688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.04884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.29||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.29|-1.81|0.04884
91905974|NCT01431274|183707488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.176||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.176|0.011|0.0255
91734973|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
91734974|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
91734975|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
91734976|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734977|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734978|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734979|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734980|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91870494|NCT00887224|183634584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.54||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 10||2.54|0.83|<0.001
91905975|NCT01431274|183707488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.113||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.113|-0.049|0.4393
91905976|NCT01431274|183707488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.269||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.269|0.108|<0.0001
91905977|NCT01431274|183707488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.7784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.092|-0.069|0.7784
91734981|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.741
91734982|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.759||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.759
91734983|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.775
91734984|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.561||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.561
91734985|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.419||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.419
91734986|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.237
91734987|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.146||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.146
91734988|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.113
91734989|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.086||95.0||||"Analyaia at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.086
91734990|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.111
91734991|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.183||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.183
91734992|NCT00402987|183363811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.259||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.259
91734993|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734994|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734995|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734996|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734997|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734998|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91734999|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735000|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735001|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91905978|NCT01431274|183707488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.026||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.026|-0.129|0.1965
91735002|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735003|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735004|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735005|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.017
91735006|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.011
91735007|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.009
91735008|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
91735009|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
91735010|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
91905979|NCT01431274|183707488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.144||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.144|-0.019|0.1315
91905980|NCT01431274|183707489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.239|-1.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-1.043|-3.239|0.0001
91905981|NCT01431274|183707489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||-0.033|-2.230|0.0435
91735011|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
91735012|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.012
91735013|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.904||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.904
91735014|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.891||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.891
91735015|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.929||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.929
91735016|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.994||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.994
91735017|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.933||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.933
91735018|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.876||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.876
91735019|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.622
91735020|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.081||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.081
91905982|NCT01431274|183707489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.623|-0.432||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.432|-2.623|0.0063
91905983|NCT01431274|183707489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.611|0.577||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.577|-1.611|0.3545
91905984|NCT01431274|183707489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.614|0.578||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.578|-1.614|0.3542
91905985|NCT01431274|183707489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.702|0.476||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.476|-1.702|0.2697
91905986|NCT01431274|183707489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.227|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.033|-2.227|0.0434
91905987|NCT01431274|183707489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.095||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.095|-2.114|0.0732
91905988|NCT01431274|183707489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.092||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.092|-2.114|0.0724
91905989|NCT01431274|183707489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|1.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.104|-1.102|0.9983
91905990|NCT01431274|183707490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.985|-0.718||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.718|-2.985|0.0014
91905991|NCT01431274|183707490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.444|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.573|0.686||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.686|-1.573|0.4413
91905992|NCT01431274|183707490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.569|-0.304||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.304|-2.569|0.0129
91905993|NCT01431274|183707490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|1.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.070|-1.182|0.9222
91905994|NCT01431274|183707490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.157|1.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.100|-1.157|0.9602
91735021|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.117
91735022|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.152||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.152
91735023|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.171
91735024|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.197
91735025|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.244
91735026|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.708||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.708
91735027|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.106||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.106
91735028|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.140
91735029|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.188||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.188
91870495|NCT00887224|183634584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.86||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||2.86|1.23|<0.001
91870496|NCT00887224|183634584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.84||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 18||2.84|1.06|<0.001
91905995|NCT01431274|183707490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.533|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.703|-1.533|0.4669
91735030|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.239||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.239
91735031|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.297||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.297
91735032|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.383||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.383
91735033|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.919||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.919
91735034|NCT00402987|183363812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735035|NCT00402987|183363813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.537||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.537
91735036|NCT00402987|183363813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.697||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.697
91735037|NCT00402987|183363813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.203||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.203
91735038|NCT00402987|183363813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.003
91735039|NCT00402987|183363813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91870497|NCT00887224|183634584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.3||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 22||3.30|1.31|<0.001
91735040|NCT00402987|183363813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91797638|NCT01920555|183473688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.28||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.28|-1.70|0.48
91735041|NCT00402987|183363813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735042|NCT00402987|183363813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735043|NCT00402987|183363813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735044|NCT00402987|183363813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735045|NCT00402987|183363813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91797639|NCT01920555|183473688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.55||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.55|-1.32|0.82
91797640|NCT01920555|183473688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.09||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.09|-1.91|0.16
91797641|NCT01920555|183473688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.07||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.07|-1.78|0.27
91797642|NCT01920555|183473689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.17||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.17|-1.25|0.54
91870498|NCT00887224|183634584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.32||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||3.32|1.39|<0.001
91870499|NCT00887224|183634585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.27||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 1||0.27|-0.24|0.9142
91735046|NCT00402987|183363813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735047|NCT00402987|183363814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
91735048|NCT00402987|183363814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
91735049|NCT00402987|183363814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.046
91735050|NCT00402987|183363814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.046
91870500|NCT00887224|183634585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.91||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 2||0.91|0.15|0.0069
91870501|NCT00887224|183634585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.95||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 3||0.95|0.21|0.0023
91870502|NCT00887224|183634585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.28||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 4||1.28|0.49|<0.001
91870503|NCT00887224|183634585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.32||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 6||1.32|0.43|<0.001
91870504|NCT00887224|183634585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.58||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 10||1.58|0.58|<0.001
91870505|NCT00887224|183634585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.58||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||1.58|0.66|<0.001
91870506|NCT00887224|183634585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.83||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 18||1.83|0.76|<0.001
91870507|NCT00887224|183634585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.76||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 22||1.76|0.70|<0.001
91870508|NCT00887224|183634585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||1.79|0.75|<0.001
91870509|NCT00887224|183634586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted odds ratio|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|4.2||Obtained from logistic regression analysis using Remission (Yes/No) at each time point as a response variable; logistic model with treatment and sites as factors and baseline HAM-D17 total score as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Wald 95% CI for adjusted odds ratio.||4.20|1.93|<0.0001
91870510|NCT00887224|183634587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.24||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||-1.24|-3.03|<0.001
91870511|NCT00887224|183634587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.34||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||-1.34|-3.29|<0.001
91870512|NCT00887224|183634588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|5.87||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Absenteeism||5.87|-3.82|0.6772
91870513|NCT00887224|183634588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|5.24||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Absenteeism||5.24|-5.91|0.9059
91870514|NCT00887224|183634588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.91||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|13.55||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Presenteeism||13.55|0.27|0.0414
91870515|NCT00887224|183634588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.24||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|14.71||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Presenteeism||14.71|1.77|0.0129
91870516|NCT00887224|183634588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.48||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|14.61||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Work Productivity Loss||14.61|0.34|0.0402
91870517|NCT00887224|183634588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|15.53||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Work Productivity Loss||15.53|1.43|0.0187
91735051|NCT00402987|183363814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.111
91735052|NCT00402987|183363814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.226||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.226
91735053|NCT00402987|183363814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.537||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.537
91735054|NCT00402987|183363815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.01||95.0|1.3|5.5||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||5.5|1.3|0.010
91735055|NCT00402987|183363815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.003||95.0|1.5|6.4||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||6.4|1.5|0.003
91735056|NCT00402987|183363815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.634||95.0|0.6|2.2||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|0.6|0.634
91735057|NCT00402987|183363816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.202||95.0|0.8|3.5||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|0.8|0.202
91735058|NCT00402987|183363816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.077||95.0|0.9|5.1||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||5.1|0.9|0.077
91735059|NCT00402987|183363816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.134||95.0|0.8|4.7||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||4.7|0.8|0.134
91735060|NCT00402987|183363816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.671||95.0|0.4|1.9||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||1.9|0.4|0.671
91735061|NCT00402987|183363816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.484||95.0|0.3|1.7||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|0.3|0.484
91905996|NCT01431274|183707490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.598|0.656||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.656|-1.598|0.4126
91735062|NCT00402987|183363816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.814||95.0|0.4|2.8||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||2.8|0.4|0.814
91870518|NCT00887224|183634588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.8||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Activity Impairment||11.80|3.33|<0.001
91735063|NCT00402987|183363817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to perceptible pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience perceptible pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to perceptible pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
91735064|NCT00402987|183363817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to perceptible pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience perceptible pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to perceptible pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
91735065|NCT00402987|183363817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to perceptible pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience perceptible pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to perceptible pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
91735066|NCT00402987|183363818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to meaningful pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience meaningful pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to meaningful pain relief was censored at 2 hours.||||<0.05
91735067|NCT00402987|183363818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to meaningful pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience meaningful pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to meaningful pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
91735068|NCT00402987|183363819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to onset of analgesia|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience onset of analgesia within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to onset of analgesia was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
91735069|NCT00402987|183363819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to onset of analgesia|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience onset of analgesia within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to onset of analgesia was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
91735070|NCT00402987|183363820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||<0.001
91735071|NCT00402987|183363820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg (pooled) versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||<0.001
91735072|NCT00402987|183363820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.889||95.0||||Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg (pooled) that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.889
91870519|NCT00887224|183634588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|12.1||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Activity Impairment||12.10|3.14|<0.001
91735073|NCT00402987|183363821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||<0.001
91735074|NCT00402987|183363821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.002
91735075|NCT00402987|183363821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.015
91735076|NCT00402987|183363821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.411||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.411
91735077|NCT00402987|183363821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.930
91735078|NCT00402987|183363821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.438||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.438
91735079|NCT00402987|183363821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.002
91735080|NCT00402987|183363821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.013
91735081|NCT00402987|183363821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.015
91735082|NCT00402987|183363821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.748||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.748
91735083|NCT00402987|183363821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.958
91735084|NCT00402987|183363821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.747||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.747
91735085|NCT00402987|183363822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.999||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.999
91735086|NCT00402987|183363822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.609||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.609
91735087|NCT00402987|183363822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.076
91735088|NCT00402987|183363822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
91735089|NCT00402987|183363822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735090|NCT00402987|183363822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735091|NCT00402987|183363822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735092|NCT00402987|183363822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Continuous data were analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735093|NCT00402987|183363822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735094|NCT00402987|183363822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735095|NCT00402987|183363822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735096|NCT00402987|183363822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
91870520|NCT00403494|183634613|SUPERIORITY|PWT was transformed to the log ratio at Week 24:Baseline for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.379||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.097|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of the means of the natural log-transformed ratios between the 2 treatment groups.|||0.097|-0.138|0.727
91870521|NCT00487240|183634645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority limit of 0.4% using the upper limit of a two-sided test at a significance level of 0.05 with 90% power assuming a 1.1 Standard Deviations (SD)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.332||95.0|-0.29|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Country.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|Hypothesis: basal analog insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), is inferior to basal analog insulin detemir, as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint.||0.10|-0.29|0.332
91905997|NCT01431274|183707490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.551|-0.265||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.265|-2.551|0.0158
91905998|NCT01431274|183707490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|-0.24||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.240|-2.521|0.0177
91735097|NCT00402987|183363823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.003
91735098|NCT00402987|183363823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.009
91735099|NCT00402987|183363823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.043
91735100|NCT00402987|183363823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.032
91735101|NCT00402987|183363823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.029
91870522|NCT00487240|183634646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.718||95.0|-0.22|0.15||P-value for 8 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country.|Least Squares Mean Difference=Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.15|-0.22|0.718
91735102|NCT00402987|183363823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.066||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.066
91735103|NCT00402987|183363823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.482||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.482
91735104|NCT00402987|183363824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.001||95.0|0.8|1.9||Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.9|0.8|<0.001
91735105|NCT00402987|183363824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.002||95.0|0.4|1.5||Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.5|0.4|0.002
91735106|NCT00402987|183363824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.186||95.0|-1.0|0.2||Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||0.2|-1.0|0.186
91870523|NCT00487240|183634646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.187||95.0|-0.34|0.07||P-value for 16 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.07|-0.34|0.187
91870524|NCT00487240|183634646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.704||95.0|-0.25|0.17||P-value for 24 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.17|-0.25|0.704
91870525|NCT00487240|183634646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.599||95.0|-0.27|0.15||P-value for 32 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.15|-0.27|0.599
91870526|NCT00487240|183634647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91870527|NCT00487240|183634647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91870528|NCT00487240|183634647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c ≤6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.722
91870529|NCT00487240|183634647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c \<6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.699
91735107|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.961||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.961
91870530|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean 7-Point SMBG.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.259
91702414|NCT00772005|183299684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8679||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8679
91870531|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.468
91870532|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.395
91870533|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Morning and Evening Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.414
91870534|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.275
91870535|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.611
91870536|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.763
91870537|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.977
91870538|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.586||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.586
91870539|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.093
91870540|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0||||P-value for Actual 0300 Hours|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.516
91870541|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.576
91870542|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876||95.0||||P-value for Midday SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.876
91870543|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0||||P-value for Evening SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.261
91870544|NCT00487240|183634648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.567
91870545|NCT00487240|183634649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 0.8 mmol/L was chosen to prove noninferiority of ILPS to detemir.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||||95.0|-0.03|0.75|||||Least Squares Mean difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension - Detemir|If the primary analysis achieves statistical significance at a 0.05 level (that is, the null hypothesis for the primary analysis \[primary outcome measure\] is rejected), then the first secondary hypothesis (glycemic variability) is tested at an error rate of 0.05.||0.75|-0.03|
91870546|NCT00487240|183634649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0||||P-value for M-Value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.132
91870547|NCT00487240|183634649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value for MODD|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.179
91870548|NCT00487240|183634650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
91870549|NCT00487240|183634650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.724
91870550|NCT00487240|183634650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.157
91870551|NCT00487240|183634650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.287
91870552|NCT00487240|183634650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.664
91870553|NCT00487240|183634650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.730
91870554|NCT00487240|183634650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
91870555|NCT00487240|183634650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||P-value for Overall Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.081
91870556|NCT00487240|183634651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.280
91870557|NCT00487240|183634651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.193
91870558|NCT00487240|183634651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.042
91870559|NCT00487240|183634651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.001
91870560|NCT00487240|183634651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.579
91870561|NCT00487240|183634651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.531
91870562|NCT00487240|183634651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Severe Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.017
91870563|NCT00487240|183634651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Overall Severe Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.038
91870564|NCT00487240|183634653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 1.5 kg was chosen to prove noninferiority of ILPS to detemir.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97||||0.003||95.0|0.34|1.6||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|If the first secondary null hypothesis (glycemic variability) is rejected, then the second secondary hypothesis (weight change) is tested at an error rate of 0.05.||1.60|0.34|0.003
91735108|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.985||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.985
91735109|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.975||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.975
91735110|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.532
91735111|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.690
91735112|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.820
91735113|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.180
91735114|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.344
91735115|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.693
91735116|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.039
91735117|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.154
91870565|NCT00487240|183634654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for Total Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.023
91735118|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.521||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.521
91735119|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.006
91735120|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.070
91735121|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.344
91735122|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
91735123|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.022
91735124|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.249||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.249
91735125|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735126|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.006
91870566|NCT00487240|183634654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Total Bolus Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.004
91870567|NCT00487240|183634654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0||||P-value for Total Basal Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.282
91870568|NCT00487240|183634655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0||||P-value for Total Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.82
91870569|NCT00487240|183634655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-value for Total Bolus Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.19
91870570|NCT00487240|183634655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0||||P-value for Total Basal Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.416
91870571|NCT02684136|183634671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|baseline used as covariate||||||<0.05
91870572|NCT02684136|183634672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||baseline used as covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91870573|NCT01989793|183634673|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference of change in isokinetic knee strength from baseline to week 8||||0.97
91870574|NCT01989793|183634674|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference of change in isokinetic knee strength from baseline to week 16||||0.48
91735127|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.205||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.205
91735128|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735129|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
91735130|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.186||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.186
91735131|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735132|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735133|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.179||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.179
91735134|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735135|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735136|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.259||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.259
91735137|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91870575|NCT01989793|183634675|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference of change in isokinetic knee strength from baseline to week 24||||0.59
91735138|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735139|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.393||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.393
91735140|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735141|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735142|NCT00402987|183363825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.512
91735143|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91870576|NCT01989793|183634676|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance between arms||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference in fatiguability at week 8||||0.212
91735144|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91870577|NCT01989793|183634677|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance between arms||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference in fatiguability at week 16||||0.271
91870578|NCT01989793|183634678|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance between arms||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference in fatiguability at week 24||||0.203
91870579|NCT01989793|183634679|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test of percentage of participants with improvement in frailty score from baseline between treatment and placebo arms||||0.82
91870580|NCT01989793|183634680|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test of percentage of participants with improvement in frailty score from baseline between treatment and placebo arms||||0.73
91870581|NCT01989793|183634681|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test of percentage of participants with improvement in frailty score from baseline between treatment and placebo arms||||0.73
91870582|NCT01957163|183634684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.154|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.154|0.093|< 0.001
91870583|NCT01957163|183634684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.128|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.159|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.159|0.098|<0.001
91870584|NCT01957163|183634685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.187|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.187|0.118|<0.001
91870585|NCT01957163|183634685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.175|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.175|0.106|<0.001
91870586|NCT03822832|183634689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.4||0.1492|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.9|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||3.7|-54.9|0.1492
91905999|NCT01431274|183707490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.164|1.109||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.109|-1.164|0.9624
91906000|NCT01431274|183707491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.862||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.862|0.329|<0.0001
91906001|NCT01431274|183707491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.907||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.907|0.373|<0.0001
91735145|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.026
91735146|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.463||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.463
91870587|NCT03822832|183634691|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.8613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||7.0|-5.7|0.8613
91870588|NCT03822832|183634692|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.0||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.8|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||21.4|-25.8|0.8754
91870589|NCT03822832|183634693|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.254|0.176||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 4||0.176|-0.254|
91906002|NCT01431274|183707491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.69||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.690|0.156|0.0019
91906003|NCT01431274|183707491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.712||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.712|0.179|0.0011
91735147|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.131
91735148|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.053
91870590|NCT03822832|183634693|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.396||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 16||0.396|0.053|
91735149|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91870591|NCT03822832|183634694|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.204|0.117||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 4||0.117|-0.204|
91870592|NCT03822832|183634694|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.232||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Pl|Risk difference at week 16||0.232|-0.080|
91870593|NCT03822832|183634695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||14.8|-14.6|0.9900
91870594|NCT03822832|183634696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.2|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||5.5|-35.2|0.2266
91870595|NCT03822832|183634697|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.159|0.12||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 4||0.120|-0.159|
91870596|NCT03822832|183634697|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.207||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 16||0.207|-0.050|
91870597|NCT01321073|183634707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sample exact test for Poisson rate|||The rate of catheter-related complications per 1000 patient-days was compared to a pre-specified value of 2.5 / 1000 days. This was calculated based on published complication rates in PAH that included central venous catheter systemic bloodstream infections (0.43-1.13), site infections (0.26-0.87), and complications from catheter thrombosis, mechanical dysfunction, or catheter dislocation in the general central venous catheter population (0.36-0.51). The sum of the upper rates is 2.5.||||<0.0001
91870598|NCT01638000|183634708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI for difference of adjusted change from baseline between solifenacin 5 mg and mirabegron 50 mg was \> -0.20. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg. Overall power calculation was 80% for a 1-sided test and significance level of 0.025.|least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicated superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||The non-inferiority of mirabegron vs. solifencacin on the change from baseline to final visit in the mean number of micturitions per 24 hours.||0.06|-0.42|0.15
91870599|NCT01638000|183634709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.25||If P \<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the smallest percentage of participants with at least 1 TEAE of dry mouth, constipation or blurred vision during the double-blind period at the final visit.|Regression, Logistic|Included treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥ 2) and geographic region as factors.||Difference vs Mirabegron. Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of mirabegron 50 mg group from the percentage of solifenacin 5 mg group.||2.25|1.04|0.030
91870600|NCT01638000|183634710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.27|-0.19|0.71
91870601|NCT01638000|183634710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.0||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.00|-0.47|0.053
91870602|NCT01638000|183634710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.05|-0.44|0.12
91870603|NCT01638000|183634711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.9||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.11||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron.||1.11|0.73|0.33
91906004|NCT01431274|183707491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.735||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.735|0.201|0.0006
91906005|NCT01431274|183707491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.2045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.438||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.438|-0.094|0.2045
91906006|NCT01431274|183707491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|0.885||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.885|0.351|<0.0001
91735150|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735151|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.020
91735152|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.484
91735153|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.197
91735154|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.086||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.086
91735155|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735156|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735157|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.018
91735158|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.561||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.561
91735159|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.252||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.252
91870604|NCT01638000|183634711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron.||1.10|0.64|0.21
91735160|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.136||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.136
91735161|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735162|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735163|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.018
91735164|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.653||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.653
91735165|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.287||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.287
91735166|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.191||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.191
91735167|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735168|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735169|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.018
91735170|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.741
91735171|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.326||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.326
91735172|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.256||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.256
91870605|NCT01638000|183634711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.97||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron.||1.32|0.71|0.83
91870606|NCT01638000|183634711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.24||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.24|0.68|0.57
91870607|NCT01638000|183634712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.10|-0.25|0.36
91870608|NCT01638000|183634712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.03|-0.48|0.12
91870609|NCT01638000|183634712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.07||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.07|-0.57|0.47
91870610|NCT01638000|183634713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.14|0.74|0.44
91870611|NCT01638000|183634713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.79||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.06|0.60|0.11
91870612|NCT01638000|183634713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.05||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.45||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.45|0.76|0.78
91735173|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91870613|NCT01638000|183634713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.97||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.33||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.33|0.71|0.85
91906007|NCT01431274|183707491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.223||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.223|-0.313|0.7432
91735174|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
91735175|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.016
91735176|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.808||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.808
91735177|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.394||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.394
91735178|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.343
91870614|NCT01638000|183634714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.14|-0.18|0.66
91735179|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
91735180|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.029
91735181|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.023
91735182|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.892||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.892
91735183|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.952||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.952
91735184|NCT00402987|183363826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.948||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.948
91735185|NCT00402987|183363827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.775
91735186|NCT00402987|183363827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.094||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.094
91735187|NCT00402987|183363827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.114||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.114
91735188|NCT00402987|183363827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
91735189|NCT00402987|183363827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91906008|NCT01431274|183707491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.8687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.245||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.245|-0.290|0.8687
91906009|NCT01431274|183707491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.8709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.246||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.246|-0.290|0.8709
91735190|NCT00402987|183363827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735191|NCT00402987|183363827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735192|NCT00402987|183363827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735193|NCT00402987|183363827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735194|NCT00402987|183363827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735195|NCT00402987|183363827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735196|NCT00402987|183363827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
91735197|NCT00402987|183363828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
91735198|NCT00402987|183363828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
91735199|NCT00402987|183363828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.007
91735200|NCT00402987|183363828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.015
91735201|NCT00402987|183363828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.033
91870615|NCT01638000|183634714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||-0.03|-0.31|0.17
91870616|NCT01638000|183634714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.02|-0.24|0.66
91870617|NCT01638000|183634715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.19|-0.44|0.43
91735202|NCT00402987|183363828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.036
91735203|NCT00402987|183363828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.500
91735204|NCT00402987|183363829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|||<|0.001||95.0|8.5|23.8||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||23.8|8.5|<0.001
91735205|NCT00402987|183363829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.009||95.0|2.6|17.9||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||17.9|2.6|0.009
91735206|NCT00402987|183363829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.127||95.0|-13.5|1.7||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.7|-13.5|0.127
91735207|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.480
91735208|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.780
91735209|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.667||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.667
91870618|NCT01638000|183634715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.04||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||-0.04|-0.66|0.027
91735210|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.153||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.153
91735211|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.479||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.479
91735212|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.469||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.469
91735213|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.062
91735214|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.284
91735215|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.421||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.421
91870619|NCT01638000|183634715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.00|-0.64|0.053
91735216|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.022
91870620|NCT01638000|183634715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.09|-0.55|0.16
91870621|NCT01638000|183634716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.05|-0.05|0.99
91735217|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.171
91735218|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.354||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.354
91735219|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
91735220|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.090
91735221|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.262
91735222|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
91735223|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.044
91735224|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.194||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.194
91735225|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91888879|NCT01711853|183670159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5186|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median GFR (Glomerular filtration rate), 2: \> median GFR).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.5186
91735226|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.020
91735227|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.148||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.148
91735228|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735229|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.009
91735230|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.127||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.127
91735231|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735232|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
91735233|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.122
91735234|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91906010|NCT01431274|183707492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|0.898||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.898|0.362|<0.0001
91906011|NCT01431274|183707492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.703|0.166|0.0015
91870622|NCT01638000|183634716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.03|-0.07|0.47
91735235|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735236|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.164||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.164
91735237|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis at 5 hours Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735238|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735239|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.244
91870623|NCT01638000|183634716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.06|-0.06|0.99
91870624|NCT01638000|183634716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Final visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.07|-0.05|0.74
91870625|NCT01638000|183634717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.03||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.20|0.89|0.67
91870626|NCT01638000|183634717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.17||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.39||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.39|0.99|0.073
91870627|NCT01638000|183634717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.12||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.37||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.37|0.92|0.25
91870628|NCT01638000|183634717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.08||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.31|0.90|0.40
91735240|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735241|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735242|NCT00402987|183363830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.336||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.336
91735243|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91906012|NCT01431274|183707492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.687||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.687|0.151|0.0022
91906013|NCT01431274|183707492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.495||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.495|-0.041|0.0966
91906014|NCT01431274|183707492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.492||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.492|-0.045|0.1029
91906015|NCT01431274|183707492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.478||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.478|-0.056|0.1220
91906016|NCT01431274|183707492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.707||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.707|0.170|0.0014
91906017|NCT01431274|183707492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.465||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.465|-0.074|0.1542
91906018|NCT01431274|183707492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.461||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.461|-0.077|0.1626
91906019|NCT01431274|183707492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.274||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.274|-0.265|0.9765
91906020|NCT01431274|183707493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.925||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.925|0.370|<0.0001
91906021|NCT01431274|183707493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.6||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.600|0.045|0.0226
91735244|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735245|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.090
91735246|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.518||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.518
91735247|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.038
91735248|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.019
91735249|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91797643|NCT01920555|183473689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.58||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.58|-0.78|1.00
91797644|NCT01920555|183473689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.31||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.31|-1.64|0.03
91797645|NCT01920555|183473689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.11||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.11|-1.24|0.54
91797646|NCT01920555|183473689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.57||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.57|-0.96|1.00
91870629|NCT01638000|183634718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.20|-0.25|0.84
91870630|NCT01638000|183634718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.15|-0.24|0.63
91906022|NCT01431274|183707493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.649||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.649|0.093|0.0089
91906023|NCT01431274|183707493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.609||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.609|0.056|0.0186
91906024|NCT01431274|183707493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.324||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.324|-0.231|0.7441
91906025|NCT01431274|183707493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.551||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.551|0.001|0.0492
91906026|NCT01431274|183707493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.884||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.884|0.332|<0.0001
91906027|NCT01431274|183707493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.605||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg)~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.605|0.045|0.0230
91735250|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91870631|NCT01638000|183634718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.16||if p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.16|-0.28|0.59
91870632|NCT01638000|183634719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.05||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.11||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.11|1.00|0.068
91870633|NCT01638000|183634719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.11||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.11|0.98|0.21
91870634|NCT01638000|183634719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.02||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.10|0.95|0.52
91735251|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.081||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.081
91735252|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.552
91735253|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.050
91735254|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.027
91870635|NCT01638000|183634719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.03||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.10|0.96|0.44
91906028|NCT01431274|183707493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.317||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.317|-0.240|0.7855
91906029|NCT01431274|183707493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.564||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.564|0.007|0.0442
91906030|NCT03437564|183707494|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the least square (LS) means between the formulations (dosing of one Vortioxetine 20 mg tablet - dosing of two Vortioxetine 10 mg tablets) and the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The shown data were anti-logs of LS means difference and CI. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUClast as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.|Point Estimate|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.026|||ANOVA|||||1.026|0.967|
91735255|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91870636|NCT01638000|183634720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.18|-0.00|0.058
91735256|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735257|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.071
91735258|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.609||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.609
91870637|NCT01638000|183634720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.12|-0.06|0.50
91906031|NCT03437564|183707495|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LS means between the formulations (dosing of one vortioxetine 20 mg tablet - dosing of two vortioxetine 10 mg tablets) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The shown data were anti-logs of LS means difference and CI. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Cmax as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.|Point Estimate|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.008|||ANOVA|||||1.008|0.937|
91906032|NCT00243386|183707506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to compare the means of the transformed data. The null-hypothesis tested was H0: X'A(PK-driven prophylaxis) - X'B (standard prophylaxis) = 0 (i.e., no difference for treatment under the 2 prophylactic regimens. X' = (ABR+0.5)\^(1/2)||||0.6016
91870638|NCT01638000|183634720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.10|-0.08|0.81
91870639|NCT01638000|183634721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 4 Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.28|0.85|0.67
91870640|NCT01638000|183634721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.53||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 8 Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.53|1.03|0.026
91906033|NCT00243386|183707507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||2-sided paired T-tests were done comparing transformed annualized bleeding rates between On-Demand and Prophylaxis regimens.|Paired t-Test|||||||<0.0001
91906034|NCT00243386|183707508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||2-sided paired T-tests were done comparing transformed annualized bleeding rates between On-Demand and Prophylaxis regimens.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91870641|NCT01638000|183634721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.44||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.44|0.97|0.11
91870642|NCT01638000|183634721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final Visit Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.43|0.97|0.093
91906035|NCT00243386|183707509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||2-sided paired T-tests were done comparing transformed annualized bleeding rates between On-Demand and Prophylaxis regimens.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91906036|NCT00243386|183707510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4924||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4924
91906037|NCT00243386|183707531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1467||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1467
91702415|NCT00772005|183299684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5489||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5489
91702416|NCT00772005|183299685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9337
91702417|NCT00772005|183299685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9428||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9428
91702418|NCT00772005|183299685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5895||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5895
91702419|NCT00772005|183299686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8695||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8695
91702420|NCT00772005|183299686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6637||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6637
91702421|NCT00772005|183299686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3152||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3152
91870643|NCT01638000|183634722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 4 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.48|0.76|0.74
91870644|NCT01638000|183634722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 8 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.63|0.71|0.74
91870645|NCT01638000|183634722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.0||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||2.00|0.81|0.29
91870646|NCT01638000|183634722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.9||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.90|0.82|0.29
91870647|NCT01638000|183634723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.67||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 4 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.67|0.90|0.20
91870648|NCT01638000|183634723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.26||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 8 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.26|0.65|0.57
91870649|NCT01638000|183634723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.39|0.69|0.92
91870650|NCT01638000|183634723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.42|0.73|0.90
91870651|NCT01638000|183634744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.817||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-0.08||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.08|-3.29|0.039
91870652|NCT01638000|183634744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.13||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.13|-3.46|0.034
91870653|NCT01638000|183634744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.917||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.3||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.30|-3.90|0.022
91906038|NCT00243386|183707532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||95.0||||Due to multiple hypotheses testing results, adjusted alpha values are set to α\*=0.005 (0.05/10). Adjustments take into account 10 hypotheses tests between On-Demand and any Prophylaxis. Statistically significant results are considered p-values \< α\*|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0007
91702422|NCT00772005|183299687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7472||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7472
91702423|NCT00772005|183299687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4503||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4503
91870654|NCT01638000|183634744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.06|-3.68|0.043
91870655|NCT01638000|183634745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.65||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||2.65|-0.37|0.14
91870656|NCT01638000|183634745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.805||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.13||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||3.13|-0.03|0.055
91906039|NCT00243386|183707533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Due to multiple hypotheses testing results, adjusted alpha values are set to α\*=0.005 (0.05/10). Adjustments take into account 10 hypotheses tests between On-Demand and any Prophylaxis. Statistically significant results are considered p-values \< α\*|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0002
91906040|NCT00243386|183707534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91906041|NCT04995055|183707542|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||-9.5|-21.2|
91906042|NCT04995055|183707543|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||0.4|0.2|
91906043|NCT04995055|183707544|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.1|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||-2.1|-4.9|
91906044|NCT04995055|183707545|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||0.4|0.2|
91906045|NCT04995055|183707547|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.9|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||-1.9|-4.4|
91906046|NCT03418129|183707548|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2176||0.2852|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcome at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Resulting slopes capture change in outcome from baseline to follow-up, with relaxation set as the comparison.|||||0.2852
91906047|NCT03418129|183707548|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2132||0.8861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcome at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Resulting slopes capture change in outcome from baseline to follow-up, with relaxation set as the comparison.|||||0.8861
91906048|NCT03418129|183707549|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03844|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09424||0.6842|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcomes at two time points (3-month follow-up and baseline) and across three treatment groups (Mindfulness, Neurofeedback, and Relaxation).|||||0.6842
91906049|NCT03418129|183707549|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09427||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcomes at two time points (3-month follow-up and baseline) and across three treatment groups (Mindfulness, Neurofeedback, and Relaxation).|||||0.132
91906050|NCT03418129|183707550|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2551||0.4542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4542
91906051|NCT03418129|183707550|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2454||0.1261|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1261
91906052|NCT01940471|183707568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample sizes of 288 and 576 participants in the TDF and TAF groups, respectively, were planned to give 84% power to rule out the noninferiority margin of 10% at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. This sample size based on the assumption that the expected difference (TAF - TDF) in the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL was 0 and the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL in the TDF group was 69%. Missing data were treated as not achieving the primary endpoint.|Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.6|||||Difference in the proportion between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HBV DNA categories and oral antiviral treatment status strata.|The null hypothesis was that the TAF group is at least 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAF group is less than 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. Noninferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.||2.6|-9.8|
91906053|NCT04261504|183707589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Threshold p\<0.05.|threshold-free cluster enhancement|||||||0.03
91906054|NCT01806857|183707593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Random Effects Model|||||||0.0003
91906055|NCT01806857|183707597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Random Effects Model|||||||0.0001
91906056|NCT01721057|183707609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
91906057|NCT01202279|183707630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
91906058|NCT01202279|183707631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.022
91906059|NCT00807742|183707642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.63|||Chi-squared|||||2.63|0.57|.606
91906060|NCT00807742|183707643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.63|||Chi-squared|||||2.63|0.57|.290
91906061|NCT00807742|183707644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|8.23|||Chi-squared|||||8.23|0.49|.32
91906062|NCT00807742|183707645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|8.45|||Chi-squared|||||8.45|0.51|.298
91870657|NCT01638000|183634745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.866||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|3.25||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariates.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||3.25|-0.15|0.074
91735259|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.065||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.065
91735260|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.042
91735261|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735262|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735263|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.070
91735264|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.689||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.689
91735265|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.075||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Continuous data were analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.075
91735266|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.059
91735267|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91870658|NCT01638000|183634745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.12||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||3.12|-0.30|0.11
91906063|NCT00807742|183707646|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.27|-0.71|<.001
91906064|NCT00807742|183707647|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.15||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.38|.199
91906065|NCT00807742|183707648|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.12||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-.57|.148
91906066|NCT00807742|183707649|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.15||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.11|-0.40|.249
91906067|NCT00807742|183707650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.72|||Chi-squared|||||3.72|0.59|0.402
91906068|NCT00807742|183707651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.70|0.49|.772
91906069|NCT00807742|183707652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.77|||Chi-squared|||||1.77|0.60|.910
91906070|NCT00807742|183707653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.62|||Chi-squared|||||1.62|0.54|.812
91906071|NCT00807742|183707654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65|||Chi-squared|||||1.65|0.36|.490
91906072|NCT00807742|183707655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.06|||Chi-squared|||||2.06|0.67|.511
91906073|NCT00807742|183707656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.97|||Chi-squared|||||1.97|0.72|.499
91906074|NCT00807742|183707657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.6|||Chi-squared|||||1.60|0.58|.876
91735268|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735269|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.069
91735270|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.762||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.762
91735271|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.089||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.089
91735272|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.083||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.083
91906075|NCT00807742|183707658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.15|-0.59|.001
91870659|NCT01638000|183634746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.01|-0.19|0.070
91906076|NCT00807742|183707659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.25||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.46|.069
91870660|NCT01638000|183634746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.06|-0.27|0.003
91735273|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735274|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91735275|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.064
91735276|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.841||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.841
91735277|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.110
91735278|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.119||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.119
91735279|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
91735280|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.015
91735281|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.087||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.087
91906077|NCT00807742|183707660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.16||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.40|.202
91735282|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.826||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.826
91735283|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.345||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.345
91870661|NCT01638000|183634746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron.Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.03|-0.26|0.015
91906078|NCT00807742|183707661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.17||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.42|.199
91735284|NCT00402987|183363831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.530
91735285|NCT00402987|183363832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.149||95.0|0.8|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.7|0.8|0.149
91735286|NCT00402987|183363832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.076||95.0|0.9|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||4.1|0.9|0.076
91735287|NCT00402987|183363832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.733||95.0|0.6|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.2|0.6|0.733
91906079|NCT03159091|183707669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||G-test (Chi-square)|||||||0.0422
91906080|NCT03159091|183707670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between initial and 4 weeks total scores row.||||0.1101
91906081|NCT03159091|183707671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1373|||||||G-test (Chi-square)|||||||0.1373
91906082|NCT03159091|183707672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0870
91906083|NCT03159091|183707673|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91906084|NCT02044133|183707689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91906085|NCT04085523|183707690|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6004|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.6004
91735288|NCT00402987|183363833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.03||95.0|1.1|5.0|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.0|1.1|0.030
91797647|NCT01920555|183473689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.51||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.51|-0.93|1.00
91797648|NCT01920555|183473689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.06||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.06|-1.35|0.52
91797649|NCT01920555|183473689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.1||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.10|-1.33|0.54
91797650|NCT01920555|183473690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.08||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.08|-0.79|0.74
91797651|NCT01920555|183473690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.45||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.45|-0.37|1.00
91797652|NCT01920555|183473690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.21||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.21|-1.01|0.02
91797653|NCT01920555|183473690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.1||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.10|-0.72|0.80
91797654|NCT01920555|183473690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.18||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.18|-0.83|0.88
91797655|NCT01920555|183473690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.44||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.44|-0.53|1.00
91735289|NCT00402987|183363833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.064||95.0|1.0|5.7|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.7|1.0|0.064
91735290|NCT00402987|183363833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.201||95.0|0.7|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||4.6|0.7|0.201
91735291|NCT00402987|183363833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.575||95.0|0.5|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.0|0.5|0.575
91735292|NCT00402987|183363833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1||95.0|0.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.2|0.4|1.000
91735293|NCT00402987|183363833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.624||95.0|0.5|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.3|0.5|0.624
91870662|NCT01638000|183634746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.02||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.02|-0.25|0.021
91870663|NCT01638000|183634747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.7||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.70|0.15|0.002
91870664|NCT01638000|183634747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.7||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.70|0.14|0.003
91906086|NCT04085523|183707690|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7022|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.7022
91906087|NCT04085523|183707690|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0849|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.0849
91906088|NCT04085523|183707690|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0218|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.0218
91906089|NCT02046096|183707691|OTHER||12-month rate (%)|97.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.6|99.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.025|One-tailed Exact binomial test||The 95% confidence interval was computed using Exact method.|Null Hypothesis: The rate of technical placement success and 12-month freedom from new symptomatic PE while a filter is indwelling, π, does not meet the performance goal (90%).||99.1|95.6|<0.0001
91906090|NCT02046096|183707692|OTHER||Cumulative probability|81.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|90.4||the threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|Z-statistic|The hypothesis is assessed using a Z-statistic. The Z-statistic is given by Z = (Ŝ(t) - 0.8) / SE where SE is the Standard Error|The estimate of the variance of the Kaplan-Meier estimate used the methods described by Peto et al.|"the null hypotheses is: H0: S(t) ≤ 80%(Performance Goal) where,~* t is time through 12 months~* S(t) is the true rate of freedom from major adverse events at time t."||90.4|72.6|0.369
91906091|NCT02046096|183707693|OTHER||12-month freedom from MAE rate (%)|86.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.5|90.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.025|One-tailed exact binomial test|||Null Hypothesis: The 12-month freedom from MAE, π, does not meet the performance goal (80%).||90.2|82.5|0.001
91906092|NCT00418665|183707727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||||95.0|0.07|5.136|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||5.136|0.070|
91906093|NCT00418665|183707727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.154||||||95.0|0.022|1.071|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||1.071|0.022|
91906094|NCT00418665|183707728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.154||||||95.0|0.022|1.071|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||1.071|0.022|
91906095|NCT00418665|183707728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.514||||||95.0|0.102|2.589|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||2.589|0.102|
91906096|NCT00418665|183707729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||||95.0|0.227|39.608|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||39.608|0.227|
91906097|NCT00418665|183707729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.714||||||95.0|0.144|20.473|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||20.473|0.144|
91906098|NCT00418665|183707730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.911||||||95.0|0.097|8.529|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||8.529|0.097|
91906099|NCT00418665|183707730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.866||||||95.0|0.175|4.278|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||4.278|0.175|
91906100|NCT00853749|183707731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 4||14.2|-5.0|
91906101|NCT00853749|183707731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 6B||9.5|-7.3|
91906102|NCT00853749|183707731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 9V||9.5|-7.3|
91906103|NCT00853749|183707731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 14||9.5|-7.8|
91906104|NCT00853749|183707731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 18C||14.2|-5.0|
91906105|NCT00853749|183707731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 19F||9.5|-7.3|
91906106|NCT00853749|183707731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 23F||9.5|-7.3|
91906107|NCT00853749|183707731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 1||14.2|-5.0|
91906108|NCT00853749|183707731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 3||9.5|-7.3|
91906109|NCT00853749|183707731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 5||9.5|-7.3|
91906110|NCT00853749|183707731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 6A||9.5|-7.3|
91906111|NCT00853749|183707731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 7F||9.5|-7.3|
91735294|NCT00402987|183363834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|||<|0.001||95.0|0.7|1.9||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.9|0.7|<0.001
91870665|NCT01638000|183634748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean diffrence|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.29|0.02|0.027
91735295|NCT00402987|183363834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.003||95.0|0.3|1.5||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.5|0.3|0.003
91735296|NCT00402987|183363834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.177||95.0|-1.0|0.2||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||0.2|-1.0|0.177
91735297|NCT00402987|183363834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.25|||<|0.001||95.0|3.0|7.5||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||7.5|3.0|<0.001
91735298|NCT00402987|183363834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||<|0.001||95.0|2.3|6.8||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||6.8|2.3|<0.001
91735299|NCT00402987|183363834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.531||95.0|-3.0|1.5||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.5|-3.0|0.531
91735300|NCT00402987|183363835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.07|||<|0.001||95.0|4.4|13.7||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||13.7|4.4|<0.001
91735301|NCT00402987|183363835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.46|||<|0.001||95.0|4.7|16.2||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||16.2|4.7|<0.001
91870666|NCT01638000|183634748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.29||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.29|0.01|0.034
91906112|NCT00853749|183707731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 19A||9.5|-7.3|
91702424|NCT00772005|183299687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3127||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3127
91735302|NCT00402987|183363835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96||||0.041||95.0|0.2|11.7||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||11.7|0.2|0.041
91735303|NCT00402987|183363835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.633||95.0|-7.1|4.3||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||4.3|-7.1|0.633
91735304|NCT00402987|183363835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.11||||0.284||95.0|-2.6|8.8||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||8.8|-2.6|0.284
91735305|NCT00402987|183363835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.18||95.0|-2.1|11.1||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||11.1|-2.1|0.180
91797656|NCT01920555|183473690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.15||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.15|-0.79|0.88
91702425|NCT00772005|183299688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9193||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9193
91735306|NCT00402987|183363835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.57||||0.009||95.0|3.4|23.7||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||23.7|3.4|0.009
91735307|NCT00402987|183363835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.15||||0.026||95.0|1.7|26.6||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||26.6|1.7|0.026
91735308|NCT00402987|183363835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.39||||0.138||95.0|-3.0|21.8||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||21.8|-3.0|0.138
91735309|NCT00402987|183363835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.926||95.0|-13.0|11.8||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||11.8|-13.0|0.926
91735310|NCT00402987|183363835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18||||0.507||95.0|-8.2|16.6||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||16.6|-8.2|0.507
91735311|NCT00402987|183363835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77||||0.513||95.0|-9.6|19.1||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||19.1|-9.6|0.513
91735312|NCT00402987|183363836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.023||95.0|1.2|7.4|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.4|1.2|0.023
91735313|NCT00402987|183363836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13||||0.015||95.0|1.2|7.9|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.9|1.2|0.015
91735314|NCT00402987|183363836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.854||95.0|0.5|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.2|0.5|0.854
91735315|NCT00402987|183363837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.013||95.0|1.3|9.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||9.2|1.3|0.013
91735316|NCT00402987|183363837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03||||0.003||95.0|1.7|14.5|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||14.5|1.7|0.003
91906113|NCT00853749|183707732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 4||12.7|-8.6|
91906114|NCT00853749|183707732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 6B||9.7|-7.5|
91735317|NCT00402987|183363837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.057||95.0|1.0|9.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||9.2|1.0|0.057
91735318|NCT00402987|183363837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.758||95.0|0.5|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.9|0.5|0.758
91735319|NCT00402987|183363837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.381||95.0|0.3|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.6|0.3|0.381
91735320|NCT00402987|183363837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.313||95.0|0.6|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||4.6|0.6|0.313
91735321|NCT00402987|183363838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 6 hours|8.2||||||95.0|4.5|46.4||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 6 hours||46.4|4.5|
91735322|NCT00402987|183363838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 6 hours|7.5||||||95.0|4.3|32.0||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 6 hours||32.0|4.3|
91735323|NCT00402987|183363839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 12 hours|7.5||||||95.0|4.3|28.7||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 12 hours||28.7|4.3|
91735324|NCT00402987|183363839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 12 hours|5.0||||||95.0|3.0|16.7||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 12 hours||16.7|3.0|
91735325|NCT00402987|183363840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|7.6||Analysis for 2 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.6|1.9|<0.001
91735326|NCT00402987|183363840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.005||95.0|1.3|5.5||Analysis for 2 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.5|1.3|0.005
91735327|NCT00402987|183363840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.286||95.0|0.4|1.3||Analysis for 2 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.3|0.4|0.286
91735328|NCT00402987|183363840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.001||95.0|1.6|7.1||Analysis for 6 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.1|1.6|0.001
91735329|NCT00402987|183363840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.004||95.0|1.4|6.5||Analysis for 6 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.5|1.4|0.004
91735330|NCT00402987|183363840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.752||95.0|0.5|1.7||Analysis for 6 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.7|0.5|0.752
91735331|NCT00402987|183363840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|10.7||Analysis for 2 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||10.7|1.9|<0.001
91735332|NCT00402987|183363840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.003||95.0|1.6|8.7||Analysis for 2 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||8.7|1.6|0.003
91735333|NCT00402987|183363840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.511||95.0|0.4|1.5||Analysis for 2 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.5|0.4|0.511
91735334|NCT00402987|183363840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.009||95.0|1.3|7.0||Analysis for 6 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.0|1.3|0.009
91735335|NCT00402987|183363840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.014||95.0|1.2|6.7||Analysis for 6 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.7|1.2|0.014
91735336|NCT00402987|183363840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.863||95.0|0.5|1.9||Analysis for 6 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.9|0.5|0.863
91906115|NCT00853749|183707732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 9V||9.7|-7.5|
91906116|NCT00853749|183707732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 14||9.7|-7.5|
91870667|NCT01638000|183634749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.81||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.81|1.08|0.010
91870668|NCT01638000|183634749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.75||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.75|1.07|0.011
91735337|NCT00402987|183363841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.004||95.0|1.4|6.1||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.1|1.4|0.004
91735338|NCT00402987|183363841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.052||95.0|1.0|5.7||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.7|1.0|0.052
91735339|NCT00402987|183363841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.095||95.0|0.9|5.1||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.1|0.9|0.095
91735340|NCT00402987|183363841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.431||95.0|0.6|3.0||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.0|0.6|0.431
91735341|NCT00402987|183363841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.602||95.0|0.6|2.7||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.7|0.6|0.602
91735342|NCT00402987|183363841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.814||95.0|0.4|2.8||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.8|0.4|0.814
91735343|NCT00402987|183363841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.014||95.0|1.2|6.7||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.7|1.2|0.014
91735344|NCT00402987|183363841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.016||95.0|1.2|8.4||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||8.4|1.2|0.016
91735345|NCT00402987|183363841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.063||95.0|0.9|6.8||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.8|0.9|0.063
91735346|NCT00402987|183363841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.775||95.0|0.5|2.7||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.7|0.5|0.775
91735347|NCT00402987|183363841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.779||95.0|0.4|2.0||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.0|0.4|0.779
91735348|NCT00402987|183363841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.624||95.0|0.5|3.3||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.3|0.5|0.624
91735349|NCT00402987|183363842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
91735350|NCT00402987|183363842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.012
91735351|NCT00402987|183363842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.453||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.453
91735352|NCT00402987|183363842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
91735353|NCT00402987|183363842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
91735354|NCT00402987|183363842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.814||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.814
91735355|NCT00402987|183363842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.024
91735356|NCT00402987|183363842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.022
91735357|NCT00402987|183363842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.966||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.966
91735358|NCT00402987|183363842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
91735359|NCT00402987|183363842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
91735360|NCT00402987|183363842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.798||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.798
91735361|NCT00402987|183363843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
91735362|NCT00402987|183363843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
91735363|NCT00402987|183363843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.008
91735364|NCT00402987|183363843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.709||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.709
91735365|NCT00402987|183363843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.331||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.331
91735366|NCT00402987|183363843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.246||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.246
91735367|NCT00402987|183363843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
91870669|NCT01638000|183634750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.62||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.62|1.02|0.037
91906117|NCT00853749|183707732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.0||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 18C||10.0|-7.4|
91870670|NCT01638000|183634750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.57|1.01|0.045
91735368|NCT00402987|183363843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
91870671|NCT01638000|183634751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.06||Iif p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥1 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||2.06|1.11|0.009
91906118|NCT00853749|183707732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|10.0||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 19F||10.0|-7.5|
91702426|NCT00772005|183299688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4814||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4814
91702427|NCT00772005|183299688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6097||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6097
91702428|NCT00772005|183299689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8594||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8594
91702429|NCT00772005|183299689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6157||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6157
91702430|NCT00772005|183299689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4846||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4846
91702431|NCT00772005|183299690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6076
91702432|NCT00772005|183299690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5827||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5827
91702433|NCT00772005|183299690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7865||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7865
91702434|NCT00772005|183299691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3045||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3045
91702435|NCT00772005|183299691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0617||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0617
91702436|NCT00772005|183299691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0580
91702437|NCT00772005|183299692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0194||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0194
91702438|NCT00772005|183299692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2270
91702439|NCT00772005|183299692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1181||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1181
91702440|NCT00772005|183299693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1348
91702441|NCT00772005|183299693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0419
91702442|NCT00772005|183299693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0146
91702443|NCT00772005|183299694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1292||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1292
91906119|NCT00853749|183707732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.1||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 23F||8.1|-10.8|
91735369|NCT00402987|183363843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.219||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.219
91735370|NCT00402987|183363843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.095||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.095
91735371|NCT00402987|183363843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.463||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.463
91735372|NCT00402987|183363843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.038
91735373|NCT00402987|183363844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
91735374|NCT00402987|183363844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.008
91735375|NCT00402987|183363844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.557||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.557
91735376|NCT00402987|183363845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
91735377|NCT00402987|183363845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.002
91735378|NCT00402987|183363845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.036
91735379|NCT00402987|183363845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.339
91735380|NCT00402987|183363845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||1.000
91870672|NCT01638000|183634751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥2 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.65|0.99|0.065
91735381|NCT00402987|183363845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.401||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.401
91735382|NCT00402987|183363845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.003
91735383|NCT00402987|183363845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.002
91735384|NCT00402987|183363845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.223
91735385|NCT00402987|183363845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.198||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.198
91735386|NCT00402987|183363845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.604||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.604
91735387|NCT00402987|183363845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.117
91735388|NCT00402987|183363848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
91735389|NCT00402987|183363848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
91735390|NCT00402987|183363848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.025
91735391|NCT00402987|183363848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.539
91735392|NCT00402987|183363848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.329
91735393|NCT00402987|183363848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.171
91735394|NCT00402987|183363849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.007
91870673|NCT01638000|183634751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.55||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥3 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.55|1.00|0.051
91870674|NCT01638000|183634751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥4 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.47|0.95|0.14
91870675|NCT01638000|183634751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.4||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥5 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.40|0.75|0.89
91870676|NCT01638000|183634751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.04||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.|Participants from Canada were therefore excluded from this analysis due to low participant numbers.|Week 12 (6 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||2.04|0.64|0.66
91870677|NCT01638000|183634752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.93||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥1 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.93|1.07|0.016
91906120|NCT00853749|183707732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 1||14.2|-5.0|
91797657|NCT01920555|183473690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.19||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.19|-0.76|0.88
91797658|NCT01920555|183473691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.18||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|23.29||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||23.29|-0.94|0.49
91797659|NCT01920555|183473691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|12.93||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||12.93|-10.19|1.00
91870678|NCT01638000|183634752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.62||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥2 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.62|0.99|0.063
91870679|NCT01638000|183634752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.53||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥3 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.53|1.00|0.054
91870680|NCT01638000|183634752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.46||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥4 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.46|0.95|0.15
91870681|NCT01638000|183634752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥5 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.44|0.77|0.75
91870682|NCT01638000|183634752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.04||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.|Participants from Canada were therefore excluded from this analysis due to low participant numbers.|Final visit (6 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||2.04|0.64|0.66
91906121|NCT00853749|183707732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|7.9||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 3||7.9|-11.1|
91906122|NCT00853749|183707732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.2||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 5||12.2|-8.5|
91735395|NCT00402987|183363849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.244
91735396|NCT00402987|183363849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.096
91735397|NCT00402987|183363849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.579||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.579
91735398|NCT00402987|183363849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.277
91735399|NCT00402987|183363849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.649||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.649
91735400|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||<|0.001||95.0|7.5|23.2||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||23.2|7.5|<0.001
91735401|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4||||0.003||95.0|4.9|24.0||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||24.0|4.9|0.003
91735402|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.096||95.0|-1.5|17.8||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.8|-1.5|0.096
91735403|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||0.141||95.0|-2.4|16.8||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||16.8|-2.4|0.141
91735404|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.849||95.0|-8.6|10.5||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||10.5|-8.6|0.849
91735405|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.266||95.0|-4.8|17.4||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.4|-4.8|0.266
91906123|NCT00853749|183707732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 6A||9.5|-7.3|
91906124|NCT00853749|183707732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|7.7||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 7F||7.7|-11.3|
91906125|NCT00853749|183707732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 19A||9.5|-7.3|
91735406|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.141||95.0|-5.4|0.8||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||0.8|-5.4|0.141
91735407|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.312||95.0|-5.7|1.8||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||1.8|-5.7|0.312
91735408|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.724||95.0|-4.5|3.1||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.1|-4.5|0.724
91735409|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.398||95.0|-5.4|2.1||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||2.1|-5.4|0.398
91735410|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.846||95.0|-4.1|3.4||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.4|-4.1|0.846
91735411|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.572||95.0|-5.6|3.1||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.1|-5.6|0.572
91735412|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.014||95.0|1.2|10.4||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||10.4|1.2|0.014
91906126|NCT00853749|183707733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.42|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.42|0.22|
91906127|NCT00853749|183707733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.44|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures ((PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.44|0.23|
91906128|NCT00853749|183707733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.67|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.67|0.29|
91906129|NCT00853749|183707733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.27|0.61|
91735413|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.573||95.0|-4.0|7.2||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||7.2|-4.0|0.573
91735414|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.482||95.0|-7.7|3.6||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.6|-7.7|0.482
91735415|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.007||95.0|2.2|13.5||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||13.5|2.2|0.007
91735416|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.143||95.0|-1.4|9.8||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||9.8|-1.4|0.143
91735417|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.273||95.0|-2.9|10.2||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||10.2|-2.9|0.273
91735418|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.003||95.0|4.4|21.6||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||21.6|4.4|0.003
91735419|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.029||95.0|1.2|22.2||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||22.2|1.2|0.029
91735420|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.251||95.0|-4.4|16.8||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||16.8|-4.4|0.251
91735421|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.204||95.0|-3.7|17.4||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.4|-3.7|0.204
91735422|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.808||95.0|-9.2|11.8||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||11.8|-9.2|0.808
91735423|NCT00402987|183363850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.371||95.0|-6.6|17.7||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.7|-6.6|0.371
91735424|NCT00402987|183363851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91735425|NCT00402987|183363851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.002
91735426|NCT00402987|183363851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.235||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.235
91735427|NCT00402987|183363851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.012
91735428|NCT00402987|183363851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.438||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.438
91870683|NCT01638000|183634753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.57||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.57|0.97|0.082
91870684|NCT01638000|183634753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.49||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.49|0.94|0.15
91870685|NCT01638000|183634754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.53||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.53|0.99|0.058
91870686|NCT01638000|183634754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.5||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visitI|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.50|0.99|0.069
91906130|NCT00853749|183707733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.65|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.65|0.34|
91906131|NCT00853749|183707734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.12|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.12|0.35|
91906132|NCT00853749|183707734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.38|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.38|0.68|
91906133|NCT00853749|183707734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.81|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.81|0.51|
91906134|NCT00853749|183707734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.48|0.67|
91870687|NCT04248803|183634755|NON_INFERIORITY|From the above mentioned non inferiority clinical trial it is hypothesized that GLUMA application will reduce postoperative sensitivity during dental restorative procedures.||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The sample size was estimated to be 504 using G Power software with 95% power and alpha value set to 0.05. The participants were randomly divided to 6 groups with randomizer.org. The statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS 23 software to compare the mean pain scores between the six study groups using kruskal Wallis test.||||0.05
91870688|NCT01000805|183634782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||This p-value is for the main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.90|<0.001
91870689|NCT01000805|183634783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.24|-5.83|<0.001
91906135|NCT00853749|183707734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.98|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures(PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.98|0.33|
91906136|NCT00853749|183707734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.56|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.56|0.72|
91906137|NCT00853749|183707734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.99|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.99|0.39|
91906138|NCT00853749|183707734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.32|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.32|0.12|
91906139|NCT00853749|183707734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.18|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.18|0.56|
91906140|NCT00853749|183707734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.63|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.63|0.21|
91906141|NCT00853749|183707734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.25|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||2.25|0.88|
91870690|NCT01000805|183634784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.11||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Work/School Work score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.03|0.112
91870691|NCT01000805|183634784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.22||This the p-value for the Disrupt Social Life/Leisure score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-1.24|0.005
91906142|NCT00853749|183707734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.48|
91906143|NCT00853749|183707734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.2|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.20|0.54|
91906144|NCT00853749|183707735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.55|0.25|
91906145|NCT00853749|183707735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.15|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.15|0.44|
91906146|NCT00853749|183707735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.75|0.45|
91906147|NCT00853749|183707735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.24|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.24|0.48|
91906148|NCT00853749|183707735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.85|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.85|0.38|
91906149|NCT00853749|183707735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.27|0.56|
91870692|NCT01000805|183634784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.02||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Family Life/Home score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-1.04|0.040
91906150|NCT00853749|183707735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.95|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.95|0.44|
91906151|NCT00853749|183707735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.4|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.40|0.18|
91906152|NCT00853749|183707735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.72|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.72|0.76|
91906153|NCT00853749|183707735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.51|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.51|0.25|
91906154|NCT00853749|183707735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.14|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.55|
91906155|NCT00853749|183707735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.28|0.61|
91906156|NCT00853749|183707735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.23|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.23|0.60|
91906157|NCT00853749|183707736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.253|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness||||0.253
91906158|NCT00853749|183707736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness||||0.380
91735429|NCT00402987|183363851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.067||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.067
91870693|NCT01000805|183634784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.29||P-value for the SDS Total score. First gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes with stepwise comparisons of treatments until outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-3.20|0.019
91906159|NCT00853749|183707736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness||||0.135
91906160|NCT00853749|183707736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness||||0.520
91870694|NCT01000805|183634785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||This is the second gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91870695|NCT01000805|183634786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082||95.0||||This is the third gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0082
91870696|NCT01000805|183634787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.11||This is the fourth gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.11|-5.20|<0.001
91870697|NCT01000805|183634788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.89||This is the fifth gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.89|-3.50|0.001
91870698|NCT01000805|183634789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.32||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Worst Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-0.97|<0.001
91906161|NCT00853749|183707736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness||||0.283
91906162|NCT00853749|183707736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for severe redness||||0.225
91906163|NCT00853749|183707736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling||||0.202
91906164|NCT00853749|183707736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling||||0.294
91906165|NCT00853749|183707736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling||||0.175
91906166|NCT00853749|183707736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for severe swelling||||0.314
91906167|NCT00853749|183707737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥ 38 degrees C but ≤ 39 degrees C||||> .99
91702444|NCT00772005|183299694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3773||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3773
91735430|NCT00402987|183363852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.128
91906168|NCT00853749|183707737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite||||> .99
91906169|NCT00853749|183707737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.543|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability||||0.543
91906170|NCT00853749|183707737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.233|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep||||0.233
91906171|NCT00853749|183707737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep||||0.198
91906172|NCT00853749|183707737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.628|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for rash||||0.628
91906173|NCT01761292|183707827|OTHER||mean|13.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5657|16.2466||The paired t-test or non-parametric signed rank test for 2 means (paired observations) (as is appropriate) was applied for testing the statistical significance of the Change From Baseline to End of Study. MFA% P \< 0.05 was set as significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||16.2466|11.5657|<0.0001
91906174|NCT01761292|183707828|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91906175|NCT03577730|183707842|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|55.0||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|118.0|||Generalized estimating equations||The median difference (+55) is an estimated difference between groups - rather than the actual difference - based on the pre-specified generalized estimated equations modeling.|||118|-9|0.092
91906176|NCT03577730|183707843|OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for visual analog scale scores at rest presented.||||0.802
91906177|NCT03577730|183707844|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.320
91906178|NCT03577730|183707845|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.670
91906179|NCT03577730|183707846|OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.595
91906180|NCT03577730|183707847|OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.985
91906181|NCT03577730|183707848|OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.417
91906182|NCT03577730|183707849|OTHER|||||||0.432|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.432
91906183|NCT03577730|183707850|OTHER|||||||0.673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.673
91906184|NCT03577730|183707851|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.058
91906185|NCT06098248|183707867|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 0.05 for sensitivity. A power calculation was conducted assuming a 30% missing data rate, with final missing data at approximately 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.4049|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0164||A one-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for the non-inferiority tests.|McNemar|McNemar's test was chosen due to paired nominal data (specimens tested by both methods). Degrees of freedom = 1|Lower Limit reflects estimated value due to 1-sided CI requirement and system constraints. True lower bound is theoretically -∞.|We performed a paired comparison within the same participant population, evaluating both cCeLL - Ex vivo and Frozen Section on each specimen.|If any secondary analyses could not fit into the above format (e.g., AUC analysis, time efficiency), they were reported as descriptive statistics rather than hypothesis testing|0.0164||<0.4049
91735431|NCT00402987|183363852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.123||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.123
91735432|NCT00402987|183363852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.266||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.266
91735433|NCT00402987|183363852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.849||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.849
91735434|NCT00402987|183363852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.828||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.828
91735435|NCT00402987|183363852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.741
91735436|NCT01668004|183363853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Treatment comparison of uveitis occurrence rate assessed 1 year before initial anti-TNF/GLM treatment and 1 year after start of GLM treatment. Number of subjects included in analysis: N=93.||||1.0000
91735437|NCT01668004|183363854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|5.25|||Generalized estimating equation|||Treatment difference (expressed as ratio) in uveitis incidence rate assessed 1 year before initial anti-TNF/GLM treatment and 1 year after start of GLM treatment. Number of subjects included in analysis: N=92.||5.25|3.86|<0.0001
91735438|NCT01605669|183363890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Sensitivity|85.7||||||95.0||||||||||||
91735439|NCT01605669|183363890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|72.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
91870699|NCT01000805|183634789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.34||This is the p-value for main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Least Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-0.90|<0.001
91870700|NCT01000805|183634789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Average Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.90|<0.001
91870701|NCT01000805|183634789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.42||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Pain Right Now score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-1.06|<0.001
91735440|NCT01605669|183363890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Error Rate|25.0||||||95.0|||||||Error rate of 9/36 is equal to total of false positives plus false negatives over the total of participants analyzed.|||||
91735441|NCT02329587|183363895|OTHER||Between-group effect size (Hedge's g)|0.138|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91735442|NCT02329587|183363896|OTHER||Between-group effect size (Hedge's g)|-0.214|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91735443|NCT02329587|183363897|OTHER||Between-groups effect size (Hedge's g)|-0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91735444|NCT02329587|183363898|OTHER||Between-group effect size (Hedge's g)|-0.151|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91735445|NCT02329587|183363899|OTHER||Between-groups effect size (Hedge's g)|0.704|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91735446|NCT02329587|183363900|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.125|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91735447|NCT02421094|183363910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1621|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1621
91735448|NCT02421094|183363911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9835|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9835
91735449|NCT02421094|183363912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2660
91735450|NCT03773484|183363925|OTHER||Slope|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre post comparison for Opioid Naïve patients||0.01|-0.03|0.43
91735451|NCT03773484|183363925|OTHER||Slope|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-post comparison for at-risk for long term use patients||0.013|-0.051|0.24
91735452|NCT04724837|183363926|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided p-value is presented. A p-value \<0.10 indicates statistical significance, which is consistent with a one-sided test at the 5% level.|Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.5|-23.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo (PBO)||-23.5|-42.5|<0.001
91735453|NCT04724837|183363927|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided p-value is presented. A p-value \<0.10 indicates statistical significance, which is consistent with a one-sided test at the 5% level.|Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-27.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-13.6|-38.4|0.002
91735454|NCT04724837|183363928|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean CFB|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline (CFB) \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office systolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-0.5|-6.8|
91735455|NCT04724837|183363928|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|-4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office systolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-4.9|-10.3|
91735456|NCT04724837|183363929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean CFB|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office diastolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-1.0|-5.0|
91735457|NCT04724837|183363929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean CFB|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office diastolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-3.7|-7.1|
91735458|NCT04724837|183363930|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-13.6|-38.4|
91735459|NCT04724837|183363930|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-33.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.5|-23.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-23.5|-42.5|
91735460|NCT04724837|183363931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||2.6|-0.5|
91735461|NCT04724837|183363931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||0.5|-2.1|
91735462|NCT04724837|183363931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||0.5|-2.8|
91735463|NCT04724837|183363931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||0.3|-2.5|
91735464|NCT04724837|183363931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 14 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||1.8|-1.6|
91735465|NCT04724837|183363931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 14 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-0.7|-3.5|
91735466|NCT04724837|183363933|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 and Week 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-0.4|-4.0|
91735467|NCT04724837|183363933|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 and 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||1.3|-1.8|
91735468|NCT04222673|183363934|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||||||.05
91735469|NCT04222673|183363935|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||||||.05
91735470|NCT04222673|183363936|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
91735471|NCT04222673|183363937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
91735472|NCT04222673|183363938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
91735473|NCT04222673|183363939|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||||||.05
91735474|NCT04222673|183363940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
91870702|NCT01000805|183634789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.33||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with General Activity score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-1.03|<0.001
91735475|NCT04222673|183363941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
91735476|NCT05177354|183363992|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|89.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|71.8|||"It is hypothesized that the proportion of low-back and leg pain subjects with a reduction in overstimulation sensation during Closed Loop On compared to Closed Loop Off period exceeds a performance goal of 50%.~H0: p ≤ 50% HA: p \> 50%"|Binomial Exact Test||||||71.8|<0.001
91735477|NCT05715827|183364014|OTHER|The study used descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals to summarize data. The sample size of 40 patients (20 per surgery type) was based on prior studies with 3% device malfunction and 0.9% failure-related conversion rates. The primary endpoint was the completion rate, defined as ≥95% without conversion due to system issues or major complications within 24 hours. The Full Analysis Set included all subjects who started the procedure. No interim analyses were planned.|Completion rate|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|99.9||The study used descriptive statistics and confidence intervals, not hypothesis testing with p-values. The main goal was to confirm the completion rate met or exceeded 95% and present a 95% confidence interval||The main goal was to confirm the completion rate met or exceeded 95% with a 95% confidence interval.|Estimated Value of 97.5% is an overall completion rate|The study aimed to confirm the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System's performance for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy, targeting a 95% completion rate (no conversion due to system issues or major complications within 24 hours). The Full Analysis Set (FAS) included all subjects starting the procedure. Descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals were used to assess primary and secondary endpoints, confirming safety and effectiveness.|Descriptive Analysis was used|99.9|86.8|
91735478|NCT05715827|183364015|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Overall Complication Rate|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|35.6||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||35.6|9.1|
91735479|NCT05715827|183364016|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Major complication rate|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.9||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||16.9|0.6|
91735480|NCT05715827|183364017|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Readmission rate|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|23.7||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||23.7|2.8|
91735481|NCT05715827|183364018|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Reoperation rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||||
91735482|NCT05715827|183364019|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Device deficiency rate|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|49.1||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||49.1|18.6|
91870703|NCT01000805|183634789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.37||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Mood score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.37|-1.09|<0.001
91870704|NCT01000805|183634789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Walking Ability score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.79|0.009
91870705|NCT01000805|183634789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.21||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Normal Work score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.91|0.002
91870706|NCT01000805|183634789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.35||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Relations with Others score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.35|-1.06|<0.001
91735483|NCT04846868|183364020|SUPERIORITY|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on on-treatment periods.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4355||0.8854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|0.918||"Null hypothesis: The adjusted mean change from baseline to Week 26 in MCCB overall composite T-score in iclepertin 10mg is worse than or equal to that in placebo.~one-sided p\< 0.025 required for testing subsequent key secondary endpoint hypotheses"|Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg versus Placebo|MMRM, including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient measurements.||0.918|-0.793|0.8854
91735484|NCT04846868|183364021|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies and partner change in SCoR assessment for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5867||0.6902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.918|1.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg versus Placebo|MMRM including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.386|-0.918|0.6902
91735485|NCT04846868|183364022|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1388||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.694|||Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg vs. placebo|MMRM including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.694|-2.780|0.6334
91735486|NCT04846868|183364023|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0448||0.2902||95.0|-0.041|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg vs Placebo|MMRM including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.135|-0.041|0.2902
91735487|NCT04846868|183364024|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.628||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.181|2.437|||ANCOVA||Iclepertin 10 mg vs. Placebo|ANCOVA model including treatment, stratification factor of screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline number of correct responses on Tower of London T-score.||2.437|-1.181|0.4956
91735488|NCT03274466|183364067|SUPERIORITY|Modified Intent-To-Treat|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.59||Threshold for statistical significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.59|0.08|0.0013
91735489|NCT03274466|183364068|SUPERIORITY|Modified Intent-To-Treat|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.7||Threshold for Statistical Significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.70|0.07|0.1680
91735490|NCT03274466|183364069|SUPERIORITY|Modified Intent-To-Treat|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.39||Threshold for Statistical Significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.04|0.3386
91735491|NCT03274466|183364070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.59||Threshold for statistical significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sensitivity analysis of the Primary Endpoint using the Intent-To-Treat population.||0.59|0.08|0.0013
91735492|NCT02445911|183364097|OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.75|10.18|||||Least-squares means have baseline and site as covariates. Placebo was the reference group.|||10.18|-23.75|
91735493|NCT02445911|183364097|OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.65|13.72|||||Least-squares means have baseline and site as covariates. Placebo was the reference group.|||13.72|-19.65|
91735494|NCT02445911|183364097|OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-5.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.97|11.88|||||Least-squares means have baseline and site as covariates. Placebo was the reference group.|||11.88|-21.97|
91735495|NCT02581930|183364115|OTHER|Exact binomial test|Probability of response|0.0||||1|ONE_SIDED|||||Significant if p-value is less than 0.1|Exact binomial test, 1-sided||Estimated as proportion of subjects with response|The primary comparison was between the response rate of an ineffective drug, such as investigators' choice chemotherapy (5%), and the response rate of ibrutinib.||||1.00
91735496|NCT01139515|183364154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.17|105.7||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUC\[0- ∞\] of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||105.70|92.17|
91735497|NCT01139515|183364154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|109.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.23|117.24||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUC\[0- ∞\] of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||117.24|102.23|
91870707|NCT01000805|183634789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.01||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Sleep score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.76|0.042
91760039|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.25|-0.13|
91870708|NCT01000805|183634789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.31||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Enjoyment of Life score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-1.03|<0.001
91870709|NCT01000805|183634789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.25||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Mean Pain Interference score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.88|<0.001
91870710|NCT01000805|183634790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.26||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.71|<0.001
91735498|NCT01139515|183364154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|109.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.65|117.72||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUC\[0- ∞\] of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||117.72|102.65|
91735499|NCT01139515|183364155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric means ratio|99.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.97|106.31||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUClast of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||106.31|92.97|
91735500|NCT01139515|183364155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|110.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.36|118.18||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUClast of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.18|103.36|
91735501|NCT01139515|183364155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|110.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.28|118.09||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUClast of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.09|103.28|
91735502|NCT01139515|183364156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric means ratio|101.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.97|120.58||||||"Natural log transformed, dose-normalized Cmax of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios."||120.58|85.97|
91735503|NCT01139515|183364156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|98.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.23|116.73||||||"Natural log transformed, dose-normalized Cmax of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios."||116.73|83.23|
91735504|NCT01139515|183364156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|107.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|127.25||||||"Natural log transformed, dose-normalized Cmax of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios."||127.25|90.72|
91870711|NCT01000805|183634791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||This is the p-value for suicidal ideation. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.293
91870712|NCT01000805|183634792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91735505|NCT01576783|183364159|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Linoleic acid (18:2n-6) mol% between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.9||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.9|-3.4|<0.001
91735506|NCT01576783|183364159|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Arachidonic acid (20:4n-6) mol% between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.8||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||2.8|1.7|<0.001
91735507|NCT01576783|183364159|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Total n-6 mol% between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||1.7|-1.0|0.61
91735508|NCT01576783|183364159|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in α-linolenic acid (18:3n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.1|-0.1|0.40
91735509|NCT01576783|183364159|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Eicosapentaenoic acid (20:5n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.1|0.0|0.12
91735510|NCT01576783|183364159|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Docosapentaenoic acid (22:5n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.0|-0.1|<0.001
91735511|NCT01576783|183364159|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Docosahexaenoic acid (22:6n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||1.5|1.0|<0.001
91735512|NCT01576783|183364159|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Total n-3 between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||1.4|0.9|<0.001
91870713|NCT01000805|183634793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.51||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.51|1.34|<0.001
91870714|NCT01000805|183634793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.83||This is the p-value for the Change up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.83|0.97|0.001
91870715|NCT01000805|183634794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|4.04||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.04|-0.25|0.083
91870716|NCT01000805|183634794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.9||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|-0.95|0.513
91870717|NCT01000805|183634794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|3.47||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.47|-0.42|0.124
91870718|NCT01000805|183634794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.6||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.60|-0.98|0.638
91870719|NCT01000805|183634795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.54||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.37|<0.001
91870720|NCT01000805|183634795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.51||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-1.24|<0.001
91870721|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Erythema||0.141|-0.216|
91870722|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Swelling||0.141|-0.216|
91870723|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.119|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|ALT Increased||0.119|-0.135|
91870724|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.119|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Hemoglobin Decreased||0.119|-0.135|
91870725|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.121|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Leukocytosis||0.121|-0.205|
91870726|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.111|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|PTT Prolonged||0.111|-0.127|
91870727|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.134|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Thrombocytopenia||0.134|0.022|
91870728|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.118|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Fever||0.118|0.018|
91870729|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.089|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Headache||0.089|-0.203|
91870730|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.275|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Rash||0.275|0.016|
91870731|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.126|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Arthralgia||0.126|0.030|
91870732|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.118|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Fatigue||0.118|-0.155|
91870733|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.105|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Myalgia||0.105|-0.105|
91870734|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.114|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Nausea||0.114|-0.160|
91870735|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Photophobia||0.141|-0.216|
91870736|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.088|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Retro-orbital Pain||0.088|-0.142|
91906186|NCT06098248|183707868|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 0.10 for specificity|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1071|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4103|<|0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1628|0.0557||A one-sided significance level of 0.10 was used for the non-inferiority tests.|McNemar|McNemar's test was chosen due to paired nominal data (specimens tested by both methods). Degrees of freedom = 1|Lower Limit reflects estimated value due to 1-sided CI requirement and system constraints. True lower bound is theoretically -∞.|We performed a paired comparison within the same participant population, evaluating both cCeLL - Ex vivo and Frozen Section on each specimen.|f any secondary analyses could not fit into the above format (e.g., AUC analysis, time efficiency), they were reported as descriptive statistics rather than hypothesis testing|0.0557|-0.1628|<0.3075
91906187|NCT05611671|183707869|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|21.18||||||||21.18|-7.76|
91906188|NCT05611671|183707869|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.99|13.17||||||||13.17|-13.99|
91906189|NCT05611671|183707869|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|5.88||||||||5.88|-19.74|
91906190|NCT05611671|183707870|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|22.86||||||||22.86|-8.77|
91906191|NCT05611671|183707870|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|14.88||||||||14.88|-16.74|
91906192|NCT05611671|183707870|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.78|18.92||||||||18.92|-12.78|
91906193|NCT00309465|183707877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||P-value for three dosing strategies in insulin glargine only group in fasting blood glucose achievement of 100-179 mg/dl range.|Chi-squared|||Comparison for Target Blood Glucose Achievement of 100-179 mg/dl||||0.332
91906194|NCT00309465|183707877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0||||P value is for three strategies in insulin glargine plus bolus group for fasting blood glucose achievement of 100-179 mg/dl|Chi-squared|||Comparison for Target Achievement of blood glucose values of 100-179 mg/dl||||0.294
91906195|NCT00309465|183707877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||P value is for three strategies in insulin glargine only group for achievement of 80-249 mg/dl|Chi-squared|||Comparison of Achievement of blood glucose values of 80-249 mg/dl||||0.162
91906196|NCT00309465|183707877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P value is for three strategies in insulin glargine plus bolus group in achievement of fasting blood glucose value of 80-249 mg/dl.|Chi-squared|||Comparison of Achievement of blood glucose values of 80-249 mg/dl.||||0.031
91906197|NCT02113436|183707882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-0.97||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.54|||ANCOVA|||||0.54|-2.47|0.206
91906198|NCT02113436|183707883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least sqaure means|-0.49||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.29|0.235
91906199|NCT02113436|183707884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Sqaure means|-0.48||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-1.27|0.236
91906200|NCT02113436|183707885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.6||||||||1.60|0.14|
91906201|NCT02113436|183707886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Square Means|0.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|0.0|0.041
91906202|NCT02113436|183707887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.06||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.20|0.335
91702445|NCT00772005|183299694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1348
91870737|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Decrease in Activity||0.141|-0.216|
91870738|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Loss of Appetite||0.141|-0.216|
91906203|NCT02113436|183707888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.6||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.6|||ANCOVA|||||8.6|-3.3|0.389
91906204|NCT01486927|183707892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.1|||Poisson, regression|||A test of the null hypothesis of no difference on AsBR between the 2 comparison groups was based on the Poisson Regression method. The corresponding prophylaxis/on-demand ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.||0.10|0.07|< 0.0001
91870739|NCT02678455|183634907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.218|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Vomiting||0.218|-0.165|
91735513|NCT01576783|183364160|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in n-6:n-3 ratio between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-3.7||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||-3.7|-5.5|<0.001
91735514|NCT01576783|183364163|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Effortful Control Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.13||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||.13
91735515|NCT01576783|183364163|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Activity Level Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.76||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.76
91735516|NCT01576783|183364164|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Cognitive Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.66||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||A sample of 448 was planned to achieve \>80% power to detect a 4.2-point difference (0.27-standard deviation (SD)) in Bayley-III cognitive composite scores with 10% loss to follow-up.The investigational product manufacturer discontinued production once 377 were enrolled, thereby capping enrollment. That sample provided 80% power to detect a 0.29-SD difference in Bayley-III scores.||||.66
91735517|NCT01576783|183364164|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Language Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.55||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||A sample of 448 was planned to achieve \>80% power to detect a 4.2-point difference (0.27-standard deviation (SD)) in Bayley-III cognitive composite scores with 10% loss to follow-up.The investigational product manufacturer discontinued production once 377 were enrolled, thereby capping enrollment. That sample provided 80% power to detect a 0.29-SD difference in Bayley-III scores.||||.55
91735518|NCT01576783|183364164|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Motor Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.88||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||A sample of 448 was planned to achieve \>80% power to detect a 4.2-point difference (0.27-standard deviation (SD)) in Bayley-III cognitive composite scores with 10% loss to follow-up.The investigational product manufacturer discontinued production once 377 were enrolled, thereby capping enrollment. That sample provided 80% power to detect a 0.29-SD difference in Bayley-III scores.||||.88
91735519|NCT01576783|183364165|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Nocturnal Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.11||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||.11
91735520|NCT01576783|183364165|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in daytime sleep duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.47||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||0.47
91870740|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.0|88.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|76|
91735521|NCT01576783|183364165|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in total sleep duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.32||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||0.32
91735522|NCT01576783|183364166|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in weight-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.99||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.99
91735523|NCT01576783|183364166|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in length-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.27||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.27
91870741|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination. There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|96|
91735524|NCT01576783|183364166|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in head circumference-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.39||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.39
91870742|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm|percentage seropositive|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|98.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|92|
91870743|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|92.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|81|
91870744|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
91870745|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
91870746|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
91870747|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
91870748|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|92.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|67|
91870749|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
91702446|NCT00772005|183299695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9642||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9642
91702447|NCT00772005|183299695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7814||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7814
91702448|NCT00772005|183299695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1455||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1455
91702449|NCT00772005|183299696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5722||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5722
91702450|NCT00772005|183299696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1352||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1352
91702451|NCT00772005|183299696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0630
91702452|NCT00772005|183299697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4607||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4607
91702453|NCT00772005|183299697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2538||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2538
91702454|NCT00772005|183299697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3406||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3406
91702455|NCT00772005|183299698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8116||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8116
91702456|NCT00772005|183299698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6870
91702457|NCT00772005|183299698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8112||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8112
91702458|NCT00772005|183299699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9786||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9786
91702459|NCT00772005|183299699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5879||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5879
91735525|NCT01576783|183364166|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in mid upper arm circumference-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.25||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.25
91735526|NCT01576783|183364166|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in triceps skinfold-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.85||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.85
91735527|NCT01576783|183364166|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in subscapular skinfold-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.82||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.82
91735528|NCT01576783|183364167|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.42||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.42
91735529|NCT01576783|183364167|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.68||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.68
91735530|NCT01576783|183364167|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.78||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.78
91735531|NCT01576783|183364167|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.32||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.32
91870750|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
91735532|NCT01576783|183364167|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.97||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.97
91735533|NCT01576783|183364167|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.62||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.62
91735534|NCT01576783|183364167|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.69||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.69
91735535|NCT01576783|183364168|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.22
91735536|NCT01576783|183364169|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Nocturnal Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.23||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
91735537|NCT01576783|183364169|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Daytime Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.07||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91870751|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
91735538|NCT01576783|183364169|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Total Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.06||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
91735539|NCT01576783|183364170|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.51||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.51
91735540|NCT01576783|183364171|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.09||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.09
91735541|NCT01576783|183364172|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.29
91735542|NCT01576783|183364172|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.11||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.11
91735543|NCT01576783|183364172|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.23||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.23
91735544|NCT01576783|183364172|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.29
91735545|NCT01576783|183364172|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.06||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.06
91735546|NCT01576783|183364172|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.14||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.14
91735547|NCT01576783|183364172|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.13||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.13
91735548|NCT01576783|183364172|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.16||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.16
91735549|NCT01576783|183364173|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.98
91735550|NCT01576783|183364173|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.67||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.67
91735551|NCT01576783|183364174|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.047||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.047
91735552|NCT01576783|183364175|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.2||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.20
91735553|NCT01576783|183364176|OTHER|Results are the comparison of proportion of those with a developmental condition between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.32||||||||3.32|0.80|
91870752|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|81.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|90.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|65|
91735554|NCT01576783|183364177|OTHER|Results are the comparison of proportion of those with a behavioral condition between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|39.15||||||||39.15|0.52|
91735555|NCT03021486|183364226|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.71
91735556|NCT03021486|183364228|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.86
91735557|NCT03021486|183364229|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||||||0.12
91735558|NCT03021486|183364230|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||||||0.007
91735559|NCT03021486|183364231|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived Comfort level as assessed by caregiver||||0.83
91735560|NCT03021486|183364231|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived agitation level as assessed by caregiver||||0.82
91735561|NCT03021486|183364232|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived Comfort level as assessed by nurse||||0.82
91735562|NCT03021486|183364232|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived agitation level as assessed by nurse||||0.91
91735563|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to time - frequency||||0.12
91735564|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to place - frequency||||0.07
91870753|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
91870754|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
91870755|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|88.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|62|
91870756|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|92.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|68|
91906205|NCT02445651|183708003|OTHER|Correlation coefficient: The correlation between the pre-to-post change in UPDRS and the imaging findings of DAT binding in the caudate and putamen, as well as SERT binding in the midbrain, was evaluated using both Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients to confirm any findings using both methods. Analysis of UPDRS total scores, pre-to post differences were compared between NAC and controls study groups using 2-sample t-test.||||||0.05||||||P value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold, for a 5-10% improvement in oral and IV NAC cohort for an 80% power to detect a significant change of P = 0.05. for sample size \~ 28 subjects in the NAC arm and \~ 14 subjects in the control arm.|5-10% improvement in the oral and IV NAC|Threshold, for a 5-10% improvement in oral and IV NAC cohort for an 80% power to detect a significant change of P = 0.05.|||The primary analysis of dopamine and midbrain serotonin uptake measures from DaTscan was performed using separate linear mixed effect (LME) models with random subject effect. This method differs from a repeated measures analysis of variance because the LME is a statistical model that has both fixed effects and random effects.|||0.05
91735565|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, visual hallucination - frequency||||0.051
91735566|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, tactile hallucination - frequency||||0.048
91735567|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, auditory hallucination - frequency||||0.15
91735568|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, delusional thoughts - frequency||||0.10
91735569|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, psychomotor agitation- frequency||||0.15
91735570|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to time - distress||||0.98
91735571|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to place - distress||||0.93
91870757|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
91906206|NCT02445651|183708003|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91735572|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, visual hallucination - distress||||0.08
91735573|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, tactile hallucination - distress||||0.28
91735574|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, auditory hallucination - distress||||0.83
91735575|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, delusional thoughts - distress||||0.22
91735576|NCT03021486|183364233|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, psychomotor agitation - distress||||0.75
91735577|NCT03021486|183364234|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.09
91735578|NCT03021486|183364235|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in pain.||||0.02
91735579|NCT03021486|183364235|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Fatigue.||||0.10
91735580|NCT03021486|183364235|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Nausea.||||0.02
91735581|NCT03021486|183364235|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Depression.||||0.97
91735582|NCT03021486|183364235|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Anxiety.||||0.03
91735583|NCT03021486|183364235|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Drowsiness.||||0.68
91735584|NCT03021486|183364235|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Appetite.||||0.80
91735585|NCT03021486|183364235|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Feeling of well being.||||0.45
91735586|NCT03021486|183364235|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Shortness of breath.||||0.16
91735587|NCT03021486|183364235|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Sleep.||||0.12
91735588|NCT04043286|183364237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.85|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Shapiro-Wilk test assessed data normality, and paired t-tests or Wilcoxon tests were applied based on normality results.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in peri-implant bone levels between implants with definitive abutments delivered at the time of surgery, and those subjected to multiple abutment disconnections and reconnections. Power analysis was performed and showed that a sample size of 38 implants was needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the null proportion of 0.500 at a significance level of 0.05.||0.85|0.10|0.009
91735589|NCT04043286|183364238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000168|1.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in peri-implant bone levels between implants with definitive abutments delivered at the time of surgery, and those subjected to multiple abutment disconnections and reconnections. Power analysis was performed and showed that a sample size of 38 implants was needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the null proportion of 0.500 at a significance level of 0.05.~Type of Statistical Test"||1.25|-0.0000168|0.049
91760040|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.52||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.52|0.13|
91870758|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
91735590|NCT04043286|183364239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000522|0.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in peri-implant bone levels between implants with definitive abutments delivered at the time of surgery, and those subjected to multiple abutment disconnections and reconnections. Power analysis was performed and showed that a sample size of 38 implants was needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the null proportion of 0.500 at a significance level of 0.05.~Type of Statistical Test"||0.75|-0.0000522|0.053
91735591|NCT01732536|183364241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1365|||||||ANCOVA|Based on between group comparison using ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.1365
91735592|NCT01732536|183364241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0505||||||Based on between group comparison using ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Day 90 in Nasal Obstruction/Congestion score in the subset of participants with higher polyp burden at baseline (grade 2 or higher polyps on each side; N=67).||||0.0505
91735593|NCT01732536|183364242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0985|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate, site and treatment as fixed effect||||||0.0985
91735594|NCT01732536|183364242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||ANOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate, site and treatment as fixed effect||Bilateral polyp grade change in a subset of 67 patients with higher polyp burden at baseline (grade 2 or higher on each side confirmed by the independent panel)||||0.0490
91735595|NCT01732536|183364243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0099
91735596|NCT01732536|183364244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||P-value for change from baseline to 90 days not adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.0162
91735597|NCT01732536|183364244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175||||||P-value for change from baseline to 6 months not adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.0175
91870759|NCT02678455|183634908|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|98.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|82|
91870760|NCT02678455|183634910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison between experienced vs dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. Logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-1 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||<0.001
91870761|NCT02678455|183634910|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Comparison between experienced vs. dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. Logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-2 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||1.00
91870762|NCT02678455|183634910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Comparison between experienced vs. dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. Logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-3 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||0.070
91870763|NCT02678455|183634910|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Comparison between experienced vs. dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-4 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||1.00
91870764|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
91735598|NCT01732536|183364245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209||||||P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Based on between arm comparison using ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.0209
91735599|NCT03186638|183364262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7917|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline values||||||0.7917
91735600|NCT00524121|183364274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.011
91735601|NCT00524121|183364275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.115
91735602|NCT00524121|183364276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91735603|NCT00524121|183364277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91735604|NCT00524121|183364278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5467|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5467
91760041|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.27||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.27|-0.12|
91760042|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.35||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.35|-0.05|
91760043|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.31||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.31|-0.08|
91735605|NCT02410772|183364281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.5||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||4.5|-2.6|0.05
91735606|NCT02410772|183364281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||6.6|-0.6|0.05
91735607|NCT02410772|183364282|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.1||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||5.1|-1.1|0.05
91735608|NCT02410772|183364282|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.7||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||7.7|1.2|0.05
91759504|NCT02391363|183411755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.59 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month GAI-SF, controlling for baseline GAI-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.45
91870765|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|92.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|67|
91870766|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
91870767|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
91870768|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
91735609|NCT02410772|183364283|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than, then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.2||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary Safety endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||3.2|-4.3|0.05
91735610|NCT02410772|183364283|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than, then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.5||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary Safety endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||-1.5|-8.7|0.05
91735611|NCT02410772|183364288|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|4.63||||||||4.63|-2.45|
91735612|NCT02410772|183364288|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|7.79||||||||7.79|0.45|
91735613|NCT02410772|183364289|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|4.11||||||||4.11|-2.01|
91735614|NCT02410772|183364289|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066)|Risk Difference (RD)|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.9||||||||6.90|0.42|
91735615|NCT02410772|183364291|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.6||||||||6.6|-0.6|
91735616|NCT02410772|183364291|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|5.7||||||||5.70|-1.12|
91870769|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
91735617|NCT02410772|183364292|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.9||||||||8.9|2.8|
91735618|NCT02410772|183364292|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.3||||||||6.3|0.5|
91735619|NCT05528770|183364315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.98||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.3|-3.8|0.4291
91870770|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
91735620|NCT02493764|183364344|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mortality (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was \< 10 percentage points.|Adjusted difference in ACM|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|1.2|||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided alpha level of 0.025 was used to declare significance.|Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||1.2|-11.9|<0.001
91735621|NCT02493764|183364345|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in FCR (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was \> 12.5 percentage points.|Adjusted difference in FCR|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.2|||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided alpha level of 0.025 was used to declare significance.|Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in FCR||13.2|-3.2|<0.001
91735622|NCT02493764|183364346|OTHER|Difference in % with AE vs PIP/TAZ|Difference in % with AE|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.3||||||||4.3|-7.7|
91735623|NCT02493764|183364347|OTHER|Difference in % discontinuing vs PIP/TAZ|Difference in % discontinuing|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.8||||||||1.8|-7.1|
91735624|NCT02493764|183364348|OTHER||Adjusted difference in ACM|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.6|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||3.6|-10.9|
91735625|NCT02493764|183364349|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mortality (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was ≥ 10 percentage points.|Adjusted difference in ACM|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.7|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||1.7|-11.0|
91735626|NCT02493764|183364350|OTHER|Adjusted difference in ACM|Adjusted difference in ACM|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.8|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||3.8|-10.2|
91735627|NCT02493764|183364351|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|7.8|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.8|-11.3|
91870771|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|81.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||81|52|
91870772|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|98.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at stud day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|81|
91906207|NCT02445651|183708003|OTHER|The primary analysis of dopamine and midbrain serotonin uptake measures from DaTscan was performed using separate linear mixed effect (LME) models with random subject effect. This method differs from a repeated measures analysis of variance because the LME is a statistical model that has both fixed effects and random effects.||||||0.05||||||For a 5-10% improvement in the oral and IV NAC cohort for an 80% power to detect a significant change of P = 0.05. for sample size \~ 28 subjects in the NAC arm and \~ 14 subjects in the control arm.|t-test, 2 sided|Correlation coefficient: pre-to-post evaluated using Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients to confirm any findings.||||||0.05
91906208|NCT00829179|183708025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.3||0.005||95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.005
91906209|NCT00271596|183708029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.028|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.028|-0.361|0.092
91906210|NCT00271596|183708030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.672|-0.003|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||-0.003|-0.672|0.048
91906211|NCT00271596|183708031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.254|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic)||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.254|-0.810|0.302
91735628|NCT02493764|183364352|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||5.5|-9.8|
91735629|NCT02493764|183364353|OTHER|Difference in favorable clinical response|Adjusted difference in FCR|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|18.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||18.4|-4.6|
91735630|NCT02493764|183364354|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.4|-8.1|
91906212|NCT00271596|183708032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.246|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.246|-0.361|0.708
91906213|NCT00271596|183708033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.367|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.367|-0.229|0.646
91906214|NCT00271596|183708034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.23||95.0|-0.554|0.135|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.135|-0.554|0.230
91735631|NCT02493764|183364355|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|7.5|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.5|-14.3|
91906215|NCT00271596|183708035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.276|0.642|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.642|-1.276|0.512
91735632|NCT02493764|183364356|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||6.4|-13.6|
91735633|NCT02493764|183364357|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.6|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||11.6|-4.6|
91735634|NCT02493764|183364358|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|7.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.4|-6.3|
91735635|NCT02493764|183364359|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|14.2|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||14.2|-7.1|
91735636|NCT02493764|183364360|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.0|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||12.0|-3.1|
91735637|NCT02493764|183364361|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|9.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||9.4|-7.2|
91735638|NCT02493764|183364362|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|17.9|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||17.9|1.6|
91735639|NCT02493764|183364363|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.0|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||15.0|-2.7|
91735640|NCT02493764|183364364|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|11.0|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||11.0|-5.5|
91735641|NCT02493764|183364365|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|14.1|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||14.1|-4.0|
91735642|NCT04846231|183364373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.13|41.32|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05. This belongs to the primary endpoint.||41.32|29.13|<0.001
91735643|NCT04846231|183364373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.28|40.58|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||40.58|28.28|<0.001
91735644|NCT04846231|183364373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|38.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|44.34|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||44.34|32.20|<0.001
91735645|NCT04846231|183364373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|42.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.02|48.95|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||48.95|37.02|<0.001
91735646|NCT04846231|183364373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.61|42.54|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||42.54|30.61|<0.001
91735647|NCT04846231|183364373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.42|39.55|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||39.55|27.42|<0.001
91735648|NCT04846231|183364373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.16|37.47|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||37.47|25.16|<0.001
91735649|NCT04846231|183364375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91735650|NCT00265122|183364423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0||||The P-Value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the route of administration.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||0.337
91735651|NCT00265122|183364425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||95.0||||The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by the route of administration.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.292
91735652|NCT01276106|183364426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.01||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made and a value of p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with change in HbA1c as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.70|0.044
91735653|NCT01276106|183364426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.05||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made and a value of p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with change in HbA1c as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.05|-0.64|0.0979
91735654|NCT01276106|183364426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.2643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.15||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made and a value of p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with change in HbA1c as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.15|-0.54|0.2643
91735655|NCT00862940|183364431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.9754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model relating direct change in brain volume (BBSI) to time and its interaction with treatment group. This model additionally includes a time-by-AChEI group interaction as a fixed effect.||2.52|-2.60|0.9754
91735656|NCT00862940|183364432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.52||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.04|31.04|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) with unstructured covariance including time, time-by-treatment, visit, pre-treatment HCV, and AChEI group.||31.04|-38.04|0.842
91735657|NCT00862940|183364433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.23||The p-value represents the difference from placebo for COWAT at Week 52 (MMRM).|MMRM|||||3.23|0.13|0.034
91735658|NCT00862940|183364434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.15||The p-value represents the difference from placebo for MMSE at Week 52 (MMRM).|MMRM|||||1.15|-0.67|0.602
91735659|NCT00485173|183364435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91870773|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
91870774|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180. There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
91906216|NCT00271596|183708036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.5|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.50|-4.30|0.12
91735660|NCT00485173|183364435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||<0.001
91735661|NCT00485173|183364436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91735662|NCT00485173|183364436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.002
91735663|NCT00485173|183364437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91735664|NCT00485173|183364438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random sampling, based on covariance matrix produced by logistic regression using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91735665|NCT00485173|183364438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.011
91735666|NCT00485173|183364439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.063
91735667|NCT00485173|183364440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91735668|NCT00485173|183364440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||<0.001
91735669|NCT00485173|183364441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.031
91735670|NCT00485173|183364442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
91735671|NCT00485173|183364442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.414
91735672|NCT00485173|183364443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
91735673|NCT00485173|183364444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91735674|NCT00485173|183364444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.017
91870775|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
91735675|NCT00485173|183364445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.189
91735676|NCT00485173|183364446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
91735677|NCT00485173|183364446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.466
91735678|NCT00485173|183364447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91735679|NCT00485173|183364447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.133
91735680|NCT00485173|183364448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91735681|NCT00485173|183364449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91735682|NCT00485173|183364450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.341
91870776|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
91870777|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
91870778|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
91870779|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|98.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|81|
91870780|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
91906217|NCT00271596|183708037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.91|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.91|-1.87|0.49
91906218|NCT00271596|183708038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|0.04||Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.04|-5.04|0.05
91906219|NCT04707157|183708039|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.38|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-0.38|-2.76|
91870781|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
91870782|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
91870783|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
91735683|NCT00485173|183364451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, obtained from Cox regression and adjusted with propensity scores.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.479
91870784|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
91870785|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|36.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||36|10|
91870786|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|88.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|61|
91870787|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
91906220|NCT04707157|183708040|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-2.14|
91906221|NCT04707157|183708041|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.25|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-0.25|-1.56|
91906222|NCT04707157|183708042|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-0.77|-3.22|
91906223|NCT04707157|183708043|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-19.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-6.97|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-6.97|-31.22|
91906224|NCT04707157|183708044|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.64|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.64|-0.86|
91906225|NCT04707157|183708045|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-269.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-624.98|86.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||86.24|-624.98|
91906226|NCT04707157|183708046|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.29|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.29|-0.22|
91906227|NCT02969915|183708054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.26||||||||2.26|0.64|
91906228|NCT02969915|183708055|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.9||||||||1.90|0.91|
91870788|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||86|58|
91735684|NCT00485173|183364452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was from logistic regression model by using propensity score and any ossification 'Yes/No' at preop as the covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis at 24 months postoperation.||||<0.001
91735685|NCT04537650|183364453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|243.24|||Chi-squared|||||243.24|1.8|<0.001
91735686|NCT04537650|183364454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|487.5|||Chi-squared|||||487.5|4.15|<0.001
91735687|NCT00879398|183364461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91735688|NCT00879398|183364462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91735689|NCT00879398|183364463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91735690|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Geriatric Status: \<65 years versus (vs) Geriatric Status: ≥65 years||||0.1319
91735691|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Age Categories: \<50 years, 50 to 59 years, 60 to 69 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years.||||0.6010
91735692|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Male vs Female||||0.0289
91735693|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3078||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Weight Categories: \<50 kg, 50 to 60 kg, 60 to 70 kg, and ≥70 kg.||||0.3078
91735694|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9614||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Height Categories: \<160 cm, 160 to 170 cm, and ≥170 cm.||||0.9614
91735695|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0788||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Allergic History: Yes vs Allergic History: No||||0.0788
91735696|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Duration of Disease: \<1 week, 1 to 8 weeks, 8 to 16 weeks, and ≥16 weeks.||||<0.0001
91735697|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Past OAB Treatment History: Yes vs Past OAB Treatment History: No||||<0.0001
91735698|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1147||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Medical History of Past Disease: Yes vs Medical History of Past Disease: No||||0.1147
91735699|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Medical History of Present Disease: Yes vs Medical History of Present Disease: No||||<0.0001
91735700|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Kidney Disorder: Yes vs Kidney Disorder: No||||1.0000
91735701|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Liver Disorder: Yes vs Liver Disorder: No||||1.0000
91735702|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Total Administration Period of Toviaz Subgroups: \<2 months, 2 to 4 months, and ≥4 months.||||<0.0001
91735703|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0239||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among Daily Dose of Toviaz: 3 mg, 4 mg, \>4 mg to \<8 mg, and 8 mg.||||0.0239
91735704|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Completion vs Discontinuation||||<0.0001
91735705|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5889||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Total Administration Period \<274 days vs Total Administration Period ≥ 274 days||||0.5889
91735706|NCT00879398|183364465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Concurrent Medication: Yes vs Concurrent Medication: No||||0.0010
91735707|NCT00829244|183364466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the difference between the mean number of oocytes \[CONSORT calculator dosing - Standard dosing\] was less than or equal to \[=\<\] (-3). The alternate hypothesis was that the difference was greater than \[\>\] (-3).||-0.1|-3.3|0.037
91735708|NCT00829244|183364467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-511.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-638.78|-383.96|||ANOVA|||||-383.96|-638.78|<0.001
91735709|NCT00829244|183364468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.75|-37.46|||ANOVA|||||-37.46|-53.75|<0.001
91735710|NCT00829244|183364469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|0.933
91735711|NCT00829244|183364471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|18.2||||||||18.2|-11.0|
91735712|NCT00829244|183364473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|13.6|||ANOVA|||||13.6|-12.3|0.926
91735713|NCT00829244|183364475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.47|||ANOVA|||||2.47|-0.61|0.235
91735714|NCT00829244|183364476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|14.6||||||||14.6|-13.5|
91735715|NCT05047627|183364496|OTHER||Differences in slopes|0.76||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|5.66|||Robust linear mixed models|||||5.66|-4.14|.755
91735716|NCT05047627|183364497|OTHER||Differences in slopes|1.38||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|8.91|||Robust linear mixed models|||||8.91|-6.15|0.713
91735717|NCT05047627|183364498|OTHER||Differences in slopes|1.03||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.09|||Robust linear mixed models|||||3.09|-1.02|0.323
91735718|NCT05047627|183364499|OTHER||Differences in slopes|-0.33||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.3|||Robust linear mixed models|||||1.30|-1.95|.692
91735719|NCT05047627|183364500|OTHER||Differences in slopes|-2.92||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|0.58|||Robust linear mixed models|||||0.58|-6.41|0.1
91870789|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
91870790|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|74.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||74|44|
91870791|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|77.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||77|46|
91735720|NCT04251533|183364503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.41|||Regression, Cox|||||2.41|0.92|
91735721|NCT06378008|183364517|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.62|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-1.62|-1.98|<0.0001
91870792|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|42.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 a study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||42|14|
91870793|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||86|58|
91870794|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
91870795|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
91870796|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|81.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||81|52|
91870797|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|59.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||59|28|
91870798|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|62.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||62|30|
91870799|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|51.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||51|21|
91870800|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
91870801|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
91870802|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
91870803|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
91870804|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||86|58|
91870805|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|81.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||81|52|
91906229|NCT02969915|183708056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.95||||||||1.95|0.70|
91906230|NCT02969915|183708057|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95||||||||1.95|0.85|
91735722|NCT06378008|183364518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|52.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.428|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.08|57.65|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||57.65|48.08|<0.0001
91906231|NCT02969915|183708058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.75||||||||1.75|0.79|
91906232|NCT02969915|183708059|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.76||||||||5.76|0.38|
91906233|NCT02969915|183708060|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.36||||||||1.36|0.68|
91906234|NCT02969915|183708061|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.46||||||||2.46|0.77|
91906235|NCT02969915|183708062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.8||||||||1.80|0.09|
91906236|NCT04206605|183708068|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.02|||=|0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.47|0.71|=0.899
91906237|NCT04206605|183708069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.003|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.114||P-value was from the corresponding Mantel-Haenszel estimate for the common risk difference from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.114|-0.153|=1.000
91906238|NCT04206605|183708070|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.96|||=|0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.48||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.48|0.62|=0.852
91906239|NCT04206605|183708071|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.1|||=|0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.7||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.70|0.72|=0.660
91906240|NCT04206605|183708072|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.063||P-value was from the corresponding Mantel-Haenszel estimate for the common risk difference from CMH test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.063|-0.280|=0.250
91906241|NCT04206605|183708074|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97|||=|0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.61||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.61|0.58|=0.896
91906242|NCT04206605|183708076|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.498||||||P-value comparing lanadelumab to placebo was from a log rank test stratified by baseline strata.|Log Rank|||||||=0.498
91906243|NCT04206605|183708077|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.184||||||P-value comparing lanadelumab to placebo was from a log rank test stratified by baseline strata.|Log Rank|||||||=0.184
91906244|NCT04580446|183708098|OTHER|Descriptive analysis used to identify the dose level associated with ≤1 of 6 participants experiencing a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), consistent with standard 3+3 design methodology.|Maximally Tolerated Dose/Fractionation|46.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD/fractionation determined as 46.5 Gy in 15 fractions based on incidence of DLTs during dose escalation (3 + 3 design)|"Estimation Parameter: Maximally Tolerated Dose/Fractionation Description: The maximally tolerated dose (MTD)/fractionation of hypofractionated radiation therapy was determined based on the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) observed during the dose-escalation phase.~Estimate: 46.5 Gy × 15 fractions"||||
91906245|NCT01748942|183708170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91906246|NCT01748942|183708173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91906247|NCT01748942|183708174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91906248|NCT01748942|183708175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
91906249|NCT01748942|183708176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91906250|NCT01748942|183708177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
91906251|NCT00789880|183708194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether the change in CAMP expression in lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.7
91906252|NCT00789880|183708194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether the change in CAMP mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.12
91906253|NCT00789880|183708195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether the change in CAMP mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of Non-AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.3
91906254|NCT00789880|183708196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in CAMP mRNA expression in lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.4
91906255|NCT00789880|183708196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in CAMP mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
91906256|NCT00789880|183708197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.8
91906257|NCT00789880|183708197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
91906258|NCT00789880|183708198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of Non-AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.4
91906259|NCT00789880|183708199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.4
91906260|NCT00789880|183708199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||1.0
91906261|NCT00789880|183708200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
91906262|NCT00789880|183708200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.5
91906263|NCT00789880|183708201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of Non-AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.7
91906264|NCT00789880|183708202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
91906265|NCT00789880|183708202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.3
91735723|NCT06378008|183364519|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.08|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.08|-0.29|0.0005
91735724|NCT06378008|183364519|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.49|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 7||-0.49|-0.73|<0.0001
91906266|NCT00487396|183708216|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||"Pathologies were including in the analysis as follows:~* combination of CE+IC procedures but not detected by the combination of SBFT+IC procedures were marked as CE+IC new finding ;~* Pathologies detected by the combination of SBFT+IC procedures but not detected by the combination of CE+IC procedures were marked as SBFT+IC new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by the combination of CE+IC procedures and by the combination of SBFT+IC procedures were marked as same findings event."||||<0.0001
91735725|NCT06378008|183364519|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-1.04|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-1.04|-1.41|<0.0001
91735726|NCT06378008|183364519|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.38|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-1.38|-1.74|<0.0001
91735727|NCT06378008|183364520|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|8.53|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||8.53|5.75|<0.0001
91735728|NCT06378008|183364520|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|16.59|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 7||16.59|12.20|<0.0001
91735729|NCT06378008|183364520|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.67|28.93|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||28.93|22.67|<0.0001
91906267|NCT00487396|183708217|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||"For each category, the numbers of found and missed pathologies were including in the analysis as follows:~* Pathologies detected by CE procedure but not detected by SBFT procedure were marked as CE new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by SBFT procedure but not detected by CE procedure were marked as SBFT new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by both procedures (i.e., CE and SBFT) were marked as same findings event."||||<0.0001
91906268|NCT00487396|183708218|OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||McNemar|||"Pathologies were including in the analysis as follows:~* Pathologies detected by CE procedure but not detected by IC procedure were marked as CE new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by IC procedure but not detected by CE procedure were marked as IC new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by both procedures (i.e., CE and IC) were marked as same findings event."||||0.085
91906269|NCT00943579|183708231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square analyses were used to assess CGI-I scores. there were no transformations.||||>.05
91906270|NCT01538628|183708239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test|testing the null hypothesis that the proportion for SpaceOAR is less than or equal to 0.70.||||||.0001
91735730|NCT06378008|183364520|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|40.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.55|45.43|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||45.43|36.55|<0.0001
91735731|NCT06378008|183364521|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.3489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.23|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.23|-0.64|0.3489
91906271|NCT01357577|183708246|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-Value show above is for post-assessment time point.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and the baseline total CAPS score.||||||.48
91906272|NCT01357577|183708246|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The p-value shown above is for the 6-month time point.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and the baseline total CAPS score.||||||.12
91906273|NCT01357577|183708246|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||The p-value shown above refers to the treatment main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
91906274|NCT01357577|183708246|OTHER|||||||0.072||||||The p-value shown above refers to the timepoint main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.072
91906275|NCT01357577|183708246|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value shown above refers to the interaction.||||||.0050
91906276|NCT01357577|183708246|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value shown above refers to the site main effect.||||||.12
91906277|NCT01357577|183708247|OTHER|mixed-effects linear regression model adjusted for study site and the baseline value of the dependent variable.||||||0.12||||||Post-treatment P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.12
91906278|NCT01357577|183708247|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||6-month P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.84
91906279|NCT01357577|183708247|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||treatment main effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.26
91906280|NCT01357577|183708247|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Timepoint main effect P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.14
91906281|NCT01357577|183708247|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.29
91906282|NCT01357577|183708247|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.16
91906283|NCT01357577|183708248|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Post-treatment p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (drug score).||||||.66
91906284|NCT01357577|183708248|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||6-month P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.53
91870806|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|54.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||54|23|
91870807|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
91870808|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|98.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|81|
91735732|NCT06378008|183364521|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.07|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.07|-0.98|0.0876
91735733|NCT06378008|183364521|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.9108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.52|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.52|-0.47|0.9108
91735734|NCT06378008|183364521|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.4854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.36|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.36|-0.75|0.4854
91735735|NCT06378008|183364521|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.8309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.57|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.57|-0.46|0.8309
91735736|NCT06378008|183364521|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.0|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||-0.00|-1.17|0.0500
91735737|NCT06378008|183364522|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.859||0.5565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|5.33|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||5.33|-9.88|0.5565
91735738|NCT06378008|183364522|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.715||0.2078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.25|3.34|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||3.34|-15.25|0.2078
91735739|NCT06378008|183364523|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588||0.5597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.82|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.82|-1.50|0.5597
91735740|NCT06378008|183364523|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.705||0.4627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.87|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.87|-1.91|0.4627
91735741|NCT06378008|183364524|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.583||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|1.48|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.48|-4.77|0.3000
91735742|NCT06378008|183364524|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.958||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.33|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.33|-6.39|0.1974
91735743|NCT06378008|183364525|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.41|-1.27|0.9203
91735744|NCT06378008|183364525|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.717||0.2489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.58|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.58|-2.24|0.2489
91735745|NCT06378008|183364526|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.8496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.94|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.94|-2.36|0.8496
91735746|NCT06378008|183364526|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.226||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.69|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.69|-4.15|0.1596
91735747|NCT06378008|183364527|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.41|-1.34|0.9577
91735748|NCT06378008|183364527|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748||0.8261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.31|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.31|-1.64|0.8261
91870809|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
91870810|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
91870811|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|72.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||72|41|
91870812|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|72.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||72|41|
91870813|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||10|0|
91870814|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|92.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|67|
91870815|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|88.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|61|
91870816|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
91870817|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
91735749|NCT06378008|183364528|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.8895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.16|-0.19|0.8895
91735750|NCT06378008|183364528|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.22|-0.17|0.8083
91870818|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|74.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||74|44|
91735751|NCT06378008|183364529|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.7362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.81|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.81|-0.57|0.7362
91735752|NCT06378008|183364529|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.54|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.54|-1.00|0.5568
91735753|NCT02302222|183364550|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.113||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.243|||Fisher Exact|||||0.243|-0.016|0.1981
91735754|NCT03110562|183364555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.702||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5279|0.9335||One Sided P-value|Stratified Log-rank Test|Stratified for prior PI therapies, number of prior of anti-MM regimens and R-ISS Stage at screening.|Based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with Efron's Method of handling ties.|||0.9335|0.5279|0.0075
91735755|NCT03110562|183364556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9626||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2641|3.0471||One Sided P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, prior PI therapies, number of prior anti-MM regimens, and R-ISS stage at screening.||||3.0471|1.2641|0.0012
91870819|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|59.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||59|28|
91870820|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||47|18|
91870821|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|82.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||82|53|
91870822|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|75.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||75|45|
91870823|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|70.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||70|40|
91870824|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|58.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||58|27|
91906285|NCT01357577|183708248|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Treatment main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.86
91735756|NCT03110562|183364557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6594||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0993|2.5049||One Sided P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, prior PI therapies, number of prior anti-MM regimens, and R-ISS stage at screening.||||2.5049|1.0993|0.0082
91735757|NCT03110562|183364558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5042||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3216|0.7906||One Sided P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by Prior PI therapies (Yes or No), Number of prior anti-MM regimens (1 or \>1), and R-ISS stage at study entry (R-ISS Stage III versus R-ISS Stage I or II).|||0.7906|0.3216|0.0013
91735758|NCT03110562|183364559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8764||||0.2152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6313|1.2168||One Sided P-value|Stratified log-rank test|Stratified for prior PI therapies, number of prior anti-MM regimens and R-ISS Stage at screening.|Based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with Efron's Method of handling ties.|||1.2168|0.6313|0.2152
91735759|NCT02769481|183364594|NON_INFERIORITY|A 95% CI was to be calculated to estimate the range of values in which the treatment difference was likely to lie. If the 95% CI fell below the specified non inferiority margin of 0.35%, the non inferiority of bexagliflozin treatment to glimepiride treatment would be demonstrated and the null hypothesis would be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.11|||||A lower value represents a better treatment effect.|The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint was that the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 60 in the bexagliflozin arm would be greater than change in the glimepiride arm by greater than 0.35%.||0.11|-0.21|
91797660|NCT01920555|183473691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.31|27.77||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||27.77|5.31|0.03
91797661|NCT01920555|183473691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.68||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|20.16||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||20.16|-2.81|0.82
91870825|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|58.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||58|27|
91870826|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|54.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||54|22|
91870827|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|50.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||50|20|
91870828|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
91870829|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|96.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||96|75|
91735760|NCT02769481|183364595|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-4.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-3.52||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, background treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline weight as a fixed effect covariate.||||-3.52|-5.10|< 0.0001
91735761|NCT02769481|183364596|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-6.53||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|-2.51||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, background treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline weight as a fixed effect covariate.||||-2.51|-10.56|0.0008
91735762|NCT02769481|183364597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline HbA1c, background treatment, eGFR at baseline, treatment as a fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over glimepiride.|||0.28|0.05|< 0.0001
91735763|NCT02769481|183364598|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of bexagliflozin over glimepiride in HbA1c reduction from baseline to week 60 will be declared if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval is less than 0|Difference of LS Means|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.21|
91870830|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
91870831|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|88.0||||||children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|62|
91906286|NCT01357577|183708248|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Timepoint main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.16
91906287|NCT01357577|183708248|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Interaction P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.47
91735764|NCT04604431|183364615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|29.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Odds ratios will be computed to describe the odds of adherence for the iREACH intervention compared to the control intervention for low-risk infants.||29.1|6.9|<0.001
91735765|NCT04604431|183364615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Odds ratios will be computed to describe the odds of adherence for the iREACH intervention compared to the control intervention for high-risk infants.||8.8|1.1|0.034
91870832|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||80|50|
91870833|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|73.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||73|42|
91870834|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|52.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||52|22|
91870835|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
91870836|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
91870837|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|100.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|86|
91870838|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
91906288|NCT01357577|183708248|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.19
91906289|NCT01357577|183708249|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Post-Treatment P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.18
91906290|NCT01357577|183708249|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||P-value at 6 months.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.45
91735766|NCT00643279|183364620|SUPERIORITY|Survival estimate at 6-months|6-month survival rate|91.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|88.7||||||||||88.7|
91735767|NCT00643279|183364621|SUPERIORITY|Survival estimate at 6-months|6-month survival rate|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.9||||||||||98.9|
91735768|NCT01334918|183364629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Predefined noninferiority criterion: If the lower boundary of the 95% CI was within 0.15 of 0.78, MDCT would be determined to be noninferior to SPECT.|Agreement rate|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97||||||Analysis of agreement rate based on participants with 0 -1 and ≥ 2 reversible defects according to SPECT. Agreement is defined as the proportion of participants who had the same status from SPECT and MDCT, averaged across those with 2 or more reversible defects and those without, where SPECT is the reference standard.||0.97|0.77|
91735769|NCT01334918|183364634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Specificity|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99||||||Analysis of specificity based on participants with no fixed defects according to SPECT. Specificity is defined as a proportion of true negatives that are correctly identified, using SPECT as the reference standard.||0.99|0.90|
91906291|NCT01357577|183708249|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Treatment main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.73
91906292|NCT01357577|183708249|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Timepoint main effect P-Value|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.63
91906293|NCT01357577|183708249|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Interaction P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.024
91906294|NCT01357577|183708249|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.15
91735770|NCT01334918|183364634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sensitivity|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0||||||Analysis of sensitivity based on participants with ≥ 1 fixed defect according to SPECT. Sensitivity is the proportion of true positives that are correctly identified using SPECT as the reference standard.||1.00|0.54|
91735771|NCT02777086|183364663|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||3-month outcome measures were compared between the StaySafe and Comparison groups controlling for the baseline measure using generalized linear models.||||<.001
91735772|NCT01819272|183364705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-9.0||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|1.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||1.0|-21.0|0.0670
91735773|NCT01819272|183364705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-14.0||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-4.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-4.0|-22.0|0.0057
91735774|NCT01819272|183364705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-12.0||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|3.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||3.0|-25.0|0.1095
91735775|NCT01819272|183364705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-12.0||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-3.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-3.0|-23.0|0.0097
91735776|NCT01819272|183364705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-17.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-17.0|-42.0|<0.0001
91735777|NCT01819272|183364706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-106.0||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.0|-16.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-16.00|-208.0|0.0226
91735778|NCT01819272|183364706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-106.0||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.0|-32.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-32.00|-180.0|0.0068
91735779|NCT01819272|183364706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-152.0||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.0|-42.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-42.00|-252.0|0.0071
91735780|NCT01819272|183364706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-101.0||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.0|-4.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-4.00|-208.0|0.0405
91735781|NCT01819272|183364706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-224.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-334.0|-118.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-118.0|-334.0|<.0001
91735782|NCT01819272|183364707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.12|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.12|-0.85|0.0100
91735783|NCT01819272|183364707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.45||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.09|-0.81|0.0153
91735784|NCT01819272|183364707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.35||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.02|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||0.02|-0.71|0.0611
91735785|NCT01819272|183364707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.45||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.08|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as acovariate||||-0.08|-0.83|0.0188
91735786|NCT01819272|183364707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.67||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.29|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.29|-1.04|0.0006
91735787|NCT01246960|183364756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.37|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.37|0.69|0.886
91735788|NCT01246960|183364757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.58|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.58|0.73|0.712
91735789|NCT01246960|183364760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.30|0.59|0.516
91735790|NCT01409096|183364763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSD scores used as covariate.||||0.9084
91735791|NCT01409096|183364764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline IDS-SR used as a covariate.||||0.5187
91735792|NCT01409096|183364765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline YMRS used as a covariate.||||0.6060
91735793|NCT01409096|183364766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSA used as a covariate.||||0.5110
91735794|NCT03376516|183364799|OTHER|||||||0.9593||||||P-Value for patients aged 1-\<6 years (N=5)|ANOVA|||||||0.9593
91735795|NCT03376516|183364799|OTHER|||||||0.3752||||||P-Value for patients aged 6-\<12 years (N=5)|ANOVA|||||||0.3752
91735796|NCT03376516|183364799|OTHER|||||||0.8273||||||P-Value for total PK population (N=10)|ANOVA|||||||0.8273
91735797|NCT03376516|183364800|OTHER|P-Value for patients aged 1-\<6 years (N=5)||||||0.8536|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8536
91735798|NCT03376516|183364800|OTHER|||||||0.9791||||||P-Value for patients aged 6-\<12 years (N=5)|ANOVA|||||||0.9791
91735799|NCT03376516|183364800|OTHER|||||||0.9791||||||P-Value for total PK population (N=10)|ANOVA|||||||0.9791
91735800|NCT03376516|183364802|OTHER||Pearson-Copper|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|30.85||||||||30.85|0|
91735801|NCT01444911|183364810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
91735802|NCT01766102|183364816|OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Procedure time is not significantly different based on mammography type used||||0.716
91735803|NCT01766102|183364816|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Operating room time is not significantly different based on mammography type used||||0.676
91735804|NCT00508521|183364824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47871||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.27348|-19.22652|||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a feasibility study. Pre and post treatment analysis was performed for the study participants.||-19.22652|-22.27348|.0001
91735805|NCT01622296|183364825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Inferior Alveolar nerve injection - H(0): Lidocaine VAS score = Buffered Lidocaine VAS score. Based on data from medial trials of buffered anesthetic, a power calculation for sample size indicated that 20 subjects would provide a 90% change of detecting an effect size of 0.83 (a change of 0.83 standard deviations)||||0.23
91735806|NCT01622296|183364825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Long buccal nerve injection - H(0): Lidocaine VAS score = Buffered Lidocaine VAS score. Based on data from medial trials of buffered anesthetic, a power calculation for sample size indicated that 20 subjects would provide a 90% change of detecting an effect size of 0.83 (a change of 0.83 standard deviations)||||0.57
91735807|NCT05093621|183364828|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mortality at 1 year||||1.000
91735808|NCT05093621|183364829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.729
91735809|NCT05093621|183364830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.650
91735810|NCT05093621|183364831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.873
91735811|NCT01664624|183364832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.82||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|6.7||The comparison was evaluated at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect, and baseline Postprandial AUC (0-8) of active GLP-1 as a continuous covariate.||ANCOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the change from Baseline in the postprandial AUC(0-8) of active GLP-1 is no difference between the roflumilast + alogliptin and alogliptin alone.||6.7|-16.9|0.388
91735812|NCT01664624|183364832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|34.3||The comparison was evaluated at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect, and Baseline Postprandial AUC (0-8) of active GLP-1 as a continuous covariate.||ANCOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the change from Baseline in the postprandial AUC(0-8) of active GLP-1 is no difference between the roflumilast + alogliptin and roflumilast alone.||34.3|11.1|<0.001
91870839|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
91735813|NCT01664624|183364832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|40.5||The comparison was evaluated at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect, and Baseline Postprandial AUC (0-8) of active GLP-1 as a continuous covariate.||ANCOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the change from Baseline in the postprandial AUC(0-8) of active GLP-1 is no difference between the roflumilast + alogliptin and roflumilast alone.||40.5|17.1|<0.001
91735814|NCT01152307|183364863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested for a difference in the mean total knowledge score between the decision aid and control groups using independent t-test (2 sided). With 100 patients in each arm, the study had more than 90% power to detect a 10% difference in knowledge assuming a common standard deviation of 18%.||6.09|0.76|0.01
91735815|NCT02369536|183364873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Intention-to-treat-analysis. Differences between basal values in active and control groups and between T1 vsT0 changes in the two groups assessed by ANOVA and Fisher's exact test.||||<0.05
91735816|NCT02369536|183364876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Intention-to-treat-analysis. Differences between basal values in active and control groups and between T1 vsT0 changes in the two groups assessed by ANOVA and Fisher's exact test.||||<0.05
91735817|NCT00949533|183364885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Pearson Chi-Square|||||||0.825
91735818|NCT00949533|183364886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
91735819|NCT00949533|183364887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Cough: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on chi-squared test.||||1.000
91735820|NCT00949533|183364887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|||||||Chi-squared|||Rhinorrhea: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on chi-squared test.||||0.284
91735821|NCT00949533|183364887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sore throat: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
91735822|NCT00949533|183364887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Shortness of breath: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
91870840|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||80|50|
91735823|NCT00949533|183364887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|||||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||0.487
91735824|NCT00949533|183364887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||0.593
91735825|NCT00949533|183364887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Conjunctivitis: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
91735826|NCT00949533|183364887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
91906295|NCT01357577|183708250|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Post-Treatment P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.48
91735827|NCT00949533|183364887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||0.106
91735828|NCT01493089|183364889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.563||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.563
91735829|NCT01493089|183364890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.903||||0.712||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.712
91735830|NCT01493089|183364891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.457
91870841|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||25|4|
91906296|NCT01357577|183708250|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||6-Month P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.20
91906297|NCT01357577|183708250|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Treatment main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.26
91735831|NCT01493089|183364892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.625||95.0|-9.7|15.3|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained partial response||15.3|-9.7|0.625
91735832|NCT01493089|183364892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|10.6|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained response||10.6|-15.0|0.755
91735833|NCT01493089|183364892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|17.2|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained total relief||17.2|-3.6|0.194
91735834|NCT01493089|183364893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|7.0|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained partial response||7.0|-15.0|0.501
91735835|NCT01493089|183364893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|8.2|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained response||8.2|-17.6|0.518
91735836|NCT01493089|183364893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|13.1|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained total relief||13.1|-11.2|0.794
91735837|NCT01493089|183364894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.2|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained partial response||11.2|-6.3|0.494
91735838|NCT01493089|183364894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|9.1|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained response||9.1|-14.7|0.751
91735839|NCT01493089|183364894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|9.6|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained total relief||9.6|-16.4|0.690
91906298|NCT01357577|183708250|OTHER|||||||0.71||||||Timepoint main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.71
91735840|NCT02164864|183364909|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.63||P values for noninferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the first step in hierarchy. The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of Dabigatran Etexilate 110mg vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority.||0.63|0.42|<0.0001
91735841|NCT02164864|183364909|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||P-values for non-inferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the second step in hierarchy. The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of Dabigatran Etexilate 150mg vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority||0.88|0.58|<.0001
91735842|NCT02164864|183364909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.63||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the fourth step in hierarchy.||0.63|0.42|<0.001
91735843|NCT02164864|183364909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Regression, Cox|Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model||A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the sixth step in hierarchy.|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|0.88|0.58|0.0020
91735844|NCT02164864|183364910|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.95||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||3.95|0.25|0.9862
91735845|NCT02164864|183364910|OTHER|Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.64|||Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||6.64|0.38|0.5277
91735846|NCT02164864|183364911|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.25||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.25|0.50|0.8853
91735847|NCT02164864|183364911|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.61||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.61|0.15|0.2380
91735848|NCT02164864|183364912|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.88||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.88|0.72|0.5252
91735849|NCT02164864|183364912|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.51|0.47|0.5670
91735850|NCT02164864|183364913|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.65||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.65|0.76|0.5579
91870842|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
91735851|NCT02164864|183364913|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.34||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.34|0.51|0.4414
91735852|NCT02164864|183364914|OTHER|Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.41|||Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.41|0.94|0.0861
91735853|NCT02164864|183364914|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.6144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.04||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.04|0.66|0.6144
91906299|NCT01357577|183708250|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Interaction main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.56
91870843|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|70.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||70|40|
91870844|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|60.0||||||children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||60|30|
91870845|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
91870846|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||41|14|
91870847|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.0||||||children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||35|10|
91870848|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||25|4|
91870849|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|88.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|62|
91870850|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|58.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||58|27|
91870851|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|68.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||68|37|
91870852|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
91870853|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
91870854|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
91870855|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||25|4|
91870856|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|100.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|86|
91870857|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
91870858|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|81.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|90.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|65|
91870859|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|92.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|68|
91870860|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|Slope|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
91870861|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|82.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||82|53|
91906300|NCT01357577|183708250|OTHER|||||||0.51||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.51
91735854|NCT02164864|183364915|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.67||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.67|0.63|0.4803
91735855|NCT02164864|183364915|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.83||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.83|0.42|0.8537
91735856|NCT02164864|183364916|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.9388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.66||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||4.66|0.19|0.9388
91735857|NCT02164864|183364916|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.93||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.93|0.03|0.3030
91735858|NCT02164864|183364917|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.4||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||4.40|0.79|0.1546
91735859|NCT02164864|183364917|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.81||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.81|0.35|0.9789
91735860|NCT02164864|183364918|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.79||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.79|1.00|0.0484
91797662|NCT01920555|183473691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|19.05||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||19.05|-8.83|1.00
91735861|NCT02164864|183364918|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.47|0.71|0.8903
91735862|NCT02164864|183364919|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.53||P values for noninferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of All Dabigatran Etexilate (110mg and 150 mg) vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the fifth step in hierarchy.||1.53|0.90|0.1128
91735863|NCT02164864|183364919|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.73||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.73|0.98|0.0720
91735864|NCT02164864|183364919|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.39||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.39|0.68|0.8750
91735865|NCT02164864|183364920|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.51||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.51|0.79|0.6080
91735866|NCT02164864|183364920|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.41||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.41|0.65|0.8348
91735867|NCT02164864|183364921|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||P values for noninferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of All Dabigatran Etexilate (110mg and 150 mg) vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the third step in hierarchy.||1.29|0.84|0.0047
91870862|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|22.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||22|3|
91870863|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
91870864|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||80|50|
91870865|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|66.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||66|34|
91870866|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||41|14|
91870867|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||47|18|
91870868|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||41|14|
91870869|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||14|0|
91870870|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|96.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||96|75|
91870871|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|96.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||96|56|
91870872|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|63.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||63|32|
91870873|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
91870874|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
91870875|NCT02678455|183634911|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|38.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||38|12|
91870876|NCT02786966|183634936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age and sex||||0.6|0.2|0.0007
91870877|NCT02786966|183634937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and sex.|0.80|0.47|0.0007
91870878|NCT02786966|183634938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for age and sex||||0.91|0.52|0.0093
91888880|NCT01711853|183670159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median age, 2: \> median age).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.9883
91888881|NCT01711853|183670159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||Patients were classified based on the gender distribution.||||0.7853
91888882|NCT01711853|183670160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4692|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median GFR, 2: \> median GFR).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.4692
91888883|NCT01711853|183670160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median age, 2: \> median age).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.9734
91906301|NCT06689527|183708269|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|83.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.08|93.59|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter AUC0-tlast, of midazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1).|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subjects as random effect||93.59|74.08|
91906302|NCT06689527|183708270|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (|83.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.18|95.0|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter AUC0-inf of midazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1)|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subjects as random effect||95.00|74.18|
91906303|NCT06689527|183708271|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|88.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.44|98.79|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter Cmax of midazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1).|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect||98.79|79.44|
91906304|NCT06689527|183708272|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|114.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.59|129.18|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter AUC0-tlast of 1'-hydroxymidazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1)|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect||129.18|101.59|
91906305|NCT06689527|183708273|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|113.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.29|127.63|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter AUC0-inf, of 1'-hydroxymidazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1)|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect||127.63|101.29|
91906306|NCT06689527|183708274|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|128.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.36|157.13|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter Cmax of 1'-hydroxymidazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1)|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect||157.13|105.36|
91906307|NCT00307151|183708294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|33.6||P-value not adjusted for multiple interim analyses, but adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function used as basis for calculating repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|t-test, 2 sided|Risk difference estimate stratified by age (\<12 months vs. \>=12 months)and reports rate on NVP arm minus rate on LPV/r arm|Endpoint rates with standard errors calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves for each treatment group and age stratum. Differences in week 24 failure proportions by treatment calculated weighted by the inverse of the variance in each age stratum.|||33.6|3.7|0.015
91906308|NCT00307151|183708294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|31.8||P-value not adjusted for multiple interim analyses, but adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function used as basis for calculating repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|t-test, 2 sided|Risk difference estimate stratified by age (\<12 months vs. \>=12 months) and reports rate on NVP arm minus rate on LPV/r arm|Endpoint rates with standard errors calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves for each treatment group and age stratum. Differences in week 24 failure proportions by treatment calculated weighted by the inverse of the variance in each age stratum.|||31.8|11.2|<0.001
91906309|NCT02636582|183708325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
91906310|NCT02636582|183708326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.964
91735868|NCT02164864|183364921|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.43|0.90|0.3002
91735869|NCT02164864|183364921|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.19||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.19|0.67|0.4432
91735870|NCT00261833|183364927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.618||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|1.261||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval \[CI\] being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in annual lung density decline.|Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (TLC+FRC combined) was a linear mixed model with country, inspiration state, time since baseline treatment, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and participant and participant-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.261|-0.024|0.029
91760044|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.73|0.28|
91906311|NCT02636582|183708327|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91906312|NCT02636582|183708328|OTHER|||||||0.172||||||HER2 expression - biopsy|Fisher Exact|||||||0.172
91906313|NCT02636582|183708328|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||HER2 expression - resection|Fisher Exact|||||||0.38
91906314|NCT01148537|183708342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|8.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline QTci as a covariate and with sex and treatment as effects in the model.||||8.4|3.4|< .001
91906315|NCT01148537|183708343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|2.6|||ANCOVA||For the comparison of BTDS to placebo, the subjects randomized to moxifloxacin were excluded.|||2.6|-1.8|.770
91906316|NCT01148537|183708344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.3|8.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline QTci as a covariate and with sex and treatment as effects in the model.||Day 13 analysis||8.4|3.3|< .001
91870879|NCT01277302|183634953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated interaction effect|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.5091||||||This is the p-value of the treatment by time interaction in the longitudinal model. Analysis was not adjusted for multiple comparisons as there was only 1 comparison. p \< 0.05 (2-sided) was required for significance.|Longitudinal mixed model|The analysis was stratified by disease (BRVO or CRVO), randomization month, and randomization BCVA score category (≤35, \>35 to ≤50, or \>50 letters).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the trend of change from Baseline in the visual acuity scores from Month 7 to Month 15 between the 2 treatment groups as assessed by the interaction term of treatment by time in a longitudinal model.||||0.5091
91870880|NCT01190124|183635002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning HIV-RNA levels at baseline||||<0.001
91870881|NCT01190124|183635005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning CD4 cells count at baseline||||<0.001
91870882|NCT01190124|183635018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning CD4 cells count at week 24||||0.007
91870883|NCT01190124|183635019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning CD4 cells count at week 48||||0.001
91870884|NCT01719172|183635021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value from a one-sided exact test was based on the binomial distribution, testing that the true percent success rate was ≤ 50% versus the alternative hypothesis that the success rate was \> 50%.|t-test, 1 sided|||The primary effectiveness endpoint was the percent (%) success in obtaining hemostasis at the Target Bleeding Site (TBS) within 5 minutes following Veriset™ application. An exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for the true success percentage was calculated. Subjects who received rescue therapy on the target bleeding site prior to obtaining hemostasis were considered failures.||||<0.0001
91870885|NCT01719172|183635022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0214||||||The p-value from a one-sided exact test was based on the binomial distribution, testing that the true percent success rate was ≤ 50% versus the alternative hypothesis that the success rate was \> 50%.|t-test, 1 sided|||The number and percentage of subjects who achieved hemostasis within 1 minute were presented. An exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for the true percentage was calculated.||||0.0214
91870886|NCT01719172|183635023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.0||||||Time to achieve hemostasis was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the survival distribution and to obtain the estimated median time to hemostasis. Additionally, A 95% Brookmeyer-Crowley confidence interval for the median was computed based on the sign test.||1.0||
91870887|NCT02005172|183635042|EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis used the TOST procedure for equivalence. A difference of less than 10% between devices on the proportion of diagnostic days during the monitoring period was considered to be equivalent. We hypothesized that the percentage of diagnostic days for the ELR and the KM would be 20% and 15%, respectively.||||||||||||||||For the primary endpoint, equivalence testing using the two one-sided test procedure was used to compare the proportion of (unpaired) days in which a diagnostic recording was made with each device during the monitoring period. For the purpose of this study, a difference of less than 10% between devices on the rate of detection of arrhythmias was taken to indicate equivalence.|"Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation (SD), percentages) were used to summarize the demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. The total number of tracings and the percentage of tracings with arrhythmias for each device were also calculated.~For the primary endpoint, equivalence testing using the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure was used to compare the proportion of (unpaired) days in which a diagnostic recording was made with each device during the monitoring period. Patients were asked to use both devices for the same duration. For the purpose of this study, a difference of less than 10% between devices on the rate of detection of arrhythmias was taken to indicate equivalence. The primary hypothesis was that the KM"|||
91870888|NCT01711294|183635043|SUPERIORITY|Sample sizes were calculated using two-sample t-test for the primary endpoint and z-test for the secondary endpoint with power of 80% and two-sided alpha of 0.05. Hochberg step up procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparison. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.84||||||Hochberg step up procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon was used instead of t-test because the data was not normally distributed.||Study hypothesizes that aspiration % in the 19G Flex and 19G arms would be superior by at least 10% to 22G arm, and aspiration success rate of 19G Flex would be at least 16% greater than 22G and 19G arms. Sample size calculation was performed based on the above hypotheses reached by a consensus of all collaborators and adjusted a priori.||||0.84
91870889|NCT02605174|183635059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.9|1.1|0.003
91870890|NCT02605174|183635059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.3|<0.001
91870891|NCT02605174|183635059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.8|<0.001
91870892|NCT02605174|183635060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|1.1|0.009
91906317|NCT01148537|183708345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|9.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with average baseline as a covariate, and with gender and treatment as main effects||||9.9|5.4|< .001
91906318|NCT01148537|183708346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|2.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||2.6|-2.9|.936
91870893|NCT02605174|183635060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.0|1.2|<0.001
91870894|NCT02605174|183635060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|1.4|<0.001
91870895|NCT02605174|183635061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.3|<0.001
91870896|NCT02605174|183635061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.9|1.7|<0.001
91870897|NCT02605174|183635061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.8|<0.001
91870898|NCT02605174|183635063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.9|0.5|0.002
91735871|NCT00261833|183364927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.74||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|1.42||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in annual lung density decline.|Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (TLC) was a linear mixed model with country, time since baseline treatment, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and participant and participant-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.420|0.059|0.017
91735872|NCT00261833|183364927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.478||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|1.18||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in annual lung density decline.|Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (FRC) was a linear mixed model with country, time since baseline treatment, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and participant and participant-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.180|-0.223|0.090
91735873|NCT00261833|183364931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|1.04||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.34||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model ANCOVA was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in the change in lung density.|Analysis of the change in lung density (TLC+FRC combined) from baseline to Month 24 was a mixed effects analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects and inspiration state as a repeated random effect at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.34|-0.26|0.058
91735874|NCT00261833|183364931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|1.32||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.67||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (i.e., the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model ANCOVA was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in the change in lung density.|Analysis of the change in lung density (TLC) from baseline to Month 24 was a mixed effects ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.67|-0.03|0.028
91735875|NCT00261833|183364931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.89||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.34||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model ANCOVA was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in the change in lung density.|Analysis of the change in lung density (FRC) from baseline to Month 24 was a mixed effects ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects as a repeated random effect at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.34|-0.57|0.115
91735876|NCT00474903|183364972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0955|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0955
91735877|NCT00474903|183364972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0204
91735878|NCT02519842|183364998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|27.9|||||Mean difference in percentage of participants who experienced at least 1 tier 2 AE and received fosaprepitant regimen compared with participants who received control regimen.|||27.9|-7.6|
91735879|NCT02519842|183364999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|17.8|||||Mean difference in percentage of participants who discontinued due to an AE and received fosaprepitant regimen compared with participants who received control regimen.|||17.8|-5.1|
91735880|NCT00859833|183365003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for equivalence: SD for adenosine = 0.59, SD for regadenoson = 0.92, true difference between groups = 0.19. With n=28, DOF = 46. Power for equivalence (with alpha = 0.05) = 0.98585.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6041|0.2241|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) is not different when measured with adenosine or regadenoson in patients across a broad range of body sizes.||0.2241|-0.6041|0.3617
91735881|NCT01561976|183365010|OTHER||Ratio|108.94||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.01|117.5|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD ForteSR-Fed/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||117.50|101.01|0.1413
91735882|NCT01561976|183365010|OTHER||Ratio|107.24||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.37|115.73|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD G2 Forte/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||115.73|99.37|0.1413
91735883|NCT01561976|183365011|OTHER||Ratio|116.5||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.91|126.95|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD ForteSR-Fed/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||126.95|106.91|0.0171
91735884|NCT01561976|183365011|OTHER||Ratio|107.24||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.35|116.94|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD G2 Forte/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||116.94|98.35|0.0171
91735885|NCT01561976|183365012|OTHER||Ratio|116.87||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.07|127.57|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD ForteSR-Fed/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||127.57|107.07|0.0169
91870899|NCT02605174|183635063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.7|0.4|<0.001
91870900|NCT02605174|183635063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.4|0.3|<0.001
91870901|NCT02605174|183635064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.7|0.917
91870902|NCT02605174|183635064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|0.5|0.129
91870903|NCT02605174|183635064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3|0.6|0.456
91870904|NCT02605174|183635066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.2|0.7|0.522
91870905|NCT02605174|183635066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4|0.8|0.622
91870906|NCT02605174|183635066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3|0.8|0.992
91870907|NCT02605174|183635067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|1.1|0.008
91870908|NCT02605174|183635067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.0|1.3|<0.001
91870909|NCT02605174|183635067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|1.3|<0.001
91870910|NCT02605174|183635068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|1.1|0.007
91735886|NCT01561976|183365012|OTHER||Ratio|107.38||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|117.29|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD G2 Forte/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||117.29|98.30|0.0169
91735887|NCT01463527|183365018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.57||||||Odds of intervention in capnography open group as compared to capnography blind group after adjusting of age and length of sedation.||0.57|0.17|
91735888|NCT01463527|183365019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||GEE (Generalized Estimating Equation)|||||||0.30
91735889|NCT01977222|183365027|OTHER|||||||0.1673|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1673
91870911|NCT02605174|183635068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|1.3|<0.001
91870912|NCT02605174|183635068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.3|1.4|<0.001
91735890|NCT01977222|183365028|OTHER|||||||0.5745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5745
91870913|NCT00770874|183635071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.67|0.125
91870914|NCT00770874|183635072|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.80|0.48|<0.001
91870915|NCT04938453|183635093|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs (%)|98.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.87|106.69|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of nintedanib 4 X 25 mg)/(GLSM of nintedanib 1 X 100 mg).~Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.69|90.87|
91906319|NCT01148537|183708346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|10.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||10.1|4.2|< .001
91906320|NCT01148537|183708347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.5|10.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||10.9|5.5|< .001
91735891|NCT01977222|183365029|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.511
91870916|NCT04938453|183635094|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs (%)|100.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.05|118.24|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of nintedanib 4 X 25 mg)/(GLSM of nintedanib 1 X 100 mg).~Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||118.24|85.05|
91735892|NCT01977222|183365030|OTHER|||||||0.776|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.776
91735893|NCT01977222|183365031|OTHER|||||||0.5374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5374
91735894|NCT01977222|183365032|OTHER|||||||0.3385|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3385
91735895|NCT01977222|183365033|OTHER|||||||0.0189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0189
91735896|NCT01977222|183365034|OTHER|||||||0.1183|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1183
91735897|NCT03648385|183365039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.83
91735898|NCT03648385|183365039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.56
91735899|NCT03648385|183365040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.08
91735900|NCT03648385|183365040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|with sandwich estimation to correct for model misspecification.||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.03
91735901|NCT03648385|183365041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.047
91870917|NCT04938453|183635095|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs (%)|98.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.35|107.12|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of nintedanib 4 X 25 mg)/(GLSM of nintedanib 1 X 100 mg).~Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||107.12|91.35|
91870918|NCT00308308|183635113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set to meet regulatory requirement of 250 subjects per arm with 52-week data, resulting in \> 90% power for a non-inferiority test of the difference in 12-month change of HbA1c scores between treatment groups with non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, standard deviation of 1.2 and 1-sided alpha of 0.025. Allowing for a 15% dropout rate, 589 subjects were randomized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|0.08|
91870919|NCT00308308|183635114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of pooled site and treatment as fixed effects and baseline weight as covariate||-1.0|-2.7|<0.0001
91906321|NCT01148537|183708347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3|10.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||10.5|4.3|< .001
91735902|NCT03648385|183365041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.052
91735903|NCT03648385|183365042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.044
91870920|NCT00308308|183635115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.41||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-6.3|||ANCOVA|||||-6.3|-35.4|0.0052
91870921|NCT00308308|183635116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.941||||0.8311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.652|||Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression analysis with the terms of treatment and baseline HbA1c in the model||1.652|0.536|0.8311
91870922|NCT00308308|183635117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.488||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|0.856|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||0.856|0.278|0.0124
91870923|NCT00308308|183635118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.825||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.169|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||1.169|0.582|0.2786
91870924|NCT00308308|183635119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1193|||||||Generalized Estimation Equation|"* Based on Poisson distribution~* Model: Treatment + Time Period"||||||0.1193
91870925|NCT00308308|183635120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2131|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|"* Based on Poisson distribution~* Model: Treatment + Time Period"||||||0.2131
91870926|NCT03068312|183635121|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-1.10|
91870927|NCT01852045|183635122|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.9949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|0.545|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test were based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||0.545|-0.549|0.9949
91870928|NCT01852045|183635122|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.9123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.673|0.602|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test were based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||0.602|-0.673|0.9123
91870929|NCT01852045|183635124|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.694||0.5117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|52.064|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||52.064|-26.120|0.5117
91870930|NCT01852045|183635124|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|65.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.101||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.711|111.421|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||111.421|19.711|0.0055
91735904|NCT03648385|183365042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.96
91735905|NCT03648385|183365043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.91
91870931|NCT01852045|183635126|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.673||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.605|25.626|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||25.626|-52.605|0.4948
91870932|NCT01852045|183635126|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.382||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.012|45.991|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||45.991|-43.012|0.9471
91870933|NCT01852045|183635127|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.7||||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.14||P-values for pairwise comparisons are obtained from 2-sided CMH test, stratified by age (\<12 years or \>=12 years), baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes (\<=6 or \>6) and anticholinergic therapy (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.14|0.45|0.2027
91870934|NCT01852045|183635127|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.8||||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.21||P-values for pairwise comparisons are obtained from a 2-sided CMH test, stratified by age (\< 12 years or \>= 12 years), baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes (\<= 6 or \> 6) and anticholinergic therapy (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.21|0.40|0.1564
91870935|NCT01852045|183635128|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.488||0.5524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.648|10.669|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||10.669|-19.648|0.5524
91870936|NCT01852045|183635128|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.181||0.8313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.427|22.795|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||22.795|-18.427|0.8313
91870937|NCT01852045|183635129|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.253||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.653|3.238|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||3.238|-17.653|0.1737
91888884|NCT01711853|183670160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9201|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||Patients were classified based on the gender distribution.||||0.9201
91888885|NCT02514551|183670251|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.853|||||Unstratified cox proportional hazards model comparing Ramucirumab I4T-MC-JVCZ and I4T-IE-JVBE (NCT01170663)|"This analysis were comparison of PFS for participants treated with ramucirumab 12 mg/kg plus paclitaxel in Study I4T-MC-JVCZ versus placebo plus paclitaxel in I4T-IE-JVBE (NCT01170663) using meta-analysis.~Placebo + 80 mg/m² Paclitaxel in I4T-IE-JVBE Number of participants: 335, Median (95% CI), months: 2.86 (2.79 to 3.02)"||0.853|0.447|
91870938|NCT01852045|183635129|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.061|-2.793|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||-2.793|-26.061|0.0157
91870939|NCT00240994|183635139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with graft loss or death|0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.192|||95% Confidence Interval|95% CI using an exact binomial method||The proportion of participants with graft loss or death within 12 months post kidney transplantation is descriptively summarized with a 95% confidence interval using an exact binomial method.||0.192|0.007|
91906322|NCT01148537|183708348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||4.0|-1.4|.427
91735906|NCT03648385|183365043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.61
91735907|NCT03648385|183365044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.14
91735908|NCT03648385|183365044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.84
91735909|NCT03648385|183365045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.36
91797663|NCT01920555|183473691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.64||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.87|6.59||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||6.59|-19.87|1.00
91870940|NCT01482091|183635180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
91870941|NCT01482091|183635182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.05
91906323|NCT01148537|183708348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|8.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||8.8|3.2|.001
91906324|NCT01148537|183708349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|9.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||9.6|4.2|< .001
91906325|NCT01148537|183708349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|7.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||7.4|1.9|.006
91906326|NCT05895552|183708350|SUPERIORITY|The mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model includes treatment group, baseline NPRS score, visit, interaction of visit and treatment group, and interaction of baseline NPRS score and visit.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|<|0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.468|0.918|||MMRM|||||0.918|-0.468|<0.5224
91906327|NCT05895552|183708350|SUPERIORITY|The MMRM model includes treatment group, baseline NPRS score, visit, interaction of visit and treatment group, and interaction of baseline NPRS score and visit.|LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|<|0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|0.614|||MMRM|||||0.614|-0.772|<0.8223
91906328|NCT00896779|183708366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91906329|NCT00896779|183708366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91906330|NCT01843842|183708367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Global Test Statistic|See O'Brien 1984, Pocock 1997.||||||0.016
91906331|NCT01843842|183708368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91735910|NCT03648385|183365045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.71
91735911|NCT03648385|183365046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.55
91735912|NCT03648385|183365046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.44
91870942|NCT01482091|183635183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91870943|NCT01482091|183635186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.68
91870944|NCT01482091|183635187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91870945|NCT01482091|183635188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91870946|NCT01482091|183635192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91870947|NCT01640288|183635193|OTHER|t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0349|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91870948|NCT01640288|183635194|OTHER|t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91870949|NCT03775915|183635196|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||p-value calculated for interaction between group and day|Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for baseline, F(2,46) = 1.061, p \>0.05||||||>0.05
91870950|NCT03775915|183635197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91906332|NCT01843842|183708369|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91906333|NCT01843842|183708370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0283||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Fever (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.0283
91906334|NCT01843842|183708370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3264|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-specific (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.3264
91906335|NCT01843842|183708370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Nasal/Throat/Chest (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.7060
91906336|NCT01843842|183708370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All symptoms (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.25
91735913|NCT03648385|183365047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.79
91735914|NCT03648385|183365047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.34
91797664|NCT01920555|183473691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.64||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|20.53||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||20.53|-5.26|1.00
91870951|NCT02234141|183635219|OTHER|Nonparametric pairwise comparison|||||=|0.214||||||P-value was calculated using the generalized van Elteren test/van Elteren test (gvE/vE; stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test).|gvE/vE|||The protocol-specified primary analysis was to compare each selonsertib dose group with the placebo group, using Wilcoxon (van Elteren) test, with respect to change from baseline in PVR at Week 24, stratifying by randomization stratum (the underlying etiology of PAH idiopathic/heritable \[yes/no\] and the number of background PAH therapies they were receiving {1, 2, or greater than or equal to \[≥\] 3}).||||= 0.214
91870952|NCT02234141|183635219|OTHER|Nonparametric pairwise comparison|||||=|0.27||||||P-value was calculated using the generalized van Elteren test/van Elteren test (gvE/vE; stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test).|gvE/vE|||The protocol-specified primary analysis was to compare each selonsertib dose group with the placebo group, using Wilcoxon (van Elteren) test, with respect to change from baseline in PVR at Week 24, stratifying by randomization stratum (the underlying etiology of PAH idiopathic/heritable \[yes/no\] and the number of background PAH therapies they were receiving \[1, 2, or ≥ 3\]).||||= 0.270
91870953|NCT02234141|183635219|OTHER|Nonparametric pairwise comparison|||||=|0.604||||||P-value was calculated using the generalized van Elteren test/van Elteren test (gvE/vE; stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test)|gvE/vE|||The protocol-specified primary analysis was to compare each selonsertib dose group with the placebo group, using Wilcoxon (van Elteren) test, with respect to change from baseline in PVR at Week 24, stratifying by randomization stratum (the underlying etiology of PAH idiopathic/heritable \[yes/no\] and the number of background PAH therapies they were receiving \[1, 2, or ≥ 3\]).||||= 0.604
91870954|NCT01228734|183635264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.794|||Log Rank|||||0.794|0.498|<0.001
91870955|NCT02449902|183635301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91870956|NCT02449902|183635302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91870957|NCT02449902|183635303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0017
91870958|NCT02449902|183635304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91870959|NCT02449902|183635305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9951
91906337|NCT01843842|183708370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||ANCOVA|||Severity of clinical manifestations of acute respiratory infection (ARI) by Total Symptom Score on Days 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Observation (Based on Patient Diary Data)||||0.244
91735915|NCT03648385|183365048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.33
91735916|NCT03648385|183365048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.99
91735917|NCT03648385|183365049|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||||0.13|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-36 PCS||||0.13
91870960|NCT02449902|183635306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1429
91870961|NCT02449902|183635307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1945|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1945
91870962|NCT02449902|183635308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91870963|NCT02449902|183635309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1820
91870964|NCT02449902|183635310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0401
91870965|NCT03162614|183635317|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|72.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01B administered as full doses at Month 0 and Month 1 and 1/5th dose at Month 7 (AduFx Group versus Control Group).||72|27|<.001
91870966|NCT03162614|183635317|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|76.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|89.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01E administered as double full doses at Month 0 and Month 1 and 1/5th double dose at Month 7 (2Ped Fx Group versus Control Group).||89|49|<.001
91870967|NCT03162614|183635317|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|79.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01E administered as full doses at Month 0 and Month 1 and 1/5th dose at Month 7 (PedFx Group versus Control Group).||79|37|<.001
91870968|NCT03162614|183635317|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|72.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01B administered as full dose at Month 0 and 1/5th dose at Month 1 and Month 7 (Adu2Fx Group versus Control Group).||72|27|<.001
91870969|NCT03162614|183635317|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|29.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|46.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01B administered as full dose at Month 0 and 1/5th dose at Month 7 (Adu1Fx Group versus Control Group).||46|6|0.009
91797665|NCT01920555|183473691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|17.91||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||17.91|-8.31|1.00
91797666|NCT01920555|183473692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.56||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.56|-3.99|1.00
91797667|NCT01920555|183473692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.43||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||3.43|-1.90|0.17
91797668|NCT01920555|183473692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|-0.16||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.16|-5.32|0.30
91797669|NCT01920555|183473692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.93||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.93|-3.35|1.00
91797670|NCT01920555|183473692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|2.66||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.66|-3.25|1.00
91797671|NCT01920555|183473692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|5.59||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||5.59|-0.06|0.39
91797672|NCT01920555|183473692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|1.58||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.58|-3.91|1.00
91870970|NCT00621842|183635340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-12.9|||t-test, 2 sided|df=53||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference score between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-12.9|-18.0|<.01
91870971|NCT00621842|183635342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-12.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference score between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-12.9|-17.5|<.01
91870972|NCT00621842|183635343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference score between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||.88|-1.82|.49
91906338|NCT01843842|183708371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1158|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of fever based on Patient Diary Data||||0.1158
91906339|NCT01843842|183708371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5755|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of non-specific symptoms based on Patient Diary Data||||0.5755
91870973|NCT00621842|183635344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-1.68|-2.43|<.01
91906340|NCT01843842|183708371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4331|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of nasal/ throat/ chest symptoms based on Patient Diary Data||||0.4331
91870974|NCT00621842|183635345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||.28|-.36|.80
91870975|NCT00621842|183635346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.36||95.0|-0.97|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||2.62|-.97|.36
91906341|NCT01843842|183708371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of all acute respiratory infection symptoms (fever, non-specific symptoms and nasal/ throat/ chest symptoms) based on Patient Diary Data||||0.3560
91906342|NCT01843842|183708372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Fever (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.0166
91906343|NCT01843842|183708372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-specific (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.0820
91906344|NCT01843842|183708372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7227|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Nasal/Throat/Chest (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.7227
91906345|NCT01843842|183708372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2645|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All symptoms (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.2645
91906346|NCT01843842|183708372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Fever (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.0142
91906347|NCT01843842|183708372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-specific (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.0145
91870976|NCT00621842|183635348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||.09|-1.67|.08
91906348|NCT01843842|183708372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2963|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Nasal/Throat/Chest (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.2963
91906349|NCT01843842|183708372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||All symptoms (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.0364
91906350|NCT01843842|183708373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.40
91906351|NCT00632099|183708375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91906352|NCT02018822|183708392|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.2552|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2552
91906353|NCT02018822|183708393|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.2235|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2235
91906354|NCT02018822|183708394|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.3891|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3891
91906355|NCT02018822|183708395|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.3883|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3883
91906356|NCT02018822|183708396|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.3883|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3883
91906357|NCT02018822|183708397|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.2707|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2707
91906358|NCT02184195|183708414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.815|||Log-rank test|||||0.815|0.346|0.0038
91906359|NCT02184195|183708415|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.224|||Log-rank test|||||1.224|0.564|0.3487
91906360|NCT02184195|183708416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.659||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|1.02|||Log-rank test|||||1.020|0.426|0.0613
91906361|NCT02184195|183708417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.894|||Log-rank test|||||0.894|0.418|0.0111
91870977|NCT00621842|183635349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.04||95.0|-1.03|-0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-.04|-1.03|.04
91870978|NCT03212638|183635390|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.15||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.15|0.946|
91870979|NCT03212638|183635390|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.14||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation without (T2) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.14|0.944|
91870980|NCT03212638|183635390|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.675|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.74||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as fasted vs fed.||0.740|0.617|
91906362|NCT02184195|183708418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|0.658|||Log-rank test|||||0.658|0.297|<0.0001
91906363|NCT02184195|183708419|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|0.627|||Log-rank test|||||0.627|0.289|<0.0001
91906364|NCT02184195|183708420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.610|0.668|0.3273
91906365|NCT02184195|183708422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.917|2.496|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.496|-6.917|0.355
91870981|NCT03212638|183635391|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.963|
91870982|NCT03212638|183635391|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of s single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation without (T2) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.995|
91870983|NCT03212638|183635391|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|ratio|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.01||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as fasted vs fed.||1.01|0.936|
91870984|NCT03212638|183635392|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.996|
91906366|NCT03002155|183708429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons due to the pilot nature of the study, alpha level was 0.10.|ANOVA|||||||.26
91906367|NCT03002155|183708430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
91906368|NCT03002155|183708431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||For PROMIS Global Physical||||0.24
91906369|NCT03002155|183708431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p-value is interaction of group and time. Alpha level= 0.10; not adjusted for multiple comparisons (pilot study)|ANOVA|||For PROMIS Global Mental||||0.80
91906370|NCT03002155|183708432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||p-value is interaction of group and time. Alpha level= 0.10; not adjusted for multiple comparisons (pilot study)|ANOVA|||||||0.81
91906371|NCT03002155|183708433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||p-value is interaction of group and time. Alpha level= 0.10; not adjusted for multiple comparisons (pilot study)|ANOVA|||||||0.03
91906372|NCT01412554|183708457|OTHER|Only descriptive statistics|||||<|0.05|||||||Spearman|The degree of tracking was assessed by Spearman's rank or Pearson's correlation coefficient||Only an observational follow-up study|The degree of tracking was assessed by Spearman's rank or Pearson's correlation coefficient|||<0.05
91906373|NCT03302975|183708476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91906374|NCT03834519|183708480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.14|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Treatment difference in survival assessed by the stratified log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.||1.14|0.77|0.2616
91906375|NCT03834519|183708481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Treatment difference in rPFS assessed by the stratified log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.||1.25|0.82|0.5544
91906376|NCT03834519|183708482|OTHER|Treatment difference in TFST|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||||95.0|0.71|1.03|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.03|0.71|
91906377|NCT03834519|183708483|OTHER|Treatment difference in ORR|Difference in percentage|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|17.1||||||||17.1|4.0|
91906378|NCT03834519|183708485|OTHER|Treatment difference in time to PSA progression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.38|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.38|0.89|
91906379|NCT03834519|183708486|OTHER|Treatment difference in SSRE|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||0.78|0.38|
91906380|NCT03834519|183708487|OTHER|Treatment difference in time to radiographic soft tissue progression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.00|0.62|
91906381|NCT03834519|183708488|OTHER|Treatment difference in TTPE|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.26|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.26|0.72|0.3643
91906382|NCT01392677|183708500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.49||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Mixed Models Analysis|Longitudinal repeated measures model using mixed model with treatment group, baseline value, week and week\*treatment and week\*baseline||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.49|-0.89|<0.0001
91870985|NCT03212638|183635392|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.966|
91870986|NCT03212638|183635392|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.02||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as fasted vs fed.||1.02|0.941|
91870987|NCT03775213|183635397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.58||||||||2.58|.91|
91870988|NCT03775213|183635398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88||||||Active Monitoring||1.88|.49|
91870989|NCT03775213|183635398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.41||||||Lumpectomy||1.41|.79|
91870990|NCT03775213|183635398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.3||||||Lumpectomy with Radiation||1.30|.62|
91870991|NCT03775213|183635398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.47||||||Mastectomy||1.47|.48|
91870992|NCT03775213|183635399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.98||||||||1.98|.59|
91870993|NCT03775213|183635400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.45||||||||1.45|.65|
91797673|NCT01920555|183473692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|2.35||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.35|-3.22|1.00
91906383|NCT01392677|183708501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8846|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.08|-23.82||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-23.82|-43.08|<0.0001
91906384|NCT01392677|183708502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3651|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.35||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.35|-2.79|<0.0001
91906385|NCT01392677|183708503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|30.6||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion (placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion (treat) minus proportion (placebo) =/= 0||30.6|10.7|<0.0001
91906386|NCT01392677|183708504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6677||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-0.48||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.48|-7.05|0.025
91906387|NCT06608368|183708540|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.2108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0959||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3568|1.9353|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|||1.9353|-14.3568|0.1332
91906388|NCT06608368|183708540|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1021||0.4722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1207|5.196|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||5.1960|-11.1207|0.4722
91906389|NCT06608368|183708540|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.2484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9692||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6456|11.1425|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||11.1425|-4.6456|0.4155
91906390|NCT06608368|183708541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.383||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4672|1.9891|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||1.9891|-11.4672|0.1650
91906391|NCT06608368|183708541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.4392|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3248||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0516|2.1732|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||2.1732|-11.0516|0.1855
91906392|NCT06608368|183708541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.2998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2234||0.9261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1107|6.7104|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||6.7104|-6.1107|0.9261
91906393|NCT06608368|183708541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2406||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1643|3.7265|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||3.7265|-9.1643|0.4039
91906394|NCT06608368|183708541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1959||0.2505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0548|2.6577|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||2.6577|-10.0548|0.2505
91906395|NCT06608368|183708541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1648||0.7577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2744|5.3151|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||5.3151|-7.2744|0.7577
91906396|NCT06608368|183708541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8461|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9755||0.5367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7642|4.072|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||4.0720|-7.7642|0.5367
91906397|NCT06608368|183708541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9907||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9916|3.9047|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||3.9047|-7.9916|0.4963
91906398|NCT06608368|183708541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8888||0.9457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9429|5.5481|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||5.5481|-5.9429|0.9457
91906399|NCT06608368|183708541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0222||0.2281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8837|3.1163|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||3.1163|-12.8837|0.2281
91906400|NCT06608368|183708541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.9754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0489||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0283|4.0775|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||4.0775|-12.0283|0.3290
91735918|NCT03648385|183365049|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||||0.044|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-36 PCS||||0.044
91735919|NCT03648385|183365049|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||||0.77|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-36 MCS||||0.77
91735920|NCT03648385|183365049|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||||0.98|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-MCS||||0.98
91735921|NCT03648385|183365050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.70
91870994|NCT03775213|183635401|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.38||||||||.38|-.20|
91870995|NCT00786188|183635418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177||||||Week 4 frequency|Repeated measures analysis|||||||0.0177
91870996|NCT00786188|183635418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0541||||||Week 8 frequency|Reapeated measures analysis|||||||0.0541
91870997|NCT00786188|183635419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0644||||||Week 4 severity|Reapeated measures analysis|||||||0.0644
91870998|NCT00786188|183635419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0364||||||Week 8 severity|Reapeated measures analysis|||||||0.0364
91870999|NCT03787628|183635479|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.703||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of cue-induced craving.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of cue-induced craving (degrees of freedom = 1, 67).|||||0.41
91871000|NCT03787628|183635480|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of spontaneous craving.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on spontaneous craving (degrees of freedom = 1, 550).|||||0.99
91871001|NCT03787628|183635481|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of state anxiety.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on state anxiety (degrees of freedom = 1, 550)|||||0.84
91871002|NCT03787628|183635482|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.27||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of negative affect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on negative affect (degrees of freedom = 1, 550).|||||0.60
91871003|NCT03769090|183635572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|0.879|||Regression, Cox|||H0 = null hypothesis. Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values are estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favours BDA MDI treatment.||0.879|0.611|<0.001
91871004|NCT03769090|183635572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.835||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|0.992|||Regression, Cox|||H0 = Null hypothesis. Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values are estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favours BDI MDI treatment.||0.992|0.702|0.041
91871005|NCT03769090|183635573|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||Negative binomial model|||Estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, age group, region, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. The logarithm of the time at risk is included as an offset variable. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||0.93|0.62|0.008
91871006|NCT03769090|183635573|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98|||Negative binomial model|||Estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, age group, region, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. The logarithm of the time at risk is included as an offset variable. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||0.98|0.66|0.028
91871007|NCT03769090|183635574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||P-values are calculated via a Wilcoxon rank sum test. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||||0.002
91871008|NCT03769090|183635574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||P-values are calculated via a Wilcoxon rank sum test. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||||0.06
91871009|NCT03769090|183635575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.221||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|1.467|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline ACQ-5 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.467|1.016|0.033
91871010|NCT03769090|183635575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.132||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.353|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline ACQ-5 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.353|0.946|0.175
91888886|NCT02514551|183670252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.274|||||Unstratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.274|0.727|
91735922|NCT03648385|183365050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.037
91735923|NCT03648385|183365051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.005
91735924|NCT03648385|183365051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.9
91735925|NCT03648385|183365052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||<0.0001
91735926|NCT03648385|183365052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.034
91735927|NCT03648385|183365053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, at 18 Weeks||||0.36
91735928|NCT03648385|183365053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.23
91735929|NCT03648385|183365054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.002
91735930|NCT03648385|183365054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||<0.0001
91735931|NCT03648385|183365055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.42
91735932|NCT03648385|183365055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.28
91735933|NCT03648385|183365056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.08
91906401|NCT06608368|183708541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9297||0.8178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9076|8.7243|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||8.7243|-6.9076|0.8178
91735934|NCT03648385|183365056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.65
91735935|NCT03648385|183365057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.07
91735936|NCT03648385|183365057|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||<0.01
91735937|NCT03648385|183365058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.27
91735938|NCT03648385|183365058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.26
91906402|NCT06608368|183708542|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3296|0.06658|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|||0.06658|-1.3296|0.0756
91906403|NCT06608368|183708542|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3589||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3586|0.06924|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.06924|-1.3586|0.0761
91906404|NCT06608368|183708542|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3469||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7031|0.6767|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.6767|-0.7031|0.9698
91735939|NCT03648385|183365059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.81
91735940|NCT03648385|183365059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.94
91735941|NCT03648385|183365060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.93
91735942|NCT03648385|183365060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.83
91735943|NCT03648385|183365061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.85
91735944|NCT03648385|183365061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.74
91735945|NCT03648385|183365062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.004
91871011|NCT03769090|183635576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.228||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.475|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline AQLQ-12 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.475|1.022|0.028
91871012|NCT03769090|183635576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.111||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.335|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline AQLQ-12 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.335|0.925|0.26
91871013|NCT02713594|183635577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|-4.5|||Abstinence Risk Difference|||||-4.5|-11.28|<.0001
91871014|NCT02713594|183635578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test value = 196.1, with 5 degrees of freedom.||||||<.0001
91871015|NCT01523392|183635585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-183.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.9|-153.3||Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects and a random effect for patient within sequence|Mixed Models Analysis||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|||-153.3|-213.9|<0.001
91871016|NCT01523392|183635586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-103.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.5|-65.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 0.5 hours after loading dose||-65.0|-142.5|<0.001
91871017|NCT01523392|183635586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-165.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.4|-133.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 8 hours after loading dose||-133.3|-197.4|<0.001
91871018|NCT01523392|183635587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.4|-109.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 2 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-109.5|-160.4|<0.001
91871019|NCT01523392|183635587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-118.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.9|-92.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 8 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-92.2|-143.9|<0.001
91871020|NCT01523392|183635587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-133.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.7|-107.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at end of dosing interval on Day 8||-107.1|-159.7|<0.001
91871021|NCT01928732|183635594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.65|||||Odds ratios were calculated with CPT as the reference group and reflect the overall main effect of treatment across all outcome assessments (post-treatment, 3-months, and 6-months)|Overall Treatment Effect Response Odds Ratio (OR). Response is defined as greater than or equal to 10 point improvement in severity.||1.65|1.00|
91735946|NCT03648385|183365062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.05
91871022|NCT01928732|183635594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74|||||Odds ratios were calculated with CPT as the reference group and reflect the overall main effect of treatment across all outcome assessments (post-treatment, 3-months, and 6-months)|Overall Treatment Effect Loss of Diagnosis Odds Ratio (OR). Loss of Diagnosis is defined as Response, plus no longer meeting DSM-5 symptom criteria and severity less than 25.||1.74|1.12|
91906405|NCT06608368|183708545|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9481||0.3142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8534|5.8078|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|||5.8078|-17.8534|0.3142
91735947|NCT03648385|183365063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.33
91735948|NCT03648385|183365063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.23
91871023|NCT01928732|183635594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.0|||||Odds ratios were calculated with CPT as the reference group and reflect the overall main effect of treatment across all outcome assessments (post-treatment, 3-months, and 6-months)|Overall Treatment Effect Remission Odds Ratio (OR). Remission is defined as loss of diagnosis plus severity less than 12.||2.00|1.24|
91871024|NCT01185340|183635602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.751
91871025|NCT00087516|183635621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001||95.0|-0.96|-0.62|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline A1C||||-0.62|-0.96|<0.001
91871026|NCT00087516|183635621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001||95.0|-1.11|-0.77|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline A1C||||-0.77|-1.11|<0.001
91871027|NCT00087516|183635622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0|-24.1|-10.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline FPG||||-10.1|-24.1|<0.001
91871028|NCT00087516|183635622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001||95.0|-28.2|-14.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline FPG||||-14.4|-28.2|<0.001
91871029|NCT00087516|183635623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.001||95.0|-59.4|-34.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline 2-hr PMG||||-34.1|-59.4|<0.001
91735949|NCT03648385|183365064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.19
91735950|NCT03648385|183365064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.94
91735951|NCT03648385|183365065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.62
91735952|NCT03648385|183365065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.39
91735953|NCT03648385|183365066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.33
91735954|NCT03648385|183365066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.88
91735955|NCT03648385|183365067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.55
91735956|NCT03648385|183365067|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||1.00
91735957|NCT00928668|183365075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||1.657|0.657|<0.0001
91735958|NCT00928668|183365075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.205|2.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||2.217|1.205|<0.0001
91735959|NCT00928668|183365075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.952|2.935|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||2.935|1.952|<0.0001
91735960|NCT00928668|183365075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.486|3.483|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||3.483|2.486|<0.0001
91735961|NCT00928668|183365076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.645|2.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||2.633|1.645|<0.0001
91735962|NCT00928668|183365076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.135|3.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||3.136|2.135|<0.0001
91735963|NCT00928668|183365076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.074|4.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||4.046|3.074|<0.0001
91735964|NCT00928668|183365076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.731|4.717|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||4.717|3.731|<0.0001
91735965|NCT00928668|183365077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.437|2.613|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||2.613|1.437|<0.0001
91735966|NCT00928668|183365077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.785|2.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||2.975|1.785|<0.0001
91735967|NCT00928668|183365077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.971|4.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||4.127|2.971|<0.0001
91735968|NCT00928668|183365077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.622|4.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||4.794|3.622|<0.0001
91735969|NCT00928668|183365078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.322|2.492|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||2.492|1.322|<0.0001
91735970|NCT00928668|183365078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.822|3.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||3.066|1.822|<0.0001
91735971|NCT00928668|183365078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.752|3.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||3.902|2.752|<0.0001
91735972|NCT00928668|183365078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.637|4.803|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||4.803|3.637|<0.0001
91735973|NCT00928668|183365079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||1.766|0.692|<0.0001
91735974|NCT00928668|183365079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.281|2.369|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||2.369|1.281|<0.0001
91735975|NCT00928668|183365079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.578|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||2.650|1.578|<0.0001
91735976|NCT00928668|183365079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||3.181|2.110|<0.0001
91735977|NCT00934921|183365084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.1||||||90.0|91.2|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|91.2|
91735978|NCT00934921|183365085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|95.2||||||90.0|88.8|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|88.8|
91871030|NCT00087516|183635623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.001||95.0|-66.7|-41.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline 2-hr PMG||||-41.6|-66.7|<0.001
91735979|NCT00934921|183365086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|95.9||||||90.0|89.5|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|89.5|
91735980|NCT01968980|183365150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-49.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||LS-mean difference,associated 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-49.5|-59.5|<0.001
91735981|NCT01968980|183365151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-34.1|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-34.1|-41.1|<0.001
91735982|NCT01968980|183365152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-51.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-46.4|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-46.4|-55.7|<0.001
91735983|NCT01968980|183365153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8|-43.2|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-43.2|-52.8|<0.001
91735984|NCT01968980|183365154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-23.2|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-23.2|-33.9|<0.001
91735985|NCT01968980|183365155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.9|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||9.9|4.1|<0.001
91735986|NCT01968980|183365156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|-46.0||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-46.0|-58.2|
91871031|NCT00246129|183635627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.467
91871032|NCT00246129|183635628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.138
91871033|NCT01335061|183635642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91871034|NCT00273052|183635664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-8.026||||0.0141||95.0|-15.35|-0.67|||ANCOVA||Median difference = Coreg CR - Toprol XL|||-0.67|-15.35|0.0141
91871035|NCT00273052|183635665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.6068||95.0|-2.4|3.9|||ANCOVA||Mean difference = Coreg CR - Toprol XL|||3.9|-2.4|0.6068
91871036|NCT00704340|183635678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was selected to provide sufficient precision for 95% confidence intervals for the incidence of neurosurgical complications in each arm. The sample size was selected so that the half-width of the normal approximation-based intervals would be no more than 0.05 percentage points. This requires a sample size of 114 evaluable patients in each arm. To allow for loss to follow-up, the sample size was increased to 125 randomized patients in each treatment arm, or a total of 250 patients.||||.613
91735987|NCT01968980|183365156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-42.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-42.3|-53.6|
91735988|NCT01968980|183365157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-31.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-31.6|-40.0|
91735989|NCT01968980|183365157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-27.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-27.8|-35.8|
91735990|NCT01968980|183365158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|-42.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-42.8|-54.1|
91735991|NCT01968980|183365158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-36.9||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-36.9|-47.5|
91735992|NCT01968980|183365159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.1|-41.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-41.6|-52.1|
91735993|NCT01968980|183365159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-35.5||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-35.5|-45.5|
91735994|NCT01968980|183365160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|-10.3||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-10.3|-59.8|
91735995|NCT01968980|183365160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-4.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-4.4|-26.3|
91735996|NCT01968980|183365161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|8.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||8.7|3.1|
91735997|NCT01968980|183365161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.9||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||5.9|-0.1|
91735998|NCT01968980|183365162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-8.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-8.7|-25.3|
91797674|NCT01193660|183473703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|2.59|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
91871037|NCT00704340|183635679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.681
91871038|NCT00704340|183635680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.619
91871039|NCT03316170|183635705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|-1.75|.06
91871040|NCT02935673|183635712|SUPERIORITY||AUC(1-7) difference vs (pooled) placebo|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.24|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures, using all available viral load data of baseline and up to and including Day 7, taking missing data into account under the missing at random assumption.|0.24|-0.89|
91871041|NCT02935673|183635712|SUPERIORITY||AUC(1-7) difference vs (pooled) placebo|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.62|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures, using all available viral load data of baseline and up to and including Day 7, taking missing data into account under the missing at random assumption.|0.62|-1.33|
91871042|NCT01836523|183635747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval was \<0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.07||||||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-0.07|-0.32|
91797675|NCT01193660|183473704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|3.94|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that in terms of K-BSID-II MENTAL Scale, the effects of 3 groups are same, and the alternative one is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
91797676|NCT01193660|183473705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|2.7|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that in terms of K-BSID-II MOTOR Scale, the effects of 3 groups are same, and the alternative one is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
91797677|NCT01193660|183473707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0||||The baseline and post-therapy data of each group were compared using paired t-test statistics.|t-test, 2 sided|Voxels with an uncorrected p-value of \<0.05 were considered significant, and an extent threshold Ke of 100 voxels was set by SPM implanted in Matlab.||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of three experimental groups are same each other, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) has much higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation Group or Rehabilitation Group. This study is a pilot study and therefore, power calculation was not applicable in our study. The sample size of each group is more than 30.||||0.05
91797678|NCT01193660|183473709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||interaction of group and visit|0.9|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
91797679|NCT01193660|183473710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|1.279|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
91797680|NCT01193660|183473711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|0.996|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
91797681|NCT01193660|183473712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|0.56|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
91797682|NCT01193660|183473713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|We compared the ratio of participants with a certain adverse event (AE) and without the AE between three groups using Fisher Exact test.||||||<0.05
91906406|NCT06608368|183708545|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.3856|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9568||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2335|2.4624|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||2.4624|-21.2335|0.1189
91906407|NCT06608368|183708545|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7636||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8264|8.1009|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||8.1009|-14.8264|0.5612
91906408|NCT06608368|183708546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7895||0.8417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4856|8.5665|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||8.5665|-10.4856|0.8417
91906409|NCT06608368|183708546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7059||0.4487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.942|5.7777|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||5.7777|-12.9420|0.4487
91906410|NCT06608368|183708546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5624||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.697|6.4517|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||6.4517|-11.6970|0.5670
91906411|NCT06608368|183708546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9029||0.5395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1672|5.3583|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||5.3583|-10.1672|0.5395
91906412|NCT06608368|183708546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.1471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8479||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8005|3.5062|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||3.5062|-11.8005|0.2843
91906413|NCT06608368|183708546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8124||0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3255|5.8401|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||5.8401|-9.3255|0.6488
91906414|NCT06608368|183708546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7493||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7589|8.1556|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||8.1556|-6.7589|0.8527
91906415|NCT06608368|183708546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7677||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7149|4.2726|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||4.2726|-10.7149|0.3950
91735999|NCT01968980|183365162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-7.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-7.8|-27.0|
91736000|NCT01968980|183365162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||0.4|-19.4|
91736001|NCT01968980|183365163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||7.8|2.9|
91736002|NCT01968980|183365163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||6.8|2.5|
91736003|NCT01968980|183365163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||5.4|0.5|
91736004|NCT01968980|183365164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.6||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||3.6|-2.3|
91736005|NCT01968980|183365164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.2||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||3.2|-1.9|
91736006|NCT01968980|183365164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.6||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||3.6|-1.9|
91736007|NCT01968980|183365165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-8.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-8.7|-25.3|
91736008|NCT01968980|183365165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-7.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-7.8|-27.0|
91736009|NCT01968980|183365165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||0.4|-19.4|
91736010|NCT01968980|183365166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.2|-71.4||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-71.4|-86.2|
91736011|NCT01968980|183365167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.3|-75.0||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-75.0|-91.3|
91736012|NCT01968980|183365168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-87.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.4|-78.7||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-78.7|-95.4|
91736013|NCT01968980|183365169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|-48.5||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-48.5|-59.2|
91736014|NCT01968980|183365170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-8.9||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-8.9|-14.7|
91871043|NCT01836523|183635747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval was \<0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03||||||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-0.03|-0.27|
91702460|NCT00772005|183299699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3973||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3973
91736015|NCT01968980|183365171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.9||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||4.9|2.0|
91736016|NCT01968980|183365172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-1.8|-2.2|
91736017|NCT01968980|183365172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-1.6|-2.1|
91736018|NCT01968980|183365172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-1.3|-1.8|
91736019|NCT01968980|183365173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.4||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-0.4|-0.5|
91736020|NCT01968980|183365173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.4||||||Week 24:LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-0.4|-0.4|
91871044|NCT01836523|183635747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval was \<0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.03||||||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||0.03|-0.21|
91906416|NCT06608368|183708546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.9195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6397||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1588|3.3198|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||3.3198|-11.1588|0.2847
91702461|NCT00772005|183299700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4030
91702462|NCT00772005|183299700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3777||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3777
91702463|NCT00772005|183299700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6493||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6493
91736021|NCT01968980|183365173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-0.3|-0.4|
91736022|NCT01968980|183365174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.24|106.1||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||106.10|25.24|
91736023|NCT01968980|183365174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.32|147.43||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||147.43|30.32|
91736024|NCT01968980|183365174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|44.01||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||44.01|11.85|
91736025|NCT01968980|183365175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|200.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.16|854.6||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||854.60|47.16|
91736026|NCT01968980|183365175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|228.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.95|1000.39||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||1000.39|51.95|
91736027|NCT01968980|183365175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|259.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.87|1937.06||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||1937.06|34.87|
91736028|NCT01561469|183365216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.009
91736029|NCT01561469|183365217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for superinfections category reported.||||1.00
91736030|NCT01561469|183365217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for colonization category reported.||||0.759
91736031|NCT01561469|183365218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.773
91736032|NCT01561469|183365219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.823
91736033|NCT01561469|183365220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.276
91736034|NCT01561469|183365221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.512
91736035|NCT00285779|183365241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0978
91736036|NCT00285779|183365242|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
91871045|NCT01836523|183635748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-4.16|-5.65|<0.0001
91736037|NCT00285779|183365243|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.031
91736038|NCT00285779|183365243|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.34
91736039|NCT00285779|183365243|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
91736040|NCT00285779|183365243|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.22
91736041|NCT00285779|183365244|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||>0.9999
91736042|NCT00285779|183365244|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||>0.9999
91736043|NCT00285779|183365245|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.25
91736044|NCT00285779|183365245|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||>0.9999
91736045|NCT00285779|183365245|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.063
91736046|NCT00285779|183365245|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||>0.9999
91736047|NCT00285779|183365246|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.063
91736048|NCT00285779|183365246|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.25
91736049|NCT00285779|183365246|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.031
91736050|NCT00285779|183365246|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.32
91736051|NCT00285779|183365247|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.094
91736052|NCT00285779|183365247|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.25
91736053|NCT00285779|183365247|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
91736054|NCT00285779|183365247|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
91736055|NCT00285779|183365248|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.63
91736056|NCT00285779|183365248|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.38
91736057|NCT00285779|183365248|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.38
91736058|NCT00285779|183365248|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.50
91736059|NCT00285779|183365249|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.031
91736060|NCT00285779|183365249|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.094
91736061|NCT00285779|183365249|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.039
91736062|NCT00285779|183365249|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.19
91736063|NCT00285779|183365250|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.26
91736064|NCT00285779|183365250|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.55
91736065|NCT00285779|183365250|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.18
91736066|NCT00285779|183365250|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
91736067|NCT00285779|183365251|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.51
91736068|NCT00285779|183365251|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.47
91736069|NCT00285779|183365251|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.087
91736070|NCT00285779|183365251|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.86
91736071|NCT00285779|183365252|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.033
91736072|NCT00285779|183365252|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.069
91736073|NCT00285779|183365252|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.015
91736074|NCT00285779|183365252|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.026
91736075|NCT03235050|183365312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.06|<0.001
91736076|NCT03235050|183365312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||||-0.85|-1.23|<0.001
91736077|NCT03235050|183365312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-1.11|<0.001
91736078|NCT03235050|183365313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-3.08|<0.001
91871046|NCT01836523|183635748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-2.81|-4.29|<0.0001
91871047|NCT01836523|183635748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-1.47|-2.91|<0.0001
91702464|NCT00772005|183299701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9871||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9871
91736079|NCT03235050|183365313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||||-1.87|-3.65|<0.001
91906417|NCT06608368|183708546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6595||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7512|6.7839|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||6.7839|-11.7512|0.5954
91906418|NCT06608368|183708546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6891||0.5271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3044|6.3485|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||6.3485|-12.3044|0.5271
91702465|NCT00772005|183299701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5859||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5859
91702466|NCT00772005|183299701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0328||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0328
91702467|NCT00772005|183299702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2318||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2318
91702468|NCT00772005|183299702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6211||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6211
91702469|NCT00772005|183299702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3125
91702470|NCT00772005|183299703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2425||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2425
91702471|NCT00772005|183299703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6597
91702472|NCT00772005|183299703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4753||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4753
91702473|NCT00772005|183299704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1715||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1715
91702474|NCT00772005|183299704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3056
91702475|NCT00772005|183299704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0083||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0083
91702476|NCT00772005|183299705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2681||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2681
91702477|NCT00772005|183299705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1475||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1475
91736080|NCT03235050|183365313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-2.73|||ANCOVA|||||-2.73|-4.51|<0.001
91736081|NCT03235050|183365314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.40|-0.92|<0.001
91736082|NCT03235050|183365314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.60|-1.03|<0.001
91736083|NCT03235050|183365314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.51|-0.94|<0.001
91871048|NCT01836523|183635749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate. The measurements were log-transformed before analysis||0.96|0.88|<0.0001
91736084|NCT03235050|183365314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.24|-0.80|<0.001
91736085|NCT03235050|183365314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.39|-0.86|<0.001
91736086|NCT03235050|183365314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.34|-0.80|<0.001
91736087|NCT03235050|183365315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|92.0|3.34|13.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||13.30|3.34|<0.001
91736088|NCT03235050|183365315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|18.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||18.36|5.39|<0.001
91871049|NCT01836523|183635749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.95||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate. The measurements were log-transformed before analysis||0.99|0.91|0.0148
91871050|NCT01836523|183635749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate. The measurements were log-transformed before analysis||1.04|0.96|0.9615
91906419|NCT06608368|183708546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4942|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5519||0.9138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5478|8.5593|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||8.5593|-9.5478|0.9138
91702478|NCT00772005|183299705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0647||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0647
91702479|NCT00772005|183299706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1670
91736089|NCT03235050|183365315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|15.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||15.61|4.65|<0.001
91702480|NCT00772005|183299706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1737||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1737
91736090|NCT03235050|183365315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 26||7.03|1.98|<0.001
91736091|NCT03235050|183365315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|9.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 26||9.34|3.13|<0.001
91736092|NCT03235050|183365315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|8.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 26||8.97|3.02|<0.001
91736093|NCT03235050|183365315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|9.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 54||9.36|2.61|<0.001
91736094|NCT03235050|183365315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|7.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 54||7.89|2.62|<0.001
91736095|NCT03235050|183365315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|7.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 54||7.51|2.51|<0.001
91736096|NCT03235050|183365316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.85|-3.32|<0.001
91736097|NCT03235050|183365316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-1.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-1.79|-3.82|<0.001
91736098|NCT03235050|183365316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-2.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-2.44|-4.48|<0.001
91736099|NCT03235050|183365316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-1.00|-3.86|<0.001
91736100|NCT03235050|183365316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-1.06|-3.41|<0.001
91736101|NCT03235050|183365316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-2.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-2.14|-4.49|<0.001
91736102|NCT03235050|183365317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 14||-0.87|-3.03|<0.001
91736103|NCT03235050|183365317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.86|||ANCOVA|||Week 14||-1.86|-3.63|<0.001
91736104|NCT03235050|183365317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 14||-2.82|-4.60|<0.001
91736105|NCT03235050|183365317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.74|-3.27|0.002
91736106|NCT03235050|183365317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.71|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-1.71|-3.78|<0.001
91736107|NCT03235050|183365317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-2.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-2.52|-4.59|<0.001
91736108|NCT03235050|183365317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.27||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.79|-3.74|0.003
91736109|NCT03235050|183365317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.95|-3.37|<0.001
91797683|NCT01886716|183473714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|=|0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = .71|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares anxiety vs. control training."||||=.40
91797684|NCT01886716|183473714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|=|0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = .08|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares alcohol vs. control training."||||=.78
91797685|NCT01886716|183473715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = .18|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares alcohol vs. control training"||||=.67
91702481|NCT00772005|183299706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3720
91797686|NCT01886716|183473715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = 1.01|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares anxiety vs. control training"||||=.32
91797687|NCT01051466|183473717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||The significance level was 0.05 for a 2-sided test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.457
91797688|NCT01051466|183473718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||||||The p-value is for change from baseline activation (BOLD response) in the anterior cingulate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.627
91797689|NCT01051466|183473718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338||||||The p-value is for change from baseline activation (BOLD response) in the left amygdala.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
91797690|NCT01051466|183473718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||||||The p-value is for change from baseline activation (BOLD response) in the right amygdala.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.518
91797691|NCT01051466|183473719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the subgenual anterior cingulate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.030
91797692|NCT01051466|183473719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the left amygdalae.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.208
91906420|NCT06608368|183708547|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2639|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4455||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.6221|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|||0.6221|-1.1500|0.5551
91906421|NCT06608368|183708547|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4555||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4104|0.4016|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.4016|-1.4104|0.2714
91702482|NCT00772005|183299707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3547||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3547
91702483|NCT00772005|183299707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6043||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6043
91702484|NCT00772005|183299707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0463
91702485|NCT00772005|183299708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9258||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9258
91797693|NCT01051466|183473719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the right amygdalae.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
91797694|NCT01051466|183473719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the left hippocampus.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
91797695|NCT01051466|183473719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the right hippocampus.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.191
91797696|NCT01051466|183473720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in RBCs at Week 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.174
91797697|NCT01051466|183473720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in RBCs at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.488
91797698|NCT01051466|183473720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in RBCs at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.480
91797699|NCT01051466|183473720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in platelets at Week 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.925
91797700|NCT01051466|183473720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in platelets at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.697
91797701|NCT01051466|183473720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in platelets at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.276
91797702|NCT01051466|183473722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||The p-value is for change from baseline BDNF.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.904
91797703|NCT01051466|183473722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819||||||The p-value is for change from baseline proBDNF.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.819
91702486|NCT00772005|183299708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9116||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9116
91906422|NCT06608368|183708547|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4402||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.116|0.6351|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.6351|-1.1160|0.5864
91702487|NCT00772005|183299708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4848||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4848
91702488|NCT00772005|183299709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7612||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7612
91702489|NCT00772005|183299709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5761||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5761
91702490|NCT00772005|183299709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1576||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1576
91702491|NCT00772005|183299710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9565||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9565
91702492|NCT00772005|183299710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9178||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9178
91702493|NCT00772005|183299710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1491||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1491
91702494|NCT00772005|183299711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7056
91702495|NCT00772005|183299711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5179||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5179
91702496|NCT00772005|183299711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4585||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4585
91736110|NCT03235050|183365317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-2.20|-4.63|<0.001
91736111|NCT03235050|183365318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.79|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 14||1.79|-0.39|0.211
91797704|NCT01051466|183473723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||||||The p-value is for change from baseline trkB.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.273
91702497|NCT00772005|183299712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0690
91702498|NCT00772005|183299712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5324||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5324
91702499|NCT00772005|183299712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0946||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0946
91702500|NCT00772005|183299713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1878||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1878
91702501|NCT00772005|183299713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4294||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4294
91702502|NCT00772005|183299713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6504||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6504
91702503|NCT00772005|183299714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4022||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4022
91736112|NCT03235050|183365318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 14||0.83|-0.96|0.881
91736113|NCT03235050|183365318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 14||-0.04|-1.82|0.042
91736114|NCT03235050|183365318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.14|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 26||2.14|-0.35|0.158
91888887|NCT04535544|183670300|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|23.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|43.96|||Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test was used to assess the difference of percentage based on stratification factor: HBeAg status at screening (positive vs negative).||43.96|3.52|0.011
91736115|NCT03235050|183365318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 26||1.20|-0.85|0.734
91736116|NCT03235050|183365318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 26||0.54|-1.51|0.357
91736117|NCT03235050|183365318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 54||1.37|-1.51|0.921
91736118|NCT03235050|183365318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 54||1.30|-1.07|0.847
91736119|NCT03235050|183365318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 54||0.22|-2.15|0.112
91736120|NCT03235050|183365319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 14||1.68|-0.49|0.284
91736121|NCT03235050|183365319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 14||0.69|-1.09|0.658
91736122|NCT03235050|183365319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 14||-0.27|-2.06|0.010
91736123|NCT03235050|183365319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.97|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 26||1.97|-0.57|0.279
91736124|NCT03235050|183365319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 26||1.00|-1.08|0.940
91736125|NCT03235050|183365319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 26||0.19|-1.89|0.110
91736126|NCT03235050|183365319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 54||1.22|-1.74|0.730
91736127|NCT03235050|183365319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 54||1.07|-1.38|0.804
91736128|NCT03235050|183365319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 54||-0.19|-2.63|0.023
91736129|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|29.43|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 14||29.43|2.38|<0.001
91736130|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|12.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|40.64|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 14||40.64|3.82|<0.001
91736131|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|21.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|68.97|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 14||68.97|6.55|<0.001
91736132|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|7.89|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 26||7.89|1.72|<0.001
91736133|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.78|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 26||7.78|2.00|<0.001
91736134|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|14.24|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 26||14.24|3.72|<0.001
91736135|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|7.45|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 54||7.45|1.84|<0.001
91736136|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 54||5.09|1.46|0.002
91736137|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|8.3|||ANCOVA|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 54||8.30|2.42|<0.001
91736138|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.47||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|70.17|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 26||70.17|1.02|0.048
91736139|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|13.81||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|102.91|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 26||102.91|1.85|0.010
91736140|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|13.09||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|97.68|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 26||97.68|1.75|0.012
91736141|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.92||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|32.07|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 54||32.07|1.49|0.013
91736142|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.98||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|21.6|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 54||21.60|1.15|0.032
91736143|NCT03235050|183365320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.91||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|33.64|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 54||33.64|1.86|0.005
91736144|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.09||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 14 wks||0.73|0.01|0.024
91888888|NCT04535544|183670301|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|26.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.38|46.21|||Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratum-adjusted MH test was used to assess the difference of percentage based on stratification factor: HBeAg status at screening (positive vs negative).||46.21|7.38|0.003
91888889|NCT01123070|183670307|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the back transformed 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.93||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|1.084|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|||1.084|0.797|0.4265
91888890|NCT01123070|183670308|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the back transformed 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.862||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|0.968|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011 arm is the numerator, MabThera arm is the denominator|||0.968|0.768|0.0368
91888891|NCT01123070|183670310|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.909||||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.814|1.014|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011/MabThera|Cmax1||1.014|0.814|0.1484
91871051|NCT01836523|183635750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.31||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.59|||Negative binomial regression|||The endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the log of the time period in which an occurrence of a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included fixed factors (treatment, country, stratification group) and a covariate (baseline HbA1c).||1.59|1.07|0.0081
91871052|NCT01836523|183635750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.27||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.55|||Negative binomial regression|||The endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the log of the time period in which an occurrence of a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included fixed factors (treatment, country, stratification group) and a covariate (baseline HbA1c).||1.55|1.03|0.0219
91702504|NCT00772005|183299714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6246||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6246
91702505|NCT00772005|183299714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8655||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8655
91702506|NCT00772005|183299715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5676||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5676
91702507|NCT00772005|183299715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5239||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5239
91702508|NCT00772005|183299715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4092||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4092
91702509|NCT00772005|183299716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5195||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5195
91702510|NCT00772005|183299716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1732||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1732
91702511|NCT00772005|183299716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7455||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7455
91702512|NCT00772005|183299717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6885||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6885
91702513|NCT00772005|183299717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5443||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5443
91702514|NCT00772005|183299717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9343||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9343
91736145|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 14 wks||0.40|0.03|<0.001
91736146|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.33|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 14 wks||0.33|0.02|<0.001
91736147|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.48|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 26 wks||0.48|0.04|0.002
91736148|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.34|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 26 wks||0.34|0.06|<0.001
91736149|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.28|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 26 wks||0.28|0.04|<0.001
91736150|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 54 wks||0.53|0.11|<0.001
91736151|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.44|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 54 wks||0.44|0.13|<0.001
91736152|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.41|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 54 wks||0.41|0.12|<0.001
91736153|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.22||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 14 wks||2.43|0.02|0.216
91736154|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.28||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 26 wks||2.52|0.03|0.253
91736155|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.21||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 26 wks||1.19|0.04|0.079
91736156|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.27||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 54 wks||2.50|0.03|0.252
91736157|NCT03235050|183365321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.32||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 54 wks||1.47|0.07|0.143
91736158|NCT00370292|183365325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 1 Hour Post-Dose (1 hour across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
91871053|NCT01836523|183635750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.17||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43|||Negative binomial regression|||The endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the log of the time period in which an occurrence of a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included fixed factors (treatment, country, stratification group) and a covariate (baseline HbA1c).||1.43|0.97|0.1079
91871054|NCT02095678|183635751|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
91871055|NCT02095678|183635754|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91906423|NCT06608368|183708550|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4238||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2026|0.4831|||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice minus Test Dentifrice value.|||0.4831|-1.2026|0.3984
91736159|NCT00370292|183365325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 2 Hours Post-Dose (2 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
91736160|NCT00370292|183365325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for 4 Hours Post-Dose (4 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.030
91736161|NCT00370292|183365325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value for 6 Hours Post-Dose (6 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.166
91871056|NCT02095678|183635755|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91871057|NCT03418545|183635756|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|67.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|82.0||The p-value and 95% CI are computed by pooling 5 imputed datasets using PROC MIANALYZE in SAS with normal approximation. The p-value and 95% CI for each imputed data set is based on the Fisher's exact test and the Wald test, respectively.|Fisher Exact|||||82.0|52.9|<0.0001
91906424|NCT06608368|183708550|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4277||0.3734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2332|0.4678|||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice.|||0.4678|-1.2332|0.3734
91906425|NCT06608368|183708550|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4099||0.9555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8382|0.7923|||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.7923|-0.8382|0.9555
91906426|NCT00666458|183708585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.01|
91702515|NCT00772005|183299718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9093||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9093
91702516|NCT00772005|183299718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4701||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4701
91736162|NCT00370292|183365325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 Hours Post-Dose (24 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
91736163|NCT00370292|183365325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 48 Hours Post-Dose (48 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
91736164|NCT00370292|183365327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 1 Hour Post-Dose (1 hour across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
91736165|NCT00370292|183365327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 2 Hours Post-Dose (2 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
91736166|NCT00370292|183365327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0||||P-value for 4 Hours Post-Dose (4 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.333
91736167|NCT00370292|183365327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849||95.0||||P-value for 6 Hours Post-Dose (6 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.849
91736168|NCT00370292|183365327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 Hours Post-Dose (24 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
91736169|NCT00370292|183365327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 48 Hours Post-Dose (48 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
91736170|NCT03545672|183365328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91736171|NCT03545672|183365329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91906427|NCT00666458|183708586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.5||||||||3.5|-9.0|
91906428|NCT00666458|183708587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|9.47||||||||9.47|1.37|
91906429|NCT00666458|183708588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.53||||||||0.53|0.08|
91906430|NCT01999465|183708589|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We applied Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test with the Null hypothesis that there is no difference between 2 arms.||||||0.40
91760045|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.05|
91871058|NCT03418545|183635757|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|73.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.2|86.8|||||The 95% CI is based on the Wald test.|||86.8|60.2|
91871059|NCT03418545|183635759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level was performed to demonstrate that the mean overall satisfaction score at Month 3 was statistically greater than that at Baseline for the treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91871060|NCT04660799|183635761|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) should be above 0.80 in order to show non-inferiority of Ctrough SC versus Ctrough IV.|Ratio Ctrough SC/Ctrough IV|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.28|1.79||||||Geometric mean ratio of Ctrough SC/Ctrough IV and 90% confidence interval were estimated based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for tumor load at baseline.||1.79|1.28|
91736172|NCT02415556|183365330|OTHER|"A spatial power variance-covariance structure was used to model within-subject correlated measurements where the number of days from the baseline visit was used as the power of the autoregressive correlation coefficient. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.~The independent variables included: 4 treatment groups, TIMEG (baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period), TIMEG \* treatment group.; an average number of treatment days; subjects as random effects."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.52||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|12.23||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||12.23|0.81|0.025
91736173|NCT02415556|183365330|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.28||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|10.6||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||10.60|-0.03|0.051
91736174|NCT02415556|183365331|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|14.29||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||14.29|2.33|0.007
91736175|NCT02415556|183365331|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.32||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||8.32|-2.90|0.342
91736176|NCT02415556|183365332|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.13||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||0.13|-0.87|0.144
91797705|NCT01051466|183473724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||||||The p-value is for change from baseline cytokine TNFα.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.797
91906431|NCT01999465|183708590|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91702517|NCT00772005|183299718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9764||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9764
91702518|NCT00772005|183299719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8115||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8115
91702519|NCT00772005|183299719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5378||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5378
91702520|NCT00772005|183299719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9144||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9144
91702521|NCT00772005|183299720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9812||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9812
91702522|NCT00772005|183299720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5464||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5464
91871061|NCT04660799|183635762|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) should be above 0.80 in order to show non-inferiority of AUCsc versus AUCiv.|Geometric mean ratio of AUCsc/AUCiv|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.42||||||Geometric mean ratio of AUCsc/AUCiv and 90% confidence interval were estimated based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for tumor load at baseline.||1.42|1.10|
91906432|NCT01308008|183708604|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|0.05||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.13|-0.02|0.16
91702523|NCT00772005|183299720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8811||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8811
91702524|NCT00772005|183299721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6487||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6487
91702525|NCT00772005|183299721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4204||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4204
91702526|NCT00772005|183299721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6955||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6955
91702527|NCT00772005|183299722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6042||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6042
91702528|NCT00772005|183299722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9783||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9783
91702529|NCT00772005|183299722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9739||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9739
91702530|NCT00772005|183299723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3466||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3466
91702531|NCT00772005|183299723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8469||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8469
91702532|NCT00772005|183299723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5439||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5439
91702533|NCT00772005|183299724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6059||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6059
91702534|NCT00772005|183299724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7474||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7474
91702535|NCT00772005|183299724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4424||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4424
91702536|NCT00772005|183299725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4874||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4874
91702537|NCT00772005|183299725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8243||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8243
91702538|NCT00772005|183299725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9562||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9562
91702539|NCT00772005|183299726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3686||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3686
91702540|NCT00772005|183299726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0270
91760046|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.06|
91797706|NCT01051466|183473724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||The p-value is for change from baseline cytokine IL-1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.269
91871062|NCT04660799|183635767|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRR|18.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|45.45||||||Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||45.45|-8.92|
91736177|NCT02415556|183365332|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||-0.16|-1.11|0.008
91736178|NCT02415556|183365333|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.83||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||0.83|-0.13|0.149
91736179|NCT02415556|183365333|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.8||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||0.80|-0.11|0.134
91736180|NCT02415556|183365334|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.58|1.00|0.030
91871063|NCT04660799|183635768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR Investigator|17.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|42.11||||||Investigator; Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||42.11|-6.86|
91871064|NCT04660799|183635768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR IRC|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|40.88||||||IRC; Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||40.88|-12.68|
91871065|NCT04660799|183635769|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRR|7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.49|36.59||||||Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||36.59|-22.49|
91871066|NCT04660799|183635770|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRR|18.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|46.73||||||Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||46.73|-9.55|
91871067|NCT02356198|183635791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91871068|NCT02356198|183635792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.102
91871069|NCT02356198|183635793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
91871070|NCT02356198|183635794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.454
91871071|NCT02356198|183635795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.212
91871072|NCT02397707|183635796|OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean (GLSM)Ratio%|411.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|214.72|789.08||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUClast. A 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||789.08|214.72|
91871073|NCT02397707|183635796|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|644.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|364.67|1137.82||||||An ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUClast. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||1137.82|364.67|
91871074|NCT02397707|183635797|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|399.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|210.89|755.81||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUCinf. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||755.81|210.89|
91906433|NCT01308008|183708605|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|34.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|83.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||83|-15|0.17
91871075|NCT02397707|183635797|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|599.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|342.36|1050.22||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUCinf. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||1050.22|342.36|
91871076|NCT02397707|183635798|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|338.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|168.96|677.79||||||An ANOVA appropriate was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir Cmax. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||677.79|168.96|
91871077|NCT02397707|183635798|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|713.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|384.07|1327.06||||||An ANOVA appropriate was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir Cmax. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||1327.06|384.07|
91871078|NCT01450397|183635799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0013
91736181|NCT02415556|183365334|OTHER|See primary aims.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|10.63||See primary aims.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See primary aims.||10.63|-6.22|0.607
91736182|NCT02415556|183365335|OTHER|See primary aims.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.29||See primary aims.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See primary aims.||5.29|-9.50|0.576
91871079|NCT02334215|183635804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone arms compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.32
91871080|NCT02334215|183635804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.32
91871081|NCT02334215|183635805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of Interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone Conditions combined vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual Conditions||||.001
91871082|NCT02334215|183635805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.84
91736183|NCT02415556|183365335|OTHER|See primary aims.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|5.87||See primary aims.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See primary aims.||5.87|-7.58|0.802
91736184|NCT02415556|183365336|EQUIVALENCE|CBF and vasoreactivity maps were analyzed on a voxel-by-voxel basis using Statistical non-Parametric Mapping (SnPM, http://www.sph.umich.edu/ni-stat/SnPM/), voxel-level threshold p \< 0.005.||||||0.03|||||||Voxel-Based Morphometry|||||||0.03
91736185|NCT01621178|183365340|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority to Glargine with a 0.4% margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.15|-0.26|<0.001
91736186|NCT01621178|183365340|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority to Glargine with a 0.4% margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.22|-0.18|<0.001
91736187|NCT02465931|183365369|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.89
91736188|NCT04790786|183365379|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.||||||||||||Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound based on Bayesian probability.|Bayesian cumulative logistic model|Bayesian cumulative logistic model, Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.||The primary analysis model was a Bayesian cumulative logistic model that adjusted for treatment location (infusion center or ED), age (\<30, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and ≥ 80 years), sex, and time (2-week epochs). Comparisons between individual mAb were based on the relative odds ratio between a given two arms for the primary outcome. An odds ratio for an arm to a comparator \>1 implies improved outcomes. A sliding scale with different levels of equivalence bounds was pre-defined|Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.|||
91736189|NCT04102007|183365392|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0/1 @ WK 16|57.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.1|63.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study.|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||63.4|51.1|
91736190|NCT04102007|183365393|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0 @ WK 16|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|26.0|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||26.0|15.4|
91736191|NCT04102007|183365394|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of DLQI 0 or 1 @ WK 16|40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|46.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study.|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||46.4|34.2|
91736192|NCT04102007|183365395|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of PSS 0 @ WK 16|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|26.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||26.4|16.3|
91736193|NCT04102007|183365396|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0/1 @ WK 52|62.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|68.1|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||68.1|56.0|
91736194|NCT04102007|183365397|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0 @ WK 52|27.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|33.0|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||33.0|21.9|
91736195|NCT04102007|183365398|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of DLQI 0 or 1 @ WK 52|47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|53.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study.|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||53.4|41.0|
91736196|NCT04102007|183365399|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of PSS 0 @ WK 52|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|33.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||33.4|22.3|
91871083|NCT02334215|183635806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone Conditions combined vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||0.11
91871084|NCT02334215|183635806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.55
91871085|NCT02334215|183635807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.55
91871086|NCT02334215|183635807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs Methadone||||0.57
91871087|NCT02334215|183635808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.997
91702541|NCT00772005|183299726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7322||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7322
91736197|NCT03289143|183365402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6147||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.6147
91736198|NCT03289143|183365402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5778||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5778
91736199|NCT03289143|183365402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5136||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5136
91736200|NCT03289143|183365404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8198||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.8198
91736201|NCT03289143|183365404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3961||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.3961
91736202|NCT03289143|183365404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6043||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.6043
91736203|NCT03289143|183365405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0783||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.0783
91736204|NCT03289143|183365405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.6010
91736205|NCT03289143|183365405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3961||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.3961
91736206|NCT03289143|183365406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9749||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.9749
91736207|NCT03289143|183365406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7718||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.7718
91736208|NCT03289143|183365406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5789||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5789
91736209|NCT03289143|183365407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5235||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5235
91871088|NCT02334215|183635808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs Methadone||||0.26
91871089|NCT02334215|183635809|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.663|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||||.663
91702542|NCT00772005|183299727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4646||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4646
91736210|NCT03289143|183365407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5612||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5612
91736211|NCT03289143|183365407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.7130
91736212|NCT00730756|183365419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.845||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Center, baseline eosinophils, baseline symptom score, age, and gender were included as covariates in all efficacy analyses.||||||0.845
91736213|NCT05067335|183365489|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM(Romosozumab - Placebo)|9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.34|10.39|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model was used and included treatment group, Baseline DXA BMD value, machine type (hologic or lunar) at Baseline, age strata group (stratification factor), region, and interaction of Baseline DXA BMD value and machine type at Baseline as independent variables.||10.39|8.34|<0.001
91702543|NCT00772005|183299727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8783||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8783
91736214|NCT05067335|183365492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM(Romosozumab - Placebo)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|3.54|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model was used and included treatment group, Baseline DXA BMD value, machine type (hologic or lunar) at Baseline, age strata group (stratification factor), region, and interaction of Baseline DXA BMD value and machine type at Baseline as independent variables.||3.54|2.18|<0.001
91736215|NCT05067335|183365493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM(Romosozumab - Placebo)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|4.38|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model was used and included treatment group, Baseline DXA BMD value, machine type (hologic or lunar) at Baseline, age strata group (stratification factor), region, and interaction of Baseline DXA BMD value and machine type at Baseline as independent variables.||4.38|2.58|<0.001
91736216|NCT02136914|183365498|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.3|||Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate.||46 subjects per treatment arm provided 90% power using a 2-sided test at 5% significance.||-3.3|-12.5|0.0009
91736217|NCT02136914|183365499|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-4.0|||Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-4.0|-14.7|0.0008
91736218|NCT02136914|183365500|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.96||Change from Baseline in ON time without troublesome dyskinesia at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||3.96|1.53|<0.0001
91736219|NCT02136914|183365500|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.634||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.47||Change from Baseline in ON time without troublesome dyskinesia at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||3.47|0.96|0.0007
91736220|NCT02136914|183365500|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.16||Change from Baseline in OFF time at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.16|-1.64|0.0171
91736221|NCT02136914|183365500|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.04||Change from Baseline in OFF time at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.04|-1.58|0.0406
91736222|NCT02136914|183365500|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.508||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-0.53||Change from Baseline in ON time with troublesome dyskinesia at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.53|-2.55|0.0031
91797707|NCT01051466|183473724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925||||||The p-value is for change from baseline cytokine IL-6.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.925
91871090|NCT02334215|183635809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs Methadone||||0.33
91871091|NCT02334215|183635810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone arms compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||0.007
91871092|NCT02334215|183635810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.76
91871093|NCT02334215|183635811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||0.60
91871094|NCT02334215|183635811|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||1.0
91871095|NCT02334215|183635812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.09
91871096|NCT02334215|183635812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.74
91871097|NCT02334215|183635813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.013
91871098|NCT02334215|183635813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.71
91871099|NCT02334215|183635814|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.32
91871100|NCT02334215|183635814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.85
91871101|NCT02334215|183635815|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.1|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.10
91871102|NCT02334215|183635815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.74
91702544|NCT00772005|183299727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4213||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4213
91702545|NCT00772005|183299728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6597
91702546|NCT00772005|183299728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0262||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0262
91702547|NCT00772005|183299728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6652||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6652
91871103|NCT02334215|183635816|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.42|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.42
91871104|NCT02334215|183635816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.42
91871105|NCT02334215|183635817|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.28|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.28
91871106|NCT02334215|183635817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.44
91871107|NCT02334215|183635818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone combined vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.61
91871108|NCT02334215|183635818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.72
91871109|NCT02334215|183635819|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.71|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.71
91871110|NCT02334215|183635819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.86
91871111|NCT02485925|183635842|OTHER||Proportion of participants|80.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.9|86.4|||||||95% confidence interval is based on Clopper-Pearson confidence interval|86.4|73.9|
91871112|NCT02485925|183635843|OTHER||Proportion of participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|100.0|||||||95% confidence interval is based on Clopper-Pearson confidence interval|100.0|97.2|
91871113|NCT04181788|183635852|OTHER|Ratio of experimental vs control|Ratio of experimental vs control|231.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.09|281.21||||||Phase 2 600 mg SC Q6W (experimental) vs. Phase 2 300 mg SC Q4W (control)||281.21|190.09|
91871114|NCT04181788|183635853|OTHER|Ratio of experimental vs control|Ratio of experimental vs control|111.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.31|143.99||||||Phase 2 600 mg SC Q6W (experimental) vs. Phase 2 300 mg SC Q4W (control)||143.99|86.31|
91871115|NCT06922643|183635884|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|27.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.8|1.63|0.008
91871116|NCT02746107|183635911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|details provided in the protocol. Noninferiority margin=+/-5%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.4|||Chi-squared|||||5.4|-4|0.83
91871117|NCT02746107|183635912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.1|||Chi-squared||(risk on 5y) - (risk on 1y)|details provided in protocol;||8.1|-1.3|0.187
91871118|NCT02746107|183635913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|20.0|||Chi-squared||patient - (physicians themselves)|||20|10.8|<0.001
91871119|NCT02746107|183635913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.78|||Regression, Logistic|adjustment for age, gender, CHA2D2s-VASC score, nr of diagrams, nr of years, presence of someone close with stroke, graduation year, speciality||||4.78|2.25|<0.001
91871120|NCT02746107|183635914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|17.0|||Chi-squared|CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was reference|positive value means higher proportion of prescription, CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was reference|CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was the reference||17|1.2|0.034
91736223|NCT02136914|183365500|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.4||Change from Baseline in ON time with troublesome dyskinesia at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.40|-2.49|0.0072
91736224|NCT02136914|183365501|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.6833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||4.3|-6.6|0.6833
91736225|NCT02136914|183365501|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.5557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.2||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||9.2|-5.0|0.5557
91736226|NCT02136914|183365502|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91736227|NCT02136914|183365502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1071||||||Baseline to Week 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1071
91736228|NCT00560417|183365528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin was prespecified at 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38|||ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group.||||0.38|0.06|
91736229|NCT00560417|183365529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.39||p-value is for 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||0.39|0.08|0.003
91736230|NCT00560417|183365529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF)|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||0.38|0.06|0.008
91736231|NCT00560417|183365530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.39||p-value is for 24 Weeks change.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||0.39|0.08|0.003
91736232|NCT00560417|183365530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF) Change.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|0.06|0.008
91736233|NCT00560417|183365531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||p-value is for Week 12: HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.561
91736234|NCT00560417|183365531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||p-value is for Week 12: HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.511
91871121|NCT02746107|183635914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|17.0|||Chi-squared|||||17|1.2|0.033
91736235|NCT00560417|183365531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||p-value is for Week 18: HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
91736236|NCT00560417|183365531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0||||p-value is for Week 18: HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.269
91906434|NCT01308008|183708606|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|-8.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||17|-35|0.5
91736237|NCT00560417|183365531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||p-value is for Week 24: HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.161
91736238|NCT00560417|183365531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||p-value is for Week 24: HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.071
91871122|NCT02746107|183635914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.1|||Chi-squared|||||20.1|4.7|0.003
91736239|NCT00560417|183365531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.177
91736240|NCT00560417|183365531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.060
91736241|NCT00560417|183365532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.28||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|10.53||p-value is for Endpoint Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||10.53|-1.97|0.179
91736242|NCT00560417|183365532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|22.19||p-value is for Endpoint Morning Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||22.19|5.72|<0.001
91736243|NCT00560417|183365532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|11.39||p-value is for Endpoint Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||11.39|-3.79|0.325
91736244|NCT00560417|183365532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.73||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|17.5||p-value is for Endpoint Midday Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||17.50|-0.04|0.051
91736245|NCT00560417|183365532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.92||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|18.19||p-value is for Endpoint Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||18.19|3.66|0.003
91736246|NCT00560417|183365532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|22.94||p-value is for Endpoint Evening Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||22.94|5.44|0.002
91736247|NCT00560417|183365532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.03||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|4.28||p-value is for Endpoint 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||4.28|-10.35|0.415
91797708|NCT04806503|183473736|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0258||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.056|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.056|-0.045|0.817
91871123|NCT02746107|183635914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|18.8|||Chi-squared|||||18.8|3.2|0.009
91871124|NCT02746107|183635914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was the reference, adjusted for nr diagrams, nr years, age, gender, smb close with stroke, speciality, professional degree||CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was the reference||3.07|1.08|0.024
91906435|NCT02325219|183708607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91906436|NCT02325219|183708607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91906437|NCT02325219|183708608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91906438|NCT02325219|183708608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91906439|NCT02187172|183708654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3873|-0.104|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-0.1040|-0.3873|0.0012
91871125|NCT02746107|183635914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, gender, medical and academic degrees, someone close with stroke, speciality, period of risk estimation, number of figures.|numerator: CHADS-VASC 1|||2.98|1.06|0.03
91871126|NCT02746107|183635914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.09|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, gender, medical and academic degrees, someone close with stroke, speciality, period of risk estimation, number of figures.|numerator = CHADS-VASC 1|||4.09|1.37|0.002
91871127|NCT02746107|183635914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, gender, medical and academic degrees, someone close with stroke, speciality, period of risk estimation, number of figures.|numerator=CHADS-VASC 1|||2.56|1.14|0.004
91871128|NCT01450007|183635915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91871129|NCT01450007|183635916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91871130|NCT01450007|183635917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
91871131|NCT01450007|183635918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 groups for pain scores at 24 hours.||||0.61
91871132|NCT01450007|183635918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 groups for pain scores at 48 hours.||||0.13
91702548|NCT00772005|183299729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3355||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3355
91702549|NCT00772005|183299729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0953||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0953
91702550|NCT00772005|183299729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9235||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9235
91702551|NCT00772005|183299730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4164||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4164
91702552|NCT00772005|183299730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3003
91702553|NCT00772005|183299730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6907||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6907
91702554|NCT00772005|183299731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2518||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2518
91702555|NCT00772005|183299731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0739||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0739
91702556|NCT00772005|183299731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5644||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5644
91702557|NCT00772005|183299732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4305||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4305
91702558|NCT00772005|183299732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8299||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8299
91871133|NCT01450007|183635918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 groups for pain scores at 1 week.||||0.25
91871134|NCT01536704|183635946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-t) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.94|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||0.94|0.88|
91871135|NCT01536704|183635946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-t) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.05|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||1.05|0.98|
91871136|NCT01536704|183635947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for Cmax lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.94|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||0.94|0.85|
91797709|NCT04806503|183473736|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0262||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.053|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.053|-0.050|0.946
91797710|NCT04806503|183473736|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.029|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.029|-0.077|0.380
91797711|NCT04806503|183473736|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0258||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.062|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.062|-0.039|0.667
91797712|NCT04806503|183473737|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0304||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.081|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.081|-0.038|0.474
91797713|NCT04806503|183473737|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0309||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.086|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.086|-0.036|0.419
91797714|NCT04806503|183473737|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0322||0.914||95.0|-0.06|0.067|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.067|-0.060|0.914
91797715|NCT04806503|183473737|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0305||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.094|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.094|-0.026|0.263
91797716|NCT04806503|183473738|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0273||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.083|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.083|-0.024|0.284
91797717|NCT04806503|183473738|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0278||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.065|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.065|-0.044|0.711
91797718|NCT04806503|183473738|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0284||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.06|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.060|-0.051|0.871
91797719|NCT04806503|183473738|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0273||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.08|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.080|-0.027|0.329
91797720|NCT04806503|183473739|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|10.847|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||10.847|0.083|0.516
91797721|NCT04806503|183473739|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|16.398|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||16.398|0.367|0.177
91797722|NCT04806503|183473739|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|22.094|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||22.094|0.604|0.079
91797723|NCT04806503|183473739|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|8.381|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||8.381|0.136|0.476
91797724|NCT04806503|183473740|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|3.726|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.726|0.201|0.577
91797725|NCT04806503|183473740|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|2.353|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||2.353|0.113|0.804
91797726|NCT04806503|183473740|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|2.602|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||2.602|0.045|0.850
91797727|NCT04806503|183473740|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|3.08|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.080|0.157|0.684
91797728|NCT04806503|183473741|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|3.593|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.593|0.089|0.728
91797729|NCT04806503|183473741|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|5.529|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||5.529|0.242|0.428
91797730|NCT04806503|183473741|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||NA when n = 1.||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression||||||0.000|0.500
91797731|NCT04806503|183473741|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|3.07|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.070|0.026|0.851
91797732|NCT03793556|183473774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.27||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|2.04|||Unpaired t test|||||2.04|-7.03|0.276
91797733|NCT03793556|183473775|OTHER|||||||0.0157|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA model examined the entire curve profile.||||||0.0157
91797734|NCT03793556|183473785|OTHER|||||||0.0496|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0496
91797735|NCT03793556|183473787|OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0065
91797736|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||0.375
91797737|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||0.156
91797738|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 months||||>0.999
91797739|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.906
91797740|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.188
91797741|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.906
91871137|NCT01536704|183635947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for Cmax lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.02|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||1.02|0.93|
91871138|NCT01536704|183635948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-inf) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.88|0.95|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||0.95|0.88|
91871139|NCT01536704|183635948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-inf) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.06|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||1.06|0.98|
91871140|NCT01536704|183635949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0006||||0.1491||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of Tmax was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.1491
91871141|NCT01536704|183635949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0005||||0.679||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of Tmax was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.6790
91906440|NCT02187172|183708654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0353||0.6718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0867|0.0565|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.0565|-0.0867|0.6718
91906441|NCT02187172|183708655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.88||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.83|25.89|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||25.89|-115.83|0.1159
91702559|NCT00772005|183299732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7283||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7283
91702560|NCT00772005|183299733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7610
91702561|NCT00772005|183299733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6091||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6091
91702562|NCT00772005|183299733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3368||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3368
91702563|NCT00772005|183299734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8457||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8457
91702564|NCT00772005|183299734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4531||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4531
91702565|NCT00772005|183299734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6867||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6867
91702566|NCT00772005|183299735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9705||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9705
91702567|NCT00772005|183299735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0021
91702568|NCT00772005|183299735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5013||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5013
91702569|NCT00772005|183299736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7330
91702570|NCT00772005|183299736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0068
91702571|NCT00772005|183299736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1040
91797742|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||<0.001
91797743|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||0.106
91797744|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 Months||||0.012
91797745|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||s|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.008
91797746|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.009
91797747|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.029
91871142|NCT01536704|183635950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0641||||0.5619||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of T (1/2) was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.5619
91871143|NCT01536704|183635950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0538||||0.4523||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of T (1/2) was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.4523
91871144|NCT01536704|183635951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0025||||0.5113||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|This non-parametric analysis was performed on the unadjusted values of parameters.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.5113
91871145|NCT01536704|183635951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.0042||||0.537||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|This non-parametric analysis was performed on the unadjusted values of parameters.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.5370
91797748|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||s|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||0.500
91797749|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||>0.999
91797750|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 Months||||0.500
91871146|NCT04658784|183635952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.92||OR, 95% CI, and p-values for outcomes adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery). P-value for VAS at 6-weeks was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||OR calculated from logistic regression model, evaluating mean change in baseline VAS to 6-weeks.||1.92|0.13|0.32
91906442|NCT02187172|183708655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.24||0.7666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.41|51.72|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||51.72|-38.41|0.7666
91797751|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.500
91797752|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.188
91797753|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.500
91797754|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||0.500
91797755|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||>0.999
91797756|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 Months||||>0.999
91906443|NCT02187172|183708656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-80.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.46||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.55|-19.23|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-19.23|-142.55|0.0115
91797757|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.125
91797758|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.500
91871147|NCT04658784|183635953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.65||OR, 95% CI, and p-values for outcomes adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery). P-value for VAS at 6-weeks was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||OR calculated from logistic regression model, evaluating mean change in baseline VAS to 6-weeks.||5.65|0.04|1.0
91871148|NCT04658784|183635956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.7||Adjust for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change from baseline to 6- weeks.||8.7|-3.5|1.0
91871149|NCT04658784|183635956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.2||Adjust for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change from baseline to 6-months.||3.2|-5.6|
91906444|NCT02187172|183708656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.11||0.8883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.58|26.59|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||26.59|-30.58|0.8883
91702572|NCT00772005|183299737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8220
91702573|NCT00772005|183299737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0144
91702574|NCT00772005|183299737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9464||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9464
91702575|NCT03280225|183299797|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.82|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans being assigned a coordinator during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans being assigned a coordinator in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||2.82|0.73|.302
91702576|NCT03280225|183299798|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans being assigned a provider during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans being assigned a provider in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||1.93|0.86|0.226
91702577|NCT03280225|183299799|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans receiving a care evaluation during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans receiving a care evaluation in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||1.70|0.90|0.199
91702578|NCT03280225|183299800|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.76|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans where outreach was attempted during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans where outreach was attempted in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||1.76|1.08|0.011
91702579|NCT03280225|183299801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 3.08||Program Needs||||.018
91702580|NCT03280225|183299801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 1.78||Training Needs||||.136
91702581|NCT03280225|183299801|SUPERIORITY|Pressure for Change||||||0.812|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 0.39||||||.812
91702582|NCT03280225|183299801|SUPERIORITY|Staffing||||||0.358|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 1.10||||||.358
91702583|NCT03280225|183299801|SUPERIORITY|Mission||||||0.748|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 0.48||||||.748
91702584|NCT03280225|183299801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 0.48||Cohesion||||.748
91702585|NCT03280225|183299801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 3.88||Autonomy||||.005
91702586|NCT03280225|183299801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 1.44||Communication||||.224
91702587|NCT03280225|183299801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 2.52||Stress||||.043
91702588|NCT03280225|183299801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 2.01||Change||||.096
91702589|NCT01273155|183299807|OTHER|Belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.096||||0.327|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.327
91702590|NCT01273155|183299807|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide|Kendall's Tau|-0.178||||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.063
91702591|NCT01273155|183299807|OTHER|Methyl belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.382|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
91702592|NCT01273155|183299807|OTHER|M21|Kendall's Tau|0.253||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.009
91871150|NCT04658784|183635957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.9||Adjust for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change in baseline to 6-weeks.||6.9|-6.6|1.0
91906445|NCT02187172|183708657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3027.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3180.58||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9465.95|3411.54|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||3411.54|-9465.95|0.3472
91797759|NCT01325623|183473801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.500
91797760|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.1529
91797761|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0942
91797762|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2831|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.2831
91871151|NCT04658784|183635957|SUPERIORITY|Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change in baseline to 6-months.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.6||Adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||||8.6|-3.1|1
91871152|NCT04658784|183635958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3||Adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change from baseline to 6 months.||1.3|-4.4|1.0
91871153|NCT00749944|183636008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.77||||||There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.77|-0.33|
91871154|NCT00749944|183636008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.43||||||Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.43|-0.50|
91871155|NCT00749944|183636008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.11||||||Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.11|-0.27|
91871156|NCT00749944|183636008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.53||||||Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.53|-0.52|
91797763|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3639|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.3639
91871157|NCT00749944|183636008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.5|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.50|-1.35|
91797764|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.4470
91797765|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED||||||s|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.1311
91797766|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3898|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.3898
91797767|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0511
91906446|NCT02187172|183708657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1974.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1659.11||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5336.3|1387.04|||Regression, Linear|||Combined ustekinumab and placebo groups for active treatment period analysis.||1387.04|-5336.30|0.2416
91797768|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0019
91797769|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.1106
91797770|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1273|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.1273
91797771|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.1305
91797772|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.1123
91871158|NCT00749944|183636008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.24||||||Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.24|-1.18|
91871159|NCT00749944|183636008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.63|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.63|-1.37|
91871160|NCT00749944|183636009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.39||||||There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.39|-0.15|
91871161|NCT00749944|183636009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.07||||||Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.07|-0.24|
91871162|NCT00749944|183636009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.22||||||Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.22|-0.26|
91871163|NCT00749944|183636009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.06||||||Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.06|-0.18|
91871164|NCT00749944|183636009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.78||||||Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.78|-0.58|
91871165|NCT00749944|183636009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.92||||||Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.92|-0.48|
91871166|NCT00749944|183636009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.72||||||Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.72|-0.26|
91871167|NCT00749944|183636010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.24||||||There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.24|-0.00|
91797773|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.2309
91871168|NCT00749944|183636010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.29||||||Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.29|0.18|
91871169|NCT00749944|183636010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.3||||||Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.30|0.02|
91871170|NCT00749944|183636010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.05||||||Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.05|-0.19|
91871171|NCT00749944|183636010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.05||||||Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.05|-0.09|
91702593|NCT01273155|183299807|OTHER|M24|Kendall's Tau|-0.278||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.004
91702594|NCT01273155|183299807|OTHER|M26|Kendall's Tau|0.098||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.312
91702595|NCT01273155|183299808|OTHER|Belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.215||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.025
91702596|NCT01273155|183299808|OTHER|Methyl belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.426|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
91702597|NCT01273155|183299808|OTHER|M21|Kendall's Tau|0.337|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
91797774|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.3191
91797775|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0679
91702598|NCT01273155|183299808|OTHER|M24|Kendall's Tau|-0.061||||0.524|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.524
91702599|NCT01273155|183299808|OTHER|M26|Kendall's Tau|0.246||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.010
91702600|NCT01273155|183299809|OTHER||Kendall's Tau|0.057||||0.548|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.548
91702601|NCT01273155|183299810|OTHER|Belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.091||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.340
91702602|NCT01273155|183299810|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide|Kendall's Tau|-0.216||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.023
91702603|NCT01273155|183299810|OTHER|Methyl belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.268||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.005
91871172|NCT00749944|183636010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.06||||||Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.06|-0.28|
91871173|NCT00749944|183636010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.65||||||Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.65|-0.47|
91871174|NCT00749944|183636011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.72|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.72|-0.02|
91871175|NCT00749944|183636011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.54|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.54|0.16|
91871176|NCT00749944|183636011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.08|0.39|
91871177|NCT00749944|183636011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.52|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.52|0.14|
91797776|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.2082
91871178|NCT00749944|183636011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.09|-0.06|
91871179|NCT00749944|183636011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.7|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.70|0.05|
91906447|NCT02187172|183708658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.75||0.6742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.03|119.34|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||119.34|-78.03|0.6742
91736248|NCT00560417|183365532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.39||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|13.32||p-value is for Endpoint Daily Mean 7-Point Blood Glucose.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||13.32|1.46|0.015
91736249|NCT00560417|183365532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.12||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.14||p-value is for Endpoint Daily Mean Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||13.14|1.10|0.021
91736250|NCT00560417|183365532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|18.93||p-value is for Endpoint Daily Mean Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||18.93|5.01|<0.001
91736251|NCT00560417|183365533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|5.22||p-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||5.22|-0.68|0.131
91797777|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.1790
91702604|NCT01273155|183299810|OTHER|M21|Kendall's Tau|0.242||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.011
91702605|NCT01273155|183299810|OTHER|M24|Kendall's Tau|-0.114||||0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.231
91702606|NCT01273155|183299810|OTHER|M26|Kendall's Tau|0.22||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.021
91797778|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.6869
91702607|NCT01273155|183299811|OTHER||Kendall's Tau|-0.216||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.023
91702608|NCT01273155|183299812|OTHER||Kendall's Tau|0.06||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.531
91702609|NCT01273155|183299813|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.224||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.023
91702610|NCT01273155|183299813|OTHER|Methyl belinostat/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.295||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.011
91797779|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.6094
91797780|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.1530
91871180|NCT00749944|183636011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.88|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.88|-0.12|
91906448|NCT02187172|183708658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.84||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.63|11963.0|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||11963|-25.63|0.1979
91736252|NCT00560417|183365533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|9.16||p-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||9.16|2.82|<0.001
91736253|NCT00560417|183365534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0||||p-value is for all reported hypoglycemic events at endpoint.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.826
91736254|NCT00560417|183365534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||p-value is for all reported hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.394
91736255|NCT00560417|183365534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||p-value is for non-nocturnal hypoglycemic events at endpoint.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.070
91736256|NCT00560417|183365534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||p-value is for non-nocturnal hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.133
91871181|NCT00749944|183636012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.43|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.43|-3.07|
91871182|NCT00749944|183636012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.08|-2.47|
91871183|NCT00749944|183636012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|0.89|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.89|-5.19|
91871184|NCT00749944|183636012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|1.7|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.70|-3.67|
91871185|NCT00749944|183636012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|4.26|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||4.26|-0.36|
91702611|NCT01273155|183299813|OTHER|M21/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.335||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.004
91702612|NCT01273155|183299813|OTHER|M24/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.24||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.037
91702613|NCT01273155|183299813|OTHER|M26/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.127||||0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.275
91702614|NCT01273155|183299813|OTHER|M24/M26|Kendall's Tau|-0.308||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.002
91702615|NCT01273155|183299813|OTHER|M26/M21|Kendall's Tau|-0.159||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.095
91702616|NCT01273155|183299814|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.055||||0.568|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.568
91702617|NCT01273155|183299814|OTHER|Methyl belinostat/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
91702618|NCT01273155|183299814|OTHER|M21/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.315||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.001
91702619|NCT01273155|183299814|OTHER|M24/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.205||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.037
91702620|NCT01273155|183299814|OTHER|M26/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.218||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.033
91702621|NCT01273155|183299814|OTHER|M24/M26|Kendall's Tau|-0.309||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.001
91702622|NCT01273155|183299814|OTHER|M26/M21|Kendall's Tau|-0.205||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.032
91702623|NCT01256385|183299817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.73
91702624|NCT01256385|183299818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.87
91702625|NCT01256385|183299819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91702626|NCT01256385|183299820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||PFS at 4 months in Arm A was compared with a 4-month historical control rate of 21.4%, using a one-sided test at the 0.05 significant level. The historical data appear in two publications, an ASCO abstract: Abidoye, ASCO Annual Meeting 2006: 5568, and de Souza, Davis, et al, Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18(8):2336-2343 (see Figure 1).||||0.006
91705616|NCT01026818|183305791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|4.03||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.03|-0.78|0.184
91871186|NCT00749944|183636012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.3|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||3.30|-3.32|
91906449|NCT02187172|183708659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7884.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7780.29||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23634.67|7566.1|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||7566.10|-23634.67|0.3173
91702627|NCT01256385|183299820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||1-sided.|Chi-squared|||PFS at 4 months in Arm B was compared with a 4-month historical control rate of 21.4%, using a one-sided test at the 0.05 significant level. The historical data appear in two publications, an ASCO abstract: Abidoye, ASCO Annual Meeting 2006: 5568, and de Souza, Davis, et al, Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18(8):2336-2343 (see Figure 1).||||0.037
91702628|NCT01256385|183299821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
91702629|NCT02584959|183299874|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.895|-1.744|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS means, 95% CIs, and p-values were based on a mixed effect linear model with period, sequence ,use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-1.744|-2.895|<0.0001
91702630|NCT02584959|183299876|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.323|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.969|-1.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS means, 95% CIs, and p-values were based on a mixed effect linear model with period, sequence ,use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-1.677|-2.969|<0.0001
91702631|NCT02584959|183299879|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.113|-3.649|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS means, 95% CIs, and p-values were based on a mixed effect linear model with period, sequence ,use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-3.649|-6.113|<0.0001
91702632|NCT02584959|183299880|OTHER||Difference in LS means|5.435|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.981|6.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.889|3.981|<0.0001
91702633|NCT02584959|183299881|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.175|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.599|-2.750|<0.0001
91702634|NCT02584959|183299896|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-31.735||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.696|-20.773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The Least Square means, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are based on mixed effect linear model with period, sequence, use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-20.773|-42.696|0.0001
91871187|NCT00749944|183636012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.97|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||3.97|-1.80|
91871188|NCT00749944|183636013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.32|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.32|-0.29|
91871189|NCT00749944|183636013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.25|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.25|-0.17|
91871190|NCT00749944|183636013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.92|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.92|-0.55|
91871191|NCT00749944|183636013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.99|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.99|-0.46|
91702635|NCT04908475|183299901|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|60.1||Adjusted for strata (baseline body weight \[≤ 100 kg, \> 100 kg\] and prior exposure to any systemic and/or biologic treatment for psoriasis \[0, ≥ 1\]) for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.1|41.3|< 0.001
91702636|NCT04908475|183299902|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|66.0||Adjusted for strata (baseline body weight \[≤ 100 kg, \> 100 kg\] and prior exposure to any systemic and/or biologic treatment for psoriasis \[0, ≥ 1\]) for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||66.0|47.7|< 0.001
91702637|NCT04908475|183299903|SUPERIORITY||Difference|69.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.5|80.0|||Chi-squared|||||80.0|59.5|< 0.001
91702638|NCT04908475|183299904|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|65.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.6|73.9||Adjusted for strata (baseline body weight \[≤ 100 kg, \> 100 kg\] and prior exposure to any systemic and/or biologic treatment for psoriasis \[0, ≥ 1\] for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.9|57.6|< 0.001
91702639|NCT04908475|183299905|SUPERIORITY||Difference|71.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|82.3|||Chi-squared|||||82.3|60.9|< 0.001
91702640|NCT04908475|183299906|SUPERIORITY||Difference|69.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|80.2|||Chi-squared|||||80.2|58.6|< 0.001
91702641|NCT01267201|183299911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.23|96.15||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||96.15|88.23|
91736257|NCT00560417|183365534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for nocturnal hypoglycemic events at endpoint.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91736258|NCT00560417|183365534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||p-value is for nocturnal hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.061
91736259|NCT00560417|183365534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||p-value is for severe hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.248
91906450|NCT02187172|183708659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3782.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4073.25||0.3591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12035.72|4470.64|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||4470.64|-12035.72|0.3591
91736260|NCT00560417|183365535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0||||p-value is for All reported episodes rate - Endpoint.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.628
91736261|NCT00560417|183365535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||p-value is for All reported episodes rate - Overall.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.570
91871192|NCT00749944|183636013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.37|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.37|-0.19|
91871193|NCT00749944|183636013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.76|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.76|-0.91|
91871194|NCT00749944|183636013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.85|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.85|-0.65|
91871195|NCT00749944|183636014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.65|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.65|-0.20|
91871196|NCT00749944|183636014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.58|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.58|-0.17|
91871197|NCT00749944|183636014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.65|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.65|-0.23|
91871198|NCT00749944|183636014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.41|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.41|-0.37|
91705617|NCT01026818|183305791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.16||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.16|-1.54|0.500
91871199|NCT00749944|183636014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.59|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.59|-0.41|
91871200|NCT00749944|183636014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.63|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.63|-0.44|
91871201|NCT00749944|183636014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.34|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.34|-0.58|
91871202|NCT00749944|183636015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.10|-0.66|
91871203|NCT00749944|183636015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.35|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.35|-0.46|
91871204|NCT00749944|183636015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.71|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.71|-1.16|
91871205|NCT00749944|183636015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.73|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.73|-0.68|
91871206|NCT00749944|183636015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.96|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.96|-0.79|
91871207|NCT00749944|183636015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.82|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.82|-1.69|
91871208|NCT00749944|183636015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.68|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.68|-0.86|
91871209|NCT00749944|183636016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.08|-0.55|
91871210|NCT00749944|183636016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.46|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.46|-0.39|
91871211|NCT00749944|183636016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.25|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.25|-1.08|
91871212|NCT00749944|183636016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.9|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.90|-0.62|
91906451|NCT02187172|183708660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.9767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|5.07|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||5.07|-5.22|0.9767
91871213|NCT00749944|183636016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.95|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.95|-0.94|
91871214|NCT00749944|183636016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.51|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.51|-1.57|
91871215|NCT00749944|183636016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.75|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.75|-0.91|
91871216|NCT00749944|183636017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.06|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.06|-1.76|
91871217|NCT00749944|183636017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.17|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.17|-0.96|
91871218|NCT00749944|183636017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|4.91|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||4.91|-1.94|
91702642|NCT01267201|183299911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|90.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.49|94.11||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||94.11|86.49|
91871219|NCT00749944|183636017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|2.18|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.18|-1.18|
91871220|NCT00749944|183636017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.07|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.07|-0.85|
91871221|NCT00749944|183636017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.79|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||6.79|-2.60|
91871222|NCT00749944|183636017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.96|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.96|-0.70|
91702643|NCT01267201|183299912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.06|101.98||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||101.98|88.06|
91702644|NCT01267201|183299912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|83.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.06|90.17||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||90.17|78.06|
91702645|NCT00483704|183299915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.58|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.58|1.80|<0.001
91702646|NCT00483704|183299915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|4.27|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.27|2.15|<0.001
91702647|NCT00483704|183299916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.90|2.35|<0.001
91702648|NCT00483704|183299916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.61|2.17|<0.001
91702649|NCT00483704|183299917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|7.23|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||7.23|2.05|<0.001
91702650|NCT00483704|183299917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|11.39|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||11.39|3.36|<0.001
91906452|NCT02187172|183708660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.11|-3.29|0.3205
91871223|NCT00749944|183636018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.27|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.27|-0.26|
91702651|NCT00483704|183299918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.51|1.96|<0.001
91702652|NCT00483704|183299918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|4.34|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.34|2.41|<0.001
91702653|NCT00483704|183299919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.11|1.30|<0.001
91702654|NCT00483704|183299919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.14|1.31|<0.001
91702655|NCT00483704|183299920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.22|1.36|<0.001
91702656|NCT00483704|183299920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.06|1.26|<0.001
91702657|NCT00483704|183299921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.17|1.28|<0.001
91702658|NCT00483704|183299921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.04|1.21|<0.001
91702659|NCT00483704|183299924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.07|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.07|1.78|<0.001
91702660|NCT00483704|183299924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.19|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.19|2.30|<0.001
91736262|NCT00560417|183365535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0||||p-value is for Non-Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Endpoint.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.116
91871224|NCT00749944|183636018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.29|-0.25|
91871225|NCT00749944|183636018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.58|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.58|-0.37|
91871226|NCT00749944|183636018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.34|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.34|-0.17|
91702661|NCT00483704|183299925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.69|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.69|1.56|<0.001
91702662|NCT00483704|183299925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|5.12|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.12|2.22|<0.001
91702663|NCT00483704|183299926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.38|1.65|<0.001
91702664|NCT00483704|183299926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.01|1.97|<0.001
91736263|NCT00560417|183365535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||p-value is for Non-Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Overall.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.044
91906453|NCT02187172|183708661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.96||0.4632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.19|25.61|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||25.61|-55.19|0.4632
91871227|NCT00749944|183636018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.48|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.48|-0.40|
91871228|NCT00749944|183636018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.78|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.78|-0.44|
91871229|NCT00749944|183636018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.4|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.40|-0.14|
91871230|NCT00749944|183636021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.9|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.90|-1.09|
91702665|NCT00483704|183299927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.54|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.54|1.52|<0.001
91702666|NCT00483704|183299927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.56|2.00|<0.001
91702667|NCT02537431|183299941|OTHER||Mean|-54.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.64|-39.72||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-39.72|-68.64|< 0.0001
91871231|NCT00749944|183636021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.71|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.71|-1.54|
91871232|NCT00749944|183636021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.6|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.60|-2.47|
91702668|NCT02537431|183299942|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for testing the proportion of participants achieving the mean serum phosphorus levels above the LLN (2.5 mg/dL \[0.81 mmol/L\]) against 0% from the binomial test.|binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91702669|NCT02537431|183299943|OTHER||Mean|-32.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.25|-24.17||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-24.17|-40.25|<0.0001
91702670|NCT02537431|183299944|OTHER||Mean|-26.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.08|-15.91||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-15.91|-36.08|0.0002
91702671|NCT02537431|183299945|OTHER||Mean|-52.24||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.08|-10.41||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-10.41|-94.08|0.0199
91702672|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||Least Squares Mean (GEE)|107.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.46|139.03|||||From the generalized estimation equation (GEE) model which includes change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 1||139.03|76.46|
91702673|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS Mean|48.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.91|62.91|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 2||62.91|33.91|
91702674|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS Mean|13.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|20.31|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 4||20.31|6.85|
91702675|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|5.75|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 20||5.75|-8.43|
91702676|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS Mean|31.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.49|42.0|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 21||42.00|21.49|
91702677|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS Mean|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|19.46|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 22||19.46|3.54|
91702678|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|6.55|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||6.55|-12.62|
91702679|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.72||||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|6.5|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||6.50|-9.93|0.6821
91702680|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS mean|-5.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|0.92|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 60||0.92|-12.38|
91702681|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS mean|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|11.18|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 70||11.18|-4.45|
91906454|NCT02187172|183708661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.47||0.5316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.47|15.99|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||15.99|-30.47|0.5316
91702682|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS mean|-5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|0.13|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.13|-11.22|
91702683|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS mean|-5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|0.26|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 84||0.26|-11.35|
91702684|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS mean|9.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|17.94|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 94||17.94|1.33|
91871233|NCT00749944|183636021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.15|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.15|-1.57|
91702685|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS mean|-6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.38||||||Week 96||-1.38|-10.80|
91702686|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|9.26|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 108||9.26|-9.22|
91702687|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS mean|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|9.68|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 120||9.68|-6.77|
91702688|NCT02537431|183299957|OTHER||LS mean|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.21|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 132||2.21|-5.60|
91871234|NCT00749944|183636021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.36|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.36|-2.23|
91702689|NCT02537431|183299958|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.35|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||0.35|-0.15|
91702690|NCT02537431|183299958|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||0.11|-0.19|
91702691|NCT02537431|183299958|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 36||0.11|-0.12|
91702692|NCT02537431|183299958|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04||||0.6021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11|||GEE model||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||0.11|-0.19|0.6021
91702693|NCT02537431|183299958|OTHER||LS mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.19|-0.19|
91702694|NCT02537431|183299958|OTHER||LS mean|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||0.03|-0.29|
91702695|NCT02537431|183299958|OTHER||LS mean|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.26|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOS II||0.26|-0.41|
91702696|NCT02537431|183299959|OTHER||LS Mean|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.03|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 2||2.03|1.49|
91906455|NCT02187172|183708662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.47|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.47|-2.27|0.1928
91702697|NCT02537431|183299959|OTHER||LS Mean|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.97|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 4||0.97|0.59|
91702698|NCT02537431|183299959|OTHER||LS Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.82|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||0.82|0.34|
91702699|NCT02537431|183299959|OTHER||LS Mean|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 22||0.99|0.74|
91702700|NCT02537431|183299959|OTHER||LS Mean|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.64|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||0.64|0.24|
91871235|NCT00749944|183636021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|1.33|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.33|-2.81|
91906456|NCT02187172|183708662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.02|-1.36|0.0580
91871236|NCT00749944|183636021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.92|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.92|-1.78|
91871237|NCT00749944|183636022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.19|-0.04|
91871238|NCT00749944|183636022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.08|-0.11|
91871239|NCT00749944|183636022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.06|
91871240|NCT00749944|183636022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.02|-0.11|
91871241|NCT00749944|183636022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.01|-0.27|
91871242|NCT00749944|183636022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.01|-0.21|
91871243|NCT00749944|183636022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.03|-0.17|
91871244|NCT00749944|183636023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.12|-0.03|
91871245|NCT00749944|183636023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.08|
91871246|NCT00749944|183636023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.11|-0.04|
91871247|NCT00749944|183636023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.05|-0.08|
91871248|NCT00749944|183636023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.06|-0.22|
91871249|NCT00749944|183636023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.14|
91871250|NCT00749944|183636023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.02|-0.11|
91871251|NCT00749944|183636024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.20|
91871252|NCT00749944|183636024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.12|-0.15|
91871253|NCT00749944|183636024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.15|
91871254|NCT00749944|183636024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.20|
91871255|NCT00749944|183636024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.27|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.27|-0.17|
91871256|NCT00749944|183636024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.10|-0.21|
91797781|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.3339
91871257|NCT00749944|183636024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.07|-0.17|
91871258|NCT00749944|183636025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.02|-0.58|
91871259|NCT00749944|183636025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.19|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.19|-0.69|
91702701|NCT02537431|183299959|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||0.38|0.01|0.0430
91702702|NCT02537431|183299959|OTHER||LS mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.64|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 60||0.64|-0.04|
91702703|NCT02537431|183299959|OTHER||LS mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.52|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.52|0.03|
91702704|NCT02537431|183299959|OTHER||LS mean|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.66|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 84||0.66|0.13|
91702705|NCT02537431|183299959|OTHER||LS mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.48|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||0.48|0.10|
91871260|NCT00749944|183636025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.2|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.20|-0.47|
91871261|NCT00749944|183636025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.09|-0.61|
91871262|NCT00749944|183636025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.07|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.07|-0.83|
91871263|NCT00749944|183636025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.34|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.34|-0.50|
91871264|NCT00749944|183636025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.02|-0.57|
91871265|NCT00749944|183636026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.08|-0.12|
91871266|NCT00749944|183636026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.08|-0.12|
91871267|NCT00749944|183636026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.14|-0.04|
91871268|NCT00749944|183636026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.07|
91871269|NCT00749944|183636026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.13|-0.15|
91871270|NCT00749944|183636026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.10|0.01|
91871271|NCT00749944|183636026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.08|
91871272|NCT00749944|183636027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.28|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.28|-0.05|
91702706|NCT02537431|183299959|OTHER||LS mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||0.34|0.08|
91906457|NCT02187172|183708663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.41||0.7185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|18.96|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||18.96|-27.24|0.7185
91906458|NCT02187172|183708663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.41||0.3271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|8.69|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||8.69|-25.40|0.3271
91906459|NCT02187172|183708664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.51|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.51|-1.56|0.3124
91906460|NCT02187172|183708664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||-0.08|-0.54|0.0106
91871273|NCT00749944|183636027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.14|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.14|-0.19|
91871274|NCT00749944|183636027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.22|-0.29|
91871275|NCT00749944|183636027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.13|-0.20|
91871276|NCT00749944|183636027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.01|-0.40|
91871277|NCT00749944|183636027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.10|-0.42|
91702707|NCT02537431|183299960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.08|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 2||0.08|0.06|
91702708|NCT02537431|183299960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.06|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 4||0.06|0.01|
91702709|NCT02537431|183299960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||0.04|-0.01|
91702710|NCT02537431|183299960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.05|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 22||0.05|0.02|
91702711|NCT02537431|183299960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||Week 24||0.04|-0.02|
91797782|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1473|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.1473
91702712|NCT02537431|183299960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.0||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||0.04|-0.05|0.8377
91702713|NCT02537431|183299960|OTHER||LS mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 60||0.06|-0.00|
91702714|NCT02537431|183299960|OTHER||LS mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.05|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.05|-0.09|
91797783|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.5035
91871278|NCT00749944|183636027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|8.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||008|-0.22|
91871279|NCT00749944|183636028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.3|0.6|
91871280|NCT00749944|183636028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.7|0.4|
91906461|NCT02187172|183708665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.42||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.42|-3.11|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-3.11|-138.42|0.0408
91906462|NCT02187172|183708665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.87||0.5926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.5|340.93|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||340.93|-197.50|0.5926
91906463|NCT02187172|183708666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|191.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.18|284.81|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||284.81|98.18|0.0002
91871281|NCT00749944|183636028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.1|0.4|
91702715|NCT02537431|183299960|OTHER||LS mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 84||0.06|-0.01|
91702716|NCT02537431|183299960|OTHER||LS mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||0.05|-0.01|
91702717|NCT02537431|183299960|OTHER||LS mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||0.03|-0.01|
91702718|NCT02537431|183299961|OTHER||LS Mean|99.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.83|121.53|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||121.53|76.83|
91702719|NCT02537431|183299961|OTHER||LS Mean|104.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.47|126.19|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||126.19|82.47|
91797784|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.6653
91871282|NCT00749944|183636028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.2|0.4|
91871283|NCT00749944|183636028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.4|0.3|
91702720|NCT02537431|183299961|OTHER||LS Mean|52.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.84|75.13|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||75.13|29.84|< 0.0001
91702721|NCT02537431|183299961|OTHER||LS mean|37.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.19|61.38|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||61.38|13.19|
91702722|NCT02537431|183299961|OTHER||LS mean|29.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|55.4|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||55.40|3.18|
91702723|NCT02537431|183299961|OTHER||LS mean|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|21.94|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||21.94|-17.67|
91702724|NCT02537431|183299962|OTHER||LS Mean|133.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.26|159.89|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||159.89|106.26|
91702725|NCT02537431|183299962|OTHER||LS Mean|137.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.95|168.65|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||168.65|106.95|
91797785|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.8622
91797786|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.4456
91871284|NCT00749944|183636028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.4|0.3|
91702726|NCT02537431|183299962|OTHER||LS Mean|76.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|104.53|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||104.53|49.20|< 0.0001
91702727|NCT02537431|183299962|OTHER||LS mean|50.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.69|77.23|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||77.23|23.69|
91702728|NCT02537431|183299962|OTHER||LS mean|41.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.69|64.03|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||64.03|18.69|
91702729|NCT02537431|183299962|OTHER||LS mean|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|45.64|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||45.64|6.76|
91702730|NCT02537431|183299963|OTHER||LS Mean|464.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|343.92|585.77|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||585.77|343.92|
91702731|NCT02537431|183299963|OTHER||LS Mean|404.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|294.47|513.78|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||513.78|294.47|
91871285|NCT00749944|183636028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.4|0.3|
91871286|NCT00749944|183636029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||10.4|0.6|
91871287|NCT00749944|183636029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||11.8|0.7|
91871288|NCT00749944|183636029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.9|0.5|
91871289|NCT00749944|183636029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||7.8|0.4|
91871290|NCT00749944|183636029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||9.2|0.5|
91702732|NCT02537431|183299963|OTHER||LS Mean|175.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.85|261.41|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||261.41|88.85|< 0.0001
91702733|NCT02537431|183299963|OTHER||LS mean|143.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|324.41|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||324.41|-38.20|
91702734|NCT02537431|183299963|OTHER||LS mean|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.62|189.22|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||189.22|-35.62|
91702735|NCT02537431|183299963|OTHER||LS mean|-41.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.28|121.64|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||121.64|-204.28|
91702736|NCT02537431|183299964|OTHER||LS Mean|89.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.58|115.78|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||115.78|63.58|
91702737|NCT02537431|183299964|OTHER||LS Mean|70.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.9|90.44|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||90.44|49.90|
91702738|NCT02537431|183299964|OTHER||LS Mean|35.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.37|50.36|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||50.36|21.37|< 0.0001
91702739|NCT02537431|183299964|OTHER||LS mean|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.53|61.47|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||61.47|6.53|
91702740|NCT02537431|183299964|OTHER||LS mean|25.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.27|42.44|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||42.44|9.27|
91702741|NCT02537431|183299964|OTHER||LS mean|17.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|36.07|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||36.07|-0.32|
91702742|NCT02537431|183299965|OTHER||LS Mean|10.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|17.89|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||17.89|3.98|
91797787|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6876|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.6876
91871291|NCT00749944|183636029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.2|0.4|
91871292|NCT00749944|183636030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.9|0.5|
91871293|NCT00749944|183636030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.3|0.7|
91702743|NCT02537431|183299965|OTHER||LS Mean|5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|11.66|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||11.66|-0.02|
91702744|NCT02537431|183299965|OTHER||LS Mean|4.5||||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|12.32|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||12.32|-3.32|0.2592
91702745|NCT02537431|183299965|OTHER||LS mean|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|7.9|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||7.90|-1.64|
91871294|NCT00749944|183636030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||4.4|0.7|
91871295|NCT00749944|183636030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.0|0.5|
91871296|NCT00749944|183636030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||6.8|0.8|
91871297|NCT00749944|183636030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.3|0.8|
91871298|NCT00749944|183636031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||4.9|0.5|
91871299|NCT00749944|183636031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.0|0.4|
91702746|NCT02537431|183299965|OTHER||LS mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|5.11|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||5.11|-2.84|
91871300|NCT00749944|183636031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.8|0.4|
91702747|NCT02537431|183299965|OTHER||LS mean|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|0.85|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||0.85|-12.46|
91702748|NCT02537431|183299966|OTHER||LS Mean|52.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.18|83.9|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||83.90|21.18|
91702749|NCT02537431|183299966|OTHER||LS Mean|31.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|54.51|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||54.51|8.23|
91702750|NCT02537431|183299966|OTHER||l|24.35||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|58.9|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||58.90|-10.20|0.1672
91871301|NCT00749944|183636031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.6|0.4|
91871302|NCT00749944|183636031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.6|0.3|
91871303|NCT00749944|183636031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.8|0.4|
91871304|NCT00749944|183636031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.7|0.4|
91871305|NCT00749944|183636032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.3|0.3|
91871306|NCT00749944|183636032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.9|0.4|
91871307|NCT00749944|183636032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.2|0.4|
91702751|NCT02537431|183299966|OTHER||LS mean|15.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|41.46|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||41.46|-11.19|
91702752|NCT02537431|183299966|OTHER||LS mean|6.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|27.28|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||27.28|-13.44|
91702753|NCT02537431|183299966|OTHER||LS mean|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.33|-2.28|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||-2.28|-52.33|
91702754|NCT01037127|183299987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|37.8|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||37.8|14.1|
91871308|NCT00749944|183636032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.6|0.5|
91797788|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0328
91797789|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0067
91871309|NCT00749944|183636032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.3|0.5|
91702755|NCT01037127|183299988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|48.4|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||48.4|2.1|
91702756|NCT01037127|183299988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|41.9|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||41.9|14.6|
91702757|NCT01037127|183299988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|41.4|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||41.4|14.3|
91702758|NCT01037127|183299988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|45.2|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||45.2|14.2|
91702759|NCT01037127|183299989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|20.0||||||95.0|7.7|38.6|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||38.6|7.7|
91702760|NCT01254851|183300018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.70
91702761|NCT02326298|183300019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.962|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.968|120.371||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose versus (vs) PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||120.371|6.968|<0.0001
91702762|NCT02326298|183300019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.657|195.634||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||195.634|10.657|<0.0001
91702763|NCT02326298|183300019|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.92|72.17|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||72.17|47.92|
91702764|NCT02326298|183300019|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|69.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.65|80.99|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||80.99|57.65|
91702765|NCT02326298|183300020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.699|109.399||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||109.399|3.699|<0.0001
91702766|NCT02326298|183300020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.687|170.548||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||170.548|5.687|<0.0001
91702767|NCT02326298|183300020|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|54.86|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||54.86|30.70|
91702768|NCT02326298|183300020|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|53.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.33|65.94|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||65.94|41.33|
91705618|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.34||95.0|-0.39|1.14||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.14|-0.39|0.340
91797790|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5928|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.5928
91702769|NCT02326298|183300021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.668|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.717|235.193||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment,region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||235.193|5.717|<0.0001
91702770|NCT02326298|183300021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.88|324.988||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||324.988|7.880|<0.0001
91702771|NCT02326298|183300021|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.85|49.87|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||49.87|20.85|
91702772|NCT02326298|183300021|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|43.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.56|58.71|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||58.71|27.56|
91702773|NCT02326298|183300022|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.18|-3.81||P-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-3.81|-8.18|<0.0001
91702774|NCT02326298|183300022|SUPERIORITY||Ajusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.05|-4.62||P-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-4.62|-9.05|<0.0001
91702775|NCT02889835|183300025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess survival over 36 months. Test of survival distributions for the three arms were calculated using Log Rank (Mantel-Cox). Sample size is based on guidelines of the American Dental Association for obtaining approval as an amalgam replacement for posterior restorations - minimum of 40 restorations in a minimum of 20 subjects at 18 months. Sample size is based by taking subject attrition into account over the 36 month clinical evaluation.||||0.686
91702776|NCT02889835|183300026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.701
91702777|NCT02889835|183300027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.812
91702778|NCT02889835|183300028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.104
91702779|NCT02889835|183300029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.440
91702780|NCT02889835|183300030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.676
91702781|NCT02889835|183300031|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.000
91702782|NCT02889835|183300032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.764
91702783|NCT02889835|183300033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.323
91871310|NCT00749944|183636032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.7|0.6|
91702784|NCT02889835|183300034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.714
91702785|NCT02889835|183300035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.846
91702786|NCT02889835|183300036|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.000
91702787|NCT02889835|183300037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.424
91702788|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.527||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.908|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-Glutamyl Transferase (Gamma-GT) in log10 international units per liter (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week \[Wk\]12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.908|0.306|0.0211
91702789|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.065|1.092|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.092|1.065|<0.0001
91705619|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.84||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.84|-0.67|0.821
91871311|NCT00749944|183636032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.8|0.5|
91871312|NCT00749944|183636034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.6|0.0|
91871313|NCT00749944|183636034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.6|0.0|
91871314|NCT00749944|183636034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.6|0.3|
91871315|NCT00749944|183636034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.7|0.0|
91906464|NCT02187172|183708666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|171.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.08|212.34|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||212.34|130.08|<0.0001
91871316|NCT00749944|183636034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.7|0.0|
91871317|NCT00749944|183636034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.7|0.3|
91702790|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.403|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, during the first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.403|1.061|0.0053
91702791|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.464||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|0.818|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.818|0.264|0.0079
91702792|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.737||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.153|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.153|0.471|0.1808
91702793|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.082|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.069|1.095|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.095|1.069|<0.0001
91702794|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.676||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|0.844|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Weight per 10 kilogram (kg). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.844|0.542|0.0005
91702795|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.573||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.838|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.838|0.392|0.0041
91702796|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.094|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|1.142|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.142|1.048|<0.0001
91797791|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7179|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.7179
91871318|NCT00749944|183636035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||23.6|0.2|
91871319|NCT00089791|183636071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.26|0.41||Logistic regression was used to generate the p-value|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.41|0.26|<0.0001
91871320|NCT00089791|183636072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0106||95.0|0.67|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.67|0.0106
91871321|NCT00089791|183636073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0362||95.0|0.37|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.37|0.0362
91871322|NCT02362789|183636082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.3||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.01|-5.59|||ANCOVA|||||-5.59|-31.01|0.0055
91906465|NCT02187172|183708667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.64|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-0.64|-4.62|0.0110
91871323|NCT02037568|183636083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.96
91871324|NCT02037568|183636084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91871325|NCT02037568|183636085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91906466|NCT02187172|183708667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.51|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||-0.51|-1.79|0.0008
91702797|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.945||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.013|31.359|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||31.359|2.013|0.0031
91702798|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|0.959|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for body mass index (BMI) in kilogram per square meter (kg/m\^2). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.959|0.844|0.0012
91797792|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5014|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.5014
91702799|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.619||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.885|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.885|0.433|0.0085
91702800|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|1.174|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.174|1.087|<0.0001
91702801|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.784||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|0.982|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.982|0.626|0.0341
91702802|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.575||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|0.986|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for aspartate aminotransferase (AST) ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.986|0.335|0.0443
91702803|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|1.144|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.144|1.057|<0.0001
91702804|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.867||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|191.56|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, during the first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||191.56|2.730|0.0039
91702805|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.968|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a||0.968|0.628|0.0244
91702806|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|1.172|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.172|1.086|<0.0001
91871326|NCT02037568|183636086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91871327|NCT02037568|183636087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.070
91871328|NCT02037568|183636088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
91871329|NCT02037568|183636089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
91871330|NCT02037568|183636090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
91871331|NCT02037568|183636091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
91871332|NCT05074433|183636104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|3.393|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||3.393|0.093|
91871333|NCT05074433|183636104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|2.929|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||2.929|0.072|
91906467|NCT02187172|183708668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-155.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|688.28||0.8227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1548.66|1238.04|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||1238.04|-1548.66|0.8227
91871334|NCT05074433|183636104|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|3.668|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||3.668|0.101|
91871335|NCT01235936|183636176|OTHER|The primary endpoint was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||0.0020
91871336|NCT01235936|183636177|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0156
91871337|NCT01235936|183636178|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.0098|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||0.0098
91871338|NCT01235936|183636179|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0195
91705620|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.28||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.28|-0.36|0.268
91871339|NCT01235936|183636180|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.8262|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.8262
91871340|NCT01235936|183636186|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0020
91871341|NCT01235936|183636187|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.2383|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.2383
91871342|NCT01235936|183636188|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0039
91871343|NCT01235936|183636189|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0039
91871344|NCT00380250|183636196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.117
91871345|NCT00380250|183636197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.006
91871346|NCT00380250|183636198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.050
91871347|NCT00380250|183636199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.159|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.159
91871348|NCT00380250|183636200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.378|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.378
91871349|NCT00380250|183636201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.588|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for clinical site||||||0.588
91871350|NCT00380250|183636202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029||||||No adjustment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||90% statistical power to detect 70.6% improvement in response with lubiprostone||||0.029
91871351|NCT00380250|183636203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.028
91871352|NCT00380250|183636204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.069
91871353|NCT00380250|183636205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.098||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.098
91871354|NCT00380250|183636206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.286|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.286
91871355|NCT00380250|183636207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.337|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.337
91871356|NCT00380250|183636208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.334|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.334
91871357|NCT00380250|183636209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.242
91871358|NCT00380250|183636210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.030
91871359|NCT00380250|183636211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.130
91871360|NCT00380250|183636212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.049
91871361|NCT00380250|183636213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.348|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.348
91871362|NCT00380250|183636214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.064
91871363|NCT00380250|183636215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.111
91871364|NCT00380250|183636216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.144
91871365|NCT00380250|183636217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.168|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by pooled center||||||0.168
91871366|NCT00380250|183636218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.615|||||||van Elteren nonparametic test|Adjusted for center||||||0.615
91871367|NCT00380250|183636219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.108|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.108
91871368|NCT00380250|183636220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.483|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.483
91871369|NCT00380250|183636221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.491|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.491
91871370|NCT00380250|183636222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||<0.001
91871371|NCT00380250|183636223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||<0.001
91871372|NCT00380250|183636224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||<0.001
91797793|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.9640
91797794|NCT01325623|183473802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.8537
91797795|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.2079
91797796|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6562|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.6562
91797797|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9376|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.9376
91797798|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0100
91797799|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive functioning Final Score||||0.8532
91797800|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4954|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.4954
91871373|NCT02833948|183636226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|The Fisher's exact probability test was used to compare the percentages of patients with the primary end point between the treatment groups.||||||0.01
91871374|NCT02833948|183636230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91871375|NCT02691702|183636273|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.09|60.57|||||Test (Melatonin 0.5 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||60.57|-63.09|
91871376|NCT02691702|183636273|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-91.24|36.97|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||36.97|-91.24|
91797801|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1877|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.1877
91797802|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.4189
91797803|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.2365
91797804|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.4138
91797805|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8701|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.8701
91797806|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0527
91797807|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive functioning Final Score||||0.1353
91871377|NCT02691702|183636273|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.19|119.62|||||Test (PF-05251749 100 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||119.62|-32.19|
91871378|NCT02691702|183636273|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.38|129.35|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||129.35|-6.38|
91871379|NCT02691702|183636273|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|125.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.51|191.23|||||Test (PF-05251749 400 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||191.23|60.51|
91871380|NCT02691702|183636273|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|156.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.99|227.45|||||Test (PF-05251749 750 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||227.45|84.99|
91871381|NCT02691702|183636273|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|106.41|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||106.41|-3.57|
91871382|NCT02691702|183636273|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.76|202.72|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||202.72|82.76|
91797808|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6927|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.6927
91797809|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4964|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.4964
91797810|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0238
91797811|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0139
91797812|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2822|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.2822
91797813|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.1363
91797814|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0019
91797815|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1293|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive functioning Final Score||||0.1293
91797816|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.5252
91797817|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.0642
91797818|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0025
91797819|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0024
91797820|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4464|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.4464
91797821|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.0511
91797822|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0002
91871383|NCT02691702|183636273|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|174.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.11|234.69|||||Test (PF-05251749 500 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||234.69|115.11|
91871384|NCT02691702|183636274|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-133.09|-9.43|||||Test (Melatonin 0.5 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||-9.43|-133.09|
91797823|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning Final Score||||0.0296
91797824|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.3115
91797825|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.0270
91797826|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0008
91797827|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0683
91797828|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.2226
91797829|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.0823
91797830|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1459|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.1459
91797831|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning Final Score||||0.2610
91797832|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||||||0.9119
91797833|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.0826
91797834|NCT01325623|183473806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0036
91797835|NCT00438451|183473813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0201||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0201
91797836|NCT00438451|183473813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1536||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1536
91797837|NCT00438451|183473813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3615||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3615
91797838|NCT00438451|183473813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0478||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0478
91871385|NCT02691702|183636274|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.24|51.97|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||51.97|-76.24|
91871386|NCT02691702|183636274|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.81|164.62|||||Test (PF-05251749 100 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||164.62|12.81|
91797839|NCT00438451|183473813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.838||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|3.093|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for treatment (p=0.0578), country (p=0.4649), pooled sites (p=0.4420) and number of concurrent diseases (p=0.0192)|"Odds ratio given here is for comparison LEV vs CBZ: OR=1.838 KI=(1.092-3.093) LEV vs LTG: OR=1.169 KI=(0.689-1.984) CBZ vs LTG: OR=0.636 KI=(0.377-1.073) Number of concurrent diseases: OR=0.921 KI=(0.859-0.987)"|||3.093|1.092|0.0578
91871387|NCT02691702|183636274|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.38|114.35|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||114.35|-21.38|
91736264|NCT00560417|183365535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Endpoint.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.006
91736265|NCT00560417|183365535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||p-value is for Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Overall.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.004
91736266|NCT00560417|183365536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343||95.0||||p-value is for endpoint.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group (Type III sums of squares)||||||0.343
91736267|NCT00560417|183365537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0||||p-value is for the change in body weight at endpoint in the ILPS treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.417
91736268|NCT00560417|183365537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||p-value is for the change in body weight at endpoint in the glargine treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
91797840|NCT00438451|183473814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0596||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0596
91797841|NCT00438451|183473815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2517||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2517
91871388|NCT02691702|183636274|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.94|152.66|||||Test (PF-05251749 400 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||152.66|21.94|
91871389|NCT02691702|183636274|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|126.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.99|197.45|||||Test (PF-05251749 750 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||197.45|54.99|
91871390|NCT02691702|183636274|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|92.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.51|151.21|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||151.21|33.51|
91871391|NCT02691702|183636274|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.31|167.27|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||167.27|47.31|
91871392|NCT02691702|183636274|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.91|203.3|||||Test (PF-05251749 500 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||203.30|77.91|
91736269|NCT00560417|183365537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.4||p-value is for change in body weight at endpoint between ILPS and glargine treatment groups.|ANOVA|||||0.40|-1.15|0.343
91736270|NCT00560417|183365538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Group+ Baseline SU Group||||||<0.001
91797842|NCT00438451|183473816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3303||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3303
91871393|NCT05613088|183636287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.0|||Log Rank|||||2.00|0.76|0.4063
91871394|NCT03652610|183636306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the hSBA GMT ratio for serogroup A is \> 0.5|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To demonstrate non-inferiority of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) to that of currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted human serum bactericidal assay (hSBA) Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) directed against N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29 after a single dose vaccination||1.20|0.64|
91871395|NCT03652610|183636307|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.68|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To compare the immunogenicity of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) and the currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||1.68|0.84|
91906468|NCT02187172|183708668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-407.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|180.7||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-773.57|-41.29|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||-41.29|-773.57|0.0302
91736271|NCT00583219|183365548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline at one month||||0.004
91736272|NCT00583219|183365548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.81
91736273|NCT00583219|183365549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.21
91736274|NCT00583219|183365549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.43
91736275|NCT00583219|183365551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline||||0.005
91736276|NCT00583219|183365552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline||||0.22
91736277|NCT00583219|183365553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.24
91736278|NCT00583219|183365553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.14
91736279|NCT00583219|183365554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.24
91736280|NCT00583219|183365554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.033
91736281|NCT00583219|183365555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Exact binomial sign test|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||>0.99
91797843|NCT00438451|183473817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5022||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5022
91797844|NCT02413372|183473825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.09|-5.26|||||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 57||-5.26|-9.09|
91871396|NCT03652610|183636307|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To compare the immunogenicity of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) and the currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||1.58|0.96|
91871397|NCT03652610|183636307|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To compare the immunogenicity of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) and the currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||1.58|0.90|
91871398|NCT03652610|183636309|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.52|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29.||1.52|-9.30|
91871399|NCT03652610|183636309|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.43|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29.||8.43|-4.70|
91906469|NCT02187172|183708669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.47||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.32|-1.25|0.2333
91906470|NCT02187172|183708669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.03|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.03|-0.80|0.0713
91906471|NCT02187172|183708670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.2869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.48|14.75|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||14.75|-48.48|0.2869
91871400|NCT03652610|183636309|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|11.01|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29.||11.01|-1.97|
91871401|NCT03652610|183636309|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|5.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|11.57|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29.||11.57|-1.11|
91871402|NCT03652610|183636310|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|1.49|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||1.49|-6.47|
91906472|NCT02187172|183708670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|1.22|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.22|-5.69|0.1988
91906473|NCT02187172|183708671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.91||0.8744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.09|28.2|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||28.20|-24.09|0.8744
91736282|NCT00583219|183365555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||exact binomial sign test|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.25
91871403|NCT03652610|183636310|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|5.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||5.83|-6.99|
91906474|NCT02187172|183708671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.2093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|27.29|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||27.29|-6.18|0.2093
91906475|NCT02187172|183708672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.41||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|34.2|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||34.20|4.21|0.0135
91906476|NCT02187172|183708672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|7.61|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||7.61|-9.19|0.8499
91906477|NCT02187172|183708673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.62|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||7.62|-0.30|0.0693
91871404|NCT03652610|183636310|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|0.47|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||0.47|-12.33|
91871405|NCT03652610|183636310|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|2.76|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||2.76|-8.30|
91705621|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.80|-0.80|0.998
91871406|NCT03652610|183636310|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|1.21|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||1.21|-8.65|
91871407|NCT03652610|183636310|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|5.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||5.33|-6.12|
91705622|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.97||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.97|-0.68|0.728
91705623|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.28||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.28|-1.33|0.203
91736283|NCT00583219|183365557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to one month||||<0.001
91736284|NCT00583219|183365558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline||||0.004
91736285|NCT00583219|183365559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.003
91736286|NCT00583219|183365559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.001
91702807|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.547||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.987|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.987|0.303|0.0453
91702808|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.133||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.712|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-GT in log10 (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.712|0.025|0.0184
91702809|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|1.134|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in Weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.134|1.072|<0.0001
91736287|NCT00583219|183365560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to one month||||0.001
91736288|NCT00583219|183365560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||<0.001
91702810|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.543||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.798|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.798|0.370|0.0019
91702811|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.359||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.679|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.679|0.189|0.0017
91702812|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.114|1.047|<0.0001
91702813|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.093||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.162|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.162|1.029|0.0042
91702814|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.535||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.893|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-GT in log10 (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.893|0.320|0.0168
91702815|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.501||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.864|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.864|0.291|0.0128
91736289|NCT00583219|183365561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.007
91736290|NCT00583219|183365561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.002
91736291|NCT02037529|183365564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5623|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5623
91736292|NCT02037529|183365569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9840
91736293|NCT02037529|183365570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5968|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5968
91736294|NCT02384421|183365574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91736295|NCT02384421|183365575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0064
91736296|NCT02384421|183365576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91736297|NCT02384421|183365577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.25
91736298|NCT02384421|183365578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91736299|NCT02384421|183365579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91736300|NCT00718315|183365580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481||||||Test for Binomial Ratio, where H0: P \>=61%; Ha: P \< 61% (One-tailed Test)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.481
91736301|NCT00718315|183365580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||||||Test for Binomial Ratio, where H0: P \>=61%; Ha: P \< 61% (One-tailed Test)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.933
91736302|NCT00718315|183365580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||||||Test for Binomial Ratio, where H0: P \>=61%; Ha: P \< 61% (One-tailed Test)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.986
91736303|NCT00718315|183365582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.095
91736304|NCT00718315|183365583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.199
91736305|NCT00718315|183365584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.108
91871408|NCT03652610|183636310|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|6.02|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||6.02|-5.49|
91871409|NCT03652610|183636310|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|6.62|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||6.62|-4.33|
91871410|NCT03652610|183636311|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|1.37|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||1.37|-7.24|
91871411|NCT03652610|183636311|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|5.16|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||5.16|-7.34|
91871412|NCT03652610|183636311|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||0.50|-12.35|
91871413|NCT03652610|183636311|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|3.06|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||3.06|-8.15|
91871414|NCT03652610|183636311|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|0.96|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||0.96|-8.87|
91871415|NCT03652610|183636311|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|5.65|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||5.65|-5.52|
91871416|NCT03652610|183636311|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|5.57|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||5.57|-5.92|
91871417|NCT03652610|183636311|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|5.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||5.90|-4.89|
91871418|NCT04278833|183636327|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||<0.001
91736306|NCT00718315|183365585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.179
91871419|NCT04278833|183636327|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3||||<0.001
91871420|NCT04278833|183636327|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6||||<0.001
91871421|NCT04278833|183636328|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of change at week 2||||0.280
91871422|NCT04278833|183636328|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.070
91871423|NCT04278833|183636328|OTHER|||||||0.851||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.851
91871424|NCT04278833|183636329|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||<0.001
91906478|NCT02187172|183708673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.1841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|4.8|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||4.80|-0.96|0.1841
91736307|NCT00718315|183365586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.066
91736308|NCT00718315|183365587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.087
91736309|NCT00718315|183365588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.308
91736310|NCT01164007|183365592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||One-sample exact binomial test|||The observed percentage of participants with CR or PR was compared with the expected proportion under the null hypothesis (0.10) and analyzed for statistical significance using a one-sample exact binomial test.||||0.071
91736311|NCT02319486|183365608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Probability of Event-Free Survival ，pEFS|0.32||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||stage 2 vs stage 3|pEFS||over all pEFS|||||0.034
91871425|NCT04278833|183636329|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.021
91871426|NCT04278833|183636329|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.044
91871427|NCT04278833|183636330|OTHER|||||||0.226||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||0.226
91871428|NCT04278833|183636330|OTHER|||||||0.071||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.071
91871429|NCT04278833|183636330|OTHER|||||||0.382||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.382
91871430|NCT04278833|183636331|OTHER|||||||0.152||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||0.152
91871431|NCT04278833|183636331|OTHER|||||||0.261||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3.||||0.261
91871432|NCT04278833|183636331|OTHER|||||||0.437||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6.||||0.437
91871433|NCT04278833|183636332|OTHER|||||||0.128||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.128
91906479|NCT02187172|183708674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.34|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||3.34|-0.83|0.2305
91906480|NCT02187172|183708674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.37|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||2.37|-0.53|0.2189
91871434|NCT04278833|183636332|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91871435|NCT04278833|183636333|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.040
91871436|NCT04278833|183636333|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91871437|NCT05200416|183636347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.83|15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.01|7.83|<0.001
91871438|NCT05200416|183636348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.63|-6.69|0.001
91871439|NCT06943638|183636349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91871440|NCT01093690|183636403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||No adjustment.|Chi-squared|1-sided test||the study had 80 percent power to detect an absolute difference of 20 percent in complete response (70% for metoclopramide group vs 50% for control group)||||0.41
91871441|NCT02236611|183636405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternate hypothesis: the difference between the trt means (umeclidinium minus glycopyrronium) would be \> -50 milliliters (mL). If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance level) of the statistical test should fall above -50 mL, then umeclidinium may be deemed statistically non-inferior to glycopyrronium. If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance) of the statistical testing exceeded 0 then, umeclidinium may be deemed statistically superior to glycopyrronium.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.054|-0.005|0.100
91871442|NCT01332266|183636433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.46||||||||1.46|0.54|
91736312|NCT03767881|183365659|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of a 97.8% confidence limit of the mean days to resolution of acute cholecystitis is compared to a Performance Goal of 3.5 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||ONE_SIDED|97.8||10.78|||t-test, 1 sided|||||10.78||
91871443|NCT01332266|183636435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.73||||||||1.73|0.61|
91871444|NCT01332266|183636436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.37||||||||1.37|0.53|
91871445|NCT03302091|183636438|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|198.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.83|386.94|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||386.94|101.83|
91871446|NCT03302091|183636439|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|198.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.56|337.78|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||337.78|116.56|
91871447|NCT03302091|183636440|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|226.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.35|327.53|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||327.53|156.35|
91871448|NCT03302091|183636441|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|140.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.06|182.43|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||182.43|108.06|
91871449|NCT03302091|183636442|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|165.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.51|255.17|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||255.17|107.51|
91736313|NCT03767881|183365660|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of a 99.7% confidence limit of the proportion of patients with reintervention, including migration and occlusion, is compared to a Performance Goal of 46.2%.|Performance Goal|16.7|||||ONE_SIDED|99.7||42.0|||1-sided Clopper-Pearson 99.7% CI|||||42.0||
91871450|NCT03302091|183636443|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|128.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.64|165.57|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||165.57|99.64|
91871451|NCT01686152|183636444|EQUIVALENCE|The test product was determined to be bioequivalent to the reference product if the 90% confidence interval was within -0.20 to 0.20.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0663|0.0913||||||||0.0913|-0.0663|
91871452|NCT01802333|183636445|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for: Age (\< 40 vs. \>= 40) and Onset of AML (de novo vs. treatment related and/or AML arising from antecedent hematologic disease)||Arm I was compared with Arm III using a two-sided test of the null hypothesis (HR=1) at the 0.045 level.||||0.84
91871453|NCT01802333|183636445|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for: Age (\< 40 vs. \>= 40) and Onset of AML (de novo vs. treatment related and/or AML arising from antecedent hematologic disease)||Arm II was compared with Arm III using a two-sided test of the null hypothesis (HR=1) at the 0.045 level.||||0.42
91871454|NCT01802333|183636446|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test, 1-sided|||||||<0.0001
91871455|NCT01802333|183636448|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for: Age (\< 40 vs. \>= 40) and Onset of AML (de novo vs. treatment related and/or AML arising from antecedent hematologic disease)||Arm I was compared with Arm II using a two-sided test of the null hypothesis (HR=1).||||0.52
91871456|NCT02551224|183636456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.99|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.99|0.51|<0.0001
91760047|NCT01393639|183411992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.44||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.01|
91871457|NCT02551224|183636457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.61|0.21|<0.0001
91871458|NCT01947491|183636466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91871459|NCT02224755|183636467|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the 95% lower confidence boundary for the difference between treatment groups (HM3 - HMII) in the occurrence of the primary end point would be greater than -10 percentage points, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 or a two-tailed P value of less than 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.4|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.1||||Farrington-Manning risk difference||||||-2.1|<0.001
91871460|NCT02224755|183636468|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the 95% lower confidence boundary for the difference between treatment groups (HM3 - HMII) in the occurrence of the primary end point would be greater than -10 percentage points, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 or a two-tailed P value of less than 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|19.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|9.8||||Farrington-Manning risk difference||||||9.8|<0.001
91871461|NCT02224755|183636469|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.38|||Fisher Exact|||Based on data in the Sponsor's device tracking database, 7% of patients with the HeartMate II LVAS receive a pump replacement by 24 months. The expected proportion of patients with the HeartMate 3 LVAS to receive a pump replacement by 24 months was assumed to be 3%. We estimated that to demonstrate superiority of HeartMate 3 to HeartMate II with a power of 80% and α = 0.05 (2-sided), a total of 1028 patients (514 per arm) were required using the Fisher's exact test.||.38|.11|<0.001
91871462|NCT01205126|183636485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.|Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.|ANCOVA|||||1.1|-1.3|0.855
91797845|NCT02413372|183473825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.14|-3.25|||||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 57||-3.25|-7.14|
91797846|NCT02413372|183473825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.43||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.01|-2.84|||t-test, 1 sided||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 112||-2.84|-8.01|0.0004
91871463|NCT01205126|183636486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.|Least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.||||0.6|-1.0|0.615
91871464|NCT01205126|183636487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.|Least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.||||0.7|-1.1|0.621
91702816|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.853||||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.305|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.305|0.558|0.4634
91797847|NCT02413372|183473825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.85||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|-1.23|||t-test, 1 sided||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 112||-1.23|-6.47|0.0084
91797848|NCT01480089|183473843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.214|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean VAS score 2 hours post surgery is equivalent for individuals randomized to Intraperitoneal Ropivacaine(AIR) and those randomized to Atomized Intraperitoneal Saline (AIS).||0.214|-2.830|.098
91871465|NCT01205126|183636488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.||||||0.832|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.||||||0.832
91871466|NCT01205126|183636489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.||||||0.304|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29||||||0.304
91871467|NCT01205126|183636490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||rank sum test, 2 sided|||||||0.276
91871468|NCT00923078|183636515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||4.23|0.17|<0.05
91702817|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.655|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.725|39.722|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (Rapid Virological Response \[RVR\] vs No RVR/EVR \[Early Virological Response\]). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||39.722|9.725|<0.0001
91702818|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.569|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.408|16.658|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR \[Complete Early Virological Response\] vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||16.658|4.408|<0.0001
91702819|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.519||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|5.034|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR \[Partial Early Virological Response\] vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.034|1.260|0.0089
91871469|NCT00923078|183636515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.31|-2.75|0.48
91871470|NCT00923078|183636515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.90|-4.95|<0.01
91871471|NCT00923078|183636516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.25|0.08|<0.05
91906481|NCT02187172|183708675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.11|-0.34|0.3212
91906482|NCT02187172|183708675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.31|0.04|0.0137
91702820|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.908||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|0.969|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.969|0.851|0.0037
91906483|NCT02187172|183708676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.33|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||1.33|-1.09|0.8383
91702821|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.553||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.805|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.805|0.379|0.0020
91702822|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.537||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.654|74.849|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a||74.849|3.654|0.0003
91702823|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.386||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|22.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||22.114|0.870|0.0733
91797849|NCT01480089|183473844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|0.973|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean VAS score 12 hours post surgery is equivalent for individuals randomized to Intraperitoneal Ropivacaine(AIR) and those randomized to Atomized Intraperitoneal Saline (AIS).||0.973|-1.103|.90
91797850|NCT03053271|183473856|OTHER|No statistical test was done as only 4 subjects could be enrolled, none met criteria for randomization, and the study was discontinued by the Sponsor.|||||||||||||||||No statistical test was done as only 4 subjects could be enrolled, none met criteria for randomization, and the study was discontinued by the Sponsor.|||
91797851|NCT00580970|183473861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9138||||||Considering all late rectal toxicities, 38% (20/53) of participants developed physician reported Grade 2 or higher GI toxicity during 2 year follow up. The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|A one sided t-test, with 5% level of significance, and 83% power was used which required 53 subjects.||||||0.9138
91906484|NCT02187172|183708676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.24|-0.22|0.1651
91906485|NCT02187172|183708677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|5.93|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||5.93|-0.94|0.1502
91906486|NCT02187172|183708677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.8054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.91|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.91|-1.49|0.8054
91906487|NCT02187172|183708678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|2.05|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.05|-4.79|0.4235
91906488|NCT02187172|183708678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.8653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.13|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.13|-1.80|0.8653
91906489|NCT02187172|183708679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|2.71|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.71|-4.95|0.5580
91906490|NCT02187172|183708679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.8|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||2.80|-1.25|0.4454
91871472|NCT00923078|183636516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.09|-0.08|0.09
91702824|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.352||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|14.031|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||14.031|0.394|0.3478
91702825|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.729||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.964|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.964|0.552|0.0264
91702826|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.658||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.586|27.946|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||27.946|1.586|0.0096
91702827|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.734||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|21.203|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||21.203|1.057|0.0421
91702828|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.602||||0.6004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.014|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.014|0.090|0.6004
91702829|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.715||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.988|0.517|0.0418
91702830|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.198||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.839|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-GT in log10 (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.839|0.047|0.0279
91702831|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.474|223.61|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||223.61|7.474|<0.0001
91871473|NCT00923078|183636516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.43|-0.75|0.59
91702832|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.724|206.02|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||206.02|8.724|<0.0001
91702833|NCT01066793|183300060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.247||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.704|39.908|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||39.908|1.704|0.0087
91702834|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.957||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.383|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.770|1.383|0.0002
91797852|NCT03161093|183473866|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.028|-0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.324|-1.028|0.0002
91888892|NCT01123070|183670310|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.766||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|0.927|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011/MabThera|Cmax2||0.927|0.633|0.0241
91797853|NCT03161093|183473867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.046|-0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.346|-1.046|<0.0001
91888893|NCT01123070|183670311|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.969||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.863|1.088|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011 arm is the numerator, MabThera arm is the denominator|AUC1||1.088|0.863|0.6520
91702835|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.337||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.661|6.705|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.705|1.661|0.0007
91702836|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.305||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|2.312|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.312|0.737|0.3611
91702837|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|0.958|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.958|0.929|<0.0001
91702838|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.897|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, during the first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.897|0.615|0.0020
91702839|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.864||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.322|2.628|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.628|1.322|0.0004
91702840|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.124||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|4.338|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.338|1.040|0.0386
91702841|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.398||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.722|6.706|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.706|1.722|0.0004
91702842|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.372||||0.2769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|2.428|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.428|0.776|0.2769
91702843|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.960|0.931|<0.0001
91702844|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.163||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.078|1.256|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.256|1.078|0.0001
91702845|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.788||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.091|2.932|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.932|1.091|0.0213
91702846|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.903||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.953|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.953|0.856|0.0002
91736314|NCT03781479|183365690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.792||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects liner model was fit with the HFMSE change from baseline (CFB) scores at Day 28 as a response and treatment, sequence, and treatment by sequence as fixed effect terms and patient as a random effect.||1.37|0.22|0.0083
91736315|NCT01728246|183365691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91702847|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.723||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.538|0.0306
91702848|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.145||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.236|1.061|0.0005
91702849|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.907||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.151|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.158|1.151|0.0122
91702850|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.175||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|5.424|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.424|0.872|0.0956
91702851|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.267||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.197|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.197|0.060|0.0846
91702852|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.897|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.852|0.945|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.945|0.852|<0.0001
91702853|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.996||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|3.165|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.165|1.259|0.0033
91705624|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.49||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.49|-0.46|0.950
91705625|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.48||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.48|-0.45|0.950
91705626|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.51||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.51|-0.39|0.792
91705627|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.55||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.55|-0.34|0.631
91705628|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.58||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.58|-0.38|0.691
91705629|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.41||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.41|-0.53|0.801
91705630|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.92||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.92|-0.06|0.065
91736316|NCT01728246|183365692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91736317|NCT01728246|183365694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91797854|NCT03161093|183473868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.7036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.401|-0.594|0.7036
91871474|NCT00923078|183636517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-0.52||Post-test scores following Auditory Cognitive Training as compared to baseline, tested at alpha = 0.05 (uncorrected).|Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.52|-3.53|<0.01
91871475|NCT00923078|183636517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.94||Post-test scores following Visual Cognitive Training as compared to baseline, tested at alpha = 0.05 (uncorrected).|Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.94|-3.95|0.01
91871476|NCT00923078|183636517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.08||Post-test scores following Auditory Cognitive Training as compared to Visual Cognitive Training, tested at alpha = 0.05 (uncorrected).|Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.08|-1.93|0.58
91871477|NCT00923078|183636518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.18|-6.02|0.06
91871478|NCT00923078|183636518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.14|-6.34|< 0.05
91702854|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.277|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.277|1.035|0.0095
91702855|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.155||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.533|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.533|0.045|0.0031
91702856|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.364||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.063|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.063|0.125|0.0645
91702857|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.895||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.948|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.948|0.846|0.0001
91702858|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.996||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|3.165|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.165|1.259|0.0033
91702859|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.277|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.277|1.035|0.0095
91702860|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.155||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.533|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.533|0.045|0.0031
91702861|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.364||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.063|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.063|0.125|0.0645
91797855|NCT03161093|183473869|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|0.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.297|-0.657|0.4605
91906491|NCT02187172|183708680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|34.87|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||34.87|7.86|0.0027
91871479|NCT00923078|183636518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.78|-3.42|0.84
91702862|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.895||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.948|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.948|0.846|0.0001
91702863|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.266||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.541|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.541|1.041|0.0182
91702864|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.122|2.254|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.254|1.122|0.0092
91702865|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.974||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.488|5.942|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.942|1.488|0.0020
91702866|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.142||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|2.035|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.035|0.641|0.6524
91702867|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.108|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.311|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.311|0.037|<0.0001
91702868|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.389||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.156|0.0429
91702869|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.380|0.523|0.5490
91702870|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.136||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.224|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.224|1.054|0.0008
91871480|NCT00923078|183636519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.69|-1.45|0.55
91888894|NCT01123070|183670311|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.961||||0.7835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.757|1.222|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011/MabThera|AUC2||1.222|0.757|0.7835
91702871|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.855||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|3.037|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.037|1.133|0.0140
91702872|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.126||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|1.068|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.068|0.015|0.0575
91702873|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.7128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|6.025|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.025|0.072|0.7128
91871481|NCT00923078|183636519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.07|-2.02|0.98
91871482|NCT00923078|183636519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.47|-2.66|0.57
91871483|NCT00923078|183636520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.93|-3.14|0.63
91871484|NCT00923078|183636520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.61|-3.45|0.47
91871485|NCT00923078|183636520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.22|-2.85|0.80
91871486|NCT00923078|183636521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.85|-3.06|0.26
91871487|NCT00923078|183636521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.46|-3.41|0.13
91871488|NCT00923078|183636521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.58|-2.32|0.71
91871489|NCT01072149|183636522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.233|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.287|0.179|<0.001
91797856|NCT00570765|183473915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Treatment arms compared using 2-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level. Treatment groups were pairwise compared versus placebo.||Hierarchical testing strategy was proposed to account for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was evaluated as follows: if statistical significance at alpha=0.05 is shown for the 10 mg OCA versus placebo, then the statistical significance at alpha=0.05 for the 50 mg OCA versus placebo was evaluated. If no statistical significance was shown at alpha=0.05 at the first step, then the subsequent comparison was not considered statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91871490|NCT01072149|183636522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.275|0.165|<0.001
91797857|NCT00570765|183473916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Treatment arms compared using 2-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level. Treatment groups were pairwise compared versus placebo.||||||<0.0001
91871491|NCT01072149|183636522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.291|0.181|<0.001
91871492|NCT01102426|183636533|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.885||Cox regression: HR p=0.0062|Log Rank|||||0.885|0.447|=0.0054
91871493|NCT01102426|183636534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0618|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.0618
91871494|NCT01102426|183636535|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.512|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|0.686||Cox regression HR: p\<0.0001|Log Rank|||||0.686|0.382|< 0.0001
91871495|NCT01102426|183636536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.0002
91871496|NCT01102426|183636537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797|||=|0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.067||Cox regression HR: p=0.1273|Log Rank|||Pre-specified||1.067|0.596|=0.1261
91702874|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.505||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|6.318|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.318|0.040|0.5960
91702875|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.051||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.311|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.311|1.270|0.0033
91702876|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.113||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|1.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.236|1.002|0.0452
91702877|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.154||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.551|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.551|0.043|0.0040
91702878|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.393||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|1.131|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a||1.131|0.137|0.0833
91702879|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.141||||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.951|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.951|0.010|0.1439
91702880|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.4457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|5.194|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.194|0.024|0.4457
91702881|NCT01066793|183300074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.142||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|45.801|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||45.801|0.100|0.6258
91702882|NCT02607280|183300095|OTHER||LS mean change from baseline at Week 14|-1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.14||||||||-1.14|-2.45|
91702883|NCT02607280|183300095|OTHER||LS mean change from baseline at Week 14|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-0.36||||||||-0.36|-3.77|
91702884|NCT02052596|183300111|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the last vaccine dose (Month 3 or Month 5), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE antibodies GMC ratio between the Control Group and the GSK1437173A Group had to be below (\<) 1.5,|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.21||||Adjustment for baseline concentration and age - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to two doses of the GSK1437173A vaccine when Boostrix vaccine was co-administered with the first GSK1437173A vaccine dose compared to two doses of GSK1437173A vaccine (administered separately from Boostrix vaccine), one month after the last vaccine dose.||1.21|1.02|
91702885|NCT02052596|183300112|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval for the GMC ratio for anti-PT antibodies of the Control Group over the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.36||||Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for pertussis toxoid (PT), one month after the vaccine dose.||1.36|1.00|
91702886|NCT02052596|183300112|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval for the GMC ratio for anti-FHA antibodies of the Control Group over the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.44||||Adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||1.44|1.07|
91705631|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.51||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.51|-0.43|0.274
91871497|NCT01102426|183636538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3625|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.3625
91871498|NCT01102426|183636539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1037|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.1037
91871499|NCT01102426|183636540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.384|||=|0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|1.303||Cox regression HR: 0.1247|Log Rank|||||1.303|0.113|=0.1015
91871500|NCT01102426|183636542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.043|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.479||Cox regression HR: 0.0105|Log Rank|||Pre-specified||0.479|0.004|=0.0001
91871501|NCT01102426|183636545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91871502|NCT01102426|183636546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0085
91871503|NCT01102426|183636548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91871504|NCT01102426|183636549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0029
91871505|NCT03265132|183636565|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||||1.00|0.42|0.0022
91871506|NCT00721734|183636636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.607||||0.4114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.129|0.914|||Regression, Linear|||"In order to estimate a possible effect of renal function, the relationship between the clearance of carfilzomib and creatinine clearance (CrCl) was explored using a mixed-effects model that included CrCl.~The slope of the regression of CL as a function of CrCL at Cycle 1, Day 1 was evaluated using a linear regression model that included CrCL as continuous variables (excluding the hemodialysis group)."||0.914|-2.129|0.4114
91871507|NCT04492475|183636660|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.87|0.880
91871508|NCT04492475|183636677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.4||||||||13.4|0.9|
91871509|NCT04492475|183636677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|43.9||||||||43.9|0.0|
91871510|NCT04492475|183636678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0||||||||6.0|-3.2|
91871511|NCT04492475|183636678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|54.2||||||||54.2|12.3|
91702887|NCT02052596|183300112|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval for the GMC ratio for anti-PRN antibodies of the Control Group over the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.58||||Adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for pertactin (PRN) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||1.58|1.02|
91702888|NCT02052596|183300113|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentages of subjects with anti-diphtheria (anti-D) concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL of the Control Group minus the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|2.85||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for diphteria (D) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||2.85|-3.03|
91871512|NCT04492475|183636702|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19||||||||1.19|0.90|
91871513|NCT04492475|183636702|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.66||||||||0.66|0.21|
91871514|NCT04492475|183636703|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||||||||1.19|0.91|
91871515|NCT04492475|183636703|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.82||||||||0.82|0.24|
91871516|NCT04492475|183636704|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.26||||||||1.26|0.93|
91871517|NCT04492475|183636704|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.72||||||||0.72|0.21|
91871518|NCT04492475|183636705|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19||||||||1.19|0.90|
91871519|NCT04492475|183636706|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.45||||||This analysis is for Asian participants.||1.45|0.59|
91871520|NCT04492475|183636706|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.27||||||This analysis is for Black and African American participants.||1.27|0.66|
91871521|NCT04492475|183636706|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21||||||This analysis is for White participants.||1.21|0.86|
91871522|NCT04492475|183636706|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.19||||||This analysis is for Race of Other participants||1.19|0.59|
91871523|NCT04492475|183636707|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||||||This analysis is for Not Hispanic or Latino participants.||1.19|0.86|
91871524|NCT04492475|183636707|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05||||||This analysis is for Hispanic or Latino participants.||1.05|0.65|
91871525|NCT04492475|183636708|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||||||This analysis is for Male participants.||1.10|0.78|
91871526|NCT04492475|183636708|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29||||||This analysis is for Female participants.||1.29|0.86|
91871527|NCT05270460|183636723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons were made using Dunnett's test at the overall alpha = 0.05 significance level|ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment group (PCS12852 0.1 mg, PCS12852 0.5 mg, and Placebo) and type (IG or DG) and the baseline value as a continuous covariate||||||<0.05
91871528|NCT05270460|183636724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment group (PCS12852 0.1 mg, PCS12852 0.5 mg, and Placebo) and type (IG or DG) and the baseline value as a continuous covariate||||||<0.05
91871529|NCT05270460|183636725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91871530|NCT05270460|183636726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91871531|NCT05270460|183636727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91871532|NCT05270460|183636728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91871533|NCT05270460|183636729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91871534|NCT05270460|183636730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91871535|NCT05270460|183636731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91871536|NCT05270460|183636732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91871537|NCT03205488|183636733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3626|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's Exact tested the proportion of participants who met tolerability between the Nilotinib 150 group to the Placebo group.||||||0.3626
91871538|NCT03205488|183636733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3895|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's Exact tested the proportion of participants who met tolerability between the Nilotinib 300 group to the Placebo group.||||||0.3895
91871539|NCT03205488|183636734|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : p1 = p2, where p represents the proportion of SAEs for each group. HA : p1 ≠ p2||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact test compared a proportion of participants who experienced any serious adverse event in the Nilotinib 150 group and the Placebo group.||||||1.00
91871540|NCT03205488|183636734|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : λ1 = λ2, where λ represents the rate of SAEs for each group. HA : λ1 ≠ λ2|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4977||||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0451|5.489|||Regression, Poisson|Rates of serious adverse event between the Nilotinib 150 group and the placebo were also compared using a Poisson regression model||||5.489|0.0451|0.5689
91702889|NCT02052596|183300113|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentages of subjects with anti-tetanus (anti-T) concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL of the Control Group minus the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.27||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for tetanus (T) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||1.27|-1.18|
91702890|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority (NI) for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.84||||||Serotype 1: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of least square (LS) means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.84|0.65|
91702891|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.9||||||Serotype 3: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.90|0.75|
91702892|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||Serotype 4: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.02|0.77|
91702893|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||Serotype 5: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.98|0.79|
91702894|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.88|0.65|
91702895|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.94|0.71|
91702896|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.99||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.99|0.83|
91702897|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.93||||||Serotype 8: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.93|0.70|
91705632|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.52||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.52|-0.55|0.359
91797858|NCT00570765|183473917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Tx arms will be compared using the 2-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, at 5% significance level. Tx groups will be pairwise compared vs. placebo.||||||<0.01
91871541|NCT03205488|183636734|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : p1 = p3, where p represents the proportion of SAEs for each group. HA : p1 ≠ p3||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact test compared a proportion of participants who experienced any serious adverse event in the Nilotinib 300 group and the Placebo group.||||||0.61
91871542|NCT03205488|183636734|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : λ1 = λ3, where λ represents the rate of SAEs for each group. HA : λ1 ≠ λ3|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5206||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0472|5.7409|||Regression, Poisson|Rates of serious adverse event between the Nilotinib 300 group and the placebo were also compared using a Poisson regression model||||5.7409|0.0472|0.5940
91888895|NCT00918879|183670337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.0011||95.0|-0.73|-0.18|||ANCOVA|\* adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||-0.18|-0.73|0.0011
91702898|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.07|0.82|
91702899|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.96|0.71|
91702900|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.84|0.60|
91702901|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.97|0.69|
91702902|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96||||||Serotype 14: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.96|0.76|
91702903|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.86|0.57|
91702904|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.04|0.77|
91702905|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.98||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.98|0.78|
91705633|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.11||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.11|-0.93|0.863
91888896|NCT00918879|183670338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.438||0.0623||95.0|-20.91|0.53|||ANCOVA|\* Adjusted for baseline FPG||||0.53|-20.91|0.0623
91888897|NCT00918879|183670339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.0623||95.0|-1.17|0.02|||ANCOVA|\* Adjusted for baseline FPG||||0.02|-1.17|0.0623
91888898|NCT00918879|183670340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.8||||||95.0|-1.7|19.3|||Fisher Exact|||||19.3|-1.7|
91888899|NCT01182441|183670344|SUPERIORITY|Success for this endpoint was achieved if the probability of experiencing an event was statistically less than the performance goal, defined as 2.67%, with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% credible interval less than the performance goal.|probability of experiencing an event|2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.652||||||Bayesian calculations were used to incorporate the data from PROTECT AF CAP Registry through a conjugate beta-binomial model. A one-sided upper 95% credible interval for the event rate was calculated based off this posterior distribution.||2.652||
91871543|NCT03205488|183636735|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypotheses of interest (H0: δ ≤ -9.8 (7 x 1.4) vs. HA: δ \> -9.8) where δ represents the change from baseline to 6 months using the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON in the Nilotinib 150 mg treatment group. The hypotheses of interest were evaluated based on an assessment of parameter estimates from a non-linear mixed effects model, adjusted for a participant's Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose (LEDD) at each time point.|Slope|1.05||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.78||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The key secondary objective is to conduct a futility analysis within each treatment group which examines the observed change in the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON within the two dose groups compared to previously reported changes from the Pagan et al (2016) study (NCT02281474).|||-0.78|0.0001
91871544|NCT03205488|183636735|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypotheses of interest (H0: δ ≤ -9.8 (7 x 1.4) vs. HA: δ \> -9.8) where δ represents the change from baseline to 6 months using the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON in the Nilotinib 300 mg treatment group. The hypotheses of interest were evaluated based on an assessment of parameter estimates from a non-linear mixed effects model, adjusted for a participant's Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose (LEDD) at each time point.|Slope|0.93||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.89||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The key secondary objective is to conduct a futility analysis within each treatment group which examines the observed change in the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON within the two dose groups compared to previously reported changes from the Pagan et al (2016) study (NCT02281474).|||-0.89|0.0001
91871545|NCT03205488|183636735|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. Using the same LMM as in the key secondary analysis, a two degree of freedom test was used to test for any differences in the slopes from baseline to 1 month for the three treatment groups.||||||0.031|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #1 is to establish the degree of symptomatic effect of Nilotinib as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III ON score between baseline and 1 month.|In order to assess which group may be driving these findings, pairwise comparisons were also utilized (Nilotinib 150 vs PBO at 1 Month, Nilotinib 300 vs PBO at 1 month, Nilotinib 300 vs Nilotinib 150 at 1 month).|||0.031
91871546|NCT03205488|183636735|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. For this analysis, a separate LMM was constructed, modeling the change from final visit on study drug to the 30 and 60 day follow up visits, while adjusting for the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON scores at the final visit on study drug as well as the Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose (LEDD) at each visit.||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #2 is to establish the degree of symptomatic effect of Nilotinib as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III ON score between the final visit on study drug and 30 days off study drug.||||0.47
91871547|NCT03205488|183636735|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. Using the same LMM as in the key secondary analysis, a two degree of freedom test was used to test for any differences in the slopes from baseline to 6 months for the three treatment groups.||||||0.077|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #3 is to assess the impact of Nilotinib on the progression of PD disability as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III ON score between baseline and 6 months.|Pairwise comparisons were also examined for trends (Active 150 vs PBO at 6 Months, Active 300 vs PBO at 6 months).|||0.077
91871548|NCT03205488|183636735|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. Using a similar LMM as in the key secondary analysis, except simplified to only include baseline, month 3 and month 6, a two degree of freedom test was used to test for any differences in the slopes from baseline to 6 months for the three treatment groups.||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #3 is to assess the impact of Nilotinib on the progression of PD disability as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III OFF score between baseline and 6 months.||||0.17
91871549|NCT01742832|183636736|OTHER|Linear repeated measures regression models were constructed to assess trends over time between groups where the dependent variable was outcome measure (MADRS score) and independent variables included visit, treatment group, visit by treatment group interaction, and any baseline variables that were significant between groups.||||||0.342||||||P-value for linear regression assessing outcome measure (MADRS score) and treatment group.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.342
91702906|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.01|0.78|
91702907|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.90|0.62|
91702908|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.92|0.66|
91705634|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.66||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.66|-0.53|0.314
91871550|NCT05163353|183636737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.6|74.4||||||||74.4|45.6|
91871551|NCT00824408|183636756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.045||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.271|3.292|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) from Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by histology (Nonsquamous vs. NOS). P-value from log-rank test stratified by histology (one-sided for volasertib 300 mg + pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 vs. pemetrexed 500 mg; two-sided for volasertib 300 mg vs. pemetrexed 500 mg/m2).||3.292|1.271|0.0030
91871552|NCT00824408|183636756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.141||||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.771|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI from Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by histology (Nonsquamous vs. NOS). P-value from log-rank test stratified by histology (one-sided for volasertib 300 mg + pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 vs. pemetrexed 500 mg/m2; two-sided for volasertib 300 mg vs. pemetrexed 500 mg/m2).||1.771|0.735|0.2804
91871553|NCT00824408|183636757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
91871554|NCT00824408|183636757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2596|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2596
91871555|NCT00824408|183636758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.8406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.140|0.538|0.8406
91871556|NCT00824408|183636758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.081||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.949|||Log Rank|||||1.949|0.599|0.3960
91871557|NCT05640167|183636779|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom 17||||||0.015
91871558|NCT05640167|183636780|OTHER|||||||0.114||||||Positive p = 0.114 Health-directed p = 0.028 Skill and Technique p = 0.013 Constructive attitudes p = 0.003 Self-monitoring \& insight p = 0.001 Health service navigation p = 0.077 Social Integration p = 0.126 Emotional well-being p = 0.093|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.114
91702909|NCT04526574|183300159|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.83|0.62|
91871559|NCT05640167|183636781|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91871560|NCT05640167|183636782|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91871561|NCT05640167|183636783|OTHER|||||||0.309|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.309
91736318|NCT03189719|183365723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.75|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.75|0.43|<0.0001
91871562|NCT05640167|183636784|OTHER|||||||0.827|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.827
91871563|NCT01263496|183636789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.401|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|-0.184||||||||-0.184|-0.618|
91871564|NCT01263496|183636789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|-0.358||||||||-0.358|-0.739|
91871565|NCT01263496|183636789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.779|-0.401||||||||-0.401|-0.779|
91871566|NCT01263496|183636789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.894|-0.522||||||||-0.522|-0.894|
91871567|NCT01263496|183636790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.538|-0.093||||||||-0.093|-0.538|
91871568|NCT01263496|183636790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.684|-0.302||||||||-0.302|-0.684|
91871569|NCT01263496|183636790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.314||||||||-0.314|-0.706|
91871570|NCT01263496|183636790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|-0.461||||||||-0.461|-0.834|
91871571|NCT01263496|183636791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.263|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.479|-0.047||||||||-0.047|-0.479|
91871572|NCT01263496|183636791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|-0.192||||||||-0.192|-0.598|
91871573|NCT01263496|183636791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.405|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|-0.195||||||||-0.195|-0.616|
91871574|NCT01263496|183636791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.386||||||||-0.386|-0.780|
91871575|NCT01263496|183636792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.065||||||||0.065|-0.410|
91871576|NCT01263496|183636792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.319|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.088||||||||-0.088|-0.550|
91871577|NCT01263496|183636792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.601|-0.139||||||||-0.139|-0.601|
91871578|NCT01263496|183636792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.752|-0.314||||||||-0.314|-0.752|
91871579|NCT01263496|183636793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.166||||||||0.166|-0.323|
91871580|NCT01263496|183636793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|-0.011||||||||-0.011|-0.471|
91871581|NCT01263496|183636793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.124||||||||-0.124|-0.590|
91871582|NCT01263496|183636793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|-0.242||||||||-0.242|-0.692|
91871583|NCT01263496|183636794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.162||||||||0.162|-0.321|
91871584|NCT01263496|183636794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.542|-0.046||||||||-0.046|-0.542|
91871585|NCT01263496|183636794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.579|-0.103||||||||-0.103|-0.579|
91871586|NCT01263496|183636794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|-0.252||||||||-0.252|-0.722|
91871587|NCT01263496|183636795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.182||||||||0.182|-0.279|
91871588|NCT01263496|183636795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.491|0.023||||||||0.023|-0.491|
91871589|NCT01263496|183636795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.605|-0.145||||||||-0.145|-0.605|
91871590|NCT01263496|183636795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.488|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|-0.252||||||||-0.252|-0.724|
91871591|NCT01263496|183636796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.169||||||||0.169|-0.270|
91871592|NCT01263496|183636796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.067||||||||0.067|-0.453|
91871593|NCT01263496|183636796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.374|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.152||||||||-0.152|-0.596|
91871594|NCT01263496|183636796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.723|-0.256||||||||-0.256|-0.723|
91871595|NCT01263496|183636797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.289||||||||0.289|-0.160|
91871596|NCT01263496|183636797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|0.005||||||||0.005|-0.477|
91702910|NCT04526574|183300160|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.17||||||A/H1N1: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.17|0.97|
91736319|NCT03189719|183365724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.88|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in ESCC participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in ESCC participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.88|0.60|0.0006
91797859|NCT02124161|183473932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12||||||Serotype 1: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.12|0.74|
91871597|NCT01263496|183636797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|-0.113||||||||-0.113|-0.608|
91871598|NCT01263496|183636797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|-0.191||||||||-0.191|-0.679|
91702911|NCT04526574|183300160|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08||||||A/H3N2: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.08|0.89|
91702912|NCT04526574|183300160|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||||||B/Victoria: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.08|0.93|
91871599|NCT01263496|183636798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.196||||||||0.196|-0.262|
91871600|NCT01263496|183636798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.262|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.516|-0.008||||||||-0.008|-0.516|
91871601|NCT01263496|183636798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|-0.103||||||||-0.103|-0.614|
91871602|NCT01263496|183636798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.432|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.174||||||||-0.174|-0.690|
91871603|NCT01263496|183636799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.11||||||||0.110|-0.346|
91871604|NCT01263496|183636799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.539|-0.015||||||||-0.015|-0.539|
91871605|NCT01263496|183636799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.109||||||||-0.109|-0.637|
91871606|NCT01263496|183636799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.477|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|-0.213||||||||-0.213|-0.741|
91871607|NCT01263496|183636800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|0.055||||||||0.055|-0.416|
91871608|NCT01263496|183636800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.003||||||||0.003|-0.492|
91871609|NCT01263496|183636800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.408|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.161||||||||-0.161|-0.654|
91871610|NCT01263496|183636800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.874|-0.402||||||||-0.402|-0.874|
91871611|NCT01263496|183636801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|0.54||||||||0.54|-17.56|
91871612|NCT01263496|183636801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|-4.18||||||||-4.18|-19.23|
91871613|NCT01263496|183636801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.68|-6.15||||||||-6.15|-20.68|
91871614|NCT01263496|183636801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|-11.83||||||||-11.83|-26.93|
91871615|NCT01263496|183636802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|3.8||||||||3.80|-12.67|
91871616|NCT01263496|183636802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-1.3||||||||-1.30|-17.48|
91871617|NCT01263496|183636802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.58|-2.54||||||||-2.54|-18.58|
91871618|NCT01263496|183636802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.44|-3.31||||||||-3.31|-21.44|
91871619|NCT01263496|183636803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|1.86||||||||1.86|-15.66|
91871620|NCT01263496|183636803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.97|-2.49||||||||-2.49|-18.97|
91871621|NCT01263496|183636803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-1.23||||||||-1.23|-17.20|
91871622|NCT01263496|183636803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.27|-6.72||||||||-6.72|-24.27|
91871623|NCT01263496|183636804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|6.67||||||||6.67|-11.22|
91871624|NCT01263496|183636804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|5.44||||||||5.44|-12.16|
91906492|NCT02187172|183708680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.4775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.17|5.33|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||5.33|-11.17|0.4775
91702913|NCT04526574|183300160|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03||||||B/Phuket: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.03|0.87|
91702914|NCT01032070|183300164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||The study was not powered for this comparison due to small sample size.||||0.2200
91702915|NCT01541839|183300186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|327.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||The mean time for closure with septal stapler was 35 +/-22 seconds versus 7 minutes +/- 1 minute 10 seconds for suture closure. The mean net difference between groups was 327 seconds, or 6 minutes 27 seconds.|The operative time required for closure and NOSE questionnaire scores were analyzed with unpaired and paired t-tests respectively. Chi-squared testing was used for post-operative complication rates. The mean closure time for septoplasty was estimated to be 10 minutes +/- 4 minutes. It was assumed that the septal stapler would take 5 minutes +/- 4 minutes. Assuming a one-sided test, an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.8, a total of 16 patients were needed.||||<0.0001
91702916|NCT01075399|183300193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|0.883|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|0.929||Significance of probability for no association between the first and second pre-treatment uptake.|Pearson's correlation|||"Primary Tumor SUV max:~The reproducibility of \[F-18\]HX4 uptake in primary tumors was assessed by comparing SUV max of the 1st and 2nd \[F18\]HX4 PET/CT scan.~Estimated power for a range of coefficients of variation (CVs) postulated for the paired differences in SUV values, and for establishing reproducibility within ±20% or ±25%."||0.929|0.802|<0.001
91702917|NCT01075399|183300193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|0.887|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.792|0.925||Significance of probability for no association between the first and second pre-treatment uptake.|Pearson's correlation|||"Primary Tumor SUV mean:~The reproducibility of \[F-18\]HX4 uptake in primary tumors was assessed by comparing SUV mean of the 1st and 2nd \[F18\]HX4 PET/CT scan.~Estimated power for a range of coefficients of variation (CVs) postulated for the paired differences in SUV values, and for establishing reproducibility within ±20% or ±25%."||0.925|0.792|<0.001
91797860|NCT02124161|183473932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 3: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.98|0.70|
91871625|NCT01263496|183636804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|2.44||||||||2.44|-13.30|
91702918|NCT01075399|183300193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|0.945|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.904|0.967||Significance of probability for no association between the first and second pre-treatment uptake.|Pearson's correlation|||"Primary Tumor to background SUV ratio:~The reproducibility of \[F-18\]HX4 uptake in primary tumors was assessed by comparing tumor to background SUV ratio (T/B) of the 1st and 2nd \[F18\]HX4 PET/CT scan.~Estimated power for a range of coefficients of variation (CVs) postulated for the paired differences in T/B values, and for establishing reproducibility within ±20% or ±25%."||0.967|0.904|<0.001
91702919|NCT01393132|183300195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of fluorescein staining score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0108
91702920|NCT01393132|183300196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Ocular Discomfort Index score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0141
91702921|NCT01393132|183300197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Tear Film Break up Time between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups.||||0.0162
91702922|NCT00396877|183300198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|11.1||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|33.6||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.035 reflecting the adjustment for interim analyses. No other adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used.|The Relative Risk Reduction (Clopidogrel versus placebo) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval were estimated using Cox's proportional hazards model.|"Due to the limited knowledge in this population, 3 interim analyses were performed at approximatively 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of of the maximum number of 172 required primary efficacy events to evaluate the effect of Clopidogrel on the primary endpoint with the potential to end the trial in case of a clear efficacy advantage for Clopidogrel.~The study was designed with 80% power and an overall type I error rate of 5%."||33.6|-19.2|0.4340
91702923|NCT00334802|183300201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0||||P-value for Dose Level 1 Responders (Complete Response + Partial Response)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.169
91871626|NCT01263496|183636804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.74|-3.06||||||||-3.06|-20.74|
91871627|NCT01263496|183636805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|7.08||||||||7.08|-11.97|
91871628|NCT01263496|183636805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|3.35||||||||3.35|-15.84|
91871629|NCT01263496|183636805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|1.41||||||||1.41|-15.28|
91871630|NCT01263496|183636805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.67|-2.78||||||||-2.78|-22.67|
91906493|NCT02187172|183708681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|230.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.8||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.47|372.08|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||372.08|89.47|0.0021
91871631|NCT01263496|183636806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|2.31||||||||2.31|-13.19|
91871632|NCT01263496|183636806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|5.99||||||||5.99|-13.53|
91871633|NCT01263496|183636806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.36|2.67||||||||2.67|-14.36|
91871634|NCT01263496|183636806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.72|-1.73||||||||-1.73|-20.72|
91871635|NCT01263496|183636807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|5.9||||||||5.90|-10.42|
91871636|NCT01263496|183636807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|3.84||||||||3.84|-15.64|
91871637|NCT01263496|183636807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-0.42||||||||-0.42|-16.52|
91871638|NCT01263496|183636807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.18|-2.76||||||||-2.76|-22.18|
91871639|NCT01263496|183636808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.77||||||||7.77|-7.10|
91702924|NCT00334802|183300201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Dose Level 2 Responders (Complete Response + Partial Response)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91871640|NCT01263496|183636808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|8.21||||||||8.21|-10.16|
91871641|NCT01263496|183636808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|5.95||||||||5.95|-9.71|
91871642|NCT01263496|183636808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|-0.18||||||||-0.18|-18.59|
91871643|NCT01263496|183636809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.75||||||||6.75|-10.20|
91871644|NCT01263496|183636809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|5.7||||||||5.70|-13.10|
91871645|NCT01263496|183636809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|5.0||||||||5.00|-12.94|
91705635|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.01||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.01|-1.13|0.910
91705636|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.78||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.78|-0.40|0.532
91871646|NCT01263496|183636809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-0.08||||||||-0.08|-19.40|
91871647|NCT01263496|183636810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|6.15||||||||6.15|-11.00|
91871648|NCT01263496|183636810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.53|1.94||||||||1.94|-16.53|
91871649|NCT01263496|183636810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.93|-0.67||||||||-0.67|-17.93|
91871650|NCT01263496|183636810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.83|-1.93||||||||-1.93|-21.83|
91871651|NCT01263496|183636811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|7.27||||||||7.27|-9.68|
91871652|NCT01263496|183636811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.34|2.24||||||||2.24|-16.34|
91871653|NCT01263496|183636811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.47|-0.26||||||||-0.26|-17.47|
91871654|NCT01263496|183636811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.12|-3.89||||||||-3.89|-23.12|
91871655|NCT01263496|183636812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|6.8||||||||6.80|-10.09|
91871656|NCT01263496|183636812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|2.25||||||||2.25|-15.66|
91871657|NCT01263496|183636812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|0.07||||||||0.07|-16.64|
91871658|NCT01263496|183636812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|-10.24||||||||-10.24|-27.39|
91871659|NCT01263496|183636813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.254||||||||0.254|-0.219|
91871660|NCT01263496|183636813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.451||||||||0.451|0.002|
91871661|NCT01263496|183636813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.453||||||||0.453|0.008|
91871662|NCT01263496|183636813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.524||||||||0.524|0.041|
91871663|NCT01263496|183636814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.353||||||||0.353|-0.173|
91871664|NCT01263496|183636814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.467||||||||0.467|-0.010|
91871665|NCT01263496|183636814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.339|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.584||||||||0.584|0.095|
91871666|NCT01263496|183636814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|0.752||||||||0.752|0.184|
91871667|NCT01263496|183636815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.57||||||||0.570|0.064|
91871668|NCT01263496|183636815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.511|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|0.786||||||||0.786|0.236|
91871669|NCT01263496|183636815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.437|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.685||||||||0.685|0.190|
91871670|NCT01263496|183636815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.022||||||||1.022|0.413|
91871671|NCT01263496|183636816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.481||||||||0.481|-0.029|
91871672|NCT01263496|183636816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.612||||||||0.612|0.104|
91871673|NCT01263496|183636816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.54||||||||0.540|0.076|
91871674|NCT01263496|183636816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.565||||||||0.565|0.098|
91871675|NCT01263496|183636817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.41||||||||0.410|-0.130|
91871676|NCT01263496|183636817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.516||||||||0.516|-0.026|
91871677|NCT01263496|183636817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.552||||||||0.552|0.035|
91871678|NCT01263496|183636817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.329|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.626||||||||0.626|0.032|
91871679|NCT01263496|183636818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.349||||||||0.349|-0.252|
91871680|NCT01263496|183636818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.703||||||||0.703|0.138|
91871681|NCT01263496|183636818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.742||||||||0.742|0.178|
91871682|NCT01263496|183636818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.683||||||||0.683|0.085|
91871683|NCT01263496|183636819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.326||||||||0.326|-0.257|
91871684|NCT01263496|183636819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.542||||||||0.542|-0.043|
91871685|NCT01263496|183636819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.417||||||||0.417|-0.196|
91871686|NCT01263496|183636819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.656||||||||0.656|0.010|
91871687|NCT01263496|183636820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|0.233||||||||0.233|-0.769|
91871688|NCT01263496|183636820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.349|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.855||||||||0.855|-0.156|
91871689|NCT01263496|183636820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.577||||||||0.577|-0.297|
91871690|NCT01263496|183636820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.69||||||||0.690|-0.075|
91871691|NCT01263496|183636821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|0.928||||||||0.928|-0.367|
91871692|NCT01263496|183636821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.579|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|1.194||||||||1.194|-0.035|
91871693|NCT01263496|183636821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|1.241||||||||1.241|0.054|
91871694|NCT01263496|183636821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.785||||||||0.785|-0.280|
91871695|NCT01263496|183636822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|0.646||||||||0.646|-1.246|
91871696|NCT01263496|183636822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.643|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|1.591||||||||1.591|-0.305|
91871697|NCT01263496|183636822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|0.888||||||||0.888|-0.599|
91871698|NCT01263496|183636822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.673|1.173||||||||1.173|-0.673|
91871699|NCT01263496|183636823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.462|2.562||||||||2.562|-4.462|
91871700|NCT01263496|183636823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.712|2.779||||||||2.779|-2.712|
91871701|NCT01263496|183636823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.273|2.073||||||||2.073|-3.273|
91871702|NCT01263496|183636823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.874|2.074||||||||2.074|-2.874|
91871703|NCT01263496|183636824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.458||||||||0.458|-0.140|
91871704|NCT01263496|183636824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.52||||||||0.520|-0.001|
91871705|NCT01263496|183636824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.398||||||||0.398|-0.126|
91871706|NCT01263496|183636824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.298|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.553||||||||0.553|0.042|
91871707|NCT01263496|183636825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|7.99||||||||7.99|-11.82|
91871708|NCT01263496|183636825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|6.4||||||||6.40|-12.45|
91871709|NCT01263496|183636825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.77|1.96||||||||1.96|-18.77|
91871710|NCT01263496|183636825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.35|0.44||||||||0.44|-18.35|
91871711|NCT01263496|183636826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|19.19||||||||19.19|-3.88|
91871712|NCT01263496|183636826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|9.24||||||||9.24|-11.41|
91871713|NCT01263496|183636826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|10.75||||||||10.75|-12.91|
91871714|NCT01263496|183636826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|9.99||||||||9.99|-11.32|
91871715|NCT01263496|183636827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|16.49||||||||16.49|-7.09|
91871716|NCT01263496|183636827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|11.89||||||||11.89|-8.63|
91871717|NCT01263496|183636827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|7.98||||||||7.98|-13.36|
91871718|NCT01263496|183636827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|2.17||||||||2.17|-20.58|
91871719|NCT01263496|183636828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|9.84||||||||9.84|-11.44|
91871720|NCT01263496|183636828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|7.66||||||||7.66|-11.74|
91871721|NCT01263496|183636828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.62|4.75||||||||4.75|-15.62|
91871722|NCT01263496|183636828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.83|-2.74||||||||-2.74|-23.83|
91871723|NCT01263496|183636829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|14.1||||||||14.10|-28.15|
91871724|NCT01263496|183636829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.93|13.02||||||||13.02|-23.93|
91871725|NCT01263496|183636829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.46|-0.13||||||||-0.13|-35.46|
91871726|NCT01263496|183636829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.75|-13.41||||||||-13.41|-47.75|
91871727|NCT01263496|183636830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|42.09||||||||42.09|-5.18|
91871728|NCT01263496|183636830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|33.28||||||||33.28|-13.56|
91871729|NCT01263496|183636830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.25|15.37||||||||15.37|-30.25|
91871730|NCT01263496|183636830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.75|9.15||||||||9.15|-34.75|
91871731|NCT01263496|183636831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|25.58||||||||25.58|-13.90|
91871732|NCT01263496|183636831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|24.9||||||||24.90|-18.20|
91871733|NCT01263496|183636831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.03|18.74||||||||18.74|-26.03|
91797861|NCT02124161|183473932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.91||||||Serotype 4: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.91|0.55|
91871734|NCT01263496|183636831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.08|0.34||||||||0.34|-47.08|
91871735|NCT01263496|183636832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.77|24.71||||||||24.71|-18.77|
91871736|NCT01263496|183636832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.21|23.94||||||||23.94|-21.21|
91871737|NCT01263496|183636832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.69|10.3||||||||10.30|-32.69|
91871738|NCT01263496|183636832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.85|-12.96||||||||-12.96|-56.85|
91871739|NCT01263496|183636833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|1.535||||||||1.535|0.375|
91871740|NCT01263496|183636833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.965||||||||1.965|0.752|
91871741|NCT01263496|183636833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.975||||||||1.975|0.724|
91871742|NCT01263496|183636833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.955||||||||1.955|0.804|
91871743|NCT01263496|183636834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|1.723||||||||1.723|0.344|
91871744|NCT01263496|183636834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.448|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.115||||||||2.115|0.780|
91871745|NCT01263496|183636834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.243|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.87||||||||1.870|0.616|
91871746|NCT01263496|183636834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.481|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|2.136||||||||2.136|0.827|
91871747|NCT01263496|183636835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.088|4.188||||||||4.188|-4.088|
91871748|NCT01263496|183636835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.585|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.476|6.647||||||||6.647|-3.476|
91871749|NCT01263496|183636835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.151|9.184||||||||9.184|-8.151|
91871750|NCT01263496|183636835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.191|4.744||||||||4.744|-2.191|
91871751|NCT01263496|183636836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.841|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|1.443||||||||1.443|0.239|
91871752|NCT01263496|183636836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.304|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.93||||||||1.930|0.679|
91871753|NCT01263496|183636836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.585||||||||1.585|0.400|
91871754|NCT01263496|183636836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.263|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.853||||||||1.853|0.674|
91871755|NCT01263496|183636837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.597|22.184||||||||22.184|9.597|
91871756|NCT01263496|183636837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.466|23.585||||||||23.585|12.466|
91871757|NCT01263496|183636837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.838|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.379|25.297||||||||25.297|14.379|
91871758|NCT01263496|183636837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.368|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.677|22.06||||||||22.060|8.677|
91871759|NCT01263496|183636838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.567|22.079||||||||22.079|6.567|
91871760|NCT01263496|183636838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.563|26.864||||||||26.864|14.563|
91871761|NCT01263496|183636838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.125|25.002||||||||25.002|13.125|
91871762|NCT01263496|183636838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.618|23.847||||||||23.847|6.618|
91871763|NCT01263496|183636839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|14.924||||||||14.924|1.169|
91871764|NCT01263496|183636839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.767|20.133||||||||20.133|7.767|
91871765|NCT01263496|183636839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.191|21.251||||||||21.251|9.191|
91871766|NCT01263496|183636839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.366|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.847|20.885||||||||20.885|5.847|
91871767|NCT01263496|183636840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.719|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.657|13.782||||||||13.782|1.657|
91871768|NCT01263496|183636840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.556|18.399||||||||18.399|7.556|
91871769|NCT01263496|183636840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.808|20.345||||||||20.345|9.808|
91871770|NCT01263496|183636840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.561|19.614||||||||19.614|6.561|
91871771|NCT01263496|183636841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|20.55||||||||20.55|-7.03|
91871772|NCT01263496|183636841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|25.19||||||||25.19|-1.49|
91871773|NCT01263496|183636841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|24.56||||||||24.56|-5.12|
91871774|NCT01263496|183636841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|14.9||||||||14.90|-13.26|
91702925|NCT01886781|183300220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine an effect size of 0.64 with 80% power, a sample size of 27 for each group (D-IBS, C-IBS and controls), with a type 1 error of 5% using a two sided test was sufficient. Sample size based on expected behaviour of primary outcome measure. The minimally clinically important difference based on the primary outcome measure with the instrument used was 50 points.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||An intention-to -treat (ITT) analysis was performed on all patients who underwent randomization (n = 81). The results of the ITT analysis are presented. Changes in Severity Score was examined using the mixed model for analysis of variance to account for missing data. This model used group (treatment vs control) \& time as factors.||||<0.05
91871775|NCT01263496|183636842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.11|22.91||||||||22.91|-11.11|
91702926|NCT00551161|183300221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no adjustment for multiple testing was made. Although it would have been preferable to carry out an omnibus analysis, due to the small sample size, the descriptive approach described above was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to examine whether the change between t0 and t1 differed from the change between t1 and t2 \[(t2 - t1) - (t1 - t0)\] for each of the metabolites and ratios, in order to examine whether the rate of change differed while on monotherapy as compared with combination therapy.||||<0.05
91702927|NCT02273908|183300255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.949|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.459|-0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.439|-1.459|<0.001
91702928|NCT02273908|183300256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.259|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.131|-1.387|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||-1.387|-3.131|<0.001
91702929|NCT02273908|183300256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.887|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.704|-1.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||-1.071|-2.704|<0.001
91702930|NCT02273908|183300257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3018|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4903|5.1133|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||5.1133|1.4903|<0.001
91702931|NCT02273908|183300257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|2.729||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9047|4.5533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||4.5533|0.9047|0.004
91871776|NCT01263496|183636842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|28.35||||||||28.35|-7.21|
91871777|NCT01263496|183636842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|26.98||||||||26.98|-10.08|
91871778|NCT01263496|183636842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|24.3||||||||24.30|-10.67|
91871779|NCT01263496|183636843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.95|21.13||||||||21.13|-14.95|
91702932|NCT02273908|183300258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.301|-0.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||-0.359|-1.301|<0.001
91702933|NCT02273908|183300258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.674||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|-0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||-0.223|-1.125|0.004
91702934|NCT02273908|183300259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0204||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0091|0.0499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||0.0499|-0.0091|0.175
91702935|NCT02273908|183300259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0329||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0058|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||0.0600|0.0058|0.017
91797862|NCT02124161|183473932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18||||||Serotype 5: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.18|0.78|
91871780|NCT01263496|183636843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.61|20.57||||||||20.57|-15.61|
91871781|NCT01263496|183636843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|19.68||||||||19.68|-21.00|
91871782|NCT01263496|183636843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.47|20.05||||||||20.05|-17.47|
91871783|NCT01263496|183636844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|19.86||||||||19.86|-11.70|
91702936|NCT02273908|183300260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.697||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|8.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||8.842|0.552|0.026
91702937|NCT02273908|183300260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.292||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.282|4.866|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||4.866|-2.282|0.477
91702938|NCT02273908|183300261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Modified Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91702939|NCT02273908|183300262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Modified Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91871784|NCT01263496|183636844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|21.03||||||||21.03|-11.14|
91871785|NCT01263496|183636844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|21.73||||||||21.73|-14.42|
91871786|NCT01263496|183636844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|15.89||||||||15.89|-17.24|
91871787|NCT02203032|183636846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Row mean score test|||||||< 0.001
91871788|NCT02203032|183636847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Row mean score test|||||||< 0.001
91871789|NCT02203032|183636848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Row mean score test|||||||< 0.001
91871790|NCT02203032|183636849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.001
91871791|NCT01836445|183636862|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio|0.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.06|0.76|0.20
91871792|NCT01836445|183636863|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio|0.95||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.14|0.80|0.60
91871793|NCT01836445|183636864|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.99|0.70|0.04
91702940|NCT03301844|183300276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Chi-squared||||"Patient preference for one of the two treatments at Visit 3 was presented overall in terms of number and percentage of patients preferring the standard or the study treatment.~Patient preference was compared between the standard and the study treatment with a Chi-Square test for equal proportion."|||0.071
91702941|NCT03301844|183300277|OTHER|||||||0.7353|||||||Chi-squared||||"The incidence of all the treatment-emergent systemic Adverse Events recorded in the eCRF was presented overall at patient level; the incidence of all the treatment-emergent ocular Adverse Events recorded in eCRF was presented by treatment group at eye level.~Incidence of treatment-emergent ocular Adverse Events was compared between treatment groups by means of a Chi-square test."|||0.7353
91702942|NCT00501059|183300279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||Log Rank|||Primary efficacy analysis of time to the composite endpoint was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant and the primary objective of the study will have been met if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.597
91702943|NCT00501059|183300280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6125|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to the composite endpoint was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.6125
91702944|NCT00501059|183300281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4505|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to non-fatal MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.4505
91702945|NCT00501059|183300281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to total MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.229
91702946|NCT00501059|183300281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3947|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to total non-fatal stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.3947
91702947|NCT00501059|183300281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5125|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to total stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.5125
91702948|NCT00501059|183300282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9544|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis of time to all-cause mortality was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.9544
91702949|NCT00501059|183300282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4422|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis of time to the first occurrence of all cancers excluding non-melanoma skin cancer was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.4422
91871794|NCT01836445|183636866|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.95|||Z-test|||||0.95|0.38|0.01
91871795|NCT01836445|183636867|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.150
91702950|NCT00501059|183300282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis of time to the first occurence colon cancer was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.611
91702951|NCT00501059|183300283|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.9459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of all-cause mortality was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.24|0.80|0.9459
91702952|NCT00501059|183300284|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.2325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.11|0.64|0.2325
91702953|NCT00501059|183300284|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.5072||95.0|0.8|1.55|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.55|0.80|0.5072
91702954|NCT00501059|183300284|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.901||95.0|0.62|1.52|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of cardiovascular death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.52|0.62|0.9010
91702955|NCT00501059|183300284|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.9979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.86|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of UA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.86|0.54|0.9979
91702956|NCT00501059|183300284|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.42|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.42|0.61|0.7455
91871796|NCT01836445|183636868|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.374|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.374
91871797|NCT01836445|183636869|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.919|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Motivation items||||0.919
91871798|NCT01836445|183636869|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.493|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Social Norms items||||0.493
91871799|NCT01836445|183636869|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Behavioral Skills items||||0.002
91871800|NCT01836445|183636870|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.067|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Relationship Maintenance items||||0.067
91871801|NCT01836445|183636870|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.135|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Condom Use items||||0.135
91871802|NCT01836445|183636870|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.025|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for HIV Testing items||||0.025
91871803|NCT01836445|183636871|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.138|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.138
91871804|NCT01836445|183636872|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.173|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.173
91871805|NCT01836445|183636873|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.567|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.567
91871806|NCT01836445|183636874|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.861|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for motivation items||||0.861
91871807|NCT01836445|183636874|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.628|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for social norms items||||0.628
91871808|NCT01836445|183636874|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.151|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for behavioral skills items||||0.151
91871809|NCT01836445|183636875|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Relationship Maintenance items||||0.001
91871810|NCT01836445|183636875|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.067|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Condom Use items||||0.067
91871811|NCT01836445|183636875|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.637|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for HIV Testing items||||0.637
91871812|NCT01836445|183636876|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.862|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.862
91871813|NCT01836445|183636877|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.762|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.762
91871814|NCT01836445|183636878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Motivation items||||0.043
91871815|NCT01836445|183636878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Social Norm items||||0.617
91871816|NCT01836445|183636878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Behavioral Skills items||||0.570
91871817|NCT01836445|183636879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Relationship Maintenance items||||0.036
91871818|NCT01836445|183636879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Condom Use items||||0.837
91871819|NCT01836445|183636879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for HIV Testing items||||0.953
91871820|NCT01836445|183636880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.719
91871821|NCT03854734|183636983|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis for vaccine intention of Tdap||1.25|1.00|
91871822|NCT03854734|183636983|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis for vaccine intention of MCV||1.29|1.00|
91871823|NCT03854734|183636983|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis for vaccine intention of HPV||1.14|0.96|
91871824|NCT00264576|183636985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.04|0.70|
91871825|NCT00264576|183636985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.7|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.70|0.46|
91871826|NCT00264576|183636985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.36|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.36|0.95|
91871827|NCT00264576|183636985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs) had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.12|0.76|
91871828|NCT00264576|183636985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs) had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.75|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.75|0.50|
91871829|NCT00264576|183636985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs) had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.57|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.57|1.09|
91702957|NCT00501059|183300286|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.6038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke, CV death, UA or TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.13|0.81|0.6038
91702958|NCT00501059|183300286|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.15|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke or CV death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.15|0.79|0.6190
91702959|NCT00501059|183300286|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.4562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of non-fatal MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.20|0.67|0.4562
91702960|NCT00501059|183300287|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke, CV death, UA or TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.02|0.64|0.0756
91702961|NCT00501059|183300287|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke or CV death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.02|0.61|0.0661
91702962|NCT00501059|183300287|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.53||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||0.79|0.36|0.0014
91702963|NCT00501059|183300287|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.84|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of non-fatal MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||0.84|0.36|0.0056
91702964|NCT00501059|183300287|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.6291||95.0|0.71|1.75|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.75|0.71|0.6291
91702965|NCT00501059|183300287|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.77|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of CV death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.77|0.60|0.9161
91702966|NCT00501059|183300287|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.538||95.0|0.3|1.87|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of UA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.87|0.30|0.5380
91871830|NCT00264576|183636991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.03|0.70|
91702967|NCT00501059|183300287|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.95|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.95|0.55|0.9181
91702968|NCT00501059|183300287|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.4796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of all-cause mortality was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.45|0.84|0.4796
91702969|NCT02124759|183300289|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Null hypothesis is that high fat diet will have no effect on M value, the measure of insulin sensitivity for each intervention as assessed by clamp.||||>0.05
91702970|NCT04250298|183300292|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91797863|NCT02124161|183473932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.85||||||Serotype 6A: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.85|0.53|
91702971|NCT04250298|183300293|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.267
91702972|NCT04250298|183300294|OTHER|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.228
91702973|NCT04250298|183300295|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.267
91702974|NCT04250298|183300296|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91702975|NCT04250298|183300297|OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.318
91702976|NCT04250298|183300298|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.348
91702977|NCT04250298|183300299|OTHER|||||||0.548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.548
91702978|NCT04250298|183300300|OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.401
91702979|NCT04250298|183300301|OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.506
91702980|NCT04250298|183300302|OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.506
91702981|NCT04250298|183300308|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher Exact, Chi-Squared, Kolmogorv-Smirnow||||||0.919|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"sub-population 1 vs. sub-population 2: Parametric and nonparametric univariate tests: t-test for independent samples, Mann-Whitney-U test, Fisher's exact test, chi-square homogeneity test; normal distribution check by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with Lilliefors -significance correction, type I error = 10%).~Estimate the true effect size:~Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (depending on the nature of the data sets: parametric, non-parametric or Clopper-Pearson) are calculated for all parameters."||||0.919
91702982|NCT04250298|183300310|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
91702983|NCT04250298|183300311|OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
91702984|NCT04250298|183300312|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
91702985|NCT04250298|183300313|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
91702986|NCT04250298|183300318|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91702987|NCT04250298|183300319|OTHER|||||||0.862|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.862
91871831|NCT00264576|183636991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.76|0.52|
91871832|NCT00264576|183636991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.38|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.38|0.98|
91871833|NCT00264576|183636991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12||To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.12|0.76|
91871834|NCT00264576|183636991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.83|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.83|0.57|
91871835|NCT00264576|183636991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.58|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.58|1.13|
91871836|NCT00535626|183637026|OTHER|"To test if revision rate at 5 years is less than 10% (Ha - Alternative Hypothesis).~Note: All cases enrolled in the study had to undergo revision whether from their primary procedure or a previous revision. Based on literature, 10% is the expected rate of another revision occurring in this cohort of enrolled patients."|Revision or Pending Revision Rate|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|5.46|||||The estimated 2.43% revision rate was obtained by the Kaplan-Meier method.|||5.46|1.07|
91871837|NCT00535626|183637027|OTHER|To test if the change from the pre-operative HHS compared to the post-operative HHS at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value applies to all intervals.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
91871838|NCT00535626|183637028|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Physical Score compared to each post-operative SF-36 Physical score is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value applies to all intervals.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
91871839|NCT00535626|183637028|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 3 month SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0139
91871840|NCT00535626|183637028|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 1 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0254|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0254
91871841|NCT00535626|183637028|OTHER|To test whether the change from the SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 2 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.1506|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.1506
91871842|NCT00535626|183637028|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 3 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0936
91871843|NCT00535626|183637028|OTHER|To test if the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 4 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0909|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0909
91871844|NCT00535626|183637028|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 5 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.048
91871845|NCT00535626|183637031|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS Score compared to the 3 month LEAS Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0011
91702988|NCT04250298|183300320|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.250
91871846|NCT00535626|183637031|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS compared to the 1, 2 and 3 year LEAS are statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value applies to pre-op to 1, 2 and 3 year intervals.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
91871847|NCT00535626|183637031|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS compared to the 4 year LEAS is statistically significant.||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0002
91871848|NCT00535626|183637031|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS compared to the 5 year LEAS is statistically significant.||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0009
91702989|NCT04250298|183300321|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91702990|NCT04250298|183300322|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91702991|NCT04250298|183300323|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.055
91871849|NCT00321971|183637129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention-to-treat model|The CES-D data were log-transformed for analysis|Hypothesis: The experimental intervention group will endorse lower mean levels of depressive symptoms during follow-up than the study group receiving the comparison intervention.||0.657|0.208|<.05
91871850|NCT00949234|183637175|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||There was no power calculation for this analysis. The study was mainly descriptive, but Chi-square tests were used to determine if there were differences between individuals who were retained at the 24 Week Follow-up visit from individuals who were not retained at the 24 Week Follow-up visit.||||<0.05
91871851|NCT00508183|183637176|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91871852|NCT00508183|183637177|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91871853|NCT00508183|183637178|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91871854|NCT00508183|183637180|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91702992|NCT04250298|183300324|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.111
91702993|NCT04250298|183300325|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.100
91702994|NCT04250298|183300328|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.111
91702995|NCT04250298|183300329|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.213
91702996|NCT00725101|183300364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||P-value for age over 65.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0074
91702997|NCT00725101|183300364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0028||95.0||||P-value for female physicians.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0028
91702998|NCT00725101|183300364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Rheumatology versus PCP.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91702999|NCT00725101|183300364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for other specialty versus PCP.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91703000|NCT00725101|183300364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0||||P-value for use of opioids.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0064
91703001|NCT00725101|183300364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for use of NSAIDs.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91703002|NCT00725101|183300364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for number of medications participants were taking.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91703003|NCT00725101|183300365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-value for GAD-7 score.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.026
91703004|NCT00725101|183300365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value for pregabalin use.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.021
91703005|NCT00725101|183300365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for NSAID use.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.050
91703006|NCT05727306|183300411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.46|||||Calculated as the odds of having a depressive episode in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Odds Ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.46|1.25|
91703007|NCT05727306|183300412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.58|||||Calculated as the odds of having recurrent depressive disorder in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Odds Ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.58|1.32|
91703008|NCT05727306|183300413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.51|||||Calculated as the odds of having anxiety in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Odds Ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.51|1.30|
91703009|NCT05727306|183300414|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.46|||||Calculated as the incidence rate of attending primary care in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Incidence rate ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.46|1.37|
91703010|NCT05727306|183300415|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|9.04|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||9.04|7.55|
91703011|NCT05727306|183300416|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.57|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.57|1.17|
91871855|NCT03785756|183637181|EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis was based on a two-sided test at the significance level of 0.05. The treatment difference is presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.72|41.38|||ANCOVA|Estimates from an ANCOVA model with SPID12 score as the dependent variable. Terms for treatment and baseline pain score were included as covariates.||The primary efficacy hypothesis was that SPID12 for placebo was equal to SPID12 for ibuprofen 2 × 300 mg PR tablets.||41.38|26.72|<0.0001
91871856|NCT03879538|183637211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.28||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous Oxide minus Control.|Null hypothesis: Mean of pain score assessed at one-week and one-month follow-up after end of treatment for Nitrous Oxide group equals that assessed at same time points for the Control group.||0.28|-1.42|0.19
91871857|NCT03879538|183637212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous oxide minus control.|Null hypothesis for testing difference in means of physical health Z-score between two study groups: mean of physical health Z-score assessed at one-week and one-month follow-ups for Nitrous Oxide group was equal to that assessed at the same follow-up time points for Control group.||0.43|-0.16|0.36
91703012|NCT05727306|183300417|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.87|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.87|1.14|
91703013|NCT05727306|183300418|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.61|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.61|1.38|
91871858|NCT03879538|183637212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.48||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous oxide minus control.|Null hypothesis for testing difference in means of mental health Z-score between two study groups: mean of mental health Z-score assessed at one-week and one-month follow-ups for Nitrous Oxide group was equal to that assessed at the same follow-up time points for Control group.||0.48|-0.31|0.66
91871859|NCT03879538|183637213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.46||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous Oxide minus Control.|Null hypothesis: Mean of PGIC scale assessed at one-week and one-month follow-up time points for Nitrous Oxide patients is equal to that assessed at the same time points for Control patients.||0.46|-1.85|0.23
91703014|NCT00819780|183300435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.871||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.166|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.166|0.651|0.3531
91703015|NCT00819780|183300436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.723||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.111|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.111|0.470|0.1386
91703016|NCT00819780|183300437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.95|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm relative to the odds in the bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm.|||1.95|0.72|0.5497
91703017|NCT00819780|183300439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.874||||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.185|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.185|0.645|0.3861
91703018|NCT00819780|183300442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.651||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.956|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||0.956|0.444|0.0286
91703019|NCT00819780|183300443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.579||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.869|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||0.869|0.386|0.0083
91703020|NCT00819780|183300444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.606||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|1.088|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant Oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.088|0.337|0.0934
91703021|NCT00819780|183300445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.465||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|0.902|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||0.902|0.239|0.0235
91703022|NCT00819780|183300446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.12|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by prior exposure to oxaliplatin|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm relative to the odds in the bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm.|||2.12|0.55|0.9426
91703023|NCT00819780|183300447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.15|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by prior exposure to oxaliplatin|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm relative to the odds in the bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm.|||2.15|0.52|1.0000
91871860|NCT00666705|183637224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|85.76||||||90.0|79.89|92.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed AUCτ was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|The alternate hypothesis of bioequivalence is that there is no difference between treatment groups. For maraviroc, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 99% power that the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of Test (raltegravir co-administered with maraviroc) to Reference (maraviroc administered alone) treatment for the area under the plasma concentration-time profile over the dosing interval (AUCτ) would lie within the acceptance region of (80%, 125%).||92.07|79.89|
91871861|NCT00666705|183637225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|79.48||||||90.0|67.19|94.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|The alternate hypothesis of bioequivalence is that there is no difference between treatment groups. For maraviroc, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 91% power that the 90% CI for the ratio of Test (raltegravir co-administered with maraviroc) to Reference (maraviroc administered alone) treatment for the maximum concentration (Cmax) would lie within the acceptance region of (80%, 125%).||94.02|67.19|
91703024|NCT03301740|183300519|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in intradialytic hypotension between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.7|0.8|0.5
91703025|NCT03301740|183300520|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Beta coefficient|-2.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.4||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in troponin T change between UF profiling and conventional HD. Repeated measure linear regression was performed, giving each subject a random intercept term. The coefficient is the difference in the outcome between UF profiling and conventional HD.||1.4|-6.9|0.2
91906494|NCT02187172|183708681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.71||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.4|52.61|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||52.61|-116.40|0.4493
91871862|NCT00666705|183637226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|63.25||||||90.0|44.27|90.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed AUCτ was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|For raltegravir, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 90% CIs for the difference between treatments of raltegravir (±0.205) on the natural log scale for AUCτ, with 90% coverage probability.||90.39|44.27|
91871863|NCT00666705|183637227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|90.33||||||90.0|85.28|95.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed C12 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|The alternate hypothesis of bioequivalence is that there is no difference between treatment groups.||95.68|85.28|
91871864|NCT00666705|183637228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|66.77||||||90.0|41.22|108.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|For raltegravir, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 90% CIs for the difference between treatments of raltegravir (±0.293) on the natural log scale for Cmax, with 90% coverage probability.||108.15|41.22|
91871865|NCT00666705|183637229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio (percent)|72.42||||||90.0|57.82|90.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed C12 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|||90.71|57.82|
91703026|NCT03301740|183300521|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in troponin T rise between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.3|0.2|0.1
91703027|NCT03301740|183300522|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in left ventricular GLS change between UF profiling and conventional HD. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the difference of the endpoint between the 2 treatment groups.||0.5|-2.0|0.2
91703028|NCT03301740|183300523|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Beta coefficient|-0.2||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.7||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in nadir systolic BP between UF profiling and conventional HD. Repeated measure linear regression was performed, giving each subject a random intercept term. The coefficient is the difference in the outcome between UF profiling and conventional HD.||1.7|-2.0|0.9
91703029|NCT03301740|183300524|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in failed target weight achievement between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.3|0.7|0.8
91703030|NCT03301740|183300525|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important cramping between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.1|0.4|0.9
91703031|NCT03301740|183300526|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important nausea/upset stomach between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.2|0.2|0.5
91871866|NCT01029704|183637239|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-16.923||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.076|3.23||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||3.230|-37.076|0.0989
91871867|NCT01029704|183637239|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-17.834||||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.909|3.242||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||3.242|-38.909|0.0964
91871868|NCT01029704|183637239|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-19.991||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.67|-0.312||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.312|-39.670|0.0465
91871869|NCT01029704|183637239|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-32.01||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.487|-12.533||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-12.533|-51.487|0.0015
91906495|NCT02187172|183708682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.38|-0.30|0.8008
91871870|NCT01029704|183637241|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.434||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.349|-0.52||P-values are from a two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.520|-2.349|0.0025
91703032|NCT03301740|183300527|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important Vomiting/throwing up score between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||16.0|0.1|1.0
91703033|NCT03301740|183300528|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important dizziness/lightheadedness between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||0.9|0.1|0.04
91703034|NCT03301740|183300529|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|32.4||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important racing heart/heart palpitations between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||32.4|0.3|0.3
91703035|NCT03301740|183300530|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.0||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important chest pain between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||6.0|0.2|1.0
91703036|NCT03301740|183300531|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.5||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important shortness of breath between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||6.5|0.3|0.7
91703037|NCT03301740|183300532|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.2||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important thirst/dry mouth between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.2|0.3|0.2
91703038|NCT03301740|183300533|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important headache between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.3|0.4|0.8
91703039|NCT03301740|183300534|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.6||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important itching between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||6.6|1.2|0.02
91703040|NCT03301740|183300535|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.6||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important restless legs/difficulty keeping legs still between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.6|0.5|0.7
91871871|NCT01029704|183637241|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.037||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.952|-0.122||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.122|-1.952|0.0269
91871872|NCT01029704|183637241|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.938|-1.17||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-1.170|-2.938|< 0.0001
91871873|NCT01029704|183637241|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.172||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.044|-0.301||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.301|-2.044|0.0090
91703041|NCT03301740|183300536|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.4||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important tingling/feeling of pins and needles between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.4|0.2|0.5
91703042|NCT02847182|183300537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The mean of the 6-month change in VABS-II Socialization Subscale Standard Score is the same for the Cord Blood and Placebo groups.||3.86|-1.58|0.83
91703043|NCT00962091|183300570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|2.37|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 Cmax values (difference=OS-PIC). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||2.37|1.52|
91703044|NCT00962091|183300571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.78|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 AUClast values (difference=OS-PIC). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.78|1.08|
91703045|NCT00962091|183300577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.06|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 Cmax values (difference=Fed-Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.06|0.66|
91703046|NCT00962091|183300578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.34|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 AUClast values (difference=Fed-Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.34|0.80|
91703047|NCT00962091|183300579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.32|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 AUC values (difference=Fed-Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.32|0.68|
91703048|NCT02172040|183300600|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin definition: lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for amlodipine + celecoxib arm did not cross the 50% value for the amlodipine arm.|||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for the primary efficacy endpoint analysis. The primary comparison was a two-sample t-test to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with amlodipine + celecoxib was non-inferior to half of the effect achieved with amlodipine.||||= 0.001
91703049|NCT02172040|183300600|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.491|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for the primary efficacy endpoint analysis. The secondary comparison was a two-sample t-test to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with placebo was superior to treatment with celecoxib. This was only to be performed if statistical significance was achieved for the primary comparison.||||= 0.491
91703050|NCT02172040|183300601|OTHER||||||=|0.166|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.166
91703051|NCT02172040|183300602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.177
91703052|NCT02172040|183300602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703053|NCT02172040|183300602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703054|NCT02172040|183300602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703055|NCT02172040|183300602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703056|NCT02172040|183300602|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.719|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.719
91703057|NCT02172040|183300603|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.069|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.069
91703058|NCT02172040|183300603|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.001
91703059|NCT02172040|183300603|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703060|NCT02172040|183300603|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.097|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.097
91871874|NCT01029704|183637242|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.353||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|-0.039||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.039|-0.668|0.0281
91871875|NCT01029704|183637242|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.155||||0.3215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|0.154||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||0.154|-0.464|0.3215
91871876|NCT01029704|183637242|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.004||||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.295||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||0.295|-0.304|0.9776
91871877|NCT01029704|183637242|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.344||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.642|-0.046||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.046|-0.642|0.0242
91703061|NCT02172040|183300603|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.064|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.064
91703062|NCT02172040|183300603|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.924|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.924
91703063|NCT02172040|183300604|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.038|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.038
91703064|NCT02172040|183300604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703065|NCT02172040|183300604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703066|NCT02172040|183300604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91871878|NCT01029704|183637244|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|17.688||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|42.587||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||42.587|-7.210|0.1613
91703067|NCT02172040|183300604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703068|NCT02172040|183300604|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.562|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.562
91703069|NCT02172040|183300605|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.104|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.104
91703070|NCT02172040|183300605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703071|NCT02172040|183300605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703072|NCT02172040|183300605|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.002
91703073|NCT02172040|183300605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703074|NCT02172040|183300605|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.419|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.419
91703075|NCT02172040|183300606|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.028
91703076|NCT02172040|183300606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703077|NCT02172040|183300606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703078|NCT02172040|183300606|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.051|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.051
91703079|NCT02172040|183300606|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.074
91871879|NCT01029704|183637244|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|17.091||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.696|43.877||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||43.877|-9.696|0.2079
91703080|NCT02172040|183300606|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.878|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.878
91703081|NCT02172040|183300607|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703082|NCT02172040|183300608|OTHER||||||=|0.977|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.977
91703083|NCT02172040|183300609|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703084|NCT02172040|183300610|OTHER||||||=|0.527|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.527
91703085|NCT02172040|183300611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703086|NCT02172040|183300611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703087|NCT02172040|183300611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91703088|NCT02172040|183300611|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.001
91703089|NCT04908202|183300614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.13|1.67|<0.0001
91703090|NCT04908202|183300615|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|-0.5051|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6709|-0.3392|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3392|-0.6709|<0.0001
91703091|NCT04908202|183300616|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|-0.1688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2442|-0.0933|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0933|-0.2442|<0.0001
91703092|NCT04908202|183300617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|27.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.59|7.19|<0.0001
91871880|NCT01029704|183637244|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|24.379||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|47.731||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||47.731|1.028|0.0410
91871881|NCT01029704|183637244|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|20.749||||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.019|44.518||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||44.518|-3.019|0.0862
91703093|NCT04908202|183300618|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|6.631|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.481|9.781|||ANCOVA|||||9.781|3.481|<0.0001
91703094|NCT04908202|183300619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.75|0.74|0.5699
91703095|NCT04908202|183300620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.26|1.33|0.0012
91703096|NCT04908202|183300621|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.9|1.4|<0.0001
91703097|NCT04908202|183300622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.03|1.07|0.0270
91703098|NCT04908202|183300623|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|0.1596||||0.7194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7114|1.0306|||ANCOVA|||||1.0306|-0.7114|0.7194
91703099|NCT03030118|183300707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For the primary outcome (SLICC classification criteria count \[SLICC score\]), measured every 12 weeks over a 96-week period, we used an ordinal logistic regression model to compare the estimated slopes over time for the intervention (HCQ) and placebo groups. The model accounted for the ordinal and non-decreasing properties of the SLICC score. Our null hypothesis was that the intervention slope equaled the placebo slope, with a corresponding hypothesis that the slopes were not equal.||||0.72
91703100|NCT03030118|183300708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Cox|||Progression to SLE was defined as the number of subjects in whom a SLICC score of 4 was recorded, up to 96 weeks.||||0.81
91703101|NCT03030118|183300709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Logistic|||"For the SLEDAI score, we combined responses to model the following groups:~* Score of 0 or 1~* Score of 2 or 3~* Score of 4, 6, or 8"||||0.74
91703102|NCT03030118|183300710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression||"For analysis, we combined responses ≥3 to model the following groups:~* Score of 0~* Score of 1~* Score of 2~* Score of 3 or higher"||||0.77
91703103|NCT03030118|183300711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.386
91703104|NCT03030118|183300712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.497
91703105|NCT03030118|183300713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression||||||0.99
91703106|NCT03030118|183300714|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91703107|NCT03030118|183300715|NON_INFERIORITY|Outcome with hydroxychloroquine is hypothesized to be not inferior to outcome with placebo.|||||>|0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.5
91703108|NCT03030118|183300716|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91703109|NCT03030118|183300717|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91703110|NCT00454818|183300742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.2. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
91871882|NCT03845517|183637246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||0.8076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|9.5||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.5|-24.5|0.8076
91871883|NCT03845517|183637246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|18.3||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.3|-7.9|0.2189
91871884|NCT03845517|183637246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|15.3||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.3|-11.8|0.4010
91871885|NCT03845517|183637247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|14.9||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|-19.1|0.5950
91871886|NCT03845517|183637247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.6||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|22.6||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.6|-5.3|0.1125
91906496|NCT02187172|183708682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.24|-0.19|0.8068
91906497|NCT02187172|183708683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.12||0.4079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.65|160.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison during RCT period||160.57|-66.65|0.4079
91703111|NCT00454818|183300742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.2. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.515
91703112|NCT00454818|183300742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.2. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
91703113|NCT00766467|183300759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91871887|NCT03845517|183637247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|23.6||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.6|-4.4|0.0891
91871888|NCT01109979|183637268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91871889|NCT02580799|183637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.137|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site B variability assessment||||=0.137
91871890|NCT02580799|183637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site C variability assessment||||=0.454
91871891|NCT02580799|183637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site D variability assessment||||=0.211
91871892|NCT02580799|183637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site E variability assessment||||=0.294
91871893|NCT02580799|183637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site B: Site C variability assessment||||=0.054
91871894|NCT02580799|183637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site B: Site D variability assessment||||=1.000
91871895|NCT02580799|183637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.968|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site B: Site E variability assessment||||=0.968
91871896|NCT02580799|183637285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.246|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site C: Site D variability assessment||||=0.246
91871897|NCT02580799|183637285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site C: Site E variability assessment||||=0.032
91871898|NCT02580799|183637285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site D: Site E variability assessment||||=0.007
91703114|NCT02332239|183300797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed effects longitudinal regression||d=0.37|BDI Score where baseline \>=20: 8 week||||0.07
91703115|NCT02332239|183300798|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||quantile regression models|Controlled for baseline and gender|d=0.46|CTS Score where baseline \>=4: 8 week||||0.01
91871899|NCT02580799|183637287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.988|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site A variability assessment||||=0.988
91871900|NCT02580799|183637287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site B variability assessment||||=0.008
91871901|NCT02580799|183637287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site C variability assessment||||=0.031
91871902|NCT02580799|183637287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site D variability assessment||||=0.554
91871903|NCT02580799|183637287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.709|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site E variability assessment||||=0.709
91871904|NCT03136861|183637292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR).||Average Spinal Pain Score \<4 at Week 8||3.33|1.08|0.0264
91871905|NCT03136861|183637292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR)||Total Spinal Pain Score \<4 at Week 8||3.10|0.95|0.0720
91871906|NCT03136861|183637292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.31|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR)||Nocturnal Spinal Pain Score||4.31|1.31|0.0043
91871907|NCT03136861|183637293|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR).||BASDAI Score \<4 at Week 8||3.04|1.01|0.0466
91906498|NCT02187172|183708683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.85||0.8907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.91|73.28|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||73.28|-63.91|0.8907
91906499|NCT02187172|183708684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.81||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|105.81|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||105.81|-91.80|0.8866
91906500|NCT02187172|183708684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.59||0.4527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.78|41.3|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||41.30|-90.78|0.4527
91906501|NCT02187172|183708685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|194.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.23||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.61|328.77|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||328.77|60.61|0.0056
91797864|NCT02124161|183473932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.08||||||Serotype 6B: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.08|0.64|
91797865|NCT02124161|183473932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14||||||Serotype 7F: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.83|
91797866|NCT02124161|183473932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||Serotype 9V: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.0|0.69|
91703116|NCT02332239|183300801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91703117|NCT00662558|183300811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Differences in treatment proportions and the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the difference were estimated by calculating the risk difference between the treatment arms using a generalized linear model with treatment and center as factors. A lower 95% CI for the risk difference greater than -0.10 would demonstrate that celecoxib 200 mg BID is not inferior to tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg QID.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.091||||||95.0|0.0255|0.1565||||||||0.1565|0.0255|
91703118|NCT00662558|183300811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If celecoxib 200 mg BID was found to be non-inferior to tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg QID then the second step was to test the superiority of celecoxib 200 mg BID over tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg QID using a two-sided test of proportions. Differences in proportions were tested using the General Association Test of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) procedure stratified by center.||||0.008
91703119|NCT00662558|183300812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.234||95.0|-0.53|0.13|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the least squares (LS) mean difference.|The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.13|-0.53|0.234
91703120|NCT00662558|183300813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.595||95.0|-4.39|2.52|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||2.52|-4.39|0.595
91703121|NCT00662558|183300814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.829||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.829
91703122|NCT00662558|183300815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.470
91703123|NCT00662558|183300816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.339||95.0|-0.95|0.33|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.95|0.339
91703124|NCT00662558|183300817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.741||95.0|-0.36|0.25|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|How Much Pain Now. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.25|-0.36|0.741
91797867|NCT02124161|183473932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92||||||Serotype 14: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.92|0.62|
91703125|NCT00662558|183300817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.796||95.0|-0.38|0.29|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Worst Pain in Past 24 Hours. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.29|-0.38|0.796
91703126|NCT00662558|183300817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.492||95.0|-0.41|0.2|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Average Pain in Past 24 Hours. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.20|-0.41|0.492
91797868|NCT02124161|183473932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.06||||||Serotype 18C: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.06|0.64|
91871908|NCT01934452|183637311|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.8|2.2|<0.001
91871909|NCT01934452|183637312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91871910|NCT01934452|183637313|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Extended or partial nephrectomy||||1.000
91871911|NCT01934452|183637313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809|||||||Chi-squared|||Nephrectomy with or without adrenalectomy||||0.809
91871912|NCT01934452|183637313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||Nephrectomy with or without curettage||||0.019
91871913|NCT01934452|183637313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Fisher Exact|||Open or laparoscopic nephrectomy||||0.734
91871914|NCT01934452|183637314|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-3.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|1.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.6|-13.2|0.230
91871915|NCT01934452|183637315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sarcomatoid contingent||||0.695
91797869|NCT02124161|183473932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||||||Serotype 19A: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.04|0.72|
91797870|NCT02124161|183473932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14||||||Serotype 19F: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.71|
91797871|NCT02124161|183473932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03||||||Serotype 23F: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.03|0.56|
91797872|NCT02124161|183473933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||Strain A/H1N1: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.18|0.88|
91797873|NCT02124161|183473933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.32||||||Strain A/H3N2: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.32|1.01|
91797874|NCT02124161|183473933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24||||||Strain B/Brisbane: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.24|0.95|
91797875|NCT02124161|183473933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21||||||Strain B/Massachusetts: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.21|0.90|
91797876|NCT02124161|183473936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.4||||||AE: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC+QIV /placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC, expressed as a percentage.||7.4|-1.9|
91797877|NCT02124161|183473936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||SAE: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC+QIV /placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC, expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
91797878|NCT02124161|183473938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.8||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|2.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||2.8|-8.3|0.333
91797879|NCT02124161|183473938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-4.3||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|0.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.9|-9.6|0.105
91797880|NCT02124161|183473938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.6|-7.6|0.090
91797881|NCT02124161|183473938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.8||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||7.8|-4.2|0.590
91797882|NCT02124161|183473938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-7.5|0.044
91797883|NCT02124161|183473938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.4||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||3.4|-6.2|0.574
91797884|NCT02124161|183473938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.2||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||3.9|-6.3|0.648
91797885|NCT02124161|183473938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.2|-12.5|0.057
91797886|NCT02124161|183473938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-0.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-7.3|0.030
91703127|NCT00662558|183300817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.893||95.0|-0.28|0.33|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With General Activity. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.28|0.893
91871916|NCT01934452|183637316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||Chi-squared|||M class||||0.316
91871917|NCT01934452|183637317|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-2.0||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|18.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.0|-22.0|0.778
91906502|NCT02187172|183708685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.01||0.4478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.17|47.85|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||47.85|-106.17|0.4478
91906503|NCT02187172|183708686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|8.83|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||8.83|-2.55|0.2704
91906504|NCT02187172|183708686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|4.36|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||4.36|-1.36|0.2950
91906505|NCT02187172|183708687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.03|-3.45|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-3.45|-30.03|0.0149
91703128|NCT00662558|183300817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.618||95.0|-0.4|0.24|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Mood. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.40|0.618
91703129|NCT00662558|183300817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.44||95.0|-0.19|0.43|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Walking Activity. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.43|-0.19|0.440
91703130|NCT00662558|183300817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.806||95.0|-0.25|0.32|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Relations With Others. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.32|-0.25|0.806
91703131|NCT00662558|183300817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.739||95.0|-0.38|0.27|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Sleep. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.27|-0.38|0.739
91703132|NCT00662558|183300817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.992||95.0|-0.32|0.33|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Normal Work. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.32|0.992
91703133|NCT00662558|183300817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.793||95.0|-0.28|0.36|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Enjoyment of Life. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.36|-0.28|0.793
91703134|NCT00662558|183300817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.973||95.0|-0.27|0.28|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interference Subscale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.28|-0.27|0.973
91703135|NCT00662558|183300818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.392||95.0|-4.26|1.67|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Disturbance. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.67|-4.26|0.392
91703136|NCT00662558|183300818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.691||95.0|-3.94|2.61|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Snoring. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||2.61|-3.94|0.691
91871918|NCT01934452|183637318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.812
91871919|NCT01934452|183637319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.77|||Chi-squared|||Presence of necrosis||6.77|0.90|0.077
91871920|NCT01934452|183637319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.52|||Chi-squared|||Vascular embolism||3.52|0.44|0.673
91871921|NCT01934452|183637319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.97|||Fisher Exact|||Sarcomatoid component||3.97|0.27|1.000
91871922|NCT01934452|183637320|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-0.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.6|-1.5|0.865
91871923|NCT01934452|183637321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||Lung||||0.011
91871924|NCT01934452|183637321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Chi-squared|||Bones||||0.132
91871925|NCT01934452|183637321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver||||0.473
91906506|NCT02187172|183708687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|6.71|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||6.71|-6.93|0.9734
91906507|NCT02187172|183708688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.76||0.4384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.03|14.6|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||14.60|-33.03|0.4384
91906508|NCT02187172|183708688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|25.99|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||25.99|-3.72|0.1373
91906509|NCT02187172|183708689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|-4.03|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-4.03|-27.39|0.0097
91906510|NCT02187172|183708689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.8119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|3.7|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||3.70|-4.69|0.8119
91906511|NCT02187172|183708690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.9415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|9.59|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||9.59|-8.91|0.9415
91797887|NCT02124161|183473938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.5||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||1.6|-6.6|0.233
91797888|NCT02124161|183473938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.7|-4.5|0.152
91797889|NCT02124161|183473938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||5.8|-5.1|0.926
91797890|NCT02124161|183473938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.9||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|1.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||1.3|-9.1|0.143
91797891|NCT02124161|183473941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|5.1||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain A/H1N1: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||11.0|-0.9|0.094
91797892|NCT02124161|183473941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|-3.8||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain A/H3N2: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||2.4|-9.9|0.232
91797893|NCT02124161|183473941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|-1.0||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain B/Brisbane: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||4.5|-6.6|0.734
91797894|NCT02124161|183473941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|-1.5||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain B/Massachusetts: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||4.3|-7.2|0.627
91797895|NCT02439879|183473945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t test|||All data were analyzed using the SPSS v16 statistical package software. To compare categorical variables, the chi2 test was used, and, for continuous variables,the T-test for independent or paired samples was applied.Data are expressed as percent values with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or mean ± SD or mean ± SEM||||< 0.05
91871926|NCT01934452|183637321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adrenal glands||||0.101
91797896|NCT03789214|183473981|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||.950
91797897|NCT03789214|183473982|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||.048
91871927|NCT01934452|183637321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pancreas||||0.445
91703137|NCT00662558|183300818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.549||95.0|-3.7|1.97|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Awaken Shortness of Breath or Headache. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.97|-3.70|0.549
91797898|NCT03789214|183473983|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.691|||||||ANOVA|||||||.691
91797899|NCT03789214|183473984|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|||||||.620
91797900|NCT03789214|183473985|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||||||.067
91797901|NCT00406354|183474007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.5||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-1.5|-5.0|<.001
91797902|NCT00406354|183474008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-3.8||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-3.8|-11.0|<.001
91797903|NCT00406354|183474009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.8||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-1.8|-5.3|<.001
91797904|NCT00406354|183474010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.0||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-2.0|-5.8|<.001
91871928|NCT01934452|183637321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Lymph nodes||||0.040
91871929|NCT01934452|183637322|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Supradiaphragmatic||||1.000
91871930|NCT01934452|183637322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||Fisher Exact|||Infradiaphragmatic||||0.295
91871931|NCT01934452|183637323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.042
91871932|NCT01934452|183637324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
91871933|NCT01934452|183637325|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-1.0|-1.0|<0.001
91871934|NCT01934452|183637326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
91871935|NCT01328756|183637383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to LOTA value was assessed for differences from zero using a 2-sided, 1 sample t-test at a 0.05 significance level.||||< 0.001
91703138|NCT00662558|183300818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.336||95.0|-0.67|0.23|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Quantity of Sleep. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-0.67|0.336
91703139|NCT00662558|183300818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.37||95.0|-4.83|1.8|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Adequacy. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.80|-4.83|0.370
91703140|NCT00662558|183300818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.341||95.0|-3.9|1.35|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Somnolence. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.35|-3.90|0.341
91703141|NCT00662558|183300818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.604||95.0|-2.85|1.66|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Problem Index I. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.66|-2.85|0.604
91703142|NCT00662558|183300818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.547||95.0|-2.92|1.55|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Problem Index II. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.55|-2.92|0.547
91703143|NCT00662558|183300819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Optimal sleep was analyzed using CMH general association test.||||0.196
91703144|NCT00662558|183300820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.252||95.0|-1.56|5.94|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Time Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||5.94|-1.56|0.252
91703145|NCT00662558|183300820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.798||95.0|-3.21|4.17|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Physical Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||4.17|-3.21|0.798
91703146|NCT00662558|183300820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.7||95.0|-3.03|4.51|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Output Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||4.51|-3.03|0.700
91703147|NCT00662558|183300820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.902||95.0|-3.16|3.59|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Mental-Interpersonal Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||3.59|-3.16|0.902
91703148|NCT00662558|183300820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.581||95.0|-0.65|1.16|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Index Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.16|-0.65|0.581
91703149|NCT00662558|183300821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.614||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value reported is the overall p-value for Week 1.||||0.614
91703150|NCT00662558|183300821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.786||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value reported is the overall p-value for Week 3.||||0.786
91871936|NCT00257309|183637387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.23||Unadjusted analysis|Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.38|0.21
91871937|NCT00849485|183637388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.0||||||90.0|94.5|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|94.5|
91871938|NCT00849485|183637389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.9||||||90.0|97.6|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|97.6|
91871939|NCT00849485|183637390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.1|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|98.1|
91871940|NCT00186446|183637391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(19)= -8.93||||||<.001
91871941|NCT00556478|183637396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (over 3 months/Baseline)|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|4.06|||ANCOVA|||||4.06|2.29|<0.0001
91871942|NCT00556478|183637397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|6.34|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of IPE domain ejaculatory control||6.34|3.61|<0.0001
91871943|NCT00556478|183637397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.84|||ANCOVA|||IPE domain sexual satisfaction||5.84|3.30|<0.0001
91871944|NCT00556478|183637397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|3.2|||ANCOVA|||IPE domain distress||3.20|1.86|<0.0001
91871945|NCT02233998|183637427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0162|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.202||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean modified gingival index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.202|-0.266|<0.001
91906512|NCT02187172|183708690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|3.06|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||3.06|-6.77|0.4485
91703151|NCT00662558|183300821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value reported is the overall p-value for Week 6/ET.||||0.044
91703152|NCT00662558|183300822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.870
91703153|NCT00662558|183300823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.545||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.545
91703154|NCT00662558|183300824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.218
91703155|NCT00987402|183300847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||generalized estimating equation|||Power calculations assumed a 2-sided alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 80%. We performed power calculations using a statistical model for a cluster-randomized trial with 8, 10 or 12 clusters including 6 operating rooms each, with different levels of reduction (10%, 30%, 50%) in surgical site infection rates in the active intervention period. By reaching a sample size of 3133 patients, the study was powered to detect a 30% reduction effect in SSI rates, from 10% to 7%.||||<0.05
91797905|NCT00406354|183474011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.2|-0.6|<.001
91797906|NCT00406354|183474012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.1|-0.4|0.006
91797907|NCT00406354|183474013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.9||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.9|-6.2|0.010
91797908|NCT00406354|183474014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-3.2|0.010
91906513|NCT02187172|183708691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|10.53|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||10.53|-10.37|0.9880
91906514|NCT02187172|183708691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.8836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|5.63|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||5.63|-4.86|0.8836
91906515|NCT02187172|183708692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.8321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.36|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.36|-2.91|0.8321
91703156|NCT03000530|183300899|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.9|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||||-3.9|-10.2|< 0.0001
91703157|NCT03000530|183300966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 2||-0.3|-4.3|0.0223
91703158|NCT03000530|183300966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-1.7|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 3||-1.7|-6.4|0.0010
91703159|NCT03000530|183300966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-0.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 4||-0.4|-5.5|0.0233
91703160|NCT03000530|183300966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 5||-1.1|-6.6|0.0066
91703161|NCT03000530|183300966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.7|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 6||-1.7|-7.3|0.0019
91703162|NCT03000530|183300966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-1.5|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 7||-1.5|-7.6|0.0043
91703163|NCT03000530|183300966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 8||-0.3|-6.4|0.0318
91703164|NCT03000530|183300966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.9|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 15||-3.9|-10.2|< 0.0001
91703165|NCT03000530|183300966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-1.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 21||-1.4|-8.4|0.0064
91906516|NCT02187172|183708692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.48|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||4.48|0.12|0.0394
91797909|NCT00406354|183474015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.0||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||2.0|-4.9|0.406
91703166|NCT03000530|183300966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.5|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 28||-0.5|-7.6|0.0243
91703167|NCT03000530|183300966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 35||1.4|-6.0|0.2285
91703168|NCT03000530|183300966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 42||1.4|-6.0|0.2120
91703169|NCT03000530|183300967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|24.1|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a generalized estimating equation (GEE) method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 2||24.1|0.8|0.0884
91703170|NCT03000530|183300967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 8||6.4|0.9|0.0732
91703171|NCT03000530|183300967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|31.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 15||31.6|2.9|0.0002
91703172|NCT03000530|183300967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|19.7|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 21||19.7|2.3|0.0006
91797910|NCT00406354|183474016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-1.1|<.001
91797911|NCT00406354|183474017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-1.1|<.001
91797912|NCT00406354|183474018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-1.1|<.001
91797913|NCT00406354|183474019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.3||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||9.3|0.8|0.021
91703173|NCT03000530|183300967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 28||8.9|1.1|0.0379
91703174|NCT03000530|183300967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 35||9.0|1.0|0.0468
91703175|NCT03000530|183300967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 42||5.6|0.7|0.2208
91703176|NCT03000530|183300968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.7|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 8||3.7|0.6|0.4300
91703177|NCT03000530|183300968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|13.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 15||13.3|2.1|0.0005
91703178|NCT03000530|183300968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.0|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 21||8.0|1.2|0.0172
91703179|NCT03000530|183300968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 28||7.3|1.2|0.0221
91703180|NCT03000530|183300968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 35||3.5|0.6|0.4139
91703181|NCT03000530|183300968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.2332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 42||4.3|0.7|0.2332
91703182|NCT03000530|183300969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 2||0.3|-5.1|0.0836
91703183|NCT03000530|183300969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.6|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 8||0.6|-8.6|0.0864
91703184|NCT03000530|183300969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.8|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 15||-2.8|-12.3|0.0021
91703185|NCT03000530|183300969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 21||-1.3|-12.0|0.0157
91703186|NCT03000530|183300969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|0.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 28||0.1|-10.6|0.0533
91703187|NCT03000530|183300969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.6|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 35||2.6|-8.8|0.2878
91703188|NCT03000530|183300969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.4664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 42||3.4|-7.4|0.4664
91703189|NCT03000530|183300972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 2||-0.1|-3.6|0.0391
91703190|NCT03000530|183300972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.0|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 8||0.0|-5.1|0.0516
91703191|NCT03000530|183300972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.0|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 15||-2.0|-7.3|0.0008
91703192|NCT03000530|183300972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 21||-0.4|-6.5|0.0282
91703193|NCT03000530|183300972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.9|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 28||0.9|-5.3|0.1686
91889173|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|26.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.98|30.67|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 8||30.67|22.98|
91703194|NCT03000530|183300972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.5|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||Day 35||1.5|-5.5|0.2488
91703195|NCT03000530|183300972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|1.2|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 42||1.2|-5.7|0.2037
91703196|NCT03000530|183300973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 8||17.9|1.7|0.0048
91703197|NCT03000530|183300973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|29.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 15||29.5|2.5|0.0007
91703198|NCT03000530|183300973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 21||13.6|1.4|0.0113
91703199|NCT03000530|183300973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.8|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 28||12.8|1.2|0.0227
91703200|NCT03000530|183300973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.2|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 35||7.2|0.7|0.1516
91703201|NCT03000530|183300973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 42||8.3|0.9|0.0793
91703202|NCT01672294|183300977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5376|||<|0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0776|2.1528||Between Outlook Intervention and Attention Control caregivers at 5 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.1528|-1.0776|<0.511
91871946|NCT02233998|183637427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0161|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|-0.165||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean modified gingival index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.165|-0.228|<0.001
91871947|NCT02233998|183637428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0286|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|-0.413||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean plaque index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.413|-0.526|<0.001
91871948|NCT02233998|183637428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0286|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|-0.322||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean plaque index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.322|-0.435|<0.001
91871949|NCT02233998|183637429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|-0.019||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean gingival bleeding index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.019|-0.042|<0.001
91871950|NCT02233998|183637429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0059|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|-0.014||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean gingival bleeding index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.014|-0.038|<0.001
91871951|NCT02233998|183637430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|23.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.75|25.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||25.85|20.75|<0.001
91871952|NCT02233998|183637430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|19.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.09|22.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||22.22|17.09|<0.001
91703203|NCT01672294|183300977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4275||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3505|2.2055||Between Outlook Intervention and Attention Control caregivers at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.2055|-1.3505|0.6348
91871953|NCT02233998|183637431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|19.048|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.94|21.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||21.73|15.94|<0.001
91871954|NCT02233998|183637431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|15.939|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|18.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||18.67|12.50|<0.001
91871955|NCT02233998|183637432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||2.78|1.30|<0.001
91871956|NCT02233998|183637432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||2.06|0.93|<0.001
91871957|NCT02233998|183637433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|1.316||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||2.78|0.00|0.016
91703204|NCT01672294|183300978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6836||||0.5225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4278|2.795|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 5 weeks Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.7950|-1.4278|0.5225
91871958|NCT02233998|183637433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|0.926||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||1.85|-0.16|0.197
91871959|NCT02233998|183637434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|23.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.21|28.77||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||28.77|18.21|<0.001
91871960|NCT02233998|183637434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|18.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.69|23.81||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||23.81|13.69|<0.001
91871961|NCT02233998|183637435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|19.048|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.94|21.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||21.73|15.94|<0.001
91871962|NCT02233998|183637435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|15.939|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|18.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||18.67|12.50|<0.001
91871963|NCT03292692|183637450|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.372|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.279|0.465|||Regression, Linear|Multi-level regression|Slope of intervention group compared to slope of the control group|||0.465|0.279|<0.001
91871964|NCT03292692|183637451|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.235|||Regression, Linear|Multilevel linear modeling|Slope of the intervention group compared to slope of the control group|||0.235|0.105|<0.001
91703205|NCT01672294|183300978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2764||||0.1972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6728|3.2257|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 8 weeks. Note-missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||3.2257|-0.6728|0.1972
91703206|NCT01672294|183300979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9358|||<|0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9726|2.8443|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 5 weeks Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.8443|-0.9726|<0.3332
91871965|NCT03292692|183637452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.974|-1.324|||Regression, Linear|Multilevel linear regression|Multilevel linear modeling, with time modeled as change from pre-post.|||-1.324|-2.974|<0.001
91871966|NCT03292692|183637453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.144||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.871|-0.417|||Regression, Linear||Multilevel linear modeling, with time modeled as change from pre to post.|||-0.417|-1.871|0.002
91871967|NCT00286325|183637469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0156||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon comparing week zero antibody value in units to week 24 antibody value in units||||=0.0156
91871968|NCT00286325|183637470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0078|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of B cell number at week 0 to b cell number in participants at week 24||||=0.0078
91871969|NCT00210236|183637478|EQUIVALENCE|The two groups will be considered equivalent if the 5-year survival rate for group B (without lymph node dissection) is not less than 92%. This corresponds to hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1.6.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.067||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.7|||Log Rank|||||6.7|1.4|0.013
91871970|NCT03786471|183637494|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.78||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-0.18|0.33
91871971|NCT03786471|183637494|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.62||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.61|0.37||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-1.61|0.33
91703207|NCT01672294|183300979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6929||||0.3842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8783|2.2642||Note-missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 8 weeks Note - Missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks||2.2642|-0.8783|0.3842
91871972|NCT03786471|183637494|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.33||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.32|0.67||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|-1.32|0.46
91871973|NCT03786471|183637501|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.25||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.66||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-0.16|0.54
91871974|NCT03786471|183637501|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.94|0.74||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.74|-0.94|0.79
91871975|NCT03786471|183637501|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.14||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|0.99||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-0.70|0.79
91871976|NCT03786471|183637508|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.52||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.13||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|-.09|0.48
91871977|NCT03786471|183637508|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.81||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.45||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \*three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-2.07|0.62
91871978|NCT03786471|183637508|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-1.33||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-0.07||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-2.58|0.23
91871979|NCT03786471|183637515|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.28||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.54||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.54|.01|0.23
91906517|NCT02187172|183708693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|152.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.76||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.07|241.23|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||241.23|64.07|0.0012
91906518|NCT02187172|183708693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.7||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.04|49.09|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||49.09|-55.04|0.9085
91703208|NCT01672294|183300980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||expected change in difference in logs|0.0593||||0.8748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6784|0.797|||Standard negative binomial with offset||The expected change in the difference of the logs of expected Days in VA inpatient care or ED.|||0.797|-0.6784|0.8748
91703209|NCT01672294|183300981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01777||||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1372|0.1017||Between Caregiver Outlook - Caregiver and Relaxation Meditation - Caregiver at 5 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 5 weeks.~Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks."||0.1017|-0.1372|0.7687
91703210|NCT01672294|183300981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00087||||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1003|0.09861||Between Caregiver Outlook - Caregiver and Relaxation Meditation - Caregiver at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 8 weeks Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||0.09861|-0.1003|0.9863
91703211|NCT01672294|183300982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01166||||0.9221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2475|0.2241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 5 weeks - Completion subscale||0.2241|-0.2475|0.9221
91703212|NCT01672294|183300982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1154||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3466|0.1158||Between Caregiver Outlook - Caregiver and Relaxation Meditation - Caregiver at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 8 week time point Note- Missing first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 week.||0.1158|-0.3466|0.3249
91703213|NCT03379792|183300992|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91703214|NCT03379792|183300992|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91703215|NCT03379792|183300992|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
91703216|NCT00306787|183301027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimated power for non-inferiority test (90%) was based on the non-inferiority margin of 1.0 day.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.6|||Hodges-Lehman|||Difference in time to healing= time to healing for famciclovir- time to healing for valacyclovir.||0.60|-0.15|
91703217|NCT00336323|183301033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness at the 3 week visit between the laser only treatment group to the 1.25 mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group||||0.009
91703218|NCT00336323|183301033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness at the 3 week visit between the laser only treatment group to the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group||||<0.001
91703219|NCT00336323|183301033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline values|Least squares regression|||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 3 week visit||||0.66
91703220|NCT00336323|183301033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline values|Least squares regression|||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 6 week visit||||0.49
91703221|NCT00336323|183301033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline values|Least squares regression|||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 9 week visit||||0.45
91703222|NCT00336323|183301033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 12 week visit||||0.90
91703223|NCT00336323|183301034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 3 week visit||||0.42
91871980|NCT03786471|183637515|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.55||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \*three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.55|-.53|.98
91871981|NCT03786471|183637515|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.27||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.27||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.81|0.65
91871982|NCT03786471|183637520|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.16||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.06||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.37|0.62
91871983|NCT03786471|183637520|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.14||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.26|0.01
91906519|NCT02187172|183708694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.14|-0.03|0.1792
91906520|NCT02187172|183708694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||0.10|-0.03|0.2559
91906521|NCT02187172|183708695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.41|||Regression, Linear|||||0.41|-0.11|0.2453
91703224|NCT00336323|183301034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 6 week visit||||0.67
91703225|NCT00336323|183301034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 9 week visit||||0.48
91703226|NCT00336323|183301034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 12 week visit||||0.82
91703227|NCT00336323|183301034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity through the 12 week visit between the laser only treatment group and the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group||||0.01
91703228|NCT00336323|183301034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity through the 12 week visit between the laser only treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group||||0.003
91703229|NCT00336323|183301037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline central subfield thickness of \<400 microns compared to those that had baseline central subfield thickness of ≥400 microns. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||<0.0001
91703230|NCT00336323|183301038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline score||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline visual acuity letter score that was \<65 letters compared to those that had baseline visual acuity letter score that was ≥65 letters. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.31
91703231|NCT00336323|183301039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between those that were ≤66 years old compared to those that were \>66 years old at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.44
91703232|NCT00336323|183301040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between females and males. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.55
91703233|NCT00336323|183301041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had no history of treatment for diabetic macular edema compared to those that had history or treatment for diabetic macular edema. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.16
91703234|NCT00336323|183301042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline retinopathy severity that was \<severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared to those that had baseline retinopathy severity that was proliferative diabetic retinopathy or severe NPDR. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.53
91703235|NCT00336323|183301043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline clinical diabetic macular edema characterized as typical/predominantly focal, neither predominantly focal or diffuse, or typical/predominantly diffuse. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.93
91703236|NCT00336323|183301044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline subretinal fluid that was definite/questionable compared to eyes that had no evidence of subretinal fluid at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.52
91703237|NCT00336323|183301045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline central subfield thickness of \<400 microns compared to eyes that had baseline central subfield thickness of ≥400 microns. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.22
91703238|NCT00336323|183301046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline visual acuity letter score of \<65 letters compared to eyes that had baseline visual acuity letter score of ≥65 letters. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.006
91703239|NCT00336323|183301047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that were ≤66 years old at baseline compared to eyes that were \>66 years old at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.23
91703240|NCT00336323|183301048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between females and males. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.37
91703241|NCT00336323|183301049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that did not have a prior history of treatment for diabetic macular edema compared to eyes that did have a prior history of treatment for diabetic macular edema. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.04
91703242|NCT00336323|183301050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline retinopathy severity of \<severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared to eyes that had baseline retinopathy severity of proliferative diabetic retinopathy or severe NPDR. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.38
91797914|NCT00406354|183474020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-1.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-1.4|-13.8|0.017
91797915|NCT00406354|183474021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.9||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||10.9|-0.0|0.050
91797916|NCT00406354|183474022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|16.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||16.4|4.9|<.001
91797917|NCT00406354|183474023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.6||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||14.6|1.6|0.015
91797918|NCT00406354|183474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|14.7||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive results are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||14.7|1.4|0.018
91797919|NCT00406354|183474025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.5||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||11.5|-1.6|0.138
91797920|NCT00406354|183474026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.193||||0.016||95.0|1.16|4.146||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Log Rank|||||4.146|1.160|0.016
91797921|NCT00406354|183474027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||p-value is from comparison of atomoxetine fast group versus atomoxetine slow group for any clinically relevant categories of adverse events during the initial three weeks of study treatment|Fisher Exact|||||||0.102
91797922|NCT00406354|183474028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101||95.0||||p-value is from comparison of atomoxetine fast group versus atomoxetine slow group for any clinically relevant categories of adverse events during the nine-week study treatment period.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.101
91797923|NCT02080637|183474033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Baseline versus 2 hours post-ambrisentan||||0.01
91797924|NCT02080637|183474034|OTHER||Slope|-27.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-775.0|723.0|||Regression, Linear|||||723|-775|0.94
91703243|NCT00336323|183301051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline clinical diabetic macular edema (DME) characterization of typical/predominantly focal compared to neither predominantly focal or diffuse characterization at baseline and compared to typical/predominantly diffuse characterization at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.45
91797925|NCT02080637|183474035|OTHER||Slope|1.2||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.3|||Regression, Linear|||||6.3|-3.9|0.61
91797926|NCT01483807|183474036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.254|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of performance (change in articulation accuracy) with SPT-R versus SPT-B items. Based on the existing literature, it was predicted that the mean effect size associated with SPT-R would be greater than that for SPT-B.||||.254
91797927|NCT01483807|183474037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.25||||0.043|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||On the basis of existing literature. SPT-R was predicted to be associated with greater increase in articulatory accuracy over baseline levels than SPT-B.||||.043
91797928|NCT01483807|183474038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of change in accuracy of articulation of untreated items: SPT-R versus SPT-B items. It was predicted that there would be a greater increase in accuracy for SPT-R items.||||.396
91797929|NCT01483807|183474039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of effect sizes obtained for untreated SPT-R versus untreated SPT-B items. It was predicted that effect sizes would be greater for SPT-R untreated items.||||.212
91797930|NCT03438383|183474040|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.88
91797931|NCT03438383|183474040|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.23||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.23
91797932|NCT03438383|183474040|SUPERIORITY|We checked for equivalence of the pre-op (baseline) values between the two groups. We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.008||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48 hours post-operatively||||0.008
91797933|NCT03438383|183474040|SUPERIORITY|We checked for equivalence of the pre-op (baseline) values between the two groups. We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.001
91797934|NCT03438383|183474041|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) quantitative research sample size calculator (available online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.75
91871984|NCT03786471|183637520|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.85||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.29||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.29|0.42|0.001
91703244|NCT00336323|183301052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline subretinal fluid presence that was definite/questionable compared to eyes that there was no evidence of subretinal fluid at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.06
91703245|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3375||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3375
91703246|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.516||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.516
91703247|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.786||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.786
91703248|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1496||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1496
91703249|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8428||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8428
91703250|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7345||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7345
91703251|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8928||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8928
91703252|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7343||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7343
91703253|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8798||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8798
91703254|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6837||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.6837
91703255|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7226||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7226
91703256|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.641
91703257|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.478||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.478
91703258|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9367||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.9367
91703259|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5108||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.5108
91703260|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8976||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8976
91703261|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8193||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8193
91703262|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1695||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1695
91703263|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4021||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.4021
91871985|NCT03346200|183637543|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was based on the proportion of responders and was set to 17%. That is, we defined non-inferiority to mean that the proportion of responders in the non-referent study arms is not less than one third of the responders in the 20 mg group (50% minus 33% = 17%)|Median Difference (Final Values)|52.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|41.9|100.0|||one-sided Wald tests|P-values were corrected for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni method. Non-inferiority p-values were declared if less than a=0.025||||100|41.9|<0.01
91889174|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|3.17|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 10A||3.17|2.25|
91871986|NCT02489799|183637561|EQUIVALENCE|The study was powered based on two former studies utilizing RIAS, (both powered =.8 and alpha =.05). With a 0.6 effect size, the required sample size is 72 patients (36 per group) for a one-tailed test of study hypotheses (power =.8 and alpha =.05).|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3|||Poisson model using GEE|We fit a Poisson model using generalized estimating equations. No adjustments were made for degrees of freedom.|The incidence rate ratio compares intervention to control.|We employed two ways of interpreting this data. The first treats the outcome continuously, which is described in the results section. Here we describe the outcome treating it as a ratio. We created a variable representing the numerator of the ratio (type 1) and the denominator of the ratio (type 2) thereby treating the information in both the numerator and denominator as random (each a Poisson variable).||1.30|0.87|0.545
91871987|NCT00569166|183637639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3679||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Treatment effectiveness was measured using pairwise comparisons of hot flash score change from baseline in each paced breathing arm.||||0.3679
91703264|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3603||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3603
91703265|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5169||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.5169
91703266|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1642||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1642
91703267|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6354||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.6354
91797935|NCT03438383|183474041|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.09||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.09
91797936|NCT03438383|183474041|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.008||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48 h post-operatively||||0.008
91797937|NCT03438383|183474041|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.013||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.013
91797938|NCT03438383|183474042|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) quantitative research sample size calculator (available online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.05
91797939|NCT03438383|183474042|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.55||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.55
91797940|NCT03438383|183474042|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.13||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48h post-operatively||||0.13
91906522|NCT02187172|183708695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.23|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||0.23|-0.02|0.1087
91906523|NCT02187172|183708696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.62||0.4368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.31|173.16|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||173.16|-76.31|0.4368
91703268|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3517||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3517
91703269|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7605||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7605
91906524|NCT02187172|183708696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.84||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.97|6.85|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||6.85|-105.97|0.0833
91703270|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3747||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3747
91703271|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8379||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8379
91797941|NCT03438383|183474042|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.011||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.011
91703272|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1179||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1179
91703273|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7412||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7412
91703274|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3773||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3773
91703275|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7402||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7402
91703276|NCT00586508|183301103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2671||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.2671
91703277|NCT03191864|183301202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91703278|NCT03191864|183301202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91703279|NCT03191864|183301202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91703280|NCT03191864|183301202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91703281|NCT03191864|183301204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.29|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-0.26|-2.29|0.020
91703282|NCT03191864|183301204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.07|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-1.10|-3.07|<0.001
91797942|NCT03438383|183474043|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) quantitative research sample size calculator (available online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.83||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.83
91871988|NCT00569166|183637639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4715||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Treatment effectiveness was measured using pairwise comparisons of hot flash score change from baseline in each paced breathing arm.||||0.4715
91871989|NCT01853384|183637648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5348||||||Analysis adjusted for sites, with significance being at P \< 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.5348
91871990|NCT01853384|183637649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9456|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||.9456
91871991|NCT01853384|183637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6194||||||Treatment Week 01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.6194
91871992|NCT01853384|183637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||||||Treatment Week 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.7930
91703283|NCT03191864|183301204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.23|-1.26|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-1.26|-3.23|<0.001
91703284|NCT03191864|183301204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-0.59|-2.59|0.005
91703285|NCT03191864|183301206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.49|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||0.12|-2.49|0.067
91703286|NCT03191864|183301206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||1.59|-0.91|0.672
91703287|NCT03191864|183301206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.55|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||-0.01|-2.55|0.048
91703288|NCT03191864|183301206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||1.59|-0.98|0.653
91703289|NCT03191864|183301208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.81||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.06|1.45|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||1.45|-19.06|0.079
91703290|NCT03191864|183301208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.14|4.78|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||4.78|-15.14|0.195
91703291|NCT03191864|183301208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.56||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.55|-2.58|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||-2.58|-22.55|0.020
91703292|NCT03191864|183301208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.74|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||-0.48|-20.74|0.043
91703293|NCT03191864|183301209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|3.08|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||3.08|-3.49|0.459
91703294|NCT03191864|183301209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|3.8|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||3.80|-2.65|0.617
91871993|NCT01853384|183637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3362||||||Treatment Week 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3362
91703295|NCT03191864|183301209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.07|1.33|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||1.33|-5.07|0.167
91703296|NCT03191864|183301209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.88|2.61|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||2.61|-3.88|0.373
91703297|NCT03191864|183301209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.96|1.64|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||1.64|-4.96|0.203
91703298|NCT03191864|183301209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.54|-1.13|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||-1.13|-7.54|0.014
91703299|NCT03191864|183301209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.23|0.2|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||0.20|-6.23|0.061
91703300|NCT03191864|183301209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.83|0.69|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||0.69|-5.83|0.097
91703301|NCT02086682|183301223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91703302|NCT02044874|183301224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.22|1.47|0.0027
91703303|NCT02044874|183301224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.51|0.73|0.2427
91703304|NCT02044874|183301224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|1.01|0.0477
91703305|NCT02044874|183301225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|9.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.08|0.89|0.0784
91797943|NCT03438383|183474043|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.37||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.37
91703306|NCT02044874|183301225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.17|0.51|0.3650
91703307|NCT02044874|183301225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.21|0.61|0.3438
91703308|NCT02044874|183301226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.55|1.04|0.0379
91703309|NCT02044874|183301226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.09|0.54|0.8628
91703310|NCT02044874|183301226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|0.99|0.0556
91703311|NCT02044874|183301227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.35|1.10|0.0219
91703312|NCT02044874|183301227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.66|0.5450
91703313|NCT02044874|183301227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|0.93|0.0868
91703314|NCT02044874|183301228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.97||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.43|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|||||-0.43|-1.51|0.0004
91703315|NCT02044874|183301228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.2268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.21|||mixed effects repeated measures|||||0.21|-0.89|0.2268
91703316|NCT02044874|183301228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.63||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.09|||mixed effects repeated measures|||||-0.09|-1.17|0.0217
91703317|NCT00415597|183301230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Percent change from baseline = 0||||<0.0001
91703318|NCT00415597|183301231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Percent change from baseline = 0||||<0.0001
91703319|NCT04231396|183301232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1456||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.279|||t-test, 1 sided|||The SNR Loss scores computed the means per client and week (1-12), with a smoothing method: isotonic regression (isoreg, via R). The slopes (lsfit, via R) calculated of the smoothed means separately per client, per 7-9 weeks (early training weeks), and per 10-12 weeks (final training weeks). This created slope differences, per client.||.279|.012|.037
91703320|NCT03976323|183301267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.36|0.92|0.8721
91703321|NCT03976323|183301268|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.25|0.87|0.6649
91871994|NCT01853384|183637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5263||||||Treatment Week 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5263
91871995|NCT01853384|183637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1997||||||Treatment Week 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1997
91871996|NCT01853384|183637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1617||||||Treatment Week 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1617
91871997|NCT01853384|183637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2611||||||Treatment Week 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2611
91871998|NCT01853384|183637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7232||||||Treatment Week 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7232
91871999|NCT01853384|183637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4405||||||Treatment Week 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4405
91872000|NCT01853384|183637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3516||||||Treatment Week 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3516
91872001|NCT01853384|183637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2821||||||Treatment Week 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2821
91872002|NCT01853384|183637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3722||||||Treatment Week 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3722
91703322|NCT03976323|183301271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-1.9||||0.2533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|1.36||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on constrained longitudinal data analysis model (cLDA) model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||1.36|-5.16|0.2533
91703323|NCT03976323|183301272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.24|0.76|0.8125
91703324|NCT03976323|183301273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||0.9364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|3.71||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||3.71|-4.02|0.9364
91703325|NCT03976323|183301274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.17|0.66|0.3782
91703326|NCT03976323|183301275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.35||||0.8285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|2.83||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||2.83|-3.54|0.8285
91703327|NCT03976323|183301276|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.51||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.51|0.78|0.6272
91703328|NCT03976323|183301277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.51||||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|2.35||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||2.35|-5.38|0.4422
91872003|NCT01853384|183637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5348||||||Week 12 - Primary Endpoint|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5348
91872004|NCT01853384|183637653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5909||||||Week 01|ANCOVA|||||||0.5909
91872005|NCT01853384|183637653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8234||||||Week 02|ANCOVA|||||||0.8234
91872006|NCT01853384|183637653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1556||||||Week 03|ANCOVA|||||||0.1556
91872007|NCT01853384|183637653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3487||||||Week 04|ANCOVA|||||||0.3487
91906525|NCT02187172|183708697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.97|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||1.97|-2.52|0.8036
91703329|NCT03976323|183301278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.31|0.74|0.9156
91872008|NCT01853384|183637653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1064||||||Week 05|ANCOVA|||||||0.1064
91872009|NCT01853384|183637653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2888||||||Week 06|ANCOVA|||||||0.2888
91872010|NCT01853384|183637653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6095||||||Week 07|ANCOVA|||||||0.6095
91872011|NCT01853384|183637653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1566||||||Week 08|ANCOVA|||||||0.1566
91872012|NCT01853384|183637653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4216||||||Week 09|ANCOVA|||||||0.4216
91872013|NCT01853384|183637653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8166||||||Week10|ANCOVA|||||||0.8166
91872014|NCT01853384|183637653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9114||||||Week 11|ANCOVA|||||||0.9114
91872015|NCT01853384|183637653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9733||||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.9733
91872016|NCT01853384|183637654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7439||||||Week 01|ANCOVA|||||||0.7439
91872017|NCT01853384|183637654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6992||||||Week 02|ANCOVA|||||||0.6992
91872018|NCT01853384|183637654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0867||||||Week 03|ANCOVA|||||||0.0867
91872019|NCT01853384|183637654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5739||||||Week 04|ANCOVA|||||||0.5739
91872020|NCT01853384|183637654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6497||||||Week 05|ANCOVA|||||||0.6497
91872021|NCT01853384|183637654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1427||||||Week 06|ANCOVA|||||||0.1427
91872022|NCT01853384|183637654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0682||||||Week 07|ANCOVA|||||||0.0682
91872023|NCT01853384|183637654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||||||Week 08|ANCOVA|||||||0.0161
91872024|NCT01853384|183637654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0973||||||Week 09|ANCOVA|||||||0.0973
91872025|NCT01853384|183637654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4661||||||Week 10|ANCOVA|||||||0.4661
91872026|NCT01853384|183637654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||||||Week 11|ANCOVA|||||||0.6010
91872027|NCT01853384|183637654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3369||||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.3369
91872028|NCT00486954|183637666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.64|0.2088
91906526|NCT02187172|183708697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||1.40|-0.65|0.4608
91906527|NCT02187172|183708698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3320.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3414.9||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3592.52|10233.67|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||10233.67|-3592.52|0.3370
91906528|NCT02187172|183708698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6926.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2257.84||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2351.43|11501.07|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||11501.07|2351.43|0.0040
91703330|NCT03976323|183301279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.9962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.93||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||2.93|-2.94|0.9962
91703331|NCT03976323|183301280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.40|0.83|0.5517
91703332|NCT02294461|183301281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.52|||Hazard Ratio|||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||0.52|0.27|<0.0001
91703333|NCT02294461|183301282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.95||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who were not known to have had died at the analysis date were censored at date last known alive. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||0.95|0.51|0.0208
91703334|NCT02294461|183301283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.46||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who were not known to have had an rPFS event were censored at the date of the last assessment showing no objective evidence of rPFS prior to scan modality change, new antineoplastic treatment, initiation of radiation therapy for prostate cancer, skeletal-related event (SRE) and 2 or more consecutive missed tumor assessments. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide.||0.46|0.20|<0.0001
91703335|NCT02294461|183301284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.52||P-value was based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who did not have an SRE were censored at the date of the last assessment indicating no evidence of SRE. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||1.52|0.21|0.2501
91703336|NCT02294461|183301285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.002||95.0|0.12|0.66||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who did not start cytotoxic chemotherapy were censored at the date of the last assessment indicating no evidence of cytotoxic chemotherapy usage. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||0.66|0.12|0.0020
91703337|NCT02294461|183301286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of response rate|55.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|64.2||P-value is based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test.|Unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel %|||||64.2|47.4|<0.0001
91703338|NCT02294461|183301287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in objective response rate|26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|37.4||P-value is based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test.|Unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||When deriving the response category, it was based on the target, non-target and new lesions without confirming CR, PR, and Progressive disease (PD). Participants with no post baseline assessment were included in the category of Nonevaluable (NE). The best overall soft tissue objective response was defined as PR or CR based on the investigator assessments of target, non-target and new lesions while on the study treatment.||37.4|14.7|<0.0001
91703339|NCT03334422|183301337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.92|1.12|0.026
91872029|NCT02753075|183637723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.09||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|0.461||For the Week 8 comparisons of two Oral Rinses against the Placebo Rinse, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.461|-0.289|0.8290
91703340|NCT03334422|183301337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|8.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.05|1.64|0.001
91703341|NCT03334422|183301338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.02|0.90|0.085
91703342|NCT03334422|183301339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.93|1.12|0.024
91703343|NCT03334422|183301339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|7.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.04|1.73|<0.001
91703344|NCT03334422|183301339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|8.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.76|2.22|<0.001
91703345|NCT03334422|183301340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.97|0.99|0.053
91906529|NCT02187172|183708699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|131.9||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.97|198.08|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||198.08|-335.97|0.6042
91703346|NCT03334422|183301340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|10.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.41|1.44|0.007
91703347|NCT03334422|183301340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|15.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.91|2.42|<0.001
91703348|NCT03334422|183301341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.19|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-26.19|0.062
91703349|NCT03334422|183301341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.78|-12.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.99|-38.78|<0.001
91703350|NCT03334422|183301341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.29|-13.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.65|-38.29|<0.001
91703351|NCT03334422|183301342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|9.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.76|0.86|0.086
91703352|NCT03334422|183301342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|15.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.49|1.58|0.006
91797944|NCT03438383|183474043|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.0035||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48 h post-operatively||||0.0035
91797945|NCT03438383|183474043|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||1.5e-05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.000015
91797946|NCT02435069|183474049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069751||||||significance level set at \<0.05 a priori|two-sample pooled variance t-test|Two-tailed||"Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the last day of the completed NS and USP Glycerin phases of the study.~Power analysis conducted using data from this study with α = 0.5, power of .80, correlation between two means of .598, and effect size of 1.554 estimated a sample size of 11 would be needed to minimize the risk of a Type II error to (20%)."||||0.069751
91797947|NCT02435069|183474050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||two-sample pooled variance t-test|two tailed||Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the last day of the completed NS and USP Glycerin phases of the study.||||0.172
91797948|NCT02435069|183474053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8028|||||||two-sample pooled variance t-test|two-sided||Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the difference in calprotectin levels between samples obtained at baseline and samples obtained following the completion of the NS and USP Glycerin flush in the dosing phase of the study.||||0.8028
91797949|NCT02435069|183474054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346594|||||||two-sample pooled variance t test|two tailed||Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the last day of the completed NS and USP Glycerin phases of the study.||||0.346594
91797950|NCT01599832|183474068|OTHER|||||||0.083||||||P-value was from test of significance of log-transformed baseline K\^trans.|Regression, Cox|Multivariate model with adjustment for prior treatment, and clinical prognostic index (good/intermediate/poor) (n=16 had complete data)||||||0.083
91797951|NCT00932737|183474082|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed effect model||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide minus Placebo was calculated.|A model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, episode, interval and center, as well as the treatment-by-episode interaction, with the covariate of baseline intensity of Abdominal pain associated with cramping . An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient errors.||-0.1|-1.3|0.0156
91797952|NCT00932737|183474083|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed effect model||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide minus Placebo was calculated.|A model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, episode, interval and center, as well as the treatment-by-episode interaction, with the covariate of baseline intensity of Abdominal pain associated with cramping . An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient errors.||0.0|-1.2|0.0512
91797953|NCT00932737|183474084|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide minus Placebo was calculated.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on the change from baseline to the last recorded rating of intensity for each treated episode of Abdominal pain associated with cramping (APC). The statistical model included the main effects of treatment, episode, and center as well as terms for the treatment-by-episode interaction, with baseline intensity of APC for the respective episode as a covariate.||0.0|-1.3|0.0351
91872030|NCT02753075|183637723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.362||For the Week 8 comparisons of two Oral Rinses against the Placebo Rinse, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.362|-0.372|0.9993
91872031|NCT02753075|183637724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.424|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.424|-0.242|0.5892
91703353|NCT03334422|183301342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|21.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.83|2.51|<0.001
91797954|NCT00932737|183474085|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide and Placebo was calculated.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on the change from baseline to the last recorded rating of intensity for each treated episode of Abdominal pain associated with cramping (APC). The statistical model included the main effects of treatment, episode, and center as well as terms for the treatment-by-episode interaction, with baseline intensity of APC for the respective episode as a covariate.||0.4|-1.0|0.3557
91797955|NCT00932737|183474086|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.071||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|2.004|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||2.004|0.572|0.831
91797956|NCT00932737|183474087|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|2.387|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||2.387|0.626|0.557
91703354|NCT03334422|183301343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.87|0.51|0.505
91703355|NCT03334422|183301343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.27|1.60|0.002
91797957|NCT00932737|183474088|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.737||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||1.490|0.365|0.396
91797958|NCT00932737|183474089|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.336||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|2.827|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||2.827|0.632|0.448
91797959|NCT00932737|183474090|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.474||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|5.604|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||5.604|1.093|0.030
91872032|NCT02753075|183637725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.396|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.396|-0.116|0.2825
91872033|NCT02753075|183637725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.28|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.280|-0.229|0.8448
91872034|NCT02753075|183637725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.371|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.371|-0.141|0.3784
91906530|NCT02187172|183708699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|85.98||0.9267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.18|166.26|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||166.26|-182.18|0.9267
91703356|NCT03334422|183301343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|10.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.86|2.22|<0.001
91703357|NCT03334422|183301344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.57|0.074
91703358|NCT03334422|183301344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.68|0.011
91703359|NCT03334422|183301344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.84|<0.001
91703360|NCT03334422|183301345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|-1.05|0.580
91703361|NCT03334422|183301345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.96|-2.54|<0.001
91703362|NCT03334422|183301345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-2.37|<0.001
91703363|NCT03334422|183301346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.04|0.92|0.094
91703364|NCT03334422|183301346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.11|1.65|<0.001
91703365|NCT03334422|183301346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.51|1.80|<0.001
91703366|NCT03334422|183301347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.31|0.39|0.528
91797960|NCT00932737|183474091|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.654||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.378|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||3.378|0.810|0.167
91797961|NCT00932737|183474092|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Log Rank|Log rank test was used for comparison of Hyoscine butylbromide (Buscopan®) 20 mg group versus Placebo group.||||||0.2560
91797962|NCT00932737|183474093|OTHER|||||||0.5179|||||||Log Rank|Log rank test was used for comparison of Hyoscine butylbromide (Buscopan®) 20 mg group versus Placebo group.||||||0.5179
91872035|NCT02753075|183637726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. Median Difference has been calculated from non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-10.00|0.1688
91906531|NCT02187172|183708700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|14.68|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||14.68|-6.28|0.4226
91703367|NCT03334422|183301347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|8.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.95|0.73|0.142
91703368|NCT03334422|183301347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|9.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.37|0.77|0.123
91703369|NCT03334422|183301348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-14.03|0.059
91703370|NCT03334422|183301348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.32|-7.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.63|-21.32|<0.001
91703371|NCT03334422|183301348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.69|-7.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.61|-20.69|<0.001
91703372|NCT03334422|183301349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|10.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.45|0.62|0.193
91703373|NCT03334422|183301349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|16.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.03|1.05|0.042
91703374|NCT03334422|183301349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|14.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.57|1.04|0.044
91703375|NCT03334422|183301350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-12.53|0.058
91703376|NCT03334422|183301350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.42|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.18|-15.42|0.003
91703377|NCT03334422|183301350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.30|-17.03|<0.001
91703378|NCT03334422|183301351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.189
91703379|NCT03334422|183301351|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91797963|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.603|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.603|0.998|
91797964|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.262|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.262|0.791|
91797965|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.897|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.897|0.558|
91797966|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.861|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|1.089|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.089|0.681|
91797967|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|0.956|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.956|0.596|
91797968|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.693|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.693|0.434|
91797969|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.817|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.817|0.510|
91797970|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|1.0|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.000|0.625|
91872036|NCT02753075|183637726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. Median Difference has been calculated from non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.4380
91872037|NCT02753075|183637726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. Median Difference has been calculated from non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.5693
91872038|NCT02753075|183637727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.7789
91906532|NCT02187172|183708700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|10.36|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||10.36|-3.54|0.3270
91872039|NCT02753075|183637727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.7214
91872040|NCT02753075|183637727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|-5.000|0.8960
91872041|NCT02753075|183637728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.987|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.987|-0.084|0.0978
91703380|NCT03334422|183301351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.383
91703381|NCT03334422|183301352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.46||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.45|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.85|-31.45|0.081
91797971|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|0.71|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.710|0.441|
91872042|NCT02753075|183637728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.732|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.732|-0.333|0.4607
91872043|NCT02753075|183637728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.787|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.787|-0.283|0.3542
91906533|NCT02187172|183708701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|2.59|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.59|-3.56|0.7507
91703382|NCT03334422|183301352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-30.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.62|-14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.70|-46.62|<0.001
91703383|NCT03334422|183301352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-30.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.29|-15.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.27|-45.29|<0.001
91703384|NCT03334422|183301353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-4.97|0.075
91703385|NCT03334422|183301353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|-3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.08|-8.07|<0.001
91703386|NCT03334422|183301353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.68|-8.47|<0.001
91703387|NCT03334422|183301354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.61|0.130
91703388|NCT03334422|183301354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.94|<0.001
91703389|NCT03334422|183301354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-1.00|<0.001
91703390|NCT03334422|183301355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety.||0.07|-1.95|0.067
91703391|NCT03334422|183301355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety.||0.04|-1.89|0.060
91703392|NCT03334422|183301355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety.||-0.38|-2.23|0.006
91703393|NCT03334422|183301355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression.||0.49|-1.50|0.321
91703394|NCT03334422|183301355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression.||0.24|-1.67|0.143
91736320|NCT03189719|183365725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.78|0.49|<0.0001
91797972|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.862|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.862|0.538|
91703395|NCT03334422|183301355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression.||-0.26|-2.11|0.012
91703396|NCT03334422|183301356|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-3.67|0.071
91703397|NCT03334422|183301356|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.26|-5.92|<0.001
91703398|NCT03334422|183301356|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.45|-5.98|<0.001
91703399|NCT03334422|183301357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|9.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||9.34|-11.16|0.861
91703400|NCT03334422|183301357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|10.97||Absenteeism|Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||10.97|-8.94|0.841
91703401|NCT03334422|183301357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|14.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||14.26|-3.95|0.264
91703402|NCT03334422|183301357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||8.02|-14.26|0.580
91703403|NCT03334422|183301357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.45|-2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-2.86|-24.45|0.015
91703404|NCT03334422|183301357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-3.06|-23.20|0.011
91703405|NCT03334422|183301357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|11.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||11.49|-15.12|0.788
91703406|NCT03334422|183301357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.51|3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||3.55|-22.51|0.152
91703407|NCT03334422|183301357|SUPERIORITY|Overall Work Impairment|LSMean Difference|-9.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||2.90|-21.17|0.135
91703408|NCT03334422|183301357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||6.12|-10.65|0.595
91703409|NCT03334422|183301357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|-6.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-6.17|-22.43|<0.001
91703410|NCT03334422|183301357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.11|-6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-6.83|-22.11|<0.001
91872044|NCT02753075|183637729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.665|0.711|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.711|-0.665|0.9474
91872045|NCT02753075|183637729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.7987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.586|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.586|-0.760|0.7987
91703411|NCT03334422|183301358|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US Algorithm)||0.07|-0.02|0.295
91872046|NCT02753075|183637729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.7525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.798|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.798|-0.578|0.7525
91872047|NCT01215253|183637757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.67|0.117
91703412|NCT03334422|183301358|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US Algorithm)||0.12|0.03|0.001
91872048|NCT01215253|183637758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.76|0.891
91872049|NCT01215253|183637759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Anderson-Gill analysis|||||0.96|0.51|0.028
91872050|NCT01215253|183637760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.38|0.398
91872051|NCT01215253|183637761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.91|0.316
91872052|NCT01215253|183637762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.84|0.577
91703413|NCT03334422|183301358|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US Algorithm)||0.12|0.03|<0.001
91736321|NCT03189719|183365726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in all participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in all participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World), tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma), and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.86|0.62|<0.0001
91736322|NCT03189719|183365727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.78|||Stratified Log-Rank|||PFS in ESCC participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to PFS in ESCC participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.78|0.54|<0.0001
91736323|NCT03189719|183365728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.65|||Stratified Log-Rank|||PFS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to PFS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.65|0.41|<0.0001
91872053|NCT01215253|183637763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.69|0.871
91872054|NCT01215253|183637764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.508
91872055|NCT01215253|183637765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.948
91872056|NCT01215253|183637766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.55|0.038
91703414|NCT03334422|183301358|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.10|-0.03|0.334
91872057|NCT01215253|183637767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.73|0.947
91872058|NCT01215253|183637768|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.52|||Anderdon-Gill analysis|||||1.52|0.36|0.414
91872059|NCT00080119|183637769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.44||Threshold p-value for significance = 0.0492|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for INH relative to Placebo|||1.44|0.67|0.93
91703415|NCT03334422|183301358|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.17|0.04|0.001
91703416|NCT03334422|183301358|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.17|0.05|<0.001
91703417|NCT03334422|183301359|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|7.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||7.25|-6.44|0.907
91872060|NCT00080119|183637770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.3||Threshold p-value for significance = 0.0493|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for INH relative to Placebo|||1.30|0.55|0.43
91872061|NCT02291861|183637819|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.79||Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~The primary endpoint compared the change in total motor AIMS score from baseline to week 12 between the SD-809 36 mg/day group and the placebo group."||-0.79|-3.09|0.001
91906534|NCT02187172|183708701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.9348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.73|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||1.73|-1.88|0.9348
91906535|NCT02187172|183708702|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.89|||Chi-squared|||||0.89|0.45|0.0005
91797973|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.597|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.757|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.757|0.470|
91797974|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.434|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|0.549|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.549|0.342|
91797975|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.511|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.647|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.647|0.403|
91797976|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.896|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.896|0.560|
91797977|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|1.088|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.088|0.683|
91797978|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.954|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.954|0.597|
91797979|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|0.692|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.692|0.435|
91797980|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.817|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.817|0.511|
91797981|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|1.541|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.541|0.961|
91797982|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.352|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.352|0.841|
91797983|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|0.981|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.981|0.612|
91872062|NCT02291861|183637819|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.63||Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the change in total motor AIMS score from baseline to week 12 between the SD-809 24 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the third analysis in the fixed-sequence."||-0.63|-3.00|0.003
91872063|NCT02291861|183637819|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.42||Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the change in total motor AIMS score from baseline to week 12 between the SD-809 12 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the fifth analysis in the fixed-sequence."||0.42|-1.84|0.217
91906536|NCT02187172|183708702|OTHER|95% CI of proportion achieving PASI75 at end of study|Proportion|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||||||||0.85|0.55|
91906537|NCT02187172|183708703|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.41||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.62|||Chi-squared|||||0.62|0.20|0.0016
91797984|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.157|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.157|0.719|
91797985|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.109|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.109|0.692|
91906538|NCT02187172|183708703|OTHER|95% CI of proportion achieving PASI90 at end of study|Proportion|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.65||||||||0.65|0.32|
91906539|NCT02187172|183708704|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.78|||Chi-squared|||Comparison during RCT period for binary Physician Global Assessment||0.78|0.29|0.0005
91906540|NCT02187172|183708704|OTHER|95% CI of proportion achieving PGA clear/almost clear at end of study|Proportion|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63||||||||0.63|0.30|
91703418|NCT03334422|183301359|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|14.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||14.76|1.63|0.015
91703419|NCT03334422|183301359|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||15.01|2.62|0.006
91703420|NCT03334422|183301360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.93|0.30|0.905
91703421|NCT03334422|183301360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.92|0.95|0.064
91703422|NCT03334422|183301360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|11.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.74|2.25|<0.001
91703423|NCT01313221|183301361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|35.82|||||Adjusted for treatment in a mixed model|||35.82|-3.50|
91703424|NCT01313221|183301362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|27.6||||||Difference in change from Week 12 to Week 16||27.60|-5.13|
91703425|NCT01313221|183301362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|35.32||||||Difference in change from Week 12 to Week 20||35.32|-2.21|
91797986|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|0.804|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.804|0.504|
91872064|NCT02291861|183637820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|4.645|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline use of dopamine receptor antagonist (DRAs).|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the percentage of patients considered a treatment success at week 12 between the SD-809 36 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the second analysis in the fixed-sequence."||4.645|0.960|0.059
91872065|NCT02291861|183637820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.211|6.052|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the percentage of patients considered a treatment success at week 12 between the SD-809 24 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the fourth analysis in the fixed-sequence."||6.052|1.211|0.014
91872066|NCT02291861|183637820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|2.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the percentage of patients considered a treatment success at week 12 between the SD-809 12 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the sixth (last) analysis in the fixed-sequence."||2.610|0.509|0.734
91872067|NCT02291861|183637821|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.6||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|2.0||5% level of significance (2-sided)|ANCOVA|The statistical model was an ANCOVA with treatment group and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate.|SD-809 - placebo|||2.00|-9.18|0.207
91703426|NCT03246061|183301391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Interim Analysis p-value for significance of \<0.025 for an overall alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-value from an ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline ODI score. Values have been adjusted for multiple imputation. Note: 3 month visit is computed as post-treatment for the RF Ablation Arm, and post-randomization for the Control Arm.||||<0.001
91703427|NCT03246061|183301392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Estimates and p-value from ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline VAS score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91703428|NCT03282591|183301413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.4||||0.9942|ONE_SIDED|95.0||56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||56.9||0.9942
91703429|NCT01716520|183301489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.157||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 milliliters (mL) at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.157|0.085|<0.001
91703430|NCT01716520|183301489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.171||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.171|0.100|<0.001
91703431|NCT01716520|183301489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.174||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.174|0.110|<0.001
91703432|NCT01716520|183301489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.13||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.130|0.067|<0.001
91906541|NCT02187172|183708705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|21.06|||Regression, Linear|||||21.06|-4.42|0.1944
91703433|NCT01716520|183301489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.104||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.104|0.001|0.047
91872068|NCT02291861|183637821|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.1||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|2.59||5% level of significance (2-sided)|ANCOVA|The statistical model was an ANCOVA with treatment group and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate.|SD-809 - placebo|||2.59|-8.86|0.281
91703434|NCT01716520|183301489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.124||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.124|0.021|0.006
91703435|NCT02635009|183301496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|one-sided significance level = 0.05||Proportion of participants with deterioration in HVLT-R delayed recall score at six months: Null hypothesis = No difference between the arms; Alternative hypothesis = Arm 2 will have less deterioration than Arm 1. Ninety-eight evaluable participants per arm at six months provides 80% statistical power to detect a 14.5% absolute difference between the arms in proportion of participants with deterioration at six months using a one-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.28
91703436|NCT02635009|183301497|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Proportion of participants with relapse on Arm 2 - Arm 1 \> 20%; Alternative hypothesis: Proportion of participants with relapse on Arm 2 - Arm 1 = 4.5%. Using a non-inferiority margin of 20% and an assumed difference in proportions of 4.5% under the alternative, a 2-sample test of difference in proportions with a 1-sided alpha of 0.1 requires 164 patients to achieve 85% statistical power. (Statistically significant p-value indicates non-inferiority.)||||||0.003|||||||Test of binomial proportions|||||||0.0030
91703437|NCT02635009|183301498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0598|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.0598
91703438|NCT02635009|183301499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.78
91703439|NCT02635009|183301499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.63
91703440|NCT02635009|183301499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.84
91703441|NCT02635009|183301501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.56
91703442|NCT02635009|183301501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.75
91703443|NCT02635009|183301503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.81
91703444|NCT02635009|183301503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.93
91703445|NCT02635009|183301503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.35
91703446|NCT02635009|183301505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.54
91703447|NCT02635009|183301505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.43
91703448|NCT02635009|183301505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.25
91703449|NCT02635009|183301507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.71
91703450|NCT02635009|183301507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.079
91703451|NCT02635009|183301507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.85
91703452|NCT02635009|183301509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.043
91703453|NCT02635009|183301509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Fisher Exact|||6 months||||0.017
91703454|NCT02635009|183301509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||12-month||||0.057
91703455|NCT02635009|183301512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.10
91703456|NCT02635009|183301512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.33
91703457|NCT02635009|183301512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.29
91703458|NCT02635009|183301514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.0021
91703459|NCT02635009|183301514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.0070
91703460|NCT02635009|183301514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.35
91703461|NCT02635009|183301516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.55
91703462|NCT02635009|183301516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.062
91703463|NCT02635009|183301516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.32
91703464|NCT02635009|183301518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.70
91703465|NCT02635009|183301518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.52
91703466|NCT02635009|183301518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.73
91703467|NCT02635009|183301520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.28
91703468|NCT02635009|183301520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.094
91703469|NCT02635009|183301520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
91703470|NCT02635009|183301522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months.||||0.16
91703471|NCT02635009|183301522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months. Assuming 50% of patients experience deterioration at 6 months, based on a prior study (RTOG-0212), a sample size of 198 participants per arm provides 94% power to detect a 50% relative reduction (50% on Arm 1 vs. 25% on Arm 2) in decline at 6 months using Fisher's exact test with a two-sided alpha=0.05.||||0.017
91703472|NCT02635009|183301522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||12-month||||0.56
91703473|NCT02635009|183301524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
91703474|NCT02635009|183301524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
91703475|NCT02635009|183301524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
91703476|NCT02635009|183301526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.35
91703477|NCT02635009|183301526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.99
91872069|NCT02291861|183637821|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.3||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.79||5% level of significance (2-sided)|ANCOVA|The statistical model was an ANCOVA with treatment group and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate.|SD-809 - placebo|||6.79|-4.10|0.627
91703478|NCT02635009|183301526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.94
91703479|NCT02635009|183301530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.79
91703480|NCT02635009|183301531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.93
91703481|NCT04105010|183301546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test against a null|||||||<0.0001
91703482|NCT01211483|183301561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.42||||||||1.420|0.674|
91703483|NCT01211483|183301561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|1.131||||||||1.131|0.523|
91703484|NCT01211483|183301562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.369||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.846|||Cox proportional hazard|||||0.846|0.161|0.0185
91703485|NCT01211483|183301562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.288||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.663|||Cox proportional hazard|||||0.663|0.125|0.0034
91703486|NCT01211483|183301563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|2.212|||Cox proportional hazard|||||2.212|0.458|0.9879
91703487|NCT01211483|183301563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.222||||0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|2.746|||Cox proportional hazard|||||2.746|0.544|0.6276
91703488|NCT00676572|183301591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated p values|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91872070|NCT02291861|183637822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|3.285||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||3.285|0.694|0.296
91703489|NCT00006305|183301593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.005||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.02||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of all-cause mortality for Revascularization compared with Medical therapy|||0.020|-0.031|0.97
91703490|NCT00006305|183301593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.003||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.022||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of all-cause mortality for Insulin Sensitizing glycemic control strategy compared with Insulin Providing glycemic control strategy|||0.022|-0.029|0.89
91703491|NCT00006305|183301594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.013||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.022||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of Death/MI/Stroke for Revascularization compared with Medical Therapy|||0.022|-0.049|0.70
91703492|NCT00006305|183301594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.024||||0.13||95.0|-0.06|0.012||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of Death/MI/Stroke for Insulin Sensitizing glycemic control strategy compared with Insulin Providing glycemic control strategy|||0.012|-0.060|0.13
91703493|NCT02470403|183301603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.52|-4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis included all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of the 80% CI for treatment difference (LIK066 - placebo) was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-4.87|-6.52|<0.001
91703494|NCT02470403|183301603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.96|-5.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis included dysglycemic subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-5.73|-7.96|<0.001
91703495|NCT02470403|183301603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.76|-3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis included normoglycemic subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-3.34|-5.76|<0.001
91703496|NCT02470403|183301605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.16|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis on all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-1.51|-2.16|<0.001
91703497|NCT02470403|183301605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.94|-1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis on all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-1.84|-2.94|<0.001
91703498|NCT02470403|183301605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.93|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis on all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%"||-1.83|-2.93|<0.001
91872071|NCT02291861|183637822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|3.994||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||3.994|0.826|0.134
91872072|NCT02291861|183637822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|1.563||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||1.563|0.302|0.372
91703499|NCT02631070|183301620|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|24.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.48|34.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.64|14.48|<0.0001
91703500|NCT02631070|183301620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.065|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.278|11.259|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.259|2.278|<0.0001
91703501|NCT02631070|183301621|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|20.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|29.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.08|10.92|0.0002
91703502|NCT02631070|183301621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.071||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.002|12.844|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.844|2.002|0.0002
91703503|NCT02631070|183301622|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|21.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|31.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.51|11.23|0.0003
91703504|NCT02631070|183301622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.045||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.827|8.956|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.956|1.827|0.0003
91703505|NCT02631070|183301623|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|29.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.73|40.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.36|18.73|<0.0001
91703506|NCT02631070|183301623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.526|11.146|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.146|2.526|<0.0001
91703507|NCT02631070|183301625|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 -24||||<0.0001
91703508|NCT02631070|183301625|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 - 48||||<0.0001
91703509|NCT02631070|183301626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 Through Week 24||||<0.0001
91703510|NCT02631070|183301626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 Through Week 48||||<0.0001
91703511|NCT02631070|183301627|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.446||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|1.013|||Log Rank||HR is from the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.013|0.196|0.0445
91703512|NCT02631070|183301628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.699|||Log Rank||HR is from the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.699|0.362|0.5121
91703513|NCT02631070|183301630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2382|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 -24||||0.2382
91703514|NCT02631070|183301630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5127|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 - 48||||0.5127
91703515|NCT02631070|183301631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 -24||||0.5479
91703516|NCT02631070|183301631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 - 48||||0.2980
91703517|NCT02631070|183301632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-229.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.43||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-375.8|-82.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 9 Through 24||-82.4|-375.8|0.0024
91703518|NCT02631070|183301632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-319.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|144.57||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-606.3|-32.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 33 Through 48||-32.7|-606.3|0.0294
91703519|NCT02631070|183301633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.18||0.3087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.3|38.2|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 9 Through 24||38.2|-120.3|0.3087
91703520|NCT02631070|183301633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.42||0.7903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.7|160.8|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 33 Through 48||160.8|-210.7|0.7903
91703521|NCT02631070|183301638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.636|||Log Rank||HR is from the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.636|0.595|0.9580
91703522|NCT01430624|183301667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month follow-up comparison|ANOVA|df 2, 109||||||.24
91703523|NCT01430624|183301668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month follow-up comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 111||||||.89
91703524|NCT01430624|183301669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 150||||||.01
91703525|NCT01430624|183301669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|||||||.48
91703526|NCT01430624|183301669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|||||||.17
91703527|NCT01430624|183301670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|Chi-squared|df = 2, 154||||||.37
91703528|NCT01430624|183301670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|Chi-squared|df = 2, 135||||||.15
91703529|NCT01430624|183301670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|Chi-squared|df = 2, 121||||||.87
91703530|NCT01430624|183301671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 150||||||.63
91703531|NCT01430624|183301671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 132||||||.25
91703532|NCT01430624|183301671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 118||||||.59
91703533|NCT01430624|183301672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 151||||||.83
91703534|NCT01430624|183301672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 132||||||.29
91703535|NCT01430624|183301672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 118||||||.13
91703536|NCT01430624|183301673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 151||||||.012
91703537|NCT01430624|183301673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 132||||||.31
91703538|NCT01430624|183301673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2,116||||||.35
91703539|NCT01430624|183301674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 141||||||.15
91703540|NCT01430624|183301674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 127||||||.67
91703541|NCT01430624|183301674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 110||||||.40
91703542|NCT01606202|183301692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.35|||ANCOVA|||The change in the pain Numerical Rating Scale score from baseline to End of Treatment was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Numerical Rating Scale pain mean score as a covariate.||0.35|-0.51|0.708
91906542|NCT02187172|183708705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-5.25|||Regression, Linear|||||-5.25|-19.40|0.0011
91703543|NCT01606202|183301693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.57||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.48|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the percentage of days on which escape medication was used was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and percentage of days on which escape medication was used as a covariate.||5.48|-6.62|0.852
91703544|NCT01606202|183301694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.65|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Spasm severity Numerical Rating Scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Spasm severity Numerical Rating Scale score as a covariate.||0.65|-0.54|0.860
91703545|NCT01606202|183301695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.64||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|7.27|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the percentage of days on which spasm was experienced was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Spasm percentage of days on which spasm was experienced as a covariate.||7.27|-8.56|0.873
91703546|NCT01606202|183301696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.75|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the spasticity severity Numerical Rating Scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the baseline spasticity severity Numerical Rating Scale score as a covariate.||0.75|-0.61|0.830
91703547|NCT01606202|183301697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.4||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|4.88|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the percentage of days on which spasticity was experienced was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the percentage of days on which spasticity was experienced as a covariate.||4.88|-4.08|0.860
91703548|NCT01606202|183301698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.14||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Modified Ashworth scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Modified Ashworth scale score as a covariate.||0.05|-0.33|0.142
91703549|NCT01606202|183301699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.9|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Short Orientation Memory Concentration score, was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Short Orientation Memory Concentration test score as a covariate.||0.90|-1.13|0.824
91703550|NCT01606202|183301700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.04||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.4|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Spitzer Quality of Life Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Spitzer Quality of Life Index score as a covariate.||0.40|-0.49|0.847
91703551|NCT01606202|183301701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.29||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.16|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Caregiver Strain Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the baseline Caregiver Strain Index score as a covariate.||1.16|-3.74|0.287
91703552|NCT01606202|183301702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|33.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.07|50.64|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact Test.||50.64|17.07|<0.001
91906543|NCT02187172|183708706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-779.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1049.99||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2911.19|1352.01|||Regression, Linear|||||1352.01|-2911.19|0.4628
91703553|NCT01606202|183301703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.93||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Brief Pain Inventory score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Brief Pain Inventory score as a covariate.||-0.16|-3.69|0.032
91703554|NCT03019003|183301708|OTHER||||||<|0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.036
91703555|NCT01593254|183301710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
91703556|NCT00561470|183301750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.817||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.34|0.713|0.937||Stratified Log-Rank test p-value. Stratified on ECOG Performance Status and prior Bevacizumab according to IVRS using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. Significance threshold was set to 0.0466 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.|Stratified Log-Rank test||Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. Significance threshold was set to 0.0466 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.|||0.937|0.713|0.0032
91703557|NCT00561470|183301751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard ratio|0.758||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.99|0.578|0.995||Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS|Stratified Log-Rank test||Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model.|||0.995|0.578|0.00007
91703558|NCT00561470|183301752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.||||||0.0001
91703559|NCT01592292|183301759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3037||||||Change in DAS28 at Month 6 was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline DAS28 score and rheumatoid factor (RF) status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3037
91703560|NCT01592292|183301760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0951||||||Change in DAS28 at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline DAS28 score and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0951
91703561|NCT01592292|183301761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||||||Change in DAS28 at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline DAS28 score and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2390
91906544|NCT02187172|183708706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-910.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|729.96||0.2209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2395.95|574.27|||Regression, Linear|||||574.27|-2395.95|0.2209
91906545|NCT00880399|183708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 1||0.70|-1.65|0.4295
91703562|NCT01592292|183301762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3212||||||Change in TJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3212
91703563|NCT01592292|183301762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7097||||||Change in TJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7097
91703564|NCT01592292|183301763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2444||||||Change in TJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2444
91703565|NCT01592292|183301763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3903||||||Change in TJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3903
91703566|NCT01592292|183301764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5306||||||Change in SJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5306
91703567|NCT01592292|183301764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2542||||||Change in SJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2542
91703568|NCT01592292|183301765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2549||||||Change in SJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2549
91703569|NCT01592292|183301765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7644||||||Change in SJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7644
91703570|NCT01592292|183301766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8987||||||Change in ESR at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.8987
91703571|NCT01592292|183301766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5808||||||Change in ESR at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5808
91703572|NCT01592292|183301767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2282||||||Change in ESR at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2282
91872073|NCT02291861|183637823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.395|10.359||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||10.359|1.395|0.007
91703573|NCT01592292|183301767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5849||||||Change in ESR at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5849
91703574|NCT01592292|183301768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Change in CRP at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4900
91703575|NCT01592292|183301768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826||||||Change in CRP at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1826
91703576|NCT01592292|183301769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1894||||||Change in CRP at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1894
91703577|NCT01592292|183301769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1805||||||Change in CRP at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1805
91703578|NCT01592292|183301770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0568||||||Change in HAQ-DI at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate value.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0568
91703579|NCT01592292|183301771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1167||||||Change in HAQ-DI at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate value.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1167
91703580|NCT02923245|183301785|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|77.2|||||These confidence intervals correspond to the bootstrap analysis|||77.2|23.4|
91703581|NCT02923245|183301786|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|25.0|||Test of proportions|||||25.0|5.3|0.006
91703582|NCT00793624|183301813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.110|<0.0001
91703583|NCT00793624|183301813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.124|<0.0001
91703584|NCT00793624|183301813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.218|0.136|<0.0001
91703585|NCT00793624|183301814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0002||95.0|0.037|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.118|0.037|0.0002
91703586|NCT00793624|183301814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.044|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.125|0.044|<0.0001
91703587|NCT00793624|183301814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0088||95.0|0.014|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.095|0.014|0.0088
91872074|NCT02291861|183637823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.716||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||10.716|1.460|0.005
91797987|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|0.949|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.949|0.593|
91797988|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.919|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.919|0.574|
91797989|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.084|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.084|0.675|
91797990|NCT00973349|183474108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.489|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.489|0.931|
91797991|NCT05597020|183474133|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean difference vs placebo|20.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|33.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period, week within period, and interaction of treatment and week were factors; baseline sTST assessment was covariate.||||33.7|8.0|0.002
91797992|NCT05736224|183474135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||No sunscreen compared to test sunscreen|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91797993|NCT01015131|183474142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1521|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0932|0.2111|||paired t-test|||||0.2111|0.0932|<0.01
91703588|NCT00793624|183301815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.5843||95.0|-0.485|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.860|-0.485|0.5843
91872075|NCT02291861|183637823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|3.316||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||3.316|0.383|0.829
91703589|NCT00793624|183301815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.9494||95.0|-0.656|0.699|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.699|-0.656|0.9494
91703590|NCT00793624|183301815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.5099||95.0|-0.908|0.451|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.451|-0.908|0.5099
91703591|NCT00793624|183301816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.401||0.0816||95.0|-5.19|0.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.307|-5.190|0.0816
91703592|NCT00793624|183301816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0155||95.0|-6.141|-0.648|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.648|-6.141|0.0155
91703593|NCT00793624|183301816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396||0.4954||95.0|-3.691|1.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.787|-3.691|0.4954
91703594|NCT00793624|183301817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.387||0.045||95.0|-5.507|-0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.063|-5.507|0.0450
91703595|NCT00793624|183301817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.0002||95.0|-7.864|-2.425|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-2.425|-7.864|0.0002
91872076|NCT02291861|183637824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.44|-9.52||5% level of significance (2-sided). Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|||-9.52|-33.44|<0.001
91797994|NCT02452697|183474153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
91797995|NCT02791399|183474178|EQUIVALENCE|Our analysis examined the estimated averages for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||0.20|-2.45|<0.05
91797996|NCT02791399|183474179|EQUIVALENCE|Our analysis examined the estimated probabilities for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||0.06|-0.15|<0.05
91872077|NCT02291861|183637824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.57|-7.92||5% level of significance (2-sided). Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|||-7.92|-32.57|0.001
91906546|NCT00880399|183708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 1||0.04|-2.34|0.0586
91797997|NCT02791399|183474180|NON_INFERIORITY|Pain intensity and pain-related function were tested in non-inferiority analyses, as we hypothesized that the ISOT intervention would not negatively impact pain or function. One-half SD difference in change was considered the appropriate non-inferiority limit.|Non-inferiority analysis|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91797998|NCT02791399|183474181|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is comparing estimated averages and probabilities for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||1.85|-5.83|<0.05
91797999|NCT02791399|183474182|EQUIVALENCE|Our analysis examined the estimated averages for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||8.80|-6.73|<0.05
91703596|NCT00793624|183301817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.2061||95.0|-4.474|0.966|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.966|-4.474|0.2061
91703597|NCT00793624|183301818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.419||0.1878||95.0|-4.655|0.914|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.914|-4.655|0.1878
91703598|NCT00793624|183301818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427||0.0126||95.0|-6.364|-0.767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.767|-6.364|0.0126
91703599|NCT00793624|183301818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.426||0.9913||95.0|-2.782|2.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||2.814|-2.782|0.9913
91703600|NCT00793624|183301819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972||0.0034||95.0|-4.751|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo||-0.940|-4.751|0.0034
91703601|NCT00793624|183301819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.973||0.0004||95.0|-5.343|-1.525|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo||-1.525|-5.343|0.0004
91703602|NCT00793624|183301819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.2009||95.0|-3.161|0.665|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 10 mcg qd minus Placebo||0.665|-3.161|0.2009
91703603|NCT00793624|183301820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.226|0.146|<0.0001
91703604|NCT00793624|183301820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.126|<0.0001
91798000|NCT00704912|183474183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.6|||Log-binomial model|||||6.6|1.0|0.06
91703605|NCT00793624|183301820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.246|0.166|<0.0001
91798001|NCT00704912|183474183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.1|||Log-binomial model|||||6.1|0.9|0.08
91798002|NCT00704912|183474183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1|||Log-binomial model|||||2.1|0.5|0.82
91703606|NCT00793624|183301821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.136|<0.0001
91703607|NCT00793624|183301821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.119|<0.0001
91703608|NCT00793624|183301821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.152|<0.0001
91798003|NCT00704912|183474184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Log-binomial model|||||1.7|1.0|0.06
91798004|NCT00704912|183474184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Log-binomial model|||||1.9|1.1|0.002
91798005|NCT00704912|183474184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Log-binomial model|||||1.1|0.7|0.28
91798006|NCT00704912|183474185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean Change|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Lifestyle vs. OCP|||-3.8|-6.3|<.0001
91798007|NCT00704912|183474185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean Change|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Combined vs. OCP|||-3.7|-6.2|<.0001
91798008|NCT00704912|183474185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean Change|-0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Lifestyle vs. Combined|||1.2|-1.3|0.92
91798009|NCT00704912|183474186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||GEE||End of intervention compared to baseline.|Comparing change in prevalence of metabolic syndrome from baseline to the end of intervention.||2.2|0.6|0.60
91798010|NCT00704912|183474186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.3|||GEE||End of intervention compared to baseline|Comparing change in prevalence of metabolic syndrome from baseline to the end of intervention.||4.3|1.4|0.001
91703609|NCT00793624|183301822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.137|<0.0001
91703610|NCT00793624|183301822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.129|<0.0001
91703611|NCT00793624|183301822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.226|0.144|<0.0001
91703612|NCT00793624|183301823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.103|<0.0001
91703613|NCT00793624|183301823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.105|<0.0001
91703614|NCT00793624|183301823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.214|0.130|<0.0001
91703615|NCT00793624|183301824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.048|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.126|0.048|<0.0001
91703616|NCT00793624|183301824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.118|0.040|<0.0001
91703617|NCT00793624|183301824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.119|0.040|<0.0001
91798011|NCT00704912|183474186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||GEE||End of intervention compared to baseline|Comparing change in prevalence of metabolic syndrome from baseline to the end of intervention.||1.2|0.4|0.18
91703618|NCT00793624|183301825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.125|0.047|<0.0001
91798012|NCT00704912|183474186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|||||||0.08
91703619|NCT00793624|183301825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0001||95.0|0.038|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.117|0.038|0.0001
91703620|NCT00793624|183301825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.039|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.119|0.039|<0.0001
91703621|NCT00793624|183301826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.043|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|0.043|<0.0001
91703622|NCT00793624|183301826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0002||95.0|0.035|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.114|0.035|0.0002
91798013|NCT00704912|183474186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|||||||0.001
91798014|NCT00704912|183474186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|||||||0.22
91798015|NCT02203071|183474211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
91798016|NCT02203071|183474212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91798017|NCT02203071|183474213|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.11
91798018|NCT02203071|183474214|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.007
91798019|NCT02203071|183474215|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91798020|NCT02203071|183474216|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91798021|NCT02595970|183474234|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure.|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|20.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.59|-24.52|<0.0001
91798022|NCT02595970|183474244|SUPERIORITY|adjusted|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|19.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.58|-23.52|<0.0001
91798023|NCT03089320|183474288|SUPERIORITY||posterior mean proportion of abstinence|9.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|31.68|||||The lower and upper limits are credible intervals.|Bayesian analysis was performed, therefore p value is not reported. Bayes factor has been reported instead.||31.68|0.08|
91798024|NCT03089320|183474289|SUPERIORITY||posterior mean proportion of abstinence|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|18.23|||||The lower and upper limits are credible intervals.|Bayesian analysis was performed, therefore p value is not reported. Bayes factor has been reported instead.||18.23|0.17|
91798025|NCT03089320|183474290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mixed effects model||1.34|-9.97|.05
91798026|NCT02468232|183474318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0881||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6501|1.8212|||Regression, Cox|||For Primary Composite||1.8212|0.6501|0.6260
91798027|NCT02468232|183474318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1701||||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5242|2.6122|||Regression, Cox|||For CV Death||2.6122|0.5242|0.6493
91798028|NCT02468232|183474318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2673||||0.7851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7039|2.2818|||Regression, Cox|||For 1st HF Hospitalization||2.2818|0.7039|0.7851
91798029|NCT02468232|183474319|SUPERIORITY||LSM of ratio|0.8657||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7585|0.988||Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) with an alpha level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Week 4 analysis||0.9880|0.7585|0.0326
91703623|NCT00793624|183301826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0037||95.0|0.019|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.100|0.019|0.0037
91703624|NCT00793624|183301827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0016||95.0|0.025|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.105|0.025|0.0016
91703625|NCT00793624|183301827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0276||95.0|0.005|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.085|0.005|0.0276
91798030|NCT02468232|183474319|SUPERIORITY||LSM of ratio|0.8538||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7509|0.9708||Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) with an alpha level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Week 8 analysis||0.9708|0.7509|0.0161
91798031|NCT02468232|183474319|SUPERIORITY||LSM of ratio|0.8112||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6916|0.9514||Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) with an alpha level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measure of ANCOVA model||Month 6 analysis||0.9514|0.6916|0.0104
91872078|NCT02291861|183637824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|3.34||5% level of significance (2-sided). Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|||3.34|-20.15|0.160
91703626|NCT00793624|183301827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0426||95.0|0.001|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.082|0.001|0.0426
91798032|NCT02468232|183474321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6492|1.6152|||Regression, Cox|||First triple composite endpoint||1.6152|0.6492|0.5406
91798033|NCT02468232|183474321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1701||||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5242|2.6122|||Regression, Cox|||CV health||2.6122|0.5242|0.6493
91798034|NCT02468232|183474321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8546||||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3952|1.8479|||Regression, Cox|||First worsening of HF in outpatient||1.8479|0.3952|0.3448
91798035|NCT02468232|183474322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7115|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|based on modified ridit scores||Week 4 analysis||||0.7115
91798036|NCT02468232|183474322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|based on modified ridit scores||Week 8 analysis||||0.1752
91798037|NCT02468232|183474322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2688|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|based on modified ridit scores||Month 6 analysis||||0.2688
91798038|NCT02468232|183474323|SUPERIORITY||LSM of difference|2.5455||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2306|6.3216|||ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Week 8 analysis||6.3216|-1.2306|0.1854
91798039|NCT02468232|183474323|SUPERIORITY||LSM of difference|1.2695||||0.5737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1715|5.7104|||ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Month 6 analysis||5.7104|-3.1715|0.5737
91798040|NCT02468232|183474324|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.8699||||0.6501||95.0|0.4763|1.5887|||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||1.5887|0.4763|0.6501
91798041|NCT02468232|183474325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6211|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6211
91798042|NCT02468232|183474327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1895||||0.6955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6116|2.3134|||Regression, Cox|||||2.3134|0.6116|0.6955
91798043|NCT02468232|183474329|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.0192||||0.9233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6925|1.4999|||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||1.4999|0.6925|0.9233
91798044|NCT02468232|183474330|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.0754||||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2264|5.1067|||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||5.1067|0.2264|0.9272
91798045|NCT02468232|183474332|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.4504||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1902|1.0665||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||1.0665|0.1902|0.0697
91798046|NCT01973569|183474344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235||||||The hierarchical testing procedure was applied for multiple comparisons of the primary endpoint. First, comparison between AMG 162 60mg Q3M vs placebo is tested. Only if it is rejected, comparison of AMG 162 60mg Q6M vs placebo is formally tested.|van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0235
91906547|NCT00880399|183708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-0.43|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 2||-0.43|-3.34|0.0111
91798047|NCT01973569|183474345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0360
91798048|NCT01973569|183474346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1323|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.1323
91798049|NCT01973569|183474347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0448|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0448
91798050|NCT01973569|183474348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0104
91798051|NCT01973569|183474349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.2570
91798052|NCT01973569|183474350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|5.63|||Regression, Cox|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline (BL) value, machine type, BL value-by-machine type interaction, and BL use of glucocorticoid was used.||||5.63|4.41|<0.0001
91798053|NCT04612790|183474418|OTHER||Difference in percentage of responders|6.7||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|24.29|||Logistic regression model with Firth adj|||Estimates were from a logistic regression model using the Firth adjustment (adj) that included treatment group, baseline disease severity (moderate, severe) and time of BP diagnosis (participants with newly diagnosed BP, participants with a previous diagnosis of BP who have relapsed) as categorical covariates.||24.29|-10.90|0.509
91703627|NCT00793624|183301828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0237||95.0|0.006|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.087|0.006|0.0237
91703628|NCT00793624|183301828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0175||95.0|0.009|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.090|0.009|0.0175
91798054|NCT00785928|183474424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||This is p-value for the fitted ACR50 response rate and is based on the dose-response regression model and comes from the joint test of linear and quadratic dose response (response=dose+dose\^2) from the likelihood ratio test.|Linear-quadratic regression model|||||||0.059
91798055|NCT00785928|183474424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED95|119.0||||0.042||95.0||||This is the p-value for the estimated dose level of the smallest dose, in milligrams (mg), that achieves at least 95% of the maximal efficacy (ED95) and is based on the comparisons that the ED95 yields a higher fitted response rate than placebo.|Linear-quadratic regression model|This is ED95 in mg.||||||0.042
91872079|NCT04332991|183637827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group.|Outcome measure was adjusted for age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization.||1.42|0.73|
91872080|NCT04332991|183637828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.81|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.81|0.90|
91872081|NCT04332991|183637829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.61|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.61|0.84|
91703629|NCT00793624|183301828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0339||95.0|0.003|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.085|0.003|0.0339
91703630|NCT00793624|183301829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0537||95.0|-0.001|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.081|-0.001|0.0537
91798056|NCT00785928|183474425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||This is the p-value for the fitted ACR20 response rate and is based on the dose-response regression model and comes from the joint test of linear and quadratic dose response (response=dose+dose\^2) from the likelihood ratio test.|Linear-quadratic regression model|||||||0.044
91798057|NCT00785928|183474425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED95|118.5||||0.005||95.0||||This p-value is for estimated dose level of the smallest dose, in milligrams (mg), that achieves at least 95% of the maximal efficacy (ED95) of the ACR20 and is based on the comparisons that the ED95 yields a higher fitted response rate than placebo.|Linear-quadratic regression model|This is the ED95 in mg.||||||0.005
91798058|NCT00785928|183474426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.623
91798059|NCT00785928|183474426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.160
91798060|NCT00785928|183474426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.568
91872082|NCT04332991|183637830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.38|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure is adjusted for : age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization.||1.38|0.69|
91703631|NCT00793624|183301829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0808||95.0|-0.004|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.078|-0.004|0.0808
91703632|NCT00793624|183301829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.2579||95.0|-0.017|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.065|-0.017|0.2579
91703633|NCT00793624|183301830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0011||95.0|0.027|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.109|0.027|0.0011
91703634|NCT00793624|183301830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0069||95.0|0.018|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.101|0.018|0.0069
91703635|NCT00793624|183301830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.119|0.040|<0.0001
91703636|NCT00793624|183301831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.220|0.135|<0.0001
91703637|NCT00793624|183301831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.108|<0.0001
91703638|NCT00793624|183301831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.148|<0.0001
91703639|NCT00793624|183301832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.124|<0.0001
91703640|NCT00793624|183301832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.109|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|0.109|<0.0001
91703641|NCT00793624|183301832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.226|0.139|<0.0001
91703642|NCT00793624|183301833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.122|<0.0001
91703643|NCT00793624|183301833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.116|<0.0001
91703644|NCT00793624|183301833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.218|0.130|<0.0001
91798061|NCT00785928|183474426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.633
91872083|NCT04332991|183637831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.57|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.57|0.68|
91872084|NCT04332991|183637832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.09|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.09|0.54|
91872085|NCT04332991|183637833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.14|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||2.14|0.60|
91906548|NCT00880399|183708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.37|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 2||-0.37|-3.30|0.0141
91703645|NCT00793624|183301834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.104|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.104|<0.0001
91798062|NCT00785928|183474426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.754
91872086|NCT04332991|183637834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.34|0.68|
91872087|NCT04332991|183637835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.08|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||2.08|0.76|
91872088|NCT04332991|183637836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.72|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.72|0.61|
91703646|NCT00793624|183301834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.112|<0.0001
91703647|NCT00793624|183301834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.211|0.123|<0.0001
91703648|NCT00793624|183301835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.095|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.095|<0.0001
91703649|NCT00793624|183301835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.095|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.095|<0.0001
91703650|NCT00793624|183301835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.117|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.206|0.117|<0.0001
91703651|NCT00793624|183301836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.149|0.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.297|0.149|<0.0001
91703652|NCT00793624|183301836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.161|<0.0001
91703653|NCT00793624|183301836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.233|0.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.381|0.233|<0.0001
91703654|NCT00793624|183301837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.161|<0.0001
91703655|NCT00793624|183301837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.175|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.324|0.175|<0.0001
91703656|NCT00793624|183301837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.235|0.384|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.384|0.235|<0.0001
91703657|NCT00793624|183301838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.285|0.135|<0.0001
91872089|NCT04332991|183637837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.88|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.88|0.84|
91872090|NCT04332991|183637838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.61|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.61|0.85|
91872091|NCT04332991|183637839|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8||||||||1.8|-1.0|
91703658|NCT00793624|183301838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.179|<0.0001
91798063|NCT00785928|183474426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.289
91703659|NCT00793624|183301838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.352|0.201|<0.0001
91703660|NCT00793624|183301839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.107|<0.0001
91703661|NCT00793624|183301839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.291|0.139|<0.0001
91703662|NCT00793624|183301839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.318|0.166|<0.0001
91703663|NCT00793624|183301840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.256|0.103|<0.0001
91703664|NCT00793624|183301840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.280|0.126|<0.0001
91703665|NCT00793624|183301840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.320|0.166|<0.0001
91703666|NCT00793624|183301841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0781||95.0|-0.008|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.008|0.0781
91703667|NCT00793624|183301841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0455||95.0|0.002|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.153|0.002|0.0455
91703668|NCT00793624|183301841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.029||95.0|0.009|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.160|0.009|0.0290
91703669|NCT00793624|183301842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0043||95.0|0.035|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.035|0.0043
91798064|NCT00785928|183474427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.671
91703670|NCT00793624|183301842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0007||95.0|0.055|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.055|0.0007
91703671|NCT00793624|183301842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0005||95.0|0.06|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.212|0.060|0.0005
91703672|NCT00793624|183301843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0136||95.0|0.02|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.020|0.0136
91703673|NCT00793624|183301843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0076||95.0|0.028|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.028|0.0076
91872092|NCT04332991|183637840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.02|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.02|0.61|
91872093|NCT04332991|183637841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.7|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.70|0.24|
91703674|NCT00793624|183301843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0294||95.0|0.009|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.163|0.009|0.0294
91703675|NCT00793624|183301844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.8674||95.0|-0.071|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.084|-0.071|0.8674
91798065|NCT00785928|183474427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.696
91703676|NCT00793624|183301844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6487||95.0|-0.06|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.096|-0.060|0.6487
91703677|NCT00793624|183301844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.9267||95.0|-0.074|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.081|-0.074|0.9267
91703678|NCT00793624|183301845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1603||95.0|-0.022|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.134|-0.022|0.1603
91703679|NCT00793624|183301845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0399||95.0|0.004|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.004|0.0399
91703680|NCT00793624|183301845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6328||95.0|-0.059|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.098|-0.059|0.6328
91703681|NCT00793624|183301846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.127||95.0|-0.017|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.139|-0.017|0.1270
91703682|NCT00793624|183301846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1076||95.0|-0.014|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.014|0.1076
91703683|NCT00793624|183301846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1492||95.0|-0.021|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.021|0.1492
91703684|NCT00793624|183301847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0385||95.0|0.004|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.162|0.004|0.0385
91703685|NCT00793624|183301847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.142||95.0|-0.02|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.138|-0.020|0.1420
91703686|NCT00793624|183301847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0965||95.0|-0.012|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.147|-0.012|0.0965
91703687|NCT00793624|183301848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1394||95.0|-0.019|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.138|-0.019|0.1394
91798066|NCT00785928|183474427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.367
91703688|NCT00793624|183301848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1532||95.0|-0.022|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.022|0.1532
91872094|NCT04332991|183637842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|8.12|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||8.12|0.78|
91703689|NCT00793624|183301848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.5511||95.0|-0.055|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.104|-0.055|0.5511
91703690|NCT00793624|183301849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.108|<0.0001
91872095|NCT04332991|183637843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.05|0.45|
91703691|NCT00793624|183301849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.128|<0.0001
91703692|NCT00793624|183301849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.361|0.205|<0.0001
91798067|NCT00785928|183474427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.645
91703693|NCT00793624|183301850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.131|<0.0001
91703694|NCT00793624|183301850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.153|<0.0001
91703695|NCT00793624|183301850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.344|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.344|0.187|<0.0001
91703696|NCT00793624|183301851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.267|0.108|<0.0001
91703697|NCT00793624|183301851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.159|<0.0001
91703698|NCT00793624|183301851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.336|0.177|<0.0001
91703699|NCT00793624|183301852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.092|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.253|0.092|<0.0001
91703700|NCT00793624|183301852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.127|<0.0001
91703701|NCT00793624|183301852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.298|0.137|<0.0001
91872096|NCT04332991|183637844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.7|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.70|0.24|
91703702|NCT00793624|183301853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0003||95.0|0.07|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.070|0.0003
91703703|NCT00793624|183301853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.259|0.096|<0.0001
91703704|NCT00793624|183301853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.304|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.304|0.141|<0.0001
91703705|NCT00793624|183301854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.639||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.962|24.173|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean morning PEFR||24.173|5.962|0.0012
91703706|NCT00793624|183301854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611||0.0012||95.0|5.949|24.049|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean morning PEFR||24.049|5.949|0.0012
91703707|NCT00793624|183301854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.601||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.61|26.673|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean morning PEFR||26.673|8.610|0.0001
91872097|NCT04332991|183637845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.59|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.59|0.59|
91872098|NCT04332991|183637846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.58|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.58|0.30|
91872099|NCT04332991|183637847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.18|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.18|0.48|
91703708|NCT00793624|183301854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.721|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.606||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|26.762|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean evening PEFR||26.762|8.680|0.0001
91703709|NCT00793624|183301854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.579|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.484|27.458|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean evening PEFR||27.458|9.484|<0.0001
91703710|NCT00793624|183301854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.873|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.548|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.947|26.799|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean evening PEFR||26.799|8.947|<0.0001
91703711|NCT00793624|183301855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.665|-0.141|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.141|-0.665|0.0026
91703712|NCT00793624|183301855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|-0.066|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.066|-0.587|0.0141
91703713|NCT00793624|183301855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.113|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||0.113|-0.406|0.2677
91703714|NCT00793624|183301855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.939|-0.266|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.266|-0.939|0.0005
91703715|NCT00793624|183301855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|-0.247|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.247|-0.914|0.0007
91703716|NCT00793624|183301855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|-0.018|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.018|-0.683|0.0391
91703717|NCT00793624|183301855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.518|-0.464|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.464|-1.518|0.0002
91703718|NCT00793624|183301855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.426|-0.378|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.378|-1.426|0.0008
91703719|NCT00793624|183301855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|0.049|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||0.049|-0.994|0.0758
91703720|NCT00793624|183301856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0003||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|0.0003
91798068|NCT00785928|183474427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.944
91872100|NCT04332991|183637848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.96|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.96|0.24|
91703721|NCT00793624|183301856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0073||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0073
91703722|NCT00793624|183301856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0017||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0017
91703723|NCT00793624|183301857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0021||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0021
91798069|NCT00785928|183474427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.133
91872101|NCT04332991|183637849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.53|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.53|0.73|
91872102|NCT04332991|183637850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.89|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.89|0.92|
91872103|NCT04332991|183637851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.94|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.94|0.21|
91703724|NCT00793624|183301857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|<0.0001
91703725|NCT00793624|183301857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0121||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0121
91703726|NCT00793624|183301858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.032||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0320
91703727|NCT00793624|183301858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0447||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0447
91798070|NCT00785928|183474428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.457
91703728|NCT00793624|183301858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1332||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.1332
91703729|NCT00793624|183301859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4105||95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.1|-0.3|0.4105
91703730|NCT00793624|183301859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0584||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.0584
91703731|NCT00793624|183301859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1006||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.1006
91703732|NCT00793624|183301860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.0882||95.0|-0.085|1.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.227|-0.085|0.0882
91703733|NCT00793624|183301860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336||0.0484||95.0|0.005|1.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.324|0.005|0.0484
91703734|NCT00793624|183301860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.0252||95.0|0.094|1.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.421|0.094|0.0252
91703735|NCT00793624|183301861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.2625||95.0|-0.285|1.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.047|-0.285|0.2625
91703736|NCT00793624|183301861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.1109||95.0|-0.125|1.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.211|-0.125|0.1109
91703737|NCT00793624|183301861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.2507||95.0|-0.278|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.066|-0.278|0.2507
91798071|NCT00785928|183474428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.874
91872104|NCT04332991|183637852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.74|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||15.74|0.06|
91703738|NCT00793624|183301862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.4895||95.0|-0.439|0.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.902|-0.439|0.4895
91703739|NCT00793624|183301862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.2073||95.0|-0.24|1.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.107|-0.240|0.2073
91703740|NCT00793624|183301862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.9462||95.0|-0.653|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.700|-0.653|0.9462
91872105|NCT04332991|183637853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.35|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.35|0.69|
91872106|NCT02336958|183637862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91872107|NCT02336958|183637863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
91872108|NCT03547154|183637864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322||||||Analysis of Major Response|Fisher Exact|Missing data considered failures||||||0.322
91872109|NCT03547154|183637865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Analysis of Major Response|Fisher Exact|Missing data considered failures||||||>0.999
91872110|NCT03547154|183637866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||||||Analysis of Complete Response|Fisher Exact|Missing data considered failures||||||0.588
91703741|NCT00793624|183301863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.6309||95.0|-0.511|0.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.842|-0.511|0.6309
91703742|NCT00793624|183301863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.9227||95.0|-0.717|0.649|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.649|-0.717|0.9227
91798072|NCT00785928|183474428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.278
91703743|NCT00793624|183301863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.349||0.503||95.0|-0.451|0.919|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.919|-0.451|0.5030
91703744|NCT00793624|183301864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.7459||95.0|-0.793|0.568|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.568|-0.793|0.7459
91703745|NCT00793624|183301864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.8534||95.0|-0.753|0.623|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.623|-0.753|0.8534
91703746|NCT00793624|183301864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.5099||95.0|-1.068|0.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.314|-1.068|0.5099
91703747|NCT00793624|183301865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.785||95.0|-0.587|0.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.777|-0.587|0.7850
91703748|NCT00793624|183301865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.2755||95.0|-0.306|1.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.073|-0.306|0.2755
91703749|NCT00793624|183301865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.7618||95.0|-0.584|0.798|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.798|-0.584|0.7618
91703750|NCT00793624|183301866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3424||95.0|0.843|1.603|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.603|0.843|0.3424
91703751|NCT00793624|183301866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.3023||95.0|0.859|1.636|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.636|0.859|0.3023
91703752|NCT00793624|183301866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.3589||95.0|0.605|1.205|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.205|0.605|0.3589
91703753|NCT00793624|183301867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.841||0.191||95.0|0.734|4.503|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||4.503|0.734|0.1910
91703754|NCT00793624|183301867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.817||0.2274||95.0|0.695|4.369|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||4.369|0.695|0.2274
91703755|NCT00793624|183301867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.664||0.5538||95.0|0.512|3.538|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||3.538|0.512|0.5538
91703756|NCT00793624|183301868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.5577||95.0|0.778|1.557|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.557|0.778|0.5577
91703757|NCT00793624|183301868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.9423||95.0|0.714|1.448|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.448|0.714|0.9423
91703758|NCT00793624|183301868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.1097||95.0|0.502|1.076|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.076|0.502|0.1097
91872111|NCT03547154|183637867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|1.721|||||Overall survival was analyzed using the log-rank statistic. The HR and 95% CI for the HR were obtained using Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.721|0.429|
91872112|NCT01762982|183637911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0654||95.0|||||Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference between the treatments being compared.||||0.0654
91872113|NCT01762982|183637914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0078||95.0|||||Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference between the treatments being compared.||||0.0078
91703759|NCT00793624|183301869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.2521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2064||0.1729||95.0|0.906|1.7304|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.7304|0.9060|0.1729
91703760|NCT00793624|183301869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2039||0.2297||95.0|0.8808|1.6954|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.6954|0.8808|0.2297
91703761|NCT00793624|183301869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1575||0.5354||95.0|0.6353|1.2659|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.2659|0.6353|0.5354
91703762|NCT00793624|183301870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.8821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0358||0.2508||95.0|0.6391|5.543|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||5.5430|0.6391|0.2508
91703763|NCT00793624|183301870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|2.3877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3119||0.1135||95.0|0.8122|7.0194|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||7.0194|0.8122|0.1135
91703764|NCT00793624|183301870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6013||0.9611||95.0|0.3268|3.2395|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||3.2395|0.3268|0.9611
91703765|NCT00793624|183301871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.1621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2075||0.4002||95.0|0.8187|1.6497|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.6497|0.8187|0.4002
91703766|NCT00793624|183301871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0733|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1957||0.6983||95.0|0.7503|1.5352|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.5352|0.7503|0.6983
91703767|NCT00793624|183301871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1516||0.2033||95.0|0.5336|1.1433|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.1433|0.5336|0.2033
91703768|NCT00793624|183301874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.027||95.0|0.058|0.96|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 5mcg minus placebo||0.960|0.058|0.0270
91703769|NCT00793624|183301874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0203||95.0|0.082|0.967||See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|pattern mixture model||"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 10 mcg minus placebo||0.967|0.082|0.0203
91703770|NCT00793624|183301874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.1166||95.0|-0.088|0.799|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Form 12mcg minus placebo||0.799|-0.088|0.1166
91703771|NCT01712334|183301891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of the mean percent predicted FEV1 at the end of the eRapid treatment to the mean percent predicted FEV1 at the end of the LC Plus jet nebulizer treatment. The two nebulizers were considered equivalent if the 90% CI was within 80%-125%.|Ratio (Fieller's theorem)|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|102.3||||||||102.3|99.5|
91703772|NCT00232596|183301893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-parametric rank analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline 28-seizure frequency and stratified by baseline seizure frequency category and region|Non-parametric rank ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91703773|NCT00232596|183301894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91798073|NCT00785928|183474428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.357
91703774|NCT01650545|183301940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
91703775|NCT02913105|183301944|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (Body Mass Index (BMI) group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.97||||0.7489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||1.13|0.83|0.7489
91703776|NCT02913105|183301944|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.72||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.84|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||0.84|0.62|0.0005
91703777|NCT02913105|183301944|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.85|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||0.85|0.65|0.0005
91872114|NCT01762982|183637915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0547||95.0|||||Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference between the treatments being compared.||||0.0547
91906549|NCT00880399|183708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.22||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.43|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 4||-0.43|-4.00|0.0152
91703778|NCT02913105|183301949|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.5354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.83|0.5354
91798074|NCT00785928|183474428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.271
91703779|NCT02913105|183301949|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|0.78|||ANCOVA|||||0.78|0.59|<.0001
91703780|NCT02913105|183301949|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.80|0.63|<.0001
91703781|NCT02913105|183301950|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.724|0.567|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.567|-0.724|0.8402
91703782|NCT02913105|183301950|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.927|0.639|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.639|-0.927|0.7607
91703783|NCT02913105|183301950|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.6406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.037|0.581|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.581|-1.037|0.6406
91703784|NCT02913105|183301950|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.685||0.8185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.294|0.979|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.979|-1.294|0.8185
91703785|NCT02913105|183301950|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.485|1.057|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||1.057|-1.485|0.7804
91703786|NCT02913105|183301950|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.1403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.265|0.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.070|-1.265|0.1403
91703787|NCT02913105|183301950|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.743|-0.117|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.117|-1.743|0.0603
91703788|NCT02913105|183301950|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.182|-0.506|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.506|-2.182|0.0090
91703789|NCT02913105|183301950|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.965|-0.609|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.609|-2.965|0.0134
91889175|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.95|30.82|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 11A||30.82|22.95|
91703790|NCT02913105|183301950|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.439|-0.807|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.807|-3.439|0.0087
91705637|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.73||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.73|-0.43|0.620
91703791|NCT02913105|183301950|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.091|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.091|-1.130|0.1609
91703792|NCT02913105|183301950|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.524|-0.049|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.049|-1.524|0.0797
91703793|NCT02913105|183301950|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.872|-0.36|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.360|-1.872|0.0159
91703794|NCT02913105|183301950|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.684|-0.575|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.575|-2.684|0.0118
91703795|NCT02913105|183301950|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.072|-0.746|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.746|-3.072|0.0076
91798075|NCT00785928|183474428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.048
91798076|NCT00785928|183474429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||This p-value is from 2-sided comparison of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using Fisher's exact test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.875
91798077|NCT00785928|183474429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This p-value is from 2-sided comparison of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using Fisher's exact test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91798078|NCT00785928|183474429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This p-value is from 2-sided comparison of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using Fisher's exact test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91798079|NCT00785928|183474429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0||||This p-value is from a 2-sided comparison of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using a Chi-square test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Chi-squared|||||||0.304
91798080|NCT00785928|183474429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||This p-value is from a 2-sided comparison of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using a Chi-square test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Chi-squared|||||||0.489
91798081|NCT00785928|183474429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0||||This p-value is from a 2-sided comparison of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using a Chi-square test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Chi-squared|||||||0.091
91798082|NCT00785928|183474430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.746
91798083|NCT00785928|183474430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.393
91798084|NCT00785928|183474430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.549
91798085|NCT00785928|183474430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.619
91889176|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|2.97|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 12F||2.97|2.08|
91798086|NCT00785928|183474430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.893
91798087|NCT00785928|183474430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.066
91798088|NCT00785928|183474431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.583
91703796|NCT02913105|183301951|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.195|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.195|-0.260|0.8127
91703797|NCT02913105|183301951|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.8901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.298|0.252|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.252|-0.298|0.8901
91703798|NCT02913105|183301951|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.381|0.205|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.205|-0.381|0.6209
91703799|NCT02913105|183301951|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.8398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.444|0.347|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.347|-0.444|0.8398
91703800|NCT02913105|183301951|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.515|0.369|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.369|-0.515|0.7839
91703801|NCT02913105|183301951|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.476|-0.006|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||-0.006|-0.476|0.0911
91703802|NCT02913105|183301951|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.623|-0.053|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.053|-0.623|0.0520
91703803|NCT02913105|183301951|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.793|-0.187|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.187|-0.793|0.0085
91703804|NCT02913105|183301951|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.067|-0.247|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.247|-1.067|0.0091
91703805|NCT02913105|183301951|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.216|-0.302|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.302|-1.216|0.0070
91703806|NCT02913105|183301951|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.423|0.006|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.006|-0.423|0.1092
91872115|NCT01262456|183637937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.22||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA of change from baseline at Week 1, Months 1, 2, 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||"Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary outcomes in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.~A summary of mean change in nocturnal voids, assessed longitudinally during 3 months of treatment, is presented below for the FAS using LOCF."||-0.22|-0.61|<0.0001
91798089|NCT00785928|183474431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.311
91906550|NCT00880399|183708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-1.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 4||-1.25|-4.86|0.0010
91703807|NCT02913105|183301951|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.574|-0.056|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.056|-0.574|0.0457
91703808|NCT02913105|183301951|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.676|-0.129|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.129|-0.676|0.0162
91703809|NCT02913105|183301951|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.975|-0.242|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.242|-0.975|0.0070
91703810|NCT02913105|183301951|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.091|-0.281|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.281|-1.091|0.0060
91872116|NCT01262456|183637937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.17||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA of change from baseline at Week 1, Months 1, 2, 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||"Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary outcomes in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.~A summary of mean change in nocturnal voids, assessed longitudinally during 3 months of treatment, is presented below for the FAS using LOCF."||-0.17|-0.57|0.0003
91703811|NCT02913105|183301952|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.9927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.014|-0.015|0.9927
91703812|NCT02913105|183301952|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.007|0.035|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.035|-0.007|0.2794
91703813|NCT02913105|183301952|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.013|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.013|-0.012|0.9032
91798090|NCT00785928|183474431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.752
91798091|NCT00785928|183474431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.737
91798092|NCT00785928|183474431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.522||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.522
91798093|NCT00785928|183474431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.073
91872117|NCT01262456|183637938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.03||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE Method for 33% responder status at Week 1, Month 1, Month 2, and Month 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary endpoints in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.||3.03|1.38|0.0004
91798094|NCT00785928|183474432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.969
91798095|NCT00785928|183474432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.352
91906551|NCT00880399|183708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 6||-0.31|-4.50|0.0245
91703814|NCT02913105|183301952|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.027|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.027|-0.009|0.4163
91872118|NCT01262456|183637938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.96||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE Method for 33% responder status at Week 1, Month 1, Month 2, and Month 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary endpoints in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.||2.96|1.32|0.0009
91872119|NCT01262456|183637939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.12||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||"Change from baseline in the adjusted mean number of nocturnal voids in the FAS using LOCF.~The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg)."||-0.12|-0.57|0.0029
91872120|NCT01262456|183637939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.06||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids.||"Change from baseline in the adjusted mean number of nocturnal voids in the FAS using LOCF.~The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg)."||-0.06|-0.52|0.0128
91872121|NCT01262456|183637940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.02||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistical regression of 33% responder status adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||3.02|1.08|0.0233
91872122|NCT01262456|183637940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.87||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistical regression of 33% responder status adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||2.87|1.03|0.0386
91703815|NCT02913105|183301952|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.7001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.022|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.014|-0.022|0.7001
91703816|NCT02913105|183301952|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.5367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.021|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.021|-0.009|0.5367
91703817|NCT02913105|183301952|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.014|0.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.030|-0.014|0.5496
91703818|NCT02913105|183301952|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.6844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.016|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.016|-0.010|0.6844
91798096|NCT00785928|183474432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.406
91798097|NCT00785928|183474432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.266
91703819|NCT02913105|183301952|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.025|0.012|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.012|-0.025|0.5695
91798098|NCT00785928|183474432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.708
91872123|NCT01262456|183637941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.76||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.02|70.51||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline time to first nocturnal void using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||70.51|15.02|0.0026
91703820|NCT02913105|183301952|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.021|0.016|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.016|-0.021|0.8015
91703821|NCT02913105|183301952|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.020|-0.008|0.4923
91703822|NCT02913105|183301952|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.62|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.025|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.014|-0.025|0.6200
91703823|NCT02913105|183301952|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.014|-0.009|0.7423
91703824|NCT02913105|183301952|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.032|0.001|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.001|-0.032|0.1272
91703825|NCT02913105|183301952|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.8883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.017|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.017|-0.015|0.8883
91703826|NCT02913105|183301953|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.9514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.21|||ANCOVA|||||1.21|0.84|0.9514
91703827|NCT02913105|183301953|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.5168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|0.78|0.5168
91703828|NCT02913105|183301953|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|0.80|0.3740
91703829|NCT02913105|183301954|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||1.02|0.97|0.9453
91703830|NCT02913105|183301954|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.4344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||1.01|0.96|0.4344
91703831|NCT02913105|183301954|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||1.02|0.97|0.6390
91798099|NCT00785928|183474432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.012
91798100|NCT00785928|183474433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.880
91798101|NCT00785928|183474433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.575
91906552|NCT00880399|183708707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 6||-0.75|-4.97|0.0082
91703832|NCT02913105|183301954|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.6329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||1.02|0.97|0.6329
91703833|NCT02913105|183301954|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||1.02|0.97|0.6640
91703834|NCT02913105|183301954|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.7517|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||1.03|0.98|0.7517
91703835|NCT02913105|183301955|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.19|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 42||1.19|0.77|0.7390
91703836|NCT02913105|183301955|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 84||1.08|0.72|0.3086
91703837|NCT02913105|183301955|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.86||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 42||1.08|0.69|0.2880
91703838|NCT02913105|183301955|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 84||1.12|0.73|0.4446
91703839|NCT02913105|183301955|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.9||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.11|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 42||1.11|0.73|0.4127
91703840|NCT02913105|183301955|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.25|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 84||1.25|0.85|0.8074
91703841|NCT02913105|183301955|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 42||1.08|0.88|0.6935
91703842|NCT02913105|183301955|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.9145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 84||1.09|0.90|0.9145
91705638|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.51||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.51|-0.67|0.792
91798102|NCT00785928|183474433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.992
91872124|NCT01262456|183637941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.95||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.03|66.88||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline time to first nocturnal void using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||66.88|11.03|0.0064
91703843|NCT02913105|183301955|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.9131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 42||1.12|0.91|0.9131
91703844|NCT02913105|183301955|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 84||1.10|0.91|0.9988
91703845|NCT02913105|183301955|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.13|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 42||1.13|0.94|0.5873
91703846|NCT02913105|183301955|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 84||1.10|0.92|0.9050
91703847|NCT02913105|183301955|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.11|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 42||1.11|0.99|0.1458
91703848|NCT02913105|183301955|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 84||1.12|0.98|0.2048
91703849|NCT02913105|183301955|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.06||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 42||1.12|1.00|0.1051
91703850|NCT02913105|183301955|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 84||1.15|1.01|0.0717
91703851|NCT02913105|183301955|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 42||1.06|0.96|0.8083
91872125|NCT01262456|183637942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-86.17||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.69|-28.64||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||-28.64|-143.69|0.0034
91872126|NCT01262456|183637942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.8||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.7|-19.89||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||-19.89|-135.70|0.0086
91703852|NCT02913105|183301955|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 84||1.09|0.96|0.5361
91703853|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 7||1.00|0.92|0.0858
91906553|NCT00880399|183708709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.19|||Log Rank|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||3.19|0.80|0.51
91872127|NCT01262456|183637943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.31||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.94|63.32||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline 24-hour urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||63.32|-153.94|0.4126
91872128|NCT01262456|183637943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.79||||0.7353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.99|90.41||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline 24-hour urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||90.41|-127.99|0.7353
91872129|NCT02102724|183637950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypotheses were that there are no differences between the two groups' change scores for any study outcomes. The power analysis was based on a study of krill oil for reducing CRP levels in persons with arthritis (N = 90) that yielded an effect size (Cohen's d) of 1.2. A sample size of 37 was determined to yield a power of 0.80 to detect an effect size of 1.0 with a two-tailed alpha of 0.05.|The change scores of the two groups (week 12 minus baseline) were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.|||< 0.05
91703854|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 14||0.97|0.88|0.0096
91703855|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.98|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 28||0.98|0.88|0.0284
91703856|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 42||1.01|0.89|0.1330
91703857|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 56||1.01|0.89|0.2032
91703858|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 84||1.00|0.87|0.1141
91703859|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.01|0.88|0.1342
91703860|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 7||1.00|0.92|0.0771
91705639|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.34||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.34|-0.82|0.410
91872130|NCT04821271|183637951|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.91|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.91
91872131|NCT04821271|183637952|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.47|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.47
91906554|NCT00880399|183708709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.3|||Log Rank|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||3.30|0.84|0.37
91906555|NCT00880399|183708710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.55|-0.72|0.7859
91703861|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 14||1.01|0.91|0.1510
91703862|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 28||1.00|0.89|0.0744
91703863|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 42||1.06|0.93|0.8365
91703864|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.6091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 56||1.05|0.92|0.6091
91703865|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 84||1.03|0.90|0.3621
91703866|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.97||||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.04|0.91|0.5031
91703867|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 7||1.04|0.96|0.9244
91703868|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 14||1.08|0.99|0.2360
91703869|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 28||1.07|0.96|0.6990
91798103|NCT00785928|183474433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.646
91906556|NCT00880399|183708710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.6429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.49|-0.79|0.6429
91703870|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.11|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 42||1.11|0.99|0.1590
91798104|NCT00785928|183474433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.054
91798105|NCT00785928|183474433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.472
91906557|NCT00880399|183708710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.26|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||-0.26|-1.82|0.0092
91906558|NCT00880399|183708710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||-0.13|-1.69|0.0230
91703871|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 56||1.09|0.97|0.4256
91703872|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 84||1.09|0.96|0.4901
91703873|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.09|0.97|0.3648
91703874|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 7||1.12|0.91|0.8891
91703875|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.4817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 14||1.07|0.85|0.4817
91703876|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 28||1.09|0.84|0.6022
91703877|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 42||1.07|0.83|0.4470
91703878|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 56||1.07|0.83|0.4342
91798106|NCT00785928|183474434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.952
91703879|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|0.99|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 84||0.99|0.73|0.0891
91703880|NCT02913105|183301956|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.89||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 112 (EOS)||1.04|0.77|0.2260
91703881|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.87||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 7||0.97|0.78|0.0324
91798107|NCT00785928|183474434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.085
91798108|NCT00785928|183474434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.143
91703882|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.96|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 14||0.96|0.76|0.0291
91798109|NCT00785928|183474434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.242
91798110|NCT00785928|183474434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.317
91703883|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.5755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 28||1.09|0.84|0.5755
91703884|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 42||1.05|0.80|0.3070
91703885|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 56||1.12|0.86|0.7752
91703886|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 84||1.03|0.75|0.1803
91703887|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.89||||0.2414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 112 (EOS)||1.05|0.76|0.2414
91703888|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.86||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.95|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 7||0.95|0.77|0.0179
91703889|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.9||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 14||1.00|0.80|0.1125
91703890|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 28||1.12|0.88|0.9572
91798111|NCT00785928|183474434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.456
91798112|NCT00785928|183474435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.833
91705640|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.955||95.0|-0.68|0.65||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.65|-0.68|0.955
91798113|NCT00785928|183474435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.826
91906559|NCT00880399|183708710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||-0.31|-2.27|0.0104
91872132|NCT04821271|183637953|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.14|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.14
91703891|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.7372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 42||1.10|0.87|0.7372
91703892|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.04||||0.6015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.17|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 56||1.17|0.92|0.6015
91703893|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.19|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 84||1.19|0.89|0.7261
91703894|NCT02913105|183301956|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 112 (EOS)||1.15|0.87|0.9892
91703895|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|0.95|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 7||0.95|0.87|0.0005
91703896|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.89||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.94|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 14||0.94|0.84|0.0005
91703897|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.96|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 28||0.96|0.86|0.0062
91703898|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 42||1.00|0.89|0.1214
91703899|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.9||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.95|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 56||0.95|0.84|0.0043
91703900|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 84||1.02|0.89|0.2615
91703901|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.01|0.88|0.1331
91705641|NCT01026818|183305792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.7||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.70|-0.59|0.868
91798114|NCT00785928|183474435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.091
91872133|NCT04821271|183637954|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.12|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.12
91703902|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.89|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 7||0.89|0.81|<.0001
91703903|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.93|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 14||0.93|0.83|0.0001
91703904|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.88|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 28||0.88|0.79|<.0001
91703905|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.92|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 42||0.92|0.81|0.0002
91703906|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.88|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 56||0.88|0.77|<.0001
91798115|NCT00785928|183474435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.127
91703907|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.9|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 84||0.90|0.78|0.0002
91703908|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.02|0.89|0.2280
91703909|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 7||0.97|0.89|0.0090
91703910|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 14||1.04|0.93|0.6237
91703911|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 28||0.97|0.87|0.0080
91798116|NCT00785928|183474435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.243
91872134|NCT04821271|183637955|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.69|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.69
91872135|NCT04821271|183637956|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.73|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.73
91872136|NCT04821271|183637957|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.28|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.28
91703912|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 42||0.97|0.86|0.0105
91703913|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.98|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 56||0.98|0.86|0.0217
91798117|NCT00785928|183474435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.037
91872137|NCT02008916|183637988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.69|1.24|0.0093
91872138|NCT02008916|183637988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.21|1.38|0.0037
91872139|NCT02008916|183637989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|5.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.35|1.26|0.0100
91872140|NCT02008916|183637989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.78|1.36|0.0051
91703914|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|0.94|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 84||0.94|0.82|0.0031
91705642|NCT01026818|183305793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.56||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.56|0.10|0.005
91798118|NCT00785928|183474436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.562
91872141|NCT02008916|183637990|SUPERIORITY||Relative treatment effect|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Relative treatment effect = exponential of the difference in LSM on the log e scale or the geometric LSM ratio on the original scale. For values less than 1, AIN457 has a greater reduction than Placebo.|||0.68|0.38|<0.0001
91872142|NCT02008916|183637990|SUPERIORITY||Relative treatment effect|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Relative treatment effect = exponential of the difference in LSM on the log e scale or the geometric LSM ratio on the original scale. For values less than 1, AIN457 has a greater reduction than Placebo.|||0.60|0.33|<0.0001
91872143|NCT02008916|183637991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|9.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.92|2.01|0.0002
91872144|NCT02008916|183637991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|9.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.38|1.89|0.0004
91872145|NCT02008916|183637992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.60|0.0347
91872146|NCT02008916|183637992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-2.00|0.0018
91872147|NCT02008916|183637996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.71||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|64.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.42|0.92|0.0593
91872148|NCT02008916|183637996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.39||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|150.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||150.79|2.49|0.0046
91872149|NCT01915914|183638020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|13.4993|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1113|44.325|||Log Rank|||||44.3250|4.1113|<0.0001
91872150|NCT01915914|183638021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.9524|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4258|10.1105|||Log Rank|||||10.1105|2.4258|<0.0001
91872151|NCT01915914|183638022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91872152|NCT01915914|183638023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91703915|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.07|0.95|0.7740
91703916|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 7||1.01|0.89|0.1783
91703917|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 14||0.97|0.84|0.0219
91872153|NCT01915914|183638025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91872154|NCT01915914|183638026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91703918|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.99|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 28||0.99|0.85|0.0719
91703919|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 42||1.02|0.85|0.2199
91703920|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.4928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 56||1.06|0.87|0.4928
91703921|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 84||1.05|0.85|0.3419
91703922|NCT02913105|183301957|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.7281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 112 (EOS)||1.09|0.88|0.7281
91703923|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.04||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 7||1.12|0.97|0.3180
91703924|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 14||1.10|0.95|0.6576
91705643|NCT01026818|183305793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.45||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.45|0.01|0.041
91872155|NCT01915914|183638031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||95.0||||Week 20, CA|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7010
91872156|NCT01915914|183638031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042||95.0||||Week 20, ET/L|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0042
91872157|NCT01915914|183638031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||Week 20, AP|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0810
91872158|NCT01915914|183638031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2799||95.0||||Week 32, CA|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2799
91872159|NCT01915914|183638031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1375||95.0||||Week 32, ET/L|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1375
91872160|NCT01915914|183638031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||Week 32, AP|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1100
91872161|NCT01915914|183638031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394||95.0||||Week 20, Total VAS Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0394
91703925|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.97||||0.6035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 28||1.06|0.90|0.6035
91703926|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.06||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.17|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 42||1.17|0.96|0.3261
91872162|NCT01915914|183638031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2237||95.0||||Week 32, Total VAS Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2237
91872163|NCT01213940|183638055|EQUIVALENCE|95% confidence limit from standard deviation of mean|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||one -way ANOVA was used for the analysis||||<0.05
91872164|NCT03242863|183638071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91872165|NCT03242863|183638072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0015
91872166|NCT03242863|183638073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91872167|NCT03242863|183638074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91872168|NCT03365622|183638109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.379||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.242|20.854|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the total opioid dose administered intraoperatively and postoperatively, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||20.854|-8.242|0.3938
91872169|NCT03365622|183638110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.666|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op average surgical pain, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.666|-0.451|0.7051
91872170|NCT03365622|183638111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.3852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.901|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 1-2 hours post-op average surgical pain, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.901|-0.349|0.3852
91872171|NCT03365622|183638112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.816||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|6.088|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 1-2 hours post-op inspiratory capacity percentage, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||6.088|-5.02|0.8498
91703927|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.04||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 56||1.15|0.94|0.5246
91705644|NCT01026818|183305793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.035||95.0|0.02|0.54||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.54|0.02|0.035
91872172|NCT03365622|183638113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.007||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.579|4.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op inspiratory capacity percentage, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||4.28|-7.579|0.5839
91872173|NCT03365622|183638114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.2479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.078|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 1-2 hours post-op dynamic pain score, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.078|-0.280|0.2479
91872174|NCT03365622|183638115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|1.145|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op dynamic pain score, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.145|-0.177|0.1502
91872175|NCT03365622|183638116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.955|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op surgical pain score, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.955|-0.278|0.2797
91872176|NCT03365622|183638117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.739||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.792|1.125|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and time to first narcotic use, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.125|-1.792|0.6527
91872177|NCT03365622|183638118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.465||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.||A logistic regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and incidence of nausea, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.000|0.217|0.0499
91872178|NCT03365622|183638119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.165||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.321|60.304|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and time to discharge from PACU, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||60.304|-11.321|0.179
91872179|NCT03365622|183638120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.2811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.773|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and time to hospital discharge, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.773|-0.226|0.2811
91872180|NCT01513447|183638153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
91872181|NCT01513447|183638154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|102.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-230.0|171.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||171|-230|0.29
91872182|NCT03141177|183638155|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.64|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.64|0.41|<0.0001
91872183|NCT03141177|183638156|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.89|0.4|0.89|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.89|0.40|0.0010
91705645|NCT01026818|183305793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.38||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.38|-0.12|0.316
91872184|NCT03141177|183638157|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment C|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|4.95|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.95|2.51|<0.0001
91872185|NCT03141177|183638157|OTHER|Treatment A - Treatment C|Difference of Objective Response Rates|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|35.6|||||Strata adjusted difference in objective response rate (Nivolumab+Cabozantinib - Sunitinib) based on DerSimonian and Laird.|||35.6|21.7|
91872186|NCT00092456|183638169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If equivalence was established in all 3 pairwise comparisons for a given serotype, the 3 lots were considered consistent for that serotype. Each comparison consisted of 2 one-sided tests of equivalence with α=0.05. Statistical significance for the 2 one-sided equivalence tests for each pair of lots was established if the p-values for the hypothesis tests were each less than 0.05. This corresponds to the 2-sided 90% CI for the fold difference in the 2 lots being contained entirely within (0.5,2).|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The reported p-value is for all 5 serotypes, no multiplicity adjustment made, and Type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level. P\<0.05 implies that the difference is statistically significantly less than the prespecified difference of 2 fold.|ANOVA|||A pairwise comparison of lots was made for each serotype, for each pair of lots.||||<0.001
91906560|NCT00880399|183708710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.69|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||-0.69|-2.67|0.0010
91705646|NCT01026818|183305794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|3.76||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.76|-0.25|0.086
91872187|NCT00092456|183638169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If equivalence was established in all 3 pairwise comparisons for a given serotype, the 3 lots were considered consistent for that serotype. Each comparison consisted of 2 one-sided tests of equivalence with α=0.05. Statistical significance for the 2 one-sided equivalence tests for each pair of lots was established if the p-values for the hypothesis tests were each less than 0.05. This corresponds to the 2-sided 90% CI for the fold difference in the 2 lots being contained entirely within (0.5,2)|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The reported p-value is for all 5 serotypes, no multiplicity adjustment made, and Type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level. P\<0.05 implies that the difference is statistically significantly less than the prespecified difference of 2 fold.|ANOVA|||A pairwise comparison of lots was made for each serotype, for each pair of lots.||||<0.001
91888900|NCT01182441|183670345|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint is met if the 95% Credible Interval for the rate ratio of WATCHMAN versus Warfarin is entirely less than 1.75.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.89||||||A Bayesian piecewise exponential model was used to model the 18-month event rates. Historical priors for each interval model were based on PROTECT AF. Hazards were modeled for 0-7 day, 7-60 day, 60-182 day, and 182+ day intervals. Event rates were estimated separately by treatment group and event type. The posterior distribution for the 18-month event rate ratio (WATCHMAN vs. Warfarin), and the corresponding equitailed 95% credible interval, were determined via Monte Carlo simulations.||1.89|0.57|
91703928|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.14|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 84||1.14|0.92|0.7519
91703929|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 112 (EOS)||1.12|0.89|0.9577
91703930|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.18|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 7||1.18|1.03|0.0160
91703931|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.13||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.21|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 14||1.21|1.05|0.0052
91703932|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.06||||0.1822|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 28||1.15|0.99|0.1822
91703933|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.14||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.24|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 42||1.24|1.04|0.0159
91703934|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.19|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 56||1.19|0.99|0.1524
91703935|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.2|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 84||1.20|0.98|0.1749
91703936|NCT02913105|183301957|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.7503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.13|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 112 (EOS)||1.13|0.92|0.7503
91703937|NCT02913105|183301958|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.161|16.178|||ANCOVA|||||16.178|-2.161|0.2073
91872188|NCT00092456|183638169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If equivalence was established in all 3 pairwise comparisons for a given serotype, the 3 lots were considered consistent for that serotype. Each comparison consisted of 2 one-sided tests of equivalence with α=0.05. Statistical significance for the 2 one-sided equivalence tests for each pair of lots was established if the p-values for the hypothesis tests were each less than 0.05. This corresponds to the 2-sided 90% CI for the fold difference in the 2 lots being contained entirely within (0.5,2).|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The reported p-value is for all 5 serotypes, no multiplicity adjustment made, and Type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level. P\<0.05 implies that the difference is statistically significantly less than the prespecified difference of 2 fold.|ANCOVA|||A pairwise comparison of lots was made for each serotype, for each pair of lots.||||<0.001
91872189|NCT02065895|183638201|OTHER|ANOVA was used to first tests the hypothesis that there is a difference among the three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4|80.3||The p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using Sidak's correction. A priori the pimary outcome was defined as blood glucose AUC from 8 am - 12pm; however we used blood glucose AUC from 8am - 2pm to capture the entire meal response.|ANOVA|||Differences among the 3 groups were assessed by repeated measures ANOVA using Sidak's correction for multiple comparisons. All subjects were analyzed as a single group, no comparison group.||80.3|33.4|0.0011
91872190|NCT02065895|183638202|OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0059
91872191|NCT03740737|183638204|OTHER||Treatment difference|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.5|67.1|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|||67.1|55.5|<0.001
91872192|NCT03740737|183638205|OTHER||Treatment difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|33.7|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Ongoing Pregnancy Rate in the Fresh Cycle||33.7|22.5|<0.001
91872193|NCT03740737|183638209|OTHER||Treatment difference|31.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|36.0|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||36.0|24.7|<0.001
91872194|NCT03740737|183638209|OTHER||Treatment difference|68.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|72.1|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate cumulatively||72.1|61.2|<0.001
91872195|NCT03740737|183638210|OTHER||Treatment difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|34.6|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||34.6|23.4|<0.001
91872196|NCT03740737|183638210|OTHER||Treatment difference|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.5|69.1|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate cumulatively||69.1|57.5|<0.001
91872197|NCT03740737|183638212|OTHER||Treatment difference|35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|39.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate in the fresh cycle||39.2|28.1|<0.001
91703938|NCT02913105|183301958|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.106|16.563|||ANCOVA|||||16.563|-2.106|0.2014
91906561|NCT00880399|183708710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||-0.08|-2.37|0.0361
91906562|NCT00880399|183708710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54||||0.0092||95.0|-2.69|-0.38|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.38|-2.69|0.0092
91703939|NCT02913105|183301958|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.974|8.414|||ANCOVA|||||8.414|-7.974|0.9645
91872198|NCT03740737|183638212|OTHER||Treatment difference|72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.3|76.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate cumulatively||76.2|65.3|<0.001
91872199|NCT03740737|183638224|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91872200|NCT03740737|183638225|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91872201|NCT03740737|183638226|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.220
91872202|NCT03740737|183638227|OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.588
91872203|NCT00507429|183638273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.223
91872204|NCT03137784|183638277|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.132|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.132|0.047|<0.001
91872205|NCT03137784|183638277|OTHER||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.132|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.132|0.047|<0.001
91872206|NCT03137784|183638278|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.203|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.203|0.127|<0.001
91872207|NCT03137784|183638278|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.206|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.206|0.129|<0.001
91872208|NCT03137784|183638279|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.212|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.212|0.141|<0.001
91872209|NCT03137784|183638279|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.215|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.215|0.144|<0.001
91872210|NCT03137784|183638280|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.173|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.173|0.106|<0.001
91872211|NCT03137784|183638280|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.146|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.179|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.179|0.112|<0.001
91906563|NCT00880399|183708711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.30|-1.74|0.1662
91906564|NCT00880399|183708711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.38|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.38|-1.69|0.2116
91906565|NCT00880399|183708711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.13|-2.17|0.0820
91906566|NCT00880399|183708711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.61|-1.71|0.3498
91703940|NCT01663857|183301999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4
91703941|NCT01663857|183302001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4686|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4686
91703942|NCT01172808|183302014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.291|0.181|<0.0001
91703943|NCT01172808|183302014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre , week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.253|0.142|<0.0001
91703944|NCT01172808|183302015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.244|0.126|<0.0001
91798119|NCT00785928|183474436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.539||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.539
91798120|NCT00785928|183474436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.304
91798121|NCT00785928|183474436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.832
91798122|NCT00785928|183474436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.010
91798123|NCT00785928|183474436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.980
91798124|NCT00785928|183474436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.569
91703945|NCT01172808|183302015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction.||0.211|0.092|<0.0001
91703946|NCT01172808|183302016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.233|0.114|<0.0001
91703947|NCT01172808|183302016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model. Spatial power used as covariance structure. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||0.162|0.042|0.0008
91703948|NCT01172808|183302017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.189|0.062|0.0001
91703949|NCT01172808|183302017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.140|0.012|0.0200
91798125|NCT00785928|183474436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.953
91798126|NCT00785928|183474436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.647
91798127|NCT00785928|183474436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.507
91703950|NCT01172808|183302018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|0.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.278|0.171|<0.0001
91703951|NCT01172808|183302018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.249|0.141|<0.0001
91703952|NCT01172808|183302019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.215|0.100|<0.0001
91703953|NCT01172808|183302019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.164|0.049|0.0003
91703954|NCT01172808|183302020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.994|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.113|47.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||47.700|28.113|<0.0001
91703955|NCT01172808|183302020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.825|43.529|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||43.529|23.825|<0.0001
91703956|NCT01172808|183302021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.203|-0.057|0.2717
91703957|NCT01172808|183302021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.201|-0.061|0.2956
91703958|NCT01172808|183302022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||-0.085|-0.318|0.0007
91703959|NCT01172808|183302022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||-0.016|-0.250|0.0262
91703960|NCT01172808|183302023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.11||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||2.11|1.02|0.0377
91703961|NCT01172808|183302023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.54||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||2.54|1.22|0.0022
91703962|NCT01172808|183302024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.726|39.455|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||39.455|21.726|<0.0001
91798128|NCT00785928|183474436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.821
91798129|NCT00785928|183474436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.045
91798130|NCT00785928|183474439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.236
91798131|NCT00785928|183474439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.038
91798132|NCT00785928|183474439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
91798133|NCT00785928|183474439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91798134|NCT00785928|183474439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.734
91798135|NCT00785928|183474439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.035
91798136|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.901
91872212|NCT03137784|183638281|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.201|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.201|0.127|<0.001
91798137|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.840
91798138|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.882
91798139|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.225
91872213|NCT03137784|183638281|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.174|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.211|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.211|0.137|<0.001
91872214|NCT03137784|183638282|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.036||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.077|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.077|-0.004|0.079
91872215|NCT03137784|183638282|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.058||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.099|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.099|0.017|0.006
91872216|NCT03137784|183638284|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|25.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.22|31.79|||Linear Mixed Model||LS Mean of change from baseline in mean morning PEF is calculated with the ANCOVA model using treatment, stratification group, dosing schedule, gender, center grouping, smoking status, and baseline mean morning PEF as covariates|||31.79|19.22|<0.001
91872217|NCT03137784|183638284|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|24.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.99|30.59|||Linear Mixed Model|||||30.59|17.99|<0.001
91872218|NCT03137784|183638285|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|30.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.07|36.82|||Linear Mixed Model||LS Mean of change from baseline in mean morning PEF is calculated with the ANCOVA model using treatment, stratification group, dosing schedule, gender, center grouping, smoking status, and baseline mean morning PEF as covariates|||36.82|25.07|<0.001
91872219|NCT03137784|183638285|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|29.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.47|35.26|||Linear Mixed Model||LS Mean of change from baseline in mean morning PEF is calculated with the ANCOVA model using treatment, stratification group, dosing schedule, gender, center grouping, smoking status, and baseline mean morning PEF as covariates|||35.26|23.47|<0.001
91798140|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.340
91798141|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.850
91798142|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.447
91798143|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.909
91798144|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.152
91872220|NCT03137784|183638286|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|-0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.00|-0.31|0.053
91872221|NCT03137784|183638286|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|-0.11||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.05|-0.27|0.163
91872222|NCT04803734|183638289|EQUIVALENCE|To establish bioequivalence of albuterol under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the geometric means between the products should fall within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00% interval for ln-transformed Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.862||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|0.922|||ANOVA|||||0.922|0.807|0.0328
91872223|NCT04803734|183638290|EQUIVALENCE|To establish bioequivalence of albuterol under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the geometric means between the products should fall within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00% interval for ln-transformed AUC(0-t).|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.941|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.909|0.976|||ANOVA|||||0.976|0.909|<0.0001
91872224|NCT04803734|183638291|EQUIVALENCE|To establish bioequivalence of albuterol under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the geometric means between the products should fall within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00% interval for ln-transformed AUC(0-inf).|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.975|||ANOVA|||||0.975|0.910|<0.0001
91872225|NCT00854594|183638360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pre-intervention efficacies will be equal in the two study arms.||||0.26
91872226|NCT00854594|183638361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: post-intervention efficacies will be equal in the two study arms.||||0.74
91703963|NCT01172808|183302024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.533|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.772|32.549|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||32.549|14.772|<0.0001
91703964|NCT01172808|183302025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.44|36.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||36.880|19.440|<0.0001
91703965|NCT01172808|183302025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.462|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.619|33.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||33.120|15.619|<0.0001
91703966|NCT01172808|183302026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.624|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.624|-1.740|0.3550
91703967|NCT01172808|183302026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|2.771|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||2.771|0.388|0.0094
91872227|NCT04471805|183638363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Post hoc analyses (paired t-tests and Bonferroni correction) and effect size (Cohen's d) were calculated to clarify significant main effects and interactions.|ANOVA|Normality and sphericity evaluated with Shapiro-Wilk test and Mauchly's test. Greenhouse-Geisser corrections used when sphericity was violated.||||||<0.05
91872228|NCT04471805|183638364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Post hoc analyses (paired t-tests and Bonferroni correction) and effect size (Cohen's d) were calculated to clarify significant main effects and interactions.|ANOVA|Normality and sphericity evaluated with Shapiro-Wilk test and Mauchly's test. Greenhouse-Geisser corrections used when sphericity was violated.||||||<0.05
91872229|NCT04540952|183638366|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis indicated that with a sample size of 34 per arm, would provide 81% power to detect an effect size of 0.7 (0.7\*SD of fluid deficit) with a two-sided, two sample t test (a=0.05).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-260.7|283.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||283.4|-260.7|0.93
91872230|NCT01799993|183638369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.841||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|1.277|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.277|0.554|0.4263
91872231|NCT01799993|183638370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6421|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6421
91872232|NCT01799993|183638371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7984|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7984
91872233|NCT01799993|183638372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7144|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7144
91872234|NCT01799993|183638373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4278|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4278
91872235|NCT01263223|183638391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.0||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.0|7.4|<0.0001
91872236|NCT01263223|183638391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|30.9||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.9|17.9|<0.0001
91872237|NCT01263223|183638392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|8.8||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.8|3.9|<0.0001
91872238|NCT01263223|183638392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|11.6||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.6|2.6|0.0025
91798145|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
91798146|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91798147|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
91798148|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.944
91798149|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.677
91798150|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.053
91798151|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.061
91798152|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
91798153|NCT00785928|183474440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
91798154|NCT05027464|183474443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.759||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold was P \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Patient demographics were fixed effects, and randomization units with clinics nested within randomization units were random effects.|An odds ratio above one indicates favoring the intervention arm over the usual care arm.|Generalized linear mixed model to account for patient demographics and hierarchical levels for clinics nested within VAHCS. Null hypothesis is that both arms perform equivalently in vaccine uptake after a year. Power was based on recruited VAHCSs and at least 1,000 Veterans per clinic. Using two-sided 0.05 type I error rate, 5-20% outcome rate in UC, we have 90% power to detect between a 9.6% and 14.6% difference with a total sample size of 90,000 to 100,000.||1.759|0.888|0.202
91798155|NCT05027464|183474443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.228||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.738|||Regression, Logistic|||Sensitivity analysis, same null hypothesis and model as primary analysis but different pool of patients: Not constrained to Veterans with at least one primary care visit||1.738|0.867|0.247
91798156|NCT05027464|183474443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.263||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|2.334|||Regression, Logistic|||Sensitivity analysis; same model and null hypothesis but reassigning small clinics to their parent VAHCS facility, small meaning \< 100 participants. This data set uses the primary analysis data set with the primary visit constraint.||2.334|0.684|0.455
91798157|NCT05027464|183474443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|2.075|||Regression, Logistic|||Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary outcome but the source of vaccination records omits Medicare claims data. The primary data source had included Medicare claims data on vaccination records as a supplement to the VA data.||2.075|0.765|0.364
91872239|NCT01263223|183638392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|7.21||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.21|3.81|<0.0001
91872240|NCT01263223|183638392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|9.2||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.20|2.13|0.0020
91798158|NCT05027464|183474443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.268||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.778|||Regression, Logistic|||"Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary analysis model but the source of data is supplemented by state level registries, named IZ Gateway, which was deployed summer of 2023 where Veteran records of vaccination could be updated at the VA from external vaccination facilities if the Veteran entered the VA in the same state as that vaccination facility. The primary analysis data contains Medicare claims data in this analysis, too."||1.778|0.904|0.168
91798159|NCT05027464|183474444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.535||P \< 0.05 and no multiple comparison adjustment|Regression, Logistic|We adjusted for patient demographics as fixed effects and randomization units and associated clinics as a three-level random effect.|An odds ratio above one indicates favoring the intervention arm over the usual care arm.|Power calculation is similar to the calculation for the primary outcome. Null hypothesis is described in the outcome comparison related to this statistical analysis plan.||1.535|0.643|.976
91798160|NCT05027464|183474444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.978||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|1.361|||Regression, Logistic|GLMM||Sensitivity analysis, same null hypothesis and model as primary analysis but different pool of patients: Not constrained to Veterans with at least one primary care visit||1.361|0.702|0.893
91872241|NCT01263223|183638393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|5.38||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|0.418|0.0224
91872242|NCT01263223|183638393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|7.29||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.29|-1.88|0.2453
91703968|NCT01172808|183302027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.139|0.022|0.0069
91703969|NCT01172808|183302027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.111|-0.006|0.0810
91703970|NCT01172808|183302028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.126|0.004|0.0363
91703971|NCT01172808|183302028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.100|-0.022|0.2077
91703972|NCT01172808|183302029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.436|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.111|-0.436|0.2447
91703973|NCT01172808|183302029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.419|-0.131|0.3046
91703974|NCT01172808|183302030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.102|-0.011|0.1178
91703975|NCT01172808|183302030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.053|-0.061|0.8880
91703976|NCT01172808|183302031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||1.72|1.03|0.0308
91703977|NCT01172808|183302031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||1.71|1.02|0.0348
91703978|NCT02542293|183302062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.045||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab versus (Vs) Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.045|0.485|0.0808
91703979|NCT02542293|183302063|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.109|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.109|0.322|
91798161|NCT05027464|183474444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.961||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.507|||Regression, Logistic|GLMM||Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary outcome but the source of vaccination records omits Medicare claims data. The primary data source had included Medicare claims data on vaccination records as a supplement to the VA data.||1.507|0.613|0.863
91872243|NCT01263223|183638393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|6.82||P-value if for the Mean Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.82|3.37|<0.0001
91872244|NCT01263223|183638393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|10.1||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.1|2.95|0.0005
91872245|NCT01263223|183638394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|16.9||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.9|8.7|<0.0001
91872246|NCT01263223|183638394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|34.5||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.5|11.4|0.0001
91703980|NCT02542293|183302064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.629|1.201|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.201|0.629|
91703981|NCT02542293|183302064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.213|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.213|0.726|
91703982|NCT02542293|183302064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.464|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.464|0.786|
91703983|NCT02542293|183302064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|1.302|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB \<20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.302|0.835|
91703984|NCT02542293|183302064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.353|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB non-evaluable analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.353|0.758|
91703985|NCT02542293|183302064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|1.008|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥14 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.008|0.309|
91703986|NCT02542293|183302064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.35|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.350|0.560|
91703987|NCT02542293|183302064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.251|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.251|0.614|
91703988|NCT02542293|183302064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.08|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥8 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.080|0.564|
91798162|NCT05027464|183474444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.011||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.607|||Regression, Logistic|GLMM||"Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary analysis model but the source of data is supplemented by state level registries, named IZ Gateway, which was deployed summer of 2023 where Veteran records of vaccination could be updated at the VA from external vaccination facilities if the Veteran entered the VA in the same state as that vaccination facility. The primary analysis data contains Medicare claims data in this analysis, too."||1.607|0.636|0.963
91703989|NCT02542293|183302065|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.186|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥25% Vs \<25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.186|0.871|
91703990|NCT02542293|183302065|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.018|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25 and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.018|0.480|
91798163|NCT05027464|183474445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.191||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.781||Threshold: P \< 0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Generalized linear mixed modeling adjusted for baseline covariates and hierarchical levels for randomization units and clinics within them.|Odds ratio in favor of intervention arm (MI) has values higher than 1.|No power calculation for this exploratory outcome. Null hypothesis is that both arms will have equal uptake rates of the COVID-19 Booster vaccination during the study period.||1.781|0.796|0.395
91798164|NCT05027464|183474446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.311||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the p-value threshold was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized linear mixed model adjusting for baseline covariates and flu vaccine in prior year, with hierarchical random effects for ran. unit/site|Odds ratio in favor of novel intervention arm has values higher than 1|Null hypothesis is that both study arms will have equal rates of flu vaccination uptake during the study period. No power calculation since this outcome is exploratory.||1.311|0.97|0.119
91798165|NCT01539642|183474459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.25||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.89|80.14|||ANCOVA|||||80.14|19.89|0.001
91872247|NCT01263223|183638395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.2||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-1.6|0.2120
91872248|NCT01263223|183638395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|15.5||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.5|-0.4|0.0640
91872249|NCT01263223|183638395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.7||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|0.5|0.0211
91872250|NCT01263223|183638395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.8719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.8||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.8|-5.7|0.8719
91872251|NCT01263223|183638396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|3.7||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-5.3|0.7133
91872252|NCT01263223|183638396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|7.9||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|-17.2|0.4638
91872253|NCT01263223|183638397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|15.9||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.9|11.3|<0.0001
91906567|NCT00880399|183708711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||-0.40|-2.99|0.0107
91906568|NCT00880399|183708711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||-0.79|-3.40|0.0017
91703991|NCT02542293|183302065|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.078|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥25% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.078|0.654|
91703992|NCT02542293|183302065|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|1.065|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.065|0.289|
91703993|NCT02542293|183302065|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.081|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.081|0.587|
91703994|NCT02542293|183302065|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|0.955|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||0.955|0.222|
91872254|NCT01263223|183638397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|34.2||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.2|21.1|<0.0001
91872255|NCT01263223|183638398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.7||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-4.9|0.9609
91872256|NCT01263223|183638398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.2731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.6||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.6|-3.9|0.2731
91872257|NCT01263223|183638398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.3779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.8||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-4.8|0.3779
91872258|NCT01263223|183638398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.8||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-12.8|0.0828
91872259|NCT03692871|183638427|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|12.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site erythema||12.8|2.8|= 0.003
91872260|NCT03692871|183638427|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||=|0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site induration||4.0|-5.0|= 0.882
91872261|NCT03692871|183638427|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.4|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site pain||11.3|1.3|= 0.014
91872262|NCT03692871|183638427|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.6|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site swelling||8.9|0.0|= 0.051
91872263|NCT03692871|183638428|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.5|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Decreased appetite||10.5|0.4|= 0.033
91872264|NCT03692871|183638428|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.6|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Irritability||10.5|1.0|= 0.016
91872265|NCT03692871|183638428|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||=|0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Somnolence||5.6|-4.7|= 0.878
91906569|NCT00880399|183708711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||0.19|-2.78|0.0880
91906570|NCT00880399|183708711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.18|-3.17|0.0282
91906571|NCT00880399|183708712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.44|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.44|-0.45|0.9854
91906572|NCT00880399|183708712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.23|-0.66|0.3476
91703995|NCT02542293|183302066|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.146|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.146|0.514|
91703996|NCT02542293|183302066|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.189|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.189|0.623|
91703997|NCT02542293|183302066|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.193|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.193|0.714|
91703998|NCT02542293|183302066|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|0.818|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥14 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||0.818|0.258|
91703999|NCT02542293|183302066|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.228|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.228|0.524|
91704000|NCT02542293|183302066|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|1.177|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.177|0.585|
91704001|NCT02542293|183302066|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.017|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥8 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.017|0.534|
91798166|NCT05021081|183474478|OTHER|The least-square means (i.e., adjusted means) of photopic contrast sensitivity at 6 cpd was estimated separately under conditions with glare source and without glare source. This endpoint was not statistically tested, and consequentially statistical interferences was not made.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.21|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as With glare minus Without glare|The sample size was chosen based on resources in conjunction, subject matter experts, and any available literature. To help ensure the glare source intensity, a small pilot investigation per the ANSI Z80.12-2007 standard was interpreted to be about 20 subjects to complete Phase 1, which should be sufficient to evaluate the mean photopic contrast sensitivity with and without the glare source.||-0.21|-0.70|
91798167|NCT05021081|183474479|OTHER|The least-square means (i.e., adjusted means) of mesopic contrast sensitivity at 6 cpd was estimated separately under conditions with glare source and without glare source. This endpoint was not statistically tested, and consequentially statistical interferences was not made.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.36|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as With glare minus Without glare|The sample size was chosen based on resources in conjunction, subject matter experts, and any available literature. To help ensure the glare source intensity, a small pilot investigation per the ANSI Z80.12-2007 standard was interpreted to be about 20 subjects to complete Phase 1, which should be sufficient to evaluate the mean mesopic contrast sensitivity with and without the glare source.||-0.36|-0.81|
91872266|NCT03692871|183638428|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.8|||=|0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Urticaria||1.5|-3.8|= 0.503
91872267|NCT03692871|183638429|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4||||||Percentage of participants with a vaccine-related SAE||0.4|-0.8|
91704002|NCT02542293|183302067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.517|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.517|0.810|
91705647|NCT01026818|183305794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.45||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.45|-1.50|0.637
91872268|NCT00257894|183638441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Effect size close to zero (eta squared of .01)|ANOVA|Interaction effect term from group by time ANOVA||||||.57
91872269|NCT00257894|183638442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Effect size about zero (eta squared = .01)|ANOVA|Interaction term from a group by time ANOVA||||||.60
91872270|NCT00257894|183638443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Effect size (eta squared) = 0|ANOVA|Interaction term of a group by time ANOVA||||||.79
91872271|NCT00257894|183638444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||For test of drug by time interaction effect|ANOVA|Medium effect size, eta squared = .061||Analysis of variance, group by time (Day 0 vs. Day 10).||||.21
91872272|NCT02852824|183638447|OTHER||Slope|0.9058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0523|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7973|1.0142||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used a statistical method.||1.0142|0.7973|
91872273|NCT02852824|183638448|OTHER||Slope|0.9528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8581|1.0475||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used as statistical method.||1.0475|0.8581|
91704003|NCT02542293|183302067|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|2.141|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||2.141|0.592|
91704004|NCT02542293|183302067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.253|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥25% Vs \<25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.253|0.924|
91704005|NCT02542293|183302067|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.362|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥ 25% Vs \< 25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.362|0.655|
91704006|NCT02542293|183302067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|1.024|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥25% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.024|0.621|
91704007|NCT02542293|183302067|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|1.317|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.317|0.389|
91704008|NCT02542293|183302067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.01|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.010|0.542|
91704009|NCT02542293|183302067|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|1.251|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.251|0.335|
91704010|NCT02542293|183302068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|1.03||||||"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.030|0.236|
91704011|NCT02542293|183302068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.968||||||"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.968|0.288|
91704012|NCT02542293|183302068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.336|0.908||||||"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.908|0.336|
91704013|NCT02542293|183302068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|5.234||||||"tTMB ≥14 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||5.234|0.752|
91704014|NCT02542293|183302068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|2.214||||||"tTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||2.214|0.482|
91704015|NCT02542293|183302068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.548||||||"tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.548|0.430|
91704016|NCT02542293|183302068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.486||||||"tTMB ≥8 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.486|0.456|
91872274|NCT02852824|183638449|OTHER||Slope|0.9439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0358|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8697|1.0182||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used as statistical method.||1.0182|0.8697|
91872275|NCT02852824|183638450|OTHER||Slope|0.9708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8975|1.044||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used as statistical method.||1.0440|0.8975|
91872276|NCT01316913|183638451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.022||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.072|-0.027|0.377
91872277|NCT01316913|183638451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.06||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.109||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.109|0.010|0.018
91704017|NCT02542293|183302069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|0.869|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.869|0.245|
91704018|NCT02542293|183302069|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|1.337|||Binomial exact test|||"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.337|0.124|
91704019|NCT02542293|183302069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.647|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥25% Vs \<25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.647|0.356|
91704020|NCT02542293|183302069|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.66|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Va ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.660|0.450|
91704021|NCT02542293|183302069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|1.079|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥25% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.079|0.443|
91704022|NCT02542293|183302069|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|4.919|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Va ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||4.919|0.658|
91704023|NCT02542293|183302069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|1.291|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.291|0.449|
91704024|NCT02542293|183302069|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|5.27|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Va ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||5.270|0.585|
91704025|NCT02542293|183302070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.532|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.532|0.113|
91704026|NCT02542293|183302070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.639|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.639|0.196|
91872278|NCT01316913|183638451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.037||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.087|-0.012|0.142
91704027|NCT02542293|183302070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.611|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.611|0.233|
91704028|NCT02542293|183302071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|0.787|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.787|0.199|
91704029|NCT02542293|183302071|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|2.86|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||2.860|0.183|
91872279|NCT01316913|183638451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.074||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.123|0.025|0.003
91798168|NCT05021081|183474480|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was below 0.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.068|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Given no historical data is available, the sample size was not determined based on any empirical sample size calculation. A power analysis was conducted using a paired sample t-test (exact method) with a 2-sided type I error rate 0.05 to estimate statistical power based on different assumptions. The power analysis showed that the statistical power for testing superiority would be approximately 80% or higher with the effect size of -0.05 (mean difference: Test minus Control).||0.068|-0.029|
91798169|NCT03387683|183474514|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.31121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46184||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|1.24141||Statistical significance was inferred at a (2-sided) 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|The LSM estimate and corresponding p-value were obtained from a linear model with treatment and baseline value of the endpoint as covariates.||Difference in LSM (Placebo-Dapagliflozin 10 mg)||1.24141|-0.61900|0.504
91798170|NCT03387683|183474515|OTHER||Difference in LSM|1.74969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18363||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64837|6.14775||Statistical significance was inferred at a (2-sided) 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|The LSM estimate and corresponding p-value were obtained from a linear model with treatment and baseline value of the endpoint as covariates.||Difference in LSM (Placebo - Dapagliflozin 10 mg)||6.14775|-2.64837|0.427
91872280|NCT01860079|183638454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Categorical data were analyzed with χ2.Comparisons were also analyzed by χ2 between the early discharge and standard treatment arm for the primary outcomes.||||<0.05
91704030|NCT02542293|183302071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.588|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.588|0.324|
91704031|NCT02542293|183302071|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.761|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.761|0.193|
91704032|NCT02542293|183302074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|1.058|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.058|0.494|
91704033|NCT02542293|183302074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.151|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.151|0.607|
91704034|NCT02542293|183302074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.146|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.146|0.689|
91704035|NCT02542293|183302075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.388|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.388|0.748|
91798171|NCT00057876|183474532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank test is conducted for OS to see whether the two treatment arms are different in their overall survival probabilities.||||0.017
91798172|NCT00057876|183474533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.25
91872281|NCT02144285|183638486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Bioavailability|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.6||||||||0.60|0.34|
91872282|NCT02507297|183638503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.367
91705648|NCT01026818|183305794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.53||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 13.5|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.53|-2.18|0.885
91798173|NCT00057876|183474534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare objective response rate (CR+PR) between two treatment groups||||0.99
91798174|NCT02758171|183474565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|101.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.818|103.644|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.644|99.818|<0.0001
91872283|NCT02507297|183638503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.48
91872284|NCT02507297|183638504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.136
91872285|NCT02507297|183638504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.324
91872286|NCT02507297|183638505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.916
91872287|NCT02507297|183638505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.752
91704036|NCT02542293|183302075|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.219|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.219|0.360|
91704037|NCT02542293|183302075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.147|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.147|0.845|
91704038|NCT02542293|183302075|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|1.03|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.030|0.492|
91704039|NCT00310466|183302084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
91704040|NCT00310466|183302085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91704041|NCT00310466|183302087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
91704042|NCT00869557|183302185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A total sample size of 75 participants randomized in a 2:1 ratio had 26% power to evaluate noninferiority with respect to the response rate of HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 if a response rate of 84% for both treatment groups and a noninferiority margin of 0.12 were assumed.~A total of 71 participants were enrolled in the study (4 fewer than planned)."|Difference in the response rates (%)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|20.1|||||The 95% confidence interval was computed using normal approximation stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The null hypothesis was that the response rate (proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24) in the Stribild group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in Atripla group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the Stribild group was less than 12% worse than that in the Atripla group.||20.1|-14.5|
91704043|NCT01472939|183302191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.06||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.743|13.862|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||13.862|-1.743|0.128
91704044|NCT01472939|183302191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.42||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|15.212|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||15.212|-0.378|0.062
91704045|NCT01472939|183302191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.765|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||9.765|-6.100|0.650
91872288|NCT02507297|183638506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.568
91872289|NCT02507297|183638506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.568
91704046|NCT01472939|183302192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.75||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.344|14.85|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||14.850|-1.344|0.102
91872290|NCT02507297|183638507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.486
91872291|NCT00070707|183638523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.101|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.101
91704047|NCT01472939|183302192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.92||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|17.021|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||17.021|0.814|0.031
91704048|NCT01472939|183302192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.71||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|13.957|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||13.957|-2.540|0.175
91704049|NCT01472939|183302193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.087|0.141|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.141|-5.087|0.064
91704050|NCT01472939|183302193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.818|-0.573|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.573|-5.818|0.017
91704051|NCT01472939|183302193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.813|0.519|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.519|-4.813|0.114
91704052|NCT01492101|183302208|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test, stratified by geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.872|||=|0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.019|||Log Rank|||||1.019|0.747|= 0.0835
91704053|NCT01492101|183302209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926|||=|0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.075|||Log Rank|||||1.075|0.798|= 0.3017
91704054|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[2\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|4.33|||F-test|||Global health status/QoL: change from baseline to last assessment (Week 56)||4.33|-2.65|0.635
91704055|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[3\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|5.14|||F-test|||||5.14|-0.88|0.1656
91872292|NCT00070707|183638523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.168|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.168
91872293|NCT00070707|183638523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.930
91872294|NCT00070707|183638523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.487|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.487
91872295|NCT00070707|183638523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.914|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.914
91872296|NCT00070707|183638523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.977|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.977
91872297|NCT00070707|183638523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.109|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.109
91872298|NCT00070707|183638523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.291|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.291
91872299|NCT00070707|183638523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.984|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.984
91872300|NCT00070707|183638523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.373|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.373
91872301|NCT00070707|183638523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.623|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.623
91906573|NCT00880399|183708712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.07|-0.94|0.0898
91906574|NCT00880399|183708712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.07|-0.95|0.0928
91906575|NCT00880399|183708712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.2937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||0.28|-0.93|0.2937
91906576|NCT00880399|183708712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||0.02|-1.20|0.0587
91906577|NCT00880399|183708712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||0.23|-1.14|0.1950
91906578|NCT00880399|183708712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.00|-1.40|0.0498
91704056|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[4\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.8356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.82|||F-test|||||4.82|-3.9|0.8356
91872302|NCT00070707|183638523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.978|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.978
91906579|NCT00880399|183708713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.14||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||6.40|0.72|0.1731
91704057|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[5\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.7727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|3.88|||F-test|||||3.88|-2.88|0.7727
91872303|NCT00070707|183638524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.023
91872304|NCT00070707|183638524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.693
91872305|NCT00070707|183638524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.483
91872306|NCT00070707|183638524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.088
91872307|NCT00070707|183638524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.210
91872308|NCT00070707|183638524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.178|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.178
91872309|NCT00070707|183638524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.055
91872310|NCT00070707|183638524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.915
91872311|NCT00070707|183638524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.471|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.471
91872312|NCT00070707|183638524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.110
91872313|NCT00070707|183638524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.305
91872314|NCT00070707|183638524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.461|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.461
91872315|NCT00070707|183638525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.068
91906580|NCT00880399|183708713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.77||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||2.97|0.20|0.7084
91906581|NCT00880399|183708713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.6||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||5.98|1.13|0.0247
91906582|NCT00880399|183708713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||4.30|0.75|0.1862
91906583|NCT00880399|183708713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.87||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||3.61|0.97|0.0630
91906584|NCT00880399|183708713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||3.23|0.85|0.1413
91906585|NCT00880399|183708713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.77||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||3.37|0.93|0.0806
91906586|NCT00880399|183708713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.53||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||2.92|0.80|0.2007
91906587|NCT00880399|183708714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.07|-0.25|0.2523
91906588|NCT00880399|183708714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.07|-0.25|0.2639
91906589|NCT00880399|183708714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||-0.17|-0.58|0.0004
91906590|NCT00880399|183708714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||-0.02|-0.43|0.0348
91906591|NCT00880399|183708714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||-0.06|-0.62|0.0166
91906592|NCT00880399|183708714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||-0.18|-0.75|0.0014
91906593|NCT00880399|183708714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||-0.11|-0.79|0.0099
91872316|NCT00070707|183638525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.116
91704058|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[6\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.7446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|3.59|||F-test|||||3.59|-2.56|0.7446
91704059|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[7\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.45|||F-test|||||4.45|-4.0|0.9169
91704060|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[8\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|3.79|||F-test|||||3.79|-3.66|0.9731
91704061|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[9\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|10.67|||F-test|||||10.67|3.88|<0.0001
91704062|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[10\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|0.93|||F-test|||||0.93|-7.59|0.1252
91872317|NCT00070707|183638525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.749|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.749
91872318|NCT00070707|183638525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.289|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.289
91872319|NCT00070707|183638525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.982|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.982
91872320|NCT00070707|183638525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.941|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.941
91872321|NCT00070707|183638525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.128
91872322|NCT00070707|183638525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.484
91872323|NCT00070707|183638525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.673
91906594|NCT00880399|183708714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.14|-0.83|0.0059
91704063|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[11\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|1.22|||F-test|||||1.22|-6.83|0.1717
91704064|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[12\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|3.18|||F-test|||||3.18|-5.95|0.5513
91704065|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[13\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|13.72|||F-test|||||13.72|3.57|0.0009
91704066|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[14\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|1.8|||F-test|||||1.8|-7.35|0.2337
91736324|NCT03189719|183365729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.76|||Stratified Log-Rank|||PFS in all participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World), tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma), and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.76|0.55|<0.0001
91872324|NCT00070707|183638525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.250
91872325|NCT00070707|183638525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.450
91872326|NCT00070707|183638525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.774|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.774
91872327|NCT00070707|183638526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.078
91872328|NCT00070707|183638526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.492|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.492
91872329|NCT00070707|183638526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.945|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.945
91872330|NCT00070707|183638526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.359|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.359
91872331|NCT00070707|183638526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.802|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.802
91872332|NCT00070707|183638526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.716|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.716
91872333|NCT00070707|183638526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.158
91872334|NCT00070707|183638526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.281|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.281
91872335|NCT00070707|183638526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.901|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.901
91872336|NCT00070707|183638526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.433|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.433
91872337|NCT00070707|183638526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.730
91872338|NCT00070707|183638526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.819|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.819
91906595|NCT00880399|183708715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.5473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||1.08|-2.04|0.5473
91906596|NCT00880399|183708715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.6|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||1.60|-1.56|0.9814
91704067|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[15\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|13.98|||F-test|||||13.98|6.6|<0.0001
91872339|NCT00070707|183638527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.629
91872340|NCT00070707|183638527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.038
91872341|NCT00070707|183638527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.182|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.182
91872342|NCT00070707|183638527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.149
91872343|NCT00070707|183638527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.035
91872344|NCT00070707|183638527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.056
91872345|NCT00070707|183638527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.711|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.711
91872346|NCT00070707|183638527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.098|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.098
91872347|NCT00070707|183638527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.356|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.356
91872348|NCT00070707|183638527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.529|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.529
91704068|NCT01492101|183302214|EQUIVALENCE|\[16\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|3.69|||F-test|||||3.69|-3.74|0.99
91704069|NCT01492101|183302216|EQUIVALENCE|\[17\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.29|||F-test|||||4.29|-2.42|0.5833
91704070|NCT01492101|183302216|EQUIVALENCE|\[18\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.3098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|3.9|||F-test|||||3.9|-1.24|0.3098
91704071|NCT01492101|183302216|EQUIVALENCE|\[19\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.6264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|5.63|||F-test|||||5.63|-3.39|0.6264
91704072|NCT01492101|183302216|EQUIVALENCE|\[20\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-2.1|||F-test|||||-2.1|-7.11|0.0003
91704073|NCT01492101|183302216|EQUIVALENCE|\[21\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.99|||F-test|||||0.99|-3.84|0.2473
91704074|NCT01492101|183302216|EQUIVALENCE|\[22\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|-0.23|||F-test|||||-0.23|-5.54|0.0333
91704075|NCT01492101|183302216|EQUIVALENCE|\[23\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|3.28|||F-test|||||3.28|-12.2|0.2575
91704076|NCT01492101|183302216|EQUIVALENCE|\[24\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|12.34|||F-test|||||12.34|-1.22|0.1072
91704077|NCT01004432|183302221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage achive ACR 20 response|34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|39.4||One sided test adjusting for conducting one interim analysis|Chi-squared|||null hypothesis: proportion \<=0.2||39.4|30.4|<0.0001
91704078|NCT01149421|183302237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-4.58|-1.0||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-4.58|<0.001
91704079|NCT01149421|183302237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.83|0.68||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-2.83|<0.001
91704080|NCT01149421|183302237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91704081|NCT01149421|183302237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.149
91704082|NCT01149421|183302238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-4.53|-0.79||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.79|-4.53|<0.001
91704083|NCT01149421|183302238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-3.54|0.12||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-3.54|<0.001
91798175|NCT02758171|183474566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|99.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.29|103.672|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.672|95.290|<0.0001
91872349|NCT00070707|183638527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.617|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.617
91872350|NCT00070707|183638527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.422|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.422
91872351|NCT00070707|183638528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Baseline||||||0.532|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
91872352|NCT00070707|183638528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Day 15||||||0.739|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.739
91872353|NCT00070707|183638528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Day 29||||||0.227|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.227
91704084|NCT01149421|183302238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91704085|NCT01149421|183302238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
91704086|NCT01149421|183302239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.8|1.43||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-0.80|<0.001
91704087|NCT01149421|183302239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.67|1.52||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.52|-0.67|<0.001
91704088|NCT01149421|183302239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.870
91704089|NCT01149421|183302239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.915
91704090|NCT01149421|183302239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.68|1.68||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.68|-0.68|<0.001
91704091|NCT01149421|183302239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-1.0|1.31||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-1.00|<0.001
91704092|NCT01149421|183302239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.929
91704093|NCT01149421|183302239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.776
91704094|NCT01149421|183302240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.84||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|97.3|1.52|4.16||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.16|1.52|0.556
91704095|NCT01149421|183302240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.62||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.32|2.92||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.92|0.32|0.018
91704096|NCT01149421|183302240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.00
91872354|NCT00070707|183638529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.104|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.104
91872355|NCT00070707|183638529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.022
91872356|NCT00070707|183638529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.012
91872357|NCT00070707|183638529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.001
91872358|NCT00070707|183638529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.033
91872359|NCT00070707|183638529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.047
91872360|NCT00070707|183638529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.269|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.269
91872361|NCT00070707|183638529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.308|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.308
91872362|NCT00070707|183638529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.050
91872363|NCT00070707|183638529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.014
91704097|NCT01149421|183302240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.5||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|97.3|2.1|4.91||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.91|2.10|0.904
91704098|NCT01149421|183302240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.13|2.64||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.64|-0.13|0.005
91736325|NCT03189719|183365730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|22.5|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in all participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in all participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World), tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma), and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||22.5|9.0|<0.0001
91736326|NCT03189719|183365731|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|33.4|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||33.4|11.6|<0.0001
91736327|NCT03189719|183365732|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.7|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in ESCC participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in ESCC participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||20.7|4.7|0.0009
91736328|NCT03189719|183365733|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|33.2|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||33.2|14.3|<0.0001
91736329|NCT03189719|183365740|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.2|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||3.20|-3.40|0.9530
91736330|NCT03189719|183365741|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.95||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|3.82|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||3.82|-7.72|0.5053
91736331|NCT03189719|183365742|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.9742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|3.81|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||3.81|-3.93|0.9742
91736332|NCT03189719|183365743|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.77||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|3.17|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||3.17|-6.71|0.4810
91736333|NCT03189719|183365744|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-5.54||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|-0.16|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||-0.16|-10.93|0.0436
91736334|NCT03189719|183365744|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.94||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-0.02|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||-0.02|-5.86|0.0487
91736335|NCT03189719|183365744|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.93||||0.5932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|2.49|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||2.49|-4.36|0.5932
91872364|NCT00070707|183638529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.100
91872365|NCT00070707|183638529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.139|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.139
91872366|NCT00070707|183638530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.136
91872367|NCT00070707|183638530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.126|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.126
91872368|NCT00070707|183638530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.107|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.107
91872369|NCT00070707|183638530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.006
91872370|NCT00070707|183638530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.030
91872371|NCT00070707|183638530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.037
91872372|NCT00070707|183638530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.146|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.146
91872373|NCT00070707|183638530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.426|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.426
91872374|NCT00070707|183638530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.259|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.259
91736336|NCT03189719|183365745|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.68||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|0.24|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.24|-17.59|0.0564
91736337|NCT03189719|183365745|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.13||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|2.66|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||2.66|-6.93|0.3813
91736338|NCT03189719|183365745|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-5.11||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|0.65|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.65|-10.86|0.0816
91872375|NCT00070707|183638530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.026
91872376|NCT00070707|183638530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.022
91872377|NCT00070707|183638530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.043
91872378|NCT00070707|183638531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.181
91872379|NCT00070707|183638531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.014
91872380|NCT00070707|183638531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.004
91872381|NCT00070707|183638531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.002
91872382|NCT00070707|183638531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.027
91872383|NCT00070707|183638531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.069
91872384|NCT00070707|183638531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.373|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.373
91872385|NCT00070707|183638531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.148|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.148
91872386|NCT00070707|183638531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.009
91872387|NCT00070707|183638531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.016
91872388|NCT00070707|183638531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.113
91872389|NCT00070707|183638531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.173|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.173
91872390|NCT00070707|183638532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.089
91872391|NCT00070707|183638532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.014
91872392|NCT00070707|183638532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.004
91872393|NCT00070707|183638532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.001
91872394|NCT00070707|183638532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.041
91872395|NCT00070707|183638532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.036
91872396|NCT00070707|183638532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.170
91872397|NCT00070707|183638532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.237
91872398|NCT00070707|183638532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.019
91872399|NCT00070707|183638532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.018
91872400|NCT00070707|183638532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.149
91872401|NCT00070707|183638532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.231
91872402|NCT00070707|183638533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.745
91872403|NCT00070707|183638533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.250
91872404|NCT00070707|183638533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 2 (AM)||||||0.202|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.202
91872405|NCT00070707|183638533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 3 (AM)||||||0.104|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.104
91872406|NCT00070707|183638533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 4 (AM)||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.348
91872407|NCT00070707|183638533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Final Week (AM)||||||0.355|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.355
91872408|NCT00070707|183638533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Baseline (PM)||||||0.851|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.851
91872409|NCT00070707|183638533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 1 (PM)||||||0.993|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.993
91872410|NCT00070707|183638533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 2 (PM)||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.476
91872411|NCT00070707|183638533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 3 (PM)||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.149
91872412|NCT00070707|183638533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 4 (PM)||||||0.616|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.616
91872413|NCT00070707|183638533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Final Week (PM)||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.527
91872414|NCT00070707|183638534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.116
91872415|NCT00070707|183638534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.994|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.994
91872416|NCT00070707|183638534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.961|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.961
91872417|NCT00070707|183638534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.183|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.183
91872418|NCT00070707|183638534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.440
91872419|NCT00070707|183638534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.838|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.838
91872420|NCT00070707|183638534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.096
91872421|NCT00070707|183638534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.362
91704099|NCT01149421|183302240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
91704100|NCT01149421|183302241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.09||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.09|-4.00|<0.001
91704101|NCT01149421|183302241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.64||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-2.51|0.001
91704102|NCT01149421|183302241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.09||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.09|-4.10|<0.001
91704103|NCT01149421|183302241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.0||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-2.98|<0.001
91704104|NCT01149421|183302242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.42||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-1.84|0.218
91704105|NCT01149421|183302242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.06||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|-1.16|0.931
91704106|NCT01149421|183302242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.55||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|-1.72|0.315
91704107|NCT01149421|183302242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.7||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.70|-1.54|0.465
91704108|NCT01149421|183302243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|-1.61||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.61|-5.04|<0.001
91704109|NCT01149421|183302243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.46||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-2.91|0.153
91704110|NCT01149421|183302243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.09||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-4.66|0.002
91704111|NCT01149421|183302243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.07||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-3.57|0.042
91704112|NCT01149421|183302243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.75||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.75|-3.23|0.221
91704113|NCT01149421|183302243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.81||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.81|-2.10|0.884
91704114|NCT01149421|183302243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.39||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-4.31|0.19
91704115|NCT01149421|183302243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.54||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.54|-3.31|0.159
91704116|NCT01149421|183302243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.122
91704117|NCT01149421|183302243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.601
91704118|NCT01149421|183302243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
91704119|NCT01149421|183302243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.274
91704120|NCT01149421|183302244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.32||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|-0.91|0.717
91704121|NCT01149421|183302244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.54||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-0.65|0.427
91704122|NCT01149421|183302244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.73||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.73|-0.53|0.300
91704123|NCT01149421|183302244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.26||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-0.96|0.788
91704124|NCT01149421|183302244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.37||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.37|-0.20|0.098
91704125|NCT01149421|183302244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.08||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|-0.44|0.203
91704126|NCT01149421|183302244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.82||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.82|-0.88|0.493
91704127|NCT01149421|183302244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.6||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.60|-1.06|0.692
91704128|NCT01149421|183302244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.990
91704129|NCT01149421|183302244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.173
91872422|NCT00070707|183638534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.693
91872423|NCT00070707|183638534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.603|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.603
91872424|NCT00070707|183638534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.579|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.579
91704130|NCT01149421|183302244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.972
91736339|NCT03189719|183365746|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.49||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|1.83|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||1.83|-10.81|0.1632
91872425|NCT00070707|183638534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.413
91704131|NCT01149421|183302244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.904
91704132|NCT01149421|183302245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.8||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.80|1.17|<0.001
91704133|NCT01149421|183302245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.45||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.45|-0.14|0.080
91704134|NCT01149421|183302245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.91||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.91|2.23|<0.001
91704135|NCT01149421|183302245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.24||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-0.39|0.168
91704136|NCT01149421|183302245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|5.28||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.28|2.62|<0.001
91704137|NCT01149421|183302245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.09||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.09|1.47|<0.001
91704138|NCT01149421|183302245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|5.47||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.47|2.49|<0.001
91704139|NCT01149421|183302245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.7||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.70|0.78|0.003
91704140|NCT01149421|183302245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91704141|NCT01149421|183302245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
91736340|NCT03189719|183365746|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.71||||0.3259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|1.71|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||1.71|-5.12|0.3259
91704142|NCT01149421|183302245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91704143|NCT01149421|183302245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91704144|NCT01149421|183302246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.43||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.43|-4.50|<0.001
91872426|NCT00070707|183638535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.823
91872427|NCT00070707|183638535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.744|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 15||||0.744
91872428|NCT00070707|183638535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.675|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 29||||0.675
91872429|NCT00070707|183638536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.693
91872430|NCT00070707|183638536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.818|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 15||||0.818
91872431|NCT00070707|183638536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 29||||0.915
91872432|NCT00070707|183638537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.823
91872433|NCT00070707|183638537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 15||||0.202
91872434|NCT00070707|183638537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.199|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 29||||0.199
91872435|NCT00070707|183638538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.375|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.375
91872436|NCT00070707|183638538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.710
91872437|NCT00070707|183638538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.597|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.597
91872438|NCT00070707|183638538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.242
91872439|NCT00070707|183638538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.696|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.696
91872440|NCT00070707|183638538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.670
91872441|NCT00070707|183638539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.865|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.865
91872442|NCT00070707|183638539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.025
91872443|NCT00070707|183638539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.288|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.288
91736341|NCT03189719|183365746|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.4598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|2.48|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||2.48|-5.47|0.4598
91736342|NCT03189719|183365747|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.2||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.67|-0.73|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||-0.73|-15.67|0.0317
91736343|NCT03189719|183365747|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.57||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|0.62|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.62|-7.77|0.0945
91736344|NCT03189719|183365747|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.76||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|0.11|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.11|-9.64|0.0555
91736345|NCT05211596|183365759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91736346|NCT05211596|183365760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.264
91736347|NCT05211596|183365761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|849.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91736348|NCT05211596|183365762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|777.42||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
91736349|NCT05211596|183365763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91872444|NCT00070707|183638539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.790
91872445|NCT00070707|183638539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.211|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.211
91736350|NCT05211596|183365764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91736351|NCT02293551|183365765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Ratio of Least Squares Mean|1.04||||0.2071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.1|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.10|0.988|0.2071
91736352|NCT02293551|183365765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Ratio of Least Square Means|1.11||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.17|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.17|1.06|0.0005
91736353|NCT02293551|183365765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric of Ratio Least Square Means|1.08||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.13|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.13|1.03|0.0123
91872446|NCT00070707|183638539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.136
91736354|NCT02293551|183365765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Ratio of Least Square Means|1.07||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.13|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.13|1.02|0.0331
91736355|NCT02293551|183365765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.16|||||Dose proportionality and the degree of dose proportionality was assessed by fitting the power model versus dose. Estimated ratio of dose-normalized geometric means of PK parameters between the highest and lowest doses assessed dose proportionality.|||1.16|1.06|
91736356|NCT04532749|183365766|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|=|0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.64|-4.00|=0.411
91872447|NCT00070707|183638540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.667|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.667
91872448|NCT00070707|183638540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.656|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.656
91872449|NCT00070707|183638540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.458|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.458
91872450|NCT00070707|183638540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.220
91872451|NCT00070707|183638540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.775
91872452|NCT00070707|183638540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.994|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.994
91872453|NCT00070707|183638541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.363|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.363
91872454|NCT00070707|183638541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.262
91872455|NCT00070707|183638541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.386
91872456|NCT00070707|183638541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.167
91872457|NCT00070707|183638541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.505|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.505
91872458|NCT00070707|183638541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.725|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.725
91872459|NCT00070707|183638542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.954|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||Asthma Symptoms: Day 15||||0.954
91872460|NCT00070707|183638542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||Asthma Symptoms: Day 29||||0.295
91872461|NCT00070707|183638543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.268|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||SAR Nasal Symptoms: Day 15||||0.268
91872462|NCT00070707|183638543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||SAR Nasal Symptoms: Day 29||||0.154
91872463|NCT01366976|183638550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that acetaminophen would reduce peak isofuran concentrations by 22 pg/mL (40% reduction from peak concentrations). If the true difference in the acetaminophen and placebo group means is 22 pg/mL (SD=30 pg/mL), we would need to study 30 experimental subjects and 30 control subjects to be able to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of the acetaminophen and placebo groups are equal with probability (power) 0.8.||||0.05
91872464|NCT01366976|183638552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91736357|NCT04532749|183365767|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|1.59|||MMRM model|||In accordance with protocol predefined testing sequence, statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the first secondary endpoint (MADRS-WOSI) and thus, a formal statistical testing was not performed.||1.59|-3.41|=0.473
91736358|NCT04532749|183365768|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|=|0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.85|||MMRM Model|||In accordance with protocol predefined testing sequence, statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the second secondary endpoint (PROMIS-SD; Short Form 8a) and thus, a formal statistical testing was not performed.||0.85|-4.87|=0.167
91736359|NCT05395338|183365772|OTHER|cox proportional hazards models with stratification by matching pairs|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05|||Regression, Cox||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||1.05|0.78|0.183
91736360|NCT05395338|183365773|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|1.12|<0.001
91736361|NCT05395338|183365774|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.36|||Regression, Logistic||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||1.36|1.11|<0.001
91736362|NCT05395338|183365775|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||Regression, Logistic||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||0.83|0.64|<0.001
91872465|NCT01241448|183638564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|-0.01||No multiplicity adjustments were used to calculate the p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sixty-five randomized patients (45 completers) per arm were expected to provide at least 90% power to detect 0.8% HbA1c difference with placebo assuming a SD for change in HbA1c of 1.2% (0.05 1-sided type I error).||-0.01|-0.58|0.094
91872466|NCT01241448|183638564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments were used to calculate the p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sixty-five randomized patients (45 completers) per arm were expected to provide at least 90% power to detect 0.8% HbA1c difference with placebo assuming a SD for change in HbA1c of 1.2% (0.05 1-sided type I error).||-0.34|-0.90|<0.001
91872467|NCT01241448|183638564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.48||No multiplicity adjustments were used to calculate the p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sixty-five randomized patients (45 completers) per arm were expected to provide at least 90% power to detect 0.8% HbA1c difference with placebo assuming a SD for change in HbA1c of 1.2% (0.05 1-sided type I error).||-0.48|-1.05|<0.01
91872468|NCT01286311|183638633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.86|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||1.86|0.54|0.99
91736363|NCT05395338|183365776|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.93|||Regression, Logistic||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||0.93|0.77|<0.001
91736364|NCT00069641|183365784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|31.93|||ANCOVA|||p-value for treatment difference based on Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model containing treatment, region, baseline participant age, and baseline disease score.||31.93|5.99|0.0049
91736365|NCT00492557|183365798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given virus subtype was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% confidence interval (CI), computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC+TIV - TIV alone) was greater than -0.10.|Percent Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.5||||||Influenza virus subtype: A/H1N1. Primary null hypothesis for each of the influenza virus subtypes is: proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when 13vPnC+TIV were administered concomitantly, minus the proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when TIV was administered alone (with placebo) \<= -0.10.||6.5|-3.1|
91736366|NCT00492557|183365798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given virus subtype was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC+TIV - TIV alone) was greater than -0.10.|Percent Difference|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.3||||||Influenza virus subtype: A/H3N2. Primary null hypothesis for each of the influenza virus subtypes is: proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when 13vPnC+TIV were administered concomitantly, minus the proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when TIV was administered alone (with placebo) \<= -0.10.||1.3|-10.4|
91736367|NCT00492557|183365798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given virus subtype was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC+TIV - TIV alone) was greater than -0.10.|Percent Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.1||||||Influenza virus subtype: B. Primary null hypothesis for each of the influenza virus subtypes is: proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when 13vPnC+TIV were administered concomitantly, minus the proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when TIV was administered alone (with placebo) \<= -0.10.||4.1|-7.8|
91872469|NCT01286311|183638634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.85|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||1.85|0.84|0.27
91872470|NCT01286311|183638635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.32|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||4.32|1.05|0.038
91872471|NCT01286311|183638636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.1|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||10.1|0.73|0.13
91872472|NCT01286311|183638637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.5|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||9.5|0.50|0.30
91906597|NCT00880399|183708715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.01|-3.03|0.0515
91872473|NCT03034863|183638638|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.03
91872474|NCT03034863|183638639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.69
91906598|NCT00880399|183708715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.96|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.96|-2.09|0.4680
91736368|NCT00492557|183365799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.04|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 1. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.04|0.60|
91736369|NCT00492557|183365799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 3. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.13|0.78|
91736370|NCT00492557|183365799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.87|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 4. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.87|0.51|
91736371|NCT00492557|183365799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.86|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 5. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.86|0.55|
91736372|NCT00492557|183365799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.94|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.94|0.61|
91736373|NCT00492557|183365799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6B. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.25|0.75|
91736374|NCT00492557|183365799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 7F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.07|0.67|
91736375|NCT00492557|183365799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 9V. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.02|0.63|
91760048|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.04|-0.78|
91872475|NCT03034863|183638640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||All p-values are two-tailed|Fisher Exact|Compares veterans who reported 1+ attempts at any follow-up wave out of total number of veterans in each group (i.e., 0/19 for SAFER; 2/20 for I-SPI).||||||.49
91906599|NCT00880399|183708715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||0.55|-2.98|0.1757
91906600|NCT00880399|183708715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.63|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||0.63|-2.93|0.2048
91872476|NCT03034863|183638641|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.03
91872477|NCT03034863|183638642|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.87
91872478|NCT03034863|183638643|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.03
91872479|NCT03034863|183638644|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.16
91872480|NCT03034863|183638645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.81
91872481|NCT03034863|183638646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.55
91872482|NCT03034863|183638647|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.64
91872483|NCT03034863|183638648|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.62
91872484|NCT03034863|183638649|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.16
91906601|NCT00880399|183708715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||-0.20|-4.12|0.0312
91872485|NCT03331978|183638654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|14.61|||Regression, Linear|Model is adjusted for participant sex, which was found to be significantly associated with adherence in a similar repeated measures model.|Values entered are for regression coefficient for intervention indicator (versus control) and represents the adjusted difference across all follow-up time points.|Tested with repeated measures linear regression where all 6 past-month post-intervention measurements of adherence were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 6 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for presence of data were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and continuous adherence measured at baseline. Model included all participants with adherence data (a) at baseline and (b) at least one follow-up month.||14.61|-0.82|.08
91872486|NCT03331978|183638655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.6||Per above, p-value is from repeated measures logistic regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for intervention indicator (versus controls).|Tested with repeated measures logistic regression where all 6 past-month post-intervention measurements of adherence were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 6 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for presence of data were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline dichotomous adherence. Model included all participants with adherence data (a) at baseline and (b) at least one follow-up month.||3.60|1.09|.0257
91906602|NCT00880399|183708715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.34||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.37|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.37|-4.31|0.0202
91906603|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.45||||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.38|29.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 1||29.28|-20.38|0.7246
91704145|NCT01149421|183302246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.75||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.75|-2.79|<0.001
91704146|NCT01149421|183302246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-2.28||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.28|-4.52|<0.001
91736376|NCT00492557|183365799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.97|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 14. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.97|0.53|
91736377|NCT00492557|183365799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 18C. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.01|0.64|
91736378|NCT00492557|183365799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.87|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.87|0.56|
91736379|NCT00492557|183365799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.85|0.49|
91736380|NCT00492557|183365799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 23F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.27|0.71|
91736381|NCT00492557|183365802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.24|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 1. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.24|0.68|
91736382|NCT00492557|183365802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 3. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.20|0.69|
91736383|NCT00492557|183365802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 4. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.95|0.47|
91736384|NCT00492557|183365802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.6|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 5. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.60|0.77|
91736385|NCT00492557|183365802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.08|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.08|0.54|
91889177|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|54.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.35|64.3|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 15B||64.30|46.35|
91872487|NCT03331978|183638656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.18||As mentioned above, p-value comes from repeated measures regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for intervention indicator (versus controls).|Tested with repeated measures logistic regression where both post-intervention measurements were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 2 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for presence of viral suppression data were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline viral suppression. Model included all viral suppression data (a) at baseline and (b) close to either of the two follow-up surveys.||5.18|0.64|.26
91704147|NCT01149421|183302246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-1.03||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.03|-3.23|<0.001
91704148|NCT01149421|183302246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-1.07||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-3.43|<0.001
91704149|NCT01149421|183302246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.22||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-2.09|0.113
91704150|NCT01149421|183302246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-1.62||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.62|-3.86|<0.001
91704151|NCT01149421|183302246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.51||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.72|0.004
91704152|NCT01149421|183302247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.28||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-2.22|0.128
91704153|NCT01149421|183302247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.13||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|-1.32|0.883
91704154|NCT01149421|183302247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.72||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.72|-1.84|0.390
91736386|NCT00492557|183365802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.09|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6B. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.09|0.55|
91906604|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.36||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|52.52|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 1||52.52|2.20|0.0332
91704155|NCT01149421|183302247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.79||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.79|-1.72|0.463
91704156|NCT01149421|183302247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.76||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-1.13|0.671
91704157|NCT01149421|183302247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.95||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.95|-0.90|0.471
91704158|NCT01149421|183302247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.03||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|-1.95|0.543
91704159|NCT01149421|183302247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.2||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|-1.72|0.728
91704160|NCT01149421|183302260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91704161|NCT01149421|183302260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91704162|NCT01149421|183302260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91704163|NCT01149421|183302260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
91704164|NCT04108988|183302266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 4 months||||0.248
91704165|NCT04108988|183302266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 1 month||||0.022
91704166|NCT04108988|183302266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline||||0.193
91704167|NCT04108988|183302267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 4 months||||0.246
91704168|NCT04108988|183302267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 1 month||||0.467
91704169|NCT04108988|183302267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline||||0.550
91704170|NCT04108988|183302268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4||||0.596
91704171|NCT04108988|183302268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 1 month||||0.974
91704172|NCT04108988|183302268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.651
91704173|NCT04108988|183302269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.089
91704174|NCT04108988|183302270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.095
91704175|NCT04108988|183302271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.136
91704176|NCT04108988|183302272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.133
91872488|NCT03331978|183638657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.0||As mentioned above, p-value is from repeated measures regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for intervention indicator (versus controls).|Tested with repeated measures logistic regression where both post-intervention responses were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 2 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for follow-up response were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline stigma. Model included all participants with responses (a) at baseline and (b) at least one of the two follow-up surveys.||1.00|0.32|.05
91872489|NCT03331978|183638658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|-0.034||As described above, p-value is from repeated measures regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant|Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is the regression coefficient for intervention indicator (vs. control) and represents the adjusted difference across both follow-up time points.|Tested with repeated measures linear regression where both post-intervention responses were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 2 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for follow-up response were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline stigma. Model included all participants with responses (a) at baseline and (b) at least one of the two follow-up surveys.||-0.034|-0.395|.0199
91872490|NCT01393600|183638707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||ANOVA|||||1.9|-3.3|0.5880
91872491|NCT01393600|183638707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.6|||ANOVA|||||1.6|-3.8|0.4184
91872492|NCT01393600|183638709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||ANOVA|||||1.6|-2.4|0.6761
91704177|NCT04108988|183302273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.210
91704178|NCT04108988|183302274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.392
91704179|NCT04108988|183302275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.411
91704180|NCT04108988|183302276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.294
91704181|NCT04108988|183302277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.031
91704182|NCT04108988|183302278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time||Test of interaction with treatment and time.||||0.262
91704183|NCT04108988|183302279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.116
91704184|NCT04108988|183302280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.016
91704185|NCT04108988|183302281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.667
91704186|NCT04108988|183302282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4||||0.09
91704187|NCT04108988|183302282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||P value 1 month||||0.72
91704188|NCT04108988|183302282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline||||0.97
91704189|NCT04108988|183302283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4||||0.53
91704190|NCT04108988|183302283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1||||0.303
91704191|NCT04108988|183302283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.042
91704192|NCT04108988|183302284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4.||||0.246
91704193|NCT04108988|183302284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1.||||0.467
91704194|NCT04108988|183302284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.55
91704195|NCT04108988|183302285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4.||||0.987
91704196|NCT04108988|183302285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1.||||0.898
91704197|NCT04108988|183302285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.238
91704198|NCT04108988|183302286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4.||||0.148
91704199|NCT04108988|183302286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1.||||0.557
91704200|NCT04108988|183302287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.653
91704201|NCT04108988|183302288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.977
91704202|NCT04108988|183302289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||0.735
91704203|NCT04108988|183302289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.159
91704204|NCT04108988|183302290|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||3.19
91704205|NCT04108988|183302290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.487
91704206|NCT04108988|183302290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at baseline.||||0.165
91704207|NCT04108988|183302291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||0.473
91704208|NCT04108988|183302291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.316
91704209|NCT04108988|183302291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at baseline.||||0.345
91704210|NCT04108988|183302292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||0.141
91872493|NCT01393600|183638709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.8|||ANOVA|||||-1.8|-6.6|0.0015
91872494|NCT01163214|183638715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91872495|NCT01163214|183638715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91872496|NCT01163214|183638716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91872497|NCT01163214|183638716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91872498|NCT01163214|183638717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for intraoperative narcotic use.||||<0.001
91872499|NCT01163214|183638717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for narcotic use on day of surgery as needed.||||<0.001
91872500|NCT01163214|183638717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for narcotic use on post operative day 1 as needed.||||0.17
91872501|NCT01163214|183638717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for narcotic use on post operative day 2 as needed.||||0.51
91872502|NCT01163214|183638718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 1 morning.||||<0.001
91872503|NCT01163214|183638718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 1 afternoon.||||<0.001
91704211|NCT04108988|183302292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.314
91704212|NCT04108988|183302292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at baseline.||||0.444
91704213|NCT04007107|183302452|OTHER|Comparison|Estimated treatment difference|30.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|34.8|||ANOVA|||The intensity of pain was analysed by a fixed analysis of variance model with VAS score as the dependent variable, and product, injection side (right side, left side), injection number (first injection, second injection), and participant as fixed effects.||34.8|26.6|<0.0001
91736387|NCT00492557|183365802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.12|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 7F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.12|0.47|
91759505|NCT02391363|183411756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 2.37 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month GAI-SF, controlling for baseline GAI-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.13
91872504|NCT01163214|183638718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 2 morning.||||0.002
91872505|NCT01163214|183638718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 2 afternoon.||||0.97
91704214|NCT00426660|183302476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||75th percentile (median)|169.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.0|178.0||||||||178.0|135.0|
91704215|NCT00426660|183302476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||50th percentile (median)|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|92.0||||||||92.0|82.0|
91704216|NCT00426660|183302476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||25th percentile (median)|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|62.0||||||||62.0|57.0|
91704217|NCT03114657|183302481|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.633|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6||||||||2.60|0.00|
91704218|NCT03114657|183302482|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.89||||||||5.89|-2.40|
91704219|NCT03114657|183302483|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|4.68||||||||4.68|-4.03|
91872506|NCT01163214|183638719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for length of stay in the hospital.||||0.02
91872507|NCT01163214|183638720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for femoral nerve.||||0.49
91872508|NCT01163214|183638720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for common peroneal nerve.||||0.01
91872509|NCT01163214|183638720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for tibial nerve.||||0.62
91872510|NCT01163214|183638720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for femoral, peroneal, or tibial nerves.||||0.009
91872511|NCT00988429|183638721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.058
91872512|NCT00988429|183638721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91872513|NCT00988429|183638722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.068
91872514|NCT00988429|183638722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91872515|NCT02964234|183638723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|56.31||We clustered by cohort, given both interventions used a group format, and adjusted for age, socioeconomic status (education, income, insurance status) baseline mammography history, and baseline mammography intention.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regressions, clustering by cohort, given both interventions used a group format, and adjusting for age, education, income, insurance status, baseline mammography history, and baseline mammography intention. The null hypothesis was there would be no study arm differences. A priori power analysis suggested that a sample size of 150, assuming alpha = .05, power = .80 would lead us to detect medium/large effects (OR = 2.8).||56.31|2.01|.005
91872516|NCT02964234|183638724|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|With GEE. Models had exchangeable correlation structure, a gamma distribution, and log link.||Analyses were conducted using GEE with an exchangeable correlation structure and a gamma distribution with log link. All models included study arm, time, and the study arm\*time. Covariates included age, education, and mammography history. With 150 Latinas, alpha = 0.05, power = 0.80, ICC = 0.0-0.05, we expected to detect small/medium interaction effects.||-0.04|-0.34|0.03
91906605|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.12||||0.5439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.18|34.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 2||34.41|-18.18|0.5439
91906606|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.52||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|39.85|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 2||39.85|-12.80|0.3127
91872517|NCT02964234|183638725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|13.32||Analyses clustered by cohort and adjusted for age, SES (education, income, insurance), mammography history, mammography intention, and baseline supportive breast cancer social network size.|Ordinal regression|||We used ordinal regression, given the non-normal distribution revealed by preliminary analyses. Analyses clustered by cohort and adjusted for age, SES (education, income, insurance), mammography history, mammography intention, and baseline supportive breast cancer social network size. Power analyses suggested that with 150 Latinas, alpha = .05, power = .80, we would be able to detect a small effect (Cohen's f = 0.05).||13.32|2.82|<0.0001
91872518|NCT02246647|183638738|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91872519|NCT04387773|183638753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that GOCOVRI would result in an increase of daily activity due to improvement in LID symptoms.||||>.05
91872520|NCT04387773|183638754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that GOCOVRI would result in an increase of daily activity due to improvement in LID symptoms.||||>.05
91872521|NCT04387773|183638755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2393.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
91872522|NCT04387773|183638756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91872523|NCT04387773|183638757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91704220|NCT03114657|183302484|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.39||||||||0.39|-0.20|
91872524|NCT04405180|183638788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.9017|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data|ANCOVA|||||||0.9017
91872525|NCT04405180|183638789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0417||0.4215|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.4215
91872526|NCT04405180|183638790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.0||0.9024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||.9024
91872527|NCT04405180|183638791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.0||0.1646|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.1646
91872528|NCT04405180|183638792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.9814|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.9814
91704221|NCT03114657|183302485|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|1.6||||||||1.60|-2.42|
91704222|NCT03114657|183302486|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|3.7||||||||3.70|-8.74|
91704223|NCT03114657|183302487|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.501|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|3.92||||||||3.92|-6.29|
91704224|NCT03114657|183302488|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.51||||||||3.51|-2.25|
91704225|NCT03114657|183302490|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.502|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.23||||||||0.23|-1.75|
91872529|NCT04405180|183638793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.6217
91872530|NCT04405180|183638794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.7981|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.7981
91872531|NCT04405180|183638795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.6677|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.6677
91872532|NCT04405180|183638796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.3745|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.3745
91872533|NCT04405180|183638797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|243.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|400.0||0.5496|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.5496
91872534|NCT00687297|183638827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test with two-sided Type I error of 5% was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between arms.||||1.00
91872535|NCT00687297|183638828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.07||p-value from Wald test|Regression, Cox|The model was adjusted for gender (male vs. female) and stage (Stage IIIB vs. Stage IV/Recurrent)||There was 80% power to detect a 50% improvement in median progression-free survival, using a stratified log-rank test with one-sided Type I error of 10%.||2.07|1.07|0.02
91872536|NCT03031782|183638868|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.63|||Log Rank|Hazard ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals are based on a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and analysis factors||Survival analysis of time to flare - TP2 (FAS2)||0.63|0.13|<0.001
91872537|NCT04867382|183638879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.63
91872538|NCT04867382|183638880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
91872539|NCT04867382|183638881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.37
91872540|NCT04867382|183638882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.57|0.86|.12
91872541|NCT01323790|183638894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.188||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.548|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.548|0.911|0.202
91872542|NCT01323790|183638894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.348||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|1.739|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.739|1.045|0.021
91872543|NCT01323790|183638895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.884||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.884|0.967|0.074
91872544|NCT01323790|183638895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.489||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.078|2.058||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.058|1.078|0.014
91872545|NCT01323790|183638897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.69|0.09|0.010
91872546|NCT01323790|183638897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ls mean difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.98|0.37|<0.001
91872547|NCT01323790|183638898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.32|0.005
91872548|NCT01323790|183638898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.45|<0.001
91872549|NCT01323790|183638899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.45|0.12|0.001
91872550|NCT01323790|183638899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.62|0.29|<0.001
91872551|NCT01323790|183638900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|11.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||11.06|2.37|0.002
91872552|NCT01323790|183638900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|14.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||14.84|6.03|<0.001
91872553|NCT01323790|183638901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.98|0.06|0.028
91872554|NCT01323790|183638901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||1.51|0.58|<0.001
91704226|NCT03114657|183302491|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.39||||||||2.39|-3.30|
91704227|NCT03114657|183302492|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|17.44||||||||17.44|-4.35|
91704228|NCT03114657|183302493|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.831|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|11.71||||||||11.71|-12.31|
91872555|NCT01323790|183638903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.01|-0.26|0.080
91872556|NCT01323790|183638903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.04||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.32|0.011
91872557|NCT01323790|183638903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.05||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.20|-0.11|0.552
91872558|NCT01323790|183638903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.25||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.25|-0.06|0.236
91872559|NCT01323790|183638903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.02|-0.24|0.095
91872560|NCT01323790|183638903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
91798176|NCT02758171|183474567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|102.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.945|106.91|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.910|97.945|<0.0001
91798177|NCT02758171|183474568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|107.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.4||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.561|117.282|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||117.282|98.561|0.0027
91798178|NCT02758171|183474569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|101.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.574|103.336|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.336|99.574|
91872561|NCT01323790|183638903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.1||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.44|0.002
91872562|NCT01323790|183638903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.21||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.56|<0.001
91872563|NCT01323790|183638904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.54|0.011
91872564|NCT01323790|183638904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.73|<0.001
91872565|NCT00046475|183638911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91736388|NCT00492557|183365802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.03|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 9V. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.03|0.42|
91736389|NCT00492557|183365802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 14. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.24|0.65|
91798179|NCT02758171|183474570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|98.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.456|103.082|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.082|93.456|
91798180|NCT03840174|183474588|OTHER||GMT Ratio|77.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|252.4|||||Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio and 95% CI were estimated using an ANOVA model.|||252.4|23.9|
91798181|NCT02617888|183474613|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91798182|NCT00568685|183474624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048||95.0||||This is the p value for CGI-ADHD-S score change at endpoint|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0048
91872566|NCT00046475|183638912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||0.011
91906607|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.51||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|11.89|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 4||11.89|-46.90|0.2419
91872567|NCT00046475|183638913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 2 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 2||||<0.001
91906608|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|21.11||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|50.64|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 4||50.64|-8.43|0.1606
91704229|NCT03114657|183302494|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|4.73||||||||4.73|-11.50|
91906609|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.48||||0.7412||95.0|-22.21|31.16|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 6||31.16|-22.21|0.7412
91704230|NCT03114657|183302500|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.89||||||||0.89|-2.01|
91704231|NCT03114657|183302501|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.668|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.9||||||||4.90|-1.70|
91704232|NCT03114657|183302502|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.41||||||||0.41|-1.13|
91704233|NCT04245202|183302503|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91704234|NCT04245202|183302504|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91704235|NCT04245202|183302505|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91736390|NCT00492557|183365802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.14|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 18C. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.14|0.59|
91736391|NCT00492557|183365802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.12|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.12|0.61|
91760049|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.39||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.39|-1.12|
91872568|NCT00046475|183638913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 3 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 3||||0.002
91704236|NCT04245202|183302506|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.53|-1.05||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analyses, p values \<0·05 were considered being statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||-1.05|-23.53|<0.001
91704237|NCT04245202|183302507|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analyses, p values \<0·05 were considered being statistically significant.||-3.28|-22.05|<0.001
91704238|NCT04245202|183302508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|0.86||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||0.86|-8.68|<0.001
91704239|NCT04245202|183302509|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.14||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.||1.78|-6.62|0.003
91704240|NCT04245202|183302510|OTHER||Relative treatment effect difference|-0.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.|Brunner-Langer Method||Relative Treatment Effect Difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||||0.002
91872569|NCT00046475|183638913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 4 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 4||||0.004
91906610|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.47||||0.3974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|38.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 6||38.14|-15.19|0.3974
91906611|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.52||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.83|3.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 1||3.79|-26.83|0.1397
91906612|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.9||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-8.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 1||-8.41|-39.40|0.0026
91906613|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.67||||0.3206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.85|7.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 2||7.50|-22.85|0.3206
91798183|NCT00568685|183474625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0||||This is the p value for CGI-ADHD-I score change at endpoint|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0153
91798184|NCT00568685|183474626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||P-value relates to the sum of adverse events leading to discontinuation.|Fisher Exact|||||||.4500
91798185|NCT00568685|183474627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0240
91798186|NCT00568685|183474629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8005||95.0||||This is the p value for heart rate change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.8005
91798187|NCT00568685|183474630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4128||95.0||||This is the p value for temperature change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.4128
91798188|NCT00568685|183474631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9761||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.9761
91798189|NCT00568685|183474631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6419||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.6419
91705649|NCT01026818|183305794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.25||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.25|-2.34|0.972
91798190|NCT00568685|183474632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2213||95.0||||This is the p value for weight change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.2213
91798191|NCT02787551|183474633|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.508||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), GLP-1 RA subtype at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, world region as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as a covariate. Analysis included all scheduled measurements obtained during 26-week randomized treatment period, including those obtained after IMP discontinuation/introduction of rescue medication.||-0.508|-0.770|<0.0001
91798192|NCT02787551|183474635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.11|43.99||Threshold for significance \<=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs GLP-1 Receptor Agonist. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method method stratified on randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), and randomization strata of GLP-1 receptor agonist subtype at screening. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially per pre-specified order (only HbA1c \< 7% was part of testing).||43.99|28.11|<.0001
91798193|NCT02787551|183474637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.001|-1.341||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 RA subtype at screening, scheduled visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and world region as fixed effects, and and baseline FPG value-by visit interaction as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).||-1.341|-2.001|<0.0001
91798194|NCT02787551|183474639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|-0.708||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 RA subtype at screening, scheduled visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and world region as fixed effects, and baseline average SMPG value-by-visit interaction as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).||-0.708|-1.325|<0.0001
91798195|NCT02787551|183474641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-2.279||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 RA subtype (once/twice daily formulations, once weekly formulations) at screening, and world region as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour PPG value as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-2.279|-3.420|<0.0001
91798196|NCT02787551|183474643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.468|-0.508||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 receptor agonist subtype (once/twice daily formulations, once weekly formulations) at screening, and world region as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour plasma glucose excursion value as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-0.508|-1.468|<0.0001
91798197|NCT01224665|183474677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4||Using an intention-to-treat analysis, we specified a stratified log-rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.025.|Log Rank|Adjustments were made for the following stratification factors: neoadjuvant chemotherapy, clinical T stage, and Zubrod performance score.|Adjustments were made for the following stratification factors: neoadjuvant chemotherapy, clinical T stage, and Zubrod performance score.|3-year DFS estimates of 55% among participants undergoing SLND and 65% undergoing ELND were used to estimate the target HR. Assuming exponential DFS distribution, 5 years of enrollment, 3 years of follow-up, and 564 eligible participants, the trial would have 85% power to detect a 28% lower risk of recurrence or death with ELND than SLND.||1.40|0.86|0.45
91798198|NCT01224665|183474678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.45|||||Adjustments were made for the following stratification factors: neoadjuvant chemotherapy, clinical T stage, and Zubrod performance score.|We assumed that the standard lymphadenectomy arm has 5-year survival of 55%, so we had 83% statistical power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.72 (55% vs. 65% survival at 5 years).||1.45|0.88|
91798199|NCT02130024|183474716|OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.08||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline GA area, treatment, visit, treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject||||0.21|-0.05|0.236
91798200|NCT02130024|183474717|OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.02||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline GA area, treatment, visit, treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject||||0.15|-0.11|0.769
91704241|NCT04245202|183302511|OTHER||Relative treatment effect difference|-0.08||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.|Brunner-Langer Method||Relative Treatment Effect Difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||||0.001
91704242|NCT04245202|183302513|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91704243|NCT04245202|183302514|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91704244|NCT04245202|183302515|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
91736392|NCT00492557|183365802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.16|0.57|
91736393|NCT00492557|183365802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.27|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 23F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.27|0.54|
91736394|NCT00372957|183365813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.93|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||-1.93|-2.28|
91736395|NCT00372957|183365813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.98|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||-1.98|-2.33|
91736396|NCT00372957|183365813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.82|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||-1.82|-2.15|
91736397|NCT00372957|183365813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.95|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||-1.95|-2.28|
91736398|NCT00372957|183365814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|5.41|||Double-delta analysis||he point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||5.41|2.33|
91736399|NCT00372957|183365814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.73|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||6.73|3.70|
91736400|NCT00372957|183365814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.54|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||4.54|1.90|
91736401|NCT00372957|183365814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|5.68|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||5.68|3.10|
91736402|NCT00372957|183365815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.89|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||2.89|-6.00|
91736403|NCT00372957|183365815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.72|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||5.72|-3.30|
91736404|NCT00372957|183365815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.5|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||2.50|-5.20|
91736405|NCT00372957|183365815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.43|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||5.43|-2.47|
91736406|NCT00372957|183365816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|4.2|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||4.2|-20.4|
91736407|NCT00372957|183365816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-3.9|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||-3.9|-28.4|
91704245|NCT04245202|183302516|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91736408|NCT00372957|183365816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|1.4|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.4|-23.1|
91736409|NCT00372957|183365816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-3.3|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||-3.3|-27.9|
91704246|NCT04245202|183302517|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91704247|NCT04245202|183302518|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91704248|NCT01153620|183302522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.006
91704249|NCT03878875|183302596|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|116.044|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient = -2.153.||||||< 0.0005
91872570|NCT00046475|183638913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 5 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 5||||0.026
91906614|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.67||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.86|-9.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 2||-9.49|-39.86|0.0015
91736410|NCT00372957|183365817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.16|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||1.16|-0.64|
91736411|NCT00372957|183365817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.32|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||1.32|-0.47|
91736412|NCT00372957|183365817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.07|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.07|-0.37|
91736413|NCT00372957|183365817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.21|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.21|-0.24|
91736414|NCT00372957|183365818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|0.9|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||0.9|-40.7|
91736415|NCT00372957|183365818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|11.7|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||11.7|-29.8|
91736416|NCT00372957|183365818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|1.4|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.4|-33.2|
91736417|NCT00372957|183365818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|11.1|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||11.1|-23.4|
91736418|NCT04778592|183365820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.4549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.79|-0.36|0.4549
91736419|NCT05173974|183365840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.29||P-value included Bonferroni adjustment.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment and period as fixed effects; covariates for participant level baseline (natural logged) and period level baseline (natural logged) minus participant level baseline (natural logged). Participants included as a random effect.|||0.29|0.01|0.037
91736420|NCT05173974|183365840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.28||P-value included Bonferroni adjustment.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment and period as fixed effects; covariates for participant level baseline (natural logged) and period level baseline (natural logged) minus participant level baseline (natural logged). Participant included as a random effect.|||0.28|0.00|0.044
91736421|NCT05173974|183365840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3||unadjusted P-value was presented.|ANCOVA||||ANCOVA with treatment and period as fixed effects; covariates for participant level baseline (natural logged) and period level baseline (natural logged) minus participant level baseline (natural logged). Participants included as a random effect.|0.30|0.06|0.005
91736422|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-0.5|||0.17|-0.04|0.218
91736423|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.21|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-0.5|||0.21|0.01|0.034
91736424|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.25|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-0.5|||0.25|0.05|0.004
91736425|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.24|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-1|||0.24|-0.00|0.058
91736426|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-1|||0.27|0.03|0.017
91736427|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.33|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-1|||0.33|0.09|0.001
91736428|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-3|||0.30|0.06|0.004
91736429|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB0-3|||0.27|0.04|0.010
91736430|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.31|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB0-3|||0.31|0.07|0.002
91736431|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-6|||0.29|0.02|0.022
91736432|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-6|||0.30|0.04|0.011
91872571|NCT00046475|183638913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 6 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 6||||0.226
91872572|NCT00046475|183638914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment composite symptom score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||0.002
91906615|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.71||||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|6.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 4||6.28|-27.70|0.2157
91906616|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.31||||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.37|1.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 4||1.75|-32.37|0.0784
91872573|NCT00046475|183638915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 1||||<0.001
91872574|NCT00046475|183638915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 2 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 2||||<0.001
91872575|NCT00046475|183638915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 3 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 3||||<0.001
91872576|NCT00046475|183638915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 4 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 4||||0.001
91872577|NCT00046475|183638916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment global daily activity score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91872578|NCT00046475|183638919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline standing systolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of standing systolic blood pressure||||0.002
91872579|NCT00046475|183638919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline standing diastolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of standing diastolic blood pressure||||0.010
91872580|NCT00046475|183638920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline supine systolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of supine systolic blood pressure||||<0.001
91872581|NCT00046475|183638920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline supine diastolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of supine diastolic blood pressure||||0.002
91872582|NCT00046475|183638921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with SF-36 general health score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of general health||||0.569
91872583|NCT00046475|183638921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with SF-36 physical functioning score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of physical functioning||||0.578
91872584|NCT00046475|183638925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and subject-within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of US participants with mild or moderate disease severity||||0.370
91872585|NCT00046475|183638926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and subject-within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of US participants with marked or severe disease severity||||0.007
91872586|NCT02432274|183638960|OTHER||||||=|0.20359|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.20359
91872587|NCT02432274|183638960|OTHER||||||=|0.50068|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.50068
91872588|NCT02432274|183638960|OTHER||||||=|0.05512|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C3D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C3D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.05512
91872589|NCT02432274|183638960|OTHER||||||=|0.50382|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C4D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C4D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.50382
91872590|NCT02432274|183638960|OTHER||||||=|0.0476|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.04760
91872591|NCT02432274|183638960|OTHER||||||=|0.2142|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.21420
91872592|NCT02432274|183638960|OTHER||||||=|0.42542|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C3D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C3D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.42542
91872593|NCT02432274|183638960|OTHER||||||=|0.73573|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C4D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C4D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.73573
91872594|NCT02432274|183638960|OTHER||||||=|0.35754|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, No)||||=0.35754
91872595|NCT02432274|183638960|OTHER||||||=|0.59903|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, No)||||=0.59903
91872596|NCT02432274|183638960|OTHER||||||=|1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C3D1: VEGF (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C3D1: VEGF (PFS-4, No)||||=1.00000
91872597|NCT01736475|183638965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of means|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.19|||Regression, Negative binomial|||Ratio Annualized Bleeding Rate (ABR) Prophylaxis/On-demand: Prophylaxis treatment w ill be considered to be successful if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the ratio between treatment regimen does not exceed 0.5 (corresponding to a 50% reduction of the mean ABR compared to the on-demand treatment). H01: μ1 ≥0.5\*μ2 Ha1: μ1\<0.5\*μ2 w here μ1 and μ2 are the mean ABRs in on prophylaxis and on-demand, respectively||0.19|0.06|<0.0001
91872598|NCT01079949|183639029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5739||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.5739
91872599|NCT01079949|183639034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.1734
91872600|NCT01079949|183639035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0642||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0642
91872601|NCT01079949|183639039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.4080
91872602|NCT01079949|183639042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0648||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0648
91704250|NCT03878875|183302597|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|12.839|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient = 1.602.||||||< 0.0005
91704251|NCT03878875|183302598|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|8.391|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient was 1.059.||||||< 0.0005
91704252|NCT03878875|183302599|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|6.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient was 0.635.||||||< 0.001
91704253|NCT03878875|183302600|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|5.805|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient was -0.383.||||||< 0.001
91704254|NCT03878875|183302601|SUPERIORITY|A binary logistic regression was employed to assess the effect of conditioning on tinnitus change (i.e. increasing or not) at session 2, adjusting for tinnitus reported at session 1, age, gender, and event exposure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.85|1.071|< 0.005
91704255|NCT00337779|183302613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0732|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1013||0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8799|1.309|||Regression, Poisson||980 subjects randomized into two arms provide approximately 90% power to detect significant difference between groups of 30% or more in rate of confirmed relapses.|||1.3090|0.8799|0.4859
91704256|NCT02028169|183302644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91704257|NCT02028169|183302645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91704258|NCT02028169|183302646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline Vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91704259|NCT02028169|183302647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91704260|NCT02028169|183302648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91704261|NCT02028169|183302648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91704262|NCT02028169|183302648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91798201|NCT02130024|183474718|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of 'Newly Developed GA (Yes)' at between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||1.59|0.44|0.586
91872603|NCT01079949|183639043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6799||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.6799
91704263|NCT02028169|183302651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91704264|NCT02028169|183302651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91704265|NCT02028169|183302651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91704266|NCT02028169|183302652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91704267|NCT02028169|183302652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91704268|NCT02028169|183302652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91704269|NCT02028169|183302653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91704270|NCT02028169|183302654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91704271|NCT02028169|183302654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91704272|NCT02028169|183302654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91704273|NCT02028169|183302656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91704274|NCT02028169|183302658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91704275|NCT02028169|183302658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91704276|NCT02028169|183302658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91704277|NCT02028169|183302659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91704278|NCT02028169|183302659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91704279|NCT02028169|183302659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91704280|NCT02028169|183302660|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91704281|NCT02028169|183302660|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91704282|NCT02028169|183302660|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91704283|NCT02028169|183302661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91704284|NCT02028169|183302661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91704285|NCT02028169|183302661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91872604|NCT01079949|183639044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0634
91872605|NCT01079949|183639046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0166||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0166
91872606|NCT01079949|183639047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8812||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.8812
91872607|NCT02834624|183639100|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Sample size calculations used a Chi-square for independence, u = 1, p =.05, power = .80, effect size = .60, which required 22 total subjects.||||<.05
91736433|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.33|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-6|||0.33|0.06|0.005
91872608|NCT02834624|183639102|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.63
91872609|NCT01250717|183639120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12||||||||0.12|0|
91872610|NCT02164578|183639121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for repeated measurements with baseline as covariate||The hypothesis H0 is tested against the one-sided alternative hypothesis H1 H0: µ∆FBF,Riva, week 20 ≤ µ∆FBF, ASA, week 20 versus H1: µΔFBF, Riva, week 20 \> µΔFBF, ASA, week 20 by test procedures for continuous data.||||0.004
91872611|NCT02164578|183639122|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.070
91872612|NCT02164578|183639123|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for repeated measurements with baseline as covariate||||||0.045
91872613|NCT02164578|183639124|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.125
91872614|NCT02164578|183639125|OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
91872615|NCT02164578|183639126|OTHER|||||||0.589|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.589
91872616|NCT01877720|183639148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91872617|NCT01877720|183639149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.001
91704286|NCT02028169|183302662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91704287|NCT02028169|183302662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91704288|NCT02028169|183302662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91704289|NCT02240069|183302690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1 for Education group relative to Placebo group||0.02|-0.24|0.10
91704290|NCT02240069|183302690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1 for Filtration group relative to Placebo group||0.13|-0.11|0.90
91704291|NCT02240069|183302691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FVC for Education group relative to Placebo group||0.07|-0.24|0.28
91704292|NCT02240069|183302691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FVC for Filter group relative to Placebo group||0.16|-0.14|0.89
91704293|NCT02240069|183302692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1/FVC for Education group relative to Placebo group||0.00|-0.05|0.06
91704294|NCT02240069|183302692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1/FVC for Filter group relative to Placebo group||0.02|-0.03|0.71
91704295|NCT02240069|183302693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.46||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in systolic blood pressure for Education group relative to Placebo group||4.54|-11.45|0.39
91704296|NCT02240069|183302693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|8.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in systolic blood pressure for Filter group relative to Placebo group||8.24|-7.73|0.95
91704297|NCT02240069|183302694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in diastolic blood pressure for Education group relative to Placebo group||3.42|-5.42|0.65
91704298|NCT02240069|183302694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|3.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in diastolic blood pressure for Filter group relative to Placebo group||3.81|-4.97|0.79
91704299|NCT02240069|183302695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|42.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models adjusted for pre-intervention PM2.5. The model includes a nested random term to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in indoor PM2.5 concentration for Education group relative to Placebo group||42.0|-33.6|0.88
91704300|NCT02240069|183302695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.1|-27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models adjusted for pre-intervention PM2.5. The model includes a nested random term to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in indoor PM2.5 concentration for Filter group relative to Placebo group||-27.8|-66.1|<0.001
91704301|NCT02227368|183302710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference is Ticagrelor - Aspirin. LOCF was used for missing data imputation.|||0.1|-0.4|0.3441
91704302|NCT02227368|183302711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference is Ticagrelor - Aspirin. LOCF was used for missing data imputation.|||0.6|-0.4|0.6186
91704303|NCT03046056|183302716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|32.1||||||||32.1|-16.5|
91704304|NCT03046056|183302716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|32.0||||||||32.0|-15.9|
91872618|NCT01877720|183639150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.74
91872619|NCT01877720|183639151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.003
91872620|NCT01877720|183639152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.002
91872621|NCT01877720|183639153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.003
91872622|NCT01877720|183639154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.012
91872623|NCT01877720|183639155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.67
91906617|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.84||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|20.78|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 6||20.78|-7.09|0.3345
91704305|NCT03046056|183302717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|0.7||||||Difference in least squared means (Diff in LSM), and its 90% confidence interval (CI) were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||0.7|-5.3|
91704306|NCT03046056|183302717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.1||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||3.1|-2.7|
91704307|NCT03046056|183302718|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|0.7||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||0.7|-3.9|
91704308|NCT03046056|183302718|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.2||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||1.2|-3.2|
91704309|NCT03046056|183302719|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||2.0|-2.2|
91704310|NCT03046056|183302719|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||2.0|-1.9|
91736434|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-9|||0.27|0.01|0.037
91872624|NCT01877720|183639156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
91872625|NCT01877720|183639157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
91872626|NCT00267956|183639170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The study is designed to maintain a Type I error of 0.05 or less for the primary analysis|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by subject's prior anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05. Sample Size and power: With 70 partcipants in each treatment group, 5000 repetitions. Assuming a 20% ACR20 response in placebo participants regardless of prior anti-TNF exposure and a 35% ACR 20 and 45% ACR20 response in ustekinumab group for participants who had prior anti-TNF exposure, and who had no prior anti-TNF exposures, the power to detect the treatment difference is 0.85.||||<0.001
91872627|NCT00267956|183639171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by participant's prior anti-TNF exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between Group II and Group I at a significant level of 0.05.||||0.004
91704311|NCT03046056|183302720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.6|25.5||||||||25.5|-28.6|
91704312|NCT03046056|183302720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|26.2||||||||26.2|-24.5|
91704313|NCT03046056|183302721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.3|37.0||||||||37.0|-47.3|
91872628|NCT00267956|183639172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by participant's prior anti-TNF exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||0.005
91872629|NCT00267956|183639173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No) as factors in the model.||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91872630|NCT00267956|183639174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by participant's prior anti-TNF exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91872631|NCT00267956|183639175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No) as factors in the model.||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at asignificant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91872632|NCT01393964|183639176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|104.096||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.983|124.576|||ANOVA|||The reference arm is NRF participants.||124.576|86.983|0.704
91906618|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.25||||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.19|10.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 6||10.70|-17.19|0.6471
91906619|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.8071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|21.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 1||21.75|-16.95|0.8071
91872633|NCT01393964|183639176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|100.454||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.453|119.488|||ANOVA|||The reference arm is NRF participants.||119.488|84.453|0.965
91872634|NCT01393964|183639177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|126.596||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.52|167.783|||ANOVA|||AUC(0-T). The reference arm is NRF participants.||167.783|95.52|0.164
91872635|NCT01393964|183639177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|116.123||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.458|152.439|||ANOVA|||AUC(0-T). The reference arm is NRF participants.||152.439|88.458|0.355
91872636|NCT01393964|183639177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|129.858||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.366|186.609|||ANOVA|||AUC (INF). The reference arm is NRF participants.||186.609|90.366|0.228
91872637|NCT01393964|183639177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|110.4||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.825|158.647|||ANOVA|||AUC(INF). The reference arm is NRF participants.||158.647|76.825|0.642
91872638|NCT01918033|183639187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.09||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.31|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 2|||0.31|-0.49|0.661
91704314|NCT03046056|183302721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.2|30.0||||||||30.0|-58.2|
91704315|NCT03046056|183302722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.4|86.5||||||||86.5|-32.4|
91704316|NCT03046056|183302723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.6|24.3||||||||24.3|-28.6|
91704317|NCT03046056|183302723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.4|11.3||||||||11.3|-39.4|
91704318|NCT03046056|183302724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.9|45.7||||||||45.7|-38.9|
91736435|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-9|||0.30|0.04|0.013
91872639|NCT01918033|183639187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.32|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 2|||0.32|-0.48|0.707
91872640|NCT01918033|183639190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Day 3|||-0.11|-0.84|0.010
91872641|NCT01918033|183639190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.46||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Day 3|||-0.10|-0.82|0.013
91872642|NCT01918033|183639190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.12||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.53|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 1|||0.53|-0.29|0.569
91872643|NCT01918033|183639190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.09||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 1|||0.50|-0.33|0.685
91872644|NCT01918033|183639191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Sneezing Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.08|-0.15|0.547
91704319|NCT03046056|183302724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.5|40.8||||||||40.8|-47.5|
91704320|NCT03046056|183302725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|89.5||||||||89.5|-16.8|
91704321|NCT03046056|183302725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.1|63.3||||||||63.3|-46.1|
91704322|NCT03046056|183302726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|32.6||||||||32.6|-17.2|
91704323|NCT03046056|183302726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.1|30.2||||||||30.2|-18.1|
91704324|NCT03046056|183302727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.1|28.1||||||||28.1|-22.1|
91704325|NCT03046056|183302727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.1|20.3||||||||20.3|-28.1|
91704326|NCT03046056|183302728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|40.4||||||||40.4|-7.6|
91704327|NCT03046056|183302728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.2|26.5||||||||26.5|-21.2|
91704328|NCT03046056|183302729|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-95.0|-1.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||-1|-95|
91704329|NCT03046056|183302729|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.0|15.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||15|-76|
91736436|NCT05173974|183365841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.32|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-9|||0.32|0.06|0.005
91872645|NCT01918033|183639191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Sneezing Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.01|-0.22|0.067
91736437|NCT01453166|183365992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0|<|0.05||95.0|100.0|140.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||140|100|<0.05
91736438|NCT01453166|183365993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.05||95.0|66.0|95.0|||ANOVA|||||95|66|0.05
91736439|NCT01453166|183365994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|170.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.0||0.05||95.0|140.0|220.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||220|140|0.05
91736440|NCT01453166|183365995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0||0.05||95.0|88.0|112.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||112|88|0.05
91736441|NCT01453166|183365996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.0||0.05||95.0|77.0|137.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||137|77|0.05
91798202|NCT02130024|183474718|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of 'Newly Developed GA (Yes)' at between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 12 to Month 24 Analysis||6.22|0.83|0.110
91872646|NCT01918033|183639191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Rhinorrhea Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.13|-0.15|0.895
91736442|NCT02727322|183365997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.04|||Chi-squared|||||2.04|0.50|0.97
91736443|NCT02727322|183365998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.43|||Chi-squared|||||1.43|0.885|0.665
91736444|NCT02727322|183365999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.68|||Fisher Exact|||||5.68|0.31|1.0
91736445|NCT01155050|183366022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.296
91736446|NCT01155050|183366023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.787
91736447|NCT01155050|183366024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.340
91736448|NCT01155050|183366025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.502
91736449|NCT01155050|183366026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the outcome does not differ across the four groups.||||.860
91736450|NCT01155050|183366027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the outcome does not differ across the four groups.||||.634
91736451|NCT01155050|183366028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.879|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the outcome across the four treatment groups.||||.879
91736452|NCT01959529|183366035|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDeg to IGlar was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the HR was below 1.3 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of null hypothesis (H0): HR≥1.3 against the alternative hypothesis (Ha): HR\<1.3 was less than 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.055||p value : Refers to one-sided test of HR \>= 1.3 (against Ha: HR\<1.3).|Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) (IDeg vs IGlar) was based on Cox regression with investigational medicinal product as only factor for primary analysis.||1.055|0.781|<0.001
91736453|NCT01959529|183366036|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.601|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|0.759||p-value : Refers to one-sided test of RR \>= 1.0 (against Ha: RR\<1.0)|Negative binomial regression|The model included treatment (IDeg vs IGlar) as a fixed factor and was fitted using the FAS.||Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (RR) was below 1.0 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: RR ≥1.0 against Ha: RR \<1.0, was less than 2.5%||0.759|0.476|<0.001
91798203|NCT02130024|183474718|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment||Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||2.09|0.67|0.554
91872647|NCT01918033|183639191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.03||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Rhinorrhea Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.17|-0.10|0.627
91872648|NCT01918033|183639191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.04||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Congestion Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.18|-0.09|0.535
91798204|NCT02130024|183474719|OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.99||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.04|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|Log (number of injections) = treatment + log (year of follow-up) (offset)|Treatment effect: Injection frequency (rate) ratio of Ranibizumab vs. Aflibercept|Baseline to \<Month 12 Analysis||1.04|0.95|0.733
91736454|NCT01959529|183366037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.866||p-value: Refers to one-sided test of OR \>= 1.0 (against Ha: OR\<1.0)|Regression, Logistic|The model was logistic regression with log-link function.The model included treatment (IDeg vs IGlar) as a fixed factor and was fitted using the FAS||Superiority of IDeg to IGlar was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio (OR) was below 1.0 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: OR ≥1.0 against Ha: OR\<1.0, was less than 2.5%.||0.866|0.600|<0.001
91736455|NCT01440764|183366039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05. Not corrected for multiple comparisons. This p-value describes the a priori analysis of comparing the furosemide test result to the saline test result.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
91736456|NCT01440764|183366039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05. Not corrected for multiple comparisons. Thes p-value describes the a priori analysis of comparing the response to furosemide to the mean response to saline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
91736457|NCT01440764|183366041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0006
91736458|NCT01440764|183366041|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1e-05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.00001
91798205|NCT02130024|183474719|OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.01||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|Log (number of injections) = treatment + log (year of follow-up) (offset)|Treatment effect: Injection frequency (rate) ratio of Ranibizumab vs. Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||1.08|0.95|0.745
91872649|NCT01918033|183639191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.04||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Congestion Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.18|-0.10|0.557
91736459|NCT01440764|183366041|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-07||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000002
91736460|NCT00557193|183366043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.107||||0.672|ONE_SIDED|85.0||1.403||A priori significance level threshold of alpha=0.15|Log Rank||Arm C is the numerator and Arm B is the denominator of the estimated hazard ratio|A one-sided log rank test will be used for testing whether the EFS in Arm C (chemo+lest) at DL2 is greater than the EFS in Arm B (chemo). This is equivalent to testing the null hypothesis of hazard ratio (HR)=1 versus the alternative of HR\<1.||1.403||0.672
91736461|NCT00652834|183366056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value is only for GSRS score comparison only.|t-test, 2 sided||The GSRS range is 1-7|"The results of the initial SBCE exams were evaluated by a visually challenged GI specialist who gave us a descriptive report. By the end of the study, we submitted the final reports to the same specialist and asked his impression on the significant changes observed in patients' exams for each GI segment (stomach and small bowel).~There were no comparison groups. Each patient is their own control. Given that this is a pilot study there is no power calculation."||||0.05
91736462|NCT00320606|183366057|OTHER||95% confidence interval using an exact b|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||||Proportion Success|The proportion of participants in whom immunosuppression withdrawal was attempted who are successfully withdrawn from immunosuppression are descriptively summarized with 95% confidence intervals using an exact binomial method||0.8|0.4|
91736463|NCT00320606|183366058|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1684|||||95% Confidence Interval Exact Binomial|The proportion of participants in whom immunosuppression (IS) withdrawal was attempted who are successfully withdrawn from immunosuppression and experience death or graft loss are descriptively summarized with 95% confidence intervals using an exact binomial method.||0.1684|0.0|
91736464|NCT04358406|183366070|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
91736465|NCT04358406|183366070|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.1
91736466|NCT00256126|183366083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91736467|NCT00854360|183366116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.21||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.21|-0.80|0.255
91736468|NCT00854360|183366116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.21||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.21|-0.78|0.257
91736469|NCT00854360|183366116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.13||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||-0.13|-1.13|0.013
91736470|NCT00854360|183366117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.22||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.22|-0.77|0.278
91872650|NCT01918033|183639191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.11||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.03|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Itching Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.03|-0.25|0.119
91872651|NCT01918033|183639191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Itching Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.08|-0.20|0.403
91872652|NCT01918033|183639192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Swelling of INCM at Week 2|||0.07|-0.20|0.376
91906620|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.3||||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.11|10.52|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, WTSO at Week 1||10.52|-29.11|0.3564
91906621|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.86||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|4.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 2||4.28|-36.00|0.1220
91704330|NCT03046056|183302730|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.0|28.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||28|-68|
91704331|NCT03046056|183302730|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.0|42.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||42|-52|
91704332|NCT04591015|183302802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0626|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0626
91704333|NCT04591015|183302803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only includes participants who completed a 90-day lab||||0.0496
91704334|NCT04591015|183302804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only includes participants who completed a 180-day lab||||0.0651
91704335|NCT04591015|183302805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8739|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8739
91704336|NCT04591015|183302806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4702
91736471|NCT00854360|183366117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.27||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.27|-0.70|0.385
91872653|NCT01918033|183639192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Swelling of INCM at Week 2|||0.11|-0.16|0.714
91872654|NCT01918033|183639192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Coloring of INCM at Week 2|||0.13|-0.19|0.725
91906622|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.25||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.49|-2.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, WTSO at Week 2||-2.01|-42.49|0.0313
91704337|NCT04591015|183302807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1258
91704338|NCT04591015|183302808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8635
91704339|NCT04591015|183302809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0471
91704340|NCT04591015|183302810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0218
91704341|NCT04591015|183302811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5090
91704342|NCT04591015|183302812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4034
91704343|NCT04591015|183302813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0175
91704344|NCT04591015|183302814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4435|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4435
91704345|NCT04591015|183302815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7417|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7417
91704346|NCT04591015|183302816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5779
91704347|NCT04591015|183302817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0493
91704348|NCT04591015|183302818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0773|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0773
91704349|NCT04591015|183302819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0921
91704350|NCT04591015|183302820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2404|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2404
91704351|NCT04591015|183302821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8955
91704352|NCT02509078|183302822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.9|||Wald test for the difference of two prop||Estimated value is a percentage|||5.9|-6.4|0.93
91704353|NCT00981058|183302855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|0.962|||Log Rank|||||0.962|0.736|0.0120
91704354|NCT00981058|183302856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.851||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|0.975|||Log Rank|||||0.975|0.743|0.0201
91704355|NCT00981058|183302857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.45|0.86|0.3997
91704356|NCT00981058|183302858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|0.953|||Log Rank|||||0.953|0.747|0.0061
91704357|NCT02667587|183302864|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25||||||||1.25|0.90|
91704358|NCT02667587|183302865|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|96.39|0.87|1.43|||Log Rank|||All Randomized No Baseline Corticosteroids Participants||1.43|0.87|0.3402
91704359|NCT02667587|183302865|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.33||||||All Randomized Participants||1.33|0.91|
91704360|NCT02667587|183302869|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.4||||||||1.40|0.99|
91704361|NCT02667587|183302870|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.89|
91872655|NCT01918033|183639192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Coloring of INCM at Week 2|||0.13|-0.19|0.708
91872656|NCT01918033|183639192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.16|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in NDP at Week 2|||0.16|-0.10|0.680
91704362|NCT02696434|183302901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.28|0.407
91704363|NCT00355706|183302923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.964||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.964
91704364|NCT00355706|183302924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.892||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.892
91704365|NCT00355706|183302925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.560
91704366|NCT00980174|183302950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||5.6|4.0|<0.0001
91704367|NCT00980174|183302951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.6||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||2.6|1.5|<0.0001
91704368|NCT00980174|183302952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.0||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||3.0|1.3|<0.0001
91704369|NCT00980174|183302953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.2||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||3.2|1.4|<0.0001
91798206|NCT02130024|183474720|OTHER||Treatment Effect|2.32||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline BCVA, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in BCVA|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||4.92|-0.27|0.079
91872657|NCT01918033|183639192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.06||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in NDP at Week 2|||0.19|-0.07|0.373
91872658|NCT01918033|183639193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.12|-0.14|0.849
91704370|NCT00980174|183302954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||1.6|0.2|0.0144
91704371|NCT00980174|183302955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|Van Elteren Rank Test|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score||||||<0.0001
91704372|NCT01546038|183302959|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.441|0.734||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by prognosis stratum according to Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).|Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prognosis stratum according to IVRS.|||0.734|0.441|0.0020
91704373|NCT01546038|183302963|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2755||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.3057|13.9994|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prognosis stratum according to IVRS.|||13.9994|1.3057|0.0112
91704374|NCT00424021|183303029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|17.3||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||17.3|-8.3|
91704375|NCT00424021|183303030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|9.7||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||9.7|-30.3|
91704376|NCT00424021|183303031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|83.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|18.0||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||18.0|-27.4|
91704377|NCT00424021|183303032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|7.1||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||7.1|-34.9|
91704378|NCT00424021|183303034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.323|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.57||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||0.57|-0.15|
91704379|NCT00424021|183303035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.659|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.92||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||0.92|0.01|
91704380|NCT00424021|183303036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.888|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.02||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||1.02|-0.02|
91872659|NCT01918033|183639193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.06|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.06|-0.20|0.260
91872660|NCT01918033|183639194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.826||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.223|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic model with global improvement rate as response variable and treatment, age strata, and severity as factors|Difference in the number of participants with moderate or remarkable improvement at Week 2. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first group of the pairwise comparison.|||1.223|0.558|0.340
91872661|NCT01918033|183639194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.755||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.116|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic model with global improvement rate as response variable and treatment, age strata, and severity as factors|Difference in the number of participants with moderate or remarkable improvement at Week 2. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first group of the pairwise comparison.|||1.116|0.510|0.159
91872662|NCT01918033|183639195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.02||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.14|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Interference with Daily Activities at Week 2|||0.14|-0.09|0.705
91872663|NCT01918033|183639195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.02||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Interference with Daily Activities at Week 2|||0.10|-0.13|0.782
91704381|NCT00424021|183303037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.721|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.93||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||0.93|-0.01|
91872664|NCT01918033|183639196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Sneezing at Week 2|||0.04|-0.24|0.175
91872665|NCT01918033|183639196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.12||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.02|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Sneezing at Week 2|||0.02|-0.26|0.098
91872666|NCT01918033|183639196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.12||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Rhinorrhea at Week 2|||0.27|-0.04|0.130
91872667|NCT01918033|183639196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.07||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.22|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Rhinorrhea at Week 2|||0.22|-0.08|0.375
91872668|NCT01918033|183639196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.08||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.24|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Congestion at Week 2|||0.24|-0.07|0.285
91872669|NCT01918033|183639196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.05||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Congestion at Week 2|||0.21|-0.10|0.490
91704382|NCT00424021|183303044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.7||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||4.7|-5.9|
91704383|NCT00424021|183303045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-0.3||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||-0.3|-14.4|
91736472|NCT00854360|183366117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.11||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||-0.11|-1.09|0.016
91872670|NCT01918033|183639196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Itching at Week 2|||0.08|-0.23|0.345
91704384|NCT00424021|183303046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.8||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||1.8|-12.0|
91704385|NCT00424021|183303047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.6||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||4.6|-8.4|
91704386|NCT01832818|183303053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91872671|NCT01918033|183639196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Itching at Week 2|||0.13|-0.19|0.699
91872672|NCT01918033|183639197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.08|-0.20|0.414
91704387|NCT01832818|183303054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
91704388|NCT00236899|183303059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.345||95.0|0.87|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.50|0.87|0.345
91704389|NCT00236899|183303060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.69|0.885
91704390|NCT00236899|183303061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.71|0.976
91704391|NCT00236899|183303062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.442||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|0.754|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.754|0.259|0.0028
91704392|NCT00236899|183303063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|0.93|0.150
91704393|NCT00236899|183303064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.818||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|1.389|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.389|0.482|0.4567
91704394|NCT00236899|183303066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Schedule (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly) and Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.142
91704395|NCT00236899|183303066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly vs Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.470
91704396|NCT00236899|183303067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Schedule (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly) and Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.293
91704397|NCT00236899|183303067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly vs Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.476
91704398|NCT00568334|183303087|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (derived from IFA) between Group Varilrix HSA-Free and (divided by) Group Varilrix is equal to or above (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of Varilrix™ HSA-Free vaccine as compared to Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) of varicella zoster virus (VZV) antibodies 43-57 days after the first vaccine dose.||1.46|0.86|
91704399|NCT00568334|183303088|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMC ratio (derived from ELISA) between Group Varilrix HSA-Free and (divided by) Group Varilrix is equal to or above (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of 0.67.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of Varilrix™ HSA-Free vaccine as compared to Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of varicella zoster virus (VZV) antibodies 43-57 days after the first vaccine dose.||1.33|0.93|
91704400|NCT00625404|183303108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.52||||||Hazard ratio (HR) for HIV infection based on proportional hazards model, stratified on site. Study was designed to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the HR for infection is \> 0.3||1.52|0.59|
91704401|NCT00625404|183303109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rate of grade 2 or higher creatinine, based on time to first event.||||0.45
91704402|NCT00625404|183303111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rates between groups||||0.59
91704403|NCT00625404|183303112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rates between groups||||0.79
91704404|NCT00625404|183303113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rates between groups||||0.62
91704405|NCT00625404|183303114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test for difference on viral loads||||0.89
91704406|NCT00625404|183303115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test for difference in mean CD-4 counts||||0.82
91704407|NCT00625404|183303119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test for difference in change in number of sexual partners over time||||0.73
91704408|NCT03313310|183303145|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.98||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.98
91704409|NCT03313310|183303145|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.05
91704410|NCT03313310|183303146|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.39||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.39
91704411|NCT03313310|183303146|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.76||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.76
91704412|NCT03313310|183303147|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.|||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||<0.001
91704413|NCT03313310|183303147|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.02
91872673|NCT01918033|183639197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.06|-0.22|0.281
91872674|NCT04679675|183639198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.36|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Adherent (population):Direct-Mail versus Education analysis.||1.36|1.23|0.05
91872675|NCT04679675|183639198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.12|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Adherent (population):Opt-In versus Education analysis.||1.12|1.02|.05
91872676|NCT04679675|183639198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.16|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Overdue (population):Direct-Mail versus Education analysis.||2.16|1.68|.05
91872677|NCT04679675|183639198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.25|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Unknown (population):Opt-In versus Education analysis.||1.25|1.03|.05
91872678|NCT01702259|183639214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91872679|NCT01702259|183639215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91872680|NCT01702259|183639216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91872681|NCT01702259|183639217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91736473|NCT00854360|183366118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.06||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.06|-0.95|0.082
91736474|NCT00854360|183366118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.10|-0.90|0.114
91736475|NCT00854360|183366118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.33||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||-0.33|-1.33|0.001
91736476|NCT00854360|183366119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.37||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.37|-0.52|0.747
91736477|NCT00854360|183366119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.31||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.31|-0.53|0.605
91736478|NCT00854360|183366119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.05||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.05|-0.84|0.083
91760050|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.44||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.44|-1.18|
91872682|NCT01494467|183639219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91872683|NCT01494467|183639220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-6.25|||ANCOVA|||||-6.25|-10.18|<0.001
91872684|NCT01494467|183639221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91872685|NCT01137682|183639255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.63||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32||infinity||Regression, Logistic|An exact logistic regression model that adjusts for the randomization stratification factors was used to test the null hypothesis.|||||3.32|0.0006
91872686|NCT01137682|183639255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72||infinity||Regression, Logistic|An exact logistic regression model that adjusts for the randomization stratification factors was used to test the null hypothesis.|||||4.72|<0.0001
91872687|NCT02009332|183639270|OTHER||maximum deliverable dose (MDD)|400.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum deliverable dose (MDD) was not reached in the Phase 1 study as no DLTs were observed in any of the dose groups up to ABI-009 400 mg/week.|||||
91906623|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.15||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.45|31.76|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 4||31.76|-27.45|0.8861
91906624|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67||||0.9132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.87|28.53|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, WTSO at Week 4||28.53|-31.87|0.9132
91872688|NCT03386344|183639295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.250|-0.649|<0.0001
91906625|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.55|25.37|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 6||25.37|-33.55|0.7844
91736479|NCT00854360|183366120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.46||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.46|-0.45|0.989
91736480|NCT00854360|183366120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.5||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.50|-0.39|0.808
91704414|NCT03313310|183303148|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.51||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.51
91704415|NCT03313310|183303148|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.17||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.17
91704416|NCT03313310|183303149|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
91704417|NCT03313310|183303149|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
91704418|NCT03313310|183303150|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91704419|NCT03313310|183303150|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.5||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.50
91704420|NCT03313310|183303151|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.63||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.63
91704421|NCT03313310|183303151|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91704422|NCT03313310|183303152|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91704423|NCT03313310|183303152|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.25
91704424|NCT03313310|183303153|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91704425|NCT03313310|183303153|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91704426|NCT03313310|183303154|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
91704427|NCT03313310|183303154|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
91704428|NCT03313310|183303156|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91704429|NCT03313310|183303156|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91704430|NCT03313310|183303157|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91704431|NCT03313310|183303157|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.75
91704432|NCT03313310|183303158|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.55||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.55
91704433|NCT03313310|183303158|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91872689|NCT03386344|183639295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|-0.235|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.235|-0.634|<0.0001
91872690|NCT03386344|183639296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||0.590|-1.070|0.5707
91872691|NCT03386344|183639296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.419||0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|0.674|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||0.674|-0.969|0.7247
91872692|NCT03386344|183639297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.6454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.462|0.745|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline lumbar spine as a covariate.||0.745|-0.462|0.6454
91872693|NCT03386344|183639297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.798|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline lumbar spine as a covariate.||0.798|-0.410|0.5289
91872694|NCT03386344|183639298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|1.654|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||1.654|-0.157|0.1050
91906626|NCT00880399|183708716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.33|33.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 6||33.14|-27.33|0.8497
91736481|NCT00854360|183366120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.15||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.15|-0.74|0.195
91736482|NCT00854360|183366121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.57||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.57|-0.64|0.903
91736483|NCT00854360|183366121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.62||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.62|-0.58|0.952
91736484|NCT00854360|183366121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.19||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.19|-0.99|0.187
91872695|NCT03386344|183639298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|1.226|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||1.226|-0.577|0.4804
91906627|NCT00880399|183708717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.39|-0.83|0.4814
91906628|NCT00880399|183708717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.6179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.79|-0.47|0.6179
91736485|NCT03435380|183366122|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.37||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.07|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by age at consent (25-39 vs \>=40), diagnosis (Hodgkin lymphoma vs other) and previous breast imaging exam (either mammogram or breast MRI).||||5.07|1.11|0.019
91736486|NCT03435380|183366122|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.96||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.38|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by age at consent (25-39 vs \>=40), diagnosis (Hodgkin lymphoma vs other) and previous breast imaging exam (either mammogram or breast MRI).||||4.38|0.87|0.092
91736487|NCT03218917|183366138|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.014||||||P-value is one-sided for superiority.|Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pa) colonization status and maintenance antibiotic use at Baseline.||||||= 0.014
91906629|NCT00880399|183708717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.21|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.21|-0.44|0.5022
91906630|NCT00880399|183708717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.08|-0.57|0.1389
91906631|NCT00880399|183708717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||0.38|-0.36|0.9663
91736488|NCT03218917|183366138|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022||||||P-value is one-sided for superiority.|Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by colonization status and maintenance antibiotic use at Baseline.||||||= 0.022
91736489|NCT01908140|183366143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin=-0,055 L|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.123|||MMRM|If non-inferiority on the PP was achieved then switch to superiority was tested on the ITT.||This sample size of 900 had 90% power to show that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between Aclidinium bromide 400 μg/Formoterol Fumarate 12 μg and SeretideTM AccuhalerTM (50/500 μg) in Peak FEV1 at 24 weeks is above -0,055 L||0.123|0.063|<0.001
91736490|NCT01908140|183366144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority limit -0.5 units|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.46|||MMRM|||The total sample size provided 81% nominal power to show that the lower bound of the two-sided 95 confidence interval for the difference between Aclidinium bromide 400 μg/Formoterol fumarate 12 μg and SeretideTM AccuhalerTM (50/500 μg) in transitional dyspnoea index (TDI) at 24 weeks is above -0,5||0.46|-0.46|>0.05
91736491|NCT00427193|183366145|OTHER||difference in mean change|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.059||Type I error was controlled using a hierarchical gatekeeping strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||All analysis under intention-to-treat. All observations were included The primary analytic was a repeated measures analysis. The dependent variable was the change from baseline 12 \& 14mos., with treatment, time, and the treatment × time interaction as independent variables. Site, sex, BMI stratum, and the baseline value of the outcome were included as covariates. The predicted mean changes ± standard errors are the adjusted values from the contrasts of the multiple timepoints.||0.059|-0.019|0.70
91736492|NCT00427193|183366146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0092|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.069|-0.0092|0.84
91704434|NCT03313310|183303159|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.45||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.45
91704435|NCT03313310|183303159|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.07
91704436|NCT02407054|183303248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5871|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3967|0.869||||||||0.8690|0.3967|
91704437|NCT02407054|183303249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4123|1.0294||||||||1.0294|0.4123|
91704438|NCT01447927|183303272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7981|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Rum Test (1-sided)|||The null hypothesis was that the percent change in mean pS6K1 values (from pre to post) was the same or increased for the metformin arm as compared to placebo. Assuming equal standard deviations (i.e. 50%) across the metformin and placebo groups, 30 participants per arm yielded 84% power to detect at least a 35% decrease in the metformin arm as compared to placebo, using a 1-sided t-test with a significant level of 0.05.||||0.7981
91704439|NCT04114656|183303298|OTHER||Posterior Ratio to placebo|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.02|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK3858279 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 95% credible interval is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian Mixed Repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||1.020|0.968|
91704440|NCT04114656|183303299|OTHER||Posterior ratio to placebo|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.12|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK3858279 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 95% credible interval is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian Mixed Repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||1.12|0.89|
91704441|NCT04114656|183303300|OTHER||Posterior ratio to placebo|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.05|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK3858279 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 95% credible interval is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian Mixed Repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||1.05|0.91|
91704442|NCT00703326|183303301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01|||Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.01|0.75|0.077
91736493|NCT00427193|183366147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-82.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.8|-60.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-60.2|-103.8|<0.001
91704443|NCT00703326|183303302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1||The gate-keeping strategy used to control overall type 1 error 0.05 (2-sided) or 0.025 (1-sided) to analyze progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. At final PFS analysis only if primary PFS test was significant would analysis of OS be inferential.|Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.10|0.81|0.487
91704444|NCT00703326|183303303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||0.99|0.73|0.033
91704445|NCT00703326|183303304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.71|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(SCMH)|SCMH used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|Stratified odds ratio was calculated considering the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.71|1.03|0.027
91704446|NCT00703326|183303305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.06|0.67|0.150
91704447|NCT00703326|183303306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539||||||P-value is for end of therapy. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline score was used to compare the 2 treatment arms.|ANCOVA|||||||0.539
91704448|NCT03052920|183303313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 11.29||Mean difference in percent correct for CNC words at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91704449|NCT03052920|183303314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 16.947||Mean difference in Soundfield thresholds (averaged across the frequency range in dB HL) at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91704450|NCT03052920|183303315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 2.14||Mean difference in degrees RMS error at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.05
91704451|NCT03052920|183303316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 4.02||Mean difference in percentage of understanding (words correct) at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91704452|NCT03052920|183303317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 2.58||Mean difference in AzBio sentence scores in noise at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.05
91736494|NCT00427193|183366148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.5|-37.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-37.5|-90.5|<0.0001
91736495|NCT00427193|183366149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.16|0.82
91736496|NCT00427193|183366150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in change in Fat Mass between prescribed 25% Caloric Restriction (CR) and Ad Libitum (AL) at 12 and 24 months as measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) using the Hologic 4500A, Delphi W or Discovery A, by a standardized protocol according to a standardized protocol. Fat Mass (FM) and Fat Free Mass (FFM) were determined for the whole body.||-5.3|-6.5|<0.001
91736497|NCT00427193|183366151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of change in FM in 2 groups over at 24 mos, controlling for site, sex, BMI group, and baseline FM. A repeated measures Mixed Model was employed for the analysis. For any outcome, Type I error was controlled using a hierarchical gatekeeping strategy testing, first, the GroupXTime interaction, and, if non-significant, the main effects of these two factors. Bonferroni corrections were employed for non-significant effects. All tests were at p\<0.05||-5.3|-6.4|<0.0001
91736498|NCT02581891|183366155|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is set to 5 letters.|LS mean difference|-2.0199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3833||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.747|0.7073|||ANCOVA|||||0.7073|-4.7470|0.0162
91736499|NCT01076010|183366171|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.9||||||||12.9|4.4|
91736500|NCT01076010|183366171|OTHER||50% Quartile (months)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1||DR was only summarized for subjects who had an objective tumor response. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||11.1|
91736501|NCT01076010|183366171|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6||DR was only summarized for subjects who had an objective tumor response. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||5.6|
91906632|NCT00880399|183708717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||0.09|-0.67|0.1311
91736502|NCT01076010|183366172|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.2||||||||5.2|1.9|
91736503|NCT01076010|183366172|OTHER||50% Quartile (months)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|12.7||||||||12.7|7.3|
91736504|NCT01076010|183366172|OTHER||75% Quartile (months)|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5||For the subjects in each treatment arm, PFS is calculated from the first dose date of the respective study drugs. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||16.5|
91736505|NCT01076010|183366172|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.2||||||||9.2|3.5|
91736506|NCT01076010|183366173|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|12.1||||||||12.1|6.0|
91704453|NCT03052920|183303318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 3.16||Mean difference in dB SNR for BKB-SIN sentences with noise to the better ear at 6-months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.01
91704454|NCT03052920|183303319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 10.42||Mean difference in AzBio sentence scores at 60 dB SPL for the poor ear alone at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91704455|NCT03052920|183303320|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 7.15||Mean difference in HHIE reported scores at 6-months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91704456|NCT03052920|183303321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 4.34||Mean difference in HUI3 ratings at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91704457|NCT03052920|183303322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 7.71||Mean difference in ratings for the SSQ total score at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91704458|NCT03052920|183303323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 7.90||Mean difference in SSQ ratings at 12 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91704459|NCT03052920|183303324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 2.31||Mean difference in SADL scores at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant are reported.||||<0.05
91736507|NCT01076010|183366173|OTHER||50% Quartile (months)|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|27.6||||||||27.6|17.0|
91736508|NCT01076010|183366173|OTHER||75% Quartile (months)|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.8||For the subjects in each treatment arm, OS is calculated from the first dose date of the respective study drugs. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||28.8|
91760051|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.74||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.74|-1.48|
91906633|NCT00880399|183708717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||0.10|-0.73|0.1362
91872696|NCT03386344|183639299|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.568|-1.252|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.252|-2.568|<0.0001
91872697|NCT03386344|183639299|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.046|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.046|-2.360|<0.0001
91872698|NCT03386344|183639300|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-18.891|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5766|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8605|-9.9205|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-9.9205|-27.8605|<0.0001
91872699|NCT03386344|183639300|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-21.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5902|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3294|-12.336|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-12.3360|-30.3294|<0.0001
91872700|NCT03386344|183639301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.705|2.095|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||2.095|-3.705|0.5864
91872701|NCT03386344|183639301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.478||0.4315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.058|1.734|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.734|-4.058|0.4315
91872702|NCT03386344|183639302|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|10.5||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|19.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening and randomization strata of sex (male, female) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||19.23|1.78|0.0172
91872703|NCT03386344|183639302|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|20.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening and randomization strata of sex (male, female) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||20.86|3.23|0.0076
91872704|NCT01077284|183639304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91872705|NCT01077284|183639304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91736509|NCT01959932|183366203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|10.2||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||10.20|6.89|<0.001
91872706|NCT01077284|183639305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.130
91872707|NCT01077284|183639305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.348
91872708|NCT01077284|183639306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.403
91906634|NCT00880399|183708717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.05|-0.91|0.0275
91872709|NCT01077284|183639306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.413
91872710|NCT01077284|183639307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5535||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|ANOVA|P-values are from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect.||||||0.5535
91872711|NCT01077284|183639307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|ANOVA|P-values are from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect.||||||0.9400
91872712|NCT02791308|183639308|EQUIVALENCE|Proportion of Subjects with Treatment Success at Visit 4/Day 15|Other|0.407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.57|3.53||||||Percentage of Subjects with Treatment Success at Visit 4/Day 15||3.53|-15.57|
91906635|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 1||1.06|-0.02|0.0606
91736510|NCT01959932|183366204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS mean ratio|41.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.75|45.91||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||45.91|37.75|<0.001
91736511|NCT01959932|183366205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|5.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|6.87||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||6.87|5.21|<0.001
91736512|NCT01959932|183366206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|24.99||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||24.99|22.00|<0.001
91736513|NCT00758563|183366209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91736514|NCT00060944|183366210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.734||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|0.974|||Log Rank|||||0.974|0.554|0.0302
91736515|NCT00060944|183366213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.992|||Log Rank|||||0.992|0.574|0.0418
91872713|NCT00674765|183639328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.87||||||.388
91736516|NCT00060944|183366214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.843||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.090|0.653|0.1920
91736517|NCT01138514|183366217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|98.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|102.5|||Fieller's method|||||102.5|95.2|0.05
91736518|NCT01138514|183366218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|100.27||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|105.2|||Fieller's method|||||105.2|95.6|0.05
91736519|NCT01138514|183366219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Clinical success was defined as a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) on Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) at Visit 4/Week 10"|equivalence difference|1.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|7.4|||Wald's method Yates' continuity correct|||||7.4|-4.2|0.05
91736520|NCT03961308|183366227|OTHER|Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with weight as a covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0734|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9963|1.1565||||||||1.1565|0.9963|
91736521|NCT03961308|183366228|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0824|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0169|1.1521||||||||1.1521|1.0169|
91736522|NCT03961308|183366229|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0465|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9935|1.1023||||||||1.1023|0.9935|
91736523|NCT02297412|183366243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0186|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0186
91736524|NCT02297412|183366244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1146|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1146
91736525|NCT02297412|183366245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0243|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0243
91736526|NCT04549454|183366248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.598||0.985|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.985
91736527|NCT04549454|183366249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.694|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.694
91736528|NCT04549454|183366250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on consequences. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in consequences from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.889
91872714|NCT00700999|183639338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.45|-1.38|.001
91736529|NCT04549454|183366251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on consequences. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in consequences from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.582
91736530|NCT04549454|183366252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.523|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.523
91736531|NCT04549454|183366253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.981
91736532|NCT04549454|183366254|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on HED. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in HED from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.889
91736533|NCT04549454|183366255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on HED. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in HED from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.582
91736534|NCT01355627|183366275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.485|||||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment and pooled centre as covariates.|\< 1 implies a smaller likelihood of a TachoSil treated patient to experience a CSF leak.|||||0.485
91736535|NCT01230411|183366277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.0|0.88|0.078
91736536|NCT01405196|183366288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|5.62||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Point estimates of the Odds ratio (ORs) as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.62|0.89|0.076
91736537|NCT01405196|183366288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|2.41||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.41|0.38|0.528
91736538|NCT01405196|183366289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|12.4||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||12.40|0.62|
91736539|NCT01405196|183366289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|7.71||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||7.71|0.31|
91736540|NCT01405196|183366289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.67||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.67|0.40|
91736541|NCT01405196|183366289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|2.05||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.05|0.29|
91736542|NCT01405196|183366289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|2.24||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.24|0.35|
91736543|NCT01405196|183366289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|1.16||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.16|0.16|
91736544|NCT01405196|183366289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|4.09||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.09|0.64|
91736545|NCT01405196|183366289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.77||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.77|0.27|
91736546|NCT01405196|183366289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|4.84||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.84|0.78|
91736547|NCT01405196|183366289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|2.32||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.32|0.38|
91736548|NCT01405196|183366290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|3.88||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.88|0.28|
91906636|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 1||1.24|0.15|0.0132
91704460|NCT03052920|183303325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(25) = 7.27||Mean difference in the CPHI scores at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant are reported.||||<0.001
91736549|NCT01405196|183366290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|3.01||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.01|0.19|
91736550|NCT01405196|183366290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.85||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.85|0.28|
91736551|NCT01405196|183366290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.02||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.02|0.32|
91736552|NCT01405196|183366290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.83||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.83|0.30|
91736553|NCT01405196|183366290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|1.13||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.13|0.18|
91736554|NCT01405196|183366290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|3.6||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.60|0.58|
91736555|NCT01405196|183366290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.84||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.84|0.30|
91736556|NCT01405196|183366290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|4.37||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.37|0.72|
91736557|NCT01405196|183366290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.92||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.92|0.50|
91736558|NCT01405196|183366290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|5.55||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.55|0.89|
91736559|NCT01405196|183366290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.46||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.46|0.40|
91736560|NCT01405196|183366291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|3.35||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.35|0.53|
91736561|NCT01405196|183366291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|2.65||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.65|0.41|
91736562|NCT01405196|183366291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.96||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.96|0.33|
91736563|NCT01405196|183366291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.23||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.23|0.39|
91736564|NCT01405196|183366291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|2.45||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.45|0.42|
91736565|NCT01405196|183366291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|3.1||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.10|0.55|
91736566|NCT01405196|183366291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|5.88||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.88|0.95|
91736567|NCT01405196|183366291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|4.46||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.46|0.74|
91704461|NCT03052920|183303326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(25) = 7.65||Mean difference in HII-SOP scores at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91704462|NCT03052920|183303327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 2.34||Mean difference in the dB SNR scores for BKB-SIN sentences at 6 months post-implant minus pre-implant is reported.||||<0.05
91872715|NCT00700999|183639338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.78||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.99|-.84|.869
91872716|NCT02379078|183639339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0246
91872717|NCT02379078|183639340|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91704463|NCT03539484|183303382|OTHER|A Bayesian approach is used to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).|Posterior probability at dose 1.8 mg|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|26.5||There is no p-value derived; logistic regression is used to estimate the probability of DLT.|Regression, Logistic|||||26.5|2.10|
91704464|NCT02173379|183303416|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided p-value by using Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test statistic with non-inferiority margin of 2.9%, to be compared with a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||||0.0244|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||Farrington-Manning|||"The hypothesis test is designed to show non-inferiority of Absorb BVS to XIENCE for the primary endpoint with a one-sided alpha of 0.025. The null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses are:~H0: TLFAbsorb - TLFXIENCE ≥ ∆TLF HA: TLFAbsorb - TLFXIENCE \< ∆TLF."||||0.0244
91704465|NCT02173379|183303417|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided p-value by using Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test statistic with non-inferiority margin of 4.8%, to be compared with a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||||0.0006|||||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.0006
91704466|NCT04997265|183303598|OTHER|Given the small sample size, simple descriptive were used. Between-group differences were performed using a Fisher exact test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91704467|NCT02290925|183303623|OTHER|general linear model (GLM) with repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Box's M tests was used. Mauchly's test was used to verify that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized-transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix.||"We used intention to treat analysis. Since the missing data were more than 5%, we examined the dataset to determine whether it shows missing completely at random (MCAR) not missing at random (NMAR) or data missing at random (MAR). A sensitivity analysis was done to determine whether multiple imputations are required. It included complete case analysis, best-worst case and worst best case scenario with group mean±1SD."|||
91704468|NCT01973335|183303627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|123.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||2x2 factorial design: both acetazolamide groups together are compared with both high-dose loop diuretic groups together||123|-63|0.515
91704469|NCT01973335|183303628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||2x2 factorial design: analysis according to spironolactone use||||0.270
91704470|NCT01636947|183303659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.191
91704471|NCT01636947|183303660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||Overall Stage p-value||||0.458
91872718|NCT02379078|183639341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91704472|NCT00388297|183303671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-3|0.71
91704473|NCT00388297|183303671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-1.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-4|0.30
91704474|NCT00388297|183303672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91704475|NCT00388297|183303672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91704476|NCT00388297|183303673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \< 34 weeks||||0.81
91704477|NCT00388297|183303673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \<34 weeks||||0.47
91704478|NCT00388297|183303673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \<37 weeks||||0.44
91704479|NCT00388297|183303673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \< 37 weeks||||0.11
91704480|NCT00388297|183303673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Motor (24 months)||3|0|0.31
91704481|NCT00388297|183303673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-II Language (24 months)||3|0|0.30
91704482|NCT00388297|183303673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Cognitive (12 months)||0|0|0.89
91704483|NCT00388297|183303673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Motor (12 months)||3|0|0.54
91704484|NCT00388297|183303673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Language (12 months)||3|-3|0.92
91704485|NCT00388297|183303673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Cognitive (24 months)||0|0|0.70
91704486|NCT00388297|183303673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Motor (24 months)||0|-3|0.20
91704487|NCT00388297|183303673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-II Language (24 months)||2|-3|0.71
91704488|NCT00388297|183303674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-3|0.89
91704489|NCT00388297|183303674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-1.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-3|0.48
91704490|NCT00388297|183303675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||||3|-2|0.90
91704491|NCT00388297|183303675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-1.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-3|0.64
91704492|NCT00388297|183303676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for recall of digits forward||7|-5|0.60
91704493|NCT00388297|183303676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for recall of digits forward||0|-8|0.22
91872719|NCT02379078|183639342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.468
91872720|NCT02379078|183639343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.60
91872721|NCT00244751|183639353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3608|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.3608
91872722|NCT00244751|183639353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3575|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.3575
91872723|NCT00244751|183639354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9157|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.9157
91872724|NCT00244751|183639354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9501|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.9501
91872725|NCT00244751|183639355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6483|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test|||Comparison for Ranked assessment (fibrosis)||||0.6483
91872726|NCT00244751|183639355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1776|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test|||Comparison for Ranked assessment (necrosis)||||0.1776
91872727|NCT02077374|183639381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.0||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-2.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in mean change in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) from Baseline to Day28/ET between IDN-6556 and placebo||-2.5|-30.7|0.0195
91872728|NCT02077374|183639383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.8724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|11.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in change in aspartate aminotransferase (AST) from baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and placebo||11.2|-14.5|0.8724
91872729|NCT02077374|183639384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-145.0||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-336.0|55.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in change for cCK18/M30 from Baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and Placebo||55|-336|0.1149
91872730|NCT02077374|183639385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-250.0||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-590.0|63.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in change for caspase 3/7 from Baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and Placebo||63|-590|0.1365
91704494|NCT00388297|183303676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Recognition of Pictures||0|-6|0.52
91872731|NCT02077374|183639386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-327.0||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-628.0|-7.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis of the difference in the change in full-length cytokeratine 18 (flCK18/M65) from Baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and placebo||-7|-628|0.0471
91872732|NCT04604652|183639398|OTHER||||||=|0.077|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A t-test was performed to test for the percent change from baseline to Week 12. This analysis was based on observed data without imputation. Testing was one sided using a 5% alpha level. No multiplicity adjustment was used, and the p-values reported for the endpoints were descriptive in nature.||||=0.077
91872733|NCT00068107|183639409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||eGFR measured pre-study was compared to eGFR during the study||||0.01
91872734|NCT00068107|183639409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Average Delay in time to ESRD|166.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|323.8|||||The average delay in end stage renal disease (ESRD) calculated from the eGFR values and represents the estimated difference in time to ESRD between Relagal administered every 2 weeks and Relagal administered weekly. Units = months|||323.8|8.4|
91872735|NCT03989232|183639415|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.23||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||On-treatment without rescue medication observation period: Imputation of missing data was handled by multiple imputation (MI) assuming that missing data were missed at random (MAR). The imputation was performed separately within each treatment group defined by randomised treatment.||-0.11|-0.36|0.0003
91872736|NCT03989232|183639415|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.18||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||In-trial observation period: Imputation of missing data was handled by MI assuming that missing data were missed at random. The imputation was performed by imputing missing week 40 data separately within groups defined by randomised treatment and treatment status at week 40.||-0.04|-0.31|0.0098
91872737|NCT01930188|183639426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and sitagliptin was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|treatment difference|-1.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Post-baseline responses analysed with mixed model for repeated measurements-treatment \& country (fixed) \& baseline (covariate) all nested within visit||||-0.91|-1.21|<0.0001
91872738|NCT01930188|183639426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 0.5 mg and sitagliptin was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|treatment difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis done with mixed model for repeated measurements (treatment \& country as fixed factors \& baseline value as covariate) all nested within visit||||-0.62|-1.21|<0.0001
91872739|NCT00657709|183639438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot2 for 44/76-SL strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.99|0.81|
91872740|NCT00657709|183639438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot3 for 44/76-SL strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.13|0.93|
91906637|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 2||1.50|0.38|0.0010
91704495|NCT00388297|183303676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Recognition of Pictures||0|-4|0.91
91704496|NCT00388297|183303677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley II Cognitive (12 months)||0|0|0.63
91704497|NCT00388297|183303677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley II Motor (12 mo)||3|0|0.83
91872741|NCT00657709|183639438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.27|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot2 to rMenB Lot3 for 44/76-SL strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.27|1.03|
91872742|NCT00657709|183639438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.98|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot2 for 5/99 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.98|0.78|
91872743|NCT00657709|183639438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot3 for 5/99 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.1|0.88|
91872744|NCT00657709|183639438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.26|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot2 to rMenB Lot3 for 5/99 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.26|1.0|
91872745|NCT00657709|183639438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for for NZ98/254 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.04||||||95.0|0.88|1.23|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot2 for NZ98/254 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.23|0.88|
91872746|NCT00657709|183639438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for for NZ98/254 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.96||||||95.0|0.81|1.13|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot3 for NZ98/254 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.13|0.81|
91889178|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|36.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.57|42.89|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 22F||42.89|31.57|
91704498|NCT00388297|183303677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Language (12 months)||3|0|0.48
91704499|NCT00388297|183303677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Cognitive (24 months)||0|0|0.59
91704500|NCT00388297|183303678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 36 months||2|-2|0.99
91704501|NCT00388297|183303678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 60 months||2|-2|0.96
91704502|NCT00388297|183303678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 36 months||2|-2|0.65
91704503|NCT00388297|183303678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-1.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 60 months||1|-3|0.44
91704504|NCT00388297|183303679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-1|0.37
91704505|NCT00388297|183303679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-2|0.98
91704506|NCT00388297|183303680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
91704507|NCT00388297|183303680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
91704508|NCT00388297|183303681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
91704509|NCT00388297|183303681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
91872747|NCT00657709|183639438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for for NZ98 /254 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||"The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot2 to rMenB Lot3 for NZ98~/254 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0)."||1.08|0.78|
91704510|NCT00388297|183303682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
91704511|NCT00388297|183303682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
91704512|NCT00388297|183303683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
91704513|NCT00388297|183303683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91704514|NCT00388297|183303684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
91704515|NCT00388297|183303684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
91736568|NCT01405196|183366291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|7.12||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||7.12|1.10|
91704516|NCT00388297|183303685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91736569|NCT01405196|183366291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|4.21||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.21|0.66|
91736570|NCT01405196|183366291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|7.41||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||7.41|1.18|
91736571|NCT01405196|183366291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|5.06||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.06|0.82|
91736572|NCT01405196|183366292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|4.02||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||\>=4 points reduction in SLEDAI score: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.02|0.63|0.205
91736573|NCT01405196|183366292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|2.08||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||\>=4 points reduction in SLEDAI score: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.08|0.34|0.625
91736574|NCT01405196|183366292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|20.65||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||No worsening in PhGA: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||20.65|0.38|0.198
91736575|NCT01405196|183366292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|21.3||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||No worsening in PhGA: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||21.30|0.39|0.192
91736576|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|1.49||||||Week 2: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||1.49|-12.30|
91736577|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.21|5.42||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||5.42|-8.21|
91736578|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.71|8.32||||||Week 6: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||8.32|-5.71|
91736579|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|11.57||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||11.57|-2.22|
91736580|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.04|3.07||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||3.07|-11.04|
91736581|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.87|4.1||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||4.10|-9.87|
91736582|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.37|0.94||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||0.94|-13.37|
91736583|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.17|9.13||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.13|-5.17|
91736584|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|8.84||||||Week 2: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||8.84|-4.70|
91872748|NCT00657709|183639440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at one month after the third vaccination, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||1|-1|
91906638|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 2||1.40|0.28|0.0034
91906639|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.72|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 4||0.72|-0.47|0.6692
91736585|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.62|4.0||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||4.00|-9.62|
91704517|NCT00388297|183303685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91704518|NCT00388297|183303686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.50
91704519|NCT00388297|183303686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
91704520|NCT00388297|183303687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar at 1 min \< 4||||0.76
91704521|NCT00388297|183303687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar \> 4 at 1 minute||||0.76
91704522|NCT00388297|183303687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar \< 7 at 5 minutes||||0.69
91704523|NCT00388297|183303687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar \< 7 at 5 minutes||||0.45
91704524|NCT00388297|183303688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
91704525|NCT00388297|183303688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
91704526|NCT00388297|183303689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
91704527|NCT00388297|183303689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
91704528|NCT00388297|183303690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91704529|NCT00388297|183303690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91704530|NCT00388297|183303691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
91704531|NCT00388297|183303691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.75
91704532|NCT00388297|183303692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91704533|NCT00388297|183303693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91704534|NCT00388297|183303693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
91704535|NCT00388297|183303694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
91704536|NCT00388297|183303694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
91704537|NCT00388297|183303695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91704538|NCT00388297|183303695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
91704539|NCT00388297|183303696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91704540|NCT00388297|183303696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91704541|NCT00316914|183303698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||A priori threshold for the p-value is 0.05 and there was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Comparison in Percentage of Patients With Oxaliplatin-induced Grade 2+ Chronic Neuropathic Adverse Event between Arms||||0.038
91704542|NCT00316914|183303699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Comparison of time to Onset of Grade 2+ Chronic Neurotoxicity between Arms||||0.0503
91704543|NCT00316914|183303700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4048||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Comparison of Time to Onset of Grade 3+ Chronic Neurotoxicity between Arms||||0.4048
91704544|NCT00316914|183303701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6556||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Comparison of Average Duration of Chronic Neuropathic Toxicity between Arms||||0.6556
91704545|NCT00316914|183303702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3238||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Percentage of patients discontinuing therapy for chronic neurotoxicity between Arms||||0.3238
91704546|NCT00316914|183303705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7498||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Percentage of Patients With Acute Neuropathic Adverse Event between Arms||||0.7498
91704547|NCT00316914|183303708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Fatigue NOW between two arms||||0.2340
91704548|NCT00316914|183303708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Fatigue USUAL between two arms||||0.2010
91704549|NCT00316914|183303708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9364||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Fatigue WORST between two arms||||0.9364
91704550|NCT00316914|183303709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9364||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Fatigue WORST||||0.9364
91704551|NCT00316914|183303709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6275||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walking||||0.6275
91704552|NCT00316914|183303709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6988||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Buttoning Shirt or Tying Laces||||0.6988
91704553|NCT00316914|183303709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5124||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Diarrhea||||0.5124
91704554|NCT00316914|183303709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3103||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Constipation||||0.3103
91704555|NCT00316914|183303709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8601||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Abdominal Cramping||||0.8601
91704556|NCT00316914|183303709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2439||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Bowel Problems with Normal Activity||||0.2439
91704557|NCT00316914|183303709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9283||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Shortness of Breath (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.9283
91704558|NCT00316914|183303709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4715||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swallowing (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.4715
91704559|NCT00316914|183303709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5105||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Numbness in Fingers, Toes (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.5105
91704560|NCT00316914|183303709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2181||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tingling in Fingers, Toes (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.2181
91872749|NCT00657709|183639440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
91872750|NCT00657709|183639440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
91872751|NCT00657709|183639440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||1|-1|
91872752|NCT00657709|183639440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
91872753|NCT00657709|183639440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
91906640|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.42|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 4||1.42|0.22|0.0078
91906641|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 6||1.30|0.02|0.0440
91736586|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|10.9||||||Week 6: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||10.90|-2.95|
91906642|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 6||1.41|0.13|0.0181
91906643|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.92|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 1||0.92|-0.14|0.1484
91906644|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, RVS at Week 1||1.24|0.16|0.0108
91906645|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.0361||95.0|0.04|1.16|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 2||1.16|0.04|0.0361
91736587|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.29|9.4||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.40|-4.29|
91736588|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.67|9.94||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.94|-3.67|
91736589|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.91|2.03||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||2.03|-11.91|
91736590|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.61|4.32||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||4.32|-9.61|
91736591|NCT01405196|183366304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.48|9.8||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.80|-4.48|
91736592|NCT01405196|183366305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.63||||||90.0|-2.56|9.83||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||9.83|-2.56|
91906646|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, RVS at Week 2||1.15|0.02|0.0418
91704561|NCT02284568|183303729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1293||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.2705||significance at 0.05.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||The statistical model was a repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group, week, treatment group by week interaction, normalized brain volume at baseline, natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, and country as fixed effects.||0.2705|-0.2390|0.903
91704562|NCT02284568|183303731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.37||significance at 0.05. p-value was from a log-rank test, and estimate and confidence limits were from a Cox model with treatment group as fixed effect, due to the violation of the proportionality assumption.|Log Rank||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs placebo|The statistical model was a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment group, categorical EDSS at baseline (≤4.5 or \>4.5), age at baseline, natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, and country as fixed effects.||1.37|0.48|0.426
91704563|NCT02284568|183303732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs placebo|The statistical model was a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment group, categorical EDSS at baseline (≤4.5 or \>4.5), age at baseline, natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, and country as fixed effects.||1.59|0.68|0.867
91704564|NCT02284568|183303733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2679||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.2||significance at 0.05. The p-value for ranked change from baseline values was from a repeated measures analysis of covariance with trt group, week, treatment group by week interaction, rank of T25FW score at baseline, and country as fixed effects.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs. placebo treatment effect|placebo n=121 Laquinimod 0.6 mg n=108 The estimate of parameter, standard error, and 95% confidence intervals for change from baseline was from a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Test using Hodges-Lehmann estimates.||0.2000|-0.8500|0.248
91704565|NCT02284568|183303734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.69||significance at 0.05|negative binomial regression model||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs. placebo risk ratio|This analysis was performed using baseline adjusted negative binomial regression model (SAS® PROC GENMOD) in which 1 contrast for comparing laquinimod 0.6 mg to placebo was constructed. In addition to the treatment group, the natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, age at baseline and country/geographical region (CGR) were used as covariates.||0.69|0.26|0.001
91704566|NCT00460265|183303736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.873||||0.1403||95.0|0.729|1.046|||Log Rank|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors (ECOG(0:1),previously treated w/ CT/RT(yes:no),primary tumor site(oropharynx/larynx:oral cavity/hypopharynx))|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by IVRS randomization factors; hazard ratio presented as panitumumab plus chemotherapy:chemotherapy alone.|||1.046|0.729|0.1403
91704567|NCT00460265|183303737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|10.98||||||95.0|3.13|18.68||||||||18.68|3.13|
91704568|NCT00460265|183303737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||||95.0|1.15|2.44||||||||2.44|1.15|
91704569|NCT00460265|183303741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||||95.0|0.659|0.922|||||Cox proportional hazards model stratified by IVRS randomization factors|||0.922|0.659|
91736593|NCT01405196|183366305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02||||||90.0|-8.21|4.18||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||4.18|-8.21|
91704570|NCT01642485|183303757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The effect of insulin, C-peptide and glucose on QTcF was investigated using linear mixed effect concentration-response models with the double difference of QTcF (difference to time matched placebo of the change from average baseline) as dependent variable and up to two of the variables change from time matched placebo in insulin, C-peptide and glucose as covariates.||||0.05
91704571|NCT01642485|183303758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The relevant confirmatory null hypotheses could all be rejected on the 5% level (one sided), i.e. a difference in QTcF between continental breakfast and placebo; between FDA breakfast and placebo could be ascertained.||||0.05
91736594|NCT01405196|183366305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|8.82||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||8.82|-3.57|
91704572|NCT01642485|183303758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|-5.5||||||||-5.5|-10.4|
91906647|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.58|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 4||0.58|-0.64|0.9305
91704573|NCT01642485|183303758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|-4.3||||||||-4.3|-9.3|
91704574|NCT00956631|183303777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|4.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used throughout. A hypothetical average improvement of zero was used.||4.13|2.29|<0.0001
91704575|NCT00956631|183303778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.33|22.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used. A hypothetical average improvement of zero was used.||22.83|12.33|<0.0001
91704576|NCT00904839|183303810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|11.5|||Kaplan-Meier||Difference in Kaplan-Meier Progression-free Survival Rates at 9 Months using Peto´s variance estimate.|||11.5|-27.8|
91704577|NCT00904839|183303815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|5.2|||Kaplan-Meier||confidence interval includes 0, meaning that the null hypothesis (no difference between the 2 groups) cannot be rejected (i.e. pvalue \> 0.05). The pvalue was not computed. Difference in Kaplan-Meier Resection Rates using Peto´s variance estimate.|||5.2|-15.3|
91704578|NCT00824382|183303859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.131|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.131|0.051|<0.0001
91798207|NCT02130024|183474720|OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.95||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline BCVA, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in BCVA|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||4.61|-0.71|0.151
91798208|NCT02130024|183474721|OTHER||Treatment Effect|10.12||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|29.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline CSFT, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in CSFT|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||29.06|-8.82|0.294
91798209|NCT02130024|183474721|OTHER||Treatment Effect|11.86||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|31.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline CSFT, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in CSFT|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||31.07|-7.35|0.225
91798210|NCT02130024|183474722|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of no IRF/SRF present between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 2 Analysis||1.35|0.51|0.461
91798211|NCT02130024|183474722|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of no IRF/SRF present between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 12 Analysis||1.21|0.44|0.215
91798212|NCT02130024|183474722|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of no IRF/SRF present between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 24 Analysis||1.48|0.51|0.616
91704579|NCT00824382|183303859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.172|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.172|0.091|<0.0001
91798213|NCT02130024|183474723|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||2.08|0.53|0.891
91798214|NCT02130024|183474723|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||3.35|0.77|0.206
91798215|NCT02130024|183474724|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.93|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥ -15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||5.93|0.45|0.460
91798216|NCT02130024|183474724|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥ -15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||2.90|0.30|0.913
91872754|NCT00657709|183639440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for NZ98/254 strain.|Percentage group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1 month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||8|-2|
91872755|NCT00657709|183639440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for NZ 98/254 strain.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot difference in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1 month after the third dise, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||4|-6|
91906648|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, RVS at Week 4||1.39|0.16|0.0141
91906649|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 6||1.31|-0.02|0.0562
91798217|NCT02130024|183474726|OTHER||Treatment Effect|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.44|32.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed: BL Plasma VEGF, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from BL in Plasma VEGF|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Week 5 Analysis||32.95|21.44|<0.001
91798218|NCT02130024|183474726|OTHER||Treatment Effect|28.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.08|34.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed: BL Plasma VEGF, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from BL in Plasma VEGF|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Week 9 Analysis||34.68|23.08|<0.001
91798219|NCT03029702|183474730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
91798220|NCT03029702|183474731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
91798221|NCT03029702|183474732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
91798222|NCT03029702|183474733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
91798223|NCT03029702|183474734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
91798224|NCT03029702|183474735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
91798225|NCT03029702|183474736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
91798226|NCT03029702|183474737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
91798227|NCT02160990|183474785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91798228|NCT02160990|183474786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91798229|NCT02160990|183474787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
91798230|NCT03789396|183474844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of patient odds of being hyperoxic and not on room air pre- versus post-intervention||0.97|0.57|0.03
91798231|NCT00734474|183474854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategies.|LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.55||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||"Power was estimated at approximately 89% based on a simulation study using the most likely pharmacodynamic model, assuming a 20% drop out rate (missing completely at random) at 52 weeks and enrollment of 5 participants per week. A predictive power calculation was planned to select either 263 or 333 as the minimum total sample size needed (sum of Stage 1 and 2) per arm. If the predictive power of the higher LY2189265 dose based on 263 participants in total exceeded 85%, then 263 would be used."||-0.55|-0.87|<0.001
91798232|NCT00734474|183474854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying a gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.31||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||"Power was estimated at approximately 89% based on a simulation study using the most likely pharmacodynamic model, assuming a 20% drop out rate (missing completely at random) at 52 weeks and enrollment of 5 participants per week. A predictive power calculation was planned to select either 263 or 333 as the minimum total sample size needed (sum of Stage 1 and 2) per arm. If the predictive power of the higher LY2189265 dose based on 263 participants in total exceeded 85%, then 263 would be used."||-0.31|-0.63|<0.001
91798233|NCT00734474|183474854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.55||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.55|-0.87|<0.001
91798234|NCT00734474|183474854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.31||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.31|-0.63|<0.001
91798235|NCT00734474|183474856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-1.09||Comparison at 26 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-1.09|-1.42|<0.001
91798236|NCT00734474|183474856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.88||Comparison at 26 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.88|-1.21|<0.001
91798237|NCT00734474|183474856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.48||Comparison at 26 weeks. One-sided raw p-value with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.81|<0.001
91798238|NCT00734474|183474856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying a gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.5||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-0.84|<0.001
91798239|NCT00734474|183474856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.22||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.56|<0.001
91798240|NCT00734474|183474856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.5||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.50|-0.84|<0.001
91889179|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|5.92|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 33F||5.92|4.27|
91798241|NCT00734474|183474856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.22||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.22|-0.56|<0.001
91798242|NCT00734474|183474858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison at 26 weeks.||||-1.51|-2.27|<0.001
91798243|NCT00734474|183474858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.1||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-1.85|<0.001
91798244|NCT00734474|183474858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.11||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.86|0.012
91798245|NCT00734474|183474858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-1.13||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.13|-1.82|<0.001
91798246|NCT00734474|183474858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.39||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.07|<0.001
91798247|NCT00734474|183474858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-1.1||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-1.93|<0.001
91798248|NCT00734474|183474858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.51||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-1.33|<0.001
91798249|NCT00734474|183474859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.51||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|40.28||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.28|-3.25|0.095
91798250|NCT00734474|183474859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.08||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|38.69||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.69|-4.54|0.121
91798251|NCT00734474|183474859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.41||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|37.29||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||37.29|-6.47|0.167
91798252|NCT00734474|183474859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.38||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|22.26||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.26|-9.49|0.430
91798253|NCT00734474|183474859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.77||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|24.47||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.47|-6.94|0.273
91798254|NCT00734474|183474859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.07||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|31.64||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.64|-9.49|0.291
91798255|NCT00734474|183474859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.28||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|41.53||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||41.53|1.03|0.039
91798256|NCT00734474|183474861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.14||Comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-2.27|<0.001
91798257|NCT00734474|183474861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.6||Comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.60|-1.73|<0.001
91798258|NCT00734474|183474861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58||Comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.54|0.953
91798259|NCT00734474|183474861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.92||Comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.92|-2.08|<0.001
91798260|NCT00734474|183474861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.48||Comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.65|<0.001
91798261|NCT00734474|183474861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.49||Comparison at 104 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-1.78|<0.001
91798262|NCT00734474|183474861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.01||Comparison at 104 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-1.29|0.054
91798263|NCT00734474|183474863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.93||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.93|-2.45|<0.001
91798264|NCT00734474|183474863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.18||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-1.34|0.133
91798265|NCT00734474|183474863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.5||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-1.01|0.512
91798266|NCT00734474|183474863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.69||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-2.23|<0.001
91798267|NCT00734474|183474863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.17||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-1.36|0.128
91798268|NCT00734474|183474863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.42||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-2.30|0.005
91798269|NCT00734474|183474863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.4||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-1.48|0.256
91798270|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|18.8||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||18.8|6.8|<0.001
91798271|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|14.3||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.3|5.2|<0.001
91798272|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.8||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.8|1.8|<0.001
91798273|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|5.9||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.9|2.7|<0.001
91798274|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.9||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.9|1.8|<0.001
91798275|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.0||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.0|2.4|<0.001
91798276|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.3||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.3|1.6|<0.001
91798277|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|20.4||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||20.4|6.5|<0.001
91798278|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.8||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.8|2.8|<0.001
91798279|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.1||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5 at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.1|1.3|0.005
91798280|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.8|2.9|<0.001
91798281|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.5||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.5|<0.001
91798282|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|7.9||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.9|3.4|<0.001
91798283|NCT00734474|183474864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.7|1.5|<0.001
91872756|NCT00657709|183639440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided (5% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for NZ98/254 strain.|Percentage group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at one month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||1|-9|
91872757|NCT00657709|183639443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs (GMCrMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3+InfanrixHexa / GMCInfanrixHexa)|Geometric group difference|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94|||ANOVA|GMCs and 95% CIs were constructed by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means of the log10-transformed titers and their associated 95% CIs.||Immunogenicity of the pertussis components (FHA) of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 would be considered non-inferior to that of routine vaccines given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the ratio of GMCs one month after the third vaccination is ≥0.67.||0.94|0.76|
91872758|NCT00657709|183639443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs (GMCrMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3+InfanrixHexa / GMCInfanrixHexa)|Geometric group difference|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89|||ANOVA|GMCs and 95% CIs were constructed by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log10-transformed titers and their associated 95% CIs.||Immunogenicity of the pertussis component (Pertactin) of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccines given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the ratio of GMCs one month after the third vaccination is ≥0.67.||0.89|0.67|
91872759|NCT00657709|183639443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs (GMCrMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3+InfanrixHexa / GMCInfanrixHexa)|Geometric group difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91|||ANOVA|GMCs and 95% CIs were constructed by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means of the log10-transformed titers and their associated 95% CIS.||Immunogenicity of the pertussis components (PT) of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccines given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the ratio of GMCs one month after the third vaccination is ≥0.67.||0.91|0.71|
91872760|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age,would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for diphtheria toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥0.1 IU/mL for that antigen.||2|-1|
91872761|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for diphtheria toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥1.0 IU/mL for that antigen.||1|-12|
91872762|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for Tetanus toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥0.1 IU/mL for that antigen.||2|-2|
91872763|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for Tetanus toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥1.0 IU/mL for that antigen.||1|-9|
91872764|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the polio type 1 of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B, Inactivated Poliovirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTPa-HBV-IPV) when given concomitantly with rMenB and Pneumococcal 7-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV7) at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT titers ≥1:8 was greater than -10%.||2|-5|
91906650|NCT00880399|183708718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 6||1.40|0.07|0.0296
91906651|NCT00880399|183708722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|4.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||4.61|-0.21|0.0735
91906652|NCT00880399|183708722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35||||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|3.86|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||3.86|-1.17|0.2905
91906653|NCT00880399|183708722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||3.70|-1.60|0.4327
91906654|NCT00880399|183708722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||3.75|-1.73|0.4642
91906655|NCT00880399|183708722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.48||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|4.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||4.23|-1.26|0.2850
91906656|NCT00880399|183708722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|3.59|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||3.59|-2.08|0.5984
91736595|NCT01405196|183366305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|7.88||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||7.88|-4.51|
91736596|NCT01405196|183366305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|10.79||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||10.79|-1.61|
91736597|NCT01405196|183366305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.95||||||90.0|-2.24|10.15||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||10.15|-2.24|
91736598|NCT01405196|183366305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.92||||||90.0|-4.17|8.01||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||8.01|-4.17|
91736599|NCT01405196|183366305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2||||||90.0|-10.25|1.85||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||1.85|-10.25|
91736600|NCT01405196|183366305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.56|7.55||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||7.55|-4.56|
91736601|NCT01405196|183366305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.96|6.15||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||6.15|-5.96|
91736602|NCT01405196|183366305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.39|5.71||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||5.71|-6.39|
91736603|NCT01405196|183366305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.39|3.71||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||3.71|-8.39|
91736604|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|3.59||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.59|-2.53|
91736605|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|2.58||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.58|-3.54|
91736606|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|4.34||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.34|-1.78|
91736607|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|4.84||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.84|-1.28|
91736608|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|4.26||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.26|-1.86|
91736609|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.98|3.15||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.15|-2.98|
91736610|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|3.03||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.03|-3.03|
91736611|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.09|2.92||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.92|-3.09|
91736612|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|2.99||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.99|-3.03|
91736613|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|2.85||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.85|-3.17|
91736614|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|1.43||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||1.43|-4.58|
91736615|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|2.3||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.30|-3.72|
91736616|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|5.2||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.20|0.14|
91736617|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|5.89||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.89|0.84|
91736618|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.76||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.76|0.70|
91736619|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|6.3||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.30|1.24|
91736620|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|5.63||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.63|0.57|
91736621|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.03||||||90.0|0.5|5.56||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.56|0.50|
91736622|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|4.46||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.46|-0.53|
91736623|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.68||||||90.0|0.2|5.17||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.17|0.20|
91736624|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|4.32||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.32|-0.65|
91872765|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the polio type 2 of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B, Inactivated Poliovirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTPa-HBVIPV) when given concomitantly with rMenB and Pneumococcal 7-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV7) at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT titers ≥1:8 was greater than -10%.||-1|-11|
91872766|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the polio type 3 of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 at 2,4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT titers ≥1:8 was greater than -10%.||2|-4|
91872767|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the hepatitis B surface antigen component of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT ≥10.0 mIU/ml was greater than -10%||-1|-5|
91736625|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|4.5||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.50|-0.47|
91736626|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|4.82||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.82|-0.15|
91736627|NCT01405196|183366307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|5.08||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.08|0.11|
91736628|NCT01405196|183366308|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.47||||||90.0|-6.33|7.27||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||7.27|-6.33|
91736629|NCT01405196|183366308|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.92||||||90.0|-2.88|10.72||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.72|-2.88|
91906657|NCT00880399|183708722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||4.19|-1.76|0.4192
91906658|NCT00880399|183708722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.6766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|3.71|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||3.71|-2.42|0.6766
91736630|NCT01405196|183366308|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|10.36||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.36|-3.25|
91736631|NCT01405196|183366308|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|14.66||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||14.66|1.05|
91736632|NCT01405196|183366308|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|13.92||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||13.92|0.32|
91736633|NCT01405196|183366308|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|11.13||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||11.13|-2.47|
91736634|NCT01405196|183366308|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|8.05||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||8.05|-5.40|
91736635|NCT01405196|183366308|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|10.62||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.62|-2.75|
91736636|NCT01405196|183366308|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.47|5.91||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.91|-7.47|
91736637|NCT01405196|183366308|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.67||||||90.0|-3.02|10.35||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.35|-3.02|
91736638|NCT01405196|183366308|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|9.68||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||9.68|-3.70|
91736639|NCT01405196|183366308|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.24|8.13||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||8.13|-5.24|
91736640|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|3.59||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.59|-2.53|
91736641|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|2.58||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.58|-3.54|
91736642|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|4.34||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.34|-1.78|
91736643|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|4.84||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.84|-1.28|
91736644|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|4.26||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.26|-1.86|
91736645|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.98|3.15||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.15|-2.98|
91736646|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|3.03||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.03|-3.03|
91736647|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.09|2.92||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.92|-3.09|
91872768|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the PRP-Hib component of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferiority that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with Hib capsular polysaccharide (PRP) antibody response greater than the protective cutoff of ≥0.15 μg/mL was greater than -10%.||1|-3|
91872769|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the PRP-Hib component of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with Hib capsular polysaccharide (PRP) antibody response greater than the protective cutoff of ≥1.0 μg/mL was greater than -10%.||7|-7|
91872770|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL was, for the pneumococcal antigen PnC4.||0|-4|
91906659|NCT00880399|183708723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||1.25|-1.26|0.9951
91736648|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|2.99||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.99|-3.03|
91736649|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|2.85||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.85|-3.17|
91736650|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|1.43||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||1.43|-4.58|
91736651|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|2.3||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.30|-3.72|
91736652|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|5.2||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.20|0.14|
91736653|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|5.89||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.89|0.84|
91736654|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.76||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.76|0.70|
91736655|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|6.3||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.30|1.24|
91736656|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|5.63||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.63|0.57|
91736657|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.03||||||90.0|0.5|5.56||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.56|0.50|
91736658|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|4.46||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.46|-0.53|
91736659|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.68||||||90.0|0.2|5.17||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.17|0.20|
91736660|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|4.32||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.32|-0.65|
91736661|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|4.5||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.50|-0.47|
91736662|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|4.82||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.82|-0.15|
91736663|NCT01405196|183366309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|5.08||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.08|0.11|
91736664|NCT01405196|183366311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|5.42||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the Least Square (LS) mean difference from that model.||5.42|-1.26|
91736665|NCT01405196|183366311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|5.29||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.29|-1.38|
91736666|NCT01405196|183366311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|6.15||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.15|-0.53|
91736667|NCT01405196|183366311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|7.22||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||7.22|0.54|
91736668|NCT01405196|183366311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|5.29||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.29|-1.39|
91736669|NCT01405196|183366311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|5.03||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.03|-1.65|
91736670|NCT01405196|183366311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|4.99||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.99|-1.61|
91872771|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC 6B antigen greater than -10%.||8|-4|
91872772|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa\_HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC 9V, greater than -10%.||1|-2|
91872773|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 vaccine when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC14 antigen, greater than -10%.||3|-4|
91872774|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC 18C antigen greater than -10%.||1|-3|
91872775|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was for PnC 19F antigen, greater than -10%.||4|-3|
91872776|NCT00657709|183639444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was for PnC 23F antigen, greater than -10%.||2|-8|
91872777|NCT00657709|183639445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the FHA antigen of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects was greater than -10%.||4|-9|
91872778|NCT00657709|183639445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the Pertactin antigen of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects was greater than -10%.||-3|-16|
91736671|NCT01405196|183366311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.31|4.26||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.26|-2.31|
91736672|NCT01405196|183366311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|4.61||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.61|-1.96|
91736673|NCT01405196|183366311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|6.89||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.89|0.32|
91736674|NCT01405196|183366311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|4.19||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.19|-2.38|
91736675|NCT01405196|183366311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.68|3.88||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.88|-2.68|
91736676|NCT01542788|183366312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|77.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|83.6||P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence or absence of cirrhosis for the superiority of SOF+RBV over placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|A sample size of 180 subjects in the active group and 60 in the placebo group would provide 99% power to detect a difference between group SVR12 rates of 40% using a 2-sided continuity-corrected chi-square test at significance level of 0.05.||83.6|71.0|< 0.001
91736677|NCT01542788|183366314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.8|88.5|||||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% CI are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||88.5|76.8|
91736678|NCT01542788|183366315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|77.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|83.6||P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization stratification factor for the superiority of SOF+RBV over placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% CI are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||83.6|71.0|< 0.001
91872779|NCT00657709|183639445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the PT antigen of DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects was greater than -10%.||2|-7|
91872780|NCT03122860|183639449|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.13|0.179
91736679|NCT01400412|183366318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-value without adjustment for multiple testing, interpreted at the 5% nominal level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by age (\<30 and \>=30 years)||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two arms in the percent of total hip BMD change from baseline to week 48||||<0.001
91736680|NCT01649869|183366338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0859|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome based on generalized estimating equations.||||||0.0859
91736681|NCT01649869|183366339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7068|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7068
91736682|NCT01649869|183366340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91736683|NCT01649869|183366341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7068|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7068
91872781|NCT03122860|183639449|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-1.34|0.031
91872782|NCT03122860|183639449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.81|0.675
91872783|NCT03122860|183639449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.51|0.022
91872784|NCT03122860|183639449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.79|0.780
91736684|NCT01649869|183366342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0752|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0752
91736685|NCT01649869|183366344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4823|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations.||||||0.4823
91736686|NCT01649869|183366345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0859|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations.||||||0.0859
91736687|NCT01649869|183366346|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.8212|||||||Generalized linear model|For binary outcome using generalized estimating equations||||||0.8212
91736688|NCT01649869|183366347|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.8356|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations.||||||0.8356
91736689|NCT01649869|183366348|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.7961|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations||||||0.7961
91736690|NCT01649869|183366349|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.8675|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome||||||0.8675
91736691|NCT01649869|183366350|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.9682|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome||||||0.9682
91736692|NCT01649869|183366351|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.6063|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome||||||0.6063
91736693|NCT01649869|183366352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
91736694|NCT01649869|183366353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6043|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6043
91872785|NCT03122860|183639450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|4.91|||ANCOVA|||||4.91|-8.32|0.612
91872786|NCT03122860|183639450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|2.46|||ANCOVA|||||2.46|-10.47|0.223
91906660|NCT00880399|183708723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||1.34|-1.17|0.8940
91736695|NCT01649869|183366354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6513|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6513
91736696|NCT01649869|183366355|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91736697|NCT01649869|183366356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0659|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0659
91736698|NCT01649869|183366357|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91736699|NCT01126190|183366364|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper endpoint of the CI for the difference in mean DSN was less than or equal to 0.62 days|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.37||||||For the primary non-inferiority endpoint of cycle 1 DSN, the 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in DSN was calculated by stratified bootstrap resampling.||0.37|-0.13|
91736700|NCT01977898|183366368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877|||||||Fisher Exact|||A sample size of 65 patients in each group would be required to achieve 80% power to detect this difference between intrathecal morphine and saline administration . Sample size of 64 per group achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of 0.25. The proportion in the treatment group is assumed to be 0.5 under the null hypothesis and 0.25 under the alternative hypothesis. The proportion in the control group is .05.The significance level of the test was targeted at .05.||||.877
91736701|NCT01977898|183366369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.499
91736702|NCT01977898|183366370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.463
91736703|NCT01977898|183366371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0463|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0463
91736704|NCT01977898|183366372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.525
91736705|NCT01977898|183366373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.691
91872787|NCT03122860|183639450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|8.57|||ANCOVA|||||8.57|-4.89|0.590
91872788|NCT03122860|183639450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.36||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||||-0.69|-14.03|0.031
91872789|NCT03122860|183639450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.92|||ANCOVA|||||3.92|-9.70|0.403
91872790|NCT03122860|183639451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|3.88|||ANCOVA|||||3.88|-9.04|0.432
91872791|NCT03122860|183639451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|2.02|||ANCOVA|||||2.02|-10.69|0.180
91872792|NCT03122860|183639451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.72|||ANCOVA|||||7.72|-5.33|0.718
91736706|NCT01977898|183366374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.610
91736707|NCT01977898|183366375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.499
91736708|NCT01977898|183366376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
91736709|NCT01977898|183366377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.31
91736710|NCT01049373|183366384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0426
91736711|NCT01049373|183366385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0757
91736712|NCT01049373|183366386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0465
91736713|NCT01049373|183366387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04443
91736714|NCT01198587|183366415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.88
91872793|NCT03122860|183639451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.54|-1.45|||ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-14.54|0.017
91736715|NCT01198587|183366415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
91736716|NCT01365793|183366572|SUPERIORITY|Each statistical test uses stratification to adjust for enrolling hospital, and the arm not being tested (e.g., the test for rapid vs slower rehydration is stratified by 0.45% and 0.9% Saline, and vice versa).||||||0.34||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for each of the 2 p-values is 0.025, for an overall significance of 0.50.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study uses a factorial experimental design, and tests two null hypotheses. The first of these hypotheses - the frequency of GCS score declines to \<14 is equal between the Rapid Rehydration and Slower Rehydration groups - is reported here. The analysis of the second hypothesis is reported below.||||0.34
91736717|NCT01365793|183366572|SUPERIORITY|Each statistical test uses stratification to adjust for enrolling hospital, and the arm not being tested (e.g., the test for rapid vs slower rehydration is stratified by 0.45% and 0.9% Saline, and vice versa).||||||0.43||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for each of the 2 p-values is 0.025, for an overall significance of 0.50.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study uses a factorial experimental design, and tests the two null hypotheses. The second of these hypotheses - the frequency of GCS score declines to \<14 is equal between the 0.45% Saline group and the 0.90% Saline group - is reported here. The analysis of the first hypothesis is reported above.||||0.43
91736718|NCT01734902|183366666|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model, analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale includes effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted gMean ratio T/R (%)|86.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.046|102.151|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variance \[%\]. Statistical analysis is based on PKS which includes 27 subjects.|||102.151|74.046|
91736719|NCT01734902|183366667|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model, analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale includes effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted gMean ratio T/R (%)|89.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.26|102.62|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variance \[%\]. Statistical analysis is based on PKS which includes 27 subjects.|||102.62|77.26|
91736720|NCT01734902|183366668|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model, analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale includes effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted gMean ratio T/R [%]|90.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.78|102.88|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variance \[%\]. Statistical analysis is based on PKS which includes 27 subjects.|||102.88|78.78|
91736721|NCT02972996|183366728|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|||Values are least-squares means ± SEs (adjusted for the baseline values) from ANCOVA linear mixed model that included covariates of age, baseline (pretreatment values), BMI and weight.||||0.56
91736722|NCT02972996|183366729|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91736723|NCT04756531|183366765|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUClast for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Suspension), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.21|95.28||||||||95.28|69.21|
91736724|NCT04756531|183366766|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Suspension), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.14|96.2||||||||96.20|60.14|
91736725|NCT04756531|183366767|OTHER|Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Suspension), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|56.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.42|73.19||||||||73.19|43.42|
91760052|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.02||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.02|-0.72|
91872794|NCT03122860|183639451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|5.29|||ANCOVA|||||5.29|-8.06|0.682
91872795|NCT03122860|183639452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.16|0.822
91872796|NCT03122860|183639452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.27|0.162
91872797|NCT03122860|183639452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.34|0.267
91872798|NCT03122860|183639452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.18|0.685
91798284|NCT02899299|183474903|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|96.6|0.6|0.91||Boundary for statistical significance was a p-value \< 0.0345|Stratified Log Rank|This is 2 sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by histology and sex as entered in the IRT|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||0.91|0.60|0.0020
91798285|NCT02899299|183474906|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.13|0.77|
91798286|NCT02899299|183474907|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||||||\<1% PD-L1||1.32|0.64|
91798287|NCT02899299|183474907|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.88||||||≥1% PD-L1||0.88|0.59|
91798288|NCT02899299|183474908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.63||||||\< 1% PD-L1||2.63|1.22|
91798289|NCT02899299|183474908|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96||||||≥1% PD-L1||0.96|0.61|
91798290|NCT02899299|183474910|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.88|||Stratified Log Rank|This is 2 sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by histology and sex as entered in the IRT|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||0.88|0.62|0.0008
91872799|NCT03122860|183639452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.09|0.342
91872800|NCT03122860|183639453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.10|-8.36|0.500
91872801|NCT03122860|183639453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.54||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|0.72|||ANCOVA|||||0.72|-11.80|0.082
91906661|NCT00880399|183708723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||1.28|-1.61|0.8195
91872802|NCT03122860|183639453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|4.48|||ANCOVA|||||4.48|-8.36|0.552
91872803|NCT03122860|183639453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-13.16|0.033
91872804|NCT03122860|183639453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|6.68|||ANCOVA|||||6.68|-5.79|0.887
91872805|NCT03122860|183639454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|3.72|||ANCOVA|||||3.72|-7.99|0.473
91872806|NCT03122860|183639454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-12.33|0.040
91872807|NCT03122860|183639454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|7.79|||ANCOVA|||||7.79|-4.35|0.577
91906662|NCT00880399|183708723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||2.05|-0.84|0.4106
91906663|NCT00880399|183708723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.85|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||1.85|-1.71|0.9403
91798291|NCT00313300|183474911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.4|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||5.4|-1.0|
91798292|NCT00313300|183474911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.3|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||7.3|0.4|
91798293|NCT00313300|183474912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||||||||1.19|0.44|
91798294|NCT00313300|183474912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04||||||||1.04|0.35|
91798295|NCT00313300|183474913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.3|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||11.3|1.8|
91798296|NCT00313300|183474913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|15.2|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||15.2|4.8|
91798297|NCT00313300|183474914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.17||||||||1.17|0.44|
91798298|NCT00313300|183474914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.07||||||||1.07|0.37|
91798299|NCT00313300|183474915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||2.0|-1.3|
91798300|NCT00313300|183474915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||2.7|-1.1|
91798301|NCT00313300|183474916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.88||||||||2.88|0.44|
91798302|NCT00313300|183474916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57||||||||2.57|0.29|
91798303|NCT00313300|183474916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.66||||||||1.66|0.30|
91872808|NCT03122860|183639454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-3.01|||ANCOVA|||||-3.01|-14.90|0.003
91872809|NCT03122860|183639454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|5.96|||ANCOVA|||||5.96|-6.37|0.947
91872810|NCT03122860|183639455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|2.73|||ANCOVA|||||2.73|-8.83|0.299
91872811|NCT03122860|183639455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.18||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-1.12|||ANCOVA|||||-1.12|-13.24|0.021
91872812|NCT03122860|183639455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|7.33|||ANCOVA|||||7.33|-4.75|0.675
91872813|NCT03122860|183639455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.63||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-2.55|||ANCOVA|||||-2.55|-14.70|0.006
91872814|NCT03122860|183639455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|6.59|||ANCOVA|||||6.59|-5.99|0.925
91872815|NCT03122860|183639456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.18|0.062
91872816|NCT03122860|183639456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-1.54|0.001
91872817|NCT03122860|183639456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-0.75|0.693
91872818|NCT03122860|183639456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-1.39|0.012
91872819|NCT03122860|183639456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.74|||ANCOVA|||||0.74|-0.49|0.697
91872820|NCT03122860|183639457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.40|-9.04|0.254
91872821|NCT03122860|183639457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-13.10|0.031
91736726|NCT04756531|183366800|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUClast for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fed was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|148.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.92|174.72||||||||174.72|126.92|
91736727|NCT04756531|183366801|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fed was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|146.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.8|181.41||||||||181.41|118.80|
91736728|NCT04756531|183366802|OTHER|Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fed was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|244.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|188.58|317.87||||||||317.87|188.58|
91736729|NCT00253422|183366835|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.86|0.76
91736730|NCT00253422|183366835|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.83|1.00
91872822|NCT03122860|183639457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.28|||ANCOVA|||||4.28|-7.20|0.616
91872823|NCT03122860|183639457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.62||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.41|-1.82|||ANCOVA|||||-1.82|-13.41|0.010
91872824|NCT03122860|183639457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|5.46|||ANCOVA|||||5.46|-5.74|0.961
91872825|NCT01138657|183639458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was performed on Main Study data, excluding the Japanese sub-study. The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.||0.70|0.36|<0.001
91736731|NCT00253422|183366836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91736732|NCT00253422|183366836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
91736733|NCT00253422|183366838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91736734|NCT00253422|183366838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.94
91736735|NCT00253422|183366840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favour Faslodex + Arimidex|||1.21|0.84|0.95
91872826|NCT01138657|183639458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.76|||Log Rank|||An additional analysis of the primary endpoint was performed using the Integrated Study data (Main Study + Japan sub-study). The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||0.76|0.40|< 0.001
91872827|NCT01138657|183639459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations (i.e., observations from each of the participant's eyes).|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.07|-0.51|0.011
91889180|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.75|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1||0.75|0.60|
91906664|NCT00880399|183708723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||1.20|-2.36|0.5206
91906665|NCT00880399|183708723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.58|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||1.58|-2.30|0.7140
91736736|NCT00253422|183366840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favours Faslodex + placebo|||1.25|0.87|0.66
91736737|NCT00253422|183366841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favours Faslodex + Arimidex|||1.19|0.82|0.91
91736738|NCT00253422|183366841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favours Faslodex + Placebo|||1.32|0.91|0.31
91736739|NCT04712669|183366855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.773||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.716|105.824||LSM, SE, CIs for each treatment group; LSM Diff, SE, CIs, and p-value are estimated using an ANCOVA model incl. factors for treatment group and randomization strata with associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|H0: The mean change from baseline in PVR at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||105.824|8.716|0.0208
91736740|NCT04712669|183366855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.558||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.272|106.54||LSM, SE, CIs for each treatment group; LSM Diff, SE, CIs, and p-value are estimated using an ANCOVA model incl. factors for treatment group and randomization strata with associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|H0: The mean change from baseline in PVR at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||106.54|10.272|0.0174
91798304|NCT00313300|183474916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.74||||||||1.74|0.30|
91872828|NCT01138657|183639459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.04|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations (from each of the participant's eyes).|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.04|-0.46|0.019
91872829|NCT01138657|183639460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.11|-0.43|<0.001
91906666|NCT00880399|183708723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.26||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.31|-4.22|0.0234
91736741|NCT04712669|183366856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573||||||P-value based on ordinal logistic regression with treatment group and randomization stratification strata as factors at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|H0: The distribution of change from baseline in WHO FC at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||||0.573
91736742|NCT04712669|183366856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9911||||||P-value based on ordinal logistic regression with treatment group and randomization stratification strata as factors at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|H0: The distribution of change from baseline in WHO FC at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||||0.9911
91736743|NCT04712669|183366857|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.121||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.13|1.91||p-value (alpha=0.05) is estimated using the aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test with the randomization stratification factors as strata.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|H0: The distribution of change from baseline at Week 24 in 6MWT distance (meters) is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||1.91|-69.13|0.0636
91736744|NCT04712669|183366857|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.469||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.45|7.35||p-value (alpha=0.05) is estimated using the aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test with the randomization stratification factors as strata.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|H0: The distribution of change from baseline at Week 24 in 6MWT distance (meters) is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||7.35|-45.45|0.1573
91736745|NCT04712669|183366858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1125.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|351.28||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|437.39|1814.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|H0: The mean change from baseline at Week 24 in NT-proBNP is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.|Estimates from a REML MMRM with baseline covariate, fixed effects, and unstructured covariance.|||1814.39|437.39|0.0014
91736746|NCT04712669|183366858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|866.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|306.56||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|265.41|1467.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|H0: The mean change from baseline at Week 24 in NT-proBNP is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.|Estimates from a REML MMRM with baseline covariate, fixed effects, and unstructured covariance.|||1467.16|265.41|0.0047
91736747|NCT02286895|183366907|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol stated that non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (2-sided) for the difference in sero-conversion percentages (group receiving rotavirus minus group not receiving rotavirus) was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.2||||||Based on results from a prior study, the sponsor assumed 90% sero-conversion rates in each Arms A and B for each antigen in the two co-primary objectives. To rule out a non-inferiority margin of no more than 10% with 95% power (95% power was chosen to give an overall power of at least 90%) and a one-sided type-one error rate of no more than 2.5%, 237 evaluable subjects were required in each group to explore the co-primary objectives.||4.2|-4.0|
91736748|NCT02286895|183366908|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol stated that non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI (2-sided) for the difference in sero-conversion percentages (group receiving rotavirus minus group not receiving rotavirus) was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|4.0||||||Based on results from a prior study completed by PATH and CVD-Mali, the sponsor assumed 90% sero-conversion rates in each Arms A and B for each antigen in the two co-primary objectives. To rule out a non-inferiority margin of no more than 10% with 95% power (95% power was chosen to give an overall power of at least 90%) and a one-sided type-one error rate of no more than 2.5%, 237 evaluable subjects were required in each group to explore the co-primary objectives.||4.0|-12.2|
91736749|NCT02286895|183366909|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol stated that non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (2-sided) for the difference in sero-conversion percentages (group receiving rotavirus minus group not receiving rotavirus) was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.7||||||Based on results from a prior study completed by PATH and CVD-Mali, the sponsor assumed 90% sero-conversion rates in each Arms A and B for each antigen in the two co-primary objectives. To rule out a non-inferiority margin of no more than 10% with 95% power (95% power was chosen to give an overall power of at least 90%) and a one-sided type-one error rate of no more than 2.5%, 237 evaluable subjects were required in each group to explore the co-primary objectives.||2.7|-7.5|
91872830|NCT01138657|183639460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
91906667|NCT01035099|183708758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.31
91906668|NCT01035099|183708759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.19
91906669|NCT01035099|183708762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.12
91906670|NCT01035099|183708763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.77
91906671|NCT01035099|183708764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.63
91872831|NCT01138657|183639461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.02|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.02|-0.11|0.003
91872832|NCT01138657|183639461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.02|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.02|-0.10|0.008
91872833|NCT01138657|183639462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.26|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.26|0.39|0.231
91872834|NCT01138657|183639462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.21|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.21|0.38|0.191
91872835|NCT01138657|183639463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-1.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-1.8|-20.9|0.020
91872836|NCT01138657|183639463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-5.1||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|7.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|ANOVA with treatment, race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||7.5|-17.7|0.428
91872837|NCT01138657|183639464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|4.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.38|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||7.38|1.02|0.010
91906672|NCT01035099|183708766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.14
91906673|NCT01035099|183708767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||<0.0001
91906674|NCT01035099|183708768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.58
91872838|NCT01138657|183639464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|3.67||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.71|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||6.71|0.62|0.019
91872839|NCT01138657|183639465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.86||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|5.75|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.75|-2.03|0.346
91872840|NCT01138657|183639465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.31||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.09|-2.47|0.496
91872841|NCT01138657|183639466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|5.12||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|9.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||9.90|0.34|0.036
91872842|NCT01138657|183639466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|4.14||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|8.72|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||8.72|-0.45|0.077
91872843|NCT01138657|183639467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|10.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|15.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||15.19|4.86|<0.001
91872844|NCT01138657|183639467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|8.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|13.79|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%||13.79|3.88|<0.001
91872845|NCT01020435|183639495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.2||||||Tx 1 - SBP (Unadjusted)||9.2|-0.9|
91906675|NCT01035099|183708770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.42
91906676|NCT02605187|183708775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at rest 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.882
91906677|NCT02605187|183708775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at movement 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.565
91906678|NCT02605187|183708775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at rest 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.022
91906679|NCT02605187|183708775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at movement 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.140
91872846|NCT01020435|183639495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.3||||||Tx 1 - DBP (Unadjusted)||5.3|-0.4|
91872847|NCT01020435|183639495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.6||||||Wk 3 - SBP (Unadjusted)||5.6|-6.2|
91872848|NCT01020435|183639495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5||||||Wk 3 - DBP (Unadjusted)||3.5|-4.0|
91872849|NCT01020435|183639495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.9||||||Wk 6 - SBP (Unadjusted)||8.9|-1.9|
91872850|NCT01020435|183639495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.0||||||Wk 6 - DBP (Unadjusted)||5.0|-2.1|
91872851|NCT01020435|183639495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|9.8||||||Tx 1 - SBP (Adjusted)||9.8|-0.4|
91872852|NCT01020435|183639495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.5||||||Tx 1 - DBP (Adjusted)||6.5|0.6|
91872853|NCT01020435|183639495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.9||||||Wk 3 - SBP (Adjusted)||6.9|-5.0|
91906680|NCT02605187|183708776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of opioid use 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.311
91906681|NCT02605187|183708776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of opioid use 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.008
91906682|NCT02605187|183708777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of presence of pruritus 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.092
91872854|NCT01020435|183639495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.9||||||Wk 3 - DBP (Adjusted)||4.9|-2.8|
91872855|NCT01020435|183639495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|10.0||||||Wk 6 - SBP (Adjusted)||10.0|-0.4|
91872856|NCT01020435|183639495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.8||||||Wk 6 - DBP (Adjusted)||5.8|-1.2|
91872857|NCT00346398|183639498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.5||Odds Ratios are calculated using a logistic regression with a Wald chi square test. Experimental group participants had a higher proportion of allergic sensitization than participants who received placebo|Chi-squared|||Participants who drop out (have missing efficacy endpoints) are considered treatment failures.||10.5|0.5|0.28
91872858|NCT00346398|183639499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.1||Odds Ratios are calculated using unadjusted exact logistic regression with mid p-value to adjust for the discreteness of the distribution|Chi-squared|||Participants who drop out (have missing efficacy endpoints) are considered treatment failures.||6.1|0.2|0.85
91872859|NCT00346398|183639500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.6||P-value is calculated using a log-rank test|Regression, Logistic||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using an unadjusted Cox regression|||5.6|0.6|0.28
91872860|NCT02607956|183639501|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample of approximately 600 participants randomized 1:1 achieves at least 95% power using a non-inferiority margin of 12% assuming a response rate in both groups of 91% (Reference Genvoya studies) and a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-7.9|1.0|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||1.0|-7.9|
91872861|NCT02607956|183639501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.12
91872862|NCT02607956|183639502|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.2|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.2|-7.9|
91872863|NCT02607956|183639502|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.41
91872864|NCT02607956|183639503|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.9|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.9|-7.8|
91872865|NCT02607956|183639503|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.52
91872866|NCT02607956|183639504|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.5|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||1.5|-9.4|
91872867|NCT02607956|183639504|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.16
91872868|NCT02607956|183639505|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.8|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.8|-8.8|
91906683|NCT02605187|183708777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of presence of pruritus 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.269
91906684|NCT02605187|183708778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of pruritus score 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.006
91906685|NCT02605187|183708778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of pruritus score 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.296
91906686|NCT02605187|183708779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of participants who need medical treatment of pruritus 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.759
91906687|NCT02605187|183708779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of participants who need medical treatment of pruritus 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.761
91906688|NCT02605187|183708780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.281
91906689|NCT02605187|183708781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of nausea score 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.786
91798305|NCT00313300|183474917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.1||||||||8.1|0.0|
91798306|NCT00313300|183474917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.3||||||||9.3|0.0|
91798307|NCT00313300|183474917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|10.5||||||||10.5|3.4|
91798308|NCT00313300|183474917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.0||||||||8.0|1.4|
91798309|NCT00313300|183474918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.9||||||||14.9|1.8|
91798310|NCT00313300|183474918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|18.4||||||||18.4|3.4|
91798311|NCT00313300|183474918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|23.2||||||||23.2|11.6|
91872869|NCT02607956|183639505|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.44
91906690|NCT02605187|183708781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of nausea score at 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.985
91798312|NCT00313300|183474918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|15.1||||||||15.1|5.6|
91872870|NCT02607956|183639506|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.3|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||5.3|-7.4|
91872871|NCT02607956|183639506|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.74
91872872|NCT02607956|183639507|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.08||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.17|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in least-squares mean (LSM), and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.17|-0.01|0.081
91872873|NCT02607956|183639508|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.06||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.15|-0.03|0.18
91906691|NCT02605187|183708782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of participants who need nausea treatment from 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.057
91906692|NCT02605187|183708782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of participants who need nausea treatment from 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.246
91906693|NCT02605187|183708783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of average number of vomiting episodes 0-24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.226
91906694|NCT02605187|183708784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.036
91704580|NCT00824382|183303859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.092|0.172|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.172|0.092|<0.0001
91798313|NCT00313300|183474919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.88||||||||2.88|0.44|
91798314|NCT00313300|183474919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57||||||||2.57|0.29|
91798315|NCT00313300|183474919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.66||||||||1.66|0.30|
91798316|NCT00313300|183474919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.74||||||||1.74|0.30|
91798317|NCT00313300|183474920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.6||||||||2.6|-0.9|
91798318|NCT00313300|183474920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.1||||||||5.1|0.6|
91798319|NCT00313300|183474920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.9||||||||6.9|1.3|
91798320|NCT03423641|183474941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||2.20|0.30|.68
91798321|NCT03423641|183474942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.91|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.91|0.56|0.01
91798322|NCT03423641|183474943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.12|0.75|0.39
91798323|NCT03423641|183474944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.90|0.49|0.01
91798324|NCT03423641|183474945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.59|0.30|<0.01
91798325|NCT03423641|183474946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.1|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.10|0.42|0.12
91798326|NCT03423641|183474947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.7|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.70|0.22|0.34
91798327|NCT03423641|183474948|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Structural Model|0.61|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.76|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.76|0.49|<0.01
91798328|NCT03423641|183474949|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.71|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||Poisson Regression||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the rate ratio.|||0.84|0.60|<0.01
91798329|NCT03423641|183474950|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.87|||Poisson Regression||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the rate ratio.|||0.87|0.77|<0.01
91798330|NCT03423641|183474951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.88|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.88|0.25|0.02
91872874|NCT02607956|183639509|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.09||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.18|0.00|0.054
91872875|NCT02607956|183639510|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-23.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|4.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||4|-49|0.096
91736750|NCT02286895|183366910|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence/null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) of group receiving rotavirus vaccine divided by GMT of group not receiving rotavirus vaccine = 1.|geometric mean titer ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
91736751|NCT02286895|183366911|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence/null hypothesis: geometric mean concentration (GMC) of group receiving rotavirus vaccine/ GMC of group not receiving rotavirus vaccine = 1|geometric mean titer ratio|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.8||||||||3.8|-5.2|
91736752|NCT02286895|183366912|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence/null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) of group receiving rotavirus vaccine divided by GMT of group not receiving rotavirus vaccine = 1.|geometric mean titer ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3||||||||1.3|0.7|
91736753|NCT02286895|183366913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|25.3||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||25.3|9.7|
91736754|NCT02286895|183366914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|23.4||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||23.4|8.1|
91736755|NCT02286895|183366915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|36.2||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||36.2|14.6|
91736756|NCT02286895|183366916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|39.0||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||39.0|23.1|
91872876|NCT02607956|183639511|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-47.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.0|-12.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||-12|-81|0.008
91872877|NCT02607956|183639512|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-14.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|25.0|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||25|-52|0.48
91872878|NCT00090519|183639534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|0.686|||ANOVA|||||0.686|-0.714|0.969
91872879|NCT00090519|183639535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.97||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.97|0.21|0.015
91872880|NCT00090519|183639536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||P-value is for first occurrence of focal/grid photocoagulation yes versus no.|Chi-squared|||||||0.577
91872881|NCT00090519|183639537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.87||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.87|0.02|0.041
91736757|NCT02286895|183366917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|23.5||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||23.5|12.0|
91736758|NCT02286895|183366918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.7|66.3||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||66.3|37.7|
91736759|NCT02286895|183366919|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.4||||||Null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||2.4|1.2|
91736760|NCT02286895|183366920|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.1||||||Null hypothesis: 28 days post-vaccination, geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||3.1|1.7|
91736761|NCT02286895|183366921|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3||||||Null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||3.3|1.2|
91872882|NCT00090519|183639538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||P-value is for progression of nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (DR) by seven-field stereo fundus photography progression versus no progression.|Chi-squared|||||||0.475
91872883|NCT00090519|183639539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|3.92||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||3.92|-0.87|0.211
91872884|NCT00090519|183639540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.22||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.68|200.12||P-value is for change from baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||200.12|-73.68|0.365
91872885|NCT00090519|183639541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.66||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.66|0.38|0.009
91872886|NCT00090519|183639543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.12||P-value is for occurrence of sustained moderate visual loss (SMVL) in a diabetic retinopathy (DR) study eye yes versus no.|Chi-squared|||||1.12|0.20|0.081
91872887|NCT00960206|183639544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0832|||||||Log Rank|||To compare the Kaplan-Meier survivorship between the two systems||||0.0832
91872888|NCT00960206|183639544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1657|||||||Log Rank|||To compare the Kaplan-Meier survivorship between the two systems||||0.1657
91872889|NCT00960206|183639545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3701|||||||Fisher Exact|||To compare the # of cases at 10 years for those that have a HHS ≥ 80 to those that have \< 80 for all three arms||||0.3701
91872890|NCT00960206|183639547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the # of cases at 10 years satisfied with their total hip replacement for all three groups||||0.6011
91798331|NCT03423641|183474952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.03|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.03|0.37|0.07
91798332|NCT03423641|183474953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.05|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.05|0.63|0.11
91798333|NCT04540497|183474955|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.28|||||Inebilizumab versus placebo|||0.28|0.06|
91798334|NCT04540497|183474962|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.26|||||Inebilizumab vs placebo|||0.26|0.05|
91798335|NCT03914326|183474983|SUPERIORITY|Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed MACE was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.77|0.0028
91798336|NCT03323502|183475008|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.3313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.06|||Poisson Regression|||||1.06|0.84|0.3313
91798337|NCT03323502|183475009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.3327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.78|0.3327
91798338|NCT03323502|183475010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.85|0.3946
91872891|NCT00960206|183639547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the # of cases at 10 years for having pain in their hip for all three groups||||0.2060
91872892|NCT02725372|183639565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.47|26.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.45|-22.47|0.87
91872893|NCT02725372|183639566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.55
91798339|NCT01675427|183475013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0018
91798340|NCT01675427|183475013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.2289
91798341|NCT01675427|183475013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.1112
91872894|NCT02725372|183639568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.0|-22.1|||ANCOVA|||||-22.1|-156.0|0.01
91872895|NCT02725372|183639569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.41|||ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.89|0.47
91872896|NCT02725372|183639570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.48|0.26
91872897|NCT02548585|183639577|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|p-value was based on pairwise comparison using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted by baseline value.||||||< 0.0001
91872898|NCT02548585|183639578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|p-value was based on pairwise comparison using ANCOVA adjusted by baseline value.||||||0.0008
91798342|NCT01675427|183475013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4681|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.4681
91798343|NCT01675427|183475013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4828
91798344|NCT01675427|183475013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2702
91872899|NCT01075152|183639603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.82||A Lan-DeMets spending function analog of the O'Brien-Fleming boundaries was proposed to control the type-I error resulting from multiple interim analyses.|Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio describes the risk of earlier HIV therapy in comparison to deferred HIV therapy initiation as the reference group.|"We compared the randomization arms for the primary endpoint of survival using time-to-event methods of Cox proportional hazards models by the intention-to-treat principle, based on two-sided type-I error with alpha=0.05.~The trial was statistically powered to detect a 25% relative survival benefit (15% absolute benefit) with 90% power and overall two-sided alpha=0.05 with an intended sample size of 500 participants. The trial was halted early by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board."||2.82|1.06|0.03
91798345|NCT01675427|183475014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.4133
91798346|NCT01675427|183475014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.4400
91798347|NCT01675427|183475014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8597|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.8597
91798348|NCT01675427|183475014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3975|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.3975
91798349|NCT01675427|183475014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1781
91798350|NCT01675427|183475014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3159|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3159
91798351|NCT01675427|183475015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0126
91872900|NCT01075152|183639604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|||||||Gray's method of cumulative incidence|||To account for the competing risk of death, the cumulative incidence function compared the randomized groups for endpoints of IRIS, relapse, and adverse events (Gray's method).||||0.32
91872901|NCT01075152|183639605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||Gray's method of cumulative incidence|||To account for the competing risk of death, the cumulative incidence function compared the randomized groups for endpoints of IRIS, relapse, and adverse events (Gray's method).||||0.06
91704581|NCT00824382|183303860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0002||95.0|0.039|0.124|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.124|0.039|0.0002
91872902|NCT01075152|183639606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||Categorical secondary endpoints were compared with Fisher's exact tests.||||0.98
91872903|NCT01075152|183639607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.68|||Regression, Cox|||We compared the randomization arms for survival using time-to-event methods of Cox proportional hazards models.||2.68|1.03|0.04
91872904|NCT01075152|183639608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||Categorical secondary endpoints were compared with Fisher's exact tests.||||0.26
91872905|NCT01075152|183639609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||Categorical secondary endpoints were compared with Fisher's exact tests.||||0.23
91704582|NCT00824382|183303860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.184|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.098|<0.0001
91704583|NCT00824382|183303860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.199|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.115|<0.0001
91736762|NCT02286895|183366922|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.9||||||Null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||8.9|2.4|
91872906|NCT01075152|183639610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|||||||repeated measure analysis|||The overall change from baseline in Karnofsky performance status scores was compared between groups via a repeated measure analysis, unstructured covariance matrix, adjusted for baseline value.||||0.34
91872907|NCT01075152|183639611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|a linear mixed effects regression model fit with a random intercept and slope estimated the rate of clearance||To describe early fungicidal activity, a linear mixed effects regression model fit with a random intercept and slope estimated the rate of clearance of log10 colony forming units (CFU) of Cryptococcus, per mL of CSF per day, for all participants with \>2 cultures obtained.||||0.44
91872908|NCT01075152|183639612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||||||This is the interaction p-value for CSF white cell count at randomization (implying there is a statistical difference in the outcome by arm based on this parameter).|Regression, Cox|||Pre-specified subgroups formed by baseline characteristics were compared for 26 week survival with models including an interaction term between treatment arm and subgroup.||||0.02
91872909|NCT03659136|183639621|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.59|||Log-rank test|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+Everolimus+Exemestane.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.||2.59|0.55|0.6534
91872910|NCT03659136|183639622|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.4|||Log rank test|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+Everolimus+Exemestane.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.||1.40|0.18|0.1797
91872911|NCT03659136|183639623|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+everolimus+exemestane. An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||2.86|0.60|0.4932
91872912|NCT03659136|183639625|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+everolimus+exemestane. An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||4.43|0.34|0.7759
91872913|NCT03659136|183639626|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.76|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison versus Placebo+everolimus+exemestane.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.||1.76|0.54|0.9279
91872914|NCT05066230|183639627|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|31.3|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53) and HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||48.1|31.3|<0.0001
91872915|NCT05066230|183639628|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|-18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-26.2|-11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53) and HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||-11.2|-26.2|<0.0001
91906695|NCT02605187|183708785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of satisfaction with pain medication 24 hours after delivery.||||0.019
91704584|NCT00824382|183303861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.095|0.182|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.182|0.095|<0.0001
91704585|NCT00824382|183303861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.241|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.241|0.154|<0.0001
91704586|NCT00824382|183303861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.236|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.236|0.150|<0.0001
91906696|NCT02605187|183708785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.873|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of satisfaction with pain medication 48 hours after delivery.||||0.873
91872916|NCT05066230|183639629|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|5.6||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.02|1.6|9.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53), HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||9.5|1.6|0.0058
91872917|NCT05066230|183639630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|-6.5||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-11.8|-1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53) and HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||-1.3|-11.8|0.0149
91872918|NCT00307489|183639642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.544
91872919|NCT00307489|183639643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.208
91872920|NCT00307489|183639644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.712
91872921|NCT00307489|183639645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.988
91872922|NCT00307489|183639646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.423
91872923|NCT00307489|183639647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.109
91872924|NCT00307489|183639648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for baseline HBeAg and prior lamivudine use.||||||0.952
91872925|NCT00307489|183639649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.655
91736763|NCT02949011|183366956|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-14.6||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Stratified generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was a comparison between the baloxavir marboxil and placebo groups.||-14.6|-42.8|<0.0001
91798352|NCT01675427|183475015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.7174
91872926|NCT00307489|183639650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.401
91872927|NCT00307489|183639651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.401
91872928|NCT00307489|183639652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.103
91872929|NCT00307489|183639653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.999
91872930|NCT00307489|183639654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.781
91872931|NCT00307489|183639655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.936||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.936
91872932|NCT00307489|183639656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.784
91872933|NCT00307489|183639657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.703
91872934|NCT00307489|183639658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.254
91872935|NCT00307489|183639659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.254
91872936|NCT00307489|183639660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.878
91872937|NCT01301183|183639734|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.109||||||Adjusted for baseline age, height, bone density and 12-month weight change|ANCOVA|||||||.109
91872938|NCT01301183|183639735|OTHER|||||||0.344||||||Adjusted for age, height, baseline trabecular number and change in weight over 12 months|ANCOVA|||||||0.344
91872939|NCT01345253|183639764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.82|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio (95% CI) and p-value were estimated by a logistic regression model with independent variables treatment group, country, Baseline SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 vs. \>=10) and complement (C) levels (low C3 and/or C4 vs. no low C3 or C4).|||2.82|1.40|0.0001
91872940|NCT01345253|183639765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.83|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio (95% CI) and p-value were estimated by a logistic regression model with independent variables treatment group, country, Baseline SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 vs. \>=10) and complement levels (low C3 and/or C4 vs. no low C3 or C4).|||2.83|1.41|0.0001
91872941|NCT01345253|183639766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.74|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio (95% CI) and p-value were estimated by a logistic regression model with independent variables treatment group, country, baseline SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 vs. \>=10) and complement levels (low C3 and/or C4 vs. no low C3 or C4).|||2.74|1.13|0.0116
91872942|NCT01345253|183639767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0288|||||||Rank ANCOVA|||||||0.0288
91872943|NCT01345253|183639768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.73|||Regression, Cox|||||0.73|0.34|0.0004
91889181|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.73|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3||0.73|0.59|
91736764|NCT02949011|183366956|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-7.7||||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|7.9||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Stratified generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||The comparison between the baloxavir marboxil and the oseltamivir groups was conducted as a secondary analysis only if a statistically significant difference was observed in the primary analysis in order to maintain control of overall type I error.||7.9|-22.7|0.8347
91736765|NCT02949011|183366956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||0.0008
91736766|NCT02949011|183366956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8449||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||0.8449
91736767|NCT02949011|183366957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
91736768|NCT02949011|183366957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
91736769|NCT02949011|183366957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
91736770|NCT02949011|183366957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
91736771|NCT02949011|183366957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||<0.0001
91736772|NCT02949011|183366957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.0044
91736773|NCT02949011|183366957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||<0.0001
91736774|NCT02949011|183366957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1146||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.1146
91736775|NCT02949011|183366957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.0046
91736776|NCT02949011|183366957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.441
91736777|NCT02949011|183366957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0929||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0929
91736778|NCT02949011|183366957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0907||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0907
91736779|NCT02949011|183366958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7383||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||0.7383
91736780|NCT02949011|183366958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9619||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||0.9619
91736781|NCT02949011|183366958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0576||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.0576
91736782|NCT02949011|183366958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1237||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.1237
91736783|NCT02949011|183366958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3071||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.3071
91736784|NCT02949011|183366958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9603||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.9603
91798353|NCT01675427|183475015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.1380
91872944|NCT00759681|183639770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0538||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.314|||Exact binomial confidence limit|Effectiveness: 95% confidence limits of the difference between groups, and ensuring that the lower limit of the difference was greater than 10%.||Effectiveness was evaluated using a superiority hypothesis, comparing treatment sites with regards to the proportion achieving immediate suture line sealing between the groups. Effectiveness was based on a two-tailed, 0.05 hypothesis test, with a minimum effect size set at 10%. The mean difference in the proportion of sites achieving immediate suture line sealing was compared between the Control and Investigation Device groups.||0.314|0.103|0.05
91872945|NCT00759681|183639771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety was evaluated using non-inferiority hypothesis evaluating the proportion of cases with any instance of sign. bleeding, neurological deficit or immune/inflammatory allergic response. Safety based on one-tailed, 0.05 alpha, with equivalence limit set at 15%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0671||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.003|||Exact binomial confidence limit|Safety: 95% confidence limits of the difference between groups, and ensuring that the upper limit of the difference was less than or equal to 15%.|The cumulative incidence of safety endpoints for the Investigational Treatment group was an average of 13.5% less than for the Control group.|The mean difference is equivalent to the proportion of Investigational Device patients minus the proportion of Control patients experiencing any instance of significant bleeding, neurological deficit or immune/inflammatory allergic response.||-0.003||0.05
91872946|NCT02410278|183639776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.931||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|20.832|||weighted logistic regression model|||Odds ratio is the odds of an event in the Montelukast treatment group divided by the odds of an event in the placebo treatment group. P-value is from the likelihood ratio test that the odds ratio is 1. CI = profile likelihood confidence interval.||20.832|0.938|0.0617
91872947|NCT02410278|183639777|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.084||||0.3753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.273|||ANCOVA|||Results are obtained from an ANCOVA model for comparing average change of the GSRS score in the two treatment groups, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score. Weights, defined as the proportions of days with GSRS score recorded during the Day 1 - Day 10 period are applied to adjust for missing data.||0.273|-0.104|0.3753
91906697|NCT01648790|183708786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|1.18|||||Least Squares (LS) means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||1.18|0.819|
91906698|NCT01648790|183708787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|1.06|||||LS means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||1.06|0.918|
91906699|NCT01648790|183708788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.233|0.335|||||LS means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||0.335|0.233|
91906700|NCT01648790|183708789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.779|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.724|0.837|||||LS means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||0.837|0.724|
91906701|NCT01278745|183708815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PAV||||||0.0019
91736785|NCT02949011|183366958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0784||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.0784
91872948|NCT02410278|183639778|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.081||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.158|||Repeated measures model|||Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and Week 10.||0.158|0.005|0.0376
91872949|NCT02410278|183639779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094||||0.7952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|2.164|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio and the P-value are based on the Cox's proportional hazard regression model, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score. Hazard ratio (HR) is the ratio of hazard rates of Montelukast and placebo treatment groups. P-value is from the Wald test that HR is 1. CI = Wald confidence interval.||2.164|0.554|0.7952
91906702|NCT01376778|183708828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.72|||Chi-squared|||||1.72|0.80|0.42
91906703|NCT01376778|183708833|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.03||||||||3.03|0.86|
91906704|NCT01376778|183708834|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|72.42||||||||72.42|0.29|
91906705|NCT01376778|183708835|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91872950|NCT02410278|183639780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.8328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.589|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio and the P-value are based on the Cox's proportional hazard regression model, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score. Hazard ratio (HR) is the ratio of hazard rates of Montelukast and placebo treatment groups. P-value is from the Wald test that HR is 1. CI = Wald confidence interval.||1.589|0.563|0.8328
91906706|NCT01376778|183708836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.67||||||||2.67|0.81|
91906707|NCT01376778|183708837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.01||||||||4.01|0.65|
91906708|NCT01376778|183708839|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.41||||||||5.41|0.66|
91906709|NCT01376778|183708840|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.66|
91906710|NCT01376778|183708841|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.0|87.0||||||||87|-157|
91906711|NCT01376778|183708842|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.99||||||||3.99|0.92|
91906712|NCT01376778|183708846|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|31.5||||||||31.5|0.03|
91906713|NCT01376778|183708847|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.38||||||||1.38|0.17|
91906714|NCT01376778|183708850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.23||||||||1.23|0.32|
91906715|NCT01376778|183708851|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.68||||||||1.68|0.42|
91872951|NCT02410278|183639781|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.115||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.283|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 1: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.283|-0.052|0.1743
91872952|NCT02410278|183639781|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.079||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.221|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 2: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.221|-0.063|0.2677
91704587|NCT00824382|183303862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.191|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.191|0.101|<0.0001
91704588|NCT00824382|183303862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.247|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.247|0.157|<0.0001
91704589|NCT00824382|183303862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.240|0.151|<0.0001
91704590|NCT00824382|183303863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.275|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.275|0.107|<0.0001
91704591|NCT00824382|183303863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.276|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.276|0.106|<0.0001
91704592|NCT00824382|183303863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.270|0.103|<0.0001
91704593|NCT00824382|183303864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|0.16|0.345|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.345|0.160|<0.0001
91704594|NCT00824382|183303864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.343|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.343|0.156|<0.0001
91704595|NCT00824382|183303864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.325|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.325|0.141|<0.0001
91704596|NCT00824382|183303865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.351|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.351|0.155|<0.0001
91704597|NCT00824382|183303865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.341|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.341|0.142|<0.0001
91704598|NCT00824382|183303865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.324|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.324|0.129|<0.0001
91704599|NCT00824382|183303866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0045||95.0|0.035|0.188|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.035|0.0045
91704600|NCT00824382|183303866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.293|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.293|0.140|<0.0001
91704601|NCT00824382|183303866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.292|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.292|0.142|<0.0001
91704602|NCT00824382|183303867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0348||95.0|0.006|0.159|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.159|0.006|0.0348
91704603|NCT00824382|183303867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.1|0.252|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.100|<0.0001
91704604|NCT00824382|183303867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.265|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.265|0.115|<0.0001
91704605|NCT00824382|183303868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.476|<|0.0001||95.0|16.477|38.036|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.036|16.477|<0.0001
91704606|NCT00824382|183303868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.574|<|0.0001||95.0|18.41|40.357|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||40.357|18.410|<0.0001
91704607|NCT00824382|183303868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.678|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.431|<|0.0001||95.0|25.987|47.369|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||47.369|25.987|<0.0001
91704608|NCT00824382|183303869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.534|<|0.0001||95.0|18.159|39.946|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||39.946|18.159|<0.0001
91906716|NCT01376778|183708852|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.23||||||||5.23|0.17|
91906717|NCT01376778|183708860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5|||Chi-squared|||||2.5|0.7|0.37
91906718|NCT01376778|183708861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
91872953|NCT02410278|183639781|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.085||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.211|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 3: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.211|-0.040|0.1788
91872954|NCT02410278|183639781|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.1||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.216|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 4: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.216|-0.015|0.0866
91872955|NCT02410278|183639781|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.1||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.201|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 5: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.201|-0.000|0.0509
91872956|NCT02410278|183639781|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.088||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.182|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 6: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.182|-0.006|0.0649
91906719|NCT01376778|183708862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
91704609|NCT00824382|183303869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.635|<|0.0001||95.0|19.861|42.049|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||42.049|19.861|<0.0001
91704610|NCT00824382|183303869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.489|<|0.0001||95.0|26.386|47.996|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||47.996|26.386|<0.0001
91704611|NCT00824382|183303870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.2016||95.0|-0.485|0.103|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.103|-0.485|0.2016
91704612|NCT00824382|183303870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0029||95.0|-0.752|-0.156|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.156|-0.752|0.0029
91704613|NCT00824382|183303870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0095||95.0|-0.678|-0.095|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.095|-0.678|0.0095
91704614|NCT03003000|183303939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.48||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect Model Repeated Measurement||Adjusted mean change from baseline ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change from baseline placebo. A positive result favors the treatment with ibuprofen and caffeine|Superiority of ibuprofen and caffeine versus ibuprofen as well as ibuprofen and caffeine versus placebo had to be shown to reject the overall null hypothesis that there is no difference in change in POMWP between baseline and Day 2 (morning, 2 h after drug intake) between patients treated with ibuprofen/caffeine and patients treated with placebo.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures analysis (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time, treatment-by-stratum-by-time, treatment-by-stratum and stratum-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix.|0.480|-0.168|0.3446
91704615|NCT03003000|183303939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.129||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.134||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Adjusted mean change from baseline ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change from baseline ibuprofen. A positive result favors the treatment with ibuprofen and caffeine|Superiority of ibuprofen and caffeine versus ibuprofen as well as ibuprofen and caffeine versus placebo had to be shown to reject the overall null hypothesis that there is no difference in change in POMWP between baseline and Day 2 (morning, 2 h after drug intake) between patients treated with ibuprofen/caffeine and patients treated with ibuprofen.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures analysis (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time, treatment-by-stratum-by-time, treatment-by-stratum and stratum-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix|0.134|-0.392|0.3358
91704616|NCT03003000|183303940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.288||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|-0.003||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean placebo. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine|||-0.003|-0.572|0.0474
91798354|NCT01675427|183475015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.6258
91906720|NCT03201458|183708870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.93||One-sided test|Log Rank|||||0.93|0.35|0.027
91906721|NCT03201458|183708871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91872957|NCT02410278|183639781|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.088||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.176|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 7: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.176|0.001|0.0479
91872958|NCT02410278|183639781|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.082||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.166|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 8: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.166|-0.001|0.0540
91872959|NCT02410278|183639782|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.129||||0.2469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.349|||Repeated measures model|||Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight (kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has unstructured variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and Day 3.||0.349|-0.092|0.2469
91872960|NCT02410278|183639783|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
91872961|NCT02410278|183639784|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher's Exact|||||||1.0000
91906722|NCT03201458|183708873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||One-sided test|Log Rank|||||||0.410
91704617|NCT03003000|183303940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.282||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean ibuprofen. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine.|||0.282|-0.180|0.6658
91872962|NCT02410278|183639785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2604|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2604
91872963|NCT02584257|183639786|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.732|3.61||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL||||3.610|2.732|<0.0001
91872964|NCT02584257|183639786|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.384|4.263||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05.|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL||||4.263|3.384|<0.0001
91872965|NCT02584257|183639786|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.876|3.764||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05.|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL.||||3.764|2.876|<0.0001
91872966|NCT02584257|183639786|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|4.315||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05.|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL||||4.315|3.430|<0.0001
91872967|NCT02584257|183639786|EQUIVALENCE|A blinded interim analysis was performed after 60 patients completed all treatment visits which determined that 80 subjects would be sufficient to complete the study with 90% power.|Frel|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.48|||||Frel is the relative bioavailability of the test versus reference product. The CI was a bias corrected and accelerated CI based on a bootstrapping procedure. The FDA acceptable CI was between 0.67 and 1.50.|An Emax model was developed and the 90% confidence interval of Frel was a bias corrected accelerated confidence interval based on a bootstrapping procedure. The bootstrapping procedure used for this analysis was residual resampling. The Per-Protocol population was the primary population for bioequivalence analysis. Patients in the PP population must have completed at least 2 treatment periods with valid PC20FEV1 measurements and had no major protocol deviations within those intervals.||1.48|0.93|
91906723|NCT00916149|183708881|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||For each group (levetiracetam and no treatment), the change in IEDs/hour from pre to post-intervention: p \>0.05. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Change in frequency of IEDs/per hour was assessed for each group (levetiracetam and no treatment)||||>0.05
91906724|NCT00916149|183708882|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Trial 1 Learning Score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||0.005
91906725|NCT00916149|183708882|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Trial 1 Learning Score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam group.||||>0.05
91704618|NCT03003000|183303941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.399||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.698|-0.1||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean placebo. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine|||-0.100|-0.698|0.0091
91704619|NCT03003000|183303941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.6387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.302||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean ibuprofen. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine|||0.302|-0.185|0.6387
91798355|NCT01675427|183475015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5751
91872968|NCT01180400|183639838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.73||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.73|-1.86|0.944
91872969|NCT01180400|183639839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.66|0.61|0.974
91872970|NCT01180400|183639840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.53|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.53|0.84|0.184
91872971|NCT01180400|183639841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.78|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||3.78|0.55|0.461
91872972|NCT01180400|183639842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.75|0.43|0.689
91872973|NCT01180400|183639843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.32|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.32|0.35|0.831
91872974|NCT01180400|183639844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.89|-0.96|0.525
91872975|NCT01180400|183639845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.964||95.0|-0.28|0.26|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.26|-0.28|0.964
91872976|NCT01180400|183639846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.58|0.54|0.783
91906726|NCT00916149|183708883|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Total Learning Score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||0.016
91906727|NCT00916149|183708883|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Total Learning Score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||>0.05
91704620|NCT03003000|183303942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.559||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.861|1.979||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures||Adjusted mean change ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change placebo. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline pressure algometry and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix.||1.979|-0.861|0.4398
91704621|NCT03003000|183303942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.7911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.002|1.314||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Adjusted mean change ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change ibuprofen. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine.|MMRM includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline pressure algometry and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix.||1.314|-1.002|0.7911
91704622|NCT03003000|183303943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.777||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.195|2.642||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model adjusting for country and worst procedure site.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator|||2.642|1.195|0.0045
91704623|NCT03003000|183303943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.9603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.389||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model adjusting for country and worst procedure site.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator|||1.389|0.732|0.9603
91704624|NCT03003000|183303944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.028||||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.592||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥30%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator.||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|1.592|0.663|0.9022
91798356|NCT01675427|183475015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.1681
91872977|NCT01180400|183639847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.11||Analysis for change in MADRS total score from randomization to Week 9.|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.11|-0.89|0.832
91736786|NCT02949011|183366958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5547||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5547
91736787|NCT02949011|183366958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3087||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.3087
91736788|NCT02949011|183366958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9106||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.9106
91736789|NCT02949011|183366958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0017
91736790|NCT02949011|183366958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3068||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.3068
91736791|NCT02949011|183366959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
91736792|NCT02949011|183366959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
91736793|NCT02949011|183366959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
91736794|NCT02949011|183366959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.0024
91872978|NCT01180400|183639848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.82|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.82|-0.84|0.468
91872979|NCT01180400|183639849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.52|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.52|-0.49|0.187
91872980|NCT01180400|183639850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.95|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.95|-0.44|0.145
91736795|NCT02949011|183366959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9127||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ven Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.9127
91736796|NCT02949011|183366959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5361||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.5361
91736797|NCT02949011|183366959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5739||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5739
91736798|NCT02949011|183366959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5466||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5466
91736799|NCT02949011|183366959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0543||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.0543
91736800|NCT02949011|183366959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4677||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.4677
91736801|NCT02949011|183366959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0266
91736802|NCT02949011|183366959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1281||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.1281
91736803|NCT02949011|183366960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
91872981|NCT01180400|183639851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.549|1.466||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.466|-1.549|0.956
91872982|NCT01180400|183639852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.21||Analysis for change in SDS work/school domain score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.21|-0.98|0.201
91736804|NCT02949011|183366960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
91736805|NCT02949011|183366960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
91736806|NCT02949011|183366960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.0015
91736807|NCT02949011|183366960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.0028
91872983|NCT01180400|183639853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.45|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.45|-0.62|0.756
91872984|NCT01180400|183639854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.68|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.68|-0.40|0.620
91872985|NCT01180400|183639855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.981|3.286|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||3.286|-2.981|0.924
91906728|NCT00916149|183708884|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Short Delay score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||>0.05
91736808|NCT02949011|183366960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0265||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.0265
91736809|NCT02949011|183366960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0247||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.0247
91736810|NCT02949011|183366960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5298||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5298
91736811|NCT02949011|183366960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9554||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.9554
91736812|NCT02949011|183366960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9075||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.9075
91736813|NCT02949011|183366960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7624||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.7624
91736814|NCT02949011|183366960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6156||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.6156
91736815|NCT02949011|183366961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0340
91736816|NCT02949011|183366961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2766||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.2766
91736817|NCT02949011|183366962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0072
91736818|NCT02949011|183366962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.7330
91872986|NCT01180400|183639856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.10|-0.30|0.345
91736819|NCT02949011|183366963|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-48.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||-48.0|-48.0|<0.0001
91736820|NCT02949011|183366963|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-24.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||-24.0|-48.0|<0.0001
91736821|NCT02949011|183366964|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-24.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|0.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||0.0|-96.0|0.0006
91736822|NCT02949011|183366964|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.0||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|24.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||24.0|-48.0|0.2370
91736823|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.7698
91736824|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5777||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.5777
91872987|NCT01180400|183639857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.19|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.19|-0.20|0.942
91872988|NCT01180400|183639858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0279||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0279|-0.0500|0.576
91736825|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1112||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.1112
91736826|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6483||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.6483
91736827|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||0.0004
91736828|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5625||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||0.5625
91736829|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||0.0072
91736830|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6234||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||0.6234
91736831|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.0002
91736832|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9547||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.9547
91736833|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.0012
91736834|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.1860
91736835|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0274||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.0274
91736836|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9635||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.9635
91906729|NCT00916149|183708884|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Short Delay score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||>0.05
91798357|NCT01675427|183475016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.2693
91798358|NCT01675427|183475016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.3240
91798359|NCT01675427|183475016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.7006
91798360|NCT01675427|183475016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.0403
91798361|NCT01675427|183475016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1075
91798362|NCT01675427|183475016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3295|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3295
91798363|NCT01675427|183475017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.9859
91798364|NCT01675427|183475017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7055|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.7055
91798365|NCT01675427|183475017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0920
91798366|NCT01675427|183475017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0781
91798367|NCT01675427|183475017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4795
91798368|NCT01675427|183475017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3069|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3069
91798369|NCT01675427|183475018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.5216
91798370|NCT01675427|183475018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.3419
91798371|NCT01675427|183475018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.7586
91798372|NCT01675427|183475018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1351
91798373|NCT01675427|183475018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2386
91798374|NCT01675427|183475018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3921|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3921
91798375|NCT01675427|183475019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.8537
91798376|NCT01675427|183475019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0763
91798377|NCT01675427|183475019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.2432
91798378|NCT01675427|183475019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4247|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4247
91798379|NCT01675427|183475019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4884
91798380|NCT01675427|183475019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6119|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.6119
91798381|NCT01675427|183475020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.2416
91798382|NCT01675427|183475020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2671
91798383|NCT01675427|183475020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4619|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.4619
91798384|NCT01675427|183475020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.8364
91798385|NCT01675427|183475020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2386
91798386|NCT01675427|183475020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2887
91798387|NCT01675427|183475021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.0049
91798388|NCT01675427|183475022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.5651
91872989|NCT01180400|183639858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|3.73||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.73|-4.58|0.842
91736837|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.0081
91736838|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7425||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.7425
91736839|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.0209
91736840|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7448||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.7448
91872990|NCT00795639|183639859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|26.0||Significance test performed using non-parametric analysis of covariance controlling for Baseline 6MWD and PAH etiology and PAH not secondary to a connective tissue disease (other).|ANCOVA||Missing value at Week 12 assigned as zero if the subject had a predefined clinical worsening event, otherwise, missing value at Week 12 imputed with the last non-missing 6MWD based on LOCF.|||26|3|0.0104
91872991|NCT00795639|183639860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance tests of WHO Functional Class performed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by Baseline 6MWD (less than 310 meters and greater than or equal to 310 meters) and PAH Etiology (Connective Tissue Disease and others).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores, and the p-value corresponding to ANCOVA (row mean scores) statistics were used.||Week 12||||0.2908
91872992|NCT00248794|183639862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.97|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.97
91872993|NCT00248794|183639863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||||||.77
91872994|NCT03449979|183639867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0852|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (1,39); F-statistic = 3.119||Interaction in the effect of tACS on left frontal alpha oscillation in the depressed group. Two-way interaction of within-participant factor of before/after tACS and between-participant factor of alpha-tACS/placebo.||||0.0852
91872995|NCT03449979|183639867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6676|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (1,39); F-statistic = 0.187||Interaction in the effect of tACS on left frontal alpha oscillation in the healthy group. Two-way interaction of within-participant factor of before/after tACS and between-participant factor of alpha-tACS/placebo.||||0.6676
91872996|NCT03449979|183639867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||degrees of freedom = (1,41); F-statistic = 0.008|ANOVA|||Main effect of alpha-tACS on session (before and after) on left frontal alpha oscillations across both groups (healthy and patient).||||0.929
91736841|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0644||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.0644
91736842|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4931||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.4931
91736843|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0708||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.0708
91736844|NCT02949011|183366965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4024||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.4024
91736845|NCT02949011|183366966|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||<0.0001
91736846|NCT02949011|183366966|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-8.6||||0.9127||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.9127
91736847|NCT02949011|183366967|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-15.1||||0.0013||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0013
91736848|NCT02949011|183366967|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|2.3||||0.8498||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.8498
91736849|NCT02949011|183366968|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-24.1||||0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0001
91798389|NCT01675427|183475023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.0420
91906730|NCT00916149|183708885|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Long Delay score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||>0.05
91736850|NCT02949011|183366968|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|1.5||||0.9237||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.9237
91736851|NCT02949011|183366969|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-12.5||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||-12.5|-28.8|<0.0001
91736852|NCT02949011|183366969|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-3.5||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.7||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||2.7|-9.1|0.2425
91736853|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1713||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.1713
91736854|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2249||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.2249
91736855|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0387||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.0387
91798390|NCT01675427|183475024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4545|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.4545
91906731|NCT00916149|183708885|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Long Delay score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||0.045
91736856|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3915||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.3915
91736857|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||<0.0001
91736858|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2617||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||0.2617
91736859|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||<0.0001
91736860|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8808||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||0.8808
91736861|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.0001
91736862|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5923||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.5923
91736863|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.0064
91798391|NCT01675427|183475025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91798392|NCT01675427|183475026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91736864|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6746||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.6746
91736865|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8167||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.8167
91736866|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3773||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.3773
91736867|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1041||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.1041
91798393|NCT01675427|183475027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91798394|NCT01675427|183475028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91798395|NCT01675427|183475029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5468|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.5468
91872997|NCT03449979|183639867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 20; t-statistic = -0.08789||Difference in alpha oscillations after versus before in the depressed cohort (one-tailed Student's t-test) with the hypothesis to decrease pathologically elevate left frontal alpha oscillations||||0.1950
91872998|NCT03449979|183639867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8603|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 20; t-statistic = 1.1117||Difference in alpha oscillations after versus before in the healthy cohort (one-tailed Student's t-test) run as a control analysis||||0.8603
91872999|NCT01694199|183639874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3529|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3529
91873000|NCT01694199|183639875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2766|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2766
91873001|NCT01694199|183639876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1467|||||||ANOVA|||P=0.1467||||0.1467
91736868|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3328||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.3328
91873002|NCT01694199|183639877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5009|||||||ANOVA|||P = 0.5009||||0.5009
91873003|NCT01694199|183639878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9038
91873004|NCT01133678|183639908|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||A recommendation to stop the trial early was stipulated if the conditional power at the interim analysis (after 50 patients) was \<10% using a stochastic curtailment approach.. This would occur if the interim test statistic is t \< -0.287.|t-test, 2 sided|t-statistic = -1.330, exceeding threshold (\<-0.287, conditional power\<10%) for early termination.||||||0.190
91873005|NCT02206607|183639909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR1/IR|31.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.09|34.8||||||||34.80|28.09|
91873006|NCT02206607|183639909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR2/IR|25.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.11|28.27||||||||28.27|23.11|
91873007|NCT02206607|183639909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR3/IR|32.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.93|35.49||||||||35.49|28.93|
91873008|NCT02206607|183639910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|15.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.357||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|11.39|20.06||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and subjects-within-sequence as random effects.||||20.06|11.39|1.0000
91873009|NCT02206607|183639910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|16.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.399||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|11.93|20.7||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and subjects-within-sequence as random effects.||||20.70|11.93|1.000
91873010|NCT02206607|183639910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|20.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.291||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|16.13|24.62||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.62|16.13|1.0000
91873011|NCT02206607|183639911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR1/IR|25.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.28|27.31||||||||27.31|23.28|
91873012|NCT02206607|183639911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR2/IR|26.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.36|28.57||||||||28.57|24.36|
91873013|NCT02206607|183639911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR3/IR|36.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.09|40.02||||||||40.02|34.09|
91873014|NCT02206607|183639917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR1/IR|31.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.28|34.1||||||||34.10|28.28|
91873015|NCT02206607|183639917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR2/IR|24.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.73|27.4||||||||27.40|22.73|
91873016|NCT02206607|183639917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR3/IR|31.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.86|34.81||||||||34.81|28.86|
91873017|NCT03014726|183639963|OTHER|Recurrence \< 0.5 as defined by an IPSS score of less than or equal to 11. The performance goal is met if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for recurrence is less than 50%.|||||<|0.001|||||||1-sample binomial z-test|||||||<0.001
91873018|NCT00424476|183640017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006||95.0|1.3|2.59||For the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a step-down sequential testing procedure was used to control the type 1 error.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors (SELENA SLEDAI Score: ≤9 vs ≥10; proteinuria: \<2g vs ≥2g per 24hr; Race: African/indig-American vs Other)||||2.59|1.30|0.0006
91873019|NCT00424476|183640017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.19||After superiority of 10 mg/kg vs placebo was established, the 1 mg/kg group was tested vs placebo (2-sided alpha=0.05).|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.19|1.10|0.0129
91873020|NCT00424476|183640018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.41|1.21|0.0024
91873021|NCT00424476|183640018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.14|1.07|0.0189
91736869|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7867||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.7867
91873022|NCT00424476|183640019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.0003
91873023|NCT00424476|183640019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2712||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.2712
91873024|NCT00424476|183640020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline PCS score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.8870
91873025|NCT00424476|183640020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8127|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline PCS score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.8127
91873026|NCT00424476|183640021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline prednisone dose level and baseline stratification factors.||||3.08|0.99|0.0526
91873027|NCT00424476|183640021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline prednisone dose level and baseline stratification factors.||||3.31|1.08|0.0252
91873028|NCT02159352|183640029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.348|0.423||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax.||0.423|0.348|
91873029|NCT02159352|183640029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.337|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.306|0.371||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax.||0.371|0.306|
91873030|NCT02159352|183640030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|0.75||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed AUC(TAU).||0.750|0.658|
91873031|NCT02159352|183640030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.577|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.535|0.622||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed AUC(TAU).||0.622|0.535|
91873032|NCT02159352|183640033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|0.846||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax/D.||0.846|0.697|
91873033|NCT02159352|183640033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.611|0.742||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax/D.||0.742|0.611|
91873034|NCT02159352|183640034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.406|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.317|1.501||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed (AUC(TAU)/D).||1.501|1.317|
91873035|NCT02159352|183640034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.244||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed (AUC(TAU)/D).||1.244|1.070|
91873036|NCT00337610|183640057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19|<|0.001||95.0|-1.36|-0.67|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic agent (AHA) \[medication\] (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-0.67|-1.36|<0.001
91873037|NCT00337610|183640058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.2|<|0.001||95.0|-37.7|-13.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic medication (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-13.3|-37.7|<0.001
91873038|NCT00337610|183640059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.8|<|0.001||95.0|-74.7|-33.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic medication (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-33.6|-74.7|<0.001
91873039|NCT00337610|183640060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.62|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic medication (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-0.62|-1.40|<0.001
91873040|NCT03979040|183640061|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -.5 was set for outcome analysis with a one-sided alpha of .025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||||P value = .025 (one-sided) and sign test below|Sign test|||||||.025
91873041|NCT03979040|183640062|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -.5 was set for outcome analysis with a one-sided alpha of .025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||Sign test|||||||.025
91906732|NCT00916149|183708886|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Learning score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||>0.05
91873042|NCT03979040|183640063|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -.5 was set for outcome analysis with a one-sided alpha of .025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||Sign test|||||||.025
91873043|NCT04012970|183640067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.05
91873044|NCT04012970|183640067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Stiffness change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.01
91873045|NCT04012970|183640068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
91873046|NCT04012970|183640068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Stiffness change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.01
91873047|NCT04012970|183640069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
91873048|NCT04012970|183640069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Tone change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.05
91873049|NCT04012970|183640070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
91873050|NCT04012970|183640070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Tone change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.05
91873051|NCT04012970|183640071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
91873052|NCT04012970|183640072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.001
91873053|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0882||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.0882
91873054|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8032||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 5 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8032
91873055|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9003||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 7 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9003
91873056|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9523||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9523
91873057|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9071||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9071
91873058|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7509
91873059|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2824||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2824
91873060|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4017||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4017
91873061|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4497||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.4497
91798396|NCT01675427|183475030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0020
91798397|NCT01675427|183475031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.1623
91798398|NCT01675427|183475032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0663
91873062|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.1650
91873063|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3494||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 5 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3494
91873064|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4781||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 7 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4781
91704625|NCT03003000|183303944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.834||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.187||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥30%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator.||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|1.187|0.586|0.3129
91798399|NCT01675427|183475033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2617|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.2617
91873065|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9847||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9847
91873066|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9731||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9731
91873067|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6984||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6984
91704626|NCT03003000|183303944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.354||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|2.494||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥50%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|2.494|0.736|0.3301
91704627|NCT03003000|183303944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|1.057||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥50%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|1.057|0.437|0.0864
91704628|NCT03003000|183303945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9384||||||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|p-value based on a stratified log-rank test||||||0.9384
91798400|NCT01675427|183475034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0526
91798401|NCT01675427|183475035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.7918
91798402|NCT01675427|183475036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0842
91873068|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6265||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6265
91873069|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7848||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7848
91873070|NCT02978183|183640073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5789||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.5789
91906733|NCT00916149|183708886|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Learning score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||>0.05
91704629|NCT03003000|183303945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3534||||||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|p-value based on a stratified log-rank test||||||0.3534
91798403|NCT01675427|183475037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91798404|NCT01675427|183475038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91798405|NCT01675427|183475039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91798406|NCT01675427|183475040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91873071|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8165||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.8165
91873072|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6590
91873073|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7455||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7455
91873074|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9212
91873075|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9509||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9509
91873076|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7897||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7897
91873077|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3183||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.3183
91873078|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7604||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.7604
91736870|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.8640
91736871|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6465||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.6465
91736872|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4265||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.4265
91736873|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6568||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.6568
91736874|NCT02949011|183366970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6102||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.6102
91736875|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||-0.01|-0.28|0.0408
91873079|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7343||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7343
91873080|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.1530
91873081|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3307||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3307
91873082|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3399||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3399
91873083|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5137||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5137
91736876|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||0.09|-0.18|0.5324
91736877|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.06||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||-0.06|-0.30|0.0025
91736878|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||0.16|-0.08|0.4874
91736879|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.24||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||-0.24|-0.47|<0.0001
91736880|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||0.08|-0.15|0.5414
91736881|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.22||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||-0.22|-0.44|<0.0001
91736882|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||0.05|-0.17|0.3185
91736883|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||-0.06|-0.26|0.0025
91798407|NCT01675427|183475041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798408|NCT01675427|183475041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2887
91873084|NCT02978183|183640074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9962||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.9962
91873085|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3259||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.3259
91873086|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9785||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9785
91873087|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5112||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5112
91873088|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7771||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7771
91798409|NCT01675427|183475041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
91798410|NCT01675427|183475041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1634
91798411|NCT01675427|183475041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8956|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.8956
91798412|NCT01675427|183475041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798413|NCT01675427|183475042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798414|NCT01675427|183475042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0145
91873089|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6232||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6232
91798415|NCT01675427|183475042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1027
91798416|NCT01675427|183475042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5998
91798417|NCT01675427|183475042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2935
91798418|NCT01675427|183475042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0039
91798419|NCT01675427|183475043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.1981
91798420|NCT01675427|183475043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1616
91798421|NCT01675427|183475043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1192
91798422|NCT01675427|183475043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4485
91798423|NCT01675427|183475043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1525
91798424|NCT01675427|183475043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7262|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.7262
91873090|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8895||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8895
91873091|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8974||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.8974
91798425|NCT01675427|183475044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0911
91873092|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9604||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.9604
91873093|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5301||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.5301
91798426|NCT01675427|183475044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.4674
91798427|NCT01675427|183475044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1604
91798428|NCT01675427|183475044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5937|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5937
91798429|NCT01675427|183475044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3830
91798430|NCT01675427|183475044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0507
91798431|NCT01675427|183475045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8686|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.8686
91798432|NCT01675427|183475045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.3135
91798433|NCT01675427|183475045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0578
91798434|NCT01675427|183475045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5833
91798435|NCT01675427|183475045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1610
91873094|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0386||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0386
91873095|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1034||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.1034
91873096|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0985||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0985
91736884|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||0.11|-0.09|0.8299
91736885|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.01|-0.19|0.0878
91736886|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.12||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.12|-0.09|0.7498
91736887|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||120 hours||0.09|-0.11|0.8030
91736888|NCT02949011|183366971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||120 hours||0.15|-0.05|0.3577
91736889|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-23.1||||0.0009||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Cough||||0.0009
91736890|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-0.2||||0.4074||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Cough||||0.4074
91873097|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2342||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2342
91873098|NCT02978183|183640075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3016||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.3016
91873099|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4927||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.4927
91873100|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8686||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.8686
91873101|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5772||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5772
91736891|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-6.3||||0.2496||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Sore Throat||||0.2496
91736892|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.9||||0.2963||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Sore Throat||||0.2963
91736893|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-10.6||||0.039||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Headache||||0.0390
91736894|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|2.0||||0.7877||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Headache||||0.7877
91736895|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-12.1||||0.0017||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Nasal Congestion||||0.0017
91736896|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|1.5||||0.8119||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Nasal Congestion||||0.8119
91736897|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-3.6||||0.007||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Feverishness or Chills||||0.0070
91873102|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9700
91736898|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-0.7||||0.9191||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Feverishness or Chills||||0.9191
91873103|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7516||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7516
91873104|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9532||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9532
91873105|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7522||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.7522
91873106|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6804||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.6804
91873107|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6267||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6267
91873108|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0976
91873109|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4687|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4687
91873110|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0421
91873111|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6085||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6085
91873112|NCT02978183|183640076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9634||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.9634
91873113|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3322||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.3322
91873114|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8026||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Pre-CAC||||0.8026
91873115|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9981||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Pre-CAC||||0.9981
91873116|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5645||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5645
91873117|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5455||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5455
91873118|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6980
91873119|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6115||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6115
91873120|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4528||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.4528
91873121|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7551||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7551
91873122|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5318||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5318
91873123|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9748||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9748
91873124|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7706||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7706
91873125|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3414||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3414
91873126|NCT02978183|183640077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4361||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.4361
91873127|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0603||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.0603
91798436|NCT01675427|183475045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2925
91873128|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4857||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.4857
91873129|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9815||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9815
91873130|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6213||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6213
91873131|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1831||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.1831
91873132|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6489||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6489
91873133|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2622||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.2622
91873134|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2397||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.2397
91873135|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3202||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3202
91873136|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2663||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2663
91873137|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5672||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5672
91873138|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5055||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5055
91873139|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8143||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8143
91873140|NCT02978183|183640078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6901||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6901
91873141|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4032||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.4032
91873142|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2946||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2946
91873143|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2863||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2863
91873144|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0891||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0891
91873145|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5347||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5347
91873146|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3733||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3733
91873147|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2506||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.2506
91873148|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8667||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.8667
91873149|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7640
91873150|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8008||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8008
91873151|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4729||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4729
91873152|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4742||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4742
91736899|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-7.7||||0.0232||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Muscle or Joint Pain||||0.0232
91736900|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|4.0||||0.5436||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Muscle or Joint Pain||||0.5436
91736901|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-7.5||||0.0207||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Fatigue||||0.0207
91736902|NCT02949011|183366972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-1.9||||0.371||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Fatigue||||0.3710
91736903|NCT02949011|183366973|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-23.4||||0.4634||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.4634
91873153|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2922||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2922
91873154|NCT02978183|183640079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3657||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.3657
91736904|NCT02949011|183366973|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-0.6||||0.6386||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.6386
91736905|NCT02949011|183366974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0112
91736906|NCT02949011|183366974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8478||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8478
91736907|NCT02949011|183366975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||<0.0001
91736908|NCT02949011|183366975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2558||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||0.2558
91736909|NCT00163189|183366977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Student's paired t-test|||Month 36||||<0.001
91736910|NCT00163189|183366978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||Student's paired t-test|||Month 36||||0.008
91736911|NCT01170663|183366996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|0.962|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||0.962|0.678|0.0169
91736912|NCT01170663|183366997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.635|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|0.752|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||0.752|0.536|<0.0001
91736913|NCT01170663|183366998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.596|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|0.72|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||0.720|0.494|<0.0001
91736914|NCT01170663|183367000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from the start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||3.16|1.45|0.0001
91736915|NCT01170663|183367008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3973||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group, randomization stratification factors and baseline value of Global Health Status scale.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3973
91736916|NCT02261961|183367027|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.24275|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91736917|NCT02261961|183367028|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3707|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91736918|NCT02261961|183367031|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35579|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91736919|NCT02261961|183367032|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.004493|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91736920|NCT02261961|183367033|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.870653|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91736921|NCT02261961|183367034|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38664|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91736922|NCT02261961|183367035|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.335124|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Outcomes were compared as percent change from the baseline measure using multiple methods by a blinded statistician. Differences between groups were assessed using ANCOVA, Welch's t-test, and Wilcoxon. No significant differences were found between groups for any outcome regardless of method used.||||>0.05
91736923|NCT02261961|183367037|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03145|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91736924|NCT02261961|183367038|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.43902|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91736925|NCT02261961|183367048|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07603|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91736926|NCT02261961|183367067|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4745|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91736927|NCT02431325|183367076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
91736928|NCT02431325|183367077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91873155|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.6600
91873156|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6877||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.6877
91873157|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3340
91873158|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7874||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7874
91736929|NCT02431325|183367078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91736930|NCT02431325|183367079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91736931|NCT02431325|183367080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91736932|NCT02431325|183367081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91736933|NCT02431325|183367082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
91736934|NCT02431325|183367083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91873159|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3812||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3812
91873160|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6987|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6987
91873161|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6832||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6832
91873162|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8521||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.8521
91736935|NCT02431325|183367084|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91736936|NCT02431325|183367085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91736937|NCT02431325|183367086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91736938|NCT02431325|183367087|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91736939|NCT02431325|183367088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91736940|NCT02431325|183367089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91736941|NCT02431325|183367090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91736942|NCT02431325|183367091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
91736943|NCT02431325|183367092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91736944|NCT02431325|183367093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline at week 24||||0.09
91736945|NCT02431325|183367093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline at week 12||||0.25
91736946|NCT02431325|183367094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
91736947|NCT02431325|183367095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91736948|NCT01008618|183367104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0846|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0846
91736949|NCT01128569|183367121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.237||||||||0.237|0.087|
91736950|NCT01128569|183367121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.222||||||||0.222|0.069|
91736951|NCT01128569|183367121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.057||||||||0.057|-0.091|
91736952|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||Data below is for FACT-B 3 month Total Score||4.05|-4.48|0.92
91736953|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|1.37||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|6.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for FACT-B 6 month Total Score||6.15|-3.41|0.57
91736954|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|1.18||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|5.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Total Score||5.89|-3.54|0.62
91736955|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Physical Well-Being Subscale||1.23|-0.99|0.83
91736956|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.15||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||Data below is for the Fact-B 6 month Physical Well-Being Subscale||1.45|-1.15|0.82
91736957|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.13||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||Data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Physical Well-Being Subscale||1.15|-1.41|0.84
91760053|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.46||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.46|-1.19|
91873163|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7516||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7516
91873164|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6252||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6252
91873165|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8321||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8321
91873166|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8173||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8173
91873167|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5445||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5445
91736958|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.17||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Social/Family Well-Being Subscale||0.96|-1.31|0.77
91736959|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.56||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 6 month Social/Family Well-Being Subscale||0.79|-1.91|0.42
91736960|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Social/Family Well-Being Subscale||1.24|-1.41|0.90
91736961|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Emotional Well-Being Subscale||0.87|-0.76|0.90
91873168|NCT02978183|183640080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6810
91873169|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.0111
91873170|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3391||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3391
91873171|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2390
91873172|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3068||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3068
91873173|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4914||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4914
91873174|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5185||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5185
91873175|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5262||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.5262
91906734|NCT00916149|183708887|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Total Learning score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91736962|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.58||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact B 6 month Emotional Well-Being Subscale||1.56|-0.40|0.25
91736963|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Emotional Well-Being Subscale||1.57|-0.36|0.22
91736964|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.14||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for Fact-B 3 month Functional Well-Being Subscale||1.34|-1.05|0.81
91736965|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.54||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for Fact-B 6 month Functional Well-Being Subscale||1.94|-0.85|0.45
91873176|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.6098
91873177|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8849||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8849
91873178|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6941||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6941
91873179|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5728||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5728
91873180|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5931||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5931
91873181|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7513||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7513
91873182|NCT02978183|183640081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7297||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.7297
91873183|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1259||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.1259
91873184|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9234||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9234
91873185|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8816||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8816
91873186|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5703||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5703
91873187|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5428||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5428
91873188|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7454||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7454
91873189|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8195||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.8195
91873190|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.0909
91873191|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4881||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4881
91873192|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3391||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3391
91873193|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6065||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6065
91873194|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3393||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3393
91873195|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8364||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8364
91873196|NCT02978183|183640082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8858||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.8858
91873197|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8818||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.8818
91873198|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8679||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.8679
91873199|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7856||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7856
91873200|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7507
91873201|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8189||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8189
91873202|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9206||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9206
91873203|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9591||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.9591
91906735|NCT00916149|183708887|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Total Learning score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91873204|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5302||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.5302
91873205|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7591||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7591
91873206|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8978||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8978
91873207|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7179||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7179
91873208|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7262||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7262
91873209|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8275||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8275
91873210|NCT02978183|183640083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6180
91873211|NCT02978183|183640084|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 10 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
91873212|NCT02978183|183640084|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 15 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
91873213|NCT02978183|183640084|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 20 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
91873214|NCT02978183|183640084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7312||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 25 minutes post-CAC||||0.7312
91873215|NCT02978183|183640084|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 30 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
91873216|NCT02978183|183640084|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 10 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
91873217|NCT02978183|183640084|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 15 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
91873218|NCT02978183|183640084|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 20 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
91873219|NCT02978183|183640084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4297||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 25 minutes post-CAC||||0.4297
91873220|NCT02978183|183640084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4791||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 30 minutes post-CAC||||0.4791
91906736|NCT00916149|183708888|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Delayed Recall score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906737|NCT00916149|183708888|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Delayed Recall score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906738|NCT00916149|183708889|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the QOLIE score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91736966|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.11||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Functional Well-Being Subscale||1.26|-1.48|0.87
91906739|NCT00916149|183708890|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Letter Number Sequencing score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91760054|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.0||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.00|-0.85|
91906740|NCT00916149|183708890|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Letter Number Sequencing score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906741|NCT00916149|183708891|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Spatial Span score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906742|NCT00916149|183708891|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Spatial Span score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906743|NCT00916149|183708892|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Span score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906744|NCT00916149|183708892|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Span score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906745|NCT00916149|183708893|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Fluency score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906746|NCT00916149|183708893|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Fluency score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91760055|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.31||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.31|-1.15|
91736967|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.16||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Breast Cancer Subscale||1.45|-1.13|0.80
91736968|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.73||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 6 month Breast Cancer Subscale||2.24|-0.79|0.35
91736969|NCT02941614|183367139|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.6||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Breast Cancer Subscale||2.09|-0.88|0.42
91736970|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|-0.03||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09||We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data below is for the BCPT survey 3 month Total Score.||0.09|-0.15|0.59
91736971|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Total Score||0.19|-0.09|0.47
91798437|NCT01675427|183475046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.3709
91906747|NCT00916149|183708894|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in Stroop performance from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906748|NCT00916149|183708894|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in Stroop performance from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91736972|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.06||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Total Score||0.07|-0.20|0.37
91736973|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.05||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Hot Flashes Sub-Scale||0.17|-0.26|0.65
91736974|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Hot Flashes Sub-Scale||0.33|-0.17|0.54
91736975|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Hot Flashes Sub-Scale||0.22|-0.27|0.87
91736976|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.06||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Nausea Sub-Scale||0.06|-0.17|0.32
91798438|NCT01675427|183475046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2054
91798439|NCT01675427|183475046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.8457
91704630|NCT02191046|183303955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power of study = 90%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.89|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|5.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the mean 5S-score between before and after treatment in syringe group||5.37|3.41|<0.05
91704631|NCT02191046|183303955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power of study = 90%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|1.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the mean 5S-score between 2 groups at 2 weeks after treatment||1.76|0.094|<0.05
91704632|NCT02191046|183303955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power of study = 90%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||satisfaction score between two groups at 2 weeks after treatment||-0.12|-0.82|<0.05
91704633|NCT02191046|183303955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power fo study = 90%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|6.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the mean 5s-score between before and after treatment in squeezable bottle group||6.69|4.62|<0.05
91704634|NCT02943785|183303977|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided p-value (Noninferiority) was based on the noninferiority margin of 1.38.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.85|0.0141
91704635|NCT02943785|183303978|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided p-value (Noninferiority) was based on the noninferiority margin of 1.38.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4||||0.9267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.91|||Regression, Cox|||||1.91|1.03|0.9267
91704636|NCT02603107|183303989|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 520 participants (260 participants per treatment group) would provide at least 90% power to establish a non-inferiority margin of 4% in the Week 48 response rate (HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL) between the 2 treatment groups. Sample size was based on the assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL (based on Gilead Genvoya and Stribild studies) and that the significance level of the test is at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-2.5|2.5|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the B/F/TAF group was at least 4% higher than the rate in the SBR group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL in the B/F/TAF group was less than 4% higher than that in the SBR group.||2.5|-2.5|
91704637|NCT02603107|183303989|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91704638|NCT02603107|183303990|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of B/F/TAF would be established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.002% CI of the difference between the treatment groups (B/F/TAF group - SBR group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.6|8.2|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||8.2|-1.6|
91736977|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Nausea Sub-Scale||0.14|-0.15|0.96
91736978|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.07||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Nausea Sub-Scale||0.07|-0.21|0.32
91736979|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.07||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Bladder Control Sub-Scale||0.11|-0.24|0.44
91798440|NCT01675427|183475046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3492
91704639|NCT02603107|183303990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91704640|NCT02603107|183303991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|25.0||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|52.0|||ANOVA|||||52|-2|0.068
91704641|NCT01887678|183304020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square|-6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-0.35|||ANCOVA||A negative value of the Least Square mean difference indicates a result in favor of Traumeel-Zeel.|||-0.35|-12.40|0.0383
91704642|NCT01887678|183304021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-2.15||||0.3715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|2.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 8±1||2.58|-6.89|0.3715
91704643|NCT01887678|183304021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square|-5.87||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 15±1||-0.60|-11.15|0.0293
91704644|NCT01887678|183304021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-5.24||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 29±3||0.40|-10.88|0.0686
91704645|NCT01887678|183304021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-7.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.08|-1.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 43±3||-1.42|-13.08|0.0150
91704646|NCT01887678|183304021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-7.56||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.54|-1.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 57±3||-1.58|-13.54|0.0134
91906749|NCT00916149|183708895|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Design Fluency score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91736980|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.09||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Bladder Control Sub-Scale||0.30|-0.11|0.38
91736981|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.07||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is for the BCPT survey 12 month Bladder Control Sub-Scale||0.13|-0.28|0.47
91736982|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.17||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Vaginal Problems Sub-Scale||0.05|-0.39|0.13
91736983|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Vaginal Problems Sub-Scale||-0.02|-0.55|0.03
91736984|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.19||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Vaginal Problems Sub-Scale||0.06|-0.45|0.14
91736985|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.07||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Musculoskeletal Pain Sub-Scale||0.28|-0.14|0.53
91736986|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Musculoskeletal Pain Sub-Scale||0.35|-0.16|0.47
91736987|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.07||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Musculoskeletal Pain Sub-Scale||0.33|-0.18|0.57
91736988|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Cognitive Problems Sub-Scale||0.21|-0.18|0.85
91798441|NCT01675427|183475046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2846
91906750|NCT00916149|183708895|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Design Fluency score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91798442|NCT01675427|183475046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2646|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2646
91798443|NCT01675427|183475047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5348|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.5348
91798444|NCT01675427|183475047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.5469
91798445|NCT01675427|183475047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0463
91798446|NCT01675427|183475047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9393|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.9393
91798447|NCT01675427|183475047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3404|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3404
91798448|NCT01675427|183475047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.4237
91798449|NCT01675427|183475048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.2510
91704647|NCT01887678|183304021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-7.6||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|-1.68|||Least Squares|||Day 71±3||-1.68|-13.52|0.0121
91798450|NCT01675427|183475048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2943|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2943
91798451|NCT01675427|183475048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0478
91798452|NCT01675427|183475048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5387
91798453|NCT01675427|183475048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3878|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3878
91798454|NCT01675427|183475048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0748
91704648|NCT01887678|183304021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-6.32||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 85±3||-0.37|-12.28|0.0376
91704649|NCT01887678|183304022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.76||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|1.53|||ANCOVA|||||1.53|-11.05|0.1373
91704650|NCT01887678|183304023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.24||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|1.85|||ANCOVA|||||1.85|-10.33|0.1715
91704651|NCT01887678|183304024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.77||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.82|1.27|||ANCOVA|||||1.27|-10.82|0.1211
91704652|NCT01887678|183304029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.97||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 8±1||1.18|-11.12|0.1128
91704653|NCT01887678|183304029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-10.49||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-4.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 15±1||-4.13|-16.85|0.0013
91704654|NCT01887678|183304029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-6.89||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Day 29±3||-0.09|-13.69|0.0472
91704655|NCT01887678|183304029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-8.82||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-2.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 43±3||-2.05|-15.60|0.0109
91704656|NCT01887678|183304029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-8.88||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-1.95|||ANCOVA|||Day 57±3||-1.95|-15.80|0.0123
91704657|NCT01887678|183304029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-6.88||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 71±3||-0.23|-13.52|0.0425
91704658|NCT01887678|183304029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-5.51||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|1.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 85±3||1.45|-12.47|0.1199
91704659|NCT01887678|183304029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.96||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|1.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 119±3||1.93|-11.86|0.1575
91704660|NCT01887678|183304030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.28||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Day 8±1||0.89|-1.45|0.6346
91704661|NCT01887678|183304030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.28||||0.6458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Day 15±1||0.92|-1.49|0.6458
91704662|NCT01887678|183304030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.18||||0.7581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 29±3||0.99|-1.35|0.7581
91704663|NCT01887678|183304030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.49||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 43±3||0.51|-1.48|0.3350
91704664|NCT01887678|183304030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.4||||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 57±3||0.63|-1.44|0.4419
91704665|NCT01887678|183304030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.37||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 71±3||0.58|-1.32|0.4460
91704666|NCT01887678|183304030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|0.25||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 85±3||1.33|-0.84|0.6552
91704667|NCT01887678|183304030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.19||||0.7443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Day 119±3||0.95|-1.33|0.7443
91704668|NCT01887678|183304035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2164|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Results of Kaplan-Meier Analysis with p-value from 2-sided log-rank test for equality of survival functions||After first injection of study drug||||0.2164
91704669|NCT01887678|183304035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|||||Results of Kaplan-Meier Analysis with p-value from 2-sided log-rank test for equality of survival functions|Log Rank|||After second injection of study drug||||0.1651
91704670|NCT01887678|183304035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Results of Kaplan-Meier Analysis with p-value from 2-sided log-rank test for equality of survival functions||After third injection of study drug||||0.2220
91704671|NCT01887678|183304036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|For equality of survival functions||After first injection of study drug||||0.0264
91704672|NCT01887678|183304036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|For equality of survival functions||After second injection of study drug||||0.0346
91736989|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Cognitive Problems Sub-Scale||0.32|-0.12|0.38
91736990|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.13||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Cognitive Problems Sub-Scale||0.09|-0.35|0.23
91736991|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.14||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Weight Problems Sub-Scale||0.07|-0.35|0.18
91736992|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.12||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Weight Problems Sub-Scale||0.13|-0.36|0.35
91736993|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.12||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Weight Problems Sub-Scale||0.12|-0.36|0.34
91736994|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.09||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Arm Problems Sub-Scale||0.25|-0.06|0.22
91736995|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.11||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Arm Problems Sub-Scale||0.29|-0.08|0.26
91873245|NCT04620733|183640111|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|53.4||Two-sided p-value for pair-wise comparison was based on the CMH test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (baseline ALP level: \< 350 U/L and ≥ 350 U/L; baseline Pruritus NRS: \< 4 and ≥ 4).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.4|27.7|< 0.0001
91873246|NCT04620733|183640114|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Two-sided p-value for pair-wise comparison is based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusted for both stratification variables (baseline ALP level: \< 350 U/L and \>= 350 U/L; baseline pruritus NRS: \< 4 and \>= 4).|||33.2|18.3|< 0.0001
91873247|NCT04620733|183640115|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.5|||MMRM|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)||||-0.5|-2.5|0.0047
91736996|NCT02941614|183367140|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.09||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Arm Problems Sub-Scale||0.27|-0.09|0.34
91736997|NCT02941614|183367141|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96|||Regression, Poisson|||||0.96|0.77|0.006
91736998|NCT02941614|183367142|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.07|||Regression, Poisson|||||1.07|0.93|0.356
91736999|NCT02941614|183367143|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.41|||Regression/Poisson|||||1.41|0.73|0.919
91737000|NCT02941614|183367144|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.16||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.62|||Regression, Poisson|||The data below applies to Emergency Department visits||1.62|0.84|0.367
91737001|NCT02941614|183367144|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.38|||Regression, Poisson|||The data below applies to Urgent Care visits||1.38|0.51|0.497
91737002|NCT01469039|183367158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91737003|NCT01469039|183367158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91737004|NCT01469039|183367159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||significant p-value, active vs placebo|Wilcoxon rank sum test based on LOCF|||||||<0.001
91873248|NCT02221934|183640116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.176||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.283|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in Responders between groups presented.|||0.283|0.070|0.002
91873249|NCT00805792|183640158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The statistical significance of the change was assessed by the P value associated with estimated regression coefficient (beta coefficient or slope).||||<.001
91873250|NCT00805792|183640159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The statistical significance of the change was assessed by the P value associated with estimated regression coefficient (beta coefficient or slope).||||<.001
91873251|NCT00805792|183640160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The statistical significance of the change was assessed by the P value associated with estimated regression coefficient (beta coefficient or slope).||||<.001
91873252|NCT04351243|183640162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.1885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17||one-sided p value|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.17|-0.06|0.1885
91873253|NCT01416285|183640166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kaplan-Meier and COX regression|Univariate and multi-variable||All-cause death||||0.004
91873254|NCT01416285|183640166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kaplan-Meier and COX regression|Univariate and multi-variable||Heart failure-related re-hospitalizations||||0.003
91873255|NCT01416285|183640166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kaplan-Meier and COX regression|Univariate and multi-variable||a composite outcome of both death and heart failure-related re-hospitalizations||||<0.001
91873256|NCT01690000|183640167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value was calculated||||<0.05
91873257|NCT01248715|183640172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.460
91873258|NCT01248715|183640173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9999
91873259|NCT01248715|183640174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.732
91873260|NCT01248715|183640175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9999
91873261|NCT01248715|183640176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.685
91873262|NCT01248715|183640177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.796
91704673|NCT01887678|183304036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|For equality of survival functions||After third injection of study drug||||0.0172
91704674|NCT01432561|183304081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-fat/calorie compared to fasted condition||||.04
91704675|NCT01432561|183304081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-protein compared to fasted condition||||.005
91704676|NCT01432561|183304082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-fat/calorie compared to fasted condition||||.16
91704677|NCT01432561|183304082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-protein compared to fasted condition||||.036
91704678|NCT01432561|183304083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||Fed high-fat/calorie compared to fasted condition.||||.30
91704679|NCT01432561|183304083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||High-protein compared to fasted condition||||.05
91704680|NCT02638259|183304090|EQUIVALENCE|A margin of 0.6 can be statistically and clinically justified based on the results Keystone et al, Arthritis and Rheumatism, p353-363, (2004) and on the EULAR response criteria. The sample size of 155 per group with 90% power is based on the common SD of 1.46 and was calculated using nQuery 7.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.12||||||Therapeutic equivalence in terms of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 will be concluded if the 95% confidence interval for the LS mean difference between GP2015 and Enbrel is contained within the interval \[-0.6; 0.6\]. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis was performed for DAS28-CRP change from baseline including treatment, stratification factors, time, the interaction between time (visits) and treatment all as categorical variables, and baseline DAS28-CRP as a continuous variable.||0.12|-0.26|
91704681|NCT02952872|183304135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Mixed Design ANOVA||||||<.05
91704682|NCT02952872|183304136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91704683|NCT02952872|183304137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91704684|NCT02952872|183304138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91704685|NCT01260584|183304139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the sample size calculations for the co-primary endpoints, no Type 1 error rate was adjusted and both co-primary endpoints will be tested at the 0.05 level.||15.8|-0.4|0.0624
91704686|NCT01260584|183304139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|38.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.4|25.1|<0.0001
91704687|NCT01260584|183304139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.8|-3.3|0.2440
91704688|NCT01260584|183304139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|41.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||41.0|28.4|<0.0001
91704689|NCT01260584|183304139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||35.2|18.8|<0.0001
91704690|NCT01260584|183304140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.65||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.2|-61.1|0.0048
91704691|NCT01260584|183304140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.7|-71.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-71.0|-116.7|<0.0001
91704692|NCT01260584|183304140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.53||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5|-45.9|0.0924
91704693|NCT01260584|183304140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-108.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.3|-87.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-87.3|-130.3|<0.0001
91704694|NCT01260584|183304140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.8|-47.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-47.5|-97.8|<0.0001
91704695|NCT01260584|183304141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-15.0|0.0423
91873263|NCT01248715|183640178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9999
91737005|NCT01469039|183367159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||significant p-value, active vs placebo|Wilcoxon rank sum test based on LOCF|||||||<0.001
91737006|NCT02013609|183367175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score at Week 12 was tested at significance level of 0.05. Since this is an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
91737007|NCT02013609|183367176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91737008|NCT02013609|183367181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91737009|NCT02013609|183367182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91737010|NCT02013609|183367183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is the same for each of single item sub-scores of tasks: work/ school, social life and family life/ home responsibilities|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12 of single item sub-scores of tasks: work/ school, social life and family life/ home responsibilities||||<0.0001
91798455|NCT01675427|183475049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.9887
91798456|NCT01675427|183475049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5507|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.5507
91798457|NCT01675427|183475049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0175
91798458|NCT01675427|183475049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.2246
91798459|NCT01675427|183475049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3519
91798460|NCT01675427|183475049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.7140
91798461|NCT01675427|183475050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.8622
91737011|NCT02013609|183367184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91737012|NCT02013609|183367185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||<0.0001
91737013|NCT02013609|183367186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||<0.0001
91737014|NCT02013609|183367187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3439|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for p-inhibition failures (Go cues)||||0.3439
91737015|NCT02013609|183367187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3385|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for p-inhibition failures (No-Go cues)||||0.3385
91737016|NCT02013609|183367188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for mean reaction time (Go cues)||||0.2052
91737017|NCT02013609|183367188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for mean reaction time (No-Go cues)||||0.3224
91737018|NCT02013609|183367189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.3169
91737019|NCT02013609|183367190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3352|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.3352
91737020|NCT02013609|183367191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3517|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for delay discounting task k value||||0.3517
91737021|NCT02013609|183367191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for delay discounting task h value||||0.3799
91737022|NCT02013609|183367192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 (AUC for food)||||0.2610
91737023|NCT02013609|183367192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 (AUC for money)||||0.8138
91737024|NCT02013609|183367193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 (AUC for money)||||0.8138
91737025|NCT02013609|183367194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91737026|NCT01816295|183367195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91798462|NCT01675427|183475050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1622
91798463|NCT01675427|183475050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2566|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.2566
91798464|NCT01675427|183475050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1574
91798465|NCT01675427|183475050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5784
91873264|NCT00813709|183640179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.555||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|0.816|||Log Rank|||||0.816|0.378|0.002
91873265|NCT00813709|183640179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|0.839|||Log Rank|||||0.839|0.391|0.006
91873266|NCT00813709|183640179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.51|||Log Rank|||||1.510|0.654|0.941
91873267|NCT00813709|183640180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.205
91798466|NCT01675427|183475050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6603|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.6603
91798467|NCT01675427|183475051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0605
91798468|NCT01675427|183475051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0899
91873268|NCT00813709|183640180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.263||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.263
91873269|NCT00813709|183640180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.629
91873270|NCT01129011|183640301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|11.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjetcs developing gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of study treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of gastric ulcers at 6 months. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||17.1|7.9|0.001
91873271|NCT01129011|183640302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91873272|NCT01129011|183640303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.009
91873273|NCT01129011|183640304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
91873274|NCT01129011|183640305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91873275|NCT01358175|183640338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.42|2.20|<0.0001
91873276|NCT01358175|183640338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|6.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.65|2.28|<0.0001
91873277|NCT04908488|183640346|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Means Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.01|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Within subject correlation due to eye and the crossover design were accounted for in the model.|Lens difference (P1fA minus AMfA)|||-0.01||
91873278|NCT02432183|183640347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0061|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|post-hoc comparison with Dunn's multiple comparison test: p=0.0326 between arm 1 and 2; p=0.0147 between arm 1 and 3||||||0.0061
91873279|NCT01124916|183640352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8728.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|853.129|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7028.846|10427.154|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the total cost of care between standard and robotic-assisted laparoscopic abdominal sacrocolpopexy six weeks after surgery.||10427.154|7028.846|<.001
91873280|NCT01124916|183640353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.846||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.769|9.369|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in urinary distress between women assigned to LASC and those assigned to RASC six months after intervention as measured by the UDI.||9.369|-21.769|.43
91873281|NCT02707952|183640368|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was calculated for each arm and a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A minus Arm B) was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution to assess non-inferiority in SVR12 rates of arm A to arm B. If the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI) for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -10%, then arm A was considered non-inferior to arm B.|Rate Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.9|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||0.9|-2.8|
91873282|NCT01326455|183640382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Lancaster et. al. (2004) quoted the number 30 as a general sample size for a pilot study. Each arm of this study had 25 people (due to time constraints), giving a total of 75 people. The data were analyzed using t-tests for equality of means, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and chi-square. Significance was set at p \< 0.05.||||0.25
91704696|NCT01260584|183304141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.4|-29.0|<0.0001
91704697|NCT01260584|183304141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-13.1|0.1184
91704698|NCT01260584|183304141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.5|-30.5|<0.0001
91704699|NCT01260584|183304141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.5|-24.3|<0.0001
91704700|NCT01260584|183304142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.32|0.80|0.1331
91704701|NCT01260584|183304142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|23.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.65|0.17|0.5813
91704702|NCT01260584|183304142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.54||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|148.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||148.23|1.85|0.0127
91704703|NCT01260584|183304142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.11||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|93.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.65|3.13|0.0013
91704704|NCT01260584|183304143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.67|0.49|0.5684
91704705|NCT01260584|183304143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|42.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.92|1.05|0.0447
91704706|NCT01260584|183304143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.64||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|505.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||505.58|6.80|0.0003
91704707|NCT01260584|183304143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.71||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|46.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||46.52|2.95|0.0006
91873283|NCT01326455|183640383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91873284|NCT01326455|183640384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91873285|NCT01326455|183640384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91873286|NCT01326455|183640384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.144|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.144
91873287|NCT01326455|183640385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.372
91737027|NCT01816295|183367196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|1.05|9.07|||ANCOVA|||||9.07|1.05|<0.001
91737028|NCT01816295|183367197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.019|TWO_SIDED|99.5|-0.59|6.45|||ANCOVA|||||6.45|-0.59|0.019
91737029|NCT01816295|183367198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.41|-0.94|0.442
91737030|NCT01816295|183367198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 36||0.72|-0.82|0.905
91873288|NCT01326455|183640386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.468|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.468
91737031|NCT04067011|183367234|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of AUC0-12h.|Ratio of AUC|0.9764|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8895|1.0718||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ratio of area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12h) for ciprofloxacin on Days 8 and 35||1.0718|0.8895|
91737032|NCT04067011|183367234|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of Cmax.|Ratio of Cmax|0.9706|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8693|1.0838||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ration of Cmax for ciprofloxacin on Days 8 and 35||1.0838|0.8693|
91873289|NCT03015220|183640420|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for the test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 3 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||3.20|0.70|0.2963
91873290|NCT03015220|183640420|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.83||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for the test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 7 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.83|0.35|0.5997
91873291|NCT03015220|183640420|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.33||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 14 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.33|0.23|0.1871
91873292|NCT03015220|183640421|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.72||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 3 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||4.72|0.76|0.1672
91873293|NCT03015220|183640421|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.72||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 7 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.72|0.21|0.3391
91737033|NCT04067011|183367235|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of AUC0-12h.|Ratio of AUC|0.9173|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8187|1.0278||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ratio of Area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12h) for doxycycline on Days 8 and 38||1.0278|0.8187|
91737034|NCT04067011|183367235|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of Cmax.|Ratio of Cmax|0.8974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7841|1.0271||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ration of Cmax for doxycycline on Days 8 and 38||1.0271|0.7841|
91737035|NCT04067011|183367236|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.5.|Ratio of GMT (Group 1/Group 3)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.64||||||||1.64|0.78|
91737036|NCT04067011|183367236|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.5.|Ratio of GMT (Group 2/Group 3)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||||||||1.6|0.81|
91737037|NCT05209386|183367237|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Permutation-based clustering analysis was used to identify channels that significantly encode change in acoustic dimensions. For each channel, a sliding-window encoding model was built comparing evoked responses (z-scored voltages) to Canonical Block stimuli across varying F0 with fixed VOT. This analysis identified the n = 17 channels and time windows where neural responses differed according to change in F0.|||
91737038|NCT05209386|183367238|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(20.45) = -5.8||||||<0.0001
91873294|NCT03015220|183640421|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.62||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 14 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.62|0.02|0.0110
91873295|NCT03055988|183640437|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.779|1.705|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation. H0: Mean change from baseline in LVEDVI for (Tiotropium + Olodaterol) = Mean change from baseline in LVEDVI for (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol)||1.705|-2.779|0.6331
91737039|NCT05209386|183367239|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|For interaction term (effect of interest): t(1016) = -2.7|||Time-averaged neural responses across respective windows of significance were averaged for all stimuli with ambiguous VOT (Canonical and Reverse blocks) to provide trial-averaged responses. A single linear mixed-effects model was built with fixed effects of F0, condition/listening context (block), and their interaction, as well as a random effect (intercept only) of patient+channel. The effect of interest was the interaction term, indicating that neural responses to F0 varied according to listening context (block).|||<0.0001
91737040|NCT05209386|183367240|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|t(48) = -4.50||The null hypothesis is that there is no effect of change in listening context on behavioral responses of participants.||||<0.0001
91737041|NCT05209386|183367241|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Permutation-based clustering analysis was used to identify channels in non-regions of interest that significantly encode change in acoustic dimensions. For each channel, a sliding-window encoding model was built comparing evoked responses (z-scored voltages) to Canonical Block stimuli across varying F0 with fixed VOT. This analysis identified the n = 4 channels and time windows where neural responses differed according to change in F0.|||
91737042|NCT05209386|183367242|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|For interaction term (effect of interest): t(216) = -0.707|||Time-averaged neural responses across respective windows of significance were averaged for all stimuli with ambiguous VOT (Canonical and Reverse blocks) to provide trial-averaged responses. A single linear mixed-effects model was built with fixed effects of F0, condition/listening context (block), and their interaction, as well as a random effect (intercept only) of patient+channel. The effect of interest was the interaction term, indicating that neural responses to F0 varied according to listening context (block).|||0.480
91737043|NCT04436744|183367243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0433|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0433
91737044|NCT04436744|183367244|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-0.93||||0.8272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|12.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR was calculated using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||12.81|-14.66|0.8272
91737045|NCT04436744|183367245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rate|6.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|17.97||||||||17.97|-4.25|
91798469|NCT01675427|183475051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0634
91737046|NCT01240863|183367259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.82||statistical significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment and stratification (opioid naïve/opioid experienced) factors as the fixed effects; screening and baseline APIs as covariates.|placebo - hydrocodone|||0.82|-0.11|0.134
91737047|NCT01538199|183367287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|We used a modified intent-to-treat approach with LOCF and unpaired Student's t-test (one-way), comparing the change in total severity score.||||||0.04
91737048|NCT01538199|183367287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Modified intent-to-treat approach with lost observation carried forward (LOCF) and a two-tailed t-test to compare the change in total severity score.||||||0.08
91737049|NCT01538199|183367287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|One-tailed t-test to compare the change in total severity score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after).||||0.01
91798470|NCT01675427|183475051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.6165
91737050|NCT01538199|183367287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed t-test to compare the change in total severity score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after).||||0.02
91737051|NCT01538199|183367287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||By means of a paired t-test we tested the significance of the change in the mean HAM-D17 total score (from baseline) to week 8. Although the primary comparison was with the last assessment (week 8). A last observation carried forward (LOCF) was also performed to account for one missing value at week 8.||||0.004
91737052|NCT01538199|183367290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|Last observation carried forward (LOCF), one tailed t-test to compare change in QIDS score.||||||0.18
91737053|NCT01538199|183367290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|One-tailed t-test to measure the change in QIDS score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after). One treatment completer in Group 1 was excluded because they consistently skipped several answers across self-rated scales for the duration of the study.||||0.01
91798471|NCT01675427|183475051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1649
91873296|NCT03055988|183640438|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.9817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.074|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||0.074|-0.072|0.9817
91873297|NCT03055988|183640439|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.995||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.719|5.279|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||5.279|-2.719|0.5238
91873298|NCT03055988|183640440|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|5.779|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||5.779|-1.640|0.2687
91873299|NCT03055988|183640441|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.335||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.264|3.082|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||3.082|-2.264|0.7604
91873300|NCT03055988|183640442|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.509||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.341|2.702|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||2.702|-3.341|0.8330
91873301|NCT03055988|183640443|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.452||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.865|-3.05|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||-3.050|-12.865|0.0019
91873302|NCT03055988|183640444|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.24|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||0.240|0.121|<0.0001
91873303|NCT03055988|183640445|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||0.400|0.171|<0.0001
91873304|NCT01528605|183640448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was no group difference||||<0.05
91873305|NCT01528605|183640449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was no group difference||||<0.05
91873306|NCT01528605|183640450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis is no group difference"||||>0.05
91873307|NCT01970527|183640471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
91873308|NCT01970527|183640473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
91873309|NCT01974102|183640477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.015
91704708|NCT01260584|183304144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|110.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.7|130.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Prasugrel active metabolite R-138727||130.8|93.7|
91873310|NCT01974102|183640478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
91873311|NCT02326220|183640512|SUPERIORITY||H-L estimate of median difference|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.833||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|"Analysis was performed using the ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline frequency of the apheresis procedure (QW or Q2W) and Lp(a) levels (normal or elevated) as fixed effect and the baseline LDL-C level as a covariate. Hodges-Lehmann estimator of median difference (median of all pairwise differences; CI is Moses distribution free CI.~p-value is derived from the rank-based ANCOVA model. The model includes the baseline LDL-C value and stratification factors per IVRS."||0.833|0.667|< 0.0001
91873312|NCT02326220|183640513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-55.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|-47.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed-effect model with repeated measures|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-47.5|-63.0|< 0.0001
91906751|NCT00916149|183708896|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Trails Test from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91704709|NCT01260584|183304144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|118.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.8|140.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||active metabolite R-130964||140.4|99.8|
91704710|NCT01260584|183304145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|117.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|147.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation was based on the ratio of Geom. means between groups. Non-smoker is the denominator.|Prasugrel active metabolite R-138727||147.3|94.4|
91873313|NCT02326220|183640514|SUPERIORITY||H-L estimate of median difference|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.000|0.500|<.0001
91798472|NCT01675427|183475051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9159|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.9159
91798473|NCT01675427|183475052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.7454
91798474|NCT01675427|183475052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0016
91798475|NCT01675427|183475052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5261|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.5261
91798476|NCT01675427|183475052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3422|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3422
91798477|NCT01675427|183475052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.9026
91798478|NCT01675427|183475053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0017
91798479|NCT01675427|183475053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.8864
91798480|NCT01675427|183475053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0291
91798481|NCT01675427|183475053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5472|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5472
91798482|NCT01675427|183475053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||1.000
91906752|NCT00916149|183708896|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Trails Test from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91798483|NCT01675427|183475053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.1148
91798484|NCT01675427|183475054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4207|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.4207
91798485|NCT01675427|183475054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0566
91798486|NCT01675427|183475054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1211
91798487|NCT01675427|183475054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3772
91873314|NCT02326220|183640515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-36.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.6|-51.3|< 0.0001
91906753|NCT00916149|183708897|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Grooved Pegboard task from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906754|NCT00916149|183708897|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Grooved Pegboard task from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91798488|NCT01675427|183475054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.4023
91798489|NCT01675427|183475055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798490|NCT01675427|183475055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2132
91798491|NCT01675427|183475055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
91798492|NCT01675427|183475055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3031
91798493|NCT01675427|183475055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.9550
91798494|NCT01675427|183475055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798495|NCT01675427|183475056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798496|NCT01675427|183475056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1890
91798497|NCT01675427|183475056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.5793
91873315|NCT02326220|183640516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|-42.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-42.7|-57.3|< 0.0001
91873316|NCT02326220|183640517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-33.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.2|-45.6|< 0.0001
91873317|NCT02326220|183640518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||12.3|-3.9|0.3012
91873318|NCT02699099|183640535|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (1 month post-Dose 3 of SB257049) was defined as the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (RTS,S group/Coad group) for anti-CS, being below a limit of 2.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||ANOVA|||Adjusted GMC ratios for anti-CS antibody: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the CS antigen when SB257049 is co-administered with YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine versus SB257049 administered alone.||1.07|0.81|
91873319|NCT02699099|183640540|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroconversion rate of the anti-measles antibody, being below 10% for the two groups (Control Group minus Coad Group).|Difference in percentage|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|5.89|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to construct 95%CI for difference between groups||Difference in seroconversion rates against measles antibodies: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the measles vaccine antigen when YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine are coadministered with SB257049 versus administration without SB257049.||5.89|-1.29|
91873320|NCT02699099|183640543|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroconversion rates of the anti-rubella antibody, being below 10% for the two groups (Control Group minus Coad Group).|Difference in percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.78|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to construct 95%CI for difference between groups||"Difference in seroconversion rates against Rubella antibodies: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the rubella vaccine antigen when YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine are coadministered.~with SB257049 versus administration without SB257049."||2.78|-1.29|
91906755|NCT00916149|183708898|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Symbol score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||0.014
91873321|NCT02699099|183640546|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seropositivity rates of the anti-yellow fever antibody , being below 10% for the two groups (Control Group minus Coad Group).|Difference in percentage|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.65|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to construct 95%CI for difference between groups||Difference in seropositivity rates against Yellow Fever antibodies: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the YF vaccine antigen when YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine are coadministered with SB257049 versus administration without SB257049.||3.65|-2.30|
91873322|NCT02699099|183640572|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (1 month post-Dose 3 of SB257049) was defined as the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (RTS,S group/Coad group) for anti-CS, being below a limit of 2.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||ANOVA|||Adjusted GMC ratios for anti-CS antibody: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the CS antigen when SB257049 is co-administered with YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine versus SB257049 administered alone.||1.07|0.81|
91873323|NCT01094106|183640574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||In a previous non-randomised study at our institution, the mean oxycodone consumption in the control group was 60.7 mg (SD, 22.2 mg) during the first 48 h after caesarean section. At α = 0.05, 31 patients would be needed in each group to achieve a power of 90% for detecting a 30% reduction in the need for rescue opioids, which we considered a clinically meaningful effect. We decided to enrol 70 patients. The final study population was 67 patients.||||0.10
91873324|NCT01094106|183640575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 0-6 h||||0.08
91873325|NCT01094106|183640575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 6-12 h||||0.86
91873326|NCT01094106|183640575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 12-24 h||||0.66
91873327|NCT01094106|183640575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 24-36 h||||0.79
91873328|NCT01094106|183640575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 36-48 h||||0.20
91873329|NCT01094106|183640575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 0-6 h||||0.36
91906756|NCT00916149|183708898|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Symbol score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906757|NCT00916149|183708899|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906758|NCT00916149|183708899|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906759|NCT00916149|183708900|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT reaction time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906760|NCT00916149|183708900|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT reaction time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91737054|NCT01538199|183367290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed t-test measuring change in QIDS score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after). One treatment completer in Group 1 was excluded because they consistently skipped several answers across self-rated scales for the duration of the study.||||0.02
91737055|NCT03358030|183367292|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Day 12 through Day 260||||<0.05
91737056|NCT03358030|183367292|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Day 15 through Day 232||||<0.05
91737057|NCT03358030|183367293|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test based on t approximation||Day 15 through Day 176||||< 0.05
91737058|NCT03358030|183367293|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test based on t approximation||Day 12 through Day 176||||< 0.05
91737059|NCT01729039|183367371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356||||||Main effect of time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.356
91737060|NCT01729039|183367371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.840
91737061|NCT01729039|183367372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Main effect of Time (baseline to post-PT) Alpha=.05|ANOVA|||||||.170
91873330|NCT01094106|183640575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 6-12 h||||0.43
91737062|NCT01729039|183367372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.297
91737063|NCT01729039|183367373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of Time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05||||||<.001
91737064|NCT01729039|183367373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.817
91737065|NCT01729039|183367374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Main effect of Time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.005
91737066|NCT01729039|183367374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.172
91737067|NCT01729039|183367375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Main effect of time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.009
91737068|NCT01729039|183367375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Interaction of Time by Grou (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.146
91737069|NCT03449576|183367376|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.3846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5525||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the CAPS score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.4154
91737070|NCT03449576|183367377|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.267397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362521||0.4636|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the SAS-SR score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and Treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.4636
91737071|NCT03449576|183367378|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.3355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8791||0.735129|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the PCL score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.735129
91737072|NCT03449576|183367379|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.64908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76601||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the AQ score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.580
91737073|NCT03449576|183367380|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7193||0.808|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the ITS score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.808
91737074|NCT00404248|183367383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.9|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91737075|NCT00404248|183367384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
91737076|NCT00404248|183367385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
91737077|NCT05788991|183367396|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference of proportions between groups (with 95% CI) and a non inferiority margin of 15 percentage points, assuming a 1-sided α = .025 and 80% power|Farrington-Manning test|-0.5|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|||1 sided alpha|Farrington-Manning test|||The outcome measure of the primary objective was a noninferiority margin of 15 percentage points in the absolute difference in clinical cure rates between dequalinium chloride and metronidazole 7 to 11 days after start of treatment.|||-10.8|<.025
91737078|NCT04464473|183367403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5736|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.5736
91737079|NCT04464473|183367403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and subsystem (Temporal, Contextual Control) on the magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.304
91737080|NCT04464473|183367403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0545|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.0545
91873331|NCT01094106|183640575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 12-24 h||||0.68
91737081|NCT04464473|183367403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1134|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and Subsystem on the magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.1134
91737082|NCT04464473|183367403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4326|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.4326
91873332|NCT01094106|183640575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 24-36 h||||0.37
91873333|NCT01094106|183640575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 36-48 h||||0.06
91737083|NCT04464473|183367403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2546|||||||ANOVA|The interaction of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and subsystem (Temporal, Contextual Control) on the magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.2546
91737084|NCT04464473|183367403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.0645
91737085|NCT04464473|183367403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2033|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and Subsystem on the magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.2033
91737086|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8152|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) on overall BOLD actviation.||||||0.8152
91737087|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor control) on overall BOLD activation.||||||0.0085
91737088|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1551|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on BOLD activation||||||0.1551
91737089|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6431|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.6431
91737090|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2447|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.2447
91873334|NCT01094106|183640576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
91737091|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor) on BOLD activation||||||0.0002
91737092|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1339|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), contextual control, and subsystem on BOLD activation||||||0.1339
91737093|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit, temporal control, contextual control, and subsystem on BOLD activation||||||0.1315
91737094|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6836|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of intervention arm (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on overall BOLD activation.||||||0.6836
91737095|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2146|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor control) on overall BOLD activation.||||||0.2146
91737096|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1541|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on BOLD activation||||||0.1541
91737097|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6657|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.6657
91737098|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5619|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.5619
91737099|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5148|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor) on BOLD activation||||||0.5148
91737100|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5428|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), contextual control, and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor) on BOLD activation||||||0.5428
91737101|NCT04464473|183367404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1249|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention, temporal control, contextual control, and subsystem on BOLD activation||||||0.1249
91737102|NCT04464473|183367405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9504|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on error rate||||||0.9504
91737103|NCT04464473|183367405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7318|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control on error rate||||||0.7318
91737104|NCT04464473|183367405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on error rate||||||0.8424
91737105|NCT04464473|183367405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7652|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control on error rate||||||0.7652
91737106|NCT04464473|183367406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.0266
91737107|NCT04464473|183367406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2386|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.2386
91737108|NCT04464473|183367406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4211|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.4211
91873335|NCT00824850|183640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91737109|NCT04464473|183367406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7503|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.7503
91737110|NCT04464473|183367407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of Visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.0091
91737111|NCT04464473|183367407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of Visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), phase (sub-task, return), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.0045
91873336|NCT00824850|183640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91737112|NCT04464473|183367407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1082|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.1082
91737113|NCT04464473|183367407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0659|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), phase (sub-task, return), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.0659
91873337|NCT00824850|183640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91873338|NCT00824850|183640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.9||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||14.9|-6.9|
91873339|NCT00824850|183640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91873340|NCT00824850|183640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91737114|NCT04464473|183367408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.0211
91737115|NCT04464473|183367408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4964|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.4964
91737116|NCT04464473|183367408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3129|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.3129
91737117|NCT04464473|183367408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5439|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.5439
91737118|NCT04464473|183367409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.0344
91873341|NCT00824850|183640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91873342|NCT00824850|183640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91873343|NCT00824850|183640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|10.9||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.9|-15.7|
91737119|NCT04464473|183367409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5113|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.5113
91737120|NCT04464473|183367409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0301|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.0301
91737121|NCT04464473|183367409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6931|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.6931
91737122|NCT04464473|183367410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0189|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.0189
91873344|NCT00824850|183640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91737123|NCT04464473|183367410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0763|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.0763
91737124|NCT04464473|183367410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9701|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.9701
91737125|NCT04464473|183367410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3826|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention(MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.3826
91737126|NCT03802396|183367411|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
91737127|NCT03802396|183367412|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.116
91737128|NCT03802396|183367412|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.388
91737129|NCT03802396|183367413|OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.569
91737130|NCT03802396|183367413|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.047
91737131|NCT03802396|183367414|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.498
91737132|NCT03802396|183367414|OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.745
91737133|NCT03802396|183367415|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.177
91737134|NCT03802396|183367415|OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.478
91737135|NCT03802396|183367416|OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
91737136|NCT03802396|183367418|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.41|0.286
91737137|NCT03802396|183367419|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.189
91873345|NCT00824850|183640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91737138|NCT04066829|183367422|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|-11.8||||||Pre and post difference in the treatment group as compared to the control group. A log transformation was used.||-11.8|-42.2|
91737139|NCT00163293|183367445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6625||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.6625
91737140|NCT00163293|183367445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7303||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7303
91737141|NCT00163293|183367446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1291||95.0|||||Wald Chi-square|zero inflated Poisson model: adjustment for centre and age \[yrs\] (zero model), treatment and race (Poisson model)||||||0.1291
91737142|NCT00163293|183367446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145||95.0|||||Wald Chi-square|zero inflated Poisson model: adjustment for centre and age \[yrs\] (zero model), treatment and race (Poisson model)||||||0.0145
91737143|NCT00163293|183367448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4754|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4754
91737144|NCT00163293|183367448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6844|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6844
91798498|NCT01675427|183475056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0847
91873346|NCT00824850|183640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91873347|NCT00824850|183640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91737145|NCT01492426|183367502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of noninferiority was based on noninferiority margin of -12% and 2-sided alpha level of 5%. That is, if the lower bound of the 95% CI \> -12%, the Daclatasvir arm would be considered nonnferior to the telaprevir arm.|Percentage difference|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.885|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|11.9||Test of noninferiority carried out by taking a confidence interval (CI) for the difference in rates (daclatasvir arm minus telapravir arm). If lower bound of 95% CI difference exceeded -12%, noninferiority was demonstrated. No p-value was computed.|Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between SVR12 rate in the experimental and control arms was computed using a stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel confidence interval (95% level) for the difference in rates. The stratification factors were IL28B rs1297860 single nucleotide polymorphism (CC or non-CC) and baseline cirrhosis status (absent or present), unless otherwise indicated.||11.9|-3.3|
91737146|NCT00269113|183367508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|17.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|28.4|||Fisher Exact|||||28.4|6.4|0.0009
91737147|NCT00269113|183367509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91737148|NCT00269113|183367510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0127
91737149|NCT00269113|183367511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91737150|NCT00269113|183367512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0186
91873348|NCT00824850|183640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|25.5||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||25.5|-5.6|
91737151|NCT00269113|183367513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0002
91737152|NCT00269113|183367514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0017
91737153|NCT01114737|183367567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline ADHD-RS/ASRS total score, age group, and ADHD medication.||||0.6|-8.9|0.085
91737154|NCT01114737|183367568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline HAMA Anxiety Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||2.3|-1.5|0.669
91737155|NCT01114737|183367569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline HAM-D Rating Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.9|-1.1|0.588
91737156|NCT01114737|183367570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline CGI-Severity Response, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||0.2|-0.4|0.531
91737157|NCT01114737|183367571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Adult-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||3.6|-5.5|0.661
91737158|NCT01114737|183367572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Parent-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||-0.3|-7.9|0.034
91737159|NCT01114737|183367573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 ADHD RS/ASRS Total Score, age group, and ADHD medication.||||7.8|-2.6|0.312
91737160|NCT01114737|183367574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 HAMA Anxiety Rating Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.4|-2.4|0.590
91737161|NCT01114737|183367575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 HAMD Rating Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD||||1.9|-1.2|0.636
91737162|NCT01114737|183367576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 Global Impression-Severity Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||0.5|-0.2|0.510
91737163|NCT01114737|183367577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 BRIEF Adult-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||5.2|-2.1|0.395
91737164|NCT01114737|183367578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 BRIEF Parent-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||4.7|-2.1|0.443
91737165|NCT01114737|183367579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline ADHD-RS/ASRS Total Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||5.8|-5.5|0.953
91737166|NCT01114737|183367580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.7|-2.4|0.733
91737167|NCT01114737|183367581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline Hamilton Rating Scale For Depression (HAM-D) Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||2.2|-1.1|0.522
91737168|NCT01114737|183367582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S), ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||0.4|-0.2|0.564
91873349|NCT00824850|183640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91873350|NCT00824850|183640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.9||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||14.9|-6.9|
91873351|NCT00824850|183640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|19.2||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||19.2|-4.2|
91873352|NCT00824850|183640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|17.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.0|-9.3|
91873353|NCT00824850|183640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91873354|NCT00824850|183640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91873355|NCT00824850|183640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.9||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||14.9|-6.9|
91873356|NCT00824850|183640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|23.4||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||23.4|-7.4|
91704711|NCT01260584|183304145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|123.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|155.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation was based on the ratio of Geom. means between groups. Non-smoker is the denominator.|Clopidogrel active metabolite R-130964||155.4|98.6|
91873357|NCT00824850|183640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91704712|NCT02069093|183304155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Incidence rate R|||A test of the incidence rate R was performed with null hypothesis H0: R\>= 0.33 and alternative hypothesis Ha: R\<0.33 with a one-sided significance level of 0.05. If the test statistic was negative (actual incidence rate was \<0.33), the one-sided p-value for the null hypothesis R\>=0.33 was presented. The null hypothesis was rejected if the statistic was negative and the corresponding p-value for the one-sided test was \<0.5.||||<0.001
91704713|NCT03434249|183304173|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||"According to the results of a previous trial that looked at a probiotic's effect on infants with CI, it was estimated that when the sample size in each group is 33, the study has 80% power to detect an absolute difference of 35% in the treatment success rate (15% in the Placebo group and 50% in the treatment group) with a 0,05 alpha level.~The number of infants that was included in the study was 80, with an expected maximum dropout rate of 20%."||||0.0001
91704714|NCT03434249|183304174|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91704715|NCT03434249|183304176|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91873358|NCT00824850|183640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91798499|NCT01675427|183475056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5506
91873359|NCT00824850|183640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91873360|NCT00824850|183640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91873361|NCT00824850|183640587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.9||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[7vPnC / 13vPnC) - (MnCC / 13vPnC), expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.9|-10.2|
91873362|NCT00824850|183640587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
91873363|NCT00824850|183640587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91873364|NCT00824850|183640587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91873365|NCT00824850|183640587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91704716|NCT04877535|183304247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.12|-0.24|0.524
91704717|NCT04877535|183304247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.16|-0.4|0.403
91704718|NCT04877535|183304248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.38|||Fisher Exact|||||2.38|0.47|1.00
91704719|NCT04877535|183304249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|11.13|||Fisher Exact|||||11.13|1.81|<0.001
91704720|NCT04877535|183304249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.19|||Fisher Exact|||||4.19|0.23|1.00
91704721|NCT04877535|183304250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|39.25|||Fisher Exact|||||39.25|1.94|<0.001
91798500|NCT01675427|183475056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0020
91873366|NCT00824850|183640587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
91873367|NCT00824850|183640587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
91737169|NCT01114737|183367583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.87||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication||||1.64|0.46|0.67
91737170|NCT01114737|183367584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Adult-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||5.0|-6.2|0.833
91737171|NCT01114737|183367585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Parent-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.8|-6.3|0.279
91737172|NCT00856609|183367635|OTHER||Slope|-624.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-901.8|-347.8|||ANCOVA|||||-347.8|-901.8|0.01
91737173|NCT00856609|183367636|OTHER||Slope|-24.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.7|41.4|||ANCOVA|||||41.4|-89.7|0.01
91737174|NCT00856609|183367637|OTHER||Slope|-1.48||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-3.02|0.05
91737175|NCT01788943|183367638|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.037
91798501|NCT01675427|183475057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0007
91873368|NCT00824850|183640587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|15.3||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||15.3|-6.7|
91737176|NCT01788943|183367639|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91798502|NCT01675427|183475057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0061
91873369|NCT00824850|183640587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91873370|NCT00824850|183640587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|17.6||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.6|-15.0|
91873371|NCT00824850|183640587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91873372|NCT00824850|183640587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
91704722|NCT04877535|183304250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|14.86|||Fisher Exact|||||14.86|0.13|0.630
91704723|NCT01969084|183304252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were expressed as the median (25th:75th percentiles) for non-normally distributed data. The mean±sd for the groups was not analyzed as per the statistical plan.||||>0.05
91704724|NCT04907227|183304269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.46|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.46|0.32|
91704725|NCT04907227|183304270|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.67|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.67|0.68|
91704726|NCT04907227|183304271|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.5|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.50|0.45|
91704727|NCT04907227|183304273|OTHER||Percent Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|31.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||31.2|-24.1|
91704728|NCT04907227|183304275|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.99|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.99|0.17|
91704729|NCT04907227|183304276|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|18.24|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||18.24|0.15|
91704730|NCT04907227|183304277|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.46|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.46|0.41|
91704731|NCT04907227|183304278|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.17|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.17|0.43|
91704732|NCT01362244|183304282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical data is presented for NR||||0.003
91704733|NCT01362244|183304282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical data is presented for LOCF||||0.016
91704734|NCT01362244|183304283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.64|||Regression, Logistic||Week 1|||3.64|0.15|0.710
91704735|NCT01362244|183304283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.87|||Regression, Logistic||Week 2|||6.87|0.29|0.674
91704736|NCT01362244|183304283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.49|||Regression, Logistic||Week 5|||4.49|0.20|0.942
91704737|NCT01362244|183304283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|18.96|||Regression, Logistic||Week 9|||18.96|0.80|0.091
91704738|NCT01362244|183304283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.66||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|62.33|||Regression, Logistic||Week 13|||62.33|2.18|0.004
91704739|NCT01362244|183304283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|13.9|||Regression, Logistic||Week 17|||13.90|0.54|0.224
91704740|NCT01362244|183304283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|30.69|||Regression, Logistic||Week 21|||30.69|1.11|0.037
91798503|NCT01675427|183475057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
91798504|NCT01675427|183475057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3885|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3885
91798505|NCT01675427|183475057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3597
91798506|NCT01675427|183475057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91873373|NCT00824850|183640587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.6||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||7.6|-13.9|
91798507|NCT01675427|183475058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798508|NCT01675427|183475058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0005
91798509|NCT01675427|183475058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0110
91798510|NCT01675427|183475058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0980
91798511|NCT01675427|183475058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2264
91798512|NCT01675427|183475058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798513|NCT01675427|183475059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0098
91798514|NCT01675427|183475059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.6291
91798515|NCT01675427|183475059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0013
91798516|NCT01675427|183475059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5588
91798517|NCT01675427|183475059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.9932
91798518|NCT01675427|183475059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91873374|NCT00824850|183640588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[7vPnC / 13vPnC) - (MnCC / 13vPnC), expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
91704741|NCT01362244|183304283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|27.44|||Regression, Logistic||Week 25|||27.44|0.99|0.051
91798519|NCT01675427|183475060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0007
91798520|NCT01675427|183475060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0020
91798521|NCT01675427|183475060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0013
91704742|NCT01362244|183304300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.19|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||0.19|-0.10|0.567
91704743|NCT01362244|183304300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||0.21|-0.10|0.495
91704744|NCT01362244|183304300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||0.28|-0.10|0.365
91704745|NCT01362244|183304300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||0.34|-0.01|0.058
91704746|NCT01362244|183304300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.43|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||0.43|-0.01|0.056
91704747|NCT01362244|183304300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.42|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||0.42|0.03|0.028
91704748|NCT01362244|183304300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.34|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||0.34|-0.02|0.077
91704749|NCT01362244|183304301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||0.22|-0.10|0.486
91704750|NCT01362244|183304301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.22|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||0.22|-0.08|0.384
91704751|NCT01362244|183304301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.26|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||0.26|-0.14|0.546
91704752|NCT01362244|183304301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.39|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||0.39|0.00|0.050
91704753|NCT01362244|183304301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.45|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||0.45|-0.01|0.061
91873375|NCT00824850|183640588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.6||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-10.2|
91873376|NCT00824850|183640588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91873377|NCT00824850|183640588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.5|
91873378|NCT00824850|183640588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
91737177|NCT00783432|183367644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||This is the Baseline P-Value|ANOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.368
91737178|NCT00783432|183367644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327||95.0||||This P-Value if for Month 1|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.327
91737179|NCT00783432|183367644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||95.0||||This P-Value is for Month 3|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.991
91737180|NCT00783432|183367644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0||||This P-Value is for Month 6|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.168
91737181|NCT00783432|183367644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||This P-Value is for Month 9|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.319
91737182|NCT00783432|183367644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||||||This P-Value is for Month 12/ET|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.725
91873379|NCT00824850|183640588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-16.8|
91737183|NCT00186628|183367646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||.07
91737184|NCT01331681|183367649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.5|12.0||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value was below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the first secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Least square (LS) mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||12.0|6.5|<0.0001
91737185|NCT01331681|183367649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.3|11.8||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value was below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the first secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||11.8|6.3|<0.0001
91760056|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.52||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.52|-1.37|
91760057|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.54||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.54|-1.39|
91873380|NCT00824850|183640588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|16.6||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||16.6|-9.1|
91873381|NCT00824850|183640588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|15.0||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||15.0|-7.1|
91760058|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.18||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.18|-0.67|
91906761|NCT00916149|183708901|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Choice Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91873382|NCT00824850|183640588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
91873383|NCT00824850|183640588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|18.2||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||18.2|-14.8|
91737186|NCT01331681|183367650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.8|41.6||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the second secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 10 letters identical in both groups||41.6|15.8|<0.0001
91737187|NCT01331681|183367650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.6|40.5||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the second secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 10 letters identical in both groups||40.5|14.6|<0.0001
91737188|NCT01331681|183367651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.6|33.9||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the third secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 15 letters identical in both groups||33.9|12.6|<0.0001
91737189|NCT01331681|183367651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.5|34.9||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the third secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 15 letters identical in both groups||34.9|13.5|<0.0001
91737190|NCT01331681|183367652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.2|39.4||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fourth secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to improve by \>= 2 steps identical in both groups||39.4|12.2|<0.0001
91737191|NCT01331681|183367652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|19.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.6|32.1||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fourth secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to improve by \>= 2 steps identical in both groups||32.1|6.6|0.0006
91737192|NCT01331681|183367653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-157.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-190.9|-123.1||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fifth secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||-123.1|-190.9|<0.0001
91798522|NCT01675427|183475060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.7166
91737193|NCT01331681|183367653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-142.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-179.3|-106.3||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fifth secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A negative value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||-106.3|-179.3|<0.0001
91737194|NCT01331681|183367654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41||||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.01|6.82||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value is not below of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing stops here. The sixth secondary endpoint cannot be tested confirmatory.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||6.82|-2.01|0.2208
91798523|NCT01675427|183475060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3217
91873384|NCT00824850|183640588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91873385|NCT00824850|183640588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|15.8||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||15.8|-6.8|
91737195|NCT01331681|183367654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.5537|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.79|3.37||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value is not below of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing stops here. The sixth secondary endpoint cannot be tested confirmatory.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||3.37|-5.79|0.5537
91737196|NCT01331681|183367655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.29|2.91|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||2.91|-5.29|0.5138
91737197|NCT01331681|183367655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.79|4.05|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||4.05|-4.79|0.8498
91737198|NCT05525910|183367656|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|105.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|116.68||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||116.68|94.54|
91737199|NCT05525910|183367656|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.08|121.47||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||121.47|98.08|
91737200|NCT05525910|183367656|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|100.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.79|111.74||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||111.74|90.79|
91798524|NCT01675427|183475060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798525|NCT01675427|183475061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.1894
91798526|NCT01675427|183475061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0054
91798527|NCT01675427|183475061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
91798528|NCT01675427|183475061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5360
91737201|NCT05525910|183367656|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|110.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.58|122.52||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||122.52|99.58|
91737202|NCT05525910|183367657|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|104.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.78|117.24||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||117.24|93.78|
91737203|NCT05525910|183367657|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.93|122.89||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||122.89|97.93|
91737204|NCT05525910|183367657|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|100.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.69|111.8||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||111.80|89.69|
91737205|NCT05525910|183367657|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.36|122.57||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||122.57|98.36|
91737206|NCT05525910|183367658|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.97|127.06||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||127.06|94.97|
91737207|NCT05525910|183367658|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|114.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.92|132.98||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||132.98|98.92|
91798529|NCT01675427|183475061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2185
91798530|NCT01675427|183475061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798531|NCT01675427|183475062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0002
91737208|NCT05525910|183367658|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.64|126.14||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||126.14|94.64|
91737209|NCT05525910|183367658|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|115.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.48|133.87||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||133.87|100.48|
91737210|NCT05525910|183367659|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.24|103.53||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||103.53|76.24|
91737211|NCT05525910|183367659|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|95.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.41|111.11||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||111.11|81.41|
91737212|NCT05525910|183367659|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|85.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.73|99.7||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||99.70|73.73|
91737213|NCT05525910|183367659|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|93.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.09|108.26||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||108.26|80.09|
91737214|NCT05525910|183367660|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.64|104.78||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||104.78|74.64|
91798532|NCT01675427|183475062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0003
91737215|NCT05525910|183367660|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.8|114.06||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||114.06|80.80|
91737216|NCT05525910|183367660|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.15|99.43||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||99.43|71.15|
91737217|NCT05525910|183367660|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|90.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.99|107.54||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||107.54|76.99|
91737218|NCT05525910|183367661|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|82.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.85|103.74||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||103.74|65.85|
91737219|NCT05525910|183367661|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|94.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.28|119.49||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||119.49|75.28|
91737220|NCT05525910|183367661|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.18|102.07||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||102.07|65.18|
91737221|NCT05525910|183367661|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|110.57||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||110.57|70.65|
91737222|NCT03498716|183367689|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors used in the analysis are axillary nodal status, surgery (breast conserving vs. mastectomy),and tumor PD-L1 status.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.87|0.3846
91737223|NCT00265850|183367749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.77|0.08
91737224|NCT00265850|183367750|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.84|0.45
91737225|NCT01918189|183367782|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the primary measure of pain interference (i.e., WHYMPI-Interference Scale) at 10 weeks post-baseline.||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
91798533|NCT01675427|183475062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0106
91906762|NCT00916149|183708902|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Choice Reaction Time score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||0.05
91906763|NCT00916149|183708903|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906764|NCT00916149|183708903|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||0.039
91906765|NCT00916149|183708904|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906766|NCT00916149|183708904|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906767|NCT00916149|183708905|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906768|NCT00916149|183708905|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906769|NCT00916149|183708906|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906770|NCT00916149|183708906|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906771|NCT00916149|183708907|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906772|NCT00916149|183708907|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906773|NCT00916149|183708908|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906774|NCT00916149|183708908|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906775|NCT00916149|183708909|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906776|NCT00916149|183708909|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906777|NCT00916149|183708910|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906778|NCT00916149|183708910|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906779|NCT00916149|183708911|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the NDDIE score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906780|NCT00916149|183708911|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the NDDIE score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906781|NCT00916149|183708912|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the AEP score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
91906782|NCT00916149|183708912|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the AEP score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91906783|NCT00978029|183708913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.9||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|23.97|||Fisher Exact|||||23.97|-10.17|0.486
91906784|NCT00978029|183708913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|16.9||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|33.83|||Fisher Exact|||||33.83|0.01|0.078
91906785|NCT02662036|183708921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #1 is for intraoperative opioid use||||0.76
91906786|NCT02662036|183708921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #2 is for postoperative acute care unit opioid use||||0.38
91704754|NCT01362244|183304301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.51|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||0.51|0.05|0.016
91704755|NCT01362244|183304301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.4|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||0.40|-0.03|0.094
91704756|NCT01362244|183304302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|30.12|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||30.12|-19.91|0.686
91704757|NCT01362244|183304302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.55||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|43.5|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||43.50|-14.40|0.321
91704758|NCT01362244|183304302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.91||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.79|44.6|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||44.60|-26.79|0.622
91704759|NCT01362244|183304302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.24||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|57.22|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||57.22|-10.75|0.178
91704760|NCT01362244|183304302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.16||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|76.66|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||76.66|-0.33|0.052
91704761|NCT01362244|183304302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.72||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|76.02|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||76.02|1.41|0.042
91704762|NCT01362244|183304302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.13||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.76|54.02|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||54.02|-25.76|0.484
91704763|NCT01362244|183304304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.16||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.49|35.83|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||35.83|6.49|0.005
91798534|NCT01675427|183475062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.7821
91704764|NCT01362244|183304304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.89||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|32.01|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||32.01|1.77|0.029
91704765|NCT01362244|183304304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|27.03|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||27.03|-12.64|0.472
91704766|NCT01362244|183304304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.71||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|48.23|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||48.23|7.19|0.009
91704767|NCT01362244|183304304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|34.59|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||34.59|-3.80|0.114
91704768|NCT01362244|183304304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.51||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|52.96|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||52.96|6.06|0.014
91704769|NCT01362244|183304304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.65||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|50.21|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||50.21|3.10|0.027
91704770|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.79|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 2|||0.79|-0.61|0.790
91704771|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.97|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 5|||1.97|0.30|0.008
91704772|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.64|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 9|||1.64|-0.05|0.066
91704773|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.67|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 13|||1.67|-0.21|0.127
91704774|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.46|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 17|||1.46|-0.69|0.481
91704775|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.9|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 21|||1.90|-0.61|0.308
91704776|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.88|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 25|||1.88|-0.46|0.233
91704777|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.02|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 2|||1.02|-0.45|0.444
91704778|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.12|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 5|||2.12|0.50|0.002
91704779|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.6|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 9|||1.60|-0.24|0.143
91704780|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.65|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 13|||1.65|-0.42|0.240
91704781|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.35|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 17|||1.35|-0.98|0.750
91704782|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.91|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 21|||1.91|-0.64|0.324
91704783|NCT01362244|183304305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.66|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 25|||1.66|-0.77|0.468
91704784|NCT01362244|183304306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed effects model|-13.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-4.22|||ANCOVA|||||-4.22|-22.2|0.005
91704785|NCT01362244|183304307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.06|
91704786|NCT01362244|183304308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|12.68||||||||12.68|-1.33|
91704787|NCT01253174|183304321|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|102.26||||||90.0|96.65|108.2||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 42 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||108.20|96.65|
91704788|NCT01253174|183304322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|101.13||||||90.0|97.65|104.75||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 42 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||104.75|97.65|
91704789|NCT01253174|183304323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|98.66||||||90.0|93.37|104.24||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||104.24|93.37|
91705650|NCT01026818|183305794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.36||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.36|-0.81|0.621
91737226|NCT01918189|183367783|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the primary measure of pain intensity at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.27
91737227|NCT01918189|183367784|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of mood symptoms at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
91737228|NCT01918189|183367785|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of mood symptoms at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.48
91737229|NCT01918189|183367786|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of sleep at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.18
91737230|NCT01918189|183367787|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of depression symptoms at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.03
91737231|NCT00461708|183367832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91737232|NCT00461708|183367833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91737233|NCT02394561|183367835|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in percentage of patients achieving PASI 90 response between the Cw6-positive cohort and the Cw6-negative cohort was H0 = Cw6-positive minus Cw6-negative ≥0.12 and HA = Cw6-positive minus Cw6-negative was \< 0.12. The percentage of PASI 90 response by cohort as well as the difference between cohort together with 97.5% upper CI was provided using Clopper Pearson CI method.|difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.2||||||||6.2|-8.8|
91737234|NCT02394561|183367838|OTHER|difference between cohorts for PASI 90 using Kaplan-Meier estimate||||||0.1295|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1295
91737235|NCT02394561|183367838|OTHER|||||||0.447||||||difference between cohorts for PASI 75 using Kaplan-Meier estimate|Log Rank|||||||0.4470
91737236|NCT02394561|183367839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|At all time points||||||<.0001
91737237|NCT02394561|183367840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||All time points|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
91737238|NCT02553629|183367845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91737239|NCT02553629|183367846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91737240|NCT02553629|183367847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91737241|NCT02553629|183367848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91737242|NCT02553629|183367849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91737243|NCT01812057|183367856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
91737244|NCT01812057|183367857|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score at rest at 2 hours||||||0.171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.171
91737245|NCT01812057|183367857|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score with movement at 2 hours||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
91737246|NCT01812057|183367858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1965|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1965
91737247|NCT01812057|183367859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.709
91737248|NCT01812057|183367860|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score at rest at 24 hours||||||0.267|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.267
91737249|NCT01812057|183367860|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score with movement at 24 hours||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.518
91737250|NCT01812057|183367861|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score at rest at 48 hours||||||0.491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.491
91737251|NCT01812057|183367861|SUPERIORITY|Pain Scores with movement at 48 hours||||||0.525|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.525
91737252|NCT01812057|183367862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Total opioid consumption at 24 hours|||We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to determine factors associated with 24h opioid consumption accounting for MTS category, demographic factors, study group allocation (dexamethasone vs placebo) and a preoperative questions to assess patients anxiety, anticipated pain scores after surgery and anticipated analgesic need after surgery. At each step of backward variable selection, we eliminate the factor with the largest p-value over 0.05.In the final model MTS was not associated with 24h opioid consumption parameter estimate (standard error) = 9.15 (5.27), p=0.09.|||0.355
91737253|NCT01812057|183367863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|Chronic pain at 8 weeks||||||0.420
91737254|NCT01812057|183367864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.322
91760059|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.49||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.49|-1.33|
91760060|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.02||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.02|-0.90|
91704790|NCT01253174|183304324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.45||||||90.0|96.7|102.28||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||102.28|96.70|
91704791|NCT01253174|183304325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|106.19||||||90.0|99.18|113.68||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||113.68|99.18|
91798535|NCT01675427|183475062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2372
91873386|NCT00824850|183640588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.6||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||7.6|-13.9|
91873387|NCT00824850|183640589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|29.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.61|49.33|||||Confidence intervals (CI) for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||49.33|17.61|
91906787|NCT02662036|183708921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #3 is for postoperative floor opioid use||||0.69
91906788|NCT02662036|183708921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #4 is for total opioid use||||0.98
91705651|NCT01026818|183305794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.35||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.35|-0.78|0.598
91705652|NCT01026818|183305794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.21||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.21|-1.10|0.923
91705653|NCT01026818|183305794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.24||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.24|-1.03|0.857
91705654|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|14.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|25.83||P-value is for Q1 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||25.83|3.92|0.008
91705655|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|22.04||P-value is for Q1 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||22.04|0.63|0.038
91705656|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|8.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|21.0||P-value is for Q1 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||21.00|-3.18|0.148
91705657|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|17.23||P-value is for Q1 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.23|-6.48|0.373
91705658|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|20.66||P-value is for Q1 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||20.66|1.14|0.029
91705659|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|14.17||P-value is for Q1 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||14.17|-5.12|0.357
91705660|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|16.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|26.98||P-value is for Q2 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||26.98|5.68|0.003
91705661|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|17.04||P-value is for Q2 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.04|-3.80|0.212
91705662|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|4.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|16.68||P-value is for Q2 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||16.68|-7.58|0.461
91737255|NCT01812057|183367865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour pain scores at rest between MTS groups|We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to determine factors associated with Pain scores at rest at 24 hours accounting for MTS category, demographic factors, study group allocation (dexamethasone vs placebo) and a preoperative questions to assess patients anxiety, anticipated pain scores after surgery and anticipated analgesic need after surgery. At each step of backward variable selection, we eliminate the factors with the largest p-value over 0.05. MTS category was not included in the final model for 24 h pain scores at rest.|||0.805
91737256|NCT01812057|183367865|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain scores on movement at 24h|We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to determine factors associated with Pain scores at rest at 24 hours accounting for MTS category, demographic factors, study group allocation (dexamethasone vs placebo) and a preoperative questions to assess patients anxiety, anticipated pain scores after surgery and anticipated analgesic need after surgery. At each step of backward variable selection, we eliminated the factors with the largest p-value over 0.05. MTS category was not included in the final model for 24 h pain scores on movement.|||1.000
91737257|NCT01812057|183367866|SUPERIORITY|Intraoperative nausea and vomiting||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
91737258|NCT01812057|183367866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Chi-squared|Need for intraoperative antiemetics||||||0.676
91737259|NCT01812057|183367866|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91737260|NCT01812057|183367868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||Chi-squared|Incidence of postoperative pruritus||||||0.924
91737261|NCT01812057|183367869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.700
91737262|NCT01812057|183367870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Chi-squared|Incidence of PONV at 24 h||||||0.302
91737263|NCT01812057|183367870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|Postoperative need for rescue antiemetic||||||0.028
91737264|NCT01812057|183367870|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91737265|NCT01812057|183367870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.188
91737266|NCT01259011|183367877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|1.1|<.05
91737267|NCT01259011|183367878|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3||HADS-anxiety|Regression, Linear|||||0.3|-2.8|0.12
91906789|NCT02662036|183708922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #1 is for postoperative acute care unit antiemetic use||||0.28
91737268|NCT01259011|183367878|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.3||HADS-depression|Regression, Linear|||||-0.3|-4.2|<0.05
91737269|NCT01259011|183367879|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.2|||Regression, Linear|||||2.2|-10.2|0.21
91737270|NCT01180127|183367881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA for the interaction of time (baseline vs 12 week) and flavanol group.||||.0001
91737271|NCT01180127|183367882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||The ANCOVA model included a main effect for both flavanol and exercise, so this p-value is for the effect of flavanol on Modbent controlling for baseline Modbent and exercise|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA used to test main effect of flavanol||||0.038
91737272|NCT01180127|183367882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|||||The ANCOVA included both a main effect for flavanol and exercise, so this p-value is for the test of exercise controlling for baseline Modbent and flavanol|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA used to test main effect of exercise||||0.815
91737273|NCT01180127|183367883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for testing main effect of flavanol||||0.853
91737274|NCT01180127|183367883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for testing main effect of exercise||||0.581
91737275|NCT01180127|183367884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to test for an exercise effect.||||0.237
91737276|NCT01854528|183367910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.09|47.42|||Stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value for the difference in sustained virologic response rates 12 weeks after the last dose between treatment groups with HCV subgenotype (1a, non-1a) from stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel with previous type of response to pegIFN/RBV treatment (relapser, partial or null responder) as strata.||47.42|21.09|<0.001
91737277|NCT01854528|183367911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|11.85|||ANCOVA|||P-value from ANCOVA model including baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||11.85|5.43|<0.001
91737278|NCT01854528|183367912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|9.98|||ANCOVA|||P-value from ANCOVA model including baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||9.98|5.11|<0.001
91737279|NCT01854528|183367913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|435.1|||Regression, Logistic|||P-value from logistic regression model including treatment arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype, and previous response to pegIFN/RBV treatment as predictors.||435.1|6.9|<0.001
91737280|NCT03060902|183367934|SUPERIORITY||F|10.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.002
91737281|NCT00833521|183367948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|91.1||||||90.0|86.3|96.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||96.1|86.3|
91737282|NCT00833521|183367949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.0||||||90.0|91.0|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|91.0|
91737283|NCT00833521|183367950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|96.8||||||90.0|90.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|90.7|
91737284|NCT02735421|183367976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91737285|NCT01978145|183367985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non- inferiority was demonstrated if lower limit of the CI (0.025 one sided significance level) for the difference of the mean change from Baseline in trough FEV1 of FSC administered BID by CB DPI versus FSC administered BID by MD DPI is greater than -45 milliliter (mL).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.047|||Repeated Measures Mixed Models|||||0.047|0.002|
91737286|NCT01978145|183367986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.027|||||The estimated value and 95% CI values are provided for Day 28|||0.027|-0.019|
91873388|NCT00824850|183640589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.49|15.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||15.13|8.49|
91873389|NCT00824850|183640589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|7.67|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.67|4.06|
91873390|NCT00824850|183640589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|71.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.74|124.08|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||124.08|40.74|
91873391|NCT00824850|183640589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|12.73|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||12.73|4.92|
91873392|NCT00824850|183640589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|7.26|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.26|2.87|
91873393|NCT00824850|183640589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|10.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.42|4.51|
91873394|NCT00824850|183640589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.98|17.64|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||17.64|6.98|
91873395|NCT00824850|183640589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.07|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.07|1.37|
91873396|NCT00824850|183640589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.9|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.90|1.52|
91737287|NCT01978145|183367986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.044|||||The estimated value and 95% CI values are provided for Day 56|||0.044|-0.005|
91737288|NCT01978145|183367987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166||||||95.0|-0.06|0.393||||||||0.393|-0.060|
91873397|NCT00824850|183640589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|12.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||12.42|4.77|
91873398|NCT00824850|183640589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.95|10.48|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.48|4.95|
91873399|NCT00824850|183640589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.1|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||4.10|2.23|
91873400|NCT00824850|183640590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|19.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|38.77|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||38.77|9.99|
91906790|NCT02662036|183708922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #2 is for floor antiemetic use||||0.62
91737289|NCT01978145|183367988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.272|||||The estimated and 95% CI values are presented for Day 28.|||0.272|-0.278|
91737290|NCT01978145|183367988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.069||||||95.0|-0.349|0.212|||||The estimated and 95% CI values are presented for Day 56.|||0.212|-0.349|
91737291|NCT01978145|183367988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|0.148|||||The estimated and 95% CI values are presented for Day 85.|||0.148|-0.413|
91737292|NCT01978145|183367989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.19||||||||1.19|-0.70|
91737293|NCT01978145|183367990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.02||||||||-0.02|-1.10|
91798536|NCT01675427|183475062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91737294|NCT00755807|183367998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM):Change from Baseline=Baseline+Treatment+Investigator+Week+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week,participant random effect.||Null hypothesis: no difference between duloxetine and placebo on pain severity reduction as measured by weekly mean of the daily 24-hour average pain scores in participants assessed at 6 weeks. Sample size is determined using 2-sided t-test with significance level of 0.05, and 5% of randomized participants without post-baseline data due to very early discontinuation. With 119 participants per arm, study has approximately 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.375 on treatment group difference.||||0.001
91798537|NCT01675427|183475063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0688|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0688
91798538|NCT01675427|183475063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4367|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.4367
91798539|NCT01675427|183475063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
91798540|NCT01675427|183475063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1951
91798541|NCT01675427|183475063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2927|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2927
91798542|NCT01675427|183475063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0013
91798543|NCT01675427|183475064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0247
91798544|NCT01675427|183475064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0034
91737295|NCT00755807|183367999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for the 30% Reduction (LOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
91798545|NCT01675427|183475064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0017
91798546|NCT01675427|183475064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3346|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3346
91798547|NCT01675427|183475064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3215|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3215
91798548|NCT01675427|183475064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0003
91798549|NCT01675427|183475065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.3609
91798550|NCT01675427|183475065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0018
91798551|NCT01675427|183475065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0356
91798552|NCT01675427|183475065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.7044
91798553|NCT01675427|183475065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8578|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.8578
91798554|NCT01675427|183475065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0076
91798555|NCT01675427|183475066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0002
91906791|NCT02662036|183708922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #3 is for total antiemetic use||||0.50
91798556|NCT01675427|183475066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2017
91798557|NCT01675427|183475066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5878|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.5878
91798558|NCT01675427|183475066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4144|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4144
91798559|NCT01675427|183475066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4492|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4492
91798560|NCT01675427|183475066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798561|NCT01675427|183475067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0671
91798562|NCT01675427|183475067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1009
91906792|NCT02662036|183708923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.20
91798563|NCT01675427|183475067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0635
91798564|NCT01675427|183475067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4162
91798565|NCT01675427|183475067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.9305
91798566|NCT01675427|183475067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0041
91737296|NCT00755807|183367999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0||||P-value is for 50% Reduction (LOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.246
91798567|NCT01675427|183475068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0059
91798568|NCT01675427|183475068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2808
91798569|NCT01675427|183475068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.2401
91798570|NCT01675427|183475068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.2993
91873401|NCT00824850|183640590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|8.33|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||8.33|3.90|
91798571|NCT01675427|183475068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5529|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5529
91798572|NCT01675427|183475068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0005
91873402|NCT00824850|183640590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|3.57|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.57|2.16|
91873403|NCT00824850|183640590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|23.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.17|41.79|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||41.79|13.17|
91798573|NCT01675427|183475069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798574|NCT01675427|183475069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.3572
91873404|NCT00824850|183640590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|13.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.94|20.92|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||20.92|8.94|
91906793|NCT02662036|183708924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.64
91737297|NCT00755807|183367999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value is for the 30% Reduction (BOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
91737298|NCT00755807|183367999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0||||P-value is for 50% Reduction (BOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.165
91737299|NCT00755807|183368000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.49||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Model: PGI improvement at Endpoint = Treatment + Investigator.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.49|-0.06|0.121
91798575|NCT01675427|183475069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.2041
91798576|NCT01675427|183475069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0467
91798577|NCT01675427|183475069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.0525
91798578|NCT01675427|183475069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798579|NCT01675427|183475070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798580|NCT01675427|183475070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
91798581|NCT01675427|183475070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5275|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.5275
91737300|NCT00755807|183368001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.2||P-value is for BPI Severity for Worst Pain score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.20|0.12|0.016
91737301|NCT00755807|183368001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.95||P-value is for BPI Severity for Least Pain score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.95|0.02|0.043
91798582|NCT01675427|183475070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.6593
91798583|NCT01675427|183475070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.0372
91704792|NCT01253174|183304326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|97.98||||||90.0|94.19|101.93||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||101.93|94.19|
91704793|NCT01253174|183304327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|104.9||||||90.0|98.83|111.34||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||111.34|98.83|
91704794|NCT01253174|183304328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.63||||||90.0|95.73|103.69||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||103.69|95.73|
91704795|NCT01253174|183304330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.57||||||90.0|97.32|101.87||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|38 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||101.87|97.32|
91704796|NCT02267135|183304333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between percentages|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|65.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for body weight (\< 90 kg, ≥ 90 kg)||||65|37|<0.001
91737302|NCT00755807|183368001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.99||P-value is for BPI Severity for Average Pain score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.99|0.05|0.030
91737303|NCT00755807|183368001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.43||P-value is for BPI Severity for Pain Right Now score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.43|0.36|0.001
91737304|NCT00755807|183368001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.11||P-value is for BPI Interference for General Activity score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.11|-0.07|0.083
91798584|NCT01675427|183475070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798585|NCT01675427|183475071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798586|NCT01675427|183475071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.3857
91798587|NCT01675427|183475071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.2356
91798588|NCT01675427|183475071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.7993
91798589|NCT01675427|183475071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2164|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.2164
91906794|NCT02662036|183708925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.38
91798590|NCT01675427|183475071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798591|NCT01675427|183475072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798592|NCT01675427|183475072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0001
91798593|NCT01675427|183475072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.4820
91798594|NCT01675427|183475072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8668|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.8668
91798595|NCT01675427|183475072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.2032
91798596|NCT01675427|183475072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798597|NCT01675427|183475073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0103
91798598|NCT01675427|183475073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.8373
91873405|NCT00824850|183640590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|12.97|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||12.97|6.21|
91798599|NCT01675427|183475073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.3672
91873406|NCT00824850|183640590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|13.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||13.72|5.91|
91873407|NCT00824850|183640590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|10.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.72|5.36|
91798600|NCT01675427|183475074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0637
91798601|NCT01675427|183475074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.0474
91798602|NCT01675427|183475074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798603|NCT01675427|183475075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798604|NCT01675427|183475075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
91798605|NCT01675427|183475075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.5522
91798606|NCT01675427|183475076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5117|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.5117
91798607|NCT01675427|183475076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3437|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.3437
91798608|NCT01675427|183475076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798609|NCT01675427|183475077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0381
91798610|NCT01675427|183475077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6852|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.6852
91798611|NCT01675427|183475077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.1185
91798612|NCT01675427|183475078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.2611
91798613|NCT01675427|183475078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.6059
91798614|NCT01675427|183475078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0001
91798615|NCT01675427|183475079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
91704797|NCT03646305|183304379|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental,control) × 2(Activity: singing,verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, believability of thought were equivalent across time||||<0.001
91737305|NCT00755807|183368001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.27||P-value is for BPI Interference for Mood score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.27|0.05|0.034
91737306|NCT00755807|183368001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.19||P-value is for BPI Interference for Walking Ability score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.19|-0.08|0.089
91737307|NCT00755807|183368001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.93||P-value is for BPI Interference for Normal Work score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.93|-0.28|0.291
91737308|NCT00755807|183368001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.05||P-value is for BPI Interference for Relations With Others score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.05|-0.06|0.077
91737309|NCT00755807|183368001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.97||P-value is for BPI Interference for Sleep score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.97|-0.15|0.148
91737310|NCT00755807|183368001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.79||P-value is for BPI Interference for Enjoyment Of Life score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.79|-0.45|0.582
91737311|NCT00755807|183368001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.94||P-value is for BPI Mean Interference score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.94|-0.03|0.067
91737312|NCT00755807|183368002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.45||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.45|0.01|0.041
91737313|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.91||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Physical Health Composite Section score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.91|-3.90|0.500
91737314|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|2.44||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Mental Health Composite Section score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.44|-4.87|0.512
91737315|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|3.12||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Physical Health Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||3.12|-4.51|0.720
91737316|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|3.46||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Health Perceptions Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||3.46|-3.58|0.973
91737317|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|4.02||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Energy Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.02|-4.07|0.991
91760061|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.41||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.41|-1.32|
91873408|NCT00824850|183640590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.86|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1.86|1.30|
91705663|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|10.63||P-value is for Q2 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||10.63|-13.16|0.835
91705664|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|25.46||P-value is for Q2 - Month13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||25.46|1.27|0.030
91705665|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|17.89||P-value is for Q2 - Month13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.89|-5.97|0.326
91705666|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|12.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.019||95.0|1.98|22.15||P-value is for Q3 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||22.15|1.98|0.019
91705667|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|12.35||P-value is for Q3 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||12.35|-7.38|0.621
91705668|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.968||95.0|-11.03|11.49||P-value is for Q3 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||11.49|-11.03|0.968
91705669|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-5.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|5.54||P-value is for Q3 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.54|-16.55|0.327
91705670|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|24.09||P-value is for Q3 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||24.09|-0.76|0.066
91705671|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|17.34||P-value is for Q3 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.34|-7.17|0.415
91705672|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|20.94||P-value is for Q4 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||20.94|2.79|0.011
91705673|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|12.72||P-value is for Q4 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||12.72|-5.03|0.394
91705674|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|7.41||P-value is for Q4 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||7.41|-11.28|0.684
91705675|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.66||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|2.02||P-value is for Q4 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.02|-16.30|0.126
91705676|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|23.57||P-value is for Q4 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||23.57|-0.53|0.061
91705677|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|16.95||P-value is for Q4 - Month13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||16.95|-6.83|0.403
91705678|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.013||95.0|2.38|20.38||P-value is for Q5 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||20.38|2.38|0.013
91705679|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|12.49||P-value is for Q5 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||12.49|-5.11|0.410
91705680|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|6.22||P-value is for Q5 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||6.22|-11.92|0.537
91704798|NCT03646305|183304379|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in believability of thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in believability of thought from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
91704799|NCT03646305|183304379|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in believability of thought from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
91704800|NCT03646305|183304379|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal believability scores||||>0.05
91704801|NCT03646305|183304379|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal believability scores||||>0.05
91704802|NCT03646305|183304379|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in believability scores||||>0.05
91704803|NCT03646305|183304379|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions have equivalent believability scores across time.||||>0.05
91704804|NCT03646305|183304379|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on believability scores||||>0.05
91705681|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|0.3||P-value is for Q5 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.30|-17.48|0.058
91798616|NCT01675427|183475079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0048
91873409|NCT00824850|183640590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.6|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.60|1.43|
91798617|NCT01675427|183475079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5127|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.5127
91737318|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|4.87||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Physical Problems Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.87|-11.14|0.441
91737319|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|0.79||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Pain Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.79|-7.94|0.108
91737320|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|5.39||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Sexual Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||5.39|-5.77|0.948
91737321|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|6.28||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Social Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||6.28|-2.37|0.374
91737322|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.87||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Health Distress Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.87|-4.10|0.867
91737323|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|5.17||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Overall Quality Of Life Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||5.17|-1.63|0.306
91737324|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.88||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Emotional Well-being Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.88|-4.08|0.733
91737325|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|4.08||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.08|-13.88|0.283
91737326|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|2.86||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Cognitive Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.86|-4.49|0.664
91737327|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|3.85||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Change in Health Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine|||3.85|-7.81|0.504
91737328|NCT00755807|183368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|3.14||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Satisfaction with Sexual Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine|||3.14|-11.18|0.270
91737329|NCT00755807|183368004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison in number of participants with CSSR-S Suicidal Ideation during first 6 weeks of acute treatment. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.119
91737330|NCT00755807|183368004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison in number of participants with CSSR-S Suicidal Behavior during first 6 weeks of acute treatment. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
91737331|NCT00755807|183368004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison in number of participants with CSSR-S Suicidal Acts during first 6 weeks of acute treatment. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
91737332|NCT00755807|183368005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures model:Change from Baseline=Baseline+Treatment+Investigator+Week+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; participant=random effect.||||||0.002
91737333|NCT00755807|183368006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on BDI-II Question #9 score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.04|-0.06|0.662
91704805|NCT03646305|183304379|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no significant difference between 4 conditions on believability||||>0.05
91873410|NCT00824850|183640590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|6.45|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.45|3.09|
91704806|NCT03646305|183304380|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, appraisal of target thought were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
91704807|NCT03646305|183304380|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||=|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent across time.||||=0.005
91704808|NCT03646305|183304380|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||=|0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in negativity from baseline to post-intervention||||=0.002
91704809|NCT03646305|183304380|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
91704810|NCT03646305|183304380|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in negativity from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in negativity scores from baseline to post-intervention in the experimental conditions||||>0.025
91704811|NCT03646305|183304380|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the experimental conditions would have no significant difference in negativity scores from post-intervention to follow-up.||||>0.025
91705682|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|23.41||P-value is for Q5 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||23.41|-0.54|0.061
91705683|NCT01026818|183305805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.4||P-value is for Q5 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.40|-6.23|0.353
91705684|NCT01026818|183305806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.32|2.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline, age group, and country.||||2.08|-12.32|0.162
91705685|NCT01026818|183305806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.603||95.0|-8.99|5.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline, age group, and country.||||5.24|-8.99|0.603
91704812|NCT03646305|183304380|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal negativity scores||||>0.05
91704813|NCT03646305|183304380|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal negativity scores||||>0.05
91705686|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|8.8||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||8.80|-1.82|0.196
91737334|NCT00755807|183368007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||95.0||||This is the P-value for Discontinuation Due to Any Reason.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.244
91737335|NCT00755807|183368007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||This is the P-value for Adverse Event (AE).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
91737336|NCT00755807|183368007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0||||This is the P-value for Protocol Violation.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.622
91737337|NCT00755807|183368007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the P-value for Subject Decision.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91705687|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|5.75||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.75|-4.69|0.841
91737338|NCT00755807|183368007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the P-value for Lack of Efficacy.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91737339|NCT00755807|183368007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the P-value for Physician Decision.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91737340|NCT00755807|183368010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on Bicarbonate, HCO3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.047
91737341|NCT00755807|183368011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on creatinine. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.033
91737342|NCT00755807|183368012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on platelet count. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.034
91737343|NCT00755807|183368013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on inorganic phosphorus. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.007
91737344|NCT00755807|183368014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on uric acid. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.025
91737345|NCT00755807|183368015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.84||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on diastolic blood pressure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.84|-2.55|0.322
91737346|NCT00755807|183368015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.52||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on systolic blood pressure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.52|-3.32|0.787
91737347|NCT00755807|183368016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.61||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on pulse rate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.61|-3.70|0.160
91798618|NCT01675427|183475080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.3465
91737348|NCT00755807|183368017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.26||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on weight. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.26|0.27|0.003
91737349|NCT00755807|183368018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean PGI-I score at 18 weeks for all participants who entered extension phase.||||||<0.001
91737350|NCT00755807|183368019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-S for Worst Pain. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Worst Pain.||||||<0.001
91737351|NCT00755807|183368019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-S for Least Pain. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Least Pain score.||||||<0.001
91798619|NCT01675427|183475080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7358|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.7358
91798620|NCT01675427|183475080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798621|NCT01675427|183475081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91737352|NCT00755807|183368019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-S for Average Pain. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Average Pain score.||||||<0.001
91798622|NCT01675427|183475082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91873411|NCT00824850|183640590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|7.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.75|3.65|
91737353|NCT00755807|183368019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Pain Right Now score.||||||<0.001
91737354|NCT00755807|183368019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-I for General Activity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for General Activity score.||||||<0.001
91737355|NCT00755807|183368019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Mood. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Mood score.||||||<0.001
91737356|NCT00755807|183368019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Walking Ability. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Walking Ability score.||||||<0.001
91798623|NCT01675427|183475083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91798624|NCT01675427|183475084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||0.0066
91798625|NCT01675427|183475085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0018
91798626|NCT01675427|183475085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0425
91798627|NCT01675427|183475085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.9829
91798628|NCT01675427|183475085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.6700
91798629|NCT01675427|183475085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.7672
91798630|NCT01675427|183475085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0067
91798631|NCT01675427|183475086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0003
91798632|NCT01675427|183475086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.1637
91798633|NCT01675427|183475086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8579|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.8579
91704814|NCT03646305|183304380|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in negativity scores||||>0.05
91737357|NCT00755807|183368019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Normal Work. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Normal Work score.||||||<0.001
91737358|NCT00755807|183368019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Relations With Others. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Relations With Others score.||||||<0.001
91873412|NCT00824850|183640590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.28|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||4.28|2.49|
91873413|NCT00824850|183640591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|15.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|27.46|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||27.46|9.16|
91704815|NCT03646305|183304380|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on negativity scores||||>0.05
91704816|NCT03646305|183304380|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on negativity scores||||>0.05
91704817|NCT03646305|183304381|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at p\< .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of discomfort were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
91704818|NCT03646305|183304381|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in levels of discomfort from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would have no significant differences in discomfort levels from baseline to post-intervention across samples||||<0.001
91737359|NCT00755807|183368019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Sleep. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Sleep score.||||||<0.001
91737360|NCT00755807|183368019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Enjoyment of Life. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Enjoyment Of Life score.||||||<0.001
91873414|NCT00824850|183640591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.16|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.16|3.50|
91704819|NCT03646305|183304381|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in levels of discomfort from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in discomfort levels from post-intervention to follow-up across samples||||<0.001
91737361|NCT00755807|183368019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI for Mean Interference Score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI for Mean Interference score.||||||<0.001
91737362|NCT00755807|183368020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on CGI-S score for all participants who entered extension phase.||||||<0.001
91737363|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Physical Health Composite Section score.||||||0.002
91737364|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Mental Health Composite Section score.||||||0.054
91737365|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Physical Health Subsection score.||||||0.002
91737366|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Health Perceptions Subsection score.||||||0.025
91737367|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Energy Subsection score.||||||0.008
91737368|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Physical Problems Subsection score.||||||0.858
91737369|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Pain Subsection score.||||||<0.001
91737370|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Sexual Function Subsection score.||||||0.637
91737371|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Social Function Subsection score.||||||0.051
91737372|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Health Distress Subsection score.||||||0.270
91737373|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Overall Quality Of Life Subsection score.||||||0.061
91737374|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Emotional Well-being Subsection score.||||||0.007
91737375|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems score.||||||0.253
91737376|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Cognitive Function Subsection score.||||||0.942
91737377|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Change in Health Subsection score.||||||0.016
91737378|NCT00755807|183368021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Satisfaction with Sexual Function Subsection score.||||||0.381
91760062|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.62||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.62|-1.53|
91737379|NCT00755807|183368023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 7). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model: Change from Baseline=Baseline+Investigator+Week+Baseline\*Week; participant was treated as random effect.||||||0.524
91737380|NCT00755807|183368023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 8). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91737381|NCT00755807|183368023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 9). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91737382|NCT00755807|183368023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 10). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91737383|NCT00755807|183368023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 11). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91737384|NCT00755807|183368023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 12). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91737385|NCT00755807|183368023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 13). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91737386|NCT00755807|183368023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 14). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91737387|NCT00755807|183368023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 15). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91798634|NCT01675427|183475086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.6935
91798635|NCT01675427|183475086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.8124
91798636|NCT01675427|183475086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91873415|NCT00824850|183640591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|5.09|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||5.09|2.93|
91873416|NCT00824850|183640591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.11|27.79|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||27.79|11.11|
91737388|NCT00755807|183368023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 16). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91737389|NCT00755807|183368023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 17). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91798637|NCT01675427|183475087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1834|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.1834
91798638|NCT01675427|183475087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.8543
91798639|NCT01675427|183475087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.1485
91798640|NCT01675427|183475087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0260
91737390|NCT00755807|183368023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 18). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91798641|NCT01675427|183475087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.5317
91798642|NCT01675427|183475087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0005
91798643|NCT01675427|183475088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798644|NCT01675427|183475088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
91798645|NCT01675427|183475088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.4423
91798646|NCT01675427|183475088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3824|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.3824
91798647|NCT01675427|183475088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.5246
91798648|NCT01675427|183475088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91798649|NCT01675427|183475089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
91873417|NCT00824850|183640591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|6.23|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.23|2.86|
91873418|NCT00824850|183640591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.62|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.62|1.78|
91873419|NCT00824850|183640591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|6.19|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.19|2.86|
91798650|NCT01675427|183475089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.1947
91798651|NCT01675427|183475089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.0226
91737391|NCT00755807|183368024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|1-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BDI-II Question #9 score for all participants who entered extension phase.||||||0.706
91798652|NCT01675427|183475090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.1158
91798653|NCT01675427|183475090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.3675
91798654|NCT01675427|183475090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0948
91798655|NCT01675427|183475091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.1236
91798656|NCT01675427|183475091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0119
91798657|NCT01675427|183475091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7472|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.7472
91798658|NCT01675427|183475092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.9734
91798659|NCT01675427|183475092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.8303
91798660|NCT01675427|183475092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0006
91798661|NCT01675427|183475093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0065
91798662|NCT01675427|183475093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.9999
91798663|NCT01675427|183475093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.3472
91873420|NCT00824850|183640591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|6.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.42|2.79|
91873421|NCT00824850|183640591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.05|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.05|1.30|
91873422|NCT00824850|183640591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.14|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.14|1.30|
91873423|NCT00824850|183640591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|5.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||5.42|2.39|
91906795|NCT05998148|183708934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Since 2 hypothesis tests are conducted, we applied a Bonferroni correction. Our new adjusted threshold level is 0.05/2= 0.025.|Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|The null hypothesis states that the virtual group and in-person group exhibit no difference in mean PROMIS physical score. From the literature, an effect size of 0.618 was obtained from the PROMIS physical. Using a power of 80% and a significance level of 0.05, it was determined that a sample size of 34 per group would detect a statistical difference between the groups. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted on the scores at the 6-month follow-up appointment.||||0.91
91704820|NCT03646305|183304381|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of discomfort||||>0.05
91704821|NCT03646305|183304381|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of discomfort||||>0.05
91704822|NCT03646305|183304381|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of discomfort||||>0.05
91704823|NCT03646305|183304381|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of discomfort across time||||>0.05
91705688|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|7.4||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||7.40|-3.45|0.474
91798664|NCT01675427|183475094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2564|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.2564
91737392|NCT00755807|183368028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on monocytes.||||||0.035
91737393|NCT00755807|183368029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on sodium.||||||0.042
91737394|NCT00755807|183368030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on total protein.||||||0.036
91737395|NCT00755807|183368031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on diastolic blood pressure.||||||0.320
91737396|NCT00755807|183368031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on systolic blood pressure.||||||0.182
91737397|NCT00755807|183368032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on pulse rate.||||||0.032
91737398|NCT00755807|183368033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on weight.||||||0.151
91737399|NCT01714323|183368034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Chi-squared|||Data from all three sites were combined after determining that outcomes did not vary by hospital using Breslow-Day tests. The proportion abstinent by treatment arm was assessed using chi-square test.||1.37|0.84|>0.05
91737400|NCT01714323|183368035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91737401|NCT01714323|183368036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||This compares at Month 1||||<0.001
91737402|NCT01714323|183368036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||This is analysis for Month 3||||<0.01
91737403|NCT01714323|183368036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||This is for Month 6||||<0.09
91737404|NCT01714323|183368038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||This is the p value for the comparison at each follow up point: 1 mo, 3 mo, and 6 mo.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91737405|NCT01714323|183368039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91737406|NCT01714323|183368040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91737407|NCT01585025|183368068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired comparison of fasting FGF19 at baseline on day 0 and on day 14 of OCA treatment||||0.007
91737408|NCT01585025|183368068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired comparison of fasting FGF19 at baseline on day 0 and on day 14 of OCA treatment||||0.11
91737409|NCT01585025|183368068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired comparison of fasting FGF19 at baseline on day 0 and on day 14 of OCA treatment||||0.12
91873424|NCT00824850|183640591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.82|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||4.82|2.42|
91737410|NCT01585025|183368069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in FGF19 AUC||||0.72
91737411|NCT01585025|183368069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in FGF19 AUC||||0.51
91737412|NCT01585025|183368069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in FGF19 AUC||||0.13
91737413|NCT01585025|183368070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in fasting C4||||0.03
91737414|NCT01585025|183368070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in fasting C4||||0.11
91737415|NCT01585025|183368070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in fasting C4||||0.02
91737416|NCT01585025|183368071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in bile acid 6h AUC||||0.02
91737417|NCT01585025|183368071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in bile acid 6h AUC||||0.04
91737418|NCT01585025|183368071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in bile acid 6h AUC||||0.02
91737419|NCT01585025|183368072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in number of stools per week||||0.03
91737420|NCT01585025|183368072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in number of stools per week||||0.17
91737421|NCT01585025|183368072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in number of stools per week||||0.31
91737422|NCT01585025|183368073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in median stool form||||0.05
91737423|NCT01585025|183368073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in median stool form||||0.04
91737424|NCT01585025|183368073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in median stool form||||0.74
91737425|NCT01585025|183368074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired difference in weekly index score||||0.005
91737426|NCT01585025|183368074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired difference in weekly index score||||0.03
91737427|NCT01585025|183368074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired difference in weekly index score||||0.61
91798665|NCT01675427|183475094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7361|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.7361
91873425|NCT00824850|183640591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.26|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.26|1.60|
91873426|NCT00824850|183640592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.56|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||15.56|4.50|
91737428|NCT02122380|183368095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of mean growth hormone (GH) levels between sitagliptin and placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided). A sample size of 16 participants was needed to provide 93% power to detect a difference in GH means of 0.5 mcg/L.||||0.918
91737429|NCT02122380|183368096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of early insulin secretion between sitagliptin and placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.054
91737430|NCT02122380|183368097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in blood glucose levels between sitagliptin and placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.009
91737431|NCT02122380|183368098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the mass of visceral adipose tissue after sitagliptin vs. placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.022
91737432|NCT02122380|183368099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in vascular function between sitagliptin and placebo treatments. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.943
91737433|NCT00688467|183368102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|26.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.377||0.411|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.411
91737434|NCT00688467|183368103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|23.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.306||0.292|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.292
91737435|NCT00688467|183368105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.261||0.927|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.927
91737436|NCT00688467|183368106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.398||0.645|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.645
91737437|NCT00387088|183368115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.118|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with pooled centre, LABA use, and treatment fitted as main effects and the baseline trough FEV1 as a covariate.||||0.118|0.085|<0.0001
91737438|NCT03623698|183368136|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.~This analysis applies to the category of Total courses of antibiotics."||-1.500|-4.000|<0.001
91737439|NCT03623698|183368136|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|-2.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|-1.29||95% confidence interval, significance level p-values \<0.05. Random effects pre-defined from theory and published data, and AIC was were used to define the best model. Outcome measures: Courses of antibiotics; Fixed effect: nebulised saline treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effects: age, gender, mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, gastrostomy, non-ambulant.||"Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.~This analysis applies to the category of Total courses of antibiotics."||-1.29|-4.46|0.001
91737440|NCT03623698|183368137|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.||-0.50|-1.50|0.001
91737441|NCT03623698|183368137|OTHER||Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|-1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.52||95% confidence interval, significance level p-values \<0.05. Random effects pre-defined from theory and published data, and AIC was were used to define the best model. Outcome measures: Courses of antibiotics; Fixed effect: nebulised saline treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effects: age, gender, prolonged mechanical ventilation (nasal or tracheostomy), and antibiotic prophylaxis||Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.||-0.52|-1.53|<0.001
91737442|NCT03623698|183368140|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-3.00|-5.50|0.003
91737443|NCT03623698|183368141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.0|-2.5|<0.001
91737444|NCT03623698|183368144|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.76|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.76|-0.69|0.97
91737445|NCT03623698|183368145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.34|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.34|-3.26|0.09
91737446|NCT03623698|183368146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.38|-0.38|0.65
91737447|NCT00811954|183368152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA level at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified confidence bounds for equivalence were +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|7.4||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm A - arm B) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 96 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||7.4|-0.7|
91798666|NCT01675427|183475094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91873427|NCT00824850|183640592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.16|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.16|1.78|
91873428|NCT00824850|183640592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.49|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.49|1.63|
91873429|NCT00824850|183640592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|10.15|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.15|4.31|
91873430|NCT00824850|183640592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|7.26|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.26|3.34|
91704824|NCT03646305|183304381|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of discomfort||||>0.05
91704825|NCT03646305|183304381|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no significant difference between 4 conditions on discomfort levels||||>0.05
91704826|NCT03646305|183304382|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, willingness to engage with target thought were equivalent across time||||<0.001
91704827|NCT03646305|183304382|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in willingness to engage with target thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no difference in willingness scores from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
91705689|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|5.41||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.41|-5.21|0.971
91705690|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.17||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.17|-1.03|0.236
91705691|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.56||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.56|-1.52|0.429
91705692|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.24||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.24|-1.12|0.252
91873431|NCT00824850|183640592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|3.57|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.57|2.08|
91704828|NCT03646305|183304382|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||=|0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in willingness to engage with target thought from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in willingness scores from post-intervention to follow-up.||||=0.053
91704829|NCT03646305|183304382|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal willingness scores||||>0.05
91704830|NCT03646305|183304382|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal willingness to engage with the target thought||||>0.05
91704831|NCT03646305|183304382|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in willingness to engage||||>0.05
91704832|NCT03646305|183304382|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in willingness to engage with the target thought across time.||||>0.05
91704833|NCT03646305|183304382|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on willingness to engage||||>0.05
91704834|NCT03646305|183304382|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on willingness to engage||||>0.05
91705693|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|4.11||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.11|-1.08|0.251
91798667|NCT01675427|183475095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0097
91873432|NCT00824850|183640592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|3.83|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.83|2.08|
91704835|NCT03646305|183304383|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, avoidance of target thought were equivalent across time||||<0.01
91704836|NCT03646305|183304383|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in avoidance of target thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in avoidance from baseline to post-intervention||||>0.05
91704837|NCT03646305|183304383|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in avoidance of target thought from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in avoidance from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.05
91704838|NCT03646305|183304383|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would show equal avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
91704839|NCT03646305|183304383|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
91704840|NCT03646305|183304383|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
91873433|NCT00824850|183640592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||5.13|2.80|
91873434|NCT00824850|183640592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.57|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1.57|1.11|
91873435|NCT00824850|183640592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.61|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1.61|1.05|
91737448|NCT00811954|183368152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA level at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified confidence bounds for equivalence were +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|9.9||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm C - arm B) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 96 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||9.9|1.3|
91737449|NCT00811954|183368152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA level at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified confidence bounds for equivalence were +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.7|2.3||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm A - arm C) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 96 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||2.3|-6.7|
91737450|NCT00811954|183368153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Although the study was not specifically powered to be able to detect equivalence, equivalence was declared if the 97.5% confidence interval difference in the cumulative probability of the tolerability endpoint by 96 weeks was entirely contained within +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative incidence difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.4|16.1||||||Treatment comparison was made using the methods of Gray. Inference regarding comparisons of the treatment groups (arm A and arm B) with respect to equivalence was made based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of differences (arm A - arm B) in 96 week probability of tolerability failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||16.1|9.4|
91737451|NCT00811954|183368153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Although the study was not specifically powered to be able to detect equivalence, equivalence was declared if the 97.5% confidence interval difference in the cumulative probability of the tolerability endpoint by 96 weeks was entirely contained within +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative incidence difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.4|5.8||||||Treatment comparison was made using the methods of Gray. Inference regarding comparisons of the treatment groups (arm C and arm B) with respect to equivalence was made based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of differences (arm C - arm B) in 96 week probability of tolerability failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||5.8|1.4|
91760063|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.6||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.60|-1.51|
91873436|NCT00824850|183640592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.75|1.51|
91873437|NCT00824850|183640592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.77|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.77|2.19|
91704841|NCT03646305|183304383|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in avoidance of target thought across time.||||>0.05
91704842|NCT03646305|183304383|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
91704843|NCT03646305|183304383|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
91705694|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|1.95||P-value is for Bowel - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.95|-3.03|0.671
91705695|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|2.23||P-value is for Bowel - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.23|-2.64|0.868
91873438|NCT00824850|183640592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.39|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.39|1.59|
91873439|NCT00824850|183640593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|201.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.11|739.05|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||739.05|55.11|
91873440|NCT00824850|183640593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|26.1|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||26.10|5.20|
91737452|NCT00811954|183368153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Although the study was not specifically powered to be able to detect equivalence, equivalence was declared if the 97.5% confidence interval difference in the cumulative probability of the tolerability endpoint by 96 weeks was entirely contained within +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative incidence difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.5|12.9||||||Treatment comparison was made using the methods of Gray. Inference regarding comparisons of the treatment groups (arm A and arm C) with respect to equivalence was made based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of differences (arm A - arm C) in 96 week probability of tolerability failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||12.9|5.5|
91737453|NCT01247064|183368188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91737454|NCT01247064|183368189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
91737455|NCT01247064|183368190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91737456|NCT01247064|183368191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91737457|NCT01247064|183368192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91737458|NCT00945659|183368199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.36|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||0.36|-0.43|0.86
91737459|NCT00945659|183368199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||-0.04|-0.78|0.03
91737460|NCT00945659|183368200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-0.81|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||-0.81|-19.30|0.03
91737461|NCT00945659|183368200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.47||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|9.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||9.9|-11.54|0.88
91737462|NCT00945659|183368201|SUPERIORITY||Generalized Estimating Equation|-3.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.98||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|6.32|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.32|-13.21|0.49
91737463|NCT00945659|183368201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.76||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.66
91737464|NCT00945659|183368202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.08|-1.29|0.64
91737465|NCT00945659|183368202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.39|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.39|-2.22|0.65
91737466|NCT00945659|183368203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.4||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.56|124.97|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||124.97|-123.56|0.99
91737467|NCT00945659|183368203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.81||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.26|25.83|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||25.83|-28.26|0.93
91737468|NCT00945659|183368204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.04|-1.70|0.43
91737469|NCT00945659|183368204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.32|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||0.32|-5.50|0.08
91737470|NCT00945659|183368205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.66||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|4.56|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.56|-1.94|0.43
91737471|NCT00945659|183368205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.36||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|-1.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||-1.04|-6.38|.007
91737472|NCT00945659|183368206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.79|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.79|-2.02|0.75
91737473|NCT00945659|183368206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.32|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.32|-3.09|0.78
91737474|NCT00945659|183368207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.31||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|3.29|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.29|-1.86|0.58
91737475|NCT00945659|183368207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.3|-3.17|0.41
91737476|NCT00945659|183368208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.66||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|7.15|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||7.15|-3.26|0.46
91737477|NCT00945659|183368208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.54||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|1.96|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.96|-7.99|0.24
91737478|NCT00945659|183368209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.37||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|6.91|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.91|-6.33|0.93
91737479|NCT00945659|183368209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.95||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|3.57|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.57|-8.01|0.45
91737480|NCT00945659|183368210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.26||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|5.62|||Generalized Estimating Equestion|||||5.62|-7.15|0.81
91737481|NCT00945659|183368210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|6.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.08|-4.11|0.72
91873441|NCT00824850|183640593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|156.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.72|501.86|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||501.86|48.72|
91873442|NCT00824850|183640593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|37.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.71|102.31|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||102.31|13.71|
91705696|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|2.57||P-value is for Bowel - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.57|-2.37|0.938
91705697|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|2.12||P-value is for Bowel - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.12|-2.69|0.813
91705698|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|9.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|15.99||P-value is for Sexual - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||15.99|3.10|0.004
91705699|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|9.0||P-value is for Sexual - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||9.00|-3.63|0.403
91705700|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|10.69||P-value is for Sexual - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||10.69|-4.34|0.406
91705701|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|6.53||P-value is for Sexual - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||6.53|-8.11|0.832
91705702|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|4.79||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.79|-0.99|0.197
91705703|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.72||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.72|0.06|0.045
91705704|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.1||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.10|-3.16|0.692
91705705|NCT01026818|183305810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.46||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.46|-2.65|0.943
91705706|NCT01026818|183305811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|7.93||P-value is for length.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||7.93|0.47|0.028
91705707|NCT01026818|183305811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.14||P-value is for length.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||2.14|-5.20|0.413
91705708|NCT01026818|183305811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|5.3||P-value is for girth.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||5.30|-0.55|0.112
91705709|NCT01026818|183305811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.03||P-value is for girth.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||6.03|0.29|0.031
91705710|NCT00424593|183305819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Model included treatment, non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use (Yes/No), investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pain severity, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.004
91705711|NCT00424593|183305820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.014
91705712|NCT00424593|183305821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value is for 13 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91705713|NCT00424593|183305822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Average Pain Score Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91705714|NCT00424593|183305822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value for Worst Pain Score Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.014
91705715|NCT00424593|183305822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value for Night Pain Score Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91705716|NCT00424593|183305823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Worst Pain Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91705717|NCT00424593|183305823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Least Pain Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91705718|NCT00424593|183305823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for Average Pain Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.019
91705719|NCT00424593|183305823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Pain Right Now Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91737482|NCT00945659|183368211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|6.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.08|-4.11|0.71
91737483|NCT00945659|183368211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|4.43|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.43|-6.74|0.68
91705720|NCT00424593|183305823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for General Activity Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.068
91705721|NCT00424593|183305823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for Mood Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91705722|NCT00424593|183305823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for Walking Ability Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91705723|NCT00424593|183305823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value for Normal Work Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.024
91705724|NCT00424593|183305823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Relations With People Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91705725|NCT00424593|183305823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for Sleep Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.051
91705726|NCT00424593|183305823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Enjoyment of Life Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
91705727|NCT00424593|183305823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Average Interference Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91705728|NCT00424593|183305824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.092
91705729|NCT00424593|183305825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.060
91705730|NCT00424593|183305826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.087
91705731|NCT00424593|183305827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.329
91705732|NCT00424593|183305828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.051
91705733|NCT00424593|183305828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.220
91705734|NCT00424593|183305828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.038
91705735|NCT00424593|183305828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||P-value for General Health Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.041
91705736|NCT00424593|183305828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.093
91705737|NCT00424593|183305828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.210
91705738|NCT00424593|183305828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||P-value for Role-Emotional Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.170
91705739|NCT00424593|183305828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0||||P-value for Role-Physical Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.306
91705740|NCT00424593|183305828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||P-value for Social Functioning Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.053
91705741|NCT00424593|183305828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value for Vitality Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.040
91705742|NCT00424593|183305829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.117
91705743|NCT00424593|183305830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||P-value for Absenteeism Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.063
91705744|NCT00424593|183305830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0||||P-value for Presenteeism Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.452
91705745|NCT00424593|183305830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-value for Work Productivity Loss Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.736
91705746|NCT00424593|183305830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Work Activity Impairment Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91705747|NCT00424593|183305831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
91705748|NCT00424593|183305832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety Subscale Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.122
91705749|NCT00424593|183305832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262||95.0||||P-value for Depression Subscale Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.262
91705750|NCT00424593|183305833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on rank transformation.||||||0.046
91705751|NCT00424593|183305834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on rank transformation.||||||0.008
91705752|NCT00424593|183305835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
91705753|NCT00424593|183305836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764||95.0||||P-value for SBP Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.764
91705754|NCT00424593|183305836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for DBP Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.093
91705755|NCT00424593|183305837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.008
91705756|NCT00560703|183305856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power calculation for this endpoint was driven by the assumptions made for the OSDI analysis||||||0.578||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.578
91705757|NCT00560703|183305857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.293||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||It was anticipated that the difference between the treatment groups in mean reduction from baseline in OSDI scores will be approximately 7 points. A pooled standard deviation of 9.0 for the mean change from baseline OSDI score is expected. Under those assumptions a total of approximately 63 evaluable patients (42 COL-101 patients and 21 placebo patients) is sufficient to provide 80% power. The planned enrolment should provide enough evaluable patients to meet these assumptions.||||0.293
91705758|NCT02095197|183305858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91705759|NCT02095197|183305859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91705760|NCT02095197|183305860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
91705761|NCT02095197|183305861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
91798668|NCT01675427|183475095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
91798669|NCT01675427|183475095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.9778
91798670|NCT01675427|183475096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0151
91873443|NCT00824850|183640593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|93.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.99|284.31|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||284.31|30.99|
91737484|NCT00565409|183368222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|9.0||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and Odds Ratio (OR) stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Loss of efficacy (LOE) imputation defined as LOE drop-outs were treated as non-responders/all other participants had LOCF applied as primary analysis.||Sample size estimated based on moderate/severe rheumatoid arthritis(RA) trial. Study design included only moderate RA participants, thus a low disease activity estimate of 85% (ETN+MTX) vs 70% (MTX only) assumed, required 175 randomized participants in 3 treatments for a 90% power and Type I error of 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis of no ETN+MTX vs MTX only differences. More participants qualified for Period 2 than expected, Period 2 sample size roughly 15% larger than protocol-specified.||9.0|3.2|<0.0001
91737485|NCT00565409|183368222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.3805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|LOE imputation defined as LOE drop-outs were treated as non-responders and all other participants had LOCF applied as primary analysis.||||2.0|0.7|0.3805
91737486|NCT00565409|183368222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|LOE imputation defined as LOE drop-outs were treated as non-responders and all other participants had LOCF applied as primary analysis.||||7.6|3.0|<0.0001
91737487|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|21.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Low Disease Activity||21.4|0.5|0.0853
91798671|NCT01675427|183475096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.1052
91798672|NCT01675427|183475096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0007
91798673|NCT01675427|183475097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
91873444|NCT00824850|183640593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.27|101.97|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||101.97|23.27|
91798674|NCT01675427|183475097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0012
91737488|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Low Disease Activity||4.8|0.2|0.8491
91737489|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Low Disease Activity||42.5|0.4|0.1278
91737490|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Low Disease Activity||6.4|2.1|<0.0001
91737491|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Low Disease Activity||2.7|0.8|0.3027
91798675|NCT01675427|183475097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1717
91798676|NCT01675427|183475097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0253
91798677|NCT01675427|183475098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798678|NCT01675427|183475098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0330
91798679|NCT01675427|183475098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1595
91798680|NCT01675427|183475098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0412
91737492|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Low Disease Activity||4.2|1.5|<0.0001
91737493|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Low Disease Activity||7.6|2.7|<0.0001
91737494|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Low Disease Activity||2.1|0.7|0.5871
91737495|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Low Disease Activity||6.1|2.3|<0.0001
91737496|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|11.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Low Disease Activity||11.0|3.9|<0.0001
91737497|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Low Disease Activity||2.0|0.6|0.6716
91798681|NCT01675427|183475099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798682|NCT01675427|183475099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.0421
91798683|NCT01675427|183475099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7658|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.7658
91873445|NCT00824850|183640593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|32.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.99|85.81|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||85.81|11.99|
91873446|NCT00824850|183640593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|78.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.42|120.94|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||120.94|50.42|
91873447|NCT00824850|183640593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|15.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||15.72|6.80|
91737498|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|8.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Low Disease Activity||8.6|3.4|<0.0001
91737499|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Low Disease Activity||7.6|2.8|<0.0001
91737500|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Low Disease Activity||1.5|0.5|0.9399
91737501|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Low Disease Activity||7.7|3.0|<0.0001
91737502|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Low Disease Activity||10.5|3.7|<0.0001
91737503|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Low Disease Activity||1.9|0.6|0.6692
91737504|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|8.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Low Disease Activity||8.7|3.4|<0.0001
91737505|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|9.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Low Disease Activity||9.8|3.4|<0.0001
91737506|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Low Disease Activity||2.1|0.7|0.4326
91798684|NCT01675427|183475099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.2950
91798685|NCT01675427|183475100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
91737507|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Low Disease Activity||8.2|3.2|<0.0001
91737508|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Low Disease Activity||7.8|2.8|<0.0001
91737509|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.6064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Low Disease Activity||1.8|0.6|0.6064
91737510|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Low Disease Activity||7.4|3.0|<0.0001
91737511|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Remission||3.3|0.5|0.4626
91737512|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Remission||3.3|0.6|0.2886
91737513|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Remission||1.9|0.4|0.7779
91737514|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Remission||4.7|1.8|<0.0001
91873448|NCT00824850|183640593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|61.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.75|116.34|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||116.34|32.75|
91873449|NCT00824850|183640593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|536.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.04|1357.19|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1357.19|212.04|
91873450|NCT00824850|183640593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|116.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.28|410.33|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||410.33|33.28|
91737515|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Remission||2.0|0.8|0.2091
91737516|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Remission||3.6|1.5|<0.0001
91737517|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.2||p-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Remission||5.2|2.1|<0.0001
91737518|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Remission||1.7|0.7|0.5351
91737519|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Remission||4.8|2.0|<0.0001
91737520|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Remission||6.5|2.6|<0.0001
91737521|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.4574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Remission||1.3|0.5|0.4574
91737522|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Remission||8.0|3.2|<0.0001
91737523|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Remission||6.6|2.7|<0.0001
91737524|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Remission||1.8|0.7|0.5229
91737525|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Remission||6.0|2.5|<0.0001
91737526|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Remission||8.6|3.3|<0.0001
91737527|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Remission||1.8|0.7|0.6464
91737528|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Remission||7.6|3.0|<0.0001
91737529|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Remission||7.9|3.1|<0.0001
91737530|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Remission||1.7|0.7|0.5499
91737531|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Remission||6.4|2.6|<0.0001
91737532|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Remission||7.0|2.8|<0.0001
91737533|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Remission||1.9|0.8|0.1109
91873451|NCT00824850|183640593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|53.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||53.42|11.30|
91906796|NCT05998148|183708934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Since 2 hypothesis tests are conducted, we applied a Bonferroni correction. Our new adjusted threshold level is 0.05/2= 0.025.|Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|The null hypothesis states that the virtual group and in-person group exhibit no difference in mean PROMIS mental score. The minimum sample size determined for the PROMIS physical score was applied to this outcome score. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted on the scores at the 6-month follow-up appointment.||||0.077
91737534|NCT00565409|183368224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Remission||6.0|2.5|<0.0001
91737535|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 40||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
91798686|NCT01675427|183475100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.0827
91737536|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 40||0.2|-0.2|0.9344
91737537|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 40||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
91737538|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 48||-0.7|-1.0|<0.0001
91737539|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 48||0.2|-0.1|0.6173
91737540|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 48||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
91737541|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 56||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
91737542|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.5136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 56||0.3|-0.1|0.5136
91737543|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 56||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
91737544|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 64||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
91737545|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.4868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 64||0.3|-0.1|0.4868
91737546|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 64||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
91737547|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 72||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
91873452|NCT00824850|183640594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|168.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.22|1409.76|||||CI for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1409.76|20.22|
91906797|NCT05998148|183708934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|The null hypothesis states that the virtual group and in-person group exhibit no difference in mean PROMIS physical score. From the literature, effect size of 0.618 was obtained from PROMIS physical. Using a power of 80% and a significance level of 0.05, it was determined that a sample size of 34 per group would detect a statistical difference between the groups. A per-protocol analysis was conducted on the scores at the 6-month follow-up appointment. There were 34 patients in each group.||||0.75
91704844|NCT03646305|183304384|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, cognitive delusion were equivalent across time||||>0.05
91704845|NCT03646305|183304384|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
91704846|NCT03646305|183304384|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
91704847|NCT03646305|183304384|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
91704848|NCT03646305|183304384|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of cognitive defusion across time.||||>0.05
91704849|NCT03646305|183304384|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
91705762|NCT04278924|183305871|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.59|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|73.35|||Barnard's test||95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||73.35|0.81|=0.056
91737548|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.7847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 72||0.2|-0.2|0.7847
91737549|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 72||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
91737550|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 80||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
91737551|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 80||0.2|-0.2|0.9810
91737552|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 80||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
91737553|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 88||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
91737554|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 88||0.1|-0.3|0.3562
91737555|NCT00565409|183368226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 88||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
91737556|NCT00565409|183368227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||Imputation of failure defined as participants who did not reach the endpoint and discontinued due to lack of efficacy, with reason of unsatisfactory response-efficacy, adverse event, other or protocol violation were set to an event at time of discontinuation.||||<0.0001
91873453|NCT00824850|183640594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|40.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.97|148.44|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMRFs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||148.44|10.97|
91737557|NCT00565409|183368227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||Imputation of failure defined as participants who did not reach the endpoint and discontinued due to lack of efficacy, with reason of unsatisfactory response-efficacy, adverse event, other or protocol violation were set to an event at time of discontinuation.||||<0.0001
91873454|NCT00824850|183640594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|61.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.83|203.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||203.72|18.83|
91737558|NCT00565409|183368227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||Imputation of failure defined as participants who did not reach the endpoint and discontinued due to lack of efficacy, with reason of unsatisfactory response-efficacy, adverse event, other or protocol violation were set to an event at time of discontinuation.||||0.8622
91737559|NCT00565409|183368228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91737560|NCT00565409|183368228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9841|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||||||0.9841
91737561|NCT00565409|183368228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91737562|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
91737563|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.3|-0.3|0.8015
91737564|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
91737565|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.7|-1.5|<0.0001
91737566|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.8534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-0.4|0.8534
91737567|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.8|-1.6|<0.0001
91737568|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.7|<0.0001
91737569|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.5|-0.4|0.9074
91798687|NCT01675427|183475100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.7817
91704850|NCT03646305|183304384|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
91704851|NCT03646305|183304385|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, weight dissatisfaction were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
91704852|NCT03646305|183304385|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in weight dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in weight dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
91704853|NCT03646305|183304385|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in weight dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up. Null: there would be no differences in weight dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up||||<0.05
91704854|NCT03646305|183304385|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91704855|NCT03646305|183304385|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal weight dissatisfaction scores||||>0.05
91704856|NCT03646305|183304385|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91705763|NCT04278924|183305871|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.42|||=|0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|71.38|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||71.38|-4.24|=0.088
91798688|NCT01675427|183475100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.1986
91798689|NCT01675427|183475101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
91737570|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.7|<0.0001
91737571|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.8|<0.0001
91737572|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.5|-0.4|0.9229
91737573|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.8|<0.0001
91737574|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.0|-1.9|<0.0001
91737575|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.4|-0.5|0.9279
91737576|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.0|-1.9|<0.0001
91737577|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.1|-2.1|<0.0001
91737578|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||0.4|-0.6|0.7695
91737579|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.0|-2.0|<0.0001
91737580|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.2|-2.3|<0.0001
91798690|NCT01675427|183475101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0002
91873455|NCT00824850|183640594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.67|73.84|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||73.84|9.67|
91737581|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.2|-0.8|0.2182
91737582|NCT00565409|183368232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-0.9|-1.9|<0.0001
91737583|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.4|-1.3|0.0003
91737584|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.6|-0.3|0.6088
91737585|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.4|<0.0001
91737586|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
91737587|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.9048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANOVA|||Week 48||0.6|-0.5|0.9048
91737588|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-1.5|-2.6|<0.0001
91798691|NCT01675427|183475101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0394
91737589|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-1.5|-2.6|<0.0001
91737590|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.5|-0.6|0.8437
91737591|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
91737592|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
91737593|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.8587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.7|-0.6|0.8587
91737594|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
91737595|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.8|-3.0|<0.0001
91737596|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.5|-0.8|0.6323
91798692|NCT01675427|183475101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0493
91873456|NCT00824850|183640594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|226.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.81|645.29|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||645.29|79.81|
91737597|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.6|-2.9|<0.0001
91798693|NCT01675427|183475102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
91798694|NCT01675427|183475102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0196
91737598|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.6|-2.9|<0.0001
91737599|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||0.5|-0.8|0.6558
91737600|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.5|-2.8|<0.0001
91737601|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.7|-3.1|<0.0001
91737602|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.6|-0.7|0.8688
91737603|NCT00565409|183368235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.7|-3.0|<0.0001
91737604|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.0|<0.0001
91737605|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.3|-0.2|0.9636
91798695|NCT01675427|183475102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3268|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.3268
91737606|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.0|<0.0001
91737607|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
91737608|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-0.2|0.4605
91737609|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
91737610|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
91737611|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.3|-0.3|0.8404
91737612|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
91737613|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
91873457|NCT00824850|183640594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|116.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.54|250.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||250.13|54.54|
91737614|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.5|-0.1|0.3118
91798696|NCT01675427|183475102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1667
91873458|NCT00824850|183640594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|481.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|207.01|1117.69|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1117.69|207.01|
91737615|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
91737616|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
91737617|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.4|-0.2|0.6100
91737618|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
91737619|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
91737620|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||0.2|-0.4|0.6552
91737621|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
91737622|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.1|-1.8|<0.0001
91798697|NCT01675427|183475103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0021
91704857|NCT03646305|183304385|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in weight dissatisfaction across time.||||>0.05
91704858|NCT03646305|183304385|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91737623|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.2|-0.4|0.4753
91737624|NCT00565409|183368238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
91737625|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.6|-1.2|<0.0001
91737626|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.7427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.3|-0.4|0.7427
91798698|NCT01675427|183475103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5319|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.5319
91798699|NCT01675427|183475103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.0114
91798700|NCT01675427|183475103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.2293
91737627|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
91737628|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-1.1|-1.7|<0.0001
91737629|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.2|-0.5|0.3129
91798701|NCT01675427|183475103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2857|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2857
91737630|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
91737631|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
91737632|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.2|-0.5|0.4645
91798702|NCT01675427|183475103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0001
91798703|NCT01675427|183475104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0081
91798704|NCT01675427|183475104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.0563
91798705|NCT01675427|183475104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.3516
91737633|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.5|<0.0001
91737634|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.9|-1.7|<0.0001
91737635|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.2|-0.5|0.3793
91798706|NCT01675427|183475104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.0064
91798707|NCT01675427|183475104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2707
91798708|NCT01675427|183475104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91737636|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.5|<0.0001
91737637|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.2|-2.0|<0.0001
91798709|NCT01675427|183475105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0634
91798710|NCT01675427|183475105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7176|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.7176
91798711|NCT01675427|183475105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.3944
91873459|NCT00824850|183640594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|66.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.8|105.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||105.75|41.80|
91737638|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.0|-0.7|0.0816
91798712|NCT01675427|183475105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.8610
91798713|NCT01675427|183475105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4543
91798714|NCT01675427|183475105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0406
91798715|NCT01675427|183475106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.8234
91798716|NCT01675427|183475106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.2427
91798717|NCT01675427|183475106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.4805
91737639|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
91737640|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.2|-1.9|<0.0001
91737641|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-0.1|-0.8|0.0256
91737642|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-0.8|-1.5|<0.0001
91737643|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.2|-1.9|<0.0001
91798718|NCT01675427|183475106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2901|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.2901
91873460|NCT00824850|183640594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|13.94|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||13.94|5.36|
91798719|NCT01675427|183475106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3927|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3927
91873461|NCT00824850|183640594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|78.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.38|147.8|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||147.80|41.38|
91704859|NCT03646305|183304385|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91704860|NCT03646305|183304386|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, appearance dissatisfaction were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
91704861|NCT03646305|183304386|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in appearance dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in appearance dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention||||>0.05
91704862|NCT03646305|183304386|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in appearance dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in appearance dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
91705764|NCT04278924|183305871|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.83|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.21|87.29|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||87.29|29.21|=0.001
91705765|NCT04278924|183305872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|55.56|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.11|81.51|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||81.51|25.11|=0.001
91705766|NCT04278924|183305872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.63|78.95|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||78.95|19.63|=0.004
91705767|NCT04278924|183305872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|81.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.24|94.99|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||94.99|51.24|<0.001
91705768|NCT04278924|183305873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.9|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|67.75|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||67.75|-7.22|=0.120
91705769|NCT04278924|183305873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.23|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|73.77|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||73.77|-0.83|=0.060
91705770|NCT04278924|183305873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|60.14|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.33|82.42|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||82.42|21.33|=0.003
91705771|NCT04278924|183305874|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.0|||=|0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|78.17|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||78.17|-16.28|=0.187
91705772|NCT04278924|183305874|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||=|0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.85|71.78|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||71.78|-28.85|=0.315
91705773|NCT04278924|183305874|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|100.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.12|100.0|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||100.00|35.12|=0.004
91705774|NCT04847232|183305875|OTHER|Test of HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.26|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||1.26|0.76|0.867
91737644|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.1|-0.7|0.1158
91873462|NCT00824850|183640594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|438.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|169.52|1132.43|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1132.43|169.52|
91873463|NCT00824850|183640594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.28|274.82|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||274.82|23.28|
91873464|NCT00824850|183640594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.73|131.76|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||131.76|28.73|
91873465|NCT00824850|183640595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|281.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.65|1035.49|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1035.49|76.65|
91873466|NCT00824850|183640595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|16.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||16.75|3.47|
91873467|NCT00824850|183640595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|151.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.01|545.84|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||545.84|42.01|
91873468|NCT00824850|183640595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.67|64.54|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||64.54|8.67|
91873469|NCT00824850|183640595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|102.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|325.4|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||325.40|32.00|
91873470|NCT00824850|183640595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|31.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.71|76.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||76.13|12.71|
91873471|NCT00824850|183640595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.82|51.39|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||51.39|6.82|
91873472|NCT00824850|183640595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|64.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.33|111.18|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||111.18|37.33|
91873473|NCT00824850|183640595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|18.52|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||18.52|6.64|
91873474|NCT00824850|183640595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|41.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.09|73.48|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||73.48|23.09|
91705775|NCT04847232|183305876|OTHER|Test of OR = 1|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.26|||Regression, Logistic||SZC relative to Placebo|||4.26|2.64|<.0001
91705776|NCT04847232|183305877|OTHER|Test of HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.56|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||1.56|0.80|0.510
91737645|NCT00565409|183368241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
91704863|NCT03646305|183304386|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91705777|NCT06010732|183305910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.4||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Positive Control|Based on previous studies we estimate the standard deviation of the differences between treatments in the crossover model to be 20 for % SMH recovery. With a sample size of 58 subjects completing the study, the study had 80% power to detect a difference between any two treatments of 7.5 for % SMH recovery, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||5.4|-5.5|0.986
91873475|NCT00824850|183640595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|479.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|171.63|1339.96|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1339.96|171.63|
91873476|NCT00824850|183640595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|76.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|270.02|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||270.02|21.63|
91873477|NCT00824850|183640595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|41.08|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||41.08|7.61|
91873478|NCT00824850|183640596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|170.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.24|1301.79|||||CI for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1301.79|22.24|
91873479|NCT00824850|183640596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|59.91|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMRFs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||59.91|5.27|
91873480|NCT00824850|183640596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|67.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.45|249.02|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||249.02|18.45|
91873481|NCT00824850|183640596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.94|61.88|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||61.88|7.94|
91873482|NCT00824850|183640596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|205.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.04|602.78|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||602.78|70.04|
91873483|NCT00824850|183640596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|90.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.28|203.27|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||203.27|40.28|
91873484|NCT00824850|183640596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.25|232.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||232.13|36.25|
91873485|NCT00824850|183640596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|75.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.32|120.91|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||120.91|47.32|
91873486|NCT00824850|183640596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|14.4|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||14.40|5.21|
91737646|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.67||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.1|-6.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-6.2|-77.1|0.0214
91737647|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.57||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|24.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||24.5|-45.6|0.5544
91737648|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.2|4.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||4.0|-66.2|0.0826
91737649|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-80.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.3|-39.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-39.8|-120.3|0.0001
91737650|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.18||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.2|-3.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-3.2|-83.2|0.0344
91737651|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.87||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.1|3.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.3|-77.1|0.0721
91737652|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.7|-49.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-49.7|-128.7|<0.0001
91798720|NCT01675427|183475106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5769|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.5769
91798721|NCT04066647|183475120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93928821||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|2 tailed, unpaired t test with Bonferroni correction||||||0.9
91798722|NCT01914757|183475124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.85|0.49|0.002
91906798|NCT05998148|183708934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.49||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Since 2 hypothesis tests are conducted, we applied a Bonferroni correction. Our new adjusted threshold level is 0.05/2= 0.025.|Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|The null hypothesis states that the virtual group and in-person group exhibit no difference in mean PROMIS mental score. The minimum sample size determined for the PROMIS physical score was used for this analysis. A per-protocol analysis was conducted on the scores at the 6-month follow-up appointment. There were 34 patients in each group.||||0.049
91737653|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.14||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|13.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||13.1|-65.4|0.1910
91737654|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.5|-23.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-23.6|-102.5|0.0018
91798723|NCT01914757|183475124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.95|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids.||||0.95|0.54|0.019
91798724|NCT01914757|183475125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.64||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.92|0.45|0.015
91798725|NCT01914757|183475125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.86|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids.||||0.86|0.42|0.005
91737655|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.1|-39.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-39.6|-129.1|0.0002
91737656|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|42.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||42.6|-46.3|0.9350
91737657|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.2|-37.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-37.8|-127.2|0.0003
91737658|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-108.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.0|-60.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-60.4|-157.0|<0.0001
91737659|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|37.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||37.8|-58.2|0.6764
91737660|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-98.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-146.7|-50.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-50.3|-146.7|<0.0001
91737661|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-115.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.7|-73.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-73.3|-157.7|<0.0001
91737662|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.69||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|28.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||28.3|-55.6|0.5219
91737663|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.0|-59.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-59.6|-144.0|<0.0001
91737664|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.9|-26.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-26.3|-116.9|0.0020
91737665|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|57.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||57.3|-32.7|0.5917
91737666|NCT00565409|183368244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.91||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.2|-38.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-38.7|-129.2|0.0003
91737667|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-5.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-5.7|-11.9|<0.0001
91737668|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.5|-5.6|0.1033
91798726|NCT01914757|183475126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.213|0.037|0.005
91798727|NCT01914757|183475126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.204|0.028|0.01
91873487|NCT00824850|183640596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.06|115.92|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||115.92|31.06|
91737669|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-3.1|-9.3|<0.0001
91737670|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-8.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-8.8|-15.4|<0.0001
91737671|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.6802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.6|-4.0|0.6802
91737672|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-8.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-8.1|-14.7|<0.0001
91737673|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-8.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-8.6|-15.6|<0.0001
91737674|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||2.1|-4.8|0.4404
91737675|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-7.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-7.2|-14.2|<0.0001
91798728|NCT01914757|183475127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.176|-0.049|0.268
91737676|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-9.4|-16.2|<0.0001
91737677|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.4437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||2.1|-4.7|0.4437
91737678|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-8.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-8.1|-14.9|<0.0001
91737679|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-11.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-11.1|-18.5|<0.0001
91737680|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.6|-6.8|0.0960
91737681|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-8.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-8.0|-15.4|<0.0001
91737682|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-11.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-11.0|-18.1|<0.0001
91737683|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88||||0.2948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||1.6|-5.4|0.2948
91737684|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-9.1|-16.2|<0.0001
91737685|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-9.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-9.5|-16.9|<0.0001
91737686|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||1.3|-6.0|0.2130
91737687|NCT00565409|183368247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-7.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-7.1|-14.5|<0.0001
91873488|NCT00824850|183640596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|269.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.09|692.6|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||692.60|105.09|
91906799|NCT05998148|183708935|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.84||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|There were 27 patients in the virtual phone group. There were 26 patients in the standard in-person group.||||0.49
91737688|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-5.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-5.3|-11.8|<0.0001
91737689|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||2.8|-3.6|0.8033
91737690|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-4.9|-11.3|<0.0001
91737691|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-10.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-10.0|-17.2|<0.0001
91737692|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.1|-4.1|0.7830
91737693|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-9.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-9.5|-16.7|<0.0001
91737694|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-8.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-8.9|-16.1|<0.0001
91737695|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.5732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization|ANCOVA|||Week 56||2.5|-4.6|0.5732
91737696|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-7.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-7.9|-15.1|<0.0001
91737697|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-10.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-10.2|-17.6|<0.0001
91704864|NCT03646305|183304386|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal appearance dissatisfaction scores||||>0.05
91737698|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||1.7|-5.6|0.2972
91737699|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-8.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-8.3|-15.6|<0.0001
91737700|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-11.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-11.8|-19.4|<0.0001
91737701|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||1.0|-6.6|0.1477
91873489|NCT00824850|183640596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|37.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.85|131.09|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||131.09|10.85|
91873490|NCT00824850|183640596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|44.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.31|94.01|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||94.01|21.31|
91873491|NCT00824850|183640597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.95|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.95|1.31|
91873492|NCT00824850|183640597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.9|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||4.90|1.78|
91906800|NCT05998148|183708936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.65||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|There are 18 patients in the virtual group. There are 9 patients in the standard in-person group.||||0.54
91737702|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-9.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-9.0|-16.6|<0.0001
91737703|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-11.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-11.1|-18.6|<0.0001
91906801|NCT05998148|183708937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|There are 45 patients in the virtual phone group. There are 35 patients in the standard in-person group.||||0.39
91906802|NCT02090413|183708941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|11.2|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 1-4 combined||11.2|-6.4|
91737704|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||1.2|-6.3|0.1808
91737705|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-8.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-8.5|-16.1|<0.0001
91737706|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-10.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-10.9|-18.5|<0.0001
91798729|NCT01914757|183475127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.096|-0.127|0.786
91798730|NCT01914757|183475128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.07|-0.32|0.224
91873493|NCT00824850|183640597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.75|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.75|1.25|
91737707|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||1.4|-6.2|0.2077
91737708|NCT00565409|183368250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-8.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-8.5|-16.1|<0.0001
91737709|NCT00565409|183368251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
91737710|NCT00565409|183368252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.5|0.5|0.8974
91737711|NCT00565409|183368252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.7|0.8|0.1105
91737712|NCT00565409|183368252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.4|0.3|0.1900
91737713|NCT00565409|183368252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||7.5|2.3|<0.0001
91798731|NCT01914757|183475128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.43|0.019
91798732|NCT01914757|183475129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.13|-0.44|0.287
91873494|NCT00824850|183640597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.53|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||4.53|1.11|
91873495|NCT00824850|183640597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.05|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.05|0.38|
91737714|NCT00565409|183368252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||2.4|0.6|0.4032
91737715|NCT00565409|183368252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||7.5|2.4|<0.0001
91737716|NCT00565409|183368252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.2|2.1|<0.0001
91737717|NCT00565409|183368252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||3.6|1.0|0.0272
91737718|NCT00565409|183368252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||4.0|1.4|0.0004
91737719|NCT00565409|183368253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91737720|NCT00565409|183368253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91737721|NCT00565409|183368253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91737722|NCT00565409|183368253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91737723|NCT00565409|183368253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
91737724|NCT00565409|183368253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
91737725|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||10.7|0.5|0.1718
91737726|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||7.3|0.2|0.8303
91737727|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||10.1|0.5|0.2130
91737728|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||8.2|2.1|<0.0001
91737729|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.0|0.3|0.4337
91737730|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||10.8|2.5|<0.0001
91737731|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||10.5|3.0|<0.0001
91737732|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.9|0.4|0.8973
91737733|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||10.1|2.8|<0.0001
91737734|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||8.1|2.4|<0.0001
91737735|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.5708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||1.7|0.4|0.5708
91737736|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||10.3|3.0|<0.0001
91737737|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||12.0|3.3|<0.0001
91737738|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||2.0|0.4|0.8842
91737739|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||10.8|3.2|<0.0001
91737740|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|14.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||14.4|3.8|<0.0001
91737741|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||3.1|0.6|0.1608
91737742|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|8.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||8.4|2.9|<0.0001
91737743|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|12.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||12.4|3.4|<0.0001
91737744|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||2.7|0.6|0.2825
91737745|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||7.8|2.7|<0.0001
91737746|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|8.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||8.7|2.7|<0.0001
91737747|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||2.1|0.5|0.4471
91737748|NCT00565409|183368254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.0|2.5|<0.0001
91737749|NCT00565409|183368255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91737750|NCT00565409|183368255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91737751|NCT00565409|183368255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91737752|NCT00565409|183368255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91737753|NCT00565409|183368255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
91737754|NCT00565409|183368255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
91737755|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.6|0.4|0.6006
91737756|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.1|0.6|0.4967
91737757|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.5|0.4|0.3648
91737758|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.2|1.2|0.0024
91737759|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8308||95.0|0.6|||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.|0.6|0.8308
91737760|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.4|1.3|0.0008
91737761|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||5.2|2.0|<0.0001
91737762|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.8|0.7|0.7374
91737763|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||4.8|1.9|<0.0001
91737764|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||4.8|1.9|<0.0001
91737765|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||1.7|0.6|0.9599
91798733|NCT01914757|183475129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.29|-0.28|0.966
91798734|NCT01914757|183475130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma rescue medication use, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.99|-0.58|0.603
91873496|NCT00824850|183640597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.62|0.50|
91798735|NCT01914757|183475130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma medication use, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.28|-1.29|0.209
91873497|NCT00824850|183640597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.43|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.43|0.48|
91873498|NCT00824850|183640597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.00|0.96|
91798736|NCT01914757|183475131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.86||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|30.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Morning PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||30.12|1.59|0.029
91798737|NCT01914757|183475131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.27||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|29.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Morning PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||29.64|0.9|0.037
91737766|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||4.6|1.9|<0.0001
91737767|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||5.7|2.3|<0.0001
91737768|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||2.0|0.8|0.4509
91737769|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||4.6|1.9|<0.0001
91737770|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||7.0|2.6|<0.0001
91798738|NCT01914757|183475131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.54||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|32.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Evening PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||32|3.07|0.018
91798739|NCT01914757|183475131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.22||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|35.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Evening PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||35.79|6.65|0.004
91737771|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||2.0|0.7|0.3037
91737772|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||5.1|2.1|<0.0001
91737773|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||7.2|2.7|<0.0001
91737774|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.7|0.6076
91737775|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.0|2.4|<0.0001
91737776|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||4.6|1.8|<0.0001
91737777|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.6|0.6|0.7837
91737778|NCT00565409|183368256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||4.7|2.0|<0.0001
91737779|NCT00565409|183368257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91737780|NCT00565409|183368257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91873499|NCT00824850|183640597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.96|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.96|0.79|
91737781|NCT00565409|183368257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91737782|NCT00565409|183368257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91737783|NCT00565409|183368257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
91737784|NCT00565409|183368257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
91737785|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.0|0.7|0.5263
91737786|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.3|0.9|0.1055
91737787|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.4348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.4|0.5|0.4348
91737788|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.3|1.4|0.0003
91737789|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.7|0.7|0.5511
91737790|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.9|1.3|0.0013
91737791|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||4.3|1.8|<0.0001
91737792|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.5|0.6|0.9225
91737793|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||4.5|1.9|<0.0001
91737794|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||6.6|2.7|<0.0001
91737795|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||2.0|0.9|0.2454
91737796|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||4.9|2.0|<0.0001
91798740|NCT01914757|183475132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline prop of nights with nocturnal wakening, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.03|-0.06|0.4
91798741|NCT01914757|183475132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline prop of nights with nocturnal wakening, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.01|-0.08|0.146
91798742|NCT01914757|183475133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||-0.01|-0.38|0.043
91798743|NCT01914757|183475133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||-0.07|-0.44|0.008
91798744|NCT01914757|183475134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.03|-0.51|0.078
91798745|NCT01914757|183475134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.16|-0.37|0.449
91798746|NCT01914757|183475135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.69|0.31|<0.001
91798747|NCT01914757|183475135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.95|0.45|0.023
91798748|NCT01914757|183475136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.8|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Time to first Exacerbation||0.80|0.46|<0.001
91873500|NCT00824850|183640597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.52|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.54|
91737797|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||6.0|2.4|<0.0001
91873501|NCT00824850|183640597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.34|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.34|0.98|
91737798|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.9|0.8|0.4919
91737799|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||4.9|2.0|<0.0001
91798749|NCT01914757|183475136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Time to first asthma exacerbation||0.95|0.55|0.018
91798750|NCT01914757|183475137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.82|||negative binomial|Model includes treatment, region, any prior exacerbation resulting ER/Hospitalization, use of OCS||||1.82|0.48|0.837
91798751|NCT01914757|183475137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.23||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.35|||negative binomial|Model includes treatment, region, any prior exacerbation resulting ER/Hospitalization, use of OCS||||2.35|0.64|0.538
91798752|NCT01914757|183475141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline AQLQ score, region, use of OCS, visit, visit by treatment.||||0.37|-0.04|0.119
91737800|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||7.6|3.0|<0.0001
91798753|NCT01914757|183475141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline AQLQ score, region, use of OCS, visit, visit by treatment.||||0.45|0.04|0.019
91798754|NCT00408629|183475148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Testing for ranked co-primary endpoints occurred in hierarchical order to control for multiple testing. Week 8 remission rate was tested first. If a significant difference in group rates was found at alpha=0.05, Week 52 rate was tested at alpha=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||Assuming that 5% of the subjects in the placebo group achieve clinical remission at Week 52 or Week 8, a sample size of 250 in each treatment group will be adequate to detect a difference of at least 7 percentage points from the adalimumab group using Chi squared test with 80% power at a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.019
91798755|NCT00408629|183475149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Testing for ranked co-primary endpoints occurred in hierarchical order to control for multiple testing. Week 8 remission rate was tested first. If a significant difference in group rates was found at alpha=0.05, Week 52 rate was tested at alpha=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||Assuming that 5% of the subjects in the placebo group achieve clinical remission at Week 52 or Week 8, a sample size of 250 in each treatment group will be adequate to detect a difference of at least 7 percentage points from the adalimumab group using Chi squared test with 80% power at a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.004
91737801|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||2.3|1.0|0.0658
91737802|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||4.7|2.0|<0.0001
91737803|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.8|2.7|<0.0001
91737804|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.8|0.4014
91737805|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||5.5|2.3|<0.0001
91737806|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.2|2.9|<0.0001
91737807|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.9|0.8|0.2824
91704865|NCT03646305|183304386|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91737808|NCT00565409|183368258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||5.9|2.5|<0.0001
91737809|NCT00565409|183368259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91737810|NCT00565409|183368259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91737811|NCT00565409|183368259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91737812|NCT00565409|183368259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91737813|NCT00565409|183368259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
91737814|NCT00565409|183368259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||week 36||||<0.0001
91737815|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.3|1.0|0.0575
91737816|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.3|1.0|0.0630
91737817|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.6|0.7|0.9160
91737818|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.0|1.0|0.0147
91737819|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.6|0.6|0.8675
91737820|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.0|1.1|0.0174
91737821|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||5.7|1.9|<0.0001
91737822|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.3|0.5|0.4941
91737823|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||7.0|2.3|<0.0001
91737824|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||5.9|2.0|<0.0001
91737825|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||1.5|0.6|0.8185
91737826|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||6.4|2.1|<0.0001
91798756|NCT00408629|183475150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.047
91798757|NCT00408629|183475151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91798758|NCT00408629|183475152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.002
91798759|NCT00408629|183475153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91798760|NCT00408629|183475154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure were needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.032
91798761|NCT00408629|183475155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.009
91798762|NCT00408629|183475156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.013
91798763|NCT00408629|183475157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.035
91873502|NCT00824850|183640597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.83|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.83|1.05|
91737827|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||6.6|2.2|<0.0001
91737828|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.8|0.7|0.4254
91737829|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||5.9|1.9|<0.0001
91873503|NCT00824850|183640597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.66|0.67|
91737830|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||5.8|1.8|<0.0001
91737831|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||1.6|0.7|0.8766
91737832|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||6.4|2.1|<0.0001
91737833|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.4|2.0|<0.0001
91737834|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.8|0.3535
91873504|NCT00824850|183640598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.79|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.79|1.26|
91873505|NCT00824850|183640598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|5.32|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||5.32|1.84|
91906803|NCT02090413|183708941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 1-4 combined||8.3|-10.8|
91704866|NCT03646305|183304386|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in appearance dissatisfaction across time.||||>0.05
91704867|NCT03646305|183304386|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91704868|NCT03646305|183304386|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91704869|NCT03646305|183304387|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, body state image satisfaction were equivalent across time||||<0.001
91704870|NCT03646305|183304387|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure the difference in state body image satisfaction from baseline to post intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in state body image satisfaction from baseline to post intervention.||||<0.05
91737835|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.1|1.9|<0.0001
91737836|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||6.1|2.0|<0.0001
91737837|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.9|0.8|0.3231
91737838|NCT00565409|183368260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||5.6|1.9|<0.0001
91737839|NCT00565409|183368261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91737840|NCT00565409|183368261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91737841|NCT00565409|183368261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91737842|NCT00565409|183368261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91737843|NCT00565409|183368261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
91737844|NCT00565409|183368261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
91737845|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||5.2|0.9|0.0089
91737846|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.7|0.5|0.6932
91737847|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||6.1|1.2|0.0019
91873506|NCT00824850|183640598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.51|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.51|1.13|
91737848|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.6|0.6|0.0797
91737849|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.9|0.4|0.8103
91737850|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||4.5|0.8|0.0903
91737851|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||7.8|1.2|0.0035
91737852|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.0|0.5|0.9770
91737853|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||8.3|1.3|0.0036
91737854|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||7.7|1.0|0.0038
91737855|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||2.0|0.5|0.9055
91737856|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||9.8|1.2|0.0020
91737857|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||8.8|1.3|0.0020
91737858|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.7|0.4|0.5763
91737859|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||10.0|1.5|0.0002
91737860|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||8.8|1.2|0.0004
91737861|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||1.6|0.4|0.4828
91737862|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||9.0|1.4|<0.0001
91737863|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||7.8|1.4|0.0002
91737864|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.6|0.8553
91737865|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||8.7|1.5|0.0003
91704871|NCT03646305|183304387|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure the difference in state body image satisfaction from post intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in state body image satisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
91704872|NCT03646305|183304387|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal body state image satisfaction||||>0.05
91704873|NCT03646305|183304387|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal state body satisfaction scores||||>0.05
91704874|NCT03646305|183304387|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in state body image satisfaction||||>0.05
91704875|NCT03646305|183304387|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in state body image satisfaction across time.||||>0.05
91704876|NCT03646305|183304387|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on state body image satisfaction||||>0.05
91737866|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.6|1.6|<0.0001
91873507|NCT00824850|183640598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.07|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||4.07|0.95|
91737867|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.5025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||2.0|0.6|0.5025
91737868|NCT00565409|183368262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||8.1|1.6|0.0001
91737869|NCT04828707|183368265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Intent-To-Treat (ITT) dataset was used for primary outcome. To overcome impact of missing data, statistical analysis was conducted using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) as an imputation method.~The data of each variable collected from the daily diary was normalized to 28 days for every period (weeks 1-4, weeks 5-8, and weeks 9-12).~Participants' data who entered the treatment phase but dropped out during weeks 5-8 were carried forward and analyzed as their data at weeks 9-12."||||<0.05
91737870|NCT04211363|183368315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.58|56.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data..|IGA Success Odds Ratio||56.48|7.58|<0.0001
91737871|NCT04211363|183368316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.867|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.795|5.351|||Log Rank|Unstratified log-rank test|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization.|Time to PASI-50||5.351|2.795|<0.0001
91737872|NCT04211363|183368317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.15|27.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-75 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||27.93|5.15|<0.0001
91737873|NCT04211363|183368318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|73.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study site, baseline IGA score, and baseline intertriginous involvement with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by study site, baseline IGA score, and baseline intertriginous involvement with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-90 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||73.09|4.38|<0.0001
91737874|NCT04211363|183368319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|138.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||138.20|2.33|<0.0001
91737875|NCT04211363|183368320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|288.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Clear at Week 8 Odds Ratio||288.36|2.99|0.003
91737876|NCT04211363|183368321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio||3.19|0.98|0.1197
91737877|NCT04211363|183368321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|8.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio||8.26|2.31|<0.0001
91737878|NCT04211363|183368321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|15.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS at Week 8 Odds Ratio||15.94|3.85|<0.0001
91737879|NCT04211363|183368322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-20.0|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Comparison of change from baseline in PSD score at Week 4||-20.0|-31.7|<0.0001
91737880|NCT04211363|183368322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-24.6|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Comparison of change from baseline in PSD score at Week 8||-24.6|-37.2|<0.0001
91737881|NCT01991860|183368323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||2-sided|Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.033
91737882|NCT01991860|183368324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.16
91737883|NCT01991860|183368325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.68
91737884|NCT01991860|183368326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.026
91737885|NCT01991860|183368327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.086
91737886|NCT01991860|183368328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.074
91737887|NCT01991860|183368329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.15
91906804|NCT02090413|183708941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.2|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 1||13.2|-9.3|
91737888|NCT02797821|183368333|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Difference|-1.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.544|-1.216||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥median vs \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|REML|A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate. A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||A fixed sequence testing procedure was performed to compare the 3.0 mg/kg cohort with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort first. The hypothesis testing for the second comparison of the 2.0 mg/kg cohort compared with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort was only performed if the null hypothesis was rejected for the previous comparison at a significance level of 0.05 (p-value \<0.05). The primary endpoint was met if the null hypothesis was rejected for both comparisons at a significance level of 0.05 (both p-values \<0.05).||-1.216|-2.544|<0.0001
91737889|NCT02797821|183368333|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.193||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|-0.581||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥median vs \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|REML|A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate. A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||A fixed sequence testing procedure was performed to compare the 3.0 mg/kg cohort with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort first. The hypothesis testing for the second comparison of the 2.0 mg/kg cohort compared with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort was only performed if the null hypothesis was rejected for the first comparison at a significance level of 0.05 (p-value \<0.05). The primary endpoint was met if the null hypothesis was rejected for both comparisons at a significance level of 0.05 (both p-values \<0.05).||-0.581|-1.805|0.0008
91737890|NCT02797821|183368334|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-34.047||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.171|-7.922||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥ median versus \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|Restricted maximum likelihood-based|A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||||-7.922|-60.171|0.0128
91737891|NCT02797821|183368334|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-29.492||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.723|-4.261||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥ median versus \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|Restricted maximum likelihood-based|A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||||-4.261|-54.723|0.0239
91737892|NCT00518180|183368342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||||||Immune response to Men A when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||3|-6|
91737893|NCT00518180|183368342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||||||Immune response to Men C when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||3|-6|
91737894|NCT00518180|183368342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0||||||Immune response to Men W when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||1|-9|
91737895|NCT00518180|183368342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.0||||||Immune response to Men Y when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||5|-4|
91737896|NCT00518180|183368342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.0||||||Immune response to Men A when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||10|1|
91760064|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.03|-0.89|
91873508|NCT00824850|183640598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.56|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.56|0.51|
91906805|NCT02090413|183708941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|11.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 1||11.4|-11.4|
91737897|NCT00518180|183368342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||||||Immune response to Men C when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||4|-6|
91737898|NCT00518180|183368342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.0||||||Immune response to Men W when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||-10|-21|
91737899|NCT00518180|183368342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0||||||Immune response to Men Y when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||1|-9|
91737900|NCT00518180|183368343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, was demonstrated for the diphteria and tetanus antigens if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs around the difference in the percentages of subjects with ELISA anti-D toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL \[Group I minus Group III\] were greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to diphteria antigen, when Tdap is administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||4|1|
91737901|NCT00518180|183368343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, was demonstrated for the diphteria and tetanus antigens if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs around the difference in the percentages of subjects with ELISA anti-D toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL \[Group I minus Group III\] were greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to tetanus antigen, when Tdap is administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||1|-1|
91737902|NCT00518180|183368352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tdap concomitant with MenACWY a was considered non inferior to Tdap alone if, for PT, FHA and pertactin, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMCs (GMC Group I / GMC Group III) at 1 month after vaccination was \> 0.67.|Vaccine Group Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap is administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, for PT antigen. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Ratio.||0.9|0.72|
91737903|NCT00518180|183368352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tdap concomitant with MenACWY a was considered non inferior to Tdap alone if, for PT, FHA and pertactin, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMCs (GMC Group I / GMC Group III) at 1 month after vaccination was \> 0.67.|Vaccine Group Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, for PRN antigen. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Ratio.||0.81|0.58|
91737904|NCT00518180|183368352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tdap concomitant with MenACWY a was considered non inferior to Tdap alone if, for PT, FHA and pertactin, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMCs (GMC Group I / GMC Group III) at 1 month after vaccination was \> 0.67.|Vaccine Group Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.76||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alon, for FHA antigen. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Ratio.||0.76|0.58|
91798764|NCT00408629|183475158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.058
91798765|NCT00408629|183475159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.028
91873509|NCT00824850|183640598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.66|0.93|
91873510|NCT00824850|183640598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.73|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.73|0.97|
91737905|NCT01957865|183368364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Linear and Poisson regressions|||In an intention-to-treat analysis, percentage doses taken each month were compared by linear generalized estimating equations (GEEs); more than 48-h and more than 96-h lapses in dosingwere compared by Poisson GEE regression.||||<0.05
91737906|NCT01957865|183368365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher's exact test|||HIV RNA suppression (\<100 copies/ml) was compared among study arms by Fisher's exact test.||||<0.05
91737907|NCT01419119|183368408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91737908|NCT01419119|183368409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91737909|NCT03768427|183368412|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-12.3|||Constrained longitudinal model|||"This statistical analysis was performed by fitting a constrained longitudinal model adjusting for time and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by baseline disease risk category, including all participants with baseline data (88 participants in arm Atorvastatin 10 mg - ezetimibe 10 mg/Ator 10 mg and 89 participants in arm Atorvastatin 10mg - Atorvastatin 20 mg)."|Difference in least squares mean is Atorvastatin 10 mg - EZ 10 mg/Ator 10 mg minus Atorvastatin 10mg - Atorvastatin 20 mg.|-12.3|-26.7|<0.001
91704877|NCT03646305|183304387|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on state body image satisfaction||||>0.05
91704878|NCT03646305|183304388|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, state body image satisfaction were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
91737910|NCT03768427|183368412|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.7|||Constrained longitudinal model|||"This statistical analysis was performed by fitting a constrained longitudinal model adjusting for time and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by baseline disease risk category, including all participants with baseline data (137 participants in arm Atorvastatin 20 mg - EZ 10 mg/Ator 20 mg and 140 participants in arm Atorvastatin 20 mg - Atorvastatin 40 mg)."|Atorvastatin 20 mg - EZ 10 mg/Ator 20 mg minus Atorvastatin 20 mg - Atorvastatin 40 mg.|-10.7|-21.0|<0.001
91737911|NCT03710889|183368431|OTHER|Within treatment paired t-tests were used to compare the differences in dynamic indices between Baseline and Month 3 using the Bone-Biopsy Population. If the normality assumption is not satisfied at the 0.01 significance level and visual inspection of the data deems it necessary, Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. A 2-sided p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91737912|NCT02121509|183368460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|102.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.938|106.789|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||106.789|98.938|<0.0001
91737913|NCT02121509|183368460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.99|106.121|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||106.121|96.990|<0.0001
91737914|NCT02121509|183368461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|106.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.449|114.614|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||114.614|98.449|0.0004
91798766|NCT00408629|183475160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.006
91737915|NCT02121509|183368461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|106.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.614|116.658|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||116.658|97.614|0.0040
91906806|NCT02090413|183708941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-0.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 2||-0.3|-29.2|
91798767|NCT00408629|183475161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.035
91737916|NCT02121509|183368462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|102.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.03|110.72|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||110.72|94.03|0.0001
91737917|NCT02121509|183368462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|96.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.96|103.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||103.22|89.96|0.0002
91737918|NCT02121509|183368463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|105.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.829|115.269|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||115.269|95.829|0.0013
91737919|NCT02121509|183368463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|113.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.749|119.318|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||119.318|108.749|0.0018
91737920|NCT02121509|183368464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.748|107.487|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||107.487|95.748|<0.0001
91737921|NCT02121509|183368464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|106.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.268|112.763|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||112.763|100.268|0.0002
91737922|NCT02121509|183368465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|102.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|110.59|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||110.59|94.20|<0.0001
91737923|NCT02121509|183368465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|96.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.33|103.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||103.70|90.33|0.0001
91737924|NCT00636181|183368467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||PSG outcomes employed analysis of variance for approximately normally distributed outcomes (or outcomes that could be transformed to an approximately normal distribution), and the Kruskal-Wallis test for non-normal outcomes.|Kruskal-Wallis|Pairwise differences were determined using Tukey-Kramer test- ANOVA applied or by Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon summed rank tests and Bonferroni adjustment.||||||0.3
91737925|NCT00542178|183368475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Comparisons made using likelihood-ratio tests from logistic-regression models with adjustment for same study-design factors used in ACCORD analysis||Our recruitment goal for the ACCORD Eye study was set in order to achieve a statistical power of 88% to detect a 15% relative reduction with intensive glycemic control as compared with standard glycemic control||0.87|0.51|0.003
91798768|NCT00408629|183475162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.002
91737926|NCT00542178|183368475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|Comparisons made using likelihood-ratio tests from logistic-regression models with adjustment for same study-design factors used in ACCORD analysis||Our recruitment goal for the ACCORD Eye study was set in order to achieve a statistical power of 80% to detect a 20% relative reduction with intensive blood pressure control as compared with standard blood pressure control||1.79|0.84|0.29
91873511|NCT00824850|183640598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.39|0.83|
91798769|NCT00408629|183475163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.007
91737927|NCT00542178|183368475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Comparisons made using likelihood-ratio tests from logistic-regression models with adjustment for same study-design factors used in ACCORD analysis||Our recruitment goal for the ACCORD Eye study was set in order to achieve a statistical power of 91% to detect a 20% relative reduction with lipid control with a statin and fenofibrate as compared with lipid control with a statin alone||0.87|0.42|0.006
91737928|NCT00542178|183368476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.104|||Regression, Cox|||||1.104|0.901|0.96
91873512|NCT00824850|183640598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.34|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.34|0.89|
91704879|NCT03646305|183304388|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in anxious mood from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in anxious mood from baseline to post-intervention.||||<0.001
91704880|NCT03646305|183304388|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in anxious mood from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in anxious mood from post-intervention to follow-up||||>0.05
91704881|NCT03646305|183304388|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of anxiety||||>0.05
91704882|NCT03646305|183304388|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of anxiety||||>0.05
91737929|NCT00542178|183368476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|1.099|||Regression, Cox|||||1.099|0.825|0.50
91737930|NCT00542178|183368476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.016|||Regression, Cox|||||1.016|0.762|0.08
91737931|NCT00542178|183368477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|0.992|||Regression, Cox|||||0.992|0.788|0.0355
91737932|NCT00542178|183368477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.051|||Regression, Cox|||||1.051|0.755|0.17
91737933|NCT00542178|183368477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.190|0.865|0.86
91737934|NCT00542178|183368478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.69|0.71|0.069
91737935|NCT00542178|183368478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.44|0.63
91737936|NCT00542178|183368478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|0.60|0.78
91737937|NCT00829998|183368479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.4||||||90.0|89.4|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|89.4|
91873513|NCT00824850|183640598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.64|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.64|0.68|
91873514|NCT00824850|183640598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.35|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.35|1.05|
91798770|NCT00408629|183475164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.006
91798771|NCT01461980|183475165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03||||||Diphtheria: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Diphtheria antigens).||1.03|0.86|
91798772|NCT01461980|183475165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.99||||||Tetanus: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Tetanus antigens).||0.99|0.85|
91798773|NCT01461980|183475166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02||||||Pertussis toxoid: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Pertussis toxoid).||1.02|0.85|
91737938|NCT00829998|183368480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|102.0||||||90.0|97.1|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|97.1|
91798774|NCT01461980|183475166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98||||||Pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin antigens).||0.98|0.84|
91798775|NCT01461980|183475166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.98||||||Pertussis pertactin: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for pertussis pertactin antigens).||0.98|0.80|
91873515|NCT00824850|183640598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.44|0.90|
91737939|NCT00829998|183368481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|102.0||||||90.0|97.1|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|97.1|
91759506|NCT02391363|183411757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.42 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month PHQ-8, controlling for baseline PHQ-8.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.52
91759507|NCT02391363|183411758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 1.14 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month PHQ-8, controlling for baseline PHQ-8.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.29
91873516|NCT00824850|183640598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.66|0.75|
91906807|NCT02090413|183708941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|6.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 2||6.9|-20.9|
91759508|NCT02391363|183411759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 2.19 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month GDS-SF, controlling for baseline GDS-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.14
91737940|NCT00896012|183368483|OTHER|||||||0.222||||||Significance was considered to be P \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was performed by analysis of variance and Student t test for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 12 months. Chi-square analysis was used for demographics data.||||0.222
91737941|NCT02026011|183368489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Medication effect: b = -0.15, SE = 0.17, t = -0.86, p = 0.39|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
91737942|NCT02026011|183368489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Genotype effect: b = 0.20, SE = 0.21, t = 0.96, p = 0.34|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91798776|NCT01461980|183475166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08||||||Pertussis fimbriae agglutinogens types 2 + 3: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for pertussis fimbriae agglutinogens types 2 + 3 antigens).||1.08|0.74|
91798777|NCT01461980|183475167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67|GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.01||||||Serogroup A: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup A antigens).||1.01|0.82|
91798778|NCT01461980|183475167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15||||||Serogroup C: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup C antigens).||1.15|0.90|
91798779|NCT01461980|183475167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09||||||Serogroup Y: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup Y antigens).||1.09|0.89|
91798780|NCT01461980|183475167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04||||||Serogroup W-135: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup W-135 antigens).||1.04|0.83|
91798781|NCT01461980|183475168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for hSBA strain titers).||1.02|0.84|
91798782|NCT01461980|183475168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for hSBA strain titers).||1.00|0.82|
91798783|NCT01890746|183475197|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|114.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|132.7||||||||132.7|99.5|
91798784|NCT01890746|183475198|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|114.0||||||||114.0|97.1|
91798785|NCT01890746|183475199|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.8|110.2||||||||110.2|76.8|
91798786|NCT01890746|183475200|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|101.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|111.7||||||||111.7|92.9|
91798787|NCT01890746|183475201|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|121.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.5|142.8||||||||142.8|102.5|
91737943|NCT02026011|183368489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||BrAC effect: b = 0.13, SE = 0.06, t = 2.10, p = 0.04|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91737944|NCT02026011|183368489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Medication by genotype interaction: b = 0.15, SE = 0.21, t = 0.73, p = 0.47|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
91737945|NCT02026011|183368489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Medication by genotype by BrAC interaction: b = -0.20, SE = 0.13, t = -1.52, p = 0.13|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91737946|NCT02026011|183368490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Medication effect: b = 0.16, SE = 0.13, t = 1.20, p = 0.23|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
91737947|NCT02026011|183368490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Genotype effect: b = 0.37, SE = 0.22, t = 1.69, p = 0.09|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91737948|NCT02026011|183368490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||||||Medication by genotype interaction: b = 0.04, SE = 0.21, t = 0.20, p = 0.84|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91737949|NCT02026011|183368490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Medication by genotype by BrAC interaction: b = -0.32, SE = 0.16, t = -1.93, p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91737950|NCT02026011|183368491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||Medication effect: b = 0.14, SE = 0.23, t = 0.61, p = 0.55|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
91737951|NCT02026011|183368491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||Genotype effect: b = -0.11, SE = 0.37, t = -0.30, p = 0.77|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91737952|NCT02026011|183368491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||BrAC effect: b = 0.30, SE = 0.15, t = 2.02, p = 0.04|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91737953|NCT02026011|183368491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Medication by genotype interaction: b = -0.21, SE = 0.29, t = -0.72, p = 0.47|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
91737954|NCT02026011|183368491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Medication by genotype by BrAC interaction: b = 0.28, SE = 0.21, t = 1.30, p = 0.19|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
91737955|NCT02026011|183368493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Medication effect: F(1,71) = 2.24, p = 0.14|Poisson Regression|||||||0.14
91737956|NCT02026011|183368493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Genotype effect: F(1, 71) = 5.79, p = 0.02|Poisson|||||||0.02
91737957|NCT02026011|183368493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Medication by genotype interaction: F(1, 70) = 0.68, p = 0.41.|Poisson|||||||0.41
91737958|NCT00939107|183368505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||>|0.05||95.0|0.2|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|0.2|>0.05
91798788|NCT01890746|183475202|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|106.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|119.4||||||||119.4|95.0|
91798789|NCT01890746|183475203|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|110.0||||||||110.0|76.5|
91873517|NCT00824850|183640599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.17|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.17|0.50|
91737959|NCT00952705|183368534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose A/H1N1 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H1N1 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H1N1 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H1N1) divided by Q/LAIV-BFS A/H1N1.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/H1N1 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H1N1 influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.03|0.87|
91737960|NCT00952705|183368534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose A/H3N2 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H3N2 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H3N2 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H3N2) divided by Q/LAIV-BFS A/H3N2.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/H3N2 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H3N2 influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.00|0.85|
91737961|NCT00952705|183368534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose B/Yamagata GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Yamagata post-dose GMT ratio: FluMist B/Yamagata divided by Q/LAIV-BFS B/Yamagata.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of B/Yamagata GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Yamagata influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.02|0.79|
91760065|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.59|-1.50|
91760066|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.03||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-1.00|
91760067|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.43||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.43|-1.40|
91760068|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.8||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.80|-1.77|
91760069|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.72||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.72|-1.69|
91760070|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.01||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.01|-0.98|
91760071|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.73||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.73|-1.69|
91760072|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.78||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.78|0.04|
91737962|NCT00952705|183368534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose B/Victoria GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Victoria post-dose GMT ratio: FluMist B/Victoria divided by Q/LAIV-BFS B/Victoria.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of B/Victoria GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Victoria influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.10|0.87|
91737963|NCT02921789|183368562|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.7||||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|9.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||||9.0|-34.5|0.3705
91737964|NCT02921789|183368563|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.7||||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|9.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||9.0|-34.5|0.3705
91737965|NCT02921789|183368563|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.4||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|11.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||11.0|-35.8|0.3890
91737966|NCT02921789|183368564|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.9||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|29.2||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 3||29.2|-15.3|0.7520
91737967|NCT02921789|183368564|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.9||||0.752||95.0|-15.3|29.2||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||29.2|-15.3|0.7520
91737968|NCT02921789|183368564|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.0||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|29.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||29.0|-18.9|0.7597
91798790|NCT01890746|183475204|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.4|111.2||||||||111.2|92.4|
91798791|NCT01890746|183475205|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|120.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.7|142.6||||||||142.6|100.7|
91737969|NCT02921789|183368565|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.3||||1||95.0|-24.9|24.3||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||||24.3|-24.9|1.0
91737970|NCT02921789|183368566|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-3.9||||1||95.0|-30.2|22.4||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 3||22.4|-30.2|1.0
91737971|NCT02921789|183368566|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.2||||0.772||95.0|-31.7|19.3||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||19.3|-31.7|0.7720
91737972|NCT02921789|183368566|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.5||||0.772||95.0|-32.6|17.6||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||17.6|-32.6|0.7720
91737973|NCT01669902|183368591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change at Month 3||||<0.0001
91737974|NCT01669902|183368591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change at Month 6||||0.0357
91737975|NCT01047189|183368595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
91737976|NCT02441218|183368639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.9|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.90|0.75|<0.0001
91737977|NCT02441218|183368640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.03|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||1.03|0.80|0.128
91737978|NCT02441218|183368641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.83|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.83|0.66|< 0.0001
91798792|NCT01890746|183475206|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|118.3||||||||118.3|93.6|
91873518|NCT00824850|183640599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.73|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.73|0.70|
91737979|NCT02441218|183368642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||1.02|0.80|0.092
91737980|NCT02441218|183368643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.94|0.58|0.0140
91798793|NCT01890746|183475207|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|80.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.2|113.0||||||||113.0|57.2|
91798794|NCT01890746|183475208|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|106.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.6|129.0||||||||129.0|87.6|
91798795|NCT01890746|183475209|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|127.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|191.9||||||||191.9|84.2|
91798796|NCT01890746|183475210|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|110.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.9|145.7||||||||145.7|83.9|
91798797|NCT01890746|183475211|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|286.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|910.7||||||||910.7|90.1|
91798798|NCT01890746|183475212|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|202.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.3|311.8||||||||311.8|131.3|
91798799|NCT01890746|183475214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.48|||Log Rank|||||2.48|0.28|0.7461
91798800|NCT01890746|183475215|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.6175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.74|0.6175
91798801|NCT01890746|183475216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5281||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1084|2.2086|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2086|0.1084|0.3224
91737981|NCT02441218|183368644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.96|0.82|0.0027
91737982|NCT02441218|183368645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.92|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.92|0.78|0.0002
91737983|NCT02441218|183368646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.95|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.95|0.81|0.0013
91737984|NCT02441218|183368647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.92|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.92|0.77|0.0002
91737985|NCT02441218|183368648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate. P-value: Wald test|||0.89|0.74|< 0.0001
91737986|NCT01436110|183368713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.128|||ANCOVA|||||0.128|-0.055|0.430
91737987|NCT01436110|183368713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.194|||ANCOVA|||||0.194|0.010|0.030
91737988|NCT01088503|183368726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||Statistical analysis adjusted for the differences in baseline characteristics between participants treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel using propensity scoring.|Log Rank|||||1.22|0.88|0.7108
91737989|NCT01088503|183368727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.464|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with DES vs BMS.|||||
91737990|NCT01088503|183368727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with STEMI vs not STEMI|||||
91798802|NCT01890746|183475218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6942|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6942
91798803|NCT01890746|183475219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1151||||0.7397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5585|2.229|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2290|0.5585|0.7397
91737991|NCT01088503|183368727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.657|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who were Other Race vs Caucasian.|||||
91737992|NCT01088503|183368727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.684|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who had cardiogenic shock within 24 hours vs no cardiogenic shock within 24 hours.|||||
91737993|NCT01088503|183368727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.195|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who were male vs not male.|||||
91737994|NCT01088503|183368727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with EQ-5D US index = 1 vs. \<1.|||||
91737995|NCT01088503|183368727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who were married vs not married.|||||
91737996|NCT01088503|183368727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.125|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who had diabetes vs no diabetes.|||||
91737997|NCT01088503|183368727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.172|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with no BMS or DES placement vs BMS.|||||
91737998|NCT01088503|183368728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.93||Statistical analysis adjusted for the differences in baseline characteristics between participants treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel using propensity scoring.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) is for the analysis at 12 months.|||1.93|0.88|0.1882
91737999|NCT01088503|183368729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.103|||||Statistical analysis adjusted for the differences in baseline characteristics between participants treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel using propensity scoring.|||1.103|0.849|
91738000|NCT01088503|183368733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who had pre-procedure hemoglobin evaluation vs no hemoglobin evaluation.|||||
91738001|NCT01088503|183368734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with Duke CAD Index vs no Duke CAD Index.|||||
91738002|NCT01847092|183368735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.279
91738003|NCT01847092|183368736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
91738004|NCT01896687|183368741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"The worst pain and interference scores as dependent variables, and time (baseline, 1-, and 3 week follow up visit), group (Calmare or Sham), and group by time interaction terms as the independent variable."|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91798804|NCT01890746|183475220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.46||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.38|||Log Rank|||||6.38|0.95|0.0781
91798805|NCT01890746|183475224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8749||||0.7122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4023|1.8943|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.8943|0.4023|0.7122
91798806|NCT01890746|183475225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.0688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.47|||Log Rank|||||2.47|0.96|0.0688
91798807|NCT00100178|183475227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.47
91873519|NCT00824850|183640599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.61|
91704883|NCT03646305|183304388|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of anxiety||||>0.05
91704884|NCT03646305|183304388|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of anxiety across time||||>0.05
91704885|NCT03646305|183304388|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of anxiety||||>0.05
91704886|NCT03646305|183304388|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between the four conditions on levels of anxiety||||>0.05
91704887|NCT03646305|183304389|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of depressive mood were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
91704888|NCT03646305|183304389|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in depressive mood from depressive mood from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
91704889|NCT03646305|183304389|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in depressive mood from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in depressive mood from post-intervention to follow-up.||||>0.05
91704890|NCT03646305|183304389|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
91738005|NCT01664247|183368745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-2.01|||ANOVA||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The pre-breakfast measures of SMPG values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed an ANOVA method with treatment, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response as covariates.||-2.01|-2.67|<.0001
91798808|NCT00631696|183475228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A non-inferiority margin of 20% was used to test the hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the difference (PGB - PBO) in the proportion of participants with ≥50% reduction in sperm concentration is ≥20% and the alternative hypothesis is that the difference in proportion of participant with ≥50% reduction in sperm concentration is \<20%.|percentage difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|14.3|||Confidence Interval Approach||The confidence interval was based on asymptotic normal distribution.|Study powered to show non-inferiority (NI) of pregabalin (PGB) to placebo (PBO) on the percentage of participants (N) with a ≥50% reduction in MSC from Bsl to end of washout (Week (Wk) 26, or last assessment on or after Wk 12 if Wk 26 not done). NI to be declared if upper bound of 95% CI for difference between PGB and PBO not \>20%. Assuming proportion of N with 50% reduction to be 6% for both groups, sample size N=65 per group would provide \>90% power to show NI of PGB to PBO.||14.30|-2.29|
91798809|NCT00631696|183475229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.136||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||0.136|-0.385|0.3462
91798810|NCT00631696|183475230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.156||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||0.156|-0.420|0.3652
91798811|NCT00631696|183475231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|0.054||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||0.054|-0.464|0.1204
91704891|NCT03646305|183304389|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
91704892|NCT03646305|183304389|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
91798812|NCT00631696|183475232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|24.65||||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.999|70.302||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||70.302|-20.999|0.2875
91738006|NCT01664247|183368746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before breakfast.||-2.34|-3.04|<.0001
91798813|NCT00631696|183475233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|32.93||||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.292|80.158||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||80.158|-14.292|0.1699
91798814|NCT00631696|183475234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.12||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.804|40.558||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||40.558|-52.804|0.7958
91704893|NCT03646305|183304389|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of depressive mood across time||||>0.05
91873520|NCT00824850|183640599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.25|0.56|
91873521|NCT00824850|183640599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.40|0.51|
91738007|NCT01664247|183368746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point 90 mins after breakfast.||-1.48|-2.71|<.0001
91738008|NCT01664247|183368746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before lunch.||-1.56|-2.47|<.0001
91738009|NCT01664247|183368746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point 90 mins after start of lunch.||-1.40|-2.46|<.0001
91738010|NCT01664247|183368746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point main evening meal.||-1.23|-2.25|<.0001
91738011|NCT01664247|183368746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point 90 mins after main evening meal.||-1.18|-2.26|<.0001
91738012|NCT01664247|183368746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before bedtime.||-1.23|-2.27|<.0001
91738013|NCT01664247|183368746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before breakfast the following day.||-2.09|-2.91|<.0001
91738014|NCT01000506|183368751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.69||Hochberg testing procedure with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% used for controlling multiplicity|Negative Binomial regression model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 75mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.69|0.39|<0.001
91873522|NCT00824850|183640599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.12|0.32|
91873523|NCT00824850|183640599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.85|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||0.85|0.38|
91873524|NCT00824850|183640599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.22|0.75|
91873525|NCT00824850|183640599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.61|0.82|
91738015|NCT01000506|183368751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.81||Hochberg testing procedure with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% used for controlling multiplicity|Negative Binomial regression model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 250 mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.81|0.46|<0.001
91738016|NCT01000506|183368751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.64||Hochberg testing procedure with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% used for controlling multiplicity|Negative Binomial regression model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 750 mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.64|0.36|<0.001
91738017|NCT05018689|183368787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.22|||Regression, Linear|||How confident to identify someone showing depression?||0.22|-0.13|0.642
91738018|NCT05018689|183368787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||How confident to help a friend?||0.25|-0.21|0.864
91738019|NCT05018689|183368788|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.78||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.30|0.47|0.336
91738020|NCT05018689|183368789|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.05||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression runs in families. Answer: true||1.59|0.70|0.806
91738021|NCT05018689|183368789|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.96||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression can be controlled through willpower. Answer: false||1.30|0.71|0.781
91738022|NCT05018689|183368789|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.93||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression is treatable. Answer: true||1.39|0.62|0.720
91738023|NCT05018689|183368789|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.11||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Abuse of alcohol and drugs can be a sign of depression. Answer: true||2.38|0.52|0.784
91738024|NCT05018689|183368789|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.08||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression is a sign of personal weakness. Answer: false||1.55|0.76|0.662
91738025|NCT05018689|183368790|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Difficulty concentrating or making decisions||1.26|0.51|0.340
91738026|NCT05018689|183368790|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.81||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Feeling angry||1.17|0.56|0.265
91798815|NCT00631696|183475235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08||||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.645|1.494||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||1.494|-3.645|0.4094
91798816|NCT00631696|183475236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.649|2.352||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||2.352|-2.649|0.9064
91738027|NCT05018689|183368790|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.7||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Changes in sleep patterns||1.30|0.38|0.259
91738028|NCT05018689|183368790|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.12||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Frequent unexplained aches and pains||1.49|0.84|0.450
91738029|NCT05018689|183368790|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|2.28||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Feeling tired or less energetic||4.69|1.11|0.025
91738030|NCT05018689|183368790|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.01||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Eating more than usual||1.44|0.71|0.937
91738031|NCT05018689|183368790|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.83||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Feeling irritable or restless||1.34|0.52|0.447
91738032|NCT05018689|183368791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||Friend||0.14|-0.11|0.800
91738033|NCT05018689|183368791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||Parent/guardian||0.08|-0.18|0.451
91738034|NCT05018689|183368791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||School counselor||0.2|-0.07|0.335
91738035|NCT05018689|183368791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Teacher||0.09|-0.17|0.554
91738036|NCT05018689|183368791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Mental health professional||0.10|-0.19|0.541
91738037|NCT05018689|183368791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19|||Regression, Linear|||Doctor||0.19|-0.09|0.454
91738038|NCT05018689|183368791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Regression, Linear|||Internet/website||0.12|-0.16|0.749
91738039|NCT05018689|183368791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01|||Regression, Linear|||Clergy, priest, rabbi, or other religious person||-0.01|-0.24|0.030
91738040|NCT05018689|183368791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Phone helpline||0.18|-0.06|0.334
91738041|NCT05018689|183368791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||Crisis textline||0.20|-0.05|0.243
91738042|NCT05018689|183368791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Other relative (i.e., sister, brother, aunt, uncle)||0.09|-0.19|0.492
91738043|NCT05018689|183368791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Boyfriend or girlfriend||0.10|-0.17|0.610
91738044|NCT05018689|183368791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||Coach||0.01|-0.25|0.061
91738045|NCT05018689|183368792|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.27||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||If you had depression symptoms for more than 2 weeks, would you ask for help?||1.66|0.97|0.086
91738046|NCT05018689|183368792|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.13||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||If you thought you had mental health issues, is there a trusted adult you would go to?||1.66|0.77|0.526
91704894|NCT03646305|183304389|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
91704895|NCT03646305|183304389|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
91704896|NCT03646305|183304390|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of happiness were equivalent across time||||>0.05
91704897|NCT03646305|183304390|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of happiness||||>0.05
91704898|NCT03646305|183304390|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of happiness||||>0.05
91704899|NCT03646305|183304390|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of happiness||||>0.05
91704900|NCT03646305|183304390|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of happiness across time.||||>0.05
91738047|NCT05018689|183368793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||Do you know how to get help in your school?||0.16|-0.03|0.199
91738048|NCT05018689|183368794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|||The new student is more dangerous than other students||-0.12|-0.38|<0.001
91738049|NCT05018689|183368794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.06|||Regression, Linear|||The student is to blame for his or her condition||-0.06|-0.29|0.003
91738050|NCT05018689|183368794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||I would have sympathy for the new student||0.18|-0.06|0.310
91738051|NCT05018689|183368794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||The new student makes me feel scared||0.02|-0.21|0.114
91738052|NCT05018689|183368794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||The new student makes me feel uncomfortable||0.15|-0.10|0.738
91738053|NCT05018689|183368794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||I would help the new student even if I did not know him or her well||0.24|0.01|0.040
91738054|NCT05018689|183368794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||I would try to stay away from the new student||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
91738055|NCT05018689|183368794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||The new student would be made fun of at my school||0.11|-0.15|0.798
91738056|NCT05018689|183368794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||Regression, Linear|||The new student would be ignored at my school||0.05|-0.22|0.197
91738057|NCT05018689|183368794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||I think other students in my school would try to help the new student||0.16|-0.10|0.623
91738058|NCT05018689|183368795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||On a scale from 1 to 7, if you were seen going into the office of your school social worker or school psychologist, how would you feel?||0.30|-0.21|0.718
91738059|NCT05018689|183368796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.46|||Regression, Linear|||How comfortable are you talking about mental health issues with other students at your school?||0.46|-0.03|0.090
91798817|NCT00631696|183475237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86||||0.4666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.207|1.477||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||1.477|-3.207|0.4666
91798818|NCT02607930|183475262|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample of approximately 600 participants randomized 1:1 achieves at least 95% power using a non-inferiority margin of 12% assuming a response rate in both groups of 91% (Reference Genvoya studies) and a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-4.8|3.6|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.6|-4.8|
91738060|NCT05018689|183368797|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.99||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression||1.44|0.67|0.944
91738061|NCT05018689|183368797|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.18||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Anxiety||1.68|0.82|0.369
91738062|NCT05018689|183368797|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.07||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Thoughts of suicide||1.50|0.77|0.676
91738063|NCT05018689|183368797|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.79||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||I do not think there are any mental health issues that are concerning for students||1.42|0.44|0.432
91738064|NCT05018689|183368797|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.87||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Other||1.35|0.56|0.533
91738065|NCT05018689|183368798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||How much do your teachers know about addressing student mental health needs?||0.08|-0.11|0.769
91738066|NCT05018689|183368798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||How much do your school counselors know about addressing student mental health needs?||0.16|-0.05|0.315
91738067|NCT05018689|183368799|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.86||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Mental health information sheets at school||1.18|0.63|0.345
91738068|NCT05018689|183368799|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.98||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Class activities about mental health||1.33|0.73|0.899
91738069|NCT05018689|183368799|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.08||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Mental health information on school website||1.48|0.80|0.612
91738070|NCT05018689|183368799|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.14||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Other||1.65|0.79|0.476
91738071|NCT05018689|183368800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||Regression, Linear|||On average, how often do your teachers speak to you about your emotions and feelings?||0.03|-0.22|0.141
91738072|NCT05018689|183368801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||Would you like your teachers to speak to you about your emotions and feelings?||0.13|-0.05|0.392
91738073|NCT01448616|183368813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||ITT|Poisson GLME|||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)||1.01|0.71|0.086
91738074|NCT01448616|183368813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)|Poisson GLME|||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)||1.16|0.75|0.54
91738075|NCT01448616|183368813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.22|||Poisson GLME|||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)||1.22|0.67|0.47
91738076|NCT01448616|183368814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Change in log copies|-0.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.07|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Intent to treat analysis||0.07|-0.40|0.18
91738077|NCT01448616|183368814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Change in log copies|-0.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Intent to treat analysis||-0.13|-0.86|0.008
91738078|NCT01448616|183368814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Change in log copies|0.16||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.6|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Intent to treat analysis||0.60|-0.27|0.45
91738079|NCT01448616|183368815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.37|||Poisson GLME|||Intent to treat analysis||1.37|0.70|0.90
91873526|NCT00824850|183640599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.13|0.36|
91738080|NCT01448616|183368815|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.18|||Poisson GLM|||Intent to treat||1.18|0.54|0.25
91738081|NCT01448616|183368815|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.57|||Poisson GLM|||||1.57|0.57|0.82
91738082|NCT01448616|183368816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||Poisson GLME|||Intent to Treat||0.92|0.59|0.010
91738083|NCT01448616|183368816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.76|||Poisson GLM|||||1.76|0.9|0.09
91738084|NCT01448616|183368816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.22|||Poisson GLM|||Intent to treat analysis||1.22|0.67|0.47
91738085|NCT00523978|183368821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the success rate in experimental group is less than and equal to the one in control group. This comparison of the rates was performed using a 2-sided Fisher's Exact. A sample size of 240(160 experimental and 80 control) is required to provide 80% power to detect the treatment difference using a 2-sided (alpha = 0.05)Fisher's Exact Test of binomial proportions assuming the success rate was 40% for control and 60% for treatment.||||<0.0001
91738086|NCT00523978|183368822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin was selected based on literature review.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is the proportion of subjects free from MAFE in the experimental group is inferior to that in the control group using 10% non-inferiority margin.A sample size of 160 evaluable cryoablation and 80 control subjects (one-sided α = 0.05, 2:1 randomization) was required to provide 80% power assuming the rate of free from MAFE at 12 months 80.5 and 77% in experimental and control groups respectively .||||<0.001
91738087|NCT00523978|183368823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The test hypothesis is UCBExperimental\_CPE ≥ 14.8% vs UCBExperimental\_CPE \< 14.8%.The performance goal 14.8% was chosen based on a review of SSEDs for similar types of ablation trials.The expected rate for CPEs in a well-monitored trial of left atrial RF ablation for AF was estimated to be 10% (corresponding to a CPE-free rate of 90%).In a trial with 160 subject, the resulting one-sided 95% upper confidence bound would be 14.8%.||||<0.001
91738088|NCT01074125|183368841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||To assess dose ranging, the primary efficacy variable will be analyzed via a model with dose effect. Positive dose ranging confirmed if the null hypothesis of slope =0 was rejected at a significance level of 0.05||||<0.0001
91873527|NCT00824850|183640599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.55|
91873528|NCT00824850|183640599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.7|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.70|0.73|
91738089|NCT00587041|183368862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||80% power for 0.66 DG difference from placebo. The reported value is the overall p-value for CaOx supersaturation by Kruskal-Wallis test of equal change across all three groups, no pair-wise comparison.||||0.3
91738090|NCT00587041|183368862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ranked sum T-test for placebo group CaOx SS comparison between 0 and 6 weeks||||0.045
91738091|NCT00587041|183368862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ranked sum T-test for AKSB group CaOX SS comparison between 0 and 6 weeks||||0.67
91738092|NCT00587041|183368862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ranked-sum T-Test for Oxadrop group CaOX SS comparison between 0 and 6 weeks||||0.30
91738093|NCT02271529|183368877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Under the assumption that the mean percent change in stent length upon deployment being 0.2% with a standard deviation of 4%, type I error of 0.05, and two one-sided t-tests, a sample size of at least 30 stents provides power \> 0.90 to determine that the mean length change of stents deployed with the thumbwheel delivery system is within +/-10%.|Mean percent change|-1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||two one-sided t-tests|||||-0.4|-1.5|<0.01
91738094|NCT00811720|183368891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-0.85|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 213 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||-0.85|-3.81|0.002
91738095|NCT00811720|183368892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|-5.11|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 213 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||-5.11|-16.81|<0.001
91738096|NCT00811720|183368893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.98|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values imputed as non-response.||0.98|0.50|0.039
91798819|NCT02607930|183475262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.78
91738097|NCT00811720|183368894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.16|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 210 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.16|-0.57|<0.001
91738098|NCT00811720|183368895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.15|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 210 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.15|-0.53|<0.001
91738099|NCT00811720|183368896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.88||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 211 participants in the placebo group and 158 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.97|0.80|0.009
91738100|NCT00811720|183368897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.9||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 209 participants in the placebo group and 158 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed ALAT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.98|0.84|0.011
91738101|NCT04389866|183368905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.864||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for arm 1 (jawline injections) analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by blinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline injection arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the blinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.018
91738102|NCT04389866|183368905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.864||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for arm 2 (jawline and lateral zygomatic cheek area injections) analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by blinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the blinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.082
91738103|NCT04389866|183368906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.497||3.1e-07|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for arm 1 (jawline injections) analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by unblinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline injection arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the unblinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.00000031
91738104|NCT04389866|183368906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.714|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.497||7.28e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by unblinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the unblinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.0000728
91738105|NCT04389866|183368907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.571|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.611||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for jawline injections analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by subjects.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline injection arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the subjects' Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.014
91738106|NCT04389866|183368907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.714|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.726||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by the subjects.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the subjects' Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.0065
91798820|NCT02607930|183475263|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.1|-6.9|
91798821|NCT02607930|183475263|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.45
91738107|NCT01205503|183368926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||This is for the interaction between baseline tnf-alpha levels and treatment received (mesna vs saline).|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for baseline biochemical measures, time of measurement, treatment (mesna or saline), chemo type, and first-order interactions.||||||0.014
91738108|NCT00776789|183368932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
91738109|NCT00776789|183368933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0||95.0|1.4|4.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Exclusive breast feeding at 48 hours was 95% (19 out of 20 partcipants were exclusively breast feeding)in the skin-to-skin contact group vs. 38.1% in the control group||4.3|1.4|0.00
91738110|NCT00776789|183368934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.001||95.0|1.6|6.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.3|1.6|0.001
91738111|NCT02742129|183368936|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.16|-0.56|0.2650
91738112|NCT02742129|183368937|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.68||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-263.65|234.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data||234.29|-263.65|0.9069
91738113|NCT02742129|183368938|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||1.27|-1.16|0.9338
91738114|NCT02742129|183368939|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.8151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||2.20|-2.79|0.8151
91738115|NCT02742129|183368940|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||3.05|-1.41|0.4658
91738116|NCT02742129|183368941|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||3.49|-1.37|0.3902
91873529|NCT00824850|183640599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.63|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.63|0.50|
91873530|NCT00824850|183640600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.27|0.35|
91873531|NCT00824850|183640600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.05|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.05|0.77|
91704901|NCT03646305|183304390|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of happiness||||>0.05
91705778|NCT06010732|183305910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|32.6||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Placebo|Based on previous studies we estimate the standard deviation of the differences between treatments in the crossover model to be 20 for % SMH recovery. With a sample size of 58 subjects completing the study, the study had 80% power to detect a difference between any two treatments of 7.5 for % SMH recovery, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||32.6|21.7|<0.001
91906808|NCT02090413|183708941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-2.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 3||-2.4|-32.8|
91738117|NCT02742129|183368942|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.69||||0.7404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.21|74.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||74.6|-53.21|0.7404
91738118|NCT02742129|183368943|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.18|-0.08|0.4282
91738119|NCT02742129|183368945|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.11|-1.08|0.1067
91738120|NCT02742129|183368946|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.16|-0.37|0.4411
91738121|NCT00363311|183368947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.56||||0.009||95.0|0.36|0.87||Statistical data are for Year 1.5|Log Rank|||||0.87|0.36|0.009
91738122|NCT00363311|183368947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.61||||0.007||95.0|0.43|0.88||Statistical data are for Overall (Years 0-3)|Log Rank|||||0.88|0.43|0.007
91738123|NCT00363311|183368948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.46||||0.13||95.0|0.16|1.31||Statistical data are for Year 1.5|Log Rank|||||1.31|0.16|0.13
91738124|NCT00363311|183368948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.48||||0.053||95.0|0.22|1.03||Statistical data are for Overall (Years 0-3)|Log Rank|||||1.03|0.22|0.053
91738125|NCT00363311|183368949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.59||||0.031||95.0|0.36|0.96||Statistical data are for Year 1.5|Log Rank|||||0.96|0.36|0.031
91798822|NCT02607930|183475264|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.4|-8.5|
91906809|NCT02090413|183708941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-3.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 3||-3.9|-34.1|
91738126|NCT00363311|183368949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.7||||0.079||95.0|0.46|1.05||Statistical data are for Overall (Years 0-3)|Log Rank|||||1.05|0.46|0.079
91738127|NCT00363311|183368950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
91738128|NCT00363311|183368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
91738129|NCT00363311|183368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
91738130|NCT00363311|183368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91798823|NCT02607930|183475264|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.39
91798824|NCT02607930|183475265|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.6|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||5.6|-4.8|
91738131|NCT00363311|183368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
91738132|NCT00363311|183368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91738133|NCT04881760|183368985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-3.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.94|-7.34|<0.001
91738134|NCT04881760|183368985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.70|-12.21|<0.001
91738135|NCT04881760|183368985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|-10.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.08|-14.42|<0.001
91738136|NCT04881760|183368985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.30|-16.90|<0.001
91738137|NCT04881760|183368985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.86|-14.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.58|-18.86|<0.001
91738138|NCT04881760|183368985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.57|-14.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.13|-17.57|<0.001
91738139|NCT04881760|183368986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.20|-8.94|<0.001
91798825|NCT02607930|183475265|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.87
91906810|NCT02090413|183708941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|11.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 4||11.4|-21.0|
91906811|NCT02090413|183708941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|11.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 4||11.4|-21.0|
91738140|NCT04881760|183368986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.64|-10.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.78|-17.64|<0.001
91738141|NCT04881760|183368986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.05|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.40|-19.05|<0.001
91738142|NCT04881760|183368986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-19.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|-16.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.51|-22.73|<0.001
91738143|NCT04881760|183368986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-21.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.05|-18.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.51|-25.05|<0.001
91738144|NCT04881760|183368986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-22.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|-19.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.31|-24.92|<0.001
91738145|NCT04881760|183368987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||49|17|<0.001
91738146|NCT04881760|183368987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|77.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||77|45|<0.001
91738147|NCT04881760|183368987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|81.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||81|54|<0.001
91738148|NCT04881760|183368987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|74.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|85.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||85|63|<0.001
91738149|NCT04881760|183368987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|74.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|85.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||85|63|<0.001
91738150|NCT04881760|183368987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|71.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|82.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||82|59|<0.001
91738151|NCT04881760|183368988|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|54.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||54|20|<0.001
91738152|NCT04881760|183368988|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|76.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||76|44|<0.001
91738153|NCT04881760|183368988|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|70.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|83.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||83|57|<0.001
91738154|NCT04881760|183368988|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|62|<0.001
91798826|NCT02607930|183475266|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.6|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||4.6|-6.9|
91738155|NCT04881760|183368988|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|62|<0.001
91738156|NCT04881760|183368988|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|67|<0.001
91738157|NCT04881760|183368989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|33.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||33|11|<0.001
91738158|NCT04881760|183368989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|73.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||73|38|<0.001
91738159|NCT04881760|183368989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|69.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|85.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||85|53|<0.001
91738160|NCT04881760|183368989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|80.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|93.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||93|66|<0.001
91738161|NCT04881760|183368989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|91.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|100.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||100|83|<0.001
91738162|NCT04881760|183368989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|87.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|96.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||96|78|<0.001
91738163|NCT04881760|183368990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|31.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||31|5|0.008
91738164|NCT04881760|183368990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|81.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||81|48|<0.001
91738165|NCT04881760|183368990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|51|<0.001
91738166|NCT04881760|183368990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|81.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|94.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||94|69|<0.001
91738167|NCT04881760|183368990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|82.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||94|71|<0.001
91738168|NCT04881760|183368990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|84.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|94.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||94|74|<0.001
91738169|NCT04881760|183368991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||17|1|0.029
91738170|NCT04881760|183368991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|43.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||43|11|<0.001
91738171|NCT04881760|183368991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|60.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||60|26|<0.001
91738172|NCT04881760|183368991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|66.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||66|33|<0.001
91738173|NCT04881760|183368991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|83.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||83|51|<0.001
91738174|NCT04881760|183368991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|80.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||80|56|<0.001
91738175|NCT04881760|183368992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||24|6|0.002
91738176|NCT04881760|183368992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|53.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|70.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||70|36|<0.001
91738177|NCT04881760|183368992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|79.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||79|47|<0.001
91738178|NCT04881760|183368992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|71.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|87.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||87|55|<0.001
91738179|NCT04881760|183368992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|75.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|89.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||89|62|<0.001
91738180|NCT04881760|183368992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|82.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|92.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||92|71|<0.001
91738181|NCT04881760|183368993|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.56|-8.36|<0.001
91738182|NCT04881760|183368993|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.30|-13.34|<0.001
91738183|NCT04881760|183368993|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-11.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.05|-15.99|<0.001
91738184|NCT04881760|183368993|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|-14.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.45|-18.41|<0.001
91738185|NCT04881760|183368993|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-18.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|-16.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.04|-20.93|<0.001
91738186|NCT04881760|183368993|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-17.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.40|-19.11|<0.001
91738187|NCT04881760|183368994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.88|-10.18|<0.001
91738188|NCT04881760|183368994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.35|-11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.60|-19.35|<0.001
91738189|NCT04881760|183368994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-17.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.19|-13.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.39|-21.19|<0.001
91738190|NCT04881760|183368994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-21.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.25|-18.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.12|-25.25|<0.001
91738191|NCT04881760|183368994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-24.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.72|-20.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.36|-27.72|<0.001
91738192|NCT04881760|183368994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-24.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-21.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.27|-27.40|<0.001
91738193|NCT04881760|183368995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.50|-2.80|<0.001
91738194|NCT04881760|183368995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.29|-4.66|<0.001
91738195|NCT04881760|183368995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|-3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.82|-5.46|<0.001
91738196|NCT04881760|183368995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.99|-6.34|<0.001
91738197|NCT04881760|183368995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.53|-7.17|<0.001
91738198|NCT04881760|183368995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.32|-6.59|<0.001
91738199|NCT04881760|183368996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.57|-3.42|<0.001
91738200|NCT04881760|183368996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|-4.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.03|-6.81|<0.001
91738201|NCT04881760|183368996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.67|-7.23|<0.001
91738202|NCT04881760|183368996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.18|-8.62|<0.001
91738203|NCT04881760|183368996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|-7.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.05|-9.55|<0.001
91738204|NCT04881760|183368996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|-7.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.35|-9.49|<0.001
91738205|NCT04881760|183368997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-5.23|0.022
91738206|NCT04881760|183368997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|-5.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.13|-10.32|<0.001
91738207|NCT04881760|183368997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|-7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.43|-12.47|<0.001
91738208|NCT04881760|183368997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|-8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.56|-13.72|<0.001
91738209|NCT04881760|183368997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.87|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.90|-14.87|<0.001
91738210|NCT04881760|183368997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|-9.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.43|-14.04|<0.001
91738211|NCT04881760|183368998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-6.77|0.010
91738212|NCT04881760|183368998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.54|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.33|-15.54|<0.001
91738213|NCT04881760|183368998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.33|-16.11|<0.001
91738214|NCT04881760|183368998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.33|-12.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.43|-19.33|<0.001
91738215|NCT04881760|183368998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|-12.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.31|-19.39|<0.001
91738216|NCT04881760|183368998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.13|-13.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.78|-20.13|<0.001
91738217|NCT01595529|183369006|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary analysis was a non-inferiority test comparing the proportion of subjects with symptomatic UTIs at the TOC visit to evaluate whether the difference was within the 5% equivalence interval. This test was conducted by calculating the one-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the difference in symptomatic UTI (treatment failure) rate. If this limit was less than or equal to the equivalence interval (0.05), then would conclude that short course therapy is not inferior to standard therapy.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.035569|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.054844||||||||0.054844||
91738218|NCT01595529|183369007|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary analysis was a non-inferiority test comparing the proportion of subjects with symptomatic UTIs at the TOC visit to evaluate whether the difference was within the 5% equivalence interval. This test was conducted by calculating the one-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the difference in symptomatic UTI (treatment failure) rate. If this limit was less than or equal to the equivalence interval (0.05), then would conclude that short course therapy is not inferior to standard therapy.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.022169|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03939||||||||0.03939||
91738219|NCT01595529|183369008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.00356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03323|0.026102||||||||0.026102|-0.03323|
91738220|NCT01595529|183369009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.00994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04012|0.020236||||||||0.020236|-0.04012|
91798827|NCT02607930|183475266|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.69
91738221|NCT01595529|183369010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2282|||||||Chi-squared|||At Test of Cure Visit||||0.2282
91738222|NCT01595529|183369010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4876|||||||Chi-squared|||At Outcome Assessment Visit||||0.4876
91738223|NCT01595529|183369011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||Chi-squared|||At Test of Cure Visit||||0.4184
91738224|NCT01595529|183369011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9782|||||||Chi-squared|||At Outcome Assessment Visit||||0.9782
91738225|NCT01595529|183369012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08857|-0.01698||||||||-0.01698|-0.08857|
91738226|NCT01595529|183369013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09479|-0.0185||||||||-0.01850|-0.09479|
91738227|NCT01595529|183369014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07744|0.016323||||||||0.016323|-0.07744|
91738228|NCT01595529|183369015|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.036117||||||||0.036117|-0.0580|
91738229|NCT01595529|183369016|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.10373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14161|-0.06585||||||||-0.06585|-0.14161|
91738230|NCT01595529|183369017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13006|-0.05391||||||||-0.05391|-0.13006|
91738231|NCT04016714|183369018|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-5.5|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site erythema||0.0|-11.0|= 0.050
91738232|NCT04016714|183369018|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-2.1|||=|0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site induration||3.5|-7.7|= 0.460
91738233|NCT04016714|183369018|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|3.4|||=|0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site pain||8.9|-2.1|= 0.225
91798828|NCT02607930|183475267|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.1|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||2.1|-10.5|
91738234|NCT04016714|183369018|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|2.3|||=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site swelling||7.9|-3.4|= 0.430
91738235|NCT04016714|183369019|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-3.5|||=|0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Decreased appetite||2.2|-9.1|= 0.229
91738236|NCT04016714|183369019|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|2.2|||=|0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Irritability||4.7|-0.2|= 0.077
91738237|NCT04016714|183369019|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-0.6|||=|0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Somnolence||4.1|-5.4|= 0.793
91738238|NCT04016714|183369019|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-4.6|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-0.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Urticaria||-0.1|-9.1|= 0.045
91738239|NCT04016714|183369020|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||||||Vaccine-related SAEs||0.9|-0.9|
91873532|NCT00824850|183640600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.44|0.54|
91738240|NCT04016714|183369021|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 1||-0.6|-4.3|< 0.001
91738241|NCT04016714|183369021|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|14.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 3||14.6|6.6|< 0.001
91738242|NCT04016714|183369021|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 4||0.0|-4.0|< 0.001
91738243|NCT04016714|183369021|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 5||0.8|-1.4|< 0.001
91738244|NCT04016714|183369021|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 6A||1.0|-1.5|< 0.001
91738245|NCT04016714|183369021|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 6B||1.5|-1.2|< 0.001
91738246|NCT04016714|183369021|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 7F||1.4|-0.4|< 0.001
91798829|NCT02607930|183475267|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.19
91798830|NCT02607930|183475268|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.03||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in least-squares mean (LSM), and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.06|-0.12|0.48
91798831|NCT02607930|183475269|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.09|-0.09|0.99
91798832|NCT02607930|183475270|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.10|-0.08|0.88
91798833|NCT02607930|183475271|OTHER||Difference in LSM|6.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|36.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||36|-24|0.69
91798834|NCT02607930|183475272|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|36.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||36|-39|0.94
91798835|NCT02607930|183475273|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-20.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|18.0|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||18|-59|0.30
91798836|NCT02607930|183475274|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.346||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.748|||ANOVA|||||0.748|-0.057|0.092
91798837|NCT02607930|183475275|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.135||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.625|||ANOVA|||||0.625|-0.356|0.59
91798838|NCT02607930|183475276|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.271||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.893|||ANOVA|||||0.893|-0.351|0.39
91798839|NCT02607930|183475277|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.221||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|0.3|||ANOVA|||||0.300|-0.741|0.41
91798840|NCT02607930|183475278|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.485||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.126|0.155|||ANOVA|||||0.155|-1.126|0.14
91798841|NCT02607930|183475279|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.406||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.119|0.307|||ANOVA|||||0.307|-1.119|0.26
91798842|NCT03198078|183475286|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.33||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|-1.1||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||-1.10|-9.55|0.0136
91798843|NCT03198078|183475286|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.53||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-2.21||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||-2.21|-10.8|0.0032
91798844|NCT03198078|183475287|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.44||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.22||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Positive Sub-scale Score||-0.22|-2.65|0.0205
91798845|NCT03198078|183475287|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.15||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.91||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Positive Sub-scale Score||-0.91|-3.40|0.0008
91798846|NCT03198078|183475287|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.28||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Negative Sub-scale Score||0.28|-2.04|0.1360
91798847|NCT03198078|183475287|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.95||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.24||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Negative Sub-scale Score||0.24|-2.14|0.1158
91798848|NCT03198078|183475288|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.55||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||2.20|1.09|0.0111
91798849|NCT03198078|183475288|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.51||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||2.16|1.06|0.0224
91798850|NCT03198078|183475289|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.18||||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||1.81|0.77|0.4415
91798851|NCT03198078|183475289|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.48||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||2.16|1.01|0.0472
91798852|NCT03198078|183475290|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.48||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|5.31||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||5.31|-0.35|0.0854
91798853|NCT03198078|183475290|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.99||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.88||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||6.88|1.09|0.0072
91798854|NCT03198078|183475291|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.3589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||0.13|-0.36|0.3589
91798855|NCT03198078|183475291|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||0.05|-0.45|0.1118
91873533|NCT00824850|183640600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.95|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||0.95|0.38|
91873534|NCT00824850|183640600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.91|0.64|
91873535|NCT00824850|183640600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.62|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.62|0.28|
91873536|NCT00824850|183640600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.81|0.68|
91873537|NCT00824850|183640600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.77|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.77|0.53|
91873538|NCT00824850|183640600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.81|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.81|0.69|
91873539|NCT00824850|183640600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.85|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.85|0.32|
91873540|NCT00824850|183640600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.36|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.36|0.80|
91873541|NCT00824850|183640600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.44|0.65|
91738247|NCT04016714|183369021|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 9V||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
91738248|NCT04016714|183369021|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 14||0.7|-1.7|< 0.001
91738249|NCT04016714|183369021|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 18C||1.5|-0.6|< 0.001
91738250|NCT04016714|183369021|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 19A||0.7|-1.3|< 0.001
91738251|NCT04016714|183369021|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 19F||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
91738252|NCT04016714|183369021|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 23F||3.0|-1.2|< 0.001
91738253|NCT04016714|183369021|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|94.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|95.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 22F||95.8|91.6|< 0.001
91738254|NCT04016714|183369021|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|97.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|98.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 33F||98.4|95.4|< 0.001
91798856|NCT03198078|183475292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||||-0.03|-0.56|0.0287
91906812|NCT02090413|183708942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|12.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing events||12.4|-2.6|
91738255|NCT04016714|183369022|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.63|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 1||0.63|0.54|< 0.001
91738256|NCT04016714|183369022|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.43|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 3||1.43|1.20|< 0.001
91738257|NCT04016714|183369022|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.78|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 4||0.78|0.63|< 0.001
91738258|NCT04016714|183369022|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.68|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 5||0.68|0.56|< 0.001
91738259|NCT04016714|183369022|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.67|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 6A||0.67|0.54|< 0.001
91738260|NCT04016714|183369022|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 6B||1.00|0.79|< 0.001
91738261|NCT04016714|183369022|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 7F||0.81|0.69|< 0.001
91738262|NCT04016714|183369022|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.76|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 9V||0.76|0.64|< 0.001
91738263|NCT04016714|183369022|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.87|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 14||0.87|0.70|< 0.001
91738264|NCT04016714|183369022|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.92|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 18C||0.92|0.77|< 0.001
91738265|NCT04016714|183369022|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 19A||0.82|0.68|< 0.001
91798857|NCT03198078|183475292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||||-0.06|-0.62|0.0184
91798858|NCT03198078|183475303|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.39|-0.24|
91798859|NCT03198078|183475303|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.51|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.51|-0.14|
91738266|NCT04016714|183369022|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 19F||0.87|0.72|< 0.001
91738267|NCT04016714|183369022|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 23F||1.00|0.81|< 0.001
91738268|NCT04016714|183369022|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2- sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|68.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.73|75.65|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 22F||75.65|61.73|< 0.001
91738269|NCT04016714|183369022|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|48.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.45|54.01|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 33F||54.01|44.45|< 0.001
91738270|NCT04016714|183369023|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Diphtheria toxoid||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
91798860|NCT03198078|183475304|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.18|-0.30|
91798861|NCT03198078|183475304|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.36|-0.13|
91798862|NCT03198078|183475305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.09|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.09|-0.08|
91873542|NCT00824850|183640600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.57|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.57|0.46|
91873543|NCT00824850|183640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.9||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.9|-10.2|
91704902|NCT03646305|183304390|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of happiness||||>0.05
91704903|NCT03646305|183304391|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of confidence were equivalent across time.||||>0.05
91704904|NCT03646305|183304391|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of confidence||||>0.05
91704905|NCT03646305|183304391|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of confidence||||>0.05
91704906|NCT03646305|183304391|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of confidence||||>0.05
91704907|NCT03646305|183304391|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of confidence across time.||||>0.05
91738271|NCT04016714|183369023|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Tetanus toxoid||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
91738272|NCT04016714|183369023|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - PT||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
91906813|NCT02090413|183708942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing events||12.5|-2.5|
91906814|NCT02090413|183708942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|8.1|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall redness events||8.1|-11.2|
91704908|NCT03646305|183304391|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of happiness||||>0.05
91704909|NCT03646305|183304391|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of happiness||||>0.05
91704910|NCT03646305|183304392|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, level of self-esteem were equivalent across time.||||<0.05
91704911|NCT03646305|183304392|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in self-esteem from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in self-esteem from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
91704912|NCT03646305|183304392|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
91704913|NCT03646305|183304392|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
91738273|NCT04016714|183369023|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - FHA||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
91906815|NCT02090413|183708942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall redness events||8.3|-10.8|
91906816|NCT02090413|183708942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.7|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall warmth events||11.7|-1.8|
91906817|NCT02090413|183708942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.7|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall warmth events||11.7|-1.7|
91798863|NCT03198078|183475305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.14|-0.04|
91798864|NCT03711266|183475347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|44.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Thirty patients were included in the final analysis. The analysis strategy was intent-to-treat, and multiple imputation was used to impute missing follow-up data. We included auxiliary variables that were correlated with the missing variables at r \> 0.4 (Enders, 2010).||44.3|18.5|<.001
91798865|NCT00749515|183475396|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91738274|NCT04016714|183369023|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - FIM 2/3||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
91738275|NCT04016714|183369023|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - PRN||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
91738276|NCT04016714|183369023|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Hib-PRP||0.9|-3.3|< 0.001
91738277|NCT04016714|183369023|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||HBsAg||0.5|-2.0|< 0.001
91738278|NCT04016714|183369023|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Poliovirus 1||0.9|-0.9|< 0.001
91738279|NCT04016714|183369023|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Poliovirus 2||1.1|-0.6|< 0.001
91738280|NCT04016714|183369023|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Poliovirus 3||0.7|-0.8|< 0.001
91873544|NCT00824850|183640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
91738281|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.89||||||Serotype 1||0.89|0.75|
91738282|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|1.98||||||Serotype 3||1.98|1.66|
91798866|NCT00749515|183475397|OTHER|||||||0.275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.275
91798867|NCT00749515|183475398|OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.178
91798868|NCT00749515|183475399|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.062
91873545|NCT00824850|183640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91738283|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.21||||||Serotype 4||1.21|0.99|
91738284|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01||||||Serotype 5||1.01|0.81|
91738285|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.5||||||Serotype 6A||0.50|0.38|
91798869|NCT00749515|183475400|OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.104
91798870|NCT00178633|183475431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91798871|NCT01484132|183475457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline to 6 months was different from 0.||||0.58
91798872|NCT01484132|183475457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.061||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.084||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.084|-0.206|0.406
91873546|NCT00824850|183640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91873547|NCT00824850|183640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91738286|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.05||||||Serotype 6B||2.05|1.46|
91738287|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84||||||Serotype 7F||0.84|0.71|
91738288|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||||||Serotype 9V||1.12|0.90|
91738289|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18||||||Serotype 14||1.18|0.89|
91738290|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82||||||Serotype 18C||0.82|0.68|
91738291|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81||||||Serotype 19A||0.81|0.64|
91738292|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.77||||||Serotype 19F||0.77|0.62|
91738293|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.51||||||Serotype 23F||1.51|1.16|
91873548|NCT00824850|183640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91738294|NCT04016714|183369025|SUPERIORITY||GMC ratio|81.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.12|89.75||||||Serotype 22F||89.75|73.12|
91738295|NCT04016714|183369025|OTHER||GMC ratio|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.82|8.94||||||Serotype 33F||8.94|6.82|
91738296|NCT01822665|183369028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.59||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||-0.59|-1.63|<0.0001
91738297|NCT01822665|183369029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||-0.18|-1.23|0.0095
91738298|NCT01822665|183369029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.19||||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.72||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.72|-0.34|0.4794
91738299|NCT01822665|183369029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.95||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.95|-0.14|0.1429
91738300|NCT01822665|183369029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.84||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||1.84|0.75|<0.0001
91738301|NCT01822665|183369029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.45||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||1.45|0.34|0.0020
91738302|NCT01822665|183369030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.31||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.31|-0.49|0.6497
91738303|NCT01822665|183369030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.34||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments||0.34|-0.46|0.7591
91738304|NCT01822665|183369030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.57||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.57|-0.24|0.4126
91873549|NCT00824850|183640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
91873550|NCT00824850|183640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91873551|NCT00824850|183640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91873552|NCT00824850|183640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|17.0||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.0|-9.3|
91738305|NCT01822665|183369030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments||0.45|-0.39|0.8903
91738306|NCT01822665|183369030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.67||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments||0.67|-0.16|0.2227
91738307|NCT01822665|183369030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.23||||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.65||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.65|-0.20|0.2855
91738308|NCT01822665|183369031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.19||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|23.97||P-value associated with chi-square testing odds ratio.|Chi-squared||Odds Ratio from logistic regression model with treatment as factor and period as covariate.|||23.97|1.60|0.0084
91738309|NCT01822665|183369031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.74||P-value associated with chi-square testing odds ratio.|Chi-squared||Odds Ratio from logistic regression model with treatment as factor and period as covariate.|||12.74|0.80|0.0999
91738310|NCT01822665|183369031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|6.5|||Chi-squared||Odds Ratio from logistic regression model with treatment as factor and period as covariate.|||6.50|0.58|0.2845
91738311|NCT00867035|183369033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rosenberg scores compared baseline to 1 hour by Mann-Whitney U test.||||<0.001
91738312|NCT00867035|183369033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||mann whitney u to compare rosenberg score baseline to 1 hour||||<.001
91738313|NCT00867035|183369033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 2 hours||||<0.001
91738314|NCT00867035|183369033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 4 hours||||<0.001
91738315|NCT00867035|183369033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 1 week||||<0.001
91738316|NCT00867035|183369033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 2 hours||||<0.01
91738317|NCT00867035|183369033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 4 hours||||<0.01
91738318|NCT00867035|183369033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 1 week||||<0.05
91738319|NCT00867035|183369034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 1 hour analyzed between groups.||||>0.05
91738320|NCT00867035|183369035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 2 hours analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test.||||>0.05
91738321|NCT00867035|183369036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 4 hours analyzed between groups||||>0.05
91738322|NCT00867035|183369037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 1 week analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test.||||>0.05
91738323|NCT00867035|183369038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of MM in mouth air at 1 hour analyzed between groups||||>0.05
91738324|NCT00867035|183369039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of MM in mouth air at 2 hours analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test||||>0.05
91738325|NCT00867035|183369040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of MM in mouth air at 4 hours analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test.||||>0.05
91738326|NCT00867035|183369041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrtations of MM in mouth air at 1 week analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test||||>0.05
91738327|NCT00867035|183369042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Counts of colony forming units from swab of 1square centimeter area on tongue at 1 week cultured on anaerobe plates for 1 week analyzed between groups||||>0.05
91738328|NCT00867035|183369043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percentage of black colonies out of Total Viable Count cultured on anaerobe agar with lead acetate. Black colonies are those producing sulfides (H2S, MM)and creating black lead sulfide. Analyzed between groups. Groups compared at baseline and 1 week.||||>0.05
91738329|NCT04552041|183369048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row.||||<0.0001
91738330|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row.||||0.0028
91738331|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1739|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Delusional ideas ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.1739
91738332|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0559|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Hallucinations ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0559
91738333|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Agitation ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0174
91738334|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Aggression ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.3330
91738335|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Dysphoria ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.1037
91738336|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Anxiety ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0329
91738337|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Euphoria ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.2700
91738338|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Apathy ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0557
91738339|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Disinhibition ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.9820
91738340|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4626|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Irritability ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.4626
91738341|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Aberrant motor behaviour ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0006
91738342|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Sleep disorders ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.3725
91738343|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Appetite disorders ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.1013
91738344|NCT04552041|183369049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Aberrant vocalizations ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0432
91738345|NCT04552041|183369050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0316|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 12 weeks row.||||0.0316
91738346|NCT04552041|183369051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 12 weeks row.||||0.1483
91738347|NCT04552041|183369052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Therapeutic effect row.||||0.0018
91738348|NCT04552041|183369052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4733|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Side effects row.||||0.4733
91738349|NCT04552041|183369052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Efficiency index row.||||0.0035
91738350|NCT01747915|183369071|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-values from an ANCOVA model including fixed effects for log transformed baseline value, region, age strata, and treatment group.||0.19|-0.15|0.8121
91738351|NCT01747915|183369071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.8889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-values from an ANCOVA model including fixed effects for log transformed baseline value, region, age strata, and treatment group.||0.16|-0.19|0.8889
91738352|NCT01747915|183369072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.095||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|2.186||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for region, age strata and treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.186|0.548|0.7973
91738353|NCT01747915|183369072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.934||||0.8474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.877||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for region, age strata and treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.877|0.465|0.8474
91738354|NCT00988156|183369073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2490
91738355|NCT00988156|183369074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9017
91738356|NCT02163577|183369156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738357|NCT02163577|183369156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738358|NCT02163577|183369156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.04||||||Difference in change to Week 40||-0.04|-0.63|
91738359|NCT02163577|183369156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738360|NCT02163577|183369156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738361|NCT02163577|183369156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.13||||||Difference in change to Week 64||0.13|-0.45|
91738362|NCT02163577|183369156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738363|NCT02163577|183369156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738364|NCT02163577|183369157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738365|NCT02163577|183369157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738366|NCT02163577|183369157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738367|NCT02163577|183369157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738368|NCT02163577|183369157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738369|NCT02163577|183369157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738370|NCT02163577|183369158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738371|NCT02163577|183369158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738372|NCT02163577|183369158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738373|NCT02163577|183369158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||0.0024
91738374|NCT02163577|183369158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||0.0018
91738375|NCT02163577|183369158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||0.0002
91738376|NCT02163577|183369159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738377|NCT02163577|183369159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738378|NCT02163577|183369159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738379|NCT02163577|183369159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738380|NCT02163577|183369159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738381|NCT02163577|183369159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91906818|NCT02090413|183708942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|17.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall tingling events||17.3|-5.4|
91906819|NCT02090413|183708942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|16.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall tingling events||16.4|-6.4|
91906820|NCT02090413|183708942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|3.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall itching events||3.5|-19.5|
91798873|NCT01484132|183475457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.017||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.067||P-value is to test the longitudinal association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA after adjusting for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the longitudinal association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline, the repeated measure model was used with all available follow-up BPA data. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.067|-0.101|0.693
91798874|NCT01484132|183475457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.123||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.05||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.050|-0.296|0.160
91798875|NCT01484132|183475457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.029||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.073||P-value is to test the longitudinal association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA after adjusting for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the longitudinal association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline, the repeated measure model was used with all available follow-up BPA data. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.073|-0.131|0.574
91798876|NCT01484132|183475458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.11
91798877|NCT01484132|183475458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.299||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.494||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.494|0.105|0.003
91906821|NCT02090413|183708942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|0.6|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall itching events||0.6|-23.1|
91906822|NCT02090413|183708945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|13.0|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 5-8 combined||13.0|-15.8|
91906823|NCT02090413|183708945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.1|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 5-8 combined||19.1|-8.4|
91906824|NCT02090413|183708945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|23.0|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 9-12 combined||23.0|-9.9|
91906825|NCT02090413|183708945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|31.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 9-12 combined||31.3|0.2|
91906826|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|15.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 5-8 combined||15.4|-10.2|
91906827|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|16.6|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 5-8 combined||16.6|-8.6|
91906828|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|18.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 9-12 combined||18.9|-12.8|
91906829|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|27.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 9-12 combined||27.3|-2.8|
91738382|NCT02163577|183369160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738383|NCT02163577|183369160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738384|NCT02163577|183369160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91798878|NCT01484132|183475458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.365||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.585||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.585|0.145|0.002
91798879|NCT01484132|183475459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.27
91906830|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|12.2|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 5-8 combined||12.2|-15.7|
91906831|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|17.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 5-8 combined||17.3|-9.4|
91738385|NCT02163577|183369160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738386|NCT02163577|183369160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738387|NCT02163577|183369160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738388|NCT02163577|183369161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738389|NCT02163577|183369161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0015
91738390|NCT02163577|183369161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738391|NCT02163577|183369161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738392|NCT02163577|183369161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91798880|NCT01484132|183475459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.068||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.123||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.123|-0.258|0.480
91906832|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|7.0|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 9-12 combined||7.0|-25.1|
91906833|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|18.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 9-12 combined||18.5|-12.0|
91906834|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|12.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 5-8 combined||12.9|-13.5|
91738393|NCT02163577|183369161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738394|NCT02163577|183369162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738395|NCT02163577|183369162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738396|NCT02163577|183369162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.54||||||Difference in change to Week 40||0.54|-0.12|
91738397|NCT02163577|183369162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738398|NCT02163577|183369162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738399|NCT02163577|183369162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29||||||Difference in change to Week 64||0.29|-0.34|
91738400|NCT02163577|183369162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738401|NCT02163577|183369162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91798881|NCT01484132|183475459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.074||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.145||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.145|-0.293|0.501
91798882|NCT01484132|183475460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.41
91798883|NCT01484132|183475460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.082||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.418|0.254||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.254|-0.418|0.612
91798884|NCT01484132|183475460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.078||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.495||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.495|-0.339|0.696
91798885|NCT01484132|183475461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.76
91798886|NCT01484132|183475461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.018||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|1.025||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||1.025|-1.061|0.968
91798887|NCT01484132|183475461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.083||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.941|0.775||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.775|-0.941|0.822
91798888|NCT00620464|183475464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||90.0||||Applies to all parameters.|Bioequivalence Testing|||||||0.05
91738402|NCT02163577|183369163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738403|NCT02163577|183369163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91798889|NCT00620464|183475465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<=|0.05||95.0|||||Bioequivalence Testing|||||||<=0.05
91798890|NCT04246372|183475510|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.84||||6.21e-06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.||||||0.00000621
91906835|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|15.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 5-8 combined||15.4|-10.2|
91798891|NCT04246372|183475511|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.91||||6.1e-07||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00000061
91798892|NCT04246372|183475512|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.03||||4e-08|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00000004
91906836|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|15.7|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 9-12 combined||15.7|-15.3|
91906837|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|19.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 9-12 combined||19.9|-10.3|
91906838|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|14.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 5-8 combined||14.3|-18.4|
91906839|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|29.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 5-8 combined||29.3|-1.9|
91738404|NCT02163577|183369163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738405|NCT02163577|183369163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738406|NCT02163577|183369163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738407|NCT02163577|183369163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738408|NCT02163577|183369164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738409|NCT02163577|183369164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738410|NCT02163577|183369164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738411|NCT02163577|183369164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738412|NCT02163577|183369164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738413|NCT02163577|183369164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738414|NCT02163577|183369165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088|||||||one sample t-test|||Week 0 to Week 40||||0.0088
91738415|NCT02163577|183369165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||one sample t-test|||Week 0 to Week 40||||0.4650
91738416|NCT02163577|183369165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||one sample t test|||Week 0 to Week 64||||0.0160
91738417|NCT02163577|183369165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4114|||||||one sample t test|||Week 0 to Week 64||||0.4114
91738418|NCT02163577|183369165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5335|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64 to Week 112||||0.5335
91738419|NCT02163577|183369165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8606|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64 to Week 112||||0.8606
91738420|NCT02163577|183369165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1627|||||||one sample t test|||Week 112 to Week 160||||0.1627
91906840|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|11.8|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 9-12 combined||11.8|-22.1|
91738421|NCT02163577|183369165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4096|||||||one sample t test|||Week 112 to Week 160||||0.4096
91738422|NCT02163577|183369166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738423|NCT02163577|183369166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0569||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0569
91738424|NCT02163577|183369166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0002
91738425|NCT02163577|183369166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0456||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0456
91738426|NCT02163577|183369166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738427|NCT02163577|183369166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0343||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.0343
91738428|NCT02163577|183369171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0771||||||GEE model included change in 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0771
91738429|NCT02163577|183369171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9098||||||GEE model included change in 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.9098
91738430|NCT02163577|183369171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0007
91738431|NCT02163577|183369171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0327||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0327
91738432|NCT02163577|183369171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1865||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.1865
91738433|NCT02163577|183369171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2654||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.2654
91738434|NCT02163577|183369172|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91798893|NCT04246372|183475514|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.14||||3.93e-05||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000393
91798894|NCT04246372|183475515|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.67||||0.00399||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00399
91798895|NCT04246372|183475516|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-3.04||||0.146||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.146
91798896|NCT04246372|183475518|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.05||||9e-08||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00000009
91798897|NCT00257608|183475520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.708||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.864|||Log Rank|||||0.864|0.580|0.0006
91798898|NCT00257608|183475526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.205|||Log Rank|||||1.205|0.698|0.5341
91798899|NCT03673046|183475527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5705|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2532|-6.9978||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified primary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a compound symmetry with heterogeneous variance covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-eeek waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in BDD-YBOCS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-6.9978|-13.2532|<.0001
91798900|NCT03673046|183475528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0346||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3275|-1.2022||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an auto-correlation with heterogeneous variance (ARH(1)) covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in QIDS-SR total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-1.2022|-5.3275|0.0023
91738435|NCT02163577|183369172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0144||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0144
91798901|NCT03673046|183475529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0698|-2.6126||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a compound symmetry with heterogeneous variance covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in BABS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-2.6126|-7.0698|<.0001
91798902|NCT03673046|183475530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.676||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2237|-2.5458||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an auto-correlation with heterogeneous variance (ARH(1)) covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in SDS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-2.5458|-9.2237|.0008
91798903|NCT03673046|183475531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4553||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.863|18.6428||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a compound symmetry with heterogeneous variance covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Q-LESQ-SF total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||18.6428|4.8630|.0011
91738436|NCT02163577|183369172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0384||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0384
91798904|NCT01896050|183475532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare difference in change in body mass index between baseline and 12 months between aromatase inhibitor- and tamoxifen-treated patients||||0.03
91798905|NCT01896050|183475532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BMI squared|-0.01845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02308||0.4262|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Examine association between change in body mass index and change in grip strength with aromatase inhibitor therapy. For the primary outcome, linear regression was used for analysis with change of grip strength as response variable. In the original statistical analysis plan only aromatase inhibitor-treated patients were to be included in this analysis. This analysis was not performed on the tamoxifen group because it isn't clinically relevant.||||0.4262
91798906|NCT01896050|183475533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in maximum grip strength between baseline and 12 months for aromatase inhibitor-treated versus tamoxifen-treated patients||||0.032
91906841|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|23.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 9-12 combined||23.9|-9.6|
91906842|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|25.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 5-8 combined||25.5|-6.8|
91906843|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|25.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 5-8||25.5|-6.8|
91798907|NCT01896050|183475534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.04||||||Association between baseline body mass index and discontinuation of aromatase inhibitor therapy. The original statistical analysis plan only called for analyzing the aromatase inhibitor-treated patients, not the tamoxifen-treated patients.||1.04|0.92|
91798908|NCT03693300|183475548|OTHER||Proportion (%)|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.24|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related adverse events of CTCAE Grade 3 or Grade 4||12.24|2.50|
91798909|NCT03693300|183475548|OTHER||Proportion (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.76|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related adverse events of CTCAE Grade 3 or Grade 4||70.76|0.00|
91798910|NCT03693300|183475548|OTHER||Proportion (%)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|11.94|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related adverse events of CTCAE Grade 3 or Grade 4||11.94|2.44|
91738437|NCT02163577|183369172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0004
91738438|NCT02163577|183369172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9795||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.9795
91738439|NCT02163577|183369172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2082||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.2082
91798911|NCT03693300|183475548|OTHER||Proportion (%)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.94|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related AEs of Grade 3 or Grade 4 with onset date within 6 months of the first dose||9.94|1.44|
91798912|NCT03693300|183475548|OTHER||Proportion (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.76|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related AEs of Grade 3 or Grade 4 with onset date within 6 months of the first dose||70.76|0.00|
91798913|NCT03693300|183475548|OTHER||Proportion (%)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.69|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related AEs of Grade 3 or Grade 4 with onset date within 6 months of the first dose||9.69|1.40|
91798914|NCT02742441|183475557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||||||<0.001
91798915|NCT02742441|183475558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was achieved for each of the clinical signs of psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (plaque elevation, scaling, and erythema).||||<0.001
91738440|NCT02163577|183369173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91798916|NCT02742441|183475559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
91906844|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.8|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 9-12 combined||20.8|-13.2|
91738441|NCT02163577|183369173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0251
91798917|NCT00537238|183475563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the difference in proportion (Pregabalin - Levetiracetam) was greater than -0.12.|Difference in Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.08|
91798918|NCT00537238|183475564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median difference|4.1||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.9|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to derive p-value with treatment as main effect and cluster as cofactor, percent change in 28-day seizure counts between baseline and treatment periods as dependent variable. Median differences and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||10.9|-2.6|0.3571
91798919|NCT00537238|183475566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0822|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.0822
91798920|NCT00537238|183475566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9175|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Simple partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.9175
91798921|NCT00537238|183475566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Complex partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.0483
91798922|NCT00537238|183475566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7139|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SGTC seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.7139
91798923|NCT00537238|183475567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.69|-0.36|0.1334
91906845|NCT02090413|183708946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|25.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 9-12 combined||25.3|-8.5|
91906846|NCT02090413|183708950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.125|||||Analysis of variance model (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 1-4 combined||0.125|-0.414|
91906847|NCT02090413|183708950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.656|-0.128|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 1-4 combined||-0.128|-0.656|
91738442|NCT02163577|183369173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9124||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.9124
91738443|NCT02163577|183369173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0016
91738444|NCT02163577|183369173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5677||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.5677
91906848|NCT02090413|183708950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.012|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 1-4 combined||0.012|-0.507|
91738445|NCT02163577|183369173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738446|NCT02163577|183369174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738447|NCT02163577|183369174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738448|NCT02163577|183369174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0033
91738449|NCT02163577|183369174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0001
91738450|NCT02163577|183369174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738451|NCT02163577|183369174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738452|NCT02163577|183369175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0014
91738453|NCT02163577|183369175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0028
91738454|NCT02163577|183369175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0536
91738455|NCT02163577|183369175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0002
91738456|NCT02163577|183369175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738457|NCT02163577|183369175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738458|NCT02163577|183369176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.2230
91738459|NCT02163577|183369176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1132||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.1132
91738460|NCT02163577|183369176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2558||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.2558
91738461|NCT02163577|183369176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0814
91738462|NCT02163577|183369176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.0093
91738463|NCT02163577|183369176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738464|NCT02163577|183369177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91738465|NCT02163577|183369177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0006
91738466|NCT02163577|183369177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0260
91738467|NCT02163577|183369177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738468|NCT02163577|183369177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738469|NCT02163577|183369177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738470|NCT02163577|183369181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||0.0003
91738471|NCT02163577|183369181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||0.0021
91738472|NCT02163577|183369181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738473|NCT02163577|183369181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91738474|NCT02163577|183369181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738475|NCT02163577|183369181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91738476|NCT01343888|183369185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|37.0||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||37.0|17.9|<0.0001
91738477|NCT01343888|183369185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's methond|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|38.2||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||38.2|19.0|<0.0001
91738478|NCT01343888|183369185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.8|||||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||5.8|-7.9|
91906849|NCT02090413|183708950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.376|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|0.945|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 5-8 combined||0.945|-0.193|
91738479|NCT01343888|183369186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|36.7||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||36.7|17.5|<0.0001
91738480|NCT01343888|183369186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|37.4||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||37.4|18.2|<0.0001
91738481|NCT01343888|183369186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.3|||||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||6.3|-7.6|
91738482|NCT01990742|183369203|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||MOnte carlo simulation|||||||>0.05
91738483|NCT01990742|183369204|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Monte carlo simulation|||||||>0.05
91738484|NCT01990742|183369205|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Monte carlo simulation|||||||>0.05
91738485|NCT01103414|183369208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-22.4|0.1819
91738486|NCT01103414|183369208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||||-5.4|-31.4|0.0057
91738487|NCT01103414|183369208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||||-15.6|-42.3|<0.0001
91738488|NCT01103414|183369208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|-18.2|||ANCOVA|||||-18.2|-43.8|<0.0001
91738489|NCT01103414|183369209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.73|0.0273
91738490|NCT01103414|183369209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-1.13|<0.0001
91738491|NCT01103414|183369209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-1.21|<0.0001
91738492|NCT01103414|183369209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.32|<0.0001
91738493|NCT03273907|183369230|SUPERIORITY|The primary null hypothesis tested was that the observed rate of clinically relevant complications associated with CyPass Micro-Stent placement and stability is greater than or equal to the performance target rate of 7.00 percent.||||||0.187|||||||Exact one-sided binomial test|P-value is provided from exact one-sided binomial test with type I error 0.05 comparing CyPass System with performance criterion of 7.00 percent.||||||0.1870
91738494|NCT00110214|183369237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority and futility analyses were conducted for the OS end point. The Lan-Demets analog of the Emerson-Fleming sequential boundary was used to maintain the overall significance level of alpha=0.05 while conducting interim analyses on OS. The final analysis was performed when 748 deaths had been observed. An intention-to-treat approach was used in the analysis for all the clinical end points with the exception of toxicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||The primary analysis was adjusted for the stratification factors (24-mo survival probability as predicted by a validated nomogram (\<10%,10%-29.9%,\>=30%), age (\<65, \>=65 years) and prior history of arterial events (yes, no)).|Log Rank|||||1.05|0.7|0.181
91738495|NCT00110214|183369238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91738496|NCT00110214|183369239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91||The primary analysis was adjusted for the stratification factors (24-mo survival probability as predicted by a validated nomogram (\<10%,10%-29.9%,\>=30%), age (\<65, \>=65 years) and prior history of arterial events (yes, no)).|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.71|<0.001
91738497|NCT04577781|183369276|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.55||Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects (with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix).|MMRM|||||0.55|-0.66|0.885
91906850|NCT02090413|183708950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.635|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 5-8 combined||0.635|-0.498|
91873553|NCT00824850|183640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91738498|NCT01911260|183369293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|In intragroup of supplementation (zinc or placebo) we used the t-test for dependent samples in order to compare growth over time.||"Null Hypothesis: There isn't difference in the HAZ mean difference between children with Growth Deficit who received zinc amino acid or placebo.~We attributed α=0.05, β=0.20, and power=0.80."||||<0.05
91738499|NCT01911260|183369293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|In intragroup of supplementation (zinc or placebo) we used the t-test for dependent samples in order to compare growth over time.||"Null Hypothesis: There isn't difference in the HAZ mean difference between children with Normal Height who received zinc amino acid or placebo.~We attributed α=0.05, β=0.20, and power=0.80."||||<0.05
91738500|NCT01657305|183369294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||2-sided, significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||"All participants received both treatments and treatments were intra-individually compared.~Hypotheses tested: H0: δ = 0 and H1: δ ≠ 0 with δ being the difference in time to wound closure between treatments.~Negative values for the intra-individual time difference indicate faster healing of the Oleogel-S10-treated wound half.~For right-censored observations (no wound closure observed in blinded photo evaluation), wound closure was conservatively calculated as +1 day after the last photo."||||<0.0001
91738501|NCT01657305|183369298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|11.2||Day 7|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||11.2|6.0|<0.0001
91738502|NCT01657305|183369298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|13.4||Day 10|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||13.4|6.9|<0.0001
91738503|NCT01657305|183369298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|11.1||Day 14|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||11.1|4.6|<0.0001
91738504|NCT01657305|183369298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|10.9||Day 18|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||10.9|3.9|<0.0001
91738505|NCT01657305|183369298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|9.1||Day 21|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||9.1|3.7|<0.0001
91738506|NCT01657305|183369298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.9|=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.4||Day 28|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||6.4|1.5|=0.0021
91738507|NCT00940602|183369314|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.636||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.96||Exploratory p-value is one tailed and is based on the stratified log-rank test.|Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model|||0.96|0.42|0.015
91738508|NCT00940602|183369315|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|25.7||||||||25.7|-1.8|
91738509|NCT00940602|183369316|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.28|0.54|0.200
91738510|NCT00940602|183369317|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.1||||||||8.1|-5.3|
91738511|NCT00940602|183369318|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|11.4||||||||11.4|-12.0|
91738512|NCT00940602|183369319|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.46|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.46|0.36|0.184
91873554|NCT00824850|183640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
91873555|NCT00824850|183640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91738513|NCT00940602|183369320|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.195|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.36|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||0.36|0.11|<.001
91738514|NCT00940602|183369321|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.871||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.46|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.46|0.52|0.303
91738515|NCT00940602|183369322|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.75|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.75|0.66|0.389
91738516|NCT00940602|183369324|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.1||||||||8.1|-5.2|
91738517|NCT00940602|183369325|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0||||||||3.0|-1.6|
91738518|NCT00940602|183369326|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|14.6||||||||14.6|-11.9|
91738519|NCT00940602|183369327|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|1.6||||||||1.6|-20.8|
91798924|NCT00537238|183475567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.52|-0.19|0.3551
91798925|NCT00537238|183475567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.53|-1.45|0.3638
91798926|NCT00537238|183475567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.09|-0.34|0.2457
91798927|NCT00537238|183475567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.81|-1.26|0.6640
91873556|NCT00824850|183640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
91738520|NCT00940602|183369328|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.46|0.43|0.232
91738521|NCT00508482|183369347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison among three groups over 4 weeks of treatment||||0.238
91738522|NCT00508482|183369347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison among three groups at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.004
91738523|NCT00508482|183369347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.277
91738524|NCT00508482|183369347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.001
91738525|NCT00508482|183369347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.055
91738526|NCT00508482|183369347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison among three groups at the 12th week of follow-up||||0.001
91798928|NCT00537238|183475567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.17|-0.30|0.5950
91873557|NCT00824850|183640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.6||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-10.2|
91873558|NCT00824850|183640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91738527|NCT00508482|183369347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 12th week of follow-up||||0.330
91873559|NCT00824850|183640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.5|
91738528|NCT00508482|183369347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 12th week of follow-up||||<0.001
91738529|NCT00508482|183369347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 12th week of follow-up||||0.018
91738530|NCT00508482|183369348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.573
91738531|NCT00508482|183369349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.271
91738532|NCT00508482|183369350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91738533|NCT00508482|183369350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||0.580
91738534|NCT00508482|183369350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
91738535|NCT00508482|183369350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
91738536|NCT00508482|183369351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.167
91738537|NCT00508482|183369352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.066
91738538|NCT00508482|183369353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91738539|NCT00508482|183369353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||0.024
91738540|NCT00508482|183369353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
91738541|NCT00508482|183369353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
91738542|NCT00508482|183369354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91738543|NCT00508482|183369354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.627
91738544|NCT00508482|183369354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91738545|NCT00508482|183369354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91738546|NCT00508482|183369355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91738547|NCT00508482|183369355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.587
91738548|NCT00508482|183369355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91738549|NCT00508482|183369355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91738550|NCT00508482|183369356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91738551|NCT00508482|183369356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.507
91798929|NCT00537238|183475567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.76|-1.38|0.5701
91798930|NCT00537238|183475567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.08|-0.33|0.2452
91798931|NCT00537238|183475567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.33|-1.88|0.1697
91798932|NCT00537238|183475567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.09|-0.36|0.2283
91738552|NCT00508482|183369356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91738553|NCT00508482|183369356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91798933|NCT00537238|183475567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Follow-up, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.16|-2.54|0.0262
91798934|NCT00537238|183475567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Follow-up, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.00|-0.52|0.0495
91738554|NCT01374425|183369357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low excision repair cross-complementing (ERCC)-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.01|0.61|0.0555
91738555|NCT01374425|183369358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.26||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.26|0.56|0.3944
91738556|NCT01374425|183369359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.03|0.55|0.0786
91738557|NCT01374425|183369360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28||P-value (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.28|0.77|0.9576
91738558|NCT01374425|183369361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.53||P-value (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.53|0.93|0.1658
91738559|NCT01374425|183369362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.3019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.32||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.32|0.41|0.3019
91738560|NCT01374425|183369363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.53||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.53|0.48|0.6035
91738561|NCT01374425|183369364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.28|0.54|0.4032
91704914|NCT03646305|183304392|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions have equivalent levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
91704915|NCT03646305|183304392|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions have equivalent levels of self-esteem across time.||||>0.05
91704916|NCT03646305|183304392|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
91704917|NCT03646305|183304392|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
91704918|NCT03646305|183304393|OTHER|Mediation Analysis that examined whether greater homework adherence strengthened the relationship between condition and outcome|||||>|0.05|||||||Mediation Analyses|||All mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 4, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, one mediator, and room for covariates. We examined the meditational effect of homework adherence on the relationship between intervention and each outcome measure. Null: homework adherence does not mediate any relationships between intervention condition and outcome measures.||||>0.05
91704919|NCT03646305|183304393|OTHER|Mediation Analysis that examined whether greater homework adherence strengthened the relationship between condition and outcome|||||>|0.05|||||||Mediation Analyses|||All mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 4, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, one mediator, and room for covariates. We examined the meditational effect of homework adherence on the relationship between activity and each outcome measure. Null: homework adherence does not mediate any relationships between activity condition and outcome measures.||||>0.05
91704920|NCT03646305|183304394|OTHER|Thought-shape fusion was examined as a potential moderator of the relationship between intervention condition and outcome measures.|||||<|0.001||||||No other outcome measure was moderated by thought-shape fusion scores.|Moderation Analyses|||All moderation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 1, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, and one moderator. Thought-shape fusion was examined as a potential moderator of the relationship between intervention condition and outcome measures. Null: thought-shape fusion does not significantly moderate the relationship between intervention condition and state self-esteem||||<0.001
91704921|NCT01554176|183304395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.7||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.5||cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, the interaction of time by treatment, severity of disease (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-items \[HAM-D17\] ≤20, \>20) and insomnia severity index (ISI ≤14, \>14).|cLDA|||Number of participants included for calculation of mean ± SD baseline and mean ± SD change from baseline MADRS Total Score is 119. Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model uses efficacy Full Analysis Set (FAS) population (number of participants: filorexant 10 mg - 64, placebo - 64; total number of participants in cLDA analysis - 128).||2.5|-3.8|0.679
91873560|NCT00824850|183640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
91873561|NCT00824850|183640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|10.5||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.5|-10.1|
91873562|NCT00824850|183640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|16.6||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||16.6|-9.1|
91738562|NCT01374425|183369365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.03|0.41|0.0647
91738563|NCT01374425|183369366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.04||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.04|0.56|0.0861
91738564|NCT01374425|183369367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.26||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.26|0.51|0.3295
91738565|NCT01374425|183369368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.12||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.12|0.49|0.1519
91738566|NCT01374425|183369369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.62||P-value (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.62|0.87|0.2774
91738567|NCT01374425|183369370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.0|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||14.0|-5.5|
91738568|NCT01374425|183369371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|26.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||26.1|7.2|
91738569|NCT01374425|183369372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|14.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||14.1|-9.9|
91738570|NCT01374425|183369373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|6.6|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||6.6|-14.0|
91738571|NCT01374425|183369374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.3|-7.6|
91738572|NCT01374425|183369375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|1.7|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||1.7|-19.1|
91738573|NCT01374425|183369376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||8.3|-3.7|
91798935|NCT00537238|183475568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.64|-0.82|0.8084
91798936|NCT00537238|183475568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.91|-0.47|0.5263
91738574|NCT01374425|183369377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.5|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||1.5|-10.6|
91738575|NCT01374425|183369378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|7.8|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||7.8|-15.9|
91738576|NCT01374425|183369379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|3.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.3|-16.3|
91738577|NCT01374425|183369380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|11.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||11.1|-33.1|
91738578|NCT01374425|183369381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|11.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||11.1|-33.1|
91738579|NCT01374425|183369382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.2|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.2|-10.1|
91738580|NCT01374425|183369383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.4|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||0.4|-11.5|
91738581|NCT01374425|183369384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.6|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||0.6|-9.5|
91738582|NCT01374425|183369385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.1|-6.2|
91738583|NCT01374425|183369386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.69||P-value (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.69|0.99|0.0593
91738584|NCT01374425|183369387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.24||P-value (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||2.24|1.20|0.0020
91738585|NCT01374425|183369388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.88||P-value (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.88|0.95|0.0955
91738586|NCT01374425|183369389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|3.8|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.8|-15.7|
91798937|NCT00537238|183475568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.85|-0.34|0.4008
91704922|NCT01554176|183304396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.3||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5||cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, the interaction of time by treatment, severity of disease (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-items \[HAM-D17\] ≤20, \>20) and insomnia severity index (ISI ≤14, \>14).|cLDA|||Pairwise Comparison: Filorexant 10 mg vs. Placebo||2.5|-3.2|0.820
91738587|NCT01374425|183369390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|5.2|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the KRAS Mutant subgroup minus the KRAS Wild-Type subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||5.2|-16.0|
91738588|NCT01374425|183369391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.3|-6.5|
91798938|NCT00537238|183475568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.59|-0.61|0.9749
91798939|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|3.01|||ANCOVA|||Baseline sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.01|-5.08|0.6161
91873563|NCT00824850|183640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
91704923|NCT01554176|183304397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.3||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3||cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, the interaction of time by treatment, severity of disease (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-items \[HAM-D17\] ≤20, \>20) and insomnia severity index (ISI ≤14, \>14).|cLDA|||Pairwise Comparison: Filorexant 10 mg vs. Placebo||1.3|-1.9|0.701
91738589|NCT01374425|183369392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||2.1|-8.6|
91738590|NCT01374425|183369393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-0.2|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||-0.2|-9.6|
91738591|NCT02289469|183369394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|31.6|||Chi-squared|||A chi-square test was used to test for differences in proportions between intervention and control groups.||31.6|16.0|<0.0001
91738592|NCT02289469|183369395|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Other|||Descriptive statistics (counts, frequencies) were used to summarize responses.||||<0.01
91738593|NCT01227057|183369396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the SI-R using effect size estimates from a previous trial comparing individual CBT with a Wait List (WL) control (Steketee2010). In this study, the effect size of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) relative to WL was d = 2.21 on the SI-R. Accounting for a smaller effect size due to having an active control condition, we expected to have 80% power to detect a large (d = .80) effect size. The sample assessed for eligibility (n = 67) was 99% of this target.||||||0.029||||||P value is for the group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, years of education, and presence of co-morbid obsessive-compulsive disorder due to group differences at baseline.||Linear mixed models with random intercepts were used to evaluate the change in primary and secondary outcome variables over time, the effect of group, the effect of treatment, and the treatment group by time interaction, both for the treatment phase (0-6 months) and follow up phase (6-12 months). All analyses (0-6 months) were conducted first using observed data only (i.e., completer analysis) and then using an intent to treat (ITT) sample.||||.029
91738594|NCT01227057|183369397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the SI-R using effect size estimates from a previous trial comparing individual CBT with a Wait List (WL) control (Steketee2010). In this study, the effect size of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) relative to WL was d = 2.21 on the SI-R. Accounting for a smaller effect size due to having an active control condition, we expected to have 80% power to detect a large (d = .80) effect size. The sample assessed for eligibility (n = 67) was 99% of this target.||||||0.04||||||P value is for the group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, years of education, and presence of co-morbid obsessive-compulsive disorder due to group differences at baseline.||Linear mixed models with random intercepts were used to evaluate the change in primary and secondary outcome variables over time, the effect of group, the effect of treatment, and the treatment group by time interaction, both for the treatment phase (0-6 months) and follow up phase (6-12 months). All analyses (0-6 months) were conducted first using observed data only (i.e., completer analysis) and then using an intent to treat (ITT) sample.||||.04
91738595|NCT01227057|183369398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the SI-R using effect size estimates from a previous trial comparing individual CBT with a Wait List (WL) control (Steketee2010). In this study, the effect size of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) relative to WL was d = 2.21 on the SI-R. Accounting for a smaller effect size due to having an active control condition, we expected to have 80% power to detect a large (d = .80) effect size. The sample assessed for eligibility (n = 67) was 99% of this target.|||||>|0.1||||||P value is for the group x time interaction.|ANOVA|||||||>.1
91738596|NCT01044030|183369424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
91738597|NCT00114127|183369469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.132||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.132
91738598|NCT00114127|183369470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.292||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.292
91738599|NCT00539240|183369499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.04
91738600|NCT00539240|183369499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant, No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.50
91738601|NCT00539240|183369500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons (no post-hoc contrasts performed)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline score and personality traits (SCL-90)||||||0.19
91738602|NCT00539240|183369501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant, No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity.||||||0.04
91738603|NCT00539240|183369501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.50
91738604|NCT00539240|183369502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.04
91738605|NCT00539240|183369502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity.||||||0.20
91738606|NCT02629861|183369546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
91798940|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.3154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|1.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.56|-4.83|0.3154
91738607|NCT02629861|183369546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
91738608|NCT02629861|183369548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
91738609|NCT02629861|183369548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
91738610|NCT02629861|183369548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0032
91738611|NCT02629861|183369548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0010
91738612|NCT02629861|183369548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0048
91738613|NCT02629861|183369548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0003
91738614|NCT02629861|183369548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
91704924|NCT01554176|183304398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Odds Ratio|2.5||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.3||Generalized linear mixed effects model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction.|Generalized Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Pairwise Comparison: Filorexant 10 mg vs. Placebo||7.3|0.8|0.0965
91704925|NCT01554176|183304399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage incidence|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|31.4||||Between-group comparison of AE incident rate||Estimated parameter is between-group difference in percentage of participants with an AE = percentage (filorexant 10 mg) - percentage (placebo) for participants with one or more AE.||31.4|-0.9|
91738615|NCT02629861|183369548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
91738616|NCT02629861|183369549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
91738617|NCT02629861|183369549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
91738618|NCT02629861|183369550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
91738619|NCT02629861|183369550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
91738620|NCT02629861|183369551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||<0.0001
91738621|NCT02629861|183369551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||<0.0001
91738622|NCT02629861|183369552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||0.0023
91738623|NCT02629861|183369552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||0.0021
91798941|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|4.54|||ANCOVA|||Baseline snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||4.54|-7.94|0.5930
91906851|NCT02090413|183708950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|0.251|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 5-8 combined||0.251|-0.867|
91704926|NCT01554176|183304400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage incidence|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0||||Between-group comparison of incidence rate of drug discontinuation due to AE||Estimated parameter is between-group difference in percentage of participants discontinued from study drug due to an AE = percentage (filorexant 10 mg) - percentage (placebo).||7|-7|
91704927|NCT02436031|183304403|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Active Pcrit||||0.049
91704928|NCT02436031|183304403|OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Passive Pcrit||||0.135
91798942|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|14.76|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||14.76|5.27|<0.0001
91704929|NCT03816644|183304412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|5.07||||||The estimate of odds ratio, its 95% confidence interval and p-value are obtained from logistic regression models which were used to examine the difference in dementia care outcomes between the intervention and control groups at 90 days post screening visit. Models are adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||5.07|2.32|
91738624|NCT02525679|183369561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.5968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3784|1.8151|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for Cmax (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||1.8151|1.3784|
91738625|NCT02525679|183369561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9668|1.0747|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for Cmax (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||1.0747|0.9668|
91738626|NCT02525679|183369563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|2.7123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2525|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1856|3.2389|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for AUC(0-tz) (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||3.2389|2.1856|
91906852|NCT02090413|183708950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.355|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 9-12 combined||0.355|-0.308|
91704930|NCT03816644|183304413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.534||||||The estimate of odds ratio, its 95% confidence interval and p-value are obtained from logistic regression models which were used to examine the difference in participants who were hospitalized or visited an ER 6 months post screening visit.||1.534|0.837|
91798943|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|2.75|||ANCOVA|||Baseline awaken short of breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.75|-5.83|0.4807
91798944|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.6708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|4.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 awaken short of breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||4.94|-3.18|0.6708
91704931|NCT01760447|183304490|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||-0.09|-0.90|= 0.018
91704932|NCT01760447|183304491|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|11.3|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who experienced ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||11.3|-13.9|
91704933|NCT01760447|183304492|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.0|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who discontinued study drug due to experiencing an adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||5.0|-6.2|
91704934|NCT01760447|183304493|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|14.4|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who experienced ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||14.4|-8.9|
91704935|NCT01760447|183304494|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.8|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who discontinued study drug due to experiencing an adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||5.8|-10.1|
91704936|NCT01760447|183304496|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.8|||=|0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||4.3|-25.9|= 0.159
91704937|NCT01760447|183304498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.0||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|28.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||"The percentage of participants with A1C at the A1C goal (\<7.0%) in the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled. For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal."||28.9|2.9|0.017
91704938|NCT01760447|183304499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||"The percentage of participants with A1C at the A1C goal (\<6.5%) in the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled. For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal."||24.8|0.0|0.049
91704939|NCT01760447|183304502|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier Difference in Percentage|-13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-5.3|||Log-Rank Test|||"The percentage of participants initiating glycemic rescue therapy in the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||-5.3|-21.1|0.002
91704940|NCT01937884|183304579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91704941|NCT01937884|183304580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91704942|NCT01937884|183304581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student's t-test on log-transformed change in IFABP.||||||0.27
91704943|NCT01937884|183304582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student's t-test on log-transformed citrulline concentration on study day 5, by treatment group||||||0.04
91704944|NCT01937884|183304583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student's t-test on log-transformed percent change of claudin 3||||||0.43
91704945|NCT01937884|183304584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91704946|NCT01937884|183304585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.43
91704947|NCT01937884|183304586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91704948|NCT03706469|183304587|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUClast will be concluded if the 90 percent (%) confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|83.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.5|93.8||||||||93.80|74.50|
91704949|NCT03706469|183304587|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUClast will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|102.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.1|114.7||||||||114.70|91.10|
91704950|NCT03706469|183304587|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUClast will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|172.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|152.55|195.58||||||||195.58|152.55|
91704951|NCT03706469|183304588|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC∞ will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|84.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.92|96.11||||||||96.11|73.92|
91738627|NCT02525679|183369563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9482|1.0525|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for AUC(0-tz) (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||1.0525|0.9482|
91738628|NCT00271544|183369564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.955||||||95.0|0.92|0.955|||||1-side 95% confidence limit lower bound|||0.955|0.92|
91738629|NCT00271544|183369565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.96||||||95.0|0.932|0.989||||||||0.989|0.932|
91738630|NCT00271544|183369566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||||95.0|1.1|1.2|||||1-side 95% confidence limit upper bound|||1.2|1.1|
91738631|NCT00271544|183369567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||||97.5|1.9|2.2|||||1-sided 97.5% confidence limit upper bound|||2.2|1.9|
91738632|NCT00271544|183369568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.989||||||95.0|0.974|1.0||||||||1|0.974|
91738633|NCT00271544|183369569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.973||||||95.0|0.95|0.996||||||||0.996|0.950|
91738634|NCT00271544|183369570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.973||||||95.0|0.95|0.996||||||||0.996|0.950|
91738635|NCT01685684|183369583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Marginal Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||||||<0.0001
91738636|NCT00902330|183369650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Spearman correlation coefficients were computed for the biomarkers. P-Values shown are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P less than 0.05. This information applies to all rows listed in the table.||||<0.05
91738637|NCT03571971|183369679|SUPERIORITY|Based on published data, we conservatively estimated that the standard exercise (SE) group and load modification (LM) group would have a 20% and 50% treatment success rate, respectively. We defined treatment success as either: 1) at least 'moderately better' on the Global Rating of Change scale or 2) ≥2 point decrease on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. With one-side type I error=0.1, power=80%, and allocation ratio is 1:1, we estimated the need for 22 participants in each group (total N=44).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.35||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||3.35|0.36|0.879
91798945|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Baseline quantity of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.24|-0.32|0.7574
91798946|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 quantity of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.38|-0.10|0.2615
91798947|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|3.54|||ANCOVA|||Baseline adequacy of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.54|-6.42|0.5703
91738638|NCT03950856|183369689|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Injection site erythema: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||4.8|-3.3|0.538
91738639|NCT03950856|183369689|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|21.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Injection site pain: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||21.4|7.9|<0.001
91738640|NCT03950856|183369689|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.0||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Injection site swelling: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||5.3|-4.3|0.686
91738641|NCT03950856|183369691|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Arthralgia: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||4.7|-1.9|0.272
91738642|NCT03950856|183369691|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.7||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Fatigue: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||4.5|-6.7|0.812
91738643|NCT03950856|183369691|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Headache: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||5.0|-5.6|0.947
91738644|NCT03950856|183369691|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Myalgia: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||10.4|-0.9|0.091
91738645|NCT03950856|183369693|OTHER||Miettinen & Nurminen|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||0.2|-1.6|
91738646|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 1: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.83|<0.001
91738647|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.87|<0.001
91738648|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.88|<0.001
91738649|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.97|0.75|<0.001
91738650|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.81|<0.001
91738651|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.23||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.95|<0.001
91738652|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 4: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.97|0.70|<0.001
91738653|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.85|<0.001
91738654|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.43||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.43|1.03|<0.001
91738655|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 5: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.02|0.70|<0.001
91738656|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.83|<0.001
91738657|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.42||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.42|0.98|<0.001
91738658|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.82|<0.001
91738659|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.82|<0.001
91873564|NCT00824850|183640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91873565|NCT00824850|183640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|17.2||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.2|-8.6|
91873566|NCT00824850|183640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91906853|NCT02090413|183708950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.254|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 9-12 combined||0.254|-0.374|
91738660|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.85|<0.001
91906854|NCT02090413|183708950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.232|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 9-12 combined||0.232|-0.4|
91704952|NCT03706469|183304588|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC∞ will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|99.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.88|111.63||||||||111.63|88.88|
91704953|NCT03706469|183304588|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC∞ will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|172.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|149.07|200.09||||||||200.09|149.07|
91704954|NCT03706469|183304589|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|79.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.36|92.99||||||||92.99|67.36|
91704955|NCT03706469|183304589|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.94|117.27||||||||117.27|84.94|
91704956|NCT03706469|183304589|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|173.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.05|200.16||||||||200.16|150.05|
91704957|NCT00553358|183304592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants with pCR|-4.85||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-17.6|8.16|||Binomial|Binomial p-value for Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg versus Lapatinib 1500 mg|Estimation Comments: Estimated value is the difference in the percentage of participants with pCR: Arm1 (Lapatinib 1500 mg) minus Arm2 (Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg).|||8.16|-17.6|0.3416
91704958|NCT00553358|183304592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants with pCR|21.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.08|34.23|||Binomial|Binomial p-value for Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg versus Lapatinib 1000/750 mg + Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg|Estimation Comments: Estimated value is the difference in the percentage of participants with pCR: Arm3 (Lapatinib 1000/750 mg + Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg) minus Arm2 (Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg)|||34.23|9.08|0.0001
91704959|NCT00553358|183304600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.34||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.34|0.57|0.548
91704960|NCT00553358|183304600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.52|0.66|0.981
91704961|NCT00553358|183304602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.34||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.34|0.46|0.379
91704962|NCT00553358|183304602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.6||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.60|0.58|0.880
91704963|NCT00553358|183304603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481||||0.00079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.73|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Overall - All subjects in the EFS landmark analysis||0.73|0.31|0.00079
91704964|NCT00553358|183304603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.71|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the EFS landmark analysis in the lapatinib + trastuzumab arm||0.71|0.16|0.004
91873567|NCT00824850|183640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|10.6||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-9.7|
91873568|NCT00824850|183640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91873569|NCT00882050|183640605|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression|Because we tested interventions against the placebo arm, we increased our subjects to overcome loss of power. 23 per group will provide 80% power assuming a reduced alpha of 0.01 to accommodate the multiple testing issues.|||0.05
91873570|NCT00882050|183640605|SUPERIORITY|Demographic data analyzed with nominal data tested by chi-square, ordinal data by Mann-Whitney, and normal data by t-test. Further, a linear regression analysis to determine the effect of intervention dose on glucose level and typical confounders such as age, weight, and type of surgery was completed. Adverse and SAEs were analyzed by chi-square for occurrence.||||||0.05||||||Due to have 3 trial groups our p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons as a a priori threshold (if a single comparison) was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The regression (see above) is a secondary analysis. Groups had been stratified on diabetic (y/n) to balance this potential confounder||Primary t tests of glucose between the 3 groups at 90 minutes post. Secondary MANOVA to determine the effect over time. Change in mean glucose of 20 mg/dl between all groups detectable by 18 subjects per group assuming a SD of 20mg/dl., an 82% power with an alpha of 0.05. Because we tested interventions against the placebo arm, we increased our subjects to overcome loss of power. 23 per group will provide 80% power assuming a reduced alpha of 0.01 to accommodate the multiple testing issues.||||0.05
91873571|NCT01782209|183640606|OTHER||Incidence|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|21.8|||||95% Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval|||21.8|13.4|
91873572|NCT03072238|183640648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.61|0.0335
91873573|NCT03072238|183640649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.71|0.0431
91873574|NCT03072238|183640650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.76|0.5698
91873575|NCT03072238|183640651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.79|0.2515
91873576|NCT03072238|183640652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.58|0.6010
91873577|NCT03072238|183640653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.72|0.1723
91873578|NCT03072238|183640654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.65|0.1566
91873579|NCT03072238|183640655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.69|0.0419
91873580|NCT03072238|183640656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.89|0.3198
91873581|NCT03072238|183640657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|1.06|0.0071
91873582|NCT03072238|183640658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.59|0.0045
91873583|NCT03072238|183640659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.61|< 0.0001
91873584|NCT03072238|183640660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.57|0.1359
91873585|NCT03072238|183640661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.68|0.1398
91873586|NCT03072238|183640662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|0.61|0.8239
91704965|NCT00553358|183304603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.532||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.16|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the EFS landmark analysis in the lapatinib arm||1.16|0.21|0.134
91704966|NCT00553358|183304603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the EFS landmark analysis in the trastuzumab arm||1.20|0.28|0.163
91873587|NCT03072238|183640663|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.66|0.6018
91873588|NCT03072238|183640664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|20.93||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|35.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.65|6.20|0.0030
91873589|NCT03072238|183640665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|16.46||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|26.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.27|6.66|0.0008
91873590|NCT03072238|183640668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|11.81||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|19.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.29|4.34|0.0012
91873591|NCT03072238|183640669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|5.87||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|10.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.90|0.83|0.0178
91873592|NCT03072238|183640670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.45|0.0246
91873593|NCT01574105|183640674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample sizes of 26 in heparin resistant group and 26 in heparin sensitive group achieve 90% power at the 0.025 level of significance to detect a non-inferiority using a one-sided two-sample t-test, assuming a noninferiority margin is 200 milliliters in the postoperative chest tube loss.|||||<|0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For the analysis of the patient characteristics Wilcoxon, Chi-square and Fischer's exact tests were used. An upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference between resistant and sensitive groups for all values of chest tube losses was computed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and compared with pre-specified noninferiority limits. Covariates in the ANCOVA model included patient characteristics differing between two groups with a p-value \<0.1.||||<0.1
91873594|NCT00608959|183640676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.563|<|0.001||95.0|-2.55|-1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance, and assuming a SD of 1.3, a sample size of 20 subjects would provide 90% power to detect a mean change of 0.942. No information was available concerning the within-subject variability between the arms.||-1.26|-2.55|<0.001
91873595|NCT00608959|183640676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.656|<|0.001||95.0|-2.57|-1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance, and assuming a SD of 1.3, a sample size of 20 subjects would provide 90% power to detect a mean change of 0.942. No information was available concerning the within-subject variability between the arms.||-1.17|-2.57|<0.001
91873596|NCT03884478|183640706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*T2 interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.0001
91873597|NCT03884478|183640706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*T2 interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.005
91873598|NCT03884478|183640706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol Only Arm.||||.25
91906855|NCT05248295|183708965|OTHER|Separate regression models were used within each group (People with aphasia and Controls) to independently assess the effects of the variables. Below, the results are reported for the effect of production condition (Unison vs. Solo) for the group of interest, People with aphasia.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for production condition for people with aphasia (experimental group).|Regression, Logistic||OR computed with Unison as the numerator and Solo as the denominator|People with aphasia (PWA) were not directly compared to controls since the finding of a lower % syllables correct in any condition in PWA would be trivial. Instead, within-groups analyses were conducted to understand how the experimental variables affected syllable accuracy within each group.||||0.077
91738661|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6B: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.82|<0.001
91738662|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.86|<0.001
91738663|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.23||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.90|<0.001
91738664|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.93|0.72|<0.001
91738665|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.01|0.79|<0.001
91738666|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.96|<0.001
91738667|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 9V: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.88|<0.001
91798948|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 adequacy of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.75|-7.74|0.2160
91798949|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.5952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|5.03|||ANCOVA|||Baseline somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||5.03|-2.89|0.5952
91798950|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.95|-4.40|0.6984
91738668|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.85|<0.001
91798951|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.9389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.34|||ANCOVA|||Baseline sleep problem index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.34|-3.09|0.9389
91873599|NCT03884478|183640707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.025
91738669|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.84|<0.001
91738670|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 14: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.81|<0.001
91738671|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.34||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.34|0.99|<0.001
91738672|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.43||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.43|1.05|<0.001
91738673|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 18C: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.26|0.96|<0.001
91738674|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.31||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.31|1.00|<0.001
91738675|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.19|0.91|<0.001
91738676|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.02|0.79|<0.001
91738677|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.85|<0.001
91738678|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.95|<0.001
91798952|NCT00537238|183475569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 sleep problem index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.27|-2.00|0.6344
91906856|NCT05248295|183708965|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the effect of timing condition (Metrical vs. Conversational) for the group of interest, People with aphasia.|||||>|0.1||||||Results are reported for Timing Condition for the People with aphasia.|Regression, Logistic|||||||>.1
91906857|NCT05248295|183708965|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the interaction effect between production condition and timing condition for the group of interest, People with aphasia.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||OR computed as ((Unison Metrical)/(Unison Conversational)) / ((Solo Metrical)/(Solo Conversational))|||||<0.001
91798953|NCT00537238|183475570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.016||||0.9285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.444|||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.444|0.715|0.9285
91704967|NCT00553358|183304605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.366||||0.00041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.63|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Overall - All subjects in the OS landmark analysis||0.63|0.20|0.00041
91873600|NCT03884478|183640707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*T2 interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.11
91873601|NCT03884478|183640707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.66
91798954|NCT00537238|183475570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.432||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.110|0.972|0.0696
91704968|NCT00553358|183304605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.223||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.58|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the OS landmark analysis in the lapatinib + trastuzumab arm||0.58|0.07|0.002
91704969|NCT00553358|183304605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.433||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the OS landmark analysis in the lapatinib arm||1.17|0.12|0.125
91704970|NCT00553358|183304605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.414||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.0|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the OS landmark analysis in the trastuzumab arm||1.00|0.15|0.058
91704971|NCT01964716|183304642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.4|1.2||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.2|-3.4|
91704972|NCT01964716|183304642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.7|1.6||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.6|-3.7|
91704973|NCT01964716|183304642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.3|2.4||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.4|-2.3|
91704974|NCT01964716|183304642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.4|2.8||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.8|-5.4|
91704975|NCT01964716|183304642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.3|2.6||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.6|-5.3|
91704976|NCT01964716|183304642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.7|4.7||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.7|-4.7|
91704977|NCT01964716|183304642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.7|1.6||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.6|-2.7|
91798955|NCT01926015|183475581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Diphtheria Toxin \>=0.1 IU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
91704978|NCT01964716|183304642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.8|2.8||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.8|-3.8|
91704979|NCT01964716|183304642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.3|2.5||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.5|-4.3|
91704980|NCT01964716|183304642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|4.5||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.5|-1.6|
91738679|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.81|<0.001
91738680|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.82|<0.001
91738681|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.89|<0.001
91738682|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 23F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.77|<0.001
91738683|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.87|<0.001
91738684|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.35||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.35|0.95|<0.001
91738685|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.81|<0.001
91738686|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.84|<0.001
91738687|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.88|<0.001
91906858|NCT05248295|183708965|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for Production Condition for the Control group.|Regression, Logistic||OR computed with Unison as the numerator and Solo as the denominator|Separate regression models were used within each group. Here, the results are reported for the Control group.||||0.036
91704981|NCT01964716|183304642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|3.6||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||3.6|-1.6|
91704982|NCT01964716|183304642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.4|3.5||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC multidose vial (MDV) - 13vPnC single-dose syringe (SDS), expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||3.5|-4.4|
91873602|NCT03884478|183640708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
91738688|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.86|<0.001
91873603|NCT03884478|183640708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks at the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
91906859|NCT05248295|183708965|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the effect of timing condition (Metrical vs. Conversational) for the control group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||OR computed with Metrical as the numerator and Conversational as the denominator|||||<0.001
91738689|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.91|<0.001
91738690|NCT03950856|183369694|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.90|<0.001
91738691|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.84|
91738692|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.89|
91738693|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.92|
91738694|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.95|0.77|
91738695|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.91|
91906860|NCT05248295|183708965|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the interaction effect between production condition and timing condition for the control group.|||||>|0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||>.1
91798956|NCT01926015|183475581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Tetanus Toxin \>=0.01 IU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
91873604|NCT03884478|183640708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks at the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.88
91906861|NCT05248295|183708966|OTHER|Separate regression models were used within each group (People with aphasia and Controls) to independently assess the effects of Timing Condition. Production Condition is not included in the analysis since all timing data are from the unison production condition, by definition.|Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for people with aphasia (experimental group).|Regression, Linear|||People with aphasia were not directly compared to Controls since the Control group is a context-providing reference group rather than a true comparator. Instead, within-groups analyses were conducted to understand how the experimental variable affected timing alignment in each group.||||<0.001
91738696|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.32|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.32|1.06|
91738697|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.94|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.94|0.72|
91738698|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.94|
91738699|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.5||||P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.50|1.14|
91798957|NCT01926015|183475581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Pertussis Toxin \>=10 EU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
91873605|NCT03884478|183640709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.03
91873606|NCT03884478|183640709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.059
91873607|NCT03884478|183640709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.71
91873608|NCT03884478|183640710|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
91873609|NCT03884478|183640710|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
91906862|NCT05248295|183708966|OTHER||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for the Control group.|Regression, Linear|||People with aphasia were not directly compared to Controls since the Control group is a context-providing reference group and not a true comparator. Instead, within-groups analyses were conducted to understand how experimental variables affected timing alignment in each group.||||<0.001
91906863|NCT04490018|183708967|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|10.36||||||Serogroup A||10.36|0.06|
91704983|NCT01964716|183304642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.3|4.4||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.4|-4.3|
91738700|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.95|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.95|0.72|
91738701|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.84|
91738702|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.35|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.35|1.02|
91798958|NCT01926015|183475581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Pertussis FHA \>=10 EU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
91704984|NCT01964716|183304643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.22||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.22|0.87|
91738703|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.78|
91738704|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.85|
91738705|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.27|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.27|0.93|
91798959|NCT01926015|183475581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus Type 1 NA \>=8||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
91704985|NCT01964716|183304643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.71|0.9||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||0.90|0.71|
91704986|NCT01964716|183304643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.18||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.18|0.86|
91704987|NCT01964716|183304643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.19||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.19|0.85|
91704988|NCT01964716|183304643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.22||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.22|0.86|
91738706|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.82|
91873610|NCT03884478|183640710|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.87
91873611|NCT03884478|183640711|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
91738707|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.90|
91798960|NCT01926015|183475581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus Type 2 NA \>=8||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
91906864|NCT04490018|183708967|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|9.5||||||Serogroup C||9.50|1.58|
91906865|NCT04490018|183708967|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|4.42||||||Serogroup W||4.42|-1.28|
91906866|NCT04490018|183708967|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|4.77||||||Serogroup Y||4.77|-1.88|
91738708|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.28|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.28|0.94|
91738709|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.92|0.70|
91738710|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.84|
91738711|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.37|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.37|1.04|
91738712|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.08|||l||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.83|
91738713|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
91798961|NCT01926015|183475581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus Type 3 NA \>=8||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
91873612|NCT03884478|183640711|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.002
91889182|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4||0.87|0.68|
91704989|NCT01964716|183304643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.36||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.36|0.82|
91704990|NCT01964716|183304643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.08||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.08|0.82|
91704991|NCT01964716|183304643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.21||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.21|0.87|
91704992|NCT01964716|183304643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.75|1.24||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.24|0.75|
91704993|NCT01964716|183304643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.09|1.49||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.49|1.09|
91704994|NCT01964716|183304643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.24||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.24|0.82|
91704995|NCT01964716|183304643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.26||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.26|0.85|
91738714|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.19|0.91|
91738715|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.00|0.75|
91738716|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.31|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.31|0.98|
91738717|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.52|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.52|1.14|
91738718|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.36|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.36|1.04|
91738719|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.51|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.51|1.15|
91738720|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.27|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.27|0.97|
91738721|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.02|0.78|
91798962|NCT01364649|183475594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|The primary analysis was performed by using observed case data only.||||4.02|0.48|0.013
91798963|NCT03615326|183475602|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) at baseline, and chemotherapy regimen (FP or CAPOX).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.87|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|PFS in all participants of the Global Pembrolizumab + SOC First Course was compared to PFS in all participants of the Global Standard of Care to address the hypothesis (pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is superior to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy alone).||0.87|0.61|0.0002
91798964|NCT03615326|183475603|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) at baseline, and chemotherapy regimen (FP or CAPOX).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|OS in all participants of the Global Pembrolizumab + SOC First Course was compared to PFS in all participants of the Global Standard of Care to address the hypothesis (pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is superior to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy alone).||0.94|0.67|0.0040
91798965|NCT03615326|183475604|SUPERIORITY|The difference in percentage and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) at baseline, and chemotherapy regimen (FP or CAPOX).|Difference in Percentage|12.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|19.4||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||ORR in all participants of the Global Pembrolizumab + SOC First Course was compared to PFS in all participants of the Global Standard of Care to address the hypothesis (pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is superior to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy alone).||19.4|5.6|0.00020
91798966|NCT02651467|183475642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.181|-0.584||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|For the Week 8 comparisons of the two Treatments against the Placebo Control, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.||-0.584|-1.181|<0.0001
91798967|NCT02651467|183475642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.333|-0.738||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|For the Week 8 comparisons of the two Treatments against the control, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.||-0.738|-1.333|<0.0001
91873613|NCT03884478|183640711|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.43
91873614|NCT00828139|183640712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.37|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier. The 3-month PFS estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.||0.37|0.14|
91873615|NCT00828139|183640712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.27|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier.||0.27|0.07|
91873616|NCT00828139|183640712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.39|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier.||0.39|0.18|
91873617|NCT00828139|183640712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.2|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier.||0.2|0.04|
91704996|NCT01964716|183304643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.98|1.48||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.48|0.98|
91873618|NCT00828139|183640712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.92||||||Hazard Ratio was evaluated using a logrank test.||1.92|0.91|
91704997|NCT01964716|183304652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|1.9||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.9|-17.2|
91798968|NCT02651467|183475643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.15||||0.2478||95.0|-0.107|0.413||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.413|-0.107|0.2478
91873619|NCT00828139|183640712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|2.1||||||Hazard Ratio was evaluated using log-rank test.||2.10|1.08|
91738722|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.86|
91738723|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.96|
91738724|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.00|0.76|
91738725|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.80|
91738726|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.92|
91738727|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.80|
91738728|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.86|
91798969|NCT02477839|183475650|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Difference ratio in LS Mean was calculated as the exp \[LSMLCM-LSMplacebo\].||1.14|0.83|
91873620|NCT03557307|183640759|OTHER||percentage|62.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.86|66.76|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage of patients who achieved 100% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||66.76|58.86|
91738729|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.93|
91738730|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.81|
91738731|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.26|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.26|0.93|
91738732|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.35|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.35|1.00|
91873621|NCT03557307|183640760|OTHER||percentage|81.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.62|84.94|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage of patients who achieve 100% reduction or a daily OCS dose of \<=5mg, if reason for no further OCS reduction is Adrenal Insufficiency, that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||84.94|78.62|
91738733|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.06|0.79|
91738734|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.90|
91738735|NCT03950856|183369695|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.34|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.34|0.99|
91738736|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.91|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.91|0.62|
91738737|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.61|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.61|1.20|
91738738|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.94|0.66|
91738739|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.74|
91738740|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.43|0.95|
91738741|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.86|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.86|1.21|
91738742|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.73|
91738743|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.72|
91738744|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.82|
91738745|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.51|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.51|1.05|
91738746|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.82|
91798970|NCT02477839|183475650|OTHER||Percent reduction|3.19|||=|0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|17.5|||ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was estimated as 100 x (1-exp \[LSMLCM-LSMPBO\]).||17.50|-13.59|=0.6895
91798971|NCT01439568|183475663|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0608||||0.8072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6598|1.7055|||Logrank Test|||||1.7055|0.6598|0.8072
91798972|NCT01050543|183475667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|9.6|||ANOVA|||To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to the efficacy of neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was calculated using a 2-way ANOVA model adjusted for trial site.||9.6|6.8|<0.0001
91873622|NCT03557307|183640761|OTHER||percentage|91.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.94|93.58|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage of patients who achieve a daily OCS dose of ≤5 mg (regardless of reason for no further OCS reduction), that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||93.58|88.94|
91873623|NCT03557307|183640762|OTHER||percentage|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.06|67.9|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (≥90% reduction)|Percentage of patients who achieve \>=90% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||67.90|60.06|
91873624|NCT03557307|183640762|OTHER||percentage|68.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.02|72.59|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (\>=75% reduction)|Percentage of patients who achieve \>=75% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||72.59|65.02|
91704998|NCT01964716|183304652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.1||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.1|-4.4|
91704999|NCT01964716|183304652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.3|-2.3|
91705000|NCT01964716|183304652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|5.7||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||5.7|-10.6|
91738747|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.86|
91738748|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.54|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.54|1.03|
91738749|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.11|14.74|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|14.74|10.11|
91738750|NCT03950856|183369696|OTHER||GMC Ratio|9.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|11.13|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|11.13|7.96|
91738751|NCT04422431|183369715|OTHER|||||||0.1002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1002
91738752|NCT01174563|183369731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.41|0.005
91873625|NCT03557307|183640762|OTHER||percentage|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.44|84.79|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (\>=50% reduction)|Percentage of patients who achieve \>=50% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||84.79|78.44|
91705001|NCT01964716|183304652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.8||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.8|-2.9|
91738753|NCT01347060|183369742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93||The P-value relates to differences in combined inpatient/emergency department.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline differences||||0.93|0.68|0.0051
91738754|NCT01347060|183369743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|883.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|731.66|1041.69||The P-value is on the adjusted difference in total asthma costs.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Model with a log-link and a gamma distribution adjusting for differences at baseline||||1041.69|731.66|0.001
91738755|NCT01347060|183369744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91738756|NCT00444106|183369745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sided exact test for a single propn.|One-sided exact test for a single proportion.||"One-sided null hypothesis that the incidence rate of ABR Wave III latency changes is greater than or equal to 15%.~Increase in ABR Wave III latency between baseline and Day 7 of greater than 0.3 ms."||||<.0001
91738757|NCT02896257|183369762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.38|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed-random effects for provider clustering and adjusting for smoking status. Multiple imputation by chained equations for missing smoking status.||||5.38|2.50|<0.001
91738758|NCT02896257|183369763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed-random effects for provider clustering and adjusting for smoking status. Multiple imputation by chained equations for missing smoking status.||||1.47|0.44|0.47
91738759|NCT02896257|183369764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed-random effects for provider clustering and adjusting for smoking status. Multiple imputation by chained equations for missing smoking status.||||1.96|0.20|0.42
91759509|NCT02391363|183411760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.30 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month GDS-SF, controlling for baseline GDS-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.59
91759510|NCT02391363|183411761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.22 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month ISI, controlling for baseline ISI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.64
91873626|NCT03557307|183640763|OTHER||percentage change from baseline|-76.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.9|-73.94|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage change from baseline in daily OCS dose at the end of OCS reduction phase|||-73.94|-79.90|
91873627|NCT03745651|183640768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.125|21.202||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||21.202|4.125|< 0.0001
91873628|NCT03745651|183640768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.354|38.061||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||38.061|7.354|< 0.0001
91873629|NCT03745651|183640769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.723|13.184||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||13.184|3.723|< 0.0001
91873630|NCT03745651|183640769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.775|20.732||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||20.732|5.775|< 0.0001
91873631|NCT03745651|183640770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.045|9.036||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||9.036|2.045|< 0.0001
91873632|NCT03745651|183640770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.833|12.657||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||12.657|2.833|< 0.0001
91873633|NCT03745651|183640771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|2.094||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||2.094|0.598|0.8553
91705002|NCT01964716|183304652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.6||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.6|-4.5|
91705003|NCT01964716|183304652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.3|-2.3|
91873634|NCT03745651|183640771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.741||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||2.741|0.805|0.2359
91873635|NCT03745651|183640772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|3.342||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.342|0.827|0.1784
91873636|NCT03745651|183640772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|4.0||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||4.000|1.007|0.0472
91873637|NCT03745651|183640782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.57|-22.25|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-22.25|-41.57|<0.0001
91705004|NCT01964716|183304652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.1||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||14.1|-4.5|
91873638|NCT03745651|183640782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.81|-25.44|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-25.44|-44.81|<0.0001
91873639|NCT03745651|183640782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-44.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.19|-35.92|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-35.92|-53.19|<0.0001
91873640|NCT03745651|183640782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.55|-37.26|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-37.26|-54.55|<0.0001
91705005|NCT01964716|183304652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|0.0||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||-0.0|-15.8|
91705006|NCT01964716|183304652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.9|-2.9|
91873641|NCT03745651|183640782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-44.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.08|-35.98|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-35.98|-53.08|<0.0001
91705007|NCT01964716|183304652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.4||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.4|-6.6|
91705008|NCT01964716|183304652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.9||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.9|-6.3|
91705009|NCT01964716|183304652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.0||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||3.0|-5.8|
91705010|NCT01964716|183304653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.20|0.70|
91705011|NCT01964716|183304653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.93||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||0.93|0.69|
91705012|NCT01964716|183304653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.39||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.39|0.89|
91705013|NCT01964716|183304653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.22|0.80|
91705014|NCT01964716|183304653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.06|0.70|
91705015|NCT01964716|183304653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.33|0.74|
91705016|NCT01964716|183304653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.00|0.70|
91705017|NCT01964716|183304653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.27|0.79|
91705018|NCT01964716|183304653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.08||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.08|0.48|
91738760|NCT03423602|183369773|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a Meta-Analysis of a focused systematic literature review from a comparable patient population, the estimated major vascular access site complication rate or PGsafety for the conservative Random Effect Model is 0.125 with a 95% Confidence Interval of 0.09 to 0.17. Given that the upper bound was 0.17 this justified the use of 0.13 as a valid PGsafety plus a non-inferiority margin of 0.04 yielding an overall non-inferiority limit (NLs) of 0.17 for Safety. Study power is greater than 90%|Wilson's exact test|0.0487|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0487|||Wilson's exact test|All 75 enrolled subjects, regardless of their enrolment status at 1-month post implantation, including all reported safety data where included.||"The test for non-inferiority for safety was based on a one-sided test (at the 0.025 significance level) for a binomial proportion with hypotheses:~H0s: Psafety ≥ NLs versus H1s: Psafety \< NLs Where: Psafety is the actual proportion of device related major vascular access site complications within the study population; and NLs is the non-inferiority limit for proportion of expected major vascular access site complications associated with cut-down and suture closure."||0.0487||<.0001
91738761|NCT03257358|183369778|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-413.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-422.7||||ANCOVA|||||-404.|-422.7|
91738762|NCT03257358|183369778|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||ANCOVA|||||3.6|-3.9|
91738763|NCT03257358|183369779|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-368.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-382.8|354.7|||ANCOVA|||||354.7|-382.8|
91738764|NCT03257358|183369779|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.9|||ANCOVA|||||6.9|-7.1|
91738765|NCT03257358|183369780|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|-46.9|||ANCOVA|||||-46.9|-57.2|
91738766|NCT03257358|183369780|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-7.6|
91738767|NCT03257358|183369781|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-40.3|||ANCOVA|||||-40.3|-46.9|
91738768|NCT03257358|183369781|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||||1.7|-3.0|
91738769|NCT03257358|183369782|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-35.3|||ANCOVA|||||-35.3|-37.2|
91738770|NCT03257358|183369782|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.4|
91738771|NCT03257358|183369783|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-51.3|||ANCOVA|||||-51.3|-55.1|
91873642|NCT03745651|183640782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-46.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.51|-37.48|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-37.48|-54.51|<0.0001
91873643|NCT03745651|183640783|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.48|-32.38|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-32.38|-46.48|<0.0001
91705019|NCT01964716|183304653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.19||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||2.19|1.38|
91705020|NCT01964716|183304653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.16|0.74|
91705021|NCT01964716|183304653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.18|0.71|
91705022|NCT01964716|183304653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.25||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.25|0.67|
91705023|NCT01370616|183304668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference between the two groups has a lower bound greater than -15%, then ertapenem sodium will be considered at least as effective as piperacillin/tazobactam sodium.|Estimated Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.0|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||0.0|-8.3|
91705024|NCT01370616|183304669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.8|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||1.8|-5.5|
91705025|NCT01370616|183304670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.8|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||2.8|-7.7|
91705026|NCT01370616|183304671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.4|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||3.4|-11.9|
91705027|NCT01370616|183304672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.3|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||3.3|-12.1|
91705028|NCT01370616|183304673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|15.4|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||15.4|-0.9|
91705029|NCT01370616|183304674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||3.4|-8.5|
91705030|NCT01370616|183304675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.8|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||5.8|-2.0|
91705031|NCT01370616|183304676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|1.9|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||1.9|-5.7|
91705032|NCT00076999|183304688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.02
91705033|NCT00076999|183304688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.78
91705034|NCT00076999|183304689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.00
91705035|NCT00076999|183304689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91705036|NCT00076999|183304690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.12
91705037|NCT00076999|183304690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91705038|NCT00076999|183304691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.12
91705039|NCT00076999|183304691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91705040|NCT00076999|183304692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.01
91705041|NCT00076999|183304692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91705042|NCT00076999|183304693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.06
91705043|NCT00076999|183304693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91705044|NCT00076999|183304694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.60
91705045|NCT00076999|183304694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91798973|NCT01950169|183475683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates used were age, sex, total mass, and baseline BMD. Data were reported using complete-cases analysis and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis.||||||0.05
91738772|NCT03257358|183369783|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.7|
91738773|NCT03257358|183369784|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-140.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.8|-135.0|||ANCOVA|||||-135.0|-145.8|
91738774|NCT03257358|183369784|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|-1.9|
91738775|NCT03257358|183369785|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-85.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.0|-81.4|||ANCOVA|||||-81.4|-89.0|
91738776|NCT03257358|183369785|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-2.3|
91738777|NCT03257358|183369786|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-4.8|||ANCOVA|||||-4.8|-51.1|
91738778|NCT03257358|183369786|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-16.3|
91738779|NCT03257358|183369787|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-181.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.3|-179.0|||ANCOVA|||||-179.0|-183.3|
91738780|NCT03257358|183369787|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-4.1|
91738781|NCT03257358|183369788|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-55.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-53.9|||ANCOVA|||||-53.9|-56.5|
91798974|NCT01950169|183475684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates used were age, sex, total mass, and baseline BMD. Data were reported using complete-cases analysis and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis.||||||0.05
91798975|NCT01950169|183475685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|The analyses included exposure measures treatment groups and sex as fixed factors. Age and baseline values for FFMI, FMI were included as covariates.||||||0.05
91798976|NCT02905149|183475727|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|14.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Generalized Hodges-Lehmann median difference is used. These are robust to the possibility that the population distributions in the two groups are different in ways other than location. It may not represent the raw median difference.|||14.5|4|< 0.05
91873644|NCT03745651|183640783|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-43.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.51|-36.53|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-36.53|-50.51|<0.0001
91738782|NCT03257358|183369788|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.5|
91738783|NCT03257358|183369789|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||||-6.4|-8.0|
91738784|NCT03257358|183369789|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|0.3|
91738785|NCT03257358|183369790|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|69.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|96.7|||ANCOVA|||||96.7|42.1|
91798977|NCT02907268|183475733|EQUIVALENCE|"Each variable compared with the no change score. The no change score is 0 for wrinkles-related variables."|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91798978|NCT02907268|183475734|EQUIVALENCE|"Each variable compared with the no change score. The no change score is 0 for wrinkles-related variables."|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91738786|NCT03257358|183369790|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|117.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|136.9|||ANCOVA|||||136.9|97.1|
91738787|NCT03257358|183369791|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-782.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|138.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1058.2|-507.1|||ANCOVA|||||-507.1|-1058.2|
91738788|NCT03257358|183369791|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-485.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|91.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-667.3|-304.4|||ANCOVA|||||-304.4|-667.3|
91738789|NCT03257358|183369792|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||||-18.5|-48.2|
91738790|NCT03257358|183369792|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-14.9|||ANCOVA|||||-14.9|-36.7|
91738791|NCT03257358|183369793|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-888.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-914.6|-862.7|||ANCOVA|||||-862.7|-914.6|
91738792|NCT03257358|183369793|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|11.0|||ANCOVA|||||11.0|-17.6|
91738793|NCT03257358|183369794|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.59|-37.42|||ANCOVA|||||-37.42|-41.59|
91738794|NCT03257358|183369794|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|-0.87|
91738795|NCT03257358|183369795|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-248.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.7|-219.2|||ANCOVA|||||-219.2|-278.7|
91738796|NCT03257358|183369795|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|5.4|||ANCOVA|||||5.4|-25.1|
91738797|NCT03257358|183369796|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|8.08|||ANCOVA|||||8.08|3.13|
91738798|NCT03257358|183369796|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-0.68|
91738799|NCT03257358|183369797|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-231.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-234.5|-227.6|||ANCOVA|||||-227.6|-234.5|
91738800|NCT03257358|183369797|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-5.2|
91738801|NCT03257358|183369798|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-7.4|||ANCOVA|||||-7.40|-9.21|
91738802|NCT03257358|183369798|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|-0.17|
91738803|NCT02852967|183369830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6384|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg QD + placebo (n = 23) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.6384
91798979|NCT02907268|183475735|EQUIVALENCE|"Each variable compared with the no change score. The no change score is 0 for wrinkles-related variables."|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91873645|NCT03745651|183640784|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-1.01|-2.02|<0.0001
91873646|NCT03745651|183640784|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.24|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-1.24|-2.24|<0.0001
91873647|NCT03745651|183640784|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.23|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.23|-2.36|<0.0001
91873648|NCT03745651|183640784|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.4|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.40|-2.53|<0.0001
91873649|NCT03745651|183640784|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.29|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.29|-2.49|<0.0001
91873650|NCT03745651|183640784|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.10|-2.30|<0.0001
91873651|NCT03745651|183640786|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.97|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-0.97|-1.94|<0.0001
91873652|NCT03745651|183640786|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.76|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-0.76|-1.72|<0.0001
91873653|NCT03745651|183640789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.51|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||0.51|-1.71|0.2903
91873654|NCT03745651|183640789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.13|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||0.13|-2.09|0.0837
91705046|NCT00076999|183304695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.20
91705047|NCT00076999|183304695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91705048|NCT00076999|183304696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.18
91705049|NCT00076999|183304696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91705050|NCT00076999|183304698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.02
91705051|NCT00076999|183304698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.47
91705052|NCT00076999|183304699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.00
91705053|NCT00076999|183304699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.81
91705054|NCT00076999|183304700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.00
91705055|NCT00076999|183304700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.69
91705056|NCT00076999|183304702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.64
91705057|NCT00076999|183304702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.26
91705058|NCT00076999|183304703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.25
91705059|NCT00076999|183304703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.70
91705060|NCT00076999|183304704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.73
91705061|NCT00076999|183304704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.79
91705062|NCT00076999|183304706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.38
91705063|NCT00076999|183304706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.20
91705064|NCT00076999|183304707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.08
91705065|NCT00076999|183304707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.36
91705066|NCT00076999|183304708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.23
91873655|NCT03745651|183640789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.6272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.91|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||0.91|-1.50|0.6272
91873656|NCT03745651|183640789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.34|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||0.34|-2.07|0.1609
91873657|NCT03745651|183640789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.73|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.73|-2.13|0.3362
91873658|NCT03745651|183640789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.62|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.62|-2.23|0.2690
91873659|NCT03745651|183640790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.01|-2.13|0.0482
91873660|NCT03745651|183640790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.14|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.14|-2.26|0.0271
91873661|NCT03745651|183640790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.42|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||0.42|-1.94|0.2091
91873662|NCT03745651|183640790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.35|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-0.35|-2.71|0.0111
91873663|NCT03745651|183640790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.14|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.14|-2.51|0.0802
91705067|NCT00076999|183304708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.23
91906867|NCT03996876|183708997|SUPERIORITY|Given the relatively small sample size, results of our inferential statistical tests should be interpreted with caution.|F Statistic|1.032||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|We conducted a two-way mixed ANOVA with intervention as the between-subjects and time as the within-subjects variable.|The F Statistic reported is for the interaction between Intervention and Time.|||||0.322
91906868|NCT00121108|183709000|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.21|||Fisher Exact|||||0.21|0.08|<0.001
91906869|NCT01380379|183709011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Single group comparison pre-post change score, compared to a value of 0 (no change)||||||<.01
91705068|NCT05821296|183304715|OTHER|Change of sum of total lesions at the end of the study from baseline/Day 0 to evaluate the efficacy and clinical performance of Crystal Peel for the treatment of acne.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.31|-11.84|||ANCOVA|||||-11.84|-17.31|<0.0001
91705069|NCT05821296|183304716|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.16||||||||2.16|1.54|
91873664|NCT03745651|183640790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.09|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.09|-2.56|0.0666
91873665|NCT03745651|183640793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-2.97|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-2.97|-4.84|<0.0001
91873666|NCT03745651|183640793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-3.63|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-3.63|-5.47|<0.0001
91873667|NCT03745651|183640795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-4.86|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-4.86|-7.38|<0.0001
91873668|NCT03745651|183640795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-4.67|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-4.67|-7.17|<0.0001
91906870|NCT01380379|183709012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.04
91873669|NCT03745651|183640797|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.32|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-2.32|-4.19|<0.0001
91873670|NCT03745651|183640797|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.83|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-1.83|-3.67|<0.0001
91873671|NCT03745651|183640799|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-1.03|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||-1.03|-7.24|0.0099
91873672|NCT03745651|183640799|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.06|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||0.06|-6.30|0.0542
91705070|NCT05821296|183304717|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.2||||||||2.20|1.44|
91873673|NCT03745651|183640803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.987|9.049||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||9.049|2.987|<0.0001
91705071|NCT05821296|183304718|OTHER||Mean value in local tolerance score|2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.44||||||||2.44|1.98|
91705072|NCT05821296|183304719|OTHER|Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.|% of patients with positive answers|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|89.0||||||||89|61|
91705073|NCT05821296|183304719|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|98.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||98|80|
91705074|NCT05821296|183304719|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|95.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||95|73|
91705075|NCT05821296|183304719|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|93.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||93|68|
91705076|NCT05821296|183304719|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.0|97.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||97|77|
91705077|NCT05821296|183304719|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|93.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||93|69|
91705078|NCT05821296|183304719|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|89.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||89|61|
91705079|NCT05821296|183304719|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|89.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||89|62|
91705080|NCT05821296|183304719|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|87.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||87|59|
91705081|NCT05821296|183304721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||< 0.0001
91705082|NCT05821296|183304721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.92||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.010
91705083|NCT05821296|183304721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.69|<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||<0.004
91705084|NCT05821296|183304721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.45||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.013
91705085|NCT05821296|183304722|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2832.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3217.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||< 0.0001
91705086|NCT05821296|183304722|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1754.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4220.25||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.025
91873674|NCT03745651|183640803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|13.415||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||13.415|4.230|<0.0001
91873675|NCT03745651|183640804|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|7.86|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||7.86|0.85|0.0150
91873676|NCT03745651|183640804|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|8.54|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||8.54|1.59|0.0044
91873677|NCT03745651|183640805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|1.89|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||1.89|-13.12|0.1420
91705087|NCT05821296|183304722|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2763.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4965.84||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.004
91705088|NCT05821296|183304722|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1742.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3974.21||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.021
91705089|NCT05821296|183304723|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||<0.0001
91705090|NCT05821296|183304723|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.029
91705091|NCT05821296|183304723|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.006
91705092|NCT05821296|183304723|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.037
91705093|NCT05821296|183304724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.001
91705094|NCT05821296|183304724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71||0.348|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.348
91705095|NCT05821296|183304724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.091
91873678|NCT03745651|183640805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-0.47|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-0.47|-15.51|0.0375
91873679|NCT03745651|183640805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.48|-3.63|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-3.63|-14.48|0.0012
91705096|NCT05821296|183304724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.190
91705097|NCT05821296|183304725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.55||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.011
91705098|NCT05821296|183304725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28||0.281|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.281
91705099|NCT05821296|183304725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.46||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.060
91738804|NCT02852967|183369830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6419|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg BID + placebo (n = 22) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.6419
91798980|NCT02963935|183475818|SUPERIORITY|The treatment policy estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) at week 56 for all randomised subjects regardless of premature discontinuation of trial product.|Treatment difference|-3.45||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-1.59|||ANCOVA|Missing observations were imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference (x100) multiple imputation approach.|Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatrment policy estimand. The hypothesis and the alternative are: H: μliraglutide ≥ μplacebo against the alternative HA: μliraglutide \< μplacebo. μliraglutide and μplacebo denote the true mean of % weight change for liraglutide 3.0 mg and placebo group, respectively. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-1.59|-5.31|0.0003
91873680|NCT03745651|183640805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|-1.77|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-1.77|-12.58|0.0095
91873681|NCT03745651|183640805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|-7.73|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-7.73|-22.69|<0.0001
91873682|NCT03745651|183640805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-5.18|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-5.18|-20.10|0.0010
91873683|NCT03745651|183640805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.18|-7.95|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-7.95|-16.18|<0.0001
91738805|NCT02852967|183369830|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 400 mg QD + placebo (n = 21) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||> 0.9999
91738806|NCT02852967|183369830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3859|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 600 mg (n = 26) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3859
91738807|NCT02852967|183369830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4435|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of all subjects treated with belumosudil (n = 92) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75||||0.4435
91738808|NCT02852967|183369830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2721|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg QD + placebo (n = 14) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.2721
91738809|NCT02852967|183369830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3577|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg BID+ Placebo (n = 15) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3577
91738810|NCT02852967|183369830|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 500 mg QD + Placebo (n = 17) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||> 0.9999
91738811|NCT02852967|183369830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3402|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 600 mg/day (n = 16) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3402
91738812|NCT02852967|183369830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3542|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of all subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg QD + Placebo (n = 62) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3542
91738813|NCT02852967|183369834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5728|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.5728
91738814|NCT02852967|183369834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1962|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.1962
91738815|NCT02852967|183369834|SUPERIORITY|Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear|||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.9999
91738816|NCT02852967|183369834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5583|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.5583
91738817|NCT02852967|183369834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2538|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.2538
91738818|NCT00339040|183369843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91738819|NCT00887159|183369862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.47||P-value is one-sided.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio was derived comparing Arm B to Arm A.|There are 2 primary comparisons and each involves comparing the experimental arms (B, C) to the control arm (A). Accrual goal was 54 patients per arm. With a 1-sided 0.1 level logrank test for each test, we have 90% power to detect a 42% reduction in the PFS hazard rate of 0.139 to 0.082 (corresponding to an improvement in median PFS of 5 months to 8.5 months) with 18-month accrual and 12-month follow-up; assuming exponential survival. For each test, 94 events are needed to achieve this power.||1.47|0.65|0.45
91705100|NCT05821296|183304725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.8||0.209|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.209
91705101|NCT05821296|183304726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26495.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33223.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||<0.0001
91705102|NCT05821296|183304726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14447.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44054.48||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.073
91738820|NCT00887159|183369862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.48||P-value is one-sided.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio was derived comparing Arm C to Arm A.|There are 2 primary comparisons and each involves comparing the experimental arms (B, C) to the control arm (A). Accrual goal was 54 patients per arm. With a 1-sided 0.1 level logrank test for each test, we have 90% power to detect a 42% reduction in the PFS hazard rate of 0.139 to 0.082 (corresponding to an improvement in median PFS of 5 months to 8.5 months) with 18-month accrual and 12-month follow-up; assuming exponential survival. For each test, 94 events are needed to achieve this power.||1.48|0.66|0.48
91738821|NCT00887159|183369865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.52|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio was derived comparing the high CTCs group to the low CTCs group.|||2.52|1.13|0.01
91873684|NCT03745651|183640805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|-6.37|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-6.37|-14.53|<0.0001
91873685|NCT01322347|183640827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means between SFP & PBO|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||LS Mean (SE) and p-value are from ANCOVA model with baseline Hgb as covariate. Model also includes indicator variable for baseline ESA dose stratum.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91873686|NCT04239911|183640846|EQUIVALENCE|A p\<0.05 considered the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|6.85|||Regression, Logistic||The comparison group is enhanced usual care arm|"Outcome measures workers' intentions of leaving their current job. Responses included 7-point likert scale of very strongly disagree-very strongly agree. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare outcome between and within study arm. Mixed effects included a variable for time point (baseline/90 days), indicator for study arm, a study arm by time point interaction and subject random intercept."||6.85|0.14|0.974
91873687|NCT04239911|183640846|EQUIVALENCE|A p\< 0.05 considered the threshold for statistical significance|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|7.72|||Regression, Logistic||The comparison group is enhanced usual care arm|"Outcome measures workers' intentions of searching for a new job. Responses included 7-point likert scale of very strongly disagree-very strongly agree. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare outcome between and within study arm. Mixed effects included a variable for time point (baseline/90 days), indicator for study arm, a study arm by time point interaction and subject random intercept."||7.72|0.08|0.846
91705103|NCT05821296|183304726|OTHER|If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25315.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49884.67||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.008
91873688|NCT04239911|183640849|EQUIVALENCE|A p\<0.05 was considered the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.94|||Regression, Logistic||The comparison group is enhanced usual care arm|"Preventable 911 calls if had been able to reach the doctor. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. all other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare trajectory of all outcomes between and within study arms. Mixed effects included a fixed effects categorical variable for time point (baseline/90days), and indicator for study arm (enhanced usual care/intervention), a study arm by time point interaction and subject specific random intercept."||0.94|0.03|0.043
91705104|NCT05821296|183304726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13287.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39615.92||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.071
91705105|NCT05821296|183304727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7518.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13340.45||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.003
91738822|NCT01109108|183369876|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91738823|NCT03420742|183369889|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.741|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.915|||||The ratios of geometric mean were calculated on the basis of the within-participant variance. Participant was treated as a random effect in the model.|||0.915|0.600|
91738824|NCT03420742|183369890|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.836|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.662|1.06|||||The ratios of geometric mean were calculated on the basis of the within-participant variance. Participant was treated as a random effect in the model.|||1.06|0.662|
91738825|NCT00570323|183369933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6202
91738826|NCT03856359|183369937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91738827|NCT03856359|183369939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91873689|NCT04239911|183640849|EQUIVALENCE|A p\<0.05 considered the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.58|||Regression, Logistic|||"Preventable 911 calls if had been able to reach the nurse/supervisor. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare trajectory of all outcomes between and within study arms. Mixed effects included a fixed effects categorical variable for time point (baseline/90days), and indicator for study arm (enhanced usual care/intervention), a study arm by time point interaction and subject specific random intercept."||4.58|0.22|0.99
91873690|NCT02137785|183640850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis uses observed data only. Missing data was not imputed except for subjects with missing CCR are classified as not having a CCR (ie non-responder).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by analysis center||A hierarchical procedure was used to control the level of significance. If the primary analysis was sig (p≤0.05), then AKCR at Week 12 were to be compared. If this analysis was significant, then the AKCR at Week 8 were to be compared. If this analysis was significant, then the CCR at Week 8 was to be compared.||||0.0001
91738828|NCT03856359|183369941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91738829|NCT03856359|183369943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91738830|NCT03856359|183369944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91738831|NCT03856359|183369945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91738832|NCT03856359|183369946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91738833|NCT03856359|183369947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
91738834|NCT03856359|183369948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91738835|NCT03856359|183369949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91738836|NCT03856359|183369950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91798981|NCT02963935|183475818|OTHER|The hypothetical estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) for all randomised subjects assuming that all subjects remained on trial product (on-treatment principle)|Treatment difference|-4.59||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|-2.64|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug data before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||-2.64|-6.54|0.0000
91873691|NCT02137785|183640851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, time point, and treatment group by time point interaction||||||<0.0001
91738837|NCT03856359|183369951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91738838|NCT03856359|183369952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91738839|NCT03856359|183369953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91738840|NCT03856359|183369954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91738841|NCT03856359|183369955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91738842|NCT02266147|183369958|OTHER|MTD was not observed because no DLTs occurred at the maximum dose tested. Because this is a safety endpoint, a statistical analysis was not conducted.||||||||||||||||MTD was not observed because no DLTs occurred at the maximum dose tested. Because this is a safety endpoint, a statistical analysis was not conducted.|MTD was not observed because no DLTs occurred at the maximum dose tested. Because this is a safety endpoint, a statistical analysis was not conducted.|||
91738843|NCT02347605|183369964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Adjusted for treatment order, session, room sequence|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91738844|NCT02347605|183369965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Adjusted for treatment order, session, room sequence|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
91738845|NCT03937479|183369980|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03691||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0517|0.1968||The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1968|0.0517|0.0008
91738846|NCT03937479|183369980|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03703||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0344|0.18||The MMRM model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1800|0.0344|0.0040
91738847|NCT03937479|183369980|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03723||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.1643||The MMRM model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1643|0.0180|0.0148
91738848|NCT03937479|183369980|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0775|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03697||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0048|0.1501||The MMRM model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1501|0.0048|0.0368
91705106|NCT05821296|183304727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7230.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17547.6||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.041
91705107|NCT05821296|183304727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9086.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18306.64||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.007
91705108|NCT05821296|183304727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14542.17||0.931|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.931
91705109|NCT05821296|183304728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.005
91705110|NCT05821296|183304728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.035
91705111|NCT05821296|183304728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.036
91738849|NCT00532844|183370039|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8||The model will constitute the independent variables of treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. The dependent variable plasma BH4 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) expressed in log transformation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine if administration of saproprterin dihydrochloride administered with Vitamin C results in higher plasma BH4 concentrations when compared with administration of sapropterin dihydrochloride alone in subjects with endothelial dysfunction. The difference in the plasma BH4 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) between the 2 regimens will be compared using a mixed model with a 0.05 level of significance. The difference is represented as the geometric mean ratio.||1.8|1.2|<0.001
91873692|NCT02137785|183640852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, time point, and treatment group by time point interaction||||||<0.0001
91873693|NCT02137785|183640853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis uses observed data only. Missing data was not imputed except for subjects with missing CCR are classified as not having a CCR (ie non-responder).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by analysis center||||||0.0001
91738850|NCT00532844|183370040|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||The model will constitute the independent variables of treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. The dependent variable plasma BH2 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) expressed in log transformation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine if administration of saproprterin dihydrochloride administered with Vitamin C results in higher plasma BH2 when compared with administration of sapropterin dihydrochloride alone in subjects with endothelial dysfunction. The difference in the plasma BH2 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) between the 2 regimens will be compared using a mixed model with a 0.05 level of significance. The difference is represented as the geometric mean ratio.||1.0|0.7|0.139
91760073|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.44||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.29|
91873694|NCT03345407|183640913|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.103|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.103|-0.143|
91873695|NCT03345407|183640913|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.027|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.036|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 50 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.036|-0.098|
91873696|NCT03345407|183640913|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.028|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 100 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.028|-0.102|
91705112|NCT05821296|183304728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.784
91705113|NCT05821296|183304729|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2249.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4466.14||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.011
91705114|NCT05821296|183304729|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2315.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6197.86||0.074|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.074
91873697|NCT03345407|183640913|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.071|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 250 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.071|-0.064|
91873698|NCT03345407|183640913|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.061|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 500 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.061|-0.075|
91738851|NCT00532844|183370040|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.11||The model will constitute independent variables of treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. The dependent variable Total B concentration (AUC0-12 hr) expressed in log transformation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine if administration of saproprterin dihydrochloride administered with Vitamin C results in Total B (biopterin) when compared with administration of sapropterin dihydrochloride alone in subjects with endothelial dysfunction. The difference in the Total B (biopterin) concentration (AUC0-12 hr) between the 2 regimens will be compared using a mixed model with a 0.05 level of significance. The difference is represented as the geometric mean ratio.||1.11|0.83|0.570
91738852|NCT00532844|183370043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||ANCOVA|The model will have the treatments and the baseline measurement as independent variables and measurement at Day 13 as the dependent variable.||The raw value of PAT obtained from the first period (baseline to Day 13) will be used to compare the two treatments.||||0.593
91738853|NCT00251693|183370061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 60 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|6.33||||0.004||95.0|2.17|10.48||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.48|2.17|0.004
91738854|NCT00251693|183370061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 90 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|6.84||||0.001||95.0|2.7|10.98||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.98|2.70|0.001
91738855|NCT00251693|183370061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.727
91738856|NCT00251693|183370062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
91738857|NCT00251693|183370062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.045
91738858|NCT00251693|183370062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.245
91738859|NCT00251693|183370063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.011
91738860|NCT00251693|183370063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.017
91738861|NCT00251693|183370063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.927
91738862|NCT00251693|183370064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|6.2||||0.06||95.0|2.3|10.11||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||10.11|2.30|0.060
91738863|NCT00251693|183370064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|6.08||||0.029||95.0|2.16|10.0||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||10.00|2.16|0.029
91873699|NCT03345407|183640913|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.042|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 750 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.042|-0.051|
91873700|NCT03345407|183640914|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 50 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.40|0.60|
91738864|NCT00251693|183370064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.707||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.707
91738865|NCT00251693|183370065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.705
91873701|NCT03345407|183640914|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.35|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 100 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.35|0.57|
91873702|NCT03345407|183640914|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.5|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 250 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.50|0.65|
91873703|NCT03345407|183640914|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.02|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 500 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.02|0.37|
91873704|NCT03345407|183640914|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.52|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 750 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.52|0.85|
91873705|NCT03345407|183640915|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|1.103|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.103|0.054|
91873706|NCT03345407|183640915|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.5|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 50 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.500|0.580|
91705115|NCT05821296|183304729|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2700.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5962.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.007
91705116|NCT05821296|183304729|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|430.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5021.2||0.779|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.779
91705117|NCT05821296|183304730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-75800.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|142643.92||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.003
91705118|NCT05821296|183304730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73517.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|197224.85||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.054
91705119|NCT05821296|183304730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-90424.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|198264.2||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.008
91705120|NCT05821296|183304730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1314.03||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.779
91873707|NCT03345407|183640915|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|1.467|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 100 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.467|0.581|
91873708|NCT03345407|183640915|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.709|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 250 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.709|0.682|
91705121|NCT01217385|183304731|EQUIVALENCE|under the NULL, it is assume that there is no difference between a 40% decrease in TOI, and a less than 40% decrease or an increase in TOI in their ability to predict pCR+|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.667||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|23.04||5% alpha threshold for significance.|Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis will look at the ability of the % change in DOSI measured tumor Optical Index (TOI) from baseline to mid-therapy to predict pathologic response using logistic regression.~Pathologic response (dichotomized into responders and non-responders) will be used as the reference standard and %change in TOI ratio (dichotomized at -40%) will be used to estimate pCR (+/-)= alpha + beta1(%change TOI)"||23.04|0.95|0.059
91738866|NCT00251693|183370065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.146
91738867|NCT00251693|183370065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.283
91738868|NCT00251693|183370066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.896
91873709|NCT03345407|183640915|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.902|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 500 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||0.902|0.268|
91873710|NCT03345407|183640915|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.539|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 750 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.539|0.800|
91873711|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.30|0.21|
91873712|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.17|0.76|
91873713|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.61|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.61|0.54|
91873714|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.49|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.49|0.50|
91873715|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.25|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.25|0.38|
91738869|NCT00251693|183370066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.241
91738870|NCT00251693|183370066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.211
91738871|NCT04005586|183370067|OTHER|The comparison was made by descriptive statistics.||||||||||||||||Two different historical controls implanted under NCT01496066 were used.|The LAL treatment group had a mean MRCYL of -0.14 (+/- 0.21D) compared to -0.33 (+/- 0.29D) and -0.40 (+/- 0.36D) for the LAL historical control group and the monofocal IOL historical control group in NCT01496066 respectively.|||
91738872|NCT04005586|183370068|OTHER|The comparison was made by descriptive statistics.||||||||||||||||Two different historical controls implanted under NCT01496066 were used.|The LAL treatment group MRCYL change from baseline was 0.36 (+/- 0.21D) compared to 0.17 (+/- 0.29D) and 0.10 (+/- 0.36D) for the LAL historical control group and the monofocal IOL historical control group in NCT01496066, respectively.|||
91738873|NCT02031302|183370082|OTHER|One-sided Clopper-Pearson 98.699% upper bound|||||<|0.0001||||||The proportion of patients who experience an event through 30 days post-procedure out of the patients who have either had an event within 30 days post-procedure or who were event-free with last follow-up at least 23 days post-procedure.|Chi-squared|||Note: the 95% CI is from Clopper-Pearson Exact Method. The analysis was only done for the Lotus valve arm as the Lotus with Depth Guard arm has not sufficient power for this statistical analysis.|One-sided Clopper-Pearson 98.699% upper bound: 4.11% Performance goal is 14%|||<.0001
91738874|NCT01847443|183370090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.107|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.147|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in AUC(0-t)||1.147|1.070|
91738875|NCT01847443|183370095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.098|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.061|1.137|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in AUC(0-t)||1.137|1.061|
91738876|NCT01847443|183370096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.002|1.089|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in Cmax||1.089|1.002|
91738877|NCT01847443|183370097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.028|1.116|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in Cmax||1.116|1.028|
91738878|NCT04067492|183370098|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.63||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|53.05||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||53.05|4.21|0.1331
91873716|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.63|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.63|0.77|
91873717|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.69|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.69|0.36|
91873718|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.33|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.33|0.82|
91873719|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.79|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.79|0.67|
91873720|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.74|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.74|0.63|
91873721|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.88|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.88|0.28|
91873722|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.49|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.49|0.72|
91798982|NCT02963935|183475819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|4.14|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach.||4.14|1.53|0.0003
91798983|NCT02963935|183475819|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.61|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||4.61|1.75|0.0000
91798984|NCT02963935|183475820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.14|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x10000) imputation approach.||3.14|1.01|0.0469
91798985|NCT02963935|183475820|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.69|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||3.69|1.24|0.0063
91798986|NCT02963935|183475821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.74|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach.||4.74|1.08|0.0311
91873723|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.17|0.30|
91873724|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.27|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.27|0.84|
91873725|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.78|0.65|
91873726|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.67|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.67|0.62|
91760074|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.38||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.38|-0.35|
91760075|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.08|-0.65|
91760076|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.91||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.91|0.06|
91760077|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.6||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.60|-0.24|
91760078|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.38||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.38|-0.46|
91760079|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.37||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.37|-0.48|
91760080|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.06||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.06|0.15|
91760081|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.63||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.63|-0.28|
91760082|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.42||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-0.49|
91798987|NCT02963935|183475821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|5.62|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||5.62|1.33|0.0060
91798988|NCT02963935|183475822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|5.72|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|"Treatment policy estimand. Week 16 responders were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.~Missing values are considered as non-responders."||5.72|1.93|<0.0001
91798989|NCT02963935|183475823|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-2.72||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.77|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||-0.77|-4.68|0.0063
91798990|NCT02963935|183475823|OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-1.28|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.28|-5.62|0.0020
91798991|NCT02963935|183475824|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.52|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||1.52|-1.19|0.8137
91798992|NCT02963935|183475824|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.8053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.43|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg- placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.43|-1.12|0.8053
91798993|NCT02963935|183475825|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was not tested as part of confirmatory testing strategy.|Treatment difference|0.87||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|5.14|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||5.14|-3.41|0.6916
91798994|NCT02963935|183475825|OTHER||treatment difference|1.25||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|5.45|||Mixed models repeated measurements (MMRM||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||5.45|-2.95|0.5572
91798995|NCT02963935|183475826|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was not tested as part of confirmatory testing strategy.|Treatment difference|3.12||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|18.92|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||18.92|-12.68|0.6986
91798996|NCT02963935|183475826|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.66||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|24.48|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||24.48|-9.15|0.3700
91873727|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.77|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.77|0.26|
91798997|NCT03911154|183475869|OTHER|We used linear mixed effect models (in SAS version 9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, NC) with random subject intercept to account for the clustered nature of the data. The model included factors for stimulus modality (4 levels), sleep restriction night (4 levels), and their interaction.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.403|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number of lapses of attention were averaged across assessments within each day and the statistical analysis adjusted for baseline.||1.060|-0.403|0.36
91798998|NCT03911154|183475869|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.222|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number of lapses of attention upon emergent awakening||0.608|-1.222|0.49
91873728|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.42|0.71|
91873729|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.38|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.38|0.32|
91873730|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.00|0.70|
91873731|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.71|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.71|0.63|
91873732|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.48|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.48|0.55|
91873733|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.87|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.87|0.31|
91798999|NCT03911154|183475870|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.797||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.310|-5.400|0.87
91799000|NCT03911154|183475871|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.767|1.543|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number correct on the DSST was averaged across DSST administrations within each day and was adjusted for baseline performance.||1.543|-1.767|0.89
91799001|NCT03911154|183475872|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.919|0.678|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number correct on the DST was averaged across DST administrations within each day and adjusted for baseline.||0.678|-0.919|0.76
91799002|NCT03911154|183475873|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.456|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mean weighted score on the ROBoT was adjusted for baseline.||0.456|-0.286|0.64
91799003|NCT00543543|183475888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|96.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.9|99.8|||Exact test, 1-sided||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V503 / incidence rate with Gardasil)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of observed efficacy of \>25%.|||99.8|80.9|<0.0001
91799004|NCT00543543|183475889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.9|||Exact test, 1-sided||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V503 / incidence rate with Gardasil)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of observed efficacy of \>25%.|||99.9|85.0|
91873734|NCT03345407|183640918|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.47|0.73|
91873735|NCT03345407|183640919|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|1.765|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.765|0.477|
91873736|NCT03345407|183640919|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.597|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.597|0.840|
91873737|NCT03345407|183640919|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.432|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.432|0.734|
91906871|NCT00597753|183709039|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.01|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two group evaluation of non-inferiority using the t-distribution (one-sided significance level 0.025) with a non inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL. A sample size of approximately 750 (peginesatide group of 500 and epoetin alfa group of 250) provided at least 99% power for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||-0.01|-0.30|
91906872|NCT00597753|183709040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.92|0.76|
91799005|NCT00543543|183475890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 6||1.06|0.99|<0.001
91799006|NCT00543543|183475890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided CI of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.83|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 11||0.83|0.77|<0.001
91873738|NCT03345407|183640919|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.413|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.413|0.719|
91873739|NCT03345407|183640919|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.751|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.057|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.057|0.487|
91873740|NCT03345407|183640919|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.426|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.426|0.899|
91873741|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.7|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.70|0.35|
91799007|NCT00543543|183475890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided CI of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 16||1.03|0.96|<0.001
91799008|NCT00543543|183475890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided CI of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.23|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 18||1.23|1.14|<0.001
91799009|NCT00543543|183475897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.6|97.1|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V503 / incidence rate with Gardasil)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of observed efficacy of \>25%.|||97.1|94.6|
91873742|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.77|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.77|0.63|
91873743|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.17|0.77|
91906873|NCT00597753|183709041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.97|0.79|
91873744|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.00|0.71|
91873745|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.75|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.75|0.61|
91873746|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.99|0.46|
91738879|NCT04067492|183370098|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|26.5||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||26.50|-30.60|0.1331
91738880|NCT04067492|183370098|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|46.08||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||46.08|-12.67|0.1331
91738881|NCT04067492|183370098|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|31.33||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\]|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||31.33|-25.10|0.1331
91738882|NCT04067492|183370098|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|36.14||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||36.14|-24.22|0.1331
91738883|NCT04067492|183370105|OTHER|||||||0.5995|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5995
91738884|NCT04067492|183370105|OTHER|||||||0.9012|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9012
91738885|NCT04067492|183370107|OTHER||difference in proportions|63.5||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|88.6|||Fisher Exact|||||88.6|19.9|0.0066
91738886|NCT04067492|183370107|OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.6|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|45.5|||Fisher Exact|||||45.5|-50.1|>0.9999
91738887|NCT04067492|183370107|OTHER||difference in proportions|27.8||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|71.8|||Fisher Exact|||||71.8|-26.8|0.3287
91738888|NCT04067492|183370107|OTHER||difference in proportions|27.8||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|71.8|||Fisher Exact|||||71.8|-26.8|0.3287
91738889|NCT04067492|183370107|OTHER||difference in proportions|17.8||||0.5804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|67.8|||Fisher Exact|||||67.8|-33.7|0.5804
91738890|NCT00956384|183370131|SUPERIORITY|A minimally clinically important difference of 4 as statistically significant at the 0.05 level (two-sided), with a power equal to 0.85.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|5.19||Threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||For the comparison of mean BREAST-Q subdomain score at each timepoint, Mann-Whitney U test was used for skewed data, while independent t-test was used for not skewed data. We investigated the possibly variable effects of the treatment group differences across multiple time-points, namely 2 weeks after mastectomy, at 6 months and at 12 months following the reconstruction procedure. A linear regression model was used to account for the correlation between the three time-points within each patient||5.19|-10.57|0.05
91738891|NCT00956384|183370132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We assessed the effect of the surgical method on the occurrences of any complications versus none via logistic regression, and results were expressed as odds ratios with 95% CIs.||||<0.05
91873747|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.41|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.41|0.20|
91906874|NCT03080883|183709042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.37|||Gray Test P-value|||||1.37|0.38|0.3117
91799010|NCT04502979|183475909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.73||One-sided p-value for directional hypothesis. The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|-0.11|0.07
91799011|NCT04502979|183475910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-121.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.73||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.73|10.41||One-sided p-value for directional hypothesis. The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.41|-252.73|0.04
91799012|NCT01881373|183475911|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical logistic model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|-0.47|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical model.|Intervention vs control communities comparing 24 months to baseline|||-0.47|-7.29|0.02
91799013|NCT01881373|183475911|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|3.32||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||3.32|-8.58|0.28
91799014|NCT01881373|183475912|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.41||Intervention vs control communities comparing 78 months to baseline.|Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||-0.41|-2.87|0.009
91799015|NCT01881373|183475912|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical logistic model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.35||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|17.24|||Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs temporal comparing 78 months to baseline.||17.24|-8.5|0.49
91799016|NCT01881373|183475913|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical logistic model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Difference in prevalence|-3.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical model||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||<0.01
91799017|NCT01881373|183475914|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|change in prevalence between communities|-12.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|-4.28||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Intervention vs. control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||-4.28|-20.92|0.003
91799018|NCT01881373|183475914|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|3.5||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs. Temporal communities. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||3.50|-10.36|0.33
91799019|NCT01881373|183475915|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.05||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||-0.05|-1.37|0.02
91873748|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.46|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.46|0.84|
91873749|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.48|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.48|0.53|
91873750|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.16|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.16|0.74|
91873751|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.17|0.43|
91873752|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.27|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.27|0.63|
91873753|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.20|0.16|
91799020|NCT01881373|183475915|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.49||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||0.49|-1.79|0.13
91799021|NCT01881373|183475916|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.86
91873754|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.56|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.56|0.79|
91873755|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.30|0.46|
91873756|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.86|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.86|0.62|
91873757|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.02|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.02|0.36|
91873758|NCT03345407|183640921|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.17|0.57|
91906875|NCT03080883|183709043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.53|||Gray Test P-value|||||2.53|0.40|0.9970
91738892|NCT01147302|183370135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|8.89||||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|42.42||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of C4d score||42.42|-24.65|0.6498
91738893|NCT01147302|183370135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|18.56||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|35.68||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of margination score||35.68|1.43|0.0768
91738894|NCT01147302|183370135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-4.0||||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.36|13.36||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of glomerulitis score||13.36|-21.36|0.6928
91738895|NCT01147302|183370135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|7.11||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|12.99||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of vasculitis score||12.99|1.23|0.0508
91738896|NCT01147302|183370135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-4.89||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|1.56||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of glomerulosclerosis score||1.56|-11.34|0.2042
91738897|NCT01147302|183370135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.22||||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.17||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of chronic glomerulopathy score||0.17|-0.61|0.3322
91738898|NCT01147302|183370135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|5.67||||0.4723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|9.11||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of interstitial fibrosis score||9.11|-7.77|0.4723
91738899|NCT01147302|183370135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|4.56||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|16.37||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of chronic vasculitis score||16.37|-7.25|0.5103
91738900|NCT01147302|183370136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.08||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.51||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 20||0.51|-0.35|0.7591
91738901|NCT01147302|183370136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.01||||0.9533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.41||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 90||0.41|-0.44|0.9533
91738902|NCT01147302|183370137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|1.45||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|22.24||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 20||22.24|-19.34|0.9046
91738903|NCT01147302|183370137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|4.68||||0.5895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|19.55||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 90||19.55|-10.19|0.5895
91738904|NCT01147302|183370138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|1.56||||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|5.11||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 1 through Day 20||5.11|-2.00|0.4558
91738905|NCT01147302|183370138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.24||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.05|6.52||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 1 through Day 90||6.52|-6.05|0.9470
91873759|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||5.2|-0.5|
91873760|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.3|-0.8|
91873761|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.4|-0.8|
91873762|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.2|-2.0|
91873763|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjacent median difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.3|0.0|
91873764|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-1.1|
91873765|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||5.4|-0.5|
91873766|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.4|-0.9|
91738906|NCT05076045|183370183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Results of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in percentage of correct answers between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||0.03
91738907|NCT05076045|183370184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in reaction time between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||0.28
91799022|NCT01881373|183475917|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.68
91873767|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.4|-1.9|
91873768|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.0|-2.3|
91873769|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.2|-1.2|
91873770|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.0|-1.4|
91873771|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||5.1|-1.4|
91873772|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.8|-0.7|
91873773|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjsted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-2.3|
91873774|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.7|-1.9|
91873775|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.8|-0.9|
91873776|NCT03345407|183640922|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.7|-0.8|
91873777|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.41|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.41|0.03|
91873778|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.47|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.47|0.42|
91873779|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.24|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.24|0.69|
91738908|NCT05076045|183370185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in Quick Speech In Noise score between PSAPs and Control. The performance of the QuickSIN for the two sessions (PSAPs, Control) was compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test on paired samples.||||0.005
91738909|NCT05076045|183370186|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Result of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in alpha power between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||1.00
91738910|NCT05076045|183370187|SUPERIORITY|This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Result of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in alpha power between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||1.00
91738911|NCT05076045|183370188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Result of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in alpha power between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||0.36
91738912|NCT05076045|183370189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Cumulative link mixed model|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in listening effort between PSAPs and Control. The listening effort score was analyzed using a cumulative link mixed model. A logit link function with flexible thresholds was used. The model included Session (PSAPs, Control) and Block (1, 2, 3) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||<0.001
91738913|NCT00038948|183370201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference|-2.68||||0.575||95.0|-12.27|6.91||Analysis of covariance p-value|ANCOVA||Data was adjusted for baseline and center.|Baseline GFR of 20.0 to 40.0 mL/min||6.91|-12.27|0.575
91738914|NCT00038948|183370201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference|1.31||||0.278||95.0|-1.06|3.69||Analysis of covariance p-value|ANCOVA||Data was adjusted for baseline and center.|Baseline GFR of \>40.0 mL/min||3.69|-1.06|0.278
91738915|NCT00038948|183370202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||||||Tests the equality of rates between treatments across strata at 52 weeks.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||52 weeks statistical analysis across strata||||0.135
91738916|NCT00038948|183370202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Tests the equality of rates between treatments across strata at 104 weeks.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||104 weeks statistical analysis across strata||||0.559
91738917|NCT05270863|183370203|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<.001
91738918|NCT03531814|183370218|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 1-4.|ANOVA|||||||0.006
91738919|NCT03531814|183370218|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 5-8.|ANOVA|||||||0.021
91799023|NCT01881373|183475918|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.55
91738920|NCT03531814|183370218|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 9-12.|ANOVA|||||||.034
91738921|NCT03531814|183370218|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 13-18.|ANOVA|||||||.040
91738922|NCT03531814|183370219|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.21||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|0.463||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.463|-0.729|0.536
91738923|NCT03531814|183370219|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.134||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|0.715||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.715|-0.557|.713
91738924|NCT03531814|183370219|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.095||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|0.761||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.761|-0.668|.823
91738925|NCT03531814|183370219|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.333||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.848||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.848|-0.505|.420
91873780|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.91|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.91|0.95|
91873781|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.08|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.08|0.61|
91873782|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.40|0.60|
91738926|NCT03531814|183370220|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.333||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|0.352||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.352|-0.785|0.317
91738927|NCT03531814|183370220|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.309||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.794|0.416||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.416|-0.794|.385
91738928|NCT03531814|183370220|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.259||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|0.563||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.563|-0.824|.535
91738929|NCT03531814|183370220|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.222||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|0.589||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.589|-0.811|.597
91738930|NCT03531814|183370221|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.215||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|0.459||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.459|-0.731|0.526
91738931|NCT03531814|183370221|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.049||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.67||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.670|-0.613|.894
91738932|NCT03531814|183370221|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.048||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.694||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.694|-0.740|.911
91738933|NCT03531814|183370221|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.167||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.626||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.626|-0.790|.693
91738934|NCT03531814|183370222|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.607||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.889|0.009||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.009|-0.889|0.048
91738935|NCT03531814|183370222|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.658||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|-0.027||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.027|-0.914|0.038
91738936|NCT03531814|183370222|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.708||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|0.02||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.020|-0.945|0.50
91738937|NCT03531814|183370222|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.878||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.979|-0.435||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.435|-0.979|0.004
91738938|NCT03531814|183370223|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.293||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.768||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.768|-0.390|0.382
91738939|NCT03531814|183370223|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.278||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.781||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.781|-0.444|0.436
91738940|NCT03531814|183370223|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.229||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.585|0.813||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.813|-0.585|0.586
91738941|NCT03531814|183370223|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.53||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.904||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.904|-0.302|0.177
91738942|NCT03531814|183370225|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.576||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.879|0.056||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.056|-0.879|0.063
91738943|NCT03531814|183370225|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.68||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.066||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.066|-0.920|0.031
91738944|NCT03531814|183370225|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.835||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|-0.292||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.292|-0.971|0.010
91873783|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.16|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.16|0.14|
91873784|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.98|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.98|0.74|
91738945|NCT03531814|183370225|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.933|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.989|-0.652||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.652|-0.989|<0.001
91738946|NCT03531814|183370226|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.035||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|0.591||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation|||||0.591|-0.634|0.919
91738947|NCT03531814|183370226|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.227||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|0.759||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation|||||0.759|-0.487|0.528
91738948|NCT03531814|183370226|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.179||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|0.794||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation|||||0.794|-0.618|0.672
91738949|NCT03531814|183370226|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.041||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|0.737||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation|||||0.737|-0.697|0.923
91738950|NCT03531814|183370227|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.638||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.899|-0.041||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation|||||-0.041|-0.899|0.035
91906876|NCT04342871|183709053|OTHER|Pre-post comparison from baseline to 2-weeks post-intervention||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
91873785|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.97|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.97|0.73|
91738951|NCT03531814|183370227|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.361||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.815|0.367||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation|||||0.367|-0.815|0.306
91738952|NCT03531814|183370227|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.407||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.438||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation|||||0.438|-0.870|0.317
91738953|NCT03531814|183370227|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|0.0617||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation|||||0.0617|-0.795|0.670
91738954|NCT01415583|183370244|NON_INFERIORITY|Consistent with the noninferiority design, the null hypothesis states that the bleeding rate in patients receiving perioperative dexamethasone differed from the bleeding rate in patients receiving perioperative placebo; the alternative hypothesis states that the bleeding rate with dexamethasone is not greater than placebo by more than the noninferiority margin.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91738955|NCT01415583|183370244|NON_INFERIORITY|This noninferiority margin was set at 5%, meaning a difference in bleeding rates that did not exceed 5% would be taken as evidence that the bleeding with dexamethasone is not greater than that with placebo by more than 5%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91738956|NCT04472650|183370250|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|87.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.273|98.111||||||Sitravatinib Malate Salt Capsule (Test) vs. Sitravatinib Free Base Capsule (Reference). Analysis based on Relative Bioavailability Analysis Set, defined as the subset of participants in the PK Parameters Analysis Set who had at least 1 primary PK parameter (AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax of sitravatinib) in both periods.||98.111|78.273|
91738957|NCT04472650|183370251|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.12|98.01||||||Sitravatinib Malate Salt Capsule (Test) vs. Sitravatinib Free Base Capsule (Reference). Analysis based on Relative Bioavailability Analysis Set, defined as the subset of participants in the PK Parameters Analysis Set who had at least 1 primary PK parameter (AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax of sitravatinib) in both periods.||98.01|78.12|
91738958|NCT04472650|183370252|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|88.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.41|101.87||||||Sitravatinib Malate Salt Capsule (Test) vs. Sitravatinib Free Base Capsule (Reference). Analysis based on Relative Bioavailability Analysis Set, defined as the subset of participants in the PK Parameters Analysis Set who had at least 1 primary PK parameter (AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax of sitravatinib) in both periods.||101.87|77.41|
91738959|NCT01861665|183370258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8379||||||Pre Incision vs. Post Incision on Post op day 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8379
91738960|NCT01861665|183370258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7263||||||Pre incision vs. Post incision post op day 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7263
91873786|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.27|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.27|0.83|
91873787|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.62|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.62|0.57|
91873788|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.50|0.75|
91906877|NCT01417195|183709071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin for the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in fertilization rate was below -12%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.5|||||"Mean difference = Menopur/Bravelle - Menopur.~95% CI is based on Student's t-distribution, assuming equal variances."|||11.5|-4.3|
91738961|NCT01861665|183370258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Pre incision vs. Post incision day 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91738962|NCT03247829|183370259|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparative p-values were calculated by two-sided t-tests (paired analysis).||||||0.001
91738963|NCT03247829|183370260|OTHER|||||||0.0931|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0931
91738964|NCT01783444|183370268|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.97||||||||0.97|0.57|
91738965|NCT01783444|183370269|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.66||||||||1.66|0.96|
91738966|NCT01783444|183370270|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.7||||||||1.70|0.95|
91738967|NCT01783444|183370270|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.79||||||||1.79|0.99|
91738968|NCT01783444|183370273|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.66||||||||1.66|0.72|
91738969|NCT01783444|183370273|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.77||||||||1.77|0.78|
91738970|NCT01783444|183370274|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.88||||||||0.88|0.46|
91738971|NCT01783444|183370274|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.91||||||||1.91|0.93|
91738972|NCT01783444|183370275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|11.9||||||Side-effects||11.9|-3.3|
91738973|NCT01783444|183370275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|5.5||||||Side-effects||5.5|-9.9|
91738974|NCT01783444|183370275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|3.8||||||Effectiveness||3.8|-10.4|
91738975|NCT01783444|183370275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|3.0||||||Effectiveness||3.0|-9.7|
91738976|NCT01783444|183370275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|2.5||||||Convenience||2.5|-5.8|
91799024|NCT01881373|183475919|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.11
91799025|NCT01881373|183475920|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||mixed model adjusting for age and sex and cluster of community and strata of jurisdiction; intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline||||0.08
91799026|NCT01881373|183475921|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.71
91799027|NCT01881373|183475922|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.54
91799028|NCT01881373|183475923|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.90
91873789|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.39|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.39|0.17|
91873790|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.01|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.01|0.72|
91873791|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.79|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.79|0.64|
91873792|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.14|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.14|0.75|
91873793|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.45|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.45|0.53|
91906878|NCT02634151|183709093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.05||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|-3.29|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.||-3.29|-18.81|0.0057
91738977|NCT01783444|183370275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|3.3||||||Convenience||3.3|-5.5|
91738978|NCT01783444|183370275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|2.9||||||Global Satisfaction||2.9|-8.3|
91738979|NCT01783444|183370275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|1.9||||||Global Satisfaction||1.9|-8.4|
91873794|NCT03345407|183640923|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.43|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.43|0.71|
91738980|NCT02722408|183370277|OTHER|||||||0.0041||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0041
91738981|NCT02722408|183370278|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0010
91738982|NCT02722408|183370279|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0012
91738983|NCT02722408|183370280|OTHER|||||||0.056||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0560
91738984|NCT02722408|183370280|OTHER|||||||0.0219||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0219
91738985|NCT02722408|183370280|OTHER|||||||0.0286||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0286
91738986|NCT02722408|183370281|OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0058
91738987|NCT02722408|183370281|OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0019
91799029|NCT01881373|183475924|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.71
91799030|NCT01881373|183475925|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||intervention vs control communities|Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.48
91799031|NCT01881373|183475926|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|differences in prevalence|-3.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical model||intervention vs control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||<0.01
91799032|NCT01881373|183475927|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs Control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.44
91799033|NCT01881373|183475928|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs. Control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.81
91799034|NCT01881373|183475929|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.68
91799035|NCT01881373|183475930|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.69
91799036|NCT01881373|183475931|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Intervention vs. control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.11
91799037|NCT01881373|183475932|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs. control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.40
91799038|NCT01881373|183475933|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.37
91873795|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||8.3|-4.8|
91873796|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.1|-4.0|
91873797|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-6.2|
91873798|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.4|-6.7|
91873799|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.5|-4.0|
91705122|NCT01217385|183304732|EQUIVALENCE|test for the equivalence of %change in TOI ratio (dichotomized at \<=-40%), between PR+ and PR- groups, with interaction|Slope|0.4463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.953||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|||||significance at alpha=0.05|Regression, Logistic|p-value represents the interaction between %TOI (dichotomized at \<=-40%), and PR status|Multivariate logistic regression model using % change in TOI ratio (T/N) (baseline to mid-therapy) dichotomized at -40%, PR status, and the corresponding interaction.|The Null is that the odd ratio is the same in both the PR+ and PR- subjects fro the model including %change in TOI form baseline to mid-therapy (dichotomized at \<=-40%), PR status (+/-) and the interaction between them.||||0.8193
91705123|NCT01217385|183304733|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|250.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||250.15|1.09|0.043
91906879|NCT02634151|183709094|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.35|0.75|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group and baseline diabetes status are included as factors, and the outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||High-Intensity.||0.75|-24.35|0.0648
91705124|NCT01217385|183304733|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|33.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.90|0.24|0.406
91738988|NCT02722408|183370281|OTHER|||||||0.0024||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0024
91738989|NCT02722408|183370282|OTHER|||||||0.0592||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0592
91738990|NCT02722408|183370282|OTHER|||||||0.0266||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0266
91738991|NCT02722408|183370282|OTHER|||||||0.0336||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0336
91738992|NCT02722408|183370283|OTHER|||||||0.0057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0057
91738993|NCT02722408|183370283|OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0017
91738994|NCT02722408|183370283|OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0017
91873800|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.3|-2.7|
91705125|NCT02117713|183304770|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test used to test if mean change is statistically significant; null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.456||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.72|7.54|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 48 values for n= 26|||7.54|-64.72|0.1157
91705126|NCT02117713|183304771|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test used to test if mean change is statistically significant; null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-45.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.934||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.48|19.19|||Student's t-test||||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=10|19.19|-109.48|0.1469
91705127|NCT02117713|183304772|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.353|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7124||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.101|-1.606|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 218 values for n=6|||-1.606|-3.101|0.005
91738995|NCT02722408|183370284|OTHER|||||||0.0057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0057
91738996|NCT02722408|183370284|OTHER|||||||0.0255||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0255
91738997|NCT02722408|183370284|OTHER|||||||0.0312||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 86||||0.0312
91738998|NCT02722408|183370285|OTHER|||||||0.4489||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4489
91738999|NCT02722408|183370285|OTHER|||||||0.5964||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 84||||0.5964
91873801|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||11.0|-2.5|
91799039|NCT01881373|183475933|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model.The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs temporal.The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.51
91799040|NCT01366417|183475935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|2.48|||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will meet or exceed the 1.0 log reduction in colony forming units/cm\^2 at 30 seconds after application.||2.48|1.95|< 0.05
91799041|NCT01366417|183475935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.51|||ANOVA|||hypothesis: 70% Isopropyl Alcohol will meet or exceed 1.0 log 10 colony forming units / cm\^2 at 30 seconds after treatment||2.51|1.99|<0.05
91799042|NCT01366417|183475936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|2.91|||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: ChloraPrep One Step will meet or exceed 2.0 log 10 reduction at 10 minutes after treatment.||2.91|2.39|<0.05
91799043|NCT01366417|183475936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|2.86|||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: 70% Isopropyl Alcohol will meet or exceed 2.0 log 10 reduction at 10 minutes after treatment||2.86|2.33|<0.05
91799044|NCT00165984|183475948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.9|||Regression, Cox|||||13.9|1.7|0.003
91799045|NCT01686828|183475951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||||||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.164
91799046|NCT01686828|183475952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||RM-ANOVA|||Time-by-group interaction for fat mass||||0.003
91873802|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.5|-4.8|
91873803|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-6.3|
91906880|NCT02634151|183709094|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.64||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.77|-0.51|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group and baseline diabetes status are included as factors, and the outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Moderate Intensity.||-0.51|-20.77|0.0398
91739000|NCT02722408|183370285|OTHER|||||||0.6785||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.6785
91739001|NCT02722408|183370286|OTHER|||||||0.2177||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.2177
91739002|NCT02722408|183370286|OTHER|||||||0.3209||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600mg: Day 56||||0.3209
91739003|NCT02722408|183370286|OTHER|||||||0.3101||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900mg: Day 84||||0.3101
91799047|NCT01686828|183475952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Time-by-group interaction for lean mass|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.03
91799048|NCT01686828|183475953|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that short-term testosterone deprivation would not affect lipoprotein lipase expression in adipose tissue. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine if a time-by-group effect was apparent for lipoprotein lipase expression.||||>0.1
91799049|NCT04916769|183475997|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of ajusted geometric means|106.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.76|115.53||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + applesauce 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||115.53|97.76|
91873804|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.4|-7.3|
91873805|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.0|-4.6|
91906881|NCT02634151|183709095|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.09||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|-1.14|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.14|-19.04|0.0275
91739004|NCT02722408|183370287|OTHER|||||||0.0057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0057
91739005|NCT02722408|183370287|OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0022
91873806|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.5|-2.9|
91873807|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||9.4|-4.8|
91906882|NCT02634151|183709095|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-9.4||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4.||0.10|-18.90|0.0524
91739006|NCT02722408|183370287|OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0029
91739007|NCT02722408|183370288|OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.0008
91739008|NCT02722408|183370288|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600mg: Day 56||||0.0005
91739009|NCT02722408|183370288|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900mg: Day 84||||0.0002
91739010|NCT02722408|183370289|OTHER|||||||0.4103||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4103
91739011|NCT02722408|183370289|OTHER|||||||0.6164||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.6164
91739012|NCT02722408|183370289|OTHER|||||||0.6732||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.6732
91739013|NCT02722408|183370290|OTHER|||||||0.2003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.2003
91739014|NCT02722408|183370290|OTHER|||||||0.3323||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600mg: Day 56||||0.3323
91739015|NCT02722408|183370290|OTHER|||||||0.3047||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900mg: Day 84||||0.3047
91739016|NCT02722408|183370291|OTHER|||||||0.3601||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3601
91739017|NCT02722408|183370291|OTHER|||||||0.192||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1920
91739018|NCT02722408|183370291|OTHER|||||||0.2912||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2912
91739019|NCT02722408|183370291|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
91739020|NCT02722408|183370291|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
91739021|NCT02722408|183370291|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
91739022|NCT02722408|183370291|OTHER|||||||0.0444||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0444
91739023|NCT02722408|183370291|OTHER|||||||0.0159||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0159
91739024|NCT02722408|183370291|OTHER|||||||0.0235||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0235
91705128|NCT02117713|183304773|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|56.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|119.32||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|166.4|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||166.4|-54.4|0.2607
91705129|NCT02117713|183304774|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-141.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|216.25||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-341.6|58.4|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||58.4|-341.6|0.1340
91705130|NCT02117713|183304775|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|47.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.68||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|117.6|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||117.6|-22.4|0.1474
91739025|NCT02722408|183370291|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0005
91739026|NCT02722408|183370291|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
91739027|NCT02722408|183370291|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
91739028|NCT02722408|183370292|OTHER|||||||0.3646||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3646
91739029|NCT02722408|183370292|OTHER|||||||0.1994||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1994
91739030|NCT02722408|183370292|OTHER|||||||0.2858||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2858
91739031|NCT02722408|183370292|OTHER|||||||0.0829||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0829
91739032|NCT02722408|183370292|OTHER|||||||0.0492||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0492
91705131|NCT02117713|183304776|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||0.5|-0.5|1.00
91739033|NCT02722408|183370292|OTHER|||||||0.0442||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0442
91739034|NCT02722408|183370292|OTHER|||||||0.736||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.7360
91739035|NCT02722408|183370292|OTHER|||||||0.6917||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.6917
91739036|NCT02722408|183370292|OTHER|||||||0.7131||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.7131
91739037|NCT02722408|183370292|OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0014
91739038|NCT02722408|183370292|OTHER|||||||0.0009||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0009
91739039|NCT02722408|183370292|OTHER|||||||0.0007||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0007
91739040|NCT02722408|183370293|OTHER|||||||0.388||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3880
91906883|NCT02634151|183709095|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.89||||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|10.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||10.90|-9.12|0.8602
91873808|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.6|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.6|-4.1|
91739041|NCT02722408|183370293|OTHER|||||||0.2057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2057
91739042|NCT02722408|183370293|OTHER|||||||0.2892||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2892
91739043|NCT02722408|183370293|OTHER|||||||0.0052||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0052
91739044|NCT02722408|183370293|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.0028
91739045|NCT02722408|183370293|OTHER|||||||0.0026||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.0026
91739046|NCT02722408|183370293|OTHER|||||||0.0493||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0493
91739047|NCT02722408|183370293|OTHER|||||||0.0253||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0253
91739048|NCT02722408|183370293|OTHER|||||||0.0394||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0394
91739049|NCT02722408|183370293|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
91739050|NCT02722408|183370293|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
91739051|NCT02722408|183370293|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
91739052|NCT02722408|183370294|OTHER|||||||0.3833||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3833
91739053|NCT02722408|183370294|OTHER|||||||0.2172||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2172
91739054|NCT02722408|183370294|OTHER|||||||0.293||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2930
91739055|NCT02722408|183370294|OTHER|||||||0.1217||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1217
91739056|NCT02722408|183370294|OTHER|||||||0.0901||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0901
91739057|NCT02722408|183370294|OTHER|||||||0.085||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0850
91739058|NCT02722408|183370294|OTHER|||||||0.0747||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0747
91739059|NCT02722408|183370294|OTHER|||||||0.0279||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0279
91873809|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.8|-6.1|
91873810|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.3|-5.7|
91739060|NCT02722408|183370294|OTHER|||||||0.0492||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0492
91873811|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.8|-4.5|
91873812|NCT03345407|183640924|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||4.0|-1.7|
91705132|NCT02117713|183304777|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test used to test if mean change is statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||-0.4|-3|0.0167
91705133|NCT02117713|183304778|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|10.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|245.92||0.9108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.6|238.3|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||238.3|-216.6|0.9108
91705134|NCT02117713|183304779|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant(null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1207|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.882||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.45|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||0.45|-3.03|0.1207
91705135|NCT02117713|183304780|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.943|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2488||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|0.212|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||0.212|-2.098|0.0927
91705136|NCT00672841|183304781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|100.0||||||95.0|||||Sensitivity %||Sensitivity \[1\] = (True positives \[n=6\]/ True positives + False negatives \[n=6\])|Clinical sensitivity of the BDG test was calculated for both study groups combined||||
91705137|NCT00672841|183304781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|50.0||||||95.0|||||% Specificity||Specificity \[0.50\]= True negatives \[n=28\]/ True negatives + False positives \[56\])|Clinical specificity of the BDG test was calculated for the study groups combined||||
91705138|NCT00672841|183304783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|100.0||||||95.0|||||Sensitivity||Sensitivity = (true positives \[n=6\]/true positives + false negative \[n=6\])|The clinic sensitivity of the BDG test was calculated for both study groups combined||||
91705139|NCT00672841|183304783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|52.0||||||95.0|||||Specificity||Specificity \[0.52\]= (True negatives \[n=30\]/True negatives + false positives \[n=58\])|The clinical specificity of the BDG test was calculated for both study groups combined||||
91705140|NCT03578146|183304785|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-73.14||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0121
91705141|NCT03578146|183304785|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-153.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91705142|NCT03578146|183304785|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-189.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91705143|NCT03578146|183304785|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-239.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91705144|NCT03578146|183304785|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-231.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91705145|NCT03578146|183304786|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|52837.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91705146|NCT03578146|183304786|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|110388.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91705147|NCT03578146|183304786|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|163880.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91705148|NCT03578146|183304786|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|263236.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91705149|NCT03578146|183304786|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|270297.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91705150|NCT03578146|183304787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-9.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91705151|NCT03578146|183304787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-15.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91705152|NCT03578146|183304787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-17.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91705153|NCT03578146|183304787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-17.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91705154|NCT03578146|183304787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-19.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91705155|NCT02503254|183304817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Reduction|82.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.79|86.09||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at a two-sided alpha level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC, respectively."||86.09|78.79|<.001
91873813|NCT01584648|183640939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91|||||Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.91|0.59|
91873814|NCT01584648|183640940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||||Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Pike estimator.|||1.02|0.64|
91873815|NCT00065611|183640947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9074||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9074
91873816|NCT00065611|183640948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4566||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4566
91873817|NCT00065611|183640949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3792||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.3792
91739061|NCT02722408|183370294|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
91739062|NCT02722408|183370294|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
91739063|NCT02722408|183370294|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
91739064|NCT02722408|183370295|OTHER|||||||0.8972||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.8972
91739065|NCT02722408|183370295|OTHER|||||||0.7867||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7867
91739066|NCT02722408|183370295|OTHER|||||||0.4974||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.4974
91739067|NCT02722408|183370295|OTHER|||||||0.5464||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.5464
91873818|NCT03693989|183640950|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.065
91873819|NCT03693989|183640951|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223
91739068|NCT02722408|183370295|OTHER|||||||0.7668||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.7668
91739069|NCT02722408|183370295|OTHER|||||||0.9276||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.9276
91739070|NCT02722408|183370295|OTHER|||||||0.5821||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.5821
91739071|NCT02722408|183370295|OTHER|||||||0.8881||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.8881
91739072|NCT02722408|183370295|OTHER|||||||0.8525||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.8525
91739073|NCT02722408|183370295|OTHER|||||||0.0112||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0112
91739074|NCT02722408|183370295|OTHER|||||||0.0018||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0018
91739075|NCT02722408|183370295|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH).||||0.0028
91873820|NCT03693989|183640952|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.621|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.621
91873821|NCT03693989|183640953|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.246|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.246
91873822|NCT03693989|183640954|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.497
91873823|NCT03693989|183640955|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91873824|NCT03693989|183640956|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.300
91873825|NCT03693989|183640957|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
91873826|NCT03693989|183640958|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.346|||||||Fisher Exact|||burning eyes comparison||||0.346
91873827|NCT03693989|183640958|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.489|||||||Fisher Exact|||Itching eyes comparison||||0.489
91739076|NCT02722408|183370296|OTHER|||||||0.8985||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.8985
91739077|NCT02722408|183370296|OTHER|||||||0.7664||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7664
91739078|NCT02722408|183370296|OTHER|||||||0.4755||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.4755
91739079|NCT02722408|183370296|OTHER|||||||0.2286||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.2286
91739080|NCT02722408|183370296|OTHER|||||||0.3975||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.3975
91739081|NCT02722408|183370296|OTHER|||||||0.446||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.4460
91739082|NCT02722408|183370296|OTHER|||||||0.9414||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9414
91739083|NCT02722408|183370296|OTHER|||||||0.9735||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9735
91739084|NCT02722408|183370296|OTHER|||||||0.9825||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9825
91739085|NCT02722408|183370296|OTHER|||||||0.442||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.4420
91739086|NCT02722408|183370296|OTHER|||||||0.0378||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0378
91739087|NCT02722408|183370296|OTHER|||||||0.0378||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0378
91739088|NCT02722408|183370297|OTHER|||||||0.2305||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2305
91739089|NCT02722408|183370297|OTHER|||||||0.1836||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1836
91739090|NCT02722408|183370297|OTHER|||||||0.6501||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.6501
91739091|NCT02722408|183370297|OTHER|||||||0.0139||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0139
91739092|NCT02722408|183370297|OTHER|||||||0.0077||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0077
91739093|NCT02722408|183370297|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
91739094|NCT02722408|183370297|OTHER|||||||0.0507||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0507
91873828|NCT03693989|183640958|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||foreign body sensation eyes comparison||||0.497
91873829|NCT03693989|183640958|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||blurred vision comparison||||1.000
91873830|NCT03403153|183640995|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
91873831|NCT03403153|183640996|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
91705156|NCT02503254|183304818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Reduction|63.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.55|67.12||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at a two-sided alpha level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC, respectively"||67.12|59.55|<0.001
91705157|NCT02503254|183304819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Reduction|88.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.46|89.62||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at a two-sided alpha level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC, respectively."||89.62|86.46|<.001
91705158|NCT02503254|183304820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|58.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|66.56||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC respectively."||66.56|49.30|<.001
91705159|NCT01524783|183304834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.35|<0.001
91705160|NCT01524783|183304835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.66|0.259
91705161|NCT01524783|183304838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.50|0.073
91705162|NCT01524783|183304841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.65|0.539
91705163|NCT01625689|183304847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>=|0.498|TWO_SIDED|||||No comparison between the LAIV and placebo groups by type of solicited reaction had a p-value below 0.498.|Fisher Exact|||||||>=0.498
91705164|NCT00824434|183304875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean In-stent Late Loss in WH Lesions|0.17|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.22|||t-test, 1 sided|||The Student t-test was used to compare the outcome to a prespecified performance goal of 0.44 mm based on an historical TAXUS Express workhorse 9-month in-stent late loss (0.41 mm) value plus delta (0.03 mm)||0.22||<0.0001
91705165|NCT00824434|183304876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Post-procedure Incomplete Apposi|5.7|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.6|||One-sided exact binomial test|||A one-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson upper confidence bound was derived and tested to determine if the outcome was less than a prespecified performance goal based on historical XIENCE V/PROMUS post-procedure incomplete apposition data from the SPIRIT III study (34.4%).||11.6||<0.0001
91739095|NCT02722408|183370297|OTHER|||||||0.0118||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0118
91739096|NCT02722408|183370297|OTHER|||||||0.0122||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0122
91739097|NCT02722408|183370297|OTHER|||||||0.0077||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0077
91739098|NCT02722408|183370297|OTHER|||||||0.0317||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0317
91739099|NCT02722408|183370297|OTHER|||||||0.0473||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH).||||0.0473
91873832|NCT03403153|183640997|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
91799050|NCT04916769|183475997|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.97|110.56||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + yogurt 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||110.56|93.97|
91799051|NCT04916769|183475998|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|108.53||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + applesauce 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||108.53|86.37|
91799052|NCT04916769|183475998|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.34|106.61||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + yogurt 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||106.61|85.34|
91873833|NCT03403153|183640998|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
91873834|NCT03403153|183640999|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
91873835|NCT03403153|183641000|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
91873836|NCT03403153|183641001|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
91873837|NCT00113529|183641011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|37.1||||||95.0|21.5|55.1|||||ORR=proportion of subjects with confirmed CR or PR, relative to total subjects who received at least 1 dose of study medication, had a baseline disease assessment, and had the correct histological cancer type.|||55.1|21.5|
91799053|NCT04916769|183475999|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.54|115.68||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + applesauce 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||115.68|97.54|
91873838|NCT00113529|183641017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|82.4||||||95.0|64.9|91.7||||||||91.7|64.9|
91873839|NCT00113529|183641026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.075
91873840|NCT00113529|183641026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.749
91873841|NCT00113529|183641026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.834
91873842|NCT00113529|183641026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||1.000
91873843|NCT00113529|183641026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.332
91873844|NCT00113529|183641027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.473
91873845|NCT00113529|183641027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.286
91873846|NCT00113529|183641027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.277
91873847|NCT00113529|183641027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.956
91873848|NCT00113529|183641027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.278
91873849|NCT00113529|183641028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.275
91873850|NCT00113529|183641028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.227
91873851|NCT00113529|183641028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.029
91873852|NCT00113529|183641028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||1.000
91873853|NCT00113529|183641028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||1.000
91873854|NCT00113529|183641029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.435
91873855|NCT00113529|183641029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.722
91873856|NCT00113529|183641029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.645
91873857|NCT00113529|183641029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.140
91873858|NCT00113529|183641029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.046
91873859|NCT00113529|183641030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
91873860|NCT00113529|183641030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.854
91873861|NCT00113529|183641030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.230
91873862|NCT00113529|183641030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.067
91873863|NCT00113529|183641030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.164
91873864|NCT00113529|183641030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
91873865|NCT00113529|183641031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
91873866|NCT00113529|183641031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.462
91739100|NCT02722408|183370298|OTHER|||||||0.2143||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2143
91739101|NCT02722408|183370298|OTHER|||||||0.1874||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1874
91739102|NCT02722408|183370298|OTHER|||||||0.6731||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.6731
91739103|NCT02722408|183370298|OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0027
91739104|NCT02722408|183370298|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0020
91873867|NCT00113529|183641031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.423
91873868|NCT00113529|183641031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.510
91873869|NCT00113529|183641031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.608
91873870|NCT00113529|183641031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
91873871|NCT00113529|183641032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.910
91739105|NCT02722408|183370298|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
91739106|NCT02722408|183370298|OTHER|||||||0.0258||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0258
91906884|NCT02634151|183709095|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.63||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.37|-2.89|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-2.89|-22.37|0.0115
91739107|NCT02722408|183370298|OTHER|||||||0.0044||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0044
91739108|NCT02722408|183370298|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0011
91739109|NCT02722408|183370298|OTHER|||||||0.0083||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0083
91739110|NCT02722408|183370298|OTHER|||||||0.0314||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0314
91739111|NCT02722408|183370298|OTHER|||||||0.0533||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0533
91873872|NCT00113529|183641032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.020
91873873|NCT00113529|183641032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
91873874|NCT00113529|183641032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.509
91873875|NCT00113529|183641032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.883
91873876|NCT00113529|183641032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.582
91873877|NCT00113529|183641033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.428
91873878|NCT00113529|183641033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.075
91873879|NCT00113529|183641033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
91873880|NCT00113529|183641033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.019
91873881|NCT00113529|183641033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.124
91873882|NCT00113529|183641033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.055
91873883|NCT00113529|183641034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
91873884|NCT00113529|183641034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.854
91799054|NCT04916769|183475999|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.95|110.91||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + yogurt 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||110.91|93.95|
91799055|NCT04941456|183476006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.08||||0.2795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|22.63|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||22.63|-74.80|0.2795
91799056|NCT04941456|183476009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6957||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.179|0.7877|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||0.7877|-2.179|0.3416
91799057|NCT02718300|183476044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4046|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.4046
91799058|NCT02718300|183476046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7802|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.7802
91799059|NCT02718300|183476048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6856|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.6856
91799060|NCT02718300|183476050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3385|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.3385
91799061|NCT02718300|183476052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4005|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by Easter Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.4005
91799062|NCT02718300|183476054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3138|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.3138
91799063|NCT02718300|183476060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3577|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.3577
91799064|NCT02718300|183476060|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.388|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.388|0.791|
91873885|NCT00113529|183641034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.230
91873886|NCT00113529|183641034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.067
91873887|NCT00113529|183641034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.164
91799065|NCT02718300|183476060|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.435|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.435|0.936|
91799066|NCT02718300|183476060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1709|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.1709
91799067|NCT02718300|183476060|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.281|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.281|0.780|
91799068|NCT02718300|183476060|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.448|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.448|0.955|
91799069|NCT02718300|183476061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6693|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 2||||0.6693
91799070|NCT02718300|183476061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1521|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 4||||0.1521
91799071|NCT02718300|183476062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0809|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.0809
91799072|NCT02718300|183476062|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|0.994|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||0.994|0.342|
91799073|NCT02718300|183476062|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.477|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.477|0.658|
91799074|NCT02718300|183476062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1525|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.1525
91799075|NCT02718300|183476062|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.062|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|1.867|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.867|0.604|
91799076|NCT02718300|183476062|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|2.414|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||2.414|0.937|
91799077|NCT02718300|183476063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2873|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.2873
91799078|NCT02718300|183476063|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.336|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.336|0.773|
91799079|NCT02718300|183476063|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.161|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.429|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.429|0.943|
91799080|NCT02718300|183476063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1601|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.1601
91799081|NCT02718300|183476063|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.274|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.274|0.773|
91799082|NCT02718300|183476063|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.452|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.452|0.955|
91799083|NCT02718300|183476067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||Day 1||||0.0830
91799084|NCT02718300|183476067|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.218|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.753|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.753|0.846|
91799085|NCT02718300|183476067|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.399|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.399|0.654|
91799086|NCT02718300|183476067|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.354|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.354|0.656|
91799087|NCT02718300|183476067|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.298|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.298|0.579|
91799088|NCT02718300|183476067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.2402
91873888|NCT00113529|183641034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
91873889|NCT00113529|183641035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
91873890|NCT00113529|183641035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.462
91873891|NCT00113529|183641035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.423
91873892|NCT00113529|183641035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.510
91873893|NCT00113529|183641035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.608
91873894|NCT00113529|183641035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
91873895|NCT00113529|183641036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.910
91799089|NCT02718300|183476067|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.069|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.069|0.461|
91873896|NCT00113529|183641036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.020
91705166|NCT05153148|183304895|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9|||=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel (MH) risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR20 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and region.|21.1|-9.3|=0.446
91705167|NCT05153148|183304895|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR20 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|39.6|8.6|=0.002
91705168|NCT05153148|183304895|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.5|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|39.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR20 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|39.9|9.0|=0.002
91705169|NCT05153148|183304896|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||=|0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR50 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|16.6|-5.3|=0.312
91705170|NCT05153148|183304896|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.0|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|29.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR50 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|29.1|5.0|=0.005
91705171|NCT05153148|183304896|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR50 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|28.6|4.2|=0.009
91705172|NCT05153148|183304897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9|||=|0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.7|||Fisher Exact||Comparisons of ACR70 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using Fischer's exact Method.|||12.7|-6.6|=0.532
91705173|NCT05153148|183304897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|20.1|||Fisher Exact||Comparisons of ACR70 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using Fischer's exact Method.|||20.1|-1.0|=0.101
91705174|NCT05153148|183304897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3|||=|0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|19.4|||Fisher Exact||Comparisons of ACR70 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using Fischer's exact Method.|||19.4|-1.7|=0.158
91799090|NCT02718300|183476067|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.073|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.073|0.456|
91799091|NCT02718300|183476067|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.951|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||0.951|0.428|
91873897|NCT00113529|183641036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
91873898|NCT00113529|183641036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.509
91873899|NCT00113529|183641036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.883
91873900|NCT00113529|183641036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.582
91873901|NCT00113529|183641037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.428
91873902|NCT00113529|183641037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.075
91873903|NCT00113529|183641037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
91873904|NCT00113529|183641037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.019
91873905|NCT00113529|183641037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.124
91873906|NCT00113529|183641037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.055
91873907|NCT00841321|183641050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||PASAT Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline. Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||0.1|-0.5|.1
91873908|NCT00841321|183641050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Not adjusted for multiple comparison. Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||Stroop Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline.Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||-0.1|-0.9|0.007
91873909|NCT00841321|183641050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparison. Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||COWAT Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline. Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||0.3|-0.2|0.5
91873910|NCT00841321|183641050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5||95.0|-0.3|0.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparison. Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||CVLT-II Delayed Recall Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline. Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||0.3|-0.3|0.5
91873911|NCT00841321|183641050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||MANCOVA|MANCOVA||MANCOVA for all four cognitive tests at exit adjusting for baseline. Individual ANOVAs were to follow if the multivariate test was significant.||||0.19
91873912|NCT00841321|183641051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.7|||ANCOVA||Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from Ginkgo.|Perceived Deficits Questionnaire||4.7|-5.7|0.4
91873913|NCT00841321|183641051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.7||95.0|-3.2|4.8|||ANCOVA||Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from Ginkgo.|Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Questionnaire||4.8|-3.2|0.7
91873914|NCT00841321|183641051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.4||95.0|-1.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Community Integration Questionnaire||0.8|-1.3|0.4
91873915|NCT01107912|183641054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference of median MPA to 20 μM ADP of a prasugrel 5-mg in the elderly group to the 75th percentile of the MPA to 20 μM ADP of a prasugrel 10 mg MD in the non-elderly group at the end of Period 1 was estimated from the observed data. The upper limit of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference was estimated from resampling data with replacement through bootstrap methodology and was used to compare with the non-inferiority margin of 15 percentage points.|Estimate of the difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0||||||||9.00|1.00|
91873916|NCT00595959|183641059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing to an expected value of 20% reduction from initial to post-laser||||0.001
91873917|NCT00886834|183641071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91873918|NCT03875729|183641073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1253|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0852|0.1653||ITT: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and baseline C-peptide ln(AUC+1) as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean (LSmean) difference = Teplizumab - Placebo|This study was designed to show a difference of at least a 40% in C-peptide response between teplizumab and placebo. In geometric means, this translates to a value of (1.4×0.28) = 0.392. Consequently, approximately 300 participants were planned for enrollment, assuming 2-sided α=0.05, 90% power, 2:1 randomization, and a 10% dropout rate.||0.1653|0.0852|<0.001
91873919|NCT03875729|183641073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1385|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0994|0.1776||PP: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and baseline C-peptide ln(AUC+1) as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean (LSmean) difference = teplizumab - placebo|||0.1776|0.0994|<0.001
91873920|NCT03875729|183641074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.131||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.018||ITT: ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||0.018|-0.280|0.085
91906885|NCT02634151|183709095|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-5.87||||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.79|3.05|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Average of week 8 and 12||3.05|-14.79|0.1945
91873921|NCT03875729|183641074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|-0.078||PP: ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||-0.078|-0.256|<0.001
91873922|NCT03875729|183641075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.24||ITT: ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, screening peak C-peptide category, baseline HbA1c as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.42|0.606
91873923|NCT03875729|183641075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.2||PP: ANOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, screening peak C-peptide category, baseline HbA1c as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||0.20|-0.46|0.454
91873924|NCT03875729|183641076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|11.15||ITT: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||11.15|-1.72|0.151
91799092|NCT02718300|183476067|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.627|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.99|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||0.990|0.397|
91799093|NCT02718300|183476068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0756|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 1||||0.0756
91873925|NCT03875729|183641076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|12.22||PP: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||12.22|0.13|0.045
91873926|NCT03875729|183641077|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.1||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.64||ITT: Estimates and p-values were obtained from a negative binomial regression model using rate of hypoglycemic episodes as dependent variable and treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables.|Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = teplizumab / placebo.|||1.64|0.74|0.634
91873927|NCT03875729|183641077|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.09||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.65||PP: Estimates and p-values were obtained from a negative binomial regression model using rate of hypoglycemic episodes as dependent variable and treatment age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables.|Rate ratio||Rate ratio = teplizumab / placebo.|||1.65|0.72|0.690
91873928|NCT01280656|183641082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91705175|NCT05153148|183304898|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.7|||=|0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-4.8|=0.268
91705176|NCT05153148|183304898|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.0|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.0|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.0|-6.1|=0.051
91705177|NCT05153148|183304898|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.5|||=|0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.6|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.6|-5.6|=0.112
91705178|NCT05153148|183304899|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.9|||=|0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.7|-2.4|=0.280
91705179|NCT05153148|183304899|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.1|||=|0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.5|-2.6|=0.177
91705180|NCT05153148|183304899|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.0|||=|0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.5|-2.6|=0.196
91705181|NCT05153148|183304900|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.9|||=|0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.9|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|5.9|-9.6|=0.637
91705182|NCT05153148|183304900|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-9.2|||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.4|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-1.4|-17.0|=0.021
91873929|NCT01280656|183641083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.693
91873930|NCT01280656|183641085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.573
91705183|NCT05153148|183304900|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-8.7|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-0.9|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-0.9|-16.5|=0.030
91705184|NCT05153148|183304901|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.9|||=|0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|6.6|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|6.6|-8.4|=0.812
91799094|NCT02718300|183476068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0866|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 4||||0.0866
91873931|NCT01280656|183641087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Mean at the site||||0.982
91873932|NCT01280656|183641087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Mean at home||||0.012
91873933|NCT01280656|183641088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-responders||||0.476
91873934|NCT01280656|183641088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-Responders||||0.320
91873935|NCT01280656|183641089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.792
91873936|NCT01280656|183641090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
91873937|NCT01280656|183641091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.921
91799095|NCT02718300|183476069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4287|||||||ANOVA|||Day 1||||0.4287
91799096|NCT02718300|183476069|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.272|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|4.914|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||4.914|0.329|
91799097|NCT02718300|183476069|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|4.251|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||4.251|0.252|
91799098|NCT02718300|183476069|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.731|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||2.731|0.180|
91799099|NCT02718300|183476069|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.525|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|2.348|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||2.348|0.118|
91799100|NCT02718300|183476069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9788|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.9788
91799101|NCT02718300|183476069|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.879|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|3.896|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||3.896|0.198|
91799102|NCT02718300|183476069|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|5.56|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||5.560|0.270|
91799103|NCT02718300|183476069|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|3.821|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||3.821|0.221|
91873938|NCT01280656|183641092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
91799104|NCT02718300|183476069|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|4.299|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||4.299|0.169|
91799105|NCT02718300|183476070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1208|||||||ANOVA|||Day 1||||0.1208
91873939|NCT01280656|183641093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total||||0.973
91906886|NCT02634151|183709096|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-5.88||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|1.13|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||1.13|-12.89|0.0991
91799106|NCT02718300|183476070|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.879|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.879|0.832|
91799107|NCT02718300|183476070|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.518|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.518|0.649|
91799108|NCT02718300|183476070|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.45|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.450|0.645|
91799109|NCT02718300|183476070|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.35|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.350|0.548|
91799110|NCT02718300|183476070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3218|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.3218
91799111|NCT02718300|183476070|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|1.2|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.200|0.482|
91799112|NCT02718300|183476070|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.277|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.277|0.506|
91799113|NCT02718300|183476070|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|1.028|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.028|0.432|
91799114|NCT02718300|183476070|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.051|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.051|0.390|
91799115|NCT04063384|183476077|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||||Group (bipolar, healthy)-by-condition (alcohol, placebo)-by-time of subjective response interactions on subjective response to alcohol were modeled, covarying beverage condition order, biological sex, and age, with SEAS and DEQ subscale scores as the dependent variables. Time of subjective response (pre- and post-scan) and beverage condition (alcohol, placebo) were within-subject factors and group was an independent between-subject factor.|||<0.05
91799116|NCT04063384|183476078|OTHER||||||<|0.004||||||Results of primary models were considered significant at p ≤ 0.004 (Bonferroni correction for twelve ROI-to-ROI connections).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power analysis suggests this sample size (n = 23 with bipolar disorder, n = 24 healthy comparison participants), at an alpha = 0.05, provides \> 80% statistical power to detect a within subject effect size (ES) d ≥ 0.6 in both subgroups and a between group ES d ≥ 0.8 in this fMRI analysis.|We used a mixed model to examine group by condition by hemisphere (left, right) interactions on ROI-to-ROI FC response to emotional stimuli (contrast: emotional stimuli - squares). Group was an independent between-subject factor, condition and hemisphere were within-subject factors, and ROI-to-ROI FC was the dependent variable.|||<0.004
91799117|NCT03894046|183476083|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than +20%.~Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than 0."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|3.5||||||The non-inferiority assessment was based on the 2-sided 95% CIs computed using a continuity-corrected Z-statistic for the difference (\[sulbactam-durlobactam + imipenem/cilastatin\] - \[colistin + imipenem/cilastatin\]) in 28-day all-cause mortality rates between the treatment groups.||3.5|-30|
91873940|NCT05265247|183641098|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the point estimate for the ratio lies completely within the range of 0.8-1.25.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.9531|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.851|1.0673||||||||1.0673|0.8510|
91873941|NCT05265247|183641099|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% 2-sided confidence interval (CI) for the ratio lies completely within the range of 0.8-1.25.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.9538|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.0132||||||||1.0132|0.8980|
91873942|NCT02516202|183641107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.25
91705185|NCT05153148|183304901|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-6.7|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|0.8|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.8|-14.2|=0.079
91705186|NCT05153148|183304901|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-6.3|||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.3|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-13.9|=0.102
91705187|NCT05153148|183304902|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-8.9|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-1.7|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-1.7|-16.2|=0.016
91739112|NCT02722408|183370299|OTHER|||||||0.3657||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3657
91739113|NCT02722408|183370299|OTHER|||||||0.1983||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1983
91739114|NCT02722408|183370299|OTHER|||||||0.297||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2970
91739115|NCT02722408|183370299|OTHER|||||||0.0092||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0092
91739116|NCT02722408|183370299|OTHER|||||||0.0049||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0049
91799118|NCT03894046|183476084|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value was obtained based on a Chi-Square test for treatment group differences.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of patients with nephrotoxicity as measured by RIFLE criteria at any post-baseline visit based on the Investigator's opinion for the Safety Population for Part A, excluding patients with chronic hemodialysis at baseline baseline.||||0.0002
91873943|NCT02516202|183641107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.31
91739117|NCT02722408|183370299|OTHER|||||||0.0033||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0033
91739118|NCT02722408|183370299|OTHER|||||||0.0618||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0618
91739119|NCT02722408|183370299|OTHER|||||||0.0298||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0298
91799119|NCT03270644|183476085|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.27|-3.64||||||Mean hourly HR was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||-3.64|-7.27|
91705188|NCT05153148|183304902|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-10.6|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-3.4|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-3.4|-17.8|=0.004
91739120|NCT02722408|183370299|OTHER|||||||0.0352||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0352
91739121|NCT02722408|183370299|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0001
91739122|NCT02722408|183370299|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
91799120|NCT03270644|183476086|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.832|0.939||||||Log-transformed PK parameters were evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||0.939|0.832|
91739123|NCT02722408|183370299|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
91739124|NCT02722408|183370300|OTHER|||||||0.3672||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr||||0.3672
91739125|NCT02722408|183370300|OTHER|||||||0.2101||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2101
91739126|NCT02722408|183370300|OTHER|||||||0.3009||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3009
91739127|NCT02722408|183370300|OTHER|||||||0.1567||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1567
91739128|NCT02722408|183370300|OTHER|||||||0.1207||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1207
91799121|NCT03270644|183476087|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.917|1.0||||||Ratio of geometric LSMeans of Cmax used a mixed-effects repeated measures model adjusted for fixed effects for treatment, time point, time point by treatment, and random effect for subjects.||1.00|0.917|
91873944|NCT02516202|183641108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.99
91873945|NCT02516202|183641108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.05
91739129|NCT02722408|183370300|OTHER|||||||0.1045||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1045
91739130|NCT02722408|183370300|OTHER|||||||0.0631||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0631
91739131|NCT02722408|183370300|OTHER|||||||0.0217||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0217
91739132|NCT02722408|183370300|OTHER|||||||0.0359||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0359
91739133|NCT02722408|183370300|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0001
91739134|NCT02722408|183370300|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
91739135|NCT02722408|183370300|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
91739136|NCT02722408|183370301|OTHER|||||||0.9417||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.9417
91739137|NCT02722408|183370301|OTHER|||||||0.7722||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7722
91739138|NCT02722408|183370301|OTHER|||||||0.5283||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.5283
91739139|NCT02722408|183370301|OTHER|||||||0.5905||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.5905
91739140|NCT02722408|183370301|OTHER|||||||0.7682||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.7682
91799122|NCT03270644|183476088|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.04||||||Log-transformed PK parameters were evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||1.04|0.967|
91799123|NCT03270644|183476089|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.03||||||Log-transformed PK parameters were evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||1.03|0.967|
91799124|NCT03270644|183476090|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|-3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.39|-0.64||||||PR interval was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||-0.64|-6.39|
91799125|NCT03270644|183476091|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|5.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.57|7.57||||||Systolic blood pressure was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||7.57|3.57|
91799126|NCT03270644|183476092|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|4.95||||||Diastolic blood pressure was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||4.95|1.99|
91799127|NCT00333801|183476093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91799128|NCT00333801|183476094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91799129|NCT00333801|183476095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cohen's d|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91799130|NCT02476201|183476100|SUPERIORITY|Using a one-sided, one sample Exact Binomial Test and a significance level of 2.5%, the study required 74 patients to reach a power of 90%. With the MPP feature activated at baseline, it was assumed that the proportion of responders at 6 months was 75%. The MPP responder rate was compared to 57%, which is the responder rate obtained from literature for patients without the MPP feature activated.|Percentage|67.1||||0.0435|ONE_SIDED|97.5|55.6||||Exact binomial||||||55.6|0.0435
91799131|NCT00777205|183476105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-1.57|<0.05
91799132|NCT00777205|183476106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-2.03|<0.05
91799133|NCT00777205|183476107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-0.93|<0.05
91799134|NCT00777205|183476108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.039|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.89|-2.66|<0.05
91873946|NCT02516202|183641109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.64
91873947|NCT02516202|183641109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.17
91799135|NCT00777205|183476109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.16||||||||3.16|-3.31|
91799136|NCT02633501|183476121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-10.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||Testing procedure stopped|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||
91799137|NCT02633501|183476121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority not confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.1858
91799138|NCT02633501|183476121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.0007
91799139|NCT02633501|183476121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|14.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
91799140|NCT02633501|183476121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-14.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55|||TWO_SIDED|||||Testing procedure stopped|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||
91799141|NCT02633501|183476121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority not confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.3384
91799142|NCT02633501|183476121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|19.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
91799143|NCT02633501|183476121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|38.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.0002
91799144|NCT02633501|183476121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-23.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|||TWO_SIDED|||||Testing procedure stopped|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||
91799145|NCT02633501|183476121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority not confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.3249
91799146|NCT02633501|183476121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|29.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
91799147|NCT02633501|183476121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|51.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
91799148|NCT01104155|183476132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.204|||||||1-sided exact binomial|Based on a one-sided exact binomial test compared to 9%.||||||0.204
91799149|NCT01104155|183476132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041|||||||1-sided exact binomial|||||||0.041
91873948|NCT02516202|183641111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value calculation includes 195 participants with known responses at week 12.|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91873949|NCT02516202|183641112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91873950|NCT02516202|183641112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
91873951|NCT02516202|183641113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91873952|NCT02516202|183641113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
91873953|NCT02841449|183641114|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample||||||0.886
91873954|NCT02841449|183641114|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||The above is the trial\*time interaction. trial, p = 0.627; time, p \< 0.001|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.430
91739141|NCT02722408|183370301|OTHER|||||||0.9245||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.9245
91739142|NCT02722408|183370301|OTHER|||||||0.6325||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.6325
91739143|NCT02722408|183370301|OTHER|||||||0.9221||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9221
91739144|NCT02722408|183370301|OTHER|||||||0.8387||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.8387
91739145|NCT02722408|183370301|OTHER|||||||0.0089||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0089
91739146|NCT02722408|183370301|OTHER|||||||0.0013||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0013
91739147|NCT02722408|183370301|OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0019
91739148|NCT02722408|183370302|OTHER|||||||0.9195||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.9195
91739149|NCT02722408|183370302|OTHER|||||||0.7497||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7497
91739150|NCT02722408|183370302|OTHER|||||||0.5056||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.5056
91739151|NCT02722408|183370302|OTHER|||||||0.2468||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.2468
91739152|NCT02722408|183370302|OTHER|||||||0.392||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.3920
91739153|NCT02722408|183370302|OTHER|||||||0.4456||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.4456
91739154|NCT02722408|183370302|OTHER|||||||0.9203||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9203
91739155|NCT02722408|183370302|OTHER|||||||0.9704||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9704
91739156|NCT02722408|183370302|OTHER|||||||0.9755||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9755
91739157|NCT02722408|183370302|OTHER|||||||0.4213||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.4213
91739158|NCT02722408|183370302|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0300
91739159|NCT02722408|183370302|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0300
91739160|NCT02722408|183370308|OTHER|||||||0.0294||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.0294
91739161|NCT02722408|183370308|OTHER|||||||0.3228||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3228
91873955|NCT02841449|183641115|OTHER|||||||0.369|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.369
91873956|NCT02841449|183641115|OTHER|||||||0.859||||||The above is the trial\*time interaction. trial p = 0.200; time p \< 0.001|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.859
91873957|NCT02841449|183641116|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||<0.001
91873958|NCT02841449|183641116|OTHER|||||||0.261||||||The above is the trial\*time interaction. trial p = 0.002; time p = 0.282|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.261
91873959|NCT02841449|183641117|OTHER|||||||0.736|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.736
91873960|NCT02841449|183641118|OTHER|||||||0.542|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.542
91873961|NCT02841449|183641119|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.400
91873962|NCT02841449|183641120|OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||Visual analogue scale for thirst||||0.646
91873963|NCT02841449|183641120|OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for desire for savoury||||0.403
91873964|NCT02841449|183641120|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for desire for salt||||0.022
91873965|NCT02841449|183641120|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for hunger||||0.849
91873966|NCT02841449|183641120|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for fullness||||0.062
91873967|NCT02841449|183641120|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for how much participants felt they could eat||||0.549
91906887|NCT02634151|183709097|OTHER|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-7.58||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|-1.84|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.84|-13.32|0.0101
91739162|NCT02722408|183370308|OTHER|||||||0.5268||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.5268
91739163|NCT02722408|183370309|OTHER|||||||0.1099||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.1099
91739164|NCT02722408|183370309|OTHER|||||||0.5478||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.5478
91739165|NCT02722408|183370309|OTHER|||||||0.8837||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.8837
91739166|NCT02722408|183370310|OTHER|||||||0.0587||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0587
91739167|NCT02722408|183370310|OTHER|||||||0.1491||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.1491
91739168|NCT02722408|183370310|OTHER|||||||0.2224||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.2224
91739169|NCT02722408|183370311|OTHER|||||||0.0959||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0959
91739170|NCT02722408|183370311|OTHER|||||||0.0923||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0923
91739171|NCT02722408|183370311|OTHER|||||||0.1592||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.1592
91739172|NCT02722408|183370312|OTHER|||||||0.5856||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.5856
91739173|NCT02722408|183370312|OTHER|||||||0.644||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.6440
91739174|NCT02722408|183370312|OTHER|||||||0.2269||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.2269
91739175|NCT02722408|183370313|OTHER|||||||0.4814||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4814
91739176|NCT02722408|183370313|OTHER|||||||0.5011||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.5011
91873968|NCT02841449|183641120|OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for sweet desire||||0.402
91873969|NCT02841449|183641120|OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for fatty food desire||||0.138
91873970|NCT02841449|183641121|OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Above is trial\*time effect. trial p = 0.135; time p = 0.011|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.055
91739177|NCT02722408|183370313|OTHER|||||||0.4356||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.4356
91739178|NCT02722408|183370314|OTHER|||||||0.0669||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0669
91739179|NCT02722408|183370314|OTHER|||||||0.0189||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0189
91739180|NCT02722408|183370314|OTHER|||||||0.0316||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0316
91739181|NCT02722408|183370315|OTHER|||||||0.0685||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0685
91739182|NCT02722408|183370315|OTHER|||||||0.0114||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0114
91739183|NCT02722408|183370315|OTHER|||||||0.0263||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0263
91739184|NCT02722408|183370316|OTHER|||||||0.1466||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.1466
91739185|NCT02722408|183370316|OTHER|||||||0.3598||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3598
91739186|NCT02722408|183370316|OTHER|||||||0.0685||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0685
91739187|NCT02722408|183370317|OTHER|||||||0.166||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.1660
91739188|NCT02722408|183370317|OTHER|||||||0.3423||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3423
91873971|NCT02841449|183641122|OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample||||||0.226
91873972|NCT02841449|183641123|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||< 0.001
91739189|NCT02722408|183370317|OTHER|||||||0.0313||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0313
91739190|NCT02722408|183370318|OTHER|||||||0.7196||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.7196
91739191|NCT02722408|183370318|OTHER|||||||0.4343||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.4343
91739192|NCT02722408|183370318|OTHER|||||||0.7241||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.7241
91739193|NCT02722408|183370319|OTHER|||||||0.7952||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.7952
91739194|NCT02722408|183370319|OTHER|||||||0.4931||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.4931
91873973|NCT02312258|183641201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.381|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), International Staging System (ISS) stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 versus \[vs\] \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (complete response (CR) or very good partial response (VGPR) vs partial response (PR)).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 versus\[vs\] \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.381|0.861|=0.473
91799150|NCT00464269|183476180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The overall significance level was controlled at 5 %. The 3 doses of Brivaracetam were tested at the 5 % level against Placebo starting from the 50 mg dose then the 20 mg dose and finally the 5 mg dose, only moving to the next test if the previous one is significant at the 5 % level.|% reduction over Placebo|12.8|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|22.6|||ANCOVA|Baseline and Treatment Period Partial Onset Seizure (POS) frequencies are standardized to a 7-day duration.|The log-transformed (log(x+1)) POS seizure frequency was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, including terms for treatment, stratification factors, and log-transformed Baseline POS seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|The treatment difference between each Brivaracetam (BRV) dose and Placebo (PBO) is reported as a percent reduction over Placebo. The treatment effect was estimated using the 95 % confidence intervals.||22.6|1.7|=0.025
91799151|NCT00464269|183476180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The overall significance level was controlled at 5 %. The 3 doses of Brivaracetam were tested at the 5 % level against Placebo starting from the 50 mg dose then the 20 mg dose and finally the 5 mg dose, only moving to the next test if the previous one is significant at the 5 % level.|% reduction over Placebo|4.1|||=|0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|15.0|||ANCOVA|Baseline and Treatment Period Partial Onset Seizure (POS) frequencies are standardized to 7-day duration.|The log-transformed (log(x+1)) POS seizure frequency was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, including terms for treatment, stratification factors, and log-transformed Baseline POS seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|The treatment difference between each Brivaracetam dose an Placebo is reported as a percent reduction over Placebo. The treatment effect was estimated using 95 % confidence intervals.||15.0|-8.1|=0.492
91799152|NCT03467048|183476228|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: McGrath Video Laryngoscopy is non-inferior to Macintosh direct laryngoscopy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|9.75|||t-test, 1 sided|||||9.75|2.22|<0.01
91799153|NCT03467048|183476229|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: McGrath videolaryngoscopy is non-inferior to Direct laryngoscopy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|0.975|0.04|2.28|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.28|0.04|0.08
91799154|NCT03467048|183476230|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: McGrath videolaryngoscopy is non-inferior to Direct laryngoscopy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|7.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||||7.77|0.1|0.41
91799155|NCT04308304|183476242|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.86|0.55|
91799156|NCT04308304|183476242|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.82|0.53|
91799157|NCT04308304|183476242|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.0||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.00|0.55|
91799158|NCT04308304|183476242|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.05|0.56|
91799159|NCT04308304|183476243|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.86|0.55|
91799160|NCT04308304|183476243|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.82|0.53|
91799161|NCT04308304|183476243|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.0||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.00|0.55|
91799162|NCT04308304|183476243|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.05|0.56|
91799163|NCT04308304|183476244|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.87||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.87|0.52|
91799164|NCT04308304|183476244|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.87|0.52|
91799165|NCT04308304|183476244|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.06||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.06|0.59|
91799166|NCT04308304|183476244|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.08|0.51|
91799167|NCT04308304|183476245|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.8||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.80|0.48|
91799168|NCT04308304|183476245|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.81||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.81|0.55|
91799169|NCT04308304|183476245|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.93||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.93|0.49|
91799170|NCT04308304|183476245|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.98|0.54|
91799171|NCT04308304|183476250|OTHER|Donepezil Accumulation Ratio (Day 28/Day -1)|Geometric mean|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.4||||||||||||||||
91799172|NCT04308304|183476251|OTHER|Donepezil Accumulation Ratio (Day 28/Day -1)|Geometric mean|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.4||||||||||||||||
91799173|NCT04308304|183476252|OTHER|Donepezil Accumulation Ratio (Day 28/Day -1)|Geometric mean|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.8||||||||||||||||
91799174|NCT04191187|183476412|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 18 Months|70.8||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|90.0|59.2|||One sided log rank test|Log Rank||||||59.2|0.002
91799175|NCT02719327|183476418|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.18||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|0.99||ASL values at 18 months were regressed on treatment group (IPE vs placebo) statistically controlling for age at baseline visit and ASL measured at baseline visit.|Regression, Linear|||The proposed study aims to investigate the effects of 18 months of IPE vs. placebo on regional cerebral blood flow in the bilateral posterior cingulate gyrus as measured by arterial spin-labeling MRI . IPE was hypothesized to improve regional cerebral blood flow over placebo after 18 months.||0.99|-5.36|0.17
91799176|NCT02719327|183476419|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25|||Regression, Linear|18 month Beta-amyloid(1-42) was regressed on group (IPE vs placebo) and covariates age at baseline visit and Beta-amyloid(1-42) at baseline visit.|Placebo group is the reference group.|Beta-amyloid(1-42) concentration in CSF was log-transformed prior to analysis to approximate a normal distribution.||0.25|-0.04|.12
91873974|NCT02312258|183641203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.655|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|0.799|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing TTP between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.799|0.537|<0.001
91739195|NCT02722408|183370319|OTHER|||||||0.8622||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.8622
91739196|NCT02722408|183370320|OTHER|||||||0.9823||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.9823
91739197|NCT02722408|183370320|OTHER|||||||0.9129||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.9129
91739198|NCT02722408|183370320|OTHER|||||||0.7762||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 84||||0.7762
91739199|NCT02722408|183370321|OTHER|||||||0.2683||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.2683
91739200|NCT02722408|183370321|OTHER|||||||0.088||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0880
91739201|NCT02722408|183370321|OTHER|||||||0.0165||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0165
91739202|NCT02722408|183370322|OTHER|||||||0.4585||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4585
91739203|NCT02722408|183370322|OTHER|||||||0.3721||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3721
91739204|NCT02722408|183370322|OTHER|||||||0.5305||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.5305
91739205|NCT02722408|183370323|OTHER|||||||0.2937||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.2937
91739206|NCT02722408|183370323|OTHER|||||||0.2182||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.2182
91739207|NCT02722408|183370323|OTHER|||||||0.2937||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.2937
91739208|NCT02722408|183370324|OTHER|||||||0.0411||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0411
91739209|NCT02722408|183370324|OTHER|||||||0.0192||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0192
91739210|NCT02722408|183370324|OTHER|||||||0.0445||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0445
91739211|NCT02722408|183370325|OTHER|||||||0.0465||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0465
91739212|NCT02722408|183370325|OTHER|||||||0.0221||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0221
91739213|NCT02722408|183370325|OTHER|||||||0.0402||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0402
91739214|NCT00552071|183370326|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||A two-sided p value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91739215|NCT00552071|183370327|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||A two-sided p value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91739216|NCT00272792|183370328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Compared Week 10 to Baseline.||||<0.001
91739217|NCT00272792|183370328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Compared Week 10 to Baseline.||||0.027
91739218|NCT00272792|183370329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Longitudinal Model|Longitudinal model with blood Phe measurements as the response variable and treatment group, visit, and baseline blood Phe level as covariates.||||||0.009
91739219|NCT00298389|183370352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
91739220|NCT00298389|183370353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
91739221|NCT02628444|183370354|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was greater than (\>) 1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.39||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 1||1.39|0.862|
91739222|NCT02628444|183370354|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 2||1.20|0.820|
91739223|NCT02628444|183370354|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.18||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 3||1.18|0.816|
91739224|NCT02628444|183370354|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.14||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 4||1.14|0.809|
91739225|NCT02628444|183370355|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.4||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 1||1.40|0.757|
91739226|NCT02628444|183370355|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.14||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 2||1.14|0.705|
91889183|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5||0.81|0.64|
91739227|NCT02628444|183370355|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.16||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 3||1.16|0.724|
91739228|NCT02628444|183370355|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 4||1.09|0.720|
91739229|NCT02628444|183370356|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.567|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.399|0.805||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||0.805|0.399|
91739230|NCT02628444|183370356|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.55|1.01||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.01|0.550|
91739231|NCT02628444|183370356|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.686|1.57||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.57|0.686|
91739232|NCT02628444|183370356|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.434|0.963||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||0.963|0.434|
91739233|NCT02628444|183370357|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.627|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.342|1.15||||||Group 2a Booster dose/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||1.15|0.342|
91739234|NCT02628444|183370357|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.809|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.505|1.3||||||Group 2a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.30|0.505|
91739235|NCT02628444|183370357|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.732|1.94||||||Group 2a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.94|0.732|
91889184|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.75|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A||0.75|0.57|
91739236|NCT02628444|183370357|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.331|0.754||||||Group 2a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||0.754|0.331|
91739237|NCT02628444|183370358|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.688|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.479|0.989||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||0.989|0.479|
91739238|NCT02628444|183370358|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.673|1.13||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.13|0.673|
91739239|NCT02628444|183370358|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.887|1.49||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.49|0.887|
91739240|NCT02628444|183370358|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.655|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.471|0.911||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||0.911|0.471|
91888901|NCT01182441|183670346|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint is met if either the 95% Credible Interval for the risk ratio \< 2.0 or the 95% Credible Interval for the risk difference is \< 0.0275.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.0273||||||A Bayesian piecewise exponential model was used to model the 18-month event rates. Historical priors for each interval were based on PROTECT AF. Hazards were modeled for 0-7 day, 7-60 day, 60-182 day, and 182+ day intervals. Event rates were estimated separately for the WATCHMAN and Warfarin groups. The posterior distribution for the 18-month event rate ratio (WATCHMAN vs. Warfarin), and the corresponding equitailed 95% credible interval, were determined via Monte Carlo simulations.||0.0273|-0.0190|
91739241|NCT02628444|183370359|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.462|1.71||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||1.71|0.462|
91739242|NCT02628444|183370359|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.677|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.402|1.14||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.14|0.402|
91739243|NCT02628444|183370359|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.573|1.45||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.45|0.573|
91739244|NCT02628444|183370359|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.447|1.1||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||1.10|0.447|
91739245|NCT02628444|183370360|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.33||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 1 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.33|0.833|
91739246|NCT02628444|183370360|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.19||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 2 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.19|0.821|
91739247|NCT02628444|183370360|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 3 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.17|0.810|
91739248|NCT02628444|183370360|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.14||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 4 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.14|0.814|
91739249|NCT02628444|183370360|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.39||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 1 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.39|0.762|
91739250|NCT02628444|183370360|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.16||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 2 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.16|0.724|
91739251|NCT02628444|183370360|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.17||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 3 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.17|0.742|
91739252|NCT02628444|183370360|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 4 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.12|0.750|
91739253|NCT00288015|183370378|OTHER|This is a two-stage optimal simon design. If bevacizumab is not effective, there is a 0.050 probability of concluding that it is. If bevacizumab is effective, there is a 0.2000 probability of concluding that it is not.||||||||||||In first stage 12 patients will be entered, if \</=3 patients have PFS time\>3 months p\</=0.22 is likely true. In second stage a total of up to 31 patients data will be analysed. If \>/=10 patients show PFS\</=3 months, it will suggest p\>0.50 is true.|Kaplan-Meier estimate|||This is a two stage optimal simon design testing the Null hypothesis: bevacizumab is not effective with P\<=0.220 and the alternative hypothesis: bevacizumab is effective with P \>=0.450 and has a sample size of 16.96 and a probability of early termination of 0.739. p=probability (progression free survival - PFS time\>/=3 months).|P\<=0.220 is the threshold value of significance that the null hypothesis is true or the alternative hypothesis is true. P Value was not calculated from the data. Median survival time was calculated using a 20% censored Kaplan-Meier table and graph.|||
91739254|NCT02079909|183370430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.3919|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3919
91739255|NCT02079909|183370431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7588
91739256|NCT02079909|183370432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3212
91739257|NCT02277249|183370433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No power calculation performed given that this was a pilot study. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in pain score with injection between the two study arms. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was selected because of the study's small sample size and the non-normal distribution of pain scores. Intention to treat analyses were used.||||0.36
91739258|NCT01869634|183370451|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Paired samples.||||||0.0025|||||||Sign test|||Comparison between HIV positive naïve to ART before and after ART has been done.||||0.0025
91739259|NCT01869634|183370452|OTHER|Two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91739260|NCT01869634|183370452|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.826|||||||Sign test|||Comparison of coronary artery wall thickness before and after ART in the HIV infected participants.||||0.826
91739261|NCT01869634|183370453|OTHER|Two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between groups (HIV+ vs HIV-)||||<0.001
91739262|NCT01869634|183370453|OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Sign test|||Changes in systemic immune activation through IL6||||0.807
91739263|NCT02098304|183370486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage agreement|72.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.8|82.7|||Exact binomial test|An exact binomial test was used and an exact 95% Confidence Interval using the Clopper-Pearson method was calculated.||The null hypothesis was of chance agreement (50%) and was tested against a two-sided alternative at the 5% level of significance.||82.7|59.8|<0.001
91739264|NCT02098304|183370486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.66|||Cohen's Kappa||Cohen's kappa is a chance-adjusted measure of agreement. A value of 0 indicates agreement by chance and 1 perfect agreement.|The null hypothesis was of chance agreement (Cohen's kappa of 0) and was tested against a two-sided alternative at the 5% level of significance. The study was powered such that 58 teeth (29 subjects), there would be 95% power to reject the null hypothesis of chance agreement (Cohen's kappa of 0) at the 5% level of significance, given that it was expected to be at least 0.4.||0.66|0.24|0.001
91739265|NCT00457392|183370490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.079||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by the 1-sided log rank test, stratified for smoking status (ever versus never), prior bevacizumab therapy (yes versus no) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status (positive, versus negative, versus unknown).||1.079|0.822|0.1933
91739266|NCT00457392|183370491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|0.937||No p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons for PFS.|Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test with alpha=0.025 was used.||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by the 1-sided log rank test, stratified for smoking status (ever versus never), prior bevacizumab therapy (yes versus no) and EGFR status (positive, versus negative, versus unknown).||0.937|0.695|0.0023
91906888|NCT02634151|183709097|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-9.56||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.94|-3.18|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-3.18|-15.94|0.0037
91739267|NCT00457392|183370492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.514||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|2.289|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified for smoking status (ever versus never), prior bevacizumab therapy (yes versus no) and EGFR status (positive, versus negative, versus unknown) was used to compare ORR between the 2 treatment arms. The relative risk ratio estimator was used to contrast the treatment effects on response rates. A point estimate of relative risk ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated.||2.289|1.002|0.0471
91739268|NCT00756275|183370496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|20.56|||Chi-squared|||||20.56|.91|<0.05
91739269|NCT00756275|183370497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|3.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.11|-6.29|.50
91739270|NCT00756275|183370498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|14.5|||Fisher Exact|||||14.50|.58|.30
91739271|NCT00756275|183370499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.64|8.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.68|-24.64|.34
91739272|NCT00756275|183370500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|23.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||23.52|-8.73|.36
91739273|NCT00756275|183370501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.57
91739274|NCT00756275|183370502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.31
91739275|NCT00756275|183370503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.72
91739276|NCT00756275|183370504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.18
91739277|NCT00756275|183370505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|2.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.87|-3.98|.75
91799177|NCT02719327|183476419|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.045||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.061|||Regression, Linear|log-transformed 18 month pTau181 was regressed on group (IPE vs placebo) and covariates age at baseline and log-transformed ptau181at baseline visit.|Placebo group is the reference group.|Phosphorylated tau (pTau181) measured in CSF was log-transformed prior to analysis to approximate a normal distribution.||0.061|0.004|0.05
91799178|NCT02719327|183476419|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.046||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0008|0.106||18 months total Tau was regressed on Group (IPE vs placebo) and covariates age at baseline and total Tau at baseline.|Regression, Linear||Placebo group was the reference group.|Total tau was log-transformed prior to analysis to better approximate a normal distribution.||0.106|-0.0008|.07
91799179|NCT02719327|183476420|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.006||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.023|||Linear Mixed Effects model|Covariates included education level, gender, and age at baseline visit.|Placebo group was the reference group.|Four cognitive tests were standardized (baseline mean and standard deviation) prior to averaging to create the ADCS Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (ADCS-PACC) score. The final composite score was standardized again using baseline mean and standard deviation (range -3.15 to 3.10). Higher scores indicate better cognitive performance. A linear mixed effects model was used to determine if change in ADCS-PACC composite scores was modified by treatment group.||0.023|-0.009|.48
91799180|NCT03924869|183476428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.24||1-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Disease Stage, ECOG Performance Status, Geographic Region of Enrollment Site, and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery.|Log Rank|||"Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate, stratified by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||1.24|0.69|0.29320
91799181|NCT03924869|183476429|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.93971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.9||1-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Disease Stage, ECOG Performance Status, Geographic Region of Enrollment Site, and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery.|Log Rank|Per protocol, since the EFS null hypothesis was not rejected, the OS hypothesis was not formally tested and the p-value should be considered nominal.||"Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate, stratified by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason for Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||1.90|0.93|0.93971
91799182|NCT03924869|183476430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42||Per protocol, there was no hypothesis pre-specified for TDDM to be formally tested.||||"Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate, stratified by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason for Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||1.42|0.74|
91799183|NCT03924869|183476433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.48|||cLDA model|||"Stats:~LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||2.48|-4.90|0.5187
91799184|NCT03924869|183476434|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|0.69|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-LC13 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||0.69|-9.38|0.0906
91873975|NCT02312258|183641204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984|||=|0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.246|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing PFS2 between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.246|0.777|=0.893
91888902|NCT01182441|183670346|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint is met if either the 95% Credible Interval for the risk ratio \< 2.0 or the 95% Credible Interval for the risk difference is \< 0.0275.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.2||||||A Bayesian piecewise exponential model was used to model the 18-month event rates. Historical priors for each interval were based on PROTECT AF. Hazards were modeled for 0-7 day, 7-60 day, 60-182 day, and 182+ day intervals. Event rates were estimated separately for the WATCHMAN and Warfarin groups. The posterior distribution for the 18-month event rate ratio (WATCHMAN vs. Warfarin), and the corresponding equitailed 95% credible interval, were determined via Monte Carlo simulations.||4.2|0.5|
91799185|NCT03924869|183476435|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.5482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|5.31|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-LC13 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||5.31|-2.83|0.5482
91906889|NCT02634151|183709097|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|5.84|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||5.84|-7.72|0.7839
91799186|NCT03924869|183476436|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.7253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.53|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||4.53|-6.50|0.7253
91799187|NCT03924869|183476437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.9055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.28|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||3.28|-3.70|0.9055
91799188|NCT01470859|183476438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|t-test, 2 sided|independent sample t-test The statistical analysis was performed on the changes of PDRP Z score between levodopa and pramipexole groups.||||||0.84
91799189|NCT01470859|183476438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|t-test, 2 sided|independent sample t-test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDRP Z scores between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V1||||||0.93
91799190|NCT01470859|183476438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|t-test, 2 sided|independent sample t-test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDRP Z scores between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V5||||||0.31
91799191|NCT01470859|183476439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS II scores at V1 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.691
91799192|NCT01470859|183476439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS II scores at V2 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.706
91799193|NCT01470859|183476439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS II scores at V5 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.635
91799194|NCT01470859|183476439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS III scores at V1 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.341
91799195|NCT01470859|183476439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS III scores at V2 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.049
91799196|NCT01470859|183476439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS III scores at V5 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.874
91873976|NCT02312258|183641205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.777|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|0.957|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing TTNT between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.957|0.631|=0.018
91873977|NCT02312258|183641206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111|||=|0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.47|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing Time to End of Next Line Therapy between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.470|0.839|=0.462
91906890|NCT02634151|183709097|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.69||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-3.84|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-3.84|-17.53|0.0025
91799197|NCT01470859|183476440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDQ39 scores between levodopa and pramipexole group at V1||||||0.720
91799198|NCT01470859|183476440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDQ39 scores between levodopa and pramipexole group at V5||||||0.867
91799199|NCT01470859|183476441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|indenpendent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the H\&Y stages between levodopa and pramipexole group at V1||||||0.793
91799200|NCT01470859|183476441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the H\&Y stages between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V5||||||0.430
91799201|NCT01470859|183476442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|Chi-squared|The statistical analysis was performed to compare the clinical improvement between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V2||||||0.345
91799202|NCT01470859|183476442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|Chi-squared|The statistical analysis was performed to compare the clinical improvement between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V5||||||0.410
91799203|NCT03708770|183476461|OTHER|No power calculation was performed for this study.||||||||||||||||"This was not a hypothesis-driven study. Therefore, there were no primary effectiveness or safety endpoints.~The Secondary Patency endpoint was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier analysis."|The Secondary Patency rate was determined via Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
91799204|NCT03708770|183476462|OTHER|No power calculation was performed for this study.||||||||||||||||"This was not a hypothesis-driven study. Therefore, there were no primary effectiveness or safety endpoints.~The Primary Patency endpoint was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier analysis."|The primary patency rate was determined via Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
91799205|NCT05268055|183476466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.525
91799206|NCT05268055|183476466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.045
91799207|NCT05268055|183476466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.046
91799208|NCT05268055|183476467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.200
91799209|NCT05268055|183476467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.075
91799210|NCT05268055|183476467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.015
91799211|NCT05268055|183476468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.246
91873978|NCT02312258|183641207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.727|||||||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant.|1.727|0.968|
91799212|NCT05268055|183476468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.151
91799213|NCT05268055|183476468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.033
91799214|NCT05268055|183476469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.212
91799215|NCT05268055|183476469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.893
91799216|NCT05268055|183476469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.160
91799217|NCT05268055|183476470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of self-rating scores on the Healthcare Provider Cultural Competence measure.||||0.752
91799218|NCT05268055|183476470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of self-rating scores on the Ask, Understand, Remember Assessment.||||0.493
91799219|NCT05268055|183476470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of self-rating scores on the Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale.||||0.085
91799220|NCT03507400|183476471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91799221|NCT03507400|183476471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||pooled comparison of the participants of the non-waiting list and the waiting list before and after Introvision||||0.003
91799222|NCT03507400|183476473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91799223|NCT03507400|183476474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.003
91799224|NCT03507400|183476475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.001
91799225|NCT03507400|183476476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.001
91799226|NCT03507400|183476480|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91799227|NCT03507400|183476480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91799228|NCT03507400|183476480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91799229|NCT01555983|183476481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Armitage trend tes|0.0001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve 30% pain reduction during the 8-hour period was 4 (95% CI: 2.1-25.3) for the lower dose vs. placebo, and 3 (95% CI: 1.6-4.2) for the higher dose versus placebo.||||<.05
91799230|NCT04026711|183476488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||0.81
91799231|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|-0.16|
91799232|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.91|-0.10|
91799233|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.92|-0.05|
91739278|NCT00980148|183370506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This noninferiority study tested the null hypothesis that the failure rate of azithromycin is 5% higher than that of doxycycline against the alternative hypothesis that there is no difference between the two treatments. The treatment failure rate was assumed to be 3% for both treatments. To test this hypothesis at the one-sided 0.10 significance level with power of 0.90 required 153 study subjects per arm in the per-protocol population.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||5.9|||||The risk difference is the percentage in the azithromycin arm with treatment failure minus the percentage in the doxycycline arm with treatment failure. Noninferiority of azithromycin would be supported if the upper 90% confidence limit is below 5%.|This noninferiority study tested the null hypothesis that the failure rate of azithromycin is 5% higher than that of doxycycline against the alternative hypothesis that there is no difference between the two treatments. The one-sided 90% exact confidence interval was used to estimate the difference between the two failures rates.||5.9||
91739279|NCT01244035|183370557|OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.1||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|2.74|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||2.74|-0.54|0.1325
91739280|NCT01244035|183370557|OTHER||LS Mean difference|4.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|5.79|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||5.79|2.53|<0.001
91739281|NCT01244035|183370557|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.06||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|-1.42|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||-1.42|-4.70|0.0016
91739282|NCT01244035|183370558|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.94||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|-0.57|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||-0.57|-5.30|0.0212
91739283|NCT01244035|183370558|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.76||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.16|-0.36|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||-0.36|-5.16|0.0299
91739284|NCT01244035|183370558|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.54|2.19|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||2.19|-2.54|0.4506
91739285|NCT00696878|183370642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage with immunogenicity|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.4|||||Provided limit is upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit for study population for percentage of participants with clinically relevant immunogenicity, after Cycle 1|During sample size determination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the population incidence of immunogenicity, if no immunogenicity is observed, was calculated. If no immunogenicity is observed in the projected 150 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 3 COS cycles, then the upper limit for the population is 2%. For the projected 300 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 2 COS cycles, the upper limit for the population is 1%.||0.4||
91739286|NCT00696878|183370642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage with immunogenicity|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.8|||||Provided limit is upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit for study population for percentage of participants with clinically relevant immunogenicity, after Cycle 2|During sample size determination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the population incidence of immunogenicity, if no immunogenicity is observed, was calculated. If no immunogenicity is observed in the projected 150 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 3 COS cycles, then the upper limit for the population is 2%. For the projected 300 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 2 COS cycles, the upper limit for the population is 1%.||0.8||
91739287|NCT00696878|183370642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage with immunogenicity|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.5|||||Provided limit is upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit for study population for percentage of participants with clinically relevant immunogenicity, after Cycle 3|During sample size determination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the population incidence of immunogenicity, if no immunogenicity is observed, was calculated. If no immunogenicity is observed in the projected 150 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 3 COS cycles, then the upper limit for the population is 2%. For the projected 300 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 2 COS cycles, the upper limit for the population is 1%.||1.5||
91906891|NCT02634151|183709098|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.66||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.45|-2.88|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-2.88|-22.45|0.0117
91906892|NCT02634151|183709098|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.55||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.88|-5.21|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-5.21|-25.88|0.0036
91739288|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR4521||||0.010
91739289|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR107||||0.010
91739290|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.57||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR-891a||||0.018
91739291|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR363||||0.021
91739292|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1248||||0.028
91739293|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR944||||0.033
91739294|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.13||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6806||||0.034
91739295|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR103a||||0.036
91739296|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR454||||0.037
91739297|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR320e||||0.041
91739298|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR181a||||0.043
91739299|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR130b||||0.044
91739300|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR365a||||0.044
91739301|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.06||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR135b||||0.047
91739302|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.35||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1273h||||0.048
91739303|NCT02230189|183370725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3177||||0.048
91739304|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6510||||0.0
91739305|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3605||||0
91739306|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.75||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3912||||0
91739307|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.93||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR15b||||0
91739308|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.35||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR127||||0
91739309|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.59||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR146a||||0
91739310|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR449b||||0
91739311|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR21-5p||||0.01
91739312|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6842||||0.01
91739313|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR142-5p||||0.01
91888903|NCT01370655|183670389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis supported if the upper bound of the two-sided 80% confidence interval (CI; equivalent to a one-sided upper 90% CI) is~≤0 mmHg"|Difference in Least square (LS) means|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.6|-4.1|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|Type I error rate of alpha=0.10 (1-sided) is specified for testing of the hypothesis.||-4.1|-10.6|
91739314|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR21||||0.01
91739315|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR493||||0.01
91739316|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR193a||||0.01
91739317|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR149||||0.01
91739318|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR449a||||0.01
91739319|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6511a||||0.01
91739320|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6843||||0.01
91739321|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR671||||0.01
91739322|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.65||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6503||||0.02
91739323|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR450b||||0.02
91739324|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.92||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR485||||0.02
91739325|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6806||||0.02
91739326|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3182||||0.02
91739327|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR142-3p||||0.02
91739328|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR320d||||0.02
91739329|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3928||||0.02
91739330|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR744||||0.02
91739331|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.42||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR206||||0.02
91739332|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR30e||||0.03
91739333|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR4500||||0.03
91739334|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR125a||||0.03
91739335|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR99b||||0.03
91739336|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1||||0.03
91739337|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR146b||||0.03
91739338|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1255a||||0.03
91739339|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR223||||0.03
91739340|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR642a||||0.03
91739341|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR548ae||||0.4
91739342|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR146b||||0.04
91739343|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.52||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR877||||0.04
91739344|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR181a||||0.04
91739345|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR4467||||0.04
91739346|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1249||||0.04
91739347|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.87||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR766||||0.04
91739348|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR29c||||0.048
91739349|NCT02230189|183370726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75||||-1.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR370||||-1.75
91739350|NCT05501639|183370732|OTHER|||||||0.758|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.758
91739351|NCT05501639|183370733|OTHER|||||||0.474|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.474
91739352|NCT05501639|183370734|OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.472
91739353|NCT05501639|183370735|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.604|||||Incidence rate ratio at 6 months|||1.604|0.261|
91873979|NCT02312258|183641210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.582|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.796|||Log Rank|||PFS for Participants with Known MRD+ at Study Entry|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.796|0.425|=0.001
91873980|NCT02312258|183641210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.537|||=|0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|4.194|||Log Rank|||PFS for Participants with Known MRD- at Study Entry|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|4.194|0.563|=0.398
91873981|NCT02312258|183641210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.173|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|86.649|||Log Rank|||OS for Participants with Known MRD Status (MRD- Status, MRD+ Status) at Study Entry|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|86.649|1.194|=0.012
91873982|NCT02312258|183641212|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011|||=|0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|1.621|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.621|0.631|=0.963
91873983|NCT02312258|183641216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.727|||Log Rank|||PFS Based on Frailty Status of Fit|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on Log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization.~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.727|0.387|<0.001
91873984|NCT02312258|183641216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.746|||=|0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|1.058|||Log Rank|||PFS Based on Frailty Status of Unfit|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on Log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization.~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.058|0.526|=0.098
91888904|NCT01370655|183670389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis supported if the upper bound of the two-sided 90% CI (equivalent to a one-sided upper 95% CI) for the difference ≤ 3.8 mmHg.|Difference in LS means|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.2|-1.6|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|Type I error rate of alpha=0.05 (1-sided) is specified for testing of the hypothesis.||-1.6|-9.2|
91888905|NCT01370655|183670389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|-0.5|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-0.5|-9.0|
91739354|NCT05501639|183370735|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|1.969|||||Incidence rate ratio at 12 months|||1.969|0.513|
91888906|NCT01370655|183670389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|-2.2|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||-2.2|-11.2|
91739355|NCT05501639|183370736|OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalisations||||0.222
91739356|NCT05501639|183370736|OTHER|||||||0.553|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma-related hospitalisations||||0.553
91739357|NCT05501639|183370736|OTHER|||||||0.192|||||||Chi-squared|||ED visits||||0.192
91739358|NCT05501639|183370736|OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma-related ED visits||||0.383
91739359|NCT05501639|183370736|OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||Chi-squared|||OP visits||||0.338
91739360|NCT05501639|183370736|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma-related OP visits||||<0.0001
91739361|NCT05501639|183370737|OTHER|||||||0.538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalisations||||0.538
91799234|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.33|
91873985|NCT02312258|183641216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733|||=|0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|1.117|||Log Rank|||PFS Based on Frailty Status of Frail|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on Log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization.~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.117|0.481|=0.147
91873986|NCT02312258|183641216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.602|||Log Rank|||OS Based on Frailty Status of Fit|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.602|0.502|=0.714
91888907|NCT01370655|183670389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|2.3|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||2.3|-6.2|
91888908|NCT01370655|183670390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|-0.3|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||-0.3|-6.1|
91888909|NCT01370655|183670390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|-0.2|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-0.2|-5.5|
91739362|NCT05501639|183370737|OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asthma-related hospitalisations||||0.913
91739363|NCT05501639|183370737|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ED visits||||0.688
91739364|NCT05501639|183370737|OTHER|||||||0.892|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asthma-related ED visits||||0.892
91739365|NCT05501639|183370737|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||OP visits||||<0.0001
91739366|NCT05501639|183370737|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asthma-related OP visits||||0.002
91739367|NCT05501639|183370738|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.378
91739368|NCT03188263|183370739|OTHER|The primary planned analysis was in bright light group only and compared pre-post measurements.||||||0.046||||||A threshold of .05 was selected a priori.|Sign test|A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was estimated to determine if pre-post measures of glucose levels differed significantly.||The primary planned analyses was to examine effect in bright light group. A significance level of .05 was selected a priori.||||.046
91739369|NCT03188263|183370740|OTHER|The primary planned analysis was in bright light group only and compared pre-post measurements.||||||0.35||||||A threshold of .05 was selected a priori.|Sign test|A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was estimated to determine if pre-post measures of glucose levels differed significantly.||The primary planned analyses was to examine effect in bright light group. A significance level of .05 was selected a priori.||||.35
91739370|NCT04021290|183370799|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the CMH adjusted difference in the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL between each treatment group (DTG/3TC - CAR) is less than 5%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent (ADP)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor:Baseline third agent (protease inhibitor \[PI\], non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor \[NNRTI\], and integrase inhibitor \[INI\]).|||0.8|-2.4|
91739371|NCT04021290|183370800|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms (DTG/3TC-CAR) is greater than -12%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.9|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor:Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, and INI).|||5.9|-2.8|
91739372|NCT04021290|183370821|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||2.2|0.7|<0.001
91739373|NCT04021290|183370822|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||2.2|0.7|<0.001
91739374|NCT04021290|183370823|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-1.6||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||-0.2|-2.9|0.021
91739375|NCT04021290|183370824|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.5||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.7|-1.8|0.398
91739376|NCT03391882|183370826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.722||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.62|-3.16|0.8944
91739377|NCT03391882|183370827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.129||||0.7777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.637|||generalized linear random effects model|||||2.637|0.484|0.7777
91739378|NCT03391882|183370828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from a 1-sample, 2-sided test of the null hypothesis that the true proportion preferring APL is 50% to evaluate if a significantly higher proportion of the subjects prefer APL-130277 or not.|binomial distribution with normal approx|||||||0.0002
91739379|NCT03391882|183370829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.835||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|4.438|||generalized linear random effects model|||||4.438|0.759|0.1769
91888910|NCT01370655|183670390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|-0.1|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-0.1|-6.0|
91739380|NCT03391882|183370830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.53|||generalized linear random effects model|||||3.53|0.61|0.3922
91739381|NCT04683913|183370831|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|alpha=0.05||||||<0.001
91799235|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.96|0.65|
91873987|NCT02312258|183641216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.601|||Log Rank|||OS Based on Frailty Status of Unfit|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|3.601|0.850|=0.124
91739382|NCT04683913|183370832|OTHER|||||||0.027||||||Week 1\&2 vs Week 3\&4|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.027
91739383|NCT04683913|183370832|OTHER|||||||1||||||Week 3\&4 vs Week 5\&6|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||1.0
91739384|NCT04683913|183370832|OTHER|||||||0.078||||||Week 5\&6 vs Follow up|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.078
91739385|NCT04683913|183370832|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Follow up vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.015
91739386|NCT04683913|183370832|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||Week 1\&2 vs Week 5\&6|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.567
91739387|NCT04683913|183370832|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Week 1\&2 vs Follow up|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.001
91739388|NCT04683913|183370832|OTHER|||||||1||||||Week 1\&2 vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||1.0
91739389|NCT04683913|183370832|OTHER|||||||0.205||||||Week 3\&4 vs Follow up|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.205
91739390|NCT04683913|183370832|OTHER|||||||0.162||||||Week 3\&4 vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.162
91739391|NCT04683913|183370832|OTHER|||||||0.421||||||Week 5\&6 vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.421
91739392|NCT04683913|183370837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - pain subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.750
91739393|NCT04683913|183370837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - stiffness subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.201
91739394|NCT04683913|183370837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - physical function subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.997
91799236|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|-0.16|
91739395|NCT04683913|183370837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - quality of life subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.423
91873988|NCT02312258|183641216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854|||=|0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.627|||Log Rank|||OS Based on Frailty Status of Frail|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.627|0.448|=0.630
91739396|NCT04683913|183370838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee adduction moment 1 (early stance) was analyzed as raw Nm with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.342
91739397|NCT04683913|183370838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Adduction Moment 2 (late stance was analyzed as raw Nm with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.844
91739398|NCT04683913|183370838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Flexion Moments were analyzed as raw Nm with body mass entered as as covariate||||0.774
91739399|NCT04683913|183370839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee adduction moment impulses were analyzed as raw Nm\*s with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.186
91739400|NCT04683913|183370839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee flexion moment impulses were analyzed as raw Nm\*s with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.601
91739401|NCT04046939|183370856|SUPERIORITY||Ratio to PBO of the ratios to baseline|0.2283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.431||A closed hierarchical procedure testing dexpramipexole against placebo at Week 12 was used. (1) 150 mg BID for AEC (2) 75 mg BID for AEC (3) pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group for pre-bronchodilator FEV1; and (4) 37.5 mg BID for AEC.|Mixed Models Analysis||0.2283 represents the ratio of the 150 mg BID week 12 ratio to baseline (0.2051), compared to the PBO week 12 ratio to baseline (0.8980). This ratio of 0.2283 is equivalent to a -77.17% change compared to placebo at week 12.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.431|0.121|<.0001
91739402|NCT04046939|183370856|SUPERIORITY||Ratio to PBO of the ratios to baseline|0.3403||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|0.653||A closed hierarchical procedure testing dexpramipexole against placebo at Week 12 was used. (1) 150 mg BID for AEC (2) 75 mg BID for AEC (3) pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group for pre-bronchodilator FEV1; and (4) 37.5 mg BID for AEC.|Mixed Models Analysis||0.3403 represents the ratio of the 75 mg BID week 12 ratio to baseline (0.3056), compared to the PBO week 12 ratio to baseline (0.8980). This ratio of 0.3403 is equivalent to a -65.97% change compared to placebo at week 12.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.653|0.177|0.0014
91739403|NCT04046939|183370856|SUPERIORITY||Ratio to PBO of the ratios to baseline|0.4489||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.874||A closed hierarchical statistical testing was used. The previous endpoint in the hierarchy was not statistically significant. Therefore, this endpoint was not formally tested and is not considered statistically significant, despite a p-value \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||0.4489 represents the ratio of the 37.5 mg BID week 12 ratio to baseline (0.4031) compared to the PBO week 12 ratio to baseline (0.8980). This ratio of 0.4489 is equivalent to a -55.11% change compared to placebo at week 12.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.874|0.231|0.0190
91739404|NCT04046939|183370857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0814||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.279||A closed hierarchical procedure testing dexpramipexole against placebo at Week 12 was used. (1) 150 mg BID for AEC (2) 75 mg BID for AEC (3) pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group for pre-bronchodilator FEV1; and (4) 37.5 mg BID for AEC.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group from placebo in change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The combined 75 mg and 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.279|-0.116|0.4154
91739405|NCT04046939|183370857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0456|0.4||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.400|-0.0456|0.1174
91873989|NCT00946998|183641242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
91739406|NCT04046939|183370857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0143||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.211||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.211|-0.240|0.8998
91873990|NCT00946998|183641243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||Represents the response outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
91873991|NCT00946998|183641243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Represents remission outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
91873992|NCT00946998|183641244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
91873993|NCT00946998|183641245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
91873994|NCT00946998|183641246|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||For death|Chi-squared|||||||>.99
91873995|NCT00946998|183641246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||For comparison of dialysis initiation between groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.77
91739407|NCT04046939|183370857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.37||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.370|-0.0950|0.2425
91739408|NCT04046939|183370858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.264||||0.3059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|0.245||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group compared to the placebo group in change in ACQ-6 score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.245|-0.772|0.3059
91739409|NCT04046939|183370858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0457||||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.484||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group compared to the placebo group in change in ACQ-6 score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.484|-0.575|0.8642
91873996|NCT00946998|183641246|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Hospitalization other than dialysis initiation|Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91739410|NCT04046939|183370858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0276||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.505||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group compared to the placebo group in change in ACQ-6 score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.505|-0.560|0.9182
91739411|NCT04046939|183370859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0163|0.378||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference of the 150 mg BID Dexpramipexole group from placebo in change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period) in liters. A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.378|-0.0163|0.0716
91739412|NCT04046939|183370859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00474||||0.9619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.202||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference of the 75 mg BID Dexpramipexole group from placebo in change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period) in liters. A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.202|-0.192|0.9619
91739413|NCT04046939|183370859|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0987||||0.3368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.302||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference of the 37.5 mg BID Dexpramipexole group from placebo in change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period) in liters. A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.302|-0.105|0.3368
91739414|NCT04046939|183370860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208||||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.755||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference in the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group from the placebo group in the change in AQLQ score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.755|-0.338|0.4512
91739415|NCT04046939|183370860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0642||||0.8214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.627|0.499||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference in the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group from the placebo group in the change in AQLQ score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.499|-0.627|0.8214
91739416|NCT04046939|183370860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.72||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference in the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group from the placebo group in the change in AQLQ score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.720|-0.411|0.5894
91739417|NCT04046939|183370866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196||||||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo at Week 12 using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.0196
91739418|NCT04046939|183370866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207||||||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 75mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo at Week 12 using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.0207
91873997|NCT00946998|183641246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||For comparison of acute suicidal intent.|Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91873998|NCT00946998|183641246|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||For comparison of bleeding requiring blood transfusion or hospitalization.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91888911|NCT01370655|183670390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-0.2|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||-0.2|-6.5|
91873999|NCT00674609|183641277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.67||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (average pain) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors. The null hypothesis was that of no treatment difference.||-0.14|-1.21|0.014
91874000|NCT00674609|183641277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.32||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.22|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (average pain) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors. The null hypothesis was that of no treatment difference.||0.22|-0.86|0.244
91739419|NCT04046939|183370866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5399||||||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo at Week 12 using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.5399
91739420|NCT04046939|183370867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0233||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0405|-0.00613||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change absolute basophil count (automated differential) from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value represents fewer basophils.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||-0.00613|-0.0405|0.0084
91739421|NCT04046939|183370867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0206||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0384|-0.00281||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change absolute basophil count (automated differential) from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value represents fewer basophils.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||-0.00281|-0.0384|0.0237
91739422|NCT04046939|183370867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00215||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0203|0.016||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change absolute basophil count (automated differential) from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value represents fewer basophils.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||0.0160|-0.0203|0.8140
91739423|NCT04046939|183370868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.24||||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|4.13||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in FeNO from Baseline to Week 12 in liters. In eosinophilic asthma, a lower FeNO indicates less eosinophilic inflammation of the airway than a higher value.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||4.13|-20.6|0.1886
91739424|NCT04046939|183370868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.53||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|6.08||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in FeNO from Baseline to Week 12 in liters. In eosinophilic asthma, a lower FeNO indicates less eosinophilic inflammation of the airway than a higher value.|The 75mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||6.08|-19.1|0.3061
91739425|NCT04046939|183370868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|3.04||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in FeNO from Baseline to Week 12 in liters. In eosinophilic asthma, a lower FeNO indicates less eosinophilic inflammation of the airway than a higher value.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||3.04|-23.4|0.1294
91739426|NCT04704193|183370869|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|0.987||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1a. Genetic testing is a blood test that looks for mutations in genes that can increase cancer risk"||.987|.888|
91739427|NCT04704193|183370869|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.974||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1b. Genetic test results may help guide my treatment options"||.974|.856|
91739428|NCT04704193|183370869|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|0.981||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1c. Genetic test results may help me understand the future risks of other cancers"||.981|.872|
91739429|NCT04704193|183370869|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|0.918||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1d. Genetic test results may increase stress to me and my family members"||.918|.758|
91874001|NCT00674609|183641278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.31||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||0.34|-0.97|0.346
91739430|NCT04704193|183370869|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.974||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1e. There are 3 gene panel options that include either a small, medium, or large number of genes"||.974|.856|
91739431|NCT04704193|183370869|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|0.967||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1f. Gene test results may come back as positive, negative or uncertain"||.967|.839|
91739432|NCT04704193|183370870|OTHER|Summary statistics only|Mean|13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91739433|NCT03384875|183370871|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.517|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.517
91739434|NCT04551898|183370894|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean|-0.25||||0.4829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-0.84|0.4829
91739435|NCT04551898|183370894|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean|-0.51||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.13|0.1739
91739436|NCT04551898|183370894|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean|0.19||||0.6006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-0.40|0.6006
91739437|NCT04551898|183370894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4996||||||H0: there is a flat dose response curve comparing change from baseline to Day 8 in viral load in the Placebo and other BGB-DXP593 dose groups|t-test, 1 sided|MCP Mod was used to test the primary hypothesis and provide 1-sided p-value accordingly.||||||0.4996
91739438|NCT03427814|183370910|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1428|||||||Log Rank|The one-sided p-value was based on a stratified log-rank test.||||||= 0.1428
91739439|NCT03846427|183370917|SUPERIORITY|P value was based on the exact binomial test against the null hypothesis of ORR = 30% with alternative of ORR \> 30%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact method|||||||<0.0001
91739440|NCT01334554|183370943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta coefficient (linear regression)|0.12||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.58||p- value was unadjusted. Primary outcome underwent logarithmic transformation|Regression, Linear|||H0= 4-week treatment with sildenafil citrate does not improve insulin sensitivity in obese African American women.||0.58|-0.33|0.55
91739441|NCT01334554|183370944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta coefficient|0.46||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.49||Adjusted for baseline values only|Regression, Linear|||||2.49|-1.58|0.649
91739442|NCT02393859|183370959|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-11.54|||<|0.001||||||Stratification factors were: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||< 0.001
91874002|NCT00674609|183641278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||0.68|-0.64|0.95
91739443|NCT02393859|183370959|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-11.16||||0.001|||||||Unstratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||0.001
91739444|NCT02393859|183370959|SUPERIORITY||Stratified hazard ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.66|||||Cox proportional hazard model. Stratification factors were: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.66|0.19|
91739445|NCT02393859|183370959|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified HR|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.7|||||Cox proportional hazard model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.70|0.22|
91739446|NCT02393859|183370959|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR w/time-dependent covariate|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.64|||||Cox proportional hazard model including time from randomization to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Stratification factors: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \<1.0=lower average event rate and longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.64|0.20|
91739447|NCT02393859|183370960|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-13.9|||<|0.001||||||Stratification factors were: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||< 0.001
91739448|NCT02393859|183370960|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-13.61|||<|0.001|||||||Unstratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for Blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event free survival time.|||||< 0.001
91739449|NCT02393859|183370960|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.61|||||Cox proportional hazard model. Stratification factors were: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.61|0.20|
91739450|NCT02393859|183370960|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified HR|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||||Cox proportional hazard model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.65|0.22|
91739451|NCT02393859|183370960|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR w/time-dependent covariate|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.59|||||Cox proportional hazard model including time from randomization to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Stratification factors: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \<1.0=lower average event rate and longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.59|0.20|
91739452|NCT02393859|183370961|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-10.14||||0.001||||||Stratification factors were: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||0.001
91739453|NCT02393859|183370961|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-10.32|||<|0.001|||||||Unstratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||< 0.001
91739454|NCT02393859|183370961|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.66|||||Cox proportional hazard model. Stratification factors were: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.66|0.16|
91739455|NCT02393859|183370961|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified HR|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.65|||||Cox proportional hazard model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.65|0.16|
91739456|NCT02393859|183370962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the stratification factors: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||MRD response by PCR||||< 0.001
91739457|NCT02393859|183370962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the stratification factors: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10-3 vs M2).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||MRD response by flow cytometry||||< 0.001
91739458|NCT02393859|183370963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.52|||||The subdistribution HR estimates are obtained from the subdistribution Cox model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer relapse-free time for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.52|0.16|
91739459|NCT02393859|183370963|SUPERIORITY||Stratified hazard ratio (HR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.48|||||The subdistribution HR estimates are obtained from the subdistribution Cox model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer relapse-free time for blinatumomab relative to HC3.) Stratification factors are age and marrow/MRD status.|||0.48|0.15|
91739460|NCT00954447|183370971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.74|-0.55|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.55|-0.74|<0.0001
91739461|NCT00954447|183370972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.935|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.949|4.419|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression of HbA1c \< 7.0 percent at week 52|Linagliptin 5mg vs. Placebo OR adjusted for baseline HbA1c, categorical renal function impairment, concomitant OADs and treatment|FAS with baseline HbA1c \>= 7.0 percent (NCF); there are 593 available values for Placebo and 595 for Linagliptin 5mg||4.419|1.949|<0.0001
91739462|NCT00954447|183370974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.51|-0.39|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.39|-0.51|<0.0001
91874003|NCT00674609|183641279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.49||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.09|-0.11|0.11
91874004|NCT00674609|183641279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.46||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.05|-0.13|0.126
91874005|NCT00674609|183641280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.65||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.28|0.01|0.045
91739463|NCT00954447|183370975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.69|-0.52|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.52|-0.69|<0.0001
91739464|NCT00954447|183370976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.76|-0.57|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.57|-0.76|<0.0001
91739465|NCT00954447|183370977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.67|-0.47|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.47|-0.67|<0.0001
91739466|NCT00954447|183370978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.65|-0.45|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.45|-0.65|<0.0001
91739467|NCT00954447|183370979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.64|-0.43|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.43|-0.64|<0.0001
91739468|NCT00954447|183370980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.0001||95.0|-16.49|-6.71|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-6.71|-16.49|<0.0001
91739469|NCT00954447|183370983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0029||95.0|-2.61|-0.54|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.54|-2.61|0.0029
91739470|NCT00954447|183370986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.327|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.221|8.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression of HbA1c \< 6.5 percent at week 52|Linagliptin 5mg vs. Placebo OR adjusted for baseline HbA1c, categorical renal function impairment, concomitant OADs and treatment|FAS with baseline HbA1c \>= 6.5 percent (NCF); there are 615 available values for Placebo and 616 for Linagliptin 5mg||8.430|2.221|<0.0001
91739471|NCT01979614|183370987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standard Error|-0.1116||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.176|||ANCOVA|||SAP for Global Myocardial Perfusion Reserve Index (MPRI)||0.176|-0.399|0.438
91739472|NCT04971967|183371052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.07
91739473|NCT04971967|183371053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.30
91739474|NCT04971967|183371055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.28
91739475|NCT04971967|183371057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.07
91739476|NCT04971967|183371058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.11
91739477|NCT00052910|183371059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.24|||||Adjusted Hazard Ratio, ECF vs 5-FU/LV|||1.24|0.79|
91739478|NCT00052910|183371060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28|||||Adjusted Hazard Ratio, ECF vs 5-FU/LV|||1.28|0.83|
91739479|NCT03181971|183371124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||2.9|0.2|0.68
91874006|NCT00674609|183641280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.62||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.25|-0.01|0.053
91874007|NCT00674609|183641281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.51|0.16|0.016
91888912|NCT01370655|183670390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|2.7|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||2.7|-3.3|
91739480|NCT03181971|183371124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months||0.7|0.03|0.017
91739481|NCT03181971|183371125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||2.0|0.07|.24
91739482|NCT03181971|183371125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||7.0|0.1|.98
91739483|NCT03181971|183371126|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||1.0|-0.6|0.57
91739484|NCT03181971|183371126|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||0.6|-1.5|.40
91739485|NCT03181971|183371127|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.04||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||0.1|-0.06|.46
91739486|NCT03181971|183371127|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||0.1|-0.2|.80
91739487|NCT03181971|183371128|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.001||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||0.03|-0.03|.93
91739488|NCT03181971|183371128|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||0.02|-0.06|.36
91739489|NCT03181971|183371129|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|1.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.5||Because of skewed distributions, dietary outcomes were log-transformed and regression coefficients were exponentiated to derive the percent change in outcomes by intervention status over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in total kcal intake from baseline to 7 months.||8.5|-5.3|0.70
91739490|NCT03181971|183371129|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|3.7||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.0||Because of skewed distributions, dietary outcomes were log-transformed and regression coefficients were exponentiated to derive the percent change in outcomes by intervention status over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in intake of food kcal from baseline to 7 months.||12.0|-3.9|.35
91739491|NCT03181971|183371129|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-10.6||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in intake of beverage kcal from baseline to 7 months.||8.8|-29.2|.35
91739492|NCT03181971|183371129|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-17.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in SSB kcal from baseline to 7 months.||9.6|-37.8|.18
91739493|NCT03181971|183371130|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|9.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|49.9||Because of skewed distributions, dietary outcomes were log-transformed and regression coefficients were exponentiated to derive the percent change in outcomes by intervention status over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||49.9|-20.6|.59
91739494|NCT03181971|183371131|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from baseline to 7 months.||34.2|13.1|<.001
91739495|NCT03181971|183371131|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|14.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|25.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from baseline to 15 months.||25.9|4.5|.004
91739496|NCT03181971|183371131|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-8.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in SSB intake from baseline to 7 months.||0.4|-15.7|0.063
91739497|NCT03181971|183371131|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-2.8||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in SSB intake from baseline to 15 months.||6.9|-11.7|.56
91739498|NCT03181971|183371131|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in juice intake from baseline to 7 months.||7|-4.3|.68
91739499|NCT03181971|183371131|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-1.4||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in juice intake from baseline to 15 months.||5|-7.4|.66
91739500|NCT03181971|183371131|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-4.0||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in flavored milk intake from baseline to 7 months.||0.5|-8.3|0.079
91888913|NCT01370655|183670391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis supported if the lower bound of the two-sided 80% CI (equivalent to a one-sided lower 90% CI) is \> 89.0 mmol/day.|Difference in LS means|76.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|49.2|103.8|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|Type I error rate of alpha=0.10 (1-sided) is specified for testing of the hypothesis.||103.8|49.2|
91888914|NCT01370655|183670391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-100.8|-26.7|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-26.7|-100.8|
91888915|NCT01370655|183670391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.1|12.9|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||12.9|-49.1|
91888916|NCT01370655|183670391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|30.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|68.7|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||68.7|-7.0|
91874008|NCT00674609|183641281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.66||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.33|-0.02|0.056
91874009|NCT00674609|183641282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.68||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.25|0.10|0.021
91874010|NCT00674609|183641282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|0.64||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.22|0.07|0.028
91874011|NCT00674609|183641283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|2.47||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|8.81|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change from baseline was assessed using ANCOVA, adjusting for the effects of the baseline value. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for the baseline value, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If found significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with 95% CI were presented.||8.81|-3.87|0.443
91874012|NCT00674609|183641283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|0.84||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|7.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change from baseline was assessed using ANCOVA, adjusting for the effects of the baseline value. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for the baseline value, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If found significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with 95% CI were presented.||7.13|-5.46|0.793
91874013|NCT00674609|183641284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.04||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Change in pain scores on-treatment were be compared between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The baseline pain score was fitted as a covariate in the model. The significance of the treatment effect after adjusting for baseline pain score was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If this was significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with the 95% confidence interval was presented for Sativex versus placebo and THC versus placebo.||3.15|-5.23|0.619
91874014|NCT00674609|183641284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-4.07||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change in pain scores on-treatment were be compared between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The baseline pain score was fitted as a covariate in the model. The significance of the treatment effect after adjusting for baseline pain score was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If this was significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with the 95% confidence interval was presented for Sativex versus placebo and THC versus placebo.||-0.05|-8.10|0.048
91739501|NCT03181971|183371131|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-3.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in flavored milk intake from baseline to 15 months.||2.3|-8.0|.26
91739502|NCT03181971|183371131|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|4.4||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in plain milk intake from baseline to 7 months.||11.5|-2.2|.20
91874015|NCT00674609|183641285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.04||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.16|||Regression, Logistic|||The on-treatment data was calculated from all available data during the last three days. The number of days the escape medication was used out of the last three days taken in the study was compared between treatments using logistic regression with a cumulative logit model. From this analysis the frequency distribution (%) of number days escape medication was used was presented together with the odds ratio, p-value and 95% CI for the treatment contrasts.||0.16|-0.25|0.688
91888917|NCT01370655|183670391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.8|130.4|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||130.4|58.8|
91705189|NCT05153148|183304902|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-10.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-3.6|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-3.6|-18.2|=0.003
91739503|NCT03181971|183371131|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|2.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in plain milk intake from baseline to 15 months.||9.6|-4.4|.51
91739504|NCT03181971|183371132|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|42.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at lunch from baseline to 7 months.||42.2|21.2|<.001
91739505|NCT03181971|183371132|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|4.9||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source during lunch from baseline to 15 months.||13.5|-3.0|.22
91739506|NCT03181971|183371132|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|17.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|33.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at recess from baseline to 7 months.||33.3|2.6|.02
91705190|NCT05153148|183304903|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.07|||=|0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.08|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.08|-0.21|=0.357
91874016|NCT00674609|183641285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.01||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.22|||Regression, Logistic|||The on-treatment data was calculated from all available data during the last three days. The number of days the escape medication was used out of the last three days taken in the study was compared between treatments using logistic regression with a cumulative logit model. From this analysis the frequency distribution (%) of number days escape medication was used was presented together with the odds ratio, p-value and 95% CI for the treatment contrasts.||0.22|-0.19|0.899
91874017|NCT02301299|183641322|OTHER|For power calculation, we assumed that the intervention would be almost fully implemented in May 2016 and the early hospital arrival would be observed until Dec 2017. Therefore, a post-intervention period would be 20 months. To have one-third of the study period as an intervention period, we planned to analyze five-year (60-month) data from January 2013 to December 2017.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|Using the seasonally adjusted time series data, we conducted linear regression analysis for time series data in PROC AUTOREG.||The effect size was defined as the sum of expected slope change in monthly early hospital arrival rate over the standard deviation. Assuming an autocorrelation level of 0.3, both level and trend change effect size of 0.5 would be detectable at 90% power at a significance level of 0.05.|Using SAS PROC TIMESERIES, individual admission data were aggregated into monthly time series data to calculate a monthly early arrival rate. In this procedure, we also generated seasonally adjusted time series data to take into account a seasonal pattern. Using the seasonally adjusted time series data, we conducted linear regression analysis for time series data in PROC AUTOREG. The statistical hypothesis of the regression model was that there are a level change and a slope change after the intervention. In the regression model, we included a time variable to account for a natural trend prior to the intervention introduction (or in absence of the intervention). We assumed that the patient population was stable during the five-year period and no other factors than the intervention affected the outcome; no other potential confounding factors were not considered. A backward elimination was used to correct for autocorrelation. Maximum likelihood method was used to estimate parameters.|||<.0001
91888918|NCT01370655|183670395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the two-sided 80% CI (equivalent to a one-sided upper 90% CI) for the difference is \<13 mmol/day the hypothesis will be supported for the 3-mg dose and testing will continue with construction of a two-sided 80% CI for the 6-mg dose (6 mg MK-7145 - placebo). The hypothesis will be supported if one or both doses meet the test criterion.|Difference in LS means|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.3|18.2|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||18.2|-2.3|
91888919|NCT01370655|183670395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the two-sided 80% CI (equivalent to a one-sided upper 90% CI) for the difference is \<13 mmol/day the hypothesis will be supported for the 3-mg dose and testing will continue with construction of a two-sided 80% CI for the 6-mg dose (6 mg MK-7145 - placebo). The hypothesis will be supported if one or both doses meet the test criterion.|Difference in LS means|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.5|10.7|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||10.7|-8.5|
91888920|NCT01370655|183670395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.6|15.6|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||15.6|-9.6|
91739507|NCT03181971|183371132|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|4.7||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|19.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at recess from baseline to 15 months.||19.2|-8.0|.48
91739508|NCT03181971|183371132|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|34.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|99.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at PE from baseline to 7 months.||99.8|-9.4|.14
91739509|NCT03181971|183371132|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|32.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|96.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at PE from baseline to 15 months.||96.2|-11.0|.16
91739510|NCT04343092|183371135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.92||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Historical control population included: Hydroxychloroquin (HCQ) 400mg BID at admission day then 200mg BID for 5 days plus Azithromycin (AZT) 500mg at admission day then 250mg for 5 days.|||0.05
91739511|NCT00803738|183371136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For the primary clinical equivalence analysis, a 90% confidence interval was constructed on the difference in the therapeutic cure rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at the Test-of-Cure visit (Visit 3). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Clinical equivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|proportion of subjects in trtmt groups|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|15.02|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||15.02|-4.30|
91739512|NCT00803738|183371137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A 90% confidence interval was constructed on the difference in the mycological cure rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at the Test-of-Cure visit (Visit 3). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Clinical equivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|proportion of subjects in trtmt groups|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.66|11.49|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||11.49|-4.66|
91739513|NCT00803738|183371138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A 90% confidence interval was constructed on the difference in the clinical cure rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at the Test-of-Cure visit (Visit 3). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Clinical equivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|proportion of subjects in trtmt groups|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|16.88|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||16.88|-1.35|
91739514|NCT03012334|183371161|NON_INFERIORITY|Doses of lasmiditan were considered non-inferior to placebo if the upper 95% confidence limit on the difference in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) between that dose and placebo was less than 4.4 cm and lower doses also did not exceed the non-inferiority (NI) margin.|LS Mean|9.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|12.33||P-value is obtained from mixed effect model for testing difference versus placebo equals to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.33|7.39|<.001
91739515|NCT03012334|183371161|NON_INFERIORITY|Doses of lasmiditan were considered non-inferior to placebo if the upper 95% confidence limit on the difference in SDLP between that dose and placebo was less than 4.4 cm and lower doses also did not exceed the non-inferiority (NI) margin.|LS Mean|15.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.87|17.82||P-value is obtained from mixed effect model for testing difference versus placebo equals to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.82|12.87|<0.001
91874018|NCT02301299|183641323|OTHER|For power calculation, we assumed that the intervention would be almost fully implemented in May 2016 and the EMS use would be observed until Dec 2017. Therefore, a post-intervention period would be 20 months. To have one-third of the study period as an intervention period, we planned to analyze five-year (60-month) data from January 2013 to December 2017.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect size was defined as the sum of expected slope change in monthly EMS use rate over the standard deviation. Assuming an autocorrelation level of 0.3, both level and trend change effect size of 0.5 would be detectable at 90% power at a significance level of 0.05. The effect size is measured in slope of change over time (negative values indicate a decrease while positive values indicate an increase in % EMS use/month).|Using SAS PROC TIMESERIES, individual admission data were aggregated into monthly time series data to calculate a monthly EMS arrival rate. In this procedure, we also generated seasonally adjusted time series data to take into account a seasonal pattern. Using the seasonally adjusted time series data, we conducted linear regression analysis for time series data in PROC AUTOREG. The statistical hypothesis of the regression model was that there are a level change and a slope change after the intervention. In the regression model, we included a time variable to account for a natural trend prior to the intervention introduction (or in absence of the intervention). We assumed that the patient population was stable during the five-year period and no other factors than the intervention affected the outcome; no other potential confounding factors were not considered. A backward elimination was used to correct for autocorrelation. Maximum likelihood method was used to estimate parameters.|||<.0001
91874019|NCT00476151|183641356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.083
91874020|NCT02068352|183641357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|11.93||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|23.95||P-value was derived using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.95|-0.08|0.0690
91874021|NCT02068352|183641357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|18.23||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.99|31.46||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.46|4.99|0.0165
91705191|NCT05153148|183304903|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||=|0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.05|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.05|-0.24|=0.195
91705192|NCT05153148|183304903|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.05|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.09|-0.20|=0.467
91705193|NCT05153148|183304904|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.3|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|2.4|0.1|=0.031
91705194|NCT05153148|183304904|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-1.1|=0.860
91705195|NCT05153148|183304904|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2|||=|0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.3|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-0.9|=0.758
91705196|NCT05153148|183304905|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.5|||=|0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.2|-1.2|=0.131
91705197|NCT05153148|183304905|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.7|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.0|-1.3|=0.043
91705198|NCT05153148|183304905|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.5|-0.8|=0.687
91705199|NCT05153148|183304906|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6|||=|0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of MDA responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|17.4|-6.1|=0.349
91705200|NCT05153148|183304906|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.5|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|28.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of MDA responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|28.3|2.8|=0.017
91874022|NCT02068352|183641357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|12.3||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|24.53||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.53|0.06|0.0617
91739516|NCT03012334|183371161|NON_INFERIORITY|Doses of lasmiditan were considered non-inferior to placebo if the upper 95% confidence limit on the difference in SDLP between that dose and placebo was less than 4.4 cm and lower doses also did not exceed the non-inferiority (NI) margin.|LS Mean|21.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|23.52||P-value is obtained from mixed effect model for testing difference versus placebo equals to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.52|18.60|<0.001
91739517|NCT03012334|183371161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|22.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.23|25.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.18|20.23|<0.001
91874023|NCT02068352|183641358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, and interaction of treatment by visit as terms, Baseline score as a covariate.||||-0.10|-0.84|0.0128
91874024|NCT02068352|183641358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||-0.10|-0.81|0.0134
91874025|NCT02068352|183641359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.16|-0.85|0.0048
91874026|NCT02068352|183641359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.16|-0.84|0.0045
91874027|NCT02068352|183641361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.26||||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|21.52||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.52|-8.99|0.4173
91874028|NCT02068352|183641361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47||||0.4895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|20.36||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.36|-9.43|0.4895
91874029|NCT02068352|183641361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.19||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|25.12||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.12|-6.74|0.2677
91874030|NCT02068352|183641361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.12||||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|25.87||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.87|-5.63|0.2319
91874031|NCT02068352|183641362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||1.11|-3.33|0.3213
91874032|NCT02068352|183641362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||0.08|-4.27|0.0594
91739518|NCT03012334|183371161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-12.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|-10.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.38|-15.32|<0.001
91799237|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|0.36|
91874033|NCT02068352|183641362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||1.37|-3.43|0.396
91874034|NCT02068352|183641362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||0.46|-4.26|0.1135
91874035|NCT02068352|183641363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.1703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||0.65|-3.63|0.1703
91874036|NCT02068352|183641363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.45|-4.67|0.0176
91874037|NCT02068352|183641363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.2381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.95|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||0.95|-3.78|0.2381
91874038|NCT02068352|183641363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.03|-4.68|0.047
91739519|NCT03012334|183371161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|-4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.88|-9.84|<0.001
91739520|NCT03012334|183371161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.65||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-4.11|0.19
91739521|NCT03012334|183371162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1744|2.0335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0335|1.1744|<0.0001
91739522|NCT03012334|183371162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8306|2.6926|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6926|1.8306|<.0001
91874039|NCT02068352|183641364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||10.7|-13.5|0.8196
91874040|NCT02068352|183641364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.83||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||0.02|-23.69|0.0503
91739523|NCT03012334|183371162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4239|3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2800|2.4239|<0.0001
91739524|NCT03012334|183371162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9568|3.8193|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8193|2.9568|<0.0001
91739525|NCT03012334|183371162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2137|-1.3546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3546|-2.2137|<0.0001
91739526|NCT03012334|183371162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5574|-0.6956|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6956|-1.5574|<0.0001
91739527|NCT03012334|183371162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.5||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9642|-0.1081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1081|-0.9642|0.0142
91739528|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6895|-6.5006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.5006|-18.6895|<.0001
91739529|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3631|-18.1357|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.1357|-30.3631|<.0001
91739530|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-28.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.442|-22.2897|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.2897|-34.4420|<.0001
91739531|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5068|-24.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.2770|-36.5068|<0.0001
91739532|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7029|23.8908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.8908|11.7029|<.0001
91874041|NCT02068352|183641364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68||||0.5902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.22|9.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||9.85|-17.22|0.5902
91874042|NCT02068352|183641364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.42||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||-0.11|-26.73|0.0482
91874043|NCT02068352|183641365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.8633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|10.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||10.48|-12.48|0.8633
91739533|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.1||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|12.2554|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.2554|0.0297|0.0489
91739534|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.0||||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|8.1021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.1021|-4.0500|0.5123
91739535|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4956|-20.3628|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.3628|-32.4956|<.0001
91739536|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.927|-31.7537|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.7537|-43.9270|<.0001
91739537|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-46.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8147|-40.7268|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.7268|-52.8147|<.0001
91739538|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.649|-46.4682|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-46.4682|-58.6490|<0.0001
91739539|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0635|32.1953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.1953|20.0635|<.0001
91739540|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6325|20.804|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.8040|8.6325|<.0001
91739541|NCT03012334|183371164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.8||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|11.8317|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.8317|-0.2560|0.0605
91739542|NCT03012334|183371165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-2.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.85|-6.14|<0.001
91739543|NCT03012334|183371165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-5.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.28|-8.58|<0.001
91739544|NCT03012334|183371165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|-7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.23|-10.52|<0.001
91739545|NCT03012334|183371165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-9.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.51|-12.81|<0.001
91739546|NCT03012334|183371165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|8.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.31|5.02|<0.001
91739547|NCT03012334|183371165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.88|2.58|<0.001
91739548|NCT03012334|183371165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.3|||<|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.93|0.64|<0.007
91739549|NCT03012334|183371166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.439|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2198|1.6583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6583|1.2198|<0.0001
91739550|NCT03012334|183371166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.018|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7981|2.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2380|1.7981|<0.0001
91739551|NCT03012334|183371166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3536|2.7909|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7909|2.3536|<0.0001
91739552|NCT03012334|183371166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.553|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3331|2.773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7730|2.3331|<0.0001
91739553|NCT03012334|183371166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3333|-0.8948|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.8948|-1.3333|<0.0001
91739554|NCT03012334|183371166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.535|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7549|-0.3151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3151|-0.7549|<0.0001
91739555|NCT03012334|183371166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.019||||0.8629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1995|0.2379|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2379|-0.1995|0.8629
91739556|NCT03012334|183371168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0849|0.2746|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2746|0.0849|0.0002
91739557|NCT03012334|183371168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2082|0.3985|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3985|0.2082|<.0001
91739558|NCT03012334|183371168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.372|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|0.4662|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4662|0.2770|<.0001
91739559|NCT03012334|183371168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.603|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|0.6983|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6983|0.5080|<.0001
91739560|NCT03012334|183371168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.423|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5183|-0.3286|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3286|-0.5183|<.0001
91739561|NCT03012334|183371168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3949|-0.2047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2047|-0.3949|<0.0001
91739562|NCT03012334|183371168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.232|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3261|-0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1370|-0.3261|<0.0001
91888921|NCT01370655|183670395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|7.2|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||7.2|-15.0|
91739563|NCT00328172|183371181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3271||95.0|-0.41|0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 0.5 mg versus placebo||0.14|-0.41|0.3271
91739564|NCT00328172|183371181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0032||95.0|-0.69|-0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 2.5 mg versus placebo||-0.14|-0.69|0.0032
91874044|NCT02068352|183641365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.25|-22.83|0.0452
91739565|NCT00328172|183371181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0012||95.0|-0.74|-0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.18|-0.74|0.0012
91739566|NCT00328172|183371181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.1|-0.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Metformin versus placebo||-0.59|-1.1|<0.0001
91739567|NCT00328172|183371182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.7027||95.0|-10.0|15.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 0.5 mg versus placebo||15.1|-10|0.7027
91739568|NCT00328172|183371182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.003||95.0|-32.0|-6.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 2.5 mg versus placebo||-6.6|-32|0.003
91739569|NCT00328172|183371182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.0418||95.0|-26.0|-0.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.5|-26|0.0418
91739570|NCT00328172|183371182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-47.0|-22.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||||-22|-47|< 0.0001
91739571|NCT00328172|183371183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.735||||0.413||95.0|0.464|6.492|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 0.5 mg versus placebo||6.492|0.464|0.413
91739572|NCT00328172|183371183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.157||||0.842||95.0|0.275|4.861|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 2.5 mg versus placebo||4.861|0.275|0.842
91739573|NCT00328172|183371183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.364||95.0|0.492|6.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||6.910|0.492|0.364
91739574|NCT00328172|183371183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.224||||0.005||95.0|1.648|16.562|||Regression, Logistic|||Metformin versus placebo||16.562|1.648|0.005
91739575|NCT00077974|183371184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|33.0||||||95.0|24.2|42.8|||||Using exact method based on binomial distribution. Percent equals n divided by N times 100.|||42.8|24.2|
91874045|NCT02068352|183641365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|10.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||10.12|-15.58|0.6746
91874046|NCT02068352|183641365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.05||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|-0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.4|-25.69|0.0432
91739576|NCT04512001|183371242|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for results to be considered equivalent: -0.6 to 0.5.|Least squares means difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.18||||||||0.18|-0.16|
91739577|NCT04512001|183371244|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for results to be considered equivalent: -15%, 15%.|Difference in % Response Rate|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|2.11||||||||2.11|-9.97|
91739578|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|3.44||||||Serotype 1 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||3.44|2.47|
91739579|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.69||||||Serotype 1 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.69|1.23|
91739580|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.25||||||Serotype 5 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.25|1.66|
91739581|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88||||||Serotype 5 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.88|0.65|
91739582|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|16.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.84|20.03||||||Serotype 6A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||20.03|12.84|
91739583|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06||||||Serotype 6A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.06|0.72|
91739584|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|2.95||||||Serotype 6B geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.95|2.14|
91739585|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95||||||Serotype 6B geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.95|0.68|
91739586|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.44||||||Serotype 7F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.44|1.83|
91739587|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.22||||||Serotype 7F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.22|0.91|
91739588|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.65||||||Serotype 9V geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.65|1.21|
91799238|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|-0.08|
91799239|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.96|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.96|-0.04|
91739589|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05||||||Serotype 9V geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.05|0.76|
91739590|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.1||||||Serotype 14 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.10|1.29|
91739591|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||||||Serotype 14 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.12|0.73|
91739592|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|4.67||||||Serotype 19A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||4.67|2.91|
91739593|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87||||||Serotype 19A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.87|0.60|
91739594|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79||||||Serotype 19F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.79|0.52|
91739595|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.89||||||Serotype 19F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.89|0.62|
91739596|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.76||||||Serotype 23F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.76|1.89|
91739597|NCT03896477|183371275|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22||||||Serotype 23F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.22|0.82|
91739598|NCT01106157|183371294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.552|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.552|0.001|0.017
91739599|NCT01106157|183371295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.30|0.43
91739600|NCT01106157|183371296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|-1.64|0.37
91739601|NCT01106157|183371297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|-0.40|0.69
91739602|NCT01106157|183371298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|81.3||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.8|180.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||180.3|-156.8|0.89
91739603|NCT01106157|183371299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.15|0.2
91739604|NCT01106157|183371300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.61||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|16.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.7|-64.8|0.23
91739605|NCT01106157|183371301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|-0.18|0.79
91739606|NCT01106157|183371302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|3.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.35|-18.7|0.163
91739607|NCT01120405|183371319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of xenon over sevoflurane is accepted if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI around the estimated difference is below the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference of proportion|0.19||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|7.07|||Difference of proportion|||"The percentage of patients with MN during the 3 postoperative days in the sevoflurane group and in the xenon group was expected to be 20%. The margin of non-inferiority was 10%. Thus the sample size to prove non-inferiority was 252 patients per group with α = 0.025, a power of 0.80 and the following hypotheses: H0: Px-Pc ≥ 10%; H1: Px-Pc \< 10%.~As it was expected that approximately 15% of patients would be non-evaluable, a total of 600 patients were included."||7.07|-6.70|0.0052
91739608|NCT01120405|183371320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|0.68||||0.7715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.25|||Difference of proportion|||||5.25|-3.90|0.7715
91739609|NCT01120405|183371321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|0.68||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.54|||Difference of proportion|||||2.54|-1.19|0.4763
91739610|NCT01120405|183371322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|-0.34||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.14|||Difference of proportion|||||1.14|-1.82|0.6533
91739611|NCT01120405|183371323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|0.68||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.61|||Difference of proportion|||||1.61|-0.26|0.1559
91739612|NCT01120405|183371325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|1.69||||0.6056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|8.13|||Difference of proportion|||||8.13|-4.74|0.6056
91739613|NCT01953211|183371350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91888922|NCT01370655|183670395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|17.6|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||17.6|-7.7|
91874047|NCT01767376|183641370|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup A between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.48|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup A, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.48|0.97|
91874048|NCT01767376|183641370|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup C between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.47|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup C, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.47|0.85|
91874049|NCT01767376|183641370|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup W-135 between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup W-135, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.32|0.86|
91874050|NCT01767376|183641370|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup Y between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.59|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup Y, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.59|1.02|
91739614|NCT01953211|183371350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91739615|NCT01953211|183371350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91739616|NCT01628523|183371352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91739617|NCT00768261|183371353|OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|df= 3,92||||||0.095
91739618|NCT00768261|183371354|OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"There would be a treatment effect on the changes of hippocampal measures over time.~Repeated measures ANOVA on hippocampal volume slopes with hemisphere as a within-subject repeated factor, and treatment group as the main effect."||||0.066
91739619|NCT00768261|183371354|OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"There would be a treatment effect on the changes of hippocampal measures over time.~Repeated measures ANOVA on hippocampal volume slopes with hemisphere as a within-subject repeated factor, and treatment group as the main effect."||||0.009
91799240|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.84|-0.17|
91799241|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.77|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.77|-0.16|
91739620|NCT00768261|183371354|OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"There would be a treatment effect on the changes of hippocampal measures over time.~Repeated measures ANOVA on hippocampal volume slopes with hemisphere as a within-subject repeated factor, and treatment group as the main effect."||||0.30
91739621|NCT00768261|183371354|OTHER|||||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||RM-ANOVA on hippocampal volume slope||||0.0288
91739622|NCT00120627|183371362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|F (1,144) = 4.12, p \< .05||2 group (treatment vs. control) by 2 time (pre-intervention and post-intervention) one-way ANOVA||||<0.05
91739623|NCT00120627|183371362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91739624|NCT00120627|183371363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Intent to treat analysis using Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm in SPSS, a maximum-likelihood method based on group assignment, demographic variables and clinical variables.||||<0.05
91739625|NCT00120627|183371364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 group (treatment vs control) by 2 time points (pre-intervention and post-intervention)||||<0.0001
91739626|NCT00120627|183371365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91739627|NCT00120627|183371365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mediation using Sobel Test|||||||<0.001
91739628|NCT00120627|183371366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91739629|NCT00120627|183371367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 group (treatment vs control) by 2 time (pre-intervention and post-intervention) ANOVA||||< 0.05
91739630|NCT00120627|183371368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Depression Subscale||||<0.001
91739631|NCT00120627|183371368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Anxiety Subscale||||=0.31
91739632|NCT00120627|183371368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Somatization Subscale||||=0.44
91739633|NCT00120627|183371369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Post-hoc analysis||||=0.66
91739634|NCT00120627|183371370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.18
91739635|NCT00120627|183371371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.01
91739636|NCT00959907|183371388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832
91739637|NCT00959907|183371389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.658||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.658
91874051|NCT01767376|183641371|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-D concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in percentage|-2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|3.53||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) in terms of anti-diphtheria toxoid (anti-D) antibody concentrations one month after Boostrix vaccination.||3.53|-7.88|
91739638|NCT00959907|183371389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.739
91739639|NCT00959907|183371390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.184
91739640|NCT01722929|183371400|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value is for the main effect for the Treatment, Time, and Treatment\*Time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed ANOVA was performed with the arms as a between factor and the three times as the within factor.||||<0.0001
91739641|NCT04290624|183371485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-0.40|<0.0001
91739642|NCT04290624|183371486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-19.1|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-19.1|-38.1|<0.0001
91739643|NCT04290624|183371486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-17.7|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-17.7|-38.2|<0.0001
91739644|NCT04290624|183371487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.27|-0.52|<0.0001
91739645|NCT04290624|183371487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.25|-0.47|<0.0001
91739646|NCT04290624|183371488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.56|-1.14|<0.0001
91739647|NCT04290624|183371488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.67|-1.23|<0.0001
91739648|NCT04290624|183371489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.61|-1.22|<0.0001
91739649|NCT04290624|183371489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.74|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.74|-1.36|<0.0001
91739650|NCT04290624|183371490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.41|<0.0001
91799242|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.74|-0.07|
91739651|NCT04290624|183371491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.2|-0.9|0.0039
91739652|NCT04290624|183371491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
91739653|NCT04290624|183371492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.01|-0.21|0.0367
91739654|NCT04290624|183371492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01|||Van-Elteren test|||At Week 12||-0.01|-0.14|0.0725
91739655|NCT04290624|183371493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.13|-0.43|0.0006
91739656|NCT04290624|183371493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.11|-0.41|0.0009
91739657|NCT04290624|183371494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.15|-0.62|0.0020
91739658|NCT04290624|183371494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.16|-0.52|0.0005
91739659|NCT00656370|183371511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.93
91739660|NCT00656370|183371512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.67
91739661|NCT01342094|183371517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.2|< 0.001
91739662|NCT01646814|183371561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
91739663|NCT01911351|183371566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||kappa statistic|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\< or = 0.05|Chi-squared|||A kappa statistic was performed for 75% of the group to assess inter-rater agreement of the perception of the success of the procedure.||||<0.001
91739664|NCT01333436|183371590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.8||0.0078||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0078
91739665|NCT01333436|183371591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.9||0.0675||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0675
91739666|NCT01333436|183371592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8||0.1798||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1798
91739667|NCT02878382|183371593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||significance level of 5%|Chi-squared|also, Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whtiney were used for comparing the other variables in the study||||||<0.001
91739668|NCT02878382|183371595|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||significance level of 5%|Fisher Exact|||||||=0.001
91739669|NCT02878382|183371596|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney test was used according to the assumption of normality of data for PpIX fluorescence intensity||||=0.048
91739670|NCT00543985|183371597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.266|||=|0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Pearson Product correlation was used to determine relationships between resting E/E' and Exercise VO2 max and Stress E/E' and Exercise VO2max.||||=0.14
91874052|NCT01767376|183641371|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|1.26||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) in terms of anti-tetanus toxoid (anti-T) antibody concentrations one month after Boostrix vaccination.||1.26|-2.48|
91739671|NCT01634152|183371601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.099|-0.028|0.2724
91739672|NCT01634152|183371601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.203|0.075|<0.0001
91739673|NCT01634152|183371602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.5898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis for this endpoint was performed in a stepwise manner after the analysis of the primary endpoint was performed. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.085|-0.048|0.5898
91739674|NCT01634152|183371602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis for this endpoint was performed in a stepwise manner after the analysis of the primary endpoint was performed. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.154|0.019|0.0117
91739675|NCT01634152|183371603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.027|-0.113|0.2277
91739676|NCT01634152|183371603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.3998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.101|-0.040|0.3998
91739677|NCT01634152|183371604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.026|-0.121|0.2030
91739678|NCT01634152|183371604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.8194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.083|-0.066|0.8194
91739679|NCT01634152|183371605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.2907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.088|-0.026|0.2907
91739680|NCT01634152|183371605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.184|0.068|<0.0001
91739681|NCT01634152|183371606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.022|-0.103|0.2008
91739682|NCT01634152|183371606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.2545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.100|-0.026|0.2545
91739683|NCT01634152|183371609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.173|-0.133|0.7980
91739684|NCT01634152|183371609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.3166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.076|-0.233|0.3166
91739685|NCT01634152|183371611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.261|-0.227|0.8916
91739686|NCT01634152|183371611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.158|-0.336|0.4789
91739687|NCT01634152|183371612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.129|-0.160|0.8361
91739688|NCT01634152|183371612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.060|-0.233|0.2461
91874053|NCT01767376|183641372|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group) for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertussis (PT) antigen, being greater than or equal to (≥) the predefined limit of 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) with respect to geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against pertussis toxoid (PT), one month after Boostrix vaccination.||0.89|0.66|
91874054|NCT01767376|183641372|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group) for GMC ratios of antibodies against the filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) antigen, being greater than or equal to (≥) the predefined limit of 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.65|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) with respect to geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA), one month after Boostrix vaccination.||0.65|0.50|
91874055|NCT01767376|183641372|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group) for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertactin (PRN) antigen, being greater than or equal to (≥) the predefined limit of 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.88|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) with respect to geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against pertactin (PRN), one month after Boostrix vaccination.||0.88|0.59|
91874056|NCT04883541|183641387|SUPERIORITY|the t-test in independent groups|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91739689|NCT01634152|183371613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.6029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.165|-0.096|0.6029
91739690|NCT01634152|183371613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.107|-0.158|0.7034
91739691|NCT01634152|183371614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.686||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.419|13.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||13.970|-4.419|0.3083
91739692|NCT01634152|183371614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.747||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.571|14.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||14.057|-4.571|0.3179
91739693|NCT01634152|183371615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.807||0.9061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.866|10.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||10.001|-8.866|0.9061
91739694|NCT01634152|183371615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.867||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.658|5.444|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||5.444|-13.658|0.3990
91739695|NCT01634152|183371616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.959|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||1.060|-2.959|0.3542
91739696|NCT01634152|183371616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.042||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.545|1.541|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||1.541|-2.545|0.6298
91739697|NCT01634152|183371617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.043|-0.107|0.4066
91739698|NCT01634152|183371617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.027|-0.125|0.2032
91739699|NCT01634152|183371618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.028|-0.131|0.2064
91739700|NCT01634152|183371618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.020|-0.142|0.1410
91739701|NCT01634152|183371619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.082|-0.083|0.9869
91705201|NCT05153148|183304906|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of MDA responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|29.3|3.3|=0.014
91705202|NCT05153148|183304907|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.73|||=|0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|1.57|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.57|-9.04|=0.167
91739702|NCT01634152|183371619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.090|-0.077|0.8730
91799243|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|0.58|
91799244|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.537|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.85|-0.13|
91799245|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.89|-0.15|
91799246|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.527|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|-0.10|
91799247|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.574|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.88|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.88|-0.10|
91799248|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.85|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.85|-0.05|
91799249|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.834|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|0.54|
91799250|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.72|-0.27|
91874057|NCT03456856|183641395|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.0|||repeated measures linear model|||The estimated mean treatment difference (95% CI) takes into account a presumed -5 bpm change from baseline heart rate in the absence of ivabradine (as seen in the placebo group in the SHIFT study, (NCT02441218, PMID 20801500).||-1.0|-8.0|0.013
91874058|NCT04421456|183641436|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. For the PANSS-T score, baseline PANSS-P, baseline PANSS-N, and baseline PANSS-G are included in the model as fixed effects for the associated baseline instead of baseline PANSS-T.|Least square mean difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|2.84|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||2.84|-6.35|0.4528
91874059|NCT04421456|183641436|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. For the PANSS-T score, baseline PANSS-P, baseline PANSS-N, and baseline PANSS-G are included in the model as fixed effects for the associated baseline instead of baseline PANSS-T.|Least square mean difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|2.85|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||2.85|-6.76|0.4226
91874060|NCT04421456|183641437|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.4479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.0|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.00|-2.25|0.4479
91874061|NCT04421456|183641437|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.49|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||0.49|-2.92|0.1616
91799251|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|-0.18|
91799252|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|0.09|
91799253|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.69|-0.19|
91799254|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|0.81|
91799255|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|0.42|
91874062|NCT04421456|183641438|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.6787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.18|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.18|-1.80|0.6787
91739703|NCT01634152|183371620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.091|-0.103|0.9043
91739704|NCT01634152|183371620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.083|-0.112|0.7708
91739705|NCT01634152|183371621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.4864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.066|-0.139|0.4864
91739706|NCT01634152|183371621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.7991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.090|-0.117|0.7991
91739707|NCT01634152|183371622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.106|-0.092|0.8884
91739708|NCT01634152|183371622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.8115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.088|-0.112|0.8115
91739709|NCT01634152|183371623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.117|-0.084|0.7498
91739710|NCT01634152|183371623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.019|-0.185|0.1108
91739711|NCT01634152|183371624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.8055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.102|-0.131|0.8055
91739712|NCT01634152|183371624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.047|-0.189|0.2360
91739713|NCT01634152|183371625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.063|-0.097|0.6748
91739714|NCT01634152|183371625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.105|-0.056|0.5497
91739715|NCT03848455|183371626|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of PPP2CA gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||<0.001
91739716|NCT03848455|183371626|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of SYNJ1 gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||<0.001
91739717|NCT03848455|183371626|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of PPP3CB gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||0.149
91874063|NCT04421456|183641438|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.3351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.3|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||2.30|-0.79|0.3351
91874064|NCT04421456|183641439|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|1.76|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.76|-3.96|0.4504
91874065|NCT04421456|183641439|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.76|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.76|-4.22|0.4195
91799256|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.79|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.79|0.19|
91874066|NCT04421456|183641440|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm, visit by treatment arm interaction and visit by associated baseline interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||0.30|-0.35|0.8850
91874067|NCT04421456|183641440|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm, visit by treatment arm interaction and visit by associated baseline interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||0.27|-0.36|0.7808
91874068|NCT04421456|183641441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|6.924|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.924|0.288|0.6707
91874069|NCT04421456|183641441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.576||||0.4883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|2.744|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.744|0.121|0.4883
91760083|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.44||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.47|
91760084|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.18|0.22|
91760085|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.78||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.78|-0.18|
91760086|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.55|
91760087|NCT01393639|183411994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.49||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.49|-0.47|
91760088|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.03||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.03|-0.76|
91760089|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.39||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.39|-1.17|
91760090|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.54||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.54|-1.32|
91760091|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.78||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.78|-1.56|
91760092|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.09||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.09|-0.70|
91760093|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.55||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.55|-1.34|
91760094|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.07||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.07|-0.84|
91760095|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.32||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.32|-1.23|
91760096|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.61||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.61|-1.52|
91760097|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.54||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.54|-1.45|
91874070|NCT00379210|183641452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Statistical tests are evaluated at an alpha level of 0.05 (corrected, when appropriate, for multiple comparisons). Analyses are performed on both response latency and accuracy on behavioral data. For latency analyses, mean response times for correct trials are calculated for each subject. Repeated-measures ANOVA are used for omnibus tests; paired t-tests are used for individual planned contrasts, with Bonferroni-corrected significance levels to maintain a .05 alpha level||||<0.01
91874071|NCT02469155|183641471|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|3.51|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measure|||||3.51|-3.39|0.972
91874072|NCT02469155|183641471|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|3.84|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.84|-2.92|0.789
91906893|NCT02634151|183709098|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.9147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|10.31||Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||10.31|-11.48|0.9147
91874073|NCT02991118|183641473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-17.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.951|-13.896|||ANCOVA|||||-13.896|-20.951|<0.001
91906894|NCT02634151|183709098|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-16.59||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|-5.93|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-5.93|-27.24|0.0026
91874074|NCT02991118|183641474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.418|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.504|-10.027|||ANCOVA|||||-10.027|-19.504|<0.001
91739718|NCT03848455|183371626|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of NSF gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||<0.001
91739719|NCT01900665|183371638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.14|-1.73|0.095
91739720|NCT02481258|183371656|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on a two-sample t-test. A priori calculations to detect an effect size of 0.57 units indicated that that 50 patients per arm were needed to have 80% power. The actual effect size observed in the present study was 0.86.||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis was done using an ANCOVA analysis adjusting for the baseline aortic valve calcium levels.||||0.05
91739721|NCT02481258|183371658|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on a two-sample t-tests assuming initial recruitment of 50 subjects.|||||>|0.05||||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91739722|NCT02481258|183371659|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on a two-sample t-test.|||||>|0.05||||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis was done using an ANCOVA analysis adjusting for the baseline aortic valve calcium levels.||||>0.05
91739723|NCT02317627|183371670|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0282||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
91874075|NCT02991118|183641475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-9.794|||ANCOVA|||||-9.794|-16.270|<0.001
91906895|NCT02634151|183709099|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.13||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|-1.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.50|-10.77|0.0101
91739724|NCT02317627|183371670|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0035||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
91874076|NCT02991118|183641476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.599|-8.801|||ANCOVA|||||-8.801|-13.599|<0.001
91739725|NCT02317627|183371670|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0261||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0261
91739726|NCT02317627|183371670|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change for all subjects' PASI from baseline to Week 12.|||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91739727|NCT02317627|183371671|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0282||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
91739728|NCT02317627|183371671|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0029||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0029
91874077|NCT02991118|183641477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|-9.907|||ANCOVA|||||-9.907|-16.130|<0.001
91874078|NCT02991118|183641478|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-8.733|||<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.238|-0.434|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||-0.434|-17.238|<0.039
91874079|NCT02991118|183641481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.258||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|11.292|||ANCOVA|||||11.292|-1.504|0.134
91874080|NCT02991118|183641482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.369|-3.896|||ANCOVA|||||-3.896|-8.369|<0.001
91874081|NCT02991118|183641483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.314|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.813|-7.722|||ANCOVA|||||-7.722|-16.813|<0.001
91739729|NCT02317627|183371671|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0703||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0703
91739730|NCT02317627|183371671|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change of all subjects' PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0002||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91739731|NCT02317627|183371676|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.0064||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0064
91739732|NCT02317627|183371676|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.0479||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0479
91739733|NCT02317627|183371676|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.1513||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1513
91739734|NCT02317627|183371676|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change Overall from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.0002||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91799257|NCT04823650|183476497|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|-0.09|
91739735|NCT02317627|183371677|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to Week 8.||||||0.0137||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
91739736|NCT02317627|183371677|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to Week 8.||||||0.0017||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0017
91739737|NCT02317627|183371677|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to Week 8.||||||0.0743||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0743
91739738|NCT02317627|183371677|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change Overall from baseline to Week 8.|||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91739739|NCT02317627|183371678|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.014||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0140
91906896|NCT02634151|183709099|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-7.73||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-2.58|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-2.58|-12.89|0.0036
91874082|NCT02991118|183641484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|-8.682|||ANCOVA|||||-8.682|-16.580|<0.001
91739740|NCT02317627|183371678|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.062||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0620
91739741|NCT02317627|183371678|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in 400 mg BID from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.262||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2620
91874083|NCT02991118|183641485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-9.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.803|-6.037|||ANCOVA|||||-6.037|-13.803|<0.001
91874084|NCT02991118|183641486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-10.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.489|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.698|-7.848|||ANCOVA|||||-7.848|-13.698|<0.001
91874085|NCT02991118|183641487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.458|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.223|-5.493|||ANCOVA|||||-5.493|-11.223|<0.001
91874086|NCT02991118|183641488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.451|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.829|-8.175|||ANCOVA|||||-8.175|-17.829|<0.001
91874087|NCT02991118|183641489|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.796|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.107|-6.047|||ANCOVA|||||-6.047|-13.107|<0.001
91874088|NCT02991118|183641490|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-21.278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|-10.034|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||-10.034|-32.250|<0.001
91799258|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.84|0.02|
91874089|NCT02991118|183641491|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-7.587||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.978|1.653|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||1.653|-16.978|0.102
91874090|NCT02991118|183641492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-9.878|||ANCOVA|||||-9.878|-20.260|<0.001
91874091|NCT00999336|183641532|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|3.03|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as a multiplier in the Modified Diet in Renal Disease Study Group (MDRD) equation.|||3.03|1.18|
91874092|NCT00999336|183641532|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|3.59|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.59|1.43|
91739742|NCT02317627|183371678|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change of all subjects from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.0008||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0008
91739743|NCT02317627|183371678|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to 8 weeks.||||||0.0137||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
91739744|NCT02317627|183371678|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to 8 weeks.||||||0.0064||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0064
91739745|NCT02317627|183371678|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to 8 weeks.||||||0.0743||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0743
91739746|NCT02317627|183371678|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change of all subjects from baseline to 8 weeks.|||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91739747|NCT02317627|183371683|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to 12 weeks.||||||0.004||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91739748|NCT02317627|183371683|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to 12 weeks.||||||0.007||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91739749|NCT02317627|183371683|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to 12 weeks.||||||0.09||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.090
91739750|NCT02317627|183371683|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change Overall from baseline to 12 weeks.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
91874093|NCT00999336|183641532|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.71|4.06|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.06|1.71|
91874094|NCT00999336|183641532|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.888|2.18|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.18|0.888|
91874095|NCT00999336|183641532|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|3.31|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.31|1.14|
91874096|NCT00999336|183641532|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|4.22|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.22|1.41|
91739751|NCT02317627|183371684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91739752|NCT02317627|183371684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91739753|NCT02317627|183371684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
91874097|NCT00999336|183641532|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|4.7|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.7|1.74|
91874098|NCT00999336|183641532|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|2.3|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.3|0.944|
91874099|NCT00999336|183641533|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|3.35|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.35|1.05|
91874100|NCT00999336|183641533|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|4.07|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.07|1.32|
91874101|NCT00999336|183641533|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.48|4.29|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.29|1.48|
91874102|NCT00999336|183641533|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.772|2.32|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.32|0.772|
91874103|NCT00999336|183641533|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|3.78|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.78|1.01|
91874104|NCT00999336|183641533|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|4.67|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.67|1.21|
91874105|NCT00999336|183641533|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|4.96|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.96|1.46|
91874106|NCT00999336|183641533|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.793|2.38|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.38|0.793|
91739754|NCT02317627|183371684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
91739755|NCT00279214|183371689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238||95.0|||||Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||24-Hour p-value||||0.238
91874107|NCT01214109|183641541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|82.62||||||90.0|74.45|91.69|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||91.69|74.45|
91874108|NCT01214109|183641541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|96.17||||||90.0|69.33|133.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||133.42|69.33|
91874109|NCT01214109|183641542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|88.01||||||90.0|80.76|95.92|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 0.375 mg q.d. ER 0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||95.92|80.76|
91739756|NCT00279214|183371689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.281
91874110|NCT01214109|183641542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|89.37||||||90.0|81.16|98.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 1.5 mg q.d. ER 0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||98.42|81.16|
91874111|NCT01214109|183641543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|88.82||||||90.0|79.89|98.76|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 0.375 mg q.d. ER 0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||98.76|79.89|
91874112|NCT01214109|183641543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|91.97||||||90.0|60.07|140.25|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 1.5 mg q.d. ER 0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||140.25|60.07|
91739757|NCT00279214|183371690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||95.0||||P-value for 96 Hour Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model: Outcome=Therapy + Sedative Indicator + Time + Therapy\*Time + Propensity Score||||||0.478
91874113|NCT01214109|183641544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|92.84||||||90.0|83.8|102.86|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||102.86|83.8|
91874114|NCT01214109|183641544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|95.05||||||90.0|84.88|106.43|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||106.43|84.88|
91888923|NCT03119233|183670440|OTHER||Lower 97.5% Exact Confidence Limit|68.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|60.9|||||||"The primary effectiveness endpoint is defined as primary patency at 12 months as evidenced by a peak systolic velocity ratio (PSVR)~≤2.5 from DUS and no clinically-driven re-intervention within the stented segment. The primary effectiveness endpoint hypotheses are:~* H0: 12-month success rate of the PQ Bypass System ≤60.4%~* HA: 12-month success rate of the PQ Bypass System \>60.4%"|||60.9|
91888924|NCT03119233|183670441|OTHER|The rate of freedom from 30-day MAE is expected to be no less than 92%. Based on a PG of 84% and an estimated 30-day freedom from MAE rate of 92% for the PQ Bypass System, a sample size of 169 evaluable subjects provides 88% power to test the primary safety hypothesis at the one-sided alpha level of 0.025. The Exact Test Method and Commercial software PASS14 was used to determine the sample size.|Lower 97.5% Exact Confidence Limit|93.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|88.5|||||||"The primary safety endpoint hypotheses are:~* H0: 30-day Freedom from MAE rate of the PQ Bypass System~  ≤84%~* HA: 30-day Freedom from MAE rate of the PQ Bypass System \>84%"|||88.5|
91739758|NCT00279214|183371691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.442
91739759|NCT00279214|183371691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.871
91739760|NCT00279214|183371692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.704
91739761|NCT00279214|183371692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.702||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.702
91739762|NCT00279214|183371693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||6-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.061
91739763|NCT00279214|183371693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||6-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.027
91874115|NCT01989156|183641567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.27|17.05||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the biomarkers of exposure (BoExp) was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||17.05|9.27|<0.001
91874116|NCT01989156|183641568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|45.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.22|53.41||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||53.41|39.22|<0.001
91888925|NCT01254552|183670445|OTHER||rate|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.1||||||||0.100|0.043|
91739764|NCT00279214|183371694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.242
91739765|NCT00279214|183371694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||12-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.083
91739766|NCT00279214|183371694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.810
91739767|NCT00279214|183371694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.623
91739768|NCT00279214|183371695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.686
91739769|NCT00279214|183371695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.575
91739770|NCT00279214|183371696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0|||||Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.165
91739771|NCT00279214|183371698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0||||Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.552
91739772|NCT00279214|183371698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||95.0||||12-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.129
91739773|NCT00279214|183371698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.030
91739774|NCT00279214|183371698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.002
91889185|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.67|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B||0.67|0.48|
91739775|NCT00279214|183371700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.128
91739776|NCT00279214|183371700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.234
91739777|NCT01475721|183371752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority comparison is statistically significant if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI falls below 2, the non-inferiority margin, and the non-inferiority test one-sided p-value \<0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.662|||Regression, Cox|||||1.662|0.638|0.003
91739778|NCT01475721|183371753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.834||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.103|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS or non-LABA therapy.|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.103|0.630|0.203
91739779|NCT01475721|183371753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.839||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.090|0.645|0.188
91739780|NCT01475721|183371753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.905|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||0.905|0.645|0.002
91739781|NCT01475721|183371753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.682||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.034|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.034|0.451|0.071
91739782|NCT01475721|183371753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS or non-LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.170|0.659|0.373
91739783|NCT01475721|183371753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.122|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.122|0.665|0.271
91799259|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.91|0.35|
91799260|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|0.14|
91799261|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.491|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.82|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.82|-0.11|
91874117|NCT01989156|183641569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|16.58||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||16.58|9.54|<0.001
91889186|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F||0.80|0.67|
91739784|NCT01475721|183371753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|0.895|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||0.895|0.637|0.001
91739785|NCT01475721|183371753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.04|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.040|0.454|0.075
91739786|NCT01475721|183371755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.071|||Regression, Cox|||||1.071|0.562|0.123
91739787|NCT01475721|183371756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.263|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|-0.141|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS or non-LABA therapy|||-0.141|-0.385|<0.001
91739788|NCT01475721|183371756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|-0.076|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|||-0.076|-0.369|0.003
91739789|NCT01475721|183371756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|-0.106|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|||-0.106|-0.238|<0.001
91739790|NCT01475721|183371756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.056|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS therapy|||0.056|-0.216|0.251
91739791|NCT01772550|183371762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 95% upper confidence bound for the observed difference in percentages of images with acceptable quality between the control catheter and evaluation catheter was calculated using the Score method. The 20 G BD Nexiva™ Diffusics™ can be considered non-inferior for acceptable image quality if this 95% upper confidence bound is smaller than 15% (i.e. C - D \< 15% with 95% confidence). The non-inferiority margin was 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.6|||||The difference in percent of acceptable image quality is used as an estimate. The Score method was used to estimate the upper 95% confidence limit.|Only the percent of acceptable image quality from the randomized test and reference catheter groups were considered for this statistical analysis. If C is the percentage of acceptable quality images with the control catheter, and D is the percentage of images of acceptable quality with the evaluation catheter, and the non-inferiority criteria is 15%, the hypotheses to be tested are as follows: H0: C - D \> or = 15%; H1: C - D \< 15%.||2.6||
91739792|NCT00559104|183371776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.51||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.79|||Regression, Cox||"Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the Parameter Estimate, not of the mean.~Standard Error = 1.02475"|There is no power calculation as this is a phase II study. This is an Event-free Survival, in which an event can be Relapse/Progression, or Death. Censoring can be at the End of follow-up date, or at the End of study date.||3.79|0.07|0.51
91739793|NCT00559104|183371777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.99|||Regression, Cox||"Numerator: Carmustine in the conditioning. Denominator: Irradiation in the conditioning.~Parameter: Hazard ratio. Dispersion: Standard Error of the Hazard Ratio."|Phase II analysis: There was no power calculation.||4.99|0.09|0.69
91799262|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.52|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.52|-0.01|
91799263|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.157|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.59|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.59|-0.04|
91799264|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.649|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.88|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.88|0.17|
91739794|NCT01815424|183371779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|32.77||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||32.77|6.03|<0.0001
91799265|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.259|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.71|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.71|-0.04|
91799266|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.242|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.70|-0.04|
91799267|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.66|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.66|-0.18|
91799268|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.481|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.83|-0.21|
91739795|NCT01815424|183371779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|11.86||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||11.86|2.46|<0.0001
91739796|NCT01815424|183371780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.84|151.11||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||151.11|14.84|<0.0001
91739797|NCT01815424|183371780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|25.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||25.17|4.06|<0.0001
91739798|NCT01815424|183371781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-71.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.461|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.2|-54.87||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-54.87|-88.20|<0.0001
91874118|NCT01989156|183641570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|26.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.31|40.26||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on Total NNAL levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 90 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 90 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||40.26|17.31|<0.001
91906897|NCT02634151|183709099|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|5.51|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||5.51|-5.27|0.9653
91799269|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.72|-0.19|
91799270|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.46|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.46|-0.07|
91739799|NCT01815424|183371781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-52.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.416|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7|-35.55||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-35.55|-68.70|<0.0001
91739800|NCT01815424|183371782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|70.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.38|267.15||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||267.15|13.38|<0.0001
91739801|NCT01815424|183371782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|79.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||79.62|4.31|<0.0001
91739802|NCT01815424|183371783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.913|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|5.72||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||5.72|-9.32|<0.0001
91739803|NCT01815424|183371783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.907|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-3.67||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-3.67|-7.24|<0.0001
91739804|NCT01815424|183371784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|114.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.95|2657.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant,only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||2657.62|8.95|<0.0001
91739805|NCT01815424|183371784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|1084.02||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||1084.02|3.47|<0.0001
91759511|NCT02391363|183411762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.88 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month ISI, controlling for baseline ISI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.35
91874119|NCT01989156|183641571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|38.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.24|42.47||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 90 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 90 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||42.47|34.24|<0.001
91874120|NCT01297595|183641575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.08|108.87||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. This was an estimation study and there was no formal statistical hypothesis.||108.87|91.08|
91874121|NCT01297595|183641577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.51|109.07||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. This was an estimation study and there was no formal statistical hypothesis.||109.07|90.51|
91906898|NCT02634151|183709099|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.89||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-1.68|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-1.68|-12.10|0.0101
91739806|NCT01815424|183371785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not available due to 0% frequency in placebo group.||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||||<0.0001
91739807|NCT01815424|183371785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0386||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not available due to 0% frequency in placebo group.||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||||0.0386
91739808|NCT01815424|183371786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.709|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|-3.7||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-3.70|-6.49|<0.0001
91739809|NCT01815424|183371786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|-2.81||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-2.81|-5.59|<0.0001
91739810|NCT01815424|183371787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean of difference|-41.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.977||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.91|-9.54||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-9.54|-72.91|0.0113
91739811|NCT01815424|183371787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean of difference|-22.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.01||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.64|8.86||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||8.86|-54.64|0.1558
91760098|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.21||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.21|-0.71|
91906899|NCT02634151|183709100|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.74||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.19|-2.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-2.30|-23.19|0.0173
91874122|NCT01297595|183641578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|96.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.22|106.32||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. This was an estimation study and there was no formal statistical hypothesis.||106.32|88.22|
91874123|NCT01697956|183641593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of BDP nasal aerosol versus placebo was greater than 0.80.|ratio of BDP nasal aerosol to placebo|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03||||||The standard deviation of the logarithmically transformed data on the change from baseline (expressed as a ratio) in 24-hr serum cortisol weighted mean is assumed to be 0.30. Using this standard deviation, 90 subjects (approximately 60 and 30 subjects in the BDP Nasal Aerosol and placebo groups, respectively) will yield approximately 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority between BDP Nasal Aerosol and placebo, if there is no true difference between treatment groups.||1.03|0.81|
91906900|NCT02634151|183709100|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-16.29||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.17|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-5.40|-27.17|0.0038
91906901|NCT02634151|183709100|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.58||||0.7846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|13.01|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||13.01|-9.85|0.7846
91739812|NCT04723355|183371833|NON_INFERIORITY|In the sample size calculations, we assumed that the innovative 3-lead wireless water resistant Holter System would have a concordance in the diagnosis of arrhythmia compared to the conventional Holter device similar to a previous study that compared a patch to the conventional Holter device. With this assumption, a total sample of 182 participants would have 80% power to demonstrate an accuracy of at least 85% with a significance level of 2.5% (the 95% CI lower limit should be above 85%).|Accuracy|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.92||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.92|0.81|
91739813|NCT04723355|183371833|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.95|0.83|
91739814|NCT04723355|183371833|OTHER||Specificity|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.90|0.72|
91739815|NCT04723355|183371833|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.80|
91739816|NCT04723355|183371833|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.76|
91739817|NCT04723355|183371833|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
91739818|NCT04723355|183371833|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|8.58||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||8.58|3.17|
91739819|NCT04723355|183371833|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.21|0.06|
91739820|NCT04723355|183371834|OTHER||Accuracy|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||1.00|0.97|
91739821|NCT04723355|183371834|OTHER||Sensitivity|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.85|
91739822|NCT04723355|183371834|OTHER||Specificity|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.97|
91739823|NCT04723355|183371834|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.78|
91739824|NCT04723355|183371834|OTHER||Negative predictive value|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.98|
91739825|NCT04723355|183371834|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
91739826|NCT04723355|183371834|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|157.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.25|1107.61||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||1107.61|22.25|
91739827|NCT04723355|183371834|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0|0|
91739828|NCT04723355|183371835|OTHER||Accuracy|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.9||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.90|0.79|
91739829|NCT04723355|183371835|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.90|0.71|
91739830|NCT04723355|183371835|OTHER||Specificity|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.80|
91874124|NCT03060525|183641603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in weight change from Baseline to 6months, between Immediate Intervention participants (group and videophone combined) vs. Delayed Intervention participants (group and videophone combined). \[analysis of 2 arms, immediate intervention vs. delayed intervention\]||-0.41|-6.32|0.026
91874125|NCT03060525|183641604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) change from Baseline to 6months, between Immediate Intervention participants (group and videophone combined) vs. Delayed Intervention participants (group and videophone combined). \[analysis of 2 arms, immediate intervention vs. delayed intervention\]||-0.12|-2.42|0.03
91874126|NCT03060525|183641605|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|247.5||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in amount of physical activity = 6-month MET-minutes/week - baseline MET-minutes/week (change from pre to post intervention), using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. IPAQ score is a continuous measure and reports median MET-minutes per week (a combination of walking met-minutes/week + moderate activity MET-minutes/week + vigorous activity MET-minutes/week). \[analysis of 2 arms, immediate intervention vs. delayed intervention\]||||0.63
91739831|NCT04723355|183371835|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.90|0.71|
91739832|NCT04723355|183371835|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.80|
91739833|NCT04723355|183371835|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
91739834|NCT04723355|183371835|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|11.43||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||11.43|4.03|
91739835|NCT04723355|183371835|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.34|0.13|
91739836|NCT04723355|183371836|OTHER||Accuracy|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.96|0.88|
91739837|NCT04723355|183371836|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.56|
91739838|NCT04723355|183371836|OTHER||Specificity|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.98||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.98|0.90|
91739839|NCT04723355|183371836|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.86|0.48|
91739840|NCT04723355|183371836|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.93|
91739841|NCT04723355|183371836|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
91739842|NCT04723355|183371836|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|15.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.51|30.99||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||30.99|7.51|
91739843|NCT04723355|183371836|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.5||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.50|0.11|
91739844|NCT04723355|183371837|OTHER||Accuracy|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.96|0.89|
91889187|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.81|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V||0.81|0.66|
91906902|NCT02634151|183709100|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-13.98||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|-3.13|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-3.13|-24.83|0.0121
91739845|NCT04723355|183371837|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.85||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.85|0.28|
91739846|NCT04723355|183371837|OTHER||Specificity|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.98||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.98|0.92|
91739847|NCT04723355|183371837|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.77||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.77|0.23|
91739848|NCT04723355|183371837|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.93|
91739849|NCT04723355|183371837|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
91739850|NCT04723355|183371837|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|13.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|33.17||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||33.17|5.84|
91739851|NCT04723355|183371837|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.85||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.85|0.22|
91739852|NCT04723355|183371838|OTHER||Accuracy|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||1.00|0.95|
91739853|NCT04723355|183371838|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.19|
91739854|NCT04723355|183371838|OTHER||Specificity|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.96|
91739855|NCT04723355|183371838|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.95||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.95|0.15|
91739856|NCT04723355|183371838|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.97|
91739857|NCT04723355|183371838|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
91739858|NCT04723355|183371838|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|65.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|291.07||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||291.07|14.80|
91739859|NCT04723355|183371838|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.38||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||1.38|0.05|
91739860|NCT04723355|183371839|OTHER||Accuracy|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.99|0.94|
91739861|NCT04723355|183371839|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.89||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.89|0.31|
91739862|NCT04723355|183371839|OTHER||Specificity|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.98|
91739863|NCT04723355|183371839|OTHER||Positive predictive value|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.59|
91739864|NCT04723355|183371839|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.94|
91739865|NCT04723355|183371839|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
91739866|NCT04723355|183371839|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.|The positive likelihood ratio could not be calculated due to the value of zero in the denominator|||
91739867|NCT04723355|183371839|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.79|0.17|
91739868|NCT04723355|183371841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.31||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||4.31|-6.20|
91739869|NCT04723355|183371841|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.98||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.98|0.96|
91739870|NCT04723355|183371842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.09|11.67||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||11.67|-17.09|
91739871|NCT04723355|183371842|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.96||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.96|0.93|
91739872|NCT04723355|183371843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|6.22||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||6.22|-5.43|
91906903|NCT02634151|183709101|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-13.32||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.32|-3.12|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-3.12|-23.32|0.0108
91739873|NCT04723355|183371843|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.96||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.96|0.93|
91739874|NCT04723355|183371844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1391.46|1378.72||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||1378.72|-1391.46|
91739875|NCT04723355|183371844|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.96||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.96|0.94|
91739876|NCT04723355|183371845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2089.58|2111.65||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||2111.65|-2089.58|
91739877|NCT04723355|183371845|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.94||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.94|0.89|
91739878|NCT04723355|183371846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|5.2||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||5.20|-5.45|
91874127|NCT01964547|183641606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size is adequate to confirm the non-inferiority of Sativex with a clinical relevant reduction delta of 10%, assuming there is no difference between treatments in the actual change in cognition and also assuming a standard deviation for treatment difference of 10, using a one-tailed 2.5% significance level and power of 90%. Sativex is deemed to be non-inferior to placebo if the lower 1-sided 97.5% CI of the estimated mean treatment difference (Sativex-Placebo) is greater than -10%.|Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.41||||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and center grouping as factors and the baseline score as covariate. The planned sample size was 120 participants(60 patients in the Sativex arm and 60 in the placebo arm).|||-6.41|
91906904|NCT02634151|183709101|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.78|-12.42|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-12.42|-34.78|<0.0001
91739879|NCT04723355|183371846|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.94||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.94|0.91|
91739880|NCT04723355|183371847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|12.07||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||12.07|-13.38|
91739881|NCT04723355|183371847|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|0.99||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.99|0.98|
91739882|NCT04723355|183371848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.56||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||1.56|-1.75|
91739883|NCT04723355|183371848|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.9976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|0.998||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.998|0.997|
91739884|NCT04723355|183371849|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared test statistic|23.529|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91739885|NCT01127633|183371860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority margin for this hypothesis was specified as 50% of the treatment difference observed at the end of the feeder study. If the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) was greater than 0, the noninferiority criterion was met, indicating that at least 50% of the treatment difference observed at the end of the feeder studies was maintained at specified time points in the delayed-start period.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-1.14|0.974
91739886|NCT01073293|183371875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 6||1.05|0.86|<0.001
91739887|NCT01073293|183371875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 11||1.07|0.87|<0.001
91739888|NCT01073293|183371875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 16||1.04|0.85|<0.001
91739889|NCT01073293|183371875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 18||1.07|0.84|<0.001
91739890|NCT01073293|183371875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.06|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 31||1.06|0.84|<0.001
91739891|NCT01073293|183371875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 33||1.00|0.81|<0.001
91739892|NCT01073293|183371875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 45||1.11|0.86|<0.001
91739893|NCT01073293|183371875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 52||1.06|0.85|<0.001
91739894|NCT01073293|183371875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 58||0.99|0.80|<0.001
91739895|NCT01073293|183371880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-diphtheria titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||1.4|-0.7|<0.001
91906905|NCT02634151|183709101|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.71||||0.1376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|2.18|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.18|-15.60|0.1376
91906906|NCT02634151|183709101|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.64||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-3.18|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||-3.18|-28.10|0.0144
91739896|NCT01073293|183371880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-tetanus titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||1.2|-1.1|<0.001
91739897|NCT01073293|183371881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||ANOVA|||Anti-PT||1.06|0.85|<0.001
91739898|NCT01073293|183371881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||ANOVA|||Anti-FHA||1.08|0.90|<0.001
91739899|NCT01073293|183371881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Difference in GMT|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||ANOVA|||Anti-PRN||1.09|0.80|<0.001
91739900|NCT01073293|183371881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Difference in GMT|0.89||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||ANOVA|||Anti-FIM 2/3||1.11|0.72|0.005
91739901|NCT01073293|183371882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the difference is statistically less than 10 percentage points|Difference in percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus type 1||0.8|-1.2|<0.001
91799271|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.44|-0.01|
91874128|NCT01964547|183641607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sativex is deemed to be non-inferior to placebo if the upper 1-sided 97.5% CI of the estimated mean treatment difference (Sativex-Placebo) is less than +5%.|Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.323|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.33|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and center grouping as factors and the baseline score as covariate.||2.33||
91739902|NCT01073293|183371882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the difference is statistically less than 10 percentage points|Difference in percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus type 2||0.8|-1.2|<0.001
91739903|NCT01073293|183371882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the difference is statistically less than 10 percentage points|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus type 3||0.8|-0.8|<0.001
91739904|NCT00512278|183371887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a 25% difference in the rate of SVR between the PEG INF/RBV plus infliximab group (70%) and the PEG INF/RBV (45%) group, a power of 0.85 and an alpha level of 0.05, 75 patients for each group was estimated||||||0.718|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.718
91739905|NCT00512278|183371889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a 25% difference in the rate of SVR between the PEG INF/RBV plus infliximab group (70%) and the PEG INF/RBV (45%) group, a power of 0.85 and an alpha level of 0.05, 75 patients for each group was estimated.||||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used for factors associated with an SVR.|t-test, 2 sided|||SVR was the primary outcome to calculate sample size. Assuming a 25% difference in the rate of SVR between the the two groups, a power of 0.85 and an alpha level of 0.05, 75 patients for each group was estimated. This analysis included patients randomized and received at least one dose of study drugs. A 2-sided probability value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used for factors associated with an SVR.||||0.718
91739906|NCT00775268|183371892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
91739907|NCT00775268|183371893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||0.0313
91739908|NCT03723980|183371924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.96||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"the calculated p value is for time interval of 4 hours~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|For multiple comparisons between groups, post hoc (LSD) was applied||||||0.329
91739909|NCT03723980|183371924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of 12 hours~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.764
91739910|NCT03723980|183371924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of day 2~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.605
91739911|NCT03723980|183371924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of day 3~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.786
91739912|NCT03723980|183371924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of day 4~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.813
91739913|NCT03723980|183371926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between pre-operative time interval and 4 hours time interval.~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.334
91739914|NCT03723980|183371926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time interval of 4 hours and time interval of 12 hours.~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.448
91739915|NCT03723980|183371926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of 12 hours and day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.056
91799272|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.35|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.35|-0.02|
91874129|NCT01964547|183641608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|8.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression using the cumulative proportional odds model, with global impression of change as the dependent variable and treatment group as factor.||8.22|1.96|0.0001
91874130|NCT01964547|183641609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression using the cumulative proportional odds model, with global impression of change as the dependent variable and treatment group as factor.||6.31|1.23|0.0142
91739916|NCT03723980|183371926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 2 and day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.760
91739917|NCT03723980|183371926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 3 and day 4~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.828
91739918|NCT03723980|183371926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between pre-operative time interval and 4 hours time interval~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.000
91739919|NCT03723980|183371926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time interval of 4 hours and time interval of 12 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.605
91799273|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
91799274|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.70|-0.05|
91799275|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.53|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.53|-0.03|
91874131|NCT01964547|183641610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression using the cumulative proportional odds model, with global impression of change as the dependent variable and treatment group as factor.||6.21|1.51|0.0019
91739920|NCT03723980|183371926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of 12 hours and day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.80
91739921|NCT03723980|183371926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 2 and day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.574
91739922|NCT03723980|183371926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 3 and day 4~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.796
91739923|NCT03723980|183371927|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 4 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.412
91739924|NCT03723980|183371927|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 12 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
91739925|NCT03723980|183371927|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at Day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.035
91739926|NCT03723980|183371927|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at Day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
91739927|NCT03723980|183371927|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at Day 4.~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
91739928|NCT03723980|183371928|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 4 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
91739929|NCT03723980|183371928|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 12 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.36
91739930|NCT03723980|183371928|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
91739931|NCT03723980|183371928|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.55
91799276|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.34|-0.25|
91874132|NCT01964547|183641611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.37|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and center grouping as factors and the baseline score as covariate.||1.37|-6.09|0.212
91874133|NCT01964547|183641614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|21.27|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and centre grouping as factors and baseline score as covariate.||21.27|-11.51|0.556
91874134|NCT01964547|183641614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|-1.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using non-parametric methods as the distribution of data was non-normal.||0|-3|0.088
91799277|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.27|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.27|-0.13|
91799278|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.21|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.21|-0.21|
91799279|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.077|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.44|-0.50|
91799280|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.5|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.50|-0.31|
91799281|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.29|-0.62|
91799282|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.69|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.69|-0.02|
91874135|NCT01115309|183641617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91906907|NCT02634151|183709102|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-19.53||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.55|-4.51|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-4.51|-34.55|0.0113
91906908|NCT02634151|183709102|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-33.64||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.58|-16.69|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||-16.69|-50.58|0.0002
91799283|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
91799284|NCT04823650|183476498|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.169|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.52|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.52|-0.07|
91799285|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.93|0.45|
91874136|NCT01115309|183641618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91799286|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.66|
91799287|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|0.17|
91799288|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.849|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|-0.13|
91799289|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.93|-0.06|
91799290|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.82|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.82|-0.05|
91799291|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|-0.02|
91799292|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|-0.06|
91874137|NCT04447287|183641637|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|89.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.21|99.11||||||||99.11|81.21|
91874138|NCT04447287|183641638|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|92.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.22|105.86||||||||105.86|80.22|
91874139|NCT04447287|183641639|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|109.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|117.71||||||||117.71|101.10|
91874140|NCT04447287|183641640|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|117.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.41|130.34||||||||130.34|106.41|
91874141|NCT04447287|183641641|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|79.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.1|92.55||||||||92.55|68.10|
91874142|NCT04447287|183641642|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|74.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.28|93.5||||||||93.50|59.28|
91874143|NCT03246724|183641652|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5, will assure that, if non-inferiority is proven, the mean patient satisfaction with oral sedation will correspond to scores corresponding to satisfied or higher. A 0.5 margin to be considered clinically similar enough to declare non-inferiority because it allows for expected patient satisfaction variability, and demonstrates ample justification for providers to offer oral sedation as a safe alternative.|||||<|0.05||||||As a sensitivity analysis, an ANCOVA model will be fit to the data adjusting for factors that are out of balance following randomization. The mean difference between the adjusted means will be calculated.|ANCOVA|If lower bound of the 90% two-sided Confidence Interval of mean difference is higher than -0.5, the oral sedation will be deemed non-inferior to IV.||"Testable hypothesis: Patient satisfaction mean will be non-inferior when given oral triazolam in comparison to IV midazolam during all basic cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures.~Null hypothesis: The null hypothesis is that the oral sedation group will have a primary endpoint mean equal to or less than that of the IV sedation group by the non-inferiority margin or more."||||<0.05
91874144|NCT03246724|183641653|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5, will assure that, if non-inferiority is proven, the mean patient satisfaction with oral sedation will correspond to scores corresponding to satisfied or higher. We determined a 0.5 margin to be considered clinically similar enough to declare non-inferiority because it allows for expected patient satisfaction variability, and demonstrates ample justification for providers to offer oral sedation as a safe alternative.|||||<|0.05||||||Surgeon satisfaction score will be independently analyzed. Summary statistics including, means, standard deviations along with points estimates of the mean difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|ANCOVA|If lower bound of the 90% two-sided Confidence Interval of mean difference is higher than -0.5, oral sedation will be deemed non-inferior to IV.||"Null hypothesis: Mean surgeon satisfaction score for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to mean surgeon satisfaction score for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures.~Alternate hypothesis: Mean surgeon satisfaction score for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to mean surgeon satisfaction score for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures."||||<0.05
91874145|NCT03246724|183641654|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5, will assure that, if non-inferiority is proven, the mean patient satisfaction with oral sedation will correspond to scores corresponding to satisfied or higher. We determined a 0.5 margin to be considered clinically similar enough to declare non-inferiority because it allows for expected patient satisfaction variability, and demonstrates ample justification for providers to offer oral sedation as a safe alternative.|||||<|0.05||||||Anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score will be independently analyzed. Summary statistics including, means, standard deviations along with points estimates of the mean difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|ANCOVA|If lower bound of the 90% two-sided Confidence Interval of mean difference is higher than -0.5, the oral sedation will be deemed non-inferior to IV.||"Null hypothesis: Mean anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to mean anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures.~Alternate hypothesis:Mean anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to mean satisfaction score for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures."||||<0.05
91906909|NCT02634151|183709102|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-8.33||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.77|4.12|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||4.12|-20.77|0.1873
91739932|NCT03723980|183371928|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at day 4~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
91906910|NCT02634151|183709102|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-29.58||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|-5.37|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-5.37|-53.80|0.0172
91739933|NCT04263766|183371932|EQUIVALENCE|We tested whether TMS delivered to DLPFC had a difference effect on confidence compared to delivered to Vertex.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Our null hypothesis is TMS to DLPFC would not lead to a significant change in confidence across all 4 delay conditions compared to TMS to the vertex.||||<.001
91739934|NCT04263766|183371932|EQUIVALENCE|We tested whether TMS to DLPFC leads to equivalent increase in confidence for four delay conditions.||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
91739935|NCT04263766|183371932|EQUIVALENCE|We tested whether TMS delivered to Vertex leads to a same effect on confidence regardless of the delay conditions.||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
91739936|NCT04263766|183371933|EQUIVALENCE|We used a two-way ANOVA to test whether TMS affected Mratio differently for DLPFC and Vertex and across different delay conditions.|||||>|0.19|||||||ANOVA|||Our null hypothesis is TMS to DLPFC would not lead to a significant change in Mratio across all 4 delay conditions compared to TMS to the vertex.||||>0.19
91739937|NCT04232943|183371939|OTHER|This study was designed to provide at least 96% power to detect ≥ 60% reduction in shedding rate in the IPV+ dmLT group assuming the shedding rate in the IPV alone group is at least 80%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.464|||||RR = Ratio of proportions: (IPV+dmLT) / IPV|Analysis of Shedding of Poliovirus Type 1||2.464|0.560|
91739938|NCT04232943|183371939|OTHER|This study was designed to provide at least 96% power to detect ≥ 60% reduction in shedding rate in the IPV+ dmLT group assuming the shedding rate in the IPV alone group is at least 80%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.51|||||RR = Ratio of proportions: (IPV+dmLT) / IPV|Analysis of Shedding of Poliovirus Type 3||1.510|0.606|
91739939|NCT01891396|183371959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0099
91739940|NCT01891396|183371960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0367
91739941|NCT01891396|183371961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0289|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0289
91739942|NCT01891396|183371962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0141
91739943|NCT01891396|183371963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91739944|NCT01891396|183371964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0533|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0533
91739945|NCT01891396|183371965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0323
91739946|NCT01891396|183371966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0072
91739947|NCT01891396|183371967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0030
91739948|NCT01891396|183371968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0440
91739949|NCT01891396|183371969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0579|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0579
91739950|NCT01891396|183371970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
91739951|NCT01891396|183371971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0046
91739952|NCT01891396|183371972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0029
91739953|NCT01891396|183371973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0087|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0087
91874146|NCT03246724|183641655|OTHER|Additional anesthesia intervention will be using summary statistics including, counts and proportions along with point's estimates of the proportion difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis:The total additional anesthesia interventions for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to additional anesthesia interventions for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures.~Alternate hypothesis:The total additional anesthesia interventions for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to additional anesthesia interventions for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures"||||<0.05
91739954|NCT01891396|183371974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0154|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0154
91739955|NCT01891396|183371975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0227
91739956|NCT01891396|183371976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91739957|NCT01891396|183371977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0148
91906911|NCT02634151|183709103|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.52||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-1.77|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.77|-21.27|0.0210
91739958|NCT01891396|183371978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0113|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0113
91739959|NCT01891396|183371979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0016
91739960|NCT01891396|183371980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0056
91739961|NCT01891396|183371981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0095
91739962|NCT01891396|183371982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0136|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0136
91739963|NCT01891396|183371983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
91739964|NCT01891396|183371984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0059
91739965|NCT01194245|183371999|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be supported if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between Analog-PH20 and the comparator (insulin lispro) did not exceed 0.40.|LS Means Difference|0.05||||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 110 participants were to be enrolled, allowing approximately 88 participants to complete both treatment periods (44 for each investigational drug). Assuming a dropout rate of no more than 20%, intra-participant correlation of 0.80, standard deviation of 1.2, and a true difference of 0, the study would have a greater than 90% power to show that Analog-PH20 was non-inferior to insulin lispro alone with respect to the change from baseline in A1C at the end of each treatment period.||0.15|-0.05|0.2878
91739966|NCT01824290|183372040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.114|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.25|62.0||||||||62.00|-14.25|
91739967|NCT01490918|183372046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|Baselin HbA1c as covariate||primary outcome efficacy will be evaluated between group 1(placebo + metfromin + sitagliptin) and 2 (sitagliptine + metformin + acarbose)||||0.0036
91739968|NCT01490918|183372047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline HbA1c as covariate||||||<0.0001
91739969|NCT01490918|183372048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0185||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline PPG2hr as covariate||||||0.0185
91739970|NCT01490918|183372049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.0356
91739971|NCT01490918|183372050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8258||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.8258
91739972|NCT01490918|183372051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9217||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.9217
91739973|NCT01490918|183372052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.16
91739974|NCT01490918|183372053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.004
91739975|NCT01490918|183372054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.292
91739976|NCT01490918|183372055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.314
91739977|NCT01490918|183372056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7563||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.7563
91739978|NCT02099084|183372057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.74
91739979|NCT02099084|183372058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for change between 0- and 2-hours. Level of significance = .05||||0.20
91739980|NCT02099084|183372058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for change between 0- and 8-hours. Level of significance = .05||||0.17
91739981|NCT02099084|183372059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.075
91739982|NCT02099084|183372062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.42
91739983|NCT02099084|183372063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.34
91739984|NCT02706925|183372072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.2951|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0352|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2242|1.366|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.3660|1.2242|
91874147|NCT03246724|183641656|OTHER|Surgical complications will be using summary statistics including, counts and proportions along with point's estimates of the proportion difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The total surgical complications for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to total surgical complications for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures.~Alternate hypothesis: The total surgical complications for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to total surgical complications for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures."||||<0.05
91874148|NCT02978716|183641688|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global family-wise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses in the strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|||Duration of SN in Cycle 1 in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.5|-0.8|0.7048
91874149|NCT02978716|183641688|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.3364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.3||2-sided p-value was calculated using a ANCOVA with study baseline ANC value as covariate, stratification factors of lines of systemic therapy, liver involvement and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Duration of SN in Cycle 1 in Group 2 vs Group 1.||2.3|-0.6|0.3364
91874150|NCT02978716|183641689|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2762||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|1.559||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|Modified Poisson method|||Number of participants with SN in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.559|0.386|0.7048
91874151|NCT02978716|183641689|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.9154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|2.019||The p-value was calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for number of cycles, accounting for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors and baseline ANC as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||Number of participants with SN in Group 2 vs Group 1.||2.019|0.457|0.9154
91739985|NCT02706925|183372072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.088|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9128|1.2633|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.2633|0.9128|
91739986|NCT02706925|183372072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.1846|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3328|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4791|1.89|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.8900|0.4791|
91739987|NCT02706925|183372073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.2114|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1409|1.2818|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.2818|1.1409|
91874152|NCT02978716|183641692|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted hazard ratio (HR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.74||P-value was calculated using the stratified log-rank test to account for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||Cox regression model.|Overall survival in Group 3 vs Group 1.||0.74|0.22|0.0004
91906912|NCT02634151|183709103|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-23.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.02|-12.01|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-12.01|-34.02|<0.0001
91906913|NCT02634151|183709103|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.43||||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|2.33|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.33|-15.19|0.1483
91739988|NCT02706925|183372073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0771|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0524|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9696|1.1845|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.1845|0.9696|
91739989|NCT02706925|183372073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.3969|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5563|2.2375|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||2.2375|0.5563|
91874153|NCT02978716|183641692|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted HR|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.63||P-value was calculated using the stratified log-rank test to account for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||Cox regression model.|Overall survival in Group 2 vs Group 1.||0.63|0.15|0.0016
91874154|NCT02978716|183641712|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted HR|0.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1957||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|1.073||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|modified Poisson regression|||RBC Transfusions in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.073|0.226|0.7048
91739990|NCT00806260|183372086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|step down test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.21||||ANCOVA|||at alcohol level 0.10%|||0.21|
91739991|NCT00806260|183372086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|step down test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.12||||ANCOVA|||at alcohol level 0.07%|||0.12|
91739992|NCT00806260|183372086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|step-down test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.03||||ANCOVA|||at alcohol level 0.04%|||-0.03|
91739993|NCT00806260|183372087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||ANCOVA|||at 2 hr timepoint||0.07|-0.17|
91739994|NCT00806260|183372087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04|||ANCOVA|||at 6 hr timepoint||0.04|-0.18|
91874155|NCT02978716|183641712|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3089||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|1.754||P-value was calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for duration of treatment in days accounting for number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2); liver involvement as the stratification factors and baseline hemoglobin as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||RBC Transfusions in Group 2 vs Group 1.||1.754|0.447|0.7272
91874156|NCT02978716|183641713|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6105||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|3.317||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|modified Poisson regression|||Platelet Transfusions in Group 3 vs Group 1.||3.317|0.294|0.7048
91739995|NCT00806260|183372087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|||at 2 hr timepoint||0.06|-0.08|
91739996|NCT00806260|183372087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||ANCOVA|||at 6 hr timepoint||0.05|-0.13|
91799293|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.05|
91739997|NCT03682965|183372099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91739998|NCT03682965|183372100|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple tests was used because the two outcomes are based on correlated data.|Clopper-Pearson binomial exact test|||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of days during peak pollen season for which the average total combined score was lower in the immunotherapy group than in the placebo group.||||<0.05
91739999|NCT03682965|183372102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
91740000|NCT00953706|183372107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). The model included absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) as the dependent variable, treatment (ivacaftor versus placebo) and visit as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect, with adjustment for age and continuous baseline value of percent predicted FEV1.||4.1|-0.6|0.1509
91740001|NCT00953706|183372108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for the respiratory domain score endpoint was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with the dependent variable being absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for for age and baseline value for CFQ-R score, using unstructured covariance matrix||5.6|-2.9|0.5408
91740002|NCT00953706|183372109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable being absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous age and baseline value for age, sweat chloride, using unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-5.6|0.0384
91740003|NCT00953706|183372110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.7265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis used the linear mixed model with treatment as fixed effects, visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for age group (\< 18 years and ≥ 18 years) and percent predicted forced expiratory volume (FEV1) severity (\< 70%, ≥ 70% to ≤ 90%, \> 90%) at screening, with random intercept and random slope. Rate of change in the study period is the slope of weight versus time (days) multiplied by the number of days in the study period (112 days).||0.7|-1.1|0.7265
91740004|NCT01214837|183372145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup A at 13 months of age.||-1|-14|
91740005|NCT01214837|183372145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup C at 13 months of age.||0|-8|
91740006|NCT01214837|183372145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup W at 13 months of age.||3|-3|
91799294|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.56|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.56|-0.48|
91799295|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.98|0.82|
91874157|NCT02978716|183641713|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4077||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|2.399||P-value: calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for duration of treatment in days accounting for number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2); liver involvement as stratification factors and baseline platelet count as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||Platelet Transfusions in Group 2 vs Group 1.||2.399|0.116|0.4078
91874158|NCT02978716|183641714|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1902||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.15||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|modified Poisson regression|||G-CSF Administration in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.150|0.362|0.7048
91740007|NCT01214837|183372145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup Y at 13 months of age.||4|-2|
91740008|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 1.||5|-6.1|
91874159|NCT02978716|183641714|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.7835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.502||P-value was calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for number of cycles, accounting for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors and baseline ANC as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||G-CSF Administration in Group 2 vs Group 1.||1.502|0.583|0.7835
91874160|NCT02978716|183641717|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3718||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|2.067||The 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global family wise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|negative binomial regression|||All-cause Dose Reductions in Group 3 vs Group 1.||2.067|0.475|0.7048
91740009|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 1.||10.5|3|
91874161|NCT02978716|183641717|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2744||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|1.58||P-value was calculated using negative binomial method adjusting for number of cycles, accounting for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors.|negative binomial regression|||All-cause Dose Reductions in Group 2 vs Group 1.||1.580|0.426|0.5541
91740010|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 3.||6|-11.9|
91760099|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.57||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.57|-1.48|
91874162|NCT00234832|183641724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.162||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.311||No adjustment for multiple testing or interim analysis was performed. The primary outcome was tested at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||The Cox model included factors for treatment, country, gender, and age (continuous) at Lead-in Period baseline. For the calculation of risk, the sibutramine arm is the numerator and the placebo arm is the denominator.|For the sample size calculation, a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05 was used along with power of 90%. The annual composite event rate in the placebo arm was assumed to be 7.0%. A sample of 3983 subjects in each of the 2 groups, corrected for a 30% noncompliance rate (15% in Year 1 and 6.3% in each year, Years 2 to 4), followed for at least 3 years was expected to have 90% power to detect a relative risk reduction of 15% with sibutramine relative to placebo.||1.311|1.029|0.015
91874163|NCT00234832|183641724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|1.384|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only subjects with DM only in a comparison of sibutramine and placebo.||1.384|0.738|0.948
91874164|NCT00234832|183641724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.276||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.776|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only subjects with CV only in a comparison of sibutramine and placebo.||1.776|0.916|0.149
91874165|NCT00234832|183641724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.182||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.365|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only subjects with CV + DM in a comparison of sibutramine and placebo.||1.365|1.024|0.022
91874166|NCT00234832|183641725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.043||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.196|||Log Rank|||||1.196|0.910|0.543
91874167|NCT00234832|183641726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.097||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.204|||Log Rank|||||1.204|0.999|0.051
91874168|NCT00234832|183641727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.276||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|1.571|||Log Rank|||||1.571|1.036|0.022
91874169|NCT00234832|183641728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.355||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|1.767|||Log Rank|||||1.767|1.038|0.025
91874170|NCT00234832|183641729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.582||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|4.081|||Log Rank|||||4.081|0.613|0.343
91740011|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 3.||13.7|-3.3|
91740012|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 4.||2.3|-7.5|
91740013|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 4.||4.7|-4.4|
91740014|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 5.||3.4|-12.1|
91740015|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 5.||11.8|-1.9|
91740016|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6A.||3.8|-3.7|
91740017|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6A.||4.8|-2.2|
91740018|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6B.||7.7|-8.4|
91760100|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.11||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.11|-0.89|
91874171|NCT00234832|183641730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.988||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.188|||Log Rank|||||1.188|0.822|0.899
91906914|NCT02634151|183709103|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.63||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-1.76|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-1.76|-21.50|0.0214
91906915|NCT02634151|183709104|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-2.95||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-0.28|-5.62|0.0308
91906916|NCT02634151|183709104|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-3.04|||ANCOVA|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.||Week 4||-3.04|-9.56|0.0002
91906917|NCT02634151|183709104|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-1.58||||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.88|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||0.88|-4.03|0.2056
91874172|NCT04454125|183641773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.61|||Generalized linear model, repeat measure|Generalized linear model (GLM) fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group arm, visit, interaction term (arm\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 severe asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= severe asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||1.61|0.23|0.32
91874173|NCT04454125|183641773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.76|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 severe asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= severe asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||2.76|0.03|0.29
91799296|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.861|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.58|
91874174|NCT04454125|183641773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.68|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link||Outcome= severe asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 severe asthma exacerbation.|5.68|0.05|0.58
91874175|NCT04454125|183641773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.91|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 moderate asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= moderate asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||0.91|0.27|0.02
91705203|NCT05153148|183304907|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-6.43|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-1.13|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-1.13|-11.73|=0.018
91705204|NCT05153148|183304907|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.23|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|0.13|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.13|-10.59|=0.056
91705205|NCT05153148|183304908|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||=|0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PASI-75 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|29.4|-5.7|=0.186
91705206|NCT05153148|183304908|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.6|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PASI-75 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|32.1|-2.8|=0.101
91705207|NCT05153148|183304908|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|47.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PASI-75 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|47.6|10.5|=0.002
91705208|NCT05153148|183304909|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||=|0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|19.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PhGA-PSO responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|19.0|-10.0|=0.540
91705209|NCT05153148|183304909|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2|||=|0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PhGA-PSO responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|19.3|-8.8|=0.466
91705210|NCT05153148|183304909|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|31.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PhGA-PSO responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|31.3|1.2|=0.034
91705211|NCT00474786|183304916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.07||Stratified for nephrectomy status, duration of response to sunitinib therapy, tumor histology, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic group.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 means temsirolimus (TEMSR) is at lower risk.|||1.07|0.71|0.1933
91874176|NCT04454125|183641773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.86|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 moderate asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= moderate asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||0.86|0.06|0.03
91874177|NCT04454125|183641773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.95|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 moderate asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= moderate asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||1.95|0.11|0.30
91740019|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|17.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6B.||17.2|3.4|
91740020|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 7F.||3.5|-1.7|
91740021|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 7F.||3.5|-2.1|
91740022|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 9V.||3.4|-9.7|
91740023|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 9V.||9.7|-1.5|
91740024|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|vaccine group difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 14.||5.7|-1.2|
91740025|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 14.||6.3|-0.2|
91740026|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 18C.||-0.2|-6.3|
91740027|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 18C.||0.2|-6.2|
91906918|NCT02634151|183709104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-0.96|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-0.96|-7.04|0.0103
91740028|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19A.||1.6|-7.1|
91740029|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19A.||-0.9|-11.3|
91740030|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19F.||3.4|-1.7|
91740031|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19F.||3.4|-2.1|
91740032|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 23F.||8.2|-4.2|
91740033|NCT01214837|183372152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 23F.||10.5|-1.4|
91740034|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 1.||1.13|0.77|
91799297|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.83|-0.14|
91799298|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.568|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|-0.05|
91740035|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 1.||1.25|0.83|
91799299|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.74|-0.03|
91799300|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.56|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.56|-0.07|
91799301|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.657|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|-0.04|
91799302|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.04|
91906919|NCT02634151|183709105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.13||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.09|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||2.09|-6.36|0.3193
91799303|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.733|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|-0.18|
91799304|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.89|-0.21|
91799305|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.79|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.79|-0.21|
91799306|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|0.71|
91874178|NCT04454125|183641774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.51|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||1.51|-1.17|0.80
91799307|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|0.62|
91874179|NCT04454125|183641774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.15|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||3.15|0.88|0.001
91874180|NCT04454125|183641774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.85||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.61|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||3.61|0.09|0.04
91874181|NCT04454125|183641774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.25|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Childhood Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||1.25|-1.87|0.70
91874182|NCT04454125|183641774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.96||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|9.2|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Childhood Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||9.20|-1.27|0.14
91874183|NCT04454125|183641774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|9.73|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Childhood Asthma Control Test Scores.||9.73|-1.19|0.13
91874184|NCT04454125|183641775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.55|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Obtained at randomization and exit visits (visit 1 and visit 7).||0.55|-0.06|0.11
91874185|NCT04454125|183641775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.88|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Obtained at randomization and exit visits (visit 1 and visit 7).||0.88|0.20|0.002
91874186|NCT04454125|183641775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.75|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Obtained at randomization and exit visits (visit 1 and visit 7).||0.75|-0.16|0.20
91906920|NCT02634151|183709105|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|2.11|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||2.11|-6.91|0.2932
91799308|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|0.26|
91799309|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|-0.07|
91799310|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.91|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.91|0.02|
91799311|NCT04823650|183476499|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.505|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.06|
91799312|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.71|
91799313|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.90|
91799314|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.88|
91799315|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|0.58|
91799316|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|-0.02|
91799317|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|-0.04|
91799318|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|0.36|
91799319|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|-0.08|
91874187|NCT04454125|183641776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.96|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported checking the AQI prior to going outside to be active||1.96|0.45|0.87
91799320|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.96|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.96|0.04|
91799321|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.66|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.66|-0.18|
91874188|NCT04454125|183641776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.89||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|25.6|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported checking the AQI prior to going outside to be active||25.6|1.85|0.004
91906921|NCT02634151|183709105|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.98||||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|7.02|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||7.02|-3.06|0.4383
91799322|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.83|-0.21|
91906922|NCT02634151|183709105|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|2.78||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|7.86|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||7.86|-2.31|0.2814
91799323|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.72|-0.19|
91799324|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.46|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.46|-0.07|
91799325|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.44|-0.01|
91799326|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.35|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.35|-0.02|
91874189|NCT04454125|183641776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|32.9|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported checking the AQI prior to going outside to be active||32.9|1.62|0.01
91874190|NCT04454125|183641777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.47|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported outdoor activity behavioral change in response to the AQI, obtained at all visits.||1.47|0.08|0.15
91874191|NCT04454125|183641777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.68|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported outdoor activity behavioral change in response to the AQI, obtained at all visits.||2.68|0.35|0.94
91874192|NCT04454125|183641777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|16.5|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported outdoor activity behavioral change in response to the AQI, obtained at all visits.||16.5|0.47|0.26
91874193|NCT04454125|183641778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.76|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Obtained at all visits||0.76|0.24|0.004
91740036|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.4|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 3.||1.4|0.93|
91874194|NCT04454125|183641778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Obtained at all visits.||0.31|0.05|<0.0001
91740037|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 3.||1.55|1.01|
91740038|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 4.||0.96|0.62|
91740039|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 4.||1.18|0.75|
91740040|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 5.||1.21|0.86|
91740041|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.29|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 5.||1.29|0.89|
91740042|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6A.||1.04|0.69|
91740043|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.37|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6A.||1.37|0.88|
91874195|NCT04454125|183641778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.87|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Obtained at all visits.||0.87|0.10|0.03
91874196|NCT01922102|183641779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.1||Superiority could be claimed if the corresponding one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.025/2 = 0.0125, or if both one-sided p-values were ≤ 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in LS means and the two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from pairwise ANOVA (stratified) model.|2 one-sided hypotheses were tested under the Type I error rate of 0.025, using the Hochberg procedure: H01: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA1: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT \> 0 and H02: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA2: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT \> 0, where μRanibizumab-I, μRanibizumab-II and μvPDT were the means of the primary efficacy variable for ranibizumab treatment Group I, ranibizumab treatment Group II, and vPDT treatment Group III, respectively.||7.1|3.3|<0.001
91874197|NCT01922102|183641779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.6||Superiority could be claimed if the corresponding one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.025/2 = 0.0125, or if both one-sided p-values were ≤ 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in LS means and the two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from pairwise ANOVA (stratified) model.|"The following 2 one-sided hypotheses were tested under the Type I error rate of 0.025, using the Hochberg procedure:~H01: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA1: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT \> 0 and H02: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA2: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT \> 0, where μRanibizumab-I, μRanibizumab-II and μvPDT were the means of the primary efficacy variable for ranibizumab treatment Group I, ranibizumab treatment Group II, and vPDT treatment Group III, respectively."||7.6|3.5|<0.001
91874198|NCT01922102|183641780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"one-sided hypotheses were tested under the Type I error rate of 0.025, if H01 and H02 were rejected: H03: μRanibizumab-II - μRanibizumab-I ≤ -5 vs. HA3: μRanibizumab-II - μRanibizumab-I \> -5.~Otherwise, H03 was not to be considered as rejected."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1||Non-inferiority could be claimed if the corresponding one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in LS means and the two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from pairwise ANOVA (stratified) model.|||2.1|-1.3|<0.001
91874199|NCT02105688|183641863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided exact test|||A one-sided exact test was used to test the null hypothesis, which was that the SVR12 rate for the ITA was less than 67% (historical reference rate derived from NCT01667731). The p-value was based on a one-sided exact test for a binomial proportion. A one-sided p-value \<0.025 supports a conclusion that the true SVR12 is \>67%.||||<0.001
91740044|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6B.||1.05|0.69|
91705212|NCT00474786|183304917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07||Stratified for nephrectomy status, duration of response to sunitinib therapy, tumor histology, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic group.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 means temsirolimus (TEMSR) is at lower risk.|||1.07|0.70|0.1888
91705213|NCT00474786|183304919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.63||Stratified for nephrectomy status, duration of response to sunitinib therapy, tumor histology, and MSKCC prognostic group.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio \<1 means temsirolimus (TEMSR) is at lower risk.|||1.63|1.05|0.0144
91705214|NCT02892513|183304923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91740045|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6B.||1.3|0.83|
91760101|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.45||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.45|-1.44|
91760102|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.71||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.71|-1.71|
91760103|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.59|-1.59|
91760104|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.05||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.05|-0.95|
91760105|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.66||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.66|-1.65|
91760106|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.08||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.08|-0.96|
91760107|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.44||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.44|-1.48|
91874200|NCT02105688|183641864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|10.0||||||Categorical AE parameters were assessed via point estimates with 95% confidence intervals provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||10.0|-8.3|
91874201|NCT02105688|183641865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.9||||||Categorical AE parameters were assessed via point estimates with 95% confidence intervals provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||1.9|-5.0|
91874202|NCT00887471|183641870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The relationship of surgical group with AHI change was evaluated by constructing a mixed linear model (MLM). The dependent variable was the logarithm of the ratio of postoperative AHI score to preoperative AHI score; this transformation was chosen in order to minimize skew of model residuals. Surgical group was introduced as a fixed factor; subject pairs constituted levels of a random blocking) factor.||||.590
91874203|NCT00887471|183641870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||||||P value for the variances. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed linear model was constructed as described above. Variance was estimated separately for each group.||||.022
91740046|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 7F.||0.95|0.67|
91740047|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 7F.||1.25|0.87|
91740048|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 9V.||0.96|0.66|
91740049|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 9V.||1.31|0.87|
91740050|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 14.||1.27|0.84|
91740051|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 14.||1.3|0.83|
91740052|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 18C.||0.87|0.59|
91740053|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 18C.||1.36|0.89|
91740054|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19A.||1.27|0.83|
91740055|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19A.||1.21|0.77|
91740056|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19F.||1.22|0.82|
91874204|NCT00887471|183641871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The relationship of surgical group with postoperative AHI ≤ 5 was evaluated by exact conditional logistic regression, predicting AHI ≤ 5 from surgical group with subject pairs as strata.||||1.00
91874205|NCT00696241|183641891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.75|||<|0.001||95.0|-13.17|-8.34||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-8.34|-13.17|<0.001
91874206|NCT00696241|183641891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.48|-9.67||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.67|-14.48|<0.001
91906923|NCT02634151|183709106|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.4278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.38|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||1.38|-3.23|0.4278
91906924|NCT02634151|183709106|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-1.13||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.27|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||1.27|-3.53|0.3529
91906925|NCT02634151|183709106|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.3522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|3.86|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.86|-1.39|0.3522
91740057|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19F.||1.32|0.86|
91740058|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 23F.||0.97|0.62|
91740059|NCT01214837|183372153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 23F.||1.13|0.7|
91740060|NCT00834197|183372163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.59||||||90.0|95.76|105.65|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.65|95.76|
91740061|NCT00834197|183372164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.17||||||90.0|94.82|101.65|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.65|94.82|
91740062|NCT00834197|183372165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.25||||||90.0|95.22|101.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.39|95.22|
91740063|NCT04050384|183372177|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|These analyses apply to the Frontal, Central, and Central-Parietal regions.||||||<0.001
91740064|NCT04050384|183372178|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91740065|NCT04776161|183372186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||0.12|-0.16|0.78
91740066|NCT04776161|183372186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||0.13|-0.10|0.79
91740067|NCT04776161|183372187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.22|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race and baseline uric acid level.||||1.22|-0.28|0.22
91740068|NCT04776161|183372187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.26|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race and baseline uric acid level||||1.26|-0.33|0.24
91740069|NCT01187095|183372188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimation parameter|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91740070|NCT01187095|183372188|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91740071|NCT02848092|183372202|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Risk Ratio|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 1 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||.76|.52|<.0001
91740072|NCT02848092|183372203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.13|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 1 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||-.13|-.29|<.0001
91740073|NCT02848092|183372204|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Risk Ratio|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 6 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||.76|.52|<.0001
91874207|NCT00696241|183641891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.62|-10.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-10.81|-15.62|<0.001
91874208|NCT00696241|183641891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||2.35|-1.55|0.687
91874209|NCT00696241|183641891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||1.02|-2.87|0.352
91906926|NCT02634151|183709106|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.2635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.42|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||4.42|-1.22|0.2635
91740074|NCT02848092|183372205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.13|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 6 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||-.13|-.31|<.0001
91740075|NCT02848092|183372206|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.89||||||||.89|.41|
91740076|NCT02848092|183372207|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92||||||||.92|.61|
91740077|NCT01516632|183372231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.21||||||||3.21|.82|
91740078|NCT01516632|183372232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.3||||||||5.30|1.22|
91740079|NCT01516632|183372233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|7.45||||||||7.45|1.48|
91740080|NCT02831855|183372280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) of Tofacitinib 11 mg + Methotrexate Placebo to Tofacitinib 11 mg + continued Methotrexate was concluded if the upper bound of 95% 2-sided confidence interval (CI) for difference between the 2 arms (Tofacitinib 11 mg + Methotrexate Placebo reporting arm - Tofacitinib 11 mg + continued Methotrexate arm) was lower than 0.6.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.48||The p-value is one-sided for the test against the NI margin of 0.6.|MMRM|||Linear mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD), and baseline DAS28-4 (ESR) value as a covariate.||0.48|0.12|0.0005
91740081|NCT02831855|183372281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.41||||||Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline DAS28-4 (ESR) value as a covariate.||0.41|0.03|
91740082|NCT02831855|183372282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.43||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment -by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) value as a covariate.||0.43|0.08|
91740083|NCT02831855|183372282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.45||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment -by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) value as a covariate.||0.45|0.11|
91740084|NCT02831855|183372283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.07||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline CDAI value as a covariate.||3.07|0.40|
91906927|NCT02634151|183709107|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.93|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||4.93|1.01|0.0464
91906928|NCT02634151|183709107|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.5278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.92|0.58|0.5278
91740085|NCT02831855|183372283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.43||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline CDAI value as a covariate.||3.43|0.83|
91740086|NCT02831855|183372284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.37||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline SDAI value as a covariate.||3.37|0.53|
91740087|NCT02831855|183372284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.59||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline SDAI value as a covariate.||3.59|0.86|
91740088|NCT02831855|183372285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|2.76||||||Week 36||2.76|-14.15|
91740089|NCT02831855|183372285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|3.94||||||Week 48||3.94|-13.04|
91740090|NCT02831855|183372286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|2.77||||||Week 36||2.77|-13.07|
91740091|NCT02831855|183372286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|-0.76||||||Week 48||-0.76|-16.28|
91874210|NCT00696241|183641891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.12||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-4.00|0.038
91874211|NCT00696241|183641892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.45|-9.0||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.00|-15.45|<0.001
91874212|NCT00696241|183641892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-9.2||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.20|-15.64|<0.001
91906929|NCT02634151|183709107|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.27|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||5.27|1.06|0.0359
91906930|NCT02634151|183709108|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.61|1.11|0.0268
91740092|NCT02831855|183372287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.17|0.38||||||Week 36||0.38|-15.17|
91740093|NCT02831855|183372287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-11.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.56|-4.26||||||Week 48||-4.26|-19.56|
91740094|NCT02831855|183372288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|0.77||||||Week 36||0.77|-14.81|
91740095|NCT02831855|183372288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-10.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.68|-2.37||||||Week 48||-2.37|-17.68|
91740096|NCT02831855|183372289|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.27|-1.78||||||Week 36||-1.78|-15.27|
91740097|NCT02831855|183372289|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.83|||Two Sided|||Week 48||5.83|-8.50|
91874213|NCT00696241|183641892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.74|-12.31||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-12.31|-18.74|<0.001
91874214|NCT00696241|183641892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||3.22|-2.05|0.662
91906931|NCT02634151|183709108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.41|0.70|0.2755
91906932|NCT02634151|183709108|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|10.94|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||10.94|2.05|0.0003
91906933|NCT02634151|183709109|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|7.8|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||7.80|1.36|0.0079
91740098|NCT02831855|183372290|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-0.82||||||Week 36||-0.82|-15.40|
91740099|NCT02831855|183372290|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|1.32||||||Week 48||1.32|-13.74|
91740100|NCT02831855|183372291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|2.84||||||Week 36||2.84|-14.12|
91740101|NCT02831855|183372291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|4.36||||||Week 48||4.36|-12.62|
91740102|NCT02831855|183372292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-1.24||||||Week 36||-1.24|-16.44|
91740103|NCT02831855|183372292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|5.35||||||Week 48||5.35|-10.18|
91740104|NCT02831855|183372293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.38|-1.31||||||Week 36||-1.31|-16.38|
91740105|NCT02831855|183372293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.99|4.65||||||Week 48||4.65|-10.99|
91740106|NCT02831855|183372294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.06|0.14||||||Week 36||0.14|-14.06|
91740107|NCT02831855|183372294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|0.61||||||Week 48||0.61|-13.80|
91740108|NCT02831855|183372295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-12.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.01|-4.48||||||Week 36||-4.48|-21.01|
91740109|NCT02831855|183372295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-3.75||||||Week 48||-3.75|-20.22|
91906934|NCT02634151|183709109|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.35|0.62|0.4002
91740110|NCT02831855|183372296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|2.89||||||Week 36||2.89|-13.63|
91740111|NCT02831855|183372296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|3.36||||||Week 48||3.36|-13.32|
91740112|NCT02831855|183372297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.16||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline HAQ-DI.||0.16|0.02|
91740113|NCT02831855|183372297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline HAQ-DI.||0.09|-0.06|
91740114|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.92||||||Change at Week 36: Physical Functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 physical component score as a covariate.||0.92|-1.79|
91740115|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.85||||||Change at Week 48: Physical Functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 physical component score as a covariate.||1.85|-0.82|
91740116|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.37||||||Change at Week 36: Role Physical Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role physical score score as a covariate.||-0.37|-2.97|
91740117|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.66||||||Change at Week 48: Role Physical Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role physical score score as a covariate.||0.66|-2.13|
91740118|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.21||||||Change at Week 36: Social functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 Social functioning score as a covariate.||1.21|-1.50|
91740119|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.93||||||Change at Week 48: Social functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 Social functioning score as a covariate.||0.93|-1.95|
91740120|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.01||||||Change at Week 36: Bodily Pain Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 bodily pain score as a covariate.||-0.01|-2.90|
91740121|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.73||||||Change at Week 48: Bodily Pain Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 bodily pain score as a covariate.||0.73|-2.23|
91740122|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.49||||||Change at Week 36: Mental Health Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental health score as a covariate.||0.49|-2.29|
91740123|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.02||||||Change at Week 48: Mental Health Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental health score as a covariate.||1.02|-1.94|
91740124|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.43||||||Change at Week 36: Role Emotional Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role emotional score as a covariate.||0.43|-2.64|
91740125|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.01||||||Change at Week 48: Role Emotional Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role emotional score as a covariate.||1.01|-1.95|
91799327|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
91740126|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.22||||||Change at Week 36: Vitality Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 vitality score as a covariate.||0.22|-2.52|
91740127|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.91||||||Change at Week 48: Vitality Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 vitality score as a covariate.||0.91|-1.94|
91740128|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.08||||||Change at Week 36: General Health Perception Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 general health perception score as a covariate.||1.08|-1.30|
91799328|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.70|-0.05|
91799329|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.53|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.53|-0.03|
91906935|NCT02634151|183709109|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|7.59|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||7.59|1.25|0.0142
91799330|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.75|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.75|-0.15|
91799331|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.81|-0.21|
91799332|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.5|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.50|-0.23|
91799333|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.76|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.76|-0.12|
91799334|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.651|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.89|0.04|
91799335|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.59|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.59|-0.34|
91799336|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.639|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|0.25|
91874215|NCT00696241|183641892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.03||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||3.03|-2.24|0.768
91799337|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.666|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|0.01|
91799338|NCT04823650|183476500|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.69|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.69|0.00|
91799339|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.827|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|0.53|
91799340|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.66|
91799341|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|0.17|
91799342|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.833|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|-0.14|
91799343|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|-0.05|
91799344|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.81|-0.06|
91799345|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|-0.02|
91799346|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|-0.06|
91799347|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.405|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.05|
91799348|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.69|-0.32|
91740129|NCT02831855|183372298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.83||||||Change at Week 48: General Health Perception Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 general health perception score as a covariate.||1.83|-0.60|
91740130|NCT02831855|183372299|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.37||||||Change at Week 36: Physical Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 physical component score- as a covariate.||0.37|-2.01|
91740131|NCT02831855|183372299|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.29||||||Change at Week 48: Physical Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD), and baseline SF-36 physical component score- as a covariate.||1.29|-1.11|
91740132|NCT02831855|183372299|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.49||||||Change at Week 36: Mental Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental component score as a covariate.||0.49|-2.13|
91740133|NCT02831855|183372299|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.7||||||Change at Week 48: Mental Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental component score as a covariate.||0.70|-2.06|
91740134|NCT02831855|183372300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|6.37||||||Change at Week 36: Absenteeism Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI absenteeism score as a covariate.||6.37|-3.14|
91740135|NCT02831855|183372300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|3.99||||||Change at Week 48: Absenteeism Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI absenteeism score as a covariate.||3.99|-5.01|
91740136|NCT02831855|183372300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|6.89||||||Change at Week 36: Daily activity impairment- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI daily activity impairment score as a covariate.||6.89|-0.51|
91740137|NCT02831855|183372300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|5.61||||||Change at Week 48: Daily activity impairment- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI daily activity impairment score as a covariate.||5.61|-2.41|
91740138|NCT02831855|183372300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|8.87||||||Change at Week 36: Presenteeism- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI presenteeism score as a covariate.||8.87|-2.84|
91740139|NCT02831855|183372300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|6.54||||||Change at Week 48: Presenteeism- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI presenteeism score as a covariate.||6.54|-8.34|
91874216|NCT00696241|183641892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-0.09||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-5.34|0.043
91874217|NCT00696241|183641893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|-5.22||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.22|-8.34|<0.001
91740140|NCT02831855|183372300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|9.65||||||Change at Week 36: Work productivity loss- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI work productivity loss score as a covariate.||9.65|-3.97|
91740141|NCT02831855|183372300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|5.8||||||Change at Week 48: Work productivity loss- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI work productivity loss score as a covariate.||5.80|-10.72|
91740142|NCT02831855|183372301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline EQ-5D score as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.07|
91799349|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.69|
91740143|NCT02831855|183372301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline EQ-5D score as a covariate.||0.01|-0.06|
91740144|NCT02831855|183372302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.0||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline FACIT - fatigue scale score as a covariate.||1.00|-1.37|
91740145|NCT02831855|183372302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.44||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline FACIT - fatigue scale score as a covariate.||1.44|-1.07|
91740146|NCT02831855|183372303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.61|-2.42||||||Week 36||-2.42|-17.61|
91874218|NCT00696241|183641893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|-6.13||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.13|-9.24|<0.001
91740147|NCT02831855|183372303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|1.0||||||Week 48||1.00|-14.26|
91740148|NCT01118780|183372314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||5.88|2.47|<0.001
91740149|NCT01118780|183372315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||4.85|1.61|<0.001
91740150|NCT01118780|183372316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.37||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Psychic Anxiety Factor Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||3.37|1.43|<0.001
91740151|NCT01118780|183372316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.65||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Somatic Anxiety Factor Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||2.65|0.87|<0.001
91740152|NCT01118780|183372316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.74||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Anxious Mood Item Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.74|0.30|<0.001
91740153|NCT01118780|183372316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.53||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Tension Item Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.53|0.09|0.007
91740154|NCT01118780|183372317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.18||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HADS Anxiety Subscale Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||3.18|1.20|<0.001
91740155|NCT01118780|183372317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.49||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HADS Depression Subscale Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||2.49|0.89|<0.001
91874219|NCT00696241|183641893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-6.36||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.36|-9.47|<0.001
91874220|NCT00696241|183641893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.52||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|-0.99|0.679
91874221|NCT00696241|183641893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.62||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.62|-1.89|0.319
91906936|NCT02634151|183709110|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|10.2|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||10.20|1.34|0.0115
91740156|NCT01118780|183372318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.79|0.26|<0.001
91740157|NCT01118780|183372319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.91|0.33|<0.001
91799350|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|0.47|
91874222|NCT00696241|183641893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.38||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-2.13|0.172
91874223|NCT00696241|183641894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|-5.22||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.22|-8.83|<0.001
91740158|NCT01118780|183372320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.11||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Worst Pain Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.11|-0.02|0.059
91740159|NCT01118780|183372320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.89||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Least Pain Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.89|-0.05|0.079
91740160|NCT01118780|183372320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.91||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Average Pain Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.91|-0.06|0.089
91740161|NCT01118780|183372320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.73||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Pain Right Now Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.73|-0.27|0.371
91874224|NCT00696241|183641894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-5.27||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.27|-8.87|<0.001
91874225|NCT00696241|183641894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|-6.82||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.82|-10.42|<0.001
91740162|NCT01118780|183372320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.09||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF General Activity Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.09|-0.04|0.066
91740163|NCT01118780|183372320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.95||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Mood Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.95|-0.13|0.140
91740164|NCT01118780|183372320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.18||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Walking Ability Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.18|0.03|0.040
91740165|NCT01118780|183372320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.94||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Normal Work Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.94|-0.19|0.187
91740166|NCT01118780|183372320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.68||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Relations With Other People Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.68|-0.34|0.515
91740167|NCT01118780|183372320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.18||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Sleep Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.18|-0.17|0.141
91740168|NCT01118780|183372320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.07||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Enjoyment of Life Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.07|-0.07|0.088
91740169|NCT01118780|183372321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.1|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Negative values indicated improvement over placebo.|||-2.1|-9.4|0.002
91740170|NCT01118780|183372323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.98||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in SDS for Work/School Impairment Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.98|0.27|0.010
91740171|NCT01118780|183372323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.48||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in SDS for Social Life/Leisure Activities Impairment Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.48|0.32|0.002
91740172|NCT01118780|183372323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.81||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in SDS for Family/Home Management Impairment Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.81|0.61|<0.001
91740173|NCT01118780|183372324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for percentage of participants having HAMA response at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91740174|NCT01118780|183372324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for percentage of participants having remission (HAMA Total Score ≤7) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91874226|NCT00696241|183641894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.56||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.56|-1.39|0.908
91740175|NCT01118780|183372324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for percentage of participants having remission (HAMA Total Score ≤10) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91740176|NCT01118780|183372325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having functional remission (SDS Global Score ≤5) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91740177|NCT01118780|183372325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having functional remission (SDS Global Score ≤6) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91740178|NCT01118780|183372326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having HAMA sustained improvement overall and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91740179|NCT01118780|183372326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having HAMA sustained improvement from Week 2 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.038
91799351|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.80|-0.13|
91874227|NCT00696241|183641894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.52||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|-1.43|0.956
91874228|NCT00696241|183641894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.04||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-2.98|0.044
91874229|NCT00696241|183641895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|-8.48||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.48|-13.59|<0.001
91740180|NCT01118780|183372330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||The p-value was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.005
91874230|NCT00696241|183641895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-9.65||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.65|-14.75|<0.001
91874231|NCT00696241|183641895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|-10.86||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.86|-15.97|<0.001
91874232|NCT00696241|183641895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.22||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.22|-1.90|0.879
91874233|NCT00696241|183641895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.04||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.04|-3.07|0.334
91874234|NCT00696241|183641895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-0.16||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-4.28|0.034
91740181|NCT01118780|183372331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the time to first remission (HAMA Total Score ≤10) and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91740182|NCT01118780|183372332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The p-value was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.001
91740183|NCT01118780|183372333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||The p-value is for the time to first functional remission (SDS Global Functional Impairment Score ≤5) and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.006
91740184|NCT01118780|183372333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The p-value is for time to first functional remission (SDS Global Functional Impairment Score ≤6) and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.003
91740185|NCT01118780|183372334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91740186|NCT02020590|183372362|OTHER||||||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||||||"The success of ALLOB® treatment was based on the percentage of responders. A treated patient was considered as responding if, at the end of the study (6 months):~* He/she had not required rescue surgery and~* The GDE score as perceived by the patient had improved by at least 25% or the TUS (tomographic union score) as assessed by CT scan had increased by at least 2 points."|The response rate at Month 6 for the 21 patients in the PP population was 100 % (CI: 86.71 - 100.0%). None of the treated patients required rescue surgery. An improvement of GDE score of at least 25% was reported for 16 (76.2%) patients. An increase in TUS of at least 2 points was reported for 16 (76.2%) patients; all patients met at least one of these two criteria.|||
91740187|NCT00527618|183372368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA.|Acyclovir was coded as 0 and valacyclovir as 1. The beta-coefficient (slope) indicates the average difference in HIV-1 RNA on valacyclovir and acyclovir; a negative number indicates that plasma HIV-1 RNA was lower on valacyclovir than acyclovir.|We estimated that a sample size of 29 participants, with 4 weeks of weekly plasma HIV-1 RNA levels per treatment arm, would be required to detect a 0.25 log10 copies/ml difference in plasma HIV-1 RNA between the study arms with 80% power, at a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||-0.14|-0.41|<0.001
91740188|NCT00527618|183372369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.37|||Random effects poission regression|Adjusted for age.||We estimated that 26 participants would be required to detect a 50% reduction in genital HSV shedding with 80% power, at a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||1.37|0.66|0.78
91740189|NCT00527618|183372370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91740190|NCT00527618|183372371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
91740191|NCT03141255|183372378|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91740192|NCT03141255|183372379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
91740193|NCT03141255|183372380|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91740194|NCT03141255|183372381|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91740195|NCT03141255|183372382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
91740196|NCT03141255|183372383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.091
91799352|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.88|-0.05|
91740197|NCT03141255|183372384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
91740198|NCT03141255|183372385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
91740199|NCT03141255|183372386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.516
91740200|NCT03141255|183372387|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||0.75
91874235|NCT00696241|183641896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|-5.45||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.45|-8.79|<0.001
91740201|NCT03141255|183372388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91740202|NCT03141255|183372389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
91740203|NCT01151020|183372401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Free from major adverse event rate (%)|96.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0|||Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis: The 30-day freedom from MAE for patients treated with the Zenith® TX2® Low Profile TAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal of 80.6%.||99|91|< 0.001
91740204|NCT01151020|183372402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Device success rate (%)|92.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|96.8|||Exact binomial test|||Null Hypothesis: The 12-month device success for patients treated with the Zenith® TX2® Low Profile TAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal of 80.7%.||96.8|86.2|< 0.001
91740205|NCT04419467|183372417|SUPERIORITY||GM % treatment difference (80% CI)|-0.5||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.8|16.3||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis||Data analyzed are log-transformed values of ACR, using MMRM. Comparisons vs. placebo are back-transformed by exponentiation to obtain geometric mean (GM), then expressed as percent treatment difference.|||16.3|-14.8|0.485
91740206|NCT04419467|183372417|SUPERIORITY||GM % treatment difference (80% CI)|8.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.2|27.2||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis||Data analyzed are log-transformed values of ACR, using MMRM. Comparisons vs. placebo are back-transformed by exponentiation to obtain geometric mean, then expressed as percent treatment difference|||27.2|-7.2|0.750
91740207|NCT02967679|183372442|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.45||0.7615|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7615
91740208|NCT02967679|183372443|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.89||0.5995|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5995
91740209|NCT02967679|183372444|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.1641|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1641
91740210|NCT02967679|183372445|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5||0.0353|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0353
91799353|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.264|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.71|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.71|-0.03|
91874236|NCT00696241|183641896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-6.18||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.18|-9.51|<0.001
91874237|NCT00696241|183641896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|-6.61||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.61|-9.94|<0.001
91874238|NCT00696241|183641896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.45||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.45|-1.24|0.877
91874239|NCT00696241|183641896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.73||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.73|-1.96|0.369
91906937|NCT02634151|183709110|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.75|0.48|0.7566
91740211|NCT02967679|183372446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.2642|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2642
91740212|NCT02967679|183372447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||0.1777|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1777
91740213|NCT02967679|183372448|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2||0.0371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0371
91740214|NCT02967679|183372449|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9||0.0142|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0142
91740215|NCT02967679|183372451|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.111|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.201||0.1055|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1055
91740216|NCT02967679|183372452|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.16||0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2130
91740217|NCT02967679|183372453|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.068|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.112||0.0393|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0393
91740218|NCT02967679|183372454|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.905|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.283||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
91740219|NCT02967679|183372455|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.21||0.3303|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3303
91740220|NCT02967679|183372456|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.092||0.9229|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9229
91740221|NCT00600067|183372460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.69|0.0381
91740222|NCT00600067|183372461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-4.21|||ANCOVA|||||-4.21|-9.18|<0.0001
91740223|NCT04571060|183372486|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|13.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|4.5|<0.0001
91740224|NCT04571060|183372487|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|13.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.9|3.4|0.0012
91740225|NCT04571060|183372488|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|9.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|14.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|3.6|0.0012
91874240|NCT00696241|183641896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.3||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.30|-2.39|0.126
91874241|NCT00696241|183641897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-7.48||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.48|-12.79|<0.001
91874242|NCT00696241|183641897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-8.78||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.78|-14.07|<0.001
91874243|NCT00696241|183641897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-9.73||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.73|-15.03|<0.001
91874244|NCT00696241|183641897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.18||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.18|-1.12|0.346
91874245|NCT00696241|183641897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.88||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.88|-2.40|0.811
91874246|NCT00696241|183641897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.93||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.93|-3.35|0.267
91874247|NCT00696241|183641898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|-4.21||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.21|-7.84|<0.001
91874248|NCT00696241|183641898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|-5.13||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.13|-8.75|<0.001
91874249|NCT00696241|183641898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|-5.03||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.03|-8.65|<0.001
91874250|NCT00696241|183641898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|2.1||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.10|-0.83|0.394
91874251|NCT00696241|183641898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.19||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.19|-1.74|0.712
91874252|NCT00696241|183641898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.29||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-1.63|0.818
91740226|NCT04571060|183372489|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|10.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.5|5.0|0.0001
91740227|NCT04571060|183372490|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.6||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|12.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.9|2.3|0.0048
91740228|NCT04571060|183372491|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|6.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.7|1.4|0.0130
91740229|NCT04571060|183372492|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.9||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.5|1.3|0.0076
91740230|NCT04571060|183372493|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|3.7||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.1|0.3|0.0308
91799354|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.66|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.66|-0.08|
91740231|NCT04571060|183372494|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.3||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|1.8|0.0123
91740232|NCT04571060|183372495|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.6||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|14.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.1|3.2|0.0018
91740233|NCT04571060|183372496|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|6.0||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.4|0.6|0.0293
91740234|NCT04571060|183372497|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.7||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.1|0.3|0.0362
91740235|NCT04571060|183372498|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|15.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.0|5.5|<0.0001
91740236|NCT04571060|183372499|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.4||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.6|1.3|0.0059
91740237|NCT04571060|183372500|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.3|4.2|<0.0001
91740238|NCT02765399|183372564|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91740239|NCT02765399|183372564|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
91740240|NCT02765399|183372565|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
91740241|NCT02765399|183372565|OTHER|||||||0.612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.612
91740242|NCT02765399|183372566|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91740243|NCT02765399|183372566|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
91740244|NCT02765399|183372567|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91740245|NCT02765399|183372567|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.343
91799355|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.92|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.92|-0.05|
91740246|NCT02765399|183372568|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91740247|NCT02765399|183372568|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.865
91740248|NCT02765399|183372569|OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.532
91740249|NCT02765399|183372569|OTHER|||||||0.735|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.735
91740250|NCT02765399|183372570|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
91740251|NCT02765399|183372570|OTHER|||||||0.753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.753
91740252|NCT02765399|183372571|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
91740253|NCT02765399|183372571|OTHER|||||||0.499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.499
91740254|NCT02765399|183372572|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91740255|NCT02765399|183372572|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
91740256|NCT02765399|183372573|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
91740257|NCT02765399|183372573|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
91740258|NCT02765399|183372574|OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.152
91740259|NCT02765399|183372574|OTHER|||||||0.866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.866
91740260|NCT02765399|183372575|OTHER|||||||0.173|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.173
91740261|NCT02765399|183372575|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
91740262|NCT02765399|183372576|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91740263|NCT02765399|183372576|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91740264|NCT02765399|183372577|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91740265|NCT02765399|183372577|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91740266|NCT02765399|183372578|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91740267|NCT02765399|183372578|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91740268|NCT02765399|183372579|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
91740269|NCT02765399|183372579|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91740270|NCT02765399|183372580|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91740271|NCT02765399|183372580|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91740272|NCT02765399|183372581|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91740273|NCT02765399|183372581|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91740274|NCT02765399|183372582|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
91740275|NCT02765399|183372582|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91740276|NCT02765399|183372583|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
91740277|NCT02765399|183372583|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91740278|NCT02765399|183372584|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.068
91740279|NCT02765399|183372584|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91740280|NCT03958331|183372592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|17.25|||ANCOVA|Model controlled for baseline adherence, resistance to peer influence, dose, active seizures, COVID timing, COVID Impact (3 items), and sex|||We also conducted a longitudinal mixed effects model for adherence over time, estimating a groupXtime interaction with the same covariates listed above and allowing for a non-linear effect.|17.25|4|0.002
91740281|NCT02030821|183372614|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91740282|NCT02030821|183372615|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91740283|NCT02030821|183372616|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91740284|NCT02030821|183372617|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91740285|NCT03192137|183372619|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the primary efficacy endpoint was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.||||||0.0005||||||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction) of differences between treatments in the proportion of participants with anterior chamber cells Grade 0 who did not receive rescue medication versus all other grades combined.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||||||0.0005
91740286|NCT03192137|183372620|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.217|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.823|5.675||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 1||5.675|1.823|<0.0001
91874253|NCT00696241|183641899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.05|-8.64||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.64|-14.05|<0.001
91740287|NCT03192137|183372620|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.337|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.305|8.161||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 8||8.161|2.305|<0.0001
91740288|NCT03192137|183372620|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.113|8.033||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 15||8.033|2.113|<0.0001
91740289|NCT03192137|183372620|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.822||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 18||4.822|1.380|0.0043
91740290|NCT03192137|183372620|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.277||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.695|6.335||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 29||6.335|1.695|0.0005
91740291|NCT01152437|183372621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.122||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.018|0.844||The statistical analysis is descriptive and exploratory in nature and performed only to provide a statistical framework from which to view the results and plan further studies.|Regression, Logistic|Wald Chi-square test and Confidence Interval from logistic regression stratified by number of lines of palliative chemotherapy.||Null hypothesis is that the objective response rate (ORR) in KRAS wild-type patients treated with afatinib is less than or equal to the ORR in KRAS wild-type patients treated with cetuximab. Sample size is based on a 'pick the winner' approach assuming ORR for cetuximab of 12%, undesirable ORR for afatinib of 11% and desirable ORR for afatinib of 16%. As per 'pick the winner' approach, afatinib would be considered 'the winner' if the ORR for afatinib was greater than the ORR for cetuximab.||0.844|0.018|0.0735
91740292|NCT01152437|183372622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|12.0||||0.6394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|23.9||The statistical analysis is descriptive and exploratory in nature and performed only to provide a statistical framework from which to view the results and plan further studies.|Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis is that the disease control rate is 10% in patients with KRAS mutation. Sample size calculation based on a 2-sided exact binomial test at 10% significance level to distinguish between the historical disease control rate of 10% and a desirable disease control rate for afatinib of 25%.||23.9|4.9|0.6394
91740293|NCT01897532|183372633|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was chosen as 1.3 (FDA Guidance for Industry - Diabetes Mellitus - Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||p-value for Hazard ratio (HR) ≥1.3 (1-sided)|Regression, Cox|Based on a Cox regression model with terms for treatment group and region.||Cox proportional hazard regression model was performed to compare the effect of linagliptin versus placebo. Model included randomised treatment and geographical region as factors. Breslow's method was used for dealing with ties. First hypothesis (non-inferiority of the primary endpoint) was to be tested at the one-sided alpha-level of 2.5%. In case of significance the next set of hypotheses (two separate hypothesis tests) were to be tested with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.||1.17|0.89|0.0002
91740294|NCT01897532|183372633|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.6301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||p-value for HR ≥1.0 (1-sided).|Regression, Cox|Based on a Cox regression model with terms for treatment group and region.||Cox proportional hazard regression model was performed to compare the effect of linagliptin versus placebo. Model included randomised treatment and geographical region as factors. Breslow's method was used for dealing with ties. First hypothesis (non-inferiority of the primary endpoint) was to be tested at the one-sided alpha-level of 2.5%. In case of significance the next set of hypotheses (two separate hypothesis tests) were to be tested with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.||1.17|0.89|0.6301
91740295|NCT01897532|183372634|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||p-value for HR ≥1.0 (1-sided)|Regression, Cox|Based on a Cox regression model with terms for treatment group and region.||Cox proportional hazard regression model was performed to compare the effect of linagliptin versus placebo. Model included randomised treatment and geographical region as factors. Breslow's method was used for dealing with ties. First hypothesis (non-inferiority of the primary endpoint) was to be tested at the one-sided alpha-level of 2.5%. In case of significance the next set of hypotheses (two separate hypothesis tests) were to be tested with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.||1.22|0.89|0.6918
91740296|NCT01088906|183372654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.05
91740297|NCT03366454|183372679|OTHER||AUC|0.6692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05322||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5649|0.7735|||ROC Curve Analysis|||ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value)||0.7735|0.5649|0.0048
91874254|NCT00696241|183641899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|-9.98||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.98|-15.38|<0.001
91874255|NCT00696241|183641899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-11.11||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.11|-16.51|<0.001
91740298|NCT03366454|183372679|OTHER||AUC|0.6892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05213||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|0.7914|||ROC Curve Analysis|||ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value).||0.7914|0.5870|0.0029
91740299|NCT03366454|183372680|OTHER||AUC|0.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05635||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5335|0.7544|||ROC Curve Analysis||The optimal cutoff value for NLR was determined as 1.335 using the Youden Index.|ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value).||0.7544|0.5335|0.0233
91740300|NCT03366454|183372681|OTHER||AUC|0.6884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04709||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5962|0.7807|||ROC Curve Analysis||The optimal cut-off value for CRP was determined as 5.70 using the Youden Index.|ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value)||0.7807|0.5962|0.0018
91740301|NCT03366454|183372682|OTHER||AUC|0.7063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04857||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6111|0.8015|||ROC Curve Analysis||The optimal cutoff value for PCT was determined as 0.141 using the Youden Index.|ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value).||0.8015|0.6111|0.0007
91740302|NCT01639469|183372734|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.68|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Testing to see if there is a significant difference in fall rates over 12months between the two groups.||0.68|0.22|<0.001
91740303|NCT00913510|183372735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||1||||||The p-value is calculated to the fourth decimal place.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0 : µt = µc versus H1 : µt ≠ µc µt = Exp. relative change of frequency of micturitions per day in test group µc = Exp. relative change of frequency of micturitions per day in control group.~Plan was to have 44 evaluable subjects (90% power) but power of the study was reduced by early termination. It cannot be concluded that there is no difference between the treatment groups due to insufficient power."||||1.0000
91740304|NCT01119443|183372736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.3|110.3|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||110.3|98.3|
91740305|NCT01119443|183372737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.8||||||90.0|100.1|109.8|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||109.8|100.1|
91740306|NCT01119443|183372738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|108.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.634|122.676|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||122.676|95.634|
91740307|NCT01119443|183372739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|106.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.189|122.251|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||122.251|93.189|
91740308|NCT01119443|183372740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|98.426|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.276|112.58|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.58|84.276|
91799356|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.379|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.81|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.81|-0.03|
91874256|NCT00696241|183641899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.54||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.54|-1.83|0.750
91740309|NCT01119443|183372741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|95.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.461|109.698|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||109.698|82.461|
91740310|NCT01119443|183372743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.585|118.263|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||118.263|91.585|
91740311|NCT01119443|183372744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|93.6||||||90.0|86.9|100.8|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.8|86.9|
91799357|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.86|0.11|
91799358|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.90|0.29|
91874257|NCT00696241|183641899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.2||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.20|-3.16|0.378
91874258|NCT00696241|183641899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.08||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.08|-4.28|0.059
91874259|NCT00696241|183641900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|-5.48||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.48|-9.02|<0.001
91740312|NCT01119443|183372745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|100.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|106.7|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.7|94.0|
91740313|NCT01119443|183372746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|86.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.583|101.854|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.854|73.583|
91740314|NCT01119443|183372747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|86.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.583|101.854|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.854|73.583|
91740315|NCT01119443|183372748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|99.069|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.688|117.45|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||117.45|80.688|
91740316|NCT01119443|183372749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|109.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.571|133.811|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||133.811|89.571|
91740317|NCT01119443|183372751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|92.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.871|110.185|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||110.185|77.871|
91740318|NCT01665911|183372789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||Based on prior studies using a variety of products in this model, the within-product standard deviation of %SMH recovery is estimated to be 13% and the correlation between products is expected to be approximately 0.5. With a sample size of 28 subjects in a 5-way crossover study, the study will have 80% power to detect a %SMH recovery difference of 8.6%, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||||0.0490
91740319|NCT01665911|183372789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.19
91740320|NCT01665911|183372789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0017
91874260|NCT00696241|183641900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-6.4||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.40|-9.92|<0.001
91874261|NCT00696241|183641900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|-6.65||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.65|-10.17|<0.001
91740321|NCT01665911|183372789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0092
91740322|NCT01665911|183372789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.45
91740323|NCT01665911|183372789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.18
91740324|NCT01665911|183372789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.47
91740325|NCT01665911|183372789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0423||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0423
91740326|NCT01665911|183372789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.15
91740327|NCT01665911|183372789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.54
91740328|NCT01665911|183372790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.24
91740329|NCT01665911|183372790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.17
91740330|NCT01665911|183372790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0008
91740331|NCT01665911|183372790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
91740332|NCT01665911|183372790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.24
91740333|NCT01665911|183372790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.26
91740334|NCT01665911|183372790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.18
91740335|NCT01665911|183372790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0269
91740336|NCT01665911|183372790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0142
91740337|NCT01665911|183372790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||||||3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.81
91740338|NCT01665911|183372791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
91740339|NCT01665911|183372791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
91740340|NCT01665911|183372791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
91740341|NCT01665911|183372791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
91740342|NCT01665911|183372791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.14
91740343|NCT01665911|183372791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0012
91740344|NCT01665911|183372791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.19
91740345|NCT01665911|183372791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
91740346|NCT01665911|183372791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0075
91740347|NCT01665911|183372791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0444||||||3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0444
91740348|NCT01881009|183372809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91740349|NCT01881009|183372810|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91740350|NCT01718522|183372812|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91740351|NCT01718522|183372813|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.12
91740352|NCT01718522|183372814|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.30
91740353|NCT01718522|183372815|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91740354|NCT01718522|183372816|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.04
91740355|NCT01718522|183372817|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.35
91740356|NCT01718522|183372818|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.001
91740357|NCT01718522|183372819|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.61
91740358|NCT01718522|183372820|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.1
91740359|NCT01718522|183372821|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.22
91740360|NCT00889707|183372844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Test of superiority computed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, and baseline prostate volume. Tested for 2-sided 0.05 level of statistical significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, and baseline prostate volume.||||||0.040
91740361|NCT00889707|183372845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, baseline prostate volume, and baseline Qmax.|ANCOVA|Model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, baseline prostate volume, and baseline Qmax.||||||0.047
91740362|NCT03502915|183372851|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.508||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.402|1.507|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.507|-1.402|0.943
91740363|NCT03502915|183372852|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.443|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.867||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.229|2.114|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.114|-1.229|0.597
91740364|NCT03502915|183372853|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.28||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.629|0.869|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.869|-0.629|0.748
91740365|NCT03502915|183372854|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.634|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.816||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.927|-0.341|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.341|-4.927|0.025
91740366|NCT03502915|183372855|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.742||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.543|1.655|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.655|-1.543|0.944
91740367|NCT00881894|183372856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|0.9864||||||90.0|0.9103|1.0688|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0688|0.9103|
91740368|NCT00881894|183372857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|0.9584||||||90.0|0.8861|1.0367|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0367|0.8861|
91740369|NCT00881894|183372858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|0.9896||||||90.0|0.9179|1.0671|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).||Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0671|0.9179|
91740370|NCT01361217|183372869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91740371|NCT01361217|183372869|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91740372|NCT01361217|183372870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91874262|NCT00696241|183641900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.57||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.57|-1.29|0.845
91740373|NCT00437268|183372901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.431||||||The type 1 error rate was set at 0.20|Log Rank|||||||0.431
91740374|NCT00437268|183372902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.593
91740375|NCT00437268|183372903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.157|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.157
91740376|NCT00437268|183372904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539||||||Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for statistical analysis.|Log Rank|||||||0.539
91740377|NCT00437268|183372905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.695|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.695
91740378|NCT04417257|183372916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.7377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|9.0||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants with health status data missing on Day 29 were treated as non-responders, where a non-responder was defined as not reaching a health status of 1-4.||9|-15|0.7377
91874263|NCT00696241|183641900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.65||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.65|-2.19|0.290
91874264|NCT00696241|183641900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.41||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-2.44|0.161
91874265|NCT00696241|183641901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|-8.0||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.00|-13.88|<0.001
91874266|NCT00696241|183641901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|-8.24||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.24|-14.11|<0.001
91874267|NCT00696241|183641901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.15|-9.28||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.28|-15.15|<0.001
91874268|NCT00696241|183641901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|1.33||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.33|-3.43|0.385
91874269|NCT00696241|183641901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.08||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.08|-3.66|0.285
91874270|NCT00696241|183641901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.04||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-4.70|0.054
91874271|NCT00696241|183641902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-4.75||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.75|-8.93|<0.001
91874272|NCT00696241|183641902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|-4.72||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.72|-8.89|<0.001
91874273|NCT00696241|183641902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|-5.47||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.47|-9.64|<0.001
91874274|NCT00696241|183641902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.29||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-2.09|0.642
91874275|NCT00696241|183641902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.32||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.32|-2.05|0.672
91740379|NCT04417257|183372916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.8||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants from Per-Protocol population and with available Day 29 health status data||2.8|-10.0|1.000
91874276|NCT00696241|183641902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.57||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.57|-2.80|0.196
91874277|NCT00696241|183641903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|7.39||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.39|2.71|<0.001
91874278|NCT00696241|183641903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|8.2||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.20|3.01|<0.001
91874279|NCT00696241|183641903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|10.79||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.79|3.95|<0.001
91874280|NCT00696241|183641903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.57|0.173
91874281|NCT00696241|183641903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.23||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.23|0.63|0.449
91874282|NCT00696241|183641903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.62||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.83|0.402
91874283|NCT00696241|183641904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|4.48||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.82|<0.001
91874284|NCT00696241|183641904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|5.35||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.35|2.15|<0.001
91799359|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.78|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.78|-0.20|
91740380|NCT04417257|183372916|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.359|0.907||À priori threshold for statistical significance is set at 0.1|Regression, Logistic|"This P-value is for the baseline factor Health Status at baseline. Other baseline factors not significant."||Multivariable logistic regression was constructed for the proportion of participants alive and free of respiratory failure on Day 29 as the outcome variable by screening baseline covariates using stepwise technique with an alpha of 0.1 as the entry and stay criterion, and treatment group was forced to remain in the model. Health status at baseline was used as a continuous variable||0.907|0.359|0.0177
91740381|NCT04417257|183372916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.3537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|18.2||One-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants in the ITT population with baseline Health Status of 3 + 4 grouped together with imputation of failure for missing Day 29 data||18.2|-10.2|0.3537
91740382|NCT04417257|183372916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|5.4||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants in the ITT population with baseline Health Status of 5 and imputation of failure for missing Day 29 data||5.4|-36.6|0.9590
91740383|NCT04417257|183372916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|17.1||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants in the ITT population with baseline Health Status of 3 + 4 and available Day 29 health status data (no imputation)||17.1|0.4|0.0553
91740384|NCT04417257|183372917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.9||Two-sided test|Fisher Exact||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|ITT population with Day 60 health status/survival data||13.9|-6.9|0.6600
91740385|NCT04417257|183372917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|12.6||Two-sided test|Fisher Exact||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|Per-Protocol population with Day 60 health status/survival data||12.6|-10.6|1.000
91740386|NCT04417257|183372920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5459||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ITT population, Day 14. The proportional odds assumption of the ordinal logistic regression was not met (P-value of Score test = 0.0180) and a Wilcoxon two sample test was performed.||||0.5459
91740387|NCT04417257|183372920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6229||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ITT population, Day 29. The proportional odds assumption of the ordinal logistic regression was not met (P-value \<.0001) and a Wilcoxon two sample test was performed.||||0.6229
91740388|NCT04417257|183372921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8222||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants in the overall ITT population who had the event prior to or with Day 29 assessment available.||||0.8222
91740389|NCT04417257|183372921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 29 assessment available.||||0.0536
91740390|NCT04417257|183372921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1131||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 29 assessment available.||||0.1131
91740391|NCT04417257|183372923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6689||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants in the overall ITT population who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available.||||0.6689
91740392|NCT04417257|183372923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available.||||0.0536
91799360|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|0.23|
91740393|NCT04417257|183372923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0786||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available.||||0.0786
91740394|NCT04417257|183372925|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91740395|NCT04417257|183372926|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group||||1.000
91740396|NCT04417257|183372926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with health status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.0680
91740397|NCT04417257|183372926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with health status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.0534
91740398|NCT04417257|183372927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7923||||||Two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group||||0.7923
91740399|NCT04417257|183372928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8886||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.8886
91740400|NCT04417257|183372928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2735||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.2735
91740401|NCT04417257|183372928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3604||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.3604
91740402|NCT04417257|183372929|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||1.000
91874285|NCT00696241|183641904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.02||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|2.41|<0.001
91740403|NCT04417257|183372929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0253||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.0253
91740404|NCT04417257|183372929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2729||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.2729
91740405|NCT04417257|183372930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6460
91740406|NCT04417257|183372931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8722|||||||Log Rank|||If health status was not improved (remains stable or aggravates) by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Overall ITT population.||||0.8722
91740407|NCT04417257|183372931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Log Rank|||If health status was not improved (remains stable or aggravates) by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline.||||0.5390
91740408|NCT04417257|183372931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2319|||||||Log Rank|||If health status was not improved (remains stable or aggravates) by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 5 at baseline.||||0.2319
91740409|NCT04417257|183372932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9358|||||||Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Overall ITT population.||||0.9358
91740410|NCT04417257|183372932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline.||||0.6300
91740411|NCT04417257|183372932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 5 at baseline.||||0.6550
91740412|NCT04417257|183372933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9101||||||Two-sided test|Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Overall ITT population.||||0.9101
91740413|NCT04417257|183372936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2706||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall ITT population. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value.||||0.2706
91874286|NCT00696241|183641904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.13||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.52|0.177
91874287|NCT00696241|183641904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.35||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.61|0.628
91740414|NCT04417257|183372936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0974||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value.||||0.0974
91740415|NCT04417257|183372936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5549||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants with Health Status 5 at baseline. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value.||||0.5549
91740416|NCT04417257|183372937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4787||||||Two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall ITT population. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value||||0.4787
91740417|NCT04417257|183372939|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.02||||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 14 or end of hospitalization data.||0.03|-0.07|0.4746
91740418|NCT04417257|183372939|SUPERIORITY||Leat Squares Mean difference|-0.01||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 29.||0.05|-0.06|0.7445
91740419|NCT04417257|183372939|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.01||||0.7105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 45.||0.05|-0.07|0.7105
91740420|NCT04417257|183372939|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.01||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 60.||0.04|-0.07|0.6424
91740421|NCT04417257|183372939|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.05||||0.2789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 14 or end of hospitalization data.||0.14|-0.04|0.2789
91874288|NCT00696241|183641904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.52||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.68|0.928
91874289|NCT00696241|183641905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|7.72||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.72|2.66|<0.001
91740422|NCT04417257|183372939|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.05||||0.2884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 29||0.14|-0.04|0.2884
91740423|NCT04417257|183372939|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.06||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 45||0.15|-0.03|0.2058
91740424|NCT04417257|183372939|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.03||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 60||0.12|-0.06|0.5160
91740425|NCT00553410|183372963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|.93|.31
91740426|NCT00553410|183372964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|.68|.16
91740427|NCT00553410|183372965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|.71|.25
91740428|NCT00553410|183372966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|.81|.84
91740429|NCT01328743|183372967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
91740430|NCT01328743|183372968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
91740431|NCT01328743|183372969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
91740432|NCT01328743|183372970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.48
91740433|NCT01328743|183372971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
91874290|NCT00696241|183641905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|8.58||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.58|2.96|<0.001
91740434|NCT01328743|183372972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91740435|NCT03137771|183372999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.4|||Log Rank|Two-sided test|Reference level = systemic therapy. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by histology (non-squamous vs squamous) and systemic therapy (immunotherapy-based regimens vs chemotherapy- only regimens).|Based on expected 6- and 12-month PFS rates of approximately 60% and 39% for the standard arm, assuming approximately exponential distributions, at least 138 PFS events are needed to detect a hazard ratio of 0.6 (a hazard reduction of 40%) with 95% power and a one-sided significance level of 0.15. The Cox proportional hazards model is stratified by histology and systemic therapy type. The hazard ratio estimate must be ≤ 0.83 for the study to proceed to the phase III component.||1.40|0.68|0.66
91740436|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in GHS/QoL statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.029
91740437|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in GHS/QoL statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.027
91740438|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in GHS/QoL statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.602
91740439|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.631|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in physical functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.631
91740440|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.339|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in physical functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.339
91740441|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in physical functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.440
91740442|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in role functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=1.000
91740443|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in role functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.465
91740444|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.431|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in role functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.431
91740445|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in emotional functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.650
91740446|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in emotional functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.980
91740447|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in emotional functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.906
91740448|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in cognitive functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.381
91740449|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.886|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in cognitive functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.886
91740450|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in cognitive functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.264
91740451|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.424|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in social functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.424
91740452|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in social functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=1.000
91740453|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in social functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.312
91874291|NCT00696241|183641905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|11.48||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.48|3.96|<0.001
91740454|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.664|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in fatigue statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.664
91874292|NCT00696241|183641905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.13||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.58|0.217
91874293|NCT00696241|183641905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|0.64|0.537
91874294|NCT00696241|183641905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.68||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.86|0.276
91740455|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in fatigue functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.170
91740456|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.318|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in fatigue statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.318
91740457|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in Nausea/vomiting statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.536
91740458|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in nausea/vomiting statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.900
91740459|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in nausea/vomiting statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.188
91740460|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in pain statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.370
91740461|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.813|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in pain statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.813
91740462|NCT00532129|183373023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in pain statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=1.000
91740463|NCT03052608|183373024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.413||The study was to be considered positive if the 1-sided log-rank test for PFS, stratified for baseline stratification factors (ethnicity and brain metastases) was significant at the 0.0081 level at the cutoff date of this report.|one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis H0: λ ≥1 versus the alternative hypothesis HA: λ \<1, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR; Lorlatinib/Crizotinib). Evaluation of 177 PFS events was required to have at least 90% power to detect a HR of 0.611 using a one-sided stratified log-rank test at a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided), and a 2-look group-sequential design with a Lan-DeMets (O'Brien-Fleming) α-spending function to determine the efficacy boundaries.||0.413|0.191|<0.0001
91740464|NCT03052608|183373025|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.249|||||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||1.249|0.414|
91740465|NCT03052608|183373026|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.307|||one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||0.307|0.144|<0.0001
91740466|NCT03052608|183373027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.254||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.353|3.891|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Odds ratio was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel method. An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates better outcome for Lorlatinib relative to Crizotinib. Exact CI was calculated.|||3.891|1.353|0.0005
91740467|NCT03052608|183373028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.499||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.484|4.594|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Odds ratio was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel method. An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates better outcome for Lorlatinib relative to Crizotinib. Exact CI was calculated.|||4.594|1.484|0.0002
91740468|NCT03052608|183373029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.586|27.233|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Odds ratio was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel method. An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates better outcome for Lorlatinib relative to Crizotinib. Exact CI was calculated.|||27.233|2.586|<0.0001
91740469|NCT03052608|183373030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.17|||one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||0.170|0.026|<0.0001
91740470|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.65||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|8.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Global QOL. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||8.16|1.14|0.0096
91740471|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.1897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.05|-1.01|0.1897
91874295|NCT00762853|183641917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91874296|NCT02429115|183641929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91874297|NCT02429115|183641930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91874298|NCT02429115|183641931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91740472|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09||||0.2999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|6.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Role Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||6.04|-1.87|0.2999
91740473|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.58||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|5.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Emotional Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.22|-0.06|0.0553
91740474|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.18||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Cognitive Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||0.12|-6.47|0.0588
91740475|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27||||0.2118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Social Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.85|-1.30|0.2118
91740476|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.67||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Fatigue. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-1.92|-9.42|0.0032
91740477|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|-5.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-5.86|-9.86|<0.0001
91740478|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Pain. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||4.82|-2.49|0.5310
91740479|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Dyspnoea. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.43|-1.98|0.3602
91740480|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Insomnia. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-4.64|-11.25|<0.0001
91740481|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-6.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Appetite Loss. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-6.62|-11.80|<0.0001
91740482|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.93||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Constipation. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-0.79|-9.07|0.0198
91740483|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-8.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Diarrhea. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-8.58|-15.49|<0.0001
91740484|NCT03052608|183373045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Financial Difficulties. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||2.82|-4.90|0.5947
91740485|NCT03052608|183373046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.7254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Dyspnoea. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||3.60|-2.51|0.7254
91760108|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.91||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.91|-1.94|
91874299|NCT01047709|183641952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative % difference|19.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.0||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|31.9|||GEE||SD of control night|Relative treatment effect on AHI, using GEE modeling, accounting for crossover design.||31.9|4.9|0.011
91874300|NCT01047709|183641952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative % difference|19.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0||0.011||95.0|4.9|31.9|||GEE||SD of intervention night|Relative treatment effect on AHI, using GEE modeling, accounting for crossover design.||31.9|4.9|0.011
91740486|NCT03052608|183373046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.55||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Coughing. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-1.03|-8.06|0.0115
91740487|NCT03052608|183373046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Haemoptysis. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||0.99|-0.75|0.7824
91740488|NCT03052608|183373046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Sore Mouth. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||3.36|-1.04|0.2988
91740489|NCT03052608|183373046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Dysphagia. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||0.76|-3.79|0.1916
91740490|NCT03052608|183373046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.37||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|10.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Peripheral Neuropathy. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||10.15|0.59|0.0279
91740491|NCT03052608|183373046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.9162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Alopecia. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||3.49|-3.89|0.9162
91740492|NCT03052608|183373046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.6698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Pain in Chest. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||1.90|-2.96|0.6698
91740493|NCT03052608|183373046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.8035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|4.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Pain in Arm or Shoulder. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||4.04|-3.13|0.8035
91740494|NCT03052608|183373046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|7.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Pain in Other Parts. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||7.55|-0.82|0.1143
91740495|NCT03052608|183373049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.444|||one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||1.444|0.822|0.7293
91740496|NCT05554146|183373056|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.6185||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.25||A mixed effects model was completed with Arm 2 as the reference.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments for any covariates.|Arm 2 was the comparison arm.|The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater reduction in self-reported pain severity than high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||-0.25|-4.98|0.0303
91740497|NCT05554146|183373056|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.8424||||0.4851|TWO_SIDED|||||A mixed effects model was completed with Arm 2 as the reference.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments for any covariates.|Arm 2 was the comparison arm.|The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater reduction in self-reported pain severity than high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.4851
91740498|NCT05554146|183373056|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.6038||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A mixed effects model was completed with Arm 2 as the reference.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments for any covariates.|Arm 2 was the comparison arm.|The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater reduction in self-reported pain severity than high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.6165
91889188|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.92|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14||0.92|0.69|
91906938|NCT02634151|183709110|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.88|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||7.88|1.11|0.0298
91740499|NCT05554146|183373057|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.63||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-4 and IL-10) would have greater increase in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.6
91740500|NCT05554146|183373058|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.83||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-4 and IL-10) would have greater increase in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.49
91740501|NCT05554146|183373059|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.53||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNFa and IL-6) would have greater reduction in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.66
91740502|NCT05554146|183373060|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.21||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNFa and IL-6) would have greater reduction in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.88
91740503|NCT05554146|183373061|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with the mean change in adherence score was completed.|F value (F-test)|1.11||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have poorer Antiretroviral (ARV) medication adherence than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.39
91740504|NCT05554146|183373062|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in HIV viral load was completed.|F value (F-test)|1.25||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have less suppressed HIV viral load than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD or placebo.||||0.31
91740505|NCT05554146|183373063|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with the mean change in depression score was completed.|F value (F-test)|2.04||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater depression than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.13
91740506|NCT05554146|183373064|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with the mean change in anxiety score was completed.|F value (F-test)|1.58||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater anxiety than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.22
91740507|NCT01139411|183373065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis was that the amount of weight lost by adolescents in Enhanced Parent Involvement and Minimal Parent involvement would not be significantly different. The study was powered at .8 to achieve a medium effect size (f = .26; partial eta sq. = 0.06).~The end-of-treatment BMI value was the dependent variable, with the baseline BMI value entered as a covariate."||||0.06
91740508|NCT01139411|183373066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||The end-of-treatment value was the dependent variable, with the baseline value entered as a covariate.||||0.58
91874301|NCT02291549|183641988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.06||The 2-sided alpha was 0.05. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison.|ANCOVA|Where appropriate, confidence intervals of the difference were constructed using the estimate of the least-squares means||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The primary efficacy hypothesis was that the use of the S8 Sinus Implant would reduce the Nasal Obstruction/Congestion score compared to the control group. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.06|-0.39|0.0074
91874302|NCT02291549|183641989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.09||The 2-sided alpha was 0.05. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups.||The between treatment group difference was estimated using the ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects. The primary efficacy hypothesis was that the use of the S8 Sinus Implant would reduce the bilateral polyp grade compared to the control group. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.09|-0.60|0.0073
91874303|NCT02291549|183641990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.44||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted p-value is presented.||Test: H0: OR = 1 vs. OR ≠ 1 by Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel test||4.44|1.63|0.0004
91874304|NCT02291549|183641991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-3.83||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-value is presented.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups.The null hypothesis was H0: β1 = 0 and the alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Although the alternative hypothesis was specified as 2-sided, only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 constituted evidence of effectiveness. The 2-sided alpha for this test was 0.05.||-3.83|-12.10|0.0007
91874305|NCT02291549|183641992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.07||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-value is presented.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and the alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.07|-0.48|0.0248
91906939|NCT02634151|183709111|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.4||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-3.7|-17.2|0.0029
91740509|NCT01139411|183373067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.19
91740510|NCT01139411|183373068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.72
91740511|NCT01139411|183373069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.41
91740512|NCT01139411|183373070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.01
91740513|NCT01139411|183373071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.61
91740514|NCT01484496|183373090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|1.25|0.0006
91740515|NCT01484496|183373091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.74|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.74|0.35|0.0004
91740516|NCT01484496|183373092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|0.95|0.0732
91740517|NCT00589797|183373103|NON_INFERIORITY|The trial was designed as a non-inferiority trial with a margin (delta) of 15%. Additional analyses using a delta of 10% as requested by FDA were also conducted.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91740518|NCT02141672|183373114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||4.05|1.01|0.045
91740519|NCT02141672|183373114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||3.27|0.78|0.204
91740520|NCT02141672|183373115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|6.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||6.13|1.68|<0.001
91740521|NCT02141672|183373115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||4.02|1.09|0.026
91740522|NCT02141672|183373116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|0.96|0.066
91740523|NCT02141672|183373116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.28|0.82|0.162
91740524|NCT02141672|183373117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.51|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||3.51|1.45|<0.001
91740525|NCT02141672|183373117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.47|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||3.47|1.46|<0.001
91799361|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.84|0.00|
91874306|NCT02291549|183641993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.06||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The adjusted p-value is presentenced.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.06|-0.85|0.0470
91799362|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.84|0.03|
91799363|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|0.20|
91740526|NCT02141672|183373118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|5.29|||Regression, Cox|||||5.29|1.58|<0.001
91740527|NCT02141672|183373118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||<|0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.86|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.86|0.77|<0.248
91740528|NCT02141672|183373120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.27|||Regression, Cox|||||2.27|1.16|0.005
91740529|NCT02141672|183373120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.43|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.43|1.25|0.002
91740530|NCT02141672|183373122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.15|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||2.15|0.45|0.980
91740531|NCT02141672|183373122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.98||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.16|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||4.16|0.95|0.118
91740532|NCT02141672|183373124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.33|||Regression, Logistic|||week 24||4.33|1.26|0.007
91740533|NCT02141672|183373124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.76|||Regression, Logistic|||week 24||3.76|1.1|0.024
91740534|NCT02141672|183373124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.33|||Regression, Logistic|||week 48||4.33|1.27|0.007
91740535|NCT02141672|183373124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|5.02|||Regression, Logistic|||week 48||5.02|1.43|0.002
91740536|NCT02141672|183373125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.03|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||3.03|1.36|<0.001
91740537|NCT02141672|183373125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.69|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.69|1.22|0.004
91740538|NCT02141672|183373127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.36|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||3.36|1.45|<0.001
91740539|NCT02141672|183373127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.84|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.84|1.23|0.004
91740540|NCT02688192|183373133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effects of the intervention on changes in the General Subscale from baseline to post-intervention (3 months) were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||0.39
91740541|NCT02688192|183373133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effects of the intervention on changes in the Sleep/Rest Subscale from baseline to post-intervention (3 months) were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.49
91740542|NCT02688192|183373133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effect of the intervention on changes in the Cognitive Subscale from baseline to post-intervention (3 months) were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.83
91874307|NCT02291549|183641994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-value is presented.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||||0.9130
91874308|NCT02470806|183642030|NON_INFERIORITY|Stepwise regression method - Primary efficacy analysis, difference between treatment groups in percentage change in wound area from baseline visit to end of 12-week treatment period for the PP population.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Stepwise regression|||Percentage change in wound area from Baseline to end of 12-week treatment period (PP population - all wounds)||||0.001
91874309|NCT00866619|183642040|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for success = lower limit (LL) of 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of VE \> 0.|Vaccine efficacy|55.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|50.6|60.4|||Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare RfoCPFMI between groups over the Months 2.5-14 time period. Using RfoCFPMI, a Cox regression model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment by factors. VE was calculated as 1 minus \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group (HR1) divided by HR in control VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group (HR2)\]; i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||60.4|50.6|<0.0001
91874310|NCT00866619|183642041|SUPERIORITY|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for study site as stratification factor for the analysis. Criterion for success = lower limit (LL) of 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of VE \> 0.|Vaccine efficacy|31.315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.556|38.286|||Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare RfoCPFMI between groups over the Months 2.5-14 time period. Using RfoCFPMI, a Cox regression model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment by factors. VE was calculated as 1 minus \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group (HR1) divided by HR in control Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group (HR2)\]; i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||38.286|23.556|<0.0001
91874311|NCT05062343|183642112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
91874312|NCT05062343|183642113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91874313|NCT05062343|183642114|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91874314|NCT05062343|183642115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91874315|NCT05062343|183642116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
91740543|NCT02688192|183373134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effects of the intervention on changes in the PedsQL Physical Summary score were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.98
91874316|NCT05062343|183642117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.045
91874317|NCT05062343|183642118|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91874318|NCT05062343|183642119|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91874319|NCT01307800|183642120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.8||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, with adjustment for multiplicity by applying the Step-down Dunnett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.8|-0.5|0.994
91874320|NCT01307800|183642120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.9||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, with adjustment for multiplicity by applying the Step-down Dunnett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|-1.9|0.973
91874321|NCT01307800|183642120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.2||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-1.6|0.896
91874322|NCT01307800|183642121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|9.3||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.3|-0.7|0.955
91874323|NCT01307800|183642121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.4||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.4|-1.6|0.912
91906940|NCT02634151|183709111|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-4.3||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||1.8|-10.4|0.1666
91740544|NCT02688192|183373134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|df = 29||Effects of the intervention on changes in the PedsQL Psychosocial Summary score were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.85
91740545|NCT02688192|183373135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|df = 29||||||.29
91874324|NCT01307800|183642121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.7|-1.8|0.223
91874325|NCT01307800|183642122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.6||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-3.5|0.610
91874326|NCT01307800|183642122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.6||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.6|-2.0|0.223
91874327|NCT01307800|183642122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.7||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-4.2|0.414
91874328|NCT01307800|183642123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.8||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-3.7|0.603
91874329|NCT01307800|183642123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.8||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.8|-1.9|0.192
91740546|NCT02688192|183373136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|df = 32||Effect of the intervention on changes in lower body estimated 1-RM was evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data||||.019
91740547|NCT02688192|183373136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|df = 32||Effect of the intervention on changes in upper body estimated 1-RM was evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.34
91740548|NCT01773967|183373138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.83
91740549|NCT01773967|183373140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Van Elteren's modification Mann-Whitney|||||||0.26
91740550|NCT01299389|183373225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) means difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-5.4|-14.0|<0.0001
91740551|NCT01299389|183373228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Positive symptoms (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-1.4|-4.1|<0.0001
91740552|NCT01299389|183373228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Negative symptoms (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-0.8|-3.2|0.0012
91740553|NCT01299389|183373228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Disorganized thoughts (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-1.1|-3.4|<0.0001
91874330|NCT01307800|183642123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-3.9|0.619
91740554|NCT01299389|183373228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-0.5|-2.3|0.0023
91740555|NCT01299389|183373228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety/depression (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-0.4|-1.9|0.0025
91740556|NCT01299389|183373229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-1.0|-3.3|0.0003
91740557|NCT01299389|183373230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-1.5|-4.1|<0.0001
91740558|NCT01299389|183373231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-2.3|-6.9|<0.0001
91874331|NCT01307800|183642124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|17.6||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.6|1.4|0.022
91874332|NCT01307800|183642124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|17.8||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.8|-0.4|0.061
91740559|NCT02185534|183373258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|104.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.27|118.19|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B, where A= European clopidogrel and B=Japanese clopidogrel|||118.19|92.27|
91740560|NCT02185534|183373258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|Geometric mean ratio|97.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.12|116.45|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25||116.45|81.12|
91740561|NCT02185534|183373259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|108.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.46|122.33|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B, where A= European clopidogrel and B=Japanese clopidogrel|||122.33|95.46|
91760109|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.76||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.76|-1.80|
91760110|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.03||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-1.06|
91740562|NCT02185534|183373259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|105.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.22|117.53|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|||117.53|95.22|
91740563|NCT02185534|183373260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|93.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.12|101.29|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B, where A= European clopidogrel and B=Japanese clopidogrel|||101.29|87.12|
91740564|NCT02185534|183373260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|92.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.91|99.75|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|||99.75|84.91|
91740565|NCT00362882|183373288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
91740566|NCT00361972|183373308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91740567|NCT00361972|183373309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91740568|NCT00149799|183373326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.73||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|8.59|||Regression, Cox|p-value is based on the likelihood ratio Chi-Square statistic.||Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare relapse rates (accounting for censoring and time from randomization to relapse) in Phase II.||8.59|1.01|0.048
91740569|NCT00149799|183373328|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|-0.07006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04163||0.093|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.0167 Model term of interest: treatment by time interaction (i.e., slope difference between treatments over time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom=556||"We compared change in depression over time by randomized treatment group (Escitalopram vs. Placebo) using a random coefficient model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in depression symptom severity in the Escitalopram group will not be significantly different from the placebo group \[to be tested\]."||||0.0930
91874333|NCT01307800|183642124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.3||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.3|-3.9|0.304
91874334|NCT01307800|183642125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.1||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS positive subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|0.1|0.036
91874335|NCT01307800|183642125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.0||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for change from baseline in PANSS positive subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-1.2|0.616
91740570|NCT00149799|183373329|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|0.001176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03991||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.0167 Model term of interest: treatment by time interaction (i.e., slope difference between treatments over time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom=43||"We compared change in functional impairment over time during trial phase 2 by treatment group (Escitalopram vs. Placebo) using a random coefficient model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in functional impairment in the Escitalopram group will not be significantly different from that of the placebo group \[to be tested\]."||||0.9766
91759512|NCT02391363|183411763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.42 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.52
91759513|NCT02391363|183411764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = .01(Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.92
91759514|NCT02391363|183411765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.29 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.59
91760111|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.81||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.81|-1.85|
91740571|NCT00149799|183373330|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|0.05723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1963||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.0167 Model term of interest: treatment by time interaction (i.e., slope difference between treatments over time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom=36||"We compared change in Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores over time by randomized treatment group (Escitalopram vs. Placebo) using a random coefficient model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores in the Escitalopram group will not be significantly different from that of the placebo group \[to be tested\]."||||0.7724
91740572|NCT02737501|183373355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.66||P-values are from a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (current; presence of intracranial central nervous system (iCNS) metastases at baseline and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained using a Cox proportional hazards model with randomization stratification factors (current) as covariates.|||0.66|0.35|<0.0001
91740573|NCT02737501|183373356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratios and p-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence of intracranial central nervous system (iCNS) metastases at Baseline, and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease (current strata).|||2.91|1.04|0.0330
91740574|NCT02737501|183373357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|39.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratios and p-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence of prior chemotherapy for Locally advanced or metastatic disease at study entry (current strata).|||39.11|4.70|<0.0001
91740575|NCT02737501|183373358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.293|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.51||P-values are from a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (current; presence of iCNS metastases at baseline and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained using a Cox proportional hazards model with prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease (current strata) as covariate.|||0.51|0.17|<0.0001
91740576|NCT02737501|183373362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratios and p-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence of iCNS metastases at Baseline, and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease (current strata).|||1.82|0.47|0.8220
91740577|NCT02737501|183373364|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.79||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|11.0||p-values were obtained using mixed effects models stratified by presence of iCNS metastases at study entry, prior chemotherapy at Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model is used with an unstructured covariance matrix.||||11.00|0.58|0.0295
91740578|NCT02012218|183373365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were calculated according to testing a null hypothesis of zero mean change.|Mixed Models Analysis|This analysis was conducted using a mixed model repeated measures analysis on observed case data.||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from baseline in MADRS total score at Week 6 was tested for each treatment group at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||<0.0001
91740579|NCT01482715|183373414|OTHER||RP2D|600.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||A MTD was not established based on observation of DLTs in Cycle 1 of treatment. The 600 mg BID dose was considered to be the maximum dose with an acceptable toxicity profile that could be continuously administered to patients and was selected as the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D).|||
91740580|NCT00996658|183373457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.31|-0.83|< 0.0001
91799364|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|0.04|
91740581|NCT00996658|183373458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.61|-0.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.21|-0.61|< 0.0001
91740582|NCT00996658|183373459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.28|-0.79|< 0.0001
91799365|NCT04823650|183476501|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.459|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.79|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.79|-0.02|
91799366|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|-0.19|
91799367|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.612|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.91|-0.11|
91799368|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.85|-0.06|
91740583|NCT00996658|183373460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.29|-0.80|< 0.0001
91740584|NCT00996658|183373461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.939||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.432|6.032|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo||6.032|1.432|0.0033
91740585|NCT00996658|183373462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.902||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|10.572|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo||10.572|1.440|0.0074
91740586|NCT00996658|183373463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.059||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.216|3.485|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||3.485|1.216|0.0071
91740587|NCT00996658|183373464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.028||95.0|-19.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||-1.1|-19.6|0.0280
91740588|NCT00996658|183373465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7||||0.0006||95.0|-24.5|-6.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||-6.8|-24.5|0.0006
91740589|NCT00996658|183373466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.021||95.0|-20.2|-1.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||-1.7|-20.2|0.0210
91740590|NCT00996658|183373467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.2137||95.0|-16.0|3.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||3.6|-16.0|0.2137
91740591|NCT04566731|183373492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91740592|NCT04267926|183373493|OTHER|||||||0.9489|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||In our work there are several hypotheses for the group comparison for the change. Therefore multiple estimate values that are not suitable for the questions above.|||0.9489
91740593|NCT00661830|183373503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|2.023|||Regression, Cox|||||2.023|0.811|
91740594|NCT00661830|183373504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.927|||Regression, Cox|||||1.927|0.747|
91740595|NCT02621476|183373640|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91740596|NCT03198767|183373641|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.71||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.00|0.50|0.202
91740597|NCT03198767|183373641|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||0.32|0.14|<0.001
91740598|NCT03198767|183373641|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||0.46|0.19|<0.001
91740599|NCT03198767|183373641|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.79||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.04|0.60|0.275
91740600|NCT03198767|183373641|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.78||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.02|0.59|0.234
91740601|NCT03198767|183373641|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.98||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.30|0.73|0.921
91740602|NCT03198767|183373642|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.68||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|0.54|0.040
91740603|NCT03198767|183373642|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|0.28|<0.001
91740604|NCT03198767|183373642|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.72|0.41|0.008
91740605|NCT03198767|183373642|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.79||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|0.65|0.141
91740606|NCT03198767|183373642|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.9||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.74|0.510
91740607|NCT03198767|183373642|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|1.14||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.93|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.41|0.93|0.401
91740608|NCT03198767|183373643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.56|0.426
91740609|NCT03198767|183373643|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.46|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.46|0.001
91740610|NCT03198767|183373643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.25|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-1.25|0.009
91740611|NCT03198767|183373643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.68|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.68|0.135
91740612|NCT03198767|183373643|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.50|0.436
91740613|NCT03198767|183373643|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-0.13|0.452
91740614|NCT02820844|183373652|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-1.18||Analysis was performed using mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM||Mean difference (Net) at Week 12 has been presented.|||-1.18|-3.14|<0.001
91740615|NCT02820844|183373653|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.47|40.91||Analysis performed using MMRM, with treatment, site, visit, Baseline urinary urgency incontinence (UUI) episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 or \>=10), treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM||Mean difference (Net) at Week 12 has been presented.|||40.91|18.47|<0.001
91740616|NCT02820844|183373708|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) are estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment and Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10) as fixed effect.|||0.60|0.34|<0.001
91740617|NCT02820844|183373709|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.66||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10)|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI are estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment and Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10) as fixed effect.|||0.66|0.38|<0.001
91740618|NCT01135459|183373835|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7649||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model with treatment and stratification factors as main factors.||1.4|0.4|0.3989
91760112|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.98|0.19|
91760113|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-0.22|
91740619|NCT01803880|183373846|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority Margin = 10 points. Non-inferiority of study device was concluded if lower limit of one-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference \<10.~Superiority of study device was established if LS means of treatment difference and lower limit of one-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference ≤0."|One-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI)|-7.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.137|>|0.05|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-19.29|||All unscheduled visits were to be included and nominal visits were to be applied using analysis visit windows. Both the assigned analysis visits and the site reported nominal visits were provided in the subject data listings.|ANCOVA|Due to early termination, all inferential analysis was interpreted as descriptive and carried out in an exploratory manner.||An ANCOVA model was used to compare the difference in the devices for change from Baseline in the KOOS at Week 52. KOOS was derived as the average of five subscale scores. LOCF imputation was considered for missing value. One-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference (Study-Control) was to be used for determining non-inferiority/superiority of the study device.|||-19.29|>0.05
91740620|NCT03703232|183373860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.092
91740621|NCT03703232|183373861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.760
91740622|NCT03703232|183373862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.007
91740623|NCT03703232|183373863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.003
91740624|NCT03703232|183373864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.861
91740625|NCT03703232|183373866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.405
91740626|NCT03703232|183373867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.798
91740627|NCT03703232|183373868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.382
91740628|NCT03703232|183373869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.179
91740629|NCT03703232|183373870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.984
91740630|NCT01816776|183373871|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|54.0||1-sided. p\<0.025 considered significant.|Fisher Exact||Risk difference = Treatment - Control|||54|25|<0.0001
91740631|NCT01816776|183373873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-16.6||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-16.6|-29.0|<0.0001
91740632|NCT01816776|183373874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-18.7||Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-18.7|-31.2|<0.0001
91740633|NCT01816776|183373875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-8.7||Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-8.7|-21.6|<0.0001
91740634|NCT01816776|183373876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.1||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||5.1|-0.4|0.0244
91740635|NCT01816776|183373877|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|55.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|68.0||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Fisher Exact||Risk difference = Treatment - Control|||68|40|<0.0001
91740636|NCT01816776|183373878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-16.5||Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-16.5|-28.9|<0.0001
91740637|NCT01816776|183373879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.0||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-2.0|-5.5|<0.0001
91740638|NCT02651116|183373884|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.7899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0929||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6273|0.9947||P-Value less than or equal to (\<=) 0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05 less than (\<) p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per 24 hours for DXM HBr to placebo), and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||0.9947|0.6273|0.0449
91740639|NCT02651116|183373884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6293||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|Negative Binomial Regression|||P-value was obtained from the negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour (based on Baseline Run-in Period) as factors, with interaction term of treatment by age group, and logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||||0.6293
91740640|NCT02651116|183373885|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0912||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6446|1.0049||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||1.0049|0.6446|0.0552
91740641|NCT02651116|183373886|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.9551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1491||0.7684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7032|1.2971||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||1.2971|0.7032|0.7684
91740642|NCT02651116|183373887|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.7014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1086||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5178|0.95||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||0.9500|0.5178|0.0220
91740643|NCT02651116|183373888|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.7454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0848||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5964|0.9316||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||0.9316|0.5964|0.0098
91740644|NCT02651116|183373889|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1324||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4831|0.0411||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model contained treatment, study site (pooled), log-transformed baseline cough time and age group terms as factors.||0.0411|-0.4831|0.0977
91740645|NCT02651116|183373890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.2881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1224||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5287|-0.0475||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding morning baseline cough frequency by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0475|-0.5287|0.0191
91740646|NCT02651116|183373890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8355||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), screening assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.8355
91740647|NCT02651116|183373891|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1104||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5299|-0.0956||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding morning baseline cough severity by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0956|-0.5299|0.0049
91740648|NCT02651116|183373891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8413||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), screening assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.8413
91740649|NCT02651116|183373892|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.1483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1337||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4112|0.1146||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding morning baseline impact on sleep by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||0.1146|-0.4112|0.2679
91740650|NCT02651116|183373892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), screening assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.2882
91740651|NCT02651116|183373893|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.2812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1242||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5255|-0.0369||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding afternoon baseline cough frequency by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0369|-0.5255|0.0242
91740652|NCT02651116|183373893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2892||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), afternoon baseline assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.2892
91740653|NCT02651116|183373894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1096||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|-0.0858||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding afternoon baseline cough severity by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0858|-0.5170|0.0063
91799369|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.254|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.7|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.70|-0.35|
91799370|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.96|0.66|
91906941|NCT02634151|183709111|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-4.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-4.8|-18.2|0.0010
91740654|NCT02651116|183373894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3268||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), afternoon baseline assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.3268
91740655|NCT02651116|183373895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.2535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1124||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4745|-0.0325||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), the baseline assessment in child global question cold assessment by participant and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0325|-0.4745|0.0247
91740656|NCT02651116|183373895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4093||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), baseline assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.4093
91740657|NCT02651116|183373896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.1266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2196||0.5652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3081|0.5614||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||Participant: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), and age group included in the model.||0.5614|-0.3081|0.5652
91740658|NCT02651116|183373896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.1368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1982||0.4914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5292|0.2556||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||Caregiver: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), and age group included in the model.||0.2556|-0.5292|0.4914
91740659|NCT02651116|183373896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1029||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||Participant: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.1029
91740660|NCT02651116|183373896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4736||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||Caregiver: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.4736
91740661|NCT02041299|183373919|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 96.01% confidence interval (CI) is less than or equal to 2 mg/g dw.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|96.01|-0.97|1.48|||ANCOVA|||||1.48|-0.97|0.0399
91740662|NCT02041299|183373920|NON_INFERIORITY|Support for non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 96.01% CI contains zero (0)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.000295||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|96.01|-0.054247|0.053657|||ANCOVA|||Data for this measure were log-transformed.||0.053657|-0.054247|0.0399
91906942|NCT02634151|183709112|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-4.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-4.1|-17.3|0.0018
91740663|NCT02041299|183373921|NON_INFERIORITY|Support for non-inferiority of deferiprone to deferoxamine in serum ferritin is demonstrated if the 96.01% CI contains zero (0)|Mean Difference (Net)|375.07||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|96.01|-260.63|1010.76|||ANCOVA|||||1010.76|-260.63|0.0399
91740664|NCT02041299|183373922|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on SF-36 Physical Summary||||||0.9214|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9214
91740665|NCT02041299|183373922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on SF-36 Mental Summary||||0.1174
91740666|NCT02041299|183373922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6488|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on CHQ-PF50 Physical Summary||||0.6488
91740667|NCT02041299|183373922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5915|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on CHQ-PF50 Psychosocial Summary||||0.5915
91740668|NCT02389465|183373923|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels in healthy controls pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.44
91740669|NCT02389465|183373923|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels in the placebo group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.11
91740670|NCT02389465|183373923|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels in the escitalopram group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.42
91740671|NCT02389465|183373923|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL-6 levels in the escitalopram + celecoxib group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-tes||||.49
91740672|NCT02389465|183373923|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels at completion of study compared between all MDD groups (placebo, escitalopram, and escitalopram + celecoxib) and the healthy control group||||.23
91740673|NCT02389465|183373924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the healthy control and escitalopram + celecoxib groups||||.003
91740674|NCT02389465|183373924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the healthy control and escitalopram groups||||<.001
91740675|NCT02389465|183373924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the healthy control and placebo groups||||.034
91740676|NCT02389465|183373924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the placebo groups and all groups receiving escitalopram (both with and without celecoxib)||||.03
91740677|NCT02389465|183373925|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in healthy controls pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.29
91740678|NCT02389465|183373925|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in the placebo group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.19
91740679|NCT02389465|183373925|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in the escitalopram group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.5
91740680|NCT02389465|183373925|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in the escitalopram + celecoxib group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.55
91740681|NCT02389465|183373925|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels at completion of study compared between all MDD groups (placebo, escitalopram, and escitalopram + celecoxib) and the healthy control group||||.06
91740682|NCT01925768|183373926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|17.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|29.3||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights. The CI is based on a normal approximation.|||29.3|6.2|0.0040
91740683|NCT01925768|183373927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.103||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|Those with a baseline and at least 1 postbaseline value at the PBO controlled phase were counted with mixed effects model for repeated measure (MMRM)|The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||0.044|-0.251|0.1677
91740684|NCT01925768|183373928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|30.6||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Those who withdrew early or who did not have sufficient data at Week 16 were counted as non-responders.|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights. The CI is based on a normal approximation.|||30.6|6.3|0.0040
91740685|NCT01925768|183373929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.15|-0.85|0.0051
91740686|NCT01925768|183373930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.68||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Those with a baseline and at least 1 postbaseline value at the PBO controlled phase were counted with mixed effects model for repeated measure (MMRM)|The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||4.88|0.49|0.0167
91740687|NCT01925768|183373931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.7||Based on an MMRM model for the change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids use as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||2-sided 95% CI for the difference in LS mean.||5.70|1.10|0.0039
91740688|NCT01925768|183373932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|10.2|||Sign test|p-value based on distribution free signed rank test||||10.2|-21.5|0.012
91740689|NCT01925768|183373933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|19.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.3||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline oral corticosteroids (prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights. The CI is based on a normal approximation.|||31.3|8.0|0.0016
91740690|NCT01925768|183373934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|-0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||-0.021|-0.279|0.0229
91740691|NCT01925768|183373935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||-0.35|-1.00|<0.0001
91740692|NCT01925768|183373936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.46||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|||5.80|1.13|0.0039
91740693|NCT01925768|183373937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann|10.0||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.0|||Stratified Van Elteren test|p-value based on stratified Van Elteren test, using 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids|Location shift and 95% CI based on Hodges-Lehmann for between treatment median estimates.|||20.0|0.0|0.0168
91740694|NCT01925768|183373938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|20.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|32.8||2 sided-p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|||32.8|8.5|0.0015
91740695|NCT01925768|183373939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.7||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|17.7||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 2; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||17.7|1.6|0.0252
91740696|NCT01925768|183373939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.6||||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|18.9||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 4; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||18.9|-1.7|0.1121
91740697|NCT01925768|183373939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|17.8||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|29.3||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 6; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||29.3|6.2|0.0036
91740698|NCT01925768|183373939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|12.7||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|24.6||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 8; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||24.6|0.8|0.0392
91740699|NCT01925768|183373939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.0||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|23.2||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 12; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||23.2|-1.3|0.0884
91740700|NCT01925768|183373939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|30.7||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 20; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||30.7|6.5|0.0040
91740701|NCT03542266|183373956|OTHER||Proportion (percent)|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|90.3|||||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for complete response rate.|||90.3|46.5|
91740702|NCT00873821|183373974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.33|55.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference (placebo minus MK-0941) in change from baseline to Day 13||55.32|26.33|<0.001
91740703|NCT00444925|183373986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine versus (vs) placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the fifth (5th) and ninety-fifth (95th) percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
91740704|NCT00444925|183373986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107||95.0||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0107
91740705|NCT00444925|183373986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0172||95.0||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0172
91740706|NCT00444925|183373987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
91740707|NCT00444925|183373987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
91740708|NCT00444925|183373987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.8460
91740709|NCT00444925|183373987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
91740710|NCT00444925|183373987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
91740711|NCT00444925|183373987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1937||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.1937
91799371|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.793|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|0.02|
91874336|NCT01307800|183642125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for change from baseline in PANSS positive subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-0.7|0.307
91740712|NCT00444925|183373988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91740713|NCT00444925|183373988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91740714|NCT00444925|183373988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91740715|NCT00444925|183373988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91740716|NCT00444925|183373988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91740717|NCT00444925|183373988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91874337|NCT01307800|183642125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.1||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS negative subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-0.8|0.382
91740718|NCT00444925|183373988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0220
91740719|NCT00444925|183373989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0214|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference Least Squares Mean (LSMean) Difference Standard Error (SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0214
91799372|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.78|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.78|0.08|
91874338|NCT01307800|183642125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS negative subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-0.3|0.107
91874339|NCT01307800|183642125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS negative subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-0.9|0.436
91874340|NCT01307800|183642125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.9||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS general psychopathology subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9|-0.2|0.073
91874341|NCT01307800|183642125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.2||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS general psychopathology subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|-1.2|0.280
91874342|NCT01307800|183642125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.0||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS general psychopathology subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.0|-0.9|0.209
91740720|NCT00444925|183373989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0149|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0149
91874343|NCT01307800|183642126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.137||95.0||||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.137
91874344|NCT01307800|183642126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.824||95.0||||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.824
91874345|NCT01307800|183642126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0||||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91874346|NCT01307800|183642128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.38||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.13|0.340
91874347|NCT01307800|183642128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.33|0.659
91906943|NCT02634151|183709112|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-3.8||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.6|-10.1|0.2437
91740721|NCT00444925|183373989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.8659|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.8659
91740722|NCT00444925|183373989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91740723|NCT00444925|183373989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0036|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0036
91740724|NCT00444925|183373989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.1484|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.1484
91874348|NCT01307800|183642128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.35||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.35|-0.14|0.413
91874349|NCT01307800|183642129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.7||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|-3.1|0.910
91874350|NCT01307800|183642129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.3||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-4.9|0.265
91874351|NCT01307800|183642129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.9||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-3.7|0.531
91874352|NCT01307800|183642130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|5.1||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in EQ-5D Questionnaire (VAS) was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||5.10|-5.21|0.983
91874353|NCT01307800|183642130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|2.83||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in EQ-5D Questionnaire (VAS) was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||2.83|-7.94|0.351
91874354|NCT01307800|183642130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|7.11||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in EQ-5D Questionnaire (VAS) was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||7.11|-2.86|0.403
91874355|NCT01307800|183642133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-0.8||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.8|-10.4|0.021
91874356|NCT01307800|183642133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.9||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.9|-3.3|0.487
91874357|NCT01307800|183642133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.7||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-5.6|0.693
91874358|NCT01307800|183642134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.10|0.661
91874359|NCT01307800|183642134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.03||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.14|0.201
91874360|NCT01307800|183642134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.09|0.697
91874361|NCT01307800|183642135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.31||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.20|0.694
91874362|NCT01307800|183642135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.34|0.596
91874363|NCT01307800|183642135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.49||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|0.00|0.055
91874364|NCT01307800|183642136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.29||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.27|0.929
91874365|NCT01307800|183642136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.38||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.19|0.519
91874366|NCT01307800|183642136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.4||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-0.13|0.323
91874367|NCT01307800|183642137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.758||95.0||||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo in the percentage of participants with a change from baseline in C-SSRS suicidal ideation was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
91906944|NCT02634151|183709112|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.6||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-4.7|-18.5|0.0012
91740725|NCT00444925|183373989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91874368|NCT01307800|183642137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.576||95.0||||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo in the percentage of participants with a change from baseline in C-SSRS suicidal ideation was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.576
91874369|NCT01307800|183642137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.425||95.0||||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo in the percentage of participants with a change from baseline in C-SSRS suicidal ideation was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.425
91874370|NCT01307800|183642140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.444||95.0||||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on rank-transformed change.||||||0.444
91874371|NCT01307800|183642140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799||95.0||||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA model on rank-transformed change.||||||0.799
91874372|NCT01307800|183642140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||95.0||||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA model on rank-transformed change.||||||0.073
91874373|NCT01307800|183642141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.04||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|-0.76|0.761
91874374|NCT01307800|183642141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.06||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|-0.78|0.761
91874375|NCT01307800|183642141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.56||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.56|-1.17|0.489
91874376|NCT00689351|183642154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||0.97|0.62|
91874377|NCT00689351|183642154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.57|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.57|0.87|
91874378|NCT00689351|183642154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.07|0.73|
91740726|NCT00444925|183373989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.1029|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.1029
91740727|NCT00444925|183373989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0048|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0048
91740728|NCT00444925|183373990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0002
91874379|NCT00689351|183642154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.70|
91874380|NCT00689351|183642154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.18|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.18|0.79|
91874381|NCT00689351|183642154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.71|
91740729|NCT00444925|183373990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0006|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0006
91740730|NCT00444925|183373990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7395|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.7395
91740731|NCT00444925|183373990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91740732|NCT00444925|183373990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0007|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0007
91740733|NCT00444925|183373990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4185|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.4185
91740734|NCT00444925|183373990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91740735|NCT00444925|183373990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0005|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0005
91740736|NCT00444925|183373990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3798|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.3798
91874382|NCT00689351|183642154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.36|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.36|0.80|
91874383|NCT00689351|183642154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|329.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|242.98|446.67|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||446.67|242.98|
91874384|NCT00689351|183642154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|40.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.27|54.97|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||54.97|30.27|
91740737|NCT00444925|183373991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
91740738|NCT00444925|183373991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0002
91740739|NCT00444925|183373991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91740740|NCT00444925|183373991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91740741|NCT00444925|183373991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91740742|NCT00444925|183373991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0003
91740743|NCT00444925|183373992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.273|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.2730
91874385|NCT00689351|183642154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|13.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.92|17.34|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||17.34|9.92|
91740744|NCT00444925|183373992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0652|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0652
91740745|NCT00444925|183373992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3503|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.3503
91799373|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.705|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|-0.08|
91906945|NCT02634151|183709113|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.6832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||2.8|-4.2|0.6832
91740746|NCT00444925|183373992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2667|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.2667
91740747|NCT00444925|183373992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1643|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.1643
91740748|NCT00444925|183373992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7264|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.7264
91740749|NCT00444925|183373992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3269|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.3269
91740750|NCT00444925|183373992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5059|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.5059
91740751|NCT00444925|183373992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.699|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.6990
91740752|NCT00444925|183373994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0008
91740753|NCT00444925|183373994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
91740754|NCT00444925|183373994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.382|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.3820
91740755|NCT00444925|183373994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91740756|NCT00444925|183373994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91740757|NCT00444925|183373994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3498|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.3498
91740758|NCT00444925|183373994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91740759|NCT00444925|183373994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91740760|NCT00444925|183373994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0542|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0542
91906946|NCT02634151|183709113|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||4.5|-2.9|0.6740
91906947|NCT02634151|183709113|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||5.7|-2.0|0.3379
91740761|NCT00444925|183373995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0004
91740762|NCT00444925|183373995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
91740763|NCT00444925|183373995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91799374|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.585|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|-0.05|
91799375|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.558|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.90|-0.15|
91799376|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|-0.15|
91799377|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.68|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.68|-0.04|
91799378|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.729|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.31|
91799379|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.20|
91874386|NCT00689351|183642154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|9.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.46|12.56|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||12.56|6.46|
91874387|NCT00689351|183642154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|165.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.95|223.85|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||223.85|122.95|
91906948|NCT02634151|183709114|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.7753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||4.4|-5.9|0.7753
91799380|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.592|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|-0.19|
91799381|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|-0.10|
91799382|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.669|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.92|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.92|-0.10|
91874388|NCT00689351|183642154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.75|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||2.75|1.83|
91906949|NCT02634151|183709114|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.5472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||7.4|-3.9|0.5472
91874389|NCT00689351|183642155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.02|0.60|
91874390|NCT00689351|183642155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.48|0.83|
91874391|NCT00689351|183642155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.76|
91906950|NCT02634151|183709114|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|9.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||9.6|-2.4|0.2406
91906951|NCT02634151|183709115|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||3.8|-3.3|0.9028
91906952|NCT02634151|183709115|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||9.6|0.8|0.0199
91906953|NCT02634151|183709115|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||8.9|0.3|0.0369
91740764|NCT00444925|183373995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91906954|NCT02634151|183709116|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||1.4|-1.2|0.9110
91740765|NCT00444925|183373995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91740766|NCT00444925|183373995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
91740767|NCT00444925|183373996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
91799383|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.376|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.81|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.81|-0.04|
91874392|NCT00689351|183642155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||0.95|0.57|
91874393|NCT00689351|183642155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.72|
91906955|NCT02634151|183709116|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.5|0.3|0.0243
91906956|NCT02634151|183709116|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||3.2|0.1|0.0388
91740768|NCT00444925|183373996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
91740769|NCT00444925|183373996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5581|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.5581
91740770|NCT00444925|183373996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91740771|NCT00444925|183373996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91740772|NCT00444925|183373996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.151|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.1510
91740773|NCT00444925|183373996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91740774|NCT00444925|183373996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0001
91740775|NCT00444925|183373996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1391|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.1391
91740776|NCT00444925|183373997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91740777|NCT00444925|183373997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91740778|NCT00444925|183373997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91740779|NCT00444925|183373997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91760114|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.41||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.41|-0.38|
91906957|NCT02634151|183709117|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.2799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|19.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||19.6|-5.7|0.2799
91740780|NCT00444925|183373997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91740781|NCT00444925|183373997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
91740782|NCT00444925|183373998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
91740783|NCT00444925|183373998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
91740784|NCT00444925|183373998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5972|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.5972
91740785|NCT00444925|183373998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91740786|NCT00444925|183373998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91740787|NCT00444925|183373998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1267|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.1267
91740788|NCT00444925|183373998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91740789|NCT00444925|183373998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91740790|NCT00444925|183373998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0289|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0289
91740791|NCT00444925|183373999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
91740792|NCT00444925|183373999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
91874394|NCT00689351|183642155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.88|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.88|1.11|
91906958|NCT02634151|183709117|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|26.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|43.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||43.3|10.2|0.0018
91799384|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.92|0.26|
91740793|NCT00444925|183373999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.7288|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.7288
91740794|NCT00444925|183373999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91740795|NCT00444925|183373999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91740796|NCT00444925|183373999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2473|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.2473
91740797|NCT00444925|183373999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91740798|NCT00444925|183373999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91740799|NCT00444925|183373999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1047|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.1047
91740800|NCT00444925|183374000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0143||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1||||0.0143
91799385|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|0.05|
91799386|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.424|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.83|-0.18|
91906959|NCT02634151|183709117|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|20.1||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|36.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||36.9|3.3|0.0197
91740801|NCT00444925|183374000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4||||<0.0001
91799387|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.648|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.89|0.06|
91906960|NCT02634151|183709118|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||1.0|0.1|0.0179
91740802|NCT00444925|183374000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12||||<0.0001
91740803|NCT00444925|183374001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0773||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1||||0.0773
91740804|NCT00444925|183374001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4||||0.0017
91740805|NCT00444925|183374001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12||||0.0008
91740806|NCT00444925|183374002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12||||<0.0001
91740807|NCT00444925|183374003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL concern domain.||||<0.0001
91740808|NCT00444925|183374003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL coping domain.||||<0.0001
91874395|NCT00689351|183642155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.4|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.40|0.78|
91874396|NCT00689351|183642155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|234.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|176.33|311.41|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||311.41|176.33|
91906961|NCT02634151|183709118|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||1.7|0.5|0.0003
91740809|NCT00444925|183374003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL sleep domain.||||0.0008
91740810|NCT00444925|183374003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL social interaction domain.||||<0.0001
91740811|NCT00444925|183374003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL scale score total.||||<0.0001
91740812|NCT00444925|183374004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0072
91740813|NCT00444925|183374004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0116
91740814|NCT00444925|183374004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7828||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.7828
91740815|NCT00444925|183374004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91740816|NCT00444925|183374004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91740817|NCT00444925|183374004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3104||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.3104
91740818|NCT00444925|183374004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91740819|NCT00444925|183374004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0004
91740820|NCT00444925|183374004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0153
91740821|NCT00833027|183374005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Student's T-test|Student's T-test for paired samples||||||<0.001
91740822|NCT02881775|183374009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9994||||||The threshold for significance was P \<.05|ANOVA|"Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors.~Degrees of freedom (DF) = 34.1"||Comparison of CAR BL Change (treatment by time)||||.9994
91740823|NCT02881775|183374010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9768||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 45||Comparison of MVIC BL Change (treatment by time)||||.9768
91740824|NCT02881775|183374011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||threshold for statistical significance is p \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 43.1||Comparison of NPRS BL Change (treatment by time)||||0.4440
91740825|NCT02881775|183374012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6608||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 45||PPT BL Change (treatment by time)||||.6608
91740826|NCT02881775|183374013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7706||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 45||Comparison of TUG BL Change (treatment by time)||||.7706
91740827|NCT02881775|183374014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3665||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 33||Comparison of AMT-MEP BL Change (treatment by time)||||.3665
91740828|NCT02881775|183374015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3889||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 33||Comparison of SICI BL Change (treatment by time)||||.3889
91740829|NCT02881775|183374016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2192||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 33||Comparison of ICF BL Change (treatment by time)||||.2192
91874397|NCT00689351|183642155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|16.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.19|22.69|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||22.69|12.19|
91874398|NCT00689351|183642155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|6.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|8.67|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||8.67|5.39|
91874399|NCT00689351|183642155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|5.43|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||5.43|3.07|
91874400|NCT00689351|183642155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|110.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.09|159.59|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||159.59|77.09|
91906962|NCT02634151|183709118|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||1.5|0.2|0.0095
91906963|NCT02634151|183709119|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.2||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-3.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-3.6|-20.8|0.0057
91740830|NCT00237042|183374040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression was used to compare group means at follow up, adjusted for baseline values of the outcome variable.||The null hypothesis was that mean characteristic pain intensity at 6-month follow up is equal across the three groups.||||0.19
91740831|NCT00237042|183374041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome variable||||||0.27
91740832|NCT00237042|183374042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Group means compared with linear regression adjusted for baseline values. Adjusted difference: -1.0 between SMT and COCT, -1.0 between TSMT and COCT.||The null hypothesis was that mean characteristic pain intensity at 12-month follow up is equal across the three groups.||||0.003
91740833|NCT00237042|183374043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome variable||||||0.016
91799388|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.586|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.86|-0.07|
91740834|NCT04522167|183374062|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for difference in LSMeans is completely contained in the interval \]-3.5 letters; 3.5 letters\[, FBY203 and Eylea are considered equivalent.|LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.4|-0.3|2.2||||||||2.2|-0.3|
91740835|NCT02197572|183374094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.2||||||Change from Baseline at 0.25 Hours Postdose||2.2||
91740836|NCT02197572|183374094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-8.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.0||||||Change from Baseline at 0.5 Hours Postdose||-4.0||
91740837|NCT02197572|183374094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.6||||||Change from Baseline at 1 Hour Postdose||2.6||
91740838|NCT02197572|183374094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.7||||||Change from Baseline at 1.5 Hours Postdose||1.7||
91740839|NCT02197572|183374094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-5.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.6||||||Change from Baseline at 2 Hours Postdose||-0.6||
91874401|NCT00689351|183642155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|5.33|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||5.33|3.39|
91874402|NCT00689351|183642156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.862|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||0.862
91874403|NCT00689351|183642156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.157
91740840|NCT02197572|183374094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-3.2||||||Change from Baseline at 2.5 Hours Postdose||-3.2||
91740841|NCT02197572|183374094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-9.1|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.6||||||Change from Baseline at 3 Hours Postdose||-4.6||
91740842|NCT02197572|183374094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-2.9||||||Change from Baseline at 4 Hours Postdose||-2.9||
91874404|NCT00689351|183642156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.550
91874405|NCT00689351|183642156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||0.052
91874406|NCT00689351|183642156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||0.366
91874407|NCT00689351|183642156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.301
91874408|NCT00689351|183642156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||0.362
91874409|NCT00689351|183642156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.718
91740843|NCT02197572|183374094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-8.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.6||||||Change from Baseline at 6 Hours Postdose||-4.6||
91740844|NCT02197572|183374094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.4||||||Change from Baseline at 8 Hours Postdose||2.4||
91740845|NCT02197572|183374094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-6.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.5||||||Change from Baseline at 10 Hours Postdose||-0.5||
91740846|NCT02197572|183374094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|7.1|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.4||||||Change from Baseline at 24 Hours Postdose||11.4||
91740847|NCT02197572|183374094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.1||||||Change from Baseline at 48 Hours Postdose||8.1||
91874410|NCT00689351|183642157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||>0.99
91740848|NCT02383862|183374108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.64|-0.45|0.165
91740849|NCT02383862|183374109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.91|-1.23|0.425
91740850|NCT02383862|183374110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.70|-1.41|0.539
91740851|NCT02383862|183374111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|3.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.11|-1.44|0.471
91740852|NCT02383862|183374112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.65|-0.66|0.174
91740853|NCT02383862|183374113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.35|-1.00|0.222
91740854|NCT02763059|183374163|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis||||||0.027||||||Kruskal-Wallis test, a non-parametric omnibus test, was used followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test for pairwise group analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis test is an omnibus test comparing all three independent groups.||||0.027
91740855|NCT02763059|183374163|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis|||||<|0.0001||||||Kruskal-Wallis test, a non-parametric omnibus test, was used followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test for pairwise group analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis test is an omnibus test comparing all three independent groups on the pain/discomfort outcome.||||<0.0001
91740856|NCT02933879|183374232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4615|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4615
91740857|NCT02933879|183374234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0404|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0404
91740858|NCT02933879|183374234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2106|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2106
91740859|NCT02933879|183374236|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0000
91740860|NCT02933879|183374238|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0000
91740861|NCT02933879|183374241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2467|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2467
91740862|NCT00075764|183374247|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94|||Log Rank|Two-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.94|0.68|0.007
91740863|NCT00075764|183374249|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.0|||Log Rank|A log-rank test, stratified according to prior or no prior tamoxifen therapy.||||1.00|0.65|0.049
91740864|NCT00533429|183374262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.469||||||P-value (one-tailed) was calculated based on the un-stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.469
91740865|NCT00533429|183374263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.462||||||95% confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution. P-value (2-tailed) calculation based on unadjusted, normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.462
91740866|NCT00533429|183374264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.492||||||P-value (two-tailed) was calculated based on the un-stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.492
91740867|NCT02655887|183374268|NON_INFERIORITY|PG of 74%, which was set at 10% (non-inferiority margin) below the weighted mean of primary patency (PP2) rate at 12 month at a combination of 55% (PTS) subjects at primary patency rate of 77.1% and 45% (NIVL) subjects at primary patency rate of 93.4%. When taking into consideration both co-primary efficacy and safety endpoints, with 138 BVS subjects, the overall study power is at least 85%\*99%=84%.|Weighted Z-statistics|88.3||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|82.4||||Weighted Z-statistics|||"Hypothesis: H0 :Primary patency rate at 12 months post-index procedure from the overall VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) patients (PTS and NIVL combined) is at most as good as that of the PG.~Ha: Primary patency rate at 12 months post-index procedure from the overall VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) patients (PTS and NIVL combined) is better than that of PG."|||82.4|0.0001
91740868|NCT02655887|183374269|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint was evaluated against the PG of 89% which was set at 10% (non-inferiority margin) below the literature-derived average freedom from MAE rate at 30 day of 99%. A one-side p-value is derived based on an exact binomial test. When taking into consideration both co-primary efficacy and safety endpoints, with 138 BVS subjects, the overall study power is at least 85%\*99%=84%.|Exact binomial test|93.5||||0.0322|ONE_SIDED|90.0|89.5||||Exact binomial test|||"Hypothesis: H0: The primary safety endpoint absence from event rate in the VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) through 30 day at most as large as that of the PG.~Ha: The primary safety endpoint absence from event rate in the VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) through 30 day is better than that of the PG."|||89.5|0.0322
91740869|NCT02655887|183374270|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||this p value is \< 0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|||"H0: The distribution at the 12-month follow-up remains unimproved compared to baseline.~Ha: The distribution shifts toward lower (less pain) classes."||||0.001
91740870|NCT02655887|183374271|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p value is \< 0.001|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91874411|NCT00689351|183642157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.245
91874412|NCT00689351|183642157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.447
91874413|NCT00689351|183642157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||0.684
91874414|NCT00689351|183642157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||>0.99
91874415|NCT00689351|183642157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.578
91874416|NCT00689351|183642157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||0.451
91740871|NCT01964378|183374308|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 8 mg. Assuming equal mean values in both the cebranopadol and morphine groups, it was calculated that for the final analysis of the primary endpoint 170 subjects would have been required per treatment arm in the Per Protocol Set using a 2 sample-t-test for 90% power and a 1-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|point-estimate|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|-2.918|||MMRM|||The MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement) model includes fixed effects of pooled country, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, history of opioid intake, baseline pain intensity as covariate \& subject-specific random effects. Dependent variable being the weekly average rescue medication intake.||-2.918|-12.05|< 0.0001
91740872|NCT01964378|183374309|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 8 mg. Assuming that 65% of the participants are available for the Per Protocol Set, a total of 524 participant would have to be allocated (randomized) to IMP. With 262 participants per group in the Full Analysis Set, the non-inferiority of cebranopadol as compared to morphine sulfate prolonged release could have been demonstrated with at least 98% power and a 1-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|point-estimate|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.245|-0.099||MMRM model: fixed effects of pooled country, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, opioid intake history, baseline pain intensity as covariate \& subject-specific random effects. Dependent variable: weekly average rescue medication intake.|MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|For participants with no data in the Maintenance Phase, the average amount of rescue medication over the last 3 days of titration was imputed.|Non-inferiority of cebranopadol compared with morphine will be established if the upper bound of the resulting 95% confidence interval for the average treatment difference is below the non-inferiority margin of 8mg.|The primary endpoint will be analyzed by means of a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), based on observed case weekly averages. Under the assumption of a missing-at-random missing data mechanism, an MMRM does not require an imputation of missing data and can obtain an improved estimate of variance.||-0.099|-9.245|< 0.0001
91740873|NCT02358993|183374322|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the primary outcome was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was greater than the specified non-inferiority margin of 15%(a clinically relevant margin within the range of those commonly used in non-inferiority and equivalence trials for studies examining antibiotic use for UTI)|Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91740874|NCT01072136|183374336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Under the assumption of a clinical cure proportion of 75% for the Azithromycin/Cefixime group, a 10% non-inferiority margin (i.e., no more than a 10% lower cure rate in the placebo group) at the one-sided 0.05 significance level with 85% power required 270 study participants in each arm (540 total) using an unpooled Z-test (normal approximation). Anticipating that approximately 30% of enrolled participants would not be in the per protocol group, 772 participants were targeted for enrollment.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.2||||||Asymptotic one-sided 95% confidence limit for the difference in clinical cure proportions(placebo minus treatment) were computed so that the lower limit could be examined relative to the non-inferiority margin of -10%.|The primary efficacy outcome was MPC clinical cure at 2 months. This was a non-inferiority trial designed to reject the null hypothesis that placebo control is inferior to empiric therapy for MPC.|||-12.2|
91740875|NCT00405288|183374352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|450.0||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|200.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Birth weight in pregnancies exposed to Proctofoam-HC will be the same as control pregnancies.~To detect a clinically significant decrease of 200 g in birth weight at a power of 80% and alpha of 5%, 200 women per group were required. Post hoc power analysis of our cohort revealed that, in fact, we had a 91.5% power to detect a 200 g difference in birth weight between the two groups."||200|0|0.17
91740876|NCT00405288|183374353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3|0|0.16
91740877|NCT00405288|183374354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|30.0||||0.003||95.0|||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of vaginal deliveries in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same (ie. there will not be a greater proportion of complicated deliveries in either group).||||0.003
91740878|NCT00405288|183374355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|5.0||||0.55||95.0|||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of pre-term births in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same.||||0.55
91740879|NCT00405288|183374356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|10.0||||0.97||95.0|||||McNemar|||Fetal Distress The null hypothesis is that the proportion of fetal distress in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same.||||0.97
91740880|NCT00405288|183374357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binary|3.0||||0.31||95.0|||||McNemar|||Low birth weight \<2,500g; The null hypothesis is that the proportion of low birth weight babies in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same.||||0.31
91740881|NCT00405288|183374358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|10.0||||0.87||95.0|||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of healthy babies (not requiring NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) or additional medical monitoring) will be the same between the Proctofoam and Control groups.||||0.87
91740882|NCT00405288|183374359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|4.0||||0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91740883|NCT00405288|183374360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|3.0||||0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91740884|NCT00405288|183374361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|2.0||||0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91740885|NCT00405288|183374362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|2.0||||0.35||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
91740886|NCT00142792|183374364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Time by group interaction effect, F(2,372) = 1.8, p =0.18)|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||The study was powered to detect differences in FMA scores of a minimum effect size of 0.8 at a significance level of 0.01, the smallest effect size difference anticipated between Cyclic NMES and Cyclic Sensory Stimulation based on prior studies. A significance level of 0.01 in the power-analysis was taken since for each measurement occasion, three post-hoc tests are needed. To account for drop out of 20 % , the minimum number of participants required per group is 63.||||0.18
91740887|NCT00142792|183374364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||time effect, F(1,109)=87.7, p\<0.001)|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||||||<0.001
91874417|NCT00689351|183642157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.712
91740888|NCT00142792|183374365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||||||time by group interaction effect, F(2,373) = 1.3, p =0.27|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||||||0.27
91740889|NCT00142792|183374365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||time effect, F(1,109)=91.1, p\<0.001|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||||||<0.001
91740890|NCT00480740|183374375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of dexmedetomindine plus sevoflurane compared with the baseline (sevoflurane alone) for any given variable was reached when the difference (steady-state \[dexmedetomidine + sevoflurane\]-baseline \[sevoflurane0\]/baseline \[sevoflurane\]0 and its associated 95% confidence interval (CI) fell completely withing the range of +/-20% indicated by the gray column.||||||0.05||95.0||||The original study design was powered to achieve at least 80% power to detect noninferiority with the two-tailed alpha level set at 0.05 for data with two measurements.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91740891|NCT04951622|183374382|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.52|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.52|-2.38|=0.002
91740892|NCT02891226|183374431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|7.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.08|1.07|0.079
91740893|NCT02891226|183374431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|12.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.07|2.01|0.003
91740894|NCT02891226|183374431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.81|13.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.42|2.81|<0.001
91740895|NCT02891226|183374432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|33.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.58|0.55|0.241
91740896|NCT02891226|183374432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.16||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.76|70.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||70.64|1.76|0.032
91740897|NCT02891226|183374432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.82|91.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||91.32|2.82|0.009
91874418|NCT00689351|183642158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||0.681
91874419|NCT00689351|183642158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.482
91874420|NCT00689351|183642158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.683
91740898|NCT02891226|183374433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|6.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.45|0.62|0.330
91740899|NCT02891226|183374433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.72||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|16.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.21|2.02|0.006
91740900|NCT02891226|183374433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.37|9.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.07|1.37|0.029
91740901|NCT02891226|183374434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-1.03|0.007
91740902|NCT02891226|183374434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-1.21|<0.001
91740903|NCT02891226|183374434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.84|0.005
91740904|NCT02891226|183374436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|24.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.358|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.53|34.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.56|13.53|<0.001
91799389|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|0.38|
91874421|NCT00689351|183642158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||>0.99
91874422|NCT00689351|183642158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||0.533
91874423|NCT00689351|183642158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.692
91740905|NCT02891226|183374436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|29.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.421|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.84|40.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.08|18.84|<0.001
91740906|NCT02891226|183374436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|25.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.185|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.67|33.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.82|16.67|<0.001
91740907|NCT02891226|183374437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|7.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.48|11.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.34|4.48|<0.001
91740908|NCT02891226|183374437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.102||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|9.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.67|2.72|0.004
91740909|NCT02891226|183374437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|6.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.686|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.94|9.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.51|3.94|<0.001
91740910|NCT02891226|183374438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.927||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.95|8.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||8.32|1.95|0.008
91740911|NCT02891226|183374438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.951||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|7.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||7.41|0.96|0.033
91740912|NCT02891226|183374438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.589||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||6.34|1.08|0.021
91740913|NCT02891226|183374438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|3.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||3.77|-0.59|0.229
91740914|NCT02891226|183374438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.349|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|7.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||7.14|2.67|<0.001
91874424|NCT00689351|183642158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||0.662
91874425|NCT00689351|183642158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.331
91874426|NCT00689351|183642159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||0.409
91740915|NCT02891226|183374438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||5.38|1.81|0.001
91740916|NCT01445847|183374448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|5.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|9.1|||Comparison of proportions|||We used incidence reported to AIMS study to calculate the sample size of this study. We set the null hypothesis as (percentage point of laryngospasm incidence in placebo group (µ1) - percentage point of laryngospasm incidence in Lidocaine group (µ2) = 0), with alternative hypothesis is (µ1 \> µ2) by 5% was analyzed by comparison of two proportions. A sample size of 380 patients (190 per group) was adequate to detect a 5-percentage point difference in the incidence with 80% power and p = 0.05.||9.1|1.7|<0.05
91740917|NCT04570384|183374449|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.86|||Log Rank|||||2.86|0.45|0.782
91740918|NCT04570384|183374449|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.40|0.46|0.668
91740919|NCT04570384|183374450|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.22|||Log Rank|||||4.22|0.59|0.360
91740920|NCT04570384|183374451|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.83|||Log Rank|||||1.83|0.13|0.285
91740921|NCT04570384|183374451|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.15|0.471
91740922|NCT04570384|183374457|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.81||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||2.20|0.30|0.668
91874427|NCT00689351|183642159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.617|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.617
91740923|NCT04570384|183374457|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.66||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.9|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||1.90|0.23|0.437
91740924|NCT04570384|183374458|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.06|0.232
91740925|NCT04570384|183374459|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.28|0.31|0.729
91740926|NCT04570384|183374460|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.22||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.44|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||3.44|0.43|0.706
91874428|NCT00689351|183642159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.807
91874429|NCT00689351|183642159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||0.527
91740927|NCT04570384|183374460|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.12||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.56|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||2.56|0.49|0.788
91740928|NCT04570384|183374461|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.25|||Negative binomial analysis|||||2.25|0.52|0.834
91740929|NCT00326001|183374522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91740930|NCT00326001|183374523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.042
91740931|NCT00326001|183374524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.53
91740932|NCT00326001|183374525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91740933|NCT03265145|183374526|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.72|||||"Cox proportional hazards model with baseline ICS prior use as a covariate was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and the two-sided 95% Wald confidence interval (CI).~Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy."|||1.72|0.87|
91740934|NCT03265145|183374527|OTHER||adjusted annual rate ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.04|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|||2.04|0.97|
91740935|NCT03265145|183374528|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.0|||||"Cox proportional hazards model with baseline ICS prior use as a covariate was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and the two-sided 95% Wald confidence interval (CI).~Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy."|||2.00|0.62|
91740936|NCT03265145|183374529|OTHER||adjusted annual rate ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.01|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|||2.01|0.58|
91740937|NCT03265145|183374530|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.64|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model with baseline ICS prior use as stratum was used to estimate the Risk Ratio (RR) (Stiolto Respimat versus triple therapy) of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations along with 95% CI.||1.64|0.89|
91740938|NCT03265145|183374530|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.094|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model with baseline ICS prior use as stratum was used to estimate the Risk Difference (Stiolto Respimat versus triple therapy) of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations along with 95% CI.||0.094|-0.022|
91740939|NCT02137070|183374531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Voxel-size (p-FWE \< 0.01) and voxel-peak (p-unc \< 0.001) were corrected for multiple comparisons.|2x2 Factorial ANOVA in CONN|2x2 Factorial ANOVA in CONN - Group (Bariatric surgery vs. control) \& time (pre-surgery baseline vs. 18-month follow-up)||Analysis of variance comparing change scores from 18 months post-surgery relative to pre-surgical baseline were performed. Change in the surgical group was compared to change for the non-surgical controls. The dependent measures were connectivity strengths seeding from the hippocampus and left dorsal lateral pre-frontal cortex to other cortical areas.||||<0.01
91740940|NCT03046927|183374540|EQUIVALENCE|p values were obtained using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear model with dependent||Trend analysis was performed using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|||||<0.001
91740941|NCT03046927|183374541|OTHER||trend analysis|0.04|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|generalized linear model|p values were obtained using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|Trend analysis was performed using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|||||<0.01
91874430|NCT00689351|183642159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||0.144
91874431|NCT00689351|183642159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for severe swelling.||||0.495
91874432|NCT00689351|183642159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.506
91874433|NCT00689351|183642159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||>0.99
91874434|NCT00689351|183642159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.200
91740942|NCT03046927|183374542|OTHER|p values were derived from trend analysis using generalized linear models|Mean Difference (Net)|0.507||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.947||The p-value was derived from a statistical model adjusted for age, sex, and BMI|General linear models|||||0.947|0.066|0.0241
91740943|NCT03046927|183374543|OTHER|p values were obtained from a generalized linear model with repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|10.37||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|27.13||The p-value was derived from a statistical model adjusted for age, sex, and BMI|Regression, Linear|||||27.13|-6.40|0.23
91740944|NCT03046927|183374544|OTHER||trend analysis|0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear model|p values were obtained using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|||Trend analysis was obtained using generalized linear model GEE.|||<0.001
91740945|NCT01848977|183374550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Unpaired t-test was used to compare the difference between SrO2 and StO2.||||<0.05
91740946|NCT01032954|183374553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|GLM= GENERAL LINEAR MODELS WITH REPEATED|||||||<0.05
91740947|NCT01032954|183374554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|GLM|||||||<0.05
91740948|NCT00620373|183374588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.016
91740949|NCT00620373|183374588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.07
91740950|NCT00620373|183374589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||McNemar|||For all cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.016
91740951|NCT00620373|183374589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||McNemar|||For all cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.07
91874435|NCT00689351|183642160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but but less than or equal to (≤)39 degrees C.||||0.633
91740952|NCT00620373|183374589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||McNemar|||For invasive cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.063
91740953|NCT00620373|183374589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||McNemar|||For invasive cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.063
91874436|NCT00689351|183642160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.721
91740954|NCT00620373|183374589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||McNemar|||For ductal carcinoma in situ; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.5
91740955|NCT00620373|183374589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||McNemar|||For ductal carcinoma in situ; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||>.99
91740956|NCT00620373|183374591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<.001
91740957|NCT00620373|183374591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.069
91740958|NCT00620373|183374592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<.001
91740959|NCT00620373|183374592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.218
91740960|NCT02975804|183374619|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91740961|NCT02975804|183374620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91740962|NCT02975804|183374621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91740963|NCT02975804|183374622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
91740964|NCT02975804|183374623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
91740965|NCT02975804|183374624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
91740966|NCT02975804|183374628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
91740967|NCT02975804|183374629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
91740968|NCT02956746|183374637|OTHER|||||||0.4187||||||threshold for significance p-values \< 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.4187
91740969|NCT02630693|183374655|OTHER|As stated in the protocol, the primary objective of this trial is to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 90% confidence interval. Therefore, we do not conduct any statistical hypothesis test for progression free survival.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.3|||||Hazard ratio of Palbociclib100mg arm vs 125 mg arm|||1.30|0.66|
91740970|NCT02630693|183374658|OTHER|As stated in the protocol, the objective of this trial is to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 90% confidence interval. Therefore, we do not conduct any statistical hypothesis test for overall survival.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.69|||||Hazard ratio for Palbociclib 100mg arm vs 125 mg arm|||1.69|0.67|
91740971|NCT04105868|183374666|OTHER|Within-group pre/post differences were tested using a paired t-test.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed paired samples t-test comparing baseline and post-training SSVEP competition index scores||Null hypothesis: No within-subject change in SSVEP competition index from baseline to post-training.||||.004
91740972|NCT04105868|183374667|OTHER|Within-group pre/post differences were tested using a paired t-test.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed paired samples t-test comparing baseline and post-stressor VAS sadness scores.||Null hypothesis: No within-subject change in VAS Sadness scores from baseline to post-stressor.||||.25
91740973|NCT04105868|183374668|OTHER|Within-group pre/post differences were tested using a paired t-test.||||||0.471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed paired samples t-test comparing baseline and post-stressor VAS anxiety scores.||Null hypothesis: No within-subject change in VAS Anxiety scores from baseline to post-stressor.||||.471
91740974|NCT02661997|183374679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Between group differences|ANOVA|||||||0.58
91740975|NCT02661997|183374680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.88
91740976|NCT02661997|183374681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.17
91740977|NCT02661997|183374682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||This is an analysis of pre to post-treatment changes on the Physical Health subscale of the PROMIS Global Health Scale||||0.88
91740978|NCT02661997|183374683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.032
91740979|NCT02661997|183374684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.44
91740980|NCT02661997|183374685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.73
91874437|NCT00689351|183642160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.009
91874438|NCT00689351|183642160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.253
91874439|NCT00689351|183642160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.143
91874440|NCT00689351|183642161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but ≤39 degrees C.||||0.781
91740981|NCT02661997|183374686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.36
91740982|NCT02661997|183374687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
91740983|NCT02661997|183374688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.006
91740984|NCT02661997|183374689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.55
91740985|NCT02661997|183374690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.36
91740986|NCT02661997|183374691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
91874441|NCT00689351|183642161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.060
91740987|NCT02661997|183374692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
91874442|NCT00689351|183642161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.159
91906964|NCT02634151|183709119|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|8.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||8.6|-8.3|0.9665
91740988|NCT02661997|183374693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91740989|NCT02661997|183374694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91874443|NCT00689351|183642161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.839|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.839
91906965|NCT02634151|183709119|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.2||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|4.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||4.1|-16.4|0.2358
91740990|NCT02661997|183374697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91740991|NCT02661997|183374698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
91740992|NCT02661997|183374699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
91740993|NCT02661997|183374700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
91740994|NCT02661997|183374701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
91740995|NCT02661997|183374702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
91740996|NCT02661997|183374703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
91740997|NCT02661997|183374704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||An adjusted p value was used based on Levene's test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91740998|NCT02661997|183374705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
91740999|NCT02661997|183374706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
91741000|NCT02661997|183374707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
91741001|NCT02661997|183374708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
91741002|NCT02661997|183374709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
91741003|NCT02661997|183374710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.31
91741004|NCT02661997|183374711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
91741005|NCT02661997|183374712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91741006|NCT02661997|183374713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.56
91741007|NCT02661997|183374714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.64
91741008|NCT01057693|183374729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.1221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.09|||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for baseline mean pain score, center and treatment in the model.||0.09|-0.74|0.1221
91741009|NCT02413996|183374759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|16.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Does VRRS rehabilitation is superior to the traditional one?||16.51|-4.62|0.05
91741010|NCT00090779|183374773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91741011|NCT00090779|183374774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91741012|NCT01672879|183374782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.5||||||A mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in least squares mean (LSMean) change from baseline in HVPG at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in HVPG at Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.5|-1.2|
91741013|NCT01672879|183374782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.4||||||An MMRM with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% CI for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in LSMean change from baseline in HVPG at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in HVPG at Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.4|-1.2|
91741014|NCT01672879|183374783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by HVPG category (\< 10 mmHg vs ≥ 10 mmHg) and presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.41
91874444|NCT00689351|183642161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.264
91874445|NCT00689351|183642162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but ≤39 degrees C.||||0.563
91874446|NCT00689351|183642162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever \>39 degrees C but ≤40 degrees C.||||0.468
91874447|NCT00689351|183642162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.535
91874448|NCT00689351|183642162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.019
91874449|NCT00689351|183642162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.398
91874450|NCT00689351|183642162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.125
91874451|NCT00689351|183642163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but ≤39 degrees C.||||0.596
91874452|NCT00689351|183642163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever \>39 degrees C but ≤40 degrees C.||||>0.99
91874453|NCT00689351|183642163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.663
91874454|NCT00689351|183642163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.439
91874455|NCT00689351|183642163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.613
91874456|NCT00689351|183642163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.138
91741015|NCT01672879|183374783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by HVPG category (\< 10 mmHg vs ≥ 10 mmHg) and presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.065
91741016|NCT05069649|183374790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
91874457|NCT01313663|183642174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.65|||||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator. The hazard ratio and p-value from the stratified log-rank test were adjusted for disease stage at Baseline only, due to sparse data.|||2.65|0.32|
91874458|NCT00780741|183642197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.21|||Point estimate on mean difference|Bootstrap sampling with replacement (N=10,000) was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval.|Mean difference calculated as the proportion with success in immediate group minus proportion with success in deferred group. 95% confidence interval obtained using bootstrap sampling with replacement.|||0.21|-0.01|0.09
91874459|NCT00780741|183642198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-139.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-377.0|94.0|||Point estimate on mean difference|Bootstrap sampling with replacement (N=10,000) was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval.|Mean difference calculated as the average cost in immediate group minus average cost in deferred group. 95% confidence interval obtained using bootstrap sampling with replacement.|||94|-377|0.24
91874460|NCT00780741|183642199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.8|||Point estimate on mean difference|Bootstrap sampling with replacement (N=10,000) was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval.|Mean difference calculated as the average months of symptoms in immediate group minus average months of symptoms in deferred group. 95% confidence interval obtained using bootstrap sampling with replacement.|||-1.8|-4.0|<0.0001
91874461|NCT00623714|183642235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.34||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.7||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.70|0.16|0.011
91874462|NCT00623714|183642236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.63||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.63|0.26|0.002
91906966|NCT02634151|183709120|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.4|-2.3|0.0048
91874463|NCT02367794|183642237|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.64|0.0006
91874464|NCT02367794|183642238|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.73|0.1581
91874465|NCT02367794|183642239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.876||||0.4451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.231|||Log Rank|||Teff \>=-1.91 in ITT||1.231|0.623|0.4451
91741017|NCT05069649|183374791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2488|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2488
91741018|NCT05069649|183374792|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91741019|NCT05069649|183374793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.32
91741020|NCT05069649|183374794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91741021|NCT05069649|183374795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
91874466|NCT02367794|183642239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.7343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.335|||Log Rank|||Teff \>=-1.91 in ITT||1.335|0.664|0.7343
91874467|NCT02367794|183642239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.232|||Log Rank|||Teff \<-1.91 Negative in ITT||1.232|0.720|0.6610
91874468|NCT02367794|183642239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.253||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965|1.627|||Log Rank|||Teff \<-1.91 Negative in ITT||1.627|0.965|0.0893
91874469|NCT02367794|183642240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.81|||Log Rank|||Teff\>=-1.91||0.81|0.46|0.0006
91874470|NCT02367794|183642240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||Teff\>=-1.91||1.33|0.84|0.630
91874471|NCT02367794|183642240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Log Rank|||Teff\<-1.91||1.10|0.70|0.258
91874472|NCT02367794|183642240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||Teff\<-1.91||1.33|0.84|0.630
91874473|NCT02367794|183642241|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.40|<.0001
91874474|NCT02367794|183642241|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.45|0.0018
91874475|NCT02367794|183642242|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.77|||Log Rank|||||0.77|0.48|<.0001
91874476|NCT02367794|183642242|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.77|||Log Rank|||||0.77|0.48|<.0001
91874477|NCT02367794|183642243|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.004|||Log Rank|||||1.004|0.524|0.0518
91874478|NCT02367794|183642243|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.165|||Log Rank|||||1.165|0.594|0.2841
91874479|NCT02367794|183642244|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.871||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|1.129|||Log Rank|||||1.129|0.671|0.2956
91741022|NCT03951766|183374797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons, because this was a secondary outcome. The p-value is for a planned specific comparison of week 6 to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.1|-1.9|<.0001
91741023|NCT03951766|183374798|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-17.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-17.1|-32.7|<.0001
91741024|NCT03951766|183374799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||PANAS positive affect||0.4|-0.0|0.06
91741025|NCT03951766|183374799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||PANAS negative affect||0.1|-0.4|0.36
91741026|NCT03951766|183374800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.1|0.1627
91741027|NCT03951766|183374801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||Single-item - past week||6.3|-3.8|0.62
91741028|NCT03951766|183374801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||Single-item - right now||4.4|-5.4|0.83
91741029|NCT03951766|183374802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|18.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||SEQ-12 - Internal||18.7|7.6|<.0001
91741030|NCT03951766|183374802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|16.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||SEQ-12 - External||16.1|6.1|<.0001
91874480|NCT02367794|183642244|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.109|||Log Rank|||||1.109|0.668|0.2473
91874481|NCT02367794|183642245|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.91|1.04|0.0248
91741031|NCT03951766|183374803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.8|1.2|0.0126
91741032|NCT03951766|183374804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-2.0||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.0|-11.1|0.0053
91741033|NCT03951766|183374805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||ATS - Adverse Effects||0.2|-0.1|0.76
91741034|NCT03951766|183374805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons, because this was a secondary outcome. The p-value is for a planned specific comparison of week 6 to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||ATS - Psychoactive Benefits||-0.5|-1.0|<.0001
91741035|NCT03951766|183374805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons, because this was a secondary outcome. The p-value is for a planned specific comparison of week 6 to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||ATS - Pleasure||-0.3|-0.8|<.0001
91741036|NCT03951766|183374806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.3|0.25
91741037|NCT03951766|183374807|SUPERIORITY|DBI - Positive Experiences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-14.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-14.3|-27.2|<.0001
91741038|NCT03951766|183374807|SUPERIORITY|DBI - Negative Experiences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.3||"We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6."|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.3|-8.1|0.27
91874482|NCT02367794|183642245|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.90|1.03|0.0308
91874483|NCT02367794|183642246|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.689|||Log Rank|||||0.689|0.408|<.0001
91874484|NCT02367794|183642246|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|0.831|||Log Rank|||||0.831|0.493|0.0007
91874485|NCT02367794|183642247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.06||||0.9871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|7.61|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1||7.61|-7.48|0.9871
91874486|NCT02367794|183642247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.93||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|13.26|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2||13.26|-1.41|0.1133
91874487|NCT02367794|183642247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.97||||0.3072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|3.65|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1||3.65|-11.60|0.3072
91741039|NCT03951766|183374808|SUPERIORITY|Pros of Being Smoke-Free|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-2.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.3|-15.9|0.009
91741040|NCT03951766|183374808|SUPERIORITY|Cons of Quitting|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|3.6||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.6|-13.7|0.25
91741041|NCT03951766|183374809|SUPERIORITY|PSS total scores|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.7|-4.1|0.0069
91741042|NCT03951766|183374809|SUPERIORITY|PSS - Perceived Helplessness|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-0.5|0.0043
91741043|NCT03951766|183374809|SUPERIORITY|PSS - Perceived Self-Efficacy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.1|0.1953
91741044|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE Self-distraction|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-0.1|0.087
91874488|NCT02367794|183642247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.21||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|8.42|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2||8.42|-6.01|0.7430
91874489|NCT02367794|183642248|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|0.996|||Log Rank|||||0.996|0.638|0.0461
91874490|NCT02367794|183642248|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.296|||Log Rank|||||1.296|0.834|0.7295
91874491|NCT02367794|183642249|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.033|||Log Rank|||||1.033|0.663|0.0942
91874492|NCT02367794|183642249|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.207|||Log Rank|||||1.207|0.776|0.7709
91874493|NCT02367794|183642251|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|1.102|||Log Rank|||||1.102|0.784|0.4007
91741045|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE active coping|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.209||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.6|0.2866
91741046|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE denial|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.4|0.9296
91741047|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE substance use|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.5|0.6599
91741048|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE use of emotional support|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.2|0.2315
91799390|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.91|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.91|0.01|
91874494|NCT05356130|183642292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"We conducted the same two independent planned comparisons: Enhanced BLT Encouragement + Adherence Promotion compared to Minimal BLT Encouragement; Minimal BLT Encouragement and Enhanced BLT Encouragement + Adherence Promotion compared to TAU."||||0.014
91874495|NCT02680314|183642294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.202
91874496|NCT01020487|183642306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|27.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|52.8|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.050. The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison between the paricalcitol capsules and placebo groups in the percentage of participants achieving 2 consecutive ≥ 30% reductions in iPTH from baseline regardless of CKD stage conducted using Fisher's exact test.||52.8|7.5|0.045
91874497|NCT01020487|183642307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CHM) test, adjusting for CKD Stage.||||||0.128
91874498|NCT01020487|183642308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differenbce|-72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.05|-36.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Comparison (all time points): A mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-36.75|-108.05|< 0.001
91874499|NCT01020487|183642308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-62.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.6|-19.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-19.49|-105.60|0.006
91741049|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE use of instrumental support|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.3|0.6183
91741050|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE behavioral disengagement|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.1|0.2037
91741051|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE venting|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.0060
91741052|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE positive reframing|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.7|0.3045
91741053|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE planning|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.0029
91741054|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE humor|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.5|0.8274
91741055|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE acceptance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|0.0|0.0349
91799391|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.89|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.89|-0.08|
91874500|NCT01020487|183642308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-68.43||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.39|-6.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-6.47|-130.39|0.032
91906967|NCT02634151|183709120|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||0.8|-0.9|0.9064
91741056|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE religion|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.3451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.2|0.3451
91741057|NCT03951766|183374810|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE self-blame|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-1.2|0.0006
91741058|NCT02623972|183374816|OTHER||Pathelogic Complete Response Rate|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Simon minimax two-stage design||Decision Rule: If the percentage of participants experiencing pathologic complete response (pCR) is ≤ 10% then the preoperative regimen is considered minimally effective. If the proportion of pCR ≥ 30% then the regimen is worthy of further study.|Null Hypothesis: the proportion of participants experiencing pCR is ≤ 0.10, Alternative hypothesis that proportion pCR ≥ 0.30. Hypothesized False Positive Rate(α)=10%; Hypothesized False Negative Rate(1-β)=10%.||||
91741059|NCT02623972|183374816|OTHER||Pathelogic Complete Response Rate|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Simon minimax two-stage design||Decision Rule: If the percentage of participants experiencing pathologic complete response (pCR) is ≤ 2% then the preoperative regimen is considered minimally effective. If the proportion of pCR ≥ 23% then the regimen is worthy of further study.|Null Hypothesis: the proportion of participants experiencing pCR is ≤ 0.02, Alternative hypothesis that proportion pCR ≥ 0.23. Hypothesized False Positive Rate(α)=5%; Hypothesized False Negative Rate(1-β)=10%.||||
91741060|NCT04847843|183374825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91741061|NCT04847843|183374826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.22
91799392|NCT04823650|183476502|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|-0.11|
91741062|NCT04847843|183374827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.62
91741063|NCT04847843|183374829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
91741064|NCT04847843|183374830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
91741065|NCT01061385|183374856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|21.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||||21.7|-6.8|0.2922
91741066|NCT01061385|183374857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|38.0|||||The 95% CI range above is calculated for the current estimated value.|||38.0|-37.7|
91741067|NCT03800030|183374858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 2.305||||||0.031
91741068|NCT03800030|183374859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 0.083||||||0.935
91741069|NCT03800030|183374860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 1.833||||||0.040
91741070|NCT03800030|183374861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 2.174||||||0.020
91741071|NCT03800030|183374862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = -0.623||||||0.540
91741072|NCT03800030|183374863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 2.989||||||0.007
91741073|NCT02379052|183374878|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.16|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-0.16|-3.22|0.0304
91874501|NCT01020487|183642308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-70.09||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.82|-2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Comparison: A mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-2.37|-137.82|0.043
91741074|NCT02379052|183374879|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.45||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.523|-2.387|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-2.387|-50.523|0.0312
91741075|NCT02379052|183374880|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.96|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.96|-2.48|0.3830
91799393|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.94|
91799394|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.72|
91799395|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|-0.01|
91906968|NCT02634151|183709120|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.2505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||0.4|-1.7|0.2505
91906969|NCT02634151|183709121|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-9.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-9.0|-22.6|<0.0001
91741076|NCT02379052|183374881|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0||||0.4147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.46|15.467|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||15.467|-37.460|0.4147
91741077|NCT02379052|183374882|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.6||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|51.05|||Clopper-Pearson Exact||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. CI = Confidence interval calculated using Clopper-Pearson Exact method|||51.05|-3.04|0.0490
91741078|NCT02379052|183374883|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.6||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|51.05|||Clopper-Pearson Exact||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. CI = Confidence interval calculated using Clopper-Pearson Exact method|||51.05|-3.04|0.0490
91741079|NCT02379052|183374884|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.23||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.677|3.212|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||3.212|-49.677|0.0850
91741080|NCT02379052|183374885|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.54|0.78|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.78|-28.54|0.0635
91741081|NCT02379052|183374886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.65||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.828|1.536|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\])|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||1.536|-68.828|0.0608
91874502|NCT01020487|183642308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-88.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.04|-35.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Comparison: A mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-35.01|-142.04|0.002
91741082|NCT02379052|183374887|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.1||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.42|-1.86|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-1.86|-40.42|0.0318
91741083|NCT02379052|183374888|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|17.8||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|43.55||P-values were derived by Fisher exact test|Clopper-Pearson Exact|CI = Confidence interval calculated using Exact method|Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||43.55|-11.54|0.1365
91741084|NCT02379052|183374889|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|35.0||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|58.34||P-values were derived by Fisher exact test|Clopper-Pearson Exact|CI = Confidence interval calculated using Exact method|Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||58.34|5.69|0.0044
91741085|NCT02379052|183374890|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-107.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.215|-73.046|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\])|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-73.046|-141.215|<0.0001
91741086|NCT02379052|183374891|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.68|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\])|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-0.68|-2.50|0.0006
91741087|NCT02379052|183374892|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.72|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.720|-0.053|0.0910
91741088|NCT04229888|183374936|NON_INFERIORITY|To establish non-inferiority of the treatment effect on the primary outcome change in DEQ-5 score, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on mean difference between the light based (sham) treatment and Lipiflow treatment were compared against a non-inferiority margin M=6 representing the largest clinically acceptable difference based on historical data.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91874503|NCT01020487|183642309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CHM) test, adjusting for CKD Stage.||||||0.327
91741089|NCT04229888|183374937|NON_INFERIORITY|To establish non-inferiority of the treatment effect on the primary outcome change in MG score, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on mean difference between the light based (sham) treatment and Lipiflow treatment were compared against a non-inferiority margin M= 1 representing the largest clinically acceptable difference based on historical data.||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
91741090|NCT04229888|183374938|NON_INFERIORITY|To establish non-inferiority of the treatment effect on the primary outcome change in TBUT, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on mean difference between the light based (sham) treatment and Lipiflow treatment were compared against a non-inferiority margin M=6 representing the largest clinically acceptable difference based on historical data.||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
91741091|NCT01282866|183374939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91799396|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.95|
91799397|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.75|
91874504|NCT01020487|183642310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CHM) test, adjusting for CKD Stage.||||||0.194
91874505|NCT01020487|183642311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.14||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Comparison (all time points): a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement||0.53|-0.25|0.469
91741092|NCT02948582|183374958|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.033||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.075|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.075|-0.009|0.1257
91741093|NCT02948582|183374958|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.072||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.113|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.113|0.030|0.0008
91741094|NCT02948582|183374958|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.144|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.144|0.061|<0.0001
91741095|NCT02948582|183374958|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.108|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.15|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.150|0.066|<0.0001
91741096|NCT02948582|183374958|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.14|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.140|0.056|<0.0001
91741097|NCT02948582|183374959|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.086|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.123|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.123|0.050|<0.0001
91741098|NCT02948582|183374959|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.151|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.187|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.187|0.114|<0.0001
91741099|NCT02948582|183374959|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.193|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.193|0.120|<0.0001
91741100|NCT02948582|183374959|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.239|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.239|0.165|<0.0001
91741101|NCT02948582|183374959|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.199|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.235|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.235|0.162|<0.0001
91799398|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|-0.16|
91799399|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.96|
91799400|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.91|
91799401|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.47|
91906970|NCT02634151|183709121|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||-0.3|-14.0|0.0406
91741102|NCT02948582|183374960|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.058||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.095|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.095|0.021|0.0028
91741103|NCT02948582|183374960|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.137|||least squares mena|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.137|0.063|<0.0001
91799402|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.45|-0.39|
91799403|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|-0.07|
91799404|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.98|-0.21|
91741104|NCT02948582|183374960|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.142|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.142|0.068|<0.0001
91741105|NCT02948582|183374960|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.135|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.173|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.173|0.098|<0.0001
91741106|NCT02948582|183374960|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.128|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.166|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.166|0.091|<0.0001
91741107|NCT03810014|183374982|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.2|4.8|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 3 + Arm 4) vs (Arm 1 + Arm 2)||4.80|0.20|0.01
91874506|NCT01020487|183642311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||0.37|-0.39|0.975
91906971|NCT02634151|183709121|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-7.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-7.8|-22.8|<0.0001
91741108|NCT03810014|183374982|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.025||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|98.0|1.002|1.049|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 3 + Arm 4) vs (Arm 1 + Arm 2)||1.049|1.002|0.012
91741109|NCT03810014|183374982|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.2|0.9|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 1 + Arm 3) vs (Arm 2 + Arm 4)||0.90|-2.20|0.33
91741110|NCT03810014|183374982|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.994||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.979|1.009|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 1 + Arm 3) vs (Arm 2 + Arm 4)||1.009|0.979|0.332
91741111|NCT01102491|183375059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91741112|NCT02292537|183375063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|6.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and age at Screening and baseline HFMSE score as covariates.||||6.7|3.1|0.0000001
91741113|NCT02292537|183375064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|14.91||Based on multiple imputation and logistic regression with treatment effect and adjustment for each participant's age at screening and HFMSE score at baseline.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.91|2.09|0.0006
91741114|NCT02292537|183375064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|30.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|48.31|||||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure are from multiple imputation procedure and are based on binomial proportions.|||48.31|12.74|
91741115|NCT02292537|183375065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|13.8||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|34.17|||Fisher Exact||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure is based on exact unconditional confidence interval.|||34.17|-6.64|0.0811
91741116|NCT02292537|183375066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||||Based on ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and adjustment for each participant's age at screening and number of milestones at baseline.|||0.7|0.2|
91741117|NCT02292537|183375067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Differenec|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.0|||||From multiple imputation procedure, based on ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and adjustment for each participant's age at screening and derived total score at baseline.|||5.0|2.3|
91741118|NCT02292537|183375068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.84|19.34|||||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure is based on exact unconditional confidence interval.|||19.34|-21.84|
91741119|NCT02292537|183375069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|22.1|||||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure is based on exact unconditional confidence interval.|||22.10|-19.10|
91741120|NCT01444430|183375078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio will be used to assess statistical non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin=2).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.65|||Regression, Cox|||||1.650|0.698|
91741121|NCT01444430|183375079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.835||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.937|||Regression, Cox|||||0.937|0.745|0.002
91741122|NCT01444430|183375080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.4|||ANOVA|||||5.4|3.3|<0.001
91741123|NCT01444430|183375081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.7|-0.5|0.272
91741124|NCT01444430|183375082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-0.2|<0.001
91741125|NCT01444430|183375083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.10|<0.001
91741126|NCT01444430|183375084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.004
91741127|NCT01444430|183375085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.739||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.055|||Regression, Cox|||||1.055|0.518|0.095
91741128|NCT01142388|183375090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log rank test, stratifying on: 1) gastroesophageal junction vs. esophagus, 2) squamous cell carcinoma vs. adenocarcinoma.||||||0.85
91741129|NCT01142388|183375091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log rank test, stratifying on 1) gastroesophageal junction vs. esophagus, 2) squamous cell carcinoma vs. adenocarcinoma.||||||0.50
91741130|NCT00802997|183375093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91741131|NCT05265728|183375138|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LS mean)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.76|||||LS mean (95% Confidence Interval \[CI\]) lesions were obtained from a Poisson distribution model with no explanatory variables.|||0.76|0.18|
91874507|NCT01020487|183642311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.12||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement||0.56|-0.32|0.567
91874508|NCT01020487|183642311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.3||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement||1.12|-0.53|0.462
91874509|NCT01383616|183642340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of 3 month ODI Score between Unipedicular and Bipedicular kyphoplasty groups||||0.85
91874510|NCT01383616|183642341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91906972|NCT02634151|183709122|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
91906973|NCT02634151|183709122|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||0.0|-0.6|0.0771
91874511|NCT01383616|183642342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91874512|NCT01383616|183642343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91906974|NCT02634151|183709122|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-0.3|-1.0|0.0006
91741132|NCT05265728|183375139|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|13.74|||||LS mean (95% CI) lesions were obtained from a Poisson distribution model with no explanatory variables.|||13.74|0.69|
91741133|NCT01693250|183375169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a feasibility and pilot study. We acknowledge that our sample size will not have adequate power to detect any statistically significant outcomes. We chose a sample size that would be large enough to assess feasibility and effect size and to accommodate recruitment within the study time and budget of this application. We hope to be able to estimate the effect size of the intervention.||||<.001
91874513|NCT01383616|183642344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91874514|NCT01383616|183642345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91874515|NCT01383616|183642346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
91874516|NCT01383616|183642347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91874517|NCT01383616|183642348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91874518|NCT01383616|183642349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91874519|NCT00896389|183642350|OTHER|Association between genotypes and phenotypes were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
91741134|NCT01693250|183375170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized the intervention group will have significant reduction of systematic blood pressure compared to the control group at 6 month follow up.||||.001
91760115|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.16||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.16|-0.62|
91760116|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.09|0.18|
91760117|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.7||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.70|-0.21|
91874520|NCT00896389|183642351|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||<|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91906975|NCT02634151|183709123|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|8.6||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|19.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||19.6|-2.3|0.1210
91906976|NCT02634151|183709123|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|8.0||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|17.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||17.3|-1.4|0.0948
91741135|NCT00600106|183375175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05.||||||0.36|||||||t-test (nonparametric Wilcoxon test)|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated."||||0.36
91741136|NCT00600106|183375176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.93
91741137|NCT00600106|183375177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05.||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated."||||0.77
91741138|NCT00600106|183375179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05.||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated."||||0.38
91741139|NCT00600106|183375183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test (nonparametric Wilcoxon test)|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated. All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05."||||0.17
91741140|NCT00600106|183375184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.49
91741141|NCT00600106|183375185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.77
91741142|NCT00600106|183375186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.40
91741143|NCT00600106|183375187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.99
91741144|NCT00600106|183375188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.21
91741145|NCT03783962|183375194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.003
91741146|NCT03783962|183375195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.97
91741147|NCT03783962|183375196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
91741148|NCT03783962|183375196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91741149|NCT03783962|183375196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91741150|NCT03783962|183375197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.18
91741151|NCT03783962|183375197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.40
91741152|NCT03783962|183375197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.01
91741153|NCT03783962|183375198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.40
91741154|NCT03783962|183375198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91741155|NCT03783962|183375198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91741156|NCT03783962|183375199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
91741157|NCT03783962|183375199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91741158|NCT03783962|183375199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91741159|NCT03783962|183375200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.26
91741160|NCT03783962|183375200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.41
91741161|NCT03783962|183375200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
91741162|NCT03783962|183375201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.03
91741163|NCT03783962|183375201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
91741164|NCT03783962|183375201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91741165|NCT03783962|183375202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.58
91741166|NCT03783962|183375202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91741167|NCT03783962|183375202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.01
91741168|NCT03783962|183375203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.009
91741169|NCT03783962|183375204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91741170|NCT01169337|183375209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Log Rank|stratified 1-sided log-rank test||||||0.0005
91741171|NCT03726658|183375227|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed.||||0.98
91759515|NCT02391363|183411766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.20 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.89
91760118|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.42||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-0.50|
91741172|NCT03726658|183375227|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed.||||0.25
91741173|NCT03726658|183375227|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).||||0.93
91741174|NCT03726658|183375228|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Chane from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.43
91741175|NCT03726658|183375228|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change in baseline in placebo group|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change in placebo group. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.84
91741176|NCT03726658|183375229|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 9|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.69
91741177|NCT03726658|183375229|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.44
91799405|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.93|0.42|
91799406|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.48|
91799407|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|-0.20|
91906977|NCT02634151|183709123|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.5113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|16.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||16.4|-8.2|0.5113
91741178|NCT03726658|183375229|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.43
91741179|NCT03726658|183375229|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculaton was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.55
91741180|NCT03726658|183375229|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.44
91799408|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.58|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.58|-0.07|
91799409|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.80|
91799410|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.12|
91741181|NCT03726658|183375229|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.56
91741182|NCT03726658|183375229|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.80
91741183|NCT03726658|183375229|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.45
91741184|NCT03726658|183375229|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.67
91741185|NCT03726658|183375230|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\>0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.43
91741186|NCT03726658|183375230|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.59
91741187|NCT03726658|183375230|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14, Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.35
91906978|NCT02634151|183709124|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|11.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||11.1|-7.8|0.7276
91741188|NCT03726658|183375230|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.82
91741189|NCT03726658|183375230|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.61
91741190|NCT03726658|183375230|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.47
91760119|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.48||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.48|-0.43|
91760120|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.26||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.26|0.26|
91760121|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.7||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.70|-0.29|
91760122|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.44||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.55|
91741191|NCT03726658|183375230|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.76
91741192|NCT03726658|183375230|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.99
91741193|NCT05710640|183375231|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91741194|NCT05710640|183375232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||0.294
91741195|NCT05710640|183375232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.637
91741196|NCT05710640|183375232|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||1.00
91741197|NCT05710640|183375233|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||1.000
91799411|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|0.58|
91799412|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.52|
91799413|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.94|
91799414|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.94|0.42|
91889189|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.84|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C||0.84|0.67|
91741198|NCT05710640|183375233|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8||||1.000
91741199|NCT05710640|183375233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.620
91741200|NCT05710640|183375233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||0.576
91741201|NCT05710640|183375234|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||1.000
91741202|NCT05710640|183375234|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8||||1.00
91741203|NCT05710640|183375234|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||1.000
91741204|NCT05710640|183375234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||0.637
91741205|NCT05710640|183375235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.331
91741206|NCT05710640|183375235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.500
91741207|NCT05710640|183375235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.285
91741208|NCT05710640|183375235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.148
91799415|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.96|0.53|
91799416|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.94|
91741209|NCT05710640|183375236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.294
91741210|NCT05710640|183375236|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||1.000
91741211|NCT05710640|183375237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.335
91741212|NCT05710640|183375237|SUPERIORITY|P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||1.000
91741213|NCT05710640|183375238|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||1.000
91741214|NCT05710640|183375238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||0.471
91741215|NCT05710640|183375239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Week 8 and covariates of treatment and Week 8 JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.592
91741216|NCT05710640|183375239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Week 8 and covariates of treatment and Week 8 JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.337
91741217|NCT00703963|183375288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.||||0.20
91799417|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.96|0.73|
91799418|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.77|
91799419|NCT04823650|183476503|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.97|
91741218|NCT00703963|183375289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.||||0.05
91741219|NCT00703963|183375290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.||||<0.001
91741220|NCT03994211|183375291|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.06||||||||1.06|0.83|
91741221|NCT03994211|183375292|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.15||||||||1.15|0.95|
91741222|NCT03994211|183375293|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.7||||||||0.70|0.54|
91741223|NCT03994211|183375294|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.09||||||||1.09|0.91|
91741224|NCT03994211|183375295|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.69||||||||0.69|0.48|
91741225|NCT03994211|183375296|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.09||||||||1.09|0.90|
91799420|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.74|
91741226|NCT01107964|183375311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
91741227|NCT01107964|183375312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91741228|NCT01107964|183375313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91741229|NCT01107964|183375314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91741230|NCT02148263|183375349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91741231|NCT02148263|183375350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91741232|NCT02148263|183375351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.94
91741233|NCT02148263|183375352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.96
91741234|NCT02148263|183375353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
91741235|NCT02148263|183375354|SUPERIORITY|This is for the upper eyelid evaluation.||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.27
91741236|NCT02148263|183375354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is for the lower eyelid evaluation.||||.58
91741237|NCT02148263|183375355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Extent||||.50
91741238|NCT02148263|183375355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Fisher Exact|||Type||||.76
91741239|NCT02148263|183375355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Depth||||.50
91741240|NCT02148263|183375356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91741241|NCT02148263|183375357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
91741242|NCT00906178|183375363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.94||||||||1.94|.57|
91741243|NCT00906178|183375364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65||||||||1.65|.62|
91741244|NCT00906178|183375365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.62||||||||2.62|.93|
91741245|NCT00906178|183375366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.3||||||||1.30|.37|
91741246|NCT01272037|183375375|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.05|||Regression, Cox|A Cox model was used that included treatment arm, recurrence score, menopausal status, and the chemotherapy\*recurrence score interaction term.||This test describes the interaction of the treatment arm with the recurrence score in the analysis of invasive disease-free survival in the overall study population, to determine whether chemotherapy benefit depends on the recurrence score. If the interaction was statistically significant, the interaction term was planned to be included in the Cox model to evaluate the invasive disease-free survival outcome.||1.05|0.98|0.35
91741247|NCT01272037|183375375|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.54|||Regression, Cox|A Cox model was used that included treatment arm, recurrence score, menopausal status, and the chemotherapy\*menopausal status interaction term.||This test describes the interaction of the treatment arm with menopausal status (one of the study stratification factors) in the analysis of invasive disease-free survival in the overall study population, to determine whether chemotherapy benefit depends on menopausal status. If the interaction was statistically significant, separate analyses of IDFS were planned to be conducted by menopausal status.||2.54|1.15|0.008
91741248|NCT01272037|183375375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83|||Regression, Cox||To compare the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm to the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|This analysis includes only premenopausal participants.||0.83|0.43|0.002
91741249|NCT01272037|183375375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Regression, Cox||To compare the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm to the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|This analysis includes only postmenopausal participants.||1.26|0.82|0.89
91741250|NCT01272037|183375382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||This analysis includes only premenopausal participants.|To compare DRFS between the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm and the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|0.87|0.39|0.009
91741251|NCT01272037|183375382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.37|||Regression, Cox||To compare DRFS between the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm and the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|This analysis includes only postmenopausal participants.||1.37|0.81|0.70
91741252|NCT01393899|183375383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.11|14.99||||||||14.99|-12.11|
91741253|NCT01393899|183375383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.72|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.07|31.37||||||||31.37|4.07|
91741254|NCT01393899|183375384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.57|12.79||||||Week 4||12.79|-11.57|
91741255|NCT01393899|183375384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.29|13.84||||||Week 8||13.84|-12.29|
91741256|NCT01393899|183375384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.04|19.67||||||Week 12||19.67|-8.04|
91799421|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.92|
91799422|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.899|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.66|
91799423|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.92|
91741257|NCT01393899|183375384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.56|12.68||||||Week 20||12.68|-14.56|
91741258|NCT01393899|183375384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.52|17.04||||||Week 4||17.04|-6.52|
91741259|NCT01393899|183375384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.53|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.94|4.88||||||Week 8||4.88|-21.94|
91741260|NCT01393899|183375384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.4|17.37||||||Week 12||17.37|-10.40|
91741261|NCT01393899|183375384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.69|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.08|24.46||||||Week 20||24.46|-3.08|
91741262|NCT01393899|183375385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.06|10.63||||||Week 4||10.63|-14.06|
91799424|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.80|
91799425|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|-0.19|
91906979|NCT02634151|183709124|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|4.7||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||12.2|-2.9|0.2218
91741263|NCT01393899|183375385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.15|9.4||||||Week 8||9.40|-17.15|
91741264|NCT01393899|183375385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.04|19.67||||||Week 12||19.67|-8.04|
91741265|NCT01393899|183375385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.11|14.99||||||Week 20||14.99|-12.11|
91741266|NCT01393899|183375385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.88|14.87||||||Week 26||14.87|-11.88|
91741267|NCT01393899|183375385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.06|14.92||||||Week 4||14.92|-9.06|
91741268|NCT01393899|183375385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.53|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.94|4.88||||||Week 8||4.88|-21.94|
91741269|NCT01393899|183375385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.74|15.06||||||Week 12||15.06|-12.74|
91741270|NCT01393899|183375385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.63|26.77||||||Week 20||26.77|-0.63|
91741271|NCT01393899|183375385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.54|33.66||||||Week 26||33.66|6.54|
91741272|NCT01393899|183375386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.41|17.28||||||Week 4||17.28|-10.41|
91741273|NCT01393899|183375386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.67|15.11||||||Week 8||15.11|-12.67|
91874521|NCT00896389|183642352|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35909607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
91799426|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.89|
91799427|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.91|
91799428|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.893|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.97|0.50|
91874522|NCT00896389|183642353|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35909607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
91874523|NCT00896389|183642354|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35909607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
91874524|NCT00896389|183642355|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
91741274|NCT01393899|183375386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.18|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|26.67||||||Week 12||26.67|-0.31|
91741275|NCT01393899|183375386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.33|14.55||||||Week 20||14.55|-11.33|
91741276|NCT01393899|183375386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.36|21.64||||||Week 26||21.64|-4.36|
91741277|NCT01393899|183375386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.04|19.56||||||Week 4||19.56|-8.04|
91741278|NCT01393899|183375386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.83|5.66||||||Week 8||5.66|-21.83|
91741279|NCT01393899|183375386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.63|14.73||||||Week 12||14.73|-11.63|
91799429|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.42|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.42|-0.64|
91741280|NCT01393899|183375386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.58|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.64|21.81||||||Week 20||21.81|-4.64|
91741281|NCT01393899|183375386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.15|26.43||||||Week 26||26.43|0.15|
91741282|NCT01393899|183375387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.63|21.78||||||Week 4||21.78|-8.63|
91741283|NCT01393899|183375387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.63|17.2||||||Week 8||17.20|-16.63|
91741284|NCT01393899|183375387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|24.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.19|41.38||||||Week 12||41.38|7.19|
91741285|NCT01393899|183375387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.32|24.03||||||Week 20||24.03|-10.32|
91741286|NCT01393899|183375387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|11.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.22|27.79||||||Week 26||27.79|-5.22|
91741287|NCT01393899|183375387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.41|23.95||||||Week 4||23.95|-6.41|
91741288|NCT01393899|183375387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.59|3.59||||||Week 8||3.59|-31.59|
91741289|NCT01393899|183375387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.35|19.97||||||Week 12||19.97|-15.35|
91741290|NCT01393899|183375387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.15|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.41|27.71||||||Week 20||27.71|-7.41|
91741291|NCT01393899|183375387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.96|39.04||||||Week 26||39.04|4.96|
91741292|NCT01393899|183375388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.75|13.4||||||||13.40|-9.75|
91741293|NCT01393899|183375388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|18.11|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.57|30.64||||||||30.64|5.57|
91741294|NCT01393899|183375389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.75|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.39|4.88||||||||4.88|-20.39|
91741295|NCT01393899|183375389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.33|31.33||||||||31.33|4.33|
91741296|NCT01393899|183375391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-30.26|||=|0.0637|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.1|-9.42|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-9.42|-51.10|=0.0637
91741297|NCT01393899|183375391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.06|||=|0.3054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.43|5.31|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||5.31|-47.43|=0.3054
91741298|NCT01393899|183375391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-42.52|||=|0.1316|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-78.57|-6.48|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-6.48|-78.57|=0.1316
91741299|NCT01393899|183375391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Dofference|-18.01|||=|0.5704|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-59.01|22.99|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||22.99|-59.01|=0.5704
91741300|NCT01393899|183375391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.0|||=|0.8389|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.22|32.21|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||32.21|-44.22|=0.8389
91741301|NCT01393899|183375391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.56|||=|0.1452|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.27|-2.85|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-2.85|-44.27|=0.1452
91741302|NCT01393899|183375391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.61|||=|0.6399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.03|16.81|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||16.81|-36.03|=0.6399
91741303|NCT01393899|183375391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-37.0|||=|0.1949|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-73.57|-0.42|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.42|-73.57|=0.1949
91799430|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.64|
91799431|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.85|0.00|
91889190|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A||0.93|0.72|
91741304|NCT01393899|183375391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.74|||=|0.1358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.62|-6.87|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||-6.87|-88.62|=0.1358
91741305|NCT01393899|183375391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-50.38|||=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.03|-12.72|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-12.72|-88.03|=0.0890
91741306|NCT01393899|183375392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.14|1.26||||||Week 4||1.26|-16.14|
91741307|NCT01393899|183375392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.43|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.27|3.41||||||Week 8||3.41|-18.27|
91741308|NCT01393899|183375392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.48|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.68|0.72||||||Week 12||0.72|-25.68|
91741309|NCT01393899|183375392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.81|1.34||||||Week 20||1.34|-26.81|
91741310|NCT01393899|183375392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.52|1.72||||||Week 26||1.72|-39.52|
91741311|NCT01393899|183375392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.39|6.48||||||Week 4||6.48|-12.39|
91741312|NCT01393899|183375392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.14|13.36||||||Week 8||13.36|-10.14|
91741313|NCT01393899|183375392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.09|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.54|5.36||||||Week 12||5.36|-21.54|
91741314|NCT01393899|183375392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.99|1.19||||||Week 20||1.19|-26.99|
91741315|NCT01393899|183375392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-26.28|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-46.54|-6.02||||||Week 26||-6.02|-46.54|
91741316|NCT01393899|183375393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.44|32.66||||||||32.66|-11.44|
91741317|NCT01393899|183375393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.15|37.49||||||||37.49|-4.15|
91741318|NCT01393899|183375395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.53|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-0.53|-1.34|<0.0001
91741319|NCT01393899|183375395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.76|||=|0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.28|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||-0.28|-1.24|=0.0024
91741320|NCT01393899|183375395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.75|||=|0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.24|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.24|-1.26|=0.0044
91741321|NCT01393899|183375395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|||=|0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.02|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||0.02|-1.13|=0.0582
91741322|NCT01393899|183375395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.61|||=|0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.09|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||0.09|-1.31|=0.0865
91741323|NCT01393899|183375395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.52|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-0.52|-1.32|<0.0001
91799432|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.94|0.49|
91741324|NCT01393899|183375395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.92|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.45|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||-0.45|-1.40|=0.0002
91741325|NCT01393899|183375395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.71|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.71|-1.75|<0.0001
91741326|NCT01393899|183375395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.74|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||-0.74|-1.87|<0.0001
91741327|NCT01393899|183375395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.95|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-0.95|-2.30|<0.0001
91741328|NCT01393899|183375397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.39|||=|0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.01|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||0.01|-0.79|=0.0566
91741329|NCT01393899|183375397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|||=|0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||0.20|-0.61|=0.3144
91741330|NCT01393899|183375397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|||=|0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.02|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-0.02|-1.10|=0.0434
91741331|NCT01393899|183375397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.57|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.18|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||-0.18|-0.96|=0.0050
91741332|NCT01393899|183375397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.66|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.25|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.25|-1.06|=0.0017
91799433|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.68|
91799434|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.885|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|-0.11|
91799435|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.53|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.53|-0.17|
91906980|NCT02634151|183709124|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||9.8|-9.2|0.9420
91741333|NCT01393899|183375397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.67|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-0.67|-1.72|<0.0001
91741334|NCT01144416|183375411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was -8%|Difference in percentage vital pregnancy|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.4|||generalized linear model|The estimated difference in percentage vital pregnancy was adjusted for age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs. \>38 yrs)||||1.4|-7.4|
91741335|NCT01144416|183375412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was -3 oocytes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2|||ANOVA|The estimated difference in number of oocytes retrieved was adjusted for age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs. \>38 yrs) and center.||||1.2|-0.2|
91741336|NCT01144416|183375413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was -8%|Difference in Live Birth Rates|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.9|||generalized linear model|The estimated difference in live birth rate was adjusted for age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs. \>38 yrs)||||1.9|-6.5|
91741337|NCT01144416|183375414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
91741338|NCT01144416|183375415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91741339|NCT03328832|183375427|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence means p value \> 0.05||||||0.276|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.276
91741340|NCT03328832|183375428|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence means p value \> 0.05||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91741341|NCT03328832|183375429|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence means p value \> 0.05||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91741342|NCT00132301|183375444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.11||Log rank test stratified by site.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.58|0.40
91741343|NCT03163134|183375445|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
91741344|NCT03163134|183375446|OTHER|||||||0.577|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.577
91741345|NCT01890265|183375447|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.33|||=|0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|8.3||The analysis of the change from Baseline to Week 48 in FVC (% predicted) was based on the random coefficient regression model based on observed cases.|Random coefficient regression|||The absolute LS mean treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for change from Baseline to Week 48 in FVC (% predicted) is presented.||8.3|0.35|= 0.0331
91741346|NCT01890265|183375448|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8|||=|0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA with MI|||The absolute LS mean treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for change from Baseline to Week 24 in QLF score is presented.||-0.2|-3.3|= 0.0236
91741347|NCT01890265|183375448|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.2|||=|0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|0.3|||ANCOVA with MI|||The absolute LS mean treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for change from Baseline to Week 48 in QLF score is presented.||0.3|-6.6|= 0.0729
91799436|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.896|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.97|0.65|
91799437|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|0.04|
91741348|NCT01890265|183375449|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference|-21.4|||=|0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||The absolute treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for percentage of participants with IPF progression at Week 48 is presented.||-6.2|-36.6|= 0.0133
91741349|NCT03674970|183375454|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||.55
91741350|NCT03674970|183375455|OTHER|||||||0.2146|||||||ANOVA|||||||.2146
91741351|NCT03674970|183375456|OTHER|||||||0.5642|||||||ANOVA|||||||.5642
91741352|NCT03674970|183375457|OTHER|||||||0.4353|||||||ANOVA|||||||.4353
91741353|NCT03674970|183375458|OTHER|||||||0.0348|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0348
91741354|NCT03674970|183375459|OTHER|||||||0.404|||||||ANOVA|||||||.4040
91741355|NCT04271540|183375476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Spearman's Rank Correlation|||||||0.35
91741356|NCT02101788|183375485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.07|||||Estimation of treatment effect; Trametinib vs. SOC among patients with a mutation.|||1.07|0.28|
91741357|NCT02101788|183375485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.03|||||Estimation of treatment effect; Trametinib vs. SOC among wild-type patients.|||1.03|0.39|
91741358|NCT02101788|183375485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.08|||Chi-squared||Estimation of mutation effect; mutant vs. wild-type in the SOC group.|Prognostic effect of the mutation status among patients in the SOC arm.||1.08|0.34|0.0929
91741359|NCT02101788|183375485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7195|||||||Chi-squared|||Predictive effect biomarker p-value||||0.7195
91741360|NCT04587869|183375487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|Result was adjusted for HIV status and age (dichotomized at 50+ vs. \<50), as those characteristics were used to stratify sampling|Result is for indicator of assignment to intervention arm (vs. control)|Nonresponse weights were employed to account for potential bias from excluding participants who did not complete any follow-up assessments.||2.07|.73|.44
91741361|NCT04587869|183375488|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Result was adjusted for HIV status and age (dichotomized at 50+ vs. \<50), as those characteristics were used to stratify sampling|Result is for indicator of assignment to intervention arm (vs. control)|Nonresponse weights were employed to account for potential bias from excluding participants who did not complete any follow-up assessments.||||.47
91741362|NCT04587869|183375489|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Result was adjusted for HIV status and age (dichotomized at 50+ vs. \<50), as those characteristics were used to stratify sampling|Slope is adjusted regression coefficient for indicator of intervention arm (so mean of outcome across follow-ups was 0.19 higher for intervention vs. control)|Unlike the two primary outcomes which have a single value for each participant, for this outcome we employed a repeated measures style structure with one record for each of up to 3 FU observations. A sandwich estimator (SAS Proc Surveyreg) was employed to account for clustering of observations within participant. In addition, nonresponse weights were employed to account for potential bias from excluding participants who did not complete any follow-up assessments.||||.02
91741363|NCT01342926|183375545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.43|||||6 months visit|||0.43|-0.57|
91741364|NCT01342926|183375545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.71|||||12 months visit|||0.71|-0.31|
91741365|NCT01342926|183375545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.68|||||18 months visit|||0.68|-0.33|
91741366|NCT01342926|183375545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.26|||||6 months visit|||0.26|-0.71|
91741367|NCT01342926|183375545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.72|||||12 months visit|||0.72|-0.26|
91741368|NCT01342926|183375545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.77|||||18 months visit|||0.77|-0.21|
91741369|NCT01342926|183375545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.29|||||6 months visit|||0.29|-0.66|
91741370|NCT01342926|183375545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.75|||||12 months visit|||0.75|-0.19|
91741371|NCT01342926|183375545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.86|||||18 months visit|||0.86|-0.08|
91741372|NCT01342926|183375553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.61|||||6 months visit|||0.61|-0.34|
91741373|NCT01342926|183375553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.89|||||12 months visit|||0.89|-0.07|
91741374|NCT01342926|183375553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.89|||||18 months visit|||0.89|-0.06|
91741375|NCT01342926|183375553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.37|||||6 months visit|||0.37|-0.55|
91741376|NCT01342926|183375553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.8|||||12 months visit|||0.80|-0.13|
91741377|NCT01342926|183375553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.63|||||18 months visit|||0.63|-0.30|
91741378|NCT01342926|183375553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.57|||||6 months visit|||0.57|-0.31|
91741379|NCT01342926|183375553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.99|||||12 months visit|||0.99|0.10|
91741380|NCT01342926|183375553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.36|||||18 months visit|||1.36|0.47|
91741381|NCT01342926|183375554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.55|||||6 months visit|||0.55|-0.34|
91741382|NCT01342926|183375554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.9|||||12 months visit|||0.90|0.00|
91741383|NCT01342926|183375554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.77|||||18 months visit|||0.77|-0.12|
91741384|NCT01342926|183375554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.35|||||6 months visit|||0.35|-0.51|
91741385|NCT01342926|183375554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.66|||||12 months visit|||0.66|-0.21|
91741386|NCT01342926|183375554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.55|||||18 months visit|||0.55|-0.32|
91741387|NCT01342926|183375554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.35|||||6 months visit|||0.35|-0.48|
91906981|NCT02634151|183709125|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|32.57||||0.6786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.98|188.12|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||188.12|-122.98|0.6786
91741388|NCT01342926|183375554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.62|||||12 months visit|||0.62|-0.22|
91741389|NCT01342926|183375554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.92|||||18 months visit|||0.92|0.08|
91741390|NCT03382912|183375576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.9|||||Odds Ratio stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (interactive web response system (IWRS)), smoking status (IWRS). Confidence intervals were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|||5.9|0.3|
91741391|NCT03382912|183375577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.951|||||The estimate of the hazard ration (HR) stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (interactive web response system (IWRS)) and smoking status (IWRS).|||1.951|0.519|
91741392|NCT03382912|183375578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.871|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|4.532|||||||The estimate of the hazard ration (HR) stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (IWRS) and smoking status (IWRS).|4.532|0.772|
91741393|NCT03382912|183375579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.1|||||Odds Ratio stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (IWRS) and smoking status (IWRS). Confidence intervals were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|||4.1|0.4|
91741394|NCT01402869|183375587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons. P\<.05|ANOVA|LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons.||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference in peak methemoglobin blood levels following the administration of prilocaine, lidocaine, or no local anesthetic in pre-cooperative children undergoing comprehensive dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia.||||<.001
91741395|NCT01402869|183375587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
91741396|NCT01402869|183375587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
91741397|NCT01402869|183375587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||=|0.89||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||=.89
91741398|NCT01402869|183375588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons.||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference in the time frame to peak methemoglobin levels following the administration of prilocaine, lidocaine, or no local anesthetic in pre-cooperative children undergoing comprehensive dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia.||||<.001
91741399|NCT01402869|183375588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||=|0.43||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||=.43
91741400|NCT01402869|183375588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
91741401|NCT01402869|183375588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
91741402|NCT01402869|183375589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P\<.05|ANOVA|LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons.||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference in delta methemoglobin blood levels following the administration prilocaine, lidocaine, or no local anesthetic in pre-cooperative children undergoing comprehensive dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia.||||<.001
91741403|NCT01402869|183375589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
91741404|NCT01402869|183375589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
91741405|NCT01402869|183375589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||=|0.92||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||=.92
91741406|NCT00707993|183375596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.13|||ANCOVA|Treatment, randomization schedule, and geographic region as class effects; baseline value for the endpoint as a continuous covariate.||Primary null hypothesis: the average Week 52 HbA1c change from Baseline for alogliptin is inferior to that for glipizide (1-sided 97.5% CI \[alpha=0.025\] compared to non-inferiority margin of 0.4%). If the primary null hypothesis was rejected (non-inferiority demonstrated), an additional comparison for statistical superiority of alogliptin was performed. The CI was re-evaluated; statistical superiority declared if the upper limit was \< 0%.||0.13||
91741407|NCT03941483|183375663|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.174||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.927|||Chi-squared|||||1.927|0.715|0.595
91741408|NCT03941483|183375664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.297||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|2.026|||Chi-squared|||||2.026|0.831|0.335
91741409|NCT03941483|183375665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.025||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|1.179|||Chi-squared|||||1.179|0.891|0.773
91741410|NCT03941483|183375666|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.038||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.935|1.152|||Chi-squared|||||1.152|0.935|0.563
91741411|NCT03941483|183375667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.174||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.567|2.429|||Chi-squared|||||2.429|0.567|0.717
91741412|NCT03941483|183375668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.614||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|3.3|||Chi-squared|||||3.300|0.789|0.266
91741413|NCT00252512|183375776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Above is calculated p value, a priori threshold for significance set at \<.05|GEE full factorial modeling|||||||<.001
91741414|NCT00252512|183375777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||a priori threshold of \<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||8 week analysis||||.015
91741415|NCT00252512|183375777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||a priori threshold of \<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||6 month analysis||||0.45
91741416|NCT00252512|183375777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0497||||||a prior threshold of .05|t-test, 2 sided|||12 month analysis||||.0497
91741417|NCT00252512|183375778|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold \<.05|Estimation Equation mean modeling|||Costs for period between 6 month follow-up and 12 month follow up.||||>.05
91741418|NCT00252512|183375778|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Estimating Equation mean modeling|||Costs for period between 6 month follow up and 12 month follow up.||||>.05
91741419|NCT00252512|183375779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||a priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 8 week follow up||||.28
91741420|NCT00252512|183375779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6 month follow up||||.013
91741421|NCT00252512|183375779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 12 month follow up||||.76
91741422|NCT00252512|183375780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 8 week follow-up||||.66
91741423|NCT00252512|183375780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6 month follow up.||||.37
91741424|NCT00252512|183375780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||a priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 12 month follow up.||||.19
91741425|NCT00252512|183375781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A priori threshold of \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 8 week follow-up||||.05
91741426|NCT00252512|183375781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold of \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6 month follow-up.||||.80
91741427|NCT00252512|183375781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A priori threshold of \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 12 month follow-up.||||.12
91799438|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.849|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|-0.09|
91741428|NCT01537315|183375784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|||||A paired comparison between baseline CRP values with values obtained after 1, 3, and 6 months of treatment was conducted, with a p-value of 0.05 used as the a priori threshold of statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.4521
91741429|NCT03458325|183375792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||-11,802.70|-22,187.90|<0.0001
91741430|NCT03458325|183375793|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-6.4||||0.6765|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||0.6765
91741431|NCT03458325|183375794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3||||0.5856|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||0.5856
91741432|NCT03458325|183375795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||1.000
91906982|NCT02634151|183709126|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.35|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||0.35|-2.03|0.1648
91741433|NCT03458325|183375796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|65.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||<0.0001
91741434|NCT03458325|183375797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|25.3|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was obtained from the paired t-test statistic.||Analysis for Summary Score||25.3|0.4|0.0443
91741435|NCT03458325|183375798|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Analysis for the mean change in NT-proBNP over 30 days|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-122.6||||0.5133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-525.8|280.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||280.5|-525.8|0.5133
91741436|NCT03458325|183375798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-719.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1406.5|-33.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for mean change in BNP over 30 days||-33.2|-1406.5|0.0420
91741437|NCT02440139|183375826|SUPERIORITY||difference in sensitivity|-0.124|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.034|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|-0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.062|-0.186|<0.05
91741438|NCT02440139|183375827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LROC curves|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|-0.071|||ANOVA|||For each study arm, the difference in the least-squares means of the two arms was estimated. A two-sided 95% confidence interval on this difference in study arms (i.e. unaided minus aided by the software) was used to test the hypothesis that the difference in the area under the LROC curve (AUC). The superiority of ClearRead CT will be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference is less than zero.||-0.071|-0.209|<0.05
91741439|NCT00412958|183375861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.36|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values are from Wald chi-square tests from a logistic regression model with study center and treatment as categorical fixed effects comparing active treatment groups with the placebo group as the reference group.||6.36|0.24|0.796
91799439|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.98|0.34|
91799440|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.92|
91799441|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|0.63|
91906983|NCT02634151|183709127|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|41.5||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|155.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||155.1|-72.1|0.4701
91741440|NCT00412958|183375861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.36|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values are from Wald chi-square test from a logistic regression model with study center and treatment as categorical fixed effects comparing active treatment groups with the placebo group as the reference group.||8.36|0.39|0.447
91741441|NCT00412958|183375861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.95|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values are from Wald chi-square test from a logistic regression model with study center and treatment as categorical fixed effects comparing active treatment groups with the placebo group as the reference group.||13.95|0.77|0.107
91741442|NCT03579693|183375934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||1.31|-0.43|0.33
91741443|NCT03579693|183375934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||0.82|-0.90|0.93
91741444|NCT03579693|183375935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||0.00|-3.47|0.050
91741445|NCT03579693|183375935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||1.05|-2.28|0.47
91741446|NCT04970069|183375936|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||Regression, Linear||The numerator and denominator for the ratio of geometric means are analgesic education and general preoperative education respectively.|Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) was used for imputing missing outcomes and covariates.||1.18|0.86|0.890
91741447|NCT04970069|183375937|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.3|0.617
91741448|NCT04970069|183375938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.3|0.611
91741449|NCT00503425|183375940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91741450|NCT00503425|183375940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91741451|NCT00503425|183375940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91741452|NCT00503425|183375940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91741453|NCT00003869|183375954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
91741454|NCT00003869|183375955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
91741455|NCT00003869|183375956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.50
91741456|NCT00003869|183375957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
91741457|NCT00003869|183375958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
91741458|NCT00763256|183375960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91741459|NCT00763256|183375961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91741460|NCT00763256|183375962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91741461|NCT00763256|183375963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91741462|NCT00763256|183375964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91741463|NCT02622295|183375971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91741464|NCT02622295|183375972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91741465|NCT02622295|183375973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91741466|NCT02622295|183375974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.467
91741467|NCT02622295|183375975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91741468|NCT02622295|183375976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.932
91741469|NCT02622295|183375977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.326
91741470|NCT02622295|183375978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.673
91741471|NCT02622295|183375979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.539
91741472|NCT02622295|183375980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.155
91741473|NCT02622295|183375981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.164
91741474|NCT02622295|183375982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.493
91741475|NCT02622295|183375983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.458
91799442|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|0.76|
91874525|NCT00896389|183642356|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
91741476|NCT02720523|183376011|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|51.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.0|14.3|<0.001
91741477|NCT02720523|183376011|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|40.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|58.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.1|23.5|<0.001
91741478|NCT02720523|183376011|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|54.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.9|19.4|<0.001
91741479|NCT02720523|183376011|OTHER|Cochran-Armitage test was conducted for demonstrating a dose response relationship.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage test|||||||<0.001
91741480|NCT02720523|183376012|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.693|-0.88|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor prior bDMARD use as covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.880|-1.693|<0.001
91741481|NCT02720523|183376012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.005|-1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor prior bDMARD use as covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.190|-2.005|<0.001
91741482|NCT02720523|183376012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.027|-1.216|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor prior bDMARD use as covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.216|-2.027|<0.001
91741483|NCT02720523|183376013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|-0.144|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as the fixed factor, and the baseline value and stratification factor prior bDMARD use as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.144|-0.465|<0.001
91741484|NCT02720523|183376013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|-0.184|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as the fixed factor, and the baseline value and stratification factor prior bDMARD use as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.184|-0.505|<0.001
91741485|NCT02720523|183376013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.229|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as the fixed factor, and the baseline value and stratification factor prior bDMARD use as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.229|-0.550|<0.001
91741486|NCT02720523|183376014|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.7|7.3|0.007
91741487|NCT02720523|183376014|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|65.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||65.9|32.1|<0.001
91741488|NCT02720523|183376014|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|41.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|58.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.8|24.5|<0.001
91874526|NCT00896389|183642357|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
91741489|NCT02720523|183376015|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|30.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.3|6.4|0.004
91741490|NCT02720523|183376015|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.6|18.7|<0.001
91741491|NCT02720523|183376015|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.0|12.9|<0.001
91741492|NCT02720523|183376016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.57|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.57|2.10|<0.001
91741493|NCT02720523|183376016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.75|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.75|1.25|0.002
91741494|NCT02720523|183376016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|8.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||8.22|3.64|<0.001
91741495|NCT02720523|183376017|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|52.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||52.4|17.0|<0.001
91741496|NCT02720523|183376017|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|67.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.9|34.2|<0.001
91741497|NCT02720523|183376017|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|70.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.1|37.1|<0.001
91741498|NCT02720523|183376018|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|45.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.7|15.5|<0.001
91741499|NCT02720523|183376018|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|66.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.4|35.6|<0.001
91741500|NCT02720523|183376018|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.5|59.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.3|28.5|<0.001
91741501|NCT02720523|183376019|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|37.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.5|7.4|0.006
91741502|NCT02720523|183376019|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.6|2.1|0.026
91741503|NCT02720523|183376019|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|25.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|41.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.0|10.6|0.002
91741504|NCT02720523|183376020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.2|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.20|0.12|0.040
91741505|NCT02720523|183376020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.79||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|4.35|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||4.35|-0.77|0.169
91741506|NCT02720523|183376020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.43|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||3.43|-1.73|0.516
91889191|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F||0.87|0.68|
91741507|NCT02720523|183376021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.54||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.39|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.39|-4.68|0.021
91741508|NCT02720523|183376021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.25|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||0.25|-4.36|0.080
91741509|NCT02720523|183376021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.56||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|0.94|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||0.94|-4.06|0.220
91741510|NCT02720523|183376022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.04|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.04|-2.57|<0.001
91741511|NCT02720523|183376022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.05|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.05|-2.59|<0.001
91741512|NCT02720523|183376022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.18|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.18|-2.73|<0.001
91741513|NCT00125788|183376055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.076
91741514|NCT00125788|183376056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.072
91741515|NCT00125788|183376057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.129
91741516|NCT03008070|183376079|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The primary endpoint was a binary outcome (Yes/No). Responders rates were compared between the placebo and lanifibranor 800 mg at the end of the treatment period (week 24) using a Cochran Mantel Haenzel test stratified on diabetic status at baseline (that was the stratified factors in the randomisation).~The CMH risk ratio is used to estimate the effect size. Patients with missing data are considered as non-responders."||2.12|0.98|=0.061
91799443|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||1.00|0.96|
91741517|NCT03008070|183376079|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.82|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The primary endpoint was a binary outcome (Yes/No). Responders rates were compared between the placebo and lanifibranor 1200 mg at the end of the treatment period (week 24) using a Cochran Mantel Haenzel test stratified on diabetic status at baseline (that was the stratified factors in the randomisation).~The CMH risk ratio is used to estimate the effect size. Patients with missing data are considered as non-responders."||2.4|1.24|=0.004
91741518|NCT04409834|183376114|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the FDAC arm divided by the total number of wins in the SDPAC arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the FDAC arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|1.95||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.55|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||FDAC = Full Dose Anticoagulation; SDPAC = Standard Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation||3.55|1.08|0.028
91741519|NCT04409834|183376115|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the FDAC arm divided by the total number of wins in the SDPAC arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the FDAC arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|1.79||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.47|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||FDAC = Full Dose Anticoagulation; SDPAC = Standard Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation||3.47|0.92|0.087
91741520|NCT04409834|183376116|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the Anti-platelet arm divided by the total number of wins in the No Anti-platelet arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the Anti-platelet arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.01|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||||2.01|0.54|0.90
91741521|NCT04409834|183376117|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the Anti-platelet arm divided by the total number of wins in the No Anti-platelet arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the Anti-platelet arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|0.79||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.65|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||||1.65|0.38|0.53
91741522|NCT02574078|183376148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.03|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.03|0.24|0.5050
91874527|NCT00896389|183642358|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
91906984|NCT02634151|183709128|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-32.4||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||0.2|-65.1|0.0517
91741523|NCT02574078|183376148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.54|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.54|0.22|0.6284
91741524|NCT02574078|183376148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.22|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.22|0.40|0.1988
91741525|NCT02574078|183376148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.28|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.28|0.42|0.2722
91741526|NCT02574078|183376148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.04|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.04|0.17|0.0544
91741527|NCT02574078|183376148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.16|||Unstratified log-rank|||||4.16|1.00|0.0442
91741528|NCT02574078|183376148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.5489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.45|||Log Rank|stratified by Disease Status (Recurrent Locally Advanced vs. Metastatic), Performance Status (ECOG 0 vs.1 vs. 2) as entered into the IVRS||||1.45|0.50|0.5489
91741529|NCT02574078|183376149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.91|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.91|0.35|0.9951
91741530|NCT02574078|183376149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.8321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.1|||Unstratified log-rank|||||3.10|0.25|0.8321
91741531|NCT02574078|183376149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.31|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.31|0.41|0.2938
91741532|NCT02574078|183376149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.45|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.45|0.46|0.4819
91741533|NCT02574078|183376149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.91|||Unstratified log-rank|||||0.91|0.11|0.0241
91741534|NCT02574078|183376149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.1401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.95|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.95|0.85|0.1401
91741535|NCT02574078|183376153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.31|||Log Rank|stratified by Disease Status (Recurrent Locally Advanced vs. Metastatic), Performance Status (ECOG 0 vs.1 vs. 2) as entered into the IVRS||||1.31|0.40|0.2862
91741536|NCT01530178|183376168|OTHER|Non-specified|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.91||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-11.2|||ANOVA|||||-11.2|-44.7|0.003
91741537|NCT01530178|183376168|OTHER|Non-specified|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.131||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|8.652|||ANOVA|||||8.652|-12.91|0.68
91741538|NCT01530178|183376168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.78||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.39|-13.17|||ANOVA|||||-13.17|-38.39|0.0005
91741539|NCT03980743|183376196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (week 0 and week 24)||||0.97
91741540|NCT03980743|183376197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (week 0 and week 24) for Healthy Eating||||0.273
91741541|NCT03980743|183376198|SUPERIORITY|Time x treatment (week 0 and week 24) with sum score||||||0.691|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.691
91741542|NCT02709512|183376199|SUPERIORITY|Relative Risk Ratio (ADIPemPlatinum/PlaceboPemPlatinum) is the common relative risk of having a response (CR or PR) based on the Mantel-Haenszel estimator controlling for tumor histology. A relative risk ratio greater than one is favorable to ADIPemPlatinum.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.11|0.50|0.9489
91741543|NCT02709512|183376200|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.47|0.0078
91799444|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.61|
91799445|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.79|
91799446|NCT04823650|183476504|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.96|
91799447|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.95|
91799448|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.09|
91874528|NCT00896389|183642359|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
91741544|NCT02709512|183376201|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.55|0.0234
91874529|NCT03184519|183642367|SUPERIORITY||Area Under Curve|0.79||||0.025|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
91741545|NCT02709512|183376202|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.46|0.0193
91741546|NCT01834287|183376206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|52.4|||Regression, Linear|||||52.4|9.6|.001
91874530|NCT02823574|183642373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|95.5|0.33|1.43|||Mantel Haenszel|||Treatment A over Treatment B||1.43|0.33|0.2897
91874531|NCT02823574|183642378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.41|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PD-L1 and HPV status|||1.41|0.78|
91741547|NCT00276406|183376213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis was adjusted for BMI and baseline values and incorporated Bonferroni corrections.||||<0.01
91741548|NCT00276406|183376217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis was adjusted for BMI and baseline values and incorporated Bonferroni corrections.||||0.096
91741549|NCT00276406|183376218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91741550|NCT00276406|183376219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Bowel diaries were analyzed by computing the mean scores for the 9-day baseline period and separately for the last 7 days of the treatment period (i.e., when the pyridostigmine dose was stable in each subject.) Individual subject treatment period mean bowel function scores were then compared using a similar ANCOVA model, with the corresponding individual subject baseline mean bowel function score and gender as covariates.||||0.005
91741551|NCT00276406|183376220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Bowel diaries were analyzed by computing the mean scores for the 9-day baseline period and separately for the last 7 days of the treatment period (i.e., when the pyridostigmine dose was stable in each subject.) Individual subject treatment period mean bowel function scores were then compared using a similar ANCOVA model, with the corresponding individual subject baseline mean bowel function score and gender as covariates.||||<0.04
91799449|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.96|
91799450|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.95|
91799451|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||1.00|0.90|
91874532|NCT02823574|183642379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.41|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.41|0.78|
91874533|NCT02823574|183642380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.36|0.87|
91874534|NCT02823574|183642381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.45|0.81|
91874535|NCT02823574|183642382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.61|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.61|0.81|
91874536|NCT02823574|183642407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.29|||Mantel Haenszel|||Treatment A over Treatment B||1.29|0.32|
91874537|NCT01580306|183642412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|113.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|93.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.58|310.17|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison mild : normal||310.17|41.58|
91874538|NCT01580306|183642412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|178.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.23|373.03|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison moderate : normal||373.03|85.23|
91741552|NCT02297815|183376230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Score difference|-1.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-0.36|||Weighted linear regression|Propensity-score based full matching performed. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted linear regression.|Narrow antibiotics is the reference group. A score difference less than zero indicates that broad spectrum antibiotics are associated with a lower (poorer) health related quality of life score.|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted linear regression.||-0.36|-2.44|0.008
91906985|NCT02634151|183709129|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-9.5||||0.9111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.8|158.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||158.8|-177.8|0.9111
91741553|NCT02297815|183376231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.9|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||7.9|-3.1|0.39
91741554|NCT02297815|183376232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.8|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||6.8|-3.9|0.59
91741555|NCT02297815|183376233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|17.2|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||17.2|7.3|<0.001
91741556|NCT02297815|183376234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.6|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||10.6|-0.8|0.09
91741557|NCT02297815|183376235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.6|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||9.6|-0.3|0.07
91741558|NCT01734785|183376255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.93|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 25 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 25 mg vs. placebo: change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline Estimated glomerula filtration rate (eGFR), geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-0.46|-0.93|<0.0001
91741559|NCT01734785|183376255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 10 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 10 mg vs. placebo: change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline Estimated glomerula filtration rate (eGFR), geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-0.55|-1.02|<0.0001
91874539|NCT01580306|183642412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|169.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|97.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.19|391.17|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison severe : normal||391.17|73.19|
91874540|NCT01580306|183642413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|107.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|107.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.16|327.01|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison mild : normal||327.01|35.16|
91741560|NCT01734785|183376256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.61|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 25 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 25 mg vs. placebo: change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-1.57|-2.61|<0.0001
91741561|NCT01734785|183376256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.31|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 10 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 10 mg vs. placebo: change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-1.28|-2.31|<0.0001
91741562|NCT01734785|183376257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.92|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 25 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 25 mg vs. placebo: change in body weight using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-1.52|-2.92|<0.0001
91741563|NCT01734785|183376257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.47|-2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 10 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 10 mg vs. placebo:change in body weight using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-2.07|-3.47|<0.0001
91741564|NCT02397915|183376258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for country and symptomatology. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91741565|NCT02397915|183376259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute scent/odor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.065
91741566|NCT02397915|183376259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute immediate taste.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
91741567|NCT02397915|183376259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute after taste.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.138
91741568|NCT02397915|183376259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute LDTT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91741569|NCT02397915|183376259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute LRON.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.017
91741570|NCT02397915|183376259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute more soothing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.046
91741571|NCT02397915|183376259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute less irritating.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91741572|NCT02397915|183376259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute UTS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
91741573|NCT02397915|183376260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91741574|NCT02397915|183376261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
91741575|NCT02397915|183376262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
91741576|NCT02397915|183376263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.179||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.179
91741577|NCT02397915|183376264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
91741578|NCT02397915|183376265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91741579|NCT02397915|183376266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91741580|NCT02397915|183376267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91741581|NCT02397915|183376268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.188||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.188
91741582|NCT02397915|183376269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
91741583|NCT02397915|183376270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
91741584|NCT02397915|183376271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
91741585|NCT02397915|183376272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.004||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.004
91741586|NCT02397915|183376273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.223||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.223
91741587|NCT02397915|183376274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91799452|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||1.00|0.28|
91741588|NCT02397915|183376275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.008||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.008
91741589|NCT02397915|183376276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.831||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.831
91741590|NCT02397915|183376277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91741591|NCT02397915|183376278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.007||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
91741592|NCT02397915|183376279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.568||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.568
91741593|NCT02397915|183376280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
91741594|NCT00368745|183376281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2838||95.0||||significance determined using 2-tailed significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with country as a covariate||Primary objective: evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin in maintaining the benzodiazepine free state in subjects with prior stable alprazolam use.||||0.2838
91741595|NCT00368745|183376282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0709||95.0|-3.1|0.13||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||0.13|-3.10|0.0709
91874541|NCT01580306|183642413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|175.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.55|344.06|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison moderate : normal||344.06|89.55|
91874542|NCT01580306|183642413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|120.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|115.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.257|309.736|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison severe : normal||309.736|47.257|
91874543|NCT00901459|183642416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.43||A Holm correction to p values was made to control for type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|df=14|The parameter estimated is the difference in craving change between smoking cues and neutral cues in the 10Hz sfg condition (Frequency control)and the corresponding craving change in the 1Hz sfg condition (active).|A pairwise t-test was performed to contrast the active rTMS condition with the frequency control condition.||2.43|0.51|0.014
91874544|NCT00901459|183642416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.22|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|The parameter estimated is the difference in craving change between smoking cues and neutral cues in the 1Hz sfg condition (active)and the corresponding craving change in the 1Hz moc condition (location control).|A pairwise t-test was performed to contrast the active rTMS condition with the location control condition.||1.22|-0.64|0.49
91741596|NCT00368745|183376282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0006||95.0|-6.04|-1.74||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 2||-1.74|-6.04|0.0006
91741597|NCT00368745|183376282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0718||95.0|-4.98|0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 3||0.22|-4.98|0.0718
91741598|NCT00368745|183376282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.092||95.0|-7.37|0.6||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 4||0.60|-7.37|0.0920
91741599|NCT00368745|183376282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.1371||95.0|-12.67|2.23||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT week 5||2.23|-12.67|0.1371
91741600|NCT00368745|183376282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0882||95.0|-7.96|0.61||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 6||0.61|-7.96|0.0882
91741601|NCT00368745|183376282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0135||95.0|-5.05|-0.61||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-0.61|-5.05|0.0135
91741602|NCT00368745|183376282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.3924||95.0|-3.38|1.35||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 2||1.35|-3.38|0.3924
91741603|NCT00368745|183376282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.3868||95.0|-3.29|1.3||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 3||1.30|-3.29|0.3868
91741604|NCT00368745|183376282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.9966||95.0|-2.31|2.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 4||2.32|-2.31|0.9966
91741605|NCT00368745|183376282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.6873||95.0|-3.07|2.05||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 5||2.05|-3.07|0.6873
91741606|NCT00368745|183376282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5337||95.0|-3.62|1.91||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 6||1.91|-3.62|0.5337
91741607|NCT00368745|183376282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0008||95.0|-7.51|-2.07||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-2.07|-7.51|0.0008
91741608|NCT00368745|183376285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.122||95.0|-4.97|0.6||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||0.60|-4.97|0.1220
91741609|NCT00368745|183376285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0053||95.0|-6.15|-1.11||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 2||-1.11|-6.15|0.0053
91741610|NCT00368745|183376285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.1048||95.0|-6.32|0.62||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 3||0.62|-6.32|0.1048
91741611|NCT00368745|183376285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0357||95.0|-6.57|-0.25||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 4||-0.25|-6.57|0.0357
91906986|NCT02634151|183709130|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||3.9|-10.0|0.3864
91741612|NCT00368745|183376285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.4263||95.0|-8.82|4.26||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 5||4.26|-8.82|0.4263
91741613|NCT00368745|183376285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0104||95.0|-9.96|-1.51||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 6||-1.51|-9.96|0.0104
91741614|NCT00368745|183376285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0069||95.0|-6.73|-1.12||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-1.12|-6.73|0.0069
91741615|NCT00368745|183376285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.2185||95.0|-4.47|1.05||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 2||1.05|-4.47|0.2185
91741616|NCT00368745|183376285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.7832||95.0|-2.41|1.83||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 3||1.83|-2.41|0.7832
91741617|NCT00368745|183376285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.7062||95.0|-1.9|2.79||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 4||2.79|-1.90|0.7062
91741618|NCT00368745|183376285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.7161||95.0|-2.49|1.73||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 5||1.73|-2.49|0.7161
91741619|NCT00368745|183376285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.0376||95.0|-6.03|-0.19||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 6||-0.19|-6.03|0.0376
91741620|NCT00368745|183376285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.0122||95.0|-6.74|-0.85||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.85|-6.74|0.0122
91741621|NCT00368745|183376287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0052||95.0|-0.76|-0.14||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||-0.14|-0.76|0.0052
91741622|NCT00368745|183376287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0001||95.0|-1.11|-0.38||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 2||-0.38|-1.11|0.0001
91741623|NCT00368745|183376287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0528||95.0|-1.0|0.01||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 3||0.01|-1.00|0.0528
91874545|NCT00901459|183642416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.39||A Holm correction to p values was made to control for type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|df=13|The parameter estimated is the difference in craving change between smoking cues and neutral cues in the 10Hz sfg condition (frequency control)and the corresponding craving change in the 1Hz moc condition (location control).|A pairwise t-test was performed to contrast the location control rTMS condition with the frequency control condition.||1.39|0.52|0.09
91741624|NCT00368745|183376287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3085||95.0|-1.11|0.37||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 4||0.37|-1.11|0.3085
91741625|NCT00368745|183376287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.1807||95.0|-1.92|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 5||0.47|-1.92|0.1807
91741626|NCT00368745|183376287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1074||95.0|-1.58|0.17||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 6||0.17|-1.58|0.1074
91741627|NCT00368745|183376287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0013||95.0|-1.1|-0.28||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-0.28|-1.10|0.0013
91874546|NCT04791917|183642433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 1.32, partial eta squared = .03||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on breakpoint for alcohol including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.26
91874547|NCT04791917|183642434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,43) = 2.60, partial eta squared = .06||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Omax for alcohol including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.11
91741628|NCT00368745|183376287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0503||95.0|-0.99|0.0||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 2||0.00|-0.99|0.0503
91741629|NCT00368745|183376287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0364||95.0|-1.09|-0.04||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 3||-0.04|-1.09|0.0364
91874548|NCT04791917|183642435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,42) = 1.95, partial eta squared = .04||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on alcohol Pmax including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.17
91874549|NCT04791917|183642436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,43)=.01, partial eta squared = .00||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on alcohol essential value including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.91
91874550|NCT04791917|183642437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 2.24, partial eta squared = .05||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on intensity of cannabis demand including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.14
91874551|NCT04791917|183642438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = .04, partial eta squared = .001||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on breakpoint of cannabis demand including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.83
91741630|NCT00368745|183376287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.914||95.0|-0.51|0.46||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 4||0.46|-0.51|0.9140
91741631|NCT00368745|183376287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7789||95.0|-0.62|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 5||0.47|-0.62|0.7789
91741632|NCT00368745|183376287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3189||95.0|-0.95|0.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 6||0.32|-0.95|0.3189
91741633|NCT00368745|183376287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0031||95.0|-1.26|-0.27||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.27|-1.26|0.0031
91741634|NCT00368745|183376288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.126||95.0|-0.86|0.11||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||0.11|-0.86|0.1260
91741635|NCT00368745|183376288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0074||95.0|-1.4|-0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 2||-0.22|-1.40|0.0074
91741636|NCT00368745|183376288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.125||95.0|-1.35|0.17||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 3||0.17|-1.35|0.1250
91741637|NCT00368745|183376288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8991||95.0|-1.17|1.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 4||1.32|-1.17|0.8991
91741638|NCT00368745|183376288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1747||95.0|-2.07|0.46||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 5||0.46|-2.07|0.1747
91741639|NCT00368745|183376288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0744||95.0|-1.79|0.09||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 6||0.09|-1.79|0.0744
91741640|NCT00368745|183376288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0063||95.0|-1.67|-0.29||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-0.29|-1.67|0.0063
91741641|NCT00368745|183376288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.014||95.0|-1.56|-0.18||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 2||-0.18|-1.56|0.0140
91741642|NCT00368745|183376288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0267||95.0|-1.46|-0.09||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 3||-0.09|-1.46|0.0267
91741643|NCT00368745|183376288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5104||95.0|-1.03|0.52||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 4||0.52|-1.03|0.5104
91741644|NCT00368745|183376288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.2702||95.0|-1.35|0.39||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 5||0.39|-1.35|0.2702
91741645|NCT00368745|183376288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1241||95.0|-1.52|0.19||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 6||0.19|-1.52|0.1241
91874552|NCT04791917|183642439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 2.20, partial eta squared = .05||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Omax for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.15
91874553|NCT04791917|183642440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 1.41, partial eta squared = .03||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Omax for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.24
91741646|NCT00368745|183376288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0109||95.0|-1.67|-0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.22|-1.67|0.0109
91741647|NCT00368745|183376289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0226||95.0|-1.22|-0.09||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||-0.09|-1.22|0.0226
91741648|NCT00368745|183376289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0099||95.0|-1.58|-0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 2||-0.22|-1.58|0.0099
91741649|NCT00368745|183376289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2827||95.0|-1.07|0.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 3||0.32|-1.07|0.2827
91741650|NCT00368745|183376289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8232||95.0|-1.07|1.34||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 4||1.34|-1.07|0.8232
91741651|NCT00368745|183376289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2409||95.0|-2.41|0.72||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 5||0.72|-2.41|0.2409
91741652|NCT00368745|183376289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.476||95.0|-1.73|0.84||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 6||0.84|-1.73|0.4760
91741653|NCT00368745|183376289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1252||95.0|-1.14|0.14||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||0.14|-1.14|0.1252
91741654|NCT00368745|183376289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0717||95.0|-1.26|0.06||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 2||0.06|-1.26|0.0717
91741655|NCT00368745|183376289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0707||95.0|-1.33|0.06||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 3||0.06|-1.33|0.0707
91741656|NCT00368745|183376289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.4341||95.0|-1.08|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 4||0.47|-1.08|0.4341
91741657|NCT00368745|183376289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.37||95.0|-1.23|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 5||0.47|-1.23|0.3700
91741658|NCT00368745|183376289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0328||95.0|-1.83|-0.08||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 6||-0.08|-1.83|0.0328
91741659|NCT00368745|183376289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0096||95.0|-1.8|-0.26||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.26|-1.80|0.0096
91741660|NCT00368745|183376290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.8897||95.0|-5.74|4.99||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as the covariate||||4.99|-5.74|0.8897
91741661|NCT00368745|183376291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0626||95.0||||p-value is from the log-rank statistic from the tests for equality over treatment as strata and country used as covariate|Log Rank|||||||0.0626
91741662|NCT00368745|183376292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0148||95.0||||p-value is from the log-rank statistic from the tests for equality over treatment as strata and country used as covariate|Log Rank|||||||0.0148
91741663|NCT00368745|183376293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1159||95.0||||p-value is obtained using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel option|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1159
91741664|NCT02476032|183376294|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||P-values for pairwise group comparisons were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Tukey method.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons: t-tests comparing the mean change to 0 were utilized. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. SAS V9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for analysis. The sample size of 20 participants per group was based on having 90% power to detect a one standard deviation difference between the DO-strip groups and the placebo group means using ANOVA with a 0.05 level of significance.||||0.05
91741665|NCT02476032|183376295|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||P-values for pairwise group comparisons were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Tukey method.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons: t-tests comparing the mean change to 0 were utilized. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. SAS V9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for analysis. The sample size of 20 participants per group was based on having 90% power to detect a one standard deviation difference between the DO-strip groups and the placebo group means using ANOVA with a 0.05 level of significance.||||0.05
91741666|NCT00293813|183376296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||||95.0|2.6|5.7|||ANCOVA|||||5.7|2.6|
91741667|NCT00293813|183376296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||||95.0|-0.6|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-.6|
91741668|NCT02553928|183376369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.69||Based on full analysis set|ANCOVA||The comparison is to BID memantine.|The ADCS-CGIC was analyzed based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of ADCS-CGIC score at Week 12, with treatment and site as fixed factors, and baseline score as a covariate using observed cases.||0.69|-0.06|0.097
91741669|NCT05507567|183376370|OTHER|||||||0.0331|||||||Chi-squared|||A priori primary analysis group||||0.0331
91741670|NCT05507567|183376371|OTHER|||||||0.1427||||||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.1427
91741671|NCT05507567|183376372|OTHER|||||||0.1307||||||H-L estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.1307
91741672|NCT05507567|183376373|OTHER|||||||0.0382||||||H-L estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.0382
91741673|NCT05507567|183376374|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||H-L estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.0110
91741674|NCT04830215|183376379|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||MMRM included fixed effect terms for visit, baseline value, an interaction term of baseline value by visit, and trial center.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
91741675|NCT04830215|183376380|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||MMRM included fixed effect terms for visit, baseline value, an interaction term of baseline value by visit, and trial center.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
91741676|NCT00770562|183376385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91741677|NCT00770562|183376386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91741678|NCT00770562|183376387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
91741679|NCT01194219|183376388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|32.5|||Chi-squared|||||32.5|23.1|<0.0001
91741680|NCT01194219|183376389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|21.9|||Chi-squared|||||21.9|13.7|<0.0001
91741681|NCT01194219|183376390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-40.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.34|-35.21|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-35.21|-46.34|<0.0001
91741682|NCT01194219|183376391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-30.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-30.6|-39.9|<0.0001
91741683|NCT01194219|183376392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|47.7|||Chi-squared|||||47.7|35.7|<0.0001
91741684|NCT01194219|183376393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-19.8|||ANOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor (an ANOVA model).||||-19.8|-28.7|<0.0001
91741685|NCT01194219|183376394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-3.6|||ANOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor, the baseline value, and the treatment by baseline interaction term as covariates.|||-3.6|-5.4|<0.0001
91741686|NCT01194219|183376395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.35|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||4.35|1.81|<0.0001
91741687|NCT01194219|183376396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|20.7|||Chi-squared|||||20.7|12.8|<0.0001
91741688|NCT01194219|183376397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.649|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.768|3.969|||Log Rank|||||3.969|1.768|<0.0001
91741689|NCT01081951|183376412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.77||The use of a one-sided 10% significance level test will be used to assess the statistical significance of the analyses of PFS.|Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior platinum treatment lines (1 or \>1) and time to progression following previous platinum therapy (\>6 to ≤12 vs \>12 months)|A hazard ratio of \< 1 favours olaparib.|The null hypothesis for all efficacy analyses in this study is that there is no difference in treatment effects between olaparib in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel compared with carboplatin/paclitaxel alone.||0.77|0.34|0.0012
91741690|NCT01081951|183376413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.73||Two sided|Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior platinum treatment lines (1 or \>1) and time to progression following previous platinum therapy (\>6 to ≤12 vs \>12 months)|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours favours olaparib.|The null hypothesis for all efficacy analyses in this study is that there is no difference in treatment effects between olaparib in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel compared with carboplatin/paclitaxel alone.||1.73|0.79|0.4379
91741691|NCT05226598|183376423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.5||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|||1.50|0.87|0.8335
91741692|NCT05226598|183376424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|||1.23|0.82|0.5104
91741693|NCT04503551|183376442|SUPERIORITY||CMH Weighted Percentage Difference|71.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|61.0|81.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was done by baseline ETDRS-DRSS level (47 vs.53) \& baseline intraretinal/subretinal fluid status on SD-OCT (present vs. absent).||||81.2|61.0|<0.0001
91741694|NCT04503551|183376443|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.3|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the Hazard ratio (HR).|0.3|0.1|< 0.0001
91741695|NCT04503551|183376444|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.1|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.1|0.1|< 0.0001
91874554|NCT04791917|183642441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = .001, partial eta squared = .00||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Essential Value for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.97
91741696|NCT04503551|183376445|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.3|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.3|0.1|<0.0001
91741697|NCT04503551|183376446|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.2|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.2|0.1|<0.0001
91741698|NCT04503551|183376447|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|15.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.04|8.3|21.9|||Fisher Exact|||||21.9|8.3|0.0003
91741699|NCT04503551|183376448|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.2|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.2|0.1|<0.0001
91741700|NCT01152788|183376501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.01|||Log Rank|||||2.01|0.6|0.76
91741701|NCT01152788|183376502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|16.8||||||||16.8|-18.7|
91741702|NCT01152788|183376503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.38|0.55
91741703|NCT01152788|183376504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91741704|NCT00778336|183376505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
91741705|NCT00778336|183376505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
91741706|NCT00778336|183376505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
91741707|NCT00778336|183376505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
91741708|NCT04585269|183376508|SUPERIORITY|Testing for a difference between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.53|-4.93|<0.001
91741709|NCT04585269|183376509|SUPERIORITY|Testing for a difference between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|-0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.81|-4.05|0.003
91741710|NCT04585269|183376510|SUPERIORITY|Testing for a difference between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.45|0.34|0.029
91741711|NCT01166347|183376566|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 15%.|Difference in Percentages|3.7||||0.011|ONE_SIDED|95.0||12.56|||Wald test||Difference = Control - HeartWare|Primary endpoint is 2 year survival free from disabling stroke (Modified Rankin Scale \>=4), death, exchange, explant due to device malfunction or urgent transplantation. Subjects who are electively transplanted or explanted due to recovery (no disabling stroke) must survive to 2 years post original implant to be considered a success.||12.56||0.0110
91874555|NCT04791917|183642441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 4.86, partial eta squared = .11||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Essential Value for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Time X Group interaction.||||.03
91741712|NCT01166347|183376567|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.1||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.8||If p\<0.05, then the test is statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as the only independent variable.|Difference = HeartWare - Control|If non-inferiority is established for the primary endpoint, statistical testing for superiority and p-value estimation for the 3 secondary endpoints (incidence of bleeding, incidence of major infection, overall survival) will be performed in a pre-specified sequence and testing will continue at the nominal alpha level until the first non-significant result. This fixed sequence procedure strongly controls the family-wise error rate for the collection of the 3 secondary endpoints.||10.8|-8.5|0.5922
91741713|NCT03541499|183376597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Barnard's exact test|||At any time point||||0.807
91741714|NCT03541499|183376597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Barnard's exact test|||At any time point||||0.043
91741715|NCT03541499|183376598|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||1.000
91741716|NCT03541499|183376598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.301
91741717|NCT03541499|183376599|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||1.000
91741718|NCT03541499|183376599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.009
91741719|NCT03541499|183376601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.526
91741720|NCT03541499|183376601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.100
91741721|NCT03541499|183376601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.055
91741722|NCT03541499|183376601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.023
91741723|NCT03541499|183376602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.174
91741724|NCT03541499|183376602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.006
91741725|NCT03541499|183376602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.745
91741726|NCT03541499|183376602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.023
91741727|NCT03541499|183376608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.023
91741728|NCT03541499|183376608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.142
91741729|NCT03541499|183376608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.526
91874556|NCT04791917|183642442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,42) = 4.66, partial eta squared = .10||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.04
91874557|NCT04791917|183642442|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for men in the DOMS group.||||.26
91874558|NCT04791917|183642442|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for women in the DOMS group.||||.22
91874559|NCT04791917|183642442|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for men in the sham DOMS group.||||.27
91874560|NCT04791917|183642442|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for women in the sham DOMS group.||||.49
91874561|NCT00850993|183642445|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for each Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo.|LS Mean Difference|-13.45|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Least-squares means are from an ANCOVA model for adjusted TSB with treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline adjusted TSB as a covariate. TSB is calculated as \[(TSB - Phototherapy(PT) threshold)/ PT threshold \] X 100%.||-0.62|-26.27|=0.040
91874562|NCT00850993|183642445|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.02|||=|0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.61|2.58|||ANCOVA|||||2.58|-22.61|=0.117
91741730|NCT03541499|183376608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.142
91741731|NCT03541499|183376609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.836
91741732|NCT03541499|183376609|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||1.000
91874563|NCT00850993|183642445|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.93|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.31|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-30.31|=0.057
91741733|NCT03541499|183376609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.526
91741734|NCT03541499|183376609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.119
91874564|NCT00850993|183642446|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for Change from Baseline at 48 hours (Row 3) for Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo|LS Mean Difference|-1.81|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is conducted for TSB including treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline TSB as a covariate. Least-squares means (LS means) and standard errors (SEM) are estimated for each treatment group and placebo. LS mean difference, 95% Confidence Interval, and p-value are estimated based on LS mean difference between each stannsoporfin group and placebo.||0.09|-3.71|=0.061
91741735|NCT03541499|183376610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.271
91741736|NCT03541499|183376610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.226
91741737|NCT03541499|183376611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.783|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.783
91741738|NCT03541499|183376611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.001
91741739|NCT03541499|183376612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.745
91741740|NCT03541499|183376612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.068
91741741|NCT03541499|183376613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.585
91741742|NCT03541499|183376613|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||1.000
91741743|NCT03533660|183376619|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SOCRATES subscales recognition, ambivalence, taking steps at 6 weeks|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91741744|NCT03533660|183376619|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Applies to SOCRATES total scores and subscales (recognition, ambivalence, and taking steps) at intake and 3 months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91874565|NCT00850993|183642446|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for Change from Baseline at 48 hours (Row 3) for Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo|LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is conducted for TSB including treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline TSB as a covariate. Least-squares means (LS means) and standard errors (SEM) are estimated for each treatment group and placebo. LS mean difference, 95% Confidence Interval, and p-value are estimated based on LS mean difference between each stannsoporfin group and placebo.||0.56|-3.24|=0.163
91889192|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F||0.69|0.52|
91889193|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.66|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 8||1.66|1.32|
91799453|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.96|
91799454|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.97|
91874566|NCT00850993|183642446|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for Change from Baseline at 48 hours (Row 3) for Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo|LS Mean Difference|-2.63|||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is conducted for TSB including treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline TSB as a covariate. Least-squares means (LS means) and standard errors (SEM) are estimated for each treatment group and placebo. LS mean difference, 95% Confidence Interval, and p-value are estimated based on LS mean difference between each stannsoporfin group and placebo.||-0.3|-4.97|=0.028
91741745|NCT03533660|183376620|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Applies to alcohol self-efficacy scale total score and subscales scores at intake, 6 weeks and 3 months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91741746|NCT04446312|183376635|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|4.27|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.27|-3.97|<0.001
91741747|NCT01682356|183376676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0153|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||0.0153
91741748|NCT01682356|183376677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||0.0131
91741749|NCT01682356|183376678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.83
91741750|NCT01682356|183376679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 6.06 x 10\^-18.|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
91741751|NCT01682356|183376680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 1.87 x 10\^-20.|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
91741752|NCT01682356|183376681|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 8.23 x 10\^-21.|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
91741753|NCT01682356|183376682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6847||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6847
91741754|NCT01682356|183376683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6847||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6847
91741755|NCT01682356|183376684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.4078
91741756|NCT01682356|183376685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.4078
91799455|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.94|
91799456|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.39|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.39|-0.44|
91874567|NCT03032965|183642452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan Meier log rank||||||.83
91874568|NCT03032965|183642453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.35
91741757|NCT01682356|183376686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3042||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.3042
91741758|NCT01682356|183376687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 3.469 x 10\^-7.|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
91741759|NCT01682356|183376688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 7.202 x 10\^-8|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
91741760|NCT01682356|183376689|SUPERIORITY|||||||2.13e-06||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 2.129 x 10\^-6.|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.00000213
91741761|NCT01682356|183376690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3918||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.3918
91741762|NCT01682356|183376691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0598||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.05980
91741763|NCT01682356|183376692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3918||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.3918
91799457|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.53|
91874569|NCT03032965|183642455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91741764|NCT01682356|183376693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.09870
91741765|NCT01682356|183376694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6044||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6044
91741766|NCT01682356|183376695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6044||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6044
91741767|NCT01682356|183376696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8819||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.8819
91741768|NCT01682356|183376697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8987||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.8987
91741769|NCT03419897|183376758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||Tislelizumab compared with historical ORR rate of 7%||||0.0001
91741770|NCT05112679|183376775|OTHER|See SAP|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All participants were randomized to both groups in a cross over design, if a participant started with proprio after 4 weeks of use they will cross over to Empower ankle or vice versa. the data reflect comparison of the groups.||||0.009
91741771|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
91741772|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Desire to void: L superior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
91741773|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
91741774|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
91741775|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
91741776|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior parietal lobule||||<0.05
91741777|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R inferior parietal lobule||||<0.05
91741778|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R paracentral lobule||||<0.05
91741779|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R superior parietal lobule||||<0.05
91741780|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R supplementary motor area||||<0.05
91741781|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
91741782|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
91741783|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L angular gyrus||||<0.05
91741784|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R supramarginal gyrus||||<0.05
91741785|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L superior medial gyrus||||<0.05
91741786|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior occipital gyrus||||<0.05
91741787|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
91741788|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
91741789|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R posterior cingulate cortex||||<0.05
91741790|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L thalamus||||<0.05
91741791|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R thalamus||||<0.05
91741792|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L precuneus||||<0.05
91741793|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R precuneus||||<0.05
91741794|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L caudate nucleus||||<0.05
91741795|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire void: L hippocampus||||<0.05
91741796|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L hippocampus||||<0.05
91741797|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L putamen||||<0.05
91741798|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L precentral gyrus||||<0.05
91741799|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R precentral gyrus||||<0.05
91741800|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L insula lobe||||<0.05
91741801|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L superior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
91741802|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L middle frontal gyrus||||<0.05
91741803|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R cerebellum||||<0.05
91741804|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R fusiform gyrus||||<0.05
91741805|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
91741806|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
91741807|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L precentral gyrus||||<0.05
91741808|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R precentral gyrus||||<0.05
91741809|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
91741810|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
91741811|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
91741812|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
91741813|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
91741814|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L supramarginal gyrus||||<0.05
91799458|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|-0.06|
91799459|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.725|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.30|
91799460|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.44|
91874570|NCT00636168|183642461|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.9|||Log Rank|stratified 2-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio, and its 95 % confidence interval was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by stage (IIIa vs. IIIb vs. IIIc with 1-3 positive lymph-nodes vs. IIIc with \>= 4 positive lymph-nodes) as indicated at randomization, with treatment as the single covariate.. The analysis was performed after 528 RFS events per IRC were reported. Two-sided, 95% confidence intervals for median RFS were computed by the Brookmeyer and Crowley method using log-log transformation.||0.90|0.64|0.0013
91741815|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R supramarginal gyrus||||<0.05
91741816|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding Initiation: L inferior occipital gyrus||||<0.05
91741817|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior occipital gyrus||||<0.05
91741818|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding Initiation: R middle occipital gyrus||||<0.05
91741819|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior frontal gyrus (p. Orbitalis)||||<0.05
91741820|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior frontal gyrus (p. Triangularis)||||<0.05
91741821|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior frontal gyrus (p. Opercularis)||||<0.05
91741822|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R inferior frontal gyrus (p. Orbitalis)||||<0.05
91741823|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R inferior frontal gyrus (p. Triangularis)||||<0.05
91799461|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|-0.12|
91799462|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.152|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.52|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.52|-0.11|
91874571|NCT00636168|183642464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.64|0.92|||Log Rank|stratified 2-sided log-rank test||Medians and associated 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are calculated using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Analysis was stratified for stage (IIIa vs. IIIb vs. IIIc with 1-3 positive lymph-nodes vs. IIIc with \>= 4 positive lymph-nodes) as recorded at randomization. P-value was based on stratified 2-sided log-rank test. Hazard of 10 mg/kg Ipilimumab over hazard of Placebo, with 2-sided 95.8% confidence interval are based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model||0.92|0.64|0.0024
91741824|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L cerebellum||||<0.05
91741825|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L rectal gyrus||||<0.05
91741826|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R rectal gyrus||||<0.05
91741827|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior medial gyrus||||<0.05
91741828|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior medial gyrus||||<0.05
91741829|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
91741830|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
91741831|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle frontal gyrus||||<0.05
91741832|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle frontal gyrus||||<0.05
91741833|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L supplementary motor area (SMA)||||<0.05
91741834|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R SMA||||<0.05
91741835|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L paracentral lobule||||<0.05
91741836|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R paracentral lobule||||<0.05
91741837|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior parietal lobule||||<0.05
91741838|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R inferior parietal lobule||||<0.05
91741839|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior orbital gyrus||||<0.05
91741840|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle orbital gyrus||||<0.05
91799463|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.84|
91799464|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.965|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|-0.04|
91799465|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.709|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.90|0.26|
91799466|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.80|-0.07|
91799467|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.655|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.88|0.15|
91799468|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|0.18|
91799469|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.494|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.81|-0.05|
91874572|NCT00636168|183642467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.58|0.88|||Log Rank|stratified 2-sided log-rank test||Medians and associated 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are calculated using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Analysis was stratified for stage (IIIa vs. IIIb vs. IIIc with 1-3 positive lymph-nodes vs. IIIc with \>= 4 positive lymph-nodes) as recorded at randomization. P-value was based on stratified 2-sided log-rank test. Hazard of 10 mg/kg Ipilimumab over hazard of Placebo, with 2-sided 95.1% confidence interval are based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model||0.88|0.58|0.0013
91741841|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle orbital gyrus||||<0.05
91741842|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R calcarine gyrus||||<0.05
91799470|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.648|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.88|0.16|
91799471|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|0.57|
91799472|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.89|0.30|
91799473|NCT04823650|183476505|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|0.53|
91799474|NCT04823650|183476506|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.40|-0.20|
91799475|NCT04823650|183476506|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.5|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.50|-0.22|
91741843|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L calcarine gyrus||||<0.05
91799476|NCT04823650|183476506|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.64|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.64|-0.05|
91799477|NCT04823650|183476506|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.39|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.39|-0.18|
91799478|NCT04823650|183476506|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.30|-0.07|
91799479|NCT04823650|183476506|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.57|-0.04|
91799480|NCT04823650|183476507|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.123|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.51|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.51|-0.16|
91741844|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L anterior cingulate cortex||||<0.05
91741845|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
91741846|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
91741847|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R angular gyrus||||<0.05
91741848|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L thalamus||||<0.05
91799481|NCT04823650|183476507|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.473|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.86|-0.04|
91799482|NCT04823650|183476507|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.03|
91799483|NCT04823650|183476507|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.73|-0.15|
91799484|NCT04823650|183476507|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.04|
91799485|NCT04823650|183476507|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.279|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.73|-0.03|
91874573|NCT01842360|183642504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91741849|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R thalamus||||<0.05
91741850|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L precuneus||||<0.05
91741851|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R precuneus||||<0.05
91741852|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R caudate nucleus||||<0.05
91799486|NCT04823650|183476508|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.69|-0.31|
91799487|NCT04823650|183476508|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.704|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.89|0.30|
91874574|NCT01842360|183642505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson|||||||<0.001
91741853|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L putamen||||<0.05
91741854|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L amygdala||||<0.05
91741855|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R insula lobe||||<0.05
91799488|NCT04823650|183476508|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.92|-0.09|
91799489|NCT04823650|183476508|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.69|-0.18|
91799490|NCT04823650|183476508|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.82|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.82|-0.07|
91799491|NCT04823650|183476508|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.90|-0.04|
91874575|NCT01842360|183642506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean of health care consumption was 17.5±34.7 points in the placebo group versus 9.2±27.9 points in the MV130 group.||||0.0094
91874576|NCT01842360|183642507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.3917
91874577|NCT01842360|183642508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As for the previous index the number of days with any of these drugs is used.||||0.0232
91741856|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L rolandic operculum||||<0.05
91741857|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L hippocampus||||<0.05
91741858|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R hippocampus||||<0.05
91741859|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R fusiform gyrus||||<0.05
91741860|NCT03574610|183376798|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R rolandic operculum||||<0.05
91741861|NCT03574610|183376799|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Voided volume - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.45
91741862|NCT03574610|183376799|OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Voided volume - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.39
91741863|NCT03574610|183376799|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||PVR - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.014
91741864|NCT03574610|183376799|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||PVR - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.66
91741865|NCT03574610|183376799|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Bladder capacity - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.31
91874578|NCT01842360|183642509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0319
91741866|NCT03574610|183376799|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Bladder capacity - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.001
91741867|NCT03574610|183376800|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||% PVR/BC - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.004
91741868|NCT03574610|183376800|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||%PVR/BC - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.038
91741869|NCT03574610|183376801|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Qmax - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.19
91741870|NCT03574610|183376801|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Max - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.91
91741871|NCT03574610|183376802|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Liverpool nomogram percentile - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.13
91741872|NCT03574610|183376802|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Liverpool nomogram percentile - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.26
91741873|NCT03574610|183376803|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||UDI-6 Q1 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.40
91741874|NCT03574610|183376803|OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||UDI-6 Q1 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.086
91741875|NCT03574610|183376803|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||UDI-6 Q2 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.54
91741876|NCT03574610|183376803|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||UDI-6 Q2 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.19
91741877|NCT03574610|183376803|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||UDI-6 Q5 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.04
91741878|NCT03574610|183376803|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||UDI-6 5 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.026
91741879|NCT03574610|183376804|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q3 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.044
91741880|NCT03574610|183376804|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q3 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.017
91741881|NCT03574610|183376804|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q5 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.54
91741882|NCT03574610|183376804|OTHER|||||||0.503||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q5 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.503
91741883|NCT03574610|183376804|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q7 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.023
91741884|NCT03574610|183376804|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q7 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.049
91741885|NCT03574610|183376804|OTHER|||||||0.089||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q8 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.089
91741886|NCT03574610|183376804|OTHER|||||||0.161||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q8 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.161
91741887|NCT03574610|183376805|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||NBSS (Incontinence) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.010
91741888|NCT03574610|183376805|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (Incontinence) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.41
91741889|NCT03574610|183376805|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||NBSS (Storage and Voiding) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.32
91741890|NCT03574610|183376805|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (Storage and Voiding) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.02
91741891|NCT03574610|183376805|OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||NBSS (Consequences) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.34
91874579|NCT01842360|183642510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0264
91874580|NCT01842360|183642511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean number of emergency room visits was 0.37 (±1.15) for the MV130 group and 0.87 (±1.61) for the placebo group.||||0.0037
91874581|NCT01842360|183642512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean number of medical consultations was 0.08 (±0.31) for the MV130 group and 0.31 (±0.88) for the placebo group.||||0.1008
91874582|NCT01842360|183642513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0367
91874583|NCT01842360|183642515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3234
91874584|NCT01842360|183642516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
91874585|NCT02066389|183642534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.153
91874586|NCT02066389|183642534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.018
91741892|NCT03574610|183376805|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (Consequences) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.61
91741893|NCT03574610|183376805|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (QoL) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.02
91741894|NCT03574610|183376805|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (QoL) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.07
91741895|NCT00958360|183376890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91741896|NCT00958360|183376891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91741897|NCT00958360|183376892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91741898|NCT00958360|183376893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
91741899|NCT00958360|183376894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
91741900|NCT02263326|183376899|NON_INFERIORITY|We considered DTG/3TC was noninferior to cART if the 90% confidence interval for the difference in proportions, calculated with Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits, excluded the 12% noninferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.098|0.102||||||A sample size of 41 participants per arm provided 80% power to show noninferiority of DTG/3TC to cART based on a 12% noninferiority margin, assuming an estimated treatment failure rate of 5% per arm by week 24 and 5% 1-sided type I error rate.||0.102|-0.098|
91741901|NCT02263326|183376900|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in virologic outcomes based on the FDA snapshot algorithm at week 48 (HIV RNA \<50 copies/mL) was compared between arms, with 95% confidence intervals.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.165||||||||0.165|-0.126|
91741902|NCT02263326|183376901|OTHER|||||||0.866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.866
91741903|NCT02263326|183376902|OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.613
91741904|NCT02263326|183376903|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.420
91741905|NCT02263326|183376904|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
91741906|NCT02263326|183376906|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.1|||Regression, Linear|||||4.1|-3.0|0.76
91741907|NCT01061723|183376907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.5||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sarilumab group was compared to placebo group. Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived.||2.5|0.4|0.966
91741908|NCT01061723|183376907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.5||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.5|0.6|0.467
91741909|NCT01061723|183376907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.9||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.9|0.3|0.559
91741910|NCT01061723|183376907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.4||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.4|0.6|0.496
91741911|NCT01061723|183376907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.2||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.2|0.8|0.143
91741912|NCT00500357|183376919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.56|||||Confidence Intervals (CI) for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 minus \[-\] Vax 1).|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.56|0.28|
91741913|NCT00500357|183376919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.01|0.67|
91741914|NCT00500357|183376919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.72|0.44|
91760123|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.56||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-0.43|
91874587|NCT02066389|183642534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91874588|NCT02066389|183642534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91874589|NCT02066389|183642534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91874590|NCT02066389|183642535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.034
91874591|NCT02066389|183642535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91874592|NCT02066389|183642535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91799492|NCT04823650|183476509|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.52|-0.16|
91799493|NCT04823650|183476509|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.88|-0.06|
91799494|NCT04823650|183476509|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.363|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.06|
91799495|NCT04823650|183476509|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.84|-0.21|
91874593|NCT02066389|183642535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
91874594|NCT02066389|183642535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.012
91874595|NCT02066389|183642536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
91874596|NCT02066389|183642536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91874597|NCT02066389|183642536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.145
91874598|NCT02066389|183642536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.007
91874599|NCT02066389|183642536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.014
91874600|NCT02066389|183642537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
91705215|NCT03053427|183304949|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements|||MMRM with compound symmetry as the covariance structure was used. The explanatory variables of the model included treatment group, IRLS score at baseline, age category, estimated creatinine clearance category, time point, and interaction of treatment group and time point.||0.2|-2.6|0.088
91874601|NCT02066389|183642537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91874602|NCT02066389|183642537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.010
91874603|NCT02066389|183642537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91705216|NCT03053427|183304950|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 1||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-2.2|0.051
91705217|NCT03053427|183304950|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 2||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.2|-2.8|0.020
91705218|NCT03053427|183304950|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 4||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.2|-2.9|0.028
91874604|NCT02066389|183642537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
91874605|NCT02066389|183642538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.015
91874606|NCT02066389|183642538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91874607|NCT02066389|183642538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.029
91874608|NCT02066389|183642538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91874609|NCT02066389|183642538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.343
91874610|NCT02066389|183642539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.039
91874611|NCT02066389|183642539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.039
91874612|NCT02066389|183642539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.046
91874613|NCT02066389|183642539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91874614|NCT02066389|183642539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.096
91874615|NCT02066389|183642540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.269
91874616|NCT02066389|183642540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.160
91874617|NCT02066389|183642540|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
91874618|NCT02066389|183642540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.160
91874619|NCT02066389|183642540|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
91874620|NCT02033174|183642553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
91874621|NCT02591056|183642622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=+7.45; df=26||||||<0.0001
91799496|NCT04823650|183476509|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.85|-0.02|
91741915|NCT00500357|183376919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.53|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 5: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.53|0.32|
91741916|NCT00500357|183376919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.91|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6A: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.91|0.45|
91741917|NCT00500357|183376919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.01|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6B: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.01|0.56|
91799497|NCT04823650|183476509|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.75|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.75|-0.06|
91874622|NCT01159600|183642623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.17|-1.08||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met: empa 10mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.08|-2.17|<0.0001
91741918|NCT00500357|183376919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.65|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 7F: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.65|0.25|
91741919|NCT00500357|183376919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.4|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 9V: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.40|0.16|
91741920|NCT00500357|183376919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.78|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 14: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.78|0.40|
91741921|NCT00500357|183376919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.65|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 18C: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.65|0.40|
91799498|NCT04823650|183476510|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.31|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.31|-0.24|
91799499|NCT04823650|183476510|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.68|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.68|-0.19|
91799500|NCT04823650|183476510|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.332|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.72|-0.17|
91799501|NCT04823650|183476510|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.44|-0.22|
91799502|NCT04823650|183476510|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.289|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.68|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.68|-0.18|
91888926|NCT02579135|183670478|SUPERIORITY|Before the onset of the study, we conducted a power calculation to determine the appropriate sample size. We designed the study to have 80% power at a .05 significance level to detect differences in primary outcomes, assuming an effect size of 0.5 and a correlation of 0.4 between assessments. Final enrollment (n= 222) exceeded our target sample size (n= 150).|beta|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Third, to assess the effectiveness of the HEART intervention from pretest to immediate posttest, we used linear regression analyses to compute adjusted means and mean differences between intervention and control groups. We included an indicator for school to adjust for clustering by school. For each outcome, the corresponding pretest measure was included as a covariate.||||.32
91741922|NCT00500357|183376919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19A: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.48|0.30|
91741923|NCT00500357|183376919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.67|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19F: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.67|0.35|
91741924|NCT00500357|183376919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.86|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 23F: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.86|0.86|
91741925|NCT00500357|183376922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.57|0.34|
91741926|NCT00500357|183376922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.95|0.66|
91741927|NCT00500357|183376922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.22|0.76|
91741928|NCT00500357|183376922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.80|0.57|
91741929|NCT00500357|183376922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.84|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||2.84|1.39|
91741930|NCT00500357|183376922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.63|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.63|1.11|
91741931|NCT00500357|183376922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.41|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.41|0.18|
91799503|NCT04823650|183476510|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.7|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.70|-0.18|
91799504|NCT04823650|183476511|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.596|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.86|0.08|
91799505|NCT04823650|183476511|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.97|0.72|
91799506|NCT04823650|183476511|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|-0.15|
91799507|NCT04823650|183476511|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.87|0.10|
91741932|NCT00500357|183376922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.68|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.68|0.27|
91741933|NCT00500357|183376922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.83|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.83|0.57|
91741934|NCT00500357|183376922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.03|0.66|
91741935|NCT00500357|183376922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.78|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.78|0.58|
91741936|NCT00500357|183376922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.73|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.73|0.47|
91741937|NCT00500357|183376922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.94|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.94|1.18|
91741938|NCT00500357|183376923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.82|0.52|
91799508|NCT04823650|183476511|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.96|0.67|
91741939|NCT00500357|183376923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.62|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.62|0.43|
91741940|NCT00500357|183376923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.76|0.53|
91741941|NCT00500357|183376923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.39|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.39|0.27|
91741942|NCT00500357|183376923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.10|0.74|
91741943|NCT00500357|183376923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.99|0.63|
91799509|NCT04823650|183476511|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|-0.05|
91799510|NCT04823650|183476512|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.81|-0.06|
91705219|NCT03053427|183304950|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 6||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.0|-2.9|0.043
91741944|NCT00500357|183376923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.87|0.60|
91741945|NCT00500357|183376923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.6|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.60|0.42|
91741946|NCT00500357|183376923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.98|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.98|0.59|
91741947|NCT00500357|183376923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.46|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.46|0.31|
91741948|NCT00500357|183376923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.74|0.49|
91741949|NCT00500357|183376923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.79|0.52|
91741950|NCT00500357|183376923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.93|0.62|
91741951|NCT00500357|183376924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.78|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.78|0.60|
91741952|NCT00500357|183376924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.64|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.64|0.48|
91705220|NCT03053427|183304950|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 8||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-2.4|0.184
91705221|NCT03053427|183304950|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 10||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.2|-3.1|0.027
91705222|NCT03053427|183304950|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 12||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.2|-3.0|0.087
91705223|NCT03053427|183304950|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|Time frame: EoT||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-2.4|0.312
91705224|NCT03053427|183304951|SUPERIORITY||difference|4.2||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.8|||Fisher Exact|||||14.8|-6.4|0.467
91705225|NCT03053427|183304952|SUPERIORITY||difference|5.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|16.5|||Fisher Exact|||||16.5|-4.8|0.300
91705226|NCT03053427|183304953|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in PSQI component and global scores from baseline was calculated by visit, using the ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-0.5|0.877
91705227|NCT03053427|183304954|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LSM difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in total score of Athens insomnia scale from baseline was calculated by visit, using the ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.7|-0.7|0.975
91705228|NCT03053427|183304955|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LSM difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in RLS pain score from baseline was calculated by visit, using the ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.3|-0.4|0.838
91705229|NCT01801241|183304961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91705230|NCT02607306|183304968|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg was confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the mean treatment difference lies entirely below 0.3%.|Treatment contrast|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.52||p-value for non-inferiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pre-trial OAD as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.52|-0.75|<0.0001
91888927|NCT02579135|183670479|SUPERIORITY|Before the onset of the study, we conducted a power calculation to determine the appropriate sample size. We designed the study to have 80% power at a .05 significance level to detect differences in primary outcomes, assuming an effect size of 0.5 and a correlation of 0.4 between assessments. Final enrollment (n= 222) exceeded our target sample size (n= 150).|beta|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We used linear regression analyses to compute adjusted means and mean differences between intervention and control groups. We included an indicator for school to adjust for clustering by school. For each outcome, the corresponding pretest measure was included as a covariate.||||<.001
91741953|NCT00500357|183376924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.87|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.87|0.65|
91741954|NCT00500357|183376924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.76|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.76|0.61|
91741955|NCT00500357|183376924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.75|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.75|1.27|
91741956|NCT00500357|183376924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.21|0.94|
91741957|NCT00500357|183376924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.79|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.79|0.58|
91741958|NCT00500357|183376924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.68|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.68|0.53|
91741959|NCT00500357|183376924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.67|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.67|0.51|
91741960|NCT00500357|183376924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.74|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.74|0.60|
91741961|NCT00500357|183376924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.88|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.88|0.69|
91741962|NCT00500357|183376924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.62|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.62|0.47|
91741963|NCT00500357|183376924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.25|0.90|
91741964|NCT03292874|183376926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||"Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) were compared between models with standard and high-resolution MRI variables using the nonparametric method described by DeLong.~DeLong. Biometrics 1988;44(3):837-45."|nonparametric method|||||||0.014
91888928|NCT01146600|183670480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA, comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.47
91741965|NCT02482298|183376927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06367|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.061|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1510|-0.0610|
91741966|NCT02482298|183376927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0801|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06192|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.023|0.1832|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1832|-0.0230|
91741967|NCT02482298|183376929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.035|0.2035|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2035|0.0350|
91741968|NCT02482298|183376929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04923|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0155|0.1795|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1795|0.0155|
91741969|NCT00348946|183376970|SUPERIORITY|BOT Visual-motor control||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91741970|NCT00348946|183376970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||BOT upper limb speed||||0.17
91741971|NCT00348946|183376970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||BOT strength||||0.17
91741972|NCT00348946|183376970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Hand dynamometer||||0.06
91741973|NCT00348946|183376970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||PANESS||||0.87
91741974|NCT00348946|183376971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: General concept ability||||0.44
91741975|NCT00348946|183376971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: Verbal Cluster||||0.57
91741976|NCT00348946|183376971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: Nonverbal Cluster||||0.55
91741977|NCT00348946|183376971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: Spatial Cluster||||0.65
91741978|NCT00348946|183376972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||Digit Span backward||||0.23
91741979|NCT00348946|183376972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||Phonetic fluency||||0.36
91741980|NCT00348946|183376972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||Semantic fluency||||0.37
91741981|NCT00348946|183376972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: omissions||||0.41
91741982|NCT00348946|183376972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: commissions||||0.73
91741983|NCT00348946|183376972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: hit reaction time||||0.40
91741984|NCT00348946|183376972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: variability||||0.95
91741985|NCT00348946|183376972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: preservations||||0.78
91741986|NCT00348946|183376973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||CBCL: Behavior total||||0.16
91741987|NCT00348946|183376973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||CBCL: Internalizing total||||0.10
91741988|NCT00348946|183376973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||CBCL: externalizing total||||0.24
91741989|NCT00348946|183376973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||CDI: Total||||0.50
91741990|NCT00348946|183376974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.15
91741991|NCT03332173|183376982|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P value was based on the exact binomial test against the null hypothesis H0: MRR = 0.30 at a significance level of 0.025 (1-sided)|Exact binomial test|||Zanubrutinib versus historical control estimate of 30%||||<0.0001
91741992|NCT00131352|183377013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, site, time and time-by-treatment interaction; the baseline score was a covariate.||||||0.047
91741993|NCT00131352|183377014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.064
91741994|NCT00131352|183377015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.92|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using WOMAC A1 data at Week 26.||0.92|0.35|0.022
91888929|NCT01146600|183670481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.63
91888930|NCT01146600|183670482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.64
91888931|NCT01146600|183670483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.002
91741995|NCT00131352|183377016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.679
91741996|NCT00131352|183377017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.266
91741997|NCT00131352|183377018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.82|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Model-based estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using PTGA data at Week 26.||0.82|0.31|0.005
91741998|NCT00131352|183377019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.93|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Model-based estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using COGA data at Week 26.||0.93|0.34|0.025
91741999|NCT00131352|183377020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.16|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using Responder classification data at Week 26.||1.16|0.41|0.156
91742000|NCT00910910|183377035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.66|||stratified log rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|Stratification factors: Disease stage (Binet A or Binet B or Rai I or Rai II versus (VS) Binet C or Rai III or Rai IV); Presence of at least one of the co-morbidities Asparate transaminase (AST)/Alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥ 3.0 times Upper Limits of Normal (ULN,) Creatinine clearance ≥ 30 to \< 60 mL/min, Yes VS No); Presence of at least one 11q deletion, 17p deletion, unmutated Immunoglobulin Heavy-chain Variable-region (IgVH) or Beta-2 Microglobulin (ß2M )\> 4.0 mg/L (Yes versus No VS Unknown)||1.66|0.88|0.323
91742001|NCT00910910|183377036|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.29||The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|Stratification factors: Disease stage (Binet A or Binet B or Rai I or Rai II versus (VS) Binet C or Rai III or Rai IV); Presence of at least one of the co-morbidities Asparate transaminase (AST)/Alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥ 3.0 times Upper Limits of Normal (ULN,) Creatinine clearance ≥ 30 to \< 60 mL/min, Yes VS No); Presence of at least one 11q deletion, 17p deletion, unmutated Immunoglobulin Heavy-chain Variable-region (IgVH) or Beta-2 Microglobulin (ß2M )\> 4.0 mg/L (Yes versus No VS Unknown)||1.29|0.76|0.967
91742002|NCT00910910|183377039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96|||Fisher Exact|||||0.96|0.44|0.032
91742003|NCT00910910|183377040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Fisher Exact|||||0.98|0.45|0.047
91742004|NCT00910910|183377041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.52|||Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups|||1.52|0.58|0.826
91742005|NCT00910910|183377042|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.05|||Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||1.05|0.48|0.149
91742006|NCT00910910|183377045|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.46|||Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||1.46|0.73|0.883
91742007|NCT00910910|183377046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.34|||stratified log rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups|||1.34|0.83|0.709
91742008|NCT00383331|183377051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The response rates are separately evaluated for these two treatment arms. For each arm, a sample size of 48 achieves 91% power to detect a difference of 20% between the null hypothesis of 15% response rate and the alternative hypothesis of 35% using a one-sided, binomial hypothesis test with a target significance level of 2.5% (the actual significance level is 2.2%).||||0.48
91742009|NCT00383331|183377056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.56
91742010|NCT01926444|183377152|OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||ANOVA|||AUC- censorsed (standardized); FAS||||0.506
91742011|NCT01926444|183377152|OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||ANOVA|||AUC LOCF (standardized); FAS||||0.299
91742012|NCT01926444|183377152|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||ANOVA|||AUC Censored (Standardized)- PP Population||||0.234
91742013|NCT01926444|183377152|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||ANOVA|||AUC LOCF (Standardized)- PP Population||||0.219
91742014|NCT01926444|183377153|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Chi-squared|||Time to Caecum||||0.047
91742015|NCT01926444|183377154|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.047
91742016|NCT00894699|183377165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91742017|NCT00894699|183377165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91742018|NCT02626156|183377166|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.3|||Chi-squared||Asymptotic standard error was used|||0.3|-0.02|0.091
91742019|NCT05111613|183377458|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|6.97||||||||6.97|3.68|
91742020|NCT05111613|183377459|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.35||||||||2.35|0.78|
91742021|NCT04209387|183377478|OTHER|p \< .01||||||0.01||||||p adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Pair-wise comparison of changes in coherency from baseline (before therapy) to the end of therapy.~Pair-wise comparison of changes in coherency from end of therapy to 3-month follow-up"|ANOVA test of means|||0.01
91742022|NCT01392573|183377482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.84|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous antidiabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate||||-0.84|-1.25|<0.0001
91742023|NCT03079531|183377488|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in papule/pustule count at baseline and after 16 weeks of secukinumab; the alternative hypothesis is that there would be a difference. Using an alpha=0.05 and power=0.80 (two sided test), the sample size needed would be 20. Assuming a dropout rate of 20%, 24 patients would be needed to achieve sufficient sample size.||||0.01
91742024|NCT03079531|183377489|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
91742025|NCT03079531|183377490|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
91742026|NCT03079531|183377491|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2
91742027|NCT03079531|183377492|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91742028|NCT03079531|183377494|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.56
91742029|NCT00841412|183377507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||The above results are for just one of multiple feeding assistance care process measures: proportion of meals during which residents received assistance to eat baseline to post intervention.|||0.96|0.59|<0.05
91742030|NCT00325130|183377508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91742031|NCT00325130|183377510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91742032|NCT00325130|183377511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91742033|NCT00325130|183377512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91742034|NCT00325130|183377513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91742035|NCT00325130|183377514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91742036|NCT00325130|183377515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91742037|NCT00325130|183377516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91742038|NCT00325130|183377517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91888932|NCT01146600|183670484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.002
91742039|NCT00325130|183377518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91742040|NCT00325130|183377519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91742041|NCT00325130|183377520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91799511|NCT04823650|183476512|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.805|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.94|0.37|
91799512|NCT04823650|183476512|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.73|
91799513|NCT04823650|183476512|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.85|0.06|
91799514|NCT04823650|183476512|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.93|0.45|
91799515|NCT04823650|183476512|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.63|
91799516|NCT04823650|183476513|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.26|-0.16|
91742042|NCT00325130|183377521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91742043|NCT00325130|183377522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91799517|NCT04823650|183476513|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.49|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.49|-0.21|
91799518|NCT04823650|183476513|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.14|
91799519|NCT04823650|183476513|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.35|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.35|-0.22|
91799520|NCT04823650|183476513|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.26|-0.35|
91799521|NCT04823650|183476513|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.71|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.71|-0.32|
91742044|NCT00325130|183377523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91742045|NCT00325130|183377524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91799522|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.53|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.53|-0.16|
91799523|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.64|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.64|-0.114|
91799524|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.73|-0.17|
91888933|NCT01146600|183670485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.01
91888934|NCT01146600|183670486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.76
91742046|NCT00325130|183377525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91742047|NCT00325130|183377526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91874623|NCT01159600|183642623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.56|-1.46||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met: empa 25mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.46|-2.56|<0.0001
91874624|NCT01159600|183642623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|-1.28||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 10mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.28|-2.25|<0.0001
91874625|NCT01159600|183642623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.48|-1.5||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 25mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.50|-2.48|<0.0001
91874626|NCT01159600|183642624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.81|-1.48||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 10mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-1.48|-13.81|0.0055
91888935|NCT00659880|183670487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Friedman|||||||0.06
91906987|NCT02634151|183709131|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|12.2||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|22.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||22.0|2.5|0.0145
91742048|NCT03896750|183377527|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-last). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.26|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%.||1.26|0.54|
91742049|NCT03896750|183377527|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-last). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.14|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%||1.14|0.67|
91760124|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.41||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.41|0.37|
91760125|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.89||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.89|-0.15|
91760126|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.42||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-0.61|
91874627|NCT01159600|183642624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-12.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.55|-6.19||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 25mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-6.19|-18.55|<0.0001
91874628|NCT01159600|183642624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.72|-4.32||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 10mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-4.32|-15.72|<0.0001
91874629|NCT01159600|183642624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-13.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.15|-6.98||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 25mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-6.98|-19.15|<0.0001
91874630|NCT01159600|183642625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|-0.42||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR (renal function), geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 10mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.42|-0.72|<0.0001
91874631|NCT01159600|183642625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|-0.48||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 25mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.48|-0.79|<0.0001
91742050|NCT03896750|183377528|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-infinity). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.39|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%||1.39|0.54|
91742051|NCT03896750|183377528|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-infinity). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%||1.28|0.71|
91742052|NCT00932035|183377553|SUPERIORITY|To achieve a power of 0.84, a sample size of 72 patients, evenly distributed is required. With 36 patients per group, a Fisher's exact test with a one-sided alpha of 0.05 will have a 84% power to detect the difference between the experimental group (axillary reverse mapping) of 5% or less and a control group (standard dissection) of 30% or more. Response estimates were chosen based on reported lymphedema rates.||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
91742053|NCT00932035|183377554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
91742054|NCT00932035|183377555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
91874632|NCT01159600|183642625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|-0.49||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 10mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.49|-0.79|<0.0001
91742055|NCT02522429|183377646|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Statistic adjusted at familywise level alpha of 0.05 with a Gaussian Random Field Cluster Correction (Z \> 2.7)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91742056|NCT02522429|183377647|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistic adjusted at familywise level alpha of 0.05 with a Gaussian Random Field Cluster Correction (Z \> 2.7). All significant voxels have an associated p-value smaller-or-equal to 0.05 (corrected for multiplicity).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91874633|NCT01159600|183642625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.74|-0.44||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 25mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.44|-0.74|<0.0001
91742057|NCT02522429|183377649|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Maximum CRS-R prior to LIFUP compared to Maximum CRS-R after LIFUP||||<0.05
91742058|NCT00294671|183377651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in NIS+7 change from baseline to 2 years.||||<0.001
91742059|NCT00294671|183377651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in NIS+7 change from baseline to 1years.||||0.02
91742060|NCT00294671|183377652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in Kumamoto score change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.002
91742061|NCT00294671|183377652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in Kumamoto score change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.10
91742062|NCT00294671|183377653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in mBMI change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.21
91742063|NCT00294671|183377653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in mBMI change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.43
91742064|NCT00294671|183377654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 physical component change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.001
91742065|NCT00294671|183377654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 physical component change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.06
91799525|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.76|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.76|-0.23|
91742066|NCT00294671|183377655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 mental component change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.06
91742067|NCT00294671|183377655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 mental component change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.37
91799526|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.371|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.12|
91799527|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.15|
91742068|NCT03053440|183377684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors per interactive response technology (IRT). p value is 2-sided||||22.0|-1.5|0.0921
91742069|NCT00473889|183377711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||95.0||||This is a one sided p-value, which corresponds to the null hypothesis.|Stratified Log Rank|Disease stage and bevacizumab eligibility are the stratification factors in the stratified log rank test.||||||0.992
91742070|NCT00473889|183377712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.862||95.0||||This is a one sided p-value, which corresponds to the null hypothesis.|Finkelstein's Interval Censored Method|Disease stage and bevacizumab eligibility are the stratification factors in the Finkelstein's Interval Censored Method Model.||||||0.862
91742071|NCT00473889|183377713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||This is a one sided p-value, which corresponds to the null hypothesis.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Disease stage and bevacizumab eligibility are the stratification factors in the stratified Miettinen and Nurmimen method.||||||0.899
91742072|NCT00460655|183377727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.428||||0.006||95.0|-5.841|-1.016|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.016|-5.841|0.006
91742073|NCT03024112|183377770|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.680
91742074|NCT01399229|183377775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Agreement between SureCALL® and Tocodynamometer Contraction Peak Times~Null hypothesis: The mean peak difference between RMS and TOCO is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: The mean peak difference is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4086||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.74|30.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.72|-28.74|0.4901
91742075|NCT02253433|183377776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.07|-.87|0.575
91742076|NCT02253433|183377777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.68|-.18|0.141
91742077|NCT02253433|183377778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|ED visits over the previous 12 months were positively skewed (skewness 2.95; kurtosis 14.1); the responses were dichotomized (0 vs. 1 or more).||||1.57|.47|0.043
91742078|NCT00040742|183377780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (0.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||.017
91742079|NCT00040742|183377780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.036
91742080|NCT00040742|183377780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.431|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.431
91742081|NCT00040742|183377780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Parameter estimated using a contrast.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (any ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"Placebo vs. Any Ginger. H0: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.003
91742082|NCT00040742|183377781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (0.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.046
91742083|NCT00040742|183377781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.076
91799528|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.65|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.65|-0.18|
91742084|NCT00040742|183377781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.738|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.738
91799529|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.87|-0.17|
91799530|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.75|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.75|-0.20|
91874634|NCT04919499|183642631|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.0252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1048|0.0545|||||Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]|||0.0545|-0.1048|
91874635|NCT04919499|183642632|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.0101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0625|0.0422|||||Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]|||0.0422|-0.0625|
91874636|NCT04919499|183642633|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|0.0016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0504|0.0536|||||Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]|||0.0536|-0.0504|
91874637|NCT04919499|183642634|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.0|||||"Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]~Results were rounded to one decimal place."|||5.0|-4.7|
91874638|NCT01612221|183642636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.65
91906988|NCT02634151|183709132|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||1.5|-0.0|0.0510
91742085|NCT00040742|183377781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts used for estimation.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (any ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"Placebo vs Any Ginger. H0: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.013
91874639|NCT01612221|183642637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||GCLM Biomarker analysis.||||0.76
91874640|NCT01612221|183642637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||SLC1A4 Biomarker analysis.||||0.63
91874641|NCT01612221|183642637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||SLC7A11 Biomarker analysis.||||0.27
91742086|NCT01434654|183377793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-value for arm\*time interaction fixed effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|49 datapoints included from baseline, 6 months, and 12 months visits (low CNS penetrance n=14; high CNS penetrance n=35)||The primary outcome was analysed using a mixed-effect regression model with arm and time as fixed linear effects, arm\*time interaction as a non-linear fixed effect and participant as a random effect to account for participant attrition.||||0.99
91742087|NCT01434654|183377794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.58
91874642|NCT01857362|183642638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio is completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|Ratio of geomectric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.045|||ANOVA|||||1.045|0.988|
91874643|NCT01857362|183642639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio is completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|ratio of geometric means|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.034|||ANOVA|||||1.034|0.945|
91874644|NCT01074229|183642672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Using Dunns test with Bonferroni conrrection for individual comparisons.||||||.05
91874645|NCT01074229|183642672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|37.0|||Dunns test|Bonferonni correction||||37|9|.05
91874646|NCT01074229|183642672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|42.0|||Dunns Test|Bonferroni correction||||42|14|.05
91874647|NCT01074229|183642673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|With Dunns test and Bonferonni correction.||||||.05
91874648|NCT01074229|183642673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0|||Dunns test|||||15|3|0.003
91874649|NCT01074229|183642673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.0|||Dunns test|||||12|-1|0.14
91874650|NCT01951105|183642679|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91874651|NCT00237718|183642683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91874652|NCT00237718|183642684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91874653|NCT05072795|183642685|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91874654|NCT00422162|183642689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. A priori alpha threshold was 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratification factors (country and pretreatment for MDD) and MADRS baseline as covariates and treatment regimen as the main factor.||||||0.88
91874655|NCT00422162|183642699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.0001
91906989|NCT01761084|183709199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.94||||||||1.94|.58|
91906990|NCT01761084|183709200|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.74||||||||1.74|.99|
91742088|NCT01434654|183377794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.44
91874656|NCT00422162|183642699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.001
91874657|NCT00422162|183642699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.0001
91874658|NCT00422162|183642699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.28
91742089|NCT01434654|183377794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.86
91742090|NCT01434654|183377794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.98
91742091|NCT01434654|183377795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.16
91742092|NCT01434654|183377795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.09
91742093|NCT01434654|183377795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.06
91742094|NCT01434654|183377795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.68
91742095|NCT01434654|183377795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Glx/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.58
91742096|NCT00363142|183377797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of FPV/r100 to FPV/r200 would be declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference in percentage of participants not meeting the virologic failure definition \[FPV/r100 minus FPV/r200\] was -12% or greater.|Difference in the percentages|-2.12||||||95.0|-9.36|5.12|||||Difference in percentages = percentage in Arm 1 minus percentage in Arm 2|||5.12|-9.36|
91742097|NCT01313910|183377810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxin-rank test used to determine decrease in bowel movements/day after 8 weeks of intervention||||0.008
91742098|NCT01313910|183377811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91874659|NCT02971683|183642729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|0.9|0.083
91874660|NCT04206501|183642743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||The rate of change in HF medications (beta-blocker, diuretic, and Sacubitril/Valsartan) was compared betweenICM Guidedand usual care control group using chi-square analysis.|Chi-squared|||Due to the unexpected low enrollment during COVID pandemic, we aimed to primarily focus the limited analysis/description on the primary endpoint and exploratory analysis related to QOL||||0.064
91874661|NCT02006641|183642765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.92||Corrected for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||0.92|-1.10|1.000
91742099|NCT01313910|183377812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91742100|NCT01313910|183377814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
91742101|NCT01340664|183377817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.251|||ANCOVA|||||-0.251|-0.637|<0.001
91742102|NCT01340664|183377817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.792|-0.407|||ANCOVA|||||-0.407|-0.792|<0.001
91742103|NCT01340664|183377818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.673|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|-14.38|||ANCOVA|||||-14.38|-32.78|<0.001
91742104|NCT01340664|183377818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.661|<|0.001||95.0|-33.18|-14.83|||ANCOVA|||||-14.83|-33.18|<0.001
91742105|NCT01340664|183377819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-3.1|<0.001
91742106|NCT01340664|183377819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-3.5|<0.001
91742107|NCT01340664|183377820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.90|1.21|0.013
91742108|NCT01340664|183377820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|6.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.81|1.68|<0.001
91742109|NCT03035864|183377830|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.11|||=|0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|6.63|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis||6.63|-6.85|=0.974
91742110|NCT03035864|183377830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|2.88|||=|0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|9.61|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis related to severity||9.61|-3.85|=0.399
91742111|NCT03035864|183377831|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|0.04|||=|0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.02|=0.214
91742112|NCT03035864|183377835|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-0.43|||=|0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|5.27|||ANCOVA|||Frequency - week 4||5.27|-6.13|=0.881
91742113|NCT03035864|183377835|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-0.31|||=|0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Frequency - week 8||6.33|-6.96|=0.926
91742114|NCT03035864|183377835|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-2.29|||=|0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.38|||ANCOVA|||Frequency - Week 12||3.38|-7.97|=0.426
91874662|NCT02006641|183642765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.65||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||1.65|-0.38|0.2223
91742115|NCT03035864|183377835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.62|||=|0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|6.29|||ANCOVA|||Severity - Week 4||6.29|-5.04|=0.828
91742116|NCT03035864|183377835|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|2.86|||=|0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|9.47|||ANCOVA|||Severity - Week 8||9.47|-3.75|=0.394
91742117|NCT03035864|183377835|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-1.49|||=|0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|3.44|||ANCOVA|||Severeity - Week 12||3.44|-6.41|=0.552
91742118|NCT02340169|183377843|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Adrenal suppression rates in the evaluable population were 35% (21 out of 60), 43.3% (13 out of 30) and 20% (2 out of 10) in Cohorts 1, 2 a nd 3, respectively.|||
91742119|NCT03063606|183377855|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||||||.0002
91742120|NCT03063606|183377856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||||||.83
91742121|NCT03744910|183377878|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.563|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|0.35||||||||0.35|-5.84|
91742122|NCT03430843|183377909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.85|||1-sided, Log Rank Test|||||0.85|0.57|0.0001
91742123|NCT05360966|183377942|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|38.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|46.8||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|46.8|30.8|<0.0001
91742124|NCT05360966|183377943|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center.|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||0.9|-7.2|0.1321
91742125|NCT05360966|183377944|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|9.8||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||9.8|6.9|<0.0001
91742126|NCT05360966|183377945|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|47.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|47.9|32.3|<0.0001
91742127|NCT05360966|183377946|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|8.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||8.9|6.3|<0.0001
91742128|NCT05360966|183377947|OTHER|Difference (2 sided)|Difference in Percentages|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|45.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|45.9|28.7|<0.0001
91742129|NCT05360966|183377948|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|9.6||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||9.6|6.5|<0.0001
91742130|NCT05360966|183377949|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.5626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.3||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||3.3|-6.1|0.5626
91742131|NCT05360966|183377950|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.6||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||3.6|-6.3|0.5981
91742132|NCT05360966|183377951|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.5161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.2||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||3.2|-6.4|0.5161
91742133|NCT05360966|183377952|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.4||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||5.4|-4.5|0.8574
91742134|NCT05360966|183377953|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.2||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||4.2|-6.3|0.6980
91742135|NCT01477710|183377962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ANOVA F-value|266.39|||<|0.0001||||||This p-value is for the omnibus F-test of between-treatment differences in tidal volume|ANOVA|The p-value for the omnibus F-test was \<0.0001||Using ANOVA, pairwise comparisons of treatment means were made using a Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91742136|NCT01477710|183377962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|314.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|264.7|364.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||364.1|264.7|<0.0001
91742137|NCT01477710|183377962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|576.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|526.9|626.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||626.3|526.9|<0.0001
91742138|NCT01477710|183377962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|262.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.5|312.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||312.0|212.5|<0.0001
91799531|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.228|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.59|-0.06|
91742139|NCT01893411|183377969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.04|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.14|-0.23|= 0.65
91742140|NCT01893411|183377969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-Mean difference|-0.04|||=|0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.18|-0.26|= 0.741
91742141|NCT01893411|183377970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-Mean difference|0.16|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.34|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.34|-0.02|= 0.075
91742142|NCT01893411|183377970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-Mean difference|0.06|||=|0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.27|-0.16|= 0.603
91742143|NCT01498692|183378002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Target Lesion Failure|2.4|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||7.3|||One-group exact binomial test|||A one-group exact binomial test was used to test the hypothesis that the primary endpoint rate in the PROMUS Element cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 21.1%.||7.3||<0.0001
91742144|NCT03782259|183378042|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0125||||||Given that there were 4 separate comparisons of the primary outcomes, the level of significance was adjusted from 0.05 to 0.0125 (.05/4) using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments for covariates.||||||< 0 .0125
91742145|NCT03782259|183378043|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0125||||||Given that there were 4 separate comparisons of the primary outcomes, the level of significance was adjusted from 0.05 to 0.0125 (.05/4) using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments for covariates.||||||< 0 .0125
91742146|NCT02978157|183378060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91742147|NCT00485758|183378064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-21.4|-14.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time and baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol -by-time interaction.||||-14.4|-21.4|<0.001
91742148|NCT00485758|183378065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001||95.0|20.7|25.7|||Repeated Measures Analysis|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time and baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol -by-time interaction.||||25.7|20.7|<0.001
91742149|NCT00485758|183378066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-27.2|-18.9|||ANCOVA|Nonparametric Analysis of Covariance model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, gender and Tukey's normal score of baseline.|The median difference between treatments is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift with a corresponding distribution-free Confidence Interval based on Wilcoxon's rank|||-18.9|-27.2|<0.001
91742150|NCT00135330|183378073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The ratio of the ASI-iAUC at Week 20 to that at baseline was compared between the treatment groups.||||0.282
91742151|NCT00135330|183378074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91742152|NCT00135330|183378075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.308
91742153|NCT00135330|183378076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.079
91874663|NCT02006641|183642766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.46||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||1.46|-1.11|1.000
91742154|NCT00135330|183378077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.252
91742155|NCT00135330|183378078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.465
91742156|NCT00135330|183378079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.348
91742157|NCT00135330|183378083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||0.039
91742158|NCT00135330|183378084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.555
91742159|NCT00135330|183378086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.106
91742160|NCT00135330|183378087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.341
91742161|NCT00135330|183378088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||<0.001
91742162|NCT00135330|183378089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.276
91742163|NCT00135330|183378090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.840
91742164|NCT00135330|183378091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.096
91742165|NCT00135330|183378092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.875
91742166|NCT00135330|183378093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.581
91742167|NCT00135330|183378094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.631
91742168|NCT00135330|183378095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.724
91742169|NCT00135330|183378096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.117
91742170|NCT00135330|183378097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.251
91742171|NCT00135330|183378098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.710
91742172|NCT00135330|183378099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.575
91742173|NCT00135330|183378100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.436
91742174|NCT00135330|183378101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.168
91742175|NCT01771991|183378103|SUPERIORITY||sum of scores|453.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.6||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum||Standard Deviation under the Null hypothesis for each group.|||||0.57
91889194|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.3|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 10A||2.30|1.77|
91742176|NCT01771991|183378104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Looking at the difference in pain change over time. The null hypothesis is there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||0.95|-0.60|0.65
91742177|NCT01771991|183378105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.79||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|11.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Looking at the difference in range of motion change over time. The null hypothesis is there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||11.91|-6.65|0.57
91742178|NCT02229825|183378123|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||p-value for treatment effect|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratification factors (country and pretreatment) and baseline score and treatment as the main factor.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in MADRS total score between week 4 and baseline was the same for the 2 duloxetine treatment groups.||||0.88
91742179|NCT02229825|183378124|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Treatment effect.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratification factors and HAMD6 baseline as covariates and treatment regimen as main factor.||Comparison between treatment regimes at Week 4.||||0.86
91742180|NCT02229825|183378125|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test|||Within-group comparisons, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742181|NCT02229825|183378125|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Singed Rank test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742182|NCT02229825|183378125|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Singed Rank test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742183|NCT02229825|183378125|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742184|NCT02229825|183378127|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742185|NCT02229825|183378127|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742186|NCT02229825|183378127|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742187|NCT02229825|183378127|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742188|NCT02229825|183378128|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Treatment effect.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment groups were compared regarding the number of responders and non-responders at week 4, using a logistic regression with stratification factors (country and pretreatment) and baseline scores as covariates and treatment regimen as main factor.||||0.32
91742189|NCT02229825|183378130|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Treatment effect.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment groups were compared regarding the number of responders and non-responders at week 4, using a logistic regression with stratification factors (country and pretreatment) and baseline scores as covariates and treatment regimen as main factor.||||0.57
91742190|NCT02229825|183378133|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, 60 mg vs. 120 mg||"At week 4 CGI-S items were pooled to reduce the possible number of classes before formal testing. The 3 classes used (instead of 7 items) were: 1-2: normal, 3-5: moderate, 6-7: severe. Treatment groups were compared using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by centre."||||0.68
91742191|NCT02229825|183378134|OTHER||Statistic|-528.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
91742192|NCT02229825|183378134|OTHER||Statistic|-540.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
91742193|NCT02229825|183378134|OTHER||Statistic|-1024.5|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
91742194|NCT02229825|183378134|OTHER||Statistic|-279.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
91742195|NCT02229825|183378135|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.||||||0.07||||||Stratified by country, 60 mg vs. 120 mg|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"At week 4 CGI-S items were pooled to reduce the possible number of classes before formal testing. The 3 classes used (instead of 7 items) were: 1-2: normal, 3-5: moderate, 6-7: severe. Treatment groups were compared using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by centre."||||0.07
91742196|NCT02229825|183378137|OTHER||CMH statistic|0.0||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Before testing, PGI-I items were pooled to reduce the possible number of classes. The 3 classes used (instead of 7 items) were: 1-2= improved, 3-5=Stable, 6-7=Worsened. At week 4 treatment groups were compared using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by centre."||||1.00
91742197|NCT02229825|183378139|OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||Comparison between HAMA scores between treatment regimens.||||0.92
91742198|NCT02229825|183378140|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742199|NCT02229825|183378140|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742200|NCT02229825|183378140|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742201|NCT02229825|183378140|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742202|NCT02229825|183378142|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, Week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742203|NCT02229825|183378142|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||0.001
91742204|NCT02229825|183378142|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91742205|NCT02229825|183378142|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||0.28
91906991|NCT01761084|183709201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|Intention-to-treat analysis|Intention-to-treat analysis|Baseline||1.07|-0.84|0.811
91742206|NCT01309997|183378155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91742207|NCT01309997|183378155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91742208|NCT02526212|183378164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||Due to the small sample size, planned analyses that assessed for clustering by group assignment or primary care physician could not be conducted. Chi square using fisher's exact test was conducted to investigate differences in abstinence between study arms.||||0.44
91742209|NCT02526212|183378167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Each of the 17 items were rated on a scale from 1 to 5. For each participant, the scores from these items were summed and divided by 17 for an average satisfaction score. The average satisfaction score was compared between study arms.||||0.20
91742210|NCT00237666|183378169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91742211|NCT03645096|183378182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0554||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0703|0.1689||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1689|-0.0703|.195
91742212|NCT03645096|183378182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0565||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0943|0.1467||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1467|-0.0943|.325
91742213|NCT03645096|183378183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0878||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1969|0.1827||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1827|-0.1969|.468
91742214|NCT03645096|183378183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0891||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1803|0.1996||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1996|-0.1803|.458
91742215|NCT03645096|183378184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0078||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0132|0.0209||Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.0209|-0.0132|.316
91742216|NCT03645096|183378184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0084||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.0312||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.0312|-0.0050|.071
91742217|NCT03645096|183378185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11322.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3750.52||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19577.27|-3067.62||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-3067.62|-19577.27|.006
91742218|NCT03645096|183378185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11828.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3620.42||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19650.24|-4007.33||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-4007.33|-19650.24|.003
91742219|NCT03645096|183378186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2523.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|545.83||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3724.93|-1322.22||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-1322.22|-3724.93|.001
91742220|NCT03645096|183378186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2480.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|582.63||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3739.32|-1221.93||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-1221.93|-3739.32|.001
91759516|NCT02391363|183411767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F= 0.23 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.64
91874664|NCT02006641|183642766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.33||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||1.33|-1.27|1.000
91874665|NCT02006641|183642767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.1||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||0.10|-0.23|1.000
91874666|NCT02006641|183642767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.21||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||0.21|-0.12|1.000
91874667|NCT00872339|183642776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
91874668|NCT00872339|183642778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
91874669|NCT02907489|183642789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||0.083 for 24 hours, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.083
91742221|NCT03645096|183378187|NON_INFERIORITY|"Using the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure (Schuirmann, 1987), equivalence is established at the α significance level if a (1-2α) × 100% confidence interval for the difference in efficacies (new - current) is contained within the interval (-δ, δ)~Schuirmann, D. J. (1987). A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics, 15, 657-680."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6377||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7659|4.1777||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 500 mg will be greater than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 500 mg will be less than that at placebo."||4.1777|-2.7659|.336
91760127|NCT01393639|183411996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.57||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.57|-0.46|
91874670|NCT02907489|183642789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||0.041 for 48 hours, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.041
91874671|NCT02907489|183642789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||0.063 for 72 hours, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.063
91874672|NCT02907489|183642790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||0.982 for S1, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.982
91874673|NCT02907489|183642790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467||||||0.467 for S2, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.467
91874674|NCT02907489|183642790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||0.01 for S3 Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91874675|NCT00912964|183642793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.06||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.74|0.005
91874676|NCT00912964|183642793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.08||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.08|-0.76|0.001
91906992|NCT01761084|183709201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.09|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Month 12||1.09|-0.80|0.765
91742222|NCT03645096|183378187|NON_INFERIORITY|"Using the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure (Schuirmann, 1987), equivalence is established at the α significance level if a (1-2α) × 100% confidence interval for the difference in efficacies (new - current) is contained within the interval (-δ, δ)~Schuirmann, D. J. (1987). A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics, 15, 657-680."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4662||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8131|4.8131||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 800 mg will be greater than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 800 mg will be less than that at placebo."||4.8131|-9.8131|.240
91742223|NCT04904744|183378205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. No Message (reference group)|||2.06|0.88|0.165
91742224|NCT04904744|183378205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.03|||Regression, Logistic||Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message vs. No Message|||2.03|0.87|0.193
91742225|NCT04904744|183378205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.52|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message|||1.52|0.68|0.930
91742226|NCT04904744|183378206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.52|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. No Message|||3.52|1.21|0.008
91742227|NCT04904744|183378206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.23|||Regression, Logistic||Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message vs. No Message|||2.23|0.70|0.457
91742228|NCT04904744|183378206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.74|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message|||2.74|1.00|0.049
91742229|NCT04904744|183378207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.82|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. No Message|||4.82|0.86|0.104
91742230|NCT04904744|183378207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.22|||Regression, Logistic||Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message vs. No Message|||3.22|0.49|0.631
91742231|NCT04904744|183378207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.61|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message|||3.61|0.73|0.238
91742232|NCT04283656|183378238|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.24||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for doravirine AUC falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.24|0.76|
91742233|NCT04283656|183378239|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.32||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for doravirine Cmax falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.32|0.66|
91742234|NCT04283656|183378240|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.24||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for doravirine C24 falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.24|0.76|
91742235|NCT04283656|183378241|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.5||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for tenofovir AUC falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.50|0.91|
91906993|NCT01761084|183709202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Baseline||0.61|-0.80|0.796
91874677|NCT00912964|183642794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.8||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||10.8|-1.6|0.15
91874678|NCT00912964|183642794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|18.6||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||18.6|6.3|<0.001
91742236|NCT04283656|183378242|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.6||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for tenofovir Cmax falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||2.60|0.73|
91742237|NCT04283656|183378243|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.4||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for tenofovir C24 falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.40|0.93|
91742238|NCT04283656|183378244|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.35||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment B (Single-dose estradiol and spironolactone co-administered with placebo)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for estradiol AUC falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.35|0.70|
91742239|NCT04283656|183378245|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.36||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment B (Single-dose estradiol and spironolactone co-administered with placebo)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratios for estradiol Cmax falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.36|0.92|
91799532|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.74|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.10|
91799533|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.343|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.70|-0.03|
91799534|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.376|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.77|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.77|-0.20|
91799535|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.56|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.56|-0.12|
91906994|NCT01761084|183709202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Month 12||0.65|-0.75|0.888
91799536|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.71|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.71|-0.18|
91799537|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.14|
91874679|NCT00912964|183642795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.13||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.82|0.007
91874680|NCT00912964|183642795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.08||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.08|-0.76|0.015
91742240|NCT04283656|183378246|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.35||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment B (Single-dose estradiol and spironolactone co-administered with placebo)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratios for estradiol C12 falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.35|0.88|
91742241|NCT00803361|183378247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.48||p-value is for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.48|-2.76|0.006
91742242|NCT00803361|183378248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.34||p-value is for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.34|-4.78|0.024
91799538|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.65|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.65|-0.22|
91799539|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.399|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.77|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.77|-0.14|
91799540|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.507|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.86|-0.22|
91874681|NCT00912964|183642796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.01|-0.68|0.039
91874682|NCT00912964|183642796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.17|-0.85|<0.001
91742243|NCT00803361|183378249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.15|||ANOVA|||||-0.15|-0.74|0.004
91742244|NCT00803361|183378250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.11||p-value is for Severity of Worst Pain Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.11|-0.93|0.125
91742245|NCT00803361|183378250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.09||p-value is for Severity of Least Pain Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.09|-0.75|0.014
91874683|NCT00912964|183642797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Difference|-0.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.16||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||0.16|-0.53|0.30
91742246|NCT00803361|183378250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.11||p-value is for Severity of Average Pain Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.11|-0.93|0.012
91742247|NCT00803361|183378250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.25||p-value is for Severity of Pain Right Now Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.25|-1.14|0.002
91742248|NCT00803361|183378250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.08||p-value is for Interference of Pain, General Activity, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.08|-0.87|0.101
91742249|NCT00803361|183378250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.22||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Mood, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.22|-0.83|0.252
91742250|NCT00803361|183378250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.11||p-value is for Interference of Pain,Walking Ability, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.11|-0.72|0.149
91742251|NCT00803361|183378250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Normal Work, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.26|-0.71|0.367
91799541|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.72|-0.18|
91799542|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.74|-0.17|
91799543|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.78|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.78|-0.02|
91874684|NCT00912964|183642797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.37||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.03|-0.71|0.035
91906995|NCT01761084|183709203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Baseline||0.78|-0.54|0.719
91906996|NCT01761084|183709203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Month 12||0.79|-0.56|0.745
91742252|NCT00803361|183378250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.24||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Relations with Others, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.24|-0.59|0.395
91742253|NCT00803361|183378250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.44||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Sleep, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.44|-0.63|0.731
91742254|NCT00803361|183378250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.17||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Enjoyment of Life, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.17|-0.85|0.186
91742255|NCT00803361|183378250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.16||p-value is for Mean Interference Score, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.16|-0.67|0.220
91742256|NCT00803361|183378251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.06||p-value is for symptoms have disrupted your work/schoolwork - change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.06|-1.29|0.076
91742257|NCT00803361|183378251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.17||p-value is for symptoms disrupted social/leisure - change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.17|-1.16|0.140
91742258|NCT00803361|183378251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.08||p-value is for symptoms disrupted family life - change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.08|-1.14|0.087
91742259|NCT00803361|183378251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.21||p-value is for Global Functional Impairment Total Score - change|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.21|-3.46|0.083
91742260|NCT00803361|183378252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|0.3||p-value is for Severity of Overall Pain, Past Week, Change|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.30|-10.93|0.063
91742261|NCT00803361|183378252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|4.22||p-value is for Severity of Headaches, Past Week, Change.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||4.22|-6.64|0.660
91742262|NCT00803361|183378252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.76||p-value is for Severity of Back Pain, Past Week, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.76|-11.30|0.025
91742263|NCT00803361|183378252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.93||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|2.19||p-value is for Severity of Shoulder Pain, Past Week, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||2.19|-8.06|0.260
91799544|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
91889195|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.75|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 11A||1.75|1.37|
91742264|NCT00803361|183378252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.67||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|1.28||p-value is for Pain Interference, Daily Activities, Change|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||1.28|-8.61|0.145
91742265|NCT00803361|183378252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.15||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|-1.66||p-value is for Pain During Waking Hours, Past Week, Change|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-1.66|-12.64|0.011
91742266|NCT00803361|183378253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.06||p-value is for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.06|-1.72|0.068
91742267|NCT04445519|183378254|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95.1% CIs around the difference (NCX 470 minus latanoprost 0.005%) in mean IOP reduction from time-matched baseline in the study eye was greater than or equal to -1.5 mmHg at all time points and was greater than or equal to -1.0 mmHg at a majority of the time points.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.1||||The primary efficacy assessment was the non-inferiority analysis of the difference in the treatment effect between NCX 470 and latanoprost 0.005% for mean IOP reduction from time-matched baseline at the 8AM and 4PM time-points.|||The analysis assumed a true difference of 1.0 mmHg at the Week 2 time points and 1.25 mmHg at the Week 6 and Month 3 time points; a common standard deviation (SD) at each time-point of 3.25 mmHg; and a two-sided significance level of 4.9%.|||||
91742268|NCT00394329|183378262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.96||Hochberg adjustment was applied to the p-value to account for each of three active group comparisons to the placebo group. The unadjusted p-value is 0.033.|Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.32|0.066
91742269|NCT04677543|183378309|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|10.4||||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|29.5|||Standardized Logistic Regression||The percentage difference and confidence intervals are estimated by standardized logistic regression with treatment group and history of MAC lung infection as factors in the model.|||29.5|-8.6|0.2819
91742270|NCT04677543|183378310|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.1||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|24.1|||Standardized Logistic Regression||The percentage difference and confidence intervals are estimated by standardized logistic regression with treatment group and history of MAC lung infection as factors in the model.|||24.1|-11.9|0.5080
91799545|NCT04823650|183476514|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.321|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.70|-0.07|
91742271|NCT04677543|183378311|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|16.7||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|34.9|||Standardized Logistic Regression|||||34.9|-1.4|0.0712
91742272|NCT04677543|183378312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.48||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|9.93|||ANCOVA|||||9.93|-0.97|0.1073
91742273|NCT04677543|183378313|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.2|0.6130
91742274|NCT04677543|183378314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.92|||Regression, Cox||A Cox regression model was applied to calculate the hazard ratio. The model included effects for treatment and history of MAC lung infection (initial or subsequent).|||1.92|0.79|0.3542
91742275|NCT04677543|183378315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.06|||Regression, Cox||A Cox regression model was applied to calculate the hazard ratio. The model included effects for treatment and history of MAC lung infection (initial or subsequent).|||2.06|0.89|0.1583
91742276|NCT00995436|183378320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.36|||||Maxillary right molar|||0.36|-1.53|
91742277|NCT00995436|183378320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.04|||||Maxillary left molar|||-0.04|-1.89|
91742278|NCT00995436|183378320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.55|||||Maxillary right molar|||1.55|-0.32|
91742279|NCT00995436|183378320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.83|||||Maxillary left molar|||0.83|-1|
91742280|NCT00995436|183378320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.||||||0.05||||||Maxillary right molar. F(2, 67) = 3.10. Overall effect of treatment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91742281|NCT00995436|183378320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.||||||0.08||||||Overall effect of treatment F(2,67) = 2.58.|ANCOVA|||Maxillary left molar.||||0.08
91742282|NCT01158820|183378385|OTHER|No data available for power analysis|Mean Difference (Net)|0.028|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91742283|NCT01158820|183378386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.75|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||units are µg|See reference power analysis||||<0.01
91742284|NCT01158820|183378387|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||units are mg|See reference for power analysis||||0.01
91742285|NCT03299244|183378396|NON_INFERIORITY|Etelcalcetide was considered non-inferior if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (Cinacalcet - Etelcalcetide) was smaller than 12%, or if the lower bound of (Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet) greater than -12%. If this criterion was met, the 2 key secondary endpoints were tested sequentially. If both key secondary endpoints were statistically significant, the other secondary endpoints were to be formally tested at an overall significance level of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|4.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|12.09|||||Treatment difference (Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|"The analysis was conducted on the full analysis set (637 participants). Imputation under the non-inferiority null method was applied to participants who did not have PTH data during the EAP.~The Mantel-Haenszel estimator was used to calculate the treatment (Cinacalcet - Etelcalcetide), stratified by screening PTH level (\< 900 pg/mL, ≥ 900 pg/mL), screening serum cCa (\< 9.0 mg/dL, ≥ 9.0 mg/dL) measured by the central laboratory, and country (China versus non-China)."||12.09|-3.05|
91742286|NCT03299244|183378397|SUPERIORITY|Testing of this key secondary efficacy endpoint at an overall significance level of 0.05 was to be performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated for the primary endpoint.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|Odds ratio (Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|||2.77|1.47|<0.001
91742287|NCT03299244|183378398|SUPERIORITY|Testing of this key secondary efficacy endpoint at an overall significance level of 0.05 was to be performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated for the primary endpoint, and superiority was demonstrated for the previous key secondary endpoint.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|Odds ratio (Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|||1.96|1.03|0.033
91742288|NCT03299244|183378399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.5|||Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures|Model includes treatment group, randomization stratification factors, study week, and study week by treatment as covariates.|Treatment difference (Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region. Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the least squares means difference.|||-1.50|-4.14|<0.001
91742289|NCT03299244|183378400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|Odds ratio (Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|||1.65|0.82|0.41
91742290|NCT00145626|183378442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Incidence|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The cumulative incidence estimate and its standard error for occurrence of regimen-related mortality by the end of the first 100 days post-transplant was calculated.|||||
91799546|NCT04823650|183476515|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.73|-0.28|
91906997|NCT01761084|183709204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|6.83|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in EQ5D - VAS||6.83|-5.66|0.854
91742291|NCT01198574|183378474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||GLM for repeated measures|The Hb concentration at Week 0, Week 6 and Week 12 are analyzed using GLM repeated measures.||"Null Hypothesis~1. Haemoglobin level was not influenced by sub-clinical inflammation during iron supplementation in the anaemic adolescent school girls~2. Vitamin A does not improve the haemoglobin level of the anaemic schoolgirls during iron supplementation in the presence of inflammation."||||<0.05
91742292|NCT01198574|183378475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||GLM for repeated measures ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis~1. Iron status indicator (serum ferritin) was not influenced by sub-clinical inflammation during iron supplementation in the anaemic adolescent school girls~2. Vitamin A does not improve the iron status indicator (serum ferritin) concentration of the anaemic schoolgirls during iron supplementation in the presence of inflammation."||||<0.05
91742293|NCT01198574|183378476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||GLM for repeated measures ANOVA|||"Null Hypothesis~1. iron status indicator (sTfR) was not influenced by sub-clinical inflammation during iron supplementation in the anaemic adolescent school girls~2. Vitamin A does not improve iron status indicator (sTfR) of the anaemic schoolgirls during iron supplementation in the presence of inflammation."||||<0.05
91742294|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-1.22||||||Day 8 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.22|-3.62|
91742295|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.98||||||Day 8 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.98|-3.30|
91742296|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.68||||||Day 8 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.68|-3.20|
91742297|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-2.15||||||Day 8 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO|LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.15|-4.38|
91742298|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-2.88||||||Day 8 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-2.88|-5.06|
91742299|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-2.14||||||Day 8 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-2.14|-4.57|
91742300|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|-1.89||||||Day 8: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.89|-3.66|
91742301|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|-2.05||||||Day 8: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-2.05|-3.79|
91874685|NCT00912964|183642798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.07||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.01||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||0.01|-0.15|0.083
91874686|NCT00912964|183642798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.22|<0.001
91742302|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-1.31||||||Day 29 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.31|-4.28|
91742303|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.67||||||Day 29 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.67|-4.03|
91742304|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.52||||||Day 29 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.52|-4.04|
91742305|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-1.85||||||Day 29 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.85|-5.16|
91742306|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|-3.09||||||Day 29 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-3.09|-6.13|
91742307|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.52||||||Day 29 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.52|-4.68|
91742308|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-2.02||||||Day 29: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-2.02|-4.43|
91799547|NCT04823650|183476515|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.822|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.95|0.23|
91742309|NCT02712983|183378477|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-1.78||||||Day 29: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.78|-4.19|
91742310|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.36||||||Day 57 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.36|-3.82|
91742311|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.29||||||Day 57 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.29|-2.21|
91742312|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.08||||||Day 57 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.08|-3.87|
91742313|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.16||||||Day 57 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.16|-3.34|
91742314|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.22||||||Day 57 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-2.22|-5.50|
91742315|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.41||||||Day 57 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.41|-3.26|
91742316|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.25||||||Day 57: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.25|-3.98|
91742317|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.19||||||Day 57: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.19|-2.50|
91742318|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.38||||||Day 85 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.38|-4.00|
91742319|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.13||||||Day 85 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.13|-3.81|
91742320|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-0.53||||||Day 85 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.53|-4.96|
91742321|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-1.73||||||Day 85 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.73|-5.44|
91742322|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.07||||||Day 85 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.07|-4.90|
91742323|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-0.53||||||Day 85 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.53|-4.66|
91742324|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-1.17||||||Day 85: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.17|-4.11|
91742325|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.23||||||Day 85: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.23|-4.12|
91742326|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.08||||||Day 113 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.08|-4.55|
91742327|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.71||||||Day 113 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.71|-1.61|
91742328|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-0.29||||||Day 113 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.29|-4.93|
91742329|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.25||||||Day 113 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.25|-3.62|
91742330|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-1.3||||||Day 113 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.30|-4.94|
91742331|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.43||||||Day 113 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.43|-4.37|
91742332|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-1.45||||||Day 113: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.45|-4.24|
91742333|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.13||||||Day 113: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.13|-2.73|
91742334|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.73||||||EoT Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.73|-3.64|
91742335|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.43||||||EoT Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.43|-1.61|
91799548|NCT04823650|183476515|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.91|
91906998|NCT01761084|183709204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|8.22|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in EQ5D-VAS||8.22|-4.66|0.585
91742336|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.25||||||EoT Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.25|-2.81|
91742337|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-0.22||||||EoT Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.22|-3.14|
91799549|NCT04823650|183476515|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.88|0.16|
91799550|NCT04823650|183476515|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.94|0.55|
91742338|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-0.98||||||EoT Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.98|-3.89|
91742339|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.22||||||EoT Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.22|-3.12|
91742340|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.85||||||EoT: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.85|-3.08|
91742341|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.04||||||EoT: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.04|-2.25|
91742342|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.99||||||Day 141 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.99|-2.63|
91742343|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.98||||||Day 141 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.98|-1.83|
91742344|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|2.41||||||Day 141 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.41|-2.03|
91742345|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.01||||||Day 141 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.01|-3.68|
91742346|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.07||||||Day 141 Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||1.07|-2.78|
91742347|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|0.89||||||Day 141 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.89|-3.36|
91742348|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.98||||||Day 141: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||0.98|-1.97|
91742349|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.45||||||Day 141: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.45|-2.45|
91742350|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.61||||||Day 169 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.61|-3.24|
91742351|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.91||||||Day 169 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.91|-3.05|
91742352|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.62||||||Day 169 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.62|-2.73|
91742353|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.08||||||Day 169 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.08|-4.22|
91742354|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.1||||||Day 169 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.10|-2.48|
91742355|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.13||||||Day 169 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.13|-2.33|
91742356|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.86||||||Day 169: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||0.86|-2.24|
91742357|NCT02712983|183378478|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.4||||||Day 169: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.40|-2.61|
91742358|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.18|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.18|0.14|
91742359|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.85|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.85|0.18|
91874687|NCT00912964|183642799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.05||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.05|-0.67|0.004
91874688|NCT00912964|183642799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.08|-0.69|0.002
91874689|NCT00912964|183642800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.1||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||0.10|-0.76|0.13
91874690|NCT00912964|183642800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.16||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.16|-1.01|0.007
91874691|NCT03905512|183642907|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance was tested at a level of 0.05.||||||0.181|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.181
91742360|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.77|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.77|0.42|
91742361|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.83|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.83|0.20|
91874692|NCT03293238|183642926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.527
91874693|NCT03293238|183642927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.749
91874694|NCT03444298|183642964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91874695|NCT03444298|183642965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
91874696|NCT03444298|183642966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
91742362|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.17|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.17|0.21|
91799551|NCT04823650|183476515|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.93|
91874697|NCT03444298|183642967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91874698|NCT03444298|183642968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91874699|NCT03444298|183642968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91874700|NCT03444298|183642969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
91874701|NCT03444298|183642969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91874702|NCT03444298|183642970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91874703|NCT03444298|183642971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91874704|NCT03444298|183642972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
91874705|NCT03444298|183642973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
91742363|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.62|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||3.62|0.44|
91742364|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.23|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||2.23|0.44|
91742365|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.71|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.71|0.34|
91874706|NCT03444298|183642974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91742366|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.83|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.83|0.08|
91742367|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.89|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.89|0.25|
91742368|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.93|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.93|0.25|
91742369|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.36|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.36|0.19|
91742370|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.57|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.57|0.02|
91742371|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.41|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.41|0.16|
91742372|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.31|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||1.31|0.13|
91799552|NCT06350474|183476562|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.346|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||One-sided test for non-inferiority.|ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|The non-inferiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the per-protocol (PP) population.||1.1|-0.5|<0.0001
91799553|NCT06350474|183476563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.2|-0.4|0.414
91874707|NCT03444298|183642975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91874708|NCT03444298|183642976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91874709|NCT02158806|183642984|SUPERIORITY|Participants analysed in the groups to which they were randomised (intention to treat analysis).|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.13|||Log Rank||Placebo group = reference group|Placebo group = reference group||1.13|0.64|0.246
91742373|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.8|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.80|0.28|
91742374|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|104.19|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||104.19|1.10|
91742375|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|52.29|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||52.29|0.41|
91742376|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|37.06|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||37.06|0.28|
91742377|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|25.94|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||25.94|0.10|
91742378|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|117.34|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||117.34|1.09|
91742379|NCT02712983|183378479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|37.32|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||37.32|0.50|
91742380|NCT02712983|183378480|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.15|46.81|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||46.81|-27.15|
91742381|NCT02712983|183378480|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.63|62.14|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||62.14|-22.63|
91742382|NCT02712983|183378480|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.32|47.26|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||47.26|-31.32|
91742383|NCT02712983|183378480|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.49|51.89|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||51.89|-26.49|
91742384|NCT02712983|183378480|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|46.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|89.61|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||89.61|3.37|
91742385|NCT02712983|183378480|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.21|40.64|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||40.64|-34.21|
91742386|NCT02712983|183378480|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|50.89|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||50.89|-8.03|
91742387|NCT02712983|183378480|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.52|41.29|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||41.29|-17.52|
91742388|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.13|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.13|0.51|
91742389|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.46|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.46|0.15|
91874710|NCT02158806|183642985|SUPERIORITY|Participants analysed in the groups to which they were randomised (intention to treat analysis).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.76|0.073
91874711|NCT02158806|183642986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Adjusted for baseline values.|ANCOVA|One participant in aspirin group had missing data for 24 week endpoint visit; we used the baseline value for imputation.|Placebo group = reference group.|||0.5|-1.9|0.25
91874712|NCT02158806|183642987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Physical Functioning||7.2|-5.0|0.714
91874713|NCT02158806|183642987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|10.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Role Physical||10.8|-8.0|0.768
91874714|NCT02158806|183642987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Bodily Pain||8.4|-3.7|0.449
91874715|NCT02158806|183642987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in General Health||3.6|-4.3|0.873
91874716|NCT02158806|183642987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Vitality||8.5|-0.1|0.057
91874717|NCT02158806|183642987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Social Functioning||7.0|-5.1|0.756
91874718|NCT02158806|183642987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|12.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Role Emotional||12.3|-4.9|0.400
91742390|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.21|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.21|0.44|
91742391|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.18|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.18|0.32|
91742392|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.27|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.27|0.10|
91742393|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.99|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.99|0.43|
91742394|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.76|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||1.76|0.37|
91742395|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.61|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.61|0.36|
91742396|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.55|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.55|0.30|
91742397|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.03|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.03|0.20|
91742398|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.6|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.60|0.40|
91742399|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.55|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.55|0.31|
91799554|NCT06350474|183476564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||2.9|-1.0|0.241
91799555|NCT06350474|183476565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.6|-2.5|0.233
91874719|NCT02158806|183642987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Mental Health||1.5|-6.2|0.236
91874720|NCT02158806|183642988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.0||Adjusted for baseline values|Regression, Linear|||||8.0|-1.3|0.156
91874721|NCT02158806|183642989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in social function||2.2|-5.2|0.438
91874722|NCT02158806|183642989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in domestic activities||1.9|-4.5|0.408
91874723|NCT02158806|183642989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in cosmesis||3.1|-5.6|0.568
91742400|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.27|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.27|0.06|
91799556|NCT06350474|183476566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.97|-0.4|0.42
91799557|NCT06350474|183476567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.61|-0.92|0.69
91799558|NCT06350474|183476568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.5||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.5|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||6.5|-1.5|0.275
91799559|NCT06350474|183476570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|0.8||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.4|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||3.4|-1.6|0.686
91874724|NCT02158806|183642989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in emotional status||2.2|-8.1|0.257
91874725|NCT02158806|183642989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||||1.5|-5.2|0.273
91874726|NCT02158806|183642990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|0.87|0.917
91874727|NCT02158806|183642991|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||IRR test statistic|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) test statistic compared to probability of the same obtained from standard normal distribution tables.||||1.7|0.7|0.71
91874728|NCT01898299|183642993|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d effectsize|0.48||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Control for Chlopromazine equivalents||||||0.036
91874729|NCT02340806|183642994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.67
91742401|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.73|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||3.73|0.45|
91742402|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.6|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||1.60|0.27|
91742403|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.02|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.02|0.40|
91742404|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|16.52|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||16.52|0.84|
91874730|NCT02340806|183642995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
91874731|NCT02340806|183642996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.21
91874732|NCT02340806|183642997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
91874733|NCT02340806|183642998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.66
91874734|NCT02340806|183643000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.92
91874735|NCT02340806|183643001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.58
91874736|NCT02340806|183643002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.67
91874737|NCT02340806|183643003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.99
91874738|NCT02340806|183643004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.37
91874739|NCT04520256|183643005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91874740|NCT04520256|183643006|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.27||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-.54|0.693
91874741|NCT04520256|183643006|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.09||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|0.01|0.900
91874742|NCT04520256|183643006|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.06|0.960
91874743|NCT04520256|183643006|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.44||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|0.01|0.113
91874744|NCT04520256|183643006|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.92||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.01|0.187
91874745|NCT04520256|183643007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
91742405|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|8.16|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||8.16|0.22|
91742406|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|10.05|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||10.05|0.46|
91742407|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.87|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||4.87|0.05|
91799560|NCT06350474|183476571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|13.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|21.8|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one AE is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||21.8|5.6|0.0010
91874746|NCT04520256|183643008|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.12||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.56|0|.999
91742408|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|12.49|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||12.49|0.53|
91742409|NCT02712983|183378485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.68|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Paremteral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||5.68|0.33|
91742410|NCT02712983|183378490|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|38.18|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort A (3 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||38.18|0.83|
91742411|NCT02712983|183378490|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|19.16|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||19.16|0.21|
91799561|NCT06350474|183476572|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.53|||Poisson Regression|||Rate ratio, confidence interval, and p-value calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the DA-discontinue and DA-continue arms are 1486.3 and 1471.4 weeks, respectively. Ratio is Discontinue / Continue.||2.53|1.51|<0.0001
91874747|NCT04520256|183643008|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.15||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.68|0|.999
91874748|NCT04520256|183643008|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.11||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.52|0|.999
91874749|NCT04520256|183643008|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.11||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.50|0|.999
91874750|NCT04520256|183643008|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.1||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.47|0|.999
91874751|NCT00760877|183643009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.096||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|5.738|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.738|0.766|0.1083
91742412|NCT02712983|183378490|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|21.8|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||21.80|0.43|
91742413|NCT02712983|183378490|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|17.42|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||17.42|0.19|
91742414|NCT02712983|183378490|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|25.03|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||25.03|0.47|
91742415|NCT02712983|183378490|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|16.07|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|||16.07|0.47|
91742416|NCT02712983|183378491|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|26.42|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort A (3 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||26.42|0.77|
91742417|NCT02712983|183378491|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|14.47|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||14.47|0.28|
91742418|NCT02712983|183378491|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.6|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||11.60|0.20|
91742419|NCT02712983|183378491|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.49|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||7.49|0.06|
91874752|NCT02878590|183643022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0093
91874753|NCT02169089|183643092|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.78||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0293
91906999|NCT01761084|183709204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in OQLQ Average Score||0.47|-0.16|0.335
91742420|NCT02712983|183378491|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|23.29|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||23.29|0.62|
91742421|NCT02712983|183378491|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|9.45|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||9.45|0.35|
91742422|NCT03308968|183378618|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-2.42|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with treatment, sex, region, special group of treatment failure (yes or no), migraine classification (that is; CM or EM), and treatment-by-migraine classification interaction as fixed effects, and baseline number of migraine days and years since onset of migraines as covariates. The stratification factors (as randomized) were used in the model.||-2.42|-3.84|<0.0001
91799562|NCT06350474|183476573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.03||||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.0|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants changing assigned regimen is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||5.0|-0.6|0.1758
91874754|NCT02169089|183643093|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean reported -3.5 and 2.1 represents the mean change between follow-up \& baseline visit. The statistical test (Mann-Whitney) reported Median difference of -2.6, which corresponds to the difference between the spironolactone and placebo group.|||||<0.0001
91874755|NCT02169089|183643094|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-40.7||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean reported -10.3 and 17.1 represents the mean change between follow-up \& baseline visit. The statistical test (Mann-Whitney) reported Median difference of -2.6, which corresponds to the difference between the spironolactone and placebo group.|||||0.0189
91874756|NCT02169089|183643095|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean reported -5.95 and 2 represents the mean change between follow-up \& baseline visit. The statistical test (Mann-Whitney) reported Median difference of -2.6, which corresponds to the difference between the spironolactone and placebo group.|||||0.1276
91874757|NCT05361304|183643103|NON_INFERIORITY||Least square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 80% statistical power, that 100 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology compared to the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology for distance (4m) under HLLC.||0.000|-0.040|
91874758|NCT05361304|183643103|NON_INFERIORITY||Least square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 80% statistical power, that 100 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology compared to the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology for distance (4m) under LLHC.||0.020|-0.030|
91874759|NCT05361304|183643104|NON_INFERIORITY||Least square Mean (LSM) Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 80% statistical power, that 100 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology compared to the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology.||1.010|-0.460|
91874760|NCT05361304|183643105|NON_INFERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|12.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|||12.0|-4.1|
91742423|NCT03308968|183378618|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method with treatment, sex, region, special group of treatment failure (yes or no), migraine classification (that is; CM or EM), and treatment-by-migraine classification interaction as fixed effects, and baseline number of migraine days and years since onset of migraines as covariates. The stratification factors (as randomized) were used in the model.||-2.78|-4.19|<0.0001
91874761|NCT05361304|183643106|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the confidence interval of the mean difference between Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology and Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology is greater than -5.|LSM Differences|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|||6.5|-7.1|
91742424|NCT01521923|183378649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.719|||=|0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|3.354|||Regression, Logistic|||In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in a hierarchical order beginning with the CZP standard maintenance dosing (200 mg Q2W) + MTX group vs the CZP stopped dosing (PBO) + MTX group. If this analysis was statistically significant at the alpha =0.05 level, then an additional comparison of the CZP reduced frequency dosing (200 mg Q4W) + MTX group vs the CZP stopped dosing + MTX group was performed with testing at the alpha =0.05 level||3.354|0.881|=0.112
91799563|NCT00546104|183476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|9.0||The p-value is from a paired t-test to test the null hypothesis the mean relative change in Src from baseline to 4 weeks is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||The median change in SRC from baseline to 4 weeks was estimated.||9|-30|0.3
91799564|NCT00546104|183476577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||.10|-.30|0.3
91874762|NCT03320941|183643107|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-2.92|
91874763|NCT03320941|183643107|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.7||||||||-1.70|-4.15|
91874764|NCT03320941|183643107|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-2.26||||||||-2.26|-4.54|
91705231|NCT02607306|183304968|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira was confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c lies entirely below 0.0%.|Treatment contrast|-0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.37||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs Lira is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pre-trial OAD as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.37|-0.60|<0.0001
91705232|NCT02607306|183304969|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error on a two sided 5% level. If and only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg and superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira are confirmed in the primary analysis (change in HbA1c), the three secondary confirmatory tests are performed for superiority of IDegLira versus IDeg with a fixed sequence (1. change in body weight, 2. number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes and 3. change in HbA1c).|Treatment contrast|-1.19||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.59||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks were analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment and pre-trial OAD treatment as fixed factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.59|-1.80|0.0001
91705233|NCT02607306|183304970|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error on a two sided 5% level. If and only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg and superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira are confirmed in the primary analysis (change in HbA1c), the three secondary confirmatory tests are performed for superiority of IDegLira versus IDeg with a fixed sequence (1. change in body weight, 2. number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes and 3. change in HbA1c).|Treatment contrast|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.68||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|Negative binomial regression|||The number of events is analysed using a negative binomial regression model (log link) with the logarithm of the treatment emergent exposure time (100 years) as offset. The model includes treatment and pre-trial OAD treatment as fixed factors.||0.68|0.35|<0.0001
91705234|NCT02607306|183304971|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error on a two sided 5% level. If and only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg and superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira are confirmed in the primary analysis (change in HbA1c), the three secondary confirmatory tests are performed for superiority of IDegLira versus IDeg with a fixed sequence (1. change in body weight, 2. number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes and 3. change in HbA1c).|Treatment contrast|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.52||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD as fixed factors and corresponding baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.52|-0.75|<0.0001
91705235|NCT03240406|183305008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04||Test of the between arm difference in the global composite at Burst 2, adjusted for the study arm, baseline (Burst 1) global composite, and the randomization stratification factors (baseline sex, age, and years of education)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of Burst 2 composite adjusted for arm, Burst 1 composite, sex, age, and education. Missing/invalid data were multiply imputed using MICE|Mean Difference of MHD Arm compared to control|||0.04|-0.15|0.259
91705236|NCT03240406|183305009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.27||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||-0.27|-1.02|0.001
91705237|NCT03240406|183305010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.54||Estimated from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, and years of education at baseline.|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education.|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||-0.54|-1.34|<0.001
91705238|NCT03240406|183305011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|4.11||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||4.11|-3.63|0.904
91705239|NCT03240406|183305012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.52||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, and education; tocopherol biomarker values additionally adjusted for Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides|ANCOVA|Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education; Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL and triglycerides|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.52|-0.76|0.721
91705240|NCT03240406|183305013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, and education; carotenoid biomarker values additionally adjusted for Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides|ANCOVA|Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education; Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL and triglycerides|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.01|-0.01|0.769
91705241|NCT03240406|183305014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.37||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.13|97.4||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||97.4|-100.13|0.978
91742425|NCT01521923|183378649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.889|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|3.48|||Regression, Logistic|||In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in a hierarchical order. A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the Overall significance level for the multiplicity of endpoints. Hypothesis testing was performed in the following predefined order, each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level||3.480|1.026|=0.041
91742426|NCT03037476|183378687|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.235||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Changes from Baseline to 6 Month Follow-up Outcomes reported in this section.||-.023|-.446|0.03
91742427|NCT03037476|183378687|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.149||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Changes from Baseline to 12 Month Follow-up reported in this section.||.061|-.360|0.164
91742428|NCT03037476|183378688|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.24||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Medical Misuse of Prescription Stimulant Medication Among those with ADHD Diagnosis from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.650|-1.120|.603
91742429|NCT03037476|183378688|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.336||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.238|0.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Medical Misuse of Prescription Stimulant Medication Among those with ADHD Diagnosis from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.566|-1.238|.465
91742430|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.059||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.108|-.227|.486
91742431|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.006||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.172|-.160|.942
91742432|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.042||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.097|-.180|.552
91742433|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.037||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.177|-.104|.608
91799565|NCT02699697|183476586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.8325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8325
91742434|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.015||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Other Drug Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.160|-.130|.840
91742435|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.007||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Other Drug Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.155|-.142|.927
91742436|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.01||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.223|-.244|.932
91742437|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.057||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||0.187|-.300|.648
91742438|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.059||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.245|-.363|.702
91742439|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.208|-.408|.524
91742440|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.008||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.153|-.137|.913
91742441|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.032||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regresision||Change in Past 3 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.181|-.117|.676
91742442|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.035||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Marijuana Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.152|-.223|.712
91742443|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.005||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Marijuana Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||0.197|-.186|.956
91742444|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.149||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.234|0.531|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Stimulant Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.531|-.234|.446
91742445|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.055||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Stimulant Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.462|-.353|.793
91742446|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.001||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.005|2.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Heroin Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||2.003|-2.005|.999
91742447|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.999||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.312|3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Heroin Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||3.310|-1.312|.397
91742448|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.465||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|1.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||1.349|-.419|.303
91742449|NCT03037476|183378689|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.939|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|1.751|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||1.751|.128|<.05
91742450|NCT03037476|183378690|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1816||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4295|0.0663|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial regression||Change in ASSIST Score over time: 6 month follow up||0.0663|-0.4295|0.151
91742451|NCT03037476|183378690|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0601||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3133|0.1931|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Changes in ASSIST scores at 12 month follow up||0.1931|-0.3133|0.642
91799566|NCT02699697|183476587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5593|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous pain scale p-value at 3 months||||0.5593
91874765|NCT03320941|183643107|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-2.77||||||||-2.77|-5.01|
91874766|NCT03320941|183643108|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.299||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|15.35|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||15.350|0.344|0.390
91874767|NCT03320941|183643108|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|15.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.844|87.552|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||87.552|2.844|0.002
91874768|NCT03320941|183643108|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.708||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.511|64.32|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||64.320|2.511|0.002
91874769|NCT03320941|183643108|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.813|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.362|84.085|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||84.085|3.362|<0.001
91874770|NCT03320941|183643108|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.697||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|33.006|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||33.006|0.087|0.727
91874771|NCT03320941|183643108|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|28.26||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.066|386.473|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||386.473|2.066|0.012
91874772|NCT03320941|183643108|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.333||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|116.82|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||116.820|0.914|0.059
91874773|NCT03320941|183643108|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.456||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|100.292|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||100.292|0.891|0.062
91705242|NCT03240406|183305015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.51||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for Monounsaturated Fat||0.51|-0.2|0.395
91799567|NCT02699697|183476587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous pain scale p-value at 6 months||||0.8133
91799568|NCT02699697|183476588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Narcotic use at 3 months||||0.3058
91799569|NCT02699697|183476588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5337|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Narcotic use at 6 months||||0.5337
91874774|NCT03320941|183643108|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|48.552|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||48.552|0.265|0.336
91874775|NCT03320941|183643108|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio, log|9.112||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|103.872|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||103.872|0.799|0.075
91874776|NCT03320941|183643108|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|29.312||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.665|322.412|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||322.412|2.665|0.006
91874777|NCT03320941|183643108|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|37.949||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.477|414.232|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||414.232|3.477|0.003
91874778|NCT03320941|183643109|OTHER|Dose Finding|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.19||||||Dysglycemic||-0.19|-3.56|
91874779|NCT03320941|183643109|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-1.46||||||Dysglycemic||-1.46|-4.56|
91874780|NCT03320941|183643109|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.82||||||Dysglycemic||-1.82|-4.71|
91874781|NCT03320941|183643109|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-1.74||||||Dysglycemic||-1.74|-4.93|
91874782|NCT03320941|183643109|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.15||||||T2DM||-0.15|-3.12|
91874783|NCT03320941|183643109|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.61||||||T2DM||-0.61|-4.37|
91874784|NCT03320941|183643109|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.52||||||T2DM||-1.52|-5.20|
91874785|NCT03320941|183643109|OTHER|Dose Finding|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-2.79||||||T2DM||-2.79|-5.93|
91874786|NCT03320941|183643110|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.104|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.900|-3.104|0.278
91874787|NCT03320941|183643110|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.265|0.747|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.747|-3.265|0.216
91874788|NCT03320941|183643110|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.902||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.069|0.504|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.504|-3.069|0.158
91874789|NCT03320941|183643110|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.401|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.022|-3.401|0.053
91874790|NCT03320941|183643110|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.534||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.444|0.717|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.717|-5.444|0.130
91874791|NCT03320941|183643110|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.534||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.156|-0.994|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-0.994|-7.156|0.011
91874792|NCT03320941|183643110|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.325||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.322|0.996|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.996|-4.322|0.215
91874793|NCT03320941|183643110|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.515|0.888|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.888|-4.515|0.184
91874794|NCT03320941|183643110|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.292||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.611|2.552|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||2.552|-2.611|0.982
91874795|NCT03320941|183643110|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.304||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.809|3.401|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||3.401|-1.809|0.544
91874796|NCT03320941|183643110|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.188||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.084|1.663|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.663|-3.084|0.552
91874797|NCT03320941|183643110|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.964|0.588|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.588|-3.964|0.143
91874798|NCT03320941|183643111|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.035|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.035|-0.376|0.018
91742452|NCT03037476|183378691|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.2177||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4566|0.0213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in consequence score at 6 month follow up||0.0213|-0.4566|0.074
91874799|NCT03320941|183643111|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0863||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|-0.105|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.105|-0.447|0.002
91742453|NCT03037476|183378691|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1165||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3612|0.1282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in consequence score at 12 month follow up||0.1282|-0.3612|0.351
91742454|NCT03037476|183378692|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.044||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.1197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in peak alcohol quantity at 6 months (reported by number of standard drinks)||0.1197|-0.032|0.255
91742455|NCT03037476|183378692|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0315||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0463|0.1092|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in peak alcohol quantity (reported in standard drinks) at 12 month follow-up||0.1092|-0.0463|0.428
91742456|NCT03037476|183378693|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0021||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0936|0.0978|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in DDQ score at 6 months||0.0978|-0.0936|0.966
91742457|NCT03037476|183378693|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0559||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1542|0.0424|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in DDQ score at 12 month follow-up||0.0424|-0.1542|0.265
91742458|NCT03037476|183378694|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0128||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1633|0.1378|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RAPI count at 6 month follow-up||0.1378|-0.1633|0.868
91742459|NCT03037476|183378694|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0445||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1993|0.1102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RAPI count at 12 month follow-up||0.1102|-0.1993|0.573
91799570|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4182|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning p-value at 3 months||||0.4182
91874800|NCT03320941|183643111|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|-0.136|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.136|-0.437|<0.001
91874801|NCT03320941|183643111|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.486|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.190|-0.486|<0.001
91874802|NCT03320941|183643111|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0775||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.067|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.067|-0.245|0.258
91742460|NCT03037476|183378695|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0899||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2484|0.0685|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past 12 month marijuana use at 6 month follow-up||0.0685|-0.2484|0.266
91742461|NCT03037476|183378695|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0197||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1859|0.1465|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Past 12 month marijuana use at 12 month follow-up||0.1465|-0.1859|0.816
91742462|NCT03037476|183378695|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1031||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2639|0.0577|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past 6 month marijuana use at 6 month follow-up||0.0577|-0.2639|0.209
91742463|NCT03037476|183378695|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.006||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1729|0.1608|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past 6 month marijuana use at 12 month follow-up||0.1608|-0.1729|0.944
91742464|NCT03037476|183378695|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0391||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2102|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month marijuana use at 6 month follow-up||0.1320|-0.2102|0.654
91742465|NCT03037476|183378695|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0646||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2444|0.1152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month marijuana use at 12 month follow-up||0.1152|-0.2444|0.481
91742466|NCT03037476|183378696|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0411||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1569|0.0747|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RMPI count at 6 month follow-up||0.0747|-0.1569|0.487
91742467|NCT03037476|183378696|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0177||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1021|0.1375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RMPI count at 12 month follow-up||0.1375|-0.1021|0.772
91742468|NCT03037476|183378697|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.1285||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0131|0.2702|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in PBS count at 6 month follow up||0.2702|-0.0131|0.075
91742469|NCT03037476|183378697|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0936||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0517|0.2388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in PBS count at 12 month follow up||0.2388|-0.0517|0.207
91742470|NCT03037476|183378698|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1604|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2525|-0.0683|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in perceived norm (in perceived days of use in past year) at 6 month follow up||-0.0683|-0.2525|<0.001
91742471|NCT03037476|183378698|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1441|||<|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2404|-0.0478|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in perceived norm (perceived number of days of use in past year) at 12 month follow up||-0.0478|-0.2404|<.003
91742472|NCT03037476|183378699|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0157||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1096|0.0782|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in MSLQ score at 6 month follow-up||0.0782|-0.1096|0.743
91742473|NCT03037476|183378699|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0133||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0816|0.1081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in MSLQ score at 12 month follow up||0.1081|-0.0816|0.784
91742474|NCT03037476|183378700|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0061||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1161|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in cumulative grade point average at 6 month follow up||0.104|-0.1161|0.914
91742475|NCT03037476|183378700|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0092||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1202|0.1018|||Mixed Models Analysis|General Linear Model||Change in cumulative grade point average at 12 month follow up||0.1018|-0.1202|0.871
91742476|NCT03037476|183378700|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.003||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1063|0.1124|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in last term GPA at 6 month follow-up||0.1124|-0.1063|0.957
91742477|NCT03037476|183378700|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0006||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1098|0.1109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in last term GPA at 12 month follow-up||0.1109|-0.1098|0.992
91799571|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional functioning p-value at 3 months||||0.8700
91742478|NCT03037476|183378701|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.039||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0615|0.1395|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month alcohol frequency at 6 month follow-up||0.1395|-.0615|0.447
91742479|NCT03037476|183378701|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0398||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0619|0.1414|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month alcohol frequency at 12 month follow-up||0.1414|-0.0619|0.443
91742480|NCT03037476|183378702|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0002||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1066|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month alcohol typical quantity at 6 months||0.1070|-0.1066|0.997
91742481|NCT03037476|183378702|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0136||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1236|0.0963|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month typical alcohol quantity at 12 month follow-up||0.0963|-0.1236|0.808
91742482|NCT02403817|183378705|OTHER|This is a small pilot study with no power calculations required (and no data upon which to base a priori power estimates).||||||5e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis compares pre-intervention to post-intervention scores in the eye movement training group on the primary attention outcome measure. The hand movement Control in this pilot was not feasible and the sample is too small for analysis. This is a small pilot study and so power analyses were not computed. The null hypothesis was no difference between pre- and post-training outcome measure (alpha .05).||||0.00005
91742483|NCT02403817|183378706|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis compares pre-intervention to post-intervention scores in the eye movement training group on the primary eye movement outcome measure. The hand movement Control in this pilot was not feasible and the sample is too small for analysis. This is a small pilot study and so power analyses were not computed. The null hypothesis was no difference between pre- and post-training outcome measure (alpha .05).||||0.018
91742484|NCT00501592|183378715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoints are calculated as the change (post minus pre treatment) during low dose and high dose insulin infusion periods. These are compared between placebo and INT-747 25 mg using t-tests for independent samples. These tests will be made without correction for multiple comparisons using 0.05 as the alpha criterion for significance. Results will be described with the corresponding means and standard deviations.||||0.040
91799572|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnea at 3 months||||0.7008
91799573|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Pain at 3 months||||0.9562
91874803|NCT03320941|183643111|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0774||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.021|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.021|-0.290|0.088
91799574|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Insomnia at 3 months||||0.4951
91799575|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Fatigue at 3 months||||0.7868
91874804|NCT03320941|183643111|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|-0.011|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-0.011|-0.282|0.035
91742485|NCT00501592|183378715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoints are calculated as the change (post minus pre treatment) during low dose and high dose insulin infusion periods. These are compared between placebo and INT-747 50 mg using t-tests for independent samples. These tests will be made without correction for multiple comparisons using 0.05 as the alpha criterion for significance. Results will be described with the corresponding means and standard deviations.||||0.28
91742486|NCT00501592|183378716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0031
91742487|NCT00501592|183378716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91742488|NCT00501592|183378716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91742489|NCT00501592|183378716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0005
91742490|NCT04474197|183378721|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.1|1.5|<0.0001
91742491|NCT04474197|183378721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.1|1.6|<0.0001
91742492|NCT04474197|183378721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.9|1.5|<0.0001
91742493|NCT04474197|183378723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.6|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||4.6|2.4|<0.0001
91742494|NCT04474197|183378723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.0|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||4.0|1.9|<0.0001
91742495|NCT04474197|183378723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.7|1.8|<0.0001
91759517|NCT02391363|183411768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.00 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.94
91799576|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Appetite loss at 3 months||||0.2200
91799577|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Nausea/vomiting at 3 months||||0.7998
91799578|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Constipation at 3 months||||0.7998
91799579|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Quality of Life at 3 months||||0.7409
91799580|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning at 6 months||||0.0128
91874805|NCT03320941|183643111|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.022|-0.248|0.100
91874806|NCT03320941|183643111|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1399||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|-0.033|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.033|-0.592|0.029
91874807|NCT03320941|183643111|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1411||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.681|-0.117|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.117|-0.681|0.006
91742496|NCT00066222|183378752|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This study was designed to detect an improvement in the 2-year overall survival rate from 47% to 60%. Using a one-group chi-square test with a one-sided significance level of 0.10, a sample of 67 patients was deemed sufficient to detect the difference between the null hypothesis (H0: P .47) and the alternative hypothesis (HA: P .60) with 80% power.|If the point estimate for two-year survival is less than or equal to 0.54815, the upper bound of the one-sided 90% confidence interval on 47%, then H0 would not be rejected and the conclusion would be that the two-year survival rate did not statistically improve from 47% under the new treatment. If the point estimate is greater than 0.54815, then H0 would be rejected and the conclusion is that the two-year survival rate did improve from 47% to 60% under the new treatment.|||
91742497|NCT00066222|183378755|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The following rule would reject the null hypothesis that the proportion of severe esophagitis was 30% with an overall significance level of 0.05: 27 or more cases of severe esophagitis among the total sample of evaluable patients.|||
91874808|NCT03320941|183643111|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1253||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.159|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.159|-0.660|0.002
91742498|NCT00066222|183378756|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The following rule would reject the null hypothesis that the proportion of treatment-related fatalities was less than or equal to 5% with an overall significance level of 0.05: 6 or more instances of treatment-related fatalities among the total sample of evaluable patients.|||
91742499|NCT00635349|183378758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower confidence limit interval was less than -1.0 (1-sided , 97.5% confidence interval)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.4258|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.31||||t-test, 1 sided||||||-6.31|0.4258
91742500|NCT00635349|183378759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.0628|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.41||||t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.41|0.0628
91742501|NCT00635349|183378760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0131||||||Day 29: p-value was calculated by fisher exact test|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0131
91742502|NCT00635349|183378760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9834||||||Day 57; p-value was calculated by Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||||||0.9834
91742503|NCT00635349|183378760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1131||||||Day 85; p-value was calculated by Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||||||0.1131
91799581|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional Functioning at 6 months||||0.5861
91799582|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3561|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnea at 6 months||||0.3561
91742504|NCT00295646|183378859|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used in this 2x2 factorial design of two primary endpoints according to the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment to control multiplicity.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.53||Two-sided significance level of 2.5%, with the application of the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with endocrine treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter disease-free time for arimidex relative to tamoxifen.|To determine the effect of arimidex (AZ and AC) compared to tamoxifen (TZ and TC) in terms of disease-free survival. Disease-free survival (DFS) is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death from any cause.||1.53|0.78|0.59
91742505|NCT00295646|183378860|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used in this 2x2 factorial design of two primary endpoints according to the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment to control multiplicity.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.91||Two-sided significance level of 2.5%, with the application of the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with Zoledronic Acid treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer disease-free time for Zoledronic Acid relative to no Zoledronic Acid.|To determine the effect of Zoledronic Acid (AZ and TZ) compared to no Zoledronic Acid (AC and TC) in terms of disease-free survival. Disease-free survival (DFS) is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death from any cause.||0.91|0.46|0.01
91742506|NCT00295646|183378861|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.56|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with endocrine treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter recurrence-free time for arimidex relative to tamoxifen.|To determine the effect of arimidex (AZ and AC) compared to tamoxifen (TZ and TC) in terms of recurrence-free survival. Recurrence-free survival is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death related to breast cancer.||1.56|0.80|0.53
91742507|NCT00295646|183378862|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.92|||Log Rank|||To determine the effect of Zoledronic Acid (AZ and TZ) compared to no Zoledronic Acid (AC and TC) in terms of recurrence-free survival. Recurrence-free survival is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death related to breast cancer.|From the Cox Proportional hazard model with Zoledronic Acid treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer recurrence-free time for Zoledronic Acid relative to no Zoledronic Acid.|0.92|0.46|0.01
91742508|NCT00295646|183378863|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.38|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with endocrine treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter survival time for arimidex relative to tamoxifen.|To determine the effect of anastrozole (AZ and AC) compared to tamoxifen (TZ and TC) in terms of overall survival. Overall survival is defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause.||3.38|0.96|0.07
91799583|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Pain at 6 months||||0.1647
91799584|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Insomnia at 6 months||||0.3571
91874809|NCT03320941|183643111|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|-0.282|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.282|-0.769|<0.001
91874810|NCT03320941|183643112|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2094||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.589|0.241|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.241|-0.589|0.408
91874811|NCT03320941|183643112|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2115||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|-0.087|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.087|-0.924|0.018
91874812|NCT03320941|183643112|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1866||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.956|-0.217|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.217|-0.956|0.002
91874813|NCT03320941|183643112|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1831|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.188|-0.463|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.463|-1.188|<0.001
91742509|NCT00295646|183378864|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.11|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with Zoledronic Acid treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for Zoledronic Acid relative to no Zoledronic Acid.|To determine the effect of Zoledronic Acid (AZ and TZ) compared to no Zoledronic Acid (AC and TC) in terms of overall survival. Overall survival is defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause.||1.11|0.32|0.10
91799585|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue at 6 months||||0.1494
91742510|NCT00418093|183378865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.87||Exact 95% CI for the partial response rate (13/19 = 0.684): 43.4% \~ 87.4%|Estimation of PR based on Binomial Model|We did not perform a test. Point estimate of PR and its exact 95% CI based on Binomial Model is provided. Thus there is no p-value to report.|Point estimate of PR and its exact 95% CI based on Binomial Model|||0.87|0.43|
91742511|NCT00418093|183378865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Single Proportion|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.874||We did not perform hypothesis test. We made an estimation for a single proportion (partial response) with its two-sided 95% exact Binomial confidence interval.|Fisher Exact||Estimation of a single proportion (partial response rate) with exact 95% Binomial confidence interval|||0.874|0.434|
91742512|NCT03162796|183378885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|41.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.1|18.6|< 0.001
91742513|NCT03162796|183378885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.1|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.2|26.1|< 0.001
91799586|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Appetite loss at 6 months||||0.8424
91874814|NCT03320941|183643112|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2054||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.631|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.631|-0.194|0.293
91874815|NCT03320941|183643112|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2068||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|0.506|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.506|-0.325|0.665
91907000|NCT01761084|183709204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in OQLQ Average Score||0.50|-0.15|0.285
91742514|NCT03162796|183378886|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2483|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|-0.1325|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1325|-0.3640|< 0.001
91742515|NCT03162796|183378886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.3226|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4385|-0.2066|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2066|-0.4385|< 0.001
91742516|NCT03162796|183378887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|30.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.7|12.1|< 0.001
91742517|NCT03162796|183378887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|36.8||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.8|17.6|< 0.001
91742518|NCT03162796|183378888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|55.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.1|28.9|< 0.001
91742519|NCT03162796|183378888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|71.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||71.8|48.3|< 0.001
91742520|NCT03162796|183378889|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|38.1||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.1|15.3|< 0.001
91742521|NCT03162796|183378889|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|46.0||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.0|23.5|< 0.001
91742522|NCT03162796|183378890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.73|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.98|-0.48||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.98|< 0.001
91742523|NCT03162796|183378890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.91|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.16|-0.66||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-1.16|< 0.001
91742524|NCT03162796|183378891|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|-0.3|0.069
91742525|NCT03162796|183378891|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|6.9|< 0.001
91799587|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3287|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Nausea/vomiting at 6 months||||0.3287
91799588|NCT02699697|183476589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0961|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Constipation at 6 months||||0.0961
91874816|NCT03320941|183643112|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.315|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.315|-0.405|0.803
91874817|NCT03320941|183643112|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1787||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|0.103|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.103|-0.615|0.159
91874818|NCT03320941|183643112|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3249||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.176|0.122|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.122|-1.176|0.110
91874819|NCT03320941|183643112|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3296||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.691|-0.373|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.373|-1.691|0.003
91874820|NCT03320941|183643112|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2946|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.654|-0.476|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.476|-1.654|<0.001
91874821|NCT03320941|183643112|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2855|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.869|-0.728|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.728|-1.869|<0.001
91874822|NCT03320941|183643113|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.707||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.898|5.822|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||5.822|-4.898|0.865
91907001|NCT01761084|183709204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS at rest||0.32|-1.36|0.225
91907002|NCT01761084|183709204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS at rest||0.56|-1.16|0.488
91874823|NCT03320941|183643113|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.765||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.235|5.716|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||5.716|-5.235|0.931
91874824|NCT03320941|183643113|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.433||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.817|3.82|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.820|-5.817|0.682
91874825|NCT03320941|183643113|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.387||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.312|3.142|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.142|-6.312|0.508
91874826|NCT03320941|183643113|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.206||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.138|9.749|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||9.749|-7.138|0.757
91874827|NCT03320941|183643113|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.267||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.571|8.563|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||8.563|-8.571|0.999
91742526|NCT03162796|183378892|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.3||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.3|1.0|0.036
91742527|NCT03162796|183378892|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|23.4||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.4|4.4|0.006
91799589|NCT02699697|183476591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At 3 months, total score for PSCC-18||||0.8444
91799590|NCT02699697|183476591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8946|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At 6 months, total score for PSCC-18||||0.8946
91799591|NCT02699697|183476592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived helplessness total at 3 months||||0.6700
91874828|NCT03320941|183643113|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.668||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.848|10.88|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.880|-3.848|0.342
91799592|NCT02699697|183476592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived self-efficacy total at 3 months||||0.4350
91874829|NCT03320941|183643113|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.673||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.454|10.292|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.292|-4.454|0.430
91874830|NCT03320941|183643113|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.461||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.312|6.52|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||6.520|-7.312|0.909
91874831|NCT03320941|183643113|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.563||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.311|7.93|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.930|-6.311|0.821
91874832|NCT03320941|183643113|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|1.508|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.508|-11.240|0.132
91874833|NCT03320941|183643113|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.367|0.905|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.905|-11.367|0.093
91874834|NCT03320941|183643114|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.013||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.579|3.393|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.393|-4.579|0.769
91742528|NCT03162796|183378893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|5.85|||ANCOVA|||||5.85|2.42|< 0.001
91742529|NCT03162796|183378893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.91|||<|0.001||95.0|3.19|6.63|||ANCOVA|||||6.63|3.19|< 0.001
91742530|NCT03162796|183378894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|27.5||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-1.6|0.094
91742531|NCT03162796|183378894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.8||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|34.6||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.6|4.9|0.013
91742532|NCT03162796|183378895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.33||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.16||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.83|0.185
91742533|NCT03162796|183378895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.74||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.24||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-1.24|0.004
91742534|NCT03162796|183378896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.77||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||2.77|-1.10|0.398
91742535|NCT03162796|183378896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.23||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|3.16||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||3.16|-0.71|0.214
91799593|NCT02699697|183476592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total PSS-10 score at 3 months||||0.6131
91799594|NCT02699697|183476592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived helplessness total at 6 months||||0.2518
91799595|NCT02699697|183476592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5529|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived self-efficacy total||||0.5529
91799596|NCT02699697|183476592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2833|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total PSS-10 score at 6 months||||0.2833
91799597|NCT02699697|183476593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3784|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Appraisal Support subscale total at 3 months||||0.3784
91874835|NCT03320941|183643114|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.043||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.462|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.630|-4.462|0.839
91874836|NCT03320941|183643114|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.807||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.811|2.345|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.345|-4.811|0.496
91874837|NCT03320941|183643114|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.774||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.622|1.402|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.402|-5.622|0.237
91874838|NCT03320941|183643114|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.435|7.415|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||7.415|-5.435|0.758
91874839|NCT03320941|183643114|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.574|6.397|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||6.397|-6.574|0.978
91874840|NCT03320941|183643114|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.758|7.444|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||7.444|-3.758|0.512
91874841|NCT03320941|183643114|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.792||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.552|5.657|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||5.657|-5.552|0.985
91874842|NCT03320941|183643114|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.599||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.268|3.121|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||3.121|-7.268|0.428
91874843|NCT03320941|183643114|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.669||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.853|4.812|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.812|-5.853|0.846
91874844|NCT03320941|183643114|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.388||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.825|0.721|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.721|-8.825|0.095
91742536|NCT03162796|183378897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.6||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|34.8||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.8|-1.5|0.088
91705243|NCT03240406|183305015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for Long Chain Saturated Fat||-0.02|-0.21|0.019
91705244|NCT03240406|183305015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.31||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for EPA||0.31|-0.07|0.201
91705245|NCT03240406|183305015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.53||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for DHA||0.53|0.01|0.039
91705246|NCT03240406|183305015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for n3 DPA||0.03|-0.06|0.619
91705247|NCT03240406|183305016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.73||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.73|-0.37|0.521
91705248|NCT03240406|183305017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|145.0||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|317.6||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||317.6|-27.7|0.101
91705249|NCT03240406|183305018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.63||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.16|79.89||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||79.89|-129.16|0.645
91705250|NCT03240406|183305019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.26||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|8.75||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||8.75|-2.23|0.245
91705251|NCT03240406|183305020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.4||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.4|0.02|0.032
91705252|NCT03240406|183305021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.26|0.08|<0.001
91705253|NCT03240406|183305022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|4.24||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||4.24|-6.95|0.635
91705254|NCT03240406|183305023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.52||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|0.59||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.59|-6.44|0.019
91705255|NCT03240406|183305024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.13||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.18|9.92||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||9.92|-16.18|0.639
91705256|NCT03240406|183305025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|41.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.47|61.96||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||61.96|21.47|<0.001
91705257|NCT03240406|183305026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.37||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.44|3.69||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||3.69|-34.44|0.115
91705258|NCT03240406|183305027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.64||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.64|-0.53|0.847
91705259|NCT03240406|183305028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|118.57||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.62|295.76||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||295.76|-58.62|0.191
91742537|NCT03162796|183378897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.4||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|33.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.7|-6.9|0.212
91742538|NCT03162796|183378898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.82||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|0.49||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-4.12|0.121
91742539|NCT03162796|183378898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.53||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.95||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||0.95|-4.00|0.225
91742540|NCT00289289|183378996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8||0.629|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.5||P-value is from a paired t-test since each subject had the intervention pacing features turned ON and OFF in this crossover study|t-test, 1 sided|One-sided paired t-test with 221 degrees of freedom|A mean difference greater than zero indicates an average increase in atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia symptomatic episodes while the intervention pacing features were programmed ON versus OFF.|Null Hypothesis: rate of symptomatic atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation episodes during periods when intervention pacing features ON is greater to or equal to the rate of symptomatic atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation episodes during periods where intervention pacing features were programmed OFF Alternative Hypothesis: rate of symptomatic AT/AF during periods of ON programming is less than the rate of symptomatic AT/AF during OFF programming||0.5||0.629
91742541|NCT00289289|183378997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Koch's adaptation to the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test comparing the within subject ON minus OFF differences to 0|A negative change means an improvement in AF symptom frequency with intervention pacing therapy programmed ON. Total possible improvement while intervention features are programmed ON is -64. Total possible worsening during ON programming is 64.|"The null hypothesis is that the symptom frequency score does not differ between while intervention pacing features were programmed ON versus OFF.~This secondary objective was not powered."||||0.165
91742542|NCT00289289|183378998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.73||P-value is based on a repeated measures Cox proportional hazards model to the rate of AF cardioversion attempts between periods of ON and OFF programming|Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio compares rate of first attempted cardioversion for AF while the intervention pacing features were programmed ON versus OFF.|"Null Hypothesis: AF Cardioversion attempt rate is the same during periods of ON and OFF programming~Alternative Hypothesis: AF Cardioversion attempt rate is different during periods of ON and OFF programming"||1.73|0.39|0.603
91742543|NCT00289289|183378999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.394||95.0||||Within each randomized subject, the ON minus OFF difference in AT/AF burden was computed. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to determine if the ON minus OFF difference in AT/AF burden was different from zero.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A negative median difference represents an improvement (lessening) of AT/AF burden during periods of ON versus OFF programming. A positive median difference represents an increase in AT/AF burden during ON compared to OFF programming.|Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in AT/AF burden during periods on ON and OFF programming Alternative Hypothesis: AT/AF burden is lower during periods of ON programming compared to periods of OFF programming||||0.394
91742544|NCT06875284|183379029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|-6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-6.96|-11.06|<0.0001
91799598|NCT02699697|183476593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Belonging Support subscale total at 3 months||||0.6640
91799599|NCT02699697|183476593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tangible Support subscale total at 3 months||||0.1745
91799600|NCT02699697|183476593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5792|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total ISEL score at 3 months||||0.5792
91799601|NCT02699697|183476593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6814|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Appraisal Support subscale total at 6 months||||0.6814
91742545|NCT06875284|183379029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.09|-4.22|0.041
91742546|NCT06875284|183379029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Covariates included cohort and history of peer victimization.||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|-6.25|-10.76|<0.0001
91742547|NCT06875284|183379030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.08|-2.27|0.035
91742548|NCT06875284|183379030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.76|-1.44|0.54
91742549|NCT06875284|183379030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-2.60|0.023
91742550|NCT06875284|183379031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-1.34|-3.98|<0.0001
91742551|NCT06875284|183379031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.39|-3.09|0.012
91742552|NCT06875284|183379031|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-1.03|-3.88|0.0008
91742553|NCT06875284|183379032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||1.02|-0.02|0.058
91742554|NCT06875284|183379032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.01|-1.07|0.046
91799602|NCT02699697|183476593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Belonging Support subscale total at 6 months||||0.5219
91799603|NCT02699697|183476593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tangible Support subscale total||||0.5516
91799604|NCT02699697|183476593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total ISEL score at 6 months||||0.4329
91874845|NCT03320941|183643114|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|0.623|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.623|-8.610|0.089
91799605|NCT00191906|183476617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0||||P-value for Overall. No adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.504
91874846|NCT03320941|183643115|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4808||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.106|26.985|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||26.985|-58.106|0.470
91742555|NCT06875284|183379032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.09|-1.06|0.097
91742556|NCT06875284|183379033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.26|-0.16|0.64
91742557|NCT06875284|183379033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.33|-0.09|0.25
91742558|NCT06875284|183379033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.02|-0.47|0.033
91742559|NCT06631274|183379036|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.184|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for personal adjustment|Hedges' g=-0.14. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is personal adjustment||0.184|-0.296|0.646
91742560|NCT06631274|183379036|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.473|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for internalizing problems|Hedges' g=0.40. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is internalizing problems||0.473|-0.096|0.196
91742561|NCT06631274|183379037|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.539|||ANOVA|one-way repeated ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=0.92. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||0.539|0.112|<0.01
91799606|NCT00191906|183476618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C versus Normal controls.||||0.970
91799607|NCT00191906|183476619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C+RD versus RD controls.||||0.579
91874847|NCT03320941|183643115|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.6316||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.187|36.501|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||36.501|-49.187|0.770
91874848|NCT03320941|183643115|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.1803||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.462|64.516|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||64.516|-11.462|0.169
91742562|NCT06631274|183379038|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.681||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|1.549|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted.|Hedges' g=0.51. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||1.549|-0.187|0.11
91742563|NCT06631274|183379039|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.367|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for avoidance coping|Hedges' g=0.16. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is avoidance coping||0.367|-0.212|0.599
91742564|NCT06631274|183379039|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.316||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.617|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for approach coping|Hedges' g=0.63. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is approach coping||0.617|0.152|0.044
91874849|NCT03320941|183643115|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.8076||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.345|25.157|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||25.157|-49.345|0.521
91874850|NCT03320941|183643115|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.7858||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.058|55.828|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||55.828|-100.058|0.571
91874851|NCT03320941|183643115|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.4994||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.325|56.429|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||56.429|-102.325|0.564
91874852|NCT03320941|183643115|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.855||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.712|99.356|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||99.356|-36.712|0.359
91705260|NCT03240406|183305029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|955.19||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.63|1745.74||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||1745.74|164.63|0.019
91705261|NCT03240406|183305030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.74||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.66|29.19||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||29.19|-60.66|0.493
91705262|NCT03240406|183305031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.83||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|36.45||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||36.45|-6.78|0.18
91705263|NCT03240406|183305032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|436.14||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-534.05|1406.33||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||1406.33|-534.05|0.379
91705264|NCT03240406|183305033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|784.06||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.73|1667.85||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||1667.85|-99.73|0.083
91705265|NCT03240406|183305034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.35||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||2.35|0.32|0.011
91705266|NCT03240406|183305035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.31||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.31|-0.16|0.541
91705267|NCT03240406|183305036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.03|-0.01|0.273
91705268|NCT03240406|183305037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.06|-0.01|0.116
91705269|NCT03240406|183305038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.01|0|0.213
91705270|NCT03240406|183305039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.09|0|0.036
91705271|NCT03240406|183305040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.43||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.43|-0.1|0.223
91705272|NCT03240406|183305041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.04|-0.38|0.119
91705273|NCT03240406|183305042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.33||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.33|-0.41|0.841
91705274|NCT03240406|183305043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.53||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.53|-0.04|0.088
91705275|NCT03240406|183305044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.11|-0.13|0.893
91874853|NCT03320941|183643115|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.4309||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.093|62.29|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||62.290|-76.093|0.842
91907003|NCT01761084|183709204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS during movement||0.88|-0.68|0.808
91907004|NCT01761084|183709204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.04|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS during movement||1.04|-0.57|0.566
91742565|NCT06631274|183379040|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.024|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.764|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=0.85. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||1.764|0.284|<.01
91742566|NCT06631274|183379041|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.589||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.178|-0.0005|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=-0.61. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||-0.0005|-1.178|0.0498
91907005|NCT01761084|183709207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.412|1.501|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||1.501|-1.412|.951
91907006|NCT01761084|183709207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.396||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.721|-0.071|||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||-0.071|-2.721|0.039
91742567|NCT06631274|183379042|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.261||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.65|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=0.41. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||0.650|-0.127|0.182
91742568|NCT06631274|183379043|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.551|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=-0.04. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||0.551|-0.612|0.927
91742569|NCT02842086|183379049|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of DVY to TVD was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95.003% CI of the rate ratio (DVY group over TVD group) in the HIV infection incidence rate was less than 1.62.|Rate Ratio|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.003|0.191|1.149||||||Noninferiority was assessed using a 95.003% confidence interval (CI) constructed using a generalized model associated with a Poisson distribution and logarithmic link with the treatment group being the main effect and with a noninferiority margin of 1.62.||1.149|0.191|
91742570|NCT02842086|183379050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|1.142|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.655|||ANOVA|||Hip BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included baseline TVD for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and treatment as fixed effects.||1.655|0.628|<0.0001
91742571|NCT02842086|183379051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|2.22|||ANOVA|||Spine BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using ANOVA, which included baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects.||2.220|0.913|<0.0001
91742572|NCT02842086|183379052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
91874854|NCT03320941|183643115|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.3259||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.417|35.836|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||35.836|-61.417|0.601
91742573|NCT02842086|183379053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
91874855|NCT03320941|183643115|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.422||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.517|58.121|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||58.121|-39.517|0.705
91907007|NCT01761084|183709208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|-40.0||Month 6 strength and balance physical activity|t-test, 2 sided|||Only Month 6 and Month 12 strength and balance physical activity differences were significant.||-40.0|-91.8|<0.05
91907008|NCT01761084|183709208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.8|-28.8||Month 12 strength and balance physical activity|t-test, 2 sided|||Only Month 6 and Month 12 strength and balance physical activity differences were significant.||-28.8|-69.8|<0.05
91907009|NCT01761084|183709213|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.63||||||Negative Binomial Regression.||1.63|.58|
91907010|NCT01761084|183709216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.53|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in height||0.53|-0.28|0.536
91907011|NCT01761084|183709217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.055||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.917|0.807|||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12 scores.||0.807|-0.917|.900
91907012|NCT01761084|183709218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|23.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||23.2|-33.6|.712
91907013|NCT01761084|183709218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.3||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|39.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Month 12||39.5|-23.3|.60
91742574|NCT02842086|183379054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||P-value for difference between treatment groups in distributions of UPCR ≤ 200 mg/g versus \> 200 mg/g was from the rank analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline category and baseline TVD for PrEP.|Rank analysis of covariance|||||||0.0048
91742575|NCT02842086|183379055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.02|<0.0001
91742576|NCT02842086|183379056|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of DVY to TVD was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95.003% CI of the rate ratio (DVY group over TVD group) in the HIV infection incidence rate was less than 1.62.|Rate Ratio|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.003|0.227|1.264||||||Noninferiority was assessed using a 95.003% CI constructed using a generalized model associated with a Poisson distribution and logarithmic link with the treatment group being the main effect and with a noninferiority margin of 1.62.||1.264|0.227|
91742577|NCT02842086|183379057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|2.237|||ANOVA|||Hip BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using ANOVA, which included baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects.||2.237|0.896|<0.0001
91742578|NCT02842086|183379058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.253|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.437|3.069|||ANOVA|||Spine BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using ANOVA, which included baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects.||3.069|1.437|<0.0001
91742579|NCT02842086|183379059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
91742580|NCT02842086|183379060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
91742581|NCT02842086|183379061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2163||||||P-value for difference between treatment groups in distributions of UPCR ≤ 200 mg/g versus \> 200 mg/g was from the rank analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline category and baseline TVD for PrEP.|Rank analysis of covariance|||||||0.2163
91742582|NCT02842086|183379062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using the ANCOVA model including baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.02|<0.0001
91742583|NCT05696444|183379065|SUPERIORITY|Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.85.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact test|||||||<0.0001
91742584|NCT05696444|183379066|SUPERIORITY|Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.2||||||0.0006||||||Holm adjusted at alpha = 0.025|Exact test|||||||0.0006
91799608|NCT00191906|183476619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests are performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for RD versus RD controls.||||0.144
91742585|NCT05696444|183379066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025||||||Holm adjusted at alpha = 0.025|Exact test|||Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.45||||0.0025
91742586|NCT05696444|183379066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Holm adjusted at alpha = 0.025|Exact test|||Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.2||||0.0001
91742587|NCT03759639|183379080|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.75|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.75|0.25|0.029
91742588|NCT03759639|183379082|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.13||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.50|-0.25|0.318
91742589|NCT03759639|183379085|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.0854||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0123|0.1777|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||0.1777|-0.0123|0.084
91742590|NCT03759639|183379085|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.0399||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1269|0.1031|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.1031|-0.1269|0.315
91742591|NCT03759639|183379086|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-1.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||-0.50|-1.75|0.001
91742592|NCT03759639|183379086|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||2.00|0.50|0.002
91742593|NCT03759639|183379088|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.0||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.021|0.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment with IB1001||0.000|-0.021|0.121
91742594|NCT03759639|183379088|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.021||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.042|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.042|0.000|0.056
91874856|NCT03320941|183643115|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.0444||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.126|65.007|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||65.007|-23.126|0.346
91742595|NCT03759639|183379089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment With IB1001||||<0.001
91742596|NCT03759639|183379089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Post-Treatment Washout||||0.006
91742597|NCT03759639|183379090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment With IB1001||||0.005
91742598|NCT03759639|183379090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment With IB1001||||0.038
91742599|NCT03759639|183379091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment with IB1001||||0.003
91742600|NCT03759639|183379091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Post-Treatment Washout||||0.034
91742601|NCT00161616|183379113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0541|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Healed vs Not healed/No outcome for week 13.||||0.0541
91742602|NCT00161616|183379113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7983|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Healed vs Not healed/No outcome for week 20.||||0.7983
91742603|NCT00161616|183379114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8961
91742604|NCT00861757|183379116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-3.0|0.003
91742605|NCT00861757|183379116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.9|0.004
91742606|NCT00861757|183379116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-3.7|<0.001
91874857|NCT03320941|183643115|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.863|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.2205||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.283|28.556|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||28.556|-56.283|0.516
91874858|NCT03320941|183643116|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.605||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.185|8.095|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||8.095|-6.185|0.792
91874859|NCT03320941|183643116|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7167||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|6.623|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||6.623|-8.100|0.843
91742607|NCT00861757|183379117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6||This is the p value for the Voiding (Obstructive) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.2|<0.001
91742608|NCT00861757|183379117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||This is the p value for the Voiding (Obstructive) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.9|0.005
91742609|NCT00861757|183379117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1||This is the p value for the Voiding (Obstructive) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-2.7|<0.001
91742610|NCT00861757|183379117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||This is the p value for the Storage (Irritative) Score.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.0|0.072
91742611|NCT00861757|183379117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||This is the p value for the Storage (Irritative) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.021
91742612|NCT00861757|183379117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||This is the p value for the Storage (Irritative) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.023
91742613|NCT00861757|183379118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.6|0.031
91742614|NCT00861757|183379118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.013
91907014|NCT01761084|183709220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in weight||0.55|-0.25|0.461
91907015|NCT00940589|183709222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.045
91742615|NCT00861757|183379118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
91742616|NCT00861757|183379119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.201
91742617|NCT00861757|183379119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.393
91742618|NCT00861757|183379119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.4|0.007
91742619|NCT00861757|183379120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.6|0.331
91742620|NCT00861757|183379120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.8|0.140
91742621|NCT00861757|183379120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.1|0.940
91742622|NCT00861757|183379121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 2.5 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the PGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91742623|NCT00861757|183379121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 5.0 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the PGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91742624|NCT00861757|183379121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (placebo vs 0.2 mg Tamsulosin) and 7 categories of the PGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91874860|NCT03320941|183643116|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2564||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.322|9.578|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.578|-3.322|0.339
91874861|NCT03320941|183643116|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1859||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.764|8.856|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||8.856|-3.764|0.426
91742625|NCT00861757|183379122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 2.5 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the CGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
91742626|NCT00861757|183379122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 5.0 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the CGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
91742627|NCT00861757|183379122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 0.2 mg Tamsulosin) and 7 categories of the CGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91874862|NCT03320941|183643116|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8734||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.299|12.307|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||12.307|-11.299|0.932
91874863|NCT03320941|183643116|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3493||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.217|10.302|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.302|-15.217|0.700
91874864|NCT03320941|183643116|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0946||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.406|18.07|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||18.070|-2.406|0.131
91874865|NCT03320941|183643116|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.197||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.619|12.269|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||12.269|-8.619|0.727
91907016|NCT00940589|183709223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.044
91742628|NCT00861757|183379123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.412
91742629|NCT00861757|183379123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.083
91742630|NCT00861757|183379123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.456
91742631|NCT00861757|183379124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.688
91742632|NCT00861757|183379124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.510
91742633|NCT00861757|183379124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.212
91742634|NCT00861757|183379125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91742635|NCT00861757|183379125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.274
91742636|NCT00861757|183379125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.538||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.538
91742637|NCT00861757|183379125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91742638|NCT00861757|183379125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.216
91742639|NCT00861757|183379125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.524
91742640|NCT00861757|183379126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.007
91742641|NCT00861757|183379126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.723
91742642|NCT00861757|183379126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.273
91742643|NCT00861757|183379126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.005
91742644|NCT00861757|183379126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.054
91742645|NCT00861757|183379126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.278
91742646|NCT00861757|183379127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.330
91742647|NCT00861757|183379127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.838
91874866|NCT03320941|183643116|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5876||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.342|9.999|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||9.999|-8.342|0.857
91742648|NCT00861757|183379127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.409
91742649|NCT01701362|183379176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1823||95.0|-0.54|0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures = MMRM|MMRM analysis includes fixed categorical effects of treatment, country, trauma type, visit week, treatment-by-visit interaction, and fixed continuous effect of baseline value. Missing mean pain scores imputed by multiple imputation method|||0.10|-0.54|0.1823
91742650|NCT01701362|183379177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||||||The p-value is derived from CMH test, stratified for pooled center and trauma type and excludes missing values.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
91742651|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0119||95.0|-0.62|-0.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 1||-0.08|-0.62|0.0119
91742652|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0135||95.0|-0.62|-0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 2||-0.07|-0.62|0.0135
91742653|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0028||95.0|-0.69|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 3||-0.14|-0.69|0.0028
91742654|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0016||95.0|-0.72|-0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 4||-0.17|-0.72|0.0016
91742655|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0007||95.0|-0.75|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 5||-0.20|-0.75|0.0007
91742656|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0006||95.0|-0.76|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 6||-0.21|-0.76|0.0006
91742657|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0008||95.0|-0.75|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 7||-0.20|-0.75|0.0008
91742658|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0003||95.0|-0.79|-0.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 8||-0.24|-0.79|0.0003
91742659|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 9||-0.26|-0.82|0.0001
91874867|NCT03320941|183643116|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7173||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.126|8.734|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||8.734|-10.126|0.883
91874868|NCT03320941|183643116|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2883||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.547|7.597|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.597|-9.547|0.821
91742660|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0005||95.0|-0.77|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 10||-0.22|-0.77|0.0005
91742661|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0007||95.0|-0.76|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 11||-0.20|-0.76|0.0007
91742662|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 12||-0.27|-0.82|0.0001
91742663|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.84|-0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 13||-0.28|-0.84|<0.0001
91742664|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0005||95.0|-0.78|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 14||-0.22|-0.78|0.0005
91742665|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0031||95.0|-0.71|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 15||-0.14|-0.71|0.0031
91742666|NCT01701362|183379178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Overall||-0.23|-0.71|0.0001
91742667|NCT01701362|183379179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.005||95.0|-0.77|-0.14|||ANCOVA|This secondary endpoint has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||||-0.14|-0.77|0.0050
91742668|NCT01701362|183379180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0168||95.0|-0.7|-0.07|||ANCOVA|This secondary endpoint has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||||-0.07|-0.70|0.0168
91742669|NCT01701362|183379181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.6841||95.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for mobility||0.06|-0.09|0.6841
91742670|NCT01701362|183379181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.6564||95.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for self-care||0.04|-0.07|0.6564
91742671|NCT01701362|183379181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.859||95.0|-0.08|0.09|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for usual activities||0.09|-0.08|0.8590
91742672|NCT01701362|183379181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.1628||95.0|-0.14|0.02|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for pain/discomfort||0.02|-0.14|0.1628
91742673|NCT01701362|183379181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||leaset squares mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.4654||95.0|-0.05|0.1|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for anxiety/depression||0.10|-0.05|0.4654
91742674|NCT01701362|183379181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.5||95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for Dolan 1997 Index score||0.04|-0.02|0.5000
91799609|NCT00191906|183476620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment by study-arm-interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.005
91874869|NCT03320941|183643116|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1111||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|10.706|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||10.706|-5.730|0.547
91874870|NCT03320941|183643117|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.954|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4006||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.781|11.689|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||11.689|-1.781|0.148
91874871|NCT03320941|183643117|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4645||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.869|7.855|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||7.855|-5.869|0.775
91874872|NCT03320941|183643117|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0432||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.826|4.229|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||4.229|-7.826|0.556
91874873|NCT03320941|183643117|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0079||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.391|9.524|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.524|-2.391|0.238
91874874|NCT03320941|183643117|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4552||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.152|14.774|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||14.774|-7.152|0.488
91874875|NCT03320941|183643117|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4845||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.363|15.68|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||15.680|-6.363|0.400
91874876|NCT03320941|183643117|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7651||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.525|10.626|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.626|-8.525|0.826
91874877|NCT03320941|183643117|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7627||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.389|13.753|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||13.753|-5.389|0.384
91907017|NCT01261507|183709224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in areas under the LROC curve|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.031|||mixed model:Dorfman, Berbaum, Metz|||Measure is the difference between the radiologists working without the software less the value for the radiologists working with the software. Thus a negative value would indicate that the the radiologists showed better results when using the software.||-0.031|-0.086|<0.05
91907018|NCT02953340|183709236|NON_INFERIORITY|The study used non inferiority margin of 0.62 days for the above comparison. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean difference|-0.074|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.292|0.129|||t-statistics|The p-values are based on the calculated t-statistics from the bootstrapped sample mean and standard deviation.||||0.129|-0.292|< 0.0001
91874878|NCT03320941|183643117|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4636||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|14.486|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||14.486|-3.360|0.217
91742675|NCT01701362|183379181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||leaset squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5493||95.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for Dolan 2001 Index Score||0.04|-0.07|0.5493
91742676|NCT01701362|183379183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0545||95.0|-0.07|7.0|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Sleep Disturbance Score||7.00|-0.07|0.0545
91742677|NCT01701362|183379183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.3913||95.0|-6.47|2.54|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Sleep Adequancy Score||2.54|-6.47|0.3913
91799610|NCT00191906|183476621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.097
91874879|NCT03320941|183643117|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5491||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.112|7.074|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.074|-11.112|0.659
91874880|NCT03320941|183643117|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0556||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.423|3.791|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||3.791|-12.423|0.291
91874881|NCT03320941|183643117|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0035||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|10.916|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||10.916|-5.090|0.470
91874882|NCT03320941|183643118|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2049||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.001|11.617|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||11.617|-9.001|0.802
91874883|NCT03320941|183643118|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4301||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.567|8.943|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||8.943|-12.567|0.739
91874884|NCT03320941|183643118|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7125||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.745|9.922|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.922|-8.745|0.901
91874885|NCT03320941|183643118|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6095||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.852|14.407|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||14.407|-3.852|0.255
91907019|NCT01977599|183709246|OTHER|Chi Square|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91874886|NCT03320941|183643118|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5585||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.271|18.127|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||18.127|-16.271|0.914
91874887|NCT03320941|183643118|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2308||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.03|18.07|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||18.070|-19.030|0.959
91874888|NCT03320941|183643118|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.422||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.343|21.487|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||21.487|-8.343|0.380
91874889|NCT03320941|183643118|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5174||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.986|21.228|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||21.228|-8.986|0.419
91874890|NCT03320941|183643118|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6209||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|14.02|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||14.020|-12.450|0.906
91874891|NCT03320941|183643118|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8489||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.195|9.187|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||9.187|-18.195|0.513
91874892|NCT03320941|183643118|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.691|8.216|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||8.216|-16.691|0.499
91874893|NCT03320941|183643118|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9073||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.948|15.669|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||15.669|-7.948|0.516
91874894|NCT03320941|183643119|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.82||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.644|226.284|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||226.284|-136.644|0.625
91874895|NCT03320941|183643119|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.273||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.326|343.871|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||343.871|-19.326|0.079
91742678|NCT01701362|183379183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.6059||95.0|-5.06|2.96|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Snoring Score||2.96|-5.06|0.6059
91742679|NCT01701362|183379183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.7317||95.0|-2.76|3.93|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Awaken Short of Breath Score||3.93|-2.76|0.7317
91742680|NCT01701362|183379183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2663||95.0|-0.45|0.12|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Quantity of Sleep Score (hours)||0.12|-0.45|0.2663
91742681|NCT01701362|183379183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.1562||95.0|-5.08|0.82|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Somnolence Score||0.82|-5.08|0.1562
91742682|NCT01701362|183379183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.249||95.0|-1.18|4.53|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Sleep Problem Index (9) Score||4.53|-1.18|0.2490
91742683|NCT01701362|183379183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||leaet squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0609||95.0|-0.15|0.0|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Optimal Sleep Score||0.00|-0.15|0.0609
91742684|NCT01701362|183379184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7165||||||p-values based on CMH test stratified by pooled center and trauma type, patients with unknown status at baseline or endpoint will not be included in the calculation of p-values.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7165
91742685|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.0028||95.0|1.5|6.86|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 1||6.86|1.50|0.0028
91742686|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.036||95.0|1.03|2.68|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 2||2.68|1.03|0.0360
91742687|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0235||95.0|1.07|2.45|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 3||2.45|1.07|0.0235
91742688|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0619||95.0|0.98|2.24|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 4||2.24|0.98|0.0619
91742689|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0677||95.0|0.97|2.2|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 5||2.20|0.97|0.0677
91742690|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0707||95.0|0.97|2.16|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 6||2.16|0.97|0.0707
91742691|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.1313||95.0|0.91|2.06|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 7||2.06|0.91|0.1313
91742692|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.3072||95.0|0.82|1.86|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 8||1.86|0.82|0.3072
91742693|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3947||95.0|0.79|1.8|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 9||1.80|0.79|0.3947
91874896|NCT03320941|183643119|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.062||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.493|225.617|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||225.617|-87.493|0.384
91742694|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1462||95.0|0.9|2.05|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 10||2.05|0.90|0.1462
91874897|NCT03320941|183643119|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.733||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.58|191.045|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||191.045|-115.580|0.627
91874898|NCT03320941|183643119|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.879||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.244|201.003|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||201.003|-155.244|0.797
91874899|NCT03320941|183643119|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.891||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.215|185.996|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||185.996|-160.215|0.882
91874900|NCT03320941|183643119|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.447||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.796|114.902|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||114.902|-175.796|0.675
91874901|NCT03320941|183643119|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.264||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.099|107.571|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||107.571|-182.099|0.607
91742695|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6854||95.0|0.72|1.64|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 11||1.64|0.72|0.6854
91742696|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5025||95.0|0.76|1.74|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 12||1.74|0.76|0.5025
91742697|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.4908||95.0|0.76|1.76|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 13||1.76|0.76|0.4908
91742698|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4245||95.0|0.78|1.8|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 14||1.80|0.78|0.4245
91742699|NCT01701362|183379185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8464||95.0|0.61|1.49|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 15||1.49|0.61|0.8464
91742700|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1633||95.0|0.74|6.0|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 1||6.00|0.74|0.1633
91742701|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0652||95.0|0.96|3.85|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 2||3.85|0.96|0.0652
91742702|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0039||95.0|1.29|3.77|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 3||3.77|1.29|0.0039
91742703|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0382||95.0|1.03|2.83|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 4||2.83|1.03|0.0382
91742704|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0137||95.0|1.14|3.05|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 5||3.05|1.14|0.0137
91742705|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0693||95.0|0.97|2.49|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 6||2.49|0.97|0.0693
91742706|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0349||95.0|1.04|2.73|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 7||2.73|1.04|0.0349
91742707|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1227||95.0|0.91|2.29|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 8||2.29|0.91|0.1227
91742708|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0364||95.0|1.03|2.63|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 9||2.63|1.03|0.0364
91742709|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0667||95.0|0.97|2.49|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 10||2.49|0.97|0.0667
91874902|NCT03320941|183643119|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.822||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.131|398.775|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||398.775|-229.131|0.591
91874903|NCT03320941|183643119|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|287.328||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.533|594.19|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||594.190|-19.533|0.066
91874904|NCT03320941|183643119|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|156.017||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.963|425.997|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||425.997|-113.963|0.252
91874905|NCT03320941|183643119|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|103.135||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.287|363.556|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||363.556|-157.287|0.431
91874906|NCT03320941|183643120|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.864|-39.251|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-39.251|-90.864|<0.001
91874907|NCT03320941|183643120|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.848|-41.542|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-41.542|-93.848|<0.001
91874908|NCT03320941|183643120|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.942|-47.735|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-47.735|-93.942|<0.001
91874909|NCT03320941|183643120|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-74.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.117|-51.704|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-51.704|-97.117|<0.001
91874910|NCT03320941|183643120|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-86.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.78|-38.013|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-38.013|-135.780|<0.001
91874911|NCT03320941|183643120|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-86.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.266|-37.874|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-37.874|-134.266|<0.001
91874912|NCT03320941|183643120|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.369|-38.883|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-38.883|-123.369|<0.001
91874913|NCT03320941|183643120|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.104|-42.669|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-42.669|-127.104|<0.001
91874914|NCT03320941|183643120|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.493|-20.461|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-20.461|-74.493|<0.001
91874915|NCT03320941|183643120|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.914|-25.251|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-25.251|-80.914|<0.001
91907020|NCT02700412|183709251|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure frequency over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure frequency between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure frequency was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure frequency outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
91874916|NCT03320941|183643120|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.627|-36.937|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-36.937|-86.627|<0.001
91874917|NCT03320941|183643120|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.291|-40.713|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-40.713|-89.291|<0.001
91742710|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0176||95.0|1.1|2.84|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 11||2.84|1.10|0.0176
91742711|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.003||95.0|1.27|3.23|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 12||3.23|1.27|0.0030
91874918|NCT03320941|183643121|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.845||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|3.098|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.098|-4.210|0.764
91874919|NCT03320941|183643121|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8741||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|5.001|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||5.001|-2.423|0.493
91874920|NCT03320941|183643121|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6596||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.908|0.666|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.666|-5.908|0.117
91874921|NCT03320941|183643121|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6349||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.056|1.421|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.421|-5.056|0.269
91874922|NCT03320941|183643121|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1677||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.676|4.017|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.017|-0.676|0.159
91874923|NCT03320941|183643121|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1678|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.294|7.988|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||7.988|3.294|<0.001
91742712|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0256||95.0|1.07|2.74|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 13||2.74|1.07|0.0256
91874924|NCT03320941|183643121|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0371||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.929|3.239|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||3.239|-0.929|0.271
91874925|NCT03320941|183643121|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.842|2.253|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||2.253|-1.842|0.841
91874926|NCT03320941|183643121|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.518||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.758|1.309|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.309|-8.758|0.144
91874927|NCT03320941|183643121|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5906||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.055|4.302|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.302|-6.055|0.736
91874928|NCT03320941|183643121|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3113||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.051|1.19|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.190|-8.051|0.143
91874929|NCT03320941|183643121|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2659||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.521|2.538|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||2.538|-6.521|0.383
91874930|NCT03320941|183643122|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1543||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.632|2.941|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.941|-1.632|0.572
91874931|NCT03320941|183643122|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1738||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.98|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.980|-1.670|0.578
91874932|NCT03320941|183643122|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0479||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.124|1.028|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.028|-3.124|0.319
91742713|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.0314||95.0|1.05|2.64|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 14||2.64|1.05|0.0314
91742714|NCT01701362|183379186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1889||95.0|0.85|2.21|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 15||2.21|0.85|0.1889
91742715|NCT00443872|183379194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of mean group scores at baseline and 12 weeks||||<0.01
91742716|NCT00443872|183379195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91742717|NCT00443872|183379196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of baseline vs. 3 month circumference of the Left and Right lower leg/ankle (change identical for both legs).|Change in pedal edema as measured by change in lower leg/ankle circumference in the left and right legs||||<0.01
91742718|NCT00443872|183379197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91742719|NCT00443872|183379198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis is for the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) section of the scale||||<0.01
91742720|NCT00443872|183379198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis is for the motor section of the UPDRS|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91742721|NCT00443872|183379199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91742722|NCT00443872|183379200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91742723|NCT00443872|183379201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91742724|NCT00443872|183379202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91742725|NCT00700622|183379205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 92 subjects in each group was required to complete the trial. Approximately 230 subjects were to be randomized to achieve 184 completers (assuming a 20% dropout rate). This would have provided 80% power for a noninferiority design to test the difference of a 4-month change in HbA1c levels between treatment groups, assuming the upper noninferiority margins Δ of 0.5% with a standard deviation of 1.2 and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.31|
91742726|NCT00282087|183379206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Two year PFS|78.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|91.0|||Bayesian Posterior Probability|||The primary endpoint is progression-free survival time, with progression defined as a patient having evidence of recurrent LMS on follow-up evaluation and CT scan. Futility monitoring will be based on the accumulating right-censored PFS time data. The monitoring rules will be based on a Bayesian model.||91|67|0.15
91742727|NCT00282087|183379208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.00269|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Age correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
91742728|NCT00282087|183379209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Menopausal status at diagnosis correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
91742729|NCT00282087|183379210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.101|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Uterine serosal involvement correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
91742730|NCT00282087|183379211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.00676|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Mitotic rate correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
91742731|NCT00282087|183379212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.708|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Estrogen receptor (ER) status correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
91742732|NCT00282087|183379213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.906|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Progesterone receptor (PR) status correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
91742733|NCT00282087|183379214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.207|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||1988 FIGO Stage correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
91742734|NCT00282087|183379215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) positive correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
91742735|NCT00405392|183379216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91742736|NCT00405392|183379217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91742737|NCT00405392|183379218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9456
91742738|NCT04301934|183379219|NON_INFERIORITY|The prevalence of UTI for the LASER group and vaginal estrogen group was calculated. Non-inferiority test using Farrington-Manning method was applied to test the risk difference against the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (20%).||||||0.034|||||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.034
91742739|NCT02550288|183379226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-32.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-32.2|-40.5|<0.001
91742740|NCT02550288|183379226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-8.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-8.2|-14.9|<0.001
91742741|NCT02550288|183379226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-35.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-35.8|-44.1|<0.001
91742742|NCT02550288|183379226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-6.8|-13.5|<0.001
91742743|NCT00842153|183379249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1269||95.0||||P-value for Week 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1269
91742744|NCT00842153|183379249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Week 2|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91742745|NCT00842153|183379249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0||||P-value for Week 4|Chi-squared|||||||0.0015
91874933|NCT03320941|183643122|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0303||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|1.667|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.667|-2.416|0.717
91874934|NCT03320941|183643122|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.562|1.701|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||1.701|-0.562|0.317
91874935|NCT03320941|183643122|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5716||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.758|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||2.758|0.460|0.007
91874936|NCT03320941|183643122|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5029||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.659|1.362|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||1.362|-0.659|0.487
91874937|NCT03320941|183643122|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4917||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.884|1.092|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||1.092|-0.884|0.833
91742746|NCT00402324|183379296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||All tests of treatment effects will be conducted at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 unless otherwise stated.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Change = Therapy PooledINV Visit Baseline Baseline\*Visit Therapy\*Visit. P-value from therapy term in model.||The overall power of the two co-primary analyses-the probability of simultaneously rejecting both co-primary null hypotheses-for this sample size under assumed effect sizes of 0.5 and 0.45 is estimated as approximately 85-87% and 77-80%, respectively.||||<0.001
91742747|NCT00402324|183379297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||All tests of treatment effects will be conducted at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 unless otherwise stated.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Change = Therapy PooledINV Visit Baseline Baseline\*Visit Therapy\*Visit. P-value from therapy term in model.||The overall power of the two co-primary analyses-the probability of simultaneously rejecting both co-primary null hypotheses-for this sample size under assumed effect sizes of 0.5 and 0.45 is estimated as approximately 85-87% and 77-80%, respectively.||||0.022
91742748|NCT00402324|183379298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.100
91742749|NCT00402324|183379299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
91742750|NCT00402324|183379300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANCOVA model: Change= TRT + Pooled Investigator + Baseline.||||||0.056
91742751|NCT00402324|183379302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-value for Total Cholesterol Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.657
91742752|NCT00402324|183379302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.924||95.0||||P-value for Low Density Lipoprotein Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.924
91742753|NCT00402324|183379302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-value for High Density Lipoprotein Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.122
91742754|NCT00402324|183379303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||P-value for Fasting Triglycerides Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.293
91742755|NCT00402324|183379304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value for Fasting Blood Glucose Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.007
91742756|NCT00402324|183379305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Bilirubin Total Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.046
91742757|NCT00402324|183379306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANCOVA model: Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||<0.001
91742758|NCT00402324|183379307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANCOVA model: Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||<0.001
91742759|NCT00402324|183379308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91742760|NCT01277822|183379309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin was 3 mmHg as Korean Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) guidance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis||||0.4|-3.0|0.1339
91742761|NCT01277822|183379310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4478||||||No imputation for missing data was performed|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4478
91742762|NCT01277822|183379311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis||||||0.0717
91742763|NCT01277822|183379312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8736|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No imputation for missing data was performed||||||0.8736
91742764|NCT01277822|183379313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2508||||||No imputation for missing data was performed|Chi-squared|||||||0.2508
91874938|NCT03320941|183643122|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.073||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.541|4.752|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.752|-3.541|0.771
91874939|NCT03320941|183643122|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1453||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.315|4.267|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.267|-4.315|0.991
91874940|NCT03320941|183643122|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9486||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.064|1.732|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.732|-6.064|0.271
91874941|NCT03320941|183643122|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8889||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|2.986|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||2.986|-4.570|0.676
91874942|NCT03320941|183643123|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7535||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.603|9.222|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.222|-9.603|0.968
91874943|NCT03320941|183643123|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7545||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.297|7.531|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||7.531|-11.297|0.693
91742765|NCT01277822|183379314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2508||||||No imputation for missing data was performed|Chi-squared|||||||0.2508
91742766|NCT01277822|183379315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6646|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6646
91874944|NCT03320941|183643123|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2623||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.676|3.203|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.203|-13.676|0.222
91874945|NCT03320941|183643123|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1637||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.648|0.841|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.841|-15.648|0.078
91742767|NCT01277822|183379316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7911||||||Left ankle: Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7911
91742768|NCT01277822|183379316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5933||||||Right ankle: Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5933
91742769|NCT00997984|183379317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A hierarchical testing structure was employed. First placebo vs all-active, then placebo vs am and lastly placebo vs pm. Testing was stopped when one comparison was not significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||Study designed to detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91742770|NCT00997984|183379317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A hierarchical testing structure was employed. First placebo vs all-active, then placebo vs am and lastly placebo vs pm. Testing was stopped when one comparison was not significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||Study designed to detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91742771|NCT00997984|183379317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A hierarchical testing structure was employed. First placebo vs all-active, then placebo vs am and lastly placebo vs pm. Testing was stopped when one comparison was not significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||Study designed to detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91742772|NCT00997984|183379318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91742773|NCT00997984|183379318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91742774|NCT00997984|183379318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91742775|NCT00997984|183379319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91742776|NCT00997984|183379319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91742777|NCT00997984|183379319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91742778|NCT00997984|183379320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.099||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.099
91742779|NCT00997984|183379320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.596||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.596
91742780|NCT00997984|183379320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
91742781|NCT00997984|183379322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91742782|NCT00997984|183379322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91742783|NCT00997984|183379322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91742784|NCT00997984|183379323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.712||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.712
91742785|NCT00997984|183379323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.531||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.531
91742786|NCT00997984|183379323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.226||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.226
91742787|NCT00997984|183379324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.859||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.859
91742788|NCT00997984|183379324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.527||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.527
91742789|NCT00997984|183379324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.739
91742790|NCT00997984|183379325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91742791|NCT00997984|183379325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91742792|NCT00997984|183379325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91742793|NCT01539070|183379408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.8|||Regression, Linear|All Regression models adjusted for clustering by clinic, child age, change in age, BMI z-score, maternal education and occupation, and season|The change in the average vegetable consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||10.8|1.8|<0.05
91742794|NCT01539070|183379408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|10.3|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average fruit consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||10.3|-13.6|<0.05
91874946|NCT03320941|183643123|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0033||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.194|10.91|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.910|-13.194|0.850
91874947|NCT03320941|183643123|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7919||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.676|5.58|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||5.580|-17.676|0.301
91874948|NCT03320941|183643123|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2598||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.147|4.972|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.972|-16.147|0.293
91874949|NCT03320941|183643123|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2191||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.421|3.535|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||3.535|-17.421|0.189
91874950|NCT03320941|183643123|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.676|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2441||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|15.152|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||15.152|-13.800|0.926
91874951|NCT03320941|183643123|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5086||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.802|16.207|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||16.207|-13.802|0.873
91874952|NCT03320941|183643123|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6977||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.164|7.605|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.605|-19.164|0.391
91874953|NCT03320941|183643123|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3822||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.345|5.163|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||5.163|-20.345|0.239
91874954|NCT03320941|183643124|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8326||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.696|2.525|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.525|-8.696|0.278
91874955|NCT03320941|183643124|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.859||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.639|4.686|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||4.686|-6.639|0.733
91742795|NCT01539070|183379408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.5|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average water consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||6.5|-5.4|<0.05
91874956|NCT03320941|183643124|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5118||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.482|0.468|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.468|-9.482|0.075
91742796|NCT01539070|183379408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average sweet snacks consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||1.1|-8.9|<0.05
91742797|NCT01539070|183379408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average fast food consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||1.1|-0.5|<0.05
91874957|NCT03320941|183643124|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4659||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.152|2.616|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.616|-7.152|0.360
91874958|NCT03320941|183643124|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1699||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.792|4.959|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.959|-11.792|0.416
91874959|NCT03320941|183643124|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1121||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.893|6.625|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||6.625|-9.893|0.693
91874960|NCT03320941|183643124|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6351||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.207|4.396|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.396|-10.207|0.428
91874961|NCT03320941|183643124|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6414||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.113|9.515|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||9.515|-5.113|0.548
91874962|NCT03320941|183643124|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8828||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.128|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||5.128|-10.400|0.500
91874963|NCT03320941|183643124|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9906||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.805|7.154|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.154|-8.805|0.837
91874964|NCT03320941|183643124|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4818||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.556|1.368|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.368|-12.556|0.113
91874965|NCT03320941|183643124|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3512||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.361|1.041|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.041|-12.361|0.096
91874966|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS+E Amygdala- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
91874967|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS+E Hippocampus- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.041
91742798|NCT01539070|183379408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average savory snacks consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||0.0|-0.5|<0.05
91874968|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS+E vmPFC- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U)||||0.040
91874969|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS- Amygdala- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
91874970|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS- Hippocampus- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.041
91874971|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus time factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS- vmPFC- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.040
91874972|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Amygdala- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
91874973|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.027
91874974|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.019
91874975|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
91874976|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.027
91874977|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.019
91742799|NCT01539070|183379408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.4|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average sugar-sweetened beverage consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||3.4|-4.9|<0.05
91742800|NCT01539070|183379408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average added sugar in beverage consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||4.1|-8.4|<0.05
91760128|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|2.17||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.17|-4.94|
91874978|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
91742801|NCT01539070|183379409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|5.5|||Regression, Linear|All Regression models adjusted for clustering by clinic, child age, change in age, BMI z-score, maternal education and occupation, and season|The change in mean physical activity between the baseline measurement and 3 months, the intervention group compared with the control group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI) are reported.||5.5|-29.1|<0.05
91742802|NCT01539070|183379409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear||The change in mean sleep time between the baseline measurement and 3 months, the intervention group compared with the control group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||0.5|-0.2|<0.05
91742803|NCT01539070|183379409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in mean screen time between the baseline measurement and 3 months, the intervention group compared with the control group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||1.1|-4.4|<0.05
91742804|NCT01539070|183379411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||Regression, Linear|||In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||0.35|-0.04|<0.05
91742805|NCT02689206|183379412|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.45|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 10 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||1.45|-0.31|
91742806|NCT02689206|183379412|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.42|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 15 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||1.42|-0.40|
91742807|NCT02689206|183379412|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.35|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 25 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||2.35|0.59|
91742808|NCT02689206|183379412|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.57|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 30 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||2.57|0.77|
91742809|NCT02520388|183379452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.05
91742810|NCT02520388|183379453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.05
91742811|NCT01479764|183379461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.059|||Pearson's Chi-square test|||Sugammadex is the numerator and Neostigmine/Glycopyrrolate is the denominator.||0.059|0.000|<0.0001
91742812|NCT01479764|183379462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Ratio of Geometric Means|0.83||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, Body Mass Index, comorbidity index \& length of surgical procedure||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine/glycopyrrolate is the denominator. Used log-transformed time intervals.||0.97|0.71|0.021
91742813|NCT03711370|183379465|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to model between-subject effects of group (Clear versus Opaque), within-subjects effects of use of clear versus opaque bottles during the feeding observations, and potential group by bottle type interactions on infant intake during post-test feeding observations.||||||0.76||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for pre-test values, infant sex and age, time since last feeding, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.76
91742814|NCT03711370|183379466|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to model between-subject effects of group (Clear versus Opaque), within-subjects effects of use of clear versus opaque bottles during the feeding observations, and potential group by-bottle type interactions on maternal sensitivity during post-test feeding observations.||||||0.64||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for pre-test values, infant sex and age, time since last feeding, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.64
91874979|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.027
91874980|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.019
91742815|NCT03711370|183379467|OTHER|General linear models were used to compare post-test weight-for-length z-scores (WLZ).||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|These models controlled for baseline values (i.e., baseline WLZ), infant sex and age, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.02
91874981|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
91874982|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Hippocampus- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
91874983|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E vmPFC- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.025
91874984|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Amygdala- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
91874985|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
91874986|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
91874987|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
91742816|NCT03711370|183379468|OTHER|General linear models were used to compare post-test waist circumference for the Clear versus Opaque groups.||||||0.07||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model controlled for baseline values (i.e., waist circumference), infant sex and age, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.07
91742817|NCT03711370|183379469|OTHER|General linear models were used to compare post-test triceps skinfold z-scores for the Clear versus Opaque groups.||||||0.7||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model controlled for baseline values (i.e.,triceps skinfolds z-scores), infant sex and age, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.70
91799611|NCT00191906|183476622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for study arm, treatment sequence, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.003
91874988|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
91874989|NCT02069366|183643145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.025
91874990|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+E Early- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91874991|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+U Early- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91874992|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS-Early- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91874993|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+E Late- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91874994|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+U Late- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91874995|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS- Late- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91874996|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS+E Early- Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91742818|NCT01740687|183379497|OTHER||95% upper Bayesian credible interval|1.23|||||||||||||%|predetermined study success threshold of 2.1% at 1 year||||
91742819|NCT01740687|183379498|OTHER||95% upper Bayesian credible interval|1.33|||||||||||||%|predetermined study success threshold of 2.8% at 3 years||||
91874997|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS- Early- Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91874998|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS+E Late-Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91742820|NCT00200967|183379539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.99||95.0|-14.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for AM PEF rate.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design. A sample size of 40 participants per genotype was required to detect a difference of 25 L/min in AM PEF (and relevant effect sizes for secondary outcomes) with a two-sided, 0.05 significance level test with 90% statistical power and a 15% drop-out rate.||14|-14|0.99
91874999|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS- Late- Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||0.04
91875000|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91875001|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91875002|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91907021|NCT02700412|183709252|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure severity scores over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure severity scores between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure severity scores was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure severity score outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure severity relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
91875003|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91742821|NCT00200967|183379540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.82||95.0|-15.0|12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for PM PEF rate.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||12|-15|0.82
91742822|NCT00200967|183379541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.31||95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for PEF variability.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.5|-1.6|0.31
91742823|NCT00200967|183379542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.09||95.0|-0.02|0.07|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for asthma symptoms.|A mixed-effects linear model was attempted but could not converge because very few symptoms were recorded, so a nonparametric analysis was applied.||0.07|-0.02|0.09
91875004|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91875005|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||0.033
91742824|NCT00200967|183379543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.25||95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for rescue medication use.|A mixed-effects linear model was attempted but could not converge because very few usages of rescue medications were recorded, so a nonparametric analysis was applied.||0.2|-0.1|0.25
91742825|NCT00200967|183379544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.34||95.0|-0.1|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for Spirometry FEV1, pre-bronchodilator.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.03|-0.10|0.34
91742826|NCT00200967|183379545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.91||95.0|-0.08|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for Spirometry FVC, pre-bronchodilator.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.07|-0.08|0.91
91742827|NCT00200967|183379546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.93||95.0|-15.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for Spirometry PEF rate, pre-bronchodilator.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||14|-15|0.93
91742828|NCT00200967|183379547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.13||95.0|-0.04|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for eNO.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to the natural logarithm of eNO to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.31|-0.04|0.13
91742829|NCT00200967|183379548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.79||95.0|-0.56|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for EBC.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.43|-0.56|0.79
91742830|NCT00200967|183379549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.004||95.0|0.43|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for methacholine PC20.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to the base-2 logarithm of the methacholine PC20 to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||2.21|0.43|0.004
91742831|NCT00200967|183379550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.89||95.0|-0.23|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for ACQ.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.26|-0.23|0.89
91742832|NCT00928187|183379551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesizing 80% efficacy at the 50 copies/mL Viral Load (VL) threshold in the control group at W48, we calculated a required sample size of 150 participants per group to show non-inferiority of ABC/ddI and DRV groups compared with control group in ITT analysis, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a power of 90% and a two-sided α of 5%.|differences in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|16.4||||||||16.4|-5.1|
91742833|NCT00928187|183379551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesizing 80% efficacy at the 50 copies/mL VL threshold in the control group at W48, we calculated a required sample size of 150 participants per group to show non-inferiority of ABC/ddI and DRV groups compared with control group in ITT analysis, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a power of 90% and a two-sided α of 5%.|difference in proportions|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|16.7||||||||16.7|-4.5|
91742834|NCT00928187|183379556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91742835|NCT00928187|183379557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
91742836|NCT00928187|183379558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
91742837|NCT00336284|183379597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91742838|NCT00336284|183379598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of the study is based on the safety endpoint and based on a Blackwelder type test of non inferiority with the standard design criteria: Type I error (one-sided), statistical power of 80%, and 2:1 randomization. The evaluation of the primary safety endpoint was based on an exact binomial non-inferiority test comparing the proportions of patient deaths, strokes or surgical interventions.||||||0.005||95.0|||||Exact binomial test for non-inferiority|1-sided||||||0.005
91742839|NCT00336284|183379599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91742840|NCT03462641|183379605|SUPERIORITY||t-value|-2.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was set to 0.05.|Paired-Sample Two-Tailed T-Test|||Null hypothesis was no difference in PIGD score within participants before and after flumazenil infusion.||||0.0407
91742841|NCT03462641|183379605|OTHER||F-value|2.861||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||"P value is given for the Drug\*Time term, which represents interaction between time relative to administration (before infusion vs after infusion) and treatment administered (placebo vs flumazenil).~Alpha was set to 0.05."|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there is no significant interaction between drug and time of administration (pre vs. post infusion).||||0.103
91760129|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|3.08||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.08|-3.98|
91760130|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|3.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.82|-3.34|
91760131|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|4.28||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.28|-2.75|
91742842|NCT03462641|183379606|OTHER||Standardized β Coefficient|0.6||||2.9e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.07||P value presented is for model comparison between interaction model and random intercept model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A pair of maximum likelihood mixed linear models were estimated. The first was a random intercept model that merely accounted for individual differences in PIGD score before infusion. The second was an interaction model, that added an interaction term between baseline FMZ PET binding and PIGD score change from pre to post infusion. The interaction model was compared against the random intercept model to determine significance of the interaction using likelihood ratio goodness of fit test.||1.07|0.13|0.00000029
91742843|NCT03938103|183379607|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.101
91742844|NCT03938103|183379608|OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.383
91742845|NCT03248531|183379648|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|31.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|50.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model. 95% credible intervals were presented for the bimekizumab (BKZ) vs placebo (PBO) comparison.||50.4|11.0|
91742846|NCT03248531|183379648|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6|||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.2|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model. 60% credible intervals were presented for the BKZ vs adalimumab (ADA) comparison.||6.6|-11.2|
91742847|NCT03248531|183379648|OTHER||Pr [Diff>0%] (%)|99.8|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model.||||
91742848|NCT03248531|183379648|OTHER||Pr[Diff > 0%](%)|42.1|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model.||||
91742849|NCT04660552|183379712|EQUIVALENCE|The post treatment cars scores of active and sham group will be statistically different as measured by independent sample t-test with p\<.05|Mean Difference (Net)|7.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.357|12.107|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.107|2.357|0.01
91742850|NCT03012828|183379713|OTHER|The model was used for predicting population average and 90% 2-sided bootstrapped CI of the baseline-adjusted difference between active and placebo at each time point bound at clinically relevant concentrations.|Slope|-0.0077||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0255|0.0101|||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary mixed effects model analysis revealed a nearly flat dQTcF - plasma concentration gradient|The primary analysis used a mixed-effects model to explore the relationship between the time-matched, baseline-adjusted QTcF (delta (d)QTcF) and moxidectin concentrations. dQTcF was a dependent variable and treatment, time point, and treatment by time point interaction as the independent variables with baseline QTcF as a covariate and time-matched concentrations of moxidectin as a covariate with random effects of intercept and slope for each subject.Concentrations of zero were used for placebo.||0.0101|-0.0255|0.4727
91742851|NCT01637584|183379744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \> Non-Rapid Eye Movement (NREM): Mean K-cluster voxels (Ke)=15,586: x,y,z= -36, -74, 0. Left Brodmann's Area (BA) 3, 6, 7, 10, 17, 19, 20,21,23, 38||||<0.001
91742852|NCT01637584|183379744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \< NREM: Ke=7,013: x,y,z= 26, 22, -40. Right BA 4, 10-14, 21, 25, 32, 38, 45;||||0.039
91742853|NCT01637584|183379744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \> (Rapid Eye Movement (REM): No cluster size, coordinates, or brain regions to report||||0.701
91742854|NCT01637584|183379744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \< REM: No cluster size, coordinates, or brain regions to report||||1.00
91742855|NCT01637584|183379744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Within-state decrease in rCMRglc: Ke=6,150: x,y,z= -30, -30, 2. Left BA 40, insula, hippocampus, caudate, and putamen;||||0.03
91742856|NCT01637584|183379744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Within-state increase in rCMRglc: Ke=7,049: x,y,z= 66, -18, 26. Right BA 1, 3, 15, 21, 22, 23, 41, 42||||0.01
91742857|NCT02110485|183379751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91742858|NCT02110485|183379752|OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.27
91742859|NCT02110485|183379753|OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.67
91907022|NCT04416555|183709254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.391
91742860|NCT02110485|183379754|OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.17
91742861|NCT02110485|183379755|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.84
91742862|NCT02110485|183379756|OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.99
91742863|NCT00177294|183379765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted Cox regreassion analyses of time to remission and logistic modeling for rates of remission. We tested group difference in Hamilton depession ratings over time via mixed-effects modeling.||||0.14
91742864|NCT02473471|183379768|OTHER|The sample size was calculated based on a type I error frequency of 5%. According to the power analysis and assuming a large effect size difference between groups (effect size= 0.8), the power analysis yielded 28 subjects per group at a conventional alpha level (p = 0.05) and desired power (1 - β) of 0.90||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
91742865|NCT02473471|183379769|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91742866|NCT02473471|183379770|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91742867|NCT02473471|183379771|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
91742868|NCT02473471|183379772|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91742869|NCT02473471|183379773|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||There was no significant difference in tooth movement between control and MOP sides from baseline to 1st, 2nd and 3rd months. P Value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
91907023|NCT04416555|183709255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.608
91705276|NCT03240406|183305045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.43||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.06||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||-0.06|-2.81|0.042
91705277|NCT03240406|183305046|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-16.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-1.5||Linear mixed-effects model adjusted for adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Difference in the slopes of processing speed over years between MHD Arm and Comparison Arm.|||-1.5|-31|0.031
91705278|NCT03240406|183305047|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.51||Linear mixed-effects model adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Difference in the slopes of error distance over years between MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.51|-0.27|0.55
91705279|NCT03240406|183305048|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.018||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.054||Generalized Estimating equation Poisson model adjusted for arm, year, weekday vs weekend, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), time of day (cubic spline)|Generalized Estimating Equation|Adjusted for arm, year, wkday/wknd, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), time of day (cubic spline)|Difference in the slopes of log-transformed error rates over years between the MHD Arm and the Comparison Arm.|||0.054|-0.090|0.846
91705280|NCT01160380|183305069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment||||0.289
91705281|NCT01160380|183305069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between Day 1 and Day 28||||<0.001
91705282|NCT01160380|183305069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between Day 1 and day 28||||<0.002
91705283|NCT01160380|183305069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Day 28 and Day 56 of treatment for the armodafinil arm||||0.449
91705284|NCT01160380|183305070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment||||0.954
91705285|NCT01160380|183305070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm||||0.007
91705286|NCT01160380|183305070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.369
91705287|NCT01160380|183305070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Day 28 and Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.973
91705288|NCT01160380|183305071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms at day 28||||0.699
91705289|NCT01160380|183305071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm||||0.984
91705290|NCT01160380|183305071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.239
91705291|NCT01160380|183305071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.089
91705292|NCT01160380|183305072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment for the Digit Span Test score-Forward test||||0.636
91705293|NCT01160380|183305072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment for the Digit Span Test score-Backward test||||0.531
91705294|NCT01160380|183305072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-Digit Span Test score Forward test||||0.037
91705295|NCT01160380|183305072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-Digit Span Test score Backward test||||0.656
91705296|NCT01160380|183305072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Forward test||||0.028
91705297|NCT01160380|183305072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Backward test||||0.805
91705298|NCT01160380|183305072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Forward test||||0.692
91705299|NCT01160380|183305072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Backward test||||0.863
91705300|NCT01160380|183305073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for Day 28 of treatment- FACIT-F total||||0.559
91705301|NCT01160380|183305073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm- FACIT-F total||||<0.001
91705302|NCT01160380|183305073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm- FACIT-F total||||0.192
91705303|NCT01160380|183305073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56of treatment for the Armodafinil arm- FACIT-F total||||0.495
91705304|NCT01160380|183305074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment- HADS anxiety||||0.945
91705305|NCT01160380|183305074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment- HADS depression||||0.316
91705306|NCT01160380|183305074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-HADS anxiety||||0.005
91705307|NCT01160380|183305074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-HADS depression||||0.005
91705308|NCT01160380|183305074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-HADS anxiety||||0.001
91742870|NCT02473471|183379774|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Root length at baseline.||||0.59
91742871|NCT02473471|183379774|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Root length at 3 months||||0.48
91742872|NCT02473471|183379775|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediate after intervention||||0.388
91705309|NCT01160380|183305074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-HADS depression||||0.315
91705310|NCT01160380|183305074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-HADS anxiety||||0.933
91705311|NCT01160380|183305074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-HADS depression||||0.378
91705312|NCT01160380|183305075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for Day 28 of treatment -ESS||||0.840
91705313|NCT01160380|183305075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-ESS||||0.050
91705314|NCT01160380|183305075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 and Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm- ESS||||0.051
91705315|NCT01160380|183305075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.635
91705316|NCT01153009|183305099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|0.91||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops for this dose and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 15 mg and 20 mg vortioxetine to placebo. Efficacy endpoints were tested for each dose in a sequential order at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.91|-3.86|0.224
91705317|NCT01153009|183305099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-0.38||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.025, hierarchical testing continues for this dose.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.38|-5.12|0.023
91705318|NCT01153009|183305099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-1.69|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-1.69|-6.46|<0.001
91705319|NCT01153009|183305100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.984|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.984|0.786|0.348
91705320|NCT01153009|183305100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.994||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops for this dose and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.994|0.792|0.332
91705321|NCT01153009|183305100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.991||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.171|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.171|1.250|0.004
91705322|NCT01153009|183305101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.16|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.16|-0.39|0.400
91705323|NCT01153009|183305101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.08|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.08|-0.46|0.177
91705324|NCT01153009|183305101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.07|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.07|-0.61|0.014
91705325|NCT01153009|183305102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.286||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|5.45|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||5.45|-3.58|0.684
91705326|NCT01153009|183305102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.419||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.15|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||4.15|-5.40|0.797
91705327|NCT01153009|183305102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.278||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|0.45|||Mixed model for repeated mesurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.45|-8.54|0.078
91705328|NCT01153009|183305103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.053||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|1.775|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.775|0.625|0.845
91705329|NCT01153009|183305103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.192||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.994|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.994|0.713|0.503
91705330|NCT01153009|183305103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.098||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.860|0.648|0.728
91705331|NCT01153009|183305104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.13|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||2.13|-2.24|0.962
91875006|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91907024|NCT04416555|183709256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.768
91907025|NCT04416555|183709257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.244
91742873|NCT02473471|183379775|OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 hour after intervention||||0.092
91742874|NCT02473471|183379775|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||12 hour after intervention||||0.100
91742875|NCT02473471|183379775|OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 after intervention||||0.302
91742876|NCT02473471|183379775|OTHER|||||||0.582|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3 after intervention||||0.582
91742877|NCT02473471|183379775|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5 after intervention||||0.743
91742878|NCT02473471|183379775|OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7 after intervention||||0.809
91742879|NCT02473471|183379776|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.09
91875007|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91907026|NCT04416555|183709258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.191
91742880|NCT02473471|183379776|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.29
91742881|NCT02473471|183379776|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.57
91742882|NCT02473471|183379776|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7||||0.82
91907027|NCT00530270|183709264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.127
91907028|NCT00530270|183709265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.801||||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.801
91742883|NCT02473471|183379777|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.27
91742884|NCT02473471|183379777|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.37
91742885|NCT02473471|183379777|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.33
91742886|NCT02473471|183379777|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7||||> 0.05
91742887|NCT02473471|183379778|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.05
91742888|NCT02473471|183379778|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.47
91742889|NCT02473471|183379778|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.09
91742890|NCT02473471|183379778|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91742891|NCT02473471|183379779|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.18
91742892|NCT02473471|183379779|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.57
91742893|NCT02473471|183379779|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.30
91742894|NCT02473471|183379779|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7||||0.56
91742895|NCT02473471|183379780|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Descriptive statistics|||||||< 0.05
91742896|NCT01181804|183379797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.15|||ANOVA|||||1.15|1.07|
91742897|NCT01181804|183379798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|1.54|||ANOVA|||||1.54|1.32|
91742898|NCT01181804|183379799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.14|||ANOVA|||||1.14|1.06|
91760132|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|2.27||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.27|-4.88|
91760133|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|5.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.82|-1.32|
91875008|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91875009|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91742899|NCT01181804|183379800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric mean ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.21|||ANOVA|||||1.21|1.09|
91742900|NCT00191945|183379827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-11.0|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at week 12 (Atomoxetine minus Placebo)|||-4.8|-11.0|<0.001
91742901|NCT00191945|183379828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-9.5|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at Week 9 (Atomoxetine - Placebo)|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-3.6|-9.5|<0.001
91742902|NCT00191945|183379829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.0009||95.0|-8.2|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at 6 weeks (Atomoxetine - Placebo)|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-2.2|-8.2|0.0009
91742903|NCT00191945|183379830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0033||95.0|-6.4|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at 4 weeks (Atomoxetine - Placebo)|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-1.3|-6.4|0.0033
91742904|NCT00191945|183379831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.013||95.0|-4.9|-0.6||P-value is for the difference between groups in the change from 12 weeks minus 6 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference between groups (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in change from 6 weeks to 12 weeks|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-0.6|-4.9|0.013
91760134|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|1.87||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.87|-5.89|
91760135|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|5.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.40|-2.41|
91760136|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|5.34||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.34|-2.44|
91760137|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.76||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.76|-1.98|
91760138|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|4.61||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.61|-3.16|
91760139|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|8.06||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.06|0.29|
91875010|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91742905|NCT00191945|183379834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001||95.0|-15.1|-6.2||P-value is for the difference between groups in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model repeated measures analyis: treatment, visit, patient, and CPRS-R: S Total score at baseline as covariate, with treatment\*visit interaction|Least Squares Mean difference between groups (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in change from baseline to 12 weeks.|||-6.2|-15.1|<0.001
91742906|NCT00191945|183379835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.81||95.0|-3.39|4.33||P-value for Parent: Satisfaction difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||4.33|-3.39|0.810
91742907|NCT00191945|183379835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.96||||0.243||95.0|-1.35|5.29||P-value for Parent: Comfort difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||5.29|-1.35|0.243
91742908|NCT00191945|183379835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.419||95.0|-2.26|5.39||P-value for Parent: Resilience difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||5.39|-2.26|0.419
91742909|NCT00191945|183379835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.41|||<|0.001||95.0|4.27|12.55||P-value for Parent:Risk Avoidance difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||12.55|4.27|<0.001
91742910|NCT00191945|183379835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.39||||0.042||95.0|0.13|6.65||P-value for Parent:Achievement difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||6.65|0.13|0.042
91742911|NCT00191945|183379835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.323||95.0|-4.06|1.35||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Satisfaction difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||1.35|-4.06|0.323
91742912|NCT00191945|183379835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.452||95.0|-1.49|3.34||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Comfort difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||3.34|-1.49|0.452
91742913|NCT00191945|183379835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.91||95.0|-2.59|2.9||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Resilience difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||2.90|-2.59|0.910
91742914|NCT00191945|183379835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.006||95.0|1.04|6.08||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Risk Avoidance difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||6.08|1.04|0.006
91742915|NCT00191945|183379835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.541||95.0|-2.21|4.19||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Achievement difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||4.19|-2.21|0.541
91742916|NCT02063984|183379842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.56|||||Outcome was tested in a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model|CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||1.56|.11|
91742917|NCT02063984|183379843|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.07|||||Outcome was tested in a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model|CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||3.07|.79|
91742918|NCT02063984|183379844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|4.82||||||CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||4.82|.18|
91742919|NCT02063984|183379845|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.54|||||Outcome was tested in a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model|CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||2.54|.33|
91742920|NCT02063984|183379846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.45||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||2.45|.45|
91875011|NCT02069366|183643146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
91742921|NCT02063984|183379846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.2||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||6.20|.84|
91742922|NCT02063984|183379846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.13||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||1.13|.23|
91742923|NCT02063984|183379847|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.92||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||1.92|.76|
91742924|NCT02063984|183379847|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.18||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||1.18|.49|
91742925|NCT02063984|183379847|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.15||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||2.15|.83|
91742926|NCT01831466|183379893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.5425|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.3|12.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.0|-4.3|0.5425
91742927|NCT01831466|183379893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.5|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.5|-11.5|0.4976
91742928|NCT01831466|183379893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.6039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.9|11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.5|-4.9|0.6039
91742929|NCT01831466|183379893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.5279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.1|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.1|-4.1|0.5279
91742930|NCT01831466|183379894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.071|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.1|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.5|3.1|0.0710
91742931|NCT01831466|183379894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.9|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.5|-7.9|0.8175
91742932|NCT01831466|183379894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.8|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.2|3.8|0.0513
91742933|NCT01831466|183379894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|-0.0|0.2021
91742934|NCT02131662|183379931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|58.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.55|70.94||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||70.94|44.55|
91875012|NCT02069366|183643147|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning Pre- Visit 3' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
91742935|NCT02131662|183379931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|52.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|65.42||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||65.42|38.8|
91742936|NCT02131662|183379931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|54.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.41|66.95||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||66.95|40.41|
91742937|NCT02131662|183379931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|28.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.92|41.5||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||41.5|15.92|
91742938|NCT01433042|183379983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.0||||||||||since the study results analysis is purley discriptive no P value and confidence interval was used for the analysis|percentage|percentage of SB3 images graded as superior in image quality to SB2|since the study results analysis is purley discriptive no P value and confidence interval was used for the analysis|"Primary Endpoint~o Physician's subjective assessment questionnaire was evaluated in a quality manner.~The physicians were required to assess the performance of SB3 system as compare to SB2 by answering a short questionnaire.~The physicians were requested to indicate whether capsule SB3 was better as compared to SB2."||||
91742939|NCT00556439|183379984|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier curves of relapse free survival were constructed, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||||0.049||||||The p value of 0.049 reflects comparison of relapse free survival of abatacept versus placebo in giant cell arteritis.|Log Rank|||The planned sample size was determined by the minimally clinically meaningful result (i.e., an approximate 30% improvement in relapse-free survival) to be detected utilizing a one-sided alpha of 0.1. Kaplan-Meier curves of RFS were constructed for each stratum, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||0.049
91742940|NCT00556439|183379984|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier curves of relapse free survival were constructed, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||||0.853||||||The p value of 0.853 reflects comparison of relapse free survival of abatacept versus placebo in Takayasu arteritis.|Log Rank|||The planned sample size was determined by the minimally clinically meaningful result (i.e., an approximate 30% improvement in relapse-free survival) to be detected utilizing a one-sided alpha of 0.1. Kaplan-Meier curves of RFS were constructed for each stratum, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||0.853
91875013|NCT02069366|183643147|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning Mid-Visit 3' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
91875014|NCT02069366|183643147|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning Post-Visit 3' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
91875015|NCT02069366|183643147|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall Pre-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
91742941|NCT02195700|183380008|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||5% level of significance (2-sided)|unstructured covariance|||The linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, each scheduled time point (5 levels: weeks 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12), the treatment-by-time point interaction, and the DRA status. Baseline AIMS score was a covariate. The unstructured covariance model was used, and the primary analysis compared the SD-809 and placebo groups at week 12. This was based on the F-test using the Satterhwaite method to compute the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.2|-2.6|0.0188
91742942|NCT02195700|183380009|SUPERIORITY||Differences in %|7.9||||0.4001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|25.2||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Pearson's chi-square test|||The secondary efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a hierarchical testing procedure. If the primary analysis was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the first key secondary endpoint was to be analyzed. If the first key secondary endpoint was statistically significant, then the second key secondary endpoint was to be similarly analyzed. For any analysis that was not statistically significant, all subsequent analyses of key secondary endpoints were exploratory rather than confirmatory.||25.2|-10.2|0.4001
91742943|NCT01352221|183380022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.81||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for primary endpoint, Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 12 in double-blind phase, FAS|||1.81|< 0.0001
91742944|NCT01352221|183380026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis of the change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 4 of the double-blind phase - Full Analysis Set, multiple imputation|||0.82|< 0.0001
91742945|NCT01352221|183380027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.43|||ANCOVA analysis of Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 8 of double-blind phase - FAS, multiple imputation|ANCOVA||||||1.43|< 0.0001
91742946|NCT01352221|183380038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.87||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the PPAS|||1.87|< 0.0001
91742947|NCT01352221|183380039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the FAS LOCF Change in Haemoglobin Concentration from Baseline to Week 12|||1.82|< 0.0001
91742948|NCT01340625|183380053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.91|115.24|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115.24|100.91|
91742949|NCT01340625|183380054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.74|111.88|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.88|96.74|
91742950|NCT01340625|183380055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.73|108.62|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.62|95.73|
91742951|NCT01340625|183380056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.04|102.86|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.86|90.04|
91742952|NCT01340625|183380057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.89|103.97|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.97|93.89|
91799612|NCT00191906|183476623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
91875016|NCT02069366|183643147|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall Mid-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
91742953|NCT01340625|183380058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.91|104.5|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.50|94.91|
91742954|NCT03206970|183380085|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson|83.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|90.8|||Binomial Exact Test|||A binomial exact test was performed to test against the null hypothesis H0: ORR=0.40 using the significant level of 0.025 (1-sided)||90.8|74.2|<.0001
91742955|NCT03206970|183380089|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|83.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|90.8|||Binomial Exact Test|||A binomial exact test was performed to test against the null hypothesis H0: ORR=0.40 using the significant level of 0.025 (1-sided)||90.8|74.2|<0.0001
91742956|NCT01709110|183380118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4071||||9.4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.647|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.647|0.256|0.000094
91742957|NCT01709110|183380118|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4431||||9.4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.677|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.677|0.290|0.000094
91742958|NCT01709110|183380119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4187||||7.5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.652|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.652|0.269|0.000075
91742959|NCT01709110|183380119|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4561||||7.5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.682|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.682|0.305|0.000075
91742960|NCT01709110|183380120|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4831||||0.000869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|0.739|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimate and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||0.739|0.316|0.000869
91742961|NCT01709110|183380121|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6553||||0.099023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.101|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimate and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||1.101|0.390|0.099023
91742962|NCT01709110|183380122|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5786||||0.062432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|1.052|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimate and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||1.052|0.318|0.062432
91742963|NCT01709110|183380123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3812|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.614|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.614|0.237|<0.001
91742964|NCT01709110|183380123|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.646|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.646|0.270|<0.001
91742965|NCT01709110|183380124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1593||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.728|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.728|0.035|0.007
91742966|NCT01709110|183380124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.1643||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.744|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.744|0.036|0.007
91742967|NCT01709110|183380125|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.696||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.05|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimates and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||1.050|0.461|0.078
91799613|NCT00191906|183476624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
91742968|NCT01709110|183380126|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate and baseline body height(cm).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.02|-0.28|0.093
91742969|NCT01709110|183380127|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.24||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate and baseline back pain (no pain - worst pain \[0-10\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.24|-0.42|0.585
91742970|NCT01709110|183380128|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate baseline EQ-5D-5L (UK).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.02|-0.03|0.757
91742971|NCT01709110|183380129|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate baseline EQ-5D-5L (US).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.01|-0.02|0.694
91742972|NCT01951586|183380130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.53|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|"Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomized stratification factors.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab."|||1.53|0.81|0.5157
91742973|NCT01951586|183380131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3759|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3759
91742974|NCT01951586|183380131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3666|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in membranes (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3666
91742975|NCT01951586|183380131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1917|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membranes; all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.1917
91742976|NCT01951586|183380131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3353|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3353
91742977|NCT01951586|183380131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3179|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in membranes (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3179
91742978|NCT01951586|183380131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1583|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membranes; H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.1583
91742979|NCT01951586|183380132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3946|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3946
91742980|NCT01951586|183380132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3735|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3735
91742981|NCT01951586|183380133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors; an odds ratio ≥ 1 favors denosumab.|||1.35|0.43|0.3491
91742982|NCT01951586|183380134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.476|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4760
91742983|NCT01951586|183380134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2582|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the membranes (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2582
91799614|NCT00191906|183476625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
91799615|NCT00191906|183476626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
91742984|NCT01951586|183380134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membrane; all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2230
91742985|NCT01951586|183380134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4329|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4329
91742986|NCT01951586|183380134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the membranes (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2620
91742987|NCT01951586|183380134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2081|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membrane; H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2081
91742988|NCT01951586|183380135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4671|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4671
91742989|NCT01951586|183380135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4236|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4236
91742990|NCT01951586|183380136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors; an odds ratio ≥ 1 favors denosumab.|||1.43|0.46|0.4654
91742991|NCT01951586|183380137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.43|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomized stratification factors.|"Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomized stratification factors.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab."|||1.43|0.78|0.7363
91742992|NCT01204905|183380179|OTHER|This was a pilot study with a small sample population. There were no power calculations performed.|||||||||||||||||The percentage of patients with HIV-1 viral loads less than 50 c/ml at 48 weeks.|||
91742993|NCT01204905|183380180|OTHER|There were no power calculations performed due to the size of the pilot study.|||||||||||||||||Number of weeks to virologic suppression|||
91875017|NCT02069366|183643147|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall Post-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
91742994|NCT00104416|183380190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|31.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.8|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.1|15.8|<0.0001
91742995|NCT02767869|183380220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91742996|NCT02767869|183380221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.530
91742997|NCT02767869|183380222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.034
91742998|NCT02767869|183380223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
91742999|NCT02767869|183380224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.799
91743000|NCT02767869|183380225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
91743001|NCT02767869|183380226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.878
91743002|NCT02767869|183380227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.919|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.919
91743003|NCT02767869|183380228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.254|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
91743004|NCT02767869|183380229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.347|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.347
91743005|NCT02767869|183380230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
91743006|NCT02767869|183380231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.410
91743007|NCT02767869|183380232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91743008|NCT02998671|183380401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison at end of Period 1 (P1): CJM112 versus Placebo.|Ratio of geometric means|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.81|||Bayesian model for repeated measurements||"Ratio of Geometric Means (CJM112 / Placebo) calculated. A value \> 1 indicates a higher number of lesion counts in the CJM112 group.~Bayesian analysis. The credible interval was calculated and presented under confidence interval."|||1.81|0.79|
91743009|NCT02998671|183380401|SUPERIORITY|Comparison at end of Period 1 (P1): CJM112 versus Placebo.|Ratio of geometric means|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.8|||Bayesian model for repeated measurements||"Ratio of Geometric Means (CJM112 / Placebo) calculated. A value \> 1 indicates a higher number of lesion counts in the CJM112 group.~Bayesian analysis. The credible interval was calculated and presented under confidence interval."|||1.80|0.66|
91760140|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-0.06||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.06|-7.21|
91760141|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|0.85||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.85|-6.25|
91875018|NCT02069366|183643147|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal Pre-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
91743010|NCT00595881|183380429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in sensitivity|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.0||"We calculated the differences between the sensitivities and specificities. The difference in sensitivity between the clinical exam alone vs clinical exam + ultrasound was -1.7% (-3.4%, 0%).~The difference in specificity was -2.8% (-9.7%, 4.1%)."|Mixed effects logistic regression|We used the bootstrap method to obtain valid confidence intervals and compare sensitivity and specificity for the 2 tests.|The clinical exam alone was compared to the clinical exam + ultrasound.|See sample size calculations already entered. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the sensitivity or specificity of clinical exam alone compared with clinical exam+ultrasound.||0|-3.4|
91743011|NCT00595881|183380429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in specificity|-2.8||||||95.0|-9.7|4.1||Statistical significance was defined as a CI surrounding the difference between groups not including 0.||as previously described for sensitivity||as previously described for sensitivity||4.1|-9.7|
91743012|NCT01763333|183380453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6942|1.0513|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for Cmax was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0513|0.6942|
91743013|NCT01763333|183380453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8277|1.0405|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of solution for Cmax was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0405|0.8277|
91743014|NCT01763333|183380453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|112.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.579|132.993|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Tab. fed (T1): Tab. fasted (R1) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T1 vs R1 (PPS-BA-T1-R1) was used.||132.993|95.579|
91743015|NCT01763333|183380453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|52.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.488|68.499|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2) : Sol. fasted (R2) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs R2 (PPS-BA-T2-R2) was used.||68.499|40.488|
91743016|NCT01763333|183380453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|239.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|197.445|290.83|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fasted (R2): Tab. fasted (R1) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of R2 vs R1 (PPS-BA-R2-R1) was used.||290.830|197.445|
91743017|NCT01763333|183380453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|105.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.427|130.208|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2): Tab. fed (T1) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs T1 (PPS-BA-T2-T1) was used.||130.208|85.427|
91760142|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|1.6||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.60|-5.63|
91760143|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.05||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.05|-5.02|
91760144|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-2.31||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.31|-10.07|
91743018|NCT01763333|183380455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6485|1.0198|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose).Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC0-inf was analysed.The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0198|0.6485|
91743019|NCT01763333|183380455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8059|1.0239|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose).Dose proportionality of solution for AUC0-inf was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0239|0.8059|
91743020|NCT01763333|183380455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean Ratio|86.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.529|98.029|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Tab. fed (T1): Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC0-inf. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T1 vs R1 (PPS-BA-T1-R1) was used.||98.029|76.529|
91743021|NCT01763333|183380455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|74.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.322|83.562|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2) : Sol. fasted (R2) for AUC0-inf.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs R2 (PPS-BA-T2-R2) was used.||83.562|66.322|
91799616|NCT00191906|183476627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||||||0.094
91799617|NCT00191906|183476628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction||||||0.312
91875019|NCT02069366|183643147|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal Mid-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
91875020|NCT02069366|183643147|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal Post-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
91875021|NCT00168805|183643168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the absolute risk difference has to be below 9.2%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.3||||0.6648||95.0|-7.3|4.6||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.6|-7.3|0.6648
91875022|NCT00168805|183643168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the absolute risk difference has to be below 9.2%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|2.8||||0.3553||95.0|-3.1|8.7||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||8.7|-3.1|0.3553
91875023|NCT00168805|183643169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.0||||0.376||95.0|-3.1|1.2|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.2|-3.1|0.3760
91875024|NCT00168805|183643169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.8151||95.0|-2.0|2.6|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.6|-2.0|0.8151
91875025|NCT00168805|183643170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.8||||0.4715||95.0|-2.8|1.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.3|-2.8|0.4715
91875026|NCT00168805|183643170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.1||||0.9325||95.0|-2.1|2.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.3|-2.1|0.9325
91875027|NCT00168805|183643171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.4||||0.6463||95.0|-7.3|4.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.5|-7.3|0.6463
91875028|NCT00168805|183643171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|2.7||||0.374||95.0|-3.2|8.6|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||8.6|-3.2|0.3740
91875029|NCT00168805|183643172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0385||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0385
91875030|NCT00168805|183643172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1414||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.1414
91875031|NCT00168805|183643173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
91743022|NCT01763333|183380455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|137.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.708|157.353|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fasted (R2): Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC0-inf.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of R2 vs R1 (PPS-BA-R2-R1) was used.||157.353|119.708|
91743023|NCT01763333|183380455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|116.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.462|121.724|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2): Tab. fed (T1) for AUC0-inf.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs T1 (PPS-BA-T2-T1) was used.||121.724|111.462|
91743024|NCT01763333|183380456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.0275|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC 0- tz was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0275|0.6580|
91743025|NCT01763333|183380456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9307|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8187|1.0426|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of solution for AUC0-tz was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0426|0.8187|
91743026|NCT01763333|183380456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean)|gMean Ratio|86.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.735|98.027|||||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Tab. fed (T1) : Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC 0-tz. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T1 vs R1 (PPS-BA-T1-R1) was used.||98.027|75.735|
91743027|NCT01763333|183380456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean)|gMean ratio|74.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.979|83.941|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2) : Sol. fasted (R2) for AUC 0-tz.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs R2 (PPS-BA-T2-R2) was used.||83.941|65.979|
91743028|NCT01763333|183380456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|137.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.611|157.374|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fasted (R2): Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC 0-tz.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of R2 vs R1(PPS-BA-R2-R1) was used.||157.374|119.611|
91760145|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.23||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.23|-6.60|
91760146|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|1.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.18|-6.64|
91760147|NCT01393639|183411998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|1.58||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.58|-6.16|
91799618|NCT00191906|183476629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C versus normal controls.||||0.508
91875032|NCT00168805|183643173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
91875033|NCT00168805|183643174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
91875034|NCT00168805|183643174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
91743029|NCT01763333|183380456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|116.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.814|122.079|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2): Tab. fed (T1) for AUC 0-tz.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs T1 (PPS-BA-T2-T1) was used.||122.079|111.814|
91743030|NCT03583359|183380459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|66.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|75.2|||Fisher's exact test|The Fisher's exact test was utilized to test the superiority of treatment (Radiesse \[+\]) over control group.|Two-sided Newcombe confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for difference in responder rate.|||75.2|53.7|<0.0001
91743031|NCT01625416|183380465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi square (2) =5.9, p=0.05|||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.05
91743032|NCT01625416|183380466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|Chi square(2) = 0.74, p = 0.69|||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.69
91743033|NCT01625416|183380469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Chi square (2) = 0.06, p = 0.97|Chi-squared||||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.97
91743034|NCT01625416|183380470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-Square (2) =0.68, p=0.71|||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.71
91743035|NCT00803595|183380532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 18 hours (h) was set to assure the superiority of laninamivir octanoate over a putative placebo. A meta-analysis using 3 placebo-controlled trials reported that the difference between the median time to illness alleviation in the placebo and oseltamivir groups was 33.1 h and the 95% confidence interval ranged from 19.1 to 47.1 h. From this, a margin that was less than the lower limit of this 95% CI was selected.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|6.9||2-sided p-value without adjustments for multiple testing|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||This trial was designed to confirm the efficacy of laninamivir octanoate by showing that the median time to illness alleviation in patients treated with laninamivir octanoate was not \>18 hours longer than that in patients treated with oseltamivir. Sample size of 300 patients in each group was determined to achieve a power of at least 80% to show noninferiority at both dose levels of laninamivir octanoate with use of a Monte Carlo simulation.||6.9|-9.9|0.748
91799619|NCT00191906|183476630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for ADHD-C versus normal controls||||0.769
91799620|NCT00191906|183476631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C+RD versus RD controls.||||0.302
91799621|NCT00191906|183476631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for RD versus RD controls.||||0.663
91799622|NCT00191906|183476632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for ADHD-C+RD versus RD controls.||||0.070
91875035|NCT00168805|183643176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8209||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.8209
91875036|NCT00168805|183643176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
91875037|NCT01114217|183643180|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91889196|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 12F||0.87|0.68|
91889197|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|6.1|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 15B||6.10|4.82|
91705332|NCT01153009|183305104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.29|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||1.29|-3.05|0.427
91705333|NCT01153009|183305104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|0.22|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.22|-4.19|0.078
91705334|NCT03041467|183305131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||<0.001
91705335|NCT03041467|183305132|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-values for the primary safety endpoint was based on the Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test with a margin of 7.5%.||||||0.002|||||||Farrington-Manning Test|||||||0.002
91705336|NCT03041467|183305133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate access circuit primary patency.||||<0.001
91875038|NCT01837719|183643187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (fixed-dose combination \[FDC\] tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to time of last quantifiable concentration (AUC\[0-T\]) and AUC from time 0 to infinity. (AUC\[0-T\])|Geometric mean ratio|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir Cmax, with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.137|1.012|
91875039|NCT01837719|183643187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.423|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.273|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||1.590|1.273|
91875040|NCT01837719|183643187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|To assess the relative bioavailability of atazanavir under fasted (Treatment D) versus fed (Treatment C) states, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.292|1.000|
91875041|NCT01837719|183643187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.701|1.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||1.059|0.701|
91875042|NCT01837719|183643187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.643|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.545|0.759|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of high fat and light meals on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||0.759|0.545|
91875043|NCT01837719|183643188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-T), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant (sequence) as a random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|1.065|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(0-T) is calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (FDC tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, AUC(0-T) and AUC(INF).||1.120|1.012|
91875044|NCT01837719|183643188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.166|1.393|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect was used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as an FDC||1.393|1.166|
91907029|NCT00530270|183709266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Different error variance estimates were allowed for the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.02
91907030|NCT00530270|183709267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Different error variance estimates were allowed for the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.876
91907031|NCT00530270|183709268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Different error variance estimates were allowed for the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.770
91743036|NCT00803595|183380532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-0.4||2-sided p-value without adjustments for multiple testing|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time to illness alleviation||-0.4|-18.2|0.038
91799623|NCT00191906|183476632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for RD versus RD controls.||||0.179
91759518|NCT02391363|183411769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.00 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.98
91875045|NCT01837719|183643188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.248|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(0-T) is calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|To assess the relative bioavailability of atazanavir under fasted (Treatment D) versus fed (Treatment C) states, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-T) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect||1.248|0.993|
91743037|NCT00803595|183380532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 18 hours was set to assure the superiority of laninamivir octanoate over a putative placebo. A meta-analysis using 3 placebo-controlled trials reported that the difference between the median time to illness alleviation in the placebo and oseltamivir groups was 33.1 h and the 95% confidence interval ranged from 19.1 to 47.1 h. From this, a margin that was less than the lower limit of this 95% CI was selected.|Median Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.2|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||This trial was designed to confirm the efficacy of laninamivir octanoate by showing that the median time to illness alleviation in patients treated with laninamivir octanoate was not \>18 hours longer than that in patients treated with oseltamivir. Sample size of 300 patients in each group was determined to achieve a power of at least 80% to show noninferiority at both dose levels of laninamivir octanoate with use of a Monte Carlo simulation.||17.2|-1.5|0.104
91743038|NCT00803595|183380533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.1||2-sided P value without adjustments for multiple testing.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time for return to normal axillary temperature.||9.1|-2.8|0.318
91743039|NCT00803595|183380533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.7||2-sided P value without adjustments for multiple testing.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time for return to normal axillary temperature.||5.7|-5.8|0.981
91743040|NCT00803595|183380533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.1||2-sided P value without adjustments for multiple testing.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time for return to normal axillary temperature.||3.1|-9.1|0.344
91875046|NCT01837719|183643188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.804|1.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC.||1.122|0.804|
91743041|NCT01597908|183380537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.83|||||Hazard ratios are estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.83|0.58|
91743042|NCT01597908|183380538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.73|||||Hazard ratios are estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.73|0.52|
91743043|NCT01597908|183380540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81||||||||0.81|0.51|
91743044|NCT03522246|183380597|SUPERIORITY|Rucaparib vs Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.72|||Log Rank||The stratified cox proportional hazard model is adjusted for the randomization strata of HRD classification and timing of surgery.|||0.72|0.31|0.0004
91743045|NCT03522246|183380598|SUPERIORITY|Rucaparib vs Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||Log Rank||The stratified cox proportional hazard model is adjusted for the randomization strata of HRD classification, disease status post-chemotherapy, and timing of surgery.|||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
91743046|NCT03522246|183380599|SUPERIORITY|Rucaparib + Nivolumab vs Rucaparib + Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.53|||Log Rank||The stratified cox proportional hazard model is adjusted for the randomization strata of HRD classification, disease status post-chemotherapy, and timing of surgery.|||1.53|1.08|0.0038
91743047|NCT00814580|183380612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary hypothesis test for non-inferiority of tapentadol IR over oxycodone IR required that upper limit of 95% CI for LS mean difference (oxycodone IR minus tapentadol IR) was less than the inferiority margin (\< 72). If the upper limit was less than 0 then tapentadol IR was superior to oxycodone IR for SPID over 3 days at a 5% level of significance.|Least square mean difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.2||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|36.9||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||Tapentadol IR versus Oxycodone IR||36.9|-18.9|0.5265
91743048|NCT00814580|183380613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7306||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7306
91743049|NCT00814580|183380614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8524||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.8524
91743050|NCT00814580|183380615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9078||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9078
91743051|NCT00814580|183380616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2633||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2633
91743052|NCT00814580|183380617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4498||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4498
91875047|NCT01837719|183643188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.655|0.849|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of high fat and light meals on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||0.849|0.655|
91743053|NCT00814580|183380618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2158||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2158
91743054|NCT00814580|183380619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|25.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||25.0|-11.8|0.4811
91743055|NCT00814580|183380620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.13||0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.7|46.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||46.0|-64.7|0.7405
91875048|NCT01837719|183643188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (FDC tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, AUC(0-T) and AUC(INF).|Geometric mean ratio|1.064||||||90.0|1.011|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ration for AUC(INF) is calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-INF), with treatment period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect.||1.120|1.011|
91875049|NCT01837719|183643188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.171|1.398|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to estimate the effect of a light meal and fthe fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||1.398|1.171|
91875050|NCT01837719|183643188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|To assess the relative bioavailability of atazanavir under fasted (Treatment D) versus fed (Treatment C) states, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-INF) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect||1.244|0.991|
91875051|NCT01837719|183643188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.956|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.128|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|||1.128|0.810|
91875052|NCT01837719|183643188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|0.852|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to estimate the effect of high fat and light meals on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as an FDC.||0.852|0.658|
91743056|NCT00814580|183380621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|5.3||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-16.5|0.3097
91875053|NCT01837719|183643193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.014|1.158|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.158|1.014|
91875054|NCT01837719|183643193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.349|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.215|1.498|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of C24 was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.498|1.215|
91875055|NCT01837719|183643193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.144||||||90.0|1.006|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as an FDC||1.300|1.006|
91743057|NCT00814580|183380622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|6.1||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||6.1|-26.7|0.2179
91743058|NCT00814580|183380623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.16||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|5.5||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||5.5|-58.1|0.1051
91875056|NCT01837719|183643193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.231|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.023|1.483|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.483|1.023|
91875057|NCT01837719|183643193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.912||||||90.0|0.789|1.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.054|0.789|
91743059|NCT00814580|183380624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|24.8||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||24.8|-22.8|0.9367
91743060|NCT00814580|183380625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.53||0.9441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|35.2||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||35.2|-37.8|0.9441
91743061|NCT00814580|183380626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.45||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.3|38.1||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||38.1|-109.3|0.3427
91743062|NCT00814580|183380627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1618||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1618
91743063|NCT00814580|183380628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0481||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0481
91799624|NCT01188421|183476641|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Group|1.31||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect of Group (e.g., Buprenorphine, Tramadol, Clonidine) on COWS Total Score Ratings|ANOVA|||A power analysis determined 40 participants in each group would detect a moderate effect size, assuming an alpha of 0.05 and 80% power. Due to the expiration of buprenorphine tablets, recruitment was terminated after enrolling 103 participants. This study utilized an Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analysis. The ITT analysis includes all volunteers who signed informed consent, were randomized into the study's treatment conditions, and took at least 1 dose of study medication.||||.275
91743064|NCT00814580|183380629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0109
91875058|NCT01837719|183643195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.057|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.057|0.991|
91743065|NCT02482428|183380646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.2|||Posterior mean|||||0.20|-0.03|0.862
91743066|NCT02482428|183380646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.19|||posterior mean|||||0.19|-0.07|0.541
91743067|NCT01519791|183380696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.283|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.503|3.468|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio measuring the treatment effect was estimated from a logistic regression model including terms for treatment, region and stratification factor. Nonresponder imputation (NRI) was used.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||3.468|1.503|<0.001
91743068|NCT01519791|183380697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.957|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.384|2.767|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio measuring the treatment effect was estimated from a logistic regression model including terms for treatment, region and stratification factor. Nonresponder imputation (NRI) was used.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||2.767|1.384|<0.001
91743069|NCT01519791|183380698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate of shift|-0.978|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.005|-0.5|||ANCOVA on ranks||"ANCOVA model on the ranks with the terms for treatment, region, and time since RA diagnosis at Baseline (≤4 months or \>4 months) as factors and rank Baseline value as a covariate.~Confidence Interval is an asymptotic Moses CI."|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||-0.500|-1.005|<0.001
91743070|NCT01519791|183380703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.446|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.052|1.989|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio was estimated from a logistic regression model including terms for treatment, region and stratification factor. Nonresponder imputation (NRI) was used.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||1.989|1.052|=0.023
91743071|NCT01519791|183380715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.082|||ANCOVA||The CfB in HAQ-DI at Week 52 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region, and time since Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) diagnosis at Baseline (≤4 months or \>4 months) as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||-0.082|-0.273|<0.001
91743072|NCT01525862|183380737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P values \<0.05 are considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91743073|NCT00241176|183380741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||YGTSS Global Severity score (M=61.8 SD=13.49) declined significantly to end point (M=33.7 SD=15.18; p=0.003).|Group 1 Baseline vs. Endpoint||||<.05
91743074|NCT00241176|183380742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean (SD) CGI-Tic severity scores reduced significantly from (M=4.45 SD=0.52) (moderate-marked) at baseline to (M=3.18 SD =0.60) (mild) at end point ( p=0.004).|Mean scores baseline to endpoint||||<.05
91743075|NCT01129765|183380743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||Descriptive|||Proportion responding \>=3 on a 5-point likert scale, with exact 95% confidence interval from the binomial distribution.||1.0|0.83|
91875059|NCT01837719|183643195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.305|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.215|1.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.402|1.215|
91799625|NCT01188421|183476641|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Phase|3.57||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect for Phase (e.g., Stabilization, Taper, Post-Taper) on COWS total score.|ANOVA|||||||0.03
91799626|NCT01188421|183476641|SUPERIORITY||F-value for the main effect of Group x P|2.03||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect for Group x Phase interaction on COWS Total Score|ANOVA|||||||0.092
91799627|NCT01604408|183476644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.426|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.66|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.660|0.192|<0.001
91799628|NCT01604408|183476645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.461||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.883|-0.039|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.039|-0.883|0.073
91799629|NCT01604408|183476646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.062||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|0.276|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.276|-2.400|0.191
91799630|NCT01604408|183476647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.023|0.057|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.057|-0.023|0.478
91799631|NCT02664610|183476683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91799632|NCT02664610|183476684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91799633|NCT04102098|183476694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors include geographic region (Asia Pacific excluding Japan vs. rest of world) and High risk features/curative procedure (Ablation vs. Resection with 1 high risk feature vs. Resection with 2 or more high risk features).||0.93|0.56|0.0120
91705337|NCT03041467|183305134|OTHER|There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months.|||||<|0.001||||||There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate target lesion primary patency.|Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method.|||<0.001
91799634|NCT03150173|183476709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.94
91799635|NCT03150173|183476710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.148
91799636|NCT03150173|183476711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.445||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|6.018|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for baseline self-report of injection-related HIV risk behaviors in the past 30 days||||6.018|0.347|0.6132
91799637|NCT03150173|183476712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.051
91799638|NCT03150173|183476713|SUPERIORITY||probability of cost effectiveness|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Data generated from the bootstrapping process were used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), which effectively measure the uncertainty around the ICER point estimate.|||
91799639|NCT03150173|183476714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||This is an actual calculated value not a threshold value|non-parametric bootstrapping|Non-parametric bootstrapping of adjusted mean values with 1000 iterations||||||0.10
91799640|NCT03150173|183476715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||This is an actual calculated value not a threshold value.|non-parametric bootstrapping|Non-parametric bootstrapping of adjusted mean values with 1000 iterations||||||< 0.01
91799641|NCT03150173|183476716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91799642|NCT03150173|183476717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.098
91799643|NCT03150173|183476718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.256
91799644|NCT05055453|183476740|OTHER|A Shapiro Wilks test was used to test for normal distribution of the data.|||||<|0.001||||||"Result for comparison between automatic only and preferred app settings."|Durbin-Conover Pairwise Comparison|||||||<0.001
91799645|NCT05055453|183476740|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"Result of comparison between preferred app setting and extreme app setting"|Durbin-Conover Pairwise Comparison|||A Shapiro Wilks test was used to test for normal distribution of the data.||||< 0.001
91799646|NCT05055453|183476740|OTHER|"Result of comparison between automatic only and extreme app setting."||||||0.002|||||||Durbin-Conover Pairwise Comparison|||A Shapiro Wilks test was used to test for normal distribution of the data.||||0.002
91799647|NCT05055453|183476741|OTHER|Analysis of first home trial|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91799648|NCT05055453|183476741|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of second home trial||||<.001
91799649|NCT01209923|183476742|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test||Children BIA was compared to hydrostatic weighing; adults were compared to DEXA.||||0.001
91799650|NCT02955797|183476750|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was greater than (\>) -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.78||||||Serogroup A||1.78|-5.84|
91799651|NCT02955797|183476750|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.16|16.1||||||Serogroup C||16.1|8.16|
91799652|NCT02955797|183476750|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|6.19||||||Serogroup Y||6.19|-1.34|
91799653|NCT02955797|183476750|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|0.458|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|5.28||||||Serogroup W||5.28|-4.37|
91875060|NCT01837719|183643195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.925|1.273|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir cobicistat||1.273|0.925|
91875061|NCT01837719|183643195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.154|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated asTreatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.154|0.937|
91875062|NCT01837719|183643195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.784|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.717|0.858|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||0.858|0.717|
91875063|NCT01837719|183643197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.983|1.057|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|A linear mixed-effect model was applied to the natural logarithms of cobicistat AUC(0-T) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.057|0.983|
91875064|NCT01837719|183643197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.232||||||90.0|1.141|1.331|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC||1.331|1.141|
91875065|NCT01837719|183643197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.307|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model was applied to the natural logarithms of cobicistat AUC(0-T) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.307|0.929|
91907032|NCT01923285|183709269|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%. If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001||||||The non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%. If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|Chi-squared|||"The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.~If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025."||||<0.0001
91743076|NCT01129765|183380744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion responding \>=3 on 5-point Likert scale, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||1.0|0.83|
91743077|NCT01129765|183380745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.97||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||One-sample proportion|||"Null hypothesis: Pr ≤ 0.7 versus HA: Pr \> 0.7; Pr is proportion using device appropriately. Observed rate calculated with exact 95% confidence interval from the binomial distribution. 2-sided p-value from binomial distribution.~With the proposed sample size of 30 subjects, we will reject the primary null hypothesis if at least 27 are observed to use the device properly. We will have 80% power for this to occur provided that the true rate in the population is at least 92%."||1.0|0.83|0.0005
91743078|NCT01129765|183380746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.0|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion responding \>=3 on a 5-point Likert scale, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||1.0|0.88|
91743079|NCT01129765|183380747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion observed to have a safety issue, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||0.12|0|
91743080|NCT01129765|183380748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion found to have injury, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||0.12|0|
91875066|NCT01837719|183643197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.127||||||90.0|1.017|1.248|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated asTreatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC.||1.248|1.017|
91875067|NCT01837719|183643197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|0.96|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated asTreatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and a light meal on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC||0.960|0.825|
91875068|NCT01837719|183643197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (FDC tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, AUC(0-T), and AUC(INF).|Geometric mean ratio|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.982|1.058|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-INF), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.058|0.982|
91875069|NCT01837719|183643197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.148|1.34|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC||1.340|1.148|
91743081|NCT03645421|183380753|OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-42.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.47|-33.75|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-33.75|-50.47|<0.0001
91743082|NCT03645421|183380753|OTHER||LS mean difference|-33.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.04|-24.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-24.18|-43.04|<0.0001
91743083|NCT03645421|183380753|OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.49|-31.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-31.12|-49.49|<0.0001
91743084|NCT03645421|183380754|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.47|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||0.47|-3.08|0.1476
91743085|NCT03645421|183380754|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.69|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.69|-4.37|0.0080
91743086|NCT03645421|183380754|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.74|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.74|-4.30|0.0063
91743087|NCT03645421|183380757|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.70|-1.48|<0.0001
91743088|NCT03645421|183380757|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.71|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.71|-1.49|<0.0001
91743089|NCT03645421|183380757|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.38|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.38|-1.15|0.0002
91743090|NCT03645421|183380758|OTHER||LS mean difference|-56.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|-39.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-39.09|-74.30|<0.0001
91743091|NCT03645421|183380758|OTHER||LS mean difference|-60.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.53|-40.63|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-40.63|-80.53|<0.0001
91743092|NCT03645421|183380758|OTHER||LS mean difference|-55.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.28|-35.86|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-35.86|-74.28|<0.0001
91743093|NCT03645421|183380759|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|-0.047|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.047|-0.094|<0.0001
91743094|NCT03645421|183380759|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.030|-0.077|<0.0001
91743095|NCT03645421|183380759|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|-0.024|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.024|-0.074|0.0002
91875070|NCT01837719|183643197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.075|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model was applied to the natural logarithms of cobicistat AUC(INF) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.075|0.886|
91875071|NCT01837719|183643197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.231|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and fasted on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC.||1.231|1.012|
91743096|NCT03636893|183380800|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test comparing disease-free survival between treatment groups. No adjustment for multiple comparisons as this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Statistical significance set at P \<0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.884||P-value from two-sided log-rank test. Alpha level set at 0.05.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test for between-group comparison. Analysis performed using SPSS version 30.0.|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards regression with FLOT as reference group.|Disease-free survival analysis in intention-to-treat population. DFS defined as time from randomization to first occurrence of local recurrence, regional recurrence, distant metastases, or death from any cause.|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate DFS curves. Cox regression performed to calculate hazard ratios.|1.884|0.597|0.842
91743097|NCT03636893|183380801|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test comparing overall survival between treatment groups. No adjustment for multiple comparisons as this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Statistical significance set at P \<0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.101||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|2.036||P-value from two-sided log-rank test. No adjustment for multiple comparisons as overall survival was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Alpha level set at 0.05.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test for between-group comparison. Analysis performed using SPSS version 30.0.|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards regression with FLOT as reference group.|Primary survival analysis comparing overall survival between neoadjuvant FLOT and SOX regimens in intention-to-treat population.|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate survival curves. Cox regression performed to calculate hazard ratios. Multivariable analysis performed to identify independent predictors.|2.036|0.595|0.759
91875072|NCT01837719|183643197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.836|0.978|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and light meal on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||0.978|0.836|
91743098|NCT00758069|183380815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-25.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-34.2|-17.5||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-17.5|-34.2|<0.001
91743099|NCT00758069|183380815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-19.5|||<|0.001||95.0|-28.0|-11.1||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-11.1|-28.0|<0.001
91743100|NCT00758069|183380816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-19.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-26.6|-11.9||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-11.9|-26.6|<0.001
91743101|NCT00758069|183380816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-12.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-20.4|-5.4||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-5.4|-20.4|<0.001
91743102|NCT02277691|183380845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough SBP at Week 12 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
91743103|NCT02277691|183380845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough SBP at Week 52 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
91743104|NCT02277691|183380845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough sitting DBP at Week 12 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
91743105|NCT02277691|183380845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough sitting DBP at Week 52 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
91743106|NCT02277691|183380846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home SBP, morning at End of Week 12.||||<0.0001
91743107|NCT02277691|183380846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home SBP, morning at EOT (Up to Week 52).||||<0.0001
91743108|NCT02277691|183380846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home DBP, morning at End of Week 12.||||<0.0001
91743109|NCT02277691|183380846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home DBP, morning at EOT (Up to Week 52).||||<0.0001
91743110|NCT04343534|183380854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||"SDM Process score distributions were compared to determine of the scores spanned the range of possible values, were normally distributed, had low rates of missing data, and whether there was indications of floor or ceiling effects.~we conducted independent t-tests to determine if there were differences in SDM Process scores between the two versions."||0.33|-0.02|0.092
91743111|NCT01804049|183380863|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis: metformin will reduce loss of total lean mass in insulin-resistant older adults over a three year period. It was determined (prior to the initiation of the study) that a sample size of 60 participants per group will have a 73% power to detect a 0.09 m/s difference in gait speed.||||||0.45||||||For lean total body mass, t(118)=0.744, p=0.45.|t-test, 2 sided|T-test calculation for total lean mass: 0.74.||||||0.45
91743112|NCT01804049|183380863|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis: metformin will reduce loss of total appendicular lean mass in insulin-resistant older adults over a three year period. It was determined (prior to the initiation of the study) that a sample size of 60 participants per group will have a 73% power to detect a 0.09 m/s difference in gait speed.||||||0.79||||||For lean appendicular body mass, t(118) = 0.264, p=0.79.|t-test, 2 sided|T-test calculation appendicular lean mass: 0.26.||||||0.79
91743113|NCT01804049|183380864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(118)=0.703, p=0.48||||||0.48
91743114|NCT03985943|183380866|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|11.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.7|18.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||18.3|4.7|0.0003
91743115|NCT03985943|183380867|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.1|22.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.5|6.1|0.0002
91760148|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.3||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.30|-0.83|
91705338|NCT03041467|183305135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91705339|NCT03041467|183305139|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
91705340|NCT03041467|183305140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.482
91705341|NCT03041467|183305141|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
91705342|NCT02330172|183305154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91705343|NCT02330172|183305155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91705344|NCT00135356|183305201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|0.03||||0.48||95.0|-0.06|0.12||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF||0.12|-0.06|0.48
91705345|NCT00135356|183305201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|0.07||||0.57||95.0|-0.07|12.0||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing. 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||OC||12.0|-0.07|0.57
91705346|NCT00135356|183305202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|0.02||||0.73||95.0|-0.1|0.14||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF||0.14|-0.10|0.73
91705347|NCT00135356|183305202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|-0.01||||0.91||95.0|-0.14|0.13||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||OC||0.13|-0.14|0.91
91705348|NCT00135356|183305203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|5.2||||0.27||95.0|-3.9|15.1||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 VAT LOCF||15.1|-3.9|0.27
91705349|NCT00135356|183305203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|1.8||||0.68||95.0|-6.7|11.2||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||VAT, Week 96 LOCF||11.2|-6.7|0.68
91705350|NCT00135356|183305203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|4.4||||0.14||95.0|-1.4|10.6||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 Trunk Fat LOCF||10.6|-1.4|0.14
91705351|NCT00135356|183305203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.3||||0.14||95.0|-1.7|12.9||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96 Trunk Fat LOCF||12.9|-1.7|0.14
91705352|NCT00135356|183305204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|4.0||||0.16||95.0|-1.6|10.0||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||SAT, Week 48, LOCF||10.0|-1.6|0.16
91705353|NCT00135356|183305204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|6.8||||0.06||95.0|-0.2|14.2||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96 SAT||14.2|-0.2|0.06
91705354|NCT00135356|183305204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|4.6||||0.15||95.0|-1.7|11.4||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48, Limb Fat||11.4|-1.7|0.15
91705355|NCT00135356|183305204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.7||||0.17||95.0|-2.3|14.4||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96, Limb Fat||14.4|-2.3|0.17
91705356|NCT00135356|183305205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference in Means|3.6||||0.19||95.0|-1.8|9.4||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 TAT||9.4|-1.8|0.19
91705357|NCT00135356|183305205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference in Means|4.3||||0.16||95.0|-1.7|10.7||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 96 TAT||10.7|-1.7|0.16
91705358|NCT00135356|183305205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.0||||0.0385||95.0|0.3|9.7||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 Total Body Fat||9.7|0.3|0.0385
91705359|NCT00135356|183305205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.9||||0.1||95.0|-1.0|13.2||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96 Total Body Fat||13.2|-1.0|0.10
91705360|NCT00135356|183305217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.72||||||||3.72|0.3|
91705361|NCT01306214|183305227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.61|-0.27||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 18 was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate and baseline eGFR, geographic region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of Empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo.|"For the primary endpoint, the testing of the superiority hypothesis versus placebo was:~Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-0.27|-0.61|<0.0001
91705362|NCT01306214|183305227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.35||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 18 was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate and baseline eGFR, geographic region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of Empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"For the primary endpoint, the testing of the superiority hypothesis versus placebo was:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.35|-0.69|<0.0001
91705363|NCT01306214|183305228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.69|-1.97||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in insulin dose at week 52 was the second step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model - Covariates: baseline insulin daily dose,baseline HbA1c Fixed effects: baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-1.97|-15.69|0.004
91875073|NCT02995733|183643209|SUPERIORITY|Asthma exacerbation rates during follow-up between two randomized treatment arms are compared using the Andersen-Gill adaptation of time-to-event Cox proportional hazard model with robust standard errors to account for multiple occurrences of the outcome in each patient (Andersen Gill, 1982). This analysis is based on intention-to-treat (ITT) patient population.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.999|||Cox proportional hazard model|Pre-specified baseline covariates are adjusted in the model. A time-dependent covariate for the COVID pandemic is also included in adjustments.||||0.999|0.720|0.048
91743116|NCT03985943|183380868|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.8|22.0||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.0|7.8|<0.0001
91743117|NCT03985943|183380869|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.6|26.6||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.6|9.6|<0.0001
91743118|NCT03985943|183380870|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|18.4|31.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||31.5|18.4|<0.0001
91743119|NCT03985943|183380870|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|22.0|34.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using multiple imputation (MI) with missing at random (MAR) assumption.||34.3|22.0|<0.0001
91743120|NCT03985943|183380871|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.4|35.7||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||35.7|19.4|<0.0001
91743121|NCT03985943|183380871|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|24.4|39.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using MI-MAR assumption.||39.8|24.4|<0.0001
91743122|NCT03985943|183380872|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.7|25.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||25.2|13.7|<0.0001
91743123|NCT03985943|183380873|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.8|26.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.8|13.8|<0.0001
91743124|NCT03985943|183380874|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.3|24.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||24.5|11.3|<0.0001
91743125|NCT03985943|183380875|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.2|28.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||28.2|11.2|<0.0001
91743126|NCT03985943|183380876|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.8|26.0||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26|15.8|<0.0001
91907033|NCT01923285|183709269|SUPERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%. If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025|||||=|0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.||||=0.0004
91743127|NCT03985943|183380877|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.8|27.6||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||27.6|14.8|<0.0001
91743128|NCT03985943|183380878|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|8.2|16.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||16.3|8.2|<0.0001
91743129|NCT03985943|183380879|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.2|14.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||14.2|5.2|<0.0001
91743130|NCT03985943|183380880|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.6|18.7||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||18.7|10.6|<0.0001
91743131|NCT03985943|183380881|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.5|22.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.3|11.5|<0.0001
91743132|NCT03985943|183380882|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|3.4||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|5.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||5.8|1.1|0.0064
91743133|NCT03985943|183380883|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|4.3||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|7.7||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||7.7|0.9|0.0177
91743134|NCT04075513|183380885|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was based on a relative margin of 10%. Since higher time in range means better outcome, non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 90% of Tresiba LS mean at Week 12 was \> 0.|Least square mean difference|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.163||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.44||Threshold of significance at \<0.05.|ANCOVA||This estimation parameter corresponds to the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 90% of Tresiba LS mean.|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effect of treatment groups and randomization stratum of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%) and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline percent time in range value.||5.44|0.88|0.0067
91743135|NCT04075513|183380886|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was based on a relative margin of 10%. Since lower CV means better outcome, non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 110% of Tresiba LS mean at Week 12 was \< 0.|Least square mean difference|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-4.38||Threshold of significance at \<0.05.|ANCOVA||This estimation parameter corresponds to the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 110% of Tresiba LS mean.|A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type I error. The hierarchical testing was then performed sequentially only when the primary endpoint demonstrated non-inferiority. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effect of treatment groups and randomization stratum of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%) and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline percent time in range value.||-4.38|-6.50|<0.0001
91743136|NCT04075513|183380887|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the adjusted difference estimate of Toujeo and Tresiba at Week 12 was \>0.|Least square mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.225||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|0.05||Threshold of significance at \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type I error. The hierarchical testing was then performed sequentially when the primary endpoint and the secondary endpoint of total CV demonstrated non-inferiority. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effect of treatment groups and randomization stratum of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%) and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline percent time in range value.||0.05|-4.75|0.0548
91743137|NCT03629223|183380900|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence acceptance range for 90% confidence interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%. In the below, LS-means = least squares mean.|Percentage of Ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|115.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.55|122.58||||||||122.58|108.55|
91743138|NCT03629223|183380900|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|186.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.61|212.28||||||||212.28|163.61|
91743139|NCT03629223|183380900|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|163.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.17|182.1||||||||182.10|146.17|
91743140|NCT03629223|183380901|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence acceptance range for 90% confidence interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|115.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.51|122.6||||||||122.60|108.51|
91743141|NCT03629223|183380901|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|186.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.78|212.77||||||||212.77|163.78|
91743142|NCT03629223|183380901|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|163.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.09|182.46||||||||182.46|146.09|
91743143|NCT03629223|183380902|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with equivalence acceptance range for 90% confidence interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|113.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.62|119.85||||||||119.85|107.62|
91743144|NCT03629223|183380902|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|236.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|215.69|259.34||||||||259.34|215.69|
91743145|NCT03629223|183380902|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|199.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|176.44|225.82||||||||225.82|176.44|
91743146|NCT00617097|183380941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|12.6|||Regression, Linear|||expected level of pain during procedure greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||12.6|-13.7|0.94
91743147|NCT00617097|183380941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|13.2|||Regression, Linear|||after speculum insertion greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||13.2|-15.1|0.9
91743148|NCT00617097|183380941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|9.0|||Regression, Linear|||during paracervical block administration greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||9|-18.6|0.49
91743149|NCT00617097|183380941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-1.7|||Regression, Linear|||after cervical dilation greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||-1.7|-28.3|0.03
91743150|NCT00617097|183380941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|18.0|||Regression, Linear|||immediately after procedure greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||18|-12.2|0.7
91743151|NCT00617097|183380941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|8.8|||Regression, Linear|||30 min after procedure greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||8.8|-17|.52
91743152|NCT00617097|183380942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|||greater number is better (i.e., more satisfaction) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less satisfaction); maximum: 100 mm (greater satisfaction) Measured at end of study (i.e., upon clinic discharge)||||0.93
91743153|NCT00617097|183380943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||greater number is worse (i.e., more symptoms)||||0.07
91799654|NCT02955797|183476751|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2||||||Serogroup A||6.2|-3.6|
91743154|NCT00617097|183380944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||minor complications greater number is worse (i.e., more complications)||||1
91743155|NCT00617097|183380944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||serious complications||||0.15
91743156|NCT01576939|183380981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.9906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.022|||Regression, Cox|This was a Cox proportional hazards model with dose as the single predictor.||||1.022|0.979|0.9906
91743157|NCT01576939|183380982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.2795||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.634|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with dose as the single predictor in the model.||||0.634|-0.077|0.1209
91743158|NCT01576939|183380983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.285||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.28|26.71|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with dose as the single predictor in the model.||||26.71|-27.28|0.9832
91743159|NCT01576939|183380984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.03795||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00483|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|A repeated measures model with dose as the single predictor. QoL values were measured for each patient every week.||||0.071|0.00483|0.0263
91743160|NCT01576939|183380985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0567||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0199|0.0935|||Mixed Models Analysis|A repeated measures model with dose as the single predictor and QoL values measured each week for each patient.||||0.0935|0.0199|0.0039
91743161|NCT00434993|183381012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.3||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||The trial had a statistical power of 90.7% to detect a 2.25-day increase in VFDs,assuming a SD of 10.5 days. A group sequential design was used.||0.3|-4.7|0.087
91743162|NCT00434993|183381013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|14.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||14.7|-4.0|0.302
91743163|NCT00434993|183381014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|15.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||15.4|-3.7|0.261
91743164|NCT00434993|183381015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||-0.4|-4.9|0.023
91875074|NCT02995733|183643210|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model is used to compare the treatment effects. The response variable is ACT change at each monthly assessment from baseline. The covariates (included as fixed effects) include randomized treatment arm, continuous time of assessment as a linear and quadratic term and the interactions of the treatment arm with the time variables. Independent random effects include intercept and time variables. The model adjusts for all the baseline covariates included in the primary analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||||||||1.2|0.5|
91875075|NCT02995733|183643211|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model is used to compare the treatment effects. The response variable is ASUI change at each monthly assessment from baseline. The covariates (included as fixed effects) include randomized treatment arm, continuous time of assessment as a linear and quadratic term and the interactions of the treatment arm with the time variables. Independent random effects include intercept and time variables. The model adjusts for all the baseline covariates included in the primary analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.05||||||||0.05|0.02|
91907034|NCT01923285|183709270|OTHER|Comparison of the mean difference. Difference in intensities is calculated as the supine paresthesia intensity minus the upright paresthesia intensity.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in paresthesia intensities is calculated as the supine paresthesia score minus the upright paresthesia score for each subject.|"Secondary endpoint compared the mean differences in upright and supine paresthesia scores between the Axium and Control groups at three months post INS implant. This endpoint was evaluated at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.~The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: μ0- μ1≤0 vs. H1: μ0- μ1\>0 where μ0 is the mean difference in paresthesia intensities in the Control group and μ1 is the mean difference in the Axium group."||2.8|1.0|<0.0001
91743165|NCT00434993|183381016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.9||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||0.9|-4.3|0.226
91743166|NCT00434993|183381017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||0.6|-5.3|0.130
91743167|NCT00434993|183381018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|19.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||19.6|-3.1|0.176
91743168|NCT00434993|183381019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-7.8|0.048
91743169|NCT00434993|183381020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.9|-6.9|0.265
91743170|NCT03335150|183381022|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4856||||0.6662|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = Standard Error (SE) of the interaction term.|||||0.6662
91875076|NCT02995733|183643212|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial regression model is used, with time as an offset to account for differential duration of follow-up. The model adjusts for all the baseline covariates included in the primary analysis.|Rate ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||||||||0.95|0.67|
91875077|NCT01183013|183643214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1571||95.0|-0.41|0.07||The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.07|-0.41|0.1571
91743171|NCT03335150|183381022|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2415||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mean Matrix Reasoning Total (MRT) difference between two visits while controlling for intervention.|estimated value = SE|||||0.1617
91743172|NCT03335150|183381022|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5087||||0.6236|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mean MRT difference between two interventions while controlling for visit.|estimated value = SE|||||0.6236
91799655|NCT02955797|183476751|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|22.8||||||Serogroup C||22.8|13.6|
91743173|NCT03335150|183381023|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value = SE of interaction term|||||0.0496
91743174|NCT03335150|183381024|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.047
91743175|NCT03335150|183381025|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction Term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.001
91743176|NCT03335150|183381026|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.020
91743177|NCT03335150|183381027|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.444
91743178|NCT03335150|183381027|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.145||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|There is significant difference in MIST between intervention groups controlling for visit and other significant covariates.|estimated value = SE|||||0.0233
91743179|NCT03335150|183381027|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6281|||<|0|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|There is significant difference in MIST between baseline and week 10 controlling for intervention group and other significant covariates|estimated value = SE|||||<0.000
91743180|NCT03335150|183381028|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.205||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||estimated value = SE of interaction term|||||0.073
91743181|NCT03335150|183381029|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction Term|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
91743182|NCT03335150|183381029|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1172||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mean PDQ-39 difference between baseline and week 10 controlling for intervention and covariates.|estimated value = SE|||||0.0257
91875078|NCT01183013|183643214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.14|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.14|-0.60|0.0016
91743183|NCT03335150|183381029|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8649||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in PDQ-39 between two interventions controlling for visit and covariates.|estimated value = SE|||||0.1101
91743184|NCT03335150|183381030|OTHER|Equality|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.784||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of the interaction term.|||||0.0263
91743185|NCT02218697|183381046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H1N1 strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.46|0.88|
91743186|NCT02218697|183381046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.21|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H3N2 strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.21|0.78|
91743187|NCT02218697|183381046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.4|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Victoria strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.40|0.98|
91743188|NCT02218697|183381046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Yamagata strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.16|0.84|
91743189|NCT02218697|183381047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.5|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 01 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.50|0.86|
91875079|NCT01183013|183643214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.18|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.18|-0.64|0.0006
91875080|NCT01183013|183643214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.2|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.20|-0.67|0.0003
91743190|NCT02218697|183381047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.45|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 03 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.45|0.96|
91743191|NCT02218697|183381047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 04 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.62|0.98|
91760149|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.45||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.45|0.35|
91743192|NCT02218697|183381047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.63|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 7F serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.63|0.95|
91875081|NCT01183013|183643214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.44|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.44|-0.91|<0.0001
91743193|NCT02218697|183381047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.57|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 14 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.57|0.91|
91743194|NCT02218697|183381047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.7|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 19A serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.70|1.05|
91743195|NCT04776720|183381096|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.19||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.34|-0.95|0.743
91743196|NCT04776720|183381097|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.98||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.93|0.03|0.043
91743197|NCT04776720|183381098|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.99||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with variance co-variance matrix||||5.84|-3.87|0.689
91743198|NCT04776720|183381099|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.28||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.07|-1.63|0.685
91743199|NCT04776720|183381100|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.3||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.3|-1.69|0.764
91743200|NCT04776720|183381101|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.53|-1.78|0.883
91743201|NCT04776720|183381102|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.6|-0.83|0.753
91743202|NCT04776720|183381103|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-3.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.74|-9.54|0.276
91743203|NCT04776720|183381104|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.28|-0.86|0.319
91743204|NCT04776720|183381105|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.34|-0.15|0.448
91743205|NCT02311881|183381106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.51||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.037|1.016|||ANCOVA||LS treatment means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, target joint and center pools as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|"H0: There is no significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between twice daily Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablets and placebo.~H1: There is a significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between twice daily Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablets and placebo."||1.016|-6.037|0.1626
91743206|NCT02311881|183381106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Paracetamol 2000mg BID is non-inferior to Paracetamol 1330mg TID if the upper bound of the 95% confidence Interval is less than 5.3.|LS mean difference|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.894|1.166|||ANCOVA||LS treatment means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, target joint and center pools as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|"H0: Difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablet and Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablet is ≤ - 5.3 (inferiority).~H1: Difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablet and Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablet is \> - 5.3 (noninferiority)."||1.166|-5.894|
91743207|NCT02311881|183381106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.9352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.687|3.394|||ANCOVA||LS treatment means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, target joint and center pools as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|"H0: There is no significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablets and placebo.~H1: There is a significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablets and placebo."||3.394|-3.687|0.9352
91875082|NCT01183013|183643214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.66|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.66|-1.12|<0.0001
91875083|NCT01183013|183643215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.246||||0.4639||95.0|0.692|2.242|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.242|0.692|0.4639
91875084|NCT01183013|183643215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.746||||0.0546||95.0|0.989|3.083|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||3.083|0.989|0.0546
91875085|NCT01183013|183643215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.903||||0.0254||95.0|1.083|3.345|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||3.345|1.083|0.0254
91875086|NCT01183013|183643215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.804||||0.0009||95.0|1.524|5.159|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||5.159|1.524|0.0009
91875087|NCT01183013|183643215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.429|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.947|10.001|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||10.001|2.947|<0.0001
91743208|NCT03306433|183381116|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there are no significant paired differences between the groups. The power calculation is based on the observed variation and number of participants|Paired difference t-test|-12.139|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.101||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired difference p value comparing UDMA-K18 vs Adhesive Control|Paired difference test, 2 sided||There are 12 participants (pairs) for this comparison|Paired difference test within each participant.||||0.0003
91743209|NCT03306433|183381116|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis was that there were no differences between the groups|Paired difference t-test|-7.412|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.049||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired differrnce between UDMA-K18 and UDMA control|Paired difference test, 2 sided||There are 9 participant pairs for this comparison|Paired comparison||||0.0063
91743210|NCT03306433|183381117|EQUIVALENCE|The Null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between the groups|Chi Square on WSL Index frequency|15.77||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||WSL Index is non-parametric||||0.0033
91743211|NCT03306433|183381117|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that there would not be any differences between the groups|Chi Square on WSL Index frequency|6.8321||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1450
91743212|NCT01575808|183381122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|91.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|86.3||||z-test|One-sided z-test||A literature-based Surgical Bypass Efficacy Goal of 65% was compared to the percentage of subjects maintaining primary assisted patency at 12 months. A one-sided z-test using a Type I error of 5% was performed to test the hypotheses that the 12-month primary assisted patency probability of GP1101 is superior to the SBEG of 65%.|||86.3|<0.0001
91743213|NCT01575808|183381123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis is that the post-procedure hospital stay duration for GP1101 is superior to the post-procedure hospital stay for the retrospective surgical bypass group.||||<0.0001
91743214|NCT01575808|183381124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated with binomial exact method.|The hypothesis is that the rate of avoidance of general anesthesia for GP1101 is superior to the rate of avoidance of general anesthesis for the retrospective surgical bypass group.||100|96.5|<0.0001
91743215|NCT01575808|183381125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||||Confidence intervals calculated using the binomial exact method.|||100.0|96.5|
91743216|NCT01575808|183381155|OTHER||Percentage|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.7|99.4||||||||99.4|91.7|
91743217|NCT01575808|183381175|OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||||Confidence Interval calculated with binomial exact method.|||100.0|96.5|
91743218|NCT03224403|183381184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
91743219|NCT03224403|183381184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
91743220|NCT03224403|183381184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
91743221|NCT03224403|183381184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||0.035
91743222|NCT03224403|183381184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||<0.001
91743223|NCT03224403|183381185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
91743224|NCT03224403|183381185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
91743225|NCT03224403|183381185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
91743226|NCT03224403|183381185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||0.671
91743227|NCT03224403|183381185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||0.487
91743228|NCT03224403|183381186|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743229|NCT03224403|183381187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743230|NCT03224403|183381188|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743231|NCT03224403|183381189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743232|NCT03224403|183381190|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743233|NCT03224403|183381191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743234|NCT03224403|183381192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91875088|NCT01183013|183643215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.614|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.187|17.821|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||17.821|5.187|<0.0001
91875089|NCT01183013|183643216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.126||||0.7359||95.0|0.565|2.243|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.243|0.565|0.7359
91875090|NCT01183013|183643216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.905||||0.0363||95.0|1.042|3.484|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||3.484|1.042|0.0363
91875091|NCT01183013|183643216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.269||||0.4039||95.0|0.726|2.217|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.217|0.726|0.4039
91743235|NCT03224403|183381193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743236|NCT03224403|183381194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743237|NCT03224403|183381195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743238|NCT03224403|183381196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743239|NCT03224403|183381197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743240|NCT03224403|183381198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743241|NCT03224403|183381199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743242|NCT03224403|183381200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743243|NCT03224403|183381201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743244|NCT03224403|183381202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91743245|NCT03224403|183381203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.007
91743246|NCT03224403|183381204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.026
91743247|NCT03224403|183381205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.080
91743248|NCT01631747|183381234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and tested at an a priori type I error rate of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size was based on an independent 2-sample t-test using a two-sided type 1 error rate of 0.05, and 80% power. Assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 15lbs (6.8kg), a clinically meaningful difference of 5lbs (2.4kg) between groups, and 10% attrition, a sample size of 150/group was required.||||0.01
91743249|NCT01631747|183381234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for actual gestational age of 36 week weight, gestational age, bmi, and maternal age at randomization, maternal race and paternal race.||||||0.02
91743250|NCT01631747|183381235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.54
91743251|NCT01631747|183381236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test performed on change in glucose (log scale), but presented as Median and inter-quartile range for interpretability||||||0.89
91743252|NCT01631747|183381237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test performed on changes in HDL, but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.30
91743253|NCT01631747|183381238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on changes between groups. Data presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.69
91743254|NCT01631747|183381239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on change between groups (log scale), but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.19
91743255|NCT01631747|183381240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test used to compare changes between groups (log scale). Median and IQR are presented for ease of interpretation.||||||0.27
91743256|NCT01631747|183381241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test performed on changes between groups (log scale). Median and IQR are presented for ease of interpretation||||||0.003
91743257|NCT01631747|183381242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on change between groups (log scale), but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.24
91743258|NCT01631747|183381243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on change between groups (log scale), but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.32
91743259|NCT01631747|183381244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test performed on change between groups (log scale). Median and IQR are presented for ease of interpretation||||||0.26
91743260|NCT01631747|183381245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
91743261|NCT01631747|183381246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91743262|NCT01631747|183381247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
91743263|NCT01631747|183381248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91743264|NCT01631747|183381249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91743265|NCT01631747|183381250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91743266|NCT02908685|183381253|SUPERIORITY|This is the first end point and first family tested in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.55||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.81|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.81|0.30|0.0156
91907035|NCT01923285|183709271|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.||||<0.0001
91743267|NCT02908685|183381254|SUPERIORITY|This is the second end point and second family tested in the hierarchical testing. Logistic Regression Model.The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.44||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Wald test|||||5.44|1.01|0.0469
91743268|NCT02908685|183381255|SUPERIORITY|This is the third end point and third family tested in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.59||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.62||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.62|0.55|0.0469
91743269|NCT02908685|183381256|SUPERIORITY|This is one of the two end points in family four in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.58||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.69||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.69|-0.53|0.3902
91743270|NCT02908685|183381257|SUPERIORITY|This is one of the two end points in family four in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.05||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|2.56||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.56|-6.67|0.3902
91743271|NCT02908685|183381258|SUPERIORITY|This is the sixth endpoint and the fifth family tested in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.55||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.17||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.17|0.93|0.3902
91743272|NCT02908685|183381259|SUPERIORITY|This is the seventh endpoint and the sixth family tested in the hierarchical testing. Logistic Regression Model. The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.74||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Wald-test|||CGI Improved||2.74|0.70|0.3902
91743273|NCT02908685|183381260|SUPERIORITY|Logistic Regression Model. The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.93|||Wald test|||||3.93|1.02|0.0430
91743274|NCT02908685|183381262|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.64||||0.1328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.47|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.47|-0.20|0.1328
91743275|NCT02908685|183381263|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.97||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.34|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.34|-0.40|0.1030
91743276|NCT02908685|183381264|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.34||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.62|0.05|0.0451
91743277|NCT02908685|183381265|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.28||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.56|0.01|0.0489
91743278|NCT02908685|183381266|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.16||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|4.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.14|0.18|0.0326
91743279|NCT02908685|183381267|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.87||||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|2.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.62|-8.36|0.3029
91743280|NCT02908685|183381268|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.28||||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.99|-2.42|0.4937
91743281|NCT02908685|183381269|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.35||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|7.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||7.80|-3.11|0.3967
91743282|NCT02908685|183381270|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.96||||0.6704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|16.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||16.70|-10.78|0.6704
91743283|NCT02908685|183381271|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.45|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||5.45|-6.30|0.8856
91743284|NCT02908685|183381272|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.45||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|3.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||3.57|-0.68|0.1778
91743285|NCT02908685|183381273|SUPERIORITY|Logistic Regression Model. The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.83|||Wald-test|||CGI No Change or Improved||2.83|0.52|0.6636
91799656|NCT02955797|183476751|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|6.03||||||Serogroup Y||6.03|-2.76|
91875092|NCT01183013|183643216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0345||95.0|1.06|4.649|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||4.649|1.060|0.0345
91875093|NCT01183013|183643216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.263|9.266|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||9.266|2.263|<0.0001
91907036|NCT01923285|183709271|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|||||=|0.0047|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.0047
91907037|NCT01923285|183709272|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.||||||0.0003|||||||Non-inferiority|||The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.||||0.0003
91743286|NCT01691014|183381291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||DAS28: Month 3: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.990
91743287|NCT01691014|183381291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.586|||||||Fisher Exact|||DAS28: Month 6: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.586
91743288|NCT01691014|183381291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||DAS28: Month 12: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.980
91743289|NCT01691014|183381292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Baseline: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.945
91799657|NCT02955797|183476751|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|6.18||||||Serogroup W||6.18|-5.85|
91743290|NCT01691014|183381292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Month 3: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.458
91743291|NCT01691014|183381292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Month 6: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.896
91743292|NCT01691014|183381292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Month 12: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.390
91743293|NCT05791565|183381312|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1609|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0221|1.3185|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.3185|1.0221|
91743294|NCT05791565|183381313|OTHER||Ratio of the Geometric LS Means|1.4081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2998|1.5255|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.5255|1.2998|
91743295|NCT05791565|183381314|OTHER||Ratio of the Geometric LS Means|1.3885|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2793|1.507|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.5070|1.2793|
91743296|NCT05791565|183381315|OTHER||Ratio of the Geometric LS Means|1.3141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1816|1.4614|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.4614|1.1816|
91743297|NCT02516982|183381349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.994
91875094|NCT01183013|183643216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.066|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.53|10.145|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||10.145|2.530|<0.0001
91907038|NCT01309659|183709279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between ferritin and change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.308
91907039|NCT01309659|183709279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between ferritin and change in hemoglobin in the waitlist group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.601
91743298|NCT02516982|183381350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
91743299|NCT02516982|183381351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.008
91743300|NCT02516982|183381352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.919
91743301|NCT02516982|183381353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001467|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0001467
91743302|NCT02516982|183381354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
91743303|NCT02516982|183381355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.869
91743304|NCT00924612|183381389|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|130.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0844||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.59|150.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model|ANOVA of a multicenter, 4 sequence, 5 treatment crossover model using ln-transformed data. Normal fat diet compared to fasting, very low fat, low fat, and high fat diets as part of the overall analysis. No adjustments for multiplicity made.|150.70|113.59|0.0025
91743305|NCT00924612|183381389|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|101.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0954||0.8494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|119.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model||119.47|86.80|0.8494
91799658|NCT02955797|183476752|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|0.819|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|0.963||||||Serogroup A||0.963|0.697|
91799659|NCT02955797|183476752|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an ANOVA model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|7.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|9.52||||||Serogroup C||9.52|6.05|
91743306|NCT00924612|183381389|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|73.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0902||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.23|85.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model||85.55|63.23|0.0013
91743307|NCT00924612|183381389|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|62.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0954|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.38|76.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model||76.46|53.38|<0.0001
91743308|NCT03818607|183381393|NON_INFERIORITY|The clinical similarity of the Week 27 LDH between treatments was assessed by comparing the 1-sided 97.5% upper confidence interval (CI) limit for the geometric mean ratio of LDH at Week 27 between ABP 959 treatment and eculizumab treatment with a non-inferiority margin of 2.873.|Geometric LS mean ratio (GMR)|1.0628|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.1576||||||||1.1576||
91743309|NCT03818607|183381394|OTHER|The clinical similarity of the AUEC between treatments was assessed by comparing 2-sided 90% CI for the GMR of the time-adjusted AUEC of LDH (Week 13 to Week 27, Week 39 to Week 53, and Week 65 to Week 79) between ABP 959 treatment and eculizumab treatment with a similarity margin of (0.77, 1.30).|GMR|0.9812|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9403|1.0239||||||||1.0239|0.9403|
91743310|NCT03818607|183381402|OTHER||GMR|1.0314|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.1201||||||||1.1201||
91743311|NCT03818607|183381405|OTHER||GMR|0.9122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7586|1.0968||||||Total PK AUC GMR (ABP 959/Eculizumab)||1.0968|0.7586|
91743312|NCT03818607|183381405|OTHER||GMR|0.9508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7454|1.213||||||Unbound PK AUC GMR (ABP 959/Eculizumab)||1.2130|0.7454|
91743313|NCT01147250|183381419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of lixisenatide versus placebo was to be claimed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio was \<1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.168|||||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment groups, and region (North America, South and Central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa/Near East, and Asia/Pacific) as covariates, and the associated two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).||1.168|0.886|
91799660|NCT02955797|183476752|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an ANOVA model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.51||||||Serogroup Y||1.51|1.09|
91875095|NCT01183013|183643217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.754||95.0|0.637|1.863|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.863|0.637|0.7540
91743314|NCT01147250|183381419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.168|||Log Rank||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment groups, and region (North America, South and Central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa/Near East, and Asia/Pacific) as covariates, and the associated two-sided 95% CI. Superiority of lixisenatide versus placebo was to be claimed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio was \<1.0.||1.168|0.886|0.8542
91743315|NCT03588806|183381423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.218
91743316|NCT03588806|183381424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures||||||0.268
91743317|NCT03588806|183381425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.001
91743318|NCT03588806|183381426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.228
91743319|NCT03588806|183381427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.043
91743320|NCT03588806|183381428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Social Roles score||||0.486
91743321|NCT03588806|183381428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Scores||||0.078
91743322|NCT03588806|183381428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Depression T-Scores||||0.874
91743323|NCT03588806|183381428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Anxiety T-Score||||0.389
91743324|NCT03588806|183381429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.676
91907040|NCT01309659|183709279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between iron and change in hemoglobin in the intermediate intervention group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.396
91743325|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity of lesion shape|0.694|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests.||||<0.001
91743326|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion homogeneity spec, conservative|0.714|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
91743327|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion homogeneity spec, agressive|0.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very or reasonably homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
91743328|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. elasticity specificity,conservative|0.657||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the maximum elasticity using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kiloPascals (kPa) (7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 30 kPa (3.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.001
91743329|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. elasticity specificity, aggressive|0.774|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the maximum elasticity using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kPa(7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 80 kPa (5.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
91743330|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median mean elasticity value specificity|0.626||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median mean elasticity value.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.18
91743331|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter ratio specificity|0.512||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image diameter ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.006
91743332|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median elasticity ratio specificity|0.649||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median elasticity ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.006
91743333|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max.color scale specificity,conservative|0.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
91743334|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. color scale specificity, aggressive|0.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05~Overall specificity = 78.5%"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue, or light blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
91743335|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion shape sensitivity|0.979||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image lesion shape.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.48
91799661|NCT02955797|183476752|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an ANOVA model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.56||||||Serogroup W||1.56|1.12|
91799662|NCT02955797|183476753|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24||||||Serogroup A||1.24|0.85|
91743336|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion homogeneity sens, conservative|0.969||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.74
91743337|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||elasticity homogeneity,aggressive,sensit|0.962||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very or reasonably homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.37
91799663|NCT02955797|183476753|OTHER||GMT Ratio|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|20.4||||||Serogroup C||20.4|13.4|
91799664|NCT02955797|183476753|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.44||||||Serogroup Y||1.44|0.97|
91799665|NCT02955797|183476753|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.63||||||Serogroup W||1.63|1.1|
91799666|NCT02955797|183476754|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.496|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.672||||||Serogroup A||0.672|0.367|
91799667|NCT02955797|183476754|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|2.19||||||Serogroup C||2.19|0.814|
91799668|NCT02955797|183476754|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.04||||||Serogroup Y||2.04|1.15|
91799669|NCT02955797|183476754|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.75||||||Serogroup W||1.75|0.944|
91799670|NCT01739361|183476807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.353
91743338|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||elasticity homegeneity,conservative,sens|0.99||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05~Overall sensitivity = 99.0%"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the maximum elasticity using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kPa(7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 30 kPa (3.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.025
91743339|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||max. elasticity sensitivity,aggressive|0.972|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the maximum elasticity using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kPa(7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 80 kPa (5.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||>0.99
91743340|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median mean elasticity value sensitivity|0.986||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median mean elasticity value.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.046
91743341|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||diameter ratio sensitivity|0.99||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image diameter ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.025
91743342|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median elasticity ratio sensitivity|0.983||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median elasticity ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.083
91743343|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max.color scale sensitivity,conservative|0.997||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.008
91743344|NCT00716482|183381443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. color scale sensitivity, aggressive|0.986||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue, or light blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.21
91743345|NCT00716482|183381444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA. Kruskal-Wallis was performed once to get p-values for all of the 9 categories at once.||Null hypothesis: no variance of similarity exists between the three groups||||<0.001
91743346|NCT03249909|183381447|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the change in exudate status (Decrease, Equal/Unchanged, Increase) from baseline to 4 weeks in the treatment groups with the two-sided Sign test on the Intent To Treat (ITT) population at 95% confidence interval.||||||0.0019|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0019
91743347|NCT03517371|183381457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.35||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-943.34|1088.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1088.04|-943.34|.89
91743348|NCT03517371|183381458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.10|-3.80|.42
91743349|NCT03517371|183381459|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.17||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.64|24.97|||t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test significant, equal variances not assumed values reported.||||24.97|-20.64|.85
91743350|NCT03517371|183381460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.065|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.065|-.081|.824
91743351|NCT01345929|183381462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|14.57||||||||14.57|2.31|
91743352|NCT01345929|183381463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|13.97||||||||13.97|1.95|
91743353|NCT02819297|183381464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91743354|NCT02674464|183381484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|Assuming an exchangeable correlation structure|CC/SC arm compared to the SCP arm.|||1.30|0.62|0.68
91743355|NCT02674464|183381485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Effects Regression||CC/SC arm was compared to the SCP arm.|||2.30|-1.32|0.60
91743356|NCT02674464|183381486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.71||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Effects Regression|||||2.71|-1.04|0.38
91743357|NCT02674464|183381487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.01||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Effects Regression||CC/SC arm compared to SCP arm.|||0.01|-2.43|0.05
91743358|NCT01262638|183381519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-9.7|||ANCOVA|||||-9.7|-21.8|<0.0001
91743359|NCT01262638|183381519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-16.9|||ANCOVA|||||-16.9|-28.9|<0.0001
91743360|NCT01262638|183381519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-18.4|||ANCOVA|||||-18.4|-30.5|<0.0001
91743361|NCT00260832|183381547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||The primary treatment comparison was based on two sided long-rank test stratified by age, cytogenetic risk, ECOG performance status||||0.1079
91743362|NCT00260832|183381548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.78|||Fisher Exact|||||4.78|1.40|0.0011
91743363|NCT01104545|183381567|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||||||||||GMR = Fed/Fasted|||||
91743364|NCT01104545|183381568|OTHER||GMR|0.73|||||||||||||GMR = Fed/fasted|||||
91743365|NCT02285023|183381609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was employed. An eigenvalue ≥ 1 was chosen as the criterion to retain domains. Each item was classified into the domain when loading with a domain loading ≥ 0.5.|||||<|0.01||||||An eigenvalue ≥ 1 was chosen as the criterion to retain domains. Each item was classified into the domain when loading with a domain loading ≥ 0.5|exploratory factor analysis|An eigenvalue ≥ 1 was chosen as the criterion to retain domains. Each item was classified into the domain when loading with a domain loading ≥ 0.5||Exploratory factor analysis||||<0.01
91743366|NCT02285023|183381610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cronbach's alpha|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Crohbach's alpha|||||||<0.05
91743367|NCT00809926|183381613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-4.61|0.295
91743368|NCT00809926|183381614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.47|||ANCOVA|||||1.47|-1.93|0.790
91799671|NCT05535972|183476810|OTHER||Least Square Mean|-6.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-6.33|||||CFB in CAT score was analyzed using Mixed Model Repeated Measures(MMRM) model with covariates of smoking status, CAT score at Baseline, visit, interaction of CAT score at Baseline\*visit. Estimates derived from inverse probability weighted MMRM model.|||-6.33|-7.28|
91875096|NCT01183013|183643217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.707||||0.0506||95.0|0.999|2.918|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.918|0.999|0.0506
91743369|NCT00809926|183381615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.1||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|17.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.67|-1.56|0.101
91743370|NCT00809926|183381616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|11.6||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|21.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.33|2.00|0.018
91743371|NCT00809926|183381619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-6.34|0.028
91743372|NCT00809926|183381620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|-0.14|||GENMOD|Based on a generalized estimating equations using SAS procedure GENMOD.||||-0.14|-6.02|0.040
91743373|NCT00809926|183381621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|-2.93|||ANCOVA|||||-2.93|-14.38|0.004
91743374|NCT00809926|183381622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-1.42|||ANCOVA|||||-1.42|-8.37|0.006
91743375|NCT01108731|183381625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||<0.05
91743376|NCT01108731|183381626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||<0.05
91743377|NCT01108731|183381627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91743378|NCT02227810|183381673|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
91743379|NCT02227810|183381673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
91743380|NCT02227810|183381674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051
91743381|NCT02227810|183381674|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91743382|NCT02227810|183381675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051
91743383|NCT02227810|183381676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.792
91743384|NCT00819156|183381701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|61.0||||||95.0|41.0|78.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||78|41|
91743385|NCT00819156|183381701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|84.0||||||95.0|64.0|95.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||95|64|
91743386|NCT00819156|183381701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|96.0||||||95.0|81.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|81|
91743387|NCT00819156|183381701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|90.0||||||95.0|73.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|73|
91743388|NCT00819156|183381701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|90.0||||||95.0|73.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|73|
91743389|NCT00819156|183381701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|92.0||||||95.0|74.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|74|
91743390|NCT00819156|183381702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|92.0||||||95.0|80.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone (T) \<=0.5 nanograms (ng)/milliliter (mL) from Day 28 to Day 364 for Patients With T \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|80|
91743391|NCT00819156|183381702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|96.0||||||95.0|86.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone (T) \<=0.5 nanograms (ng)/milliliter (mL) from Day 28 to Day 364 for Patients With T \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|86|
91743392|NCT00819156|183381702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|93.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone (T) \<=0.5 nanograms (ng)/milliliter (mL) from Day 28 to Day 364 for Patients With T \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|93|
91875097|NCT01183013|183643217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.966||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.604|5.485|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||5.485|1.604|0.0005
91743393|NCT00819156|183381703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|70.0||||||95.0|51.0|85.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||85|51|
91743394|NCT00819156|183381703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|91.0||||||95.0|75.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|75|
91743395|NCT00819156|183381703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|97.0||||||95.0|84.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|84|
91743396|NCT00819156|183381703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|97.0||||||95.0|83.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|83|
91743397|NCT00819156|183381703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|94.0||||||95.0|80.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|80|
91743398|NCT00819156|183381703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|93.0||||||95.0|77.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|77|
91743399|NCT00819156|183381704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|83.0||||||95.0|65.0|94.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||94|65|
91743400|NCT00819156|183381704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|94.0||||||95.0|79.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|79|
91743401|NCT00819156|183381704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|87.0||||||95.0|70.0|96.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||96|70|
91875098|NCT01183013|183643217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.696||||0.0002||95.0|1.594|4.559|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||4.559|1.594|0.0002
91743402|NCT00819156|183381704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|93.0||||||95.0|78.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|78|
91743403|NCT00819156|183381704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|91.0||||||95.0|76.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|76|
91875099|NCT01183013|183643217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.017|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.348|6.873|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||6.873|2.348|<0.0001
91875100|NCT01183013|183643217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.521|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.63|15.681|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||15.681|4.630|<0.0001
91875101|NCT01183013|183643219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68||||0.4275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.77|5.42|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||5.42|-12.77|0.4275
91743404|NCT00819156|183381704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|93.0||||||95.0|78.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|78|
91743405|NCT00819156|183381705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0933||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0933
91743406|NCT00819156|183381706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.165||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.165
91743407|NCT00819156|183381707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.429||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.429
91743408|NCT00943098|183381737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of non-inferiority of Diclofenac HPBCD 75mg/ml s.c. versus Voltarol® 75mg/3ml i.m. with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours after study drug administration). The clinically significant difference (delta) between groups was defined in 15 mm of pain intensity difference (a 30% decline from starting levels of pain intensity of 50 mm or greater on a 0 to 100 VAS).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.2|||ANCOVA|||Assuming a difference in means of 0 mm, a common standard deviation of 22.5 mm, a sample size of 60 subjects in each group had 95% power to reject the null hypothesis.||5.20|-6.62|0.813
91743409|NCT00943098|183381750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of non-inferiority of Diclofenac HPBCD 75mg/ml s.c. versus Voltarol® 75mg/3ml i.m. with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours after study drug administration). The clinically significant difference (delta) between groups was defined in 15 mm of pain intensity difference (a 30% decline from starting levels of pain intensity of 50 mm or greater on a 0 to 100 VAS).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|5.22|||ANCOVA|||Assuming a difference in means of 0 mm, a common standard deviation of 22.5 mm, a sample size of 60 subjects in each group had 95% power to reject the null hypothesis.||5.22|-6.23|0.862
91760150|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|8.7||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.70|3.54|
91799672|NCT04590963|183476827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.537|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.537|0.660|0.989
91743410|NCT00281099|183381751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was performed, with the hazard ratio as the parameter of interest and the non-inferiority threshold of 1.21. The one-sided upper confidence bound for the hazard ratio had to be less than 1.21 for the null hypothesis to be rejected. The threshold of 1.21 was derived by using a noninferiority threshold of a 5 percentage point difference in 24 month event-free rates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.139||||||96.3|1.139|1.59||There were 167 events by 90 subjects in the VVI 40 arm, compared to 188 events among 104 subjects in the MVP arm.|Andersen-Gill Model|An Andersen-Gill model was used to account for multiple primary endpoints per subject.|4 interim analyses were performed \& the O'Brien-Fleming alpha-spending function required a 96.3% confidence interval.|"This is a multiple events survival analysis, with time to first primary endpoint, time between successive endpoints, and time from last endpoint to last follow-up visit determined for each subject. The null hypothesis is that the mortality/ heart failure (HF) urgent care/HF hospitalization hazard rate for patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40."||1.590|1.139|
91743411|NCT00281099|183381752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was performed, with the hazard ratio as the parameter of interest and the non-inferiority threshold of 1.241. The one-sided upper confidence bound for the hazard ratio had to be less than 1.241 for the null hypothesis to be rejected. The threshold of 1.241 was derived by using a non-inferiority threshold of a 5 percentage point difference in 24 month HF event-free rates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||||95.0|1.029|1.381|||Andersen-Gill Model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple HF events per subject.||This is a multiple events survival analysis, and so the time from randomization to first HF event, time between successive HF events, and time from last HF event to last follow-up visit was determined for each subject. Since non-inferiority analysis is intended to prove that one therapy is equivalent or superior to another therapy, the null hypothesis being tested is that the worsening HF hazard rate for patients with MVP programming is greater than that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||1.381|1.029|
91743412|NCT00281099|183381753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori alpha level for each covariate was 0.05. The p-value outcome provided is for the randomization arm main effect and all interactions between randomization arm and time.|Cumulative Logits Model|The analysis included data for all four time points (baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months) and all NYHA levels.||A model with covariates for time and randomization arm was fit to test the null hypothesis that the risk of worsening NYHA status over time among patients with MVP programming was equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming. This analysis combined NYHA IV and Death into one category. The model included interaction terms for time and randomization arm.||||> 0.05
91743413|NCT00281099|183381753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori alpha level for each covariate was 0.05. The p-value outcome provided is for the randomization arm main effect and all interaction terms between randomization arm and time.|Cumulative Logit Model|The analysis included data for all four time points (baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months) and all NYHA levels.||The null hypothesis for this analysis was the same as for the prior analysis: that the risk of worsening NYHA status over time among patients with MVP programming was equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming. In this analysis, however, death was considered a 5th category in addition to NYHA I-IV. An interaction term for time and randomization arm was also included.||||> 0.05
91743414|NCT00281099|183381754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||In each case the a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model fit with time and arm as covariates, the interaction between them included. Interaction shown to not be significant and model refit without it.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the followoing: LVEDD, LVESD, Septal Wall Thickness, and Posterior Wall Thickness; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Data were also collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
91743415|NCT00281099|183381755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the following: LV Ejection Fraction and LV Fractional Shortening; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Two-sided tests were used. Data were also collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
91799673|NCT04590963|183476828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|1.528|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.528|0.704|0.891
91799674|NCT04590963|183476829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.568|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.568|0.790|0.574
91799675|NCT04590963|183476830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.512|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.512|0.818|0.530
91875102|NCT01183013|183643219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.6839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|7.02|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||7.02|-10.69|0.6839
91743416|NCT00281099|183381756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0424||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for Arm was 0.05, with no correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was fit with time and arm as covariates.||"A linear mixed model was fit to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication had a different values for left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV) over time than similar patients with VVI 40. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits."||||0.0424
91743417|NCT00281099|183381756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||In each case the a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were fit with time and arm as covariates.||"Similar models were fit for left ventricle (LV) End Systolic Volume and Left Atrial Volume."||||>0.10
91743418|NCT00281099|183381757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0418||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication had a different values of Left Ventricular Sphericity Index over time than similar patients with VVI 40. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||0.0418
91743419|NCT00281099|183381758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for Arm was 0.05, with no correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the following: TR Velocity, Mitral Inflow-peak E and Mitral Inflow-peak A; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Two-sided tests were used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
91875103|NCT01183013|183643219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|2.28|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.28|-15.29|0.1466
91743420|NCT00281099|183381759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for Mitral Inflow - Deceleration time; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||0.9490
91743421|NCT00281099|183381760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the following: Left Atrial Area and Mitral Regurgitation Area; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Two-sided tests were used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
91743422|NCT00281099|183381761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8403||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05.|Cumulative Logits Model|Because Composite Mitral Regurgitation Score was measured on the ordinal scale, a GEE cumulative logits model was fit.||"A General Estimating Equation (GEE) Cumulative Logits model was fit with Arm, Time, and their interaction as covariates in the model to test the hypothesis that patients with no pacing indication and MVP programming have different Mitral Regurgation over time than similar patients with VVI 40 programming. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits."||||0.8403
91743423|NCT00281099|183381762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||||95.0|0.949|1.209|||Andersen-Gill model|This model was fit to account for multiple events (i.e. days in which true VT/VF occurred) within subject.|Because of the possible correlation within subject of days with episodes, a subsequent analysis was done using a bootstrap confidence interval for the annualized rate of episodes per patient month.|The pre-specified analysis called for a comparison of the hazard rates of true VT/VF between the two arms by way of a one-sided 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (values less than one favor MVP) after fitting a model. The unit of time was days, not episodes, so the analysis did not account for multiple episodes on the same day. If the upper bound was less than 1, the null hypothesis of equal hazard rates would be rejected.||1.209|0.949|
91743424|NCT00281099|183381762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Annualized Rates|-0.015||||||95.0|-0.015|0.033|||Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||A 95% one-sided bootstrap confidence interval was generated for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in annualized rates of true VT/VF per patient month. If the interval upper bound was less than 0, the null hypothesis of equal rates would be rejected.||0.033|-0.015|
91743425|NCT00281099|183381762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||||95.0|1.31|1.858|||Andersen-Gill model|This model was fit to account for multiple events (i.e. days in which non-VT/VF detected by device as VT/VF) within subject.|Because of the possible correlation within a subject for days with episodes, a subsequent analysis was done using a bootstrap confidence interval for the annualized rate of episodes per patient month.|The pre-specified analysis called for a comparison of the hazard rates of inappropriately detected non-VT/VF between the two arms by way of a one-sided 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (MVP in numerator) after fitting a model. The unit of time was days, not episodes, so the analysis did not account for multiple episodes on the same day. If the upper bound was less than 1, the null hypothesis of equal hazard rates would be rejected.||1.858|1.310|
91799676|NCT04590963|183476831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|1.154|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in the R/M setting with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|||1.154|0.274|0.115
91907041|NCT01309659|183709279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between iron and change in hemoglobin in the waitlist group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
91875104|NCT01183013|183643219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.35|-8.41|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-8.41|-26.35|0.0002
91875105|NCT01183013|183643219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.77|-16.98|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-16.98|-34.77|<0.0001
91875106|NCT01183013|183643219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.57|-24.89|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-24.89|-42.57|<0.0001
91875107|NCT01183013|183643221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.61||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.42|-10.8|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-10.80|-62.42|0.0057
91875108|NCT01183013|183643221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94||||0.7021||95.0|-30.39|20.51|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||20.51|-30.39|0.7021
91875109|NCT01183013|183643221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.95|24.38|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||24.38|-27.95|0.8932
91875110|NCT01183013|183643221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.65||||0.2706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|12.3|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||12.30|-43.60|0.2706
91875111|NCT01183013|183643221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.33||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.78|-7.89|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-7.89|-64.78|0.0126
91907042|NCT01309659|183709279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between transferrin saturation and change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.606
91743426|NCT00281099|183381762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Annualized Rates|0.017||||||95.0|0.017|0.036|||Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||A 95% one-sided bootstrap confidence interval was generated for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in annualized rates of inappropriately detected non-VT/VF per patient month. If the interval upper bound was less than 0, the null hypothesis of equal rates would be rejected.||0.036|0.017|
91743427|NCT00281099|183381763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.7166||95.0|1.22|3.0||The threshold for significance was the one-sided upper confidence bound being less than 1.|Andersen-Gill model|||This analysis compared the hazard rates for clinically important AF (defined as a calendar day with \>20 hour of AT/AF as measured by the device). The null hypothesis was that this hazard rate for patients with MVP was equal to or greater than that of patients with VVI 40. The pre-specified model had Arm as a covariate, and accounted for time to first event and time between successive events per subject.||3.0|1.22|0.7166
91875112|NCT01183013|183643221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.16||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.23|-6.08|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-6.08|-60.23|0.0167
91875113|NCT01183013|183643223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.649||||0.3052||95.0|0.284|1.482|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.482|0.284|0.3052
91743428|NCT00281099|183381763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.8||The threshold for significance was defined as the upper one-sided confidence bound being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis compared the percentage of days with \>20 hours of AT/AF as measured by the device(definition of clinically important AF) between arms. The null hypothesis was that this percentage of days for patients with MVP was equal or greater to that of patients with VVI 40.||0.8|-100|
91743429|NCT00281099|183381763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|A one-sided test was used.||This analysis tested the null hypothesis that the hazard rate for development of persistent AF(defined as 2 consecutive visits presenting with AT/AF, 7 consecutive days of 22 or more hours per day of AT/AF, or \< 7 such days due to a cardioversion) in patients with MVP and no pacing indication was equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40.||||0.325
91799677|NCT04590963|183476832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|1.231|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for HPV Status, WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in the R/M setting with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|||1.231|0.297|0.162
91875114|NCT01183013|183643223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.456||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|1.112|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.112|0.187|0.0844
91875115|NCT01183013|183643223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.443||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|1.365|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.365|0.143|0.1561
91907043|NCT01309659|183709279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between transferrin saturation and change in hemoglobin in the waitlist group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
91799678|NCT03950791|183476911|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|3864.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|302.0||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, p \< .05 used as threshold for statistical significance|Independent-samples Mann-Whitney U|No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Standardized Test Statistic = .139|Morphine equivalent dosage outcome variables were not normally distributed (skewness values between 4.5 and 4.8, kurtosis values between 25.7 and 30.0), which necessitated non-parametric analysis using independent-samples Mann-Whitney U Test||||.89
91799679|NCT00717093|183476923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.58||p-values obtained from logistic regression model including main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine values imputed as negative|Odds ratio obtained from logistic regression model including main effects of treatment and center|||3.58|1.59|<0.0001
91799680|NCT00717093|183476924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.58||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine values were imputed as negative|Odds Ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Week 26||2.58|1.12|0.0118
91799681|NCT00717093|183476925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine values were imputed as negative.||||2.67|1.17|0.0063
91799682|NCT00717093|183476926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.41||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine was imputed as negative|Odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Week 12||3.41|1.52|<0.0001
91799683|NCT00717093|183476926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.13||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine was imputed as negative|Odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Week 26||2.13|0.94|0.0919
91799684|NCT00418015|183476942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank test||||0.54
91799685|NCT00418015|183476943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
91799686|NCT00418015|183476944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.06
91799687|NCT00418015|183476945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.02
91799688|NCT00418015|183476946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
91799689|NCT00418015|183476946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91799690|NCT02903355|183476953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4385|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.4385
91799691|NCT02903355|183476954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5562|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.5562
91799692|NCT02903355|183476955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5441|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.5441
91875116|NCT01183013|183643223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.368||||0.0146||95.0|0.165|0.821|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.821|0.165|0.0146
91799693|NCT02903355|183476956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.3666
91799694|NCT02903355|183476957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4446|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.4446
91799695|NCT02903355|183476958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5431|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.5431
91799696|NCT02903355|183476959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.7409
91799697|NCT02903355|183476960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1597|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.1597
91799698|NCT02903355|183476961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2784|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.2784
91799699|NCT02903355|183476962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2303|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.2303
91799700|NCT01314703|183476985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|3.02|||ANOVA||ChloraPrep 10 minute abdomen|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||3.02|2.66|
91799701|NCT01314703|183476985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|4.33|||ANOVA||ChloraPrep 10 minute groin|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||4.33|3.74|
91799702|NCT01314703|183476985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|2.7|||ANOVA||70%Isopropyl Alcohol 10 minute abdomen|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||2.70|2.36|
91799703|NCT01314703|183476985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|3.82|||ANOVA||70% Isopropyl Alcohol 10 minute groin|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||3.82|3.24|
91875117|NCT01183013|183643223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.238||||0.0009||95.0|0.102|0.557|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.557|0.102|0.0009
91799704|NCT04195906|183477006|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.877|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.46|3.0||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline BWAT-CUA score and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM=Mixed model for repeated measures Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||3.00|-2.46|0.877
91743430|NCT00281099|183381763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.145||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF through 6 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) through 6 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.145|0|
91743431|NCT00281099|183381763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.227||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF burden from 6 to 12 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) from 6 to 12 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.227|0|
91743432|NCT00281099|183381763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.261||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF burden from 12 to 24 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) from 12 to 24 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.261|0|
91875118|NCT01183013|183643223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.141||||0.0002||95.0|0.05|0.397|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.397|0.050|0.0002
91875119|NCT04468633|183643226|OTHER|||||||0.687|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.687
91875120|NCT04468633|183643226|OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.384
91875121|NCT04468633|183643226|OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 1||||0.597
91875122|NCT04468633|183643226|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.860
91875123|NCT04468633|183643226|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||0.032
91743433|NCT00281099|183381763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||||95.0|-0.1|0.11||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF burden from 24 to 36 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) from 24 to 36 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.110|-0.1|
91743434|NCT00281099|183381764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The threshold was met, and the null hypothesis rejected.|Log Rank|||Physicians recorded at each scheduled and unscheduled follow-up whether the subject had developed a Class I indication since their last visit. The time from randomization to Class I indication development or last visit if censored was determined for each subject. The null hypothesis was that the hazard rate for time to development of a Class I pacing indication among patients with MVP programming was equal to or greater than that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||||0.0053
91743435|NCT00281099|183381766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9791||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 6 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming and was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||||0.9791
91760151|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|7.26||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.26|2.19|
91760152|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|4.76||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.76|-0.39|
91875124|NCT04468633|183643226|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 3||||0.026
91875125|NCT04468633|183643226|OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 6||||0.172
91875126|NCT04468633|183643226|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1||||0.010
91875127|NCT04468633|183643230|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.759
91875128|NCT04468633|183643231|OTHER|||||||0.603|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.603
91875129|NCT04468633|183643240|OTHER|||||||0.833|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.833
91875130|NCT04739306|183643258|EQUIVALENCE|Predefined equivalence margin: -3 letters to +3 letters|Estimated difference in LS means|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|1.67|||ANCOVA|Analysis conducted for study eye. Primary endpoint as the dependent variable, treatment as a factor, baseline BCVA and country as covariates.||||1.67|-0.52|
91875131|NCT01469819|183643300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91875132|NCT01469819|183643301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91875133|NCT01469819|183643302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91875134|NCT01469819|183643303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91875135|NCT01403805|183643311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Fisher's test 'Vaccine' versus 'Oral Care and Vaccines' and 'phumonia' and 'not pneumonia'|Fisher Exact|||The results were analyzed as means ± standard deviation (SD) or numbers (%). Differences between the 2 nursing homes were compared using Fisher's test.||||<0.001
91875136|NCT01403805|183643312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD) or numbers (%). Differences between the 2 nursing homes were compared using Fisher's test.||||0.05
91875137|NCT03082196|183643318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A negative value for the difference indicates a lower caries increment in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish.|||-0.1|-1.9|0.037
91875138|NCT03082196|183643319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A negative value for the difference indicates a lower caries increment in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish.|||0.1|-1.5|0.062
91875139|NCT03082196|183643320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||"The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A negative value for the difference indicates a happier response in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish."|||0.1|-0.5|0.11
91875140|NCT03082196|183643321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided||"The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A positive value for the difference indicates an unhappier response in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish."|||0.3|-0.2|0.74
91907044|NCT01309659|183709288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between soluble transfer receptor and change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing the correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.649
91907045|NCT01309659|183709288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between soluble transfer receptor and change in hemoglobin in the wait list group. Testing the correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91743436|NCT00281099|183381766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8984||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Alternative hypothesis:patients with MVP \& no pacing indication have less mean ventricular pacing through 12 months than similar patients with VVI 40.||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 12 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||||0.8984
91743437|NCT00281099|183381766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7144||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Alternative hypothesis:patients with MVP \& no pacing indication have less mean ventricular pacing through 24 months than similar patients with VVI 40.||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 24 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming and no pacing indication was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming and no pacing indication.||||0.7144
91875141|NCT01695993|183643322|OTHER|Primary Analysis: The Primary Aim to determine whether acupressure bands provided with efficacy-enhancing supplementary material are more effective in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea than acupressure bands provided with neutral supplementary material was examined using ANCOVA with Peak Nausea after the first chemotherapy as the response, Arm (Arms 2 and 3) as the factor and expectancy of acupressure bands as the covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted|ANCOVA|||||||.05
91875142|NCT00472199|183643323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0077||95.0|-4.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance for changes from baseline with factors treatment and country and using baseline as covariate||-0.7|-4.6|0.0077
91875143|NCT00472199|183643324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0010
91743438|NCT00281099|183381766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5165||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Alternative hypothesis:patients with MVP \& no pacing indication have less mean ventricular pacing through 36 months than similar patients with VVI 40.||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 36 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming and no pacing indication was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming and no pacing indication.||||0.5165
91743439|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Physical Limitation Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0073
91743440|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2493||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Symptom Stability Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.2493
91875144|NCT00472199|183643325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0044
91875145|NCT00472199|183643326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0011
91907046|NCT01309659|183709289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
91907047|NCT01309659|183709289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in hemoglobin in the wait list control group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111
91907048|NCT01309659|183709290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline serum ferritin and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
91907049|NCT01309659|183709290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline serum ferritin and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.798
91907050|NCT01309659|183709290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline iron and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
91875146|NCT00472199|183643327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0489||95.0|-1.1|-0.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.9|-1.1|0.0489
91743441|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7728||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Symptom Frequency Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.7728
91743442|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3082||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Symptom Burden Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.3082
91743443|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5422||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Total Symptom Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.5422
91743444|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0851||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Self-Efficacy Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0851
91743445|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0502||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Quality of Life Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0502
91743446|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Social Limitation Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0463
91743447|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0227||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Overall Summary Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0227
91743448|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0582||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Overall Clinical Summary Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0582
91743449|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Tests for all ten KCCQ subscores yielded p-values greater than 0.15 (the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 10 KCCQ analyses were repeated comparing changes from baseline to 24 months between arms. Again if a subject died prior to their 24 month visit, a value of 0 was imputed for their 24 month score.||||> 0.15
91743450|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Tests for all 10 KCCQ subscores yielded p-values greater than 0.15 (the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because the trial was stopped early, only 178 subjects were included in these analyses.||The 10 KCCQ analyses were repeated comparing changes from baseline to 36 months between arms. Again if a subject died prior to their 36 month visit, a value of 0 was imputed for their 36 month score.||||> 0.15
91743451|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1399||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score from baseline to 12 months was compared using a two-sided test. If a subject died before their 12 month visit, a value of 105 (worst possible MLWHF score) was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.1399
91743452|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3573||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score from baseline to 24 months was compared using a two-sided test. If a subject died before their 24 month visit, a value of 105 (worst possible MLWHF score) was imputed for their 24 month score.||||0.3573
91743453|NCT00281099|183381767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5183||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, with no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because the trial was stopped early, only 178 subjects were included in this analysis.||The change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score from baseline to 36 months was compared using a two-sided test. If a subject died before their 36 month visit, a value of 105 (worst possible MLWHF score) was imputed for their 36 month score.||||0.5183
91799705|NCT04195906|183477007|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.146|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-4.8|27.78||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline Pain VAS and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||27.78|-4.80|0.146
91875147|NCT00472199|183643328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.0315
91875148|NCT00472199|183643329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.0735
91875149|NCT00472199|183643330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.8410
91875150|NCT00472199|183643331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.9241
91875151|NCT00472199|183643332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.8093
91799706|NCT04195906|183477008|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.706|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-0.38|0.56||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline Pain VAS and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||0.56|-0.38|0.706
91799707|NCT04195906|183477009|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.995|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-5.27|5.24||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline Pain VAS and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||5.24|-5.27|0.995
91799708|NCT04195906|183477010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.09||This model includes the stratification factor sodium thiosulfate use at baseline and the treatment as covariates|Regression, Logistic|As there is only a measure post-baseline, a logistic regression model was run instead of a generalized estimating equations model.|The odds ratio displayed is the odds ratio of having an improved result of SNF472 versus Placebo. The results 'Worsened', 'Equal', and 'Missing' are combined in one category and it is the reference for the odds ratio calculation.|||4.09|0.58|0.384
91799709|NCT04195906|183477011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes between arms|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.93||MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, continuous variables maintenance opioid dose, Week (1 to 12) and Week by randomized treatment interaction. The random coefficients are the intercept and Week as a continuous variable.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used||||1.93|-0.79|0.406
91799710|NCT02642029|183477027|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on IDT accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexiTBS interact|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1989|0.0002||Significance threshold of p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS).||Conducted a mixed effects analysis, with IDT accuracy as the dependent variable and time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) as the independent variables. P-value here is for the iTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction.||.0002|-.1989|0.51
91799711|NCT02642029|183477027|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on IDT accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexcTBS interact|-0.0757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.0256||Significance threshold of p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS).||Conducted a mixed effects analysis, with IDT accuracy as the dependent variable and time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) as the independent variables. P-value here is for the cTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction.||.0256|-.1770|0.143
91799712|NCT02642029|183477028|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexiTBS interact|-0.0446||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold was p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with binomial (logit) distribution.~N-back accuracy was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the iTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||.626
91875152|NCT00472199|183643333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.0583
91875153|NCT00472199|183643334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-4.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-4.5|-5.5|0.0916
91875154|NCT00472199|183643335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.8|2.2|0.5905
91907051|NCT01309659|183709290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline iron and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.732
91907052|NCT01309659|183709290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline transferrin saturation and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.286
91875155|NCT00472199|183643336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.4|1.6|0.0179
91875156|NCT00472199|183643337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.3|1.7|0.5450
91875157|NCT00472199|183643338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.3|-0.3|0.1456
91875158|NCT00472199|183643339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.2915
91875159|NCT00472199|183643340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.3131
91875160|NCT00472199|183643341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.5713
91875161|NCT00472199|183643342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.8432
91875162|NCT00472199|183643343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|6.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.6|5.9|0.0206
91907053|NCT01309659|183709290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline transferrin saturation and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.356
91907054|NCT01309659|183709291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor and the change in the 6 Meter Walk Test distance of the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.649
91799713|NCT02642029|183477028|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between cTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexcTBS interact|-0.0903||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold was p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with binomial (logit) distribution.~N-back accuracy was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the cTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||0.322
91799714|NCT02642029|183477029|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexiTBS interact|-9.797||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold of p \< 0.05, two-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with gamma distribution.~N-back reaction time (RT) was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the iTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||0.1118
91799715|NCT02642029|183477029|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between cTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexcTBS interact|-47.764||||9e-08|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold was p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with gamma distribution.~N-back reaction time (RT) was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the cTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||0.00000009
91799716|NCT02642029|183477030|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.91||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||0.910
91799717|NCT02642029|183477030|OTHER|Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|beta coefficient for depressed mood|0.00071||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00048|0.0019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, depressed mood). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00190|-0.00048|0.243
91799718|NCT02642029|183477031|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.83||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||0.830
91799719|NCT02642029|183477031|OTHER||beta coefficient for anxiety|-0.00063||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00179|0.00052||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, anxiety). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00052|-0.00179|0.284
91875163|NCT00472199|183643344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.8|0.4|0.5602
91875164|NCT00472199|183643345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.1|0.8|0.1360
91875165|NCT00472199|183643347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0022
91907055|NCT01309659|183709291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor and the change in the 6 Meter Walk Test distance of the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.396
91875166|NCT01601821|183643364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-2.0||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|1.5|||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test superiority of arm CsA+Rapamune+CS versus arm CsA+MMF+CS.||1.5|-5.5|0.341
91875167|NCT01601821|183643365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 3: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the difference.||||0.870
91875168|NCT01601821|183643365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 6: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.381
91875169|NCT01601821|183643365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 12: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.096
91875170|NCT01601821|183643366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 3: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.979
91875171|NCT01601821|183643366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 6: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.660
91875172|NCT01601821|183643366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 12: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.518
91875173|NCT01601821|183643367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 3: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.786
91875174|NCT01601821|183643367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 6: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.738
91875175|NCT01601821|183643367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 12: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.977
91907056|NCT01309659|183709292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in the 6 Minute Walk Test Distance in the intermediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.624
91875176|NCT01601821|183643368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.999
91875177|NCT01601821|183643370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.276
91875178|NCT01601821|183643371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.999
91875179|NCT01601821|183643372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test the difference.||||0.868
91743454|NCT00281099|183381768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was performed, with the hazard ratio as the parameter of interest and the non-inferiority threshold of 1.44. The one-sided upper confidence bound for the hazard ratio had to be less than 1.44 for the null hypothesis to be rejected. The threshold of 1.44 was derived by using a noninferiority threshold of a 5 percentage point difference in 24 month survival rates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||||95.0|1.26|1.75|||||This was a non-inferiority analysis, and so a one-sided 95% confidence interval was performed comparing the MVP arm to the VVI 40 arm.|The time from randomization to all cause mortality or last follow-up visit was determined for each subject. The null hypothesis was that the mortality hazard rate for patients with MVP programming was greater than that of patients with VVI40 programming.||1.75|1.26|
91743455|NCT01082081|183381771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|7.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and Paracetamol 500 mg caplet.||7.39|2.15|0.0004
91875180|NCT01601821|183643373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.999
91743456|NCT01082081|183381771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|10.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||10.45|4.04|<0.0001
91743457|NCT01082081|183381771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.48||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|5.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 500 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||5.69|-0.74|0.1307
91743458|NCT03159468|183381786|OTHER|||||||0.041||||||This p-value is for the main effect of beverage condition.|ANOVA|||||||.041
91743459|NCT03159468|183381786|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This p-value is for the main effect of intervention condition.|ANOVA|||||||.160
91743460|NCT03159468|183381786|OTHER|||||||0.462||||||This p-value is for the beverage condition by intervention condition interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.462
91743461|NCT00335283|183381824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|7.59|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||7.59|1.28|.01
91743462|NCT00335283|183381824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|8.67|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment affect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||8.67|1.41|.006
91743463|NCT00335283|183381825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||2.70|0.38|.97
91743464|NCT00335283|183381825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.11||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||3.06|0.40|.84
91743465|NCT00335283|183381826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.44||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||6.31|.95|.06
91743466|NCT00335283|183381826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|4.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.6|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||13.6|1.5|.007
91760153|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|7.99||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.99|2.83|
91743467|NCT00335283|183381827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.17||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|13.2|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||13.2|2.02|.006
91743468|NCT00335283|183381827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|14.3|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||14.3|1.97|.001
91743469|NCT01734395|183381839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4262|-0.9467|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.9467|-1.4262|<.0001
91743470|NCT01734395|183381840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9188|2.0438|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.0438|0.9188|<.0001
91743471|NCT01734395|183381841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.814|-0.5586|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.5586|-0.814|<.0001
91743472|NCT02565147|183381858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7505|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.7505
91743473|NCT04855240|183381869|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|4.4|||ANOVA|||||4.4|-25.4|0.1683
91743474|NCT04855240|183381869|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.8356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|16.6|||ANOVA|||||16.6|-13.4|0.8356
91743475|NCT04855240|183381870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|1.155|||Log Rank|||||1.155|0.598|0.2280
91743476|NCT04855240|183381870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.527|||Log Rank|||||1.527|0.793|0.5604
91743477|NCT04855240|183381871|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.26|-0.05|0.2457
91743478|NCT04855240|183381871|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.09|-0.22|0.3997
91743479|NCT04855240|183381872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.22|-0.09|0.4771
91743480|NCT04855240|183381872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.06|-0.24|0.2925
91743481|NCT04855240|183381873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.22|-0.09|0.4628
91743482|NCT04855240|183381873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.06|-0.24|0.3090
91743483|NCT04855240|183381874|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.36||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|12.4|||ANOVA|||||12.4|-47.8|0.2494
91743484|NCT04855240|183381874|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.42||0.7385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|35.4|||ANOVA|||||35.4|-25.1|0.7385
91743485|NCT04855240|183381875|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.91||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|22.3|||ANOVA|||||22.3|-67.5|0.3238
91743486|NCT04855240|183381875|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.99||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|52.9|||ANOVA|||||52.9|-37.3|0.7344
91743487|NCT04855240|183381876|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.0|||ANOVA|||||3.0|-3.7|0.8489
91743488|NCT04855240|183381876|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.3|||ANOVA|||||5.3|-1.5|0.2768
91743489|NCT04855240|183381877|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.8|||ANOVA|||||3.8|-6.2|0.6291
91743490|NCT04855240|183381877|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.3182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.5|||ANOVA|||||7.5|-2.5|0.3182
91743491|NCT04855240|183381878|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|4.3|||ANOVA|||||4.3|-12.8|0.3299
91743492|NCT04855240|183381878|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.2|||ANOVA|||||9.2|-7.9|0.8822
91743493|NCT04855240|183381879|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|9.8|||ANOVA|||||9.8|-24.0|0.4094
91743494|NCT04855240|183381879|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.65||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|20.4|||ANOVA|||||20.4|-13.5|0.6901
91743495|NCT04855240|183381880|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.59||0.5536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|11.7|||ANOVA|||||11.7|-21.9|0.5536
91743496|NCT04855240|183381880|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.64||0.7811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|19.3|||ANOVA|||||19.3|-14.5|0.7811
91743497|NCT04855240|183381881|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.5267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.8|0.5267
91743498|NCT04855240|183381881|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.3228
91743499|NCT04855240|183381882|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.5|0.7617
91743500|NCT04855240|183381882|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.6241
91743501|NCT04855240|183381883|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.3442
91743502|NCT04855240|183381883|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.7896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.7896
91743503|NCT04855240|183381884|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-1.2|0.6003
91743504|NCT04855240|183381884|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4|||ANOVA|||||1.4|-0.6|0.4086
91743505|NCT04855240|183381885|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.8|-1.6|0.4958
91743506|NCT04855240|183381885|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.7|-0.8|0.4595
91875181|NCT01601821|183643374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test the difference.||||0.985
91875182|NCT01601821|183643375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.172
91743507|NCT04855240|183381886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.04|0.1686
91875183|NCT01601821|183643376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test the difference.||||0.978
91743508|NCT04855240|183381886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.8333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.11|-0.10|0.8333
91743509|NCT04855240|183381887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.20|-0.02|0.1939
91743510|NCT04855240|183381887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.10|0.9595
91743511|NCT04855240|183381888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.20|-0.02|0.1894
91743512|NCT04855240|183381888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.10|0.9595
91743513|NCT04855240|183381889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.7117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.24|-0.06|0.7117
91743514|NCT04855240|183381889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.19|0.7599
91743515|NCT04855240|183381890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.16|-0.16|0.7070
91743516|NCT04855240|183381890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.6877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.12|-0.20|0.6877
91743517|NCT04855240|183381891|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.07|-0.22|0.8690
91743518|NCT04855240|183381891|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.19|0.3790
91743519|NCT04855240|183381892|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|12.8|||ANOVA|||||12.8|-0.9|0.0897
91743520|NCT04855240|183381892|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.7|||ANOVA|||||6.7|-7.1|0.9434
91743521|NCT04855240|183381893|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.04|0.8355
91743522|NCT04855240|183381893|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.3561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.15|-0.12|0.3561
91743523|NCT04855240|183381894|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.9413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.13|-0.06|0.9413
91743524|NCT04855240|183381894|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.7819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.07|-0.15|0.7819
91743525|NCT04855240|183381895|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.5|0.8461
91743526|NCT04855240|183381895|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.1|0.1727
91743527|NCT04855240|183381896|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|0.9022
91743528|NCT04855240|183381896|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.2|0.2450
91743529|NCT04855240|183381897|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4205||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.4205
91743530|NCT04855240|183381897|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.4336
91743531|NCT04855240|183381898|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.2|0.2718
91743532|NCT04855240|183381898|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.1|0.1727
91743533|NCT00244725|183381910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|1.1|0.012
91743534|NCT00244725|183381910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.42||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|1.1|0.017
91743535|NCT00244725|183381910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Fisher Exact|||||1.8|1.0|0.080
91875184|NCT00848198|183643396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.2|90.9||||||||90.9|83.2|
91875185|NCT00848198|183643396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.9|77.1||||||||77.1|66.9|
91743536|NCT04004221|183381924|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial Test|1-sided p-value was based on binomial exact test of Tislelizumab versus historical rate of 0.1||||||< 0.0001
91743537|NCT03423238|183381937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.388
91743538|NCT03423238|183381938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.017
91743539|NCT03423238|183381938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.002
91743540|NCT03423238|183381939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.653
91743541|NCT03423238|183381940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.684
91743542|NCT03423238|183381940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.458
91743543|NCT03423238|183381941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.550
91743544|NCT03423238|183381942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.973
91743545|NCT03423238|183381942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.432
91743546|NCT03423238|183381943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.23063
91743547|NCT03423238|183381944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.854
91743548|NCT03423238|183381944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.874
91743549|NCT03423238|183381945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.563
91743550|NCT03423238|183381946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.008
91743551|NCT03423238|183381946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.922
91743552|NCT03423238|183381947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.667
91743553|NCT03423238|183381948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.692
91743554|NCT03423238|183381948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.590
91743555|NCT03423238|183381949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.844
91743556|NCT03423238|183381950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.721
91743557|NCT03423238|183381950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.851
91799720|NCT02642029|183477032|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.755||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||0.755
91875186|NCT00848198|183643397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|45.3||||||||45.3|34.2|
91743558|NCT03423238|183381951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.815
91743559|NCT03423238|183381952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.488
91743560|NCT03423238|183381952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.237
91743561|NCT03423238|183381953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.506
91743562|NCT03423238|183381954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.549
91743563|NCT03423238|183381954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.303
91743564|NCT03423238|183381955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.934
91743565|NCT03423238|183381956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.792
91743566|NCT03423238|183381956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.417
91743567|NCT03423238|183381957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.685
91743568|NCT03423238|183381958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.854
91743569|NCT03423238|183381958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.903
91743570|NCT03423238|183381959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.569
91743571|NCT03423238|183381960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.824
91743572|NCT03423238|183381960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.401
91743573|NCT03423238|183381961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.188
91743574|NCT03423238|183381962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.338
91743575|NCT03423238|183381962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.484
91875187|NCT00848198|183643397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|87.0||||||||87.0|78.4|
91875188|NCT00848198|183643398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|71.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.8|77.0||||||||77.0|66.8|
91875189|NCT00848198|183643398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|87.0||||||||87.0|78.4|
91875190|NCT00848198|183643399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|27.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|32.3||||||||32.3|22.2|
91875191|NCT00848198|183643399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||||100.0|97.4|
91875192|NCT00848198|183643400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|51.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.7|57.0||||||||57.0|45.7|
91743576|NCT03423238|183381963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.533
91743577|NCT03423238|183381964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.992
91743578|NCT03423238|183381964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.639
91743579|NCT03745638|183381973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.556|11.923||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||11.923|3.556|< 0.0001
91743580|NCT03745638|183381973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.178|14.04||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||14.040|4.178|< 0.0001
91743581|NCT03745638|183381974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.441|6.808||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||6.808|2.441|< 0.0001
91743582|NCT03745638|183381974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.145|8.831||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||8.831|3.145|< 0.0001
91743583|NCT03745638|183381975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.773|8.083||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||8.083|1.773|0.0002
91743584|NCT03745638|183381975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.931|13.22||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||13.220|2.931|< 0.0001
91743585|NCT03745638|183381976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.242|5.723||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||5.723|1.242|0.0081
91743586|NCT03745638|183381976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.334|6.083||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||6.083|1.334|0.0039
91743587|NCT03745638|183381977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|3.391||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.391|0.862|0.1421
91875193|NCT00848198|183643400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.1|97.2||||||||97.2|92.1|
91875194|NCT00848198|183643401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|61.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|66.7||||||||66.7|55.6|
91743588|NCT03745638|183381977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|3.665||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.665|0.949|0.0746
91743589|NCT03745638|183381987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.64|-27.32|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-27.32|-43.64|< 0.0001
91743590|NCT03745638|183381987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Method of Mean Difference]|-40.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.44|-32.13|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-32.13|-48.44|< 0.0001
91743591|NCT03745638|183381987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.28|-35.74|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-35.74|-54.28|< 0.0001
91799721|NCT02642029|183477032|OTHER||beta coefficient for elated mood|-0.0007||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00208|0.00067||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, elated mood). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00067|-0.00208|0.317
91799722|NCT02642029|183477033|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.035||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.035
91743592|NCT03745638|183381987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-48.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|-38.79|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-38.79|-57.30|< 0.0001
91743593|NCT03745638|183381987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.95|-24.3||The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-24.30|-41.95|< 0.0001
91743594|NCT03745638|183381987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.32|-30.72|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-30.72|-48.32|< 0.0001
91743595|NCT03745638|183381988|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.62|-17.95|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-17.95|-32.62|< 0.0001
91743596|NCT03745638|183381988|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.68|-23.06|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-23.06|-37.68|< 0.0001
91743597|NCT03745638|183381989|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.91|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-0.91|-1.87|<0.0001
91743598|NCT03745638|183381989|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.16|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-1.16|-2.11|<0.0001
91743599|NCT03745638|183381989|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.15|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.15|-2.25|<0.0001
91743600|NCT03745638|183381989|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.53|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.53|-2.63|<0.0001
91743601|NCT03745638|183381989|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.01|-2.20|<0.0001
91743602|NCT03745638|183381989|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.4|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.40|-2.58|<0.0001
91743603|NCT03745638|183381991|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.74|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-0.74|-1.74|<0.0001
91875195|NCT00848198|183643401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|83.3||||||||83.3|74.0|
91875196|NCT00848198|183643402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|58.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|64.1||||||||64.1|52.9|
91875197|NCT00848198|183643402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|78.3||||||||78.3|68.3|
91875198|NCT02342275|183643450|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the atenolol on the propranolol response rate does not fall by greater than 15%, the noninferiority margin was selected to be -15%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference=Propranolol vs Atenolol|The sample size required to compare propranolol and atenolol at month 6 was calculated before enrollment. Assuming the ulceration rate in both groups to be 10%, a sample size of180 patients was required for each group to show the noninferiority ofatenolol treatment with a 2-sidedα level of .05 and approximately 90% power||||<0.05
91875199|NCT02138838|183643480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|8.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||29.9|-13.7|0.48
91875200|NCT02138838|183643481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-9.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by baseline age group (6-\<12 years, 12-\<18 years)|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to test the primary and biochemical secondary endpoints. The primary endpoint was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The secondary endpoints were tested using Holm's method at 0.05 (2-sided) should the primary endpoint achieve a significant result.||13.4|-33.3|0.42
91875201|NCT02138838|183643482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-10.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||6.8|-27.7|0.25
91875202|NCT02138838|183643483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|19.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|50.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age group as the covariate.|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||50.5|-12.5|0.23
91875203|NCT02138838|183643484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.01|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age group as the covariate.||||0.01|-0.70|0.059
91875204|NCT02138838|183643485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.76||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.48|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age group as the covariate.|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||1.48|0.04|0.039
91875205|NCT01294644|183643491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|4.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||4.43|1.52|<0.001
91875206|NCT01294644|183643491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||5.36|1.83|<0.001
91875207|NCT01294644|183643492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.71||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|92.67|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||92.67|1.48|0.020
91875208|NCT01294644|183643492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.53||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|91.24|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||91.24|1.46|0.021
91875209|NCT01294644|183643493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|9.44|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline SSRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||9.44|3.06|<0.001
91875210|NCT01294644|183643493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|8.04|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline SSRS value in the model|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||8.04|2.65|<0.001
91875211|NCT01294644|183643494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.19|-0.51|<0.001
91875212|NCT01294644|183643494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.24|-0.56|<0.001
91875213|NCT01294644|183643495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.75|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.75|0.97|<0.001
91875214|NCT01294644|183643495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.65|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.65|0.87|<0.001
91875215|NCT01294644|183643496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline values as covariate.||||0.13|-1.72|0.090
91875216|NCT01294644|183643496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.97||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline values as covariate.||||-0.05|-1.89|0.040
91743604|NCT03745638|183381991|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.13|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-1.13|-2.11|<0.0001
91743605|NCT03745638|183381994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.47|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.47|-2.60|0.0049
91743606|NCT03745638|183381994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-1.25|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-1.25|-3.37|<0.0001
91743607|NCT03745638|183381994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.15|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-1.15|-3.52|0.0001
91743608|NCT03745638|183381994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.67|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-1.67|-4.03|<0.0001
91743609|NCT03745638|183381994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-1.14|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-1.14|-3.93|0.0004
91743610|NCT03745638|183381994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.79|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-1.79|-4.57|<0.0001
91743611|NCT03745638|183381995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.01|-2.35|0.0487
91743612|NCT03745638|183381995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.51|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.51|-2.84|0.0049
91743613|NCT03745638|183381995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-0.35|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-0.35|-2.94|0.0128
91743614|NCT03745638|183381995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.62|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-0.62|-3.20|0.0037
91743615|NCT03745638|183381995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.65|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-0.65|-3.58|0.0048
91743616|NCT03745638|183381995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.84|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-0.84|-3.75|0.0020
91743617|NCT03745638|183381998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-2.18|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-2.18|-4.07|<0.0001
91743618|NCT03745638|183381998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-2.79|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-2.79|-4.67|<0.0001
91743619|NCT03745638|183382000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|-3.8|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-3.80|-6.43|<0.0001
91743620|NCT03745638|183382000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|-5.0|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-5.00|-7.62|<0.0001
91743621|NCT03745638|183382002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.68|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-2.68|-4.85|<0.0001
91875217|NCT01294644|183643497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.009
91875218|NCT01294644|183643497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.001
91875219|NCT03512041|183643557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.172
91743622|NCT03745638|183382002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-3.42|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-3.42|-5.56|<0.0001
91743623|NCT03745638|183382004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|-1.26|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||-1.26|-5.29|0.0018
91743624|NCT03745638|183382004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-0.13|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||-0.13|-4.43|0.0378
91743625|NCT03745638|183382008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.632|11.018||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||11.018|3.632|<0.0001
91743626|NCT03745638|183382008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.755|15.083||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||15.083|4.755|<0.0001
91743627|NCT03745638|183382009|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|8.15|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||8.15|1.59|0.0037
91743628|NCT03745638|183382009|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|8.96|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||8.96|2.45|0.0006
91743629|NCT03745638|183382010|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|1.65|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||1.65|-11.49|0.1417
91743630|NCT03745638|183382010|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.6037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|4.77|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||4.77|-8.19|0.6037
91743631|NCT03745638|183382010|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-5.12|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-5.12|-16.89|0.0003
91875220|NCT03512041|183643558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.169
91743632|NCT03745638|183382010|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.98|-6.47|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-6.47|-17.98|<0.0001
91875221|NCT03512041|183643559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.501
91743633|NCT03745638|183382010|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|-7.81|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-7.81|-22.95|<0.0001
91743634|NCT03745638|183382010|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.85|-5.01|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-5.01|-19.85|0.0011
91743635|NCT03745638|183382010|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|-6.29|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-6.29|-14.64|<0.0001
91743636|NCT03745638|183382010|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-8.29|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-8.29|-16.60|<0.0001
91760154|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|4.65||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.65|-1.08|
91760155|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|7.28||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.28|1.52|
91760156|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|9.07||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.07|3.33|
91760157|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.55||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.55|0.85|
91875222|NCT00331799|183643572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test on the difference between the baseline and endpoint score on the CD-RISC.||||0.00365
91743637|NCT02993822|183382042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.49|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.49|0.88|0.324
91743638|NCT02993822|183382042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.48|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.48|0.88|0.332
91743639|NCT02993822|183382042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.20|0.71|0.531
91743640|NCT02993822|183382043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.15|0.75|0.482
91743641|NCT02993822|183382043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.14|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.14|0.75|0.460
91743642|NCT02993822|183382043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.06|0.69|0.144
91743643|NCT02993822|183382044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.27|0.78|0.992
91743644|NCT02993822|183382044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.14|0.71|0.387
91743645|NCT02993822|183382044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.19|0.74|0.600
91743646|NCT02993822|183382045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.0|0.0|0.042
91799723|NCT02642029|183477033|OTHER||beta coefficient for auditory hallucinat|0.00195||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00021|0.00369||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, auditory hallucinations). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00369|0.00021|0.028
91875223|NCT02889809|183643573|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.462|0.142|||||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for Baseline growth velocity, age at Visit 1, gender and country.|||0.142|-0.462|
91875224|NCT02889809|183643576|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|0.572|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline growth velocity, age at Visit 1(wk -16), gender and country|||0.572|-0.455|
91743647|NCT02993822|183382045|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.0|0.1|0.026
91743648|NCT02993822|183382045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.4|0.5|0.003
91743649|NCT02993822|183382046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.7|-0.4|0.250
91743650|NCT02993822|183382046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.5|-0.5|0.325
91743651|NCT02993822|183382046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.2|0.1|0.029
91743652|NCT02993822|183382047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.3|0.1|0.038
91743653|NCT02993822|183382047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.0|-0.2|0.118
91743654|NCT02993822|183382047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.4|0.2|0.025
91743655|NCT02993822|183382048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.9|-0.5|0.258
91743656|NCT02993822|183382048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.8|-0.5|0.243
91743657|NCT02993822|183382048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.8|0.4|0.009
91743658|NCT02993822|183382049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-2.5|-16.6|0.008
91743659|NCT02993822|183382049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||2.4|-11.4|0.198
91875225|NCT02213458|183643592|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.539||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.337|||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||Linear mixed effects model||1.337|.259|0.04
91743660|NCT02993822|183382049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||0.1|-13.7|0.055
91743661|NCT02993822|183382050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-1.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.1|-16.3|0.026
91875226|NCT02213458|183643593|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.138||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||||-.020|-.295|.05
91743662|NCT02993822|183382050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||5.3|-9.6|0.571
91743663|NCT02993822|183382050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.3|-15.2|0.043
91743664|NCT02993822|183382051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.3|-19.7|0.006
91743665|NCT02993822|183382051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|4.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.8|-11.1|0.435
91743666|NCT02993822|183382051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.4|-17.4|0.022
91743667|NCT02993822|183382052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||1.4|-15.3|0.103
91743668|NCT02993822|183382052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|5.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||5.6|-10.6|0.546
91743669|NCT02993822|183382052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.7|-17.2|0.034
91743670|NCT02993822|183382053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.6|-18.8|0.004
91743671|NCT02993822|183382053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|3.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||3.4|-11.5|0.282
91743672|NCT02993822|183382053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|4.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.3|-10.7|0.398
91799724|NCT02642029|183477034|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.748||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.748
91875227|NCT02213458|183643594|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.902||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.885|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||||-0.080|-3.885|0.07
91875228|NCT02213458|183643596|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.143||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.154|-0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.132|-2.154|0.03
91743673|NCT02993822|183382054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.7|-18.3|0.019
91799725|NCT02642029|183477034|OTHER||beta coefficient for visual hallucinatio|-0.00039||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0023|0.00151||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, visual hallucinations). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00151|-0.00230|0.685
91799726|NCT02642029|183477035|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.02||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.020
91875229|NCT02213458|183643597|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.635||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|1.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||||1.405|-0.135|0.11
91875230|NCT01357564|183643644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was based on the main study hypothesis tested at 80% power for a 2-sided alternative hypothesis using a t-test comparing the treatment groups on 4-month values. Based on previous trials, we sought a medium effect size of 0.50 using a type I error rate of .05.||-0.13|-1.23|.02
91875231|NCT01357564|183643645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was based on the main study hypothesis tested at 80% power for a 2-sided alternative hypothesis using a t-test comparing the treatment groups on 4-month values. Based on previous trials, we sought a medium effect size of 0.50 using a type I error rate of .05.||-0.01|-0.14|.03
91875232|NCT02282761|183643679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|1.05|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.05|-6.17|0.182
91875233|NCT02282761|183643679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-0.6|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.60|-7.75|0.045
91875234|NCT02282761|183643680|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.12|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.12|-0.54|0.045
91875235|NCT00515281|183643682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
91875236|NCT00515281|183643683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.288
91875237|NCT00515281|183643684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91743674|NCT02993822|183382054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||2.4|-13.7|0.170
91875238|NCT00515281|183643685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
91875239|NCT00515281|183643686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91743675|NCT02993822|183382054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|4.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.5|-11.7|0.384
91743676|NCT02993822|183382055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.3|-20.0|0.006
91875240|NCT00515281|183643687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91875241|NCT00515281|183643688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91875242|NCT06312566|183643692|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 92.016% CI limits for Cmax,ss was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.9726|||||TWO_SIDED|92.016|0.9257|1.022|||Linear mixed model analysis|||||1.022|0.9257|
91875243|NCT06312566|183643693|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 90% CI limits for AUC(tau) was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.9999|||||TWO_SIDED|92.016|0.9881|1.012||||||||1.012|0.9881|
91875244|NCT04551053|183643700|SUPERIORITY|p-value for superiority is half of the CMH p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.02||CMH test for un-equality stratified by Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) category (intermediate 1 versus intermediate 2 and high) and Baseline platelet count (≥100 × 10\^9/Liters \[L\] versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/L inclusive)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.02|0.65|0.2567
91875245|NCT04551053|183643701|SUPERIORITY|p-value for superiority is half of the CMH p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.39||calculated from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test for un-equality stratified by DIPSS category (intermediate 1 versus intermediate 2 and high) and Baseline platelet count (≥100 × 10\^9/L versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/L inclusive)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.53|0.5349
91875246|NCT04551053|183643703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2224||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by DIPSS category (intermediate 1 versus intermediate 2 and high) and Baseline platelet count (≥100 x 10\^9/L versus 50 to \<100 x 10\^9/L inclusive)|Log Rank|||||||0.2224
91743677|NCT02993822|183382055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||3.0|-13.0|0.222
91743678|NCT02993822|183382055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||0.3|-16.0|0.058
91743679|NCT02993822|183382056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.2|-18.9|0.027
91743680|NCT02993822|183382056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||2.2|-14.9|0.147
91743681|NCT02993822|183382056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.1|-17.6|0.046
91743682|NCT02993822|183382057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-5.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-5.5|-19.5|<0.001
91743683|NCT02993822|183382057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||1.3|-12.4|0.114
91743684|NCT02993822|183382057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||0.2|-13.7|0.056
91743685|NCT02993822|183382058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.0|-16.8|0.027
91743686|NCT02993822|183382058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.1|-11.3|0.357
91743687|NCT02993822|183382058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.8|-16.2|0.031
91743688|NCT02993822|183382059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-2.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-2.9|-19.2|0.008
91743689|NCT02993822|183382059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||3.9|-11.8|0.321
91743690|NCT02993822|183382059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.1|-16.0|0.047
91743691|NCT02993822|183382060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-1.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.8|-18.4|0.018
91743692|NCT02993822|183382060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|6.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||6.4|-9.8|0.682
91743693|NCT02993822|183382060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.6|-20.0|0.005
91743694|NCT02993822|183382061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.004
91743695|NCT02993822|183382061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.134
91799727|NCT02642029|183477035|OTHER||beta coefficient for paranoid ideation|0.0004||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00108|0.00188||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, paranoid ideation). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00188|-0.00108|0.597
91799728|NCT02642029|183477036|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.237||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.237
91799729|NCT02642029|183477036|OTHER||beta coefficient for ideas/del of refere|-0.00142||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0035|0.00065||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, ideas/delusions of reference). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00065|-0.00350|0.178
91799730|NCT02642029|183477037|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.33||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.330
91799731|NCT02642029|183477037|OTHER||beta coefficient for delusions of contro|-0.00038||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00305|0.00228||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, delusions of control). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00228|-0.00305|0.777
91799732|NCT01426438|183477051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Stratified exact Wilcoxon signed rank test. Stratified by screening HDL-C level and statin use within 90 days prior to study entry.||||||0.28
91799733|NCT01426438|183477051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Stratified exact Wilcoxon signed rank test. Stratified by screening HDL-C level and statin use within 90 days prior to study entry.||||||0.19
91799734|NCT01788046|183477065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.18|52.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH category (\< 600, ≥ 600 to ≤ 1000, and \> 1000 pg/mL), recent cinacalcet use within 8 weeks before randomization (yes and no), and region (North America and non-North America) was used to compare the primary endpoint of percentage of participants with \> 30% reduction from baseline in PTH during the EAP between etelcalcetide and placebo.||52.17|18.18|< 0.001
91743696|NCT02993822|183382061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.003
91743697|NCT02993822|183382062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.401
91799735|NCT01788046|183477066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.35|70.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by screening PTH category, prior cinacalcet use within 8 weeks prior to randomization, and region.||||70.37|16.35|< 0.001
91743698|NCT02993822|183382062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.175
91743699|NCT02993822|183382062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.126
91743700|NCT02993822|183382063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.002
91743701|NCT02993822|183382063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.144
91743702|NCT02993822|183382063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.025
91743703|NCT02993822|183382064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.158
91743704|NCT02993822|183382064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.597
91743705|NCT02993822|183382064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.124
91743706|NCT02993822|183382065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.01
91743707|NCT02993822|183382065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.049
91743708|NCT02993822|183382065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.001
91799736|NCT01788046|183477067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-71.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.53|-65.14|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-65.14|-77.53|< 0.001
91743709|NCT02993822|183382066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.309
91743710|NCT02993822|183382066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.387
91743711|NCT02993822|183382066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.025
91743712|NCT02993822|183382067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.003
91743713|NCT02993822|183382067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.152
91743714|NCT02993822|183382067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.004
91743715|NCT02993822|183382068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.100
91875247|NCT00828178|183643743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis system (SAS) software was used (SAS Institute Inc. Cary, North Carolina, SAS 9.2). Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized using appropriate descriptive statistics and compared across treatment groups using Chi-square. Two-sample t tests were used in the statistical analysis of the FMD outcomes. ANCOVA was used to compare the groups with respect to changes in clinical variables adjusting for baseline values.||||0.87
91743716|NCT02993822|183382068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.557
91743717|NCT02993822|183382068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.054
91743718|NCT01939977|183382085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0083|||||||Chi-squared|||"Taking per protocol population, the percentage of patients with iPTH\> 110 pg / ml at 6 months post-transplant treated with Paricalcitol was statistically lower than in patients treated with Calcifediol"||||0.0083
91743719|NCT03641716|183382107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91743720|NCT03641716|183382108|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.65||||||Due to limited size of sub-sample, we calculated a Cohen's d effect size for raw total score on the PSI from baseline to the 3-month follow-up, with a 95% confidence interval.||.65|-.66|
91743721|NCT03641716|183382109|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||a prior threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|We ran a paired samples t-test with pre/post intervention data (from baseline and 3-month assessments).||After examining the data to ensure it met the statistical assumptions (e.g. normality, no outliers), we ran a paired-sample pre-post t-test to examine the difference in scores from baseline to 3 months on the NutriSTEP (Screening Tool for Every Preschooler) assessment.||||<.01
91743722|NCT01696981|183382119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||Poisson regression|||||1.00|0.95|
91799737|NCT01788046|183477068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|-6.03|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-6.03|-8.38|< 0.001
91743723|NCT01696981|183382121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.85|||Poisson regression|||||0.85|0.72|
91743724|NCT01696981|183382123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87|||Poisson regression|||||0.87|0.63|
91743725|NCT00005947|183382150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.052||95.0|0.99|2.11|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as the independent variable \[placebo/sipuleucel-T\].|||2.11|0.99|0.052
91743726|NCT00005947|183382150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.01|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as the independent variable \[sipuleucel-T/placebo\]|||1.01|0.47|0.052
91743727|NCT00005947|183382151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.01||95.0|1.13|2.58|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the independent variable \[placebo/sipuleucel-T\].|ITT Population - all randomized participants||2.58|1.13|0.010
91799738|NCT01788046|183477069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-14.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.65|-10.51|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-10.51|-18.65|< 0.001
91743728|NCT00005947|183382151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.586||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.884|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the independent variable \[sipuleucel-T/placebo\]|ITT Population - all randomized participants.||0.884|0.388|0.010
91743729|NCT00851890|183382161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.012
91743730|NCT00851890|183382161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.071
91743731|NCT00851890|183382161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.140
91743732|NCT00851890|183382162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.008
91743733|NCT00851890|183382162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.003
91743734|NCT00851890|183382162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.009
91743735|NCT00851890|183382169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Day 28 time point.||||0.018
91743736|NCT00851890|183382169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Day 28 time point.||||0.020
91743737|NCT00851890|183382169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Day 28 time point.||||0.054
91743738|NCT00851890|183382169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Final Visit time point.||||0.010
91743739|NCT00851890|183382169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Final Visit time point.||||0.005
91743740|NCT00851890|183382169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Final Visit time point.||||0.014
91743741|NCT00851890|183382170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
91743742|NCT00851890|183382170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
91743743|NCT00851890|183382170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.138
91743744|NCT00851890|183382171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.209
91743745|NCT00851890|183382171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.473
91743746|NCT00851890|183382171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
91743747|NCT00851890|183382172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.209
91875248|NCT00828178|183643744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1801||||||This Statistical Analysis applies category SELENA-SLEDAI|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1801
91743748|NCT00851890|183382172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91743749|NCT03135431|183382175|NON_INFERIORITY|\<=.5g/dl difference in the decrease in hemoglobin was considered equivalent as 1 unit of blood typically raises the hemoglobin by 1g/dl and would be a clinical significant difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04121||||0.08|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0712|||t-test, 1 sided|||Assuming that a difference of 0.5 g/dl in the drop in hemoglobin between study arms would be considered as equivalent, and assuming a common standard deviation of 1.1 based on previous studies of cesarean deliveries deliveries , the study would have 80% power to test for non-inferiority with 60 participants in each arm (120 total).|Based on new data from a retrospective study preformed at Mayo Clinic sites an additional power calculation was preformed. Based on the new information, our study was well powered (84%) to assess our primary aim with 38 participants (18 salpingectomy, 20 BTL); therefore, we discontinued recruitment and completed the study with the accrued subjects.|.0712||0.08
91743750|NCT03135431|183382176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-8.3|||||Evidence to suggest salpingecotomy procedure had a longer operation time than a tubal ligation.|||-8.3|-14.1|
91743751|NCT03135431|183382177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.17||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.5|54.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis preformed as categorical and categorical variable. Both analyzes had the same conclusion.||54.17|-72.5|0.77
91743752|NCT03122145|183382185|SUPERIORITY|Mann whitney U between groups comparison for voluntary cough parameters between healthy controls and individuals with ALS outcomes: peak expiratory cough flow and cough volume acceleration||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis that voluntary cough \> reflex cough strength and effectiveness in healthy volunteers||||0.0005
91743753|NCT03206918|183382198|SUPERIORITY||2-side Clopper-Pearson|87.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|93.81|||Exact Binomial Test|The null hypothesis is ORR = 32%||||93.81|79.40|<0.0001
91743754|NCT00475085|183382212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|0.2||Response skewed. P-value determined after Box-Cox transformation (lambda=-1.6). Significance level set to 0.017 to account for three tested hypotheses.|ANOVA|Testing and estimation performed using contrasts in the context of an omnibus ANOVA.||Group 1 - Group 2 (palonosetron vs. granisetron)||0.200|-0.225|0.718
91743755|NCT00475085|183382212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.407||Response skewed. P-value determined after Box-Cox transformation (lambda=-1.6). Significance level set to 0.017 to account for three tested hypotheses.|ANOVA|Testing and estimation performed using contrasts in the context of an omnibus ANOVA.||Group 1 - Group 4 (adding dexamethasone)||0.407|-0.017|0.010
91743756|NCT00475085|183382212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.186||Response skewed. P-value determined after Box-Cox transformation (lambda=-1.6). Significance level set to 0.017 to account for three tested hypotheses.|ANOVA|Testing and estimation performed using contrasts in the context of an omnibus ANOVA.||Group 3 - Group 4 (aprepitant vs. prochlorperazine)||0.186|-0.236|0.557
91743757|NCT06899737|183382219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.55|-7.64|0.32
91743758|NCT06899737|183382220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|10.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.30|-1.94|0.18
91743759|NCT06899737|183382221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.18|-0.81|0.71
91743760|NCT06899737|183382222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.24|-0.03|0.32
91743761|NCT06899737|183382223|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.92|-0.82|0.91
91743762|NCT06899737|183382224|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-0.03|0.059
91743763|NCT06899737|183382225|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.71|-0.92|0.79
91743764|NCT06899737|183382226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.15|-0.16|0.14
91743765|NCT06899737|183382227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-1.19|0.42
91743766|NCT06899737|183382228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.07|-0.40|0.37
91743767|NCT06899737|183382230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|13.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.51|-0.06|0.05
91743768|NCT06899737|183382231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.11|-0.26|0.23
91743769|NCT06899737|183382232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.39|-0.09|0.08
91799739|NCT01788046|183477070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-8.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-3.92|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-3.92|-12.15|< 0.001
91743770|NCT06899737|183382233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.35|-0.15|0.11
91743771|NCT06899737|183382234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.01|0.05
91743772|NCT00375674|183382236|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.761||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|0.975|||Cox Proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by UISS High-Risk Group.||Superiority analysis||0.975|0.594|0.030
91743773|NCT00375674|183382237|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.811||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.023|||Cox Proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by UISS High-Risk Group||Superiority analysis||1.023|0.643|0.077
91743774|NCT00375674|183382238|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.929||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.289|||Log-rank test|||Hazard ratio was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by UISS High-Risk Group.||1.289|0.670|0.661
91743775|NCT00301262|183382260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.405|<|0.0001||95.0|11.4|24.86||Since there was only one primary endpoint no multiple comparison adjustments were made for primary analysis. Final stat. model included centre, treatment, smoking status and history of ED as factors, and age, duration of ED (baseline) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|The primary analysis population was the FAS. The sample size was estimated based on an expected difference of 16.5 with a standard deviation of 28.4, based on previously observed data.||24.86|11.40|<0.0001
91743776|NCT00301262|183382261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.761||0.0028||95.0|1.8|8.37|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||8.370|1.800|0.0028
91743777|NCT00301262|183382261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.294|<|0.0001||95.0|20.58|31.455|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||31.455|20.580|<0.0001
91743778|NCT00301262|183382262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.656||0.008||95.0|0.47|3.06|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||3.06|0.47|0.0080
91743779|NCT00301262|183382263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.909||0.0051||95.0|0.29|1.585|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.585|0.290|0.0051
91743780|NCT00301262|183382263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.013|<|0.0001||95.0|1.812|3.77|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.770|1.812|<0.0001
91743781|NCT00301262|183382264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.0054||95.0|0.78|4.43|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||4.43|0.78|0.0054
91743782|NCT00301262|183382265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.4232||95.0|-0.43|1.02|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||1.02|-0.43|0.4232
91799740|NCT02038881|183477127|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 4|0.851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|2.8||||||||2.800|0.258|
91799741|NCT02038881|183477127|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 6|0.653|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|1.333||||||||1.333|0.319|
91743783|NCT00301262|183382266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0156||95.0|0.13|1.22|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||1.22|0.13|0.0156
91743784|NCT00301262|183382267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.0096||95.0|0.3|2.11|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||2.11|0.30|0.0096
91743785|NCT00301262|183382268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.0135||95.0|0.19|1.61|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||1.61|0.19|0.0135
91743786|NCT00301262|183382269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.392||0.0033||95.0|0.051|2.465|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.465|0.0510|0.0033
91743787|NCT00301262|183382269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.346|<|0.0001||95.0|3.676|6.772|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||6.772|3.676|<0.0001
91743788|NCT00301262|183382270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57||0.2581||95.0|-0.149|0.549|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.549|-0.149|0.2581
91743789|NCT00301262|183382270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.582|<|0.0001||95.0|0.758|2.018|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.018|0.758|<0.0001
91743790|NCT00301262|183382271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.456||0.2857||95.0|-0.149|0.499|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.499|-0.149|0.2857
91743791|NCT00301262|183382271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.706||0.0005||95.0|0.345|1.177|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.177|0.345|0.0005
91743792|NCT00301262|183382272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.548||0.0102||95.0|0.183|1.317|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.317|0.183|0.0102
91743793|NCT00301262|183382272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.979|<|0.0001||95.0|1.557|3.01|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.010|1.557|<0.0001
91743794|NCT00301262|183382273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.847||0.0016||95.0|0.264|1.086|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.086|0.264|0.0016
91743795|NCT00301262|183382273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.297|<|0.0001||95.0|1.335|2.456|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.456|1.335|<0.0001
91799742|NCT02038881|183477127|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 30|1.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|4.352||||||||4.352|0.291|
91743796|NCT00301262|183382274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.0083||95.0|0.73|4.83|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||4.83|0.73|0.0083
91743797|NCT00301262|183382275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.193||0.9146||95.0|-1.218|1.093|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.093|-1.218|0.9146
91743798|NCT00301262|183382275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.463|<|0.0001||95.0|3.961|7.114|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||7.114|3.961|<0.0001
91743799|NCT00301262|183382276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.826||0.0002||95.0|8.88|27.96|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||27.96|8.88|0.0002
91743800|NCT00301262|183382277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.444||0.0064||95.0|1.857|10.956|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||10.956|1.857|0.0064
91743801|NCT00301262|183382277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.384|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.636|33.971|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||33.971|19.636|<0.0001
91743802|NCT00301262|183382278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.491||||0.0001||95.0|3.042|13.851|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.851|3.042|0.0001
91743803|NCT00301262|183382279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.915|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.396|10.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.080|2.396|<0.0001
91743804|NCT00301262|183382280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.676||||0.0187||95.0|1.242|10.875|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.875|1.242|0.0187
91743805|NCT00301262|183382281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.716||0.0037||95.0|4.59|23.22|||independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||23.22|4.59|0.0037
91743806|NCT00301262|183382282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.496||0.0321||95.0|0.84|18.6|||independent-samples t-test||Mean Difference = Week 8 - Baseline|||18.60|0.84|0.0321
91799743|NCT02038881|183477127|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 56|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.819||||||||3.819|0.220|
91799744|NCT02038881|183477127|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 4|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|3.741||||||||3.741|0.292|
91743807|NCT00301262|183382283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.901||0.0427||95.0|-15.68|-0.27|||independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||-0.27|-15.68|0.0427
91743808|NCT00301262|183382284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.903||0.0533||95.0|-15.32|0.11|||independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.11|-15.32|0.0533
91743809|NCT00301262|183382285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3041||0.0002||95.0|0.566|1.768|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||1.768|0.566|0.0002
91743810|NCT00301262|183382286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3638||0.0001||95.0|0.727|2.164|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||2.164|0.727|0.0001
91743811|NCT00301262|183382287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3946||0.0032||95.0|0.403|1.961|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||1.961|0.403|0.0032
91743812|NCT00301262|183382288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3549||0.0008||95.0|0.511|1.913|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||1.913|0.511|0.0008
91743813|NCT00301262|183382289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.454||0.0195||95.0|0.064|0.711|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.711|0.064|0.0195
91743814|NCT00301262|183382289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.207|<|0.0001||95.0|1.551|2.628|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.628|1.551|<0.0001
91743815|NCT00301262|183382290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.489||0.0186||95.0|0.069|0.731|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.731|0.069|0.0186
91743816|NCT00301262|183382290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.573|<|0.0001||95.0|2.044|3.299|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.299|2.044|<0.0001
91743817|NCT00301262|183382291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.917||0.0033||95.0|0.223|1.077|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.077|0.223|0.0033
91743818|NCT00301262|183382291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.335|<|0.0001||95.0|2.042|3.182|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.182|2.042|<0.0001
91743819|NCT00301262|183382292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.606||0.0143||95.0|0.093|0.807|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.807|0.093|0.0143
91743820|NCT00301262|183382292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.178|<|0.0001||95.0|1.454|2.516|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.516|1.454|<0.0001
91743821|NCT00301262|183382293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0325||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.0325
91743822|NCT00301262|183382293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||<0.0001
91743823|NCT00301262|183382294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0196||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.0196
91743824|NCT00301262|183382294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||<0.0001
91743825|NCT00301262|183382295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.3173
91743826|NCT00301262|183382295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.0016
91743827|NCT00301262|183382296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.958||0.0624||95.0|-11.39|0.29|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.29|-11.39|0.0624
91743828|NCT00301262|183382296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835||0.4523||95.0|-2.24|5.01|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.01|-2.24|0.4523
91743829|NCT00301262|183382297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.962||0.2081||95.0|-6.35|1.4|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||1.40|-6.35|0.2081
91743830|NCT00301262|183382297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.958||0.4131||95.0|-2.26|5.48|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.48|-2.26|0.4131
91743831|NCT00301262|183382298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.126||0.4069||95.0|-5.97|2.43|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||2.43|-5.97|0.4069
91799745|NCT02038881|183477127|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 6|1.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|2.892||||||||2.892|0.598|
91799746|NCT02038881|183477128|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1+3 [pooled] / Group 2)|0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.507||||||||1.507|0.385|
91799747|NCT02038881|183477129|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14)|0.347|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.603||||||||0.603|0.200|
91799748|NCT02038881|183477129|OTHER||GMT ratio (Group 2 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14])|0.532|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.992||||||||0.992|0.285|
91875249|NCT00645411|183643770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay||1.01|0.72|
91875250|NCT00645411|183643770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV ) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV) in postvaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs(cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.72|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||0.72|0.49|
91875251|NCT00645411|183643770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV ) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV)in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.68|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against influenza B strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||0.68|0.46|
91875252|NCT00645411|183643770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV) in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||1.08|0.79|
91875253|NCT00645411|183643770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV)in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.78|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||0.78|0.54|
91799749|NCT02038881|183477130|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W38]/ Group 1 [W30])|4.138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|13.793||||||||13.793|1.241|
91799750|NCT02038881|183477130|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W64]/ Group 1 [W56])|4.608|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.365|15.558||||||||15.558|1.365|
91907057|NCT01309659|183709292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in the 6 Minute Walk Test Distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.329
91799751|NCT02038881|183477130|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W30]/ Group 3 [W38])|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.699||||||||0.699|0.066|
91799752|NCT02038881|183477130|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W56]/ Group 3 [W64])|0.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.782||||||||0.782|0.072|
91875254|NCT00645411|183643770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV)in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV)was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against B influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||1.06|0.71|
91875255|NCT00645411|183643771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference in % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||binomial or the method of Miettinen and|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||1|-4|
91907058|NCT00941668|183709326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91907059|NCT00941668|183709327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91907060|NCT02997735|183709334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|27.9|||Chi-squared||ORs from multivariable logistic regression model of characteristics associated with successful quitline enrollment.|||27.90|2.81|<0.001
91799753|NCT02038881|183477131|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 4|0.823|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|2.038||||||||2.038|0.333|
91799754|NCT02038881|183477131|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 6|0.787|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.508||||||||1.508|0.410|
91799755|NCT02038881|183477131|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 30|0.535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|1.536||||||||1.536|0.187|
91799756|NCT02038881|183477131|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 56|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.716||||||||1.716|0.203|
91799757|NCT02038881|183477131|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 4|2.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|6.731||||||||6.731|0.972|
91799758|NCT02038881|183477131|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 6|1.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|2.412||||||||2.412|0.612|
91799759|NCT02038881|183477132|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1+3 [pooled] / Group 2)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.606||||||||1.606|0.480|
91799760|NCT02038881|183477133|OTHER||GMT ratio (Group 1 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.542||||||||0.542|0.146|
91799761|NCT02038881|183477133|OTHER||GMT ratio (Group 2 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14])|0.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.718||||||||0.718|0.178|
91799762|NCT02038881|183477134|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W38]/ Group 1 [W30])|6.727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.493|18.15||||||||18.150|2.493|
91799763|NCT02038881|183477134|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W64]/ Group 1 [W56])|7.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.693|19.649||||||||19.649|2.693|
91799764|NCT02038881|183477134|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W30]/ Group 3 [W38])|0.278|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.672||||||||0.672|0.115|
91799765|NCT02038881|183477134|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W56]/ Group 3 [W64])|0.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.541||||||||0.541|0.100|
91799766|NCT02038881|183477135|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 4|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|17.9||||||||17.9|-34.1|
91799767|NCT02038881|183477135|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 6|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|16.3||||||||16.3|-16.8|
91799768|NCT02038881|183477135|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 30|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|32.6||||||||32.6|-24.5|
91799769|NCT02038881|183477135|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 56|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|29.2||||||||29.2|-31.5|
91799770|NCT02038881|183477135|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 4|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|22.2||||||||22.2|-32.8|
91799771|NCT02038881|183477135|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 6|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|10.1||||||||10.1|-25.1|
91799772|NCT02038881|183477136|OTHER||Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|11.6||||||||11.6|-15.2|
91799773|NCT02038881|183477137|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|13.4||||||||13.4|-17.1|
91799774|NCT02038881|183477137|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 2 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.4||||||||13.4|-16.2|
91799775|NCT02038881|183477138|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W38] - Gr1 [W30])|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|33.0||||||||33.0|-19.6|
91799776|NCT02038881|183477138|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W64] - Gr1 [W56])|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|44.4||||||||44.4|-11.0|
91875256|NCT00645411|183643771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV - eTIV)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.0|||binomial or Miettinen & Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||-4|-13|
91875257|NCT00645411|183643771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-9.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against B influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||-9|-21|
91875258|NCT00645411|183643771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||2|-3|
91875259|NCT00645411|183643771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||0|-9.5|
91907061|NCT02997735|183709335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.72|||Chi-squared||1-5 years Row (\<1 Ref)|||1.72|0.13|0.15
91907062|NCT02997735|183709335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.12|||||6-12 years Row (\<1 Ref)|||2.12|0.18|
91799777|NCT02038881|183477138|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W30] - Gr3 [W38])|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|14.3||||||||14.3|-35.6|
91799778|NCT02038881|183477138|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W56] - Gr3 [W64])|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|10.5||||||||10.5|-40.5|
91799779|NCT02038881|183477139|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 4|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|20.3||||||||20.3|-38.4|
91799780|NCT02038881|183477139|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 6|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|16.3||||||||16.3|-16.8|
91799781|NCT02038881|183477139|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 30|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|17.6||||||||17.6|-38.4|
91799782|NCT02038881|183477139|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 56|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|23.7||||||||23.7|-35.6|
91799783|NCT02038881|183477139|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 4|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|47.8||||||||47.8|-7.7|
91799784|NCT02038881|183477139|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 6|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|13.4||||||||13.4|-20.5|
91799785|NCT02038881|183477140|OTHER||Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|13.2||||||||13.2|-12.0|
91799786|NCT02038881|183477141|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|13.4||||||||13.4|-17.1|
91799787|NCT02038881|183477141|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 2 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.4||||||||13.4|-16.2|
91799788|NCT02038881|183477142|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W38] - Gr1 [W30])|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|45.8||||||||45.8|-4.5|
91799789|NCT02038881|183477142|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W64] - Gr1 [W56])|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|55.4||||||||55.4|5.8|
91799790|NCT02038881|183477142|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W30] - Gr3 [W38])|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|11.7||||||||11.7|-33.0|
91799791|NCT02038881|183477142|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W56] - Gr3 [W64])|-23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-1.0||||||||-1.0|-46.7|
91799792|NCT01453725|183477156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|43.6||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||43.6|17.5|<0.0001
91799793|NCT01453725|183477157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|46.1||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI and Screening CRP level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||46.1|20.4|<0.0001
91799794|NCT01453725|183477158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|40.6||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI and Screening CRP level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||40.6|14.4|<0.0001
91799795|NCT01453725|183477159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|15.2||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|27.1||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI and Screening CRP level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||27.1|3.2|0.0136
91799796|NCT01453725|183477160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||||||<0.0001
91743832|NCT00301262|183382298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.489||0.1137||95.0|-0.57|5.31|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.31|-0.57|0.1137
91743833|NCT00301262|183382299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.829||0.0123||95.0|-21.77|-2.7|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||-2.70|-21.77|0.0123
91743834|NCT00301262|183382299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.883||0.8993||95.0|-10.27|9.03|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||9.03|-10.27|0.8993
91743835|NCT00301262|183382300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.458|<|0.0001||95.0|11.25|32.81|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||32.81|11.25|<0.0001
91743836|NCT00301262|183382300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.818||0.4165||95.0|-16.24|6.76|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||6.76|-16.24|0.4165
91743837|NCT00301262|183382301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.351||0.0257||95.0|1.21|18.39|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||18.39|1.21|0.0257
91743838|NCT00301262|183382301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.209||0.0971||95.0|-11.7|0.98|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.98|-11.70|0.0971
91743839|NCT00301262|183382302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.754||0.0726||95.0|-6.66|0.3|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.30|-6.66|0.0726
91743840|NCT00301262|183382302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.798||0.2581||95.0|-5.61|1.52|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||1.52|-5.61|0.2581
91875260|NCT00645411|183643771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against B influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||6|-6|
91875261|NCT01867307|183643828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-220.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-440.6|-202.7||P-value is from a paired t-test.|Paired t- test||Difference calculated as (Day 14 - baseline) values|Point estimates of the changes from baseline and 95% Confidence interval around the estimates on treatment day 14 were computed.||-202.7|-440.6|<0.0001
91743841|NCT00301262|183382303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.8158||95.0|-9.86|7.78|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||7.78|-9.86|0.8158
91743842|NCT00301262|183382303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.692||0.8464||95.0|-3.68|3.02|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||3.02|-3.68|0.8464
91743843|NCT00301262|183382304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.789||0.9529||95.0|-11.82|11.13|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||11.13|-11.82|0.9529
91743844|NCT00301262|183382304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.994||0.8899||95.0|-10.59|9.2|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||9.20|-10.59|0.8899
91743845|NCT00301262|183382305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.897||0.2001||95.0|-25.83|5.47|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.47|-25.83|0.2001
91743846|NCT00301262|183382305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.724||0.1527||95.0|-3.64|23.01|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||23.01|-3.64|0.1527
91743847|NCT00301262|183382306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.774||0.0606||95.0|-0.67|30.15|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||30.15|-0.67|0.0606
91743848|NCT00301262|183382306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.318||0.3678||95.0|-21.12|7.88|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||7.88|-21.12|0.3678
91743849|NCT00301262|183382307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.474||0.5429||95.0|-10.25|19.37|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||19.37|-10.25|0.5429
91743850|NCT00301262|183382307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.595||0.5849||95.0|-8.02|14.15|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||14.15|-8.02|0.5849
91799797|NCT03755791|183477175|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.44|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.44|0.0012
91799798|NCT03755791|183477176|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9056|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.78|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.78|0.9056
91799799|NCT01254292|183477213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single proportion|82.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|86.5|||||Clopper Pearson Confidence Interval|||86.5|77.1|
91799800|NCT01254292|183477213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single proportion|81.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.7|86.4|||||Clopper Pearson Confidence Interval|||86.4|76.7|
91799801|NCT02083081|183477245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.38
91799802|NCT02083081|183477246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.45
91799803|NCT02083081|183477247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.96
91799804|NCT03109847|183477263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.29|-1.26|0.404
91799805|NCT02927262|183477279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|1.336|||Log Rank||HR \& 95% CI are based on CHM. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm. Stratification factors:age, geographic region, presence of MRD at screening, use of FLT3 inhibiting agents per IRT.|||1.336|0.407|0.163
91799806|NCT02927262|183477280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.627||95.0|0.54|2.364|||Log Rank||HR \& 95%CI are based on CHM. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm. Stratification factors: age, geographic region, presence of MRD at screening, use of FLT3 inhibiting agents per IRT.|||2.364|0.540|0.627
91799807|NCT02927262|183477281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.862||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.455|||Log Rank||HR \& 95%CI are based on CHM. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm. Stratification factors: age, geographic region, presence of MRD at screening, use of FLT3 inhibiting agents per IRT.|||1.455|0.510|0.296
91799808|NCT02927262|183477282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||2-sided P-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.970
91799809|NCT02927262|183477282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415||||||2-sided P-value from ANCOVA including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.415
91799810|NCT02927262|183477282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||2-sided P-value from ANCOVA including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.271
91875262|NCT01867307|183643828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-234.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-312.3|-201.5||P-value is from a paired t-test|Paired t-test||Difference calculated as (Day 14 - baseline) values|Point estimates of the changes from baseline and 95% Confidence interval around the estimates on treatment day 14 were computed.||-201.5|-312.3|<0.0001
91875263|NCT02168855|183643837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|This is a logistic regression model of the active versus placebo arm, while controlling for age and cigarettes smoked per day at enrollment.|The active arm is the numerator and the placebo arm is the denominator of the odds ratio|||3.29|0.58|0.46
91875264|NCT02168855|183643838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes random subject intercept effect|Reflects an odds ratio relative to a 10-unit increase in craving. Temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator.|||1.98|1.83|<0.0001
91799811|NCT02927262|183477282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179||||||2-sided P-value from ANCOVA including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24/EoT||||0.179
91799812|NCT02913612|183477285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.65||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.26|||Fisher Exact|||||6.26|1.12|0.0205
91799813|NCT02913612|183477285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.16||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.14|||Fisher Exact|||||5.14|0.91|0.0619
91799814|NCT02913612|183477285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.23||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.82|||Fisher Exact|||||2.82|0.53|0.6281
91799815|NCT04402060|183477303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.51|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% confidence interval (CI) was based on the Wald method.||1.51|0.63|0.82
91875265|NCT02168855|183643839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes random subject intercept effect|Reflects an odds ratio relative to a 10-unit increase in negative affect T-score. Temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator.|||1.83|1.51|<0.0001
91875266|NCT02168855|183643840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.21|||Regression, Logistic|Includes random subject intercept effect|Odds ratio where temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator, that no smoking cues were seen.|||0.21|0.14|<0.0001
91875267|NCT02168855|183643841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio where temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator, that no other people were seen smoking nearby.|||0.23|0.15|<0.0001
91799816|NCT04402060|183477304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|3.4|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% CI was based on the Wald method.||3.40|0.77|0.36
91799817|NCT04402060|183477306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.09||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.51|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% CI was based on the Wald method.||0.51|0.01|0.03
91799818|NCT04402060|183477307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.72|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% CI was based on the Wald method.||1.72|0.69|0.93
91799819|NCT01898208|183477343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For Vancomycin, all patients||||0.92
91799820|NCT01898208|183477343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For vancomycin, organisms not requiring vancomycin.||||0.032
91799821|NCT01898208|183477343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For vancomycin-susceptible enterococci||||0.037
91799822|NCT01898208|183477343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For vancomycin, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus.||||0.2
91799823|NCT01898208|183477343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For nafcillin, oxacillin, or cefazolin.||||0.035
91799824|NCT01898208|183477343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For piperacillin-tazobactam.||||0.012
91799825|NCT01898208|183477343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For cefepime.||||0.56
91799826|NCT01898208|183477344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares the 3 groups.||||0.55
91799827|NCT01898208|183477345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For time to first appropriate de-escalation comparing the 3 groups.||||<0.0001
91799828|NCT01898208|183477345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For time to first appropriate escalation comparing the 3 groups.||||0.04
91875268|NCT03000829|183643842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91875269|NCT03000829|183643843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
91907063|NCT02997735|183709335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.94|||||13 or Older Row (\<1 Ref)|||6.94|0.49|
91799829|NCT01898208|183477346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis compares the 3 groups.||||0.015
91799830|NCT01898208|183477347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares the FilmArray test to control arm.||||<0.0001
91799831|NCT01898208|183477347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares FilmArray plus antimicrobial stewardship to the control arm.||||<0.0001
91799832|NCT01898208|183477348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis is to compare the three groups.||||0.79
91799833|NCT01898208|183477349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.90
91799834|NCT01898208|183477350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is a comparison of the 3 groups.||||0.62
91799835|NCT01898208|183477351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares the three groups.||||0.60
91799836|NCT01898208|183477352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the 3 groups for all-cause mortality.||||0.74
91799837|NCT01898208|183477352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the 3 groups for attributable mortality.||||0.42
91799838|NCT01898208|183477353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||This analysis is a comparison across all three groups.||||0.82
91799839|NCT01898208|183477355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 arms for total hospitalization costs.||||0.7789
91799840|NCT01898208|183477355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 arms for laboratory test cost.||||0.0006
91799841|NCT01898208|183477355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 arms for antimicrobials costs.||||0.6540
91799842|NCT01033851|183477366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0366||95.0|||||ANOVA|||A repeated measure ANOVA, with time as the repeated measure, treatment arm as between-subjects factor and CGI-S score as the dependent variable, found a main effect of time (F(1,84)=62.19, p\<0.001) and a significant treatment arm X time interaction (F(1,84)=4.51, p=0.0366).||||0.0366
91799843|NCT02728596|183477376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age group, comorbidity, race, and Hispanic ethnicity.||PP-CSF use in the high risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||1.57|0.12|0.21
91799844|NCT02728596|183477376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, and cancer type.||PP-CSF use in the low risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||3.20|0.44|0.74
91799845|NCT02728596|183477376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.08|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, and cancer type.||PP-CSF use in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the SOE for PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 3).||7.08|0.70|0.17
91875270|NCT03000829|183643844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91875271|NCT03000829|183643845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91875272|NCT03000829|183643846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
91875273|NCT03000829|183643847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
91875274|NCT03000829|183643848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91875275|NCT03000829|183643849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91875276|NCT03000829|183643852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
91875277|NCT00091572|183643854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2663||95.0|0.8|1.06|||Log Rank||Temozolomide events (progressions/deaths) = 401. Dacarbazine events (progressions/deaths) = 398.|||1.06|0.80|0.2663
91907064|NCT02997735|183709336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.5|||Chi-squared||35-49 years Row (18-34 Ref)|||6.50|0.92|0.028
91907065|NCT02997735|183709336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|17.32|||||50 or older Row (18-34 Ref)|||17.32|1.46|
91907066|NCT02997735|183709337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||Chi-squared||Asthma Row (No asthma Ref)|||2.80|0.40|0.85
91875278|NCT00091572|183643855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9999||95.0|0.86|1.17|||Log Rank||Temozolomide events (deaths) = 320. Dacarbazine events (deaths) = 325.|||1.17|0.86|0.9999
91875279|NCT00091572|183643856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0718||95.0|0.97|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Temozolomide numerator (responders) = 55. Dacarbazine numerator (responders) = 37.|||2.12|0.97|0.0718
91875280|NCT00267774|183643859|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A 2-sided value of P\<0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91875281|NCT03677986|183643875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|4.14|||GEE|||||4.14|.21|0.914
91875282|NCT00424502|183643884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.017|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||2.64|1.39|<0.0001
91875283|NCT00424502|183643885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.259|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.401|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Week 24||0.401|0.151|<0.0001
91875284|NCT00424502|183643888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.24||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|25.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Week 24||25.28|3.52|0.012
91875285|NCT00424502|183643889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.21||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|5.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Week 24||5.65|-2.03|0.337
91875286|NCT00635609|183643896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on investigational site.||Study not adequately powered to detect differences in efficacy outcomes. Results to provide estimates of safety and efficacy outcomes.||||0.765
91875287|NCT00635609|183643897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on investigational site.||Study not adequately powered to detect differences in efficacy outcomes. Results to provide estimates of safety and efficacy outcomes.||||0.290
91743851|NCT00301262|183382308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.952||0.0002||95.0|9.08|28.64|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||28.64|9.08|0.0002
91743852|NCT00301262|183382308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.212||0.429||95.0|-7.35|17.2|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||17.20|-7.35|0.4290
91743853|NCT01668628|183382310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t-test: Comparison of baseline physical health score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group.||||0.008
91743854|NCT01668628|183382310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test: Comparison of baseline mental health score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group.||||0.008
91743855|NCT01668628|183382310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test: Comparison of baseline kidney disease component score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group||||0.008
91743856|NCT01668628|183382310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test: Comparison of baseline BDI score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group.||||0.157
91743857|NCT01716039|183382312|OTHER|Comparing the change in the modified Baron score from baseline to week 18 between the treatment groups||||||0.758|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.758
91743858|NCT01716039|183382312|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91743859|NCT01716039|183382313|OTHER|||||||0.908||||||p-value for the overall treatment difference is based on an analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline UCEIS|ANCOVA|||||||0.908
91743860|NCT02150057|183382458|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91743861|NCT02388165|183382459|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.3|55.81|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||55.81|-126.30|
91743862|NCT02388165|183382460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|9.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Redness: Any||9.8|6.9|<0.001
91743863|NCT02388165|183382460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.6||||||Redness: Mild||5.6|3.3|
91743864|NCT02388165|183382460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.0||||||Redness: Moderate||4.0|2.3|
91743865|NCT02388165|183382460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||||||Redness: Severe||1.4|0.5|
91743866|NCT02388165|183382460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|8.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Swelling: Any||8.4|5.7|<0.001
91743867|NCT02388165|183382460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.0||||||Swelling: Mild||5.0|2.8|
91743868|NCT02388165|183382460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.3||||||Swelling: Moderate||3.3|1.7|
91743869|NCT02388165|183382460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||||||Swelling: Severe||1.2|0.4|
91743870|NCT02388165|183382460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|18.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Pain at the injection site: Any||18.1|13.3|<0.001
91743871|NCT02388165|183382460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|14.5||||||Pain at the injection site: Mild||14.5|10.0|
91743872|NCT02388165|183382460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.2||||||Pain at the injection site: Moderate||4.2|1.9|
91743873|NCT02388165|183382460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0||||||Pain at the injection site: Severe||1.0|0.1|
91743874|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.6||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Fever: Any||1.6|-0.2|0.146
91743875|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2||||||Fever: 38.0 degree C to 38.4 degree C||1.2|-0.3|
91743876|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||||||Fever: 38.5 degree C to 38.9 degree C||0.6|-0.4|
91799846|NCT02728596|183477376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, and cancer type.||PP-CSF use in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the alert against PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 4).||1.19|0.11|0.094
91799847|NCT02728596|183477377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age.||FN incidence rate in the high risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||2.95|0.75|0.26
91799848|NCT02728596|183477377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|18.8|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||FN incidence rate in the low risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||18.80|0.23|0.51
91799849|NCT02728596|183477377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||FN incidence rate in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the SOE for PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 3).||2.88|0.41|0.87
91799850|NCT02728596|183477377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||FN incidence rate in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the alert against PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 4).||3.57|0.44|0.68
91875288|NCT00635609|183643898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on investigational site||Study not adequately powered to detect differences in efficacy outcomes. Results to provide estimates of safety and efficacy outcomes.||||0.033
91875289|NCT01044901|183643907|OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0039
91875290|NCT01044901|183643908|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney test).||||<0.0001
91907067|NCT02997735|183709338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.5|||Chi-squared||10 or more cigarettes Row (\<10 cigarettes Ref)|||6.50|0.90|0.086
91743877|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||||||Fever: 39.0 degree C to 40.0 degree C||0.5|-0.2|
91743878|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Fever: \>40.0 degree C||0.3|-0.2|
91743879|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|2.9||||0.093||95.0|-0.5|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Fatigue: Any||6.2|-0.5|0.093
91799851|NCT02728596|183477378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||||1.95|0.39|0.74
91799852|NCT02728596|183477378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||||2.88|0.41|0.87
91799853|NCT02728596|183477378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||This is comparing the FN incidence rate in the arm randomized to alert against PP-CSF vs usual care in intermediate risk participants.||3.57|0.44|0.68
91875291|NCT01044901|183643909|OTHER|||||||0.0137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0137
91743880|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.7||||||Fatigue: Mild||3.7|-0.9|
91743881|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.2||||||Fatigue: Moderate||4.2|-1.6|
91743882|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.6||||||Fatigue: Severe||1.6|-1.2|
91743883|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.2||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Headache: Any||4.4|-1.9|0.443
91799854|NCT04102189|183477461|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-16.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.27|-13.23|||ANCOVA|||Responses were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment, stratification groups (sex and Tanner stage at baseline) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline BMI as covariate.||-13.23|-20.27|<.0001
91799855|NCT03319173|183477499|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|8.7|||Regression, Linear|||||8.7|7.79|<0.0001
91799856|NCT03319173|183477500|OTHER||Estimate|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||||0.39|0.31|<0.0001
91743884|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3||||||Headache: Mild||2.3|-2.9|
91743885|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.8||||||Headache: Moderate||3.8|-0.7|
91743886|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||||||Headache: Severe||0.8|-0.8|
91743887|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Diarrhea: Any||3.4|-1.6|0.462
91799857|NCT03319173|183477501|OTHER||Estimate|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||||0.52|0.41|<0.0001
91875292|NCT01044901|183643910|OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0039
91907068|NCT02997735|183709339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.27|||Chi-squared||Less than 6 months Row (30 days Ref)|||1.27|0.15|0.35
91907069|NCT02997735|183709339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.21|||||||6 or more months Row (30 days Ref)|2.21|0.15|
91875293|NCT01044901|183643911|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.16
91875294|NCT01044901|183643912|OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0039
91875295|NCT01044901|183643913|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.0011
91875296|NCT01044901|183643914|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.10
91875297|NCT01044901|183643915|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.48
91743888|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0||||||Diarrhea: Mild||3.0|-1.5|
91743889|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.5||||||95.0|-0.7|1.7||||||Diarrhea: Moderate||1.7|-0.7|
91743890|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Diarrhea: Severe||0.2|-1.0|
91799858|NCT03319173|183477502|OTHER||Estimate|0.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||||0.56|0.47|<0.0001
91875298|NCT01044901|183643916|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome was presented as frequencies and percentages, and then analyzed with a Fisher exact test.||||0.08
91875299|NCT01044901|183643917|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.91
91875300|NCT01044901|183643918|OTHER|||||||0.0038||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.0038
91743891|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.6||||0.3||95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Vomiting: Any||0.5|-1.8|0.300
91743892|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8||||||Vomiting: Mild||0.8|-1.3|
91743893|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4||||||95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||Vomiting: Moderate||0.1|-0.9|
91743894|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.276||95.0|-1.3|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Muscle pain: Any||4.7|-1.3|0.276
91743895|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.8||||||Muscle pain: Mild||2.8|-1.2|
91743896|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.5||||||Muscle pain: Moderate||3.5|-1.4|
91799859|NCT03319173|183477503|OTHER||Estimate|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.49|||Regression, Linear|||||0.49|0.40|<0.0001
91875301|NCT01044901|183643919|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.034
91875302|NCT01044901|183643920|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome was presented was as frequencies and percentages, and then analyzed with a Fisher exact test.||||0.25
91875303|NCT01044901|183643921|OTHER|||||||0.0288||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.0288
91875304|NCT01044901|183643922|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.14
91743897|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.2||||||95.0|-1.2|0.8||||||Muscle pain: Severe||0.8|-1.2|
91743898|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Joint pain: Any||4.6|-1.3|0.273
91743899|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6||||||Joint pain: Mild||3.6|-0.2|
91743900|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4||||||Joint pain: Moderate||2.4|-2.6|
91743901|NCT02388165|183382461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1||||||95.0|-0.9|1.0||||||Joint pain: Severe||1.0|-0.9|
91799860|NCT03319173|183477504|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.49|||Estimate|||||0.49|0.40|<0.0001
91799861|NCT03319173|183477505|OTHER||Estimate|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.78|||Regression, Linear|||||0.78|0.72|<0.0001
91799862|NCT03319173|183477506|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.37|||Estimate|||||0.37|0.30|<0.0001
91875305|NCT01044901|183643923|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.13
91875306|NCT01044901|183643924|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.81
91907070|NCT00258674|183709358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.307||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.307
91743902|NCT02388165|183382469|SUPERIORITY||VE|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.3|55.81|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The CI was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||55.81|-126.30|
91743903|NCT02388165|183382470|SUPERIORITY||VE|-9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.06|41.41|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The CI was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||41.41|-104.06|
91743904|NCT02388165|183382471|SUPERIORITY||VE|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.42|40.8|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The CI was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||40.80|-100.42|
91743905|NCT04551963|183382494|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.56||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. Zanubrutinib + fluconazole||0.56|0.42|
91743906|NCT04551963|183382494|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.51||||||Arm a: Zanubrutinib alone vs. Zanubrutinib + diltiazem||0.51|0.34|
91743907|NCT04551963|183382495|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.99||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + voriconazole||0.99|0.66|
91743908|NCT04551963|183382495|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.58||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs zanubrutinib + clarithromycin||0.58|0.41|
91743909|NCT04551963|183382496|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.08||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + fluconazole||1.08|0.82|
91743910|NCT04551963|183382496|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.99||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + diltiazem||0.99|0.66|
91743911|NCT04551963|183382497|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.06||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + voriconazole||1.06|0.65|
91743912|NCT04551963|183382497|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.58||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs zanubrutinib + clarithromycin||0.58|0.40|
91743913|NCT04551963|183382498|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.58||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + fluconazole||0.58|0.35|
91743914|NCT04551963|183382498|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.51||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + diltiazem||0.51|0.32|
91799863|NCT03319173|183477507|OTHER||Estimate|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||||0.88|0.85|<0.0001
91799864|NCT03319173|183477508|OTHER||Estimate|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||||0.88|0.85|<0.0001
91799865|NCT03319173|183477509|OTHER||Estimate|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||0.80|0.71|<0.0001
91799866|NCT03319173|183477510|OTHER||Estimate|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||||0.56|0.47|<0.0001
91799867|NCT03319173|183477511|OTHER||Estimate|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.156|||Regression, Linear|||||1.156|1.104|<0.0001
91799868|NCT03319173|183477512|OTHER||Estimate|1.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.025|1.049|||Regression, Linear|||||1.049|1.025|<0.0001
91799869|NCT03319173|183477513|OTHER||Estimate|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.94|||Regression, Linear|||||0.94|0.91|<0.0001
91799870|NCT03319173|183477514|OTHER||Estimate|1.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.096|1.149|||Regression, Linear|||||1.149|1.096|<0.0001
91799871|NCT00316719|183477540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a Non-inferiority Analysis with the margin of -1.0.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309|<|0.001||95.0|-0.94|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.94|<0.001
91799872|NCT00573183|183477591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4134|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2019|9.2842||95% confidence interval|Mixed Models Analysis|A covariate adjustment was used: average number of days of stimulant use within a 30-day window of assessment from 90 days pre-baseline to baseline.|The STAGE-12 group represented the numerator and TAU represented the reference group/denominator|Mixture model with a logistic part for assessing zero-inflation and a negative binomial part for the over-dispersed count data, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the odds ratios for logistic part and incidence rate ratios for negative binomial part.||9.2842|1.2019|<0.05
91875307|NCT01044901|183643925|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.30
91875308|NCT03322514|183643927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
91875309|NCT03322514|183643927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.04
91799873|NCT00573183|183477591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4134|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0131|5.8637|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8637|1.0131|<0.01
91799874|NCT00573183|183477592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical Model - zero-inflated negative binomial random-effects regression|Zero-inflated negative binomial random-e|Statistical Model - zero-inflated negative binomial random-effects regression adjusted for average number of days of pre-baseline attendance||Outcome measure: Number of days of self-reported Self-Help meeting attendance by the Substance Use Calendar (SUC) within a 30-day window of assessment at mid-treatment, end-of-treatment, first, second, third and last follow-ups||||<0.05
91875310|NCT03322514|183643927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.1
91799875|NCT02024529|183477624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score|ANCOVA|||||||0.97
91799876|NCT02024529|183477625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score|ANCOVA|||||||0.75
91799877|NCT02024529|183477626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score.||||||0.18
91799878|NCT02024529|183477627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score.||||||0.81
91799879|NCT00676338|183477628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority Null Hypotheses: H1: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of metformin. H2: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of sitagliptin. H3: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of pioglitazone. Then, the 3 superiority null hypotheses were tested. Change in HbA1c was analyzed using an MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.62|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.26|0.17||Noninferiority was tested by Bonferroni (margin 0.3%, adjusted significance of 0.0167). Superiority was tested by Hommel (nominal significance level was between 0.0167 and 0.05 depended on the number of noninferiority hypotheses rejected).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: A sample of 740 (222 exenatide once weekly, 222 metformin, 148 pioglitazone, and 148 sitagliptin) would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true differences between exenatide once weekly and the 3 comparators: metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin of 0.4%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||0.17|-0.26|0.620
91875311|NCT03322514|183643928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
91875312|NCT03322514|183643928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.3
91875313|NCT03322514|183643928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.3
91875314|NCT03322514|183643929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
91875315|NCT03322514|183643929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.4
91875316|NCT03322514|183643929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 12 weeks||||0.7
91875317|NCT00088452|183643930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.28|||Chi-squared||odds ratio with ethosuximide vs. lamotrigine|Calculations of sample size were based on the ability to detect a 20% difference in freedom-from failure rates (three pairwise comparisons) at 16 weeks with 80% power at a two-sided P value of 0.017 and one interim analysis. Sample size of 398 was increased to 446 subjects to account for two stratification factors and a 5% dropout rate; this sample size allowed the detection of a difference of 0.5 SD in the Confidence Index on the Conners' Continuous Performance Test with a power exceeding 80%.||4.28|1.65|<0.001
91875318|NCT00088452|183643930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|5.42|||Chi-squared||odds ratio with valproic acid vs. lamotrigine|Calculations of sample size were based on the ability to detect a 20% difference in freedom-from failure rates (three pairwise comparisons) at 16 weeks with 80% power at a two-sided P value of 0.017 and one interim analysis. Sample size of 398 was increased to 446 subjects to account for two stratification factors and a 5% dropout rate; this sample size allowed the detection of a difference of 0.5 SD in the Confidence Index on the Conners' Continuous Performance Test with a power exceeding 80%.||5.42|2.06|<0.001
91875319|NCT00088452|183643931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.41|||Chi-squared||Percentage of subjects with a Confidence Index score of 0.60 or higher in the valproic acid group than in the ethosuximide group|||3.41|1.12|0.03
91743915|NCT04551963|183382499|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.0||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + voriconazole||1.00|0.68|
91875320|NCT00088452|183643931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.49|||Chi-squared||Percentage of subjects with a Confidence Index score of 0.60 or higher in the valproic acid group than in the lamotrigine group|||5.49|1.69|<0.001
91743916|NCT04551963|183382499|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.64||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + clarithromycin||0.64|0.39|
91743917|NCT02974855|183382520|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.29|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.29|0.08|0.0002
91743918|NCT02974855|183382520|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.02|0.14|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.14|0.02|0.0001
91743919|NCT02974855|183382520|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.29|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.29|0.08|0.0002
91743920|NCT02974855|183382520|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.03||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.1|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.10|0.01|0.0005
91743921|NCT02974855|183382520|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.05|0.16|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.16|0.05|<0.0001
91743922|NCT02974855|183382520|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.11|0.31|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.31|0.11|<0.0001
91743923|NCT02974855|183382520|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.04|0.22|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.22|0.04|0.0002
91743924|NCT02974855|183382520|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.2||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.09|0.47|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.47|0.09|0.0154
91743925|NCT02974855|183382520|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.04||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.14|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.14|0.01|0.0005
91743926|NCT02974855|183382520|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.2|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
91875321|NCT00088452|183643932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.33|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio for FFF for ethosuximide versus lamotrigine|||5.33|1.81|<0.001
91743927|NCT01474772|183382537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.01||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. The study was considered positive only if both co-primary endpoints had p-values that were less than 0.05, hence there was no need for multiplicity adjustment.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach was applied.||0.01|-0.46|0.0659
91759519|NCT02391363|183411770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F= 0.02 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.88
91875322|NCT00088452|183643932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.02|||Fisher Exact||odds ratio for FFF for valproic acid versus lamotrigine|||5.02|1.68|<0.001
91875323|NCT02081196|183643939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|4.77|||||Treatment Effect =Control Flank Change-Treated Flank Change such (a positive results indicates treated area had a larger reduction in fat thickness than control area, and a negative result indicates that a greater reduction was seen in control area).|H0: μ(Control - Treated) \< +1 versus H1: μ(Control - Treated) \> +1||4.77|3.08|
91875324|NCT02081196|183643940|OTHER||sucess proportion|0.8476|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|0.913|||||||Descriptive statistics (tabulation of Independent Panel Reviewer ratings) were used to analyze data.|.913|.784|
91875325|NCT04044352|183643953|OTHER|Likelihood ratio test was the statistical test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06|||Wald Chi-Square||A two-fold increase in HAI pre-challenge titer (i.e. one unit increase in log-2 titer) corresponds to a 19% decrease in the odds of developing MMID during the study challenge period (Day 2 through Day 8).|Pre-challenge (baseline) HAI geometric mean titer was log-2 transformed and treated as a continuous variable in the model.||1.06|0.62|0.126
91743928|NCT01474772|183382538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.543|-0.038||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. Unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate the within-participant errors.|Repeated measure mixed effects model|The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||This longitudinal analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. P-value was based on a repeated measure mixed effects model including pooled center, time point, treatment, an indicator variable for Week 6 as well as interaction terms as fixed effect factors. For analysis purpose, it is assumed that participants were on placebo at Baseline, took the same treatment as in Period 1 during Week 1 of washout, and were on placebo in Week 2 of washout.||-0.038|-0.543|0.0242
91743929|NCT01474772|183382539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. The study was considered positive only if both co-primary endpoints have p-values that are less than 0.05, hence there was no need for multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|Satterthwaite's approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||Analysis was done using a repeated measure linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, time, treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The model term 'time' may take 2 values corresponding to Week 3 and Week 6 in each period.||0.18|-0.44|0.4120
91743930|NCT01474772|183382540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.55||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Generalized linear mixed model|||Analysis was done overall (period 1 and period 2) using a generalized linear mixed model which included response as the dependent variable, sequence, period, pooled center, treatment as fixed effects, and subject within treatment as random effect. LOCF approach was applied.||2.55|0.94|0.0847
91743931|NCT01474772|183382541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.39||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Generalized linear mixed model|||Analysis was done overall (period 1 and period 2) using a generalized linear mixed model which included response as the dependent variable, sequence, period, pooled center, treatment as fixed effects, and subject within treatment as random effect. LOCF approach was applied.||2.39|0.80|0.2459
91743932|NCT01474772|183382542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.12||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.12|-1.71|0.0889
91743933|NCT01474772|183382543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.53||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.53|-2.86|0.1781
91743934|NCT01474772|183382544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.15||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.15|-0.53|0.2719
91743935|NCT01474772|183382545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|563.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4098.74||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7549.82|8676.6||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. LOCF approach was applied.||8676.60|-7549.82|0.8909
91743936|NCT01474772|183382546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|206.37||0.9899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.26|406.01||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. LOCF approach was applied.||406.01|-411.26|0.9899
91875326|NCT00097708|183643994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-2.2|0.6540
91875327|NCT00097708|183643994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||||-1.4|-5.0|0.0005
91875328|NCT00097708|183643994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|1.1|0.0015
91875329|NCT06091982|183644016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|16.2|||Chi-squared|||Bivariable analysis of both groups||16.2|7.0|<0.0001
91875330|NCT06091982|183644016|OTHER|Multiple logistic regression|Odds Ratio, log|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Multivariable analysis||6.1|2.0|<0.0001
91799880|NCT00676338|183477628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority Null Hypotheses: H1: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of metformin. H2: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of sitagliptin. H3: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of pioglitazone. Then, the 3 superiority null hypotheses were tested. Change in HbA1c was analyzed using an MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.328|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.15|0.35||Noninferiority was tested by Bonferroni (margin 0.3%, adjusted significance of 0.0167). Superiority was tested by Hommel (nominal significance level was between 0.0167 and 0.05 depended on the number of noninferiority hypotheses rejected).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: A sample of 740 (222 exenatide once weekly, 222 metformin, 148 pioglitazone, and 148 sitagliptin) would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true differences between exenatide once weekly and the 3 comparators: metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin of 0.4%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||0.35|-0.15|0.328
91799881|NCT00676338|183477628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority Null Hypotheses: H1: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of metformin. H2: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of sitagliptin. H3: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of pioglitazone. Then, the 3 superiority null hypotheses were tested. Change in HbA1c was analyzed using an MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.62|-0.13||Noninferiority was tested by Bonferroni (margin 0.3%, adjusted significance of 0.0167). Superiority was tested by Hommel (nominal significance level was between 0.0167 and 0.05 depended on the number of noninferiority hypotheses rejected).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: A sample of 740 (222 exenatide once weekly, 222 metformin, 148 pioglitazone, and 148 sitagliptin) would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true differences between exenatide once weekly and the 3 comparators: metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin of 0.4%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||-0.13|-0.62|<.001
91799882|NCT00676338|183477629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple adjustment were done.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.151
91799883|NCT00676338|183477629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple adjustment were done.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.913
91799884|NCT00676338|183477629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple adjustment were done.|Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
91799885|NCT00676338|183477630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.1||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in FSG from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline FSG, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.10|-0.66|0.155
91799886|NCT00676338|183477630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.75||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in FSG from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline FSG, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.75|-0.12|0.153
91875331|NCT06091982|183644017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|17.1|||Chi-squared|||||17.1|9.1|<0.0001
91743937|NCT01474772|183382547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.2854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|1.15||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||1.15|-3.88|0.2854
91799887|NCT00676338|183477630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.68||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in FSG from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline FSG, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.68|-1.56|<.001
91799888|NCT00676338|183477631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.53||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Body Weight from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline body weight, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.53|-0.61|0.892
91743938|NCT01474772|183382548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.68||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.68|-3.60|0.1805
91799889|NCT00676338|183477631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-2.9||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Body Weight from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline body weight, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-2.90|-4.21|<.001
91875332|NCT06091982|183644017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.0|2.8|<0.0001
91875333|NCT06091982|183644018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.6|||Chi-squared|||||21.6|11.3|<0.0001
91875334|NCT06091982|183644018|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.2|3.3|<0.0001
91875335|NCT04198428|183644035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
91875336|NCT04198428|183644036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
91875337|NCT04198428|183644037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
91875338|NCT04198428|183644038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Zero-inflated negative binomial mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
91875339|NCT04198428|183644039|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index rates in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors||||||<0.05
91875340|NCT04198428|183644040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index rates in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors||||||<0.05
91743939|NCT01474772|183382549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.31||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.31|-0.99|0.3028
91743940|NCT01474772|183382550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.3||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.30|-0.41|0.7542
91743941|NCT01474772|183382551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|0.07||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.07|-2.62|0.0634
91743942|NCT01474772|183382552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.62||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.62|-0.13|0.1985
91743943|NCT01474772|183382553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.2||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.20|-0.21|0.9686
91743944|NCT01474772|183382554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio is based on the binary response for any improvement while p-value is from the comparison of the original scale of 7 possible outcomes. P-value was calculated by using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. PGIC values at the end of Period 1 data was compared between treatment groups.||4.95|1.30|0.0020
91743945|NCT01474772|183382555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. LOCF approach was applied.||-0.09|-0.68|0.0105
91743946|NCT01474772|183382556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.07|-0.63|0.1178
91760158|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.47||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.47|0.74|
91875341|NCT04198428|183644041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1068.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index costs in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors|||||<0.05
91875342|NCT04198428|183644042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91875343|NCT04198428|183644043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index rates in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors|||||<0.05
91743947|NCT01474772|183382557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.13||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.13|-0.60|0.1990
91743948|NCT01474772|183382558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.71107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.037||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the Index score Dolan 1997. Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.037|-0.025|0.71107
91799890|NCT00676338|183477631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.63||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Body Weight from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline body weight, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.63|-1.92|<.001
91743949|NCT01474772|183382558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.53965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.039||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the Index score Dolan 2001. Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.039|-0.021|0.53965
91743950|NCT00365105|183382571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Log Rank|||Assuming an exponential distribution, the weighted yearly SRE hazard rate for patients treated with bisphosphonates only is 0.7991 which translates to a median time to SRE of 10.4 months. The study was designed to show a 33% relative reduction in the yearly SRE hazard rate, i.e. 15.6 months median time to SRE. Using a two-sided log-rank test assuming a type I error of 0.05, one planned interim analysis with 90% statistical power, 257 SREs are required with a total of 316 patients.||1.54|0.70|0.844
91743951|NCT00365105|183382572|SUPERIORITY|The power of detecting an improvement from 55% in the control arm to 41% in the experimental arm with a two-sided Fisher's exact test at alpha 0.05 is 66%.||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.26
91743952|NCT00365105|183382573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.52|||Log Rank|||Assuming the disease site distribution is 40%, 40%, and 20% from prostate, breast, and lung cancer populations, respectively, the weighted yearly death rate for patients treated with bisphosphonates only is 0.4390, translating to a median overall survival time of 18.9 months assuming an exponential distribution. Statistical power to detect a relative difference of 33% in the yearly death rate is 70% using a two-sided log-rank test at a 0.05 significance level and 87% to detect 50% difference.||1.52|0.86|0.37
91743953|NCT00365105|183382574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT-G Total||||0.96
91743954|NCT00365105|183382574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical Well-Being||||0.97
91743955|NCT00365105|183382574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social/Family Well-Being||||0.57
91743956|NCT00365105|183382574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Emotional Well-Being||||0.70
91743957|NCT00365105|183382574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Well-Being||||0.46
91743958|NCT00365105|183382575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
91743959|NCT00365105|183382576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Index Score||||0.43
91743960|NCT00365105|183382576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||VAS Score||||0.15
91743961|NCT03367403|183382705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.27|0.12|0.042
91743962|NCT03367403|183382706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-3.63|0.040
91743963|NCT03367403|183382707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.83|0.139
91743964|NCT03367403|183382708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|-0.40|0.227
91743965|NCT03367403|183382709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.20|-0.77|0.230
91743966|NCT03367403|183382710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.867|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.68|-77.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-77.43|-92.68|<0.001
91743967|NCT03367403|183382711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Tau-IQ||0.03|-0.01|0.560
91743968|NCT03367403|183382711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.062|||ANCOVA|||MUBADA-Cerebellum||0.062|0.007|0.012
91799891|NCT00676338|183477632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.15||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting TC from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TC, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.15|-0.18|0.873
91875344|NCT00627523|183644049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.59||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the mean change from Baseline after 24 months in height SDS between the Genotropin® and the untreated control groups. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference between the treatment groups.||1.59|0.82|<0.001
91743969|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Cortical||-1.43|-3.92|< 0.001
91743970|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Entorhinal Cortex||0.02|-0.02|0.916
91743971|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY|Bilateral Hippocampus|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.03|0.771
91743972|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Inferior Parietal Lobe||0.01|-0.17|0.094
91743973|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Isthmuscingulate||0.00|-0.04|0.052
91743974|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Lateral Parietal Lobe||-0.11|-0.57|0.005
91743975|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Medial Temporal Lobe||0.06|-0.08|0.731
91743976|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Precuneus||-0.07|-0.25|<0.001
91743977|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Prefrontal Lobe||-0.17|-0.62|<0.001
91743978|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Superior Temporal Lobe||-0.12|-0.30|<0.001
91743979|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Ventricles||3.43|1.14|< 0.001
91743980|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.519||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||-1.59|-7.58|0.003
91743981|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Temporal Lobe||-0.33|-1.03|<0.001
91743982|NCT03367403|183382712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral White Matter||-0.33|-4.23|0.022
91743983|NCT03497975|183382747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.13||Logistic regression model includes WI-NRS baseline score as a covariate, treatment and the study site (with pooling) as a fixed effect.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.13|1.07|0.0309
91743984|NCT03497975|183382748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.82|-3.3||Repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline ItchyQoL value. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||||-3.30|-10.82|0.0002
91743985|NCT03497975|183382749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.07||Logistic regression model includes PAS (Item 5a) baseline score as a covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and the study site (with pooling) as a fixed effect.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.11|0.0179
91743986|NCT03497975|183382750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-2.31||Repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PROMIS value. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||||-2.31|-6.55|<0.0001
91743987|NCT01407952|183382766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.97|||Regression, Logistic|||A intent to treat analysis was performed, using multiple imputation methods.||3.97|1.36|0.002
91743988|NCT01407952|183382766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|7.92||Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom=17.37|Chi-squared|||||7.92|1.99|<0.01
91743989|NCT01407952|183382767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91743990|NCT01407952|183382768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
91743991|NCT01407952|183382769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom = 0.865||||||0.352
91743992|NCT01407952|183382770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.769
91743993|NCT01407952|183382771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test statistic with one degree of freedom=0.217||||||0.641
91743994|NCT01407952|183382772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|chi-square test statistic with one degree of freedom=8.82||||||0.003
91743995|NCT01407952|183382773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom=1.955||||||0.162
91743996|NCT01407952|183382774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
91743997|NCT01407952|183382775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom=14.743||||||<0.01
91743998|NCT01407952|183382776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91743999|NCT00935493|183382777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
91744000|NCT00935493|183382777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.47
91744001|NCT00935493|183382778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.67
91875345|NCT00627523|183644050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.42||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||2.42|-0.87|0.348
91875346|NCT00627523|183644051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||1.23|0.55|<0.001
91875347|NCT00627523|183644052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.85||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||4.85|1.63|<0.001
91875348|NCT00627523|183644053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|17.12||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value, age, and gender as covariates were used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||17.12|-12.27|0.738
91875349|NCT00627523|183644054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|4.26||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value, age, and gender as covariates were used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||4.26|-13.27|0.301
91875350|NCT05030467|183644059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.31||||||We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to adjust for the cluster design with an identify link function and normally-distributed errors||0.31|-0.39|
91875351|NCT05030467|183644060|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with a log link and Poisson-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-level clustering.||1.03|1.00|0.011
91875352|NCT05030467|183644063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to adjust for the cluster design with an identify link function and normally-distributed errors||0.15|-0.38|0.383
91875353|NCT05129592|183644067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|33.3||Sidak's adjusted p-value contrasting marginal linear predictions for the Nicotine corrective control and Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline nicotine misperception (df=4)|Comparing Nicotine corrective control to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|||33.30|-1.87|0.095
91875354|NCT05129592|183644067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|35.33||Sidak's adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline nicotine misperception (df=4)|Comparing Nicotine corrective control to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|Sidak's adjusted p-value contrasting marginal linear predictions for the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation and Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence||35.33|2.02|0.022
91744002|NCT00935493|183382778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.46
91744003|NCT00935493|183382779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.65
91744004|NCT00935493|183382779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
91744005|NCT00940290|183382805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||After reading the clinical practice guideline, the median response from the four groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis statistic||||0.007
91744006|NCT02016716|183382808|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was claimed if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI (or the lower bound of 2-sided 95% CI) of the mean difference between the 2 romosozumab groups was \> -2.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||||Based on ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, and baseline lumbar spine BMD T-score.|The primary hypothesis was that the mean percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at month 6 in participants receiving romosozumab 210 mg QM using the 90 mg/mL concentration would not be inferior to that in participants receiving romosozumab 210 mg QM using the 70 mg/mL concentration.||0.7|-1.5|
91744007|NCT02931838|183382813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4873||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||0.4873
91744008|NCT02931838|183382813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||0.0003
91744009|NCT02931838|183382813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||<0.0001
91744010|NCT02931838|183382813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||< 0.0001
91799892|NCT00676338|183477632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting TC from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TC, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.14|-0.52|<.001
91799893|NCT00676338|183477632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting TC from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TC, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.03|-0.41|0.022
91799894|NCT00676338|183477633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.02||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting HDL from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HDL, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.02|-0.09|0.004
91799895|NCT00676338|183477633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.11||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting HDL from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HDL, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.11|-0.19|<.001
91799896|NCT00676338|183477633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting HDL from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HDL, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.01|-0.07|0.142
91799897|NCT00676338|183477634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1||No multiple adjustment were done.|ANCOVA|||Fasting triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.10|0.94|0.657
91799898|NCT00676338|183477634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.27||No multiple adjustment were done.|ANCOVA|||Fasting triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.27|1.06|0.002
91799899|NCT00676338|183477634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.14||No multiple adjustment were done.|ANCOVA|||Fasting triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.14|0.95|0.398
91799900|NCT00676338|183477637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.74||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline systolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.74|-3.52|0.201
91799901|NCT00676338|183477637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.93||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline systolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||2.93|-1.94|0.693
91799902|NCT00676338|183477637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.96||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline systolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||2.96|-1.84|0.646
91799903|NCT00676338|183477638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.73||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline diastolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.73|-1.02|0.610
91799904|NCT00676338|183477638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.58||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline diastolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||3.58|0.43|0.013
91799905|NCT00676338|183477638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.49||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline diastolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.49|-1.60|0.946
91799906|NCT02122458|183477639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.448||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|9.56||Given the preliminary nature of this treatment study and the small number of participants the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|An Adjusted Rank Transform was applied to the data prior to applying the mixed model analyses.||The null hypothesis evaluated by the HHIA was that self-perceived hearing handicap would not reduce from baseline to 6-months post-fitting.||9.56|-8.66|.05
91799907|NCT02122458|183477640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Given the small sample size and the preliminary nature of this study, the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||.05
91799908|NCT02833350|183477645|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|8.0||||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|21.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.64|-5.64|0.2503
91875355|NCT05129592|183644067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|20.15||Sidak's adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline nicotine misperception (df=4)|Comparing Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|Sidak's adjusted p-value contrasting marginal linear predictions for the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception and Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence||20.15|-12.76|0.931
91907071|NCT00258674|183709359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.551||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.551
91744011|NCT02931838|183382813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||<0.0001
91744012|NCT01963767|183382823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||Ancovas were conducted with group as the between subjects factor and performance at baseline as the covariate.||||.03
91744013|NCT01659996|183382824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup A and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.93||||||Meningococcal serogroup A: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||2.93|-3.11|
91744014|NCT01659996|183382824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup C and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.64||||||Meningococcal serogroup C: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||3.64|-0.84|
91744015|NCT01659996|183382824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup Y and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.14||||||Meningococcal serogroup Y: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||5.14|0.14|
91744016|NCT01659996|183382824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup W-135 and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.67||||||Meningococcal serogroup W-135: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||3.67|-0.84|
91744017|NCT01659996|183382829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the antibodies concentration was log normally distributed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMCs is ≤ 1.5 for each antigen, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.852|1.06||||||Pertussis toxoid (PT): The null hypothesis (H0: GMCp / GMCpm \> 1.5) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: GMCp / GMCpm ≤ 1.5), where GMCp and GMCpm were the GMCs of antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PT) in Group 3 and in Group 2, respectively||1.06|0.852|
91744018|NCT01659996|183382829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the antibodies concentration was log normally distributed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMCs is ≤ 1.5 for each antigen, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.08||||||Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA): The null hypothesis (H0: GMCp / GMCpm \> 1.5) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: GMCp / GMCpm ≤ 1.5), where GMCp and GMCpm were the GMCs of antibodies against the pertussis antigen (FHA) in Group 3 and in Group 2, respectively||1.08|0.866|
91744019|NCT01659996|183382829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the antibodies concentration was log normally distributed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMCs is ≤ 1.5 for each antigen, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.31||||||Pertactin (PRN): The null hypothesis (H0: GMCp / GMCpm \> 1.5) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: GMCp / GMCpm ≤ 1.5), where GMCp and GMCpm were the GMCs of antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PRN) in Group 3 and in Group 2, respectively||1.31|0.937|
91744020|NCT01659996|183382830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for each antibody and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|3.19||||||Pertussis toxoid (PT) antigen: The null hypothesis (H0: pp - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pp - ppm ≤ δ), where pp and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 3 and Group 2, respectively, who achieved a pertussis vaccine response in antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PT), with δ = 0.10.||3.19|-5.44|
91907072|NCT00258674|183709360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.927||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.927
91744021|NCT01659996|183382830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for each antibody and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.53||||||Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antigen: The null hypothesis (H0: pp - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pp - ppm ≤ δ), where pp and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 3 and Group 2, respectively, who achieved a pertussis vaccine response in antibodies against the pertussis antigen (FHA), with δ = 0.10.||4.53|-2.54|
91744022|NCT01659996|183382830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for each antibody and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|-0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|3.66||||||Pertactin (PRN) antigen: The null hypothesis (H0: pp - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pp - ppm ≤ δ), where pp and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 3 and Group 2, respectively, who achieved a pertussis vaccine response in antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PRN), with δ = 0.10.||3.66|-3.62|
91744023|NCT03823287|183382835|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95.03% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.5|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. A sample size of approximately 320 participants in each arm provided greater than 90% power to show non-inferiority of faricimab to aflibercept in the change from baseline BCVA averaged over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 in the ITT population, using a non-inferiority margin of 4 letters at the one-sided 0.02485 significance level.||2.5|-1.1|
91744024|NCT03823287|183382836|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||2.7|-1.2|
91744025|NCT03823287|183382838|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.1|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||10.1|-1.6|
91744026|NCT03823287|183382838|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.7|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||12.7|-2.0|
91744027|NCT03823287|183382838|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.9|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||8.9|-6.6|
91744028|NCT03823287|183382838|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥0 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||5.4|-7.9|
91744029|NCT03823287|183382839|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.5|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||8.5|-3.2|
91744030|NCT03823287|183382844|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.8|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||4.8|-2.2|
91744031|NCT03823287|183382844|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.9|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||3.9|-4.6|
91744032|NCT03823287|183382844|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.4|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||6.4|-4.0|
91744033|NCT03823287|183382845|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||3.6|-3.9|
91744034|NCT03823287|183382849|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.5|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters or achieving BCVA ≥84 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||9.5|-3.6|
91744035|NCT03823287|183382851|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.6|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants achieving BCVA ≥69 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||6.6|-7.7|
91799909|NCT02833350|183477645|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|12.93||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|23.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.48|2.37|0.0164
91799910|NCT02833350|183477645|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|20.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|30.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.79|9.21|0.0003
91799911|NCT02833350|183477647|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|-8.58||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.82|3.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.66|-20.82|0.1694
91799912|NCT02833350|183477647|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|-1.5||||0.8132||95.0|-13.96|10.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.95|-13.96|0.8132
91744036|NCT03823287|183382853|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants with BCVA ≤38 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||3.3|-4.2|
91875356|NCT05129592|183644068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.24|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs||4.24|0.56|0.402
91744037|NCT03823287|183382861|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|0.8|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 40-48||0.8|-15.7|
91744038|NCT03823287|183382862|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|9.4|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||9.4|-7.4|
91744039|NCT01456195|183382953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.24||MMRM model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.24|-0.72|<0.001
91744040|NCT01456195|183382953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.52||MMRM model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.52|-1.00|<0.001
91744041|NCT01456195|183382954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.79||P-Value used a logistic model with treatment, country and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.79|1.20|0.010
91744042|NCT01456195|183382954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|7.82||P-Value used a logistic model with treatment, country and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.82|2.48|<0.001
91744043|NCT01456195|183382955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-4.6||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-4.6|-22.7|0.003
91744044|NCT01456195|183382955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-13.2||MMRM model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-13.2|-31.4|<0.001
91744045|NCT01456195|183382956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.17||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|5.7||ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.7|-63.2|0.100
91799913|NCT02833350|183477648|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|13.7||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|28.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.61|-1.21|0.0717
91744046|NCT01456195|183382956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.5|5.5||ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.5|-65.5|0.096
91744047|NCT03304054|183382958|OTHER|||||||0.2196||||||P-value for Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test of Equality of change from baseline distributions between the amifampridine phosphate and placebo treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test of equality of change from baseline distributions between subjects diagnosed with MuSK-MG treated with amifampridine and placebo was conducted.||||0.2196
91744048|NCT03304054|183382959|OTHER|||||||0.3736||||||P-value for Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test of Equality of change from baseline distributions between the amifampridine phosphate and placebo treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test of equality of change from baseline distributions between subjects diagnosed with MuSK-MG treated with amifampridine and placebo was conducted.||||0.3736
91744049|NCT04683029|183382984|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.8|-11.4|||MMRM model|||||-11.4|-13.8|< 0.001
91744050|NCT04683029|183382985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.3|-10.7||||||||-10.7|-13.3|
91744051|NCT04683029|183382986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.3||||||Week 24||0.3|0.0|
91799914|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||adjusted difference|-0.11||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.23|-0.45|0.8504
91799915|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.04||||0.9884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.21|||ANCOVA|||At week 1, Day 7||0.21|-0.28|0.9884
91799916|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.06||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 1 Day 7||0.18|-0.31|0.9230
91799917|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.06||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.31|-0.43|0.9853
91799918|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.12||||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.15|-0.38|0.6826
91875357|NCT05129592|183644068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.62|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are somewhat or much less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing e-cigarettes are somewhat or much less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs||5.62|0.59|0.292
91875358|NCT05129592|183644068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs||1.93|0.30|0.571
91907073|NCT00258674|183709361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.308||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.308
91744052|NCT04683029|183382986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.2||||||Week 52||0.2|0.0|
91744053|NCT04683029|183382987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|203.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|42.1|980.6||||||Week 24||980.6|42.1|
91744054|NCT04683029|183382987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|130.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|28.2|601.9||||||Week 52||601.9|28.2|
91744055|NCT04683029|183382988|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-96.8|2.4||||||Week 24||2.4|-96.8|
91744056|NCT04683029|183382988|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.2|28.8||||||Week 52||28.8|-57.2|
91744057|NCT04683029|183382989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.7|1.6||||||Week 24||1.6|-1.7|
91744058|NCT04683029|183382989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.4|1.7||||||Week 52||1.7|-1.4|
91744059|NCT04683029|183382990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.44|0.27||||||Week 24||0.27|-0.44|
91744060|NCT04683029|183382990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.71||||||Week 52||0.71|-0.29|
91744061|NCT04683029|183382991|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.81|-0.34||||||Week 24||-0.34|-3.81|
91744062|NCT04683029|183382991|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.13|2.42||||||Week 52||2.42|-2.13|
91744063|NCT04683029|183382992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.7|-4.0||||||Week 24||-4.0|-5.7|
91744064|NCT04683029|183382992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.1|-3.5||||||Week 52||-3.5|-5.1|
91744065|NCT04683029|183382993|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4006|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5344|-0.2668||||||Week 24||-0.2668|-0.5344|
91744066|NCT04683029|183382993|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2355|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.373|-0.098||||||Week 52||-0.0980|-0.3730|
91744067|NCT00066703|183383036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.855|||Log Rank||T+OFS is the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||0.855|0.602|.0002
91744068|NCT00066703|183383037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.664|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|0.804|||Log Rank||T+OFS is the reference group for the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||.804|.548|<.0001
91744069|NCT00066703|183383038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.777||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|0.967|||Log Rank||T+OFS was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio|||0.967|0.624|0.02
91744070|NCT00066703|183383039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22|||Log Rank||T+OFS was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio|||1.22|0.79|0.84
91744071|NCT01696968|183383040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.07|||Poisson regression|||||1.07|0.91|
91744072|NCT01696968|183383042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||Poisson regression|||||1.00|0.95|
91744073|NCT01696968|183383044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.12|||Poisson regression|||||1.12|0.98|
91744074|NCT01696968|183383048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.07|||Poisson regression|||||1.07|0.91|
91744075|NCT00734604|183383051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.19||p-value is for difference in LS Means change from baseline between tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.19|0.04|0.001
91744076|NCT00734604|183383052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08||p-value is for difference in Pairs Sexual Self-Confidence Domain Score LS Mean and Change from Baseline between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Population|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.|LS Mean difference = Tadalafil OaD-Tadalafil PRN|||0.08|-0.06|0.872
91744077|NCT00734604|183383053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN change from baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.20|0.10|<0.001
91744078|NCT00734604|183383053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in change from baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.07|-0.03|0.395
91744079|NCT00734604|183383054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.25||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in Change from Baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.25|-0.36|<0.001
91799919|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.18||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.08|-0.45|0.2634
91907074|NCT00258674|183709362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.867||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.867
91744080|NCT00734604|183383054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.08||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in Change from Baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.08|-0.20|<0.001
91799920|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.29||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.14|-0.72|0.2885
91799921|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.3||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.01|-0.61|0.0598
91799922|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.01|-0.62|0.0440
91799923|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.4271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.20|-0.76|0.4271
91799924|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.04|-0.66|0.0969
91744081|NCT00734604|183383055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.27||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.27|-1.43|0.004
91744082|NCT00734604|183383055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.22||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.22|-1.37|0.007
91799925|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.33||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.01|-0.68|0.0612
91799926|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.36||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.12|-0.84|0.2079
91799927|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.57||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.22|-0.92|0.0003
91799928|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.57||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.22|-0.92|0.0003
91799929|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.82|0.34|<.0001
91875359|NCT05129592|183644068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|8.26|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and e-cigarette use||8.26|0.47|0.349
91744083|NCT00734604|183383056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.09|0.03|<0.001
91799930|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.80|0.31|<0.0001
91799931|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.74|0.20|<.0001
91799932|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.66|0.13|0.0009
91799933|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.87|0.25|<.0001
91799934|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.85|0.24|<.0001
91799935|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.42||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.76|0.08|0.0095
91799936|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.4||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.74|0.06|0.0153
91799937|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.19||||0.4839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.54|-0.16|0.4839
91799938|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.19||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.53|-0.16|0.5035
91799939|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.11||||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.16|-0.38|0.4286
91799940|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.2||||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.10|-0.50|0.1831
91799941|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.02|-0.65|0.0667
91799942|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.42|-1.11|<0.0001
91799943|NCT02833350|183477652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.76||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.38|-1.15|0.0002
91799944|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.18||||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.19|-0.55|0.5807
91799945|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.12||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.14|-0.39|0.6270
91799946|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.15||||0.4475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.12|-0.42|0.4475
91799947|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.06||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.35|-0.47|0.9891
91799948|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.21||||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.08|-0.51|0.2244
91799949|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.01|-0.58|0.0586
91799950|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.39||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.08|-0.85|0.1338
91799951|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.07|-0.74|0.0119
91799952|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.44||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.11|-0.77|0.0046
91744084|NCT00734604|183383056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.12||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.12|0.06|<0.001
91744085|NCT00734604|183383057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.36||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.36|-0.91|<0.001
91744086|NCT00734604|183383057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.23||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|||||-0.23|-0.78|<0.001
91744087|NCT00734604|183383058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.0||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.00|-0.44|0.055
91744088|NCT00734604|183383058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.0||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.00|-0.44|0.046
91744089|NCT00734604|183383059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|6.17||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil PRN and Sildenafil PRN change in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||6.17|1.16|0.004
91799953|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.20|-0.82|0.3943
91889198|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.34|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 22F||4.34|3.40|
91744090|NCT00734604|183383059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-1.04||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN change in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-1.04|-6.05|0.006
91744091|NCT00734604|183383061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|2.17||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||2.17|-1.95|0.915
91744092|NCT00734604|183383061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.74||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.74|-3.35|0.212
91744093|NCT00734604|183383062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.22|-0.09|0.403
91744094|NCT00734604|183383062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.23||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.23|-0.08|0.367
91744095|NCT00734604|183383063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.32||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.32|0.07|0.002
91744096|NCT00734604|183383063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.10|-0.15|0.722
91744097|NCT00734604|183383064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.37||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||-0.37|-0.65|<0.001
91744098|NCT00734604|183383064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.16||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||-0.16|-0.43|<0.001
91744099|NCT00734604|183383065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.22||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.22|-0.01|0.070
91744100|NCT00734604|183383065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.09|-0.14|0.637
91759520|NCT02391363|183411771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 1.02 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month PCL-5, controlling for baseline PCL-5.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.31
91799954|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.37||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.00|-0.74|0.0526
91799955|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.39||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.02|-0.76|0.0365
91799956|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.41||||0.1696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.11|-0.93|0.1696
91875360|NCT05129592|183644068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.81|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and e-cigarette use||5.81|0.53|0.355
91875361|NCT05129592|183644068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and e-cigarette use||2.25|0.24|0.591
91875362|NCT05129592|183644069|SUPERIORITY|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.27|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|||7.27|0.13|0.980
91875363|NCT05129592|183644069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.56|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs||2.56|0.09|0.382
91875364|NCT05129592|183644069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.23|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs||5.23|0.13|0.846
91875365|NCT05129592|183644069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.74|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs controlling for NRT use||7.74|0.13|0.990
91875366|NCT05129592|183644069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.01|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs controlling for NRT use||3.01|0.09|0.458
91875367|NCT05129592|183644069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.76|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs controlling for NRT use||4.76|0.12|0.754
91875368|NCT05129592|183644070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.15|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs||4.15|0.68|0.256
91875369|NCT05129592|183644070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.32|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs||2.32|0.45|0.961
91759521|NCT02391363|183411772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.00 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month PCL-5, controlling for baseline PCL-5.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.96
91760159|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|9.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.04|3.29|
91875370|NCT05129592|183644070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs||1.53|0.30|0.345
91907075|NCT00258674|183709363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.807||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.807
91744101|NCT02222909|183383083|OTHER|The significance of the difference-in-differences statistic was assessed using randomization inference, a non-parametric permutation test. Confidence intervals were determined by inversion of the test statistic.|Difference in differences|0.0182||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11||We calculated the proportion of permuted statistics with values higher in magnitude than that of the observed adjusted difference in differences (the p-value). We inverted the test statistic to determine confidence intervals.|Randomization inference||The estimation parameter is the difference between the average adjusted change in the monthly ED visits and hospital days from the pre- to post- intervention periods for the patients assigned to the iCBOs as compared to the cCBOs.|The difference between the average sum of the number of days spent in the hospital and ED visits in the past month, pre- and post-intervention, adjusted for pre- intervention variables, was calculated for each patients. The average change scores among patients assigned to each CBO defined the CBO-level outcomes. We calculated a weighted average of the CBO outcomes separately for the iCBOs and cCBOs, defining the difference-in-differences statistic as the difference between the two averages.||0.11|-0.12|0.63
91744102|NCT00117715|183383085|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Post-hoc analysis performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test.|ANOVA|||Univariate analysis (ANOVA) of the change in log(DM/DX) over time||||0.035
91744103|NCT00117715|183383086|OTHER|||||||0.194||||||Post-hoc analysis performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test.|ANOVA|||Univariate analysis (ANOVA) of the change in log(3HM/DX) over time||||0.194
91744104|NCT00117715|183383087|OTHER|||||||0.831||||||Post-hoc analysis performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test.|ANOVA|||Univariate analysis (ANOVA) of the change in log ((AAMU+1MX+1MU)/1,7,U) over time||||0.831
91744105|NCT01460875|183383106|NON_INFERIORITY|The method to be developed will allow us to declare that a response at a lower dose is not inferior to that at the standard dose for a particular patient, using a patient specific inferiority test.||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.22
91744106|NCT00654745|183383200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-18.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-18.4|-21.5|<0.0001
91744107|NCT00654745|183383201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-10.3||24-hour mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-10.3|-12.2|<0.0001
91744108|NCT00654745|183383201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-10.5||daytime mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-10.5|-12.9|<0.0001
91744109|NCT00654745|183383201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-9.0||nighttime mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.0|-11.7|<0.0001
91744110|NCT00654745|183383201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-9.7||last 6 hours mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.7|-12.2|<0.0001
91760160|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|-1.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.09|-6.27|
91760161|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|0.05||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.05|-5.07|
91760162|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|3.3||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.30|-1.88|
91744111|NCT00654745|183383201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-9.8||last 4 hours mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.8|-12.4|<0.0001
91744112|NCT00654745|183383201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-10.0||last 2 hours mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-10.0|-13.1|<0.0001
91744113|NCT00654745|183383202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-18.9||daytime mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-18.9|-22.6|<0.0001
91744114|NCT00654745|183383202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-16.6||nighttime mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-16.6|-20.4|<0.0001
91744115|NCT00654745|183383202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-17.0||last 6 hours mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.0|-20.7|<0.0001
91744116|NCT00654745|183383202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-17.1||last 4 hours mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.1|-21.1|<0.0001
91744117|NCT00654745|183383202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-17.4||last 2 hours mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.4|-21.7|<0.0001
91744118|NCT00654745|183383203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-8.6||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 3.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-8.6|-12.0|<0.0001
91744119|NCT00654745|183383203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-16.1||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-16.1|-19.8|<0.0001
91744120|NCT00654745|183383203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-17.8||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 9|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.8|-22.2|<0.0001
91744121|NCT00654745|183383203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-21.7||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 12|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-21.7|-25.7|<0.0001
91744122|NCT00654745|183383203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-26.2||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 15|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-26.2|-30.8|<0.0001
91744123|NCT00654745|183383203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-28.8||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 18|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-28.8|-33.3|<0.0001
91744124|NCT00654745|183383204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-3.1||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 3.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-3.1|-5.1|<0.0001
91744125|NCT00654745|183383204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-7.1||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 6|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-7.1|-9.4|<0.0001
91744126|NCT00654745|183383204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-8.4||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 9|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-8.4|-10.9|<0.0001
91744127|NCT00654745|183383204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-9.9||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 12|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.9|-12.5|<0.0001
91744128|NCT00654745|183383204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-13.1||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 15|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-13.1|-15.7|<0.0001
91799957|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.25|-1.01|0.0002
91799958|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.24|-1.00|0.0003
91875371|NCT05129592|183644070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.04|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and VLNC use||4.04|0.60|0.360
91875372|NCT05129592|183644070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.7|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and VLNC use||2.70|0.48|0.765
91744129|NCT00654745|183383204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-13.6||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 18|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-13.6|-16.5|<0.0001
91744130|NCT03086408|183383229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-9.00|0.09
91744131|NCT03086408|183383230|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|4.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.69|-2.89|0.61
91744132|NCT03086408|183383231|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.47|-0.61|0.78
91744133|NCT03086408|183383232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-1.30|0.30
91744134|NCT03086408|183383233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|8.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.82|-8.62|0.98
91744135|NCT03086408|183383234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.84|-1.64|0.61
91744136|NCT03086408|183383235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|26.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||26.77|0.63|0.04
91744137|NCT03086408|183383236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.80|-2.80|1
91799959|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.90|0.37|<0.0001
91799960|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.88|0.34|<0.0001
91799961|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.79|0.21|0.0001
91799962|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.43||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.72|0.14|0.0012
91799963|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.91|0.25|<0.0001
91799964|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.87|0.21|0.0002
91799965|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.46||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.82|0.09|0.0084
91799966|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.44||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.80|0.07|0.0124
91799967|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.15||||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.52|-0.23|0.7565
91744138|NCT03086408|183383237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.98|-2.38|0.82
91744139|NCT03086408|183383238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.29|-5.29|0.37
91744140|NCT03470194|183383240|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.002
91744141|NCT01822899|183383241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.113|||ANCOVA|||||0.113|0.046|<0.001
91744142|NCT01450696|183383273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.78|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis included stratum of creatinine clearance (45 to 59 milliliters per minute \[mL/min\] and greater than or equal to \[≥\] 60 mL/min). Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||1.78|0.86|0.2401
91744143|NCT01450696|183383273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.88|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis. Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||1.88|0.92|0.1285
91744144|NCT01450696|183383275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.04|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis included stratum of creatinine clearance (45 to 59 mL/min and ≥60 mL/min). Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.04|0.49|0.9931
91799968|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.16||||0.7158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.53|-0.22|0.7158
91875373|NCT05129592|183644070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and VLNC use||1.43|0.25|0.252
91875374|NCT05129592|183644071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.09|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless tobacco relative harm beliefs||1.09|0.18|0.077
91744145|NCT01450696|183383275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.02|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis. Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.02|0.52|0.9458
91744146|NCT01450696|183383277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.6759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.02|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis included stratum of creatinine clearance (45 to 59 mL/min and ≥60 mL/min). Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.02|0.63|0.6759
91875375|NCT05129592|183644071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless tobacco relative harm beliefs|Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|2.15|0.40|0.853
91875376|NCT05129592|183644071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.95|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless tobacco relative harm beliefs||0.95|0.18|0.037
91744147|NCT01450696|183383277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis. Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.05|0.67|0.5764
91744148|NCT01450696|183383278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.58||||0.5402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.75|16.6|||Chi-squared|||The 95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||16.60|-31.75|0.5402
91744149|NCT01450696|183383278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.96||||||||1.96|0.28|
91744150|NCT00853242|183383299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.0249
91799969|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.22||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.07|-0.52|0.1368
91744151|NCT00853242|183383299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.0001
91744152|NCT00853242|183383299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||<0.0001
91744153|NCT00853242|183383300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2647|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.2647
91744154|NCT00853242|183383300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.7944
91744155|NCT00853242|183383300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.3724
91799970|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.05|-0.62|0.0974
91799971|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.38||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.00|-0.76|0.0479
91799972|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.46|-1.22|<0.0001
91875377|NCT05129592|183644071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and smokeless tobacco use||1.75|0.21|0.349
91875378|NCT05129592|183644071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.93|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and smokeless tobacco use||3.93|0.54|0.464
91744156|NCT02516098|183383335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the test and reference product (for Stage 1) was assessed on the basis of the point estimate of the geometric mean ratio for Cmax in relation to the bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|87.52|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|77.18|99.24|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The study design is a two-stage Pocock-like group sequential design according to the alpha spending function approach. The alpha level for Stage 1 was 0.0377 (one-sided).||99.24|77.18|
91744157|NCT02516098|183383336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the test and reference products for Stage 1 was assessed on the basis of the 92.46% confidence intervals for the geometric mean (test/reference) ratio for the AUC0-t in relation to the bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%, with a one-sided alpha of 0.0377.|Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|91.74|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|83.51|100.78|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The study design is a two-stage Pocock-like group sequential design according to the alpha spending function approach. The alpha level for Stage 1 was 0.0377 (one-sided).||100.78|83.51|
91744158|NCT02516098|183383337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|91.66|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|83.59|100.51|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The test product was compared to the reference product by means of statistical analysis.||100.51|83.59|
91744159|NCT02516098|183383338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|92.96|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|81.94|105.47|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The test product was compared to the reference product by means of statistical analysis.||105.47|81.94|
91744160|NCT01092780|183383339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.11|10.2||||||Difference in least squares (LS) means||10.20|6.11|
91744161|NCT01092780|183383339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|8.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|10.15||||||Difference in LS means||10.15|6.07|
91799973|NCT02833350|183477653|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.83||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.42|-1.24|0.0001
91799974|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.09||||0.9193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.24|-0.41|0.9193
91875379|NCT05129592|183644071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and smokeless tobacco use||1.40|0.18|0.187
91744162|NCT01092780|183383340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05||||||Difference in LS means||-0.05|-0.10|
91744163|NCT01092780|183383340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.05||||||Difference in LS means||-0.05|-0.09|
91744164|NCT01092780|183383342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.76|-0.35||||||Difference in LS means||-0.35|-3.76|
91744165|NCT01092780|183383342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.79|-0.4||||||Difference in LS means||-0.40|-3.79|
91744166|NCT01092780|183383343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|10.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.49|11.92||||||||11.92|8.49|
91744167|NCT01092780|183383344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|-0.05||||||Difference in LS means||-0.05|-0.08|
91799975|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.1||||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.14|-0.33|0.7062
91799976|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.08||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.16|-0.31|0.8542
91799977|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.13||||0.8095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.24|-0.51|0.8095
91799978|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.17||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.11|-0.44|0.3862
91799979|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.16||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.12|-0.43|0.4328
91799980|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.24||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.20|-0.68|0.4915
91799981|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.26||||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.06|-0.58|0.1441
91875380|NCT05129592|183644072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.62|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs||3.62|0.31|0.925
91875381|NCT05129592|183644072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.35|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs||2.35|0.19|0.525
91875382|NCT05129592|183644072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs||2.40|0.21|0.586
91875383|NCT05129592|183644072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.9|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs controlling for smokeless tobacco use||3.90|0.31|0.883
91875384|NCT05129592|183644072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.41|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs controlling for smokeless tobacco use||2.41|0.18|0.534
91875385|NCT05129592|183644072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.62|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs controlling for smokeless tobacco use||2.62|0.22|0.661
91875386|NCT05129592|183644073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.66||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|13.19|||ANCOVA|Sidak's adjusted p-value (df=4)|Nicotine corrective control - Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline consideration of switching||13.19|-9.25|0.965
91875387|NCT05129592|183644073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|12.27|||ANCOVA|Sidak's adjusted p-value (df=4)||ANCOVA adjusted for baseline consideration of switching|Nicotine corrective with causal explanation - Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|12.27|-9.13|0.979
91875388|NCT05129592|183644073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|14.59|||ANCOVA|Sidak's adjusted p-value (df=4)||ANCOVA adjusted for baseline consideration of switching|Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception - Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|14.59|-6.46|0.73
91875389|NCT04694300|183644078|SUPERIORITY|Lower the maximum pain intensity score the more effective the analgesic|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91875390|NCT04694300|183644079|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91875391|NCT04694300|183644080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91875392|NCT04694300|183644081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91875393|NCT04694300|183644084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91875394|NCT04694300|183644085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91875395|NCT04694300|183644086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Higher percentage inhibition relates to greater selectivity for COX-2||||||0.59
91875396|NCT04694300|183644087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91875397|NCT00113880|183644097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Exact method or Cox model|||Breast lump/cyst event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the relative risk (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) is not estimable.||||0.01
91744168|NCT01257230|183383345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.234|0.034|0.0085
91875398|NCT00113880|183644097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Exact method or Cox model|||Breast lump/cyst event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the RR or HR is not estimable.||||0.01
91875399|NCT00113880|183644097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Exact method or Cox model|||Breast lump/cyst event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the RR or HR is not estimable.||||0.02
91875400|NCT00113880|183644097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Mastitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||3.92|0.64|0.02
91875401|NCT00113880|183644097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|24.54||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Mastitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||24.54|2.20|0.01
91875402|NCT00113880|183644097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.17||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|24.13||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Mastitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||24.13|2.13|0.01
91744169|NCT01257230|183383345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.272|0.076|0.0005
91744170|NCT01257230|183383346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.194|-0.025|0.1307
91744171|NCT01257230|183383346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.223|0.010|0.0320
91744172|NCT01257230|183383347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.200|-0.024|0.1231
91744173|NCT01257230|183383347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.182|-0.037|0.1950
91744174|NCT01257230|183383348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.181|-0.055|0.2921
91744175|NCT01257230|183383348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.150|-0.080|0.5495
91744176|NCT01257230|183383349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.225|0.034|0.0079
91744177|NCT01257230|183383349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.275|0.088|0.0002
91744178|NCT01257230|183383350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.196|-0.016|0.0945
91744179|NCT01257230|183383350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.175|-0.032|0.1755
91744180|NCT01257230|183383352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.178|-0.184|0.9760
91744181|NCT01257230|183383352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.168|-0.186|0.9224
91744182|NCT01257230|183383353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.185|-0.140|0.7852
91744183|NCT01257230|183383353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.271|-0.046|0.1649
91744184|NCT01257230|183383354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.249|-0.312|0.8253
91744185|NCT01257230|183383354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.319|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.319|-0.232|0.7559
91744186|NCT01257230|183383355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.010|-0.330|0.0653
91744187|NCT01257230|183383355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.2516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.069|-0.263|0.2516
91744188|NCT01257230|183383357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.038|-0.333|0.1200
91875403|NCT00113880|183644098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.79||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Heart murmur event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.79|0.00|0.03
91744189|NCT01257230|183383357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.127|-0.235|0.5589
91744190|NCT01257230|183383359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.87|||Regression, Cox|||||1.87|0.21|0.4023
91744191|NCT01257230|183383359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.05|0.0620
91744192|NCT01257230|183383360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.66|||Regression, Cox|||||1.66|0.65|0.8700
91744193|NCT01257230|183383360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.51|0.4198
91875404|NCT00113880|183644098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.0||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox|||Heart murmur event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||1.00|0.02|0.05
91744194|NCT01988662|183383393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"H0: There is no difference in the percent change in VEGF level after 3 months for patients with nAMD treated with ranibizumab compared to aflibercept.~HA: There is a difference in the percent change in VEGF level after 3 months for patients with nAMD treated with ranibizumab compared to aflibercept."|Mean Difference (Net)|62.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.639||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.96|111.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||H0: μR = μA versus HA: μR ≠ μA||111.17|13.96|0.012
91744195|NCT02300558|183383395|OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||paired t- test|||Based on a 2-sided, paired t-test ( α = 0.05), and a standard deviation (SD) of 30 msec, a sample size of 40 participants provided greater than 95% power assuming a difference in mean daytime QTcF interval (AUC0-6/6) as measured by standard 12-lead ECG between baseline and Week 24 of 20 msec. The null hypothesis was that the mean difference between the baseline and Week 24 mean daytime QTcF interval was zero.||||0.0087
91744196|NCT01471028|183383399|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.53|||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the Intent-to-treat (ITT) population utilizing a log-rank test.||1.53|0.689|0.904
91744197|NCT01471028|183383400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.737
91744198|NCT01471028|183383401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.315||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.952|||Log Rank|||||1.952|0.886|0.168
91744199|NCT01471028|183383402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.283||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.732|||Log Rank|||||0.732|0.109|0.007
91744200|NCT03115827|183383429|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
91744201|NCT02027311|183383434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For two-sided tests, p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model used to identify the factors related to the presence of intervention (frequency of intervention = 0, vs. ≥ 1).||If the true difference in the experimental and control means is 4, total 26 experimental subjects and 26 control subjects was required to reject the null hypothesis that the means of the primary outcome values of experimental and control groups are equal with probability (power) 0.8. The Type I error probability associated with this test of this null hypothesis is 0.05.||||0.05
91744202|NCT02027311|183383435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|50.94||Logistic regression model were used in univariate and corrected multivariate analyses to identify the factors related to the primary outcome variables, such as, presence of intervention (frequency of intervention = 0, vs. ≥ 1).|Regression, Logistic|||All the continuous variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and dichotomous categorical variables was used and the Pearson chi-square with Fisher exact test. We used the linear mixed model to compare the differences of paired data, such as mean values of RR, SpO2, MAP, HR, and RSS at different time points of the two different sedation groups. For two-sided tests, p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||50.94|2.41|0.002
91744203|NCT01825512|183383455|NON_INFERIORITY|Deferiprone was declared non inferior to Deferasirox if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportion of successful chelation in the two groups is above -12.5%.|Treatment success rate|-12.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.5||||||||||-12.5|
91744204|NCT01825512|183383456|OTHER|GLM model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|4.468|||ANCOVA|||||4.468|-0.213|0.074
91875405|NCT00113880|183644098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.86||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Heart murmur event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.86|0.01|0.04
91744205|NCT01825512|183383457|OTHER|GLM Analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.741||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.085|2.819|||ANCOVA|||||2.819|-4.085|0.717
91875406|NCT00113880|183644098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population was the 18-49 year age group.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.70|0.20|0.01
91875407|NCT00113880|183644098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.74||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population was the all ages combined group.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.74|0.22|0.01
91744206|NCT01825512|183383458|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority of Deferiprone to Deferasirox is tested considering a non-inferiority margin of 400 ng/mL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|164.734||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-323.58|324.781|||GLM|||||324.781|-323.580|0.997
91744207|NCT02091362|183383459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.40|1.11|<.001
91744208|NCT02091362|183383460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.37|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|0.66|<0.01
91744209|NCT00286091|183383467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||Wald test||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by PSA ≥ 8.0 ng/mL, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months and previous or current chemotherapy for prostate cancer. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|Primary and secondary endpoint analyses were conducted hierarchically. To preserve an overall type I error rate of 0.05, a 0.0488 2-sided test of bone metastasis-free survival was performed. If superiority of denosumab over placebo was established, time to first bone metastasis was tested with a 2-sided significance level of 0.050. If superiority of denosumab over placebo was also established, overall survival time was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.050.||0.98|0.73|0.0284
91799982|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.24||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.07|-0.56|0.1890
91799983|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.25||||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.24|-0.74|0.5566
91799984|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.32||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.04|-0.68|0.0920
91799985|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.29||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.06|-0.65|0.1391
91799986|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.35||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.17|-0.86|0.2873
91799987|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.16|-0.91|0.0020
91799988|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.54||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.17|-0.92|0.0016
91875408|NCT00113880|183644098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.05||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population was the 18-49 year age and the all ages combined groups.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.08|0.03|0.01
91744210|NCT00286091|183383468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98|||Wald test||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by PSA ≥ 8.0 ng/mL, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months and previous or current chemotherapy for prostate cancer. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||0.98|0.71|0.0317
91744211|NCT00286091|183383469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.2|||Wald test||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by PSA ≥ 8.0 ng/mL, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months and previous or current chemotherapy for prostate cancer. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.20|0.85|0.9125
91744212|NCT01032603|183383498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|9.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|23.0|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria was obtained by Kaplan-Meier method. BLR group=46%, RR group=37%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||23|-6|0.24
91744213|NCT01032603|183383499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|21.0|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria was obtained by Kaplan-Meier method. BLR group=34%, RR group=26%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||21|-6|0.25
91744214|NCT01032603|183383500|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|0.23|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria was obtained by Kaplan-Meier method. BLR group=3%, RR group=10%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||0.23|-14|0.06
91799989|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.31||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.55|0.07|0.0050
91799990|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.57|0.10|0.0020
91799991|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.35||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.62|0.07|0.0082
91799992|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.35||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.63|0.08|0.0056
91799993|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.82|0.19|0.0004
91799994|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.84|0.21|0.0002
91799995|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.34||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.69|-0.01|0.0650
91799996|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.37||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.72|0.02|0.0365
91799997|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.09||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.47|-0.28|0.9338
91799998|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.09||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.46|-0.29|0.9520
91799999|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.19||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.07|-0.45|0.1496
91800000|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.13||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.17|-0.43|0.3936
91875409|NCT00113880|183644098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.03|||Regression, Cox||Population was the 18-49 year age and all ages combined groups.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.03|0.01|0.01
91800001|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.35||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.03|-0.68|0.0346
91800002|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.31|-1.04|0.0004
91800003|NCT02833350|183477654|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.34|-1.11|0.0003
91800004|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.17||||0.6083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.19|-0.53|0.6083
91800005|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.18||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.08|-0.44|0.2672
91800006|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.17||||0.3158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.09|-0.43|0.3158
91800007|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.14||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.28|-0.55|0.8495
91800008|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.03|-0.58|0.0856
91800009|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.27||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.04|-0.57|0.1021
91800010|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.33||||0.2762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.15|-0.82|0.2762
91800011|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.38||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.03|-0.73|0.0286
91800012|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.38||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.03|-0.73|0.0274
91800013|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.24|-0.81|0.4981
91800014|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.39||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.00|-0.78|0.0472
91800015|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.36||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.03|-0.75|0.0753
91800016|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.43||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.13|-0.99|0.1853
91875410|NCT00113880|183644099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.13||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Urticaria event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||4.13|1.02|0.04
91875411|NCT00113880|183644101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.89|0.56|0.01
91744215|NCT01032603|183383501|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.0|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria by 3 yrs was obtained by KM method. BLR group=14%, RR group=10%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||14|-5|0.36
91744216|NCT01032603|183383503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||3-year control outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value (e.g. ANCOVA model of 3-year distance control will adjust for baseline distance control).||||0.44
91744217|NCT01032603|183383506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|||3-year control outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value (e.g. ANCOVA model of 3-year near control will adjust for baseline near control).||||0.64
91744218|NCT01032603|183383509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||3-year PACT outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.21
91800017|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.62||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.21|-1.03|0.0009
91744219|NCT01032603|183383512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||3-year PACT outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.38
91744220|NCT01032603|183383515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||3-year stereoacuity outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.93
91744221|NCT01032603|183383518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||3-year stereoacuity outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.82
91800018|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.62||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.21|-1.03|0.0008
91800019|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.41||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.67|0.15|0.0005
91800020|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.68|0.16|0.0003
91800021|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.69|0.09|0.0060
91800022|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.4||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.70|0.10|0.0039
91800023|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.53||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.88|0.18|0.0007
91800024|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.53||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.88|0.19|0.0007
91800025|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.39||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.77|0.01|0.0450
91800026|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.42||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.80|0.04|0.0259
91800027|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.06||||0.9881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.46|-0.34|0.9881
91800028|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.06||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.46|-0.34|0.9891
91800029|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.29||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||-0.00|-0.57|0.0463
91800030|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.23||||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.11|-0.56|0.1867
91800031|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.44||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.07|-0.81|0.0213
91800032|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 8. Day 56||-0.37|-1.19|0.0003
91800033|NCT02833350|183477655|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.40|-1.24|0.0002
91800034|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
91800035|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.30|-2.48|0.5976
91800036|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.82||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||5.62|-1.98|0.3482
91800037|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
91744222|NCT01032603|183383520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Child 5 to 7 years old|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.30
91744223|NCT01032603|183383520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Child 8 to 13 years old|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.77
91744224|NCT01032603|183383520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Parent Proxy IXTQ|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.51
91744225|NCT01032603|183383520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Parent Psychosocial|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.42
91744226|NCT01032603|183383520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||Parent Function|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.68
91744227|NCT01032603|183383520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Parent Surgical|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.64
91744228|NCT01032603|183383521|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|13.0||||||"The cumulative proportion of participants with re-operation by 3 years was obtained using the Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method.~A treatment-group difference and a corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated.~Treatment-group differences were calculated as BLR minus RR."||13|-2|
91744229|NCT01032603|183383522|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-0.0003||||||All treatment-group differences were calculated as the BLRc group minus the R\&R group. A treatment-group difference and a corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated.||-.0003|-30|
91744230|NCT01032603|183383523|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|25.0||||||The proportion of participants with suboptimal surgical outcome at 3 years was compared between treatment groups using Barnard's exact test, and an exact 95% CI on the treatment-group difference was calculated using Farrington-Manning scores.||25|-1|
91744231|NCT01813058|183383533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|195.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91744232|NCT00923351|183383561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.043
91744233|NCT01579565|183383573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0001||95.0|0.494|0.686||p-value based on the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS302 - Placebo) is adjusted for the randomization strata.||||0.686|0.494|0.0001
91744234|NCT01579565|183383574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.0002||95.0|-6.917|-2.244||p-value is based on the generalized CMH test stratified by the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS302 - Placebo) is adjusted for the randomization strata.||||-2.244|-6.917|0.0002
91744235|NCT01579565|183383575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91744236|NCT01579565|183383576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91744237|NCT01579565|183383577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0760
91744238|NCT01579565|183383578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0806||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0806
91744239|NCT01579565|183383579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
91744240|NCT01579565|183383580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3923||||||Treatment comparisons are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3923
91744241|NCT01579565|183383581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Treatment comparisons are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0060
91744242|NCT01579565|183383582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3286||||||Treatment comparisons are based on generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3286
91744243|NCT01579565|183383583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2361||||||Treatment comparisons based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified by randomization strata.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2361
91744244|NCT01380535|183383585|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.373
91744245|NCT00394251|183383598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage of participants with at least one taxane-emergent toxicity||||0.641
91744246|NCT00394251|183383604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage of participants with at least one taxane-emergent toxicity||||0.323
91744247|NCT01667224|183383636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
91800038|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.48|-4.30|0.5976
91800039|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|4.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||4.89|-3.07|0.6546
91875412|NCT00113880|183644101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.83||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.83|0.41|0.01
91800040|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.8||||0.7988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|5.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Day 28||5.35|-6.95|0.7988
91744248|NCT01667224|183383637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
91744249|NCT01667224|183383638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
91744250|NCT01667224|183383639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.60kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.60kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
91744251|NCT01843673|183383752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05 . The p-values for pairwise comparison.||||||1||||||Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05. The p-values for pairwise comparison lateral and vertical, for OBI and CBCT was 1.00.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pairwise comparison for each direction between each pair of technologies were done using a t test to check if the difference in the recommended shift is more than 2 mm. Clinical significance is based on a 2 mm difference. Statistical significance is determined based on 5% level of significance.||||1.00
91744252|NCT01843673|183383752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05. Those are the p-values for pairwise comparison.||||||1||||||Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05. The p-values for pairwise comparison lateral and vertical, for OBI and ExacTrac was 1.00.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pairwise comparison for each direction between each pair of technologies were done using a t test to check if the difference in the recommended shift is more than 2 mm. Clinical significance is based on a 2 mm difference. Statistical significance is determined based on 5% level of significance.||||1.00
91744253|NCT03928418|183383809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.9||p-value comparing live call booster to SOC arm: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline # of drinking days, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus live call booster arm reported here.|||4.9|2.1|<0.001
91744254|NCT03928418|183383809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.1||p-value comparing technology booster to SOC arm: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline # of drinking days, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus technology booster arm reported here.|||5.1|2.2|<0.001
91744255|NCT03928418|183383810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.4||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.5|190.3||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.643|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline PEth level, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus live call booster arm reported here.|||190.3|-117.5|0.643
91744256|NCT03928418|183383810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.9||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.8|132.9||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.711|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline PEth level, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus technology booster arm reported here.|||132.9|-194.8|0.711
91744257|NCT03928418|183383811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC: p = 0.515|Regression, Logistic||SOC minus live call booster arm presented here.|||4.7|-9.3|0.515
91744258|NCT03928418|183383811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.4||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC: p = 0.801|Regression, Logistic||SOC minus technology booster arm presented here.|||6.4|-8.3|0.801
91744259|NCT03928418|183383812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|40.7||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus live call booster arm presented here.|||40.7|17.0|<0.001
91744260|NCT03928418|183383812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|36.8||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus technology booster arm presented here.|||36.8|13.0|<0.001
91744261|NCT03928418|183383813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.3||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC: p = 0.002|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus live call booster arm presented here.|||7.3|1.6|0.002
91800041|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.01||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|4.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Day 28||4.36|-4.35|0.9975
91800042|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.55||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|10.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||10.25|-1.16|0.1185
91800043|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.4||||0.4765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|4.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||4.21|-9.01|0.4765
91875413|NCT00113880|183644101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.99|0.46|0.04
91875414|NCT00113880|183644102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.41||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.41|0.27|0.01
91875415|NCT00113880|183644102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.42||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months||0.42|0.22|0.01
91907076|NCT00258674|183709364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.702||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.702
91744262|NCT03928418|183383813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.2||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC: p = 0.003|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus technology booster arm presented here.|||7.2|1.5|0.003
91875416|NCT00113880|183644102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.47||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.47|0.24|0.01
91744263|NCT03928418|183383815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.2||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.610.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline ART adherence, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus live call booster arm presented here.|||2.2|-3.8|0.610
91744264|NCT03928418|183383815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.9||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.474.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline ART adherence, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus technology booster arm presented here.|||1.9|-4.1|0.474
91744265|NCT05319600|183383822|SUPERIORITY|treatment group as predictor baseline-residualized week 12 scores in linear regression|Slope|129.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.96|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.52|280.98|||Regression, Linear||Control coded as 0 and treatment as 1|||280.98|-22.52|<0.05
91744266|NCT00904670|183383823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-12.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-10.17|||ANOVA|||Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-10.17|-14.75|<0.0001
91744267|NCT00904670|183383824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|-4.11|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-4.11|-8.53|<0.0001
91744268|NCT00904670|183383824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-7.91|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-7.91|-12.04|<0.0001
91744269|NCT00904670|183383824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-6.75|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-6.75|-11.92|<0.0001
91744270|NCT00904670|183383824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-1.54|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.54|-6.04|0.0016
91800044|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.61||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||11.12|-1.90|0.1655
91907077|NCT00258674|183709365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.413||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.413
91875417|NCT00113880|183644102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 years within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.75|0.23|0.01
91875418|NCT00113880|183644102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.44||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.44|0.33|0.01
91875419|NCT00113880|183644102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.5||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.50|0.32|0.01
91875420|NCT00113880|183644102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.45||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.45|0.28|0.01
91907078|NCT00258674|183709366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.996||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.996
91907079|NCT00258674|183709367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.451||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.451
91744271|NCT00904670|183383824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-1.94|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.94|-7.61|0.0016
91744272|NCT00904670|183383825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.36|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.36|-1.88|0.0051
91744273|NCT00904670|183383825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.95|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.95|-2.23|<0.0001
91875421|NCT00113880|183644102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.6||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.60|0.27|0.01
91875422|NCT00113880|183644102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.99||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years, PD2 within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.99|0.21|0.05
91907080|NCT00258674|183709368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.447||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.447
91800045|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.18||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|15.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||15.26|1.11|0.0234
91875423|NCT00113880|183644103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.98||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.98|0.86|0.01
91907081|NCT00258674|183709369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.936||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.936
91875424|NCT00113880|183644103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs., within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months||0.92|0.75|0.01
91875425|NCT00113880|183644103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.94||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: All ages, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.94|0.81|0.01
91875426|NCT00113880|183644103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.88||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.88|0.70|0.01
91875427|NCT00113880|183644103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.79||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8yrs, within 180 days, PD2. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.79|0.29|0.01
91875428|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.51||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.51|0.45|0.01
91744274|NCT00904670|183383825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-1.2|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.20|-3.37|0.0001
91744275|NCT00904670|183383825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.47|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.47|-2.52|0.0055
91875429|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.56||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months||0.56|0.47|0.01
91875430|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.46||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.46|0.38|0.01
91875431|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.67||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.67|0.49|0.01
91875432|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.76||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD2. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.76|0.33|0.01
91800046|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.2||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|13.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||13.67|-7.27|0.5490
91800047|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.22|24.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||24.03|7.22|0.0003
91875433|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.45||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.45|0.39|0.01
91744276|NCT00904670|183383825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.29|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||0.29|-1.38|0.1977
91744277|NCT00904670|183383825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.0|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||0.00|-1.76|0.0491
91744278|NCT00904670|183383826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.02|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.02|-2.36|<0.0001
91744279|NCT00904670|183383826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.82|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.82|-3.50|<0.0001
91744280|NCT00904670|183383826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-2.13|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.13|-3.77|<0.0001
91800048|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.91||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|18.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||18.43|3.39|0.0044
91800049|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|11.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||11.18|-7.07|0.6588
91800050|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|9.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||9.99|-8.62|0.8853
91800051|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.11|-7.00|0.6564
91875434|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.47||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.47|0.38|0.01
91875435|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.41||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.41|0.34|0.01
91875436|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.68||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.68|0.49|0.05
91875437|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.52||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD2. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/Rad event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.52|0.15|0.01
91907082|NCT00258674|183709370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.332||95.0||||A comparison of the claims vs. claims+MR arms was also conducted, giving a p-value of 0.537.|Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.332
91800052|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|9.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||9.99|-8.62|0.8853
91800053|NCT02833350|183477656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.64||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||23.70|-0.41|0.0584
91800054|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
91800055|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
91875438|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.85||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.85|0.66|0.01
91875439|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.97|0.70|0.02
91875440|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.88|0.58|0.01
91875441|NCT00113880|183644104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.78||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.78|0.27|0.01
91875442|NCT00113880|183644105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Encephalitis/encephalopathy event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.82|0.00|0.04
91875443|NCT00113880|183644106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.47|0.01
91875444|NCT00113880|183644106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.57|0.21|0.01
91907083|NCT00258674|183709371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.86||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.860
91875445|NCT00113880|183644106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.77||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.77|0.47|0.01
91907084|NCT00258674|183709372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.382||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.382
91875446|NCT00113880|183644106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.48|0.23|0.01
91875447|NCT00113880|183644107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.47|0.01
91907085|NCT00258674|183709373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.988||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.988
91800056|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
91875448|NCT00113880|183644107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.57|0.21|0.01
91875449|NCT00113880|183644107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.77||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.77|0.47|0.01
91875450|NCT00113880|183644107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.48|0.23|0.01
91875451|NCT00113880|183644108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.73||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.73|0.57|0.01
91907086|NCT00258674|183709374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.685||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.685
91907087|NCT01147744|183709386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.17|-0.06|0.326
91907088|NCT01147744|183709386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.104||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.22||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.22|-0.01|0.066
91744281|NCT00904670|183383826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-1.66|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.66|-3.33|<0.0001
91744282|NCT00904670|183383826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.44|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.44|-2.07|0.0035
91744283|NCT00904670|183383826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.35|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.35|-2.51|0.0109
91875452|NCT00113880|183644108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.51||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.51|0.36|0.01
91744284|NCT00904670|183383827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|25.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.26|34.96|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||34.96|16.26|<0.0001
91907089|NCT01147744|183709386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.18||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.18|-0.04|0.224
91800057|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
91800058|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
91875453|NCT00113880|183644109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.33||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.33|0.26|0.01
91875454|NCT00113880|183644109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.18||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.18|0.13|0.01
91875455|NCT00113880|183644110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.93||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Sinusitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.93|0.03|0.04
91875456|NCT00113880|183644110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|URI event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.40|0.02
91875457|NCT00113880|183644110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|URI event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.84|0.28|0.01
91875458|NCT00113880|183644110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.78||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|URI event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.78|0.10|0.02
91744285|NCT00904670|183383827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.54|47.66|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||47.66|26.54|<0.0001
91800059|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
91875459|NCT00113880|183644110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any acute resp. tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.96|0.63|0.02
91907090|NCT01147744|183709386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.062||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.17|-0.05|0.271
91744286|NCT00904670|183383827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|45.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.89|60.65|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||60.65|30.89|<0.0001
91744287|NCT00904670|183383827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|35.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.14|48.78|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||48.78|22.14|<0.0001
91744288|NCT00904670|183383827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|26.73|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||26.73|3.00|0.0155
91800060|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
91800061|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Day 28||2.48|-4.30|0.5976
91800062|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.6669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|5.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||5.05|-3.23|0.6669
91800063|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.6||||0.6309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|4.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||4.93|-8.13|0.6309
91875460|NCT00113880|183644110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any acute resp. tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.97|0.50|0.03
91744289|NCT00904670|183383827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|20.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.17|33.22|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||33.22|8.17|0.0019
91744290|NCT00904670|183383829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.74|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.74|-2.85|0.0014
91744291|NCT00904670|183383829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-1.82|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.82|-3.76|<0.0001
91744292|NCT00904670|183383829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-2.67|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.67|-5.12|<0.0001
91744293|NCT00904670|183383829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-1.33|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.33|-3.97|0.0002
91744294|NCT00904670|183383829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.49|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||0.49|-1.34|0.3492
91744295|NCT00904670|183383829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.33|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.33|-2.34|0.0105
91744296|NCT00904670|183383830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.0|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.00|-2.43|<0.0001
91744297|NCT00904670|183383830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-2.1|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.10|-3.78|<0.0001
91744298|NCT00904670|183383830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-2.57|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.57|-4.11|<0.0001
91744299|NCT00904670|183383830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.76|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.76|-3.64|<0.0001
91744300|NCT00904670|183383830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.73|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.73|-2.40|0.0006
91800064|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.83||||0.4473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.56|-2.90|0.4473
91907091|NCT01147744|183709386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.189|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.3||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.30|0.08|<0.001
91907092|NCT01147744|183709386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.18||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.18|-0.04|0.220
91907093|NCT01147744|183709387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.385||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|8.48|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||8.48|-9.25|0.932
91744301|NCT00904670|183383830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.30|-1.94|0.0087
91744302|NCT03231917|183383857|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91744303|NCT03587428|183383862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3252||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8101|0.1596|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect and two baseline terms as covariates.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment; a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.1596|-0.8101|0.1787
91800065|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.73||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|7.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||7.91|-2.45|0.3021
91800066|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.6||||0.7134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|6.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||6.94|-10.14|0.7134
91744304|NCT03587428|183383862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7037||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1886|-0.2187|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect and two baseline terms as covariates.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment; a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.2187|-1.1886|0.0063
91744305|NCT00182078|183383866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.017
91744306|NCT00182078|183383867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91744307|NCT00182078|183383868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.65
91744308|NCT00361231|183383893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||<0.05
91744309|NCT00361231|183383894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
91800067|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.7||||0.2635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|10.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||10.19|-2.79|0.2635
91800068|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.55||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.11|-2.02|0.1749
91800069|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|11.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||11.18|-7.07|0.6588
91800070|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2 Day 14||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
91800071|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
91800072|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
91744310|NCT01732510|183383897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.82||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.87|-2.77|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||The reduction from baseline in EASI at week 12 for participants receiving MK-8226 3 mg/kg was compared to placebo (MK-8226 3 mg - Placebo). The constrained longitudinal data analysis model used variance component covariance matrix to model correlation among repeated visits, without adjustment for interaction of treatment group by visit.||-2.77|-16.87|0.015
91744311|NCT00313144|183383917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.044
91744312|NCT00313144|183383919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.009
91744313|NCT00313144|183383920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.005
91744314|NCT00313144|183383922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.006
91744315|NCT00313144|183383923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.044
91800073|NCT02833350|183477657|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.37||||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.20|-8.46|0.7848
91800074|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|6.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.28|-6.28|1.0000
91800075|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.93||||0.5941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.37|-2.50|0.5941
91800076|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|2.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.93|-2.93|1.0000
91800077|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|6.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.17|-6.17|1.0000
91800078|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|2.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.95|-2.95|1.0000
91800079|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
91800080|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.43||||0.8929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||5.77|-6.62|0.8929
91875461|NCT00113880|183644110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.01||95.0|0.21|0.79||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any acute resp. tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.79|0.21|0.01
91875462|NCT00113880|183644111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.34||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Sinusitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||3.34|1.14|0.02
91875463|NCT00113880|183644111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Exact method or Cox model|||Irritable bowel syndrome event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the RR or HR is not estimable.||||0.02
91875464|NCT00113880|183644112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.57||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.57|0.15|0.01
91744316|NCT00313144|183383924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.046
91744317|NCT02487654|183383943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91744318|NCT00744380|183383946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91744319|NCT00744380|183383947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For open label midazolam||||0.25
91744320|NCT00744380|183383947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For all midazolam||||0.048
91800081|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.13||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|3.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||3.51|-3.78|0.9424
91875465|NCT00113880|183644112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 5-8, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.12|0.03
91875466|NCT00113880|183644112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.74||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.74|0.13|0.01
91875467|NCT00113880|183644112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.99||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Pharyngitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.99|0.55|0.04
91907094|NCT01147744|183709387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.367||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|10.23|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.23|-7.50|0.762
91744321|NCT00744380|183383947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For fentanyl||||0.88
91800082|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.94||||0.5927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||2.51|-4.40|0.5927
91800083|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.46||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||5.40|-6.31|0.8788
91800084|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.87||||0.6876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|5.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8 Day 56||5.09|-3.36|0.6876
91800085|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.97||||0.6656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|5.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||5.35|-3.42|0.6656
91744322|NCT00744380|183383948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||For Riker scores||||0.75
91744323|NCT00744380|183383948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||For pain scores||||0.17
91744324|NCT00744380|183383949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||For hypotension||||>0.1
91744325|NCT00744380|183383949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||For bradycardia||||>0.1
91744326|NCT00744380|183383949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||For tachycardia||||>0.1
91744327|NCT00744380|183383949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||For delirium, new onset||||0.07
91744328|NCT00744380|183383950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median number of experiences remembered||||0.015
91744329|NCT00744380|183383951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91744330|NCT00744380|183383952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91800086|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.46||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|5.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 Day 84||5.42|-6.34|0.8787
91800087|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.74||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|4.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.66|-3.17|0.7101
91800088|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.2||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|8.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||8.55|-2.16|0.2425
91800089|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|8.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||8.68|-8.68|1.0000
91800090|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|8.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2 Day 14||8.39|-8.39|1.0000
91875468|NCT00113880|183644112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.93||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Pharyngitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.93|0.14|0.04
91907095|NCT01147744|183709387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.798||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|7.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||7.03|-10.62|0.689
91744331|NCT00744380|183383953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For anxiety||||>0.1
91744332|NCT00744380|183383953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For depression||||>0.1
91744333|NCT02443116|183383954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-12.09|-5.59||p-values are adjusted using a stepdown-Bonferroni method to adjust for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-5.59|-12.09|<0.001
91744334|NCT02443116|183383954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-11.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-14.39|-7.74||p-values are adjusted using a stepdown-Bonferroni method to adjust for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-7.74|-14.39|<0.001
91744335|NCT02443116|183383954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.112|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-5.11|0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||0.67|-5.11|0.112
91744336|NCT02443116|183383955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-2.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-2.99|-8.48|<0.0001
91744337|NCT02443116|183383955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|-3.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-3.79|-9.41|<0.0001
91800091|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.03||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|11.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.22|-7.17|0.6658
91800092|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|8.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.77|-8.77|1.0000
91907096|NCT01147744|183709387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.321||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|11.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||11.13|-6.49|0.605
91744338|NCT02443116|183383955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||1.98|-3.71|0.5467
91744339|NCT02443116|183383955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|-3.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-3.25|-8.55|<0.0001
91744340|NCT02443116|183383955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||2.55|-2.89|0.9037
91800093|NCT02833350|183477658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.57||||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|17.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||17.66|-4.52|0.2457
91800094|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.36||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|2.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.02|-6.73|0.4960
91800095|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.18||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|0.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.98|-5.34|0.2736
91800096|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.08||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.10|-6.26|0.0608
91800097|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.25||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|3.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||3.52|-6.02|0.9237
91800098|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.14||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|0.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||0.33|-6.60|0.0893
91800099|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.07||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|-0.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||-0.63|-7.51|0.0138
91800100|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.22||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||1.80|-8.24|0.3358
91800101|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.57||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-0.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.94|-8.20|0.0078
91800102|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.68||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-1.06|-8.30|0.0059
91800103|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.29||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|2.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||2.80|-7.39|0.6503
91744341|NCT02443116|183383955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||3.45|-2.05|0.6134
91744342|NCT02443116|183383956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-1.91|-8.03|0.0018
91744343|NCT01932372|183383963|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (unadjusted)|4.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|7.03||||||||7.03|3.34|
91744344|NCT01932372|183383963|OTHER||Hazard ratio (unadjusted)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|6.96||||||||6.96|3.31|
91744345|NCT01932372|183383963|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 1)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.51||||||||4.51|0.95|
91744346|NCT01932372|183383963|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 2)|3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|6.47||||||||6.47|2.24|
91744347|NCT01932372|183383963|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 3)|3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|6.09||||||||6.09|2.08|
91744348|NCT01932372|183383963|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 4)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|6.25||||||||6.25|2.31|
91744349|NCT01932372|183383964|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (unadjusted)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.19||||||||2.19|1.16|
91744350|NCT01932372|183383964|OTHER||Hazard ratio (unadjusted)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.13||||||||2.13|1.12|
91744351|NCT01932372|183383964|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 1)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.99||||||||2.99|1.16|
91744352|NCT01932372|183383964|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 2)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.43||||||||2.43|1.06|
91744353|NCT01932372|183383964|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 3)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.35||||||||2.35|1.00|
91744354|NCT01932372|183383964|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 4)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.22||||||||2.22|1.03|
91800104|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.12||||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|0.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.59|-6.84|0.1282
91800105|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.94||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|0.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.78|-6.65|0.1675
91744355|NCT01932372|183383965|OTHER||Mortality rate ratio (unadjusted)|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|5.78||||||||5.78|1.99|
91744356|NCT01932372|183383965|OTHER||Hazard ratio (unadjusted)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|5.61||||||||5.61|1.93|
91907097|NCT01147744|183709387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|11.28|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||11.28|-6.36|0.584
91744357|NCT05352412|183383968|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91744358|NCT05352412|183383968|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.39||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline survey compared with immediate follow-up survey||||0.39
91744359|NCT05352412|183383968|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.21
91744360|NCT05352412|183383968|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.19||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90 days post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.19
91744361|NCT05352412|183383968|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.38||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline survey versus immediate follow-up||||0.38
91744362|NCT05352412|183383968|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.25||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.25
91744363|NCT05352412|183383968|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90 days post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.07
91744364|NCT05352412|183383968|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up between the two arms||||0.03
91744365|NCT05352412|183383968|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.65||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge comparison between the 2 arms||||0.65
91800106|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.94||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|2.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||2.09|-7.96|0.4220
91744366|NCT05352412|183383968|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.97||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-days post discharge compared between the 2 arms||||0.97
91744367|NCT05352412|183383969|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.77||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline comparison between the 2 arms||||0.77
91744368|NCT05352412|183383969|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.85||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up compared with baseline survey||||0.85
91744369|NCT05352412|183383969|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.38||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2-week post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.38
91744370|NCT05352412|183383969|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-day post discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.21
91744371|NCT05352412|183383969|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up compared with baseline survey||||0.32
91744372|NCT05352412|183383969|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.09||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 week post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.09
91744373|NCT05352412|183383969|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-day post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.07
91744374|NCT05352412|183383969|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.26||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge compared between the 2 arms||||0.26
91744375|NCT05352412|183383969|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up compared between the 2 arms||||0.69
91744376|NCT05352412|183383969|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-day post-discharge compared between the 2 arms||||0.32
91744377|NCT05352412|183383973|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91744378|NCT05352412|183383973|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91744379|NCT05352412|183383973|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.12||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91744380|NCT05352412|183383973|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.12||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up||||0.12
91744381|NCT05352412|183383974|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.48||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91744382|NCT05352412|183383974|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91744383|NCT05352412|183383974|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.17||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91744384|NCT05352412|183383974|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.42||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up||||0.42
91744385|NCT05352412|183383975|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||1.00
91744386|NCT05352412|183383975|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up||||0.11
91744387|NCT05352412|183383975|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.89||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up||||0.89
91744388|NCT05352412|183383975|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.55||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up||||0.55
91744389|NCT05352412|183383976|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.66||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||0.66
91800107|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.1||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-1.42|-8.77|0.0027
91744390|NCT05352412|183383976|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up post randomization||||0.20
91744391|NCT05352412|183383976|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.85||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up post randomization||||0.85
91744392|NCT05352412|183383976|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up post randomization||||0.07
91744393|NCT03594747|183383977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||One-sided stratified log-rank test|||||0.74|0.37|0.0001
91744394|NCT03594747|183383977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.67|||One-sided stratified log-rank test|||||0.67|0.33|<0.0001
91744395|NCT03594747|183383978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.61||||||||0.61|0.32|
91744396|NCT03594747|183383978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59||||||||0.59|0.30|
91744397|NCT04382586|183383989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.4099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|7.391|||Unstratified 1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||7.391|0.349|0.4099
91744398|NCT04382586|183383990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.648|||Log Rank|||||1.648|0.511|0.7619
91744399|NCT00349349|183384027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.39|0.6||The p value is testing the hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 15% versus the response rate is not equal to 15%.|Two-sided exact binomial test||Two-sided 95.3% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution.|||0.60|0.39|<0.0001
91744400|NCT00349349|183384027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.33|0.53||The p value is testing the hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 15% versus the response rate is not equal to 15%.|Two-sided exact binomial test||Two sided 95.3% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution.|||0.53|0.33|<0.0001
91744401|NCT00349349|183384027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.35|0.85||The p value is testing the hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 15% versus the response rate is not equal to 15%.|Two-sided exact binomial test||Two-sided 95.3% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution.|||0.85|0.35|<0.001
91744402|NCT02907216|183384050|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the standardised asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL for anti-D antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.74|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-D antibody concentration ≥ 0.1 IU/mL.||2.74|-2.66|
91744403|NCT02907216|183384050|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL for anti-T antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|2.71|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentration ≥ 0.1 IU/mL.||2.71|-4.39|
91744404|NCT02907216|183384051|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 10 IU/mL for anti-PT antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.12|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-PT antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.||9.12|-2.7|
91744405|NCT02907216|183384051|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 10 IU/mL for anti-FHA antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.72|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-FHA antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.||2.72|-2.66|
91760163|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.87||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.87|-3.23|
91875469|NCT00113880|183644112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any acute respiratory tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.97|0.71|0.02
91907098|NCT01147744|183709387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.529||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|9.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||9.45|-8.40|0.907
91744406|NCT02907216|183384052|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers ≥ 8 ED50 for anti-polio 1 antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroprotective titer|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.74|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-polio 1 seroprotective titres ≥ 8 ED50.||2.74|-2.68|
91744407|NCT02907216|183384052|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers ≥ 8 ED50 for anti-polio 2 antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroprotective titer|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.95|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-polio 2 seroprotective titres ≥ 8 ED50.||2.95|-2.92|
91744408|NCT02907216|183384052|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers ≥ 8 ED50 for anti-polio 3 antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroprotective titer|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|4.47|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-polio 3 seroprotective titres ≥ 8 ED50.||4.47|-2.04|
91744409|NCT03479541|183384108|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.097||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|-0.02||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||-0.020|-0.173|0.013
91744410|NCT03479541|183384109|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.073||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.016||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||-0.016|-0.130|0.013
91744411|NCT03479541|183384110|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.098||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.173||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.173|0.024|0.010
91744412|NCT03479541|183384111|OTHER|||||||0.5158|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5158
91744413|NCT03479541|183384112|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0404||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0648|0.146||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.146|-0.0648|0.450
91744414|NCT03479541|183384113|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time point (pre-physical therapy and post-physical therapy), and group x time point injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, Initial SCAT symptom severity total score, and days since injury before physical therapy), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group and pre-physical therapy time point served as the reference. Values were log-transformed for model assumptions.|Slope|0.05353||||0.6039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1503|0.2574||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change from pre-physical therapy to post-physical therapy time points (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Horizontal DVA Lines Lost||0.2574|-0.1503|0.6039
91760164|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-1.5||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.50|-7.26|
91760165|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|1.12||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.12|-4.65|
91875470|NCT00113880|183644112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any acute respiratory tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.57|0.01
91744415|NCT03479541|183384113|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time point (pre-physical therapy and post-physical therapy), and group x time point injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, Initial SCAT symptom severity total score, and days since injury before physical therapy), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group and pre-physical therapy time point served as the references. Values were log-transformed for model assumptions.|Slope|-0.235||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|-0.0093||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change from pre-physical therapy to post-physical therapy time points (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Vertical DVA Lines Lost||-0.0093|-0.461|0.0414
91744416|NCT03479541|183384114|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.028||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.035||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.035|-0.090|0.387
91744417|NCT03479541|183384115|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.008||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.019||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.019|-0.003|0.135
91744418|NCT03479541|183384116|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0107||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.0146||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|0.0146|-0.0360|0.406
91744419|NCT03479541|183384117|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00391||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00052|0.00835||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.00835|-0.00052|0.083
91744420|NCT03479541|183384118|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.003||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.002||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for EcFi condition||0.002|-0.007|0.240
91744421|NCT03479541|183384118|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.005||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|-0.002||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for EcFo condition||-0.002|-0.009|0.003
91744422|NCT03479541|183384119|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0112||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0219|-0.0004||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task Average Lap Time||-0.0004|-0.0219|0.042
91744423|NCT03479541|183384119|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0111||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0211|-0.001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Auditory Stroop Average Lap Time||-0.0010|-0.0211|0.0311
91907099|NCT01147744|183709388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.463||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|10.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.58|-7.65|0.753
91907100|NCT01147744|183709388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.75||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|12.87|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.87|-5.36|0.419
91875471|NCT00113880|183644112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.61||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.61|0.22|0.01
91907101|NCT01147744|183709388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.046||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|6.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||6.03|-12.12|0.510
91744424|NCT03479541|183384120|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00029||||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.00087||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task Gait Speed||0.00087|-0.0003|0.3226
91744425|NCT03479541|183384120|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00035||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0002|0.0009||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Auditory Stroop Gait Speed|The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|0.00090|-0.0002|0.2218
91744426|NCT03479541|183384121|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.161||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0159|0.338||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task 180 Degree Turn Velocity||0.338|-0.0159|0.0742
91744427|NCT03479541|183384121|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.217||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.385||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Auditory Stroop 180 Degree Turn Velocity||0.385|0.0480|0.0121
91744428|NCT03479541|183384122|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00063||||0.8906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0084|0.00961||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task Percentage of Double Support Time of Gait Cycle||0.00961|-0.0084|0.8906
91744429|NCT03479541|183384122|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.001||||0.8447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0107|0.00874||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Auditory Stroop Percentage of Double Support Time of Gait Cycle||0.00874|-0.0107|0.8447
91744430|NCT03479541|183384123|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0003||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0005|-0.0001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Visual Weight (VS/EO)||-0.0001|-0.0005|0.013
91744431|NCT03479541|183384123|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0001||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.0004||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Vestibular Weight (SS+VS/EO)||0.0004|-0.0003|0.780
91760166|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|2.91||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.91|-2.84|
91800108|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.47||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|-1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-1.78|-9.15|0.0011
91907102|NCT01147744|183709388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.585||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|13.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||13.64|-4.47|0.320
91744432|NCT03479541|183384124|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.11||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Time Delay (VS/EO)||-0.110|-0.361|<0.001
91744433|NCT03479541|183384124|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.142||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|-0.052||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Time Delay (SS+VS/EO)||-0.052|-0.233|0.002
91744434|NCT03479541|183384125|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0003||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0002|0.0007||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Stiffness (VS/EO)||0.0007|-0.0002|0.237
91744435|NCT03479541|183384125|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0008||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0003|0.001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Stiffness (SS+VS/EO)||0.001|0.0003|0.002
91744436|NCT03479541|183384126|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0001||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0001|0.0004||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Damping (VS/EO)||0.0004|-0.0001|0.247
91744437|NCT03479541|183384126|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0004||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0001|0.0007||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Damping (SS+VSEO)||0.0007|0.0001|0.008
91744438|NCT03479541|183384127|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.004||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|-0.001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Evoked Center of Mass (CoM) Sway (VS/EO)||-0.001|-0.006|0.003
91744439|NCT03479541|183384127|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.001||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|-0.0005||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Evoked CoM Sway (SS+VS/EO)||-0.0005|-0.003|0.004
91744440|NCT03479541|183384128|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.004||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|-0.0003||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Internal Sensory Noise (VS/EO)||-0.0003|-0.007|0.031
91744441|NCT03479541|183384128|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.003||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.0003||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Internal Sensory Noise (SS+VS/EO)||-0.0003|-0.005|0.003
91800109|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.21||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.37|0.05|0.0455
91800110|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.31||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|5.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||5.48|-0.87|0.2309
91800111|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.27||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|6.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.72|-0.18|0.0698
91800112|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.33||||0.2851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|5.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||5.76|-1.09|0.2851
91800113|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.29||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||7.90|0.69|0.0131
91800114|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.18||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||7.78|0.59|0.0161
91800115|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.85||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|7.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||7.51|0.18|0.0360
91800116|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.04||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||7.70|0.37|0.0252
91800117|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.03||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|4.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.66|-2.59|0.9032
91800118|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.66||||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.30|-2.97|0.9791
91800119|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.22||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|0.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.54|-6.98|0.0927
91800120|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.12||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|2.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.09|-6.33|0.3202
91800121|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.2||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.04|-8.36|0.0476
91744442|NCT03479541|183384129|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age and gender), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0321||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0957|0.0315||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.0315|-0.0957|0.3221
91744443|NCT03479541|183384130|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0136||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0413|0.0142||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.0142|-0.0413|0.336
91744444|NCT03479541|183384131|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0406||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0779|-0.0032||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||-0.0032|-0.0779|0.033
91744445|NCT02374060|183384157|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.65|0.96||Two sided type I error threshold was 0.00132 since recruitment was halted after the single pre-planned interim analysis|mixed effects model||Ratio of intravitreal over periocular|||.96|.65|<0.0001
91800122|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-9.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|-5.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 54||-5.55|-14.31|<0.0001
91800123|NCT02833350|183477659|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-8.23||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|-3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-3.90|-12.56|0.0003
91800124|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
91800125|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.30|-2.48|0.5976
91800126|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
91800127|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
91800128|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
91800129|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
91800130|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
91800131|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|4.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.09|-2.26|0.5726
91800132|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
91744446|NCT02374060|183384157|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.56|0.86||the 2 sided type 1 error threshold was 0.000132 since recruitment was halted after the single preplanned interim analysis|mixed effects model||ratio of dexamethasone over periocular|||0.86|0.56|<0.0001
91744447|NCT02374060|183384157|NON_INFERIORITY|The non inferiority margin was 1.16|Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.71|1.08|||||A mixed effects model was used to create the confidence interval for testing non-inferiority. The direction is the ratio of dexamethasone over intravitreal|||1.08|.71|
91800133|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
91800134|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.74||||0.1446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|6.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.42|-0.94|0.1446
91800135|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.45||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|10.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||10.34|0.57|0.0286
91800136|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
91800137|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.57||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|9.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||9.52|-0.39|0.0708
91800138|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.45||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|10.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||10.86|0.05|0.0478
91800139|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
91800140|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
91800141|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.11|-7.00|0.6564
91800142|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.11||||0.3838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|13.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||13.36|-5.14|0.3838
91800143|NCT02833350|183477660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|11.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.47|-10.10|0.9009
91800144|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.36||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.27|-7.00|0.5455
91800145|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.97||||0.4114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||1.36|-5.30|0.4114
91800146|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.62||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.72|-5.97|0.1739
91800147|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.94||||0.9761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|4.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Week 14||4.06|-5.93|0.9761
91800148|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.18||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Week 14||0.41|-6.78|0.0998
91800149|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.97||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|-0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Week 14||-0.39|-7.54|0.0239
91800150|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.98||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||1.30|-9.25|0.2018
91800151|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.67||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-1.87|-9.48|0.0011
91800152|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.27||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|-1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-1.48|-9.06|0.0026
91907103|NCT01147744|183709388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.484||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|12.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.58|-5.61|0.452
91800153|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.47||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||2.90|-7.84|0.6336
91800154|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.49||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.41|-7.38|0.0950
91800155|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.18||||0.1451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|0.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.71|-7.06|0.1451
91800156|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.28||||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||1.87|-8.43|0.3434
91800157|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.45||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|-1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-1.68|-9.23|0.0016
91800158|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.88||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-2.10|-9.65|0.0006
91800159|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.64||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|7.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||7.96|1.31|0.0025
91800160|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.98||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||7.32|0.64|0.0129
91800161|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.04||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|7.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||7.62|0.46|0.0206
91800162|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.26||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.82|-0.30|0.0841
91800163|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.67||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|8.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||8.42|0.91|0.0088
91800164|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.07||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|8.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||8.81|1.34|0.0034
91800165|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.55||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|8.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.39|0.71|0.0138
91800166|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.85||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.69|1.02|0.0073
91800167|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.29||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||5.03|-2.46|0.8284
91800168|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.86||||0.9525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.60|-2.88|0.9525
91800169|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.22||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|0.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.46|-6.91|0.0856
91800170|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.08||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.20|-6.36|0.3374
91800171|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.24||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||0.06|-8.53|0.0534
91800172|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|-6.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||-6.32|-15.33|<0.0001
91800173|NCT02833350|183477661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-9.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|-4.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-4.81|-13.63|<0.0001
91800174|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
91800175|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.30|-2.48|0.5976
91744448|NCT02374060|183384158|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.95||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.77|1.16||Two sided type I error threshold was 0.00132 since recruitment was halted after the single Two sided type I error threshold was 0.00132 since recruitment was halted after the single preplanned interim analysis|mixed effects model||Ratio of intravitreal over periocular|||1.16|0.77|0.35
91744449|NCT02374060|183384158|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.89||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.72|1.1||the 2 sided type 1 error threshold was 0.000132 since recruitment was halted after the single preplanned interim analysis|mixed effects model||ratio of dexamethasone over periocular|||1.10|0.72|0.07
91744450|NCT02374060|183384158|NON_INFERIORITY|The non inferiority margin was 1.16|Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.77|1.16|||||A mixed effects model was used to create the confidence interval for testing non-inferiority. The direction is the ratio of dexamethasone over intravitreal|||1.16|0.77|
91744451|NCT02374060|183384159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.53|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||0.53|0.24|<0.0001
91744452|NCT02374060|183384159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.59|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||0.59|0.29|<0.0001
91744453|NCT02374060|183384159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.05||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||0.19|-0.09|0.45
91744454|NCT02374060|183384160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.12||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.27|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - Periocular|||0.27|-0.03|0.10
91744455|NCT02374060|183384160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.12||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.28|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - Periocular|||0.28|-0.03|0.11
91744456|NCT02374060|183384160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - Intravitreal|||0.16|-0.16|0.98
91744457|NCT02374060|183384161|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.27||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.43|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||0.43|0.11|0.0005
91744458|NCT02374060|183384161|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.56|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||0.56|0.25|<0.0001
91744459|NCT02374060|183384161|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.13||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||0.30|-0.04|0.12
91744460|NCT02374060|183384162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.004||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.17|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||0.17|-0.16|0.96
91744461|NCT02374060|183384162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.06||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||0.23|-0.11|0.51
91744462|NCT02374060|183384162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.05||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.22|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||0.22|-0.12|0.54
91744463|NCT02374060|183384163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.32||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|8.82|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||8.82|1.82|0.003
91744464|NCT02374060|183384163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.72|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||8.72|1.60|0.004
91744465|NCT02374060|183384163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|-0.16||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|3.34|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||3.34|-3.67|0.93
91744466|NCT02374060|183384164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.53||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|9.92|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||9.92|1.14|0.013
91744467|NCT02374060|183384164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.14||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.44|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||9.44|0.84|0.019
91744468|NCT02374060|183384164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|-0.4||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|3.37|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone-intravitreal|||3.37|-4.16|0.84
91744469|NCT02374060|183384168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/Periocular|||1.24|0.09|0.10
91744470|NCT02374060|183384168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.5|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Periocular|||1.50|0.14|0.20
91744471|NCT02374060|183384168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.26|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Intravitreal|||6.26|0.34|0.62
91744472|NCT02374060|183384169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.29|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/Periocular|||4.29|0.86|0.11
91744473|NCT02374060|183384169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.85||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.28|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Intravitreal|||6.28|1.30|0.009
91744474|NCT02374060|183384169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.81|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/intravitreal|||2.81|0.72|0.30
91744475|NCT02374060|183384170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.83||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.65|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/periocular|||3.65|0.91|0.09
91744476|NCT02374060|183384170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.91|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/periocular|||4.91|1.29|0.007
91744477|NCT02374060|183384170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.43|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/intravitreal|||2.43|0.72|0.37
91744478|NCT02374060|183384171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.01|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/Periocular|||4.01|0.28|0.92
91744479|NCT02374060|183384171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.11|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Periocular|||3.11|0.16|0.65
91744480|NCT02374060|183384171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.59|||Regression, Cox||Dexamthasone/Intravitreal|||2.59|0.16|0.53
91744481|NCT05425732|183384189|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.8|1.1|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site erythema: estimated difference in percent||1.1|-2.8|
91744482|NCT05425732|183384189|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-8.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site pain: estimated difference in percent||-8.2|-16.2|
91744483|NCT05425732|183384189|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site swelling: estimated difference in percent||-0.2|-4.4|
91744484|NCT05425732|183384189|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.3|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site erythema: estimated difference in percent||10.3|-6.6|
91875472|NCT00113880|183644112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.68|0.16|0.01
91875473|NCT00113880|183644112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82|||Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.82|0.00|0.03
91907104|NCT01147744|183709388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.615||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|14.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||14.78|-3.55|0.229
91744485|NCT05425732|183384189|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|8.6|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site pain: estimated difference in percent||8.6|-12.7|
91744486|NCT05425732|183384189|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|7.9|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site swelling: estimated difference in percent||7.9|-9.2|
91744487|NCT05425732|183384190|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.8|||||V116 minus PCV20|Fatigue: estimated difference in percent||3.8|-2.7|
91744488|NCT05425732|183384190|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Headache: estimated difference in percent||1.2|-4.1|
91744489|NCT05425732|183384190|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.8|1.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Myalgia: estimated difference in percent||1.2|-2.8|
91744490|NCT05425732|183384190|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||||V116 minus PCV20|Pyrexia: estimated difference in percent||1.0|-1.0|
91744491|NCT05425732|183384190|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|17.6|||||V116 minus PCV20|Fatigue: estimated difference in percent||17.6|-5.3|
91744492|NCT05425732|183384190|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|5.0|-5.5|15.5|||||V116 minus PCV20|Headache: estimated difference in percent||15.5|-5.5|
91744493|NCT05425732|183384190|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.6|||||V116 minus PCV20|Myalgia: estimated difference in percent||10.6|-6.8|
91744494|NCT05425732|183384190|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Pyrexia: estimated difference in percent||6.2|-2.2|
91875474|NCT00113880|183644113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.58|0.01
91744495|NCT05425732|183384192|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.72||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 3: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.72|1.40|<0.001
91744496|NCT05425732|183384192|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 6A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.88|0.68|<0.001
91744497|NCT05425732|183384192|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.18|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 7F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.18|0.95|<0.001
91744498|NCT05425732|183384192|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.53|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 8: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.53|1.25|<0.001
91744499|NCT05425732|183384192|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 10A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.93|0.75|<0.001
91744500|NCT05425732|183384192|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.72|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 11A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.72|1.39|<0.001
91744501|NCT05425732|183384192|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 12F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.21|0.92|<0.001
91744502|NCT05425732|183384192|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.84|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 19A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.84|0.69|<0.001
91744503|NCT05425732|183384192|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 22F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.92|0.72|<0.001
91744504|NCT05425732|183384192|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.32|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 33F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.32|1.01|<0.001
91800176|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
91800177|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
91800178|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
91800179|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
91800180|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
91800181|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|4.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.09|-2.26|0.5726
91800182|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
91800183|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
91800184|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.74||||0.1446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|6.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.42|-0.94|0.1446
91907105|NCT01147744|183709389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.169||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|9.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||9.07|-6.73|0.771
91800185|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|8.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.03|-0.76|0.1050
91800186|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
91800187|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.65||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|8.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||8.35|-1.04|0.1270
91800188|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.45||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||10.91|-0.00|0.0501
91800189|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
91800190|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
91800191|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.11|-7.00|0.6564
91800192|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
91800193|NCT02833350|183477662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.9051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|11.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.95|-10.58|0.9051
91800194|NCT00075218|183477675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.329|||<|0.001||95.0|0.233|0.466||The nominal levels of significance for the interim and final analyses were determined at the time of the analyses using the Lan-DeMets procedure with an O'Brien-Fleming stopping rule.|Log Rank|two-sided unstratified log-rank test||The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the median TTP from placebo treatment is 4 months versus the alternative hypothesis that the median TTP from sunitinib treatment is at least 6 months with an overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and power of 90%.||0.466|0.233|<0.001
91800195|NCT00075218|183477676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.347|||<|0.001||95.0|0.253|0.475||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||0.475|0.253|<0.001
91800196|NCT00075218|183477678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.876||||0.306||95.0|0.679|1.129||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||1.129|0.679|0.306
91800197|NCT00075218|183477679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.505||||0.306||95.0|0.262|1.134||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time||95% CI for Hazard Ratio is from 2.5% and 97.5% Empirical Percentiles of 100,000 Bootstraps.|||1.134|0.262|0.306
91800198|NCT00075218|183477681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate (percentage)|6.6||||||95.0|3.8|10.5|||||Used exact method based on binomial distribution.|||10.5|3.8|
91800199|NCT00075218|183477681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (%)|6.58||||0.004||95.0|3.47|9.7||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Pearson chi-square test|||||9.70|3.47|0.004
91800200|NCT00075218|183477684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.339|||<|0.001||95.0|0.244|0.472||two-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||0.472|0.244|<0.001
91800201|NCT00075218|183477684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.327|||<|0.001||95.0|0.232|0.46|||Log Rank|log-rank test of treatment stratified by prior imatinib mesylate response and McGill Pain Questionnaire's Present Pain Intensity score||Stratified log-rank test||0.460|0.232|<0.001
91800202|NCT00075218|183477685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||0.9322||95.0|0.508|1.86|||Log Rank|2-sided, unstratified log-rank test||||1.860|0.508|0.9322
91800203|NCT00075218|183477686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (percent)|17.3||||0.0046||95.0|6.7|28.0|||Pearson chi-square||95% CI of Difference based on normal distribution. Percent = (number of subjects with response per total subjects per treatment in defined analysis population)\*100.|||28.0|6.7|0.0046
91800204|NCT00131508|183477706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in REE ratio between the placebo and glutamine groups. The study was designed to provide 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05 for this objective. Due to slow accrual, the sample size of 46 participants required to obtain the designed power of the study was not realized.||||0.17
91800205|NCT00131508|183477707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change of body mass index between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.53
91800206|NCT00131508|183477708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in red blood cell glutamine between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.24
91800207|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.62
91800208|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.14
91744505|NCT05425732|183384192|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|5.04|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 9N: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||5.04|4.12|<0.001
91744506|NCT05425732|183384192|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|3.74|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||3.74|2.91|<0.001
91744507|NCT05425732|183384192|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.34|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15C: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||2.34|1.77|<0.001
91744508|NCT05425732|183384192|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|6.41|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 16F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||6.41|5.16|<0.001
91744509|NCT05425732|183384192|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|16.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|19.09|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 17F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||19.09|14.90|<0.001
91744510|NCT05425732|183384192|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|9.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|10.79|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 20A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||10.79|8.66|<0.001
91744511|NCT05425732|183384192|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.86|9.55|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||9.55|6.86|<0.001
91744512|NCT05425732|183384192|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|10.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.48|12.0|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23B: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||12.00|8.48|<0.001
91744513|NCT05425732|183384192|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|38.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.87|44.25|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 24F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||44.25|33.87|<0.001
91744514|NCT05425732|183384192|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|21.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.68|25.18|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 31: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||25.18|18.68|<0.001
91744515|NCT05425732|183384192|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|6.8|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 35B: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||6.80|5.59|<0.001
91800209|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.20
91800210|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.62
91744516|NCT05425732|183384193|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|48.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 9N: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||48.6|40.7|<0.001
91744517|NCT05425732|183384193|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|30.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|35.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 15A: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||35.8|25.8|<0.001
91744518|NCT05425732|183384193|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|12.9||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 15C: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||12.9|5.6|<0.001
91744519|NCT05425732|183384193|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.1|54.9||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 16F: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||54.9|47.1|<0.001
91744520|NCT05425732|183384193|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|66.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|69.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 17F: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||69.6|62.8|<0.001
91744521|NCT05425732|183384193|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|57.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.2|61.1||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 20A: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||61.1|54.2|<0.001
91744522|NCT05425732|183384193|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|42.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|46.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 23A: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||46.6|37.6|<0.001
91875475|NCT00113880|183644113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.49|0.01
91875476|NCT00113880|183644113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.61|0.01
91875477|NCT00113880|183644113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.52|0.01
91875478|NCT00113880|183644114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.51||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.51|0.33|0.01
91907106|NCT01147744|183709389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|12.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.45|-3.33|0.257
91744523|NCT05425732|183384193|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|39.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 23B: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||39.6|32.1|<0.001
91744524|NCT05425732|183384193|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|74.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.1|77.1||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype24F: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||77.1|71.1|<0.001
91744525|NCT05425732|183384193|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|58.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|62.1||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 31: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||62.1|54.8|<0.001
91744526|NCT05425732|183384193|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.6|56.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype35B: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||56.6|49.6|<0.001
91744527|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 3: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.33|0.90|<0.001
91744528|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.62||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 6A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.62|1.61|<0.001
91744529|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|1.23|1.84||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 7F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.84|1.23|<0.001
91744530|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.79||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 8: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.79|1.26|<0.001
91800211|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.61
91875479|NCT00113880|183644114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.55||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 5-8 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.55|0.26|0.01
91875480|NCT00113880|183644114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.56||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.56|0.31|0.01
91907107|NCT01147744|183709389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.326||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|9.19|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||9.19|-6.54|0.741
91875481|NCT00113880|183644114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.26|0.02
91744531|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.43||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 9N: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.43|1.59|<0.001
91744532|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.92||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 10A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.92|1.26|<0.001
91744533|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.91||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 11A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.91|1.26|<0.001
91744534|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.17||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 12F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.17|1.37|<0.001
91744535|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.37||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 15A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.37|1.55|<0.001
91744536|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.35||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 15C: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.35|1.36|<0.001
91744537|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.91||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 16F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.91|1.26|<0.001
91744538|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.02||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 17F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.02|1.26|<0.001
91744539|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.4||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 19A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.40|0.97|<0.001
91744540|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.18||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 20A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.18|1.39|<0.001
91744541|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.49||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 22F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.49|1.58|<0.001
91744542|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.44||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 23A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.44|1.43|<0.001
91744543|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.04||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 23B: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.04|1.11|<0.001
91744544|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.67||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 24F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.67|1.10|<0.001
91744545|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.69||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 31: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.69|1.63|<0.001
91744546|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.57||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 33F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.57|1.52|<0.001
91875482|NCT00113880|183644114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.01||95.0|0.37|0.55||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.55|0.37|0.01
91875483|NCT00113880|183644114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.67||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 5-8 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.67|0.35|0.01
91744547|NCT05425732|183384194|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.87||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 35B: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.87|1.26|<0.001
91875484|NCT00113880|183644114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.56||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.56|0.33|0.01
91875485|NCT00113880|183644114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.85||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.85|0.25|0.01
91875486|NCT00113880|183644115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.69||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.69|0.32|0.01
91875487|NCT00113880|183644115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.54||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.54|0.17|0.01
91907108|NCT01147744|183709389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|7.93|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||7.93|-7.76|0.983
91744548|NCT05425732|183384195|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \> 50 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025)."||||||0.667||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method.|||Serotype 6C||||0.667
91744549|NCT05425732|183384195|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \> 50 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025)."|||||<|0.001||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method.|||Serotype 15B||||<0.001
91744550|NCT05425732|183384196|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.77|||||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 6C: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.77|1.52|
91744551|NCT05425732|183384196|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.6||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 15B: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT ratio||2.60|1.57|<0.001
91744552|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.6|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 3: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.60|1.35|
91744553|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.89|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 6A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.89|0.70|
91744554|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.18|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 7F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.18|0.95|
91744555|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.59|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 8: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.59|1.29|
91744556|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 10A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.92|0.72|
91744557|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.36|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 11A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.36|1.11|
91744558|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 12F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.26|0.96|
91744559|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.77|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 19A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.77|0.63|
91889199|NCT04546425|183671165|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|2.99|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 33F||2.99|2.33|
91889200|NCT04546425|183671166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC -13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Diphtheria||0.8|-1.3|
91889201|NCT04546425|183671166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Tetanus||0.2|-1.8|
91744560|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 22F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.90|0.72|
91744561|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.18|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 33F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.18|0.95|
91744562|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|6.06|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 9N: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||6.06|4.82|
91744563|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|7.64|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||7.64|6.03|
91744564|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|2.79|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15C: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||2.79|2.17|
91744565|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|8.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.95|9.64|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 16F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||9.64|7.95|
91744566|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|16.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.25|18.41|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 17F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||18.41|15.25|
91744567|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|12.92|||||TWO_SIDED|5.0|11.81|14.13|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 20A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||14.13|11.81|
91744568|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|7.24|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||7.24|5.69|
91744569|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|3.64|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23B: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||3.64|2.91|
91744570|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|21.08|||||TWO_SIDED|85.0|18.97|23.43|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 24F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||23.43|18.97|
91744571|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|11.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|12.34|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 31: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||12.34|10.36|
91744572|NCT05425732|183384197|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|14.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.97|15.4|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 35B: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||15.40|12.97|
91744573|NCT01696994|183384235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.04|||Poisson regression|Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.||||1.04|0.95|
91744574|NCT01696994|183384237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.48|||Poisson regression|||||1.48|0.99|
91744575|NCT01696994|183384247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.54||Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.|Poisson regression|||||1.54|.91|
91744576|NCT04644276|183384252|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-37.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|102.0||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.6|140.7|||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks test||Unit is percent change.|Percent change in leak 100% x (\[Mask with mask adhesive\] - \[Mask without mask adhesive\])/ \[Mask without mask adhesive\]. The comparison between the two arms is captured in the reported percentage change.||140.7|-112.6|0.8125
91744577|NCT01814878|183384260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study drug treatment group was considered non-inferior to comparator treatment group, if lower limit of the confidence interval was larger than -2.0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.68||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|1.93||Hour 48: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||Non-inferiority comparison for Tramadol Hydrochloride/Acetaminophen ER to Tramadol HCl/Acetaminophen IR was performed.||1.93|-11.29|0.1648
91744578|NCT01814878|183384261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.45||Hour 6: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||0.45|-1.10|0.4082
91744579|NCT01814878|183384261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.48||Hour 12: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||0.48|-2.68|0.1720
91744580|NCT01814878|183384261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|0.11||Hour 24: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||0.11|-6.09|0.0589
91744581|NCT01814878|183384262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1542||||||Hour 6: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1542
91744582|NCT01814878|183384262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0714||||||Hour 12: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.0714
91744583|NCT01814878|183384262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1147||||||Hour 24: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1147
91744584|NCT01814878|183384262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2209||||||Hour 48: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.2209
91744585|NCT01814878|183384263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1498||||||Hour 6: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1498
91744586|NCT01814878|183384263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0485||||||Hour 12: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.0485
91744587|NCT01814878|183384263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0404||||||Hour 24: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.0404
91744588|NCT01814878|183384263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||||||Hour 48: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1210
91744589|NCT01814878|183384264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4216||||||P-value was calculated using Mann-Whitney's U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4216
91744590|NCT01814878|183384265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P-value was calculated using Mann-Whitney's U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1000
91744591|NCT01814878|183384266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3255||||||P-value was calculated using Mann-Whitney's U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3255
91744592|NCT01814878|183384267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2848||||||Day 3: P-value was calculated using student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.2848
91744593|NCT01200407|183384275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-34.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP with LOCF (Week 12)||-34.4|-37.2|0.000
91744594|NCT01200407|183384275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-18.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP with LOCF (Week 12)||-18.6|-20.3|0.000
91744595|NCT01200407|183384276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-23.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP w/o LOCF (Week 4)||-23.4|-26.1|0.000
91744596|NCT01200407|183384276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-31.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP w/o LOCF (Week 8)||-31.6|-34.4|0.000
91744597|NCT01200407|183384276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-34.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP w/o LOCF (Week 12)||-34.7|-37.9|0.000
91744598|NCT01200407|183384276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.2||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-12.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP w/o LOCF (Week 4)||-12.4|-14.0|0.000
91875488|NCT01136733|183644125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.68|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio between treatment groups and corresponding 95% CI was estimated using the stratified Cox regression model (stratified by hemoglobin and corrected serum calcium) with treatment as a factor.|Null hypothesis of no difference in PFS was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test with hemoglobin (less than or equal to 13 g/dL vs greater than 13 g/dL for males; and less than or equal to 11.5 g/dL vs greater than 11.5 g/dL for females) and corrected serum calcium (greater than or equal to 10 mg/dL vs less than 10 mg/dL) as stratification factors. Each null hypothesis was tested at a nominal alpha=0.05.||0.68|0.24|=0.0005
91875489|NCT01136733|183644125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.38|0.0479
91875490|NCT01136733|183644125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.39|0.1209
91875491|NCT01136733|183644126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.514|||=|0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.884|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio between treatment groups and corresponding 95% CI was estimated using the stratified Cox regression model (stratified by hemoglobin and corrected serum calcium) with treatment as a factor.|Planned analyses were performed to test null hypothesis of treatment difference in OS at a nominal significance level of 0.05 (2-sided) using the stratified log-rank test using stratification factors.||0.884|0.299|=0.0242
91875492|NCT01136733|183644126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.684|||=|0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|1.138|||Log Rank|||||1.138|0.411|=0.1181
91875493|NCT01136733|183644126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751|||=|0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|1.301|||Log Rank|||||1.301|0.433|=0.3157
91744599|NCT01200407|183384276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-16.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP w/o LOCF (Week 8)||-16.7|-18.4|0.000
91744600|NCT01200407|183384276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-18.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP w/o LOCF (Week 12)||-18.9|-20.8|0.000
91744601|NCT00425698|183384278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Erythopoietin significantly improves kidney graft function. Power calculation: with a difference of at least 4 mL/min in mean eGFR between groups the number of patients enrolled per group (at least 41) would allowed the detection of a significant difference between groups at a 5% level (p\<0.05)||||<0.05
91744602|NCT03831191|183384310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|6.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.81|0.04|0.638
91875494|NCT01136733|183644127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|22.5||Analysis performed after database lock. P-value was based on the 2-sided Fisher's exact P-value.|Fisher Exact||Rate ratio was based on the normal approximation.|||22.5|2.3|<0.0001
91744603|NCT03831191|183384310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|8.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.76|0.05|0.773
91744604|NCT03831191|183384310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.26|0.05|0.671
91744605|NCT03831191|183384311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|19.9|||Fisher Exact|||||19.9|-27.2|>0.999
91744606|NCT03831191|183384311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|30.8|||Fisher Exact|||||30.8|-20.7|>0.999
91744607|NCT03831191|183384311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|0.2|||Fisher Exact|||||0.2|-40.0|0.107
91744608|NCT03831191|183384312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|19.3|||Fisher Exact|||||19.3|-18.1|>0.999
91744609|NCT03831191|183384312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|14.1|||Fisher Exact|||||14.1|-22.7|>0.999
91744610|NCT03831191|183384312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|11.2|||Fisher Exact|||||11.2|-22.7|>0.999
91744611|NCT03831191|183384313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
91744612|NCT03831191|183384313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
91744613|NCT03831191|183384313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
91744614|NCT03831191|183384314|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.55||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|19.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.45|-6.36|0.310
91744615|NCT03831191|183384314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.56||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|18.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.63|-7.50|0.393
91744616|NCT03831191|183384314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.59||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|16.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.08|-8.91|0.564
91875495|NCT01136733|183644127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|4.5||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|14.7||Analysis performed after database lock. P-value was based on the 2-sided Fisher's exact P-value.|Fisher Exact|||||14.7|1.4|0.0067
91875496|NCT01136733|183644127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.6|||=|0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8||Analysis performed after database lock. P-value was based on the 2-sided Fisher's exact P-value.|Fisher Exact|||||2.8|0.9|=0.1007
91875497|NCT01882088|183644140|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||2e-06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||0.000002
91889202|NCT04546425|183671166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|PT||0.7|-5.3|
91889203|NCT04546425|183671166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|FHA||2.9|-2.6|
91875498|NCT01882088|183644141|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||0.2
91875499|NCT01882088|183644142|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.002415|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002415
91875500|NCT01882088|183644143|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.000438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000438
91875501|NCT01882088|183644144|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
91875502|NCT01882088|183644145|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91875503|NCT01882088|183644146|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91875504|NCT01882088|183644147|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
91744617|NCT03831191|183384315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.61||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|24.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.05|-8.82|0.356
91744618|NCT03831191|183384315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.33||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.30|-14.64|0.783
91800212|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.65
91875505|NCT01882088|183644148|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91907109|NCT01147744|183709389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.204||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|16.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||16.07|0.34|0.041
91907110|NCT01147744|183709389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.891||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|10.83|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.83|-5.05|0.475
91907111|NCT01147744|183709390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.837||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|8.89|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||8.89|-7.22|0.838
91907112|NCT01147744|183709390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.715||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|10.76|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.76|-5.33|0.508
91800213|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.55
91744619|NCT03831191|183384315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.52||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|22.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.43|-9.40|0.414
91744620|NCT01626118|183384318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|317.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|149.6694||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.297|611.926|||ANCOVA|||The p value was obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment effect as the factor and baseline pain intensity as the covariate. This was the primary analysis of the primary efficacy parameter.||611.926|23.297|0.034
91744621|NCT01626118|183384318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|342.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|150.0397||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.09|637.175|||ANCOVA|||The p value was obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment effect as the factor and baseline pain intensity as the covariate. This was the primary analysis of the primary efficacy parameter.||637.175|47.090|0.023
91744622|NCT01626118|183384318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|61.972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|150.2717||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-233.527|357.471|||ANCOVA|||The p value was obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment effect as the factor and baseline pain intensity as the covariate. This was the primary analysis of the primary efficacy parameter.||357.471|-233.527|0.680
91744623|NCT01626118|183384318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|503.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.3149|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|301.93|704.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The p value was obtained from a mixed-model repeated-measure (MMRM) model that used all available data from all subjects to derive an estimate of pain intensity scores for subjects following study withdrawal, rather than imputing a score for individual subjects. The MMRM analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary efficacy parameter."||704.086|301.930|<0.001
91744624|NCT01626118|183384318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|511.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.5851|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|309.749|712.965|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The p value was obtained from a mixed-model repeated-measure (MMRM) model that used all available data from all subjects to derive an estimate of pain intensity scores for subjects following study withdrawal, rather than imputing a score for individual subjects. The MMRM analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary efficacy parameter."||712.965|309.749|<0.001
91744625|NCT01626118|183384318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|341.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.7761|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|139.249|543.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The p value was obtained from a mixed-model repeated-measure (MMRM) model that used all available data from all subjects to derive an estimate of pain intensity scores for subjects following study withdrawal, rather than imputing a score for individual subjects. The MMRM analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary efficacy parameter."||543.215|139.249|<0.001
91744626|NCT01626118|183384319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
91744627|NCT01626118|183384319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.108
91744628|NCT01626118|183384319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.461
91744629|NCT01626118|183384320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
91744630|NCT01626118|183384320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
91744631|NCT01626118|183384320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.458
91744632|NCT01626118|183384321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91744633|NCT01626118|183384321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
91744634|NCT01626118|183384321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.441
91744635|NCT01626118|183384322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
91744636|NCT01626118|183384322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
91744637|NCT01626118|183384322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.716
91744638|NCT01626118|183384323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
91744639|NCT01626118|183384323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91744640|NCT01626118|183384323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.593
91744641|NCT01626118|183384324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
91744642|NCT01626118|183384324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91744643|NCT01626118|183384324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.447
91744644|NCT01626118|183384325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
91744645|NCT01626118|183384325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
91744646|NCT01626118|183384325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.577
91744647|NCT00002540|183384326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36||Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.|Poisson regression|||||1.36|0.87|
91744648|NCT00002540|183384328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0|||Poisson regression|Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.||||1.00|0.93|
91744649|NCT00002540|183384330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.17|||Poisson regression|Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.||||1.17|1.07|
91744650|NCT00002540|183384340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36|||Poisson regression|||||1.36|0.87|
91744651|NCT01864148|183384349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||2.07|0.46|0.9584
91744652|NCT01864148|183384349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||3.31|0.97|0.0636
91744653|NCT01864148|183384349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||3.84|1.11|0.0220
91744654|NCT01864148|183384349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||1.21|0.36|0.1771
91744655|NCT01864148|183384349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8931|||||||Trend test|Trend test p-value is based on a linear contrast in logistic regression.||||||0.8931
91744656|NCT01864148|183384350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.3058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||1.49|0.28|0.3058
91744657|NCT01864148|183384350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||2.89|0.81|0.1873
91744658|NCT01864148|183384350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||2.65|0.76|0.2766
91744659|NCT01864148|183384350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||1.65|0.45|0.6578
91744660|NCT01864148|183384350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5255|||||||Trend test|Trend test p-value is based on a linear contrast in logistic regression.||||||0.5255
91875506|NCT01882088|183644149|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||2e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00002
91875507|NCT02186015|183644150|SUPERIORITY|A Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed.|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in serum 25(OH)D from week 0 to week 8.||||<0.01
91875508|NCT02186015|183644151|SUPERIORITY|A Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed.||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in worst pain rating from week 0 to week 8.||||0.24
91744661|NCT05319899|183384411|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|140.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.94|166.26||||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA).||166.26|118.94|
91875509|NCT02186015|183644152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in fatigue score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.09
91744662|NCT05319899|183384411|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|77.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.67|91.8||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||91.80|65.67|
91744663|NCT05319899|183384412|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|128.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.99|145.52||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||145.52|112.99|
91744664|NCT05319899|183384412|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|95.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.54|108.88||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||108.88|84.54|
91744665|NCT03525600|183384423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2296||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4703|0.0111|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||0.0111|-0.4703|0.0615
91744666|NCT03525600|183384423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2077||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4444|0.029|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||0.0290|-0.4444|0.0854
91744667|NCT03525600|183384424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7451||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1539|-0.3362|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.3362|-1.1539|0.0004
91744668|NCT03525600|183384424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6331||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0508|-0.2153|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.2153|-1.0508|0.0030
91744669|NCT03525600|183384425|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.0547||||0.4282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1899|0.0806|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||0.0806|-0.1899|0.4282
91744670|NCT03525600|183384425|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.0793||||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2131|0.0546|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||0.0546|-0.2131|0.2457
91744671|NCT03525600|183384425|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1722||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|-0.0174|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0174|-0.3270|0.0292
91744672|NCT03525600|183384425|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1659||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3202|-0.0115|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0115|-0.3202|0.0352
91907113|NCT01147744|183709390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.124||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.14|-5.90|0.603
91907114|NCT01147744|183709390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-1.781||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|6.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||6.22|-9.78|0.662
91744673|NCT03525600|183384425|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.145||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2909|0.0009|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||0.0009|-0.2909|0.0514
91744674|NCT03525600|183384425|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.168||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3164|-0.0196|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0196|-0.3164|0.0265
91744675|NCT03525600|183384425|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.3532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5245|-0.1819|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.1819|-0.5245|<0.0001
91744676|NCT03525600|183384425|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2848||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4336|-0.1361|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.1361|-0.4336|0.0002
91744677|NCT03525600|183384425|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.7251||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1373|-0.3129|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.3129|-1.1373|0.0006
91744678|NCT03525600|183384425|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.698||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1142|-0.2817|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.2817|-1.1142|0.0010
91744679|NCT02168062|183384441|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.109
91744680|NCT02168062|183384443|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Systolic Blood Pressure measurement comparison||||0.85
91744681|NCT02168062|183384443|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Diastolic Blood Pressure measurement comparison||||0.10
91744682|NCT02168062|183384444|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Weight measurement comparison||||0.70
91744683|NCT02168062|183384445|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage body fat measurement comparison||||0.11
91744684|NCT02168062|183384446|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Waist measurement comparison||||0.32
91744685|NCT02168062|183384447|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hemoglobin A1C measurement comparison||||0.70
91744686|NCT02168062|183384448|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insulin resistance score comparison||||0.46
91744687|NCT02168062|183384449|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total Cholesterol measurement comparison||||0.44
91744688|NCT02168062|183384449|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total low density lipid measurement comparison||||0.52
91744689|NCT02168062|183384449|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total high density lipid measurement comparison||||0.40
91744690|NCT02168062|183384449|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total triglyceride measurement comparison||||0.53
91907115|NCT01147744|183709390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.949||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|13.98|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||13.98|-2.08|0.146
91744691|NCT02168062|183384450|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-vigorous physical activity comparison||||0.38
91744692|NCT02168062|183384450|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Moderate physical activity comparison||||0.979
91744693|NCT02168062|183384450|OTHER|||||||0.884|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Moderate-Vigorous physical activity comparison||||0.884
91744694|NCT02168062|183384450|OTHER|||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Vigorous physical activity comparison||||0.678
91744695|NCT02168062|183384450|OTHER|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total physical activity comparison||||0.464
91744696|NCT02168062|183384451|OTHER|||||||0.838|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average MVPA Minutes per Day Comparison||||0.838
91744697|NCT02168062|183384452|OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bone Density at the lumbar spine comparison||||0.677
91744698|NCT02168062|183384452|OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bone Density at the femoral neck comparison||||0.493
91744699|NCT02168062|183384452|OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bone Density of the total hip comparison||||0.807
91875510|NCT02186015|183644153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in mood score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.17
91875511|NCT02186015|183644154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in dominant handgrip strength from week 0 to week 8.||||0.50
91744700|NCT02168062|183384453|OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Serum 25-(OH) vitamin D level comparison||||0.403
91744701|NCT02168062|183384454|OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.385
91744702|NCT02168062|183384455|OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Attention Function Index (AFI) Score Comparison||||.148
91744703|NCT02168062|183384456|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mental Composite Score Comparison||||.077
91744704|NCT02168062|183384456|OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical Composite Score Comparison||||0.401
91744705|NCT02168062|183384457|OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
91744706|NCT02168062|183384458|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.676
91744707|NCT02168062|183384459|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.183
91744708|NCT02168062|183384460|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Total Score Comparison||||0.66
91744709|NCT02168062|183384460|OTHER|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Urinary Incontinence Score Comparison||||0.844
91744710|NCT02168062|183384460|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Urinary Irriation Score Comparison||||0.175
91800214|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.69
91875512|NCT02186015|183644155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in sleep quality assessment from week 0 to week 8.||||0.16
91875513|NCT02186015|183644156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.75
91744711|NCT02168062|183384460|OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Bowel Function Score Comparison||||0.472
91744712|NCT02168062|183384460|OTHER|||||||0.405|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Sexual Function Score Comparison||||0.405
91744713|NCT02168062|183384460|OTHER|||||||0.749|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Hormonal Function Score Comparison||||0.749
91744714|NCT02168062|183384461|OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fatigue Scale Score Comparison||||0.907
91744715|NCT02168062|183384461|OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy Scale Score Comparison||||0.792
91744716|NCT00344318|183384484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C after Dose 1 was computed.|Difference in percentage|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.88||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||4.88|-1.51|
91744717|NCT00344318|183384484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Towards this, standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C after Dose 2 was computed|Difference in percentage|-1.48||||||95.0|-6.05|1.92||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||1.92|-6.05|
91744718|NCT00344318|183384484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Towards this, standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C after Dose 3 was computed.|Difference in percentage|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|6.19||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||6.19|-1.02|
91744719|NCT00344318|183384484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C across doses was computed.|Difference in percentage|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|8.01||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||8.01|-2.65|
91744720|NCT00683930|183384518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference in response rate|5.1||||0.6558||97.5|-17.4|27.6|||Fisher Exact|Alpha = 0.025||||27.6|-17.4|0.6558
91875514|NCT02186015|183644157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in functional assessment of cancer therapy-endocrine score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.19
91875515|NCT00125619|183644158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group comparison of Robot (Lokomat) vs. Manual (therapist-assisted) training.||||0.72
91875516|NCT00125619|183644158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group test for change pre- vs. post-training due to Robot (Lokomat) training.||||<.05
91875517|NCT00125619|183644158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group test for change pre- vs. post-training due to Manual (Therapist Assisted) training.||||>.05
91875518|NCT00125619|183644159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-groups comparison of Robot vs. Manual training.||||>0.05
91875519|NCT00125619|183644159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within groups comparison (pre- vs. post-treatment) due to Manual (therapist-assisted) treatment.||||>.05
91907116|NCT01147744|183709390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.394||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|13.48|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||13.48|-2.69|0.191
91907117|NCT01147744|183709391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.106||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|14.71|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||14.71|-2.50|0.164
91744721|NCT00893152|183384550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91744722|NCT01208961|183384618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|400.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|326.87|490.36|||ANOVA|ANOVA on log-trans baseline-adj PK values using sequence, period, and treatments as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect||Results for the analyses of the High-Fat Periods were not posted because the critical comparison was the response of Lovaza versus Epanova to the clinically relevant low-fat diet to be used as adjunct in hypertriglyceridemia.||490.36|326.87|<0.001
91744723|NCT01208961|183384619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mans|649.66|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|511.75|824.75||ANOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors. LSM estimate performed on log-scale|ANOVA|||Results for the analyses of the High-Fat Periods were not posted because the critical comparison was the response of Lovaza versus Epanova to the clinically relevant low-fat diet to be used as adjunct in hypertriglyceridemia.||824.75|511.75|<0.01
91744724|NCT01208961|183384620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|369.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|301.74|452.86|||ANOVA|||Results for the analyses of the High-Fat Periods were not posted because the critical comparison was the response of Lovaza versus Epanova to the clinically relevant low-fat diet to be used as adjunct in hypertriglyceridemia.||452.86|301.74|<0.001
91744725|NCT01262560|183384621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Due to the skewed nature of the data, median was reported instead of mean.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Each arm had less than the designed sample size. Therefore the statistical power was reduced (76% instead of 80%).||Null hypothesis: Manuka honey in liquid form is/not effective at reducing esophagitis-related pain, measured by mean change score from 0 to 4 weeks. A 2-sample t-test for difference of means with alpha 0.05 after adjusting for multiple comparisons (1-sided with overall alpha 0.1 before the Bonferroni adjustment) and 80% statistical power for each hypothesis test requires 45 patients per arm to detect \>= 15% relative reduction (absolute difference of mean change score of 3.1; effect size=0.53).||||0.92
91744726|NCT01262560|183384621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Due to the skewed nature of the data, median was reported instead of mean.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Each arm had less than the designed sample size. Therefore the statistical power was reduced (76% instead of 80%)||Null hypothesis: Manuka honey in lozenge form is/not effective at reducing esophagitis-related pain, measured by mean change score from 0 to 4 weeks. A 2-sample t-test for difference of means with alpha 0.05 after adjusting for multiple comparisons (1-sided with overall alpha 0.1 before the Bonferroni adjustment) and 80% statistical power for each hypothesis test requires 45 patients per arm to detect \>= 15% relative reduction (absolute difference of mean change score of 3.1; effect size=0.53).||||0.93
91744727|NCT01262560|183384622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.87
91875520|NCT00125619|183644159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within-groups comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects for Robot (Lokomat) training.||||<.05
91875521|NCT00125619|183644160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
91875522|NCT00125619|183644160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects for manual training.||||>.05
91875523|NCT00125619|183644160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of robot training.||||>.05
91875524|NCT00125619|183644161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of effects of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
91875525|NCT00125619|183644161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within groups comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of manual training.||||>.05
91875526|NCT00125619|183644161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-training effects of robot training.||||<.05
91875527|NCT00125619|183644162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
91875528|NCT00125619|183644162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within groups comparison for pre- vs. post-training effects of manual training.||||>.05
91875529|NCT00125619|183644162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison for pre- vs. post-training effects of robot training.||||>.05
91875530|NCT00125619|183644163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
91875531|NCT00125619|183644163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-training effects of manual training.||||>.05
91907118|NCT01147744|183709391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.106||||0.349||95.0|-4.49|12.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.70|-4.49|0.349
91907119|NCT01147744|183709391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.148||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|10.72|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.72|-6.42|0.623
91744728|NCT01262560|183384622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.46
91744729|NCT01262560|183384622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.0023
91744730|NCT01262560|183384622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||0.0025
91744731|NCT01262560|183384622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each explanatory variable is reported separately.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||<0.0001
91744732|NCT01262560|183384623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.70
91744733|NCT01262560|183384623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.71
91744734|NCT01262560|183384623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.0002
91744735|NCT01262560|183384623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||0.0051
91744736|NCT01262560|183384623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||<0.0001
91744737|NCT01262560|183384624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.086
91744738|NCT01262560|183384624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.20
91760167|NCT01393639|183412000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|0.39||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.39|-5.33|
91907120|NCT01147744|183709391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.713||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|10.26|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.26|-6.84|0.694
91875532|NCT00125619|183644163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of robot training.||||<.05
91875533|NCT00125619|183644164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
91875534|NCT00125619|183644164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-training effects of manual training.||||<.05
91744739|NCT01262560|183384624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.44
91744740|NCT01262560|183384624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||0.0066
91744741|NCT01262560|183384624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||0.36
91744742|NCT01262560|183384624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.94
91744743|NCT01262560|183384624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.58
91744744|NCT01262560|183384624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.28
91744745|NCT01262560|183384624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each exploratory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||<0.0001
91744746|NCT01262560|183384624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||0.28
91744747|NCT01262560|183384625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
91744748|NCT01262560|183384625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
91744749|NCT01262560|183384626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91744750|NCT01262560|183384626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91744751|NCT01262560|183384627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91744752|NCT01262560|183384627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91875535|NCT00125619|183644164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of robot training.||||<.05
91875536|NCT01533181|183644165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.1|||Kaplan-Meier|||||8.1|1.9|0.0001
91875537|NCT01533181|183644168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||Kaplan-Meier|||||2.2|0.6|0.71
91875538|NCT02720198|183644170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.834||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.518|4.836|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.836|-2.518|0.53
91875539|NCT02720198|183644171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|2.388|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.388|0.101|0.428
91875540|NCT02720198|183644172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.724||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|1.866|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.866|0.109|0.272
91875541|NCT02720198|183644173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.428||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.484|2.236|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.236|-3.484|0.664
91875542|NCT02720198|183644174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.199||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|6.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.750|-2.070|0.292
91875543|NCT02720198|183644175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.971|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.971|0.380|0.884
91875544|NCT02720198|183644176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|3.129|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.129|0.245|0.905
91744753|NCT01262560|183384630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because data was not normally distributed, this test was used instead of the t-test.||Each experimental arm was compared to the control arm (i.e. 2 comparisons) using two-sample t-tests. Forty-five patients with data in each arm, provides 80% power to detect an effect size (in standard deviation units) of 0.60 and 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.69 using a two-sided T-test with a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05 for each comparison (overall alpha 0.10). Due to the lack of prior data on the PRO-CTCAE, moderate effect sizes were used.||||0.39
91744754|NCT01262560|183384630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because data was not normally distributed, this test was used instead of the t-test.||Each experimental arm was compared to the control arm (i.e. 2 comparisons) using two-sample t-tests. Forty-five patients with data in each arm, provides 80% power to detect an effect size (in standard deviation units) of 0.60 and 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.69 using a two-sided T-test with a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05 for each comparison (overall alpha 0.10). Due to the lack of prior data on the PRO-CTCAE, moderate effect sizes were used.||||0.69
91744755|NCT02791516|183384653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|11.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline DXA BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline DXA BMD value.||||11.5|7.6|<0.001
91744756|NCT02791516|183384654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline DXA BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline DXA BMD value.||||3.7|1.4|<0.001
91744757|NCT02791516|183384655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline DXA BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline DXA BMD value.||||3.6|0.7|0.004
91744758|NCT03088930|183384728|OTHER||Summary statistics|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Three subjects enrolled. No statistical analysis completed due to low accrual.|Three subjects enrolled. No statistical analysis completed due to low accrual.|||
91744759|NCT03040011|183384785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.39
91744760|NCT03040011|183384786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.25
91744761|NCT03040011|183384787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
91744762|NCT03040011|183384788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.45
91744763|NCT03040011|183384789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.54
91744764|NCT03040011|183384790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.80
91744765|NCT03040011|183384791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91744766|NCT03040011|183384792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
91744767|NCT03040011|183384793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.41
91744768|NCT03040011|183384795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
91744769|NCT03040011|183384796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
91744770|NCT03040011|183384797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
91744771|NCT03040011|183384798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
91744772|NCT03040011|183384799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.35
91744773|NCT03040011|183384800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.32
91744774|NCT03040011|183384801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.18
91744775|NCT03040011|183384802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.68
91744776|NCT03040011|183384803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.40
91875545|NCT02720198|183644177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.423||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.211|4.492|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.492|-1.211|0.254
91875546|NCT02720198|183644178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|0.134|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.134|-7.520|0.058
91875547|NCT02720198|183644179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.158||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.559|4.088|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.088|-4.559|0.913
91875548|NCT02720198|183644180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.623|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.623|-2.540|0.660
91744777|NCT03040011|183384804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.44
91744778|NCT02578680|183384871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.64|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||0.64|0.43|<0.00001
91744779|NCT02578680|183384872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.64|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||0.64|0.38|<0.00001
91744780|NCT02578680|183384873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage vs. Control|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|35.4||H0:Difference in percentages=0 vs H1:Difference in percentages\>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||Miettinen and Nurminen method with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||35.4|21.1|<0.0001
91744781|NCT02578680|183384877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.59|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||0.59|0.41|<0.00001
91744782|NCT01559259|183384890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|26.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.33|32.22|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) Confidence interval (CI) were based on Least square mean (LSM) from analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||32.22|20.33|<0.001
91875549|NCT03897075|183644181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00311|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00311
91875550|NCT03897075|183644182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00079|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00079
91907121|NCT01147744|183709391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.592||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|18.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||18.15|1.03|0.028
91907122|NCT01147744|183709391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.75||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|15.38|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||15.38|-1.89|0.125
91744783|NCT01559259|183384890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|24.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.44|30.29|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||30.29|18.44|<0.001
91744784|NCT01559259|183384890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|27.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.53|33.42|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||33.42|21.53|<0.001
91744785|NCT01559259|183384890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|24.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.93|30.78|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||30.78|18.93|<0.001
91744786|NCT01559259|183384890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.42||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|5.58|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.58|-2.73|0.501
91744787|NCT01559259|183384890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|3.64|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.64|-4.61|0.817
91744788|NCT01559259|183384890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.62||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|6.78|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.78|-1.53|0.216
91744789|NCT01559259|183384891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|29.19|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||29.19|5.52|<0.001
91744790|NCT01559259|183384891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|23.02|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||23.02|4.36|<0.001
91744791|NCT01559259|183384891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|26.83|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||26.83|5.07|<0.001
91744792|NCT01559259|183384891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|19.77|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||19.77|3.74|<0.001
91744793|NCT01559259|183384891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.02|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||2.02|1.08|0.014
91907123|NCT01147744|183709392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.346||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|10.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.78|-6.09|0.585
91744794|NCT01559259|183384891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.59|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.59|0.86|0.332
91744795|NCT01559259|183384891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.85|0.99|0.056
91744796|NCT01559259|183384892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|27.91|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||27.91|5.24|<0.001
91744797|NCT01559259|183384892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|20.44|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||20.44|3.86|<0.001
91744798|NCT01559259|183384892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|26.42|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||26.42|4.98|<0.001
91744799|NCT01559259|183384892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|18.68|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||18.68|3.52|<0.001
91744800|NCT01559259|183384892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.04|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||2.04|1.09|0.012
91907124|NCT01147744|183709392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.431||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|8.86|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||8.86|-8.00|0.920
91907125|NCT01147744|183709392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.702||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.11|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||11.11|-5.70|0.528
91907126|NCT01147744|183709392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.218||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||7.17|-9.60|0.776
91744801|NCT01559259|183384892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.49|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.49|0.80|0.570
91744802|NCT01559259|183384892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.93|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.93|1.03|0.030
91744803|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.39||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.71|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.71|0.08|0.014
91744804|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.64|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.64|0.02|0.038
91744805|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.79|0.17|0.003
91744806|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.23||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.54|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.09|0.155
91744807|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.39|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.39|-0.05|0.135
91744808|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.32|-0.11|0.350
91744809|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.25||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.47|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.47|0.03|0.024
91744810|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.77|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.77|0.90|<0.001
91744811|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.7|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.70|0.83|<0.001
91907127|NCT01147744|183709392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.49||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|15.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||15.90|-0.92|0.081
91744812|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.78|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.78|0.91|0.001
91744813|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.3|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.30|0.43|<0.001
91744814|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.77|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.77|0.16|0.003
91744815|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.70|0.10|0.010
91744816|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.79|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.79|0.18|0.002
91744817|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.58|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.58|1.66|<0.001
91744818|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.42|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.42|1.50|<0.001
91760168|NCT03626545|183412003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model stratified by line of therapy and histology|||1.48|0.76|0.633
91907128|NCT01147744|183709392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.611||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|12.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.09|-4.87|0.403
91744819|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.6|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.60|1.67|<0.001
91744820|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.2|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.20|1.28|<0.001
91744821|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.7|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.70|0.05|0.022
91744822|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.54|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.10|0.181
91744823|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.4||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.72|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.72|0.07|0.016
91744824|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.88|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.88|1.98|<0.001
91744825|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.62|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.62|1.72|<0.001
91744826|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.91|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.91|2.01|<0.001
91744827|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.58|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.58|1.68|<0.001
91744828|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.3||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.61|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.61|-0.02|0.065
91744829|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.28|0.817
91744830|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.64|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.64|0.01|0.043
91907129|NCT01147744|183709393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.16|-0.17|0.951
91907130|NCT01147744|183709393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.01|-0.33|0.043
91744831|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.01|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.01|2.06|<0.001
91744832|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.82|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.82|1.87|<0.001
91744833|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|3.11|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.11|2.15|<0.001
91744834|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.84|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.84|1.89|<0.001
91744835|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.51|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.51|-0.16|0.312
91744836|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|-0.35|0.910
91744837|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.6|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.60|-0.06|0.113
91800215|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.82
91907131|NCT01147744|183709393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.028||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.13|-0.19|0.734
91875551|NCT03897075|183644183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09892|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.09892
91875552|NCT02592434|183644192|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-23.69||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.41|-7.97||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||-7.97|-39.41|0.0031
91875553|NCT02592434|183644193|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.52||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|35.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||35.50|3.55|0.0166
91907132|NCT01147744|183709393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.16|-0.16|0.972
91744838|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.97|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.97|1.98|<0.001
91744839|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.75|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.75|1.76|<0.001
91744840|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.01|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.01|2.02|<0.001
91744841|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.85|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.85|1.86|<0.001
91744842|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.12||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.47|-0.22|0.482
91744843|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.24|-0.44|0.573
91744844|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.5|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.19|0.368
91744845|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|2.91|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.91|1.88|<0.001
91744846|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.68|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.68|1.66|<0.001
91744847|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|2.96|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.96|1.93|<0.001
91744848|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.74|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.74|1.72|<0.001
91744849|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.53|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-0.19|0.352
91875554|NCT02592434|183644194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.69||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.97|39.41||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||39.41|7.97|0.0031
91875555|NCT02592434|183644195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.02||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|33.17||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||33.17|0.88|0.0387
91875556|NCT02592434|183644196|SUPERIORITY||Ls mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance. Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-0.01|-0.22|0.0292
91875557|NCT02592434|183644198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.71||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|8.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 20||8.41|-11.82|0.7410
91875558|NCT02592434|183644198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-18.93||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.22|-5.64|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 24||-5.64|-32.22|0.0052
91875559|NCT02592434|183644198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-19.09||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.48|-4.7|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 28||-4.70|-33.48|0.0093
91875560|NCT02592434|183644198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-22.1||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.35|-6.86|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 32||-6.86|-37.35|0.0045
91907133|NCT01147744|183709393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.097||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.06|-0.26|0.238
91907134|NCT01147744|183709393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.09|-0.24|0.360
91907135|NCT01147744|183709394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.028||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.17|-0.11|0.692
91907136|NCT01147744|183709394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.04|-0.24|0.176
91907137|NCT01147744|183709394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.12|-0.16|0.768
91907138|NCT01147744|183709394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.15|-0.13|0.887
91907139|NCT01147744|183709394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.051||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.09|-0.19|0.471
91744850|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.3|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.30|-0.41|0.771
91744851|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.58|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.58|-0.14|0.235
91744852|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.86|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.86|1.79|<0.001
91744853|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.58|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.58|1.52|<0.001
91744854|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.9|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.90|1.83|<0.001
91744855|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.73|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.73|1.66|<0.001
91744856|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.25|0.510
91744857|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.15||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.23|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-0.52|0.442
91875561|NCT02592434|183644198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-23.57||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.97|-8.17|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 36||-8.17|-38.97|0.0027
91875562|NCT02592434|183644198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-25.08||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.69|-9.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 40||-9.47|-40.69|0.0016
91875563|NCT02592434|183644202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.03||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|17.46|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 20||17.46|-5.40|0.3010
91875564|NCT02592434|183644202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.54||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|31.03|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 24||31.03|4.05|0.0108
91875565|NCT02592434|183644202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.13||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|33.74|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 28||33.74|4.51|0.0103
91875566|NCT02592434|183644202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.53||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.27|38.8|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 32||38.80|8.27|0.0025
91875567|NCT02592434|183644202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.04||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.52|40.56|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 36||40.56|9.52|0.0016
91875568|NCT02592434|183644202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.69||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.97|39.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 40||39.41|7.97|0.0031
91875569|NCT02592434|183644204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.15||||0.8119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|8.33|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||8.33|-10.63|0.8119
91907140|NCT01147744|183709394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.06|-0.22|0.248
91907141|NCT01147744|183709395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.131||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.07|-0.33|0.209
91907142|NCT01147744|183709395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.264||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.06|-0.47|0.011
91800216|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.99
91800217|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.30
91800218|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.24
91800219|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.50
91800220|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.45
91800221|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.46
91800222|NCT00131508|183477709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.84
91800223|NCT00131508|183477710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height Z-Score betweeen baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.20
91800224|NCT00131508|183477710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height Z-Score betweeen baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.81
91875570|NCT02592434|183644204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.66||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|21.21|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 20||21.21|-5.90|0.2682
91800225|NCT00131508|183477710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height Z-Score betweeen baseline and 12 months differs between the Glutamine and Placebo groups.||||0.70
91800226|NCT00131508|183477711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.69
91800227|NCT00131508|183477711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.75
91800228|NCT00131508|183477711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We test the null hypothesis that the median difference in height percentile between baseline and 12 months differs between the Glutamine and Placebo groups.||||0.93
91800229|NCT00131508|183477712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in weight percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.56
91800230|NCT00131508|183477712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in weight percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||1.0
91800231|NCT00131508|183477712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We test the null hypothesis that the median difference in weight percentile between baseline and 12 months differs between the Glutamine and Placebo groups.||||0.61
91800232|NCT00131508|183477713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in pulse rate between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.83
91800233|NCT00131508|183477714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in hand grip between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.40
91800234|NCT01904058|183477751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.28||||0.6603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|8.03||p-value (LUM001 LS Mean = Placebo LS Mean).|ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Baseline to Week 13/ET in ItchRO weekly sum score evaluated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using generalized linear model (GLM). The model included terms for treatment group, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level (strata), treatment group by ALP level interaction and Baseline ItchRO weekly sum score as a covariate. Least squares mean change from Baseline to Week 13/ET, along with 95 percentage (%) confidence interval for mean were presented.||8.03|-12.59|0.6603
91800235|NCT01904058|183477751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.99||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|6.23||p-value (LUM001 LS Mean = Placebo LS Mean).|ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Baseline to Week 13/ET in ItchRO weekly sum score was evaluated by ANCOVA using a GLM. The model included terms for treatment group, ALP level (strata), treatment group by ALP level interaction, and Baseline ItchRO weekly sum score as a covariate. Least squares mean change from Baseline to Week 13/ET, along with 95% confidence interval for the mean, were presented.||6.23|-14.20|0.4380
91875571|NCT02592434|183644204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.98||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.26|36.71|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 24||36.71|7.26|0.0034
91875572|NCT02592434|183644204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.9||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|33.36|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 28||33.36|2.44|0.0233
91875573|NCT02592434|183644204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.16||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|40.93|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 32||40.93|9.39|0.0018
91875574|NCT02592434|183644204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.91||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|36.81|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 36||36.81|5.01|0.0099
91875575|NCT02592434|183644204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.34||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.46|38.22|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 40||38.22|6.46|0.0058
91875576|NCT02592434|183644206|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.77||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.79|19.33|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||19.33|-11.79|0.6348
91744858|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.54|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.20|0.372
91875577|NCT02592434|183644206|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.62||||0.7525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.66|18.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||18.90|-13.66|0.7525
91875578|NCT02592434|183644206|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.05||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|30.33|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||30.33|-2.23|0.0908
91875579|NCT02592434|183644206|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.02||||0.4026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|23.43|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||23.43|-9.38|0.4026
91875580|NCT02592434|183644206|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.37||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|34.52|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||34.52|2.22|0.0258
91907143|NCT01147744|183709395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.076||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.13|-0.28|0.464
91907144|NCT01147744|183709395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.16|-0.25|0.662
91744859|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.55|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.55|1.39|<0.001
91744860|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.4|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.40|1.25|<0.001
91744861|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.72|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.72|1.57|<0.001
91744862|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.45|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.45|1.30|<0.001
91875581|NCT02592434|183644206|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.88||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|35.88|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||35.88|3.88|0.0149
91875582|NCT02592434|183644206|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.88||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|35.88|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||35.88|3.88|0.0149
91875583|NCT02592434|183644208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.24||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.53|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||10.53|-21.00|0.5150
91875584|NCT02592434|183644208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.01||||0.24||95.0|-6.02|24.03|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||24.03|-6.02|0.2400
91875585|NCT02592434|183644208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.93||||0.2557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|24.33|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||24.33|-6.47|0.2557
91875586|NCT02592434|183644208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.97||||0.2481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|24.19|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||24.19|-6.25|0.2481
91875587|NCT02592434|183644208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.03||||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|30.98|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||30.98|1.08|0.0356
91875588|NCT02592434|183644208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.89||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|33.54|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||33.54|4.24|0.0115
91875589|NCT02592434|183644208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.87||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|26.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||26.62|-2.89|0.1150
91875590|NCT02592434|183644208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.29||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|27.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||27.90|-1.31|0.0744
91875591|NCT02592434|183644210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-16.15||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.84|-2.46|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||-2.46|-29.84|0.0207
91875592|NCT02592434|183644210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.63||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|24.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||24.24|-2.97|0.1254
91875593|NCT02592434|183644210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.49||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|17.91|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||17.91|-10.93|0.6350
91875594|NCT02592434|183644210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.1||||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||16.41|-12.20|0.7732
91875595|NCT02592434|183644210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.35||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|20.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||20.47|-7.77|0.3782
91875596|NCT02592434|183644210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.98||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|25.99|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||25.99|-2.02|0.0936
91875597|NCT02592434|183644210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.17||||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|23.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||23.24|-4.91|0.2017
91875598|NCT02592434|183644210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.02||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|25.74|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||25.74|-1.69|0.0858
91875599|NCT02592434|183644212|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.53|||MMRM|||Week 20; Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.53|-3.60|0.0088
91907145|NCT01147744|183709395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.245||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.04|-0.45|0.018
91875600|NCT02592434|183644212|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|-1.1|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.10|-6.17|0.0054
91875601|NCT02592434|183644212|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|-1.32|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.32|-6.38|0.0039
91744863|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.5|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.31|0.639
91744864|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.35|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.45|0.803
91744865|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.67|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.67|-0.13|0.184
91744866|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.26|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.26|1.07|<0.001
91744867|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.17|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.17|0.99|<0.001
91744868|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.43|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.43|1.25|<0.001
91744869|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.28|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.28|1.10|<0.001
91744870|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.39|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.39|-0.44|0.910
91744871|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.3|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.30|-0.52|0.607
91744872|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.56|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.56|-0.27|0.484
91907146|NCT01147744|183709395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.207||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.00|-0.41|0.047
91744873|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.86|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|0.64|<0.001
91744874|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.97|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.97|0.75|<0.001
91744875|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.99|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.99|0.77|<0.001
91744876|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.1|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.10|0.89|<0.001
91744877|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.25||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.18|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.18|-0.67|0.256
91744878|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.29|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.29|-0.56|0.526
91744879|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.31|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|-0.54|0.602
91875602|NCT02592434|183644212|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.29|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.29|-5.30|0.0022
91875603|NCT02592434|183644212|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-3.0|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-3.00|-9.42|0.0005
91800236|NCT04041375|183477759|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.09||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.42
91744880|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.95||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.56|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.56|0.34|0.002
91800237|NCT04041375|183477759|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.13||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional Burden Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.32
91800238|NCT04041375|183477759|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.13||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physician-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.36
91800239|NCT04041375|183477759|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.17||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Regimen-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.23
91875604|NCT02592434|183644212|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-2.92|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-2.92|-9.60|0.0006
91875605|NCT02592434|183644212|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-1.71|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.71|-7.02|0.0027
91875606|NCT02592434|183644214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-0.33|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-0.33|-3.32|0.0172
91875607|NCT02592434|183644214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-1.01|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.01|-5.81|0.0057
91907147|NCT01147744|183709396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.09|-0.28|0.300
91744881|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.98||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.59|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.59|0.38|0.001
91744882|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.86|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|0.65|<0.001
91744883|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.82|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.82|0.61|<0.001
91744884|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.26||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.16|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.16|-0.69|0.224
91744885|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.19|-0.65|0.283
91744886|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.46|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.46|-0.39|0.860
91744887|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.63||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.22|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.22|0.03|0.038
91875608|NCT02592434|183644214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-1.23|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.23|-5.94|0.0038
91907148|NCT01147744|183709396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.138||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.05|-0.32|0.145
91875609|NCT02592434|183644214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-1.36|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.36|-5.47|0.0020
91744888|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.65||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.24|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.24|0.06|0.031
91744889|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.62|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.62|0.43|<0.001
91744890|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.95||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.54|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.54|0.36|0.002
91744891|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.09|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.09|-0.74|0.129
91744892|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.11|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.11|-0.71|0.154
91907149|NCT01147744|183709396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.123||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.06|-0.31|0.190
91907150|NCT01147744|183709396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.18|-0.19|0.980
91744893|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.08||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.49|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.49|-0.34|0.714
91744894|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.96|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.96|-0.22|0.217
91744895|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.03|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.03|-0.14|0.136
91744896|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.37|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.37|0.19|0.010
91744897|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.41|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|0.24|0.006
91744898|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.45||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.04|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.04|-0.87|0.031
91744899|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.38||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.03|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.03|-0.79|0.070
91744900|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.37|-0.46|0.822
91744901|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.28||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.83|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.83|-0.28|0.327
91744902|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.34||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.89|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.89|-0.21|0.224
91744903|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.63||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.19|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.19|0.08|0.025
91744904|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.25|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.25|0.15|0.012
91875610|NCT02592434|183644214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|-2.57|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-2.57|-8.74|0.0007
91875611|NCT02592434|183644214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|-2.58|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-2.58|-8.66|0.0007
91875612|NCT02592434|183644214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|-1.82|||MMRM|||Week 44:Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.82|-6.99|0.0018
91875613|NCT02592434|183644216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.47||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|17.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||17.90|-14.96|0.8610
91875614|NCT02592434|183644216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.12||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|26.2|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||26.20|-5.96|0.2173
91875615|NCT02592434|183644216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.94||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|28.96|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||28.96|-3.08|0.1135
91875616|NCT02592434|183644216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.51||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|27.6|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||27.60|-4.58|0.1610
91875617|NCT02592434|183644216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.42||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|23.21|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||23.21|-8.37|0.3571
91875618|NCT02592434|183644216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.44||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|30.16|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||30.16|-1.27|0.0716
91744905|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.04|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.04|-0.81|0.030
91744906|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.36||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.02|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.02|-0.75|0.064
91744907|NCT01559259|183384893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.32|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.32|-0.46|0.721
91744908|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.42|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.42|0.02|0.033
91744909|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.33|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.33|-0.08|0.224
91744910|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.23||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.44|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.44|0.03|0.024
91744911|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.27|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.27|-0.13|0.501
91744912|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.29|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.29|0.01|0.036
91744913|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.2|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.20|-0.08|0.435
91875619|NCT02592434|183644216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.4||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|30.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||30.24|-1.43|0.0746
91907151|NCT01147744|183709396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.01|-0.36|0.070
91875620|NCT02592434|183644216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.37||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|30.3|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||30.30|-1.57|0.0773
91875621|NCT02592434|183644218|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.06||||0.5131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|6.1|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||6.10|-12.21|0.5131
91875622|NCT02592434|183644218|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.87||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|14.74|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||14.74|-1.01|0.0876
91875623|NCT02592434|183644218|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.79||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|16.16|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||16.16|-2.59|0.1561
91875624|NCT02592434|183644218|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.58||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|11.7|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||11.70|-6.54|0.5795
91875625|NCT02592434|183644218|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.4||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|14.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||14.47|-3.67|0.2435
91875626|NCT02592434|183644218|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.52||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|20.04|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||20.04|-0.99|0.0758
91875627|NCT02592434|183644218|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.91||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|21.65|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||21.65|0.17|0.0464
91875628|NCT02592434|183644218|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.06||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|19.38|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||19.38|-3.27|0.1634
91875629|NCT02592434|183644219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-17.42||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.88|-4.96|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind baseline (Week 18)||-4.96|-29.88|0.0062
91875630|NCT02592434|183644219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.44||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.34|11.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||11.47|-12.34|0.9427
91875631|NCT02592434|183644219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.6||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|12.84|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||12.84|-14.03|0.9308
91875632|NCT02592434|183644219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.87||||0.8945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|13.78|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||13.78|-12.03|0.8945
91875633|NCT02592434|183644219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.22||||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|15.64|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||15.64|-11.20|0.7455
91744914|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.31|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|0.02|0.023
91744915|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.12|0.52|<0.001
91744916|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.97|0.37|<0.001
91744917|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.04|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.04|0.45|<0.001
91744918|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.75|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.75|0.16|0.003
91744919|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.58|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.58|0.16|<0.001
91744920|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.42|0.01|0.039
91744921|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.5|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|0.08|0.006
91744922|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.65|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.65|1.01|<0.001
91744923|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.49|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.49|0.85|<0.001
91744924|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.67|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.67|1.03|<0.001
91744925|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.36|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.36|0.72|<0.001
91744926|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.52|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.52|0.07|0.011
91744927|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.10|0.267
91744928|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.53|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|0.09|0.007
91744929|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.89|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.89|1.24|<0.001
91744930|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.7|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.70|1.06|<0.001
91744931|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.9|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.90|1.25|<0.001
91744932|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.67|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.67|1.02|<0.001
91875634|NCT02592434|183644219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.25||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|22.72|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||22.72|-4.23|0.1787
91875635|NCT02592434|183644219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.1||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|25.17|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||25.17|-0.97|0.0695
91875636|NCT02592434|183644219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.25||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|22.72|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||22.72|-4.23|0.1787
91875637|NCT02592434|183644220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.12||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|6.5|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||||6.50|-6.74|0.9719
91875638|NCT02592434|183644222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.35|-2.08|0.1595
91875639|NCT02592434|183644222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.48|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.48|-3.32|0.1421
91875640|NCT02592434|183644222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.04|-3.37|0.0552
91744933|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.45|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.45|-0.01|0.056
91744934|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.26|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.26|-0.19|0.759
91744935|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.23||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.45|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.45|-0.00|0.051
91744936|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.98|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.98|1.30|<0.001
91744937|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.85|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.85|1.18|<0.001
91907152|NCT01147744|183709396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.158||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.03|-0.34|0.095
91744938|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.05|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.05|1.37|<0.001
91744939|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.86|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|1.19|<0.001
91744940|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.35|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.12|0.342
91744941|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.01||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.23|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-0.24|0.943
91744942|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.18||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.42|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.42|-0.05|0.126
91744943|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.98|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.98|1.27|<0.001
91744944|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.86|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|1.15|<0.001
91744945|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.0|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.00|1.29|<0.001
91744946|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.89|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.89|1.18|<0.001
91744947|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.34|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.34|-0.15|0.453
91875641|NCT02592434|183644222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.17|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.17|-2.50|0.0822
91875642|NCT02592434|183644222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|-1.43|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.43|-6.53|0.0041
91907153|NCT01147744|183709397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91907154|NCT01147744|183709397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.814
91907155|NCT01147744|183709397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91744948|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.22|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.22|-0.28|0.816
91744949|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.36|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.36|-0.14|0.384
91744950|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.91|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.91|1.19|<0.001
91744951|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.82|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.82|1.10|<0.001
91744952|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.97|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.97|1.25|<0.001
91744953|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.82|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.82|1.10|<0.001
91744954|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.09||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.34|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.34|-0.16|0.483
91744955|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.25|-0.25|0.991
91875643|NCT02592434|183644222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-1.02|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.02|-6.12|0.0085
91875644|NCT02592434|183644222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.13|-4.36|0.0384
91875645|NCT02592434|183644224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.19|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.19|-0.72|0.2595
91875646|NCT02592434|183644224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.05|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.05|-1.42|0.0674
91875647|NCT02592434|183644224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.03|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.03|-1.93|0.0580
91875648|NCT02592434|183644224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.08|-1.67|0.0751
91875649|NCT02592434|183644224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.13|-1.88|0.0251
91907156|NCT01147744|183709397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.828
91744956|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.41|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.41|-0.10|0.228
91744957|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.85|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.85|1.10|<0.001
91744958|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.69|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.69|0.94|<0.001
91744959|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.9|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.90|1.15|<0.001
91744960|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.78|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.78|1.03|<0.001
91907157|NCT01147744|183709397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.477
91907158|NCT01147744|183709397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.460
91800240|NCT04041375|183477759|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression model with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.18||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Interpersonal Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.26
91800241|NCT04041375|183477759|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Treatment Effect|0.007||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.95
91800242|NCT04041375|183477759|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional Burden Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.92
91800243|NCT04041375|183477759|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.07||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physician-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.59
91800244|NCT04041375|183477759|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Interaction Term|||Regimen-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.54
91875650|NCT02592434|183644224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.09|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.09|-2.07|0.0331
91875651|NCT02592434|183644224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.02|-1.66|0.0549
91875652|NCT02592434|183644226|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.04|-1.04|0.0353
91744961|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.33|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.33|-0.19|0.587
91744962|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.09||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.17|-0.35|0.517
91744963|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.12||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.38|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-0.14|0.360
91744964|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.60|0.81|<0.001
91744965|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.57|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.57|0.78|<0.001
91744966|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.76|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.76|0.97|<0.001
91744967|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.56|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.56|0.77|<0.001
91744968|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.31|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|-0.24|0.811
91744969|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.28|-0.27|0.977
91875653|NCT02592434|183644226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.21|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.21|-1.47|0.0094
91800245|NCT04041375|183477759|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Interpersonal Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.05
91800246|NCT04041375|183477760|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Diet - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.03
91800247|NCT04041375|183477760|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fruits and Vegetables) - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.83
91800248|NCT04041375|183477760|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fat) - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.12
91800249|NCT04041375|183477760|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.39||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Activity - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.17
91800250|NCT04041375|183477760|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood Glucose Testing - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.85
91875654|NCT02592434|183644226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.23|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.23|-1.36|0.0065
91744970|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.2||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.47|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.47|-0.08|0.164
91744971|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.43|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.43|0.63|<0.001
91744972|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.40|0.60|<0.001
91875655|NCT02592434|183644226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.34|-1.43|0.0018
91875656|NCT02592434|183644226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.61|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.61|-2.24|0.0010
91875657|NCT02592434|183644226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.81|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.81|-2.42|0.0002
91744973|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.56|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.56|0.75|<0.001
91800251|NCT04041375|183477760|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Foot Care - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.94
91875658|NCT02592434|183644226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-0.71|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.71|-2.44|0.0007
91744974|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.46|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.46|0.66|<0.001
91744975|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.25|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.25|-0.31|0.846
91875659|NCT02592434|183644228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.02|-0.83|0.0398
91875660|NCT02592434|183644228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.39|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.39|-1.49|0.0011
91875661|NCT02592434|183644228|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.18|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.18|-1.47|0.0131
91875662|NCT02592434|183644228|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.33|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.33|-1.62|0.0039
91875663|NCT02592434|183644228|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.05|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.05|-1.10|0.0711
91875664|NCT02592434|183644228|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.04|-1.30|0.0658
91907159|NCT01342484|183709402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.3295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 1 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 1 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, pharmacokinetic (PK) / pharmacodynamics (PD) subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||0.51|-1.47|0.3295
91744976|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.23|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-0.33|0.702
91744977|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.38|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-0.18|0.496
91744978|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.22|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.22|0.41|<0.001
91744979|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.21|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.21|0.40|<0.001
91875665|NCT02592434|183644228|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.15|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.15|-1.31|0.0154
91875666|NCT02592434|183644230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.4777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.06|-0.12|0.4777
91875667|NCT02592434|183644230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.01|-0.16|0.0779
91875668|NCT02592434|183644230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.01|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.01|-0.19|0.0324
91744980|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.26|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.26|0.46|<0.001
91744981|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.33|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.33|0.52|<0.001
91744982|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.17|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.17|-0.39|0.441
91800252|NCT04041375|183477760|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.19||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Diet - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.47
91800253|NCT04041375|183477760|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.08||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fruits and Vegetables) - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.82
91875669|NCT02592434|183644230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.02|-0.20|0.1061
91875670|NCT02592434|183644230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.0|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.00|-0.24|0.0572
91744983|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.12||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.16|-0.40|0.408
91744984|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.06||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.22|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.22|-0.35|0.652
91744985|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.02|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.02|0.21|0.003
91744986|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.55||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.95|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.95|0.15|0.007
91744987|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|0.29|<0.001
91744988|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|0.29|<0.001
91744989|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.20|-0.36|0.567
91744990|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.14|-0.42|0.315
91875671|NCT02592434|183644230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.01|-0.24|0.0689
91744991|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.28|-0.28|0.997
91744992|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.77|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.77|-0.01|0.056
91744993|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.39||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.78|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.78|0.01|0.047
91744994|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.95|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.95|0.17|0.005
91744995|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.53||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.92|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.92|0.14|0.007
91800254|NCT04041375|183477760|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.13||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fat) - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.66
91875672|NCT02592434|183644230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.01|-0.22|0.0292
91744996|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.15||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.12|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.12|-0.42|0.276
91744997|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.13|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.13|-0.41|0.318
91744998|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.03||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.3|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.30|-0.25|0.849
91744999|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.66|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.66|-0.09|0.138
91745000|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.31||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.68|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.68|-0.07|0.111
91745001|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.42||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.79|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.79|0.04|0.031
91745002|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.49||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.87|0.11|0.011
91745003|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.06|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.06|-0.47|0.135
91745004|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.08|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.08|-0.44|0.175
91745005|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.19|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.19|-0.34|0.590
91745006|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.49|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.49|-0.20|0.402
91745007|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.2||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.54|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.15|0.261
91745008|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.26||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.61|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.61|-0.08|0.134
91875673|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|11.31|||MMRM|||Global Health: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||11.31|-3.72|0.3179
91745009|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.72|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.72|0.03|0.031
91745010|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.01|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.01|-0.47|0.061
91745011|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.06|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.06|-0.42|0.138
91745012|NCT01559259|183384894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.13|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.13|-0.35|0.353
91745013|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.51|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.51|0.25|0.006
91745014|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.69||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.31|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.31|0.07|0.030
91745015|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.81||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.44|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.44|0.17|0.012
91907160|NCT01342484|183709402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, PK/PD subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||0.23|-1.50|0.1447
91907161|NCT01342484|183709404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 1 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 1 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, PK/PD subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||2.46|-3.08|0.8216
91907162|NCT01342484|183709404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, PK/PD subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||0.52|-4.31|0.1189
91907163|NCT00432042|183709405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Measles difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|4.82|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||4.82|-1.62|
91907164|NCT00432042|183709405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mumps difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|1.1|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||1.10|-4.21|
91907165|NCT00432042|183709405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rubella difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|1.35|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||1.35|-3.19|
91745016|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.01|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.01|-0.25|0.237
91875674|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.4452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|11.78|||MMRM|||Physical Functioning: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||11.78|-5.23|0.4452
91875675|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|14.95|||MMRM|||Social Limitations: Emotional: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||14.95|-4.01|0.2539
91745017|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.5||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.93|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.93|0.07|0.024
91907166|NCT00432042|183709405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Varicella difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|6.58|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||6.58|-0.41|
91907167|NCT00432042|183709406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hepatitis B difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|4.24|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||4.24|-0.29|
91907168|NCT00432042|183709406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Haemophilus Influenza type B difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|6.89|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||6.89|-0.17|
91745018|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.31||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.73|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.73|-0.11|0.150
91745019|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.43||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.86|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.86|-0.01|0.054
91875676|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|18.3|||MMRM|||Social Limitations: Physical Subscale: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||18.30|-3.86|0.1981
91907169|NCT00432042|183709407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Anti-PT difference|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||1.08|0.88|
91745020|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.85|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.85|1.92|<0.001
91875677|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|16.94|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||16.94|-0.43|0.0620
91907170|NCT00432042|183709407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Anti-FHA difference|GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.23|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||1.23|0.98|
91745021|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.47|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.47|1.56|<0.001
91745022|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.47|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.47|1.54|<0.001
91745023|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.72|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.72|0.79|<0.001
91745024|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.79|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.79|0.47|<0.001
91745025|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.76||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.41|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|0.11|0.021
91745026|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.75||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.41|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|0.09|0.027
91745027|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|5.84|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.84|3.65|<0.001
91745028|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.29|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.29|3.13|<0.001
91745029|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|5.56|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.56|3.37|<0.001
91745030|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|5.02|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.02|2.83|<0.001
91745031|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.58|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.58|0.08|0.031
91745032|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.02|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.02|-0.44|0.442
91745033|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.55||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.30|-0.20|0.152
91745034|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.52|6.72|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.72|4.52|<0.001
91745035|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|6.13|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.13|3.96|<0.001
91745036|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|6.5|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.50|4.30|<0.001
91875678|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|2.2|||MMRM|||Behavior: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||2.20|-9.06|0.2291
91875679|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.43|4.13|||MMRM|||Global Behavior: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||4.13|-11.43|0.3530
91907171|NCT00432042|183709407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Anti-PRN difference|GMT ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.36|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||1.36|1.03|
91875680|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.3114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|3.32|||MMRM|||Mental Health: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||3.32|-10.26|0.3114
91875681|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.8736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|9.61|||MMRM|||Self Esteem: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||9.61|-8.18|0.8736
91875682|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|6.72|||MMRM|||General Health Subscale: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||6.72|-3.18|0.4778
91875683|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25|||MMRM|||Change in Health: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||0.25|-0.28|0.8909
91875684|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|20.55|||MMRM|||Emotional Impact on Parent: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||20.55|-2.61|0.1270
91875685|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|1.18|||MMRM|||Time Impact on Parent: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||1.18|-14.62|0.0944
91875686|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-2.17|||MMRM|||Family Activities: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-2.17|-15.03|0.0095
91907172|NCT02321930|183709450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
91745037|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|5.98|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.98|3.78|<0.001
91745038|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.49|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.49|-0.01|0.055
91745039|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.9|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.90|-0.57|0.666
91875687|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|11.14|||MMRM|||Family Cohesion: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||11.14|-5.96|0.5474
91875688|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|7.52|||MMRM|||Physical Health Summary: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||7.52|-0.56|0.0902
91875689|NCT02592434|183644232|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.6539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|2.57|||MMRM|||Psychosocial Health Summary : Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||2.57|-4.07|0.6539
91875690|NCT02592434|183644234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.16|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.16|-0.80|0.1894
91875691|NCT02592434|183644234|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.34|-1.56|0.0026
91875692|NCT02592434|183644234|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.25|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.25|-1.50|0.0067
91907173|NCT02321930|183709451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
91907174|NCT02321930|183709452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
91907175|NCT02321930|183709453|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
91907176|NCT02321930|183709454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
91745040|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.51||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.27|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.27|-0.24|0.181
91745041|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|7.01|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||7.01|4.71|<0.001
91875693|NCT02592434|183644234|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.25|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.25|-1.73|0.0091
91875694|NCT02592434|183644234|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.03|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.03|-1.09|0.0632
91875695|NCT02592434|183644234|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.07|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.07|-1.35|0.0306
91745042|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.29|6.57|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.57|4.29|<0.001
91745043|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.64|6.94|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.94|4.64|<0.001
91745044|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|6.5|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.50|4.19|<0.001
91745045|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.52||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.31|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.31|-0.27|0.200
91800255|NCT04041375|183477760|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.25||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Activity - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.38
91875696|NCT02592434|183644234|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.18|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.18|-1.41|0.0118
91875697|NCT00147745|183644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5499||95.0|-0.1|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.10|0.5499
91875698|NCT00147745|183644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5723||95.0|-0.23|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.23|0.5723
91875699|NCT00147745|183644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.3138||95.0|-0.09|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.09|0.3138
91875700|NCT00147745|183644265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.2042||95.0|-0.05|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.05|0.2042
91875701|NCT00147745|183644265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.6855||95.0|-0.2|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.20|0.6855
91875702|NCT00147745|183644265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.1727||95.0|-0.05|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.05|0.1727
91745046|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.08||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.85|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.85|-0.69|0.831
91745047|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.24|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.24|-0.34|0.268
91745048|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|6.91|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.91|4.54|<0.001
91875703|NCT00147745|183644266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.17||0.4104||95.0|-152.8|64.1|||ANCOVA|||||64.1|-152.8|0.4104
91875704|NCT00147745|183644266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.98||0.8857||95.0|-132.6|152.9|||ANCOVA|||||152.9|-132.6|0.8857
91875705|NCT00147745|183644266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.08||0.4226||95.0|-191.3|82.3|||ANCOVA|||||82.3|-191.3|0.4226
91875706|NCT00147745|183644267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.2286||95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-1.20|0.2286
91875707|NCT00147745|183644267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.3184||95.0|-0.53|1.57|||ANCOVA|||||1.57|-0.53|0.3184
91875708|NCT00147745|183644267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0613||95.0|-1.99|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-1.99|0.0613
91875709|NCT00147745|183644268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0362||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0362
91875710|NCT00385697|183644289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.963||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.779|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.779|0.521|0.904
91875711|NCT00385697|183644289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.629||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|1.33|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.330|0.297|0.222
91875712|NCT00385697|183644289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.054||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|2.129|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.129|0.521|0.885
91875713|NCT00385697|183644291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.572|||ANCOVA|||||0.572|-0.450|0.814
91875714|NCT00385697|183644291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|0.755|||ANCOVA|||||0.755|-0.433|0.593
91875715|NCT00385697|183644291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.513|||ANCOVA|||||0.513|-0.594|0.886
91875716|NCT00385697|183644293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.093|||ANCOVA|||||0.093|0.000|0.049
91875717|NCT00385697|183644293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.056|||ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.061|0.937
91875718|NCT00385697|183644293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.084|||ANCOVA|||||0.084|-0.032|0.382
91875719|NCT00385697|183644295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.881||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.372|2.089|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.089|0.372|0.775
91875720|NCT00385697|183644295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.628||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|1.861|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.861|0.212|0.402
91745049|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|6.48|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.48|4.13|<0.001
91745050|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|6.78|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.78|4.41|<0.001
91745051|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|6.54|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.54|4.17|<0.001
91745052|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.19|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.19|-0.44|0.367
91875721|NCT00385697|183644295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.093||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.912|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.912|0.410|0.859
91875722|NCT00385697|183644297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.265||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|2.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.200|0.727|0.404
91875723|NCT00385697|183644297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.576|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.576|0.412|0.528
91875724|NCT00385697|183644297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.133||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|2.164|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.164|0.594|0.706
91875725|NCT00385697|183644299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|0.536|||ANCOVA|||||0.536|-0.455|0.872
91745053|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.75|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.75|-0.84|0.908
91745054|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.25||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.06|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.06|-0.57|0.553
91875726|NCT00385697|183644299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|0.556|||ANCOVA|||||0.556|-0.581|0.979
91875727|NCT00385697|183644299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.225||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.301|||ANCOVA|||||0.301|-0.750|0.400
91875728|NCT02100189|183644322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|30.72|||Sensitivity||Exact Binomial confidence interval.|||30.72|3.76|
91875729|NCT02100189|183644323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.97|99.87|||Specificity||Exact binomial confidence interval|||99.87|73.97|
91875730|NCT02790788|183644338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|11.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Samples t-test||11.8|-5.2|0.44
91875731|NCT02790788|183644340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|12.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.2|-2.2|0.17
91875732|NCT02790788|183644341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|20.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.8|0.4|0.043
91875733|NCT02790788|183644342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.3|-9.3|0.59
91875734|NCT02790788|183644343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.0|-3.1|0.64
91875735|NCT02790788|183644344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|-10.1|0.20
91875736|NCT02790788|183644345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.6|-0.9|0.14
91875737|NCT02790788|183644346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.3|-6.4|0.90
91875738|NCT02790788|183644347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.4|-2.2|0.33
91875739|NCT02790788|183644348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEDA WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||5.8|-5.3|0.92
91875740|NCT02790788|183644348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEDA WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||1.8|-3.4|0.54
91875741|NCT02790788|183644348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|9.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEDA AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||9.15|0.04|0.048
91875742|NCT02790788|183644348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEDA AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||4.7|-1.0|0.18
91875743|NCT02790788|183644349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEF WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||3.7|-10.9|0.32
91875744|NCT02790788|183644349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEF WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||5.3|-7.2|0.76
91875745|NCT02790788|183644349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEF AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||3.7|-13.5|0.25
91875746|NCT02790788|183644349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEF WITHIN 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||5.5|-9.1|0.61
91745055|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|6.68|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.68|4.22|<0.001
91745056|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|6.31|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.31|3.88|<0.001
91745057|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|6.66|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.66|4.19|<0.001
91745058|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|6.4|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.40|3.94|<0.001
91745059|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.28||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.12|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.12|-0.57|0.518
91745060|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.75|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.75|-0.90|0.860
91745061|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.1|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|-0.59|0.556
91875747|NCT02790788|183644350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-DIASTOLIC ECCI WITHIN 12 HOURS OF ROSC.||0.11|-0.25|0.41
91875748|NCT02790788|183644350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-SYSTOLIC ECCI WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.10|-0.26|0.38
91875749|NCT02790788|183644350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-DIASTOLIC ECCI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.14|-0.29|0.46
91875750|NCT02790788|183644350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-SYSTOLIC ECCI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.12|-0.33|0.34
91875751|NCT02790788|183644351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-1.5|0.90
91875752|NCT02790788|183644352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-0.54|0.59
91875753|NCT02790788|183644353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.93|-0.60|0.67
91875754|NCT02790788|183644354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.02|-0.64|0.65
91875755|NCT02790788|183644355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.8||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 0-6 HOURS AFTER ROSC.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|-1.2|0.41
91745062|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|6.71|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.71|4.17|<0.001
91745063|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|6.19|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.19|3.68|<0.001
91875756|NCT02790788|183644355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 12-18 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.19|-0.92|0.20
91875757|NCT02790788|183644355|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 12-18 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.04|-1.00|0.07
91875758|NCT02790788|183644355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 18-24 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.31|-0.85|0.36
91800256|NCT04041375|183477760|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.12||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood Glucose Testing - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.68
91800257|NCT04041375|183477760|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.26||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Foot Care - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.40
91875759|NCT02790788|183644355|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 24-30 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.35|-0.66|0.54
91745064|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|6.54|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.54|4.00|<0.001
91745065|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|6.34|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.34|3.79|<0.001
91745066|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.25|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.25|-0.49|0.392
91745067|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.13||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.72|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.72|-0.98|0.762
91745068|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.21||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.08|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.08|-0.66|0.638
91745069|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.9|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.90|3.20|<0.001
91745070|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|5.78|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.78|3.11|<0.001
91745071|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|6.26|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.26|3.56|<0.001
91800258|NCT04041375|183477762|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.93
91800259|NCT04041375|183477762|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.63||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.38
91745072|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|5.74|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.74|3.04|<0.001
91745073|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.08|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.08|-0.77|0.741
91745074|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.05||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.95|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.95|-0.85|0.907
91800260|NCT04041375|183477763|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.32||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.66
91875760|NCT02790788|183644355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 30-36 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.42|-0.69|0.62
91800261|NCT04041375|183477763|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.99||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.18
91875761|NCT02790788|183644355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 36-42 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.41|-0.71|0.60
91875762|NCT02790788|183644355|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 42-48 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.36|-0.69|0.54
91875763|NCT02790788|183644356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 75.5 MMHG||1.1|-2.5|0.42
91907177|NCT01484977|183709457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Retention Rate|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.42|81.25||||||"Analyses of the primary efficacy variable will be descriptive only. No hypothesis tests are planned.~The number and percentage of subjects remaining in the study through the 21-Week Treatment Period will be calculated. Subjects with retention will be counted in the numerator. All subjects in the relevant population will be used as the denominator.~This percentage will be known as the retention rate, along with the 95 % confidence interval based on the normal approximation."||81.25|65.42|
91907178|NCT01133379|183709458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|8.24||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-019) was better than vehicle control at Week 6 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-019 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 4. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.24|-10.5|0.811
91745075|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.51||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.44|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.44|-0.41|0.274
91745076|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.13|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.13|2.40|<0.001
91745077|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.26|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.26|2.56|<0.001
91745078|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|5.48|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.48|2.75|<0.001
91745079|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|5.38|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.38|2.64|<0.001
91745080|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.25||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.69|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.69|-1.18|0.607
91745081|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.81|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.81|-1.02|0.824
91745082|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.04|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.04|-0.83|0.827
91875764|NCT02790788|183644356|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 96.0 MMHG||2.30|-0.94|0.40
91875765|NCT02790788|183644356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 75.5 MMHG||3.28|-1.49|0.44
91875766|NCT02790788|183644356|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 97.0 MMHG||3.70|-1.40|0.36
91875767|NCT02790788|183644357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mann Whitney|||||||0.84
91875768|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.262|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.262|-0.311|0.86
91875769|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.158|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO TNF-α AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.158|-0.287|0.56
91875770|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.139|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.139|-0.071|0.52
91875771|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.172|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.172|-0.254|0.70
91875772|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.340|-0.326|0.97
91875773|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.326|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.326|-0.192|0.61
91875774|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|0.267|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO TNFα AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.267|-0.238|0.91
91875775|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.021|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.021|-0.100|0.19
91875776|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.201|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.201|-0.244|0.85
91875777|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.473|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.473|-0.179|0.37
91875778|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.298|0.212|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.212|-0.298|0.74
91875779|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.318|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO ΤΝFα AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.318|-0.246|0.80
91875780|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.142|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.142|-0.030|0.20
91745083|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.39|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.39|1.58|<0.001
91875781|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.198|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.198|-0.246|0.83
91875782|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.276|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.276|-0.223|0.83
91875783|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.354|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.354|-0.294|0.85
91875784|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.339|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO ΤΝFα AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.339|-0.243|0.74
91875785|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.091|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.091|-0.066|0.75
91875786|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|0.149|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.149|-0.238|0.64
91875787|NCT02790788|183644358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.475|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.475|-0.116|0.23
91875788|NCT02790788|183644359|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|4.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|14.6|||Fisher Exact|||||14.6|-4.8|0.45
91875789|NCT02790788|183644360|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|50903.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF EPISODES OF HYPERGLYCEMIA||||0.68
91875790|NCT02790788|183644360|SUPERIORITY||Mann Whitney U|52188.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF EPISODES OF HYPERNATREMIA||||0.68
91875791|NCT02790788|183644360|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|1128.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF EPISODES OF INFECTION||||0.37
91875792|NCT01721109|183644369|EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 14 participants was estimated to provide over 95% power to show pharmacokinetic equivalence between adult and adolescent participants. EVG population PK from historical adult data was used for comparison. The inter-subject standard deviation (natural log scale) of EVG AUCtau observed in the population PK data was 0.31 (historical data).|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0479|1.62||||||||1.6200|1.0479|
91875793|NCT00134056|183644379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis was by intention to treat and the Hochberg procedure was used for multiple testing of co-primary endpoints. Assuming a 4 year accrual, 2.5 years of follow-up, and 930 eligible patients, the study was designed to have 87% power to detect a 25% increase from 18.0 months to 22.5 months in median overall survival with a one-sided log rank with alpha of 0.0125.||1.19|0.90|0.64
91875794|NCT00134056|183644380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis was by intention to treat and the Hochberg procedure was used for multiple testing of co-primary endpoints. Assuming a 4 year accrual, 2.5 years of follow-up, and 930 eligible patients, the study was designed to have 87% power to detect a 25% increase from 6.0 months to 7.5 months in median overall survival with a one-sided log rank with alpha of 0.0125.||1.16|0.89|0.81
91875795|NCT02267746|183644413|EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of mean percent change from baseline were calculated (separately for inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions) for the Test and Reference treatment, and then the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean ratio was constructed using Fieller's method.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.02|||||Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CIs for the ratio of Test/Reference means, for both lesion types, were contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\] for the PP population.|||1.02|0.86|
91889204|NCT04546425|183671166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|PRN||4.2|-0.9|
91889205|NCT04546425|183671166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.0|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hepatitis B||4.0|-1.1|
91875796|NCT02267746|183644414|EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of mean percent change from baseline were calculated (separately for inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions) for the Test and Reference treatment, and then the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean ratio was constructed using Fieller's method.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.04|||||Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CIs for the ratio of Test/Reference means, for both lesion types, were contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\] for the PP population.|||1.04|0.89|
91875797|NCT02267746|183644415|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\] for PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.004|||||Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\] for the PP population.|Success was defined as an IGA score at Week 12 that was at least two grades less than the baseline assessment. Failure was defined as an IGA score that was the same, higher, or one grade lower than the baseline assessment.||0.004|-0.150|
91875798|NCT00348283|183644423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Because of the hierarchical testing scheme used for testing the ranked secondary endpoints, alpha level of 0.05 was used at each stage of testing.||ITT population: all subjects randomized at Week 4 who had at least 1 dose of blinded therapy. The sample-size (placebo = 65 subjects; adalimumab = 65 subjects) for the primary efficacy analysis was calculated using 88% power at 0.05 alpha level based on the assumption that 25% and 5% of subjects were without mucosal ulceration at Week 12 in adalimumab 40 mg eow and placebo groups, respectively. However, subjects without mucosal ulceration at Screening were excluded from the primary analysis.||||0.056
91875799|NCT00348283|183644424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in proportion of subjects with clinical remission at Week 12 in the two treatment groups.||||0.021
91875800|NCT00348283|183644425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between proportions of subjects without mucosal ulceration at Week 52 in the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91875801|NCT00348283|183644426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in proportion of subjects with clinical remission at Week 52 in the two treatment groups.||||0.001
91875802|NCT00348283|183644427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between proportions of subjects without mucosal ulceration at both Week 12 and Week 52 in the two treatment groups.||||0.150
91875803|NCT00348283|183644428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in proportion of subjects with clinical remission at Week 12 in the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91875804|NCT04016415|183644441|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided tests with the null hypothesis of no difference in chg from Baseline to 6MO between the two arms. The power calculation assumed a clinically meaningful diff of 0.5% and standard deviation of 0.9%. Assuming an avg class cohort size of 18 pts and an intraclass correlation coefficient estimate of 0.08 for correlation within cohorts yielded a design effect that inflated the sample size by 1+((18-1) multiplied by 0.08)=2.36. A 15% dropout rate was assumed. 145 pts per arm yielded 80% power.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.34||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 6MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.34|-0.36|0.96
91907179|NCT01133379|183709458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|1.63||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-020) was better than vehicle control at Week 6 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-020 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 4. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.63|-17.1|0.105
91745084|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|4.65|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.65|1.88|<0.001
91745085|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.52|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.52|1.71|<0.001
91875805|NCT04016415|183644442|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 2MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.25||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 2MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.25|-0.38|0.68
91875806|NCT04016415|183644443|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 2MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.21||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 2MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.21|-0.09|0.41
91875807|NCT04016415|183644444|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 6MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.12||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 6MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.12|-0.22|0.59
91875808|NCT04016415|183644445|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 2MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.06||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 2MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||3.06|0.07|0.04
91907180|NCT01133379|183709459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.969||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|8.95||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-019) was better than vehicle control at Week 4 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-019 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 2. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.95|-6.72|0.779
91907181|NCT01133379|183709459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.969||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|2.92||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-020) was better than vehicle control at Week 4 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-020 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 2. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.92|-12.8|0.217
91907182|NCT01133379|183709460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.613||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|5.47||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-019) was better than vehicle control at Week 2 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-019 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 1. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.47|-4.84|0.904
91907183|NCT01133379|183709460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.613||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|1.17||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-020) was better than vehicle control at Week 2 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-020 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 1. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.17|-9.15|0.129
91907184|NCT01133379|183709461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.69||The significance threshold was 0.05. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.69|-3.59|0.477
91907185|NCT01133379|183709461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.67||The significance threshold was 0.05. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.67|-3.60|0.472
91907186|NCT01133379|183709462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.726||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|4.9||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.90|-5.86|0.860
91907187|NCT01133379|183709462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.723||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.55|-6.20|0.763
91745086|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|4.98|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.98|2.16|<0.001
91875809|NCT04016415|183644446|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 6MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.4||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 6MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||2.40|-0.74|0.30
91875810|NCT01885559|183644447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) and clinical site|ACE+ARB (Lisinopril-telmisartan) compared to ACE+placebo (Lisinopril-placebo)|||1.42|0.82|0.58
91875811|NCT01885559|183644448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.8|||shared parameter model|shared parameter models used due to informative censoring that occurred when patients did not have secondary outcomes measured after reaching endpoint||||2.8|-3.2|0.88
91875812|NCT01885559|183644449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7||controlling for age, sex, race, and clinical site|Mixed Models Analysis||ACE-I+ARB annual percent change minus ACE-I + placebo annual percent change|||0.7|-3.9|0.17
91875813|NCT01885559|183644450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site and recurrent events|Hazard ratio compares ACE-I + ARB compared to ACE-I + placebo|||1.32|0.80|0.85
91875814|NCT01885559|183644451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.6|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site and accounting for recurrent events|Hazard ratio is comparing ACE-I + ARB to ACE-I + placebo|||1.6|0.42|0.57
91875815|NCT01885559|183644452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||shared parameter model|Shared parameter models were used due to informed censoring when patients who reached the primary endpoint were no longer assessed on the measure.||||0.16|-0.23|0.75
91875816|NCT01885559|183644453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||shared parameter model|Shared parameter models were used due to the informative censoring when patients who reached endpoint were not longer assessed on this measure.||||0.16|-0.26|0.66
91875817|NCT01885559|183644454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models are used with a logit link. Model controlled for baseline age, sex, race, and clinical site.|"Odds ratio represents the multiplicative effect of ACE-I + ARB group compared to the ACE-I + placebo group in change in pain over time.~ACE-I + ARB OR per month was 1.01 (1.00, 1.01) and ACE-I + placebo OR was 1.01 (1.01, 1.01)."|||1.01|0.99|0.64
91745087|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.59||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.38|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-1.55|0.232
91745088|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.31||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.63|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.63|-1.24|0.522
91745089|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.45||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.51|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.51|-1.41|0.356
91875818|NCT01232569|183644500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|37.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis adjusted for the randomization stratification factors applied at Baseline (region and weight category).||||37.0|22.0|<0.001
91875819|NCT02123797|183644548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.06||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without invasive stage confirmation (numerator=108/70) to Serial Care patients with and without invasive stage confirmation (denominator=168/180) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.06|1.35|0.0007
91875820|NCT02123797|183644549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.8||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without invasive mediastinal staging (numerator=91/87) to Serial Care patients with and without mediastinal invasive staging (denominator=126/222) after adjustment for matched study.|||2.80|1.25|0.0022
91875821|NCT02123797|183644550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.85||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without bi-modal staging (numerator=161/17) to Serial Care patients with and without bi-modal staging (denominator=267/81) after adjustment for matched study design.|||5.85|1.67|0.0004
91875822|NCT02123797|183644551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.36||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without tri-modal staging (numerator=99/79) to Serial Care patients with and without tri-modal staging (denominator=132/216) after adjustment for matched study design.|||3.36|1.50|<0.0001
91875823|NCT02123797|183644552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.665|3.996||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without invasive staging (numerator=108/70) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without invasive staging (denominator=122/150) after adjustment for matched study design.|||3.996|1.665|0.0366
91875824|NCT02123797|183644552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.621||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|4.665||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without invasive staging (numerator=46/30) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without invasive staging (denominator=122/150) after adjustment for matched study design.|||4.665|1.473|0.0779
91875825|NCT02123797|183644553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.358||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.536|3.621||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without mediastinal staging (numerator=91/87) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without mediastinal staging (denominator=86/186) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.621|1.536|0.0703
91875826|NCT02123797|183644553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.535||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.446|4.444||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without mediastinal staging (numerator=40/36) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without mediastinal staging (denominator=86/186) after adjustment for matched study.|||4.444|1.446|0.0631
91875827|NCT02123797|183644554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.191||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.671|6.093||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without bi-modal staging (numerator=161/17) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without bi-modal staging (denominator=205/67) after adjustment for matched study.|||6.093|1.671|0.0010
91875828|NCT02123797|183644554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.1972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|2.314||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without bi-modal staging (numerator=62/14) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without bi-modal staging (denominator=205/67) after adjustment for matched study.|||2.314|0.526|0.1972
91875829|NCT02123797|183644555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.739||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.785|4.203|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without tri-modal staging (numerator=99/79) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without tri-modal staging (denominator=93/179) after adjustment for matched study.|||4.203|1.785|0.0055
91875830|NCT02123797|183644555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.242||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.287|3.905||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without tri-modal staging (numerator=39/37) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without tri-modal staging (denominator=93/179) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.905|1.287|0.2572
91907188|NCT01133379|183709463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.856||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|3.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||3.66|-7.62|0.488
91907189|NCT01133379|183709463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.854||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|2.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups||2.73|-8.54|0.311
91907190|NCT01133379|183709464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.478||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|5.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.06|-8.68|0.604
91907191|NCT01133379|183709464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.477||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|8.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.78|-4.95|0.583
91875831|NCT02123797|183644556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.25||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without stage appropriate treatment (numerator=140/33) to SC patients with and without stage appropriate treatment (denominator=232/106) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.25|1.24|0.0045
91875832|NCT02123797|183644557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.249||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.368|3.699||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without stage appropriate treatment (numerator=140/33) to SC patients not in conference with and without stage appropriate treatment (denominator=174/91) after adjustment for matched study.|We examined treatment selection practices with or without MD care in a single healthcare system.||3.699|1.368|0.0474
91875833|NCT02123797|183644557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.751||||0.6353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.37||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing SC patients in conference with and without stage appropriate treatment (numerator=58/15) to SC patients not in conference with and without stage appropriate treatment (denominator=174/91) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.370|0.910|0.6353
91875834|NCT02123797|183644559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.955||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.747||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=140/37) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=45/30) after adjustment for matched study design.|||5.747|1.520|0.0014
91875835|NCT02123797|183644560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.093||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.519|6.299||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=145/32) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=49/26) after adjustment for matched study design.|||6.299|1.519|0.0019
91875836|NCT02123797|183644561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.892||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|999.999||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=174/3) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=71/4) after adjustment for matched study design.|||999.999|1.002|0.0499
91875837|NCT02123797|183644562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.663||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|6.319||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=158/19) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=60/15) after adjustment for matched study design.|||6.319|1.123|0.0263
91875838|NCT02123797|183644563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.566||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|9.269||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=87/14) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=38/8) after adjustment for matched study design.|||9.269|0.711|0.1503
91875839|NCT02123797|183644576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Diagnostic Biopsy||||0.0042
91875840|NCT02123797|183644576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Non-invasive Staging Test||||0.0805
91875841|NCT02123797|183644576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Invasive Staging Test||||0.0073
91875842|NCT02123797|183644576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Definitive Treatment||||0.0579
91907192|NCT01133379|183709465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|6.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.43|-7.83|0.847
91907193|NCT01133379|183709465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|8.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.48|-5.77|0.708
91907194|NCT01133379|183709466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.678||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|2.83||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.83|-7.75|0.360
91745090|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.69|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.69|0.92|0.001
91875843|NCT02123797|183644577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Diagnostic Biopsy||||0.0146
91875844|NCT02123797|183644577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Non-invasive Staging Test||||0.16
91875845|NCT02123797|183644577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Invasive Staging Test||||0.0014
91875846|NCT02123797|183644577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Definitive Treatment||||0.0037
91875847|NCT02123797|183644584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7506|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7506
91875848|NCT02123797|183644584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care.|||1.36|0.85|0.54
91875849|NCT02123797|183644585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4847|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4847
91875850|NCT02123797|183644585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.43|0.87|0.51
91875851|NCT02123797|183644585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.67|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Serial Care Patients Presented in Conference/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.67|0.84|0.51
91875852|NCT02123797|183644586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9874|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9874
91875853|NCT02123797|183644586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care|||1.29|0.82|0.80
91875854|NCT02123797|183644587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5377|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5377
91875855|NCT02123797|183644587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.34|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.34|0.83|0.73
91875856|NCT02123797|183644587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.57|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Serial Care Patients Presented in Conference/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.57|0.82|0.73
91875857|NCT01375777|183644597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.52|-39.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-39.93|-54.52|<0.001
91875858|NCT01375777|183644597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001||95.0|-47.38|-32.95||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-32.95|-47.38|<0.001
91875859|NCT01375777|183644597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.53|-30.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-30.02|-44.53|<0.001
91875860|NCT01375777|183644597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.67|-45.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-45.38|-59.67|<0.001
91875861|NCT01375777|183644597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.89|-40.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-40.60|-54.89|<0.001
91875862|NCT01375777|183644597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.71|-36.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.42|-50.71|<0.001
91875863|NCT01375777|183644598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|-55.6||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.6|-76.3|<0.001
91875864|NCT01375777|183644598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001||95.0|-73.2|-52.2||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-52.2|-73.2|<0.001
91875865|NCT01375777|183644598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|-41.9||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.9|-62.7|<0.001
91907195|NCT01133379|183709466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.679||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|1.41||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.41|-9.17|0.149
91745091|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.82|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.82|1.08|<0.001
91745092|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.08|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.08|1.31|<0.001
91875866|NCT01375777|183644598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-72.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.2|-62.4||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.4|-82.2|<0.001
91875867|NCT01375777|183644598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.9|-54.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-54.0|-73.9|<0.001
91875868|NCT01375777|183644598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7|-50.9||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.9|-70.7|<0.001
91875869|NCT01375777|183644599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.72|-38.58||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.58|-51.72|<0.001
91875870|NCT01375777|183644599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|<|0.001||95.0|-43.29|-30.29||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-30.29|-43.29|<0.001
91875871|NCT01375777|183644599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.59|-28.52||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-28.52|-41.59|<0.001
91875872|NCT01375777|183644599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.33|-40.89||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.89|-53.33|<0.001
91875873|NCT01375777|183644599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.11|-35.67||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-35.67|-48.11|<0.001
91875874|NCT01375777|183644599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.92|-31.47||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.47|-43.92|<0.001
91745093|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.23|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.23|1.46|<0.001
91745094|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.54||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.41|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.41|-1.49|0.264
91745095|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.4||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.53|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-1.32|0.400
91745096|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.15||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.80|-1.10|0.758
91745097|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.62||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.97|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.97|0.27|0.018
91745098|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.21|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.21|0.55|0.006
91745099|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.63|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.63|0.94|<0.001
91745100|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.75|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.75|1.05|<0.001
91745101|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.78||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.14|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.14|-1.70|0.097
91745102|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.52||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.38|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-1.42|0.254
91745103|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.81|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.81|-1.03|0.812
91745104|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.61|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.61|0.03|0.045
91745105|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.59||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.87|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.87|0.31|0.015
91745106|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.73||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.02|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.02|0.43|0.009
91745107|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.37|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.37|0.78|0.002
91745108|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.76||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.13|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.13|-1.64|0.094
91875875|NCT01375777|183644600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-37.94||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.94|-50.45|<0.001
91875876|NCT01375777|183644600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|<|0.001||95.0|-42.06|-29.69||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.69|-42.06|<0.001
91875877|NCT01375777|183644600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.55|-26.11||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-26.11|-38.55|<0.001
91875878|NCT01375777|183644600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.63|-36.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.32|-48.63|<0.001
91875879|NCT01375777|183644600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.07|-31.76||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.76|-44.07|<0.001
91907196|NCT01133379|183709467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.235||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||3.78|-9.00|0.421
91907197|NCT01133379|183709467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.235||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.73|-10.0|0.260
91907198|NCT01133379|183709468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.601||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|7.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||7.06|-7.16|0.989
91907199|NCT01133379|183709468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|5.82||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.82|-8.39|0.721
91907200|NCT01133379|183709469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|6.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.07|-8.50|0.743
91907201|NCT01133379|183709469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.688||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|6.95||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.95|-7.61|0.928
91745109|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.38|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-1.35|0.269
91745110|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.35||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.53|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-1.23|0.437
91907202|NCT01133379|183709470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.369||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|5.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.65|-3.71|0.683
91907203|NCT01133379|183709470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.371||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|4.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.42|-4.94|0.914
91907204|NCT01133379|183709471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.994||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.27|-12.1|0.040
91875880|NCT01375777|183644600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.38|-27.07||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-27.07|-39.38|<0.001
91875881|NCT01375777|183644601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.43|-31.54||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.54|-43.43|<0.001
91875882|NCT01375777|183644601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001||95.0|-37.79|-26.04||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-26.04|-37.79|<0.001
91745111|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.92|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.92|-0.44|0.218
91875883|NCT01375777|183644601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.77|-22.95||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-22.95|-34.77|<0.001
91875884|NCT01375777|183644601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.29|-30.88||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-30.88|-42.29|<0.001
91875885|NCT01375777|183644601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.92|-25.51||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-25.51|-36.92|<0.001
91875886|NCT01375777|183644601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.39|-22.98||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-22.98|-34.39|<0.001
91907205|NCT01133379|183709471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.997||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-0.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.18|-12.0|0.043
91745112|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.35|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.35|0.02|0.046
91745113|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.49|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.49|0.13|0.030
91745114|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.93|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.93|0.57|0.004
91745115|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.01||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.2|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.20|-1.82|0.014
91745116|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.56||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.22|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.22|-1.35|0.160
91745117|NCT01559259|183384895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.44||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.37|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.37|-1.25|0.284
91745118|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.1|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|0.13|0.014
91745119|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.46||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.94|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.94|-0.03|0.066
91745120|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.71||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.2|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.20|0.22|0.004
91745121|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.3||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.78|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.78|-0.19|0.232
91745122|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.32||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.66|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.66|-0.02|0.067
91875887|NCT01375777|183644602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.75|-43.58||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.58|-56.75|<0.001
91875888|NCT01375777|183644602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001||95.0|-46.84|-33.82||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-33.82|-46.84|<0.001
91875889|NCT01375777|183644602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.38|-28.28||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-28.28|-41.38|<0.001
91875890|NCT01375777|183644602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.12|-38.82||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.82|-52.12|<0.001
91875891|NCT01375777|183644602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.22|-33.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-33.92|-47.22|<0.001
91875892|NCT01375777|183644602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-29.6||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.60|-42.90|<0.001
91875893|NCT00376935|183644613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Shift parameter|-9.0||||0.1996|ONE_SIDED|98.4||14.0||P-value reported here was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the shift parameter for each comparison adjusted the multiple comparison issues and restricted the familywise Type I error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the null hypothesis.A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the primary shift parameter was calculated.|The shift parameter (say, X), was calculated as the difference between the distribution of the primary endpoint in the placebo arm and that of in the palifermin arm. X\<0 indicates that palifermen is beneficial.|The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the change in absolute CD4+ lymphocyte counts from baseline to week 12 is the same in the placebo arm and palifermin (20 mcg/kg) arm. The 1-sided alternative hypothesis is that the endpoint distribution is shifted higher in the palifermin (20 mcg/kg) arm.||14||0.1996
91800262|NCT04041375|183477766|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|1.45||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.38
91875894|NCT00376935|183644613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Shift parameter|-4.0||||0.3135|ONE_SIDED|98.4||17.0||P-value reported here was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the shift parameter for each comparison adjusted the multiple comparison issues and restricted the familywise Type I error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the null hypothesis.A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the primary shift parameter was calculated.|The shift parameter (say, X), was calculated as the difference between the distribution of the primary endpoint in the placebo arm and that of in the palifermin arm. X\<0 indicates that palifermen is beneficial.|The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the change in absolute CD4+ lymphocyte counts from baseline to week 12 is the same in the placebo arm and palifermin (40 mcg/kg) arm. The 1-sided alternative hypothesis is that the endpoint distribution is shifted higher in the palifermin (40 mcg/kg) arm.||17||0.3135
91745123|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.5|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.18|0.354
91745124|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.42||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.76|0.08|0.017
91745125|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.86|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.86|1.45|<0.001
91745126|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.64|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.64|1.23|<0.001
91745127|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.8|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.80|1.39|<0.001
91745128|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.02|0.61|<0.001
91745129|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.33|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.33|0.34|<0.001
91745130|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.11|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.11|0.12|0.014
91745131|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.27|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.27|0.28|0.002
91745132|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.22|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.22|2.69|<0.001
91745133|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|3.89|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.89|2.36|<0.001
91875895|NCT00376935|183644613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Shift parameter|-4.0||||0.3662|ONE_SIDED|98.4||22.0||P-value reported here was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the shift parameter for each comparison adjusted the multiple comparison issues and restricted the familywise Type I error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the null hypothesis.A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the primary shift parameter was calculated.|The shift parameter (say, X), was calculated as the difference between the distribution of the primary endpoint in the placebo arm and that of in the palifermin arm. X\<0 indicates that palifermen is beneficial.|The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the change in absolute CD4+ lymphocyte counts from baseline to week 12 is the same in the placebo arm and palifermin (60 mcg/kg) arm. The 1-sided alternative hypothesis is that the endpoint distribution is shifted higher in the palifermin (60 mcg/kg) arm.||22||0.3662
91875896|NCT03602053|183644623|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between the ROTAVAC 5D® and ROTAVAC® groups was larger than 1/2 (i.e. \> 0.5), ROTAVAC 5D® would be considered non-inferior to ROTAVAC®.|GMC ratio|1.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.924|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.924|0.862|
91745134|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.26|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.26|2.72|<0.001
91745135|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.54|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.54|2.02|<0.001
91745136|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.67||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.21|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.21|0.14|0.014
91745137|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.35||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.88|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.88|-0.19|0.202
91745138|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.24|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.24|0.17|0.010
91745139|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|4.76|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.76|3.24|<0.001
91745140|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|4.31|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.31|2.79|<0.001
91745141|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|4.79|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.79|3.27|<0.001
91745142|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.24|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.24|2.72|<0.001
91745143|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.52||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.05|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.05|-0.01|0.056
91875897|NCT01234675|183644659|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|4.6||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|16.6|||Paired T test|||||16.6|-7.3|0.424
91875898|NCT01234675|183644660|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-6.1||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.04|||Paired T test|||||-0.04|-12.2|0.049
91745144|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.6|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.60|-0.46|0.789
91800263|NCT04041375|183477766|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|1.64||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.68
91875899|NCT01234675|183644661|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|22.6||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|45.8|||Paired T test|||||45.8|-0.6|0.056
91875900|NCT01234675|183644662|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-6.1||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|18.5|||Paired T test|||||18.5|-12.5|0.683
91745145|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.55||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.08|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.08|0.02|0.042
91745146|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|4.98|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.98|3.37|<0.001
91875901|NCT01234675|183644663|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.502||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.1|10.4|||Paired T test|||||10.4|-59.1|0.155
91875902|NCT01234675|183644664|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.0||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|7.8|||Paired T test|||||7.8|-9.8|0.805
91875903|NCT01234675|183644665|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.0||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|9.6|||Paired T test|||||9.6|-11.6|0.844
91875904|NCT01234675|183644666|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|2.9||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|12.2|||Paired T test|||||12.2|-6.4|0.509
91875905|NCT01234675|183644667|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|0.32||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Paired T test|||||0.6|-0.3|0.3
91907206|NCT01133379|183709472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.522||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|4.64||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.64|-9.27|0.511
91907207|NCT01133379|183709472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.526||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.89||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.89|-11.0|0.250
91907208|NCT01133379|183709473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.684||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|2.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.86|-11.7|0.233
91907209|NCT01133379|183709473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.687||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.44||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.44|-13.1|0.115
91907210|NCT00841204|183709477|OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0056
91745147|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.66|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.66|3.06|<0.001
91745148|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|5.14|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.14|3.54|<0.001
91745149|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|4.69|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.69|3.09|<0.001
91907211|NCT00841204|183709478|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.386
91907212|NCT00841204|183709479|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91907213|NCT00841204|183709480|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.58
91907214|NCT00841204|183709481|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
91907215|NCT00255970|183709485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study had been designed as a superiority study. The null hypothesis had been that there would be no significant difference in probing depth between groups at the time points measured.||||>.05
91907216|NCT00255970|183709485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The power analysis had been computed for a threshold of 0.05 with a power of 0.8.|ANOVA|||A power analysis, prior to data collection, determined that a minimum of 18 in each arm would be needed for this study.||||>0.05
91907217|NCT00255970|183709486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||This study had been designed as a superiority study. The a priori power analysis had been designed with an effect size based on historical data. Thus, a minimal sample size of 34 patients would be necessary to determine if there was a true difference between groups, α =.05, power= 0.8. This number was then rounded to 40 patients, 20/ group (DFDBA and Regenafil).||||>.05
91907218|NCT00255970|183709487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The change in recession, measured in mm, had been designed as a superiority study. The a priori power analysis had been designed with an effect size based on historical data. Thus, a minimal sample size of 34 patients would be necessary to determine if there was a true difference between groups, α =.05, power= 0.8. This number was then rounded to 40 patients, 20/ group (DFDBA and Regenafil).||||>0.05
91907219|NCT00255970|183709488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Each gingival unit (buccal, lingual, mesiobuccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, and distolingual) of the individual tooth will be given a score from 0-3, called the gingival index for the area. The scores from the 6 areas of the tooth are added and divided by 6 to give the gingival index for the tooth.||||>0.05
91745150|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.85|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.85|-0.28|0.317
91745151|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.53|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-0.59|0.922
91745152|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.02|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.02|-0.11|0.112
91875906|NCT01234675|183644668|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.03||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.6|||Paired T test|||||5.6|-8.2|0.685
91875907|NCT01234675|183644669|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-5.3||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|6.4|||Paired T test|||||6.4|-17.0|0.349
91875908|NCT01234675|183644670|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-0.6||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.6|||Paired T test|||||5.6|-1.8|0.305
91875909|NCT01234675|183644671|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-0.5||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8|||Paired T test|||||0.8|-1.8|0.425
91875910|NCT01636258|183644738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0||P-value less than 0.05 considered statistically significant a priori. No multiple comparison adjustment made.|t-test, 2 sided|||No sample size calculation performed since it was a pilot study. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||2.0|-1.4|0.72
91875911|NCT01636258|183644739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No sample study calculation performed since it was a pilot study. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||||0.31
91907220|NCT00255970|183709489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||This study had been designed as a superiority study. The a priori power analysis had been designed with an effect size based on historical data. Thus, a minimal sample size of 34 patients would be necessary to determine if there was a true difference between groups, α =.05, power= 0.8. This number was then rounded to 40 patients, 20/ group (DFDBA and Regenafil).||||>0.05
91745153|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|4.94|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.94|3.27|<0.001
91875912|NCT01636258|183644740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91745154|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.59|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.59|2.92|<0.001
91745155|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.99|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.99|3.32|<0.001
91745156|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.72|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.72|3.05|<0.001
91745157|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.81|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.81|-0.37|0.464
91745158|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.13||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.45|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.45|-0.71|0.667
91745159|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.86|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.86|-0.32|0.368
91745160|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|4.81|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.81|3.08|<0.001
91745161|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|4.49|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.49|2.77|<0.001
91745162|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|4.92|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.92|3.19|<0.001
91745163|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|4.54|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.54|2.82|<0.001
91745164|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.26||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.86|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.86|-0.34|0.397
91745165|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.55|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.55|-0.65|0.866
91875913|NCT01636258|183644741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91875914|NCT01838499|183644743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.051|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.067|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||MEDI8968 - placebo|Analysis of proportion of Responders for Physician's Global Assessment (PGA score 0, 1 or 2) at Week 12 - LOCF. Difference in proportions MEDI8968 - placebo. Wald asymptotic confidence limits calculated.||0.169|-0.067|>0.05
91875915|NCT01838499|183644744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.065|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.205|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in proportions MEDI8968 - placebo. Wald asymptotic confidence limits calculated.||0.076|-0.205|>0.05
91907221|NCT02726971|183709492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91907222|NCT04649255|183709497|OTHER||Exact binomial|96.4|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.4|100.0|||One-sided exact binomial test|Exact binomial one-sided lower 97.5% CI for performance goal test \>72% for primary effectiveness and \>82% for primary safety.||Descriptive assessment; H0: Ps ≤ PGS, versus HA: PS \> PGS, where where Ps is the population primary safety success rate in the Test group and PGS is the safety performance goal of 82%.||100|96.4|<0.025
91907223|NCT04649255|183709498|OTHER||Exact binomial|89.1|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.1|97.5|||One-sided exact binomial test|Exact binomial one-sided lower 97.5% CI for performance goal test \>72% for primary effectiveness and \>82% for primary safety.||Descriptive assessment; H0: PE ≤ PGE, versus HA: PE \> PGE, where PE is the proportion of target lesions with clinical success and PGE is the effectiveness performance goal of 72%.||97.5|89.1|<0.025
91800264|NCT04041375|183477767|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.19||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.74
91800265|NCT04041375|183477767|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.29||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.62
91875916|NCT01838499|183644745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from baseline (at week 12)|-0.03||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.63|0.57|||ANCOVA||MEDI8968 - Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline (Week 12) estimated from ANCOVA model with tmt group and PGA stratum at randomisation included in the model and average daily pain at baseline as a covariate||0.57|-0.63|0.945
91745166|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.97|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.97|-0.23|0.226
91745167|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.7|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.70|2.90|<0.001
91745168|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|4.26|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.26|2.47|<0.001
91745169|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|4.79|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.79|2.99|<0.001
91745170|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.5|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.50|2.70|<0.001
91745171|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.2||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.83|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.83|-0.43|0.536
91800266|NCT04041375|183477768|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.16||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.72
91875917|NCT03614923|183644746|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints would be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.25||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in NPS as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline NPS as covariate; and subject as random effect.||0.25|-1.01|0.2364
91889206|NCT04546425|183671166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC -13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 1||4.2|-4.6|
91745172|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.39|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.39|-0.86|0.467
91745173|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.92|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.92|-0.34|0.361
91745174|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|4.13|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.13|2.21|<0.001
91745175|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.95|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.95|2.04|<0.001
91745176|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|4.47|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.47|2.55|<0.001
91745177|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.0|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.00|2.09|<0.001
91875918|NCT03614923|183644746|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints was to be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.2024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.22||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in NPS as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline NPS as covariate; and subject as random effect.||0.22|-1.03|0.2024
91875919|NCT03614923|183644747|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints was to be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.383||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.34|2.06||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in SNOT-22 as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline SNOT-22 as covariate; and subject as random effect.||2.06|-15.34|0.1330
91907224|NCT03357731|183709550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9242||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0432|-0.257|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||-0.2570|-4.0432|0.027
91907225|NCT03357731|183709551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9832||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8176|2.2042|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||2.2042|-1.8176|0.846
91907226|NCT03357731|183709552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|3.19|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||3.19|-0.62|0.177
91907227|NCT03357731|183709552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.88|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.88|-1.08|0.839
91745178|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.8|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.80|-0.54|0.704
91745179|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.62|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.62|-0.71|0.890
91745180|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.47||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.14|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.14|-0.20|0.170
91745181|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.67|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.67|1.72|<0.001
91745182|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.56|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.56|1.61|<0.001
91745183|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.97|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.97|2.01|<0.001
91745184|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.72|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.72|1.77|<0.001
91745185|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.63|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.63|-0.74|0.882
91745186|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.16||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.52|-0.84|0.640
91745187|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.24||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.93|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.93|-0.44|0.482
91745188|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.06|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.06|1.07|<0.001
91875920|NCT03614923|183644747|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints was to be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.375||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|6.67||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in SNOT-22 as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline SNOT-22 as covariate; and subject as random effect.||6.67|-10.70|0.6464
91875921|NCT00116584|183644769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91875922|NCT00116584|183644770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91745189|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.16|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.16|1.17|<0.001
91745190|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.24|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.24|1.25|<0.001
91745191|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.41|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.41|1.43|<0.001
91745192|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.36||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.34|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.34|-1.05|0.314
91745193|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.25||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.44|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.44|-0.95|0.469
91745194|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.52|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.52|-0.87|0.616
91745195|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.56|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.56|0.57|0.002
91745196|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.53|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.53|0.55|0.002
91745197|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.94|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.94|0.95|<0.001
91745198|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.9|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.90|0.92|<0.001
91745199|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.34||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.35|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-1.04|0.330
91745200|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.37||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.32|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.32|-1.06|0.288
91875923|NCT00116584|183644771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91875924|NCT03034772|183644772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|Mean difference between the 2 groups derived using analysis of covariance, with the baseline value and type of anti-VEGF drug used as covariates.||||||0.04
91875925|NCT03034772|183644773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|Mean difference between the 2 groups derived using analysis of covariance, with the baseline value and type of anti-VEGF drug used as covariates.||||||0.11
91875926|NCT03034772|183644774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|Mean difference between the 2 groups derived using analysis of covariance, with the baseline value and type of anti-VEGF drug used as covariates.||||||0.01
91745201|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.73|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.73|-0.66|0.916
91745202|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.01||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.98|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.98|0.04|0.041
91875927|NCT03034772|183644775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.78
91875928|NCT03034772|183644776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.24
91889207|NCT04546425|183671166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 2||4.2|-4.6|
91888936|NCT02964325|183670493|NON_INFERIORITY|An NI analysis was carried out to assess the primary efficacy endpoint with the null hypothesis being the MIRASOL group is inferior to the CONTROL group and the alternative hypothesis being the MIRASOL group is non-inferior to the CONTROL group. In this study, the NI margin was 1.6.|Relative Rate|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.67|||||The MIRASOL group represents the numerator and the CONTROL group represents the denominator for the relative rate. For days during off-protocol intervals, bleeding data were simulated using an estimate of the individual-specific bleeding rate.|The MIRASOL and CONTROL groups were compared with respect to the number of days of WHO ≥ Grade 2 bleeding. This was carried out by fitting a negative binomial regression model with an offset defined as the natural logarithm (LN) of the number of days that bleeding was assessed in order to account for the fact that subjects had different numbers of bleeding assessment days.||4.67|1.67|
91745203|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.05||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.01|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.01|0.08|0.034
91745204|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.56|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.56|0.62|0.001
91745205|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.45|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.45|0.52|0.003
91745206|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.47||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.2|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.20|-1.15|0.171
91745207|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.44||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.23|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-1.11|0.201
91745208|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.78|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.78|-0.57|0.763
91745209|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.66||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.61|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.61|-0.30|0.175
91745210|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.75||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.70|-0.20|0.120
91745211|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.19||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.15|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.15|0.24|0.014
91745212|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.26|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.26|0.36|0.007
91745213|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.66||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.01|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.01|-1.32|0.054
91745214|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.56||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.1|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.10|-1.22|0.096
91745215|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.12||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.55|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.55|-0.79|0.724
91745216|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.42||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.3|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.30|-0.46|0.345
91745217|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.41|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|-0.34|0.228
91745218|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.78|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.78|0.02|0.045
91745219|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.08||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.96|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.96|0.21|0.016
91745220|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.66||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.04|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.04|-1.27|0.036
91745221|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.54||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.07|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.07|-1.15|0.081
91888937|NCT02964325|183670495|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 1.2 was used to evaluated this endpoint.|Relative Risk|1.32||||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.81|||Wald Non-inferiority Test||The MIRASOL group represents the numerator and the CONTROL group represents the denominator for the relative risk.|The null hypothesis was H0: pt/pc \> 1.2 (ie, MIRASOL had more than a 20% higher probability of a patient experiencing at least one WHO ≥ Grade 2 bleed compared to CONTROL).||1.81|0.97|0.7274
91888938|NCT02964325|183670496|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Log-rank test|||||||0.07
91745222|NCT01559259|183384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.43|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.43|-0.80|0.556
91745223|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.05|2.01|<0.001
91745224|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.75|1.72|<0.001
91745225|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.08|2.04|<0.001
91745226|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.60|1.57|<0.001
91745227|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.44||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.81||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.81|0.08|0.016
91745228|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.14||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.50|-0.21|0.428
91745229|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.84||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.84|0.11|0.010
91745230|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|10.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.18|6.59|<0.001
91745231|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|9.47||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.47|5.89|<0.001
91745232|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|10.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.50|6.91|<0.001
91745233|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|7.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.44|5.86|<0.001
91745234|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.99||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.99|-0.52|0.250
91888939|NCT02964325|183670497|OTHER|||||||0.1649|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1649
91888940|NCT02964325|183670498|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.15||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.49|||Fisher Exact|||||3.49|1.32|0.0015
91875929|NCT01106586|183644842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total of 700 HIV-1 infected participants, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2 groups would achieve at least 95% power to establish noninferiority in Week 48 response (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL per the FDA-defined snapshot analysis) rate difference between the 2 groups. For sample size and power computation, it was assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 0.795, a noninferiority margin of 0.12, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided, 0.025 level.|Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-1.9|7.8|||||To preserve the overall alpha level: 0.05, accounting for 2 interim analyses for Independent Data Monitoring Committee meetings, the 95.2% CI was computed using normal approximation stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The null hypothesis was that the Stribild group is at least 12% worse than the ATV/r + Truvada group with respect to percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the Stribild group is less than 12% worse than that in the ATV/r + Truvada Group.||7.8|-1.9|
91907228|NCT03357731|183709553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03308||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16634|-0.02915|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||-0.02915|-0.16634|0.007
91875930|NCT05878522|183644882|OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.89|14.58||||||3- hours post-dose||14.58|8.89|
91875931|NCT05878522|183644882|OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|14.2||||||4-hours post-dose||14.20|8.50|
91875932|NCT05878522|183644882|OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.35||||||90.0|5.51|11.2||||||5-hours post-dose||11.20|5.51|
91907229|NCT03357731|183709553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02194||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08243|0.00814|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.00814|-0.08243|0.103
91745235|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.28|-1.21|0.956
91745236|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.06||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.31|-0.20|0.099
91760169|NCT05173012|183412052|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.5325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.62|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.|Difference was calculated as Monotherapy: SAGE-324 15 mg - placebo.|||1.62|-0.84|0.5325
91875933|NCT00936065|183644934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0672
91875934|NCT00936065|183644935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 2||||1.0000
91907230|NCT03357731|183709554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|-0.051|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/A ratio||-0.051|-0.205|0.003
91907231|NCT03357731|183709554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.057|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/A ratio||0.057|-0.051|0.904
91875935|NCT00936065|183644935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 4||||0.0229
91875936|NCT00936065|183644935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 8||||0.0256
91907232|NCT03357731|183709554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.763|-0.549|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/e' ratio||-0.549|-2.763|0.006
91875937|NCT00936065|183644935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 12||||0.0004
91875938|NCT00936065|183644935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 18||||0.0105
91875939|NCT00936065|183644935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 24||||0.0366
91875940|NCT00936065|183644936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||1.0000
91875941|NCT00936065|183644936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.3230
91875942|NCT00936065|183644936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||1.0000
91907233|NCT03357731|183709554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.085|0.55|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/e' ratio||0.550|-1.085|0.503
91907234|NCT03357731|183709555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|0.82|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|annular e' velocity||0.820|-0.827|0.994
91875943|NCT00936065|183644936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||1.0000
91875944|NCT00936065|183644937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3103
91745237|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|10.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.78|12.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||12.66|7.78|<0.001
91745238|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|9.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|11.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||11.92|7.06|<0.001
91745239|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|10.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.28|13.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||13.15|8.28|<0.001
91745240|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|9.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|12.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||12.06|7.19|<0.001
91745241|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.6||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.30|-1.11|0.492
91745242|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.56|-1.83|0.873
91745243|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.09||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.79||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.79|-0.62|0.210
91745244|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|11.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|15.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||15.20|8.10|<0.001
91745245|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|10.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.48||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||14.48|7.40|<0.001
91745246|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|12.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|16.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||16.20|9.10|<0.001
91875945|NCT00936065|183644937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4763
91875946|NCT00936065|183644937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1961|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1961
91875947|NCT00936065|183644937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0272
91875948|NCT00936065|183644937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5038|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.5038
91875949|NCT00936065|183644937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0374
91875950|NCT00936065|183644938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Baseline||||0.6061
91875951|NCT00936065|183644938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.2971
91875952|NCT00936065|183644938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1119
91875953|NCT00936065|183644938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1081
91875954|NCT00936065|183644938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0063
91875955|NCT00936065|183644938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0055
91875956|NCT00936065|183644938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0031
91875957|NCT00936065|183644939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0033
91800267|NCT04041375|183477768|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.24||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.58
91800268|NCT04041375|183477769|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.36||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.50
91800269|NCT04041375|183477769|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.72||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.18
91800270|NCT01967342|183477772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.193||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Usual Care between pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||.165
91800271|NCT01967342|183477772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Usual Care between post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.216
91800272|NCT01967342|183477772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within CBT group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
91800273|NCT01967342|183477772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within CBT group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.070
91875958|NCT00936065|183644940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0448
91875959|NCT00936065|183644941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0041
91745247|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|11.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.18|15.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||15.26|8.18|<0.001
91745248|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|2.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.42|-2.55|0.957
91745249|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.78||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.69|-3.25|0.534
91800274|NCT01967342|183477772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Pain Ed group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
91800275|NCT01967342|183477772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.519|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Pain Ed group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.519
91875960|NCT00936065|183644942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.3536
91800276|NCT01967342|183477773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.196|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Usual Care group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||.196
91875961|NCT00936065|183644943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0203
91875962|NCT00936065|183644943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0102
91875963|NCT00936065|183644943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0056
91875964|NCT00936065|183644943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0006
91875965|NCT00936065|183644943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0066
91875966|NCT00936065|183644943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0058
91875967|NCT00936065|183644944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0329
91875968|NCT00936065|183644944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0003
91875969|NCT00936065|183644944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0598
91875970|NCT00936065|183644944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0241
91907235|NCT03357731|183709555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|1.013|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|annular e' velocity||1.013|-0.049|0.073
91745250|NCT01559259|183384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.93||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.41|-1.55|0.462
91907236|NCT03357731|183709556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.976|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.976|-0.670|0.705
91745251|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.23|10.89||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.89|7.23|<0.001
91745252|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|9.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.95|6.33|<0.001
91745253|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|10.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.49|6.83|<0.001
91745254|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|7.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.78|9.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.44|5.78|<0.001
91745255|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.45||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.70|0.19|0.024
91745256|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.53||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.76|-0.69|0.392
91745257|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.05||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|2.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.30|-0.21|0.101
91745258|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|30.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.97|36.48||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||36.48|23.97|<0.001
91745259|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|27.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.74|34.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||34.11|21.74|<0.001
91875971|NCT00936065|183644944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0543
91875972|NCT00936065|183644944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.1205
91875973|NCT00936065|183644945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1385|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1385
91875974|NCT00936065|183644945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0019
91875975|NCT00936065|183644945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0442
91875976|NCT00936065|183644945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0034
91745260|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|29.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|36.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||36.12|23.60|<0.001
91745261|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|27.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.33|33.86||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||33.86|21.33|<0.001
91745262|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.63||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|6.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.92|-1.65|0.228
91745263|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|4.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.51|-3.84|0.875
91745264|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.27||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|6.55||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.55|-2.02|0.299
91875977|NCT00936065|183644945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0454
91745265|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|36.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.48|45.47||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||45.47|28.48|<0.001
91745266|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|43.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||43.50|26.70|<0.001
91745267|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|37.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|45.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||45.59|28.60|<0.001
91745268|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|35.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.67|43.68||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||43.68|26.67|<0.001
91745269|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|7.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.63|-4.02|0.543
91745270|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|5.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.60|-5.75|0.979
91745271|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.92||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.74|-3.90|0.517
91745272|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|42.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.51|55.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||55.41|30.51|<0.001
91875978|NCT00936065|183644945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0539
91875979|NCT00936065|183644946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1723
91800277|NCT01967342|183477773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.447|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Usual Care group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.447
91745273|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|42.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|54.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||54.51|29.90|<0.001
91875980|NCT00936065|183644946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0292
91745274|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|45.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.67|57.57||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||57.57|32.67|<0.001
91800278|NCT01967342|183477773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within CBT for Pain group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||<.001
91875981|NCT00936065|183644946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0908
91875982|NCT00936065|183644946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5678|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.5678
91745275|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|44.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.79|56.71||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||56.71|31.79|<0.001
91745276|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.29||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|7.25||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.25|-9.82|0.767
91745277|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.04||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|6.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.27|-10.36|0.629
91745278|NCT01559259|183384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.87||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|9.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.39|-7.66|0.841
91745279|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|4.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.73|3.22|<0.001
91745280|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|4.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.39|2.88|<0.001
91875983|NCT00936065|183644946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.4820
91875984|NCT00936065|183644946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0394
91875985|NCT00936065|183644947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1079
91875986|NCT00936065|183644947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0004
91875987|NCT00936065|183644947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0146
91875988|NCT00936065|183644947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0019
91875989|NCT00936065|183644947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0062
91875990|NCT00936065|183644947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0197
91875991|NCT00936065|183644948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1229|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1229
91875992|NCT00936065|183644948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0136
91875993|NCT00936065|183644948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1578
91875994|NCT00936065|183644948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0565
91875995|NCT00936065|183644948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0685|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0685
91875996|NCT00936065|183644948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0493
91875997|NCT00936065|183644949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3112|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3112
91875998|NCT00936065|183644949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0196
91875999|NCT00936065|183644949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0109
91876000|NCT00936065|183644949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0035
91907237|NCT03357731|183709556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|0.151|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.151|-1.504|0.105
91907238|NCT02257372|183709567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.174|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.174|0.071|<0.001
91907239|NCT02257372|183709568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.197|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.197|0.099|<0.001
91907240|NCT02347098|183709584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2533
91745281|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.83|3.32|<0.001
91907241|NCT02347098|183709585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7790
91745282|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.14|2.64|<0.001
91760170|NCT05173012|183412052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.634||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.97|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.|Difference was calculated as Monotherapy: SAGE-324 30 mg - placebo.|||0.97|-1.54|0.6549
91876001|NCT00936065|183644949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0603
91876002|NCT00936065|183644949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.2184
91876003|NCT00936065|183644950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1774
91876004|NCT00936065|183644950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1195
91876005|NCT00936065|183644950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0606
91876006|NCT00936065|183644950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0030
91876007|NCT00936065|183644950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1567
91876008|NCT00936065|183644950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2094|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.2094
91876009|NCT00936065|183644951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0302
91876010|NCT00936065|183644951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0980
91876011|NCT00936065|183644951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0711
91876012|NCT00936065|183644951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0077
91876013|NCT00936065|183644951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1553
91876014|NCT00936065|183644951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0410
91876015|NCT00936065|183644952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0060
91876016|NCT00936065|183644952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0058
91876017|NCT00936065|183644952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0127
91876018|NCT00936065|183644952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0068
91876019|NCT00936065|183644952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0096
91876020|NCT00936065|183644952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0132
91907242|NCT02347098|183709586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4549||||||The p-value reported compares the trends of outcome across time (baseline pre-PCI, baseline post-PCI, 30-day follow-up, and 90-day follow-up) between treatment groups using the repeated measurement analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4549
91907243|NCT02347098|183709587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2663|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2663
91907244|NCT04673292|183709591|EQUIVALENCE|The fixed site SOC testing study arm was the standard of care and reference group. The null hypothesis was that there is not a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants who complete PCR COVID-19 testing within 30 days of randomization when comparing community-based testing to the fixed site SOC testing.|Prevalence Ratio|1.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Poisson Regression|Adjusted poisson regression was performed using Study Arm as a nominal variable in the model with the Fixed Site SOC Testing as the reference group.|||Models were adjusted for employment.|1.27|0.86|0.67
91745283|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.58||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.11|0.05|0.031
91745284|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.24||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.77||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.77|-0.28|0.360
91745285|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.68||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.21||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.21|0.15|0.011
91745286|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|13.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|15.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||15.73|10.54|<0.001
91745287|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|11.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|14.52||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||14.52|9.35|<0.001
91745288|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|13.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.95|16.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||16.13|10.95|<0.001
91745289|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|12.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.45|14.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||14.63|9.45|<0.001
91745290|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.1||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.91||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.91|-0.72|0.235
91745291|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.70|-1.91|0.910
91745292|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.5||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|3.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.31|-0.32|0.105
91745293|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|16.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.49|19.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||19.61|12.49|<0.001
91745294|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|14.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.33|18.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||18.43|11.33|<0.001
91745295|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|16.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|20.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||20.32|13.20|<0.001
91745296|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|15.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.68|18.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||18.78|11.68|<0.001
91876021|NCT00936065|183644953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6904|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.6904
91745297|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|3.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.32|-1.66|0.514
91745298|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.35||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.13|-2.82|0.783
91745299|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|4.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.02|-0.96|0.227
91745300|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|18.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.95|23.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||23.61|12.95|<0.001
91745301|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.99|22.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||22.61|11.99|<0.001
91745302|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|20.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.13|25.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||25.78|15.13|<0.001
91745303|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|18.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.61|24.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||24.24|13.61|<0.001
91745304|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.64||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|3.09||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.09|-4.37|0.736
91745305|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.62||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.08|-5.32|0.390
91745306|NCT01559259|183384899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|5.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.26|-2.19|0.420
91745307|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|7.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.76|5.25|<0.001
91745308|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|7.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.11|4.62|<0.001
91907245|NCT04673292|183709591|EQUIVALENCE|The fixed site SOC testing study arm was the standard of care and reference group. The null hypothesis was that there is not a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants who complete PCR COVID-19 testing within 30 days of randomization when comparing self-collected testing to the fixed site SOC testing.|Prevalence Ratio|1.08||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Poisson Regression|Adjusted poisson regression was performed using Study Arm as a nominal variable in the model with the Fixed Site SOC Testing as the reference group.|||Models were adjusted for employment.|1.31|0.89|0.43
91907246|NCT04673292|183709592|EQUIVALENCE|Testing for equivalence in the difference in time from randomization to completion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing when comparing the community-based testing to fixed site SOC testing. Alpha threshold of 0.05.|Time Ratio|0.87||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||aprior significance threshold: p-value\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study Arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 30 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.05|0.73|0.14
91800279|NCT01967342|183477773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within CBT for Pain group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.021
91800280|NCT01967342|183477773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Pain Ed group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
91876022|NCT00936065|183644953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.7021
91876023|NCT00936065|183644953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.2199
91876024|NCT00936065|183644953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5071|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.5071
91907247|NCT04673292|183709592|EQUIVALENCE|Testing for equivalence in the difference in time from randomization to completion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing when comparing the self-collected testing arm to the fixed site SOC testing Alpha threshold of 0.05.|Time Ratio|0.86||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03||aprior significance threshold: p-value\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study Arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 30 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.03|0.71|0.09
91745309|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|6.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.38|7.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.88|5.38|<0.001
91745310|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|6.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.73|4.23|<0.001
91745311|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.03||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.9||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.90|0.15|0.022
91745312|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.39||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.26|-0.48|0.380
91745313|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.03||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.03|0.28|0.010
91745314|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|21.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.17|25.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||25.87|17.17|<0.001
91876025|NCT00936065|183644953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4765|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.4765
91876026|NCT00936065|183644953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8662|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.8662
91876027|NCT00936065|183644954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1144
91876028|NCT00936065|183644954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4509|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4509
91876029|NCT00936065|183644954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.4350
91876030|NCT00936065|183644954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6085|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.6085
91876031|NCT00936065|183644954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2582
91876032|NCT00936065|183644954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.5490
91876033|NCT00936065|183644955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3287
91876034|NCT00936065|183644955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4149|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4149
91876035|NCT00936065|183644955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.3837
91876036|NCT00936065|183644955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6777|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.6777
91876037|NCT00936065|183644955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.4976
91876038|NCT00936065|183644955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.4189
91876039|NCT00936065|183644956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.4760
91876040|NCT00936065|183644956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4040
91876041|NCT00936065|183644956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.4753
91745315|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|19.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.29|23.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||23.95|15.29|<0.001
91745316|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|22.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.89|26.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||26.59|17.89|<0.001
91745317|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|19.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.35|24.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||24.02|15.35|<0.001
91745318|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.83||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|4.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.88|-1.21|0.237
91745319|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.95|-3.09|0.965
91745320|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.56||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|5.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.60|-0.48|0.099
91745321|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|29.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|38.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||38.73|21.14|<0.001
91745322|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|28.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.48|37.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||37.00|19.48|<0.001
91745323|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.31|41.89||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||41.89|24.31|<0.001
91745324|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|30.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.87|39.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||39.41|21.87|<0.001
91760171|NCT05173012|183412052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.41|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.|Difference was calculated as Monotherapy: SAGE-324 60 mg - placebo.|||2.41|-0.36|0.1462
91876042|NCT00936065|183644956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.5084
91876043|NCT00936065|183644956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2293|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2293
91876044|NCT00936065|183644956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3822|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.3822
91876045|NCT00936065|183644957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2691|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.2691
91876046|NCT00936065|183644957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0142
91876047|NCT00936065|183644957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0383
91876048|NCT00936065|183644957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0026
91876049|NCT00936065|183644957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0475
91876050|NCT00936065|183644957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0205
91876051|NCT00936065|183644958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0512
91876052|NCT00936065|183644958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0024
91876053|NCT00936065|183644958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0946
91876054|NCT00936065|183644958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0935
91876055|NCT00936065|183644958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2073
91876056|NCT00936065|183644958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.3415
91745325|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.71||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|5.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.44|-6.86|0.821
91745326|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.4||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|3.71||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.71|-8.51|0.440
91745327|NCT01559259|183384900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.46||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|8.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||8.61|-3.69|0.432
91745328|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.08||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.20|-1.04|0.571
91800281|NCT01967342|183477773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Pain Ed group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.305
91876057|NCT00936065|183644959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0202
91876058|NCT00936065|183644959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0090
91876059|NCT00936065|183644959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0742
91876060|NCT00936065|183644959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0445
91876061|NCT00936065|183644959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2211
91876062|NCT00936065|183644959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1982|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.1982
91876063|NCT00936065|183644960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0409
91876064|NCT00936065|183644960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1450
91876065|NCT00936065|183644960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.2010
91876066|NCT00936065|183644960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0424
91876067|NCT00936065|183644960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0090
91876068|NCT00936065|183644960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0116
91876069|NCT00936065|183644961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3355|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3355
91876070|NCT00936065|183644961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0341
91876071|NCT00936065|183644961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0899
91876072|NCT00936065|183644961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0062
91876073|NCT00936065|183644961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1241
91876074|NCT00936065|183644961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0393
91876075|NCT00936065|183644962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3402
91876076|NCT00936065|183644962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1184
91876077|NCT00936065|183644962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0104
91876078|NCT00936065|183644962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0010
91876079|NCT00936065|183644962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0250
91876080|NCT00936065|183644962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0410
91876081|NCT00936065|183644963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0894
91876082|NCT00936065|183644963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0084
91876083|NCT00936065|183644963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0727
91876084|NCT00936065|183644963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0337
91745329|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.98||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.9||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.90|-0.94|0.593
91745330|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.65||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|7.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.68|-0.39|0.282
91800282|NCT01967342|183477774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Usual Care group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||.082
91876085|NCT00936065|183644963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1380
91745331|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.16||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|3.42||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.42|-1.11|0.552
91745332|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|3.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.11|-3.13|0.994
91745333|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.23||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|2.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.80|-3.26|0.879
91745334|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.33||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|6.64||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||6.64|-1.98|0.280
91745335|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|33.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.54|42.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||42.81|24.54|<0.001
91876086|NCT00936065|183644963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.3415
91876087|NCT00936065|183644964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4407|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.4407
91876088|NCT00936065|183644964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1768
91876089|NCT00936065|183644964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4636|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.4636
91876090|NCT00936065|183644964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.3340
91876091|NCT00936065|183644964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1785|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1785
91876092|NCT00936065|183644964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.7428
91876093|NCT00936065|183644965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Baseline||||0.5377
91876094|NCT00936065|183644965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1419
91876095|NCT00936065|183644965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.5391
91876096|NCT00936065|183644965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.2589
91876097|NCT00936065|183644965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0635
91876098|NCT00936065|183644965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1172
91876099|NCT00936065|183644965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.1247
91876100|NCT00936065|183644966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9429|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Baseline||||0.9429
91876101|NCT00936065|183644966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0927
91876102|NCT00936065|183644966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0151
91876103|NCT00936065|183644966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1124
91876104|NCT00936065|183644966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0242
91876105|NCT00936065|183644966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0237
91876106|NCT00936065|183644966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0176
91907248|NCT04673292|183709593|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in time from completion of SARS-CoV-2 test to receipt of SARS-CoV-2 test results when comparing the community-based testing to fixed site SOC testing.|Time Ratio|0.96||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||aprior threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 10 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.10|0.83|0.56
91745336|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|23.34||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.93|31.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.75|14.93|0.003
91745337|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|22.28||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.55|31.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.00|13.55|0.005
91745338|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|13.39||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.28|20.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.50|6.28|0.035
91745339|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|20.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.67|31.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.62|8.67|0.001
91745340|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.56||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|20.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.51|-1.39|0.088
91745341|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.36||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|20.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.45|-1.73|0.100
91760172|NCT05173012|183412053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.67|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||4.67|0.59|0.1271
91876107|NCT00738400|183645007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.03|-4.49|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-4.49|-9.03|<0.0001
91876108|NCT00738400|183645008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|-30.66|-10.76|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-10.76|-30.66|<0.0001
91907249|NCT04673292|183709593|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in time from completion of SARS-CoV-2 test to receipt of SARS-CoV-2 test results when comparing the self-collected testing arm to the fixed site SOC testing.|Time Ratio|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||aprior significance threshold: p-value\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study Arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 10 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.07|0.81|0.32
91876109|NCT00738400|183645009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.16|||<|0.0001||95.0|-37.48|-14.83|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-14.83|-37.48|<0.0001
91876110|NCT00738400|183645010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel Test||||0.0004
91876111|NCT00738400|183645011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.57||||0.0003||95.0|-23.8|-7.34|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-7.34|-23.80|0.0003
91876112|NCT00738400|183645012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.33|||<|0.0001||95.0|-37.24|-17.43|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-17.43|-37.24|<0.0001
91876113|NCT02255474|183645014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons, treatment group p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Both eyes used in analysis adjusting for correlation.||||<0.01
91876114|NCT02255474|183645015|SUPERIORITY||quadratic coefficient|0.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Individual subject eye length profiles were fit using quadratic equations as a function of gaze angle. The analysis of quadratic coefficients included treatment group, study year (categorical variable), and their interaction adjusted for age, study site, and ethnicity.||||0.05
91876115|NCT02255474|183645016|SUPERIORITY||regression coefficient|-0.12||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, axial length at baseline, race, treatment group, treatment group by race interaction.||This analysis looks at the three-year change in spherical equivalent refractive error for different eccentricities of peripheral defocus measured with contact lenses in place||||0.05
91876116|NCT02255474|183645017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Both eyes used in the analysis controlling for the correlation.||||0.05
91876117|NCT01082159|183645030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline|3.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|4.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.42|2.76|<0.0001
91876118|NCT01082159|183645031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline|12.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|17.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.71|6.64|<0.0001
91876119|NCT01542502|183645033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
91876120|NCT01542502|183645034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
91876121|NCT02009865|183645040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||-2.8|-26.2|0.017
91876122|NCT02009865|183645041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-26.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-11.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Main analysis with missing values imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||-11.5|-40.5|0.0008
91876123|NCT02009865|183645042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-2.8||Adjusted by using Hommel's procedure|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||-2.8|-14.8|0.0180
91876124|NCT02009865|183645043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.9||Adjusted by using Hommel's procedure|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||4.9|-3.5|0.7117
91907250|NCT02535715|183709598|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA Bonferroni adjustment|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91745342|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|62.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.93|74.15||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.15|50.93|<0.001
91745343|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|51.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|63.82||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.82|39.50|<0.001
91876125|NCT02009865|183645044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|3.5||Adjusted by using Hommel's procedure|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||3.5|-23.9|0.3034
91876126|NCT01178281|183645127|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91876127|NCT01178281|183645129|OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.929
91876128|NCT01184859|183645137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
91876129|NCT01184859|183645137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
91876130|NCT01184859|183645137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91876131|NCT01184859|183645137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91876132|NCT01184859|183645138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.272||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|-0.141||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.141|-0.685|0.194
91876133|NCT01184859|183645138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.547||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.985|-0.108||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.108|-0.985|0.015
91876134|NCT01184859|183645138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.854|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.317|-0.391||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.391|-1.317|<0.001
91876135|NCT01184859|183645138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.888||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.426|-0.351||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.351|-1.426|0.001
91876136|NCT01537120|183645227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.96||||||||0.96|0.85|
91876137|NCT01537120|183645228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|-0.23||||||||-0.23|-0.36|
91876138|NCT01537120|183645229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.3||||||||-0.30|-0.62|
91907251|NCT04353284|183709599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis compares the change from baseline between treatment arms.||1.51|-0.03|0.06
91907252|NCT04353284|183709600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.83|-0.70|0.87
91907253|NCT04353284|183709601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.94|0.69
91876139|NCT03722485|183645246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||Confounding variables of image capture techniques, image quality and image analysis noted throughout study conduct prohibits any definitive conclusions to be drawn from this analysis.|Regression, Linear|Test of treatment effect using a generalized linear model with treatment arm, baseline values, and clinical site as factors.||||||0.2920
91876140|NCT03722485|183645247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0213||||||Confounding variables of image capture techniques, image quality and image analysis noted throughout study conduct prohibits any definitive conclusions to be drawn from this analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0213
91876141|NCT03722485|183645248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7422||||||Confounding variables of image capture techniques, image quality and image analysis noted throughout study conduct prohibits any definitive conclusions to be drawn from this analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7422
91876142|NCT03722485|183645249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6322|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6322
91876143|NCT00644332|183645282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||||||||||||Mean change in angina frequency from Baseline to Week 4||||
91876144|NCT00644332|183645283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||||||||||||Mean change in NTG use from Baseline to Week 4||||
91745344|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|64.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.92|76.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||76.43|52.92|<0.001
91745345|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|52.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.43|63.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.63|40.43|<0.001
91876145|NCT00644332|183645284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||||||||||||||||
91876146|NCT00409006|183645289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0618||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0618
91876147|NCT00409006|183645290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Used the Wald Chi-squared statistic from a logistic regression analysis.||||||0.369
91876148|NCT03050372|183645294|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%.||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SOL for active/sham LFMS are equal; Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SOL for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.329
91876149|NCT03050372|183645294|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SOL for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SOL for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.321
91876150|NCT03050372|183645294|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.687|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SOL for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SOL for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.687
91876151|NCT03050372|183645295|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.925|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of WASO for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline WASO for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.925
91888941|NCT03596762|183670501|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.52|||=|0.1946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|0.78|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.78|-3.83|= 0.1946
91888942|NCT03596762|183670501|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|1.29|||=|0.3682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|1.53|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||1.53|-4.11|= 0.3682
91888943|NCT03596762|183670501|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-3.93|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-1.92|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-1.92|-5.94|= 0.0002
91888944|NCT03596762|183670501|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-2.63|||=|0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-0.6|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-0.6|-4.66|= 0.0115
91888945|NCT03596762|183670502|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.67|||=|0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-0.95|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||-0.95|-4.28|= 0.2097
91888946|NCT03596762|183670502|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.77|||=|0.6369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.44|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||2.44|-3.97|= 0.6369
91888947|NCT03596762|183670502|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-2.95|||=|0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|-0.67|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||-0.67|-5.22|= 0.0116
91888948|NCT03596762|183670502|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.78|||=|0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|0.56|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.56|-4.12|= 0.1346
91888949|NCT03596762|183670503|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.05|||=|0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.2|-0.3|= 0.7033
91888950|NCT03596762|183670503|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.14|||=|0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.17|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.17|-0.45|= 0.3724
91888951|NCT03596762|183670503|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.19|||=|0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.03|-0.41|= 0.0896
91888952|NCT03596762|183670503|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.19|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.03|-0.41|= 0.09
91888953|NCT03596762|183670504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.09|||=|0.5511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.21|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.21|-0.39|= 0.5511
91888954|NCT03596762|183670504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|0.16|||=|0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.52|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.52|-0.2|= 0.3822
91876152|NCT03050372|183645295|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of WASO for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline WASO for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.08
91876153|NCT03050372|183645295|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of WASO for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline WASO for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.221
91876154|NCT03050372|183645296|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of TST for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline TST for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.197
91876155|NCT03050372|183645296|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of TST for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline TST for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.586
91876156|NCT03050372|183645296|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.298|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of TST for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline TST for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.298
91876157|NCT03050372|183645297|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SE for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SE for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.424
91876158|NCT03050372|183645297|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SE for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SE for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.210
91876159|NCT03050372|183645297|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SE for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SE for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.190
91876160|NCT03050372|183645298|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.535|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of EOS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline EOS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.535
91876161|NCT03050372|183645298|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of EOS for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline EOS for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.196
91876162|NCT03050372|183645298|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of EOS for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline EOS for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.092
91876163|NCT03050372|183645299|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SQS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SQS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||1.00
91876164|NCT03050372|183645299|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SQS for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SQS for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.004
91876165|NCT03050372|183645299|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SQS for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SQS for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.042
91876166|NCT03050372|183645300|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of #awake for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline #awake for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.05
91876167|NCT03050372|183645300|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of #awake for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline #awake for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.379
91907254|NCT04353284|183709602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.09|||GEE|||Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples analyzed.||5.09|0.33|0.71
91760173|NCT05173012|183412053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347||0.5642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|1.89|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||1.89|-3.45|0.5642
91888955|NCT03596762|183670504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.15|||=|0.2606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.11|-0.41|= 0.2606
91888956|NCT03596762|183670504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.27|||=|0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.0|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0|-0.53|= 0.0479
91876168|NCT03050372|183645300|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of #awake for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline #awake for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.284
91876169|NCT03050372|183645301|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Fatigue for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Fatigue for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.226
91876170|NCT03050372|183645301|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Fatigue for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Fatigue for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.156
91876171|NCT03050372|183645301|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.117|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Fatigue for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Fatigue for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.117
91876172|NCT03050372|183645302|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Concentration for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Concentration for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.130
91876173|NCT03050372|183645302|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.249|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Concentration for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Concentration for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.249
91876174|NCT03050372|183645302|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Concentration for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Concentration for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.114
91876175|NCT00443755|183645306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876176|NCT00443755|183645307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91907255|NCT04353284|183709602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.47|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||Saliva RT-PCR samples analyzed.||1.47|0.11|0.17
91760174|NCT05173012|183412053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.85|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||3.85|-1.84|0.4860
91876177|NCT00443755|183645308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91876178|NCT00443755|183645309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876179|NCT00443755|183645310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value is for comparison between groups of the mean change in triglyceride levels.||||0.03
91876180|NCT00443755|183645310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value is for comparison between groups of the mean change in HDL-C levels.||||0.06
91876181|NCT00443755|183645310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value is for comparison between groups of mean change in non-HDL-C levels.||||0.06
91876182|NCT00443755|183645311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
91876183|NCT00443755|183645312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91907256|NCT04353284|183709603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|8.26|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||||8.26|1.12|0.03
91876184|NCT00443755|183645313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91876185|NCT00443755|183645314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91876186|NCT00443755|183645315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91876187|NCT00443755|183645316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876188|NCT00443755|183645317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91876189|NCT00443755|183645318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91876190|NCT00443755|183645319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91876191|NCT02706834|183645322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence interval of 0.80 to 1.25|Point estimate|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.487|||||Exponentiated Least Square Means TAK-828 100 mg Fed/TAK-828 100 mg Fasted|Food Effect: A linear mixed effect model on the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with dosing condition as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect using the Kenward-Roger estimation for computing the denominator degrees of freedom. The least squares means and difference of least squared means for the ln-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the geometric means on the original scale.||0.487|0.380|
91876192|NCT02706834|183645329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence interval of 0.80 to 1.25|Point estimate|0.896|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|0.964|||||Exponentiated Least Square Means TAK-828 100 mg Fed/TAK-828 100 mg Fasted|Food Effect: A linear mixed effect model on the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with dosing condition as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect using the Kenward-Roger estimation for computing the denominator degrees of freedom. The least squares means and difference of least squared means for the ln-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the geometric means and ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||0.964|0.833|
91907257|NCT04353284|183709603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.23|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||Saliva RT-PCR samples analyzed.||3.23|0.47|0.68
91876193|NCT05065918|183645380|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.536||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.929|0.857|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||0.857|-1.929|0.448
91876194|NCT05065918|183645381|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.99||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.152|1.108|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.108|-1.152|0.969
91876195|NCT05065918|183645382|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.5||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.322|0.322|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||.322|-1.322|0.231
91876196|NCT05065918|183645383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.319||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.064|0.425|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||.425|-1.064|0.398
91745346|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|10.66||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|24.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.35|-3.04|0.138
91745347|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.59||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|13.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.52|-14.71|0.935
91745348|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|13.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|27.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||27.17|-0.57|0.063
91745349|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.82|86.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.53|62.82|<0.001
91745350|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|63.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.42|75.95||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||75.95|50.42|<0.001
91876197|NCT05065918|183645384|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.284||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.924|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||.924|-.356|0.382
91876198|NCT05065918|183645385|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.382||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|1.025|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.025|-.284|0.266
91745351|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.21|83.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.57|59.21|<0.001
91760175|NCT03668613|183412054|SUPERIORITY||Predicted Log-OR|4.862|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.422|6.782|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.782|3.422|
91760176|NCT03668613|183412054|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.422|6.772|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.772|3.422|
91760177|NCT03668613|183412055|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log -OR|4.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.638|6.513|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.513|2.638|
91760178|NCT03668613|183412055|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.919|6.78|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.780|2.919|
91760179|NCT03668613|183412056|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.367|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.916|6.202|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||||6.202|2.916|
91876199|NCT05065918|183645386|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.53||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.97|||Regression, Linear|||||.970|0.089|0.019
91876200|NCT05065918|183645387|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.277||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.787|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||0.787|-.232|0.284
91876201|NCT05065918|183645388|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.709||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|1.494|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.494|-.076|0.076
91876202|NCT05065918|183645389|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.625||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|1.449|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.449|-.199|0.136
91876203|NCT03149887|183645390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91876204|NCT03149887|183645391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91876205|NCT03149887|183645392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91745352|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|60.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.89|73.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.11|47.89|<0.001
91745353|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|14.43||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|26.89||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||26.89|1.97|0.027
91745354|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.35||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|15.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.61|-10.91|0.729
91876206|NCT03149887|183645393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91876207|NCT03149887|183645394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91876208|NCT03149887|183645395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91876209|NCT03149887|183645396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91907258|NCT04353284|183709604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|56.6|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||||56.60|0.70|0.10
91907259|NCT04353284|183709604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.23|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||Saliva RT-PCR samples analyzed.||3.23|0.25|0.87
91760180|NCT03668613|183412056|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.709|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.201|6.58|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||||6.580|3.201|
91876210|NCT03149887|183645397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91876211|NCT03327051|183645402|OTHER|An increase in relative abundance of VSL3 bacterial strains at week 4 compared to week 0 (baseline) is considered significant if p\<0.05.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test was used for multi-variable analysis||Within group difference between week 0 and week 4 was analyzed.||||0.04
91876212|NCT03327051|183645402|OTHER|An increase in relative abundance of VSL3 bacterial strains at week 4 compared to week 0 (baseline) is considered significant if p\<0.05.|||||>|0.99|||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test was used for multi-variable analysis||Within group difference between week 0 and week 4 was analyzed.||||>0.99
91876213|NCT04879823|183645412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: Average pain scores before medication will not be lower in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group.||||0.03
91876214|NCT04879823|183645413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in the proportion of patients visiting the emergency department or urgent care (at least 1 time) post-operatively between dexamethasone and placebo groups.||||0.07
91876215|NCT04879823|183645414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Average pain scores after medication will not be lower in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group.||||0.98
91876216|NCT02137239|183645433|SUPERIORITY||Incidence of Change|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|16.7||||||Change in Incidence of Treatment A as compared to Treatment B at 6 Months||16.7|-18.9|
91876217|NCT02137239|183645433|SUPERIORITY||Incidence of Change|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|18.9||||||Change in Incidence of Treatment A as compared to Treatment B at 12 Months||18.9|-19.2|
91876218|NCT02137239|183645433|SUPERIORITY||Incidence of Change|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|23.9||||||Change in Incidence of Treatment A as compared to Treatment B at 24 Months||23.9|-16.1|
91876219|NCT04057937|183645460|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference:Apremilast-Placebo|37.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|56.1||Two-sided 0.10 significant level|Chi-squared||Confidence Intervals calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation).|||56.1|18.6|0.0003
91907260|NCT04353284|183709605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.2|-12.1|0.02
91907261|NCT04353284|183709606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-7.9|0.48
91800283|NCT01967342|183477774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.652|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Usual Care group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.652
91800284|NCT01967342|183477774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within CBT for Pain group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
91800285|NCT01967342|183477774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.241|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within CBT for Pain group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.241
91800286|NCT01967342|183477774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Pain Ed group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
91800287|NCT01967342|183477774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.422|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Pain Ed group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.422
91876220|NCT01072396|183645511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0087||95.0|0.02|0.11||Based on mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment, period and random effect for patient. Period baseline and patient baseline (average of two period baselines) were covariates in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based MMRM||Placebo versus Tiotropium - crossover design||0.11|0.02|0.0087
91800288|NCT01967342|183477775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at post-treatment (6-months).||||<.001
91800289|NCT01967342|183477775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||EDU vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at post-treatment (10-weeks).||||.001
91876221|NCT01072396|183645512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.0685||||0.067||95.0|0.9953|1.147||Based on mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment, period and random effect for patient. Period baseline and patient baseline (average of two period baselines) were covariates in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based MMRM||Placebo versus Tiotropium - corssover design||1.1470|0.9953|0.0670
91876222|NCT01072396|183645513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2059||||0.2417||95.0|-0.5527|0.1408||Based on mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment, period and random effect for patient. Period baseline and patient baseline (average of two period baselines) were covariates in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based MMRM||Placebo versus Tiotropium - corssover design||0.1408|-0.5527|0.2417
91876223|NCT02446912|183645514|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|5.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|-14.2|0.412
91876224|NCT02446912|183645514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|9.6||||||||9.6|-14.7|
91876225|NCT02446912|183645515|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|14.1||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.1|-6.3|0.455
91876226|NCT02446912|183645515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|17.8||||||||17.8|-6.7|
91876227|NCT02446912|183645516|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|7.6||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.6|-14.4|0.549
91800290|NCT01967342|183477775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. EDU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at pre-treatment (10-weeks).||||.217
91800291|NCT01967342|183477775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at follow-up (6-months).||||.009
91745355|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|11.33||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|24.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.21|-1.55|0.087
91745356|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|75.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.5|88.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.70|62.50|<0.001
91745357|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.65|81.24||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.24|53.65|<0.001
91745358|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.21|87.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||87.70|61.21|<0.001
91745359|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|64.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|78.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.17|50.30|<0.001
91745360|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|11.59||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|23.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.06|0.12|0.052
91745361|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.84||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|15.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.16|-9.49|0.652
91745362|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|10.28||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|22.03||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||22.03|-1.47|0.090
91745363|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|79.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.41|92.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||92.46|67.41|<0.001
91745364|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.25|85.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.05|58.25|<0.001
91745365|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|78.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.29|91.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||91.56|66.29|<0.001
91745366|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|70.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.04|84.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.07|57.04|<0.001
91745367|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.61||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|19.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.80|-0.59|0.069
91745368|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.65||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|12.03||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.03|-10.73|0.911
91907262|NCT04353284|183709607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-0.4|0.16
91907263|NCT04353284|183709608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-0.7|0.34
91745369|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.27||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|18.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.77|-2.23|0.127
91745370|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|76.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.37|90.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||90.72|62.37|<0.001
91745371|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|70.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.93|85.28||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.28|55.93|<0.001
91745372|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|76.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.22|90.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||90.79|62.22|<0.001
91745373|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.02|83.09||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.09|53.02|<0.001
91745374|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.57||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|18.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.61|-1.47|0.098
91745375|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.01||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|13.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.04|-9.02|0.721
91745376|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.28||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|18.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.41|-1.85|0.115
91745377|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|77.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.63|91.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||91.69|63.63|<0.001
91745378|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.07|86.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.22|57.07|<0.001
91745379|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|76.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.22|90.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||90.79|62.22|<0.001
91745380|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.14|84.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.06|54.14|<0.001
91745381|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.56||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|18.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.27|-1.15|0.086
91745382|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.01||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|12.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.77|-8.76|0.714
91745383|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|7.21||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|17.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.22|-2.80|0.164
91745384|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
91800292|NCT01967342|183477775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||EDU vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at follow-up (6-months).||||.001
91800293|NCT01967342|183477775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. EDU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at follow-up (6-months).||||.389
91745385|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.29|84.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.70|54.29|<0.001
91745386|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
91745387|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|82.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||82.61|51.40|<0.001
91745388|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|7.46||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|17.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.04|-2.12|0.129
91745389|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.97||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.43|-8.50|0.712
91745390|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.12||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|16.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.00|-3.76|0.229
91876228|NCT02446912|183645517|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|17.7||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|-4.8|0.261
91745391|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
91745392|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|70.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.45|85.64||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.64|55.45|<0.001
91876229|NCT02446912|183645518|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|21.9||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.9|-4.1|0.180
91876230|NCT02446912|183645519|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|29.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|3.5|0.013
91800294|NCT00395733|183477794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for investigators only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.9736||||||90.0|0.9315|1.0168|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||1.0168|0.9315|
91745393|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
91745394|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.53|83.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.57|52.53|<0.001
91745395|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.38||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|15.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.81|-3.05|0.186
91745396|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.97||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|12.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.12|-8.18|0.703
91745397|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.06||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|14.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.79|-4.68|0.312
91745398|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
91745399|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.61|86.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.57|56.61|<0.001
91745400|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
91745401|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.86|84.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.56|53.86|<0.001
91800295|NCT00395733|183477794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for blinded reader 1 only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.954||||||90.0|0.9122|0.9965|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||0.9965|0.9122|
91876231|NCT02446912|183645520|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|34.3||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|-0.3|0.054
91876232|NCT02446912|183645521|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|36.0||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.0|1.4|0.034
91876233|NCT02446912|183645522|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.6||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|-9.4|0.905
91876234|NCT02446912|183645523|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.4||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|-6.7|0.515
91876235|NCT02446912|183645524|SUPERIORITY|Analysed using a negative binomial regression model. The response variable in the model is the number of flares over the 52-week treatment period. The model includes covariates of treatment group, and the stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>=10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]). The logarithm of the follow-up time is used as an offset variable.|Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.14||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||1.14|0.60|0.258
91876236|NCT02446912|183645525|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.7|0.6|
91876237|NCT02446912|183645526|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.2|6.7|
91876238|NCT04864236|183645549|EQUIVALENCE|We compared particle number counts between intervention and control groups using the Wilcoxon test. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS V28 and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91907264|NCT01040351|183709611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|. The aggregate result of 6 studies reporting the pregnancy rate of patients with ultrasound visible hydrosalpinx revealed that clinical pregnancy rate among the patients with ultrasound-visible hydrosalpinges was 12.6%. We assumed that the aspiration of hydrosalpinx could restore clinical pregnancy rate to that expected for patients with tubal factor of infertility but without hydrosalpinges (about 36.5% in our hospital)|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.0|||Chi-squared|||||8.0|1.13|0.023
91745402|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91876239|NCT04864236|183645550|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.073
91876240|NCT04864236|183645551|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics and study variables were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.670
91876241|NCT04864236|183645552|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.167|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.167
91876242|NCT04864236|183645553|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.198
91876243|NCT04864236|183645554|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.442
91876244|NCT02991456|183645563|OTHER|||||||0.2734|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2734
91876245|NCT02991456|183645564|OTHER|||||||0.7091|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7091
91876246|NCT02991456|183645565|EQUIVALENCE|This was tested as patients who preferred rolapitant + ondansetron vs. patients who did not prefer rolapitant + ondansetron. Patients who reported no preference and preference to Ondansetron were combined.||||||0.0004|||||||Exact Binomial|||||||0.0004
91907265|NCT01438489|183709614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||All-comers||4.26|1.33|0.014
91745403|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91876247|NCT02991456|183645565|EQUIVALENCE|Three outcomes tested by sequence.||||||0.5207|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5207
91876248|NCT02991456|183645566|EQUIVALENCE|Effectiveness during weeks 1-3 between sequences.||||||0.0406|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the Satterthwaite method for unequal variances.||||||0.0406
91876249|NCT02991456|183645567|EQUIVALENCE|Convenience during weeks 1-3 between sequences.||||||0.0541|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.0541
91876250|NCT02991456|183645568|EQUIVALENCE|Overall satisfaction during weeks 1-3 between sequences.||||||0.0781|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.0781
91876251|NCT02991456|183645569|EQUIVALENCE|Effectiveness during weeks 4-6 between sequences.||||||0.4146|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.4146
91876252|NCT02991456|183645570|EQUIVALENCE|Convenience during weeks 4-6 between sequences.||||||0.2214|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.2214
91876253|NCT02991456|183645571|EQUIVALENCE|Overall satisfaction during weeks 4-6 between sequences.||||||0.2028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the Satterthwaite method for unequal variances.||||||0.2028
91876254|NCT01154699|183645604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference in the change in asthma control during the Usual care and the Bilevel PAP period were compared.||||0.8
91876255|NCT01154699|183645605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in PC20 between the two arms||||0.20
91876256|NCT01154699|183645606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91876257|NCT01154699|183645607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91745404|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91876258|NCT01154699|183645608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91876259|NCT01154699|183645609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91876260|NCT01755598|183645610|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy (VE) has been estimated from a Cox proportional hazard regression model (VE=1-hazard ratio) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) and Wald p-value has been derived. The lower limit of the 90% two-sided CI for the VE against first occurrence of Definite pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV-infection, meeting the case definition 1, is to be above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy rate|49.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.1|71.2|||Regression, Cox|||To evaluate the protective efficacy of two doses of the M72/AS01E candidate vaccine against Definite pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV-infection, meeting the case definition 1, as compared to placebo.||71.2|12.1|0.0430
91876261|NCT01755598|183645611|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy (VE) has been estimated from a Cox proportional hazard regression model (VE=1-hazard ratio) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) and Wald p-value has been derived. If the primary objective is met, this secondary objective is to be analysed using the following success criterion: The lower limit of the 90% two-sided CI for the VE against first occurrence of Definite pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV infection, meeting the case definition 2, is to be above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy rate|61.67||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.084|80.647|||Regression, Cox|||To evaluate the protective efficacy of two doses of the M72/AS01E candidate vaccine against Definite Xpert MTB/Rif positive pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV-infection, meeting the case definition 2, as compared to placebo.||80.647|24.084|0.0210
91876262|NCT02819141|183645649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Generalized estimating equations|Controlling for age, daily sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, sedation intensity, and time of day of assessment||We estimated the power for multilevel models approximating our study design. A sample size of 95 patients per arm, 190 total (at a minimum 7 data collection points for each, resulting in \~1,050 observations) will have greater than 80% power to detect small to moderate effects (i.e., 0.11 or greater) in between-group differences in anxiety, delirium, and duration of mechanical ventilation at alpha = .05 for all proposed models.||||0.30
91876263|NCT02819141|183645649|SUPERIORITY|Controlling for time of day, study day, age, sex, illness severity, and sedation frequency||||||0.9858|||||||Generalized Estimating equations|||||||0.9858
91876264|NCT02819141|183645650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance p \< 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
91876265|NCT02819141|183645651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Controlling for sedation intensity, age, daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, study day, and time of day assessment||||||0.97
91876266|NCT02819141|183645651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Controlling for sedation frequency, age, sex, illness severity, study day, and time of day assessment.||||||0.5647
91876267|NCT02819141|183645652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Generalized estimating equation|controlling for age, daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, time of day of assessment||||||0.39
91876268|NCT02819141|183645653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||GEE|||||||0.37
91876269|NCT02819141|183645654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
91876270|NCT02819141|183645654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.81
91876271|NCT02819141|183645655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.47
91876272|NCT02819141|183645655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.82
91876273|NCT02819141|183645656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 months after ICU discharge||||0.164
91876274|NCT02819141|183645656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 months after ICU discharge||||0.84
91876275|NCT02819141|183645657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.26
91876276|NCT02819141|183645658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.82
91876277|NCT02819141|183645659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.018
91876278|NCT02819141|183645660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.66
91876279|NCT02819141|183645661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.63
91876280|NCT02819141|183645662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.41
91876281|NCT02819141|183645663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.06
91876282|NCT02819141|183645664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.93
91876283|NCT02819141|183645665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.43
91876284|NCT02819141|183645666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.69
91800296|NCT00395733|183477794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for blinded reader 2 only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.9458||||||90.0|0.8776|1.024|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||1.0240|0.8776|
91800297|NCT00395733|183477794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for blinded reader 3 only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.8698||||||90.0|0.78|0.9657|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||0.9657|0.7800|
91800298|NCT04981392|183477804|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in adjusted % vaccinated|||||||0.0066
91800299|NCT04981392|183477805|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in adjusted % vaccinated|||||||0.0058
91800300|NCT04856891|183477806|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|78.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|89.1|||Fisher Exact|||||89.1|62.2|<0.0001
91800301|NCT04856891|183477807|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.3||||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-4.0|0.8822
91800302|NCT04856891|183477808|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-74.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.2|-64.7|||ANCOVA|||||-64.7|-85.2|<0.0001
91745405|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
91745406|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.61|86.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.57|56.61|<0.001
91745407|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
91745408|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.86|84.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.56|53.86|<0.001
91745409|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91745410|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91800303|NCT04856891|183477809|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|80.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.8|90.6|||Fisher Exact|||||90.6|64.8|<0.0001
91800304|NCT04856891|183477810|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|43.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|59.9|||Fisher Exact|||||59.9|23.5|<0.0001
91800305|NCT04856891|183477811|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|-1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|18.0|||Fisher Exact|||||18.0|-22.2|1.0000
91800306|NCT04856891|183477812|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|6.9||||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|26.3|||Fisher Exact|||||26.3|-13.8|0.4502
91800307|NCT04856891|183477813|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-3.1||||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 24 Percent Change from Baseline||11.8|-18.1|0.6805
91800308|NCT01697358|183477822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Z-test using unpooled standard deviation|||||||0.036
91876285|NCT02819141|183645667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.94
91876286|NCT02819141|183645668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.50
91876287|NCT02819141|183645669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
91876288|NCT02819141|183645670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
91876289|NCT02819141|183645671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.85
91907266|NCT01438489|183709614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|||All-comers||3.49|1.08|0.063
91800309|NCT01697358|183477823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline NPRS, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
91876290|NCT02819141|183645672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.95
91876291|NCT00635570|183645674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's chi-squared test with 1 degree of freedom was used for analysis||The trial sample size of 300 participants total (150 participants each group) was based on two-sided 5% significance testing with 80% power to detect a difference of 10% in adherence between students in the contraceptive vaginal ring group and oral contraceptive pill group.||||0.05
91876292|NCT00635570|183645675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
91876293|NCT00635570|183645676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
91876294|NCT00635570|183645677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
91876295|NCT02255435|183645701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.1||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.23|-0.04|0.1524
91876296|NCT02255435|183645701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.03||||0.7086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.16|-0.11|0.7086
91876297|NCT02255435|183645701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.01|-0.26|0.0651
91876298|NCT02255435|183645701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.02||||0.7937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.15|-0.12|0.7937
91876299|NCT02255435|183645701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.10|-0.18|0.5587
91876300|NCT02255435|183645701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.7285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.09|-0.13|0.7285
91876301|NCT02255435|183645701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.03||||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.15|-0.09|0.5802
91876302|NCT02255435|183645701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|Comparison of Omaveloxolone capsules pooled with Placebo capsules||0.08|-0.08|0.9698
91876303|NCT02255435|183645702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factors: treatment group, time, interaction between treatment and time, interaction between baseline and time; covariates: site, baseline mFARS|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||-0.50|-4.31|0.0141
91876304|NCT02255435|183645703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.81||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||1.18|-4.80|0.2310
91907267|NCT01438489|183709615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.72|7.32|||Regression, Logistic|||High||7.32|1.72|0.004
91907268|NCT01438489|183709615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|5.53|||Regression, Logistic|||High||5.53|1.27|0.029
91907269|NCT03129321|183709646|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: +/-20%|Difference in proportions|4.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.05|13.54||||||||13.54|-5.05|
91800310|NCT01697358|183477824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline NPRS, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
91876305|NCT02255435|183645703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.7298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||2.47|-3.51|0.7298
91876306|NCT02255435|183645703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||2.00|-3.99|0.5102
91876307|NCT02255435|183645703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||2.04|-3.94|0.5281
91876308|NCT02255435|183645703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.42||||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||1.57|-4.42|0.3458
91907270|NCT03129321|183709647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91907271|NCT03129321|183709647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
91907272|NCT03129321|183709648|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: +/-20%|Difference in proportions|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|11.98||||||||11.98|-6.29|
91907273|NCT03129321|183709649|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: +/-20%|Difference in proportions|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.29|8.26||||||||8.26|-8.29|
91907274|NCT03129321|183709650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0020
91907275|NCT03129321|183709650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0076
91876309|NCT02255435|183645703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||0.09|-4.68|0.0587
91876310|NCT02255435|183645703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.58||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||3.10|-1.94|0.6480
91876311|NCT02255435|183645703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|Comparison of Omaveloxolone capsules pooled with Placebo capsules||0.66|-2.87|0.2174
91876312|NCT01809691|183645704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.72|.080
91876313|NCT01809691|183645705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.67|||Regression, Cox|||||0.67|0.51|<0.001
91876314|NCT03694210|183645715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Physical Functioning: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0011
91876315|NCT03694210|183645715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Role Limitations due to Physical Health: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.1152
91745411|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91876316|NCT03694210|183645715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Role Limitations due to Emotional Problems: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0552
91876317|NCT03694210|183645715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Energy/Fatigue: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.039
91907276|NCT03129321|183709651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91745412|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91745413|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91800311|NCT01697358|183477825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline ODI, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
91876318|NCT03694210|183645715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Emotional Well Being: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0223
91876319|NCT03694210|183645715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4664|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Social Functioning: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.4664
91876320|NCT03694210|183645715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Pain: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0001
91876321|NCT03694210|183645715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||General Health: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0639
91876322|NCT00724750|183645776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 5%/day. For 80% power and a significance (alpha) level of 0.05; and assuming a common standard deviation of 9%, 41 subjects per group were needed.||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||The rate of change for the 2 groups was compared by testing the treatment-by-time interaction in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
91876323|NCT00724750|183645777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 5%/day.||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||The rate of change for the 2 groups was compared by testing the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
91876324|NCT00724750|183645779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91876325|NCT00724750|183645780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91876326|NCT00724750|183645781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91876327|NCT01014013|183645782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint was based on the proportion of patients who had a favorable microbiological response assessment at follow-up 5 to 9 days post-therapy visit. The definition of non-inferiority is that the 95%(two-sided) confidence interval for the difference in response rate between the 2 treatment groups(MK0826 minus control group) contains zero and the lower limit of the CI is not less than -20 percentage points.|the difference between two response rate|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.9||||95.0|-11.7|10.2||||||||10.2|-11.7|
91907277|NCT03129321|183709651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91745414|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91745415|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91745416|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91745417|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91745418|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91745419|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91745420|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91745421|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91745422|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91745423|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91745424|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91745425|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91745426|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91800312|NCT01697358|183477826|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline PCS, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
91800313|NCT01697358|183477827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test using unpooled standard deviation|||||||< 0.001
91800314|NCT02387710|183477828|OTHER||||||>|0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.5
91876328|NCT01014013|183645784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The secondary efficacy endpoint was based on the proportion of patients who had a favorable clinical response assessment at follow-up 5 to 9 days post-therapy visit. The definition of non-inferiority is that the 95%(two-sided) confidence interval for the difference in response rate between the 2 treatment groups(MK0826 minus control group) contains zero and the lower limit of the CI is not less than -20 percentage points.|the difference between two response rate|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||||95.0|-6.6|3.2||||||||3.2|-6.6|
91876329|NCT05319756|183645785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|26.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The sensitivity and integrity of the study was validated by comparing the mean responses of oxycodone HCl, the positive control (C), to the placebo (P):~H0: μC - μP ≤ δ1 versus Ha: μC - μP \> δ1 where δ1 =15"|||26.1|<.0001
91876330|NCT05319756|183645785|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.1041|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||1.7||0.1041
91876331|NCT05319756|183645785|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.3373|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||5.5||0.3373
91876332|NCT05319756|183645785|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μG ≤ 0.2(μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μG \>0.2(μC - 50)"||-6.3||<.0001
91876333|NCT05319756|183645785|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μG ≤ 0.2(μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μG \>0.2(μC - 50)"||-0.6||<0.0001
91876334|NCT05319756|183645785|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0232|ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μG - μP ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μG - μP \< δ2 where δ2 =11"||9.6||0.0232
91745427|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91745428|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91876335|NCT05319756|183645785|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.2767|ONE_SIDED|95.0||15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μG - μP ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μG - μP \< δ2 where δ2 =11."||15.2||0.2767
91876336|NCT05319756|183645787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|267.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.688||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.8|405.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||405.4|128.8|0.0016
91876337|NCT05319756|183645787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.688||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-109.0|167.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||167.5|-109|0.7276
91876338|NCT05319756|183645787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-88.0|188.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||188.9|-88.0|0.5481
91876339|NCT05319756|183645787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|350.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|84.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|211.8|489.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||489.5|211.8|<0.0001
91876340|NCT05319756|183645787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|364.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|225.9|502.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||502.8|225.9|<0.0001
91876341|NCT05319756|183645787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-238.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-376.0|-99.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-99.4|-376|0.0050
91876342|NCT05319756|183645787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-217.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|84.023||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-356.0|-77.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-77.8|-356|0.0106
91876343|NCT05319756|183645787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.9|222.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||222.1|-54.9|0.3196
91876344|NCT05319756|183645787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.688||0.2464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.0|235.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||235.6|-41.0|0.2464
91876345|NCT05319756|183645793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.581|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.15|77.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||77.20|52.15|<.0001
91876346|NCT05319756|183645793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.581||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.13|27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.1|2.13|0.0546
91876347|NCT05319756|183645793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|24.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.12|-0.96|0.1286
91876348|NCT05319756|183645793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.611|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.42|81.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||81.57|56.42|<.0001
91745429|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91745430|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91745431|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91745432|NCT01559259|183384901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91745433|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|23.99||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.32|34.67||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||34.67|13.32|0.003
91745434|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|14.83||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.59|25.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||25.07|4.59|0.048
91745435|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|24.98||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.43|36.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.53|13.43|0.005
91745436|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|16.57||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|26.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||26.88|6.25|0.030
91745437|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.86||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|18.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.53|-4.80|0.269
91745438|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-1.95||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|9.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.43|-13.34|0.735
91745439|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.58||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|21.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.04|-3.88|0.176
91745440|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|63.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.07|77.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||77.52|49.07|<0.001
91745441|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|56.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.28|71.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||71.34|42.28|<0.001
91800315|NCT02155881|183477851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||1.01|-0.98|0.9716
91876349|NCT05319756|183645793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.83|88.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||88.91|63.83|<.0001
91876350|NCT05319756|183645793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.6|-37.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-37.5|-62.6|<.0001
91876351|NCT05319756|183645793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.611|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.7|-40.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.5|-65.7|<.0001
91876352|NCT05319756|183645793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.22|16.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.86|-8.22|0.5699
91876353|NCT05319756|183645793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.581||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|24.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.23|-0.83|0.1243
91876354|NCT05319756|183645795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|286.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.879|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.6|370.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||370.8|202.6|<.0001
91876355|NCT05319756|183645795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.879||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.2|137.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||137.9|-30.2|0.2912
91876356|NCT05319756|183645795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.62|182.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||182.0|13.62|0.0563
91876357|NCT05319756|183645795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|484.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|400.1|569.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||569.0|400.1|<.0001
91876358|NCT05319756|183645795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|396.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|312.4|480.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||480.8|312.4|<.0001
91745442|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.58|81.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.55|53.58|<0.001
91745443|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|53.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.62|67.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||67.99|38.62|<0.001
91876359|NCT05319756|183645795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-233.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-317.0|-149.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-149|-317|<.0001
91876360|NCT05319756|183645795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-189.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.083||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-273.0|-105.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-105|-273|0.0003
91876361|NCT05319756|183645795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|197.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.7|282.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||282.0|113.7|0.0001
91876362|NCT05319756|183645795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|109.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.879||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.8|194.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||194.0|25.80|0.0320
91876363|NCT05319756|183645796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.276|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.98|22.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.48|14.98|<0.0001
91876364|NCT05319756|183645796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.302||0.5056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|5.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.56|-2.03|0.5056
91876365|NCT05319756|183645796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.307||0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|8.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.42|0.82|0.0760
91876366|NCT05319756|183645796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.92|29.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.54|21.92|<0.0001
91876367|NCT05319756|183645796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.68|28.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.16|20.68|<0.0001
91876368|NCT05319756|183645796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.297|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|-13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.2|-20.8|<0.0001
91876369|NCT05319756|183645796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.3|-17.9|<0.0001
91876370|NCT05319756|183645796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.298||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.22|10.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.79|3.22|0.0024
91876371|NCT05319756|183645796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.98|9.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.41|1.98|0.0118
91876372|NCT05319756|183645797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.246|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.61|24.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.01|16.61|<0.0001
91876373|NCT05319756|183645797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.271||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|6.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.39|-1.09|0.2439
91876374|NCT05319756|183645797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.276||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.75|10.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.25|2.75|0.0044
91876375|NCT05319756|183645797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.39|27.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.91|20.39|<0.0001
91876376|NCT05319756|183645797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.5|31.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.88|24.50|<0.0001
91876377|NCT05319756|183645797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.266|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|-13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.9|-21.4|<0.0001
91876378|NCT05319756|183645797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.268|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.1|-17.5|<0.0001
91876379|NCT05319756|183645797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.267||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|7.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.57|0.11|0.0907
91876380|NCT05319756|183645797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.225||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.22|11.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.55|4.22|0.0004
91876381|NCT05319756|183645798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.528|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.86|27.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.88|22.86|<0.0001
91876382|NCT05319756|183645798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.11|1.08|0.0189
91876383|NCT05319756|183645798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.66|8.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.71|3.66|<0.0001
91876384|NCT05319756|183645798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.537|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.65|34.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.71|29.65|<0.0001
91876385|NCT05319756|183645798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.525|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.66|32.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.68|27.66|<0.0001
91876386|NCT05319756|183645798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.522|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|-19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.3|-24.3|<0.0001
91876387|NCT05319756|183645798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.7|-16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.7|-21.7|<0.0001
91876388|NCT05319756|183645798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.524|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3|9.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.31|4.30|<0.0001
91876389|NCT05319756|183645798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.514||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.31|7.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.29|2.31|0.0015
91745444|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|10.28||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|23.82||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.82|-3.26|0.140
91745445|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.98||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|16.89||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.89|-10.94|0.674
91876390|NCT05319756|183645799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.01|5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.45|3.01|<.0001
91876391|NCT05319756|183645799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|-0.59|0.3933
91876392|NCT05319756|183645799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747||0.2916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.02|-0.44|0.2916
91876393|NCT05319756|183645799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.69|5.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.15|2.69|<.0001
91876394|NCT05319756|183645799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.742|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|4.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.44|2.00|<.0001
91876395|NCT05319756|183645799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.81|-2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.38|-4.81|<.0001
91876396|NCT05319756|183645799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.66|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.22|-4.66|<.0001
91876397|NCT05319756|183645799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.741||0.6765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.91|-1.53|0.6765
91876398|NCT05319756|183645799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-2.22|0.1712
91876399|NCT05319756|183645800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.526|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.19|27.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.21|22.19|<.0001
91876400|NCT05319756|183645800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.527||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|0.35|0.0606
91876401|NCT05319756|183645800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.534||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.64|1.59|0.0074
91876402|NCT05319756|183645800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.05|33.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.10|28.05|<.0001
91876403|NCT05319756|183645800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.524|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.48|32.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.50|27.48|<.0001
91876404|NCT05319756|183645800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.521|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|-19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.3|-24.3|<.0001
91876405|NCT05319756|183645800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|-18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.1|-23.1|<.0001
91876406|NCT05319756|183645800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.37|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.38|3.37|0.0001
91876407|NCT05319756|183645800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.513||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.78|2.80|0.0005
91876408|NCT00442559|183645811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - Montelukast. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daytime asthma symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the Montelukast treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=24 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.03|-0.29|0.015
91745446|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|14.58||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|27.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||27.93|1.22|0.034
91745447|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|72.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.25|86.39||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.39|58.25|<0.001
91745448|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.63|81.78||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.78|52.63|<0.001
91745449|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.4|86.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.40|58.40|<0.001
91745450|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|64.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.32|78.91||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.91|49.32|<0.001
91745451|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.4||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|18.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.85|-2.06|0.119
91745452|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.84||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|13.98||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.98|-8.30|0.616
91745453|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.34||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|18.87||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.87|-2.20|0.125
91745454|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.73|88.25||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.25|60.73|<0.001
91745455|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.05|83.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.71|55.05|<0.001
91745456|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.65|87.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||87.38|59.65|<0.001
91745457|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.01|82.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||82.71|54.01|<0.001
91745458|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.33||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|15.65||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.65|-2.99|0.187
91800316|NCT02155881|183477852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.8713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.02|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||1.02|-0.87|0.8713
91800317|NCT02155881|183477853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.81|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.81|-0.61|0.7789
91800318|NCT02155881|183477854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.86|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.86|-0.55|0.6630
91800319|NCT02155881|183477855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.5593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.19|-0.35|0.5593
91800320|NCT02155881|183477855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Runny nose: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.33|-0.22|0.7085
91800321|NCT02155881|183477855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Itching: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.31|-0.22|0.7309
91800322|NCT02155881|183477855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.30|-0.29|0.9584
91800323|NCT02155881|183477856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Itching/Burning Eyes: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.46|-0.11|0.2266
91800324|NCT02155881|183477856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.4888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Redness: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.17|-0.35|0.4888
91800325|NCT02155881|183477856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.8316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Tearing/Watering Eyes: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.27|-0.22|0.8316
91800326|NCT02155881|183477857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.25|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.25|-0.80|0.2968
91800327|NCT02155881|183477858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Activities: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.31|-0.85|0.3533
91876409|NCT00442559|183645811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - ICS. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daytime asthma symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the ICS treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=29 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.02|-0.3|0.027
91800328|NCT02155881|183477858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.3712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.32|-0.84|0.3712
91800329|NCT02155881|183477858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Non-nose/Eye symptoms: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.29|-0.69|0.4098
91800330|NCT02155881|183477858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.2683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Practical Problems: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.28|-1.00|0.2683
91800331|NCT02155881|183477858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Symptoms: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.38|-0.82|0.4643
91800332|NCT02155881|183477858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Eye symptoms: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.33|-0.74|0.4502
91800333|NCT02155881|183477858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Emotional: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.18|-0.95|0.1770
91907278|NCT03070470|183709652|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|12.0||The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) to be \<10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline J-Tpeakc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 3 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model||12.0|-9.5|
91876410|NCT00442559|183645812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - Montelukast. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daily allergic rhinitis symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the Montelukast treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=24 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.07|-0.36|0.006
91876411|NCT00442559|183645812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - ICS. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daily allergic rhinitis symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the ICS treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=28 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.01|-0.24|0.032
91876412|NCT03906240|183645816|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.49|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 5.78||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||2.49|1.00|<.001
91876413|NCT03906240|183645816|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 3.48||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.38|0.35|.002
91745459|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.79||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|10.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.99|-9.42|0.881
91745460|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.05||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|14.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.71|-4.60|0.311
91745461|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91745462|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91745463|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91745464|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91745465|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91745466|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91745467|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91876414|NCT03906240|183645817|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.01||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.91|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.06||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.91|-0.45|.957
91876415|NCT03906240|183645817|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.51||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.30||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.25|0.08|.033
91876416|NCT03906240|183645818|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.71||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.76||Physical Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.31|0.32|.015
91876417|NCT03906240|183645818|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.74||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.87||Psychological Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.55|0.26|.012
91745468|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91745469|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91745470|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91745471|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91745472|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91745473|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91745474|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91745475|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91745476|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91745477|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91745478|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91745479|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91745480|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91800334|NCT03841448|183477893|SUPERIORITY||Placebo-adjusted GM Percent Change|-37.367||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.951|0.46|||MMRM||Placebo-adjusted GM percent change, 90% CIs were calculated by exponentially back-transforming the model based LS mean difference (cemdisiran - placebo) and the corresponding 90% CI then subtracting by 1.|||0.460|-60.951|0.1032
91800335|NCT03841448|183477894|SUPERIORITY||Placebo-adjusted GM Percent Change|-36.167||||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.552|5.978|||MMRM||Placebo-adjusted GM percent change, 90% CIs were calculated by exponentially back-transforming the model based LS mean difference (cemdisiran - placebo) and the corresponding 90% CI then subtracting by 1.|||5.978|-61.552|0.1432
91876418|NCT03906240|183645818|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.02||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.08||Physical Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.55|-0.43|.941
91876419|NCT03906240|183645818|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.25||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.14||Psychological Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.79|-0.17|.270
91876420|NCT03906240|183645819|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.08||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.30||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.71|-0.45|.768
91876421|NCT03906240|183645819|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.05||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.42|-0.53|.975
91876422|NCT03575572|183645825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91876423|NCT03575572|183645825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91876424|NCT03575572|183645827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91907279|NCT03070470|183709652|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) to be \<10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline J-Tpeakc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 3 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model||6.1|-11.4|
91876425|NCT03575572|183645827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91876426|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||||Represents patients pain score post operative day 1 best with rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity.||1.2|0.9|
91907280|NCT03070470|183709652|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) to be \<10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline J-Tpeakc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 3 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model||8.8|-14.6|
91745481|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91800336|NCT03841448|183477895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|21.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline 24-hour UP (≥1.0 g and \<2 g/day versus ≥2.0 g/day).|Odds ratio was estimated with logit method using a correction of 0.5 in every cell of the 2x2 table that contains a zero.|||21.27|0.43|0.1177
91876427|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 1 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity.||2.6|2.2|
91876428|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|3.1|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 1 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.1|2.7|
91876429|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|4.8|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 1 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||4.8|4.4|
91876430|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.0|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.0|1.6|
91876431|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|3.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.6|3.2|
91876432|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|4.4|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||4.4|4.0|
91876433|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|6.1|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||6.1|5.7|
91876434|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||1.2|0.8|
91876435|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.6|2.2|
91876436|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|3.5|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.5|3.1|
91745482|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91745483|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91745484|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91745485|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91745486|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91745487|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91876437|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|5.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||5.2|4.8|
91876438|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.7|0.4|
91876439|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.3|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.3|1.9|
91745488|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91907281|NCT03070470|183709653|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.6|38.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CI to be ≥10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline QTc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 1 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model.||38.9|22.6|
91745489|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91745490|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91800337|NCT03841448|183477895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.42|||||Difference in proportions (cemdisiran - placebo) (90% CI) was based on the Wilson score method with continuity correction.|||0.42|-0.13|
91876440|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.2|1.8|
91876441|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|4.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||4.2|3.8|
91907282|NCT03503877|183709665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.07
91907283|NCT03503877|183709666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.89
91745491|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91745492|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91745493|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91745494|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91745495|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91745496|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91745497|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91745498|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91745499|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91745500|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91907284|NCT03503877|183709667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||High mosaicism|Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.54
91800338|NCT03841448|183477896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|20.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline 24-hour UP (≥1.0 g and \<2 g/day versus ≥2.0 g/day).|Odds ratio was estimated with logit method using a correction of 0.5 in every cell of the 2x2 table that contains a zero.|||20.34|0.45|0.1533
91745501|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91745502|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91800339|NCT03841448|183477896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.42|||||Difference in proportions (cemdisiran - placebo) (90% CI) was based on the Wilson score method with continuity correction.|||0.42|-0.13|
91800340|NCT03841448|183477897|SUPERIORITY||Placebo-adjusted GM Percent Change|-45.771||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.093|-26.309|||MMRM||Placebo-adjusted GM percent change, 90% CIs were calculated by exponentially back-transforming the model based LS means difference (cemdisiran - placebo) and the corresponding 90% CI then subtracting by 1.|||-26.309|-60.093|0.0021
91907285|NCT03503877|183709667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Low mosaicism|Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||.20
91800341|NCT04068610|183477904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for comparison of treatment arms obtained from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the location of the primary tumor.||||5.6|0.6|0.3173
91800342|NCT02586064|183477929|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.28
91800343|NCT02586064|183477929|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91800344|NCT02586064|183477929|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.87
91800345|NCT02586064|183477929|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91800346|NCT02586064|183477929|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence hypothesis was assessed using the confidence intervals for the mean differences compared to margins of equivalence (-7,7). The equivalence hypothesis was examined based on the difference between the amount of change from the baseline to the end of treatment on the CAPS between the two conditions. Confidence interval is -7.0 to 1.9.||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change||||0.26
91800347|NCT02586064|183477929|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91800348|NCT02586064|183477929|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.68
91745503|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91800349|NCT02586064|183477929|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91800350|NCT02586064|183477929|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Follow Up||||0.84
91745504|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91745505|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91800351|NCT02586064|183477929|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91800352|NCT02586064|183477930|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||Baseline||||0.36
91800353|NCT02586064|183477930|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||4-Week||||0.34
91800354|NCT02586064|183477930|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||8-Week||||0.43
91800355|NCT02586064|183477930|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.09
91800356|NCT02586064|183477930|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||End of Treatment||||0.41
91800357|NCT02586064|183477930|SUPERIORITY|Superiority hypotheses were assessed using the confidence interval for the mean differences (-0.33 to 0.20) compared to margin of superiority (-.05).||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||Change||||0.64
91800358|NCT02586064|183477930|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.22
91800359|NCT02586064|183477931|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.40
91800360|NCT02586064|183477931|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.65
91800361|NCT02586064|183477931|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.64
91800362|NCT02586064|183477931|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.64
91800363|NCT02586064|183477931|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.76
91800364|NCT02586064|183477932|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.11
91800365|NCT02586064|183477932|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||4-Week||||0.48
91800366|NCT02586064|183477932|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||8-Week||||0.74
91800367|NCT02586064|183477932|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.34
91800368|NCT02586064|183477932|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.65
91800369|NCT02586064|183477932|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.14
91800370|NCT02586064|183477932|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.18
91800371|NCT02586064|183477933|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.08
91800372|NCT02586064|183477933|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.07
91800373|NCT02586064|183477933|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.86
91800374|NCT02586064|183477933|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.003
91800375|NCT02586064|183477933|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.03
91800376|NCT02586064|183477934|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.05
91800377|NCT02586064|183477934|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.04
91800378|NCT02586064|183477934|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.86
91800379|NCT02586064|183477934|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||<0.001
91800380|NCT02586064|183477934|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.16
91800381|NCT02586064|183477935|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.45
91800382|NCT02586064|183477935|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.71
91745506|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91745507|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91745508|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91745509|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91745510|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91745511|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91745512|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91745513|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91800383|NCT02586064|183477935|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.60
91800384|NCT02586064|183477935|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.13
91800385|NCT02586064|183477935|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.80
91907286|NCT03503877|183709668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Time to Expanded Blastocyst|Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.01
91745514|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91800386|NCT02586064|183477936|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.35
91800387|NCT02586064|183477936|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.11
91800388|NCT02586064|183477936|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.74
91800389|NCT02586064|183477936|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.03
91800390|NCT02586064|183477936|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.22
91800391|NCT02586064|183477937|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.39
91800392|NCT02586064|183477937|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.15
91800393|NCT02586064|183477937|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.72
91800394|NCT02586064|183477937|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.04
91800395|NCT02586064|183477937|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.19
91800396|NCT02586064|183477938|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.33
91800397|NCT02586064|183477938|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.11
91800398|NCT02586064|183477938|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.88
91800399|NCT02586064|183477938|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.06
91800400|NCT02586064|183477938|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.56
91800401|NCT02586064|183477939|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.16
91800402|NCT02586064|183477939|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.06
91800403|NCT02586064|183477939|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.46
91800404|NCT02586064|183477939|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.001
91800405|NCT02586064|183477939|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.002
91800406|NCT02586064|183477940|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.24
91907287|NCT01118273|183709686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
91907288|NCT01118273|183709687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
91800407|NCT02586064|183477940|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.81
91745515|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91745516|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91745517|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91745518|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91745519|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91745520|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91745521|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91745522|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91745523|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91745524|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91745525|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91745526|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91745527|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91800408|NCT02586064|183477940|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.24
91800409|NCT02586064|183477941|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.41
91800410|NCT02586064|183477941|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.21
91800411|NCT02586064|183477941|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.50
91800412|NCT02586064|183477942|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.70
91800413|NCT02586064|183477942|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4||||0.96
91907289|NCT01118273|183709688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.45
91800414|NCT02586064|183477942|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8||||0.59
91876442|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.4|0.2|
91876443|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.7|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||1.7|1.3|
91907290|NCT01118273|183709689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91745528|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91907291|NCT01118273|183709690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91907292|NCT01118273|183709691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
91745529|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91745530|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91745531|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91745532|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91800415|NCT02586064|183477942|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.61
91907293|NCT01118273|183709692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
91800416|NCT02586064|183477942|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.84
91876444|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||1.5|1.2|
91907294|NCT01118273|183709693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.03
91907295|NCT01118273|183709694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.76
91800417|NCT02586064|183477942|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Follow Up||||0.30
91800418|NCT02586064|183477942|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.16
91800419|NCT00309985|183477976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||The study was designed to detect a 33.3% improvement in median survival time across treatments with one-sided type I error of 0.025 and 80% power.||||0.0003
91876445|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|3.3|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.3|2.9|
91876446|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.2|0.0|
91907296|NCT01118273|183709695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91907297|NCT01118273|183709696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.04
91907298|NCT01118273|183709697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
91907299|NCT01118273|183709698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
91907300|NCT01118273|183709700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.42
91907301|NCT01118273|183709701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
91907302|NCT01118273|183709702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
91907303|NCT01118273|183709703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.72
91907304|NCT01118273|183709704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
91907305|NCT01118273|183709706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.35
91907306|NCT01118273|183709708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.53
91907307|NCT01118273|183709709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
91907308|NCT01118273|183709710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.59
91907309|NCT01118273|183709711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
91876447|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.8|0.5|
91907310|NCT01197521|183709747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders with a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
91745533|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91745534|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
91745535|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91745536|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91745537|NCT01559259|183384902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91745538|NCT01559259|183384903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.45||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.45|0.17|<0.001
91745539|NCT01559259|183384903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.39||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.39|0.15|<0.001
91745540|NCT01559259|183384903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.35||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.35|0.13|<0.001
91745541|NCT01559259|183384903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.41||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.41|0.15|<0.001
91745542|NCT01559259|183384903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.12||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.63||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||1.63|0.77|0.549
91800420|NCT00309985|183477977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91800421|NCT00309985|183477978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91876448|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.6|0.4|
91876449|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.0|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.0|1.7|
91876450|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.0|-0.0|
91876451|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.2|0.1|
91876452|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.1|-0.0|
91876453|NCT03647709|183645832|OTHER||mean score|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.7|0.4|
91876454|NCT03647709|183645835|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0015
91876455|NCT03647709|183645836|OTHER|||||||0.6398|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.6398
91876456|NCT03647709|183645837|OTHER|||||||0.0658|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0658
91876457|NCT03647709|183645838|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91876458|NCT01426217|183645852|OTHER|Efficacy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98||||||||0.98|0.63|
91876459|NCT01426217|183645853|OTHER|Efficacy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.35||||||||1.35|0.62|
91745543|NCT01559259|183384903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.97||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.42||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||1.42|0.66|0.863
91745544|NCT01559259|183384903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.86||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.28||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||1.28|0.57|0.454
91800422|NCT00309985|183477979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91876460|NCT04799587|183645912|SUPERIORITY|Sample size for the study was determined by assuming a baseline rate of 33% of IONV and that there will be a relative decrease of 50% in the group that receives P6 acupressure during CD. A two-sided Fisher's Exact Test, with a significance level of 0.05, group sizes of 98 are needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of 0.18. Group sizes were rounded up to 100. Statistical analyses were two-sided, and a P\<0.05 was required to reject the null hypothesis.||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||The incidence of nausea and vomiting and the number of episodes between the P6 acupressure and sham acupressure groups were compared using a chi-square statistic (nominal data) or the Wilcoxon test (continuous data).||||.94
91876461|NCT04799587|183645913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||The sample size for the study was determined by assuming a baseline rate of 33% of intraoperative nausea and vomiting and that there will be a relative decrease of 50% in the group that receives P6 acupressure during CD.20 Using a two-sided Fisher's Exact Test, with a significance level of 0.05, group sizes of 98 are needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of 0.18. Group sizes were rounded up to 100||||.95
91876462|NCT02849509|183645968|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the second assessment (Visit 2) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||<0.0001
91876463|NCT02849509|183645968|OTHER|||||||0.0174||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the second assessment (Visit 2) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0174
91876464|NCT02849509|183645969|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the last assessment (Visit 3) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||<0.0001
91876465|NCT02849509|183645969|OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the last assessment (Visit 3) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0004
91876466|NCT02849509|183645970|OTHER|||||||0.0423||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0423
91889208|NCT04546425|183671166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 3||4.2|-4.6|
91907311|NCT01197521|183709747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.18||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders with a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|0.03|0.006
91907312|NCT01197521|183709748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252||||||Week 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The residuals from the ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.252
91745545|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-41.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.56|-22.58||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-22.58|-59.56|<0.001
91745546|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-40.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.41|-22.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-22.56|-59.41|<0.001
91745547|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-38.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.49|-19.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-19.79|-57.49|<0.001
91745548|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-38.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.94|-19.28||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-19.28|-56.94|<0.001
91745549|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.13||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|2.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.40|-8.67|0.274
91745550|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-2.89||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.62|-8.40|0.304
91745551|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.96||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|5.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.49|-7.41|0.769
91745552|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-54.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-54.38|-88.00|<0.001
91745553|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-66.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.26|-49.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-49.72|-84.26|<0.001
91745554|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-67.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.75|-50.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-50.19|-84.75|<0.001
91745555|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-62.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.45|-45.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-45.07|-80.45|<0.001
91745556|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-8.53||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|-1.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-1.50|-15.55|0.021
91800423|NCT00309985|183477980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91800424|NCT00309985|183477981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0009
91907313|NCT01197521|183709748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Week 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The residuals from the ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.170
91745557|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.99||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|4.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.07|-12.05|0.337
91745558|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-5.26||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|2.76||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.76|-13.28|0.204
91745559|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-77.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.29|-63.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-63.49|-92.29|<0.001
91745560|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.71|-56.58||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-56.58|-86.71|<0.001
91745561|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-72.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.06|-57.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-57.68|-88.06|<0.001
91745562|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-67.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.87|-51.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-51.52|-82.87|<0.001
91745563|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-10.71||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-3.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-3.21|-18.20|0.007
91745564|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.99||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|4.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.88|-12.86|0.385
91745565|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-6.29||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.97|2.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.40|-14.97|0.162
91800425|NCT00309985|183477981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.40
91745566|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-76.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.35|-62.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-62.27|-91.35|<0.001
91745567|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-70.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.79|-55.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-55.41|-85.79|<0.001
91800426|NCT03401489|183477984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.72||Significance threshold was α=0.05, two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were also run for sensitivity analyses, adjusting for baseline SBP, site, and race.|Difference defined as Control minus PACESETTER at 12 months (SBP \<130 mmHg); odds ratio \<1 favors the PACESETTER arm.|Comparison between PACESETTER and control arms at 12 months for proportion of participants with SBP \<130 mmHg using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with logit link. Model included baseline SBP, site, and race as covariates.||2.72|.36|0.822
91800427|NCT03401489|183477985|OTHER|Longitudinal mixed-effects repeated-measures modeling (MMRM) was used to compare systolic BP over time, adjusting for baseline BP, site, and race.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|12.1||Two-sided α=0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values favor the control arm.|||12.1|-7.3|0.623
91876467|NCT02849509|183645970|OTHER|||||||0.2226||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.2226
91876468|NCT02849509|183645971|OTHER|||||||0.0287||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0287
91876469|NCT02849509|183645971|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0300
91876470|NCT02849509|183645977|OTHER|||||||0.1234||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3)|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort A, were compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.1234
91876471|NCT02849509|183645977|OTHER|||||||0.974||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3)|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort A, were compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.9740
91876472|NCT01075815|183645984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0235||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1546|0.1568|||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||0.1568|-0.1546|0.8762
91876473|NCT01075815|183645985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3589||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.3589
91876474|NCT01075815|183645986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0629||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0629
91876475|NCT01075815|183645987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4728||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4728
91876476|NCT01075815|183645988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0950
91876477|NCT01075815|183645990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9625||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4655|1.99|||Chi-squared|||||1.9900|0.4655|0.9179
91876478|NCT01075815|183645991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.875||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4133|1.8524|||Chi-squared|||||1.8524|0.4133|0.7271
91876479|NCT01075815|183645992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3267||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.3267
91876480|NCT01075815|183645993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.4164
91876481|NCT01075815|183645994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5952||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.5952
91876482|NCT01075815|183645996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9444||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4347|2.0518|||Chi-squared|||||2.0518|0.4347|0.8852
91876483|NCT00763919|183646005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
91876484|NCT00763919|183646006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.01
91876485|NCT00763919|183646007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
91876486|NCT00763919|183646008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
91876487|NCT00763919|183646009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
91876488|NCT00763919|183646010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.042
91876489|NCT00763919|183646011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.044
91876490|NCT00763919|183646012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.002
91876491|NCT00763919|183646013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.001
91876492|NCT00763919|183646014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.001
91876493|NCT00763919|183646015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.001
91876494|NCT00763919|183646016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.827
91876495|NCT00763919|183646017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.002
91876496|NCT00763919|183646018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.246
91876497|NCT00763919|183646019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.101
91876498|NCT00763919|183646020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.003
91876499|NCT00763919|183646021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.096
91876500|NCT00763919|183646022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.072
91800428|NCT03401489|183477986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.0||Two-sided α=0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values favor the PACESETTER arm.|Longitudinal mixed-effects repeated-measures modeling (MMRM) was used to compare diastolic BP over time, adjusting for baseline BP, site, and race.||6.0|-7.8|0.614
91800429|NCT01950390|183477987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.383|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.23||One-sided|Log Rank|Stratification factors of BRAF mutation status (wild type/mutation) and prior therapy (yes/no) were used in the stratified analysis|One-sided 90% Repeated Confidence Interval for Hazard Ratio with Arm A as Reference|||1.23||0.383
91800430|NCT01950390|183477988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.2||Two-sided|Log Rank|Stratified Log rank test||||1.20|0.61|0.358
91800431|NCT01950390|183477989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482||||||Two-sided|Chi-squared|||||||0.482
91876501|NCT00763919|183646023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
91876502|NCT00763919|183646024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.078
91876503|NCT00763919|183646025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.002
91745568|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-56.31||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-56.31|-87.00|<0.001
91745569|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-65.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.03|-49.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-49.34|-81.03|<0.001
91800432|NCT01950390|183477991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937||||||Two-sided|Chi-squared|||||||0.937
91800433|NCT02975336|183478003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.64|0.91|0.5462
91800434|NCT02975336|183478003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.76|0.5462
91800435|NCT02975336|183478003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.67|0.5462
91800436|NCT02975336|183478004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.24|0.69|0.5462
91800437|NCT02975336|183478004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.97|0.68|0.5462
91800438|NCT02975336|183478004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.75|0.59|0.5462
91800439|NCT02975336|183478032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.4|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.40|0.57|0.7034
91800440|NCT02975336|183478032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.52|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.52|0.31|0.5462
91800441|NCT02975336|183478032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.97|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.97|0.42|0.5462
91800442|NCT02975336|183478033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|0.74|0.5462
91800443|NCT02975336|183478033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.13|0.49|0.5462
91800444|NCT02975336|183478033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.81|0.65|0.5462
91800445|NCT02975336|183478034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.54|0.73|0.2434
91800446|NCT02975336|183478034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.2389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.63|0.73|0.2389
91800447|NCT02975336|183478034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.85|0.76|0.1952
91800448|NCT02975336|183478035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.89|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.89|0.87|0.0987
91800449|NCT02975336|183478035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.85|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.85|0.51|0.9201
91800450|NCT02975336|183478035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.5645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.20|0.60|0.5645
91800451|NCT02975336|183478036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.44|0.3743
91800452|NCT02975336|183478036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.54|0.50|0.6445
91800453|NCT02975336|183478036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.41|0.2634
91800454|NCT02975336|183478037|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.59||||0.2989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.81||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||3.81|0.66|0.2989
91876504|NCT00763919|183646026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.562
91876505|NCT00763919|183646027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.12
91876506|NCT05431543|183646035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|83.988|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
91876507|NCT05431543|183646035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|102.093|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
91889209|NCT04546425|183671166|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hib||2.2|-2.0|
91876508|NCT02924051|183646036|EQUIVALENCE|With an alpha level of .05 and effective (post-attrition) sample size of approximately 25 participants per county, and 3 counties per treatment group, the power of the group comparison was at least 80%, assuming an ICC of .01 or less, and an observed difference in proportions of .25. The anticipated power for the longitudinal comparison of continuous outcomes was expected to be even greater under these assumptions given the greater power for the parametric tests.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91876509|NCT02924051|183646038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of Cooking Skills/Nutrition Education/MI at baseline and 12 months.||||0.36
91876510|NCT00914732|183646042|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.23|-0.25||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable||-0.25|-1.23|
91876511|NCT00914732|183646043|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.32|-0.33||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable||-0.33|-1.32|
91876512|NCT00914732|183646044|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.52||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.52|-0.43|
91876513|NCT00914732|183646045|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.77|0.23||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.23|-0.77|
91907314|NCT01197521|183709749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.17||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.17|0.10|<0.001
91907315|NCT01197521|183709750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.22||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.22|0.11|<0.001
91907316|NCT01197521|183709750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.14||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.14|0.03|0.002
91876514|NCT00914732|183646048|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.71||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.71|-0.3|
91876515|NCT00914732|183646049|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|0.35||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.35|-0.31|
91876516|NCT00914732|183646050|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.74|0.04||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.04|-0.74|
91876517|NCT00914732|183646051|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x108 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x108 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Lyophilized SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|-0.12||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||-0.12|-0.81|
91876518|NCT03005106|183646058|OTHER|Difference between treatment and control sites|Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference is (percent area of Autograft treatment site requiring autografting by Month 3) - (percent area of StrataGraft treatment site requiring autografting by Month 3).|one-sided Wilcoxin Signed RankTtest|||||||<0.0001
91907317|NCT01197521|183709751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.12||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|0.05|<0.001
91745570|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-11.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.86|-3.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-3.55|-19.86|0.007
91876519|NCT03005106|183646059|OTHER||Percentage of participants|83.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.4|91.8|||||95% confidence interval is derived using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||91.8|74.4|
91745571|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-4.94||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|4.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.46|-14.34|0.310
91745572|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-7.36||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|1.9||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.90|-16.63|0.126
91745573|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-75.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.35|-60.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-60.93|-90.35|<0.001
91876520|NCT03005106|183646060|OTHER|Difference is Autograft - StrataGraft|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||1-sided, paired t-test|p-value from 1-sided, paired t-test on the mean difference(Autograft - StrataGraft)||||||<0.0001
91876521|NCT03005106|183646061|OTHER|Difference is Autograft - StrataGraft|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Missing total score data were imputed using a multiple imputation analysis assuming a monotone missing data pattern. A linear regression model with ethnicity, race and age as predictive variables was used in the imputation.|1-sided, paired t-test|p-value from 1-sided, paired t-test on the difference (Autograft - StrataGraft)||||||<0.0001
91876522|NCT03163472|183646062|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876523|NCT03163472|183646063|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91876524|NCT03163472|183646064|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
91745574|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-66.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.99|-50.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-50.88|-81.99|<0.001
91745575|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.96|-53.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-53.71|-84.96|<0.001
91745576|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-65.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.03|-49.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-49.34|-81.03|<0.001
91876525|NCT03163472|183646065|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
91876526|NCT00321672|183646068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0967||95.0||||All stastical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the average percent change in NPRS scores from baseline to weeks 2-12 between the total control and total NGX-4010 groups. The ratio of means between the 30- and 60-minute control group \[1.57 (90% CI: 1.12-2.35)\] was \> than the pre-specified equivalence margin ratio of 80-125%. Hence, the control groups could not be pooled and comparisons were performed between the 30- and 60-minute NGX-4010 groups and their respective control groups.||||0.0967
91876527|NCT00321672|183646068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4884||95.0||||All stastical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.4884
91745577|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-10.61||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.02|-2.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-2.19|-19.02|0.016
91745578|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.69||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|9.32||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.32|-10.69|0.895
91800455|NCT02975336|183478037|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.85||||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.19||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||2.19|0.33|0.7325
91876528|NCT00321672|183646068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1031||95.0||||All stastical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.1031
91876529|NCT00321672|183646069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0831||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||"The null hypothesis was: There is no difference between the total Control and total NGX-4010 in the absolute change in NPRS scores from Baseline during Weeks 2-12."||||0.0831
91876530|NCT00321672|183646069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.4680
91876531|NCT00321672|183646069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0896||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.0896
91876532|NCT00321672|183646070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0662||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression analysis, with the Baseline NPRS score and gender as covariates, was performed.||"The null hypothesis was: There is no difference between the total Control and total NGX-4010 group in the Proportion of Subjects Reaching 30% Decrease in Their Mean Average Pain for the Past 24 Hours NPRS Score From Baseline During Weeks 2 to 12."||||0.0662
91876533|NCT00321672|183646070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5582||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression analysis, with the Baseline NPRS score and gender as covariates, was performed.||||||0.5582
91876534|NCT00321672|183646070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0553||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression analysis, with the Baseline NPRS score and gender as covariates, was performed.||||||0.0553
91876535|NCT02389894|183646076|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|17.9|||Chi-squared|The primary end point analysis used an iterative hot-deck multiple imputation approach, assuming a nonignorable missing data mechanism.|The absolute difference in the percentage of patients with freedom from clinical or radiographic central nervous system (CNS) infarction was computed as Embol-x minus control|A sample size of 165 patients in each group ensured that each comparison had a power of approximately 90% to detect a between-group difference of 17.5% from an assumed control rate of 50% in the incidence of postoperative CNS infarcts. A single interim analysis was prespecified and performed. Based on the recommendation of the DSMB, randomization but not follow-up was halted due to low conditional power of observing any between-group differences for the primary endpoint.||17.9|-4.2|0.22
91876536|NCT02389894|183646076|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|13.8||The primary end point analysis used an iterative hot-deck multiple imputation approach, assuming a nonignorable missing data mechanism.|Chi-squared||The absolute difference in the percentage of patients with freedom from clinical or radiographic central nervous system (CNS) infarction was computed as Cardiogard minus control.|A sample size of 165 patients in each group ensured that each comparison had a power of approximately 90% to detect a between-group difference of 17.5% from an assumed control rate of 50% in the incidence of postoperative CNS infarcts. A single interim analysis was prespecified and performed. Based on the recommendation of the DSMB, randomization but not follow-up was halted due to low conditional power of observing any between-group differences for the primary endpoint.||13.8|-11.2|0.84
91876537|NCT02389894|183646077|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|20.5|||Chi-squared||The absolute difference was computed as Embol-x minus control|||20.5|-1.2|0.08
91876538|NCT02389894|183646077|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|7.9|||Chi-squared||The absolute difference was computed as Cardiogard minus control|||7.9|-13.5|0.61
91876539|NCT00145496|183646097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7177||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.05 (0.049 to adjust for one interim analysis).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from baseline in NSA Scale total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 182.||||0.7177
91876540|NCT00145496|183646098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0565||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.025 nominal significance using the Bonferroni adjustment to account for multiplicity of the key secondary comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from baseline in QLS total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 182.||||0.0565
91876541|NCT00145496|183646099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.025 nominal significance using the Bonferroni adjustment to account for multiplicity of the key secondary comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from baseline in body weight between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 182.||||<0.0001
91876542|NCT06466655|183646172|EQUIVALENCE||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91876543|NCT06466655|183646173|EQUIVALENCE||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91876544|NCT00925288|183646174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Since the standard schedule is at (0, 2, 6 months), and the modified schedule at (0, 3, 6 months), we will consider this a non-inferiority study. With 80% power, type 1 error of 0.05, standard deviations of 0.6, and an equivalence margin of 0.3, 64 women are needed per group to detect non-inferiority. Having 100 women in each study arm will yield over 94% power to detect non-inferiority of the modified schedule.|||||>|0.2||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that both schedules will provide an equivalent antibody response.||||>0.20
91745579|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-5.09||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|4.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.62|-14.80|0.308
91800456|NCT02975336|183478037|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.22||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||3.22|0.51|0.5910
91800457|NCT02975336|183478038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.47|0.72|0.3635
91876545|NCT00925288|183646175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Completion rates compared in the 2 study arms||||0.60
91876546|NCT00925288|183646176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||comparison of differences in HPV DNA prevalence by study arm.||||0.53
91876547|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER|The primary analysis was a linear model which attempted to explain change from Baseline (Visit 7) to Day 29 (Visit 11) in serum phosphate concentration based on log-transformed dose level (assuming that placebo was equally spaced below the lowest dose level), and stratified by pre-randomisation serum phosphate level (\< 7.5 mg/dL or ≥ 7.5 mg/dL). Missing assessments were imputed using the subject's last observed phosphate concentration value (Last Observation Carried Forward \[LOCF\] imputation).||||||0.784|||||||F-test|||"ITT population - statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level.~It was determined that 150 subjects randomised at a ratio of 8:8:8:13:13 (low dose to high dose, placebo) would have \>90% power to detect either a statistically significant slope for the dose-response relationship, or, if the relationship was not linear, a statistically significant difference between the highest-dose group and the placebo group, using a two-sided 0.05 significance level."||||0.784
91876548|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis of ITT primary analysis using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) for any missing Day 29 (Visit 11) serum phosphate values.||||||0.905|||||||F-test|||"ITT population sensitivity analysis using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) to assess statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level."||||0.905
91745580|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.58|-56.13||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-56.13|-86.58|<0.001
91745581|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-62.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.04|-46.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.19|-78.04|<0.001
91745582|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-64.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.64|-48.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-48.50|-80.64|<0.001
91745583|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-59.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.12|-43.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-43.55|-76.12|<0.001
91745584|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-11.49||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.63|-1.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-1.35|-21.63|0.028
91745585|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-1.88||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.15|9.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.38|-13.15|0.747
91745586|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-5.88||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|5.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.12|-16.88|0.303
91745587|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-62.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.64|-46.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.34|-78.64|<0.001
91745588|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-60.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.15|-44.02||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-44.02|-76.15|<0.001
91800458|NCT02975336|183478038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|1.06|0.0329
91745589|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-63.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.64|-47.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-47.27|-79.64|<0.001
91745590|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-53.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.1|-36.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-36.72|-70.10|<0.001
91745591|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-9.14||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|2.9||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.90|-21.18|0.137
91745592|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-6.34||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|5.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.71|-18.39|0.311
91800459|NCT02975336|183478038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.59|0.7619
91800460|NCT02975336|183478039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|0.79|0.2642
91800461|NCT02975336|183478039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|0.87|0.1489
91800462|NCT02975336|183478039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.70|0.56|0.9285
91876549|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis of ITT primary analysis using multiple imputation (MI) for any missing Day 29 (Visit 11) serum phosphate values.||||||0.976|||||||F-test|||"ITT population sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation (MI) to assess statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level."||||0.976
91876550|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis of the primary ITT analysis using the Per Protocol (PP) population.||||||0.914|||||||F-test|||"Per protocol (PP) population sensitivity analysis to assess statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level."||||0.914
91876551|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER|The primary analysis was a linear model which attempted to explain change from Baseline (Visit 7) to Day 29 (Visit 11) in serum phosphate concentration based on log-transformed dose level (assuming that placebo was equally spaced below the lowest dose level), and stratified by pre-randomisation serum phosphate level (\< 7.5 mg/dL or ≥ 7.5 mg/dL). Missing assessments were imputed using the subject's last observed phosphate concentration value (Last Observation Carried Forward \[LOCF\] imputation).|Slope|-0.329|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||linear model - log (dose) - response|||ITT population - statistical analysis of the linear model log(PT20 dose)-response relationship to examine whether the linear trend of the change in phosphate level as a function of the log-transformed dose was statistically significant.||||<0.001
91876552|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - treatment group||||<0.001
91876553|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER|||||||0.436|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - visit||||0.436
91745593|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-11.23||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.97|0.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||0.52|-22.97|0.067
91745594|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-51.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.42|-34.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-34.66|-68.42|<0.001
91745595|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-57.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.27|-40.76||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-40.76|-73.27|<0.001
91745596|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-53.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.16|-36.26||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-36.26|-70.16|<0.001
91745597|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-47.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.81|-30.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-30.83|-64.81|<0.001
91745598|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.52||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|9.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.85|-16.89|0.604
91745599|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-8.78||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|3.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.94|-21.50|0.184
91800463|NCT02975336|183478042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.88|0.49|0.9061
91800464|NCT02975336|183478042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.31|0.61|0.6053
91876554|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - treatment group versus Visit interaction||||0.959
91876555|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - baseline serum phosphate concentration||||<0.001
91876556|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - baseline serum phosphate concentration versus Visit interaction||||0.144
91876557|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2847|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.761||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||0.761||
91876558|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2881|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.659||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||0.659||
91745600|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-6.43||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.56|6.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||6.70|-19.56|0.340
91745601|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-40.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.67|-22.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-22.88|-57.67|<0.001
91745602|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-47.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.21|-30.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-30.27|-64.21|<0.001
91745603|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-43.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.57|-25.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-25.72|-60.57|<0.001
91800465|NCT02975336|183478042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.59|0.40|0.5200
91876559|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2891|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.05||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||-0.05||
91876560|NCT02151643|183646178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.618||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||-0.618||
91876561|NCT02151643|183646179|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in haemoglobin concentration from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.497
91800466|NCT02975336|183478051|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|21.2||||||||21.2|-9.7|
91876562|NCT02151643|183646179|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in haemoglobin concentration from Baseline by baseline hemoglobin.||||<0.001
91876563|NCT02151643|183646180|OTHER|||||||0.243|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in serum ferritin concentration from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.243
91876564|NCT02151643|183646180|OTHER|||||||0.867|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in serum ferritin concentration from Baseline by Visit.||||0.867
91876565|NCT02151643|183646180|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in serum ferritin concentration from Baseline by baseline serum ferritin concentration||||0.186
91876566|NCT02151643|183646181|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.068
91876567|NCT02151643|183646181|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by Visit.||||0.013
91876568|NCT02151643|183646181|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by Baseline Transferrin Saturation.||||<0.001
91876569|NCT02151643|183646182|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in Calcium x Phosphate Product from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.004
91876570|NCT02151643|183646182|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by Baseline Calcium x Phosphate Product.||||<0.001
91876571|NCT02151643|183646183|OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.292
91876572|NCT02151643|183646183|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.047
91876573|NCT02151643|183646183|OTHER|||||||0.872|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.872
91876574|NCT02151643|183646183|OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.288
91876575|NCT04307134|183646200|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99|||=|0.9509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||Statistical data presented based on Multiple logistic regression including Allergic history as factor and was performed to assess whether allergic history status influenced occurrence of AEs. This model produced one effect estimate for association.|Regression, Logistic|||||999.99|0.01|=0.9509
91876576|NCT04307134|183646207|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||=|0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.07||Multiple logistic regression including age as factor.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is combined for all age groups in accordance with local regulations.||1.07|0.99|=0.1488
91876577|NCT04908800|183646275|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|2.04|||||"Data were analyzed using a mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~Within-subject coefficient of variation was 10.7."|||2.04|1.74|
91876578|NCT04908800|183646276|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|1.79|||||"Data were analyzed using a mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~Within-subject coefficient of variation was 9.01."|||1.79|1.57|
91876579|NCT04908800|183646277|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.21|||||Data were analyzed using a mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Within-subject coefficient of variation was 7.18.|||1.21|1.09|
91876580|NCT04908800|183646282|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.06|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 26.1. Data were analyzed using a power model.|Dose Proportionality Assessment||1.06|0.882|
91876581|NCT04908800|183646282|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean was 600 (fasted) and 607 (fed). Within-subject coefficient of variation was 6.01. Data were analyzed using mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Food Effect Assessment||1.11|0.926|
91876582|NCT04908800|183646282|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.59|||||Geometric least squares mean was 600 (fasted male) and 634 (fasted female). Between subject coefficient of variation was 32.7. Data were analyzed using an ANOVA model which included actual treatment as a factor.|Sex Effect Assessment||1.59|0.701|
91745604|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-44.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.55|-27.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-27.34|-61.55|<0.001
91745605|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|4.29||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.38|-9.80|0.548
91745606|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-2.51||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|11.18||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.18|-16.20|0.721
91745607|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.44||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|14.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.35|-13.47|0.951
91745608|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-29.13||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.66|-11.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-11.59|-46.66|0.005
91745609|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-34.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.62|-16.97||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-16.97|-51.62|0.001
91745610|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-36.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|-18.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-18.73|-53.80|<0.001
91745611|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-34.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.77|-17.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-17.35|-51.77|<0.001
91745612|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.45||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|19.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.79|-8.89|0.455
91745613|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.43||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|14.65||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.65|-13.80|0.953
91745614|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-2.48||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|11.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.66|-16.63|0.731
91876583|NCT04908800|183646283|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.06|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 25.4. Data were analyzed using a power model.|Dose Proportionality Assessment||1.06|0.891|
91876584|NCT04908800|183646283|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.12|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 575 (fasted) and 578 (fed). Within-subject coefficient of variation was 7.05.~Data were analyzed using mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect."|Food Effect Assessment||1.12|0.905|
91876585|NCT04908800|183646283|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.54|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 575 (fasted male) and 600 (fasted female). Between subject coefficient of variation was 31.1.~Data were analyzed using an ANOVA model which included actual treatment as a factor."|Sex Effect Assessment||1.54|0.707|
91876586|NCT04908800|183646284|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.07|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 23.0. Data were analyzed using a power model.|Dose Proportionality Assessment||1.07|0.909|
91876587|NCT04908800|183646284|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.09|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 31.6 (fasted) and 30.0 (fed). Within-subject coefficient of variation was 9.44.~Data were analyzed using mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect."|Food Effect Assessment||1.09|0.824|
91876588|NCT04908800|183646284|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.62|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 31.6 (fasted male) and 38.8 (fasted female). Between subject coefficient of variation was 22.0.~Data were analyzed using an ANOVA model which included actual treatment as a factor."|Sex Effect Assessment||1.62|0.928|
91876589|NCT04908800|183646289|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.26|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 26.9. Data were analyzed using a power model.|"Dose Proportionality Assessment. KRP-A218 assessed across the following dose levels: 2 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg, and 11 mg.~Dose proportionality results for Part B are only for the Day 14 profile (not Day 1)."||1.26|0.966|
91876590|NCT04908800|183646291|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.29|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 32.1. Data were analyzed using a power model.|"Dose Proportionality Assessment. KRP-A218 assessed across the following dose levels: 2 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg, and 11 mg.~Dose proportionality results for Part B are only for the Day 14 profile (not Day 1)."||1.29|0.945|
91876591|NCT04908800|183646292|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.23|||||Between-subject geometric of coefficient variation was 23.2. Data were analyzed using a power model.|"Dose Proportionality Assessment. KRP-A218 assessed across the following dose levels: 2 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg, and 11 mg.~Dose proportionality results for Part B are only for the Day 14 profile (not Day 1)."||1.23|0.971|
91745615|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-22.63||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.97|-5.29||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-5.29|-39.97|0.024
91745616|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-26.87||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.12|-9.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-9.62|-44.12|0.009
91876592|NCT03751280|183646301|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|2.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||2.6|-1.4|
91745617|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-30.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.36|-13.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-13.16|-48.36|0.003
91745618|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-27.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.51|-10.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-10.00|-44.51|0.007
91800467|NCT02975336|183478051|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|15.6||||||||15.6|-14.5|
91800468|NCT02975336|183478051|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|16.6||||||||16.6|-13.5|
91876593|NCT03751280|183646301|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.279|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.9|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||2.9|-1.3|
91876594|NCT03751280|183646301|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.611||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.4|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 85||5.4|0.1|0.0931
91876595|NCT03751280|183646303|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.0|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||1|-0.6|
91876596|NCT03751280|183646303|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.5|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||1.5|-0.3|
91876597|NCT03751280|183646303|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 85||1.9|-0.3|0.2069
91876598|NCT03751280|183646304|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.9|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||1.9|-0.9|
91876599|NCT03751280|183646304|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|1.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||1.6|-1.4|
91876600|NCT03751280|183646304|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.071||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 85||3.4|-0.2|0.1368
91876601|NCT03751280|183646305|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||0.6|-0.8|
91907318|NCT01197521|183709751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.04||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.07||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.07|0.01|0.015
91907319|NCT01197521|183709752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|The treatment differences, 95% CIs and p-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||<0.001
91876602|NCT03751280|183646305|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.9|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||0.9|-0.6|
91876603|NCT03751280|183646305|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581||0.3798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|||1.5|-0.5|0.3798
91907320|NCT01197521|183709752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|The treatment differences, 95% CIs and p-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||0.002
91745619|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|4.66||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|18.82||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.82|-9.50|0.516
91876604|NCT03751280|183646306|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||1.6|-3.2|
91876605|NCT03751280|183646306|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.006|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|1.7|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||1.7|-4.9|
91876606|NCT03751280|183646306|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 85||-1.1|-7.0|0.0245
91876607|NCT03751280|183646307|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.7|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29-Domain 1||0.7|-1.0|
91876608|NCT02162771|183646336|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed values were used to assess the bioequivalence between CT-P10 and Rituxan (bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%)|Ratio of geometric least square means|102.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|111.17|||ANCOVA|Country, gender, race, the value of ECOG status and the FLIPI score (0 to 2 versus 3 to 5) at baseline were fitted as covariates.||Equivalence in AUCtau between CT-P10 and Rituxan||111.17|94.05|
91876609|NCT02162771|183646337|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed transformed values were used to assess the bioequivalence between CT-P10 and Rituxan (bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%)|Ratio of geometric least square means|100.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.84|108.0|||ANCOVA|Country, gender, race, the value of ECOG status and the FLIPI score (0 to 2 versus 3 to 5) at baseline were fitted as covariates.||Equivalence in Cmax,ss between CT-P10 and Rituxan||108.00|93.84|
91876610|NCT02162771|183646338|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -7% was predefined.|Point estimate difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91876611|NCT05045638|183646438|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs|1.6999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.186|2.4363||||||The ratios of geometric least squares means (GLSMs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and CIs on the natural-log (ln) scale.||2.4363|1.1860|
91876612|NCT05045638|183646439|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs|1.3389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0334|1.7347||||||The ratios of GLSMs and CIs were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and CIs on the ln scale.||1.7347|1.0334|
91876613|NCT05045638|183646440|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs|1.3382|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9856|1.8169||||||The ratios of GLSMs and CIs were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and CIs on the ln scale.||1.8169|0.9856|
91876614|NCT02032420|183646461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated-measures MANOVA|The reported p value is for the effect of group assignment across three iterations of the assigned task.||||||<0.001
91876615|NCT02032420|183646462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated-measures MANOVA|The p value is for the effect of group assignment across three iterations of the assigned task.||||||0.004
91876616|NCT02032420|183646463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
91907321|NCT01197521|183709753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|14.64||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||14.64|2.44|<0.001
91907322|NCT01197521|183709753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|11.02||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||11.02|1.76|0.002
91745620|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.55||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|14.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.72|-13.63|0.939
91745621|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-4.53||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.86|9.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.80|-18.86|0.536
91876617|NCT02032420|183646464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91876618|NCT01261793|183646701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.024|||=|0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.477||p-values for the comparison of treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|||1.477|0.710|=0.899
91876619|NCT01261793|183646701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.539||p-values for the comparison of treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|||1.539|0.743|=0.716
91876620|NCT01292005|183646707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.62
91876621|NCT01292005|183646707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||1.0
91876622|NCT01292005|183646708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.72
91876623|NCT01292005|183646708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.50
91876624|NCT01292005|183646709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.58
91876625|NCT01292005|183646709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.80
91876626|NCT01292005|183646710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.90
91876627|NCT01292005|183646710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.56
91876628|NCT01292005|183646711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.09
91876629|NCT01292005|183646712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.22
91876630|NCT01292005|183646713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for length of hospitalization \> 4 days. P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.04
91876631|NCT01292005|183646713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was for length of hospitalization \>10 days. P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.03
91876632|NCT01292005|183646714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.06
91876633|NCT01292005|183646715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.03
91745622|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-15.81||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.02|1.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.41|-33.02|0.107
91745623|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-23.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.91|-6.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-6.51|-40.91|0.019
91745624|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-28.44||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.99|-10.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-10.88|-45.99|0.006
91745625|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-25.04||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.23|-7.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-7.85|-42.23|0.012
91745626|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.16||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|23.08||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.08|-4.75|0.195
91745627|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.48||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.54|15.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.50|-12.54|0.835
91745628|NCT01559259|183384904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-4.41||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.61|9.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.79|-18.61|0.542
91745629|NCT01559259|183384905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.01|0.79|<0.001
91745630|NCT01559259|183384905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.01|0.79|< 0.001
91876634|NCT01292005|183646716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.04
91876635|NCT03305458|183646725|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||To determine if child and caregiver engagement is affected by overall SPARK use, a 2-level MLM (level-1 child, level-2 provider) will be used. Engagement scores will be calculated per child and caregiver participant. An aggregate engagement score will determine if there are differences across conditions (SPARK + TF CBT vs standard TF-CBT) while accounting for the nesting providers.|||
91876636|NCT03305458|183646726|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||To determine if provider fidelity is affected by overall SPARK use, a 2-level MLM (level-1 child; level-2 provider) will be used. Fidelity will be measured by the TF-CBT TPOCS-S. Providers' overall use of the toolkit will be calculated per child participant and averaged across toolkit content. Fidelity scores will be calculated per child participant such that each provider will have three ratings. An aggregate fidelity score will determine if there are differences across conditions (SPARK + TF-CBT vs. standard TF-CBT) while accounting for the nesting of providers.|||
91876637|NCT03305458|183646727|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-to provider.|||
91876638|NCT03305458|183646728|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91876639|NCT03305458|183646729|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91876640|NCT03305458|183646730|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91876641|NCT03305458|183646731|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91745631|NCT01559259|183384905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.99|0.73|< 0.001
91876642|NCT03305458|183646732|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91745632|NCT01559259|183384905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.95|0.65|< 0.001
91745633|NCT01559259|183384905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.37||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.37|-0.07|0.174
91876643|NCT03305458|183646733|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
91745634|NCT01559259|183384905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.26|-0.18|0.722
91745635|NCT01559259|183384905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.11|-0.32|0.365
91745636|NCT00306293|183384936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from Placebo|-78.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Percent change in days with Subclinical HSV-2 Viral Shedding after VALTREX 1g treatment from the placebo|||||<0.001
91745637|NCT00306293|183384937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from Baseline|-77.0||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Percent change in 'percentage of days with clinical HSV-2 viral shedding', after VALTREX 1g treatment from the placebo|||||0.014
91745638|NCT00218634|183384952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||HLM|||We used HLM with weekly visit data for the acute outcome. There were, therefore, 11 time points used.||||<.05
91745639|NCT00218634|183384953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||GLM - CBT-AD would be superior to ETAU at post. HLM - CBT-AD would be superior to CBT-AD at follow ups.|GLM and HLM|||||||<.05
91745640|NCT00218634|183384955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||CD4 would be more improved in the treatment condition|HLM|||follow up analysis revealed that CD4, over time, significantly improved over control when covarying out baseline levels.||||<.05
91745641|NCT02589665|183384960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|12.27||||||||12.27|0.70|
91745642|NCT02589665|183384960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|27.65||||||||27.65|1.88|
91745643|NCT02589665|183384960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|14.17||||||||14.17|0.92|
91745644|NCT02589665|183384961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|8.98||||||||8.98|1.73|
91745645|NCT02589665|183384961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|15.63||||||||15.63|2.94|
91745646|NCT02589665|183384961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.29||||||||6.29|1.23|
91745647|NCT02589665|183384962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.986
91745648|NCT02589665|183384962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.553
91745649|NCT02589665|183384962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.560
91745650|NCT02589665|183384963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.55||||||||6.55|0.80|
91876644|NCT03305458|183646734|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
91876645|NCT03305458|183646735|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
91876646|NCT03305458|183646736|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91876647|NCT03305458|183646737|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91876648|NCT03305458|183646738|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91876649|NCT03305458|183646739|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91876650|NCT03305458|183646740|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
91876651|NCT03305458|183646741|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91876652|NCT03305458|183646742|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91907323|NCT01197521|183709754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|5.67||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||5.67|1.63|<0.001
91907324|NCT01197521|183709754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.5||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.50|0.93|0.083
91745651|NCT02589665|183384964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|34.9||||||||34.9|11.0|
91745652|NCT02589665|183384964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|32.3||||||||32.3|8.7|
91745653|NCT02589665|183384964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|22.5||||||||22.5|-1.0|
91745654|NCT02589665|183384966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.41||||||||-0.41|-1.39|
91745655|NCT02589665|183384966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.59||||||||-0.59|-1.54|
91745656|NCT02589665|183384966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.11||||||||-0.11|-1.07|
91745657|NCT02589665|183384969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|8.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.31|1.57|0.003
91745658|NCT02589665|183384969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|15.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.20|2.81|<0.001
91745659|NCT02589665|183384969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.22|0.98|0.054
91745660|NCT02589665|183384970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.24|0.19|0.131
91745661|NCT02589665|183384971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|8.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.07|0.63|0.215
91745662|NCT02589665|183384971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|25.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.00|2.37|<0.001
91745663|NCT02589665|183384971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|15.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.14|1.41|0.012
91745664|NCT02589665|183384972|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|0.31|0.428
91745665|NCT01120236|183384973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Arm I (Androgen Deprivation and Cixutumumab) represents the numerator and Arm II (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) represents the denominator for relative risk.|An intention-to-treat approach was used in analysis of the primary endpoint. A 45% undetectable PSA \<= 0.2 ng/mL rate at 28 weeks was assumed for (control) arm II , based on data from SWOG 9346. Using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.10, we had 90% statistical power to detect an absolute difference of 20% in the undetectable PSA rate with the addition of cixutumumab using Fisher's exact test.||||0.16
91745666|NCT01120236|183384975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Arm I (Androgen Deprivation and Cixutumumab) represents the numerator and Arm II (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) represents the denominator for relative risk.|Proportion of patients in each arm with PSA \> 4 ng/mL after seven cycles of protocol treatment were compared.||||0.11
91745667|NCT02242435|183385000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.26
91745668|NCT02242435|183385001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Adjustment for baseline WOMAC score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.30
91876653|NCT03305458|183646743|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91876654|NCT03305458|183646744|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91876655|NCT03305458|183646745|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
91876656|NCT05615870|183646756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.41||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.77|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of SFDs in the HEPA filtration home intervention group will not differ from the mean of SFDs in the control group||22.60|-11.77|0.537
91876657|NCT05615870|183646757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts of hospitalizations for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of hospitalizations for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.30|-0.07|0.205
91876658|NCT05615870|183646757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts of emergency department or urgent care visits for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of emergency department or urgent care visits for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.35|-0.35|0.992
91745669|NCT04925076|183385002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108)=.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.92
91745670|NCT04925076|183385002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = .01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.92
91745671|NCT04925076|183385002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|F(1,108) = 0.27||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.61
91745672|NCT04925076|183385002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 6.75||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.01
91745673|NCT04925076|183385002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 3.83||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.05
91745674|NCT04925076|183385002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 9.53||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.003
91745675|NCT04925076|183385002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 2.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.12
91745676|NCT04925076|183385003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.78||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.38
91745677|NCT04925076|183385003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.27||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.27
91745678|NCT04925076|183385003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.15||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.70
91745679|NCT04925076|183385003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 3.87||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.05
91745680|NCT04925076|183385003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 5.18||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.03
91745681|NCT04925076|183385003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 2.24||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.14
91745682|NCT04925076|183385003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 17.25||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||<.001
91745683|NCT04925076|183385004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.83
91745684|NCT04925076|183385004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 2.43||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.12
91745685|NCT04925076|183385004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 1.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.25
91745686|NCT04925076|183385004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.31||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.58
91745687|NCT04925076|183385004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.90
91876659|NCT05615870|183646757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts of other unscheduled healthcare visits for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of other unscheduled healthcare visits for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.16|-0.90|0.172
91876660|NCT05615870|183646757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts (or total counts) of visits of all metrics for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of visits of all metrics for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.52|-1.02|0.530
91876661|NCT05615870|183646758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of the Child QOL score in the HEPA intervention group will not differ from the mean of Child QOL score in the control group||2.16|-3.75|0.598
91907325|NCT01197521|183709755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.3||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.30|1.79|<0.001
91745688|NCT04925076|183385004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = .004||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.95
91745689|NCT04925076|183385004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.17||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.68
91745690|NCT04925076|183385005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.83||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.36
91745691|NCT04925076|183385005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 1.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.24
91745692|NCT04925076|183385005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.28||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.60
91876662|NCT05615870|183646759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.98|-3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||The results were based on the average PM2.5 level of common room and sleep space.|Null hypothesis: the mean of the PM2.5 level of the common room and sleep space in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of the PM2.5 level in the control group||-3.42|-10.98|<0.001
91745693|NCT04925076|183385005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.00||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.99
91745694|NCT04925076|183385005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 139.63||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||<.001
91745695|NCT04925076|183385005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.84
91745696|NCT04925076|183385005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.30||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.59
91745697|NCT04925076|183385006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.19||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.66
91745698|NCT04925076|183385006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.69||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.41
91745699|NCT04925076|183385006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.74||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.39
91745700|NCT04925076|183385006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.54||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.22
91745701|NCT04925076|183385006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.64||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.06
91745702|NCT04925076|183385006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.000||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.99
91876663|NCT03926117|183646789|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-66.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.15|-49.12|||Hodges-Lehmann method|||Percent change from baseline is analyzed using nonparametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator. The nonparametric analysis accounts for covariates baseline hemoglobin (greater than or equal to (\>=) 11 or less than (\<) 11 grams per deciliter (g/dL)) and chronic kidney disease stage (3, 4 or 5) by aligning responses within each stratum defined by the covariates prior to analysis.||-49.12|-86.15|<0.0001
91876664|NCT03926117|183646789|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-77.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.98|-62.97|||Hodges-Lehmann method|||Percent change from baseline is analyzed using nonparametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator. The nonparametric analysis accounts for covariates baseline hemoglobin (\>= 11 or \< 11 g/dL) and chronic kidney disease stage (3, 4 or 5) by aligning responses within each stratum defined by the covariates prior to analysis.||-62.97|-94.98|<0.0001
91745703|NCT04925076|183385006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.88||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.09
91745704|NCT04925076|183385007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.55
91745705|NCT04925076|183385007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.84||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.36
91745706|NCT04925076|183385007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.84||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.36
91745707|NCT04925076|183385007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.93||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.17
91745708|NCT04925076|183385007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.55
91876665|NCT03926117|183646789|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-87.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.0|-70.54|||Hodges-Lehmann method|||Percent change from baseline is analyzed using nonparametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator. The nonparametric analysis accounts for covariates baseline hemoglobin (\>= 11 or \< 11 g/dL) and chronic kidney disease stage (3, 4 or 5) by aligning responses within each stratum defined by the covariates prior to analysis.||-70.54|-101.00|<0.0001
91745709|NCT04925076|183385007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.63||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.43
91745710|NCT04925076|183385007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.96||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.33
91745711|NCT04925076|183385008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.34||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.34
91745712|NCT04925076|183385008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.88
91745713|NCT04925076|183385008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.34||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.56
91745714|NCT04925076|183385008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.90
91745715|NCT04925076|183385008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.59||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.45
91745716|NCT04925076|183385008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.85
91745717|NCT04925076|183385008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.22||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.64
91876666|NCT00924833|183646817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"Within subjects effects. Time: P \< 0.01. Time \* treatment: P=0.25~Bonferroni correction. Within the placebo, carvedilol and nebivolol group, p \< 0.01 for Time 3 - Time 1, and Time 3 - Time 2."|ANOVA|||"Differences among groups, changes over time and interactions: two-way repeated measures ANOVA with unpaired Student's t-test, Bonferroni correction.~No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects."||||0.01
91745718|NCT04925076|183385009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.07||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.30
91800469|NCT02975336|183478055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.82|0.46|0.7728
91876667|NCT00924833|183646818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P \< 0.05. Bonferroni correction: p \< 0.05 nebivolol versus carvedilol|ANOVA|||No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects.||||<0.05
91876668|NCT00924833|183646819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Within subjects effects. Time: p = 0.03. Time \* treatment: p = 0.12.|ANOVA|||"Differences among groups, changes over time and interactions: two-way repeated measures ANOVA with unpaired Student's t-test, Bonferroni correction.~No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects."||||0.93
91876669|NCT00924833|183646822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||ANOVA with unpaired Student's t-test, Bonferroni correction. Bonferroni correction. p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects.||||<0.05
91745719|NCT04925076|183385009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.62||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.11
91745720|NCT04925076|183385009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.76||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.39
91745721|NCT04925076|183385009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.89
91745722|NCT04925076|183385009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=6.72||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.01
91745723|NCT04925076|183385009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.15||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.08
91745724|NCT04925076|183385009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.71||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.06
91745725|NCT04925076|183385010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.14||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.29
91745726|NCT04925076|183385010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.84||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.10
91745727|NCT04925076|183385010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.47||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.49
91800470|NCT02975336|183478055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.3314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.54|0.28|0.3314
91745728|NCT04925076|183385010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.000||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.99
91745729|NCT04925076|183385010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.29||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.13
91745730|NCT04925076|183385010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.82
91745731|NCT04925076|183385010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=6.09||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||0.02
91745732|NCT04925076|183385011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.32
91800471|NCT02975336|183478055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.36|0.7205
91800472|NCT02975336|183478056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.71|0.35|0.8364
91800473|NCT02975336|183478056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.45|0.37|0.8287
91800474|NCT02975336|183478056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.16|0.35|0.7621
91800475|NCT02975336|183478057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|0.23|0.8464
91876670|NCT02577315|183646834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|100.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.466|102.804|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||102.804|97.466|
91876671|NCT02577315|183646835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|95.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.29|102.16|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||102.16|89.29|
91876672|NCT02577315|183646836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|102.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.309|108.413|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||108.413|97.309|
91876673|NCT02577315|183646837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|101.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.565|106.902|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||106.902|95.565|
91876674|NCT02577315|183646838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|100.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.532|103.149|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||103.149|97.532|
91876675|NCT02577315|183646839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|93.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.86|105.61|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||105.61|82.86|
91876676|NCT03247985|183646840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for bilateral operative time.||||0.17
91907326|NCT01197521|183709755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.14||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.14|1.16|0.004
91907327|NCT01197521|183709756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.26||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.26|1.68|<0.001
91745733|NCT04925076|183385011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.000||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.99
91745734|NCT04925076|183385011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.83
91745735|NCT04925076|183385011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.10||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.75
91745736|NCT04925076|183385011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.25||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.62
91800476|NCT02975336|183478057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.12|0.16|0.4170
91876677|NCT03247985|183646840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for unilateral operative time.||||0.09
91907328|NCT01197521|183709756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.68||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.68|1.38|<0.001
91907329|NCT01197521|183709757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.24|||<|0.001||95.0|1.16|3.31||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.31|1.16|<0.001
91907330|NCT01197521|183709757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.27||||0.02||95.0|0.2|2.35||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.35|0.20|0.020
91876678|NCT03247985|183646843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A p-value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.02
91876679|NCT03530345|183646868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.26||2-sided p-value for testing superiority of neridronic acid 400 mg compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom of the denominator are estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.|The primary endpoint estimate was the least squares mean differences of change from baseline in pain NRS (electronic diary) at Week 12 between neridronate and Placebo.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) defined with baseline pain intensity as covariate, the factors geographic region, week, treatment and treatment-by-week as fixed effects, and an unstructured covariance matrix to model the covariance structure of the repeated measurements.||-0.26|-1.89|0.0111
91876680|NCT02938520|183646878|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with virologic failure at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm for assessing HIV-1 RNA \>=50 c/mL) can be concluded if the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in failure rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - ABC/DTG/3TC) is less than 6%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.1|||||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000 \>=100,000 c/mL)|2.1|-2.8|
91907331|NCT01197521|183709758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.8||||0.005||95.0|0.54|3.07||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.07|0.54|0.005
91907332|NCT01197521|183709758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.56||||0.017||95.0|0.28|2.83||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.83|0.28|0.017
91907333|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.81|||||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 1||1.81|1.22|
91907334|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.54|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 3||1.54|1.12|
91907335|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.58|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 4||1.58|1.13|
91907336|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.71|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 5||1.71|1.08|
91907337|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.69|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 6A||1.69|1.12|
91876681|NCT02938520|183646879|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA\<50 c/mL at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm) can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - ABC/DTG/3TC) is more than -10%|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.5|||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000 \>=100,000 c/mL)|||4.5|-3.7|
91745737|NCT04925076|183385011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.92
91745738|NCT04925076|183385011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.76||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.39
91745739|NCT04925076|183385012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.45||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.50
91745740|NCT04925076|183385012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.20||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.28
91745741|NCT04925076|183385012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.28||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.60
91745742|NCT04925076|183385012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=4.48||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.04
91745743|NCT04925076|183385012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.37||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.25
91745744|NCT04925076|183385012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.89
91745745|NCT04925076|183385012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.28||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.26
91745746|NCT04925076|183385013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.09||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.76
91745747|NCT04925076|183385013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.00||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.09
91745748|NCT04925076|183385013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.10||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.76
91745749|NCT04925076|183385013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.09||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.77
91876682|NCT02938520|183646932|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Week 41/48 was compared with the 1st visit (Week 5) based on Wilcoxon signed-rank test, respectively. p-values are derived for 'Acceptance' only and not adjusted for multiple testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91745750|NCT04925076|183385013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.52
91745751|NCT04925076|183385013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.007||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.93
91745752|NCT04925076|183385013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.64||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.42
91745753|NCT04925076|183385014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.62||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.44
91745754|NCT04925076|183385014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.23||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.27
91800477|NCT02975336|183478057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|0.27|0.9988
91800478|NCT02975336|183478058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.62|0.6970
91745755|NCT04925076|183385014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.66||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.06
91745756|NCT04925076|183385014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.13||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.73
91745757|NCT04925076|183385014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=4.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.047
91876683|NCT02938520|183646934|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.2||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.6|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.6|-1.1|0.307
91876684|NCT02938520|183646934|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.9||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.2|-1.5|0.472
91876685|NCT02938520|183646935|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.8||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.9|-0.4|0.116
91745758|NCT04925076|183385014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.001||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.97
91745759|NCT04925076|183385014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.82
91745760|NCT04925076|183385015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.57||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||0.45
91745761|NCT04925076|183385015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.29||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.59
91876686|NCT02938520|183646935|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||2.5|-2.3|0.944
91876687|NCT02938520|183646936|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-1.3||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.0|-5.7|0.552
91745762|NCT04925076|183385015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.07
91745763|NCT04925076|183385015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.26||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.61
91745764|NCT04925076|183385015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.82
91745765|NCT04925076|183385015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.23||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.63
91800479|NCT02975336|183478058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.42|0.75|0.3234
91876688|NCT02938520|183646936|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-4.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||-0.4|-8.9|0.033
91876689|NCT02938520|183646937|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.021||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|2.318|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||2.318|-0.275|0.122
91876690|NCT02938520|183646937|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.103||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|2.453|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||2.453|-0.248|0.109
91876691|NCT02938520|183646937|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.182||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.958|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||0.958|-0.594|0.645
91876692|NCT02938520|183646937|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-0.169||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|0.657|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||0.657|-0.994|0.689
91907338|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.7|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 6B||1.70|1.17|
91907339|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.55|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 7F||1.55|1.16|
91876693|NCT02938520|183646938|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.4|1.0|<0.001
91876694|NCT02938520|183646938|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.7||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 44 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||1.9|-0.4|0.217
91907340|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.64|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 8||1.64|1.17|
91745766|NCT04925076|183385015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.55
91745767|NCT04925076|183385016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.32||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.57
91876695|NCT02938520|183646939|OTHER||Difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.5|||ANOVA||Treatment comparison of HIVTSQc-total treatment satisfaction score at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||5.5|2.8|<0.001
91907341|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.47|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 9V||1.47|1.05|
91907342|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.44|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 10A||1.44|1.03|
91745768|NCT04925076|183385016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.17||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.14
91745769|NCT04925076|183385016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.32||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.69
91745770|NCT04925076|183385016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.92||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.34
91745771|NCT04925076|183385016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.16||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||0.29
91745772|NCT04925076|183385016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.004||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.95
91876696|NCT02938520|183646941|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.2||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 8 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||5.7|-1.4|0.232
91876697|NCT02938520|183646941|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||6.4|-1.0|0.154
91876698|NCT02938520|183646941|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.2||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.8|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||5.8|-1.4|0.236
91876699|NCT03594266|183646972|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test, two-sided|||||||<0.0001
91876700|NCT03594266|183646972|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test, two-sided|||||||<0.0001
91907343|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.42|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 11A||1.42|0.98|
91907344|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.46|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 12F||1.46|0.99|
91745773|NCT04925076|183385016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.65||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.11
91745774|NCT01089413|183385038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.70|0.8579
91745775|NCT01089413|183385039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.30|0.1555
91745776|NCT01971463|183385044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Change in oCBF from baseline to post-bolus, ipsilesional hemisphere||||<0.05
91745777|NCT01971463|183385044|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects regression, modeling the interaction term for time x normal saline bolus in the ipsilesional hemisphere|Slope|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|0.03|<0.001
91907345|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.67|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 14||1.67|1.21|
91745778|NCT01610557|183385045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.5|||Linear mixed-effects model||The difference represents the estimated difference between ranibizumab and bevacizumab, adjusted for baseline visual acuity, study period, and clinical site and a subject effect for eyes nested within subject.|||2.5|0.07|0.039
91745779|NCT01610557|183385046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-31.0|||Linear mixed-effects model||The difference represents the estimated difference between ranibizumab and bevacizumab, adjusted for baseline visual acuity, study period, and clinical site and a subject effect for eyes nested within subject.|||-31|-65|<0.001
91745780|NCT04115748|183385049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|32.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|61.6||The stratification factors (Geographic Region, Concurrent Use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, Prior Use of biologic (bio) DMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||61.6|2.6|0.048
91745781|NCT04115748|183385049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.4||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|49.2||The stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||49.2|-12.4|0.23
91745782|NCT04115748|183385051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.1||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|41.9||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||41.9|-9.7|0.17
91745783|NCT04115748|183385051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.7||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|36.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||36.6|-13.3|0.27
91745784|NCT04115748|183385051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|41.5||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||41.5|-20.4|0.42
91876701|NCT03594266|183646973|OTHER|||||||0.5482|||||||two-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||||0.5482
91876702|NCT00449033|183646978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.401||95.0|0.83|1.16|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||Sample size based on the primary efficacy endpoint of OS in the ITT (non-squamous) population. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 30% increase in median OS (that is, a hazard ratio of 0.76923, Sorafenib+GC over Placebo+GC). With one-sided alpha of 0.025, power of 86% and a randomization ratio of 1:1 between Sorafenib+GC and Placebo+GC, and one formal final analysis of OS performed, a total of 544 events (deaths) were required.||1.16|0.83|0.401
91876703|NCT00449033|183646979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.563||95.0|0.87|1.18|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same factors as randomization plus histology.||||1.18|0.87|0.563
91876704|NCT00449033|183646981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.008||95.0|0.71|0.97|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||0.97|0.71|0.008
91876705|NCT00449033|183646982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0004||95.0|0.6|0.88|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||0.88|0.60|0.0004
91876706|NCT00449033|183646983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Tumour Response (CR+PR)|-1.92||||0.2733||95.0|-8.19|4.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two treatment groups compared using a CMH test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||4.34|-8.19|0.2733
91745785|NCT04115748|183385051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|47.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||47.6|-16.0|0.26
91745786|NCT04115748|183385051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|28.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|62.3||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||62.3|-5.0|0.062
91745787|NCT04115748|183385051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|31.6||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|64.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||64.6|-1.5|0.047
91745788|NCT04115748|183385051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|40.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||40.2|-24.6|0.58
91745789|NCT04115748|183385051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|49.9||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||49.9|-16.2|0.27
91745790|NCT04115748|183385052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|20.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.4|-9.9|
91745791|NCT04115748|183385052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.3|-5.3|
91745792|NCT04115748|183385052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|17.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||17.1|-27.6|
91745793|NCT04115748|183385052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|8.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||8.5|-29.6|
91745794|NCT04115748|183385052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|28.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||28.9|-17.2|
91745795|NCT04115748|183385052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|19.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||19.5|-19.5|
91745796|NCT04115748|183385052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|21.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||21.4|-10.3|
91745797|NCT04115748|183385052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|29.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||29.5|-8.4|
91745798|NCT04115748|183385058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|41.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||41.9|-9.7|
91745799|NCT04115748|183385058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|28.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||28.8|-16.5|
91745800|NCT04115748|183385058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|56.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||56.6|-8.8|
91745801|NCT04115748|183385058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|27.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|59.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||59.4|-5.2|
91745802|NCT04115748|183385059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.1|-5.1|
91745803|NCT04115748|183385059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.3|-5.3|
91876707|NCT00449033|183646984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control|0.97||||0.3902||95.0|-5.87|7.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two treatment groups compared using a CMH test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||7.81|-5.87|0.3902
91876708|NCT04803214|183647014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91876709|NCT04803214|183647015|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91876710|NCT04803214|183647016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91876711|NCT00581009|183647017|EQUIVALENCE|repeated measure ANOVA|t-value|3.34|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91876712|NCT02256488|183647018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The lot-to-lot consistency was claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs of all the three pairwise comparisons was within the equivalence ranges, that is:~(μlot A - μlot B) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot B) \< 0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \< 0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \< 0.176"|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.5|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate immunologic equivalence of three consecutive TIVc production lots as evaluated by HI antibody responses after vaccination for all 3 influenza strains at day 22.||1.5|0.667|
91876713|NCT02256488|183647018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The lot-to-lot consistency was claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs of all the three pairwise comparisons was within the equivalence ranges, that is:~(μlot A - μlot B) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot B) \< 0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \< 0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \< 0.176"|Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.5|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate immunologic equivalence of three consecutive TIVc production lots as evaluated by HI antibody responses after vaccination for for all 3 influenza strains at day 22||1.5|0.667|
91876714|NCT02256488|183647018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The lot-to-lot consistency was claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs of all the three pairwise comparisons was within the equivalence ranges, that is:~(μlot A - μlot B) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot B) \< 0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \< 0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \< 0.176"|Ratio of GMTs|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.5|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate immunologic equivalence of three consecutive TIVc production lots as evaluated by HI antibody responses after vaccination for all 3 influenza strains at day 22||1.5|0.667|
91876715|NCT01636778|183647077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|96.0||||||||96|74|
91876716|NCT01245699|183647135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91876717|NCT01245699|183647136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91907346|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.76|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 15B||1.76|1.22|
91907347|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.55|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 18C||1.55|1.07|
91907348|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.61|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 19A||1.61|1.20|
91745804|NCT04115748|183385059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|36.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||36.6|-13.3|
91907349|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.57|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 19F||1.57|1.12|
91907350|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.6|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 22F||1.60|1.12|
91745805|NCT04115748|183385059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|27.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||27.4|-16.4|
91745806|NCT04115748|183385060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|45.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||45.2|-13.6|0.20
91876718|NCT01245699|183647137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
91876719|NCT01245699|183647138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
91876720|NCT04150250|183647141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|-7.1||||0.2254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|28.6||The threshold to define success on the primary efficacy endpoint at the final analysis is one-sided alpha = 0.0238.|Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group (O vs. Non-O)||||28.6|-30.9|0.2254
91876721|NCT04150250|183647142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|-3.8||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|27.4|||Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group||||27.4|-26.3|0.2751
91876722|NCT04150250|183647144|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.3||||0.5145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group.||||21.6|-44.1|0.5145
91876723|NCT04150250|183647145|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.3||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group.||||5.6|-18.1|0.2636
91876724|NCT04150250|183647146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|1.1||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.8|||Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group||||7.8|-4.5|0.5992
91876725|NCT04150250|183647148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6527|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by blood type group||||||0.6527
91876726|NCT04150250|183647149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|1.5||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.5|||Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group||||5.5|-7.0|0.5377
91876727|NCT04150250|183647150|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.3||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group.||||16.5|-14.0|0.8705
91876728|NCT04150250|183647151|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.8||||0.1404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group||||3.6|-41.1|0.1404
91745807|NCT04115748|183385060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|17.8||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||17.8|-27.8|0.60
91876729|NCT01436045|183647154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Change|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||RBANS Line Orientation|t-test, 2 sided||Response to intranasal Insulin Glulisine \[(result post-insulin - result post-placebo)/(result post-placebo)\] x 100%|Response to intranasal Insulin Gluiline \[(result post-insulin - result post-placebo)/(result post-placebo)\] x 100%||||<0.05
91907351|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.71|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 23F||1.71|1.09|
91907352|NCT05879107|183709763|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.64|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 33F||1.64|1.20|
91745808|NCT04115748|183385060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|42.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|73.8||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||73.8|11.5|0.008
91745809|NCT04115748|183385060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|47.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||47.6|-12.0|0.17
91745810|NCT04115748|183385060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|42.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|76.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||76.2|8.1|0.011
91876730|NCT01436045|183647157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in errors \[result post-insulin - result post-placebo\]||||<0.05
91876731|NCT00748098|183647196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.64|-16.36|||ANCOVA|Estimates were obtained using an ANCOVA model with period, group center, and treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||-16.36|-35.64|<0.0001
91907353|NCT05879107|183709764|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-A neutralizing titer was \<=1.5.|GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.2|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|RSV-A||1.20|0.94|
91800480|NCT02975336|183478058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.54|0.9846
91876732|NCT00748098|183647197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-3.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|-1.1|||ANCOVA|Estimates were obtained using an ANCOVA model with period, group center, and treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||-1.10|-5.04|0.002
91876733|NCT04448561|183647244|OTHER||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|100.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.37|102.96|||||Assessment based on analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Ratios and confidence limits: transformed back to raw scale and values expressed as percentages.|||102.96|98.37|
91876734|NCT04448561|183647245|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|94.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.29|99.54|||||Assessment based on analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Ratios and confidence limits: transformed back to raw scale and values expressed as percentages.|||99.54|89.29|
91876735|NCT04448561|183647247|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|100.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.35|121.88|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||121.88|83.35|
91876736|NCT04448561|183647248|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|100.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.35|124.36|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||124.36|81.35|
91876737|NCT04448561|183647250|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|89.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.58|99.71|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||99.71|79.58|
91876738|NCT04448561|183647251|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|96.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.03|111.25|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits are transformed back to raw scale and values are expressed as percentages.|||111.25|83.03|
91876739|NCT04448561|183647253|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|86.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.01|98.52|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits are transformed back to raw scale and values are expressed as percentages.|||98.52|76.01|
91745811|NCT04115748|183385060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|40.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||40.6|-30.1|0.69
91745812|NCT04115748|183385060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|35.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|70.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||70.4|0.9|0.033
91745813|NCT04115748|183385060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|57.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||57.4|-15.2|0.19
91745814|NCT04115748|183385060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|43.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|75.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||75.4|12.4|0.007
91800481|NCT02495831|183478059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate (ratio of geometric means|90.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0||If the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval is \< 125.00%, no effect of safinamide on diclofenamic acid bioavailability is present (no interaction present).|ANOVA|||The PK parameters AUC0-t and Cmax were analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Before analysis, the data were transformed using a neperian logarithmic transformation. ANOVA was performed taking into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as fixed effects with a variance components structure of the covariance matrix.||125|80|0.1
91876740|NCT04448561|183647254|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.52|109.6|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||109.60|82.52|
91876741|NCT03602859|183647279|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and p-value from the stratified Cox proportional hazards model and log-rank test (2-sided) are adjusted for the randomization stratification factors: concurrent bevacizumab use and homologous recombinant repair (HRR) mutation status.|||0.99|0.73|0.0351
91876742|NCT05492786|183647292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.517||||||The p-value reported is 2-tailed and based on heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in flu shots for patients whose clinicians were shown alerts with information about their risk status (patients randomized to the High-risk Alert or High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arms) compared with those whose clinicians were shown the standard alert. Alternative hypothesis: patients in the High-risk Alert and High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arms will exhibit improved flu vaccination rates compared with those in the standard Alert arm.||||0.517
91745815|NCT04115748|183385060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|44.1||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||44.1|-28.8|0.63
91745816|NCT04115748|183385061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|19.5||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||19.5|-19.5|0.98
91745817|NCT04115748|183385061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|10.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||10.2|-20.7|0.50
91745818|NCT04115748|183385061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|27.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||27.4|-16.4|0.54
91800482|NCT02495831|183478060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean ratio|104.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.4|114.02||||||||114.02|96.40|
91876743|NCT05492786|183647292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||The p-value reported is 2-tailed and based on heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in flu shots for patients whose clinicians were shown alerts the factors that contributed to a patient's high risk (High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arm) compared with those whose clinicians were shown the alert with risk level only (High-risk Alert arm). Alternative hypothesis: patients in the High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arm will exhibit improved flu vaccination rates compared with those in the High-risk Alert arm.||||0.226
91876744|NCT00197106|183647343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is considered to be shown if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference uflixotide-useretide does not exceed +15% (uflixotide-useretide represent the mean percentages of asthma symptom-free days of the two respective treatment groups).|Adjusted difference|2.6||||0.63||95.0|-8.1|13.4|||Repeated Measurements Anal. of Variance|Anal. = Analysis||||13.4|-8.1|0.63
91745819|NCT04115748|183385061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|20.1||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.1|-19.0|0.92
91745820|NCT04115748|183385061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|51.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||51.4|-9.3|0.13
91745821|NCT04115748|183385061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|45.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||45.2|-13.6|0.22
91745822|NCT04115748|183385061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|45.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|77.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||77.2|12.8|0.007
91745823|NCT04115748|183385061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|31.6||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|63.0||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||63.0|0.2|0.039
91745824|NCT04115748|183385061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|44.0||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||44.0|-18.4|0.34
91745825|NCT04115748|183385061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|32.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|64.9||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||64.9|-0.1|0.040
91745826|NCT04115748|183385062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|20.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||20.6|-10.0|
91876745|NCT00377312|183647380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTH 2 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
91745827|NCT04115748|183385062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||5.4|-5.4|
91745828|NCT04115748|183385062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|20.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.4|-9.9|
91745829|NCT04115748|183385062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.3|-5.3|
91745830|NCT04115748|183385062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|35.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||35.0|-14.0|
91745831|NCT04115748|183385062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|27.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||27.6|-17.1|
91745832|NCT04115748|183385062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|53.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||53.9|1.7|
91745833|NCT04115748|183385062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|51.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||51.4|1.3|
91745834|NCT04115748|183385062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|40.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||40.8|-16.3|
91745835|NCT04115748|183385062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|51.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||51.4|-8.2|
91745836|NCT04115748|183385070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|25.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||25.2|-46.3|
91745837|NCT04115748|183385070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|27.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||27.7|-45.3|
91876746|NCT00377312|183647381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTH 2 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
91876747|NCT00377312|183647382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTH 2 and PTH 4 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
91876748|NCT00377312|183647383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTH 2 and PTH 4 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.01
91876749|NCT00377312|183647384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-values correspond to the decrease compared to baseline in all arms/groups at Days 2-8|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.05
91876750|NCT00377312|183647385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to the increase compared to baseline over time (days 2-8) in the PTH 2 pmol group|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.002
91876751|NCT00377312|183647387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTH 2 and PTH 4 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.61
91876752|NCT00377312|183647388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the % increase compared to baseline in all Arms/groups on Days 2-8|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.008
91876753|NCT00377312|183647388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
91876754|NCT00377312|183647389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to % change (increase) from baseline in all Arms/groups at Days 2-8.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
91876755|NCT00377312|183647389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
91876756|NCT00377312|183647390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % decrease compared to baseline at Days 2-8 in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
91876757|NCT00377312|183647390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % change from baseline at the follow-up visit in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|the reported p-value corresponds to % change from baseline at the follow-up visit in all Arms/groups||||||.01
91876758|NCT00377312|183647391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % change compared to baseline at Days 2-8 in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>.05
91876759|NCT00382408|183647395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||vaccine efficacy (VE)|99.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.02|99.88||||||The vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as: VE = 1 - R, where R = P(vaccine)/P(placebo) was the relative risk of ARD attack in subjects who received vaccines compared to placebos (Blackwelder 1993). The 95% confidence interval of the VE was obtained by inverting the Chi Square method proposed by Koopman for the ratio of two binomial proportions (Koopman 1984). The goal of the analysis of efficacy was to demonstrate a VE of at least 80% with a lower 95% confidence bound at least 60%.||99.88|96.02|
91876760|NCT00382408|183647400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||vaccine efficacy (VE)|98.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.39|99.49||||||The vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as: VE = 1 - R, where R = P(vaccine)/P(placebo) was the relative risk of ARD attack in subjects who received vaccines compared to placebos (Blackwelder 1993). The 95% confidence interval of the VE was obtained by inverting the Chi Square method proposed by Koopman for the ratio of two binomial proportions (Koopman 1984). The goal of the analysis of efficacy was to demonstrate a VE of at least 80% with a lower 95% confidence bound at least 60%.||99.49|95.39|
91876761|NCT00609245|183647425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
91876762|NCT02236598|183647426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5582|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5582
91876763|NCT02236598|183647427|SUPERIORITY|Change in Fasting Glucose||||||0.0963|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0963
91876764|NCT02236598|183647427|SUPERIORITY|Change in 1-hour Glucose||||||0.6671|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6671
91876765|NCT02236598|183647427|SUPERIORITY|Change in 2-hour Glucose||||||0.7913|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7913
91876766|NCT02236598|183647428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5294|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5294
91876767|NCT02236598|183647429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1604|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1604
91876768|NCT01614899|183647477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.00|-9.52|0.050
91876769|NCT01614899|183647477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.50|-8.91|0.080
91876770|NCT01614899|183647478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.203|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.203|-0.354|0.594
91907354|NCT05879107|183709765|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-B neutralizing titer was \<=1.5.|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|RSV-B||1.13|0.89|
91745838|NCT04115748|183385070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|45.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||45.8|-22.1|
91876771|NCT01614899|183647478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.095|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.095|-0.453|0.199
91876772|NCT01614899|183647479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.1||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.38|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.38|-2.60|0.143
91876773|NCT01614899|183647479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.46|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.46|-3.40|0.010
91876774|NCT01614899|183647480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.25|-2.27|0.116
91876775|NCT01614899|183647480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.70|-1.80|0.388
91876776|NCT01614899|183647481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.17|-4.87|0.036
91876777|NCT01614899|183647481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.6||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|0.72|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.72|-3.93|0.174
91876778|NCT00980954|183647558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.68||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank||Reference level = Arm I|Sample size calculations are based on the primary hypothesis that 4 additional cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel following concurrent radiation and weekly cisplatin will increase 4-year DFS from 80% to 90% for patients with cervical carcinoma with positive nodes and/or positive margins after a radical hysterectomy. One-sided alpha=0.05, statistical power=80%, 5.5 years of accrual with 4 years of follow-up, 2 interim significance tests. 50 DFS events are required to trigger this analysis.||1.68|0.65|0.56
91745839|NCT04115748|183385070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|54.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||54.5|-15.6|
91745840|NCT04115748|183385070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|47.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||47.0|-26.0|
91745841|NCT04115748|183385070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|47.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||47.0|-26.0|
91876779|NCT00980954|183647559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.69||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank|||The 4-year overall survival rate for the control arm is expected to be approximately 85%. The overall survival will be compared between the two arms. The final targeted sample size of 235 patients with the longer accrual time, will provide 64% and 78% power to detect an increase in overall survival to 92% and 93% respectively, with a 1- sided alpha of 0.05.||1.69|0.49|0.40
91876780|NCT04736472|183647572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Fisher Exact|||Severe TRAEs||||.224
91876781|NCT04736472|183647572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||Severe TRAEs||||.025
91876782|NCT02268526|183647573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.606|1.305||||||||1.305|0.606|
91876783|NCT02268526|183647573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.639|1.377||||||||1.377|0.639|
91876784|NCT02332824|183647585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4845|-0.1649||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 5 mg-placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.1649|-0.4845|<0.0001
91876785|NCT02332824|183647585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6251|-0.3132||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 20 mg-placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.3132|-0.6251|<0.0001
91907355|NCT03029143|183709788|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||=|0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||Chi-squared||||Chi-squared test was used to estimate P-value from the logistic regression model where Endoscopic Mucosal Healing was the response variable and Treatment and TNF stratification were factors. Baseline complete Mayo Score and natural logarithm of trough concentration at week 6 were covariates.|1.8|0.2|=0.401
91745842|NCT04115748|183385070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|29.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|66.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||66.0|-6.3|
91745843|NCT04115748|183385070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|31.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|67.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||67.0|-3.8|
91745844|NCT04115748|183385070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|42.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||42.0|-32.0|
91745845|NCT04115748|183385070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|71.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||71.6|6.8|
91745846|NCT04115748|183385071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|24.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||24.8|-24.8|
91745847|NCT04115748|183385071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|26.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||26.0|-24.9|
91745848|NCT04115748|183385071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|21.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||21.5|-30.5|
91745849|NCT04115748|183385071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|44.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||44.0|-18.4|
91876786|NCT02332824|183647585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7897|-0.4711||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 40 mg -placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.4711|-0.7897|<0.0001
91876787|NCT02332824|183647585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8083|-0.4908||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 80 mg -placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.4908|-0.8083|<0.0001
91876788|NCT02332824|183647585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6874|-0.3719||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (Candesartan cilexetil 8 mg -placebo group) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.3719|-0.6874|<0.0001
91876789|NCT01052714|183647595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91745850|NCT04115748|183385071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|56.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||56.3|-14.1|
91745851|NCT04115748|183385071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|33.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||33.3|-33.3|
91745852|NCT04115748|183385071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|69.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||69.3|-0.3|
91745853|NCT04115748|183385071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|55.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||55.1|-13.0|
91745854|NCT04115748|183385071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|58.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||58.6|-9.7|
91745855|NCT04115748|183385071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|32.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|66.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||66.2|-1.0|
91745856|NCT04115748|183385073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|16.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||16.0|-47.6|
91745857|NCT04115748|183385073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|10.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||10.4|-51.3|
91745858|NCT04115748|183385073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|39.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||39.9|-26.8|
91745859|NCT04115748|183385073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|48.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||48.6|-20.8|
91745860|NCT04115748|183385073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|52.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||52.3|-20.7|
91745861|NCT04115748|183385073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|41.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||41.6|-31.0|
91745862|NCT04115748|183385073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|60.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||60.9|-12.4|
91745863|NCT04115748|183385073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|57.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||57.4|-15.2|
91745864|NCT04115748|183385073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|41.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||41.2|-32.3|
91745865|NCT04115748|183385073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|58.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||58.8|-12.5|
91876790|NCT01052714|183647596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.718
91876791|NCT01052714|183647597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91876792|NCT01052714|183647598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.676
91876793|NCT01052714|183647599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.141
91907356|NCT03029143|183709789|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|-0.4|||=|0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|10.6|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|10.6|-11.4|=0.943
91745866|NCT04115748|183385074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|19.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||19.5|-19.5|
91745867|NCT04115748|183385074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|10.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||10.2|-20.7|
91745868|NCT04115748|183385074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|19.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||19.3|-18.7|
91745869|NCT04115748|183385074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|20.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.1|-19.0|
91745870|NCT04115748|183385074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|24.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||24.8|-24.8|
91876794|NCT01052714|183647600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
91876795|NCT01052714|183647601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.322
91876796|NCT01052714|183647602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.652
91876797|NCT01052714|183647603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.663
91876798|NCT01052714|183647604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
91876799|NCT01052714|183647605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.415
91876800|NCT01052714|183647606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.687
91876801|NCT01052714|183647607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
91876802|NCT01052714|183647608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
91876803|NCT01052714|183647609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
91876804|NCT01052714|183647610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.146
91745871|NCT04115748|183385074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|17.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||17.1|-27.6|
91876805|NCT01052714|183647611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91876806|NCT01052714|183647612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.763
91876807|NCT00417989|183647619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority test with margin of 0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.46||Confidence Interval 95%|ANCOVA|ANVOCA is adjusted by study group, gender, pooled site, continuous age, duration of diabetes, BMI, and Baseline glycated hemoglobin level (A1C)||Null - There is no treatment group difference in A1c change from baseline to Week 52. Calculated that the enrollment of 495 patients would provide a power of 90% to detect an absolute difference of 0.35 percentage points in the primary outcome, assuming a SD of 1.2%.||0.46|0.24|0.05
91745872|NCT04115748|183385074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|44.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||44.0|-10.1|
91745873|NCT04115748|183385074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|54.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||54.8|-2.1|
91745874|NCT04115748|183385074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|33.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||33.6|-20.3|
91745875|NCT04115748|183385074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|38.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||38.7|-16.6|
91745876|NCT04115748|183385076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|34.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||34.8|-34.8|
91745877|NCT04115748|183385076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|17.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||17.6|-47.4|
91745878|NCT04115748|183385076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|63.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||63.0|-7.2|
91876808|NCT00417989|183647621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.41|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.41|0.64|0.84
91876809|NCT00417989|183647622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation based on this endpoint. Results will be calculated on testing for statistical difference between arms.||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANVOCA is adjusted by study group, gender, pooled site, continuous age, duration of diabetes, BMI, and Baseline AUC||||||0.05
91876810|NCT00417989|183647623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation based on this endpoint. Results will be calculated on testing for statistical difference between arms.||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANVOCA is adjusted by study group, gender, pooled site, continuous age, duration of diabetes, BMI, and Baseline AUC||||||0.05
91876811|NCT00417989|183647624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|<|0.001||95.0|-9.76|-3.273|||ANCOVA|||||-3.273|-9.760|< 0.001
91876812|NCT00417989|183647626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.75|||||||||Mean difference|||||||
91907357|NCT03029143|183709790|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|-1.2|||=|0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|16.3|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|16.3|-18.7|=0.893
91745879|NCT04115748|183385076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|44.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||44.3|-26.6|
91745880|NCT04115748|183385076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|55.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||55.1|-13.0|
91745881|NCT04115748|183385076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|26.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||26.3|-47.4|
91745882|NCT04115748|183385076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|60.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||60.8|-11.1|
91745883|NCT04115748|183385076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|57.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||57.0|-14.9|
91745884|NCT04115748|183385076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|43.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|75.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||75.4|12.4|
91745885|NCT04115748|183385076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|49.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||49.1|-23.4|
91745886|NCT04115748|183385078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|89.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||89.8|-14.8|
91876813|NCT00417989|183647627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||Mean Difference|||||||
91745887|NCT04115748|183385078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||100.0|-25.4|
91745888|NCT04115748|183385078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|51.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||51.2|-100.0|
91876814|NCT01184755|183647628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.561256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216403||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.987999|-0.134513||This is an intention-to-treat analysis|Mixed effects regression analysis|||This is the change in Systolic BP at 8 weeks||-.134513|-.987999|.01
91876815|NCT01184755|183647628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.391195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.140034||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667312|-0.115079|||mixed effects regression analysis|||This is the analysis of change in diastolic BP from Ambulatory BP monitoring.||-.115079|-.667312|.006
91888957|NCT01512797|183670623|OTHER|||||||0.028||||||P-value refers to paired t-test comparing pre-intervention and post-intervention timepoints in Sitagliptin group.|t-test, 2 sided|||Power analysis. Based on the effect of DPP-4 inhibitors in non-operated subjects with type 2 diabetes, showing a significant decrease in 120' post-prandial glucose by 1.67 mmol/L ± 0.98 mmol/L after a MMT, we estimated that a sample size of 16 subjects per group will show post-prandial glucose differences between placebo and sitagliptin group with α = 0.05 for a power \> 90%.||||0.028
91745889|NCT04115748|183385078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.7|77.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||77.7|-97.7|
91745890|NCT04115748|183385078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7|88.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||88.0|-73.7|
91745891|NCT04115748|183385078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.7|77.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||77.7|-97.7|
91745892|NCT04115748|183385078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||100.0|-35.3|
91745893|NCT04115748|183385078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.9|97.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||97.9|-67.9|
91745894|NCT04115748|183385079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|54.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||54.2|-29.2|
91745895|NCT04115748|183385079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||77.6|-37.6|
91745896|NCT04115748|183385079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|73.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||73.8|-23.8|
91745897|NCT04115748|183385079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||100.0|-25.4|
91745898|NCT04115748|183385079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|99.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||99.2|-13.4|
91745899|NCT04115748|183385079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||100.0|-25.4|
91745900|NCT04115748|183385079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||100.0|-35.3|
91745901|NCT04115748|183385079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.5|72.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||72.5|-82.5|
91745902|NCT04115748|183385080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|18.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||18.8|-18.8|
91745903|NCT04115748|183385080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||22.5|-22.5|
91745904|NCT04115748|183385080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|54.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||54.2|-29.2|
91745905|NCT04115748|183385080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||22.5|-22.5|
91745906|NCT04115748|183385080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|59.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||59.9|-31.3|
91745907|NCT04115748|183385080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||77.6|-37.6|
91745908|NCT04115748|183385080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|73.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||73.8|-23.8|
91745909|NCT04115748|183385080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||77.6|-37.6|
91745910|NCT04115748|183385081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|18.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||18.8|-18.8|
91745911|NCT04115748|183385081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||22.5|-22.5|
91745912|NCT04115748|183385081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|18.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||18.8|-18.8|
91745913|NCT04115748|183385081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||22.5|-22.5|
91745914|NCT04115748|183385081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|59.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||59.9|-31.3|
91745915|NCT04115748|183385081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||22.5|-22.5|
91745916|NCT04115748|183385081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|54.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||54.2|-29.2|
91745917|NCT04115748|183385081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||77.6|-37.6|
91745918|NCT04115748|183385085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||P-value was calculated from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.20|-0.22|0.94
91800483|NCT02281773|183478073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.34||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 10 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||0.34|-2.76|0.1256
91888958|NCT00478192|183670704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-Values are not adjusted on the basis of multiple comparrisons|ANCOVA|||"Statistical Analysis applies to Change from Baseline."||||0.028
91888959|NCT00478192|183670704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-Values are not adjusted on the basis of multiple comparrisons|ANCOVA|||"Statistical Analysis applies to Change from Baseline."||||0.019
91745919|NCT04115748|183385085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.24|-0.18|0.81
91745920|NCT04115748|183385085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.05||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.05|-0.39|0.13
91745921|NCT04115748|183385085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.02||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.02|-0.43|0.073
91745922|NCT04115748|183385085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.03|-0.46|0.083
91745923|NCT04115748|183385085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.11|-0.38|0.28
91745924|NCT04115748|183385085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.02||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.02|-0.54|0.038
91800484|NCT02281773|183478073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.84||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 25 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||1.84|-1.30|0.7337
91800485|NCT02281773|183478073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.6994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.95||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||1.95|-1.31|0.6994
91800486|NCT02281773|183478073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.93||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 100 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||0.93|-2.19|0.4270
91876816|NCT05379023|183647665|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|IntraClassCorrelation|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.78||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Memory, CVLT delayed recall shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Memory: CVLT shown below."||0.78|0.50|
91876817|NCT05379023|183647665|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass Correlation|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Memory, RBANS delayed recall shown|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Memory: RBANS shown below."||0.84|0.71|
91876818|NCT05379023|183647665|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass correlation|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Language, BNT-15 shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Memory: BNT-15 shown below."||0.90|0.76|
91876819|NCT05379023|183647665|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|intraclass correlation|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Language, Category Fluency shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Lang8age: Category Fluency shown below."||0.85|0.63|
91888960|NCT00478192|183670704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Values are not adjusted on the basis of multiple comparrisons|ANCOVA|||"Statistical Analysis applies to Change from Baseline."||||<0.001
91745925|NCT04115748|183385085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.11|-0.41|0.25
91888961|NCT00478192|183670709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.079
91745926|NCT04115748|183385085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.16||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||0.16|-0.39|0.41
91745927|NCT04115748|183385085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.12||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||0.12|-0.43|0.26
91907358|NCT03029143|183709791|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|6.0|||=|0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|24.3|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|24.3|-12.4|=0.525
91745928|NCT04115748|183385086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.9||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||7.9|-1.1|0.14
91745929|NCT04115748|183385086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|7.7||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||7.7|-1.5|0.18
91745930|NCT04115748|183385086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.7||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||8.7|-1.4|0.15
91745931|NCT04115748|183385086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.9||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||9.9|-0.3|0.062
91745932|NCT04115748|183385088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.6||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||8.6|1.9|0.003
91745933|NCT04115748|183385088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.3||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||8.3|1.5|0.006
91745934|NCT04115748|183385088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|8.0||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||8.0|-0.4|0.076
91745935|NCT04115748|183385088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.7||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||7.7|-0.7|0.10
91745936|NCT02752633|183385089|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data are presented as the urinary DHA excretion (mg/24 hr) and as the DHA-to-creatinine ratio (mg/mmol) in first morning void urine samples. Data are presented as a median (range). Differences in the median urinary DHA excretion and the urinary DHA-to-creatinine ratio between periods off pharmacotherapy and on the two study drugs, febuxostat and allopurinol, were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<.05
91745937|NCT06053541|183385090|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.24
91745938|NCT06053541|183385091|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.37
91745939|NCT06053541|183385092|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.03
91745940|NCT06053541|183385093|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Beds in the general practice and Pulmonology: For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.11
91745941|NCT06053541|183385093|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Beds in Adults ICU: For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||<0.01
91745942|NCT06053541|183385094|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.01
91745943|NCT06053541|183385095|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.07
91745944|NCT00152477|183385096|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|6.4|||=|0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|20.5||Two-sided Chi-square test. Fisher's Exact test presented when number of responders in a treatment group is \<5.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-7.7|=0.384
91745945|NCT00152477|183385096|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|6.4|||=|0.409||95.0|-7.7|20.5||CMH test stratified by country and disease stage (3 levels: Stage IIIb without malignant pleural effusion versus Stage IIIb with malignant pleural effusion or Stage IV or recurrent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-7.7|=0.409
91745946|NCT00152477|183385096|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|2.6|||=|0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|18.8||Two-sided Chi-square test. Fisher's Exact test presented when number of responders in a treatment group is \< 5.|Chi-squared|||||18.8|-13.5|=0.744
91876820|NCT05379023|183647665|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass correlation|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Spatial, JoLO-15 item shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Spatial: JoLO 15-item Total"||0.75|0.45|
91800487|NCT02281773|183478078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.5972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 10 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.6|-0.9|0.5972
91800488|NCT02281773|183478078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 25 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.7|-1.9|0.3817
91800489|NCT02281773|183478078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.8||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.8|-0.9|0.4800
91745947|NCT00152477|183385096|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|2.6|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|18.8||CMH test stratified by country and disease stage (3 levels: Stage IIIb without malignant pleural effusion versus Stage IIIb with malignant pleural effusion or Stage IV or recurrent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.8|-13.5|=0.783
91745948|NCT00152477|183385096|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|10.2|||=|0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|27.2||Two-sided Chi-square test. Fisher's Exact test presented when number of responders in a treatment group is \< 5.|Chi-squared|||||27.2|-6.8|=0.234
91745949|NCT00152477|183385096|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|10.2|||=|0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|27.2||CMH test stratified by country and disease stage (3 levels: Stage IIIb without malignant pleural effusion versus Stage IIIb with malignant pleural effusion or Stage IV or recurrent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.2|-6.8|=0.228
91745950|NCT00123162|183385102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.6|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score).||With 26 subjects per treatment group and an assumed within-group standard deviation of 7 units, the study was designed to have 90% statistical power for a two-sided, 0.05 significance level test to detect a difference of 6.5 units in TOPAR4 between a single dose of 100 mg of sildenafil and placebo. However, we anticipated subject drop-out as high as 15%; therefore, we planned to recruit 31 subjects per treatment group.||7.6|2.9|<0.001
91745951|NCT00123162|183385103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of the VAS score at hour 4 (Sildenafil Citrate - Placebo)|||-26.8|-58.3|<.001
91745952|NCT01467037|183385179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted OR|0.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.384|||||Conditional logistic regression was used. Adjusted VE = (1 - adjusted OR) \*100|||0.384|0.020|
91745953|NCT01467037|183385179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted OR|0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.307|||||Conditional logistic regression was used. Adjusted VE = (1 - adjusted OR) \*100|||0.307|0.018|
91745954|NCT01194089|183385188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for the postoperative opioid use during the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, using a one tailed P value.||||0.828
91745955|NCT01194089|183385188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for the first 24 hours postoperatively, using a one tailed P value.||||0.752
91745956|NCT01194089|183385189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the arms for antiemetic medication use in the PACU.||||0.002
91876821|NCT05379023|183647665|OTHER|Intraclass correlation|Intraclass correlation|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.72||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Spatial, RBANS Figure Copy shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Spatial: RBANS Figure Copy shown below."||0.72|0.38|
91876822|NCT05379023|183647666|OTHER|Cohen's Kappa|Cohen's Kappa|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.88||Not applicable, Cohen's Kappa with level of agreement between neuropsychologists used.||||"We constructed 3x3 tables for the diagnostic considerations by core battery and syndrome impression by condition. Agreement between each question and impression category was determined using Cohen's kappa (unweighted). Kappa values were interpreted using the agreement categories as follows: 0-.20 as None, .21-.39 as Minimal, .40-.59"||0.88|0.60|
91745957|NCT01194089|183385190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score on admission.||||0.354
91745958|NCT01194089|183385190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score at 30 minutes.||||0.492
91745959|NCT01194089|183385190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score at 60 minutes.||||0.809
91745960|NCT01194089|183385190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score at discharge.||||0.381
91800490|NCT02281773|183478078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 100 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.5|-1.1|0.7507
91745961|NCT03070171|183385191|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of AUC0-tz of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|108.46909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.44605|115.97833|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||115.97833|101.44605|
91745962|NCT03070171|183385192|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of Cmax of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|108.9587|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.78627|116.63654|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||116.63654|101.78627|
91745963|NCT03070171|183385193|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of Cmax of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|107.61507|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.61938|115.09714|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||115.09714|100.61938|
91800491|NCT02281773|183478079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 10 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.1|-0.1|0.9399
91876823|NCT05379023|183647667|OTHER|Cohen's Kappa|Cohen's Kappa|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||Not applicable, Cohen's Kappa with level of agreement between neuropsychologists used.||||"We constructed 3x3 tables for the diagnostic considerations by core battery and severity impression by condition. Agreement between each question and impression category was determined using Cohen's kappa (unweighted). Kappa values were interpreted using the agreement categories as follows: 0-.20 as None, .21-.39 as Minimal, .40-.59"||0.99|0.79|
91876824|NCT05379023|183647670|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass correlation|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.89||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Executive Functions, DKEFS Color Word-Inhibition shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Executive Functions: DKEFS Color Word Inhibition shown below."||0.89|0.71|
91876825|NCT05379023|183647670|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass correlation|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Executive Functions, Oral Trail Making Test B shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Executive Functions:Oral Trail Making Test B shown below."||0.93|0.81|
91876826|NCT02675998|183647671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
91876827|NCT02675998|183647672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91876828|NCT02675998|183647672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91876829|NCT02675998|183647672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91876830|NCT02552810|183647673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculation, 30 (effect size: 0.5, alpha error: 0.05, power: 0.80).|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91876831|NCT02097849|183647679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.04||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.19|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.19|-0.27|0.692
91876832|NCT02097849|183647680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.19||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.05|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||Responders at Day 28||0.05|-0.41|0.120
91876833|NCT02097849|183647681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.13||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.1|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.10|-0.35|0.225
91876834|NCT02097849|183647682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.22||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.01|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.01|-0.44|0.057
91876835|NCT02097849|183647683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.07||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.30|-0.16|0.300
91876836|NCT02097849|183647684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.03||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.20|-0.26|0.714
91876837|NCT02097849|183647685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.23|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.23|-0.24|0.967
91745964|NCT03070171|183385194|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of Cmax of total dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|106.69566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.50139|114.4101|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||114.41010|99.50139|
91745965|NCT03070171|183385195|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of AUC0-∞ of total dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|107.83324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.25584|114.8379|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||114.83790|101.25584|
91876838|NCT02097849|183647686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.22|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.22|-0.24|0.955
91876839|NCT02561078|183647698|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for the primary objective of noninferiority was performed at the 0.05 significance level using the LS Mean estimate of the difference in change in HbA1c between the 2 treatments at Week 26. Noninferiority was established if the upper limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (U 500R CSII minus U 500R MDI) was below the noninferiority margin (NIM) of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.62|<0.001
91745966|NCT03070171|183385196|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of AUC0-∞ of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|108.43158|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.87254|115.41292|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||115.41292|101.87254|
91745967|NCT01500252|183385227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91745968|NCT01500252|183385228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.83||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91745969|NCT01500252|183385230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91800492|NCT02281773|183478079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 25 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.1|-0.1|0.9919
91800493|NCT02281773|183478079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.2|-0.1|0.3027
91745970|NCT01500252|183385231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91876840|NCT02561078|183647699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.7|-49.4|<0.001
91745971|NCT01500252|183385232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91745972|NCT01500252|183385233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91876841|NCT02561078|183647700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|1.14|0.015
91876842|NCT02561078|183647701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.23|0.005
91876843|NCT02561078|183647702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre Morning Meal||-12.8|-32.1|<0.001
91876844|NCT02561078|183647702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours Post Morning Meal||-4.6|-29.9|0.008
91876845|NCT02561078|183647702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre Mid-Day Meal||2.9|-20.6|0.138
91745973|NCT01500252|183385234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
91745974|NCT01500252|183385235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91745975|NCT01500252|183385236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91745976|NCT01106651|183385265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.436|||ANCOVA|||||-0.436|-0.708|<0.001
91745977|NCT01106651|183385265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|-0.566|||ANCOVA|||||-0.566|-0.841|<0.001
91745978|NCT01106651|183385266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.001||95.0|1.93|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.93|<0.001
91745979|NCT01106651|183385266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.001||95.0|2.89|6.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.95|2.89|<0.001
91745980|NCT01106651|183385267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-19.32|||ANCOVA|||||-19.32|-31.68|<0.001
91745981|NCT01106651|183385267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.97|-21.49|||ANCOVA|||||-21.49|-33.97|<0.001
91876846|NCT02561078|183647702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|19.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours Post Mid-Day Meal||19.8|-3.3|0.160
91907359|NCT03029143|183709792|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|-6.6|||=|0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|20.8|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|20.8|-34.0|=0.623
91907360|NCT03029143|183709793|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.1|||=|0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|24.7|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|24.7|-8.5|=0.344
91745982|NCT01106651|183385268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-2.8|<0.001
91745983|NCT01106651|183385268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-3.5|<0.001
91745984|NCT01106651|183385269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.379|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.339|-0.842|||ANCOVA|||||-0.842|-2.339|<0.001
91745985|NCT01106651|183385269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.833|-1.368|||ANCOVA|||||-1.368|-2.833|<0.001
91745986|NCT01106651|183385270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.633|-0.428|||ANCOVA|||Region percent total fat||-0.428|-1.633|<0.001
91745987|NCT01106651|183385270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.772|-0.587|||ANCOVA|||Region percent total fat||-0.587|-1.772|<0.001
91745988|NCT01106651|183385271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.677|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||||-0.430|-1.677|0.001
91745989|NCT01106651|183385271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.812|-0.584|||ANCOVA|||||-0.584|-1.812|<0.001
91745990|NCT01106651|183385272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.854|-2.401|||ANCOVA|||||-2.401|-6.854|<0.001
91745991|NCT01106651|183385272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.147|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-5.641|||ANCOVA|||||-5.641|-10.14|<0.001
91800494|NCT02281773|183478079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 100 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.2|-0.1|0.3901
91876847|NCT02561078|183647702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.1||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre Evening Meal||20.4|-2.2|0.113
91876848|NCT02561078|183647702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours Post Evening Meal||28.2|5.3|0.004
91745992|NCT01106651|183385273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-12.1|0.194
91876849|NCT02561078|183647702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overnight (3:00 AM)||10.8|-9.5|0.905
91876850|NCT02561078|183647703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|-22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.8|-74.1|<0.001
91876851|NCT02561078|183647704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.86|0.39|0.919
91876852|NCT02561078|183647705|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.21||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.42|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.42|1.02|0.025
91745993|NCT01106651|183385273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.1|-6.6|0.846
91745994|NCT01106651|183385274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.9|||ANCOVA|||||7.9|2.6|<0.001
91745995|NCT01106651|183385274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.4|||ANCOVA|||||7.4|2.0|<0.001
91745996|NCT01106651|183385275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.4|
91745997|NCT01106651|183385275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.9|
91745998|NCT01106651|183385276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.9|
91745999|NCT01106651|183385276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|
91746000|NCT01106651|183385277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.3|
91746001|NCT01106651|183385277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|
91746002|NCT01106651|183385278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.8|
91746003|NCT01106651|183385278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.9|
91876853|NCT02561078|183647706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.2|0.100
91907361|NCT04744207|183709796|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean estimate|0.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.10|-2.48|<0.05
91907362|NCT04041284|183709801|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|-1.21|||ANCOVA|||||-1.21|-3.16|<0.0001
91907363|NCT04041284|183709802|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-2.61|0.0205
91746004|NCT02466425|183385279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.8|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure||Between treatment groups|||-6.8|-13.0|<0.001
91746005|NCT00712725|183385285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with PF at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
91746006|NCT00712725|183385286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with binary response PR at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
91746007|NCT00712725|183385287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with Absence of Photophobia at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
91746008|NCT00712725|183385288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with Absence of Phonophobia at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
91746009|NCT00712725|183385289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with Absence of Nausea at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||0.007
91746010|NCT00712725|183385290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with binary response SPF 2-24 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
91746011|NCT01901289|183385291|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|0.956|||||The estimate of the variance of the Kaplan-Meier estimate used the methods described by Peto et al.|||0.956|0.881|
91800495|NCT03019575|183478090|OTHER|Linear Mixed Model|Geometric Mean Ratio|9.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|11.97||||||||11.97|7.44|
91800496|NCT03792191|183478107|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.00007||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00005|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-0.00005|0.62
91800497|NCT03792191|183478108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91876854|NCT00043186|183647714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.87|||<|0.001||95.0|4.59|7.16|||ANCOVA|||||7.16|4.59|<0.001
91746012|NCT00889603|183385292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.2|||||Change from baseline in MMSE at LOCF analyzed using single-sample t-test; a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for mean change at LOCF.|||2.20|1.65|
91746013|NCT00889603|183385293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08|||||LS Mean and 95% CI for change from baseline in MMSE Total to Week 8 from repeated-measures mixed model including terms for baseline MMSE and Week.|||1.08|0.75|
91746014|NCT00889603|183385293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.8|||||LS Mean and 95% CI for change from baseline in MMSE Total to Week 16 from a repeated-measures mixed model including terms for baseline MMSE and Week.|||1.80|1.32|
91746015|NCT00889603|183385293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.25|||||LS Mean and 95% CI for change from baseline in MMSE Total to Week 24 from a repeated-measures mixed model including terms for baseline MMSE and Week.|||2.25|1.69|
91746016|NCT01606176|183385364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.39||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.4|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline pain score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Baseline Pain Score + Treatment"||0.40|-1.18|0.332
91746017|NCT01606176|183385365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-29.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.08|-11.02|||ANOVA|||The proportions were compared between treatment groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as a factor.||-11.02|-48.08|0.002
91800498|NCT03792191|183478109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.079|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.079|-0.15|0.6
91800499|NCT03792191|183478110|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.021||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.082|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.082|-0.125|0.77
91800500|NCT03792191|183478111|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20|-1|0.077
91800501|NCT03792191|183478112|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.00003||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00001|0.00003|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.00003|-0.00001|0.1
91800502|NCT03792191|183478113|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.99
91800503|NCT03792191|183478114|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.99
91800504|NCT03792191|183478116|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91800505|NCT01856907|183478122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||McNemar|||Study change from dysglycemia to normal glucose state||||.035
91876855|NCT00043186|183647714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|||<|0.001||95.0|5.01|7.65|||ANCOVA|||||7.65|5.01|<0.001
91876856|NCT00043186|183647714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.35|||<|0.001||95.0|4.07|6.64|||ANCOVA|||||6.64|4.07|<0.001
91746018|NCT01606176|183385366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.34||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.0|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline sleep disturbance score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Sleep Disturbance Score = Baseline Sleep Disturbance Score + Treatment"||0.00|-0.68|0.052
91746019|NCT01606176|183385367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|2.56|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Pain Disability Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Pain Disability Index Score = Baseline Pain Disability Index Score + Treatment"||2.56|-8.14|0.300
91876857|NCT00043186|183647714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|||<|0.001||95.0|2.6|5.07|||ANCOVA|||||5.07|2.60|<0.001
91876858|NCT00043186|183647714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||<|0.001||95.0|6.13|8.87|||ANCOVA|||||8.87|6.13|<0.001
91746020|NCT01606176|183385368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.66||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|1.1|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score = Baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score + Treatment"||1.10|-4.42|0.233
91746021|NCT01606176|183385369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.28||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.91|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score = Baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score + Treatment"||0.91|-0.36|0.387
91746022|NCT01606176|183385370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.47||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.56|18.51|||Fisher Exact|||"The proportion of patients who considered their condition Very Much Improved or Much Improved was compared between treatment groups using a Fisher's Exact Test."||18.51|-21.56|1.000
91746023|NCT01606176|183385371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.86||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.26|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline pain score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Baseline Pain Score + Treatment"||0.26|-1.97|0.128
91746024|NCT01606176|183385372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-31.77||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.07|-8.47|||ANOVA|||The proportions were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||-8.47|-55.07|0.009
91746025|NCT01606176|183385373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.32||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.16|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline sleep disturbance score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Sleep Disturbance Score = Baseline Sleep Disturbance Score + Treatment"||0.16|-0.80|0.184
91746026|NCT01606176|183385374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-5.18||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|1.68|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Pain Disability Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Pain Disability Index Score = Baseline Pain Disability Index Score + Treatment"||1.68|-12.05|0.134
91746027|NCT01606176|183385375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-3.77||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score = Baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score + Treatment"||-0.36|-7.17|0.031
91746028|NCT01606176|183385376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.04||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.88|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score = Baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score + Treatment"||0.88|-0.79|0.915
91746029|NCT01606176|183385377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|3.95||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|27.47|||Fisher Exact|||"The proportion of patients who considered their condition Very Much Improved or Much Improved was compared between treatment groups using a Fisher's Exact Test."||27.47|-21.85|1.00
91746030|NCT01179217|183385395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|0.5||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|||||"1. The primary analysis was analyzed using a CMH analysis of the number of SCCs using modified ridit scores.~2. P-value (controlling for region and HU use)~3. The null hypothesis of the final analysis was performed at the 0.045 significance level."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0052
91746031|NCT01179217|183385396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0045
91746032|NCT01179217|183385397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0888|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0888
91746033|NCT01818258|183385415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for number who experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.40
91876859|NCT00043186|183647714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.52|||<|0.001||95.0|4.19|6.85|||ANCOVA|||||6.85|4.19|<0.001
91876860|NCT00043186|183647714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21|||<|0.001||95.0|3.88|6.55|||ANCOVA|||||6.55|3.88|<0.001
91876861|NCT00043186|183647715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876862|NCT00043186|183647715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876863|NCT00043186|183647715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876864|NCT00043186|183647715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876865|NCT00043186|183647715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.166
91876866|NCT00043186|183647715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876867|NCT00043186|183647715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876868|NCT00043186|183647715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876869|NCT00043186|183647716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876870|NCT00043186|183647716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91907364|NCT04041284|183709803|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|5.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.62|1.89|<0.0001
91746034|NCT01818258|183385416|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for number who experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event related to study treatment. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||>0.999
91746035|NCT01818258|183385417|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 Comparison of LPV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.6|0.4|0.49
91746036|NCT01818258|183385417|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.64||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 Comparison of LPV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.4|0.3|0.23
91746037|NCT01818258|183385417|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 Comparison of LPV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.0|0.3|0.63
91746038|NCT01818258|183385418|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 Comparison of LPV Clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.3|0.5|0.89
91746039|NCT01818258|183385418|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 Comparison of LPV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||3.1|0.7|0.37
91746040|NCT01818258|183385418|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.23||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 Comparison of LPV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.9|0.5|0.63
91746041|NCT01818258|183385419|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.76||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 Comparison of RTV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.5|0.4|0.42
91746042|NCT01818258|183385419|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.58||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of RTV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.1|0.3|0.11
91746043|NCT01818258|183385419|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of RTV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.5|0.4|0.44
91746044|NCT01818258|183385420|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of RTV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.2|0.5|0.84
91746045|NCT01818258|183385420|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.54||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of RTV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||3.1|0.8|0.21
91876871|NCT00043186|183647716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876872|NCT00043186|183647716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876873|NCT00043186|183647716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91746046|NCT01818258|183385420|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.29||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of RTV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.5|0.7|0.44
91746047|NCT01818258|183385421|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of 3TC AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.2|0.5|0.27
91800506|NCT01856907|183478123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||Subjects (SS)/ Treatment Group x repeated measures (visit) design||||0.044
91876874|NCT00043186|183647716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876875|NCT00043186|183647716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
91876876|NCT00043186|183647716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876877|NCT00043186|183647718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.34|||<|0.001||95.0|5.56|9.12|||ANCOVA|||||9.12|5.56|<0.001
91876878|NCT00043186|183647718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.11|||<|0.001||95.0|7.31|10.91|||ANCOVA|||||10.91|7.31|<0.001
91876879|NCT00043186|183647718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.56|||<|0.001||95.0|6.71|10.41|||ANCOVA|||||10.41|6.71|<0.001
91876880|NCT00043186|183647718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.44|||<|0.001||95.0|6.69|10.19|||ANCOVA|||||10.19|6.69|<0.001
91876881|NCT00043186|183647718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|||<|0.001||95.0|3.43|6.94|||ANCOVA|||||6.94|3.43|<0.001
91876882|NCT00043186|183647718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.08|||<|0.001||95.0|8.14|12.01|||ANCOVA|||||12.01|8.14|<0.001
91907365|NCT04041284|183709804|OTHER||LS mean difference|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|15.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Restrictive score: Fremanezumab versus placebo|||15.59|6.91|<0.0001
91907366|NCT04041284|183709804|OTHER||LS mean difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.73|14.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Preventive score: Fremanezumab versus placebo|||14.08|5.73|<0.0001
91746048|NCT01818258|183385421|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of 3TC AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.0|0.4|0.047
91876883|NCT00043186|183647718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.46|||<|0.001||95.0|6.62|10.3|||ANCOVA|||||10.30|6.62|<0.001
91876884|NCT00043186|183647718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.66|||<|0.001||95.0|6.8|10.53|||ANCOVA|||||10.53|6.80|<0.001
91876885|NCT00043186|183647719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||<|0.001||95.0|4.32|8.67|||ANCOVA|||||8.67|4.32|<0.001
91876886|NCT00043186|183647719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65||||0.013||95.0|0.55|4.75|||ANCOVA|||||4.75|0.55|0.013
91876887|NCT00043186|183647719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.43|||<|0.001||95.0|10.19|14.68|||ANCOVA|||||14.68|10.19|<0.001
91746049|NCT01818258|183385421|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of 3TC AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.9|0.6|0.76
91746050|NCT01818258|183385422|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of 3TC clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||0.5|-0.4|0.89
91746051|NCT01818258|183385422|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of 3TC clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.3|0.8|0.18
91746052|NCT01818258|183385422|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of 3TC clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.4|0.5|0.53
91746053|NCT01818258|183385423|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.27||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of ZDV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.2|0.7|0.39
91876888|NCT00043186|183647719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.84|||<|0.001||95.0|8.74|12.94|||ANCOVA|||||12.94|8.74|<0.001
91876889|NCT00043186|183647719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.79|||<|0.001||95.0|7.69|11.89|||ANCOVA|||||11.89|7.69|<0.001
91876890|NCT00043186|183647719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.37|6.12|||ANCOVA|||||6.12|1.37|<0.001
91876891|NCT00043186|183647719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.97|||<|0.001||95.0|8.63|13.32|||ANCOVA|||||13.32|8.63|<0.001
91876892|NCT00043186|183647719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.37|||<|0.001||95.0|8.16|12.59|||ANCOVA|||||12.59|8.16|<0.001
91876893|NCT00043186|183647720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42||||0.02||95.0|0.89|9.95|||ANCOVA|||||9.95|0.89|0.02
91746054|NCT01818258|183385423|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.37||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of ZDV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||3.0|0.6|0.43
91746055|NCT01818258|183385423|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.52||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of ZDV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.0|1.2|0.003
91800507|NCT01856907|183478124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.034
91800508|NCT01856907|183478125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||.047
91876894|NCT00043186|183647720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.992||95.0|-5.07|5.02|||ANCOVA|||||5.02|-5.07|0.992
91746056|NCT01818258|183385424|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of ZDV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.1|0.3|0.090
91746057|NCT01818258|183385424|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of ZDV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.4|0.3|0.23
91746058|NCT01818258|183385424|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.64||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of ZDV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||0.8|0.5|0.0003
91800509|NCT01856907|183478126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.017
91876895|NCT00043186|183647720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.004||95.0|3.72|14.09|||ANCOVA|||||14.09|3.72|0.004
91876896|NCT00043186|183647720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.001||95.0|4.15|12.86|||ANCOVA|||||12.86|4.15|0.001
91876897|NCT00043186|183647720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.37||||0.001||95.0|4.11|12.63|||ANCOVA|||||12.63|4.11|0.001
91876898|NCT00043186|183647720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98||||0.292||95.0|-1.42|9.37|||ANCOVA|||||9.37|-1.42|0.292
91876899|NCT00043186|183647720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.95||||0.004||95.0|3.94|13.96|||ANCOVA|||||13.96|3.94|0.004
91876900|NCT00043186|183647720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.12||||0.094||95.0|0.57|11.67|||ANCOVA|||||11.67|0.57|0.094
91876901|NCT00043186|183647721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.93|||<|0.001||95.0|3.97|9.89|||ANCOVA|||||9.89|3.97|<0.001
91876902|NCT00043186|183647721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.89|||<|0.001||95.0|1.92|7.85|||ANCOVA|||||7.85|1.92|<0.001
91876903|NCT00043186|183647721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.15|||<|0.001||95.0|11.08|17.21|||ANCOVA|||||17.21|11.08|<0.001
91746059|NCT01818258|183385425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratio (SAM/non-SAM) for Lopinavir Ctrough \>= 1 ug/mL through 48 weeks|Odds ratio (SAM/non-SAM) of Ctrough \>=1 ug/mL from entry through 48 weeks from repeated measures mixed model, with the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to zero (no difference between cohorts in odds of Ctrough \>=1 ug/mL).||1.29|0.22|0.17
91746060|NCT01818258|183385426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Severe Malnutrition Cohort - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition for Week 1 Free Fraction (%) of LPV|Week 1 comparison of LPV free faction. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||-0.9|-3.9|0.003
91746061|NCT01818258|183385426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition for Week 12 Free Fraction (%) of LPV|Week 12 comparison of LPV free faction. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||-1.1|-6.6|0.011
91746062|NCT01818258|183385426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition for Week 24 Free Fraction (%) of LPV|Week 24 comparison of LPV free faction. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||4.4|-2.4|0.46
91746063|NCT01818258|183385427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 12. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.7|-0.3|0.15
91746064|NCT01818258|183385427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 24. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.8|-0.4|0.20
91746065|NCT01818258|183385427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 36. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.8|-0.2|0.13
91746066|NCT01818258|183385427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 48. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.8|-0.1|0.089
91800510|NCT01856907|183478127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.014
91800511|NCT01856907|183478128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.042
91800512|NCT01856907|183478129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.002
91746067|NCT01818258|183385428|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||>0.999
91746068|NCT01818258|183385428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.15
91800513|NCT01856907|183478130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.004
91746069|NCT01818258|183385428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24 Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.065
91746070|NCT01818258|183385428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48 Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.065
91746071|NCT01818258|183385429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 12. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||4.4|-3.9|0.89
91876904|NCT00043186|183647721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73|||<|0.001||95.0|9.94|15.52|||ANCOVA|||||15.52|9.94|<0.001
91746072|NCT01818258|183385429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 24. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||7.6|-2.5|0.31
91800514|NCT01856907|183478131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.004
91746073|NCT01818258|183385429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|7.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 36. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||7.8|-1.5|0.18
91746074|NCT01818258|183385429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|11.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference between cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 48. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||11.0|1.1|0.018
91746075|NCT01818258|183385430|SUPERIORITY||Mean|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in WHO weight-for-height Z-score from entry to week 24 equal to 0||2.91|1.77|<0.0001
91746076|NCT01818258|183385430|SUPERIORITY||Mean|2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|3.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in WHO weight-for-height Z-score from entry to week 48 equal to 0||3.37|2.09|<0.0001
91746077|NCT01818258|183385431|SUPERIORITY||Mean|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in MUAC from entry to week 24 equal to 0||3.28|1.96|<0.0001
91800515|NCT01856907|183478132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
91800516|NCT01436396|183478133|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was greater than -10. The difference in percentage of seroconversion rates between group 1 and 2 was based on the Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI.|Difference in percentage|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.976|1.87||||||Non-inferiority of YF seroconversion rate was assessed 28 days post-Stamaril®/CYD dengue vaccine (CYD Dengue Vaccine Group) or post-Stamaril®/placebo (Placebo Group).||1.87|-0.976|
91876905|NCT00043186|183647721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.49|||<|0.001||95.0|9.66|15.32|||ANCOVA|||||15.32|9.66|<0.001
91746078|NCT01818258|183385431|SUPERIORITY||Mean|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|4.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in MUAC from entry to week 48 equal to 0||4.24|2.83|<0.0001
91746079|NCT00349921|183385437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the groups in proportion of patients meeting the success criterion of \>30% reduction in visual analog scale pain 120 min after intrathecal injection||||>0.05
91746080|NCT00810771|183385443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.873
91746081|NCT00810771|183385444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.671
91746082|NCT00810771|183385445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91746083|NCT00810771|183385446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.186
91746084|NCT00810771|183385447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.576
91746085|NCT00810771|183385448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91746086|NCT00107900|183385462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.238
91746087|NCT03724981|183385469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Prescott test|||||||<0.0001
91746088|NCT03724981|183385470|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Prescott test|||||||<0.0001
91746089|NCT02791191|183385484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.418
91746090|NCT02791191|183385484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.231
91746091|NCT02791191|183385485|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||White Matter Disease||||1.000
91746092|NCT02791191|183385485|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||White Matter Disease||||1.000
91746093|NCT02791191|183385485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.404
91746094|NCT02791191|183385485|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Cortical Superficial Siderous||||1.000
91746095|NCT02791191|183385485|SUPERIORITY|Lacunar Infarct||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91746096|NCT02791191|183385485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Lacunar Infarct||||0.457
91876906|NCT00043186|183647721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|||<|0.001||95.0|8.12|14.73|||ANCOVA|||||14.73|8.12|<0.001
91876907|NCT00043186|183647721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.32|||<|0.001||95.0|9.15|15.49|||ANCOVA|||||15.49|9.15|<0.001
91746097|NCT02791191|183385485|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other Infarct||||1.000
91746098|NCT02791191|183385485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other Infarct||||0.457
91746099|NCT02791191|183385486|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Vasogenic Edema||||1.000
91746100|NCT02791191|183385486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Vasogenic Edema||||0.457
91746101|NCT02791191|183385486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Fisher Exact|||Increase in Microhemorrhage||||0.703
91746102|NCT02791191|183385486|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Increase in Microhemorrhage||||1.000
91746103|NCT02791191|183385487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment Emergent Suicidal Ideation||||0.452
91746104|NCT02791191|183385487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279||||||TE Suicidal Ideation|Fisher Exact|||||||0.279
91746105|NCT02791191|183385487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||Fisher Exact|||Emergence of Suicidal Behavior||||0.293
91746106|NCT02791191|183385487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Fisher Exact|||Emergence of Suicidal Behavior||||0.486
91746107|NCT02791191|183385489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta||||<.001
91746108|NCT02791191|183385489|SUPERIORITY|Amyloid Beta|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91746109|NCT02791191|183385489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-40||||<.001
91746110|NCT02791191|183385489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-40||||<.001
91746111|NCT02791191|183385489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-42||||<.001
91746112|NCT02791191|183385489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-42||||<.001
91746113|NCT02791191|183385490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.970
91746114|NCT02791191|183385490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Meausres|||||||0.586
91746115|NCT02791191|183385491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.088
91746116|NCT02791191|183385491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.150
91746117|NCT02791191|183385492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.153
91746118|NCT02791191|183385492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.176
91746119|NCT02370537|183385494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of least-square means (LSmeans) for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|Geometric least-squares (GLS) Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.1|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.10|0.52|
91746120|NCT02370537|183385494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.72|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.72|0.32|
91800517|NCT01436396|183478134|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -10. The difference in percentage of seroconversion rates between group 1 and 2 was based on the Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI.|Difference in percentage|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.383||||||Non-inferiority of YF seroconversion rate was assessed 28 days post-Stamaril®/CYD dengue vaccine (CYD Dengue Vaccine Group) or post-Stamaril®/placebo (Placebo Group).||0.383|-2.81|
91876908|NCT00043186|183647721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.74|||<|0.001||95.0|8.72|14.76|||ANCOVA|||||14.76|8.72|<0.001
91876909|NCT00043186|183647722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876910|NCT00043186|183647722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876911|NCT00043186|183647722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876912|NCT00043186|183647722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91746121|NCT02370537|183385494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.82|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.82|0.44|
91746122|NCT02370537|183385495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.93|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.93|0.84|
91746123|NCT02370537|183385495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.25|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.25|0.51|
91746124|NCT02370537|183385495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.82|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.82|0.92|
91746125|NCT02370537|183385496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.28|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.28|0.63|
91746126|NCT02370537|183385496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.85|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.85|0.39|
91746127|NCT02370537|183385496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.0|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.00|0.55|
91800518|NCT01479127|183478152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS I OFF state"||||0.058
91876913|NCT00043186|183647722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.622
91876914|NCT00043186|183647722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876915|NCT00043186|183647722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876916|NCT00043186|183647722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876917|NCT00043186|183647723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
91876918|NCT00043186|183647723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876919|NCT00043186|183647723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
91876920|NCT00043186|183647723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91876921|NCT00043186|183647723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876922|NCT00043186|183647723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876923|NCT00043186|183647723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876924|NCT00043186|183647723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876925|NCT00043186|183647724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876926|NCT00043186|183647724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
91876927|NCT00043186|183647724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
91876928|NCT00043186|183647724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91746128|NCT02370537|183385497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.73|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.73|0.37|
91876929|NCT00043186|183647724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
91876930|NCT00043186|183647724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
91907367|NCT04041284|183709805|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change at Week 4: Fremanezumab versus Placebo|||0.03|-0.39|0.0915
91907368|NCT04041284|183709805|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change at Week 8: Fremanezumab versus Placebo|||-0.16|-0.59|0.0006
91907369|NCT04041284|183709805|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change at Week 12: Fremanezumab versus Placebo|||-0.12|-0.58|0.0030
91907370|NCT04041284|183709806|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.96|-5.15|<0.0001
91746129|NCT02370537|183385497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.67|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.67|0.32|
91746130|NCT02370537|183385497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.7|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.70|0.40|
91800519|NCT01479127|183478152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS I Dyskinesia state"||||1.000
91800520|NCT01479127|183478152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS II Normal state"||||0.153
91876931|NCT00043186|183647724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91876932|NCT00043186|183647724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91800521|NCT01479127|183478152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS II OFF state"||||0.140
91800522|NCT01479127|183478152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS II Dyskinesia state"||||0.374
91876933|NCT00043186|183647725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
91876934|NCT00043186|183647725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
91876935|NCT00043186|183647725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
91800523|NCT01479127|183478153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.574
91800524|NCT01479127|183478153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||ON time w/o D + time with NTD||||0.661
91800525|NCT01479127|183478153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||ON time w/o D + time with NTD + time w/ TD||||0.574
91800526|NCT01479127|183478154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Rapid alternating movement of hands||||0.500
91876936|NCT00043186|183647725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91876937|NCT00043186|183647725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91876938|NCT00043186|183647725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
91876939|NCT00043186|183647725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
91876940|NCT00043186|183647725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
91876941|NCT00043186|183647726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876942|NCT00043186|183647726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876943|NCT00043186|183647726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91907371|NCT03455491|183709815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3541|||||||Gekhan-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3541
91907372|NCT03455491|183709816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3597|||||||Gekhan-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3597
91907373|NCT03455491|183709818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4551|||||||ANOVA|one-way ANOVA||||||0.4551
91907374|NCT00884273|183709827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of prostate volume was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the prostate volume value closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|7.52||FAS.|ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||7.52|-2.78|0.36
91876944|NCT00043186|183647726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876945|NCT00043186|183647726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
91876946|NCT00043186|183647726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876947|NCT00043186|183647726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91876948|NCT00043186|183647726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91876949|NCT00043186|183647727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
91876950|NCT00043186|183647727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91876951|NCT00043186|183647727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
91876952|NCT00043186|183647727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91876953|NCT00043186|183647727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91746131|NCT02370537|183385498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of least-squares LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.36|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.36|0.77|
91876954|NCT00043186|183647727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91876955|NCT00043186|183647727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91876956|NCT00043186|183647727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91876957|NCT00043186|183647728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
91876958|NCT00043186|183647728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
91876959|NCT00043186|183647728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
91876960|NCT00043186|183647728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91876961|NCT00043186|183647728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
91876962|NCT00043186|183647728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
91876963|NCT00043186|183647728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
91876964|NCT00043186|183647728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
91876965|NCT00043186|183647729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
91876966|NCT00043186|183647729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.172
91876967|NCT00043186|183647729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
91876968|NCT00043186|183647729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
91876969|NCT00043186|183647729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
91876970|NCT00043186|183647729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.168
91876971|NCT00043186|183647729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.168
91876972|NCT00043186|183647729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.172
91876973|NCT00043186|183647730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.001||95.0|1.7|3.64|||ANCOVA|||||3.64|1.70|<0.001
91876974|NCT00043186|183647730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|3.89|||ANCOVA|||||3.89|1.90|<0.001
91876975|NCT00043186|183647730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||<|0.001||95.0|2.07|4.11|||ANCOVA|||||4.11|2.07|<0.001
91876976|NCT00043186|183647730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12|||<|0.001||95.0|3.13|5.11|||ANCOVA|||||5.11|3.13|<0.001
91876977|NCT00043186|183647730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001||95.0|1.55|3.46|||ANCOVA|||||3.46|1.55|<0.001
91876978|NCT00043186|183647730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89|||<|0.001||95.0|2.83|4.95|||ANCOVA|||||4.95|2.83|<0.001
91876979|NCT00043186|183647730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|||<|0.001||95.0|1.99|4.04|||ANCOVA|||||4.04|1.99|<0.001
91876980|NCT00043186|183647730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.46|||<|0.001||95.0|2.43|4.48|||ANCOVA|||||4.48|2.43|<0.001
91876981|NCT00043186|183647731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|||<|0.001||95.0|4.04|6.34|||ANCOVA|||||6.34|4.04|<0.001
91876982|NCT00043186|183647731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|||<|0.001||95.0|4.93|7.27|||ANCOVA|||||7.27|4.93|<0.001
91876983|NCT00043186|183647731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59|||<|0.001||95.0|4.4|6.78|||ANCOVA|||||6.78|4.40|<0.001
91876984|NCT00043186|183647731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.89|||<|0.001||95.0|5.76|8.01|||ANCOVA|||||8.01|5.76|<0.001
91876985|NCT00043186|183647731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||<|0.001||95.0|3.41|5.67|||ANCOVA|||||5.67|3.41|<0.001
91876986|NCT00043186|183647731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.95|||<|0.001||95.0|5.69|8.21|||ANCOVA|||||8.21|5.69|<0.001
91876987|NCT00043186|183647731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|||<|0.001||95.0|4.29|6.67|||ANCOVA|||||6.67|4.29|<0.001
91876988|NCT00043186|183647731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.97|||<|0.001||95.0|4.76|7.17|||ANCOVA|||||7.17|4.76|<0.001
91876989|NCT00043186|183647732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.78|||<|0.001||95.0|2.19|5.36|||ANCOVA|||||5.36|2.19|<0.001
91746132|NCT02370537|183385498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.25|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.25|0.67|
91876990|NCT00043186|183647732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.07||95.0|-0.12|2.94|||ANCOVA|||||2.94|-0.12|0.07
91876991|NCT00043186|183647732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.17|||<|0.001||95.0|5.54|8.8|||ANCOVA|||||8.80|5.54|<0.001
91876992|NCT00043186|183647732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.67|||<|0.001||95.0|7.13|10.21|||ANCOVA|||||10.21|7.13|<0.001
91876993|NCT00043186|183647732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.15|||<|0.001||95.0|5.62|8.69|||ANCOVA|||||8.69|5.62|<0.001
91876994|NCT00043186|183647732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.07||95.0|-0.12|3.35|||ANCOVA|||||3.35|-0.12|0.07
91746133|NCT02370537|183385498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.4|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.40|0.88|
91746134|NCT02370537|183385499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.92|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.92|0.49|
91746135|NCT02370537|183385499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.84|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.84|0.42|
91746136|NCT02370537|183385499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.9|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.90|0.54|
91800527|NCT01479127|183478154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Arising from chair||||1.000
91800528|NCT01479127|183478154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Postural stability||||0.250
91876995|NCT00043186|183647732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.26|||<|0.001||95.0|5.56|8.95|||ANCOVA|||||8.95|5.56|<0.001
91876996|NCT00043186|183647732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.63|||<|0.001||95.0|6.02|9.24|||ANCOVA|||||9.24|6.02|<0.001
91876997|NCT00043186|183647733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.94||||0.002||95.0|1.86|8.02|||ANCOVA|||||8.02|1.86|0.002
91876998|NCT00043186|183647733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.677||95.0|-4.1|2.68|||ANCOVA|||||2.68|-4.10|0.677
91876999|NCT00043186|183647733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.66||||0.001||95.0|3.14|10.18|||ANCOVA|||||10.18|3.14|0.001
91877000|NCT00043186|183647733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.29|||<|0.001||95.0|5.26|11.33|||ANCOVA|||||11.33|5.26|<0.001
91877001|NCT00043186|183647733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||<|0.001||95.0|3.59|9.41|||ANCOVA|||||9.41|3.59|<0.001
91877002|NCT00043186|183647733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||0.047||95.0|0.61|8.05|||ANCOVA|||||8.05|0.61|0.047
91877003|NCT00043186|183647733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.94||||0.003||95.0|2.53|9.36|||ANCOVA|||||9.36|2.53|0.003
91877004|NCT00043186|183647733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.97||||0.001||95.0|3.28|10.66|||ANCOVA|||||10.66|3.28|0.001
91877005|NCT00043186|183647734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.69|||<|0.001||95.0|2.97|6.41|||ANCOVA|||||6.41|2.97|<0.001
91877006|NCT00043186|183647734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16||||0.015||95.0|0.43|3.89|||ANCOVA|||||3.89|0.43|0.015
91877007|NCT00043186|183647734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.52|||<|0.001||95.0|6.74|10.3|||ANCOVA|||||10.30|6.74|<0.001
91877008|NCT00043186|183647734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.58|||<|0.001||95.0|7.95|11.21|||ANCOVA|||||11.21|7.95|<0.001
91877009|NCT00043186|183647734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.34|||<|0.001||95.0|6.7|9.99|||ANCOVA|||||9.99|6.70|<0.001
91877010|NCT00043186|183647734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.38|||<|0.001||95.0|5.45|9.31|||ANCOVA|||||9.31|5.45|<0.001
91877011|NCT00043186|183647734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.55|||<|0.001||95.0|5.72|9.38|||ANCOVA|||||9.38|5.72|<0.001
91746137|NCT00678535|183385508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.3158||95.0|0.92|1.292|||Stratified log rank||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.|Primary efficacy analysis: To test equality of progression free survival time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (randomization strata: disease stage, previous oesophagectomy/gastrectomy and prior(neo-) adjuvant(radio) chemotherapy, α=5%).||1.292|0.920|0.3158
91746138|NCT00678535|183385509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004||||0.9547||95.0|0.866|1.165|||Stratified log rank||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.|To test equality of OS time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (randomization strata: disease stage, previous oesophagectomy/gastrectomy and prior (neo-) adjuvant(radio) chemotherapy, α=5%)||1.165|0.866|0.9547
91746139|NCT00678535|183385510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0435||||0.7696||95.0|0.7844|1.3882|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The best overall response rate was compared with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (strata: disease stage, previous oesophagectomy/gastrectomy and prior(neo-) adjuvant(radio) chemotherapy, two-sided with α=5%).||1.3882|0.7844|0.7696
91746140|NCT03817463|183385569|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.7|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.83|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-(broad+specific)||0.83|0.60|<0.005
91746141|NCT03817463|183385569|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.66|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.78|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline||HHF-(broad + specific).||0.78|0.57|<0.005
91746142|NCT03817463|183385570|OTHER||Ajusted hazard ratio|0.75|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-broad.||0.81|0.69|<0.005
91746143|NCT03817463|183385570|OTHER||Ajusted hazard ratio|0.78|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.88|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-broad.||0.88|0.69|<0.005
91746144|NCT03817463|183385571|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.68|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.83|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-specific. Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.83|0.56|<0.005
91746145|NCT03817463|183385571|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.64|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-specific. Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.81|0.51|<0.005
91746146|NCT03817463|183385572|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.55|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.63|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.63|0.48|<0.005
91746147|NCT03817463|183385572|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.59|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.65|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.65|0.54|<0.005
91746148|NCT03817463|183385573|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.76|0.56|<0.05
91746149|NCT03817463|183385573|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.66|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.72|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.72|0.61|<0.005
91746150|NCT03817463|183385574|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.72|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.82|0.64|<0.005
91746151|NCT03817463|183385574|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.72|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.78|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.78|0.66|<0.005
91746152|NCT03817463|183385575|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.18|0.88|0.816
91877012|NCT00043186|183647734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.97|||<|0.001||95.0|7.23|10.72|||ANCOVA|||||10.72|7.23|<0.001
91877013|NCT00043186|183647735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.033||95.0|0.11|2.76|||ANCOVA|||||2.76|0.11|0.033
91746153|NCT03817463|183385575|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.87||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.97|0.78|0.013
91746154|NCT03817463|183385576|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.82|||<|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.96|0.71|<0.011
91877014|NCT00043186|183647735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06|||<|0.001||95.0|1.69|4.42|||ANCOVA|||||4.42|1.69|<0.001
91877015|NCT00043186|183647735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.04|||<|0.001||95.0|1.68|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.40|1.68|<0.001
91746155|NCT03817463|183385576|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.84||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.01|0.69|0.064
91746156|NCT03817463|183385577|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.59|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.84|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.84|0.42|<0.005
91746157|NCT03817463|183385577|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.6|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.72|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.72|0.49|<0.005
91877016|NCT00043186|183647735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|||<|0.001||95.0|1.94|4.57|||ANCOVA|||||4.57|1.94|<0.001
91877017|NCT00043186|183647735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91|||<|0.001||95.0|1.6|4.21|||ANCOVA|||||4.21|1.60|<0.001
91746158|NCT03817463|183385578|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.54|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.64|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.64|0.46|<0.005
91746159|NCT03817463|183385578|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.56|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.66|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.66|0.47|<0.005
91746160|NCT03817463|183385579|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.11|0.81|0.545
91746161|NCT03817463|183385579|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.91||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.99|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.99|0.83|0.036
91746162|NCT03817463|183385580|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.93||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.09|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.09|0.79|0.353
91746163|NCT03817463|183385580|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.9||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.05|0.78|0.197
91746164|NCT03817463|183385581|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.43|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.63|0.30|<0.005
91746165|NCT03817463|183385581|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.27|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.44|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.44|0.16|<0.005
91877018|NCT00043186|183647735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07|||<|0.001||95.0|1.65|4.49|||ANCOVA|||||4.49|1.65|<0.001
91746166|NCT03817463|183385582|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.05||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.25|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.25|0.89|0.535
91746167|NCT03817463|183385582|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.98||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.15|0.84|0.850
91746168|NCT03817463|183385583|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.03||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.31|0.81|0.828
91800529|NCT01479127|183478154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Body bradykinesia and hypokinesia||||0.500
91800530|NCT01479127|183478154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Dyskinesia||||0.250
91877019|NCT00043186|183647735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|||<|0.001||95.0|0.99|3.76|||ANCOVA|||||3.76|0.99|<0.001
91877020|NCT00043186|183647735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|||<|0.001||95.0|1.47|4.24|||ANCOVA|||||4.24|1.47|<0.001
91877021|NCT00043186|183647736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99||||0.009||95.0|0.49|3.49|||ANCOVA|||||3.49|0.49|0.009
91877022|NCT00043186|183647736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.58|||<|0.001||95.0|2.06|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.10|2.06|<0.001
91877023|NCT00043186|183647736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|||<|0.001||95.0|2.73|5.78|||ANCOVA|||||5.78|2.73|<0.001
91877024|NCT00043186|183647736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|||<|0.001||95.0|2.55|5.62|||ANCOVA|||||5.62|2.55|<0.001
91877025|NCT00043186|183647736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.67|||<|0.001||95.0|3.23|6.11|||ANCOVA|||||6.11|3.23|<0.001
91746169|NCT03817463|183385583|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.42|0.72|0.944
91746170|NCT03817463|183385584|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.94||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.22|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.22|0.73|0.642
91746171|NCT03817463|183385584|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.89||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.19|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.19|0.66|0.417
91746172|NCT03817463|183385585|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.89||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.02|0.77|0.091
91800531|NCT01479127|183478155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Total score||||0.870
91800532|NCT01479127|183478155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part I||||0.374
91800533|NCT01479127|183478155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part II||||0.799
91800534|NCT01479127|183478155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part II (Off-time)||||0.493
91800535|NCT01479127|183478155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part III||||0.530
91800536|NCT01479127|183478155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part IV sub-score of dyskinesia||||0.108
91800537|NCT01479127|183478156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Total score||||0.636
91800538|NCT01479127|183478156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Mobility||||0.329
91800539|NCT01479127|183478156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Activities of daily living||||0.902
91800540|NCT01479127|183478156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Emotional well-being||||0.220
91800541|NCT01479127|183478156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Stigma||||0.799
91800542|NCT01479127|183478156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Social support||||0.178
91800543|NCT01479127|183478156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Cognition||||0.456
91800544|NCT01479127|183478156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.866|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Communication||||0.866
91800545|NCT01479127|183478156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Bodily discomfort||||0.576
91800546|NCT01479127|183478157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||"On state staging"||||1.000
91800547|NCT01479127|183478157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||"Off state staging"||||1.000
91800548|NCT01479127|183478158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||||||0.125
91800549|NCT01479127|183478163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.074
91800550|NCT03469934|183478173|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.058||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.15|||Mixed-model repeated measures|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with fixed terms for treatment, time point of measurement, and treatment by time point interaction, baseline eosinophil count as a covariate, and a repeated time point effect within a participant.||0.150|-0.265|0.5703
91800551|NCT03469934|183478177|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.139|||Mixed-model repeated measures|||MMRM analysis with fixed terms for treatment, time point of measurement, and treatment by time point interaction, baseline eosinophil count as a covariate, and a repeated time point effect within a participant.||0.139|-0.239|0.5901
91800552|NCT03469934|183478178|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline for FEV1 was compared between etokimab and placebo using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as fixed effect and baseline result as covariate and participant as a random effect||0.43|-0.25|0.5960
91800553|NCT03469934|183478179|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.823||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|22.96|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline for FeNO was compared between etokimab and placebo using an ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline result as covariate and participant as a random effect||22.96|-17.90|0.7993
91800554|NCT05280782|183478193|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Systolic Blood Pressure values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Systolic Blood Pressure values were normal.|||
91800555|NCT05280782|183478193|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Diastolic Blood Pressure values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Diastolic Blood Pressure values were normal.|||
91800556|NCT05280782|183478194|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Heart Rate values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Heart Rate values were normal.|||
91877026|NCT00043186|183647736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.26|||<|0.001||95.0|3.78|6.73|||ANCOVA|||||6.73|3.78|<0.001
91800557|NCT05280782|183478195|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Respiratory Rate values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.016||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.016
91800558|NCT05280782|183478196|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Temperature values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Temperature values were normal.|||
91800559|NCT05280782|183478197|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection EKG. The outcomes were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the EKGs were normal.|||
91800560|NCT05280782|183478198|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection EKG. The outcomes were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the EKGs were normal.|||
91800561|NCT05280782|183478199|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Sodium values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Sodium values were normal.|||
91800562|NCT05280782|183478199|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Potassium values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Potassium values were normal.|||
91800563|NCT05280782|183478199|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Chloride values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Chloride values were normal.|||
91877027|NCT00043186|183647736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||<|0.001||95.0|2.48|5.68|||ANCOVA|||||5.68|2.48|<0.001
91800564|NCT05280782|183478199|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection CO2 values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
91877028|NCT00043186|183647736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|||<|0.001||95.0|1.86|4.93|||ANCOVA|||||4.93|1.86|<0.001
91877029|NCT00043186|183647737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69||||0.002||95.0|1.01|4.38|||ANCOVA|||||4.38|1.01|0.002
91877030|NCT00043186|183647737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77|||<|0.001||95.0|2.14|5.39|||ANCOVA|||||5.39|2.14|<0.001
91877031|NCT00043186|183647737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||<|0.001||95.0|3.87|7.26|||ANCOVA|||||7.26|3.87|<0.001
91877032|NCT00043186|183647737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|||<|0.001||95.0|4.75|7.92|||ANCOVA|||||7.92|4.75|<0.001
91877033|NCT00043186|183647737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.73|||<|0.001||95.0|4.12|7.33|||ANCOVA|||||7.33|4.12|<0.001
91877034|NCT00043186|183647737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||<|0.001||95.0|2.89|6.5|||ANCOVA|||||6.50|2.89|<0.001
91877035|NCT00043186|183647737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||<|0.001||95.0|2.92|6.49|||ANCOVA|||||6.49|2.92|<0.001
91877036|NCT00043186|183647737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.63|||<|0.001||95.0|3.96|7.3|||ANCOVA|||||7.30|3.96|<0.001
91877037|NCT00043186|183647738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27||||0.496||95.0|-7.16|13.7|||ANCOVA|||||13.7|-7.16|0.496
91877038|NCT00043186|183647738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.527||95.0|-6.38|19.59|||ANCOVA|||||19.59|-6.38|0.527
91877039|NCT00043186|183647738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.72||||0.503||95.0|-2.9|14.33|||ANCOVA|||||14.33|-2.90|0.503
91746173|NCT03817463|183385586|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.97|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.03|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||3.03|1.28|<0.005
91746174|NCT03817463|183385587|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.2|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.20|0.75|0.654
91877040|NCT00043186|183647738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.68||||0.527||95.0|-6.54|11.89|||ANCOVA|||||11.89|-6.54|0.527
91877041|NCT00043186|183647738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41||||0.503||95.0|-2.19|17.01|||ANCOVA|||||17.01|-2.19|0.503
91877042|NCT00043186|183647738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.59||||0.503||95.0|-1.85|17.03|||ANCOVA|||||17.03|-1.85|0.503
91877043|NCT00043186|183647738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.18||||0.503||95.0|-2.45|16.81|||ANCOVA|||||16.81|-2.45|0.503
91877044|NCT00043186|183647738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88||||0.233||95.0|0.78|14.97|||ANCOVA|||||14.97|0.78|0.233
91877045|NCT00043186|183647739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.41|||<|0.001||95.0|4.48|8.34|||ANCOVA|||||8.34|4.48|<0.001
91877046|NCT00043186|183647739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.44|||<|0.001||95.0|4.19|8.7|||ANCOVA|||||8.70|4.19|<0.001
91877047|NCT00043186|183647739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.09|||<|0.001||95.0|3.91|8.26|||ANCOVA|||||8.26|3.91|<0.001
91877048|NCT00043186|183647739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.72|||<|0.001||95.0|3.7|7.73|||ANCOVA|||||7.73|3.70|<0.001
91877049|NCT00043186|183647739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.054||95.0|-0.04|4.04|||ANCOVA|||||4.04|-0.04|0.054
91746175|NCT03817463|183385588|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.78||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.17|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.17|0.52|0.233
91877050|NCT00043186|183647739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.71|5.77|||ANCOVA|||||5.77|1.71|<0.001
91877051|NCT00043186|183647739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.05|||<|0.001||95.0|4.0|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.10|4.00|<0.001
91877052|NCT00043186|183647739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.39|||<|0.001||95.0|4.49|8.28|||ANCOVA|||||8.28|4.49|<0.001
91877053|NCT00043186|183647740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.001||95.0|1.09|3.51|||ANCOVA|||||3.51|1.09|0.001
91877054|NCT00043186|183647740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73||||0.005||95.0|0.52|2.93|||ANCOVA|||||2.93|0.52|0.005
91877055|NCT00043186|183647740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.004||95.0|0.74|3.25|||ANCOVA|||||3.25|0.74|0.004
91877056|NCT00043186|183647740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|||<|0.001||95.0|1.54|3.91|||ANCOVA|||||3.91|1.54|<0.001
91877057|NCT00043186|183647740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.202||95.0|-0.41|1.95|||ANCOVA|||||1.95|-0.41|0.202
91877058|NCT00043186|183647740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95|||<|0.001||95.0|1.65|4.26|||ANCOVA|||||4.26|1.65|<0.001
91877059|NCT00043186|183647740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.004||95.0|0.78|3.26|||ANCOVA|||||3.26|0.78|0.004
91877060|NCT00043186|183647740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.004||95.0|0.8|3.27|||ANCOVA|||||3.27|0.80|0.004
91877061|NCT00043186|183647741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.14|||<|0.001||95.0|1.71|4.56|||ANCOVA|||||4.56|1.71|<0.001
91877062|NCT00043186|183647741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||<|0.001||95.0|2.95|5.84|||ANCOVA|||||5.84|2.95|<0.001
91877063|NCT00043186|183647741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.64|||<|0.001||95.0|3.19|6.09|||ANCOVA|||||6.09|3.19|<0.001
91877064|NCT00043186|183647741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|||<|0.001||95.0|2.85|5.58|||ANCOVA|||||5.58|2.85|<0.001
91877065|NCT00043186|183647741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53|||<|0.001||95.0|1.13|3.94|||ANCOVA|||||3.94|1.13|<0.001
91877066|NCT00043186|183647741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.09|||<|0.001||95.0|4.53|7.64|||ANCOVA|||||7.64|4.53|<0.001
91877067|NCT00043186|183647741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.55|||<|0.001||95.0|3.12|5.98|||ANCOVA|||||5.98|3.12|<0.001
91877068|NCT00043186|183647741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|||<|0.001||95.0|2.76|5.69|||ANCOVA|||||5.69|2.76|<0.001
91877069|NCT00043186|183647742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.16|||<|0.001||95.0|3.63|8.68|||ANCOVA|||||8.68|3.63|<0.001
91877070|NCT00043186|183647742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.275||95.0|-1.06|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-1.06|0.275
91877071|NCT00043186|183647742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.005||95.0|1.65|6.75|||ANCOVA|||||6.75|1.65|0.005
91877072|NCT00043186|183647742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.002||95.0|2.07|6.75|||ANCOVA|||||6.75|2.07|0.002
91877073|NCT00043186|183647742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.009||95.0|1.25|6.05|||ANCOVA|||||6.05|1.25|0.009
91877074|NCT00043186|183647742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95||||0.009||95.0|1.22|6.68|||ANCOVA|||||6.68|1.22|0.009
91877075|NCT00043186|183647742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.65||||0.003||95.0|2.05|7.24|||ANCOVA|||||7.24|2.05|0.003
91877076|NCT00043186|183647742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.001||95.0|2.28|7.22|||ANCOVA|||||7.22|2.28|0.001
91746176|NCT03817463|183385589|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.56|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.82|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.82|0.38|<0.005
91746177|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.8|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visits - Finland||0.80|0.69|
91746178|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.38|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visits - Japan||1.38|0.59|
91746179|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visits - South Korea||1.00|0.82|
91746180|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visit - Spain||0.87|0.59|
91746181|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visit - Sweden||1.01|0.87|
91746182|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visit - Taiwan||0.93|0.80|
91746183|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.85|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Finland||0.85|0.75|
91746184|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.84|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Japan||0.84|0.68|
91800565|NCT05280782|183478200|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Glucose values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
91877077|NCT00043186|183647743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.949||95.0|-8.73|13.1|||ANCOVA|||||13.10|-8.73|0.949
91877078|NCT00043186|183647743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.949||95.0|-2.7|9.31|||ANCOVA|||||9.31|-2.70|0.949
91877079|NCT00043186|183647743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.709||95.0|-6.81|9.29|||ANCOVA|||||9.29|-6.81|0.709
91877080|NCT00043186|183647743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.949||95.0|-8.55|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-8.55|0.949
91877081|NCT00043186|183647743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.949||95.0|-4.51|8.72|||ANCOVA|||||8.72|-4.51|0.949
91877082|NCT00043186|183647743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.23||||0.484||95.0|-0.83|15.3|||ANCOVA|||||15.3|-0.83|0.484
91877083|NCT00043186|183647743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.949||95.0|-3.77|8.66|||ANCOVA|||||8.66|-3.77|0.949
91877084|NCT00043186|183647743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.949||95.0|-10.82|11.4|||ANCOVA|||||11.40|-10.82|0.949
91877085|NCT00043186|183647744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.02|||<|0.001||95.0|4.35|9.69|||ANCOVA|||||9.69|4.35|<0.001
91877086|NCT00043186|183647744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.092||95.0|-0.37|4.87|||ANCOVA|||||4.87|-0.37|0.092
91877087|NCT00043186|183647744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22|||<|0.001||95.0|3.5|8.94|||ANCOVA|||||8.94|3.50|<0.001
91877088|NCT00043186|183647744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.97|||<|0.001||95.0|3.51|8.43|||ANCOVA|||||8.43|3.51|<0.001
91877089|NCT00043186|183647744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|||<|0.001||95.0|3.44|8.48|||ANCOVA|||||8.48|3.44|<0.001
91877090|NCT00043186|183647744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.29|||<|0.001||95.0|3.25|9.34|||ANCOVA|||||9.34|3.25|<0.001
91877091|NCT00043186|183647744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91|||<|0.001||95.0|3.13|8.7|||ANCOVA|||||8.70|3.13|<0.001
91877092|NCT00043186|183647744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22|||<|0.001||95.0|3.58|8.87|||ANCOVA|||||8.87|3.58|<0.001
91877093|NCT00043186|183647745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877094|NCT00043186|183647745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877095|NCT00043186|183647745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877096|NCT00043186|183647745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877097|NCT00043186|183647745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877098|NCT00043186|183647745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877099|NCT00043186|183647745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877100|NCT00043186|183647745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877101|NCT00043186|183647746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877102|NCT00043186|183647746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877103|NCT00043186|183647746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877104|NCT00043186|183647746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877105|NCT00043186|183647746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91877106|NCT00043186|183647746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877107|NCT00043186|183647746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877108|NCT00043186|183647746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877109|NCT00043186|183647747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
91877110|NCT00043186|183647747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91746185|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.82|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - South Korea||0.82|0.69|
91746186|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.94|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Norway||0.94|0.78|
91746187|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Spain||0.89|0.66|
91746188|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Sweden||0.93|0.81|
91746189|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.86|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Taiwan||0.86|0.74|
91800566|NCT05280782|183478200|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Calcium values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
91877111|NCT00043186|183647747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877112|NCT00043186|183647747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877113|NCT00043186|183647747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91746190|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.71|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions||0.71|0.64|
91746191|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.76|||||Poisson regression model was used.|For all-cause hospital admissions - Japan||0.76|0.63|
91746192|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.75|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - South Korea||0.75|0.66|
91746193|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.85|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - Norway||0.85|0.77|
91746194|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.77|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - Spain||0.77|0.60|
91800567|NCT05280782|183478200|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Creatinine values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.453||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.453
91877114|NCT00043186|183647747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.146
91877115|NCT00043186|183647747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91877116|NCT00043186|183647747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877117|NCT00043186|183647748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.061
91877118|NCT00043186|183647748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
91877119|NCT00043186|183647748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91877120|NCT00043186|183647748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877121|NCT00043186|183647748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877122|NCT00043186|183647748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91877123|NCT00043186|183647748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91877124|NCT00043186|183647748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91877125|NCT00043186|183647749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.142
91877126|NCT00043186|183647749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.218
91877127|NCT00043186|183647749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91877128|NCT00043186|183647749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
91877129|NCT00043186|183647749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91877130|NCT00043186|183647749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
91877131|NCT00043186|183647749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
91877132|NCT00043186|183647749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
91877133|NCT04050722|183647764|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.04||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product group, gender, and baseline MGI stratification (low/high) as factors and the baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.08|<0.0001
91877134|NCT03924947|183647779|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin of upper bound of the two-sided 99% confidence interval for the treatment difference was 12%.|Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.176|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.37|4.259|||||LS mean (standard error \[SE\]) and LS mean confidence interval (CI) are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Double Blind Creon - Double Blind Creon MP||4.259|-2.370|
91877135|NCT03924947|183647780|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.456|2.392|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon MP||2.392|-2.456|
91877136|NCT03924947|183647780|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.005|1.345|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon AAPIS||1.345|-3.005|
91877137|NCT03924947|183647781|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.541|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.699|3.987|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon MP||3.987|-10.699|
91877138|NCT03924947|183647781|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.016|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.172|11.702|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|DB Creon - DB Creon AAPIS||11.702|-5.172|
91877139|NCT03924947|183647782|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|34.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.424|163.786|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon MP||163.786|-94.424|
91877140|NCT03924947|183647782|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-16.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.858|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.418|111.298|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|DB Creon - DB Creon AAPIS||111.298|-144.418|
91877141|NCT03924947|183647783|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin of upper bound of the two-sided 99% confidence interval for the treatment difference was 12%.|LS Mean of Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.302|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.892|2.602|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Double Blind Creon - Double Blind Creon AAPIS||2.602|-4.892|
91877142|NCT03451292|183647804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1|||Cox Proportional- Hazards (PH) model|||Stratification factors included were the region (Europe or North America) and history of hospitalization for acute decompensation of liver cirrhosis (yes or no).||1.10|0.58|0.17
91907375|NCT00884273|183709836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of prostate volume was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the prostate volume value closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.24||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.58||PP.|ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||7.58|-3.10|0.41
91907376|NCT03710486|183709902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||=|0.13202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by propensity scores inverse probability treatment weighting (PS-IPTW).|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.16|0.32|=0.13202
91746195|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.89|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - Sweden||0.89|0.80|
91746196|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87||||||All-cause hospital admissions - Taiwan||0.87|0.72|
91877143|NCT01090076|183647868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
91877144|NCT01090076|183647869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.877||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.877
91877145|NCT01090076|183647870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91877146|NCT02253147|183647891|NON_INFERIORITY|"A WSRS change of 1 grade is considered to be clinically significant. A difference of ≤0.5 grade between the two treatment groups (i.e., half of the clinically significant difference) = non-inferiority margin.~The primary efficacy endpoint uses a paired-design and is analyzed by calculating two-sided confidence intervals of the mean difference between TEOSYAL® RHA UD and the control device, between the V1 enrollment visit (baseline) and V7 (24 weeks after baseline)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.11|||||The decision is based on the upper limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the difference for the change from baseline, between test and comparator treatment. For achieving non-inferiority, the upper confidence limit of a 95.0% CI must be ≤0.5|"Efficacy of TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep versus control is analyzed in a non-inferiority statistical model using the 5-grade Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) as rated by the Blinded Live Evaluator at 24 weeks after baseline.~The primary endpoint is the aesthetic improvement from pre-injection of the NLF at the side of the face treated with TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep compared to the one at the side of the face treated with the control device, as assessed by the BLE at 24 weeks after baseline."||-0.11|-0.34|
91877147|NCT02469077|183647945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.12
91877148|NCT02469077|183647946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.04
91877149|NCT02469077|183647947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.03
91877150|NCT02469077|183647948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.17
91877151|NCT02469077|183647949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.13
91746197|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.79|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Finland||0.79|0.77|
91746198|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.97|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Japan||0.97|0.94|
91746199|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.97|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - South Korea||0.97|0.96|
91746200|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.97||||||Outpatient healthcare visits - Norway||0.97|0.94|
91877152|NCT02469077|183647950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.98
91877153|NCT02469077|183647951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.52
91877154|NCT02469077|183647952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.65
91877155|NCT02469077|183647953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.1
91877156|NCT02469077|183647954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.046
91877157|NCT02469077|183647955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.61
91877158|NCT02469077|183647956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.4
91877159|NCT02469077|183647957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.57
91907377|NCT03710486|183709903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||=|0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.13|0.65|=0.5861
91746201|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.91|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visit - Spain||0.91|0.85|
91746202|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.98|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Sweden||0.98|0.94|
91746203|NCT03817463|183385590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Taiwan||1.00|0.94|
91746204|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.94|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different antidiabetic drugs - Japan||0.94|0.89|
91746205|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different antidiabetic drugs - South Korea||0.93|0.81|
91746206|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.11|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different antidiabetic drugs - Taiwan||1.11|1.08|
91746207|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.12|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Finland||1.12|1.10|
91746208|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.83|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Japan||0.83|0.81|
91746209|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - South Korea||1.00|0.99|
91746210|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.14|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Norway||1.14|1.11|
91746211|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.27|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Sweden||1.27|1.25|
91746212|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Taiwan||1.02|0.98|
91746213|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.02|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Finland||1.02|1.01|
91746214|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.84|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Japan||0.84|0.82|
91746215|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - South Korea||1.01|0.99|
91746216|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.93|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Norway||0.93|0.92|
91746217|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.87|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Spain||0.87|0.84|
91746218|NCT03817463|183385591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Sweden||1.00|1.00|
91800568|NCT05280782|183478200|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection BUN values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.125||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.125
91877160|NCT02973477|183647958|OTHER|Mixed effects model|Coefficient|0.28||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.8||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted mixed models analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change.||0.8|-0.24|0.28
91877161|NCT02973477|183647959|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.003||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted analysis to compare the difference between the values from baseline to 12 weeks between each intervention for SDNN.||0.15|-0.16|0.97
91877162|NCT02973477|183647959|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.16||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted analysis to compare the difference between the values from baseline to 12 weeks between each intervention for rmsSD.||0.16|-0.21|0.79
91907378|NCT03710486|183709906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||=|0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.19|0.35|=0.1648
91907379|NCT03710486|183709907|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||=|0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.20|0.36|=0.1732
91800569|NCT05280782|183478200|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Total Bilirubin values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
91800570|NCT05280782|183478201|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Total Protein values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Total Protein values were normal.|||
91877163|NCT02973477|183647960|OTHER||Coefficient|0.01||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of EI ratio.||0.04|-0.02|0.58
91877164|NCT02973477|183647960|OTHER||Coefficient|0.02||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome. Coefficient provided for Valsalva ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of Valsalva ratio.||0.09|-0.05|0.58
91746219|NCT03817463|183385592|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.94|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total cost - Finland||0.94|0.83|
91746220|NCT03817463|183385592|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - Norway||1.12|0.86|
91746221|NCT03817463|183385592|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.05|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - Sweden||1.05|0.92|
91746222|NCT03817463|183385593|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.88|||||Poisson regression model was used.|||0.88|0.80|
91746223|NCT03817463|183385594|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.68|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - South Korea||1.68|0.34|
91746224|NCT03817463|183385595|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.03|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - Taiwan||1.03|0.92|
91746225|NCT01018134|183385654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4261|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.4261
91746226|NCT01018134|183385654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4219|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.4219
91746227|NCT01018134|183385654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1826
91746228|NCT01018134|183385654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0090
91746229|NCT01018134|183385654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3421|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.3421
91746230|NCT01018134|183385654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0100
91746231|NCT01018134|183385654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2103|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2103
91746232|NCT01018134|183385654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1200
91746233|NCT01018134|183385655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2631|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2631
91746234|NCT01018134|183385655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2968|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2968
91746235|NCT01018134|183385655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186||||||statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0186
91800571|NCT05280782|183478201|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Albumin values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
91800572|NCT05280782|183478202|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Alkaline Phosphatase values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Alkaline Phosphatase values were normal.|||
91746236|NCT01018134|183385655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361||||||statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0361
91746237|NCT01018134|183385655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0070
91746238|NCT01018134|183385655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1583|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1583
91746239|NCT01018134|183385655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2078|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2078
91746240|NCT01018134|183385655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2878|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2878
91746241|NCT01018134|183385656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2713
91746242|NCT01018134|183385656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2689|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2689
91746243|NCT01018134|183385656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0419
91746244|NCT01018134|183385656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0309
91746245|NCT01018134|183385656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1126
91746246|NCT01018134|183385656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0033
91746247|NCT01018134|183385656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4967
91746248|NCT01018134|183385656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0749
91746249|NCT01018134|183385657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2442|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2442
91746250|NCT01018134|183385657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2664|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2664
91746251|NCT01018134|183385657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1328|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1328
91746252|NCT01018134|183385657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0528
91746253|NCT01018134|183385657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0297|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0297
91746254|NCT01018134|183385657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0093
91746255|NCT01018134|183385657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2230
91746256|NCT01018134|183385657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1924|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1924
91746257|NCT01018134|183385658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2397|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2397
91746258|NCT01018134|183385658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3794|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3794
91746259|NCT01018134|183385658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0383
91746260|NCT01018134|183385658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0154
91877165|NCT02973477|183647960|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.01||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome. Coefficient provided for 30:15 ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of 30:15 ratio.||0.03|-0.05|0.56
91746261|NCT01018134|183385658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1892|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1892
91746262|NCT01018134|183385658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
91746263|NCT01018134|183385658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0363|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0363
91746264|NCT01018134|183385658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2162
91746265|NCT01751906|183385660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9256|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9256
91746266|NCT01751906|183385661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5040
91746267|NCT01751906|183385662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2126|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2126
91746268|NCT01751906|183385689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0665|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0665
91746269|NCT01981863|183385713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91746270|NCT02383420|183385727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.415
91746271|NCT02383420|183385728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0000
91800573|NCT05280782|183478202|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection ALT values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
91800574|NCT05280782|183478202|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection AST values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the AST values were normal.|||
91746272|NCT00420004|183385729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.494
91746273|NCT03002818|183385749|SUPERIORITY||mean change|-108266.0||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235037.0|18504.0|||one-sample t-test|||sdITT (n=26): Change at Day 168 minus Baseline||18504|-235037|0.091
91746274|NCT03002818|183385749|SUPERIORITY||mean change|-98373.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235667.0|38921.0|||one-sample t-test|||mITT (n=24): Change at Day 168 minus Baseline||38921|-235667|0.152
91746275|NCT03002818|183385749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||paired t-test|||sdITT (n=26): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.091
91746276|NCT03002818|183385749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||paired t-test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.152
91746277|NCT03002818|183385750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||paired t-test|||sdITT (n=34): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.461
91746278|NCT03002818|183385750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||paired t-test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.630
91746279|NCT03002818|183385750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||paired t-test|||sdITT (n=32): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.855
91746280|NCT03002818|183385750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||paired t-test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.750
91746281|NCT03002818|183385751|SUPERIORITY||mean change|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.063|3.137||||||sdITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||3.137|2.063|
91746282|NCT03002818|183385751|SUPERIORITY||mean change|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.212|3.428||||||mITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||3.428|2.212|
91746283|NCT03002818|183385751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=37): Baseline vs. Day 168||||<0.001
91746284|NCT03002818|183385751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 168||||<0.001
91746285|NCT03002818|183385751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=35): Baseline vs. Day 28||||<0.001
91746286|NCT03002818|183385751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=22): Baseline vs. Day 28||||<0.001
91746287|NCT03002818|183385751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=36): Baseline vs. Day 84||||<0.001
91746288|NCT03002818|183385751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=23): Baseline vs. Day 84||||<0.001
91746289|NCT03002818|183385752|SUPERIORITY||mean change|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.651|1.871||||||sdITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||1.871|-0.651|
91746290|NCT03002818|183385752|SUPERIORITY||mean change|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|2.088||||||mITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||2.088|-0.608|
91746291|NCT03002818|183385752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=37): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.381
91746292|NCT03002818|183385752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.304
91746293|NCT03002818|183385752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=35): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.014
91746294|NCT03002818|183385752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=22): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.278
91746295|NCT03002818|183385752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=36): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.881
91746296|NCT03002818|183385752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=23): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.775
91746297|NCT01942668|183385765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-6.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.32|-19.29|<0.001
91746298|NCT01942668|183385765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.46|-1.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.68|-14.46|0.013
91746299|NCT01942668|183385765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.59|-11.21|0.141
91800575|NCT05280782|183478203|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection WBC values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.687||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.687
91800576|NCT05280782|183478204|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Hemoglobin values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
91800577|NCT05280782|183478205|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Hematocrit values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||1.000
91800578|NCT05280782|183478206|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Platelets values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Platelets values were normal.|||
91800579|NCT05280782|183478207|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection RBC values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
91800580|NCT05280782|183478208|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection MCV values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the MCV values were normal.|||
91800581|NCT02761733|183478225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3652||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9559|0.2255||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 173|||.2255|-6.9559|.0679
91800582|NCT02761733|183478225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.882||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2957|0.5317||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 165|||0.5317|-6.2957|.0999
91800583|NCT02761733|183478225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0139||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4957|2.3779||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 148|||2.3779|-4.4957|.5588
91800584|NCT02761733|183478225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2798||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6771|3.2367||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 136|||3.2367|-2.6771|.8532
91800585|NCT02761733|183478226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4524||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5302|0.6254||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 180|||0.6254|-7.5302|.0988
91800586|NCT02761733|183478226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3087||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1799|3.5625||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 166|||3.5625|-4.1799|.8760
91877166|NCT02973477|183647961|OTHER||Coefficient|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.25||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of BNP.||0.25|-0.23|0.92
91800587|NCT02761733|183478226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.541||||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2234|6.3054||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 153|||6.3054|-1.2234|.1878
91800588|NCT02761733|183478226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6237||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.6526||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 143|||1.6526|-4.9000|.3330
91800589|NCT02761733|183478227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9284||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4728|6.616||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 175|||6.6160|-10.4728|.6588
91800590|NCT02761733|183478227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3959||||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2237|11.0155||Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 169||a priori test||11.0155|-2.2237|.2633
91800591|NCT02761733|183478227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9703||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2107|-0.7299||Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 166|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 166|a priori test||-0.7299|-17.2107|.0343
91800592|NCT02761733|183478227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7297||||0.3126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4864|10.9458||Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Mixed Models Analysis||Satterthwaite adjusted df = 163|a priori test||10.9458|-3.4864|.3126
91800593|NCT02761733|183478228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1241||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5675|0.3193||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 142|||.3193|-.5675|.5840
91800594|NCT02761733|183478228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2642||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1754|0.7038||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 184|||.7038|-.1754|.2404
91800595|NCT02761733|183478228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3192||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0667|0.7051||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 129|||.7051|-.0667|.1074
91800596|NCT02761733|183478228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0576||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3238|0.439||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 131|||.4390|-.3238|.7677
91800597|NCT02761733|183478229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.026||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4507|0.3987||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 182|||.3987|-.4507|.9046
91877167|NCT00694564|183647963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was calculated as this was a pilot study to determine such parameters.||||||0.004||95.0|||||MANOVA|||||||0.004
91800598|NCT02761733|183478229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2258||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1591|0.6107||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 173|||.6107|-.1591|.2518
91800599|NCT02761733|183478229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.437||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.837|-0.037||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 165|||-.0370|-.8370|.0338
91800600|NCT02761733|183478229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2564||||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6086|0.0958||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 157|||.0958|-.6086|.1555
91800601|NCT02761733|183478230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2967||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5599|-0.0335||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 213|||-.0335|-.5599|.0283
91800602|NCT02761733|183478230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0401||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1969|0.2771||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 194|||.2771|-.1969|.7407
91800603|NCT02761733|183478230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2338||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4778|0.0102||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 186|||.0102|-.4778|.0619
91800604|NCT02761733|183478230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3793||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|-0.1596||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 172|||-.1596|-.5990|.0009
91800605|NCT00810693|183478237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Prespecified significance level for all significance tests was 5%. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values for participants who withdrew/died before 12 weeks were imputed with worst value of 0m in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with last observed value otherwise. Comparison was done using ANCOVA, with baseline 6MWD as a covariate and treatment group, region and treatment naive/add-on therapy as main effects. The primary statistical method was the stratified Wilcoxon test if the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of residuals was statistically significant||||<0.0001
91800606|NCT00810693|183478237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.06|51.51||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||51.51|20.06|<0.0001
91800607|NCT00810693|183478237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
91800608|NCT00810693|183478238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, TTCW, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values at week 12 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
91800609|NCT00810693|183478238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-225.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-281.37|-170.08||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-170.08|-281.37|<0.0001
91800610|NCT00810693|183478238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
91800611|NCT00810693|183478239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||"Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.~Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values at week 12 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
91800612|NCT00810693|183478239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-431.81||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-781.52|-82.1||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-82.10|-781.52|0.0157
91800613|NCT00810693|183478239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
91800614|NCT00810693|183478240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0033||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of IV in case of clinical worsening without termination visit or measurement at that termination visit and with a worst value of V in case of death and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0033
91800615|NCT00810693|183478241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-0.55||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Log Rank|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy|Based on Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy.|"The test is for difference of occurence of Any event."||-0.55|-9.85|0.0046
91800616|NCT00810693|183478242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 10 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0022
91800617|NCT00810693|183478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0663||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy.||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of -0.594 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0663
91800618|NCT00810693|183478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|0.01|0.0197
91800619|NCT00810693|183478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
91800620|NCT00810693|183478244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019||||||"Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO FC, TTCW, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.~Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test. Nominally significant only due to hierarchical testing."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy.||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 105 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0019
91800621|NCT00810693|183478244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.17||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-2.54||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-2.54|-9.79|0.0009
91800622|NCT00810693|183478244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
91800623|NCT02572609|183478245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|T/R Ratio|113.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.24||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.48|121.1|||Anderson-Hauck procedure||Standard Deviation is actually the Coefficient of variation intra subject (CVintra).|||121.10|106.48|0.0082
91800624|NCT02572609|183478246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC0-t will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|T/R Ratio|119.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.65||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.65|124.79|||Anderson-Hauck procedure||Standard Deviation is actually the Coefficient of variation intra subject (CVintra).|||124.79|114.65|0.0438
91800625|NCT02345226|183478273|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 400 HIV-1 infected participants per treatment group would provide 95% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 8% in the Week 48 response rate difference between the FTC/RPV/TAF group and EFV/FTC/TDF group. For sample size and power computation, it is assumed that both treatment groups will have a response rate of 89% (based on Gilead Study GS-US-292-0109), that a noninferiority margin is 8%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-5.9|1.8|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.001% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was at least 8% lower than the rate in the EFV/FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was less than 8% lower than that in the EFV/FTC/TDF group.||1.8|-5.9|
91800626|NCT02345226|183478273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
91877168|NCT02402465|183647965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Mean difference is related to albumin levels in nasal lavages: Unit= ng/ml|||||>0.05
91800627|NCT01848704|183478297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|0.07|0.03
91800628|NCT01848704|183478298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-1.13|0.03
91800629|NCT01848704|183478299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.95|0.18
91800630|NCT01848704|183478300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|0.08|0.029
91800631|NCT01848704|183478301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-0.03|0.061
91800632|NCT01498978|183478320|OTHER|Exact binomial test (two-sided).||||||0.754|||||||Exact Binomial Test|||Exact binomial test (two-sided). Null hypothesis: the proportion is equal to 0.5||||0.754
91800633|NCT01498978|183478321|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.190
91800634|NCT01498978|183478324|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.500
91800635|NCT01498978|183478325|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91800636|NCT01498978|183478326|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||0.524|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.524
91800637|NCT03488355|183478327|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91800638|NCT01163266|183478348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|0.08||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 20 mg vortioxetine to placebo. Efficacy endpoints were tested for each dose in sequential order at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.08|-4.45|0.058
91877169|NCT02402465|183647966|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|14.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately yielding alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.001
91877170|NCT02402465|183647966|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|24.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91877171|NCT02402465|183647966|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91877172|NCT02402465|183647966|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|48.5||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91907380|NCT03710486|183709910|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2011|||||||Log Rank Test Adjusted by PS-IPTW|p-value was estimated with Log Rank test adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.||CD: Vedolizumab Versus Other Biological||||=0.2011
91877173|NCT02402465|183647967|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|5.22||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha=0.05/3 since 3 days are compared|Friedman's Test|||We used Friedman test to compare the distribution of total nasal symptom scores among three treatment groups (Placebo, Fluticasone propionate, Dymista) in each of the three days (day 1, day 2, and day 3).||||0.07
91877174|NCT02402465|183647968|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|5.06||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||0.08
91877175|NCT02402465|183647970|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|6.53||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||0.04
91877176|NCT02402465|183647971|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|0.53|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||>0.05
91877177|NCT02402465|183647972|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|0.33||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||0.85
91746300|NCT01942668|183385765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|-4.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.08|-16.73|0.001
91746301|NCT01942668|183385766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|-9.82||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.82|-23.33|<0.001
91746302|NCT01942668|183385766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.72|-8.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.42|-21.72|<0.001
91746303|NCT01942668|183385766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-4.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.10|-17.48|0.002
91746304|NCT01942668|183385766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-5.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.11|-18.31|<0.001
91746305|NCT01942668|183385767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.25|0.031
91800639|NCT01163266|183478348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.161||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-1.35||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.025, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-1.35|-5.92|0.002
91877178|NCT01284634|183647973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.454||0.222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.35|2.56|||Regression, Linear|||The EOT liver triglyceride levels were analyzed using a linear regression model, with EOT liver triglyceride levels as the dependent variable, dose of GWP42003 as regressor, baseline liver triglyceride levels as a covariate, and gender as a factor.||2.56|-16.35|0.222
91877179|NCT01284634|183647973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.943||0.133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.66|0.95|||Regression, Linear|||The EOT liver triglyceride levels were analyzed using a linear regression model, with EOT liver triglyceride levels as the dependent variable, dose of GWP42003 as regressor, baseline liver triglyceride levels as a covariate, and gender as a factor.||0.95|-19.66|0.133
91877180|NCT01284634|183647973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.158||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.22|4.14|||Regression, Linear|||The EOT liver triglyceride levels were analyzed using a linear regression model, with EOT liver triglyceride levels as the dependent variable, dose of GWP42003 as regressor, baseline liver triglyceride levels as a covariate, and gender as a factor.||4.14|-17.22|0.302
91746306|NCT01942668|183385767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.05|-0.28|0.005
91877181|NCT03807700|183647979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.74|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a fixed effect and Baseline overall score as a covariate.|Difference is experimental adhesive minus no adhesive.|||0.74|-1.56|0.4769
91877182|NCT02720081|183647993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.775||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.92|5.37|||ANOVA|Terms for treatment, number of C alleles at the pre-specified SNP, and prior inhaled corticosteroid use.||||5.370|-14.92|0.352
91877183|NCT02720081|183647994|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|14.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen|||14.3|-15.0|
91877184|NCT02720081|183647995|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen|||1.0|-12.1|
91907381|NCT03710486|183709911|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6939|||||||Log Rank Test Adjusted by PS-IPTW|p-value was estimated with Log Rank test adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.||||||=0.6939
91800640|NCT01163266|183478349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|2.093|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||2.093|0.796|0.301
91800641|NCT01163266|183478349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.639||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|2.652||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||2.652|1.013|0.044
91800642|NCT01163266|183478350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.05|-0.45|0.119
91800643|NCT01163266|183478350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.04|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.04|-0.55|0.024
91800644|NCT01163266|183478351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.891||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-0.56|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS Total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.56|-8.03|0.025
91800645|NCT01163266|183478351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.852|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|-3.6|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-3.60|-10.92|<0.001
91800646|NCT01163266|183478352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.665||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|3.018|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.018|0.918|0.093
91800647|NCT01163266|183478352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.779||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|3.233|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.233|0.979|0.059
91800648|NCT01163266|183478353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.042||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.66|-3.44|0.183
91800649|NCT01163266|183478353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.30|-4.50|0.025
91800650|NCT03181893|183478361|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.26|-9.37|||LANCOVA-P model|||||-9.37|-20.26|<0.0001
91800651|NCT03181893|183478378|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.274||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|28.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference of the active treatment from Placebo at Week 4||28.77|-7.10|0.1537
91800652|NCT03181893|183478378|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.761||0.1312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|31.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference of the active treatment from Placebo at Week 8||31.29|-6.29|0.1312
91800653|NCT03181893|183478378|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.161||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|40.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference of the active treatment from Placebo at Week 12||40.68|-1.79|0.0647
91800654|NCT01361568|183478396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|-0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.78|-15.14|<0.05
91800655|NCT01361568|183478397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-420.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|139.16|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91800656|NCT01361568|183478397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-230.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.26|<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91800657|NCT01361568|183478397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-260.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|141.99||0.068||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068
91800658|NCT01361568|183478398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91800659|NCT01361568|183478398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.059||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
91800660|NCT01361568|183478399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.82|0.22|<0.05
91800661|NCT01361568|183478399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|0.11|<0.05
91800662|NCT01361568|183478400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom (df = 1)||||||0.001
91800663|NCT01361568|183478401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91800664|NCT01361568|183478402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91800665|NCT00761631|183478414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.8||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.80|1.24|
91800666|NCT00761631|183478414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.15|0.78|
91800667|NCT00761631|183478414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.12|0.80|
91907382|NCT03710486|183709912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||=|0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.71|0.12|=0.0071
91877185|NCT02720081|183648017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.107||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.199|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, number of C alleles at the pre-specified SNP, and prior inhaled corticosteroid use.||||0.199|0.015|0.023
91877186|NCT03334747|183648055|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||0.391
91877187|NCT03334747|183648055|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
91877188|NCT03334747|183648055|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
91907383|NCT03710486|183709913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||=|0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.55|0.64|=0.4809
91746307|NCT01942668|183385767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.17|0.401
91746308|NCT01942668|183385767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.21|0.100
91746309|NCT01942668|183385768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.38|-0.77|<0.001
91907384|NCT03710486|183709914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||=|0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.36|0.46|=0.9150
91746310|NCT01942668|183385768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.59|<0.001
91746311|NCT01942668|183385768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.43|0.018
91877189|NCT03334747|183648055|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
91877190|NCT03334747|183648055|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
91746312|NCT01942668|183385768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.36|0.096
91877191|NCT03334747|183648055|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
91877192|NCT03334747|183648055|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
91877193|NCT03334747|183648055|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
91877194|NCT00938041|183648064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|40.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with complete response. Percentages are calculated using the number of participants in the ITT-Exposed Population as the denominator.|||40|10|
91877195|NCT00938041|183648064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|40.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with confirmed complete response. Percentages are calculated using the number of participants in the ITT-Exposed Population as the denominator.|||40|10|
91877196|NCT03042559|183648084|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics Software version 24.0. We compared mean age (years), Body Mass Index (kg/m2) (BMI), pain duration, and the outcome measures at baseline in both groups at baseline using independent t-test when the distribution of the variable was approximately normal and Mann-Whitney test when the distribution was not normal. The distribution of qualitative variables (gender, affected leg) by group type was examined using Chi Square test.|a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||
91877197|NCT03042559|183648091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91877198|NCT01855997|183648116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.59e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1876154||||0.00000559
91877199|NCT01855997|183648116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.66e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2812338||||0.00000766
91907385|NCT03710486|183709915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||=|0.7254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.28|0.56|=0.7254
91907386|NCT03710486|183709916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.72|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.72|0.16|=0.0051
91877200|NCT01855997|183648116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.82e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10824875||||0.00000982
91877201|NCT01855997|183648116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1831559||||0.00000127
91877202|NCT01855997|183648116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.96e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10851257||||0.00000396
91877203|NCT01855997|183648116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.48e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6492344||||0.00000648
91877204|NCT01855997|183648116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.21e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12584550||||0.00000221
91877205|NCT01855997|183648116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9555773||||0.00000902
91907387|NCT03710486|183709917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||=|0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.04|0.27|=0.0653
91800668|NCT00761631|183478414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.76||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.76|1.19|
91877206|NCT01855997|183648116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7983441||||0.00000077
91877207|NCT01855997|183648116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000048
91877208|NCT01855997|183648116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs247878||||0.00000037
91877209|NCT01855997|183648117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.87e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1876154||||0.00000987
91800669|NCT00761631|183478414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.86||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.86|0.59|
91877210|NCT01855997|183648117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.05e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7753766||||0.00000605
91877211|NCT01855997|183648117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs604241||||0.00000946
91877212|NCT01855997|183648117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000077
91877213|NCT01855997|183648117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs247878||||0.00000197
91877214|NCT01855997|183648118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.77e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12210761||||0.00000677
91877215|NCT01855997|183648118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.98e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1831559||||0.00000798
91877216|NCT01855997|183648118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.12e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7983441||||0.00000512
91877217|NCT01855997|183648118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.45e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000345
91877218|NCT01855997|183648118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.72e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs247878||||0.00000372
91877219|NCT01855997|183648119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.59e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12210761||||0.00000459
91877220|NCT01855997|183648119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.25e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1411283||||0.00000925
91877221|NCT01855997|183648119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.72e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000772
91877222|NCT01855997|183648120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.7e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11163805||||0.00000470
91877223|NCT01855997|183648120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.74e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000674
91877224|NCT01855997|183648120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.52e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11139349||||0.00000952
91877225|NCT01855997|183648120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.08e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1831559||||0.00000608
91877226|NCT01855997|183648120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.04e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7983441||||0.00000404
91877227|NCT01855997|183648120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.07e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11868362||||0.00000407
91877228|NCT01855997|183648121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.66e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1384010||||0.00000666
91877229|NCT01855997|183648121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.44e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1351518||||0.00000844
91877230|NCT01855997|183648121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.94e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1157322||||0.00000794
91877231|NCT01855997|183648121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.1e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11868362||||0.00000310
91877232|NCT01855997|183648122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.07e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11139349||||0.00000207
91877233|NCT01855997|183648122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.99e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1157322||||0.00000899
91877234|NCT01855997|183648123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.73e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1384010||||0.00000573
91877235|NCT01855997|183648123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1351518||||0.00000946
91877236|NCT01855997|183648123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.31e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1157322||||0.00000731
91877237|NCT01855997|183648123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.45e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs646097||||0.00000945
91877238|NCT01855997|183648124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.6e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000016
91877239|NCT01855997|183648125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000088
91877240|NCT01855997|183648126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.79e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2464266||||0.00000879
91877241|NCT01855997|183648127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.52e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9496139||||0.00000452
91877242|NCT01855997|183648127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2014238||||0.00000497
91877243|NCT01855997|183648127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2980231||||0.00000497
91877244|NCT01855997|183648128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.48e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2237722||||0.00000748
91877245|NCT01855997|183648128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.3e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs16924016||||0.00000073
91877246|NCT01855997|183648128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.89e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2899723||||0.00000289
91907388|NCT03710486|183709918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.74|0.47|=0.7629
91800670|NCT00761631|183478414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.86||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.86|1.15|
91800671|NCT00761631|183478414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.42||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.42|0.97|
91800672|NCT00761631|183478414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.13||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||2.13|1.36|
91800673|NCT00761631|183478414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.67||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.67|0.48|
91800674|NCT00761631|183478414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.89||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.89|0.53|
91800675|NCT00761631|183478414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.67||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.67|1.05|
91877247|NCT01855997|183648128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.12e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs8027115||||0.00000912
91877248|NCT01855997|183648128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.94e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2267780||||0.00000494
91907389|NCT03710486|183709919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||=|0.4895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.50|0.43|=0.4895
91746313|NCT01942668|183385769|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.06||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||1.06||
91800676|NCT00761631|183478414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.76|0.53|
91877249|NCT01855997|183648129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9973954||||0.00000627
91877250|NCT01855997|183648129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.96e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2237722||||0.00000696
91877251|NCT01855997|183648129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.26e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1040084||||0.00000426
91877252|NCT01855997|183648129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.35e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1913484||||0.00000435
91877253|NCT01855997|183648129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.21e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs16924016||||0.00000221
91877254|NCT01855997|183648129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.23e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm1010813||||0.00000523
91877255|NCT01855997|183648129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.57e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6576456||||0.00000757
91746314|NCT01942668|183385769|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.98||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||0.98||
91877256|NCT01855997|183648130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.53e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000153
91907390|NCT03710486|183709920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||=|0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.54|0.38|=0.4458
91746315|NCT01942668|183385769|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.97||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||0.97||
91746316|NCT01942668|183385769|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.09||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||1.09||
91746317|NCT01942668|183385769|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Placebo.||3.20||
91746318|NCT01942668|183385770|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.06||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||1.06||
91877257|NCT01855997|183648130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.08e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10475403||||0.00000708
91746319|NCT01942668|183385770|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.98||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||0.98||
91746320|NCT01942668|183385770|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.97||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||0.97||
91746321|NCT01942668|183385770|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.09||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||1.09||
91746322|NCT01942668|183385770|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Placebo.||3.20||
91746323|NCT01942668|183385771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|6.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.30|-3.57|0.588
91746324|NCT01942668|183385771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|6.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.15|-3.56|0.601
91800677|NCT00761631|183478414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.28|0.91|
91746325|NCT01942668|183385771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|8.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||8.06|-1.71|0.202
91746326|NCT01942668|183385771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|2.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.89|-6.76|0.431
91746327|NCT01942668|183385772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|1.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.64|-10.34|0.154
91877258|NCT01855997|183648130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs715243||||0.00000727
91877259|NCT01855997|183648131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000397
91877260|NCT01855997|183648132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.86e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000686
91877261|NCT01855997|183648132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.96e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2189452||||0.00000596
91877262|NCT01855997|183648132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.89e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000489
91877263|NCT01855997|183648133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.34e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2189452||||0.00000834
91877264|NCT01855997|183648133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.87e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7968170||||0.00000487
91877265|NCT01855997|183648133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.18e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000918
91746328|NCT01942668|183385772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|5.73||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||5.73|-6.06|0.956
91746329|NCT01942668|183385772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|9.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||9.46|-2.37|0.240
91746330|NCT01942668|183385772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|3.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||3.08|-8.62|0.353
91746331|NCT01942668|183385773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-2.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-2.36|-14.75|0.007
91877266|NCT01855997|183648134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.37e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9287655||||0.00000137
91877267|NCT01855997|183648134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.39e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2803073||||0.00000339
91746332|NCT01942668|183385773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|2.35||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.35|-9.86|0.227
91746333|NCT01942668|183385773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|4.47||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||4.47|-7.77|0.597
91746334|NCT01942668|183385773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|-1.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.19|-13.28|0.019
91746335|NCT01942668|183385774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-6.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.32|-19.29|<0.001
91746336|NCT01942668|183385774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.46|-1.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.68|-14.46|0.013
91746337|NCT01942668|183385774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.59|-11.21|0.141
91800678|NCT01999868|183478419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study. This analysis is the primary analysis of the primary endpoint.||||0.41
91800679|NCT01999868|183478419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.013
91746338|NCT01942668|183385774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|-4.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.08|-16.73|0.001
91746339|NCT01942668|183385775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.16|-9.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.02|-22.16|<0.001
91746340|NCT01942668|183385775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.34|-3.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.41|-16.34|0.003
91746341|NCT01942668|183385775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.59|-12.40|0.075
91800680|NCT01999868|183478419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 28 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the last scheduled dose of ustekinumab or ustekinumab placebo until the end of the study.||||0.50
91746342|NCT01942668|183385775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.47|-5.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.64|-18.47|<0.001
91800681|NCT01999868|183478419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the beginning of the blinded observation phase until the end of the study.||||0.67
91800682|NCT01999868|183478420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.019
91877268|NCT01855997|183648134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1937590||||0.00000927
91877269|NCT01855997|183648134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.66e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2945861||||0.00000166
91877270|NCT01855997|183648134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.55e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1997894||||0.00000455
91746343|NCT01942668|183385776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|-11.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.05|-24.57|<0.001
91746344|NCT01942668|183385776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-4.7||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.70|-18.00|<0.001
91746345|NCT01942668|183385776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-1.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.14|-14.50|0.022
91746346|NCT01942668|183385776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|-5.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.91|-19.11|<0.001
91746347|NCT01942668|183385777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.45|-11.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.06|-24.45|<0.001
91877271|NCT01855997|183648134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.68e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1495471||||0.00000568
91746348|NCT01942668|183385777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|-6.7||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.70|-19.88|<0.001
91746349|NCT01942668|183385777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-3.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.60|-16.83|0.003
91746350|NCT01942668|183385777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|-7.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.07|-20.15|<0.001
91746351|NCT01942668|183385778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.35|-9.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.91|-23.35|<0.001
91746352|NCT01942668|183385778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.58|-6.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.36|-19.58|<0.001
91746353|NCT01942668|183385778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-2.99||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-2.99|-16.27|0.005
91746354|NCT01942668|183385778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.53|-5.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.41|-18.53|<0.001
91746355|NCT01942668|183385779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|-10.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.44|-23.79|<0.001
91746356|NCT01942668|183385779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.15|-9.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.01|-22.15|<0.001
91746357|NCT01942668|183385779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.65|-4.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.44|-17.65|0.001
91746358|NCT01942668|183385779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.54|-6.5||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.50|-19.54|<0.001
91746359|NCT01942668|183385780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.58|-10.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.03|-23.58|<0.001
91746360|NCT01942668|183385780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.32|-8.99||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.99|-22.32|<0.001
91746361|NCT01942668|183385780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-4.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.49|-17.90|0.001
91746362|NCT01942668|183385780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.78|-5.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.55|-18.78|<0.001
91746363|NCT01942668|183385781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|-11.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.29|-24.92|<0.001
91877272|NCT01855997|183648134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.25e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000125
91877273|NCT01855997|183648134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.82e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1152537||||0.00000982
91877274|NCT01855997|183648135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10236906||||0.00000846
91877275|NCT01855997|183648135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.62e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2945861||||0.00000562
91877276|NCT01855997|183648135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7042473||||0.00000497
91877277|NCT01855997|183648135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2077415||||0.00000997
91877278|NCT01855997|183648135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.64e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000864
91877279|NCT01855997|183648136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.68e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000368
91877280|NCT01855997|183648136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.77e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs715243||||0.00000577
91877281|NCT01855997|183648137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.5e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2302503||||0.00000950
91877282|NCT01855997|183648137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.41e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6015181||||0.00000741
91877283|NCT01855997|183648138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.05e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1550116||||0.00000805
91800683|NCT01999868|183478420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.001
91800684|NCT01999868|183478420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 28 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the last scheduled dose of ustekinumab or ustekinumab placebo until the end of the study.||||0.018
91800685|NCT01999868|183478420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the beginning of the blinded observation phase until the end of the study.||||0.07
91877284|NCT01855997|183648138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1550115||||0.00000702
91746364|NCT01942668|183385781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.17|-9.74||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.74|-23.17|<0.001
91746365|NCT01942668|183385781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.15|-5.66||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.66|-19.15|<0.001
91746366|NCT01942668|183385781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-6.93||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.93|-20.26|<0.001
91746367|NCT01942668|183385782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|-9.82||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.82|-23.33|<0.001
91746368|NCT01942668|183385782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.72|-8.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.42|-21.72|<0.001
91746369|NCT01942668|183385782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-4.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.10|-17.48|0.002
91800686|NCT01999868|183478421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.16
91746370|NCT01942668|183385782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-5.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.11|-18.31|<0.001
91746371|NCT01942668|183385783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.08|-0.06|0.801
91746372|NCT01942668|183385783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.07|0.991
91746373|NCT01942668|183385783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.08|-0.05|0.642
91800687|NCT01999868|183478421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.002
91800688|NCT01999868|183478421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 28 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the last scheduled dose of ustekinumab or ustekinumab placebo until the end of the study.||||0.23
91877285|NCT01855997|183648138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2082881||||0.00000702
91877286|NCT01855997|183648138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.43e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2265462||||0.00000743
91877287|NCT01855997|183648138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000078
91877288|NCT01855997|183648138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.94e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1403069||||0.00000894
91800689|NCT01999868|183478421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the beginning of the blinded observation phase until the end of the study.||||0.43
91800690|NCT01999868|183478422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.06
91877289|NCT01855997|183648138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.71e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9691873||||0.00000571
91877290|NCT01855997|183648138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.29e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs8012912||||0.00000729
91877291|NCT01855997|183648138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.28e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11158827||||0.00000828
91746374|NCT01942668|183385783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.06|-0.07|0.928
91746375|NCT01942668|183385784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.14|0.231
91746376|NCT01942668|183385784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.14|0.173
91746377|NCT01942668|183385784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.10|-0.07|0.717
91746378|NCT01942668|183385784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.09|0.849
91746379|NCT01942668|183385785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.21|0.039
91746380|NCT01942668|183385785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.21|0.030
91746381|NCT01942668|183385785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.10|-0.10|0.946
91746382|NCT01942668|183385785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.05|-0.15|0.309
91746383|NCT01942668|183385786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.25|0.031
91746384|NCT01942668|183385786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.05|-0.28|0.005
91746385|NCT01942668|183385786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.17|0.401
91746386|NCT01942668|183385786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.21|0.100
91800691|NCT01999868|183478422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.008
91746387|NCT01942668|183385787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.37|0.001
91746388|NCT01942668|183385787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.28|0.034
91746389|NCT01942668|183385787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.12|-0.16|0.790
91746390|NCT01942668|183385787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.25|0.086
91746391|NCT01942668|183385788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.53|<0.001
91746392|NCT01942668|183385788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.02|-0.34|0.030
91877292|NCT01855997|183648138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.85e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11870323||||0.00000885
91877293|NCT01855997|183648138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.17e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs4821558||||0.00000717
91746393|NCT01942668|183385788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.26|0.247
91877294|NCT01855997|183648139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.29e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000629
91746394|NCT01942668|183385788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.35|0.022
91746395|NCT01942668|183385789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.54|<0.001
91746396|NCT01942668|183385789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.42|0.002
91746397|NCT01942668|183385789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.02|-0.34|0.031
91746398|NCT01942668|183385789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.36|0.016
91746399|NCT01942668|183385790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.21|-0.55|<0.001
91746400|NCT01942668|183385790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.06|-0.40|0.008
91746401|NCT01942668|183385790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.32|0.087
91746402|NCT01942668|183385790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.31|0.092
91746403|NCT01942668|183385791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.30|-0.66|<0.001
91746404|NCT01942668|183385791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.12|-0.47|0.001
91746405|NCT01942668|183385791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.06|-0.42|0.009
91746406|NCT01942668|183385791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.42|0.007
91746407|NCT01942668|183385792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.33||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.33|-0.71|<0.001
91746408|NCT01942668|183385792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.46|0.003
91746409|NCT01942668|183385792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.41|0.016
91746410|NCT01942668|183385792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.09|-0.28|0.310
91746411|NCT01942668|183385793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.34|-0.72|<0.001
91746412|NCT01942668|183385793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.19|-0.56|<0.001
91746413|NCT01942668|183385793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.06|-0.44|0.011
91746414|NCT01942668|183385793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.36|0.076
91746415|NCT01942668|183385794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.38|-0.77|<0.001
91746416|NCT01942668|183385794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.59|<0.001
91877295|NCT01855997|183648139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.79e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1692421||||0.00000579
91877296|NCT01855997|183648139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.53e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1692423||||0.00000553
91877297|NCT01855997|183648139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9691873||||0.00000946
91877298|NCT01855997|183648139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.5e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7968170||||0.00000450
91877299|NCT01855997|183648140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.18e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9287655||||0.00000118
91746417|NCT01942668|183385794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.43|0.018
91746418|NCT01942668|183385794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.36|0.096
91746419|NCT01942668|183385795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|6.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.14|-5.16|0.865
91746420|NCT01942668|183385795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.10|-5.01|0.847
91746421|NCT01942668|183385795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||7.68|-3.50|0.463
91746422|NCT01942668|183385795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|1.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.97|-9.07|0.207
91746423|NCT01942668|183385796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.67|-11.80|0.140
91877300|NCT01855997|183648140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.31e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs216312||||0.00000531
91746424|NCT01942668|183385796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.55|-6.70|0.982
91746425|NCT01942668|183385796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|8.98||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||8.98|-4.32|0.492
91877301|NCT01855997|183648141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.93e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs993147||||0.00000593
91877302|NCT01855997|183648141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10978436||||0.00000997
91877303|NCT01855997|183648141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.81e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2370220||||0.00000581
91877304|NCT01855997|183648141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2279519||||0.00000802
91877305|NCT01855997|183648142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.58e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12992677||||0.00000558
91877306|NCT01855997|183648143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.9e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12992677||||0.00000990
91877307|NCT01855997|183648144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7549785||||0.00000048
91877308|NCT01855997|183648145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7549785||||0.00000048
91877309|NCT01855997|183648146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.38e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10814834||||0.00000738
91877310|NCT01855997|183648146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.51e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10491723||||0.00000451
91877311|NCT01855997|183648146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.78e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6592052||||0.00000878
91877312|NCT01855997|183648146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.21e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs16943470||||0.00000521
91877313|NCT01855997|183648147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.2e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6592052||||0.00000720
91877314|NCT04474691|183648190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 7|Traditional treatment condition - visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment condition. Because more accurate productions have lower acoustic values, a positive difference would indicate an advantage for biofeedback.|||||.67
91877315|NCT01207453|183648208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed rank tests.||||0.42
91888962|NCT00477490|183670718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.242||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||||0.242|-0.221|0.9303
91888963|NCT00477490|183670718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.3104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.112||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||||0.112|-0.353|0.3104
91877316|NCT01207453|183648208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.37
91877317|NCT01207453|183648209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.39
91877318|NCT01207453|183648209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.96
91877319|NCT01207453|183648210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.89
91877320|NCT01207453|183648210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.83
91877321|NCT01207453|183648211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.04
91746426|NCT01942668|183385796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|2.43||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.43|-10.72|0.216
91746427|NCT01942668|183385797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|-3.5||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.50|-17.26|0.003
91877322|NCT01207453|183648211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.04
91746428|NCT01942668|183385797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|3.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||3.02|-10.53|0.277
91746429|NCT01942668|183385797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||3.84|-9.75|0.394
91746430|NCT01942668|183385797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-1.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.15|-14.58|0.022
91877323|NCT01207453|183648212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.89
91877324|NCT01207453|183648212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.44
91877325|NCT01207453|183648213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.35
91877326|NCT01207453|183648213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.34
91877327|NCT01207453|183648214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.72
91877328|NCT01207453|183648214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.82
91889210|NCT04546425|183671167|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.42|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Measles||1.42|0.79|
91800692|NCT01999868|183478423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.005
91746431|NCT01942668|183385798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.75|-7.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.89|-22.75|<0.001
91800693|NCT01999868|183478423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.001
91877329|NCT02951052|183648217|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with virologic failure at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm for assessing HIV-1 RNA \>=50 copies/mL) can be concluded if the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in failure rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - current ART) is not more than 6%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.5|||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI).|||2.5|-1.2|
91877330|NCT02951052|183648218|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA\<50 c/mL at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm) can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - current ART) is more than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.7|||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI).|||0.7|-6.7|
91746432|NCT01942668|183385798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|-1.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.60|-16.24|0.017
91746433|NCT01942668|183385798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|2.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.78|-11.90|0.223
91746434|NCT01942668|183385798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.57|-4.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.07|-18.57|0.002
91746435|NCT01942668|183385799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|-10.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.28|-24.65|<0.001
91746436|NCT01942668|183385799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|-3.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.18|-17.33|0.005
91746437|NCT01942668|183385799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|0.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.89|-13.31|0.087
91746438|NCT01942668|183385799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.68|-5.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.65|-19.68|<0.001
91746439|NCT01942668|183385800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.77|-12.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.87|-27.77|<0.001
91800694|NCT01999868|183478424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40||||0.013
91877331|NCT02951052|183648292|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||2.2|-2.4|0.944
91877332|NCT02951052|183648292|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.0||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||3.4|-1.3|0.385
91877333|NCT02951052|183648293|OTHER||Adjusted difference|4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||7.1|2.8|<0.001
91877334|NCT02951052|183648293|OTHER||Adjusted difference|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|8.8|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||8.8|4.0|<0.001
91877335|NCT02951052|183648294|OTHER||Adjusted difference|5.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||9.1|1.4|0.008
91877336|NCT02951052|183648294|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.0||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.2|||ANCOVA||||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|6.2|-2.2|0.347
91800695|NCT01999868|183478424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 88||||0.95
91800696|NCT01999868|183478425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20), baseline DLQI, and pre-screening disease duration, centered on the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40||||0.18
91877337|NCT02951052|183648295|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.2||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 total scores at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||0.7|-0.2|0.344
91877338|NCT02951052|183648295|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-0.1||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 total scores at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||0.4|-0.6|0.785
91746440|NCT01942668|183385800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.95|-5.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.28|-19.95|<0.001
91746441|NCT01942668|183385800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-0.96||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.96|-15.70|0.027
91746442|NCT01942668|183385800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.13|-6.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.58|-21.13|<0.001
91746443|NCT01942668|183385801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.87|-14.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-14.04|-28.87|<0.001
91746444|NCT01942668|183385801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|-8.8||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.80|-23.39|<0.001
91746445|NCT01942668|183385801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|-4.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.68|-19.34|0.001
91746446|NCT01942668|183385801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.97|-8.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.49|-22.97|<0.001
91746447|NCT01942668|183385802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|-12.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.97|-28.06|<0.001
91746448|NCT01942668|183385802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-7.95||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.95|-22.80|<0.001
91746449|NCT01942668|183385802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|-4.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.03|-18.95|0.003
91746450|NCT01942668|183385802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.19|-6.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.46|-21.19|<0.001
91746451|NCT01942668|183385803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.93|-12.74||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.74|-27.93|<0.001
91746452|NCT01942668|183385803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.39|-10.45||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.45|-25.39|<0.001
91877339|NCT02951052|183648295|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.676||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|1.909|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.909|-0.557|0.282
91877340|NCT02951052|183648295|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.635||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|1.907|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.907|-0.637|0.327
91877341|NCT02951052|183648295|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.697||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.494|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.494|-0.100|0.086
91877342|NCT02951052|183648295|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.696||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|1.505|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.505|-0.113|0.092
91877343|NCT02951052|183648298|OTHER||Adjusted difference|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|11.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 8 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||11.7|4.1|<0.001
91877344|NCT02951052|183648298|OTHER||Adjusted difference|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||10.4|3.3|<0.001
91877345|NCT02951052|183648298|OTHER||Adjusted difference|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|14.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||14.4|7.1|<0.001
91877346|NCT02924350|183648302|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.924|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0547|-0.7927|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: change from baseline in Schiff sensitivity score as response and treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favors first named dentifrice.|||-0.7927|-1.0547|<.0001
91877347|NCT01589523|183648331|EQUIVALENCE|paired t-test||||||0.342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.342
91877348|NCT01589523|183648332|EQUIVALENCE|paired t-test||||||0.116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.116
91877349|NCT01589523|183648333|EQUIVALENCE|paired t-test||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|vitamin D||||||0.065
91877350|NCT00332488|183648334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA fitting model change from baseline in A1c with fixed effects for treatment and pooled site and baseline A1c as a covariate||0.27|-0.11|0.420
91877351|NCT00332488|183648335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.14|||ANCOVA|Type III||ANCOVA fitting model change from baseline in A1c with fixed effects for treatment and pooled site and baseline A1c as a covariate||1.14|0.69|< 0.001
91877352|NCT03721978|183648339|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value was \<0.025 and the corresponding lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded zero (0).|Difference in Percentage|28.6||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|50.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||50.4|-24.6|0.115
91877353|NCT03721978|183648344|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value was \<0.025 and the corresponding lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded zero (0).|Difference in Percentage|18.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|28.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||28.6|7.8|0.001
91877354|NCT03721978|183648345|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|46.0||||||||46.0|-37.7|
91877355|NCT03721978|183648346|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|24.5||||||||24.5|-0.8|
91877356|NCT03721978|183648347|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|38.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|59.5||||||||59.5|-15.7|
91907391|NCT03710486|183709921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||=|0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.04|0.47|=0.9471
91907392|NCT03710486|183709922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||=|0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.81|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.81|0.21|=0.0104
91907393|NCT03710486|183709923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.59|0.12|=0.0011
91907394|NCT03710486|183709924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||=|0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|CD Participants||2.04|0.47|=0.9471
91746453|NCT01942668|183385803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.49|-5.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.46|-20.49|<0.001
91746454|NCT01942668|183385803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-6.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.87|-21.70|<0.001
91746455|NCT01942668|183385804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.72|-13.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-13.29|-28.72|<0.001
91877357|NCT03721978|183648348|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|38.2||||||||38.2|16.0|
91877358|NCT03721978|183648349|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|46.0||||||||46.0|-37.7|
91877359|NCT03721978|183648350|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|28.5||||||||28.5|5.2|
91877360|NCT03721978|183648351|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|50.4||||||||50.4|-24.6|
91877361|NCT03721978|183648352|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|29.5||||||||29.5|10.1|
91877362|NCT03721978|183648353|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|50.5||||||||50.5|-31.2|
91877363|NCT03721978|183648354|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.9||||||||17.9|-6.0|
91877364|NCT03721978|183648355|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|25.8||||||||25.8|-54.7|
91877365|NCT03721978|183648356|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|21.9||||||||21.9|1.1|
91877366|NCT03721978|183648357|OTHER||Location Shift|449.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18224.0||||||Week 15: HPV-16 E7||18224.0|0.0|
91877367|NCT03721978|183648357|OTHER||Location Shift|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18224.0|674.0||||||Week 36: HPV-16 E7||674.0|-18224.0|
91877368|NCT03721978|183648357|OTHER||Location Shift|4049.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.0|18224.0||||||Week 15: HPV-18 E7||18224.0|224.0|
91877369|NCT03721978|183648357|OTHER||Location Shift|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18000.0|6074.0||||||Week 36: HPV-18 E7||6074.0|-18000.0|
91877370|NCT03721978|183648358|OTHER||Location Shift|224.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.0|674.0||||||Week 15: HPV-16 E7||674.0|224.0|
91877371|NCT03721978|183648358|OTHER||Location Shift|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.0||||||Week 36: HPV-16 E7||24.0|0.0|
91877372|NCT03721978|183648358|OTHER||Location Shift|2024.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2024.0|6074.0||||||Week 15: HPV-18 E7||6074.0|2024.0|
91877373|NCT03721978|183648358|OTHER||Location Shift|674.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.0|674.0||||||Week 36: HPV-18 E7||674.0|224.0|
91877374|NCT03721978|183648359|OTHER||Location Shift|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|73.33||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 15||73.33|0.00|
91877375|NCT03721978|183648359|OTHER||Location Shift|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|38.33||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 36||38.33|0.00|
91877376|NCT03721978|183648359|OTHER||Location Shift|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|85.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 15||85.00|0.00|
91877377|NCT03721978|183648359|OTHER||Location Shift|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|36.67||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 36||36.67|0.00|
91877378|NCT03721978|183648359|OTHER||Location Shift|26.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|181.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 15||181.67|0.00|
91877379|NCT03721978|183648359|OTHER||Location Shift|11.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 36||31.67|0.00|
91907395|NCT03710486|183709925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||=|0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.75|0.12|=0.0104
91907396|NCT03710486|183709926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.59|0.12|=0.0011
91907397|NCT03710486|183709927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||=|0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.78|0.59|=0.5400
91907398|NCT03710486|183709928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||=|0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.66|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||5.66|0.26|=0.8123
91877380|NCT03721978|183648359|OTHER||Location Shift|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|46.67||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 15||46.67|0.00|
91877381|NCT03721978|183648359|OTHER||Location Shift|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.0||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 36||20.00|0.00|
91746456|NCT01942668|183385804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|-10.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.78|-25.96|<0.001
91746457|NCT01942668|183385804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.66|-5.39||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.39|-20.66|<0.001
91746458|NCT01942668|183385804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.19|-7.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.12|-22.19|<0.001
91746459|NCT01942668|183385805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.57|-14.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-14.08|-29.57|<0.001
91746460|NCT01942668|183385805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.02|-11.77||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.77|-27.02|<0.001
91746461|NCT01942668|183385805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.65|-6.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.32|-21.65|<0.001
91746462|NCT01942668|183385805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|-8.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.10|-23.23|<0.001
91746463|NCT01942668|183385806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.32|-12.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.89|-28.32|<0.001
91907399|NCT03710486|183709929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||=|0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.85|0.06|=0.0282
91907400|NCT03710486|183709930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||=|0.8584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||4.36|0.29|=0.8584
91746464|NCT01942668|183385806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.84|-10.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.65|-25.84|<0.001
91746465|NCT01942668|183385806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-4.98||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.98|-20.26|0.001
91746466|NCT01942668|183385806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.51|-6.43||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.43|-21.51|<0.001
91746467|NCT01942668|183385807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.04|0.676
91746468|NCT01942668|183385807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.03|0.436
91746469|NCT01942668|183385807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.10|-0.01|0.106
91877382|NCT03721978|183648360|OTHER||Location Shift|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.67||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 15||11.67|3.33|
91877383|NCT03721978|183648360|OTHER||Location Shift|5.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.67||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 36||11.67|3.33|
91877384|NCT03721978|183648360|OTHER||Location Shift|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|11.67||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 15||11.67|1.67|
91877385|NCT03721978|183648360|OTHER||Location Shift|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 36||5.00|0.00|
91877386|NCT03721978|183648360|OTHER||Location Shift|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|40.0||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 15||40.00|15.00|
91877387|NCT03721978|183648360|OTHER||Location Shift|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|28.33||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 36||28.33|10.00|
91877388|NCT03721978|183648360|OTHER||Location Shift|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|6.67||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 15||6.67|1.67|
91877389|NCT03721978|183648360|OTHER||Location Shift|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.33||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 36||3.33|0.00|
91877390|NCT03721978|183648361|OTHER||Location Shift|0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.325||||||Parameter: CD8+CD137+Perforin+||0.325|-0.004|
91877391|NCT03721978|183648361|OTHER||Location Shift|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.208||||||Parameter: CD8+CD38+Perforin+||0.208|0.000|
91907401|NCT03710486|183709931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||=|0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||3.78|0.24|=0.9474
91877392|NCT03721978|183648361|OTHER||Location Shift|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.31||||||Parameter: CD8+CD69+Perforin+||0.310|-0.055|
91877393|NCT03721978|183648362|OTHER||Location Shift|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.077||||||Parameter: CD8+CD137+Perforin+||0.077|0.004|
91877394|NCT03721978|183648362|OTHER||Location Shift|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.028||||||Parameter: CD8+CD38+Perforin+||0.028|0.003|
91877395|NCT03721978|183648362|OTHER||Location Shift|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.053||||||Parameter: CD8+CD69+Perforin+||0.053|0.022|
91877396|NCT05244226|183648363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.045
91746470|NCT01942668|183385807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.04|-0.06|0.752
91746471|NCT01942668|183385808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.12|0.193
91746472|NCT01942668|183385808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.04|-0.11|0.319
91746473|NCT01942668|183385808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.12|-0.03|0.239
91877397|NCT05244226|183648363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.023
91877398|NCT05244226|183648367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.144
91877399|NCT05244226|183648367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.322
91877400|NCT05244226|183648368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.061
91877401|NCT05244226|183648368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.021
91877402|NCT03341312|183648381|SUPERIORITY||ratio of LS Means|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.16||||||||1.16|0.42|
91877403|NCT03341312|183648381|SUPERIORITY||ratio of LS Means|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.01||||||||1.01|0.49|
91877404|NCT01212952|183648382|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) (mg/m^2)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum Tolerated Dose Level is Dose Level 2 (1.3 mg/m\^2 Bortezomib).|||||
91877405|NCT05372913|183648388|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) test for the secondary outcome (i.e., PHQ-8 Week 4 EOT score) was assessed using the pre-specified NI margin of 2.0. NI of W-GenZD to CBT-Lite was declared if the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was less than 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.96||||||||0.96|-2.30|
91877406|NCT03303521|183648389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|68.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.85|2810.85|||Fisher Exact|||||2810.85|10.85|<0.001
91877407|NCT03303521|183648391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.53|309.48|||Fisher Exact|||||309.48|8.53|<0.001
91877408|NCT04086576|183648415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Yes, used Tukey Kramer pairwise comparisons to adjust for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|ANOVA in repeated measures||Each breathalyzer is compared to the percentage of alcohol in the blood during the time of blood draw (90 minutes).||||<.0001
91877409|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.065|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.046|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Chills||0.083|0.046|<.0001
91877410|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.281|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.221|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough||0.341|0.221|<.0001
91877411|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.023|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diarrhea||0.048|0.023|<.0001
91877412|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.069|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difficulty breathing||0.156|0.069|<.0001
91877413|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.259|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.206|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||0.312|0.206|<.0001
91877414|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.029|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fever||0.037|0.020|<.0001
91877415|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.194|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.148|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Headache||0.241|0.148|<.0001
91877416|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.103||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.059|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Loss of taste or smell||0.148|0.059|0.0002
91877417|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.137|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Muscle pain||0.226|0.137|<.0001
91877418|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.028|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Nausea||0.060|0.028|<.0001
91877419|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.03||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.016|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Rigors||0.044|0.016|0.0007
91877420|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.123|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Runny nose||0.195|0.123|<.0001
91877421|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.222|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.168|0.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sore throat||0.277|0.168|<.0001
91877422|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.337|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.264|0.411|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Stuffy/blocked nose||0.411|0.264|<.0001
91877423|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.005||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vomiting||0.007|0.002|0.0053
91877424|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|0.049||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Wheezing||0.078|0.020|0.0057
91877425|NCT04748445|183648417|OTHER||Slope|2.644|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.101|3.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean of daily total symptom score||3.188|2.101|<.0001
91877426|NCT04748445|183648418|OTHER||Slope|-1.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.769|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.978|-1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AHH\_Max Phonation Time (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-1.060|-1.978|<.0001
91877427|NCT04748445|183648418|OTHER||Slope|6.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Jitter Local Absolute (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For estimated value it was 10\^-8).||||<.0001
91746474|NCT01942668|183385808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.06|-0.09|0.720
91746475|NCT01942668|183385809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.20|0.030
91746476|NCT01942668|183385809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.00|-0.19|0.060
91746477|NCT01942668|183385809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.13|-0.06|0.506
91746478|NCT01942668|183385809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.04|-0.15|0.232
91746479|NCT01942668|183385810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.24|0.027
91746480|NCT01942668|183385810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.26|0.011
91746481|NCT01942668|183385810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.09|-0.13|0.710
91746482|NCT01942668|183385810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.21|0.072
91746483|NCT01942668|183385811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.36|<0.001
91746484|NCT01942668|183385811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.26|0.062
91746485|NCT01942668|183385811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.14|-0.12|0.886
91746486|NCT01942668|183385811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.26|0.067
91746487|NCT01942668|183385812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.53|<0.001
91746488|NCT01942668|183385812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.00|-0.32|0.053
91746489|NCT01942668|183385812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.09|-0.23|0.413
91746490|NCT01942668|183385812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.35|0.018
91746491|NCT01942668|183385813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.54|<0.001
91746492|NCT01942668|183385813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.40|0.006
91746493|NCT01942668|183385813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.32|0.072
91746494|NCT01942668|183385813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.37|0.014
91746495|NCT01942668|183385814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.21|-0.55|<0.001
91746496|NCT01942668|183385814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.37|0.016
91746497|NCT01942668|183385814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.05|-0.29|0.169
91746498|NCT01942668|183385814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.31|0.081
91746499|NCT01942668|183385815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.30|-0.66|<0.001
91746500|NCT01942668|183385815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.10|-0.45|0.003
91746501|NCT01942668|183385815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.39|0.022
91746502|NCT01942668|183385815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.43|0.006
91746503|NCT01942668|183385816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.33||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.33|-0.71|<0.001
91746504|NCT01942668|183385816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.44|0.007
91746505|NCT01942668|183385816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.39|0.038
91746506|NCT01942668|183385816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.08|-0.29|0.283
91746507|NCT01942668|183385817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.34|-0.72|<0.001
91746508|NCT01942668|183385817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.16|-0.54|<0.001
91746509|NCT01942668|183385817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.02|-0.41|0.027
91746510|NCT01942668|183385817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.36|0.071
91746511|NCT01942668|183385818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.37||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.37|-0.77|<0.001
91746512|NCT01942668|183385818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.18|-0.57|<0.001
91746513|NCT01942668|183385818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.40|0.039
91746514|NCT01942668|183385818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.36|0.088
91746515|NCT01942668|183385819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.850
91746516|NCT01942668|183385819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.622
91746517|NCT01942668|183385819|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||1.000
91746518|NCT01942668|183385819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.374
91746519|NCT01942668|183385819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.706
91746520|NCT01942668|183385819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.372
91746521|NCT01942668|183385819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.316
91746522|NCT01942668|183385819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.221
91746523|NCT01942668|183385820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.283
91746524|NCT01942668|183385820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
91746525|NCT01942668|183385820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.680
91746526|NCT01942668|183385820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.232
91746527|NCT01942668|183385820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.677
91746528|NCT01942668|183385820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.073
91746529|NCT01942668|183385820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.301
91746530|NCT01942668|183385820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.013
91746531|NCT01942668|183385821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.003
91746532|NCT01942668|183385821|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746533|NCT01942668|183385821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.135
91746534|NCT01942668|183385821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.231
91746535|NCT01942668|183385821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.377
91746536|NCT01942668|183385821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.478
91746537|NCT01942668|183385821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.015
91746538|NCT01942668|183385821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.100
91746539|NCT01942668|183385822|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746540|NCT01942668|183385822|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746541|NCT01942668|183385822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.009
91746542|NCT01942668|183385822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.017
91746543|NCT01942668|183385822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91746544|NCT01942668|183385822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.025
91746545|NCT01942668|183385822|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746546|NCT01942668|183385822|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746547|NCT01942668|183385823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746548|NCT01942668|183385823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746549|NCT01942668|183385823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.066
91746550|NCT01942668|183385823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.055
91746551|NCT01942668|183385823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.174
91746552|NCT01942668|183385823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.319
91746553|NCT01942668|183385823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.007
91907402|NCT03710486|183709932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||=|0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||1.34|0.40|=0.3103
91746554|NCT01942668|183385823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.008
91907403|NCT03710486|183709932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||=|0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.76|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||0.76|0.22|=0.0045
91746555|NCT01942668|183385824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746556|NCT01942668|183385824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746557|NCT01942668|183385824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.019
91746558|NCT01942668|183385824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.061
91746559|NCT01942668|183385824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.026
91746560|NCT01942668|183385824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.104
91746561|NCT01942668|183385824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746562|NCT01942668|183385824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.018
91746563|NCT01942668|183385825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746564|NCT01942668|183385825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746565|NCT01942668|183385825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.006
91746566|NCT01942668|183385825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.003
91746567|NCT01942668|183385825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.017
91746568|NCT01942668|183385825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.025
91746569|NCT01942668|183385825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
91746570|NCT01942668|183385825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.037
91746571|NCT01942668|183385826|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746572|NCT01942668|183385826|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746573|NCT01942668|183385826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
91746574|NCT01942668|183385826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.016
91746575|NCT01942668|183385826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.012
91746576|NCT01942668|183385826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.053
91746577|NCT01942668|183385826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
91746578|NCT01942668|183385826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.074
91746579|NCT01942668|183385827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746580|NCT01942668|183385827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746581|NCT01942668|183385827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91907404|NCT03710486|183709932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||=|0.6287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||2.42|0.59|=0.6287
91746582|NCT01942668|183385827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746583|NCT01942668|183385827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.009
91746584|NCT01942668|183385827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
91746585|NCT01942668|183385827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.002
91746586|NCT01942668|183385827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.015
91746587|NCT01942668|183385828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
91746588|NCT01942668|183385828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746589|NCT01942668|183385828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.002
91746590|NCT01942668|183385828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
91746591|NCT01942668|183385828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
91746592|NCT01942668|183385828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.009
91907405|NCT03710486|183709932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||=|0.2495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||1.36|0.31|=0.2495
91746593|NCT01942668|183385828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.018
91746594|NCT01942668|183385828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.021
91746595|NCT01942668|183385829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746596|NCT01942668|183385829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746597|NCT01942668|183385829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746598|NCT01942668|183385829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746599|NCT01942668|183385829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746600|NCT01942668|183385829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746601|NCT01942668|183385829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746602|NCT01942668|183385829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746603|NCT01942668|183385830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746604|NCT01942668|183385830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746605|NCT01942668|183385830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746606|NCT01942668|183385830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746607|NCT01942668|183385830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.006
91746608|NCT01942668|183385830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
91746609|NCT01942668|183385830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.015
91746610|NCT01942668|183385830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.005
91746611|NCT01942668|183385831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.523
91746612|NCT01942668|183385831|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||1.000
91877428|NCT04748445|183648418|OTHER||Slope|-1.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Jitter Local Absolute (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For estimated value it was 10\^-7).||||<.0001
91746613|NCT01942668|183385831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.821
91746614|NCT01942668|183385831|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||1.000
91746615|NCT01942668|183385831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.828||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.828
91746616|NCT01942668|183385831|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||1.000
91746617|NCT01942668|183385831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.239
91746618|NCT01942668|183385831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.377
91746619|NCT01942668|183385832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.036
91746620|NCT01942668|183385832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.015
91746621|NCT01942668|183385832|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||1.000
91746622|NCT01942668|183385832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.546
91746623|NCT01942668|183385832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.352
91746624|NCT01942668|183385832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.261
91746625|NCT01942668|183385832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.058
91746626|NCT01942668|183385832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.011
91746627|NCT01942668|183385833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746628|NCT01942668|183385833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746629|NCT01942668|183385833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.115
91746630|NCT01942668|183385833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.110
91746631|NCT01942668|183385833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.089
91746632|NCT01942668|183385833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.074
91746633|NCT01942668|183385833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.011
91746634|NCT01942668|183385833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.008
91746635|NCT01942668|183385834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746636|NCT01942668|183385834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746637|NCT01942668|183385834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.011
91746638|NCT01942668|183385834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746639|NCT01942668|183385834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.002
91746640|NCT01942668|183385834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.002
91746641|NCT01942668|183385834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746642|NCT01942668|183385834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91877429|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-1.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.9103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.079|1.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Cepstral Peak Prominence (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||1.814|-2.079|0.9103
91907406|NCT03710486|183709933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||=|0.4784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||1.22|0.66|=0.4784
91800697|NCT01999868|183478425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Randomization (PASI score week 0:12-20 or \>20), DLQI score at baseline, duration of disease prior to screening, centered about median, are covariates||Week 12 to 88||||0.045
91907407|NCT03710486|183709933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||=|0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||1.15|0.60|=0.2616
91746643|NCT01942668|183385835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746644|NCT01942668|183385835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746645|NCT01942668|183385835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.048
91746646|NCT01942668|183385835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.006
91746647|NCT01942668|183385835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.063
91746648|NCT01942668|183385835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.058
91746649|NCT01942668|183385835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
91746650|NCT01942668|183385835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.003
91746651|NCT01942668|183385836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746652|NCT01942668|183385836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746653|NCT01942668|183385836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.050
91746654|NCT01942668|183385836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.006
91746655|NCT01942668|183385836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.048
91746656|NCT01942668|183385836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
91746657|NCT01942668|183385836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.020
91746658|NCT01942668|183385836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
91746659|NCT01942668|183385837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746660|NCT01942668|183385837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746661|NCT01942668|183385837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
91746662|NCT01942668|183385837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746663|NCT01942668|183385837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.006
91746664|NCT01942668|183385837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746665|NCT01942668|183385837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91800698|NCT05938920|183478480|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.6098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1026|2.8831||||||||2.8831|-4.1026|
91746666|NCT01942668|183385837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91800699|NCT05938920|183478480|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.6721|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91075|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0738|4.4179||||||||4.4179|-3.0738|
91800700|NCT05938920|183478480|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.8232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.30479|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.697|7.3433||||||||7.3433|-1.6970|
91800701|NCT05938920|183478480|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.2933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15954|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5273|3.9408||||||||3.9408|-4.5273|
91800702|NCT05938920|183478481|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.0566||||||||0.0566|-0.1050|
91800703|NCT05938920|183478481|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04492|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0687|0.1074||||||||0.1074|-0.0687|
91877430|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.007667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.741||0.6605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02119|0.03653|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Harmonicity (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.03653|-0.02119|0.6605
91746667|NCT01942668|183385838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746668|NCT01942668|183385838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746669|NCT01942668|183385838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.013
91746670|NCT01942668|183385838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746671|NCT01942668|183385838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
91746672|NCT01942668|183385838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
91746673|NCT01942668|183385838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.003
91746674|NCT01942668|183385838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
91746675|NCT01942668|183385839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746676|NCT01942668|183385839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746677|NCT01942668|183385839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746678|NCT01942668|183385839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746679|NCT01942668|183385839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
91746680|NCT01942668|183385839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746681|NCT01942668|183385839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
91746682|NCT01942668|183385839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746683|NCT01942668|183385840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746684|NCT01942668|183385840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746685|NCT01942668|183385840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746686|NCT01942668|183385840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746687|NCT01942668|183385840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746688|NCT01942668|183385840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746689|NCT01942668|183385840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
91746690|NCT01942668|183385840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746691|NCT01942668|183385841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746692|NCT01942668|183385841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746693|NCT01942668|183385841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746694|NCT01942668|183385841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91800704|NCT05938920|183478481|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04994|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0087|0.1872||||||||0.1872|-0.0087|
91800705|NCT05938920|183478481|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04585|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0981|0.0817||||||||0.0817|-0.0981|
91877431|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8012|1.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.736|0.8012|<.0001
91877432|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-1.752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.127||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.276|1.773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.773|-5.276|0.4117
91877433|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.262||0.2728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.012|3.482|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For lower limit it was 10\^-2).||3.482|-7.012|0.2728
91877434|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-1.407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.194||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.385|5.724|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For upper limit it was 10\^-2).||5.724|-3.385|0.2411
91877435|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.004466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.869||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1514|0.1425|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1425|-0.1514|0.9599
91907408|NCT03710486|183709933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01|||=|0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.34|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||3.34|1.20|=0.0077
91877436|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.1572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.127||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3084|-0.005942|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.005942|-0.3084|0.0875
91907409|NCT03710486|183709933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||=|0.3046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.14|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||2.14|0.79|=0.3046
91746695|NCT01942668|183385841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746696|NCT01942668|183385841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.003
91746697|NCT01942668|183385841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746698|NCT01942668|183385841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746699|NCT01942668|183385842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746700|NCT01942668|183385842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746701|NCT01942668|183385842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746702|NCT01942668|183385842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91746703|NCT01942668|183385842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746704|NCT01942668|183385842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.056
91746705|NCT01942668|183385842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
91746706|NCT01942668|183385842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.017
91746707|NCT01942668|183385843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746708|NCT01942668|183385843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
91877437|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.598||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.072|2.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2 and for lower limit it was 10\^-3).||2.507|-1.072|0.1029
91877438|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-1.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.218||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.25|1.423|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For upper limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||1.423|-2.250|0.1468
91877439|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.05944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.536||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04887|0.1678|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1678|-0.04887|0.3649
91877440|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.03115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.007||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1307|0.06839|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06839|-0.1307|0.6050
91877441|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.01908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.932||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1174|0.07922|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.07922|-0.1174|0.7483
91877442|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-6.574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.105||0.9897|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.526|8.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||8.394|-8.526|0.9897
91877443|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|5.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176||0.9228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.074|9.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||9.080|-8.074|0.9228
91877444|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.08365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.873||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03604|0.1313|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1313|0.03604|0.0043
91877445|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.02906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.009486|0.04863|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.04863|0.009486|0.0153
91877446|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.447||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.563|6.357|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||6.357|1.563|0.0071
91907410|NCT03710486|183709934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||=|0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||1.30|0.22|=0.1681
91907411|NCT03710486|183709934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|||=|0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||1.09|0.05|=0.0645
91746709|NCT01942668|183385843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91746710|NCT01942668|183385843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91746711|NCT01942668|183385845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91907412|NCT03710486|183709934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||=|0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||2.51|0.06|=0.3145
91746712|NCT01942668|183385845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746713|NCT01942668|183385845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91746714|NCT01942668|183385845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91746715|NCT01942668|183385847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91877447|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|2.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.115|4.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||4.516|1.115|0.0070
91877448|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.007814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034||0.4513|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009323|0.02495|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02495|-0.009323|0.4513
91877449|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.443||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.483|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||2.550|-2.483|0.1753
91907413|NCT03710486|183709934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||=|0.8197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|47.11|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||47.11|0.05|=0.8197
91907414|NCT03710486|183709935|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||=|0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.89|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||0.89|0.20|=0.0239
91746716|NCT01942668|183385847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746717|NCT01942668|183385847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91800706|NCT05938920|183478482|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.6043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9549|1.7462||||||||1.7462|-2.9549|
91877450|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|2.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.228||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.164|3.891|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion it was 10\^-3).||3.891|1.164|0.0026
91877451|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.01755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.204||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.005616|0.02949|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02949|0.005616|0.0162
91877452|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|2.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.892|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.697|3.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||3.650|1.697|<.0001
91877453|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.01394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.642||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.004595|0.02329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02329|0.004595|0.0148
91877454|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.01547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.666||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.004425|0.02652|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02652|0.004425|0.0219
91877455|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.122||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.032|2.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||2.132|1.032|0.0703
91877456|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.0116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.226||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00294|0.02026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02026|0.002940|0.0282
91877457|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.04771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.351||0.157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.007823|0.1032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_SNR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1032|-0.007823|0.1570
91746718|NCT01942668|183385847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91877458|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.0008053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.807||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0008199|0.002431|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Shimmer Local dB (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002431|-0.0008199|0.4131
91746719|NCT01942668|183385849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
91746720|NCT01942668|183385849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.122
91746721|NCT01942668|183385849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.280
91746722|NCT01942668|183385849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.692
91877459|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.03945|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.892||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0708|-0.008096|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Spectral Flatness (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.008096|-0.07080|0.0391
91877460|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.07075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.409||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2101|0.0686|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Third Octave Band (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06860|-0.2101|0.4018
91877461|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.607||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.319|7.635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_VLHR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||7.635|-4.319|0.6466
91877462|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.423||0.4118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.186|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Cepstral Peak Prominence (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||3.530|-1.186|0.4118
91877463|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-1.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.965||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.385|3.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Harmonicity (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||3.129|-3.385|0.9481
91877464|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.9159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4783|1.354|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.354|0.4783|0.0007
91877465|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.894||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.319|9.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For upper limit it was 10\^-2).||9.585|-5.319|0.2519
91746723|NCT01942668|183385850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
91746724|NCT01942668|183385850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.069
91746725|NCT01942668|183385850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.131
91746726|NCT01942668|183385850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
91746727|NCT01942668|183385851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
91746728|NCT01942668|183385851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.040
91746729|NCT01942668|183385851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.082
91746730|NCT01942668|183385851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.495
91746731|NCT01942668|183385852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
91746732|NCT01942668|183385852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
91746733|NCT01942668|183385852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.137
91800707|NCT05938920|183478482|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9603|3.2624||||||||3.2624|-1.9603|
91877466|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.166|3.524|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For lower limit it was 10\^-2).||3.524|1.166|0.0791
91877467|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.2064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.474||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3468|-0.06599|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.06599|-0.3468|0.0163
91907415|NCT03710486|183709935|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.21|||=|0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.91|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||0.91|0.05|=0.0373
91746734|NCT01942668|183385852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.792
91746735|NCT01942668|183385853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
91746736|NCT01942668|183385853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.067
91746737|NCT01942668|183385853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.260
91746738|NCT01942668|183385853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.792
91746739|NCT01942668|183385854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91746740|NCT01942668|183385854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.095
91746741|NCT01942668|183385854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
91746742|NCT01942668|183385854|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91746743|NCT01942668|183385855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91746744|NCT01942668|183385855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.075
91746745|NCT01942668|183385855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.225
91746746|NCT01942668|183385855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.769
91746747|NCT01942668|183385856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91746748|NCT01942668|183385856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.084
91746749|NCT01942668|183385856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.183
91800708|NCT05938920|183478482|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.4975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3187|5.3136||||||||5.3136|-0.3187|
91877468|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-1.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.67||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.867|3.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1).||3.375|-2.867|0.1932
91746750|NCT01942668|183385856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.738
91746751|NCT01942668|183385857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91746752|NCT01942668|183385857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.125
91746753|NCT01942668|183385857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.386
91746754|NCT01942668|183385857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
91746755|NCT01942668|183385858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
91746756|NCT01942668|183385858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.183
91746757|NCT01942668|183385858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.745
91746758|NCT01942668|183385858|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91746759|NCT01942668|183385859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.035
91746760|NCT01942668|183385859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.536
91746761|NCT01942668|183385859|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91746762|NCT01942668|183385859|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91746763|NCT01942668|183385860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.261
91746764|NCT01942668|183385860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.536
91746765|NCT01942668|183385860|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91746766|NCT01942668|183385860|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91746767|NCT01942668|183385861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.463
91746768|NCT01942668|183385861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.687
91746769|NCT01942668|183385861|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91746770|NCT01942668|183385861|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91746771|NCT01942668|183385862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746772|NCT01942668|183385862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
91746773|NCT01942668|183385862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
91746774|NCT01942668|183385862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.328
91746775|NCT01942668|183385863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746776|NCT01942668|183385863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.123
91746777|NCT01942668|183385863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
91746778|NCT01942668|183385863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.649
91746779|NCT01942668|183385864|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746780|NCT01942668|183385864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
91746781|NCT01942668|183385864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
91746782|NCT01942668|183385864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.426
91746783|NCT01942668|183385865|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91800709|NCT05938920|183478482|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8142|2.7724||||||||2.7724|-2.8142|
91800710|NCT05938920|183478483|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.5762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74854|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0035|2.8511||||||||2.8511|-4.0035|
91800711|NCT05938920|183478483|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.5884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.90433|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1449|4.3216||||||||4.3216|-3.1449|
91800712|NCT05938920|183478483|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.6554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8486|7.1593||||||||7.1593|-1.8486|
91877469|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.02851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1365|0.1936|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1936|-0.1365|0.7752
91746784|NCT01942668|183385865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.044
91746785|NCT01942668|183385865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91746786|NCT01942668|183385865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.481
91746787|NCT01942668|183385866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746788|NCT01942668|183385866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.110
91746789|NCT01942668|183385866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.045
91746790|NCT01942668|183385866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.853
91746791|NCT01942668|183385867|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746792|NCT01942668|183385867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
91746793|NCT01942668|183385867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.145
91746794|NCT01942668|183385867|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91746795|NCT01942668|183385868|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746796|NCT01942668|183385868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.163
91746797|NCT01942668|183385868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.091
91746798|NCT01942668|183385868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.693
91746799|NCT01942668|183385869|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746800|NCT01942668|183385869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.178
91746801|NCT01942668|183385869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.097
91746802|NCT01942668|183385869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.522
91746803|NCT01942668|183385870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746804|NCT01942668|183385870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.315
91746805|NCT01942668|183385870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.181
91746806|NCT01942668|183385870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.821
91746807|NCT01942668|183385871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746808|NCT01942668|183385871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.387
91746809|NCT01942668|183385871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.215
91746810|NCT01942668|183385871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.639
91746811|NCT01942668|183385872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
91746812|NCT01942668|183385872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.643
91746813|NCT01942668|183385872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.501
91746814|NCT01942668|183385872|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91746815|NCT01942668|183385873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91746816|NCT01942668|183385873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.616
91746817|NCT01942668|183385873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
91746818|NCT01942668|183385873|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91746819|NCT01942668|183385874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
91746820|NCT01942668|183385874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.535
91746821|NCT01942668|183385874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.183
91746822|NCT01942668|183385874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.738
91746823|NCT01942668|183385875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746824|NCT01942668|183385875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91746825|NCT01942668|183385875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
91746826|NCT01942668|183385875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
91746827|NCT01942668|183385876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746828|NCT01942668|183385876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
91746829|NCT01942668|183385876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91746830|NCT01942668|183385876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.256
91746831|NCT01942668|183385877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746832|NCT01942668|183385877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91746833|NCT01942668|183385877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
91746834|NCT01942668|183385877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.182
91746835|NCT01942668|183385878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91877470|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.569||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.48|2.464|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For lower limit it was 10\^-3. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||2.464|-4.480|0.1126
91877471|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.2215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.498||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3624|-0.08072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.08072|-0.3624|0.0102
91877472|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.0556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.072||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06159|0.1728|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1728|-0.06159|0.4332
91877473|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.01214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09044|0.1147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1147|-0.09044|0.8448
91877474|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.1106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.852||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.191|-0.03016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.03016|-0.1910|0.0244
91877475|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.04884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.827||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1288|0.03115|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.03115|-0.1288|0.3136
91877476|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.634||0.524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05736|0.1294|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1294|-0.05736|0.5240
91877477|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|2.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.096||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.222|8.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||8.039|-2.222|0.3493
91877478|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.595||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.58|6.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||6.019|-2.580|0.5087
91746836|NCT01942668|183385878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.469
91746837|NCT01942668|183385878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.188
91746838|NCT01942668|183385878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.613
91746839|NCT01942668|183385883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91746840|NCT01942668|183385883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.135
91746841|NCT01942668|183385883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.260
91877479|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.004403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.503||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02051|0.02931|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02931|-0.02051|0.7701
91877480|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.007542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.639||0.6461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01961|0.0347|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.03470|-0.01961|0.6461
91877481|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|2.386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.233||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.022|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 05 (The statistical data given below have (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||3.750|1.022|0.0044
91877482|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.243||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.663|3.652|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||3.652|-4.663|0.2022
91877483|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.002902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.082||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01503|0.02084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02084|-0.01503|0.7890
91877484|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.118||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.371|3.467|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||3.467|-2.371|0.1510
91746842|NCT01942668|183385883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.257
91746843|NCT01942668|183385884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91746844|NCT01942668|183385884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.085
91800713|NCT05938920|183478483|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3227|4.1977||||||||4.1977|-4.3227|
91877485|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.126|2.945|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||2.945|-7.126|0.3138
91877486|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.002168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.632||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01813|0.01379|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.01379|-0.01813|0.8223
91877487|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|1.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.081||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.978|3.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||3.185|-3.978|0.1997
91877488|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.01375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.622||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00278|0.02473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02473|0.002780|0.0398
91877489|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.002892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205||0.8107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02286|0.01707|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.01707|-0.02286|0.8107
91877490|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-3.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.256||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.706|5.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_SNR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||5.085|-5.706|0.9242
91877491|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.0006145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.704||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0009936|0.002223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Shimmer Local dB (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002223|-0.0009936|0.5277
91877492|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-2.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.969||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.174|3.522|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Spectral Flatness (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For upper limit it was 10\^-3).||3.522|-6.174|0.1418
91877493|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.1487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.77||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.294|-0.003375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Third Octave Band (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.003375|-0.2940|0.0924
91877494|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|3.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.396||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.318|5.936|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_VLHR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||5.936|-5.318|0.9277
91877495|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.8362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.492|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.180|0.4920|<.0001
91877496|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.03559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.147||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1545|0.2256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 02 (The statistical data given below have (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||0.2256|-0.1545|0.7568
91746845|NCT01942668|183385884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.184
91877497|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.2043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.752||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07585|0.3328|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.3328|0.07585|0.0095
91877498|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.0828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.413||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1891|0.02348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02348|-0.1891|0.1991
91877499|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.02415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.6469|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1113|0.06301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06301|-0.1113|0.6469
91877500|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.1209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.904||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2022|-0.03967|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.03967|-0.2022|0.0150
91877501|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.02617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.639||0.5736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0507|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1030|-0.05070|0.5736
91877502|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.07305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.267||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1438|-0.002335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.002335|-0.1438|0.0894
91877503|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-2.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.428||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.706|4.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||4.968|-9.706|0.5936
91877504|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.07377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.339||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1291|-0.01844|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.01844|-0.1291|0.0290
91877505|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.008703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.665||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05203|0.06944|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06944|-0.05203|0.8127
91800714|NCT01251861|183478484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
91877506|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.07414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.294||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1287|-0.01955|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.01955|-0.1287|0.0262
91877507|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|2.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.705||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.553|7.412|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||7.412|-1.553|0.2809
91877508|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-2.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.612|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.812|-1.621|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-1.621|-3.812|<.0001
91877509|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.05798|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.961||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.107|-0.008915|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.008915|-0.1070|0.0524
91877510|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-1.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.778||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.955|1.938|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||1.938|-3.955|0.5716
91877511|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.0223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.193||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04208|-0.002526|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.002526|-0.04208|0.0640
91877512|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-1.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.176||0.2584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.285|6.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For upper limit it was 10\^-3).||6.138|-3.285|0.2584
91877513|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.006497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.413||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02992|0.01692|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.01692|-0.02992|0.6465
91800715|NCT01251861|183478493|OTHER|The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and Gleason score (\<7, 7 vs. \>7) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||||0.5||||||p-value based on logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment|Regression, Logistic|||The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and Gleason score (\<7, 7 vs. \>7) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||0.50
91877514|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-1.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.489|6.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3 and for upper limit it was 10\^-4).||6.297|-2.489|0.1177
91877515|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.007959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.743||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02411|0.008187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.008187|-0.02411|0.4155
91877516|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.004137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.017||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01742|0.009148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.009148|-0.01742|0.6067
91877517|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.000376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.531||0.9603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0121|0.01286|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.01286|-0.01210|0.9603
91877518|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.002185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.703||0.7022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01164|0.007265|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.007265|-0.01164|0.7022
91877519|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.007716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.746||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001806|0.01724|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.01724|-0.001806|0.1818
91877520|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|-0.004019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.419||0.5324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01466|0.006618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.006618|-0.01466|0.5324
91877521|NCT04748445|183648419|OTHER||Slope|0.005103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.737||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04025|0.05046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_SNR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.05046|-0.04025|0.8524
91877522|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|2.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.383||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.631|8.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Coefficient of Variation F0 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4.||8.580|-2.631|0.3809
91877523|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.005601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.751||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01016|-0.001043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3.||-0.001043|-0.01016|0.0438
91877524|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.464||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.694|6.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3.||6.546|1.694|0.0057
91877525|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-3.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.811|-1.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3.||-1.323|-4.811|0.0042
91877526|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.751||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.164|4.396|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-3. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||4.396|1.164|0.0051
91877527|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-1.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.289||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.698|4.973|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-3. For upper limit it was 10\^-5 and for dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||4.973|-2.698|0.1128
91746846|NCT01942668|183385884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.681
91746847|NCT01942668|183385885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
91800716|NCT01251861|183478494|OTHER|The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and prior hormonal therapy (yes vs. no) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||||0.28||||||p-value based on logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment|Regression, Logistic|||The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and prior hormonal therapy (yes vs. no) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||0.28
91800717|NCT03355365|183478510|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91800718|NCT03355365|183478511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
91800719|NCT03355365|183478512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
91800720|NCT03355365|183478513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91877528|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0002606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.707||0.7888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001869|0.001348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001348|-0.001869|0.7888
91877529|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0005071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.593||0.5055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001765|0.0007512|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007512|-0.001765|0.5055
91746848|NCT01942668|183385885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
91746849|NCT01942668|183385885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.138
91746850|NCT01942668|183385885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.685
91877530|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0003067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.273||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0007328|0.001346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001346|-0.0007328|0.6257
91746851|NCT01942668|183385886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
91746852|NCT01942668|183385886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.265
91746853|NCT01942668|183385886|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91800721|NCT03355365|183478514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.43
91800722|NCT03355365|183478515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91800723|NCT03355365|183478516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91800724|NCT03355365|183478517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.71
91800725|NCT03355365|183478518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91800726|NCT05203289|183478520|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|101.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.31|111.23|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of BI 695501: (40 mg/0.4 mL (T))/(40 mg/0.8 mL (R)).~Geometric standard error= 105.455."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANCOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'treatment', 'location of trial medication injection' and 'baseline body weight' (continuous).||111.23|93.31|
91800727|NCT05203289|183478521|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|105.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.06|116.81|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of BI 695501: (40 mg/0.4 mL (T))/(40 mg/0.8 mL (R)).~Geometric standard error= 106.431."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANCOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'treatment', 'location of trial medication injection' and 'baseline body weight' (continuous).||116.81|95.06|
91800728|NCT05203289|183478522|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|91.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.38|98.76|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of BI 695501: (40 mg/0.4 mL (T))/(40 mg/0.8 mL (R)).~Geometric standard error= 104.874."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANCOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'treatment', 'location of trial medication injection' and 'baseline body weight' (continuous).||98.76|84.38|
91800729|NCT01147640|183478581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91800730|NCT01147640|183478582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91800731|NCT00091442|183478583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5988||95.0|0.86|1.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Log Rank|||Null Hypothesis: Designed to detect an improvement in median survival from 15 months to 19.5 months with 80% power.||1.3|0.86|0.5988
91877531|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.001649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.998||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002974|-0.0003238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0003238|-0.002974|0.0413
91877532|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0008236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.053||0.2451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003452|0.001992|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001992|-0.0003452|0.2451
91877533|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.000292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.839||0.6702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001425|0.0008413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0008413|-0.001425|0.6702
91877534|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0003363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.312||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001382|0.0007097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007097|-0.001382|0.5951
91877535|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0007281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.677||0.202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0002126|0.001669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001669|-0.0002126|0.2020
91877536|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0005153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.7356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002008|0.003038|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.003038|-0.002008|0.7356
91746854|NCT01942668|183385886|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91877537|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.00133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.782||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002453|-0.0002057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0002057|-0.002453|0.0522
91877538|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.000156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.763||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001277|0.0009647|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0009647|-0.001277|0.8180
91746855|NCT01942668|183385891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-1.17||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.17|-2.13|<0.001
91746856|NCT01942668|183385891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-1.79|<0.001
91800732|NCT00091442|183478584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis - no difference in response rate between the two treatment groups.||||0.0085
91746857|NCT01942668|183385891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.64|<0.001
91746858|NCT01942668|183385891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.58|-1.51|<0.001
91877539|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0000971|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001121|0.000927|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4.||0.0009270|-0.001121|0.8754
91877540|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.000452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.576||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0004721|0.001376|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001376|-0.0004721|0.4192
91877541|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0001528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.586||0.7849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001079|0.0007729|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007729|-0.001079|0.7849
91877542|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-5.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.217||0.901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.513|6.463|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For estimated value it was 10\^-5).||6.463|-7.513|0.9010
91877543|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0004591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.2329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001094|0.0001755|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0001755|-0.001094|0.2329
91877544|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0007046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.687||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00009366|0.001315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001315|0.00009366|0.0583
91746859|NCT01942668|183385892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.89|-1.91|<0.001
91800733|NCT00091442|183478585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.55|0.77|||Log Rank|||"Null hypothersis - no difference in Time to Progression (TTP) between the two treatment groups.~Designed to detect an improvement in median TTP from 6 months to 7.8 months with 80% power, assuming exponential survival distribution."||0.77|0.55|<0.0001
91746860|NCT01942668|183385892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.82||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.82|-1.81|<0.001
91746861|NCT01942668|183385892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-1.63|<0.001
91746862|NCT01942668|183385892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-1.19|0.007
91746863|NCT01942668|183385893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.66||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.66|-1.75|<0.001
91746864|NCT01942668|183385893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.94||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.98|<0.001
91800734|NCT00986830|183478599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided||||A reduction in SNOT-20 score of 0.8 or more is considered clinically meaningful.|||<0.0001
91746865|NCT01942668|183385893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.76|<0.001
91746866|NCT01942668|183385893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-1.26|0.008
91746867|NCT01942668|183385894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.49|0.284
91746868|NCT01942668|183385894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-0.36|0.732
91746869|NCT01942668|183385894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.44|0.437
91746870|NCT01942668|183385894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.43|0.439
91746871|NCT01942668|183385895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.68|0.040
91746872|NCT01942668|183385895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.63|0.066
91746873|NCT01942668|183385895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.45|0.469
91746874|NCT01942668|183385895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.41|0.616
91746875|NCT01942668|183385896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.57|0.250
91746876|NCT01942668|183385896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.88|0.002
91746877|NCT01942668|183385896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.40|0.796
91746878|NCT01942668|183385896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-0.36|0.955
91746879|NCT01942668|183385897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.38|0.474
91746880|NCT01942668|183385897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.40|0.378
91746881|NCT01942668|183385897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.61|0.018
91800735|NCT00986830|183478600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91877545|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-1.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.606||0.6654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.54|4.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||4.413|-7.540|0.6654
91877546|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.00006573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.8154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003998|0.0005313|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0005313|-0.0003998|0.8154
91746882|NCT01942668|183385897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.32|0.730
91746883|NCT01942668|183385898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.49|0.197
91746884|NCT01942668|183385898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.44|0.308
91746885|NCT01942668|183385898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.54|0.117
91746886|NCT01942668|183385898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.34|0.739
91746887|NCT01942668|183385899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-0.42|0.635
91746888|NCT01942668|183385899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.75|0.010
91746889|NCT01942668|183385899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.62|0.092
91746890|NCT01942668|183385899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.53|0.243
91746891|NCT01942668|183385900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.00|-0.83|0.049
91746892|NCT01942668|183385900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-0.34|0.773
91746893|NCT01942668|183385900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.77|0.081
91746894|NCT01942668|183385900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.50|0.625
91746895|NCT01942668|183385901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.70|0.221
91746896|NCT01942668|183385901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.42|0.992
91746897|NCT01942668|183385901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.72|0.181
91746898|NCT01942668|183385901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.47|0.846
91877547|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0004071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.664||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001014|0.0002001|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0002001|-0.001014|0.2687
91746899|NCT01942668|183385902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.71|0.421
91746900|NCT01942668|183385902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.97|0.044
91746901|NCT01942668|183385902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.92|0.093
91746902|NCT01942668|183385902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.79|0.247
91746903|NCT01942668|183385903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.87|<0.001
91877548|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|2.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.317||0.4005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.698|8.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||8.296|-2.698|0.4005
91746904|NCT01942668|183385903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.62|0.016
91746905|NCT01942668|183385903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.76|<0.001
91746906|NCT01942668|183385903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.60|0.023
91746907|NCT01942668|183385904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.84|<0.001
91746908|NCT01942668|183385904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.71|0.004
91746909|NCT01942668|183385904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.73|0.003
91746910|NCT01942668|183385904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.49|0.179
91746911|NCT01942668|183385905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.76|0.012
91746912|NCT01942668|183385905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.05|<0.001
91746913|NCT01942668|183385905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-0.81|0.004
91746914|NCT01942668|183385905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.63|0.070
91746915|NCT01942668|183385906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.059||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|-0.35||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.35|-8.44|0.033
91746916|NCT01942668|183385906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.015||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.41|-6.50|0.207
91746917|NCT01942668|183385906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-0.61||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-8.58|0.024
91746918|NCT01942668|183385906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.007||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|1.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.41|-6.47|0.207
91746919|NCT01942668|183385907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.138||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|-1.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.28|-9.68|0.011
91746920|NCT01942668|183385907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.093||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|-1.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.14|-9.36|0.012
91746921|NCT01942668|183385907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.122||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|-1.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.41|-9.75|0.009
91746922|NCT01942668|183385907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.096||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|-0.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-9.11|0.018
91746923|NCT01942668|183385908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.427||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-9.38|0.058
91746924|NCT01942668|183385908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.322||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-2.92||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.92|-12.04|0.001
91746925|NCT01942668|183385908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|-3.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.25|-12.67|<0.001
91746926|NCT01942668|183385908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.404||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.06|-11.50|0.005
91746927|NCT01942668|183385909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-1.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.04|-11.92|0.020
91746928|NCT01942668|183385909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.715||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|1.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|-8.69|0.216
91746929|NCT01942668|183385909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.734||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|-0.48||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.48|-11.22|0.033
91746930|NCT01942668|183385909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.685||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|2.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.28|-8.27|0.265
91746931|NCT01942668|183385910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.854||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-1.93||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.93|-13.14|0.008
91746932|NCT01942668|183385910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.18|-1.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.26|-12.18|0.016
91746933|NCT01942668|183385910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.847||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|-3.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.10|-14.28|0.002
91746934|NCT01942668|183385910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|-0.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-11.68|0.028
91746935|NCT01942668|183385911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-0.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-12.80|0.040
91746936|NCT01942668|183385911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-4.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.04|-15.99|0.001
91746937|NCT01942668|183385911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.129||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-3.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.81|-16.11|0.002
91746938|NCT01942668|183385911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.127||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.99|-0.7||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-12.99|0.029
91746939|NCT01942668|183385912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.003||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|9.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.05|-2.75|0.294
91746940|NCT01942668|183385912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.922||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|8.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.60|-2.87|0.327
91746941|NCT01942668|183385912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.947||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|4.39||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.39|-7.18|0.637
91746942|NCT01942668|183385912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.893||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|5.86||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.86|-5.51|0.952
91746943|NCT01942668|183385913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.219||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|8.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.14|-4.51|0.573
91746944|NCT01942668|183385913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.107||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|5.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-7.01|0.769
91746945|NCT01942668|183385913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-12.56|0.047
91746946|NCT01942668|183385913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.133||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|3.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.56|-8.74|0.409
91746947|NCT01942668|183385914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.443||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|8.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.67|-4.85|0.579
91746948|NCT01942668|183385914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.275||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|2.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.44|-10.43|0.223
91746949|NCT01942668|183385914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.367||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|4.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.56|-8.67|0.542
91746950|NCT01942668|183385914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.376||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|4.23||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-9.04|0.476
91746951|NCT01942668|183385915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.84|-6.34|0.631
91746952|NCT01942668|183385915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|6.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.14|-3.84|0.651
91746953|NCT01942668|183385915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.578||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|4.45||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.45|-5.67|0.813
91746954|NCT01942668|183385915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.515||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|4.52||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.52|-5.35|0.869
91746955|NCT01942668|183385916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|0.48||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.48|-10.48|0.074
91746956|NCT01942668|183385916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.722||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|4.47||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.47|-6.22|0.748
91746957|NCT01942668|183385916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.805||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|5.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.56|-5.46|0.987
91746958|NCT01942668|183385916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.741||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|4.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.36|-6.41|0.709
91800736|NCT00986830|183478601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91746959|NCT01942668|183385917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.968||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|3.22||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.22|-8.44|0.379
91746960|NCT01942668|183385917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.832||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|2.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.49|-8.64|0.279
91746961|NCT01942668|183385917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.949||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|5.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.40|-6.19|0.894
91746962|NCT01942668|183385917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.923||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|2.76||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.76|-8.72|0.308
91746963|NCT01942668|183385918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.081||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|7.86||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.86|-4.24|0.558
91746964|NCT01942668|183385918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.031||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|9.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.57|-2.34|0.233
91746965|NCT01942668|183385918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.036||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|12.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.13|0.20|0.043
91746966|NCT01942668|183385918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.95||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.95|-3.80|0.488
91746967|NCT01942668|183385919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.206||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|10.37||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.37|-2.23|0.205
91746968|NCT01942668|183385919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.133||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|15.74||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.74|3.43|0.002
91746969|NCT01942668|183385919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.193||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|11.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.32|-1.23|0.115
91800737|NCT00986830|183478602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91800738|NCT00986830|183478603|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91800739|NCT00986830|183478604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91800740|NCT00986830|183478605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.292
91800741|NCT00986830|183478606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91800742|NCT00850070|183478610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.35|||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value comparison was active treatment minus placebo.|Chi-square analyses were used to assess CGI-I scores. There were no transformations.||||<.35
91800743|NCT00850070|183478611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.06
91800744|NCT00850070|183478617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91800745|NCT00216476|183478629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for significance: 0.05 (2-sided)|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis was that there is no difference in treatment effect between risperidone LAI and quetiapine by mean relapse free period; given a estimated relapse rate of 30% for risperidone LAI and 42% for quetiapine, with 80% power and 5% 2-tailed significance level, 251 subjects were needed per treatment arm. To adjust for an estimated 20% discontinuations for reasons other than relapse, 628 subjects in total were needed. Actual relapse rates were 17% (risperidone LAI) and 31% (quetiapine).||||<0.0001
91877549|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|1.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.676||0.504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.654|3.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Coefficient of Variation F0 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||3.901|-1.654|0.5040
91877550|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.00007586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.882||0.979|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.004701|0.004852|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.004852|-0.004701|0.9790
91907416|NCT03710486|183709935|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.54|||=|0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.49|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||2.49|0.12|=0.4260
91907417|NCT03710486|183709935|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56|||=|0.8012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|48.44|||Poisson Regression||The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||48.44|0.05|=0.8012
91800746|NCT00216476|183478631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in total PANSS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.0001
91800747|NCT00216476|183478631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in total PANSS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
91800748|NCT00216476|183478631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in total PANSS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.1026
91800749|NCT00216476|183478632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-S score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
91800750|NCT00216476|183478632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-S score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
91800751|NCT00216476|183478632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-S score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.0446
91800752|NCT00216476|183478633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in PCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.0941
91800753|NCT00216476|183478633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in PCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
91877551|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0008249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.815||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002183|0.003833|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.003833|-0.002183|0.6503
91907418|NCT03710486|183709936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||=|0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.58|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||0.58|0.05|=0.0044
91877552|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-1.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.379|1.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||1.003|-3.379|0.3705
91877553|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0007258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.101||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002551|0.001099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.001099|-0.002551|0.5111
91877554|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.001326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.555||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002578|-0.0000744|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0000744|-0.002578|0.0816
91877555|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0005502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0012|0.002301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.002301|-0.001200|0.6034
91877556|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0004691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.305||0.522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00168|0.0007415|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007415|-0.001680|0.5220
91877557|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.00153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002826|-0.0002344|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0002344|-0.002826|0.0526
91877558|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0004166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.294||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.000792|0.001625|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001625|-0.0007920|0.5689
91877559|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.002112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.299||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.003321|-0.000902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0009020|-0.003321|0.0045
91877560|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0007706|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.494||0.3058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002013|0.0004713|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0004713|-0.002013|0.3058
91877561|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0002388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.494||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0008374|0.001315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001315|-0.0008374|0.7137
91877562|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0002121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.877||0.7583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0009275|0.001352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001352|-0.0009275|0.7583
91877563|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-2.784|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.667||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.547|-2.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit it was 10\^-5. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||-2.155|-5.547|0.0974
91877564|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-1.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.117||0.881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.648|1.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and lower limit it was 10\^-3. For estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||1.374|-1.648|0.8810
91877565|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.001551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.294||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002594|-0.0005077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0005077|-0.002594|0.0151
91877566|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.00184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.343||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0006233|0.003057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.003057|0.0006233|0.0135
91877567|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.00129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.029||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0004563|0.002123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002123|0.0004563|0.0115
91877568|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0001473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.891||0.8029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001123|0.0008288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0008288|-0.001123|0.8029
91877569|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0005556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.647||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001326|0.0002146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0002146|-0.001326|0.2342
91877570|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.001128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.339||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0002436|0.002013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002013|0.0002436|0.0366
91877571|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0003297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.134||0.522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00118|0.0005212|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0005212|-0.001180|0.5220
91877572|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-2.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.528||0.552|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.95|3.742|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||3.742|-7.950|0.5520
91877573|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0005126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.289||0.2343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0001981|0.001223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For ldispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001223|-0.0001981|0.2343
91877574|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|2.703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.094||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.081|9.487|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||9.487|-4.081|0.5103
91746970|NCT01942668|183385919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.152||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|15.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.13|2.75|0.005
91746971|NCT01942668|183385920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.719||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|8.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.27|-6.34|0.796
91746972|NCT01942668|183385920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.568||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|12.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.15|-1.87|0.150
91746973|NCT01942668|183385920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|15.77||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.77|1.39|0.019
91746974|NCT01942668|183385920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.667||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|14.71||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.71|0.30|0.041
91746975|NCT01942668|183385921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.197||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|-7.00|0.221
91746976|NCT01942668|183385921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|2.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|-5.65|0.511
91746977|NCT01942668|183385921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.168||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.92||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.92|-3.60|0.761
91746978|NCT01942668|183385921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.128||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|2.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.11|-6.25|0.332
91746979|NCT01942668|183385922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.474||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|3.86||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.86|-5.86|0.687
91746980|NCT01942668|183385922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.411||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|2.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.58|-6.88|0.373
91746981|NCT01942668|183385922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.466||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|3.94||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.94|-5.75|0.714
91746982|NCT01942668|183385922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.427||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|3.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.87|-5.67|0.711
91746983|NCT01942668|183385923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.682||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|3.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.08|-7.46|0.415
91746984|NCT01942668|183385923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.564||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-0.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-11.04|0.019
91746985|NCT01942668|183385923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.639||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-9.90|0.074
91746986|NCT01942668|183385923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.637||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|-0.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-10.94|0.030
91800754|NCT00216476|183478633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in PCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.1146
91877575|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.000202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.334||0.7056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001086|0.0006819|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0006819|-0.001086|0.7056
91746987|NCT01942668|183385924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.109||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-8.13|0.059
91746988|NCT01942668|183385924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.067||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|1.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.49|-6.63|0.215
91746989|NCT01942668|183385924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.084||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-1.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-9.19|0.015
91746990|NCT01942668|183385924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.042||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|0.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.85|-7.17|0.122
91746991|NCT01942668|183385925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.135||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-1.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.13|-9.52|0.013
91746992|NCT01942668|183385925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-1.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.68|-9.85|0.006
91746993|NCT01942668|183385925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.132||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-1.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.40|-9.77|0.009
91746994|NCT01942668|183385925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.093||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-1.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.57|-9.79|0.007
91746995|NCT01942668|183385926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|1.47||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|-8.24|0.171
91746996|NCT01942668|183385926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.364||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|-1.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.85|-11.14|0.006
91746997|NCT01942668|183385926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.434||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|-2.61||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.61|-12.17|0.003
91746998|NCT01942668|183385926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.429||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-1.92||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.92|-11.46|0.006
91746999|NCT01942668|183385927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.037||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-8.21|0.039
91747000|NCT01942668|183385927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.997||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|1.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.53|-6.31|0.232
91747001|NCT01942668|183385927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.012||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-0.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-8.32|0.030
91747002|NCT01942668|183385927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.973||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.66||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.66|-6.09|0.262
91747003|NCT01942668|183385928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.119||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|-1.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.25|-9.57|0.011
91747004|NCT01942668|183385928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.065||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-1.48||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.48|-9.60|0.008
91747005|NCT01942668|183385928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.115||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.59|-9.90|0.007
91747006|NCT01942668|183385928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.078||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.24|-9.40|0.011
91747007|NCT01942668|183385929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.421||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|0.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|-8.96|0.083
91800755|NCT00216476|183478633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in MCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.5589
91747008|NCT01942668|183385929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.317||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|-2.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.81|-11.91|0.002
91747009|NCT01942668|183385929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.384|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-3.23||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.23|-12.60|<0.001
91747010|NCT01942668|183385929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.381||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-2.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.10|-11.46|0.005
91747011|NCT01942668|183385930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.12|0.938
91877576|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.22||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.188|-1.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-3. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||-1.132|-4.188|0.0046
91800756|NCT00216476|183478633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in MCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
91800757|NCT00216476|183478633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in MCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
91800758|NCT00694707|183478709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-7.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-3.3|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-3.3|-11.8|0.0005
91800759|NCT00694707|183478709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-4.6|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-4.6|-13.1|<0.0001
91877577|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.000649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.448||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0000881|0.001386|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001386|-0.0000881|0.1471
91877578|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|1.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.323||0.6842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.152|6.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||6.862|-4.152|0.6842
91800760|NCT00694707|183478709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-6.2|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-6.2|-14.6|<0.0001
91800761|NCT00694707|183478709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-10.8|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-10.8|-19.4|<0.0001
91800762|NCT00694707|183478710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.1|-0.6|0.0040
91800763|NCT00694707|183478710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.2|-0.7|0.0003
91907419|NCT03710486|183709936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||=|0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||0.84|0.12|=0.0215
91800764|NCT00694707|183478710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
91800765|NCT00694707|183478710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.6|-1.1|<0.0001
91800766|NCT05224141|183478728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.59|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, LDH, liver metastasis, and brain metastasis.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).|Statistical analyses stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).||1.59|1.00|0.9762
91800767|NCT05224141|183478729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, LDH, liver metastasis, and brain metastasis.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).|Statistical analyses stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).||1.23|0.82|0.5316
91800768|NCT05224141|183478730|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|4.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).|Statistical analyses stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).||4.9|-11.1|
91877579|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.00007664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.574||0.7664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003499|0.0005032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0005032|-0.0003499|0.7664
91877580|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-1.708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.028||0.4015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.069|1.654|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||1.654|-5.069|0.4015
91877581|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.904||0.1897|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.446|5.665|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||5.665|-6.446|0.1897
91877582|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|2.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.627||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.035|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||5.090|-3.035|0.1439
91907420|NCT03710486|183709937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.27|||=|0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.78|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||0.78|0.10|=0.0152
91907421|NCT03710486|183709937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56|||=|0.8012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|48.44|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||48.44|0.05|=0.8012
91747012|NCT01942668|183385930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.10|0.779
91747013|NCT01942668|183385930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.14|0.646
91747014|NCT01942668|183385930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.07|0.421
91747015|NCT01942668|183385931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.01|0.075
91747016|NCT01942668|183385931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.01|0.074
91747017|NCT01942668|183385931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.07|0.370
91747018|NCT01942668|183385931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.11|0.851
91747019|NCT01942668|183385932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.18|0.452
91747020|NCT01942668|183385932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.05|0.244
91800769|NCT02390908|183478761|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.22||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.72||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.72|-0.28|0.39
91747021|NCT01942668|183385932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.19|0.354
91747022|NCT01942668|183385932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.17|0.527
91747023|NCT01942668|183385933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-1.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.55|-2.29|<0.001
91747024|NCT01942668|183385933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.81|<0.001
91877583|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|4.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.553||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.537|6.685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||6.685|1.537|0.0092
91877584|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0000415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.134||0.715|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0002294|0.0001464|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0001464|-0.0002294|0.7150
91747025|NCT01942668|183385933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.81|<0.001
91747026|NCT01942668|183385933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.88||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.88|-1.62|<0.001
91907422|NCT00492752|183709949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6783||||0.014144||95.0|0.4962|0.9272|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo.|||0.9272|0.4962|0.014144
91907423|NCT00492752|183709949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6208||||0.003464||95.0|0.4498|0.8568|||Log Rank|log rank test stratified by country, tumor burden, and ECOG.|Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||0.8568|0.4498|0.003464
91800770|NCT02390908|183478761|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.79||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.79|-0.84|0.94
91800771|NCT02390908|183478761|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.74||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3 on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.74|-0.69|0.95
91800772|NCT02390908|183478761|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.32||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.05||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3 (the Waitlist condition) and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of being in the Waitlist condition (i.e., not receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3) on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.05|-0.69|0.09
91800773|NCT02390908|183478761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.18||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.18|-0.24|0.79
91800774|NCT02390908|183478761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.36||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.36|-0.53|0.57
91800775|NCT02390908|183478761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 (Immediate) relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.36|-0.35|0.97
91800776|NCT02390908|183478761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.24|-0.10|0.41
91800777|NCT02390908|183478761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.52||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.52|-0.41|0.82
91877585|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|1.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.291||0.2194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.457|3.731|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||3.731|-5.457|0.2194
91877586|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0001893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.442||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00003283|0.0003458|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0003458|0.00003283|0.0471
91907424|NCT00492752|183709950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9032||||0.497537||95.0|0.6705|1.2165|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo.|||1.2165|0.6705|0.497537
91800778|NCT02390908|183478761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.53||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.53|-0.26|0.49
91800779|NCT02390908|183478761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.33||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.15||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 3 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.15|-0.80|0.18
91800780|NCT02390908|183478761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.32|-0.28|0.89
91877587|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.000138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.614||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0000284|0.0002476|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0002476|0.00002840|0.0390
91877588|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|1.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.579|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||2.890|-5.579|0.2645
91907425|NCT00492752|183709950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8831||||0.437926||95.0|0.6449|1.2093|||Log Rank|log rank test stratified by country, tumor burden, and ECOG.|Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||1.2093|0.6449|0.437926
91907426|NCT00492752|183709951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5744||||0.000537||95.0|0.4154|0.7942|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||0.7942|0.4154|0.000537
91877589|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.00119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002149|-0.0002303|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0002303|-0.002149|0.0420
91877590|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-4.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.542|5.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For upper limit it was 10\^-5).||5.341|-9.542|0.1410
91877591|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|2.968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.334||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.557|8.492|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||8.492|-2.557|0.3751
91877592|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0000796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.101||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0004277|0.0002685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0002685|-0.0004277|0.7053
91877593|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|5.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.878||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.964|8.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||8.187|1.964|0.0078
91877594|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.826|6.611|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For upper limit it was 10\^-6).||6.611|-3.826|0.1119
91747027|NCT01942668|183385934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.34|-2.12|<0.001
91747028|NCT01942668|183385934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-1.68|<0.001
91747029|NCT01942668|183385934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.81|-1.58|<0.001
91747030|NCT01942668|183385934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.34|<0.001
91747031|NCT01942668|183385935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-1.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.25|-2.06|<0.001
91747032|NCT01942668|183385935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.87|<0.001
91747033|NCT01942668|183385935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.70|<0.001
91877595|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|1.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.164||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.615|3.596|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||3.596|-2.615|0.1545
91877596|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|1.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.552||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.164|3.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-6 and for dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||3.114|-5.164|0.1114
91877597|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0001989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00002067|0.0003772|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0003772|0.00002067|0.0668
91877598|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.00005573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.318||0.5509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0000986|0.0002101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0002101|-0.0000986|0.5509
91877599|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.00001774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.677||0.8383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.000126|0.0001615|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0001615|-0.0001260|0.8383
91877600|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.00007327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0000366|0.0001831|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0001831|-0.0000366|0.2713
91877601|NCT04748445|183648420|OTHER||Slope|0.0001534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.067||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00000317|0.0003037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0003037|0.00000317|0.0931
91877602|NCT04748445|183648421|OTHER||Slope|-1.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.554||0.5878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.82|3.958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Entropy (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||3.958|-7.820|0.5878
91907427|NCT00492752|183709951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5375||||0.00054||95.0|0.3763|0.7677|||Log Rank|log rank test stratified by country, tumor burden, and ECOG.|Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||0.7677|0.3763|0.000540
91877603|NCT04748445|183648421|OTHER||Slope|-1.479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.847||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.866|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Entropy (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For estimated value it was 10\^-4. For dispersion value, lower limit and upper limit it was 10\^-3).||4.570|-4.866|0.9587
91877604|NCT04748445|183648422|OTHER||Slope|-3.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.487||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.761|7.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 1 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For estimated value it was 10\^-2).||7.109|-7.761|0.9421
91877605|NCT04748445|183648422|OTHER||Slope|-0.06912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.997||0.9084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.063|0.9247|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 1 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||0.9247|-1.063|0.9084
91877606|NCT04748445|183648422|OTHER||Slope|1.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.841|2.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 2 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^0. For estimated value it was 10\^-1).||2.238|-1.841|0.8721
91877607|NCT04748445|183648422|OTHER||Slope|0.6573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.191||0.7647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.974|4.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 2 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||4.288|-2.974|0.7647
91877608|NCT04748445|183648422|OTHER||Slope|0.6504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.958||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8341|2.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 3 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||2.135|-0.8341|0.4692
91877609|NCT04748445|183648422|OTHER||Slope|-0.09459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.255||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.174|1.985|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 3 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||1.985|-2.174|0.9400
91747034|NCT01942668|183385935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.48|<0.001
91877610|NCT04748445|183648422|OTHER||Slope|0.6945|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.972||0.3853|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6265|2.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 1 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||2.015|-0.6265|0.3853
91747035|NCT01942668|183385936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.46|0.126
91747036|NCT01942668|183385936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.42|0.200
91877611|NCT04748445|183648422|OTHER||Slope|0.02424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.9811|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.667|1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 1 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||1.716|-1.667|0.9811
91747037|NCT01942668|183385936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.41|0.222
91877612|NCT04748445|183648422|OTHER||Slope|-0.9256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|0.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 2 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||0.8690|-2.720|0.3944
91877613|NCT04748445|183648422|OTHER||Slope|0.935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289||0.4696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.201|3.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 2 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||3.071|-1.201|0.4696
91877614|NCT04748445|183648422|OTHER||Slope|2.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.231||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06596|4.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 3 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||4.145|0.06596|0.0896
91877615|NCT04748445|183648422|OTHER||Slope|1.664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.358||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.864|3.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 3 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^0. For lower limit it was 10\^-1).||3.915|-5.864|0.2227
91877616|NCT04748445|183648423|OTHER||Slope|-4.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.122||0.8977|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.577|4.772|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Voiced Frames (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, and dispersion value it was 10\^-3. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||4.772|-5.577|0.8977
91877617|NCT04748445|183648423|OTHER||Slope|-0.0006624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.961||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001982|0.0006569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Voiced Frames (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0006569|-0.001982|0.4070
91877618|NCT04748445|183648424|OTHER||Slope|0.0008654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.441||0.5491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001522|0.003253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Jitter Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.003253|-0.001522|0.5491
91877619|NCT04748445|183648424|OTHER||Slope|-2.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176||0.9447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.483|5.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Jitter Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, and dispersion value it was 10\^-3. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||5.042|-5.483|0.9447
91877620|NCT04748445|183648425|OTHER||Slope|0.007567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01099|0.02612|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Shimmer Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02612|-0.01099|0.5004
91907428|NCT00492752|183709952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Disease control rate|0.3533||||||95.0|0.2771|0.4355||||||||0.4355|0.2771|
91877621|NCT04748445|183648425|OTHER||Slope|0.00606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.101||0.5831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01219|0.02431|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Shimmer Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02431|-0.01219|0.5831
91877622|NCT04748445|183648426|OTHER||Slope|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.598|2.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_Speaking Rate (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||2.662|1.598|<.0001
91907429|NCT00492752|183709952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Disease control rate|0.1579||||||95.0|0.0843|0.2596||||||||0.2596|0.0843|
91907430|NCT00492752|183709955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|based on tumor response rate (CR+PR)||||||0.67
91747038|NCT01942668|183385936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.37|0.358
91747039|NCT01942668|183385937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.59|0.023
91747040|NCT01942668|183385937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.55|0.045
91747041|NCT01942668|183385937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.39|0.384
91747042|NCT01942668|183385937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.38|0.424
91747043|NCT01942668|183385938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.52|0.153
91747044|NCT01942668|183385938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.58|0.058
91747045|NCT01942668|183385938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.39|0.550
91747046|NCT01942668|183385938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.33|0.854
91747047|NCT01942668|183385939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.38|0.181
91747048|NCT01942668|183385939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.41|0.108
91747049|NCT01942668|183385939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.51|0.014
91747050|NCT01942668|183385939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.34|0.323
91747051|NCT01942668|183385940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.48|0.056
91747052|NCT01942668|183385940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.38|0.279
91877623|NCT01485991|183648460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.5||based on the asymptotic distribution of the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for stratification factors, using a non-inferiority margin of 12 percent|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.5|-7.8|0.001
91877624|NCT02350127|183648468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|4.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||adjusted for participant baseline MOCA, robust VCE||4.18|-0.59|0.14
91877625|NCT02350127|183648468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||restricted to completers||5.6|0.2|0.03
91877626|NCT02350127|183648469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusting for baseline participant MOCA scores, robust vce.|||0.80|-1.23|0.68
91907431|NCT03803059|183709963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero||||<0.01
91907432|NCT03803059|183709964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 4 (no change).||||<0.01
91907433|NCT03803059|183709965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 4.||||<0.01
91907434|NCT03803059|183709966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Calculated using paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.051
91747053|NCT01942668|183385940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.34|0.435
91747054|NCT01942668|183385940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.31|0.607
91747055|NCT01942668|183385941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.53|0.060
91747056|NCT01942668|183385941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.57|0.026
91747057|NCT01942668|183385941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.49|0.097
91747058|NCT01942668|183385941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.44|0.230
91747059|NCT01942668|183385942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.61|0.107
91747060|NCT01942668|183385942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.51|0.302
91747061|NCT01942668|183385942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.60|0.106
91747062|NCT01942668|183385942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.57|0.156
91747063|NCT01942668|183385943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.65|0.081
91800781|NCT02390908|183478762|SUPERIORITY||Beta|1.92||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.68|58.53||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on CD4 Count was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||58.53|-54.68|0.95
91877627|NCT02350127|183648470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||adjusting for baseline participant MOCA, robust VCE||2.08|-3.09|0.70
91877628|NCT02350127|183648471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.4|0.8|0.02
91877629|NCT02350127|183648472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.6|-5.4|0.47
91877630|NCT02350127|183648473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-1.1|0.99
91877631|NCT02350127|183648474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-7.4|0.98
91877632|NCT02350127|183648475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-2.5|0.80
91877633|NCT02350127|183648476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-3.1|0.38
91747064|NCT01942668|183385943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.56|0.212
91747065|NCT01942668|183385943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.51|0.345
91747066|NCT01942668|183385943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.38|0.829
91747067|NCT01942668|183385944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.84|0.029
91747068|NCT01942668|183385944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.84|0.026
91747069|NCT01942668|183385944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.72|0.093
91747070|NCT01942668|183385944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.64|0.223
91747071|NCT01942668|183385945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.85|<0.001
91747072|NCT01942668|183385945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.71|<0.001
91747073|NCT01942668|183385945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-0.75|<0.001
91747074|NCT01942668|183385945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.64|<0.001
91747075|NCT01942668|183385946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-0.85|<0.001
91747076|NCT01942668|183385946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.22||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.69|<0.001
91747077|NCT01942668|183385946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.59|0.003
91747078|NCT01942668|183385946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.50|0.030
91747079|NCT01942668|183385947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-0.89|<0.001
91747080|NCT01942668|183385947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-0.88|<0.001
91747081|NCT01942668|183385947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.73|<0.001
91747082|NCT01942668|183385947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.63|0.006
91747083|NCT01942668|183385948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.629||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|-1.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.69|-8.08|0.003
91747084|NCT01942668|183385948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-6.80|0.027
91747085|NCT01942668|183385948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.618||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-6.61|0.034
91747086|NCT01942668|183385948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|0.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.65|-5.71|0.119
91747087|NCT01942668|183385949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|-2.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.05|-8.73|0.002
91747088|NCT01942668|183385949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.696||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-2.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.06|-8.72|0.002
91747089|NCT01942668|183385949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.685||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-1.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.58|-8.19|0.004
91747090|NCT01942668|183385949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.698||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-1.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-7.75|0.009
91747091|NCT01942668|183385950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.855|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.9||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.90|-10.18|<0.001
91747092|NCT01942668|183385950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.843|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|-4.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.00|-11.23|<0.001
91747093|NCT01942668|183385950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.84|-11.04|<0.001
91747094|NCT01942668|183385950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.863|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|-3.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.10|-10.41|<0.001
91877634|NCT02350127|183648477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.7|0.075
91747095|NCT01942668|183385951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.146|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|-3.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.13|-11.55|<0.001
91800782|NCT02390908|183478762|SUPERIORITY||Beta|23.99||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.54|115.51||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on CD4 Count was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||115.51|-67.54|0.61
91800783|NCT02390908|183478762|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-23.71||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.82|41.4||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3 on CD4 Count was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||41.40|-88.82|0.48
91877635|NCT02350127|183648478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0|-1.7|0.35
91747096|NCT01942668|183385951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.139||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.40|-9.80|0.009
91747097|NCT01942668|183385951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.132||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|-0.95||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.95|-9.31|0.016
91747098|NCT01942668|183385951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|1.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|-7.22|0.154
91747099|NCT01942668|183385952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.213|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|-4.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.04|-12.72|<0.001
91747100|NCT01942668|183385952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.201|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.83|-3.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.20|-11.83|<0.001
91747101|NCT01942668|183385952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-3.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.02|-11.63|<0.001
91747102|NCT01942668|183385952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.207||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|-1.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.27|-9.93|0.011
91747103|NCT01942668|183385953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.439|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|-4.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.19|-13.76|<0.001
91747104|NCT01942668|183385953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|-4.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.85|-14.34|<0.001
91747105|NCT01942668|183385953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.412|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-4.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.56|-14.03|<0.001
91747106|NCT01942668|183385953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.51|-2.93||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.93|-12.51|0.002
91747107|NCT01942668|183385954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|7.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.07|-3.03|0.434
91747108|NCT01942668|183385954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.564||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|7.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.00|-3.06|0.442
91747109|NCT01942668|183385954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.558||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|6.51||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.51|-3.52|0.558
91747110|NCT01942668|183385954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.555||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|6.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.60|-3.42|0.534
91877636|NCT02350127|183648479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-6.1|0.35
91877637|NCT02350127|183648480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.4|0.54
91877638|NCT02350127|183648481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-1.5|0.69
91877639|NCT02350127|183648482|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.3|-10.9|0.88
91877640|NCT02350127|183648483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5|-0.7|0.26
91877641|NCT02350127|183648484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-3.9|0.08
91877642|NCT00157209|183648487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.745||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.042|||Log Rank|||||1.042|0.533|0.045
91877643|NCT00024102|183648493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary measure of efficacy was the hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death in the capecitabine group as compared with the standard chemotherapy group. Capecitabine would be considered noninferior to standard chemotherapy if the hazard ratio was greater than 0.8046. (With the use of a 5-year landmark for descriptive purposes, this ratio corresponds to a 5-year rate of relapse-free survival of 60% for standard chemotherapy and 53% for capecitabine.)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.17||Multivariate proportional hazards regression used to test for an arm effect was adjusted for tumor size, number of lymph nodes and hormone-receptor status. A priori formal monitoring for futility and noninferiority was planned at accrual milestones|Regression, Cox|||||3.17|1.38|<0.001
91877644|NCT00024102|183648494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.08||Multivariate proportional hazards regression used to test for an arm effect was adjusted for tumor size, number of lymph nodes and hormone-receptor status. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||3.08|1.11|0.02
91877645|NCT03418701|183648524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.40|0.93|<0.05
91877646|NCT03418701|183648525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.47|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|A multilevel logistic regression with participants nested within clinic.||||1.15|0.22|<0.05
91907435|NCT03803059|183709967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Calculated from paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||<0.01
91747111|NCT01942668|183385955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.719||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|5.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.58|-5.08|0.927
91747112|NCT01942668|183385955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.699||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|3.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.64|-6.95|0.541
91747113|NCT01942668|183385955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.691||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|1.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.60|-8.96|0.171
91747114|NCT01942668|183385955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.708||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|4.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.15|-6.48|0.667
91747115|NCT01942668|183385956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.863||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|6.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.87|-4.36|0.662
91877647|NCT00577096|183648539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of RBC transfusions.||||<0.025
91877648|NCT00577096|183648540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the number of RBC tranfusions in the exercise versus usual care groups. Data was combined from the short and long term RBC transfusions.||||<0.025
91877649|NCT00577096|183648541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared test to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Analysis included short and long term participants.||||||<0.025
91877650|NCT00577096|183648542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of platelet transfusions.||||<0.025
91877651|NCT00577096|183648543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||||||<0.025
91877652|NCT00577096|183648544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of stem cell collection attempts.||||<0.025
91889211|NCT04546425|183671168|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Mumps||1.44|0.76|
91889212|NCT04546425|183671169|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Rubella||1.10|0.63|
91889213|NCT04546425|183671170|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Varicella||1.57|0.98|
91800784|NCT02390908|183478762|SUPERIORITY||Beta|4.19||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.76|58.14||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3 (the Waitlist condition) and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of being in the Waitlist condition (i.e., not receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3) on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||58.14|-49.76|0.88
91800785|NCT02390908|183478762|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.67||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|35.21||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||35.21|-19.88|0.59
91800786|NCT02390908|183478762|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-24.95||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.78|16.88||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||16.88|-66.78|0.24
91800787|NCT02390908|183478762|SUPERIORITY||Slope|18.32||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|43.27||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||43.27|-6.63|0.15
91747116|NCT01942668|183385956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.834||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|4.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.21|-6.91|0.635
91747117|NCT01942668|183385956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.827||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|5.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.11|-5.98|0.877
91747118|NCT01942668|183385956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.867||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|5.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.24|-6.01|0.893
91747119|NCT01942668|183385957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.058||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|3.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.59|-4.48|0.830
91747120|NCT01942668|183385957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|3.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.38|-4.66|0.755
91747121|NCT01942668|183385957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.046||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.53|-3.50|0.802
91747122|NCT01942668|183385957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.043||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|3.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.55|-4.46|0.823
91747123|NCT01942668|183385958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.166||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|1.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.78|-6.71|0.255
91747124|NCT01942668|183385958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|1.96||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.96|-6.49|0.293
91747125|NCT01942668|183385958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.148||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|2.77||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.77|-5.66|0.502
91747126|NCT01942668|183385958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.76||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.76|-5.71|0.495
91747127|NCT01942668|183385959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.274||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|2.5||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.50|-6.42|0.389
91747128|NCT01942668|183385959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.253||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|1.99||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.99|-6.85|0.281
91747129|NCT01942668|183385959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|2.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.91|-5.92|0.504
91747130|NCT01942668|183385959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.277||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|2.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.78|-6.15|0.460
91747131|NCT01942668|183385960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.513||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|9.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.28|-0.58|0.084
91800788|NCT02390908|183478762|SUPERIORITY||Slope|10.27||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|30.74||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||30.74|-10.20|0.33
91907436|NCT03803059|183709968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Calculated from paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.331
91747132|NCT01942668|183385960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.506||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.53|-2.30|0.298
91747133|NCT01942668|183385960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.496||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|8.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.62|-1.17|0.136
91747134|NCT01942668|183385960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|8.37||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.37|-1.41|0.163
91747135|NCT01942668|183385961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.647||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|10.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.31|-0.08|0.054
91747136|NCT01942668|183385961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.634||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|12.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.26|1.93|0.007
91747137|NCT01942668|183385961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.623||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|11.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.04|0.75|0.025
91747138|NCT01942668|183385961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.638||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|13.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.55|3.20|0.002
91747139|NCT01942668|183385962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.945||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|10.8||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.80|-0.76|0.089
91747140|NCT01942668|183385962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.29|1.83|0.010
91747141|NCT01942668|183385962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.911||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|13.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.36|1.94|0.009
91747142|NCT01942668|183385962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.944||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|13.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.67|2.11|0.007
91747143|NCT01942668|183385963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.749||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|1.79||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|-5.07|0.349
91747144|NCT01942668|183385963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-4.60|0.499
91747145|NCT01942668|183385963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.737||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|3.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.55|-3.27|0.936
91747146|NCT01942668|183385963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.736||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.72||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.72|-4.08|0.696
91747147|NCT01942668|183385964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.924||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.69|-4.86|0.572
91747148|NCT01942668|183385964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.914||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|2.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.62|-4.89|0.553
91747149|NCT01942668|183385964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.907||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|2.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.32|-5.16|0.456
91747150|NCT01942668|183385964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.919||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.64|-3.89|0.949
91747151|NCT01942668|183385965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.026||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|0.61||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-7.34|0.097
91747152|NCT01942668|183385965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|-1.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.40|-9.28|0.008
91747153|NCT01942668|183385965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.003||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-1.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.01|-8.87|0.014
91907437|NCT03803059|183709969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Calculated using the paired t test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.863
91907438|NCT03803059|183709970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Calculated using the paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.048
91800789|NCT02390908|183478762|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.42||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.24|57.09||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||57.09|-44.24|0.80
91800790|NCT02390908|183478762|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.43||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.47|74.61||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||74.61|-85.47|0.89
91800791|NCT02390908|183478762|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.16||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.61|62.94||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 3 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||62.94|-60.61|0.97
91877653|NCT00577096|183648545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of days of stem cell collections.||||<0.025
91877654|NCT00577096|183648546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of days of stem cell collections.||||<0.025
91877655|NCT00577096|183648547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of platelet transfusions.||||<0.025
91877656|NCT01370564|183648571|OTHER|There was no specific hypothesis tested. The method of Rao and Scott for clustered binary data was used to construct a point estimate and 95% confidence interval for the number of days during the follow-up period across all subjects in which the patient instruction set was based on the subject's pressure state as measured by the Chronicle IHM/ICD system.|Rao-Scott estimator for clustered data|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|78.0||||||||78|65|
91877657|NCT03740919|183648595|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin \[NIM\]=0.4% for HbA1c|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.17|0.783
91907439|NCT03803059|183709971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355||||||P-value reported is for viscoelastic deformation.|t-test, 2 sided|at significance level alpha+0.05||Calculated using the paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.355
91800792|NCT02390908|183478762|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-38.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.51|2.72||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||2.72|-79.51|0.07
91800793|NCT02390908|183478763|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-7.87||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.52|4.78||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on ART Medication Adherence was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||4.78|-20.52|0.22
91877658|NCT03740919|183648596|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM of 0.4%|LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.20|0.867
91877659|NCT03740919|183648597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||2.30|1.13|0.008
91877660|NCT03740919|183648597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||1.83|0.75|0.487
91877661|NCT03740919|183648597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||1.13|0.47|0.153
91877662|NCT03740919|183648597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||2.08|1.06|0.020
91877663|NCT03740919|183648597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||1.76|0.78|0.455
91877664|NCT03740919|183648597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||1.19|0.52|0.259
91877665|NCT03740919|183648597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||2.51|1.29|<0.001
91877666|NCT03740919|183648597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||1.43|0.64|0.822
91877667|NCT03740919|183648597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||0.80|0.35|0.003
91877668|NCT03740919|183648597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||2.14|0.94|0.092
91877669|NCT03740919|183648597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||1.11|0.45|0.133
91877670|NCT03740919|183648597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||0.80|0.31|0.004
91877671|NCT03740919|183648598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.220
91907440|NCT03803059|183709972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859||||||Calculated with a paired T test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Calculated using the paired t test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.859
91877672|NCT03740919|183648598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.599
91877673|NCT03740919|183648598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.112
91877674|NCT03740919|183648598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.034
91877675|NCT03740919|183648598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.055
91877676|NCT03740919|183648598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.814
91877677|NCT03740919|183648598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.194
91877678|NCT03740919|183648598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.428
91877679|NCT03740919|183648598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.057
91877680|NCT03740919|183648598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model||≤70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.056
91877681|NCT03740919|183648598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.435
91877682|NCT03740919|183648598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.404
91877683|NCT03740919|183648599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||\<54 mg/dL||1.57|0.68|0.864
91747154|NCT01942668|183385965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.029||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-7.86|0.056
91877684|NCT03740919|183648599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||\<54 mg/dL||1.12|0.43|0.132
91877685|NCT03740919|183648599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.41|0.104
91877686|NCT03740919|183648599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||≤70 mg/dL||1.52|0.42|0.489
91877687|NCT03740919|183648599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||≤70 mg/dL||0.90|0.23|0.025
91877688|NCT03740919|183648599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||≤70 mg/dL||1.11|0.29|0.099
91877689|NCT03740919|183648600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||Negative binomial regression|||\< 54 mg/dL||||0.732
91877690|NCT03740919|183648600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||Negative binomial regression|||\< 54 mg/dL||||0.638
91877691|NCT03740919|183648600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||Negative binomial regression|||\<54 mg/dL||||0.462
91877692|NCT03740919|183648600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤ 70 mg/dL||||0.632
91877693|NCT03740919|183648600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤ 70 mg/dL||||0.800
91877694|NCT03740919|183648600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤ 70 mg/dL||||0.889
91877695|NCT03740919|183648602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Basal Insulin||1.4|-0.2|0.130
91877696|NCT03740919|183648602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Basal Insulin||1.4|-0.5|0.404
91877697|NCT03740919|183648602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Basal Insulin||0.8|-1.2|0.693
91877698|NCT03740919|183648602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Insulin Dose||2.3|-1.4|0.625
91877699|NCT03740919|183648602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Insulin Dose||1.9|-2.6|0.758
91877700|NCT03740919|183648602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Insulin Dose||1.5|-3.1|0.485
91877701|NCT03740919|183648603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7%||2.00|0.76|0.396
91877702|NCT03740919|183648603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7%||1.75|0.49|0.814
91877703|NCT03740919|183648603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7%||1.43|0.39|0.384
91877704|NCT03740919|183648603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7.5%||1.27|0.55|0.400
91877705|NCT03740919|183648603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7.5%||1.08|0.36|0.094
91877706|NCT03740919|183648603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7.5%||1.31|0.43|0.306
91877707|NCT02680145|183648650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline score vs Follow-up score||||0.001
91877708|NCT02680145|183648651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline score vs Follow-up score||||0.001
91877709|NCT02680145|183648652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline score vs Follow-up score||||0.005
91877710|NCT04382053|183648653|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.297||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-2.0|0.467
91877711|NCT04382053|183648654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237||||||One-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reported is for the treatment factor across all time points||||||0.237
91877712|NCT04572997|183648734|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed-rank test||||||< 0.0001
91877713|NCT04572997|183648739|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-rank test|||||||< 0.001
91747155|NCT01942668|183385966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.665||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|-1.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.65|-8.18|0.003
91747156|NCT01942668|183385966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-0.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-7.05|0.023
91747157|NCT01942668|183385966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.653||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-6.52|0.047
91747158|NCT01942668|183385966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-0.17||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-6.65|0.039
91747159|NCT01942668|183385967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.713|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|-2.33||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.33|-9.05|<0.001
91747160|NCT01942668|183385967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.704||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-2.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.24|-8.93|0.001
91747161|NCT01942668|183385967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.697||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-1.79||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.79|-8.45|0.003
91747162|NCT01942668|183385967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.708||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-1.76||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.76|-8.46|0.003
91747163|NCT01942668|183385968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.885||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.32|-9.71|0.001
91747164|NCT01942668|183385968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|-3.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.55|-10.89|<0.001
91747165|NCT01942668|183385968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.863|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|-3.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.27|-10.58|<0.001
91800794|NCT02390908|183478763|SUPERIORITY||Beta|10.29||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|26.82||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on ART Medication Adherence was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||26.82|-6.25|0.22
91907441|NCT03803059|183709973|EQUIVALENCE|.A binomial (sign) test was performed to test if the the proportion of the combined designated favorable evaluations/responses is equal to the combined designated negative evaluations/responses for each question|||||<|0.01|||||||Sign test|||Patient satisfaction questionnaires were tabulated, and the frequency and percentage of all response options were reported for each question and time point calculated from the binomial (sign) test. The testing hypothesis is that the proportion of favorable responses is equal to the unfavorable||||<0.01
91747166|NCT01942668|183385968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.886|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-2.72||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.72|-10.12|<0.001
91747167|NCT01942668|183385969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.609||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-1.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.44|-7.75|0.004
91747168|NCT01942668|183385969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|-0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-6.64|0.030
91747169|NCT01942668|183385969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-6.29|0.049
91747170|NCT01942668|183385969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|0.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.65|-5.61|0.121
91747171|NCT01942668|183385970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.682||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|-2.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.14|-8.74|0.001
91747172|NCT01942668|183385970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.674|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.81|-2.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.25|-8.81|<0.001
91877714|NCT02329223|183648759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-2.098|||Mixed Model with repeated measures(MMRM)|||||-2.098|-5.310|<0.001
91877715|NCT02329223|183648759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.921|-0.654|||Mixed Model with repeated measures(MMRM)|||||-0.654|-3.921|0.006
91877716|NCT03443063|183648785|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|104.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.41|141.97|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||141.97|77.41|
91877717|NCT03443063|183648786|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|133.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.3|164.93|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||164.93|107.30|
91877718|NCT03443063|183648787|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|150.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.16|200.26|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||200.26|113.16|
91877719|NCT03443063|183648788|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|149.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.06|198.58|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||198.58|113.06|
91877720|NCT03443063|183648789|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|80.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.07|114.4|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||114.40|56.07|
91877721|NCT03443063|183648789|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|79.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.48|116.03|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||116.03|54.48|
91877722|NCT03443063|183648789|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|72.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.08|109.29|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||109.29|48.08|
91877723|NCT03443063|183648791|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric mean|111.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.69|134.99|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Lemborexant||134.99|91.69|
91877724|NCT03443063|183648791|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|80.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.81|113.46|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||113.46|56.81|
91747173|NCT01942668|183385970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.667||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-1.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.85|-8.39|0.002
91747174|NCT01942668|183385970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.677||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.35||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.35|-7.93|0.006
91747175|NCT01942668|183385971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.849|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-2.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.65|-9.91|<0.001
91877725|NCT03443063|183648791|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|86.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.92|115.81|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||115.81|64.92|
91747176|NCT01942668|183385971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-3.98||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.98|-11.18|<0.001
91877726|NCT03443063|183648791|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|65.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.08|104.04|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||104.04|41.08|
91877727|NCT03443063|183648792|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|114.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.45|139.28|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||139.28|94.45|
91877728|NCT03443063|183648792|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|124.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.27|155.67|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||155.67|100.27|
91877729|NCT03443063|183648792|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|92.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.87|126.71|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||126.71|66.87|
91877730|NCT03443063|183648793|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|136.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.62|175.85|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||175.85|105.62|
91877731|NCT03443063|183648793|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|154.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.53|202.57|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||202.57|117.53|
91877732|NCT03443063|183648793|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|118.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.84|159.97|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||159.97|87.84|
91747177|NCT01942668|183385971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.828|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.84|-11.02|<0.001
91747178|NCT01942668|183385971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.851|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|-2.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.91|-10.17|<0.001
91747179|NCT01942668|183385972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.04|0.225
91747180|NCT01942668|183385972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.08|0.741
91747181|NCT01942668|183385972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.06|0.414
91747182|NCT01942668|183385972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.11|0.690
91747183|NCT01942668|183385973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.00|0.045
91747184|NCT01942668|183385973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.01|0.069
91747185|NCT01942668|183385973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.02|0.126
91747186|NCT01942668|183385973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.10|0.907
91747187|NCT01942668|183385974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.11|0.992
91747188|NCT01942668|183385974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.07|0.450
91747189|NCT01942668|183385974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.13|0.663
91747190|NCT01942668|183385974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.16|0.309
91747191|NCT00473668|183386007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences between the two groups in terms of anti-PRP seroprotection (SPR) rates was below (\<) 10%.|Difference in anti-PRP SPR rate|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|2.84||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ Kft. vaccine compared to Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ vaccine with respect to the anti-PRP antibody response, after a three-dose primary vaccination course.||2.84|-6.39|
91889214|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.9|||||2-Sided 95% CIs are calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 1 \\||0.9|-3.1|
91747192|NCT00473668|183386007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences between the two groups in terms of anti-PRP seroprotection (SPR) rates was below (\<) 10%.|Difference in anti-PRP SPR rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|3.99||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ Kft. vaccine compared to Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ vaccine with respect to the anti-PRP antibody response, after a three-dose primary vaccination course.||3.99|-4.16|
91747193|NCT02226562|183386022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.92||The P-value was less than 0.0001|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor for treatment and baseline as covariate||||-0.92|-1.28|0.0001
91747194|NCT01466660|183386044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.822||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.032||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|Stratified by Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of baseline brain metastases was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||1.032|0.655|0.0891
91747195|NCT01466660|183386045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|0.944||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||0.944|0.595|0.0136
91889215|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-6.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 3||-6.7|-14.7|
91747196|NCT01466660|183386046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.862||||0.2343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.101||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of baseline brain metastases was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||1.101|0.674|0.2343
91877733|NCT03443063|183648794|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|138.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.1|176.14|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||176.14|109.10|
91877734|NCT03443063|183648794|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|147.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.06|198.22|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||198.22|109.06|
91747197|NCT01466660|183386047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.307||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|2.223||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Stratified for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||2.223|0.768|0.3235
91747198|NCT01466660|183386050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.138||||0.7856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|2.896||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Stratified for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||2.896|0.447|0.7856
91747199|NCT01466660|183386052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|0.23||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline sum of diameters, EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib minus Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||0.23|-7.13|0.0657
91747200|NCT01466660|183386053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib minus Gefitinib|"EQ-5D UK utility score.~Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested."||0.01|-0.06|0.1422
91747201|NCT01466660|183386053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|"EQ-5D Belgium utility score.~Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested."||0.00|-0.06|0.0540
91747202|NCT01466660|183386053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.8||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|"EQ-VAS utility score.~Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested."||0.8|-3.9|0.2032
91747203|NCT03576066|183386054|OTHER|||||||0.6855|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean difference in HBeAg-positive participants: ABI-H0731 + SOC NUC minus placebo + SOC NUC at Week 24||||0.6855
91907442|NCT03803059|183709974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||All statistical tests were 2-sided at significance level alpha=0.05. No multiple testing corrections were considered in the study.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline is zero was tested using a paired t-test||||0.031
91747204|NCT03576066|183386054|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||LS mean difference in HBeAg-negative participants: ABI-H0731 + SOC NUC minus placebo + SOC NUC at Week 24||||0.1750
91747205|NCT03576066|183386055|OTHER|||||||0.2916|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean difference in HBeAg-positive participants: ABI-H0731 + SOC NUC minus placebo + SOC NUC at Week 24||||0.2916
91800795|NCT02390908|183478763|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.27||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|11.08||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention immediately at Site 3 on ART Medication Adherence was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||11.08|-11.63|0.96
91800796|NCT02390908|183478763|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.34||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|11.97||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in Medication Adherence across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||11.97|0.72|0.03
91747206|NCT00129701|183386068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.064
91747207|NCT00191724|183386100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528||95.0||||P-value for effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) dose in right ventricular function at Day 6|Regression, Linear|||||||0.528
91747208|NCT00191724|183386100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0||||P-value for effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) dose on right ventricular function at Day 90|Regression, Linear|||||||0.230
91747209|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90-Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.018
91747210|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.720
91877735|NCT03443063|183648794|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|136.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.19|189.54|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||189.54|98.19|
91907443|NCT02904915|183709975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
91907444|NCT02904915|183709976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
91907445|NCT02904915|183709977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91907446|NCT02484911|183710016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.397
91907447|NCT02484911|183710017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91877736|NCT03443063|183648795|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|141.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.79|191.73|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Lemborexant||191.73|103.79|
91877737|NCT03443063|183648795|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|124.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.58|154.06|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||154.06|100.58|
91877738|NCT03443063|183648795|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|143.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.72|190.65|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||190.65|107.72|
91877739|NCT03443063|183648795|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|140.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.11|200.35|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||200.35|98.11|
91877740|NCT00552513|183648808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.06|0.68|0.15
91877741|NCT00552513|183648809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.89|0.58|0.003
91747211|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.481
91747212|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.161
91747213|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.068
91877742|NCT00552513|183648810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.99|0.71|0.04
91877743|NCT02507687|183648828|NON_INFERIORITY|"Statistical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) mean difference between the Bimatoprost SR 10 µg eyes and SLT eyes was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at Weeks 4, 12, and 24.~Clinical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was considered if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.0 mmHg at 2 out of the 3 visits of Weeks 4, 12, and 24."|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.08|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|The model includes treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-baseline, and visit-by-eyes interactions as covariates.||||-0.08|-1.03|0.0231
91877744|NCT02507687|183648829|NON_INFERIORITY|"Statistical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) mean difference between the Bimatoprost SR 10 µg eyes and SLT eyes was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at Weeks 4, 12, and 24.~Clinical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was considered if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.0 mmHg at 2 out of the 3 visits of Weeks 4, 12, and 24."|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.18|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|The model includes treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-baseline, and visit-by-eyes interactions as covariates.||||0.18|-1.04|0.1615
91877745|NCT02507687|183648830|NON_INFERIORITY|"Statistical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) mean difference between the Bimatoprost SR 10 µg eyes and SLT eyes was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at Weeks 4, 12, and 24.~Clinical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was considered if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.0 mmHg at 2 out of the 3 visits of Weeks 4, 12, and 24."|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.17|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|The model includes treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-baseline, and visit-by-eyes interactions as covariates.||||0.17|-0.97|0.1673
91747214|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.985
91747215|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.281
91747216|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.273
91877746|NCT00275301|183648834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Examination of relationship between Borderline Personality Disorder symptoms and brain metabolism at baseline.||||<0.05
91877747|NCT04357964|183648835|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05 for determining difference between groups at baseline in this observational study. There was no treatment intervention in this study, so there is no true equivalence margin.|||||<|0.01||||||Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
91877748|NCT04357964|183648836|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05. There was no intervention in this study, so there is no true equivalence margin.|||||<|0.01|||||||Pearson correlation|||||||<0.01
91877749|NCT04357964|183648837|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05 for determining difference between groups in this observational study. There was no treatment intervention in this study, so there is no true equivalence margin.||||||0.52||||||Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.52
91889216|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||1.3|-1.4|
91907448|NCT02484911|183710019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.397
91907449|NCT02484911|183710020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91907450|NCT02484911|183710021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91747217|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.848
91747218|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.841
91747219|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.797
91747220|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.963
91877750|NCT00733226|183648838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.1||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample size was computed to prove that a 30% decrease of the rate of virus provoked wheezing attacks in the OM-85 group compared with placebo is statistically significant. Approximately 29 analyzable participants in each group were required, with α=0.05 and β=0.10 (ie, with a power of 90%), respectively. The difference of 30% was taken from both pilot study and clinical experience. Sample size estimation was performed by using NCSS and PASS 2000 software.||-1.10|-3.20|0.05
91747221|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.149
91747222|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.141
91747223|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.774
91747224|NCT00191724|183386101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.394
91747225|NCT00608023|183386103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91747226|NCT00608023|183386104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91747227|NCT00608023|183386105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91747228|NCT00608023|183386106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91747229|NCT00608023|183386107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91747230|NCT00489736|183386115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.28|1.98||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using time-to-event non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimate. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It provides the relative hazard of treatment failure for the dronedarone group compared with the amiodarone group.|||1.98|1.28|<0.0001
91747231|NCT00489736|183386116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.13||95.0|0.6|1.07||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using time-to-event non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimate. The comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It provides the relative hazard of main safety event occurrence for the dronedarone group compared with the amiodarone group.|||1.07|0.60|0.13
91747232|NCT00489736|183386117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.002||95.0|0.44|0.84||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using time-to-event non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimate. The comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It provides the relative hazard of MSE occurrence excluding gastrointestinal events, for the dronedarone group compared with the amiodarone group.|||0.84|0.44|0.002
91747233|NCT03458910|183386135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.782
91747234|NCT03458910|183386136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.480
91747235|NCT03458910|183386137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.410
91747236|NCT03458910|183386138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.480
91747237|NCT03458910|183386139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal interaction in behavioral emotional intensity rating for younger adults||||0.170
91747238|NCT03458910|183386140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal interaction in behavioral emotional intensity rating for older adults||||0.478
91747239|NCT03458910|183386141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the left amygdala for younger adults||||0.441
91747240|NCT03458910|183386142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the left amygdala for older adults||||0.621
91747241|NCT03458910|183386143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the right amygdala activity for younger adults||||0.190
91747242|NCT03458910|183386144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the right amygdala activity for older adults||||0.864
91747243|NCT03458910|183386145|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing acceptance rate of fair offers||||1.000
91747244|NCT03458910|183386145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing acceptance rate of unfair offers||||0.716
91747245|NCT03458910|183386146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups for dorsal anterior cingulate cortex activation.||||0.014
91747246|NCT03458910|183386146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups for anterior insula activation.||||0.059
91747247|NCT03458910|183386147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||.144
91747248|NCT03458910|183386147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.653
91747249|NCT03458910|183386148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||.288
91747250|NCT03458910|183386148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.191
91747251|NCT03458910|183386149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.894
91747252|NCT03458910|183386149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.425
91747253|NCT03458910|183386150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.916
91877751|NCT00733226|183648839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.01||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-1.01|-3.06|<0.001
91877752|NCT00733226|183648840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.27|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons||||-1.27|-2.94|<0.001
91877753|NCT00733226|183648841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.11||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.11|-0.77|0.110
91877754|NCT00733226|183648842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.03||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.03|-0.55|0.195
91877755|NCT00733226|183648843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.42||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.42|-2.87|0.452
91877756|NCT01540162|183648845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.73|||Chi-squared|||||0.73|0.05|0.05
91877757|NCT02288364|183648850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
91877758|NCT02288364|183648851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
91877759|NCT02288364|183648852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
91877760|NCT03619889|183648865|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91877761|NCT03619889|183648865|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91877762|NCT03619889|183648872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91877763|NCT03619889|183648872|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91877764|NCT00821119|183648887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||risk ratio (RR)|||"Based on previous data from our NICU, 40 - 45% of our preterm infants administered early NCPAP for RDS needed intubation and mechanical ventilation within the first 72h of life. We estimated a 20% absolute reduction in the need of using ETT ventilation with the early use of NIPPV. A sample size of 100 infants per group was calculated with a power of 80% and an alpha error of 5%.~The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle."||1.14|0.48|<0.05
91877765|NCT00821119|183648888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||risk ratio (RR)|||Based on previous data from our NICU, 40 - 45% of our preterm infants administered early NCPAP for RDS needed intubation and mechanical ventilation within the first 72h of life. We estimated a 20% absolute reduction in the need of using ETT ventilation with the early use of NIPPV. A sample size of 100 infants per group was calculated with a power of 80% and an alpha error of 5%.||1.14|0.48|0.05
91877766|NCT00821119|183648889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.78|||risk ratio (RR)|||The study was not powered for this outcome. However this analysis was done with this limitation||1.78|0.62|< 0.05
91877767|NCT03511378|183648890|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a margin of -0.10|Difference in proportions|-0.0296||||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.076||||Difference in proportion|Binomial proportion used to present difference in proportion in treatments||Analysis population : ITT|||-0.076|0.007
91877768|NCT03511378|183648891|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is assessed using a margin of 10 percentage points.|Difference in proportions|0.0145|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.0092||||Difference in proportion||Difference of proportion analysed with one sided 95% confidence interval|Analysis population: ITT|||-0.0092|<0.001
91877769|NCT05012280|183648894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.221||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.564||only one primary endpoint, p value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori treshold or statistical significance: p=0.05|Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression for matched case control||||1.564|0.953|0.1150
91877770|NCT05012280|183648894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.221||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.564|||Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression for matched case control study.||||1.564|0.953|0.12
91877771|NCT00871143|183648952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 (two-sided) was set.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable scores.||||<.001
91877772|NCT00871143|183648952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between baseline and week 12||||<.001
91907451|NCT02484911|183710022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91747254|NCT03458910|183386150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.235
91747255|NCT03458910|183386151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.462
91747256|NCT03458910|183386151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.468
91747257|NCT03458910|183386152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.481
91747258|NCT03458910|183386152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.159
91747259|NCT03458910|183386153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.602
91747260|NCT03458910|183386153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.562
91747261|NCT03458910|183386154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.697
91747262|NCT03458910|183386154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.901
91747263|NCT03458910|183386155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.516
91800797|NCT02390908|183478763|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.35||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|11.47||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in Medication Adherence across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||11.47|-4.78|0.42
91800798|NCT02390908|183478763|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|6.54||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in Medication Adherence across 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 (Immediate) relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||6.54|-5.85|0.91
91800799|NCT02390908|183478764|SUPERIORITY||Beta|3.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.78||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on Alcohol Use severity (AUDIT) was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||5.78|0.61|0.02
91800800|NCT02390908|183478764|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.86||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|2.61||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on Alcohol Use severity (AUDIT) was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||2.61|-4.33|0.63
91877773|NCT00871143|183648952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of Type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between between baseline and 1 month follow up||||< .001
91907452|NCT02484911|183710024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91907453|NCT02484911|183710025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.283
91747264|NCT03458910|183386156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.944
91747265|NCT03458910|183386157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.285
91800801|NCT02390908|183478764|SUPERIORITY||Beta|4.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.54||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention immediately at Site 3 on Alcohol Use severity (AUDIT) was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||7.54|0.80|0.02
91800802|NCT02390908|183478764|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.67||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in AUDIT across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to that for the Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||0.67|-1.47|0.46
91800803|NCT02390908|183478764|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.55||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in AUDIT across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to that for the Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||0.55|-1.12|0.50
91800804|NCT02390908|183478764|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.52||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in AUDIT across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 (Immediate) relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||0.52|-1.23|0.43
91800805|NCT03725852|183478855|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|42.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.483||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.84|166.49||P-value was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model at each time point including treatment, sex, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither), age, height, and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26||166.49|-81.84|0.495
91800806|NCT03725852|183478856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|24.5|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|TEAEs||24.5|-17.3|
91800807|NCT03725852|183478856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|30.7|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|Serious TEAEs||30.7|-3.0|
91877774|NCT00871143|183648952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between baseline and week 12||||<.01
91877775|NCT00871143|183648952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between baseline and 1 month follow up||||< 0.05
91907454|NCT02484911|183710026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91907455|NCT02484911|183710027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.246
91800808|NCT03725852|183478856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|49.4|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|TEAEs related to study drug||49.4|8.2|
91800809|NCT03725852|183478856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|36.4|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|TEAEs leading to study drug discontinuation||36.4|6.7|
91800810|NCT03725852|183478857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Log Rank|||All-cause deaths||||0.397
91800811|NCT03725852|183478857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Log Rank|||Respiratory-related deaths||||0.397
91800812|NCT03725852|183478857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Log Rank|||All-cause hospitalizations||||0.131
91800813|NCT03725852|183478857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||Log Rank|||Respiratory-related hospitalizations||||0.762
91800814|NCT03725852|183478858|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.713||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.87|22.64||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline 6MWT distance as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26||22.64|-40.87|0.565
91800815|NCT03725852|183478859|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference.|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|5.91||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26||5.91|-9.06|0.673
91877776|NCT00871143|183648953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable scores.||||<.05
91877777|NCT00871143|183648953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 12 week measures||||<0.01
91800816|NCT03725852|183478860|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|8.53||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26: Symptoms score||8.53|-9.98|0.875
91800817|NCT03725852|183478860|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.038||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|6.02||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26: Activity score||6.02|-14.29|0.416
91800818|NCT03725852|183478860|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.029||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|7.92||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26: Impacts score||7.92|-8.32|0.961
91800819|NCT03725852|183478861|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91800820|NCT02256072|183478886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.12|||ANCOVA|||H1: Compared to participants in the attention control group and controlling for baseline assessments, participants receiving the PLAN YOUR LIFESPAN tool will show increased planning with regard to planning behavior score (measured via the Planning Assessment tool) one (efficacy) month after intervention.||2.12|0.37|0.0054
91800821|NCT02256072|183478887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value controlled for significant baseline covariates (sex, importance of religion, stroke, and self efficacy score) and individual participant effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on the slope estimation provided below.||Secondary analyses will compare baseline variables (current utilization of services, physical function assessment, co-morbidities, social support, health literacy, self-efficacy, and sociodemographics) with outcome (one-at-a-time). Those found to have a significant association with outcome will be included in a linear mixed model, with random effect for intercept. A backward stepwise model building process will be used to determine an overall parsimonious model for outcome.||||0.0471
91877778|NCT00871143|183648953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were implemented to adjust for type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||< 0.001
91800822|NCT02256072|183478888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value controlled for significant baseline covariates (confidence in using the internet, self efficacy score, support score, and race/ethnicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on the slope estimation provided below.|The score is the equally-weighted sum of responses to the five questions in the CAHS instrument. Each question has a scale of 1-5, with a total possible range of 5-25. No subscores are calculated.|H2: Compared to participants in the attention control group and controlling for baseline assessments, participants receiving the PLAN YOUR LIFESPAN tool will show increased confidence in accessing home services (measured via the Confidence in Accessing Home Services tool) one (efficacy) and three (effect retention) months after intervention.||||0.423
91877779|NCT00871143|183648953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 12 week assessment measures and baseline and 1 month follow up measures.||||>0.05
91877780|NCT00871143|183648953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 1 month follow up measures.||||>0.05
91877781|NCT00871143|183648954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear mixed model was conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable MADRS scores.||||>0.05
91877782|NCT00871143|183648954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and week 12.||||<0.01
91800823|NCT02256072|183478889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value controlled for significant baseline covariates (sex, income, health literacy, education level, high blood pressure, and kidney disease) and individual participant effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on the slope estimation provided below.||Compared to participants in the attention control group, participants receiving PLAN YOUR LIFESPAN will show increased UHS 1 (efficacy) and 3 (effect retention) months post-intervention. Secondary analyses will compare baseline variables with outcome (one-at-a-time). Those with a significant association with outcome will be included in a LMM for UHS, with random effect for intercept. A backward stepwise model building process will be used to determine an overall parsimonious model for UHS.||||<0.0001
91800824|NCT00370071|183478932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||one-sided p-value (one-sided test level 2.5%)|Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||In this single arm study, the number of newly active lesions per 3 months during treatment was compared to the number of newly active lesions during 3-month pre-treatment (Alternative hypothesis: Number of lesions is reduced during treatment with Interferon beta-1b). The sample size was calculated for the use of the one-sided Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test at level 2.5% (Power of 90% - anticipating P(X\&lt;Y)=0.15 and allowing for 25% exclusion from Per Protocol Set).||||<0.0001
91800825|NCT00370071|183478933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||one-sided p-value (one-sided test level 2.5%)|Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||||||<0.0001
91800826|NCT00370071|183478934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0||||one-sided p-value (one-sided test level 2.5%)|Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||||||0.0017
91800827|NCT00370071|183478935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|One-sided p-value from Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank-Test for comparing the baseline visit to treatment visits||Lesion volume at Week 12. 38 subjects were evaluated.||||<0.0001
91800828|NCT00370071|183478935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||Lesion volume at Week 24. 37 subjects were evaluated.||||=0.0019
91800829|NCT00310401|183478953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Paired T Test|||Paired T Test was used to compare the change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio from enrollment to procurement between albuterol and saline treated donors||||0.98
91877783|NCT00871143|183648954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferonni corrections used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||>0.05
91747266|NCT03458910|183386158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.807
91747267|NCT03458910|183386159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||<0.001
91747268|NCT03458910|183386160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.740
91747269|NCT03458910|183386161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.083
91747270|NCT03458910|183386162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.176
91800830|NCT00319501|183478958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.88||p-value is adjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|Cox Proportional Hazard||Age adjusted|Null hypothesis||0.88|0.34|0.012
91800831|NCT00319501|183478960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.066
91747271|NCT03458910|183386163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.325
91877784|NCT00871143|183648954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and week 12.||||>0.05
91747272|NCT03458910|183386164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.751|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.751
91747273|NCT03458910|183386165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.011
91747274|NCT03458910|183386166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.885
91747275|NCT03458910|183386167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259||||||p-value reflects time x condition interaction|ANOVA|||2 (time) x 2 (condition) ANOVA to test effects of time, condition, and time x condition interaction||||0.259
91747276|NCT03458910|183386168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000146||||||p-value reflects time x condition interaction|ANOVA|||2 (time) x 2 (condition) ANOVA to test effects of time, condition, and time x condition interaction||||0.000146
91877785|NCT00871143|183648954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections used to decrease risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||> 0.05
91877786|NCT00871143|183648955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 (two-sided) was set.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable of AAI scores.||||<0.05
91747277|NCT03458910|183386169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.463
91747278|NCT03458910|183386170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.990
91747279|NCT03458910|183386171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.034
91747280|NCT03458910|183386172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.398
91747281|NCT03458910|183386173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.113
91800832|NCT00319501|183478961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.443
91800833|NCT00319501|183478962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
91800834|NCT00319501|183478963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.75||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.61||p-Value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA=analysis of variance.|Model included treatment and age category.|||1.61|-0.11|0.086
91877787|NCT00871143|183648955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were applied to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 12 week .||||<0.001
91877788|NCT00871143|183648955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type 1 error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||< 0.001
91800835|NCT00319501|183478964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.79||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.56||p-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|ANOVA||Model included treatment and age category.|||1.56|0.02|0.045
91877789|NCT00871143|183648955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni Correction was used in an attempt to reduce risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 12 week .||||<0.05
91877790|NCT00871143|183648955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to adjust for type 1 error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||>0.05
91877791|NCT00871143|183648956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the PHQ-9 score.||||>0.05
91747282|NCT03458910|183386174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.637
91747283|NCT03458910|183386175|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in CRP for younger adults||||||0.133|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.133
91747284|NCT03458910|183386176|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in CRP for older adults||||||0.402|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.402
91747285|NCT03458910|183386177|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-1b for younger adults||||||0.236||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.236
91800836|NCT00667875|183478971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||The p value represents variation of the total 16 week trial over all three groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed as a mixed model, Group by time (4 time blocks) with an unstructured variance/covariance matrix. Baseline drinks per day was used as a covariate.||||0.49
91800837|NCT00667875|183478972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The p value represents variation of the total 16 week trial over all three groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed as a mixed model (SPSS linear mixed) with an unstructured variance/covariance and baseline percent heavy drinking days as a covariate||||0.03
91747286|NCT03458910|183386178|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-1b for older adults||||||0.6||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.600
91747287|NCT03458910|183386179|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-6 for younger adults||||||0.788||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.788
91747288|NCT03458910|183386180|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-6 for older adults||||||0.917||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.917
91747289|NCT03458910|183386181|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-8 for younger adults||||||0.844||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.844
91747290|NCT03458910|183386182|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-8 for older adults||||||0.75||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.750
91877792|NCT00871143|183648956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Where more than 1 t test had been conducted on each variable, a Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to end of treatment (12 weeks).||||<0.05
91877793|NCT00871143|183648956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||> 0.05
91877794|NCT00871143|183648956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to end of treatment (12 weeks).||||>0.05
91877795|NCT00871143|183648956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||> 0.05
91877796|NCT00871143|183648957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on GAD-7 scores.||||<0.05
91747291|NCT03458910|183386183|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine TNF-a for younger adults||||||0.074||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.074
91747292|NCT03458910|183386184|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine TNF-a for older adults||||||0.0505||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.0505
91747293|NCT03458910|183386199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.022
91747294|NCT03458910|183386200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.455
91747295|NCT03458910|183386201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.022
91747296|NCT03458910|183386202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.455
91747297|NCT03458910|183386203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.462
91747298|NCT03458910|183386204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.305
91747299|NCT03458910|183386205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.804
91800838|NCT00667875|183478973|SUPERIORITY|Anova across all three treatment groups|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Naltrexone or naltrexone placebo pills taken F=3.9 df 2 Aripiprazole or aripiprazole placebo pills taken F=4.6 df 2||||||<.05
91877797|NCT00871143|183648957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 12 week assessment.||||<0.01
91877798|NCT00871143|183648957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were implemented to reduce the risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up assessment.||||> 0.05
91877799|NCT00871143|183648957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 12 week assessment.||||>0.05
91877800|NCT00871143|183648957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up assessment.||||> 0.05
91877801|NCT00871143|183648958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on BIQLI scores.||||<0.05
91877802|NCT00871143|183648958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and end of treatment (12 weeks).||||<0.05
91747300|NCT03458910|183386206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.141
91747301|NCT03458910|183386207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||time point x group(2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.292
91747302|NCT03458910|183386208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.905||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.905
91747303|NCT03458910|183386209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641||||||p value for time x condition x error type interaction effect|ANOVA|||time x condition x error type interaction in Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) for younger adults||||0.641
91747304|NCT03458910|183386210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813||||||p value for time x condition x error type interaction effect|ANOVA|||time x condition x error type interaction in Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) for older adults||||0.813
91747305|NCT03458910|183386211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695|||||||ANOVA|||Hits during recognition task for younger adults||||.695
91747306|NCT03458910|183386212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||Hits during recognition task for older adults||||.270
91747307|NCT03458910|183386213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||ANOVA|||False alarms during recognition task for younger adults||||.102
91747308|NCT03458910|183386214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||ANOVA|||False alarms during recognition task for older adults||||.257
91747309|NCT03458910|183386215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||Group difference for recall for younger adults||||.067
91747310|NCT03458910|183386216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||ANOVA|||Group difference for recall for older adults||||.117
91747311|NCT03458910|183386217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||time x condition x collection interaction in cortisol levels for younger adults||||0.558
91877803|NCT00871143|183648958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type 1 error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||< 0.05
91877804|NCT00871143|183648958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and end of treatment (12 weeks).||||>0.05
91877805|NCT00871143|183648958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||> 0.05
91877806|NCT03930238|183648961|SUPERIORITY||Group effect from Bayesian linear mixed|1646.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||We did perform a Bayesian analysis which provided a posterior probability of 99.76% that the daily mean steps in the intervention group exceeded the daily mean steps in the comparison group.|Bayesian linear mixed effects regression||Posterior standard deviation = 578. We have 95% credible intervals - the interval that contains 95% of the posterior probability distribution of the parameter of interest - which ranges from 511 to 2781.|||||
91877807|NCT03930238|183648962|OTHER||Percentage|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91889217|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 5||2.2|-1.4|
91747312|NCT05275010|183386218|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the AUC0-62 values for pertuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.08|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.08|0.93|
91747313|NCT05275010|183386219|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the AUC0-62 values for trastuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.09|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.09|0.93|
91747314|NCT05275010|183386220|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the Cmax values for pertuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.12|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.12|0.96|
91800839|NCT00667875|183478974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|f 3.2 df 2||Anova across three groups||||<.05
91877808|NCT03861429|183648975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|14.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel logistic regression (generalized estimating equations \[GEE\] with an autoregressive (1) working correlation matrix, logit link function) were fitted to assess the primary hypotheses. The models account for the repeated measures (3 or 4 time points), correlated, data structure per person. An additive model was conducted with contrast coding for each time point, treatment, and follow-up effects.||14.15|.78|.105
91877809|NCT03861429|183648976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|1.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||1.178|.022|.04
91877810|NCT03861429|183648977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||.46|.12|.001
91877811|NCT03861429|183648978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||.48|.21|.001
91877812|NCT03861429|183648979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.19|-.01|.081
91877813|NCT03861429|183648980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||.3|.11|.033
91877814|NCT01763346|183648981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||35 subjects per group provided 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.59, assuming a 2-sided p=0.05, adjustment for baseline measures using ANCOVA, and correlation of 0.5 between baseline and end-study measures.|General Linear Models|Differences in primary outcomes between groups at 24-months were compared using general linear models with baseline values included as covariates.||We selected a sample size that would allow detection of an effect size of \~0.6 or greater between gastric band and metformin groups for measures of β-cell function after two years, hypothesizing greater function in the gastric band group.||||0.05
91877815|NCT01797822|183648984|OTHER|Statistical comparison between groups was made with t-test. A sample size of 20 subjects was calculates to have 90% power of detecting a statistical difference (P\<0.05) in change in corneal staining pre and post low humidity challenge.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91877816|NCT05135156|183649054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|25.0|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||25|3|0.02
91877817|NCT05135156|183649055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.6|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||6.6|-1.0|0.15
91877818|NCT05135156|183649056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.5|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||8.5|-10.9|0.81
91877819|NCT05135156|183649057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||0.8|-0.1|0.15
91877820|NCT05135156|183649058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.7|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||3.7|-2.0|0.54
91877821|NCT05135156|183649060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.7|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||2.7|-2.1|0.82
91877822|NCT05135156|183649062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|7.0|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||7|-15|0.44
91877823|NCT05135156|183649063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||3.9|-1.3|0.31
91877824|NCT05135156|183649064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|17.4|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|17.4|-7.4|0.42
91877825|NCT05135156|183649065|OTHER|Pearson's chi-squared test of independence||||||0.39||||||p=0.39 at baseline, 0.39 at 2 weeks and 0.23 at 4 weeks|Chi-squared|||||||0.39
91877826|NCT05135156|183649066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.94|||Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|Outcome = change in confidence-weighted true false knowledge about lung transplant (14-question investigator-designed survey) from baseline to 2-week study visit||0.94|-0.84|0.91
91877827|NCT05135156|183649066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16|||Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|Outcome = change in Likert preparedness to discuss transplant from baseline to 2-week study visit||0.16|-0.08|0.53
91877828|NCT05135156|183649066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.3|||Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|Outcome = change in Decisional Conflict Scale from baseline to 2-week study visit||-0.3|-8.4|0.04
91877829|NCT05135156|183649066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.0||Outcome = mean PrepDM Scale at 2-weeks|Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|||5.0|-3.6|0.74
91877830|NCT02389725|183649077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91877831|NCT02389725|183649078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91877832|NCT02389725|183649079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
91877833|NCT02389725|183649080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91877834|NCT00404547|183649081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is an analysis of the change in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) after 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91877835|NCT00475735|183649085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||Since this is a proof of concept study with one primary hypothesis (AISRS total score for MK-0249 vs. placebo), there is no multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|The terms were tobacco use, prior stimulant use, time, site, period, sequence, treatment, period-by-time, sequence-by-time, and treatment-by-time.||||||0.341
91877836|NCT00475735|183649085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Since this is a proof of concept study with one primary hypothesis (AISRS total score for MK-0249 vs. placebo), there is no multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|The terms were tobacco use, prior stimulant use, time, site, period, sequence, treatment, period-by-time, sequence-by-time, and treatment-by-time.||||||0.001
91877837|NCT01187407|183649093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||||||Primary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.997
91877838|NCT01187407|183649093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769||||||Secondary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.769
91747315|NCT05275010|183386221|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the Cmax values for trastuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.13|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.13|0.95|
91747316|NCT04478071|183386275|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.009|||||"Risk difference of Vadadustat relative to Placebo. Values under confidence interval reflect Bayesian 95% credible interval rather than frequentist confidence interval."|Trial used Bayesian analysis for superiority. Hypothesis Testing for Primary Outcome: Among adult hospital admissions with lab-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, vadadustat 900 mg will demonstrate superiority to placebo as defined by a lower probability, at treatment day 14, of death (8) or hospitalization, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO (7) or hospitalization, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (6) on the NIAID-OS. See Statistical Analysis Plan for more details.||0.009|-0.084|
91747317|NCT04478071|183386275|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Probability|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Posterior probability of the risk difference of Vadadustat relative to Placebo.|||||
91877839|NCT00125853|183649135|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE) = 0.05 (0.09)"||||||0.6|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on ISI||||0.60
91877840|NCT00125853|183649136|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE)~= -2.59 (1.34)"||||||0.06|||||||Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for|||Comparing treatment effects on ABPM||||0.06
91877841|NCT00125853|183649137|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE)~= -0/09 (0.14)"||||||0.51|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on total cholesterol||||0.51
91877842|NCT00125853|183649138|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE) =0.02 (0.03)"||||||0.48|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on HbA1c||||0.48
91877843|NCT00125853|183649139|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE)~= -0.21(0.13)"||||||0.09|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on BMI||||0.09
91877844|NCT04754594|183649193|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs was calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the assay and the corresponding CIs.||0.90|0.50|
91877845|NCT04754594|183649194|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.77||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs was calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the assay and the corresponding CIs.||1.77|0.91|
91877846|NCT04754594|183649194|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs was calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the assay and the corresponding CIs.||1.30|0.69|
91877847|NCT04754594|183649195|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was estimated by 100\*(1 - illness rate ratio \[IRR\]), where IRR=calculated ratio of confirmed COVID-19 illness per 1000 person-years of blinded follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.|Vaccine efficacy|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1227.8|93.0||||||||93.0|-1227.8|
91877848|NCT04754594|183649196|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was estimated by 100\*(1 - IRR), where IRR=calculated ratio of confirmed COVID-19 illness per 1000 person-years of blinded follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.|Vaccine efficacy|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-466.5|94.6||||||||94.6|-466.5|
91877849|NCT04754594|183649197|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was estimated by 100\*(1 - IRR), where IRR=calculated ratio of confirmed COVID-19 illness per 1000 person-years of blinded follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.|Vaccine efficacy|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.9|86.5||||||||86.5|-104.9|
91877850|NCT00832650|183649213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.334|0.436|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean was calculated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline values, age and Body Mass Index (BMI) as covariates.|Null H10: μF8mg=μS10mg where μF8mg and μS10mg are means of GC24 for fesoterodine 8mg and solifenacin 10mg, respectively.||0.436|-0.334|
91877851|NCT00513292|183649235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages between arms|2.3||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.9|||Chi-squared|||The difference in pCR rates between treatment arms for pCR within the Breast, Defined as no Evidence of Invasive Tumor Remaining in the Breast at Surgery Following Completion of Chemotherapy||13.9|-9.3|.7
91877852|NCT00714688|183649253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.136||95.0|-6.04|0.67||The p value was adjusted for multiplicity via Dunnett's test procedure.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||0.67|-6.04|0.136
91877853|NCT00714688|183649253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.002||95.0|-8.22|-1.55||The p value was adjusted for multiplicity via Dunnett's test procedure.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||-1.55|-8.22|0.002
91747318|NCT04478071|183386276|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1|||||"Risk ratio of Vadadustat relative to Placebo. Values under confidence interval reflect Bayesian 95% credible interval rather than frequentist confidence interval."|Trial used Bayesian analysis for superiority. Hypothesis Testing for Secondary Outcome: Among adult hospital admissions with lab-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, vadadustat 900 mg will demonstrate superiority to placebo as defined by a higher probability, at treatment day 14, of recovery on the MSOFA scale (MSOFA = 0).||1.1|0.92|
91877854|NCT00714688|183649254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model was performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender \& country were used as factors and baseline value \& age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||0.216
91877855|NCT00714688|183649254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has been performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender \& country were used as factors and baseline value \& age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||<0.001
91877856|NCT00714688|183649255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has been performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and age was used as a covariate.||||||0.052
91877857|NCT00714688|183649255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has been performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and age was used as a covariate.||||||0.002
91877858|NCT00714688|183649256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.023||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||0.023
91877859|NCT00714688|183649256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.016||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||0.016
91747319|NCT04478071|183386276|SUPERIORITY||Posterior probability|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Posterior probability of the risk ratio of Vadadustat relative to Placebo.|||||
91800840|NCT00531934|183478987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.175
91800841|NCT00531934|183478990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Erlotinib + doxycycline vs Erlotinib: Grade 3 intensity skin rash (folliculitis)||||<0.001
91800842|NCT00531934|183478996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|1.109|||Log Rank|||||1.109|0.525|0.143
91877860|NCT01524887|183649260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.4||||0.243||95.0|-1.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|-1.0|0.243
91877861|NCT01524887|183649260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.0||||0.37||95.0|-1.2|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-1.2|0.370
91877862|NCT01524887|183649261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-3.9||||0.033||95.0|-7.4|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-7.4|0.033
91877863|NCT01524887|183649261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.9||||0.586||95.0|-4.2|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.4|-4.2|0.586
91877864|NCT01524887|183649262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.2||||0.501||95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.0|0.501
91877865|NCT01524887|183649262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.1||||0.783||95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.783
91877866|NCT01524887|183649263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.1||||0.571||95.0|-2.6|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-2.6|0.571
91877867|NCT01524887|183649263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|3.7||||0.032||95.0|0.3|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.1|0.3|0.032
91877868|NCT01524887|183649264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.00026||||0.593||95.0|-0.00126|0.00073|||ANCOVA|||||0.00073|-0.00126|0.593
91877869|NCT01524887|183649264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|0.00003||||0.94||95.0|-0.0008|0.00086|||ANCOVA|||||0.00086|-0.00080|0.940
91877870|NCT01524887|183649265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.5||||0.633||95.0|-2.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.8|0.633
91877871|NCT01524887|183649265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|0.0||||0.981||95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-2.0|0.981
91877872|NCT00318591|183649273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The additional explanatory variables were removed using backwards-elimination removing the least significant additional variable for each iteration, until the effect of all included additional variables was significant on α=0.05 significant level. The null-hypothesis of no catheter difference was to be rejected on α=0.05 significant level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.502||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|2.207||p-value is adjusted for the following explanatory variables: catheterization frequency, technique (clean/sterile), procedure (participant/nurse), setting (hospital/community) and demographic measures.|Kaplan-Meier|||The analysis was done by comparing Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival function of the two groups. The analysis was refined by a Cox proportional hazards regression model for survival data.||2.207|1.022|0.0383
91877873|NCT00318591|183649275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA analysis. Limit of significant difference \<0.05||||||0.767||95.0||||baseline characteristics were used as covariates, catheterization procedure (participant or caregiver) as well as technique (sterile or clean). Backward elimination was used.|ANOVA|||||||0.7670
91877874|NCT00318591|183649276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA. Level of significant difference \<0.05||||||0.0074||95.0||||baseline characteristics were used as covariates, catheterization procedure (participant or caregiver) as well as technique (sterile or clean). Backward elimination was used.|ANOVA|||||||0.0074
91877875|NCT01967719|183649291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|56.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.21|72.39|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS 2.2 - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS 2.2:mCC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||72.39|44.21|
91877876|NCT01967719|183649292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|55.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|71.5|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS 2.2 - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS 2.2:mCC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||71.50|43.30|
91877877|NCT02229396|183649322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.13|-0.63|0.003
91877878|NCT02229396|183649322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.34|-0.84|<0.001
91877879|NCT02229396|183649323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-1.20|-2.79|<0.001
91877880|NCT02229396|183649323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.55|-2.12|<0.001
91747320|NCT00245050|183386304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|2.16|||Chi-squared|||Based on published literature, it is estimated that the incidence of HFS for all grades is 49%. A decrease of 50% or more in the incidence of HFS in patients receiving pyridoxine would be of clinical significance. A sample size of 27 patients per group was chosen as this would allow us to detect a difference between HFS incidence of 49% and 11.5% (alpha=0.05, two-sided, power=0.80). Interim analysis was conducted after 30 patients were enrolled and had evaluable HFS assessment data.||2.16|0.536|<0.05
91747321|NCT00245050|183386305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.916||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.916
91747322|NCT02301546|183386315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91800843|NCT00531934|183478999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.769||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.116|||Log Rank|||||1.116|0.529|0.153
91800844|NCT00531934|183479005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Erlotinib + doxycycline vs Erlotinib: Grade 3||||0.003
91877881|NCT02229396|183649324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.007|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.95|-12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-12.20|-27.95|<0.001
91877882|NCT02229396|183649324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.947|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-8.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-8.89|-24.39|<0.001
91877883|NCT02229396|183649325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.89|-17.59|||ANCOVA|Treatment, region, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-17.59|-37.89|<0.001
91877884|NCT02229396|183649325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.78|-16.78|||ANCOVA|Treatment, region, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-16.78|-36.78|<0.001
91877885|NCT02229396|183649326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.7|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||<0.001
91800845|NCT04092582|183479110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.55|0.6835
91877886|NCT02229396|183649326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|13.3||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||0.001
91877887|NCT02229396|183649327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.494|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.12|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-13.40|-27.12|<0.001
91877888|NCT02229396|183649327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.477|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|-8.2||This is a nominal p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-8.20|-21.85|<0.001
91877889|NCT02229396|183649328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.9|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||<0.001
91877890|NCT02229396|183649328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|25.6|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||<0.001
91877891|NCT02229396|183649329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.9|-5.2|0.005
91877892|NCT02229396|183649329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.4|-4.5|0.022
91877893|NCT02679079|183649336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.8||Nominal p-value is considered statistically significant if less than 0.05. To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|-4.4|0.89
91800846|NCT04092582|183479111|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.0989||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5925|2.0381|||Poisson regression|||||2.0381|0.5925|0.7648
91800847|NCT04092582|183479112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.43|0.5248
91800848|NCT04092582|183479113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.1250
91800849|NCT04092582|183479114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2249|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.2249
91877894|NCT02679079|183649336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.6||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance since first comparison was not statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|-2.6|0.47
91877895|NCT02679079|183649337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance since first comparison was not statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.0|0.21
91877896|NCT02679079|183649337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance since first comparison was not statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.5|0.67
91747323|NCT05059301|183386316|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence is demonstrated if the 2 sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratios (RSV OA\_Lot 1 divided by RSV OA\_Lot 2) is within the pre defined limit of \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted group GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21||||||To demonstrate the clinical equivalence of RSV OA\_Lot 1 versus RSV OA\_Lot 2 in terms of RSV PreF3 IgG concentrations expressed as group GMC ratio at one month post vaccination. The 2-sided 95% CI for group GMC ratio was derived from an ANCOVA model on log10 transformed RSV PreF3 IgG antibody titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years) and the center as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.||1.21|0.94|
91747324|NCT05059301|183386316|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence is demonstrated if the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMC ratios (RSV OA\_Lot 1 divided by RSV OA\_Lot 3) is within the pre defined limit of \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted group GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.04||||||To demonstrate the clinical equivalence of RSV OA\_Lot 1 versus RSV OA\_Lot 3 in terms of RSV PreF3 IgG concentrations expressed as group GMC ratio at one month post vaccination. The 2-sided 95% CI for group GMC ratio was derived from an ANCOVA model on log10 transformed RSV PreF3 IgG antibody titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years) and the center as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.||1.04|0.81|
91800850|NCT04092582|183479115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9693|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.9693
91877897|NCT02679079|183649338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years)|Risk difference expressed as percentage.|||||0.24
91877898|NCT02679079|183649338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years).|Risk difference expressed as a percentage.|||||0.71
91907456|NCT04036708|183710080|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|5.32||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||5.32|-3.93|.77
91800851|NCT04092582|183479116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9855|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.9855
91800852|NCT03019185|183479133|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|13.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|16.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||16.27|10.48|<0.0001
91800853|NCT03019185|183479134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|9.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.813|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.38|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 48 were included. Missing data were not imputed.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||13.60|5.38|<0.0001
91800854|NCT03019185|183479135|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.144||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|11.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 100 (excluding Week 52) were included. Missing data were not imputed.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||11.89|3.41|0.0005
91877899|NCT02679079|183649339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.9||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|-7.7|0.52
91877900|NCT02679079|183649339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.2||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-4.5|0.64
91877901|NCT02679079|183649340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.5||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.5|-11.2|0.60
91877902|NCT02679079|183649340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.7||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.7|-6.1|0.54
91877903|NCT02679079|183649341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.6||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.6|0.64
91877904|NCT02679079|183649341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.9||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-2.5|0.77
91877905|NCT02679079|183649342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.2||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-1.4|0.45
91877906|NCT02679079|183649342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-2.7|0.72
91877907|NCT02679079|183649343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|0.41
91877908|NCT02679079|183649343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|0.2|0.01
91877909|NCT02679079|183649344|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years).|Risk difference expressed as a percentage.|||||0.18
91877910|NCT02679079|183649344|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years).|Risk difference expressed as a percentage.|||||0.95
91907457|NCT04036708|183710080|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|4.54||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||4.54|-5.14|.90
91747325|NCT05059301|183386316|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence is demonstrated if the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMC ratios (RSV OA\_Lot 2 divided by RSV OA\_Lot 3) is within the pre defined limit of \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted group GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99||||||To demonstrate the clinical equivalence of RSV OA\_Lot 2 versus RSV OA\_Lot 3 in terms of RSV PreF3 IgG concentrations expressed as group GMC ratio at one month post vaccination. The 2-sided 95% CI for group GMC ratio was derived from an ANCOVA model on log10 transformed RSV PreF3 IgG antibody titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years) and the center as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.||0.99|0.77|
91747326|NCT00323960|183386342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228||||||For multiple hypothesis testing, we used Bonferroni's correction (with n=3 posterior comparisons).|Chi-squared|To assess proportions we used the χ² test or Fisher's exact test||We calculated that a sample size of 40 patients would be needed in each study group (total 120 patients) to have 80% power for comparison of combination treatments (prednisone plus methotrexate or prednisone plus ciclosporin) with the reference treatment (prednisone alone).||||0.0228
91747327|NCT00323960|183386343|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.0|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone plus methotrexate arm (group 3) versus prednisone alone (group 1) and prednisone plus ciclosporin (group 2).|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (groups 1 and 2 versus group 3) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||5.0|1.2|0.012
91877911|NCT03009019|183649349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.03|||Fisher Exact|||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||2.03|0.97|0.075
91800855|NCT03019185|183479136|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 48.|LS Mean change from baseline|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9451||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|11.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 48 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||11.39|3.40|0.0008
91877912|NCT03009019|183649349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||Observed cases (OC)||2.14|1.00|0.055
91877913|NCT03009019|183649350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|1.22|0.003
91877914|NCT03009019|183649350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|1.22|0.003
91877915|NCT01812707|183649376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||"Each treatment group was compared to placebo using ANCOVA-derived contrasts.~A hierarchical testing procedure was applied to ensure strong control of overall Type-I error rate at 0.05 level. Order was following:~1. Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus placebo~2. Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W versus placebo~3. Alirocumab 50 mg Q2W versus placebo~Testing continued only when high-order test was statistically significant at 5% level."||||<0.0001
91877916|NCT01812707|183649376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91877917|NCT01812707|183649376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91877918|NCT01066897|183649400|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.002
91877919|NCT01066897|183649401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.368|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test to determine if the % change in HAMD was different from 0||For the 2 dropouts, used LOCF.||||.067
91877920|NCT01697592|183649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.75|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.75|-1.10|<0.001
91877921|NCT01697592|183649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.60|-1.37|<0.001
91747328|NCT00323960|183386344|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.15|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone alone (group 1) versus prednisone plus ciclosporin (group 2) and prednisone plus methotrexate arm (group 3).|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (group 1 versus groups 2 and 3) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||3.15|1.2|0.009
91747329|NCT00323960|183386345|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.14|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone+methotrexate arm or prednisone+ciclosporin versus prednisone alone.|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (groups 2 and 3 versus group 1) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||2.14|1.24|0.002
91747330|NCT00323960|183386345|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.14|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone alone (group 1) versus prednisone plus ciclosporin (group 2) and prednisone plus methotrexate arm (group 3).|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (groups 1 versus groups 2 and 3) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||2.14|1.24|0.002
91747331|NCT01153711|183386346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|168.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.5|182.4||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol||182.4|155.5|1.0000
91747332|NCT01153711|183386347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|166.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.8||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|153.6|179.6||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||179.6|153.6|1.0000
91747333|NCT01153711|183386347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|106.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.211|113.463||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||113.463|100.211|0.0001
91747334|NCT01153711|183386350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|144.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.8||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.853|155.417||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||155.417|133.853|0.9986
91747335|NCT01153711|183386350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|132.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.9||0.8991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.732|143.843||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||143.843|122.732|0.8991
91747336|NCT01153711|183386351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|100.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.534|109.692||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol||109.692|92.534|0.0001
91747337|NCT02152371|183386370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Diff|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.56|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.56|-0.97|<.001
91747338|NCT02152371|183386371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-16.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|-7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.44|-26.02|<.001
91747339|NCT02152371|183386372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-8.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.87|-2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-Morning Meal||-2.25|-13.87|.007
91747340|NCT02152371|183386372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Meal 2-Hour Postprandial||-8.40|-25.96|<.001
91747341|NCT02152371|183386372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-15.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.58|-7.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-Midday Meal||-7.52|-23.58|<.001
91747342|NCT02152371|183386372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-18.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.18|-9.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Meal 2-Hour Postprandial||-9.12|-27.18|<.001
91747343|NCT02152371|183386372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.93|-5.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-Evening Meal||-5.99|-23.93|.001
91747344|NCT02152371|183386372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-21.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.46|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Meal 2-Hour Postprandial||-10.10|-32.46|<.001
91747345|NCT02152371|183386372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-19.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.77|-10.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:00AM (Morning)||-10.18|-28.77|<.001
91747346|NCT02152371|183386373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Difference|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.64|-3.19|<.001
91747347|NCT02152371|183386374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Diff|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.55|-6.84|||MMRM|||||-6.84|-19.55|<.001
91747348|NCT02152371|183386381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.00|3.70|<.001
91747349|NCT02152371|183386381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio, log|5.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|9.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.73|3.35|<.001
91747350|NCT02152371|183386382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.47|2.32|<.001
91747351|NCT02152371|183386383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|6.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.23|2.09|<.001
91747352|NCT02152371|183386384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.26|9.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.62|3.26|<.001
91800856|NCT03019185|183479137|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 100.|LS Mean change from baseline|4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7484||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 100 (excluding Week 52) were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||7.72|0.84|0.0150
91800857|NCT03019185|183479138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.656||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.37|8.8|||ANCOVA|Missing eGFR data were imputed using multiple imputation based on the treatment group to which the patient was assigned.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||8.80|1.37|0.0021
91877922|NCT01697592|183649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.56|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.56|-1.29|<0.001
91877923|NCT01697592|183649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.88|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.88|-1.45|<0.001
91877924|NCT01697592|183649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.54|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.54|-1.06|<0.001
91877925|NCT00265096|183649476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between combined golimumab and placebo groups and at least one of the pair-wise conparisons at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage).||Null Hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response comparing Groups I vs II and Groups I vs III. Sample size (n=396; 110 placebo, 286 combined golimumab) provided \>98% power to detect a significant difference (alpha=0.05) in ACR 20 response between treatment groups, assuming equal proportions of subjects receiving methotrexate (MTX) at baseline and the difference in ACR 20 response of 27% in subjects without MTX and 17-27% in subjects with MTX, between placebo and combined golimumab groups.||||<0.001
91877926|NCT00265096|183649476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage).||||||<0.001
91877927|NCT00265096|183649476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage).||||||<0.001
91877928|NCT00265096|183649477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
91877929|NCT00265096|183649477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
91800858|NCT03019185|183479139|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.876||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.94|||ANCOVA|Missing eGFR data were imputed using multiple imputation based on the treatment group to which the patient was assigned.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||7.94|0.58|0.0232
91877930|NCT00265096|183649477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
91877931|NCT00265096|183649478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment group and subject's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage)||||||<0.001
91800859|NCT00333177|183479169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||P value is for CT-HBT X RLAI-Oral Ris interaction|ANCOVA|Covaried baseline value of dependent variable||A priori hypothesis was that CT would be superior to HBT and that RLAI would enhance this effect.||||<0.03
91877932|NCT00265096|183649478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment group and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
91877933|NCT00265096|183649478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment group and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
91877934|NCT00265096|183649479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment and subject's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage)||||||<0.001
91877935|NCT00265096|183649479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (with treatment and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
91877936|NCT00265096|183649479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
91800860|NCT00333177|183479170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||P-value is for each main effect. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05 for each main effect.|ANCOVA|Baseline value of dependent variable was covaried.||2 X 2 ANOVA was calculated. A priori hypotheses were that LAI would be superior to oral risperidone and that CT would be superior to health behavior training (HBT) based on main effects.||||<.02
91800861|NCT00333177|183479171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||A priori hypothesis was that RLAI would lead to less medication non-adherence than Oral Ris.||1.10|.57|.001
91877937|NCT00265096|183649480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||The test was not to be performed if the test of ACR 20 at Week 24 was not significant.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on van der Waerden scores with 2 factors: treatment group and participant's baseline methotrexate (MTX) usage||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in change from baseline among 3 treatment groups. Sample size (n=396, 110 placebo, 286 combined golimumab) provided \>93% power to detect a significant difference (alpha=0.05) in change from baseline between treatment groups, assuming 50% of subjects received MTX at baseline, and mean change from baseline for combined golimumab of 0, and a mean increase for placebo of 0.1 in subjects who received MTX at baseline and 0.6 in subjects who did not receive MTX||||0.015
91877938|NCT00265096|183649480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||The test was not to be performed if the test of ACR 20 at Week 24 was not significant|ANOVA|ANOVA on van der Waerden scores with 2 factors: treatment group and participant's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage||||||0.011
91877939|NCT00265096|183649480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||The test was not to be performed if the test of ACR 20 at Week 24 was not significant|ANOVA|ANOVA on van der Waerden scores with 2 factors: treatment group and participant's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage||||||0.086
91747353|NCT05285644|183386397|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|42.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|42.0|26.9|<0.0001
91747354|NCT05285644|183386398|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-1.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center.|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||-1.0|-9.1|0.0138
91877940|NCT00265096|183649481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage)||||||<0.001
91747355|NCT05285644|183386399|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|8.6||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|8.6|5.8|<0.0001
91747356|NCT05285644|183386400|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|34.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|34.0|19.5|<0.0001
91747357|NCT05285644|183386401|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|7.5||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||7.5|4.9|<0.0001
91747358|NCT05285644|183386402|OTHER|Difference (2 sided)|Difference in Percentages|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|41.4||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|41.4|24.8|<0.0001
91800862|NCT00333177|183479172|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value is for CT vs. HBT main effect.|ANCOVA|Baseline value of dependent variable was covaried.||2 X 2 ANOVA was calculated. A priori hypotheses were that CT would be superior to HBT and that RLAI would be superior to Oral Ris.||||<.05
91800863|NCT00333177|183479173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
91800864|NCT00333177|183479174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||A priori hypotheses were that CT would be superior to HBT and that RLAI would be superior to Oral Ris.|ANOVA|2 X 2 ANOVA was computed.||||||<0.02
91800865|NCT00333177|183479175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||Chi-square of frequencies of relapse vs. non-relapse were calculated, with a priori hypothesis that RLAI would be superior to Oral Ris.||||<0.01
91877941|NCT00265096|183649481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
91877942|NCT00265096|183649481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
91877943|NCT00666835|183649497|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was defined as the two-sided 95 % confidence interval of the difference between the two treatment groups lying entirely in the interval -0.5 to 0.5 g/dL. The confidence interval of the difference was calculated based on the least square means (LSMEANS) from an analysis of co-variance model including factors treatment, center, mean baseline Hb level (\<11.5 and T11.5 g/dL) as factors and change of the mean weekly dose as a covariate.|Point estimate of difference (ANCOVA)|0.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.338||||||||0.338|-0.170|
91877944|NCT00666835|183649498|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was defined as the two-sided 95 % confidence interval of the difference between the two treatment groups lying entirely in the interval -0.5 to 0.5 g/dL. The confidence interval of the difference was calculated based on the least square means (LSMEANS) from an analysis of co-variance model including factors treatment, center, mean baseline Hb level (\<11.5 and T11.5 g/dL) as factors and change of the mean weekly dose as a covariate.|Difference LSM of Epo Hexal & Erypo|0.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.418||||||||0.418|-0.039|
91877945|NCT00396097|183649560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.5762|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.071||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the individualized treatment arm was not superior to the standard treatment arm; alternative hypothesis that the individualized treatment arm was superior to the standard treatment arm with respect to the mean 24-month AOTD. Using a 2:1 randomization, a two sided sample t-test comparing the root AOTD between the 2 treatment arms with 80% power at a 5% level required 260 subjects. Assuming a 20% attrition rate, approximately 312 subjects were needed for this study.|||-0.071|0.5762
91747359|NCT05285644|183386403|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|9.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||9.0|6.0|<0.0001
91747360|NCT05285644|183386404|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.7||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||1.7|-7.3|0.2184
91747361|NCT05285644|183386405|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.266|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-7.5|2.1||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||2.1|-7.5|0.2660
91747362|NCT05285644|183386406|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||2.0|-7.2|0.2741
91800866|NCT00333177|183479176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2 X 2 ANOVA calculated. P-value is for main effect of RLAI vs. Oral Ris.|ANOVA|||||||<.05
91800867|NCT00333177|183479177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||2 X 2 ANOVA computed. P-value is for main effect of CT vs. HBT.|ANOVA|||||||<.02
91800868|NCT00333177|183479178|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.053||||||2 X 2 ANOVA computed. P-value is for RLAI vs. Oral Ris main effect.|ANOVA|||||||=.053
91877946|NCT00396097|183649561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA (Levene's Test)|||||||0.627
91877947|NCT00396097|183649562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.033||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.330|0.802|0.8016
91877948|NCT00396097|183649563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.395|10.249|||ANCOVA|||||10.249|1.395|0.0101
91877949|NCT00396097|183649563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.471||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.417|14.145|||ANCOVA|||||14.145|4.417|0.0002
91877950|NCT00396097|183649563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.495||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.707|8.114|||ANCOVA|||||8.114|-1.707|0.2001
91877951|NCT00396097|183649564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.414|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.181|43.618|||ANCOVA|||||43.618|30.181|<0.0001
91877952|NCT00396097|183649564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.054|54.98|||ANCOVA|||||54.980|42.054|<.0001
91877953|NCT00396097|183649564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.936|40.951|||ANCOVA|||||40.951|27.936|<.0001
91877954|NCT00396097|183649565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.249|||ANCOVA|||||0.249|-0.068|0.2618
91877955|NCT00396097|183649565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.8926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|0.198|||ANCOVA|||||0.198|-0.172|0.8926
91877956|NCT00396097|183649565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.9566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.181|||ANCOVA|||||0.181|-0.192|0.9566
91877957|NCT03209050|183649571|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Clopper-Pearson 95% CI|||||||0.5
91877958|NCT02959177|183649594|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.22|-3.80|<0.001
91747363|NCT05285644|183386407|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.3||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||1.3|-8.2|0.1590
91877959|NCT02959177|183649594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.94|-3.53|<0.001
91877960|NCT02959177|183649595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|5.57||||||||5.57|2.71|
91877961|NCT02959177|183649595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|5.23||||||||5.23|2.54|
91877962|NCT02959177|183649596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.89||||||||4.89|2.14|
91877963|NCT02959177|183649596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|4.8||||||||4.80|2.08|
91877964|NCT02959177|183649597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|5.93||||||||5.93|2.03|
91877965|NCT02959177|183649597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.44||||||||5.44|1.79|
91877966|NCT02959177|183649598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|9.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.46|4.54|<0.001
91877967|NCT02959177|183649598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.79|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|8.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.24|3.33|<0.01
91877968|NCT02959177|183649599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.19|-3.61|<0.001
91877969|NCT02959177|183649599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.99|-3.41|<0.001
91877970|NCT02959177|183649601|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|-7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.51|-16.14|<0.001
91877971|NCT02959177|183649601|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-13.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.05|-9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.40|-18.05|<0.001
91877972|NCT02959177|183649602|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.73|-8.06|<0.001
91877973|NCT02959177|183649602|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-6.08|<.001
91877974|NCT03544229|183649609|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|=|0.618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.49||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD composite score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.49|-0.34|=0.618
91877975|NCT03544229|183649609|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|=|0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.29||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD composite score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.29|-0.27|=0.533
91877976|NCT03544229|183649609|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|=|0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.25||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD composite score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.25|-0.30|=0.447
91877977|NCT03544229|183649610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||=|0.607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.96|||Logistic Regression||Comparisons of TAK-906 to Placebo was based on logistic regression with at least 50% reduction of participants from baseline in weekly composite score with baseline composite score, disease population at randomization, and treatment as covariates.|||1.96|0.39|=0.607
91877978|NCT03544229|183649610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||=|0.283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.1|||Logistic Regression||Comparisons of TAK-906 to Placebo was based on logistic regression with at least 50% reduction of participants from baseline in weekly composite score with baseline composite score, disease population at randomization, and treatment as covariates.|||2.10|0.70|=0.283
91889218|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6A||1.5|-1.6|
91889219|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||2.7|-1.1|
91800869|NCT00398918|183479180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results presented are for post-hoc comparisons of least squares means with Tukey-Kramer adjucted p values.|The estimated value is for the difference between the means obtained for the second hour of the self-administration sessions for the placebo and zonisamide conditions.|The analysis involved a within subjects comparison. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the amount of ethanol consumed in either the first or second hour of self-administration sessions. Results presented here are for the second hour of the self-administration sessions.||||<0.05
91800870|NCT00398918|183479181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.61||95.0||||P value shown is for a post-hoc comparison of least squares means generated by the mixed model used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for difference between DSMT scores at 40 minutes post alcohol ingestion for zonisamide and placebo involved post-hoc comparisons of least squares means.|Null hypothesis: No difference in DSMT scores for zonisamide and placebo treatments 40 minutes after ingestion of ethanol.||||0.61
91800871|NCT03917459|183479194|OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|9.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||9.01|-3.29|0.3432
91800872|NCT00491764|183479218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.9||||0.005||95.0|8.9|36.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||36.8|8.9|0.005
91800873|NCT00491764|183479218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.1|||<|0.001||95.0|38.0|70.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||70.1|38.0|<0.001
91800874|NCT00491764|183479218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.5|||<|0.001||95.0|28.5|62.4|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||62.4|28.5|<0.001
91800875|NCT00491764|183479218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.012||95.0|6.7|33.3|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||33.3|6.7|0.012
91800876|NCT00491764|183479218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.1|||<|0.001||95.0|21.1|53.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||53.2|21.1|<0.001
91800877|NCT00491764|183479219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.7||||0.002||95.0|11.2|40.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||40.2|11.2|0.002
91800878|NCT00491764|183479219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|64.9|||<|0.001||95.0|49.5|80.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||80.2|49.5|<0.001
91800879|NCT00491764|183479219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|48.5|||<|0.001||95.0|31.4|65.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||65.5|31.4|<0.001
91800880|NCT00491764|183479219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.4|||<|0.001||95.0|16.0|46.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||46.8|16.0|<0.001
91907458|NCT04036708|183710081|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.55||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|112.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, the HOME score, child's age and sex were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||112.8|15.26|.01
91800881|NCT00491764|183479219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.3|||<|0.001||95.0|37.8|70.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||70.8|37.8|<0.001
91800882|NCT00491764|183479220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.4|||<|0.001||95.0|16.0|46.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||46.8|16.0|<0.001
91800883|NCT00491764|183479220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|64.9|||<|0.001||95.0|49.5|80.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||80.2|49.5|<0.001
91800884|NCT00491764|183479220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.7|||<|0.001||95.0|50.6|82.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||82.8|50.6|<0.001
91800885|NCT00491764|183479220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.4|||<|0.001||95.0|16.0|46.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||46.8|16.0|<0.001
91800886|NCT00491764|183479220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.1|||<|0.001||95.0|40.7|73.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||73.5|40.7|<0.001
91800887|NCT01601132|183479224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5663||||||Significant difference defined a priori as p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5663
91800888|NCT01601132|183479225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|105.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.77|110.12|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed Cmax, expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed Cmax to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, (AUC0-∞), and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||110.12|101.77|
91877979|NCT03544229|183649610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||=|0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.69|||Logistic Regression||Comparisons of TAK-906 to Placebo was based on logistic regression with at least 50% reduction of participants from baseline in weekly composite score with baseline composite score, disease population at randomization, and treatment as covariates.|||1.69|0.56|=0.527
91877980|NCT03544229|183649611|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279|=|0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.52||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD nausea symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.52|-0.40|=0.584
91877981|NCT03544229|183649611|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|=|0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.37||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD nausea symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.37|-0.25|=0.625
91877982|NCT03544229|183649611|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|=|0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.33||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD nausea symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.33|-0.29|=0.540
91877983|NCT03544229|183649612|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283|=|0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.47||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD early satiety symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.47|-0.46|=0.510
91877984|NCT03544229|183649612|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192|=|0.674|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.4||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD early satiety symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.40|-0.23|=0.674
91877985|NCT03544229|183649612|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|=|0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.25||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD early satiety symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.25|-0.38|=0.367
91877986|NCT03544229|183649613|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289|=|0.587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.54||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD postprandial fullness symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.54|-0.41|=0.587
91877987|NCT03544229|183649613|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|=|0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.37||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD postprandial fullness symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.37|-0.27|=0.600
91877988|NCT03544229|183649613|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.29||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD postprandial fullness symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.29|-0.34|=0.446
91877989|NCT03544229|183649614|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|=|0.562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.44||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD upper abdominal pain symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.44|-0.37|=0.562
91889220|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 7F||0.4|-1.5|
91889221|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||1.9|-1.0|
91747364|NCT05285644|183386408|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.3||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||1.3|-9.2|0.1369
91747365|NCT04114071|183386412|EQUIVALENCE|An independent sample t tests was used to examine the difference score for each of the four outcome measures of interest (steps, WC, weight, and HbA1c) between intervention and control groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91747366|NCT01448824|183386421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Up to 12 participants were enrolled in order for 8 to complete the study. The estimated variability in area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was 20% coefficient of variation following a single dose of 100 mg LY2484595. Assuming that 70% of the total variability is contributed by intra-participant variability, a sample size of 8 participants provides a precision of \~15% for the geometric means ratio in AUC and Cmax of LY2484595 + ketoconazole to LY2484595 alone in log scale.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.72||||||||2.72|1.39|
91877990|NCT03544229|183649614|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|=|0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.09||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD upper abdominal pain symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.09|-0.46|=0.138
91747367|NCT01448824|183386422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||0.50|-0.50|1.0000
91747368|NCT01448824|183386423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Up to 12 participants were enrolled in order for 8 to complete the study. The estimated variability in area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was 20% coefficient of variation following a single dose of 100 mg LY2484595. Assuming that 70% of the total variability is contributed by intra-participant variability, a sample size of 8 participants provides a precision of \~15% for the geometric means ratio in AUC and Cmax of LY2484595 + ketoconazole to LY2484595 alone in log scale.|Ratio of Geometric LS means|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.77|3.18||||||||3.18|1.77|
91747369|NCT02526524|183386445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||0.09|-0.63|0.1449
91747370|NCT02526524|183386445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||0.02|-0.69|0.0643
91747371|NCT02526524|183386445|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||-0.06|-0.79|0.0214
91747372|NCT02526524|183386445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||-0.20|-0.91|0.0022
91747373|NCT02526524|183386445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||-0.67|-1.39|<0.0001
91747374|NCT00100230|183386457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
91747375|NCT00100230|183386458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
91747376|NCT00100230|183386458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
91747377|NCT00100230|183386459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000008
91747378|NCT02039219|183386471|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Two-sample t-test compared MELD score between OCA and placebo arms at baseline OCA arms had a mean (SD) of 14.9(2.4), Placebo arms had a mean (SD) of 16.4 (2.2).|Baseline||||0.1758
91747379|NCT02039219|183386471|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.8||0.3839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Two-sample t-test compared MELD score between OCA and placebo arms at day 42 OCA arms had a mean (SD) of 11.5 (6.8), Placebo arms had a mean (SD) of 13.9(4.6).|Day 42||||0.3839
91747380|NCT02039219|183386479|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Anaylsis|0.0||||0.3938|ONE_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 42||||.3938
91747381|NCT02039219|183386479|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Anaylsis|0.0||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 90||||.3938
91747382|NCT02039219|183386479|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Anaylsis|0.0||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 180||||.3938
91747383|NCT02039219|183386479|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Analysis|0.09||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 42||||.3938
91747384|NCT02039219|183386479|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Analysis|0.09||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 90||||.3938
91747385|NCT02039219|183386479|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Analysis|0.09||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 180||||.3938
91877991|NCT03544229|183649614|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|=|0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.23||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD upper abdominal pain symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.23|-0.32|=0.394
91877992|NCT03544229|183649615|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484|=|0.709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|1.07||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD recorded vomiting frequency was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||1.07|-0.53|=0.709
91877993|NCT03544229|183649615|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332|=|0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.78||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD recorded vomiting frequency was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.78|-0.31|=0.760
91877994|NCT03544229|183649615|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.62||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD recorded vomiting frequency was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.62|-0.47|=0.591
91877995|NCT03544229|183649616|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|=|0.742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.62||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD overall severity of gastroparesis symptoms score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.62|-0.27|=0.742
91877996|NCT03544229|183649616|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|=|0.461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.28||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD overall severity of gastroparesis symptoms score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.28|-0.32|=0.461
91877997|NCT03544229|183649616|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|=|0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.24||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD overall severity of gastroparesis symptoms score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.24|-0.36|=0.376
91747386|NCT02039219|183386483|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.8094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8094
91747387|NCT00967694|183386558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess change in IOP over time using time-points as the primary independent variable with significance set at p \< 0.05. Power calculations showed that 20 subjects would allow detection of a 2.8-mmHg difference in IOP between any two time-points with 80% power assuming a standard deviation of 3.5 mmHg for IOP and a correlation between two time- points of 0.25||||>0.05
91747388|NCT00729677|183386559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.05
91747389|NCT01005316|183386589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||Fisher Exact|||The p-value compares Cohort A: Non-Sensitized with Cohort B: Sensitized, Crossmatch Positive.||||0.2580
91747390|NCT03272828|183386613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
91747391|NCT03272828|183386614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Unequal-variance 2-sample t-test|||||||0.06
91747392|NCT03272828|183386615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Unequal-variance 2-sample t-test|||||||0.45
91747393|NCT03888235|183386617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumes that after one month, there is no difference in Oswestry low back pain and disability score improvement between the three treatment groups.||||0.003
91747394|NCT03888235|183386617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||SI Exercise versus usual care. Bonferroni alpha correction p\< 0.0167|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91747395|NCT03888235|183386617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in Oswestry low back pain and disability score between those using a pelvic support belt and those using usual treatment||||0.314
91747396|NCT03888235|183386618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Oswestry low back pain and disability (ODI) score change over two months for all participants. This compares the score at initial visit and the score 2 months later after all participants have been using the corrective exercise and sacroiliac stabilization belt for one month. =(ODI time 0 - ODI 2 months). The greater the difference, the better the recovery of back function.||||< 0.001
91747397|NCT03888235|183386619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumes that after one month, there is no difference in brief pain inventory score improvement between the three treatment groups.||||0.17
91747398|NCT03888235|183386619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||Bonferroni alpha correction of p\<0.0167.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The brief pain inventory score at the one month visit, is used to compare the pain levels of those having done one month of corrective exercises to those who continued with conventional treatments for their low back pain.||||0.089
91747399|NCT03888235|183386619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The brief pain inventory score is used to compare those using a pelvic support belt for one month and those with delayed treatment||||0.092
91747400|NCT03888235|183386620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All participants are assessed as a single group as they receive the same two treatments for one month. Brief pain inventory (BPI) score change over two months for all participants. This compares BPI score at baseline visit and BPI score 2 months later, after all participants have been using the corrective exercise and sacroiliac stabilization belt for one month. The score is between 0 and 10. The higher the change in score the greater the pain relief.||||< 0.001
91747401|NCT03888235|183386621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||The Bonferroni alpha correction is used p\<0.0167|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumes there is no improvement after one month in posterior superior iliac spine levels (PSISL) measured using the sacroiliac forward flexion test (SIFFT) between the three treatment groups.||||0.016
91747402|NCT03888235|183386621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||The Bonferroni alpha correction is used p\<0.0167|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the distance between the posterior sacroiliac spine levels (PSISL) between those who use their usual low back pain treatments and those who are given the corrective exercises (SIFFTE) and use them as needed for one month.||||0.009
91747403|NCT03888235|183386621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Bonferroni correction p\< 0.0167|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that that using a pelvic support belt will not help correct sacroiliac joint asymmetry as measured using the distance between the posterior superior iliac spine levels (PSISL), baseline and one month later better than conventional treatment for low back pain.||||0.034
91747404|NCT03888235|183386622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Since all participants have received the same 2 treatment for one month, we will treat them as a single group. We will measure the distance between their posterior superior iliac spine levels (PSISL) when they enter the study and two months later after they have used the corrective exercise and the sacroiliac belt for one month. Corona prevented some participants from returning for examination, which this test requires. Only 11 participants were present in each group: 33 participants tested.||||< 0.0001
91747405|NCT03888235|183386622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||< 0.001
91747406|NCT03888235|183386623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the physiotherapy as they were with using the corrective exercises and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
91747407|NCT03888235|183386624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the acupuncture as they were with using the corrective exercises and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
91747408|NCT03888235|183386625|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the yoga exercises as they were with using the corrective exercises and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
91747409|NCT03888235|183386626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the core exercises as they were with using the corrective exercise and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
91747410|NCT03888235|183386627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with treatments by a chiropractor as they were with using the corrective exercise and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
91747411|NCT03888235|183386628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with massage therapy as they were with using the corrective exercise and the pelvic stabilization belt.||||<0.00001
91747412|NCT03703817|183386662|SUPERIORITY|Effectiveness: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.3648|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.3648
91889222|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||0.6|-3.7|
91747413|NCT03703817|183386662|SUPERIORITY|Side effect: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.1395|||||||Conditional logistic regression|||||||0.1395
91747414|NCT03703817|183386662|SUPERIORITY|Convenience: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.0349|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.0349
91747415|NCT03703817|183386662|SUPERIORITY|Global satisfaction: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.1546|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.1546
91747416|NCT03703817|183386663|SUPERIORITY|Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.1602|||||||Conditional logistic regression model|||||||0.1602
91747417|NCT03703817|183386664|SUPERIORITY|Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.9921|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.9921
91747418|NCT06359028|183386696|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.72|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||-1.72|-2.16|<0.0001
91747419|NCT06359028|183386697|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|57.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.23|64.51|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||64.51|50.23|<0.0001
91747420|NCT06359028|183386698|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||-1.41|-1.89|<0.0001
91747421|NCT06359028|183386699|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|35.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.88|43.86|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||43.86|26.88|<0.0001
91747422|NCT06359028|183386700|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q7, Day 28||0.13|-1.04|0.1268
91747423|NCT06359028|183386700|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q7, Day 56||-1.13|-2.38|<0.0001
91747424|NCT06359028|183386700|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.09|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q8, Day 28||-0.09|-1.35|0.0245
91747425|NCT06359028|183386700|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.18|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q8, Day 56||-1.18|-2.44|<0.0001
91747426|NCT06359028|183386700|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.37|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q9, Day 28||0.37|-0.96|0.3851
91747427|NCT06359028|183386700|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.375||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.73|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q9, Day 56||-0.73|-2.22|0.0002
91747428|NCT06359028|183386701|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.674||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.46|3.08|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||3.08|-15.46|0.1884
91747429|NCT06359028|183386701|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.308||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-11.97|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-11.97|-37.00|0.0002
91747430|NCT06359028|183386702|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.774||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.73|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.73|-2.34|0.3003
91747431|NCT06359028|183386702|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.903||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-0.97|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.97|-4.56|0.0028
91747432|NCT06359028|183386703|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.127||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.44|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.44|-8.00|0.0784
91747433|NCT06359028|183386703|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.074||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|-2.07|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-2.07|-14.27|0.0092
91747434|NCT06359028|183386704|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.8686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.54|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||1.54|-1.82|0.8686
91747435|NCT06359028|183386704|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-1.31|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-1.31|-5.18|0.0012
91747436|NCT06359028|183386705|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.444||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|2.69|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||2.69|-3.04|0.9047
91747437|NCT06359028|183386705|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.656||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.95|-3.38|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-3.38|-9.95|0.0001
91877998|NCT03544229|183649617|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|=|0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.54||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD bloating severity scale score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.54|-0.41|=0.591
91747438|NCT06359028|183386706|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.19|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||1.19|-2.14|0.5733
91747439|NCT06359028|183386706|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|-0.84|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.84|-4.92|0.0060
91747440|NCT06359028|183386707|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.11|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.11|-0.39|0.2768
91747441|NCT06359028|183386707|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.04|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.04|-0.48|0.0232
91747442|NCT06359028|183386708|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.8996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.85|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.85|-0.75|0.8996
91747443|NCT06359028|183386708|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.14|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.14|-1.66|0.0204
91747444|NCT05248997|183386712|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.09||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.53||LM included baseline value as covariate,\& fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled time point(TP),TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||0.53|-0.71|0.7782
91747445|NCT05248997|183386713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.29||||0.7079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.24||LM included baseline value as covariate, and fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled TP, TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||1.24|-1.83|0.7079
91747446|NCT05248997|183386714|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.23||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.36||LM included baseline value as covariate, and fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled TP, TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||0.36|-0.81|0.4398
91747447|NCT05248997|183386715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|0.04||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.59||LM included baseline value as covariate, and fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled TP, TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||0.59|-0.51|0.8890
91747448|NCT05248997|183386716|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|3.8||||0.6412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|19.7|||Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by presence of nasal polyps at randomization with Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.||||19.7|-12.1|0.6412
91747449|NCT05248997|183386717|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-2.7||||0.5001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|5.2|||Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by presence of nasal polyps at randomization with Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.||||5.2|-10.6|0.5001
91800889|NCT01601132|183479226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|105.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.81|109.59|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed AUC(0-t)\], expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed AUC(0-t) to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||109.59|101.81|
91800890|NCT01601132|183479227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|106.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|112.04|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed AUC(0-∞) , expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed AUC(0-∞) to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||112.04|101.10|
91800891|NCT01601132|183479228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|93.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.25|98.92|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed CL/F, expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed CL/F to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||98.92|89.25|
91800892|NCT01601132|183479229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|98.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.97|106.85|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed Vd/F, expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed Vd/F to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||106.85|90.97|
91800893|NCT02110238|183479230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A VAS (0-100 mm) WOMAC Pain subscale score CFB; an equal n t-test for non-inferiority of means; a non-inferiority margin of -8 mm; change standard deviation of 26 mm; two-sided alpha=0.05; 80% power; an expected mean difference of 0, and a drop-out plus important deviation percentage of approximately 20% were used to establish study sample size.|Least square mean difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|0.17|||||"A MERM regression model was fit to the change from baseline at weeks 3, 6, and 12. The over weeks 3, 6, and 12 single point estimate least square mean change was calculated for both arms, the difference and its 95% confidence interval calculated."|||0.17|-6.77|
91800894|NCT03228433|183479241|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with a fixed effect for regimen and random effect for participant. The least squares(LS) means and difference of least squares (LS) means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates (Geometric LS means) of the food effect and 90% confidence intervals (CIs).|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.099||||||||1.099|0.823|
91800895|NCT03228433|183479241|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model (power model), log (ln) (parameter) equal to (=) intercept plus (+) slope\*ln (dose), was fit to describe the relationship between each parameter and the corresponding dose levels. Dose Proportionality was declared if the 90% CI of the slope lied entirely within the critical region as defined by 1 - ln(0.8) per (/)l n(r) to 1 + ln(1.25)/ln(r), where r was the ratio of the highest and lowest dose in the study.|Slope|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.25||||||||1.25|1.04|
91800896|NCT03228433|183479242|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence interval of 627.51 to 659.59|LS Mean Difference|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.097||||||||1.097|0.825|
91800897|NCT03228433|183479242|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model (power model), ln (parameter) = intercept + slope\*ln (dose), was fit to describe the relationship between each parameter and the corresponding dose levels. Dose Proportionality was declared if the 90% CI of the slope lied entirely within the critical region as defined by 1 - ln (0.8)/l n(r) to 1 + ln (1.25)/ln(r), where r was the ratio of the highest and lowest dose in the study.|Slope|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.22||||||||1.22|1.00|
91800898|NCT03228433|183479243|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with a fixed effect for regimen and random effect for participant. The LS means and difference of LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates (Geometric LS means) of the food effect and 90% confidence intervals CIs.|LS Mean Difference|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.431|0.781||||||||0.781|0.431|
91877999|NCT03544229|183649617|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|=|0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.21||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD bloating severity scale score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.21|-0.43|=0.291
91878000|NCT03544229|183649617|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|=|0.476|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.3||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD bloating severity scale score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.30|-0.33|=0.476
91747450|NCT00673231|183386732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0726|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.31||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.31|-0.59|<0.0001
91747451|NCT00673231|183386732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0718|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.38||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.38|-0.66|<0.0001
91878001|NCT03544229|183649618|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|=|0.675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.47||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.47|-0.27|=0.675
91878002|NCT03544229|183649618|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|=|0.531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.26||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.26|-0.24|=0.531
91747452|NCT00673231|183386732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0733|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.45||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.45|-0.74|<0.0001
91747453|NCT00673231|183386733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.49||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.49|-1.50|0.0001
91747454|NCT00673231|183386733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2523|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.50|-1.50|<0.0001
91747455|NCT00673231|183386733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.18||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.18|-2.19|<0.0001
91747456|NCT00673231|183386734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-4.28||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-4.28|-9.46|<0.0001
91747457|NCT00673231|183386734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|-3.13||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-3.13|-8.25|<0.0001
91747458|NCT00673231|183386734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3286|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|-3.63||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-3.63|-8.84|<0.0001
91747459|NCT00673231|183386735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.536||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, adjustment for stratum (other oral anti-diab med use) and baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||14.1|0.2|0.0427
91878003|NCT03544229|183649618|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.24||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.24|-0.26|=0.473
91878004|NCT03544229|183649619|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.71|=|0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|7.57||The 1-sided p-value was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 -Placebo) in symptomatic weeks was \<0.|ANOVA|||||7.57|-24.50|=0.192
91878005|NCT03544229|183649619|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.736|=|0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.98|6.27||The 1-sided p-value was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in symptomatic weeks was \<0.|ANOVA|||||6.27|-15.98|=0.236
91878006|NCT03544229|183649619|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.689|=|0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.62|7.47||The 1-sided p-value was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in symptomatic weeks was \<0.|ANOVA|||||7.47|-14.62|=0.297
91878007|NCT03544229|183649620|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|=|0.601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.57||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM of PAGI-SYM total score. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in PAGI-SYM total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.57|-0.42|=0.601
91878008|NCT03544229|183649620|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|=|0.181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.15||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM of PAGI-SYM total score. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in PAGI-SYM total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model includes week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.15|-0.51|=0.181
91878009|NCT03544229|183649620|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Diferrence|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|=|0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.09||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM of PAGI-SYM total score. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in PAGI-SYM total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model includes week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.09|-0.56|=0.114
91878010|NCT02460562|183649621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Mean salivary fluoride concentrations (part per million) between groups were assessed at different time points using repeated measures analysis of variance. Saliva fluoride concentration from each groups were compared with baseline using a t-test.|ANOVA|||Mean saliva fluoride concentration (part per million) collected at different time points was compared in order to assess the change in capacity for fluoride release and recharge from the resin denture base and to assess differences between the control and the intervention group.||||<0.05
91747460|NCT00673231|183386735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.434||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|12.5||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, adjustment for stratum (other oral anti-diab med use) and baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||12.5|-0.9|0.0903
91747461|NCT00673231|183386735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.634||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|15.8||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, adjustment for stratum (other oral anti-diab med use) and baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||15.8|1.6|0.0166
91800899|NCT03228433|183479243|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model (power model), ln (parameter) = intercept + slope\*ln (dose), was fit to describe the relationship between each parameter and the corresponding dose levels. Dose Proportionality was declared if the 90% CI of the slope lied entirely within the critical region as defined by 1 - ln (0.8)/l n(r) to 1 + ln (1.25)/ln(r), where r was the ratio of the highest and lowest dose in the study.|Slope|1.06||||||90.0|0.96|1.17||||||||1.17|0.96|
91878011|NCT02460562|183649622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Caries assessments were performed to examine the difference in mean number of surface caries (DMFS) ± standard deviation between the control and the intervention groups at baseline and at 1.5 years.The transition (∆Q) of developed new caries surfaces (ICDAS score 1-3) from baseline to 1.5 years of follow-up for the two groups was analyzed with respect to arrest or progress rates. Numbers of new caries surfaces were compared by independent t-test, Pearson chi-square and correlation coefficient.||||<0.05
91878012|NCT01061775|183649623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
91878013|NCT01061775|183649624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91878014|NCT01061775|183649625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91878015|NCT01061775|183649626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91878016|NCT02642159|183649628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.1|-27.0||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Alirocumab group was compared to usual care group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-27.0|-38.1|<0.0001
91878017|NCT02642159|183649629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.6|-19.9||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Alirocumab group was compared to usual care group for the intent to prescribe fenofibrate using an appropriate contrast statement.||-19.9|-46.6|<0.0001
91878018|NCT02642159|183649630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.7|-36.3||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses for overall ITT analysis. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||-36.3|-49.7|<0.0001
91878019|NCT02642159|183649631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-71.8|-39.6||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|A separate hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses for ITT-intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||-39.6|-71.8|<0.0001
91878020|NCT02642159|183649632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.5|-20.7||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-20.7|-31.5|<0.0001
91878021|NCT02642159|183649633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.0|-14.8||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT-intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-14.8|-40.0|<0.0001
91878022|NCT02642159|183649634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.8|-28.6||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-28.6|-40.8|<0.0001
91878023|NCT02642159|183649635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-63.7|-35.8||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT-intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-35.8|-63.7|<0.0001
91878024|NCT02642159|183649636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.3|-27.2||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-27.2|-37.3|<0.0001
91747462|NCT00673231|183386736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.684||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-6.6||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-6.6|-25.0|0.0008
91800900|NCT03055156|183479245|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91800901|NCT03055156|183479246|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91747463|NCT00673231|183386736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.616|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-13.1||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-13.1|-31.2|
91800902|NCT03055156|183479247|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91800903|NCT03055156|183479248|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91800904|NCT03055156|183479249|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Wake values||||0.02
91800905|NCT03055156|183479249|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of REM values||||0.06
91800906|NCT03055156|183479249|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Non REM stage 1 values||||0.83
91800907|NCT03055156|183479249|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Non REM stage 2 values||||0.87
91800908|NCT03055156|183479249|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Non REM stage 3 values||||0.97
91800909|NCT03055156|183479250|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91800910|NCT03055156|183479251|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91800911|NCT03055156|183479253|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91800912|NCT03055156|183479254|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 0-90 minutes||||0.86
91800913|NCT03055156|183479254|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 90-180 minutes||||0.29
91800914|NCT03055156|183479254|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 180-270 minutes||||0.58
91878025|NCT02642159|183649637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.4|-22.9||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-22.9|-47.4|<0.0001
91800915|NCT03055156|183479254|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 270-360 min||||0.62
91800916|NCT03055156|183479255|OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||ANOVA|||Implemented two-way mixed ANOVA with time as within-subject variable and topper type as between-subject variable. This is to compare the difference in core body temperature trend over time between the two study arms. Interaction between time and topper type on CBT was calculated.||||0.389
91800917|NCT03055156|183479255|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Implemented two-way mixed ANOVA with time as within-subject variable and topper type as between-subject variable. This is to see the effect over time from both study arms on CBT. Main effect of time on CBT.||||0.01
91800918|NCT03055156|183479255|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||ANOVA|||Implemented two-way mixed ANOVA with time as within-subject variable and topper type as between-subject variable. This is to see the effect of the intervention on CBT including all time points. Main effect of topper type on CBT.||||0.642
91800919|NCT03055156|183479256|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91800920|NCT03055156|183479257|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91800921|NCT03055156|183479258|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91800922|NCT01419626|183479263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.461|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|-0.341|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.341|-0.581|<0.001
91800923|NCT01419626|183479263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.669|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|-0.549|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.549|-0.789|<0.001
91800924|NCT01419626|183479263|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis at Week 4|Difference in LS mean|-0.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.090|-0.326|<0.001
91889223|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||2.7|-0.5|
91747464|NCT00673231|183386736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.718|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-15.8||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-15.8|-34.3|<0.0001
91747465|NCT02063867|183386744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.17
91747466|NCT02063867|183386745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.16
91800925|NCT01419626|183479264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|-0.363|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.363|-0.625|<0.001
91800926|NCT01419626|183479264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.697|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.828|-0.567|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.567|-0.828|<0.001
91800927|NCT01419626|183479264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.203||||0.002||95.0|-0.333|-0.074|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.074|-0.333|0.002
91800928|NCT01419626|183479265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|-0.021|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.021|-0.059|<0.001
91800929|NCT01419626|183479265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.044|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.064|-0.025|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.025|-0.064|<0.001
91800930|NCT01419626|183479265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.004||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.015|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||0.015|-0.023|0.671
91800931|NCT01419626|183479265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.091|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|-0.061|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.061|-0.121|<0.001
91800932|NCT01419626|183479265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|-0.114|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.114|-0.175|<0.001
91800933|NCT01419626|183479265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.053|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.023|-0.083|<0.001
91800934|NCT01419626|183479266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|-0.065|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.065|-0.115|<0.001
91800935|NCT01419626|183479266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|-0.138|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.138|-0.189|<0.001
91800936|NCT01419626|183479266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.048|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.048|-0.099|<0.001
91800937|NCT01419626|183479266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.120|-0.180|<0.001
91800938|NCT01419626|183479266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.257|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|-0.226|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.226|-0.287|<0.001
91800939|NCT01419626|183479266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|-0.077|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.077|-0.137|<0.001
91800940|NCT01419626|183479267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.362|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|-0.259|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.259|-0.465|<0.001
91800941|NCT01419626|183479267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.534|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.431|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.431|-0.637|<0.001
91800942|NCT01419626|183479267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.171||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.069|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.069|-0.273|0.001
91800943|NCT01419626|183479268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.401|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.292|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.292|-0.510|<0.001
91800944|NCT01419626|183479268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.558|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|-0.449|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.449|-0.667|<0.001
91800945|NCT01419626|183479268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|-0.049|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.049|-0.265|<0.001
91800946|NCT01419626|183479269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|-0.014|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.014|-0.046|<0.001
91800947|NCT01419626|183479269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.039|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.023|-0.055|<0.001
91800948|NCT01419626|183479269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.009||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.007|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||0.007|-0.025|0.294
91800949|NCT01419626|183479269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.019||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|-0.003|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.003|-0.035|0.020
91800950|NCT01419626|183479269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.034|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.018|-0.050|<0.001
91800951|NCT01419626|183479269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.015||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.001|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||0.001|-0.031|0.071
91800952|NCT01419626|183479270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.067|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.083|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.050|-0.083|<0.001
91800953|NCT01419626|183479270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.083|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.066|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.066|-0.099|<0.001
91800954|NCT01419626|183479270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.016||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||0.000|-0.032|0.057
91800955|NCT01419626|183479270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.077|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|-0.059|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.059|-0.095|<0.001
91878026|NCT02642159|183649638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-28.8|-20.3||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-20.3|-28.8|<0.0001
91747467|NCT02063867|183386746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.43
91747468|NCT02063867|183386753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||<0.001
91878027|NCT02642159|183649639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.4|-15.1||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-15.1|-35.4|<0.0001
91878028|NCT02642159|183649640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-34.6|-20.1||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-20.1|-34.6|<0.0001
91878029|NCT02642159|183649641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.6|-5.0||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-5.0|-40.6|0.0040
91747469|NCT02063867|183386754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0126||||||Remains significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.0126
91878030|NCT02642159|183649642|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.8|3.4||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression.|Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||3.4|-11.8|0.2191
91800956|NCT01419626|183479270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.083|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.083|-0.120|<0.001
91800957|NCT01419626|183479270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.024||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|-0.006|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.006|-0.042|0.009
91800958|NCT03569033|183479273|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.32||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.66|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||1.66|-2.29|0.748
91800959|NCT03569033|183479274|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.99||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.3|||ANCOVA|||||7.30|-5.33|0.754
91800960|NCT03569033|183479275|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.8||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.10|-2.50|0.627
91800961|NCT03569033|183479276|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.09||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.45|||ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.28|0.631
91800962|NCT03452228|183479306|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|1238.9||||||||1238.9|-89.4|
91800963|NCT03452228|183479306|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.2|121.2||||||||121.2|-82.2|
91800964|NCT01011738|183479372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.349||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.542|7.271||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg positive participants, Log10-drop HBsAg at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||7.271|1.542|0.0022
91889224|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19A||1.1|-1.1|
91747470|NCT02063867|183386755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.002
91800965|NCT01011738|183479372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.595||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.603|8.063||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg positive participants, Log10-drop HBsAg at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis B.||8.063|1.603|0.0019
91800966|NCT01011738|183479372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.851||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.99||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg positive participants, Weight in kg was analyzed as independent predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||0.990|0.732|0.0369
91747471|NCT02063867|183386756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032||||||Remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.0032
91747472|NCT04470908|183386759|OTHER|Estimate the geometric least square mean ratio of Zanubrutinib vs Zanubrutinib + Rifabutin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.525|0.61||||||||0.610|0.525|
91747473|NCT04470908|183386760|OTHER|Estimate the geometric least square mean ratio of Zanubrutinib vs Zanubrutinib + Rifabutin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.589||||||||0.589|0.532|
91747474|NCT04470908|183386761|OTHER|Estimate the geometric least square mean ratio of Zanubrutinib vs Zanubrutinib + Rifabutin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.518|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.441|0.608||||||||0.608|0.441|
91747475|NCT02470585|183386780|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|0.683||A 2-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant in the following hierarchical testing sequence: PFS was to be compared first in the BRCA-mutation cohort, then in the HRD cohort, and then in the ITT population.|Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The primary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib group (Arm 3) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||0.683|0.277|<0.001
91747476|NCT02470585|183386781|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.572|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.756||A 2-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant in the following hierarchical testing sequence: PFS was to be compared first in the BRCA-mutation cohort, then in the HRD cohort, and then in the ITT population.|Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The primary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib group (Arm 3) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||0.756|0.433|<0.001
91747477|NCT02470585|183386782|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|0.831||A 2-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant in the following hierarchical testing sequence: PFS was to be compared first in the BRCA-mutation cohort, then in the HRD cohort, and then in the ITT population.|Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage, choice of the paclitaxel regimen, and BRCA-mutation status|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The primary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib group (Arm 3) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||0.831|0.562|<0.001
91747478|NCT02470585|183386783|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.215||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.799|||Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The secondary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 2) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||1.799|0.821|0.335
91747479|NCT02470585|183386784|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.414|||Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The secondary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 2) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||1.414|0.855|0.462
91747480|NCT02470585|183386785|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.287|||Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage, choice of the paclitaxel regimen, and BRCA-mutation status|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The secondary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 2) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||1.287|0.895|0.450
91800967|NCT01011738|183479376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.155||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.539||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg negative participants, HBsAg in log10 IU/mL at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||0.539|0.045|0.0033
91878031|NCT02642159|183649643|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.0||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.1|27.1||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).|Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|27.1|-9.1|0.2651
91747481|NCT02470585|183386786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|1.429||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib (Arm 3) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.429|0.567|0.328
91747482|NCT02470585|183386786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.218||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.903||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 2) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.903|0.780|0.808
91747483|NCT02470585|183386787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.114||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib (Arm 3) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.114|0.640|0.116
91747484|NCT02470585|183386787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.242||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 2) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.242|0.726|0.352
91747485|NCT02470585|183386788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.144||Stratified by residual disease (none after primary surgery vs any residual disease after primary/interval surgery); disease stage (III vs IV); paclitaxel dosing (Q-weekly vs Q3-weekly); BRCA-Deficient status (Deficient vs wildtype or unknown/missing)|Log Rank|||Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib (Arm 3) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.144|0.782|0.283
91747486|NCT02470585|183386788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.034||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.244||Stratified by residual disease (none after primary surgery vs any residual disease after primary/interval surgery); disease stage (III vs IV); paclitaxel dosing (Q-weekly vs Q3-weekly); BRCA-Deficient status (Deficient vs wildtype or unknown/missing)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 2) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.244|0.859|0.638
91747487|NCT04283994|183386848|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.114||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.197||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|A total sample size of 600 (200 per arm) would give 80% power to detect a difference in proportions of 0.16 for each of the 3 pairwise comparisons assuming an overall 0.5 significance threshold, a Bonferroni adjustment for the 3 comparisons, and variance based on a proportion of 0.54.||0.197|0.030|0.023
91747488|NCT04283994|183386848|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.068||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.15||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bidirectional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|A total sample size of 600 (200 per arm) would give 80% power to detect a difference in proportions of 0.16 for each of the 3 pairwise comparisons assuming an overall 0.5 significance threshold, a Bonferroni adjustment for the 3 comparisons, and variance based on a proportion of 0.54.||0.150|-0.013|0.294
91747489|NCT04283994|183386848|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.045||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.044||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bidirectional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|A total sample size of 600 (200 per arm) would give 80% power to detect a difference in proportions of 0.16 for each of the 3 pairwise comparisons assuming an overall 0.5 significance threshold, a Bonferroni adjustment for the 3 comparisons, and variance based on a proportion of 0.54.||0.044|-0.134|0.952
91800968|NCT01011738|183479376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.191||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.594|||Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg negative participants, HBsAg in log10 IU/mL at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis B.||0.594|0.062|0.0042
91878032|NCT02864147|183649675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.043
91878033|NCT02864147|183649675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.384
91878034|NCT02864147|183649676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.177
91878035|NCT02864147|183649676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.592
91747490|NCT04283994|183386855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||1.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.7|-1.3|1.650
91747491|NCT04283994|183386855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.5|-1.6|0.985
91747492|NCT04283994|183386855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||2.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||1.4|-1.0|2.155
91747493|NCT04283994|183386856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||2.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis,|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||4.4|-3.1|2.169
91747494|NCT04283994|183386856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.0||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||1.0|-7.5|0.391
91747495|NCT04283994|183386856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|8.2||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||8.2|-0.3|0.210
91747496|NCT04283994|183386857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||1.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||2.4|-0.8|1.010
91747497|NCT04283994|183386857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||2.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||1.7|-1.7|2.923
91800969|NCT01011738|183479376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.528||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.15||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg negative participants, ALT ratio was analysed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||2.150|1.086|0.0149
91800970|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-0.8|1.000
91878036|NCT02269917|183649677|NON_INFERIORITY|4|Difference in percentage|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH)|||||2.2|-1.5|<0.001
91878037|NCT02269917|183649682|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623|=|0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||1.57|-0.88|=0.580
91878038|NCT02269917|183649682|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.646|=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48||1.88|-0.65|=0.340
91878039|NCT02269917|183649683|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.874|=|0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||1.13|-2.30|=0.506
91878040|NCT02269917|183649683|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.862|=|0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Change Week 48||0.95|-2.43|=0.392
91878041|NCT02269917|183649684|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.624|=|0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||0.31|-2.14|=0.143
91878042|NCT02269917|183649684|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.646|=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48||0.18|-2.36|=0.092
91878043|NCT02269917|183649685|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|2.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||2.29|-0.02|=0.054
91878044|NCT02269917|183649685|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48||2.57|0.10|=0.034
91878045|NCT02269917|183649686|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UACR - Change at Week 24||||<0.001
91878046|NCT02269917|183649686|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UACR - Change at Week 48||||<0.001
91878047|NCT02269917|183649686|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UPCR - Change at Week 24||||<0.001
91878048|NCT02269917|183649686|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UPCR - Change at Week 48||||<0.001
91907459|NCT04036708|183710081|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.86||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.92|11.85||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, the HOME score, and child's age and sex were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||11.85|-86.92|.13
91907460|NCT04036708|183710082|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|4.13||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome and household material possessions were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||4.13|-7.65|.55
91747498|NCT04283994|183386857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||1.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||2.5|-0.9|1.034
91747499|NCT04283994|183386858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.9||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||7.9|-1.0|0.384
91878049|NCT02269917|183649687|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||URBPCR: Change at Week 24||||<0.001
91878050|NCT02269917|183649687|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||URBPCR: Change at Week 48||||<0.001
91878051|NCT02269917|183649687|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UB2MGCR: Change at Week 24||||<0.001
91878052|NCT02269917|183649687|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UB2MGCR: Change at Week 48||||<0.001
91878053|NCT02269917|183649688|OTHER||||||=|0.288|||||||Van Elteren Test|||FEPO4 - Change at Week 24||||=0.288
91907461|NCT04036708|183710082|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|2.63||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome and household material possessions were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||2.63|-9.48|.26
91878054|NCT02269917|183649688|OTHER||||||=|0.148|||||||Van Elteren Test|||FEPO4 - Change at Week 48||||=0.148
91878055|NCT02269917|183649699|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|2.037|||ANCOVA|||Spine BMD: Percent change at Week 24||2.037|0.697|<0.001
91878056|NCT02269917|183649699|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.277|2.814|||ANCOVA|||Spine BMD: Percent change at Week 48||2.814|1.277|<0.001
91878057|NCT02269917|183649699|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|1.436|||ANCOVA|||Hip BMD: Percent change at Week 24||1.436|0.366|=0.001
91878058|NCT02269917|183649699|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.144|2.248|||ANCOVA|||Hip BMD: Percent change at Week 48||2.248|1.144|<0.001
91878059|NCT01770509|183649734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||ANOVA|General Linear Model ANOVA with repeated measures||||||0.652
91878060|NCT01770509|183649735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||ANOVA|General Linear Model ANOVA with repeated measures||||||0.645
91878061|NCT00985621|183649757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.49|<0.001
91878062|NCT00985621|183649757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.50|<0.001
91878063|NCT00985621|183649758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.49|<0.001
91878064|NCT00985621|183649758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.16|0.018
91878065|NCT00985621|183649758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.65|-0.43|0.700
91878066|NCT00985621|183649759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.78|0.177
91878067|NCT00985621|183649759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.66|0.416
91878068|NCT00985621|183649759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.50|<0.001
91878069|NCT00985621|183649759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.48|<0.001
91878070|NCT00985621|183649760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.69|0.319
91878071|NCT00985621|183649760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.48|-0.43|0.916
91878072|NCT00985621|183649760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-0.63|0.526
91878073|NCT00985621|183649760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.26|0.004
91878074|NCT00985621|183649760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.90|0.134
91878075|NCT00985621|183649760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-0.71|0.497
91878076|NCT02418819|183649846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.032||0.8243|ONE_SIDED|92.0|-4.78||||ANCOVA|One(1)-sided P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day -2 assessment.|||-4.78|0.8243
91878077|NCT02418819|183649846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.252||0.8277|ONE_SIDED|92.0|-5.33||||ANCOVA|One(1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day -2 assessment.|||-5.33|0.8277
91878078|NCT02418819|183649846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.902||0.981|ONE_SIDED|92.0|-6.7||||ANCOVA|One(1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day -2 assessment.|||-6.70|0.9810
91878079|NCT02418819|183649847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|0.0129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.4821|ONE_SIDED|99.0|-0.6682||||ANCOVA|One (1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day 0 assessment.|||-0.6682|0.4821
91907462|NCT04036708|183710083|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||0.16|-0.48|.32
91747500|NCT04283994|183386858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||1.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||3.7|-6.1|1.923
91878080|NCT02418819|183649847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-0.2974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.8576|ONE_SIDED|99.0|-0.9547||||ANCOVA|One (1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day 0 assessment.|||-0.9547|0.8576
91878081|NCT02418819|183649847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|0.0498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2403||0.4182|ONE_SIDED|99.0|-0.5226||||ANCOVA|One(1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day 0 assessment.|||-0.5226|0.4182
91878082|NCT01332318|183649850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||||95.0|0.08|0.42|||||An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model, including terms for treatment, pooled study site, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, was used to calculate the adjusted mean difference and confidence interval. Arm 2 minus Arm 1.|||0.42|0.08|
91878083|NCT01332318|183649850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||||95.0|0.09|0.41|||||An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model, including terms for treatment, pooled study site, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, was used to calculate the adjusted mean difference and confidence interval. Arm 3 minus Arm 1.|||0.41|0.09|
91878084|NCT01332318|183649850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||||95.0|0.09|0.42|||||An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model, including terms for treatment, pooled study site, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, was used to calculate the adjusted mean difference and confidence interval. Arm 4 minus Arm 1.|||0.42|0.09|
91878085|NCT00676663|183649886|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.09|||Log Rank|P-value is stratified by the randomization stratification factors and is 1-sided, with a 0.10 threshold for significance.||||1.09|0.49|0.06
91878086|NCT00676663|183649890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.97||P-value is stratified by the randomization stratification factors and is 1-sided.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model. Placebo serves as the reference treatment group for the interpretation of the hazard ratio.|||0.97|0.36|0.018
91747501|NCT04283994|183386858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||9.4|-0.1|0.166
91878087|NCT02168153|183649893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.75|18.77|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||18.77|-25.75|0.76
91878088|NCT02168153|183649894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|19.98|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||19.98|-18.04|0.92
91878089|NCT02168153|183649895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.49||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|21.39|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||21.39|-14.4|0.70
91907463|NCT04036708|183710083|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||-0.06|-0.72|.02
91800971|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||0.7|-0.7|1.000
91800972|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||0.4|-1.0|0.391
91878090|NCT02168153|183649896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.988||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|2.349|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||2.349|-0.373|0.15
91878091|NCT02168153|183649897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||0.41|-1.24|0.32
91878092|NCT01772147|183649898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.164|0.089|<0.001
91878093|NCT01772147|183649898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.148|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.185|0.111|<0.001
91878094|NCT00796614|183649902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used with treatment variable and three covariates: age group, concomitant use of anti-cholinergic medication and geographic region. The first two covariates were used in the stratification of the randomisation. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||3.80|0.50|0.5388
91878095|NCT00796614|183649902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used with treatment variable and three covariates: age group, concomitant use of anti-cholinergic medication and geographic region. The first two covariates were used in the stratification of the randomisation. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||1.76|0.20|0.3430
91878096|NCT00796614|183649902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used with treatment variable and three covariates: age group, concomitant use of anti-cholinergic medication and geographic region. The first two covariates were used in the stratification of the randomisation. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||3.97|0.50|0.5209
91878097|NCT00796614|183649902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9436|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||A test of trend across the four treatment groups was performed as a secondary analysis in the proportion of responders across the dose levels using Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.9436
91878098|NCT00796614|183649903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3097|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.3097
91878099|NCT00796614|183649903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2676|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.2676
91907464|NCT04036708|183710084|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||0.01|-0.78|.06
91907465|NCT04036708|183710084|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.28||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||-0.28|-1.11|.001
91747502|NCT04283994|183386859|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.0||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.00|-0.23|0.160
91747503|NCT04283994|183386859|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.04|-0.18|0.652
91747504|NCT04283994|183386859|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||1.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.07||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.07|-0.16|1.390
91747505|NCT04283994|183386860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||1.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.16|-0.06|1.192
91747506|NCT04283994|183386860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||2.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.12||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.12|-0.11|2.698
91747507|NCT04283994|183386860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||1.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.16|-0.08|1.477
91747508|NCT04283994|183386861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||2.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.16||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||3.16|-4.30|2.293
91800973|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-0.6|0.696
91878100|NCT00796614|183649903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6265|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.6265
91878101|NCT00796614|183649904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4359|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.4359
91878102|NCT00796614|183649904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0658|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.0658
91878103|NCT00796614|183649904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6709|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.6709
91878104|NCT00796614|183649905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5672|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.5672
91878105|NCT00796614|183649905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8724|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-medium dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.8724
91878106|NCT00796614|183649905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-high dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.7674
91878107|NCT00796614|183649905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5545|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.5545
91878108|NCT00796614|183649905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4774|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-Medium dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.4774
91878109|NCT00796614|183649905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8626|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-High dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use,and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.8626
91878110|NCT00796614|183649906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9669|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.9669
91747509|NCT04283994|183386861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||2.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|3.14||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||3.14|-4.11|2.381
91747510|NCT04283994|183386861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||2.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|3.69||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||3.69|-3.86|2.893
91747511|NCT04283994|183386862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||2.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.12|-0.13|2.829
91747512|NCT04283994|183386862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.24||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.24|-0.01|0.188
91878111|NCT00796614|183649906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9231|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-medium dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.9231
91878112|NCT00796614|183649906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-high dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.6360
91878113|NCT00796614|183649906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Fisher's exact test was used for this analysis.||||1.0000
91878114|NCT00796614|183649906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4925|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-medium dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Fisher's exact test was used for this analysis.||||0.4925
91878115|NCT00796614|183649906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-high dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Fisher's exact test was used for this analysis.||||0.4977
91878116|NCT00796614|183649907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1373|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.1373
91878117|NCT00796614|183649907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.7440
91878118|NCT00796614|183649907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7703|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.7703
91878119|NCT00796614|183649908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0808|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.0808
91878120|NCT00796614|183649908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8244|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.8244
91878121|NCT00796614|183649908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5045|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.5045
91878122|NCT00993798|183649912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.28|||t-test in ANOVA model|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||-0.28|-2.25|0.012
91747513|NCT04283994|183386862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.01|-0.24|0.190
91878123|NCT00993798|183649913|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||0.0|-12.0|0.010
91878124|NCT00993798|183649914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Log Rank|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||||0.014
91878125|NCT00993798|183649915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||ANOVA|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||0.14|-0.18|0.773
91878126|NCT02983877|183649916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|3 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
91878127|NCT02983877|183649917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|3 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
91878128|NCT02983877|183649918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|3 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
91878129|NCT02983877|183649919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|2 degrees of freedom||||||0.89
91747514|NCT04283994|183386863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||1.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.14||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.14|-0.09|1.994
91747515|NCT04283994|183386863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.19|-0.05|0.771
91800974|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-0.7|0.921
91878130|NCT02762500|183649928|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.6|2.5||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||2.5|-18.6|0.106
91878131|NCT02762500|183649929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.6|2.5||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||2.5|-18.6|0.106
91878132|NCT02762500|183649930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|8.2||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||8.2|-21.1|0.235
91878133|NCT02762500|183649931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|5.0||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||5.0|-24.3|0.140
91878134|NCT02762500|183649932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.59||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-78.66|-10.53|||ANCOVA|The mean change from baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using ANCOVA with a factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline scores.||Subjects included in this analysis were those with a baseline fecal calprotectin value ≥ 250 µg/g.||-10.53|-78.66|0.032
91878135|NCT02762500|183649933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.95|||ANCOVA|The mean change from baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using ANCOVA with a factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline scores.||||0.95|-0.60|0.708
91878136|NCT01163955|183649963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|DF=50||Start total score at 0 minutes is being compared to the end total score at 5 minutes while sitting in the floor.||9|0|<.0005
91878137|NCT01163955|183649963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.99|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|DF=50||Start total score at 0 minutes is being compared to the end total score at 5 minutes while sitting in a chair.||9|0|<.0005
91878138|NCT00784277|183649964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|55.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.37||0.007||95.0|15.11|95.13||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against placebo using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||95.13|15.11|0.007
91878139|NCT00784277|183649964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.23||0.004||95.0|23.67|103.13||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against placebo using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||103.13|23.67|0.004
91878140|NCT00784277|183649965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|2.22|4.01||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against Oxycodone using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||4.01|2.22|<0.001
91878141|NCT00784277|183649965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|1.34|3.12||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against Oxycodone using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||3.12|1.34|<0.001
91878142|NCT00784277|183649965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|0.72|2.5||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against Oxycodone using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||2.50|0.72|<0.001
91878143|NCT02567227|183649980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.54|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in speed during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||1.54|-3.60|
91878144|NCT02567227|183649980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.76||P-values from linear mixed effects models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status|||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in speed during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||3.76|-2.59|
91878145|NCT02567227|183649981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.2|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in SPPB scores pre and post intervention.||0.20|-0.49|
91878146|NCT02567227|183649982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.79|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in stride length during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||3.79|-2.13|
91878147|NCT02567227|183649982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects models were used to compare changes in stride length during normal walking pre and post intervention.||||
91878148|NCT02567227|183649983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.43|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in stride length variability during normal walking pre and post intervention.||0.43|-0.91|
91878149|NCT02567227|183649983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.27|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in stride length variability during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.27|-1.16|
91878150|NCT02567227|183649984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.19|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the pace domain during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||0.19|-0.51|
91747516|NCT04283994|183386863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||1.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.08||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.08|-0.17|1.447
91747517|NCT04283994|183386866|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.012||||1.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.034||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.034|-0.058|1.836
91878151|NCT02567227|183649984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.41|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the rhythm domain during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||0.41|-0.20|
91878152|NCT02567227|183649984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.32|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the variation domain during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||0.32|-0.53|
91878153|NCT02567227|183649984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.56|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the pace domain during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.56|-0.27|
91878154|NCT02567227|183649984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.45|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the rhythm domain during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.45|-0.48|
91878155|NCT02567227|183649984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.35|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the variation domain during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.35|-0.40|
91878156|NCT02567227|183649985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|2.319||||||Logistic model for treatment effect on substantial improvement in normal velocity adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal).||2.319|0.369|
91878157|NCT02567227|183649985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|1.789||||||Logistic model for treatment effect on substantial improvement in walking while talking velocity adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal).||1.789|0.516|
91800975|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-0.6|0.693
91878158|NCT02567227|183649986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.45|20.41|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in Flanker performance (milliseconds) pre and post intervention.||20.41|-35.45|
91889225|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||1.4|-0.9|
91889226|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||1.4|-3.2|
91747518|NCT04283994|183386866|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.021||||1.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.073||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.073|-0.030|1.250
91747519|NCT04283994|183386866|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.033||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.017||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.017|-0.084|0.581
91747520|NCT04283994|183386867|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.039||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.025||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.025|-0.102|0.692
91800976|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-0.7|0.770
91878159|NCT02567227|183649987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.31|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test pre and post intervention.||2.31|-0.30|
91878160|NCT02567227|183649988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from unadjusted linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects model was used to compare performance on Trail Making Test form A pre and post intervention.||||
91878161|NCT02567227|183649989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in performance on Trail Making Test form B pre and post intervention.||0.06|-0.07|
91878162|NCT02567227|183649990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.2|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes performance on the Controlled Oral Word Association Test pre and post intervention.||2.20|-0.86|
91878163|NCT02567227|183649993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|3.91|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in gait speed during normal walking pre and 6 months post intervention.||3.91|-1.65|
91878164|NCT02567227|183649993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|4.91|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in gait speed during walking while talking pre and 6 months post intervention.||4.91|-2.12|
91878165|NCT02567227|183649994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from unadjusted linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in stair climbing time pre and post intervention.||||
91878166|NCT02567227|183649995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from unadjusted linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in activities of daily living pre and post intervention.||||
91747521|NCT04283994|183386867|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.038||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.109||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.109|-0.033|0.887
91878167|NCT02567227|183649996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.93|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in depressive symptoms measured using the GDS pre and post intervention.||0.93|-0.40|
91878168|NCT02567227|183649998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.16|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in reported fear of falling measured on the Falls Efficacy Scale pre and post intervention.||2.16|-1.38|
91747522|NCT04283994|183386867|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.077||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|-0.009||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||-0.009|-0.145|0.080
91747523|NCT04283994|183386868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.1||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Wald test adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Hazard ratio = bi-directional intervention / usual care. Estimated via cox proportional hazards regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Exponentiated Wald confidence intervals.|Censoring by death.||2.1|0.9|0.293
91747524|NCT04283994|183386868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.5||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Wald test adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis|Hazard ratio = clinician-facing intervention / usual care. Estimated via cox proportional hazards regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Exponentiated Wald confidence intervals.|Censoring by death.||2.5|1.1|0.027
91878169|NCT02567227|183649999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.04|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the physical health score of the SF-12 pre and post intervention.||1.04|-1.46|
91878170|NCT02567227|183649999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.85|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the mental health score of the SF-12 pre and post intervention.||1.85|-1.04|
91878171|NCT00187135|183650005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, p-values less than 0.0167 are considered statistically significant.|McNemar|||The study was designed to achieve statistical power of 80% for this comparison. Due to the early termination of the study, the sample size needed to ensure adequate statistical power for this comparison was not obtained.||||0.5
91878172|NCT00187135|183650005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, p-values less than 0.0167 are considered statistically significant.|McNemar|||The study was designed to achieve statistical power of 80% for this comparison. The sample size needed to ensure adequate statistical power for this comparison was obtained.||||0.5
91878173|NCT00187135|183650006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, p-values less than 0.0167 are considered statistically significant.|McNemar|||The study was designed to achieve statistical power of 80% for this comparison. Due to the early termination of the study, the sample size needed to ensure adequate statistical power for this comparison was not obtained.||||0.5
91878174|NCT00187135|183650007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of 20% change in heart rate (HR) on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.87
91878175|NCT00187135|183650008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of 20% change in respiratory rate (RR) on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.67
91878176|NCT00187135|183650009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of 20% change in blood presure (BP) on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.52
91878177|NCT00187135|183650010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of motion (Y/N)on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.99
91747525|NCT04283994|183386868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||1.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Wald test adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Hazard ratio = bi-directional intervention / clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via cox proportional hazards regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Exponentiated Wald confidence intervals.|Censoring by death.||1.2|0.6|1.009
91878178|NCT01954771|183650033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.726|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from SMBG measurements.||||<0.001
91878179|NCT01954771|183650033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.522||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from SMBG measurements.||||0.004
91878180|NCT01954771|183650033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.784|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from SMBG measurements.||||<0.001
91747526|NCT04283994|183386869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||1.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.70|-1.55|1.366
91747527|NCT04283994|183386869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.58||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.58|-1.73|0.978
91878181|NCT01954771|183650033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.533||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from CGMS measurements.||||0.011
91800977|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||4.0|-3.7|0.938
91878182|NCT01954771|183650033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.479||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from CGMS measurements.||||0.009
91878183|NCT01954771|183650033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.801|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from CGMS measurements.||||<0.001
91878184|NCT02498418|183650046|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated if 90% confidence interval (CI) of percentage difference between generic rifaximin 200 mg tablets and xifaxan 200 mg tablets was within the equivalence range (-20%, +20%).|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.0193|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.07||||||Bioequivalence was evaluated based on the PP analysis set using Z-test with Yates correction.||0.07|-0.11|
91878185|NCT02498418|183650049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.0195||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Z-test|||95% CIs was calculated using Z-test with Yates' correction.||0.13|-0.09|0.7899
91878186|NCT02498418|183650049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.033||||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.14||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Z-test|||95% CIs was calculated using Z-test with Yates' correction.||0.14|-0.07|0.5987
91878187|NCT00999141|183650114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|alpha = 5%||||||<0.0001
91878188|NCT00999141|183650117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.04||||0.257||95.0|-0.039|0.125|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||0.125|-0.039|0.257
91878189|NCT00999141|183650118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.373|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.524|-0.193|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.193|-0.524|<0.001
91878190|NCT00999141|183650119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.387|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.538|-0.205|||McNemar||Difference in Proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.205|-0.538|<0.001
91878191|NCT00999141|183650120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.356||||0.001||95.0|-0.521|-0.161|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.161|-0.521|0.001
91747528|NCT04283994|183386869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||2.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.3||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.30|-0.99|2.390
91747529|NCT04283994|183386870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||1.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.51||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.51|-0.57|1.125
91747530|NCT04283994|183386870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.94||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.94|-0.13|0.258
91878192|NCT00999141|183650121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.189||||0.027||95.0|-0.342|-0.023|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.023|-0.342|0.027
91907466|NCT04036708|183710085|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.03||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||2.03|0.07|.04
91747531|NCT04283994|183386870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||1.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.63||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.63|-1.5|1.267
91747532|NCT04283994|183386871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||1.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.32||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.32|-0.68|1.594
91878193|NCT00999141|183650124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.413||||||95.0|-0.577|-0.213|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.213|-0.577|
91878194|NCT00999141|183650125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.227||||||95.0|-0.413|-0.02|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.020|-0.413|
91878195|NCT00999141|183650126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.347||||||95.0|-0.518|-0.145|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.145|-0.518|
91878196|NCT00999141|183650127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.365||||||95.0|-0.528|-0.171|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.171|-0.528|
91878197|NCT03866434|183650155|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LSmeans|64.225|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.212|77.516|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares (LS) mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.||77.516|53.212|
91878198|NCT03866434|183650156|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|%ratio of Geometric LeastSquare(LS)means|82.203|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.501|94.507|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||94.507|71.501|
91878199|NCT03866434|183650157|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|73.705|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.555|84.152|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||84.152|64.555|
91878200|NCT03866434|183650158|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|85.527|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.163|93.584|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||93.584|78.163|
91878201|NCT03866434|183650159|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|73.007|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.528|85.243|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||85.243|62.528|
91878202|NCT03866434|183650160|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|86.504|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.462|95.371|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||95.371|78.462|
91907467|NCT04036708|183710085|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.96||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||1.96|-0.08|.07
91747533|NCT04283994|183386871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||1.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.36||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.36|-0.79|1.803
91747534|NCT04283994|183386871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||2.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.07||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.07|-1.01|2.851
91747535|NCT04283994|183386872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||1.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.40|-0.97|1.243
91747536|NCT04283994|183386872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||1.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.35||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.35|-1.00|1.032
91878203|NCT03280108|183650247|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority based on the observed 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the difference in Least Squares Means (LSM) between the 2 groups (TFNT00 - SN60AT). Non-inferiority margin = 0.10 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0103|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.041||||||||0.041||
91878204|NCT03280108|183650248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91878205|NCT03280108|183650254|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|-0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.227|-0.287|<0.001
91878206|NCT03280108|183650255|SUPERIORITY||Mantel-Haenszel common difference|71.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.87|80.46||||||||80.46|61.87|
91878207|NCT03638258|183650270|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward (LOCF) where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||||||<0.001
91907468|NCT04036708|183710086|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||3.06|1.02|<.01
91907469|NCT04036708|183710086|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.79||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||2.79|0.67|<.01
91907470|NCT02918864|183710087|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.22||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SB=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ADHD+ γ + ε; ADHD, CASI T-score significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.037
91907471|NCT02918864|183710089|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.23||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SB=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ADHD+ γ + ε; ADHD, CASI T-score significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.016
91747537|NCT04283994|183386872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||2.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.78||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.78|-0.70|2.742
91878208|NCT03638258|183650270|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||||||0.004
91878209|NCT03638258|183650271|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.015
91907472|NCT02918864|183710091|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.16||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SB=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ADHD+ γ + ε; ADHD, CASI T-score significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.061
91878210|NCT03638258|183650271|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.174|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from placebo at Week 4||||0.174
91878211|NCT03638258|183650271|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
91878212|NCT03638258|183650271|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.001
91878213|NCT03638258|183650271|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
91878214|NCT03638258|183650271|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.008
91878215|NCT03638258|183650272|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
91878216|NCT03638258|183650272|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
91747538|NCT04283994|183386873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||2.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.22|-0.26|2.658
91878217|NCT03638258|183650272|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
91878218|NCT03638258|183650272|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
91878219|NCT03638258|183650272|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.x|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
91878220|NCT03638258|183650272|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
91878221|NCT03638258|183650272|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
91878222|NCT03638258|183650272|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
91878223|NCT03638258|183650273|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream on Week 4||||<0.001
91878224|NCT03638258|183650273|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
91878225|NCT03638258|183650273|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
91878226|NCT03638258|183650273|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
91878227|NCT03638258|183650273|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle at Week 8||||<0.001
91878228|NCT03638258|183650273|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
91878229|NCT03638258|183650273|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle at Week 12||||<0.001
91878230|NCT03638258|183650273|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
91878231|NCT03638258|183650274|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.116|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.116
91878232|NCT03638258|183650274|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.423|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.423
91878233|NCT03638258|183650274|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.002
91878234|NCT03638258|183650274|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.038|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.038
91878235|NCT03638258|183650274|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
91878236|NCT03638258|183650274|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.005
91878237|NCT03638258|183650274|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.002
91878238|NCT03638258|183650274|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.013
91878239|NCT03638258|183650275|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.086|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference form vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.086
91878240|NCT03638258|183650275|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.123|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.123
91878241|NCT03638258|183650275|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.017|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.017
91878242|NCT03638258|183650275|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.415|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.415
91907473|NCT02918864|183710093|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.03||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SC=Group+Time+Group\*Time+Group\*VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal intelligence quotient (VIQ) significant moderator), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.674
91907474|NCT02918864|183710095|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.09||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SC=Group+Time+Group\*Time+Group\*VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal intelligence quotient (VIQ) significant moderator), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.191
91907475|NCT02918864|183710097|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.04||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SC=Group+Time+Group\*Time+Group\*VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal intelligence quotient (VIQ) significant moderator), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||H0=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.599
91747539|NCT04283994|183386873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||1.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.29|-0.14|1.523
91747540|NCT04283994|183386873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||1.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.15|-0.33|1.381
91747541|NCT04283994|183386874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||2.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.25||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.25|-0.18|2.191
91878243|NCT03638258|183650275|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.007
91878244|NCT03638258|183650275|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.175|||||||Regression, Linear|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.175
91907476|NCT02918864|183710099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||2-sided p-value; p-value reported not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Fisher Exact|||"Ho=Group and response are independent (responders=improved scores of 1-2; non-responders=worsened scores of 5-7 on the CGI-I) at week 12"||||0.462
91907477|NCT02918864|183710100|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||2-sided p-value; p-value reported not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Fisher Exact|||"Ho=Group and response are independent (responders=improved scores of 1-2; non-responders=worsened scores of 5-7 on the CGI-I) at week 16"||||1.000
91907478|NCT02918864|183710101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607||||||2-sided p-value; p-value reported not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Fisher Exact|||"Ho=Group and response are independent (responders=improved scores of 1-2; non-responders=worsened scores of 5-7 on the CGI-I) at week 24"||||0.607
91907479|NCT02918864|183710102|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.15||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SRS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal IQ significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.310
91878245|NCT03638258|183650275|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle at Week 12||||0.001
91878246|NCT03638258|183650275|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.619|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.619
91747542|NCT04283994|183386874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||2.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.27|-0.19|2.138
91747543|NCT04283994|183386874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||2.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|22.0||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||022|-0.23|2.879
91747544|NCT03315793|183386875|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.39||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.3|6.08|||mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||6.08|-3.30|0.5587
91747545|NCT03315793|183386876|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age||||21.5|-10.7|0.5111
91878247|NCT03638258|183650276|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
91907480|NCT02918864|183710104|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.2||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SRS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal IQ significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.115
91747546|NCT03315793|183386877|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|13.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age||||13.5|-13.5|1.0000
91747547|NCT03315793|183386878|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|6.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age||||6.3|-14.4|0.4423
91747548|NCT03315793|183386879|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.14||||0.3836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.46|||mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||0.46|-0.18|0.3836
91747549|NCT01461928|183386897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.53||Power at time of final analysis was less than 40%. Final analysis was not able to address its primary objective.|Stratified Long-rank|||The stratified log rank test p-value was derived using the following randomization stratification strata : Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) risk category (low, intermediate, high) and indolent NHL subtype (follicular lymphoma, non-follicular lymphoma). Power at time of final analysis was less than 40%. Final analysis was not able to address it's primary objective.||1.53|0.37|= 0.410
91747550|NCT02447250|183386966|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of mean birth weights between responders and non-responders||||0.14
91747551|NCT02447250|183386967|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91747552|NCT02447250|183386968|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91747553|NCT02447250|183386970|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91747554|NCT02447250|183386971|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
91747555|NCT03389555|183386977|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: if confidence interval for mean difference between SOFA scores at 72 hour time-point for two groups overlaps 0 (p-value \> 0.05) scores considered to be equivalent. Note: The model estimates the mean difference in SOFA score at 72 hours between treatment and control groups, for those patient for whom a SOFA score could be calculated at the 72 hour time point (i.e patients that were alive at the 72 hour time point, 90 patients in the treatment and 88 patients in the control).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||A priori threshold for significance, p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary outcome was analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model where the correlation of within-patient repeated SOFA score measures was accounted for via the use of an unstructured variance-covariance matrix and linear contrasts. Covariates included age, sex, treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment group and time. Study site was included as a random intercept. The model estimates the mean difference in SOFA score at 72 hours between treatment and control groups.||0.2|-1.7|0.12
91747556|NCT03389555|183386978|EQUIVALENCE|For the key secondary outcome of kidney failure, 200 patients were estimated to provide 94% power, assuming that 30% of participants in the treatment group and 55% in the placebo group would develop kidney failure. If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|20.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of kidney failure in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site.||20.0|-10.0|0.58
91747557|NCT03389555|183386979|EQUIVALENCE|If confidence interval for hazard ratio crosses 0, hazard of death assumed to be equivalent in the two groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.2|||Regression, Cox|||Cox Regression controlling for site used to identify hazard ratio for outcome of death for treatment versus intervention group. Null hypothesis is that hazard ratio is 1.||2.2|0.8|0.05
91747558|NCT03389555|183386980|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for the median difference in ventilator free days between groups crosses 0, the two groups are considered equivalent.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9|||Quantile Regression|||Quantile regression controlling for site performed to compare treatment and control group's ventilator free days.||1.9|-1.9|>0.99
91878248|NCT03638258|183650276|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.002
91878249|NCT03638258|183650276|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
91878250|NCT03638258|183650276|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
91878251|NCT03638258|183650276|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
91878252|NCT03638258|183650276|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
91878253|NCT03638258|183650276|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
91878254|NCT03638258|183650276|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
91878255|NCT03638258|183650277|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.002
91878256|NCT03638258|183650277|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.203|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.203
91878257|NCT03638258|183650277|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.034|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.034
91878258|NCT03638258|183650277|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.012
91907481|NCT02918864|183710106|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.08||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SRS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal IQ significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.455
91907482|NCT02918864|183710108|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.14||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (CGS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ γ + ε), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.379
91747559|NCT03389555|183386981|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for the median difference in shock free days between groups crosses 0, the two groups are considered equivalent.|Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||Quantile Regression|||Quantile regression controlling for site performed to compare treatment and control group's shock free days.||1.8|0.2|0.02
91747560|NCT03389555|183386982|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for the median difference in ICU free days between groups crosses 0, the two groups are considered equivalent.|Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||Quantile Regression|||Quantile regression controlling for site performed to compare treatment and control group's ICU free days.||6.0|-3.0|0.69
91747561|NCT03389555|183386983|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|20.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of hospital mortality in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site..||20.0|-10.0|0.55
91878259|NCT03638258|183650277|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.010
91878260|NCT03638258|183650277|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.075
91878261|NCT03638258|183650277|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
91878262|NCT03638258|183650277|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
91878263|NCT03638258|183650278|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.527|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.527
91878264|NCT03638258|183650278|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.444|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.444
91878265|NCT03638258|183650278|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.006
91878266|NCT03638258|183650278|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.013
91878267|NCT03638258|183650278|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.002
91878268|NCT03638258|183650278|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.064|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.064
91878269|NCT03638258|183650278|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.002
91878270|NCT03638258|183650278|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.009
91878271|NCT03638258|183650279|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.188|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.188
91878272|NCT03638258|183650279|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.577|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.577
91878273|NCT03638258|183650279|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.008
91878274|NCT03638258|183650279|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.664|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.664
91907483|NCT02918864|183710110|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.14||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (CGS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ γ + ε), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.275
91747562|NCT03389555|183386984|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of ICU mortality in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site.||10.0|-10.0|0.80
91747563|NCT03389555|183386985|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of occurrence of delirium in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site.||4|-25|0.16
91747564|NCT03389555|183386986|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|14.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating home hospital disposition in survivors to hospital discharge in intervention versus placebo group controlling for treatment site.||14|-18|0.82
91878275|NCT03638258|183650279|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.015
91878276|NCT03638258|183650279|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.666|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.666
91878277|NCT03638258|183650279|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.009
91878278|NCT03638258|183650279|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.163|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.163
91878279|NCT03638258|183650280|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible. ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream on Week 4||||0.002
91878280|NCT03638258|183650280|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.002
91878281|NCT03638258|183650280|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
91800978|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||0.5|-1.5|0.340
91800979|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||0.4|-1.6|0.258
91800980|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||0.5|-1.4|0.381
91800981|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||0.5|-1.6|0.287
91800982|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||0.6|-1.5|0.420
91878282|NCT03638258|183650280|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from placebo at Week 6||||<0.001
91878283|NCT03638258|183650280|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from placebo at Week 8||||<0.001
91800983|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||0.4|-1.7|0.227
91800984|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||0.6|-1.5|0.427
91800985|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||2.2|-8.4|0.256
91800986|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||2.0|-0.4|0.198
91800987|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||2.1|-0.3|0.132
91800988|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||1.8|-0.4|0.227
91800989|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||2.0|-0.4|0.208
91878284|NCT03638258|183650280|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
91878285|NCT03638258|183650280|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
91878286|NCT03638258|183650280|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
91878287|NCT03638258|183650281|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.184|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.184
91878288|NCT03638258|183650281|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.207|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from placebo at Week 4||||0.207
91878289|NCT03638258|183650281|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.004
91878290|NCT03638258|183650281|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.022
91878291|NCT03638258|183650281|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.003
91878292|NCT03638258|183650281|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
91878293|NCT03638258|183650281|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible. ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.003
91878294|NCT03638258|183650281|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.01||||||ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.|ANCOVA|||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.01
91878295|NCT03638258|183650282|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.255|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.255
91878296|NCT03638258|183650282|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.687|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream on Week 4||||0.687
91878297|NCT03638258|183650282|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.045
91878298|NCT03638258|183650282|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.059
91907484|NCT02918864|183710112|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.2||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (CGS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ γ + ε), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
91878299|NCT03638258|183650282|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.051
91747565|NCT01885208|183386987|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and exenatide ER 2.0 mg was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|Treatment difference|-0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.44|-0.8|< 0.0001
91747566|NCT01885208|183386987|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and exenatide ER 2.0 mg was below the pre-specified superiority margin (0 %).|Treatment difference|-0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.44|-0.8|< 0.0001
91747567|NCT00920218|183387008|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of ceellular immune (CMI) response for GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 2.|Fold increase over Control|32.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|20.65|50.54|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: GSK 1437173A F1 Group/Placebo Group below (\<) 1.||50.54|20.65|<0.0001
91878300|NCT03638258|183650282|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.013
91878301|NCT03638258|183650282|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.036|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.036
91878302|NCT03638258|183650282|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.001
91878303|NCT04405089|183650325|OTHER||Linear regression|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Linear regression (number of traumatic brain injuries versus Binge Eating Scale score at baseline).||||
91878304|NCT04405089|183650326|OTHER||Linear regression|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Linear regression (number of traumatic brain injuries versus NIH Flanker score at baseline).||||
91878305|NCT04405089|183650327|OTHER||Linear regression|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Linear regression (number of traumatic brain injuries versus NIH Set Shifting score at baseline).||||
91878306|NCT00179478|183650328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Based on adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)|Regression, Cox|HR adjusted for age, onset event type, baseline brain MRI T2 lesion and number and baseline number of gad enhancing lesions||||||0.001
91878307|NCT00179478|183650329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was a p value less than 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91878308|NCT00179478|183650330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was a p value \< 0.01|Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
91878309|NCT00179478|183650331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||a priori threshold for statistical significant was a p value less than 0.01|Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
91878310|NCT04089332|183650420|OTHER||Slope|-0.4465||||0.162|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Verbal IQ) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.117|||0.162
91878311|NCT04089332|183650420|OTHER||Slope|0.6704||||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Performance IQ) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.221|||0.082
91878312|NCT04089332|183650420|OTHER||Slope|-0.8486||||0.286|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.0503|||0.286
91747568|NCT00920218|183387008|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of CMI response for Placebo-GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 2.|Fold increase over Control|9.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|6.07|14.9|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: Placebo-GSK 1437173A F1 Group/Placebo Group \< 2.||14.9|6.07|<0.0001
91747569|NCT00920218|183387009|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of humoral response for GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 3.|Fold increase over Control|74.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|33.12|167.17|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: GSK 1437173A 1 Group/Placebo Group \< 1.||167.17|33.12|<0.0001
91747570|NCT00920218|183387009|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of humoral response for Placebo-GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 3.|Fold increase over Control|42.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|20.2|88.13|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: Placebo-GSK 1437173A 1 Group/Placebo Group \< 1.||88.13|20.20|<0.0001
91747571|NCT01709422|183387022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91747572|NCT01709422|183387023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91747573|NCT01074463|183387076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|109.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.25|120.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120.12|99.25|
91747574|NCT01074463|183387077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.73|109.68|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.68|98.73|
91747575|NCT01074463|183387078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.78|107.11|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.11|97.78|
91747576|NCT02449889|183387079|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment comparisons were done in a sequential manner. First non-inferiority (NI) was tested for HP-hCG IM compared to rhCG SC (lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) \> -3.0). If NI was demonstrated, NI was also to be tested for HP-hCG SC compared to rhCG SC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Mean number of oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG IM versus rhCG SC||1.8|-0.6|
91747577|NCT02449889|183387079|NON_INFERIORITY|As step 2 in the pre-specified sequential testing, NI was tested for HP-hCG SC compared to rhCG SC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.0|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Mean number of oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG SC versus rhCG SC||2.0|-0.5|
91747578|NCT02449889|183387080|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of MII oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG IM versus rhCG SC||1.5|-0.6|
91747579|NCT02449889|183387080|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of Mll oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG SC versus rhCG SC||1.6|-0.4|
91878313|NCT04089332|183650420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0266||||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Pattern Comparison) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.635
91878314|NCT04089332|183650420|OTHER||Slope|-0.1588||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Picture Sequence) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.381|||0.061
91878315|NCT04089332|183650420|OTHER||Slope|0.099||||0.479|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WRAML (Picture Memory) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.479
91878316|NCT04089332|183650420|OTHER||Slope|0.0676||||0.965|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Color-Word Interference) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.965
91878317|NCT04089332|183650420|OTHER||Slope|-0.0091||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Trail Making Test) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.324|||0.039
91878318|NCT04089332|183650420|OTHER||Slope|-4.2085||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||PedsQL (Child 8-12 / Teen 13-18) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.0423|||0.018
91878319|NCT04089332|183650421|OTHER||Slope|-1.1138||||0.558|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Gray Matter Perfusion vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-square = 0|||0.558
91878320|NCT04089332|183650421|OTHER||Slope|-5.8089||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline Gray Matter vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.18|||0.057
91878321|NCT04089332|183650422|OTHER||Slope|-0.4465||||0.377|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Verbal IQ) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.377
91878322|NCT04089332|183650422|OTHER||Slope|0.6704||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Performance IQ) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.402
91878323|NCT04089332|183650422|OTHER||Slope|-0.8486||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0.207|||0.203
91878324|NCT04089332|183650422|OTHER||Slope|-0.0266||||0.967|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Pattern Comparison) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.967
91878325|NCT04089332|183650422|OTHER||Slope|-0.1588||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Picture Sequence) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.616
91878326|NCT04089332|183650422|OTHER||Slope|0.099||||0.287|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WRAML (Picture Memory) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0.0497|||0.287
91878327|NCT04089332|183650422|OTHER||Slope|0.0676||||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Color-Word Interference) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0.106|||0.225
91878328|NCT04089332|183650422|OTHER||Slope|-0.0091||||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Trail Making Test) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.872
91878329|NCT04089332|183650422|OTHER||Slope|-4.2085||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||PedsQL (Child 8-12 / Teen 13-18) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.66
91878330|NCT05401149|183650429|OTHER|Odds Ratio (OR) (95% CI) and P values for this outcome were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (≤ 1 or not), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.59|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||2.59|1.35|<0.001
91878331|NCT05401149|183650430|OTHER|OR (95% CI) and P values were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior mRS score (≤ 1 or not), baseline NIHSS score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||2.06|0.99|0.054
91878332|NCT05401149|183650431|OTHER|OR (95% CI) and P values were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior mRS score (≤ 1 or not), baseline NIHSS score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|4.86|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||4.86|0.88|0.097
91747580|NCT02449889|183387081|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of fertilized (2 pronuclei (2PN)) oocytes for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG IM versus rhCG SC||1.3|-0.6|
91878333|NCT05401149|183650432|OTHER|Odds Ratio (OR) (95% CI) and P values for this outcome were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (≤ 1 or not), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.75|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||2.75|1.48|<0.001
91878334|NCT05401149|183650433|OTHER|Odds Ratio (OR) (95% CI) and P values for this outcome were derived from the ordinal logistic regression models with adjustment for prior modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (≤ 1 or not), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||0.93|0.64|0.007
91878335|NCT05401149|183650434|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) (95% Confidence Interval) and P values were derived from the cox proportional hazards models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior mRS score (≤ 1 or not), baseline NIHSS score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.64|||Regression, Cox||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||1.64|0.98|0.077
91878336|NCT04281875|183650441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6905|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6905
91878337|NCT00603278|183650465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.318|||ANCOVA|||||0.318|0.096|<0.001
91878338|NCT00603278|183650465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.349|||ANCOVA|||||0.349|0.127|<0.001
91747581|NCT02449889|183387081|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of fertilized (2 pronuclei (2PN)) oocytes for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG SC versus rhCG SC.||1.4|-0.5|
91878339|NCT00603278|183650465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.404|||ANCOVA|||||0.404|0.182|<0.001
91878340|NCT00603278|183650465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.392|||ANCOVA|||||0.392|0.167|<0.001
91878341|NCT00603278|183650465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.337|||ANCOVA|||||0.337|0.114|<0.001
91878342|NCT04853394|183650491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects modified Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||.51|.21|<.01
91878343|NCT04853394|183650492|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects modified Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||.97|.46|.01
91878344|NCT04853394|183650493|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 6-month follow-up|||.95|.77|.01
91878345|NCT04853394|183650493|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||1.45|.98|.01
91878346|NCT04853394|183650496|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||.19|.07|.01
91878347|NCT03245762|183650544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Ordinal Categorical Analysis|||||||0.930
91878348|NCT00637247|183650545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||The hypothesis that survival curves were equal in the two treatment groups was tested with a one-sided logrank test at the alpha-0.2 level, one sided. The power of this test is 80% for detecting the hypothesized increase in median survival of 2.4 months for subjects in the experimental arm.||||0.2
91878349|NCT01907113|183650563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as mild renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|118.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.17|145.38|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||145.38|96.17|
91878350|NCT01907113|183650563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as moderate renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|119.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.25|149.47|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||149.47|96.25|
91878351|NCT01907113|183650563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as severe renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|166.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.44|205.68|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||205.68|134.44|
91878352|NCT01907113|183650563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as kidney failure divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|148.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.89|183.42|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||183.42|119.89|
91747582|NCT00758264|183387086|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 1 antibody concentrations.||1.05|0.72|
91747583|NCT00758264|183387086|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 4 antibody concentrations.||1.26|0.84|
91747584|NCT00758264|183387086|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 5 antibody concentrations.||1.10|0.74|
91878353|NCT01907113|183650564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as mild renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|118.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.62|150.84|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||150.84|93.62|
91878354|NCT01907113|183650564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as moderate renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|102.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.33|131.85|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||131.85|79.33|
91878355|NCT01907113|183650564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as severe renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|120.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.42|154.25|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||154.25|94.42|
91878356|NCT01907113|183650564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as kidney failure divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|103.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.18|132.61|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||132.61|81.18|
91878357|NCT00632931|183650579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||||90.0|-0.28|6.28||||||||6.28|-0.28|
91878358|NCT00632931|183650580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||||90.0|-1.38|4.72||||||||4.72|-1.38|
91878359|NCT00632931|183650581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07||||||90.0|-0.17|6.31||||||||6.31|-0.17|
91878360|NCT00632931|183650582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84||||||90.0|-0.4|6.08||||||||6.08|-0.40|
91878361|NCT00632931|183650583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.44||||||90.0|3.21|9.68||||||||9.68|3.21|
91878362|NCT00632931|183650584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||||90.0|1.05|7.6||||||||7.60|1.05|
91878363|NCT00632931|183650585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66||||||90.0|-0.7|6.02||||||||6.02|-0.70|
91878364|NCT00632931|183650586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.51||||||90.0|3.19|9.82||||||||9.82|3.19|
91747585|NCT00758264|183387086|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B antibody concentrations.||1.07|0.66|
91878365|NCT01057888|183650594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Regression, Cox|It is a robust, clustered stratified Cox regression model|The control group serves as the denominator. The telephone reminder group serves as the numerator.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in total immunization status between the control group and the group receiving telephone (autodialer) reminders. This was analyzed using a clustered, stratified Cox model.||1.7|1.0|<0.05
91878366|NCT01057888|183650594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Cox|We used a robust, clustered, stratified Cox regression model.|The control group represents the denominator. The letter reminder group represents the numerator.|||2.1|1.3|<0.01
91878367|NCT01057888|183650594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Regression, Cox||The mail reminder arm represents the numerator and the telephone reminder arm represents the denominator.|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the percentage of fully vaccinated adolescents between the mailed reminder versus the telephone reminder arms||1.6|1.0|0.075
91878368|NCT01057888|183650595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||Regression, Cox||The control group represents the denominator and the mailed reminder group represents the numerator.|The null hypothesis was that a difference in well child care rates among adolescents whose families received a mailed reminder compared to the control group||1.3|1.1|<0.01
91878369|NCT01057888|183650595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||Regression, Cox||The control group represents the denominator and the telephone reminder group represents the numerator|The null hypothesis is the the well child care rates of adolescents in the telephone reminder group would not differ from those of the control group||1.3|1.0|<0.05
91878370|NCT01057888|183650595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||Regression, Cox||The mail reminder arm represents the numerator and the telephone reminder arm represents the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the well child care rate among adolescents in the mailed reminder arm versus adolescents in the telephone reminder arm of the intervention||1.2|1.0|0.234
91878371|NCT03319719|183650616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-2.33||p-value from paired two-sided t-tests of no difference between test and control groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.33|-3.42|<0.0001
91878372|NCT00922441|183650632|OTHER|Efficacy, Safety|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|comparison between the groups||||||<0.05
91747586|NCT00758264|183387086|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F antibody concentrations.||1.20|0.84|
91747587|NCT00758264|183387086|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V antibody concentrations.||1.14|0.78|
91878373|NCT00991029|183650633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.59|0.02
91878374|NCT00991029|183650634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.87|||Log Rank|||||4.87|1.10|0.02
91878375|NCT00991029|183650635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.56|0.01
91878376|NCT00991029|183650636|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.78|||Log Rank|||||3.78|0.55|0.46
91878377|NCT00991029|183650637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.35|||Log Rank|||||5.35|0.43|0.52
91878378|NCT00991029|183650638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.58|0.01
91878379|NCT00991029|183650639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.67|0.13
91878380|NCT00991029|183650640|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.03|||Log Rank|||||7.03|0.4|0.47
91878381|NCT00991029|183650641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.14|||Log Rank|||||7.14|0.14|0.99
91878382|NCT00991029|183650642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
91878383|NCT00991029|183650643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.9|||Log Rank|||||5.9|1.01|0.04
91878384|NCT00991029|183650644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.83|||Log Rank|||||5.83|1.67|<0.001
91878385|NCT00991029|183650645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.13|||Log Rank|||||3.13|0.73|0.27
91878386|NCT02005029|183650667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
91878387|NCT02005029|183650668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Erythromycin:Placebo AUC ratio|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91878388|NCT02005029|183650669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91878389|NCT02005029|183650670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91878390|NCT02005029|183650671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4405
91878391|NCT02005029|183650672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6011
91878392|NCT02005029|183650673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8923|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8923
91878393|NCT02005029|183650674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832
91878394|NCT02005029|183650675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1546
91878395|NCT02005029|183650676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0314|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||"Mean difference in on score versus off score from the MDS UPDRS Part 3 on day of erythromycin minus the mean difference in 'on score versus off score on day of placebo."|||||0.0314
91878396|NCT02005029|183650677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Erythromycin:Placebo Cmax ratio|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91878397|NCT02853305|183650701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.93|||Stratified Log-Rank|The treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the stratified log-rank test.||PFS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the chemo arm to address the first primary hypothesis (superiority to chemo). The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||0.93|0.65|0.0033
91878398|NCT02853305|183650702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Stratified Log-Rank|The treatment difference in OS was assessed by the stratified log-rank test.||OS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in all participants of the chemo arm to address the second primary hypothesis (superiority to chemo). The HR and its 95% CI were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.02|0.72|0.0407
91878399|NCT02853305|183650703|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.32||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||OS in CPS≥10 participants of the pembro arm was compared to OS in CPS≥10 participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) at baseline.||1.32|0.77|
91878400|NCT02853305|183650704|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.11||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||OS in all participants of the pembro arm was compared to OS in all participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.11|0.77|
91907485|NCT02104583|183710115|SUPERIORITY||Eleclazine : Placebo Incident Rate Ratio|1.52||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.71|||generalized linear model|||The primary analysis of overall occurrence of appropriate ICD interventions through Week 24 was performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and log link. This model included terms for treatment, implanted device (ICD or CRT-D) and region \[US or rest of world (ROW)\].||2.71|0.86|0.152
91907486|NCT02104583|183710115|SUPERIORITY||Eleclazine : Placebo Incident Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.97|||generalized linear model|||The primary analysis of overall occurrence of appropriate ICD interventions through Week 24 was performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and log link. This model included terms for treatment, implanted device (ICD or CRT-D) and region \[US or ROW\].||1.97|0.34|0.662
91800990|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||1.9|-0.5|0.265
91907487|NCT02104583|183710115|SUPERIORITY||Eleclazine : Placebo Incident Rate Ratio|1.24||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.86|||generalized linear model|||The primary analysis of overall occurrence of appropriate ICD interventions through Week 24 was performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and log link. This model included terms for treatment, implanted device (ICD or CRT-D) and region \[US or ROW.||2.86|0.54|0.618
91907488|NCT00129766|183710126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval and relative risk adjusted for the stratification factor of presence or absence of CLD of prematurity as specified on the CRF.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.083|||t-test, 2 sided||Relative risk was calculated as (Pn/Ps) where Pn is the proportion of patients with RSV hospitalization in the motavizumab group and Ps is the proportion of patients with RSV hospitalization in the palivizumab group.|ITT population||1.083|0.503|
91878401|NCT02853305|183650705|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.58||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||PFS in all participants of the pembro arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.58|1.09|
91878402|NCT02853305|183650708|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|17.1||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||ORR in participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||17.1|2.4|
91878403|NCT02853305|183650710|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.6||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||DCR in participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to DCR in participants of the chemo arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||10.6|-1.6|
91878404|NCT02853305|183650711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-7.4||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||ORR in participants of the pembro arm was compared to ORR in participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||-7.4|-22.0|
91907489|NCT00129766|183710135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.11||95.0||||Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.110
91878405|NCT02853305|183650713|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-28.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-21.6||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||DCR in participants of the pembro arm was compared to DCR in participants of the chemo arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||-21.6|-35.9|
91878406|NCT02853305|183650717|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|6.12||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL score as response variable, and with treatment by study visit interactions and stratification factors (investigator's choice of chemotherapy \[cisplatin or carboplatin\] and PD-L1 status \[CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10\]) at baseline as covariates.||6.12|-0.76|
91878407|NCT02853305|183650718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.00|0.62|
91878408|NCT02853305|183650719|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|3.18||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable, and with treatment by study visit interactions and stratification factors (investigator's choice of chemotherapy \[cisplatin or carboplatin\] and PD-L1 status \[CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10\]) at baseline as covariates.||3.18|-5.06|
91878409|NCT02853305|183650720|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.49||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.49|0.93|
91878410|NCT01947153|183650730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|102.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.37|107.688||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||107.688|98.370|<0.0001
91878411|NCT01947153|183650731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|105.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.645|110.941||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||110.941|99.645|<0.0001
91747588|NCT00758264|183387086|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 14 antibody concentrations.||1.23|0.78|
91878412|NCT01947153|183650732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|109.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.299|120.968||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||120.968|98.299|0.0014
91878413|NCT01947153|183650733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|105.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.471|113.692||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||113.692|98.471|<0.0001
91878414|NCT01947153|183650734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.177|105.208||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||105.208|92.177|<0.0001
91747589|NCT00758264|183387086|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.67||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C antibody concentrations.||0.67|0.41|
91878415|NCT01947153|183650735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|104.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.274|110.254||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||110.254|99.274|<0.0001
91878416|NCT01947153|183650736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|102.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.37|107.688||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||107.688|98.370|<0.0001
91878417|NCT02381652|183650737|OTHER|Statistical test to see if there is a difference||||||0.3108|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3108
91889227|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F(13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 8||3.9|0.4|
91878418|NCT00139659|183650755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.08|0.011|||longitudinal data analysis model|Confidence interval of least squares (LS) mean difference (INH - SC) between annual rates of change for the two treatment groups.|Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Time, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on day of randomization.|Treatment group difference (Exubera minus subcutaneous insulin): annualized rate of change over time. Longitudinal data analysis methods with random effects were used to model the pulmonary function test (PFT) measurements. Random effects included the intercept and slope with respect to time (visit); all remaining effects were fixed. The estimated rate of change over time for each treatment group was derived from this model.||0.011|-0.080|
91878419|NCT00139659|183650756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.065|0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.015|-0.065|
91878420|NCT00139659|183650756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.073|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.006|-0.073|
91878421|NCT00139659|183650756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.063|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.016|-0.063|
91878422|NCT00139659|183650756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.075|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.004|-0.075|
91878423|NCT00139659|183650756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.067|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.012|-0.067|
91747590|NCT00758264|183387086|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F antibody concentrations.||1.08|0.68|
91878424|NCT00139659|183650756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.073|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.008|-0.073|
91878425|NCT00139659|183650756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.059|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.023|-0.059|
91747591|NCT00758264|183387086|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.38||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F antibody concentrations.||1.38|0.83|
91800991|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||1.8|-0.6|0.340
91878426|NCT00139659|183650756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.052|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.031|-0.052|
91878427|NCT00139659|183650756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.068|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.017|-0.068|
91878428|NCT00139659|183650756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.117|-0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.029|-0.117|
91878429|NCT00139659|183650756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.108|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.015|-0.108|
91878430|NCT00139659|183650757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||||90.0|-0.679|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.026|-0.679|
91878431|NCT00139659|183650757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.729|-0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.027|-0.729|
91878432|NCT00139659|183650757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.696|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.004|-0.696|
91800992|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||1.9|-0.7|0.347
91800993|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||10.6|-2.0|0.179
91800994|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-1.4|0.556
91800995|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-1.2|0.760
91800996|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-1.3|0.636
91878433|NCT00139659|183650757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.847|-0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.145|-0.847|
91878434|NCT00139659|183650757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.96|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.260|-0.960|
91747592|NCT00758264|183387087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup A (rSBA-MenA) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|8.15||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup A (rSBA-MenA).||8.15|-1.09|
91747593|NCT00758264|183387087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup C (rSBA-MenC) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|6.22||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup C (rSBA-MenC).||6.22|-2.11|
91800997|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||1.0|-1.3|0.774
91800998|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||1.0|-1.3|0.771
91800999|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||0.7|-1.5|0.468
91878435|NCT00139659|183650757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||||90.0|-0.721|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.001|-0.721|
91878436|NCT00139659|183650757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||||90.0|-0.655|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.073|-0.655|
91747594|NCT00758264|183387087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup W-135 (rSBA-MenW-135) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|6.76||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup W-135 (rSBA-MenW-135).||6.76|-0.94|
91747595|NCT00758264|183387087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup Y (rSBA-MenY) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.6||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup Y (rSBA-MenY).||4.6|-2.18|
91747596|NCT02163967|183387119|OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||Mixed effects regression model, a nested (within subject) random intercept for dose, fixed effects for age, dose, time and dose x time interaction. Significance level p=.05, Bonferonni correction was used for post-hoc tests.|Regression, Linear|Post-hoc comparisons using least-square means. Kenward-Roger adjustments to denominator degrees of freedom.Increase in HRV at 2Amp compared to sham.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in High frequency HRV after 20 minutes of stimulation or 15 minutes after cessation of stimulation at the low (1mAmp) or high (2mAmp) dose compared to sham stimulation||||<.02
91747597|NCT02163967|183387120|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in the number of side effects reported during either dose of stimulation compared to sham stimulation. Statistical differences were examined for light flickering in peripheral vision . Other side effects were reported by too few subjects to be analyzed statistically.||||<.001
91747598|NCT02163967|183387121|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||Mixed effects regression model, a nested (within subject) random intercept for dose, fixed effects for age, dose, time and dose x time interaction. Significance level p=.05, Bonferonni correction was used for post-hoc tests.|Regression, Linear|Post-hoc comparisons were made using least-square means. Kenward-Roger adjustments to denominator degrees of freedom.||||||0.81
91747599|NCT02163967|183387122|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Mixed effects regression model, a nested (within subject) random intercept for dose, fixed effects for age, dose, time and dose x time interaction. Significance level p=.05, Bonferonni correction was used for post-hoc tests.|Regression, Linear|Post-hoc comparisons were made using least-square means. Kenward-Roger adjustments to denominator degrees of freedom.||||||0.47
91747600|NCT04392141|183387139|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of odds of death between both groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.87||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|83.89|||Fisher Exact|||||83.89|1.16|0.0318
91747601|NCT04392141|183387140|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of SpO2 percentage between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|-3.96|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of SpO2 (%) between admission and discharge times in standard treatment group||-3.96|-7.03|0.0001
91747602|NCT04392141|183387140|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of SpO2 percentage between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of SpO2 % between admission and discharge times in the Colchicine and Herbal Phenolic Monoterpene Fractions treatment||-1.81|-3.28|0.0001
91801000|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||1.1|-1.2|0.886
91801001|NCT01346969|183479399|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||4.5|-7.0|0.668
91801002|NCT01967173|183479405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.003
91747603|NCT04392141|183387141|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of means of the length of hospitalization between both groups|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.80|1.63|0.0001
91747604|NCT04392141|183387142|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.176|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge times in standard treatment||0.176|-0.136|0.80
91747605|NCT04392141|183387142|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge times in Colchicine and Herbal Phenolic Monoterpene Fractions treatment||-0.23|-0.63|0.0001
91878437|NCT00139659|183650757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||||90.0|-0.788|-0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.052|-0.788|
91878438|NCT00139659|183650757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||||90.0|-0.717|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.042|-0.717|
91878439|NCT00139659|183650757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||||90.0|-1.181|-0.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.397|-1.181|
91878440|NCT00139659|183650757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||||90.0|-1.178|-0.393|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.393|-1.178|
91878441|NCT00139659|183650760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.066|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.023|-0.066|
91747606|NCT04392141|183387143|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of LDH between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.06||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.76|72.64|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of LDH between admission and discharge times in standard treatment||72.64|-124.76|0.602
91747607|NCT04392141|183387143|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of LDH between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|137.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.19|236.46|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of LDH between admission and discharge times in Colchicine and Herbal Phenolic Monoterpene Fractions treatment||236.46|38.19|0.006
91747608|NCT04295681|183387144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided||"Estimated value is calculated as MMH-MAP minus Placebo difference in mean MoCA scores changes."|Mean changes of MoCA scores (90th day of treatment minus baseline) were compared.||1.70|0.47|0.0006
91878442|NCT00139659|183650760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.044|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.044|-0.044|
91878443|NCT00139659|183650760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.056|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.032|-0.056|
91878444|NCT00139659|183650760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.048|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.041|-0.048|
91907490|NCT00129766|183710136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.005||95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity as specified on the CRF||||||0.005
91747609|NCT04295681|183387145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided||"Estimated value is calculated as MMH-MAP minus Placebo difference in mean MoCA scores changes."|Mean changes of NIHSS scores (baseline minus 12th day of treatment) were compared.||0.37|-0.58|0.67
91747610|NCT04295681|183387145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Estimated value is calculated as MMH-MAP minus Placebo difference in mean MoCA scores changes."|Mean changes of NIHSS scores (baseline minus 90th day of treatment) were compared.||0.50|-0.47|0.94
91747611|NCT04295681|183387146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with no significant disabilities after 90 days of treatment .||||0.89
91747612|NCT04295681|183387147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Therapeutic effect score comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||0.067
91878445|NCT00139659|183650760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.089|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.001|-0.089|
91878446|NCT00139659|183650760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.035|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.056|-0.035|
91878447|NCT00139659|183650760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.028|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.064|-0.028|
91907491|NCT00129766|183710137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.476||95.0|||||Van Eleteren test|Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF||P-value is for overall incidence||||0.476
91801003|NCT01967173|183479405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.9
91801004|NCT01967173|183479405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 500 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 500||||<0.001
91801005|NCT01967173|183479405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50||||0.42
91801006|NCT01967173|183479405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50||||0.84
91801007|NCT01967173|183479405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 500 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 500||||0.015
91801008|NCT01967173|183479405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.085
91801009|NCT01967173|183479405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.62
91801010|NCT01967173|183479405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Fluticasone 500 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Fluticasone 500 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.48
91878448|NCT00139659|183650760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.051|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.041|-0.051|
91801011|NCT01967173|183479405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 100 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 100||||0.14
91801012|NCT01967173|183479405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Fluticasone 250 compared to Fluticasone 100 is equal to the inferiority of Fluticasone 250 compared to Fluticasone 100||||0.096
91878449|NCT00139659|183650760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||||90.0|-0.07|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.026|-0.070|
91801013|NCT02128932|183479493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and insulin glargine was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|Treatment difference|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment , country and stratum as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.67|-0.96|<0.0001
91801014|NCT02128932|183479493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 0.5 mg and insulin glargine was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3%).|Treatment difference|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated meausrements with treatment, country and stratum value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.24|-0.52|<0.0001
91801015|NCT03685123|183479502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.256
91801016|NCT03685123|183479503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
91801017|NCT03685123|183479504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.244
91801018|NCT03685123|183479505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.064
91801019|NCT03685123|183479506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL levels||||0.983
91801020|NCT03685123|183479506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL levels||||0.56
91801021|NCT03685123|183479506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||||0.71
91801022|NCT03685123|183479506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||||0.313
91801023|NCT03685123|183479507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||systolic Blood pressure||||0.72
91801024|NCT03685123|183479507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood pressure||||0.61
91801025|NCT03685123|183479507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1609|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in aortic blood pressure between the PA-REC and the WM-REC Groups.||||0.1609
91878450|NCT00139659|183650760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||||90.0|-0.064|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.034|-0.064|
91801026|NCT03685123|183479507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in aortic diastolic blood pressure between the PA-REC and WM-REC Groups||||0.446
91801027|NCT03685123|183479508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.965
91801028|NCT03685123|183479509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.857
91801029|NCT03685123|183479510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.825|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.825
91801030|NCT03685123|183479511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.061
91801031|NCT03685123|183479513|SUPERIORITY|Change in particle size between the PA-REC and WM-REC groups||||||0.105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL particle size||||0.105
91907492|NCT00129766|183710138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.493||95.0||||Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF|Van Eleteren test|||||||0.493
91801032|NCT03685123|183479513|SUPERIORITY|Change in particle size between the PA-REC and the WM-REC groups||||||0.849|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL particles||||0.849
91801033|NCT03685123|183479515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||ANOVA|||Change in steps per day from week 10 to week 28||||0.278
91878451|NCT00139659|183650760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||||90.0|-0.067|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.037|-0.067|
91747613|NCT04295681|183387147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side effects score comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||0.81
91747614|NCT04295681|183387147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy index score comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||0.17
91747615|NCT04295681|183387148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Fisher Exact|||The percentage of participants having at least one adverse event were compared.||||0.656
91747616|NCT04295681|183387149|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91747617|NCT04295681|183387151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.96
91747618|NCT04295681|183387152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.96
91747619|NCT04295681|183387153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Systolic blood pressure. Analysis of varience (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.438
91747620|NCT04295681|183387153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Diastolic blood pressure. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.56
91747621|NCT04295681|183387154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison at the baseline.||||0.72
91747622|NCT04295681|183387154|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||1
91747623|NCT04295681|183387155|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91747624|NCT02357472|183387156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample Size to Achieve 0.80 Power to Test Equivalency at the α = 0.05 Significance Level for True Proportions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6216|2.002|||t-test, 2 sided|||It was caculated that 60 paticipants randomized in a 1:1between 2 arms would would have at least 85% power to detect a difference of 1.32 oocytes between the high dose group and standard dose group after 12 weeks.Sample size was determined using 2 sided 2 sample t-test (α = 0.05).Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 1.72.||2.002|0.6216|0.0003
91747625|NCT00803400|183387171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A p-value less than 0.05 (≤ 0.05) is statistically significant. It indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, as there is less than a 5% probability the null is correct (and the results are random)||||<0.001
91747626|NCT01178944|183387185|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is CR+PR vs stable disease/progression||1.38|0.78|0.585
91747627|NCT04376684|183387237|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.82||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.82|0.96|0.0456
91747628|NCT04376684|183387238|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.61|0.67|0.8574
91747629|NCT04376684|183387239|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.22||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.22|0.61|0.2057
91747630|NCT04376684|183387240|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.24|0.50|0.3061
91747631|NCT04376684|183387241|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.41|0.59|0.6665
91747632|NCT04376684|183387242|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.18||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.18|0.65|0.1942
91747633|NCT04376684|183387243|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24||p-value is generated from a two-sided test|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.24|0.65|0.5324
91801034|NCT03685123|183479516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 General Health (GH)||||0.238
91801035|NCT03685123|183479516|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.124|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Physical health (PH)||||0.124
91801036|NCT03685123|183479516|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.769|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 role physical||||0.769
91801037|NCT03685123|183479516|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.352|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Bodily Pain||||0.352
91801038|NCT03685123|183479516|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.898|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Vitality||||0.898
91801039|NCT03685123|183479516|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.444|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 social function||||0.444
91878452|NCT00139659|183650761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||||90.0|-1.778|0.514|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.514|-1.778|
91907493|NCT00129766|183710139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.652||95.0||||Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF|Van Eleteren test|||||||0.652
91801040|NCT03685123|183479516|SUPERIORITY|Change between the PA-REC group and the WM-REC group||||||0.537|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Mental Health||||0.537
91801041|NCT03685123|183479516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Role Emotional||||0.448
91878453|NCT00139659|183650761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||||90.0|-1.079|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.120|-1.079|
91907494|NCT03448068|183710146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91801042|NCT03685123|183479516|SUPERIORITY|Change between the PA-REC group and the WM-REC group||||||0.537|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Mental Health (Sum)||||0.537
91801043|NCT03685123|183479516|SUPERIORITY|Change between the PA-REC group and the WM-REC group||||||0.482|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Physical Health (sum)||||0.482
91801044|NCT03685123|183479518|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91801045|NCT03685123|183479519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
91801046|NCT03685123|183479520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in body fat||||<0.001
91801047|NCT03685123|183479521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91801048|NCT03685123|183479522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL||||0.004
91801049|NCT03685123|183479522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL||||0.04
91801050|NCT03685123|183479522|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Total Cholesterol||||<0.001
91801051|NCT03685123|183479522|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||||<0.001
91801052|NCT03685123|183479523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Systolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91801053|NCT03685123|183479523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic blood pressure||||0.001
91801054|NCT03685123|183479523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aortic blood pressure (mmHg)||||<0.001
91801055|NCT03685123|183479523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in aortic diastolic pressure||||<0.001
91801056|NCT03685123|183479524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91801057|NCT03685123|183479525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91801058|NCT03685123|183479526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.366
91801059|NCT03685123|183479527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91801060|NCT03685123|183479529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91801061|NCT03685123|183479530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91801062|NCT03685123|183479531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||General Health|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91801063|NCT03685123|183479531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Health||||<0.001
91801064|NCT03685123|183479531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role physical||||0.023
91801065|NCT03685123|183479531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Bodily Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91801066|NCT03685123|183479531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vitality||||<0.001
91801067|NCT03685123|183479531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social Functioning||||<0.001
91801068|NCT03685123|183479531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Health||||0.0105
91801069|NCT03685123|183479531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Emotional||||<0.001
91801070|NCT03685123|183479531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 mental health Components (sum)||||0.01
91801071|NCT03685123|183479531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Health Components Sum||||<0.001
91907495|NCT03448068|183710147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2252
91907496|NCT03448068|183710148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0610
91907497|NCT03448068|183710149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2720
91907498|NCT03448068|183710150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7298|||||||Chi-squared|||Nausea 1st 12 hours for Ketamine Therapy vs Standard Therapy||||0.7298
91907499|NCT03448068|183710150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1058|||||||Chi-squared|||Nausea 2nd 12 hours for Ketamine Therapy vs Standard Therapy||||0.1058
91907500|NCT03448068|183710150|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Nausea 2nd 24 hours for Ketamine Therapy vs Standard Therapy||||1.000
91907501|NCT03448068|183710151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
91747634|NCT04376684|183387244|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.49||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.49|0.80|0.2871
91747635|NCT04376684|183387245|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.58||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.58|0.85|0.1754
91747636|NCT04376684|183387246|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.79||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.79|0.93|0.0616
91747637|NCT04376684|183387247|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.63||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.63|0.84|0.1830
91747638|NCT04376684|183387248|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.39||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||2.39|0.95|0.0831
91747639|NCT04376684|183387249|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.2557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.0||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||2.00|0.83|0.2557
91747640|NCT04376684|183387250|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.61|0.67|0.8560
91747641|NCT04376684|183387251|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.66||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.66|0.69|0.7533
91747642|NCT04376684|183387252|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.32||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.32|0.95|0.0959
91747643|NCT04376684|183387253|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.50|0.84|0.4421
91747644|NCT04376684|183387254|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.8||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.80|0.73|0.2814
91747645|NCT04376684|183387255|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.42||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.42|0.77|0.3901
91747646|NCT04376684|183387256|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.36|0.75|0.4763
91747647|NCT04376684|183387257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.56|0.84|0.1973
91878454|NCT00139659|183650761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||||90.0|-0.535|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.700|-0.535|
91747648|NCT04376684|183387258|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.67||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.67|0.88|0.1173
91747649|NCT04376684|183387259|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|10.13||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||10.13|1.57|0.0037
91747650|NCT04376684|183387260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.3581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.06||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||2.06|0.77|0.3581
91747651|NCT04376684|183387261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.54|0.63|0.9621
91747652|NCT04376684|183387262|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.29|0.54|0.4167
91747653|NCT04376684|183387263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.25|0.53|0.3408
91747654|NCT04376684|183387264|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.23|0.85|0.4250
91747655|NCT04376684|183387265|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.59||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.59|0.81|0.4774
91747656|NCT04376684|183387266|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.89||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||0.89|0.18|0.0119
91747657|NCT04376684|183387267|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.24|0.83|0.4404
91747658|NCT04376684|183387268|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.72||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.72|0.72|0.6253
91747659|NCT04376684|183387269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.3||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.30|0.94|0.1078
91747660|NCT04376684|183387270|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.31||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.31|0.94|0.1140
91747661|NCT04376684|183387271|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.40|0.80|0.7084
91747662|NCT04376684|183387272|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.52||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.52|0.84|0.4085
91747663|NCT02602275|183387310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas (AAL) coordinates.|Paired t-test|||||||0.004
91747664|NCT02602275|183387311|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas (AAL) coordinates.|Paired t-test|||||||>0.05
91747665|NCT02602275|183387312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|The outcome was deemed exploratory, as multiplicity was controlled using a priori ordered hypotheses, but the preceding endpoint was not met.||||||<0.001
91907502|NCT05433571|183710166|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was tested for Senofilcon A (C3) Multifocal Toric lens with UV/HEV filter (Low DC) and concluded if the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval was above 0.80|Mean Population Estimate|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|0.955|||Bootstrapping Methods|bias adjusted confidence intervals||||0.955|0.878|
91747666|NCT02602275|183387313|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas (AAL) coordinates.|Paired t-test|||||||>0.05
91747667|NCT02602275|183387314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the AAL (Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas) coordinates.|Paired t-test|The outcome was deemed exploratory, as multiplicity was controlled using a priori ordered hypotheses, but a preceding endpoint was not met.||||||<0.05
91747668|NCT02241733|183387317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was completed.||||0.94
91747669|NCT02241733|183387318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
91747670|NCT02241733|183387319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
91747671|NCT02241733|183387320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91747672|NCT01866111|183387345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||A step down procedure was used for the primary efficacy analyses to ensure the type one error rate for multiple comparisons was controlled at the 5% level using the following hierarchy: 200 mg vs placebo, 400 mg vs placebo, 100 mg vs placebo, in which a statistically significant difference had to be detected in this order for each subsequent comparison to occur.||||<0.001
91747673|NCT01866111|183387345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91747674|NCT01866111|183387345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91878455|NCT00139659|183650761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||||90.0|-1.184|1.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.077|-1.184|
91747675|NCT01866111|183387346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91747676|NCT01866111|183387346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91747677|NCT01866111|183387346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91747678|NCT01974206|183387361|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.79||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.47||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization strata, and the 90% CIs of the CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||1.47|0.43|0.307
91747679|NCT01974206|183387362|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.99||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|2.15||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization group, and the 90% CI of the exact CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||2.15|0.46|0.576
91747680|NCT01974206|183387363|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.88||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.59||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization group, and the 90% CI of the exact CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||1.59|0.48|0.408
91747681|NCT01974206|183387364|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.88||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.61||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization group, and the 90% CI of the exact CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||1.61|0.48|0.419
91747682|NCT01974206|183387365|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio could not be calculated as 100% of ASP0113 group showed graft survival, and this leads to having a value of 0 for the denominator for the ratio thus odds ratio is not estimable. The 90% CI (2-sided) values for the odds ratio are 0.11 to NA, where NA is an infinity value.||||0.5
91747683|NCT04113018|183387367|SUPERIORITY||Response rate|0.5385||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3718|0.6991|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|A minimax 2-stage design was used to test the hypothesis that the CR+ rate less than or equal to 50%. Twenty-three evaluable subjects were enrolled in the first stage, followed by an additional 16 subjects for a total of 39 subjects. This design provided 90% power to detect a difference of 20% under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha=0.10 significance level. If at least 24 of 39 participants had achieved CR or better to induction, the null hypothesis would have been rejected.||0.6991|0.3718|0.375
91747684|NCT04113018|183387374|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.0513|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0063|0.1732|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.1732|0.0063|
91747685|NCT04113018|183387375|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.0256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1348|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.1348|0.0006|
91747686|NCT03802630|183387382|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered established if the lower limit of the corresponding 95% CI for the estimated between group difference (brolucizumab vs. aflibercept) on change from baseline in BCVA at Week 24 is greater than -4 letters.|Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-3.9|0.018
91747687|NCT06099223|183387401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91747688|NCT06099223|183387402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91747689|NCT06099223|183387404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91747690|NCT06099223|183387405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91747691|NCT06099223|183387406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91747692|NCT06099223|183387407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.37
91747693|NCT06099223|183387408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
91801072|NCT03685123|183479532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in kilocalories consumed from baseline to week 10||||<0.001
91747694|NCT06099223|183387409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91747695|NCT06099223|183387410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91747696|NCT06099223|183387411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
91747697|NCT06099223|183387412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.147
91747698|NCT06099223|183387413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
91747699|NCT06099223|183387414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
91747700|NCT06099223|183387415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
91747701|NCT06099223|183387416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
91747702|NCT06099223|183387418|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
91747703|NCT06099223|183387419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.919
91747704|NCT04091581|183387426|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91747705|NCT04091581|183387426|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the baseline tear evaporation rate of the non-dry eye and dry eye group.||||0.022
91801073|NCT03685123|183479533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL Particle Size||||0.658
91878456|NCT00139659|183650761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||||90.0|-1.677|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.608|-1.677|
91907503|NCT05433571|183710166|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was tested for Senofilcon A (C3) Multifocal Toric lens with UV/HEV filter (High DC) and concluded if the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval was above 0.80|Mean Population Estimate|0.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|0.93|||Bootstrapping Methods|bias adjusted confidence intervals||||0.930|0.845|
91747706|NCT01331837|183387429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to reject the null hypothesis and claim non-inferiority of TCZ compared to ETA, a HR point estimate of ≤ 1.278 and upper limit of 95% CI \<1.8 was required.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.43|0.77|
91747707|NCT01331837|183387431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis'|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.62||||||"The analysis assessed in the OT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.62|0.76|
91747708|NCT01331837|183387433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis and not for the sensitivity analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.40|0.73|
91747709|NCT01331837|183387435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis and not for the sensitivity analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.56||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.56|0.70|
91747710|NCT01331837|183387437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.34||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.34|0.73|
91747711|NCT01331837|183387439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|'The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis'|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.49||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.49|0.54|
91747712|NCT01331837|183387441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.63||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.63|0.64|
91747713|NCT01331837|183387443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.92||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||2.92|0.80|
91747714|NCT01331837|183387445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.41||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.41|0.70|
91747715|NCT02456636|183387458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.87||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.51|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling)||-0.23|-3.51|.025
91747716|NCT02456636|183387458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.0|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DM (phone group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling)||0.29|-3.00|0.25
91747717|NCT02456636|183387458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.15|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group visits) versus DM (phone group visits)||1.13|-2.15|.025
91747718|NCT02456636|183387459|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.5|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling).||-0.18|-3.50|.025
91878457|NCT00139659|183650761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674||||90.0|-2.014|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.203|-2.014|
91801074|NCT03685123|183479533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL participle size||||0.07
91801075|NCT01254630|183479534|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.364|0.791|||||Point estimate and 97.5% CI of vaccine efficacy (primary endpoint) were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 97.5% Confidence Interval (CI) be \>0.25.||0.791|0.364|
91801076|NCT01254630|183479535|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.5||||||||4.5|-1.8|
91801077|NCT01254630|183479536|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.771|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.899|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI be \>0.25.||0.899|0.480|
91801078|NCT01254630|183479537|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.984|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI be \>0.25.||0.984|-0.005|
91801079|NCT01254630|183479538|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.275|0.972|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI be \>0.25.||0.972|-1.275|
91801080|NCT01254630|183479539|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.6|
91801081|NCT02959983|183479540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall Weeks 1-12||||0.0022
91801082|NCT02959983|183479541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0119|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall Weeks 1 to 12||||0.0119
91878458|NCT00139659|183650761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.675||||90.0|-0.899|1.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.323|-0.899|
91801083|NCT02959983|183479541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 1 to 4||||0.0048
91801084|NCT02959983|183479541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 5 to 8||||0.0207
91801085|NCT02959983|183479541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 9 to 12||||0.3700
91801086|NCT02959983|183479542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall Weeks 1 to 12||||0.0174
91878459|NCT00139659|183650761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||||90.0|-1.08|1.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.169|-1.080|
91801087|NCT02959983|183479542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3832|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 1 to 4||||0.3832
91801088|NCT02959983|183479542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 5 to 8||||0.0052
91801089|NCT02959983|183479542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0619|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 9 to 12||||0.0619
91801090|NCT02959983|183479543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 1-4||||0.0330
91801091|NCT02959983|183479543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 5 to 8||||0.0063
91801092|NCT02959983|183479543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 9 to 12||||0.0018
91801093|NCT03221270|183479544|SUPERIORITY|alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is greater than 0|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.66|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.25||||t-test, 1 sided||||||-2.25|0.66
91801094|NCT03439657|183479555|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE antibodies Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratio between the Control group and the Co-Ad group should be \<1.5.|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.16|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group GMCs ratio was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-gE GMCs (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-gE antibodies, one month after the administration of last vaccine dose.||1.16|0.99|
91801095|NCT03439657|183479556|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-1), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.33|0.82|
91801096|NCT03439657|183479556|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-3), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.22|0.86|
91878460|NCT00139659|183650761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||||90.0|-1.382|0.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.902|-1.382|
91747719|NCT02456636|183387459|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.34||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.99|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DM (phone group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling)||0.32|-2.99|.025
91747720|NCT02456636|183387459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.15|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group counseling) versus DM (phone group counseling)||1.15|-2.15|.025
91747721|NCT05312632|183387478|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91747722|NCT05312632|183387479|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91747723|NCT05312632|183387480|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91747724|NCT05312632|183387481|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91747725|NCT05312632|183387482|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.013
91747726|NCT05312632|183387483|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.053
91747727|NCT05312632|183387484|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91747728|NCT03130439|183387529|OTHER||Objective Response Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.247||||||||0.247|0.000|
91747729|NCT03130439|183387532|OTHER||Disease Control Rate|0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.423||||||||0.423|0.086|
91878461|NCT00139659|183650761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711||||90.0|-1.673|0.668|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.668|-1.673|
91747730|NCT03130439|183387533|OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.337||||||||0.337|0.042|
91747731|NCT02731820|183387534|OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.172
91747732|NCT02731820|183387534|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.027
91747733|NCT02731820|183387534|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.053
91747734|NCT02731820|183387534|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.002
91747735|NCT02731820|183387534|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T0||||0.006
91747736|NCT02731820|183387534|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T3||||0.139
91747737|NCT02731820|183387534|OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.967
91747738|NCT02731820|183387534|OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.446
91747739|NCT02731820|183387534|OTHER|||||||0.869|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.869
91747740|NCT02731820|183387535|OTHER|||||||0.954|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.954
91747741|NCT02731820|183387535|OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.798
91747742|NCT02731820|183387535|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.377
91747743|NCT02731820|183387535|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.886
91747744|NCT02731820|183387535|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T0||||0.040
91747745|NCT02731820|183387535|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T3||||0.017
91747746|NCT02731820|183387535|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.343
91747747|NCT02731820|183387535|OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.859
91747748|NCT02731820|183387535|OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.172
91747749|NCT02731820|183387536|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.213
91747750|NCT02731820|183387536|OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.191
91747751|NCT02731820|183387536|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.234
91747752|NCT02731820|183387536|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.370
91747753|NCT02731820|183387536|OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T0||||0.176
91747754|NCT02731820|183387536|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T3||||0.139
91747755|NCT02731820|183387536|OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.551
91878462|NCT00139659|183650775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||||90.0|-0.858|-0.148|||Longitudinal data analysis model|Confidence interval of least squares (LS) mean difference (INH - SC) between annual rates of change for the two treatment groups.|Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Time, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on day of randomization.|Treatment group difference (Exubera minus subcutaneous insulin): annualized rate of change over time. Longitudinal data analysis methods with random effects were used to model the pulmonary function test (PFT) measurements. Random effects included the intercept and slope with respect to time (visit); all remaining effects were fixed. The estimated rate of change over time for each treatment group was derived from this model.||-0.148|-0.858|
91747756|NCT02731820|183387536|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.371
91747757|NCT02731820|183387536|OTHER|||||||0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.466
91747758|NCT02731820|183387537|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.094
91747759|NCT02731820|183387537|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.0004
91747760|NCT02731820|183387537|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.008
91747761|NCT02731820|183387537|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.002
91747762|NCT02731820|183387537|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||<0.0001
91747763|NCT02731820|183387537|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.0007
91747764|NCT02731820|183387537|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.458
91747765|NCT02731820|183387537|OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.434
91747766|NCT02731820|183387537|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.555
91747767|NCT04838054|183387538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values \<0.05 means statistically significant|ANCOVA|||||||0.28
91747768|NCT04838054|183387539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 means statistically significant|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91747769|NCT04838054|183387540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91747770|NCT02743949|183387541|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator|1.0584||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.71|1.5778||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||1.5778|0.7100|0.7480
91747771|NCT02743949|183387541|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator|1.0975||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7368|1.6349||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||1.6349|0.7368|0.5985
91747772|NCT02743949|183387542|SUPERIORITY||Miettinen-Nurminen|0.91||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.44|1.91||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Pearson chi-square|||||1.91|0.44|0.782
91747773|NCT02743949|183387542|SUPERIORITY||Miettinen-Nurminen|0.96||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.46|2.01||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Pearson chi-square|||||2.01|0.46|0.912
91747774|NCT01126437|183387563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Three tests were conducted in hierarchical order. Non-inferiority of time to death from any cause was tested on the two Respimat doses: Tio R 5 vs. Tio HH18, then if non-inferiority was achieved Tio R 2.5 vs Tio HH18. If successful, a test of superiority of Tio R5 over Tio HH18 for time to first COPD exacerbation was conducted. The non-inferiority delta for time to death was 1.25. Non-inferiority tests were performed at one-sided α=0.025 level. Superiority test was performed at two sided α=0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.094|||Regression, Cox|||H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \>= 1.25 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 1.25||1.094|0.837|
91747775|NCT01126437|183387563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Three tests were conducted in hierarchical order. Non-inferiority of time to death from any cause was tested on the two Respimat doses: Tio R 5 vs. Tio HH18, then if non-inferiority was achieved Tio R 2.5 vs Tio HH18. If successful, a test of superiority of Tio R5 over Tio HH18 for time to first COPD exacerbation was conducted. The non-inferiority delta for time to death was 1.25. Non-inferiority tests were performed at one-sided α=0.025 level. Superiority test was performed at two sided α=0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.136|||Regression, Cox|||H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \>= 1.25 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 1.25||1.136|0.872|
91747776|NCT01126437|183387564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978||||0.4194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.032|||Regression, Cox|||"H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler = 1 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler ≠ 1~at alpha = 0.05"||1.032|0.928|0.4194
91747777|NCT01126437|183387564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.016||||0.5593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||"H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler = 1 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler ≠ 1~at alpha = 0.05"||1.070|0.964|0.5593
91747778|NCT01126437|183387564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.094|||Regression, Cox|||"H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler = 1 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler ≠ 1~at alpha = 0.05"||1.094|0.985|0.1639
91759522|NCT02391363|183411773|SUPERIORITY|"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month health service use, controlling for baseline health service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||||0.52||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 0.40 (SE = 0.63). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||||||0.52
91747779|NCT01126437|183387565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The first test performed was to test the main effect for treatment in the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 5ug and Tio HH 18ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL. If that test was successful, the second test in the hierarchy was to test the main effect for treatment in the MMRM model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 2.5 ug and Tio HH 18 ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.018||An autoregression-1 covariance structure modeled the within-subject errors because visits were equally spaced. The Kenward-Roger approximation estimated denominator degrees of freedom.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, investigative site, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction, and a random term of patient.|"FEV1 was analyzed through Week 120 using REML-based repeated measures.~H0: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler ≥ 50ml Ha: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 50 ml"||0.018|-.038|
91747780|NCT01126437|183387565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The first test performed was to test the main effect for treatment in the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 5ug and Tio HH 18ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL. If that test was successful, the second test in the hierarchy was to test the main effect for treatment in the MMRM model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 2.5 ug and Tio HH 18 ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|-0.009||An autoregression-1 covariance structure modeled the within-subject errors because visits were equally spaced. The Kenward-Roger approximation estimated denominator degrees of freedom.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, investigative site, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction, and a random term of patient.|"FEV1 was analyzed through Week 120 using REML-based repeated measures.~H0: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler ≥ 50ml Ha: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 50 ml"||-.009|-.065|
91747781|NCT01126437|183387566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.06|0.95|0.8330
91747782|NCT01126437|183387566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.05|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.05|0.94|0.8047
91747783|NCT01126437|183387566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.07|0.96|0.6468
91747784|NCT01126437|183387567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.176|||Regression, Cox|||||1.176|0.971|0.1762
91747785|NCT01126437|183387567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|1.128|||Regression, Cox|||||1.128|0.929|0.6384
91747786|NCT01126437|183387567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.044||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.148|||Regression, Cox|||||1.148|0.949|0.3784
91747787|NCT01126437|183387568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22||p-value from negative binomial regression.|Negative binomial regression|||||1.22|0.98|0.1255
91747788|NCT01126437|183387568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18||p-value from negative binomial regression.|Negative binomial regression|||||1.18|0.94|0.3441
91747789|NCT01126437|183387568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16||p-value from negative binomial regression.|Negative binomial regression|||||1.16|0.92|0.5573
91747790|NCT01126437|183387569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.066|||Regression, Cox|||||1.066|0.959|0.6823
91747791|NCT01126437|183387569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.983||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.037|||Regression, Cox|||||1.037|0.932|0.5377
91747792|NCT01126437|183387569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.028||||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|1.084|||Regression, Cox|||||1.084|0.975|0.3048
91747793|NCT01126437|183387570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.105||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|1.336|||Regression, Cox|||Causes of death from MACE were determined by adjudication.||1.336|0.913|0.3043
91747794|NCT01126437|183387570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.331|||Regression, Cox|||Causes of death from MACE were determined by adjudication.||1.331|0.909|0.3263
91747795|NCT01126437|183387570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004||||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.209|||Regression, Cox|||Causes of death from MACE were determined by adjudication.||1.209|0.834|0.9644
91747796|NCT01126437|183387571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.171||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.526|||Regression, Cox|||Time to death from MACE was analyzed using the full study duration including vital status follow-up.||1.526|0.898|0.2439
91747797|NCT01126437|183387571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.453|||Regression, Cox|||Time to death from MACE was analyzed using the full study duration including vital status follow-up.||1.453|0.850|0.4413
91747798|NCT01126437|183387571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.363|||Regression, Cox|||Time to death from MACE was analyzed using the full study duration including vital status follow-up.||1.363|0.814|0.6910
91747799|NCT01220973|183387575|OTHER||Slope|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91747800|NCT01453205|183387633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5543|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5543
91747801|NCT01453205|183387634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8567|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8567
91747802|NCT01453205|183387635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7412|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7412
91747803|NCT01453205|183387636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9996|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9996
91747804|NCT01453205|183387637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1686|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1686
91747805|NCT02333396|183387712|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.9|-5.77|0.44
91747806|NCT02333396|183387713|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.84|-0.61|0.09
91747807|NCT02333396|183387714|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|8.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.36|-0.09|0.05
91801097|NCT03439657|183479556|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.52|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-4), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.52|1.02|
91801098|NCT03439657|183479556|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-5), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.32|0.81|
91801099|NCT03439657|183479556|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.56|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-6A), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.56|1.02|
91801100|NCT03439657|183479556|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.73|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-6B), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.73|1.07|
91801101|NCT03439657|183479556|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.44|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-7F), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.44|1.01|
91801102|NCT03439657|183479556|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.39|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-9V), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.39|0.97|
91801103|NCT03439657|183479556|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-14), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.42|0.94|
91801104|NCT03439657|183479556|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.34|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-18C), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.34|0.92|
91801105|NCT03439657|183479556|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.22|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-19A), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.22|0.87|
91801106|NCT03439657|183479556|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-19F), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.32|0.90|
91801107|NCT03439657|183479556|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.5|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-23F), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.50|0.96|
91878463|NCT00139659|183650779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||||90.0|-0.06|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.28|-0.06|
91747808|NCT02333396|183387715|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimare|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.67|-1.63|0.19
91747809|NCT02333396|183387716|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.88|-5.33|0.93
91747810|NCT02333396|183387717|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.31|-3.02|0.79
91747811|NCT02333396|183387720|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|-2.62|0.64
91747812|NCT02333396|183387721|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-3.02|0.39
91747813|NCT02333396|183387723|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estiamte|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.98|-0.55|0.13
91747814|NCT02333396|183387724|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.98|-0.55|0.13
91747815|NCT02059499|183387729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1877||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1877
91747816|NCT02059499|183387730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1068||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1068
91747817|NCT02059499|183387731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8071||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8071
91747818|NCT02059499|183387732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6562||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6562
91747819|NCT02059499|183387733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0141
91747820|NCT02059499|183387734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0141
91747821|NCT02059499|183387738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1409||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1409
91747822|NCT02059499|183387739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0805
91747823|NCT02059499|183387741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5726|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5726
91747824|NCT02059499|183387742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6184||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6184
91747825|NCT02059499|183387744|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of mean between count of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in imiquimod arm||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for interpreting significance : 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of number of hrHPV genotypes in each arm observed at baseline vs at week 20 in imiquimod arm||||0.3
91747826|NCT02059499|183387744|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of mean number of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in 5FU arm||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold to interpret significance: 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the count of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in 5FU arm||||0.3
91747827|NCT02059499|183387744|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of mean number of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in observation arm||||||0.26||||||A priori cutoff of significance: 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the count of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in observation arm||||0.26
91747828|NCT03989349|183387753|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|12.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.6|19.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||19.8|4.6|0.0006
91747829|NCT03989349|183387754|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.6|24.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||24.3|5.6|0.0008
91747830|NCT03989349|183387755|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|12.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.6|20.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||20.3|4.6|0.0006
91747831|NCT03989349|183387756|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|16.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.6|26.0||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.0|6.6|0.0004
91878464|NCT00139659|183650779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||||90.0|0.04|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.38|0.04|
91878465|NCT00139659|183650779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.01|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.34|-0.01|
91747832|NCT03989349|183387757|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.1|30.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||30.3|16.1|<0.0001
91747833|NCT03989349|183387757|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.2|34.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using multiple imputation (MI) with missing at random (MAR) assumption.||34.5|21.2|<0.0001
91747834|NCT03989349|183387758|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|17.5|36.6||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||36.6|17.5|<0.0001
91747835|NCT03989349|183387758|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|24.5|42.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using MI-MAR assumption.||42.3|24.5|<0.0001
91747836|NCT03989349|183387759|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.9|23.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||23.3|10.9|<0.0001
91747837|NCT03989349|183387760|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.0|25.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||25.8|11.0|<0.0001
91747838|NCT03989349|183387761|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.8|24.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||24.3|10.8|< 0.0001
91747839|NCT03989349|183387762|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.5|31.4||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||31.4|12.5|<0.0001
91747840|NCT03989349|183387763|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.6|26.1||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting the randomized stratification variables (IGA severity and PP NRS).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.1|15.6|< 0.0001
91747841|NCT03989349|183387764|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.0|29.9||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||29.9|15.0|<0.0001
91747842|NCT03989349|183387765|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.0|17.4||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||17.4|9|< 0.0001
91747843|NCT03989349|183387766|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|9.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.5|14.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||14.3|5.5|0.0001
91747844|NCT03989349|183387767|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.0|19.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level||19.2|11|< 0.0001
91801108|NCT02925117|183479581|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-51.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|-36.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-36.3|-66.5|< 0.001
91747845|NCT03989349|183387768|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.5|22.1||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.1|10.5|<0.0001
91747846|NCT03989349|183387769|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.8|9.1||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||9.1|3.8|<0.0001
91747847|NCT03989349|183387770|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|8.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.2|11.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||11.8|4.2|0.0004
91747848|NCT02684058|183387771|SUPERIORITY|one-sided p-value at 2.5% level of significance|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|22.4|||Chi-squared|||||22.4|2.3|<0.001
91747849|NCT02684058|183387776|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.55||Log-rank test at an overall one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Log Rank|||Up to approx. 3 years||0.55|0.17|<0.001
91747850|NCT01252186|183387847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A conclusion of non-inferiority was reached if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the comparison (active control minus 91-day Levonorgestrel) was greater than -0.13 nmol/L (130 pmol/L).|Treatment Difference|-11.54||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-440.1|417.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The primary endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||417.0|-440.1|0.958
91747851|NCT01252186|183387847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A conclusion of non-inferiority was reached if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the comparison (active control minus 91-day Levonorgestrel) was greater than -0.13 nmol/L (130 pmol/L).|Treatment Difference|422.76||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|863.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The primary endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||863.8|-18.3|0.060
91747852|NCT01252186|183387848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-14.31||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.8|72.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||72.2|-100.8|0.745
91747853|NCT01252186|183387848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|71.31||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|160.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||160.1|-17.5|0.115
91747854|NCT01252186|183387849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-17.14||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.4|105.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||105.1|-139.4|0.782
91747855|NCT01252186|183387849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|97.09||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|223.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||223.4|-29.2|0.131
91747856|NCT01252186|183387850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.04||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.1|-0.1|0.428
91801109|NCT02925117|183479581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-23.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-23.6|-53.7|<0.001
91801110|NCT02925117|183479581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-1.4|-31.4|0.032
91747857|NCT01252186|183387850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-0.1|-0.3|0.002
91747858|NCT01252186|183387851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.01||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.1|-0.2|0.868
91747859|NCT01252186|183387851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.3|0.0|0.012
91747860|NCT01252186|183387852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.09||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.3|-0.1|0.317
91747861|NCT01252186|183387852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.16||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.0|-0.4|0.081
91747862|NCT01252186|183387853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.004||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.004|-0.013|0.331
91747863|NCT01252186|183387853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.006||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.003|-0.015|0.173
91747864|NCT01252186|183387854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.57||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.3|-1.4|0.194
91747865|NCT01252186|183387854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.02||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.9|-0.9|0.967
91747866|NCT01252186|183387855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.09||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||5.8|-3.6|0.648
91747867|NCT01252186|183387855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.68||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||6.6|-3.2|0.496
91801111|NCT02925117|183479582|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|58.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.5|74.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||74.8|42.5|< 0.001
91747868|NCT01252186|183387856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|8.71||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||29.3|-11.9|0.405
91747869|NCT01252186|183387856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|28.95||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|50.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||50.2|7.7|0.008
91747870|NCT01252186|183387857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.3||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|195.0|-4.9|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||11.5|-4.9|0.425
91747871|NCT01252186|183387857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|8.76||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||17.2|0.3|0.041
91801112|NCT02925117|183479582|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|59.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||59.6|25.5|<0.001
91801113|NCT02925117|183479582|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|18.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|34.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||34.7|2.7|0.022
91801114|NCT02925117|183479583|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|62.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||62.7|31.1|<0.001
91801115|NCT02925117|183479583|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|28.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|43.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||43.4|13.8|<0.001
91747872|NCT01252186|183387858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-2.4||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.4|-5.2|0.088
91747873|NCT01252186|183387858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.19||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-0.3|-6.0|0.028
91747874|NCT01252186|183387859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.75||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||8.9|-5.4|0.631
91747875|NCT01252186|183387859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.73||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||11.2|-3.7|0.323
91747876|NCT01252186|183387860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.86||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|595.0|-7.0|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||5.3|-7.0|0.783
91747877|NCT01252186|183387860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-2.83||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||3.6|-9.2|0.384
91747878|NCT01252186|183387861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.66||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||7.5|-4.1|0.572
91747879|NCT01252186|183387861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-20.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-15.0|-27.0|<0.001
91747880|NCT01252186|183387862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.42||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||3.7|-4.6|0.841
91747881|NCT01252186|183387862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-10.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-6.3|-14.8|<0.001
91801116|NCT02925117|183479583|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.9||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||23.5|0.3|0.044
91801117|NCT02925117|183479584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.3|-46.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 2||-46.3|-72.3|<0.001
91801118|NCT02925117|183479584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-34.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 2||-34.3|-61.1|<0.001
91801119|NCT02925117|183479584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-17.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 2||-17.8|-44.3|<0.001
91801120|NCT02925117|183479584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-66.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.9|-48.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 8||-48.9|-83.9|<0.001
91801121|NCT02925117|183479584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-20.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 8||-20.4|-56.4|<0.001
91801122|NCT02925117|183479584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.96||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|-11.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 8||-11.2|-46.6|0.002
91801123|NCT02925117|183479584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.6|-39.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 16||-39.9|-78.6|<0.001
91801124|NCT02925117|183479584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-18.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 16||-18.4|-58.3|<0.001
91878466|NCT00139659|183650779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.03|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.32|-0.03|
91747882|NCT01252186|183387863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-2.11||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||1.3|-5.6|0.227
91747883|NCT01252186|183387863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-5.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-2.4|-9.6|0.001
91747884|NCT01252186|183387864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.33||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.7|-0.0|0.076
91747885|NCT01252186|183387864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.44||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.8|0.1|0.021
91801125|NCT02925117|183479584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-10.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 16||-10.3|-49.4|0.003
91801126|NCT02925117|183479585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|-50.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-50.5|-80.0|<0.001
91801127|NCT02925117|183479585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-33.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-33.3|-62.6|<0.001
91801128|NCT02925117|183479585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|-11.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-11.5|-40.8|<0.001
91801129|NCT02925117|183479586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-58.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.7|-44.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 8||-44.9|-71.7|<0.001
91801130|NCT02925117|183479586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-23.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 8||-23.4|-50.8|<0.001
91878467|NCT00139659|183650779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.12|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.24|-0.12|
91801131|NCT02925117|183479586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|-15.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 8||-15.0|-41.9|<0.001
91801132|NCT02925117|183479586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.7|-34.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 16||-34.3|-61.7|<0.001
91801133|NCT02925117|183479586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-20.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 16||-20.5|-48.5|<0.001
91801134|NCT02925117|183479586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-6.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 16||-6.4|-33.9|0.004
91801135|NCT02925117|183479587|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|72.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|87.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||87.1|58.3|<0.001
91878468|NCT00139659|183650779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||90.0|-0.19|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.22|-0.19|
91747886|NCT01252186|183387865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|44.46||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|111.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||111.2|-22.3|0.190
91747887|NCT01252186|183387865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.74||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|78.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||78.9|-59.4|0.781
91747888|NCT01252186|183387866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-12.49||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.4|111.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||111.4|-136.4|0.843
91747889|NCT01252186|183387866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|58.3||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.3|187.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||187.9|-71.3|0.376
91747890|NCT01252186|183387867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.01||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||19.0|-27.0|0.731
91747891|NCT01252186|183387867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|130.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.2|154.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||154.1|106.2|<0.001
91747892|NCT03172884|183387874|OTHER||LS means|1.385|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|2.081||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Healthy Subjects||2.081|0.921|
91747893|NCT03172884|183387874|OTHER||LS means|1.445|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|2.093||||||Severe hepatic impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||2.093|0.998|
91747894|NCT03172884|183387874|OTHER||LS means|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.486|0.858||||||Severe renal impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||0.858|0.486|
91747895|NCT03172884|183387875|OTHER||LS Means|1.711|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.148|2.55||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||2.550|1.148|
91747896|NCT03172884|183387875|OTHER||LS Means|2.705|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.115|3.46||||||Severe hepatic impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||3.460|2.115|
91747897|NCT03172884|183387875|OTHER||LS Means|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.696|1.659||||||Severe renal impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||1.659|0.696|
91747898|NCT03172884|183387876|OTHER||LS Means|1.768|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.251|2.498||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||2.498|1.251|
91747899|NCT03172884|183387876|OTHER||LS Means|2.735|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.163|3.459||||||Severe hepatic impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||3.459|2.163|
91747900|NCT03172884|183387876|OTHER||LS Means|1.124|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.549||||||Severe renal impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||1.549|0.815|
91747901|NCT00778258|183387899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.77||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.31|0.58
91747902|NCT00778258|183387900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.13||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.68|||Chi-squared|||Progression comparison at 12 Months||2.68|0.48|0.78
91747903|NCT00778258|183387900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.81||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.91|||Chi-squared|||Progression comparison at 24 Months||1.91|0.34|0.62
91747904|NCT00778258|183387901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at 12 Months||||0.14
91747905|NCT00778258|183387901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at 24 Months||||0.17
91747906|NCT00778258|183387901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at 36 Months||||0.33
91747907|NCT00778258|183387902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
91747908|NCT00778258|183387903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
91747909|NCT00778258|183387903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.01
91747910|NCT00778258|183387904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Betalactoglobulin||||<0.01
91747911|NCT00778258|183387904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Betalactoglobulin IgE||||<0.01
91747912|NCT00778258|183387904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Casein IgE||||<0.01
91747913|NCT00778258|183387904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Casein IgE||||<0.01
91747914|NCT00778258|183387904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Cow's Milk IgE||||<0.01
91747915|NCT00778258|183387904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Cow's Milk IgE||||<0.01
91747916|NCT00778258|183387905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Max Basophil Assessment||||0.01
91747917|NCT00778258|183387905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Max Basophil Assessment||||0.22
91747918|NCT00778258|183387905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Tregs||||0.59
91747919|NCT00778258|183387905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Tregs||||0.32
91747920|NCT00778258|183387906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.50
91747921|NCT00778258|183387907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||||||Correlation = -0.18|Spearman Correlation|||Baseline Comparison||||0.033
91747922|NCT00778258|183387907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Correlation = -0.34|Spearman Correlation|||Month 12 Comparison||||0.002
91747923|NCT00778258|183387907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||Correlation = -0.20|Spearman Correlation|||Month 24 Comparison||||0.156
91747924|NCT00778258|183387907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||||||Correlation = -0.27|Spearman Correlation|||Month 36 Comparison||||0.077
91747925|NCT00778258|183387908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||36 Month Comparison||||<0.01
91747926|NCT01221623|183387911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0059
91747927|NCT01221623|183387912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0496
91747928|NCT01221623|183387913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91747929|NCT01221623|183387914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0340
91747930|NCT01221623|183387915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.1168
91747931|NCT01221623|183387916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0144
91747932|NCT01221623|183387917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0248
91747933|NCT01221623|183387918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.6949
91747934|NCT01221623|183387919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0249
91747935|NCT00661726|183387920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||<0.01
91747936|NCT00661726|183387922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.045
91747937|NCT00661726|183387923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.083
91747938|NCT00661726|183387924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.039
91747939|NCT00661726|183387925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.18
91747940|NCT00661726|183387926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||<0.01
91747941|NCT00661726|183387927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.069
91747942|NCT00661726|183387928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.18
91747943|NCT00661726|183387929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.022
91747944|NCT00661726|183387930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.11
91747945|NCT00661726|183387931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||<0.01
91747946|NCT02644096|183387932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Changes in physical function after 3 months|unpaired t-test|||"Power calculation in this study was based on findings in a previous cross-sectional study.~The physical dimensions in health status was the primary outcome variable. The mean physical score was 49.4, SD was 26.1; alpha in this study was set to 5% and β to 20%. We considered that the intervention could lead to an improvement of 50% in the physical health score and were willing to overlook a difference in score of 12. When the sample size was calculated, 68 patients were needed in both groups."||||<0.05
91747947|NCT02438384|183387957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.1||||||||2.1|1.2|
91747948|NCT02438384|183387957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||||||||1.6|0.6|
91747949|NCT01263015|183387965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG + ABC/3TC minus EFV/TDF/FTC) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|7.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|12.2||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated value reflects the percentage on DTG + ABC/3TC minus the percentage on EFV/TDF/FTC.|||12.2|2.3|0.003
91747950|NCT01263015|183387967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG + ABC/3TC minus EFV/TDF/FTC) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.1||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Week 96:The estimated value reflects the percentage on DTG + ABC/3TC minus the percentage on EFV/TDF/FTC.|||13.1|1.2|0.016
91747951|NCT01263015|183387967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG + ABC/3TC minus EFV/TDF/FTC) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \>-10%.|Difference in percentage|8.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.6||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Week 144:Estimated value reflects the percentage on DTG + ABC/3TC minus the percentage on EFV/TDF/FTC.|||14.6|1.9|0.010
91747952|NCT01263015|183387970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted mean is the estimated mean change from baseline (BL) in CD4 + Cell Count at Week 144 in each arm calculated from a repeated measures model including the following covariates: treatment, visit, BL plasma HIV-1 RNA, BL CD4 cell count, treatment\*visit interaction, BL HIV-1 RNA\*visit interaction and BL CD4 cell count\*visit interaction. No assumptions were made about the correlations between a par.'s readings of CD4 i.e. the correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Repeated Measure Mixed Model|||||||0.003
91747953|NCT00303446|183387987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes percent change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.28
91747954|NCT00303446|183387988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.86
91747955|NCT00303446|183387989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||Comparison of changes from baseline in manual muscle testing results.||||0.47
91747956|NCT00303446|183387990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.13
91747957|NCT00303446|183387991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.46
91747958|NCT00303446|183387992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.11
91747959|NCT00303446|183387993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.08
91747960|NCT00303446|183387994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.73
91747961|NCT00303446|183387995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.37
91747962|NCT00303446|183387996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.65
91747963|NCT00303446|183387997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.99
91747964|NCT00303446|183387998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||1.0
91747965|NCT00303446|183387999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.014
91747966|NCT00303446|183388000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||Generalized estimating equation model showed a significant interaction between time and treatment; therefore a two sample t-test was used at each time point. P-value is given for comparison at 24 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
91747967|NCT00303446|183388001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.61
91747968|NCT00450294|183388002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||That the means at the different timepoints would not all be equal.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures anova with post hoc t-tests using tukey's correction.||||<0.001
91747969|NCT00450294|183388003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||That the means at the different timepoints would not all be equal.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures anova with post hoc t-tests using tukey's correction.||||<0.001
91747970|NCT05243745|183388023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||0.18|-0.36|0.4990
91747971|NCT05243745|183388023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.29|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.29|-0.83|<0.0001
91747972|NCT05243745|183388023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.56|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference is calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.56|-1.10|<0.0001
91747973|NCT05243745|183388023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.08|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-0.08|-0.52|0.0090
91747974|NCT05243745|183388023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-0.45|-0.89|<0.0001
91747975|NCT05243745|183388023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-1.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-1.22|-1.66|<0.0001
91747976|NCT05243745|183388023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-0.17|-0.63|0.0007
91747977|NCT05243745|183388023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.39|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-0.39|-0.85|<0.0001
91747978|NCT05243745|183388023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.38|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-1.38|-1.85|<0.0001
91747979|NCT05243745|183388023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-0.14|-0.59|0.0015
91747980|NCT05243745|183388023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.61|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-0.61|-1.05|<0.0001
91878469|NCT00139659|183650780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.874||||90.0|-2.351|23.581|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence interval for the LS mean of that particular treatment.||Week 6; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||23.581|-2.351|
91878470|NCT00139659|183650780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.942|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.804||||90.0|-19.79|5.909|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||5.909|-19.79|
91878471|NCT00139659|183650780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.622|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.897||||90.0|-17.63|8.382|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||8.382|-17.63|
91878472|NCT00139659|183650780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.888||||90.0|-11.16|14.817|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||14.817|-11.16|
91878473|NCT00139659|183650780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.991||||90.0|-12.01|14.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||14.307|-12.01|
91878474|NCT00139659|183650780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.816||||90.0|-8.664|17.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||17.157|-8.664|
91878475|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||||90.0|-1.829|-0.331|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||-0.331|-1.829|
91878476|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.475|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||||90.0|-1.233|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.284|-1.233|
91747981|NCT05243745|183388023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.49|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-1.49|-1.95|<0.0001
91747982|NCT05243745|183388024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.572||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|11.02|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||11.02|0.83|0.0231
91747983|NCT05243745|183388024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|18.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.549|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.37|23.47|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||23.47|13.37|<0.0001
91747984|NCT05243745|183388024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.571|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.83|29.02|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||29.02|18.83|<0.0001
91747985|NCT05243745|183388024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.293||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|13.51|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||13.51|4.43|0.0002
91747986|NCT05243745|183388024|SUPERIORITY||Slope|17.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.265|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.22|22.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||22.20|13.22|<0.0001
91801136|NCT02925117|183479587|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|61.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||61.9|27.9|<0.001
91878477|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||||90.0|-0.931|0.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.562|-0.931|
91878478|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||||90.0|-0.929|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.550|-0.929|
91878479|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||||90.0|-1.294|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.178|-1.294|
91878480|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||||90.0|-1.517|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 9; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.022|-1.517|
91747987|NCT05243745|183388024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|32.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.288|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.27|37.34|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||37.34|28.27|<0.0001
91747988|NCT05243745|183388024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.485|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|15.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||15.13|5.28|<0.0001
91747989|NCT05243745|183388024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.05|18.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||18.80|9.05|<0.0001
91747990|NCT05243745|183388024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|36.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.568|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.42|41.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||41.60|31.42|<0.0001
91747991|NCT05243745|183388024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.761||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|15.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||15.20|4.26|0.0006
91747992|NCT05243745|183388024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|19.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.57|24.55|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||24.55|13.57|<0.0001
91747993|NCT05243745|183388024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|39.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.829|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.73|44.94|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||44.94|33.73|<0.0001
91747994|NCT02998203|183388034|OTHER|One-sample t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||<0.001
91747995|NCT02998203|183388035|OTHER|non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||<0.001
91747996|NCT02998203|183388036|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model|||||<|0.001||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91747997|NCT02998203|183388037|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.017
91747998|NCT02998203|183388038|OTHER|Logistic mixed-effect model||||||0.014||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
91747999|NCT02998203|183388039|OTHER|One-sample t-test||||||0.167|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||0.167
91748000|NCT02998203|183388040|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.07
91748001|NCT02998203|183388041|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model||||||0.014||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
91748002|NCT02998203|183388042|OTHER|One-sample t-test||||||0.023|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||0.023
91748003|NCT02998203|183388043|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.259|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.259
91748004|NCT02998203|183388044|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model|||||<|0.001||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The interaction term for time and treatment was included in the models since it met the threshold of p-value\<0. 05. Specifically, for the interaction term of time and organic treatment b=-0.016, 95% CI=\[-0.023,-0.010\], p-value=\<0.001.||||<0.001
91748005|NCT02998203|183388045|OTHER|One-sample t-test||||||0.913|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||0.913
91748006|NCT02998203|183388046|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.338|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.338
91748007|NCT02998203|183388047|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model||||||0.001||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The interaction term for time and treatment was included in the models since it met the threshold of p-value\<0. 05. Specifically, for the interaction term of time and organic treatment b=-0.016, 95% CI=\[-0.023,-0.010\], p-value=0.01.||||0.001
91878481|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||||90.0|-2.51|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 11; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.405|-2.510|
91878482|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.891|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||||90.0|-1.634|-0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||-0.149|-1.634|
91878483|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||||90.0|-1.725|-0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||-0.234|-1.725|
91878484|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||||90.0|-1.4|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.075|-1.400|
91878485|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||||90.0|-1.279|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.205|-1.279|
91801137|NCT02925117|183479587|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|23.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||39.4|7.5|0.004
91878486|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||||90.0|-3.012|0.369|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 50; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.369|-3.012|
91748008|NCT04187144|183388084|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for non-inferiority is if the Z-statistic for non-inferiority is greater than the 2.098 Z-statistic boundary.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.8|||||||Observed Z statistic value for Noninferiority was 5.8838.|22.8|6.4|
91878487|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||||90.0|-0.847|0.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 51; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.972|-0.847|
91878488|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||||90.0|-0.964|0.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.579|-0.964|
91878489|NCT00139659|183650781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||||90.0|-1.298|0.438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.438|-1.298|
91748009|NCT04187144|183388084|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in Percent|14.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.8|||1-sided p-value for Test of Superiority|||The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for superiority is if the one-sided p-value is less than the 0.018 p-value boundary||22.8|6.4|0.0003
91748010|NCT01159171|183388130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||0.0||||One-sided p-value|One sample exact binomial test|||||||0.0047
91748011|NCT01962987|183388142|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage of patients between Test and Reference to be contained within -20%, + 20%, using the Per-Protocol Population.|(Test-Ref) Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.06|9.42|||||Applicable to Percentage of Subjects with Cure (100% complete AK clearance at day 90)|||9.42|-8.06|
91748012|NCT01962987|183388142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0010
91748013|NCT01468207|183388162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|15.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|26.5||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.5|5.3|=0.003
91748014|NCT01468207|183388162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|29.3|||Chi-squared|||||29.3|0.3|=0.048
91748015|NCT01468207|183388162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1|||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|32.1|||Chi-squared|||||32.1|2.2|=0.027
91801138|NCT02925117|183479588|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|70.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.2|85.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 8||85.2|56.2|<0.001
91878490|NCT00139659|183650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.079|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.000|-0.079|
91878491|NCT00139659|183650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.068|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.010|-0.068|
91878492|NCT00139659|183650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.084|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.006|-0.084|
91748016|NCT01468207|183388163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||=|0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.1|||Chi-squared|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||14.1|-13.4|=0.961
91748017|NCT01468207|183388164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|2.8|||=|0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|14.2||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||14.2|-8.6|=0.628
91748018|NCT01468207|183388165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.7|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|2.4|||ANCOVA|P-value calculated from ANCOVA with stratum, baseline, and treatment as covariates.||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||2.4|-19.7|=0.124
91748019|NCT01328041|183388170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T distribution|-1.432|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-1.343||The P value was derived by the null hypothesis testing of no change from Baseline in HIV-1 RNA at Day 8 at the two-sided 5% significance level using a single sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.343|-1.520|<0.001
91748020|NCT01328041|183388171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|76.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL at Week 24.|||76|62|
91748021|NCT01328041|183388172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|70.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL at Week 48.|||70|56|
91748022|NCT00664560|183388189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|4.32|||ANCOVA|||||4.32|-4.76|
91748023|NCT00664560|183388190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|10 mm Non-Inferiority (NI) margin between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|4.38|||ANCOVA|||||4.38|-4.57|
91748024|NCT00664560|183388191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin 10 mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|4.14|||ANCOVA|||||4.14|-5.08|
91748025|NCT03392883|183388201|OTHER|Paired version (T-test for paired sample, Friedman and McNemar tests) was used for contrasting the equality among the variables at different moments of time. In order to adjust our results by potential confounders, ANCOVA analyses was performed. Symmetric 95% confidence intervals will be provided for relevant parameters. All p-values were referred to two-sided hypotheses. P-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||<0.001
91748026|NCT03392883|183388201|OTHER|||||||0.552||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Acceptability subscale results.||||0.552
91748027|NCT03392883|183388201|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Appropriateness subscale results.||||0.320
91748028|NCT03392883|183388201|OTHER|||||||0.879||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Feasibility subscale results.||||0.879
91748029|NCT03392883|183388201|OTHER|||||||0.242||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Reach/Access subscale results.||||0.242
91748030|NCT03392883|183388202|OTHER|||||||0.237||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||0.237
91748031|NCT03392883|183388202|OTHER|||||||0.492||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Accessibility subscale results.||||0.492
91748032|NCT03392883|183388202|OTHER|||||||0.285||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Appropriateness subscale results.||||0.285
91801139|NCT02925117|183479588|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|67.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 8||67.3|30.8|<0.001
91748033|NCT03392883|183388202|OTHER|||||||0.964||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Feasibility subscale results.||||0.964
91748034|NCT03392883|183388202|OTHER|||||||0.942||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Resources subscale results.||||0.942
91748035|NCT03392883|183388202|OTHER|||||||0.366||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Scope subscale results.||||0.366
91748036|NCT03392883|183388202|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Organizational Climate subscale results.||||0.021
91748037|NCT03392883|183388202|OTHER|||||||0.832||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Leadership in Implementing subscale results.||||0.832
91748038|NCT03392883|183388202|OTHER|||||||0.827||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the General Leadership Skills subscale results.||||0.827
91801140|NCT02925117|183479588|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|52.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 8||52.2|13.4|<0.001
91748039|NCT03392883|183388203|OTHER|||||||0.118||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||0.118
91878493|NCT00139659|183650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.085|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.007|-0.085|
91878494|NCT00139659|183650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.085|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.007|-0.085|
91878495|NCT00139659|183650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.063|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.017|-0.063|
91878496|NCT00139659|183650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.062|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.020|-0.062|
91878497|NCT00139659|183650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.055|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.027|-0.055|
91748040|NCT03392883|183388203|OTHER|||||||0.896||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Accessibility subscale results.||||0.896
91801141|NCT02925117|183479588|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|60.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3|75.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 16||75.9|45.3|<0.001
91878498|NCT00139659|183650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.085|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.000|-0.085|
91878499|NCT00139659|183650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.109|-0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.022|-0.109|
91878500|NCT00139659|183650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.097|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.003|-0.097|
91878501|NCT00139659|183650790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||||90.0|-0.606|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.048|-0.606|
91748041|NCT03392883|183388203|OTHER|||||||0.739||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Appropriateness subscale results.||||0.739
91748042|NCT03392883|183388203|OTHER|||||||0.724||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Feasibility subscale results.||||0.724
91748043|NCT03392883|183388203|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||0.301
91748044|NCT03392883|183388203|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Organizational Climate subscale results.||||0.034
91801142|NCT02925117|183479588|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|65.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 16||65.9|31.3|<0.001
91878502|NCT00139659|183650790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||||90.0|-0.661|-0.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.011|-0.661|
91889228|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F(13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 10A||2.7|-1.5|
91889229|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 11A||3.2|-0.7|
91878503|NCT00139659|183650790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||||90.0|-0.707|-0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.061|-0.707|
91801143|NCT02925117|183479588|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|28.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 16||46.6|9.8|0.003
91801144|NCT02925117|183479589|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 8||58.5|29.1|<0.001
91801145|NCT02925117|183479589|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 8||39.6|12.6|<0.001
91801146|NCT02925117|183479589|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.4||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 8||18.8|-0.0|0.051
91801147|NCT02925117|183479589|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|62.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 16||62.4|31.3|<0.001
91801148|NCT02925117|183479589|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|23.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 16||38.1|9.6|0.001
91801149|NCT02925117|183479589|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.8||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 16||23.6|0.1|0.049
91801150|NCT02925117|183479590|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|68.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|82.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 8||82.8|54.0|<0.001
91748045|NCT03392883|183388203|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Leadership in Implementing subscale results.||||0.015
91748046|NCT03392883|183388203|OTHER|||||||0.081||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the General Leadership Skills subscale results.||||0.081
91748047|NCT03392883|183388203|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Knowledge subscale results.||||0.790
91748048|NCT03392883|183388204|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes in the overall scores over time.||||0.023
91801151|NCT02925117|183479590|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|52.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 8||52.2|18.5|<0.001
91801152|NCT02925117|183479590|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|25.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 8||41.7|9.6|0.002
91801153|NCT02925117|183479590|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|54.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|69.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 16||69.9|39.0|<0.001
91801154|NCT02925117|183479590|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|35.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|52.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 16||52.5|19.1|<0.001
91801155|NCT02925117|183479590|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|21.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 16||36.8|5.7|0.008
91801156|NCT02925117|183479591|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|44.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 8||44.6|16.2|<0.001
91801157|NCT02925117|183479591|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.4||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 8||18.9|-0.1|0.052
91801158|NCT02925117|183479591|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 8||18.5|0.1|0.048
91801159|NCT02925117|183479591|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 16||53.3|22.2|<0.001
91801160|NCT02925117|183479591|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|19.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 16||32.5|5.6|0.006
91801161|NCT02925117|183479591|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.4||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 16||10.8|-6.0|0.581
91801162|NCT02925117|183479592|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 8||25.2|3.2|0.012
91801163|NCT02925117|183479592|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.3||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 8||8.0|-3.4|0.428
91801164|NCT02925117|183479592|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.6||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 8||11.8|-2.5|0.206
91878504|NCT00139659|183650790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||||90.0|-0.842|-0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.191|-0.842|
91878505|NCT00139659|183650790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||||90.0|-0.797|-0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.152|-0.797|
91878506|NCT00139659|183650790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||||90.0|-0.866|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.200|-0.866|
91878507|NCT00139659|183650790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||||90.0|-0.845|-0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.174|-0.845|
91748049|NCT03392883|183388205|OTHER|||||||0.589||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes in the overall scores over time in this data.||||0.589
91748050|NCT03392883|183388206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the scores at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
91748051|NCT03392883|183388207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the total scores (sum of 12 items) at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
91748052|NCT03392883|183388208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the scores at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
91748053|NCT03392883|183388209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the number of standard drinks per week at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
91748054|NCT02688088|183388236|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.06||||||||1.06|0.965|
91748055|NCT02688088|183388237|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.871|1.0||||||||1.00|0.871|
91748056|NCT02688088|183388238|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.22||||||||1.22|0.898|
91748057|NCT02688088|183388239|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.845|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.94||||||||0.940|0.760|
91748058|NCT02688088|183388240|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|1.81||||||||1.81|1.35|
91748059|NCT02688088|183388241|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.956|1.13||||||||1.13|0.956|
91748060|NCT02688088|183388242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.805|1.18||||||||1.18|0.805|
91748061|NCT02688088|183388243|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|0.972||||||||0.972|0.775|
91748062|NCT01973387|183388265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.178|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.291|||Log Rank|||||0.291|0.109|<0.0001
91748063|NCT03709277|183388340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91748064|NCT03709277|183388341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91748065|NCT03709277|183388343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91748066|NCT03655301|183388385|OTHER||Least squares mean|0.9405|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8093|1.0931||||||Day 8 (with copanlisib) to Day 1 (without copanlisib) ratio of Cmax||1.0931|0.8093|
91748067|NCT03655301|183388386|OTHER||Least squares mean|1.1205|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.2555||||||Day 8 (with copanlisib) to Day 1 (without copanlisib) ratio of AUC(0-24)||1.2555|1.0000|
91748068|NCT03655301|183388387|OTHER||Least squares mean|1.1147|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9772|1.2714||||||Day 8 (with copanlisib) to Day 1 (without copanlisib) ratio of AUC||1.2714|0.9772|
91748069|NCT02118766|183388401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.038
91748070|NCT02488135|183388410|NON_INFERIORITY|An a priori sample size was calculated using a non-inferiority limit (d) set at 25%, significance level (α) of 5% and power of 80%. We assumed that success in each group would be 93% based on the literature examining anterior nasal packing in ideal conditions and considering our selection criteria in the Floseal® (Baxter, USA) population. Attrition was assumed to be 0% due to the short duration of treatment. This yielded 26 participants with 13 patients in each study arm.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91748071|NCT02488135|183388411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups for pain during placement.||||0.0022
91748072|NCT02488135|183388411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups for pain during treatment.||||0.0007
91748073|NCT02488135|183388411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between scores for pain during removal.||||0.0021
91748074|NCT02248649|183388412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|covariates: baseline age and years of education||||||0.2
91748075|NCT02248649|183388413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91748076|NCT02248649|183388414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91748077|NCT04621240|183388419|SUPERIORITY|Mean level change from pre- to post-testing|Mean Difference (Net)|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91748078|NCT04621240|183388419|OTHER|Regression of the change in BrainHealth Index on age|Slope|0.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
91748079|NCT01457014|183388450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p values have undergone Bonferroni adjustment for Central Apnea Index (CAI), Obstructive Apnea Index (OAI) and Hypopnea Index (HI)||||||<0.001
91878508|NCT00139659|183650790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||||90.0|-0.749|-0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.076|-0.749|
91801165|NCT02925117|183479592|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|36.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 16||36.2|10.4|<0.001
91801166|NCT02925117|183479592|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 16||18.8|0.1|0.048
91801167|NCT02925117|183479592|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.4||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 16||8.1|-3.4|0.426
91801168|NCT02925117|183479598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|-18.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-18.1|-34.9|<0.001
91801169|NCT02925117|183479598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-14.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-14.6|-31.4|<0.001
91801170|NCT02925117|183479598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||0.8|-16.0|0.075
91878509|NCT00139659|183650790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||||90.0|-1.056|-0.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.358|-1.056|
91878510|NCT00139659|183650790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||||90.0|-1.04|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.320|-1.040|
91878511|NCT00139659|183650790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||||90.0|-1.116|-0.415|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.415|-1.116|
91878512|NCT01209936|183650832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91878513|NCT01209936|183650833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91878514|NCT01209936|183650834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91801171|NCT02925117|183479599|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|47.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|65.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||65.2|29.6|<0.001
91801172|NCT02925117|183479599|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|53.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|71.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||71.3|35.5|<0.001
91801173|NCT02925117|183479599|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|18.6||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|34.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||34.3|2.8|0.021
91801174|NCT02663908|183479602|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.283||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|2.794|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||2.794|0.589|0.5294
91801175|NCT02663908|183479603|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.204||||0.7126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|3.234|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||3.234|0.448|0.7126
91801176|NCT02663908|183479604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.186||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|1.595|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||1.595|0.022|0.0853
91801177|NCT02663908|183479605|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.594||||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|6.673|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||6.673|0.381|0.5196
91878515|NCT02391116|183650842|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.7|32.9|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=54): ORR in CD79b mutant subgroup minus ORR in CD79b wild-type subgroup|||32.9|-28.7|
91878516|NCT02391116|183650842|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.5|33.5|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in CD79b mutant subgroup minus ORR in CD79b wild-type subgroup|||33.5|-33.5|
91878517|NCT02391116|183650843|OTHER||Percentage Difference|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|39.1|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=52): ORR in ABC subgroup minus ORR in non-ABC group (i.e. combined GCB subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||39.1|-7.2|
91878518|NCT02391116|183650843|OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|46.2|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in ABC subgroup minus ORR in non-ABC group (i.e. combined GCB subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||46.2|-6.8|
91878519|NCT02391116|183650843|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.1|4.6|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=52): ORR in GCB subgroup minus ORR in non-GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||4.6|-40.1|
91878520|NCT02391116|183650843|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.1|1.1|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in GCB subgroup minus ORR in non-GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||1.1|-49.1|
91878521|NCT02391116|183650843|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.4|63.2|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=52): ORR in Unclassifiable subgroup minus ORR in ABC / GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and GCB subgroup)|||63.2|-42.4|
91878522|NCT02391116|183650843|OTHER||Percentage Difference|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.3|77.6|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in Unclassifiable subgroup minus ORR in ABC / GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and GCB subgroup)|||77.6|-44.3|
91878523|NCT02109107|183650862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=21.33; df=53||||||<.0001
91878524|NCT02109107|183650863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=2.95; df=53||||||<0.05
91878525|NCT02109107|183650864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|t+3.34; df=53||||||<0.005
91748080|NCT01457014|183388451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|||||p value has undergone Bonferroni adjustment. P-Value applies to Av. 02 saturation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p value has undergone Bonferroni adjustment||||||0.627
91748081|NCT01457014|183388452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.161
91748082|NCT03319953|183388457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2079||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>2.0.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.2079
91878526|NCT01747629|183650867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.24||Significance at the 0.05 level.|mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.24|0.59|<0.0001
91878527|NCT01747629|183650868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.55||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.55|0.56|<0.0001
91748083|NCT03319953|183388457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0633||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>2.0.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.0633
91748084|NCT03319953|183388458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1706||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>0.09.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.1706
91748085|NCT03319953|183388458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0373||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>0.09.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.0373
91878528|NCT01747629|183650869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.19||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.19|0.35|0.0004
91878529|NCT01747629|183650870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.28||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.28|0.57|<0.0001
91878530|NCT00607789|183650881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy analysis was a longitudinal analysis comparing the rate of change of binge day frequency during the treatment period between groups. The same analysis was applied to binge episode frequency, weight, BMI, and scores on the CGI-Severity, YBOCS-BE, and IDS scales. The difference in rate of change was estimated by random regression methods||||<0.05
91878531|NCT02963922|183650928|SUPERIORITY|The treatment policy estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) at week 56 for all randomised participants regardless of premature discontinuation of trial product.|Treatment difference|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|-3.16|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, body mass index (BMI) groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-3.16|-5.48|< .0001
91748086|NCT02226198|183388500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Rosuvastatin treatment gives on average a 22.3% lower geometric LS mean than placebo.|cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc. Powered for 90% detection of 15% delta||-9.1|-33.5|0.005
91878532|NCT02963922|183650928|SUPERIORITY|The hypothetical estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) for all randomised participants assuming that all participants remained on trial product (on-treatment principle).|Treatment difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.91|||MMRM||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||-3.91|-6.30|< .0001
91878533|NCT02963922|183650929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.31|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||5.31|2.19|<.0001
91878534|NCT02963922|183650929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|7.36|||Mixed model for repeated measurements||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||7.36|3.04|<.0001
91878535|NCT02181400|183650974|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
91878536|NCT02181400|183650975|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
91878537|NCT02181400|183650976|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
91878538|NCT02181400|183650977|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
91878539|NCT02181400|183650978|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91878540|NCT02181400|183650979|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
91878541|NCT03873038|183651006|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) was derived using the geometric mean (GM) for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.18|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|||1.18|0.54|
91878542|NCT03873038|183651006|OTHER|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).|GMR|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.76|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|||0.76|0.37|
91878543|NCT03873038|183651006|OTHER||GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.21|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.21|0.55|
91801178|NCT02663908|183479606|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.8966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|4.457|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||4.457|0.181|0.8966
91801179|NCT02663908|183479607|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|2.62|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||2.620|0.088|0.3857
91878544|NCT03873038|183651007|OTHER||GMR|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.85|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.85|1.07|
91878545|NCT03873038|183651007|OTHER||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.11|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001)||1.11|0.67|
91878546|NCT03873038|183651007|OTHER||GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.08|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.08|0.62|
91878547|NCT03873038|183651008|OTHER||GMR|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.46|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.46|0.84|
91878548|NCT03873038|183651008|OTHER||GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.87|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||0.87|0.52|
91878549|NCT03873038|183651008|OTHER||GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.03|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.03|0.60|
91878550|NCT03873038|183651009|OTHER||GMR|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.14|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||2.14|1.05|
91878551|NCT03873038|183651009|OTHER||GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.25|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.25|0.67|
91878552|NCT03873038|183651009|OTHER||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.2|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.20|0.62|
91878553|NCT00595764|183651020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||With an effect size of 0.46, a sample size of 140 will provide a power of \>.84 with p\<.05 to detect overall differences between the two treatments on the primary outcome measures.||||.91
91878554|NCT00595764|183651022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
91878555|NCT00595764|183651023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis to evaluate interaction of group by time.||||||.58
91878556|NCT00595764|183651024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis to evaluate interaction of group by time.||||||.24
91878557|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6409||||||Hochberg's adjustment was used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.6409
91878558|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.0140
91878559|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4840
91878560|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4444||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4444
91878561|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8129||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.8129
91878562|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1105||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.1105
91878563|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9582||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.9582
91878564|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1893||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.1893
91878565|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2924||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment||Week 5||||0.2924
91907504|NCT01476475|183710181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority of insulin glargine/lixisenatide FRC versus insulin glargine was tested first, at alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided) and a non-inferiority margin of 0.4% HbA1c. If non-inferiority was established, then a test of superiority of insulin glargine/lixisenatide FRC over insulin glargine would be performed, at alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided). The non-inferiority was assessed using upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) at ≤0.4%.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|-0.037|||ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariates. A step-down testing procedure described by Hochberg and Tamhane was used to control type-1 error.||-0.037|-0.312|
91907505|NCT01476475|183710181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|-0.037||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariates. If non-inferiority was established, then a test of superiority of insulin glargine/lixisenatide FRC over insulin glargine would be performed, at alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.037|-0.312|0.0130
91748087|NCT02226198|183388501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Rosuvastatin treatment gives on average a 22.3% lower geometric LS mean than placebo.|cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc. Powered for 90% detection of 15% delta||-9.1|-33.5|0.005
91748088|NCT02226198|183388502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-20.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-9.1|-29.7|0.003
91878566|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1897||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.1897
91878567|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6608||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||"Week 6 An estimated sample size of 180 was needed per treatment arm in order to achieve 85% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.5 in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score with a two-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level. The common standard deviation was estimated as 11.0.~The null hypotheses for the primary parameter is equality of mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score between ziprasidone and placebo groups."||||0.6608
91878568|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2148||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||"Week 6 An estimated sample size of 180 was needed per treatment arm in order to achieve 85% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.5 in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score with a two-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level. The common standard deviation was estimated as 11.0.~The null hypotheses for the primary parameter is equality of mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score between ziprasidone and placebo groups."||||0.2148
91878569|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.529||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.5290
91878570|NCT00141271|183651029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0811||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.0811
91878571|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2287||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.2287
91748089|NCT02226198|183388503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-20.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-9.1|-29.7|0.003
91801180|NCT02663908|183479608|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.839||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|2.176|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||2.176|0.324|0.7180
91878572|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4734||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week1||||0.4734
91748090|NCT02226198|183388504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-10.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-10.3|-33.7|0.003
91801181|NCT02663908|183479610|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|1.539|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||1.539|0.512|0.6701
91801182|NCT02663908|183479611|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.907||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.048|0.235|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS Total at Day 168||0.235|-2.048|0.1193
91801183|NCT02663908|183479611|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.213||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.473|0.047|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS, QoL at Day 168||0.047|-0.473|0.1080
91801184|NCT02663908|183479611|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.916||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.089|0.257|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS Total at Day 336||0.257|-2.089|0.1256
91801185|NCT02663908|183479611|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.047||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.218|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS, QoL at Day 336||0.218|-0.312|0.7261
91801186|NCT02663908|183479615|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.002||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.032|||ANCOVA|Compared using an ANCOVA model, where the QALY is the dependent variable and adjusted for treatment group, age group and region, respectively.||||0.032|-0.036|0.9110
91801187|NCT02663908|183479616|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-1.57||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||DASI at Day 168||0.27|-3.41|0.0936
91748091|NCT02226198|183388505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-10.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-10.3|-33.7|0.003
91748092|NCT02226198|183388506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-17.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-2.9||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-2.9|-29.2|0.024
91748093|NCT02226198|183388507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-17.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-2.9||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-2.9|-29.2|0.024
91748094|NCT02226198|183388508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|7.4||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|24.5||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||24.5|-7.4|0.314
91801188|NCT02663908|183479616|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||DASI at Day 336||2.78|-1.11|0.4000
91801189|NCT02663908|183479617|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.045||||0.2535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.122|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ Global Score at Day 168||0.122|-0.032|0.2535
91801190|NCT02663908|183479617|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.036||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.127|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Attention at Day 168||0.127|-0.055|0.4370
91801191|NCT02663908|183479617|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.116||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.248|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Avoidance at Day 168||0.248|-0.016|0.0852
91878573|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7401||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.7401
91748095|NCT02226198|183388509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|7.4||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|24.5||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||24.5|-7.4|0.314
91878574|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7904||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.7904
91878575|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5274||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.5274
91878576|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1059||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.1059
91748096|NCT02226198|183388510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-26.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.7|6.0||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||6.0|-48.7|0.080
91748097|NCT02226198|183388511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-26.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.7|6.0||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||6.0|-48.7|0.080
91748098|NCT02226198|183388522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-30.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-13.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-13.3|-44.2|0.004
91748099|NCT02226198|183388523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-30.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-13.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-13.3|-44.2|0.004
91748100|NCT02226198|183388524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-27.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-11.0||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-11.0|-41.2|0.006
91801192|NCT02663908|183479617|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.012||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.111|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Fear at Day 168||0.111|-0.087|0.8156
91878577|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8871||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.8871
91878578|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6939|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.6939
91878579|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1044||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.1044
91878580|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3132||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.3132
91878581|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6978||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.6978
91878582|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3228||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.3228
91878583|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6432||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.6432
91878584|NCT00141271|183651030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5989||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.5989
91878585|NCT00141271|183651031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8921||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.8921
91878586|NCT00141271|183651031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.435||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.4350
91878587|NCT00141271|183651031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.562||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.5620
91878588|NCT00141271|183651031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6959||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.6959
91878589|NCT00141271|183651031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7865||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7865
91878590|NCT00141271|183651031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7564||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7564
91878591|NCT00141271|183651032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4327||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4327
91878592|NCT00141271|183651032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7041||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7041
91748101|NCT02226198|183388525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-25.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-10.5||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-10.5|-38.1|0.005
91878593|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2076||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.2076
91878594|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7449||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.7449
91748102|NCT02226198|183388526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-28.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-11.4||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-11.4|-41.7|0.005
91748103|NCT02226198|183388527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-20.4||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-5.6||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-5.6|-32.8|0.013
91748104|NCT03895632|183388532|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects model was fit to assess the association between α (the slope of the Power Spectral Density (PSD) plot) and signal segment.|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value obtained form the Wald statistics of the linear mixed-effects model. The threshold for statistical signifiance was p=0.01.|Linear mixed-effects model|||The null hypothesis was that α (the slope of the Power Spectral Density (PSD) plot) is not related to signal segment (off-, approaching- and on-target).||||<0.0001
91748105|NCT04545047|183388537|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.6||||||The investigators estimated the 30-day mortality risk difference comparing patients assigned to each group. Adjustment for covariates would be carried out via inverse probability weighting.||3.60|-2.30|
91748106|NCT04545047|183388537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.62||||||The investigators estimated the 30-day mortality hazard ratio comparing patients assigned to each group. The hazard ratio was estimated from pooled logistic models with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding.||1.62|0.64|
91748107|NCT01288612|183388540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
91748108|NCT01288612|183388540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
91748109|NCT01288612|183388540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
91748110|NCT01288612|183388540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.82
91748111|NCT01288612|183388541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
91748112|NCT01288612|183388542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91748113|NCT01288612|183388543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91748114|NCT01288612|183388544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91748115|NCT01288612|183388545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91748116|NCT01288612|183388546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for pain scale||||<0.001
91748117|NCT01288612|183388546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for choking scale||||<0.001
91748118|NCT01288612|183388546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for gagging scale||||<0.001
91748119|NCT01288612|183388546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for anxiety scale||||<0.001
91748120|NCT01288612|183388546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between arms for overall tolerance scale||||<0.001
91748121|NCT01288612|183388547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91748122|NCT03571672|183388569|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.98||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.868
91748123|NCT03571672|183388569|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.445||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.606
91748124|NCT03571672|183388569|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.212||0.224|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.224
91748125|NCT03571672|183388570|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.682||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.715
91878595|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4399||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.4399
91748126|NCT03571672|183388570|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.526||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.956
91748127|NCT03571672|183388570|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.584||0.771|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.771
91748128|NCT03571672|183388571|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|0.97||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.970|0.944|
91748129|NCT03571672|183388571|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.964||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.964|0.931|
91878596|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7107||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.7107
91878597|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4765||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.4765
91878598|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2564||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.2564
91878599|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8063||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.8063
91878600|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9855||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.9855
91878601|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0599||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0599
91878602|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7364||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.7364
91801193|NCT02663908|183479617|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.051||||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.135|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ Global Score at Day 336||0.135|-0.033|0.2299
91878603|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3048||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 6||||0.3048
91878604|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5139||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 6||||0.5139
91801194|NCT02663908|183479617|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.038||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.136|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Attention at Day 336||0.136|-0.060|0.4440
91801195|NCT02663908|183479617|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.007||||0.9172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.146|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Avoidance at Day 336||0.146|-0.131|0.9172
91801196|NCT02663908|183479617|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.093||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.204|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Fear at Day 336||0.204|-0.019|0.1028
91801197|NCT00502944|183479641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference (%)|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|32.0|||Chi-squared|||HIV test completed among patients randomized||32|27|<0.001
91801198|NCT00502944|183479642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference (%)|44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|47.0|||Chi-squared|||HIV test offered||47|42|<0.001
91801199|NCT00502944|183479643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference (%)|-4.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.0|||Chi-squared|||HIV test accepted among patients offered||-1|-8|0.02
91878605|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9356||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.9356
91878606|NCT00141271|183651033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9428||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.9428
91878607|NCT00141271|183651034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3888||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.3888
91878608|NCT00141271|183651034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3122||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.3122
91878609|NCT00141271|183651034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3323||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.3323
91878610|NCT00141271|183651034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8781||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.8781
91878611|NCT00141271|183651034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9485||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.9485
91878612|NCT00141271|183651034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7331||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7331
91878613|NCT00141271|183651035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4869||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.4869
91878614|NCT00141271|183651035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5813||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.5813
91907506|NCT01476475|183710182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.832|-2.504||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment groups,randomization strata of screening HbA1c(\<8.0, ≥8.0%)\& screening BMI(\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2),country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour PPG value as covariates.A step-down testing procedure used to control type-1 error.If non-inferiority demonstrated for primary endpoint,superiority testing on secondary endpoints was performed sequentially in order endpoints are reported(continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-2.504|-3.832|<0.0001
91907507|NCT01476475|183710183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.895|-2.592||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour plasma glucose excursion value as covariates.||-2.592|-3.895|<0.0001
91878615|NCT00141271|183651035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3303||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.3303
91748130|NCT03571672|183388571|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|0.969||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.969|0.941|
91748131|NCT03571672|183388571|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|0.952||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.952|0.909|
91748132|NCT03571672|183388571|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|0.972||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.972|0.946|
91748133|NCT03571672|183388571|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|0.954||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.954|0.913|
91748134|NCT03571672|183388572|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.992||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.992|0.984|
91748135|NCT03571672|183388572|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|0.99||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.990|0.981|
91748136|NCT03571672|183388572|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|0.971||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.971|0.945|
91748137|NCT03571672|183388572|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.897|0.945||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.945|0.897|
91748138|NCT03571672|183388572|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|0.978||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.978|0.958|
91748139|NCT03571672|183388572|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.934||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.934|0.876|
91748140|NCT03571672|183388572|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.992||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.992|0.984|
91748141|NCT03571672|183388572|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|0.989||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.989|0.979|
91748142|NCT03571672|183388572|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|0.98||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.980|0.962|
91748143|NCT03571672|183388572|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|0.961||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.961|0.927|
91748144|NCT03571672|183388572|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|0.984||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.984|0.969|
91748145|NCT03571672|183388572|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|0.954||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.954|0.914|
91748146|NCT03571672|183388573|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|0.967||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.967|0.909|
91748147|NCT03571672|183388573|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|0.95||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.950|0.864|
91748148|NCT03571672|183388573|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.963||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.963|0.900|
91748149|NCT03571672|183388573|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.935||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.935|0.827|
91748150|NCT03571672|183388573|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.971||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.971|0.920|
91748151|NCT03571672|183388573|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|0.939||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.939|0.838|
91748152|NCT03571672|183388574|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|0.986||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.986|0.961|
91878616|NCT00141271|183651035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1546||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.1546
91878617|NCT00141271|183651035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8982||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.8982
91748153|NCT03571672|183388574|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|0.991||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.991|0.974|
91748154|NCT03571672|183388574|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.960|0.890|
91878618|NCT00141271|183651035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3586||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3586
91748155|NCT03571672|183388574|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.912||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.912|0.770|
91748156|NCT03571672|183388574|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|0.969||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.969|0.914|
91748157|NCT03571672|183388574|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.824|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|0.892||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.892|0.721|
91748158|NCT03571672|183388574|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|0.989||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.989|0.970|
91748159|NCT03571672|183388574|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|0.985||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.985|0.957|
91748160|NCT03571672|183388574|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|0.969||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.969|0.915|
91748161|NCT03571672|183388574|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|0.933||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.933|0.822|
91748162|NCT03571672|183388574|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|0.975||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.975|0.932|
91748163|NCT03571672|183388574|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|0.922||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.922|0.794|
91748164|NCT02019108|183388694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.5|-1.1|0.495
91748165|NCT02019108|183388694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.1|-1.6|0.079
91748166|NCT02019108|183388695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.3|-2.6|0.117
91748167|NCT02019108|183388695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.3|-2.5|0.133
91748168|NCT02019108|183388696|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.04||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks||0.04|-0.31|0.125
91748169|NCT02019108|183388696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.03||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks||0.03|-0.37|0.103
91748170|NCT02019108|183388697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.12||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||-0.12|-0.39|<0.001
91748171|NCT02019108|183388697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.01|-0.40|0.056
91748172|NCT02019108|183388698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||-0.01|-0.11|0.031
91748173|NCT02019108|183388698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.00|-0.12|0.058
91748174|NCT02019108|183388699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|-6.86||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||-6.86|-11.22|<0.001
91878619|NCT00141271|183651036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0896||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.0896
91748175|NCT02019108|183388699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|-4.75||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||-4.75|-8.82|<0.001
91748176|NCT02019108|183388700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.9||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.9|-8.3|0.111
91878620|NCT00141271|183651036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6534||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.6534
91878621|NCT00141271|183651036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.327||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.3270
91878622|NCT00141271|183651036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.4099
91878623|NCT00141271|183651036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6104||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6104
91878624|NCT00141271|183651036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9359||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.9359
91748177|NCT02019108|183388700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.8||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||1.8|-7.3|0.232
91748178|NCT02019108|183388701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.78||a priori threshold for significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.78|-0.36|0.462
91748179|NCT02019108|183388701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.54||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.54|-0.76|0.737
91748180|NCT02019108|183388702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.43|-0.50|0.876
91748181|NCT02019108|183388702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.49||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.49|-0.43|0.897
91748182|NCT02642393|183388709|OTHER||Slope|1.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|3.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.106|-0.594|0.183
91748183|NCT02642393|183388710|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.192|||Poisson Regression|||||1.192|0.979|0.124
91748184|NCT02642393|183388711|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.154||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|1.273|||Poisson Regression|||||1.273|1.046|0.004
91748185|NCT02642393|183388712|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
91748186|NCT02642393|183388713|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.497
91748187|NCT02642393|183388714|OTHER||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|0.685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.685|-0.825|0.856
91748188|NCT02642393|183388715|OTHER||Slope|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|0.521|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.521|-0.368|0.736
91748189|NCT02642393|183388715|OTHER||Slope|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.714|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Function||0.714|-0.124|0.167
91748190|NCT02642393|183388715|OTHER||Slope|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.474|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Communication||0.474|0.038|0.022
91748191|NCT02642393|183388715|OTHER||Slope|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional and Behavioral Dyscontrol||0.435|-0.245|0.584
91748192|NCT02642393|183388715|OTHER||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.541|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||0.541|-0.560|0.973
91748193|NCT02642393|183388715|OTHER||Slope|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lower Extremity Function||0.437|-0.098|0.214
91748194|NCT02642393|183388715|OTHER||Slope|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Affect and Well-Being||0.262|-0.931|0.271
91748195|NCT02642393|183388715|OTHER||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Stigma||0.194|-0.355|0.566
91748196|NCT02642393|183388715|OTHER||Slope|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.487|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Upper Extremity Function||0.487|-0.063|0.130
91748197|NCT02642393|183388715|OTHER||Slope|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|0.468|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance||0.468|-0.325|0.723
91748198|NCT02642393|183388715|OTHER||Slope|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|0.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities||0.579|-0.592|0.984
91748199|NCT02642393|183388715|OTHER||Slope|-0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Participation in Social Roles and Activities||0.371|-0.877|0.426
91748200|NCT02642393|183388716|OTHER||Slope|-0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.171|-0.382|0.454
91748201|NCT02642393|183388717|OTHER||Slope|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.764|0.858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.858|-0.764|0.910
91748202|NCT02642393|183388718|OTHER||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.215|-0.295|0.758
91748203|NCT02642393|183388719|OTHER||Slope|-0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.783|1.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BL to V01||1.367|-1.783|0.796
91878625|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6924||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.6924
91878626|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.0800
91878627|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4238||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4238
91878628|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7714||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.7714
91878629|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8731||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.8731
91878630|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8926||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.8926
91878631|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2072||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.2072
91878632|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1042||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.1042
91878633|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2695||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.2695
91878634|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3245||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.3245
91907508|NCT01476475|183710184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.058||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline average 7-point SMPG value as covariates.||-0.058|-0.550|0.0154
91748204|NCT02642393|183388719|OTHER||Slope|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.443||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.156|4.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|||V10 to SV||4.355|-9.156|0.486
91748205|NCT00396006|183388739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0195
91748206|NCT00396006|183388743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-tests|||||||<0.0001
91748207|NCT00396006|183388744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-tests|||||||<0.0001
91748208|NCT00396006|183388746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1875|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1875
91748209|NCT00396006|183388747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4375|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.4375
91748210|NCT02851797|183388755|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in 4SC at Month 18 with baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|generalised least square mean ratio|0.86|||=|0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.989||LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model on change from baseline in 4SC at Month 18 with baseline values for: the above mentioned parameters as covariates, with steroid use and treatment group as independent classificat factors.|ANCOVA||LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model on change from baseline in 4SC at Month 18 with baseline values for: the above mentioned parameters as covariates, with steroid use and treatment group as independent classificat factors.|Log transformation applied||0.989|0.745|=0.0345
91748211|NCT02851797|183388756|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in time to rise from the Floor at Month 18 with baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 m, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|difference in least square means|-3.28|||=|0.3044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.573|3.018||See comment above|ANCOVA||See comment above|||3.018|-9.573|=0.3044
91801200|NCT01892865|183479647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|44.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in predictive imprecision for the end of the operative day between the two arms||44|3.15|0.024
91878635|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7791||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.7791
91878636|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0999||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.0999
91878637|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9543||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.9543
91878638|NCT00141271|183651037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3153||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.3153
91878639|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2878||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.2878
91748212|NCT02851797|183388757|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in distance walked at the end of the 6-minute walking test (6MWT) at Month 18 with baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|9.96|||=|0.3723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.071|31.983||See comment above|ANCOVA|LS means, CIs, p-values were obtained from analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in distance walked at the end of the 6MWT at Month18.|See comment above|||31.983|-12.071|=0.3723
91748213|NCT02851797|183388758|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in total NSAA score at Month 18 with baseline values for: total NSAA score, 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|1.91|||=|0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|3.533||Same comment as above|ANCOVA||Same comment as above.|||3.533|0.295|=0.0209
91748214|NCT02851797|183388759|SUPERIORITY|Estimated cumulative failures, ratio of cumulative failures, CIs, and p-values are obtained from a negative binomial regression on the subject cumulative number of failures across all post-baseline visits. Total failed items at baseline, baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose were included as independent covariates, with treatment group and steroid use included as indep classification factors.|Ratio of cumulative failures|0.61|||=|0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.927||same comment as above|negative binomial regression model|Estimated cumulative failures, their ratio were obtained from a negative binomial regression on the cumulative N of failures across all visits.|"A lower ratio indicates a greater reduction in cumulative loss of function across 18 months for givinostat compared with placebo.~See also comment above."|||0.927|0.408|=0.0202
91748215|NCT02851797|183388760|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in normalised muscle strength at Month 18 with baseline normalised muscle strength and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|0.19|||=|0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.401||same comment as above|ANCOVA||same comment as above|Overall knee extension||0.401|-0.030|=0.0902
91748216|NCT02851797|183388760|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in normalised muscle strength at Month 18 with baseline normalised muscle strength and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|0.09|||=|0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.213||same comment as above|ANCOVA||same comment as above|Overall elbow flexion||0.213|-0.041|=0.1818
91748217|NCT02851797|183388761|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in VL MFF at Month 18 with baseline VL MFF and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|-2.92|||=|0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.641|-0.204||Same comment as above|ANCOVA||Same comment as above|||-0.204|-5.641|=0.0354
91748218|NCT03077438|183388764|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.0||||||Serogroup A||14|1.1|
91748219|NCT03077438|183388764|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|52.2||||||Serogroup C||52.2|42.2|
91748220|NCT03077438|183388764|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|16.7||||||Serogroup Y||16.7|7.7|
91748221|NCT03077438|183388764|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|20.5||||||Serogroup W||20.5|8.9|
91748222|NCT03077438|183388765|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32||||||Serogroup A||1.32|0.91|
91748223|NCT03077438|183388765|OTHER||GMT Ratio|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|17.3||||||Serogroup C||17.3|11.3|
91748224|NCT03077438|183388765|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.9||||||Serogroup Y||1.9|1.31|
91748225|NCT03077438|183388765|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.69||||||Serogroup W||1.69|1.21|
91748226|NCT03077438|183388766|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.47||||||Serogroup A||1.47|0.883|
91748227|NCT03077438|183388766|OTHER||GMT Ratio|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|22.6||||||Serogroup C||22.6|13.4|
91748228|NCT03077438|183388766|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.78||||||Serogroup Y||1.78|1.07|
91748229|NCT03077438|183388766|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.83||||||Serogroup W||1.83|1.12|
91748230|NCT03077438|183388767|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.38||||||Serogroup A||1.38|0.816|
91748231|NCT03077438|183388767|OTHER||GMT Ratio|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.24|16.0||||||Serogroup C||16|8.24|
91748232|NCT03077438|183388767|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.38||||||Serogroup Y||2.38|1.41|
91748233|NCT03077438|183388767|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.82||||||Serogroup W||1.82|1.16|
91748234|NCT03077438|183388768|OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.7||||||Serogroup A||16.7|-1.6|
91878640|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4481||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.4481
91878641|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4099
91878642|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5093||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value.||Week 2||||0.5093
91878643|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8048||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value.||Week 3||||0.8048
91878644|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0552||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.0552
91878645|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9795||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.9795
91907509|NCT01476475|183710185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.773||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariates.||-0.773|-2.110|<0.0001
91878646|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5073||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.5073
91878647|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4882||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.4882
91878648|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3967||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.3967
91878649|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8276||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.8276
91907510|NCT01476475|183710186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.704||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.592|0.114||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects.||0.114|-6.592|0.0583
91748235|NCT03077438|183388768|OTHER||Percentage Difference|51.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|57.8||||||Serogroup C||57.8|43.5|
91878650|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8502||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.8502
91878651|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6343||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.6343
91878652|NCT00141271|183651038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3082||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.3082
91878653|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6932||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.6932
91878654|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0287||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.0287
91878655|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2128||95.0||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.2128
91878656|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1118||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.1118
91748236|NCT03077438|183388768|OTHER||Percentage Difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.1||||||Serogroup Y||18.1|4.2|
91748237|NCT03077438|183388768|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|20.9||||||Serogroup W||20.9|3.9|
91878657|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6144||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.6144
91878658|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0899||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.0899
91907511|NCT00676676|183710206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2-week||||0.002
91907512|NCT00676676|183710206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 8-week||||0.004
91907513|NCT01918007|183710207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3|||Chi-squared|||||3.3|0.5|0.54
91748238|NCT03077438|183388769|OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|16.6||||||Serogroup A||16.6|-1.3|
91748239|NCT03077438|183388769|OTHER||Percentage Difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|50.6||||||Serogroup C||50.6|36.8|
91748240|NCT03077438|183388769|OTHER||Percentage Difference|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|19.2||||||Serogroup Y||19.2|7.6|
91801201|NCT01892865|183479647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34|||Poisson regression|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in throughput between the two arms||1.34|1.01|0.04
91801202|NCT01892865|183479648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34|||Poisson Regression|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in throughput between the two scheduling methods||1.34|1.01|0.04
91878659|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8819||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.8819
91878660|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8374||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.8374
91907514|NCT01918007|183710208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|68.4|||Chi-squared|||||68.4|2.9|<0.001
91748241|NCT03077438|183388769|OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|24.7||||||Serogroup W||24.7|9.4|
91748242|NCT03622112|183388776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.054|-0.126|0.437
91748243|NCT03622112|183388776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.035|-0.143|0.236
91748244|NCT03622112|183388776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.128|-0.050|0.389
91748245|NCT03622112|183388776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.165|-0.013|0.094
91748246|NCT03622112|183388776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.167|-0.003|0.060
91748247|NCT03622112|183388776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.199|0.023|0.014
91748248|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.105|-0.048|0.463
91801203|NCT01892865|183479649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in personnel satisfaction between the groups||||0.04
91801204|NCT01892865|183479650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the adverse event rates between the two scheduling methodologies||||0.44
91878661|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3925||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.3925
91878662|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4182||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.4182
91878663|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8586||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.8586
91907515|NCT01918007|183710209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.27|-0.35|<0.001
91907516|NCT01918007|183710210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91907517|NCT01918007|183710211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.90|-3.63|<0.001
91907518|NCT01918007|183710212|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.89|||Chi-squared|||||1.89|0.71|0.553
91907519|NCT01918007|183710213|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.27|||Chi-squared|||||3.27|0.98|0.057
91907520|NCT01918007|183710214|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.29||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.25|||Chi-squared|||||6.25|0.84|0.084
91907521|NCT01918007|183710215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.547
91907522|NCT01918007|183710216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
91907523|NCT01918007|183710217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.208
91907524|NCT01918007|183710218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
91907525|NCT01918007|183710219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
91907526|NCT01372384|183710225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Stable Disease Vs Partial Response at Visit 4 (Two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response was analyzed.||||0.045
91878664|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.549||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.5490
91878665|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6292||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.6292
91878666|NCT00141271|183651039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1473||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.1473
91878667|NCT00141271|183651040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2058||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.2058
91878668|NCT00141271|183651040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9254||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.9254
91878669|NCT00141271|183651040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5071||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.5071
91878670|NCT00141271|183651040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2858||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.2858
91878671|NCT00141271|183651040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6298||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6298
91878672|NCT00141271|183651040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6034||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6034
91878673|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1454||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.1454
91907527|NCT01372384|183710225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Stable Disease Vs Partial Response at Visit 6 (Two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response was analyzed||||1.000
91878674|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2672||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 1||||0.2672
91878675|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2614||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 2||||0.2614
91878676|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2143||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.2143
91878677|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6997||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.6997
91748249|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.098|-0.055|0.576
91748250|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.154|0.001|0.047
91878678|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0128||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.0128
91878679|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1144||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.1144
91748251|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.179|0.025|0.009
91748252|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.178|0.031|0.006
91748253|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.194|0.041|0.003
91878680|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1483||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.1483
91878681|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0674||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0674
91878682|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.2900
91907528|NCT01372384|183710225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease at Visit 6 (Two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease was analyzed||||1.000
91748254|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.103|-0.068|0.685
91878683|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5482||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.5482
91878684|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0303||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.0303
91878685|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6143||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.6143
91878686|NCT00141271|183651041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3385||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.3385
91878687|NCT00141271|183651042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3299||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3299
91878688|NCT00141271|183651042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1915||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1915
91878689|NCT00141271|183651043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5407||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5407
91878690|NCT00141271|183651043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6079||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6079
91878691|NCT00141271|183651044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8464||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8464
91878692|NCT00141271|183651044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4023||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.4023
91878693|NCT00141271|183651044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.287||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.2870
91878694|NCT00141271|183651044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2537||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.2537
91878695|NCT00141271|183651044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7909||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7909
91878696|NCT00141271|183651044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3308||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3308
91878697|NCT00141271|183651045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3355||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.3355
91748255|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.144|-0.026|0.176
91748256|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.183|0.013|0.024
91748257|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.191|0.021|0.014
91748258|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.196|0.032|0.006
91748259|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.249|0.081|< 0.001
91878698|NCT00141271|183651045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8447||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8447
91878699|NCT00141271|183651045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8959||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.8959
91748260|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.106|-0.072|0.707
91801205|NCT03320057|183479674|OTHER|We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses using Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models to assess whether study implementation was associated with pharmacists' overall medication abortion knowledge. Multivariable GEE analyses included time period (baseline and endline) as the primary independent variable, adjusted for gender and years of experience, and accounted for clustering by pharmacy site and individual pharmacist.|Beta Coefficient|0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.17|||Regression, Linear||Coefficients in adjusted analyses examining overall medication abortion knowledge represent the difference in mean knowledge scores between baseline and endline.|Medication abortion knowledge scores were based on a set of 15 items. We first assessed the internal consistency reliability of the 15 knowledge items and considered a Cronbach's alpha coefficient above .70 to be acceptable to examine the items as a combined score.||0.17|0.11|<0.05
91801206|NCT06956170|183479675|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.78|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using an unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment arm as an explanatory variable.|||2.78|0.10|
91878700|NCT00141271|183651045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4826||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.4826
91878701|NCT00141271|183651045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4178||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4178
91878702|NCT00141271|183651045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8277||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.8277
91878703|NCT00141271|183651046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7758||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.7758
91878704|NCT00141271|183651046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8737||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8737
91748261|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.094|-0.083|0.904
91878705|NCT00141271|183651046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1151||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.1151
91801207|NCT02280304|183479735|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold = voxel p\<.001, cluster p\<.05, FDR whole brain correction. There is no correction for multiple seeds given small sample sizes and pre-post design. To report NS p-values and associated z-scores, uncorrected cluster ps were queried.|t-test, 1 sided|||Z-scores represent Fisher transformed correlation coefficients representing the correlations between hypothesized regions. Positive values represents positive connectivity between regions. Negative values represent anticorrelations, or negative relations, between hypothesized regions.||||>0.05
91878706|NCT00141271|183651046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.129||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.1290
91801208|NCT02280304|183479736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91878707|NCT00141271|183651046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4432||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4432
91878708|NCT00141271|183651046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2988||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2988
91878709|NCT00141271|183651047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8598||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8598
91878710|NCT00141271|183651047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6513||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.6513
91878711|NCT00141271|183651047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6272||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.6272
91878712|NCT00141271|183651047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6467||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.6467
91748262|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.157|-0.018|0.121
91748263|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.188|0.012|0.026
91748264|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.224|0.055|0.001
91748265|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.209|0.035|0.006
91748266|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.081|-0.068|0.856
91748267|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.082|-0.066|0.832
91748268|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.145|-0.003|0.060
91878713|NCT00141271|183651047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8049||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.8049
91878714|NCT00141271|183651047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9411||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.9411
91878715|NCT00141271|183651048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.926||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.9260
91878716|NCT00141271|183651048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7100
91878717|NCT00141271|183651049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1836||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1836
91748269|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.096||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.170|0.022|0.011
91748270|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.181|0.039|0.003
91801209|NCT02280304|183479736|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d reflects Extent of Participation subscale of the CRIS, Post - Pre|||||
91801210|NCT02280304|183479736|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91801211|NCT02280304|183479736|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d reflects Extent of Participation Scale of the Cris pre- post|||||
91801212|NCT02280304|183479736|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91878718|NCT00141271|183651049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1374||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1374
91748271|NCT03622112|183388777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.202|0.055|<0.001
91748272|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.936||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||1.067|0.822|0.322
91748273|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.876||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.999|0.768|0.047
91801213|NCT02280304|183479736|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohens d reflects the Cris pre post Perceived Limitations scale|||||
91801214|NCT02280304|183479736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91801215|NCT02280304|183479736|OTHER||Cohens d|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91801216|NCT02280304|183479736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91801217|NCT02280304|183479736|OTHER||Cohens d|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91801218|NCT02280304|183479736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91801219|NCT02280304|183479736|OTHER||Cohens d|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91801220|NCT02280304|183479737|OTHER||Cohens d|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size (Cohen's d=.20 small, Cohen's d=.50 medium, Cohen's d=.80 large)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
91748274|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.842||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.959|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.959|0.739|0.010
91748275|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.825||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|0.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.941|0.724|0.004
91748276|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.779|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.779|0.606|<0.001
91748277|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.719|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.719|0.553|<0.001
91748278|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.931||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.076|0.805|0.329
91801221|NCT02280304|183479737|OTHER||Cohens d|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size (Cohen's d=.20 small, Cohen's d=.50 medium, Cohen's d=.80 large)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
91801222|NCT02280304|183479738|OTHER||Cohens d|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size change (Cohen's d =0.20 is a small effect; Cohen's d=0.50 is a medium effect; Cohen's d=0.80 is a large effect.)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
91801223|NCT02280304|183479738|OTHER||Cohens d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size (Cohen's d =0.20 is a small effect; Cohen's d=0.50 is a medium effect; Cohen's d=0.80 is a large effect.)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
91801224|NCT02280304|183479739|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0099||||||The p-value obtained for the L PHG seed/L IPL cluster is 0.0099. The critical p-value after Bonferroni correction for multiple seeds is p=.008.|t-test, 2 sided|Significance is determined when clusters reach voxel threshold p\<.001, cluster p\<.05 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across the whole brain.||||||<.0099
91878719|NCT00141271|183651050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9237||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.9237
91878720|NCT00141271|183651050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3786||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3786
91748279|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.911||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.052|0.789|0.203
91748280|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.923||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.065|0.800|0.273
91748281|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.846||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|0.977|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.977|0.734|0.023
91748282|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.742|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|0.852|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.852|0.646|<0.001
91748283|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.810|0.609|<0.001
91748284|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.917||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.074|0.783|0.283
91748285|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.933||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.092|0.797|0.386
91748286|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.886||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.035|0.758|0.126
91748287|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.855||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.000|0.731|0.050
91748288|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.723|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.840|0.623|<0.001
91748289|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.642|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.749|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.749|0.550|<0.001
91748290|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.927||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.090|0.789|0.359
91748291|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.953||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.118|0.813|0.556
91748292|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.869||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.019|0.742|0.084
91748293|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.813||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.953|0.693|0.011
91748294|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.757|0.559|<0.001
91748295|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.623|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.729|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.729|0.533|<0.001
91748296|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.928||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||1.049|0.821|0.231
91748297|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.918||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||1.037|0.812|0.170
91748298|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.879||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.994|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.994|0.778|0.039
91748299|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.835||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.943|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.943|0.739|0.004
91748300|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.787|0.622|<0.001
91748301|NCT03622112|183388778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.649|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.732|0.575|<0.001
91748302|NCT03622112|183388779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.070|-0.139|0.519
91748303|NCT03622112|183388779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.026|-0.181|0.141
91748304|NCT03622112|183388779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.119|-0.088|0.772
91748305|NCT03622112|183388779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.162|-0.045|0.270
91748306|NCT03622112|183388779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.126|-0.072|0.592
91748307|NCT03622112|183388779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.158|-0.045|0.275
91748308|NCT03622112|183388779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.083|-0.087|0.963
91748309|NCT03622112|183388779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.058|-0.112|0.533
91748310|NCT03622112|183388779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.126|-0.044|0.342
91748311|NCT03622112|183388779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.165|-0.004|0.061
91748312|NCT03622112|183388779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.127|-0.037|0.278
91748313|NCT03622112|183388779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.159|-0.009|0.079
91748314|NCT03622112|183388780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.023|-0.328|0.088
91748315|NCT03622112|183388780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.257||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.084|-0.430|0.004
91748316|NCT03622112|183388780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.221||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|-0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.049|-0.393|0.012
91748317|NCT03622112|183388780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.020|-0.366|0.029
91748318|NCT03622112|183388780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.269||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|-0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.104|-0.434|0.001
91748319|NCT03622112|183388780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|-0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.054|-0.393|0.010
91748320|NCT03622112|183388780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.125||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.003|-0.253|0.055
91748321|NCT03622112|183388780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.014|-0.268|0.029
91748322|NCT03622112|183388780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.003|-0.257|0.044
91748323|NCT03622112|183388780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|-0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.074|-0.328|0.002
91748324|NCT03622112|183388780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|-0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.094|-0.339|<0.001
91748325|NCT03622112|183388780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.053|-0.305|0.005
91748326|NCT03622112|183388781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.664||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.403|16.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||16.730|-1.403|0.097
91748327|NCT03622112|183388781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.981||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|14.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||14.941|-2.980|0.190
91748328|NCT03622112|183388781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.123||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|18.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.052|0.195|0.045
91748329|NCT03622112|183388781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.443|24.445|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||24.445|6.443|<0.001
91748330|NCT03622112|183388781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.031|25.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||25.167|8.031|<0.001
91748331|NCT03622112|183388781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.491||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.726|19.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||19.256|1.726|0.019
91748332|NCT03622112|183388782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.398||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.494|11.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||11.290|-6.494|0.597
91748333|NCT03622112|183388782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.162||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.623|10.948|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||10.948|-6.623|0.629
91748334|NCT03622112|183388782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.833||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.907|12.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||12.573|-4.907|0.389
91748335|NCT03622112|183388782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.258||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.456|19.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||19.059|1.456|0.022
91748336|NCT03622112|183388782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.994||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.571|20.417|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||20.417|3.571|0.005
91748337|NCT03622112|183388782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.129||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.479|14.737|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||14.737|-2.479|0.163
91748338|NCT03622112|183388783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.243||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|-0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.054|-0.431|0.012
91748339|NCT03622112|183388783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.034|-0.344|0.108
91748340|NCT03622112|183388783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.087|-0.286|0.295
91748341|NCT03622112|183388783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.308||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.116|-0.500|0.002
91748342|NCT03622112|183388783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.308|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|-0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.126|-0.489|<0.001
91748343|NCT03622112|183388783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.009|-0.362|0.062
91748344|NCT03622112|183388784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.993|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.795|-4.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-4.191|-15.795|<0.001
91748345|NCT03622112|183388784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.972||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.694|-2.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-2.251|-13.694|0.006
91748346|NCT03622112|183388784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.361||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.051|1.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||1.329|-10.051|0.133
91748347|NCT03622112|183388784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.797||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.555|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-2.040|-13.555|0.008
91748348|NCT03622112|183388784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.729||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.195|-3.264|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-3.264|-14.195|0.002
91748349|NCT03622112|183388784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.622|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.211|-6.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-6.034|-17.211|<0.001
91748350|NCT03622112|183388785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.212|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.094|-0.329|<0.001
91748351|NCT03622112|183388785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.007|-0.228|0.066
91748352|NCT03622112|183388785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|-0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.022|-0.255|0.020
91748353|NCT03622112|183388785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.110|-0.350|<0.001
91748354|NCT03622112|183388785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.185||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.298|-0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.071|-0.298|0.001
91748355|NCT03622112|183388785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.090|-0.321|<0.001
91748356|NCT03622112|183388786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.611||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|18.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.042|1.180|0.026
91801225|NCT02280304|183479739|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||The p-value obtained for the L anterior PGH seed/left VMPC cluster is 0.02. The critical p-value after Bonferroni correction for six seeds is p=.008.|t-test, 2 sided|Significance is determined when clusters reach voxel threshold p\<.001, cluster p\<.05 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across the whole brain.||||||<0.02
91801226|NCT02280304|183479740|OTHER||Slope|0.02|||<|3.8e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||Cluster in MPFC p\<0.000038 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across whole brain. Bonferroni correction for multiple seeds p=0.008.|Regression, Linear|Significance is determined when voxel (height) threshold p=.001, cluster threshold p=.05, FDR corrected for multiple tests across the whole brain.||The extent of community participation prior to therapy was correlated with the functional connectivity of the right hippocampus seed after therapy (post-pre).||||<.000038
91801227|NCT02280304|183479740|OTHER||Slope|0.02|||<|0.000149|TWO_SIDED|||||Cluster in the right cerebellum (crus 2) p\<0.000149 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across the whole brain. Bonferroni for multiple seeds p=0.008.|Regression, Linear|Significance is determined when voxel (height) threshold p=.001, cluster threshold p=.05, FDR corrected for multiple tests across the whole brain.||The extent of community participation prior to therapy was correlated with the functional connectivity of the right hippocampus seed after therapy (post-pre).||||<0.000149
91801228|NCT01935791|183479751|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|ANOVA|plus Tukey test||||||<0.01
91878721|NCT00141271|183651051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4624||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4624
91878722|NCT00141271|183651051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5971|||||||ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5971
91878723|NCT00141271|183651052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1378||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1378
91801229|NCT01935791|183479752|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|plus Tukey test||||||<0.001
91801230|NCT05047770|183479789|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted GMC ratio between HZ/suSeq group and HZ/suCoAd group for anti-gE antibody concentration was below (\<) 1.5.|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 2 doses of HZ/su vaccine when the first dose of HZ/su vaccine was co-administered with the mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to HZ/su vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-gE GMCs, at 1 month post-dose 2 of HZ/su vaccine administration (Week 14 for HZ/suSeq group and Week 12 for HZ/suCoAd group).||1.13|0.89|
91878724|NCT00141271|183651052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7665||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7665
91878725|NCT00141271|183651053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4767||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.4767
91878726|NCT00141271|183651053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2066||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.2066
91878727|NCT00141271|183651054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1667||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1667
91878728|NCT00141271|183651054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6727||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6727
91878729|NCT00141271|183651055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7019||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7019
91878730|NCT00141271|183651055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1020
91748357|NCT03622112|183388786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.503||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.927|13.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||13.933|-2.927|0.200
91878731|NCT00141271|183651056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4749||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4749
91878732|NCT00141271|183651056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4491||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4491
91748358|NCT03622112|183388786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.787||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.546|15.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||15.119|-1.546|0.110
91748359|NCT03622112|183388786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.066||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|18.672|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.672|1.461|0.022
91748360|NCT03622112|183388786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.62||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|16.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||16.750|0.489|0.038
91878733|NCT00141271|183651057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4398||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4398
91878734|NCT00141271|183651057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3331||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3331
91878735|NCT00141271|183651058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2763||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2763
91878736|NCT00141271|183651058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2048||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2048
91878737|NCT00141271|183651059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.434||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4340
91878738|NCT00141271|183651059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7774||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.7774
91878739|NCT00141271|183651060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5195||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.5195
91878740|NCT00141271|183651060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0153||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.0153
91878741|NCT00141271|183651061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2847||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.2847
91878742|NCT00141271|183651061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1958||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1958
91878743|NCT00141271|183651062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1652||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1652
91878744|NCT00141271|183651062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5997||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5997
91878745|NCT00141271|183651063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0082||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.0082
91878746|NCT00141271|183651063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7037||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7037
91878747|NCT00141271|183651064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2718||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2718
91878748|NCT00141271|183651064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7077||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7077
91878749|NCT00141271|183651065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5057||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5057
91878750|NCT00141271|183651065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3654||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3654
91878751|NCT00141271|183651066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6227||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6227
91878752|NCT00141271|183651066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7737||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7737
91878753|NCT00390806|183651067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07||p-value from a stratified log-rank test is adjusted for Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA) class and the number of brain lesions at Screening.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is estimated using a Pike estimator. The hazard ratio from a stratified log-rank test is adjusted for RPA class and the number of brain lesions at Screening.|||1.07|0.73|0.1862
91878754|NCT04783519|183651103|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.127|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||-0.127|-0.650|.004
91748361|NCT03622112|183388786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.178||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.112|15.467|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||15.467|-1.112|0.090
91878755|NCT04783519|183651103|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.21||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.482|0.054|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||.054|-.482|.118
91748362|NCT03622112|183388787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.936||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|18.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.031|-2.160|0.123
91748363|NCT03622112|183388787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.977||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.112|11.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||11.065|-9.112|0.849
91748364|NCT03622112|183388787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.242||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.233|8.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||8.748|-11.233|0.807
91748365|NCT03622112|183388787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.789||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.488|22.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||22.090|1.488|0.025
91748366|NCT03622112|183388787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.574||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|17.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||17.307|-2.160|0.127
91748367|NCT03622112|183388787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.058||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.874|14.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||14.990|-4.874|0.318
91748368|NCT03622112|183388788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.046|18.855|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.855|2.046|0.015
91748369|NCT03622112|183388788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.192||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.208|15.592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||15.592|-1.208|0.093
91748370|NCT03622112|183388788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.606||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|16.913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||16.913|0.298|0.042
91748371|NCT03622112|183388788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.344||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.773|19.914|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||19.914|2.773|0.010
91748372|NCT03622112|183388788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.122||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.021|18.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.222|2.021|0.014
91748373|NCT03622112|183388788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.689||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.424|18.953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.953|2.424|0.011
91748374|NCT03622112|183388799|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|1.01||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|1.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.199|0.851|0.909
91748375|NCT03622112|183388799|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|1.118||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.336|0.935|0.218
91748376|NCT03622112|183388799|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|1.129||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.349|0.944|0.181
91748377|NCT03622112|183388799|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|0.984||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|1.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.174|0.825|0.859
91748378|NCT03622112|183388799|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|0.916||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.077|0.780|0.285
91748379|NCT03622112|183388799|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|0.991||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.182|0.831|0.923
91748380|NCT02075047|183388818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) mean|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-1.32|-7.14|0.005
91748381|NCT02075047|183388819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.69|<0.001
91748382|NCT02075047|183388819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.10|-0.53|0.174
91748383|NCT02075047|183388819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.71|0.024
91748384|NCT02075047|183388819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.09|-0.64|0.138
91748385|NCT02075047|183388820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.16|-3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-3.54|-8.16|<0.001
91748386|NCT02075047|183388820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-1.59|-6.74|0.002
91878756|NCT04783519|183651103|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.41||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|-0.142|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||-0.142|-0.674|.003
91878757|NCT04783519|183651103|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-0.16||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|0.107|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.107|-0.428|.240
91878758|NCT04783519|183651104|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-4.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.65|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||-1.65|-8.10|.003
91878759|NCT04783519|183651104|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-1.71||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|1.57|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||"Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.~Score on measure (T-score method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261577/)"||1.57|-4.98|.308
91878760|NCT04783519|183651104|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-4.52||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.25|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||"Changes from Baseline to 3 Month for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.~Score on measure (T-score method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261577/)"||-1.25|-7.8|.007
91748387|NCT02075047|183388820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-3.04|-8.21|<0.001
91878761|NCT04783519|183651104|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.83||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.46|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section. Score on measure (T-score method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261577/ )||2.46|-4.12|.621
91878762|NCT04783519|183651105|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.802||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.003|0.641|.054
91878763|NCT04783519|183651105|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.75||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.946|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.946|0.600|.015
91878764|NCT04783519|183651105|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.736||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|0.937|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.937|0.578|.013
91878765|NCT04783519|183651105|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.658||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.844|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.844|0.513|.001
91878766|NCT04783519|183651106|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.992||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.374|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.374|0.716|.960
91878767|NCT04783519|183651106|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.782||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.094|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.094|0.506|.152
91878768|NCT04783519|183651106|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.887||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|1.24|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.240|0.634|.482
91878769|NCT04783519|183651106|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.67||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|1.24|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.240|0.634|.020
91878770|NCT04783519|183651107|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.724||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.973|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.973|0.540|.032
91889230|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 12F||1.6|-2.9|
91748388|NCT02075047|183388821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.78|0.001
91748389|NCT02075047|183388821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||0.16|-0.45|0.349
91748390|NCT02075047|183388821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||0.05|-0.57|0.103
91748391|NCT02075047|183388821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.68|0.044
91748392|NCT02075047|183388835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.20|0.00|0.050
91748393|NCT02075047|183388835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.25|-0.03|0.124
91748394|NCT02075047|183388835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.23|-0.01|0.084
91748395|NCT02075047|183388835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.20|-0.02|0.104
91748396|NCT02075047|183388836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.01|-0.06|0.169
91748397|NCT02075047|183388836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.08|-0.10|0.893
91748398|NCT02075047|183388836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.04|-0.04|0.915
91748399|NCT02075047|183388836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.04|-0.01|0.289
91748400|NCT02075047|183388837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.06|-0.01|0.145
91748401|NCT02075047|183388837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.07|-0.01|0.148
91748402|NCT02075047|183388837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.15|-0.01|0.082
91748403|NCT02075047|183388837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.09|-0.00|0.070
91748404|NCT01155466|183388838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||"The estimated parameter is the difference in the estimated mean change from baseline in mean off time for preladenant 10 mg - placebo."|||0.53|-0.62|0.8700
91878771|NCT04783519|183651107|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.588|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.8|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.800|0.432|<.001
91878772|NCT04783519|183651108|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.699||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.914|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.914|0.535|.009
91878773|NCT04783519|183651108|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.675||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.888|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.888|0.512|.005
91878774|NCT04783519|183651108|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.698||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|0.928|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.928|0.526|.013
91878775|NCT04783519|183651108|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.525|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|0.715|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.715|0.385|<.001
91748405|NCT01155466|183388840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with diastolic blood pressure \>=105 mm Hg for preladenant 2 mg - placebo|||1.6|-7.3|0.899
91878776|NCT04783519|183651109|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.598||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|0.885|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.885|0.404|.010
91748406|NCT01155466|183388840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with diastolic blood pressure \>=105 mm Hg for preladenant 5 mg - placebo|||2.6|-6.8|0.815
91878777|NCT04783519|183651109|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.502||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.76|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.760|0.331|.001
91878778|NCT04783519|183651109|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.516||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.79|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.790|0.337|.002
91878779|NCT04783519|183651109|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.506||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.774|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.774|0.330|.002
91878780|NCT04783519|183651110|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.628||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|0.853|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.853|0.462|.003
91878781|NCT04783519|183651110|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.744||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|1.028|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.028|0.538|.073
91878782|NCT04783519|183651110|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.764||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.043|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.043|0.559|.090
91878783|NCT04783519|183651110|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.656||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.916|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.916|0.469|.013
91748407|NCT01155466|183388840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with diastolic blood pressure \>=105 mm Hg for preladenant 10 mg - placebo|||6.9|-3.9|0.295
91748408|NCT01155466|183388843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with suicidality for preladenant 2 mg - placebo|||3.7|-5.1|0.629
91748409|NCT01155466|183388843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with suicidality for preladenant 5 mg - placebo|||3.7|-5.1|0.625
91748410|NCT01155466|183388843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with suicidality for preladenant 10 mg - placebo|||0.7|-6.8|0.948
91748411|NCT01155466|183388844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||The estimated parameter is the difference in the change from baseline in mean ESS score for preladenant 2 mg - placebo|||0.90|-0.61|0.7044
91748412|NCT01155466|183388844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.14|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||The estimated parameter is the difference in the change from baseline in mean ESS score for preladenant 5 mg - placebo|||1.14|-0.4|0.3439
91748413|NCT01155466|183388844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.3941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.08|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||The estimated parameter is the difference in the change from baseline in mean ESS score for preladenant 10 mg - placebo|||1.08|-0.43|0.3941
91748414|NCT01155466|183388845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.994||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Odds ratio was calculated for all randomized and treated participants with at least 1 post treatment value.|"Confidence intervals and P-values were based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline average off time as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect."|||1.657|0.597|0.983
91748415|NCT01155466|183388846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||"The estimated parameter is the difference in the estimated change from baseline in on time without troublesome dyskinesias for preladenant 10 mg - placebo."|||0.80|-0.49|0.6405
91748416|NCT00075946|183388847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.88|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Rituximab Retreatment Arm/Rituximab Scheduled Arm in follicular patients.|The primary analysis is to compare the time to rituximab failure (TTRF) between the retreatment arm and the scheduled arm in follicular patients.||1.88|0.90|0.33
91748417|NCT00075946|183388847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.75||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|6.19|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Rituximab Retreatment Arm/Rituximab Scheduled Arm in non-follicular patients.|||6.19|1.22|0.012
91748418|NCT00075946|183388848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|7.13|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Rituximab Retreatment Arm/Rituximab Scheduled Arm in follicular patients.|||7.13|1.45|0.002
91748419|NCT00075946|183388848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0002
91748420|NCT00075946|183388849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.270
91748421|NCT03552536|183388852|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. Least squares (LS) mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.6|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8583 and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was 64%.|||||
91748422|NCT03639623|183388871|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.053
91748423|NCT03639623|183388872|OTHER|||||||0.958|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.958
91748424|NCT03639623|183388873|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.011
91748425|NCT03639623|183388874|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.454
91748426|NCT03639623|183388875|OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.154
91748427|NCT03639623|183388876|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: ALT||||0.125
91748428|NCT03639623|183388876|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: AST||||0.375
91748429|NCT03639623|183388876|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: ALP||||<0.001
91748430|NCT03639623|183388877|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.054
91748431|NCT03639623|183388878|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome variable: Total Cholesterol||||0.378
91748432|NCT03639623|183388878|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Triglyceride||||0.010
91748433|NCT03639623|183388878|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Non-HDL-C||||0.264
91748434|NCT03639623|183388878|OTHER|||||||0.954|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: HDL-C||||0.954
91748435|NCT03639623|183388878|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: HDL-C Subclass 2||||0.127
91748436|NCT03639623|183388878|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: HDL-C Subclass 3||||0.029
91748437|NCT03639623|183388878|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome variable: LDL-C||||0.630
91748438|NCT03639623|183388878|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: VLDL-C||||0.010
91748439|NCT03639623|183388878|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: VLDL concentration||||0.160
91748440|NCT03639623|183388878|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||paired t-test|||Small dense LDL-C||||0.020
91748441|NCT03639623|183388879|OTHER|||||||0.529|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.529
91748442|NCT03639623|183388880|OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: LDL Size||||0.403
91748443|NCT03639623|183388881|OTHER|||||||0.669|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.669
91748444|NCT03639623|183388882|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: VLDL chylomicron particles||||0.021
91748445|NCT03639623|183388882|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Large VLDL chylomicron particles||||0.011
91748446|NCT03639623|183388882|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Medium VLDL particles||||0.060
91748447|NCT03639623|183388882|OTHER|||||||0.324|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Small VLDL particles||||0.324
91748448|NCT03639623|183388883|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.010
91748449|NCT03639623|183388884|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.249
91748450|NCT03639623|183388885|OTHER|||||||0.0193|||||||paired t-test|||Time to peak RQ||||0.0193
91748451|NCT03639623|183388886|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Physical component score||||0.960
91878784|NCT04783519|183651111|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.753||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.041|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controls for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.041|0.546|.087
91748452|NCT03639623|183388886|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Mental component score||||0.249
91878785|NCT04783519|183651111|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.739||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.034|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controls for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.034|0.528|.078
91748453|NCT01229254|183388904|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval was within the pre-specified bounds of \[0.66, 1.50\], the hypothesis of similarity between lower weight and higher weight groups was supported.|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|0.748|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.591|0.948||||||Compared to Betrixaban 90 mg (≥80 kg)||0.948|0.591|
91748454|NCT01191736|183388908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Null hypothesis: the medians for all seven arms are equal.||Kruskal-Wallis test for multiple comparisons||||.05
91748455|NCT01191736|183388909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Null hypothesis: the proportions within the seven arms are equal.||Comparison of proportions of subjects who assessed responsiveness||||.05
91878786|NCT04783519|183651111|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.773||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|1.05|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.050|0.569|.099
91878787|NCT04783519|183651111|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.704||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.969|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controls for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.969|0.512|.031
91878788|NCT01231464|183651128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.498|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.897|-1.009|||ANCOVA||Besides treatment, the ANCOVA analysis also adjusted for baseline, center, gender, age, and classification of AR (Intermittent Allergic Rhinitis \[IAR\] or Persistent Allergic Rhinitis \[PER\]).|||-1.009|-1.897|<0.0001
91878789|NCT00843115|183651200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5.||||<0.0001
91748456|NCT03119181|183388912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||one-sided permutation test|||one-sided permutation test at 2.5% significance||||0.0097
91878790|NCT00843115|183651201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5.||||<0.0001
91878791|NCT00843115|183651202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878792|NCT00843115|183651203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878793|NCT00843115|183651204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878794|NCT00843115|183651205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878795|NCT00843115|183651206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878796|NCT00843115|183651207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878797|NCT00843115|183651208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91801231|NCT05047770|183479790|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMC ratio between HZ/suSeq group and HZ/suCoAd group for anti-S protein antibody concentration was \<1.5.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of mRNA-1273 booster when the first dose of HZ/su vaccine was co-administered with the mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to mRNA-1273 booster dose administered alone, in terms of anti-S protein GMCs, at 1 month post-mRNA-1273 booster dose administration (at Week 4 for both HZ/suSeq and HZ/suCoAd groups).||1.32|0.90|
91801232|NCT05047770|183479791|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the A/H1N1 influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the A/H1N1 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.18|0.89|
91801233|NCT05047770|183479791|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the A/H3N2 influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the A/H3N2 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.05|0.82|
91801234|NCT05047770|183479791|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.14|0.89|
91801235|NCT05047770|183479791|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the B/Yamagata lineage influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the B/Yamagata lineage influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.17|0.93|
91801236|NCT05047770|183479792|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMC ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-S antibody concentration was \<1.5.|GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of mRNA-1273 booster when co-administered with Flu D-QIV vaccine compared to mRNA-1273 booster dose administered alone in terms of anti-S protein GMCs, at 1 month post-mRNA-1273 booster dose administration (at Week 4 for both FluD-QIVSeq and FluD-QIVCoAd groups).||1.13|0.84|
91801237|NCT05047770|183479793|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H1N1 influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.4|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H1N1 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||6.4|-5.1|
91801238|NCT05047770|183479793|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H3N2 influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.2|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H3N2 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||5.2|-7.8|
91878798|NCT00843115|183651209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878799|NCT00843115|183651210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878800|NCT00843115|183651211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91889231|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 15B||4.1|0.7|
91878801|NCT00843115|183651212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878802|NCT00843115|183651213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878803|NCT00843115|183651214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878804|NCT00843115|183651215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878805|NCT00843115|183651216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878806|NCT00843115|183651217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91801239|NCT05047770|183479793|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.9|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||5.9|-5.8|
91878807|NCT00843115|183651218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate @ 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878808|NCT00843115|183651219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878809|NCT00843115|183651220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
91878810|NCT00843115|183651221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||Change from baseline in total score at Week 12||||<0.0001
91878811|NCT00843115|183651222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero||Change from baseline in total score at Week 12 Last Observation Carried Forward||||<0.0001
91878812|NCT00843115|183651223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||correlation coefficient|P value tests whether Pearson Product Correlation Coefficient is significantly different from zero||||||<0.0001
91878813|NCT00843115|183651224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||correlation coefficient|p-value tests whether Pearson Product Correlation Coefficient is significantly different from zero||||||<0.0001
91878814|NCT00843115|183651225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||<0.0001
91878815|NCT00843115|183651226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero||||||<0.0001
91878816|NCT00843115|183651227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0713|||||||correlation coefficient|||||||0.0713
91878817|NCT00843115|183651228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|||||||Correlation coefficient|||||||0.0225
91878818|NCT00843115|183651229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||0.0152
91878819|NCT00843115|183651230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0229|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero||||||0.0229
91878820|NCT00843115|183651231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||<0.0001
91878821|NCT00843115|183651232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||<0.0001
91878822|NCT00843115|183651233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7963|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12."||||||0.7963
91878823|NCT00843115|183651234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF."||||||1.0000
91878824|NCT00843115|183651235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0719|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||0.0719
91878825|NCT00843115|183651236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1779|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF."||||||0.1779
91907529|NCT01372384|183710225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Stable Disease Vs Progression of disease at Visit 6 (Two proportions for of Stable Disease Vs Progression of disease of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for of Stable Disease Vs Progression of disease was analyzed||||1.000
91907530|NCT01372384|183710225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease at Visit 10 (Two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease was analyzed||||0.274
91907531|NCT02375724|183710235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.02||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline and age as covariates; treatment group, sex, visit, smoking-status and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effect factors||||-0.10|-1.94|0.0306
91878826|NCT00843115|183651237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||1.0000
91878827|NCT00843115|183651238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8575|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF"||||||0.8575
91878828|NCT00843115|183651239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||1.0000
91878829|NCT00843115|183651240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF"||||||1.0000
91878830|NCT00843115|183651241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0131|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||0.0131
91878831|NCT00843115|183651242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF"||||||0.0078
91878832|NCT02621047|183651243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Percentage (%)|128.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|188.0||||||||188|86.5|
91907532|NCT02375724|183710236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.22||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline and age as covariates; treatment group, sex, visit, smoking-status and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effect factors||||0.03|-0.46|0.0793
91748457|NCT02780856|183388954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binomial|An exact binomial test was used and an exact 97.5% Confidence Level using the Clopper-Pearson method was calculated||The null and alternative hypothesis for each tooth population was of chance agreement (50%) and was tested against an exact binomial one-sided 97.5% confidence interval||||<0.0001
91878833|NCT02621047|183651243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.1|183.0||||||||183|55.1|
91878834|NCT02621047|183651244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|148.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.0|208.0||||||||208|106|
91878835|NCT02621047|183651244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|130.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.4|225.0||||||||225|75.4|
91878836|NCT02621047|183651245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|160.0||||||90.0|105.0|243.0||||||||243|105|
91878837|NCT02621047|183651245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|220.0||||||90.0|131.0|369.0||||||||369|131|
91878838|NCT02621047|183651246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|186.0||||||90.0|122.0|281.0||||||||281|122|
91878839|NCT02621047|183651246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|285.0||||||90.0|175.0|466.0||||||||466|175|
91878840|NCT02621047|183651247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|162.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.0|254.0||||||||254|104|
91878841|NCT02621047|183651247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|228.0||||||90.0|129.0|403.0||||||||403|129|
91878842|NCT02621047|183651248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|189.0||||||90.0|121.0|293.0||||||||293|121|
91878843|NCT02621047|183651248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|296.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|174.0|506.0||||||||506|174|
91878844|NCT02621047|183651249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|64.6||||||90.0|36.2|115.0||||||||115|36.2|
91878845|NCT02621047|183651249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|60.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.6|139.0||||||||139|26.6|
91878846|NCT02621047|183651250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|85.1||||||90.0|55.5|130.0||||||||130|55.5|
91878847|NCT02621047|183651250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|59.0||||||90.0|34.2|102.0||||||||102|34.2|
91878848|NCT02621047|183651251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|116.0||||||90.0|78.6|172.0||||||||172|78.6|
91878849|NCT02621047|183651251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|98.1||||||90.0|51.7|186.0||||||||186|51.7|
91878850|NCT02621047|183651252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.2|154.0||||||||154|85.2|
91907533|NCT02375724|183710237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.06||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline and age as covariates; treatment group, sex, visit, smoking-status and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effect factors||||0.52|-0.64|0.844
91907534|NCT00804570|183710243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|-9.72|0.120
91907535|NCT00804570|183710244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-1.27|0.013
91907536|NCT00804570|183710245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.37||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|10.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.77|-0.02|0.051
91801240|NCT05047770|183479793|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Yamagata influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Yamagata influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||3.9|-7.0|
91878851|NCT02621047|183651252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.6|168.0||||||||168|55.6|
91878852|NCT02621047|183651253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|80.6||||||90.0|50.2|130.0||||||||130|50.2|
91878853|NCT02621047|183651253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|65.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.9|160.0||||||||160|26.9|
91878854|NCT02621047|183651254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|104.0||||||90.0|76.8|141.0||||||||141|76.8|
91878855|NCT02621047|183651254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.0|119.0||||||||119|34.0|
91878856|NCT02621047|183651255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|136.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|196.0||||||||196|94.7|
91878857|NCT02621047|183651255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|176.0||||||90.0|98.4|315.0||||||||315|98.4|
91878858|NCT02621047|183651256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|134.0||||||90.0|99.6|181.0||||||||181|99.6|
91878859|NCT02621047|183651256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|157.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|268.0||||||||268|91.8|
91878860|NCT02621047|183651257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.2|116.0||||||||116|46.2|
91878861|NCT02621047|183651257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|57.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.0|165.0||||||||165|20.0|
91878862|NCT02621047|183651258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|96.6||||||90.0|69.9|134.0||||||||134|69.9|
91878863|NCT02621047|183651258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|55.8||||||90.0|26.0|120.0||||||||120|26.0|
91878864|NCT02621047|183651259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|139.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|203.0||||||||203|94.8|
91878865|NCT02621047|183651259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|180.0||||||90.0|97.2|334.0||||||||334|97.2|
91878866|NCT02621047|183651260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|137.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.0|186.0||||||||186|100|
91878867|NCT02621047|183651260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|158.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.2|274.0||||||||274|91.2|
91878868|NCT01287416|183651329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of SIRI scores across the three time points. We used linear mixed models to determine whether scores were different between the two groups over time.||||0.61
91878869|NCT01287416|183651330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.02.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of level of knowledge across the three time points.||||0.95
91878870|NCT01287416|183651331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.02.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the two groups would not differ in terms of self-reported skill level across the three time points.||||0.33
91878871|NCT01287416|183651332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of level of knowledge across the three time points.||||0.03
91878872|NCT01287416|183651333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the two groups would not differ on level of self-reported preparedness to help a suicidal person.||||0.63
91878873|NCT01287416|183651334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ on their level of distress across the two time points.||||0.21
91878874|NCT01287416|183651335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||Null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of alcohol use across the two time points.||||0.46
91878875|NCT01287416|183651336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Model is adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the two groups would not differ in resiliency scores across the follow-up period.||||0.28
91878876|NCT01287416|183651337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91878877|NCT01287416|183651338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91878878|NCT01287416|183651339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91878879|NCT01287416|183651340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91878880|NCT01287416|183651341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.064
91878881|NCT01287416|183651343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance set a p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|unadjusted model||Null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of their gatekeeper behaviours||||0.14
91878882|NCT01287416|183651344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|Chi-squared|Unadjusted model||Null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ on gatekeeper behaviours.||||0.41
91801241|NCT01952145|183479850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of IDegLira versus IGlar was considered as confirmed, if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean treatment difference was entirely below 0.30%.|Treatment contrast|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||This primary endpoint was analysed on the FAS using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.45|-0.74|< 0.001
91801242|NCT02130570|183479865|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.52||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.91||This is the P-value for the adjusted IRR.|Regression poissant|"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score, inpatient unit, and primary care practice. IRR: incidence rate ratio|0.91|0.30|0.02
91801243|NCT02130570|183479866|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95||This is the p-value for the adjusted rate|Regression poissant|"For adjustments, please see the Other Statistical Analysis field below."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score, inpatient unit, and primary care practice. IRR: incidence rate ratio|0.95|0.64|0.01
91801244|NCT02130570|183479867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.85||This is the P-value for the adjusted Odds Ratio|Regression, Logistic|"For adjustments, please see the Other Statistical Analysis field below."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score; clustered by inpatient unit; primary care practice as a random effect . OR: odds ratio|1.85|0.64|0.77
91801245|NCT02130570|183479868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the P-value for the adjusted difference.|Regression, Linear|"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score; clustered by inpatient unit; primary care practice as a random effect.|||0.91
91801246|NCT02130570|183479869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.85||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51||"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments and the P-value computed for each survey question."|Regression, Logistic||"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for a list of the estimated value and 95% CI for each survey question."||"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments."|1.51|0.47|0.57
91801247|NCT03072732|183479890|NON_INFERIORITY|The µ-Cor System will be considered non-inferior with respect to clinical performance (i.e., trends in fluid change) of the ZOE device if the lower 95% confidence interval of the differences (Primary Measurement) is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.75|||||"Because the distribution was skewed, the average was calculated by 1) Fisher Transformation of values, 2) averaging the transformed values, 3) back calculating the mean.~The Taylor Series expansion and Delta method was used to determine variance."|"The null hypothesis was that the correlation coefficient of the ZOE device would be greater than the correlation coefficient of the uCor device by at least 0.05.~For each subject, a correlation coefficient was calculated between study arm 1 uCor readings and UFV, as well as ZOE readings and UFV.~The difference between uCor correlation coefficient and ZOE correlation coefficient for each subject was used as the Primary Measurement."||0.75|0.57|
91801248|NCT03072732|183479890|NON_INFERIORITY|The µ-Cor System will be considered non-inferior with respect to clinical performance (i.e., trends in fluid change) of the ZOE device if the lower 95% confidence interval of the differences (Primary Measurement) is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.35|||||"Because the distribution was skewed, the average was calculated by 1) Fisher Transformation of values, 2) averaging the transformed values, 3) back calculating the mean.~The Taylor Series expansion and Delta method was used to determine variance."|"The null hypothesis was that the correlation coefficient of the ZOE device would be greater than the correlation coefficient of the uCor device by at least 0.05.~For each subject, a correlation coefficient was calculated between study arm 2 uCor readings and UFV, as well as ZOE readings and UFV.~The difference between uCor correlation coefficient and ZOE correlation coefficient for each subject was used as the Primary Measurement."||0.35|0.12|
91878883|NCT02264353|183651355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576
91878884|NCT02264353|183651356|OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.394
91878885|NCT02264353|183651357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
91878886|NCT01180790|183651412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||||||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg, 400 mg, and 800 mg ACH-0141625.|exact Cochran-Armitage test|Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||The null hypothesis is no difference between proportions of participants in each treatment group achieving RVR4 at Week 4 of the study, while the alternative hypothesis is that the proportion of participants achieving RVR4 at Week 4 increases with increasing doses of ACH-0141625.||||0.003
91878887|NCT01180790|183651412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625. Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||||0.004
91878888|NCT01180790|183651412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625. Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||||0.004
91801249|NCT04889222|183479895|EQUIVALENCE|A TOST procedure using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used to test the hypothesis that the median biases of the INVSENSOR00050 sensor from two pigmentation subgroups (Light and Dark) were equivalent within ± 1 %SpO2. The TOST procedure provides a p-value indicating whether the two measures are equivalent if the p-value is less than 0.05.||||||0.00097||||||The a priori threshold for p-value was 0.05.|Two One Sided Tests (TOST)|||||||0.00097
91878889|NCT01180790|183651412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625. Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||||0.004
91878890|NCT01180790|183651414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34||||||To control for multiplicity, the proportion of participants in each treatment group achieving cEVR is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered treatment groups: 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625.|Exact Cochran-Armitage test|Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||The null hypothesis is no difference between proportions of participants in each treatment group achieving cEVR at Week 12 of the study, while the alternative hypothesis is that the proportion of participants achieving cEVR at Week 12 increases with increasing doses of ACH-0141625.||||0.34
91878891|NCT04167085|183651429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Threshold p\<0.0167 - Because 3 primary outcomes were prespecified, the familywise error rate was adjusted for 3 endpoints: 0.05/3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91878892|NCT04167085|183651430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Threshold p\<0.0167 - Because 3 primary outcomes were prespecified, the familywise error rate was adjusted for 3 endpoints: 0.05/3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91878893|NCT04167085|183651431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Threshold p\<0.0167 - Because 3 primary outcomes were prespecified, the familywise error rate was adjusted for 3 endpoints: 0.05/3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91878894|NCT04167085|183651432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-12 Physical||||0.24
91878895|NCT04167085|183651432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-12 Mental||||0.35
91878896|NCT04167085|183651433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
91878897|NCT04167085|183651434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
91878898|NCT04167085|183651435|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91878899|NCT03840148|183651437|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response is greater than or equal to the non-inferiority margin of -15%, non-inferiority will be concluded. Further, if non-inferiority is concluded, superiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response is greater than or equal to zero.|Miettinen and Nurminen|12.6||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|22.2||P-value for superiority since the lower confidence interval is greater than 0 for the primary endpoint analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|3.1|0.0088
91907537|NCT00804570|183710246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-1.07|0.249
91878900|NCT03840148|183651438|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|21.0||||||||21.0|2.9|
91878901|NCT03840148|183651439|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|12.6||||||||12.6|-2.6|
91878902|NCT03840148|183651440|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|21.8||||||||21.8|3.0|
91907538|NCT00804570|183710247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-1.12|0.199
91878903|NCT03840148|183651441|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.4||||||||10.4|-3.2|
91878904|NCT03840148|183651442|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.1||||||||4.1|-3.5|
91878905|NCT03840148|183651443|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.5||||||||8.5|-4.1|
91878906|NCT03840148|183651444|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|21.9||||||||21.9|2.2|
91878907|NCT03840148|183651445|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|17.3||||||||17.3|-1.6|
91878908|NCT03840148|183651446|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|18.8||||||||18.8|1.5|
91878909|NCT03840148|183651447|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|9.6||||||||9.6|-2.4|
91878910|NCT03840148|183651457|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.5||||||||10.5|-2.3|
91878911|NCT03840148|183651458|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.7||||||||1.7|-3.1|
91878912|NCT03840148|183651459|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|24.9||||||||24.9|5.0|
91878913|NCT03840148|183651460|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|22.3||||||||22.3|3.7|
91878914|NCT03840148|183651461|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.3||||||||24.3|3.8|
91878915|NCT03840148|183651462|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|17.7||||||||17.7|-1.9|
91878916|NCT03840148|183651467|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.3||||||||24.3|3.8|
91878917|NCT03840148|183651469|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.3||||||||7.3|-3.1|
91878918|NCT03840148|183651470|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|11.5||||||||11.5|-1.1|
91878919|NCT03840148|183651471|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|15.7||||||||15.7|1.2|
91878920|NCT00257556|183651492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045||||||95.0|-0.17|0.26|||||A two-sided 95% continuity-corrected confidence interval for the difference in percentages, based on the normal approximation|||0.260|-0.170|
91907539|NCT00804570|183710248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-2.03|0.318
91907540|NCT00804570|183710249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-5.80|0.034
91907541|NCT00804570|183710250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR over Baseline relative to placebo|0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.96|0.85|0.001
91907542|NCT00804570|183710251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR over Baseline relative to placebo|0.96||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.91|0.103
91878921|NCT04839289|183651520|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Subjective ratings of sound quality would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with a validated sound quality questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||>0.05
91878922|NCT04839289|183651520|OTHER||||||<|0.0167||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Subjective ratings of sound quality would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with a validated sound quality questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||<.0167
91878923|NCT04839289|183651523|OTHER||||||<|0.01666667||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the value must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Satisfaction with hearing aid performance and features would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with subjective hearing aid satisfaction questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||<.01666667
91878924|NCT04839289|183651523|OTHER||||||<|0.01666667||||||When adjusted for multiple comparisons, the p-value must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Satisfaction with hearing aid performance and features would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with subjective hearing aid satisfaction questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||<.01666667
91878925|NCT01350388|183651540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
91878926|NCT01350388|183651541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.73
91878927|NCT01350388|183651542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
91907543|NCT00804570|183710252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR over Baseline relative to placebo|0.94||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.89|0.012
91907544|NCT00804570|183710253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-1.05|0.392
91878928|NCT01350388|183651543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
91878929|NCT01350388|183651544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
91878930|NCT01350388|183651545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
91878931|NCT00580047|183651547|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The intervention groups were compared for compliance to either having annual IV zoledronic acid, taking weekly oral alendronate, and taking calcium/vitamin D supplementation.|||
91878932|NCT01780584|183651552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.0||Repeated Anova was used to determine whether there was difference of FT3 levels between groups|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference of free T3 (FT3) levels will be found between placebo, low dose and high dose group. We anticipated a difference of 2 pg/ml in FT3 with a standard deviation of 0.8 pg/ml between groups. For a statistical power of 80% to identify a treatment effect and at a level significance of 0.05 (2-sided).||3|1|<0.05
91878933|NCT01780584|183651554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.31||95.0|3.0|10.0||Kruskal Wallis test was used to determine any difference of time of extubation between groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: no difference of time to extubation between group. Statistical power 80% and level of significance 0.05||10|3|0.31
91878934|NCT01780584|183651555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|50.0||||0.4||95.0|40.0|60.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference of length of stay in Intensive Care Unit. Statistical power 80% and level of significance 0.05.||60|40|0.4
91878935|NCT01780584|183651556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.06||95.0|5.0|15.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference of postoperative hospital length of stay between groups. Statistical power 80% and level of significance 0.05.||15|5|0.06
91878936|NCT02825849|183651558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.824
91878937|NCT00546884|183651559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91748458|NCT02780856|183388954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binomial|An exact binomial test was used and an exact 97.5% Confidence Level using the Clopper-Pearson method was calculated||The null and alternative hypothesis for each tooth population was of chance agreement (50%) and was tested against an exact binomial one-sided 97.5% confidence interval||||<0.0001
91748459|NCT00378599|183389023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.288|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.38||||||||0.38|0.21|
91748460|NCT00322023|183389060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|These are paired t test baseline vs final for the 30 mg/kg dose||||||<0.0001
91748461|NCT00322023|183389060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|These are paired t test baseline vs final for the 60 mg/kg dose||||||<0.05
91748462|NCT00322023|183389060|SUPERIORITY|These are paired t test baseline vs final for the 120 mg/kg dose|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91748463|NCT00322023|183389061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||These are paired t test baseline vs final for 30mg/kg|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91748464|NCT00322023|183389061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||These are paired t test baseline vs final for 60mg/kg|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91748465|NCT00322023|183389061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||These are paired t test baseline vs final for 120mg/kg|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91748466|NCT03327220|183389062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|1.3||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.2||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Testing null hypothesis that true iovera° mean was greater than or equal to the true standard of care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that true iovera° mean was less than true standard of care mean.||3.2|-0.6|0.0841
91907545|NCT00804570|183710254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-1.10|0.185
91907546|NCT00804570|183710255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.92|||ANCOVA|||||2.92|-0.42|0.142
91907547|NCT00804570|183710256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.04||P-value is for desire to stop drinking at this time.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-1.01|0.69
91889232|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F(13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 22F||3.9|0.4|
91748467|NCT03327220|183389063|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective met if the t-test for non-inferiority was statistically significant using a one-sided α = 0.025 level of statistical significance.|Difference in Means|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.1||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Testing null hypothesis that Standard of Care mean minus the iovera° mean was greater than or equal to non-inferiority margin of 14 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in means was less than 14.||6.1|-2.3|<0.0001
91748468|NCT03327220|183389064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|0.5||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Pain in the Past 7 days - Testing the null hypothesis that the iovera° mean was less than or equal to the Standard of Care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that the iovera° mean was greater than the Standard of Care mean.||1.2|-0.2|0.0946
91748469|NCT03327220|183389064|SUPERIORITY|Pain Right Now - Testing the null hypothesis that the iovera° mean was less than or equal to the Standard of Care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that the iovera° mean was greater than the Standard of Care mean.|Difference in Means|0.4||||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test,|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.3|-0.6|0.2204
91748470|NCT03327220|183389065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|-0.8||||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.5||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Testing the null hypothesis that the iovera° mean was less than or equal to the Standard of Care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that the iovera° mean was greater than the Standard of Care mean.||2.5|-4.0|0.3231
91748471|NCT03920293|183389066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7||Statistical significance was tested at α=0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.7|-2.6|=0.0009
91748472|NCT00523705|183389072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.467|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||estimate of main effect of treatment in a linear mixed effects model.|Pilot data were examined at treatment endpoint for change from baseline. Statistical power was very low due to the small sample size.||||0.467
91748473|NCT01691885|183389089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|8.91|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, baseline, period and subject as a random effect.||||8.91|2.74|<0.001
91748474|NCT01972308|183389124|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.64|
91748475|NCT01972308|183389125|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-1.38|
91748476|NCT01972308|183389126|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.33|
91748477|NCT01972308|183389127|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.48||||||||0.48|-0.42|
91748478|NCT01972308|183389128|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.19||||||||0.19|-0.10|
91748479|NCT01972308|183389129|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.6||||||||0.60|-0.24|
91748480|NCT01562314|183389143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.292|2.309|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.309|0.292|0.7532
91748481|NCT01562314|183389144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.419|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.040|0.419|0.7032
91748482|NCT01180036|183389163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|55.4|||Chi-squared|||||55.4|24.6|0.001
91748483|NCT01180036|183389164|NON_INFERIORITY|With a non-inferiority margin of 15%. enrollment of 63 evaluable patients per study are is required to achieve 80% power to show that RTX is not inferior.||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91748484|NCT04243577|183389165|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for this test were calculated as plus or minus half a standard deviation using preliminary data acquired with the conventional electrodes, which were considered as the current gold standard and were ± 3.1.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||For Iteration 1 testing, we hypothesized that normalized amplitude during swallow trials obtained using the conventional sensors and the experimental sensors will be equivalent. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
91748485|NCT04243577|183389165|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for this test were based on the absolute value of the effect size (Cohen's d) being smaller than 0.5.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|Bootstrapping CIs|In this 2nd iteration testing, we are accounting for variance uncertainty, and thus bootstrapping a Confidence Interval for Cohen's d.||For Iteration 2 testing again, we hypothesized that normalized amplitude during swallow trials obtained using the conventional sensors and the experimental sensors will be equivalent. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
91748486|NCT04243577|183389166|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin for this test was calculated as minus half a standard deviation using preliminary data acquired with the conventional electrodes, which were considered as the current gold standard and was -.99.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||For Iteration 1 testing, we hypothesized that Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the experimental sensors will not be inferior to the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the conventional sensors. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
91748487|NCT04243577|183389166|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin for this test was based on the effect size (Cohen's d) being larger than -0.5.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|Bootstrapping CIs|In this 2nd iteration testing, we are accounting for variance uncertainty, and thus bootstrapping a one-sided confidence bound for Cohen's d.||For Iteration 2 testing, we again hypothesized that Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the newer version of the experimental sensors will not be inferior to the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the conventional sensors. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
91878938|NCT02273180|183651579|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated if upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog was \<0.3%.Inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested using hierarchical step-down testing procedure:if non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated,then inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested, demonstrated if lower bound of 2-sided 95%CI of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog was \>-0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.197|||||SAR342434 vs. Humalog|Analysis was performed using a MMRM approach with treatment groups, randomization strata, visits and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates. An unstructured correlation matrix was used to model within-participant errors.||0.197|-0.084|
91878939|NCT04341584|183651614|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.52|||Bayesian Cox model|adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|||1.52|0.62|
91878940|NCT04341584|183651615|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|12.0|||Bayesian analysis||% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|||12|-17.1|
91878941|NCT04341584|183651616|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|2.81||adjusted for age and centre|Bayesian Fine and Gray analysis||% Confidence interval is % Credible Interval here|||2.81|0.59|
91878942|NCT04341584|183651617|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|43.5|||Bayesian analysis||% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|||43.5|3.9|
91878943|NCT04341584|183651618|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.68|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|Day 4||1.68|0.38|
91878944|NCT04341584|183651618|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.43|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|Day 14||1.43|0.33|
91878945|NCT04341584|183651618|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|Day 28||1.38|0.35|
91878946|NCT04341584|183651618|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.39|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible interval here|Day 4||2.39|0.22|
91878947|NCT04341584|183651618|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.8|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible interval here|Day 7||2.80|0.28|
91878948|NCT04341584|183651618|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.75||Day 14|Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for afe and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible interval here|||1.75|0.18|
91878949|NCT04341584|183651619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.29|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||14 days||1.29|0.23|
91878950|NCT04341584|183651619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.77|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age and centre||28 days||1.77|0.33|
91878951|NCT04341584|183651619|SUPERIORITY|90 days|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.04|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|||2.04|0.46|
91878952|NCT04341584|183651619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.86|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre||||3.86|0.11|
91878953|NCT04341584|183651619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.68|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre||||4.68|0.19|
91878954|NCT04341584|183651619|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.87|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre||||4.87|0.31|
91878955|NCT04341584|183651620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.4||||adjusted on age and centre||||6.4|-8.3|
91878956|NCT04341584|183651622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.61|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||||1.61|0.64|
91878957|NCT04341584|183651622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.07||Adjusted for age and centre|Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||||3.07|0.58|
91878958|NCT04341584|183651623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.48|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||||1.48|0.56|
91878959|NCT04341584|183651623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.34||adjusted on age and centre|Fine-Gray model|||||2.34|0.35|
91878960|NCT04341584|183651624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.32||adjusted on age and centre|Fine-Gray model|||Day 28||2.32|0.43|
91878961|NCT04341584|183651624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.29||adjusted on age and centre|Fine-Gray model|||Day 90||2.29|0.52|
91878962|NCT01990313|183651670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
91878963|NCT00510198|183651705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The log-rank test was conducted at an alpha level of 0.05. The study was terminated early due to enrollment significantly below protocol expectation. Due to the low sample size and consequently low statistical power, no conclusion can be drawn.|Log Rank|||This is a log-rank test, which uses the time from randomization to first composite endpoint event to compare the risk of event between Access and Control arms.||||0.23
91878964|NCT00510198|183651706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 7.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|4.7||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|20.3||The study was terminated early due to enrollment significantly below protocol expectation. Due to the low sample size and consequently low statistical power, no conclusion can be drawn.|Two-sample test of proportions||The risk difference estimate is the difference between the Access Arm and Control arm.|||20.3|-10.9|0.36
91878965|NCT00307164|183651726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Treatment groups were compared for change in limb fat using a two-sided stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test (stratified by ARV used)||||||0.64
91878966|NCT00307164|183651727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
91878967|NCT00307164|183651729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.25
91878968|NCT00307164|183651731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.88
91878969|NCT00307164|183651732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.60
91878970|NCT00307164|183651733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.13
91801250|NCT04889222|183479896|EQUIVALENCE|A TOST procedure using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used to test the hypothesis that the median biases of the RD SET SpO2 sensor from two pigmentation subgroups (Light and Dark) were equivalent within ± 1 %SpO2. The TOST procedure provides a p-value indicating whether the two measures are equivalent if the p-value is less than 0.05.||||||0||||||The a priori threshold for p-value was 0.05.|Two One-Sided Tests (TOST)|||||||0.00000
91801251|NCT01044706|183479903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference produts. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ratio of T/R geometric mean x 100|108.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0321|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.79|114.44||Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ANOVA|degrees of freedom 55|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean for AUCO-144 and Cmax between the test and reference product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-144 at the alpha level of 0.05. Factors incorporated in the model will include: Group, Treatment and Treatment\*Group. Intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV%) will be estimated. The ratio of means (T/R) and 90% geometric confidence interval for the ratio of means, based on least-squares means from the ANOVA of the ln-transformed data, will be calculated for AUC0-144 hour.||114.44|102.79|<0.05
91801252|NCT01044706|183479904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference produts. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ratio of T/R geometric mean x 100|110.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0281|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.43|115.82||Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ANOVA|degrees of freedom 56|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean for AUCO-144 and Cmax between the test and reference product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05. Factors incorporated in the model will include: Group, Treatment and Treatment\*Group. Intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV%) will be estimated. The ratio of means (T/R) and 90% geometric confidence interval for the ratio of means, based on least-squares means from the ANOVA of the ln-transformed data, will be calculated for Cmax.||115.82|105.43|<0.05
91801253|NCT02478372|183479951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance was set at \<0.01|Chi-squared|||||||0.332
91801254|NCT00116428|183479960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The study null hypothesis is that the chronic success rates for the THERMOCOOL and AAD groups are equal.||||<0.001
91801255|NCT01032174|183479965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The logistic regression model contained terms for treatment, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91801256|NCT01032174|183479966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.15||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model contained terms for treatment, gender, age and Body Mass Index (BMI).|ANCOVA|Least square mean was adjusted for gender, age and BMI.||||2.15|-0.03|0.0568
91801257|NCT01032174|183479967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|||||The logistic regression model contained terms for treatment, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0682
91801258|NCT00113087|183479968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
91878971|NCT00307164|183651734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.17
91878972|NCT00307164|183651735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.034
91878973|NCT00307164|183651736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.76
91878974|NCT00307164|183651737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.10
91801259|NCT00113087|183479969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.42||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
91801260|NCT00113087|183479970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91801261|NCT00113087|183479971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91801262|NCT00113087|183479972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
91801263|NCT00113087|183479973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91801264|NCT00113087|183479974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91801265|NCT00113087|183479975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
91801266|NCT00113087|183479976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91878975|NCT00307164|183651738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.43||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.43
91878976|NCT00307164|183651739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.17
91878977|NCT00307164|183651740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.80
91878978|NCT00307164|183651741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.42
91878979|NCT03712449|183651743|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0009|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0009
91801267|NCT00113087|183479977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91801268|NCT00113087|183479978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91801269|NCT00113087|183479979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91801270|NCT00113087|183479980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91801271|NCT00113087|183479981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91801272|NCT00113087|183479982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91801273|NCT00113087|183479983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91801274|NCT00113087|183479984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91878980|NCT03712449|183651743|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91878981|NCT03712449|183651744|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.7878|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.7878
91878982|NCT03712449|183651744|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0349|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0349
91878983|NCT03712449|183651745|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0043|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0043
91748488|NCT04243577|183389167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test||For Iteration 1 testing, we hypothesized that ease of use/comfort expressed after using the experimental patch will be higher than the one reported using the conventional electrodes. Alpha level was set to .05.||||<0.05
91748489|NCT04243577|183389167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test||For Iteration 2 testing, again we hypothesized that ease of use/comfort expressed after using the experimental patch will be higher than the one reported using the conventional electrodes. Alpha level was set to .05.||||<0.05
91748490|NCT02512874|183389172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91748491|NCT03777709|183389206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Linear||A recruitment aim of 40 participants per church (16 churches, 8 per arm, mean of 5 participants per church) provides 80% power to detect a difference of 1.45 in mean LS7 score change between groups (effect size 0.73).|Effect size of 1-unit difference in mean LS7 score was based on meta-analysis indicating each unit increase in mean LS7 metrics equates to a 19% and 11% reduction in CVD and all-cause mortality, respectively. Power calculations to estimate sample size: church goal of 16 churches (8/arm), with mean 5 participants/church (40/arm) to provide 80% power to detect 1.45 difference in average LS7 score change between groups (.01 intracluster correlation, and .5 coefficient of variation of church sizes).||||<0.0001
91748492|NCT00744978|183389342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.3873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.53||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; Type I error rate for primary hypothesis was 5%; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo. Analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.53|-1.37|0.3873
91748493|NCT00744978|183389343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.2465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.49||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo. Analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.49|-0.39|0.2465
91748494|NCT00744978|183389344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.2092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.5||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.50|-0.33|0.2092
91748495|NCT00744978|183389345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.56||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.56|-1.30|0.4339
91748496|NCT00744978|183389346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect, and stratum, site, period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.26|0.9745
91748497|NCT00744978|183389347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.92||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.92|-0.57|0.2852
91748498|NCT00744978|183389348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.53||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||2.53|0.02|0.0468
91748499|NCT00744978|183389349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.03|-0.02|0.8811
91748500|NCT00744978|183389350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.05|-0.00|0.0830
91748501|NCT00744978|183389351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.02|-0.03|0.7226
91878984|NCT03712449|183651745|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91878985|NCT03712449|183651746|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0017|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0017
91878986|NCT03712449|183651746|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91878987|NCT03712449|183651747|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0105|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0105
91878988|NCT03712449|183651747|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91878989|NCT03712449|183651748|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0004|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0004
91878990|NCT03712449|183651748|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<.0001
91878991|NCT03712449|183651753|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0005|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0005
91878992|NCT03712449|183651753|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91878993|NCT03972137|183651762|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare changes in cigarettes smoked per day from Baseline (BL) to Quit Day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|17.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean cigarettes smoked per day at Baseline and Quit Date (Mean CPD at Baseline - Mean CPD at Quit Date).|||17.05|5.79|.003
91907548|NCT00804570|183710256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.45||P-value is for expectation of success in quitting alcohol.|ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.85|0.545
91748502|NCT00744978|183389352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|3.62||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Week 1: difference from placebo. Analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||3.62|-6.68|0.5588
91748503|NCT00744978|183389353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.15||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|1.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.05|-9.34|0.1173
91748504|NCT00744978|183389354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|3.96||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||3.96|-6.58|0.6251
91748505|NCT00744978|183389355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.05|-0.05|0.9109
91748506|NCT00744978|183389356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.04|-0.06|0.6632
91748507|NCT00744978|183389357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.04|-0.07|0.5450
91748508|NCT00744978|183389358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.2799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.05|-0.02|0.2799
91748509|NCT00744978|183389359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo aAnalyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.04|-0.03|0.9675
91748510|NCT00744978|183389360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.02|-0.05|0.5008
91748511|NCT00744978|183389361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.2245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.01|-0.03|0.2245
91878994|NCT03972137|183651762|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from baseline (BL) to 3-month follow-up session (3MFU).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.45||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|25.35||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean cigarettes smoked per day at Baseline and 3-month follow-up. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=4 participants that attended the 3-month follow-up session.|||25.35|-1.55|.067
91748512|NCT00744978|183389362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.01|-0.03|0.4974
91748513|NCT00744978|183389363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.02|-0.02|0.8525
91748514|NCT02379988|183389373|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions|||||=|0.0063||||||P-value for Free breathing and Breath Holding Heart Mean|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.0063
91748515|NCT02379988|183389373|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions.|||||=|0.011||||||P-value for Free breathing and Breath Holding Lung Mean|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0 .0110
91748516|NCT02379988|183389373|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions.|||||=|0.5098||||||P-value for Free breathing and Breath Holding LAD Mean|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.5098
91748517|NCT02379988|183389374|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions|||||=|0.001||||||P-value for Heart Max Free breathing and Breath Hold|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.0010
91748518|NCT02379988|183389374|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions.|||||=|0.011||||||P-value for Lung Max Free breathing and Breath Hold|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.0110
91748519|NCT02379988|183389375|EQUIVALENCE|Paired T-test|||||=|0.01||||||P-value for Large breast volume group|Paired T-test|||||||=0.01
91801275|NCT00113087|183479985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91907549|NCT00804570|183710256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.24||P-value is for difficulty to quit and remain abstinent.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-1.20|0.190
91748520|NCT02379988|183389375|EQUIVALENCE|Paired T-test|||||=|0.1||||||P-value for Small breast volume group|Paired T-test|||||||=0.10
91748521|NCT02379988|183389376|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon test was used due to the non-normal distribution of the data|||||=|0.7776|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.7776
91748522|NCT02089464|183389379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
91748523|NCT02089464|183389380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
91748524|NCT02089464|183389381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91748525|NCT02089464|183389382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91748526|NCT02089464|183389383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91748527|NCT02089464|183389385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91801276|NCT00113087|183479986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91748528|NCT02089464|183389386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91748529|NCT02089464|183389387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.63
91748530|NCT04262882|183389399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age and religion. Analysis in GEE to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|Reference group is the comparator arm|||3.64|0.77|0.20
91748531|NCT04262882|183389402|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints.|||||<0.001
91748532|NCT04262882|183389402|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
91748533|NCT04262882|183389402|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
91748534|NCT04262882|183389403|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|64.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints.||"Tests of significance for each follow-up time point:~7-months: unstandardized beta=1.08, standard error=0.14, p \< 0.001; 10-months: unstandardized beta=0.79, standard error=0.14, p \< 0.001"|||<0.001
91748535|NCT04262882|183389403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
91801277|NCT00113087|183479987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91801278|NCT00113087|183479988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91801279|NCT00113087|183479989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91801280|NCT00113087|183479990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
91801281|NCT00113087|183479991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91878995|NCT03972137|183651763|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in the DASS-21 total score from baseline (BL) to 2-weeks post-quit (2W).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.91||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.17|32.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and 2-weeks post-quit. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=6 participants that attended the 2-weeks post quit session.|||32.17|7.17|.010
91748536|NCT04262882|183389403|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
91748537|NCT04262882|183389404|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|23.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
91748538|NCT04262882|183389404|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
91748539|NCT04262882|183389404|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
91748540|NCT04262882|183389405|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|48.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models were run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
91748541|NCT04262882|183389405|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Cox|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
91748542|NCT04262882|183389405|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.04
91748543|NCT04262882|183389406|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|9.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Arm\*Time p value for 10-months follow up overall.|Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.007
91878996|NCT03972137|183651763|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in DASS-21 Total scores from baseline (BL) to 1-month post-quit (1M).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.4||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|56.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and 1-month post-quit. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=5 participants that attended the 1-month post-quit session.|||56.52|5.88|.027
91889233|NCT04546425|183671184|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 33F||3.4|-0.4|
91748544|NCT04262882|183389406|SUPERIORITY|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|unstandardized beta|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
91748545|NCT04262882|183389406|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.07
91748546|NCT04262882|183389407|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|10.42||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.005
91748547|NCT04262882|183389407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Logistic|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||1.85|0.99|0.05
91748548|NCT04262882|183389407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Logistic|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||1.22|0.75|0.71
91748549|NCT04262882|183389408|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|13.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.001
91748550|NCT04262882|183389408|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.07
91748551|NCT04262882|183389408|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
91748552|NCT04262882|183389409|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|78.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.001
91801282|NCT00113087|183479992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91878997|NCT03972137|183651763|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the difference in DASS-21 total scores from baseline (BL) to 3-month follow up (3MFU).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|50.41||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and 3-month follow-up. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=4 participants that attended the 3-month follow-up session.|||50.41|1.09|.045
91878998|NCT02747121|183651776|OTHER|The intervention was external inspections. This is an organizational level intervention and it does not replace any existing intervention.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.8||We used calculated P-values, however only confidence intervals were reported in the published article.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.80|0.86|0.24
91878999|NCT03029234|183651778|OTHER|The prespecified threshold that the primary endpoint would be met was if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than 18%.|Overall response rate|35.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|44.9||||||||44.9|27.3|
91879000|NCT03214250|183651876|SUPERIORITY|One-sided|probability|0.577||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.417|||one-sided p-value|z-test|One-sided, one-sample z-test of the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 1-year OS rate (and its standard error) against the historical rate of 35%||Each treatment arm was analyzed independently and compared to a historical 1-year OS reference rate of 35%.|||0.417|0.006
91879001|NCT03214250|183651876|SUPERIORITY|One-sided|probability|0.481||||0.062|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.337|||one-sided p-value|z-test|One-sided, one-sample z-test of the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 1-year OS rate (and its standard error) against the historical rate of 35%||Each treatment arm was analyzed independently and compared to a historical 1-year OS reference rate of 35%.|||0.337|0.062
91748553|NCT04262882|183389409|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
91879002|NCT03214250|183651876|SUPERIORITY|One-sided|probability|0.413||||0.233|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.27|||one-sided p-value|z-test|One-sided, one-sample z-test of the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 1-year OS rate (and its standard error) against the historical rate of 35%||Each treatment arm was analyzed independently and compared to a historical 1-year OS reference rate of 35%.|||0.270|0.233
91879003|NCT02487251|183651883|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in BMIz is p = .34.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is the effect size (cohen's d) for the change in BMIz (particularly in the Phase 2 sample)|We tested change in BMIz for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.34
91879004|NCT02487251|183651884|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05. Phase 2 analyses included mixed modeling. Negative mean change values reflect a decrease in intake; positive values reflect an increase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in observed fruit intake is p = .62.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is a standardized mean difference between the groups, specifically cohen's d.|We tested change in observed fruit intake for each of the two study arms/groups in Phase 2 and compared change between the usual care and intervention groups.||||.62
91748554|NCT04262882|183389409|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.001
91748555|NCT04262882|183389410|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|19.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
91748556|NCT04262882|183389410|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.008
91748557|NCT04262882|183389410|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
91748558|NCT02950155|183389416|SUPERIORITY||probability ratio|2.48||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.11|||Fisher Exact|||The primary end-point was analyzed as an intention-to-treat analysis, with Fisher's exact test of the difference in proportion, with α=0·05 to indicate statistically significant difference||5.11|1.20|0.007
91748559|NCT02950155|183389417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Subjects receiving rescue treatment before evaluation being censored (per-protocol analysis)||2.1|-4.4|0.79
91888964|NCT00477490|183670718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|-0.042||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||-0.042|-0.511|0.0207
91748560|NCT02950155|183389418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Subjects receiving rescue treatment before evaluation being censored (per-protocol analysis)||0.8|-3.3|0.34
91801283|NCT00113087|183479993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
91801284|NCT00113087|183479994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.81
91879005|NCT02487251|183651885|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in observed vegetable intake is p = .009.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested pre to post change in observed vegetable intake for each of the two study arms/groups in Phase 2 and compared change between the usual care and intervention groups. Positive Observed dietary quality data was not collected in Phase 1.||||.009
91879006|NCT02487251|183651886|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, enabled detection of small-medium effect sizes, d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes, power of 80%, α = .05. Phase 1 analyses included paired t-tests \& examination of pre-post effect size change. Phase 2 analyses included mixed modeling. Negative mean change values reflect a decrease in intake; positive values reflect an increase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in parent reported fruit is p = .21.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is a standardized mean difference between the groups, specifically cohen's d.|We tested pre to post change in parent reported child fruit intake for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.21
91879007|NCT02487251|183651887|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, enabled detection of small-medium effect sizes, d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes, power of 80%, α = .05. Phase 1 analyses included paired t-tests \& examination of pre-post effect size change. Phase 2 analyses included mixed modeling. Negative mean change values reflect a decrease in intake; positive values reflect an increase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in parent reported vegetables is p = .55.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is a standardized mean difference between the groups, specifically cohen's d.|We tested change in vegetable intake for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.55
91907550|NCT00804570|183710256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.4||P-value is for goal related to alcohol use.|ANCOVA|||||0.40|-0.49|0.856
91907551|NCT00804570|183710257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.22|-0.68|0.297
91907552|NCT00804570|183710258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.36|-1.44|0.633
91879008|NCT02487251|183651888|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in mealtime frequency is p = .84.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested change in frequency of family mealtimes for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.84
91879009|NCT02845375|183651891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.299
91907553|NCT00804570|183710261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.07||P-value is for supine systolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.07|-2.62|0.409
91907554|NCT00804570|183710261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.73||P-value is for supine diastolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|-1.63|0.452
91907555|NCT00804570|183710262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-1.93|0.456
91907556|NCT00804570|183710263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-4.41|0.081
91748561|NCT02950155|183389419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|3.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Subjects receiving rescue treatment before evaluation being censored (per-protocol analysis)||3.8|-8.2|0.47
91748562|NCT02950155|183389420|SUPERIORITY||probability ratio|1.89||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.44|||Fisher Exact|||||3.44|1.04|0.036
91748563|NCT00468676|183389427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||scaled marginal model parameter|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.02||Significance of the four outcome composite|Scaled Marginal Model||Intervention group had significantly lower scaled marginal mean scores than usual care|||-1.02|-2.12|.001
91907557|NCT00804570|183710264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.122
91801285|NCT00113087|183479995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91801286|NCT00113087|183479996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
91907558|NCT00804570|183710265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91907559|NCT00804570|183710266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.45||P-value is for orthostatic systolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-1.82|0.235
91907560|NCT00804570|183710266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.42||P-value is for orthostatic diastolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-1.05|0.400
91907561|NCT00804570|183710267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.57|-0.08|0.077
91907562|NCT00804570|183710269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.90|0.24|<0.001
91907563|NCT00290342|183710270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to diphtheria, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups'difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.79||||||Non-inferiority in terms of vaccine response to diphteria||1.79|-1.85|
91879010|NCT01951261|183651905|NON_INFERIORITY|sample size calculation was made, considering it appropriate to set a limit of non-inferiority with respect to the main variable of 1.2 months (36 days), the study being lower if it will have exacerbation before this period of time, with a follow-up of 6 months, It was required to include a sample of 58 patients per group for a potency of 80% and a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated.Statistical analysis of the main variable was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test|Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91879011|NCT04098497|183651918|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.74, df = 28||baseline to day 42 comparison||||0.09
91907564|NCT00290342|183710270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to tetanus, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups'difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.79||||||Non-inferiority in terms of vaccine response to tetanus||1.79|-1.85|
91907565|NCT00290342|183710271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to poliovirus type 1, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.82||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-Polio 1||1.82|-1.85|
91907566|NCT00290342|183710271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to poliovirus type 2, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.71||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-Polio 2||2.71|-1.36|
91907567|NCT00290342|183710271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to poliovirus type 3, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.24||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-Polio 3||2.24|-2.28|
91748564|NCT00468676|183389428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.01|||<|0.01||95.0|||||general estimating equations|||Disability outcomes were measured at six and 12 months after randomization using linear regression models adjusted for baseline values. The disability models combined information across time points and were estimated using general estimating equations to account for correlation. All analyses were based on intent to treat principles||||<0.01
91748565|NCT00468676|183389430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.26|||Generalized-Estimating-Equation Model||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a generalized-estimating-equation model predicting a 6- and 12-month outcome.|||-0.26|-0.56|<0.001
91879012|NCT04098497|183651919|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.75, df = 28||baseline to day 42||||0.09
91879013|NCT04098497|183651920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.14, z = 1.51||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.13
91748566|NCT00468676|183389431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.1|||Generalized-Estimating-Equation Model||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a generalized-estimating-equation model predicting a 6- and 12-month outcome.|||0.1|-6.9|
91879014|NCT04098497|183651921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.38, z = 2.71||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.007
91907568|NCT00290342|183710272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to pertussis toxoid, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.13||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-PT||4.13|-0.46|
91907569|NCT00290342|183710272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to filamentous haemagglutinin, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.95||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-FHA||2.95|-1.88|
91907570|NCT00290342|183710272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to pertactin, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.64||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-PRN||2.64|-1.4|
91907571|NCT02285998|183710283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size required to achieve 80% power was calculated based on a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 and an attack rate of 2% in the IIV4 and 1.53% for the Flublok groups respectively.|Relative Vaccine Efficacy (rVE)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|47.0||||||The primary efficacy analysis was based on the numbers of protocol-defined influenza-like illnesses with rtPCR-positive nasopharyngeal swabs detecting influenza virus of any strain. The Relative Vaccine Efficacy was 30% (10, 47). Non-inferiority would be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for rVE was \> -20%. Superiority of RIV4 in a pre-specified exploratory analysis required that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of rVE be \> +9%.||47|10|
91748567|NCT00468676|183389432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-0.8|||Regression, Linear||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a linear-regression model predicting a 12-month outcome.|||-0.8|-17.5|
91879015|NCT04098497|183651922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.03, z = 0.58||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.57
91801287|NCT02713204|183480005|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.|Least square mean difference|0.02||||0.9894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.03|-2.99|0.9894
91801288|NCT02713204|183480005|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.25||||0.8346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||2.59|-2.09|0.8346
91801289|NCT02713204|183480006|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.2||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||2.00|-4.41|0.4611
91801290|NCT02713204|183480006|SUPERIORITY|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Least square mean difference|-2.0||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||1.22|-5.22|0.2225
91801291|NCT02713204|183480006|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.82||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||2.32|-3.97|0.6063
91801292|NCT02713204|183480006|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.25||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-0.11||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-0.11|-6.39|0.0426
91801293|NCT02713204|183480006|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.39||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-1.19|-7.58|0.0073
91801294|NCT02713204|183480006|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.17||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|4.36||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||4.36|-2.01|0.4690
91801295|NCT02713204|183480006|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.42||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|5.54||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||5.54|-0.69|0.1267
91801296|NCT02713204|183480007|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-11.57||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|16.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||16.20|-39.5|0.4130
91879016|NCT04098497|183651923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.06, z = 1.15||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.25
91801297|NCT02713204|183480007|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.88||||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|16.85|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||16.85|-26.2|0.6587
91801298|NCT02713204|183480008|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.04||||0.3833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.35|55.43||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||55.43|-21.35|0.3833
91801299|NCT02713204|183480008|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.85||||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.84|51.53||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||51.53|-25.84|0.5141
91801300|NCT02713204|183480008|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|33.89||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|71.67|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||71.67|-3.89|0.0785
91801301|NCT02713204|183480008|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|42.27||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.56|79.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||79.98|4.56|0.0281
91801302|NCT02713204|183480008|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.65||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.67|54.96||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||54.96|-21.67|0.3934
91801303|NCT02713204|183480008|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.05||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|59.22||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||59.22|-17.13|0.2790
91801304|NCT02713204|183480008|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.38||||0.6586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.64|28.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||28.88|-45.64|0.6586
91801305|NCT02713204|183480009|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.55||||0.4889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.10|-1.01|0.4889
91879017|NCT03455218|183651924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91801306|NCT02713204|183480009|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.24||||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.46|-0.99|0.7027
91801307|NCT02713204|183480010|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6||||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.13||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.13|-2.34|0.4927
91801308|NCT02713204|183480010|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.38||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.13||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.13|-1.36|0.6645
91801309|NCT02713204|183480010|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.89||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.83||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.83|-2.61|0.3091
91879018|NCT03455218|183651926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
91879019|NCT03455218|183651927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91879020|NCT03455218|183651928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91879021|NCT03455218|183651929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91879022|NCT03455218|183651930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91879023|NCT03455218|183651931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91879024|NCT03455218|183651933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91748568|NCT00468676|183389433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.27|||Generalized-Estimating-Equation Model||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a generalized-estimating-equation model predicting a 6- and 12-month outcome.|||-0.27|-0.85|
91879025|NCT03455218|183651934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91879026|NCT03455218|183651935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91879027|NCT03455218|183651936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91879028|NCT03455218|183651937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91879029|NCT03455218|183651938|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91879030|NCT03455218|183651939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91879031|NCT03569475|183651947|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|1.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and Baseline and Baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.04|-4.49|0.2215
91879032|NCT03569475|183651947|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|0.95|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and Baseline and Baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.95|-4.59|0.1964
91879033|NCT03569475|183651948|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and Baseline and Baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.21|-0.32|0.6789
91879034|NCT03569475|183651948|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.05|-0.48|0.1126
91748569|NCT03569748|183389434|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin=0.04|Proportion Difference|0.1342||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0014|0.2671|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||H0: P1-P2 ≤ -Margin||0.2671|0.0014|0.0051
91748570|NCT03569748|183389435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
91748571|NCT03569748|183389436|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|14.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0003
91879035|NCT02630706|183651949|SUPERIORITY|Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA)|Difference in the LSM vs. placebo|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.52||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA|Least squares means = LSM||The primary hypothesis of the study was the mean change from baseline in HbA1c for 15 mg ertugliflozin is greater than that for placebo.||-0.52|-0.85|<0.001
91879036|NCT02630706|183651949|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.63|||cLDA|||The primary hypothesis of the study was the mean change from baseline in HbA1c for 5 mg ertugliflozin is greater than that for placebo.||-0.63|-0.97|<0.001
91879037|NCT02630706|183651950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM vs. placebo|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.5||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA|||||-0.50|-0.86|<0.001
91879038|NCT02630706|183651950|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.58|||cLDA|||||-0.58|-0.95|<0.001
91879039|NCT02630706|183651951|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|4.6|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|4.6|-16.5|
91879040|NCT02630706|183651951|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|7.7|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|7.7|-13.3|
91879041|NCT02630706|183651952|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|3.0|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|3.0|-20.5|
91879042|NCT02630706|183651952|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|6.9|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|6.9|-16.5|
91879043|NCT02630706|183651955|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-27.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.85|-21.7|||cLDA|||||-21.70|-33.85|<0.001
91879044|NCT02630706|183651955|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.45|-24.35|||cLDA|||||-24.35|-36.45|<0.001
91879045|NCT02630706|183651956|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-26.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.41|-20.01|||cLDA|||||-20.01|-32.41|<0.001
91879046|NCT02630706|183651956|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-28.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.67|-22.43|||cLDA|||||-22.43|-34.67|<0.001
91907572|NCT00619255|183710303|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.38||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.71
91879047|NCT02630706|183651957|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.5|||cLDA|||||-1.50|-2.51|<0.001
91879048|NCT02630706|183651957|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.28|||cLDA|||||-1.28|-2.28|<0.001
91907573|NCT00619255|183710304|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.80
91879049|NCT02630706|183651958|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.21|||cLDA|||||-1.21|-2.63|<0.001
91879050|NCT02630706|183651958|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.21|||cLDA|||||-1.21|-2.36|<0.001
91748572|NCT02979093|183389441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1025||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for Striatum: Happy Own vs. Happy Unknown||||0.106
91801310|NCT02713204|183480010|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-2.29|0.4898
91879051|NCT02630706|183651959|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|4.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|8.35|||Logistic regression model|||||8.35|2.49|<0.001
91879052|NCT02630706|183651959|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|4.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|8.36|||Logistic regression model|||||8.36|2.52|<0.001
91879053|NCT02630706|183651960|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|8.68|||Logistic regression model|||||8.68|2.32|<0.001
91879054|NCT02630706|183651960|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|6.8|||Logistic regression model|||||6.80|1.77|<0.001
91879055|NCT02630706|183651961|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-1.69|||cLDA|||||-1.69|-6.48|<0.001
91879056|NCT02630706|183651961|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-2.92|||cLDA|||||-2.92|-7.68|<0.001
91879057|NCT02630706|183651962|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-2.64||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|0.09|||cLDA|||||0.09|-5.36|0.058
91879058|NCT02630706|183651962|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-4.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-1.39|||cLDA|||||-1.39|-6.78|0.003
91907574|NCT00619255|183710305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|"DF = 1~Chi-Square Value = 0.18"||||||0.67
91907575|NCT00619255|183710306|SUPERIORITY||Slope|9.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.03
91748573|NCT02979093|183389441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.20458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1101||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for the Amygdala: Happy Own vs. Happy Unknown infant faces.||||0.0709
91748574|NCT02979093|183389441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08546||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for Striatum: Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces.||||0.0964
91748575|NCT02979093|183389441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07914||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for Amygdala: Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces.||||0.0538
91801311|NCT02713204|183480010|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.8||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.89||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.89|-2.50|0.3504
91907576|NCT00619255|183710307|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.35||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.72
91879059|NCT02630706|183651963|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.20|-3.00|0.086
91879060|NCT02630706|183651963|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.42||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|0.17|||cLDA|||||0.17|-3.01|0.081
91879061|NCT02630706|183651964|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-0.95||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.9|||cLDA|||||0.90|-2.80|0.315
91907577|NCT02121262|183710308|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.5||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by baseline BCVA categories.||||8.9|-5.9|0.7431
91907578|NCT02121262|183710309|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.66|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the treatment group as the main effect and baseline BCVA score as the covariate.|Null hypothesis-there was no difference in treatment groups of average BCVA CFB in 12-months. Hypothesis test-based on 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level,confidence interval(CI) was constructed between treatment groups in LSM using ANCOVA model.|||4.66|1.17|0.0011
91907579|NCT02121262|183710310|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-89.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.53|-56.01|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories as main effects and baseline retinal thickness as the covariate.|Null hypothesis was there was no difference in treatment groups in average BCVA CFB in 12-months. Hypothesis test was based on 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level. 2-sided 95% CI was constructed between treatment groups in LSM using ANCOVA model.|||-56.01|-122.53|<0.0001
91907580|NCT02121262|183710311|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0443|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7855|-5.6733|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories as main effects and baseline total leakage area as the covariate.|Null hypothesis was there was no difference in treatment groups in average BCVA CFB in 12-months. Hypothesis test was based on 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level. 2-sided 95% CI was constructed between treatment groups in LSM using ANCOVA model.|||-5.6733|-9.7855|<0.0001
91907581|NCT05376215|183710362|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of -12.5 was used per the findings from Chisolm, et al (2005), see attached article. In that study, the smallest critical difference for the short term retest difference was 12.5 for the APHAB global score at the 90th percentile. For this study, non-inferiority is confirmed if Fitting Method B is no more than 12.5 percentage points below the mean global benefit score of Fitting Method A.||||||0.806|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.806
91907582|NCT05376215|183710363|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -1.8 dB. This is based off of work by Killion (2004) in which the critical difference for 4 lists is 1.9 dB at the 95% confidence interval. Killion also found that if all 12 lists are presented, the mean SNR scores will differ by 1.8 dB 5% of the time.||||||0.889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
91907583|NCT01301950|183710364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was no difference in skin-to-skin time. The alternative hypothesis was that the TruMatch group time was less than the conventional group. Statistical power was anticipated to be 86% with 40 enrolled subjects based upon a Cohen's D effect size of 1. The Sponsor had difficulty identifying and recruiting sites suitable for participation. The statistically required sample size (N=40) was therefore not obtained, causing the group comparison to be statistically underpowered.||||0.54
91907584|NCT00942175|183710369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6106|0.8026|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.8026|0.6106|
91907585|NCT00942175|183710369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.734|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6516|0.8269|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.8269|0.6516|
91748576|NCT02979093|183389442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09687||0.319|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (Addiction vs. Control) and condition (Oxytocin \[OT\] vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on OT vs. placebo for Ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) for happy own vs. happy unknown infant faces."||||0.319
91748577|NCT02979093|183389442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.10968||0.171|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (addiction vs. control) and condition (OT vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on addiction vs. control for vmPFC for Happy Own vs. Happy Unknown infant faces."||||0.171
91801312|NCT02713204|183480010|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.98||||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.74||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.74|-2.70|0.2632
91907586|NCT00942175|183710369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5564|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4877|0.6347|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.6347|0.4877|
91907587|NCT00942175|183710369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6783|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5063|0.9087|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.9087|0.5063|
91907588|NCT00942175|183710370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8573|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|0.9165|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.9165|0.8020|
91801313|NCT02713204|183480010|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.21||||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.88|-1.46|0.8056
91879062|NCT02630706|183651964|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.83|||cLDA|||||0.83|-2.83|0.282
91879063|NCT02630706|183651965|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|8.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|32.22||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||32.22|2.46|0.001
91879064|NCT02630706|183651965|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|10.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|38.71||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||38.71|2.95|<0.001
91879065|NCT02630706|183651966|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted Odds Ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|8.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|27.6||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||27.60|2.52|<0.001
91879066|NCT02630706|183651966|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|8.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|28.11||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||28.11|2.44|<0.001
91879067|NCT02630706|183651967|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 15 mg. - placebo)|-9.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-14.5|-5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country ('China' or 'other') for the overall population.||||-5.0|-14.5|<0.001
91879068|NCT02630706|183651967|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 5 mg. - placebo)|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country ('China' or 'other') for the overall population.||||-4.4|-14.0|<0.001
91879069|NCT02630706|183651968|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 15 mg. - placebo)|-8.9||||0.001||95.0|-15.1|-4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||-4.2|-15.1|0.001
91879070|NCT02630706|183651968|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 5 mg. - placebo)|-9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-5.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||-5.7|-15.8|<0.001
91879071|NCT00702273|183651992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin of -8%|Risk Difference (RD)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.4||||||Treatment groups were compared with a generalized linear model including covariates treatment group, age class and region.||7.4|-2.6|
91879072|NCT02820298|183652001|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|131.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.03|147.56|||||Ratio of Geometric LSM is the ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter. Confidence interval from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||147.56|117.03|
91879073|NCT02820298|183652003|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|110.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.91|117.06|||||Ratio of Geometric LSM is the ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter. Confidence interval from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||117.06|103.91|
91879074|NCT02820298|183652004|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|108.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.48|114.54|||||Ratio of Geometric LSM is the ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter. Confidence interval from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||114.54|102.48|
91879075|NCT01894256|183652006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.27|||||GLS mean for Mild Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.27|1.04|
91801314|NCT02713204|183480011|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.57||||0.5065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.25||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.25|-1.11|0.5065
91879076|NCT01894256|183652006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.48|||||GLS mean for Moderate Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.48|1.06|
91879077|NCT01894256|183652007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.47|||||GLS mean for Mild Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.47|1.06|
91879078|NCT01894256|183652007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.89|||||GLS mean for Moderate Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.89|1.10|
91801315|NCT02713204|183480011|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.22||||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-1.55|0.7418
91801316|NCT02713204|183480012|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.19||||0.8383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.62||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.62|-1.99|0.8383
91801317|NCT02713204|183480012|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.72|-1.91|0.9180
91801318|NCT02713204|183480012|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.41||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.39|-3.20|0.1238
91801319|NCT02713204|183480012|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.97||||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.80|-2.73|0.2819
91801320|NCT02713204|183480012|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.02||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.75||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.75|-2.78|0.2581
91801321|NCT02713204|183480012|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.87||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.92||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.92|-2.66|0.3390
91801322|NCT02713204|183480012|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.05||||0.9558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.79||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-1.69|0.9558
91801323|NCT02635776|183480054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|63.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|73.3|||Farrington-Manning test|||Treatment difference at 600 mg||73.3|53|<0.0001
91801324|NCT02635776|183480055|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|57.7|||Farrington-Manning test|||Treatment difference at 1000 mg||57.7|38|<0.0001
91879079|NCT00645099|183652023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Based on available data it was estimated that in the paliperidone ER group the TG:HDL ratio would decrease with 0.15 and that the TG:HDL ratio would increase with 0.25 in the olanzapine group. The common SD of the change was estimated to be 1.4. A sample size of 205 patients in each treatment arm had 80% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in change of TG:HDL ratio after 6 months of treatment in favor of paliperidone ER treatment (Wilcoxon two-sample test with 0.05 two-sided significance level).||||< 0.0001
91879080|NCT00645099|183652023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4718||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline at end point.||||0.4718
91879081|NCT00645099|183652023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline at end point.||||< 0.0001
91801325|NCT02635776|183480056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|78.5|||Farrington-Manning test|||Treatment difference at 300 mg||78.5|58.6|<0.0001
91801326|NCT02635776|183480057|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (using equally spaced scores), stratified by region (North America, Europe)||Treatment difference in maximum severity||||<0.0001
91801327|NCT00660673|183480070|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from initial LCIG infusion to end of study in off time was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||<0.001
91801328|NCT00660673|183480070|OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from Baseline to end of study in off time was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t-test."||||0.433
91801329|NCT00660673|183480071|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from initial LCIG infusion to end of study in on time without troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t-test."||||<0.001
91801330|NCT00660673|183480071|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from Baseline to end of study in on time without troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||0.150
91801331|NCT00660673|183480072|OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from initial LCIG infusion to end of study in on time with troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||0.725
91801332|NCT00660673|183480072|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from Baseline to end of study in on time with troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||0.019
91801333|NCT00579098|183480080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||0.75
91801334|NCT00579098|183480081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||0.37
91879082|NCT00645099|183652024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
91879083|NCT00645099|183652024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9143||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.9143
91879084|NCT00645099|183652024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||<0.0001
91801335|NCT00579098|183480082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91801336|NCT00579098|183480083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||Comparison between treatment groups. A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91801337|NCT00579098|183480084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in total cholesterol was compared between treatment groups.||||<0.001
91801338|NCT00579098|183480084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in LDL cholesterol was compared between treatment groups.||||<0.001
91801339|NCT00579098|183480084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in HDL cholesterol was compared between treatment groups.||||0.92
91801340|NCT01903031|183480116|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Etonogestrel on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with EFV plus ≥2 NRTIs.||||<0.001
91801341|NCT01903031|183480116|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Etonogestrel on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with ATV/r plus TDF and ≥1 NRTIs.||||<0.001
91879085|NCT00645099|183652025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0050
91879086|NCT00645099|183652025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4454||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.4454
91879087|NCT00645099|183652025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.0018
91879088|NCT00645099|183652026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
91879089|NCT00645099|183652027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0004
91748578|NCT02979093|183389442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.20839|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08405||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (addiction vs. control) and condition (OT vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on OT vs placebo for Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (dlPFC) for Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces."||||0.0179
91879090|NCT00645099|183652028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0272
91879091|NCT00645099|183652029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1892||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.1892
91879092|NCT00645099|183652030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0325||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0325
91879093|NCT00645099|183652031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1117||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.1117
91879094|NCT00645099|183652032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6346||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.6346
91879095|NCT00645099|183652033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||1.0000
91879096|NCT00645099|183652034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.6770
91801342|NCT01903031|183480117|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Ethinyl Estradiol on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with EFV plus ≥2 NRTIs.||||<0.001
91879097|NCT00645099|183652035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.1308
91879098|NCT00645099|183652036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3358||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.3358
91879099|NCT00645099|183652037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
91879100|NCT00645099|183652037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.0001
91879101|NCT00645099|183652037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||< 0.0001
91879102|NCT00645099|183652038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
91879103|NCT00645099|183652039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
91879104|NCT00645099|183652040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0230
91879105|NCT00645099|183652041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing non-inferiority of the paliperidone ER treatment group compared to the olanzapine treatment group, with regard to change versus baseline at end point of the total PANSS was done by means of Schuirmann's test. A difference of 6 points in change versus baseline on the total PANSS was considered to be a minimum clinically relevant difference.The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between paliperidone and olanzapine in change in TG:HDL ratio from baseline to endpoint.||||||0.0242||95.0|||||Schuirmann|The null hypothesis of non-equivalence was rejected and equivalence to within the specified equivalence bounds could be claimed.||||||0.0242
91879106|NCT00645099|183652041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||<0.0001
91879107|NCT00645099|183652041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||<0.0001
91879108|NCT01201915|183652042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8463|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that percentage of participants with complete histologic clearance was 50% or less.||||0.8463
91879109|NCT01201915|183652042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9668|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that percentage of participants with complete histologic clearance was 30% or less.||||0.9668
91879110|NCT01201915|183652042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7878|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that percentage of participants with complete histologic clearance was 50% or less.||||0.7878
91879111|NCT00663923|183652067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.001||two - tailed p value \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|in this study degrees of freedom is sample size - 1||||-.001|-.62|<0.05
91879112|NCT03859622|183652075|OTHER|Frequencies and percentages for categorical data.||||||||||||Standard methods are used for the description of data (frequencies and percentages for categorical data)||||Standard methods are used for the description of data (frequencies and percentages for categorical data)|Standard methods are used for the description of data (frequencies and percentages for categorical data)|||
91879113|NCT00092521|183652115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent relative risk reduction|100.0||||||95.0|95.1|100.0|||||Confidence Interval (CI) based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter|||100|95.1|
91879114|NCT00092521|183652116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent relative risk reduction|100.0||||||95.0|94.9|100.0|||||CI based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter|||100|94.9|
91748579|NCT02979093|183389442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11827||0.7171|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (addiction vs. control) and condition (OT vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on addiction vs. control for dlPFC for Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces."||||0.7171
91748580|NCT00522418|183389443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||F Test|||||||.01
91748581|NCT00522418|183389446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.17
91748582|NCT00522418|183389449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.17
91748583|NCT00522418|183389450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.28
91748584|NCT00522418|183389451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.03
91748585|NCT00522418|183389452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.26
91748586|NCT02438683|183389466|OTHER||Slope|0.0029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0012|0.0046||||The covariance structure is No diagonal Factor Analytic FA0(2).||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected HR change from baseline (ddHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept and slope estimates for each subject. (Primary analysis).||0.0046|0.0012|
91748587|NCT02438683|183389467|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|6.97||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||6.97|0.73|
91748588|NCT02438683|183389468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|8.16||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 200 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||8.16|1.69|
91748589|NCT02438683|183389469|OTHER||Slope|0.0011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0009|0.003||||The covariance structure is No diagonal Factor Analytic FA0(2).||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected QTcF change from baseline (ddQTcF) and independent variable. Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept and slope estimates for each subject (Primary analysis). The covariance structure is No diagonal Factor Analytic FA0(2).||0.0030|-0.0009|
91748590|NCT02438683|183389470|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.39|5.7||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||5.70|3.39|
91748591|NCT02438683|183389471|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|8.13||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 200 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||8.13|1.34|
91748592|NCT02438683|183389472|OTHER||Slope|0.0054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0032|0.0076||||The covariance structure is Unstructured.||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected max HR (dHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept and slope estimates for each subject. (Primary analysis)||0.0076|0.0032|
91748593|NCT02438683|183389473|OTHER||Slope|-0.0014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0036|0.0008||||The covariance structure is Unstructured.||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected change from max HR to recovery HR (ddHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept estimates for each subject (Primary analysis).||0.0008|-0.0036|
91748594|NCT02438683|183389473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.0029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0052|-0.0007||||The covariance structure is Unstructured.||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected change from max HR to recovery HR (ddHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept estimates for each subject (Primary analysis).||-0.0007|-0.0052|
91748595|NCT01926041|183389483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.84||Statistical significance levels were determined by two-tailed tests (P \< 0.05).|Regression, Cox|||||0.84|0.48|0.008
91748596|NCT01926041|183389484|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.85||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.04||Statistical significance levels were determined by two-tailed tests (P \< 0.05).|Regression, Cox|||||3.04|1.13|0.023
91748597|NCT01926041|183389490|OTHER||Beta Coefficient|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91748598|NCT00147017|183389504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
91748599|NCT00147017|183389505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
91748600|NCT00147017|183389506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
91748601|NCT05032690|183389525|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.72|104.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed."||104.93|93.72|
91801343|NCT01903031|183480117|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Ethinyl Estradiol on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with ATV/r plus TDF and ≥1 NRTIs.||||0.004
91801344|NCT02298023|183480259|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the three groups. Statistical power: 0.80||||0.35
91801345|NCT02298023|183480260|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.662|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.662
91801346|NCT02298023|183480261|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.882|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.882
91879115|NCT01878383|183652117|OTHER|Sensitivity is the percent of non-pregnant women positive for shedding HSV by culture method in which GeneXpert test results is positive. Units equals percent non-pregnant women positive.|Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.8|100.0|||||95% Clopper-Pearson Exact Confidence Interval|||100|90.8|
91879116|NCT01878383|183652118|OTHER|Positive percent agreement is the percent of pregnant women with positive routine PCR results in which GeneXpert test results is positive. Units equal percent of pregnant women positive.|Positive percent agreement|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|86.3|||||95% large sample confidence interval|||86.3|73.7|
91801347|NCT02298023|183480262|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.835|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.835
91801348|NCT02298023|183480263|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.977|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.977
91879117|NCT01878383|183652119|OTHER|Negative percent agreement is the percent of pregnant women with negative routine PCR results in which GeneXpert test results is negative. Units equal percent of pregnant women negative.|Negative percent agreement|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.0|99.5|||||95% large sample confidence interval|||99.5|99|
91801349|NCT02298023|183480264|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.867|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.867
91801350|NCT02298023|183480265|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the change of tear size among groups||||||0.916|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.916
91801351|NCT02298023|183480266|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the change of tear size among groups||||||0.892|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.892
91801352|NCT04010695|183480273|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||K-sample test|The p-value was calculated using a nonparametric k-sample test on the equality of medians.||Comparison of SD Biosensor POC G6PD test results for capillary and venous samples||||<0.001
91801353|NCT02002832|183480274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|LS mean for the treatment difference(lurasidone-risperidone) at week 6 and its 95% confidence interval was presented based on the MMRM. Non-inferiority for lurasidone relative to risperidone was evaluated by comparing the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval to the non-inferiority margin of 7.0. Plots of estimates for change from baseline in PANSS total score based on MMRM over time (Week 1 to Week 6) with 95% confidence intervals was provided for each treatment group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|1.0|
91801354|NCT03329508|183480276|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.0|||MMRM|||||-1.0|-4.33|0.0018
91801355|NCT03329508|183480276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-1.63|||MMRM|||||-1.63|-4.96|0.0001
91801356|NCT03329508|183480277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.81|||MMRM|||||-1.81|-3.50|<0.0001
91801357|NCT03329508|183480277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.81|||MMRM|||||-1.81|-3.50|<0.05
91801358|NCT03329508|183480278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.21|||MMRM|||||-0.21|-2.84|0.0231
91879118|NCT03449134|183652138|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|-18.45||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.92|-0.86||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||-0.86|-32.92|0.041
91879119|NCT03449134|183652138|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|1.56||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|22.99||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||22.99|-16.13|0.874
91889234|NCT04546425|183671188|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Diphtheria||2.1|-11.2|
91889235|NCT04546425|183671188|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Tetanus||0.4|-7.0|
91907589|NCT00942175|183710370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9103|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8567|0.9672|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.9672|0.8567|
91801359|NCT03329508|183480278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.43|||MMRM|||||-0.43|-3.06|0.0092
91801360|NCT03329508|183480279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.57|||MMRM|||||-0.57|-1.77|0.0001
91801361|NCT03329508|183480279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.92|||MMRM|||||-0.92|-2.13|<0.0001
91879120|NCT03449134|183652141|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|-17.68||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.57|0.5||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||0.50|-32.57|0.056
91879121|NCT03449134|183652141|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|2.95||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|25.19||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||25.19|-15.33|0.770
91879122|NCT03449134|183652142|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.86|0.77|0.416
91879123|NCT03449134|183652142|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.55|0.66|0.948
91879124|NCT03449134|183652143|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.05||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.05|0.94|
91879125|NCT03449134|183652143|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.18||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.18|1.01|
91879126|NCT03449134|183652144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.54||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.54|1.11|
91907590|NCT00942175|183710370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6438|0.7487|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.7487|0.6438|
91801362|NCT03329508|183480280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.85|||MMRM|||||0.85|-5.21|0.1589
91879127|NCT03449134|183652144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.3||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.30|1.01|
91879128|NCT03449134|183652145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.3||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline VAS score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.30|1.03|
91879129|NCT03449134|183652145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.89||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline VAS score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.89|0.86|
91879130|NCT03449134|183652146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.98||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.98|0.85|
91879131|NCT03449134|183652146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.12||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.12|0.92|
91879132|NCT00113269|183652161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-3.3||||0.4889|TWO_SIDED|95.305|-12.7|6.1|||Normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|95.305% Confidence Interval is reported, as adjusted for interim analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|||6.1|-12.7|0.4889
91879133|NCT00113269|183652161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.305|-21.9|-9.4|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|95.305% Confidence Interval is reported, as adjusted for interim analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|||-9.4|-21.9|<0.0001
91879134|NCT00113269|183652162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|2.7||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.3|||normal approximation|||||14.3|-9.0|0.6533
91879135|NCT00113269|183652162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-11.9||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-4.2|||normal approximation|||||-4.2|-19.5|0.0024
91879136|NCT00113269|183652163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-6.1||||0.4087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|8.4|||normal approximation|||||8.4|-20.7|0.4087
91879137|NCT00113269|183652163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-8.7||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-0.2|||normal approximation|||||-0.2|-17.2|0.0456
91879138|NCT00113269|183652164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|1.1||||0.8742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|15.0|||normal approximation|||||15.0|-12.7|0.8742
91907591|NCT00942175|183710370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.644|1.0928|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||1.0928|0.6440|
91801363|NCT00492531|183480284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|38.0|||ANCOVA|6 minute walk was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and 6 minute walk distance, TRV stratum and study site as covariate.||||38|-56|0.70
91879139|NCT00113269|183652164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-14.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-5.7|||normal approximation|||||-5.7|-22.5|0.0010
91907592|NCT00942175|183710371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0348|8.1684|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||8.1684|0.0348|
91748602|NCT05032690|183389525|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|135.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.28|169.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted."||169.01|109.28|
91748603|NCT05032690|183389526|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.08|97.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed."||97.61|90.08|
91748604|NCT05032690|183389526|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|162.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.25|202.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted"||202.84|130.25|
91748605|NCT05032690|183389527|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.83|102.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed."||102.80|93.83|
91748606|NCT05032690|183389527|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|146.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.88|182.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted."||182.58|117.88|
91748607|NCT00487942|183389534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.73||Inferential statistics were not performed.|ANCOVA|||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.73|-0.81|
91748608|NCT00487942|183389534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.86||Inferential statistics were not performed|ANCOVA|||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.86|-0.68|
91801364|NCT03572972|183480292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|0.707||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of hazard ratio (HR) at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.707|0.541|
91879140|NCT00113269|183652166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|3.5||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|11.7|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||11.7|-4.8|0.4134
91879141|NCT00113269|183652166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|2.4||||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.5|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||6.5|-1.7|0.2459
91879142|NCT00113269|183652167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|6.0||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|17.6|||normal approximation|||||17.6|-5.7|0.3155
91879143|NCT00113269|183652167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-0.4||||0.9045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.7|||normal approximation|||||5.7|-6.5|0.9045
91879144|NCT00113269|183652168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|1.6||||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.7|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||6.7|-3.4|0.5265
91907593|NCT00942175|183710371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0474|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8555|4.9503|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||4.9503|-0.8555|
91907594|NCT00942175|183710371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5219|15.5595|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||15.5595|6.5219|
91879145|NCT00113269|183652168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-0.6||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.2|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||2.2|-3.4|0.6820
91879146|NCT00113269|183652169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|5.9||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.4|||normal approximation|||||14.4|-2.7|0.1797
91879147|NCT00113269|183652169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-1.4||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.4|||normal approximation|||||3.4|-6.3|0.5655
91879148|NCT00113269|183652170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4735||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.4735
91748609|NCT00487942|183389534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.95||Inferential statistics were not performed.|ANCOVA|||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.95|-0.66|
91879149|NCT00113269|183652170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1186||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.1186
91748610|NCT00487942|183389535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.83||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.83|-0.80|
91879150|NCT00113269|183652171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5231||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.5231
91748611|NCT00487942|183389535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.14||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.14|-0.51|
91879151|NCT00113269|183652171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.1220
91879152|NCT00835510|183652173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|two-sided||||||0.0127
91879153|NCT00835510|183652173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|two-sided||||||<0.0001
91879154|NCT00835510|183652178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criteria for equivalence is that the 90% confidence interval for the difference in cure rate had to be between -20% to +20%.|Cure rate difference|-19.78||||||90.0|-30.27|-9.29||||||||-9.29|-30.27|
91879155|NCT01960348|183652220|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.974|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.86|-28.13||P=9.262E-24|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in mNIS+7. The model includes baseline mNIS+7 score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-28.13|-39.86|<0.0000001
91879156|NCT01960348|183652221|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-15.0||P=1.103E-10|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in Norfolk QOL-DN total score. The model includes baseline Norfolk QOL-DN score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-15.0|-27.2|<0.0000001
91879157|NCT01960348|183652222|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.254|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.32|-13.43||P=1.404E-13|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in NIS-W. The model includes baseline NIS-W score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-13.43|-22.32|<0.0000001
91879158|NCT01960348|183652223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.9||P=4.066E-16|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in R-ODS value. The model includes baseline R-ODS score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||10.9|7.0|<0.0000001
91879159|NCT01960348|183652224|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.393||P=1.875E-12|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in 10-meter walk test result. The model includes baseline 10-meter walk test result as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||0.393|0.230|<0.0000001
91879160|NCT01960348|183652225|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|115.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.91|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|149.0||P=8.832E-11|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in mBMI. The model includes baseline mBMI as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||149.0|82.4|<0.0000001
91879161|NCT01960348|183652226|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.213||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|-3.16|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in COMPASS-31 total score. The model includes baseline COMPASS-31 score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-3.16|-11.89|0.0008
91879162|NCT01580995|183652242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
91879163|NCT01268098|183652282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|5.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|30.7||All hypothesis testings in this study were based on type I error of 0.05. Adjustment for multiplicity was not applied.|Fisher Exact|The 2-sided Fisher's Exact test was utilized to test for difference between the two dose arms.|The 2-sided asymptotic 95% confidence interval is based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis corresponding to the primary efficacy endpoint is that the percentages of subjects who meet the endpoint criteria are the same for both dose arms. This sample size for this study was not based on the statistical considerations.||30.7|-20.6|>0.999
91879164|NCT01268098|183652283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The 2-sided Fisher's Exact test was utilized to test for difference betweenthe two dose arms.||The null hypothesis corresponding to this endpoint is that the percentages of subjects who meet the endpoint criteria are the same for both dose arms.||||0.258
91879165|NCT02416713|183652290|SUPERIORITY||relative change from baseline|0.66||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.51|-0.18|0.12
91879166|NCT02416713|183652290|SUPERIORITY||relative change from baseline|-0.3||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.57|-1.17|0.49
91748612|NCT00487942|183389535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.98||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.98|-0.66|
91879167|NCT02416713|183652290|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|-1.00|0.70
91879168|NCT01644188|183652319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-25.3||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Alirocumab group was compared to ezetimibe group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-25.3|-34.4|<0.0001
91879169|NCT01644188|183652320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|-26.2||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.2|-34.9|<0.0001
91879170|NCT01644188|183652321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-25.1||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.1|-33.7|<0.0001
91879171|NCT01644188|183652322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-25.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.6|-33.8|<0.0001
91879172|NCT01644188|183652323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-18.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-18.8|-26|<0.0001
91879173|NCT01644188|183652324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-19.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.6|-26.5|<0.0001
91879174|NCT01644188|183652325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-18.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-18.9|-26.9|<0.0001
91879175|NCT01644188|183652326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-19.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.7|-27.2|<0.0001
91879176|NCT01644188|183652327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-11.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-11.7|-17.7|<0.0001
91879177|NCT01644188|183652328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-19.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.2|-25.7|<0.0001
91879178|NCT01644188|183652329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-18.3|-25.6|<0.0001
91879179|NCT01644188|183652330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-11.6|-17.1|<0.0001
91907595|NCT00942175|183710371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1791|15.7083|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||15.7083|7.1791|
91879180|NCT01644188|183652331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-26.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-26.1|-36.3|<0.0001
91879181|NCT01644188|183652332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|7.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by Logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.9|3.7|<0.0001
91879182|NCT01644188|183652333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|8.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||8.8|3.9|<0.0001
91879183|NCT01644188|183652334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-17.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-17|-26.4|<0.0001
91879184|NCT01644188|183652335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||10.7|5.4|<0.0001
91801365|NCT03572972|183480292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.604|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.687||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.687|0.530|
91801366|NCT03572972|183480292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.705|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.884|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.884|0.563|
91879185|NCT01644188|183652336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.9117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression.|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.6|-5.1|0.9117
91879186|NCT04333732|183652349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary endpoint was analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression, including as covariates the treatment arm, age (\<50 vs. ≥50), and a random effect for site||1.1|-0.5|0.52
91879187|NCT04333732|183652350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|difference, 0·04%, 95% CI, -1·4% to 1·3%, p=0·95).||The endpoint was analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression, including as covariates the treatment arm, age (\<50 vs. ≥50), and a random effect for site||1.3|-1.4|0.95
91879188|NCT01699698|183652365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91879189|NCT00004146|183652385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.12|||t-test, 1 sided|||the study design is to detect 30% reduction in hazard of deaths with 78% power at one side alpha level of 0.10. Overall survial time was calculated from time of histological diagnosis until time of death from any event.||1.12|0.65|0.10
91879190|NCT00526097|183652388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|2.6|4.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.0|2.6|<0.0001
91879191|NCT00526097|183652389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|3.5|5.2||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs)|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.2|3.5|<0.0001
91879192|NCT00526097|183652390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|2.7|4.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.3|2.7|<0.0001
91879193|NCT00526097|183652391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001||95.0|2.0|3.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||3.6|2.0|<0.0001
91879194|NCT00526097|183652392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|1.8|3.4||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||3.4|1.8|<0.0001
91889236|NCT04546425|183671188|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PT||4.1|-5.2|
91879195|NCT00526097|183652393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|4.1|5.8||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.8|4.1|<0.0001
91879196|NCT00526097|183652394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001||95.0|5.8|7.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||7.7|5.8|<0.0001
91879197|NCT00526097|183652395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001||95.0|3.8|5.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.6|3.8|<0.0001
91879198|NCT00526097|183652396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.0001||95.0|2.9|4.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.7|2.9|<0.0001
91879199|NCT00526097|183652397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|2.9|4.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.6|2.9|<0.0001
91879200|NCT00526097|183652398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||The log-rank test was used to calculate the p-value and to test for differences between the treatment groups.||||<0.0001
91879201|NCT00526097|183652399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.62|2.57|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.57|1.62|<0.0001
91879202|NCT00526097|183652400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.44|2.13|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.13|1.44|<0.0001
91879203|NCT00526097|183652401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.62|2.66|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.66|1.62|<0.0001
91879204|NCT00526097|183652402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.37|2.11|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.11|1.37|<0.0001
91879205|NCT00526097|183652403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.24|1.88|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||1.88|1.24|<0.0001
91879206|NCT00526097|183652404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.13|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.28|68.66|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||68.66|4.28|<0.0001
91801367|NCT03572972|183480293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.134||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.134|0.870|
91879207|NCT00526097|183652405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.81|3.35|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||3.35|1.81|<0.0001
91907596|NCT00942175|183710372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.035
91879208|NCT00526097|183652406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0025||95.0|1.32|4.74|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||4.74|1.32|0.0025
91879209|NCT00526097|183652407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.0105||95.0|1.26|13.24|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||13.24|1.26|0.0105
91879210|NCT00526097|183652408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.4002||95.0|0.52|6.47|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||6.47|0.52|0.4002
91879211|NCT00526097|183652409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||1||95.0|0.37|3.77|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||3.77|0.37|1.0000
91879212|NCT00526097|183652410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0951|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0951
91879213|NCT00526097|183652411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.41|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.41|0.09|<0.0001
91879214|NCT00526097|183652412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.2524||95.0|0.02|2.67|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.67|0.02|0.2524
91879215|NCT00526097|183652413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.0035||95.0|0.06|0.63|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.63|0.06|0.0035
91907597|NCT00942175|183710372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.445
91907598|NCT00942175|183710372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91907599|NCT00942175|183710372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91879216|NCT00526097|183652414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06||||0.0004||95.0|0.01|0.46|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.46|0.01|0.0004
91879217|NCT00526097|183652415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0086||95.0|0.1|0.69|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.69|0.10|0.0086
91879218|NCT00526097|183652416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.2|-0.9||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.9|-1.2|<0.0001
91879219|NCT00526097|183652417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
91879220|NCT00526097|183652418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.1|-0.8||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.8|-1.1|<0.0001
91879221|NCT00526097|183652419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
91801368|NCT03572972|183480293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.073||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.073|0.839|
91879222|NCT00526097|183652420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|2.4|2.9||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.9|2.4|<0.0001
91879223|NCT00526097|183652421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|2.1|2.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.7|2.1|<0.0001
91801369|NCT03572972|183480293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.082||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.082|0.854|
91801370|NCT03572972|183480294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.664||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.664|0.512|
91879224|NCT00526097|183652422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001||95.0|2.0|2.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.5|2.0|<0.0001
91879225|NCT00526097|183652423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|1.7|2.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.3|1.7|<0.0001
91879226|NCT00526097|183652424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0002||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|0.0002
91879227|NCT00526097|183652425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0003||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|0.0003
91879228|NCT00526097|183652426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0127||95.0|-0.2|0.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.0|-0.2|0.0127
91879229|NCT00526097|183652427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0064||95.0|-0.3|0.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.0|-0.3|0.0064
91879230|NCT00526097|183652428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.6|-0.9|<0.0001
91801371|NCT03572972|183480294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.953|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.953|0.597|
91801372|NCT03572972|183480294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.04|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.040|0.685|
91879231|NCT00526097|183652429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|-0.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.6|-1.0|<0.0001
91879232|NCT00526097|183652430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
91907600|NCT00942175|183710373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
91907601|NCT00942175|183710373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.148
91879233|NCT00526097|183652431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.8|<0.0001
91907602|NCT00942175|183710373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91879234|NCT00526097|183652432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.2|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.2|<0.0001
91879235|NCT00526097|183652433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
91879236|NCT00526097|183652434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.2|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.2|<0.0001
91879237|NCT00526097|183652435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0018||95.0|-0.2|0.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.0|-0.2|0.0018
91879238|NCT00526097|183652436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
91907603|NCT00942175|183710373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91907604|NCT02651584|183710374|NON_INFERIORITY|The p-value was based on the chi square test for non-inferiority with the margin of 10% point.|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91907605|NCT02651584|183710375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||including subject self-reported opioid use||||0.004
91907606|NCT02651584|183710375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||not including self-reported opioid use||||0.008
91907607|NCT02651584|183710377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value was based on the chi square test for non-inferiority with the margin of 15%.||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91801373|NCT03572972|183480295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|0.985||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.985|0.761|
91801374|NCT03572972|183480295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|0.862||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.862|0.684|
91801375|NCT03572972|183480295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|0.975||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.975|0.786|
91801376|NCT03572972|183480296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.964||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.964|0.470|
91801377|NCT03572972|183480296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.491|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.715||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.715|0.337|
91801378|NCT03572972|183480296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.018||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.018|0.548|
91801379|NCT03572972|183480297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.463|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|2.145||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||2.145|0.998|
91801380|NCT03572972|183480297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.225||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.225|0.647|
91907608|NCT00578136|183710409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used because the study did not have a normal distribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p\<0.01).||Assuming the opioid requirement in the local infiltration group to be 0.2mg kg-1 and in the rectus sheath block group to be 0.1mg kg-1, a sample size of 44 patients (22 in each group) will have a power of 80% to detect a difference in means of 0.1mg kg-1 with a 0.005 two-sided significance level.||||0.008
91801381|NCT03572972|183480297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.888||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.888|0.447|
91801382|NCT03572972|183480298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.738||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.738|0.556|
91801383|NCT03572972|183480298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.715||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.715|0.544|
91801384|NCT03572972|183480298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|0.954|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.954|0.588|
91879239|NCT00526097|183652437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
91879240|NCT00526097|183652438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
91879241|NCT00526097|183652439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
91879242|NCT00526097|183652440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
91879243|NCT00526097|183652441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
91879244|NCT00526097|183652442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
91879245|NCT00526097|183652443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
91879246|NCT00526097|183652444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
91879247|NCT00526097|183652445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
91907609|NCT02822885|183710466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91748613|NCT00487942|183389536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.01||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.01|-0.51|
91748614|NCT00487942|183389536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.66||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.66|-0.86|
91879248|NCT00526097|183652446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
91879249|NCT00526097|183652447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
91801385|NCT03572972|183480299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.122||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.122|0.850|
91879250|NCT00526097|183652448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.6773
91879251|NCT00526097|183652449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.0002
91879252|NCT00526097|183652450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.0001
91879253|NCT00526097|183652451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.0005
91879254|NCT00526097|183652452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
91879255|NCT00526097|183652453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
91879256|NCT00526097|183652454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
91879257|NCT00526097|183652455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0058
91879258|NCT00526097|183652456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.798||95.0|-3.4|4.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.5|-3.4|0.7980
91879259|NCT00526097|183652457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.6129||95.0|-3.0|5.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.1|-3.0|0.6129
91879260|NCT00526097|183652458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.3567||95.0|-2.4|6.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||6.7|-2.4|0.3567
91879261|NCT00526097|183652459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.1407||95.0|-0.7|4.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.6|-0.7|0.1407
91907610|NCT02822885|183710467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91907611|NCT02822885|183710468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91801386|NCT03572972|183480299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.1||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.100|0.848|
91801387|NCT03572972|183480299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|1.125||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.125|0.877|
91801388|NCT03572972|183480300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.523||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.523|0.119|
91801389|NCT03572972|183480300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.711||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.711|0.203|
91801390|NCT03572972|183480300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|0.722||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.722|0.247|
91801391|NCT03572972|183480301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|1.615||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.615|0.343|
91801392|NCT03572972|183480301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|1.402||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.402|0.342|
91801393|NCT03572972|183480301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.747||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.747|0.498|
91801394|NCT03572972|183480302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.731||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.731|0.492|
91801395|NCT03572972|183480302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.522|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.522|0.719|
91801396|NCT03572972|183480302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.824|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.824|0.920|
91801397|NCT03572972|183480303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.91||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.91|0.62|
91801398|NCT03572972|183480303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.697|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|0.83||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.830|0.586|
91879262|NCT00526097|183652460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.013||95.0|0.9|7.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||7.7|0.9|0.0130
91879263|NCT00526097|183652461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.5849||95.0|-3.0|5.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.3|-3.0|0.5849
91879264|NCT00526097|183652462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.7543||95.0|-3.2|4.4||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.4|-3.2|0.7543
91879265|NCT00526097|183652463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.0273||95.0|0.4|6.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||6.6|0.4|0.0273
91879266|NCT00526097|183652464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.129||95.0|-0.4|3.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||3.0|-0.4|0.1290
91879267|NCT00526097|183652465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.378||95.0|-0.8|2.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.0|-0.8|0.3780
91748615|NCT00487942|183389536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.28||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.28|-0.31|
91879268|NCT00526097|183652466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.3|-0.6|<0.0001
91748616|NCT00487942|183389537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.48||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.48|-1.03|
91879269|NCT00526097|183652467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|-0.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.7|-1.0|<0.0001
91879270|NCT00526097|183652468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|0.0070
91879271|NCT00526097|183652469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.5|-1.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
91879272|NCT00526097|183652470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.8|<0.0001
91879273|NCT03713281|183652508|SUPERIORITY||Least-square mean|-0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|-0.054|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger modethod for the demoninator degrees of freedom.||Statistically superiority will be concluded if the upper confidence limit will be less than 0.10 logMAR.||-0.054|-0.208|
91879274|NCT03713281|183652509|SUPERIORITY||Least-square means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.137|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method for the demoninator degrees of freedom.||Statistically superiority will be concluded if the upper confidence limit will be less than 0.17 logMAR for near distance logMAR visual acuity.||0.137|-0.017|
91879275|NCT02412111|183652510|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.3|||=|0.5846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.4|-0.8|= 0.5846
91907612|NCT02822885|183710469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91907613|NCT02822885|183710470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91748617|NCT00487942|183389537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.88||Inferential Statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.88|-0.65|
91748618|NCT00487942|183389537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.6||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.60|-0.97|
91748619|NCT00487942|183389538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.44||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.44|-1.08|
91748620|NCT00487942|183389538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.74||Inferential Statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.74|-0.77|
91748621|NCT00487942|183389538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.68||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.68|-0.89|
91748622|NCT00487942|183389539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.9||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.90|-0.61|
91748623|NCT00487942|183389539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.01||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.01|-0.50|
91748624|NCT00487942|183389539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.25||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.25|-0.34|
91748625|NCT00487942|183389540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.23||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.23|-0.33|
91748626|NCT00487942|183389540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.1||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.10|-0.42|
91907614|NCT04013529|183710500|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.90
91907615|NCT04013529|183710501|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.88
91907616|NCT04013529|183710502|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.17
91907617|NCT04013529|183710503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.05
91907618|NCT04013529|183710504|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.81
91907619|NCT02971631|183710529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||||||0.008
91907620|NCT02971631|183710530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||||||0.03
91907621|NCT02971631|183710531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||For meal consumption rate||||0.79
91801399|NCT03572972|183480303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.094||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.094|0.801|
91801400|NCT03572972|183480304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.658|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.658|0.212|
91801401|NCT03572972|183480304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.737||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.737|0.392|
91801402|NCT03572972|183480304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|0.87||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.870|0.507|
91801403|NCT03572972|183480305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.204|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.666||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.666|0.871|
91801404|NCT03572972|183480305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|1.218||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.218|0.691|
91801405|NCT03572972|183480305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.771|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.027||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.027|0.578|
91801406|NCT03572972|183480306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.701||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.701|0.481|
91801407|NCT03572972|183480306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.766||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.766|0.534|
91879276|NCT02412111|183652511|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.8|||=|0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.6|||Mixed models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.6|-1.0|= 0.3860
91879277|NCT02412111|183652512|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.8|||=|0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.4|||Mixed models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||6.4|-0.8|= 0.1236
91907622|NCT02971631|183710533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Baseline||||0.20
91748627|NCT00487942|183389540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.93||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.93|-0.68|
91748628|NCT00487942|183389541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.15||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.15|-0.37|
91879278|NCT02412111|183652513|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.8|||=|0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.9|||Mixed models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.9|-10.7|= 0.0216
91879279|NCT03935932|183652631|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.11
91879280|NCT03935932|183652632|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91879281|NCT03935932|183652633|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.35
91907623|NCT02971631|183710533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Post-OGTT||||0.58
91879282|NCT00352053|183652663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline genotypic sensitivity score (GSS) (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.55
91879283|NCT00352053|183652664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.40
91879284|NCT00352053|183652665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.58
91879285|NCT00352053|183652666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.37
91879286|NCT00352053|183652673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.71
91879287|NCT00352053|183652674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.47
91801408|NCT03572972|183480306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.838|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.13|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.130|0.622|
91801409|NCT03572972|183480307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.061||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.061|0.732|
91879288|NCT00352053|183652681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.26
91879289|NCT00352053|183652682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.63
91801410|NCT03572972|183480307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|0.947||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.947|0.678|
91879290|NCT00352053|183652689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 24 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 24 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.67
91879291|NCT00352053|183652690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.67
91889237|NCT04546425|183671188|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|FHA||3.3|-6.4|
91801411|NCT03572972|183480307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.032||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.032|0.754|
91801412|NCT02612129|183480351|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.03|||GLMM for Repeated Measures|||A general linear mixed model (GLMM) for repeated measurements was used for the analysis of NPC disease severity assessed based on the 5-domain NPCCSS scores at Month 12. The general linear mixed model analysis for repeated measures was fitted with treatment, miglustat level and visit as fixed effects including treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline score as a covariate.||-0.03|-2.76|0.0456
91801413|NCT02612129|183480352|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared Test|||||||1.0000
91801414|NCT02612129|183480353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5456|||||||Chi-squared Test|||||||0.5456
91801415|NCT02612129|183480354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8021|||||||Log-Rank Test|||Log-rank test had been stratified by miglustat use.||||0.8021
91801416|NCT02612129|183480355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3662|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Percentage of participants worsening at Month 6||||0.3662
91801417|NCT02612129|183480355|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Percentage of participants worsening at Month 12||||1.0000
91879292|NCT00352053|183652697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||1.00
91879293|NCT00352053|183652698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.38
91879294|NCT00352053|183652705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.22
91879295|NCT00352053|183652706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.48
91748629|NCT00487942|183389541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.7||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.81|
91801418|NCT02612129|183480356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 17-Domain NPCCSS Apart from Hearing Domains (i.e. Hearing and Auditory Brainstem Response) at Month 6 was analyzed using the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline full-scale NPCCSS apart from hearing domains score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||0.66|-4.04|0.1546
91801419|NCT02612129|183480356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 17-Domain NPCCSS Apart from Hearing Domains (i.e. Hearing and Auditory Brainstem Response) at Month 12 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model is fitted with treatment, baseline full-scale NPCCSS apart from hearing domains score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||1.01|-4.24|0.2199
91801420|NCT02612129|183480357|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.11||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline 5-domain NPCCSS score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||-0.19|-2.03|0.0188
91801421|NCT02612129|183480359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.09||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|0.08|||ANCOVA|||"Change from baseline in the NPC-CDB score (modified Stampfer Score) at Month 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline NPC-CDB total score and use of miglustat as covariates."||0.08|-10.26|0.0536
91801422|NCT02612129|183480359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.03||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.85|||ANCOVA|||"Change from baseline in the NPC-CDB score (modified Stampfer Score) at Month 12 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline NPC-CDB total score and use of miglustat as covariates."||3.85|-9.90|0.3785
91801423|NCT02612129|183480360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6951|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 6 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Better'||||0.6951
91801424|NCT02612129|183480360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7542|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 6 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Worse'||||0.7542
91801425|NCT02612129|183480360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 12 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Better'||||0.4880
91879296|NCT00352053|183652713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Log Rank|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The survival functions for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups up to Week 48 are equal. Alternative hypothesis: The survival functions for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups up to Week 48 are different (two-sided).||||0.29
91889238|NCT04546425|183671188|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PRN||3.3|-6.4|
91801426|NCT02612129|183480360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1804|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 12 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Worse'||||0.1804
91801427|NCT02612129|183480361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in the SARA score at Month 6 was measured using an ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline SARA score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||2.40|-0.92|0.3710
91801428|NCT02612129|183480361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.37|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in the SARA score at Month 12 was measured using an ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline SARA score and use of miglustat as covariates.||2.37|-1.82|0.7899
91801429|NCT02612129|183480362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.34||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.01|32.33|||ANCOVA|||Dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 6 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||32.33|-53.01|0.6195
91801430|NCT02612129|183480362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.87||||0.4693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.73|29.0|||ANCOVA|||Non-dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 6 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||29.00|-60.73|0.4693
91801431|NCT02612129|183480362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2||||0.7283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|22.12|||ANCOVA|||Dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 12 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||22.12|-15.71|0.7283
91801432|NCT02612129|183480362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.91||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.54|35.72|||ANCOVA|||Non-dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 12 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||35.72|-47.54|0.7708
91801433|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||0.0007
91801434|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||0.0007
91801435|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 9 (Month 9 minus BL)||||0.0011
91801436|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||0.0015
91801437|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 15 (Month 15 minus BL)||||0.0029
91801438|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||0.0004
91801439|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 21 (Month 21 minus BL)||||0.0059
91801440|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||0.0002
91801441|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||0.0002
91879297|NCT01490359|183652720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.71||The GEE model included baseline measure of consistent condom use, intervention condition, time (6- vs. 12-mo follow-up), and type of partner (steady vs casual partners) with robust standard errors and an independent working correlation matrix.|generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Estimate is odds ratio (intervention vs. health control).|Assuming alpha = 0.05, a 2-tailed test, ICC = 0.01, 15% attrition at 12-month follow-up, and N = 1,152 men in the trial from 44 neighborhoods with an average of 26 men in each neighborhood, the trial was estimated to have 81% power to detect a 10% increase in consistent condom use from 32% to 42% in the HIV/STI intervention group.||1.71|1.03|.008
91879298|NCT04150341|183652728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.14|0.881
91801442|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801443|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 9 (Month 9 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801444|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801445|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 15 (Month 15 minus BL)||||0.0002
91801446|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801447|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 21 (Month 21 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801448|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801449|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801450|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801451|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 9 (Month 9 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801452|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91879299|NCT04150341|183652728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.17|0.575
91801453|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 15 (Month 15 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801454|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801455|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 21 (Month 21 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801456|NCT01313858|183480449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801457|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||0.0003
91801458|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801459|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801460|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801461|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91879300|NCT00405912|183652802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.51
91801462|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801463|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801464|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801465|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801466|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801467|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801468|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801469|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801470|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91879301|NCT00405912|183652802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.25
91879302|NCT00405912|183652803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.52
91879303|NCT00405912|183652803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.73
91889239|NCT04546425|183671188|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 1||2.2|-10.0|
91801471|NCT01313858|183480450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801472|NCT01313858|183480451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801473|NCT01313858|183480451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801474|NCT01313858|183480451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801475|NCT01313858|183480451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801476|NCT01313858|183480451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801477|NCT01313858|183480451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801478|NCT01313858|183480451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801479|NCT01313858|183480451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801480|NCT01313858|183480451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801481|NCT01313858|183480451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801482|NCT01313858|183480451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91801483|NCT01313858|183480451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91879304|NCT03730662|183652804|NON_INFERIORITY|"Although the primary objective is to establish noninferiority, sample size selection is guided by the objective of establishing superiority. The chosen sample size and randomization ratio also provides \>90% power to establish superiority of 10 mg LY3298176 and 15 mg LY3298176 doses to insulin glargine in absence of confounding effects of rescue therapy for persistent severe hyperglycemia (efficacy estimand)."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.13|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.86|-1.13|<0.001
91879305|NCT03730662|183652804|NON_INFERIORITY|"Although the primary objective is to establish noninferiority, sample size selection is guided by the objective of establishing superiority. The chosen sample size and randomization ratio also provides \>90% power to establish superiority of 10 mg LY3298176 and 15 mg LY3298176 doses to insulin glargine in absence of confounding effects of rescue therapy for persistent severe hyperglycemia (efficacy estimand)."|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.28|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-1.28|<0.001
91879306|NCT03730662|183652805|NON_INFERIORITY|"Although the primary objective is to establish noninferiority, sample size selection is guided by the objective of establishing superiority. The chosen sample size and randomization ratio also provides \>90% power to establish superiority of 10 mg LY3298176 and 15 mg LY3298176 doses to insulin glargine in absence of confounding effects of rescue therapy for persistent severe hyperglycemia (efficacy estimand)."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.93|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.66|-0.93|<0.001
91879307|NCT03730662|183652806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-9.8|<0.001
91879308|NCT03730662|183652806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.6|-12.1|<0.001
91879309|NCT03730662|183652806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.8|-14.3|<0.001
91879310|NCT03730662|183652807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|6.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.58|3.47|<0.001
91879311|NCT03730662|183652807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|13.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.49|6.31|<0.001
91748630|NCT00487942|183389541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.77||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.77|-0.80|
91748631|NCT00487942|183389542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.19||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||-0.19|-1.79|
91748632|NCT00487942|183389542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.11||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.11|-1.44|
91748633|NCT00487942|183389542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.75||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.75|-0.82|
91748634|NCT00487942|183389543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.23||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.23|-0.30|
91801484|NCT03689530|183480462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7436|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.7436
91748635|NCT00487942|183389543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.83||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.83|-0.68|
91801485|NCT03689530|183480463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1212|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.1212
91801486|NCT03689530|183480464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8839|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.8839
91801487|NCT03689530|183480465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1137|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.1137
91801488|NCT03689530|183480466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.0162
91801489|NCT03689530|183480468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2117|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.2117
91879312|NCT03730662|183652807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|17.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.89|7.88|<0.001
91879313|NCT03730662|183652808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-3.7|0.672
91879314|NCT03730662|183652808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-8.2|0.134
91879315|NCT03730662|183652808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.4|-12.6|<0.001
91879316|NCT00833898|183652812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.020
91907624|NCT02971631|183710533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Pre-meal||||0.39
91907625|NCT02971631|183710533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Post-meal||||0.20
91748636|NCT00487942|183389543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.63|-0.00|
91879317|NCT00833898|183652813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
91879318|NCT00833898|183652814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
91879319|NCT00833898|183652815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91907626|NCT02971631|183710534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Baseline||||0.26
91801490|NCT03689530|183480469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4169
91879320|NCT00833898|183652816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
91879321|NCT00833898|183652817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
91879322|NCT00833898|183652818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
91879323|NCT00833898|183652819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.75
91879324|NCT00833898|183652820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
91879325|NCT00833898|183652821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
91879326|NCT00833898|183652822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
91879327|NCT00833898|183652823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
91879328|NCT00833898|183652824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
91879329|NCT00833898|183652825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91879330|NCT00833898|183652826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
91879331|NCT00833898|183652827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
91879332|NCT00833898|183652828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.58
91879333|NCT00833898|183652828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.33
91879334|NCT00833898|183652829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91879335|NCT00833898|183652830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.18
91879336|NCT00833898|183652830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91879337|NCT00833898|183652831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.43
91879338|NCT00833898|183652831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.72
91879339|NCT00833898|183652832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.43
91879340|NCT00833898|183652832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.72
91879341|NCT01960114|183652871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|25.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8344|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.669|30.813||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||30.813|19.669|<0.001
91879342|NCT01960114|183652872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91907627|NCT02971631|183710534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Paired analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||Post-OGTT||||0.06
91907628|NCT02971631|183710534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Pre-meal||||0.95
91907629|NCT02971631|183710534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Post-meal||||0.88
91907630|NCT02971631|183710535|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Other|0 events over whole study, no statistical test appropriate||||||1
91907631|NCT02971631|183710536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91879343|NCT01960114|183652873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91879344|NCT01960114|183652874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 12 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of withdrawal. Subjects not rescuing during the 12-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 12 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
91879345|NCT01960114|183652875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Used row-mean scores based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline categorical pain score.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
91879346|NCT00225277|183652884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.886||||0.002||95.0|-1.448|-0.325|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - Glimepiride|2 Way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), treatment and center effects with baseline value as covariate. Least Squares (LS) mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.3250|-1.4480|0.002
91748637|NCT00487942|183389544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.37||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.37|-1.16|
91801491|NCT03689530|183480470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8785|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.8785
91801492|NCT03689530|183480471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.1006
91879347|NCT00225277|183652885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.048||||0.064||95.0|-8.3336|0.2374|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - Glimepiride|2 Way ANCOVA, treatment and center effects with baseline value as covariate. LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.2374|-8.3336|0.064
91879348|NCT00225277|183652886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||||||Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate the time to event for each composite endpoint. The p-value was based on a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.744
91879349|NCT00225277|183652887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate the time to event for each composite endpoint. The p-value was based on a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.883
91879350|NCT00225277|183652888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0||||Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate the time to event for each composite endpoint. The p-value was based on a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.663
91879351|NCT01340300|183652910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of insulin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
91879352|NCT01340300|183652910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of insulin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.003
91879353|NCT01340300|183652910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of insulin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.01
91748638|NCT00487942|183389544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.31||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.31|-1.21|
91748639|NCT00487942|183389544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.58||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.58|-0.99|
91748640|NCT00487942|183389545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.23||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.23|-0.30|
91748641|NCT00487942|183389545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.04||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.04|-0.48|
91879354|NCT01340300|183652910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Insulin in combined arm is greater than the exercise-only or metformin-only arm.||||0.03
91879355|NCT01340300|183652911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of leptin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.0002
91879356|NCT01340300|183652911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of IGFBP\_1 in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.002
91879357|NCT01340300|183652911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of IGFBP\_1 in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.02
91879358|NCT01340300|183652911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Leptin in combined arm is greater than the exercise-only or metformin-only arm.||||0.0002
91879359|NCT01340300|183652911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Leptin in combined arm is greater than the exercise-only or metformin-only arm.||||0.02
91748642|NCT00487942|183389545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.93||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.93|-0.64|
91879360|NCT01340300|183652912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Glucose in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.0004
91801493|NCT03689530|183480472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7168|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7168
91879361|NCT01340300|183652912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Glucose in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.007
91879362|NCT01340300|183652913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Weight in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
91801494|NCT03689530|183480473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.0001
91879363|NCT01340300|183652913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Weight in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
91879364|NCT01340300|183652913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Weight in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.01
91748643|NCT00487942|183389546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.52||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.52|-0.99|
91748644|NCT00487942|183389546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.1||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.10|-0.42|
91748645|NCT00487942|183389546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.85||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.85|-0.72|
91748646|NCT00487942|183389547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.56||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.56|-0.95|
91748647|NCT00487942|183389547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.41||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.41|-1.11|
91748648|NCT00487942|183389547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.62||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.62|-0.95|
91748649|NCT00487942|183389548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.27||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.27|-1.30|
91748650|NCT00487942|183389548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.35||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.35|-0.25|
91801495|NCT03689530|183480474|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|3.799|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.885|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91801496|NCT03689530|183480475|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|3.732|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.985|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91879365|NCT01340300|183652914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of BMI in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
91879366|NCT01340300|183652914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of BMI in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
91907632|NCT05885737|183710573|EQUIVALENCE|Testing of primary efficacy endpoint was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% significance level. The efficacy of difelikefalin was to be declared for this study if null hypothesis of no treatment difference in the primary efficacy analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative that participants randomized to difelikefalin experience significantly different itching compared to participants randomized to placebo. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if the 2-sided p value was less than (\<) 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.37|||MMRM|||The null hypothesis in this study was that there was no treatment difference in the primary efficacy analysis of the primary endpoint. The alternative hypothesis was that in participants randomized to difelikefalin there was a significant treatment difference in change in itching compared to participants randomized to placebo. The assessment was based on the mean change from baseline in the weekly mean of the daily 24-hour WI-NRS score at Week 4 of the DB period.||-0.37|-1.25|0.0003
91879367|NCT01340300|183652914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of BMI in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.02
91879368|NCT01340300|183652915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Waist to Hip Ratio in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.01
91879369|NCT01222533|183652922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The standard bioequivalence range of 80 to 125% was pre-specified for Cmax,ss in order to assess the relative systemic exposure following inhalation of Tio R5 compared to Tio HH18. Bioequivalence was not used as a surrogate for efficacy.|Geometric mean ratio (percentage)|80.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.4||0.4423||90.0|73.49|88.52||Maximum of two one-sided p-values for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80 percent to 125 percent.|ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||88.52|73.49|0.4423
91907633|NCT00609791|183710585|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0057||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln AUC24 on age in years||||0.055
91907634|NCT00609791|183710585|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln AUC24 on chemotherapy toxicity risk score||||0.013
91907635|NCT00609791|183710586|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0063||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln CL on age in years||||0.25
91879370|NCT01222533|183652923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The standard bioequivalence range of 80 to 125% was pre-specified for AUC0-6,ss in order to assess the relative systemic exposure following inhalation of Tio R5 compared to Tio HH18. Bioequivalence was not used as a surrogate for efficacy.|Geometric mean ratio (percentage)|75.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.1||0.8683||90.0|70.44|81.98||Maximum of two one-sided p-values for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80 percent to 125 percent.|ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||81.98|70.44|0.8683
91879371|NCT01222533|183652924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.06|0.114|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.114|0.060|
91879372|NCT01222533|183652924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.128|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.128|0.074|<0.0001
91907636|NCT00609791|183710586|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln CL versus chemotherapy toxicity risk score||||0.04
91801497|NCT03689530|183480476|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|6.222|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.083|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91879373|NCT01222533|183652924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.148|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.148|0.094|<0.0001
91907637|NCT00609791|183710587|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
91801498|NCT03689530|183480477|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|6.179|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.141|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91801499|NCT03689530|183480478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9126|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9126
91801500|NCT03689530|183480479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7405|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7405
91801501|NCT03689530|183480480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5956|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5956
91801502|NCT03689530|183480481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3341|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3341
91879374|NCT01222533|183652925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||||95.0|0.141|0.189|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo.|||0.189|0.141|
91907638|NCT00609791|183710590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.89||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|6.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in age based on whether there was need for a dose reduction.||6.7|-16.5|.38
91907639|NCT00609791|183710590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AUC24 based on the need of a dose reduction.||0.44|-0.33|0.76
91907640|NCT00609791|183710590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in clearance based on whether there was a need for dose reduction.||0.36|-0.49|0.75
91907641|NCT00609791|183710591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.81||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|13.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in age based on whether there was need for a dose omission.||13.9|-2.3|0.15
91907642|NCT00609791|183710591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AUC24 based on whether there was need for a dose omission.||0.23|-0.39|0.61
91907643|NCT00609791|183710591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in clearance based on whether there was a need for a dose omission.||0.42|-0.22|0.51
91907644|NCT00609791|183710592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in age based on whether a participant experienced grade 3 toxicity.||12.7|-9.3|0.75
91907645|NCT00609791|183710592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AUC based on whether a participant experienced grade 3 toxicity.||0.81|-0.12|0.13
91748651|NCT00487942|183389548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.82|-0.78|
91748652|NCT00487942|183389549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.15||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.15|-1.43|
91748653|NCT00487942|183389549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.53||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.53|-1.05|
91748654|NCT00487942|183389549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.90|
91748655|NCT00487942|183389550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.92|
91748656|NCT00487942|183389550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.04||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.04|-0.54|
91748657|NCT00487942|183389550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.49||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.49|-1.12|
91748658|NCT00487942|183389551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.33||Inferential statistics not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the Trails B Test score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.33|-1.22|
91748659|NCT00487942|183389551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.08||Inferential statistics not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the Trails B Test score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||-0.08|-1.69|
91748660|NCT00487942|183389551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.7||Inferential statistics not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the Trails B Test score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.95|
91748661|NCT00487942|183389597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.0||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SCoRS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.0|-0.76|
91907646|NCT00609791|183710592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in clearance based on whether a participant experienced grade 3 toxicity.||0.25|-0.67|0.34
91879375|NCT01222533|183652925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.209|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.209|0.161|<0.0001
91879376|NCT01222533|183652925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.216|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.216|0.167|<0.0001
91879377|NCT01222533|183652926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||||95.0|0.13|0.18|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.180|0.130|
91879378|NCT01222533|183652926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.205|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.205|0.155|<0.0001
91879379|NCT01222533|183652926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.211|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.211|0.162|<0.0001
91907647|NCT04129528|183710632|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means CFZ533/placebo|1.173||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.94|1.47||one-sided P-value|Mixed model repeated measure analysis|||||1.47|0.94|0.1817
91748662|NCT00487942|183389597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.48||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SCoRS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.48|-1.15|
91748663|NCT00487942|183389597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.15||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SCoRS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.15|-0.61|
91748664|NCT00487942|183389598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.24||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.24|-0.58|
91748665|NCT00487942|183389598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.81||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.81|-0.91|
91748666|NCT00487942|183389598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.45||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.45|-1.33|
91748667|NCT00487942|183389599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.1||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.10|-0.75|
91879380|NCT01222533|183652927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||95.0|0.083|0.194|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.194|0.083|
91879381|NCT01222533|183652927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.244|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.244|0.133|<0.0001
91879382|NCT01222533|183652927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.292|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.292|0.180|<0.0001
91879383|NCT01222533|183652928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||95.0|0.241|0.326|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.326|0.241|
91879384|NCT01222533|183652928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.276|0.362|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.362|0.276|<0.0001
91879385|NCT01222533|183652928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.292|0.378|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.378|0.292|<0.0001
91879386|NCT01222533|183652929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||95.0|0.236|0.325|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.325|0.236|
91879387|NCT01222533|183652929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.279|0.369|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.369|0.279|<0.0001
91907648|NCT03118232|183710658|OTHER|The risk ratios reflect the risk of transfer to a hospital during the intervention period relative to the baseline period in each trial group.|Difference in Risk Ratio|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|21.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.8|11.0|<0.001
91801503|NCT03689530|183480482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2049
91801504|NCT03689530|183480483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0335|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0335
91801505|NCT03689530|183480484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3219
91801506|NCT03689530|183480485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5223|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5223
91801507|NCT01392443|183480486|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||single-sample biniminal test|||||||0.0007
91801508|NCT01977794|183480491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P value in both groups (Amlodipine failed and Bisoprolol failed) for comparison of SBP after 18 weeks versus baseline|Paired t test|||For each group (Amlodipine failed and Bisoprolol failed) SBP after 18 weeks compared to baseline (under monotherapy). Superiority was assessed between FDC and monotherapies.||||<0.001
91801509|NCT01895062|183480496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.022
91801510|NCT00533897|183480500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|9.59||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|18.34||There was no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||A continuity corrected Chi-square test was used to compare percentage of positive antibody responses of SC placebo vs. SC abatacept (Period II treatment groups) on Day 169. P-value was evaluated at 0.05 significance level (2-sided). 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference (SC PLA - SC ABA) between ABA and PLA in the immunogenicity rates was also calculated. Point estimates of the immunogenicity rates within the two Period II treatment group and the corresponding 95% CIs were also provided.||18.34|0.83|0.119
91801511|NCT00533897|183480501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of Difference|4.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.25||||||Immunogenicity rates of the Period II treatment groups on Day 253 were analyzed similarly as on Day 169. However, no statistical test was carried out and no p-value was provided. Provided were: point estimates of the immunogenicity rates within the Period II treatment groups and corresponding 95% CIs, and point estimate for the difference in immunogenicity rates between these groups and corresponding 95% CI. There was no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.||14.25|-4.50|
91801512|NCT00533897|183480505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|8.43||||||Immunogenicity rates of the Period II treatment groups on Day 253 were analyzed similarly as on Day 169. However, no statistical test was carried out and no p-value was provided. Provided were: point estimates of the immunogenicity rates within the Period II treatment groups and corresponding 95% CIs, and point estimate for the difference in immunogenicity rates between these groups and corresponding 95% CI. There was no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.||8.43|-8.21|
91801513|NCT05981391|183480613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91801514|NCT01065597|183480614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||0.001
91801515|NCT01065597|183480615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||>0.05
91801516|NCT01065597|183480617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91801517|NCT02653872|183480618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of Cmax for AZD7986 administered with verapamil over Cmax for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|153.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.16|172.83|||ANOVA|||The study was designed based on a test for bioequivalence. Using an estimated standard deviation for Cmax of AZD7986 of less than or equal to 0.202, 12 evaluable subjects were deemed needed to achieve a power of 90%, at an assumed ratio of 0.95, to show that a two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of Cmax between 2 treatments (AZD7986 and AZD7986+ Verapamil/Itraconazole) would be contained within the (0.8;1.25) equivalence limit. 3 extra subjects were added to compensate for dropout.||172.83|136.16|
91801518|NCT02653872|183480618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of Cmax for AZD7986 administered with itraconazole over Cmax for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|60.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.84|68.34|||ANOVA|||The study was designed based on a test for bioequivalence. Using an estimated standard deviation for Cmax of AZD7986 of less than or equal to 0.202, 12 evaluable subjects were deemed needed to achieve a power of 90%, at an assumed ratio of 0.95, to show that a two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of Cmax between 2 treatments (AZD7986 and AZD7986+ Verapamil/Itraconazole) would be contained within the (0.8;1.25) equivalence limit. 3 extra subjects were added to compensate for dropout.||68.34|53.84|
91907649|NCT03118232|183710659|OTHER|The risk ratios reflect the risk of transfer to a hospital during the intervention period relative to the baseline period in each trial group.|Difference in Risk Ratio|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|19.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.2|9.7|<0.001
91801519|NCT02653872|183480619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC for AZD7986 administered with verapamil over AUC for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|132.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.78|143.64|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC. A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||143.64|121.78|
91801520|NCT02653872|183480619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC for AZD7986 administered with itraconazole over AUC for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|113.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.69|123.49|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC. A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||123.49|104.69|
91801521|NCT02653872|183480620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered with verapamil over AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|133.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.7|145.29|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC (0-t). A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC (0-t) between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||145.29|122.70|
91801522|NCT02653872|183480620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered with itraconazole over AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|112.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.34|122.37|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC (0-t). A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC (0-t) between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||122.37|103.34|
91801523|NCT04873700|183480634|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0701|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Location of disease||||=0.0701
91907650|NCT02933034|183710672|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of infarct size using MEMRI versus DEMRI scan||||0.001
91879388|NCT01222533|183652929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.294|0.384|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.384|0.294|<0.0001
91879389|NCT00460564|183652958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.83|||<|0.001||95.0|-10.567|-3.093|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.093|-10.567|<0.001
91879390|NCT01936324|183652981|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, baseline lesion count, and center.||||||0.0003
91879391|NCT01936324|183652982|OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, baseline lesion count, and center||||||0.0032
91748668|NCT00487942|183389599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.78||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.78|-0.98|
91801524|NCT04873700|183480634|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1383|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Disease behavior||||=0.1383
91801525|NCT04873700|183480634|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0478|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Perianal disease||||=0.0478
91801526|NCT04873700|183480634|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1454|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Ileal disease||||=0.1454
91879392|NCT01936324|183652983|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study center||||||0.0070
91879393|NCT03226106|183652988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|930.51||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.65|1819.36||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||1819.36|41.65|0.024
91879394|NCT03226106|183652989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|2.07||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||2.07|-0.67|0.584
91879395|NCT03226106|183652990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.32||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||1.32|-1.40|0.724
91879396|NCT03226106|183652991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.49||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|33.89||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||33.89|-18.90|0.547
91879397|NCT03226106|183652992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.93||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.67|31.54||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||31.54|-21.67|0.716
91879398|NCT03226106|183652993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.82||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||0.82|-0.88|0.946
91879399|NCT03226106|183652994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.52||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||0.52|-1.08|0.906
91879400|NCT03226106|183652995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|4.49||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||4.49|-7.59|0.873
91879401|NCT03226106|183652996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|-0.04||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||-0.04|-12.48|0.241
91879402|NCT03226106|183652997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|6.12||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||6.12|-0.39|0.223
91879403|NCT03226106|183652998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|4.53||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||4.53|-2.19|0.388
91879404|NCT03226106|183652999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.68||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||2.68|-4.08|0.88
91879405|NCT03226106|183653000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|4.17||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||4.17|-2.63|0.85
91879406|NCT03226106|183653001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|559.81||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-405.01|1524.62||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||1524.62|-405.01|0.101
91879407|NCT04349644|183653002|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent vari- ables.||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest values.||||||0.016
91879408|NCT04349644|183653002|OTHER|"A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each depen- dent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.~Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables."||||||0.288|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA while controlling Pretest.||||||0.288
91879409|NCT04349644|183653003|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.932|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling pretest value for CASS Vocal Expressiveness.||||||0.932
91879410|NCT04349644|183653003|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.221|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest for CASS Quality of Rapport.||||||0.221
91879411|NCT04349644|183653003|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.873|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest Vocal Expressiveness.||||||0.873
91879412|NCT04349644|183653003|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.512|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest Quality of Rapport.||||||0.512
91879413|NCT04349644|183653004|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for Pretest.||||||0.05
91748669|NCT00487942|183389599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.27||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.27|-0.54|
91879414|NCT04349644|183653004|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.393|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for Pretest.||||||0.393
91879415|NCT04349644|183653005|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables||||||0.917|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest values.||||||0.917
91879416|NCT04349644|183653005|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables||||||0.963|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA while controlling for pretest.||||||0.963
91879417|NCT00702650|183653014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||One-Sample Binomial (Wald) test, 2-sided|||||||<0.001
91748670|NCT00487942|183389600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.38||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.38|-1.14|
91879418|NCT00702650|183653019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Sexual Desire based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91879419|NCT00702650|183653019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Overall Sexual Activity Score based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91879420|NCT00702650|183653019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Erection Maintained for Satisfactory Duration based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91879421|NCT00702650|183653019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Positive Mood based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91748671|NCT00487942|183389600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.89|
91748672|NCT00487942|183389600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.73||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.73|-0.84|
91748673|NCT00487942|183389601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.4||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.40|-1.21|
91748674|NCT00487942|183389601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.52||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.52|-1.09|
91748675|NCT00487942|183389601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.14||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.14|-1.51|
91748676|NCT00487942|183389602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.58||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.58|-1.06|
91748677|NCT00487942|183389602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.75||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.75|-0.85|
91748678|NCT00487942|183389602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.90|
91801527|NCT04873700|183480634|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Peripheral arthritis||||=1.0000
91801528|NCT04873700|183480634|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4992|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Aphthous ulcers||||=0.4992
91879422|NCT00702650|183653019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Negative Mood based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91879423|NCT00702650|183653020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254||95.0||||p-value for Physical Component Score based on a one-sample t-test comparing Day 120 and Baseline values.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0254
91879424|NCT00702650|183653020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value for Mental Component Score based on a one-sample t-test comparing Day 120 and Baseline values.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91889240|NCT04546425|183671188|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|5.8|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 2||5.8|-11.8|
91889241|NCT04546425|183671188|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.5|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 3||-0.5|-10.2|
91879425|NCT01309243|183653029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: The FTC/RPV/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the EFV/FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of subjects achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate, as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48.~Alternative hypothesis: The FTC/RPV/TDF group was less than 12% worse than the EFV/FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of subjects achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48."|Difference in the response rates|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|9.2|||||The baseline stratum-weighted (HIV-1 RNA ≤ 100,000 and \> 100,000 copies/mL) difference in virologic success rates and its 95% CI were from baseline HIV-1 RNA adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|"The analysis was to assess the noninferiority of FTC/RPV/TDF versus EFV/FTC/TDF using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 12% (lower bound of CI \> -12%).~700 subjects allocated 1:1 to either treatment arm was predicted to give \> 95% power when the proportion of responders in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint is 80% at Week 48."||9.2|-1.1|
91879426|NCT01309243|183653030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the response rates|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|11.5|||||The baseline stratum-weighted (HIV-1 RNA ≤ 100,000 and \> 100,000 copies/mL) difference in virologic success rates and its 95% CI were from baseline HIV-1 RNA adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||11.5|-0.6|
91879427|NCT01309243|183653031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|11.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|32.0||The p-value, and difference in least square means (LSM) and its 95% CI are from analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and baseline HIV-1 RNA levels (≤ 100,000, \> 100,000 copies/mL) as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||32|-11|0.34
91879428|NCT01309243|183653032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|20.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|49.0||The p-value, and difference in LSM and its 95% CI are from ANOVA with treatment and baseline HIV-1 RNA levels (≤ 100,000, \> 100,000 copies/mL) as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||49|-9|0.17
91879429|NCT01309243|183653033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91879430|NCT01309243|183653034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91879431|NCT01309243|183653035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91879432|NCT01309243|183653036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91879433|NCT00943722|183653040|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.14||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||2.14|1.70|< 0.001
91801529|NCT04873700|183480634|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Episcleritis||||=1.0000
91879434|NCT00943722|183653040|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.06||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||2.06|1.63|< 0.001
91879435|NCT00943722|183653040|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.22||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||2.22|1.77|< 0.001
91879436|NCT00943722|183653040|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|2.8||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||2.80|2.13|< 0.001
91879437|NCT00943722|183653040|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|2.85||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||2.85|2.21|< 0.001
91879438|NCT00943722|183653040|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.36||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||2.36|1.87|< 0.001
91879439|NCT00943722|183653040|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|3.03||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||3.03|2.27|< 0.001
91879440|NCT00943722|183653040|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|2.51||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||2.51|1.97|< 0.001
91879441|NCT00943722|183653040|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|2.45||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||2.45|1.93|< 0.001
91879442|NCT00943722|183653041|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|2.59||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||2.59|2.07|< 0.001
91879443|NCT00943722|183653041|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|2.36||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||2.36|1.88|< 0.001
91879444|NCT00943722|183653041|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.74||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||2.74|2.19|< 0.001
91879445|NCT00943722|183653041|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|3.65||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||3.65|2.80|< 0.001
91879446|NCT00943722|183653041|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.34||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||3.34|2.60|< 0.001
91879447|NCT00943722|183653041|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|2.88||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||2.88|2.29|< 0.001
91801530|NCT04873700|183480634|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Uveitis||||=1.0000
91879448|NCT00943722|183653041|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|3.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|3.84||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||3.84|2.89|< 0.001
91879449|NCT00943722|183653041|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.79||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||2.79|2.19|< 0.001
91889242|NCT04546425|183671188|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.0|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hib||2.0|-1.8|
91889243|NCT03296800|183671192|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|118.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.12|126.72|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||126.72|111.12|
91889244|NCT03296800|183671192|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|119.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.39|151.59||||||Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters|Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|151.59|94.39|
91879450|NCT00943722|183653041|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|2.98||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||2.98|2.37|< 0.001
91879451|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 6||1.08|0.88|
91879452|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.16|0.93|
91879453|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.19|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.19|0.95|
91879454|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 11||1.11|0.90|
91879455|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.20|0.95|
91879456|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.20|0.95|
91879457|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 16||1.06|0.86|
91879458|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.12|0.90|
91879459|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.17|0.94|
91801531|NCT04873700|183480634|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Osteoporosis||||=1.0000
91879460|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 18||1.14|0.89|
91879461|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.26|0.98|
91879462|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.26|0.97|
91879463|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 31||1.13|0.89|
91879464|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.16|0.91|
91879465|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.15|0.90|
91879466|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 33||1.16|0.94|
91879467|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.17|0.94|
91879468|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.12|0.90|
91879469|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 45||0.95|0.73|
91879470|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.18|0.91|
91879471|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.42|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.42|1.08|
91879472|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 52||1.03|0.83|
91879473|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.07|0.85|
91907651|NCT02819635|183710714|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|8.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||16.8|0.0|0.049
91907652|NCT02819635|183710714|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|23.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||23.8|3.3|0.010
91907653|NCT02819635|183710714|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|23.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||23.9|3.8|0.007
91907654|NCT02819635|183710714|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|33.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||33.6|8.6|<0.001
91907655|NCT02819635|183710715|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|27.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes vs. no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||27.4|15.8|<0.001
91879474|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.16|0.92|
91907656|NCT02819635|183710716|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|39.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Baseline of Induction Study; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||39.8|21.7|<0.001
91748679|NCT00487942|183389605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.71||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SANS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.71|-0.80|
91801532|NCT04873700|183480634|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2022|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Anemia||||=0.2022
91801533|NCT04873700|183480634|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Hematological alteration||||=1.0000
91879475|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 58||1.06|0.86|
91879476|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.2|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.20|0.96|
91879477|NCT00943722|183653042|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.26|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.26|1.00|
91879478|NCT00943722|183653046|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||1.5|-0.8|< 0.001
91879479|NCT00943722|183653046|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
91879480|NCT00943722|183653046|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
91879481|NCT00943722|183653046|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||1.5|-0.8|< 0.001
91907657|NCT02819635|183710716|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|39.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|48.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Baseline of Induction Study; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||48.2|29.7|<0.001
91907658|NCT02819635|183710717|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|25.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||25.0|1.2|0.030
91907659|NCT02819635|183710717|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|42.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||42.1|13.1|<0.001
91907660|NCT02819635|183710717|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|40.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||40.8|12.3|<0.001
91907661|NCT02819635|183710717|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|35.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|51.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||51.7|19.2|<0.001
91879482|NCT00943722|183653046|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
91879483|NCT00943722|183653046|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||1.6|-0.4|< 0.001
91879484|NCT00943722|183653046|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||1.8|-0.6|< 0.001
91907662|NCT02819635|183710718|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|11.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|20.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||20.4|1.7|0.021
91879485|NCT00943722|183653046|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
91879486|NCT00943722|183653046|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
91801534|NCT04873700|183480634|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Other||||=0.0000
91801535|NCT04873700|183480635|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2896|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Location of disease||||=0.2896
91801536|NCT04873700|183480635|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Disease behavior||||=0.0006
91801537|NCT04873700|183480635|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.089|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Peripheral arthritis||||=0.0890
91801538|NCT04873700|183480635|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Pyoderma gangrenosum||||=1.0000
91801539|NCT04873700|183480635|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Aphthous ulcers||||=1.0000
91801540|NCT04873700|183480635|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Primary sclerosing cholangitis||||=1.0000
91801541|NCT04873700|183480635|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Osteoporosis||||=1.0000
91879487|NCT00943722|183653047|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||1.5|-0.7|< 0.001
91879488|NCT00943722|183653047|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
91801542|NCT04873700|183480635|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0752|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Anemia||||=0.0752
91801543|NCT04873700|183480635|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Hematological alteration||||=1.0000
91801544|NCT04873700|183480635|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1032|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Other||||=0.1032
91801545|NCT00788073|183480659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91801546|NCT00788073|183480660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
91879489|NCT00943722|183653047|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
91801547|NCT00910273|183480663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|8.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null Hypothesis: No difference in Change in FMD at 12 weeks for Etanercept and placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Difference in Change in FMD at 12 weeks for Etanercept and placebo.~Sample size of 36 subjects per treatment arm was planned based on an expected difference of 0.9 in FMD (Standard Deviation \[SD\] 1.5), with 80% power and 5% significance level."||8.58|-5.14|0.608
91801548|NCT00910273|183480664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analyses available for Week 4 only, due to limited number of participants for Week 24 to Week 52.|Week 4||7.00|-3.35|0.476
91801549|NCT00910273|183480665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 12; Common Carotid Artery; Due to limited number of participants with visits after Week 12 analysis limited to Week 12||0.13|-0.08|0.650
91801550|NCT00910273|183480665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 12; Common Bulb; Due to limited number of participants with visits after Week 12 analysis limited to Week 12||0.07|-0.13|0.513
91801551|NCT00910273|183480665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 12; Internal Carotid Artery; Due to limited number of participants with visits after Week 12 analysis limited to Week 12||0.08|-0.14|0.592
91801552|NCT00910273|183480670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||-0.50|-3.05|0.008
91801553|NCT00910273|183480670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||-0.33|-3.70|0.021
91801554|NCT00910273|183480678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||-0.40|-1.74|0.003
91801555|NCT00910273|183480678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||-0.10|-1.72|0.029
91801556|NCT00910273|183480684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||-0.05|-2.13|0.041
91801557|NCT00910273|183480684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||-0.01|-2.55|0.048
91801558|NCT00910273|183480685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||1.57|-0.89|0.575
91801559|NCT00910273|183480685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||2.30|-0.52|0.204
91801560|NCT03540030|183480686|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.297
91801561|NCT03540030|183480687|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||At the 6 hour time point|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91801562|NCT03540030|183480687|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At the 12 hour time point||||0.005
91879490|NCT00943722|183653047|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||1.6|-0.4|< 0.001
91801563|NCT03540030|183480688|OTHER|||||||0.0801|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0801
91801564|NCT03540030|183480689|OTHER|||||||0.0154|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0154
91801565|NCT03540030|183480690|OTHER|||||||0.2139|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2139
91801566|NCT03540030|183480692|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
91801567|NCT03540030|183480693|OTHER|||||||0.9669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9669
91801568|NCT03540030|183480694|OTHER|||||||0.9208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9208
91879491|NCT00943722|183653047|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
91907663|NCT02819635|183710718|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|9.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|18.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||18.0|1.3|0.024
91801569|NCT03540030|183480695|OTHER|||||||0.6481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For PCS only||||0.6481
91907664|NCT02819635|183710718|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|12.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|22.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||22.0|2.3|0.015
91801570|NCT03540030|183480695|OTHER|||||||0.3911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For MCS only||||0.3911
91801571|NCT03540030|183480696|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
91801572|NCT03540030|183480697|OTHER|||||||0.3177|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3177
91801573|NCT03540030|183480698|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
91801574|NCT03540030|183480699|OTHER|||||||0.2349|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2349
91801575|NCT03540030|183480700|OTHER|||||||0.7892|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7892
91801576|NCT03540030|183480701|OTHER|||||||0.2023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For PCS only||||0.2023
91801577|NCT03540030|183480701|OTHER|||||||0.2486|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For MCS only||||0.2486
91801578|NCT00569270|183480702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak FEV1 of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.027
91801579|NCT00569270|183480703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rho|0.19||||0.96||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p=0.05|Spearman rho|||Correlation between improved lung function after tiotropium and extent of lung CT scored emphysema with respect to ratio functional residual capacity divided by total lung capacity. Specifically, correlation of tiotropium induced bronchodilation and extent of lung ct scored emphysema; measure includes change in FEV1 post tiotropium||||0.96
91801580|NCT00569270|183480704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak FRC in tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.318
91801581|NCT00569270|183480705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||Statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak FVC of tiotropium minus placebo.29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.078
91801582|NCT00569270|183480706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rho|-0.26||||0.4||95.0|||||Spearman rho|||Correlation between improved lung function after tiotropium and extent of lung CT scored emphysema with respect to ratio functional residual capacity divided by total lung capacity. Specifically, correlation of tiotropium induced bronchodilation and extent of lung ct scored emphysema (19 patients); measures include change in IC at trough tiotropium.||||0.4
91801583|NCT00569270|183480707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak IC of tiotropium minus placebo.29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.067
91801584|NCT00569270|183480708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Mean difference of Peak FRC/TLC of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.615
91879492|NCT00943722|183653047|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||1.6|-0.4|< 0.001
91801585|NCT00569270|183480709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||Statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.325
91801586|NCT00569270|183480710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.345
91801587|NCT00569270|183480711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough FRC(L) in tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.068
91801588|NCT00569270|183480712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of trough FVC in tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.589
91801589|NCT00569270|183480713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough IC of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.922
91801590|NCT00569270|183480714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||-0.02||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough FRC/TLC of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||-0.02
91801591|NCT00569270|183480715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||-0.13||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough TLC (L) of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||-0.13
91801592|NCT00569270|183480716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in IC before and after dynamic hyperinflation. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.0001
91801593|NCT00569270|183480717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Total lung capacity was similar in all groups and was not significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||>0.05
91801594|NCT00569270|183480718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p= 0.05|Spearman rho|Spearman rho = -0.26||Correlation between improved lung function after tiotropium and extent of lung CT scored emphysema with respect to ratio functional residual capacity divided by total lung capacity. Specifically, correlation of tiotropium induced bronchodilation and extent of lung ct scored emphysema||||0.36
91801595|NCT04729621|183480728|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity will be demonstrated if the 95% CI for the difference falls entirely within the equivalence margin of (-1.45, +1.45).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.15||||||LS means, differences and confidence intervals (CI) from the ANCOVA model with percent change from baseline to Week 52 in LS-BMD as the outcome, treatment group, region and previous use of bisphosphates as fixed effects, baseline LS-BMD and baseline weight as covariates. Missing outcomes imputed using multiple imputation methods under the MAR assumption.||1.15|-0.73|
91801596|NCT04729621|183480729|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity will be demonstrated if the 95% CI for the difference falls entirely within the equivalence margin of (-20, +20).|Mean Difference (Net)|9.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|18.29||||||LS means, differences and confidence intervals (CI) from the ANCOVA model with percent change from baseline to Week 26 in sCTX-1 as the outcome, treatment group, region and previous use of bisphosphates as fixed effects, baseline sCTX-1 and baseline weight as covariates. Missing outcomes are not imputed. Results below the limit of quantification (BLQ) are imputed as the low limit of quantification (LLOQ = 0.033 ng/mL).||18.29|-0.14|
91801597|NCT02187744|183480781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis to be tested in this study is the percentage of participants with steady state (Cycle 5) Ctrough \>20 μg/mL of PF-05280014 is non-inferior to trastuzumab-EU using a margin of -12.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|6.49|||||Stratified analysis was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, adjusting for the randomization strata of primary tumor size, estrogen receptor status and by progesterone receptor status.|||6.49|-8.02|
91801598|NCT02187744|183480781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis to be tested in this study is the percentage of participants with steady state (Cycle 5) Ctrough \>20 μg/mL of PF-05280014 is non-inferior to trastuzumab-EU using a margin of -12.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|6.23|||||Unstratified analysis.|||6.23|-8.59|
91801599|NCT02187744|183480783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|10.96|||||Stratified analysis was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, adjusting for the randomization strata of primary tumor size, estrogen receptor status and by progesterone receptor status.|||10.96|-16.58|
91801600|NCT02187744|183480783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|11.4|||||Unstratified analysis.|||11.40|-17.40|
91801601|NCT02187744|183480784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|15.94|||||Stratified analysis was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, adjusting for the randomization strata of primary tumor size, estrogen receptor status and by progesterone receptor status.|||15.94|-4.01|
91801602|NCT02187744|183480784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|16.27|||||Unstratified analysis.|||16.27|-4.08|
91801603|NCT00134030|183480787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.61|0.214
91801604|NCT00134030|183480787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.78|0.86
91801605|NCT00134030|183480787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.9|||Difference in RMST|||Secondary RMST analysis performed in poor response group, due to evidence of non-proportional hazards.||4.9|-3.3|0.69
91879493|NCT00943722|183653047|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||2.0|-0.1|< 0.001
91879494|NCT00943722|183653047|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
91879495|NCT00943722|183653047|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
91879496|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 6||0.9|-0.9|
91879497|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.7|-0.4|
91879498|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.7|-0.4|
91879499|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 11||0.7|-0.7|
91879500|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.3|-0.4|
91879501|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.3|-0.4|
91879502|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 16||0.7|-0.7|
91879503|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.3|-0.4|
91801606|NCT00134030|183480788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.69|0.804
91879504|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.3|-0.4|
91879505|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 18||0.5|-1.1|
91801607|NCT00134030|183480788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.81|0.674
91801608|NCT01972568|183480807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.72|||Logistic regression model|||||2.72|0.89|0.1208
91801609|NCT01972568|183480815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|7.61|||Logistic regression model|||||7.61|1.44|0.0048
91879506|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.1|-0.7|
91879507|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.3|-0.4|
91879508|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 31||0.7|-0.7|
91879509|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.0|-0.6|
91801610|NCT01972568|183480816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.46|||Logistic regression model|||||3.46|1.11|0.0202
91801611|NCT00144391|183480836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91801612|NCT00594659|183480843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||accelerated bootstrapping|||Pairwise comparison; non-parametric tests performed because of non-normal distribution||||<0.05
91801613|NCT00594659|183480843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||accelerated bootstrapping|||pairwise comparison; non-parametric analysis||||< .05
91801614|NCT00594659|183480843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||accelerated bootstrapping|||nonparametric pairwise comparison; non-normal distribution||||> 0.05
91801615|NCT00594659|183480844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||piecewise mixed model with logit link an|Performed across all assessments.|Slope and p-value above are for group 1: baseline to ETX. Group 3 vs. Group 1 baseline to ETX slope, p \< 0.05. All other pairwise comparisons p \> 0.05.|pairwise comparisons among groups across 4 follow-up timepoints||||< 0.05
91801616|NCT00617851|183480940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H1N1 Strain)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H01 LotA ≠ LotB versus H1 LotA = LotB H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.29|0.92|
91801617|NCT00617851|183480940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H1N1 Strain)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.31|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H02 LotA ≠ LotC versus H12 LotA = Lotc H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.31|0.93|
91801618|NCT00617851|183480940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H1N1 Strain)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.2|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotB ≠ LotC versus H13 LotB = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.2|0.85|
91801619|NCT00617851|183480940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H3N2 Strain)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.3|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotB versus H13 LotA = LotB H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.3|0.97|
91801620|NCT00617851|183480940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H3N2 strain)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotC versus H13 LotA = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.13|0.85|
91879510|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.0|-0.5|
91879511|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 33||0.7|-0.7|
91879512|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.3|-0.4|
91879513|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.3|-0.4|
91879514|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 45||0.5|-1.1|
91879515|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.1|-0.7|
91801621|NCT00617851|183480940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H3N2 strain)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotB ≠ LotC versus H13 LotB = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.01|0.76|
91801622|NCT00617851|183480940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (B strain)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotB versus H13 LotA = LotB H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.23|0.91|
91801623|NCT00617851|183480940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (B strain)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.33|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotC versus H13 LotA = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.33|0.99|
91879516|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.3|-0.4|
91879517|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 52||0.7|-0.7|
91879518|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.3|-0.4|
91907665|NCT02819635|183710718|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|20.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||32.1|8.0|0.001
91879519|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.3|-0.4|
91907666|NCT02819635|183710719|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|16.7||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|32.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||32.5|0.9|0.038
91748680|NCT00487942|183389605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.45||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SANS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.45|-1.06|
91748681|NCT00487942|183389605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.89||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SANS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.89|-0.68|
91748682|NCT00487942|183389606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.88|
91748683|NCT00487942|183389606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.82||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.82|-0.72|
91748684|NCT00487942|183389606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.81||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.81|-0.80|
91748685|NCT00487942|183389607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.2||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.20|-1.44|
91748686|NCT00487942|183389607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.62||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.62|-0.98|
91748687|NCT00487942|183389607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.97|
91748688|NCT00487942|183389608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.72||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.72|-0.88|
91748689|NCT00487942|183389608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.72||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.72|-0.88|
91748690|NCT00487942|183389608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.89||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.89|-0.72|
91879520|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 58||0.7|-0.7|
91879521|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.3|-0.4|
91879522|NCT00943722|183653048|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.3|-0.4|
91879523|NCT01772823|183653064|OTHER|||||||0.7513||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Size of the Pill) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.7513
91879524|NCT01772823|183653065|OTHER|||||||0.8281||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Taste of the Pill) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-Square||||||0.8281
91879525|NCT01772823|183653066|OTHER|||||||0.3761||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Color of the Pill) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.3761
91879526|NCT01772823|183653067|OTHER|||||||0.4359||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Taking the pill every day) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.4359
91879527|NCT01772823|183653068|OTHER|||||||0.3801||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Taking part in the study) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.3801
91879528|NCT01772823|183653069|OTHER|||||||0.1968||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on HIV test at every visit) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.1968
91879529|NCT01772823|183653070|OTHER|||||||0.1226||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Risk Reduction counseling at every visit) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.1226
91907667|NCT02819635|183710719|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|52.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||52.8|17.5|<0.001
91879530|NCT01772823|183653071|OTHER|||||||0.0994||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Questions about sexual behavior) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.0994
91879531|NCT01772823|183653072|OTHER|||||||0.5285||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Physician exam) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.5285
91879532|NCT01772823|183653076|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91879533|NCT01772823|183653077|OTHER|||||||0.0098||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0098
91879534|NCT01772823|183653078|OTHER|||||||0.0766||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0766
91879535|NCT01772823|183653079|OTHER|||||||0.1581||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1581
91879536|NCT01772823|183653080|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4300
91879537|NCT01772823|183653081|OTHER|||||||0.1201||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1201
91879538|NCT01772823|183653082|OTHER|||||||0.1682||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1682
91879539|NCT01772823|183653083|OTHER|||||||0.2747||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2747
91879540|NCT01772823|183653084|OTHER|||||||0.0046||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
91879541|NCT01772823|183653085|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0290
91879542|NCT01772823|183653086|OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1070
91879543|NCT01772823|183653088|OTHER|||||||0.2991||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant self-identified race) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2991
91879544|NCT01772823|183653089|OTHER|||||||0.0298||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant self-identified race) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0298
91879545|NCT01772823|183653090|OTHER|||||||0.8643||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant self-identified ethnicity) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8643
91748691|NCT00487942|183389609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.65|
91748692|NCT00487942|183389609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.88||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.88|-0.63|
91748693|NCT00487942|183389609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.6||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||2.60|0.78|
91748694|NCT00487942|183389610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.46||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.46|-1.06|
91748695|NCT00487942|183389610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.67||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.67|-0.87|
91748696|NCT00487942|183389610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.74||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.74|0.05|
91748697|NCT00487942|183389611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.55||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.55|-1.05|
91748698|NCT00487942|183389611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.09||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.09|-0.52|
91879546|NCT01772823|183653091|OTHER|||||||0.9037||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant BMI) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9037
91879547|NCT01772823|183653092|OTHER|||||||0.5279|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5279
91879548|NCT01772823|183653093|OTHER|||||||0.5369||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participation in high-risk sex acts) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5369
91879549|NCT01772823|183653096|OTHER|||||||0.2193||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2193
91879550|NCT01772823|183653097|OTHER|||||||0.1255||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1255
91879551|NCT01772823|183653098|OTHER|||||||0.0706||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0706
91879552|NCT01772823|183653099|OTHER|||||||0.0088||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0088
91879553|NCT01772823|183653100|OTHER|||||||0.2482||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2482
91879554|NCT01772823|183653101|OTHER|||||||0.1647||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1647
91879555|NCT01772823|183653102|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6880
91748699|NCT00487942|183389611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.58||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.58|-0.08|
91748700|NCT00487942|183389612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.82|-0.78|
91748701|NCT00487942|183389612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.36||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.36|-0.27|
91748702|NCT00487942|183389612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.55||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||2.55|0.70|
91748703|NCT00487942|183389613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.64|
91748704|NCT00487942|183389613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.64||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.64|-0.87|
91748705|NCT00487942|183389613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.54||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.54|-0.08|
91748706|NCT00487942|183389614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.27||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.27|-1.27|
91748707|NCT00487942|183389614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.5||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.50|-1.05|
91748708|NCT00487942|183389614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.11||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.11|-0.51|
91879556|NCT01772823|183653103|OTHER|||||||0.2881||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2881
91879557|NCT01772823|183653104|OTHER|||||||0.2223||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2223
91801624|NCT00617851|183480940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (B strain)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotB ≠ LotC versus H13 LotB = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.26|0.94|
91801625|NCT00944671|183480965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given a 3-period crossover design, assuming a true within subject variance for natural log AUC of 0.029, 24 subjects completing the study, and alpha = 0.05, there is a 0.995 probability that the 90% confidence interval for the true geometric mean ratio of AUC for (famotidine antacid combination EZ Chew tablet without water/ famotidine antacid combination tablet with water) will be contained in (0.80, 1.25), given that the true ratio is one.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||||90.0|0.98|1.13||||||||1.13|0.98|
91801626|NCT00944671|183480966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a true within subject variance for natural log Cmax of 0.017, there is a 0.999 probability that the 90% confidence interval for the true geometric mean ratio of Cmax for (famotidine antacid combination EZ Chew tablet without water/ famotidine antacid combination tablet with water) will be contained in (0.80, 1.25), given that the true ratio is one.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.93|1.13||||||||1.13|0.93|
91801627|NCT00944671|183480967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||||90.0|0.98|1.13||||||||1.13|0.98|
91801628|NCT00944671|183480968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.93|1.14||||||||1.14|0.93|
91801629|NCT01479478|183480997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.87
91801630|NCT00142935|183481020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Outcome: engage in treatment post release, yes or no||||<0.001
91801631|NCT00142935|183481021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.02
91801632|NCT00142935|183481022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.09
91801633|NCT00142935|183481023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.09
91801634|NCT00142935|183481025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8
91801635|NCT00705289|183481043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Product Moment Correlation|0.1402||||0.0003|||||||Test for non-zero correlation|||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and age (prior to infliximab therapy)||||0.0003
91801636|NCT00705289|183481044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Product Moment Correlation|-0.01||||0.7991||95.0|||||Test for non-zero correlation|||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and time since diagnosis (prior to infliximab therapy)||||0.7991
91801637|NCT00705289|183481045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7152||95.0|||||ANOVA|The association between Baseline DAS28 and gender is based on a one-way Anova.||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and gender (prior to infliximab therapy)||||0.7152
91801638|NCT00705289|183481046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Relationship between DAS28 and Country of Residence was based on a 1-way ANOVA calculated as P-value.||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and country of residence (prior to infliximab therapy)||||<0.0001
91801639|NCT00705289|183481047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15||||95.0|5.1|5.3||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (all subjects, prior to infliximab therapy)||5.3|5.1|
91879558|NCT01772823|183653105|OTHER|||||||0.0617||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0617
91879559|NCT01772823|183653106|OTHER|||||||0.0868||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0868
91801640|NCT00705289|183481047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16||||95.0|5.0|5.5||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (subjects with early RA, not treated with anti-TNF; prior to infliximab therapy)||5.5|5.0|
91801641|NCT00705289|183481047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14||||95.0|5.1|5.3||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (subjects with established RA not treated with anti-TNF; prior to infliximab therapy)||5.3|5.1|
91801642|NCT00705289|183481047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16||||95.0|5.1|5.5||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (subjects with established RA who failed or did not tolerate another anti-TNF; prior to infliximab therapy)||5.5|5.1|
91801643|NCT00304746|183481070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||For a complete presentation of the above analysis, please see the published paper presenting the full results of this study.|mixed effects linear regression analysis|||Our primary analysis of efficacy was a mixed effects linear regression analysis comparing the rate of change of score on the HAM-D during the blinded treatment phase between groups. Our model for the mean of the outcome variable included terms for treatment, time (modeled as a continuous variable), and treatment-by-time. The measure of effect was the treatment-by-time interaction, which can be interpreted as the difference in slope with respect to time, of the outcome measure.||||0.71
91879560|NCT01772823|183653107|OTHER|||||||0.1847||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1847
91879561|NCT01772823|183653108|OTHER|||||||0.0226||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0226
91879562|NCT03897049|183653111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.961||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|1.994|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.994|0.463|0.914
91879563|NCT03897049|183653112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.979||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|2.074|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.074|0.473|0.990
91879564|NCT03897049|183653113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.434||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.390|0.861|0.167
91801644|NCT01431989|183481071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio Geometric mean T/R formulation|90.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.53||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.99|93.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: 1) Fixed effects: Sequence, Period, and Formulation; 2) Random effects: Volunteer (Sequence) and Residual|The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated. Standard deviation intra subject was obtained.|||93.17|86.99|0.0000
91801645|NCT01431989|183481072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio Geometric mean T/R formulation|87.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.83||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.55|93.65|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: 1) Fixed effects: Sequence, Period, and Formulation; 2) Random effects: Volunteer (Sequence) and Residual|The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated. Standard deviation intra subject was obtained.|||93.65|82.55|0.0018
91801646|NCT01431989|183481073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio Geometric means T/R formulation|90.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.51||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.96|93.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: 1) Fixed effects: Sequence, Period, and Formulation; 2) Random effects: Volunteer (Sequence) and Residual|The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated. Standard deviation intra subject was obtained.|||93.12|86.96|0.0000
91879565|NCT03897049|183653114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.492||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|2.466|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.466|0.903|0.118
91879566|NCT03897049|183653115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.335||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|2.221|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.221|0.803|0.265
91879567|NCT03897049|183653116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.654|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.654|0.593|0.971
91879568|NCT03897049|183653117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.942|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.942
91879569|NCT03897049|183653118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.741|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.741
91879570|NCT03897049|183653119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.494|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.494
91879571|NCT03897049|183653120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.651
91879572|NCT03897049|183653121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.022
91879573|NCT03897049|183653122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.85||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.189
91879574|NCT03897049|183653123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07||||0.218|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.218
91879575|NCT03897049|183653124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.479||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|1.305|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.305|0.173|0.149
91879576|NCT03897049|183653125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.111||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|3.063|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.063|0.403|0.839
91879577|NCT03897049|183653126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.302||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|11.641|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.641|0.937|0.063
91879578|NCT03897049|183653127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.650
91879579|NCT03897049|183653128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.531
91879580|NCT03897049|183653129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.761|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.761
91879581|NCT03897049|183653130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.503
91879582|NCT03897049|183653131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.541
91879583|NCT03897049|183653132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.537|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.537
91879584|NCT03897049|183653133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.057
91879585|NCT03897049|183653134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.402
91879586|NCT03897049|183653135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.308
91879587|NCT03897049|183653136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
91879588|NCT05109117|183653137|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 2 hours post-treatment||3.9|1.7|<0.0001
91879589|NCT05109117|183653137|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 4 hours post-treatment||2.7|0.4|0.0077
91879590|NCT05109117|183653137|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 6 hours post-treatment||2.9|0.7|0.0019
91879591|NCT05109117|183653137|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 8 hours post-treatment||2.2|-0.1|0.0707
91879592|NCT02166047|183653143|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.023||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.108||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.108|-0.061|0.590
91879593|NCT02166047|183653143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.068||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.154||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.154|-0.018|0.120
91879594|NCT02166047|183653143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.102||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.102|-0.069|0.701
91879595|NCT02166047|183653143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.082||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.21||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.210|-0.046|0.210
91801647|NCT01431989|183481074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.125|0.375|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The non-parametric method included the following factors: Sequence, Formulation, Period, Formulation and Residual||||0.375|-0.125|0.3390
91801648|NCT03345914|183481078|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|18.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.28|27.97||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kilograms (kg) or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||27.97|8.28|= 0.0004
91801649|NCT03345914|183481078|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|31.45||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kg or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||31.45|11.36|< 0.0001
91801650|NCT03345914|183481079|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|40.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.95|51.82||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kg or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with EASI-75 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||51.82|28.95|< 0.0001
91801651|NCT03345914|183481079|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.54|54.15||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kg or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with EASI-75 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||54.15|31.54|< 0.0001
91879596|NCT02166047|183653143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.082||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.21||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.210|-0.046|0.207
91879597|NCT02166047|183653143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.081||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.21||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.210|-0.048|0.216
91879598|NCT02166047|183653143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.051||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.051|-0.081|0.652
91879599|NCT02166047|183653143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.065||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.065|-0.066|0.994
91879600|NCT02166047|183653143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.069||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.069|-0.069|0.996
91879601|NCT00451555|183653156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6238|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6238
91879602|NCT00451555|183653156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6282|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6282
91879603|NCT00451555|183653156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6242|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6242
91879604|NCT00451555|183653157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6390
91879605|NCT00451555|183653157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6721
91879606|NCT00451555|183653157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6349|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6349
91879607|NCT00451555|183653158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8582|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8582
91879608|NCT00451555|183653158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7307|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7307
91879609|NCT00451555|183653158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9798|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9798
91879610|NCT00451555|183653159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5887|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5887
91879611|NCT00451555|183653159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4516|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4516
91879612|NCT00451555|183653159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7965|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7965
91879613|NCT01376050|183653166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91879614|NCT01376050|183653167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91879615|NCT01037413|183653173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-8.1|-21.3|<0.001
91879616|NCT01037413|183653174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-8.3|-21.2|<0.001
91879617|NCT01037413|183653174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-17.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-17.7|-34.3|<0.001
91879618|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.1|-2.3|0.033
91879619|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.4|-1.9|0.003
91879620|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-2.5|<0.001
91879621|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.0|-2.7|<0.001
91879622|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.3|-1.9|0.012
91879623|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.5|-2.4|0.003
91879624|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.1|-2.6|<0.001
91879625|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-4.0|-12.7|<0.001
91907668|NCT02819635|183710719|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|50.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||50.8|16.3|<0.001
91801652|NCT03345914|183481080|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.33|-23.24||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-23.24|-36.33|< 0.0001
91879626|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.4|-3.2|<0.001
91879627|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.9|-2.9|<0.001
91879628|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-2.8|0.001
91879629|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.3|-3.6|<0.001
91879630|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.7|-3.2|0.005
91801653|NCT03345914|183481080|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.06|-26.82||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.82|-40.06|< 0.0001
91879631|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.2|-3.1|<0.001
91879632|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.5|-3.3|<0.001
91879633|NCT01037413|183653175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-7.4|-17.7|<0.001
91879634|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-1.3|0.067
91879635|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-1.2|0.413
91879636|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-1.6|0.401
91879637|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.2|-2.4|0.083
91879638|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-2.3|0.052
91879639|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.1|-2.3|0.036
91879640|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.0|-2.1|0.045
91879641|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.1|-9.9|0.054
91801654|NCT03345914|183481081|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.76|-23.26||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-23.26|-38.76|< 0.0001
91801655|NCT03345914|183481081|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.47|-20.82||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-20.82|-36.47|< 0.0001
91801656|NCT03345914|183481082|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|57.42||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||57.42|35.3|< 0.0001
91801657|NCT03345914|183481082|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.88|50.51||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||50.51|27.88|< 0.0001
91801658|NCT03345914|183481083|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|46.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.47|56.61||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||56.61|35.47|< 0.0001
91801659|NCT03345914|183481083|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.86|49.21||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||49.21|27.86|< 0.0001
91801660|NCT03345914|183481084|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.68|50.72||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||50.72|28.68|< 0.0001
91801661|NCT03345914|183481084|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|47.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.77|58.01||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||58.01|37.77|< 0.0001
91801662|NCT03345914|183481085|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.65|32.38||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||32.38|13.65|< 0.0001
91801663|NCT03345914|183481085|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|44.37||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||44.37|24.6|< 0.0001
91801664|NCT03345914|183481086|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|3.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.097|4.624||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||4.624|2.097|< 0.0001
91879642|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-8.2|0.065
91879643|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.1|-2.0|0.079
91879644|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-1.5|0.158
91879645|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.5|-3.0|0.010
91879646|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-3.5|0.003
91879647|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-4.0|0.005
91879648|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.2|-3.5|0.032
91879649|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.9|-3.8|0.003
91879650|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-3.1|-16.4|0.006
91879651|NCT01037413|183653176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-3.0|-13.4|0.004
91879652|NCT00619983|183653184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||Due to failure of daily electronic diaries and exhaustion of funds, we were only able to recruit \< 30% of the number of subjects required in our power analysis.||||0.69
91879653|NCT01177137|183653187|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|4.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||4.07|-8.77|0.47
91879654|NCT01177137|183653187|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|2.65||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.65|-8.27|0.31
91879655|NCT01177137|183653188|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.02||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Ca|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||5.02|-5.30|0.96
91748709|NCT00487942|183389615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.68||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.68|-0.92|
91879656|NCT01177137|183653188|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|7.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to adjust for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Ca|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.70|-2.21|0.28
91879657|NCT01177137|183653189|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.77||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.77|-0.55|0.30
91879658|NCT01177137|183653189|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Ca|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.52|-1.75|0.29
91879659|NCT01177137|183653191|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.29||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.29|-3.08|0.77
91889245|NCT03296800|183671192|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|106.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.81|126.65||||||Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters|Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|126.65|88.81|
91889246|NCT03296800|183671195|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|140.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.39|151.26|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||151.26|131.39|
91801665|NCT03345914|183481086|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|2.921|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.957|4.36||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||4.36|1.957|< 0.0001
91801666|NCT03345914|183481087|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|2.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.631|3.182||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||3.182|1.631|< 0.0001
91801667|NCT03345914|183481087|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|2.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.481|2.908||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||2.908|1.481|< 0.0001
91801668|NCT03345914|183481088|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.272|-13.161||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-13.161|-22.272|< 0.0001
91801669|NCT03345914|183481088|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.479|-14.289||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-14.289|-23.479|< 0.0001
91801670|NCT03345914|183481089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-24.48||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-24.48|-36.3|< 0.0001
91801671|NCT03345914|183481089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.57|-26.59||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.59|-38.57|< 0.0001
91801672|NCT03345914|183481090|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-2.99||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.99|-5.62|< 0.0001
91801673|NCT03345914|183481090|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.89||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.89|-5.57|< 0.0001
91801674|NCT03345914|183481091|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|-6.31||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-6.31|-9.96|< 0.0001
91801675|NCT03345914|183481091|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-6.43||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-6.43|-10.13|< 0.0001
91801676|NCT03345914|183481092|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.984|-1.831||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-1.831|-2.984|< 0.0001
91801677|NCT03345914|183481092|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.754|-1.599||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-1.599|-2.754|< 0.0001
91801678|NCT03345914|183481093|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.434|-2.796||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.796|-5.434|< 0.0001
91801679|NCT03345914|183481093|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.298|-2.657||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.657|-5.298|< 0.0001
91801680|NCT03345914|183481094|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.37|||=|0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.779|-0.962||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.962|-5.779|= 0.0061
91801681|NCT03345914|183481094|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.02|||=|0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.414|-0.629||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.629|-5.414|= 0.0133
91801682|NCT03345914|183481095|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.734|-2.272||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.272|-6.734|< 0.0001
91879660|NCT01177137|183653191|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.96||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.96|-3.16|0.65
91907669|NCT02819635|183710719|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|63.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||63.9|26.2|<0.001
91748710|NCT00487942|183389615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.73|
91748711|NCT00487942|183389615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.83||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.83|-0.77|
91879661|NCT01177137|183653192|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.67|-1.38|0.50
91879662|NCT01177137|183653192|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.90|-1.14|0.82
91879663|NCT01177137|183653193|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation.|||0.62|-1.37|0.46
91907670|NCT02819635|183710720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|5.9||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|22.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||22.9|-11.1|0.495
91801683|NCT03345914|183481095|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.641|-3.207||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-3.207|-7.641|< 0.0001
91801684|NCT03345914|183481096|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Differenece|-4.8|||=|0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|2.87||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||2.87|-12.49|= 0.222
91801685|NCT03345914|183481096|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Differenece|-7.3|||=|0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|-0.03||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.03|-14.51|= 0.0508
91801686|NCT03345914|183481099|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.7|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|-1.96||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANOVA model with the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level||-1.96|-9.49|= 0.003
91801687|NCT03345914|183481099|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level|Least Square Mean Difference|-5.1|||=|0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.31||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANOVA model with the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANOVA|||||-1.31|-8.8|= 0.0082
91801688|NCT02218320|183481125|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91879664|NCT01177137|183653193|SUPERIORITY|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.64|||repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.64|-1.35|0.48
91879665|NCT01177137|183653194|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.53|-0.74|0.75
91879666|NCT01177137|183653194|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.17||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||-0.17|-1.56|0.015
91801689|NCT00885846|183481134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Regression analysis performed for equal variance at baseline.||||||0.664||95.0|||||Repeated ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2||Power analysis suggested 27 participants, 9 in each group.||||0.664
91801690|NCT00074984|183481135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|1.222|||Log Rank|Comparison is based on a 2-sided log-rank test.||||1.222|0.269|0.1449
91801691|NCT00074984|183481135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.465||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|1.025|||Wald Test|||Time to First Primary Endpoint Adjusting for Baseline Proteinuria using Cox Proportional Hazards Model||1.025|0.211|0.0577
91801692|NCT00074984|183481136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.5261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|1.927|||Log Rank|2-sided log-rank test||Analysis of Time to First Renal Event for ITT population.||1.927|0.278|0.5261
91801693|NCT03758443|183481140|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.5809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Least square estimates, 95% CI, and p-values were obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, steroid use at baseline (yes, no) and prior biologic failure (yes, no), and baseline total Mayo score as covariate.||0.69|-1.22|0.5809
91801694|NCT03758443|183481140|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.4501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Least square estimates, 95% CI, and p-values were obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, steroid use at baseline (yes, no) and prior biologic failure (yes, no), and baseline total Mayo score as covariate.||0.59|-1.33|0.4501
91801695|NCT03758443|183481140|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.65||||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Least square estimates, 95% CI, and p-values were obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, steroid use at baseline (yes, no) and prior biologic failure (yes, no), and baseline total Mayo score as covariate.||0.30|-1.60|0.1809
91801696|NCT03758443|183481141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3762|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3762
91801697|NCT03758443|183481141|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91801698|NCT03758443|183481141|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91801699|NCT03758443|183481142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.0||||0.9542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.11||P-value is shown for Cochran-Mantel Haenszel tests stratified by prior biologic failure and steroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion estimates used Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights.|||0.110|-0.104|0.9542
91801700|NCT03758443|183481142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.03||||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.071||P-value is shown for Cochran-Mantel Haenszel tests stratified by prior biologic failure and steroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion estimates used Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights.|||0.071|-0.126|0.5863
91801701|NCT03758443|183481142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.03||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.069||P-value is shown for Conhran-Mantel Haenszel tests stratified by prior biologic failure and steroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion estimates used Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights.|||0.069|-0.131|0.5408
91801702|NCT03758443|183481143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6656|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6656
91801703|NCT03758443|183481143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6424|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6424
91801704|NCT03758443|183481143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6199|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6199
91801705|NCT03758443|183481144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2643|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2643
91801706|NCT03758443|183481144|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91801707|NCT03758443|183481144|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91801708|NCT03758443|183481145|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91801709|NCT03758443|183481145|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91801710|NCT03758443|183481145|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91801711|NCT03080454|183481146|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for mean percent change from baseline in area under the curve for the resistance torque measure across 2 conditions (anodal vs. sham Doublestim) and at 2 timepoints (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU). Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean percent change in area under the curve between anodal and sham Doublestim conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.004||||||A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with condition (mean percent change in anodal vs. sham condition) and time (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU in each condition) as factors. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||0.004
91801712|NCT03080454|183481147|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for mean Tardieu Scale Score summed across 11 joints of the upper extremity in 2 conditions (anodal vs. sham Doublestim) and at 2 timepoints (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU). Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean change between anodal and sham Doubleestim conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.003||||||A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with condition (mean score in anodal vs. sham condition) and time (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU in each condition) as factors. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||0.003
91801713|NCT03863197|183481150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91801714|NCT03863197|183481151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91801715|NCT03863197|183481152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91801716|NCT03863197|183481153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91801717|NCT03863197|183481154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91801718|NCT03863197|183481155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91801719|NCT03863197|183481159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91801720|NCT03863197|183481160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91801721|NCT01781975|183481161|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA|0.0616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00176|0.121|||ANCOVA|||||0.121|0.00176|0.048
91801722|NCT04545060|183481198|SUPERIORITY||adjusted relative risk ratio|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.5||two-sided, alpha=0.05|poisson regression model|||||0.50|0.09|<0.001
91801723|NCT04545060|183481216|SUPERIORITY||relative risk ratio|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.63||two-sided, alpha=0.05|poisson regression model|||||0.63|0.19|<0.001
91801724|NCT04545060|183481217|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.76||two-sided, alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-1.38|<0.001
91801725|NCT04545060|183481219|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.232||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|-0.065||two-sided, alpha=0.05|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.065|-0.399|0.007
91801726|NCT04545060|183481223|SUPERIORITY||relative risk ratio|0.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.59||two-sided, alpha=0.05|poisson regression model|||||0.59|0.12|0.002
91801727|NCT00657358|183481256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R^2 (adj)|0.477|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|DF=2 DFDEN=371.8, F-ratio=10.66||||||<0.001
91801728|NCT00347360|183481280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Hung AVE test, see comments|Hung AVE Test Statistic: -0.41499. Tests an average of the minimum gains (in response) for the 9 combination cells over corresponding monotherapies.||This is an omnibus test to investigate the existence of at least one combination dose that outperforms its components.||||>0.1
91879667|NCT01177137|183653195|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.69||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.69|-0.83|0.85
91801729|NCT00347360|183481281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Hung AVE test, see comments|Hung AVE Test Statistic: -0.00485. Tests an average of the minimum gains (in response) for the 9 combination cells over corresponding monotherapies.||This is an omnibus test to investigate the existence of at least one combination dose that outperforms its components.||||>0.1
91801730|NCT02012283|183481296|OTHER|paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05 is defined as significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between plain and spiced broccoli intake was compared.||||0.001
91801731|NCT02012283|183481297|OTHER|paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|101.3||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is defined as significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to the broccoli intake with and without spices among low restraint eaters vs. the change among high restraint eaters.||||0.031
91801732|NCT00621959|183481318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.546||95.0|-0.59|0.31||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment and center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis for the primary endpoint is expressed as follows: 'The mean 24-hr reflective T5SS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.31|-0.59|0.546
91801733|NCT00621959|183481319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.442||95.0|-0.27|0.12||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.12|-0.27|0.442
91801734|NCT02484690|183481332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.57||||0.5244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6|4.74||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||4.74|-1.60|0.5244
91801735|NCT02484690|183481332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.59||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.86|1.67||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.67|-4.86|0.5308
91801736|NCT02484690|183481332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.51||||0.5309|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.62|1.59||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.59|-4.62|0.5309
91879668|NCT01177137|183653195|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.46||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.46|-0.86|0.55
91879669|NCT01177137|183653196|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|2.88||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.88|-9.27|0.30
91907671|NCT02819635|183710720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|15.9||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|33.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||33.4|-1.6|0.074
91907672|NCT02819635|183710720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|19.2||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|36.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||36.9|1.6|0.033
91801737|NCT02484690|183481333|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.68||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.77|0.42||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that the Arm E mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.42|-3.77|0.3034
91801738|NCT02484690|183481334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.63||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.52|17.77||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||17.77|-6.52|0.5527
91801739|NCT02484690|183481334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.09||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.95|8.76||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||8.76|-14.95|0.7382
91801740|NCT02484690|183481334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.32||||0.3932|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.32|3.67||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||3.67|-18.32|0.3932
91801741|NCT02484690|183481335|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-5.71||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.74|-0.69||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||-0.69|-10.74|0.2328
91801742|NCT02484690|183481336|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.52||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.26|12.22||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||12.22|-13.26|0.9581
91801743|NCT02484690|183481336|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.08||||0.3166|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.99|2.82||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||2.82|-22.99|0.3166
91879670|NCT01177137|183653196|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|4.93||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||4.93|-6.75|0.76
91907673|NCT02819635|183710720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|59.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||59.7|20.5|<0.001
91879671|NCT01177137|183653197|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|9.68||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||9.68|-3.44|0.35
91879672|NCT01177137|183653197|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|9.54||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||9.54|-2.96|0.30
91801744|NCT02484690|183481336|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.68||||0.4244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.01|4.64||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||4.64|-20.01|0.4244
91801745|NCT02484690|183481337|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-6.64||||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.6|5.32||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||5.32|-18.60|0.5586
91801746|NCT02484690|183481338|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.93|7.93||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||7.93|-5.93|0.8536
91801747|NCT02484690|183481338|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.14||||0.2303|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|16.83||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||16.83|-0.56|0.2303
91801748|NCT02484690|183481338|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.08||||0.8406|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.79|7.95||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||7.95|-5.79|0.8406
91801749|NCT02484690|183481339|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.77||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.23|9.68||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||9.68|-11.23|1.0000
91879673|NCT01177137|183653198|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.02||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||8.02|-5.20|0.68
91879674|NCT01177137|183653198|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|7.33||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.33|-5.44|0.77
91879675|NCT01177137|183653199|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|5.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||5.23|-12.30|0.43
91907674|NCT02819635|183710721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2323|-1.052||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||-1.0520|-3.2323|<0.001
91801750|NCT02484690|183481340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|12.65||||0.3798|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.81|31.11||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||31.11|-5.81|0.3798
91801751|NCT02484690|183481340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.88||||0.9529|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.3|20.03||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||20.03|-18.3|0.9529
91801752|NCT02484690|183481340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|32.81||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.65|50.96||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||50.96|14.65|0.0208
91801753|NCT02484690|183481341|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.35||||0.5185|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.0|6.27||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||6.27|-19.0|0.5185
91801754|NCT02484690|183481342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.45||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.61|37.29||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||37.29|1.61|0.1624
91801755|NCT02484690|183481342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.79||||0.8475|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.8|21.37||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||21.37|-15.8|0.8475
91801756|NCT02484690|183481342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|28.52||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.93|46.11||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||46.11|10.93|0.0381
91801757|NCT02484690|183481343|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-14.4||||0.2089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.1|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||0.29|-29.1|0.2089
91879676|NCT01177137|183653199|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.02|-5.38||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||-5.38|-22.02|0.001
91879677|NCT01177137|183653200|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|11.38||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||11.38|-3.96|0.34
91879678|NCT01177137|183653200|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|7.26||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.26|-7.72|0.95
91801758|NCT02484690|183481346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.4||||0.6717|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.61|0.81||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.81|-1.61|0.6717
91801759|NCT02484690|183481346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.23||||0.8131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.01|1.47||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.47|-1.01|0.8131
91801760|NCT02484690|183481346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.11||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.07|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between each of the treatment groups (Arms B, C, or D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arms B, C, or D means were different from Arm A mean.||1.29|-1.07|0.9069
91801761|NCT02484690|183481348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.96||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.2|0.28||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.28|-2.20|0.3189
91801762|NCT02484690|183481348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.22||||0.2256|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|2.52||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||2.52|-0.07|0.2256
91801763|NCT02484690|183481348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.35||||0.7086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.86|1.57||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.57|-0.86|0.7086
91801764|NCT02484690|183481350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.78||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.07|0.51||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: leak at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.51|-2.07|0.4353
91801765|NCT02484690|183481350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.45||||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.11|2.78||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: leak at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||2.78|0.11|0.1652
91801766|NCT02484690|183481350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.5||||0.61111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|1.75||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: leak at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.75|-0.76|0.61111
91879679|NCT01177137|183653201|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|5.38||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||5.38|-9.07|0.62
91889247|NCT03296800|183671195|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|86.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.24|105.59|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||105.59|70.24|
91801767|NCT02569671|183481386|NON_INFERIORITY|"is less than the non-inferiority margin (indicating non-inferior bone gain).~The hypotheses associated with the primary analysis are defined as:~H0: µc - µs ≥ δ H1: µc - µs \< δ where µc is the mean change in crestal bone levels from implant loading to 12 months post-implant loading for the treatment group, µs is the mean change for the control group, and δ is the 0.5 mm non-inferiority margin. The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.95|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||SD for both test and control group is 0.5 mm, A difference between groups of ≥ 0.5 mm is considered clinically significant, The difference between the treatment groups is expected to be 0 mm, Statistical test will be one-sided 5% significance level.|t-test, 1 sided|The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.|The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.|The null hypothesis for the primary analysis is that the difference between the mean change in crestal bone levels for the treatment and control groups is at least the non-inferiority margin (indicating inferior bone gain). Rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the observed data supports the alternative hypothesis that the difference between the mean change in crestal bone levels for the treatment and control groups|The change in mean bone level from implant loading to 12-month follow-up was calculated. Change in crestal bone levels was calculated as the crestal bone level at 12-months post implant loading minus crestal bone level at implant loading.|||.950
91801768|NCT02569671|183481388|NON_INFERIORITY|Smaller bone dimensional thickness of the buccal plate measurements indicates less bone loss and better healing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3||0.022|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.||All secondary effectiveness endpoints were planned to be summarized descriptively, and no hypothesis tests was planned.||||0.022
91801769|NCT01757535|183481395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.86||The p-value is 2-sided from a log-rank test stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.||The confidence interval (CI) for the difference was derived using Kosorok's method.|0.86|0.55|0.0009
91801770|NCT01757535|183481396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.8||The p-value is 2-sided from a log-rank test stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.|||0.80|0.52|< 0.0001
91801771|NCT01757535|183481402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9345||||0.7522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6136|1.4231||Stratification factors: • Age (at induction therapy): 55 to 64 years and ≥ 65 years • Prior history of MDS: yes/no • Cytogenetic risk (at induction therapy): intermediate-risk/poor-risk • Received consolidation therapy following induction: yes/no|Regression, Cox|||||1.4231|0.6136|0.7522
91801772|NCT04508335|183481408|EQUIVALENCE|We use 2, one-sided t-tests, each with alpha set at 0.05 to test the composite null hypothesis that the mean difference score (μReia-μCurrent) between the Reia pessary and baseline (current pessary) on the PFDI-20, is greater than 18.3 (H01), the upper equivalence limit, or lower than -18.3 (H02), the lower equivalence limit.||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H01: μReia-μCurrent \> 18.3 and H02: μReia-μCurrent \< -18.3. The alternative hypothesis is thus: HA: -18.3 ≤ μReia-μCurrent ≤ 18.3.||||.0021
91801773|NCT04508335|183481410|OTHER|Mean difference of PFIQ scores. A negative difference (Reia pessary - current pessary) indicates that the PFIQ-7 score improved with the Reia pessary.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|||||p value adjusted for multiple variables|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PFIQ scores at baseline with subjects using current pessary then after treatment with Reia pessary||||0.0192
91801774|NCT02555683|183481473|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.04||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||1.41|0.77|0.800
91801775|NCT02555683|183481473|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values are based on the closed testing procedure||||1.14|0.61|0.510
91801776|NCT02555683|183481474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.26||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.26|-0.11|0.819
91801777|NCT02555683|183481474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.32||adjusted p-vale|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.32|-0.05|0.591
91801778|NCT02555683|183481475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.07||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.07|-0.31|0.819
91889248|NCT03296800|183671195|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|97.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.26|106.26|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||106.26|90.26|
91801779|NCT02555683|183481475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.02||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.02|-0.37|0.591
91801780|NCT02555683|183481476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0365||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.139||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.139|-0.005|0.800
91801781|NCT02555683|183481476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0363||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.121||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.121|-0.021|0.523
91801782|NCT02555683|183481477|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.96||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||1.22|0.75|0.819
91801783|NCT02555683|183481477|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.78||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values are based on the closed testing procedure||||1.01|0.61|0.510
91801784|NCT02555683|183481478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.23|-0.07|0.819
91801785|NCT02555683|183481478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.27||adjusted p-vale|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.27|-0.03|0.591
91801786|NCT02555683|183481479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.04||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.04|-0.27|0.819
91801787|NCT02555683|183481479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||-0.04|-0.35|0.591
91801788|NCT02555683|183481480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0292||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.134||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.134|0.019|0.819
91748712|NCT00487942|183389616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.80|-0.80|
91748713|NCT00487942|183389616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.98||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.98|-0.62|
91748714|NCT00487942|183389616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.49||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.49|-0.16|
91748715|NCT00487942|183389617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.01||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the ESS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.01|-0.51|
91748716|NCT00487942|183389617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.78||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the ESS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.78|-0.73|
91748717|NCT00487942|183389617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.56||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the ESS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.56|-1.01|
91748718|NCT00487942|183389618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.64|
91748719|NCT00487942|183389618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.74||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.74|-0.79|
91748720|NCT00487942|183389618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.5||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.50|-1.11|
91748721|NCT00487942|183389619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.65||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.65|-0.95|
91801789|NCT02555683|183481480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0292||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.097||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.097|-0.017|0.591
91907675|NCT02819635|183710721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.938|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0284|-1.8478||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||-1.8478|-4.0284|<0.001
91748722|NCT00487942|183389619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.73||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.73|-0.87|
91748723|NCT00487942|183389619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.38||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.38|-1.24|
91748724|NCT00487942|183389620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.86||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.86|-0.75|
91879680|NCT01177137|183653201|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|2.55||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.55|-11.48|0.21
91879681|NCT01177137|183653202|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|6.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||6.52|-6.78|0.97
91879682|NCT01177137|183653202|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|3.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||3.40|-9.43|0.36
91748725|NCT00487942|183389620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.62||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.62|-0.99|
91801790|NCT04622306|183481489|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in total clinical failure rates (clinical breakage plus clinical slippage) between the test and control condom is specified in ISO 23409:2011 as 2.5%.|Upper 97.5% CL for difference|2.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||The p-value was adjusted to 0.025 since two comparisons are being made on the data set.|GEE|||Null Hypothesis: Expected test condom total clinical failure rate - expected control natural rubber latex male condom total clinical failure rate ≥ δ, where δ = 2.5%; Power calculations were conducted according to ISO 29943-1:2017. Target sample sizes were chosen to provide a power of at least 90%.||2.5||0.025
91879683|NCT01177137|183653203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|7.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.14|-4.67|0.68
91879684|NCT01177137|183653203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|2.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.23|-9.26|0.23
91879685|NCT01177137|183653204|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.66||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.66|-3.30|0.52
91879686|NCT01177137|183653204|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|-0.41||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||-0.41|-5.21|0.022
91801791|NCT04622306|183481489|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in total failure rates (clinical breakage plus clinical slippage) between the test and control condom is specified on ISO 23409:2011 as 2.5%|Upper 97.5% CLof difference|2.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||The p-value was adjusted to 0.025 since two comparisons are being made on the data set.|GEE|||Null Hypothesis: Test condom total clinical failure rate - control natural rubber latex male condom total clinical failure rate ≥ δ, where δ = 2.5%; Power calculations were conducted according to ISO 29943-1:2017. Target sample sizes were chosen to provide a power of at least 90%.||2.5||0.025
91801792|NCT04622306|183481489|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in total failure rates (clinical breakage plus clinical slippage) between the test and control condom is specified on ISO 23409:2011 as 2.5%|Upper 97.5% CL for difference|2.37||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||The p-value was adjusted to 0.025 since two comparisons are being made on the data set|GEE|||The non-inferiority analysis was repeated after removing couples where the male partner had a penis length greater than 170 mm. The polyurethane condom B has a specified nominal length of 170 mm and is not recommended for men with penises longer than the length of the condom.||2.5||0.025
91801793|NCT04269707|183481491|NON_INFERIORITY|Change in hemoglobin from baseline to day 35 was assessed using paired t-tests (two-sided test, alpha = 0.05).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.80|-0.40|0.1711
91801794|NCT01145625|183481492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was claimed if the lower limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was greater than -6.565.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.4|||ANCOVA|P-Value and confidence interval are from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is for the change from baseline to week 24 data.||5.4|-6.0|0.9170
91801795|NCT01145625|183481493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.4158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.2|||ANCOVA|P-Value and confidence interval are from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is for the change from baseline to week 12 data.||8.2|-3.4|<0.4158
91801796|NCT01145625|183481494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.1|||ANCOVA|P-value and confidence interval are from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is for the change from baseline to week 52 data.||4.1|-7.1|0.5980
91801797|NCT04289623|183481522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.35||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.35|1.05|.007
91801798|NCT04289623|183481522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.19||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.19|0.56|.287
91748726|NCT00487942|183389620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.34||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.34|-1.28|
91801799|NCT04289623|183481522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.27||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||1.27|0.87|.590
91801800|NCT04289623|183481522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.32||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||3.32|1.05|.035
91801801|NCT04289623|183481523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.37||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.37|0.98|.085
91801802|NCT04289623|183481523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.33|0.60|.569
91879687|NCT01177137|183653205|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.23|-1.54|0.72
91889249|NCT01038427|183671341|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals were contained within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%, then the two products were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Ratio Test/Ref. Least Squares (LS) Means|106.644|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.86|123.997||||||||123.997|91.860|
91748727|NCT05151445|183389634|OTHER||95% CI|-3.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.46|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||-1.46|-5.65|0.002
91801803|NCT04289623|183481523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.17||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||1.17|0.54|.240
91801804|NCT04289623|183481523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.95||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||1.95|0.45|.871
91889250|NCT01038427|183671342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889251|NCT01038427|183671342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91801805|NCT03719612|183481524|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.947||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.358
91879688|NCT01177137|183653205|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.75||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.75|-2.83|0.26
91879689|NCT01177137|183653206|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.78||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.78|0.55|0.30
91879690|NCT01177137|183653206|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.52|-1.75|0.29
91748728|NCT05151445|183389634|OTHER||95% CI|-3.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-1.15|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||-1.15|-5.07|0.004
91748729|NCT05151445|183389634|OTHER||95% CI|-2.53||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.16|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||0.16|-4.90|0.038
91748730|NCT05151445|183389635|OTHER||95% CI|9.61||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|19.77|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||19.77|-0.55|0.062
91748731|NCT05151445|183389635|OTHER||95% CI|9.78||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|21.56|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||21.56|-2.01|0.098
91748732|NCT05151445|183389635|OTHER||95% CI|17.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|27.6|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||27.60|6.51|0.003
91748733|NCT05151445|183389636|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||||0.37
91748734|NCT05151445|183389636|OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||||0.724
91748735|NCT05151445|183389636|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||||0.289
91748736|NCT05151445|183389637|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||||1.000
91748737|NCT05151445|183389637|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||||1.000
91748738|NCT05151445|183389637|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Weel 12 vs. Baseline||||1.000
91748739|NCT05151445|183389638|OTHER||95% CI|-1.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|4.76|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||4.76|-6.96|0.696
91748740|NCT05151445|183389638|OTHER||95% CI|-1.08||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|5.56|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||5.56|-7.72|0.734
91748741|NCT05151445|183389638|OTHER||95% CI|-4.15||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|3.23|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||3.23|-11.53|0.249
91748742|NCT05151445|183389639|OTHER||95% CI|-0.04||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|5.18|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||5.18|-5.25|0.989
91748743|NCT05151445|183389639|OTHER||95% CI|3.43||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|9.69|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||9.69|-2.83|0.263
91748744|NCT05151445|183389639|OTHER||Slope|0.44||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|6.68|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||6.68|-5.80|0.882
91748745|NCT05151445|183389640|OTHER||95% CI|-0.62||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.98|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||0.98|-2.23|0.425
91748746|NCT05151445|183389640|OTHER||95% CI|-4.98||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|-0.88|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||-0.88|-9.08|0.205
91748747|NCT05151445|183389640|OTHER||95% CI|-4.98||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|-0.8|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||-0.8|-9.08|0.020
91748748|NCT05151445|183389641|OTHER||95% CI|0.429||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|11.01|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||11.01|-4.90|0.429
91748749|NCT05151445|183389641|OTHER||95% CI|-4.39||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|3.46|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||3.46|-12.24|0.255
91748750|NCT05151445|183389641|OTHER||95% CI|-7.0||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|1.55|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||1.55|-15.55|0.102
91748751|NCT05151445|183389642|OTHER||95% CI|-1.94||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|5.1|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||5.10|-8.99|0.568
91748752|NCT05151445|183389642|OTHER||95% CI|-4.11||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|2.37|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||2.37|-10.59|0.198
91748753|NCT05151445|183389642|OTHER||95% CI|-3.76||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|2.55|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||2.55|-10.08|.225
91748754|NCT02825420|183389667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
91748755|NCT02825420|183389668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
91748756|NCT02825420|183389669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.62
91748757|NCT02825420|183389671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
91748758|NCT02825420|183389673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.048
91748759|NCT02825420|183389674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.51
91748760|NCT00642174|183389719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|61.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|53.83|69.31||P-value is for 4 Hours After Loading Dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (i.e. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 4 hours after administration of loading dose. Assuming 90% power, 2-sided alpha of 0.05, and a 17.5% difference in IPA between treatment groups with a standard deviation of 20, a total of 15 completed subjects per sequence group (i.e., 15 subject who receive prasugrel first, then clopidogrel; and 15 subjects who receive clopidogrel first, then prasugrel) was determined.||69.31|53.83|<0.0001
91801806|NCT03719612|183481524|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.699||0.804|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.804
91801807|NCT03719612|183481524|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.412||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.371
91801808|NCT03719612|183481525|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.952||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.030
91801809|NCT03719612|183481525|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.466||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.312
91801810|NCT03719612|183481525|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.725||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.347
91801811|NCT03719612|183481526|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|0.988||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.988|0.977|
91801812|NCT03719612|183481526|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|0.966||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.966|0.936|
91801813|NCT03719612|183481526|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|0.978||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.978|0.958|
91801814|NCT03719612|183481526|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|0.959||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.959|0.923|
91801815|NCT03719612|183481526|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|0.972||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.972|0.947|
91801816|NCT03719612|183481526|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.958||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.958|0.920|
91801817|NCT03719612|183481527|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|0.988||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.988|0.978|
91801818|NCT03719612|183481527|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|0.983||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.983|0.967|
91801819|NCT03719612|183481527|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|0.981||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.981|0.963|
91801820|NCT03719612|183481527|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.952||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.952|0.910|
91801821|NCT03719612|183481527|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|0.98||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.980|0.962|
91801822|NCT03719612|183481527|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|0.945||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.945|0.896|
91801823|NCT03719612|183481527|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.992||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.992|0.984|
91801824|NCT03719612|183481527|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|0.988||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.988|0.977|
91801825|NCT03719612|183481527|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|0.989||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.989|0.978|
91801826|NCT03719612|183481527|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|0.962||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.962|0.928|
91801827|NCT03719612|183481527|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|0.984||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.984|0.969|
91801828|NCT03719612|183481527|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.958||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.958|0.920|
91801829|NCT03719612|183481528|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|0.986||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.986|0.956|
91801830|NCT03719612|183481528|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|0.963||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.963|0.888|
91801831|NCT03719612|183481528|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.978||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.978|0.931|
91801832|NCT03719612|183481528|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|0.955||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.955|0.864|
91801833|NCT03719612|183481528|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|0.97||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.970|0.907|
91801834|NCT03719612|183481528|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|0.945||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.945|0.834|
91801835|NCT03719612|183481529|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|0.991||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.991|0.971|
91801836|NCT03719612|183481529|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|0.986||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.986|0.956|
91801837|NCT03719612|183481529|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|0.987||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.987|0.959|
91801838|NCT03719612|183481529|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|0.966||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.966|0.896|
91801839|NCT03719612|183481529|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|0.987||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.987|0.959|
91801840|NCT03719612|183481529|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|0.956||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.956|0.866|
91801841|NCT03719612|183481529|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|0.994||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.994|0.982|
91801842|NCT03719612|183481529|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|0.986||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.986|0.957|
91801843|NCT03719612|183481529|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|0.991||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.991|0.973|
91801844|NCT03719612|183481529|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.959||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.959|0.876|
91801845|NCT03719612|183481529|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|0.989||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.989|0.966|
91801846|NCT03719612|183481529|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|0.952||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.952|0.855|
91801847|NCT01496248|183481531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91801848|NCT01496248|183481532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91801849|NCT01496248|183481533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91801850|NCT01496248|183481534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91801851|NCT01496248|183481535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91801852|NCT01496248|183481536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91801853|NCT01496248|183481537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91801854|NCT01496248|183481538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91801855|NCT00696800|183481540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Treatment groups were formally compared with a generalized linear model for the ongoing pregnancy rate which included factors for treatment group, age at randomization, and region. A pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 8% was applied.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.9||||||||5.9|-3.8|
91879691|NCT02367105|183653223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariate||||||0.58
91879692|NCT02367105|183653224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.03
91801856|NCT00696800|183481541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margins of -3 and +5 were applied for the difference in number of oocytes. If the 95% confidence interval of the difference exceeded -3 or +5 oocytes, then Corifollitropin Alfa treatment was not considered equivalent to the reference treatment (recFSH).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.9||Treatment groups were formally compared including covariates treatment group, age and center.|ANOVA|||||1.9|0.5|0.001
91801857|NCT00762385|183481569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1247||||98.3|-0.2346|0.03164|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is galyfilcon A minus comfilcon A.|Results is overall lens effect with time as a covariate.||0.03164|-0.2346|
91801858|NCT00762385|183481570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02287||||98.3|-0.04297|0.00556|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is galyfilcon A minus comfilcon A.|Results is overall lens effect with time as a covariate.||0.005560|-0.04297|
91801859|NCT00762385|183481571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1064||||98.3|0.04553|0.2726|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is galyfilcon A minus comfilcon A.|Results is overall lens effect with time as a covariate.||0.2726|0.04553|
91801860|NCT04424888|183481573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21875
91801861|NCT04424888|183481574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.90625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90625
91801862|NCT04424888|183481575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Akkermansia Munciphilae.||||0.020
91801863|NCT04424888|183481575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Bifidobacterium infantis.||||0.078
91801864|NCT04424888|183481575|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Paired t-test for the species Clostridium beijerinckii.|No statistical test was conducted since Clostridium beijerinckii was not detected in any sample.|||
91801865|NCT04424888|183481575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Clostridium butyricum.||||0.20
91801866|NCT04424888|183481575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Anaerobutyricum hallii.||||0.12
91801867|NCT04424888|183481576|OTHER||||||||||||||||||All participants had the same number of sensors (3) throughout the study, so no statistical analysis is conducted.|||
91801868|NCT04424888|183481577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We test whether the average number of daily photos is greater in period 1 than in period 2.||||0.41
91801869|NCT04424888|183481578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We test whether the average time between consecutive scans is smaller in period 1 than in period 2.||||0.13
91801870|NCT03779711|183481621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8095|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline FAC||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline FAC, is used to assess change in FAC from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.8095
91801871|NCT03779711|183481622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline circumferential strain||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline circumferential strain, is used to assess change in circumferential strain from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.3029
91801872|NCT03779711|183481623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline longitudinal strain||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline longitudinal strain, is used to assess change in longitudinal strain from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.0323
91801873|NCT03779711|183481624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6765|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline FAC.||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline FAC, is used to assess change in FAC from baseline to 12-months post-surgery.||||0.6765
91801874|NCT03779711|183481625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3456|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline FAC||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline FAC, is used to assess change in FAC from baseline to discharge.||||0.3456
91801875|NCT03779711|183481626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test comparing number of days in hospital post stage-II surgery.||||0.7760
91801876|NCT03779711|183481627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9563|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test for change in weight from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.9563
91879693|NCT02367105|183653225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||.97
91879694|NCT02367105|183653226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.56
91879695|NCT02367105|183653227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91879696|NCT02367105|183653228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91748761|NCT00642174|183389720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|27.43|45.52||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 1 hour after administration of the loading dose.||45.52|27.43|<0.0001
91748762|NCT00642174|183389720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|49.56|66.19||P-value for 24 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 24 hours after administration of the loading dose.||66.19|49.56|<0.0001
91748763|NCT00642174|183389720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|10.27|25.04||P-value for 24 Hours After Last Maintenance Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 24 hours post-Last Maintenance Dose (LMD).||25.04|10.27|<0.0001
91748764|NCT00642174|183389721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.5466||95.0|-3.66|1.97||P-value for Baseline (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||1.97|-3.66|0.5466
91748765|NCT00642174|183389721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-28.45|-17.55||P-value for 1 After Post Loading Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-17.55|-28.45|<0.0001
91748766|NCT00642174|183389721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-31.18|-22.02||P-value for 4 Hour After Loading Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statisitical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-22.02|-31.18|<0.0001
91748767|NCT00642174|183389721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.42|-19.17||P-value for 24 Hour After Loading Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-19.17|-27.42|<0.0001
91748768|NCT00642174|183389721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.0001||95.0|-12.78|-4.58||P-value for 24 Hour After Last Maintenance Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-4.58|-12.78|0.0001
91748769|NCT00642174|183389721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.8779||95.0|-2.8|3.26||P-value for Baseline (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||3.26|-2.80|0.8779
91748770|NCT00642174|183389721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-32.43|-17.87||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-17.87|-32.43|<0.0001
91748771|NCT00642174|183389721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.32|-29.78||P-value for 4 Hour After Loading Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-29.78|-40.32|<0.0001
91801877|NCT03779711|183481628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9095|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test for change in heart rate from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.9095
91801878|NCT03779711|183481629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6391|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test for change in oxygen saturation from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.6391
91879697|NCT02367105|183653229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.04
91879698|NCT02367105|183653230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||.67
91879699|NCT02367105|183653231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline valued adjusted||||||0.003
91879700|NCT02367105|183653232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.69
91879701|NCT02367105|183653233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.94
91879702|NCT02367105|183653234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.41
91748772|NCT00642174|183389721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-36.32|-25.66||P-value for 24 Hour After Loading Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-25.66|-36.32|<0.0001
91801879|NCT03779711|183481636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8782|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test comparing number of days in hospital post stage-II surgery||||0.8782
91879703|NCT02367105|183653235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||0.46
91879704|NCT02367105|183653236|SUPERIORITY|Baseline value adjusted|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
91879705|NCT02367105|183653237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.284||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.003
91879706|NCT02367105|183653238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value and years of education as covariates||||||.16
91879707|NCT02367105|183653239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||0.21
91879708|NCT02367105|183653240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||0.41
91879709|NCT02367105|183653241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value and years if education as covariates||||||.03
91879710|NCT02367105|183653242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||.03
91879711|NCT02367105|183653243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||.18
91879712|NCT02367105|183653244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||0.10
91801880|NCT03881670|183481649|OTHER|Friedman test||||||0.0023|||||||Friedman Test|||Change in ratings over time||||0.0023
91801881|NCT03881670|183481649|OTHER|Friedman test||||||0.4679|||||||Friedman Test|||change in ratings over time||||0.4679
91879713|NCT02367105|183653245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||.65
91879714|NCT02367105|183653246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.553||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.03
91879715|NCT02367105|183653247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.04
91879716|NCT02367105|183653248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline value adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
91879717|NCT02367105|183653249|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.65
91879718|NCT02367105|183653250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline value adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
91879719|NCT02367105|183653251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline value adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
91879720|NCT02367105|183653252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
91879721|NCT02367105|183653253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.90
91879722|NCT02367105|183653254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-252.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||<0.001
91879723|NCT02367105|183653255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value as covariates||||||<0.001
91879724|NCT02367105|183653256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||<0.001
91879725|NCT02367105|183653257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.31
91879726|NCT02367105|183653258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline values as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
91879727|NCT02367105|183653259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.69
91879728|NCT02367105|183653260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.23
91879729|NCT02367105|183653261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91879730|NCT02367105|183653262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||0.36
91879731|NCT02367105|183653263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||0.23
91879732|NCT02367105|183653264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values adjusted||||||0.69
91879733|NCT02367105|183653265|SUPERIORITY||Number of participants|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold = voxel p\<.001, cluster p\<.05, false discovery rate (FDR) whole brain correction. There is no correction for multiple seeds given small sample sizes and pre-post design.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91879734|NCT02367105|183653266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Using DESeq2 R package. P values were adjusted using the Benjamini and Hochberg's approach for controlling the false discovery rate.|t-test, 2 sided|||6 months vs Baseline||||0.37
91889252|NCT01038427|183671343|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|109.716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.316|129.159||||||||129.159|93.316|
91879735|NCT02367105|183653266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using DESeq2 R package. P values were adjusted using the Benjamini and Hochberg's approach for controlling the false discovery rate|t-test, 2 sided|||6 months vs Baseline||||.02
91879736|NCT02367105|183653267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Final vs baseline||||||.05
91748773|NCT00642174|183389721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-17.19|-7.58||P-value for 24 Hour After Last Maintenance Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-7.58|-17.19|<0.0001
91748774|NCT00642174|183389722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.3692||95.0|-3.6|9.44||P-value for Baseline. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||9.44|-3.60|0.3692
91748775|NCT00642174|183389722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-47.43|-24.98||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-24.98|-47.43|<0.0001
91748776|NCT00642174|183389722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-61.89|-44.02||P-value for 4 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-44.02|-61.89|<0.0001
91748777|NCT00642174|183389722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-50.03|-35.55||P-value for 24 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-35.55|-50.03|<0.0001
91748778|NCT00642174|183389722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9||||0.0012||95.0|-23.42|-6.37||P-value for 24 Hours After Last Maintenance Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-6.37|-23.42|0.0012
91748779|NCT00642174|183389723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.5238||95.0|-5.35|2.78||P-value for Baseline. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||2.78|-5.35|0.5238
91748780|NCT00642174|183389723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-21.15|-11.33||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||-11.33|-21.15|<0.0001
91748781|NCT00642174|183389723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.67|-18.11||P-value for 4 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||-18.11|-29.67|<0.0001
91748782|NCT00642174|183389723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-24.97|-14.9||P-value for 24 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||-14.90|-24.97|<0.0001
91801882|NCT00914485|183481651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Increase in mean, post-intervention versus baseline, across 18 providers and 369 patients.||||.03
91801883|NCT00973674|183481666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Barnard's unconditional Exact Test|||||||0.99
91801884|NCT00973674|183481667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.77|||Log Rank|||||3.77|0.74|.033
91879737|NCT02367105|183653267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Final vs baseline||||||0.3
91879738|NCT01182103|183653277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91879739|NCT01182103|183653278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91879740|NCT01182103|183653279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91748783|NCT00642174|183389723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.3725||95.0|-8.46|3.26||P-value for 24 Hours After Last Maintenance Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||3.26|-8.46|0.3725
91748784|NCT00896363|183389724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|3.32|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 14||3.32|-1.62|
91748785|NCT00896363|183389724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.12|2.78|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 14||2.78|-2.12|
91748786|NCT00896363|183389724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.01|5.14|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 42||5.14|-2.01|
91748787|NCT00896363|183389724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|5.13|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 42||5.13|-1.81|
91748788|NCT00896363|183389725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|1.56|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 14||1.56|-0.93|
91748789|NCT00896363|183389725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.75|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 14||1.75|-0.73|
91748790|NCT00896363|183389725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|2.42|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 42||2.42|-1.10|
91748791|NCT00896363|183389725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|2.48|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 42||2.48|-0.93|
91748792|NCT00896363|183389726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|2.37|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 14||2.37|-0.94|
91748793|NCT00896363|183389726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.21|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 14||1.21|-2.10|
91748794|NCT00896363|183389726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.9|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 42||2.90|-1.22|
91748795|NCT00896363|183389726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.85|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 42||2.85|-1.22|
91748796|NCT01730339|183389741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.16|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.16|0.19|0.0219
91801885|NCT00973674|183481668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.35
91748797|NCT01730339|183389741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.72|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.72|-0.24|0.4038
91748798|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.2||||||Vascularity: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.20|-0.43|
91748799|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.11||||||Vascularity: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.11|-0.43|
91748800|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.52||||||Vascularity: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.52|-0.15|
91801886|NCT02068027|183481678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4503||||||MMRM imputing for missing data|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4503
91801887|NCT02068027|183481679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735||||||MMRM imputing for missing data|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7350
91879741|NCT00812838|183653292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5154||||||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5154
91889253|NCT01038427|183671344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889254|NCT01038427|183671344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91879742|NCT00812838|183653293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3009||||||This applies to 100 units of Botulinum Toxin Type A arm vs the Normal saline arm|t-test, 2 sided|||"This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.~This analysis pertains to both categories"||||0.3009
91879743|NCT00812838|183653294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166||||||This applies to 100 units of Botulinum Toxin Type A arm vs the Normal saline arm|t-test, 2 sided|||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.||||0.0166
91879744|NCT00812838|183653295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8566||||||Threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.||||.8566
91879745|NCT00812838|183653296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0286||||||Threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.||||0.0286
91879746|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-79.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.54|-65.73|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-65.73|-87.54|< 0.001
91879747|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-71.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.67|-52.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-52.00|-82.67|< 0.001
91879748|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-79.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.29|-64.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-64.17|-88.29|< 0.001
91879749|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-72.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.32|-54.13|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-54.13|-83.32|< 0.001
91879750|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-73.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.79|-55.11|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-55.11|-83.79|< 0.001
91889255|NCT01038427|183671345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2655|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2655
91889256|NCT01038427|183671345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0009
91889257|NCT01038427|183671345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1093|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1093
91889258|NCT01038427|183671346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9915|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9915
91748801|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.36||||||Vascularity: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.36|-0.22|
91748802|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.77||||||Vascularity: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.77|0.07|
91748803|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.65||||||Vascularity: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.65|0.05|
91748804|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.68||||||Vascularity: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.68|-0.03|
91748805|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.52||||||Vascularity: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.52|-0.09|
91748806|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.42||||||Pigmentation: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.42|-0.18|
91748807|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.22||||||Pigmentation: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.22|-0.35|
91748808|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.24||||||Pigmentation: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.24|-0.47|
91748809|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.06||||||Pigmentation: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.06|-0.60|
91748810|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.41||||||Pigmentation: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.41|-0.35|
91801888|NCT00494299|183481680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log Rank|0.2520462|||||||||||||The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by the response of TACE (Responder group A versus Responder group B), ECOG performance status (PS) (0 versus 1) and the number of prior TACE (1 versus 2).|||||
91801889|NCT00494299|183481680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8735||||||95.0|0.6972|1.0942|||||Hazard Ratio: Sorafenib/Placebo.|||1.0942|0.6972|
91801890|NCT00516074|183481712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Approximately 25 subjects were intended to be randomized to both the exenatide and placebo arms. Assuming an approximate 24% dropout rate, 19 patients per treatment arm would complete the study. A sample of 19 patients per treatment group would provide 90% power to detect a 10 bpm difference between treatment groups in change in daily mean heart rate from baseline.||||||0.1585||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1585
91801891|NCT00516074|183481713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.1624||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1624
91801892|NCT00516074|183481714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.5077||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5077
91879751|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-71.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.93|-50.82|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-50.82|-83.93|< 0.001
91879752|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-68.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.01|-47.78|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-47.78|-81.01|< 0.001
91879753|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-81.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.62|-68.49|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-68.49|-88.62|< 0.001
91889259|NCT01038427|183671346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0312
91889260|NCT01038427|183671346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0487|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0487
91801893|NCT00516074|183481715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.9034||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9034
91801894|NCT00516074|183481716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.427||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4270
91801895|NCT00516074|183481717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2600
91801896|NCT04154930|183481732|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|69.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.54|86.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||86.89|52.54|<0.001
91801897|NCT04154930|183481733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|72.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.67|84.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Responder Rate Based on the Blinded Evaluator's live assessment of the GIHS at 6 Months After Baseline||84.28|60.67|<0.001
91801898|NCT04154930|183481733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|66.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.97|77.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Responder Rate Based on the Blinded Evaluator's live assessment of the GIHS at 9 Months After Baseline||77.92|54.97|<0.001
91801899|NCT04154930|183481733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|52.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.57|64.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Responder Rate Based on the Blinded Evaluator's live assessment of the GIHS at 12 Months After Baseline||64.26|40.57|<0.001
91801900|NCT03113916|183481757|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.63|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.20|1.05|=.001
91801901|NCT03113916|183481758|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-1.29|.23
91801902|NCT03113916|183481759|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000000676||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00000002|0.00000137|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.00000137|-.00000002|.06
91801903|NCT03113916|183481760|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.64||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Values given need to be multiplied by 10 to the power of -10 (i.e., x 10\^-10).|||4.73|-16|.29
91801904|NCT03113916|183481761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.351||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.978|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.978|-.277|.27
91801905|NCT03113916|183481762|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.015||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.003|-.032|.10
91801906|NCT03113916|183481763|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-11.2||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-23.0|.07
91801907|NCT03113916|183481764|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.63||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-1.41|.12
91801908|NCT03113916|183481765|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.174||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.302|.050|.008
91801909|NCT03113916|183481766|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.015||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.059|-.029|.50
91801910|NCT03113916|183481767|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00003||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.013|-.013|.99
91801911|NCT01893203|183481772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||McNemar|||||||0.375
91801912|NCT01758523|183481776|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91801913|NCT01758523|183481777|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.028
91889261|NCT00755105|183671348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
91889262|NCT03995316|183671349|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.003
91889263|NCT03995316|183671350|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.283
91801914|NCT01758523|183481778|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.45|||Chi-squared|||||6.45|0.96|0.057
91801915|NCT01758523|183481779|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||||20.7|1.5|0.007
91801916|NCT01758523|183481780|OTHER|||||||0.87||||||significance for drug x AKR1C3\*2 G-carrier genotype|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
91801917|NCT01758523|183481781|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
91801918|NCT00945893|183481827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The currently proposed study provided at least 99.9% power to rule out a rate increase of 10 percentage points assuming the true difference between the treatment groups is zero and the true fever rate is ≤ 3%. Power is also high if the true difference is slightly greater than zero and the true fever rate is ≤ 3%.|Rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.9|||Score|||The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI was evaluated against the prespecified equivalence criterion of 10% which corresponded to the following hypotheses: H0 (null): Rate Difference ≥ 10%, HA (alternative): Rate Difference \< 10%||1.9|-6.0|
91801919|NCT00945893|183481828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.7|||score|||The number of participants who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||7.7|-8.8|
91801920|NCT00945893|183481829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|12.6|||score|||The number of participants who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CIs for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||12.6|-5.6|
91801921|NCT00945893|183481830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|16.3|||score|||The number of participants who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||16.3|-0.8|
91801922|NCT00945893|183481831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|22.8|||Score|||||22.8|-4.1|
91801923|NCT00945893|183481834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|14.5|||Score|||||14.5|-13.9|
91879754|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-79.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.02|-63.34|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-63.34|-88.02|< 0.001
91748811|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.37||||||Pigmentation: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.37|-0.33|
91748812|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.53||||||Pigmentation: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.53|-0.24|
91748813|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.32||||||Pigmentation: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.32|-0.39|
91748814|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.58||||||Thickness: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.58|-0.22|
91748815|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.35||||||Thickness: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.35|-0.42|
91748816|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.84||||||Thickness: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.84|-0.05|
91748817|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.23||||||Thickness: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.23|-0.62|
91748818|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.49||||||Thickness: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.49|0.40|
91748819|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.72||||||Thickness: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.72|-0.30|
91748820|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|1.24||||||Thickness: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.24|0.13|
91748821|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.67||||||Thickness: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.67|-0.38|
91748822|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.78||||||Relief: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.78|-0.01|
91748823|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.28||||||Relief: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.28|-0.50|
91748824|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.67||||||Relief: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.67|-0.23|
91879755|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-32.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.71|32.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 113: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||32.10|-65.71|0.25
91879756|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|3.44||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.78|80.66|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 169: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||80.66|-40.78|0.90
91879757|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-40.53||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|8.82|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 169: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||8.82|-67.50|0.091
91748825|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|0.24||||||Relief: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.24|-0.63|
91748826|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|1.26||||||Relief: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.26|0.21|
91879758|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|13.33||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.39|130.94|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 197: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||130.94|-44.39|0.73
91879759|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-80.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.53|-52.87|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-52.87|-91.53|0.001
91879760|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-87.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.53|-71.88|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-71.88|-94.53|< 0.001
91889264|NCT03995316|183671351|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.019
91889265|NCT03995316|183671352|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.440
91889266|NCT03995316|183671353|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.055
91748827|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.59||||||Relief: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.59|-0.41|
91748828|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|1.02||||||Relief: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.02|0.02|
91889267|NCT03995316|183671354|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.041
91889268|NCT00664534|183671438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin is defined as 0.4%. If the upper 95%CI for difference in LSMeans is below 0.4% then MIX arm will be declared noninferior to GLAR arm|Least squares mean difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.13|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro -Glargine)|||0.13|-0.42|
91889269|NCT00664534|183671440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.29|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro - Glargine). 16 weeks|||0.29|-0.18|
91889270|NCT00664534|183671440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.29|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro - Glargine). 32 weeks|||0.29|-0.22|
91889271|NCT00664534|183671440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro - Glargine). 48 weeks|||0.18|-0.33|
91889272|NCT00664534|183671441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2127||95.0||||P-value is for Week 16 HbA1c \<=7.0%.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2127
91889273|NCT00664534|183671441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3281||95.0||||P-value is for Week 16 HbA1c \<=6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.3281
91889274|NCT00664534|183671441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2812||95.0||||P-value is for Week 32 HbA1c \<=7.0%|Chi-squared|||||||0.2812
91889275|NCT00664534|183671441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6963||95.0||||P-value is for Week 32 HbA1c \<=6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.6963
91889276|NCT00664534|183671441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0643||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48 HbA1c \<=7.0%|Chi-squared|||||||0.0643
91889277|NCT00664534|183671441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2524||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48 HbA1c \<=6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.2524
91889278|NCT00664534|183671443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6615||95.0||||P-value for Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6615
91889279|NCT00664534|183671443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9798||95.0||||P-value is for Week 16|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9798
91879761|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Rratio|-79.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.44|-52.37|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-52.37|-91.44|0.001
91889280|NCT00664534|183671443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6169||95.0||||P-value for Week 32|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6169
91748829|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.63||||||Relief: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.63|-0.33|
91748830|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.67||||||Pliability: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.67|-0.09|
91748831|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.34||||||Pliability: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.34|-0.39|
91748832|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.74||||||Pliability: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.74|-0.12|
91748833|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.05||||||Pliability: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.05|-0.76|
91748834|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.2||||||Pliability: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.20|0.25|
91748835|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.42||||||Pliability: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.42|-0.46|
91748836|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|1.05||||||Pliability: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.05|0.01|
91748837|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.98||||||Pliability: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.98|0.00|
91801924|NCT00945893|183481837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|11.8|||Score|||||11.8|-14.7|
91889281|NCT00664534|183671443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7834||95.0||||P-value for Week 48|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7834
91748838|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.62||||||Surface Area: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.62|-0.29|
91748839|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.43||||||Surface Area: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.43|-0.28|
91748840|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|1.0||||||Surface Area: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.00|0.02|
91748841|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.23||||||Surface Area: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.23|-0.53|
91748842|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|1.2||||||Surface Area: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.20|0.08|
91748843|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.42||||||Surface Area : Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.42|-0.44|
91748844|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.28||||||Surface Area: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.28|0.09|
91748845|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.69||||||Surface Area: week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.69|-0.23|
91748846|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.6|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Week 8 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.60|-0.12|0.2778
91748847|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.6888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.45|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Weekl 8 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.45|-0.28|0.6888
91889282|NCT00664534|183671445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.7|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Premix Insulin Lispro minus Glargine.|||0.70|-0.89|
91879762|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-83.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.79|-62.95|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-62.95|-92.79|< 0.001
91879763|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-81.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.35|-57.46|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-57.46|-92.35|< 0.001
91879764|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-84.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.12|-64.6|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-64.60|-93.12|< 0.001
91879765|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|43.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.06|286.83|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 113: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||286.83|-47.06|0.47
91879766|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-68.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.02|-17.63|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 169: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-17.63|-88.02|0.020
91879767|NCT01723514|183653304|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-54.32||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.58|19.75|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 197: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||19.75|-82.58|0.11
91879768|NCT00297778|183653305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.0103||95.0|-3.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-3.4|0.0103
91879769|NCT00297778|183653306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.758||||0.0535||95.0|0.992|3.115|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.115|0.992|0.0535
91879770|NCT00297778|183653307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0346||95.0|-1.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.5|0.0346
91879771|NCT00297778|183653308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5244||95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|-1|0.5244
91879772|NCT00297778|183653309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.141||95.0|0.0|0.0|||van Elteren (country stratification)|||||0|0|0.141
91879773|NCT00297778|183653310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.003||95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.9|0.003
91879774|NCT00297778|183653311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0034||95.0|-3.7|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.7|0.0034
91879775|NCT00297778|183653312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.0007||95.0|-5.4|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-5.4|0.0007
91879776|NCT00297778|183653313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.821||||0.006||95.0|1.187|2.794|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.794|1.187|0.006
91889283|NCT00664534|183671446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4935||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4935
91889284|NCT03041792|183671467|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-235.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.13||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-322.25|-149.25||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 4||-149.25|-322.25|0.0000
91889285|NCT03041792|183671467|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-243.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.6||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.1|-148.15||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 5||-148.15|-339.10|0.0000
91889286|NCT03041792|183671472|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-859.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|167.76||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1196.1|-523.1||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 4||-523.10|-1196.1|0.0000
91889287|NCT03041792|183671472|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-928.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|193.8||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1317.3|-539.86||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 5||-539.86|-1317.3|0.0000
91889288|NCT03041792|183671473|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 4||9.29|0.61|0.0263
91889289|NCT03041792|183671473|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 5||9.48|1.22|0.0121
91889290|NCT03041792|183671474|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|9.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Satiety (Visit 4)||9.82|-1.85|0.1768
91889291|NCT03041792|183671474|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Satiety (Visit 5)||7.70|-0.85|0.1137
91889292|NCT03041792|183671474|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|7.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fullness (Visit 4)||7.11|-1.41|0.1858
91889293|NCT03041792|183671474|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|5.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fullness (Visit 5)||5.86|-3.05|0.5288
91879777|NCT00297778|183653314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.1925||95.0|-3.3|0.8|||van Elteren (country stratification)|||||0.8|-3.3|0.1925
91879778|NCT00297778|183653315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann est of diff in medians|0.04||||0.0337||95.0|0.0|0.09|||Wilcoxon rank sum (Van Elteren's test)|||||0.09|0|0.0337
91879779|NCT00297778|183653316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8471||95.0|-5.6|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-5.6|0.8471
91879780|NCT00297778|183653317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann est of diff in medians|0.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum (Van Elteren's test)||95% Confidence interval is Distribution-free Confidence Interval (Moses).|N's exclude patients from the analysis set with incomplete data||0.0|0.0|0.1410
91879781|NCT00297778|183653318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||N's exclude patients from the analysis set with incomplete data||0.2|-0.5|0.5231
91748848|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.65|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Weekl 11 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.65|-0.18|0.3515
91879782|NCT02551692|183653354|OTHER||Partial sum of squares|855.65||||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.534
91879783|NCT02551692|183653355|OTHER||Partial sum of squares|29602.69||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
91879784|NCT02551692|183653356|OTHER||Partial sum of squares|101.69||||0.318|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.318
91879785|NCT00230971|183653393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6||||||95.0|-6.4|9.6|||t-test, 1 sided||Estimates of the difference, CI and hypothesis tests are weighted by using minimum risk weights.|||9.6|-6.4|
91879786|NCT00230971|183653394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.001||95.0|-8.8|12.5|||t-test, 1 sided||Estimates of the difference, CI and hypothesis tests are weighted by using minimum risk weights.|||12.5|-8.8|0.001
91879787|NCT00230971|183653395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||||95.0|-7.9|13.3|||t-test, 1 sided||Estimates of the difference, CI and hypothesis tests are weighted by using minimum risk weights.|Group comparison of eradication + presumed eradication||13.3|-7.9|
91879788|NCT00230971|183653396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||Overall inpatient hospitalization||||0.750
91879789|NCT00230971|183653396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||Primary inpatient hospitalization||||0.655
91879790|NCT00230971|183653396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||ICU treatment||||0.191
91879791|NCT00230971|183653396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||Inpatient hospitalization, non-ICU||||0.717
91888965|NCT00477490|183670718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.848|-0.378||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||-0.378|-0.848|<0.0001
91888966|NCT00477490|183670719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.017||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.598||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids||||1.598|0.647|0.9420
91888967|NCT00477490|183670719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.147||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.807||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||||1.807|0.729|0.5527
91888968|NCT00477490|183670719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.296||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|2.05||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||2.050|0.821|0.2662
91889294|NCT03041792|183671474|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Prospective food consumption (Visit 4)||-2.61|-14.30|0.0054
91889295|NCT03041792|183671474|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|-2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Prospective food consumption (Visit 5)||-2.27|-17.29|0.0117
91889296|NCT03041792|183671474|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger (Visit 4)||-1.69|-11.48|0.0093
91889297|NCT03041792|183671474|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger (Visit 5)||-0.66|-12.12|0.0296
91889298|NCT03041792|183671475|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|35.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.46||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.64|140.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-60min (Visit 4)||140.76|-69.64|0.5008
91879792|NCT03469492|183653468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
91879793|NCT03469492|183653472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
91907676|NCT02819635|183710721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.736|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8247|-2.647||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||-2.6470|-4.8247|<0.001
91907677|NCT02819635|183710721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.061|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1252|-2.9974||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||-2.9974|-5.1252|<0.001
91907678|NCT02819635|183710722|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|6.6||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|13.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||13.9|-0.7|0.075
91907679|NCT02819635|183710722|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|3.8||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||9.6|-2.0|0.199
91907680|NCT02819635|183710722|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|11.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|20.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||20.0|2.2|0.015
91907681|NCT02819635|183710722|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|17.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|29.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||29.9|5.8|0.004
91907682|NCT02819635|183710723|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|25.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|42.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||42.3|8.9|0.003
91801925|NCT00945893|183481840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|14.9|||Score|||||14.9|-12.6|
91879794|NCT03469492|183653475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91879795|NCT03469492|183653476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91879796|NCT01726049|183653478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.3||||||||-0.3|-4.5|
91879797|NCT01726049|183653478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.3||||||||-2.3|-7.1|
91879798|NCT01726049|183653479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4||||||||1.4|-0.9|
91879799|NCT01726049|183653479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.3|
91879800|NCT01726049|183653480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.9|
91879801|NCT01726049|183653480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.5|
91879802|NCT01726049|183653481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0||||||||1.0|-1.9|
91879803|NCT01726049|183653481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.8||||||||-1.8|-5.2|
91879804|NCT02161406|183653484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
91879805|NCT02161406|183653485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
91879806|NCT02161406|183653486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91879807|NCT02161406|183653487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91879808|NCT02161406|183653488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
91879809|NCT02161406|183653489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91879810|NCT02161406|183653490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
91879811|NCT02161406|183653491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91879812|NCT02161406|183653492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91879813|NCT02161406|183653493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91879814|NCT02161406|183653494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
91879815|NCT02161406|183653495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
91879816|NCT02161406|183653496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
91879817|NCT02161406|183653497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
91879818|NCT02161406|183653498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91801926|NCT00945893|183481849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|13.8|||score|||The number of participants who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||13.8|-7.7|
91879819|NCT02161406|183653499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
91879820|NCT02161406|183653500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
91879821|NCT02161406|183653501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91879822|NCT02161406|183653502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91879823|NCT02161406|183653503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
91879824|NCT02161406|183653504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
91879825|NCT02161406|183653505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91879826|NCT02161406|183653506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||van Elteren test|The van Elteren test adjusted for duration of dcSSc. Multiple imputation was used to address missing follow-up data in 5 components of CRISS.||||||0.03
91879827|NCT02161406|183653507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1769|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1769
91879828|NCT02161406|183653508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9075
91879829|NCT02161406|183653509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5831|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5831
91879830|NCT02161406|183653510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0193
91879831|NCT02161406|183653511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0097
91879832|NCT02161406|183653512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0751|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0751
91879833|NCT02161406|183653513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4927|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4927
91879834|NCT02161406|183653514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1604|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1604
91879835|NCT02161406|183653515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7281
91879836|NCT02161406|183653516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1679|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1679
91879837|NCT02161406|183653517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2906|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2906
91879838|NCT01343251|183653518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91879839|NCT01343251|183653519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91879840|NCT01343251|183653520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 1 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91879841|NCT01343251|183653520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 2 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91879842|NCT01343251|183653520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 3 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91879843|NCT01343251|183653520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 4 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91879844|NCT01343251|183653521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91879845|NCT01343251|183653522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
91879846|NCT03677245|183653556|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed ranks test used to compared pre-intervention to post-intervention means of the Pediatric Balance Scale. No power calculation performed or utilized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91879847|NCT01850823|183653603|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence based on Test/Reference Ratio and 90% confidence interval (as per OGD guidance)|Ratio Test/Reference LS Mean|114.723|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.077|134.286||||||Conducted on Per Protocol Population||134.286|99.077|
91879848|NCT01850823|183653604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||The superiority of treatment over the placebo will be concluded if the treatment's mean change from baseline is statistically significantly greater (p\<0.05, 2-sided) than that of the placebo in the ANCOVA based on the treatment and placebo results. The superiority of Test and Reference treatments over the placebo will be evaluated identically in a separate ANCOVA.||||<0.0001
91879849|NCT01850823|183653604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||The superiority of treatment over the placebo will be concluded if the treatment's mean change from baseline is statistically significantly greater (p\<0.05, 2-sided) than that of the placebo in the ANCOVA based on the treatment and placebo results. The superiority of Test and Reference treatments over the placebo will be evaluated identically in a separate ANCOVA.||||0.0002
91879850|NCT03247738|183653644|SUPERIORITY|The primary end point of our study was the comparison of platelet reactivity measured by VerifyNow PRU between cangrelor and placebo at 30 minutes after drugs were administered at the start of PCI. Assuming a common standard deviation of 70 PRU, a sample size of 20 patients per group would allow detection of a 70 PRU difference between groups with 85% power and a two-sided α = 0.05. Considering the 2 arms and a possible 25% rate of invalid PD results we planned to randomize up to 50 patients.|Mean Difference (Net)|152.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.0|195.0|||ANCOVA|the baseline value of platelet reactivity used as a covariate||||195|108|<0.001
91879851|NCT00527514|183653655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||The sample size of this study was not based on the statistical power consideration and was considered as sufficient for the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the proposed olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment regimen.||||<0.0001
91879852|NCT00527514|183653656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||Statistical analysis parameters apply to both the daytime and nighttime rows.||||<0.0001
91879853|NCT00527514|183653657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91879854|NCT00527514|183653658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91879855|NCT00527514|183653659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91879856|NCT00527514|183653660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91879857|NCT04148521|183653663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|0.90|0.27
91879858|NCT04148521|183653664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|0.75|0.83
91879859|NCT04148521|183653665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.26|0.91|0.12
91879860|NCT04148521|183653666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|0.73|0.51
91879861|NCT02287883|183653672|OTHER|Clustered two-sample t-test||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
91879862|NCT02287883|183653673|OTHER|Clustered two-sample t-test||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91879863|NCT02287883|183653674|OTHER|Clustered two-sample t-test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91879864|NCT00802438|183653688|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A two-sided p-value\<0.05 was considered significant. Analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC.).|t-test, 2 sided|||Summaries of log-transformed data were back-transformed to the original scale and reported as geometric mean with 95% confidence interval or median within 1st and 3rd quartiles. Outcomes are summarized using least squares means with 95% confidence intervals or median with 1st and 3rd quartiles.||||<0.0001
91748849|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.19|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Weekl 11 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.19|-0.64|0.3788
91748850|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.29|||Repeated measures model|||Overall Opinion: Weekl 18 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.29|0.35|0.0044
91879865|NCT00802438|183653689|OTHER|Summaries of log-transformed data were back-transformed to the original scale and reported as geometric mean with 95% confidence interval or median within 1st and 3rd quartiles. Outcomes are summarized using least squares means with 95% confidence intervals or median with 1st and 3rd quartiles.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91879866|NCT02101268|183653703|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.09|0.90
91879867|NCT02101268|183653704|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.32|0.09|< 0.001
91879868|NCT02101268|183653705|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.31|||Negative Binomial Model, Adjusted||A smaller ratio represents larger benefit.|||1.31|0.49|0.38
91748851|NCT01730339|183389742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.58|||Repeated measures model|||Overall Opinion: Weekl 18 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.58|-0.35|0.6848
91879869|NCT02101268|183653706|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A larger proportion represents larger benefit.|||0.37|0.09|0.001
91879870|NCT02101268|183653707|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|-0.13||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A smaller proportion represents larger benefit.|||0.03|-0.29|0.10
91879871|NCT00740870|183653708|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier Rate|74.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|67.1||||Z test||||||67.1|<0.0001
91879872|NCT02831998|183653724|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product upper bounds must be less than 0.5.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.083||||||Groin 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and the predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.083|-0.188|
91879873|NCT02831998|183653724|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.627|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.396|2.858||||||Groin 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.858|2.396|
91879874|NCT02831998|183653725|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product average treatment effect upper bounds cannot be more than 0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.065||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.065|-0.102|
91879875|NCT02831998|183653725|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.766|2.053||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.053|1.766|
91879876|NCT00839332|183653741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Posterior Probability|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Inference about survival was made using a Bayesian posterior probability. The combination treatment would have been considered superior to gemcitabine alone if the posterior probability of superiority exceeded 0.8.|||||
91879877|NCT01196741|183653840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.65|0.57
91879878|NCT01196741|183653841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.81
91879879|NCT01196741|183653844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0476
91879880|NCT01196741|183653846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.99
91879881|NCT01064856|183653872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||Pearson's chi-square|||||||0.006
91879882|NCT01064856|183653874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|The P-value was based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline with treatment as a factor.||||||<0.001
91879883|NCT01064856|183653875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|The P-value was based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline with treatment as a factor.||||||0.003
91879884|NCT01064856|183653876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|The P-value was based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline with treatment as a factor.||||||0.051
91879885|NCT05329402|183653889|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority hypothesis is tenable if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval of the difference in the primary effectiveness evaluation indicator device cutting and anastomosis success rate between the test group and the control group is greater than the non-inferiority critical value (-10%)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0285|0.0273|||Wald|||||0.0273|-0.0285|0.9727
91879886|NCT01679613|183653890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|160.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.245|173.736||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for sequence, period, and treatment. Subjects within sequences is included as random effect.|"Ratio calculated as nintedanib+ketoconazole divided by nintedanib (in %).~The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)."|||173.736|148.245|1.0000
91879887|NCT01679613|183653891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|179.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.557|204.779||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for sequence, period, and treatment. Subjects within sequences is included as random effect.|"The standard deviation is actually the gCV (in %).~Ratio calculated as nintedanib+ketoconazole divided by nintedanib"|||204.779|157.557|1.0000
91879888|NCT01679613|183653892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|168.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.252|181.981||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 to 1.25|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for sequence, period, and treatment. Subjects within sequences is included as random effect.|"The standard deviation is actually the gCV.~Ratio calculated as nintedanib+ketoconazole divided by nintedanib (in %)."|||181.981|155.252|1.000
91879889|NCT02799745|183653926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.542||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.892||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR, 95% CI for HR:based on a Cox regression model assuming proportional hazards with treatment, prostate cancer risk,type of biopsy,baseline variables(as age, race), time since prostate cancer diagnosis as fixed effects and random effect of site.|||0.892|0.330|0.016
91879890|NCT02799745|183653928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|6.92||P-value: Based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where fixed covariates=treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis; random effects: site and subject. 95% CI: based on exact binomial distribution.|At the end of month 12||6.92|1.76|0.00
91879891|NCT02799745|183653928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.0||P-value: Based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where fixed covariates=treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis; random effects: site and subject. 95% CI: based on exact binomial distribution.|At the end of month 24||4.00|0.66|0.289
91879892|NCT02799745|183653929|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.398|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.79|-5.34||P-values: from differences of least squares means.Bonferroni-Holm was used in the primary hypothesis testing to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry was used as the covariance structure. Covariance parameters:estimated using Restricted Maximum likelihood.|Mixed model repeated measure(MMRM) with treatment group, prostate cancer risk(low/intermediate), type of biopsy(mpMRI-targeted/non-mpMRI-targeted), visit, visit-by-treatment, baseline scores as fixed factors, site and participants as random factors.|Change at month 12||-5.34|-14.79|<0.001
91879893|NCT02799745|183653929|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.174||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|1.11||P-values: from differences of least squares means.Bonferroni-Holm was used in the primary hypothesis testing to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry was used as the covariance structure. Covariance parameters:estimated using Restricted Maximum likelihood.|MMRM with treatment group, prostate cancer risk (low vs. intermediate), type of biopsy (mpMRI targeted vs. non mpMRI targeted), visit, visit-by-treatment and baseline scores were the fixed factors, and site and participants were the random factors.|Change at month 24||1.11|-11.40|0.1063
91879894|NCT02799745|183653930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.714||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|0.972||P-value: from a 2-sided, stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI for HR:based on Cox regression model assuming proportional hazards with treatment, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, baseline variables(as age, race), time since prostate cancer diagnosis as fixed effects and random effect of site.|||0.972|0.525|0.032
91801927|NCT00945893|183481850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|5.3|||score|||The number of participants who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||5.3|-23.5|
91879895|NCT02799745|183653931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26||P-value:based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR:from logistic regression model where treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis were fixed covariates, site and participant were random effects. 95% CI:based on binomial distribution.|At the end of month 12||0.26|0.08|0.000
91879896|NCT02799745|183653931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.53||P-value: based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis were fixed covariates, site and participant were random effects. 95% CI:based on binomial distribution.|At the end of month 24||3.53|0.37|0.807
91879897|NCT02799745|183653931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.15||P-value:based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis were fixed covariates, site and participant were random effects. 95% CI:based on binomial distribution.|At the end of study||2.15|0.50|0.931
91879898|NCT01929876|183653965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means|316.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|268.1|374.0|||||LS means from analysis of variance (ANOVA), calculated by transforming the natural log means back to the linear scale (that is, geometric LS mean).|Ratio of Least squares (LS) means (Cobimetinib with Itraconazole/Cobimetinib alone) of natural log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).||374.0|268.1|
91879899|NCT01929876|183653966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|672.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|563.7|801.9|||||Ratio of LS means (Cobimetinib with Itraconazole/Cobimetinib alone) of natural log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent). LS means from ANOVA, calculated by transforming the natural log means back to the linear scale.|Only participants with PK parameter data from both Period 1 Day 1 and Period 2 Day 4 (n=11) were included for statistical analyses.||801.9|563.7|
91801928|NCT00945893|183481851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|10.8|||score|||The number of participants who achieved a post Dose 2 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||10.8|-9.3|
91801929|NCT01435603|183481856|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.273||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.017
91801930|NCT01611155|183481865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91801931|NCT01611155|183481866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Motor subscale||||0.53
91879900|NCT01929876|183653968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|583.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|488.2|698.2|||||Ratio of LS means (Cobimetinib with Itraconazole/Cobimetinib alone) of natural log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent). LS means from ANOVA, calculated by transforming the natural log means back to the linear scale.|||698.2|488.2|
91879901|NCT01468077|183653975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2685|0.2988|||||The CI (confidence interval) is calculated by Exact method based on binomial distribution.|||0.2988|-0.2685|
91879902|NCT03024996|183653995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.75|0.4950
91879903|NCT03024996|183653996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8868||95.0|0.67|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.67|0.8868
91879904|NCT03024996|183653997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.63|0.2010
91879905|NCT03024996|183653998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.69|0.2811
91879906|NCT03024996|183653999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.55|0.0735
91879907|NCT03024996|183654000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.67|0.1396
91879908|NCT03024996|183654001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.55|0.4762
91879909|NCT03024996|183654002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.74|0.5111
91801932|NCT01611155|183481866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||autonomic subscale||||0.89
91801933|NCT01682954|183481894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91801934|NCT01682954|183481895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91801935|NCT01681472|183481896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0323
91879910|NCT03119688|183654065|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-Inferiority margin is set at 0.25. The upper limit of the 90% CI is less than this and hence NI is met.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.077||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1707|0.0169||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects; participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis (non-inferiority setting) is that the population mean dryness for Test minus Baxter Sterile Water (negative control) is at least 0.25.||0.0169|-0.1707|0.1769
91879911|NCT03119688|183654065|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority test setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2565|0.4441||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects;participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in population mean dryness is zero.||0.4441|0.2565|<.0001
91879912|NCT03119688|183654065|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority test setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.427|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3333|0.5211||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects; participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in population mean dryness is zero.||0.5211|0.3333|<.0001
91879913|NCT03119688|183654065|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority test setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.065||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0287|0.1592||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects;participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in population mean dryness is zero.||0.1592|-0.0287|0.2518
91879914|NCT01084239|183654083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Result for index hospitalization||||||<0.001
91889299|NCT03041792|183671475|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|106.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.95||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|204.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-60min (Visit 5)||204.44|7.86|0.0348
91889300|NCT03041792|183671475|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|214.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|129.48||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.59|474.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-300min (Visit 4)||474.07|-45.59|0.1040
91801936|NCT01681472|183481896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1336
91801937|NCT01681472|183481896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.8622
91801938|NCT01681472|183481896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
91801939|NCT01681472|183481896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0074
91801940|NCT01681472|183481896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1752
91801941|NCT01681472|183481897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1480
91801942|NCT01681472|183481897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0034
91801943|NCT01681472|183481897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0177
91801944|NCT01681472|183481897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||<0.0001
91801945|NCT01681472|183481897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0019
91879915|NCT02705625|183654102|SUPERIORITY|"For the primary endpoint, the Type I error for the tests of the two doses was protected by performing a fixed-sequence multiple-testing procedure in the following order:~Step 1: 200 mg versus placebo Step 2: 100 mg versus placebo The second step was only considered as confirmatory provided the previous step was significant at a one-sided 5%-level (p\<0.05).~If the previous step was not significant, the analysis of the following step was considered descriptive."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0761||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.703|0.55||The p-values reported is from Step 1 (comparing 200 mg versus placebo). The corresponding p-value from Step 2 (comparing 100 mg versus placebo) was 0.1458.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment by time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline NRS was included as a covariate for adjustment. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model.||0.55|-0.703|0.4055
91907683|NCT02819635|183710723|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|61.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||61.8|25.4|<0.001
91801946|NCT01681472|183481897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0118
91801947|NCT01681472|183481898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1182
91801948|NCT01681472|183481898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0538|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0538
91801949|NCT01681472|183481898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.5244
91801950|NCT01681472|183481898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0081
91879916|NCT02705625|183654103|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in knee joint MRI bone area at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-4.02||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: bone area increase is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline knee joint MRI bone area was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-4.02|-25.3|0.0036
91879917|NCT02705625|183654103|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in knee joint MRI bone area at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.83||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: bone area increase is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline knee joint MRI bone area was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-4.83|-26|0.0023
91879918|NCT02705625|183654104|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in MRI of cartilage thickness (Femur Region) at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0436||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.118||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: MRI of cartilage thinning (Femur Region) is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline MRI of cartilage thickness was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||0.118|-0.031|0.1253
91879919|NCT02705625|183654104|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in MRI of cartilage thickness (Femur Region) at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0761||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00173|0.15||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: MRI of cartilage thinning (Femur Region) is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline MRI of cartilage thickness was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||0.15|0.00173|0.0225
91879920|NCT02705625|183654105|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC Pain score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|4.48||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Pain score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time,baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Pain score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||4.48|-8.02|0.2887
91879921|NCT02705625|183654105|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC Pain score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.55||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.67||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Pain score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Pain score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||1.67|-10.8|0.0753
91888969|NCT00477490|183670719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.893|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.795|4.715||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||4.715|1.795|<0.0001
91801951|NCT01681472|183481898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0313
91879922|NCT02705625|183654106|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC difficulty score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.2898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|4.7||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Difficulty score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Difficulty score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||4.7|-8.38|0.2898
91888970|NCT00137969|183670730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4875||||||One-sided p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.4875
91888971|NCT00137969|183670731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.8230
91888972|NCT00137969|183670732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4318|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.4318
91888973|NCT00137969|183670733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9069|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.9069
91888974|NCT00137969|183670734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5602|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.5602
91888975|NCT00137969|183670735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8979|||||||Log Rank|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.8979
91748852|NCT01730339|183389743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.7552|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.64|||Repeated measures model|||Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.64|-0.44|0.7552
91748853|NCT01730339|183389743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.52|||Repeated measures model|||Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.52|-0.30|0.6605
91748854|NCT01730339|183389743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.56|||Repeated measures model|||Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.56|-0.55|0.9842
91748855|NCT01730339|183389743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.63|||Repeated measures model|||Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.63|-0.21|0.4010
91748856|NCT01730339|183389743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.07|||Repeated measures model|||Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.07|-0.19|0.2491
91748857|NCT01730339|183389743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.47|||Repeated measures model|||Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.47|-0.47|0.9980
91748858|NCT01730339|183389743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.93|||Repeated measures model|||Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.93|-0.37|0.4730
91748859|NCT01730339|183389743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.31|||Repeated measures model|||Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.31|-0.67|0.5413
91748860|NCT01730339|183389744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|5.92||||||Appearance: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||5.92|-3.28|
91748861|NCT01730339|183389744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.63|2.91||||||Appearance: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||2.91|-3.63|
91748862|NCT01730339|183389744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|10.24||||||Appearance: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||10.24|-2.60|
91748863|NCT01730339|183389744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.37|4.68||||||Appearance: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||4.68|-4.37|
91748864|NCT01730339|183389744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|2.95||||||Symptoms: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||2.95|-4.34|
91748865|NCT01730339|183389744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.53|1.45||||||Symptoms: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.45|-4.53|
91748866|NCT01730339|183389744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.07|5.58||||||Symptoms: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||5.58|-2.07|
91748867|NCT01730339|183389744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|1.99||||||Symptoms: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.99|-4.24|
91748868|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.35||||||Physician: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.35|-0.15|
91748869|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.29||||||Physician: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.29|-0.22|
91748870|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.54||||||Physician: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.54|0.04|
91801952|NCT01681472|183481898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4777|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.4777
91748871|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.15||||||Physician: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.15|-0.36|
91801953|NCT01681472|183481899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2716|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2716
91801954|NCT01681472|183481899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0124
91801955|NCT01681472|183481899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
91879923|NCT02705625|183654106|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC difficulty score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78||||0.1262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.72||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Difficulty score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC difficulty score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||2.72|-10.3|0.1262
91879924|NCT02705625|183654107|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC stiffness score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.1||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Stiffness score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Stiffness score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||4.1|-10.2|0.2
91888976|NCT00137969|183670736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1277|||||||ANCOVA|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.1277
91888977|NCT00137969|183670737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6202|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.6202
91748872|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.82||||||Physician: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.82|0.32|
91801956|NCT01681472|183481899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||<0.0001
91801957|NCT01681472|183481899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0039
91801958|NCT01681472|183481899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0454|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0454
91889301|NCT03041792|183671475|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|348.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|138.29||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.2|626.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-300min (Visit 5)||626.66|70.20|0.0152
91748873|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.3||||||Physician: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.30|-0.21|
91748874|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.68||||||Physician: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.68|0.18|
91748875|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.32||||||Physician: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.32|-0.18|
91748876|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.39||||||Participant: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.39|-0.20|
91801959|NCT01681472|183481900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0092
91801960|NCT01681472|183481900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.8303
91748877|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.23||||||Participant: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.23|-0.28|
91748878|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.3||||||Participant: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.30|-0.29|
91748879|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.33||||||Participant: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.33|-0.18|
91748880|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.72||||||Participant: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.72|0.12|
91748881|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.24||||||Participant: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.24|-0.27|
91748882|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.5||||||Participant: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.50|-0.09|
91748883|NCT01730339|183389745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.4||||||Participant: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.40|-0.11|
91748884|NCT03989427|183389751|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatment sequence could be called equivalent if the observed difference and its 95% CI are completely inside the interval of clinical equivalence. A significant result (p \< 0.05) means that the two treatments are equivalent, according the definition of equivalence as defined clinically.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.424||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|2.628||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05|ANOVA|Three-way mixed ANOVA was done to determine the effect of Intervention on BPI scores .||"Null hypothesis is that the sequence of brushing first and flossing later has no effect on gingival inflammation.~No previous studies with Mean and SD were available. Hence, a pilot study was done. 30 participants were randomly assigned to Brush first and floss later (BF) group ; and Floss first brush later(FB) group. After 1 week there was cross-over. 80% power is required to detect mean difference in BPI scores."||2.628|0.221|0.022
91748885|NCT03989427|183389752|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatment sequence could be called equivalent if the observed difference and its 95% CI are completely inside the interval of clinical equivalence. A significant result (p \< 0.05) means that the two treatments are equivalent, according the definition of equivalence as defined clinically.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.335|3.219|||ANOVA|Three-way mixed ANOVA was done to determine the effect of Intervention on RMNPI index scores||"Null hypothesis:~The sequence of brushing and flossing has no effect on plaque scores~There were no previous studies with Mean and SD to calculate sample. So a pilot study was conducted. 30 participants were randomly assigned in 1:1 fashion to Brush-floss (GroupA) and Floss brush group (group B). Then after 1 week there was cross-over among the groups.2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect the mean difference in BPI scores."||3.219|-3.335|0.971
91748886|NCT04035564|183389757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|1.533|||Chi-squared|||||1.533|0.026|0.71
91748887|NCT04035564|183389758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|18.09|||Chi-squared|||||18.09|0.081|0.89
91748888|NCT04035564|183389759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.861|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.286||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.461|-0.261|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.261|-5.461|0.032
91748889|NCT04035564|183389759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.286||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.461|-0.261|||ANOVA|||||-0.261|-5.461|0.032
91748890|NCT04035564|183389760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|0.858|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.858|-8.43|0.107
91748891|NCT04035564|183389760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|0.85|||ANOVA|||||0.85|-8.43|0.107
91748892|NCT04035564|183389761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.22||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.18|-4.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.57|-74.18|0.028
91748893|NCT04035564|183389761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.22||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.18|-4.57|||ANOVA|||||-4.57|-74.18|0.028
91748894|NCT04035564|183389762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.932|||Chi-squared|||||1.932|0.296|0.55
91748895|NCT04035564|183389763|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|7.096|||Chi-squared|||||7.096|0.169|0.84
91748896|NCT04035564|183389764|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|2.448|||Chi-squared|||||2.448|0.266|0.70
91748897|NCT04035564|183389765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91748898|NCT04035564|183389765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.57
91748899|NCT00939029|183389776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|7.5||1 tailed p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||7.5|1.0|0.05
91748900|NCT00939029|183389777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|11.6||1 tailed|Regression, Logistic|||||11.6|1.4|0.014
91748901|NCT00939029|183389778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|6.0||1 tailed|Regression, Logistic|||||6.0|0.8|0.087
91748902|NCT04686084|183389779|OTHER|Bland-Altman analysis|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91748903|NCT01425359|183389798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Angina frequency was compared by fitting a generalized linear model with log link and negative binomial distribution response.|Generalized linear model|||||||0.008
91748904|NCT01425359|183389799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Sublingual nitroglycerin use frequency was compared by fitting a generalized linear model with log link and negative binomial distribution response.|Generalized linear model|||||||0.003
91748905|NCT01528891|183389844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate values at each time point were compared between groups.||||<0.01
91879925|NCT02705625|183654107|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC stiffness score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.95||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.17||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Stiffness score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC stiffness score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||2.17|-12.1|0.0861
91879926|NCT02705625|183654108|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-I score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.254|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|-0.206||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-I score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-I score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-0.206|-0.302|<0.0001
91888978|NCT01465763|183670738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.3|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using Non-responder imputation (NRI).||16.3|4.3|0.0070
91748906|NCT01528891|183389844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||Heart rate values were compared over time against the baseline value.||||<0.01
91888979|NCT01465763|183670739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|15.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|23.4|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.4|8.1|0.0005
91748907|NCT01528891|183389844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||Heart rate values were compared over time against the baseline value.||||<0.01
91748908|NCT01528891|183389845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.0001 was calculated for both groups.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence of agitated patients in each group was compared.||||<0.0001
91748909|NCT01528891|183389846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points: 1 minute, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure values were compared between groups at each time point.||||<0.01
91748910|NCT01528891|183389846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 1 minute, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, and 5 minutes.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||SBP values were compared against the baseline value within each group over time.||||<0.01
91748911|NCT01528891|183389846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 5 minutes and PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||SBP values were compared against the baseline within each group over time.||||<0.01
91748912|NCT01528891|183389847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points: 1 minute and PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|t-test, 2 sided|||DBP values were compared between groups at each time point.||||<0.01
91748913|NCT01528891|183389847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to baseline: 1 minute, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||DBP values were compared within each group against the baseline value.||||<0.01
91748914|NCT01528891|183389847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to baseline: 4 minutes, 5 minutes, PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||DBP values were compared against the baseline value within each group over time.||||<0.01
91748915|NCT04452435|183389848|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.4891|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.4891
91748916|NCT04452435|183389848|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.0881|||||||ANCOVA|||A subgroup analyses was performed in subjects with supplemental oxygen use at baseline. A total of 26 subjects in the C21 group and 27 in the placebo group were included in the analysis of change in CRP from baseline to the mean of the last 2 non-missing scheduled assessments during the treatment period by baseline supplemental oxygen use.||||=0.0881
91748917|NCT04452435|183389849|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.0492|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0492
91748918|NCT04452435|183389850|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.9923|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.9923
91748919|NCT04452435|183389851|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.5355|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.5355
91879927|NCT02705625|183654108|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-I score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|-0.0983||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-I score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-I score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-0.0983|-0.193|<0.0001
91879928|NCT02705625|183654109|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-II score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-270.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.0|-201.0||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-II score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-II score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-201|-339|<0.0001
91879929|NCT02705625|183654109|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-II score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-193.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.0|-124.0||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-II score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by- time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-II score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-124|-262|<0.0001
91879930|NCT00863798|183654110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|2.1||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 10 mg to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||2.10|-0.38|0.175
91879931|NCT00863798|183654110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.75||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 10 mg to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||1.75|-0.73|0.421
91879932|NCT00863798|183654111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure. p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.076
91879933|NCT00863798|183654111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure. p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.204
91879934|NCT00863798|183654112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.35|-0.04|0.130
91879935|NCT00863798|183654112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-0.16|0.757
91801961|NCT01681472|183481900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1182
91801962|NCT01681472|183481900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0081
91907684|NCT02819635|183710723|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|57.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||57.5|21.3|<0.001
91801963|NCT01681472|183481900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.3184
91879936|NCT00863798|183654113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|3.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||3.16|-0.34|0.114
91879937|NCT00863798|183654113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.64|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||2.64|-0.85|0.316
91879938|NCT00863798|183654114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||1.50|-0.01|0.054
91879939|NCT00863798|183654114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||1.20|-0.32|0.253
91879940|NCT00863798|183654115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.254||||0.2415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.83|0.86|0.2415
91879941|NCT00863798|183654115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.6169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.61|0.75|0.6169
91879942|NCT00863798|183654116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.236||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.96|0.78|0.3667
91879943|NCT00863798|183654116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.894||||0.6509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.45|0.55|0.6509
91879944|NCT00863798|183654117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.182||||0.3893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||1.73|0.81|0.3893
91907685|NCT02819635|183710723|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|43.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|61.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||61.9|24.4|<0.001
91907686|NCT02819635|183710724|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|35.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||35.9|22.6|<0.001
91907687|NCT02819635|183710725|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|17.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||17.0|8.4|<0.001
91879945|NCT00863798|183654117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||1.65|0.77|0.5510
91879946|NCT00863798|183654118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.442||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||2.09|0.99|0.0536
91907688|NCT02819635|183710726|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|46.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|54.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||54.2|38.4|<0.001
91879947|NCT00863798|183654118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.085||||0.6679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||1.57|0.75|0.6679
91879948|NCT00863798|183654120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.79|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score."||2.79|0.12|0.033
91879949|NCT00863798|183654120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.49|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score."||2.49|-0.20|0.096
91879950|NCT00863798|183654120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.95|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score."||0.95|0.02|0.043
91879951|NCT00863798|183654120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.0|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score."||1.00|0.06|0.027
91879952|NCT00863798|183654120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.98|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life and leisure activities component score."||0.98|0.01|0.045
91801964|NCT01681472|183481900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1752
91801965|NCT01681472|183481901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
91801966|NCT01681472|183481901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2246
91801967|NCT01681472|183481901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0428
91801968|NCT01681472|183481901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0003
91801969|NCT01681472|183481901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.4309
91801970|NCT01681472|183481901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0055
91801971|NCT01681472|183481902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
91801972|NCT01681472|183481902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0034
91801973|NCT01681472|183481902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91879953|NCT00863798|183654120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.76|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life and leisure activities component score."||0.76|-0.22|0.277
91879954|NCT00863798|183654120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.91|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score."||0.91|-0.01|0.056
91801974|NCT01681472|183481902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
91801975|NCT01681472|183481902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
91801976|NCT01681472|183481902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0055
91801977|NCT01681472|183481903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0240
91801978|NCT01681472|183481903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0058
91801979|NCT01681472|183481903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91879955|NCT00863798|183654120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.68|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score."||0.68|-0.24|0.355
91879956|NCT00863798|183654121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||-0.56|-2.53|0.002
91879957|NCT00863798|183654121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.22|-1.75|0.129
91879958|NCT00863798|183654122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.23|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||1.23|0.52|0.3097
91879959|NCT00863798|183654122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.272||||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||1.97|0.82|0.2794
91879960|NCT00863798|183654124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 8.||||0.805
91879961|NCT00863798|183654124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 9.||||0.805
91801980|NCT01681472|183481903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||<0.0001
91801981|NCT01681472|183481903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
91801982|NCT01681472|183481903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0338
91801983|NCT01681472|183481904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91879962|NCT00863798|183654124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 10.||||0.978
91879963|NCT00863798|183654124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 8.||||0.805
91879964|NCT00863798|183654124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 9.||||0.154
91879965|NCT00863798|183654124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 10.||||0.805
91801984|NCT01681472|183481904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91801985|NCT01681472|183481904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91801986|NCT01681472|183481904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91801987|NCT01681472|183481904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91801988|NCT01681472|183481904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91879966|NCT01917006|183654171|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.11||||0.393||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.393
91879967|NCT01917006|183654171|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.25||||0.263||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.263
91879968|NCT01917006|183654171|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.39||||0.861||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.861
91879969|NCT01917006|183654171|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.14||||0.647||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.647
91879970|NCT01917006|183654171|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.13||||0.645||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.645
91879971|NCT01917006|183654171|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.15||||0.343||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.343
91748920|NCT04452435|183389852|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.4738|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.4738
91748921|NCT04452435|183389853|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.9418|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.9418
91748922|NCT04452435|183389854|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.9733|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.9733
91748923|NCT04452435|183389855|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.0568|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.0568
91748924|NCT04452435|183389856|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.6088|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.6088
91748925|NCT04452435|183389857|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.5757|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.5757
91748926|NCT04452435|183389858|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.8588|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.8588
91748927|NCT04452435|183389860|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.003
91748928|NCT02135029|183389865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-49.0|||MMRM|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|LS-mean differences,associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,treatment group\*visit interaction,baseline value, baseline value\*visit\*group interaction, country.|||-49.0|-60.1|<0.001
91748929|NCT02135029|183389866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-34.2|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-34.2|-42.6|<0.001
91748930|NCT02135029|183389866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-26.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-26.2|-35.9|
91748931|NCT02135029|183389867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-41.1|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-41.1|-51.9|<0.001
91748932|NCT02135029|183389867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-33.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-33.2|-45.4|
91748933|NCT02135029|183389868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|-46.0|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-46.0|-56.3|<0.001
91748934|NCT02135029|183389868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7|-35.8|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-35.8|-47.7|
91748935|NCT02135029|183389869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-10.8|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-10.8|-35.7|<0.001
91748936|NCT02135029|183389869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-5.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-5.1|-29.6|
91748937|NCT02135029|183389870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|17.0|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||17.0|7.8|<0.001
91748938|NCT02135029|183389870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|16.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||16.4|6.7|
91801989|NCT01681472|183481905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91801990|NCT01681472|183481905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91801991|NCT01681472|183481905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91801992|NCT01681472|183481905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91801993|NCT01681472|183481905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
91801994|NCT01681472|183481905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91801995|NCT01681472|183481906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
91879972|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|55.33||||0.184||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 versus (vs) Placebo at Week 2||||0.184
91801996|NCT01681472|183481906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2246
91801997|NCT01681472|183481906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0166
91801998|NCT01681472|183481906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1752
91801999|NCT01681472|183481906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.9581
91802000|NCT01681472|183481906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0118
91802001|NCT01681472|183481907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802002|NCT01681472|183481907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802003|NCT01681472|183481907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802004|NCT01681472|183481907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802005|NCT01681472|183481907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802006|NCT01681472|183481907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
91802007|NCT01681472|183481908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91879973|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|170.21||||0.002||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.002
91802008|NCT01681472|183481908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802009|NCT01681472|183481908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0022
91802010|NCT01681472|183481908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91879974|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.73||||0.404||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.404
91879975|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|24.23||||0.328||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.328
91879976|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.48||||0.362||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.362
91748939|NCT02135029|183389871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-38.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-38.2|-51.3|
91748940|NCT02135029|183389872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-5.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-5.2|-23.5|
91748941|NCT02135029|183389872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|0.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||0.4|-19.8|
91748942|NCT02135029|183389873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|10.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||10.1|2.2|
91748943|NCT02135029|183389873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|9.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||9.7|1.5|
91748944|NCT02135029|183389874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||8.7|0.8|
91748945|NCT02135029|183389874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|10.5|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||10.5|2.4|
91748946|NCT02135029|183389875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-5.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-5.2|-23.5|
91748947|NCT02135029|183389875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|0.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||0.4|-19.8|
91748948|NCT02135029|183389876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-93.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.5|-84.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-84.1|-103.5|
91748949|NCT02135029|183389877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-98.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.9|-87.5|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-87.5|-109.9|
91802011|NCT01681472|183481908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91879977|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|45.42||||0.203||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.203
91748950|NCT02135029|183389878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|8.0|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||8.0|3.7|
91748951|NCT02135029|183389879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-103.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.6|-92.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-92.7|-114.6|
91748952|NCT02135029|183389881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-52.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-52.4|-66.0|
91748953|NCT02135029|183389882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-4.5|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-4.5|-8.7|
91748954|NCT02135029|183389883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-2.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-2.1|-2.7|
91802012|NCT01681472|183481908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802013|NCT01681472|183481909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91802014|NCT01681472|183481909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802015|NCT01681472|183481909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91802016|NCT01681472|183481909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802017|NCT01681472|183481909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
91802018|NCT01681472|183481909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802019|NCT01681472|183481910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0240
91802020|NCT01681472|183481910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1336
91879978|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|33.05||||0.322||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.322
91879979|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|148.86||||0.015||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.015
91879980|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.2||||0.541||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.541
91879981|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.47||||0.459||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.459
91802021|NCT01681472|183481910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91802022|NCT01681472|183481910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2725
91802023|NCT01681472|183481910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1893|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1893
91879982|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.32||||0.491||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.491
91802024|NCT01681472|183481910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
91802025|NCT01681472|183481911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802026|NCT01681472|183481911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91879983|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|36.8||||0.281||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.281
91879984|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.12||||0.424||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.424
91879985|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|136.96||||0.026||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.026
91879986|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.62||||0.67||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.670
91879987|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.06||||0.561||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.561
91879988|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.58||||0.604||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.604
91879989|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.76||||0.394||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.394
91879990|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.94||||0.532||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.532
91879991|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|111.27||||0.058||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.058
91879992|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-48.65||||0.778||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.778
91748955|NCT02135029|183389883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-1.7|-2.4|
91879993|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.74||||0.662||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.662
91879994|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-35.72||||0.712||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.712
91879995|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.18||||0.501||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.501
91879996|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-12.14||||0.565||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.565
91879997|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|102.44||||0.071||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.071
91879998|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-52.81||||0.799||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.799
91748956|NCT02135029|183389884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-0.4|-0.5|
91879999|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-30.81||||0.681||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.681
91880000|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-40.68||||0.741||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.741
91880001|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.33||||0.526||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.526
91880002|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-14.76||||0.584||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.584
91880003|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|84.09||||0.101||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.101
91880004|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-55.14||||0.823||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.823
91880005|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-40.18||||0.741||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.741
91880006|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-41.31||||0.756||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.756
91880007|NCT01917006|183654172|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.57||||0.517||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.517
91880008|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.59||||0.079||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.079
91880009|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.77||||0.025||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.025
91907689|NCT02819635|183710727|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|41.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)||Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|41.8|24.8|<0.001
91748957|NCT02135029|183389884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-0.3|-0.4|
91748958|NCT03520348|183389892|NON_INFERIORITY|It is considered less than 20% of differences between groups to consider non-inferiority||||||0.285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.285
91748959|NCT03520348|183389893|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.680
91748960|NCT03520348|183389894|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.839|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.839
91748961|NCT03520348|183389895|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.137
91748962|NCT03520348|183389897|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.667|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.667
91748963|NCT03520348|183389898|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.561|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.561
91748964|NCT03520348|183389899|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
91748965|NCT03520348|183389900|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.317|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.317
91748966|NCT03520348|183389901|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.414
91748967|NCT02292758|183389902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.7609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|1.93|||Log Rank||Unadjusted HR; Model stratified by: prior bevacizumab (Y vs N) and prior lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2+)|||1.930|0.431|0.7609
91748968|NCT02292758|183389902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.642|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|1.656|||||Adjusted HR; Model adjusted by: age, gender, race (white vs others), number of metastatic sites (1 vs 2 vs 3+), ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumor site (colon, rectum/rectosigmoid, multiple)|||1.656|0.249|
91748969|NCT02292758|183389905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|1.062|||Log Rank||Unadjusted HR; Model stratified by: prior bevacizumab (Y vs N) and prior lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2+)|||1.062|0.209|0.0446
91748970|NCT02292758|183389905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.406|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|1.089|||||Adjusted HR; Model adjusted by: age, gender, race (white vs others), number of metastatic sites (1 vs 2 vs 3+), ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumor site (colon, rectum/rectosigmoid, multiple)|||1.089|0.151|
91748971|NCT02292758|183389907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3415|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3415
91748972|NCT02292758|183389908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1279|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1279
91802027|NCT01681472|183481911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802028|NCT01681472|183481911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0142
91802029|NCT01681472|183481911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0085
91802030|NCT01681472|183481911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
91802031|NCT01681472|183481912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
91802032|NCT01681472|183481912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802033|NCT01681472|183481912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0021
91802034|NCT01681472|183481912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802035|NCT01681472|183481912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
91802036|NCT01681472|183481912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802037|NCT01681472|183481913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91802038|NCT01681472|183481913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802039|NCT01681472|183481913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91802040|NCT01681472|183481913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802041|NCT01681472|183481913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
91802042|NCT01681472|183481913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91880010|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.07||||0.417||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.417
91880011|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.16||||0.33||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.330
91880012|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.3||||0.199||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.199
91802043|NCT01681472|183481914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0240
91802044|NCT01681472|183481914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1336
91802045|NCT01681472|183481914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91880013|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.45||||0.113||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.113
91880014|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.5||||0.127||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.127
91880015|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.56||||0.087||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.087
91880016|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.543||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.543
91880017|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12||||0.377||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.377
91880018|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.17||||0.321||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.321
91748973|NCT02292758|183389909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.447
91748974|NCT02292758|183389910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.655|||Log Rank||Unadjusted HR; Model stratified by: prior bevacizumab (Y vs N) and prior lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2+)|||1.655|0.345|0.3738
91748975|NCT02292758|183389911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cetuximab comparison||||0.4283
91748976|NCT02292758|183389911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Irinotecan comparison||||0.5262
91748977|NCT00385944|183389915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|-8.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.81|-17.02|<0.001
91880019|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.4||||0.149||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.149
91880020|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.35||||0.215||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.215
91880021|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.47||||0.126||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.126
91880022|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.28||||0.774||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.774
91880023|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.01||||0.495||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.495
91748978|NCT00385944|183389916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.65|-10.96|<0.001
91748979|NCT00385944|183389917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.06|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.90|-17.06|<0.001
91748980|NCT00385944|183389918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.76|-6.84|0.001
91748981|NCT00385944|183389919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.05|23.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.26|7.05|<0.001
91748982|NCT00385944|183389920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.69||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|19.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.81|5.56|0.001
91748983|NCT00385944|183389921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.26||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|18.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.34|2.17|0.015
91748984|NCT00385944|183389922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.85||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|8.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.84|-1.13|0.123
91748985|NCT00385944|183389923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.05|-10.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.62|-23.05|<0.001
91748986|NCT00385944|183389924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.87|-38.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.01|-70.87|<0.001
91748987|NCT00385944|183389926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.5|||<|0.001||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|||||||<.001
91748988|NCT00385944|183389927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.011||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|||Paired t-test for each arm separately||||0.011
91748989|NCT00385944|183389927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.847||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|||Paired t-test for each arm separately||||0.847
91880024|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.0||||0.495||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.495
91880025|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.23||||0.274||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.274
91748990|NCT00385944|183389928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.24||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-2.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.49|-15.99|0.008
91748991|NCT00385944|183389929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.22|25.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.83|9.22|<0.001
91748992|NCT05898672|183389933|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|131.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.89|148.48||||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio of adjusted geometric means of test to reference was reported; where test treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg + Nirmatrelvir 300 mg/ Ritonavir 100 mg and reference treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg. Ratio and associated 90% CIs were reported in percentage.||148.48|115.89|
91748993|NCT05898672|183389934|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|212.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|174.31|258.9||||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio of adjusted geometric means of test to reference was reported; where test treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg + Nirmatrelvir 300 mg/ Ritonavir 100 mg and reference treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg. Ratio and associated 90% CIs were reported in percentage.||258.90|174.31|
91748994|NCT00521599|183389951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|assume n=240 per group and standard deviation (STD) = 45 L/min for AM Peak Flow Rate at Week 8. If the two actives are the same, 95% CI of their mean difference has 90% probability to be completely within +/- 15 L/min.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.0||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|5.49|||ANOVA|||Week 8 End scores||5.49|-8.74|0.654
91748995|NCT00521599|183389951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Week 8 End scores||||0.003
91748996|NCT00521599|183389951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Week 8 End scores||||0.001
91748997|NCT01778049|183389958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0013||95.0|-0.52|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as lina5 (E10) minus Plc (E10) value.|Superiority of lina5 (E10) vs. Plc (E10): change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariates \& baseline estimated glomerula filtration rate (eGFR), geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.13|-0.52|0.0013
91748998|NCT01778049|183389958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.66|-0.28|||MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference value calculated as lina5 (E25) minus Plc (E25).|Superiority of lina5 (E25) vs. Plc (E25): change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariates \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.28|-0.66|<0.0001
91748999|NCT01778049|183389959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0103||95.0|-1.15|-0.16|||MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference value calculated as lina5 (E10) minus Plc (E10).|Superiority of lina5 (E10) vs. Plc (E10): change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c \& baseline eGFR as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.16|-1.15|0.0103
91749000|NCT01778049|183389959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0452||95.0|-0.87|-0.01|||MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference value calculated as lina5 (E25) minus Plc (E25).|Superiority of lina5 (E25) vs. Plc (E25): change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c \& baseline eGFR as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.87|0.0452
91749001|NCT01218958|183389970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94||The Hochberg method was used to adjust P-value for multiple comparisons (ie, 380 mg dose vs. placebo and 190 mg dose vs. placebo).|Andersen-Gill recurrent-event Cox|||"The event rate (percentage) is represented by the number of heavy drinking days divided by number of days at risk. For each day, the active groups' results were contrasted with placebo to form the event rate ratio. Thus, a hazard ratio of 0.75 for the 380 mg group indicates a 25% reduction in heavy drinking compared with that of placebo.~The method of analysis estimates the average ratio over time and accounts for discontinuation. Point/interval estimates for pairwise ratios were derived."||0.940|0.600|0.0245
91749002|NCT01218958|183389970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|1.018|||Andersen-Gill recurrent-event Cox model|||||1.018|0.677|0.0744
91749003|NCT01849575|183389986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91749004|NCT03359785|183390047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.2401|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.246||||ANOVA||||||-0.246|0.2401
91749005|NCT03359785|183390047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.9053|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.513||||ANOVA||||||-1.513|0.9053
91749006|NCT01907321|183390055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.98||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||.001
91749007|NCT01907321|183390056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519|||||||ANOVA|||||||.519
91749008|NCT03650803|183390063|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||MRF T1 Changes||||0.046
91749009|NCT03650803|183390063|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MRF T2 Changes||||0.064
91749010|NCT03650803|183390064|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MRF T1 relaxation time||||0.820
91749011|NCT03650803|183390064|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MRF T2 relaxation time||||0.605
91749012|NCT00367744|183390065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Treatment groups were compared for change in limb fat using a two-sided signed rank test||The primary outcome measure was the change in limb fat at 48 weeks between the rosiglitazone and placebo group.||||0.02
91907690|NCT02819635|183710728|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|30.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||30.0|17.5|<0.001
91802046|NCT01681472|183481914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1551|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1551
91802047|NCT01681472|183481914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1563
91880026|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.22||||0.308||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.308
91880027|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.34||||0.205||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.205
91880028|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.39||||0.849||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.849
91880029|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07||||0.571||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.571
91907691|NCT02819635|183710729|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|35.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||35.6|19.2|<0.001
91749013|NCT03664674|183390068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.648|0.207||Generalized Linear Model - Negative Binomial Regression Model with count data by subject transformed using the log-link function.|Regression, Linear|The parameter estimate + conf. int. results back-transform to the ratio of adjusted mean DVDs (OTO-104/Placebo) to be 0.802 (0.523, 1.230).||||0.207|-0.648|0.312
91749014|NCT04270682|183390168|EQUIVALENCE|The null (H0) hypothesis and the alternative (Ha) hypothesis to be tested for the primary efficacy endpoint are that H0: Δ = 0 versus Ha: Δ ≠ 0 where Δ is the true paired treatment difference between CDCA and placebo for the change from baseline in loge-transformed urine 23S-pentol in the adult cohort.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.794|-2.331|||paired t-test|||||-2.331|-3.794|<0.0001
91802048|NCT01681472|183481914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
91880030|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.592||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.592
91802049|NCT01681472|183481915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802050|NCT01681472|183481915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802051|NCT01681472|183481915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91880031|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.16||||0.34||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.340
91880032|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.16||||0.36||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.360
91880033|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.35||||0.192||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.192
91880034|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.37||||0.843||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.843
91880035|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07||||0.572||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.572
91749015|NCT04270682|183390169|EQUIVALENCE|The null (H0) hypothesis and the alternative (Ha) hypothesis to be tested for the primary efficacy endpoint are that H0: Δ = 0 versus Ha: Δ ≠ 0 where Δ is the true paired treatment difference between CDCA and placebo for the change from baseline in loge-transformed plasma cholestanol in the adult cohort.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.399|||paired t-test|||||-0.399|-1.640|0.0083
91749016|NCT04270682|183390170|EQUIVALENCE|The null (H0) hypothesis and the alternative (Ha) hypothesis to be tested for the primary efficacy endpoint are that H0: Δ = 0 versus Ha: Δ ≠ 0 where Δ is the true paired treatment difference between CDCA and placebo for the change from baseline in loge-transformed Plasma 7αC4 in the adult cohort.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.193|-3.207|||paired t-test|||||-3.207|-4.193|<0.0001
91749017|NCT04270682|183390171|EQUIVALENCE|Exact 2 sided p-value for observing contingency tables of rescue data with equal or more extreme values is calculated using Prescott's method. Rejection of the null hypothesis for no association suggests there is a difference between two treatments.|proportion|0.077||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.36|||Prescott's|||||0.36|0.00|0.0006
91749018|NCT04270682|183390171|EQUIVALENCE|Exact 2 sided p-value for observing contingency tables of rescue data with equal or more extreme values is calculated using Prescott's method. Rejection of the null hypothesis for no association suggests there is a difference between two treatments.|proportion|0.62||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.86|||Prescott's|||||0.86|0.32|0.0006
91749019|NCT03894969|183390175|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-PD is \> 0.667. The anti-PD GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.765|1.159|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.159|0.765|
91749020|NCT03894969|183390175|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-PE is \> 0.667. The anti-PE GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.719|1.093|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.093|0.719|
91749021|NCT03894969|183390175|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-PilA is \> 0.667. The anti-PilA GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|1.142|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.884|1.474|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.474|0.884|
91749022|NCT03894969|183390175|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-UspA2 is \> 0.667. The anti-UspA2 GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|1.087|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.948|1.245|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.245|0.948|
91749023|NCT04730635|183390220|OTHER||Posterior Probability|46.3||||||||||||||There was a threshold of ≥2 percentage points. A posterior probability value \>55% was required to satisfy the primary hypothesis.||||
91749024|NCT04730635|183390221|OTHER||Posterior Probability|80.67||||||||||||||There was a threshold of ≤ 0.1 for this standard deviation change. A posterior probability value \>70% was required to satisfy this secondary hypothesis.||||
91749025|NCT04730635|183390222|OTHER||Posterior Probability|98.8||||||||||||||||||
91749026|NCT04762043|183390225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|59.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size used for mixed effects model is partial eta-squared (ηp2).||||59.76|53.33|<.001
91802052|NCT01681472|183481915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0142
91802053|NCT01681472|183481915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0085
91880036|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.628||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.628
91880037|NCT01917006|183654173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12||||0.38||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.380
91880038|NCT02509312|183654191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91880039|NCT02509312|183654192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.257
91880040|NCT02509312|183654193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.085
91802054|NCT01681472|183481915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
91802055|NCT01681472|183481916|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||1.0000
91802056|NCT01681472|183481916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802057|NCT01681472|183481916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0010
91802058|NCT01681472|183481916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802059|NCT01681472|183481916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0005
91802060|NCT01681472|183481916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802061|NCT01681472|183481917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0056
91802062|NCT01681472|183481917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802063|NCT01681472|183481917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0010
91802064|NCT01681472|183481917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802065|NCT01681472|183481917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
91802066|NCT01681472|183481917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802067|NCT01681472|183481918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1796
91802068|NCT01681472|183481918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3243|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.3243
91802069|NCT01681472|183481918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0263
91802070|NCT01681472|183481918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0268
91802071|NCT01681472|183481918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2041
91802072|NCT01681472|183481918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0061
91802073|NCT01681472|183481919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802074|NCT01681472|183481919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91880041|NCT02509312|183654194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.164
91802075|NCT01681472|183481919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802076|NCT01681472|183481919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91880042|NCT02509312|183654195|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91880043|NCT02509312|183654196|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.27||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.03|||Chi-squared|||||-0.03|-0.52|0.0367
91880044|NCT02509312|183654197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0231
91880045|NCT02509312|183654198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.467
91802077|NCT01681472|183481919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802078|NCT01681472|183481919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802079|NCT01681472|183481920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0268
91880046|NCT02509312|183654199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.273
91880047|NCT02509312|183654200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||p-value for 12 hours post-op between-group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0162
91749027|NCT03070223|183390226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.10|-0.30|0.31
91749028|NCT03070223|183390228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.88|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model.|Comparison of Month 24 values||2.88|-1.72|0.62
91749029|NCT03070223|183390229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.004|-0.007|0.61
91749030|NCT03070223|183390230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.028||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.19|-0.25|0.80
91749031|NCT03070223|183390231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.06|||Log-binomial regression using GEE|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect is shown as relative annualized risk of impairment in the pitavastatin group compared to placebo (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||1.06|0.98|0.33
91749032|NCT03070223|183390232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.002|-0.013|0.18
91749033|NCT03070223|183390233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24|||Log-binomial regression using GEE|P-value is from the time (before vs. after study treatment initiation) and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect is shown as relative average risk of impairment over follow-up time in the pitavastatin group compared to placebo (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||1.24|0.91|0.47
91749034|NCT03070223|183390238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.4|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||1.4|-2.7|0.55
91749035|NCT03070223|183390239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||1.8|-2.8|0.67
91749036|NCT03070223|183390240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.52|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference (pitavastatin minus placebo) at Month 24 was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||0.52|-0.50|0.98
91749037|NCT03070223|183390241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||0.3|-0.8|0.31
91749038|NCT03070223|183390242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||0.9|-0.2|0.21
91749039|NCT02308163|183390244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.58||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR20-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.58|1.76|<0.001
91802080|NCT01681472|183481920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91880048|NCT02509312|183654202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value for 6 hours post-op between-group comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
91880049|NCT01670188|183654308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91888980|NCT01465763|183670740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|36.5|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||36.5|17.7|<0.0001
91880050|NCT00241969|183654311|SUPERIORITY|Some data were missing for energy intake (n=3 baseline, n=13 post-treatment), thus the PROC MIXED procedure (SAS) with maximum likelihood estimation was used to analyze this outcome with time as a repeated measure factor.|maximum likelihood estimation|431.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.0|581.0|||ANCOVA||||All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Some data were missing for energy intake (N = 3 baseline; 13 post treatment), and thus the PROC MIXED procedure (SAS) with maximum likelihood estimation was used to analyze this outcome with time as a repeated measures factor, no group main effect at baseline for energy intake, and sex, baseline Pseudomonas aeruginosa status, and treatment modality as covariates in the statistical model. This model is similar to an analysis of covariance model with baseline energy intake included as an additional covariate, but the PROC MIXED model employs maximum likelihood estimation and consequently allows for data to be missing at random. The test of the time by group interaction within this PROC MIXED model indicated whether the behavioral and nutrition treatment was efficacious relative to our control treatment.|581|282|<0.001
91749040|NCT02308163|183390244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|12.2||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR20-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||12.20|3.56|<0.001
91749041|NCT02308163|183390246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|10.75||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR50-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||10.75|2.14|<0.001
91749042|NCT02308163|183390246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.53|17.5||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR50-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||17.50|3.53|<0.001
91749043|NCT02308163|183390248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.29|301.61||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR70-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo. Difference vs. Peficitinib 100mg was not estimable.||301.61|5.29|<0.001
91749044|NCT02308163|183390250|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.71||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.71|-1.41|<0.001
91749045|NCT02308163|183390250|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-1.24||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.24|-1.86|<0.001
91749046|NCT02308163|183390252|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.67||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.67|-1.38|<0.001
91749047|NCT02308163|183390252|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.31||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.31|-1.96|<0.001
91749048|NCT02308163|183390254|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.4||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.4|-6.8|<0.001
91749049|NCT02308163|183390254|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.0||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-4.0|-8.1|<0.001
91749050|NCT02308163|183390256|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.4||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.4|-4.6|<0.001
91802081|NCT01681472|183481920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0227
91888981|NCT01465763|183670741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.1||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.3|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||8.3|1.9|0.0345
91749051|NCT02308163|183390256|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.9||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-3.9|-6.8|<0.001
91749052|NCT02308163|183390258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|17.67||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score \< 2.6 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||17.67|2.31|<0.001
91749053|NCT02308163|183390258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|27.27||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score \< 2.6 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||27.27|3.76|<0.001
91749054|NCT02308163|183390260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|166.66||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-ESR score \< 2.6 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo. Difference vs. Peficitinib 100mg was not estimable.||166.66|2.83|0.003
91749055|NCT02308163|183390262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|12.29||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||12.29|2.74|<0.001
91749056|NCT02308163|183390262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|20.41||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||20.41|4.57|<0.001
91749057|NCT02308163|183390264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.12||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-ESR score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||8.12|1.29|0.012
91749058|NCT02308163|183390264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|3.42|19.63||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-ESR score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||19.63|3.42|<0.001
91749059|NCT02308163|183390266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.546|-0.679||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: CRP Change = Treatment + Baseline CRP + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.679|-1.546|<0.001
91749060|NCT02308163|183390266|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|-1.241||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: CRP Change = Treatment + Baseline CRP + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.241|-2.114|<0.001
91749061|NCT02308163|183390268|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|-5.84||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-5.84|-15.95|<0.001
91749062|NCT02308163|183390268|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-21.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.01|-16.27||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-16.27|-26.01|<0.001
91749063|NCT02308163|183390270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|14.83||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||14.83|2.98|<0.001
91802082|NCT01681472|183481920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802083|NCT01681472|183481920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0933
91802084|NCT01681472|183481920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802085|NCT01681472|183481921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0177
91802086|NCT01681472|183481921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802087|NCT01681472|183481921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0058
91802088|NCT01681472|183481921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802089|NCT01681472|183481921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0043
91749064|NCT02308163|183390270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.91|24.03||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||24.03|4.91|<0.001
91749065|NCT02308163|183390272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|8.04||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||8.04|2.38|<0.001
91802090|NCT01681472|183481921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802091|NCT01681472|183481922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802092|NCT01681472|183481922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802093|NCT01681472|183481922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802094|NCT01681472|183481922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802095|NCT01681472|183481922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802096|NCT01681472|183481922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802097|NCT01681472|183481923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802098|NCT01681472|183481923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802099|NCT01681472|183481923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802100|NCT01681472|183481923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0668|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0668
91802101|NCT01681472|183481923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0502|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0502
91802102|NCT01681472|183481923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0081
91802103|NCT01681472|183481924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0011
91802104|NCT01681472|183481924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91749066|NCT02308163|183390272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|38.51||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||38.51|7.31|<0.001
91749067|NCT02308163|183390274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|12.08||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||12.08|1.52|0.006
91749068|NCT02308163|183390274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|11.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|29.74||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||29.74|4.07|<0.001
91749069|NCT02308163|183390276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.001||95.0|2.11|6.93||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||6.93|2.11|<0.001
91749070|NCT02308163|183390276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|29.17||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||29.17|6.39|<0.001
91749071|NCT02308163|183390282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.66|-6.22||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-6.22|-13.66|<0.001
91749072|NCT02308163|183390282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-14.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.71|-11.15||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-11.15|-17.71|<0.001
91749073|NCT02308163|183390286|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|-5.2||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA Model: CDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline CDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-5.20|-12.19|<0.001
91749074|NCT02308163|183390286|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-12.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.96|-9.71||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA Model: CDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline CDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-9.71|-15.96|<0.001
91749075|NCT02308163|183390288|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-9.0||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-9.00|-21.40|<0.001
91749076|NCT02308163|183390288|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.78|-17.51||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-17.51|-28.78|<0.001
91749077|NCT02308163|183390290|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-16.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.81|-9.95||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-9.95|-23.81|<0.001
91749078|NCT02308163|183390290|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-17.28||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-17.28|-29.83|<0.001
91749079|NCT02308163|183390292|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-17.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.36|-10.81||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.81|-24.36|<0.001
91802105|NCT01681472|183481924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91802106|NCT01681472|183481924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802107|NCT01681472|183481924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6691|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.6691
91802108|NCT01681472|183481924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802109|NCT01681472|183481925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
91802110|NCT01681472|183481925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802111|NCT01681472|183481925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0640
91802112|NCT01681472|183481925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91880051|NCT00241969|183654312|SUPERIORITY|All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of WAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates.|maximum likelihood|0.09||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.24|||ANCOVA||||All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of WAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates. Group main effects on these change scores in the presence of covariates were examined to determine the efficacy of the behavioral and nutrition treatment.|0.24|-0.06|0.25
91888982|NCT01465763|183670742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.3|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.3|4.3|0.0070
91802113|NCT01681472|183481925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1213|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1213
91802114|NCT01681472|183481925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802115|NCT01681472|183481926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1791|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1791
91802116|NCT01681472|183481926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4945|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.4945
91802117|NCT01681472|183481926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
91802118|NCT01681472|183481926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.5990
91802119|NCT01681472|183481926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0303
91802120|NCT01681472|183481926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0107
91802121|NCT01681472|183481927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802122|NCT01681472|183481927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802123|NCT01681472|183481927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
91802124|NCT01681472|183481927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0125
91880052|NCT00241969|183654313|SUPERIORITY|All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of HAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates.|maximum likelihood|0.14||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.27|||ANCOVA||||All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of WAZ and HAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates. Group main effects on these change scores in the presence of covariates were examined to determine the efficacy of the behavioral and nutrition treatment.|0.27|0.001|0.049
91880053|NCT00413634|183654314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.092
91880054|NCT00413634|183654317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.857||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.857
91880055|NCT00413634|183654318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.013
91880056|NCT00413634|183654319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.378||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.378
91880057|NCT00413634|183654320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.013
91880058|NCT00413634|183654321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.035
91880059|NCT00413634|183654322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
91880060|NCT00413634|183654323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.557||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.557
91880061|NCT00413634|183654324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.027
91880062|NCT00413634|183654325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
91880063|NCT00413634|183654326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.027
91749080|NCT02308163|183390292|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.24|-17.57||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-17.57|-30.24|<0.001
91749081|NCT02308163|183390294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||No Multiplicity Adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.033
91749082|NCT02308163|183390294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||No Multiplicity Adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.035
91880064|NCT00413634|183654327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
91880065|NCT00874497|183654367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0824||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0378|0.2025||P-values are based on Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model of the change FEV1 from baseline to the specified study week using treatment group and current smoking status as fixed effects and the baseline FEV1 value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 104.||0.2025|-0.0378|0.1761
91880066|NCT00874497|183654368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.904||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Upper region of the lung at Week 104.||0.97|-6.77|0.139
91880067|NCT00874497|183654368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|2.04|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Middle region of the Lung at Week 104.||2.04|-4.46|0.460
91880068|NCT00874497|183654368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.176||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||3.63|-7.98|0.457
91880069|NCT00874497|183654368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.167||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|2.54|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Upper region of the Lung at Week 104.||2.54|-6.88|0.362
91880070|NCT00874497|183654368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.225||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|4.48|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.48|-6.94|0.670
91880071|NCT00874497|183654368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.218||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||1.55|-5.98|0.244
91880072|NCT00874497|183654368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.374||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|3.48|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||3.48|-6.23|0.574
91880073|NCT00874497|183654370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.47|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Upper region of the Lung at Week 104.||3.47|-1.53|0.436
91880074|NCT00874497|183654370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Middle region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.79|-0.17|0.067
91880075|NCT00874497|183654370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.77|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.77|-0.83|0.163
91880076|NCT00874497|183654370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Upper region of the Lung at Week 104.||5.02|-0.48|0.102
91880077|NCT00874497|183654370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|5.12|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||5.12|-0.89|0.162
91880078|NCT00874497|183654370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|4.29|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.29|-0.73|0.160
91880079|NCT00874497|183654370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.08||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|4.75|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.75|-0.58|0.122
91802125|NCT01681472|183481927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0017
91880080|NCT00874497|183654370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.56|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Whole Lung region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.56|-0.46|0.106
91880081|NCT00874497|183654371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.423||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.48|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean Difference between Tetomilast and Placebo at Week 104.||2.48|-5.32|0.469
91880082|NCT00874497|183654372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|2.27|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper region of the lung at Week 104.||2.27|-4.42|0.519
91880083|NCT00874497|183654372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|1.82|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle region of the lung at Week 104.||1.82|-3.92|0.463
91880084|NCT00874497|183654372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|3.94|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower region of the lung at Week 104.||3.94|-6.74|0.598
91880085|NCT00874497|183654372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.94||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper region of the lung at Week 104.||1.03|-6.92|0.142
91880086|NCT00874497|183654372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|4.59|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower region of the lung at Week 104.||4.59|-6.26|0.757
91880087|NCT00874497|183654372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.5|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole region of the lung at Week 104.||2.50|-5.03|0.500
91880088|NCT00874497|183654372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole region of the lung at Week 104.||2.23|-6.09|0.353
91880089|NCT00874497|183654372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole region of the lung at Week 104.||2.40|-5.43|0.438
91880090|NCT00874497|183654373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|351487.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-219976.0|922951.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper region of the lung at Week 104.||922951|-219976|0.220
91880091|NCT00874497|183654373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|103036.0||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37651.0|243723.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle region of the lung at Week 104||243723|-37651|0.146
91880092|NCT00874497|183654373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|247358.0||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252728.0|747444.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower region of the lung at Week 104||747444|-252728|0.322
91880093|NCT00874497|183654373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|362384.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126518.0|851286.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper region of the lung at Week 104.||851286|-126518|0.141
91880094|NCT00874497|183654373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|294202.0||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-303329.0|891733.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower region of the lung at Week 104.||891733|-303329|0.325
91880095|NCT00874497|183654373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|575882.0||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-439692.0|1591457.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole region of the lung at Week 104.||1591457|-439692|0.258
91880096|NCT00874497|183654373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|589373.0||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-426928.0|1605673.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole region of the lung at Week 104.||1605673|-426928|0.247
91880097|NCT00874497|183654373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1156318.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-855009.0|3167645.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole lung region of the lung at Week 104.||3167645|-855009|0.251
91880098|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.9||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|193.8|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper lung region (RV) at Week 104.||193.8|-38.0|0.181
91880099|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.8|36.9|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle lung region (RV) at Week 104.||36.9|-48.8|0.781
91880100|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.7||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.8|173.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower lung region (RV) at Week 104.||173.2|-77.8|0.445
91880101|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.6||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|173.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper lung region (RV) at Week 104.||173.2|-48.1|0.259
91880102|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.6|169.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower lung region (RV) at Week 104.||169.6|-105.6|0.639
91880103|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|102.3||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.9|350.5|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole lung region (RV) at Week 104.||350.5|-145.9|0.408
91880104|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85.2||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.8|309.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole lung region (RV) at Week 104.||309.2|-138.8|0.445
91880105|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|187.6||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-279.6|654.8|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole lung region (RV) at Week 104.||654.8|-279.6|0.421
91880106|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.7||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|159.9|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||159.9|-58.5|0.353
91880107|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|55.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||55.0|-35.3|0.660
91880108|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.7|132.1|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||132.1|-110.7|0.859
91802126|NCT01681472|183481927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.5286
91802127|NCT01681472|183481928|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.21666||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.6063
91802128|NCT01681472|183481928|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.54039||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.2105
91802129|NCT01681472|183481928|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.27618||||0.5079|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.5079
91802130|NCT01681472|183481928|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.68223||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.0913
91749083|NCT02308163|183390295|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea., and Taiwan)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.20|-0.48|<0.001
91802131|NCT01681472|183481929|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.38298||||0.3964|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.3964
91802132|NCT01681472|183481929|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.27018||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.5175
91802133|NCT01681472|183481929|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.02188||||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.9590
91802134|NCT01681472|183481929|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.45404||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.3061
91802135|NCT01681472|183481929|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.34905||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.3967
91802136|NCT01681472|183481929|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.07937||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.8518
91802137|NCT01681472|183481930|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.73743||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.0586
91802138|NCT01681472|183481930|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.44757||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.2661
91802139|NCT01681472|183481930|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.03292||||0.9506|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.9506
91802140|NCT01681472|183481930|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.09033||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.8315
91802141|NCT01681472|183481930|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.76502||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in adjacent mucosa||||0.0451
91802142|NCT01681472|183481930|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.34496||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.4027
91802143|NCT01681472|183481930|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.66295||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.1513
91802144|NCT01681472|183481930|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.36854||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.3690
91802145|NCT01681472|183481931|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.23512||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.5751
91802146|NCT01681472|183481931|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.02576||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.9672
91802147|NCT01681472|183481931|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.68778||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.0594
91802148|NCT01681472|183481931|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.11512||||0.8281|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.8281
91802149|NCT01681472|183481932|OTHER|||||||0.0451|||||||pearson|||||||0.0451
91802150|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.42972||||0.3359|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.3359
91802151|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.75404||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.0307
91802152|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.7073||||0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.1160
91802153|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.47193||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.2377
91802154|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.88128||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.0087
91802155|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.58502||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.1277
91802156|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.89976||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.0146
91802157|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.11497||||0.7863|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.7863
91802158|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.97624||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.0002
91802159|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.88682||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.0033
91802160|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.64743||||0.1645|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.1645
91802161|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.17664||||0.6756|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.6756
91802162|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.94364||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.0014
91802163|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.43194||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.2852
91802164|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.58419||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.2234
91802165|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.9584||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.0002
91802166|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.38987||||0.3873|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.3873
91749084|NCT02308163|183390295|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.26||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea., and Taiwan)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.26|-0.53|<0.001
91749085|NCT02308163|183390297|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|10.05||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||10.05|3.69|<0.001
91749086|NCT02308163|183390297|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|9.85||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||9.85|4.11|<0.001
91749087|NCT02308163|183390299|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.87||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||4.87|0.91|0.004
91749088|NCT02308163|183390299|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.19||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.19|1.30|0.001
91749089|NCT02308163|183390301|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|5.83||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.83|-1.29|0.210
91749090|NCT02308163|183390301|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|9.71||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||9.71|2.74|<0.001
91749091|NCT02308163|183390303|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-1.0||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.00|-16.11|0.027
91749092|NCT02308163|183390303|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-10.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.88|-2.47||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.47|-17.88|0.010
91749093|NCT02308163|183390305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-20.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.44|-10.89||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.89|-30.44|<0.001
91749094|NCT02308163|183390305|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-22.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-11.97||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-11.97|-32.06|<0.001
91749095|NCT02308163|183390307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-20.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.38|-10.06||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.06|-30.38|<0.001
91749096|NCT02308163|183390307|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.16|-13.17|||Covariance model|No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-13.17|-34.16|<0.001
91802167|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.25891||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.5358
91749097|NCT02308163|183390309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-10.61||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.61|-24.00|<0.001
91802168|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.777||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.0691
91802169|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.00322||||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.9940
91802170|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.93711||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.0018
91749098|NCT02308163|183390309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-20.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|-14.24||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-14.24|-26.59|<0.001
91749099|NCT03219034|183390320|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cross-over design: Median differences between oral appliances at the end of the first 4-week leg of the study (T2). The hypothesis tested was that REI would be lowered more with Appliance A than B.||||0.152
91749100|NCT00118846|183390322|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope = Mean difference in annualized rate of change|||1.05|-2.86|0.35
91749101|NCT00118846|183390323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.13|0.36
91749102|NCT00443053|183390326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Fisher Exact|||||0.26|0.08|<0.001
91749103|NCT00443053|183390327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.32|||Fisher Exact|||||0.32|0.12|<0.001
91749104|NCT04098367|183390407|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.34|46.79|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus SYMFONY|||46.79|13.34|
91749105|NCT04098367|183390407|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.54|46.68|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus AT LARA|||46.68|12.54|
91749106|NCT04098367|183390408|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.91|17.42|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus SYMFONY|||17.42|-21.91|
91749107|NCT04098367|183390408|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.0|27.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus AT LARA|||27.80|-12.00|
91749108|NCT04098367|183390409|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.66|40.86|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus SYMFONY|||40.86|4.66|
91749109|NCT04098367|183390409|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|40.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.16|57.22|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus AT LARA|||57.22|21.16|
91802171|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.46883||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.2413
91802172|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.09737||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.8544
91749110|NCT01545232|183390410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Relative Risk|0.75||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.08|||Mantel Haenszel|The critical level for significance (p\<0.044) was adjusted for two interim analyses, and all tests were conducted using two-sided tests.||Initial sample size (580) planned to detect a clinically meaningful 10% difference in 24-hour mortality (11% vs. 21%) supported by prior data. Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) increased sample size to 680 according to trial's adaptive design. With 680 pts. \& given the final observed mortality proportions in 1:1:1 group, PROPPR had 95% power to detect the pre-specified 10% difference at 24 hours if such differences existed.||1.08|0.52|0.12
91749111|NCT01545232|183390411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Relative Risk|0.86||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.12|||Mantel Haenszel|The critical level for significance (p\<0.044) was adjusted for two interim analyses, and all tests were conducted using two-sided tests.||Initial sample size of 580 planned to detect clinically meaningful a 12% difference in 30-day mortality (23% vs. 35%),supported by prior data. DSMB increased sample size to 680 according to trial's adaptive design. With 680 patients \& given final observed mortality proportions in the 1:1:1 group, PROPPR had 92% power to detect the pre-specified 12% difference at 30 days, if such differences existed.||1.12|0.65|0.26
91749112|NCT01545232|183390413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.83
91749113|NCT01545232|183390414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.44
91749114|NCT01545232|183390416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.11
91749115|NCT01545232|183390417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.3||||||||8.3|-2.8|
91749116|NCT01545232|183390418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7||||||||1.7|-0.8|
91749117|NCT01545232|183390419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized logit model regression|||||||0.37
91749118|NCT01545232|183390420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.14
91749119|NCT01545232|183390421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.10
91749120|NCT01106859|183390451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.5||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 114 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups.||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDLP (Zolpidem 4 Hours) - LS mean of SDLP (Placebo).||1.5|0.1|0.0174
91749121|NCT01106859|183390451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 114 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDLP (Zolpidem 3 Hours) - LS mean of SDLP (Placebo).||2.1|0.8|<0.0001
91802173|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.78928||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.0199
91802174|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.82963||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.0209
91749122|NCT01106859|183390451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 114 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDLP (Zopiclone) - LS mean of SDLP (Placebo).||3.1|1.8|<0.0001
91749123|NCT01106859|183390452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 113 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDS (Zolpidem 4 hours prior) - LS mean of SDS (Placebo).||0.27|0.03|0.0145
91749124|NCT01106859|183390452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.2||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 113 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDS (Zolpidem 3 Hours) - LS mean of SDS (Placebo).||0.20|-0.05|0.2179
91749125|NCT01106859|183390452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.29||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 113 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDS (Zopiclone) - LS mean of SDS (Placebo).||0.29|0.04|0.0096
91749126|NCT01106859|183390455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2188||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 4 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.2188
91749127|NCT01106859|183390455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0117||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 3 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0117
91749128|NCT01106859|183390455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zopiclone 9 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||<0.0001
91749129|NCT01106859|183390457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.0 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 4 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.1250
91749130|NCT01106859|183390457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.0 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 3 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0074
91749131|NCT01106859|183390457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.0 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of Zopiclone 9 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||<0.0001
91749132|NCT01106859|183390459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-3.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 4 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.5000
91802175|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.16724||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.6922
91802176|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.14436||||0.785|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.7850
91802177|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.74757||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.0330
91880109|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.5||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|141.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper lung region (TLC)at Week 104.||141.4|-38.4|0.253
91749133|NCT01106859|183390459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-3.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 3 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0156
91749134|NCT01106859|183390459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-3.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zopiclone 9 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0001
91749135|NCT01007435|183390496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|7.14||A hierarchy of statistical testing was implemented in order to control the type I error rate for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The stratification factors, region and serologic status, were included in the model.|"Last observation carried forward was used for TJC and SJC. No imputation was used for ESR and GH. Patients who withdrew prematurely or where a DAS28 could not be calculated were set to non-responder."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the DAS28 remission response at Week 24 between the placebo to tocilizumab + methotrexate and the tocilizumab 8 mg/kg + methotrexate treatment groups.||7.14|3.19|<0.0001
91749136|NCT01007435|183390496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|5.55||A hierarchy of statistical testing was implemented in order to control the type I error rate for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The stratification factors, region and serologic status, were included in the model.|"Last observation carried forward was used for TJC and SJC. No imputation was used for ESR and GH. Patients who withdrew prematurely or where a DAS28 could not be calculated were set to non-responder."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the DAS28 remission response at Week 24 between the placebo to tocilizumab + methotrexate and the tocilizumab 8 mg/kg + placebo to methotrexate treatment groups.||5.55|2.47|<0.0001
91749137|NCT01007435|183390496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.11||A hierarchy of statistical testing was implemented in order to control the type I error rate for multiple comparisons. This comparison came after the break in statistical hierarchy.|Regression, Logistic|The stratification factors, region and serologic status, were included in the model.|"Last observation carried forward was used for TJC and SJC. No imputation was used for ESR and GH. Patients who withdrew prematurely or where a DAS28 could not be calculated were set to non-responder."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the DAS28 remission response at Week 24 between the placebo to tocilizumab + methotrexate and the tocilizumab 4 mg/kg + methotrexate treatment groups.||4.11|1.80|<0.0001
91749138|NCT03575065|183390555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||p-value was based on an exact binomial test with historic control ORR=0.25|Exact Binomial Test|||||||0.0210
91749139|NCT00496197|183390604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|83.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|88.8|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOT||88.8|78.7|
91749140|NCT00496197|183390605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|96.7|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOT||96.7|89.4|
91749141|NCT00496197|183390606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.3|98.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at EOT||98.3|92.3|
91749142|NCT00496197|183390607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.4|92.6|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOIV||92.6|84.4|
91749143|NCT00496197|183390608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.8|96.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOIV||96.4|89.8|
91749144|NCT00496197|183390609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.3|95.9|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at EOIV||95.9|89.3|
91749145|NCT00496197|183390610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|76.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.3|82.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 2 Follow-up||82.3|70.3|
91749146|NCT00496197|183390611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|94.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|98.1|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 2 Follow-up||98.1|91.5|
91749147|NCT00496197|183390612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|95.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.2|98.5|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at Week 2 Follow-up||98.5|92.2|
91802178|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.32113||||0.4825|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.4825
91880110|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.3||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.0|172.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||172.6|-126.0|0.754
91749148|NCT00496197|183390613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|70.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|76.6|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||76.6|63.5|
91880111|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.2||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.1|269.5|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||269.5|-145.1|0.546
91749149|NCT00496197|183390614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.7|97.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||97.4|89.7|
91749150|NCT00496197|183390615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.7|97.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||97.4|89.7|
91749151|NCT00496197|183390616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.7|89.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOT||89.3|75.7|
91749152|NCT00496197|183390617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|85.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.8|91.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOIV||91.4|79.8|
91749153|NCT00496197|183390618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|84.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 2 Follow-up||84.4|69.0|
91749154|NCT00496197|183390619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|67.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.9|76.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||76.3|58.9|
91749155|NCT00934947|183390677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.36
91749156|NCT00934947|183390678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.32
91749157|NCT00934947|183390679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.48
91749158|NCT04077996|183390680|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non inferiority analysis was established at 30%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Summary statistics were computed, and a significance level (α) of 5% has been established.||1.3|0.91|<0.05
91749159|NCT04077996|183390680|NON_INFERIORITY|margin 30%|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91802179|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.3716||||0.3647|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.3647
91802180|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.20955||||0.6903|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.6903
91880112|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.9||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.5|285.3|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||285.3|-155.5|0.554
91749160|NCT04077996|183390681|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin was established at 30%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|1.0|0.14|6.6|||Fisher Exact|||||6.6|0.14|<0.05
91749161|NCT00252694|183390689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|1.076|||Log Rank|Generalized||||1.076|0.704|0.1994
91749162|NCT01468233|183390742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|42.2||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage and for baseline antibiotic use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.2|20.7|<0.001
91749163|NCT01468233|183390742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|40.5||P-value adjusted for baseline antibiotic use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.5|10.5|<0.001
91749164|NCT01468233|183390742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|53.3||P-value adjusted for baseline antibiotic use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.3|22.8|<0.001
91749165|NCT01468233|183390743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|19.5|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|34.2||P-value adjusted for baseline antibiotics use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||34.2|4.7|=0.01
91749166|NCT01468233|183390744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|37.6||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage and antibiotics use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||37.6|12.7|<0.001
91749167|NCT01468233|183390745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-10.1||P-value calculated from ANCOVA with stratum (baseline Hurley Stage and antibiotics use), baseline value, and treatment as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||-10.1|-28.6|<0.001
91749168|NCT01574157|183390746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|40.1||||||The primary analysis compared the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||40.1|-9.6|
91802181|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.74459||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.0341
91802182|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.50966||||0.2426|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.2426
91802183|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.67853||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.0643
91880113|NCT00874497|183654374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|132.2||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.9|549.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||549.4|-284.9|0.524
91880114|NCT00874497|183654375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.07|0.5843
91880115|NCT00874497|183654376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.571|||ANCOVA|||||0.571|-0.073|0.1252
91802184|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.05531||||0.9171|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.9171
91802185|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.59183||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.1222
91802186|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.8104||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.0271
91802187|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.86266||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.0058
91802188|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.71666||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.1090
91880116|NCT00874497|183654377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1835||||0.4661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6892|0.3221|||ANCOVA|||||0.3221|-0.6892|0.4661
91880117|NCT00874497|183654378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-0.19|0.134
91802189|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.55508||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.1533
91802190|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.318||||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.4870
91802191|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.23312||||0.5785|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.5785
91802192|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.0245||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.9632
91802193|NCT01681472|183481933|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.64565||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.0838
91802194|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||||90.0|-0.7|3.64||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||3.64|-0.7|
91802195|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||||90.0|-5.13|-0.79||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||-0.79|-5.13|
91802196|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.53||||||90.0|-7.7|-3.36||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-3.36|-7.70|
91802197|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||||90.0|-1.77|2.57||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||2.57|-1.77|
91802198|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||||90.0|-3.54|0.8||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||0.80|-3.54|
91802199|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||||90.0|-1.16|3.18||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||3.18|-1.16|
91802200|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||||90.0|-2.81|1.53||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||1.53|-2.81|
91802201|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49||||||90.0|0.32|4.66||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||4.66|0.32|
91802202|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||||90.0|-3.95|0.39||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||0.39|-3.95|
91802203|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51||||||90.0|-9.68|-5.34||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-5.34|-9.68|
91802204|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.47||||||90.0|1.3|5.64||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||5.64|1.30|
91880118|NCT00874497|183654379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for sRaw||0.07|-1.50|0.074
91802205|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||||90.0|-1.04|3.3||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||3.30|-1.04|
91802206|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||||90.0|-0.7|3.64||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||3.64|-0.70|
91802207|NCT00795145|183481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||||90.0|-0.37|3.97||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||3.97|-0.37|
91802208|NCT00795145|183481946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27||||||90.0|1.1|5.44||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||5.44|1.10|
91802209|NCT00795145|183481946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.83||||||90.0|4.66|9.0||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||9.00|4.66|
91802210|NCT00795145|183481946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.27||||||90.0|8.1|12.44||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||12.44|8.10|
91802211|NCT00795145|183481946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.84||||||90.0|7.67|12.01||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||12.01|7.67|
91802212|NCT00795145|183481946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||||90.0|7.23|11.58||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||11.58|7.23|
91802213|NCT00795145|183481946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05||||||90.0|4.87|9.22||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||9.22|4.87|
91802214|NCT00795145|183481946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.52||||||90.0|4.35|8.69||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||8.69|4.35|
91802215|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||||90.0|-5.54|2.57||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||2.57|-5.54|
91802216|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.45||||||90.0|-11.51|-3.4||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||-3.40|-11.51|
91802217|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75||||||90.0|-9.81|-1.7||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-1.70|-9.81|
91802218|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||||90.0|-4.97|3.13||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||3.13|-4.97|
91880119|NCT00874497|183654379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for sGaw||0.52|-0.09|0.155
91880120|NCT00874497|183654380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for mean prior daily breath symptoms||0.64|-0.77|0.845
91880121|NCT00874497|183654380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for mean prior daily cough symptoms||0.94|-0.52|0.549
91880122|NCT00874497|183654380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for mean prior daily sputum symptoms||0.65|-0.93|0.717
91880123|NCT00874497|183654382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for level I (self management) at week 104.||||1.000
91880124|NCT00874497|183654382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for level II (physician visit) at week 104.||||1.0000
91749169|NCT01574157|183390747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|30.8||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||30.8|-38.2|
91749170|NCT01574157|183390748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|4.2||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||4.2|-56.3|
91749171|NCT01574157|183390749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|36.5||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||36.5|-15.1|
91749172|NCT01574157|183390750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|35.9||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||35.9|-24.6|
91749173|NCT01574157|183390751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|6.79||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||6.79|-0.05|
91749174|NCT02136680|183390759|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.046||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Self-Esteem from Baseline to First Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.400
91749175|NCT02136680|183390759|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.119||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Self-Esteem from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.022
91749176|NCT02136680|183390759|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.003||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Self-Esteem from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.347
91749177|NCT02136680|183390760|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.003||||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Global QOL from Baseline to First Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.959
91749178|NCT02136680|183390760|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.143||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Global QOL from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.021
91749179|NCT02136680|183390760|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.048||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Global QOL from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.454
91749180|NCT02136680|183390760|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.015||||0.774|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Summary QOL from Baseline to First Follow-up||||0.774
91749181|NCT02136680|183390760|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.137||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Summary QOL from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.018
91749182|NCT02136680|183390760|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.051||||0.362|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Summary QOL from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.362
91749183|NCT02136680|183390761|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.072||||0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Palliative Outcomes from Baseline to First Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.213
91749184|NCT02136680|183390761|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.037||||0.561|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Palliative Outcomes from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.561
91802219|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.64||||||90.0|-9.69|-1.58||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||-1.58|-9.69|
91749185|NCT02136680|183390761|SUPERIORITY|Change in Palliative Outcomes from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group|Regression Coefficient|0.165||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.008
91749186|NCT01632241|183390764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.93|0.1068
91749187|NCT01632241|183390773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.15||Nominal p-value due to step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.94|0.0937
91749188|NCT01632241|183390775|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||Nominal p-value due to step-down sequential testing procedure.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.17|0.51|0.2264
91749189|NCT01632241|183390777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.8||Nominal p-value due to step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.80|0.61|0.4996
91749190|NCT03111550|183390809|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.3% for corneal edema)||||||0.02041|ONE_SIDED||||||Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.02041
91749191|NCT03111550|183390810|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.3% for retinal detachment)||||||0.1969|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZQR00 retinal detachment|Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.1969
91749192|NCT03111550|183390810|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.8% for secondary surgical intervention)||||||0.4655|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZHR00 secondary surgical intervention|Exact test of binomial distribution|||||||0.4655
91749193|NCT03111550|183390810|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.8% for secondary surgical intervention)||||||0.021|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZQR00 secondary surgical intention|Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.0210
91749194|NCT03111550|183390810|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.8% for secondary surgical intervention)||||||0.4698|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZXR00 secondary surgical intervention|Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.4698
91802220|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29||||||90.0|-6.34|1.77||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||1.77|-6.34|
91802221|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||||90.0|-4.64|3.47||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||3.47|-4.64|
91880125|NCT00874497|183654382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5092|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for level III (hospital visit) at week 104.||||0.5092
91880126|NCT00874497|183654383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Fisher's Exact test was used to determine whether the tetomilast and placebo groups differ in the proportion of participants who experienced Level 2 or higher COPD exacerbations during the study.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.630
91802222|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49||||||90.0|-7.54|0.57||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||0.57|-7.54|
91880127|NCT01013740|183654384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||||95.0|0.53|1.35|||||The Pike estimator of the treatment HR was based on the log rank test.|||1.35|0.53|
91880128|NCT01013740|183654389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.58||||||||3.58|0.63|
91880129|NCT03790878|183654459|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
91880130|NCT03790878|183654460|OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||Multilevel modeling|||||||0.396
91749195|NCT01686750|183390838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.81|||Prevalence ratio||Therefore, the exponentiated coefficients for intervention status represent the prevalence ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) and are interpreted as the relative percentage difference in the outcome associated with the intervention.|We compared the sampling-weighted prevalence of outcomes at Integrated Care Centers (ICCs) and usual care from the evaluation survey. We used linear regression models that had terms for intervention status (integrated care vs usual care), stratum (PWID and MSM), and the baseline proportion of the outcome being assessed. Site-level proportions from both evaluation and baseline respondent-driven sampling were log transformed before being entered into the regression model.||1.81|0.95|0.09
91749196|NCT01686750|183390839|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||||||||1.50|0.80|
91749197|NCT01686750|183390840|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.81||||||||1.81|0.61|
91749198|NCT01686750|183390841|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.41||||||||2.41|0.77|
91749199|NCT01686750|183390843|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.28||||||||1.28|0.65|
91749200|NCT01686750|183390845|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.93||||||||4.93|0.42|
91749201|NCT01686750|183390846|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.16||||||||7.16|0.49|
91749202|NCT01686750|183390847|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.56||||||||1.56|0.53|
91749203|NCT01686750|183390848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.2||||||||4.2|-4.2|
91749204|NCT01686750|183390850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.52||||||||1.52|0.47|
91749205|NCT01686750|183390852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6||||||||-0.6|-3.0|
91749206|NCT01686750|183390853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36||||||||1.36|0.64|
91749207|NCT02956044|183390855|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|108.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.35|125.3|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric Least Square (LS) Mean was used as PK parameters||125.30|94.35|
91749208|NCT02956044|183390855|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|95.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.73|106.63|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||106.63|84.73|
91749209|NCT02956044|183390855|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|89.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.39|113.65|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||113.65|70.39|
91749210|NCT02956044|183390855|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|111.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.02|129.19|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||129.19|97.02|
91749211|NCT02956044|183390855|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|126.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.08|143.17|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||143.17|112.08|
91749212|NCT02956044|183390855|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.9|114.23|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||114.23|84.90|
91749213|NCT02956044|183390858|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|87.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.02|95.38|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||95.38|80.02|
91749214|NCT02956044|183390858|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|103.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.59|112.68|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||112.68|94.59|
91802223|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.19||||||90.0|-16.24|-8.13||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||-8.13|-16.24|
91802224|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.39||||||90.0|-18.44|-10.33||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-10.33|-18.44|
91880131|NCT03790878|183654461|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Multilevel modeling|||||||0.002
91880132|NCT00776984|183654463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.217||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.217|0.091|<0.0001
91880133|NCT00776984|183654464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002||95.0|0.053|0.169||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.169|0.053|0.0002
91888983|NCT01465763|183670743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.0||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.1|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||11.1|1.0|0.0601
91802225|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||||90.0|-6.24|1.87||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||1.87|-6.24|
91749215|NCT02956044|183390858|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|94.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.34|111.06|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||111.06|80.34|
91802226|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||||90.0|-2.95|5.15||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||5.15|-2.95|
91802227|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||||90.0|-3.94|4.17||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||4.17|-3.94|
91880134|NCT00776984|183654465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0343||||||Confirmatory only if previous hypotheses for each of the 2 twin studies had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A pre-specified interim analysis was performed. Cui et al (Biometrics,1999) was used to calculate the p-value.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regression regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||||0.0343
91880135|NCT00776984|183654466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0275||95.0|0.01|0.177||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.177|0.010|0.0275
91880136|NCT00776984|183654467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0099||95.0|0.025|0.186||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.186|0.025|0.0099
91749216|NCT02956044|183390858|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|[Ratio of Geometric LSM]|127.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.33|146.62|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||146.62|110.33|
91802228|NCT00795145|183481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.68||||||90.0|-1.37|6.73||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||6.73|-1.37|
91802229|NCT01696071|183481958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||95.0|-0.038|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 QD - Tio R2.5 BID|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.034|-0.038|
91880137|NCT00776984|183654468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.202||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.202|0.084|<0.0001
91802230|NCT01696071|183481959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||||95.0|-0.032|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.052|-0.032|
91802231|NCT01696071|183481960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||95.0|-0.05|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.022|-0.050|
91802232|NCT01696071|183481961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||95.0|-0.051|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.023|-0.051|
91802233|NCT01696071|183481962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||||95.0|-0.06|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.068|-0.060|
91880138|NCT00776984|183654469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0063||95.0|0.031|0.187||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.187|0.031|0.0063
91880139|NCT00776984|183654470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.217||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.217|0.087|<0.0001
91880140|NCT00776984|183654471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0026||95.0|0.032|0.151||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.151|0.032|0.0026
91880141|NCT00776984|183654472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.199||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.199|0.078|<0.0001
91749217|NCT02956044|183390858|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|[Ratio of Geometric LSM]|113.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.61|118.86|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||118.86|107.61|
91749218|NCT02956044|183390858|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|[Ratio of Geometric LSM]|103.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.3|107.17||||||Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters|Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|107.17|99.30|
91880142|NCT00776984|183654473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0088||95.0|0.029|0.2||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.200|0.029|0.0088
91907692|NCT02819635|183710730|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|23.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||32.1|15.1|<0.001
91749219|NCT03832114|183390860|OTHER|Log Ratio to Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.46|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.65|0.46|0.0003
91749220|NCT03832114|183390861|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.75|-0.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.75|-3.75|0.0313
91749221|NCT03832114|183390862|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.46|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||0.65|0.46|0.0003
91749222|NCT03832114|183390862|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.4766|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49|1.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.28|0.49|0.4766
91749223|NCT03832114|183390862|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|0.69|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.69|0.51|0.0002
91749224|NCT03832114|183390863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM|||Day 84||0.68|0.47|0.0011
91749225|NCT03832114|183390863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|1.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.33|0.75|0.9998
91749226|NCT03832114|183390863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|0.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.77|0.56|0.0016
91749227|NCT03832114|183390864|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MRM)|||Day 84||0.64|0.47|<0.0001
91749228|NCT03832114|183390864|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.3707|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|1.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.27|0.30|0.3707
91749229|NCT03832114|183390864|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|0.71|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.71|0.51|0.0002
91749230|NCT03832114|183390865|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||0.70|0.47|0.0018
91749231|NCT03832114|183390865|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|0.98|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||0.98|0.67|0.1632
91749232|NCT03832114|183390865|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.57|0.79|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.79|0.57|0.0040
91749233|NCT03832114|183390866|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|5.06|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||5.06|0.12|0.1795
91749234|NCT03832114|183390866|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.7763|TWO_SIDED|0.7763|-3.36|2.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||2.15|-3.36|0.7763
91749235|NCT03832114|183390866|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.3754|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.59|3.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||3.22|-0.59|0.3754
91749236|NCT03832114|183390867|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.04||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.36|-0.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measuers (MMRM)|||Day 84||-0.72|-9.36|0.1364
91749237|NCT03832114|183390867|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.17||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.79|16.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||16.13|-1.79|0.3038
91749238|NCT03832114|183390867|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.56|4.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||4.01|-5.56|0.8352
91749239|NCT03832114|183390868|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|1.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.17|0.99|0.2752
91749240|NCT03832114|183390868|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.72|0.83|0.476
91749241|NCT03832114|183390868|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.0|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||1.20|1.00|0.1963
91749242|NCT03832114|183390870|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||0.65|0.48|<0.0001
91749243|NCT03832114|183390870|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||1.28|0.76|0.9544
91749244|NCT03832114|183390870|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|0.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 64||0.72|0.56|<.0001
91749245|NCT03832114|183390871|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||0.69|0.50|<.0001
91749246|NCT03832114|183390871|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||1.26|0.60|0.6209
91749247|NCT03832114|183390871|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 64||0.73|0.54|0.0002
91749248|NCT01939002|183390891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample Chi-square test comparing to Null hypotheses at 25%.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91749249|NCT01939002|183390892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2037||||||Chi-square test between 2 treatment arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2037
91749250|NCT01939002|183390894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|McNemar tests the null hypothesis of no difference in FLS between 4WRI and F8W.||||||1.00
91749251|NCT01939002|183390894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5078|||||||McNemar|||||||0.5078
91749252|NCT01939002|183390894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5811|||||||McNemar|||||||0.5811
91749253|NCT01939002|183390895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0525
91749254|NCT01939002|183390895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0654
91749255|NCT01939002|183390895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5488|||||||McNemar|||||||0.5488
91749256|NCT01939002|183390896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0945|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0945
91749257|NCT01939002|183390896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8246|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.8246
91749258|NCT01939002|183390896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2533|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.2533
91749259|NCT01939002|183390896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1631|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.1631
91749260|NCT01939002|183390897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3189|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.3189
91749261|NCT01939002|183390897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3582|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.3582
91749262|NCT01939002|183390897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8484|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.8484
91749263|NCT01939002|183390897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1771|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.1771
91749264|NCT01939002|183390898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0009
91749265|NCT01939002|183390898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||<0.0001
91749266|NCT01939002|183390898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||<0.0001
91749267|NCT01939002|183390898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3792|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.3792
91749268|NCT01939002|183390899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0019
91749269|NCT01939002|183390899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0009
91749270|NCT01939002|183390899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||<0.0001
91749271|NCT01939002|183390900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0105
91749272|NCT01939002|183390900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0789
91749273|NCT01939002|183390900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0027
91749274|NCT01939002|183390900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.8380
91749275|NCT01939002|183390901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1407|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.1407
91749276|NCT01939002|183390901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7805|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.7805
91749277|NCT01939002|183390901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2186|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.2186
91749278|NCT01939002|183390901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4234|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.4234
91749279|NCT01939002|183390902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0090
91749280|NCT01939002|183390902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0075
91749281|NCT01939002|183390902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0002
91749282|NCT01939002|183390902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7497|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.7497
91749283|NCT01939002|183390903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0545|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0545
91749284|NCT01939002|183390903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3377|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.3377
91749285|NCT01939002|183390903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0391|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0391
91749286|NCT01939002|183390903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4861|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.4861
91749287|NCT01939002|183390904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0834|||||||Fisher Exact|||first 8 weeks||||0.0834
91749288|NCT01939002|183390904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0767|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 0-2||||0.0767
91749289|NCT01939002|183390904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 3-4||||0.7320
91749290|NCT01939002|183390904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5008|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 5-6||||0.5008
91749291|NCT01939002|183390904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6422|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 7-8||||0.6422
91749292|NCT01939002|183390905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2123|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.2123
91749293|NCT01939002|183390905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5834|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.5834
91749294|NCT01939002|183390905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8723|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.8723
91749295|NCT01939002|183390905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4173|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.4173
91749296|NCT01939002|183390905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2267|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.2267
91749297|NCT01939002|183390905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0171|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Term||||0.0171
91749298|NCT01939002|183390906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0001
91749299|NCT01939002|183390906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.0007
91749300|NCT01939002|183390906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0365|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.0365
91749301|NCT01939002|183390906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.0197
91749302|NCT01939002|183390906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4031|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.4031
91749303|NCT01939002|183390906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.0060
91749304|NCT01939002|183390907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
91749305|NCT01939002|183390907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||<0.0001
91749306|NCT01939002|183390907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||<0.0001
91749307|NCT01939002|183390907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||<0.0001
91749308|NCT01939002|183390907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||<0.0001
91749309|NCT01939002|183390907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1789|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.1789
91749310|NCT01939002|183390907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2248||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.2248
91749311|NCT01939002|183390908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
91749312|NCT01939002|183390908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||<0.0001
91749313|NCT01939002|183390908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||<0.0001
91749314|NCT01939002|183390908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||<0.0001
91749315|NCT01939002|183390908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||<0.0001
91749316|NCT01939002|183390908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||<0.0001
91880143|NCT00776984|183654474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0933||95.0|-0.012|0.153||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.153|-0.012|0.0933
91880144|NCT00776984|183654475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0074||95.0|0.029|0.189||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.189|0.029|0.0074
91749317|NCT01939002|183390908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||<0.0001
91749318|NCT01939002|183390909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7012|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.7012
91749319|NCT01939002|183390909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0548|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0548
91749320|NCT01939002|183390909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0782|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.0782
91749321|NCT01939002|183390910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0006
91749322|NCT01939002|183390910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0792|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0792
91749323|NCT01939002|183390910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0961|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.0961
91749324|NCT01939002|183390911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
91749325|NCT01939002|183390911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
91749326|NCT01939002|183390911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4973|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.4973
91749327|NCT01939002|183390912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
91749328|NCT01939002|183390912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0464|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0464
91749329|NCT01939002|183390912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1905|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.1905
91749330|NCT01939002|183390913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6569|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.6569
91749331|NCT01939002|183390913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1584|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.1584
91749332|NCT01939002|183390913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5106|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.5106
91802234|NCT01696071|183481963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.044|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.035|-0.044|
91749333|NCT01939002|183390913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5927|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.5927
91749334|NCT01939002|183390913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.3840
91749335|NCT01939002|183390913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4182||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.4182
91749336|NCT01939002|183390914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2588|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.2588
91749337|NCT01939002|183390914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1092|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.1092
91749338|NCT01939002|183390914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||1.0000
91749339|NCT01939002|183390914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.2190
91749340|NCT01939002|183390914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6402||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.6402
91749341|NCT01939002|183390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4821|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.4821
91749342|NCT01939002|183390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5298|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.5298
91749343|NCT01939002|183390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1584|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.1584
91749344|NCT01939002|183390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2547|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.2547
91749345|NCT01939002|183390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0824|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.0824
91749346|NCT01939002|183390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3148||||||p-value on slope is based GLM with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.3148
91749347|NCT01939002|183390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6508|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.6508
91749348|NCT01939002|183390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0315|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.0315
91749349|NCT01939002|183390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.1190
91749350|NCT01939002|183390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||||||p-value on slope is based GLM with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.1520
91749351|NCT01939002|183390918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.0049
91749352|NCT01939002|183390918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.2230
91749353|NCT01939002|183390918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.0031
91749354|NCT01939002|183390918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1624|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.1624
91802235|NCT01696071|183481964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||95.0|-0.048|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.042|-0.048|
91880145|NCT00776984|183654476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.807|<|0.0001||95.0|11.199|30.108||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||30.108|11.199|<0.0001
91802236|NCT01696071|183481965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.047|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.034|-0.047|
91802237|NCT01696071|183481966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||95.0|-0.07|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.032|-0.070|
91802238|NCT01696071|183481967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||||95.0|-0.03|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.111|-0.030|
91880146|NCT00776984|183654477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.044|<|0.0001||95.0|22.532|42.374||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||42.374|22.532|<0.0001
91880147|NCT00776984|183654478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0027||95.0|0.031|0.149||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.149|0.031|0.0027
91749355|NCT00098748|183390930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For hypothesis of superiority, if upper bound of 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of TX difference was \<0 log10 copies/mL, it was concluded that MVC regimen was superior to PBO meaning that MVC added to Optimized Background Therapy (OBT) provides an additional reduction in plasma HIV-1 RNA compared to OBT alone. If superiority could not be concluded, then a hypothesis of noninferiority was tested. If upper bound of CI is \<0.25 log10 copies/mL, noninferiority of MVC regimen to placebo was claimed.|Least squares mean|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2575|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.528|0.638|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC versus (vs) PBO=advantage of MVC.|Maraviroc (MVC) QD versus placebo (PBO) treatment (TX) difference at Week 24. If upper bound of 97.5% confidence interval is \<0, it is concluded that dose is superior to PBO. If upper bound is \<0.25, it is concluded that MVC is non-inferior to PBO. Assumption: 79% of subjects are dual-tropic; total N=192 needed to be randomized to get N=150 dual-tropic. Standard deviation=0.8 with 2-sided p-value=0.025: 80% power for TX difference of 0.5 for change from baseline in log10-transformed viral load.||0.638|-0.528|
91749356|NCT00098748|183390930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2637|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.829|0.364|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||0.364|-0.829|
91749357|NCT00098748|183390930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2567|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.351|0.81|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.810|-0.351|
91749358|NCT00098748|183390930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2628|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.856|0.333|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.333|-0.856|
91802239|NCT01696071|183481968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.658||||95.0|-8.651|5.873|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||5.873|-8.651|
91802240|NCT00739674|183482050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
91802241|NCT00739674|183482051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
91802242|NCT00739674|183482052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.122
91802243|NCT00739674|183482053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.434||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.434
91802244|NCT00739674|183482054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.507||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.507
91802245|NCT00739674|183482055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.058
91802246|NCT00739674|183482056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.158
91802247|NCT00739674|183482057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.064
91802248|NCT00739674|183482058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.262
91802249|NCT00739674|183482059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.026
91880148|NCT00776984|183654479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.2||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.200|0.074|<0.0001
91802250|NCT00739674|183482060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.212
91880149|NCT00776984|183654480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.741||0.1073||95.0|-0.261|2.655||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||2.655|-0.261|0.1073
91880150|NCT00776984|183654481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4788||95.0|0.65|1.23||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||1.23|0.65|0.4788
91907693|NCT02819635|183710731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|40.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||40.7|23.8|<0.001
91749359|NCT00098748|183390931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.18|-0.12|
91749360|NCT00098748|183390931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.23|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.23|-0.08|
91749361|NCT00098748|183390931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.17|-0.12|
91749362|NCT00098748|183390931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.25|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.25|-0.07|
91749363|NCT00098748|183390932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.20|-0.15|
91749364|NCT00098748|183390932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.26|-0.10|
91802251|NCT02195583|183482072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Calculated from Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.||Linear contrasts were fitted in order to establish whether there was a dose-response relationship. Linear contrasts were for experimental dentifrice: non-zinc treatments.||||<0.0001
91749365|NCT00098748|183390932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.10|-0.22|
91749366|NCT00098748|183390932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.28|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.28|-0.07|
91749367|NCT00098748|183390933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.12|-0.21|
91749368|NCT00098748|183390933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.26|-0.10|
91749369|NCT00098748|183390933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.13|-0.18|
91802252|NCT02195583|183482072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2274||95.0|||||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.||Quadratic contrasts were fitted in order to establish whether there was a dose-response relationship. Quadratic contrasts are for experimental dentifrice: non-zinc treatments.||||0.2274
91880151|NCT00776984|183654482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1007||95.0|0.61|1.04||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||1.04|0.61|0.1007
91880152|NCT00776984|183654483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7906||95.0|0.71|1.3||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||1.30|0.71|0.7906
91749370|NCT00098748|183390933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.29|-0.04|
91749371|NCT00098748|183390934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.20|-0.07|
91749372|NCT00098748|183390934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.26|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.26|-0.03|
91749373|NCT00098748|183390934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.10|-0.18|
91749374|NCT00098748|183390934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.21|-0.10|
91749375|NCT00098748|183390935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|23.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.359|49.213|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||49.213|-1.359|
91749376|NCT00098748|183390935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|26.679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.0678|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|52.49|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||52.490|0.869|
91749377|NCT00098748|183390935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.412|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|47.03|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||47.03|-17.80|
91749378|NCT00098748|183390935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|27.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.754|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|60.8|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||60.80|-5.38|
91749379|NCT00098748|183390936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|234.499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|80.799|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.913|394.084|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||394.084|74.913|
91749380|NCT00098748|183390936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|188.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.4484|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.999|353.635|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||353.635|23.999|
91749381|NCT00098748|183390936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|155.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.304|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.49|328.37|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||328.37|-16.49|
91749382|NCT00098748|183390936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|182.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|90.174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|361.02|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||361.02|4.81|
91749383|NCT00098748|183390937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7524||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC QD vs PBO at Week 24. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.7524
91802253|NCT02195583|183482072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.2|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||3.20|-1.84|0.5950
91749384|NCT00098748|183390937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC BID vs PBO at Week 24. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.2540
91749385|NCT00098748|183390937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8243||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC QD vs PBO at Week 48. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.8243
91749386|NCT00098748|183390937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6657||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC BID vs PBO at Week 48. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.6657
91749387|NCT00098748|183390938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2356|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.396|0.535|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||0.535|-0.396|
91749388|NCT00098748|183390938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2413|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.694|0.258|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||0.258|-0.694|
91880153|NCT00776984|183654484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.004||95.0|0.38|0.84||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95 percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||0.84|0.38|0.0040
91749389|NCT00098748|183390938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2388|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.681|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.681|-0.262|
91749390|NCT00098748|183390938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2445|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|0.199|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.199|-0.767|
91749391|NCT03095027|183390946|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 0.05. With a sample size of 10, there was approximately 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in visual acuity with assumed standard deviation of 0.0474 (one-sided alpha=0.05)|LSM Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01||||||||0.01||
91749392|NCT00132691|183390980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|6.68||unadjusted|Generalized estimating equations, linear||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic).|"Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in change in visual acuity between treatment groups.~Assuming 67% bilateral disease, between eye correlation of 0.4, SD of 16 letters' change over 2 years and two-sided type 1 error rate of .05, a sample size of 250 provided 91% power (assuming 10% crossover) to detect a treatment difference of 7.5 standard ETDRS letters' change in visual acuity from baseline to 24 months."||6.68|-1.16|0.16
91880154|NCT00776984|183654485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.5481||95.0|0.58|1.32||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95 percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||1.32|0.58|0.5481
91880155|NCT00776984|183654486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.7188||95.0|0.33|2.14||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||2.14|0.33|0.7188
91880156|NCT00776984|183654487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.8503||95.0|0.59|1.54||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo.|||1.54|0.59|0.8503
91880157|NCT00776984|183654488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.8129||95.0|0.29|2.46||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95 percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||2.46|0.29|0.8129
91880158|NCT00776984|183654489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0225||95.0|0.025|0.331||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.331|0.025|0.0225
91880159|NCT00776984|183654490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0803||95.0|-0.017|0.296||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.296|-0.017|0.0803
91880160|NCT00776984|183654491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.003||95.0|-0.33|-0.068||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||-0.068|-0.330|0.0030
91880161|NCT00776984|183654492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0533||95.0|-0.267|0.002||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.002|-0.267|0.0533
91749393|NCT00132691|183390981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of odds ratios|0.61||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.03||unadjusted|GEE, logistic||For each treatment group the odds of macular edema at 2 yrs as compared to baseline was computed. The treatment effect is the ratio of these odds (implant divided by systemic).|||1.03|0.34|0.071
91749394|NCT00132691|183390982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of odds ratios|0.29||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.6||unadjusted|GEE, logistic||For each treatment group the odds of uveitis activity at 2 years as compared to baseline was computed. The treatment effect represents the ratio of these odds (implant divided by systemic).|||.60|.13|0.001
91749395|NCT00132691|183390983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|11.15||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of experiencing an IOP of 30 mmHg or greater. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||11.15|3.32|<.0001
91749396|NCT00132691|183390984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.5||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of experiencing an IOP of 24 mmHg or greater. The systemic arm was the reference group|||5.50|2.34|<.0001
91749397|NCT00132691|183390985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|6.58||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards with RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of experiencing an IOP that was 10mmHg or greater than the baseline value. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||6.58|2.78|<.0001
91880162|NCT00776984|183654493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.6632||95.0|-0.043|0.067||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.067|-0.043|0.6632
91880163|NCT00776984|183654494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.1664||95.0|-0.635|0.11||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.110|-0.635|0.1664
91880164|NCT00776984|183654495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.73||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 24 weeks||1.73|1.01|0.0427
91880165|NCT00776984|183654495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.21||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 48 weeks||2.21|1.28|0.0001
91880166|NCT04414397|183654507|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|66.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|78.8||Analysis was performed using the SAS procedure MIANALYZE with normal approximation to generate an associated p-value for the comparison of responder rates between groups.|Multiple imputation regression|||JUVÉDERM® VOLUMA® XC Treatment vs No-treatment control||78.8|54.9|<0.0001
91880167|NCT04414397|183654511|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level to demonstrate that the mean satisfaction score at Month 3 visit is statistically greater than at Baseline for the treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91749398|NCT00132691|183390986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.19||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|9.63||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of developing glaucoma. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||9.63|1.82|0.0008
91880168|NCT04414397|183654512|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level to demonstrate that the mean satisfaction score at Month 3 is statistically greater than at Baseline for the treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91749399|NCT00132691|183390987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|6.47||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of using an IOP-lowering therapy. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||6.47|2.67|<.0001
91749400|NCT00132691|183390988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|20.82||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of having surgery to lower IOP. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||20.82|3.39|<0.0001
91749401|NCT00132691|183390989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|7.67||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of developing a cataract. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||7.67|2.21|<0.0001
91880169|NCT03640754|183654520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91880170|NCT03640754|183654520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91880171|NCT03640754|183654521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91880172|NCT03640754|183654521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91880173|NCT03640754|183654522|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91880174|NCT03640754|183654522|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91880175|NCT03640754|183654523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.199
91880176|NCT03640754|183654523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.189
91880177|NCT03640754|183654524|SUPERIORITY|Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||||0.398|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.398
91880178|NCT03640754|183654524|SUPERIORITY|Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||||0.391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.391
91880179|NCT03640754|183654525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||0.232
91880180|NCT03640754|183654525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||0.085
91880181|NCT03640754|183654526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.501
91880182|NCT03640754|183654526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.370
91880183|NCT03640754|183654527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.333
91880184|NCT03640754|183654527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
91880185|NCT03640754|183654528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.124
91880186|NCT03640754|183654528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
91880187|NCT03640754|183654529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
91880188|NCT03640754|183654529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
91880189|NCT03640754|183654533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.047
91880190|NCT03640754|183654533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.139
91880191|NCT03640754|183654533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.395
91880192|NCT03640754|183654534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.147
91880193|NCT03640754|183654534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.160
91880194|NCT03640754|183654534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.152
91880195|NCT03640754|183654535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.286
91880196|NCT03640754|183654535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.107
91880197|NCT03640754|183654536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.289
91880198|NCT03640754|183654536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.338
91880199|NCT03640754|183654537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.393
91880200|NCT03640754|183654537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.365
91880201|NCT03640754|183654538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.406
91880202|NCT03640754|183654538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.494
91880203|NCT00276016|183654540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.561||95.0|||||ANOVA|||For endpoint||||0.561
91880204|NCT00276016|183654541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||For endpoint||||<.001
91880205|NCT04380688|183654550|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.145|1.952||P-value not generated.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||1.952|0.145|
91880206|NCT04380688|183654558|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.314|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|2.183||P-value not generated.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||2.183|0.794|
91880207|NCT01387815|183654620|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison does not include missing.||||<0.001
91880208|NCT01387815|183654621|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91907694|NCT02819635|183710732|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.02|40.36||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||40.36|27.02|<0.001
91749402|NCT00132691|183390990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.15||unadjusted|GEE, linear||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic).|||9.15|0.14|0.043
91749403|NCT00132691|183390991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.76||unadjusted|GEE, linear||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic)|||6.76|0.49|0.023
91749404|NCT00132691|183390992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.36||unadjusted|Generalized Estimating Equations||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic).|||5.36|0.54|0.016
91749405|NCT00132691|183390993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.15||unadjusted|Regression, Cox||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relative hazard of hyperlipidemia for the implant and systemic treatments. The systemic treatment is the reference group.|||2.15|0.39|0.84
91749406|NCT00132691|183390994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.29||unadjusted|Regression, Cox||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relative hazard of hypertension for the implant and systemic treatments. The systemic treatment is the reference group.|||1.29|0.13|0.13
91880209|NCT01387815|183654622|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91880210|NCT01387815|183654623|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91749407|NCT00132691|183390995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.44||unadjusted|Regression, Cox||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relative hazard of diabetes mellitus for the implant and systemic treatments. The systemic treatment is the reference group.|||2.44|0.03|0.24
91749408|NCT00798317|183390997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|17.0||Comparing placebo and ocriplasmin|Fisher Exact|||||17.00|1.97|<0.001
91880211|NCT01387815|183654624|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91880212|NCT01387815|183654625|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91749409|NCT03344549|183391028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshoid for statistical significance was p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||U Mann Whitney was used for inter-group comparison||||0.37
91749410|NCT03344549|183391029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|U Mann Whitney was used for inter-group comparison||||||0.46
91749411|NCT03344549|183391030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91749412|NCT01679600|183391031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||F1-LD-F1 model by Brunner and Langer|||||||0.53
91749413|NCT00108303|183391032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log (odd ratio)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91880213|NCT01387815|183654626|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91880214|NCT01387815|183654627|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91880215|NCT01387815|183654628|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
91880216|NCT01387815|183654629|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
91880217|NCT01387815|183654630|OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
91880218|NCT01387815|183654631|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
91880219|NCT01387815|183654632|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
91880220|NCT01387815|183654633|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91880221|NCT01387815|183654634|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91880222|NCT01387815|183654635|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
91880223|NCT01387815|183654636|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.495
91880224|NCT01387815|183654637|OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.097
91880225|NCT01387815|183654638|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91880226|NCT01387815|183654639|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
91880227|NCT01387815|183654640|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
91880228|NCT01387815|183654641|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.090
91880229|NCT01387815|183654642|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
91880230|NCT01387815|183654643|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91880231|NCT01387815|183654644|OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
91880232|NCT01387815|183654645|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
91880233|NCT01387815|183654646|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||0.002
91880234|NCT01387815|183654647|OTHER|"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
91880235|NCT01387815|183654648|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
91880236|NCT01387815|183654649|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||0.015
91880237|NCT01387815|183654650|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||0.060
91880238|NCT01387815|183654651|OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.501
91880239|NCT01387815|183654652|OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.807
91880240|NCT01387815|183654653|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.479
91880241|NCT01387815|183654654|OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
91880242|NCT01387815|183654655|OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
91880243|NCT01387815|183654656|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.367
91880244|NCT01387815|183654657|OTHER|||||||0.521|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
91880245|NCT01387815|183654658|OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.793
91907695|NCT02819635|183710733|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||13.7|5.7|<0.001
91749414|NCT00108303|183391032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This parameter was estimated by simulating 1000 samples with random genotypes and finding no value equal to or greater than 5.2.|Simulation|||||||<0.001
91749415|NCT00108303|183391033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Firsher's transform r to Z|||The coefficient of segregation versus no segregation of the P50 sensory gating percent in families with schizophrenia.||||0.001
91749416|NCT01685801|183391035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean|2.251|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.961|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|4.144|||||The posterior distribution of overall treatment difference was obtained using the Bayesian hierarchical model and 95% credible interval of the treatment effect (posterior mean) was calculated.|"This statistical analysis is for Overall category."||4.144|0.383|
91880246|NCT01387815|183654659|OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.442
91749417|NCT01437098|183391068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of IF Implanted Subjects|91.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.5|98.2|||Exact binomial|||||98.2|77.5|<0.001
91880247|NCT01387815|183654660|OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.434
91749418|NCT00823212|183391126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-group Farrington-Manning test was used to test the 1-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in differences with a non-inferiority margin of 3.5%. A p value \<0.05 would indicate non-inferiority and correspond to the upper limit of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference not exceeding 3.5%.|Difference in percent of participants|0.5||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.13|||Farrington-Manning test||The standard error for the difference was estimated according to the Farrington-Manning test.|Study had 89% statistical power to demonstrate non-inferiority for target lesion failure (TLF, accounting for an expected 1-year attrition rate of 5%), assuming a 1-year TLF rate of 5.5% for both stents.||2.13||0.001
91749419|NCT00834990|183391165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.41||||||90.0|97.13|110.08|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110.08|97.13|
91880248|NCT01387815|183654661|OTHER|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.752
91880249|NCT01387815|183654662|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.469
91880250|NCT01387815|183654663|OTHER|||||||0.419|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.419
91880251|NCT01387815|183654664|OTHER|||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.695
91880252|NCT01387815|183654665|OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.452
91880253|NCT01387815|183654666|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91880254|NCT01387815|183654667|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
91880255|NCT01387815|183654668|OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.252
91880256|NCT01387815|183654672|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.143
91880257|NCT01387815|183654673|OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.415
91880258|NCT01387815|183654674|OTHER|||||||0.604|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.604
91880259|NCT01387815|183654675|OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.504
91880260|NCT01387815|183654676|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.920
91880261|NCT01387815|183654677|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91880262|NCT01387815|183654678|OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.575
91880263|NCT01387815|183654681|OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.856
91880264|NCT01387815|183654682|OTHER|||||||0.623|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.623
91880265|NCT01387815|183654683|OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.732
91880266|NCT01387815|183654684|OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.896
91880267|NCT01387815|183654685|OTHER|||||||0.879|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.879
91880268|NCT01387815|183654686|OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.763
91880269|NCT01387815|183654687|OTHER|||||||0.657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.657
91880270|NCT01387815|183654688|OTHER|||||||0.987|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.987
91880271|NCT01387815|183654689|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91880272|NCT01387815|183654690|OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.351
91880273|NCT01387815|183654691|OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.835
91880274|NCT01387815|183654693|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.714
91880275|NCT01387815|183654694|OTHER|||||||0.737|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
91880276|NCT01387815|183654695|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91880277|NCT01387815|183654699|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91880278|NCT01387815|183654700|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91880279|NCT01387815|183654702|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.714
91880280|NCT01387815|183654703|OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.747
91880281|NCT01387815|183654704|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.495
91880282|NCT01387815|183654708|OTHER|||||||0.364|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.364
91880283|NCT01387815|183654709|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91880284|NCT01387815|183654710|OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.723
91880285|NCT01387815|183654717|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91880286|NCT01387815|183654718|OTHER|||||||0.672|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
91880287|NCT01387815|183654719|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.482
91880288|NCT01387815|183654720|OTHER|||||||0.938|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
91880289|NCT01387815|183654721|OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
91880290|NCT01387815|183654722|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.360
91880291|NCT01387815|183654723|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.808
91880292|NCT01387815|183654724|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
91880293|NCT01387815|183654725|OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.184
91880294|NCT01387815|183654726|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.305
91880295|NCT01387815|183654728|OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.757
91880296|NCT01387815|183654729|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.321
91880297|NCT01387815|183654730|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
91880298|NCT01387815|183654731|OTHER|||||||0.395|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.395
91749420|NCT00834990|183391166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.68||||||90.0|96.79|106.83|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.83|96.79|
91880299|NCT01387815|183654733|OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.739
91880300|NCT01387815|183654734|OTHER|||||||0.291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.291
91749421|NCT00834990|183391167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.17||||||90.0|98.5|108.05|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.05|98.5|
91749422|NCT00791479|183391170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
91880301|NCT01649297|183654774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypotheses for non-inferiority:~H10: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg once daily + 0.35%~H20: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 12.5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 25 mg once daily + 0. 35%"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.16|0.13||The two non-inferiority hypotheses H10 and H20 were tested using the Hochberg procedure in order to control the family-wise type I error at 0.025 (one-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||The primary objective was to test the non-inferiority of empagliflozin 5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 10 mg QD, and non-inferiority of empagliflozin 12.5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 25 mg QD, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%||0.13|-0.16|<0.0001
91880302|NCT01649297|183654774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypotheses for non-inferiority:~H10: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg once daily + 0.35%~H20: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 12.5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 25 mg once daily + 0. 35%"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.26|0.03||The two non-inferiority hypotheses H10 and H20 were tested using the Hochberg procedure in order to control the family-wise type I error at 0.025 (one-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||The primary objective was to test the non-inferiority of empagliflozin 5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 10 mg QD, and non-inferiority of empagliflozin 12.5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 25 mg QD, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%||0.03|-0.26|<0.0001
91880303|NCT01649297|183654774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.44|-0.79|<0.0001
91880304|NCT01649297|183654774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.68|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.32|-0.68|<0.0001
91880305|NCT01649297|183654774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.62|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.27|-0.62|<0.0001
91880306|NCT01649297|183654774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.25|-0.60|<0.0001
91880307|NCT01649297|183654775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||||95.0|-9.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening (eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and baseline HbA1c,baseline FPG-linear covariates||||1.8|-9.0|
91880308|NCT01649297|183654775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||||95.0|-10.4|0.5||The two non-inferiority hypotheses H10 and H20 were tested using the Hochberg procedure in order to control the family-wise type I error at 0.025 (one-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening (eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and baseline HbA1c,baseline FPG-linear covariates||||0.5|-10.4|
91880309|NCT01649297|183654775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-34.2|-20.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-20.9|-34.2|<0.0001
91907696|NCT02819635|183710734|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|8.59||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||8.59|4.79|<0.001
91907697|NCT02819635|183710735|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|43.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||43.7|25.1|<0.001
91749423|NCT00791479|183391170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
91749424|NCT00791479|183391170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.069||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.069
91749425|NCT00791479|183391170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91749426|NCT00791479|183391170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91749427|NCT00791479|183391170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91749428|NCT00791479|183391171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
91749429|NCT00791479|183391171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.023
91749430|NCT00791479|183391171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
91749431|NCT00791479|183391171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. A priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
91749432|NCT00791479|183391172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
91749433|NCT00791479|183391172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
91749434|NCT00791479|183391172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.81||||0.456||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.456
91749435|NCT00791479|183391172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.53|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91749436|NCT00791479|183391172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.96|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91749437|NCT00791479|183391172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.71|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91802254|NCT02195583|183482072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|7.48|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (250 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||7.48|2.38|0.0002
91749438|NCT00791479|183391173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels \<7.0%.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|The Cochran-Armitage trend test included the placebo arm.||||||<0.001
91749439|NCT00791479|183391173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels ≤6.5%.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|The Cochran-Armitage trend test included the placebo arm.||||||<0.001
91749440|NCT00791479|183391174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
91749441|NCT00791479|183391174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
91880310|NCT01649297|183654775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.2|-15.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-15.9|-29.2|<0.0001
91880311|NCT01649297|183654775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.7|-14.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-14.4|-27.7|<0.0001
91880312|NCT01649297|183654775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-24.1|-10.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-10.8|-24.1|<0.0001
91880313|NCT01685047|183654776|OTHER|There were no formal pre-specified statistical hypotheses for the endpoints of the study due to the exploratory nature of this study. Datasets (Device info at Baseline versus 15 minutes prior to the event) were compared using a 2-sided t-test.|||||<|0.05||||||All events with p \<0.05 were visually inspected to confirm they were evaluable; additional criteria for exclusion from further analysis included inappropriate therapy, aberrant conduction, and occurrence of VT/VF within 24h prior to the event.|t-test, 2 sided|||There were no formal pre-specified statistical hypotheses for the endpoints of the study due to the exploratory nature of this study. Some data was excluded from the primary analysis. All device detections resulting in therapy have been reviewed for appropriateness of the therapy. VT/VF therapy delivered from the device as a result of a non-ventricular arrhythmia or as a result of oversensing by the device has not been included in the primary data analysis.||||<0.05
91880314|NCT02847637|183654785|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.075||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.075|0.020|<0.0001
91880315|NCT02847637|183654785|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.066||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.066|0.017|<0.0001
91880316|NCT02847637|183654786|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.099||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.099|0.028|<0.0001
91880317|NCT02847637|183654786|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.103||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.103|0.030|<0.0001
91880318|NCT02847637|183654787|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.085||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.085|0.019|<0.0001
91880319|NCT02847637|183654787|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.07||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.070|0.015|<0.0001
91880320|NCT02847637|183654788|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.151||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.151|0.025|<0.0001
91880321|NCT02847637|183654788|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.056||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.056|0.006|<0.0001
91802255|NCT02195583|183482072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.25||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|6.82|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (250 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm).|||6.82|1.68|0.0013
91802256|NCT02195583|183482072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|10.21|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||10.21|5.20|<0.0001
91880322|NCT02847637|183654789|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.143||Not controlled for type I error|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.143|0.016|<0.0001
91880323|NCT02847637|183654789|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.147||Not controlled for type I error|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.147|0.018|<0.0001
91749442|NCT00791479|183391174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.65||||0.378||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.378
91749443|NCT00791479|183391174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.09|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91749444|NCT00791479|183391174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.34|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91749445|NCT00791479|183391174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.67|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91749446|NCT00791479|183391175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
91749447|NCT00791479|183391175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.036
91749448|NCT00791479|183391176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||0.450
91749449|NCT00791479|183391176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.329
91749450|NCT00791479|183391184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||0.969
91749451|NCT00791479|183391184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.009
91802257|NCT02195583|183482072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|9.55|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm).|||9.55|4.51|<0.0001
91749452|NCT00791479|183391184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.14||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.140
91749453|NCT00791479|183391184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.247||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.247
91749454|NCT00791479|183391184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.975||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.975
91749455|NCT00791479|183391184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||1||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.00
91749456|NCT01774097|183391223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.5||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-0.6|0.238
91749457|NCT01774097|183391224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.1||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|-0.2|0.116
91749458|NCT01774097|183391225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-0.8|0.978
91749459|NCT01774097|183391226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.91||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.91|-1.26|0.752
91749460|NCT01774097|183391227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||interaction term|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.03|-0.02|0.871
91749461|NCT01774097|183391228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||interaction term|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.02|-0.06|0.256
91749462|NCT01774097|183391229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||interaction term|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.6|-0.2|0.241
91749463|NCT01774097|183391231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.8||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||4.8|-0.6|0.131
91802258|NCT02195583|183482072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.32|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (250 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (250 ppm).|||5.32|0.23|0.0325
91880324|NCT02847637|183654790|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|0.514||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level.|Non-stratified Wald test||Dnisp: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Dnisp: Pre-Study FVIII Prophylaxis is the denominator for this ABR ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.514|0.195|<0.0001
91880325|NCT02847637|183654791|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.37||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.626||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level.|Non-stratified Wald test||Dnisp: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Dnisp: Pre-Study FVIII Prophylaxis is the denominator for this ABR ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.626|0.220|0.0002
91749464|NCT01774097|183391232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.2||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||4.2|-2.6|0.626
91749465|NCT01774097|183391233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.3||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||2.3|-4.1|0.591
91749466|NCT01774097|183391234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.7||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||4.7|-3.3|0.722
91749467|NCT03061721|183391270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91749468|NCT03061721|183391270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91749469|NCT03061721|183391270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91749470|NCT03061721|183391271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5681|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5681
91749471|NCT03061721|183391271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4487|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4487
91749472|NCT03061721|183391271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0021
91749473|NCT03061721|183391272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0070
91749474|NCT03061721|183391272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0031
91749475|NCT03061721|183391272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91749476|NCT03061721|183391273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2241
91749477|NCT03061721|183391273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0304|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0304
91749478|NCT03061721|183391273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0595|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0595
91749479|NCT03061721|183391274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0449|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0449
91749480|NCT03061721|183391274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0053
91749481|NCT03061721|183391274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0036
91749482|NCT03061721|183391275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0045
91749483|NCT03061721|183391275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0026
91749484|NCT03061721|183391275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
91749485|NCT03061721|183391284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2387
91749486|NCT03061721|183391284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1496|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1496
91749487|NCT03061721|183391284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0445|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0445
91749488|NCT01920568|183391343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.192|||ANCOVA||Primary analysis evaluated the log transformed chg from BL, i.e. log\[(Wk 13 uNTx/Cr) / (BL uNTx/Cr)\] by ANCOVA model with trt group as main effect and the stratification factor (breast cancer, yes or no) and log transformed BL value as covariates.|||-0.192|-0.440|<0.0001
91749489|NCT01920568|183391344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|-0.188|||ANCOVA||Secondary analysis evaluated the log transformed chg from BL, ie log\[(Wk 13 uNTx/Cr)/(BL uNTx/Cr)\] by ANCOVA model with trt group as main effect and the stratification factor (Chinese participants, yes or no) and log transformed BL value|||-0.188|-0.444|<0.0001
91749490|NCT01920568|183391345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.366|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.539|-0.193|||ANCOVA||Secondary analysis evaluated the log transformed chg from BL, i.e. log\[(Wk 13 uNTx/Cr) / (BL uNTx/Cr)\] by ANCOVA model with trt group as main effect, stratification factor (Breast cancer, yes or no) and log transformed BL value as covariates.|||-0.193|-0.539|<0.0001
91749491|NCT04049266|183391359|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.03|-8.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, categories for baseline BCVA, BCVA-low luminance VA baseline, geographical location.||||-4|-8|> 0.9999
91749492|NCT01703208|183391367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.29|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.29|0.77|
91749493|NCT01703208|183391368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.37||||||||-0.37|-0.48|
91749494|NCT01703208|183391369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the LS Means vs Placebo|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.27|||Longitudinal data analysis|Longitudinal data analysis model including terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.27|-0.50|<0.001
91749495|NCT01703208|183391370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs. Placebo|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||4.9|-7.2|
91749496|NCT01703208|183391371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||1.7|-1.0|
91749497|NCT01703208|183391373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.68|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.68|0.66|
91802259|NCT02195583|183482072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|0.35|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base A' minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base A'.|||0.35|-4.67|0.0920
91802260|NCT02195583|183482072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|0.93|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base B' minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base B'.|||0.93|-4.04|0.2185
91802261|NCT02195583|183482072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.36|12.37|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base A' such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||12.37|7.36|<0.0001
91802262|NCT02195583|183482072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.77|11.75|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus 'Sodium fluoride (1426ppm) + zinc base B' such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||11.75|6.77|<0.0001
91802263|NCT00094172|183482100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Log Rank|||This is the primary analysis of the primary endpoint||||0.929
91802264|NCT00094172|183482100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the secondary analysis of the primary endpoint||||0.823
91880326|NCT02847637|183654792|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.067||Not controlled for type I error|Non-stratified Wald test||Arm A+Bnise: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Arm A+Bnise: Pre-Study Episodic FVIII is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.067|0.014|<0.0001
91880327|NCT02847637|183654793|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.068||Not controlled for type I error|Non-stratified Wald test||Arm A+Bnise: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Arm A+Bnise: Pre-Study Episodic FVIII is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.068|0.023|<0.0001
91802265|NCT00094172|183482101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Log Rank|||||||.208
91802266|NCT00094172|183482102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.526
91802267|NCT01519271|183482121|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91802268|NCT01803204|183482161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||GEE|||||||1.00
91802269|NCT01803204|183482162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||Mist Effects Model|||||||<0.01
91802270|NCT01803204|183482163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||Mist Effect Model|||||||0.81
91802271|NCT01397890|183482167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.044||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.019|1.069|||ANCOVA|multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.069|1.019|0.0004
91880328|NCT02847637|183654794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.51||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|26.98||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level.|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||26.98|-1.96|0.0891
91802272|NCT01397890|183482168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.079|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|1.102|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.102|1.057|<0.0001
91802273|NCT01397890|183482169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.086|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.111|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.111|1.062|<0.0001
91802274|NCT01397890|183482170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.018||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.037|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.037|0.999|0.0570
91802275|NCT01397890|183482171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.067|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.067|1.033|<0.0001
91802276|NCT01397890|183482172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|1.073|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.073|1.036|<0.0001
91802277|NCT01397890|183482173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.02||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.05|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.050|0.990|0.1956
91802278|NCT01397890|183482174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.062|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.091|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.091|1.035|<0.0001
91802279|NCT01397890|183482175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.303||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.904|30.702|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||30.702|9.904|0.0001
91802280|NCT01397890|183482176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.587|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.407|19.766|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||19.766|7.407|<0.0001
91802281|NCT01397890|183482177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.147|24.791|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||24.791|10.147|<0.0001
91880329|NCT02847637|183654794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.97||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|30.78||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||30.78|1.16|0.0349
91880330|NCT02847637|183654795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|13.55||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||13.55|-1.72|0.1269
91880331|NCT02847637|183654795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.56||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|16.35||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||16.35|0.77|0.0317
91880332|NCT02847637|183654796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|4.35||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||4.35|-12.43|0.3402
91880333|NCT02847637|183654796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.15||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|-0.55||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||-0.55|-17.74|0.0373
91749498|NCT01703208|183391375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.26|0.60|
91749499|NCT01703208|183391377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.52|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.52|0.58|
91749500|NCT01703208|183391379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.85|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.85|0.88|
91749501|NCT01703208|183391380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.14|||||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.|||-0.14|-0.46|
91749502|NCT01703208|183391386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-3.1||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|4.5|||Longitudinal constrained data analysis||Based on a LDA model including terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.|||4.5|-10.8|0.421
91749503|NCT01703208|183391387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between group rate difference|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|16.8||Estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||16.8|6.9|<0.001
91749504|NCT01703208|183391389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.05|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.05|0.35|
91749505|NCT01639339|183391404|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.32||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model. Test 1 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||2.32|1.04|0.0311
91749506|NCT01639339|183391405|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.74||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model. Test 2 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||2.74|1.11|0.0167
91749507|NCT01639339|183391406|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.38||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model. Test 3 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||2.38|1.06|0.0245
91749508|NCT01639339|183391407|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.51||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.77||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model. Test 4 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Cox proportional hazards model||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using Cox proportional hazards ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||0.77|0.34|0.0014
91749509|NCT01639339|183391408|OTHER|||||||0.0096||||||P-value is rank analysis of covariance model comparing Belimumab and Placebo with covariates for treatment group, induction regimen(CYC vs MMF),race(Black vs Non-black), Baseline uPCR, and eGFR. Test 5 of 5 in step-down sequential testing procedure.|Rank ANCOVA|||||||0.0096
91749510|NCT01271712|183391426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-06|||||||Log Rank|stratified||The two treatment groups were compared using a stratified log rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.01 stratified by (3rd vs 4th-line; and geographical region). The null hypothesis that both treatment arms have the same PFS distribution was tested against the alternative hypothesis that the distribution of PFS in the regorafenib arm is different from the control arm according to a proportional hazards relation between the treatment arms.||||<0.000001
91749511|NCT01271712|183391426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|0.388|||Regression, Cox|stratified|regorafenib over placebo|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (Confidence Interval) was based on stratified Cox Regression Model||0.388|0.185|
91749512|NCT01271712|183391427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.285777|||||||Log Rank|stratified||||||0.285777
91749513|NCT01271712|183391427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.265|||Regression, Cox|stratified|regorafenib over control. 58 (87.9%) patients in placebo group and 91 (68.4%) patients in regorafenib had started open-label treatment with regorafenib before time of final database cutoff 08 Jun 2015.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified Cox Regression Model||1.265|0.653|
91749514|NCT01271712|183391428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-06|||||||Log Rank|stratified||||||<0.000001
91749515|NCT01271712|183391428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.364|||Regression, Cox|stratified||||0.364|0.170|
91749516|NCT01431014|183391433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91749517|NCT02685748|183391434|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|0.815|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.815|-0.969|0.863
91749518|NCT02685748|183391435|OTHER|T test for independent samples|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.364||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.147|8.379|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.379|-1.147|0.133
91749519|NCT02685748|183391436|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||1.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1553|0.172|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.172|-1.1553|1.607
91749520|NCT02685748|183391437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.754||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.807|2.241|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.241|-4.807|0.468
91749521|NCT02685748|183391438|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|0.765|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.765|-0.869|0.899
91749522|NCT02685748|183391439|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.797||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.602|20.703|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.703|-6.602|0.305
91880334|NCT02847637|183654797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.04||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||-0.04|-0.22|0.0060
91880335|NCT02847637|183654797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.04||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||-0.04|-0.23|0.0059
91802282|NCT01397890|183482178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.428||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.463|39.393|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||39.393|13.463|0.0001
91880336|NCT03036150|183654841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.51|0.72|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.72|0.51|< 0.0001
91880337|NCT03036150|183654842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.45|0.68|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.68|0.45|< 0.0001
91880338|NCT03036150|183654843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0089||95.0|0.55|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.92|0.55|0.0089
91880339|NCT03036150|183654844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0035||95.0|0.53|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.88|0.53|0.0035
91880340|NCT01318538|183654846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|Analyzed using loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (relative changes i.e. % change)||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction.The study was powered for the primary analysis concerning treatment group differences in the degree of improvement in the number of days of any substance use and in the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite scores. With a total of 100 women, the study was adequately powered to detect a minimum 5 day benefit in the # of days of any substance use (power = 83%).||||0.821
91888984|NCT01465763|183670744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.5||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|8.7|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||8.7|4.3|0.0043
91749523|NCT02685748|183391440|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|160.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|159.525||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.118|480.714|||t-test, 2 sided|||||480.714|-160.118|0.320
91749524|NCT02685748|183391441|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.558||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.642|5.651|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.651|-8.642|0.676
91749525|NCT01846299|183391549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.203||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.16|0.40|0.0111
91749526|NCT01960998|183391581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||||Data were not collected beyond the 12-month follow up, at which point fewer than 50% of participants in both groups had achieved continence. Thus, their time to continence could not be determined and the medians could not be calculated.|||0.22
91749527|NCT01960998|183391582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||P values were not corrected for multiple testing|ANCOVA|Baseline score was included as a covariate in analysis.|||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the ICIQ-SF are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean ICIQ-SF score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 7.0 (standard deviation 4.4) and in the telehealth group was 7.1 (SD 4.3). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with each of the 10 imputations, adjusting for baseline ICIQ-SF score, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.70
91749528|NCT01960998|183391583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||P values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the EPIC-UI are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean EPIC-UI score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 63.5 (standard deviation 24.1) and in the telehealth group was 63.9 (SD 22.1). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with each of the 10 imputations, adjusting for baseline EPIC-UI score, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.70
91749529|NCT01960998|183391584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the IIQ are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean IIQ score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 22.3 (standard deviation 24.1) and in the telehealth group was 19.4 (SD 22.4). Two-sample t-tests were performed with each of the 10 imputations, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.46
91749530|NCT01960998|183391585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Quality of Life question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 31.4% (Delighted/Pleased), 22.8% (Mostly Satisfied), 19.4% (Mixed), 12.0% (Mostly Dissatisfied), and 14.4% (Unhappy/Terrible) and in the telehealth group were 20.8%, 26.3%, 26.3%, 12.6%, and 14.0%, respectively. Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 5 levels of the IPSS Quality of Life question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.63
91749531|NCT01960998|183391586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Patient Satisfaction question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 51.0% (Completely Satisfied), 40.2% (Somewhat Satisfied), and 8.7% (Not at All Satisfied) and in the telehealth group were 34.8%, 59.9%, and 5.3%, respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 3 levels of the Patient Satisfaction question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.04
91802283|NCT01397890|183482179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.192||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.491|26.894|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||26.894|7.491|0.0006
91880341|NCT01318538|183654847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519|||||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|We used loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (GEE).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. Note: Women in both WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.0001 reductions in mean # of alcohol use days during treatment (9.9 and 12.4 day reductions for WRG and GDC respectively) and at 6 months post-treatment (8.3 and 12.2 day reductions).||||0.519
91880342|NCT01318538|183654848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect models|This measure was analyzed using using linear mixed effect models with estimation via restricted maximum likelihood (absolute changes in the mean).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. The study was powered for the primary analysis concerning treatment group differences in the degree of improvement in the number of days of any substance use and in the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite scores.With 100 women (50 in each treatment group), the study was adequately powered to detect a 0.2 benefit in the ASI drug and alcohol composite scores (power = 94%).||||0.253
91749532|NCT01960998|183391587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Estimated Percent Improvement (EPI) are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean EPI score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 65.1 (standard deviation 34.5) and in the telehealth group was 69.6 (SD 29.6). Two-sample t-tests were performed with each of the 10 imputations, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.67
91749533|NCT01960998|183391588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Global Perception of Improvement (GPI) question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 46.3% (Much Better), 30.7% (Better), 16.7% (About the Same), 2.3% (Worse), and 3.9% (Much Worse) and in the telehealth group were 38.3%, 41.1%, 15.3%, 2.9%, and 2.5%, respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 5 levels of the Global Perception of Improvement question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.65
91749534|NCT01960998|183391589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||"Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the How Disturbing is the Urine Leakage? question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 43.5% (Not at All), 44.4% (Somewhat), and 12.1% (Extremely) and in the telehealth group were 38.9%, 53.2%, and 7.9% respectively. Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 3 levels of the How Disturbing is the Urine Leakage? question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method."|||0.37
91749535|NCT01960998|183391590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||P values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Activity Restriction question relative to the expected frequencies question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 51.0% (Not at all), 36.5% (Some of the time), 7.2% (Most of the time), and 5.3% (All of the time) and in the telehealth group were 56.5%, 33.5%, 4.2%, and 5.8% respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 4 levels of the Activity Restriction question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.63
91749536|NCT01960998|183391591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Return to Work question relative to the expected frequencies question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 52.3% (Yes), 5.0% (No, not yet recovered from surgery), 1.9% (No, other reason), and 40.7% (Retired or disabled) and in the telehealth group were 62.3%, 3.5%, 0.8%, and 33.5% respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 4 levels of the Return to Work question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.71
91802284|NCT01397890|183482180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.347|26.596|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||26.596|10.347|<0.0001
91802285|NCT01397890|183482181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.668|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.437|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.437|-0.900|<0.0001
91802286|NCT01397890|183482182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.375|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.552|-0.198|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.198|-0.552|<0.0001
91880343|NCT01318538|183654849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect models|This measure was analyzed using using linear mixed effect models with estimation via restricted maximum likelihood (absolute changes in the mean).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. The study was powered for the primary analysis concerning treatment group differences in the degree of improvement in the number of days of any substance use and in the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite scores.With 100 women (50 in each treatment group), the study was adequately powered to detect a 0.2 benefit in the ASI drug and alcohol composite scores (power = 94%).||||0.667
91880344|NCT01318538|183654851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91749537|NCT01960998|183391592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P values not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Resumption of Normal Activities question relative to the expected frequencies question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 7.4% (None), 29.8% (Some), 62.8% (All) and in the telehealth group were 4.9%, 23.0%, and 72.2% respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 3 levels of the Resumption of Normal Activities question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.41
91749538|NCT01103063|183391635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0647||0.12237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.25||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint)|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.25|0.97|0.12237
91749539|NCT01103063|183391636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1243||0.84117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.31||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint)|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.31|0.80|0.84117
91749540|NCT01103063|183391637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1745||0.4428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.23|0.62|0.4428
91749541|NCT01103063|183391638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1882||0.6086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.31|0.63|0.6086
91749542|NCT01103063|183391639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2866||0.7035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.57||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.57|0.51|0.7035
91749543|NCT01103063|183391640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.11|0.95|0.4605
91749544|NCT01103063|183391641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1817||0.7105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.33||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.33|0.65|0.7105
91749545|NCT01103063|183391642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1842||0.3468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.21||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.21|0.59|0.3468
91802287|NCT01397890|183482183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.551|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|-0.361|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.361|-0.741|<0.0001
91802288|NCT01397890|183482184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.236||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|-0.082|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.082|-0.391|0.0028
91880345|NCT01318538|183654852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91802289|NCT01397890|183482185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.007|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.007|-0.240|0.0372
91802290|NCT01397890|183482186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.113|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.113|-0.350|0.0001
91802291|NCT01397890|183482187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|-0.159|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.159|-0.364|<0.0001
91802292|NCT01397890|183482188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.143||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.040|-0.246|0.0067
91802293|NCT01397890|183482189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.122||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|-0.022|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.022|-0.222|0.0171
91802294|NCT01397890|183482190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.593||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|0.839|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression model with treatment as a factor and the duration time in study as an offset variable morning PEF as a covariate||||0.839|0.419|0.0032
91802295|NCT01397890|183482190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.614||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|0.916|||Regression, Cox|Time to the first COPD exacerbation||||0.916|0.412|0.0167
91802296|NCT01397890|183482190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0196
91802297|NCT02100514|183482221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-49.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|-45.8|||MMRM|||Least square (LS) mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value were derived from an mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-45.8|-54.0|<0.001
91802298|NCT02100514|183482222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-30.2|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-30.2|-36.1|<0.001
91802299|NCT02100514|183482222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-26.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-26.3|-32.8|
91802300|NCT02100514|183482222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-20.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-20.5|-27.0|
91802301|NCT02100514|183482223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-45.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-41.7|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI, and p-value were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-41.7|-49.7|<0.001
91802302|NCT02100514|183482223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-36.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI, were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-36.5|-45.3|
91802303|NCT02100514|183482223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-28.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI, were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-28.2|-36.7|
91802304|NCT02100514|183482224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.9|-41.1|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-41.1|-48.9|<0.001
91802305|NCT02100514|183482224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-36.1||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-36.1|-44.8|
91802306|NCT02100514|183482224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-28.4||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-28.4|-37.0|
91802307|NCT02100514|183482225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-51.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|-46.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-46.6|-56.7|<0.001
91880346|NCT01318538|183654853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464|||||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|We used loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (GEE).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. Note: Women in both WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.05) reductions in mean number of drug use days during treatment (3.0 and 1.5 day reductions for WRG and GDC respectively); however at 6 months post-treatment, the reductions were significant for WRG (2.8 day reduction; p\<0.05) but not for GDC (1.5 day reduction; p\>0.01).||||0.464
91880347|NCT01318538|183654854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|||||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|We used loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (GEE).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. Note: Women in both WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.0001) reductions in mean number of heavy drinking days during treatment (8.6 and 12.1 days reduction for WRG and GDC, respectively) and at 6 months post-treatment (8.0 and 11.8 day reductions).||||0.904
91880348|NCT01318538|183654855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||linear mixed effect model|This measure was analyzed using using linear mixed effect models with estimation via restricted maximum likelihood (absolute changes in the mean).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment by phase interaction. Note: Women in both the WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.05) reductions in mean number of drinks per drinking day only during the in treatment phase (2.0 and 2.9 reductions for WRG and GDC, respectively).||||0.799
91880349|NCT00496626|183654861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|101.6|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.1|117.2||The ANCOVA models showed the lower bounds of two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio \[GARDASIL™/placebo\] were greater than 1 for each HPV type, so the null hypothesis was rejected. The CI reported is for HPV18, the type with the smallest CI lower bound.|ANCOVA||Superiority of GARDASIL™ to placebo was claimed if, for each of the four HPV types, the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio \[GARDASIL™/placebo\] being \>1, or equivalently, the two-sided p-value \<0.05.|An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used for each HPV type, based on the pooled data from all age groups and genders. The natural-log-transformed titer was the response variable, and vaccination group, gender and age group were covariates. The null hypothesis was that the GMT ratio (Gardasil/Placebo) was equal to 1.||117.2|88.1|<=0.05
91880350|NCT00496626|183654862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|96.65|||<=|0.05||95.0|93.74|98.46||The lower bound of the 95% CI for the seroconversion rate was greater than 90% for each type so the null hypothesis was rejected. The CI reported is for HPV6, the type with the smallest lower bound.|Exact Binomial CI|||The null hypothesis was that the seroconversion rate in the Gardasil® Group was less than 90% for each HPV type.||98.46|93.74|<=0.05
91749546|NCT01103063|183391643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02||Analysis based on an ANOVA model with model terms for treatment group and randomization stratification variable. A negative mean difference between treatment groups favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine (reduction in number of STIs).|ANOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||-0.02|-0.08|0.0011
91749547|NCT01103063|183391644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0604||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.21|0.96|0.2265
91749548|NCT01103063|183391645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.03||Analysis based on an ANCOVA model with model terms for baseline value, treatment group and randomization stratification variable.|ANCOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||-0.03|-0.24|0.0131
91749549|NCT01103063|183391646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2694||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.53||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.53|0.53|0.6978
91749550|NCT01103063|183391647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2908||0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.01||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||2.01|0.64|0.6542
91749551|NCT01103063|183391648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.71||0.9145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|40.8||Analysis based on an ANOVA model with model terms for treatment group and randomization stratification variable.|ANOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||40.8|-36.5|0.9145
91749552|NCT01103063|183391649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.04||Analysis based on an ANOVA model with model terms for treatment group and randomization stratification variable. A negative mean difference between treatment groups favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine (reduction in number of symptomatic malaria).|ANOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||-0.04|-0.09|<0.0001
91802308|NCT02100514|183482225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-40.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-40.6|-52.2|
91880351|NCT00570921|183654864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Time to Progression|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|12.1||||||We hypothesized that median time to progression (TTP) in our trial will increase from 3.7 months for the historical fulvestrant-only control to 7.0 months on the combination of fulvestrant and everolimus in the current trial. A sample of 40 evaluable patients was calculated to show the increase in TTP with 80% power and 5% significance level based on a two sided test of differences in survival times between historical controls and treated group.||12.1|1.9|
91880352|NCT00570921|183654865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate Percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|29.83|||||Percentage of Patients with a complete or partial response with 95% exact binomial proportion confidence interval|||29.83|3.63|
91880353|NCT00570921|183654866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with clinical benefit|48.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.15|66.94|||||Percentage of patients that had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease for 24 weeks or more as defined by RECIST v1.0.|||66.94|30.15|
91880354|NCT02447432|183654881|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.33||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-1 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.33|0.89|
91880355|NCT02447432|183654881|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-4 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.12|0.75|
91880356|NCT02447432|183654881|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-5 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.26|0.85|
91880357|NCT02447432|183654881|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.61||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-6B serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.61|0.78|
91907698|NCT02819635|183710735|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|46.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|55.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||55.8|36.7|<0.001
91880358|NCT02447432|183654881|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-7F serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.25|0.88|
91880359|NCT02447432|183654881|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.13||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-9V serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.13|0.69|
91880360|NCT02447432|183654881|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-14 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.31|0.73|
91749553|NCT01103063|183391650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.62||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.62|0.38|<0.0001
91802309|NCT02100514|183482225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-37.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-31.4||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-31.4|-43.3|
91880361|NCT02447432|183654881|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.37||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-18C serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.37|0.86|
91880362|NCT02447432|183654881|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-19F serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.25|0.78|
91880363|NCT02447432|183654881|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.8||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-23F serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.80|0.92|
91880364|NCT03231969|183654921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.791||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.203|-0.378|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.2% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-0.378|-1.203|0.0002
91880365|NCT03231969|183654921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.851|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.263|-0.439|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.4% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-0.439|-1.263|<.0001
91880366|NCT03231969|183654921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.545|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.954|-1.135|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.6% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-1.135|-1.954|<.0001
91880367|NCT03231969|183654921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.208|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.639|-0.778|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.2% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 5b (including all time points).||-0.778|-1.639|<.0001
91880368|NCT03231969|183654921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.245|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.679|-0.811|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.4% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 5b (including all time points).||-0.811|-1.679|<.0001
91880369|NCT03231969|183654921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.846|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.273|-1.418|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.6% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 5b (including all time points).||-1.418|-2.273|<.0001
91880370|NCT03231969|183654921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.696|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-1.312|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.2% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 6 (including all time points).||-1.312|-2.080|<.0001
91880371|NCT03231969|183654921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.617|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.001|-1.232|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.4% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 6 (including all time points).||-1.232|-2.001|<.0001
91907699|NCT02819635|183710736|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|37.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|54.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||54.6|20.3|<0.001
91749554|NCT01103063|183391651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2295||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.97|0.39|0.0360
91880372|NCT03231969|183654921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.009|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.387|-1.63|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.6% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 6 (including all time points).||-1.630|-2.387|<.0001
91880373|NCT02561806|183654930|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was -12.6% for 97.5% confidence interval|Risk Difference (RD)|0.321|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.198|0.445|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.445|0.198|<0.001
91880374|NCT02561806|183654931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.285|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.439|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.439|1.130|<0.001
91880375|NCT02561806|183654932|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.699||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.423|3.975|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.975|1.423|0.009
91880376|NCT02561806|183654933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.469|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.244|1.695|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.695|1.244|<0.001
91880377|NCT02561806|183654934|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.421||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.353|5.488|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.488|1.353|0.021
91880378|NCT02561806|183654941|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.391||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|1.698|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.698|1.085|0.012
91880379|NCT00002597|183654971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.35|||Log Rank||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Null hypothesis: 8-year OS rate of 60% radiation therapy (RT) alone vs. 67% with hormone therapy. The study was designed with 90% power to detect a 7-percentage- point absolute difference in the 8-year survival rate, with the use of a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 significance level, requiring 1980 patients and 716 deaths for definitive analysis.||1.35|1.01|0.0309
91802310|NCT02100514|183482226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-46.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.001||95.0|-53.7|-39.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-39.5|-53.7|<0.001
91802311|NCT02100514|183482226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-39.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||||95.0|-47.9|-31.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-31.6|-47.9|
91802312|NCT02100514|183482226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02||||95.0|-41.3|-25.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-25.5|-41.3|
91802313|NCT02100514|183482227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001||95.0|-36.9|-24.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-24.6|-36.9|<0.001
91802314|NCT02100514|183482227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||||95.0|-33.9|-21.2||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-21.2|-33.9|
91802315|NCT02100514|183482227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-49.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.2|-13.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.5|-85.2|
91802316|NCT02100514|183482228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|7.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||7.6|3.4|<0.001
91880380|NCT00002597|183654972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.74|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||2.74|1.27|0.001
91880381|NCT00002597|183654973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.93|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||1.93|1.17|0.0013
91880382|NCT00002597|183654974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.06|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||2.06|1.03|0.035
91880383|NCT00002597|183654975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.04|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||2.04|1.48|<0.001
91802317|NCT02100514|183482228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||||95.0|3.2|7.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||7.6|3.2|
91802318|NCT02100514|183482228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||||95.0|3.6|8.3||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||8.3|3.6|
91802319|NCT02100514|183482229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-44.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||||95.0|-48.8|-39.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-39.5|-48.8|
91802320|NCT02100514|183482229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-31.4||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-31.4|-40.9|
91880384|NCT00002597|183654976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.85|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||1.85|1.21|<0.001
91880385|NCT00002597|183654977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.16|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||3.16|1.34|<0.001
91749555|NCT01103063|183391652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.163||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.12|0.59|0.1975
91749556|NCT01103063|183391653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5675||0.4655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.01||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||2.01|0.22|0.4655
91802321|NCT02100514|183482230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||||95.0|-15.1|-5.1||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-5.1|-15.1|
91802322|NCT02100514|183482230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||||95.0|-17.9|-0.2||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-17.9|
91802323|NCT02100514|183482230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||||95.0|-14.1|-2.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-2.2|-14.1|
91802324|NCT02100514|183482231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||||95.0|2.5|5.8||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||5.8|2.5|
91749557|NCT01103063|183391654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0918||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.90|0.62|0.0016
91749558|NCT01103063|183391655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5338||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.66||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||6.66|0.82|0.1113
91749559|NCT01103063|183391656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6386||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.86||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.86|0.07|0.0284
91802325|NCT02100514|183482231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||||95.0|2.2|5.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||5.5|2.2|
91802326|NCT02100514|183482231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||||95.0|2.4|6.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||6.2|2.4|
91802327|NCT02100514|183482232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||||95.0|-0.7|2.8||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.8|-0.7|
91802328|NCT02100514|183482232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||||95.0|-1.1|3.0||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||3.0|-1.1|
91749560|NCT01103063|183391657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3291||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.88||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.88|0.24|0.0188
91802329|NCT02100514|183482232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||||95.0|-1.0|2.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.7|-1.0|
91802330|NCT02100514|183482233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||||95.0|-15.1|-5.1||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-5.1|-15.1|
91802331|NCT02100514|183482233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||||95.0|-17.9|-0.2||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-17.9|
91802332|NCT02100514|183482233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||||95.0|-14.1|-2.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-2.2|-14.1|
91802333|NCT02100514|183482234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-66.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||||95.0|-73.0|-60.5||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-60.5|-73.0|
91802334|NCT02100514|183482235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||||95.0|-76.7|-55.4||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-55.4|-76.7|
91802335|NCT02100514|183482236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-66.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||||95.0|-72.0|-61.1||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-61.1|-72.0|
91880386|NCT00002597|183654978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.56|||Log Rank||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Treatment arms were compared using the log-rank test (one-sided significance level of 0.025).||1.56|1.22|<0.001
91880387|NCT00002597|183654979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91880388|NCT05324007|183654993|EQUIVALENCE|Estimated effect size was based on Liberman et al. (2017) that found a partial eta squared of .478 for the interaction between different-language and same-language conditions. Using G\*power using an alpha of .05, our target sample size of 30 per condition should provide 99.73% power to detect the main effect in the White-White and Black-Black condition and 99.99% power to detect the main effect in the Black-White condition.|partial eta squared|0.062|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We will examine whether looking time at affiliation will be greater when looking at Black-White interactions than at White-White or Black-Black interactions. That is, we will test if infants will be more surprised (look longer) by affiliation between different-race people interacting than same race people interacting. We will conduct a mixed ANOVA with conditions (Black-White, White-White, Black-Black) as a between-subject and test type (affiliation vs. disengagement) as within-subject factors.||||<.05
91880389|NCT00510146|183655015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.36||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in MADRS total score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-3.93|0.018
91880390|NCT00510146|183655016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with symptomatic response at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.050
91880391|NCT00510146|183655017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with symptomatic remission at any time from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.367
91802336|NCT02100514|183482237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-69.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||||95.0|-75.2|-63.1||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-63.1|-75.2|
91802337|NCT02100514|183482238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-71.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||||95.0|-77.5|-65.1||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-65.1|-77.5|
91880392|NCT00510146|183655018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.03||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-BP Mania score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.20|0.008
91880393|NCT00510146|183655018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.01||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-BP Depression score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.47|0.037
91880394|NCT00510146|183655018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.08||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-BP Overall score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.53|0.008
91802338|NCT02100514|183482239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-47.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||||95.0|-51.9|-43.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.6|-51.9|
91802339|NCT02100514|183482240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||||95.0|-12.5|-8.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-8.3|-12.5|
91802340|NCT02100514|183482241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||||95.0|1.6|3.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||3.6|1.6|
91802341|NCT02100514|183482242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||||95.0|-1.8|-1.5||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.5|-1.8|
91802342|NCT02100514|183482242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||||95.0|-1.6|-1.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.3|-1.6|
91802343|NCT02100514|183482242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||95.0|-1.6|-1.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.2|-1.6|
91802344|NCT02100514|183482243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.4|
91802345|NCT02100514|183482243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.3|-0.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.3|
91802346|NCT02100514|183482243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||||95.0|-0.4|-0.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-0.4|
91802347|NCT02100514|183482244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.9||||||95.0|32.08|90.59||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||90.59|32.08|
91802348|NCT02100514|183482244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.0||||||95.0|11.15|26.07||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||26.07|11.15|
91880395|NCT00510146|183655019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with recovery from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.156
91880396|NCT00510146|183655020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.43||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-1.56|<0.001
91802349|NCT02100514|183482244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.1||||||95.0|6.18|13.48||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||13.48|6.18|
91802350|NCT02100514|183482245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.4||||||95.0|48.84|501.11||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||501.11|48.84|
91802351|NCT02100514|183482245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|110.8||||||95.0|39.77|308.46||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||308.46|39.77|
91802352|NCT02100514|183482245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.3||||||95.0|19.52|96.13||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||96.13|19.52|
91802353|NCT01751178|183482256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.061|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|-0.041||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GSI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two groups.||-0.041|-0.081|<0.0001
91880397|NCT00510146|183655021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.81||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-3.61|0.002
91802354|NCT01751178|183482256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.05||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GSI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||-0.050|-0.090|<0.0001
91802355|NCT01751178|183482257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis that there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||-0.05|-0.10|<0.0001
91802356|NCT01751178|183482257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.06||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||-0.06|-0.11|<0.0001
91802357|NCT01751178|183482258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.62||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups in Overall Plaque scores.||-0.62|-0.98|<0.0001
91802358|NCT01751178|183482258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adusted Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.68||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups in Overall Plaque Scores.||-0.68|-1.04|<0.0001
91802359|NCT01751178|183482259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.69||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypotheses stated that there was no difference between the two treatments.||-0.69|-1.07|<0.0001
91802360|NCT01751178|183482259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.78||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypotheses stated that there was no difference between the two groups.||-0.78|-1.16|<0.0001
91802361|NCT04138810|183482260|NON_INFERIORITY|We defined the non-inferiority margin to be 5 points which with a sample of size of 25 women per arm would mean we would have a type I error rate of 0.05 and a power of 0.80.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.03||||||||1.03|-1.95|
91802362|NCT03285984|183482268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.15||From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group, period and subject (random effect), and subject-level baseline and period-level baseline|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||-0.15|-0.27|<.0001
91880398|NCT00510146|183655022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with major depressive episode from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.297
91880399|NCT00510146|183655022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with major depressive episode with melancholic features from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.264
91880400|NCT00510146|183655023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current hypomanic episode from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.195
91802363|NCT00413244|183482270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||log mean|||"Statistician used all the time points post-baseline together (Overall). The result gives the estimates and 95% CI of the treatment effect from longitudinal analyses (generalized estimating equation method) which basically pools data from all visits post-baseline."||||0.03
91802364|NCT02319837|183482286|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.424|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.607||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.05.|Log Rank|||||0.607|0.296|<0.0001
91802365|NCT02319837|183482287|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.631||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|0.871||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.03.|Log Rank|||||0.871|0.456|0.0049
91880401|NCT00510146|183655024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current psychotic disorders from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.163
91880402|NCT00510146|183655024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current mood disorders with psychotic features from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.442
91880403|NCT00510146|183655025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current alcohol dependence from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
91880404|NCT00510146|183655025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current alcohol abuse from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.324
91802366|NCT02319837|183482288|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.068|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.141||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.02.|Log Rank|||||0.141|0.033|<0.0001
91802367|NCT02319837|183482288|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.331|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.486||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.03.|Log Rank|||||0.486|0.226|<0.0001
91802368|NCT02319837|183482289|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.358|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.488||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.02.|Log Rank|||||0.488|0.263|<0.0001
91802369|NCT02319837|183482289|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|0.709||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.03.|Log Rank|||||0.709|0.411|<0.0001
91802370|NCT02319837|183482291|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.443||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.690|0.284|0.0002
91802371|NCT02319837|183482291|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.614||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.920|0.409|0.0171
91880405|NCT00510146|183655027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with emergence of mania at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.031
91880406|NCT00510146|183655028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with EPS symptoms (akathisia) at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.269
91880407|NCT00510146|183655028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with EPS symptoms (parkinsonism) at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.736
91880408|NCT00510146|183655029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-standing systolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
91880409|NCT00510146|183655029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-sitting systolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.249
91802372|NCT02319837|183482292|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|31.0||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.0|20.7|<0.0001
91880410|NCT00510146|183655029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-standing diastolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
91802373|NCT02319837|183482292|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.6||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|13.0|<0.0001
91802374|NCT02319837|183482293|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|7.5||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|15.2||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.2|-0.2|0.0439
91880411|NCT00510146|183655029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-sitting diastolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.271
91880412|NCT00510146|183655029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in systolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.284
91880413|NCT00510146|183655029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in diastolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.067
91880414|NCT00510146|183655030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in weight from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91880415|NCT00510146|183655031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in fasting glucose from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.179
91802375|NCT02319837|183482293|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|-12.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-6.1||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-6.1|-19.8|0.0004
91802376|NCT02319837|183482294|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|7.2||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.8||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.8|1.7|0.0089
91802377|NCT02319837|183482294|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|-5.0||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-0.6||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.6|-9.4|0.0326
91802378|NCT02319837|183482295|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|0.834|||Log Rank|||||0.834|0.577|<0.0001
91802379|NCT02319837|183482295|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.655|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.381|1.984|||Log Rank|||||1.984|1.381|<0.0001
91802380|NCT02319837|183482296|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.157|||Log Rank|||||0.157|0.051|<0.0001
91802381|NCT02319837|183482297|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.546|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|0.699|||Log Rank|||||0.699|0.427|<0.0001
91802382|NCT02319837|183482297|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|0.785|||Log Rank|||||0.785|0.488|<0.0001
91802383|NCT02319837|183482298|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.261||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.548|||Log Rank|||||0.548|0.125|0.0001
91802384|NCT02319837|183482298|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.423||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.794|||Log Rank|||||0.794|0.226|0.0057
91880416|NCT00510146|183655031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in cholesterol from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91880417|NCT00510146|183655031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in triglycerides from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91802385|NCT02319837|183482299|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.301|||Log Rank|||||1.301|0.894|0.4321
91880418|NCT00510146|183655031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in LDL cholesterol from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91802386|NCT02319837|183482299|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.314|||Log Rank|||||1.314|0.904|0.3702
91802387|NCT02319837|183482300|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.357|||Log Rank|||||1.357|0.954|0.1567
91802388|NCT02319837|183482300|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.168||||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.391|||Log Rank|||||1.391|0.981|0.0855
91802389|NCT01961362|183482390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.05 considered to represent statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
91802390|NCT01961362|183482390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91880419|NCT00510146|183655031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in HDL cholesterol from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.095
91880420|NCT00510146|183655032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in albumin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91802391|NCT01961362|183482391|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91880421|NCT00510146|183655033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in ALT/SGPT from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91880422|NCT00510146|183655033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in AST/SGOT from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91880423|NCT00510146|183655033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in GGT from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91880424|NCT00510146|183655034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in direct bilirubin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91880425|NCT00510146|183655034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in total bilirubin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91880426|NCT00510146|183655034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in uric acid from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91880427|NCT00510146|183655035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in erythrocyte count from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91802392|NCT01761175|183482435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91880428|NCT00510146|183655036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in hematocrit from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91880429|NCT00510146|183655037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in hemoglobin A1c from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91880430|NCT00510146|183655038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in hemoglobin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91802393|NCT01761175|183482436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91802394|NCT01761175|183482437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
91802395|NCT01761175|183482438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
91802396|NCT01761175|183482439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91802397|NCT01761175|183482440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91802398|NCT01761175|183482441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91802399|NCT00467857|183482494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||The sample size determination was selected to achieve 80% power to detect an absolute 10% difference between the two treatment groups in proportion of qualitative reduction in representative skin flora, at a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided z-test with continuity correction.||||0.655
91802400|NCT00467857|183482495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.276
91802401|NCT00467857|183482496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.375
91802402|NCT00467857|183482497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.039
91880431|NCT00510146|183655039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in prolactin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91880432|NCT00510146|183655040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in urinalysis-specific gravity from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91880433|NCT00510146|183655041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in QTcF interval from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.104
91880434|NCT00510146|183655041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in QTcB interval from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91880435|NCT00510146|183655042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in heart rate from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.035
91880436|NCT00510146|183655043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.64||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint for MINI Suicidality Total Score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||0.64|-0.59|0.943
91880437|NCT00510146|183655051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-standing diastolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.736
91880438|NCT00510146|183655051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-sitting diastolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
91880439|NCT00510146|183655051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-standing systolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
91880440|NCT00510146|183655051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-sitting systolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.612
91880441|NCT00510146|183655051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in diastolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.640
91880442|NCT00510146|183655051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in systolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.122
91880443|NCT00510146|183655052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for weight from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91880444|NCT00510146|183655053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for albumin from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91880445|NCT00510146|183655053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for total protein from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91802403|NCT00467857|183482498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.057
91802404|NCT00467857|183482499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.646
91880446|NCT00510146|183655054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for alkaline phosphatase from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91880447|NCT00510146|183655054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for CPK from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
91880448|NCT00510146|183655054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for GGT from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.354
91880449|NCT00510146|183655055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for chlorine from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
91802405|NCT00467857|183482500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.788
91880450|NCT00510146|183655056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for creatinine from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91880451|NCT00510146|183655057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for erythrocyte count from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91880452|NCT00510146|183655058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for hemoglobin from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.035
91802406|NCT00467857|183482501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.960
91802407|NCT00467857|183482502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||The sample size determination was selected to achieve 80% power to detect an absolute 10% difference between the two treatment groups in proportion of qualitative reduction in representative skin flora, at a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided z-test with continuity correction.||||0.359
91802408|NCT00467857|183482503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.730
91802409|NCT00467857|183482504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.348
91880453|NCT00510146|183655059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for platelet count from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
91880454|NCT00510146|183655060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for prolactin from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91880455|NCT00510146|183655061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for uric acid from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91880456|NCT00510146|183655062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for fasting glucose from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91880457|NCT00510146|183655062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for cholesterol from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.130
91880458|NCT00510146|183655062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for triglycerides from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.055
91880459|NCT00510146|183655062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for LDL cholesterol from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
91880460|NCT00510146|183655062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for HDL cholesterol from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91880461|NCT00510146|183655063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for QTcF from t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
91880462|NCT00510146|183655063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for QTcB from t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
91880463|NCT00510146|183655064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.919||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for heart rate from t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.919
91880464|NCT02573883|183655101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91880465|NCT02573883|183655102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91880466|NCT02573883|183655104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
91880467|NCT02573883|183655106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
91880468|NCT00582114|183655117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cardiovascular events were counted by subject and included the following: myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, hospitalized angina, arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization and heart valve replacement. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals (95% CIs).||4.23|1.36|0.001
91880469|NCT00582114|183655117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|5.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||As a post hoc analysis, we determined the narrower definition of cardiovascular events per group that included myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure or cardiovascular death. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals (95% CIs).||5.21|1.07|0.02
91880470|NCT00582114|183655117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.13||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|10.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hospitalization for congestive heart failure between groups was analyzed. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals.||10.99|1.08|0.02
91880471|NCT00582114|183655117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||All-cause hospitalizations between groups were analyzed. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals.||2.19|1.18|0.002
91880472|NCT00130728|183655133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7583||95.0|0.799|1.177||relative to placebo arm|Log Rank||Stratified analysis; Hazard ratio is relative to placebo arm.|||1.177|0.799|0.7583
91880473|NCT00130728|183655134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.623|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.519|0.748||relative to placebo arm|Log Rank||Stratified analysis; hazard ratio is relative to placebo arm.|||0.748|0.519|<.0001
91880474|NCT00130728|183655135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage difference|6.4||||0.0068||95.0|1.8|11.3||Relative to placebo arm|Mantel Haenszel||Difference in objective response rates relative to placebo arm|||11.3|1.8|0.0068
91880475|NCT02341599|183655143|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group B/Group A|LS mean ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.58|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|||1.58|1.06|
91880476|NCT02341599|183655143|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group C/Group A|LS mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.32|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.32|0.889|
91907700|NCT02819635|183710736|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|63.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||63.3|30.7|<0.001
91907701|NCT02819635|183710737|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|35.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|52.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||52.7|18.2|<0.001
91907702|NCT02819635|183710737|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|61.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||61.6|28.7|<0.001
91802410|NCT00467857|183482505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.512
91802411|NCT00467857|183482506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.285
91880477|NCT02341599|183655143|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group D/Group A|LS mean ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.06|3.06|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||3.06|2.06|
91880478|NCT02341599|183655143|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 1/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.806|1.21|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.21|0.806|
91802412|NCT00467857|183482507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
91880479|NCT02341599|183655143|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 2/Group A|LS mean ratio|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|4.02|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||4.02|2.67|
91880480|NCT02341599|183655143|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 1/Group E: Period 2|LS mean ratio|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.236|0.378|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.378|0.236|
91880481|NCT02341599|183655144|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group B/Group A|LS mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.27|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.27|0.846|
91880482|NCT02341599|183655144|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group C/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.524|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.428|0.641|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.641|0.428|
91880483|NCT02341599|183655144|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group D/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.678|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.554|0.831|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.831|0.554|
91880484|NCT02341599|183655144|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 1/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.273|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.221|0.336|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.336|0.221|
91880485|NCT02341599|183655144|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 2/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.326|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.265|0.402|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.402|0.265|
91880486|NCT02341599|183655144|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 2/Group E: Period 1|LS mean ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.0|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.00|0.650|
91880487|NCT00519285|183655153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.822|1.08||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.044 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function to account for two interim analyses.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified on ECOG Performance Status|Hazard ratio (HR) aflibercept versus placebo estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model stratified on ECOG Performance Status|"Null hypothesis: No difference between aflibercept and placebo~The study was designed to provide 90% power to detect a 1.25-fold increase in median survival with aflibercept compared to placebo at a overall one-sided significance level of 0.025 with 873 deaths."||1.08|0.822|0.3802
91880488|NCT02970305|183655164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.1|-3.8|0.0434
91880489|NCT01355471|183655245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||||<0.001
91802413|NCT03576495|183482516|SUPERIORITY|"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' knowledge improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident knowledge, resident knowledge was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value compares the average scores (in percent) of the residents' knowledge assessment at time period 2 between the Early Intervention and Delayed Intervention groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2422
91802414|NCT03576495|183482517|SUPERIORITY||Difference between percentage|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' preparation for caring for culturally diverse patients improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident preparedness assessed by the Cross-Cultural Care Survey, resident preparedness was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."||||1.000
91802415|NCT03576495|183482518|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|0.9||||0.6295|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' self-assessed skills improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident skills, resident skills were compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."||||0.6295
91880490|NCT02979613|183655252|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.0|||||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|The null hypothesis was that the TAF group is at least 4% worse than the TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HBV DNA ≥ 20 IU/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAF group is less than 4% worse than the TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HBV DNA ≥ 20 IU/mL at Week 48.||2.0|-1.9|
91880491|NCT02979613|183655253|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9|||||Difference in the percentage of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||1.9|-1.9|
91880492|NCT02979613|183655253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9953||||||P-value for the superiority tests compared the percentage of each HBV DNA outcome was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9953
91880493|NCT02979613|183655254|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7|||||Difference in the percentage of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||3.7|-3.7|
91880494|NCT02979613|183655254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value for the superiority tests compared the percentage of each HBV DNA outcome was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.98
91880495|NCT02979613|183655256|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.2|||||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||5.2|-3.5|
91802416|NCT03576495|183482519|SUPERIORITY||Difference between percentage|2.5||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' beliefs improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident beliefs, beliefs were compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."||||0.0199
91880496|NCT02979613|183655256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6863||||||P-value for the superiority tests compared the percentage of each HBV DNA outcome was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6863
91802417|NCT03576495|183482520|SUPERIORITY||difference in the percentage|2.2||||0.2665|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' OSCE performance improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. OSCE performance was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in the percentage of residents designated mostly and a great deal on Limited English Proficiency and Informed Consent OSCE."||||0.2665
91880497|NCT02979613|183655258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|1.4||||0.7258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.1||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||10.1|-7.2|0.7258
91880498|NCT02979613|183655259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|2.7||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.7||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||7.7|-2.3|0.1348
91880499|NCT02979613|183655260|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|9.0||||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|20.1||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||20.1|-2.0|0.1005
91880500|NCT02979613|183655261|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|2.5||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.5||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||9.5|-4.5|0.4154
91907703|NCT02819635|183710738|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|56.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||56.2|27.8|<0.001
91749561|NCT01103063|183391658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1336||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.00|0.59|0.0527
91749562|NCT01103063|183391659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1536||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.98|0.54|0.0384
91749563|NCT01103063|183391660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8648||0.3942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|11.38||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||11.38|0.38|0.3942
91749564|NCT01103063|183391661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4439||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.93||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.93|0.16|0.0332
91749565|NCT01103063|183391662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4195||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.38||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.38|0.27|0.2321
91749566|NCT01103063|183391663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.76||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 6 presented above.||||1.0000
91749567|NCT01103063|183391663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 7 presented above.||||1.0000
91749568|NCT01103063|183391664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 6 presented above.||||1.0000
91749569|NCT01103063|183391664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 7 presented above.||||1.0000
91749570|NCT03397134|183391714|SUPERIORITY|All statistical tests will be 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance. All confidence intervals will be 2-sided 95% confidence intervals||||||0.043||||||The p-values must be ≤0.025 to allow for rejecting the null hypothesis for the representative dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||To evaluate the efficacy of 2 fixed doses (32 mg and 64 mg) of MIN-101 compared to placebo in improving the negative symptoms of schizophrenia as measured by the change from Baseline in the PANSS Marder negative symptoms factor score (NSFS) over 12 weeks of double-blind treatment. Approximation 501 eligible patients will be randomized in a 2:2:1:1 ratio at baseline to 1 of 4 treatment arms.||||0.043
91749571|NCT03397134|183391715|SUPERIORITY|All statistical tests will be 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance. All confidence intervals will be 2-sided 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.016||||||The p-values must be ≤0.025 to allow for rejecting the null hypothesis for the representative dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||The PSP involves four subscale domains: (a) socially useful activities, (b) personal and social relationships, (c) self-care, and (d) disturbing and aggressive behaviors. After each of these four areas is scored on an anchored Likert-type scale (0-5), raters are instructed to select a 10-point range within a 100-point scale, guided by the area scores assigned during assessment.||||0.016
91749572|NCT00557310|183391739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.363
91749573|NCT00557310|183391740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.837
91749574|NCT00557310|183391741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.816
91749575|NCT00557310|183391741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.934
91749576|NCT00557310|183391742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.324
91749577|NCT00557310|183391742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.089
91749578|NCT00557310|183391743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.||||||0.847
91802418|NCT03576495|183482520|SUPERIORITY||difference in the percentage|6.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' OSCE performance improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. OSCE performance was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in the percentage of residents designated mostly and a great deal on Trust and Pain."||||0.0001
91802419|NCT03576495|183482521|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|3.19||||0.5079|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to trust at time period 2."||||0.5079
91802420|NCT03576495|183482521|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|1.92||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to limited English proficiency at period 2."||||0.1571
91802421|NCT03576495|183482521|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|4.76||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to consent at time period 2."||||0.0001
91802422|NCT03576495|183482521|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|0.19||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to pain at time period 2."||||0.2956
91802423|NCT03576495|183482522|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.31||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||We used Cox Proportional Hazard to assess time to discharge, with 5.31 days as the estimated value for the difference between the two groups.|"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patients length of stay improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. Patient length of stay was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups to measure an effect of the PACTS intervention."||||0.0028
91802424|NCT02628938|183482547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.299
91880501|NCT02979613|183655262|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-2.0||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||0.3|-4.4|0.0281
91802425|NCT02628938|183482547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 7 days of using Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.007
91802426|NCT02628938|183482547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak sticks||||0.019
91802427|NCT02628938|183482547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 7 days of using Miswak sticks||||0.000
91802428|NCT02628938|183482547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.000
91802429|NCT02628938|183482547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 7 days of using Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.001
91802430|NCT02628938|183482548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.496
91802431|NCT02628938|183482548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 7 days of using Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.244
91802432|NCT02628938|183482548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak sticks||||0.19
91880502|NCT02979613|183655264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-0.8||||0.5373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.1||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||2.1|-3.7|0.5373
91880503|NCT02979613|183655265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|0.4||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||2.5|-1.7|0.5845
91880504|NCT02979613|183655266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|4.5||||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.6||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory Criteria||10.6|-1.6|0.1405
91880505|NCT02979613|183655266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|3.8||||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|11.4||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||11.4|-3.7|0.3133
91880506|NCT02979613|183655267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|14.1||||0.3381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|44.6||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory criteria||44.6|-16.4|0.3381
91749579|NCT00557310|183391743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.212
91749580|NCT00557310|183391744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 3 months.||||||0.335
91802433|NCT02628938|183482548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 7 days of of using Miswak sticks||||0.829
91802434|NCT02628938|183482548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.341
91802435|NCT02628938|183482548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 7 days of using Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.82
91907704|NCT02819635|183710738|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|61.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||61.7|35.5|<0.001
91749581|NCT00557310|183391744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.916||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 6 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.916
91749582|NCT00557310|183391744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 12 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.610
91749583|NCT00557310|183391744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.||||||0.363
91749584|NCT00557310|183391744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.837
91749585|NCT00557310|183391745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91802436|NCT02628938|183482549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Self-assessment scores after 7 days of using Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.008
91802437|NCT02628938|183482549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Self-assessment scores after 7 days of using Miswak sticks||||0.001
91749586|NCT00557310|183391746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.021
91749587|NCT00557310|183391747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91749588|NCT00557310|183391748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
91749589|NCT00557310|183391749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91802438|NCT02628938|183482549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Self-assessment scores after 7 days of using Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.02
91802439|NCT03855228|183482570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.36
91880507|NCT02979613|183655267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|23.8||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|42.3||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||42.3|5.3|0.0136
91880508|NCT02979613|183655268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-2.9||||0.2803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.6||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory Criteria||2.6|-8.4|0.2803
91907705|NCT02819635|183710739|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|26.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||26.4|11.0|<0.001
91749590|NCT00557310|183391749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91802440|NCT03855228|183482570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91880509|NCT02979613|183655268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-5.9||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.7||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||0.7|-12.6|0.0788
91749591|NCT00557310|183391750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.011
91749592|NCT00557310|183391750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.049
91749593|NCT00557310|183391751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.700
91749594|NCT00557310|183391751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.092
91749595|NCT00557310|183391752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.013
91749596|NCT00557310|183391752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
91749597|NCT00557310|183391753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.106
91749598|NCT00557310|183391753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.436
91749599|NCT00557310|183391754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 3 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||<0.001
91749600|NCT00557310|183391754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 6 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||<0.001
91749601|NCT00557310|183391754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||<0.001
91749602|NCT00557310|183391755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 3 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.012
91749603|NCT00557310|183391755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 6 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.012
91749604|NCT00557310|183391755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.016
91749605|NCT02351349|183391759|OTHER|paired t test pre compared to post readings||||||0.0143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0143
91749606|NCT02351349|183391760|OTHER|as above||||||0.1416|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||pre and post comparison of time up and go in intervention group||||0.1416
91749607|NCT02351349|183391761|OTHER|||||||0.9013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||pre and post value comparison with paired t test was carried out||||0.9013
91749608|NCT01509677|183391808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7922||||||"This is p-value testing significance of treatment effect"|Poisson regression model|||2-sided test at 5% significant level||||0.7922
91749609|NCT01509677|183391808|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||Poisson regression model|||||1.30|0.82|0.7917
91749610|NCT01509677|183391809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7145||||||"This is p-value testing significance of treatment effect"|Poisson regression model|||2-sided, 5% test||||0.7145
91749611|NCT01509677|183391810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.30|0.83|0.7136
91749612|NCT01509677|183391811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.45||0.4606||95.0|-19.2|42.1|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||42.1|-19.2|0.4606
91749613|NCT01509677|183391812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.64|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.64|0.87|0.2744
91749614|NCT01509677|183391813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.04|0.70|0.1128
91749615|NCT01509677|183391814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31|||Regression, Linear|Poisson regression model||2-sided 5% test||1.31|0.66|0.6740
91749616|NCT01509677|183391815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.01|0.69|0.0677
91749617|NCT01509677|183391816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.3566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.25|0.54|0.3566
91749618|NCT01509677|183391817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.30185||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9429|6.2137|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||6.2137|-2.9429|0.4794
91749619|NCT01509677|183391818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32866||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|1.1264|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||1.1264|-0.1810|0.1541
91749620|NCT01509677|183391819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03681||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1358|0.0106|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||0.0106|-0.1358|0.0927
91749621|NCT01509677|183391820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01647||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0435|0.022|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||0.0220|-0.0435|0.5175
91880510|NCT02979613|183655269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-23.9||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|3.4||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory Criteria||3.4|-51.2|0.0880
91880511|NCT02979613|183655269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-18.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|0.2||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||0.2|-37.4|0.0510
91880512|NCT02979613|183655270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in least squares mean (LSM), and its 95% CI were derived from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||0.00|-0.03|0.0186
91880513|NCT02979613|183655271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.0||||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||0.01|-0.02|0.6956
91880514|NCT02979613|183655272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.536|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||1.536|0.797|< 0.0001
91880515|NCT02979613|183655273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.977||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.49|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||1.490|0.465|0.0002
91880516|NCT02979613|183655274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.275|2.486|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||2.486|1.275|< 0.0001
91749622|NCT01509677|183391821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3253||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.466|8.757|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||8.757|-4.466|0.5205
91880517|NCT02979613|183655275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.604||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.317|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||1.317|-0.110|0.0970
91880518|NCT02979613|183655276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare the 2 treatment groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||< 0.0001
91880519|NCT02979613|183655277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7535||||||P-values were from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare the 2 treatment groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7535
91749623|NCT01509677|183391822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0057||0.7052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.835|7.117|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||7.117|-4.835|0.7052
91749624|NCT01509677|183391823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7331||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.324|-0.409|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||-0.409|-3.324|0.0127
91749625|NCT01509677|183391824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1871||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.321|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||0.321|-0.423|0.7862
91880520|NCT05294328|183655281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
91749626|NCT01509677|183391825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.15|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||2.15|-1.84|0.8769
91749627|NCT01509677|183391826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|711.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2768.79||0.7978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4778.3|6200.5|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||6200.5|-4778.3|0.7978
91749628|NCT01509677|183391827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.26||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|245.6|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||245.6|-68.6|0.2669
91802441|NCT03855228|183482570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802442|NCT03855228|183482570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91749629|NCT01509677|183391828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.78||0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.3|108.5|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||108.5|-160.3|0.7033
91749630|NCT01509677|183391829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.039||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|63.55|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||63.55|-7.97|0.1264
91749631|NCT01509677|183391830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|296.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.07||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.9|542.7|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||542.7|50.9|0.0185
91880521|NCT05294328|183655281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
91880522|NCT02056873|183655282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"At 6 months post-surgery the YGTSS scores of each subjects is statistically tested against their baseline scores.~A decrease in this tic severity scale means that the severity of the tics have reduced.~Hence, we performed a superiority test, which statistically verifies if the reduction in the tic severity scale was meaningful."||||0.05
91880523|NCT01751165|183655329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-nferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE ELISA geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (0,2-month schedule over 0,6-month schedule) at one month post-dose 2 had to be below 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.98|1.39|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority in terms of anti-gE humoral immune response one month post-dose 2 given according to a 0,6-month schedule compared to a 0,2-month schedule.||1.39|0.98|
91880524|NCT01751165|183655329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-nferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE ELISA geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (0,2-month schedule over 0,6-month schedule) at one month post-dose 2 had to be below 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.53|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority in terms of anti-gE humoral immune response one month post-dose 2 given according to a 0,12-month schedule compared to a 0,2-month schedule.||1.53|0.93|
91880525|NCT01036165|183655340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean positive response|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.86|||||Confidence Interval calculated from normal approximation to the binomial. The primary objective was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.50.|||0.86|0.70|
91888985|NCT01465763|183670746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model|||At Week 2: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect.||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
91880526|NCT01475461|183655342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||0.23|-0.21|0.5206
91749632|NCT01509677|183391831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.9989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||0.17|-0.17|0.9989
91749633|NCT01509677|183391832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.309||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|2.03|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||2.03|-3.15|0.6701
91749634|NCT01509677|183391833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||3.9|-0.4|0.1105
91749635|NCT01509677|183391834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.9261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|29.5|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||29.5|-32.4|0.9261
91749636|NCT01509677|183391835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|19.0|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||19.0|1.2|0.0257
91749637|NCT01509677|183391836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.11||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|168.6|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||168.6|-3.0|0.0728
91749638|NCT01509677|183391837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.122|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||0.122|0.004|0.0380
91749639|NCT01509677|183391838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0552||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.173|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||0.173|-0.045|0.2482
91749640|NCT01509677|183391839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between treatment difference||2 sided 5 % test||1.00|-2.00|0.2629
91749641|NCT03549871|183391854|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.389|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.675||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|Repeated measures NB regression model|||Analyzed using repeated measures NB model with fixed effect of treatment period (fitusiran efficacy period or factor/BPA prophylaxis period) and robust sandwich covariance matrix was constructed to account for within participant dependence, logarithm of duration (in years) that each participant spends in each study period matching BE data being analyzed as an offset variable.||0.675|0.224|=0.0008
91749642|NCT03549871|183391856|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.842||||||||0.842|0.234|
91749643|NCT03549871|183391858|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|0.91||||||||0.910|0.259|
91749644|NCT01357161|183391873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.89|||Cox proportional hazards model|||A stratified \[number of prior platinum based regimens (1 vs. 2 and 3), time since last platinum based therapy (\<12 months vs. ≥12 months)\] Cox proportional hazards model, with Efron method of tie handling, was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference between the treatment arms. The p-value from the score test was used in the significance test and the hazard ratio (MK-1775 versus Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval from the same Cox model was reported.||0.89|0.45|0.080
91749645|NCT01357161|183391875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.39|0.79|||Cox proportional hazards model|||A stratified \[number of prior platinum based regimens (1 vs. 2 and 3), time since last platinum based therapy (\<12 months vs. ≥12 months)\] Cox proportional hazards model, with Efron method of tie handling, was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference between the treatment arms. The p-value from the score test was used in the significance test and the hazard ratio (MK-1775 versus Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval from the same Cox model was reported.||0.79|0.39|0.030
91749646|NCT01357161|183391877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|11.4||||||P-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for between-treatment differences (MK-1775 vs. placebo) in the percentage of participants with events.||11.4|-2.9|
91749647|NCT01357161|183391878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.6||||||P-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for between-treatment differences (MK-1775 vs. placebo) in the percentage of participants with events.||13.6|-16.2|
91749648|NCT01357161|183391879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rat|5.2||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|21.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's Method|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen's method with a two-sided p-Value for testing was used for comparison of the ORRs between the treatment groups in Part 2 portion of the study. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates was provided.||21.1|-10.9|0.5247
91749649|NCT01357161|183391880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.34|||Cox proportional hazards model|||A stratified \[number of prior platinum based regimens (1 vs. 2 and 3), time since last platinum based therapy (\<12 months vs. ≥12 months)\] Cox proportional hazards model, with Efron method of tie handling, was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference between the treatment arms. The p-value from the score test was used in the significance test and the hazard ratio (MK-1775 versus Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval from the same Cox model was reported.||3.34|0.40|0.800
91749650|NCT00433160|183391886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement Point. No adjustments for multiplicity was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in bone mineral density at lumbar spine (L2-L4) after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91802443|NCT03855228|183482570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802444|NCT03855228|183482570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.02
91880527|NCT01475461|183655342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.1645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|0.05||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo||0.05|-0.40|0.1645
91880528|NCT01475461|183655342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|0.05||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||0.05|-0.39|0.1592
91880529|NCT01475461|183655342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.68|-0.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.23|-0.68|0.0049
91880530|NCT01475461|183655342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.21||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.21|-0.65|0.0068
91880531|NCT01475461|183655343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|0.09||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.09|-0.16|0.3434
91907706|NCT02819635|183710739|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|27.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||27.2|11.7|<0.001
91907707|NCT02819635|183710740|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|44.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|54.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||54.7|34.5|<0.001
91907708|NCT02819635|183710740|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|66.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||66.0|47.2|<0.001
91749651|NCT00433160|183391890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 4. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 4-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91749652|NCT00433160|183391890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 12. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 12-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91802445|NCT03855228|183482571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.35
91802446|NCT03855228|183482571|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91880532|NCT01475461|183655343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|-0.01||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.27|0.0892
91880533|NCT01475461|183655343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|-0.01||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.26|0.0826
91749653|NCT00433160|183391890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 24. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 24-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91802447|NCT03855228|183482571|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802448|NCT03855228|183482571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.03
91802449|NCT03855228|183482571|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802450|NCT03855228|183482571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.02
91802451|NCT03855228|183482572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.77
91802452|NCT03855228|183482572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91880534|NCT01475461|183655343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|-0.15||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.15|-0.40|0.0031
91880535|NCT01475461|183655343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.2||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.20|-0.45|0.0005
91749654|NCT00433160|183391890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 52. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91749655|NCT00433160|183391890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP from baseline to the last measurement point between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91749656|NCT00433160|183391891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 4. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 4-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91749657|NCT00433160|183391891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 12. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 12-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91749658|NCT00433160|183391891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 24. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 24-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91749659|NCT00433160|183391891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 52. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wicoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||0.060
91749660|NCT00433160|183391891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP from baseline to the last measurement point between the two treatment groups.||||0.130
91749661|NCT00433160|183391892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.976||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 4. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 4-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||0.976
91749662|NCT00433160|183391892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 12. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 12-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91749663|NCT00433160|183391892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 24. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 24-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91749664|NCT00433160|183391892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 52. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91749665|NCT00433160|183391892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX from baseline to the last measurement point between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91749666|NCT02240368|183391906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||bootstrap|||||||<0.01
91802453|NCT03855228|183482572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91749667|NCT02240368|183391907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||bootstrap|||||||<0.01
91749668|NCT02240368|183391908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91749669|NCT02240368|183391909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91749670|NCT02793817|183391918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|8.3||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.7||To account for multiplicity, a step-down testing procedure was applied, whereby inference for a test in the pre-defined hierarchy was dependent upon statistical significance having been demonstrated for the previous test in the hierarchy.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|P-values were based on 2-sided chi-squared tests (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.05.||14.7|2.0|0.0105
91802454|NCT03855228|183482572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802455|NCT03855228|183482572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802456|NCT03855228|183482572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.45
91802457|NCT03855228|183482573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.99
91802458|NCT03855228|183482573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91880536|NCT01475461|183655343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.5133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.19||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.19|-0.18|0.5133
91880537|NCT01475461|183655343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.06||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.06|-0.33|0.1873
91880538|NCT01475461|183655343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.212|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.07||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.07|-0.30|0.2120
91802459|NCT03855228|183482573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91880539|NCT01475461|183655343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|-0.35||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.35|-0.73|0.0001
91880540|NCT01475461|183655343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.61|-0.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.23|-0.61|0.0021
91802460|NCT03855228|183482573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802461|NCT03855228|183482573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802462|NCT03855228|183482573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.08
91880541|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.823||0.724|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.32|9.07||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||9.07|-3.32|0.7240
91880542|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.952||0.3608|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.13|4.59||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.59|-8.13|0.3608
91907709|NCT02819635|183710741|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|32.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||32.8|14.8|<0.001
91907710|NCT02819635|183710741|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|46.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||46.8|27.8|<0.001
91802463|NCT03855228|183482574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.85
91802464|NCT03855228|183482574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802465|NCT03855228|183482574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802466|NCT03855228|183482574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802467|NCT03855228|183482574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802468|NCT03855228|183482574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.17
91802469|NCT03855228|183482575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.88
91802470|NCT03855228|183482575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802471|NCT03855228|183482575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802472|NCT03855228|183482575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802473|NCT03855228|183482575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802474|NCT03855228|183482575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.22
91802475|NCT03855228|183482576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.65
91802476|NCT03855228|183482576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802477|NCT03855228|183482576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802478|NCT03855228|183482576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91880543|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.816||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.42|2.95||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.95|-9.42|0.2511
91749671|NCT02793817|183391919|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|28.4||To account for multiplicity, a step-down closed testing procedure was applied, whereby inference for a test in the pre-defined hierarchy was dependent upon statistical significance having been demonstrated for the previous test in the hierarchy.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|P-values were based on 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted), wherein a priori significance level was 0.05||28.4|11.6|<0.0001
91749672|NCT02793817|183391920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|25.0||P-value was based on a 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.0167 for each secondary endpoint. Overall alpha for all secondary endpoints was controlled at 0.05.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|||25.0|9.1|<0.0001
91749673|NCT02793817|183391921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|26.9||P-value was based on a 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.0167 for each secondary endpoint. Overall alpha for all secondary endpoints was controlled at 0.05.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|||26.9|11.0|<0.0001
91802479|NCT03855228|183482576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91880544|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.851||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.51|-1.05||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-1.05|-13.51|0.0673
91749674|NCT02793817|183391922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for change from BL.|P-value was based on a 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.0167 for each secondary endpoint. Overall alpha for all secondary endpoints was controlled at 0.05.||-0.05|-0.31|0.0078
91880545|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.843||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.44|-5.0||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-5.00|-17.44|0.0106
91880546|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.73|5.47||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.47|-7.73|0.4127
91749675|NCT02793817|183391923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11||P-values have no inferential value for post hoc evaluations.|Chi-squared|Without any adjustment for covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference in change from BL|||-0.11|-0.38|0.0005
91749676|NCT02793817|183391924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.03||P-values have no inferential value for post hoc evaluations.|Chi-squared|Without adjustments for any covariates.|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for change from BL|||-0.03|-0.28|0.0169
91802480|NCT03855228|183482576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.92
91880547|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.261||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.64|4.87||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.87|-8.64|0.3604
91880548|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.147||0.077|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.96|-0.74||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.74|-13.96|0.0770
91880549|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.171||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.43|-2.15||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-2.15|-15.43|0.0451
91907711|NCT02819635|183710742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.98|40.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/ no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||40.70|21.98|<0.001
91802481|NCT03855228|183482577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.95
91802482|NCT03855228|183482577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.01
91802483|NCT03855228|183482577|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91802484|NCT03855228|183482577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.01
91880550|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.191||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.57|-13.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-13.23|-26.57|0.0001
91880551|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.599||0.5783|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.08|8.3||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.30|-6.08|0.5783
91880552|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.5|5.36||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.36|-9.50|0.3604
91880553|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.636||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.36|-4.88||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-4.88|-19.36|0.0161
91880554|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.663||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.68|2.87||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.87|-11.68|0.2185
91880555|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.649||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.67|-8.16||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-8.16|-22.67|0.0034
91880556|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.387||0.5727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.03|9.37||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||9.37|-7.03|0.5727
91907712|NCT02819635|183710742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|41.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.39|50.55||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/ no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||50.55|31.39|<0.001
91749677|NCT03995680|183391939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Egg Reduction Rate (%)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|12.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, weight and baseline hookworm infection intensity (light or moderate/heavy)||The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ERRs and the difference between ERRs were estimated via bootstrap resampling. Superiority was claimed if the 95% confidence interval of the difference in ERRs did not include unity. Logistic regression models were used to assess efficacy in terms of CRs. In a subsequent analysis an adjusted logistic regression (adjustment for age, sex, weight and baseline infection intensity) was performed.||12.6|-7.8|
91749678|NCT00871117|183391940|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-group differences in booster response to diphtheria was greater than or equal to (≥)-10%.|Difference in booster response rates|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|2.58||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of diphtheria (D) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||2.58|-2.54|
91749679|NCT00871117|183391940|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to tetanus was ≥ -10%.|Difference in booster response rates|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|4.26||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of tetanus (T) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||4.26|-1.99|
91880557|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.578||0.4961|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.51|8.38||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.38|-8.51|0.4961
91880558|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.411||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.33|4.14||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.14|-12.33|0.2616
91880559|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.441||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|17.34||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||17.34|0.79|0.9197
91880560|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.398||0.086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.98|-0.54||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.54|-16.98|0.0860
91880561|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.476||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.1|8.53||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.53|-8.10|0.5132
91880562|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.676||0.656|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.89|11.26||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.26|-5.89|0.6560
91880563|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.496||0.8285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.17|14.52||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||14.52|-2.17|0.8285
91880564|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.527||0.9925|TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.59|24.36||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||24.36|7.59|0.9925
91880565|NCT01475461|183655344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.487||0.601|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.67|10.0||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||10.00|-6.67|0.6010
91880566|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.18|1.34||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.34|0.18|0.0913
91907713|NCT02819635|183710743|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|20.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||20.0|6.0|<0.001
91907714|NCT02819635|183710743|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|20.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||20.6|6.6|<0.001
91749680|NCT00871117|183391941|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to PT was ≥ -10%|Difference in booster response rates|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.51||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||3.51|-5.07|
91880567|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.5236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.89||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.89|-0.30|0.5236
91880568|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.53|0.62||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.62|-0.53|0.9244
91880569|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.28|0.88||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.88|-0.28|0.5066
91907715|NCT02819635|183710744|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|48.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||48.5|28.9|<0.001
91749681|NCT00871117|183391941|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to FHA was ≥ -10%.|Difference in booster response rates|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.39||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||1.39|-3.59|
91802485|NCT03855228|183482577|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91880570|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||0.8947|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.64|0.52||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.52|-0.64|0.8947
91880571|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|1.52||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.52|0.30|0.0577
91749682|NCT00871117|183391941|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to PRN, was ≥ -10%.|Difference in booster response rates|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|4.08||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of pertactin (PRN) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||4.08|-0.32|
91880572|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.12|1.14||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.14|-0.12|0.3012
91880573|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.3165|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|1.09||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.09|-0.13|0.3165
91880574|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|0.93||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.93|-0.31|0.5191
91880575|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.93||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.93|-0.30|0.5107
91907716|NCT02819635|183710744|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|54.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||54.8|35.5|<0.001
91749683|NCT00871117|183391942|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratios for poliovirus type 1 antigens was ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs), one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||1.1|0.76|
91749684|NCT00871117|183391942|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratios of poliovirus type 2 antigens was ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs), one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||0.99|0.7|
91749685|NCT00871117|183391942|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratios of poliovirus type 3 antigens was ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs), one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||1.01|0.71|
91749686|NCT03222973|183391960|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.15||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.35||P-values are based on the Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) adjusted for background DMT group, baseline magnetization transfer ratio (MTR)/diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) category and baseline component assessments.|MMRM|||Over 72 weeks: Overall Response Score||0.35|-0.05|0.1479
91749687|NCT03222973|183391962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.79||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.65|0.7682
91749688|NCT03222973|183391963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.22||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.22|0.41|0.2131
91749689|NCT03222973|183391964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.41||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.47|0.4654
91749690|NCT03222973|183391965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.11||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|1.02|0.0417
91749691|NCT03222973|183391966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.33||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.33|0.78|0.2908
91802486|NCT03855228|183482577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.58
91802487|NCT03855228|183482578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
91802488|NCT03855228|183482578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91802489|NCT03855228|183482578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91880576|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.17|1.42||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.42|0.17|0.1054
91880577|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.502||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.96||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.96|-0.33|0.5341
91880578|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.2782|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|1.15||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.15|-0.10|0.2782
91907717|NCT02819635|183710745|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|34.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||34.5|14.2|<0.001
91907718|NCT02819635|183710745|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|43.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||43.9|23.6|<0.001
91907719|NCT02819635|183710746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|7.52||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||7.52|2.67|<0.001
91907720|NCT02819635|183710746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|8.27||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||8.27|3.44|<0.001
91907721|NCT01471015|183710777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91907722|NCT01471015|183710778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91802490|NCT03855228|183482578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91880579|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.5331|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.32|0.94||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.94|-0.32|0.5331
91907723|NCT04962022|183710784|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir co-administered with itraconazole was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|118.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.5|124.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means"|||124.97|112.50|0.05
91907724|NCT04962022|183710785|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir co-administered with itraconazole was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|138.82||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.25|149.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means"|||149.11|129.25|0.05
91802491|NCT03855228|183482578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91907725|NCT00330382|183710805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.11|||>|0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||Correlation of percent change in buccal-cell Neu with relative percent change in total lesion area||||>0.45
91907726|NCT00330382|183710805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.92|||>|0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||Correlation of percent change in protease activity with relative percent change in total lesion area||||> 0.88
91907727|NCT00330382|183710805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.07|||>|0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||Correlation of percent change in serum Neu with relative percent change in total lesion area||||> 0.66
91907728|NCT02684604|183710806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91907729|NCT02285777|183710829|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|71.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|73.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 1 month after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100.The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||73|69|0.0001
91802492|NCT03855228|183482578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
91802493|NCT03855228|183482579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
91802494|NCT03855228|183482579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91802495|NCT03855228|183482579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91802496|NCT03855228|183482579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91802497|NCT03855228|183482579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91880580|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489||0.907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|0.68||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.68|-0.57|0.9070
91749692|NCT02080481|183391978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.76|||Regression, Linear|intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between randomized groups and was adjusted for in the linear regression model.||||0.76|0.61|< 0.001
91749693|NCT02080481|183391979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.25|9.6|||Regression, Logistic|intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between randomized groups and was adjusted for in the logistic regression model.|Odds ratio for Infiniti Plus versus conventional needle patients|||9.6|0.25|0.56
91749694|NCT02080481|183391980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.01|1.78||Intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between groups and adjusted for in the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.01|0.06
91749695|NCT02080481|183391981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-7.7|14.6|||Regression, Linear|Intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between randomized groups and adjusted for in the linear regression model.||||14.6|-7.7|0.74
91749696|NCT03998670|183391986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||||Difference in mean control and 95% confidence interval (CI) are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding baseline control score. Prism group minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group worse than Non-Prism group).|The primary analysis was the treatment group difference (and 95% CI) in mean distance control at the 8-week outcome visit using an ANCOVA adjusted for baseline distance control. The planned convenience sample size of 64 was expected to provide outcome data for at least 60 participants (30 per group).||1.1|-0.5|
91749697|NCT03998670|183391987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|32.0|||||Difference between Prism minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group better than Non-Prism group).|||32|-17|
91749698|NCT03998670|183391988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|19.0|||||Difference between Prism minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group better than Non-Prism group).|||19|-27|
91749699|NCT03998670|183391990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Difference in mean control and 95% confidence interval (CI) are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding baseline control score. Prism group minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group worse than Non-Prism group).|The secondary analysis was the treatment group difference (and 95% CI) in mean near control at the 8-week outcome visit using an ANCOVA adjusted for baseline near control.||0.7|-0.7|
91749700|NCT03730961|183392017|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|-448.0||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-714.0|-183.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-183|-714|0.0021
91749701|NCT03730961|183392017|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.1||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-3.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.51|-40.7|0.0222
91749702|NCT03730961|183392018|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|-0.876|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.876|-7.63|0.0163
91749703|NCT03730961|183392018|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|8.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.77|-38.8|0.2018
91749704|NCT03730961|183392018|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.61||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|0.0446|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0446|-7.27|0.0526
91749705|NCT03730961|183392018|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9|-38.8|0.2076
91749706|NCT03730961|183392019|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|0.431||||0.1621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.05|-0.189|0.1621
91749707|NCT03730961|183392019|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|32.0||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|61.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||61.3|2.72|0.0338
91749708|NCT03730961|183392019|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|0.766||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0353|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.57|-0.0353|0.0600
91749709|NCT03730961|183392019|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|33.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.02|63.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||63|4.02|0.0280
91749710|NCT03730961|183392022|SUPERIORITY||Difference between drug and placebo|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.74||||||||||||||||
91749711|NCT00901511|183392065|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the median time to rescue WLL in the GM-CSF Group minus the median the time to rescue WLL in the Control Group|||||0.0078
91749712|NCT00901511|183392066|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.0||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|39.9|||Fisher Exact||Calculated as risk ratio of rescue WLL in the Control Group compared to the risk ratio of rescue WLL in the GM-CSF Group|||39.9|1.60|0.0152
91749713|NCT00901511|183392067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.3|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the between group difference in mean PaO2 in the Control Group|||13.3|5.7|<0.0001
91749714|NCT00901511|183392067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|28.16|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the pre-WLL visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||28.16|2.04|0.0261
91749715|NCT00901511|183392067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|23.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||23.03|3.92|0.1521
91802498|NCT03855228|183482579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91880581|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.04|1.35||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.35|0.04|0.1757
91880582|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|1.11||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.11|-0.24|0.4083
91880583|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|1.17||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.17|-0.14|0.3150
91880584|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.44|0.89||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.89|-0.44|0.6631
91907730|NCT02285777|183710830|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|51.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|55.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 4 months after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||55|48|0.0001
91907731|NCT02285777|183710831|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|51.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|54.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 1 month after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||54|48|0.0001
91907732|NCT02285777|183710831|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|24.0||||0.0001||95.0|20.0|28.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 4 months after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||28|20|0.0001
91749716|NCT00901511|183392067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.26|29.82|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||29.82|6.26|0.0051
91749717|NCT00901511|183392067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|29.88|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||29.88|10.63|0.0004
91880585|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.74|0.57||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.57|-0.74|0.8694
91907733|NCT00552175|183710853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|The primary objective and primary efficacy analysis for the study was the analysis between the combined duloxetine arms and placebo.||-0.56|-1.17|<0.0001
91907734|NCT00552175|183710855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.64||P-value for Worst Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.64|-1.27|<0.0001
91749718|NCT00901511|183392067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.43|32.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||32.40|7.43|0.0038
91802499|NCT02400333|183482596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.77|93.78||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||93.78|76.77|
91880586|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|1.4||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.40|0.00|0.2031
91749719|NCT00901511|183392067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|30.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||30.03|3.81|0.0149
91749720|NCT00901511|183392067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|33.79|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.79|4.26|0.0148
91749721|NCT00901511|183392067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|25.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.|Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|25.02|-3.02|0.1158
91749722|NCT00901511|183392068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-5.4|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean value of A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of A-aDO2 in the Control Group|Primary analysis||-5.4|-14.8|<0.0001
91749723|NCT00901511|183392068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.19|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the pre-WLL visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.27|-25.19|0.0545
91749724|NCT00901511|183392068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.2802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.52|6.35|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||6.35|-20.52|0.2802
91880587|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|0.93||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.93|-0.52|0.7137
91880588|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.681|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.92||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.92|-0.48|0.6810
91880589|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.49||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.49|-0.92|0.6921
91880590|NCT01475461|183655351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|0.21||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.21|-1.19|0.3702
91880591|NCT01049984|183655362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.5||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures model with baseline score as a covariate and factors Treatment, Week in Study, Pooled Center and Week by Treatment interaction.||||-0.5|-4.3|0.012
91749725|NCT00901511|183392068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.85|-3.76|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.76|-29.85|0.0148
91749726|NCT00901511|183392068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.18|-8.36|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 3 -month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-8.36|-29.18|0.0015
91749727|NCT00901511|183392068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.49|-6.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-6.70|-31.49|0.0049
91880592|NCT01049984|183655363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures model with baseline score as a covariate and factors Treatment, Week in Study, Pooled Center and Week by Treatment interaction.||||0.3|-1.1|0.301
91907735|NCT00552175|183710855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.51||P-value for Night Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of night pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.51|-1.15|<0.0001
91880593|NCT01049984|183655364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.5||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures model with baseline score as a covariate and factors Treatment, Week in Study, Pooled Center and Week by Treatment interaction.||||-0.5|-3.1|0.007
91749728|NCT00901511|183392068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.23|-3.48|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.48|-28.23|0.0152
91749729|NCT00901511|183392068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.31|-3.71|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.71|-30.31|0.0154
91749730|NCT00901511|183392068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.05|2.02|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||2.02|-24.05|0.0921
91749731|NCT00901511|183392069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|21.3|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean value of the DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of the DLCO in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||21.3|1.9|0.0220
91749732|NCT00901511|183392069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|25.63|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||25.63|-9.06|0.3186
91749733|NCT00901511|183392069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.51|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||19.51|-8.40|0.4111
91749734|NCT00901511|183392069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.53||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|26.73|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||26.73|-0.95|0.0658
91907736|NCT00552175|183710856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain analysis||-0.49|-1.26|
91907737|NCT00552175|183710856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain analysis||-0.66|-1.43|
91907738|NCT00552175|183710856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of night pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Night Pain analysis||-0.39|-1.17|
91749735|NCT00901511|183392069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|26.34|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||26.34|-6.78|0.2287
91749736|NCT00901511|183392069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|30.64|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||30.64|-4.86|0.1432
91802500|NCT02400333|183482596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.22|105.79||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||105.79|88.22|
91802501|NCT02400333|183482596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.59|99.25||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.25|85.59|
91907739|NCT00552175|183710856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of night pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Night Pain analysis||-0.5|-1.28|
91880594|NCT01049984|183655365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||||||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted. Only participants with assessment (\>0) are included in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH used the proportion of participants in each category between the two treatment arms, with treatment and pooled center as strata.||||||0.255
91749737|NCT00901511|183392069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|29.73|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||29.73|-6.17|0.1833
91749738|NCT00901511|183392069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|32.23|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||32.23|-6.90|0.1888
91749739|NCT00901511|183392069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79||0.6374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|22.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||22.85|-14.41|0.6374
91749740|NCT00901511|183392070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|9.9|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean value of VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of VC in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||9.90|-5.30|0.5320
91749741|NCT00901511|183392070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|19.52|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||19.52|-13.09|0.6772
91749742|NCT00901511|183392070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.52|15.64|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||15.64|-12.52|0.8320
91749743|NCT00901511|183392070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|18.14|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||18.14|-15.19|0.8532
91749744|NCT00901511|183392070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|18.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||18.44|-14.00|0.7752
91880595|NCT01049984|183655366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||||||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted. Only participants with assessment (\>0) are included in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH used the proportion of participants in each category between the two treatment arms, with treatment and pooled center as strata.||||||0.996
91880596|NCT01049984|183655367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967||||||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted. Only participants with assessment (\>0) are included in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH used the proportion of participants in each category between the two treatment arms, with treatment, pooled center, and baseline value as strata.||||||0.967
91749745|NCT00901511|183392070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.65||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|24.18|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean value of VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||24.18|-12.70|0.5174
91880597|NCT00337285|183655368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91880598|NCT00337285|183655370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91749746|NCT00901511|183392070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|19.94|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||19.94|-12.61|0.6393
91749747|NCT00901511|183392070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|22.73|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||22.73|-12.28|0.5361
91802502|NCT02400333|183482596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.03|98.39||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.39|82.03|
91802503|NCT02400333|183482596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|97.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.53|104.9||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||104.90|90.53|
91907740|NCT00552175|183710857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.44|-0.85|<0.0001
91749748|NCT00901511|183392070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|16.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.|Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|16.60|-13.26|0.8159
91749749|NCT00901511|183392071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.822||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.01|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the median value of the GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median value of the GGO Score in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||0.01|-1.70|0.0530
91749750|NCT00901511|183392071|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||>0.9999
91749751|NCT00901511|183392071|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0332
91749752|NCT00901511|183392071|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0676
91749753|NCT00901511|183392071|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0629
91749754|NCT00901511|183392071|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||>0.9999
91749755|NCT00901511|183392072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.22|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the CEA levels in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||-0.22|-0.71|0.0010
91749756|NCT00901511|183392072|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0059
91749757|NCT00901511|183392072|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.45||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0382
91749758|NCT00901511|183392072|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0770
91749759|NCT00901511|183392072|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0400
91749760|NCT00901511|183392072|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0142
91749761|NCT00901511|183392072|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0071
91749762|NCT00901511|183392072|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0137
91880599|NCT00553605|183655371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference (parecoxib - ketoprofen) was greater than -10 mm.|Least-squares (LS) mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|4.3||||||LS mean difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||4.30|-6.53|
91880600|NCT00553605|183655372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|4.86|||ANCOVA|||p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||4.86|-5.04|0.972
91880601|NCT00553605|183655374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|5.79|||ANCOVA|||Minute 15: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||5.79|-4.28|0.768
91880602|NCT00553605|183655374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|5.24|||ANCOVA|||Minute 30: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||5.24|-6.22|0.866
91907741|NCT00552175|183710858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.39|-0.9|
91880603|NCT00553605|183655374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|6.26|||ANCOVA|||Minute 45: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||6.26|-4.38|0.729
91880604|NCT00553605|183655374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|7.48|||ANCOVA|||Minute 60: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||7.48|-2.24|0.290
91880605|NCT00553605|183655374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|6.37|||ANCOVA|||Minute 90: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||6.37|-2.05|0.314
91880606|NCT00553605|183655374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|3.55|||ANCOVA|||Minute 120: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||3.55|-3.23|0.926
91907742|NCT00552175|183710858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.4|-0.91|
91907743|NCT00552175|183710859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.61||P-value for Worst Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.61|-1.34|<0.0001
91907744|NCT00552175|183710859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.48||P-value for Least Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of least pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.48|-1.21|<0.0001
91749763|NCT00901511|183392072|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0315
91749764|NCT00901511|183392073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3689.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6972.0|-406.0|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the KL-6 levels in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||-406|-6972|0.0300
91802504|NCT02400333|183482596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|97.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.83|103.74||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||103.74|90.83|
91907745|NCT00552175|183710859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.67||P-value for Average Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.67|-1.33|<0.0001
91802505|NCT02400333|183482597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.33|99.99||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.99|90.33|
91880607|NCT00553605|183655375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.43||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|36.54|||ANCOVA|||p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country as covariates.||36.54|-16.3|0.451
91880608|NCT00553605|183655376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3982|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 30: p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.3982
91880609|NCT00553605|183655376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 120: p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.5552
91880610|NCT00553605|183655377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.007||||0.9785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||p-value was based on logistic regression model with terms for treatment group and baseline as covariates.||1.69|0.60|0.9785
91880611|NCT00553605|183655378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 30: p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.2482
91880612|NCT00553605|183655378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7659|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 120: p-value was calculated using CMH model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.7659
91880613|NCT00553605|183655379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9783|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 30: p-value was calculated using CMH model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.9783
91749765|NCT00901511|183392073|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3265.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0770
91880614|NCT00553605|183655379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6847|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 120: p-value was calculated using CMH model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.6847
91749766|NCT00901511|183392073|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5018.0||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0745
91749767|NCT00901511|183392073|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6343.0||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.2581
91749768|NCT00901511|183392073|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4102.0||||0.4894|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.4894
91880615|NCT00553605|183655380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9645|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9645
91880616|NCT01040403|183655392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.092|0.016|
91880617|NCT01040403|183655392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.103|0.027|
91880618|NCT01040403|183655392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.122|0.046|
91749769|NCT00901511|183392073|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6818.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||>0.9999
91749770|NCT00901511|183392073|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1570.0||||0.8633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.8633
91749771|NCT00901511|183392073|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4200.0||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.3401
91880619|NCT01040403|183655392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.049|-0.027|
91880620|NCT01040403|183655392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.069|-0.008|
91880621|NCT01040403|183655392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.058|-0.019|
91880622|NCT01040403|183655392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.089|0.013|
91880623|NCT01040403|183655392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.122|0.045|
91880624|NCT01040403|183655392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.119|0.042|
91880625|NCT01040403|183655392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.071|-0.006|
91880626|NCT01040403|183655392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.068|-0.009|
91880627|NCT01040403|183655392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.035|-0.041|
91749772|NCT00901511|183392073|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4307.0||||0.2973|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.2973
91749773|NCT00901511|183392074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.04|||Repeated measures ANOVA||Calculated as the between group difference in the serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||-0.04|-0.44|0.220
91749774|NCT00901511|183392074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|•The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.42|-28.80|0.0560
91749775|NCT00901511|183392074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.29|-8.80|0.0648
91749776|NCT00901511|183392074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|-1.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-1.25|-11.28|0.0175
91749777|NCT00901511|183392074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.85|-3.76|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.76|-29.85|0.0148
91749778|NCT00901511|183392074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|-1.56|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-1.56|-9.27|0.0089
91749779|NCT00901511|183392074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-0.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-0.43|-9.92|0.0343
91749780|NCT00901511|183392074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.69|-9.21|0.0871
91749781|NCT00901511|183392074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|2.06|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||2.06|-8.09|0.2265
91749782|NCT00901511|183392075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.78||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.3865
91749783|NCT00901511|183392075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.82||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.1672
91749784|NCT00901511|183392075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.24||||0.4363|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.4363
91749785|NCT00901511|183392075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.34||||0.1615|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.1615
91880628|NCT01040403|183655393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.159|0.040|
91749786|NCT00901511|183392075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.71||||0.1615|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.1615
91749787|NCT00901511|183392075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.3865
91749788|NCT00901511|183392075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.6475|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||• Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.6475
91749789|NCT00901511|183392075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.6481|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.6481
91749790|NCT00901511|183392076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.06|-3.17|0.0582
91749791|NCT00901511|183392076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|3.48|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||3.48|-1.17|0.3068
91749792|NCT00901511|183392076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||1.15|-2.04|0.5647
91749793|NCT00901511|183392076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.40|-2.11|0.1669
91749794|NCT00901511|183392076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.93|-1.99|0.4530
91749795|NCT00901511|183392076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.4594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.97|-2.04|0.4594
91749796|NCT00901511|183392076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||1.00|-1.61|0.6302
91749797|NCT00901511|183392076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.80|-2.24|0.3300
91802506|NCT02400333|183482597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.94|101.21||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||101.21|89.94|
91880629|NCT01040403|183655393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.179|0.061|
91880630|NCT01040403|183655393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.160|0.041|
91880631|NCT01040403|183655393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.079|-0.039|
91880632|NCT01040403|183655393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.061|-0.059|
91880633|NCT01040403|183655393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.040|-0.079|
91880634|NCT01040403|183655393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.190|0.071|
91880635|NCT01040403|183655393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.191|0.072|
91880636|NCT01040403|183655393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.187|0.067|
91880637|NCT01040403|183655393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.061|-0.059|
91880638|NCT01040403|183655393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.056|-0.063|
91880639|NCT01040403|183655393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.055|-0.064|
91880640|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.114|0.035|
91880641|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.137|0.057|
91880642|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.159|0.079|
91880643|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.062|-0.017|
91880644|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.085|0.004|
91880645|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-3h||0.062|-0.018|
91880646|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.137|0.057|
91880647|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.168|0.088|
91880648|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.183|0.103|
91880649|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.071|-0.009|
91880650|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.086|0.006|
91880651|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-3h||0.055|-0.025|
91880652|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.117|0.040|
91880653|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.137|0.060|
91880654|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.157|0.080|
91880655|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.058|-0.018|
91880656|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.079|0.001|
91880657|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-6h||0.058|-0.019|
91880658|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.136|0.060|
91880659|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.159|0.083|
91880660|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.182|0.105|
91880661|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.062|-0.016|
91880662|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.084|0.007|
91880663|NCT01040403|183655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-6h||0.061|-0.016|
91880664|NCT01040403|183655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.012|-0.058|
91749798|NCT00901511|183392077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.79||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.4|28.96|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||28.96|-136.4|0.1864
91749799|NCT00901511|183392077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.3||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.8|77.51|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||77.51|-119.8|0.6541
91880665|NCT01040403|183655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.040|-0.029|
91880666|NCT01040403|183655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.036|-0.034|
91880667|NCT01040403|183655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.063|-0.006|
91880668|NCT01040403|183655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.059|-0.011|
91880669|NCT01040403|183655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.031|-0.039|
91880670|NCT01040403|183655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.073|0.004|
91880671|NCT01040403|183655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.066|-0.004|
91880672|NCT01040403|183655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.076|0.006|
91880673|NCT01040403|183655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.027|-0.043|
91880674|NCT01040403|183655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.037|-0.032|
91880675|NCT01040403|183655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.045|-0.025|
91880676|NCT01040403|183655396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.138|0.041|
91880677|NCT01040403|183655396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.139|0.043|
91880678|NCT01040403|183655396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.164|0.066|
91880679|NCT01040403|183655396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.050|-0.046|
91880680|NCT01040403|183655396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.074|-0.023|
91880681|NCT01040403|183655396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.072|-0.025|
91880682|NCT01040403|183655396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.156|0.059|
91880683|NCT01040403|183655396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.181|0.084|
91880684|NCT01040403|183655396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.193|0.096|
91880685|NCT01040403|183655396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.074|-0.024|
91880686|NCT01040403|183655396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.086|-0.010|
91880687|NCT01040403|183655396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.061|-0.036|
91880688|NCT01040403|183655397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.020|-0.059|
91880689|NCT01040403|183655397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.053|-0.026|
91880690|NCT01040403|183655397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.051|-0.028|
91749800|NCT00901511|183392077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.58||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.89|33.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.33|-70.89|0.4560
91749801|NCT00901511|183392077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.98||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.12|37.23|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||37.23|-94.12|0.3721
91749802|NCT00901511|183392077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.58||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.41|14.86|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||14.86|-72.41|0.1812
91749803|NCT00901511|183392077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.38||0.2805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.67|23.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||23.44|-75.67|0.2805
91802507|NCT02400333|183482597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.53|98.98||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.98|90.53|
91880691|NCT01040403|183655397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.072|-0.006|
91880692|NCT01040403|183655397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.071|-0.009|
91880693|NCT01040403|183655397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.037|-0.041|
91880694|NCT01040403|183655397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.093|0.015|
91880695|NCT01040403|183655397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.084|0.006|
91802508|NCT02400333|183482597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.94|98.56||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.56|90.94|
91880696|NCT01040403|183655397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.087|0.008|
91880697|NCT01040403|183655397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.031|-0.049|
91880698|NCT01040403|183655397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.033|-0.046|
91880699|NCT01040403|183655397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.042|-0.037|
91880700|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.202|0.084|
91880701|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.210|0.092|
91880702|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.191|0.072|
91802509|NCT02400333|183482597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.87|100.33||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||100.33|91.87|
91802510|NCT02400333|183482597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.08|100.17||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||100.17|93.08|
91880703|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.066|-0.051|
91880704|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.048|-0.071|
91880705|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-3h||0.039|-0.079|
91880706|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.234|0.116|
91880707|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.234|0.116|
91749804|NCT00901511|183392077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.75||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.56|20.89|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||20.89|-75.56|0.2470
91749805|NCT00901511|183392077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.57||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.97|18.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||18.97|-80.97|0.2070
91749806|NCT00901511|183392078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|11.33|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the difference in the mean value of the SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the Control Group|Primary analysis||11.33|-1.88|0.1490
91749807|NCT00901511|183392078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.07||0.7263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|21.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||21.43|-30.04|0.7263
91749808|NCT00901511|183392078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.3298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|25.91|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||25.91|-9.24|0.3298
91749809|NCT00901511|183392078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|27.62|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||27.62|-0.15|0.0478
91749810|NCT00901511|183392078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|33.39|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.39|2.16|0.0281
91749811|NCT00901511|183392078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|33.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.00|-9.67|0.2634
91749812|NCT00901511|183392078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|32.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||32.24|-12.24|0.3548
91749813|NCT00901511|183392078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.68||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|37.18|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||37.18|-3.85|0.1043
91749814|NCT02880514|183392079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391||||||P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|McNemar|McNemar's exact binomial test was employed to obtain the two-sided p-value at alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.0391
91749815|NCT02880514|183392080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
91749816|NCT02436668|183392081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.525|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|1.873||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70-80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\].|Log Rank|||The treatment effect was tested with an stratified log rank test. Hazard ratio is estimated using Cox regression model stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70 80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\] and with treatment as the only covariate.||1.873|1.241|<0.0001
91802511|NCT02400333|183482598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.27|99.89||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.89|90.27|
91802512|NCT02400333|183482598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.81|100.99||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||100.99|89.81|
91802513|NCT02400333|183482598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.26|98.73||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.73|90.26|
91880708|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.259|0.140|
91749817|NCT02436668|183392082|SUPERIORITY|P-value is based on log-rank test stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70-80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\].|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.109||||0.3225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.363|||Log Rank|||The treatment effect was tested with an stratified log rank test. Hazard ratio is estimated using Cox regression model stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70 80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\] and with treatment as the only covariate.||1.363|0.903|0.3225
91749818|NCT02436668|183392084|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.695||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.903|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For rate ratio, numerator is Ibr+Gem/Abr arm and denominator is Pbo + Gem/Abr arm. P-value for rate ratio is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the three randomization stratification factors. Two-sided 95% confidence interval for rate ratio is based on Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.903|0.535|0.0058
91749819|NCT02436668|183392086|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||This 0.85 (0.722 to 1.0) with CI is referring to risk ratio not proportional/percentage of patients.|For rate ratio, numerator is Ibr+Gem/Abr arm and denominator is Pbo+Gem/Abr arm. P-value for rate ratio is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the three randomization stratification factors. Two-sided 95% confidence interval for rate ratio is based on Mantel-Haenszel method.||1.0|0.722|0.0488
91749820|NCT02436668|183392087|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.265||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|1.642||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by the three randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||\[1\] Hazard ratio is based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the three randomization stratification factors for time until definitive deterioration (TUDD1), a hazard ratio \< 1 favors Ibr + Gem/Abr. TUDD1 is defined as the time interval between randomization and the first occurrence of a decrease in score by \>= 10 points without any further improvement in score by \>= 10 points or any further available QoL data due to dropout after deterioration.||1.642|0.975|0.0782
91749821|NCT02436668|183392088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3343|||||||Chi-squared|||"For rate of VTEs, denominator is number of subjects in the Intent-to-Treat population and numerator is number of Intent-to-Treat subjects with at least one VTE observed any time on study. Confidence interval for rate of VTEs is based on Clopper-Pearson method.~\[1\] P value is based on Chi-square test."||||0.3343
91749822|NCT01444027|183392102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status||||||0.002
91749823|NCT01444027|183392102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.90
91749824|NCT01444027|183392102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.002
91749825|NCT01444027|183392103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for the baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
91749826|NCT01444027|183392103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.48
91749827|NCT01444027|183392103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||.01
91749828|NCT01444027|183392104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
91802514|NCT02400333|183482598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.36|98.42||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.42|91.36|
91802515|NCT02400333|183482598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.78|99.82||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.82|91.78|
91802516|NCT02400333|183482598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.26|99.87||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.87|93.26|
91749829|NCT01444027|183392104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.83
91749830|NCT01444027|183392104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
91749831|NCT01444027|183392105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.003
91749832|NCT01444027|183392105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.16
91749833|NCT01444027|183392105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.17
91749834|NCT01444027|183392106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
91749835|NCT01444027|183392106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.78
91749836|NCT01444027|183392106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.004
91749837|NCT03551665|183392108|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.056|||Regression, Linear|||These data are the immediate improvements (base 2 - post 1) in the MS group.||0.056|.002|0.036
91802517|NCT02468674|183482609|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.759
91749838|NCT03551665|183392109|OTHER||Spearman's Rho|0.019||||0.92|||||||Spearman Correlation|||We correlated cognition (SDMT; above) to the improvement in performance (margin of stability) to to determine whether cognition predicted improvement in stepping outcomes.||||.92
91749839|NCT03551665|183392110|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.119||95.0|-0.007|0.059|||Regression, Linear|||We assessed the change in reactive step length before (Baseline 2) to immediately after (post 1) training in the MS group||0.059|-0.007|0.119
91749840|NCT03551665|183392111|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.012||95.0|-0.073|-0.009|||Regression, Linear|||We assessed the change in reactive step latency before (Baseline 2) to immediately after (post 1) training in the MS group||-0.009|-0.073|0.012
91749841|NCT05538312|183392112|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|168.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.66|180.94|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||180.94|157.66|
91749842|NCT05538312|183392113|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|152.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.9|169.18|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||169.18|136.90|
91749843|NCT05538312|183392114|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|161.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.7|176.47|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUC120 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||176.47|148.70|
91749844|NCT05538312|183392115|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|153.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.51|169.3|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||169.30|138.51|
91749845|NCT05538312|183392116|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|171.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.96|184.15|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||184.15|159.96|
91749846|NCT05538312|183392117|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|157.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.51|169.95|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUC120 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||169.95|146.51|
91749847|NCT05538312|183392122|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|192.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|178.86|207.94|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||207.94|178.86|
91749848|NCT01514240|183392132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 90% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (remission rate) between the D9421-C 9mg group and the Mesalazine 3 g group was calculated at week 8 using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 90% CI was higher than -10% in FAS Population.|Difference of proportion|5.4||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.49|18.94|||Chi-squared|||The primary objective of this study was to determine non-inferiority in the differences in remission rates at Week 8 for D9421-C 9 mg as compared to Mesalazine 3 g.||18.94|-8.49|0.526
91749849|NCT01514240|183392133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|1.8||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.54|12.15|||Chi-squared||Differences in remission rate at Week 2 between D9421-C 9 mg and Mesalazine 3 g along with their 2-sided 90% CIs calculated by the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction|||12.15|-8.54|0.768
91749850|NCT01514240|183392134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|8.9||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.87|20.58|||Chi-squared||Differences in remission rate at Week 4 between D9421-C 9 mg and Mesalazine 3 g along with their 2-sided 90% CIs calculated by the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction|||20.58|-2.87|0.208
91749851|NCT01514240|183392135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.55|-3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||-3.09|-42.55|0.058
91802518|NCT02468674|183482609|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.500
91749852|NCT01514240|183392136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.05||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.95|-9.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||-9.96|-49.95|0.014
91749853|NCT01514240|183392137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.53||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.47|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||2.74|-45.47|0.144
91749854|NCT01514240|183392141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|27.4|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||27.40|0.50|
91749855|NCT01514240|183392142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.66|29.61|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||29.61|1.66|
91880709|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.059|-0.060|
91749856|NCT01514240|183392143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|30.29|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||30.29|0.85|
91749857|NCT01514240|183392144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.67|19.71|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||19.71|-5.67|
91749858|NCT01514240|183392145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|27.4|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||27.40|0.50|
91749859|NCT01514240|183392146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.44|26.68|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||26.68|-2.44|
91749860|NCT01514240|183392147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.86|16.14|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||16.14|4.86|
91749861|NCT01514240|183392148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.07|19.11|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||19.11|6.07|
91749862|NCT01514240|183392149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|19.72|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||19.72|5.40|
91749863|NCT01514240|183392150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.9|21.23|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||21.23|6.90|
91749864|NCT01514240|183392151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|5.29|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||5.29|1.49|
91749865|NCT01514240|183392152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.64|5.97|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||5.97|1.64|
91802519|NCT02468674|183482609|OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.144
91880710|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.083|-0.035|
91880711|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-3h||0.083|-0.035|
91749866|NCT01514240|183392153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.58|6.64|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||6.64|1.58|
91749867|NCT01514240|183392154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|5.76|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||5.76|0.90|
91749868|NCT01514240|183392155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|3.17|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.17|0.89|
91749869|NCT01514240|183392156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|3.19|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.19|0.73|
91749870|NCT01514240|183392157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|3.76|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.76|0.96|
91802520|NCT02468674|183482609|OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.648
91749871|NCT01514240|183392158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|4.09|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||4.09|1.15|
91880712|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.197|0.081|
91880713|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.207|0.092|
91880714|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.189|0.073|
91880715|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.068|-0.047|
91880716|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.051|-0.066|
91880717|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-6h||0.039|-0.076|
91907746|NCT00552175|183710859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.54||P-value for Pain Right Now.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of pain right now score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.54|-1.29|<0.0001
91907747|NCT00552175|183710860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain Score analysis||-0.44|-1.34|
91907748|NCT00552175|183710860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain Score analysis||-0.62|-1.51|
91907749|NCT00552175|183710860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of least pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Least Pain Score analysis||-0.33|-1.23|
91880718|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.247|0.131|
91749872|NCT01514240|183392159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|6.19|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||6.19|1.44|
91802521|NCT02468674|183482609|OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.929
91802522|NCT02468674|183482609|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.530
91880719|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.236|0.121|
91880720|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.271|0.155|
91907750|NCT00552175|183710860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Mean Squares Difference|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of least pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Least Pain Score analysis||-0.46|-1.36|
91907751|NCT00552175|183710860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average Pain Score analysis||-0.58|-1.39|
91907752|NCT00552175|183710860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average Pain Score analysis||-0.61|-1.41|
91880721|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.048|-0.069|
91880722|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.082|-0.033|
91880723|NCT01040403|183655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-6h||0.092|-0.023|
91880724|NCT01040403|183655399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.010|-0.106|
91880725|NCT01040403|183655399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.051|-0.065|
91749873|NCT01514240|183392160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.14|7.65|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||7.65|2.14|
91749874|NCT01514240|183392161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|7.25|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||7.25|1.40|
91749875|NCT01514240|183392162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.56|9.72|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||9.72|3.56|
91749876|NCT01514240|183392163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|2.43|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||2.43|0.01|
91749877|NCT01514240|183392164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|3.12|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.12|0.42|
91749878|NCT01514240|183392165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|3.04|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.04|0.19|
91749879|NCT01514240|183392166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|2.76|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||2.76|-0.15|
91749880|NCT05858450|183392174|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.018|1.205||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.205|1.018|
91749881|NCT05858450|183392174|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.634|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.664||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.664|0.606|
91749882|NCT05858450|183392175|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|1.107||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.107|1.016|
91749883|NCT05858450|183392175|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|0.919||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.919|0.875|
91880726|NCT01040403|183655399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.044|-0.072|
91907753|NCT00552175|183710860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of pain right now score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Pain Right Now Score analysis||-0.41|-1.35|
91749884|NCT05858450|183392176|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|2.1||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||2.1|1.133|
91749885|NCT05858450|183392176|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.106|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.206||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.206|1.014|
91749886|NCT05858450|183392177|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.217||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.217|0.903|
91880727|NCT01040403|183655399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.099|-0.017|
91749887|NCT05858450|183392177|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.973||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.973|0.846|
91749888|NCT05858450|183392178|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.211||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.211|1.068|
91749889|NCT05858450|183392178|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|1.11||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.11|1.007|
91749890|NCT05858450|183392179|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|0.807||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.807|0.718|
91749891|NCT05858450|183392179|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|0.907||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.907|0.811|
91749892|NCT05858450|183392180|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.731||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||2.731|0.88|
91880728|NCT01040403|183655399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.093|-0.024|
91880729|NCT01040403|183655399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.051|-0.065|
91880730|NCT01040403|183655399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.148|0.032|
91880731|NCT01040403|183655399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.118|0.001|
91880732|NCT01040403|183655399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.114|-0.002|
91880733|NCT01040403|183655399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.028|-0.089|
91907754|NCT00552175|183710860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of pain right now score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Pain Right Now Score analysis||-0.48|-1.41|
91749893|NCT05858450|183392180|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.238||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.238|0.865|
91880734|NCT01040403|183655399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.024|-0.092|
91880735|NCT01040403|183655399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.055|-0.062|
91907755|NCT00552175|183710861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.03||P-value for General Activity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of general activity score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.03|-0.85|0.0676
91907756|NCT00552175|183710861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.06||P-value for Mood.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of mood score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.06|-0.8|0.0933
91749894|NCT05858450|183392181|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.233||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.233|0.687|
91880736|NCT01040403|183655400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.223|0.087|
91880737|NCT01040403|183655400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.215|0.079|
91880738|NCT01040403|183655400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.195|0.058|
91880739|NCT01040403|183655400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.060|-0.075|
91880740|NCT01040403|183655400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.041|-0.097|
91880741|NCT01040403|183655400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.048|-0.089|
91880742|NCT01040403|183655400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.242|0.106|
91749895|NCT05858450|183392181|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.826|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|0.945||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.945|0.722|
91880743|NCT01040403|183655400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.250|0.113|
91880744|NCT01040403|183655400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.272|0.135|
91880745|NCT01040403|183655400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.076|-0.061|
91880746|NCT01040403|183655400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.098|-0.038|
91880747|NCT01040403|183655400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.090|-0.046|
91880748|NCT01040403|183655401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.013|-0.114|
91880749|NCT01040403|183655401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.071|-0.055|
91749896|NCT05858450|183392182|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|2.264||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||2.264|1.088|
91802523|NCT02468674|183482610|OTHER|||||||0.839|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square means (SE)||Population II: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.839
91749897|NCT05858450|183392182|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|1.233||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.233|1.015|
91749898|NCT05858450|183392183|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.286||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.286|0.911|
91749899|NCT05858450|183392183|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.01||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.01|0.859|
91749900|NCT00395291|183392218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The IGF-1 data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in IGF-1 is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Power calculation: We assumed that the IGF-I data will be lognormally distributed and thus the parameter of interest will be the IGF-1 geometric mean. If n=22 individuals complete the study and the intervention effect is 48% greater for one intervention than the other we will have at least 0.80 power to reject the null hypothesis."||||<0.001
91749901|NCT00395291|183392219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||ANCOVA|The Acyl-Ghrelin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in Acyl-Ghrelin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.169
91749902|NCT00395291|183392220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|The Leptin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in leptin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Leptin is considered a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.063
91880750|NCT01040403|183655401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.053|-0.074|
91880751|NCT01040403|183655401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.122|-0.004|
91880752|NCT01040403|183655401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.104|-0.024|
91880753|NCT01040403|183655401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus +O 2.5/5|||0.045|-0.082|
91880754|NCT01040403|183655401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.174|0.047|
91749903|NCT00395291|183392221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||ANCOVA|The insulin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in serum-insulin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because serum-insulin is considered a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.075
91749904|NCT00395291|183392222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.782
91749905|NCT00395291|183392223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||ANCOVA|The TNF-a data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in TNF-a is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.385
91802524|NCT02468674|183482611|OTHER|||||||0.669|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.669
91880755|NCT01040403|183655401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.144|0.017|
91880756|NCT01040403|183655401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.132|0.005|
91880757|NCT01040403|183655401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.034|-0.094|
91880758|NCT01040403|183655401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.021|-0.105|
91880759|NCT01040403|183655401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.052|-0.075|
91880760|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.533|26.985|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||26.985|10.533|
91880761|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.962|33.351|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||33.351|16.962|
91907757|NCT00552175|183710861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.07||P-value for Walking Ability.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of walking ability score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.07|-0.91|0.0228
91880762|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.526|38.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||38.082|21.526|
91880763|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.796|14.592|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||14.592|-1.796|
91749906|NCT00395291|183392224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||ANCOVA|The CRPs data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in CRPs is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because CRPs is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.929
91749907|NCT00395291|183392225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|||||||ANCOVA|The IL-1 data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in IL-1 is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because IL-1 is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted"||||0.905
91749908|NCT00395291|183392226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.233
91749909|NCT00395291|183392227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||ANCOVA|The IL-10 data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in IL-10 is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because IL-10 is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.277
91749910|NCT00395291|183392228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||ANCOVA|The esterase data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in esterase is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.875
91749911|NCT00395291|183392229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||ANCOVA|The adiponectin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in adiponectin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.545
91749912|NCT00395291|183392230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|Total ghrelin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in Total-Ghrelin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.900
91749913|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.26|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|SMT Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.22|-0.26|0.025
91749914|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|SMT Component Main Effects after 12 weeks||0.09|-0.43|0.025
91749915|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.11|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Treatment Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.38|-0.11|0.025
91749916|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.29|-0.23|0.025
91749917|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effect at 4 weeks||0.04|-0.45|0.025
91749918|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater change when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effect at 12 weeks||0.07|-0.45|0.025
91880764|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.721|19.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||19.370|2.721|
91880765|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.204|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.608|12.903|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-3h||12.903|-3.608|
91749919|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.17||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||0.32|-0.66|0.025
91749920|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||0.42|-0.62|0.025
91880766|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.068|26.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||26.568|10.068|
91880767|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.197|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.27|31.752|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||31.752|15.270|
91880768|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.543|31.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||31.092|14.543|
91749921|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.13||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.36|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||0.62|-0.36|0.025
91749922|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.02|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|-0.02|0.025
91880769|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.115|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||13.500|-3.115|
91880770|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.185|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.719|12.717|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||12.717|-3.719|
91749923|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.17||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||0.32|-0.66|0.025
91749924|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.39||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.13|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||0.91|-0.13|0.025
91749925|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.24|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||0.74|-0.24|0.025
91749926|NCT02868034|183392232|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.12|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||0.92|-0.12|0.025
91749927|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.67|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.||SMT Component Main Effects at 4 weeks|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|1.52|-2.67|0.025
91880771|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.694|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.941|7.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-3h||7.554|-8.941|
91880772|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.013|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.87|26.632|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||26.632|10.870|
91880773|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.158|33.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||33.860|18.158|
91749928|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.76|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|SMT Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||2.02|-2.76|0.025
91749929|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.03|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Mobilizing Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||2.16|-2.03|0.025
91749930|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.68|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Mobilizing Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||3.11|-1.68|0.025
91749931|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.94|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component at 4 weeks||1.25|-2.94|0.025
91749932|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.97|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component at 12 weeks||1.82|-2.97|0.025
91749933|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.8||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.39|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||4.99|-3.39|0.025
91802525|NCT02468674|183482611|OTHER|||||||0.773|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.773
91880774|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.416|37.278|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||37.278|21.416|
91880775|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|15.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||15.109|-0.592|
91880776|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.621|18.571|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||18.571|2.621|
91880777|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.572|11.247|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-6h||11.247|-4.572|
91880778|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.75|27.558|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||27.558|11.750|
91880779|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.866|30.659|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||30.659|14.866|
91880780|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.536|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.038|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.607|33.464|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||33.464|17.607|
91880781|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.852|11.067|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||11.067|-4.852|
91880782|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.009|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.991|13.754|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||13.754|-1.991|
91749934|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.68||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.47|4.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||4.11|-5.47|0.025
91749935|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-1.56||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.75|2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||2.63|-5.75|0.025
91749936|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|1.42||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.37|6.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||6.21|-3.37|0.025
91749937|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.44||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.63|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||3.75|-4.63|0.025
91749938|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|2.01||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.77|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||6.80|-2.77|0.025
91749939|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|-0.18||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.37|4.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||4.01|-4.37|0.025
91749940|NCT02868034|183392233|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.56||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.22|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||5.35|-4.22|0.025
91749941|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.0|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effect at 4-weeks||1.68|-4.0|0.025
91749942|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.46|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effect at 12-weeks||3.07|-3.46|0.025
91749943|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.2|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Treatment Component main effect after 4-weeks||1.48|-4.2|0.025
91749944|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.99|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Treatment Component main effect after 12-weeks||1.55|-4.99|0.025
91749945|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.18|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Activating Exercise Treatment Component main effect after 4-weeks||0.50|-5.18|0.025
91749946|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.62||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.89|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Activating Treatment Component Main Effect after 12-weeks||-0.35|-6.89|0.025
91749947|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|3.24||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.45|8.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||8.92|-2.45|0.025
91749948|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|4.34||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.19|10.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||10.87|-2.19|0.025
91749949|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.12|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||6.25|-5.12|0.025
91749950|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.67||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.2|5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||5.87|-7.20|0.025
91802526|NCT02468674|183482611|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.290
91880783|NCT01040403|183655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.773|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.129|10.675|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-6h||10.675|-5.129|
91880784|NCT01040403|183655403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.268|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||10.900|-6.268|
91880785|NCT01040403|183655403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.088|13.044|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||13.044|-4.088|
91880786|NCT01040403|183655403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.978|13.314|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||13.314|-3.978|
91749951|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|4.64||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.04|10.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||10.32|-1.04|0.025
91749952|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|1.49||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.04|8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||8.02|-5.04|0.025
91880787|NCT01040403|183655403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.349|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.379|10.702|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||10.702|-6.379|
91880788|NCT01040403|183655403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.419|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.326|11.029|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||11.029|-6.326|
91880789|NCT01040403|183655403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|8.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||8.810|-8.430|
91880790|NCT01040403|183655403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.136|10.113|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||10.113|-7.136|
91749953|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|-0.86||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.54|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||4.82|-6.54|0.025
91907758|NCT00552175|183710861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.04||P-value for Normal Work.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of normal work score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.04|-0.8|0.0783
91907759|NCT00552175|183710861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.15||P-value for Relation to People.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of relation to people score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.15|-0.96|0.0076
91907760|NCT00552175|183710861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.03||P-value for Sleep.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of sleep score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.03|-0.9|0.0378
91749954|NCT02868034|183392234|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.04||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.5|6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||6.57|-6.50|0.025
91749955|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effect at 4-weeks||0.32|-0.60|0.025
91749956|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.61|-0.44|0.025
91749957|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.92|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.0|-0.92|0.025
91802527|NCT02468674|183482611|OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.766
91802528|NCT02468674|183482611|OTHER|||||||0.885|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.885
91802529|NCT02468674|183482611|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.840
91802530|NCT02468674|183482612|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square means (SE)||Population II: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.367
91802531|NCT02468674|183482613|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.875
91880791|NCT01040403|183655403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.386|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|11.875|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||11.875|-5.350|
91880792|NCT01040403|183655403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.408|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.535|15.778|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||15.778|-1.535|
91880793|NCT01040403|183655403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.423|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|10.458|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||10.458|-6.910|
91880794|NCT01040403|183655403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.381|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|14.236|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||14.236|-2.970|
91880795|NCT01040403|183655403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.786|12.504|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||12.504|-4.786|
91880796|NCT01040403|183655404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.161|28.204|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||28.204|9.161|
91880797|NCT01040403|183655404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.116|33.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||33.083|14.116|
91880798|NCT01040403|183655404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.879|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.517|39.677|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||39.677|20.517|
91749958|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.34|-0.70|0.025
91749959|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.30|-0.62|0.025
91749960|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.71|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.33|-0.71|0.025
91749961|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.38||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.54|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||1.30|-0.54|0.025
91749962|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.45||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||1.49|-0.60|0.025
91749963|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.12||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||1.04|-0.80|0.025
91880799|NCT01040403|183655404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.568|14.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||14.402|-4.568|
91880800|NCT01040403|183655404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|21.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||21.050|1.780|
91749964|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.23||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||1.28|-0.81|0.025
91907761|NCT00552175|183710861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.14||P-value for Enjoyment of Life.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of enjoyment of life score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.14|-0.98|0.0089
91749965|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.89||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.03|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.81|-0.03|0.025
91749966|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.07|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||1.02|-1.07|0.025
91749967|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.71||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||1.63|-0.21|0.025
91749968|NCT02868034|183392235|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.05|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||1.04|-1.05|0.025
91749969|NCT03640052|183392261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||>0.5
91749970|NCT03640052|183392261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||>0.5
91749971|NCT03640052|183392261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||>0.5
91749972|NCT03640052|183392261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||0.33
91749973|NCT03640052|183392262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91749974|NCT05479097|183392301|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.5||||0.03232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|Systolic blood pressure was not normally distributed in the study sample, so nonparametric analysis was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no change in systolic blood pressure.||-1.0|-12.0|0.03232
91749975|NCT05479097|183392302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|As diastolic blood pressure was normally distributed in our sample, we used a paired t-test to evaluate the mean difference in measurements.||The null hypothesis was that there was no change in diastolic blood pressure.||-0.1|-6.1|0.045
91749976|NCT05479097|183392303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7237||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05|McNemar|||The null hypothesis was no change in the proportion of patients with systolic blood pressure well-controlled (\<=140 mmHg) from baseline to 6 months.||||0.7237
91749977|NCT05479097|183392304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7237||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05|McNemar|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of patients with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to their personalized goal from baseline to 6 months.||||0.7237
91880801|NCT01040403|183655404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.866|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.057|16.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||16.053|-3.057|
91880802|NCT01040403|183655404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.742|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.862|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.194|27.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||27.290|8.194|
91880803|NCT01040403|183655404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.58|33.651|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||33.651|14.580|
91880804|NCT01040403|183655404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.52|34.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||34.670|15.520|
91880805|NCT01040403|183655404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.896|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|15.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||15.986|-3.240|
91880806|NCT01040403|183655404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.845|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|16.866|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||16.866|-2.161|
91880807|NCT01040403|183655404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.861|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.566|10.525|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||10.525|-8.566|
91907762|NCT00552175|183710861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.12||P-value for Average of Interference Scores|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average of interference scores, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.12|-0.85|0.0095
91907763|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of general activity, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|General Activity score analysis||-0.06|-1.14|
91749978|NCT01035346|183392327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|8.33||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|24.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on Least-squares (LS) means from the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model.||24.60|-7.94|0.228
91749979|NCT01035346|183392328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.99||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|15.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||STEMPD 0-4: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||15.97|-3.99|0.171
91749980|NCT01035346|183392328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.96||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.78|32.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||STEMPD 0-8: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||32.69|-14.78|0.354
91749981|NCT01035346|183392329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.54||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.54|-0.84|0.576
91749982|NCT01035346|183392329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.87|-0.50|0.502
91749983|NCT01035346|183392329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.31||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.12|-0.51|0.116
91749984|NCT01035346|183392329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.58||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|4.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.14|-0.98|0.161
91880808|NCT01040403|183655405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.853|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|10.699|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||10.699|-8.360|
91880809|NCT01040403|183655405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.073|13.945|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||13.945|-5.073|
91749985|NCT01035346|183392329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.87||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|5.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.41|-1.66|0.215
91802532|NCT02468674|183482613|OTHER|||||||0.909|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.909
91880810|NCT01040403|183655405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.887|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.407|14.785|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||14.785|-4.407|
91880811|NCT01040403|183655405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.828|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.214|12.747|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||12.747|-6.214|
91880812|NCT01040403|183655405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.904|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|13.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||13.650|-5.610|
91880813|NCT01040403|183655405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.816|10.322|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||10.322|-8.816|
91880814|NCT01040403|183655405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.589|12.561|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||12.561|-6.589|
91880815|NCT01040403|183655405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.868|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.643|14.475|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||14.475|-4.643|
91749986|NCT01035346|183392329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.17||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.52||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.52|-2.18|0.388
91749987|NCT01035346|183392329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|4.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.61|-3.98|0.849
91749988|NCT01035346|183392331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportion|11.11||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|32.89||p-value was calculated using CMH general association test using table scores. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and its associated CI were calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportion and the corresponding standard errors.||32.89|-10.67|0.378
91749989|NCT01035346|183392332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.27|-0.30|0.324
91749990|NCT01035346|183392333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.18||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.18|-0.12|0.210
91749991|NCT01459653|183392343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6989|1.1182|||Chi-squared|||||1.1182|0.6989|0.3038
91880816|NCT01040403|183655405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.882|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.154|17.019|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||17.019|-2.154|
91749992|NCT01459653|183392344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1897||||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9428|1.5012|||Chi-squared|||||1.5012|0.9428|0.1432
91749993|NCT01459653|183392345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8794||||0.6483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5063|1.5276|||Chi-squared|||||1.5276|0.5063|0.6483
91749994|NCT01459653|183392355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2989|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8113|2.9177|||Chi-squared|||||2.9177|1.8113|<0.0001
91802533|NCT02468674|183482613|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.168
91802534|NCT02468674|183482613|OTHER|||||||0.632|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.632
91880817|NCT01040403|183655405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.909|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.708|11.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||11.568|-7.708|
91749995|NCT01459653|183392356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4963|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.6605|||Chi-squared|||||0.6605|0.3730|<0.0001
91749996|NCT01459653|183392357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9451||||0.7509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6671|1.3391|||Chi-squared|||||1.3391|0.6671|0.7509
91749997|NCT01459653|183392358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2683||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.5061|||Chi-squared|||||1.5061|1.0680|0.0067
91749998|NCT01459653|183392366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6382|1.4874|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4507||||1.4874|0.6382|<0.0001
91749999|NCT01459653|183392367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2739||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4832|-0.0646|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4507||||-0.0646|-0.4832|0.0103
91750000|NCT01459653|183392368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.3812|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.5295|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4495||||0.5295|0.2330|<0.0001
91750001|NCT01459653|183392376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1031||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0075|0.2136|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4516||||0.2136|-0.0075|0.0677
91750002|NCT01459653|183392377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0018||||0.8968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0259|0.0295|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4516||||0.0295|-0.0259|0.8968
91750003|NCT01459653|183392378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0741|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0452|0.1029|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4505||||0.1029|-0.0452|<0.0001
91750004|NCT01459653|183392386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.735||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4255|1.2698|||Chi-squared|||||1.2698|0.4255|0.2698
91750005|NCT01459653|183392387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91750006|NCT01459653|183392404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5977|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5977
91750007|NCT01459653|183392405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2435
91750008|NCT01459653|183392406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7630
91750009|NCT01459653|183392407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3830
91750010|NCT01459653|183392408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0002
91750011|NCT01459653|183392409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0301
91750012|NCT01459653|183392410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.92||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|degrees of freedom: 3181||GCSF treatment decision (under vs correct) as predictor for ANC||1.01|0.84|0.0683
91750013|NCT01459653|183392410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.89||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|degrees of freedom: 3181||GCSF decision (Over vs correct) as predictor for ANC||0.96|0.82|0.0019
91750014|NCT01459653|183392410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.04||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|degrees of freedom: 3181||GCSF decision (Under vs over) as predictor for ANC||1.15|0.94|0.4469
91750015|NCT01459653|183392410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.11||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Study drug dose (higher vs lower) as predictor for ANC||1.19|1.03|0.0079
91802535|NCT02468674|183482613|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.310
91880818|NCT01040403|183655405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.854|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.085|13.978|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||13.978|-5.085|
91750016|NCT01459653|183392410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.81||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Tumor type (hematological vs solid) as predictor for ANC||0.91|0.72|0.0004
91750017|NCT01459653|183392410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient gender (female vs male) as predictor for ANC||0.92|0.80|<0.0001
91750018|NCT01459653|183392410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.04||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.08|||Regression, Linear|||ECOG (per 1 point) as predictor for ANC||1.08|1.01|0.0235
91750019|NCT01459653|183392410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.05|||Regression, Linear|||Hb (per g/dL) as predictor for ANC||1.05|1.02|<0.0001
91750020|NCT01459653|183392411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was computed to quantify the variability in patient outcome attributable to within-center variability before any patient-level determinants are considered.|ANCOVA model was used taking into account center, patient within center-level and within-patient level (over time). This appendix describes the center-level.||||0.0003
91750021|NCT01459653|183392411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used taking into account center, patient within center-level and within-patient level (over time). This appendix describes the patient within center-level.||||<0.0001
91750022|NCT01459653|183392411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used taking into account center, patient within center-level and within-patient level (over time). This appendix describes the within-patient level.||||<0.0001
91750023|NCT01459653|183392416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.544||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.812|||Regression, Logistic|||GIS (1 vs. 0) as cycle-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||0.812|0.365|0.003
91750024|NCT01459653|183392416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.242|7.092|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||7.092|3.242|<0.001
91750025|NCT01459653|183392416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.083|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.242|7.092|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||7.092|3.242|<0.001
91750026|NCT01459653|183392416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.542|3.925|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN Grade 4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||3.925|1.542|<0.001
91750027|NCT01459653|183392416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.452||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|0.766|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||0.766|0.267|0.003
91750028|NCT01459653|183392417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.925||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.592|5.374|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN Grade 4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||5.374|1.592|0.001
91750029|NCT01459653|183392417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.572||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.331|4.969|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||4.969|1.331|0.005
91750030|NCT01459653|183392417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.328|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.557|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||0.557|0.193|<0.001
91750031|NCT01459653|183392418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.673|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.284|2.179|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG score (per 1 point) as cycle-level predictor for FN episode||2.179|1.284|<0.001
91750032|NCT01459653|183392418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.704|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.777|7.968|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for FN episode||7.968|2.777|<0.001
91750033|NCT01459653|183392418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.342|3.574|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for FN episode||3.574|1.342|0.002
91750034|NCT01459653|183392418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.215||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.687|||Regression, Logistic|||History of anaemia at enrollment as patient-level predictor for FN episode||0.687|0.067|0.010
91750035|NCT01459653|183392418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.501||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|10.487|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for FN episode||10.487|1.169|0.025
91750036|NCT01459653|183392419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.975||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|0.991|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient age (per 1 year) as patient-level predictor for FN episode||0.991|0.958|0.003
91750037|NCT01459653|183392419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.398|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG ≥2 during study as patient-level predictor for FN episode||3.570|1.610|<0.001
91750038|NCT01459653|183392419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.562||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.527|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as patient-level predictor for FN episode||4.527|1.450|0.001
91750039|NCT01459653|183392419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.232|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.499|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for FN episode||0.499|0.108|<0.001
91750040|NCT01459653|183392419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.261||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.315|8.084|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for FN episode||8.084|1.315|0.011
91750041|NCT01459653|183392420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.814|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.397|2.355|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG score (per 1 point) as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||2.355|1.397|<0.001
91750042|NCT01459653|183392420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.296|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.791|6.065|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||6.065|1.791|<0.001
91750043|NCT01459653|183392420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.205||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.524|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycles as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||3.524|1.380|0.001
91750044|NCT01459653|183392420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.863||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|3.293|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||3.293|1.054|0.032
91750045|NCT01459653|183392420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.385||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.879|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||0.879|0.168|0.024
91880819|NCT01040403|183655405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.046|12.079|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||12.079|-7.046|
91880820|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.523|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|Week 1||0.099|-0.523|
91880821|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|-0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 1||-0.004|-0.634|
91907764|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of general activity, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|General Activity score analysis||0.32|-0.77|
91907765|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of mood score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Mood score analysis||0.27|-0.8|
91907766|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of mood score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Mood score analysis||0.05|-1.01|
91907767|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of walking ability, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Walking Ability score analysis||0.02|-1.02|
91880822|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.379|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 1||0.249|-0.379|
91880823|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 1||0.206|-0.420|
91907768|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of walking ability, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Walking Ability score analysis||0.03|-1.01|
91880824|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 1||0.462|-0.168|
91907769|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of normal work score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Normal Work score analysis||0.16|-0.86|
91907770|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of normal work score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Normal Work score analysis||0.11|-0.92|
91907771|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of relation to people, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Relation to People score analysis||0.11|-0.89|
91907772|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of relation to people, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Relation to People score analysis||-0.22|-1.21|
91907773|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of sleep score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Sleep score analysis||-0.03|-1.11|
91907774|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of sleep score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Sleep score analysis||0.18|-0.9|
91880825|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.571|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Week 1||0.571|-0.062|
91880826|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.271|0.355|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Week 1||0.355|-0.271|
91880827|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 1||0.062|-0.564|
91880828|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 1||0.135|-0.492|
91880829|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|0.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 1||0.024|-0.611|
91880830|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.533|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 1||0.092|-0.533|
91880831|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Week 1||0.388|-0.242|
91880832|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|Week 4||0.462|-0.241|
91750046|NCT01459653|183392420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.843||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.964|11.942|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||11.942|1.964|0.001
91750047|NCT01459653|183392421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.473|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.946|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG ≥2 during study as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||3.946|1.550|<0.001
91750048|NCT01459653|183392421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.382||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.695|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||0.695|0.210|0.002
91750049|NCT01459653|183392421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.108||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|6.192|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||6.192|1.560|0.001
91750050|NCT01459653|183392422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.931|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.426|14.699|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||14.699|5.426|<0.001
91802536|NCT02468674|183482613|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.321
91880833|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 4||0.261|-0.445|
91880834|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.406|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 4||0.406|-0.301|
91880835|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 4||0.150|-0.555|
91880836|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 4||0.296|-0.411|
91907775|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of enjoyment of life, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Enjoyment of Life score analysis||0.15|-0.88|
91880837|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.496|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Week 4||0.496|-0.208|
91880838|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Week 4||0.135|-0.568|
91750051|NCT01459653|183392422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.336||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Hematological cancer (vs. oncologic) as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||0.740|0.152|0.007
91750052|NCT01459653|183392422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Cancer patients seen in 2009 (per 1 patient) as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||1.000|0.999|0.006
91750053|NCT01459653|183392422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.001|||Regression, Logistic|||Chemotherapy-treated cancer patients in 2009 (per 1 patient) as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||1.001|1.000|<0.001
91750054|NCT01459653|183392422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.456||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.127|5.353|||Regression, Logistic|||Center type: academic vs non-academic as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||5.353|1.127|0.024
91750055|NCT01459653|183392422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.344||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.342|8.331|||Regression, Logistic|||Center type: academic-affiliated vs non-academic as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||8.331|1.342|0.010
91750056|NCT01459653|183392423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.965||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.218|3.172|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||3.172|1.218|0.006
91750057|NCT01459653|183392423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.594||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.469|4.581|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||4.581|1.469|0.001
91802537|NCT02468674|183482614|OTHER|||||||0.395|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square means (SE)||Population II: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.395
91802538|NCT02468674|183482615|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.120
91880839|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|-0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 4||-0.012|-0.714|
91880840|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 4||0.106|-0.598|
91880841|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 4||0.210|-0.503|
91880842|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.379|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 4||0.321|-0.379|
91880843|NCT01040403|183655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Week 4||0.470|-0.235|
91880844|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|Day 1||0.250|-0.223|
91880845|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 1||0.104|-0.370|
91750058|NCT01459653|183392424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|0.821|||Regression, Logistic|||GIS (1 vs. 0) as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.821|0.424|0.002
91750059|NCT01459653|183392424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.644||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|||Zarzio duration: 4-5 days vs. 6 or more as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.859|0.489|0.003
91750060|NCT01459653|183392424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.842|||Regression, Logistic|||Zarzio duration: 1-3 days vs. 6 or more as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.842|0.398|0.004
91750061|NCT01459653|183392424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.643|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG score (per 1 point) as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||1.643|1.140|0.001
91750062|NCT01459653|183392424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.499|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.456|4.985|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||4.985|2.456|<0.001
91750063|NCT01459653|183392424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.064|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.096|5.336|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||5.336|3.096|<0.001
91750064|NCT01459653|183392424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.545||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.175|2.033|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.033|1.175|0.002
91802539|NCT02468674|183482615|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.297
91880846|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 1||0.199|-0.278|
91880847|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 1||0.088|-0.382|
91880848|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 1||0.186|-0.291|
91907776|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of enjoyment of life, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Enjoyment of Life score analysis||-0.24|-1.27|
91880849|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Day 1||0.332|-0.144|
91880850|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|-0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Day 1||-0.045|-0.519|
91880851|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 1||0.124|-0.350|
91880852|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 1||0.180|-0.293|
91880853|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.408|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 1||0.408|-0.069|
91750065|NCT01459653|183392424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.596||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN Grade 4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.340|1.088|0.017
91750066|NCT01459653|183392425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.621||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.281|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.281|1.152|0.006
91750067|NCT01459653|183392425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.898||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.209|2.979|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.979|1.209|0.005
91750068|NCT01459653|183392425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.984|||Regression, Logistic|||History of repeated infections at enrollment as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||5.984|1.200|0.016
91750069|NCT01459653|183392425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.660|0.291|<0.001
91750070|NCT01459653|183392425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.053||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.295|3.256|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||3.256|1.295|0.002
91802540|NCT02468674|183482615|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.074
91802541|NCT02468674|183482615|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.022
91750071|NCT01459653|183392425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.558||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.939|||Regression, Logistic|||GIS at enrollment (1 vs. 0) as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.939|0.332|0.028
91880854|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.461|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 1||0.461|-0.010|
91750072|NCT01459653|183392426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2064||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1931|4.0803|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient level predictor: History of anemia at enrollment||4.0803|1.1931|0.0116
91750073|NCT01459653|183392426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3049||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2754|4.1656|||Regression, Logistic|||Liver/renal/cardiac comorbidity as patient level predictor||4.1656|1.2754|0.0057
91880855|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.293|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Day 1||0.293|-0.180|
91880856|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.387|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/ minus Olo 5|Day 29||0.387|-0.067|
91880857|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 29||0.491|0.034|
91750074|NCT01459653|183392426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.535|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2159|37.4243|||Regression, Logistic|||Poor performance (ECOG \>=2) during study as patient level predictor||37.4243|8.2159|<0.0001
91880858|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 29||0.316|-0.148|
91880859|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 29||0.328|-0.124|
91750075|NCT01459653|183392430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9567|37.1225|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for cancer-related mortality||37.1225|5.9567|<0.0001
91750076|NCT01459653|183392430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9567|37.1225|||Regression, Logistic|||Poor performance (ECOG \>=2) during study as patient-level predictor||37.1225|5.9567|<0.0001
91750077|NCT00457821|183392441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Within-dose group and between-dose group analyses were performed, using a linear mixed effect model with baseline, dose, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||||<0.05
91750078|NCT00457821|183392442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Within-dose group and between-dose group analyses were performed, using a linear mixed effect model with baseline, dose, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||||<0.05
91750079|NCT00457821|183392444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Within-dose group and between-dose group analyses were performed, using a linear mixed effect model with baseline, dose, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||||<0.05
91880860|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 29||0.154|-0.306|
91880861|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Day 29||0.052|-0.408|
91880862|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Day 29||0.400|-0.056|
91880863|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 29||0.285|-0.171|
91880864|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 29||0.346|-0.110|
91880865|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.345|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 29||0.115|-0.345|
91880866|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 29||0.173|-0.281|
91880867|NCT01040403|183655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Day 29||0.289|-0.166|
91880868|NCT01040403|183655411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.037|-0.481|
91880869|NCT01040403|183655411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||-0.182|-0.700|
91880870|NCT01040403|183655411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.111|-0.409|
91750080|NCT02139878|183392447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.088|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.088
91750081|NCT02139878|183392448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.980
91750082|NCT00027378|183392474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.702||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated measures||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.05
91802542|NCT02468674|183482615|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.106
91802543|NCT02468674|183482615|OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.211
91750083|NCT00737568|183392485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was controlled for strata (HBeAg status and ALT level).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the FTC/TDF and TDF treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference between the FTC/TDF and TDF treatment groups. These hypotheses were evaluated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for randomization strata, with the missing = failure method in which participants with missing data were considered to have failed to achieve the endpoint.||||0.43
91750084|NCT01133626|183392498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of a two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of BDP HFA 320 mcg/day to placebo was greater than 0.80.|geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.87|
91750085|NCT00835640|183392509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|81.33||||||90.0|||||||To establish bioequivalence, the ratio of the mean must fall within 80-125.|||||
91750086|NCT00835640|183392510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|87.87||||||90.0|||||||To establish bioequivalence, the ratio of the mean must fall within 80-125.|||||
91750087|NCT00835640|183392511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|88.45||||||90.0|||||||To establish bioequivalence, the ratio of the mean must fall within 80-125.|||||
91750088|NCT00350272|183392512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.2||||||The difference in proportions between the group of participants who received lamivudine 300 mg/day (in combination with efavirenz and tenofovir) over 12 weeks and the group of participants who received elvucitabine 10 mg/day (in combination with efavirenz and tenofovir) over 12 weeks along with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval for risk difference using asymptotic normal theory.||8.2|-35.2|
91880871|NCT01040403|183655411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.478|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.040|-0.478|
91880872|NCT01040403|183655411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.335|-0.189|
91907777|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average of interference scores, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average of Interference scores analysis||0|-0.9|
91750089|NCT00812006|183392514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient.||||||<0.001
91750090|NCT00812006|183392515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|A compound-symmetry covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient, due to a convergence issue.||||||<0.001
91750091|NCT00812006|183392516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient.||||||<0.001
91750092|NCT00812006|183392517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's falsediscovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient.||||||<0.001
91750093|NCT00812006|183392518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|A compound-symmetry covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient, due to a convergence issue.||||||<0.001
91750094|NCT00068250|183392519|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose escalation followed the standard 3+3 design, although up to six patients could be accrued per dose level before suspending accrual for toxicity evaluation. If none of the first three patients (0/3), or one of the first three and none of the second three (1/3 and 0/3), experience a DLT, then the current dose level would be considered acceptable, and the next dose opened. Otherwise, the current dose level would be considered too toxic. The highest dose achieved with an acceptable level of toxicity was to considered the Maximum Tolerable Dose (MTD). If at any time a grade 5 toxicity was observed, accrual will be suspended, and the Study Chair would review the event. Furthermore, if the cumulative incidence (obtained by time to event analysis), at any time, of combined acute/late DLTs estimated the toxicity rate to be greater than 30% at any dose level, then the Executive Committee will be notified, and the committee would determine whether to stop accrual.|||
91802544|NCT02468674|183482616|OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square geometric means||Population II: ASMI at Week 49||||1.000
91880873|NCT01040403|183655411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.553|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.553|0.031|
91880874|NCT01040403|183655411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.382|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|-0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||-0.123|-0.641|
91880875|NCT01040403|183655411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.127|-0.390|
91880876|NCT01040403|183655411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.585|-0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||-0.067|-0.585|
91880877|NCT01040403|183655411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.511|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.511|-0.010|
91750095|NCT00068250|183392520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||One-sample z-test|||Null hypothesis: Two-year survival rate \<= 64%; Alternative hypothesis: Two-year survival rate \> 64%. The fixed survival rate for comparison comes from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 9310. (RTOG 9310 does not fall within ClinicalTrials.gov registration/reporting requirements.)||||0.006
91750096|NCT00068250|183392521|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|One-sample test of proportions||RTOG 93-10 reported a pre-irradiation chemotherapy complete response rate of 59%. A chi-square test with a 0.20 one-sided significance level provides 81% power to detect the difference between a null hypothesis complete response rate of 59% and the alternative rate of 71% (a 20% increase) for the planned sample size of 52 patients.||||0.82
91750097|NCT03955250|183392540|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91750098|NCT03955250|183392541|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|time||||||<0.05
91750099|NCT03955250|183392541|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|condition||||||>0.05
91750100|NCT03955250|183392542|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|time||||||>0.05
91750101|NCT03955250|183392542|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|condition||||||>0.05
91750102|NCT03955250|183392543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|time||||||<0.05
91750103|NCT03955250|183392543|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|condition||||||>0.05
91750104|NCT03242772|183392580|OTHER|||||||0.2664||||||Significance at \<0.05|95% confidence interval|confidence interval (CI) = -3.5729 - 11.6929|||Presentation of results will include p-values and 95% confidence intervals for the least mean square values at weeks 0, 10, 24 (week 24 is exploratory).|||0.2664
91750105|NCT03242772|183392581|OTHER|||||||0.3721||||||Significance at \<0.05|95% confidence interval|confidence interval (CI) = -17.7698 - 7.2698|||Presentation of results will include p-values and 95% confidence intervals for the least mean square values at weeks 0, 10, 24 (week 24 is exploratory).|||0.3721
91750106|NCT02499900|183392583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.321|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1615|0.4814||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-value are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: MSQ=baseline MSQ score+treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction. Treatment-naïve patients are not included in this analysis as MSQ is not measured at baseline for these patients.||0.4814|0.1615|<0.001
91750107|NCT02499900|183392584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.448|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9538|11.9429||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-value are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: TSQM-9 convenience score=baseline TSQM-9 convenience score+treatment+CGR+treatment by visit interaction. Treatment-naïve patients are not included in this analysis as TSQM-9 is not measured at baseline for these patients.||11.9429|6.9538|<0.001
91880878|NCT01040403|183655411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.314|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.314|-0.202|
91750108|NCT02499900|183392585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.802||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.4461||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Total Score Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||0.4461|-2.0500|0.208
91750109|NCT02499900|183392585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.231||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8588|0.3962||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Physical Subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||0.3962|-0.8588|0.470
91750110|NCT02499900|183392585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.639||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2564|-0.0214||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Cognitive Subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||-0.0214|-1.2564|0.043
91750111|NCT02499900|183392585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0672|0.2711||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Psychosocial Subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||0.2711|-0.0672|0.237
91750112|NCT02499900|183392586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.706||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5947|1.0074||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Total Score Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||1.0074|-0.5947|0.287
91802545|NCT02468674|183482617|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.084
91880879|NCT01040403|183655411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.065|-0.453|
91880880|NCT05694533|183655414|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.92||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between Midazolam on Day 15 and Midazolam on Day 1.||0.92|0.76|
91880881|NCT05694533|183655414|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.93||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 15 and 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 1.||0.93|0.69|
91880882|NCT05694533|183655415|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.92||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between Midazolam on Day 15 and Midazolam on Day 1.||0.92|0.78|
91880883|NCT05694533|183655415|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.89||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 15 and 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 1.||0.89|0.74|
91880884|NCT05694533|183655416|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.91||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between Midazolam on Day 15 and Midazolam on Day 1.||0.91|0.78|
91880885|NCT05694533|183655416|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.97||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 15 and 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 1.||0.97|0.78|
91880886|NCT02005393|183655419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Image settings were considered non-inferior if scores overlapped within 1 SD of mean.||||||||||||||||All 20 subjects enrolled in the study, including Subject 219 that was dropped from the Reader assessments due to corrupted images, were all rated as having similar white light images between the FICE and NBI procedures for each location used in the concurrence study. This assessment was intended to assure that no procedural sequence or visualization bias was introduced into the image acquisition process. The overall Reader mean (SD) for both FICE and NBI were equal to or greater than 3.0 (0.8).|The results reported utilized the average Likert scores for each of the 3 readers, for each of the FICE settings (0-9), as compared to FICE. The overall Reader mean (SD) for both FICE and NBI were equal to or greater than 3.0 (0.8).The overall mean scores were comparable between FICE and NBI to provide acceptable diagnostic image visualization quality.|||
91880887|NCT04358068|183655677|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific durations were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.51||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91750113|NCT02499900|183392586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5179|1.7991||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Anxiety subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||1.7991|-1.5179|0.868
91750114|NCT02499900|183392586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.481||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0734|2.0348||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Depression subscale estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||2.0348|-1.0734|0.544
91750115|NCT02499900|183392586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.867||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3843|3.3487||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Behavioral Control subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||3.3487|0.3843|0.014
91750116|NCT02499900|183392586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8565|1.6728||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MHI Positive Affect subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||1.6728|-1.8565|0.919
91750117|NCT02499900|183392587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6777|0.5592||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline BDI-II total score=baseline BDI-II total score+treatment+visit+country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||0.5592|-0.6777|0.851
91750118|NCT01089023|183392608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value measures the significance between each visit using analysis of variance|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91750119|NCT01089023|183392609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value measures the significance between each visit using analysis of variance|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91750120|NCT03410797|183392612|OTHER|Due to small sample size, nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare VHI-10 before and after therapy.|Median Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Descriptive statistics characterized this patient perception measurement.||||.0076
91880888|NCT04358068|183655678|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific durations were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.79||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91880889|NCT04358068|183655679|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific AUCs were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.53||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91880890|NCT04358068|183655680|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific durations were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.83||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91750121|NCT03410797|183392613|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0329
91750122|NCT03410797|183392614|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Net)|15.39||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0164
91750123|NCT03410797|183392615|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Net)|-52.0||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1141
91750124|NCT03410797|183392616|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.3329|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3329
91750125|NCT01185964|183392618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.672||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.021|||Log Rank|||||1.021|0.442|0.0615
91750126|NCT01185964|183392621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.463||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.710|0.301|0.0003
91802546|NCT02468674|183482617|OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.283
91750127|NCT05894538|183392629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.12|0.92|
91750128|NCT05894538|183392630|SUPERIORITY|Due to the low event rate, a posterior probability was not estimated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|17.18|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|||17.18|0.74|
91750129|NCT05894538|183392633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.45|0.60|
91750130|NCT05894538|183392637|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.96|0.61|
91750131|NCT05894538|183392637|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||0.85|0.49|
91750132|NCT05894538|183392637|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||0.92|0.52|
91750133|NCT05894538|183392637|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.36|0.72|
91880891|NCT01193218|183655684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.57||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-0.57|-0.87|<0.0001
91880892|NCT01193218|183655684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.55||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-0.55|-0.85|<0.0001
91880893|NCT01193218|183655684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-0.80|-1.10|<0.0001
91750134|NCT05894538|183392638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.56|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.56|1.03|
91750135|NCT05894538|183392638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.51|1.00|
91802547|NCT02468674|183482617|OTHER|||||||0.323|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.323
91880894|NCT01193218|183655684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.76||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 50mg minus placebo||-0.76|-1.06|<0.0001
91750136|NCT05894538|183392638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.35|0.87|
91750137|NCT05894538|183392638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.32|0.86|
91750138|NCT05894538|183392639|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.26|0.81|
91750139|NCT05894538|183392639|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.66|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.66|1.00|
91750140|NCT05894538|183392639|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.02|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||2.02|1.15|
91802548|NCT02468674|183482617|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.018
91802549|NCT02468674|183482617|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.179
91750141|NCT05894538|183392639|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.47|0.86|
91750142|NCT05894538|183392640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.24|0.76|
91750143|NCT05894538|183392640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.3|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.30|0.75|
91750144|NCT05894538|183392640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.25|0.72|
91750145|NCT05894538|183392640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.28|0.75|
91750146|NCT05894538|183392641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.33|0.84|
91750147|NCT05894538|183392641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.43|0.87|
91750148|NCT05894538|183392641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.55|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.55|0.91|
91750149|NCT05894538|183392641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.26|0.75|
91880895|NCT01193218|183655685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.367|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.34|70.236|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.||Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 5mg divided by the odds of placebo||70.236|5.340|<0.0001
91750150|NCT05894538|183392642|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.20|0.79|
91750151|NCT05894538|183392642|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.02|0.63|
91750152|NCT05894538|183392642|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.69|
91750153|NCT05894538|183392642|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.35|0.84|
91880896|NCT01193218|183655685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.889||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.942|40.301|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.||Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 10mg divided by the odds of placebo||40.301|2.942|0.0003
91750154|NCT05894538|183392643|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.19|0.78|
91750155|NCT05894538|183392643|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.39|0.92|
91750156|NCT05894538|183392643|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.36|0.91|
91750157|NCT05894538|183392643|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.21|0.82|
91750158|NCT05894538|183392644|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.32|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|||0.32|-0.39|
91802550|NCT02468674|183482617|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.227
91880897|NCT01193218|183655685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.624|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.601|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.|The upper limit of confidence interval is actually \>99.99|Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 25mg divided by the odds of placebo||99.99|7.601|<0.0001
91750159|NCT04962230|183392647|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|specify in comments|56.82||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.04|68.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||68.62|47.04|0.05
91750160|NCT04962230|183392648|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|44.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.77|58.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||58.65|33.77|0.05
91750161|NCT04962230|183392649|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|25.59||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.76|34.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||34.91|18.76|0.05
91880898|NCT01193218|183655685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.12|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.|The upper limit of confidence interval is actually \>99.99|Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 50mg divided by the odds of placebo||99.99|12.120|<0.0001
91880899|NCT01193218|183655686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.61|-21.8|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-21.80|-31.61|<0.0001
91880900|NCT01193218|183655686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.25|-24.42|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-24.42|-34.25|<0.0001
91880901|NCT01193218|183655686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.66|-32.84|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-32.84|-42.66|<0.0001
91907778|NCT00552175|183710862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average of interference scores, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average of Interference scores analysis||-0.07|-0.97|
91750162|NCT04962230|183392650|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|16.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.32|20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||20.60|13.32|0.05
91750163|NCT04962230|183392656|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|44.59||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.99|58.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||58.50|33.99|0.05
91750164|NCT04962230|183392661|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|12.92||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.28|17.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||17.99|9.28|0.05
91750165|NCT02210832|183392706|SUPERIORITY|38.27% vs. 9.09%|||||<|0.001||||||p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for significance was P \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|chi square test statistic = 20.23, df = 1||Hypothesized that women assigned to Best practices plus financial incentives would achieve greater abstinence than women assigned to Best practices only.||||<0.001
91750166|NCT02210832|183392707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Used generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||||||<0.05
91750167|NCT02210832|183392707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||chi square test statistic = 21.93, df=7|Mixed Models Analysis|Conducted a generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||Trial condition by assessment time interaction||||0.003
91880902|NCT01193218|183655686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.51|-31.69|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 50mg minus placebo||-31.69|-41.51|<0.0001
91880903|NCT00665223|183655690|SUPERIORITY|This analysis compared ACR16 45 mg vs. placebo during the randomization phase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.44|0.72|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) main effects model included a term for treatment and covariates for baseline mMS, gender, and use of antipsychotic medication.||0.72|-1.44|0.456
91880904|NCT00665223|183655690|SUPERIORITY|This analysis compared ACR16 90 mg vs. placebo during the randomization phase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.08|0.1|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) main effects model included a term for treatment and covariates for baseline mMS, gender, and use of antipsychotic medication.||0.10|-2.08|0.042
91880905|NCT01161628|183655717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: p (CR rate) is 0.5 or less versus... Alternative hypothesis: p \>0.5 A sample size of 25 patients gives 90% power with an alpha = 0.05||||<0.5
91750168|NCT02210832|183392708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||chi square test statistic = 9.52, df = 10|Mixed Models Analysis|Conducted a generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||Interaction of trial condition and time||||0.48
91750169|NCT02210832|183392709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||chi square test statistic = 33.51, df = 2|Mixed Models Analysis|Conducted a generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||Examining main effect of treatment condition.||||<0.0001
91750170|NCT02210832|183392709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||chi square test statistic = 5.00, df = 10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing interaction of treatment condition and assessment time||||0.89
91880906|NCT01125566|183655730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4224||95.0|0.87|1.41||Two sided p-value was derived from a log rank test stratified by the setting of prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|||1.41|0.87|0.4224
91880907|NCT01125566|183655731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.63||Two sided p-value from a log rank test stratified by the setting of prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|Results of presented analyses are to be seen as exploratory (no confirmatory testing was performed)||1.63|1.03|0.0240
91880908|NCT01125566|183655732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6431||95.0|0.756|1.572|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|The odds ratio for the comparison afatinib + vinorelbine vs. trastuzumab + vinorelbine below 1 favours Afatinib.|Results of presented analyses are to be seen as exploratory (no confirmatory testing was performed)||1.572|0.756|0.6431
91880909|NCT01125566|183655733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.029||||0.8829||95.0|0.707|1.496|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|The odds ratio for the comparison afatinib + vinorelbine vs. trastuzumab + vinorelbine below 1 favours AV.|Results of presented analyses are to be seen as exploratory (no confirmatory testing was performed)||1.496|0.707|0.8829
91750171|NCT02210832|183392710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Method was mixed model repeated measures analysis of covariance.||||||<0.001
91750172|NCT02210832|183392711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||F\[7,922\]=3.62|ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of covariance was conducted with Bonferroni corrections for post-doc tests and across repeated assessments.||Examine interaction of treatment condition and assessment time.||||<0.001
91750173|NCT02210832|183392711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Method was mixed model repeated measures analysis of covariance.||||||<0.001
91750174|NCT02210832|183392712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Method was mixed model repeated measures analysis of covariance.||||||0.009
91750175|NCT02210832|183392713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|Method is logistic regression adjusted for covariates.||||||0.01
91750176|NCT02210832|183392714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91750177|NCT02210832|183392715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91750178|NCT02210832|183392717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91750179|NCT02210832|183392721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|All comparisons adjusted for infant gestational age at time of delivery.||||||0.006
91880910|NCT01424189|183655739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With 300 subjects in the ReSTOR Toric IOL test group and 150 subjects in the ReSTOR IOL control group, there was over 99% power to demonstrate that the upper 95% confidence limit for the observed difference in UCDVA between IOL groups was less than the clinical performance target of 0.1 logMAR units at Month 12, assuming the true difference between groups is zero. This was based on an assumed standard deviation for UCDVA of 0.16 logMAR units and a 1-sided, α=0.05 test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03||||||||0.030||
91888986|NCT01465763|183670746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model|||At Week 4: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect.||-0.7|-1.5|<0.0001
91888987|NCT01465763|183670746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model|||At Week 8: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect.||-1.1|-1.9|<0.0001
91888988|NCT01465763|183670747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group, prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region as factors and baseline as a covariate based on the observed-case data.||-1.4|-2.5|<0.0001
91888989|NCT01646177|183670748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91750180|NCT03710876|183392751|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.59||1-sided|Log Rank|||||1.59|0.43|0.2840
91802551|NCT02468674|183482618|OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square geometric means||Population II: LBM at Week 49||||1.000
91888990|NCT01646177|183670748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91888991|NCT01646177|183670748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91888992|NCT01646177|183670749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91888993|NCT01646177|183670749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91888994|NCT01646177|183670749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91888995|NCT01646177|183670750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91750181|NCT03710876|183392753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|24.3||2-sided|Fisher Exact||Risk difference is proportion achieving objective response in r+C+G group minus the proportion achieving objective response in C+ G group. The confidence interval was calculated by the exact conditional method of Chan and Zhang.|||24.3|-17.3|1.0000
91750182|NCT03710876|183392754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|29.2|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference is proportion achieving response in r+C+G group minus the proportion achieving response in C+ G group. The confidence interval was calculated by the exact conditional method of Chan and Zhang.|||29.2|-25.2|1.0000
91750183|NCT03710876|183392755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.6||||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|20.3|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference is proportion achieving response in r+C+G group minus the proportion achieving response in C+ G group. The confidence interval was calculated by the exact conditional method of Chan and Zhang.|||20.3|-34.9|0.7665
91750184|NCT03710876|183392756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.7537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|23.0||2-sided.|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||23.0|-31.7|0.7537
91750185|NCT03710876|183392757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.4||||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|45.6||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||45.6|-8.8|0.1855
91880911|NCT01424189|183655740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With 300 subjects in the ReSTOR Toric IOL test group and 150 subjects in the ReSTOR IOL control group, there was over 99% power to demonstrate that the upper 95% confidence limit for the observed difference in UCNVA between IOL groups was less than the clinical performance target of 0.1 logMAR units at Month 12, assuming the true difference between groups is zero. This estimate was based on an assumed standard deviation for UCNVA of 0.16 logMAR units and a 1-sided, α=0.05 test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.017||||||||-0.017||
91880912|NCT00513461|183655745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.78||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.160
91880913|NCT00513461|183655758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.878|TWO_SIDED||||||Two-Group t-test|||||||0.878
91750186|NCT03710876|183392758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|38.3||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||38.3|-13.8|0.3570
91750187|NCT03710876|183392759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.5||||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|38.3||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||38.3|-11.3|0.2856
91750188|NCT03710876|183392760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|30.0||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||30.0|-17.8|0.6173
91750189|NCT03710876|183392761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|30.0||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||30.0|-17.8|0.6173
91750190|NCT01460719|183392795|OTHER|The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval of the GMFR is \>1.0.|||||<|0.001|||||||Single longitudinal regression model|Adjustments made for pre-vaccination values||||||<0.001
91750191|NCT01151761|183392803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||months|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.0|||||There were only two patients in the study. Both died without having any local failure. One patient died at 10 months, the other at 7 months. The range for the 95%CI is both the full range and the 95%CI.|The median Progression Free Survival (PFS) time as calculated using Kaplan Meier methodology. For PFS both death and progression are counted as events.||10|7|
91750192|NCT01151761|183392808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||None of the two patients who participated had a local recurrence before they died.|||||
91880914|NCT00513461|183655759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.66||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||Two-Group t-test|||||||0.212
91880915|NCT00312845|183655768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.039
91880916|NCT00312845|183655769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91750193|NCT01007123|183392822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.2|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.2
91750194|NCT01007123|183392822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91750195|NCT01007123|183392822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91750196|NCT01007123|183392823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91750197|NCT01007123|183392823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
91880917|NCT01123512|183655795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data), calculated using Bayesian multiple imputation for missing 12-month values, as specified in the protocol. The Kiva System is declared non-inferior to control if Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data)\> 96.6%."|% Probability of Equivalence = 99.92|99.92|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data), calculated using Bayesian multiple imputation for missing 12-month values, as specified in the protocol. The Kiva System is declared non-inferior to control if Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data)\> 96.6%."|Bayesian test of proportions|||||||
91888996|NCT01646177|183670750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91888997|NCT01646177|183670750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91888998|NCT01646177|183670751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91888999|NCT01646177|183670751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91889000|NCT01646177|183670751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91889001|NCT01646177|183670752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91880918|NCT00496834|183655807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -1.5m/s|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.01|||||The lower limit of ≥-1.5m/s was judged to prove the non-inferiority of the test group to the control group.|Participants for analysis was modified intention to treat (Number of patients: Losartan group was 88, Carvedilol group was 94).||0.01|-0.83|
91880919|NCT00496834|183655808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin=-1.5m/s|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.15|||||The lower limit of ≥-1.5m/s was judged to prove the non-inferiority of the test group to the control group.|Participants for analysis was per protocol (Number of patients: Losartan group was 54, Carvedilol group was 67). For the primary efficacy endpoints, Per protocol analysis approach was supplementary used.||0.15|-0.86|
91750198|NCT01007123|183392823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91750199|NCT01007123|183392824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
91750200|NCT01007123|183392824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91750201|NCT01007123|183392824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
91750202|NCT01007123|183392825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
91750203|NCT01007123|183392825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91750204|NCT01007123|183392825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91750205|NCT01007123|183392826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison vs placebo||||0.01
91750206|NCT01007123|183392826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison vs placebo||||<0.05
91750207|NCT01007123|183392827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
91750208|NCT01007123|183392827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91750209|NCT01007123|183392827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91750210|NCT02838901|183392828|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis, and was based on the overall assessment of feasibility of the intervention.||||||0.058||||||The p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was used, and the assumption was there would be no difference in adherence between the Active Juice and the Placebo Juice, and therefore a two-sided t approximation was reported. Since this was a pilot study, power calculations were not performed. The adherence in the two groups was compared using the Wilcoxon two-sample test.||||0.058
91880920|NCT00496834|183655809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9032||95.0||||Significance level=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|The secondary efficacy analysis was performed in the modified intention to treat population using t-test.||||||0.9032
91750211|NCT02838901|183392829|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis and was under the goal of assessing safety of the intervention.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was assumed, no power calculation was done since this was a pilot study.||||1.00
91750212|NCT02838901|183392830|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was assumed, and no power calculation was performed since this was a pilot study.||||0.0003
91750213|NCT02838901|183392831|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis for a pilot study, and no power calculations were performed.||||||0.1023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1023
91750214|NCT02838901|183392832|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis for a pilot study to gather preliminary data for a larger trial. No power calculations were performed for this outcome.||||||0.9581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9581
91750215|NCT02838901|183392832|OTHER|||||||0.6678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was assumed, and no power calculation was performed since this was a pilot study and the purpose was to collect preliminary data for a larger trial.||||.6678
91750216|NCT02838901|183392834|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91750217|NCT02838901|183392834|OTHER|||||||0.876|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.876
91750218|NCT02838901|183392835|OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.889
91750219|NCT02838901|183392835|OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.532
91750220|NCT02838901|183392836|OTHER|||||||0.888|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.888
91750221|NCT02838901|183392837|OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.475
91750222|NCT02838901|183392838|OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.135
91750223|NCT02838901|183392839|OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.185
91880921|NCT00496834|183655810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6574||95.0||||Significance level=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|The secondary efficacy analysis was performed in the modified intention to treat population using t-test||||||0.6574
91889002|NCT01646177|183670752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91750224|NCT04699032|183392919|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for apraglutide between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal group (Test). Estimates of the mean differences and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model. The mean differences and 90% CIs for the mean differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the geometric least-square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.423|0.909||||||||0.909|0.423|
91750225|NCT04699032|183392920|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for apraglutide between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal group (Test). Estimates of the mean differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model. The mean differences and 90% CIs for the mean differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the geometric least-square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.694|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.458|1.05||||||||1.050|0.458|
91750226|NCT03022097|183392923|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.124||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.124|0.060|<0.001
91750227|NCT03022097|183392924|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.117||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.117|0.053|<0.001
91880922|NCT01227928|183655823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.626|||||The Hazard Ratio (HR) is estimated using a Pike estimator. The HR was adjusted for the stratification factor of first-line treatment outcome.|||1.626|0.595|
91880923|NCT01227928|183655824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.811||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.751|||Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio (HR) is estimated using a Pike estimator. The HR was adjusted for the three stratification factors.|||1.751|0.376|0.5901
91880924|NCT01042145|183655838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91880925|NCT01042145|183655839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91880926|NCT01042145|183655841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91880927|NCT01042145|183655842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91880928|NCT01042145|183655843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91880929|NCT04088136|183655844|EQUIVALENCE|A one-tailed independent samples t-test was conducted. A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|Use of pooled error term, df = 60.|Negative number reflects fewer errors in EMMI group, as predicted.|||0.55|-0.42|.67
91880930|NCT04088136|183655845|SUPERIORITY|Everyday Metacognitive Memory group predicted to have superior scores to Memory Strategy Control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided||pooled error term, equal variance assumption, df = 60|||||<.47
91880931|NCT04088136|183655846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||||7.6|-3.7|< .13
91880932|NCT04088136|183655847|EQUIVALENCE|Directional hypothesis of fewer errors in Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.6||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|Pooled error term, df = 51||||2.6|-4.8|.57
91880933|NCT04088136|183655848|EQUIVALENCE|Two-tailed test of hypothesis of fewer errors in EMMI group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.5||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|Pooled error term, df = 49||||5.5|-3.8|.72
91880934|NCT04088136|183655849|OTHER|Test of Group X Time interaction|||||<|0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|pooled df = 59||"We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed model analysis with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest).~Hypothesis was that Memory Strategy Control group would show greater improvements from pretest to posttest in recall scores"||||< .69
91880935|NCT04088136|183655850|OTHER|One-tailed test of Group X Time interaction|||||<|0.037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effect model with repeated measures on Time (pretest-posttest).~Predicted hypothesis was greater pretest-posttest improvement in the Memory Strategy Contol group"||||< .037
91880936|NCT04088136|183655851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.4|||t-test, 2 sided||one instance of missing data due to computer failure during testing. Pooled error term resulting in df = 59|||8.4|-4.0|.69
91880937|NCT04088136|183655852|EQUIVALENCE|Directional hypothesis of shorter time in Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.3||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-257.4|157.4||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|Use of pooled error term, DF = 51||||157.4|-257.4|.63
91880938|NCT04088136|183655853|EQUIVALENCE|Two-tailed test of hypothesis of shorter time in Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.8||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|98.5||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|Use of pooled error term, df = 49||||98.5|-77.4|.81
91880939|NCT04088136|183655854|OTHER||||||<|0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed procedure with unrestricted error covariance matrix. Pooled df for MSWithin = 60||We conducted a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest). Hypothesis was greater reduction in memory complaints from pretest to posttest in EMMI group||||< .14
91880940|NCT04088136|183655855|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effect model with repeated measures on Time (pretest-posttest)||||.037
91880941|NCT04088136|183655856|OTHER|Hypothesis was greater increase in memory self-efficacy for Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|||||<|0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model specified unrestricted residual (error) covariance matrix. Pooled df in MS Error = 60||We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest).||||< .33
91880942|NCT04088136|183655857|OTHER||||||<|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest). Hypothesis was greater increase in memory control in EMMI group||||< .20
91880943|NCT04088136|183655858|OTHER|Hypothesis was greater increase in use of external mnemonics in EMMI group|||||<|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .20
91880944|NCT01494298|183655859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002||95.0||||The control group average age was 6 years lower(P=0.001). Results were adjusted via a logistic regression and presented as age-adjusted means and SE. The unadjusted differences had similar results.|t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis - There will be differences in ApoB between AA with T2DM and those without. To achieve a power of 80%, 48 subjects in each group were needed to detect 15 mg/dL difference in ApoB levels, assuming a standard deviation of 26 mg/dL if alpha was set at 0.05. Continuous data were compared using a Students t-test and categorical data were compared using test.||||=0.002
91880945|NCT01494298|183655861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91880946|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|0.29|||=|0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.3||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||2.30|-1.72|=0.772
91880947|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.01|||=|0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.97||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||2.97|-0.94|=0.299
91889003|NCT01646177|183670752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91880948|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.11|||=|0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.13||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||2.13|-2.34|=0.924
91880949|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.86|||=|0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|4.04||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||4.04|-0.32|=0.091
91880950|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.18|||=|0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.45||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||2.45|-2.82|=0.887
91750228|NCT03022097|183392925|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.166||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.166|0.103|<0.001
91750229|NCT03022097|183392926|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|0.25||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.250|0.184|<0.001
91750230|NCT03022097|183392927|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|BDI, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||1.3|0.2|0.005
91750231|NCT03022097|183392927|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|BDI, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||1.0|-0.1|0.132
91750232|NCT03022097|183392928|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.4||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity. P-value is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline SGRQ, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||-1.4|-6.7|0.003
91750233|NCT03022097|183392928|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-0.3||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity. P-value is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline SGRQ, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||-0.3|-5.5|0.031
91750234|NCT00623545|183392929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|185.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|240.0||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was p\< 0.05|ANOVA||units are kcal/d|Previously published literature showed an average weight loss of 1.8 kg at 12 weeks of exenatide treatment. This was converted to differ- ence in TEE, estimating an average imbalance of 2 kg × 7800 kcal·kg-1 divided by 84 days or 185 kcal·day-1.We demonstrated an average reproducibility of the DLW method of 6% or 240 kcal·day-1. For a 5% probability of finding this difference with a power of 80%, we determined a need for 14 subjects to complete the study.||||0.001
91750235|NCT00623545|183392929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91750236|NCT00623545|183392930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that energy intake was unchanged between the period before treatment and at the end of treatment.||||< 0.05
91880951|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.8|||=|0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.36||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||4.36|-0.76|=0.162
91880952|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|||=|0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|2.29||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||2.29|-3.01|=0.784
91750237|NCT00623545|183392930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91750238|NCT00445848|183392931|OTHER||proportion of participants|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||||||The overall survival rate at year 1 was estimated using Kaplan-Meier.||0.85|0.67|
91750239|NCT00445848|183392931|OTHER||proportion of participants|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.67||||||The overall survival rate at year 2 was estimated using Kaplan-Meier.||0.67|0.46|
91750240|NCT00445848|183392931|OTHER||proportion of participants|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.53||||||The overall survival rate at year 3 was estimated using Kaplan-Meier.||0.53|0.32|
91750241|NCT00855933|183392960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.24||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA||2-sided with the significance level set at 5%|||0.24|-0.03|0.126
91750242|NCT05463744|183392961|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.181|||ANCOVA|||||0.181|-0.077|
91750243|NCT05463744|183392962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.052||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.181|||ANCOVA|||||0.181|-0.077|0.432
91750244|NCT05463744|183392963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.60|-2.22|0.751
91750245|NCT05463744|183392964|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||||1.31|0.79|0.900
91750246|NCT05463744|183392965|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0682|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.157|||ANCOVA|||||0.157|-0.110|
91750247|NCT05463744|183392966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|4.93|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||4.93|-7.38|0.697
91750248|NCT05463744|183392966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.84||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|1.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||1.96|-11.64|0.163
91880953|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.79|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|4.37||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||4.37|-0.79|=0.166
91880954|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.42|||=|0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.82||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.82|-1.98|=0.724
91880955|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.81|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|4.14||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.14|-0.52|=0.124
91880956|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.29|||=|0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|3.48||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||3.48|-2.91|=0.856
91880957|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.64|||=|0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|4.76||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||4.76|-1.48|=0.292
91750249|NCT05463744|183392967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 23 to Week 26||0.66|-0.61|0.939
91750250|NCT05463744|183392967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 49 to Week 52||1.17|-0.13|0.116
91880958|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||=|0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|3.37||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||3.37|-3.14|=0.944
91880959|NCT04159805|183655863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.85|||=|0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|4.02||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||4.02|-2.33|=0.589
91880960|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.93|||=|0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.31||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||1.31|-3.17|=0.406
91907779|NCT00552175|183710863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.8517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of BDI-II, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||1.01|-1.22|0.8517
91750251|NCT05463744|183392968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.54||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.62|||ANCOVA|||||2.62|-1.54|0.610
91750252|NCT05463744|183392969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.96||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||3.38|-21.30|0.155
91750253|NCT05463744|183392969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.88||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||5.55|-19.31|0.278
91750254|NCT05463744|183392970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||-2.03|-5.52|<0.001
91750255|NCT05463744|183392970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-1.71|-5.26|<0.001
91750256|NCT05463744|183392971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.59|-20.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||-20.98|-57.59|<0.001
91750257|NCT05463744|183392971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|-17.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-17.43|-54.44|<0.001
91750258|NCT05463744|183392972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||5.06|1.32|<0.001
91750259|NCT05463744|183392972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||4.70|0.91|0.004
91750260|NCT05463744|183392973|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.21||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.41|||Negative binomial model|||||1.41|1.04|0.016
91750261|NCT05463744|183392974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.086||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.53|-0.35|0.702
91750262|NCT05463744|183392974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||0.56|-0.33|0.609
91750263|NCT05463744|183392975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 23 to Week 26||0.19|-0.13|0.681
91880961|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.9|||=|0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|3.14||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||3.14|-1.34|=0.418
91750264|NCT05463744|183392975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 49 to Week 52||0.24|-0.05|0.182
91750265|NCT05463744|183392976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 23 to Week 26||2.05|-2.06|0.999
91750266|NCT05463744|183392977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|1.41|||ANCOVA|||||1.41|-3.06|0.468
91750267|NCT05463744|183392978|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91750268|NCT05463744|183392979|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91880962|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.94|||=|0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.65||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||1.65|-3.53|=0.463
91880963|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|||=|0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.49||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||2.49|-2.70|=0.936
91880964|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.8|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|0.82||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||0.82|-4.41|=0.170
91880965|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.52|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.13||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||3.13|-2.10|=0.687
91880966|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.24|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|1.57||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||1.57|-4.05|=0.374
91880967|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.99|||=|0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|3.8||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||3.80|-1.82|=0.478
91880968|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.51|||=|0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.09||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.09|-3.12|=0.690
91880969|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.12|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|4.71||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.71|-0.48|=0.106
91880970|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.89|||=|0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|2.12||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||2.12|-3.89|=0.547
91880971|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.19|||=|0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|5.18||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||5.18|-0.81|=0.144
91880972|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.37|||=|0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|2.17||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||2.17|-4.91|=0.431
91880973|NCT04159805|183655864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.2|||=|0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.74|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||4.74|-2.34|=0.488
91907780|NCT00552175|183710864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of BDI-II, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||1.71|-1.03|
91880974|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.34|||=|0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.45||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||3.45|-4.14|=0.855
91907781|NCT00552175|183710864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of BDI-II, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.81|-1.92|
91880975|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.19|||=|0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|6.95||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||6.95|-0.56|=0.093
91880976|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.8|||=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|6.2||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||6.20|-2.61|=0.410
91880977|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.13|||=|0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|7.5||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||7.50|-1.25|=0.154
91907782|NCT03548935|183710873|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|-11.51|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-11.51|-13.37|<.0001
91907783|NCT03548935|183710873|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-14.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|-13.55|||ANCOVA|||Hypothetical estimand||-13.55|-15.29|<0.0001
91907784|NCT03548935|183710874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.88|14.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||14.19|8.88|<0.0001
91750269|NCT05463744|183392980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score: Week 26||1.19|-0.33|0.270
91880978|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.94|||=|0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|3.41||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||3.41|-5.29|=0.662
91750270|NCT05463744|183392980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score: Week 52||1.45|0.000|0.050
91750271|NCT05463744|183392980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score: Week 26||1.38|-0.94|0.710
91750272|NCT05463744|183392980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score: Week 52||1.61|-0.71|0.447
91750273|NCT03385265|183393026|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91750274|NCT03385265|183393027|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|CESD-R = within subject variable; group = between subject variable||||||
91750275|NCT03385265|183393028|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91750276|NCT03385265|183393029|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91880979|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.26|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|7.54||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||7.54|-1.02|=0.130
91880980|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.27|||=|0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|5.98||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||5.98|-3.44|=0.586
91880981|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.93|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.6||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||9.60|0.26|=0.039
91750277|NCT03385265|183393030|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91880982|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.22|||=|0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|3.6||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.60|-4.03|=0.909
91880983|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.65|||=|0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|6.4||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||6.40|-1.09|=0.158
91750278|NCT03385265|183393031|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91750279|NCT03385265|183393032|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91750280|NCT03385265|183393033|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91750281|NCT03385265|183393034|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91750282|NCT04465877|183393045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.67|75.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 5 mg and placebo on Day 1||75.42|-79.67|0.956
91750283|NCT04465877|183393045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.41|106.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 5 mg and placebo on Day 14||106.07|-105.41|0.995
91750284|NCT04465877|183393045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-59.35||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-191.15|72.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 5 mg and placebo on Day 28||72.45|-191.15|0.366
91750285|NCT04465877|183393045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.02||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.96|-20.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 10 mg and placebo on Day 1||-20.08|-179.96|0.016
91750286|NCT04465877|183393045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-137.85||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-245.28|-30.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 10 mg and placebo on Day 14||-30.43|-245.28|0.014
91750287|NCT04465877|183393045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-229.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-362.17|-95.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 10 mg and placebo on Day 28||-95.91|-362.17|0.001
91750288|NCT04465877|183393045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.98||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-167.62|-12.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 20 mg and placebo on Day 1||-12.33|-167.62|0.025
91750289|NCT04465877|183393045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-222.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-326.54|-117.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 20 mg and placebo on Day 14||-117.51|-326.54|<0.001
91750290|NCT04465877|183393045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-248.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-379.35|-118.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 20 mg and placebo on Day 28||-118.28|-379.35|<0.001
91750291|NCT04346108|183393077|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.15||||||||3.15|0.73|
91750292|NCT04346108|183393077|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
91750293|NCT04346108|183393077|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.13||||||||4.13|1.34|
91750294|NCT04346108|183393078|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.3||||||||5.30|1.02|
91889004|NCT01646177|183670753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91750295|NCT04346108|183393078|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|9.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|23.82||||||||23.82|2.82|
91750296|NCT04346108|183393078|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|5.18||||||||5.18|1.37|
91750297|NCT04346108|183393079|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|4.01||||||95.0|1.46|8.54||||||||8.54|1.46|
91750298|NCT04346108|183393079|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.74||||||||10.74|0.37|
91750299|NCT04346108|183393079|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|5.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|11.93||||||||11.93|2.32|
91750300|NCT04346108|183393080|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
91750301|NCT04346108|183393080|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.35||||||||0.35|0.03|
91750302|NCT04346108|183393080|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
91750303|NCT04346108|183393081|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
91750304|NCT04346108|183393081|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.76||||||||2.76|0.25|
91750305|NCT04346108|183393082|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.68||||||||2.68|0.38|
91750306|NCT04346108|183393082|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.82||||||||4.82|0.91|
91880984|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.88|||=|0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|5.05||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||5.05|-6.80|=0.764
91880985|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|5.2|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|11.06||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||11.06|-0.67|=0.080
91750307|NCT04346108|183393082|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.15||||||||2.15|0.07|
91750308|NCT02275117|183393089|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|1.3|0.0330
91750309|NCT02275117|183393089|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|21.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.8|-0.5|0.0715
91750310|NCT02275117|183393089|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.2013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.5|-3.5|0.2013
91750311|NCT02275117|183393089|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.9|-4.6|0.2938
91750312|NCT01327274|183393111|OTHER|Pre-treatment and post-treatment Pectus Severity Indices were compared using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.||||||0.486|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.486
91750313|NCT00386477|183393113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.11||95.0|0.26|1.11|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.11|0.26|0.11
91750314|NCT01081301|183393114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of the Herth Hope Index over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
91750315|NCT01081301|183393115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of SF-12v2 Mental health scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
91750316|NCT01081301|183393116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of General Self Efficacy Scale scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
91750317|NCT01081301|183393117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of Non Death Revised Grief Experience Inventory scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||>0.05
91880986|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.01|||=|0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|3.95||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||3.95|-5.98|=0.677
91880987|NCT04159805|183655865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.81|||=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.73||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||9.73|-0.10|=0.055
91750318|NCT01081301|183393118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of SF-12v2 Physical health scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
91880988|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.52|||=|0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|4.27||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||4.27|-3.23|=0.780
91880989|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.5|||=|0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.99||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||3.99|-2.99|=0.771
91880990|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.04|||=|0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|4.14||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||4.14|-4.22|=0.984
91880991|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.44|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|6.35||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||6.35|-1.47|=0.213
91880992|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.97|||=|0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.45||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||2.45|-6.40|=0.371
91880993|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||=|0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.23||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||4.23|-4.01|=0.956
91880994|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.06|||=|0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|3.53||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||3.53|-5.65|=0.641
91880995|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.33|||=|0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|3.95||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||3.95|-4.61|=0.876
91880996|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.86|||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.18||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.18|-6.91|=0.458
91880997|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.68|||=|0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|4.0||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.00|-5.37|=0.769
91750319|NCT01095653|183393122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0975|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.56||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-0.94|<0.0001
91880998|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.14|||=|0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|4.8||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||4.80|-7.07|=0.699
91880999|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.1|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|6.62||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||6.62|-4.41|=0.687
91881000|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.2|||=|0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|5.95||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||5.95|-5.55|=0.944
91750320|NCT01095653|183393122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0962|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.63||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-1.01|<0.0001
91881001|NCT04159805|183655866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.48|||=|0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|7.83||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||7.83|-2.87|=0.351
91881002|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.9|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.18|4.38||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||4.38|-60.18|=0.090
91889005|NCT01646177|183670753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91881003|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.77|||=|0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|15.96||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||15.96|-47.50|=0.328
91750321|NCT01095653|183393123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.203|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-21.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-21.4|-34.0|<0.0001
91750322|NCT01095653|183393123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.174|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-27.9||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-27.9|-40.4|<0.0001
91750323|NCT01095653|183393124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5667|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|-34.96||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-34.96|-60.80|<0.0001
91750324|NCT01095653|183393124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4489|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.66|-43.28||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-43.28|-68.66|<0.0001
91750325|NCT01095653|183393125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3259|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.73||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.73|-2.01|<0.0001
91750326|NCT01095653|183393125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3242|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-1.34||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-1.34|-2.62|<0.0001
91750327|NCT01095653|183393126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|31.6||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||31.6|11.1|<0.0001
91750328|NCT01095653|183393126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|38.3||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||38.3|18.6|<0.0001
91750329|NCT02836873|183393153|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.28||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.1|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||This is a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis including region, screening anti-diabetic treatment regimen, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline HbA1c as a fixed effect covariate. Data from Weeks 6, 12, and 24 are used in the model.||-0.10|-0.46|0.0026
91881004|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.65|||=|0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|19.63||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 3||19.63|-44.94|=0.441
91881005|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.39|||=|0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|33.12||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 3||33.12|-30.33|=0.931
91881006|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.18|||=|0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.46|4.11||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||4.11|-60.46|=0.087
91881007|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.44|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.29|36.16||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||36.16|-27.29|=0.783
91881008|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-29.08|||=|0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.36|3.21||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 5||3.21|-61.36|=0.077
91750330|NCT02836873|183393154|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.03|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||-1.03|-2.50|< 0.0001
91750331|NCT02836873|183393155|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.63||||0.2035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.44|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||1.44|-6.70|0.2035
91750332|NCT02836873|183393156|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.2||||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||0.05|-0.44|0.1156
91750333|NCT02836873|183393157|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.1|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||-0.10|-0.65|0.0078
91750334|NCT02266277|183393158|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.47||Adjusted for age, sex, race and utilization|Regression, Logistic|||||1.47|1.15|0.0001
91881009|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.72|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.45|16.0||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 5||16.00|-47.45|=0.330
91750335|NCT02266277|183393158|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|1.07|.0026
91802552|NCT01650844|183482631|OTHER|We estimated the power to detect the smallest clinically significant difference in mean SFDs post intervention between the groups, accounting for repeated measures. A sample of 400 obtains greater than 90% power to detect a difference of 0.8 SFD per 2 weeks or greater. Analyses were multivariable modified intention to treat, including all participants with post intervention data. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were fitted with repeated asthma outcomes.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Analyses were multivariable modified intention to treat, including all participants with post intervention data. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were fitted with repeated asthma outcomes.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91802553|NCT01332500|183482632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
91881010|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.14|||=|0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.19|18.91||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||18.91|-47.19|=0.400
91881011|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.18|32.19||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||32.19|-32.18|=1.000
91881012|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-26.47|||=|0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.64|6.69||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 7||6.69|-59.64|=0.117
91750336|NCT02266277|183393158|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|1.02|.0206
91802554|NCT01332500|183482632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
91802555|NCT01332500|183482632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Opioid tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.005
91802556|NCT01332500|183482632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||95.0||||Ergot tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.336
91802557|NCT01332500|183482632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||Other tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.162
91802558|NCT01332500|183482633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
91802559|NCT01332500|183482633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.349
91881013|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.75|||=|0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|19.44||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 7||19.44|-44.94|=0.436
91881014|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY|From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|Difference in LS Mean|-47.91|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.54|-14.29||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||-14.29|-81.54|=0.005
91881015|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-20.48|||=|0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.92|11.95||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||11.95|-52.92|=0.215
91881016|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.97|||=|0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.34|29.4||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||29.40|-37.34|=0.815
91889006|NCT01646177|183670753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91802560|NCT01332500|183482633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||Opioid health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.208
91802561|NCT01332500|183482633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0||||Ergot health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.239
91802562|NCT01332500|183482633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||Other health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.583
91802563|NCT01332500|183482633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total heath plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
91802564|NCT01332500|183482634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
91889007|NCT01646177|183670754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91889008|NCT01646177|183670754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91889009|NCT01646177|183670754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91889010|NCT01646177|183670755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91889011|NCT01646177|183670755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91881017|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.31|||=|0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.84|28.22||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||28.22|-36.84|=0.794
91881018|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-36.78|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.48|-3.08||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||-3.08|-70.48|=0.033
91881019|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.79|||=|0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.26|21.67||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 12||21.67|-43.26|=0.513
91881020|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-56.21|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.69|-20.73||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 14||-20.73|-91.69|=0.002
91881021|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-36.94|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.39|-2.48||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 14||-2.48|-71.39|=0.036
91881022|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-62.98|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.64|-25.31||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 16||-25.31|-100.64|=0.001
91881023|NCT04159805|183655867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.81|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.12|8.51||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 16||8.51|-66.12|=0.130
91881024|NCT02930837|183655872|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of patients|63.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.42|71.42|||One-sample test||Percentage of patients with Favourable outcome|A null hypothesis of p ≤40% versus the alternative hypothesis of p \>40% was tested using a one sample test at two-sided significance level of 0.05, where p denoted the response rate in Chinese patients who were treated within 3-4.5 h after stroke onset.||71.42|54.42|<0.0001
91889012|NCT01646177|183670755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91889013|NCT01646177|183670756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91750337|NCT02266277|183393158|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.21|.96|.2330
91750338|NCT02266277|183393158|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio, log|1.12||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|.996|.0579
91750339|NCT02266277|183393158|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.14|.86|.87
91750340|NCT02266277|183393159|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|.81|.82
91750341|NCT02266277|183393159|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio, log|0.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|.71|.36
91750342|NCT02266277|183393159|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|.71|.33
91802565|NCT01332500|183482634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||Non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.177
91802566|NCT01332500|183482634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||Opioid health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.173
91802567|NCT01332500|183482634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||95.0||||Ergot health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.191
91802568|NCT01332500|183482634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||Other health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.254
91802569|NCT01332500|183482634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
91889014|NCT01646177|183670756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91802570|NCT01332500|183482635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.866||95.0||||Triptan tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.866
91802571|NCT01332500|183482635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.094
91802572|NCT01332500|183482635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0||||Opioid tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.832
91802573|NCT01332500|183482635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0||||Ergot tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.392
91802574|NCT01332500|183482635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0||||Other tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.752
91802575|NCT01332500|183482636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
91802576|NCT01332500|183482636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.054
91802577|NCT01332500|183482636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||Opioid health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.590
91802578|NCT01332500|183482636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Ergot health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.382
91802579|NCT01332500|183482636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343||95.0||||Other health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.343
91881025|NCT01393613|183655879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare the average effect analysis for brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day and placebo combined treatment groups at Week 6. The primary analysis was performed by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance covariance structure. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, baseline, baseline and visit interaction and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||||0.0093
91881026|NCT01393613|183655879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.47||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-2.35|-10.6|0.0022
91881027|NCT01393613|183655879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.07|-7.23|0.1448
91889015|NCT01646177|183670756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91889016|NCT01646177|183670757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91802580|NCT01332500|183482636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
91802581|NCT01332500|183482637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
91802582|NCT01332500|183482637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.146
91802583|NCT01332500|183482637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0||||Opioid health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.826
91802584|NCT01332500|183482637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0||||Ergot health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.354
91802585|NCT01332500|183482637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||Other health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.514
91802586|NCT01332500|183482637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Total health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.001
91802587|NCT01687998|183482638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.9054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.111|||Regression, Cox|||Primary Endpoint: Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Primary Endpoint of Cardiovascular (CV) Death, Myocardial Infarction (MI), Stroke, Coronary Revascularization, or Hospitalization for Unstable Angina (UA)||1.111|0.911|0.9054
91802588|NCT01687998|183482639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.15|-36.08|||ANOVA|||LDL-C||-36.08|-38.15|<0.0001
91802589|NCT01687998|183482639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|131.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.01|133.09|||ANOVA|||HDL-C||133.09|130.01|<0.0001
91802590|NCT01687998|183482640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.8463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.089|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Endpoint of All-Cause Mortality, MI, Stroke, Coronary Revascularization, or Hospitalization for UA||1.089|0.901|0.8463
91802591|NCT01687998|183482641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.112|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Endpoint of CV Death, MI, or Coronary Revascularization||1.112|0.901|0.9874
91802592|NCT01687998|183482642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.003||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.127|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Endpoint of CV Death, MI, Stroke, or Hospitalization for UA||1.127|0.893|0.9574
91802593|NCT01687998|183482643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of Triple Composite Endpoint of CV Death, MI, or Stroke||1.100|0.846|0.5917
91889017|NCT01646177|183670757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91889018|NCT01646177|183670757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91889019|NCT01646177|183670758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.473
91889020|NCT01646177|183670758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91889021|NCT01646177|183670758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91889022|NCT01646177|183670759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Absenteeism Score.||||0.006
91889023|NCT01646177|183670759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Absenteeism Score.||||0.045
91889024|NCT01646177|183670759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Absenteeism Score.||||0.012
91889025|NCT01646177|183670759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Activity Impairment Score.||||<0.001
91889026|NCT01646177|183670759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Activity Impairment Score.||||<0.001
91802594|NCT01663532|183482647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.7||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-1.7|-6.1|0.0005
91802595|NCT01663532|183482647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-4.0|-10.0|<.0001
91802596|NCT01663532|183482647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-5.6||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-5.6|-12.8|<.0001
91802597|NCT01663532|183482647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-7.3||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-7.3|-15.0|<.0001
91802598|NCT01663532|183482647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-9.6||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-9.6|-18.4|<.0001
91802599|NCT01663532|183482647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-10.8||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-10.8|-19.4|<.0001
91881028|NCT01393613|183655879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.37||||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6. MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, clinical visit, trial site, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, and Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||1.32|-8.06|0.1588
91881029|NCT01393613|183655880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare the average effect analysis for brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day and placebo combined treatment groups at Week 6.||||0.0069
91889027|NCT01646177|183670759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Activity Impairment Score.||||<0.001
91889028|NCT01646177|183670759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Presenteeism Score.||||<0.001
91907785|NCT03548935|183710874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.02|48.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothetical estimand||48.95|28.02|<0.0001
91907786|NCT04677959|183710915|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||The 95% credible intervals of the odds ratio from the posterior distributions were calculated and presented.||||
91907787|NCT01074190|183710937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.34
91750343|NCT02266277|183393159|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|.69|.23
91750344|NCT02266277|183393159|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|.79|.96
91750345|NCT02266277|183393159|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|.82|.76
91750346|NCT00884039|183393204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
91750347|NCT01300819|183393206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.26||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysing was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||Null hypothesis: mean change in the total Nonmotor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) score is the same for rotigotine- and placebo-treated group.||1.26|-8.43|0.147
91750348|NCT01300819|183393207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.92||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.92|-4.27|0.002
91750349|NCT01300819|183393208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|-0.37||Two-sided p-values are presented.|ANCOVA|Testing was performed using an ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.37|-5.21|0.024
91750350|NCT01300819|183393209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.5||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.50|-0.67|0.773
91750351|NCT01300819|183393210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.29||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.29|-2.41|0.122
91750352|NCT01300819|183393211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|-0.02||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.02|-3.59|0.047
91750353|NCT01300819|183393212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.37|-0.22|0.601
91750354|NCT01300819|183393213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.99||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.99|-0.99|0.997
91750355|NCT01300819|183393214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.49|-0.87|0.584
91750356|NCT01300819|183393215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.6||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||1.60|-0.84|0.536
91750357|NCT01300819|183393216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.94||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.94|-0.81|0.889
91750358|NCT01300819|183393217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.03||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.03|-2.06|0.043
91750359|NCT00438854|183393219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimating proportion of responders|0.2||||||||||||||The primary measures of efficacy of tumor response were: complete remission (CR), nodular partial remission (nPR), or partial remission (PR), as per NCI-WG criteria. The true ORR is reported as percentage and 90% CI calculated using the binomial exact test. Time to treatment failure (TTF) was defined from the date on study to date of progression, death in remission, initiation of non-protocol therapy in the absence of progression, or censored on the last visit.||||
91750360|NCT05693922|183393240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.34
91750361|NCT05693922|183393241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
91907788|NCT01074190|183710938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1
91907789|NCT01074190|183710939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||A sample size of 315 achieves 80% power to detect a difference among groups using a 2 degrees of freedom Chi-Square Test with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05.||||.1
91750362|NCT05693922|183393242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.865|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.865
91907790|NCT01399788|183710947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.2|108.64||||||Rifampicin; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% confidence interval (CI) for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV) estimate of approximately 14.5% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||108.64|99.20|
91750363|NCT04239222|183393292|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 22 subjects was required to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 5 points on the PLUS-M scale using Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks test and alpha of 0.05. A standard deviation of 7.7 was used to calculate the sample size.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.17||0.286|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot,|HO: μRevo-M ≤ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean PLUS-M score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean PLUS-M score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (11 negative, 8 positive and 4 null), Z=-1.066.|||0.286
91750364|NCT04239222|183393293|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 21 subjects was required to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 0.2 points in the TAPES-AR score using Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks test and alpha of 0.05. A standard deviation of 0.3 was used to calculate the sample size.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.094|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.212||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot.|HO: μRevo-M ≥ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean TAPES-AR score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean TAPES-AR score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (5 negative, 13 positive and 5 null), Z=-2.156|||0.031
91750365|NCT04239222|183393295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.29||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot.|HO: μRevo-M ≤ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean ABC score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean ABC score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (12 negative, 7 positive and 4 null), Z=-0.805.|||0.421
91750366|NCT04239222|183393296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.844||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot.|HO: μRevo-M ≤ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean TAPES-FUN score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean TAPES-FUN score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (6 negative, 9 positive and 8 null), Z=-0.767.|||0.443
91750367|NCT00090233|183393306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative Risk ≤10.0 (non-inferiority margin).|relative risk|1.6||||0.006||95.0|0.4|6.4||"p≤ 10/11, where p is proportion of participants with intussusception in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with intussusception. Based on conditional binomial approach.~Adjusted for group-sequential design."|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test adjusted for group-sequential design.||||6.4|0.4|0.006
91750368|NCT00090233|183393307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|81.2|||<|0.001||95.0|72.9|87.8||p≥42%, where p is proportion of participants with ≥3-fold rise in antibody titer from Predose 1 to Postdose 3 in vaccine group. Based on binomial approach.|Exact binomial test|||||87.8|72.9|<0.001
91750369|NCT00090233|183393308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy=1-Relative Risk|74.0|||<|0.001||95.0|66.8|79.9||"Efficacy≥35%. Based on p≤.65/(.65+k), where p is proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with outcome, k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine.~Based on conditional binomial approach."|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test.|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|||79.9|66.8|<0.001
91750370|NCT00090233|183393309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|94.5|||<|0.001||95.0|91.2|96.6||Rate Reduction\>0%|Poisson regression|"Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations.~Validated with Van Elteren's extension of Wilcoxon Rank Sum test."|Risk ratio of rate of hospitalizations and emergency department visits between treatment groups. Reported here are results after 12 additional emergency department visits were identified among placebo recipients and data were re-analyzed.|||96.6|91.2|<0.001
91750371|NCT00090233|183393310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy=1-Relative Risk|81.5|||<|0.001||95.0|74.9|86.7||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo / vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test||Estimated value is based on the worst episode scores.|||86.7|74.9|<0.001
91750372|NCT00090233|183393311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy=1-Relative Risk|98.0|||<|0.001||95.0|88.3|100.0||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test|||||100|88.3|<0.001
91750373|NCT00090233|183393312|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference (vaccine-placebo) in seroprotection rates was greater than -.10 (non-inferiority margin).|||||<|0.001||95.0||||p\<0.001 was obtained for all comparisons. pv - pp ≥-.10, where p is proportion of participants who achieved seroprotection in the vaccine and placebo groups, respectively.|Miettenen and Nurminen|||||||<0.001
91750374|NCT00090233|183393313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for Pertussis PT|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for Pertussis PT was used for analysis.||1.1|0.7|<0.001
91750375|NCT00090233|183393313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for Pertussis FHA|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for Pertussis FHA was used for analysis.||1.1|0.7|<0.001
91750376|NCT00090233|183393313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for Pertussis Pertactin|0.6||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for Pertussis Pertactin was used for analysis.||0.8|0.4|0.193
91750377|NCT00090233|183393314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 4|1.2|||<|0.001||95.0|1.0|1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 4 was used for analysis.||1.4|1.0|<0.001
91750378|NCT00090233|183393314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 6B|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 6B was used for analysis.||1.9|1.0|<0.001
91889029|NCT01646177|183670759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Presenteeism Score.||||<0.001
91889030|NCT01646177|183670759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Presenteeism Score.||||<0.001
91750379|NCT00090233|183393314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 9V|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 9V was used for analysis.||1.3|0.9|<0.001
91907791|NCT01399788|183710947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|107.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.95|112.9||||||Isoniazid; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 12.0% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||112.90|101.95|
91750380|NCT00090233|183393314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 14|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 14 was used for analysis.||1.3|0.7|<0.001
91750381|NCT00090233|183393314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 18C|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 18C was used for analysis.||1.6|1.1|<0.001
91750382|NCT00090233|183393314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 19F|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 19F was used for analysis.||1.4|0.8|<0.001
91750383|NCT00090233|183393314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 23F|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 23F was used for analysis.||1.5|0.9|<0.001
91750384|NCT01779869|183393316|SUPERIORITY|Accuracy was assessed compared to an imaging reference standard.||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||Significance testing between the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT and PET, and SPECT and MR, and SPECT and PET/MR was performed by using chi square test. A P value \< 0.05 was considered significant.||||0.35
91750385|NCT04754230|183393361|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||two sided Z-test|This estimate uses two sided Z-test while assuming type I error=0.05||Comparison of bleeding at day 1||||0.8
91750386|NCT00957944|183393391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|1.0302||||||90.0|0.9693|1.0951|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0951|0.9693|
91750387|NCT00957944|183393392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|1.0571||||||90.0|0.9903|1.1284|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.1284|0.9903|
91750388|NCT00957944|183393393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|1.0289||||||90.0|0.9714|1.0899|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0899|0.9714|
91750389|NCT01030874|183393435|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for whether patient had orthostatic hypotension at baseline.|Arm 2 is in the numerator of OR calculation.|||1.99|0.67|0.6
91750390|NCT01030874|183393436|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for whether patient had orthostatic hypotension at discharge.|Arm 2 is in the numerator of OR calculation.|||3.24|0.74|0.3
91750391|NCT05257148|183393437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91750392|NCT03883113|183393499|OTHER|||||||0.1711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1711
91750393|NCT03883113|183393499|OTHER|||||||0.1654|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1654
91750394|NCT03883113|183393499|OTHER|||||||0.1711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1711
91750395|NCT03883113|183393500|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical analysis applies to participants with Virologically confirmed Influenza-like Illness versus participants without Virologically confirmed Influenza-like Illness||||1.000
91750396|NCT03883113|183393501|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with qPCR confirmed Influenza versus participants with no qPCR confirmed Influenza||||0.143
91750397|NCT03883113|183393502|OTHER|||||||0.3504|||||||Fisher Exact|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with qCulture confirmed Influenza versus participants without qCulture confirmed Influenza||||0.3504
91750398|NCT03883113|183393503|OTHER|||||||0.5558|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5558
91750399|NCT03883113|183393504|OTHER|||||||0.6534|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6534
91750400|NCT03883113|183393505|OTHER|||||||0.5485|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5485
91750401|NCT03883113|183393506|OTHER|||||||0.6753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6753
91750402|NCT03883113|183393507|OTHER|||||||0.711|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.711
91750403|NCT03883113|183393508|OTHER|||||||0.4689|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4689
91802600|NCT01663532|183482648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.1|-0.4|0.0001
91802601|NCT01663532|183482648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.2|-0.6|<.0001
91881030|NCT01393613|183655880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6. The analysis of this key secondary endpoint was conducted if both comparisons of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day vs placebo and brexpiprazole 2 mg/day vs placebo of the primary endpoint were significant. Because only the comparison of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day vs placebo met the threshold in the primary analysis, the following analysis is not part of the formal statistical testing and is descriptive only.||-0.15|-0.62|0.0015
91881031|NCT01393613|183655880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.05|-0.42|0.1269
91881032|NCT01393613|183655880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.16|-0.37|0.4449
91750404|NCT03883113|183393511|OTHER|||||||0.5001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5001
91750405|NCT03883113|183393512|OTHER|||||||0.6799|||||||zero-inflated poisson model|||||||0.6799
91802602|NCT01663532|183482648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.4|-0.7|<.0001
91750406|NCT03883113|183393513|OTHER|||||||0.5911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5911
91881033|NCT01393613|183655881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.59||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||7.17|2.02|0.0005
91750407|NCT00395135|183393521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|4.2|||ANCOVA|||||4.2|3.0|<0.0001
91750408|NCT00395135|183393523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion (%)|-3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-3.25|||ANCOVA|||||-3.25|-4.09|<0.001
91750409|NCT00395135|183393524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion (%)|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.88|||ANCOVA|||||-1.88|-3.29|<0.001
91750410|NCT00395135|183393524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion (%)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.19|||ANCOVA|||||2.19|1.10|<0.001
91881034|NCT01393613|183655881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||4.59|-0.58|0.1286
91881035|NCT01393613|183655881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||6.16|0.26|0.0332
91881036|NCT01393613|183655882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.31|-3.08|0.0166
91889031|NCT01646177|183670759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Work Productively Loss Score.||||<0.001
91889032|NCT01646177|183670759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Work Productively Loss Score.||||<0.001
91889033|NCT01646177|183670759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Work Productively Loss Score.||||<0.001
91889034|NCT01646177|183670760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from PCS.||||<0.001
91889035|NCT01646177|183670760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from PCS.||||<0.001
91889036|NCT01646177|183670760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from PCS.||||<0.001
91802603|NCT01663532|183482648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.5|-0.9|<.0001
91802604|NCT01663532|183482648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.5|-0.9|<.0001
91802605|NCT01663532|183482648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.6|-1.1|<.0001
91881037|NCT01393613|183655882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.93|-1.86|0.5101
91881038|NCT01393613|183655882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.89|-2.26|0.3938
91881039|NCT01393613|183655883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.17|-2.28|0.0231
91881040|NCT01393613|183655883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.29|-1.83|0.1547
91881041|NCT01393613|183655883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.2004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.42|-1.98|0.2004
91881042|NCT01393613|183655884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.20|-0.78|0.0009
91881043|NCT01393613|183655884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.01|-0.60|0.0422
91881044|NCT01393613|183655884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.08|-0.56|0.1358
91881045|NCT01393613|183655885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||2.00|1.20|0.0006
91881046|NCT01393613|183655885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.22||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.62|0.92|0.1680
91881047|NCT01393613|183655885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.35||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.79|1.02|0.0433
91881048|NCT01393613|183655886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.82||||0.5202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.51|0.44|0.5202
91881049|NCT01393613|183655886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||0.9894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.85|0.55|0.9894
91881050|NCT01393613|183655886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.76||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.59|0.36|0.4586
91881051|NCT01393613|183655887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.48|-2.30|0.0029
91889037|NCT01646177|183670760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from MCS.||||0.031
91802606|NCT01663532|183482649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.6|-2.1|0.0006
91802607|NCT01663532|183482649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.3|-3.3|<.0001
91802608|NCT01663532|183482649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-2.0|-4.3|<.0001
91802609|NCT01663532|183482649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-2.6|-5.1|<.0001
91802610|NCT01663532|183482649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-3.4|-6.2|<.0001
91802611|NCT01663532|183482649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-3.7|-6.4|<.0001
91881052|NCT01393613|183655887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.3559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.48|-1.34|0.3559
91881053|NCT01393613|183655887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.3646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.56|-1.51|0.3646
91881054|NCT01393613|183655888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.33|-2.61|0.1273
91881055|NCT01393613|183655888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.12|-1.83|0.6400
91881056|NCT01393613|183655888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.01|-2.32|0.4423
91881057|NCT01393613|183655889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.21|-2.36|0.0194
91881058|NCT01393613|183655889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.10|-2.06|0.0754
91881059|NCT01393613|183655889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.22|-2.22|0.1080
91881060|NCT01393613|183655890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6. Because only the comparison of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day versus placebo met the threshold in the primary analysis, the following analysis is not part for the formal statistical testing and is descriptive only.||-0.43|-2.34|0.0045
91802612|NCT01663532|183482650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.3|-1.6|0.0023
91802613|NCT01663532|183482650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.4|-2.0|0.0032
91802614|NCT01663532|183482650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.8|-2.7|0.0003
91802615|NCT01663532|183482650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.3|-3.2|<.0001
91802616|NCT01663532|183482650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.4|-3.7|<.0001
91802617|NCT01663532|183482650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.6|-4.1|<.0001
91802618|NCT01663532|183482651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|10.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled centers as factors and Baseline value as covariate for the comparison at other visits.|Difference in least square mean of change were derived from ANCOVA model.|Statistical analysis for Week 10.||10.1|4.1|<.0001
91802619|NCT01663532|183482652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH raw mean scores differ test (Van Elteren test) controlling for pooled centers.||Statistical analysis for Week 10. LOCF method were used in imputation of missing data.||||<.0001
91802620|NCT01663532|183482653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling by region (pooled sites).||Statistical analysis for Week 10. LOCF method were used in imputation of missing data.||32.4|12.9|<.0001
91802621|NCT02785432|183482654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91802622|NCT02785432|183482655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
91802623|NCT02785432|183482656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91881061|NCT01393613|183655890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.61|-1.31|0.4753
91881062|NCT01393613|183655890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.21|-1.96|0.1150
91889038|NCT01646177|183670760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from MCS.||||<0.001
91802624|NCT02785432|183482657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91802625|NCT00283400|183482706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Post-hoc comparison of outcomes in dosage tier 1 vs dosage tier 2.||||14.1|0.65|<0.05
91802626|NCT00934089|183482731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|3.95|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using statistical analysis system (SAS) mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.95|-1.82|0.5330
91802627|NCT00934089|183482731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.9532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.13|3.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.85|-4.13|0.9532
91889039|NCT01646177|183670760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from MCS.||||<0.001
91889040|NCT01646177|183670761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91802628|NCT00934089|183482731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53||||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|6.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 12 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||6.18|-1.11|0.2493
91802629|NCT00934089|183482731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.2801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.59|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 2 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||1.60|-7.59|0.2801
91802630|NCT00934089|183482731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.9288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|3.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.39|-3.77|0.9288
91802631|NCT00934089|183482731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.6459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|4.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 6 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||4.58|-2.62|0.6459
91802632|NCT00934089|183482731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.06||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|7.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||7.48|0.63|0.0527
91802633|NCT00934089|183482731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|7.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||7.52|-0.95|0.1998
91802634|NCT00934089|183482731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.6765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.22|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 12 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||2.53|-4.22|0.6765
91881063|NCT01393613|183655891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.46|-2.05|0.0021
91881064|NCT01393613|183655891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.63|-0.97|0.6792
91881065|NCT01393613|183655891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.65|-1.16|0.5752
91881066|NCT01393613|183655892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.20|-1.51|0.0104
91881067|NCT01393613|183655892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.04|-1.35|0.0373
91881068|NCT01393613|183655892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.10|-1.39|0.0890
91881069|NCT00497874|183655945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.003||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(145) = 2.8||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, the t-test-and the results pooled.||||.003
91889041|NCT01646177|183670761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91802635|NCT00934089|183482731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.6221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.35|4.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 4 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||4.33|-2.35|0.6221
91802636|NCT00934089|183482731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|4.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 6 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||4.74|-1.11|0.3000
91802637|NCT00934089|183482731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.9103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|3.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.37|-3.85|0.9103
91802638|NCT00934089|183482733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|59.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.69|79.7|||Fisher Exact|||Photophobia: p-value was calculated using fisher exact test.||79.70|38.69|<0.001
91802639|NCT00934089|183482733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-3.56||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|7.68|||Fisher Exact|||Iritis: p-value was calculated using fisher exact test.||7.68|-14.80|0.612
91802640|NCT00934089|183482735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.42||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-127.05|22.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 13 8 AM study eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||22.22|-127.05|0.2450
91802641|NCT00934089|183482735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.51||||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.89|90.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 13 8 AM fellow eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||90.91|-21.89|0.3068
91802642|NCT00934089|183482735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.99||||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.69|101.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 35 8 AM study eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||101.67|-19.69|0.2632
91802643|NCT00934089|183482735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.84|47.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 35 8 AM fellow eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||47.64|-60.84|0.8373
91802644|NCT00680017|183482766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P values were based on 2 sided tests. Tests resulting in P values less than or equal to 0.050 (when rounded) were reported as statistically significant. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons since only 1 primary efficacy endpoint comparison."|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||The null hypothesis was that percent change in triglycerides (TG) from baseline to Week 8 in the ABT-335 45 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg treatment group is equal to percent change in TG from baseline to Week 8 in the rosuvastatin 5 mg plus placebo treatment group. A sample size of 140 participants per treatment group was used to provide 98% power to detect a difference between the combination therapy arm and the rosuvastatin monotherapy arm in the percent change from Baseline to Week 8 in TG.||||<0.001
91802645|NCT00680017|183482767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P values were based on 2 sided tests. Tests resulting in P values less than or equal to 0.050 (when rounded) were reported as statistically significant. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons since only 1 secondary endpoint comparison."|ANCOVA|P-value obtained from an ANCOVA with corresponding baseline value as the covariate and an effect for treatment group.||The null hypothesis was that percent change in HDL-C from baseline to Week 8 in the ABT-335 45 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg treatment group is equal to percent change in HDL-C from baseline to Week 8 in the rosuvastatin 5 mg plus placebo treatment group. A sample size of 140 participants per treatment group was used to provide 82% power to detect a difference between the combination therapy arm and the rosuvastatin monotherapy arm in the percent change from Baseline to Week 8 in HDL-C.||||<0.001
91802646|NCT01948947|183482815|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from Baseline to 1-Week Post-Treatment||||<0.0001
91802647|NCT01948947|183482815|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from Baseline to 1-Month Post-Treatment||||<0.001
91802648|NCT01948947|183482816|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Baseline to 1-Week post-treatment|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91802649|NCT01948947|183482816|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Change from Baseline to 1-Month post-treatment|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91802650|NCT01948947|183482817|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
91802651|NCT01948947|183482817|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Change in Baseline to 1-month post-treatment|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91802652|NCT01948947|183482818|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.033
91802653|NCT03535844|183482820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.49
91802654|NCT03535844|183482820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5672|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test (Week 0 and Week 16)||||||0.5672
91802655|NCT03535844|183482820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of change values||||||0.788
91889042|NCT01646177|183670761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91889043|NCT01646177|183670762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91802656|NCT03535844|183482821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.67
91802657|NCT03535844|183482821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of change values||||||0.8203
91802658|NCT03535844|183482821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of change values||||||0.3882
91802659|NCT03535844|183482822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.08
91802660|NCT03535844|183482823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7162|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.7162
91802661|NCT03535844|183482823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 nitric oxide values||||||0.07
91802662|NCT03535844|183482823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 nitric oxide values||||||<0.05
91802663|NCT03535844|183482824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||<0.05
91802664|NCT03535844|183482825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4855|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change triglyceride values||||||0.4855
91802665|NCT03535844|183482825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change total cholesterol values||||||0.1393
91802666|NCT03535844|183482825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change LDL cholesterol values||||||0.2221
91802667|NCT03535844|183482825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change HDL cholesterol values||||||0.078
91802668|NCT03535844|183482825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 HDL cholesterol values||||||<0.05
91802669|NCT03535844|183482825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 HDL cholesterol values||||||0.7261
91802670|NCT03535844|183482826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of systolic blood pressure change values||||||0.1951
91802671|NCT03535844|183482826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of diastolic blood pressure change values||||||0.916
91802672|NCT03535844|183482827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of malondialdehyde change values||||||0.9882
91889044|NCT01646177|183670762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91889045|NCT01646177|183670762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91802673|NCT03535844|183482828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4408|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of body fat % change values||||||0.4408
91802674|NCT03535844|183482829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.1487
91802675|NCT03535844|183482830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.9135
91802676|NCT03535844|183482831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5859|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.5859
91802677|NCT03535844|183482832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.9379
91802678|NCT03535844|183482833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of change values||||||0.9717
91802679|NCT03535844|183482836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.7052
91802680|NCT03535844|183482836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test between Week 0 and Week 16 endothelin-1 concentrations||||||0.07
91802681|NCT03535844|183482836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Paired t-test between Week 0 and Week 16 endothelin-1 concentrations|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91802682|NCT03535844|183482837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9426||||||Independent t-test of change values|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9426
91802683|NCT05096221|183482878|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.74|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||1.74|-0.45|0.2441
91802684|NCT05096221|183482879|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Re-randomization test|||||||< 0.0001
91802685|NCT05096221|183482880|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.23|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||-0.23|-1.06|0.0025
91802686|NCT05096221|183482881|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||-0.13|-0.71|0.0048
91802687|NCT05096221|183482882|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|1.7|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||1.70|-8.28|0.1942
91802688|NCT05096221|183482883|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.01|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||-0.01|-0.71|0.0412
91802689|NCT05096221|183482884|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.19|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||0.19|0.00|0.0402
91802690|NCT05096221|183482885|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||0.19|-0.08|0.4272
91802691|NCT05096221|183482886|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||0.17|-0.24|0.7324
91802692|NCT05096221|183482887|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.06|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||1.06|-0.67|0.6554
91802693|NCT01589978|183482913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given the performance goal of 3.2%, with expected rate for PROMUS Element Plus of 2.2% and a one-sided 5% significance level, approximately 1,706 PLATINUM-like patients will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis if it is false.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||One-sided, single binomial test will be performed to compare observed rate against performance goal, the normal approximation of the test statistic will be used. The performance goal is met if the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the observed binary rate is less than performance goal.||||<.0001
91889046|NCT01646177|183670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91889047|NCT01646177|183670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91802694|NCT01589978|183482933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is calculated for one-sample chi-square test for a single proportion using nQuery AdvisorVersion 5.0. The expected annual increase in ST rate is estimated to be 0.4% based on the current data available from the pooled TAXUS Express and pooled TAXUS Liberté data and the PG is 1.0% using a delta of 0.6%. Given a one-sided 5% significance level, a minimum of 1,660 PLATINUM-like patients at 5-yrs will be required to provide 90% power to reject the null hypothesis if it is false.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The expected annual increase of stent thrombosis rate is assumed to be 0.4%, based on the observed increase in incidence rate of stent thrombosis of approximately 0.4% annually for PLATINUM-like patients in the pooled TAXUS SR Express and pooled TAXUS Liberté data. Using a delta of 0.6%, the performance goal is set to 1.0% (expected rate + delta = 0.4% + 0.6% = 1.0%).||||<.0001
91802695|NCT02197273|183482970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.764
91802696|NCT02197273|183482971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.206
91802697|NCT02197273|183482972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher exact|0.486||||0.656|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.656
91802698|NCT00005044|183482973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.39|||Log Rank||Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Assuming 40% of deaths in the 8-wk arm from prostate cancer (PC) and that 8-yr DSS would be 79%, 270 PC deaths were required to detect a 33% hazard reduction in the 28-wk arm with 90% power using the log-rank test with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Under assumed failure rates, 1,540 patients accrued over 4 years and observed for an additional 6 years were expected to provide the requisite events. This sample accounted for a 10% ineligible/lack-of-data rate and 3 interim analyses.||1.39|0.48|0.45
91802699|NCT00005044|183482974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.15|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level of 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|With 1540 patients accrued over 4 years and observed for an additional 6 years, determined for the primary endpoint, there would be 90% power to detect a 22% reduction in the hazard of all cause deaths in the 28-week arm, with 2-sided significance level of 0.05. This sample accounted for a 10% ineligible/lack-of-data rate.||1.15|0.79|0.62
91802700|NCT00005044|183482975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||Log Rank|Significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|||1.08|0.85|0.47
91802701|NCT00005044|183482976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.05|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Locoregional progression||1.05|0.40|0.07
91889048|NCT01646177|183670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91889049|NCT01646177|183670764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91881070|NCT00497874|183655946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(181) = 2.9||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.002
91881071|NCT00497874|183655947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.04||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(153) = 1.8||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.04
91881072|NCT00497874|183655948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.07||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(57) = 1.5||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.07
91881073|NCT00497874|183655949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|t(94) = 1.5||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.05
91881074|NCT00497874|183655950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.13||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(123) = 1.2||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, the t-test-and the results pooled.||||.13
91750411|NCT02323204|183393525|OTHER|||||||0.6298|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.6298
91881075|NCT02820597|183656017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-tests on the mean change from baseline. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||Null hypothesis is that the within-participant change from baseline in rTNSS is 0.||||<0.001
91750412|NCT02323204|183393525|OTHER|||||||0.2341|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.2341
91881076|NCT02820597|183656018|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Paired t-tests on the mean change from baseline. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the within-participant change from baseline in rhinitis symptoms VAS is 0.||||<0.001
91881077|NCT01983553|183656084|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Any of the 4 Serotypes||1.36|0.64|
91907792|NCT01399788|183710947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.92|104.25||||||Ethambutol; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 12.9% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.25|94.92|
91907793|NCT01399788|183710948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|102.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.36|110.71||||||Rifampicin: 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 98% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 18.2% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||110.71|95.36|
91750413|NCT02323204|183393526|OTHER|||||||0.7893|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.7893
91802702|NCT00005044|183482976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.66|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Distant metastasis||1.66|0.68|0.80
91881078|NCT01983553|183656084|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 1 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.21|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 1||2.21|0.44|
91881079|NCT01983553|183656084|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|1.326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.94|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 2||2.94|0.64|
91881080|NCT01983553|183656084|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 3 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.51|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 3||2.51|0.48|
91881081|NCT01983553|183656084|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.629|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.47|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 4||1.47|0.27|
91881082|NCT01983553|183656084|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Unserotyped between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.22|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Unserotyped||1.22|0.00|
91750414|NCT02323204|183393526|OTHER|||||||0.2951|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.2951
91881083|NCT01983553|183656087|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.411|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.42|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Any Serotype||3.42|0.64|
91881084|NCT01983553|183656087|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Any Serotype||1.25|0.53|
91881085|NCT01983553|183656087|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 1 (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|4.885|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|212.02|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 1||212.02|0.70|
91881086|NCT01983553|183656087|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 1 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.46|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 1||1.46|0.21|
91881087|NCT01983553|183656087|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|2.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|134.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 2||134.83|0.36|
91881088|NCT01983553|183656087|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.74|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 2||2.74|0.53|
91881089|NCT01983553|183656087|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants at Year 1 for Serotype 3 (4 to 5 year) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|12.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 3||12.83|0.20|
91889050|NCT01646177|183670764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91889051|NCT01646177|183670764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91889052|NCT02992691|183670768|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.6674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||From ANCOVA analysis for change from pre-brushing with treatment and period as fixed effect, participant as random effect, participant-level baseline and period level minus participant-level baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||This comparison was tested under a null hypothesis of no difference against alternative hypothesis of a difference between treatments||0.04|-0.06|0.6674
91889053|NCT00588692|183670771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||For 25-49% Ejection Fraction Subgroup||||<0.05
91889054|NCT00588692|183670771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||35-49% Ejection Fraction Subgroup||||<0.05
91889055|NCT00588692|183670773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91889056|NCT00588692|183670774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
91889057|NCT00588692|183670774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91889058|NCT00588692|183670774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91889059|NCT00588692|183670775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
91750415|NCT02323204|183393527|OTHER|||||||0.7166|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.7166
91802703|NCT00005044|183482977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Protocol definition||1.17|0.89|0.74
91881090|NCT01983553|183656087|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 3 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.73|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 3||2.73|0.41|
91881091|NCT01983553|183656087|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.04|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 4||6.04|0.21|
91881092|NCT01983553|183656087|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.44|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 4||1.44|0.18|
91881093|NCT01983553|183656087|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Unserotyped (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Unserotyped||2.60|0.00|
91750416|NCT02323204|183393527|OTHER|||||||0.4501|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.4501
91881094|NCT01983553|183656087|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Unserotyped (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.75|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Unserotyped||19.75|0.00|
91881095|NCT01983553|183656095|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes; Any grade between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|1.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.03|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Any serotype; Any grade||7.03|0.27|
91881096|NCT01983553|183656095|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes; Grade I between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Any serotype; Grade I||4.83|0.00|
91750417|NCT02323204|183393528|OTHER|||||||0.6756|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.6756
91802704|NCT00005044|183482977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Phoenix definition||1.19|0.79|0.77
91802705|NCT00005044|183482978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.3|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|||1.30|0.64|0.62
91802706|NCT00843856|183482980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
91802707|NCT03104543|183482982|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.45|||Generalized estimating equation|||||1.45|0.67|.05
91802708|NCT03104543|183482985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|-0.47|.05
91881097|NCT01983553|183656095|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes Grade II between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|2.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|99.1|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Any serotype; Grade II||99.10|0.20|
91881098|NCT01983553|183656095|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 Any grade between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|39.49|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 2; Any grade||39.49|0.01|
91889060|NCT00588692|183670775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91889061|NCT00588692|183670775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91889062|NCT00588692|183670776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
91889063|NCT00588692|183670777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
91889064|NCT00588692|183670777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91889065|NCT00588692|183670777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91881099|NCT01983553|183656095|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 Grade I between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|39.49|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 2; Grade I||39.49|0.01|
91881100|NCT01983553|183656095|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 Any grade between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 4; Any grade||4.83|0.00|
91881101|NCT01983553|183656095|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 Grade I between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.62|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 4; Grade I||19.62|0.00|
91881102|NCT01983553|183656095|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 Grade II between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|39.49|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 4; Grade II||39.49|0.01|
91881103|NCT00594178|183656098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-250.8||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-778.87|277.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples T-test was used to assess the statisical changes between baseline and post-exercise lean muscle mass.||277.21|-778.87|.318
91881104|NCT00594178|183656099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0645||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01827|0.11073|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples T-test was used to assess the statisical changes between baseline and post-exercise bone density.||.11073|.01827|.011
91881105|NCT05215418|183656100|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91881106|NCT05215418|183656100|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0059
91881107|NCT05215418|183656100|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.1867|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1867
91802709|NCT02993757|183482988|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.45||||||Antigen HPV-6||1.45|0.664|
91881108|NCT05215418|183656101|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0277|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0277
91881109|NCT05215418|183656101|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0852|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0852
91802710|NCT02993757|183482988|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.804|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.03||||||Antigen HPV-11||1.03|0.626|
91881110|NCT05215418|183656101|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
91881111|NCT05215418|183656102|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0109|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic systolic blood pressure||||0.0109
91881112|NCT05215418|183656102|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0339|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic systolic blood pressure||||0.0339
91889066|NCT00588692|183670778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
91889067|NCT00588692|183670779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
91889068|NCT00588692|183670780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3
91889069|NCT00588692|183670781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
91889070|NCT00588692|183670781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91889071|NCT00588692|183670781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91889072|NCT00588692|183670782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6
91889073|NCT00588692|183670783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
91889074|NCT00588692|183670783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91889075|NCT00588692|183670783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91889076|NCT00588692|183670784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
91881113|NCT05215418|183656102|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.6769|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic systolic blood pressure||||0.6769
91802711|NCT02993757|183482988|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.09||||||Antigen HPV-16||1.09|0.608|
91881114|NCT05215418|183656102|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0082|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic diastolic blood pressure||||0.0082
91889077|NCT00588692|183670784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91889078|NCT00588692|183670784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91802712|NCT02993757|183482988|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.05||||||Antigen HPV-18||1.05|0.603|
91889079|NCT00588692|183670785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
91802713|NCT02993757|183482989|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.7||||||Serotype 1||1.70|0.574|
91802714|NCT02993757|183482989|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.22||||||Serotype 2||1.22|0.500|
91802715|NCT02993757|183482989|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.23||||||Serotype 3||1.23|0.568|
91802716|NCT02993757|183482989|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.4||||||Serotype 4||1.40|0.813|
91802717|NCT00087607|183483014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean treatment difference was tested using a two-sided t-test.||0.36|-0.35|0.978
91802718|NCT00087607|183483015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Week 4: Mean treatment difference was tested using a two-sided t-test.||0.58|-0.03|0.080
91889080|NCT00588692|183670785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91889081|NCT00588692|183670785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91889082|NCT00588692|183670786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
91889083|NCT00588692|183670786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91889084|NCT00588692|183670786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91889085|NCT03651700|183670824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91889086|NCT03651700|183670825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91889087|NCT05479734|183670827|SUPERIORITY|Expected Outcomes: greater number of activities while receiving parenting tips.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported when significant.||Null hypothesis is the number of positive activities engaged in with the child will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean activity counts on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.01
91889088|NCT05479734|183670828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1||||||Test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. A randomization group difference over time is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the mean positive parenting subscale score would not change from the baseline to the post-intervention assessment. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean subscale scores on a timeframe (baseline vs post) indicator and a randomization group (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips) indicator. A randomization group difference over time was evaluated. This interaction effect was not included in the final statistical model unless statistically significant.||||<1.00
91889089|NCT05479734|183670829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.14||||||Test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported when significant.||Null hypothesis is that the number of hours spent with the child will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean number of hours on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.14
91889090|NCT05479734|183670830|OTHER|The model tested the significance of a non-zero location of the data. Effects significantly greater than zero reflect endorsement of app helpfulness.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that the app was only slightly helpful (scored 0). A Wilcoxon signed rank test was first performed to evaluate potential differences across randomization groups (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips). When the test of a randomization group difference was not significant, the analysis continued with a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.01
91889091|NCT05479734|183670831|OTHER|The model tested the significance of a non-zero location of the data. Effects significantly greater than zero reflect endorsement of future app use.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there would only be slight interest (scored 0) in using the app in the future. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was, first, performed to evaluate potential differences across randomization groups (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips). When the test of a randomization group difference was not significant, the analysis continued with a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.01
91889092|NCT05479734|183670832|OTHER|The model tested the significance of a non-zero location of the data. Effects significantly greater than zero reflect a desire to recommend the app.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that the participant was neither likely nor unlikely (scored 0) to recommend the app to friends. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was, first, performed to evaluate potential differences across randomization groups (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips). When the test of a randomization group difference was not significant, the analysis continued with a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.01
91881115|NCT05215418|183656102|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.8131|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic diastolic blood pressure||||0.8131
91750418|NCT02323204|183393528|OTHER|||||||0.5381|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.5381
91750419|NCT02323204|183393529|OTHER|||||||0.1507|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.1507
91750420|NCT02323204|183393529|OTHER|||||||0.0769|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0769
91750421|NCT02323204|183393530|OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0654
91750422|NCT02323204|183393530|OTHER|||||||0.7957|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.7957
91750423|NCT02323204|183393531|OTHER|||||||0.0286|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0286
91750424|NCT02323204|183393531|OTHER|||||||0.0201|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0201
91750425|NCT02323204|183393532|OTHER|||||||0.9928|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.9928
91802719|NCT00087607|183483015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Week 8: Mean treatment difference was tested using a two-sided t-test.||0.41|-0.27|0.688
91881116|NCT05215418|183656102|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic diastolic blood pressure||||0.0150
91750426|NCT02323204|183393532|OTHER|||||||0.0982|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0982
91750427|NCT02323204|183393533|OTHER|||||||0.0325|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0325
91802720|NCT00087607|183483019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as the only factor in the model.||||0.304
91802721|NCT00087607|183483021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-3.1||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 1: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.5|-8.6|0.2814
91802722|NCT00087607|183483021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-10.3||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.6|||Chi-squared|||Week 2: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||-1.6|-18.9|0.0214
91802723|NCT00087607|183483021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-10.7||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-1.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 3: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||-1.0|-20.3|0.0315
91881117|NCT02971228|183656215|OTHER|A paired t-test was used for the parametric method to compare patients receiving both treatments. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint. Thus, the 2 patients who withdrew from the trial after the Lilly Glucagon treatment before receiving ZP4207 were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.63|5.84|||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated mean difference is based on the difference between the mean values for 10 patients in the ZP4207 group (12.78) and the matching 10 patients in the Lilly glucagon group (19.67)|A paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison of means with normally or non normally distributed residuals, respectively, was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the residuals for each comparison. The residuals were obtained from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group as the fixed effect. If the p-value of the test was \<0.001, the non-parametric method was utilized to analyze the endpoint parameter.||5.84|-19.63|0.2518
91881118|NCT02971228|183656215|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.02||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.85|10.68|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-parametric method p-value was from a Wilcoxon signed rank text. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, where the residuals were obtained from an ANOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint.||10.68|-25.85|0.2500
91881119|NCT02971228|183656216|OTHER|A paired t-test was used for the parametric method to compare patients receiving both treatments. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint. Thus, the 2 patients who withdrew from the trial after the Lilly Glucagon treatment before receiving ZP4207 were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.8508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison of means with normally or non normally distributed residuals, respectively, was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the residuals for each comparison. The residuals were obtained from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group as the fixed effect. If the p-value of the test was \<0.001, the non-parametric method was utilized to analyze the endpoint parameter.||2.99|-3.55|0.8508
91881120|NCT02971228|183656216|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-parametric method p-value was from a Wilcoxon signed rank text. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, where the residuals were obtained from an ANOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint.||3.13|-4.12|>0.9999
91881121|NCT02971228|183656217|OTHER|A paired t-test was used for the parametric method to compare patients receiving both treatments. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint. Thus, the 2 patients who withdrew from the trial after the Lilly Glucagon treatment before receiving ZP4207 were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison of means with normally or non normally distributed residuals, respectively, was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the residuals for each comparison. The residuals were obtained from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group as the fixed effect. If the p-value of the test was \<0.001, the non-parametric method was utilized to analyze the endpoint parameter.||1.62|-0.36|0.1847
91881122|NCT02971228|183656217|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-parametric method p-value was from a Wilcoxon signed rank text. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, where the residuals were obtained from an ANOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint.||3.09|-0.01|0.0781
91881123|NCT01664923|183656231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.32||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease stage at study entry as reported on the case report form (CRF).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by disease stage at study entry and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.320|0.181|<0.0001
91881124|NCT01664923|183656232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.264||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease stage at study entry as reported on the CRF.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by disease stage at study entry and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.264|0.137|<0.0001
91881125|NCT01664923|183656233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rates|50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Comparison of the 2 treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by disease stage at study entry.|Enzalutamide response rate minus bicalutamide response rate.|||58.5|41.4|<0.0001
91881126|NCT01664923|183656234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.497|||Log Rank|P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox-regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.497|0.211|<0.0001
91750428|NCT02323204|183393533|OTHER|||||||0.2568|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.2568
91750429|NCT02323204|183393534|OTHER|||||||0.5824|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.5824
91802724|NCT00087607|183483021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-7.4||||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|2.6|||Chi-squared|||Week 4: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.6|-17.4|0.1467
91881127|NCT01664923|183656235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.4945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.192||This secondary endpoint was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified by disease stage at study entry.|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by disease stage at study entry and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||1.192|0.695|0.4945
91881128|NCT01664923|183656236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in objective response rate|46.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.79|65.3||This secondary endpoint was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test.||||65.30|26.79|<0.0001
91881129|NCT00726713|183656239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Change from Baseline, Week 16||||=0.013
91750430|NCT02323204|183393534|OTHER|||||||0.4635|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.4635
91750431|NCT02323204|183393535|OTHER|||||||0.7949|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with cumulative logit link and multinomial distribution was fit to the data. A comparison of implementation over time between interventions was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Significance in the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in the rate of change in implementation between interventions over time.||||0.7949
91802725|NCT00087607|183483021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-6.8||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|3.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 5: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||3.2|-16.9|0.1823
91881130|NCT00726713|183656239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Change from Baseline, Week 24||||=0.033
91881131|NCT00726713|183656240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Change from Baseline, Week 16||||=0.027
91881132|NCT00726713|183656241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Folate, Change from BL, Week 16||||=0.0001
91881133|NCT00726713|183656241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Folate, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0001
91881134|NCT00726713|183656241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Total MMA, Change from Baseline Week 16||||=0.0001
91881135|NCT00726713|183656241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Total MMA, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0008
91881136|NCT00726713|183656241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Homocysteine, Change from BL, Week 16||||=0.0001
91881137|NCT00726713|183656241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Total Homocysteine, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0001
91881138|NCT00726713|183656242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0306||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 MCS, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0306
91881139|NCT00726713|183656245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.054|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||HADS Depression, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.054
91881140|NCT00129649|183656264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91881141|NCT02547441|183656266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
91881142|NCT02547441|183656267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.019
91881143|NCT01322009|183656273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Analysis run over study period but data entered only for the 6 h time point||||||>0.05
91881144|NCT01657877|183656276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The success criterion for this study was to observe the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for difference in % change in SMHR to be \<= 6 units SMHR i.e. 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP + 5% CSP is no more than 6 units inferior to the 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP + 0 % CSP dentifrice.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.23||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|1.66|||ANOVA|Based on the mixed effects ANOVA considering treatment and study period as factors, and subject as random effect|Difference is 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 0 % CSP minus 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 5 % CSP such that a positive difference favors 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 0 % CSP|The null hypothesis states that the population mean for the 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP + 0% CSP minus the population mean for the 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 5% CSP dentifrice is more than 6 %.||1.66|-6.11|0.2601
91881145|NCT00846768|183656348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.3011||95.0|-0.014|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.044|-0.014|0.3011
91881146|NCT00846768|183656348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.1582||95.0|-0.008|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.050|-0.008|0.1582
91881147|NCT00846768|183656348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0003||95.0|0.025|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.083|0.025|0.0003
91881148|NCT00846768|183656348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7046||95.0|-0.034|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.023|-0.034|0.7046
91881149|NCT00846768|183656348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0248||95.0|0.004|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.063|0.004|0.0248
91881150|NCT00846768|183656349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0006||95.0|-0.081|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.023|-0.081|0.0006
91881151|NCT00846768|183656349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0019||95.0|-0.076|-0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.017|-0.076|0.0019
91881152|NCT00846768|183656349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.4111||95.0|-0.041|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.017|-0.041|0.4111
91881153|NCT00846768|183656349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.709||95.0|-0.035|0.024|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.024|-0.035|0.7090
91907794|NCT01399788|183710948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.13|117.07||||||Isoniazid; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 98% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 18.2% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||117.07|92.13|
91750432|NCT02323204|183393535|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with cumulative logit link and multinomial distribution was fit to the data. A comparison of implementation between interventions was made through the intervention main effect included in the model. The model at hand does not contain an interaction between intervention and time. Significance in the main intervention effect is indicative of a difference in implementation between intervention groups.||||0.0003
91750433|NCT02014480|183393536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.151||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 milliliters (mL) at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.151|0.065|<0.001
91881154|NCT00846768|183656349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0211||95.0|0.005|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.064|0.005|0.0211
91881155|NCT00846768|183656350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.1753||95.0|-0.045|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.008|-0.045|0.1753
91881156|NCT00846768|183656350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.3444||95.0|-0.04|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.014|-0.040|0.3444
91881157|NCT00846768|183656350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.1161||95.0|-0.005|0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.049|-0.005|0.1161
91750434|NCT02014480|183393536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.149||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.149|0.064|<0.001
91881158|NCT00846768|183656350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.6789||95.0|-0.033|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.021|-0.033|0.6789
91881159|NCT00846768|183656350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0129||95.0|0.007|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.062|0.007|0.0129
91881160|NCT00846768|183656351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.4931||95.0|-0.023|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.047|-0.023|0.4931
91881161|NCT00846768|183656351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.2597||95.0|-0.015|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.054|-0.015|0.2597
91881162|NCT00846768|183656351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0006||95.0|0.027|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.097|0.027|0.0006
91881163|NCT00846768|183656351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.6578||95.0|-0.042|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.027|-0.042|0.6578
91881164|NCT00846768|183656351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0175||95.0|0.008|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.077|0.008|0.0175
91881165|NCT00846768|183656352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0353||95.0|-0.081|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.003|-0.081|0.0353
91881166|NCT00846768|183656352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2875||95.0|-0.06|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.018|-0.060|0.2875
91881167|NCT00846768|183656352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4553||95.0|-0.024|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.054|-0.024|0.4553
91881168|NCT00846768|183656352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2902||95.0|-0.06|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.018|-0.060|0.2902
91881169|NCT00846768|183656352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0731||95.0|-0.003|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.075|-0.003|0.0731
91881170|NCT00846768|183656353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0917||95.0|-0.008|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.099|-0.008|0.0917
91881171|NCT00846768|183656353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.1273||95.0|-0.012|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.095|-0.012|0.1273
91881172|NCT00846768|183656353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.008||95.0|0.019|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.127|0.019|0.0080
91881173|NCT00846768|183656353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8683||95.0|-0.049|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.058|-0.049|0.8683
91907795|NCT01399788|183710948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.92|104.25||||||Ethambutol; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 16.0% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.25|94.92|
91881174|NCT00846768|183656353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2444||95.0|-0.022|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.086|-0.022|0.2444
91881175|NCT00846768|183656354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0023||95.0|-0.162|-0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.036|-0.162|0.0023
91881176|NCT00846768|183656354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0015||95.0|-0.165|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.040|-0.165|0.0015
91881177|NCT00846768|183656354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.4508||95.0|-0.087|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.039|-0.087|0.4508
91881178|NCT00846768|183656354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.9087||95.0|-0.059|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.066|-0.059|0.9087
91881179|NCT00846768|183656354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0146||95.0|0.016|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.142|0.016|0.0146
91907796|NCT01399788|183710949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.12|104.4||||||Pyrazinamide; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 5.2% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast(dn) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.40|99.12|
91881180|NCT00846768|183656355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3291||95.0|-0.08|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.027|-0.080|0.3291
91881181|NCT00846768|183656355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2638||95.0|-0.084|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.023|-0.084|0.2638
91881182|NCT00846768|183656355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3386||95.0|-0.028|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.080|-0.028|0.3386
91881183|NCT00846768|183656355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8877||95.0|-0.05|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.057|-0.050|0.8877
91881184|NCT00846768|183656355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0402||95.0|0.003|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.111|0.003|0.0402
91881185|NCT00846768|183656356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0133||95.0|0.018|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.151|0.018|0.0133
91881186|NCT00846768|183656356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.045||95.0|0.002|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.135|0.002|0.0450
91881187|NCT00846768|183656356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0078||95.0|0.025|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.159|0.025|0.0078
91881188|NCT00846768|183656356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.6268||95.0|-0.05|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.083|-0.050|0.6268
91881189|NCT00846768|183656356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.4891||95.0|-0.044|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.091|-0.044|0.4891
91907797|NCT01399788|183710950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|95.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|102.22||||||Pyrazinamide; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 6.7% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax(dn) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||102.22|88.60|
91750435|NCT02014480|183393536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.171||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.171|0.086|<0.001
91802726|NCT00087607|183483021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-2.1||||0.6871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|8.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 6: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||8.0|-12.1|0.6871
91881190|NCT00846768|183656357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6259||95.0|-0.097|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.059|-0.097|0.6259
91881191|NCT00846768|183656357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.919||95.0|-0.082|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.074|-0.082|0.9190
91881192|NCT00846768|183656357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0985||95.0|-0.012|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.145|-0.012|0.0985
91881193|NCT00846768|183656357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.6991||95.0|-0.093|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.063|-0.093|0.6991
91881194|NCT00846768|183656357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0802||95.0|-0.009|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.149|-0.009|0.0802
91907798|NCT01399788|183710951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|104.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.7|109.1||||||Rifampicin; Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||109.10|99.70|
91750436|NCT02014480|183393536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.125||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.125|0.040|<0.001
91802727|NCT00087607|183483021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-0.4||||0.9295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|9.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 7: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||9.5|-10.4|0.9295
91802728|NCT00087607|183483021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|2.2||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 8: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||12.1|-7.6|0.6593
91802729|NCT00087607|183483021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|2.2||||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 9: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||12.1|-7.7|0.6637
91802730|NCT00087607|183483021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|5.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|15.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 10: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||15.1|-4.3|0.2760
91802731|NCT00087607|183483021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|5.4||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|15.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 11: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||15.1|-4.3|0.2779
91802732|NCT00087607|183483021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|2.8||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|12.4|||Chi-squared|||Week 12: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||12.4|-6.8|0.5697
91802733|NCT00087607|183483022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 1: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||1.5|-1.4|0.9940
91802734|NCT00087607|183483022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-0.5||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 2: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.2|-3.2|0.7133
91802735|NCT00087607|183483022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-3.6||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 3: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||0.5|-7.8|0.0864
91802736|NCT00087607|183483022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.1||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.8|||Chi-squared|||Week 4: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||1.8|-10.0|0.1713
91802737|NCT00087607|183483022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.6||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 5: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.2|-11.4|0.1888
91802738|NCT00087607|183483022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-6.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|1.4|||Chi-squared|||Week 6: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||1.4|-14.7|0.1080
91802739|NCT00087607|183483022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.5||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|4.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 7: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||4.2|-13.1|0.3099
91802740|NCT00087607|183483022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-3.4||||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.6|||Chi-squared|||Week 8: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||5.6|-12.4|0.4595
91802741|NCT00087607|183483022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-6.0||||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.4|||Chi-squared|||Week 9: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||3.4|-15.4|0.2144
91802742|NCT00087607|183483022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-5.4||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|4.3|||Chi-squared|||Week 10: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||4.3|-15.1|0.2779
91802743|NCT00087607|183483022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-2.7||||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|7.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 11: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||7.1|-12.6|0.5876
91802744|NCT00087607|183483022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.8||||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 12: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||5.1|-14.7|0.3399
91802745|NCT00087607|183483027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated measures analysis|The P-value is determined from a repeated measures analysis with terms for treatment group, baseline, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction.||Week 1: The treatment groups were compared using repeated measures analysis||||0.024
91802746|NCT00087607|183483027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 8: The treatment groups were compared using Repeated measures analysis||||<0.001
91802747|NCT02015754|183483039|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Differences of p-value \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|||Multivariate Cox-regression analysis to identify independent prognostic factors for overall survival from baseline characteristics. Relative risk with 95% confidence intervals calculated as measure of association.||||0.004
91881195|NCT04353817|183656393|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.81|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.81|-2.71|<0.0001
91881196|NCT04353817|183656394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-47.1||This is the nominal p-value without multiplicity controlled.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-47.1|-55.3|<0.0001
91802748|NCT02015754|183483046|OTHER|VEGF immediately post treatment||||||0.6257|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.6257
91802749|NCT02015754|183483046|OTHER|VEGF at 24 hours post treatment.||||||0.4143|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4143
91881197|NCT02143063|183656401|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|3752.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
91881198|NCT02143063|183656401|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|5287.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.78
91881199|NCT02143063|183656402|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|3675.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary Aim 1: Compare the standard care and standard care plus traditional CM conditions||||.02
91881200|NCT02143063|183656402|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|5189.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.61
91881201|NCT00878553|183656403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.284|-1.927||Change from baseline in mean WASO3-7 compared values for the 20-mg dose vs. placebo. If that comparison demonstrated superiority of the 20-mg dose, then results for the 15-mg dose vs. placebo were compared; if significant, then 10-mg vs. placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|This hierarchical, 2-sided testing procedure maintained the overall level of significance at approximately 0.05|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment. A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes||-1.927|-15.284|0.0118
91881202|NCT00878553|183656403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.421||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.685|-3.275||Change from baseline in mean WASO3-7 compared values for the 20-mg dose vs. placebo. If that comparison demonstrated superiority of the 20-mg dose, then results for the 15-mg dose vs. placebo were compared; if significant, then 10-mg vs. placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|This hierarchical, 2-sided testing procedure maintained the overall level of significance at approximately 0.05|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment. A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement|Literature-based estimates of WASO SD range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes||-3.275|-16.685|0.0037
91881203|NCT00878553|183656403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.422||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.857|-2.448||Change from baseline in mean WASO3-7 compared values for the 20-mg dose vs. placebo. If that comparison demonstrated superiority of the 20-mg dose, then results for the 15-mg dose vs. placebo were compared; if significant, then 10-mg vs. placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hierarchical, 2-sided testing procedure maintained the overall level of significance at approximately 0.05.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment. A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement|Literature-based estimates of WASO SD range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 20-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||-2.448|-15.857|0.0077
91881204|NCT00878553|183656404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.755||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.208|2.0||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||2.000|-13.208|0.1476
91907799|NCT01399788|183710951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|105.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.32|111.46||||||Isoniazid; Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||111.46|100.32|
91750437|NCT02014480|183393536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.12||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.120|0.036|<0.001
91750438|NCT02014480|183393536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.099||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.099|0.015|0.008
91750439|NCT01865812|183393545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.24||||||||-0.24|-0.51|
91750440|NCT01865812|183393546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-0.63|
91750441|NCT01865812|183393547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.46||||||||1.46|-1.58|
91750442|NCT01865812|183393598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.852|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.852
91750443|NCT01865812|183393599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.549
91750444|NCT01865812|183393600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.912|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.912
91802750|NCT02015754|183483046|OTHER|VEGFR1 immediately post treatment.||||||0.583|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.583
91802751|NCT02015754|183483046|OTHER|VEGFR1 at 24 hours post treatment.||||||0.0012|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||.0012
91802752|NCT02015754|183483046|OTHER|VEGFR2 immediately post treatment.||||||0.1353|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1353
91802753|NCT02015754|183483046|OTHER|VEGFR2 at 24 hours post treatment.||||||0.2163|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2163
91881205|NCT00878553|183656404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.546|0.722||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||0.722|-14.546|0.0757
91881206|NCT00878553|183656404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.154|2.113||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||2.113|-13.154|0.1553
91881207|NCT00878553|183656405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.208|15.454||All aspects of the study's primary endpoint were statistically significant, and no adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||15.454|2.208|0.0092
91881208|NCT00878553|183656405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.402||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.775|17.075||All aspects of the study's primary endpoint were statistically significant, and no adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||17.075|3.775|0.0023
91881209|NCT00878553|183656405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.402||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.498|16.796||All aspects of the study's primary endpoint were statistically significant, and no adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||16.796|3.498|0.0030
91881210|NCT00878553|183656406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.235|0.11||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period,sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|This endpoint summarizes the number of times during Hours 3 7, after onset of persistent sleep, that there was a wake entry of at least 2 epochs duration. To be counted, each entry must have been separated by a sleep stage of 2, 3 4, or rapid eye movement.||0.110|-1.235|0.1005
91881211|NCT00878553|183656406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.712|-0.362||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period,sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|This endpoint summarizes the number of times during Hours 3 7, after onset of persistent sleep, that there was a wake entry of at least 2 epochs duration. To be counted, each entry must have been separated by a sleep stage of 2, 3 4, or rapid eye movement.||-0.362|-1.712|0.0028
91881212|NCT00878553|183656406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.793|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.467|-0.118||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period,sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustments for multiple testing were made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|This endpoint summarizes the number of times during Hours 3 7, after onset of persistent sleep, that there was a wake entry of at least 2 epochs duration. To be counted, each entry must have been separated by a sleep stage of 2, 3 4, or rapid eye movement.||-0.118|-1.467|0.0216
91750445|NCT01819129|183393601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment was done by comparing the difference of faster aspart vs. NovoRapid®/NovoLog® in change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of randomized treatment to a non-inferiority limit of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||||The estimated parameter i.e mean difference is the estimated treatment difference for Faster aspart vs. NovoRapid (Faster aspart - NovoRapid).|Change from baseline in HbA1c is analysed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measurements including changes from baseline in HbA1c at visit 14, 18, 22, 26, 30 and 36. The model includes treatment, region and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) strata as fixed effects, subject as random effect, HbA1c at baseline as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||0.10|-0.15|
91802754|NCT02229383|183483047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.54|-0.94|<0.001
91881213|NCT00878553|183656407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.98|5.077||Mean (SEM) = adjusted mean change from baseline in each group (and standard error of the mean) and P value = P value for the comparison of the SEM of the active group with that of the placebo group.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Study was powered on the primary endpoint. Data for sWASO were sourced from Question 5 of the Morning Sleep Questionnaire. Its analysis follows a general linear model change from baseline as response variable including effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||5.077|-21.980|0.2190
91881214|NCT00878553|183656407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.937||0.8441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.327|15.056||Mean (SEM) = adjusted mean change from baseline in each group (and standard error of the mean) and P value = P value for the comparison of the SEM of the active group with that of the placebo group.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates a worsening.|Study was powered on the primary endpoint. Data for sWASO were sourced from Question 5 of the Morning Sleep Questionnaire. Its analysis follows a general linear model change from baseline as response variable including effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||15.056|-12.327|0.8441
91881215|NCT00878553|183656407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.936||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.522|1.842||Mean (SEM) = adjusted mean change from baseline in each group (and standard error of the mean) and P value = P value for the comparison of the SEM of the active group with that of the placebo group.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Study was powered on the primary endpoint. Data for sWASO were sourced from Question 5 of the Morning Sleep Questionnaire. Its analysis follows a general linear model change from baseline as response variable including effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||1.842|-25.522|0.0894
91881216|NCT00878553|183656408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.469||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.823|2.943||Analysis included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates improvement.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.||2.943|-1.823|0.6433
91881217|NCT00878553|183656408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.304|0.481||Analysis included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative mean difference from baseline indicates a worsening.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.||0.481|-4.304|0.1167
91881218|NCT00878553|183656408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|3.826||Analysis included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates improvement.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.||3.826|-0.958|0.2385
91907800|NCT01399788|183710951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|100.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.28|105.88||||||Ethambutol; Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||105.88|96.28|
91750446|NCT02752958|183393605|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.89||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.018|12.8|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus Week 4 score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (Baseline ) versus (vs.) Week 4||12.80|-1.018|0.0944
91750447|NCT02752958|183393606|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.128|23.849|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 8||23.849|10.128|<0.0001
91802755|NCT02229383|183483048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.85|-2.19|<0.001
91802756|NCT02229383|183483049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.754|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.07|-16.45|||ANCOVA|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use (yes vs. no) as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-16.45|-39.07|<0.001
91881219|NCT00878553|183656409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.972|||Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.||0.972|-0.073|0.0914
91907801|NCT01399788|183710952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.24|104.43||||||Pyrazinamide; Natural log transformed AUC (0 -∞)(dn) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.43|99.24|
91750448|NCT02752958|183393607|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.87|29.539|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 12||29.539|15.870|<0.0001
91802757|NCT02229383|183483050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%) and baseline SU-use (yes vs. no).||||||<0.001
91881220|NCT00878553|183656409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.||0.690|-0.360|0.5360
91881221|NCT00878553|183656409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.787|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative mean change from baseline indicates a worsening.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.||0.263|-0.787|0.3254
91881222|NCT00878553|183656410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.175|4.595||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed in a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Model included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates improvement.|||4.595|-3.175|0.7190
91881223|NCT00878553|183656410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.422||0.6784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.722||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed in a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Model included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|||4.722|-3.080|0.6784
91881224|NCT00878553|183656410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.058||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.586|6.214||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed in a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Model included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|||6.214|-1.586|0.2433
91881225|NCT00878553|183656411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.39||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||Cmax(ng/mL) \[Maximum plasma zaleplon concentration\]||||0.0009
91881226|NCT00878553|183656412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.9142||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test two degrees of freedom||Cmax normalized per dose||||0.9142
91881227|NCT00878553|183656413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.24||||0.1193||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||Time (hour)post-dose of maximum plasma zaleplon concentration||||0.1193
91881228|NCT00878553|183656414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.85||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||AUC ng\*h/mL)||||0.0003
91881229|NCT00878553|183656415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28||||0.2281||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||AUC/Dose (ng\*h/mL/mg)||||0.2281
91881230|NCT00878553|183656416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.4835||95.0|||||ANOVA|2 degrees of freedom F-test||Half-Life (t1/2 in hours) of plasma zaleplon from each of 3 doses of SKP-1041||||0.4835
91907802|NCT02919436|183710955|SUPERIORITY|We found observed rate of postoperative urinary retention in male spine surgery patients to historically be 17%. We hypothesize that the use of tamsulosin can reduce this rate by 50%. A two group continuity corrected chi-square test with a .05 two-sided significance level will have 80% power to detect the difference between a control group proportion of .17 and a treatment group proportion of .085 (odds ratio of .454) when the sample size in each group is 264 and a total sample size of 528.||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.96
91907803|NCT01389752|183710958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.68||The outcome was measured as a ratio of geometric means between the two treatments (LY2216684 in combination with activated charcoal/LY2216684 alone), and the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|0.61|
91881231|NCT00909532|183656464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|12.6||The primary and key secondary endpoints were analyzed using Hochberg's step-up procedure: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, CFQ-R resp domain (Wk24) and sweat chloride (Wk24)(α=0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). The model included absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) as the dependent variable, treatment (ivacaftor versus placebo) and visit (Day 15, Week 8, Week 16, and Week 24) as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect, with adjustment for the continuous baseline values of age and percent predicted FEV1.||12.6|8.6|<0.0001
91881232|NCT00909532|183656465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|12.5||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation. No imputation of missing data was done.||Analysis of this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were obtained from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the continuous baseline values of age and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1),using unstructured covariance matrix.||12.5|8.5|<0.0001
91881233|NCT00909532|183656466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|11.4||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for the respiratory domain score endpoint was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age, domain score, and percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||11.4|4.7|<0.0001
91881234|NCT00909532|183656466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.9||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for the CFQ-R respiratory domain score endpoint was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age,sweat chloride, and percent predicted FEV1,using unstructured covariance matrix.||11.9|5.3|<0.0001
91802758|NCT02229383|183483051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||0.2|-4.1|0.074
91802759|NCT02229383|183483052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%) and baseline SU-use (yes vs. no).||||||<0.001
91802760|NCT02229383|183483053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||0.4|-4.0|0.110
91802761|NCT05764408|183483073|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.35||||||||1.35|0.49|
91802762|NCT05764408|183483074|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.86||||||||1.86|0.39|
91802763|NCT05764408|183483075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
91881235|NCT00909532|183656467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-44.5||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05); test 3 using Hochberg's on time to pulmonary exacerbation (Wk 48) and weight (Wk 48).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age, sweat chloride, and percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||-44.5|-51.3|<0.0001
91750449|NCT02752958|183393608|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.245|34.165|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 16||34.165|20.245|<0.0001
91802764|NCT05764408|183483077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
91881236|NCT00909532|183656467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5|-44.7||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age, sweat chloride, and percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||-44.7|-51.5|<0.0001
91802765|NCT05764408|183483078|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.12||||||||16.12|0.07|
91802766|NCT06934993|183483085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||<0.001
91750450|NCT02752958|183393609|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.464|38.385|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.||Week 0 Vs Week 20||38.385|24.464|<.0001
91750451|NCT02752958|183393610|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.585|39.506|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 24||39.506|25.585|<.0001
91750452|NCT02752958|183393611|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|2.262|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 4||2.262|0.108|0.0312
91750453|NCT02752958|183393612|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.728|3.866|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 8||3.866|1.728|<.0001
91750454|NCT02752958|183393613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.192|4.322|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 12||4.322|2.192|<.0001
91750455|NCT02752958|183393614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.844|5.012|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|||5.012|2.844|<.0001
91750456|NCT02752958|183393615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.063|5.232|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 20||5.232|3.063|<.0001
91750457|NCT02752958|183393616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.654|5.823|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||5.823|3.654|<.0001
91802767|NCT06934993|183483086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In all cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.001
91802768|NCT06934993|183483086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.096
91802769|NCT06934993|183483086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||<0.001
91802770|NCT06934993|183483087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.001
91881237|NCT00909532|183656468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard at Week 24|0.4||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.71||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Time to first pulmonary exacerbation through Week 24 was analyzed using Cox regression. The model included a covariate for treatment and adjustments for the age group and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity at baseline.||0.71|0.23|0.0016
91881238|NCT00909532|183656468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard at 48 Weeks|0.46||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05); test 3 using Hochberg's on time to pulmonary exacerbation (Wk 48) and weight (Wk 48).|Regression, Cox|||Time to first pulmonary exacerbation through Week 48 was analyzed using Cox regression. The model included a covariate for treatment and adjustments for the age group and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity at baseline.||0.73|0.28|0.0012
91881239|NCT00909532|183656469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||At Week 24: Analysis for this variable was based on a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment as a fixed effect, and intercept, visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for age group and baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||3.7|1.8|<0.0001
91881240|NCT00909532|183656469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.1||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 48: Analysis for this variable was based on a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment as a fixed effect and visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for age group and baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||4.1|1.3|0.0001
91881241|NCT00859976|183656486|SUPERIORITY|A superiority test was used to calculate the number of patients that are needed in order to show a difference between the bone mineral density surrounding BoneMaster coated cups compared to plasma HA sprayed cups.||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Change in bone mineral density, normalised to baseline levels.||||||0.4570
91881242|NCT02864342|183656501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||The effect of medication reminders on Symbicort adherence was evaluated using a t-test. The equality of variances was also tested and as the variances were not equal, the Satterthwaite-t test was reported.||||<0.001
91881243|NCT00118703|183656509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.45|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was adjusted for Baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||||0.45|-0.26|0.604
91881244|NCT00118703|183656510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.41|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was adjusted for Baseline iTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||||0.41|-0.29|0.729
91881245|NCT00118703|183656511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Regression, Logistic|Overall evaluation of response to therapy was illustrated and analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for age, gender, investigator, and treatmen||||||0.064
91881246|NCT00461123|183656512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0.5248||95.0|-4.18|8.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of least squares (LS) means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||8.05|-4.18|0.5248
91907804|NCT01389752|183710959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.98||The outcome was measured as a ratio of geometric means between the two treatments (LY2216684 in combination with activated charcoal/LY2216684 alone), and the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|0.83|
91802771|NCT06934993|183483087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.096
91802772|NCT06934993|183483088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.04
91802773|NCT06934993|183483088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.679
91907805|NCT01389752|183710960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|-0.5||The outcome was measured using the median of paired differences between the 2 treatment groups: LY2216684 administered alone (reference) versus LY2216684 co-administered with charcoal (test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.50|-1.04|0.0010
91750458|NCT02752958|183393617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.4185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.592|3.821|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline|Week 0 Vs Week 4||3.821|-1.592|0.4185
91750459|NCT02752958|183393618|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.391|9.764|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||9.764|4.391|<.0001
91881247|NCT00461123|183656513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.87||95.0|-3.58|3.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||3.04|-3.58|0.8700
91881248|NCT00461123|183656514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.57||||0.4162||95.0|-8.21|19.35|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||19.35|-8.21|0.4162
91750460|NCT02752958|183393619|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.674|11.026|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Valu|Week 0 Vs Week 12||11.026|5.674|<.0001
91750461|NCT02752958|183393620|OTHER|Week 0 Vs Week 16|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.708|13.158|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 16||13.158|7.708|<.0001
91750462|NCT02752958|183393621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.008|14.459|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||14.459|9.008|<.0001
91750463|NCT02752958|183393622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.235|14.686|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||14.686|9.235|<.0001
91750464|NCT02752958|183393623|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|1.738|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 4||1.738|-0.604|0.3415
91750465|NCT02752958|183393624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.935|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline|Week 0 Vs Week 8||2.935|0.610|0.0029
91750466|NCT02752958|183393625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.266|3.582|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||3.582|1.266|<0.0001
91907806|NCT01594515|183710967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0005|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of the drug for Cmax was analysed.(N=50)||1.0005|0.9400|
91750467|NCT02752958|183393626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.371|4.729|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 16||4.729|2.371|<.0001
91750468|NCT02752958|183393627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|5.568|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||5.568|3.210|<0.0001
91750469|NCT02752958|183393628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.119|5.477|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||5.477|3.119|<0.0001
91881249|NCT00461123|183656515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0588||95.0|-13.25|0.26|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||0.26|-13.25|0.0588
91750470|NCT02752958|183393629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|4.352|||ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||4.352|0.483|0.0145
91750471|NCT02752958|183393630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.498|6.339|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||6.339|2.498|<0.0001
91750472|NCT02752958|183393631|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.933|8.759|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||8.759|4.933|<0.0001
91750473|NCT02752958|183393632|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.219|9.115|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 16||9.115|5.219|<.0001
91750474|NCT02752958|183393633|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.438|10.335|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||10.335|6.438|<0.0001
91750475|NCT02752958|183393634|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.726|10.623|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 24||10.623|6.726|<0.0001
91750476|NCT02752958|183393635|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.738|1.989|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||1.989|-0.738|0.3676
91750477|NCT02752958|183393636|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|2.255|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 8||2.255|-0.451|0.1907
91750478|NCT02752958|183393637|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|3.162|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 12||3.162|0.467|0.0085
91750479|NCT02752958|183393638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|3.489|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 16||3.489|0.744|0.0026
91750480|NCT02752958|183393639|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.371|4.116|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.||Week 0 Vs Week 20||4.116|1.371|0.0001
91802774|NCT06934993|183483088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.011
91802775|NCT01218113|183483089|NON_INFERIORITY|Crierion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (3D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.553|1.162|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL at week 48 between persons who received 3 doses of the HIV vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||1.162|0.553|
91802776|NCT01218113|183483089|NON_INFERIORITY|Crierion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (2D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.184|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.816|1.717|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL at week 48 between persons who received 2 doses of the HIV Vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||1.717|0.816|
91802777|NCT01218113|183483090|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (3D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.257|0.065|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL (log10-transformed values) at week 48 between persons who received 3 doses of the HIV Vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||0.065|-0.257|
91881250|NCT00461123|183656516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.61||||0.7878||95.0|-22.03|16.82|||ANCOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA), treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group||16.82|-22.03|0.7878
91881251|NCT00984698|183656531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis must be qualified by small sample size, worse baseline symptom severity in CBSRT arm, and greater levels of attrition in PCGT arm||||<.05
91881252|NCT00984698|183656532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis must be qualified by small sample size, worse baseline symptom severity in CBSRT arm, and greater levels of attrition in PCGT arm||||<.05
91881253|NCT00746356|183656534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0066|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3103|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If all three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met a value of 2.5% was used, and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|<0.0001
91881254|NCT00746356|183656535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0948||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If all three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met a value of 2.5% was used and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|0.0001
91750481|NCT02752958|183393640|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.477|4.222|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 24||4.222|1.477|<.0001
91750482|NCT02752958|183393641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.243|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Valu|Week 0 Vs Week 4||0.243|-0.059|0.2326
91750483|NCT02752958|183393642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.216||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 8||0.216|-0.085|0.3934
91750484|NCT02752958|183393643|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.284|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||0.284|-0.016|0.0795
91750485|NCT02752958|183393644|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.294|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 16||0.294|-0.011|0.0682
91750486|NCT02752958|183393645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.287|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 20||0.287|-0.018|0.0844
91750487|NCT02752958|183393646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.332|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 24||0.332|0.027|0.0211
91750488|NCT02752958|183393647|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|1.194|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 4||1.194|0.002|0.0493
91750489|NCT02752958|183393648|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.013|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 8||2.013|0.830|<0.0001
91750490|NCT02752958|183393649|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.278|2.457||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||2.457|1.278|<0.0001
91750491|NCT02752958|183393650|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.429|2.629|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 16||2.629|1.429|<.0001
91750492|NCT02752958|183393651|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.743|2.943|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||2.943|1.743|<.0001
91750493|NCT02752958|183393652|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.743|2.943|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||2.943|1.743|<.0001
91802778|NCT01218113|183483090|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (2D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Mean Difference|0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.088|0.235|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL (log10-transformed values) at week 48 between persons who received 2 doses of the HIV Vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||0.235|-0.088|
91802779|NCT00967668|183483154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed-effects model with baseline, 3- and 12-month outcome values modeled as dependent variables||All participants were included in outcomes analyses using intention-to-treat principles. A linear mixed-effects model with baseline, 3- and 12-month outcome values modeled as dependent variables was used.This statistical approach allows the use of data from all participants as long as the dependent variable is available for at least one time point. Each subject was included as a random intercept to adjust for within-person correlations.||||<0.05
91802780|NCT03281577|183483159|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-25.81||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.757|-9.858||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% confidence interval (CI) are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as covariate.|||-9.858|-41.757|0.0012
91802781|NCT03281577|183483159|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-27.52||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.224|-9.813||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||-9.813|-45.224|0.0018
91802782|NCT03281577|183483159|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-41.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.616|-23.902||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||-23.902|-59.616|<.0001
91907807|NCT01594515|183710968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0145|1.074|||||"Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.~PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale."|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of the drug for AUC0-inf was analysed. (N=48)||1.0740|1.0145|
91907808|NCT01056510|183710974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on one-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test for participants achieving CR confirmed with biopsy versus those not achieving CR confirmed with biopsy|Chi-squared, Corrected|||The first-line subpopulation became the focus of the primary statistical analysis following the protocol amendment dated 21-May-2012.||||0.002
91907809|NCT01056510|183710975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on one-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test for participants achieving CR confirmed with biopsy versus those not achieving CR confirmed with biopsy|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||< 0.001
91907810|NCT01056510|183710976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on one-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test for participants achieving CR confirmed with biopsy versus those not achieving CR confirmed with biopsy|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.009
91907811|NCT01056510|183710977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||After 3 cycles||||0.900
91907812|NCT01056510|183710977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||After 6 cycles||||0.563
91907813|NCT01056510|183710977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||At the EOT visit||||0.304
91907814|NCT01056510|183710980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.525||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.809|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis||0.809|0.341|0.003
91907815|NCT01056510|183710980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.523||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.806|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis: by baseline Binet stage||0.806|0.339|0.003
91907816|NCT01056510|183710982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.029
91907817|NCT01056510|183710984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.006
91907818|NCT01056510|183710986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.037
91802783|NCT03281577|183483160|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.72||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|1.795||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 4 Hours, Day 2||1.795|-0.364|0.2590
91802784|NCT03281577|183483160|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.27||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|2.418||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 4 Hours, Day 2||2.418|0.119|0.0280
91802785|NCT03281577|183483160|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.45||||0.6882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|1.66||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 4 Hours, Day 2||1.660|-0.757|0.6882
91802786|NCT03281577|183483160|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.87||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|3.25||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 24 Hours, Day 2||3.250|0.493|0.0062
91907819|NCT01056510|183710988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
91907820|NCT01056510|183710990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|1.911||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank|||||1.911|0.517|0.986
91907821|NCT01056510|183710990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.88|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis: by baseline Binet stage||1.880|0.505|0.939
91907822|NCT01056510|183710991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||< 0.001
91881255|NCT00746356|183656536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0556|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0824||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If all three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met, a value of 2.5% were used and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|0.0001
91750494|NCT02752958|183393653|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|1.295|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||1.295|0.474|<.0001
91750495|NCT02752958|183393654|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.69|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||1.690|0.875|<.0001
91802787|NCT03281577|183483160|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.19||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|2.717||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 24 Hours, Day 2||2.717|-0.327|0.1490
91802788|NCT03281577|183483160|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.63||||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|2.2||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 24 Hours, Day 2||2.200|-0.931|0.6285
91802789|NCT03281577|183483160|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.29||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|2.501||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 48 Hours, Day 2||2.501|0.073|0.0358
91802790|NCT03281577|183483160|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.33||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|2.621||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 48 Hours, Day 2||2.621|0.035|0.0430
91889093|NCT05479734|183670833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.54||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. A randomization group difference over time is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the mean general development scale score would not change from the baseline to the post-intervention assessment. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean scale scores on a timeframe (baseline vs post) indicator and a randomization group (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips) indicator.||||<0.54
91750496|NCT02752958|183393655|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.333|2.145|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||2.145|1.333|<.0001
91750497|NCT02752958|183393656|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.545|2.371|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 16||2.371|1.545|<.0001
91750498|NCT02752958|183393657|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.643|2.469|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 20||2.469|1.643|<.0001
91802791|NCT03281577|183483160|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.25||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.107|1.611||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 48 Hours, Day 2||1.611|-1.107|0.9419
91802792|NCT03281577|183483161|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|33.12||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|65.439||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||65.439|0.799|0.0436
91802793|NCT03281577|183483161|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|57.98||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.555|92.396||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||92.396|23.555|0.0007
91802794|NCT03281577|183483161|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|44.44||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.249|80.629||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||80.629|8.249|0.0134
91802795|NCT03281577|183483162|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-10.27||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.507|0.96||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||0.960|-21.507|0.0789
91907823|NCT01553188|183711025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Log rank two-tailed p-value|||||||0.44
91750499|NCT02752958|183393658|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.794|2.62||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||2.620|1.794|<.0001
91750500|NCT02752958|183393659|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.66|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||1.660|0.703|<0.0001
91750501|NCT02752958|183393660|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|1.926|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||1.926|0.977|<.0001
91750502|NCT02752958|183393661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|2.418|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 12||2.418|1.473|<.0001
91750503|NCT02752958|183393662|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.848|2.81|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week16||2.810|1.848|<.0001
91750504|NCT02752958|183393663|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.732|2.694|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 20||2.694|1.732|<.0001
91750505|NCT02752958|183393664|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.982|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||2.982|2.020|<.0001
91750506|NCT02752958|183393665|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.919|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 4||0.919|-0.050|0.0786
91750507|NCT02752958|183393666|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.171|||ANOVA|\[1\] From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 8||1.171|0.210|0.0050
91750508|NCT02752958|183393667|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.875|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 12||1.875|0.918|<.0001
91750509|NCT02752958|183393668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.926|||ANOVA|\[From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|||1.926|0.951|<.0001
91881256|NCT00746356|183656537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0028|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2852||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met a value of 2.5% was used and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|0.0001
91881257|NCT01114139|183656607|SUPERIORITY|The 95% confidence interval was calculated using the large sample assumption.|Treatment Difference|75.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.15|80.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is the result of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for Baseline hemoglobin level and underlying condition.|The treatment difference (ferumoxytol - placebo) was expressed as a percentage.|Participants who achieved a ≥2.0 g/dL increase in hemoglobin from Baseline up to Week 5 were analyzed. Statistical comparison was performed for data up to Week 5 only. Baseline was defined as the Day 1 value (prior to injection of study drug). The screening or most recent value prior to Day 1 was used for any participant with missing Day 1 information.||80.02|71.15|<0.0001
91881258|NCT00477464|183656623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|72.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants who achieved a best overall response of complete response, partial response, or stable disease.|||72.4|44.2|
91881259|NCT03568812|183656643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|111.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.9|182.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of unadjusted CD4 level||182.7|40.9|0.02
91907824|NCT01553188|183711027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Log rank two-tailed p-value|||||||0.26
91907825|NCT00841789|183711045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.10
91750510|NCT02752958|183393669|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.653||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 20||1.653|0.678|<.0001
91750511|NCT02752958|183393670|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|2.047|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|||2.047|1.072|<.0001
91750512|NCT02825966|183393671|EQUIVALENCE|The two one-sided t-test (TOST) was used to test equivalence. Using TOST, equivalence was established at α = 0.05 significance level if a (1-2α)\*100% confidence interval for the average difference in EMAT (WCD-AUDICOR) was contained within the interval \[-12, 12\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.89|4.69|||two one-sided test (TOST)|||First, the difference in EMAT between the LifeVest and AUDICOR device (first wear) was calculated for each subject. Then the mean and standard deviation of the differences in EMAT were calculated. The 2 devices were considered equivalent if the 90% confidence interval for mean difference in EMAT was within the pre-specified margin of \[-12, 12\] ms.||4.69|-2.89|< 0.001
91750513|NCT00977938|183393684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85||P-value was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|The primary efficacy analysis was a superiority analysis. We controlled the two-sided family-wise error rate of 0.05 across the two coprimary end points using the Hochberg-Benjamini method. With this method, the null hypothesis of randomized treatment equivalence is rejected if significance is achieved for both end points at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 or for one end point at a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||0.85|0.59|<0.001
91750514|NCT00977938|183393685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.48||P-value was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|The primary efficacy analysis was a superiority analysis. We controlled the two-sided family-wise error rate of 0.05 across the two coprimary end points using the Hochberg-Benjamini method. With this method, the null hypothesis of randomized treatment equivalence is rejected if significance is achieved for both end points at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 or for one end point at a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||0.48|0.17|<0.001
91750515|NCT00977938|183393686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary safety analysis was a noninferiority analysis performed with the use of the Farrington-Manning risk-difference approach. Assuming an annualized rate for moderate or severe bleeding of 1.9% and an absolute noninferiority margin of 0.8%, at a one-sided alpha level of significance of 0.025, we calculated that a sample size of 9960 patients would give the study 80% power to detect noninferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.96||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.53||One-sided P-value for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||1.53|0.38|0.704
91750516|NCT00977938|183393687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.28% (0.0228)|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.82|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03||One-sided P-value for non-inferiority|Nam and Kwon|P-value was computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|Weighted RD and 1-sided 97.5% upper CL were computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|The null hypothesis was that DAPT patients treated with DES would have MACCE rate between 0 and 33 months post-index procedure that exceeds that of the control arm (patients treated with BMS) by at least a pre-specified absolute margin of δ.||0.03||<0.001
91750517|NCT00977938|183393688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.97% (0.0097)|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.05|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.27||One-sided P-value for non-inferiority|Nam and Kwon|P-value was computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|Weighted RD and 1-sided 95% upper CL were computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|The null hypothesis was that DAPT patients treated with DES would have stent thrombosis rate between 0 and 33 months post-index procedure that exceeds that of the control arm (patients treated with BMS) by at least a pre-specified absolute margin of δ.||-0.27||<0.001
91750518|NCT00977938|183393689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis|||0.97|0.70|
91750519|NCT00977938|183393690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis|||0.69|0.29|
91750520|NCT00977938|183393691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.48|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||1.48|0.24|
91802796|NCT03281577|183483162|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-13.28||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.242|-1.314||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||-1.314|-25.242|0.0270
91802797|NCT03281577|183483162|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-11.63||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.206|0.952||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||0.952|-24.206|0.0750
91802798|NCT01594281|183483175|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-5.4|0.0344
91881260|NCT03568812|183656643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|73.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|140.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of adjusted CD4 level||140.8|5.9|0.03
91881261|NCT03568812|183656644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||There is no difference between probiotics - placebo|The statistical analysis of unadjusted Th17 change after intervention||1.0|-0.5|0.55
91907826|NCT00841789|183711046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Cox|||We applied a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model to determine z score change values (see Protocol page 36 in Supplement).||||0.86
91907827|NCT00841789|183711047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||GEE|||General Estimating Equation||||.83
91907828|NCT00841789|183711047|OTHER|Generallzed Estimating Equation was used for z-score change within groups compared to baseline|General Estimating Equation|||||0.1279|||||||GEE|||We analyzed change from baseline for both etanercept and placebo. LS mean change J(standard error) reported||||0.1279
91907829|NCT00841789|183711048|OTHER|General Estimating Equation for 3 coronary arteries.||||||0.03|||||||GEE|||General Estimating Equation|Generalize estimating equation for 3 coronary arteries evaluated in each patient by echocardiography|||0.03
91907830|NCT00841789|183711048|OTHER|see above||||||0.619|||||||GEE|||GEE performed to compare with change in coronary z score from baseline||||0.619
91907831|NCT03317795|183711064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91750521|NCT00977938|183393692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.47||This analysis was not powered. P-value was stratified according to geographic region, thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|This analysis was not powered.||1.47|0.57|0.722
91802799|NCT01594281|183483175|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-3.8|0.3809
91907832|NCT03317795|183711066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91907833|NCT03317795|183711067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical composite score||||0.32
91907834|NCT03317795|183711067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mental composite score||||0.26
91907835|NCT03317795|183711068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
91881262|NCT03568812|183656644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||There is no difference between probiotics - placebo|The statistical analysis of adjusted Th17 change after intervention||0.9|-0.7|0.79
91907836|NCT03317795|183711069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
91907837|NCT02424253|183711089|SUPERIORITY||LS Difference|-0.35|||=|0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.51||1-sided p-value.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included baseline value and treatment.||Change from baseline||0.51|-1.21|= 0.249
91907838|NCT02424253|183711090|SUPERIORITY||LS Difference|-5.06|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.66|-1.46||1-sided p-value.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included baseline EASI, stratification variable (worst daily pruritus NRS ≤ 7.5 or \> 7.5) and treatment.||Change from baseline analysis||-1.46|-8.66|= 0.01
91750522|NCT00977938|183393693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.64||This analysis was not powered. P-value was stratified according to geographic region, thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|This analysis was not powered.||1.64|0.15|0.478
91907839|NCT02258451|183711106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.4843|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72|1.102||1-sided SSE-FS hypotheses were tested using a log-rank test with a 2-sided alpha of 0.2, stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) for SSE-FS was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model, stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|The 1-sided null hypothesis that treatment with radium-223 dichloride does not result in superior SSE-FS to treatment with placebo in participant population was tested against the 1-sided alternative hypothesis that the treatment with radium-223 dichloride results in superior SSE-FS time to treatment the placebo. H0: SSE-FS Radium-223+Exemestane/Everolimus \<= SSE-FS Placebo+Exemestane/Everolimus, versus HA: SSE-FSRadium-223+Exemestane/Everolimus \> SSE-FS Placebo+Exemestane/Everolimus||1.102|0.720|0.4843
91907840|NCT02258451|183711107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.343||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.343|0.697|0.8438
91907841|NCT02258451|183711108|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.604||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.604|0.577|0.8811
91907842|NCT02258451|183711109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.6537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.289||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|Participants with baseline WPS \> 8 were included in the analysis population but censored at Day 1.||1.289|0.667|0.6537
91881263|NCT03568812|183656646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of unadjusted Fecal Calprotectin Level change after intervention||-1.5|-23.9|0.03
91881264|NCT03568812|183656646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-3.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of adjusted Fecal Calprotectin Level change after intervention||-3.6|-27.6|0.01
91881265|NCT03568812|183656648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Chi-squared|||The statistical analysis of food frequency change after intervention (12 weeks)||||0.551
91750523|NCT00977938|183393694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.12||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|2.31|||Farrington-Manning|No formal hypothesis testing was done.|30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||2.31|-0.06|0.706
91750524|NCT00977938|183393695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis|||1.40|0.58|
91750525|NCT00977938|183393696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.64|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|||1.64|0.15|
91750526|NCT00977938|183393697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|2.28|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||2.28|-0.21|
91750527|NCT00747344|183393800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The study was designed to maintain a Type I error of 0.05 or less for the primary analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤ 65 kg vs \> 65 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo for the primary endpoint at a significance level of 0.05. With 120 subjects (60 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in the primary endpoint between ustekinumab 45 mg group and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight (\<=65kg vs \> 65 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power was \> 99% at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91750528|NCT00747344|183393801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤ 65 kg vs \> 65 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91750529|NCT00747344|183393802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance on van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg) as factors in the model.||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91750530|NCT02648022|183393826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.27|||Regression, Linear|Multivariable Regression Analysis||||9.27|0.92|0.07
91750531|NCT02182440|183393835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-16.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.243||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.57|29.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis for Part 1||29.50|-62.57|0.949
91750532|NCT02182440|183393835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.305||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.09|13.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis for Part 2||13.80|-23.09|0.691
91750533|NCT02182440|183393835|SUPERIORITY||Combined p-value|0.896||||0.896|TWO_SIDED||||||Inverse normal method||The p-values from Part 1 (see Statistical Analysis 1) and Part 2 (see Statistical Analysis 2) were combined to an overall p-value using the inverse normal method.|Combination of analysis results from Part 1 (see statistical Analysis 1) and Part 2 (see Statistical analysis 2)||||0.896
91750534|NCT02182440|183393836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.4|||Chi-squared|||||2.4|0.8|0.28
91750535|NCT02182440|183393837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.02|0.02
91750536|NCT02182440|183393838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.01|0.03
91750537|NCT02182440|183393839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.0|0.045
91750538|NCT02182440|183393840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.26|1.06|0.03
91802800|NCT01594281|183483175|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7||||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-1.0|0.2113
91881266|NCT00634842|183656656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary hypothesis was that there would be no difference in efficacy as measured by the proportion of subjects reaching HbA1c level \< 7% between the two FPG titration arms (70-90 mg/dL and 80-110 mg/dL, respectively) with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. If non-inferiority of the 70-90mg/dL arm was established, superiority was to be tested using a Logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Superiority was to be concluded if the odds ratio was significantly greater than 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0411||95.0|1.03|3.37|||Test for Difference in Proportions|||To show non-inferiority for the primary endpoint, 100 subjects per group provides 80% power to show that the 95% CI for the difference of proportions between treatments is within the 20% margin under the assumption of equality of proportions. It is also sufficient to show superiority under the assumption that the first proportion is greater than the second by at least 20%. With a predicted withdrawal rate of 15%, 236 subjects were needed based on a treatment ratio of 1:1 for the two treatments.||3.37|1.03|0.0411
91881267|NCT00634842|183656657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no difference in efficacy as measured by the proportion of subjects reaching HbA1c level \<= 6.5% between the two FPG titration arms (70-90 mg/dL and 80-110 mg/dL, respectively) with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. If non-inferiority of the 70-90mg/dL arm was established, superiority was to be tested using a Logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Superiority was to be concluded if the odds ratio was significantly greater than 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0064||95.0|1.27|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.30|1.27|0.0064
91802801|NCT01594281|183483176|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-4.2|0.0081
91802802|NCT01594281|183483176|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-2.0|0.7494
91802803|NCT01594281|183483176|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.9|0.4|0.0175
91750539|NCT00072293|183393841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|As originally designed, target accrual was 1960 patients with analysis planned after 558 events. These targets were based on having 90% power to detect non-inferiority of no axillary dissection with a one-sided statistical signifi cance level of 10% (ie, α=0·10) under the assumption that 5-year disease-free survival with axillary dissection was 70% and defining non-inferiority as a hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1·25 (no axillary dissection relative to axillary dissection).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11||Test for non-inferiority of no axillary dissection. Stratified logrank test compared groups. HR (no-AD vs AD) estimated from test statistic and variance as HR=exp(\[O-E\]/V), compared to 1.25 in 1-sided test of non-inferiority.|1-sided non-inferiority test||Hazard Ratio is no axillary dissection/axillary dissection.|||1.11|0.55|0.004
91750540|NCT00072293|183393842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.54|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is no axillary dissection/axillary dissection.|||1.54|0.52|0.73
91750541|NCT01605227|183393866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank test was stratified by prior cabazitaxel, baseline pain severity and baseline ECOG performance status.||||1.06|0.76|0.213
91750542|NCT01605227|183393867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Test was stratified by prior cabazitaxel, baseline pain severity and baseline ECOG performance status.||||||<0.001
91750543|NCT01605227|183393868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.57|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by prior cabazitaxel, baseline pain severity, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status.||||0.57|0.40|<0.001
91750544|NCT02847858|183393934|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.16||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.07||Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Arm 1 (Intervention) minus Arm2 (Control); Time comparison is Post-visit Follow-up minus Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to Post-visit Follow-up||2.07|0.26|0.011
91750545|NCT02847858|183393934|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.07||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Time comparison is Post-visit Follow-up minus Baseline|Null hypothesis: No Time difference (Post-visit Follow-up vs. Baseline) in outcome||2.07|1.01|<0.001
91802804|NCT01594281|183483177|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.0|||ANCOVA|||||11.0|0.0|0.0495
91802805|NCT01594281|183483177|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|-2.5|0.2767
91802806|NCT01594281|183483177|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|-7.9|0.3641
91802807|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.749|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters gain||2.749|0.080|0.4019
91802808|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.833||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|5.471|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters gain||5.471|0.614|0.2772
91750546|NCT02847858|183393934|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.48||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.05||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Time comparison is Post-visit Follow-up minus Baseline|Null hypothesis: No Time difference (Post-visit Follow-up vs. Baseline) in outcome||1.05|-0.10|0.108
91750547|NCT02847858|183393935|SUPERIORITY||F statistic:Time X Arm Interaction|3.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|df=2,1611; Arm comparison is Intervention - Control; Time comparisons are 3 months - Baseline and 6 months - Baseline and 6 months - 3 months|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to 3 months or from Baseline to 6 months||||0.04
91750548|NCT02847858|183393935|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.82||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.11||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site||Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to 3 months|Arm comparison is Intervention - Control; Time comparison is 3 months - Baseline|2.11|-0.48|.218
91802809|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.622|||Regression, Logistic|||No clinically relevant change||3.622|0.55|0.4731
91802810|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|1.068|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters loss||1.068|0.155|0.065
91802811|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|4.361|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters loss||4.361|0.229|1.000
91802812|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.314||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|3.173|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15 letters loss||3.173|0.031|0.3261
91802813|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|4.253|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters gain||4.253|0.104|0.6680
91802814|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.842||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.283|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters gain||9.283|0.870|0.0838
91802815|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674||||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|1.729|||Regression, Logistic|||No clinically relevant change||1.729|0.263|0.4116
91802816|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.621||||0.4197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|1.977|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters loss||1.977|0.195|0.4197
91802817|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.419||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|6.856|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters loss||6.856|0.294|0.6632
91802818|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.029||||0.9839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|17.127|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15 letters loss||17.127|0.062|0.9839
91881268|NCT00634842|183656658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean|-0.271||||0.0019||95.0|-0.441|-0.101|||ANCOVA|The analyses for HbA1c were adjusted for baseline HbA1c values.||||-0.101|-0.441|0.0019
91802819|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.419||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|6.858|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters gain||6.858|0.294|0.6630
91802820|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|5.444||P-value was calculated as a point estimate.|Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters gain||5.444|0.441|0.4941
91802821|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.477||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|1.231|||Regression, Logistic|||No clinically relevant change||1.231|0.185|0.1259
91802822|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.773||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.913|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters loss||4.913|0.640|0.2710
91802823|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.419||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|6.856|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters loss||6.856|0.294|0.6632
91802824|NCT01594281|183483178|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.282||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.325|33.171|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15 letters loss||33.171|0.325|0.3140
91802825|NCT01594281|183483179|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.994||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|3.026|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 1 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||3.026|0.327|0.9918
91802826|NCT01594281|183483179|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.607||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|1.765|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 1 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||1.765|0.209|0.3595
91802827|NCT01594281|183483179|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.611||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 1 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||1.830|0.204|0.3787
91881269|NCT00832000|183656660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.706|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model (n=57). When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.706|-2.66|<0.001
91881270|NCT00832000|183656660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24||0.04||95.0|-3.85|-0.139|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model (n=57). When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.139|-3.85|0.04
91881271|NCT00832000|183656661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.26|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-1.26|-2.00|<0.001
91881272|NCT00832000|183656662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.861|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.861|-1.67|<0.001
91881273|NCT00832000|183656663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.918|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.532|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.532|-1.30|<0.001
91881274|NCT00832000|183656664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.109|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.563|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|-0.056|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.056|-0.177|<0.001
91881275|NCT00832000|183656665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|9.75|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||9.75|-0.680|0.09
91881276|NCT00832000|183656666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.568|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.812|-0.325|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wilcoxon test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. The Wilcoxon test was substituted because the outcome is not continuous and therefore normality of the residuals is not satisfied. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.325|-0.812|<0.001
91750549|NCT02847858|183393935|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.58||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.77||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Intervention - Control; Time comparison is 6 months - Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to 6 months||2.77|0.38|0.008
91881277|NCT00832000|183656667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.083|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|-0.142|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.142|-0.633|<0.001
91881278|NCT00832000|183656668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.313|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.889|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|-0.149|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.149|-0.602|<0.001
91881279|NCT00832000|183656669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.464|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.516|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.675|-0.254|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wilcoxon test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. The Wilcoxon test was substituted because the outcome is not continuous and therefore normality of the residuals is not satisfied. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.254|-0.675|<0.001
91750550|NCT02847858|183393936|SUPERIORITY||F statistic:Time X Arm Interaction|3.72||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Arm by Time Interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|df=2, 1007; Arm comparison is Intervention/Control; Time comparisons are 3 months/Baseline and 6 months/Baseline and 6 months/3 months|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in change in percentage of participants using non-barrier method from Baseline to 3 months or to 6 months||||0.025
91750551|NCT02847858|183393936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|10.36||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time Interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Intervention / Control; Time comparison is 3 months / Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in change in percentage of participants using non-barrier method from Baseline to 3 months||10.36|1.04|0.042
91750552|NCT02847858|183393936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.54||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|18.06||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time Interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Intervention / Control; Time comparison is 6 months / Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in change in percentage of participants using non-barrier method from Baseline to 6 months||18.06|1.7|0.005
91750553|NCT02847858|183393937|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|1.82||Time main effect; a priori threshold for statistical significance p \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Time comparison is post-app minus pre-app|Null hypothesis: No change in contraception knowledge from immediate pre-app to immediate post-app among Intervention group participants||1.82|1.43|<0.001
91750554|NCT02847858|183393938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.01||Arm main effect; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Arm 1 (Intervention) / Arm2 (Control)|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in percentage of participants who discussed birth control with health care provider at visit||5.01|0.98|0.055
91750555|NCT02847858|183393939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.78||Arm main effect; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Arm 1 (Intervention) / Arm2 (Control)|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in percentage of participants who receive/make appointment/get prescription for a non-barrier method||3.78|0.73|0.227
91750556|NCT02210221|183394019|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in 6-month mortality||||<0.0001
91750557|NCT02210221|183394019|OTHER||observed to expected ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76|||||numerator: 6-month mortality observed denominator: 6-month mortality expected 95% CIs estimated according to a Poisson distribution|||0.76|0.62|
91750558|NCT02210221|183394020|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in SF-12v2 mental component summary||||<0.0001
91750559|NCT02210221|183394020|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in SF-12v2 physical component summary||||<0.0001
91750560|NCT02210221|183394021|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in Qolibri Overall Scale||||<0.0001
91802828|NCT01594281|183483179|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.889||||0.9097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|6.806|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 2 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||6.806|0.116|0.9097
91881280|NCT00832000|183656670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|6.73|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||6.73|-3.34|0.50
91750561|NCT02210221|183394022|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No correlations for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
91750562|NCT02210221|183394023|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No correlations for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
91750563|NCT02210221|183394024|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No correlations for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
91750564|NCT02210221|183394025|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
91750565|NCT02210221|183394026|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.169
91750566|NCT02210221|183394027|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
91750567|NCT02210221|183394028|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
91750568|NCT02210221|183394029|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
91750569|NCT02210221|183394030|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.637|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.637
91750570|NCT02210221|183394031|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
91750571|NCT02210221|183394032|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.480
91750572|NCT02210221|183394033|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
91750573|NCT02210221|183394034|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.024
91750574|NCT02210221|183394035|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.064|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.064
91802829|NCT01594281|183483179|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.341||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.925|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 2 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||1.925|0.060|0.2230
91802830|NCT01594281|183483179|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.383||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|2.177|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 2 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||2.177|0.068|0.2792
91802831|NCT01594281|183483180|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.1|-19.3|||ANCOVA|||||-19.3|-62.1|0.0003
91802832|NCT01594281|183483180|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.9||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-44.2|0.0357
91802833|NCT01594281|183483180|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|17.8||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|39.3|||ANCOVA|||||39.3|-3.7|0.1034
91802834|NCT01594281|183483181|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-51.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.1|-22.3|||ANCOVA|||||-22.3|-81.1|0.0007
91802835|NCT01594281|183483181|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.9||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-58.4|0.0542
91802836|NCT01594281|183483181|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|22.8||||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|52.3|||ANCOVA|||||52.3|-6.7|0.1288
91802837|NCT01890473|183483218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.01||||||The PK comparability of the two devices was assessed via a linear model for each key PK parameter in log scale (using log (Cmax) without a formal test.||1.01|0.815|
91802838|NCT01890473|183483219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.843|1.05||||||The PK comparability of the two devices was assessed via a linear model for each key PK parameter in log scale, using log (AUC (0-T) without a formal test.||1.05|0.843|
91802839|NCT01890473|183483220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.888|1.07||||||The PK comparability of the two devices was assessed via a linear model for each key PK parameter in log scale, using log AUC(INF) without a formal test.||1.07|0.888|
91802840|NCT01945281|183483229|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by stratum (Weight category based on weight at study entry) with Cochran Mantel-Haenszel's weights.|Difference in Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|27.7|||||Caspofungin minus Amphotericin|||27.7|-24.3|
91802841|NCT01945281|183483230|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by stratum (Weight category based on weight at study entry) with Cochran Mantel-Haenszel's weights.|Difference in Percentage|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|22.6|||||Caspofungin minus Amphotericin|||22.6|-30.2|
91802842|NCT02478632|183483256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.31|||ANCOVA|||||2.31|0.27|0.014
91802843|NCT02478632|183483257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.57|||ANCOVA|||||2.57|0.07|0.039
91802844|NCT02478632|183483260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.16||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in total hip T-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated the difference between DTG+RPV and CAR in total hip T-scores|||0.16|0.02|0.016
91802845|NCT02478632|183483260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.15||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in total hip Z-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated difference between DTG+RPV and CAR in total hip Z-score.|||0.15|0.01|0.026
91802846|NCT02478632|183483260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.23||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in lumbar spine T-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated difference between DTG+RPV and CAR for lumbar spine T-score.|||0.23|0.00|0.049
91802847|NCT02478632|183483260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in lumbar spine Z-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated difference between DTG+RPV and CAR in lumbar spine Z-score.|||0.27|0.03|0.013
91802848|NCT02478632|183483263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|4.81|||||The analysis refers to INSTI and total hip.|||4.81|-3.51|
91802849|NCT02478632|183483263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.81|||||The analysis refers to NNRTI and total hip.|||2.81|0.39|
91802850|NCT02478632|183483263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|3.38|||||this analysis refers to PI and total hip|||3.38|-1.39|
91802851|NCT02478632|183483263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.03|||||this analysis refers to INSTI and lumbar spine.|||7.03|0.67|
91802852|NCT02478632|183483263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.76|||||this analysis refers to NNRTI and lumbar spine|||2.76|-0.26|
91802853|NCT02478632|183483263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.77|||||this analysis refers to PI and lumbar spine|||3.77|-3.00|
91802854|NCT02478632|183483264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip T-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.30|-0.26|
91802855|NCT02478632|183483264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.19|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip T-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.19|0.03|
91750575|NCT02210221|183394036|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
91750576|NCT02230761|183394037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.020
91750577|NCT02230761|183394038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91750578|NCT02230761|183394039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91750579|NCT00405964|183394054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Determined for site. P-value of \<.001 for treatment as well.|ANOVA|||||||<.001
91750580|NCT00405964|183394055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||95.0||||Determined for site. Treatment p-value \<.001|ANOVA|||||||0.035
91750581|NCT00405964|183394056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Same p-value for treatment and site.|ANOVA|||||||<.001
91750582|NCT01344538|183394122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91750583|NCT00929773|183394153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91881281|NCT00832000|183656671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.3|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-1.30|-4.07|<0.001
91750584|NCT00929773|183394154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
91750585|NCT00929773|183394155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91750586|NCT00929773|183394156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91750587|NCT00929773|183394157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91750588|NCT00929773|183394158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91750589|NCT00328653|183394160|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.05% to vehicle|M-H Chi-square|1.2187||||0.2699|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2699
91750590|NCT00328653|183394160|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.1% to vehicle|M-H Chi-square|1.2359||||0.2719|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2719
91750591|NCT00328653|183394163|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.05% to vehicle|M-H-Chi-square|4.2925||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0386
91750592|NCT00328653|183394163|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.1% to vehicle|M-H-Chi-square|5.3007||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0208
91750593|NCT03541187|183394193|SUPERIORITY|The comparison between arms will be conducted using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, in which the change from the baseline to the 12-month TNSS mean serves as the outcome. The ANCOVA model will incorporate factors for treatment while adjusting for both the baseline TNSS mean and site.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.70|-1.15|0.63
91750594|NCT03541187|183394195|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|-0.17||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.66|||ANCOVA|||||0.66|-0.99|0.69
91750595|NCT03541187|183394196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.54|||Regression, Cox||At the reactive dose of 15.4 mcg/mL after 12 months, there were 11 participants who were right-censored in the Cockroach SCIT arm and 8 participants who were right-censored in the Placebo arm.|||1.54|0.42|.51
91750596|NCT03541187|183394197|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|-0.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.54|0.91
91750597|NCT03541187|183394198|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|5.87|||ANCOVA|||||5.87|4.77|<0.001
91750598|NCT03199053|183394226|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-1.57|< 0.001
91750599|NCT03199053|183394227|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.93|0.078
91750600|NCT03199053|183394228|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.44|0.004
91750601|NCT03199053|183394229|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-1.05|0.067
91750602|NCT03199053|183394230|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-1.76|< 0.001
91750603|NCT03199053|183394231|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.92|0.146
91750604|NCT03199053|183394232|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-2.02|0.024
91750605|NCT03199053|183394233|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.92|||ANCOVA|||||0.92|-1.15|0.833
91750606|NCT03199053|183394234|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-2.07|0.047
91750607|NCT03199053|183394235|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-1.50|0.268
91750608|NCT03199053|183394236|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-2.11|0.026
91750609|NCT03199053|183394237|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.50|-0.92|0.644
91750610|NCT03199053|183394238|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.8||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|11.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.7|1.2|0.019
91750611|NCT03199053|183394238|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.6||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.6|0.8|0.114
91750612|NCT03199053|183394239|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.5||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.4|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||11.4|1.0|0.042
91750613|NCT03199053|183394239|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.3||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.4|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||7.4|0.7|0.175
91750614|NCT03199053|183394240|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|4.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.2|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||13.2|1.4|0.009
91750615|NCT03199053|183394240|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.8||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.5|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||13.5|1.1|0.042
91750616|NCT03199053|183394241|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.94|||ANCOVA|||||0.94|-1.00|0.955
91750617|NCT03199053|183394241|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.74|||ANCOVA|||||0.74|-1.20|0.640
91750618|NCT03199053|183394242|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|-2.39|0.476
91750619|NCT03199053|183394242|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-3.81|0.075
91750620|NCT03199053|183394243|SUPERIORITY||Unadjusted Difference in Percentage|-19.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|5.7|||Fisher Exact|||||5.7|-44.5|0.182
91750621|NCT03199053|183394244|SUPERIORITY||Unadjusted Difference in Percentage|-6.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|16.5|||Fisher Exact|||||16.5|-29.8|0.650
91750622|NCT01323270|183394251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5||||||Diphtheria: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.5|-1.6|
91750623|NCT01323270|183394251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Tetanus: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
91750624|NCT01323270|183394251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.9||||||Pertussis toxoid: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.9|-4.7|
91750625|NCT01323270|183394251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
91750626|NCT01323270|183394251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Pertussis pertactin: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
91750627|NCT01323270|183394251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.8||||||Pertussis fimbrial agglutinogens types 2+3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||0.8|-3.6|
91750628|NCT01323270|183394251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Poliovirus type 1: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
91750629|NCT01323270|183394251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Poliovirus type 2: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
91750630|NCT01323270|183394251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Poliovirus type 3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
91750631|NCT01057225|183394261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Level|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Using a cohort of 3 design, it was determined the maximum tolerated dose of carfilzomib is Dose Level 1: 20 mg/m\^2 for the first cycle and 36 mg/m\^2 for subsequent cycles.|||||
91750632|NCT00246025|183394280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.8||||0.0155||95.0|-30.2|-3.4||Multiplicity was not adjusted because of hierarchical testing from highest to lowest dose.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.|The risk differences are calculated as risk in the dabigatran groups minus risk in the placebo group.|Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested by means of hierarchical tests. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-3.4|-30.2|0.0155
91750633|NCT00246025|183394280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.7||||0.0006||95.0|-37.0|-10.5||Multiplicity was not adjusted because of hierarchical testing from highest to lowest dose.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.|The risk differences are calculated as risk in the dabigatran groups minus risk in the placebo group.|Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested by means of hierarchical tests. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-10.5|-37.0|0.0006
91750634|NCT00246025|183394280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.4|-19.6||Multiplicity was not adjusted because of hierarchical testing from highest to lowest dose.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.|The risk differences are calculated as risk in the dabigatran groups minus risk in the placebo group.|Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested by means of hierarchical tests. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-19.6|-45.4|<0.0001
91750635|NCT00246025|183394281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1124||95.0|-9.1|1.0||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||1.0|-9.1|0.1124
91750636|NCT00246025|183394281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1183||95.0|-9.1|1.1||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||1.1|-9.1|0.1183
91750637|NCT00246025|183394281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||0.0138||95.0|-10.3|-1.3||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-1.3|-10.3|0.0138
91750638|NCT00246025|183394282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1124||95.0|-9.1|1.0||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||1.0|-9.1|0.1124
91750639|NCT00246025|183394282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1183||95.0|-9.1|1.1||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||1.1|-9.1|0.1183
91750640|NCT00246025|183394282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||0.0138||95.0|-10.3|-1.3||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-1.3|-10.3|0.0138
91750641|NCT00246025|183394283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6107||95.0||||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested based on Fisher's exact test.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||||0.6107
91750642|NCT00246025|183394283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested based on Fisher's exact test.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||||1.0000
91750643|NCT00246025|183394283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6162||95.0||||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested based on Fisher's exact test.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||||0.6162
91750644|NCT00246025|183394284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.8||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-3.4||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-3.4|-30.2|0.0155
91750645|NCT00246025|183394284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-10.5||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-10.5|-37.0|0.0006
91750646|NCT00246025|183394284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-19.6||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-19.6|-45.4|<.0001
91750647|NCT00246025|183394287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Placebo for the category major bleeding events||||1.0000
91750648|NCT00246025|183394287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Placebo for the category major bleeding events||||0.4960
91750649|NCT00246025|183394287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6223||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Placebo for the category major bleeding events||||0.6223
91750650|NCT00246025|183394287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|-2.5||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.0|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||1.0|-5.9|0.1513
91750651|NCT00246025|183394287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|-2.4||||0.1696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.0|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||1.0|-5.9|0.1696
91750652|NCT00246025|183394287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|0.7||||0.7802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.2|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||5.2|-3.9|0.7802
91750653|NCT00246025|183394287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|1.7||||0.6313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.7|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category any bleeding events||8.7|-5.3|0.6313
91750654|NCT00246025|183394287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|2.3||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.4|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category any bleeding events||9.4|-4.9|0.5377
91750655|NCT00246025|183394287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|2.8||||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.0|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category any bleeding events||10.0|-4.4|0.4493
91750656|NCT02437305|183394302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||||||P-value compares the increase in skin self-exams from pre-intervention to 2-months follow-up between the 2 groups.|McNemar|||||||0.048
91750657|NCT02437305|183394303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||||||P-value compares the increase in knowledge from pre-intervention to 2-months follow-up between the 2 groups.|McNemar|||||||>0.50
91750658|NCT01118520|183394304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
91750659|NCT01118520|183394304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
91750660|NCT03220581|183394315|SUPERIORITY||F|9.026||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Baseline number of days of game play in the past week was included as a covariate.||||||.004
91750661|NCT03220581|183394316|SUPERIORITY||F|7.922||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Covariate = number of days of gaming in the past week at baseline, reported by the parent.||||||.007
91750662|NCT03220581|183394317|SUPERIORITY||F|3.73||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for number of symptoms of Internet gaming disorder at baseline - assessed through clinical interview with child||||||.059
91750663|NCT03220581|183394318|SUPERIORITY||F|2.91||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for baseline number of symptoms of Internet gaming disorder, assessed through clinical interview with the parent||||||.095
91750664|NCT01071200|183394322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||Change at hCG day : Wilcoxon two sample test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.07
91750665|NCT01527513|183394333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A 121ms non-inferiority margin was selected based on a previous study with Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) system comparing newly diagnosed patients to a healthy normative sample.~Assuming a Standard Deviation (SD) of 202.3 for the Power of Attention score, a total of 102 patients in the PP population would provide 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean increase from baseline Power of Attention was at least 121 ms smaller in the placebo group."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.2001||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.593|203.993|||95% CI lower bound vs non-inf margin|||||203.993|-137.593|0.700
91750666|NCT01527513|183394334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A 121ms non-inferiority margin was selected based on a previous study with Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) system comparing newly diagnosed patients to a healthy normative sample.~Assuming a Standard Deviation (SD) of 202.3 for the Power of Attention score, a total of 102 patients in the PP population would provide 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean increase from baseline Power of Attention was at least 121 ms smaller in the placebo group."|95% CI lower bound vs non-inf margin|33.2001|||<|0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.593|203.993|||ANCOVA||The predefined non-inferiority margin was -121ms.|||203.993|-137.593|<0.700
91750667|NCT01920893|183394336|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-1.55||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|Analysis was performed by a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model.||-0.67|-2.43|0.0009
91750668|NCT01396265|183394347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|66.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.815|72.057|||ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||72.057|60.815|
91750669|NCT01396265|183394348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|66.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.656|72.213|||ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||72.213|60.656|
91750670|NCT01396265|183394349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|78.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.363|84.968|||ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||84.968|72.363|
91750671|NCT02446418|183394358|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of fixed combination FF/VI to usual ICS/LABA in inhalation powder was assessed assuming a non-inferiority margin of -1.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||||The analysis method was an MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, visit (Week 6 and Week 12), Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction, gender, age, country and participant fitted as a random factor. The Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) estimation approach was used with a default covariance structure of unstructured.|1.5|0.1|0.033
91750672|NCT02446418|183394359|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of fixed combination FF/VI to usual ICS/LABA in inhalation powder was assessed assuming a non-inferiority margin of -1.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||||The analysis method was an MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, visit (Week 6, Week 12, Week 18 and Week 24), Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ACT total score-by visit interaction, gender, age, country and participant fitted as a random factor. The REML estimation approach was used with a default covariance structure of unstructured.|1.1|-0.3|0.224
91802856|NCT02478632|183483264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip T-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.24|-0.09|
91802857|NCT02478632|183483264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.37|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip Z-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.37|-0.25|
91881282|NCT00832000|183656672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|7.72|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||7.72|3.44|<0.001
91881283|NCT00832000|183656673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|5.17|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||5.17|-5.87|0.90
91881284|NCT00832000|183656673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|20.6|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||20.6|0.941|0.03
91881285|NCT03974100|183656674|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PPS): 95% CI for difference in means contained in \[-1.45%, 1.45%\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3325|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.798|0.509|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|MMRM included treatment, prior bisphosphonate use, DXA machine type, visit, visit-treatment interaction, and baseline LS-BMD as a continuous covariate|Difference GP2411 (Test) - EU-Prolia (Reference)|||0.509|-0.798|
91881286|NCT03974100|183656675|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set TP1 FAS): 95% CI for difference in means contained in \[-1.45%, 1.45%\] (criteria 1) or in \[-2.00%, 2.00%\] (criteria 2)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.475|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|MMRM included treatment, prior bisphosphonate use, DXA machine type, visit, visit-treatment interaction, and baseline LS-BMD as a continuous covariate|Difference GP2411 (Test) - EU-Prolia (Reference)|||0.475|-0.830|
91881287|NCT03974100|183656676|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PDS): 95% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed AUEC including treatment and log baseline CTX value as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.01|0.98|
91881288|NCT03974100|183656676|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PDS): 90% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed AUEC including treatment and log baseline CTX value as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.01|0.98|
91881289|NCT03974100|183656677|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PKS): 90% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed Cmax including treatment and weight as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.03|0.92|
91881290|NCT03974100|183656678|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PKS): 90% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed AUCinf including treatment and weight as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.05|0.93|
91881291|NCT03856047|183656714|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-1.40|-4.58|0.0002
91802858|NCT02478632|183483264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.18|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip Z-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.18|0.02|
91907843|NCT02258451|183711110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.4496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.219||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.219|0.641|0.4496
91802859|NCT02478632|183483264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip Z-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.21|-0.14|
91802860|NCT02478632|183483264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.71|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine T-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.71|0.01|
91802861|NCT02478632|183483264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine T-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.25|-0.03|
91802862|NCT02478632|183483264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.33|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine T-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.33|-0.30|
91802863|NCT02478632|183483264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.74|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine Z-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.74|0.03|
91802864|NCT02478632|183483264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.26|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine Z-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.26|-0.02|
91802865|NCT02478632|183483264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.34|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine Z-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.34|-0.26|
91802866|NCT01867424|183483269|OTHER||Median of Differences|0.43||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Median of difference in CER: All cases.|Wilcoxon Test||The relative difference between groups is based on the change from baseline values to the values collected at each of the three time points.|Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in contrast enhancement ratio (CER) in prostate cancers upon injection of Eovist. Subgroup analysis of CER in (i) Advanced Disease and (ii) Localized Disease||||0.0008
91802867|NCT01867424|183483269|OTHER||Median of Differences|0.42||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Median of difference in CER: Advanced Disease Cases.|Wilcoxon Test|||||||0.0039
91802868|NCT01867424|183483269|OTHER||Median of Differences|0.475||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|||||Median of difference in CER: Local Disease Cases.|Wilcoxon Test|||||||0.084
91802869|NCT01867424|183483269|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.17||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 40 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.25
91802870|NCT01867424|183483269|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.27||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 60 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.1602
91802871|NCT01867424|183483269|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.29||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 40 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.0078
91802872|NCT01867424|183483269|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.34||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 60 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.0039
91802873|NCT01867424|183483269|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.27||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 40 minutes after Eovist injection; Total cases.||||0.0046
91802874|NCT01867424|183483269|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.33||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 60 minutes after Eovist injection; Total cases.||||0.0017
91802875|NCT01867424|183483271|OTHER||Spearman r|-0.137||||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5665|0.3511|||Nonparametric Spearman correlation|The calculation of Spearman correlation is between baseline PSA and CER at 20 minutes post Eovist injection.||Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in contrast enhancement ratio (CER) with Eovist injection based on baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at 20-minute timepoint.||0.3511|-0.5665|0.5761
91802876|NCT01867424|183483271|OTHER||Spearman r|-0.257||||0.3033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6549|0.2526|||nonparametric Spearman correlation|||Analyses include calculation of Spearman correlation between baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and CER at 40 minutes post Eovist injection.||0.2526|-0.6549|0.3033
91802877|NCT01867424|183483271|OTHER||Spearman r|-0.2861||||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6634|0.2071|||nonparametric Spearman correlation|||Analyses include calculation of Spearman correlation between baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and CER at 60 minutes post Eovist injection.||0.2071|-0.6634|0.2351
91802878|NCT01867424|183483271|OTHER||Median Difference (actual)|-0.47||||0.111|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney|||Analyses include analysis of CER at 20 minutes after Eovist injection based on baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) stratifying by PSA \< or \>/= 20ng/ml.||||0.111
91802879|NCT01867424|183483271|OTHER||Median Difference (actual)|-0.775||||0.7738|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney|||Analyses include analysis of CER at 20 minutes after Eovist injection based on baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) stratifying by PSA \< or \>/= 20ng/ml.||||0.7738
91802880|NCT04645953|183483273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7024|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference between groups treated with AZ-010 (1 mg or 3 mg) and the placebo group in the mean number of vomiting/retching events in the 2 hours following. treatment. Baseline, body weight, height, body mass index, age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors. All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance value of ≤ 0.05.||||0.7024
91802881|NCT04645953|183483273|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis is there was no difference between groups treated with AZ-010 (1 mg or 3 mg) and the placebo group in the mean number of vomiting/retching events in the 2 hours following. treatment. Baseline, body weight, height, body mass index, age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors. Patients summarized by actual treatment received. Formal statistical tests (ANOVA, when performed) were 2-sided t-tests with a significance value of 0.05.||||||0.2051|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2051
91802882|NCT04645953|183483274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Participants were asked to rate their anxiety/panic on scale of 0-100 at each time point. The higher the number, the more intense the symptom.||||0.0504
91802883|NCT04645953|183483274|SUPERIORITY|Participants were asked to rate their anxiety/panic on scale of 0-100 at each time point. The higher the number, the more intense the symptom.||||||0.8246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8246
91802884|NCT04645953|183483275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8299||||||Prior Episode Duration 1mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8299
91802885|NCT04645953|183483275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2346||||||Prior Episode Duration 3 mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2346
91802886|NCT04645953|183483275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3997||||||Prior Episode intensity 1mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3997
91802887|NCT04645953|183483275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3997||||||Prior Episode intensity 3mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3997
91802888|NCT04645953|183483276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3847
91802889|NCT04645953|183483276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1785|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.1785
91802890|NCT04645953|183483277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9732|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.9732
91802891|NCT04645953|183483277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1471|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.1471
91802892|NCT04645953|183483278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1337|||||||ANOVA|||The RINVR is an 8-part questionnaire with each item scored from 0-4, for a total scoring range of 0-32. A lower score indicates less distress related to nausea, vomiting, and retching. The data shown is collected within the first 24 hours after the first at-home dose.||||0.1337
91802893|NCT04645953|183483278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7224|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7224
91802894|NCT04645953|183483279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Participants were asked to rate their abdominal pain, nausea, and anxiety/panic on scale of 0-100 at each time point. The higher the number, the more intense the symptom.||||0.0504
91881292|NCT03856047|183656714|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-2.17|-5.38|<.0001
91750673|NCT02446418|183394360|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, correct use of inhaler device at Baseline, gender, age and country.|2.62|0.47|0.820
91750674|NCT02446418|183394360|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.41||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, correct use of inhaler device at Baseline, gender, age and country.|4.60|0.43|0.566
91881293|NCT03856047|183656714|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-4.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-4.36|-7.77|<.0001
91881294|NCT03856047|183656714|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-6.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|-5.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-5.09|-8.28|<.0001
91881295|NCT03856047|183656714|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-6.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-6.16|-9.42|<.0001
91881296|NCT03856047|183656714|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-4.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-4.35|-7.61|<.0001
91881297|NCT03856047|183656714|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||4.60|1.38|0.0003
91881298|NCT03856047|183656714|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.84|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||3.84|0.57|0.0082
91802895|NCT04645953|183483279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8246
91802896|NCT04645953|183483280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9664
91881299|NCT03856047|183656714|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||1.64|-1.82|0.9209
91907844|NCT02258451|183711111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.157||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.157|0.660|0.3467
91750675|NCT03093974|183394363|SUPERIORITY|The number of NCFB pulmonary exacerbations was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial model including treatment, pooled site (country) and baseline use of stable concomitant therapy with oral macrolides as fixed effects and log-time on treatment as an offset.|LS Mean rate ratio|0.612||||0.00101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|0.82|||two-sided Wald chi-square test|||||0.820|0.457|0.00101
91750676|NCT02863523|183394388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91750677|NCT02863523|183394389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
91750678|NCT02863523|183394390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91802897|NCT04645953|183483280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7919|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7919
91802898|NCT04613375|183483281|OTHER||Adjusted VE|16.91||||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|44.52|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection.|||44.52|-24.43|0.3685
91802899|NCT04613375|183483282|OTHER||Adjusted VE|49.27||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|76.37|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\<2 years||76.37|-8.9|0.0817
91802900|NCT04613375|183483282|OTHER||Adjusted VE|4.72||||0.8367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|39.87|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|2 years to \<5 years||39.87|-50.96|0.8367
91881300|NCT03856047|183656714|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||0.92|-2.33|0.3960
91750679|NCT00882908|183394397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|13.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|28.0|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in percentages of participants in the TMC435 75mg and placebo groups with undetectable plasma Hepatitis C virus ribonucleic acid levels at end of treatment (EOT) and at Week 72 estimated from the logistic regression model.|TMC435 75 mg 12 and 24 week treatment groups were pooled and the percentage of participants acheiving SVRW72 were compared with the percentage of participants acheiving SVRW72 in the placebo treatment group.||28.0|-1.9|0.051
91750680|NCT00882908|183394397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|18.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.4|33.5|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in percentages of participants in the TMC435 150mg and placebo groups with undetectable plasma Hepatitis C virus ribonucleic acid levels at end of treatment (EOT) and at Week 72 estimated from the logistic regression model.|TMC/PR 150 mg 12 and 24 week treatment groups were pooled and the percentage of participants achieving SVRW72 was compared the percentage of participants achieving SVRW72 in the placebo treatment group.||33.5|4.4|0.004
91750681|NCT02084238|183394455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the data between baseline and week 10.||||<0.01
91750682|NCT02818036|183394464|OTHER|difference in neural activity to social task when taking naltrexone as compared to placebo|||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance was p\<.05|t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 75||||||<.01
91802901|NCT04613375|183483282|OTHER||Adjusted VE|12.02||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.53|59.59|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\>=5 years||59.59|-91.53|0.7469
91802902|NCT04613375|183483288|OTHER||Adjusted VE|25.96||||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|52.42|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|||52.42|-15.21|0.1827
91802903|NCT04613375|183483289|OTHER||Adjusted VE|68.86||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.86|89.0|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\<2 years||89|11.86|0.028
91802904|NCT04613375|183483289|OTHER||Adjusted VE|7.97||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.73|43.43|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|2 years to \<5 years||43.43|-49.73|0.738
91802905|NCT04613375|183483289|OTHER||Adjusted VE|30.06||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.86|71.37|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\>=5 years||71.37|-70.86|0.4327
91881301|NCT03856047|183656714|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-0.16|-3.46|0.0316
91907845|NCT02258451|183711112|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|18.4||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|-10.2|0.556
91907846|NCT02958007|183711151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.544
91907847|NCT01870401|183711169|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol identified a non-inferiority bound equal to 0.12 (12%).|||||<|0.025|||||||Farrington and Manning|||The primary safety hypothesis is as follows: H0: pControl - pDCB ≥ and H1: pControl (alpha) pDCB \< where p is the success rate in each arm and (alpha) is the non-inferiority bound.||||<0.025
91750683|NCT02818036|183394465|OTHER|differences in feelings of social connection between those who took naltrexone and those who took placebo||||||0.338||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.338
91750684|NCT01038713|183394466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Analysis comparing the number of patients who had stent occlusion|Chi-squared|3 x 2 contingency table comparing all three groups||||||0.22
91750685|NCT01038713|183394466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|3 x 2 contingency table comparing all three groups||Analysis comparing the rate of attempted surgical resection||||0.14
91750686|NCT01038713|183394466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|3 x 2 contingency table comparing all three groups||Analysis comparing the rate of death between groups||||0.96
91750687|NCT01038713|183394467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANOVA|||||||1.00
91750688|NCT03777917|183394475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|72.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|83.5|||Fisher Exact|The Fisher's exact test was used to test for the superiority of treatment (Belotero Balance®) over control.|Two-sided Newcombe confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates.|||83.5|47.5|< 0.0001
91802906|NCT00434954|183483302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The planned sample size of 366 patients treated with metformin only (assuming 25% dropouts) gave a power of 85% to detect non-inferiority of exenatide BID for change in HbA1c (non-inferiority margin 0.4%; assumed common standard deviation of 1.1%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.291||Non-inferiority: upper limit of 95% Confidence Interval (CI) to be \< 0.4%.|Mixed effect model repeat measures(MMRM)|95% CI of treatment group difference derived from MMRM (treatment, week, baseline HbA1c and interactions as fixed effects); p-value: superiority test||The hypothesis was tested hierarchically that 1) exenatide BID is non-inferior to insulin aspart 70/30 BID for glycemic control (change in HbA1c, outcome measure 1), and 2) superior regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia (outcome measure 2). This is the first part of the hierarchical test.||0.291|-0.003|0.055
91802907|NCT00434954|183483303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0|||||Chi square test (Pearson)|||||||0.554
91802908|NCT00434954|183483304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Chi square test (Pearson)|||||||0.159
91881302|NCT03398421|183656741|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|2.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.807|2.224||||||||2.224|1.807|
91802909|NCT00434954|183483309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Non overlapping 95% CI's: statistically significant difference p\<0.05.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|For each treatment group, the incidence of hypoglycemia at Week 26 and 95% CIs were derived from Kaplan-Meier analysis.||The hypothesis was tested hierarchically that 1) exenatide BID is non-inferior to insulin aspart BID for glycemic control (outcome measure 1), and 2) superior regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia (outcome measure 2).The planned sample size of 366 patients treated with metformin only (assumed dropout rate 25%) gave 96% power to detect superiority of exenatide BID for the risk of hypoglycemia, assuming incidences of 3.6% for exenatide BID and 17.5% for insulin aspart BID (alpha=0.05).||||<0.05
91802910|NCT00434954|183483310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The MMRM model adjusted for baseline HbA1c stratum (HbA1c at baseline \>= 6.5% and \<= 8.0% vs. \> 8.0% and \<=10%).|Mixed effects model repeated measures|95% CI of treatment group difference derived from MMRM (treatment, week, baseline HbA1c and interactions as fixed effects)||||||<0.0001
91802911|NCT00434954|183483311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The MMRM model adjusted for baseline HbA1c stratum (HbA1c at Visit 1 \>= 6.5% and \<= 8.0% vs. \> 8.0% and \<=10%).|Mixed effects model repeated measures|95% CI of treatment group difference derived from MMRM (treatment, week, baseline HbA1c and interactions as fixed effects)||||||<0.0001
91802912|NCT00002651|183483314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The overall type I error rate used is 0.05. The type II error rate is 0.10 (power = 0.9). The trial planned for a one-sided test of the hypothesis that the hazard ratio of intermittent CAD to continuous CAD is 1.2. A hazard ratio of 1.0 was used as the specific alternative in the trial size computations. Thus, rejection of the hypothesis will be evidence against the possibility that the intermittent CAD hazard ratio is larger than the continuous CAD hazard ratio by 20% or more.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.99|0.15
91802913|NCT00002651|183483315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|3.97||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.97|-0.31|0.09
91802914|NCT00002651|183483316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.76||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.76|1.00|0.003
91802915|NCT00002651|183483317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-5.0||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||-5|-14|<0.001
91802916|NCT00002651|183483318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|36.0||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||36|1|0.04
91802917|NCT00002651|183483319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.46||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.46|-0.83|0.23
91802918|NCT02096731|183483359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.37|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.37|0.92|
91881303|NCT03398421|183656748|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.933||||||||0.933|0.690|
91881304|NCT00338949|183656791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.228
91881305|NCT00338949|183656792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.958
91881306|NCT02271230|183656829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11||||||||1.11|0.78|
91881307|NCT02271230|183656829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||||||||1.14|0.80|
91881308|NCT02271230|183656830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09||||||||1.09|0.81|
91907848|NCT01870401|183711170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0222|||||||Wald Test|One-sided Wald test based on model estimate of DCB treatment effect and subject as a random effect.||||||0.0222
91907849|NCT01192022|183711205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|9.29||Logistic regression model with treatment and pooled center as factors.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.29|2.55|<0.001
91907850|NCT03045861|183711255|OTHER||Emax|-1.822|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.333|1.31||||||||1.310|-2.333|
91907851|NCT03045861|183711255|OTHER||ED50|1020.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.786|1940.724||||||||1940.724|100.786|
91802919|NCT02096731|183483360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.1|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.10|0.69|
91802920|NCT02096731|183483361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.3|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.30|1.03|
91802921|NCT02096731|183483362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.36|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.36|0.81|
91881309|NCT02271230|183656830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.998||||||||0.998|0.74|
91881310|NCT02601209|183656862|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91881311|NCT02601209|183656863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.1419|ONE_SIDED|85.0||1.7|||Log Rank|1-sided statistical test and p-value||||1.70||0.1419
91907852|NCT03045861|183711255|OTHER||s2e|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.306||||||||0.306|0.095|
91907853|NCT03045861|183711256|OTHER||Emax|-1.801|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.319|-1.283||||||||-1.283|-2.319|
91907854|NCT03045861|183711256|OTHER||ED50|55.572|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.565|107.579||||||||107.579|3.565|
91907855|NCT03045861|183711256|OTHER||s2e|0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.314||||||||0.314|0.097|
91907856|NCT03045861|183711257|OTHER||Emax|-1.846|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.352|-1.34||||||||-1.340|-2.352|
91802922|NCT02096731|183483363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.5|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.50|1.23|
91802923|NCT05673889|183483364|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|192.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|166.56|221.79|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Dabigatran etexilate administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 coadministered with dabigatran etexilate as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||221.79|166.56|
91802924|NCT05673889|183483365|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|197.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|177.32|220.66|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Dabigatran etexilate administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 coadministered with dabigatran etexilate as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||220.66|177.32|
91802925|NCT01776840|183483395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.59|0.011
91802926|NCT05338216|183483411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.63||||0.021||95.0|4.37|36.24||Threshold for significance: p \< 0.05. No correction for multiple comparisons performed due to only two tests conducted and exploratory nature of this pilot study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis: Compliance would be significantly higher for micro-interaction based versus traditional EMA. Null hypothesis: No difference between conditions.||36.24|4.37|0.021
91802927|NCT05338216|183483412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.34||||0.027||95.0|0.78|32.77||Threshold for significance: p \< 0.05. No correction for multiple comparisons performed due to only two tests conducted and exploratory nature of this pilot study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis: Completion would be significantly higher for micro-interaction based versus traditional EMA. Null hypothesis: No difference between conditions.||32.77|0.78|0.027
91802928|NCT01350492|183483500|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.939||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.680
91802929|NCT01350492|183483501|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.96||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mulitvariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.854
91802930|NCT01350492|183483502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.0002
91802931|NCT01350492|183483503|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.857||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.41
91802932|NCT01350492|183483504|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.828||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.16
91881312|NCT02024750|183656878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.03||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Negative values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on A1c. Results reflect the difference in A1c trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.030|-0.021|0.72
91907857|NCT03045861|183711257|OTHER||ED50|32.415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.687|60.143||||||||60.143|4.687|
91907858|NCT03045861|183711257|OTHER||s2e|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.305||||||||0.305|0.094|
91907859|NCT01549275|183711316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom =1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of patients with rapidly proliferative cultured cells between two groups.||||< 0.005
91881313|NCT02024750|183656878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.013||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Negative values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on A1c. Results reflect the difference in A1c trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.013|-0.034|0.38
91881314|NCT02024750|183656879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.295||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on child quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.295|-0.249|0.87
91907860|NCT01549275|183711316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of patients with rapidly proliferative cultured HCC cells with or without concomitant cancer-associated fibroblasts between two groups.||||< 0.005
91750689|NCT00320372|183394481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|38.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|39.9|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS responders (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||39.9|36.3|
91802933|NCT01350492|183483505|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.919||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.66
91802934|NCT03800173|183483524|OTHER||Slope|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.096||||||A model with In-transformed dose (dose continuous) as a fixed effect \& subject as a random effect was applied to In-transformed Cmax. Dose proportionality was assessed by restricted max likelihood using SAS PROC MIXED. The mean slope was estimated from the power model \& the corresponding 90% CI calculated. Although there was no formal statistical hypothesis tested for this secondary objective, there was evidence for dose proportionality if the 90% CI of the fixed slope for In-dose contained 1.||1.096|0.868|
91802935|NCT03800173|183483525|OTHER||Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.872|1.128||||||A model with In-transformed dose (dose continuous) as a fixed effect \& subject as a random effect was applied to In-transformed AUC0-inf Dose proportionality was assessed by restricted max likelihood using SAS PROC MIXED. The mean slope was estimated from the power model \& the corresponding 90% CI calculated. Although there was no formal statistical hypothesis tested for this secondary objective, there was evidence for dose proportionality if the 90% CI of the fixed slope for In-dose contained 1||1.128|0.872|
91802936|NCT03800173|183483525|OTHER||Slope|1.086|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.219||||||A model with In-transformed dose (dose continuous) as a fixed effect \& subject as a random effect was applied to In-transformed AUC0-t. Dose proportionality was assessed by restricted max likelihood using SAS PROC MIXED. The mean slope was estimated from the power model \& the corresponding 90% CI calculated. Although there was no formal statistical hypothesis tested for this secondary objective, there was evidence for dose proportionality if the 90% CI of the fixed slope for In-dose contained 1.||1.219|0.952|
91802937|NCT02149719|183483527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91907861|NCT01549275|183711316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of patients with rapidly proliferative cultured cancer-associated fibroblasts alone between two groups.||||> 0.1
91750690|NCT00320372|183394481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|19.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS responders (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||19.0|15.2|
91802938|NCT01235689|183483570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg or ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.010
91802939|NCT01235689|183483571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.014
91802940|NCT01235689|183483572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.006
91750691|NCT00320372|183394481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||||<.0001
91802941|NCT01235689|183483573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.010
91907862|NCT01549275|183711317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||1
91750692|NCT00320372|183394482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison for Kaplan Meier Median Time until recurrence|Log Rank|Null hypothesis: median TUR between 2 groups is not different. Alternate hypothesis: median TUR between 2 groups is different.||||||0.1015
91750693|NCT00320372|183394483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|21.3|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS remitters (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is different.||21.3|18.4|
91750694|NCT00320372|183394483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|9.5|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS remitters (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is different.||9.5|6.9|
91750695|NCT00320372|183394483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||||<.0001
91802942|NCT01235689|183483574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.299
91802943|NCT01235689|183483575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.728
91750696|NCT00320372|183394489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.34997|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline suicidal thoughts.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline suicidal thoughts."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||<0.0001
91750697|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||3 Month Time point||||<.0001
91750698|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||6 Month Time point||||.0068
91750699|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||9 Month Time point||||.0008
91750700|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||12 Month Time point||||.0003
91750701|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||18 Month Time point||||<.0001
91750702|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||24 Month Time point||||.0059
91802944|NCT01235689|183483576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.067
91802945|NCT01235689|183483577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Model included factors for treatment group, screening smoking status (yes or no), and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg), and Baseline values as covariate.||||0.4|-3.2|0.116
91750703|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||30 Month Time point||||.0028
91750704|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||36 Month Time point||||.0002
91750705|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||42 Month Time point||||.0051
91802946|NCT01235689|183483579|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.442||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8|||Regression, Cox|||||0.8|0.2|0.012
91802947|NCT01235689|183483580|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||||1.9|1.1|0.008
91802948|NCT01235689|183483581|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.337||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.8|1.0|0.052
91802949|NCT01235689|183483584|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.823||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.5|0.5|0.501
91907863|NCT01549275|183711317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.032
91750706|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||48 Month Time point||||.0363
91750707|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||54 Month Time point||||.0048
91750708|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||60 Month Time point||||.0009
91802950|NCT01235689|183483585|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.785||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.5|0.4|0.459
91802951|NCT01235689|183483592|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.423||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||||1.6|0.1|0.212
91802952|NCT00806351|183483603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|40.3||||||The 95 percent confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||40.3|-80.9|
91802953|NCT00806351|183483604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|40.3||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||40.3|-80.9|
91802954|NCT00806351|183483605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|63.9||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||63.9|-97.5|
91802955|NCT00806351|183483606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|55.0||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||55.0|-97.5|
91802956|NCT00806351|183483611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.6|31.9||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||31.9|-90.6|
91802957|NCT00289783|183483632|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for lot-to-lot consistency (1 month after primary vaccination): For each pair of lots and for the immune response to anti-PRP measured by Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) as measured by ELISA.||1.42|0.89|
91802958|NCT00289783|183483632|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for lot-to-lot consistency (1 month after primary vaccination): For each pair of lots and for the immune response to anti-PRP measured by ELISA the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) as measured by ELISA.||1.42|0.89|
91802959|NCT00289783|183483632|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for lot-to-lot consistency (1 month after primary vaccination): For each pair of lots and for the immune response to anti-PRP measured by ELISA the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) as measured by ELISA.||1.26|0.8|
91802960|NCT00289783|183483633|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenC, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.62||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup C (MenC) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.62|0.93|
91802961|NCT00289783|183483633|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenC, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup C (MenC) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.29|0.74|
91802962|NCT00289783|183483633|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenC, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.04||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup C (MenC) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.04|0.6|
91802963|NCT00289783|183483634|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenY, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.27||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup Y (MenY) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||2.27|1.14|
91881315|NCT02024750|183656879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.074||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.369||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on child quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.369|-0.517|0.74
91907864|NCT01549275|183711317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.048
91881316|NCT02024750|183656880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.037||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.237||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on parent quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.237|-0.312|0.79
91881317|NCT02024750|183656880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.467|0.448||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on parent quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.448|-0.467|0.97
91881318|NCT02024750|183656881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.134||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.388||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on parent fear of hypoglycemia. Results reflect the difference in FOH trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.388|-0.121|0.30
91881319|NCT02024750|183656881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.006||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.373||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on parent fear of hypoglycemia. Results reflect the difference in FOH trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.373|-0.384|0.98
91881320|NCT00983892|183656893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.56||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.15|||GEE|Adjusting for baseline symptom severity, caregiver type, week number, and cancer site.||||-0.15|-2.97|0.030
91750709|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|12.1009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8979|13.3039|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on Q-LES-Q change from baseline score (continuous var) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."||13.3039|10.8979|
91750710|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|7.5964|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1327|9.0602|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on Q-LES-Q change from baseline score (continuous var) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."||9.0602|6.1327|
91750711|NCT00320372|183394490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."||||<.0001
91750712|NCT00320372|183394491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.14837|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline medical threat to life.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline medical threat to life."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||<.0001
91750713|NCT00320372|183394492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.14819|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS f/u suicidal thoughts and baseline intent of suicidal gesture.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS f/u suicidal thoughts and baseline intent of suicidal gesture."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||<.0001
91750714|NCT00320372|183394493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.04625||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline primary diagnosis of MDE.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline primary diagnosis of MDE."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||.0012
91750715|NCT04063787|183394494|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is the difference is zero. Thus the equivalence margin equals zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.408|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Compare before and after use of Fist Assist||||0.012
91907865|NCT01549275|183711317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.176
91750716|NCT04883528|183394541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
91750717|NCT04883528|183394542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
91750718|NCT04883528|183394543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
91750719|NCT04883528|183394544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.85
91881321|NCT03181282|183656896|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0132|0.0925|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the On Medication / On Stimulation condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||0.0925|0.0132|0.0194
91881322|NCT03181282|183656896|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0231||0.004625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0242|0.1194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the Off Medication / Off Stimulation Condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||0.1194|0.0242|0.004625
91881323|NCT03181282|183656897|SUPERIORITY||Slope|10.5248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8439||0.038389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6038|20.4459|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the On Medication / On Stimulation condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||20.4459|0.6038|0.038389
91881324|NCT03181282|183656897|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.7233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.668||0.109873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8652|17.3117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the Off Medication / Off Stimulation condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||17.3117|-1.8652|0.109873
91881325|NCT02484547|183656913|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.26||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.041|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.041|-0.569|0.0901
91881326|NCT02484547|183656913|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.39||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.694|-0.086|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit.||-0.086|-0.694|0.0120
91881327|NCT02484547|183656914|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.1||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.48|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.48|-0.65|0.7578
91881328|NCT02484547|183656914|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.13|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.13|0.00|0.0493
91881329|NCT02484547|183656915|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.701||||0.1962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7649|0.3627|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group(Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADASCog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.3627|-1.7649|0.1962
91881330|NCT02484547|183656915|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.4||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4596|-0.3396|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group(Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADASCog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||-0.3396|-2.4596|0.0097
91881331|NCT02484547|183656916|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7||||0.1515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.73|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low dose and BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo,95% CI and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCSADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.73|-0.27|0.1515
91881332|NCT02484547|183656916|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.74|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low dose and BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo,95% CI and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCSADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||2.74|0.75|0.0006
91881333|NCT03448536|183656935|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|4.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|6.56|||ANCOVA|||||6.56|2.06|< 0.001
91881334|NCT03448536|183656936|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|9.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|13.85|||ANCOVA|||||13.85|5.75|< 0.001
91881335|NCT03448536|183656937|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|1.52|||=|0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|3.49|||ANCOVA|||||3.49|-0.45|= 0.129
91881336|NCT03448536|183656938|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|8.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|10.78|||ANCOVA|||||10.78|5.76|< 0.001
91881337|NCT03448536|183656939|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|0.56|||=|0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|-0.52|= 0.307
91881338|NCT03448536|183656940|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.16|||ANCOVA|||||5.16|2.34|< 0.001
91907866|NCT01549275|183711317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative HCC cultured cells.||||0.021
91750720|NCT04883528|183394545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
91750721|NCT04883528|183394546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91881339|NCT03448536|183656941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
91881340|NCT03448536|183656943|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.002
91889094|NCT05479734|183670834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the number of challenging child behaviors will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean behavior counts on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.01
91750722|NCT04883528|183394547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
91750723|NCT04883528|183394548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.95
91750724|NCT04883528|183394549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91750725|NCT04883528|183394553|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.01||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.07|0.64
91750726|NCT04883528|183394554|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.55||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-14.59|0.04
91750727|NCT04948307|183394557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7326|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7326
91750728|NCT04948307|183394558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7396|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.7396
91750729|NCT04948307|183394559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.8710
91750730|NCT04948307|183394560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8816|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.8816
91750731|NCT04948307|183394561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5281|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5281
91750732|NCT04948307|183394562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2996|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2996
91750733|NCT04948307|183394566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7201|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.7201
91750734|NCT04948307|183394568|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Summary statistics are presented.|Summary statistics are presented|||
91750735|NCT04948307|183394570|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Summary statistics are presented.|||
91750736|NCT03131596|183394577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The p-value is not adjusted and a p-value of \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||200 patients were eligible and randomised in a 1:1 fashion. 9 patients did not complete the full protocol, resulting in 94 cases in the balloon group and 97 cases in the control group included in the final analysis. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted.The null hypothesis is the percentage of the patients with reformed uterine adhesion in balloon group will less than the percentage of the patients with reformed uterine adhesion in control group. A Chi-squared analysis was used.||||0.012
91750737|NCT03131596|183394578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91750738|NCT03131596|183394579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91750739|NCT03131596|183394580|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91750740|NCT00734071|183394581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.911||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.38||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||P-values were tested at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||2.38|-1.20|0.518
91750741|NCT00734071|183394582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.85||Hierarchical testing stopped at the primary endpoint in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05).||0.85|-1.29|0.685
91750742|NCT00734071|183394583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||0.28|-0.27|0.984
91750743|NCT00734071|183394584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.866||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.04||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||2.04|-1.38|0.703
91750744|NCT00734071|183394585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.131||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.795|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.795|0.713|0.602
91750745|NCT00734071|183394586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.558||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.07||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||3.07|-3.09|0.995
91750746|NCT00734071|183394587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.951||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|6.83||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||6.83|-4.79|0.731
91750747|NCT03654885|183394606|NON_INFERIORITY|By assuming the margin of non-inferiority at 24%, the null hypothesis for this non-inferiority testing was to be set up as XEN implanted group (P1)-Trabeculectomy group (P2) ≤-0.24 versus the alternative hypothesis as P1-P2 \>-0.24. Equivalently, non-inferiority of P1 to P2 was to be declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided confidence interval (CI) of the difference of the above endpoint between the two treatment groups computed using normal approximation was found to be greater than -24%.|Percentage Difference|-6.1||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|10.8|||Chi-squared|||||10.8|-22.9|0.487
91881341|NCT00988117|183656991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Tscore|5.19|||<|0.01||95.0||||t-tests were statistically thresholded using the joint probability distribution method to correct for multiple comparisons, p \< 0.01 for voxel height and p \< 0.05 for cluster extent|t-test, 2 sided|A mask included only those regions where the patients showed abnormally low fALFF at either timepoint relative to a sample of 15 age-matched controls.||"Each voxel's BOLD signal time series was detrended and transformed to the frequency domain. We divided the sum of the square roots across the 0.01-0.08 Hz range by that across the entire frequency range (0-0.25 Hz).~fALFF group comparisons were evaluated using t-tests corrected for multiple comparisons. To determine if there were treatment-associated changes in brain activity, we compared voxel-wise fALFF in the patients at baseline to post-treatment."||||<0.01
91881342|NCT00988117|183656992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's r correlation coefficient|-0.82|||<|0.01||95.0||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||correlation with left inferior frontal gyrus / premotor falff change||||<.01
91881343|NCT00988117|183656992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.35||||0.36||95.0||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||correlation with left supplementary motor area falff change||||.36
91881344|NCT00988117|183656993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's r correlation|0.18||||0.58||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||correlation with left premotor / inferior frontal gyri falff change||||.58
91881345|NCT00988117|183656993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's correlation coefficient|0.26||||0.41||95.0||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||correlation with left supplementary motor area falff change||||.41
91881346|NCT05400226|183656994|OTHER|Summary statistics of quantitative data, one-sided exact binomial test for null hypothesis, Clopper-Pearson method for 95% exact confidence intervals|Proportion|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.591|||Exact Binomial Test||The Parameter Dispersion Value is the asymptotic standard error of the proportion.|Single arm open-label||0.591|0.270|< .0001
91907867|NCT01549275|183711317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.129
91907868|NCT00122681|183711318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.9|98.3||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||98.3|79.9|
91907869|NCT00122681|183711318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.9|99.6||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||99.6|82.9|
91881347|NCT05400226|183656995|OTHER||Proportion|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.939||||||||0.939|0.675|
91881348|NCT05400226|183656996|OTHER||Proportion|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.733||||||||0.733|0.202|
91881349|NCT05400226|183656997|OTHER||Proportion|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.633||||||||0.633|0.126|
91881350|NCT05400226|183656998|OTHER||Proportion|0.773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.862||||||||0.862|0.650|
91881351|NCT01077622|183657016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|93.3|||||SERC assessment|||93.3|34.8|
91881352|NCT01077622|183657016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|93.3|||||Investigator assessment|||93.3|34.8|
91881353|NCT00424177|183657058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of subjects in Cycle 2 or 3|0.87||||||95.0|0.74|0.94||||||||0.94|0.74|
91881354|NCT01817712|183657080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.46|<0.001
91907870|NCT00122681|183711318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.7|98.7||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||98.7|39.7|
91907871|NCT00122681|183711318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.1|96.9||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||96.9|78.1|
91881355|NCT01817712|183657081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Site used as strata||||||0.004
91881356|NCT01817712|183657082|OTHER|Longitudinal analysis of PCL-5 (change from baseline)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-3.91|0.07
91881357|NCT00562484|183657170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|52.0||||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 x (1 - ratio of incidence rate)||52|30|
91881358|NCT00562484|183657171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|72.0||||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 x (1 - ratio of incidence rate)||72|44|
91881359|NCT02811302|183657183|OTHER|A simple count and percentage of the population were calculated based on the number of patients adjudicated as having Respiratory Depression.|||||||||||||||||To determine the risk assessment score, first the number of patients with Respiratory Depression (RD) had to be identified. Per the rules established for the Clinical Endpoint Committee, 655 (43.6%) patients were identified as having RD.|||
91802964|NCT00289783|183483634|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenY, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.97||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup Y (MenY) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.97|0.99|
91802965|NCT00289783|183483634|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenY, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.21||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup Y (MenY) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.21|0.62|
91802966|NCT00289783|183483635|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for immunogenicity of MenC (42 days after the fourth dose): Lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI for the geometric mean of individual ratio of post-dose 4/pre-dose 4 is ≥ 2.|GMT ratio|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|13.8||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenC.||13.8|10.4|
91802967|NCT00289783|183483635|NON_INFERIORITY|Point estimate = Lower limit (LL) = Upper limit (UL) as LL and UL values were not available due to the departure from lognormal distribution (large number of imputed values)|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.4||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenC.||1.4|1.4|
91802968|NCT00289783|183483636|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for immunogenicity of MenY (42 days after the fourth dose): Lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI for the geometric mean of individual ratio of post-dose 4/pre-dose 4 is ≥ 2.|GMT ratio|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|13.8||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenY.||13.8|10.2|
91802969|NCT00289783|183483636|NON_INFERIORITY|Point estimate = Lower limit (LL) = Upper limit (UL) as LL and UL values were not available due to the departure from lognormal distribution (large number of imputed values).|GMT ratio|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|21.1||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenY.||21.1|21.1|
91802970|NCT00289783|183483640|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion ≥ 150 mIU/mL, in initially seronegative subjects (\<150 mIU/mL), for anti-measles antibody is ≥-5% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|3.06||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of M-M-R II vaccine when co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to M-M-R II vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with Varivax vaccine.||3.06|-2.56|
91802971|NCT00289783|183483641|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority (42 days after the fourth dose): Lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 µg/mL is ≥ -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority)|Difference in percentage|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.57||||||To demonstrate that, following a fourth dose, the immune response to Hib polysaccharide (PRP) in the group that received 3 primary vaccine doses of Menhibrix vaccine and a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine coadministered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines was non-inferior to the corresponding immune response in the group that received 3 primary vaccine doses of ActHIB vaccine and a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines.||3.57|-1.78|
91802972|NCT00289783|183483642|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (42 days after fourth dose vaccination): Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with a seroconversion ≥28 ED50, in subjects with initial anti-mumps antibody \< 28 ED50, for anti-mumps antibody is ≥ -5% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.98||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of M-M-R II vaccine when co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to M--M-R II vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with Varivax vaccine.||0.98|-2.16|
91881360|NCT02811302|183657184|OTHER|Multivariable model for (Multivariate logistic regression) Respiratory Depression, followed by validation with Harrell's Optimism using a bootstrap sampling method.|Area Under the Curve|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.79|||||The model was performed using stepwise selection including all potential predictors and interactions terms (medical history and baseline characteristics).|A modified Full Analysis Dataset (1335) was used to derive and validate the risk assessment tool. Subjects were excluded if they had major deviations or consent withdrawals. Subjects that did not have any monitoring data were also excluded. Finally, 69 subjects were further excluded from the model, as they were missing parameters to calculate their risk score.|The model derived from the logistic regression was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemshow goodness of fit test (P = 0.831). The derived model was validated by Harrell's Optimism using a Bootstrap sampling method (500 samples from the modified dataset, 1335) with replacement. The logistic regression model with stepwise selection was performed for each bootstrap sample, and AUC calculated. The optimism calculated by Harrell's algorithm was 0.02. The model was then checked for the quartiles of the effective monitoring and for geography used as a random effect. The performance measurement of the final model was adjusted according the Harrell's Optimism for a final adjusted AUC of 0.74.|0.79|0.73|
91881361|NCT02598934|183657190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|16.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|27.7||P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for the item in the BCS: ibandronate was effective in treating osteoporosis|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||27.7|6.1|0.002
91881362|NCT02598934|183657190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|14.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.8||P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for the item in the BCS: ibandronate reduces risk of breaking bone.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||25.8|4.0|0.009
91802973|NCT00289783|183483643|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (42 days after fourth dose vaccination): Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with seroresponse ≥10 IU/ml, in initially seronegative subjects (\< 4 IU/ml), for anti-rubella antibody is ≥ -5% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.73||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of M-M-R II vaccine when co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to M-M-R II vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with Varivax vaccine.||1.73|-0.57|
91802974|NCT00289783|183483644|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (42 days after the fourth dose vaccination): Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion ≥ 1:5 dilution, in initially seronegative subjects (\< 1:5), for anti-varicella antibody is ≥ -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.56||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Varivax vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to Varivax vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with M-M-R II vaccine in terms of immunogenicity to varicella as measured by fluorescent antibody to membrane antigen (FAMA).||1.56|-0.78|
91802975|NCT05248867|183483704|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|59.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.7|63.9||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||63.9|54.7|<0.0001
91802976|NCT05248867|183483705|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|60.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|65.4||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||65.4|54.9|<0.0001
91802977|NCT05248867|183483706|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|71.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.5|76.2||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||76.2|66.5|<0.0001
91802978|NCT05248867|183483711|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|72.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.4|77.6||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||77.6|67.4|<0.0001
91802979|NCT05248867|183483712|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|41.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|49.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||49.3|34.5|<0.0001
91802980|NCT05248867|183483713|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|69.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|75.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||75.3|63.7|<0.0001
91802981|NCT05248867|183483714|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|58.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|65.0||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||65.0|51.3|<0.0001
91802982|NCT05248867|183483715|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|30.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|35.1||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||35.1|25.2|<0.0001
91802983|NCT05248867|183483716|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|35.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|40.9||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||40.9|30.5|<0.0001
91802984|NCT05248867|183483717|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|60.0||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||60.0|45.2|<0.0001
91802985|NCT05248867|183483718|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|58.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.1|66.1||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||66.1|51.1|<0.0001
91802986|NCT05248867|183483719|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|50.6||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||50.6|34.4|<0.0001
91802987|NCT05248867|183483720|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|76.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||76.3|63.7|<0.0001
91802988|NCT05248867|183483728|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|48.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|55.4||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||55.4|42.2|<0.0001
91802989|NCT05248867|183483729|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|50.4||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||50.4|38.0|<0.0001
91802990|NCT03128411|183483746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||z-test, 1-sided|||With a sample size of 60 participants, study was powered at \>82% to test null hypothesis: true MMR rate at 12 months (48 weeks) is 25% versus alternative hypothesis: true MMR rate is 40% with one-sided alpha of 5%.||||<0.0001
91802991|NCT00345839|183483783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.112||||||p-value\<0.044 considered significant|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.112
91802992|NCT00345839|183483783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.02|0.85|
91802993|NCT00345839|183483784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.249||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.249
91802994|NCT00345839|183483784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.04|0.85|
91802995|NCT00345839|183483785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.800
91802996|NCT00345839|183483785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.19|0.79|
91802997|NCT00345839|183483786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.283||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.283
91802998|NCT00345839|183483786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.18|0.58|
91802999|NCT00345839|183483787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.034
91803000|NCT00345839|183483787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||0.99|0.68|
91803001|NCT00345839|183483788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.190
91803002|NCT00345839|183483788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.07|0.72|
91803003|NCT00345839|183483789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.277
91803004|NCT00345839|183483789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.07|0.80|
91803005|NCT00345839|183483790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.607||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.607
91803006|NCT00345839|183483790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.40|0.82|
91803007|NCT00345839|183483791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.218
91803008|NCT00345839|183483791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.07|0.75|
91803009|NCT00345839|183483792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||<0.001
91803010|NCT00345839|183483792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.54|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||0.54|0.36|
91803011|NCT01960400|183483793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||"The statistical signifiance level : p\<0.05. After treatment (T1) Pain severity p=0.065~Sub-scale:~* Present pain p=0.046\*~* Average pain p=0.381~* Most intense pain p=0.064~* Least intense pain p=0.142"|ANOVA|To assess the effectiveness of interventions (inter-group differences), a mixed-model ANOVA (time X group interaction) was used.||For the severity of pain, the calculations have revealed that only this pain now had an acceptable statistical power, of 77.1% after treatment (T1).||||0.065
91803012|NCT01960400|183483794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||||||interaction group X time|ANOVA|||||||0.049
91803013|NCT01960400|183483795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||interaction group X time|ANOVA|||||||0.035
91803014|NCT01960400|183483796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||interaction group X time|ANOVA|||||||0.046
91881363|NCT02598934|183657190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|16.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|27.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for items in BCS: ibandronate effective in treating osteoporosis or reduces risk of breaking bone.||||27.5|6.3|0.001
91881364|NCT02598934|183657190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|14.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|25.9||P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for items in BCS: ibandronate effective in treating osteoporosis and reduces risk of breaking bone.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||25.9|3.9|0.010
91881365|NCT02154347|183657196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.37|-0.95|<0.001
91881366|NCT02250183|183657228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Each case (participant) serves as its own control because they received both treatment modalities simultaneously.|McNemar|McNemar test was used because participants received both treatments, so this variable was non-independent in our single group sample.|2-sided|Each participant received both treatment modalities - MEDIHONEY® and SANTYL - and thus had two wound cultures performed, one for each treatment modality. This was a single group study; however, wound culture results were contrasted with each other across participants. Thus, independent variable was treatment modality, while dependent variable was the wound culture result (positive for presence of bacteria versus negative for absence of bacteria).||||1.00
91881367|NCT02250183|183657229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.149|4.565||The null hypothesis was that the two mean scores would not differ significantly at p\<.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||A paired samples, 2-tailed, t-test was used to compare means within participants for ratings of MEDIHONEY and SANTYL satisfaction total scores. The null hypothesis was that the two mean scores would not differ significantly at p\<.05 level.||4.565|1.149|.003
91881368|NCT03282799|183657231|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
91750748|NCT03654885|183394608|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.074|-3.538||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Day 1||-3.538|-8.074|<0.001
91803015|NCT04547712|183483812|SUPERIORITY||Proportion expressed as a percentage|78.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|59.4||||||The confidence interval lower limit was above the performance goal of 50%, the primary objective was met.|"Null Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS single threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \<= 50%; Alternative Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS single threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \> 50%"|||59.4|
91881369|NCT03282799|183657232|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
91881370|NCT03282799|183657233|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
91881371|NCT03282799|183657234|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
91881372|NCT03282799|183657235|OTHER|||||||0.685|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.685
91907872|NCT00122681|183711318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|92.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.3|98.2||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||98.2|79.3|
91881373|NCT03282799|183657236|OTHER|||||||0.784|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.784
91881374|NCT03282799|183657237|OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.587
91881375|NCT03282799|183657238|OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.394
91881376|NCT03282799|183657239|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.660
91881377|NCT03282799|183657240|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.290
91881378|NCT03302559|183657263|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.001
91881379|NCT03302559|183657264|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Forehead)||||0.005
91881380|NCT03302559|183657264|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Periocular)||||0.02
91881381|NCT03302559|183657264|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.0006||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Cheeks)||||0.0006
91881382|NCT03302559|183657264|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Perioral)||||0.001
91881383|NCT03302559|183657265|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Forehead)||||0.02
91881384|NCT03302559|183657265|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.006||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Periocular)||||0.006
91750749|NCT03654885|183394608|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.163||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.503|2.066||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Week 1||2.066|-2.503|0.851
91881385|NCT03302559|183657265|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Cheeks)||||<0.001
91750750|NCT03654885|183394608|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.162||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|4.309||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Week 2||4.309|-0.253|0.081
91750751|NCT03654885|183394608|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.157||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|4.484||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 1||4.484|-0.059|0.056
91750752|NCT03654885|183394608|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.416|7.054||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 3||7.054|2.416|<0.001
91750753|NCT03654885|183394608|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|5.358||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 6||5.358|0.657|0.012
91750754|NCT03654885|183394608|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.182|5.883||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 9||5.883|1.182|0.003
91750755|NCT03654885|183394608|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.358|5.183||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 12||5.183|0.358|0.024
91750756|NCT03654885|183394610|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Day 1||0.18|-0.36|0.505
91750757|NCT03654885|183394610|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Week 1||0.26|-0.28|0.949
91750758|NCT03654885|183394610|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.34||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Week 2||0.34|-0.19|0.581
91881386|NCT03302559|183657265|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.5||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Perioral)||||0.5
91881387|NCT03302559|183657266|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.002||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.002
91881388|NCT03302559|183657267|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.0008||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0008
91750759|NCT03654885|183394610|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.41||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 1||0.41|-0.13|0.302
91750760|NCT03654885|183394610|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.66||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 3||0.66|0.12|0.005
91881389|NCT03302559|183657268|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.02
91881390|NCT03302559|183657273|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.3||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Normal Skin)||||0.3
91881391|NCT03302559|183657273|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.4||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Target Lesion)||||0.4
91881392|NCT02080403|183657282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.40|0.1159
91881393|NCT01171183|183657310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.64||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91881394|NCT01171183|183657311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.54||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91881395|NCT04260464|183657312|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|110.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.76|144.86||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for PF-06700841 between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||144.86|83.76|
91881396|NCT04260464|183657312|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|94.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.84|160.19||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for PF-06700841 between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||160.19|55.84|
91881397|NCT04260464|183657312|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|124.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.24|153.89||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for PF-06700841 between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||153.89|100.24|
91881398|NCT04260464|183657313|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|112.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.85|206.45||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-06700841 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||206.45|60.85|
91881399|NCT04260464|183657313|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|70.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.6|182.49||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-06700841 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||182.49|27.60|
91750761|NCT03654885|183394610|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.59||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 6||0.59|0.04|0.026
91750762|NCT03654885|183394610|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.64||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 9||0.64|0.09|0.010
91881400|NCT04260464|183657313|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|147.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.17|290.21||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-06700841 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||290.21|75.17|
91881401|NCT04260464|183657314|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|177.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.82|232.04||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||232.04|135.82|
91881402|NCT04260464|183657314|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|132.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.08|185.17||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||185.17|95.08|
91881403|NCT04260464|183657314|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|122.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.47|176.3||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||176.30|84.47|
91881404|NCT04260464|183657315|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|445.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|326.55|609.13||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||609.13|326.55|
91881405|NCT04260464|183657315|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|144.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.76|185.5||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||185.50|112.76|
91881406|NCT04260464|183657315|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|229.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|189.97|276.35||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||276.35|189.97|
91881407|NCT02806505|183657336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.06||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||3.06|0.49|0.6746
91881408|NCT02806505|183657337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.76||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||3.76|0.60|0.3923
91907873|NCT00122681|183711318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|98.8||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||98.8|44.1|
91803016|NCT04547712|183483812|SUPERIORITY||Proportion expressed as a percentage|91.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|75.6||||||The confidence interval lower limit was above the performance goal of 50%, the primary objective was met.|"Null Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS dual threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \<= 50%; Alternative Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS dual threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \> 50%"|||75.6|
91881409|NCT02806505|183657338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.68||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||2.68|0.43|0.8843
91750763|NCT03654885|183394610|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 12||0.54|0.00|0.052
91750764|NCT03654885|183394611|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.358|5.183||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||5.183|0.358|0.024
91803017|NCT04547712|183483813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Nominal p-value is provided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS single threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \>= 0; Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS single threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \< 0||||0.0120
91803018|NCT04547712|183483813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0491||||||Nominal p-value is provided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS dual threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \>= 0; Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS dual threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \< 0||||0.0491
91803019|NCT05544734|183483815|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = baseline to postoperative day 2) minus Non-Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = baseline to postoperative day 2).|||1.25|-1.85|0.69
91881410|NCT02806505|183657338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.04||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||2.04|0.28|0.5866
91907874|NCT00122681|183711319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|98.4||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed||98.4|87.7|
91750765|NCT03654885|183394612|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.54|0.00|0.052
91750766|NCT03654885|183394613|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.214||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.579|6.151||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||6.151|-2.579|0.421
91803020|NCT05544734|183483816|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|11.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = postoperative day 3 to postoperative day 6) minus Non-Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = postoperative day 3 to postoperative day 6).|||11.85|-7.25|0.62
91803021|NCT03298867|183483822|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|73.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.89|88.01||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (teprotumumab - placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||88.01|58.89|<0.001
91803022|NCT03298867|183483823|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|70.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.89|85.75||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (teprotumumab - placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with CMH weights.|||85.75|55.89|<0.001
91881411|NCT03898700|183657354|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This one-group feasibility study examined outcomes of coaching using descriptive statistics (changed score) and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A changed score of 2 points reflects clinical significance. The Wilcoxon was used to determine statistical significance. Performance scores from 31 coaching goals across 7 informal caregivers were used for analysis.||||<0.001
91881412|NCT03898700|183657354|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This one-group feasibility study examined outcomes of coaching using descriptive statistics (changed score) and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A changed score of 2 points reflects clinical significance. The Wilcoxon was used to determine statistical significance. Satisfaction scores from 31 coaching goals across 7 informal caregivers were used for analysis.||||<0.001
91803023|NCT03298867|183483824|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.39|54.67||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (teprotumumab - placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with CMH weights.|||54.67|17.39|<0.001
91881413|NCT04702893|183657450|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.1185|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.1185
91881414|NCT04702893|183657451|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.5135|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.5135
91750767|NCT03654885|183394614|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.84||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.84|-0.16|0.180
91750768|NCT03654885|183394615|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-15.7||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|2.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤18 mmHg||2.3|-33.0|0.064
91750769|NCT03654885|183394615|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-15.3||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|2.5|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤17 mmHg||2.5|-32.7|0.078
91750770|NCT03654885|183394615|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-17.4||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|0.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤16 mmHg||0.4|-34.7|0.051
91750771|NCT03654885|183394615|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-16.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤15 mmHg||1.0|-34.1|0.064
91750772|NCT03654885|183394615|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-13.1||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤14 mm Hg||4.8|-30.5|0.200
91750773|NCT03654885|183394615|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-20.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-2.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤13 mm Hg||-2.0|-37.1|0.042
91750774|NCT03654885|183394615|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|5.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤12 mm Hg||5.2|-30.1|0.180
91750775|NCT03654885|183394616|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-3.6||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|14.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥25% IOP Reduction||14.2|-21.3|0.712
91750776|NCT03654885|183394616|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.9||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|5.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥30% IOP Reduction||5.0|-30.3|0.201
91750777|NCT03654885|183394616|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-20.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-2.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥35% IOP Reduction||-2.3|-37.3|0.030
91750778|NCT03654885|183394616|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-18.8||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-0.8|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥40% IOP Reduction||-0.8|-36.0|0.043
91750779|NCT03654885|183394616|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-17.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|0.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥45% IOP Reduction||0.0|-35.1|0.048
91803024|NCT03298867|183483825|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.8||Results obtained from an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix including the following terms: Baseline value, tobacco use status, treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and visit-by-Baseline-value interaction.|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-1.80|-2.77|<0.001
91881415|NCT04702893|183657452|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.0764|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.0764
91881416|NCT04702893|183657453|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.3478|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.3478
91881417|NCT03954223|183657473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
91881418|NCT03954223|183657474|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Mixed-effects generalized linear model of the glycemic profile change extracted from CGM data.||||||0.2
91881419|NCT00469456|183657526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.07||95.0|-0.1|2.8|||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline to Week 12 in FLCI total score. Missing FLCI total scores at Week 12 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||2.8|-0.1|0.070
91881420|NCT00469456|183657527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.022||95.0|0.9|10.9|||ANCOVA|||The secondary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline at Week 12 in the total score of the Social Communication subscale and Communication of Basic Needs subscale of the ASHA FACS. Missing scores at week 12 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||10.9|0.9|0.022
91881421|NCT00704171|183657543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|||||||Fisher Exact|||Primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of PleuraSeal as an adjunct compared to standard of care alone. Tissue closure rates for the treatment and control groups were assumed to be 0.40 and 0.15, respectively. To achieve 80 percent power (alpha=0.05, 2-tailed, Fisher's Exact Test) required 112 completed subjects. To account for potential subject withdrawals, an additional 8 subjects were to be enrolled for a total of 120 randomized subjects (approx. 60 per treatment group).||||0.257
91881422|NCT00704171|183657544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|two-sided||||||<0.001
91881423|NCT00704171|183657545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Kaplan-Meier|Kaplan-Meier method was used to obtain estimated median times for each treatment group and the log-rank test was used to compare the two treatments.||||||0.790
91750780|NCT03654885|183394616|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-21.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-3.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥50% IOP Reduction||-3.2|-38.1|0.015
91750781|NCT03654885|183394617|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-11.7||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|6.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤18 mm Hg||6.3|-29.0|0.252
91750782|NCT03654885|183394617|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-11.5||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|6.5|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤17 mmHg||6.5|-28.9|0.258
91750783|NCT03654885|183394617|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-13.6||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|4.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤16 mm Hg||4.4|-30.9|0.139
91750784|NCT03654885|183394617|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-14.7||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|3.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤15 mm Hg||3.3|-32.0|0.136
91750785|NCT03654885|183394617|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.%.|Percentage Difference|-10.8||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|7.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤14 mm Hg||7.1|-28.2|0.274
91750786|NCT03654885|183394617|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-17.7||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|0.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤13 mm Hg||0.3|-35.0|0.065
91750787|NCT03654885|183394617|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|5.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤12 mmHg||5.2|-30.1|0.180
91750788|NCT03654885|183394620|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|44.1|||Fisher Exact|||||44.1|-41.6|1.000
91750789|NCT03654885|183394621|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-32.1||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|10.0|||Fisher Exact|||||10.0|-66.8|0.215
91750790|NCT03654885|183394623|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-14.9||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|3.1|||Fisher Exact|||||3.1|-32.2|0.144
91750791|NCT03654885|183394624|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-10.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|7.3|||Fisher Exact|||||7.3|-28.0|0.254
91750792|NCT03654885|183394625|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-7.4||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|14.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤18 mm Hg||14.2|-28.6|0.563
91750793|NCT03654885|183394625|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.5||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|9.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤17 mm Hg||9.1|-33.5|0.188
91750794|NCT03654885|183394625|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-15.9||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|5.6|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤16 mmHg||5.6|-36.7|0.118
91881424|NCT00704171|183657546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559|||||||2-sample t-test|||||||0.559
91881425|NCT00704171|183657547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||2-sample t-test|||||||0.292
91881426|NCT00704171|183657548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||For subgroup with pre-randomization air leak grade of 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
91881427|NCT00704171|183657548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||For subgroup with pre-randomization air leak grade of 2 or 3|Fisher Exact|||||||.013
91881428|NCT00913068|183657551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
91881429|NCT04269434|183657558|NON_INFERIORITY|"The No Screening Arm is considered non-inferior if the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval is less than 1.25"|Incidence rate ratio|1.318|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.627||||||Compared to screening group||1.627|1.068|
91881430|NCT04269434|183657559|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin|Incidence rate ratio|0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.863||||||For Azithromycin. Compared to screening group||0.863|0.719|
91881431|NCT04269434|183657559|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin|Incidence rate ratio|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|0.739||||||For Ceftriaxone. Compared to screening group||0.739|0.426|
91750795|NCT03654885|183394625|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-19.5||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|2.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤15 mm Hg||2.1|-40.2|0.085
91750796|NCT03654885|183394625|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-21.3||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|0.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤14 mm Hg||0.4|-42.0|0.059
91750797|NCT03654885|183394625|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-23.5||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-1.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤13 mm Hg||-1.4|-43.9|0.045
91750798|NCT03654885|183394625|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-20.8||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|1.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤12 mm Hg||1.1|-41.3|0.076
91750799|NCT03654885|183394626|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-9.6||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|12.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥ 25% IOP Reduction||12.1|-31.0|0.464
91750800|NCT03654885|183394626|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-19.8||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|2.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥30% IOP Reduction||2.1|-40.6|0.069
91750801|NCT03654885|183394626|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-26.6||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-4.7|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥35% IOP Reduction||-4.7|-46.9|0.023
91803025|NCT03298867|183483826|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|39.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.11||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.55|63.02||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with CMH weights.|||63.02|15.55|0.001
91803026|NCT03298867|183483827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.651|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|14.64||Results obtained from an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix including the following terms: Baseline value, tobacco use status, treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and visit-by-Baseline-value interaction.|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||14.64|4.08|<0.001
91803027|NCT05263895|183483843|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric means|90.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.85|102.65||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (slower dissolution tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||102.65|79.85|
91803028|NCT05263895|183483843|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.65|116.53||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (large particle size tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||116.53|90.65|
91750802|NCT03654885|183394626|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-23.7||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-1.6|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥40% IOP Reduction||-1.6|-43.9|0.046
91750803|NCT03654885|183394626|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-27.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-5.9|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥45% IOP Reduction||-5.9|-47.6|0.014
91750804|NCT03654885|183394626|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-30.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-9.5|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥50% IOP Reduction||-9.5|-50.8|0.006
91750805|NCT03654885|183394633|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.72|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses: Day 1||1.72|0.33|0.004
91750806|NCT03654885|183394633|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.88||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Week 1||1.88|0.47|0.001
91750807|NCT03654885|183394633|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Week 2||1.20|-0.20|0.162
91803029|NCT05263895|183483843|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|138.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.03|161.69||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||161.69|118.03|
91803030|NCT05263895|183483843|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.7|35.2||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension) 300 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||35.20|25.70|
91803031|NCT05263895|183483844|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|91.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.46|103.51||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (slower dissolution tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||103.51|80.46|
91803032|NCT05263895|183483844|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.36|116.26||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (large particle size tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||116.26|90.36|
91803033|NCT05263895|183483844|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|136.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.09|160.27||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||160.27|117.09|
91803034|NCT05263895|183483844|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|29.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.45|34.83||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension) 300 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||34.83|25.45|
91881432|NCT04269434|183657559|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin|Incidence rate ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|0.588||||||For Doxycycline. Compared to screening group||0.588|0.515|
91881433|NCT04269434|183657560|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin.|Incidence rate ratio|1.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.956||||||Compared to screening group||1.956|0.963|
91881434|NCT04269434|183657561|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin.|Incidence rate ratio|1.471|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|2.299||||||Compared to screening group||2.299|0.943|
91881435|NCT01086384|183657562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Cox|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|0.985|||||The estimated values is the Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox regression analysis for FF/VI 100/25 µg versus FF 100 µg, adjusted for an interim analysis.|||0.985|0.642|
91881436|NCT01086384|183657562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|15.9||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|18.2||P-value for the Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox regression analysis for FF/VI 100/25 µg versus FF 100 µg, adjusted for an interim analysis.|Regression, Cox||The estimated value represents the adjusted probability of 1 or more severe asthma exacerbations by Week 52 for FF 100 µg. Cox Proportional Hazards Model estimate at mean Baseline FEV1, age, and proportional coefficients for sex and region.|||18.2|13.5|0.036
91881437|NCT01086384|183657562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|12.8||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|14.9||P-value for the Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox regression analysis for FF/VI 100/25 µg versus FF 100 µg, adjusted for an interim analysis.|Regression, Cox||The estimated value represents the adjusted probability of 1 or more severe asthma exacerbations by Week 52 for FF/VI 100/25 µg. Cox Proportional Hazards Model estimate at mean Baseline FEV1, age, and proportional coefficients for sex and region.|||14.9|10.7|0.036
91881438|NCT01196819|183657565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.13mm, if the two-sided upper 95% confidence bound is \<Δ, the Firehawk Stent being tested will be considered non-inferior to the control. This corresponds to a P value \<0.05 from a two-sided Student t-test comparing the difference between FirehawkStent and Xience stent to delta.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29|||ANCOVA|||H0: Pe - Pc≥ ∆, H1: Pe - Pc \< ∆. Pe and Pc are the mean 9-month in-stent late loss for the subject in the Firehawk DES group and the Xience group, respectively. ∆ is the non-inferiority margin. A two-sided upper 95% confidence bound will be calculated for the difference in 9-month in-stent late loss .||0.29|0|0.94
91803035|NCT05263895|183483845|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|94.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.77|110.05||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (slower dissolution tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||110.05|80.77|
91881439|NCT01196819|183657566|NON_INFERIORITY|Assume the in-stent percent diameter stenosis of both FIREHAWK and XIENCE V are 16 ± 16%, the non-inferiority value is 5%, the level of statistical significance is 0.05 (bilateral test), the power is 85%.||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
91881440|NCT01196819|183657567|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91881441|NCT01196819|183657568|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.76
91803036|NCT05263895|183483845|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|108.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.04|126.76||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (large particle size tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||126.76|93.04|
91803037|NCT05263895|183483845|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|264.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|232.32|300.27||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||300.27|232.32|
91803038|NCT05263895|183483845|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|145.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.01|165.45||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension) 300 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||165.45|128.01|
91803039|NCT01673867|183483855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.92|0.59|0.89|||Log Rank||HR = Nivolumab over docetaxel|||0.89|0.59|0.0015
91803040|NCT01709513|183483876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-24.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alirocumab group was compared to the corresponding active control group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-24.2|-36.6|<0.0001
91803041|NCT01709513|183483877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-29.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 5% level.||-29.5|-40.7|<0.0001
91881442|NCT01196819|183657569|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.77
91881443|NCT01196819|183657570|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91881444|NCT02586415|183657600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.7||Criteria to assess superiority was a two-sided P value of \<0.05. The study was terminated early because the pre-specified stopping boundary of P \<0.0025 was crossed at the first interim analysis (N=182)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.70|1.63|<0.001
91881445|NCT03029819|183657655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.52
91881446|NCT03605368|183657663|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Overall Behavior. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.23
91881447|NCT03605368|183657663|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriate Response. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.07
91803042|NCT01709513|183483878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-26.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-26.1|-36.9|<0.0001
91803043|NCT01709513|183483879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-28.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-28.2|-38.0|<0.0001
91803044|NCT01709513|183483880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-20.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.4|-29.8|<0.0001
91803045|NCT01709513|183483881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-24.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-24.4|-32.1|<0.0001
91881448|NCT03605368|183657663|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Orienting. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.99
91881449|NCT03605368|183657663|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Fidget. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.005
91750808|NCT03654885|183394633|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.19||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 1||1.19|-0.23|0.185
91750809|NCT03654885|183394633|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.79||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 3||0.79|-0.64|0.846
91750810|NCT03654885|183394633|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.7||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 6||0.70|-0.73|0.965
91750811|NCT03654885|183394633|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.33||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 9||1.33|-0.11|0.096
91803046|NCT01709513|183483882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-20.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.8|-30.4|<0.0001
91803047|NCT01709513|183483883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-25.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-25.8|-33.9|<0.0001
91803048|NCT01709513|183483884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-17.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-17.0|-24.7|<0.0001
91750812|NCT03654885|183394633|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.43||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 12||1.43|-0.04|0.063
91750813|NCT03654885|183394634|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 1||0.000|-0.105|0.048
91750814|NCT03654885|183394634|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.045|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 3||0.045|-0.062|0.742
91750815|NCT03654885|183394634|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.051|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 6||0.051|-0.056|0.925
91803049|NCT01709513|183483885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-20.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.4|-28.7|<0.0001
91881450|NCT03605368|183657663|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Overall Behavior. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and TAU).||||.01
91881451|NCT03605368|183657663|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriate Response. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and TAU).||||.04
91881452|NCT03605368|183657663|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriate Response. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and TAU).||||.06
91881453|NCT03605368|183657663|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
91881454|NCT03605368|183657664|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression compared change in Police Interaction Knowledge scores by group (Floreo vs. TAU) from pre- to post-intervention. Significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.55
91881455|NCT03605368|183657664|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression compared change in Police Interaction Knowledge scores by group (Floreo vs. TAU) from pre- to post-intervention. Significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.05
91881456|NCT01149876|183657666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91881457|NCT01149876|183657666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
91907875|NCT00122681|183711319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.7||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed||99.7|91.0|
91750816|NCT03654885|183394634|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|-0.01|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 12||-0.010|-0.118|0.021
91803050|NCT01709513|183483886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-21.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-21.5|-29.9|<0.0001
91881458|NCT01149876|183657666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.48
91907876|NCT00122681|183711319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|97.5||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||97.5|57.2|
91881459|NCT02920021|183657691|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|60.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.918||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.566|228.657|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||228.657|-108.566|0.463
91881460|NCT02920021|183657692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.032|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||0.032|-0.031|0.962
91881461|NCT00511836|183657732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|2e-05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean treatment difference=0.||||<0.00002
91881462|NCT00511836|183657735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.013|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean treatment difference=0||||<0.013
91881463|NCT00511836|183657736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean treatment difference=0||||0.245
91881464|NCT00362375|183657773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||GEE cluster-adjusted odds ratio||4.50|1.28|<0.05
91881465|NCT00362375|183657774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.16|||GEE|||||1.16|0.20|<0.05
91750817|NCT03654885|183394637|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3231||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2082|0.0851|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change from Baseline in Surgically Induced Astigmatism - Topography at Selected Sites at Week 1||0.0851|-1.2082|0.087
91750818|NCT03654885|183394637|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3355||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.809|0.5324|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change from Baseline in Surgically Induced Astigmatism - Topography at Selected Sites at Month 1||0.5324|-0.8090|0.682
91881466|NCT00362375|183657775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.95|||GEE|||||1.95|0.99|<0.05
91881467|NCT00362375|183657776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.44|||GEE|GEE incident rate ratio||||1.44|0.80|<0.05
91881468|NCT00362375|183657777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.71|||GEE|||||2.71|0.76|<0.05
91881469|NCT02106195|183657782|SUPERIORITY|Change from Baseline to Day 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.04||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-3.7|0.324
91881470|NCT03463577|183657870|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.21|1.58|||||Adjusted relative risk with 98.75% CI was estimated by Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted relative risk (RR) for pre-eclampsia and eclampsia in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||1.58|1.21|
91881471|NCT03463577|183657870|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.12|1.47|||||Adjusted relative risk with 98.75% CI was estimated by Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted RR for intra-uterine infections (chorioamnionitis and endometritis) in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||1.47|1.12|
91881472|NCT03463577|183657871|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.64|0.78|||||Adjusted relative risk with 98.75% CI was estimated by Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted RR for preterm delivery in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||0.78|0.64|
91881473|NCT03463577|183657872|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.94|1.16|||||Adjusted RR with 98.75% CI-Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted RR for small for gestational age in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||1.16|0.94|
91881474|NCT03463577|183657873|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. Superiority to be concluded if lower limit of the 95% CI for the adjusted RR is above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI -Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for poor fetal growth in the Exposed pregnant women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to the Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||0.98|0.70|
91881475|NCT03463577|183657873|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. Superiority to be concluded if lower limit of the 95% CI for the adjusted RR is above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.72|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI - Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for placental abortion in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.72|0.99|
91907877|NCT00122681|183711319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|97.5||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||97.5|86.3|
91750819|NCT03654885|183394637|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3484||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1483|0.2434|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change from Baseline in Surgically Induced Astigmatism - Topography at Selected Sites at Month 12||0.2434|-1.1483|0.199
91750820|NCT03654885|183394638|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2026||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4103|0.4086|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in Optical Biometry - Anterior Chamber Depth at Day 1||0.4086|-0.4103|0.997
91803051|NCT01709513|183483887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-17.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-17.7|-24.5|<0.0001
91803052|NCT01709513|183483888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|55.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||55.2|6.9|<0.0001
91803053|NCT01709513|183483889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|71.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||71.9|8.6|<0.0001
91803054|NCT01709513|183483890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|3022.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Exact Conditional Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach followed by Exact conditional logistic regression model.||3022.1|11.1|<0.0001
91803055|NCT01709513|183483891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|109.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|4759.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Exact Conditional Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a LOCF approach followed by Exact conditional logistic regression model.||4759.3|16.5|<0.0001
91803056|NCT01709513|183483892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-11.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-11.8|-25.5|<0.0001
91803057|NCT01709513|183483893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||=|0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||5.6|-3.8|=0.6997
91803058|NCT03166735|183483913|OTHER||Predicted mean daily dose in mg|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||non-linear regression||The model fit used power of mean variance estimates (POM) to account for heterogeneity.|D10: Estimated dose reaching \<=10% activity the first time.||||
91881476|NCT03463577|183657873|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. Superiority to be concluded if lower limit of the 95% CI for the adjusted RR is above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||0.91|0.64|
91803059|NCT03166735|183483915|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.0212||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.0212
91803060|NCT03166735|183483916|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.127||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.1270
91803061|NCT03166735|183483917|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.3324||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod exponential model fit.|90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.3324
91881477|NCT03463577|183657874|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR =1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.67|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for stillbirth/fetal death in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||0.67|0.22|
91907878|NCT00122681|183711319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.5|98.9||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||98.9|88.5|
91803062|NCT03166735|183483918|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.129||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod exponential model fit.|90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.1290
91803063|NCT03166735|183483919|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.0042||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.0042
91803064|NCT03166735|183483920|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.0728||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod exponential model fit.|90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.0728
91803065|NCT01543958|183483921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Sign test|no other adjustment||||||0.87
91803066|NCT01543958|183483922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Sign test|no other adjustment||||||0.62
91803067|NCT00926328|183483971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91803068|NCT00926328|183483972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91881478|NCT03463577|183657874|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.33|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for transfusion during delivery hospitalization in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.33|0.86|
91881479|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.73|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for neonatal death in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.73|0.38|
91881480|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.24|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of nervous system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||2.24|0.81|
91907879|NCT00122681|183711319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.2|97.6||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||97.6|59.2|
91803069|NCT01513343|183483985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|Multinomial logistic regression examined program effects on child BMI categories, controlling for child sex, age (months), \& BMI z-score at pretest.||||||<0.05
91881481|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.29|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of eye in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.29|1.06|
91907880|NCT00122681|183711344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.798||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.337|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-16 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 6-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 6-month persistent infection||1.337|0.476|0.3910
91750821|NCT03654885|183394638|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2124||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2068|0.6506|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in Optical Biometry - Anterior Chamber Depth at Week 2||0.6506|-0.2068|0.302
91750822|NCT03654885|183394639|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3336||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3289|1.0154|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K1 at Day 1||1.0154|-0.3289|0.309
91750823|NCT03654885|183394639|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3278||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3993|0.922|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K1 at Week 2||0.9220|-0.3993|0.430
91750824|NCT03654885|183394639|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4457||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3071|0.4882|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K2 at Day 1||0.4882|-1.3071|0.363
91750825|NCT03654885|183394639|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4383||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3709|0.3954|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K2 at Week 2||0.3954|-1.3709|0.272
91750826|NCT03654885|183394639|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4502||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6722|0.142|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - Delta D at Day 1||0.1420|-1.6722|0.096
91750827|NCT03654885|183394639|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4411||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4655|0.3129|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - Delta D at Week 2||0.3129|-1.4655|0.198
91750828|NCT03654885|183394650|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-3.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3331||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5597|5.4973|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Local Eye Symptoms Score||5.4973|-11.5597|0.485
91750829|NCT03654885|183394650|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-10.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5666||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-1.5144|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Vision Function Problem Score||-1.5144|-19.5000|0.022
91881482|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.55|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of ear, face or neck in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing.||2.55|1.59|
91881483|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.31|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of cardiovascular system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infant cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.31|0.96|
91881484|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.68|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of respiratory system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.68|1.07|
91881485|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41||||||95.0|0.78|2.57|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for clefts in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||2.57|0.78|
91881486|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|1.95|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of upper gastrointestinal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.95|1.57|
91881487|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.12|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of lower gastrointestinal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.12|0.36|
91881488|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.42|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of genital organs in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.42|1.01|
91907881|NCT00122681|183711346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|1.362|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-16 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 12-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 12-month persistent infection.||1.362|0.444|0.3796
91907882|NCT00122681|183711348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.1035||95.0|0.337|1.106|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-18 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 6-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 6-month persistent infection.||1.106|0.337|0.1035
91907883|NCT00122681|183711350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.635||||0.2111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|1.293|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-18 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 12-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 12-month persistent infection.||1.293|0.312|0.2111
91907884|NCT00783094|183711366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo|||0.4|-1.8|0.201
91907885|NCT00783094|183711366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||0.1|-2.2|0.062
91750830|NCT03654885|183394650|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-7.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0382||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4841|0.4275|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Total Bothersome Score||0.4275|-15.4841|0.064
91907886|NCT00783094|183711367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.2|-0.7|0.356
91803070|NCT01513343|183483986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||To control for type I errors, the critical P values for each assessment were determined with the unweighted Bonferroni method, dividing the critical value of P \< 0.05 by the number of comparisons conducted for a given assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91803071|NCT02165215|183484020|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in response rates|7.7||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|-4.2|0.1942
91803072|NCT02165215|183484021|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|14.6||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|33.15||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.15|-5.55|0.1524
91803073|NCT02165215|183484022|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|8.7||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|20.21||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.21|-3.26|0.1466
91803074|NCT02165215|183484023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|10.9||||0.3083||95.0|-9.72|30.49||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.49|-9.72|0.3083
91803075|NCT02165215|183484024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in response rates|14.4||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|26.28||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.28|1.84|0.0235
91803076|NCT02165215|183484025|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|12.8||||0.0293||95.0|1.13|23.89||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.89|1.13|0.0293
91750831|NCT03654885|183394650|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Local Eye Symptoms Frequency Score||0.37|-1.28|0.278
91803077|NCT02165215|183484026|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|19.8||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|33.11||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.11|5.16|0.0075
91803078|NCT02165215|183484027|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|9.9||||0.1415||95.0|-4.47|23.13||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.13|-4.47|0.1415
91803079|NCT02165215|183484028|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|9.9||||0.1415||95.0|-4.47|23.13||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.13|-4.47|0.1415
91803080|NCT02165215|183484029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-2.8||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.4||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.4|-5.3|0.0266
91803081|NCT02165215|183484030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.2||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.2|-2.2|0.0175
91803082|NCT02165215|183484031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.1||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.8||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||10.8|-6.6|0.6331
91803083|NCT00592384|183484050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025||||||Bonferroni corrected for two primary comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|see above||Primary analyses included observations at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12 weeks. Random effects were included for participants' intercepts. Fixed effects were time (linear), treatment (VFN vs. PBO), interaction of time with treatment, stratification factors and potential confounders and variables to improve sensitivity. The primary indicator of treatment effect was the interaction of time by treatment.||||<.025
91907887|NCT00783094|183711367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||0.3|-0.6|0.487
91803084|NCT00592384|183484063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025||||||Bonferroni corrected for two primary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analyses included observations at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12 weeks. Random effects were included for participants' intercepts. Fixed effects were time (linear), treatment (VFN vs. PBO), interaction of time with treatment, stratification factors and potential confounders and variables to improve sensitivity. The primary indicator of treatment effect was the interaction of time by treatment.||||<.025
91803085|NCT01153347|183484066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.24||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.24|-2.96|1.000
91803086|NCT01153347|183484066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.57|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.57|-2.67|1.000
91803087|NCT01153347|183484066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.04|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.04|-2.26|1.000
91750832|NCT03654885|183394650|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Vision Function Problem Frequency Score||-0.47|-2.96|0.007
91750833|NCT03654885|183394651|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.534|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Not at all||||0.534
91750834|NCT03654885|183394651|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.263|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Somewhat||||0.263
91750835|NCT03654885|183394651|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Moderately so||||1.000
91750836|NCT03654885|183394651|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Mostly||||0.018
91750837|NCT03654885|183394651|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Completely||||0.350
91750838|NCT03654885|183394651|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.264|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Missing||||0.264
91750839|NCT03654885|183394652|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-8.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1445||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8681|24.2624|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Percent Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment- Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to Health||24.2624|-40.8681|0.610
91803088|NCT01153347|183484067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.6|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.60|0.64|0.967
91803089|NCT01153347|183484067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.43|0.57|0.670
91803090|NCT01153347|183484067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.38|0.54|0.544
91803091|NCT01153347|183484068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.53|0.55|0.730
91803092|NCT01153347|183484068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.50|0.53|0.671
91881489|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.88|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of renal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing.||1.88|1.04|
91750840|NCT03654885|183394653|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|2.52|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Percent Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Percent Activity Impairment Due to Health||2.52|-30.32|0.097
91750841|NCT05320393|183394660|OTHER|This study was not powered for formal hypothesis testing; analyses were intended for interpretation purposes only. Analysis was performed using the modified Intent-to-Treat population and regardless of responder status.||||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The primary effectiveness endpoint was a measure of duration of effect, described by Kaplan-Meier curves and the median times, with associated 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group.||||0.0109
91750842|NCT04411420|183394661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.55|0.37||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway 3-month change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway 3-month change.|||0.37|-1.55|0.169
91750843|NCT04411420|183394662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.33|1.52||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway 3-month change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway 3-month change.|||1.52|-0.33|0.139
91750844|NCT04411420|183394663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.72||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.||||0.72|-1.69|0.417
91750845|NCT04411420|183394664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.57||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.57|-1.37|0.409
91803093|NCT01153347|183484068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.29|0.45|0.308
91881490|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||||95.0|1.21|1.86|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of musculoskeletal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.86|1.21|
91881491|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.52|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of limb in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.52|0.85|
91881492|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.23|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of integument in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||2.23|1.76|
91881493|NCT03463577|183657875|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.85|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for other and unspecified congenital anomalies in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.85|0.64|
91881494|NCT00236184|183657883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91881495|NCT01101997|183657884|SUPERIORITY||sucess proportion|0.853|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|0.91|||Chi-squared|||H0: p= 0.6 and Ha: p ≠ 0.6||.910|.773|<0.001
91881496|NCT01101997|183657885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.49|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91881497|NCT01841697|183657887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between omarigilptin and sitagliptin is less than the non-inferiority margin, δ =0.3%, then omarigliptin will be declared non-inferior to sitagliptin in terms of A1C reduction at Week 24.|Difference in least squares mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||||Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis||0.08|-0.15|
91907888|NCT00783094|183711368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo|||0.3|-1.3|0.228
91750846|NCT04411420|183394664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.91||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.91|-1.04|0.899
91750847|NCT04411420|183394664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.08||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||1.08|-1.01|0.946
91803094|NCT01153347|183484069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.15|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.15|0.42|0.905
91803095|NCT01153347|183484069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.14|0.41|0.864
91881498|NCT01841697|183657888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.2|||||Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|||3.2|-11.8|
91881499|NCT01841697|183657889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.8|||||Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|||0.8|-3.6|
91881500|NCT01841697|183657890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-4.2||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.6|||Constrained logitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|||0.6|-9.0|0.089
91881501|NCT01841697|183657891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|2.0||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Proportion (rate) for each group was estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques. Between-group difference in proportion is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.||9.9|-5.9|0.619
91907889|NCT00783094|183711368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||-0.1|-1.7|0.033
91803096|NCT01153347|183484069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.25|0.43|0.958
91803097|NCT01153347|183484070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.73|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.73|0.48|0.778
91803098|NCT01153347|183484070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.24|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.24|0.66|0.532
91803099|NCT01153347|183484070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.64|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.64|0.44|0.633
91803100|NCT01153347|183484071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.31|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.31|0.46|0.949
91881502|NCT01841697|183657892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|4.4||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Proportion (rate) for each group was estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques. Between-group difference in proportion is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.||11.4|-2.5|0.212
91881503|NCT01772563|183657897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|93.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.07|106.81|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV%)=25.1.|"Statistical analysis of Volasertib:~AUC0-tz was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||106.81|82.07|
91907890|NCT00783094|183711369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment,BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.1|-0.4|0.249
91750848|NCT04411420|183394665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.004||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.61||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Odds Ratio calculated for Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway relative to Coordinated Care Management Pathway.|||4.61|-4.62|0.992
91881504|NCT01772563|183657897|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|75.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.83|84.632|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=21.0.|"Statistical analysis of CD 10899:~AUC0-tz was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||84.632|67.830|
91881505|NCT01772563|183657898|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.896|97.137|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=39.3.|"Statistical analysis of volasertib:~Cmax was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||97.137|64.896|
91907891|NCT00783094|183711369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment,BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||-0.0|-0.6|0.022
91750849|NCT04411420|183394666|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|2.18||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|||2.18|-7.52|0.262
91803101|NCT01153347|183484071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.4|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||3.40|0.72|0.253
91803102|NCT01153347|183484071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.08|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.08|0.37|0.763
91803103|NCT01153347|183484072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.55|-2.51|0.207
91803104|NCT01153347|183484072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.91|-2.16|0.427
91803105|NCT01153347|183484072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.12|-1.96|0.591
91881506|NCT01772563|183657898|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|63.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.372|72.775|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV%)=26.1.|"Statistical analysis of CD 10899:~Cmax was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||72.775|55.372|
91881507|NCT01772563|183657899|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|97.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.09|109.94|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=22.7.|"Statistical analysis of volasertib:~AUC0-∞ was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||109.94|87.09|
91750850|NCT04411420|183394667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.31|0.5||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.50|-1.31|0.37
91803106|NCT01153347|183484073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.551||95.0|-0.34|0.18|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.18|-0.34|0.551
91803107|NCT01153347|183484073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.17|-0.36|0.487
91881508|NCT01772563|183657899|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|77.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.001|86.871|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=22.5.|"Statistical analysis of CD 10899:~AUC0-∞ was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||86.871|69.001|
91881509|NCT00935259|183657909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.1||0.455||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||||||0.455
91750851|NCT04411420|183394667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.54|0.39||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.39|-1.54|0.24
91881510|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.7||||0.014||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 16:00||||0.014
91881511|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||<|0.001||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 18:3n3||||<0.001
91881512|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.217||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 20:3n6||||0.217
91907892|NCT00783094|183711370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|with effects for treatment,BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.3|-0.4|0.904
91907893|NCT00783094|183711370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, BPH severity(moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.||||0.3|-0.4|0.800
91750852|NCT04411420|183394667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.43|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.54|-1.43|0.37
91750853|NCT04411420|183394668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|0.72||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.72|-0.51|0.727
91803108|NCT01153347|183484073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.31|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.31|-0.23|0.780
91803109|NCT01153347|183484074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.53|0.62|0.908
91907894|NCT00783094|183711371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.2|-1.5|0.147
91750854|NCT04411420|183394668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.91||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.91|-0.43|0.478
91750855|NCT04411420|183394668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.75|0.66||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.66|-0.75|0.894
91750856|NCT04411420|183394669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.04|-0.15|0.222
91750857|NCT04411420|183394669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.09|-0.10|0.988
91750858|NCT04411420|183394669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.05|-0.16|0.269
91803110|NCT01153347|183484074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.67|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.67|0.67|0.803
91803111|NCT01153347|183484074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.03|0.41|0.066
91907895|NCT00783094|183711371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||0.1|-1.6|0.094
91750859|NCT04411420|183394670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.10|-0.22|0.477
91750860|NCT04411420|183394670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.17||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.17|-0.19|0.877
91750861|NCT04411420|183394670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.11|-0.29|0.360
91750862|NCT04411420|183394671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.28||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.28|-0.23|0.858
91803112|NCT01153347|183484075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.645||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.091|0.442|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.442|-2.091|0.202
91803113|NCT01153347|183484075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.487|1.055|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.055|-1.487|0.738
91803114|NCT01153347|183484075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.787|0.767|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.767|-1.787|0.433
91803115|NCT01153347|183484076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.22|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.22|-0.18|0.097
91803116|NCT01153347|183484076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.11|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.11|-1.29|0.882
91803117|NCT01153347|183484076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.23|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.23|-0.19|0.100
91803118|NCT01153347|183484077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|2.22|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.22|-0.69|0.303
91803119|NCT01153347|183484077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.65|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.65|-1.26|0.793
91803120|NCT01153347|183484077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.25|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.25|-1.70|0.762
91803121|NCT01153347|183484078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.92|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.92|-2.65|0.339
91881513|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.666||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 20:3n9||||0.666
91881514|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.776||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 22:5n6||||0.776
91803122|NCT01153347|183484078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.89|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.89|-2.70|0.321
91803123|NCT01153347|183484078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.43|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.43|-2.20|0.680
91803124|NCT01153347|183484079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.58|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.58|-2.23|0.737
91803125|NCT01153347|183484079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.33|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.33|-2.52|0.547
91803126|NCT01153347|183484079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.01|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.01|-1.89|0.953
91803127|NCT01153347|183484080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.069|0.864||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.864|-2.069|1.000
91881515|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.018||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 22:6n3||||0.018
91907896|NCT00783094|183711374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||P-Value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.342
91907897|NCT00783094|183711374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||P-Value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank sum test|||||||0.127
91803128|NCT01153347|183484080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.004|0.96||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.960|-2.004|1.000
91881516|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.152||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Lysophosphatidylcholine 20:4n6||||0.152
91881517|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-132.1||||0.007||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 18:2n6||||0.007
91907898|NCT00783094|183711374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||P-Value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.705
91750863|NCT04411420|183394671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.21|-0.32|0.688
91750864|NCT04411420|183394671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.26||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.26|-0.32|0.833
91750865|NCT04411420|183394672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.64||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.64|-0.18|0.259
91750866|NCT04411420|183394672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.81||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.81|-0.03|0.068
91750867|NCT04411420|183394672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.57||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.57|-0.29|0.514
91881518|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8||||0.325||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 20:3n6||||0.325
91907899|NCT00783094|183711374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||P-Value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.173
91750868|NCT04411420|183394673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.20|-0.22|0.895
91750869|NCT04411420|183394673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.3||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.30|-0.13|0.438
91750870|NCT04411420|183394673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.21||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.21|-0.24|0.890
91750871|NCT04411420|183394674|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.02|-0.04|0.508
91881519|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.3||||0.419||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 20:4n6||||0.419
91907900|NCT00783094|183711375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.606
91907901|NCT00783094|183711375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.149
91881520|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.07||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 22:5n3||||0.070
91881521|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.769||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 22:5n6||||0.769
91881522|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.001||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylethanolamine 18:2n6||||<0.001
91881523|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-240.8||||0.016||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Triacylglycerol 16:00||||0.016
91881524|NCT00935259|183657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.833||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Triacylglycerol 20:3n9||||0.833
91881525|NCT00935259|183657911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.027||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Fasted||||0.027
91907902|NCT00783094|183711376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.428
91907903|NCT00783094|183711376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.426
91750872|NCT04411420|183394674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.03|-0.03|0.992
91881526|NCT00935259|183657911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.001||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Fed||||<0.001
91881527|NCT00935259|183657913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cholesterol ester c20:4n6 / c20:3n6||||0.247
91907904|NCT00783094|183711377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum|||||||0.060
91907905|NCT00783094|183711377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum|||||||0.212
91881528|NCT00935259|183657913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cholesterol ester c20:5n3 / c20:4n3||||0.151
91750873|NCT04411420|183394674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.02|-0.05|0.389
91750874|NCT03559699|183394689|OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||1-sided P-value|Binomial exact test|||||||0.0002
91881529|NCT01721746|183657929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08|||||From stratified cox proportional hazard model with treatment group as a single covariate, stratified by BRAF status, prior anti-CTLA-4 benefit, and PD-L1 status (IVRS source)|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab 3 mg/kg (IV) over Investigator's Choice (Dacarbazine or Carboplatin+Paclitaxel)||1.08|0.68|
91881530|NCT01721746|183657930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.78|1.36|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab 3 mg/kg (IV) over Investigator's Choice (Dacarbazine or Carboplatin+Paclitaxel)||1.36|0.78|
91881531|NCT01721746|183657931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.16||||||For \<5% PD-L1 expression. Ratio of Nivolumab over Investigator's Choice||3.16|0.44|
91881532|NCT01721746|183657931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|19.08||||||For \>=5% PD-L1 expression. Ratio of Nivolumab over Investigator's Choice||19.08|1.92|
91881533|NCT01721746|183657932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.01|||||From unstratified Cox proportional hazard model|PD-L1 Positive||1.01|0.50|
91881534|NCT01721746|183657933|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||||From unstratified Cox proportional hazard model|PD-L1 Negative||1.41|0.75|
91907906|NCT01324232|183711389|SUPERIORITY||Pearson correlation|0.0019|||=|0.9827|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the true correlation between the change from Baseline PRS scores and the DM plasma concentration was equal to zero and was tested using a 2-sided test at the 5% level of significance within active treatment groups. The regression line was fitted using change from baseline in average PRS during Day 57-84 as the dependent variable and the average of log-transformed DM Plasma Concentration at Day 22 and Day 50 as the independent variable.||||= 0.9827
91907907|NCT01324232|183711391|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8869|||||||ANCOVA|||Test of dose trend (overall P value)||||=0.8869
91907908|NCT01324232|183711391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|=|0.9381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.87|-0.94|=0.9381
91907909|NCT01324232|183711391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|=|0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.53|-1.28|=0.4128
91907910|NCT01324232|183711391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461|=|0.9427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.94|-0.88|=0.9427
91881535|NCT03121612|183657936|SUPERIORITY|Power calculated based on 40 infants in each arm, permitting detection of a difference of 0.67 SD between the groups with power of 80% and alpha=0.05. Study recruitment was below anticipated (51/80) despite extending the planned period of recruitment.||||||0.65||||||Threshold for superiority p\<0.05; primary outcome, so not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation||"Analysis restricted to change at 6 hours, as least affected by missing data.~Distribution non-normal, so non-parametric test (Wilcoxon) used."||||0.65
91881536|NCT03121612|183657936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Planned sub-group analysis for infants born at 28-33 gestational weeks (n=41). No adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.64
91881537|NCT03121612|183657936|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Planned sub-group analysis for infants born at 34-36 gestational weeks (n=10). No adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||1.0
91881538|NCT03121612|183657937|SUPERIORITY|Power calculated based on 40 infants in each arm, permitting detection of a difference of 0.67 SD between the groups with power of 80% and alpha=0.05. Study recruitment was below anticipated (51/80) despite extending the planned period of recruitment.||||||0.8||||||Threshold for superiority p\<0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation.||"Analysis restricted to change at 6 hours, as least affected by missing data.~Distribution not normal by visual examination, so non-parametric test (Wilcoxon) used."||||0.80
91881539|NCT03121612|183657938|SUPERIORITY|Power calculated based on 40 infants in each arm, permitting detection of a difference of 0.67 SD between the groups with power of 80% and alpha=0.05. Study recruitment was below anticipated (51/80) despite extending the planned period of recruitment.||||||0.86||||||Threshold for superiority p\<0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation.||"Analysis restricted to change at 6 hours, as least affected by missing data.~Distribution non-normal, so non-parametric test (Wilcoxon) used."||||0.86
91881540|NCT03121612|183657942|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|No failures in older stratum, so stratification by gestational age-group not controlled for in analysis.||||||1.0
91881541|NCT03121612|183657943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for stratification by gestational group.||||||0.33
91881542|NCT03121612|183657944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for stratification by gestational age-group.||||||0.31
91803129|NCT01153347|183484080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.095|1.896||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.896|-1.095|1.000
91881543|NCT03121612|183657945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation||||||0.81
91881544|NCT03121612|183657946|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91881545|NCT03121612|183657952|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|No failures in older stratum, so stratification by gestational age-group not controlled for in analysis.||||||1.0
91881546|NCT03121612|183657954|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||1.0
91881547|NCT01841112|183657957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.3712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7272|2.0151|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.3038.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Chinese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||2.0151|0.7272|
91881548|NCT01841112|183657957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.3652|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0421|1.6883|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.1516.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Japanese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.6883|1.0421|
91881549|NCT01841112|183657958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.1998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4794|1.9202|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.3380.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Chinese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.9202|0.4794|
91881550|NCT01841112|183657958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7131|1.3466|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.1486.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Japanese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.3466|0.7131|
91881551|NCT01841112|183657959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.2015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5078|1.8952|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.3272.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Chinese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.8952|0.5078|
91881552|NCT01841112|183657959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0301|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7133|1.3469|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.1486.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Japanese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.3469|0.7133|
91881553|NCT01438840|183657979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91889095|NCT05479734|183670835|SUPERIORITY|Expected Outcomes: greater number of behaviors while receiving parenting tips.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the daily number of positive child behaviors will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean behavior counts on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.01
91889096|NCT03168542|183670842|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower 95% of the confidence limit of the proportion of subjects who require no more than one modification was greater than 50%.|Proportion|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.0|||Agresti-Coull confidence interval|Agresti-Coull method was used to estimate the confidence interval of the binomial proportions.||||1.000|0.756|
91889097|NCT00455741|183670855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||effect of age on estrogen negative feedback ( nadir LH as % of baseline LH)||||0.90
91881554|NCT01062269|183657982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Differences between test products were assessed by repeated measures analysis of variance. If sequence was not found to be statistically significant(p\>0.05),then it was removed from the final model.|measures analysis of variance|Differences between test powders assessed by repeated measures analysis of variance, pairwise comparisons between treatments by Scheffe procedure.||"The BASA scale components were derived from the parameters best shown to differentiate acceptability between different BAS preparations (taste and texture),as well as other parameters useful for differentiating between different BAS preparations(appearance and mixability). The scale was then weighted based upon an Importance of Acceptability questionnaire regarding the individual scale components. The developed scale should reasonably allow for future comparisons of differing BAS formulations."||||<0.05
91881555|NCT02604342|183657992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.33|||Stratified log-rank test||Estimated hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model with treatment group as covariate.|||0.33|0.12|<0.001
91881556|NCT02604342|183657993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in C-ORR|0.667|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.86|||Chi-squared|||95% confidence interval of the difference (alectinib - chemotherapy) computed using Hauck-Anderson approach.||0.86|0.39|<0.001
91881557|NCT01702519|183658016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence was established if 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio (Test/Ref) of geometric means was included in the limit of 0.80 - 1.25|Treatment Ratio|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|0.982|||Treatment Ratio||The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated|Null hypothesis considered no difference between the two treatments.||0.982|0.912|
91881558|NCT01702519|183658017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio (Test/Ref) of geometric means was included in the limit of 0.80 - 1.25.|Treatment Ratio|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.0|||Treatment Ratio||The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated|Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments.||1.00|0.92|
91881559|NCT02166476|183658046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was a difference of 15%. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference for overall success at EOIVT was \>-15%.|Treatment difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.1|||||Treatment difference is the estimate of the difference in the overall success rate between the two treatment arms. The difference estimates and the 95% CIs are obtained based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Treatment comparison of the m-MITT population||9.1|0.7|
91881560|NCT02166476|183658047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was a difference of 15%. Meropenem-vaborbactam was claimed to be noninferior only if noninferiority was demonstrated for microbial eradication at TOC in the m-MITT Population.|Treatment difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.7|||||Treatment difference is the estimate of the difference in the Eradication rate between the two treatment arms. The difference estimates and the 95% CIs are obtained based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Treatment comparison of the m-MITT population||18.7|-0.9|
91881561|NCT02166476|183658048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was a difference of 15%. Meropenem-vaborbactam was claimed to be noninferior only if noninferiority was demonstrated for microbial eradication at TOC in the ME Population.|Treatment Difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.0|||||Treatment difference is the estimate of the difference in the overall success rate between the two treatment arms. The difference estimates and the 95% CIs are obtained based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Treatment comparison of the ME population||16.0|-4.2|
91750875|NCT02209948|183394707|OTHER|Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)||||||0.943||||||Threshold P-value of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.943
91881562|NCT04469465|183658104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Re-randomization Test|||Interim Efficacy Analysis||||0.0007
91881563|NCT04469465|183658104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Re-randomization Test|||Full Analysis||||0.0007
91881564|NCT04469465|183658104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.751|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|31.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interim Efficacy Analysis||31.99|16.90|<0.0001
91881565|NCT04469465|183658104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|23.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.585|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.31|30.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Analysis||30.61|16.31|<0.0001
91881566|NCT02641587|183658123|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of MHBMA for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|85.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.06|87.47||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of MHBMA will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of MHBMA.||87.47|82.06|<0.001
91907911|NCT01324232|183711391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401|=|0.6075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.58|-1.0|=0.6075
91750876|NCT02209948|183394708|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.88||Threshold of significance P-value 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||1.88|0.90|0.16
91750877|NCT02209948|183394709|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.5||Threshold for significance P-value 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||1.5|0.65|0.99
91750878|NCT02209948|183394710|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.33||threshold for significance 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||2.33|0.89|0.13
91750879|NCT00297102|183394716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|60.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||60|18|0.0003
91750880|NCT00297102|183394717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|0.982||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||0.982|0.737|0.0278
91889098|NCT00455741|183670855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||a priori threshold for significance is p\<0.05|ANOVA|||positive feedback||||<0.03
91750881|NCT00297102|183394718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|71.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||71|26|<0.0001
91750882|NCT00297102|183394719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|2.034||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Cox proportional hazards regression||The statistical analysis is based on the ITT Analysis Set (n= 765 in the roflumilast group, n= 758 in the placebo group).|||2.034|0.526|0.9212
91750883|NCT00297102|183394720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference calculated as ratio|0.9521||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8472|1.0699||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including last observation carried forward (LOCF) method||||1.0699|0.8472|0.4089
91750884|NCT00297102|183394721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.449||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.449|0.016|0.0356
91750885|NCT03315104|183394739|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test|FLU-IGIV High Dose (450 mL) - Placebo|Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift||1.000|0.000|0.174
91750886|NCT03315104|183394739|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test||Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift||1.000|0.000|0.572
91803130|NCT01153347|183484081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.59|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.59|-0.56|0.953
91803131|NCT01153347|183484081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.54|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.54|-0.64|0.868
91750887|NCT03315104|183394739|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test||Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift||1.000|0.000|0.534
91750888|NCT03315104|183394739|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test|FLU-IGIV pooled (450 mL + 250 mL) - Placebo|Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift where the two active dose groups were pooled and compared to placebo.||1.000|0.000|0.534
91750889|NCT05074888|183394758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.0016
91750890|NCT05074888|183394759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.3183
91750891|NCT05074888|183394760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.5805
91750892|NCT05074888|183394761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2143|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.2143
91750893|NCT05074888|183394762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.8156
91750894|NCT05074888|183394763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.1049
91889099|NCT00455741|183670856|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.03||||||a priori significance level p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||=0.03
91750895|NCT05074888|183394764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.7260
91750896|NCT05074888|183394765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.6808
91750897|NCT05074888|183394766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of pulse rate (heart rate) from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
91750898|NCT05074888|183394767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of respiration rate (breathing rate) from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
91750899|NCT05074888|183394768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of systolic blood pressure from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to SBP/Visit1, SBP/Visit2 and SBP/Visit3 rows.||||0.87
91750900|NCT05074888|183394768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of diastolic blood pressure from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to DBP/Visit1, DBP/Visit2 and DBP/Visit3 rows.||||0.22
91889100|NCT00455741|183670857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||threshold for significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91889101|NCT00455741|183670858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.02
91889102|NCT00455741|183670859|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
91881567|NCT02641587|183658124|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of 3-HPMA for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.25|48.73||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of 3-HPMA will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of 3-HPMA.||48.73|30.25|<0.001
91881568|NCT02641587|183658125|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of S-PMA for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|83.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.61|85.9||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of S-PMA will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of S-PMA.||85.90|81.61|<0.001
91881569|NCT02641587|183658126|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of COHb for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|55.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.03|61.56||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of COHb will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of COHb.||61.56|49.03|<0.001
91881570|NCT02641587|183658127|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of Total NNAL for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|79.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.73|84.39||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of Total NNAL will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of Total NNAL.||84.39|72.73|<0.001
91881571|NCT01150045|183658130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.76|0.12
91881572|NCT00464945|183658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-3.9|5.6||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||5.6|-3.9|
91881573|NCT00464945|183658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.3||||||95.0|-7.3|13.8||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||13.8|-7.3|
91881574|NCT00464945|183658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.3||||||95.0|-2.1|7.3||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||7.3|-2.1|
91881575|NCT00464945|183658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-8.2|4.7||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||4.7|-8.2|
91881576|NCT00464945|183658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.0||||||95.0|-2.8|9.2||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||9.2|-2.8|
91881577|NCT00464945|183658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-3.5|5.1||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||5.1|-3.5|
91881578|NCT00464945|183658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.1||||||95.0|-8.4|10.6||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||10.6|-8.4|
91881579|NCT00464945|183658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.1||||||95.0|-4.8|9.2||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||9.2|-4.8|
91881580|NCT00464945|183658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.7||||||95.0|-7.9|4.2||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||4.2|-7.9|
91881581|NCT00464945|183658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.1||||||95.0|-5.6|9.9||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||9.9|-5.6|
91889103|NCT00455741|183670860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||a priori significance set at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91750901|NCT05074888|183394769|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91750902|NCT05074888|183394770|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91750903|NCT05074888|183394771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
91750904|NCT05074888|183394772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91750905|NCT00759356|183394775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|Mean ratio|109.8||||||90.0|95.3|126.5|||ANOVA|||||126.5|95.3|
91750906|NCT00759356|183394777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.5||||||90.0|95.6|107.9|||ANOVA|||||107.9|95.6|
91881582|NCT00464945|183658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.1||||||95.0|-9.9|7.6||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||7.6|-9.9|
91881583|NCT00464945|183658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.0|2.8||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||2.8|-3.0|
91881584|NCT00464945|183658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.6|3.5||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||3.5|-3.6|
91881585|NCT00464945|183658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.35||||||95.0|1.1|1.65||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.65|1.10|
91881586|NCT00464945|183658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.7|1.31||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio was calculated||1.31|0.70|
91750907|NCT00759356|183394778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.7||||||90.0|95.9|107.9|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||107.9|95.9|
91750908|NCT03554772|183394818|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for each dose group vs placebo comparison|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect , baseline NPRS and basline BMI as covariates P-value is Dunnett adjusted (individual treatment arms)||||||<0.0001
91750909|NCT04600505|183394819|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|111.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.01|137.1||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||137.1|91.01|
91750910|NCT04600505|183394819|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.67|124.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||124.0|78.67|
91750911|NCT04600505|183394819|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|108.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|137.3||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||137.3|85.50|
91750912|NCT04600505|183394819|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|94.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.69|120.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||120.5|74.69|
91750913|NCT04600505|183394819|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|109.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.02|122.7||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||122.7|97.02|
91750914|NCT04600505|183394819|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|100.1||||||90.0|83.78|119.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||119.5|83.78|
91750915|NCT04600505|183394820|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|104.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.95|119.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||119.2|91.95|
91750916|NCT04600505|183394820|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.33|115.3||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||115.3|83.33|
91750917|NCT04600505|183394820|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|96.0||||||90.0|70.33|131.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||131.0|70.33|
91750918|NCT04600505|183394820|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|116.7||||||90.0|86.31|157.8||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||157.8|86.31|
91750919|NCT04600505|183394821|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|107.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.53|121.9||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||121.9|94.53|
91750920|NCT04600505|183394821|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.59|115.4||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||115.4|84.59|
91750921|NCT04600505|183394821|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.18|130.6||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||130.6|86.18|
91750922|NCT04600505|183394821|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|99.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.84|123.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||123.0|80.84|
91750923|NCT04600505|183394821|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.44|111.4||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||111.4|86.44|
91881587|NCT00464945|183658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05||||||95.0|0.89|1.24||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio was calculated||1.24|0.89|
91881588|NCT00464945|183658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.71|1.22||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.22|0.71|
91881589|NCT00464945|183658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.06||||||95.0|0.86|1.3||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio was calculated||1.30|0.86|
91881590|NCT00464945|183658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.81|1.17||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio was calculated||1.17|0.81|
91803132|NCT01153347|183484081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.66|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.66|-0.50|0.792
91803133|NCT01153347|183484082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.48|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.48|-0.54|0.915
91803134|NCT01153347|183484082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.53|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.53|-0.51|0.972
91750924|NCT04600505|183394821|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.82|128.9||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||128.9|88.82|
91750925|NCT00241631|183394827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
91750926|NCT00241631|183394828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91750927|NCT00241631|183394829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91803135|NCT01153347|183484082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.84|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.84|-0.21|0.237
91803136|NCT01153347|183484083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.19|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.19|-0.87|0.213
91750928|NCT00904618|183394831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The test applies to the number of participants improved.||||0.0087
91750929|NCT00435162|183394858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.05||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||Slope change across all 3 active treatment groups.||0.20|-2.31|0.0990
91750930|NCT03373890|183394881|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
91803137|NCT01153347|183484083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.28|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.28|-0.80|0.343
91803138|NCT01153347|183484083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.53|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.53|-0.55|0.971
91803139|NCT01153347|183484084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.224|5.431|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||5.431|-1.224|0.215
91750931|NCT03373890|183394882|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
91750932|NCT03373890|183394883|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.03
91750933|NCT03373890|183394884|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
91750934|NCT03373890|183394885|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
91750935|NCT03373890|183394886|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.99
91750936|NCT03373890|183394887|OTHER|LInear mixed model||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.008
91750937|NCT03373890|183394888|OTHER|Linear mixed model regression||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.34
91750938|NCT02680574|183394889|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change of hemoglobin: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.07|-0.09|
91750939|NCT02680574|183394890|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.3 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.446|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.446|0.930|=0.2015
91750940|NCT02680574|183394890|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||=|0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.355|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 382 and 344 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.07 (23.00, 82.86) weeks versus 51.93 (27.79, 91.00) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.355|1.012|=0.0725
91750941|NCT02680574|183394891|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.09|-0.10|
91750942|NCT02680574|183394892|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|1.268|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.268|0.851|=0.7770
91803140|NCT01153347|183484084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.624|4.062|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||4.062|-2.624|0.673
91803141|NCT01153347|183484084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.716||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.248|1.494|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.494|-5.248|0.275
91803142|NCT01153347|183484085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.11|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.11|-0.28|0.412
91881591|NCT00464945|183658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.7|1.15||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio was calculated||1.15|0.70|
91881592|NCT00464945|183658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.88|1.37||||||For serotype 1 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.37|0.88|
91803143|NCT01153347|183484085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.21|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.21|-0.19|0.928
91803144|NCT01153347|183484085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.42|0.033
91803145|NCT01153347|183484086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.28|-0.10|0.353
91803146|NCT01153347|183484086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.23|-0.16|0.721
91881593|NCT00464945|183658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.83|1.2||||||For serotype 3 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.20|0.83|
91907912|NCT01324232|183711391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402|=|0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.62|-0.96|=0.6690
91803147|NCT01153347|183484086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.15|-0.24|0.666
91881594|NCT00464945|183658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.79|1.16||||||For serotype 5 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.16|0.79|
91881595|NCT00464945|183658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83||||||95.0|0.66|1.05||||||For serotype 6A the GMC ratio was calculated||1.05|0.66|
91803148|NCT01153347|183484087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0201||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0459|0.0329||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0329|-0.0459|0.747
91803149|NCT01153347|183484087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0203||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0529|0.027||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0270|-0.0529|0.524
91803150|NCT01153347|183484087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0543|0.0267||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0267|-0.0543|0.502
91803151|NCT01153347|183484087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.0||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||6.00|-2.10|0.345
91803152|NCT01153347|183484087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|5.56||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||5.56|-2.65|0.486
91881596|NCT00464945|183658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.79|1.11||||||For serotype 7F the GMC ratio was calculated||1.11|0.79|
91881597|NCT00464945|183658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.79|1.13||||||For serotype 19A the GMC ratio was calculated||1.13|0.79|
91881598|NCT03831854|183658155|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.08
91881599|NCT03831854|183658156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|The relative risk could not be assessed due to zero incidence in the treatment group||||||0.11
91881600|NCT03831854|183658157|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|98.5|-9.5|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.0|-9.5|0.63
91881601|NCT03831854|183658158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.7|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-1.7|0.58
91881602|NCT03831854|183658159|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.3|3.8|||Chi-squared|||||3.8|0.3|1.0
91881603|NCT02094898|183658165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
91750943|NCT02680574|183394892|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.267|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic events excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 451 and 424 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.86 (19.71, 73.43) weeks versus 43.86 (21.36, 80.43) weeks, respectively.||1.267|0.972|=0.2305
91750944|NCT02680574|183394893|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.5509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.501|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.501|0.817|=0.5509
91750945|NCT02680574|183394893|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.42|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 198 and 178 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 45.57 (21.71, 73.29) weeks versus 47.36 (20.00, 88.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.420|0.947|=0.2531
91750946|NCT02680574|183394894|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||=|0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.258|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.258|0.610|=0.4184
91750947|NCT02680574|183394894|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||=|0.8613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.293|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 127 and 131 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 48.29 (28.86, 76.14) weeks versus 48.43 (21.29, 92.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.293|0.792|=0.8613
91803153|NCT01153347|183484087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.94||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.94|-5.39|0.564
91803154|NCT01153347|183484088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|1.59|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.59|-4.48|0.350
91881604|NCT02094898|183658165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.05
91750948|NCT02680574|183394895|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.8041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.315|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.315|0.820|=0.8041
91750949|NCT02680574|183394895|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.274|||Log Rank|||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 319 and 307 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 52.14 (28.71, 84.71) weeks versus 53.00 (30.71, 94.14) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.274|0.930|=0.4577
91750950|NCT02042534|183394920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6765|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6765
91750951|NCT02042534|183394921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3753|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3753
91750952|NCT02042534|183394922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<.0001
91750953|NCT02042534|183394923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3301|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3301
91750954|NCT02133664|183394972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||With the initial sample size plan of 53 subjects, we expect an 80% power to detect a significant difference in PASAT score with a mean difference of 8.3 points between the treatment and placebo group.||4.32|-2.03|0.05
91803155|NCT01153347|183484088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|1.73|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.73|-4.41|0.393
91803156|NCT01153347|183484088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.62|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.62|-2.59|0.745
91803157|NCT04678661|183484102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||Propensity score matching was used to form pairs of intervention and control participants. Specifically, a greedy matching procedure with a matching caliper of 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score was used.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for covariates of age, race, baseline BMI, and baseline hemoglobin A1c.||||||.207
91803158|NCT04678661|183484103|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent t-test||||.011
91803159|NCT04678661|183484104|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.024
91803160|NCT04678661|183484105|OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.579
91881605|NCT02094898|183658166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91881606|NCT02094898|183658167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
91750955|NCT03906656|183394976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-values based on Holm-Bonferroni method. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is for paired data (n=73). This explains the discrepancy between the mean difference and the difference between the KAFO and C-Brace means (n=86 and n=77, respectively).|H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.0002
91907913|NCT01324232|183711391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|=|0.7394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.62|-0.88|=0.7394
91907914|NCT01324232|183711392|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9731|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.9731
91750956|NCT03906656|183394976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-values based on Holm-Bonferroni method. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is for paired data (n=77). This explains the discrepancy between the mean difference and the difference between the KAFO and C-Brace means (n=86 and n=77, respectively).|H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - Baseline) \<= 0.||||<0.00001
91750957|NCT03906656|183394976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is for paired data (n=86). This explains the discrepancy between the mean difference and the difference between the Baseline and KAFO means (n=102 and n=86, respectively).|KAFO vs. Baseline -- H0: the mean difference (KAFO - Baseline) \<= 0.||||<0.00001
91750958|NCT03906656|183394977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|63.6 degrees of freedom.||H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.005
91750959|NCT03906656|183394978|SUPERIORITY|P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|74.4 degrees of freedom||H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.005
91750960|NCT03906656|183394979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.6||0.583|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. V=1207.5, effect size r = 0.026, p=0.583.|||0.583
91750961|NCT03906656|183394980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.37||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0. (SAI - Down)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=438, effect size r = 0.21, p=0.008|||0.0078
91750962|NCT03906656|183394981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=267, effect size r = 0.32, p=0.002|||0.0020
91750963|NCT03906656|183394982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.178||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0. (Fear of falling - indoors)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=433, effect size r = 0.33, p=0.002|||0.0023
91750964|NCT03906656|183394982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.973|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.43||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=557.5, effect size r = 0.265, p=0.0066|||0.0066
91881607|NCT02094898|183658167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
91881608|NCT02094898|183658167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
91750965|NCT03906656|183394983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|McNemar|||Paired dataset. H0: The probability of fallers wearing C-Brace becoming non-fallers wearing KAFO is the same as the probability of non-fallers wearing C-Brace becoming fallers wearing KAFO.||||0.006
91750966|NCT03906656|183394984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. V=1325.5, effect size r = 0.181, p=0.08.|||0.08
91750967|NCT03906656|183394985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.184||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=1124.5, effect size r = 0.125 p=0.151|H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.151
91750968|NCT03906656|183394986|SUPERIORITY|H0: the mean of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \>= 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5||0.281|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|16.7 degrees of freedom||WLQ-25 - Physical||||0.281
91803161|NCT04678661|183484106|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Reported p-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91803162|NCT04678661|183484107|OTHER|||||||0.269|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.269
91803163|NCT04678661|183484110|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Reported p-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91881609|NCT02094898|183658168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91881610|NCT02094898|183658169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
91881611|NCT02094898|183658169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
91881612|NCT02094898|183658170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
91907915|NCT01324232|183711392|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|6.09||||||||6.09|-3.46|
91881613|NCT02094898|183658171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
91750969|NCT03906656|183394987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.18||0.00019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|48.4 degrees of freedom||OPUS - Low Extremity Functional Status. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.00019
91750970|NCT03906656|183394988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|22.1 degrees of freedom||Emotional well-being. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.0226
91750971|NCT03906656|183394988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Energy/Fatigue. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.0020
91750972|NCT03906656|183394988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.528||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Health change. H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. V=649, effect size r = 0.285, p=0.00493|||0.0049
91750973|NCT03906656|183394988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.2||6.47e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|37.35 degrees of freedom||Physical Functioning Score. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.0000647
91750974|NCT03906656|183394989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.843||0.301|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Device. H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=1018.5, effect size r = 0.056, p=0.301|||0.301
91750975|NCT02525939|183395010|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||The estimated HR was presented with a 95% CI and a p-value. The primary analysis was conducted at the 0.05 significance level.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||A stratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the primary endpoint. This model included treatment as a main effect, and region and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) index event type as stratification factors. The null and alternative hypotheses tested with the above Cox model were: H0: λ = 1 vs HA: λ ≠ 1, where λ is the, assumed constant, hazard ratio (HR) for the time to occurrence of the composite events of the primary endpoint for the dalcetrapib and placebo treated groups.||1.03|0.75|0.12
91750976|NCT02525939|183395011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.13|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||Secondary endpoints were expressed as time to event and an analysis similar to that for the primary endpoint was conducted. In order to control the family-wise Type I error that results from the multiplicity of endpoints, the secondary endpoints were formally tested using the Hochberg's step-up procedure only if the primary analysis results in significant treatment effect at p\<0.05. Otherwise, statistical tests for the secondary endpoints were presented solely for illustrative purposes.||1.13|0.88|0.95
91881614|NCT02094898|183658171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
91881615|NCT02094898|183658172|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
91750977|NCT02525939|183395012|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||Secondary endpoints were expressed as time to event and an analysis similar to that for the primary endpoint was conducted. In order to control the family-wise Type I error that results from the multiplicity of endpoints, the secondary endpoints were formally tested using the Hochberg's step-up procedure only if the primary analysis results in significant treatment effect at p\<0.05. Otherwise, statistical tests for the secondary endpoints were presented solely for illustrative purposes.||1.07|0.79|0.27
91750978|NCT01853072|183395020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.0|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for United States (US) registration and secondary for European Union (EU) registration.||3.0|1.5|<0.001
91750979|NCT01853072|183395021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for EU registration and secondary for US registration.||0.3|0.1|<0.001
91881616|NCT02094898|183658173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
91881617|NCT02094898|183658173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
91881618|NCT02094898|183658174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91881619|NCT02094898|183658175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.05
91881620|NCT02094898|183658175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
91881621|NCT02094898|183658176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91881622|NCT02094898|183658177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
91881623|NCT02094898|183658177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
91881624|NCT03520075|183658189|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean (Geo LSM)|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|91.2|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||91.2|8.50|
91889104|NCT00203268|183670861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3025|||||||clustered survival analysis|||||||.3025
91889105|NCT03197766|183670953|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory statistical testing controlling for the Type I error rate was performed on the primary analysis for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Two subjects in the BMN 111 group discontinued from the study before Week 52. The values for these 2 subjects were imputed for this analysis.||||||< 0.0001
91889106|NCT03197766|183670954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory statistical testing controlling for the Type I error rate was performed on the primary analyses for the two key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|Missing assessments at Week 52 were imputed||||||< 0.0001
91881625|NCT03520075|183658189|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|38.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.4|132.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||132|11.4|
91881626|NCT03520075|183658189|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|58.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|222.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||222|15.7|
91881627|NCT03520075|183658189|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.7|108.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||108|20.7|
91881628|NCT03520075|183658190|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.28|61.9|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||61.9|5.28|
91881629|NCT03520075|183658190|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|44.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.32|234.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||234|8.32|
91881630|NCT03520075|183658190|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|58.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|220.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||220|15.7|
91881631|NCT03520075|183658190|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.3|113.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||113|14.3|
91881632|NCT03520075|183658191|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.62|54.3|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||54.3|5.62|
91881633|NCT03520075|183658191|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.0|99.4|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||99.4|12.0|
91881634|NCT03520075|183658191|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.6|299.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||299|17.6|
91881635|NCT03520075|183658191|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|72.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.1|181.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||181|29.1|
91881636|NCT03520075|183658192|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-2.275||||0.0388671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.216|-0.083|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||-0.0830|-5.2160|0.0388671
91881637|NCT03520075|183658192|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.45||||0.4795001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.917|5.15|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% CI was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||5.1500|-0.9170|0.4795001
91881638|NCT03520075|183658192|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.45||||0.8272593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.467|0.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% CI was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||0.9500|-2.4670|0.8272593
91907916|NCT01324232|183711392|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|1.72||||||||1.72|-7.72|
91750980|NCT01287221|183395026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.82
91881639|NCT03520075|183658192|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.583||||0.5126908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|3.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% CI was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||3.5000|-6.4500|0.5126908
91881640|NCT03305809|183658212|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.776|0.969|||||Analyses were conducted using a bayesian mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), and posterior mean change difference is reported.|||0.969|-2.776|
91881641|NCT03305809|183658212|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.996|1.879|||||Analyses were conducted using a bayesian MMRM, and posterior mean change difference is reported.|||1.879|-1.996|
91881642|NCT03305809|183658212|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.873|1.277|||||Analyses were conducted using a bayesian MMRM, and posterior mean change difference is reported.|||1.277|-2.873|
91881643|NCT03305809|183658213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.54|0.273
91881644|NCT03305809|183658213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-1.02|<0.001
91750981|NCT01287221|183395027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.62
91881645|NCT03305809|183658213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-1.29|< 0.001
91881646|NCT03305809|183658214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.495||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.53|64.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||64.11|-205.53|0.303
91881647|NCT03305809|183658214|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-107.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.647||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-244.09|30.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.06|-244.09|0.125
91881648|NCT03305809|183658214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-123.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.892||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-267.18|19.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.74|-267.18|0.091
91881649|NCT03305809|183658215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.985||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-2.34|0.686
91881650|NCT03305809|183658215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|-2.70|0.485
91881651|NCT03305809|183658215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-2.98|0.406
91881652|NCT03305809|183658216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.63|-0.74|0.464
91881653|NCT03305809|183658216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|-1.00|0.720
91881654|NCT03305809|183658216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-0.34|0.149
91907917|NCT01324232|183711392|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.408|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|5.95||||||||5.95|-3.54|
91907918|NCT01324232|183711394|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4778||||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.||||=0.4778
91881655|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.213||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.76|-3.01|0.607
91881656|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.265||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||0.79|-4.19|0.180
91881657|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.325||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.86|-3.36|0.572
91881658|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Delusions||0.17|-0.51|0.320
91881659|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Delusions||-0.02|-0.73|0.037
91881660|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Delusions||0.26|-0.49|0.558
91803164|NCT04678661|183484111|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Reported p-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91803165|NCT04678661|183484112|OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.647
91803166|NCT01773733|183484247|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91881661|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hallucinations||0.34|-0.38|0.924
91881662|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hallucinations||0.02|-0.73|0.061
91881663|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hallucinations||0.10|-0.68|0.148
91881664|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Agitation/Aggression||0.25|-0.46|0.552
91881665|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Agitation/Aggression||0.31|-0.43|0.735
91881666|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Agitation/Aggression||0.15|-0.63|0.224
91881667|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression/Dysphoria||0.48|-0.37|0.783
91881668|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression/Dysphoria||0.34|-0.55|0.640
91881669|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression/Dysphoria||0.34|-0.59|0.592
91881670|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.39|-0.39|0.993
91881671|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.62|-0.19|0.290
91881672|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.35|-0.50|0.722
91881673|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Elation/Euphoria||0.08|-0.30|0.246
91881674|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Elation/Euphoria||0.06|-0.34|0.175
91881675|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Elation/Euphoria||0.13|-0.28|0.482
91881676|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apathy/Indifference||0.07|-0.97|0.091
91881677|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apathy/Indifference||0.23|-0.87|0.248
91907919|NCT01324232|183711394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.676|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|7.74||||||||7.74|-6.76|
91881678|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apathy/Indifference||0.38|-0.76|0.516
91881679|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||0.24|-0.21|0.875
91881680|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||0.57|0.10|0.005
91881681|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||0.28|-0.21|0.761
91881682|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Irritability/Lability||0.12|-0.60|0.183
91881683|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Irritability/Lability||0.31|-0.43|0.765
91907920|NCT01324232|183711394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.663|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|5.56||||||||5.56|-8.89|
91907921|NCT01324232|183711394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.681|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|10.68||||||||10.68|-3.83|
91750982|NCT01287221|183395028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.23
91750983|NCT01287221|183395029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.31
91907922|NCT01324232|183711395|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0685|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.0685
91907923|NCT01324232|183711395|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.83||||||||0.83|-1.85|
91907924|NCT01324232|183711395|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.677|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.48||||||||0.48|-2.19|
91907925|NCT01324232|183711395|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.15||||||||0.15|-2.54|
91750984|NCT01287221|183395030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.65
91881684|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Irritability/Lability||0.61|-0.18|0.279
91881685|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aberrant Motor Behavior||0.46|-0.12|0.252
91881686|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aberrant Motor Behavior||0.20|-0.40|0.526
91881687|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aberrant Motor Behavior||0.36|-0.28|0.800
91881688|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders||0.98|-0.59|0.623
91881689|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders||0.44|-1.21|0.354
91881690|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.437||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders||0.75|-0.97|0.809
91881691|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Appetite/Eating Disorders||0.64|-0.84|0.790
91881692|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Appetite/Eating Disorders||0.35|-1.20|0.280
91881693|NCT03305809|183658217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Appetite/Eating Disorders||0.92|-0.70|0.797
91881694|NCT03305809|183658218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-1.91|0.247
91881695|NCT03305809|183658218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-2.12|0.164
91881696|NCT03305809|183658218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.663||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-2.90|0.017
91881697|NCT03305809|183658219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-12.04|0.026
91750985|NCT01287221|183395031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.61
91803167|NCT03416946|183484306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Post-op HKA angle|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.790
91881698|NCT03305809|183658219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.969||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.53|-13.24|0.014
91881699|NCT03305809|183658219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.104|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.72|-4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.48|-16.72|<0.001
91907926|NCT01324232|183711396|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4201|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.4201
91907927|NCT01324232|183711396|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.473|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.41||||||||2.41|-3.40|
91907928|NCT01324232|183711396|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|1.97||||||||1.97|-3.76|
91881700|NCT03305809|183658220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.24|-2.13|0.683
91881701|NCT03305809|183658220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.413||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-0.37|0.089
91881702|NCT03305809|183658220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.489||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.49|-1.37|0.294
91881703|NCT03305809|183658221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.40|-0.13|0.105
91881704|NCT03305809|183658221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.87|0.27|0.009
91881705|NCT03305809|183658221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.33|-0.35|0.253
91881706|NCT03305809|183658222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Experiences of Daily Living||0.08|-3.56|0.061
91881707|NCT03305809|183658222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Experiences of Daily Living||-0.47|-4.26|0.014
91881708|NCT03305809|183658222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Experiences of Daily Living||-1.51|-5.50|<0.001
91881709|NCT03305809|183658222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.822||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Exam||0.32|-6.86|0.074
91881710|NCT03305809|183658222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.891||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Exam||0.45|-7.00|0.085
91881711|NCT03305809|183658222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.959||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Exam||-0.37|-8.09|0.032
91881712|NCT03305809|183658224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|5.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||5.61|-4.92|0.898
91750986|NCT01287221|183395032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.22
91881713|NCT03305809|183658224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||5.94|-4.71|0.821
91881714|NCT03305809|183658224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|14.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||14.61|4.11|<0.001
91881715|NCT03305809|183658224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.08|-2.40|0.805
91881716|NCT03305809|183658224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.69|-1.85|0.513
91881717|NCT03305809|183658224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||6.28|0.83|0.011
91881718|NCT03305809|183658225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.08|-0.16|0.065
91881719|NCT03305809|183658225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.21|0.93|0.008
91881720|NCT03305809|183658225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|11.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.27|6.06|<0.001
91881721|NCT03305809|183658226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||4.99|-1.72|0.339
91881722|NCT03305809|183658226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||4.73|-2.26|0.486
91750987|NCT04030247|183395055|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.03
91750988|NCT04030247|183395056|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.16
91750989|NCT04030247|183395057|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.03
91750990|NCT04030247|183395058|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.9
91881723|NCT03305809|183658226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||7.81|0.56|0.024
91881724|NCT03305809|183658226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||1.88|-2.04|0.935
91881725|NCT03305809|183658226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||2.72|-1.34|0.505
91881726|NCT03305809|183658226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.30|-0.91|0.266
91881727|NCT03305809|183658227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.41|-1.28|0.550
91881728|NCT03305809|183658227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.68|-0.14|0.069
91881729|NCT03305809|183658227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.83|0.89|0.005
91881730|NCT03305809|183658228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.92|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||-0.15|-13.92|0.045
91881731|NCT03305809|183658228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|10.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||10.32|-4.05|0.390
91881732|NCT03305809|183658228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||6.16|-8.32|0.768
91881733|NCT03305809|183658228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||-0.17|-8.48|0.041
91881734|NCT03305809|183658228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.72|-4.81|0.802
91881735|NCT03305809|183658228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||1.97|-6.67|0.284
91881736|NCT03305809|183658229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.19|-4.17|0.996
91881737|NCT03305809|183658229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.69|-4.99|0.767
91881738|NCT03305809|183658229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.79|-4.96|0.791
91881739|NCT03305809|183658230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.88|-0.93|0.312
91750991|NCT04030247|183395059|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.5
91750992|NCT04030247|183395060|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.4
91750993|NCT04030247|183395062|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.6
91881740|NCT03305809|183658230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.95|-0.89|0.289
91881741|NCT03305809|183658230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||3.65|-0.53|0.141
91881742|NCT03305809|183658230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.01|-1.89|0.954
91881743|NCT03305809|183658230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.70|-1.53|0.584
91907929|NCT01324232|183711396|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|4.34||||||||4.34|-1.42|
91750994|NCT03809910|183395069|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.04||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.09|<.0001
91750995|NCT03809910|183395070|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.07||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.17|<0.0001
91750996|NCT03809910|183395071|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.06||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.16|<0.0001
91750997|NCT03809910|183395072|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.19||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.25|<0.0001
91881744|NCT03305809|183658230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|2.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.65|-1.59|0.623
91881745|NCT03305809|183658230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.79|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||3.79|-1.02|0.256
91881746|NCT03305809|183658230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.41||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.86|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||3.86|-1.04|0.258
91881747|NCT03305809|183658230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|7.25|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||7.25|1.93|<0.001
91881748|NCT03305809|183658230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.51|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||2.51|-2.47|0.988
91881749|NCT03305809|183658230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||5.90|0.51|0.020
91881750|NCT03305809|183658230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.91|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||5.91|0.46|0.022
91881751|NCT05146206|183658232|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91881752|NCT05146206|183658233|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||MANOVA|||||||<0.001
91881753|NCT00816556|183658234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Dryness severity: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.42
91881754|NCT00816556|183658234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Dryness bothersomeness: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.22
91881755|NCT00816556|183658234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Itching severity: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.37
91881756|NCT00816556|183658234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||Itching bothersomeness: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.27
91881757|NCT00816556|183658234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Burning severity: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.46
91881758|NCT00816556|183658234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||Burning bothersomeness: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.67
91881759|NCT00816556|183658235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 2: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.33
91881760|NCT00816556|183658235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.99
91881761|NCT00816556|183658235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2 vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.58
91881762|NCT00816556|183658236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 2: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.007
91881763|NCT00816556|183658236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.32
91881764|NCT00816556|183658236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2 vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.02
91881765|NCT01642147|183658237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: Mean Blood Flow Velocity in Middle Cerebral Artery of the 2 groups are the same before anesthesia.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||0.554
91907930|NCT01324232|183711397|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8068||||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.||||=0.8068
91750998|NCT03809910|183395073|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.33||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.43|<0.0001
91750999|NCT03809910|183395074|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.29||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-0.39|<0.0001
91751000|NCT03809910|183395075|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.18||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.18|0.13|<0.0001
91751001|NCT03809910|183395076|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.31||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|0.21|<0.0001
91751002|NCT03809910|183395077|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.28||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|0.18|<0.0001
91751003|NCT03809910|183395078|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.15||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|0.09|<0.0001
91751004|NCT03809910|183395078|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-0.06|0.0214
91751005|NCT03809910|183395079|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.23||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.23|0.13|<0.0001
91751006|NCT03809910|183395079|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.14|0.0010
91751007|NCT03809910|183395080|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.25||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|0.15|<0.0001
91751008|NCT03809910|183395080|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.09|0.1652
91751009|NCT03880838|183395092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, letter was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.391
91751010|NCT03880838|183395092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no contact control was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.861
91751011|NCT03880838|183395092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.835
91751012|NCT03880838|183395092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.877
91751013|NCT03880838|183395092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.969|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.969
91751014|NCT03880838|183395092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.893|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.893
91881766|NCT01642147|183658238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: Mean Blood Flow Velocity in Middle Cerebral Artery of the 2 groups are the same at extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
91907931|NCT01324232|183711397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.28||||||||1.28|-3.47|
91751015|NCT03880838|183395092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.689
91881767|NCT01642147|183658239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 30min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
91751016|NCT03880838|183395092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.427|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.427
91751017|NCT03880838|183395092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.504|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.504
91751018|NCT03880838|183395092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.893|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.893
91751019|NCT03880838|183395092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.918|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.918
91751020|NCT03880838|183395092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.755
91751021|NCT03880838|183395092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.858|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.858
91751022|NCT03880838|183395093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.436|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, letter was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.436
91751023|NCT03880838|183395093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.539|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no contact control was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.539
91751024|NCT03880838|183395093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.994
91751025|NCT03880838|183395093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.700
91751026|NCT03880838|183395093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.258
91751027|NCT03880838|183395093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.428|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.428
91751028|NCT03880838|183395093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.434
91751029|NCT03880838|183395093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.228|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.228
91751030|NCT03880838|183395093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.674
91751031|NCT03880838|183395093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.799
91751032|NCT03880838|183395093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.794
91751033|NCT03880838|183395093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.871
91751034|NCT03880838|183395093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.139
91751035|NCT03880838|183395094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, letter was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.357
91751036|NCT03880838|183395094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no contact control was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.294
91881768|NCT01642147|183658240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 60min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
91881769|NCT01642147|183658241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 90min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
91881770|NCT01642147|183658242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 120min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
91881771|NCT02007200|183658264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||Linear Repeated Measures Model|||||||<0.005
91881772|NCT01844726|183658273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in BOLD signal activation across task derived learning circuit were compared between GLYX-13 and placebo groups using an independent group t-test.||||.10
91751037|NCT03880838|183395094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.496|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.496
91751038|NCT03880838|183395094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.722
91751039|NCT03880838|183395094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.445|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.445
91751040|NCT03880838|183395094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.531
91751041|NCT03880838|183395094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.177
91751042|NCT03880838|183395094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.314
91751043|NCT03880838|183395094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.850
91751044|NCT03880838|183395094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.391
91751045|NCT03880838|183395094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.906
91751046|NCT03880838|183395094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.635
91751047|NCT03880838|183395094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||0.093
91751048|NCT02080260|183395175|SUPERIORITY||16-week PFS Rate|0.1||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.317||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment of the study. The study enrollment was stopped early due to futility.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The null hypothesis assumes a median PFS of 6 weeks, corresponding to a 16-week PFS rate of approximately 0.15. A single-stage design will be used to test that the 16-week PFS rate is less than or equal to 0.15. If at least 8 of the 32 subjects are alive and progression free at 16 weeks, the null hypothesis will be rejected. Assuming a one-sided alpha = 0.10 significance level, this will provide at least 90% power to reject the null hypothesis, assuming the true 16-week PFS rate is 0.35.||0.317|0.012|0.824
91751049|NCT02080260|183395176|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.1|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in weeks) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||7.1|2.9|
91751050|NCT02080260|183395177|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median OS(in weeks) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||17.0|8.1|
91751051|NCT02080260|183395178|OTHER|Estimation only|Overall Response Rate|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.249|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.249|0.001|
91751052|NCT02080260|183395179|OTHER|Estimation only.|Disease Control Rate|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.543|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.543|0.119|
91751053|NCT02091284|183395199|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures followed by Bonferroni's multiple comparisons as post-hoc test and linear regression analyses. Additional comparisons between initial and final OCDS scores were done by paired t tests for each group.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.01
91751054|NCT02091284|183395199|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Additional comparisons between initial and final OCDS scores were done by paired t tests for each group, and differences between final and initial scores were compared between sham-tDCS and tDCS groups with unpaired t tests.||||<0.05
91751055|NCT02853435|183395206|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0417|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9809|1.1063|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-inf).|||1.1063|0.9809|
91751056|NCT02853435|183395206|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1108|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0459|1.1797|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-inf).|||1.1797|1.0459|
91881773|NCT01844726|183658274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.57
91881774|NCT02229578|183658275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome was residual change score calculated by regressing immediate postop pain on 24 hour pain. This allows patient to serve as own control for intial values.||2.1|-1.2|<0.05
91907932|NCT01324232|183711397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.74||||||||1.74|-2.99|
91803168|NCT01081678|183484321|OTHER|||||||0.1983|||||||F-test|The p-value is based on F-test of multi-linear contrasts at Week 6 through Week 20.||The primary analysis was based on a test for linear trend in dose response at weeks 6, 12, 16, and 20. To account for multiple comparisons over time points, the primary analysis used a size α = 0.05 F-test with 4 degrees of freedom for the contrasts at Weeks 6, 12, 16, and 20.||||0.1983
91881775|NCT02229578|183658276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome was residual change score calculated by regressing immediate postop pain on 24 hour pain. This allows patient to serve as own control for intial values.||1.49|-1.77|<0.05
91881776|NCT02229578|183658277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|6.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome was residual change score calculated by regressing immediate postop hydromorphone on 24 hour hydromorphone. This allows patient to serve as own control for intial values.||6.09|-9.62|<0.05
91751057|NCT02853435|183395207|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0408|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9792|1.1062|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-t).|||1.1062|0.9792|
91751058|NCT02853435|183395207|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1138|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0479|1.1838|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-t).|||1.1838|1.0479|
91751059|NCT02853435|183395209|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9586|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|1.0888|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters Cmax.|||1.0888|0.8440|
91751060|NCT02853435|183395209|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1487|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0113|1.3047|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters Cmax.|||1.3047|1.0113|
91751061|NCT02853435|183395210|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.233||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.267|0.0||The p-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||The median, median difference and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodge-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|-0.267|0.309
91751062|NCT02853435|183395210|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.492|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|-0.25||The p-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||The median, median difference and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodge-Lehmann estimate.|||-0.250|-0.500|<0.001
91751063|NCT02583230|183395376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate the change in PHQ-9 total scores over the eight-week study period.||||||.0005
91751064|NCT02583230|183395377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate the change in QIDS total scores over the eight-week study period.||||||.0008
91751065|NCT02317809|183395384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|114.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.87|118.15|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||118.15|110.87|
91751066|NCT02317809|183395385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|106.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.42|112.86|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||112.86|101.42|
91751067|NCT02317809|183395386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|112.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.44|119.27|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||119.27|106.44|
91751068|NCT02317809|183395387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|103.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.16|114.47|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||114.47|93.16|
91751069|NCT03054350|183395501|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.82|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||1.82|0.56|0.0004
91751070|NCT03054350|183395501|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.19|0.93|<0.0001
91751071|NCT03054350|183395501|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.54|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.54|1.23|<0.0001
91751072|NCT03054350|183395507|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.54|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups;1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.54|0.04|0.0232
91751073|NCT03054350|183395507|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.62|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.62|0.13|0.0033
91751074|NCT03054350|183395507|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.74|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.74|0.26|0.0002
91751075|NCT03054350|183395507|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.01|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.01|0.3289
91803169|NCT01619423|183484333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.31|ONE_SIDED|10.0||1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.5||0.31
91803170|NCT01619423|183484333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.15|ONE_SIDED|10.0||1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.16||0.15
91803171|NCT01619423|183484333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.16|ONE_SIDED|10.0||1.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.14||0.16
91881777|NCT01496365|183658289|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.05||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.70|-0.81|0.8916
91881778|NCT01496365|183658289|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.22||||0.5569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.51|||ANCOVA|||||0.51|-0.95|0.5569
91881779|NCT01496365|183658289|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.53||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-1.25|0.1544
91881780|NCT01496365|183658289|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.94||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.69|0.0137
91881781|NCT01496365|183658289|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.88||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.61|0.0171
91881782|NCT01496365|183658289|SUPERIORITY||Least square means|-1.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-1.74|0.0060
91881783|NCT01496365|183658289|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.17||||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-1.03|0.7051
91881784|NCT01496365|183658289|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.47||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-1.33|0.2772
91881785|NCT01496365|183658289|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.89||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.77|0.0458
91751076|NCT03054350|183395507|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.01|0.2607
91751077|NCT03054350|183395507|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.03|0.00|0.0252
91881786|NCT01496365|183658289|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.83||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-1.69|0.0569
91881787|NCT01496365|183658289|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.96||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-1.81|0.0271
91881788|NCT01015677|183658302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differrence in the least squares means|-6.28||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|11.64|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA model terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||11.64|-24.20|0.488
91881789|NCT01015677|183658302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-17.45||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.28|1.38|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|LDA model with terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||1.38|-36.28|0.069
91881790|NCT01015677|183658305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differrence in the least squares means|-6.05||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|12.96|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA model includes terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||12.96|-25.06|0.529
91881791|NCT01015677|183658305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-11.22||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|8.59|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|LDA model includes terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||8.59|-31.03|0.264
91907933|NCT01324232|183711397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.207|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.69||||||||2.69|-2.07|
91907934|NCT01324232|183711398|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6315||||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect. Oral responses.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.6315
91751078|NCT03054350|183395509|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.303||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.94|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||5.94|0.67|0.0154
91751079|NCT03054350|183395509|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|7.16|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||7.16|2.06|0.0008
91881792|NCT01015677|183658306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.94||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.19|8.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, region, stage of the trial, and baseline value as a covariate in PP population only.||||8.07|-6.19|0.827
91881793|NCT01015677|183658306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the LS means|-14.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.73|-7.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, stage of the trial, and baseline value as a covariate in PP population only.||||-7.32|-21.73|0.001
91881794|NCT01660256|183658307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91881795|NCT01660256|183658308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91881796|NCT01646385|183658312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|1.025|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, baseline steroid, smoking history, previous cancer, and body mass index was used for analysis.||1.025|0.683|0.084
91881797|NCT01646385|183658313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.512||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|0.952|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age was used for analysis.||0.952|0.276|0.035
91881798|NCT01646385|183658314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.019||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.251|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, gender, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, baseline DMARDs, methotrexate, disease activity score based on 28-joints count (DAS28), and smoking history was used for analysis.||1.251|0.831|0.855
91881799|NCT01646385|183658315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, gender, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, methotrexate, and baseline health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) score was used for analysis.||0.870|0.564|0.001
91881800|NCT01646385|183658316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|0.958|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, gender, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, methotrexate, baseline HAQ score, Charlson index, smoking history, and body mass index was used for analysis.||0.958|0.537|0.024
91881801|NCT01646385|183658319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91907935|NCT01324232|183711398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|7.93||||||||7.93|-3.19|
91907936|NCT01324232|183711398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.562|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|6.45||||||||6.45|-3.83|
91803172|NCT03733470|183484366|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91803173|NCT02983825|183484367|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon signed-rank test for nonparametric matched-pairs||||||0.02|||||||Sign test|||"Within subject repeat analysis; V/Q mismatch (measured as degree of right shift in kPa) baseline vs best CPAP"||||0.02
91803174|NCT04457336|183484378|OTHER|Assessment of dose response for change from baseline in log 17-OHP after 12 weeks on double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment (Week 18). Results were obtained by using a repeated measures random coefficient mixed-effects model and are reported as the -2loglikelihood results for both the full (including interaction terms) and reduced (excluding interaction terms) models.||||||0.8051||||||Dose response p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|The result for the -2loglikelihood full model was -580.2550766 log(ng/dL) and -583.2846546 log(ng/dL) for the reduced model.||||||0.8051
91803175|NCT03993132|183484423|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.11|0.91|
91803176|NCT03993132|183484424|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.13|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.13|1.01|
91803177|NCT03993132|183484425|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.08|0.84|
91881802|NCT01646385|183658320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 1: analysis was performed with Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) using the General Linear Model (GLM) method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
91881803|NCT01646385|183658320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 2: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
91881804|NCT01646385|183658320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 3: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
91881805|NCT01646385|183658320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 4: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
91881806|NCT01646385|183658320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 5: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||0.01
91907937|NCT01324232|183711398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.728|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|6.94||||||||6.94|-4.01|
91803178|NCT03993132|183484426|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.11|0.96|
91803179|NCT03993132|183484427|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.83|0.61|
91803180|NCT03993132|183484428|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.91|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.91|0.76|
91803181|NCT03993132|183484429|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.88|
91803182|NCT03993132|183484430|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.91|
91803183|NCT03993132|183484431|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.88|
91881807|NCT01646385|183658323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91907938|NCT01324232|183711398|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1485|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect. Written responses.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.1485
91907939|NCT01324232|183711398|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.558|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|4.85||||||||4.85|-1.31|
91751080|NCT03054350|183395509|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.296|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|8.56|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||8.56|3.31|<0.0001
91751081|NCT03054350|183395509|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.81|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.81|-0.30|0.3572
91751082|NCT03054350|183395509|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.69|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.69|-0.33|0.4758
91751083|NCT03054350|183395509|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.84|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.84|-0.19|0.2048
91751084|NCT03054350|183395511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9373|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.9373
91751085|NCT03054350|183395511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6623|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.6623
91751086|NCT03054350|183395511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9374|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.9374
91751087|NCT03054350|183395511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2085|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.2085
91751088|NCT03054350|183395511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.0016
91751089|NCT03054350|183395511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.0001
91751090|NCT03054350|183395513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2708|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.2708
91751091|NCT03054350|183395513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0966|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.0966
91751092|NCT03054350|183395513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0424|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.0424
91751093|NCT03054350|183395515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.0207
91751094|NCT03054350|183395515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.0022
91751095|NCT03054350|183395515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||<0.0001
91751096|NCT03054350|183395515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0062
91751097|NCT03054350|183395515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0002
91751098|NCT03054350|183395515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||Hepcidin||||<0.0001
91751099|NCT01643850|183395547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36|||ANCOVA|||||1.36|0.71|0.915
91751100|NCT01643850|183395547|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|0.57|0.117
91751101|NCT01643850|183395547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91|||ANCOVA|||||0.91|0.52|0.010
91751102|NCT02419131|183395633|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of the experimental arms (CBTH and CPT) compared to usual care (TAU)|Aggregated contrast CBTH to TAU|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.4||p-value represents an aggregate of post-treatment outcomes (i.e., post-treatment, 3-month, and 6-month outcomes entered simultaneously into the GLMM to represent a single metric of all post-treatment assessment intervals into one estimate).|Mixed Models Analysis|Outcome observations at posttreatment, 3-month and 6-month follow-ups were entered simultaneously into the mixed model to provide a single inference.|Contrast of aggregated post-treatment outcomes of HIT-6 total score for CBTH compared to TAU|Sample size based on 2-tailed specified joint superiority testing of 2 primary outcomes at α = .025 and power of 0.80 to detect an effect size (d) of 0.52 for both primary outcomes (representing a clinically significant change of 2.8 points on the HIT-6). The primary analysis set was intention to treat (ITT). multiple imputation accounted for missing data in ITT. Missing outcome scores at posttreatment, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups were multiply imputed (m = 100) using multilevel models.||-1.4|-5.4|<0.001
91751103|NCT02419131|183395633|SUPERIORITY|See previous section for analysis|Aggregated contrast CPT to TAU|-1.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8||For comparison of post-treatment HIT-6 total score between CPT and TAU|Mixed Models Analysis|See above for details.|See above.|See previous section for power||0.8|-3.7|0.21
91751104|NCT02419131|183395634|SUPERIORITY|Key parameters and details the same as HIT-6 described above.|Aggregated contrast CBTH to TAU|-6.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-0.3||Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CBTH and TAU|Mixed Models Analysis|Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CBTH and TAU||Same sample size calculation as HIT-6 analyses, powered to detect a difference of 8.2 points on the PCL-5 total score.||-0.3|-12.7|0.04
91751105|NCT02419131|183395634|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CPT and TAU|Aggregated contrast CPT to TAU|-8.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-1.9||Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CPT and TAU|Mixed Models Analysis|Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CPT and TAU||See above.||-1.9|-15.9|0.01
91751106|NCT00681564|183395654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||A P value of 0.05 was used as a cut-off for statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test appropriate for the analysis of non-normally distributed data.||Analyzed variable: Brachial Artery Flow-mediated Dilation (baseline). Note: data analysis of patients who completed the study protocol (n=86). Intention-to-treat analysis analysis was not used because its application for the evaluation of continuous data would imply imputing missing data for patients lost to follow-up. Mean and standard deviation of flow-mediated dilatation, including data from all patients randomized in this study, is reported in the field of baseline characteristics.||||0.98
91751107|NCT00681564|183395654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||A P value of 0.05 was used as a cut-off for statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test appropriate for the analysis of non-normally distributed data.||Analyzed variable: Brachial Artery Flow-mediated Dilation (24 hours).||||0.005
91907940|NCT01324232|183711398|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|1.49||||||||1.49|-4.86|
91751108|NCT00681564|183395654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||||||A P value of 0.05 was used as a cut-off for statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test appropriate for the analysis of non-normally distributed data.||"Statistical analysis: Brachial Artery Flow-mediated Dilation (12 weeks). Intention-to-treat analysis was not used because input of values for patients lost at follow-up will artificially amplify the precision of outcome measures.~Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. www.cochrane-handbook.org."||||0.43
91751109|NCT02370641|183395666|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is defined as significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was made to week 4 minus baseline change of phylum Firmicutes abundance between urolithin excretors and non excretors||||0.012
91751110|NCT02370641|183395666|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was made to week 4 minus baseline change of phylum Proteobacteria abundance between urolithin excretors and non excretors||||0.009
91751111|NCT01719003|183395669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.10|-0.56|0.0056
91751112|NCT01719003|183395669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.48|-0.95|<0.0001
91751113|NCT01719003|183395669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.51|-0.98|<0.0001
91751114|NCT01719003|183395669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.34|-0.81|<0.0001
91751115|NCT01719003|183395669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment||-0.09|-0.56|0.0062
91751116|NCT01719003|183395669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.49|-0.95|<0.0001
91751117|NCT01719003|183395669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.56|-1.03|<0.0001
91751118|NCT01719003|183395669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.40|-0.86|<0.0001
91751119|NCT01719003|183395669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority of empagliflozin 10 mg qd against metformin 1000 mg bid were to be tested for HbA1c change from baseline to Week 24 at the level of α=0.025 (one-sided), through application of a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%.|Adjusted mean|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 25 mg qd minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||0.62|0.15|0.6246
91751120|NCT01719003|183395669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority of empagliflozin 10 mg qd against metformin 1000 mg bid were to be tested for HbA1c change from baseline to Week 24 at the level of α=0.025 (one-sided), through application of a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%.|Adjusted mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 10 mg qd minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||0.63|0.16|0.6558
91881808|NCT01646385|183658324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 1: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline HAQ, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.001
91881809|NCT01646385|183658324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 2: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline HAQ, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.001
91803184|NCT03993132|183484432|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.91|
91881810|NCT01646385|183658324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 3: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline HAQ, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.001
91803185|NCT03993132|183484433|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.18|0.83|
91803186|NCT03993132|183484434|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.16|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.16|0.97|
91803187|NCT03993132|183484435|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.06|0.72|
91803188|NCT03993132|183484436|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.10|0.88|
91803189|NCT03407625|183484486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05|||log binomial regression||||We used generalized estimating equations for the log binomial regression with cluster entered as a random effect.|1.05|0.95|0.86
91803190|NCT01064310|183484541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|49.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.0|61.5||The p value indicates the difference in preference for pazopanib versus sunitinib treatment|Prescotts test||The estimated value indicates the difference in the percentage of participants who preferred pazopanib versus sunitinib. This difference is adjusted for sequence.|||61.5|37.0|<0.001
91881811|NCT03603639|183658339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|3.48||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||3.48|-0.72|
91881812|NCT03603639|183658339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|2.63||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2.63|-0.49|
91881813|NCT03603639|183658340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.54||||||In eye closure condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1.54|-0.75|
91881814|NCT03603639|183658340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.21||||||In eye closure condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1.21|-0.60|
91803191|NCT05147428|183484571|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.04|||Log Rank|||For the primary analysis, we combined all three targeted medication classes (antipsychotics, sedative/hypnotics, or strong anticholinergics). We calculated Kaplan-Meier curves and performed log-rank testing, and estimated hazard ratios using Cox proportional hazards modeling, censoring at death or disenrollment from the health plan, or at the end of the 6-month study observation period, whichever came first. The index date for the survival analysis was the end of the 3-month blackout period.||1.04|0.94|0.76
91803192|NCT05147428|183484572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.33
91803193|NCT05147428|183484573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.55
91803194|NCT05147428|183484574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.47
91803195|NCT05147428|183484575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.66
91881815|NCT03603639|183658340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|4.39||||||In eyes closed condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||4.39|-1.16|
91881816|NCT03603639|183658340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|2.98||||||In eyes closed condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2.98|-0.89|
91881817|NCT03603639|183658340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|2.28||||||In eyes open condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2.28|-1.87|
91881818|NCT03603639|183658340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|3.11||||||In eyes open condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||3.11|-0.57|
91751121|NCT01719003|183395670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-12.2||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-12.2|-25.5|<0.0001
91803196|NCT05147428|183484577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.19
91803197|NCT05147428|183484578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.46
91803198|NCT05147428|183484579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.79
91803199|NCT00381485|183484593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91803200|NCT00381485|183484593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91881819|NCT00858247|183658363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
91803201|NCT00745823|183484598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 800 mg q.d. dosage was considered non-inferior to 400 mg b.i.d. if the lower bound of the 2-sided exact 95% CI for difference in response rate remained above -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-0.83|-10.7|0.044
91881820|NCT00858247|183658364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.80
91881821|NCT00858247|183658365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.65
91881822|NCT00858247|183658366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.68
91803202|NCT00745823|183484599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 800 mg q.d. dosage was considered non-inferior to 400 mg b.i.d. if the lower bound of the 2-sided exact 95% CI for difference in response rate remained above -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-1.06|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-1.06|-9.29|0.011
91803203|NCT00745823|183484600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||4.6|-5.0|
91803204|NCT00745823|183484601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-1.3|
91803205|NCT00745823|183484602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|34.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||34.40|-7.29|
91803206|NCT01206660|183484613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91803207|NCT01206660|183484614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91803208|NCT01206660|183484615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91803209|NCT01633853|183484616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blood levels of calcium at the 24th month of following up were compared to the levels of the baseline both in group Vitamin D2.||||0.117
91803210|NCT01633853|183484616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blood levels of calcium at the 24th month of following up were compared to the levels of the baseline in group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3.||||0.309
91803211|NCT01633853|183484616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|||||t=-0.593|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood calcium at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||0.554
91803212|NCT01633853|183484617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood 25(OH)Vitamin D were compared between the 24th month and the baseline in group Vitamin D2.||||<0.001
91803213|NCT01633853|183484617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood 25(OH)Vitamin D were compared between the 24th month and the baseline in group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3.||||<0.001
91881823|NCT00858247|183658367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.40
91881824|NCT00858247|183658368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
91881825|NCT02165397|183658369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.42||The treatment effect was tested with a stratified log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were based on a Cox regression model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|||0.420|0.148|< 0.0001
91881826|NCT02165397|183658370|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|2.526|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.753|3.639||Response rate was compared using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.639|1.753|< 0.0001
91881827|NCT02165397|183658371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.212||P-value is from a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using a stratified Cox regression model.|||0.212|0.049|< 0.0001
91881828|NCT02165397|183658372|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.813|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.357|2.421|||Chi-squared|||||2.421|1.357|< 0.0001
91751122|NCT01719003|183395670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-16.3||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-16.3|-29.7|<0.0001
91751123|NCT01719003|183395670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-20.0||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-20.0|-33.5|<0.0001
91751124|NCT01719003|183395670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-9.2||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-9.2|-22.8|<0.0001
91751125|NCT01719003|183395670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-8.9||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG of double-blind treatment||-8.9|-22.3|<0.0001
91751126|NCT01719003|183395670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-8.2||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-8.2|-21.4|<0.0001
91751127|NCT01719003|183395670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-21.5||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-21.5|-35.0|<0.0001
91751128|NCT01719003|183395670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-6.0||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-6.0|-19.1|0.0002
91751129|NCT01719003|183395671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-1.68||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-1.68|-3.33|<0.0001
91751130|NCT01719003|183395671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-1.69||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-1.69|-3.35|<0.0001
91751131|NCT01719003|183395671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.37||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment||-1.37|-3.03|<0.0001
91751132|NCT01719003|183395671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.43||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-1.43|-3.09|<0.0001
91751133|NCT02370095|183395672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2416|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Only one placebo subject had data to allow for change from baseline to be calculated||||0.2416
91751134|NCT02370095|183395673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The change in S/F ratio over time was evaluated using a mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.06
91751135|NCT02370095|183395674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0679
91751136|NCT02370095|183395679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Measurement of MAP were evaluated from baseline to end of treatment||||||0.567
91751137|NCT02370095|183395680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2507||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2507
91751138|NCT02370095|183395682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5055|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5055
91751139|NCT00700102|183395685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.69|0.0062
91751140|NCT00700102|183395686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05|||Log Rank|||Kaplan Meier Estimate||1.05|0.77|0.1713
91751141|NCT00700102|183395688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.59|<.0001
91751142|NCT00700102|183395689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5|||Chi-squared|||||4.5|-1.5|0.3113
91751143|NCT00700102|183395689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4315|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4315
91751144|NCT02130986|183395697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91751145|NCT02130986|183395698|NON_INFERIORITY|Procalcitonin algorithm implementation increases or does not change the proportion of subjects who experience a composite endpoint of adverse outcomes by Day 30. The prespecified noninferiority margin is 4.5 percentage.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91751146|NCT02130986|183395699|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|30.0||||||||30|-12.2|
91751147|NCT00762996|183395714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"margin +/- 0.5 logMar lines~The range of non-inferiority for this value is 0.50 thus +/- 0.50 is considered non-inferior to the 0.0 mark.~logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMar) ideal is 0.0 and represents 20/20 Snellen acuity. logMar values \> 0.00 indicate vision poorer than the ideal and values \<0.00 indicate vision greater than the ideal."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00976||||95.0|-0.01389|0.2447|||Mixed Models Analysis||logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMar) ideal is 0.0 and represents 20/20 Snellen acuity. logMar values \> 0.00 indicate vision poorer than the ideal and values \<0.00 indicate vision greater than the ideal.|Null Hypothesis: etafilcon A is greater than or equal to omafilcon A.||0.2447|-0.01389|
91751148|NCT00762996|183395715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2505||||95.0|0.05563|0.4757|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|||0.4757|0.05563|
91751149|NCT00657150|183395719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 7.7%|Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.79|1.64||Superiority p-value = 0.4367|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.64|-3.79|< 0.0001
91751150|NCT00657150|183395720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.91||||0.029||95.0|-3.64|-0.19|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||||-0.19|-3.64|0.029
91751151|NCT00657150|183395721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.79||||0.0358||95.0|-3.47|-0.12|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||-0.12|-3.47|0.0358
91751152|NCT00657150|183395722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.96||||0.4839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|1.73|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.73|-3.65|0.4839
91751153|NCT00657150|183395723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0612||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0612
91751154|NCT00657150|183395724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6231||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.6231
91751155|NCT00657150|183395725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4977||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.4977
91751156|NCT00657150|183395726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.6870
91751157|NCT00657150|183395727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin for the category major bleeding events||||0.4022
91751158|NCT00657150|183395727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|0.8||||0.3305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution||Absolute difference versus Enoxaparin for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||2.3|-0.8|0.3305
91751159|NCT00657150|183395727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|1.4||||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.9|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution||Absolute difference versus Enoxaparin for the category any bleeding events||3.9|-1.1|0.2626
91751160|NCT02649192|183395732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG1 at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
91751161|NCT02649192|183395732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG1 at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.49
91751162|NCT02649192|183395732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG1 at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.50
91751163|NCT02649192|183395732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG2 at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
91751164|NCT02649192|183395732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG2 at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.76
91751165|NCT02649192|183395732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG2 at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.65
91751166|NCT02649192|183395732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG3 at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
91751167|NCT02649192|183395732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG3 at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.76
91751168|NCT02649192|183395732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG3 at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.54
91751169|NCT02649192|183395732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgM at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
91751170|NCT02649192|183395732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgM at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.95
91751171|NCT02649192|183395732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgM at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.34
91751172|NCT02649192|183395733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H1N1||0|0|
91751173|NCT02649192|183395733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|6.2|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H1N1||6.2|-51.7|
91751174|NCT02649192|183395733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|26.5|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H1N1||26.5|-49.4|
91751175|NCT02649192|183395733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.1|56.1|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H3N2||56.1|-70.1|
91751176|NCT02649192|183395733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|20.6|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H3N2||20.6|-38.8|
91751177|NCT02649192|183395733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|57.9|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H3N2||57.9|-17.5|
91751178|NCT02649192|183395733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Phuket||0|0|
91751179|NCT02649192|183395733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-26.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|5.8|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Phuket||5.8|-54.1|
91751180|NCT02649192|183395733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|53.3|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Phuket||53.3|-23.1|
91751181|NCT02649192|183395733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Brisbane||0|0|
91907941|NCT01324232|183711398|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.549|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.41||||||||1.41|-4.71|
91751182|NCT02649192|183395733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-26.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|5.8|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Brisbane||5.8|-54.1|
91751183|NCT02649192|183395733|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|30.5|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Brisbane||30.5|-45.4|
91751184|NCT03849690|183395737|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on natural log(ln)-transformed TAK-906 Cmax which exponentiated to provide estimates on original scale. ANOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Each ANOVA included calculation of least-squares means(LSM) and difference between treatment LSM. Geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence interval (CI) were determined by exponentiation of appropriate estimates for difference between treatments in log-transformed parameters.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.09|||ANOVA|||||1.09|0.70|0.3011
91751185|NCT03849690|183395738|OTHER|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed TAK-906 AUClast which were exponentiated to provide estimates on original scale. ANOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Each ANOVA included calculation of LSM and difference between treatment LSM. Geometric mean ratios and 90 percent (%) CI were determined by exponentiation of appropriate estimates for difference between treatments in log-transformed parameters.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.99|||ANOVA|||||0.99|0.77|0.0865
91751186|NCT03849690|183395739|OTHER|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed TAK-906 AUC∞ which were exponentiated to provide estimates on original scale. ANOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Each ANOVA included calculation of LSM and difference between treatment LSM. Geometric mean ratios and 90% CI were determined by exponentiation of appropriate estimates for difference between treatments in log-transformed parameters.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.00|0.78|0.3011
91751187|NCT01319721|183395744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91751188|NCT01319721|183395745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91751189|NCT01319721|183395746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91751190|NCT01319721|183395747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91751191|NCT01319721|183395748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91751192|NCT00468845|183395754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1378||95.0||||Weighted Z-score test method of Fisher (1998) and Cui et al (1999)applied to maintain alpha level. A step down procedure for multiple comparisons to control the maximum experiment wise type I error rate at 0.05 level. 300mg tested prior to 150mg.|ANOVA|||||||0.1378
91751193|NCT00468845|183395754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.471||95.0||||Weighted Z-score test method of Fisher (1998) and Cui et al (1999)applied to maintain alpha level. A step down procedure for multiple comparisons to control the maximum experiment wise type I error rate at 0.05 level. 300mg tested prior to 150mg.|ANOVA|||||||0.4710
91751194|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7752||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.7752
91751195|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3375||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.3375
91803214|NCT01633853|183484617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.001, t=-14.982.|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood 25(OH) Vitamin D at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||<0.001
91881829|NCT02165397|183658373|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.238||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.603||CMH chi squared test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.603|0.955|0.1059
91881830|NCT02165397|183658374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.808||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|1.99||P-value is from unstratified log rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|Data cutoff 18 December 2019||1.99|0.328|0.643
91881831|NCT01898442|183658397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
91751196|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7029||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.7029
91751197|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8618||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.8618
91751198|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2117||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2117
91751199|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6255||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.6255
91751200|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0942||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.0942
91751201|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9907||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.9907
91751202|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4678||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.4678
91751203|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.5500
91751204|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9333||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.9333
91751205|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7396||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.7396
91751206|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2932||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.2932
91751207|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0164||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.0164
91751208|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2468||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.2468
91751209|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7022||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.7022
91881832|NCT02725008|183658408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|10.07|||Chi-squared|||||10.07|0.54|0.3
91751210|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7257||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.7257
91751211|NCT00468845|183395755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3854||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.3854
91751212|NCT00468845|183395756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5997||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.5997
91751213|NCT00468845|183395756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8582||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.8582
91751214|NCT00468845|183395756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3704||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.3704
91751215|NCT00468845|183395756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9747||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.9747
91751216|NCT00468845|183395756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2033||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2033
91751217|NCT00468845|183395756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2752||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2752
91751218|NCT00468845|183395756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0183||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.0183
91751219|NCT00468845|183395756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6906||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.6906
91751220|NCT00468845|183395756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5446||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.5446
91751221|NCT00468845|183395756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4852||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.4852
91803215|NCT01633853|183484618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||Chi-square value=0.099|Chi-squared|||||||0.753
91803216|NCT01633853|183484619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood phosphorus were compared between the 24th month of following up and the baseline in group Vitamin D2.||||<0.001
91881833|NCT02725008|183658409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91881834|NCT00702546|183658410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|0.7||||||Treatment groups were compared with a generalized linear model for the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate including covariates treatment group, age class (\< 32 yrs vs. ≥ 32 yrs), planned IVF treatment (IVF vs. ICSI) and region (Europe vs. Asia).||0.7|-19.5|
91881835|NCT03783546|183658417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
91751222|NCT00468845|183395756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5879||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.5879
91751223|NCT00468845|183395756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7699||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.7699
91803217|NCT01633853|183484619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood phosphorus were compared between the 24th month of following up and the baseline in group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3, respectively.||||<0.001
91803218|NCT01633853|183484619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|||||t=0.394|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood phosphorus at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||0.694
91803219|NCT01633853|183484620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood iPTH were compared between the 24th month and the baseline in group Vitamin D2.||||0.179
91803220|NCT01633853|183484620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood iPTH were compared between the 24th month and the baseline group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3, respectively.||||0.106
91881836|NCT03783546|183658419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91751224|NCT00468845|183395757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9676||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.9676
91751225|NCT00468845|183395757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4944||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.4944
91751226|NCT00468845|183395758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4801||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.4801
91881837|NCT04522778|183658486|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A ratio of events per month was calculated for each participant. Participants were compared to themselves prior to intervention (i.e. event ratios pre intervention were compared to event ratios following intervention.)||||.029
91881838|NCT04522778|183658487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A ratio of events per month was calculated for each participant. Participants were compared to themselves prior to intervention (i.e. event ratios pre intervention were compared to event ratios following intervention.)||||.35
91881839|NCT04522778|183658488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.334
91881840|NCT04522778|183658489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.195||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.926154|500.4402|||Chi-squared|||||500.4402|2.926154|.005
91881841|NCT04522778|183658490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.73483||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|297.17|||Chi-squared|||||297.17|3.22|.003
91751227|NCT00468845|183395758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8832||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.8832
91751228|NCT00468845|183395759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2125||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 Hours PS||||0.2125
91751229|NCT00468845|183395759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7602||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 Hour PS||||0.7602
91751230|NCT00468845|183395759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4053||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 Hours PS||||0.4053
91751231|NCT00468845|183395759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4147||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 Hours PS||||0.4147
91751232|NCT00468845|183395759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5556||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 Hours PS||||0.5556
91803221|NCT01633853|183484620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|||||t=-0.736|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood iPTH at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||0.463
91751233|NCT00468845|183395759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.482||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 Hours PS||||0.4820
91751234|NCT00468845|183395759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5088||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 Hours PS||||0.5088
91803222|NCT01258582|183484629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in the acceptance rates|-0.022||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.023|||Chi-squared|The difference in the acceptance rates was estimated along with 95% confidence intervals and tested using the chi-square test.||Sample size was chosen to detect a 10% difference in acceptance rates between two testing modality arms (90% power, 0.05 level of significance).||0.023|-0.067|0.34
91803223|NCT01034631|183484707|OTHER|||||||0.6625|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.6625
91803224|NCT01292746|183484723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|2 sided t-test for correlated samples.||||||<0.05
91803225|NCT01227434|183484731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact binomial distribution|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact binomial distribution|||Compared to historical estimates of PFS-6 months. With 30 patients, there would be 90% power to detect an improvement in the PFS-6 months rate from 10% (historical estimate) to 30% based on a one-sided exact test with alpha=0.1.||||0.10
91881842|NCT04522778|183658491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.72||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|265.45|||Chi-squared|||||265.45|2.82|.004
91881843|NCT04522778|183658492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.345||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|69.82|||Chi-squared|||||69.82|1.71|.011
91881844|NCT04522778|183658493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2189||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0706|1.258|||Chi-squared|||||1.258|.0706|.099
91881845|NCT04522778|183658494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|6.562|||Chi-squared|||||6.562|.549|.312
91881846|NCT04522778|183658495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.022||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|20.623|||Chi-squared|||||20.623|.112|.753
91881847|NCT04522778|183658496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|1.541|||Chi-squared|||||1.541|.067|.156
91881848|NCT04522778|183658497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|2.122|||Chi-squared|||||2.122|.099|.318
91907942|NCT01324232|183711399|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1404|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the true correlation between NRS scores and DM plasma concentration is equal to zero. Only 158 of the 209 participants in the mITT Population were analyzed at Day 22.||||=0.1404
91907943|NCT01324232|183711399|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the true correlation between NRS scores and DM plasma concentration is equal to zero. Only 152 of the 209 participants in the mITT Population were analyzed at Day 50.||||=0.0805
91751235|NCT00468845|183395759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 Hours PS||||0.3900
91751236|NCT00468845|183395759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9659||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 Hours PS||||0.9659
91751237|NCT00468845|183395759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3968||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 Hours PS||||0.3968
91751238|NCT00468845|183395759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8308||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 Hours PS||||0.8308
91751239|NCT00468845|183395759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0902||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 Hours PS||||0.0902
91751240|NCT00468845|183395760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4388||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.4388
91751241|NCT00468845|183395760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3364||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.3364
91751242|NCT00468845|183395761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2409||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.2409
91881849|NCT04522778|183658498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|21.003|||Chi-squared|||||21.003|.009|.684
91751243|NCT00468845|183395761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1654||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.1654
91751244|NCT00468845|183395761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.1110
91751245|NCT00468845|183395761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0598||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.0598
91751246|NCT00468845|183395761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0398||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.0398
91881850|NCT04522778|183658499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.683||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|22.194|||Chi-squared|||||22.194|.246|.460
91881851|NCT04522778|183658500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47293||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.279|18.927|||Chi-squared|||||18.927|.279|.439
91881852|NCT04522778|183658501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.187||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|22.514|||Chi-squared|||||22.514|.119|.714
91907944|NCT01324232|183711399|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0551|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the true correlation between NRS scores and DM plasma concentration is equal to zero. Only 185 of the 209 participants in the mITT Population were analyzed at Day 85.||||=0.0551
91751247|NCT00468845|183395761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0623||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.0623
91751248|NCT00468845|183395762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||0-24 Hours PS||||0.2730
91751249|NCT00468845|183395762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1015||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||0-24 Hours PS||||0.1015
91751250|NCT00468845|183395762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2438||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24-48 Hours PS||||0.2438
91751251|NCT00468845|183395762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0102||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24-48 Hours PS||||0.0102
91751252|NCT00468845|183395762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2063||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48-72 Hours PS||||0.2063
91803226|NCT03486223|183484736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for the within-subject comparison of GSK2256294 versus placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A sample size of 16 per group was estimated to have 86% power to detect a within-subject difference of 3.76 (80% of the above difference) or larger (with an SD for the within-subject difference of 4.6) in insulin sensitivity.||||0.71
91751253|NCT00468845|183395762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0387||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48-72 Hours PS||||0.0387
91751254|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5995||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.5995
91881853|NCT04522778|183658502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|3.842|||Chi-squared|||||3.842|.037|.412
91881854|NCT04522778|183658503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|3.582|||Chi-squared|||||3.582|.094|.558
91881855|NCT04522778|183658504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|3.9|||Chi-squared|||||3.90|.121|.673
91881856|NCT04522778|183658505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|2.406|||Chi-squared|||||2.406|.189|.544
91881857|NCT04522778|183658506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.631||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|10.278|||Chi-squared|||||10.278|.345|.464
91751255|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9104||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 Hours PS||||0.9104
91751256|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2177||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 Hours PS||||0.2177
91751257|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.1770
91751258|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1229||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.1229
91751259|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1274||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.1274
91751260|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0568||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.0568
91751261|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0354||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.0354
91751262|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4269||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.4269
91751263|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2058||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.2058
91751264|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8215||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.8215
91751265|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5331||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.5331
91751266|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7365||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.7365
91751267|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9989||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.9989
91751268|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2501||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.2501
91751269|NCT00468845|183395763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6021||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.6021
91751270|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6613||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (prior to first dose)||||0.6613
91751271|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1311||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (prior to first dose)||||0.1311
91751272|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6574||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (1 hour after dosing)||||0.6574
91751273|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6949||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (1 hour after dosing)||||0.6949
91751274|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2008||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.2008
91751275|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3022||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.3022
91751276|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6382||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.6382
91751277|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8624||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.8624
91751278|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3858||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.3858
91751279|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4814||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.4814
91751280|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.952||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.9520
91751281|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2315||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.2315
91751282|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7061||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.7061
91751283|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2908||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.2908
91751284|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4782||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.4782
91751285|NCT00468845|183395764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.813||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.8130
91751286|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.894||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.8940
91751287|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5938||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.5938
91881858|NCT04522778|183658507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.675||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|40.854|||Chi-squared|||||40.854|.766|.090
91881859|NCT04522778|183658508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|9.114|||Chi-squared|||||9.114|.107|.991
91881860|NCT04522778|183658509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.027||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|43.326|||Chi-squared|||||43.326|.415|.223
91881861|NCT04522778|183658510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.496||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|20.348|||Chi-squared|||||20.348|.238|.488
91751288|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4306||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.4306
91751289|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5899||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.5899
91751290|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2209||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2209
91751291|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7145||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.7145
91751292|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1022||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.1022
91751293|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7243||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.7243
91751294|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.2310
91751295|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9192||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.9192
91751296|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3214||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.3214
91881862|NCT04522778|183658511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0424|0.743|||Chi-squared|||||.743|.0424|.018
91751297|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8641||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.8641
91881863|NCT04522778|183658512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.358||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|37.379|||Chi-squared|||||37.379|.364|.269
91751298|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3024||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.3024
91751299|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7359||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.7359
91751300|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4303||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.4303
91751301|NCT00468845|183395765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2133||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.2133
91881864|NCT04522778|183658513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.829||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|24.84|||Chi-squared|||||24.84|.728|.108
91751302|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5682||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 hours PS||||0.5682
91751303|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1005||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 hours PS||||0.1005
91751304|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8261||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 hours PS||||0.8261
91751305|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9981||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 hours PS||||0.9981
91751306|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8884||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.8884
91751307|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4507||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.4507
91751308|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2994||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 hours PS||||0.2994
91751309|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4371||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 hours PS||||0.4371
91751310|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8295||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 hours PS||||0.8295
91751311|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8783||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 hours PS||||0.8783
91751312|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2161||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.2161
91881865|NCT04522778|183658514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|18.157|||Chi-squared|||||18.157|.737|.113
91881866|NCT04522778|183658515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.156||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|6.202|||Chi-squared|||||6.202|1.004|.049
91881867|NCT00953199|183658566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||.05 was set as level of significance|Chi-squared|||We calculated the sample size to be 570 in each arm, providing 80% power, allocation 1:1, two-sided, alpha 0.05, withdrawal rate of 3% and a reduction in pancreatitis from 8% to 4%. Randomization is performed with permuted blocks of 20. Analysis is based on intention to treat.||||.45
91889107|NCT03197766|183670955|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.506||||||Confirmatory statistical testing controlling for the Type I error rate was performed on the primary analyses for the two key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|Missing assessments at Week 52 were imputed||||||= 0.506
91803227|NCT02417831|183484749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio|105.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.81|112.08|||||The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation. Ratio calculated as test divided by reference.|||112.08|99.81|
91803228|NCT02417831|183484750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio|101.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.71|105.23|||||The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation. Ratio calculated as test divided by reference.|||105.23|97.71|
91803229|NCT02417831|183484751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio|101.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.81|105.17|||||The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation. Ratio calculated as test divided by reference.|||105.17|97.81|
91803230|NCT01144286|183484758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||response rate (%)|80.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Significance level was set to α of 0.05 if the primary endpoint was significant, hierarchical testing was to be performed on the primary endpoint (each active dose X placebo). No other adjustment was made for testing multiple secondary outcomes.|Regression, Logistic|||"Primary analysis is the dose response at TOC based on the global therapeutic cure. Dose response will be tested using a logistic regression using linear coefficient for the treatment effect(Wald chi-square).~Assuming that the response rate is 80% for 600 mg, 75% for the 300 mg, 65% for 150 mg and 50% for the placebo group, a sample size of 45 subjects in each group will have 90% power to detect a linear dose response using a 0.05 two-sided test of trend based on the logistic model."||||0.0630
91751313|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.0440
91751314|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3855||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||56 hours PS||||0.3855
91751315|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.201||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||56 hours PS||||0.2010
91751316|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7104||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||64 hours PS||||0.7104
91751317|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6107||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||64 hours PS||||0.6107
91751318|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6705||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.6705
91751319|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2083||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2083
91751320|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3234||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||80 hours PS||||0.3234
91751321|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5938||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||80 hours PS||||0.5938
91751322|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9711||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||88 hours PS||||0.9711
91751323|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4869||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||88 hours PS||||0.4869
91751324|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7439||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.7439
91751325|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8045||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.8045
91751326|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5925||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||104 hours PS||||0.5925
91751327|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.683||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||104 hours PS||||0.6830
91751328|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8266||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||112 hours PS||||0.8266
91751329|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1929||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||112 hours PS||||0.1929
91751330|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7071||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.7071
91751331|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9367||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.9367
91751332|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6046||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||128 hours PS||||0.6046
91803231|NCT00590720|183484763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.40
91889108|NCT00305344|183670966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference between AUC C-peptide at baseline and 1 or 2 years post cord blood infusion||||>0.05
91751333|NCT00468845|183395766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5119||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||128 hours PS||||0.5119
91803232|NCT00590720|183484764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||<0.01
91803233|NCT00590720|183484765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.53
91803234|NCT00590720|183484766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.22
91803235|NCT00590720|183484767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.16
91803236|NCT00590720|183484768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.52
91803237|NCT02527161|183484791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91751334|NCT00468845|183395767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6966||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.6966
91751335|NCT00468845|183395767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1808||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.1808
91751336|NCT00468845|183395767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2616||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.2616
91751337|NCT00468845|183395767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1014||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.1014
91751338|NCT00468845|183395767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4401||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.4401
91751339|NCT00468845|183395767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5615||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.5615
91751340|NCT00468845|183395767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7615||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.7615
91751341|NCT00468845|183395767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6204||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.6204
91751342|NCT00468845|183395767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8766||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.8766
91751343|NCT00468845|183395767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1717||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.1717
91751344|NCT00468845|183395767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4065||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.4065
91751345|NCT00468845|183395767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0746||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.0746
91751346|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2201||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.2201
91751347|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0606||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.0606
91751348|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5303||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.5303
91751349|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2227||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.2227
91751350|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8237||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.8237
91751351|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7476||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.7476
91751352|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6882||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.6882
91751353|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9689||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.9689
91751354|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.501||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.5010
91751355|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9143||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.9143
91751356|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7381||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.7381
91751357|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5336||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.5336
91751358|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6479||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.6479
91751359|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1133||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.1133
91751360|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7637||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.7637
91751361|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1056||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.1056
91751362|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8079||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.8079
91751363|NCT00468845|183395768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0917||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.0917
91751364|NCT00468845|183395769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7511||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.7511
91751365|NCT00468845|183395769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6742||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6742
91751366|NCT00468845|183395769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3808||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.3808
91751367|NCT00468845|183395769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7021||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.7021
91751368|NCT00468845|183395769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0045
91751369|NCT00468845|183395769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7916||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.7916
91751370|NCT00468845|183395769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3682||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.3682
91751371|NCT00468845|183395769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1419||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.1419
91751372|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3323||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.3323
91751373|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5662||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.5662
91751374|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9538||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.9538
91751375|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4592||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.4592
91751376|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4793||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.4793
91751377|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8517||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.8517
91751378|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1829||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.1829
91751379|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3544||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.3544
91751380|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1718||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.1718
91751381|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5078||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.5078
91751382|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2443||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.2443
91751383|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8296||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.8296
91751384|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3243||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.3243
91751385|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3755||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.3755
91751386|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9584||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.9584
91751387|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1187||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.1187
91751388|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7915||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.7915
91751389|NCT00468845|183395770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0703||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.0703
91751390|NCT00468845|183395771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1975||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge;||||0.1975
91751391|NCT00468845|183395771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2784||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge;||||0.2784
91751392|NCT00468845|183395771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0271||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0271
91751393|NCT00468845|183395771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0881||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0881
91751394|NCT00468845|183395771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0159||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0159
91751395|NCT00468845|183395771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.187||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.1870
91751396|NCT00468845|183395771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1752||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.1752
91751397|NCT00468845|183395771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6923||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.6923
91751398|NCT00468845|183395774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6295||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6295
91751399|NCT00468845|183395774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.689||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6890
91751400|NCT00468845|183395774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5094||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.5094
91751401|NCT00468845|183395774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8741||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.8741
91751402|NCT00468845|183395774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0214||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0214
91751403|NCT00468845|183395774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9366||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.9366
91881868|NCT01024036|183658568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in the response rate|34.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factor: corticosteroid use||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the durable tumor and symptomatic response rate between the 2 treatment arms||54.8|11.1|0.0012
91881869|NCT01024036|183658568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in the response rate|34.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|54.8|||Fisher Exact|Without adjusting for the stratification factor: corticosteroid use||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the durable tumor and symptomatic response rate between the 2 treatment arms||54.8|11.1|0.0004
91751404|NCT00468845|183395774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7833||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.7833
91751405|NCT00468845|183395774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2983||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.2983
91751406|NCT00468845|183395777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6861||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery Day||||0.6861
91751407|NCT00468845|183395777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9905||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery Day||||0.9905
91751408|NCT00468845|183395778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4264||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.4264
91751409|NCT00468845|183395778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3045||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.3045
91751410|NCT00468845|183395779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0714||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.0714
91751411|NCT00468845|183395779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4455||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.4455
91751412|NCT00468845|183395780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7418||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.7418
91751413|NCT00468845|183395780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5154||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.5154
91751414|NCT00468845|183395781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6715||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.6715
91751415|NCT00468845|183395781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9013||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.9013
91751416|NCT00468845|183395782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9126||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.9126
91751417|NCT00468845|183395782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||1.0000
91881870|NCT01024036|183658570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in overall response rates|33.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.8|11.1|0.0022
91751418|NCT00468845|183395783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1233||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.1233
91751419|NCT00468845|183395783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1666||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.1666
91751420|NCT00468845|183395784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0361||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0361
91751421|NCT00468845|183395784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0797||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0797
91751422|NCT00468845|183395785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0206
91751423|NCT00468845|183395785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0011
91751424|NCT00468845|183395787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3506||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours||||0.3506
91751425|NCT00468845|183395788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0287||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.0287
91751426|NCT00468845|183395788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.2270
91751427|NCT00468845|183395789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1872||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Discharge||||0.1872
91751428|NCT00468845|183395789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3994||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Discharge||||0.3994
91751429|NCT00468845|183395789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0422||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Day 28||||0.0422
91751430|NCT00468845|183395789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3647||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Day 28||||0.3647
91751431|NCT00468845|183395789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1729||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Discharge||||0.1729
91751432|NCT00468845|183395789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2234||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Discharge||||0.2234
91751433|NCT00468845|183395789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.095||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Day 28||||0.0950
91881871|NCT01024036|183658572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.815|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI from a Cox proportional hazards model|||0.815|0.214|0.0084
91751434|NCT00468845|183395789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4345||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Day 28||||0.4345
91751435|NCT00468845|183395789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Discharge||||0.2840
91751436|NCT00468845|183395789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6404||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Discharge||||0.6404
91803238|NCT02527161|183484792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS Pain||||<0.0001
91803239|NCT02527161|183484792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS Pain||||0.0013
91803240|NCT02527161|183484792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3316|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS Pain||||0.3316
91803241|NCT02527161|183484792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3366|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS Pain||||0.3366
91881872|NCT01024036|183658573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of hemoglobin response rates|61.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|85.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in hemoglobin response rates is equal to hemoglobin response rate for siltuximab+best supportive care \[BSC\] arm minus hemoglobin response rate for Placebo+BSC arm.|||85.1|28.3|0.0002
91881873|NCT01024036|183658574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of hemoglobin response rates|41.9||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|70.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in hemoglobin response rates is equal to hemoglobin response rate for siltuximab+best supportive care \[BSC\] arm minus hemoglobin response rate for Placebo+BSC arm.|||70.7|7.8|0.0195
91907945|NCT01324232|183711400|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9207|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.9207
91751437|NCT00468845|183395789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Day 28||||0.0550
91881874|NCT00097669|183658600|SUPERIORITY|"We used Kaplan-Meier methods to construct cumulative time-to-event curves for the two groups, with a comparison by use of the log-rank test.~We used a Cox proportional hazard model analysis to control for any potential imbalance in baseline characteristics and follow-up between the two groups."|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.82|0.05
91907946|NCT01265615|183711410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91907947|NCT01265615|183711411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91907948|NCT01265615|183711412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91751438|NCT00468845|183395789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4531||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Day 28||||0.4531
91751439|NCT00468845|183395790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9712||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.9712
91751440|NCT00468845|183395790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0112||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.0112
91751441|NCT00468845|183395790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.0090
91751442|NCT00468845|183395790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.865||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.8650
91751443|NCT00468845|183395791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8914||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Discharge||||0.8914
91751444|NCT00468845|183395791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2214||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Discharge||||0.2214
91803242|NCT02527161|183484792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9826|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS Pain||||0.9826
91803243|NCT02527161|183484792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9276|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS Pain||||0.9276
91803244|NCT02527161|183484793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS Symptoms||||<0.0001
91803245|NCT02527161|183484793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS Symptoms||||0.0736
91803246|NCT02527161|183484793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4675|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS Symptoms||||0.4675
91803247|NCT02527161|183484793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS Symptoms||||0.0229
91803248|NCT02527161|183484793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9968|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS Symptoms||||0.9968
91803249|NCT02527161|183484793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7761|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS Symptoms||||0.7761
91803250|NCT02527161|183484794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS ADL||||<0.0001
91803251|NCT02527161|183484794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS ADL||||0.0212
91803252|NCT02527161|183484794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7173|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS ADL||||0.7173
91803253|NCT02527161|183484794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1834|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS ADL||||0.1834
91803254|NCT02527161|183484794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9957|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS ADL||||0.9957
91803255|NCT02527161|183484794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS ADL||||0.9999
91803256|NCT02527161|183484795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS S\&R||||<0.0001
91803257|NCT02527161|183484795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0522|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS S\&R||||0.0522
91907949|NCT01265615|183711413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91907950|NCT01265615|183711414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91907951|NCT01265615|183711415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91907952|NCT01265615|183711416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91907953|NCT01265615|183711417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91907954|NCT01265615|183711418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91907955|NCT01265615|183711419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91751445|NCT00468845|183395791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1008||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Day 28||||0.1008
91751446|NCT00468845|183395791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9135||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Day 28||||0.9135
91751447|NCT00468845|183395791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5609||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Discharge||||0.5609
91751448|NCT00468845|183395791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4047||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Discharge||||0.4047
91751449|NCT00468845|183395791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1663||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Day 28||||0.1663
91751450|NCT00468845|183395791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8364||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Day 28||||0.8364
91751451|NCT00468845|183395792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7218||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.7218
91751452|NCT00468845|183395792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4425||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.4425
91751453|NCT00468845|183395793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7889||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.7889
91751454|NCT00468845|183395793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1565||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.1565
91751455|NCT00468845|183395794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6211||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Total subscale||||0.6211
91751456|NCT00468845|183395794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3687||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Total subscale||||0.3687
91751457|NCT00468845|183395794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7078||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Burning Spontaneous subscale||||0.7078
91751458|NCT00468845|183395794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8696||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Burning Spontaneous subscale||||0.8696
91751459|NCT00468845|183395794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Pressing Spontaneous subscale||||0.4320
91751460|NCT00468845|183395794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8843||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Pressing Spontaneous subscale||||0.8843
91751461|NCT00468845|183395794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6215||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paroxysmal pain subscale||||0.6215
91751462|NCT00468845|183395794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2722||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paroxysmal pain subscale||||0.2722
91751463|NCT00468845|183395794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Evoked Pain subscale||||0.5500
91751464|NCT00468845|183395794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9942||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Evoked Pain subscale||||0.9942
91751465|NCT00468845|183395794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0075||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paresthesia/dysesthesia||||0.0075
91751466|NCT00468845|183395794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1464||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paresthesia/dysesthesia||||0.1464
91751467|NCT00468845|183395795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9877||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 3 PS.||||0.9877
91751468|NCT00468845|183395795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1334||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 3 PS.||||0.1334
91751469|NCT00468845|183395795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3566||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 6 PS.||||0.3566
91751470|NCT00468845|183395795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6262||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 6 PS.||||0.6262
91751471|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9463||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day;||||0.9463
91751472|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7347||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day;||||0.7347
91751473|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4132||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS;||||0.4132
91751474|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4929||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS;||||0.4929
91751475|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6003||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS;||||0.6003
91803258|NCT02527161|183484795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1696|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS S\&R||||0.1696
91803259|NCT02527161|183484795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6942|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS S\&R||||0.6942
91803260|NCT02527161|183484795|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS S\&R||||>0.9999
91803261|NCT02527161|183484795|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS S\&R||||>0.9999
91803262|NCT02527161|183484796|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS QoL||||<0.0001
91803263|NCT02527161|183484796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0135|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS QoL||||0.0135
91803264|NCT02527161|183484796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0829|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS QoL||||0.0829
91803265|NCT02527161|183484796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS QoL||||0.1729
91881875|NCT00097669|183658600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||Regression, Cox|Analysis before adjusting for any potential imbalance in the baseline characteristics and follow-up duration between the groups.||||1.00|0.81|<0.05
91881876|NCT00097669|183658600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Analysis after adjusting for any potential imbalance in the baseline characteristics and follow-up duration between the groups.||||1.03|0.81|<0.05
91881877|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The first blood samples from both groups were collected before cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.377
91751476|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9343||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS;||||0.9343
91751477|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3838||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS;||||0.3838
91751478|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1351||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS;||||0.1351
91751479|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3343||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS;||||0.3343
91751480|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7948||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS;||||0.7948
91751481|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.809||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS;||||0.8090
91751482|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4035||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS;||||0.4035
91751483|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6009||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6009
91803266|NCT02527161|183484796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9687|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS QoL||||0.9687
91803267|NCT02527161|183484796|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS QoL||||>0.9999
91803268|NCT02527161|183484797|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks SF-12 PCS||||<0.0001
91803269|NCT02527161|183484797|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months SF-12 PCS||||<0.0001
91803270|NCT02527161|183484797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8189|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months SF-12 PCS||||0.8189
91803271|NCT02527161|183484797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9845|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year SF-12 PCS||||0.9845
91803272|NCT02527161|183484797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year SF-12 PCS||||0.7500
91803273|NCT02527161|183484797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1376|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year SF-12 PCS||||0.1376
91803274|NCT02527161|183484798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 week VAS Rest||||<0.0001
91803275|NCT02527161|183484798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months VAS Rest||||0.0031
91803276|NCT02527161|183484798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months VAS Rest||||0.2990
91803277|NCT02527161|183484798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9832|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year VAS Rest||||0.9832
91803278|NCT02527161|183484798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9991|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year VAS Rest||||0.9991
91803279|NCT02527161|183484798|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year VAS Rest||||>0.9999
91803280|NCT02527161|183484799|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks VAS Mob||||<0.0001
91803281|NCT02527161|183484799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months VAS Mob||||0.0062
91803282|NCT02527161|183484799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months VAS Mob||||0.3730
91803283|NCT02527161|183484799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8499|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year VAS Mob||||0.8499
91803284|NCT02527161|183484799|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year VAS Mob||||>0.9999
91803285|NCT02527161|183484799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9958|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year VAS Mob||||0.9958
91803286|NCT02527161|183484800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3493|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks SF-12 MCS||||0.3493
91803287|NCT02527161|183484800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months SF-12 MCS||||0.4800
91803288|NCT02527161|183484800|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
91803289|NCT02527161|183484800|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
91881878|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected from both groups on arrival of intensive care unit.||||0.051
91881879|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The blood samples from both groups were collected 24 hours after Operation.||||0.282
91881880|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. These blood samples were collected 48 hours after cardiopulmonary Bypass.||||0.277
91907956|NCT01732796|183711420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|81.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|86.2|||Stratified one sample z-test||Adjusted response rate will tested against 71%. It is calculated as a weighted average (non-cirrhotic: 89% times response rate+ cirrhotic: 11% times response rate), 11% is the highest rate of cirrhotic from historical trials with approved DAA+PegIFN|The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with pegylated interferon-alfa (PegIFN) from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible).||86.2|76.6|<0.0001
91881881|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected from both groups 72 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.308
91881882|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The first blood samples were collected before cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.211
91881883|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected on arrival of intensive care unit.||||0.004
91881884|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 24 hours after operation.||||0.221
91907957|NCT01732796|183711420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|71.7||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|77.4|||Stratified one sample z-test||Adjusted response rate will tested against 71%. It is calculated as a weighted average (non-cirrhotic: 89% times response rate+ cirrhotic: 11% times response rate), 11% is the highest rate of cirrhotic from historical trials with approved DAA+PegIFN|The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with pegylated interferon-alfa (PegIFN) from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible).||77.4|66.1|0.3989
91907958|NCT01732796|183711421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method with continuity correction|10.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|18.8|||z-test|based on two sample z-test with continuity correction for variance.||||18.8|2.8|0.0040
91907959|NCT01732796|183711422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method with continuity correction|6.0||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|13.5|||z-test|based on two sample z-test with continuity correction for variance.||Category: Percentage of patient with response||13.5|-1.5|0.0575
91751484|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7597||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.7597
91751485|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7804||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.7804
91751486|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0463||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0463
91751487|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4951||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.4951
91881885|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 48 hours after operation.||||0.796
91881886|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 72 hours after operation.||||0.463
91751488|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.303||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.3030
91881887|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The first blood samples were collected before cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.118
91907960|NCT01732796|183711423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method with continuity correction|9.9||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|18.1|||z-test|based on two sample z-test with continuity correction for variance.||Category: Percentage of patient with response||18.1|1.7|0.0089
91751489|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.0104
91751490|NCT00468845|183395796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6978||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.6978
91803290|NCT02527161|183484800|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
91803291|NCT02527161|183484800|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
91803292|NCT02527161|183484801|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KSS Pain||||<0.0001
91881888|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected on arrival of intensive care unit.||||0.0001
91881889|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected one hour after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.0001
91881890|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected four hours after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.0001
91889109|NCT01460225|183670967|EQUIVALENCE|Based on the results of Camilleri et al, this should be adequate to detect up to a 30% difference in gastric emptying scan times with a p-value of 0.05 and 80% power.||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of meal retention between pre-treatment and post treatment at 2 hours post meal||||0.003
91907961|NCT02324920|183711457|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.46|||Regression, Cox||||Additional models were implemented to control for country and investigational sites effect on primary endpoint.|0.46|0.11|<0.001
91751491|NCT03840525|183395806|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate precision, 95%CI will be calculated using Wilson's score method, which uses asymptotic variance and is appropriate for small sample sizes100. The formula is as follows: (2np + z2 ± √(z2 + 4npq)) / 2(n+ z2). If the proportion of participants who rate the intervention as acceptable is 80% or greater, we will consider the intervention acceptable.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics were conducted. No group comparisons were done due to the fact that this was a feasibility trial and not an efficacy trial. 80% was used as the benchmark for acceptability.|||
91751492|NCT03840525|183395807|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate precision, 95%CI will be calculated using Wilson's score method, which uses asymptotic variance and is appropriate for small sample sizes100. The formula is as follows: (2np + z2 ± √(z2 + 4npq)) / 2(n+ z2). If the proportion of participants who rate the intervention as acceptable is 80% or greater, we will consider the intervention acceptable.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics was conducted to determine acceptability for both the qigong and sham qigong group. No between group comparisons were conducted. A benchmark of 80% was used to determine acceptability.|||
91751493|NCT03840525|183395808|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate precision, 95%CI will be calculated using Wilson's score method, which uses asymptotic variance and is appropriate for small sample sizes100. The formula is as follows: (2np + z2 ± √(z2 + 4npq)) / 2(n+ z2). If the proportion of participants who rate the intervention as acceptable is 80% or greater, we will consider the intervention acceptable.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics were conducted to determine acceptability. Benchmark for acceptability was set at 80% of participant attending at least 70% of the classes.|||
91751494|NCT00787930|183395826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91751495|NCT00787930|183395827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||1.00
91751496|NCT00787930|183395828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6056||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.6056
91751497|NCT00787930|183395829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory hypothesis|t-stat estimated value|1.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2||0.081|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||t-test, 1 sided|missing values: 6 df=7|||||0|0.081
91751498|NCT00787930|183395830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory analyses|t-stat estimated value|1.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.56||0.091|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0|||no adjustment for multiple analyses|t-test, 1 sided|missing values: 5 df=7|||||0|0.091
91751499|NCT00628589|183395900|SUPERIORITY|LS mean was used in the primary efficacy analysis||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model||||||0.0004
91751500|NCT00628589|183395900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model||||||<0.0001
91751501|NCT00628589|183395901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0015
91751502|NCT00628589|183395901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91751503|NCT00628589|183395902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0015
91751504|NCT00628589|183395902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91751505|NCT01688739|183395921|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.1||||0.7595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.4|||ANCOVA||Migraine participants / Healthy Participants|||1.4|0.8|0.7595
91751506|NCT01688739|183395923|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.1||||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4|||ANCOVA||Migraine participants / Healthy participants|||1.4|0.9|0.5481
91751507|NCT01688739|183395924|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.1||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4|||ANCOVA||Migraine participants / Healthy participants|||1.4|0.9|0.5506
91751508|NCT02406443|183395926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||=0.012
91751509|NCT02406443|183395927|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
91751510|NCT02406443|183395928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.15
91751511|NCT02406443|183395929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91751512|NCT02406443|183395930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91751513|NCT02406443|183395931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
91751514|NCT06276881|183395948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 1 sided||||Multiple regression analysis|||.37
91751515|NCT06276881|183395949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||.07
91751516|NCT01340937|183395950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.08|0.77|
91803293|NCT02527161|183484801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9465|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KSS Pain||||0.9465
91803294|NCT02527161|183484801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1215|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KSS Pain||||0.1215
91881891|NCT02672514|183658650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 48 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.171
91907962|NCT02324920|183711458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.75|||Regression, Cox|||||0.75|0.27|0.002
91751517|NCT01340937|183395950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.02|0.72|
91751518|NCT01340937|183395950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.12|0.79|
91751519|NCT01340937|183395950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.98|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.98|1.35|<0.001
91751520|NCT01340937|183395951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|3.35|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|Equivalence for titer \>=1 µg/mL||3.35|-4.31|
91751521|NCT01340937|183395951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|2.12|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|Equivalence for titer \>=1 µg/mL||2.12|-5.38|
91751522|NCT01340937|183395951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|2.58|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|Equivalence for titer \>=1 µg/mL||2.58|-4.89|
91751523|NCT01340937|183395951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|7.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|13.17|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=1 µg/mL||13.17|3.38|<0.001
91751524|NCT01340937|183395951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.12|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=0.15 µg/mL||5.12|0.39|<0.001
91751525|NCT01340937|183395952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.98|0.76|
91751526|NCT01340937|183395952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.96|0.74|
91751527|NCT01340937|183395952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.11|0.86|
91751528|NCT01340937|183395953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.07|0.84|
91751529|NCT01340937|183395953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.86|
91751530|NCT01340937|183395953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.14|0.90|
91751531|NCT01340937|183395954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.04|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.04|0.91|
91751532|NCT01340937|183395954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.95|
91751533|NCT01340937|183395954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.13|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.13|0.98|
91881892|NCT00942188|183658652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.23|-1.94|
91881893|NCT00942188|183658652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-2.48|
91907963|NCT01757678|183711459|OTHER||Difference in Probability|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.19||||||||.19|.09|
91907964|NCT01757678|183711460|OTHER||Difference in Probability|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.14||||||||.14|.04|
91881894|NCT00942188|183658652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.54|||ANCOVA|||||0.54|-1.76|
91881895|NCT00942188|183658653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-9.82|
91881896|NCT00942188|183658653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|5.56|||ANCOVA|||||5.56|-10.21|
91881897|NCT00942188|183658653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|5.89|||ANCOVA|||||5.89|-9.16|
91881898|NCT00942188|183658655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.05||This is the estimated value for week 10 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.59|
91881899|NCT00942188|183658655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.0||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at Week 10.|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.74|
91881900|NCT00942188|183658655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at Week 10.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.59|
91881901|NCT00942188|183658655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at week 12.|ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.61|
91881902|NCT00942188|183658655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.396|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.0||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.79|
91881903|NCT00942188|183658655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.15||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at week 12.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.59|
91881904|NCT00143598|183658666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.76|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for centre||||1.76|.73|.58
91881905|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||ANS X axis||||0.098
91881906|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||ANS Y axis||||0.389
91881907|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||ANS Z axis||||0.780
91881908|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||A point X axis||||0.054
91881909|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||A point Y axis||||0.323
91881910|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||A point X axis||||0.371
91881911|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||UI level X axis||||0.011
91881912|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||UI level Y axis||||0.426
91881913|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||UI level Z axis||||0.621
91881914|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||pronasale X axis||||0.275
91881915|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||pronasale Y axis||||0.361
91881916|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||pronasale Z axis||||0.284
91881917|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||subnasale X axis||||0.119
91881918|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||subnasale Y axis||||0.019
91881919|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||subnasale Z axis||||0.034
91881920|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||labiale superious X axis||||0.422
91881921|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||labiale superious Y axis||||0.177
91803295|NCT02527161|183484801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9912|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 years KSS Pain||||0.9912
91881922|NCT01473745|183658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||labiale superious Z axis||||0.133
91881923|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||Intercanthal distance||||0.218
91881924|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P- value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||nasal height||||0.336
91881925|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P- value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance||||||0.192
91881926|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||nasal tip protrusion||||0.135
91881927|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||nasal width||||0.277
91881928|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||alar base width||||0.505
91881929|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||R nostril show vertical dimension||||0.299
91881930|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||L nostril show vertical dimension||||0.738
91881931|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||columellar length||||0.008
91881932|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||cutaneious height of upper lip||||0.116
91881933|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||overall upper lip height||||0.528
91803296|NCT02527161|183484801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8952|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KSS Pain||||0.8952
91803297|NCT02527161|183484802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 3 months KSS Function||||<0.0001
91803298|NCT02527161|183484802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KSS Function||||0.0266
91803299|NCT02527161|183484802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KSS Function||||0.9880
91803300|NCT02527161|183484802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9699|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 years KSS Function||||0.9699
91803301|NCT02527161|183484802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8575|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 years KSS Function||||0.8575
91803302|NCT02527161|183484803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8581|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 3 months KSS Range of Motion||||0.8581
91881934|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||vermillion height of upper lip||||0.123
91803303|NCT02527161|183484803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7664|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KSS Range of Motion||||0.7664
91803304|NCT02527161|183484803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7022|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KSS Range of Motion||||0.7022
91907965|NCT01146873|183711468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that efavirenz is inferior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier methods|||||||<0.001
91803305|NCT02527161|183484803|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KSS Range of Motion||||>0.9999
91803306|NCT02527161|183484803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2943|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KSS Range of Motion||||0.2943
91803307|NCT02527161|183484804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year Forgotten Joint Score||||0.0161
91803308|NCT02527161|183484804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year Forgotten Joint Score||||<0.0001
91803309|NCT02609828|183484805|SUPERIORITY||Differences in least square (LS) mean|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.04|-1.52|0.0381
91803310|NCT02609828|183484806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.00|-0.72|0.0497
91803311|NCT02609828|183484806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.17|-1.16|0.0092
91803312|NCT02609828|183484806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.11|-1.37|0.0218
91803313|NCT02609828|183484806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.17|-1.58|0.0154
91803314|NCT02609828|183484806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.17|-1.36|0.1289
91803315|NCT02609828|183484806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.32|-1.43|0.2110
91803316|NCT02609828|183484806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.32|-1.49|0.2049
91881935|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||lower prolabial width||||0.250
91881936|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||upper lip protrusion||||0.706
91881937|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||intercanthal distance||||0.804
91803317|NCT02609828|183484807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.07|-0.73|0.1103
91881938|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal height||||0.114
91751534|NCT01340937|183395955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.10|0.96|
91803318|NCT02609828|183484807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.19|-1.26|0.0084
91751535|NCT01340937|183395955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.95|
91751536|NCT01340937|183395955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.06|0.92|
91881939|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||Nasal length||||0.457
91751537|NCT01340937|183395955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.29|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||1.29|1.11|<0.001
91751538|NCT01340937|183395956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.96|0.83|
91751539|NCT01340937|183395956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.83|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.83|0.72|
91751540|NCT01340937|183395956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.94|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.94|0.81|
91751541|NCT01340937|183395956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.67||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.73|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||0.73|0.62|0.419
91751542|NCT01340937|183395957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.87|
91751543|NCT01340937|183395957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.05|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.05|0.83|
91803319|NCT02609828|183484807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4:ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.10|-1.39|0.0236
91803320|NCT02609828|183484807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.17|-1.59|0.0155
91881940|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||Nasal tip protrusion||||0.565
91881941|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal width||||0.781
91881942|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||alar base width||||0.164
91881943|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||R nostril show vertical dimension||||0.554
91751544|NCT01340937|183395957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.08|0.85|
91751545|NCT01340937|183395957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||1.17|0.90|<0.001
91751546|NCT01340937|183395958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.85|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.85|0.72|
91881944|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||L nostril show vertical dimension||||0.508
91881945|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||columellar length||||0.358
91881946|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||cutaneous height of upper lip||||0.049
91881947|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||overall upper lip height||||0.057
91881948|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||vermillion height of upper lip||||0.062
91881949|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||lower prolabial width||||0.029
91881950|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||upper lip protrusion||||0.011
91751547|NCT01340937|183395958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.87|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.87|0.73|
91751548|NCT01340937|183395958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.11|0.93|
91751549|NCT01340937|183395958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.66|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||1.66|1.37|<0.001
91881951|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||intercanthal distance||||0.211
91881952|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal height||||0.102
91881953|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal length||||0.136
91881954|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal tip protrusion||||0.113
91881955|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal width||||0.115
91881956|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||alar base width||||0.535
91881957|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||R nostril show vertical dimension||||0.850
91881958|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||L nostril show vertical dimension||||0.891
91881959|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||columellar length||||0.262
91881960|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||cutaneous height of upper lip||||0.344
91881961|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||overall upper lip height||||0.057
91881962|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||vermillion height of upper lip||||0.995
91881963|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||lower prolabial width||||0.440
91881964|NCT01473745|183658696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||upper lip protrusion||||0.078
91881965|NCT01473745|183658697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|||||intergroup difference of conventional group|t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||||||0.104
91881966|NCT01473745|183658697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||Intergroup difference of modified group|t-test, 2 sided|P value \<0.05 was set as statistical significance.||||||0.043
91881967|NCT01473745|183658697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||||||0.888
91881968|NCT02330276|183658698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
91881969|NCT02330276|183658699|OTHER|one way ANOVA between groups|Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.3|85.5||for change in heart rate at 24 hr post-dosing from baseline between the 3 doses|ANOVA|||Primary hypothesis: None of the doses of (+)-epicatechin will differ with regard to change from baseline in any of the major safety endpoints; heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure.||85.5|70.3|<0.05
91881970|NCT02330276|183658700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
91881971|NCT02330276|183658701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
91881972|NCT02330276|183658702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
91881973|NCT02034162|183658703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
91881974|NCT02034162|183658704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
91881975|NCT02034162|183658706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91881976|NCT02034162|183658707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91907966|NCT01146873|183711469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that efavirenz is inferior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.007|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier methods|||||||<0.001
91881977|NCT00760513|183658713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance = P\</=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of liver fat percentage||We estimated that a 20% decrease in liver fat with Omacor treatment, assuming a sigma of 0.3, and an alpha of 0.05; with 91 participants completing our trial, we had 86% power to detect a 20% change in liver fat (two tailed test) (see HEPATOLOGY 2014;60:1211-1221).||3.0|-6.3|0.48
91881978|NCT00760513|183658714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||A priori p value threshold \</=0.5|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||Based on the available evidence at the time, we assumed that a 0.6-1.0 unit change in fibrosis score might be clinically significant (Hepatology 2008 Feb;47(2):455-460). Consequently, to detect a minimum 0.6 unit change in score (e.g. 9.0 at baseline and 8.4 at the end of the study) with an SD of 1.0, 100 participants would provide \>80% power at the 5% significance level, and with a 15% drop out of participants there would also be \>80% power to detect this effect.||0.3|-0.3|1.0
91881979|NCT00760513|183658715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline measurement.||There was no power calculation for this end point.||0.3|-0.4|0.9
91881980|NCT00158197|183658716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations||Value represents the odds of submitting a methamphetamine negative urine sample in the treatment group (1 of 3) compared to the standard care group.|||||<0.01
91881981|NCT00158197|183658716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.01|||||||Generalized estimating equations||Value represents the odds of submitting a methamphetamine negative urine sample in the treatment group (1 of 3) compared to the standard care group.|||||<0.01
91751550|NCT01340937|183395959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.96|0.76|
91751551|NCT01340937|183395959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.99|0.79|
91751552|NCT01340937|183395959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.15|0.92|
91751553|NCT01340937|183395960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.05|0.84|
91751554|NCT01340937|183395960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.02|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.02|0.82|
91751555|NCT01340937|183395960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.87|
91751556|NCT01340937|183395961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.22|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.22|0.92|
91751557|NCT01340937|183395961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.26|0.95|
91751558|NCT01340937|183395961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.19|0.90|
91751559|NCT01340937|183395962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.3|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.30|-1.23|
91751560|NCT01340937|183395962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.32|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.32|-1.23|
91751561|NCT01340937|183395962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.66|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.66|-0.64|
91751562|NCT01340937|183395962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.90|0.20|<0.001
91751563|NCT01340937|183395963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.24|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||4.24|-3.74|
91751564|NCT01340937|183395963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|2.57|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||2.57|-5.26|
91881982|NCT00158197|183658716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||<|0.01|||||||Generalized estimating equations||Value represents the odds of submitting a methamphetamine negative urine sample in the treatment group (1 of 3) compared to the standard care group.|||||<0.01
91881983|NCT00158197|183658717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Yes, the a priori plan to handle post hoc multiple comparisons was to use the method of Bonferroni adjustment. Thus, the new alpha level for these comparisons was \<0.0125.|ANOVA|||||||0.02
91881984|NCT00158197|183658717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91881985|NCT00158197|183658717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91881986|NCT00158197|183658717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91881987|NCT00158197|183658718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||We used GEE to investigate change in methamphetamine abstinence (i.e., provision of a negative methamphetamine UA) during the follow-up period.||||0.78
91881988|NCT00158197|183658718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||We used GEE to investigate change in methamphetamine abstinence (i.e., provision of a negative methamphetamine UA) during the follow-up period.||||0.68
91751565|NCT01340937|183395963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|2.28|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||2.28|-5.56|
91751566|NCT01340937|183395963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|-2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|2.09|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.09|-6.02|<0.001
91751567|NCT01340937|183395964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.47|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.47|-0.91|
91751568|NCT01340937|183395964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.47|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.47|-0.90|
91881989|NCT00158197|183658718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||We used GEE to investigate change in methamphetamine abstinence (i.e., provision of a negative methamphetamine UA) during the follow-up period.||||0.20
91881990|NCT02808975|183658719|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.049|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.049
91881991|NCT02808975|183658720|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.067
91881992|NCT02808975|183658721|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.003
91881993|NCT02808975|183658722|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.313|||||||ANCOVA|Across all strata, P-values are calculated from ANCOVA with stratum, baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||||=0.313
91881994|NCT02808975|183658723|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.746|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.746
91881995|NCT04367480|183658731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.67|||ANCOVA|||"Missing data were accounted for using multiple imputation (MI) with the fully conditional specification (FCS) method. 100 replicates were imputed.~ANCOVA analysis was applied within each replicate. SAS PROC MI and MIANALYZE were used to calculate the reported estimates. (N: Active TENS=71, Placebo TENS=70)"||2.67|-0.56|0.199
91881996|NCT04367480|183658732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.08|-0.34|0.302
91881997|NCT04367480|183658732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.08|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Hot/Burning Pain. (N: Active TENS=22, Placebo TENS=22)||3.08|-0.33|0.112
91881998|NCT04367480|183658733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.02|-0.37|0.351
91881999|NCT04367480|183658733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.79|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Sharp/Shooting Pain. (N: Active TENS=24, Placebo TENS=23)||2.79|-0.36|0.128
91882000|NCT04367480|183658734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.27|-0.22|0.166
91882001|NCT04367480|183658734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Numbness. (N: Active TENS=60, Placebo TENS=50)||1.05|-0.51|0.492
91882002|NCT04367480|183658735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||0.94|-0.56|0.622
91882003|NCT04367480|183658735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Tingling. (N: Active TENS=55, Placebo TENS=50)||1.08|-0.61|0.587
91882004|NCT04367480|183658736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.31|-0.02|0.058
91907967|NCT01146873|183711470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91803321|NCT02609828|183484807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.00|-1.52|0.0505
91803322|NCT02609828|183484807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.08|-1.52|0.0761
91803323|NCT02609828|183484807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.21|-1.70|0.1263
91803324|NCT02609828|183484807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.17|-1.76|0.1051
91803325|NCT02609828|183484808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.47|-1.47|0.3003
91803326|NCT02609828|183484808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.35|-2.03|0.1603
91882005|NCT04367480|183658736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|3.02|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Cramping. (N: Active TENS=18, Placebo TENS=18)||3.02|-0.32|0.110
91751569|NCT01340937|183395964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.62|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.62|-0.63|
91751570|NCT01340937|183395964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.33|0.46|<0.001
91803327|NCT02609828|183484808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.53|-2.13|0.2298
91751571|NCT01340937|183395965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.4|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||3.40|0.37|
91751572|NCT01340937|183395965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.63|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.63|-0.77|
91803328|NCT02609828|183484808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.97|-1.93|0.5054
91803329|NCT02609828|183484808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.77||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||1.01|-2.10|0.4793
91882006|NCT03382561|183658737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: Arm A (CEN)/Arm B (CE)|||1.11|0.55|0.17
91882007|NCT01076244|183658743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline|13.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.42|18.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||18.43|8.42|<0.0001
91882008|NCT01076244|183658745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline|2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.16|1.17|<0.0001
91882009|NCT05499130|183658750|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|15.7||||||||||||||||||
91882010|NCT05499130|183658750|OTHER||Posterior Probability|0.949|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
91882011|NCT05499130|183658750|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|27.4||||||||||||||||||
91907968|NCT01146873|183711472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91907969|NCT03703102|183711473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91751573|NCT01340937|183395965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.15|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.15|-3.03|
91751574|NCT01340937|183395965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|3.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.14|-0.59|<0.001
91751575|NCT01340937|183395966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|2.47|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||2.47|-5.17|
91751576|NCT01340937|183395966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|0.67|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.67|-6.79|
91907970|NCT03703102|183711473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91751577|NCT01340937|183395966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.94|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.94|-5.37|
91751578|NCT01340937|183395966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-0.86|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||-0.86|-7.73|<0.001
91751579|NCT01340937|183395967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|7.39|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||7.39|-1.83|
91751580|NCT01340937|183395967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|7.06|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||7.06|-2.21|
91751581|NCT01340937|183395967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|4.42|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||4.42|-5.14|
91751582|NCT01340937|183395967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|3.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|8.85|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||8.85|-1.70|<0.001
91803330|NCT02609828|183484808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.4496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.83|-1.83|0.4496
91751583|NCT01340937|183395968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|-0.63|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||-0.63|-7.69|
91751584|NCT01340937|183395968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-0.66|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||-0.66|-7.75|
91751585|NCT01340937|183395968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.2|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||3.20|-3.32|
91751586|NCT01340937|183395968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|7.36|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||7.36|-0.85|<0.001
91751587|NCT01340937|183395969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
91751588|NCT01340937|183395969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
91751589|NCT01340937|183395969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
91882012|NCT05499130|183658750|OTHER||Posterior Probability|0.997|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
91907971|NCT03703102|183711473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91882013|NCT05499130|183658751|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|13.0||||||||||||||||||
91882014|NCT05499130|183658751|OTHER||Posterior Probability|0.939|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
91882015|NCT05499130|183658751|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|34.8||||||||||||||||||
91882016|NCT05499130|183658751|OTHER||Posterior Probability|1.0|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
91882017|NCT00013611|183658769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by CD4+ count stratum (50-199 or 200-299) and country of randomization.||Null hypothesis was that event rates in two groups are equal. Study was designed with 80%, two-sided alpha=.05, assuming a 28% reduction in the hazard of opportunistic disease or death.||1.18|0.70|0.47
91882018|NCT00013611|183658770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by CD4+ stratum and country of randomization.||||1.44|0.77|0.73
91882019|NCT00013611|183658771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by CD4+ stratum and country of randomization.||||1.06|0.51|0.10
91882020|NCT00013611|183658772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.90|0.35
91882021|NCT00013611|183658773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||65.7|40.3|< 0.001
91882022|NCT01663506|183658781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||<0.01
91882023|NCT01663506|183658781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
91882024|NCT01663506|183658781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
91882025|NCT01663506|183658783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.001
91882026|NCT01663506|183658783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.0001
91882027|NCT01663506|183658784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.05
91882028|NCT01663506|183658784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.0001
91882029|NCT01663506|183658786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.05
91882030|NCT01663506|183658786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
91882031|NCT01663506|183658787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
91907972|NCT03703102|183711473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91882032|NCT01663506|183658789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.001
91882033|NCT01663506|183658789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
91882034|NCT01663506|183658790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.05
91882035|NCT01663506|183658790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
91882036|NCT01663506|183658792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||SJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
91882037|NCT01663506|183658792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||TJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
91882038|NCT01663506|183658792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||SJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.001
91882039|NCT01663506|183658792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||TJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
91882040|NCT01663506|183658793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
91882041|NCT01663506|183658793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.001
91882042|NCT01663506|183658794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
91882043|NCT01663506|183658794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.001
91882044|NCT01657799|183658814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by graded prognostic assessment (GPA) score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||The primary analysis used a Hochberg testing procedure to preserve the familywise error rate for multiple comparisons, where the larger P-value for the comparisons of veliparib 50 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT and veliparib 200 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT were compared to an α = 0.05. If statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05), both comparisons were considered significant. If the larger P-value was not statistically significant, the smaller P-value was compared to an α = 0.025.||||0.933
91882045|NCT01657799|183658814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||The primary analysis used a Hochberg testing procedure to preserve the familywise error rate for multiple comparisons, where the larger P-value for the comparisons of veliparib 50 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT and veliparib 200 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT were compared to an α = 0.05. If statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05), both comparisons were considered significant. If the larger P-value was not statistically significant, the smaller P-value was compared to an α = 0.025.||||0.909
91882046|NCT01657799|183658814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.985||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.355|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||||1.355|0.716|0.927
91882047|NCT01657799|183658814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.354|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||||1.354|0.710|0.906
91803331|NCT02609828|183484808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square LS mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.36|-2.77|0.1263
91803332|NCT02609828|183484808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.44|-2.54|0.1620
91803333|NCT02609828|183484809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.04|-2.17|0.0575
91882048|NCT01657799|183658815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.535
91751590|NCT01340937|183395969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.36|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.36|0.18|<0.001
91751591|NCT01340937|183395970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
91751592|NCT01340937|183395970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.6|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.60|-0.61|
91751593|NCT01340937|183395970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.6|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.60|-0.61|
91751594|NCT01340937|183395970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.24|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.24|-0.20|<0.001
91751595|NCT01340937|183395971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
91751596|NCT01340937|183395971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
91751597|NCT01340937|183395971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
91751598|NCT01340937|183395971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.85|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.85|0.05|<0.001
91803334|NCT02609828|183484809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.70|-3.22|0.0031
91882049|NCT01657799|183658815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.898
91882050|NCT01657799|183658816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.314
91882051|NCT01657799|183658816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.536
91751599|NCT01340937|183395972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.17|||Analysis of Covariance|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.17|0.98|<0.001
91751600|NCT01340937|183395973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.95|0.79|<0.001
91751601|NCT01340937|183395974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.74||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.83|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.83|0.66|0.035
91882052|NCT01657799|183658816|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.301||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.168|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||2.168|0.780|0.313
91751602|NCT01340937|183395975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.46|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.46|1.17|<0.001
91751603|NCT01340937|183395976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.58|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.58|-1.11|<0.001
91751604|NCT01340937|183395977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|3.22|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.22|-2.41|<0.001
91751605|NCT01340937|183395978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|5.47|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||5.47|-2.13|<0.001
91751606|NCT01340937|183395979|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|7.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||7.40|-0.39|<0.001
91751607|NCT01340937|183395980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 1||1.04|0.82|<0.001
91751608|NCT01340937|183395980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.06|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 3||1.06|0.84|<0.001
91751609|NCT01340937|183395980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.12|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 4||1.12|0.89|<0.001
91751610|NCT01340937|183395980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 5||1.07|0.80|<0.001
91751611|NCT01340937|183395980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 6A||0.99|0.77|<0.001
91751612|NCT01340937|183395980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.79||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 6B||0.96|0.64|0.055
91751613|NCT01340937|183395980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 7F||0.99|0.80|<0.001
91907973|NCT00876187|183711497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on least squares (LS) mean. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.74|0.113
91751614|NCT01340937|183395980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.13|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 9V||1.13|0.88|<0.001
91751615|NCT01340937|183395980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 14||1.10|0.82|<0.001
91751616|NCT01340937|183395980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.0|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 18C||1.00|0.79|<0.001
91751617|NCT01340937|183395980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.03|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 19A||1.03|0.80|<0.001
91751618|NCT01340937|183395980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 19F||1.08|0.87|<0.001
91882053|NCT01657799|183658816|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.181||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.999|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||1.999|0.698|0.534
91882054|NCT01657799|183658817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.864
91882055|NCT01657799|183658817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.301
91751619|NCT01340937|183395980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 23F||1.06|0.77|<0.001
91751620|NCT01340937|183395982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-8.4|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \<38.0°C||-8.4|-18.8|
91751621|NCT01340937|183395982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|8.3|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \>=38°C and \<38.5°||8.3|-0.9|
91751622|NCT01340937|183395982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|11.9|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°||11.9|4.8|
91751623|NCT01340937|183395982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \>=39.5°C||2.2|-0.7|
91751624|NCT01340937|183395982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-5.9|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference; rectal \<38.0°C||-5.9|-16.6|
91751625|NCT01340937|183395982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.8|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference; rectal \>=38.0°C and \<38.5°C||7.8|-1.4|
91751626|NCT01340937|183395982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|11.6|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, rectal \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°C||11.6|4.6|
91882056|NCT01657799|183658817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.754|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||1.754|0.626|0.860
91882057|NCT01657799|183658817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|2.086|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||2.086|0.803|0.289
91751627|NCT01340937|183395982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, rectal \>=39.5°C||2.1|-0.7|
91751628|NCT00046930|183395983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified on age (\< 70 vs. \>=70) and type of leukemia (de novo AML, secondary RAEB-t, or secondary RAEB AML)||The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a non-proportional hazards difference in OS at the one-sided 0.025 significance level of 30.2% vs 39.6%, 12.8% vs 27.1% and 7.0% vs 14.0% at 1 years, 2 years, and full information for zosuquidar and placebo, respectively.||||0.28
91751629|NCT00046930|183395984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified on age and type of leukemia||||||0.16
91751630|NCT00046930|183395985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.65||Test was stratified on age and type of leukemia.|Mantel Haenszel||Zosuquidar/Placebo|Test of difference in the CR (complete remission) rate between the arms.||1.65|0.77|0.617
91882058|NCT04599855|183658825|SUPERIORITY||least square (LS) means difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|-2.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-2.33|-7.91|<0.001
91751631|NCT01694108|183396010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney-test comparing the decisional conflict scores of participating mothers vs. declining mothers.||||||<0.001
91751632|NCT01657760|183396027|EQUIVALENCE|80% power to detect difference p\<0.05 two tailed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||ANOVA, uncorrected for MC.|ANOVA|||||||0.87
91751633|NCT02124512|183396036|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value was calculated to be \>0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of the pre- and post-treatment timecourse between untreated and rifaximin-treated participants.||||>0.05
91751634|NCT02124512|183396037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||unpaired Student's t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment difference (change in placebo pre- and post-treatment versus change in rifaximin pre- and post-treatment).||||0.12
91751635|NCT01974752|183396070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.3195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.27|||Log Rank|Factor for treatment and liver metastases|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Selumetinib in combination with Dacarbazine|||1.27|0.48|0.3195
91882059|NCT04599855|183658825|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-4.07|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-4.07|-9.48|<0.001
91882060|NCT04599855|183658826|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-1.22|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-1.22|-6.29|=0.004
91882061|NCT04599855|183658826|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-1.00|-5.89|=0.006
91882062|NCT04962698|183658836|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.00238||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.00238, which was adjusted from the original 0.05 as described below.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The alpha value for p-value comparison was adjusted for 21 pair-wise comparisons (0.05/21 = 0.00238) across seven tasks.||||||>0.00238
91882063|NCT04962698|183658837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91882064|NCT04962698|183658838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
91882065|NCT04962698|183658839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.00231||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.00238, which was adjusted from the original 0.05 as described below.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The alpha value for p-value comparison was adjusted for 21 pair-wise comparisons (0.05/21 = 0.00238) across seven tasks.||||||<0.00231
91751636|NCT01974752|183396072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.94||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of log (W6/BL) tumour assessments with a factor for trt, and covariates for liver mets, log BL tumour size, and time from BL scan to rand.|A geometric least squares mean ratio \< 1 favours Selumetinib in combination with Dacarbazine|||1.02|0.88|0.1284
91751637|NCT01974752|183396073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.4011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.39|0.4011
91751638|NCT00294645|183396170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Modified Peto-Peto|A one-sided test was used.||Null hypothesis: control rate = remote rate||||<0.0001
91751639|NCT00909545|183396216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|4.07||P-values for efficacy outcomes will be one-sided test with alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance is used, with terms representing assigned treatment group and baseline value of the measure in the model.|Least square mean(standard error) and 95% confidence intervals of the difference between Isradipine CR 5mg and placebo groups is estimated.|Change in UPDRS total score of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.07|-3.99|0.9834
91751640|NCT00909545|183396216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|2.8||P-values for efficacy outcomes will be one-sided test with alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance is used, with terms representing assigned treatment group and baseline value of the measure in the model.|Least square mean(standard error) and 95% confidence intervals of the difference between Isradipine CR 10mg and placebo groups is estimated.|Change in UPDRS total score of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.80|-5.01|0.5761
91751641|NCT00909545|183396216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|1.99||P-values for efficacy outcomes will be one-sided test with alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance is used, with terms representing assigned treatment group and baseline value of the measure in the model|Least square mean(standard error) and 95% confidence intervals of the difference between Isradipine CR 20mg and placebo groups is estimated.|Change in UPDRS total score of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||1.99|-5.98|0.322
91751642|NCT00909545|183396217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1587||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0196|1.8411|||Fisher Exact|||The tolerability of 5mg/day dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.||1.8411|0.0196|0.1383
91751643|NCT00909545|183396217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1114||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0123|0.9591|||Fisher Exact|||The tolerability of 10mg/day dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.||0.9591|0.0123|0.0248
91751644|NCT00909545|183396217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0028|0.2087|||Fisher Exact|||The tolerability of 20mg/day dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.||0.2087|0.0028|<0.0001
91751645|NCT00909545|183396218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change in Mental UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||1.22|-0.30|0.2324
91751646|NCT00909545|183396218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change in Mental UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.73|-0.73|1
91882066|NCT04962698|183658840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.00238, which was adjusted from the original 0.05 as described below.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The alpha value for p-value comparison was adjusted for 21 pair-wise comparisons (0.05/21 = 0.00238) across seven tasks.||||||<0.0020
91907974|NCT00876187|183711497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-1.19|<0.001
91751647|NCT00909545|183396218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.4675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change in Mental UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.47|-1.02|0.4675
91751648|NCT00909545|183396219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.4648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Change in ADL UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.23|-1.03|0.4648
91751649|NCT00909545|183396219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in ADL UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||1.07|-2.09|0.525
91751650|NCT00909545|183396219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change in ADL UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.88|-2.36|0.3674
91751651|NCT00909545|183396220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in Motor UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.14|-3.80|0.579
91751652|NCT00909545|183396220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.48|||ANCOVA|||Change in Motor UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.48|-3.30|0.7778
91751653|NCT00909545|183396220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change in Motor UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.31|-3.58|0.669
91882067|NCT00364377|183658873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired comparisons (within groups) to examine differences between the baseline study and after 8-weeks of treatment were made using Student's two-tailed t-test for paired samples. Between-group comparisons were made using Student's two-tailed t-test for unpaired samples. Given the previously observed variation in fasting glucose||||>0.05
91803335|NCT02609828|183484809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.06|-2.82|0.0410
91803336|NCT02609828|183484809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.68|-2.44|0.2598
91803337|NCT02609828|183484809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.3426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.85|-2.38|0.3426
91803338|NCT02609828|183484809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.26|-2.65|0.1034
91803339|NCT02609828|183484809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.21|-3.60|0.0290
91803340|NCT02609828|183484809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.07|-3.31|0.0600
91803341|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.18|0.41|0.8054
91882068|NCT00736125|183658897|EQUIVALENCE|nonparametric data were analyzed using Mann Whitney U Tests|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91882069|NCT00736125|183658898|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91882070|NCT03124550|183658899|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||Multilevel modeling with the LMER package in R was used to determine whether participants changed in weekly average steps over the 6-week intervention.||||.0008
91882071|NCT03124550|183658900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-test and post-test comparison||||.01
91803342|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.98|0.22|0.9292
91803343|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9565|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9565
91882072|NCT03124550|183658901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-test and post-test comparison||||.94
91882073|NCT03124550|183658902|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||Multilevel modeling with the LMER package in R was used to determine whether participants changed in weekly number of social contact over the 6-week intervention.||||.0007
91882074|NCT01121913|183658922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|114.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Triticco®|||114|91.8|
91882075|NCT01121913|183658922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.9|117.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Desyrel®|||117|93.9|
91882076|NCT01121913|183658922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|106.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Triticco®|||106|85.5|
91882077|NCT01121913|183658922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.7|109.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Desyrel®|||109|87.7|
91882078|NCT01121913|183658923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|114.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Triticco®|||114|91.8|
91803344|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.36|0.81|0.1429
91803345|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.19||||0.014||95.0|1.4|19.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||19.31|1.40|0.0140
91803346|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9450
91803347|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9489|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9489
91803348|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.39|0.78|0.1932
91803349|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|8.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||8.74|1.15|0.0254
91803350|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|24.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||24.16|1.03|0.0455
91803351|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9464|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9464
91803352|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.72|0.90|0.0969
91803353|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|11.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||11.74|1.58|0.0043
91803354|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|26.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||26.75|1.13|0.0352
91803355|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9464|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9464
91751654|NCT00909545|183396221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Hoehn \& Yahr Scale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.17|-0.27|0.6677
91803356|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.52|0.83|0.1471
91751655|NCT00909545|183396221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Hoehn \& Yahr Scale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.07|-0.36|0.1755
91803357|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.22|1.04|0.0405
91803358|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||12.83|0.80|0.0993
91803359|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|43.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||43.64|0.51|0.1726
91803360|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.74|0.91|0.0918
91751656|NCT00909545|183396221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Hoehn \& Yahr Scale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.06|-0.38|0.1463
91907975|NCT00876187|183711497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.31|<0.001
91751657|NCT00909545|183396222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Schwab \& England Independence Scale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.26|-3.30|0.7111
91751658|NCT00909545|183396222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.04|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Schwab \& England Independence Scale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.04|-1.35|0.3237
91751659|NCT00909545|183396222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.05|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Schwab \& England Independence Scale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.05|-1.51|0.3658
91751660|NCT00909545|183396223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|5.13|||ANCOVA|||Change in BDI-II of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.13|-0.12|0.0608
91751661|NCT00909545|183396223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|3.33|||ANCOVA|||Change in BDI-II of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||3.33|-2.07|0.6445
91751662|NCT00909545|183396223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|4.67|||ANCOVA|||Change in BDI-II of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.67|-0.63|0.1336
91751663|NCT00909545|183396224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.59|-1.64|0.3533
91751664|NCT00909545|183396224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.4045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.65|-1.59|0.4045
91751665|NCT00909545|183396224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.7049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.92|-1.36|0.7049
91751666|NCT00909545|183396225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.2278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in PDQ-39 of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.79|-1.40|0.2278
91751667|NCT00909545|183396225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|5.42|||ANCOVA|||Change in PDQ-39 of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.42|-1.97|0.356
91751668|NCT00909545|183396225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.71|||ANCOVA|||Change in PDQ-39 of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.71|-1.56|0.2600
91751669|NCT00909545|183396232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.159||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5432|50.9977||The analysis of common AE of each active dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.|Fisher Exact|||The analyses is to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Oedema Peripheral.||50.9977|0.5432|0.1384
91751670|NCT00909545|183396232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.097||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8214|134.0403||The analysis of common AE of each active dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Oedema Peripheral.||134.0403|1.8214|0.0024
91751671|NCT00909545|183396232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7004|438.5694||The analysis of common AE of each active dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Oedema Peripheral.||438.5694|5.7004|<.0001
91751672|NCT00909545|183396233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6715||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2022|2.812|||Fisher Exact|||one-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dizziness.||2.8120|0.2022|0.7735
91751673|NCT00909545|183396233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6419||0.7385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2314|2.8658|||Fisher Exact|||one-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dizziness.||2.8658|0.2314|0.7385
91751674|NCT00909545|183396233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6463||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2549|3.2112|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dizziness.||3.2112|0.2549|0.6823
91751675|NCT00909545|183396234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9188||0.2756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4172|15.2975|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nasopharyngitis.||15.2975|0.4172|0.2756
91751676|NCT00909545|183396234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8584||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8217|23.7875|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nasopharyngitis.||23.7875|0.8217|0.07
91882079|NCT01121913|183658923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|118.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Desyrel®|||118|95.1|
91882080|NCT01121913|183658923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.1|106.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Triticco®|||106|85.1|
91882081|NCT01121913|183658923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.3|110.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Desyrel®|||110|88.3|
91882082|NCT01121913|183658924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.2|85.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Triticco®|||85|63.2|
91882083|NCT01121913|183658924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.5|69.4|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Desyrel®|||69.4|51.5|
91882084|NCT01121913|183658924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.5|96.4|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Triticco®|||96.4|71.5|
91882085|NCT01121913|183658924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|67.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.4|78.5|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Desyrel®|||78.5|58.4|
91882086|NCT00014222|183658948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0007
91751677|NCT00909545|183396234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9174||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3975|14.4919|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nasopharyngitis.||14.4919|0.3975|0.2953
91751678|NCT00909545|183396235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8719||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2082|6.3508|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Headache.||6.3508|0.2082|0.6049
91882087|NCT00014222|183658949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.084
91751679|NCT00909545|183396235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7704||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5081|10.4105|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Headache.||10.4105|0.5081|0.2327
91882088|NCT03269695|183658953|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|47.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||47.2|-41.0|1.0000
91882089|NCT03269695|183658954|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|37.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||37.0|-37.0|1.0000
91882090|NCT03269695|183658955|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|14.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|57.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||57.9|-23.8|0.4700
91882091|NCT03269695|183658956|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|10.0||||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|45.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||45.6|-20.7|0.5221
91882092|NCT03269695|183658957|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|32.1||||0.3166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|74.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||74.1|-23.7|0.3166
91882093|NCT03269695|183658958|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|20.0||||0.5234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|58.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||58.5|-22.9|0.5234
91882094|NCT03269695|183658959|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-25.0||||0.7393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.6|29.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||29.1|-69.6|0.7393
91882095|NCT03269695|183658960|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.8||||0.2705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|16.67|||ANCOVA|||||16.67|-5.08|0.2705
91882096|NCT03269695|183658961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|48.2||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|84.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||84.7|-4.4|0.0732
91882097|NCT03269695|183658962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|30.0||||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|69.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||69.2|-18.4|0.2633
91882098|NCT03269695|183658963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.54|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 2||6.54|0.15|1.0000
91882099|NCT03269695|183658963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|10.0|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 4||10.00|0.23|0.6691
91882100|NCT03269695|183658963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.6248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.4|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 8||4.40|0.09|0.6248
91882101|NCT03269695|183658963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|8.3|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 12||8.30|0.12|0.9965
91889110|NCT01460225|183670967|EQUIVALENCE|Based on the results of Camilleri et al, this should be adequate to detect up to a 30% difference in gastric emptying scan times with a p-value of 0.05 and 80% power.||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of meal retention between pre-treatment and post treatment at 4 hours post meal||||0.122
91889111|NCT02755129|183670968|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"To assess the similarity between the Reveal LINQ measures and those from the reference system, correlation coefficients were used.~The correlation coefficient was calculated over windows of 4 seconds and averaged for each exercise. Then, the average correlation coefficient over all patients and exercise was calculated."|||
91889112|NCT00384774|183671081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache Response||||1.0000
91803361|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.82|0.94|0.0704
91803362|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|5.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.01|0.56|0.3569
91803363|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|13.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||13.79|0.44|0.3062
91803364|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.85|0.88|0.1058
91803365|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.14|0.79|0.1571
91803366|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.24|0.65|0.2454
91882102|NCT05043883|183658972|SUPERIORITY|This clinical investigation is intended to demonstrate that the performance of the PVI Analyzer software is superior to clinically relevant performance level, and therefore the study is designed as a 1-sample superiority test of the sampled outcome specificity. The lower bound 95% CI (α=0.05) and at a statistical power of 95% (β=0.05).|Percentage (%)|87.0||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The success of the PVI Analyzer output was assumed to follow a binominal distribution with a given true proportion of 87.50%. It was tested whether the specificity was superior to the 80% limit.|Z-test|A one-tailed test with a significance level of 95% (α = 0.05) was applied.||Specificity is the ability to correctly detect true negative values of the ground-truth negative EGM classifications. The PVI Analyzer software classifies an EGM in positive (isolated) or negative (non-isolated), compared to the SOC outcomes. EGMs prior-isolation were labeled as ground-truth negative (non-isolated), EGMs after isolation as ground-truth positive (isolated). The null hypothesis is that specificity is lower or equal to the superiority limit 80%.||||0.006
91882103|NCT05043883|183658972|SUPERIORITY|This clinical investigation is intended to demonstrate that the performance of the PVI Analyzer software is superior to clinically relevant performance level, and therefore the study is designed as a 1-sample superiority test of the sampled outcome Sensitivity. The lower bound 95% CI (α=0.05) and at a statistical power of 95% (β=0.05).|Percentage|86.0||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The success of the PVI Analyzer output was assumed to follow a binominal distribution with a given true proportion of 87.50%. It was tested whether the sensitivity was superior to the 80% limit.|Z-test|A one-tailed test with a significance level of 95% (α = 0.05) was applied.||Sensitivity of the PVI analyzer is determined by the capability to detect true positive among all ground-truth positive EGM classifications.The PVI Analyzer software classifies an EGM in positive (isolated) or negative (non-isolated), compared to the SOC outcomes. EGMs prior-isolation were labeled as ground-truth negative (non-isolated), EGMs after isolation as ground-truth positive (isolated). The null hypothesis is that sensitivity is lower or equal to the superiority limit 80%.||||0.004
91882104|NCT05043883|183658973|OTHER|Descriptive|Percentage|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.39|||||Only one AE was reported for one subject ( which was considered moderate in severity and not related to the device, but related to the SOC procedure.|A descriptive analysis was performed to evaluate the AEs and device deficiencies, estimating the percentages and 95% CI on each category.||5.39|0.02|
91803367|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.46|0.24|0.8867
91803368|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.21|0.95|0.0689
91803369|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.44|0.98|0.0568
91803370|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||7.46|0.78|0.1268
91803371|NCT02609828|183484812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.00|0.25|0.7971
91882105|NCT05043883|183658974|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|94.0||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that specificity is below 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Radiofrequency procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with a specificity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Specificity was performed.||||0.00002
91882106|NCT05043883|183658974|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|82.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that sensitivity is below 80% and alternative hypothesis that sensitivity is at or above 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Radiofrequency procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with sensitivity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Sensitivity was performed.||||0.32
91882107|NCT05043883|183658974|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|79.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that specificity is below 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Cryo-balloon procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with a specificity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Specificity was performed.||||0.66
91882108|NCT05043883|183658974|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|92.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that sensitivity is below 80% and alternative hypothesis that sensitivity is at or above 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Cryo-balloon procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with a sensitivity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Sensitivity was performed.||||0.0008
91882109|NCT05043883|183658975|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|96.0||||5e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||To compute the proportional agreement between two non-overlapping samples, a one-sample Z-test was performed with the alternative hypothesis that agreement was above 90%, which was considered sufficient for a real-time assessment.|Z-test|||This endpoint used the same EGMs extracted for the primary endpoint, including only EGMs from T Baseline and T Final measurements from patients in sinus rhythm.||||0.000005
91882110|NCT05043883|183658976|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|54.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p values calculated are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that the specificity are below 80%.|Z-test|||The data analysis and processing were similar to those of the primary endpoint, but taking into consideration that subjects shall be in non-sinus rhythm during the duration of the EGM snippet. Apart from this, the processing was the same and the threshold was also defined as 50: values below 50 were classified as baseline, while values at or above 50 were considered as isolated veins.||||1
91882111|NCT05043883|183658976|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|100.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||The p values calculated are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that the sensitivity are below 80% and an alternative hypothesis that sensitivity is at or above 80%.|Z-test|||The data analysis and processing were similar to those of the primary endpoint, but taking into consideration that subjects shall be in non-sinus rhythm during the duration of the EGM snippet. Apart from this, the processing was the same and the threshold was also defined as 50: values below 50 were classified as baseline, while values at or above 50 were considered as isolated veins.||||0.0007
91751680|NCT00909545|183396235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8227||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3057|7.6897|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Headache.||7.6897|0.3057|0.4534
91751681|NCT00909545|183396236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9616||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1109|4.8065|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Constipation.||4.8065|0.1109|0.7852
91751682|NCT00909545|183396236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8681||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1824|5.482|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Constipation.||5.4820|0.1824|0.666
91751683|NCT00909545|183396236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8227||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3057|7.6897|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Constipation.||7.6897|0.3057|0.4534
91751684|NCT00909545|183396237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2596||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0462|6.4433|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Fatigue.||6.4433|0.0462|0.8589
91882112|NCT05043883|183658977|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|87.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-test|The estimate was done using a one-sample Z-test with a null hypothesis that sensitivity is at or below 80% and a 95% significance level.||This secondary endpoint aimed to determine the sensitivity of the PVI Analyzer at the time of isolation, which requires the EGMs at the T PVI. A Z-test for sensitivity was performed to assess the sensitivity of the PVI Analyzer analysis to identify expert-defined isolation during the PVI ablation.||||0.04
91882113|NCT05043883|183658978|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||McNemar test assumes as a null hypothesis that the two datasets cause the PVI Analyzer to have a similar proportion of errors.|McNemars test|A paired McNemars test with an alpha value of 0.05, was applied to analyze the differences in classification performance.||A paired McNemar's Chi-Square test was performed to analyze the differences in classification performances||||0.0002
91882114|NCT00239681|183658987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.46|0.69|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||0.69|0.46|<0.0001
91882115|NCT00239681|183658988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.021||95.0|0.67|0.97|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||0.97|0.67|<0.021
91882116|NCT00239681|183658989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.172||95.0|0.65|1.08|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||1.08|0.65|<0.172
91882117|NCT00239681|183658990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||<|0.015||95.0|1.05|1.53|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||1.53|1.05|<0.015
91882118|NCT00239681|183658991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.018||95.0|0.35|0.91|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||0.91|0.35|0.018
91882119|NCT00239681|183658992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.548||95.0|0.88|1.28|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||1.28|0.88|0.548
91889113|NCT00384774|183671081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0991|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache Response||||0.0991
91751685|NCT00909545|183396237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9584||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2392|10.241|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Fatigue.||10.2410|0.2392|0.5000
91751686|NCT00909545|183396237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9605||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2609|11.2639|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Fatigue.||11.2639|0.2609|0.4609
91751687|NCT00909545|183396238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9616||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1109|4.8065|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nausea.||4.8065|0.1109|0.7852
91751688|NCT00909545|183396238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1912||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|3.1612|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nausea.||3.1612|0.0297|0.9448
91751689|NCT00909545|183396238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9604||0.7996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1061|4.5779|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nausea.||4.5779|0.1061|0.7996
91751690|NCT00909545|183396239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2599||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2015|28.1366|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Tract Infection.||28.1366|0.2015|0.4532
91751691|NCT00909545|183396239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1347||0.0953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6439|55.0272|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Tract Infection.||55.0272|0.6439|0.0953
91751692|NCT00909545|183396240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9617||0.4402||95.0|0.2733|11.8558|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Depression.||11.8558|0.2733|0.4402
91751693|NCT00909545|183396240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2577||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0408|5.6461|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Depression.||5.6461|0.0408|0.8824
91751694|NCT00909545|183396240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0428||0.6641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1413|8.4197|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Depression.||8.4197|0.1413|0.6641
91751695|NCT00909545|183396241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9617||0.4402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2733|11.8558|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Somnolence.||11.8558|0.2733|0.4402
91751696|NCT00909545|183396241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0409||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.6906|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Somnolence.||7.6906|0.1300|0.6951
91751697|NCT00909545|183396242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9617||0.4402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2733|11.8558|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Insomnia .||11.8558|0.2733|0.4402
91751698|NCT00909545|183396242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2577||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0408|5.6461|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Insomnia .||5.6461|0.0408|0.8824
91751699|NCT00909545|183396242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2594||0.8673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0442|6.1537|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Insomnia .||6.1537|0.0442|0.8673
91751700|NCT00909545|183396243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1919||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0337|3.6084|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dyspepsia .||3.6084|0.0337|0.9294
91751701|NCT00909545|183396243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1912||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|3.1612|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dyspepsia .||3.1612|0.0297|0.9448
91751702|NCT00909545|183396243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1924||0.9351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0322|3.4459|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dyspepsia .||3.4459|0.0322|0.9351
91889114|NCT00384774|183671081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4851|||||||Chi-squared|||Headache Response||||0.4851
91751703|NCT00909545|183396244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2596||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0462|6.4433|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Diarrhoea.||6.4433|0.0462|0.8589
91751704|NCT00909545|183396244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0409||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.6906|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Diarrhoea.||7.6906|0.1300|0.6951
91803372|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.70|0.43|0.6658
91803373|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|31.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||31.35|0.30|0.3443
91803374|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9527|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9527
91803375|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.50|0.92|0.0757
91803376|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|22.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||22.42|0.91|0.0659
91803377|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9380
91803378|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9493|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9493
91803379|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.59|0.89|0.0914
91803380|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|9.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||9.61|1.08|0.0359
91803381|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9538|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9538
91803382|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9493|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9493
91803383|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.80|1.22|0.0143
91803384|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|13.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||13.74|1.28|0.0176
91803385|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|18.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||18.06|0.69|0.1298
91803386|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9493|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9493
91803387|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.67|0.99|0.0527
91882120|NCT00905359|183659017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test analysis performed using Multiple imputation and one-sided p-value testing non-inferiority of the percentage change from baseline at 10%. One-sided p-value is significant if \<0.025 or the upper limit of the CI is less than 10%.||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.172
91882121|NCT03713320|183659034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9539|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of the treatment groups is based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test controlling for the number of tumors at screening (at least one tumor at screening versus no tumors at screening) and number of prognostic factors (0-1 versus 2 prognostic factors). Prognostic factors include age at diagnosis \> 60 years and lactate dehydrogenase level \> upper limit of normal at diagnosis. Number of subjects achieving ORR4 and exact binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals are presented.||||.9539
91907976|NCT00876187|183711497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.47|-0.31|0.688
91751705|NCT00909545|183396244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2594||0.8673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0442|6.1537|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Diarrhoea.||6.1537|0.0442|0.8673
91751706|NCT00909545|183396245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9616||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1109|4.8065|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Sinusitis.||4.8065|0.1109|0.7852
91751707|NCT00909545|183396245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1912||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|3.1612|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Sinusitis.||3.1612|0.0297|0.9448
91751708|NCT00909545|183396246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2576||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1771|24.5057|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Back Pain.||24.5057|0.1771|0.5000
91751709|NCT00909545|183396246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.2746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3453|36.9408|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Back Pain.||36.9408|0.3453|0.2746
91751710|NCT00909545|183396247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4444||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|19.264|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Hypotension.||19.2640|0.0670|0.7236
91751711|NCT00909545|183396247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2576||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1771|24.5057|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Hypotension.||24.5057|0.1771|0.5000
91751712|NCT00909545|183396247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2592||0.4694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1926|26.8124|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Hypotension.||26.8124|0.1926|0.4694
91751713|NCT04612842|183396248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91882122|NCT03713320|183659035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio (cobomarsen/vorinostat) and p-value comparing the treatment groups is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors cobomarsen over vorinostat.||||0.011
91889115|NCT00384774|183671081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1178|||||||Chi-squared|||Headache Response||||0.1178
91889116|NCT00384774|183671081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1093|||||||Chi-squared|||Headache Response||||0.1093
91751714|NCT03060512|183396265|OTHER|||||||0.9239|||||||Prescott's test|||Assessment of the difference in preference for the two treatments (Prefer Movantik, No Preference, Prefer PEG 3350) in subjects who completed the entire treatment sequence.||||0.9239
91751715|NCT03060512|183396265|OTHER|||||||0.8874|||||||Prescott's test|||Assessment of the difference between preference for treatment in Period 1, preference for treatment in Period 2, no preference||||0.8874
91751716|NCT03060512|183396268|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model assessing treatment difference in PGIC at Visits 3 and 5 between Movantik and PEG 3350 treatment. Adjustments were performed for treatment, period and sequence.||0.3|-0.3|
91751717|NCT03060512|183396270|OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.0||||||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model assessing treatment difference in BFI change from baseline at Visits 3/5 between Movantik and PEG 3350. Adjustments were performed for for baseline BFI score, treatment, period and sequence.||3.0|-4.7|
91751718|NCT00089986|183396271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate difference|1.1||||0.329|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.1||||Chi-squared||||||-2.1|0.329
91751719|NCT00089986|183396271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-4.4||||0.879|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-9.4||||Chi-squared||||||-9.4|0.879
91751720|NCT01310400|183396275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|4.5||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.5||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H1N1 strain.||7.5|1.4|0.0036
91803388|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||7.12|1.02|0.0457
91889117|NCT00384774|183671081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3364|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache Response||||0.3364
91882123|NCT02725528|183659049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
91882124|NCT02725528|183659050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
91882125|NCT02725528|183659051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
91882126|NCT02725528|183659052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
91907977|NCT00876187|183711497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.76|0.035
91882127|NCT02725528|183659053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
91751721|NCT01310400|183396275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|-3.0||||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.25 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H1N1 strain.||1.0|-7.0|0.1465
91751722|NCT01310400|183396275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.7||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H3N2 strain.||12.7|3.3|<0.001
91751723|NCT01310400|183396275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|0.9||||0.7493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.2||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.25 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H3N2 strain.||6.2|-4.5|0.7493
91803389|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|19.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||19.76|0.77|0.0994
91882128|NCT02725528|183659054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
91882129|NCT02725528|183659055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
91907978|NCT00876187|183711497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.88|0.006
91907979|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.57|0.221
91882130|NCT02725528|183659056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
91882131|NCT02725528|183659057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
91882132|NCT02706847|183659058|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|36.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|46.2||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.2|26.2|<0.001
91882133|NCT02706847|183659058|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|38.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.1|17.8|<0.001
91882134|NCT02706847|183659059|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|38.3||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.3|19.9|<0.001
91882135|NCT02706847|183659059|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|37.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.4|19.0|<0.001
91907980|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.90|<0.001
91803390|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|5.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.86|0.07|0.6977
91803391|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.75|0.82|0.1460
91882136|NCT02706847|183659060|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-1.01||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.01|-1.57|<0.001
91882137|NCT02706847|183659060|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.99||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.99|-1.56|<0.001
91882138|NCT02706847|183659061|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.10|-0.34|<0.001
91882139|NCT02706847|183659061|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
91907981|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.70|0.027
91803392|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.01|0.92|0.0742
91803393|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.91|0.42|0.5565
91803394|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.5623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||10.35|0.28|0.5623
91882140|NCT02706847|183659062|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean DIfference|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|5.15||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.15|1.72|<0.001
91882141|NCT02706847|183659062|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.36||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.36|2.89|<0.001
91882142|NCT02706847|183659063|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|31.1||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.1|13.6|<0.001
91803395|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.47|1.27|0.0116
91803396|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.70|0.96|0.0615
91803397|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.3316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.80|0.59|0.3316
91803398|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.33|0.19|0.9946
91803399|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|6.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.76|1.33|0.0083
91882143|NCT02706847|183659063|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.7||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.7|15.1|<0.001
91882144|NCT02706847|183659064|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|11.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||11.2|-1.1|0.110
91882145|NCT02706847|183659064|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|23.9||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.9|9.1|<0.001
91882146|NCT02706847|183659065|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|25.1||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||25.1|8.5|<0.001
91882147|NCT02706847|183659065|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|22.3||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||22.3|6.1|<0.001
91882148|NCT01174264|183659066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.75||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|2.34|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||2.34|1.30|0.003
91882149|NCT01174264|183659066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.08||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.44||Performed on log-transformed data.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.44|0.81|0.65
91882150|NCT01174264|183659067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.74||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||2.42|1.25|0.008
91907982|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.62|-0.04|0.082
91907983|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.37|0.703
91907984|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.45|-0.17|0.379
91907985|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.87|0.012
91907986|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.39|<0.001
91907987|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.31|<0.001
91751724|NCT01310400|183396275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|20.2||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|27.0||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the B-strain.||27.0|13.5|0.0000
91751725|NCT01310400|183396275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|10.7||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|17.6||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.25 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the B-strain.||17.6|3.7|0.0029
91751726|NCT04065074|183396279|OTHER|Proportion of Successful Administrations|Proportion of Successful Administrations|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.9||||||||0.90|0.51|
91751727|NCT01062841|183396283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||0.94|0.62|<0.05
91751728|NCT01062841|183396284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.54||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model using the cluster option with robust standard errors was used to predict time to the first and recurrent infections, adjusting for participant-level and facility-level covariates.||0.97|0.30|0.04
91751729|NCT01062841|183396285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||0.96|0.64|<0.05
91882151|NCT01174264|183659067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.12||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||1.49|0.84|0.51
91882152|NCT01174264|183659069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91882153|NCT01174264|183659069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91882154|NCT01174264|183659070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91882155|NCT01174264|183659070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91882156|NCT01174264|183659071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.16||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||1.38|0.97|0.17
91803400|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.88|1.00|0.0513
91803401|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|8.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||8.58|0.71|0.1528
91803402|NCT02609828|183484813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|9.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||9.65|0.21|0.7251
91803403|NCT02609828|183484814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.19|-0.28|0.7045
91803404|NCT02609828|183484814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.01|-0.59|0.0402
91803405|NCT02609828|183484814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.02|-0.67|0.0637
91803406|NCT02609828|183484814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.20|-0.53|0.3804
91803407|NCT02609828|183484814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.27|-0.47|0.5894
91803408|NCT02609828|183484815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||1.69|0.09|0.2033
91803409|NCT02609828|183484815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.41|0.41|0.7627
91882157|NCT01174264|183659072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.13||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||1.35|0.95|0.25
91907988|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.39|-0.33|0.862
91907989|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.85|0.003
91803410|NCT02609828|183484815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.43|0.44|0.6894
91803411|NCT02609828|183484815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.83|0.47|0.5905
91803412|NCT02609828|183484815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.35|0.38|0.8354
91882158|NCT01174264|183659073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.22||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.48||Performed on log-transformed data.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.48|1.00|0.096
91882159|NCT01174264|183659074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91882160|NCT03432390|183659075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91907990|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.76|0.014
91907991|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.86|0.019
91907992|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.25|<0.001
91907993|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-1.29|<0.001
91907994|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.45|0.668
91907995|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.84|0.005
91907996|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.88|0.002
91751730|NCT01062841|183396286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.75||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||1.75|0.82|>0.05
91751731|NCT01062841|183396287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.44||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||1.44|0.61|>0.05
91751732|NCT01062841|183396288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||0.97|0.58|<0.05
91751733|NCT01062841|183396290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.45|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model using the cluster option with robust standard errors was used to predict time to the first and recurrent infections, adjusting for participant-level and facility-level covariates.||5.45|0.22|0.92
91751734|NCT01062841|183396291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.83||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.31|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model using the cluster option with robust standard errors was used to predict time to the first and recurrent infections, adjusting for participant-level and facility-level covariates.||6.31|0.53|0.34
91751735|NCT01062841|183396292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the effect of this intervention on an individual's risk of new MDRO acquisition, defined as the number of residents with new acquisitions per 1000 device-days at risk after adjusting for resident-level and facility-level covariates, as well as clustering by facility. Residents colonized with the specific MDRO at baseline were excluded from these analyses.||0.95|0.65|0.01
91751736|NCT01062841|183396293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the effect of this intervention on an individual's risk of new MDRO acquisition, defined as the number of residents with new acquisitions per 1000 device-days at risk after adjusting for resident-level and facility-level covariates, as well as clustering by facility. Residents colonized with the specific MDRO at baseline were excluded from these analyses.||1.60|0.45|0.61
91751737|NCT01062841|183396294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.60|0.59
91803413|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Frequency Composite Score: Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.38|-0.49|0.8069
91882161|NCT01185171|183659135|NON_INFERIORITY|The power of the study was conducted as a two-stage, non-inferiority phase II trial with a total sample size of 59 patients to detect a 15% lower rate than 80% achieved with TFHX, with alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20. In the first stage, 25 patients were recruited, with a plan to terminate if 16 or less complete responses (CR) were observed. Otherwise, additional 34 patients would be recruited and the treatment would be deemed not inferior to historical if more than 45 CRs were observed.|proportion|0.88|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95||Ho: CR rate = 0.65 vs Ha: CR rate \> 0.65|Binomial test for a proportion|||||0.95|0.77|< 0.01
91882162|NCT03559829|183659142|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.025
91882163|NCT03559829|183659143|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
91882164|NCT03559829|183659144|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.3
91907997|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.89|0.032
91751738|NCT03831880|183396301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.71|-11.27||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.27|-19.71|<0.0001
91751739|NCT03831880|183396303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|-2.09||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.09|-8.69|0.0017
91751740|NCT03831880|183396305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|-7.45||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.45|-19.74|<0.0001
91751741|NCT03831880|183396307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-18.57||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.57|-30.10|<0.0001
91882165|NCT03559829|183659145|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.098
91882166|NCT03559829|183659146|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.2
91882167|NCT03559829|183659147|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.07
91882168|NCT01482429|183659149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||binomial test|||||||0.03
91907998|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.21|<0.001
91751742|NCT03831880|183396309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.83||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|0.77||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-16.42|0.0739
91751743|NCT03831880|183396311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|-10.06||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.06|-25.15|<0.0001
91882169|NCT01482429|183659150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91882170|NCT03506347|183659153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91882171|NCT03506347|183659154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
91882172|NCT01502371|183659180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.87||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.09||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA model|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. Placebo||7.09|0.64|0.019
91882173|NCT01502371|183659180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|9.53||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 100 mcg BID vs. Placebo||9.53|3.05|<0.001
91882174|NCT01502371|183659180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|8.61||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 200 mcg BID vs. Placebo||8.61|2.07|0.001
91882175|NCT01502371|183659181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.15||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|37.87||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in AM PEF: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||37.87|0.43|0.045
91882176|NCT01502371|183659181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.63|46.08||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in AM PEF: MF MDI 100 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||46.08|8.63|0.004
91907999|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.28|<0.001
91882177|NCT01502371|183659181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.01||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|36.53||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in AM PEF: MF MDI 200 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||36.53|-0.51|0.057
91908000|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.34|-0.46|0.773
91908001|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.78|0.035
91908002|NCT00876187|183711500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.85|0.014
91751744|NCT03831880|183396313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.6137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.51||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.51|-2.09|0.6137
91751745|NCT03831880|183396315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.8404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|6.41||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.41|-5.29|0.8404
91751746|NCT03831880|183396317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|-9.35||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.35|-17.59|<0.0001
91751747|NCT03831880|183396319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.36||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-5.16|0.0245
91751748|NCT03831880|183396331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|-10.44||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.44|-18.72|<0.0001
91908003|NCT05074251|183711561|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.75|1.14|<0.05
91751749|NCT02081638|183396338|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance was a priori set to \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||>0.05
91751750|NCT02081638|183396338|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.022
91751751|NCT02081638|183396339|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.13
91751752|NCT02081638|183396339|OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.097
91751753|NCT02081638|183396339|OTHER|||||||0.0269|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.0269
91882178|NCT01502371|183659182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.27||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in PAQLQ(S) Total Score: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||0.27|-0.08|0.280
91908004|NCT05112536|183711565|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.101
91908005|NCT03972969|183711570|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.32|||negative binomial regression|||||0.32|0.05|<0.05
91908006|NCT03972969|183711570|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.61|||negative binomial regression|||||0.61|0.10|<0.05
91751754|NCT02081638|183396339|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91751755|NCT02081638|183396339|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Plasma biomarkers (CRP, sCD14, TF, IL-6) were log(e) transformed and a linear mixed effect model with the biomarker as outcome and with random slope per participant was used to calculate the percentage of change from baseline.|||
91751756|NCT01414205|183396347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Hauck-Anderson)|17.89||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|40.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by the randomization stratification factors as supportive analyses.||||40.72|-4.95|0.0779
91751757|NCT02498067|183396386|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of whether participants' mean reported scores for frequency of dual method use differ between baseline (pre-rPlan) and 3-month follow-up (post-rPlan)||||.177
91751758|NCT02498067|183396387|OTHER|||||||0.318||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of whether participants' mean reported scores for frequency of condom use alone (without another method) differ between baseline (pre-rPlan) and 3-month follow-up (post-rPlan)||||.318
91908007|NCT03972969|183711570|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.38|||negative binomial regression|||||1.38|0.19|<0.05
91908008|NCT03972969|183711571|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.33|||negative binomial regression|||||0.33|0.07|<0.05
91882179|NCT01502371|183659182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.3||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in PAQLQ(S) Total Score: MF MDI 100 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||0.30|-0.06|0.178
91908009|NCT03972969|183711571|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.58|||negative binomial regression|||||0.58|0.11|<0.05
91908010|NCT03972969|183711571|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.38|||negative binomial regression|||||1.38|0.25|<0.05
91751759|NCT02498067|183396388|OTHER|||||||0||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of whether participants reported more consistent contraceptive use (i.e., using contraception every time they had sex) between baseline (pre-rPlan) and 3-month follow-up (post-rPlan)||||.000
91751760|NCT02498067|183396390|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported likelihood to use an IUD in the future (on a scale ranging from 1- very unlikely, to 5- very likely) before and directly after using the rPlan app||||.030
91751761|NCT02498067|183396391|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported likelihood to use an implant in the future (on a scale ranging from 1- very unlikely, to 5- very likely) before and directly after using the rPlan app||||.140
91751762|NCT02498067|183396392|OTHER|||||||0.315||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported likelihood to use condoms in the future (on a scale ranging from 1- very unlikely, to 5- very likely) before and directly after using the rPlan app||||.315
91751763|NCT02498067|183396393|OTHER|||||||0.028||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported contraceptive self-efficacy (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all confident, to 5- extremely confident) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.028
91751764|NCT02498067|183396394|OTHER|||||||0.918||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported condom use self-efficacy (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all confident, to 5- extremely confident) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.918
91751765|NCT02498067|183396396|OTHER|||||||0.209||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' self-reported number of sexual partners in the past 3 months (for those were sexually active) between baseline and 3-month follow-up||||.209
91751766|NCT02498067|183396397|OTHER|||||||0.652||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported degree to which they endorse negative condom attitudes (on a scale ranging from 1- strongly disagree, to 5- strongly agree) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.652
91751767|NCT02498067|183396398|OTHER|||||||0.498||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported degree to which they endorse positive motivators for condom use (on a scale ranging from 1- strongly disagree, to 5- strongly agree) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.498
91751768|NCT02498067|183396399|OTHER|||||||0.977||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' rated importance of negative contraceptive attitudes on their decision to use contraception (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all important, to 5- extremely important) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.977
91751769|NCT02498067|183396400|OTHER|||||||0.673||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' rated importance of positive motivators for contraceptive use on their decision to use contraception (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all important, to 5- extremely important) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.673
91751770|NCT02498067|183396401|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of proportion of participants who provided correct answers to whether pills or condoms are more effective at preventing pregnancy, before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.049
91751771|NCT02498067|183396401|OTHER|||||||0.265||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of proportion of participants who provided correct answers to whether the IUD or shot is more effective at preventing pregnancy, before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.265
91751772|NCT01874275|183396404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2413
91751773|NCT02214225|183396410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H1N1)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.98||||||For A/H1N1 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.98|0.87|
91882180|NCT01502371|183659182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.36||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in PAQLQ(S) Total Score: MF MDI 200 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||0.36|0.00|0.045
91908011|NCT02409290|183711583|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.2||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.61|||Log Rank|||||0.61|0.07|0.0016
91908012|NCT02409290|183711584|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.11||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.5|||Log Rank|||Control regimen (arm B) uses concurrent controls only||0.50|0.03|0.0005
91882181|NCT01502371|183659183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|4.44||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA model|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. MF DPI 100 mcg QD. Only participants who received MF MDI 50 mcg BID or MF DPI 100 mcg QD were included in the statistical analysis.||4.44|-1.65|0.368
91882182|NCT01458522|183659201|OTHER|||||||0.512|||||||Poisson regression model|||||||0.512
91751774|NCT02214225|183396410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H3N2)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.98||||||For A/H3N2 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.98|0.88|
91751775|NCT02214225|183396410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/YAM)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93||||||For B/Yamagata strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.93|0.81|
91751776|NCT02214225|183396410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/VIC)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.01||||||For B/Victoria strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.01|0.86|
91751777|NCT02214225|183396411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H1N1. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.2||||||||2.2|-4.4|
91751778|NCT02214225|183396411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H3N2. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.6||||||||1.6|-5.0|
91751779|NCT02214225|183396411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/Yamagata. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/YAM)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.5||||||||0.5|-7.0|
91751780|NCT02214225|183396411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/Victoria. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/VIC)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.4||||||||2.4|-5.6|
91751781|NCT02214225|183396412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H1N1)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02||||||For A/H1N1 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.02|0.85|
91751782|NCT02214225|183396412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H3N2)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.99||||||For A/H3N2 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.99|0.83|
91751783|NCT02214225|183396412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/YAM)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97||||||For B/YAM strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.97|0.76|
91751784|NCT02214225|183396412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/VIC)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98||||||For B/VIC strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.98|0.76|
91751785|NCT02214225|183396412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H1N1)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.02||||||For A/H1N1 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.02|0.88|
91882183|NCT00730015|183659232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|17.47||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 145-μg dose and those taking placebo. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be at least 90% based on study NCT00402337(MCP-103-201) data.||17.47|3.41|<0.0001
91882184|NCT00730015|183659232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|16.59||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 290-μg dose and those taking placebo. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be greater than 96% based on study NCT00402337(MCP-103-201) data.||16.59|3.14|<0.0001
91882185|NCT02053610|183659281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.58|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.58|0.41|<0.0001
91882186|NCT02053610|183659283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.54|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.54|0.33|<0.0001
91882187|NCT02053610|183659285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|13.22||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.1|||Chi-squared|||Includes participants with EOTR: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||20.1|6.3|0.0001
91882188|NCT02053610|183659286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|12.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|19.8|||Chi-squared|||Includes participants with best overall response: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||19.8|6.1|0.0002
91908013|NCT00705783|183711586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.199|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.317|||Log Rank||Aripiprazole depot/placebo depot|Based on 6-month IR rates of 55% for placebo and 35% for aripiprazole, sample sizes were estimated to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.54 and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided), allowing for 2 interim looks at 50% and 75% of events. Assuming that each subject was followed for 12 months after randomization and allowing for a 25% loss to follow-up, the projected total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to treatment in the trial was 225.||0.317|0.125|<0.0001
91908014|NCT00705783|183711587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The alpha levels for this key secondary Outcome Measure were the same as used for the primary Outcome Measure.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91882189|NCT02053610|183659287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.61|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.61|0.43|<0.0001
91882190|NCT02053610|183659288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.76||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.97|0.60|0.0245
91882191|NCT02053610|183659289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.61|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.61|0.41|<0.0001
91882192|NCT02053610|183659291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.73|0.46|<0.0001
91882193|NCT01165177|183659294|OTHER|Criteria for the vaccine efficacy (VE) objective of herpes zoster subunit (HZ/su) vaccine against herpes zoster (HZ) disease, in the 50-59 YOA strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|96.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.6|99.3||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A 50-59 YOA group and placebo 50-59 YOA group||99.3|89.6|<0.0001
91882194|NCT01165177|183659294|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease, in the 60-69 YOA strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|97.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.1|99.7||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A over 60-69 YOA group and placebo over 60-69 YOA group||99.7|90.1|<0.0001
91882195|NCT01165177|183659294|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease, in the 70-79 YOA strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|97.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.9|100.0||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A over 70 YOA group and placebo over 70 YOA group||100|87.9|0.0001
91908015|NCT00705783|183711588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91908016|NCT00705783|183711589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1756||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1756
91908017|NCT00705783|183711590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|-7.54|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||||-7.54|-12.68|<0.0001
91882196|NCT01165177|183659294|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease, in the overall age strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|97.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|99.0||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A overall ages group and placebo overall ages group||99|93.7|<0.0001
91882197|NCT01165177|183659295|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the 50-59 YOA strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.9|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A 50-59 YOA group and placebo 50-59 YOA group||100|40.9|0.0081
91882198|NCT01165177|183659295|OTHER|Criteria for VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the 60-69 YOA strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.5097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-442.8|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A 60-69 YOA group and placebo 60-69 YOA group||100|-442.8|0.5097
91908018|NCT00705783|183711591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.35|-0.70|<0.0001
91908019|NCT00705783|183711592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-2.91|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||Positive Subscale Score||-2.91|-4.72|<0.0001
91882199|NCT01165177|183659295|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the 70-79 YOA strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A over 70 YOA group and placebo over 70 YOA group||100|41.4|0.0078
91882200|NCT01165177|183659295|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the overall ages strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A overall ages group and placebo overall ages group||100|77.1|<0.0001
91882201|NCT00781937|183659316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-6.06|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.5|-4.62||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3) and the hypotheses of equality between liraglutide and placebo for each were tested in a hierarchical manner; i.e. a conclusion of liraglutide superiority for a given co-primary endpoint could be drawn only if all preceding hypotheses of equality in the hierarchy had been rejected.||-4.62|-7.50|<0.0001
91882202|NCT00781937|183659317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.01|7.71||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3) and the hypotheses of equality between liraglutide and placebo for each were tested in a hierarchical manner; i.e. a conclusion of liraglutide superiority for a given co-primary endpoint could be drawn only if all preceding hypotheses of equality in the hierarchy had been rejected.||7.71|3.01|<0.0001
91882203|NCT00781937|183659318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.44|6.09||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3) and the hypotheses of equality between liraglutide and placebo for each were tested in a hierarchical manner; i.e. a conclusion of liraglutide superiority for a given co-primary endpoint could be drawn only if all preceding hypotheses of equality in the hierarchy had been rejected.||6.09|2.44|<0.0001
91882204|NCT00781937|183659319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.79|10.08||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||10.08|2.79|<0.0001
91882205|NCT00781937|183659320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.03|0.26||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||0.26|0.03|<0.0001
91882206|NCT00781937|183659322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.12|10.98||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||10.98|3.12|<0.0001
91882207|NCT00781937|183659323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.65|9.92||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||9.92|3.65|<0.0001
91882208|NCT00781937|183659324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-5.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.3|-4.43||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-4.43|-7.30|<0.0001
91882209|NCT00781937|183659325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-4.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.04|-2.43||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-2.43|-6.04|<0.0001
91882210|NCT00781937|183659326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-2.72||||0.0068||95.0|-4.69|-0.76||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||Analysis is of treatment contrast, change in systolic blood pressure.||-0.76|-4.69|0.0068
91882211|NCT00781937|183659326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.34||||0.6386||95.0|-1.74|1.07||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||Analysis is of treatment contrast, change in diastolic blood pressure.||1.07|-1.74|0.6386
91882212|NCT00781937|183659327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|0.97||||0.1968||95.0|-0.51|2.45||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||2.45|-0.51|0.1968
91882213|NCT00781937|183659328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.11||||0.031||95.0|-0.2|-0.01||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.01|-0.20|0.0310
91882214|NCT00781937|183659329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.09||||0.1098||95.0|-0.2|0.02||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||0.02|-0.20|0.1098
91882215|NCT00781937|183659330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.11||||0.1149||95.0|-0.24|0.03||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||0.03|-0.24|0.1149
91882216|NCT00781937|183659331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-13.01||||0.0141||95.0|-23.4|-2.64||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-2.64|-23.40|0.0141
91882217|NCT00781937|183659332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.1199||95.0|0.36|1.12||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and metabolic status and weight at baseline as covariates.||||1.12|0.36|0.1199
91882218|NCT00781937|183659333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-3.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.84|-2.15||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-2.15|-4.84|<0.0001
91882219|NCT00781937|183659334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-2.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.53|-1.57||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-1.57|-2.53|<0.0001
91803414|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.41|-0.28|0.7127
91882220|NCT00781937|183659335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|2.35||||0.3689||95.0|-2.79|7.49||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||7.49|-2.79|0.3689
91882221|NCT00781937|183659336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.1||||0.0053||95.0|-0.16|-0.03||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.03|-0.16|0.0053
91882222|NCT00781937|183659337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.38|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.5|-0.26||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.26|-0.50|<0.0001
91803415|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.23|-0.57|0.3933
91882223|NCT00781937|183659338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-1.85||||0.0147||95.0|-3.34|-0.37||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.37|-3.34|0.0147
91882224|NCT00781937|183659339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.33|-0.21||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.21|-0.33|<0.0001
91882225|NCT02431052|183659349|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|ANCOVA with factors of treatment group (combined vehicle as one group) and baseline count as covariate.||||||0.0006
91882226|NCT02431052|183659350|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|ANCOVA with factors of treatment group (combined vehicle as one group) and baseline count as covariate.||||||0.0002
91882227|NCT02431052|183659351|OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (vehicle treatment groups included as single combined treatment group).||||||0.0055
91882228|NCT03546816|183659362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||P-value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.229
91882229|NCT03546816|183659363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.013
91882230|NCT03546816|183659364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.236
91882231|NCT03546816|183659365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||P-values, least squares means (LS Mean) and standard deviations (LS SD) from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.083
91882232|NCT03546816|183659365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.049
91882233|NCT03546816|183659365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 6||||0.081
91882234|NCT03546816|183659365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.157
91882235|NCT03546816|183659366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 2||||0.151
91882236|NCT03546816|183659366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4||||0.052
91882237|NCT03546816|183659366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 10||||0.175
91882238|NCT03546816|183659367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.475
91882239|NCT03546816|183659367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.020
91803416|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.41|-0.71|0.5869
91803417|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.21|-1.05|0.1814
91882240|NCT03546816|183659367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.492
91803418|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.46|-0.14|0.2822
91803419|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.41|-0.23|0.5795
91803420|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.22|-0.42|0.5486
91803421|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.63|-0.24|0.3692
91803422|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.63|-0.30|0.4724
91803423|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.64|-0.30|0.4770
91803424|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.37|-0.38|0.9791
91803425|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.74|-0.27|0.3574
91803426|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.42|-0.77|0.5607
91882241|NCT03546816|183659368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.175
91882242|NCT03546816|183659368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.169
91882243|NCT03546816|183659368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.516
91882244|NCT03546816|183659369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.814
91882245|NCT03546816|183659370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.113
91882246|NCT01161446|183659372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91882247|NCT01161446|183659373|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority bound: Self-testing was to be considered non-inferior to standard testing if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio fell below 2.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|Used generalized estimating equations with exchangeable working correlation and robust standard errors to account for repeated measures.|The home testing arm represents the numerator and the standard testing arm the denominator.|||1.90|0.61|
91882248|NCT01161446|183659374|NON_INFERIORITY|Home testing was to be considered non-inferior to standard testing with respect to STI prevalence if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two arms (home - standard) fell below 10%.|Difference in proportions|-0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.016||||||||0.016|-0.16|
91882249|NCT01161446|183659375|NON_INFERIORITY|Self-testing was to be considered non-inferior with respect to the number of reported male CAI partners if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the fold-difference in the number of partners between the two arms (self ÷ standard testing) fell below 2.|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33|||Poisson regression|Used generalized estimating equations with exchangeable working correlation and robust standard errors to account for repeated measures.|The home testing arm represents the numerator and the standard testing arm the denominator.|||1.33|0.64|
91882250|NCT02270671|183659376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: \>.05|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
91908020|NCT00705783|183711593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.67|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.67|-2.04|0.0001
91751786|NCT02214225|183396412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H3N2)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.02||||||For A/H3N2 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.02|0.89|
91751787|NCT02214225|183396412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/YAM)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.97||||||For B/YAM strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.97|0.84|
91751788|NCT02214225|183396412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/VIC)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14||||||For B/VIC strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.14|0.94|
91882251|NCT02270671|183659377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: =.026|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
91882252|NCT02270671|183659378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: \>.05|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
91882253|NCT02270671|183659379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: \<.0001|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
91882254|NCT02270671|183659380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: =.007|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
91882255|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.6||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 2||1.0|-6.2|0.887
91882256|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|0.3||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.2|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 2||3.2|-2.6|0.431
91882257|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-1.0||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|3.4|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||3.4|-5.4|0.647
91882258|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|2.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|6.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||6.0|-1.1|0.130
91882259|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.5||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates|Day 15||2.0|-6.9|0.818
91882260|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|0.3||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|4.1|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 15||4.1|-3.6|0.457
91882261|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-3.1||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||0.8|-6.9|0.906
91882262|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-0.4||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||3.3|-4.1|0.566
91882263|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-1.3||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|3.1|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||3.1|-5.6|0.686
91908021|NCT00705783|183711594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91908022|NCT00705783|183711595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91908023|NCT04251910|183711607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0813|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0813
91882264|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|5.2|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||5.2|-2.5|0.280
91882265|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.4||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||1.4|-6.3|0.849
91882266|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|1.5||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|5.2|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||5.2|-2.2|0.254
91908024|NCT04251910|183711607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0011
91908025|NCT04251910|183711607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0002
91908026|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9616|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A 30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (30 minutes)||||0.9616
91908027|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.5460
91908028|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0961|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/s Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0961
91908029|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1359|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (4 hours)||||0.1359
91908030|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1688|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (8 hours)||||0.1688
91908031|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (24 hours)||||0.6670
91908032|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8695|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.8695
91882267|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.7||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||1.3|-6.6|0.866
91882268|NCT03927690|183659392|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|2.0||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|5.8|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||5.8|-1.9|0.198
91882269|NCT03927690|183659398|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.2||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.33|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||1.33|1.08|0.998
91882270|NCT03927690|183659398|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.0||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.09|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||1.09|0.92|0.527
91882271|NCT03927690|183659398|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.21||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.33|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates|Day 15||1.33|1.10|0.999
91908033|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.5002
91908034|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (30 minutes)||||0.5631
91908035|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (1 hour)||||0.0089
91882272|NCT03927690|183659398|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.03||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.12|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 15||1.12|0.95|0.716
91882273|NCT03927690|183659398|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.21||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.31|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||1.31|1.13|1.000
91882274|NCT03927690|183659398|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|0.98||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.05|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||1.05|0.91|0.281
91882275|NCT03927690|183659398|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.32||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.46|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||1.46|1.20|1.000
91908036|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||<.0001
91908037|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (4 hours)||||0.0011
91908038|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (8 hours)||||0.0008
91908039|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2847|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (24 hours)||||0.2847
91908040|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2616|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.2616
91908041|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1989|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.1989
91908042|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4585|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (30 minutes)||||0.4585
91908043|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (1 hour)||||0.0005
91908044|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0004
91908045|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (4 hours)||||0.0025
91908046|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (8 hours)||||0.1027
91908047|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7953|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (24 hours)||||0.7953
91908048|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1416|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.1416
91908049|NCT04251910|183711609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0658|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.0658
91908050|NCT04251910|183711610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A -30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.8760
91908051|NCT04251910|183711610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9077|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A 30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.9077
91908052|NCT04251910|183711610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7208|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A 30 mcg BXCL501 vs Part A-Placebo (Day1; 4 hours)||||0.7208
91803427|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.47|-0.68|0.7143
91882276|NCT03927690|183659398|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|0.96||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.04|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||1.04|0.88|0.200
91803428|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.45|-0.28|0.6381
91803429|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.37|-0.25|0.7181
91803430|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.31|-0.38|0.8378
91803431|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.40|-0.52|0.7950
91803432|NCT02609828|183484818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.40|-0.62|0.6719
91803433|NCT01517711|183484830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.286||||||P value is for overall post-randomization CAPS score|ANOVA|||Women were excluded from analysis because of the small sample size and unequal distribution across groups.||||0.286
91803434|NCT01517711|183484831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.10
91803435|NCT01517711|183484832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis is for sleep only (men)||||=0.03
91803436|NCT01786668|183484834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|30.3|||Emax Model|||Emax model - 95% Confidence Interval represents 95% Credible Interval||30.3|5.0|
91882277|NCT03927690|183659398|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.18||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.28|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||1.28|1.09|1.000
91803437|NCT01786668|183484834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|37.7|||Emax Model|||Emax model - 95% Confidence Interval represents 95% Credible Interval||37.7|8.4|
91803438|NCT01786668|183484834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|43.4|||Emax Model|||Emax model - 95% Confidence Interval represents 95% Credible Interval||43.4|10.7|
91803439|NCT01786668|183484835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|29.9|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||||29.90|-8.41|0.271
91803440|NCT01786668|183484835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|39.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.35|56.83|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||||56.83|22.35|<0.001
91803441|NCT01786668|183484835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.74||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|33.69|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||||33.69|-4.50|0.134
91803442|NCT01786668|183484836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|31.04|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||31.04|-5.17|0.162
91803443|NCT01786668|183484836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|22.92|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||22.92|-12.44|0.561
91803444|NCT01786668|183484836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|24.97|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||24.97|-10.65|0.430
91803445|NCT01786668|183484836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|33.5|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||33.50|-4.01|0.123
91882278|NCT03927690|183659398|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|0.94||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.01|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||1.01|0.87|0.083
91882279|NCT03927690|183659398|SUPERIORITY||Ratio(Test vs Reference)|1.26||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.38|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||1.38|1.14|1.000
91882280|NCT03927690|183659398|SUPERIORITY||Ratio(Test vs Reference)|0.96||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.06|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||1.06|0.88|0.254
91882281|NCT04182113|183659446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.042||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.044||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing Target vs. Foil activity following 1Hz rTMS to Target vs. Foil activity following 20 Hz rTMS stimulation.||0.044|-0.129|0.32
91751789|NCT02214225|183396413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H1N1. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.6||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||2.6|-6.9|
91751790|NCT02214225|183396413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H3N2. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|0.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||0.2|-9.3|
91751791|NCT02214225|183396413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/YAM. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/YAM)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.3||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||1.3|-10.3|
91751792|NCT02214225|183396413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/VIC. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/VIC)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||1.2|-10.5|
91751793|NCT02214225|183396413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H1N1. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.0||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||4.0|-4.4|
91751794|NCT02214225|183396413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H3N2. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||5.2|-3.1|
91751795|NCT02214225|183396413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/YAM. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/YAM)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|2.0||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||2.0|-6.3|
91751796|NCT02214225|183396413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/VIC. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/VIC)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||6.2|-3.7|
91751797|NCT02214225|183396414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/YAM) overall|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.57|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT ratio was greater than 1.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.57|1.38|
91751798|NCT02214225|183396414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/VIC) overall|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.7|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT ratio was greater than 1.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.70|1.45|
91751799|NCT02214225|183396414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/YAM) 18 through 64 years|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|1.87|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.87|1.50|
91803446|NCT01786668|183484836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|41.13|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||41.13|3.74|0.019
91803447|NCT01786668|183484836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|33.5|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||33.50|-4.01|0.123
91803448|NCT01786668|183484836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|33.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||33.66|-4.55|0.135
91803449|NCT01786668|183484836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.36||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.68|46.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||46.36|9.68|0.003
91908053|NCT04251910|183711610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A BXCL501 30 mcg v/s Part A-Placebo(Day 1;8 hours)||||0.3666
91803450|NCT01786668|183484836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|29.9|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||29.90|-8.48|0.274
91803451|NCT01786668|183484837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-3.11|0.427
91803452|NCT01786668|183484837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-4.58|0.039
91803453|NCT01786668|183484837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.131||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-4.97|0.016
91803454|NCT01786668|183484838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.517||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-5.99|0.050
91803455|NCT01786668|183484838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|-2.42|||ANCOVA|||||-2.42|-8.42|<0.001
91803456|NCT01786668|183484838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.525|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-3.46|||ANCOVA|||||-3.46|-9.48|<0.001
91803457|NCT01786668|183484839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-1.66|0.221
91803458|NCT01786668|183484839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-2.83|<0.001
91803459|NCT01786668|183484839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-2.75|0.001
91803460|NCT01786668|183484840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|11.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||11.40|-15.85|0.749
91803461|NCT01786668|183484840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|11.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||11.40|-15.85|0.749
91803462|NCT01786668|183484840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|15.95|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||15.95|-12.71|0.824
91803463|NCT01786668|183484840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|29.01|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||29.01|-2.69|0.104
91803464|NCT01786668|183484840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|33.2|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||33.20|0.81|0.040
91803465|NCT01786668|183484840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|20.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||20.40|-9.46|0.473
91803466|NCT01786668|183484840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|18.76|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||18.76|-15.97|0.875
91803467|NCT01786668|183484840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|24.97|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||24.97|-10.65|0.430
91803468|NCT01786668|183484840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|27.01|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||27.01|-8.84|0.320
91803469|NCT01786668|183484840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.41|39.99|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||39.99|5.41|0.010
91803470|NCT01786668|183484840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|43.93|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||43.93|9.16|0.003
91803471|NCT01786668|183484840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|35.99|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||35.99|1.72|0.031
91803472|NCT01786668|183484841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|28.86|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||28.86|1.61|0.028
91803473|NCT01786668|183484841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.47|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||17.47|-6.23|0.353
91803474|NCT01786668|183484841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|26.64|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||26.64|-0.02|0.050
91803475|NCT01786668|183484841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|24.39|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||24.39|-1.62|0.086
91803476|NCT01786668|183484841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.37|37.48|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||37.48|8.37|0.002
91803477|NCT01786668|183484841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|35.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||35.36|6.65|0.004
91803478|NCT01786668|183484841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|25.13|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||25.13|-2.43|0.106
91803479|NCT01786668|183484841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.79|48.22|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||48.22|16.79|<0.001
91803480|NCT01786668|183484841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|33.81|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||33.81|4.27|0.012
91803481|NCT01786668|183484841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|18.19|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||18.19|-11.10|0.635
91803482|NCT01786668|183484841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|34.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.45|51.18|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||51.18|17.45|<0.001
91803483|NCT01786668|183484841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|39.34|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||39.34|6.21|0.007
91882282|NCT04182113|183659446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test between Target vs. Foil activation following 1 Hz rTMS and Target vs. Foil activation following Sham stimulation..||0.12|-0.03|0.25
91882283|NCT04182113|183659446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.078||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.181||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test between Target vs. Foil activity following 20 Hz rTMS and Target vs. Foil activity following Sham stimulation.||0.181|-0.024|0.13
91882284|NCT04182113|183659447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.034||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing precuneus connectivity following 1Hz rTMS to precuneus connectivity following 20 Hz rTMS stimulation.||0.034|0.001|0.038
91882285|NCT04182113|183659447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.033|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing precuneus connectivity following 1Hz rTMS to precuneus connectivity following 20 Hz rTMS stimulation.||0.033|-0.015|0.44
91882286|NCT04182113|183659447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.009|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing precuneus connectivity following 20Hz rTMS to precuneus connectivity following sham stimulation.||0.009|-0.032|0.25
91908054|NCT04251910|183711610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0191|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A BXCL501 60 mcg v/s Placebo-Part A (Day1; 1 hour)||||0.0191
91908055|NCT04251910|183711610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A BXCL501 60 mcg v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0006
91751800|NCT02214225|183396414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/VIC) 18 through 64 years|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.01|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||2.01|1.55|
91882287|NCT04182113|183659448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of scene recognition performance accuracy following 1Hz rTMS to accuracy following 20 Hz rTMS.||6.9|-1.6|0.20
91882288|NCT04182113|183659448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|9.9||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of scene recognition performance accuracy following 1Hz rTMS to accuracy following sham rTMS.||9.9|-1.9|0.17
91882289|NCT04182113|183659448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.2||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of scene recognition performance accuracy following 20Hz rTMS to accuracy following 20 Hz rTMS.||8.2|-10.8|0.77
91882290|NCT03539068|183659456|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.00001
91882291|NCT00551135|183659458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|||||Hochberg's adjustment applied to p-value; Hochberg's adjusted p-value was the primary analysis.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0668
91882292|NCT00551135|183659458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted (raw) p-value.|ANOVA|||LS (least squares) means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0334
91882293|NCT00551135|183659458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8003|TWO_SIDED|||||Hochberg's adjustment applied to p-value; Hochberg's adjusted p-value was the primary analysis.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8003
91882294|NCT00551135|183659458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8003|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted (raw) p-value.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8003
91882295|NCT00551135|183659458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted (raw) p-value.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6932
91882296|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4471
91908056|NCT04251910|183711610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||<.0001
91908057|NCT04251910|183711610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1;8 hours)||||0.0003
91908058|NCT04251910|183711610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0006
91908059|NCT04251910|183711610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0002
91908060|NCT04251910|183711610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0029
91908061|NCT04251910|183711610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2446|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.2446
91908062|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0926|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.0926
91908063|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3976|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.3976
91908064|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1169|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.1169
91908065|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3786|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.3786
91882297|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7248
91751801|NCT02214225|183396414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/YAM) ≥ 65 years|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.4|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.40|1.21|
91803484|NCT01786668|183484842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.08|-0.46|0.175
91803485|NCT01786668|183484842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||-0.24|-0.77|<0.001
91803486|NCT01786668|183484842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||-0.20|-0.74|<0.001
91803487|NCT01786668|183484842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.15|-0.70|0.003
91803488|NCT01786668|183484842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.34|-0.90|<0.001
91803489|NCT01786668|183484842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.31|-0.86|<0.001
91803490|NCT01786668|183484842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.04|-0.66|0.026
91803491|NCT01786668|183484842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.32|-0.94|<0.001
91803492|NCT01786668|183484842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.27|-0.90|<0.001
91803493|NCT01786668|183484842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.21|-0.89|0.002
91803494|NCT01786668|183484842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.39|-1.07|<0.001
91803495|NCT01786668|183484842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.35|-1.03|<0.001
91803496|NCT01786668|183484843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|26.89|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||26.89|-4.41|0.159
91803497|NCT01786668|183484843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.54|49.24|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||49.24|15.54|<0.001
91803498|NCT01786668|183484843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.04|41.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||41.36|8.04|0.004
91882298|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7556
91908066|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24hours)||||0.5640
91908067|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.6020
91908068|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5875|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.5875
91908069|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1055|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.1055
91908070|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0024
91908071|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0016
91803499|NCT01786668|183484843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.41|39.99|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||39.99|5.41|0.010
91803500|NCT01786668|183484843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|38.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.79|55.38|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||55.38|20.79|<0.001
91803501|NCT01786668|183484843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|49.73|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||49.73|14.90|<0.001
91803502|NCT01786668|183484843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.39||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|33.22|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||33.22|-3.58|0.114
91803503|NCT01786668|183484843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.92|48.49|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||48.49|11.92|0.001
91882299|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0571
91908072|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.0002
91908073|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2039|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.2039
91908074|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1948|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.1948
91803504|NCT01786668|183484843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.92|48.49|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||48.49|11.92|0.001
91803505|NCT01786668|183484843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|42.76|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||42.76|6.18|0.009
91803506|NCT01786668|183484843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.09|53.94|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||53.94|18.09|<0.001
91803507|NCT01786668|183484843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|46.55|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||46.55|10.09|0.002
91803508|NCT01786668|183484844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||13.91|-2.45|0.170
91803509|NCT01786668|183484844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||13.91|-2.45|0.170
91803510|NCT01786668|183484844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||13.91|-2.45|0.170
91803511|NCT01786668|183484844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|16.48|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||16.48|-5.17|0.306
91803512|NCT01786668|183484844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|16.48|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||16.48|-5.17|0.306
91803513|NCT01786668|183484844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|21.24|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||21.24|-2.24|0.113
91882300|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0197
91882301|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2398|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2398
91803514|NCT01786668|183484844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|13.65|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||13.65|-10.18|0.775
91908075|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5615|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.5615
91908076|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8266|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.8266
91908077|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0002
91908078|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0004
91908079|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1037|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.1037
91908080|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3267|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.3267
91908081|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0339|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.0339
91908082|NCT04251910|183711611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1892|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day7)||||0.1892
91908083|NCT04251910|183711612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3359|||||||Fisher Exact|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours post administration)||||0.3359
91908084|NCT04251910|183711612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours post administration)||||0.0004
91908085|NCT04251910|183711612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0351
91908086|NCT04251910|183711613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0952|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0952
91908087|NCT04251910|183711613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8977|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.8977
91908088|NCT04251910|183711613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0002
91908089|NCT04251910|183711613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3147|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.3147
91803515|NCT01786668|183484844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|31.68|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||31.68|2.56|0.021
91803516|NCT01786668|183484844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|27.34|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||27.34|-0.79|0.064
91803517|NCT01786668|183484844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|21.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||21.36|-6.42|0.292
91803518|NCT01786668|183484844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|25.78|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||25.78|-3.16|0.125
91803519|NCT01786668|183484844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|27.96|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||27.96|-1.49|0.078
91803520|NCT01786668|183484845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||5.66|-1.81|0.313
91803521|NCT01786668|183484845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||5.66|-1.81|0.313
91803522|NCT01786668|183484845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||5.66|-1.81|0.313
91803523|NCT01786668|183484845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|5.29|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||5.29|-5.37|0.989
91803524|NCT01786668|183484845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|11.2|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||11.20|-3.58|0.313
91803525|NCT01786668|183484845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||13.91|-2.45|0.170
91803526|NCT01786668|183484845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|11.2|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||11.20|-3.58|0.313
91803527|NCT01786668|183484845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|5.29|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||5.29|-5.37|0.989
91803528|NCT01786668|183484845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|16.52|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||16.52|-1.22|0.091
91803529|NCT01786668|183484845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.47|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||17.47|-6.23|0.353
91908090|NCT04251910|183711613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||<.0001
91803530|NCT01786668|183484845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.47|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||17.47|-6.23|0.353
91803531|NCT01786668|183484845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.26||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|19.81|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||19.81|-4.73|0.228
91803532|NCT01786668|183484846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.58|-0.64|0.926
91803533|NCT01786668|183484846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.50|-0.72|0.718
91803534|NCT01786668|183484846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.79|-0.43|0.570
91803535|NCT01786668|183484846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.38|-0.97|0.384
91803536|NCT01786668|183484846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.34|-1.00|0.334
91803537|NCT01786668|183484846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.43|-0.92|0.474
91803538|NCT01786668|183484846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.46|-1.04|0.445
91803539|NCT01786668|183484846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.23|-1.27|0.174
91908091|NCT04251910|183711613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1241|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.1241
91908092|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.4080
91908093|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4198|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.4198
91908094|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day1; 2 hours)||||0.0370
91803540|NCT01786668|183484846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.28|-1.23|0.217
91803541|NCT01786668|183484846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.12|-1.69|0.024
91803542|NCT01786668|183484846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.24|-1.81|0.010
91803543|NCT01786668|183484846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.04|-1.62|0.038
91803544|NCT01786668|183484847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.38|9.08|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||9.08|-17.38|0.539
91803545|NCT01786668|183484847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|20.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||20.40|-9.46|0.473
91803546|NCT01786668|183484847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|11.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||11.40|-15.85|0.749
91803547|NCT01786668|183484847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|23.98|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||23.98|-9.43|0.393
91803548|NCT01786668|183484847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.57|17.59|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||17.59|-14.57|0.854
91803549|NCT01786668|183484847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|23.98|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||23.98|-9.43|0.393
91803550|NCT01786668|183484847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|24.97|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||24.97|-10.65|0.430
91803551|NCT01786668|183484847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|22.92|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||22.92|-12.44|0.561
91803552|NCT01786668|183484847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|31.04|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||31.04|-5.17|0.162
91908095|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1324|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.1324
91803553|NCT01786668|183484847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.11||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.76|40.49|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||40.49|4.76|0.013
91803554|NCT01786668|183484847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|36.55|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||36.55|1.01|0.038
91803555|NCT01786668|183484847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|36.55|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||36.55|1.01|0.038
91803556|NCT01786668|183484848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.16|-0.92|0.164
91803557|NCT01786668|183484848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.12|-0.95|0.129
91803558|NCT01786668|183484848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.42|-0.66|0.660
91803559|NCT01786668|183484848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.25|-0.92|0.256
91803560|NCT01786668|183484848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.00|-1.17|0.048
91908096|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0624|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.0624
91908097|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6334|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.6334
91803561|NCT01786668|183484848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.29|-0.88|0.318
91803562|NCT01786668|183484848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.47|-0.92|0.522
91908098|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0275
91908099|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||<.0001
91803563|NCT01786668|183484848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.00|-1.38|0.050
91803564|NCT01786668|183484848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.36|-1.03|0.337
91803565|NCT01786668|183484848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.27|-1.20|0.214
91803566|NCT01786668|183484848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.22|-1.69|0.011
91803567|NCT01786668|183484848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.375||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.08|-1.55|0.031
91803568|NCT01786668|183484849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.21|-0.21|0.982
91803569|NCT01786668|183484849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.06|-0.36|0.151
91882302|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0709
91908100|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0001
91803570|NCT01786668|183484849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.07|-0.34|0.205
91803571|NCT01786668|183484849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.22|-0.25|0.898
91803572|NCT01786668|183484849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.13|-0.34|0.370
91803573|NCT01786668|183484849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.11|-0.36|0.288
91803574|NCT01786668|183484849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.11|-0.42|0.242
91803575|NCT01786668|183484849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.06|-0.48|0.120
91803576|NCT01786668|183484849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.03|-0.56|0.031
91882303|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9902|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9902
91803577|NCT01786668|183484849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.14|-0.48|0.280
91803578|NCT01786668|183484849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.05|-0.57|0.099
91908101|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day1; 8 hours)||||<.0001
91908102|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2806|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.2806
91908103|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0002
91908104|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hour)||||<.0001
91908105|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0009
91803579|NCT01786668|183484849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.08|-0.70|0.014
91803580|NCT01786668|183484850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.71|-0.81|0.895
91803581|NCT01786668|183484850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.07|-1.59|0.033
91803582|NCT01786668|183484850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.02|-1.55|0.044
91803583|NCT01786668|183484850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.55|-1.07|0.530
91803584|NCT01786668|183484850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.16|-1.46|0.114
91803585|NCT01786668|183484850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.38|-1.25|0.297
91803586|NCT01786668|183484850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.40|-1.06|0.377
91803587|NCT01786668|183484850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.31|-1.77|0.006
91803588|NCT01786668|183484850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.17|-1.64|0.017
91803589|NCT01786668|183484852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.71|-0.92|0.800
91803590|NCT01786668|183484852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||1.47|-0.16|0.113
91803591|NCT01786668|183484852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.05|-1.59|0.064
91803592|NCT01786668|183484852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.71|-0.74|0.972
91803593|NCT01786668|183484852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||1.01|-0.44|0.440
91803594|NCT01786668|183484852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.35|-1.10|0.311
91803595|NCT01786668|183484852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.629||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.82|-1.66|0.501
91803596|NCT01786668|183484852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.629||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.86|-1.63|0.543
91803597|NCT01786668|183484852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.57|-1.93|0.287
91803598|NCT01786668|183484852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.519||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||1.14|-0.91|0.820
91908106|NCT04251910|183711614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.0081
91908107|NCT04251910|183711615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0591|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0591
91908108|NCT04251910|183711615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0966|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.0966
91803599|NCT01786668|183484852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||1.22|-0.83|0.711
91803600|NCT01786668|183484852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.61|-1.45|0.424
91803601|NCT01786668|183484853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.46|-0.34|0.785
91803602|NCT01786668|183484853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.51|-0.30|0.605
91803603|NCT01786668|183484853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.12|-0.68|0.175
91803604|NCT01786668|183484853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.62|-0.29|0.482
91803605|NCT01786668|183484853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.21|-0.70|0.288
91803606|NCT01786668|183484853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.21|-0.71|0.278
91803607|NCT01786668|183484853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.88|-0.12|0.134
91908109|NCT04251910|183711615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||<.0001
91803608|NCT01786668|183484853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.72|-0.29|0.397
91803609|NCT01786668|183484853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.52|-0.50|0.964
91803610|NCT01786668|183484853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.91|-0.15|0.155
91803611|NCT01786668|183484853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.72|-0.34|0.491
91803612|NCT01786668|183484853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.36|-0.71|0.515
91803613|NCT01786668|183484854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.312||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Physical Health Score||6.24|1.06|0.006
91803614|NCT01786668|183484854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Physical Health Score||6.37|1.23|0.004
91803615|NCT01786668|183484854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Physical Health Score||6.98|1.74|0.001
91803616|NCT01786668|183484854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.857||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Mental Health Score||3.33|-4.00|0.857
91803617|NCT01786668|183484854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.848||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|5.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Mental Health Score||5.37|-1.91|0.350
91803618|NCT01786668|183484854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.876||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Mental Health Score||5.00|-2.40|0.490
91908110|NCT04251910|183711615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.0290
91908111|NCT04251910|183711615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0937|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0937
91908112|NCT04251910|183711615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2747|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.2747
91882304|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0018
91882305|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4639|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4639
91882306|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4845|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4845
91882307|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1641
91882308|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1025
91882309|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5615|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5615
91908113|NCT04251910|183711618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (2 hours post administration)||||0.0002
91908114|NCT01765920|183711657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0174
91803619|NCT01786668|183484855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.17|-0.02|0.125
91882310|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2904|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2904
91882311|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6017
91882312|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8549
91882313|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3386
91882314|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7070
91882315|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5244|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5244
91882316|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4245|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4245
91882317|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8624|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8624
91882318|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7552|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7552
91882319|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7329|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7329
91803620|NCT01786668|183484855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.16|-0.03|0.207
91908115|NCT01765920|183711658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0719||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0719
91908116|NCT01765920|183711659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Total score analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
91908117|NCT01765920|183711659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099||||||"Symptoms domain analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses)."|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0099
91908118|NCT01765920|183711659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||"Ability domain analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses)."|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.037
91882320|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3053
91882321|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5290
91882322|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7951|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7951
91882323|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7150
91882324|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4566|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4566
91882325|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7750
91882326|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9241
91908119|NCT01765920|183711660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Day 1 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91882327|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8994|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8994
91882328|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2088
91882329|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2152|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2152
91882330|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7662
91882331|NCT00551135|183659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7579
91882332|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6896
91882333|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1934
91882334|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6034
91882335|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7992|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7992
91882336|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4770
91882337|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8730
91803621|NCT01786668|183484855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.22|0.03|0.013
91908120|NCT01765920|183711660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Day 2 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.32
91908121|NCT01765920|183711660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||Day 3 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
91908122|NCT01765920|183711660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Day 4 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
91908123|NCT01765920|183711660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Day 5 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
91908124|NCT01765920|183711661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.68
91882338|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2000
91882339|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5059
91882340|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0348
91882341|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3815|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3815
91882342|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4716|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4716
91908125|NCT00777101|183711676|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of neratinib vs lapatinib + capecitabine was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio was 1.15 or less.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.6|||Log Rank|The log-rank test comparing treatment groups is stratified by region.|The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by region.|||1.60|0.89|0.231
91908126|NCT02411539|183711684|SUPERIORITY|Assuming that a common standard deviation of change (measured as difference of log10 transformed HIV-1 RNA/DNA ratios) in both arms was 0.30, with a sample size of 36 evaluable participants (18 in each arm), the study had 88% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 log10 (2-fold) in change of cell-associated HIV-1 RNA/DNA from baseline to week 6 using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test at 10% type I error rate assuming a normal distribution||||||0.16||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test at 10% significance level. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary efficacy analysis compared the change in cell-associated HIV-1 RNA/DNA ratio (log-transformed) from baseline to week 6 between the two randomized arms, testing the null hypothesis of no difference in changes in cell-associated HIV-1 RNA/DNA ratio between the two arms using a Wilcoxon rank sum test at 10% significance level.||||0.16
91908127|NCT01947816|183711724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||< 0.0001
91908128|NCT01947816|183711724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 52||||< 0.0001
91803622|NCT01786668|183484856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||4.15|-0.71|0.163
91882343|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1063
91882344|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3884|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3884
91882345|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3787
91882346|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2537
91882347|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0952
91882348|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7725
91882349|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0660
91882350|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3657
91908129|NCT01947816|183711724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5512|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline When Discontinued||||0.5512
91908130|NCT01947816|183711724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Final Assessment||||< 0.0001
91908131|NCT01947816|183711726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||< 0.0001
91908132|NCT01947816|183711726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||< 0.0001
91908133|NCT01947816|183711726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||< 0.0001
91908134|NCT01947816|183711726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||< 0.0001
91751802|NCT02214225|183396414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/VIC) ≥ 65 years|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.51|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.51|1.27|
91803623|NCT01786668|183484856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||2.50|-2.36|0.955
91882351|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7717|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7717
91882352|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5849|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5849
91751803|NCT02214225|183396415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/YAM) overall|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|18.6|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||18.6|12.1|
91751804|NCT02214225|183396415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/VIC) overall|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|23.6|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||23.6|16.5|
91751805|NCT02214225|183396415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/YAM) 18 through 64y|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|28.2|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||28.2|17.7|
91803624|NCT01786668|183484856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.237||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||2.71|-2.17|0.826
91803625|NCT01786668|183484856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||4.14|-1.07|0.246
91803626|NCT01786668|183484856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.318||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|3.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||3.56|-1.64|0.467
91908135|NCT01947816|183711726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 52||||< 0.0001
91803627|NCT01786668|183484856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||2.70|-2.53|0.948
91803628|NCT01786668|183484856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.479||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||4.61|-1.23|0.255
91882353|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9580
91882354|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9884|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9884
91882355|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6743
91882356|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2689|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2689
91908136|NCT01947816|183711726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline when discontinued||||< 0.0001
91908137|NCT01947816|183711726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Final Assessment||||< 0.0001
91908138|NCT01664559|183711732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
91751806|NCT02214225|183396415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/VIC) 18 through 64y|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|34.1|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||34.1|23.1|
91803629|NCT01786668|183484856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.479||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||4.87|-0.96|0.187
91803630|NCT01786668|183484856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.497||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||4.29|-1.62|0.373
91803631|NCT01786668|183484856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.643||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||4.90|-1.58|0.313
91803632|NCT01786668|183484856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.642||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||7.19|0.71|0.017
91882357|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6907
91882358|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4798|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4798
91908139|NCT01664559|183711733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1\) Anticipated pain||||0.31
91751807|NCT02214225|183396415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/YAM) ≥ 65 years|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|11.6|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||11.6|4.3|
91803633|NCT01786668|183484856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||7.78|1.23|0.007
91908140|NCT01664559|183711733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2\) pain with injection||||0.33
91908141|NCT01664559|183711733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3\) speculum insertion||||0.72
91803634|NCT03068455|183484862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab|||1.04|0.78|
91803635|NCT03068455|183484863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.14|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab|||1.14|0.75|
91803636|NCT03068455|183484864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||1.32|0.80|
91803637|NCT03068455|183484865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.73|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||1.73|0.85|
91882359|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5609
91882360|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9834
91803638|NCT03068455|183484866|SUPERIORITY|\< 1% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.14|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over Ipilimumab|||1.14|0.73|
91803639|NCT03068455|183484866|SUPERIORITY|\>= 1% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.18|0.76|
91908142|NCT01664559|183711733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4\) tenaculum placement||||0.36
91908143|NCT01664559|183711733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||5\) uterine sounding||||0.64
91908144|NCT01664559|183711733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6\) 5 min after placement||||<0.001
91908145|NCT01664559|183711733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||7\) 15 min after placement||||<0.001
91908146|NCT01664559|183711734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1\) anticipated pain||||0.6
91908147|NCT01664559|183711734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2\) pain with injection||||1.0
91908148|NCT01664559|183711734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3\) speculum insertion||||0.34
91908149|NCT01664559|183711734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4\) tenaculum placement||||0.32
91882361|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8339|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8339
91882362|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8730
91908150|NCT01664559|183711734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||5\) uterine sounding||||0.04
91751808|NCT02214225|183396415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/VIC) ≥ 65 years|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|16.0|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage.||16.0|7.7|
91751809|NCT01669421|183396433|OTHER|Data was analyzed with multiple repeat ANOVA for all visits and paired samples were also evaluated.|||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-2||||<0.05
91751810|NCT01669421|183396433|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis||||||0.035|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-4||||0.035
91751811|NCT01669421|183396433|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-8||||0.33
91751812|NCT01669421|183396433|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-9||||0.68
91751813|NCT01669421|183396433|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-17||||0.020
91751814|NCT01669421|183396433|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||FGF||||0.021
91751815|NCT01669421|183396433|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Eotaxin||||0.02
91751816|NCT01669421|183396433|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||GM-CSF||||0.045
91751817|NCT01669421|183396433|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL15||||0.47
91751818|NCT01669421|183396433|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-1a||||0.90
91751819|NCT01669421|183396433|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL18||||0.80
91751820|NCT01669421|183396433|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||M-CSF||||0.027
91751821|NCT01669421|183396434|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||No power calculation and this is an exploratory pilot analysis We expected cytokines to decrease after subjects receive double dose and a rebound after administering standard dose.||||0.07
91751822|NCT01669421|183396436|OTHER|between Week 4 and Week 8||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Desmosine (DES) and isodesmosine (IDES) are used as indicator of elastin degradation. Levels of DES/IDES were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry.||||0.03
91751823|NCT01669421|183396436|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||between Week 8 and Week 12||||0.33
91751824|NCT01669421|183396436|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||between Week 4 and Week 12||||0.029
91751825|NCT02961790|183396455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0041
91751826|NCT02961790|183396455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0001
91751827|NCT02961790|183396456|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects specified in outcome measure description.||||||<0.0001
91751828|NCT02961790|183396457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects specified in outcome measure description.||||||<0.0001
91751829|NCT02961790|183396458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0174
91751830|NCT02961790|183396458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0279|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0279
91751831|NCT02961790|183396459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0011
91751832|NCT02961790|183396459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0025
91751833|NCT00300482|183396484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 17% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
91751834|NCT00300482|183396484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 17% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
91751835|NCT00300482|183396485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 92% power to detect a 5% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
91751836|NCT00300482|183396485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 92% power to detect a 5% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
91751837|NCT00300482|183396486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 43% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
91803640|NCT03068455|183484866|SUPERIORITY|\>= 5% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.34|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.34|0.71|
91908151|NCT01664559|183711734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6\) IUD placement||||0.02
91908152|NCT01664559|183711734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||7\) 5 min after placement||||0.32
91908153|NCT01664559|183711734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8\) 15 min after placement||||0.02
91751838|NCT00300482|183396486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 43% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
91751839|NCT01400243|183396499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.05
91751840|NCT01400243|183396500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91751841|NCT00953680|183396504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.993||||||90.0|0.95|1.039||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100 mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||1.039|0.950|
91751842|NCT00953680|183396505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.835||||||90.0|0.749|0.931||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100-mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||0.931|0.749|
91751843|NCT00953680|183396506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.924||||||90.0|0.825|1.035||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100 mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||1.035|0.825|
91751844|NCT00953680|183396507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.931||||||90.0|0.836|1.037||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100 mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||1.037|0.836|
91751845|NCT02370004|183396515|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-tests were used to evaluate changes in spirometry results||||.10
91751846|NCT01891344|183396530|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.437||||||||0.437|0.170|
91751847|NCT01891344|183396530|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.871||||||||0.871|0.428|
91751848|NCT01852825|183396538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.355||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.515|3.661|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|The hypothesis is supported if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the Week 12 geometric mean fold difference is \>1.0.||3.661|1.515|0.003
91751849|NCT01852825|183396539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.182||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.364|3.49|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|The hypothesis is supported if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the Week 12 geometric mean fold difference is \>1.0.||3.490|1.364|0.010
91751850|NCT01852825|183396540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.066|0.41|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment minus Placebo treatment|The hypothesis is supported if the lower bound of the 1-tailed 95% CI around the mean difference in change from baseline excludes zero||0.410|0.066|0.027
91751851|NCT01852825|183396541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.068||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.272|4.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|||4.190|0.272|0.935
91751852|NCT01852825|183396542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.21||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.605|8.066|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|||8.066|0.605|0.296
91751853|NCT01852825|183396543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.115||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-100.185|-22.045|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment minus Placebo treatment|||-22.045|-100.185|0.014
91751854|NCT01394614|183396563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-rate difference|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference between the incidence rate of exposed-to-vaccine cases (0.52) and that of unexposed cases (0.11) is 0.41 per 100,000 persons-years|||||
91751855|NCT01394614|183396563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.12|||||Risk of developing narcolepsy if exposed to H1N1 vaccination (using the 16-week post-vaccination period as reference).|||11.12|1.5|
91751856|NCT01149486|183396564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|93.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.2|108.88|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.88|80.20|
91751857|NCT01149486|183396565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|106.18|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.18|93.15|
91751858|NCT01149486|183396566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.1|106.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.12|93.10|
91751859|NCT01149486|183396567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|111.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.47|122.79|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||122.79|101.47|
91803641|NCT03068455|183484866|SUPERIORITY|\< 5% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.10|0.77|
91803642|NCT03068455|183484866|SUPERIORITY|Non-quantifiable Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.51|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.51|0.38|
91803643|NCT00692341|183484880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|88.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.2|159.56||||||For mild hepatic impairment, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare natural log transformed Cmax of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||159.56|49.20|
91803644|NCT00692341|183484880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|127.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.9|229.91||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Cmax of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||229.91|70.90|
91803645|NCT00692341|183484881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|78.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.92|153.75||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||153.75|39.92|
91803646|NCT00692341|183484881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|195.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.49|383.18||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||383.18|99.49|
91803647|NCT00692341|183484882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|78.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.68|157.82||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClast of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||157.82|38.68|
91803648|NCT00692341|183484882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|198.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.47|401.74||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClast of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||401.74|98.47|
91803649|NCT00692341|183484887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|73.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.4|145.56||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed fu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||145.56|37.40|
91803650|NCT00692341|183484887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.58|183.02||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed fu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||183.02|55.58|
91803651|NCT00692341|183484888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.75|186.79||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed CLu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||186.79|44.75|
91803652|NCT00692341|183484888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|50.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.14|95.03||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed CLu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||95.03|27.14|
91803653|NCT00692341|183484889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|103.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.53|206.22||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Vzu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||206.22|51.53|
91803654|NCT00692341|183484889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|76.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.41|139.73||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Vzu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||139.73|41.41|
91882363|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6327|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6327
91882364|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3986
91803655|NCT00692341|183484890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|109.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.54|223.47||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞)u of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||223.47|53.54|
91803656|NCT00692341|183484890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|196.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.23|368.49||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞)u of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||368.49|105.23|
91803657|NCT00692341|183484891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|111.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.35|229.37||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClastu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||229.37|54.35|
91803658|NCT00692341|183484891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|200.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.68|377.2||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClastu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||377.20|106.68|
91803659|NCT00692341|183484892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.22|195.99||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Cmaxu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||195.99|58.22|
91803660|NCT00692341|183484892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|128.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.62|219.25||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Cmaxu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||219.25|75.62|
91803661|NCT00702689|183484899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.011
91908154|NCT01664559|183711735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Reported side effects (nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, headache, dizziness, drowsiness, injection site itchiness, swelling or pain)||||> 0.05
91908155|NCT01664559|183711735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Injection site pain (just as bad or worse than IUD procedure)||||0.76
91908156|NCT01664559|183711735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfied or very satisfied with IUD placement procedure||||0.76
91908157|NCT01664559|183711735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Would recommend IUD placement to a friend||||0.35
91908158|NCT01664559|183711735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Desires additional pain medication||||0.02
91908159|NCT01664559|183711736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Level of training, PGY 1, 2, 3, 4 and Attending||||0.2
91803662|NCT00702689|183484901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.47
91803663|NCT00702689|183484902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
91908160|NCT01664559|183711736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||IUD type (levonorgestrel or copper)||||0.09
91908161|NCT01664559|183711736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Purpose of IUD (contraception or heavy menstrual bleeding)||||1.0
91751860|NCT01149486|183396568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.58|112.41|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.41|99.58|
91751861|NCT01149486|183396569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.64|111.82|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.82|99.64|
91908162|NCT01664559|183711736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Position of uterus (anteverted, retroverted, midpositioned)||||0.92
91908163|NCT01664559|183711736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Need for cervical dilation||||1.0
91908164|NCT01664559|183711736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Able to complete the IUD insertion||||1.0
91908165|NCT01664559|183711736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Significant bleeding||||0.24
91908166|NCT01664559|183711736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Major complications||||1.0
91908167|NCT01664559|183711736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Took acetaminophen prior to leaving the office||||0.02
91751862|NCT01149486|183396570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.96|115.23|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||115.23|98.96|
91751863|NCT01149486|183396571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.75|106.14|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.14|98.75|
91751864|NCT01149486|183396572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.72|106.01|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.01|98.72|
91751865|NCT00598078|183396612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.013
91751866|NCT00598078|183396612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.713
91882365|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.637|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6370
91751867|NCT00598078|183396612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.038
91751868|NCT00434759|183396659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.82|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|We report the interaction effect.|The reported interaction effect is significant (p\< .05) in favour of standard therapy.|||||<0.05
91751869|NCT00434759|183396660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 p-value ist not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction effect is not significant.|||||<0.05
91751870|NCT00434759|183396661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction effect is not significant.|||||<0.05
91751871|NCT00434759|183396662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 p-value ist not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction is not significant.|||||<0.05
91882366|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9869
91882367|NCT00551135|183659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7550
91751872|NCT00434759|183396663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance ist 0.05 p-value ist nor adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction effect is significant (p \< .05) in favour of standard therapy|||||<0.05
91751873|NCT01318070|183396677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|-0.135||||||||-0.135|-0.224|
91751874|NCT01318070|183396677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|-0.135||||||||-0.135|-0.225|
91751875|NCT01318070|183396678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|-0.292||||||||-0.292|-0.434|
91751876|NCT01318070|183396678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.359|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|-0.287||||||||-0.287|-0.432|
91751877|NCT01318070|183396679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|-0.484||||||||-0.484|-0.692|
91751878|NCT01318070|183396679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|-0.526||||||||-0.526|-0.743|
91751879|NCT01318070|183396680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-4.47||||||||-4.47|-13.20|
91751880|NCT01318070|183396680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-8.26||||||||-8.26|-17.86|
91751881|NCT01318070|183396681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.22|-6.25||||||||-6.25|-16.22|
91751882|NCT01318070|183396681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-9.63||||||||-9.63|-20.00|
91751883|NCT01318070|183396682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.09|-7.68||||||||-7.68|-18.09|
91751884|NCT01318070|183396682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|-11.53||||||||-11.53|-22.64|
91751885|NCT01318070|183396683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|-6.4||||||||-6.40|-18.51|
91751886|NCT01318070|183396683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.78|-10.19||||||||-10.19|-22.78|
91751887|NCT01318070|183396684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.51|-3.1||||||||-3.10|-21.51|
91751888|NCT01318070|183396684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.43|-11.95||||||||-11.95|-30.43|
91751889|NCT01318070|183396685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.717|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.848|-0.586||||||||-0.586|-0.848|
91751890|NCT01318070|183396685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.913|-0.634||||||||-0.634|-0.913|
91803664|NCT02805972|183484912|SUPERIORITY|"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference across the Naloxone and placebo conditions.~The alternative hypothesis is that the cortisol value would be higher in the Naloxone condition than in the placebo condition."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.61||If the Winsorized value is excluded from analyses altogether, the P value is .012|t-test, 2 sided|Cortisol was log transformed for the statistical test, and the reported mean difference was exponentiated back to the original units of nmol/L below.||We compared cortisol values at 55 minutes, within person, across conditions. We Winsorized one participant's values for the placebo visit where values were between 2-4x above the 99th percentile value in the data and then log-transformed the data.||1.61|0.98|.067
91803665|NCT00939640|183484919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs|||||||.17
91803666|NCT00939640|183484920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests|||||||.02
91803667|NCT00939640|183484925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
91803668|NCT00939640|183484926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
91882368|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2912
91882369|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3723
91882370|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6116|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6116
91751891|NCT02312765|183396686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91751892|NCT00042432|183396693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.67||||0.006||95.0|1.6|20.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline glomenular filtration rate (GFR) strata|Logit estimates|||20.06|1.60|0.006
91803669|NCT00389597|183484932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% one-sided confidence bound for testing non-inferiority using two proportion test with 10% non-inferiority margin.||||||0.0021|||||||Farrington Manning|||1 Level: Ho: pm-pc \<=-0.1 (inferiority) Alternative hypothesis: Ha: pm - pc \> -0.1 Where pm = the proportion of success in the Mobi-C group and the Pc = the proportion of success in the ACDF group.||||0.0021
91803670|NCT00389597|183484932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% one-sided confidence bound for testing non-inferiority using two proportioned test with a 10% non-inferiority margin.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Farrington-Manning|||"2 Level: Ho: pm-pc \<=-0.1 (inferiority) Alternative hypothesis: Ha: pm - pc \> -0.1 Where pm = the proportion of success in the Mobi-C group and the Pc = the proportion of success in the ACDF group.~2 Level: Ho: pm-pc \<= 0 (not superior) Alternative hypothesis: Ha: pm-pc \>0 Where pm = the proportion of success in the Mobi-C group and the Pc = the proportion of success in the ACDF group."||||<0.0001
91882371|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0835
91882372|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1497|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1497
91882373|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3950
91751893|NCT00042432|183396694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Adusted for baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) strata||||||<0.001
91751894|NCT00432744|183396759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau B|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.48||Two-sided Test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Positive value of Tau-B would favor CoQ.|Study intended to accrue 40 subjects, but only obtained 14 evaluable on this endpoint.||0.48|-0.44|0.95
91751895|NCT00432744|183396760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau B|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A positive value would favor CoQ.|Study intended to accrue 40 subjects, but only obtained 14 evaluable on this endpoint.||0.72|-0.12|0.18
91751896|NCT00432744|183396761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||The Hotelling T-sq=1.74 and 42% of the rerandomizations to groups of 7 and 8 had Hotelling T-sq of at least 1.74. This is the standard method for permutation tests. The large sample null is chi-sq with 2 df, which has a mean=2.|Non-parametric Hotelling T-square|||The actual study was powered to have 40 participants but only 24 participated and of these only 15 had outcome data.||||0.42
91751897|NCT01735708|183396762|SUPERIORITY|ITT analysis using multiple imputation by chained equation with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.34||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.|standard error of difference in means|||-0.34|-2.28|0.008
91751898|NCT01735708|183396763|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis using multiple imputation by chained equations with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.4||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.||||0.40|-1.53|0.251
91803671|NCT00306189|183484937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.76|8.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.24|5.76|<0.0001
91882374|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5892
91751899|NCT01735708|183396764|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis using multiple imputation by chained equations with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.61||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.|Standard error of difference in means.|||1.61|-1.32|0.844
91751900|NCT01735708|183396765|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis using multiple imputation by chained equations with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.836||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.15||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.|Standard error of difference in means.|||1.15|-2.18|0.545
91751901|NCT00461305|183396766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence on one treatment arm|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.73|17.77|||Binominal parameter by exact method||No group comparison were planned. Binomial parameter on each treatment arm was estimated by exact method.|Exact 95% confident intervals were calculated using F-distribution by treatment group. If the upper confidence limit is lower than 27.56% (threshold incidence), the treatment arm will be concluded to be acceptable. No group comparison was planned.||17.77|9.73|
91751902|NCT00461305|183396766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence on one treatment arm|7.1||||||95.0|1.98|17.29|||Binominal parameter by exact method|||Exact 95% confident intervals were calculated using F-distribution by treatment group.||17.29|1.98|
91751903|NCT01294462|183396819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.53||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison.||2.53|0.94|
91751904|NCT01294462|183396820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.44||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison based on hypothesis test.||2.44|0.88|
91751905|NCT01294462|183396821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.4||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison.||2.40|1.23|
91751906|NCT01294462|183396822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.5||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison based on hypothesis test.||2.50|0.91|
91751907|NCT00085254|183396825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Cox|||||1.3|0.5|0.4
91751908|NCT00085254|183396827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||adjusted for age: p=.0003, kps: p=.004; and surgical procedure: p=.003|Log Rank|||Primary endpoint death - defined from histological diagnosis to death. we assume pt in the study will have overall failure rate of 0.56 per person-year of f/up, a 30% reduction compared to hazard rate of 0.8 per person-year in historical NABTT database. Expected hazard ratio is 0.7 and cohort will produce 63 events among total of 94 pt planned f/up. One-sided test, have 95% power to detect observed ratio of 0.7 at alpha level of 0.1, or we have 88% power at alpha of 0.5 statistical significant||0.5|0.3|0.0001
91882375|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6143|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6143
91751909|NCT04342689|183396828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91751910|NCT04342689|183396829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91751911|NCT04342689|183396830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91751912|NCT01460407|183396831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.42|||||Ratio of LY2216684 and Clarithromycin to LY2216684|||1.42|1.16|
91751913|NCT01460407|183396832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.31|||||Ratio of LY2216684 and Clarithromycin to LY2216684|||1.31|1.12|
91751914|NCT01460407|183396833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of paired differences|0.0||||0.7656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||LY2216684 and Clarithromycin minus (-) LY2216684|||0.50|-0.50|0.7656
91751915|NCT02818114|183396835|OTHER|Assessment of number of PE sessions attended, review of direction of change in PTSD Checklist scores||||||||||||||||This is a single-arm feasibility study. With N=8, formal hypothesis testing is not possible. We were assessing the extent to which veterans would be willing to engage in the intervention, and if the direction of change in symptoms is still in the expected direction when peer support services are added. Outcomes are reported more qualitatively.|As a feasibility trial, tests of statistical significance are not appropriate.|||
91751916|NCT00844805|183396843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.9|||=|0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|31.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||31.5|-1.7|=0.0884
91751917|NCT00844805|183396844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|21.7|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|32.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||32.5|11.0|=0.0013
91751918|NCT00844805|183396845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|18.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||25.5|10.7|=0.0004
91751919|NCT00844805|183396846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.0|||=|0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|31.7|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||31.7|-11.7|=0.5005
91751920|NCT00844805|183396847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|9.9|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||9.9|-14.9|=1.0000
91751921|NCT00844805|183396848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||6.8|-6.8|=1.0000
91751922|NCT00844805|183396849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3802||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||=0.3802
91751923|NCT00844805|183396850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-5.0|||=|0.6153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|4.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||4.5|-14.5|=0.6153
91751924|NCT00844805|183396851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|18.4|||=|0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|34.3|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||34.3|2.5|=0.0263
91751925|NCT00844805|183396852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|8.4|||=|0.3011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|22.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||22.8|-6.0|=0.3011
91751926|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0078
91751927|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0078
91751928|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0313
91751929|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0078
91751930|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0156
91751931|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0156
91751932|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0078
91751933|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1563||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 24 months.||||0.1563
91751934|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4375||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.4375
91751935|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0781
91751936|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0371
91751937|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0137
91751938|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0547||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0547
91751939|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0488||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0488
91751940|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3594||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.3594
91751941|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0488||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0488
91751942|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1055||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 18 months.||||0.1055
91751943|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9102||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 24 months.||||0.9102
91751944|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
91751945|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1641||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.1641
91751946|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0137
91882376|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0104
91882377|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5666
91908168|NCT03631732|183711737|NON_INFERIORITY|B/F/TAF is non-inferior to SBR if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between treatment groups \[B/F/TAF - SBR\] in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL is less than 6% (i.e., a margin of 6% is applied to non-inferiority assessment).|Difference in percentages|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.9|||||Differences in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \>= 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and 95% CI were calculated based on exact method.|||0.9|-4.8|
91751947|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0020
91751948|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0039
91751949|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0273
91751950|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0547||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0547
91751951|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0195
91751952|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0059
91751953|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5703||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.5703
91751954|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
91751955|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0039
91882378|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9008
91882379|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0967
91882380|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8353|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8353
91908169|NCT03631732|183711737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3399|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3399
91751956|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for whole body, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0039
91751957|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5703||95.0||||p-value is for whole body, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from baseline to 24 months.||||0.5703
91751958|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for whole body, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0273
91751959|NCT00259298|183396855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value if for whole body, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0039
91751960|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0098
91751961|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0039
91751962|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6523||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from baseline to 24 months.||||0.6523
91882381|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.453|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4530
91882382|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7297|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7297
91882383|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0692
91751963|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1641||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1641
91751964|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0078
91751965|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0078
91751966|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0078
91751967|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0781
91751968|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0078
91751969|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0156
91751970|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0391||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0391
91751971|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0313
91751972|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2969||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 24 months.||||0.2969
91751973|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5625||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.5625
91751974|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0469||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0469
91751975|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
91751976|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2324||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 3 months.||||0.2324
91751977|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0645
91751978|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0273
91751979|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7344||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.7344
91751980|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 3 months.||||0.1934
91751981|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7695||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 18 months.||||0.7695
91751982|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6523||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 24 months.||||0.6523
91751983|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2324||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.2324
91751984|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6523||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.6523
91803672|NCT00306189|183484937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.25|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.1|6.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.4|4.1|<0.0001
91882384|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6333
91803673|NCT00306189|183484937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.06|7.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.49|5.06|<0.0001
91803674|NCT00282984|183484947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.13|8.86||To preserve type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, used step-down procedure to analyze primary \& 2 key secondary endpoints. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 thru 12, 2) CA at Week 52, 3) the Long Term Quit Rate (LTQR) thru Week 52.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted to primary endpoint \& key secondary endpoints; included main effects of trtmt group and center as independent var.||Estimates for expected \& clinically meaningful var \& pbo 4-week CQR for Week 9 - 12 of trtmt based on response rates \& corresponding 95% OR confidence interval (CI) from A30510285 \& A30510366 study results. Total n=700 randomized var or pbo 1:1 should have provided at least 99% power to detect difference in primary endpoint (endpt) between (b/w) var \& pbo, assuming true 4-week CQR of 0.18 for pbo \& 0.40 for var (OR of at least 3.04), and 84% power for 2 key secondary endpts.||8.86|4.13|<0.0001
91803675|NCT00282984|183484948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.97|5.18||To preserve type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure was used for the analysis of primary \& 2 key secondary endpts. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 through 12, 2) CA at Week 52, 3) LTQR through Week 52.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted to primary endpoint \& key secondary endpoints; included main effects of treatment group \& center as independent var.||Estimates for expected and clinically meaningful var \& pbo 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 - 12 of trtmt were based on response rates \& corresponding 95% odds ratio CI from A30510285 and A30510366 study results. Total n=700 randomized var or pbo 1:1 should have provided at least 99% power to detect difference in primary endpt b/w var \& pbo, assuming true 4-week CQR of 0.18 for pbo \& 0.40 for var (odds ratio of at least 3.04) \& a power of 84% for the 2 key secondary endpts.||5.18|1.97|<0.0001
91803676|NCT00282984|183484949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.82|4.38||To preserve type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure was used for the analysis of primary \& 2 key secondary endpoints. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 through 12, 2) CA at Week 52, 3) the LTQR through Week 52.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted to primary endpoint \& key secondary endpoints; included main effects of trtmt group and center as independent var.||Estimates for expected and clinically meaningful varenicline (var) \& pbo 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 - 12 of treatment were based on response rates \& corresponding 95% odds ratio CI from A30510285 and A30510366 study results. Total n=700 randomized var or pbo 1:1 should have provided at least 99% power to detect difference in primary endpt b/w varenicline \& pbo, assuming true 4-week CQR of 0.18 for pbo \& 0.40 for var (odds ratio of at least 3.04), and a power of 84% for the 2 key secondary endpts.||4.38|1.82|<0.0001
91803677|NCT00282984|183484950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.17|8.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 analysis||8.56|4.17|<0.0001
91803678|NCT00282984|183484951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.03|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||24 Week analysis||4.23|2.03|<0.0001
91751985|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0098
91751986|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0020
91803679|NCT00282984|183484952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0003||95.0|1.34|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||52 Week analysis||2.77|1.34|0.0003
91882385|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0325
91751987|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0039
91751988|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0273
91751989|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3594||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.3594
91751990|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0371
91751991|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0098
91803680|NCT00282984|183484953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0001||95.0|1.41|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.97|1.41|0.0001
91882386|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5788|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5788
91882387|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9224|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9224
91882388|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5527
91751992|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4609||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.4609
91751993|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
91751994|NCT00259298|183396856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0273
91751995|NCT00259298|183396857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value is for focal change, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in focal skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP from baseline to 3 months.||||1.0
91751996|NCT00259298|183396857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value is for focal change, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in focal skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP from baseline to 18 months.||||1.0
91751997|NCT00259298|183396859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for change at 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in whole skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0020
91751998|NCT02726880|183396877|SUPERIORITY||F|1.13||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Number of days of gaming in the past week, measured at baseline, is included as a covariate in the model.||||||.296
91751999|NCT01710527|183396922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg with Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of log transformed Cmax fell within the acceptance range of 80 to 125%.|Ratio (%)|96.85||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.86|102.11|||ANOVA||Analysis was performed on log transformed geometric least square means.|||102.11|91.86|0.3125
91752000|NCT01710527|183396923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg with Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of log transformed AUC0-t fell within the acceptance range of 80 to 125%.|Ratio (%)|102.52||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.74|106.45|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg and Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg for AUC0-t||106.45|98.74|0.2701
91752001|NCT01710527|183396923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg with Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of log transformed AUC0-infinity fell within the acceptance range of 80 to 125%.|Ratio (%)|102.44||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.78|106.23|||ANOVA||Analysis was performed on log transformed geometric least square means.|Comparison of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg and Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg for AUC0-infinity.||106.23|98.78|0.2702
91752002|NCT01822535|183396932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Between-group differences in percent changes in core body temperature from baseline values to after cool exposure were analyzed. Because individuals with tetraplegia have impaired thermoregulatory mechanisms, we hypothesized that their percent change in core body temperature would be significantly larger than that of able-bodied controls.||||<0.01
91752003|NCT01822535|183396933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Between-group comparisons of percent changes in Stroop Interference T-scores from baseline values to after cool exposure were analyzed.~We hypothesized that subjects with tetraplegia would have greater declines in cognitive performance after cool exposure than able-bodied controls."||||0.018
91752004|NCT01822535|183396934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Between-group comparisons of percent changes in Delayed Recall from baseline values to after cool exposure were analyzed.~We hypothesized that subjects with tetraplegia would have greater declines in cognitive performance after cool exposure than able-bodied controls."||||0.0431
91752005|NCT01822535|183396935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"We hypothesized that administration of midodrine would attenuate the fall in core body temperature.~Within-group percent changes in core body temperature were analyzed to compare data from visit 1 (no drug) to visit 2 (drug)."||||0.30
91752006|NCT01071356|183396936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time averaged post-bline diff in diff|-0.006||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.011|||Random Effects modeling||Stat Mixed Model: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended.|Stat Mixed Model Estimated was: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended. This was done because a statistical test of trend of the post-baseline effect across the 3 post interviews indicated a homogeneous post-baseline treatment effect across time for both MI1 and MI9 conditions.||.011|-.023|.47
91752007|NCT01071356|183396937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time averaged post-bline diff in diff|0.007||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.013|||Random effects model||Stat Mixed Model: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended.|Stat Mixed Model Estimated was: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended. This was done because a statistical test of trend of the post-baseline effect across the 3 post interviews indicated a homogeneous post-baseline treatment effect across time for both MI1 and MI9 conditions.||.013|.001|.034
91752008|NCT02278614|183396938|OTHER|The change from baseline in mean IOP on Day 84 for the contralateral eye,|Adjusted mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.43|-0.57|
91752009|NCT02278614|183396938|OTHER|The change from baseline in mean IOP on D42 for the worse eye|Adjusted mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.69|
91882389|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2624
91752010|NCT00737711|183396946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-test was used to estimation of p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91752011|NCT02739321|183396974|NON_INFERIORITY|Hypothesized benchmark of 30%|Risk Difference (RD)|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91882390|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3263
91882391|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3746
91882392|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0050
91882393|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0493
91752012|NCT02739321|183396975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
91752013|NCT02739321|183396976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91752014|NCT02739321|183396977|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.09||||0.268|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.268
91752015|NCT02739321|183396978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.058
91752016|NCT02739321|183396979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.82||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
91752017|NCT02739321|183396980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.232
91752018|NCT02739321|183396981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.100
91752019|NCT02739321|183396982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.285
91752020|NCT02739321|183396983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
91752021|NCT02739321|183396984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.040
91752022|NCT02739321|183396985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.471
91752023|NCT02739321|183396986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
91752024|NCT02739321|183396987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91752025|NCT02739321|183396988|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority compared to the median rating of four on the seven point scale (1 = extremely poor, 7 = exceptional) that was used to rate tolerance.|||||||||||||||||The mean rating of parent reported tolerance of mattress technology was 5.61 (SE = 0.25).|||
91752026|NCT02739321|183396989|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority compared to the median rating of four on the seven point scale (1 = extremely poor, 7 = exceptional) that was used to rate tolerance.|||||||||||||||||The mean rating of parent reported tolerance of actigraph watch was 5.51 (SE = 0.13).|||
91752027|NCT02739321|183396990|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority compared to the median rating of four on the seven point scale (1 = extremely difficult, 7 = extremely easy) that was used to rate ease of use.|||||||||||||||||The mean rating of parent reported ease of us of the mattress technology was 6.04 (SE = 0.15).|||
91752028|NCT02739321|183396991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
91752029|NCT02558400|183396992|SUPERIORITY|To claim superiority PG324 had to be statistically superior to netarsudil and to latanoprost at all 9 of 9 primary efficacy timepoints|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. netarsudil||||||<0.0001
91752030|NCT02558400|183396992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
91752031|NCT02230683|183397000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.57||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.89|||Paired t-test||within group change|Statistical Analysis for the mean change of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient from Baseline to Day 28/EOT for the overall evaluable population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||0.89|-3.16|0.257
91752032|NCT02230683|183397000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|4.32|||ANCOVA||within group change|Statistical Analysis for the mean change of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG \< 12 mmHg subgroup||4.32|-0.52|0.1174
91752033|NCT02230683|183397000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-3.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.05||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|-1.46|||ANCOVA||within group change|Statistical Analysis for the mean change of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg subgroup||-1.46|-5.88|0.0025
91752034|NCT02230683|183397001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-0.22||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for the mean change in log-transformed caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT for the overall evaluable population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||-0.03|-0.42|0.026
91752035|NCT02230683|183397001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-0.46||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for the mean change in log-transformed caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG \< 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||-0.21|-0.72|0.001
91752036|NCT02230683|183397001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-0.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for the median change in log-transformed caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||0.18|-0.26|0.72
91752037|NCT02230683|183397002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-21.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change of caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT for the overall evaluable population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||13|-60|0.105
91752038|NCT02230683|183397002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-52.5||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.0|-6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change of caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG \< 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||-6|-109|0.016
91752039|NCT02230683|183397002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|12.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change of caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||13|-60|0.839
91752040|NCT02230683|183397003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-4.0||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) from Baseline to Day 28/EOT||0|-7|0.0084
91752041|NCT02230683|183397004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-4.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) from Baseline to Day 28/EOT||-1|-7|0.0131
91752042|NCT02230683|183397005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-772.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1188.0|-19.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated value is the ratio for the difference from baseline.|Statistical Analysis for the median change in concentration of Caspase 3/7 Relative Light Units from baseline to Day 28/EOT||-19|-1188|0.003
91752043|NCT00131456|183397098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to analyze all dichotomous outcomes. The dichotomous primary outcome marijuana abstinence was modeled using independent predictors: treatment(Venlafaxine vs. Placebo) and baseline urine THC level. The initial analysis included an interaction between treatment and baseline urine THC levels which was deemed not significant and omitted from the final logistic model.||||<0.01
91752044|NCT02936284|183397109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.196||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed effect regression model including covariates: child sex, child birth weight, breastfeeding duration, percent class attendance and covid grouping|difference between music and play group change|||||0.016
91752045|NCT02936284|183397110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|29.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||music group vs. play group baseline to 24 months|mixed effect regression analysis, unstructured covariance, no covariates. Reporting group x time interaction||||0.70
91752046|NCT02936284|183397111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||increase in weight for length z-score for music group|mixed-effect regression analysis with covariates: child sex, birth weight, breastfeeding duration, percent class attendance and covid categories||||0.540
91803681|NCT00282984|183484954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.51|5.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.93|2.51|<0.0001
91882394|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0773
91882395|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0547
91882396|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1976
91752047|NCT01610596|183397112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91752048|NCT01187004|183397142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|significant level for inclusion at the univariate analysis was p\<0.05.||Our hypothesis was that mechanical ventilation with large tidal volume might represent a risk factor for acute lung injury in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass.||||<0.05
91752049|NCT01187004|183397143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.129|1.272|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.272|1.129|<0.001
91752050|NCT01479595|183397208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.514||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.811|-0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.217|-0.811|0.005
91752051|NCT02120365|183397219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.986||0.867|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|Medication dose was a within-subjects factor (crossover design)||||0.867
91752052|NCT02120365|183397220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|mixed models, medication was a within-subjects factor||||0.071
91752053|NCT02120365|183397221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.667|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|mixed models||||0.667
91752054|NCT02120365|183397222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.393||0.285|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|||||0.285
91752055|NCT02120365|183397223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.843|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|Mixed Models||||.843
91752056|NCT02120365|183397224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.691|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|We report the main effect of dose on the outcome measure||||.691
91803682|NCT00282984|183484956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.58|5.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.75|2.58|<0.0001
91882397|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3832
91803683|NCT04665856|183485004|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.97||This study is a bridging study without formal testing, the p value here is descriptive.|Log Rank|||||0.97|0.43|0.0348
91752057|NCT01726673|183397225|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 12 weeks of training was assessed with the upper extremity fugl meyer score in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|302.0||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score from baseline to 12 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.256
91752058|NCT01726673|183397225|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 36 (6 month follow-up) was assessed with upper extremity fugl meyer score for the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|222.0||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score from baseline to 36 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.222
91803684|NCT04665856|183485005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.4||This study is a bridging study without formal testing, the p value here is descriptive.|Log Rank|||||1.40|0.56|0.6105
91803685|NCT04665856|183485006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.49|0.1044
91803686|NCT04665856|183485007|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.64|0.9363
91803687|NCT04665856|183485008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|22.55||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|39.03|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||||39.03|4.12|0.0136
91803688|NCT04665856|183485009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|17.37||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|33.6|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||||33.60|-0.22|0.0493
91803689|NCT04665856|183485012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month 6|8.09||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|26.81|||Z-test|||6 Months||26.81|-10.62|0.3968
91803690|NCT04665856|183485012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month 12|17.45||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|32.21|||Z-test|||12 Months||32.21|2.69|0.0205
91803691|NCT04665856|183485013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month 6|8.18||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|25.82|||Z-test|||6 Months||25.82|-9.46|0.3633
91803692|NCT04665856|183485013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month12|13.36||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|27.51|||Z-test|||12 Months||27.51|-0.79|0.0642
91803693|NCT04665856|183485014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|20.47||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|38.5|||Z-test|||12 Months||38.50|2.43|0.0261
91803694|NCT04665856|183485014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|-0.5||||0.9572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|17.79|||Z-test|||24 Months||17.79|-18.79|0.9572
91803695|NCT04665856|183485015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|13.88||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|31.12|||Z-test|||12 Months||31.12|-3.36|0.1145
91803696|NCT04665856|183485015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|-2.54||||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.83|14.75|||Z-test|||24 Months||14.75|-19.83|0.7734
91803697|NCT03386448|183485024|SUPERIORITY|Student test was performed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91803698|NCT00114530|183485030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||A Data and Safety Monitoring Board reviewed 4 pre-specified futility analyses that included an ability to stop for efficacy with p\<0.0001, leaving alpha equal to 0.0496 for the primary ITT analysis of the GRCS at 54 months post-randomization.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91803699|NCT00114530|183485031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91803700|NCT00114530|183485032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91803701|NCT00114530|183485033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91803702|NCT00114530|183485034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of EFS at Month 54.||||0.059
91803703|NCT00114530|183485034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for EFS through Month 72||||0.06
91803704|NCT00114530|183485035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of EFS at Month 54.||||0.021
91803705|NCT00114530|183485035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for EFS through Month 72||||0.03
91803706|NCT00114530|183485036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
91803707|NCT00114530|183485037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
91803708|NCT00114530|183485038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
91803709|NCT00114530|183485039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
91803710|NCT00114530|183485040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
91803711|NCT00114530|183485041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
91803712|NCT00114530|183485042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of overall survival at Month 54.||||0.28
91803713|NCT00114530|183485042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival through Month 72.||||0.05
91803714|NCT00114530|183485043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of overall survival at Month 54.||||0.19
91803715|NCT00114530|183485043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival through Month 72.||||0.02
91803716|NCT00114530|183485044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
91803717|NCT00114530|183485045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
91803718|NCT00114530|183485046|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
91803719|NCT00114530|183485046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.01
91803720|NCT00114530|183485047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
91803721|NCT00114530|183485047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.002
91752059|NCT01726673|183397226|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 12 weeks of training was assessed with the WOLF Motor Function test time score (out of 1800 seconds) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in WMFT time score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U Value|251.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the WMFT time score from baseline to 12 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U Test|||||||1.0
91752060|NCT01726673|183397226|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 36 (6 month follow-up) was assessed with the WOLF Motor Function test time score (out of 1800 seconds) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in WMFT time score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|208.5||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the WMFT time score from baseline to 36 weeks ( 6 month follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U Test|||||||0.592
91752061|NCT01726673|183397227|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 12 weeks of training was assessed with the Motor Power Manual Muscle Test Score for the upper extremity (out of 100 points) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in MRC score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|270.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the MRC score from baseline to 12 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.680
91752062|NCT01726673|183397227|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 36 (6 month FU) was assessed with the Motor Power Manual Muscle Test Score for the upper extremity (out of 100 points) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in MRC score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|187.5||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the MRC score from baseline to 6 month FU across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U Test|||||||0.837
91752063|NCT01344629|183397228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|100.9||||||90.0|97.7|104.2||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||104.2|97.7|
91752064|NCT01344629|183397229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|97.2||||||90.0|87.2|108.3||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||108.3|87.2|
91752065|NCT01344629|183397230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|101.7||||||90.0|98.3|105.2||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||105.2|98.3|
91752066|NCT01344629|183397231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|110.1||||||90.0|95.8|124.4||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||124.4|95.8|
91752067|NCT01344629|183397232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|91.4||||||90.0|85.6|97.6||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||97.6|85.6|
91752068|NCT01344629|183397233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|109.4||||||90.0|102.4|116.8||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||116.8|102.4|
91752069|NCT01344629|183397234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|109.0||||||90.0|101.5|117.1||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||117.1|101.5|
91752070|NCT02305849|183397256|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|47.0||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||47.0|26.7|<0.001
91803722|NCT00114530|183485048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Physical Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.001
91752071|NCT02305849|183397256|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|52.6||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||52.6|32.6|<0.001
91752072|NCT02305849|183397257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|RANCOVA|Based on Rank Analysis of Covariance (RANCOVA) Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
91752073|NCT02305849|183397257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
91752074|NCT02305849|183397259|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|30.7||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||30.7|13.8|<0.001
91752075|NCT02305849|183397259|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|47.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||47.3|29.3|<0.001
91752076|NCT02305849|183397261|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||15.6|3.8|<0.001
91752077|NCT02305849|183397261|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|28.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||28.5|13.9|<0.001
91803723|NCT00114530|183485048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Physical Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.02
91752078|NCT02305849|183397263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.|RANCOVA|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
91752079|NCT02305849|183397263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.|RANCOVA|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
91752080|NCT02305849|183397264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.018
91752081|NCT02305849|183397264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.002
91752082|NCT02305849|183397264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.039
91752083|NCT02305849|183397264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.006
91752084|NCT02305849|183397265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.036
91752085|NCT02305849|183397265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
91752086|NCT02305849|183397265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.013
91752087|NCT02305849|183397265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
91752088|NCT02305849|183397266|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|32.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||32.6|10.0|<0.001
91752089|NCT02305849|183397266|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|37.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||37.9|15.7|<0.001
91752090|NCT02305849|183397266|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|32.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||32.9|10.2|<0.001
91752091|NCT02305849|183397266|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|37.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||37.6|15.2|<0.001
91752092|NCT02305849|183397267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.97||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.97|-1.46|<0.001
91752093|NCT02305849|183397267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.33||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.33|-1.85|<0.001
91752094|NCT02305849|183397269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.94||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.94|-1.44|<0.001
91752095|NCT02305849|183397269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.36||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.36|-1.89|<0.001
91752096|NCT02305849|183397271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-6.9|-3.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-3.5|-6.9|<0.001
91752097|NCT02305849|183397271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-5.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-5.6|-8.9|<0.001
91752098|NCT02305849|183397273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SJC66 Change = Treatment + Baseline SJC66.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.6|-5.3|<0.001
91752099|NCT02305849|183397273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-4.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SJC66 Change = Treatment + Baseline SJC66.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-4.3|-6.9|<0.001
91752100|NCT02305849|183397275|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||32.3|15.1|<0.001
91752101|NCT02305849|183397275|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|36.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||36.2|18.6|<0.001
91752102|NCT02305849|183397277|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||16.5|4.3|<0.001
91882398|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4216
91882399|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5852|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5852
91882400|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7336
91882401|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1647
91908170|NCT03631732|183711739|NON_INFERIORITY|B/F/TAF is non-inferior to SBR if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment groups \[B/F/TAF - SBR\] in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10% (i.e., a margin of 10% is applied to non-inferiority assessment).|Difference in percentages|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.8|||||Differences in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and 95% CI were calculated based on exact method.|||6.8|-2.0|
91803724|NCT00114530|183485048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Mental Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.05
91908171|NCT03631732|183711739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3532|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3532
91908172|NCT03631732|183711740|NON_INFERIORITY|B/F/TAF is non-inferior to SBR if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment groups \[B/F/TAF - SBR\] in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10% (i.e., a margin of 10% is applied to non-inferiority assessment).|Difference in percentages|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.3|||||Differences in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and 95% CI were calculated based on exact method.|||5.3|-1.0|
91908173|NCT03631732|183711740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3356|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3356
91752103|NCT02305849|183397277|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|23.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||23.9|10.0|<0.001
91752104|NCT02305849|183397279|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|44.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||44.2|25.1|<0.001
91752105|NCT02305849|183397279|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|55.0||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||55.0|36.0|<0.001
91752106|NCT02305849|183397281|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|28.1||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||28.1|12.5|<0.001
91752107|NCT02305849|183397281|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|40.0||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||40.0|23.1|<0.001
91752108|NCT02305849|183397283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.948|-1.247||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: CRP Change = Treatment + Baseline CRP.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.247|-1.948|<0.001
91882402|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2813|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2813
91882403|NCT00551135|183659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8423
91882404|NCT00551135|183659462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.397|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Sitting; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by sitting. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.3970
91752109|NCT02305849|183397283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.852|-1.065||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.065|-1.852|<0.001
91752110|NCT02305849|183397285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.61|-14.17||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-14.17|-21.61|<0.001
91752111|NCT02305849|183397285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.67|-16.56||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-16.56|-24.67|<0.001
91752112|NCT02305849|183397287|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|42.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||42.2|23.7|<0.001
91752113|NCT02305849|183397287|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|54.8||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||54.8|36.2|<0.001
91752114|NCT02305849|183397289|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|42.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|52.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||52.5|32.3|<0.001
91908174|NCT03631732|183711742|OTHER||Difference in LSM|11.0||||0.5618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|49.0|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Difference in LSM (Least square mean) and its 95% C.I. was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|||49|-27|0.5618
91882405|NCT00551135|183659462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.764|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Sitting; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by sitting. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.7640
91882406|NCT00551135|183659462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5064|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Sitting; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by sitting. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.5064
91882407|NCT00551135|183659462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Walking; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by walking. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1318
91882408|NCT00551135|183659462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9367|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Walking; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by walking. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.9367
91908175|NCT03631732|183711743|OTHER||Difference in LSM|9.0||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|48.0|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Difference in LSM and its 95% C.I. was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|||48|-31|0.6632
91908176|NCT02255409|183711794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.7||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 22||9.7|-6.7|
91908177|NCT02255409|183711794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|2.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 22||2.3|-14.2|
91908178|NCT02255409|183711794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|24.1||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 22||24.1|8.4|
91908179|NCT02255409|183711794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|22.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 22||22.0|6.3|
91908180|NCT02255409|183711795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.2||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 22||2.2|-0.9|
91908181|NCT02255409|183711795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 22||1.2|-1.9|
91908182|NCT02255409|183711795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|20.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 22||20.0|9.3|
91908183|NCT02255409|183711795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|32.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 22||32.0|20.6|
91882409|NCT00551135|183659462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Walking; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by walking. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1259
91882410|NCT00551135|183659462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1812|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Coughing; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by coughing. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1812
91908184|NCT02255409|183711799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 181||13.0|-1.6|
91908185|NCT02255409|183711799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.8||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||9.8|-5.5|
91908186|NCT02255409|183711799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|18.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||18.3|5.3|
91908187|NCT02255409|183711799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.7||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 181||5.7|-8.4|
91908188|NCT02255409|183711800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.4||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 181||8.4|2.4|
91908189|NCT02255409|183711800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|9.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||9.3|3.1|
91908190|NCT02255409|183711800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|40.9||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||40.9|25.0|
91908191|NCT02255409|183711800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|44.7||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 181||44.7|29.6|
91908192|NCT02255409|183711801|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.4||||||The ratio of GMT (GMTr) values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H1N1 at Day 1.||2.4|1.6|
91908193|NCT02255409|183711801|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H1N1 at Day 22.||1.7|1.3|
91908194|NCT02255409|183711801|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H1N1 at Day 181.||1.7|1.3|
91908195|NCT02255409|183711801|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 1.||2.7|1.7|
91803725|NCT00114530|183485048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Mental Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.1
91803726|NCT00114530|183485049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Physical Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
91882411|NCT00551135|183659462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Coughing; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by coughing. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.9600
91882412|NCT00551135|183659462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Coughing; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by coughing. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1050
91803727|NCT00114530|183485049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Physical Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.003
91803728|NCT00114530|183485049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Mental Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.02
91803729|NCT00114530|183485049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Mental Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.07
91882413|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2818|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2818
91882414|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8631|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8631
91882415|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5074|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5074
91882416|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0401
91882417|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5509|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5509
91908196|NCT02255409|183711801|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 22.||1.5|1.2|
91908197|NCT02255409|183711801|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.6||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 181.||1.6|1.2|
91908198|NCT02255409|183711801|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 1.||2.2|1.5|
91803730|NCT00114530|183485050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.08
91803731|NCT00114530|183485050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.9
91803732|NCT00114530|183485051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.1
91803733|NCT00114530|183485051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.6
91803734|NCT00114530|183485052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.02
91803735|NCT00114530|183485052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.3
91882418|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0004
91882419|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7070
91882420|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.384|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3840
91882421|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2732|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2732
91882422|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4418|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4418
91882423|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8379
91882424|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5944
91882425|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8139
91882426|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9709
91908199|NCT02255409|183711801|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.0||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 22.||2.0|1.5|
91908200|NCT02255409|183711801|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 181.||2.2|1.6|
91908201|NCT02255409|183711801|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.0||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Victoria at Day 1.||4.0|2.7|
91908202|NCT02255409|183711801|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Victoria at Day 22.||1.8|1.2|
91752115|NCT02305849|183397289|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|49.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.7|58.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||58.9|39.7|<0.001
91752116|NCT02305849|183397291|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|27.3|||Fisher Exact|No multiplicity adjustment.|CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||27.3|12.1|<0.001
91752117|NCT02305849|183397291|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|38.7||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||38.7|22.0|<0.001
91752118|NCT02305849|183397293|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|52.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||52.6|32.3|<0.001
91752119|NCT02305849|183397293|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|56.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||56.9|37.1|<0.001
91803736|NCT00114530|183485053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.03
91882427|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9666
91882428|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3204|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3204
91752120|NCT02305849|183397295|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|5.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||9.5|1.0|0.011
91752121|NCT02305849|183397295|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|14.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||14.6|4.1|<0.001
91882429|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0869
91882430|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9386
91882431|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4352|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4352
91882432|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4522|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4522
91908203|NCT02255409|183711801|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Victoria at Day 181.||1.5|1.1|
91908204|NCT02255409|183711803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||16.3|-5.2|
91908205|NCT02255409|183711803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|23.6||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||23.6|5.3|
91908206|NCT02255409|183711804|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|24.1||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||24.1|9.5|
91908207|NCT02255409|183711804|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|55.8||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||55.8|35.9|
91908208|NCT02255409|183711805|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.8||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 1.||3.8|1.8|
91908209|NCT02255409|183711805|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.9||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 22.||2.9|1.3|
91908210|NCT02255409|183711805|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 181.||2.2|1.3|
91908211|NCT02255409|183711805|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.6||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 1.||2.6|1.5|
91803737|NCT00114530|183485053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.5
91803738|NCT00114530|183485054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.002
91803739|NCT00114530|183485054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.05
91803740|NCT00114530|183485055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
91803741|NCT00114530|183485055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.01
91803742|NCT00114530|183485056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||Development of new or worsening arrhythmias||||0.42
91803743|NCT00114530|183485056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Chi-squared|||CHF requiring clinical treatment||||0.048
91803744|NCT00114530|183485056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinically significant pericardial effusion||||0.51
91882433|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6606|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6606
91882434|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1733|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1733
91882435|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8788
91803745|NCT00114530|183485057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||Development of new or worsening arrhythmias||||0.46
91882436|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8474|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8474
91882437|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2938
91882438|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7602|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7602
91882439|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6881|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6881
91803746|NCT00114530|183485057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared|||CHF requiring clinical treatment||||0.042
91803747|NCT00114530|183485057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinically significant pericardial effusion||||0.15
91803748|NCT00114530|183485058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.026
91803749|NCT00114530|183485059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
91803750|NCT00114530|183485060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
91803751|NCT00114530|183485061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91882440|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7883
91882441|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5374|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5374
91908212|NCT02255409|183711805|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 22.||2.7|1.8|
91803752|NCT00114530|183485062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
91803753|NCT00114530|183485063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91803754|NCT00114530|183485064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91803755|NCT00114530|183485065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91803756|NCT00114530|183485066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|P-value comes from a Poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups.||||||<0.001
91803757|NCT00114530|183485066|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|174.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rates (events/P-T) are as follows: Possibly related = 0.61, Probably related = 0.57, Definitely related = 0.52|||||
91803758|NCT00114530|183485066|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|141.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rates (events/P-T) are as follows: Possibly related = 0.17, Probably related = 0.09, Definitely related = 0.04|||||
91803759|NCT00114530|183485068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|P-value comes from a Poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups.||||||0.7
91803760|NCT00114530|183485068|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|174.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rate (events/P-T) is 0.76|||||
91803761|NCT00114530|183485068|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|141.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rate (events/P-T) is 0.80|||||
91803762|NCT01466153|183485081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4475|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4475
91803763|NCT01466153|183485085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3206
91803764|NCT01466153|183485086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3130
91803765|NCT01466153|183485088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9527|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9527
91803766|NCT01703039|183485104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91803767|NCT01703039|183485105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91882442|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9774|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9774
91882443|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3082|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3082
91882444|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4373|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4373
91882445|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6540
91882446|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0002
91882447|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0696
91882448|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0029
91882449|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3695
91882450|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9346|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9346
91882451|NCT00551135|183659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9631
91882452|NCT00551135|183659464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.9025
91882453|NCT00551135|183659464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5652|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.5652
91882454|NCT00551135|183659464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.7920
91882455|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6679|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6679
91882456|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7308|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7308
91882457|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6781
91882458|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0930
91882459|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3751|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3751
91752122|NCT02305849|183397297|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment.|Percent Difference|6.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.0|||Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||11.0|1.8|0.003
91882460|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0111
91882461|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6811|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6811
91882462|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7426|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7426
91803768|NCT01703039|183485106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
91882463|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1619
91882464|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1132
91882465|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9822|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9822
91882466|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1883
91882467|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9391|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 1 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9391
91882468|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9664|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 1 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9664
91882469|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 1 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0747
91882470|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9681|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9681
91882471|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3246|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3246
91882472|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7984|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7984
91882473|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8581
91882474|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9677
91882475|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7104
91882476|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8978|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8978
91908213|NCT02255409|183711805|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 181.||3.2|2.1|
91752123|NCT02305849|183397297|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.4||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||19.4|7.5|<0.001
91752124|NCT02305849|183397299|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|-8.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-8.60|-13.84|<0.001
91752125|NCT02305849|183397299|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.35|-11.98||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-11.98|-17.35|<0.001
91752126|NCT02305849|183397301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.11|-13.22||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-13.22|-22.11|<0.001
91752127|NCT02305849|183397301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001||95.0|-28.66|-19.51||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-19.51|-28.66|<0.001
91752128|NCT02305849|183397303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.09|-12.19||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS)||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-12.19|-21.09|<0.001
91752129|NCT02305849|183397303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|-15.61||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-15.61|-25.07|<0.001
91752130|NCT02305849|183397305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-12.38||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGAP (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGAP (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-12.38|-22.00|<0.001
91752131|NCT02305849|183397305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-15.98||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGAP (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGAP (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-15.98|-25.80|<0.001
91882477|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.626|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6260
91882478|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4047|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4047
91882479|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4461|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4461
91882480|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9099|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9099
91882481|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8805|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8805
91882482|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2348
91882483|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4445|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4445
91882484|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8849|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8849
91882485|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2796|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2796
91752132|NCT02305849|183397308|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.17||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.17|-0.36|<0.001
91752133|NCT02305849|183397308|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.29||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.29|-0.48|<0.001
91752134|NCT02305849|183397310|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|8.74||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||8.74|4.09|<0.001
91752135|NCT02305849|183397310|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|10.86||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||10.86|6.36|<0.001
91752136|NCT02305849|183397312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.18||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||4.18|1.21|<0.001
91752137|NCT02305849|183397312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.19||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||3.19|0.11|0.036
91752138|NCT02305849|183397314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|5.02||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.02|-0.44|0.099
91752139|NCT02305849|183397314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|6.91||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||6.91|1.53|0.002
91752140|NCT02305849|183397316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|4.42||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||4.42|-5.16|0.879
91752141|NCT02305849|183397316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|2.23||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||2.23|-5.86|0.377
91752142|NCT02305849|183397318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-2.73||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.73|-16.54|0.007
91752143|NCT02305849|183397318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.24|-7.1||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-7.10|-21.24|<0.001
91752144|NCT02305849|183397320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.25||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.25|-16.60|0.010
91752145|NCT02305849|183397320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.92|-7.31||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-7.31|-21.92|<0.001
91752146|NCT02305849|183397322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.23|-8.16||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-8.16|-18.23|<0.001
91882486|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5225|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5225
91882487|NCT00551135|183659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7015
91882488|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3332
91882489|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0933|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0933
91882490|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0031
91882491|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9451|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9451
91752147|NCT02305849|183397322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.57|-12.66||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-12.66|-22.57|<0.001
91752148|NCT00355342|183397327|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis for the primary measure is that the difference between the effects of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination product 250/50mcg BID and salmeterol 50mcg BID on the change in BMD assessed at the L1-L4 region of the spine is greater than 1 %/year.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.49|||||Analysis Model: Percent change from baseline BMD = treatment + time (years) + treatment\*time + baseline BMD + sex + investigator + age + BMI + FEV1 severity + b/l activity level + b/l calcium supp. use + smoking status.|The analysis is presented for slope estimate calculated for the percent change from Baseline values at Week 26, 52, 78, 104, 130, and 156.|Age split by category (40-64 years old, 65 or older). FEV1 severity based on GOLD Stage (Mild/Moderate, Severe/Very Severe). Activity based on 0-10 Physical Activity Scale (split by median, \<7, \>=7). Slope estimates based on treatment\*time via repeated measures model with unstructured covariance.|1.49|0.06|
91752149|NCT00355342|183397328|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis for the primary measure is that the difference between the effects of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination product 250/50mcg BID and salmeterol 50mcg BID on the change in BMD assessed at the L1-L4 region of the spine is greater than 1 %/year.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.24|||||Analysis Model: Percent change from baseline BMD = treatment + time (years) + treatment\*time + baseline BMD + sex + investigator + age + BMI + FEV1 severity + b/l activity level + b/l calcium supp. use + smoking status|The analysis is presented for slope estimate calculated for the percent change from Baseline values at Week 26, 52, 78, 104, 130, and 156.|Age split by category (40-64 years old, 65 or older). FEV1 severity based on GOLD Stage (Mild/Moderate, Severe/Very Severe). Activity based on 0-10 Physical Activity Scale (split by median, \<7, \>=7). Slope estimates based on treatment\*time via repeated measures model with unstructured covariance.|0.24|-0.78|
91752150|NCT00997425|183397329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|||||values above 0.05 are considered statistically not significant in this study|paired t-test|statistical analysis applies to door approach behavior||||||0.098
91803769|NCT01703039|183485107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
91882492|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7312|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7312
91882493|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0348
91882494|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8936|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8936
91882495|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7672|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7672
91882496|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4285
91882497|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0785
91882498|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3348
91882499|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1366
91882500|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3338|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3338
91882501|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4460
91882502|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1078
91882503|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8273|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8273
91803770|NCT01703039|183485108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91882504|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6140
91882505|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1684
91908214|NCT00135668|183711807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-13.97|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test used.||Paired t-test used to test the null hypothesis of no change in MAP from baseline.||-13.97|-18.44|<0.001
91908215|NCT00135668|183711807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.45|-6.55|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||-6.55|-15.45|<0.001
91908216|NCT00135668|183711807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-13.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||-13.30|-20.70|<0.001
91752151|NCT00997425|183397329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||P values above 0.05 are considered statistically not significant in this study|paired t-test|statistical analysis applies to door pass through behavior||||||0.045
91752152|NCT02481713|183397350|NON_INFERIORITY|All analyses were two-tailed with alpha set at 0.05||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91752153|NCT02481713|183397351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.69|||Regression, zero-inflated Poisson|||||1.69|1.25|.0001
91752154|NCT01527383|183397352|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Longitudinal regression|Visit and stratification factor (biologic or non-biologic autoimmune therapy) were covariates|||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|||<0.0001
91752155|NCT01527383|183397353|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Longitudinal regression|Visit and stratification factor (biologic or non-biologic autoimmune therapy) were covariates|||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|||<0.0001
91752156|NCT02575118|183397358|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||linear mixed-effects regression models|All available data, and hence data for participants with missing observations at some time points, were included in the model.||In one saliva sample collected before treatment, the BPA concentration was more than 100 times higher (11.6 ng/ml) than the mean value and more than 100 SD from the mean of the remaining 19 samples. This saliva sample was excluded from the statistical analysis because it was probably contaminated. One participant had breakfast before the sample time point 1 wk after treatment, and thus the samples collected from this participant at this time point were not included in the statistical analysis.|We used mixed effects models and all available data (also data for participants with missing observations at some time points) were included in the model. Using mixed effects models is a recognized method when there are missing data. Thus, data from all 20 individuals were used for estimations at all time points (see: Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, Volume I, Third Edition. 2012, page 279).|||<0.05
91752157|NCT02575118|183397359|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||linear mixed-effects regression models|All available data, and hence data for participants with missing observations at some time points, were included in the model.||One participant had breakfast before the sample time point 1 wk after treatment, and thus the samples collected from this participant at this time point were not included in the statistical analysis.|We used mixed effects models and all available data (also data for participants with missing observations at some time points), were included in the model. Using mixed effects models is a recognized method when there are missing data. Thus, data from all 20 individuals were used for estimations at all time points (see: Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, Volume I, Third Edition. 2012, page 279).|||<0.05
91803771|NCT02342327|183485115|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22||||||Hazard ratio for time to lapse to smoking in the group switched to non-menthol cigarettes relative to the group continuing to smoke menthol cigarettes||1.22|0.55|
91882506|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1285
91882507|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2640
91803772|NCT02342327|183485116|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.06||||||Hazard ratio for time to relapse to smoking in the group switched to non-menthol cigarettes relative to the group continuing to smoke menthol cigarettes||1.06|0.42|
91882508|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8956|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8956
91882509|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0058
91882510|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9929|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9929
91882511|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0473
91908217|NCT00135668|183711807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.38|-15.58|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||-15.58|-24.38|<0.001
91908218|NCT00135668|183711807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.87|-11.39|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||-11.39|-21.87|<0.001
91908219|NCT02290873|183711818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.8961|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8505|0.9416||P-value calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test accounting for fentanyl strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.9416|0.8505|<0.0001
91908220|NCT02290873|183711819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.133|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.416|8.517|||Log Rank|||||8.517|4.416|<0.0001
91882512|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2426|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2426
91882513|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3478
91882514|NCT00551135|183659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1694
91882515|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0630
91882516|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0347
91882517|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0024
91882518|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0767
91882519|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1327
91882520|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0078
91882521|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0694|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0694
91882522|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2173
91882523|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0193
91882524|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0673
91908221|NCT02370615|183711822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|2.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.632|2.481||||||Analysis for TAK 272F||2.481|1.632|
91882525|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2629
91882526|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0388
91882527|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0651
91882528|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3242|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3242
91882529|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0345
91882530|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0487
91882531|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3384
91882532|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0467
91882533|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0347
91882534|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3086
91882535|NCT00551135|183659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0406
91882536|NCT00551135|183659471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4177|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4177
91882537|NCT00551135|183659471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.441|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4410
91908222|NCT02370615|183711822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.064|0.123||||||Analysis for TAK 272-M-I||0.123|0.064|
91908223|NCT02370615|183711823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|4.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.137|5.777||||||Analysis for TAK 272F||5.777|4.137|
91803773|NCT01637935|183485141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||||95.0|0.92|1.31||||||Fully adjusted refers to inclusion of all potential confounders in the statistical model from the 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder cancer, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and the interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, and year of cohort entry.||1.31|0.92|
91803774|NCT01637935|183485141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||||95.0|0.89|1.26||||||Fully adjusted adding the proteinuria testing variable.||1.26|0.89|
91803775|NCT01637935|183485142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||||95.0|0.71|1.12||||||Time since starting pioglitazone \<4.5 years vs unexposed group. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.12|0.71|
91803776|NCT01637935|183485142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||||95.0|0.93|1.59||||||Time since starting pioglitazone 4.5-8 years vs unexposed group. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.59|0.93|
91882538|NCT00551135|183659471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5560
91882539|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4273
91882540|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4466
91882541|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3785
91882542|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5272|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5272
91882543|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4257|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4257
91803777|NCT01637935|183485142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||||95.0|0.83|1.75||||||Time since starting pioglitazone \>8 years vs unexposed group. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.75|0.83|
91803778|NCT01637935|183485143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.68|1.16||||||Duration of therapy \<1.5 years. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.16|0.68|
91803779|NCT01637935|183485143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||||95.0|0.8|1.33||||||Duration of therapy 1.5-4 years. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.33|0.80|
91803780|NCT01637935|183485143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||||95.0|0.87|1.54||||||Duration of therapy \>4 years. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.54|0.87|
91882544|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1428
91882545|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2316
91882546|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3468|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3468
91882547|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5367|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5367
91908224|NCT02370615|183711824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|4.702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.969|5.569||||||Analysis for TAK 272F||5.569|3.969|
91882548|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0549
91882549|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1351
91882550|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9599
91882551|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4273
91882552|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4466
91882553|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3785
91882554|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2869
91882555|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9905
91882556|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9381|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9381
91882557|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2158
91882558|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7887
91882559|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9250
91908225|NCT02370615|183711824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.012|0.045||||||Analysis for TAK 272-M-I||0.045|0.012|
91908226|NCT02370615|183711826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.349|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.117|1.628||||||||1.628|1.117|
91752158|NCT01689350|183397360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|14.14|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the control group and experimental group in terms of frequency of leucopenia.(α=0.05） Chi-square test was applied to test the difference. The Chi-square value was 10.08 and the P-value was 0.0015, which indicated that the null hypothesis could be rejected.||14.14|1.76|<0.01
91752159|NCT01689350|183397361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.13|||Chi-squared|||||7.13|1.01|<0.05
91752160|NCT00554099|183397362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.3781|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.809|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, number of diverticulitis attacks and baseline value as covariate.||It was assumed that the placebo treatment group and mesalamine treatment group would have an average composite score of 8.4 and 5.88 at Week 12, respectively. The common standard deviation was set to 4.5 based on the 2 standard deviation rule. Based on these assumptions, 60 patients per treatment group required to detect 30% treatment difference at 1-sided, 0.1 level of significance, with 80% power.||-0.809||0.3781
91882560|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1472
91882561|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5383|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5383
91882562|NCT00551135|183659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8869
91882563|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 3 h PS;||||0.4024
91908227|NCT02370615|183711827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.919|1.131||||||||1.131|0.919|
91908228|NCT02370615|183711828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.035|1.289||||||||1.289|1.035|
91908229|NCT02370615|183711830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.235|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.387||||||Analysis for Midazolam||1.387|1.100|
91908230|NCT02370615|183711830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.781|1.008||||||Analysis for 1'Hydroxymidazolam||1.008|0.781|
91908231|NCT02370615|183711831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|1.568||||||Analysis for Midazolam||1.568|1.290|
91882564|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 3 h PS;||||0.9766
91882565|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 3 h PS;||||0.9975
91882566|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 24 h PS;||||0.9038
91908232|NCT02370615|183711831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.008|1.16||||||Analysis for 1'Hydroxymidazolam||1.160|1.008|
91908233|NCT02370615|183711832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.425|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.291|1.574||||||Analysis for Midazolam||1.574|1.291|
91752161|NCT00554099|183397362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.6285|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.815|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, number of diverticulitis attacks and baseline value as covariate.||It was assumed that the placebo treatment group and mesalamine treatment group would have an average composite score of 8.4 and 5.88 at Week 12, respectively. The common standard deviation was set to 4.5 based on the 2 standard deviation rule. Based on these assumptions, 60 patients per treatment group required to detect 30% treatment difference at 1-sided, 0.1 level of significance, with 80% power.||0.815||0.6285
91752162|NCT00554099|183397362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference vs. Asacol|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.4365|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.573|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, number of diverticulitis attacks and baseline value as covariate.||It was assumed that the placebo treatment group and mesalamine treatment group would have an average composite score of 8.4 and 5.88 at Week 12, respectively. The common standard deviation was set to 4.5 based on the 2 standard deviation rule. Based on these assumptions, 60 patients per treatment group required to detect 30% treatment difference at 1-sided, 0.1 level of significance, with 80% power.||3.573||0.4365
91752163|NCT00554099|183397363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.53||0.0576|ONE_SIDED|90.0|5.1||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||5.1|0.0576
91752164|NCT00554099|183397363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.27||0.3248|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-10.2||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-10.2|0.3248
91752165|NCT00554099|183397363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.87||0.8596|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-30.8||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-30.8|0.8596
91752166|NCT00554099|183397364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.0||0.1266|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.3||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-1.3|0.1266
91752167|NCT00554099|183397364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.13||0.9288|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-38.9||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-38.9|0.9288
91882567|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 24 h PS;||||0.9370
91882568|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 24 h PS;||||0.2134
91882569|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 72 h PS;||||0.2482
91752168|NCT00554099|183397364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.98||0.9962|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-54.1||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-54.1|0.9962
91752169|NCT00554099|183397365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.784||0.3082|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.196|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||2.196||0.3082
91752170|NCT00554099|183397365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.903||0.5113|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.832|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||3.832||0.5113
91752171|NCT00554099|183397365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Mesalamine|1.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.836||0.6988|ONE_SIDED|90.0||5.145|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||5.145||0.6988
91752172|NCT00554099|183397366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-0.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.067||0.4448|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.541|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||3.541||0.4448
91882570|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 72 h PS;||||0.2207
91882571|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 72 h PS;||||0.9191
91882572|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at EOT;||||0.0686
91908234|NCT02370615|183711832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.143||||||Analysis for 1'Hydroxymidazolam||1.143|0.986|
91908235|NCT03715153|183711839|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|General Linear Model including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, gender, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline.|Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||1.75|-1.04|0.617
91882573|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at EOT;||||0.0746
91882574|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at EOT;||||0.0512
91882575|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7118|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 3 h PS;||||0.7118
91882576|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 3 h PS;||||0.9883
91882577|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 3 h PS;||||0.9770
91882578|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 24 h PS;||||0.5457
91752173|NCT00554099|183397366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|0.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.151||0.6029|ONE_SIDED|90.0||4.903|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||4.903||0.6029
91752174|NCT00554099|183397366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Mesalamine|1.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.996||0.6615|ONE_SIDED|90.0||5.129|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||5.129||0.6615
91752175|NCT00554099|183397367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.7165|ONE_SIDED|90.0||7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||7.9||0.7165
91752176|NCT00554099|183397367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.1708|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||0.6||0.1708
91752177|NCT00554099|183397367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.1039|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||-0.6||0.1039
91752178|NCT00554099|183397368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.21||0.1907|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||3.0||0.1907
91752179|NCT00554099|183397368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.173|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||2.5||0.1730
91752180|NCT00554099|183397368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.4613|ONE_SIDED|90.0||9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||9.0||0.4613
91752181|NCT00554099|183397369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.3983|ONE_SIDED|90.0||12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||12.1||0.3983
91752182|NCT00554099|183397369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.66||0.6721|ONE_SIDED|90.0||22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||22.2||0.6721
91752183|NCT00554099|183397369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.23||0.7703|ONE_SIDED|90.0||24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||24.6||0.7703
91752184|NCT04240093|183397370|SUPERIORITY|This is a pilot intervention trial and was not powered to detect statistical significance.|Beta coefficient|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.2||a priori alpha p\<0.05|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a poisson distribution controlling for baseline values.||Hypothesis: The CoMBAT intervention arm would be superior to the Standard of Care control arm with regard to reductions in missed medication doses in the past 30 days at follow-up.||0.20|-1.11|0.17
91752185|NCT04240093|183397371|SUPERIORITY|This pilot feasibility and acceptability study was not powered to detect a statistically significant effect.|Beta coefficient|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.72||a priori alpha p\<0.05|Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a Poisson distribution controlling for baseline values.||Hypothesis: The CoMBAT intervention arm would be superior to the Standard of Care control arm with regard to reductions in missed medication-related visits in the past 30 days at follow-up.||2.72|-3.09|0.90
91752186|NCT04240093|183397372|SUPERIORITY|As a pilot feasibility and acceptability trial, this study was not powered to detect a statistically significant effect.|Beta coefficient|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-0.7||A priori alpha p\<0.05|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling with a binomial distribution, controlling for baseline values.||Hypothesis: Fewer participants in the CoMBAT experimental arm will have a positive opioid toxicology screen at the 6-month follow-up compared to participants in the SOC control arm.||-0.70|-8.72|0.02
91752187|NCT02839902|183397373|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-17.147||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.344|-7.95|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with cholesterol concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||-7.950|-26.344|0.0004
91752188|NCT02839902|183397373|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-9.774||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.986|2.439|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with triglycerides concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||2.439|-21.986|0.1141
91752189|NCT02839902|183397373|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-10.246||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.143|-1.349|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with free cholesterol concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||-1.349|-19.143|0.0248
91882579|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 24 h PS;||||0.2579
91803781|NCT01637935|183485144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.69|1.16||||||Cumulative dose 1-14000 mg. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.16|0.69|
91803782|NCT01637935|183485144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.85|1.42||||||Cumulative dose 14001-40000 mg. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.42|0.85|
91803783|NCT01637935|183485144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||||95.0|0.79|1.44||||||Cumulative dose \>40000 mg. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.44|0.79|
91803784|NCT02200211|183485147|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG) studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.53|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window). The upper limit of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the treatment group difference, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusted for baseline age and VA, including only participants completing the 16-week outcome in a modified intent-to-treat analysis. There was no imputation for missing data.||0.53||
91803785|NCT02200211|183485147|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.53|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, the primary analysis repeated but excluded data from participants (n=35) who completed the 16-week visit outside of the pre-defined protocol window (16 +/- 1 week).||0.53||
91803786|NCT02200211|183485147|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.54|||||A 1-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, multiple imputation was used to impute 16-week visual acuity scores for participants who missed the exam (n=15) or completed the 16-week exam outside of the pre-specified analysis window (n=7).||0.54||
91882580|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 24 h PS;||||0.1232
91882581|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 72 h PS;||||0.2880
91882582|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 72 h PS;||||0.0894
91908236|NCT03715153|183711840|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|6.88|||||General Linear Model including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, gender, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline. Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||6.88|-5.91|
91908237|NCT03715153|183711841|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16|||||Rank-based analysis (Wilcoxon scores) including terms for fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and gender. Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||0.16|-0.24|
91882583|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 72 h PS;||||0.1979
91882584|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at EOT;||||0.0686
91908238|NCT03715153|183711842|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.75|||||General Linear Model including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, gender, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline. Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||1.75|-1.42|
91882585|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at EOT;||||0.0746
91882586|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at EOT;||||0.4669
91882587|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 3 h PS;||||0.5533
91882588|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 3 h PS;||||0.1611
91882589|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 3 h PS;||||0.1611
91882590|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 24 h PS;||||0.4793
91908239|NCT03715153|183711846|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|4.59||||||||4.59|-5.12|
91803787|NCT02200211|183485147|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.56|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates for age and visual acuity. For this post hoc sensitivity analysis, all participants with 16-week exams were included in the analysis regardless of whether or not the exam was completed within the pre-specified analysis window (14 to \<20 weeks after randomization).||0.56||
91803788|NCT02200211|183485147|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.53|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16-weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, we excluded 16-week outcomes from enrolled participants who were subsequently found to be ineligible for the study (n=7).||0.53||
91882591|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 24 h PS;||||0.3533
91882592|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 24 h PS;||||0.8852
91882593|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 72 h PS;||||0.3173
91882594|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 72 h PS;||||0.3173
91882595|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 72 h PS;||||0.8864
91908240|NCT03021499|183711850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.27|||Regression, Logistic|The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and Region.||The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects showing renal response at Week 52 as adjudicated by the Clinical Endpoints Committee.||4.27|1.64|<0.001
91908241|NCT03021499|183711851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.7|||Log Rank|||||2.7|1.51|<0.001
91882596|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at EOT;||||0.8084
91882597|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at EOT;||||0.3173
91882598|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at EOT;||||0.2207
91908242|NCT03021499|183711853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.72|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratios are from a Cox's proportional hazards model with terms for treatment arm, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and Region|||3.72|1.34|0.002
91908243|NCT03021499|183711854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.79||Week 24|Regression, Logistic||Week 24|Week 24||3.79|1.56|<0.001
91882599|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 3 h PS;||||0.3747
91882600|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 3 h PS;||||0.1450
91882601|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 3 h PS;||||0.2054
91882602|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 24 h PS;||||0.4106
91882603|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 24 h PS;||||0.2199
91882604|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 24 h PS;||||0.2896
91882605|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at EOT;||||1.0000
91752190|NCT02839902|183397373|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-11.511||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|-3.682|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with phospholipid concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||-3.682|-19.340|0.0047
91882606|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at EOT;||||0.3173
91882607|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at EOT;||||0.3943
91882608|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1703|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 3 h PS;||||0.1703
91882609|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 3 h PS;||||0.0807
91882610|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7728|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 3 h PS;||||0.7728
91882611|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 24 h PS;||||0.4770
91882612|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 24 h PS;||||0.3625
91752191|NCT02839902|183397374|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|9.499||||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.623|23.622|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with TG to cholesterol ratio in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||23.622|-4.623|0.1826
91752192|NCT02839902|183397375|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|1.066||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|1.776|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by cholesterol using an ANCOVA model.||1.776|0.356|0.0040
91882613|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 24 h PS;||||0.0617
91882614|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 72 h PS;||||0.3061
91882615|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at EOT;||||0.2207
91882616|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at EOT;||||0.3173
91882617|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 3 h PS;||||0.9191
91882618|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 3 h PS;||||0.3173
91908244|NCT03021499|183711854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.51||Week 52|Regression, Logistic||Week 52|Week 52||3.51|1.45|<0.001
91752193|NCT02839902|183397375|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|1.553||||0.4428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.884|5.991|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by triglycerides using an ANCOVA model.||5.991|-2.884|0.4428
91882619|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 3 h PS;||||0.2207
91882620|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 24 h PS;||||0.6692
91882621|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7793|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 24 h PS;||||0.7793
91882622|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6065|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 24 h PS;||||0.6065
91752194|NCT02839902|183397375|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.76||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|1.544|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by free cholesterol using an ANCOVA model.||1.544|-0.024|0.0570
91752195|NCT02839902|183397375|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.838||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|1.62|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by phospholipid using an ANCOVA model.||1.620|0.057|0.0360
91752196|NCT03688555|183397395|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301|=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.59||All Nasal Polyp Score (NPS) values observed between baseline and Week 12 were included in the analysis. Changes from baseline to post-baseline visits in NPS were analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM).|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||1.59|-0.06|= 0.062
91752197|NCT03688555|183397396|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.316|=|0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|2.45|||ANCOVA|||||2.45|-10.41|= 0.161
91752198|NCT00394901|183397407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.262||95.0|-0.85|0.23|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.23|-0.85|0.262
91752199|NCT00394901|183397407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.002||95.0|-1.39|-0.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.32|-1.39|0.002
91752200|NCT00394901|183397407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.019||95.0|-1.15|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-1.15|0.019
91752201|NCT00394901|183397408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.016||95.0|-1.16|-0.12|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group modified based on the expected pregabalin exposure as a factor, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.12|-1.16|0.016
91752202|NCT00394901|183397408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.008||95.0|-1.14|-0.17|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group modified based on the expected pregabalin exposure as a factor, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.17|-1.14|0.008
91752203|NCT00394901|183397409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Proportion of responders were used for the statistical analyses. Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.1160
91752204|NCT00394901|183397409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Proportion of responders were used for the statistical analyses. Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0015
91752205|NCT00394901|183397409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0107||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Proportion of responders were used for the statistical analyses. Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0107
91752206|NCT00394901|183397410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.038||95.0|-0.99|-0.03|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.03|-0.99|0.038
91752207|NCT00394901|183397410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.002||95.0|-1.22|-0.27|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.27|-1.22|0.002
91752208|NCT00394901|183397410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.002||95.0|-1.19|-0.26|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-1.19|0.002
91752209|NCT00394901|183397411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.048||95.0|-0.97|0.0|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.00|-0.97|0.048
91882623|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 72 h PS;||||0.3570
91882624|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 72 h PS;||||0.9690
91882625|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 72 h PS;||||0.5299
91882626|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at EOT;||||0.4821
91882627|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8295|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at EOT;||||0.8295
91882628|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at EOT;||||0.3304
91882629|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 3 h PS;||||0.2482
91882630|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 24 h PS;||||0.2482
91882631|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 24 h PS;||||0.2207
91882632|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8055|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 24 h PS;||||0.8055
91882633|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 72 h PS;||||0.9191
91882634|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 72 h PS;||||0.8488
91882635|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 72 h PS;||||0.2482
91882636|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at EOT;||||0.2482
91882637|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at EOT;||||0.2207
91908245|NCT03021499|183711855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.53|0.349
91752210|NCT00394901|183397411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.47|-0.52|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.52|-1.47|<0.001
91752211|NCT00394901|183397411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.49|-0.56|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-1.49|<0.001
91752212|NCT00394901|183397412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.096||95.0|-0.89|0.07|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.07|-0.89|0.096
91752213|NCT00394901|183397412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.44|-0.48|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.48|-1.44|<0.001
91752214|NCT00394901|183397412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.46|-0.52|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.52|-1.46|<0.001
91752215|NCT00394901|183397413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.505||95.0|-2.16|1.06|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.06|-2.16|0.505
91752216|NCT00394901|183397413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.023||95.0|-3.46|-0.26|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-3.46|0.023
91752217|NCT00394901|183397413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.012||95.0|-3.56|-0.44|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.44|-3.56|0.012
91752218|NCT00394901|183397414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.349||95.0|-0.91|0.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.32|-0.91|0.349
91882638|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at EOT;||||0.2482
91882639|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 3 h PS;||||0.3291
91908246|NCT03021499|183711855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.646
91908247|NCT03021499|183711858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.6|||Log Rank|||||2.6|1.62|<0.001
91908248|NCT03021499|183711859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||-1.9|-7.3|< 0.001
91908249|NCT03021499|183711859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||-0.7|-6.1|0.014
91908250|NCT03021499|183711859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||-1.9|-7.3|< 0.001
91908251|NCT03021499|183711859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.6|-6|0.017
91908252|NCT03021499|183711859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||0.3|-5.1|0.085
91908253|NCT03021499|183711859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20||-0.2|-5.7|0.035
91908254|NCT03021499|183711859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.6|-5|0.121
91908255|NCT03021499|183711859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 30||0.6|-5|0.12
91908256|NCT03021499|183711859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36||0.5|-5.1|0.102
91803789|NCT02200211|183485147|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.55|||||A 1-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 week, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, we excluded 16-week outcomes from participants who received alternative treatment for at least 1 week during study follow-up (n=4).||0.55||
91803790|NCT02200211|183485147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.58|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive estimate values favor the patching treatment group.|Analysis of covariance included baseline age and visual acuity as adjustment covariates. The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window). For this post hoc analysis, a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the treatment group difference, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusted for baseline age and VA, including only participants completing the 16-week outcome in a modified intent-to-treat analysis.||0.58|0.04|
91803791|NCT02200211|183485149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance: 2-sided type I error rate of 5%|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity.|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the effectiveness of two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window). A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference at 16 weeks. There was no imputation for missing data.||0.3|-5.7|0.082
91803792|NCT02200211|183485149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.5|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but excluded data from participants who completed the 16-week visit outside of the pre-specified 16 +/- 1 week protocol window (n=10 participants).||0.5|-5.9|
91908257|NCT03021499|183711859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 42||0.5|-6.1|0.022
91908258|NCT03021499|183711859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48||-1.3|-7|0.004
91908259|NCT03021499|183711859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||0.1|-5.7|0.055
91908260|NCT03021499|183711860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||-0.13|-1|0.011
91908261|NCT03021499|183711860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||-0.4|-1.13|<0.001
91908262|NCT03021499|183711860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||-0.34|-1.05|<0.001
91908263|NCT03021499|183711860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.55|-1.33|<0.001
91908264|NCT03021499|183711860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-0.76|-1.6|<0.001
91908265|NCT03021499|183711860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20||-0.68|-1.63|<0.001
91908266|NCT03021499|183711860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||-0.72|-1.59|<0.001
91908267|NCT03021499|183711860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 30||-0.46|-1.58|<0.001
91882640|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 3 h PS;||||0.1391
91752219|NCT00394901|183397414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.024||95.0|-1.32|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-1.32|0.024
91752220|NCT00394901|183397414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.045||95.0|-1.21|-0.01|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.01|-1.21|0.045
91752221|NCT00394901|183397415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.441||95.0|-2.93|1.28|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.28|-2.93|0.441
91752222|NCT00394901|183397415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.017||95.0|-4.64|-0.46|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-4.64|0.017
91752223|NCT00394901|183397415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61||||0.012||95.0|-4.65|-0.56|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-4.65|0.012
91752224|NCT00394901|183397416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23||||0.47||95.0|-8.28|3.83|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.83|-8.28|0.470
91752225|NCT00394901|183397416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.04||||0.008||95.0|-14.0|-2.06|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.06|-14.0|0.008
91752226|NCT00394901|183397416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.43||||0.013||95.0|-13.3|-1.59|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-1.59|-13.3|0.013
91752227|NCT00394901|183397417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.178||95.0|-0.48|0.09|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.09|-0.48|0.178
91752228|NCT00394901|183397417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.003||95.0|-0.72|-0.15|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.15|-0.72|0.003
91803793|NCT02200211|183485149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.3|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window) for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but excluded data from participants later found to be ineligible for the study (n=2).||0.3|-5.9|
91882641|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6318|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 3 h PS;||||0.6318
91882642|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 24 h PS;||||0.6319
91882643|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8149|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 24 h PS;||||0.8149
91882644|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 24 h PS;||||0.5795
91908268|NCT03021499|183711860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36||-0.69|-1.73|<0.001
91752229|NCT00394901|183397417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.03||95.0|-0.59|-0.03|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.03|-0.59|0.030
91752230|NCT00394901|183397418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.001||95.0|-1.23|-0.3|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.30|-1.23|0.001
91752231|NCT00394901|183397418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.001||95.0|-1.27|-0.34|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.34|-1.27|0.001
91882645|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 72 h PS;||||0.1750
91882646|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 72 h PS;||||0.0676
91908269|NCT03021499|183711860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 42||-0.86|-1.87|<0.001
91803794|NCT02200211|183485149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.2|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, multiple imputation was used to impute 16-week visual acuity scores for participants who missed the exam (n=3) or completed the 16-week exam outside of the pre-specified analysis window (n=2).||1.2|-5.0|
91803795|NCT02200211|183485149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.5|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|An ANCOVA model was fit to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window) for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this post hoc sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but included data from participants who completed the 16-week visit outside the analysis window (n=2, range:14 to 28 weeks post randomization).||0.5|-5.5|
91803796|NCT02200211|183485149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.4|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|An ANCOVA model was fit to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window) for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but included prior amblyopia treatment as an adjustment covariate (in addition to baseline visual acuity) in the model.||0.4|-5.7|
91803797|NCT02200211|183485153|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|13.0|||||Binomial regression was used to compare the group proportions (patching - binocular treatment) of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines from baseline at the 16-week visit.|Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 16-week visit, adjusting for baseline age group (5 to \<7, 7 to \<13 years) and baseline visual acuity (treated as a continuous covariate).||13|-4|
91803798|NCT02200211|183485153|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|2.0|||||Binomial regression was used to compare the group proportions (binocular treatment - patching) of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (≥ 10 letters) from baseline at the 16-week visit.|Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 16-week visit, adjusting for baseline visual acuity.||2|-31|
91803799|NCT02200211|183485154|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.0|||||Binomial regression was used to compare the group proportions (patching - binocular treatment) of participants classified as having amblyopia resolution at the 16-week visit.|Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 16-week visit, adjusting for baseline age group (5 to \<7, 7 to \<13 years) and baseline visual acuity (20/40, 20/50 or worse).||5|-1|
91803800|NCT02200211|183485155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||For testing the interaction term, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Previously described above in the Statistical Analysis Overview section.||A linear mixed model was used to compare the rate of amblyopic-eye visual acuity improvement between the treatment groups. The ANCOVA model included an interaction term with treatment group and time to compare the change in visual acuity over follow-up by treatment group, adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. If the interaction term was not statistically significant (p\>0.05), no further comparisons would be performed.||||0.83
91803801|NCT02200211|183485156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (gender and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Previously described in the Statistical Analysis Overview.||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and gender, adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.83
91803802|NCT02200211|183485156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (race/ethnicity status and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Four participants (1 binocular treatment group, 3 patching group) were excluded from the analysis due to unknown/not reported race/ethnicity status.||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and race/ethnicity status (White/non-Hispanic, Non-White or Hispanic), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.54
91803803|NCT02200211|183485156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (age and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and age at baseline (treated as a continuous factor in the model), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline visual acuity.||||0.80
91803804|NCT02200211|183485156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity (treated as a continuous factor in the model), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline age.||||0.99
91908270|NCT03021499|183711860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48||-0.55|-1.56|<0.001
91908271|NCT03021499|183711860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-0.46|-1.52|<0.001
91908272|NCT03021499|183711861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.71||Week 24|Regression, Logistic||Week 24|Week 24||4.71|1.26|0.008
91803805|NCT02200211|183485156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (prior amblyopia treatment and treatment group) was 0.05|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and prior amblyopia treatment (Yes/No), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.87
91882647|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2943|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at EOT;||||0.2943
91882648|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at EOT;||||0.0719
91882649|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9283|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 3 h PS;||||0.9283
91882650|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 3 h PS;||||0.9024
91803806|NCT02200211|183485156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (baseline stereoacuity and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and baseline stereoacuity (nil, better than nil), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.33
91882651|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7655|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 3 h PS;||||0.7655
91882652|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 24 h PS;||||1.0000
91882653|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 24 h PS;||||0.8460
91882654|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6419|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 24 h PS;||||0.6419
91882655|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 72 h PS;||||0.9522
91882656|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 72 h PS;||||0.5800
91882657|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 72 h PS;||||0.7675
91882658|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at EOT;||||0.1672
91882659|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9634|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at EOT;||||0.9634
91882660|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at EOT;||||0.1161
91908273|NCT03021499|183711861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.0||Week 52|Regression, Logistic||Week 52|Week 52||4.00|1.48|<0.001
91882661|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 3 h PS;||||0.0754
91882662|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 3 h PS;||||0.0711
91882663|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 3 h PS;||||0.0711
91882664|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 24 h PS;||||0.2482
91882665|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 24 h PS;||||0.8091
91882666|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 24 h PS;||||0.2482
91908274|NCT03021499|183711862|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.5||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis||Week 24|Week 24||0.6|-1.6|0.373
91908275|NCT03021499|183711862|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.5||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||Week 52|Mixed Models Analysis||Week 52|Week 52||0.4|-1.4|0.277
91752232|NCT00394901|183397418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.49|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.49|-1.40|<0.001
91752233|NCT00394901|183397419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.001||95.0|-14.2|-3.61|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-3.61|-14.2|0.001
91752234|NCT00394901|183397419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.24||||0.002||95.0|-13.5|-2.99|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.99|-13.5|0.002
91752235|NCT00394901|183397419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-16.5|-6.22|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-6.22|-16.5|<0.001
91752236|NCT00394901|183397420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.29||||0.245||95.0|-2.95|11.54|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.54|-2.95|0.245
91752237|NCT00394901|183397420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.417||95.0|-4.2|10.11|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.11|-4.20|0.417
91752238|NCT00394901|183397420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.007||95.0|2.67|16.74|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||16.74|2.67|0.007
91752239|NCT00394901|183397421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.76||95.0|-3.83|5.24|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.24|-3.83|0.760
91752240|NCT00394901|183397421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.754||95.0|-3.75|5.18|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.18|-3.75|0.754
91752241|NCT00394901|183397421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.641||95.0|-5.43|3.35|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.35|-5.43|0.641
91752242|NCT00394901|183397422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.955||95.0|-0.3|0.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.32|-0.30|0.955
91752243|NCT00394901|183397422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.084||95.0|-0.04|0.58|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.58|-0.04|0.084
91752244|NCT00394901|183397422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.17||95.0|-0.09|0.52|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.52|-0.09|0.170
91752245|NCT00394901|183397423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.01||||0.296||95.0|-3.52|11.55|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.55|-3.52|0.296
91752246|NCT00394901|183397423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3||||0.007||95.0|2.87|17.73|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||17.73|2.87|0.007
91803807|NCT02200211|183485156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (presence of a near heterotropia at baseline and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and presence of a near heterotropia (measured by SPCT) at baseline (Yes/No), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.23
91882667|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at EOT;||||0.3173
91752247|NCT00394901|183397423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.106||95.0|-1.29|13.3|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||13.30|-1.29|0.106
91752248|NCT00394901|183397424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93||||0.191||95.0|-1.97|9.83|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.83|-1.97|0.191
91752249|NCT00394901|183397424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.21|||<|0.001||95.0|5.41|17.02|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||17.02|5.41|<0.001
91752250|NCT00394901|183397424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.23|||<|0.001||95.0|8.5|19.95|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||19.95|8.50|<0.001
91882668|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at EOT;||||0.3173
91882669|NCT00551135|183659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4386|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at EOT;||||0.4386
91803808|NCT02200211|183485161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.66
91803809|NCT02200211|183485161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.83
91803810|NCT02200211|183485162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.19
91803811|NCT02200211|183485162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.69
91803812|NCT02200211|183485168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.3|||||A 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) in mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks. Positive values favor the binocular treatment group.|The treatment group difference in the change in fellow-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (logMAR lines) was evaluated in an analysis of covariance model, adjusted for baseline fellow-eye visual acuity.||0.30|0.02|
91803813|NCT02200211|183485169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||||A 95% confidence interval was computed on the treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) of the adjusted mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compute the treatment group difference in the mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity (letters) from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline visual acuity. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference.||1.3|-1.1|
91803814|NCT02200211|183485170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 16-week visit.||||0.32
91803815|NCT02200211|183485170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 16-week visit.||||0.68
91882670|NCT00551135|183659474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS.||||0.1723
91803816|NCT02200211|183485171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of parents who reported that their child had experienced diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||0.17
91803817|NCT02200211|183485171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.48
91803818|NCT02200211|183485171|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of parents who reported that their child had experienced diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
91882671|NCT00551135|183659474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS||||0.0639
91882672|NCT00551135|183659474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS.||||0.0021
91882673|NCT00551135|183659474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1127|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||EOT.||||0.1127
91882674|NCT00551135|183659474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||EOT.||||0.0703
91803819|NCT02200211|183485171|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
91803820|NCT02200211|183485172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of participants who reported diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||0.05
91803821|NCT02200211|183485172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.02
91882675|NCT00551135|183659474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||EOT.||||0.0012
91882676|NCT00551135|183659476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS.||||0.1927
91882677|NCT00551135|183659476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS||||0.3865
91882678|NCT00551135|183659476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS.||||0.9869
91803822|NCT02200211|183485172|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of participants who reported diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
91803823|NCT02200211|183485172|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
91803824|NCT00621985|183485194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-19.0||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"A t-test was performed comparing the mean long transformed area under the curve of 17-hydroxyprogesterone between the dexamethasone and hydrocortisone arms. The percent difference in mean log AUC was calculated as:~(Mean log AUC on dexamethasone - Mean log AUC on hydrocortisone)/Mean log AUC on hydrocortisone"||||0.09
91803825|NCT01001377|183485203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Stratified Cox proportional hazard ratio|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.113|||||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab : cetuximab. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for panitumumab relative to cetuximab.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region (North America, western Europe and Australia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).||1.113|0.839|
91803826|NCT01001377|183485203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The overall survival non-inferiority hypothesis based on an asymptotic normal score was tested at a 1-sided 2.5% significance level. A value \< -1.96 indicates non-inferiority at a significance level of 1-sided 0.025.|Normal score|-3.19||||0.0007||||||A synthesis approach with an asymptotic standard normal test statistic|Asymptotic standard normal test|||A synthesis approach with an asymptotic standard normal test statistic based on the logarithm of the hazard ratio was used to test the hypothesis that panitumumab is non-inferior to cetuximab for overall survival (ie, that panitumumab retains at least 50% of the overall survival benefit of cetuximab relative to best supportive care).||||0.0007
91803827|NCT01001377|183485205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.58|||||Common treatment odds ratio stratified by geographic region (North America, western Europe and Australia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|||1.58|0.83|
91803828|NCT01001377|183485209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0353|0.0605|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||0.0605|-0.0353|
91803829|NCT01001377|183485210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9331|1.5841|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||1.5841|-4.9331|
91882679|NCT00551135|183659476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS.||||0.4354
91882680|NCT00551135|183659476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS.||||0.8061
91803830|NCT01001377|183485211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.0372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3267|4.401|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||4.4010|-2.3267|
91803831|NCT01001377|183485212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.5836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0269|4.1941|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||4.1941|-3.0269|
91803832|NCT01001377|183485213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0093|5.6098|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||5.6098|-6.0093|
91882681|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1682|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1682
91882682|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2821|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2821
91803833|NCT02849678|183485219|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.148
91803834|NCT02849678|183485221|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.636|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.636
91882683|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4781
91908276|NCT03021499|183711863|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.389||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 Change from Baseline Week 24||2.26|-3.21|0.733
91882684|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0557
91882685|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6098|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6098
91882686|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1821
91882687|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1628|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1628
91882688|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8999|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8999
91882689|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3990
91908277|NCT03021499|183711863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 Change from Baseline at Week 52||2.54|-3.29|0.801
91908278|NCT03021499|183711863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 24||4.54|-1.14|0.239
91908279|NCT03021499|183711863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.535||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 52||2.42|-3.62|0.695
91752251|NCT00394901|183397425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03||||0.061||95.0|-8.25|0.18|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.18|-8.25|0.061
91882690|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2665|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2665
91882691|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4885|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4885
91882692|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6415|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6415
91882693|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2269
91882694|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3228|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3228
91882695|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1808
91908280|NCT03021499|183711863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO non-HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 24||0.94|-4.72|0.19
91908281|NCT03021499|183711863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.531||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|3.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO non-HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 52||3.35|-2.67|0.826
91908282|NCT00495820|183711864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91752252|NCT00394901|183397425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.133||95.0|-7.37|0.98|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.98|-7.37|0.133
91882696|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3282|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3282
91882697|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0342
91908283|NCT00495820|183711865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.01
91908284|NCT00874120|183711877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||residual error term from the ANOVA|-0.5||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1||P-value is based on an ANOVA model including sequence, subject within sequence, period and treatment as factors.|ANOVA|||||1.1|-2.0|0.5480
91803835|NCT02849678|183485223|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.193||||||Hydromorphone consumption (mg) in Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
91803836|NCT02849678|183485223|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.635||||||Hydromorphone consumption (mg) in PACU versus at 24 hours versus 48 hours|ANOVA|||||||0.635
91803837|NCT02849678|183485224|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA|Local Anesthetic Consumption through para-vertebral catheters in PACU vs. at 24 hours vs. 48 hours||||||0.063
91803838|NCT00289991|183485225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a true success rate of 50% in voriconazole (Vori) treatment (Tx) group and 45% in itraconazole (Itra) Tx group, sample size of 232 subjects per group=90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of Vori to Itra using pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -10%. Sample has at least 80% power to demonstrate superiority of Vori over Itra if true success rates for Vori and Itra are 57% and 44% respectively. Based on this, up to 500 subjects were to be enrolled to obtain 464 eligible subjects.|percent difference adjusted proportions|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|25.1|||Difference in adjusted responder rates|Difference in adjusted responder rates using Fleiss method|Overall treatment difference in adjusted proportions (expressed as percentages) calculated using Fleiss method.|"Non-inferiority inferred if lower limit of the 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the voriconazole and itraconazole treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 180 after transplant is above -10%. Superiority achieved if 2-sided 95% CI for difference between these treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 180 after transplant does not include zero and is positive."||25.1|7.7|
91882698|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4198
91752253|NCT00394901|183397425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.24||95.0|-6.52|1.64|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.64|-6.52|0.240
91803839|NCT00289991|183485226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority inferred if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the voriconazole and itraconazole treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 100 after transplant is above -10%. Superiority achieved if 2-sided 95% CI for difference between these treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 100 after transplant does not include zero and is positive."|percent difference adjusted proportions|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|24.2|||Difference in adjusted responder rates|Difference in adjusted responder rates using the Fleiss method.|Overall treatment difference in adjusted proportions (expressed as percentages) calculated using Fleiss method.|||24.2|6.6|
91803840|NCT00289991|183485228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|-0.4||||0.7114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 100; difference in proportions (expressed as percentages), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||1.5|-2.2|0.7114
91803841|NCT00289991|183485228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportion: percent|-0.3||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.9|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result).|Approximate 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 180; difference in proportions (expressed as percentages), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||1.9|-2.5|0.7759
91803842|NCT00289991|183485229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.9|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 180; difference in proportions (expressed as a percentage), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||6.9|-6.3|
91803843|NCT00289991|183485230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mann-Whitney test used to investigate the null hypothesis that the times to discontinuation of study medication in each treatment group come from the same distribution.||||0.0026
91803844|NCT00289991|183485231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|-4.8||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.4|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95 percent % confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 365; difference in proportions (expressed as a percentage), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||3.4|-13.0|0.2487
91882699|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9049|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9049
91752254|NCT00394901|183397426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2842||95.0|0.34|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the optimal sleep score at baseline as covariate||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.37|0.34|0.2842
91882700|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0456
91882701|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2463|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2463
91882702|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8231
91752255|NCT00394901|183397426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0577||95.0|0.98|3.66|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the optimal sleep score at baseline as covariate||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.66|0.98|0.0577
91752256|NCT00394901|183397426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.1893||95.0|0.81|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the optimal sleep score at baseline as covariate||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.95|0.81|0.1893
91752257|NCT00394901|183397427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0466||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0466
91752258|NCT00394901|183397427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91752259|NCT00394901|183397427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91752260|NCT00394901|183397428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.3440
91752261|NCT00394901|183397428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91752262|NCT00394901|183397428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91752263|NCT00394901|183397429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51||||0.057||95.0|-0.1|7.13|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.13|-0.10|0.057
91752264|NCT00394901|183397429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.67||95.0|-2.78|4.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||4.32|-2.78|0.670
91882703|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0221
91882704|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6974
91882705|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7461
91882706|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1198
91908285|NCT03615183|183711878|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.36|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8527 and placebo ≤ -1.0 copies/mL was 99.72%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK- 8527 and placebo is at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL.||||
91752265|NCT00394901|183397429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.559||95.0|-2.45|4.53|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||4.53|-2.45|0.559
91752266|NCT00394901|183397430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||0.004||95.0|3.01|15.78|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||15.78|3.01|0.004
91752267|NCT00394901|183397430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.67||||0.037||95.0|0.39|12.95|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.95|0.39|0.037
91752268|NCT00394901|183397430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.643||95.0|-4.74|7.66|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.66|-4.74|0.643
91803845|NCT00289991|183485233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|-8.8||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|0.3|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Difference in proportions (expressed as a percentage), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||0.3|-17.8|0.0570
91803846|NCT01172522|183485259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||P values above 0.05 is considered statistically insignificant in this study.|||||=1
91803847|NCT04203498|183485265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.914|=|0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.08|||Linear mixed model repeated measures|||Week 9 to 12 (primary outcome statistics)||1.08|-2.54|=0.4263
91803848|NCT02762578|183485313|NON_INFERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: Non-inferiority with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c (%) to week 26 for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30.~Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.4%."|Treatment contrast|-0.08||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatments was analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates.||0.05|-0.20|0.2430
91882707|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8031
91882708|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8515|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8515
91882709|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1285
91882710|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5561|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5561
91752269|NCT00394901|183397431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.811||95.0|-4.5|5.75|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.75|-4.50|0.811
91803849|NCT02762578|183485313|SUPERIORITY|"If non-inferiority was confirmed, the superiority of the IDegAsp group over the BIAsp 30 group was to be investigated.~Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval, which was calculated using the FAS, was below 0%."|Treatment contrast|-0.08||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatments was analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates.||0.05|-0.20|0.2430
91803850|NCT02762578|183485314|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: Superiority with respect to change from baseline in FPG to week 26 for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (Provided that non-inferiority was confirmed for the primary endpoint)~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the treatment difference (IDegAsp group-BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below zero."|Treatment Contrast|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.1||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in FPG after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age and baseline FPG as covariates.||-1.10|-1.74|<0.0001
91882711|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6858|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6858
91882712|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0693
91882713|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5547|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5547
91882714|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.461|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4610
91882715|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.664|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6640
91882716|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6158
91752270|NCT00394901|183397431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.07||||0.006||95.0|2.03|12.12|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.12|2.03|0.006
91882717|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1632
91752271|NCT00394901|183397431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.03||||0.047||95.0|0.06|10.0|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.00|0.06|0.047
91752272|NCT00394901|183397432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.013||95.0|1.1|9.5|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.50|1.10|0.013
91752273|NCT00394901|183397432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.82||||0.07||95.0|-0.31|7.96|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.96|-0.31|0.070
91752274|NCT00394901|183397432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93||||0.058||95.0|-0.13|8.0|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.00|-0.13|0.058
91752275|NCT00394901|183397433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43||||0.443||95.0|-3.79|8.65|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.65|-3.79|0.443
91752276|NCT00394901|183397433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41||||0.018||95.0|1.28|13.54|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||13.54|1.28|0.018
91752277|NCT00394901|183397433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.549||95.0|-4.18|7.85|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.85|-4.18|0.549
91752278|NCT00394901|183397434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.15||||0.075||95.0|-0.63|12.92|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.92|-0.63|0.075
91752279|NCT00394901|183397434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.41||||0.111||95.0|-1.25|12.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.08|-1.25|0.111
91882718|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1770
91752280|NCT00394901|183397434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.02||||0.366||95.0|-3.55|9.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.60|-3.55|0.366
91752281|NCT00394901|183397435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64||||0.039||95.0|0.29|11.0|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.00|0.29|0.039
91752282|NCT00394901|183397435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.42||||0.006||95.0|2.14|12.69|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.69|2.14|0.006
91752283|NCT00394901|183397435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.15||||0.117||95.0|-1.05|9.34|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.34|-1.05|0.117
91752284|NCT00394901|183397436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99||||0.154||95.0|-1.5|9.49|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05||9.49|-1.50|0.154
91752285|NCT00394901|183397436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.99||||0.012||95.0|1.58|12.4|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.40|1.58|0.012
91752286|NCT00394901|183397436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76||||0.079||95.0|-0.56|10.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.08|-0.56|0.079
91752287|NCT00394901|183397437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.6451||95.0|0.45|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.59|0.45|0.6451
91752288|NCT00394901|183397437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0745||95.0|0.91|7.19|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.19|0.91|0.0745
91752289|NCT00394901|183397437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.1787||95.0|0.73|5.58|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.58|0.73|0.1787
91752290|NCT00394901|183397438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0732||95.0|0.93|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.52|0.93|0.0732
91803851|NCT02762578|183485315|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 3: Superiority with respect to nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that superiority with respect to change from baseline in FPG to week 26 was confirmed for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the rate ratio (IDegAsp group/BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below one."|Treatment Ratio|0.53||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.87|||Negative binomial regression model|||The number of events was analysed using a Negative Binomial Model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the exposure time (100 years) for which a hypoglycaemic episode is considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age as covariate.||0.87|0.33|0.0112
91803852|NCT02762578|183485316|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 4: Superiority with respect to confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that superiority with respect to nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 was confirmed).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the rate ratio (IDegAsp group/BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below one."|Treatment Ratio|0.57||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.77|||Negative binomial regression model|||The number of events was analysed using a Negative Binomial Model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the exposure time (100 years) for which a hypoglycaemic episode is considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age as covariate||0.77|0.42|0.0002
91803853|NCT02762578|183485317|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 5: Superiority with respect to change from baseline in body weight for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that Superiority with respect to confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 was confirmed).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the treatment difference (IDegAsp group-BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below zero"|Treatment contrast|0.61||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.08|||ANCOVA|Two-sided p-value for testing difference||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, age and baseline response as covariate.||1.08|0.15|0.0092
91803854|NCT02762578|183485318|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 6: Superiority with respect to subjects achieving HbA1c \< 7% at end of trial without confirmed hypoglycaemia for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that superiority with respect to change from baseline in body weight was confirmed).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the odds ratio (IDegAsp group/BIAsp 30 group) was entirely above one."|Treatment Ratio|2.22||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.35||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|Regression, Logistic|||The endpoint was analysed in a logistic regression model using a logit link, including treatment, sex and anti-diabetic treatment at screening as fixed effects, and age and HbA1c as covariates.||3.35|1.47|0.0002
91803855|NCT01090492|183485361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11||||0.6513|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.44|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.44|-0.21|0.6513
91803856|NCT01090492|183485361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.99|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.38|-0.99|0.0057
91803857|NCT01090492|183485361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.08|-0.80|0.1157
91882719|NCT00551135|183659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4882|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4882
91882720|NCT00551135|183659478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7936
91882721|NCT00551135|183659478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5092
91882722|NCT00551135|183659478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4233
91803858|NCT01090492|183485361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.6286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|0.25|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.25|-0.56|0.6286
91882723|NCT00551135|183659478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2033
91882724|NCT00551135|183659478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2142|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2142
91882725|NCT00551135|183659478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1218
91752291|NCT00394901|183397438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0353||95.0|1.07|6.53|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||6.53|1.07|0.0353
91882726|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0830
91752292|NCT00394901|183397438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0393||95.0|1.05|5.96|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.96|1.05|0.0393
91752293|NCT00394901|183397439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.227||95.0|-0.78|0.18|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.18|-0.78|0.227
91752294|NCT00394901|183397439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.34|-0.38|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.38|-1.34|<0.001
91752295|NCT00394901|183397439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.46|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-1.40|<0.001
91752296|NCT00394901|183397440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.577||95.0|-0.62|0.35|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.35|-0.62|0.577
91752297|NCT00394901|183397440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.35|-0.39|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.39|-1.35|<0.001
91752298|NCT00394901|183397440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.002||95.0|-1.22|-0.27|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.27|-1.22|0.002
91752299|NCT00394901|183397441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.275||95.0|-0.75|0.21|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.21|-0.75|0.275
91752300|NCT00394901|183397441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.46|-0.5|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.50|-1.46|<0.001
91752301|NCT00394901|183397441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.002||95.0|-1.22|-0.28|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.28|-1.22|0.002
91752302|NCT00394901|183397442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.334||95.0|-0.72|0.25|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.25|-0.72|0.334
91752303|NCT00394901|183397442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.38|-0.42|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.42|-1.38|<0.001
91752304|NCT00394901|183397442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.006||95.0|-1.14|-0.19|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.19|-1.14|0.006
91882727|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2339
91882728|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0629
91752305|NCT00394901|183397443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.53||95.0|-0.64|0.33|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.33|-0.64|0.530
91752306|NCT00394901|183397443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.001||95.0|-1.3|-0.33|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.30|0.001
91882729|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5721|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5721
91803859|NCT01090492|183485362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12||||0.9504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.43|2.68|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||2.68|-2.43|0.9504
91803860|NCT01090492|183485362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.4651|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.74|1.03|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||1.03|-3.74|0.4651
91803861|NCT01090492|183485362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.92|1.73|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||1.73|-2.92|0.7423
91803862|NCT01090492|183485362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.91||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.55|0.73|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.73|-4.55|0.3524
91803863|NCT01090492|183485363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.21||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.61|7.03|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||7.03|-4.61|0.7900
91803864|NCT01090492|183485363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.17||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.61|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.73|-11.61|0.1463
91803865|NCT01090492|183485363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.37||||0.1446|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.44|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.29|-4.44|0.1446
91803866|NCT01090492|183485363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.09||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.45|1.26|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||1.26|-3.45|0.5497
91803867|NCT01090492|183485364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.15||||0.5909|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (PRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.52|-0.21|0.5909
91882730|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9713
91882731|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4809
91882732|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1561
91908286|NCT03615183|183711878|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.63|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8527 and placebo ≤ -1.0 copies/mL was 99.86%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK- 8527 and placebo is at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL.||||
91803868|NCT01090492|183485364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.77||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.12|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (PRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.43|-1.12|0.0053
91803869|NCT01090492|183485364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (SRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.10|-0.67|0.3462
91803870|NCT01090492|183485364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.88|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (SRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.01|-0.88|0.1940
91803871|NCT00457301|183485430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Sample size was calculated based on the EQ-5D index score. To compare two independent means for a parallel trial design, 100 patients in each group were needed to detect a clinically important difference (CID) in EQ-5D index score (CID = 0.10, SD = 0.25) with a 5% probability of Type I error and 80% power.||||0.05
91803872|NCT00457301|183485431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA adjuusting for baseline HADS anxiety scores||||0.34
91803873|NCT00457301|183485431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA adjusting for baseline HADS depression scores.||||0.55
91803874|NCT00457301|183485432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91803875|NCT00457301|183485433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Sample size was calculated based on the EQ-5D index score. To compare two independent means for a parallel trial design, 100 patients in each group were needed to detect a clinically important difference (CID) in EQ-5D index score (CID = 0.10, SD = 0.25) with a 5% probability of Type I error and 80% power.||||0.46
91803876|NCT03583697|183485448|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.53||||||"Z-Scores were derived using age-sex specific reference data (means and SDs) for average stature children per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.~Participants aged \< 24 months, body length takes precedence over standing height. Participants aged \< 24 months at baseline and \>= 24 months at Week 52, body length takes precedence.~Difference in least squares (LS) means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model."||0.53|-0.02|
91803877|NCT03583697|183485448|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.54||||||"Z-Scores were derived using age-sex specific reference data (means and SDs) for average stature children per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.~Participants aged \< 24 months, body length takes precedence over standing height. Participants aged \< 24 months at baseline and \>= 24 months at Week 52, body length takes precedence.~Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model."||0.54|0.07|
91752307|NCT00394901|183397443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.017||95.0|-1.05|-0.1|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-1.05|0.017
91752308|NCT00394901|183397444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.392||95.0|-0.7|0.27|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.27|-0.70|0.392
91752309|NCT00394901|183397444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.35|-0.38|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.38|-1.35|<0.001
91752310|NCT00394901|183397444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.016||95.0|-1.06|-0.11|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.11|-1.06|0.016
91752311|NCT00394901|183397445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.364||95.0|-0.71|0.26|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.26|-0.71|0.364
91752312|NCT00394901|183397445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.39|-0.42|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.42|-1.39|<0.001
91752313|NCT00394901|183397445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.031||95.0|-1.0|-0.05|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.05|-1.00|0.031
91752314|NCT00394901|183397446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.326||95.0|-0.73|0.24|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.24|-0.73|0.326
91752315|NCT00394901|183397446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.43|-0.46|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-1.43|<0.001
91752316|NCT00394901|183397446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.007||95.0|-1.13|-0.18|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.18|-1.13|0.007
91752317|NCT00394901|183397447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.241||95.0|-0.78|0.2|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.20|-0.78|0.241
91752318|NCT00394901|183397447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.001||95.0|-1.34|-0.37|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.37|-1.34|0.001
91752319|NCT00394901|183397447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.01||95.0|-1.1|-0.15|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.15|-1.10|0.010
91752320|NCT00394901|183397448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.281||95.0|-0.76|0.22|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.22|-0.76|0.281
91803878|NCT03583697|183485449|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.56||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||1.56|-0.02|
91752321|NCT00394901|183397448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.001||95.0|-1.3|-0.33|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.30|0.001
91752322|NCT00394901|183397448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.012||95.0|-1.09|-0.14|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.14|-1.09|0.012
91803879|NCT03583697|183485449|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.66||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||1.66|0.26|
91803880|NCT03583697|183485450|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.54||||||||1.54|0.02|
91803881|NCT03583697|183485450|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.59||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||1.59|0.24|
91803882|NCT03583697|183485451|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||0.04|-0.17|
91803883|NCT03583697|183485451|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||0.03|-0.15|
91803884|NCT00365508|183485502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|||Chi-square was used to examine the relationship between treatment arm and 24-hour point prevalence abstinence at 6-months.||||.05
91803885|NCT00679432|183485514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|5.8||||0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|13.4|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|All p-values were based on the Chi-square test; comparisons of budesonide MMX and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.025 level of significance and the comparison of Asacol and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.05 level of significance. The study was not powered to show statistical significance for Asacol versus budesonide MMX.||13.4|-1.8|0.1393
91882733|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5267
91882734|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1125
91882735|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2965|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2965
91882736|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7774|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7774
91752323|NCT02076399|183397462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|28.1|||Fisher Exact|||||28.1|7.2|0.0261
91752324|NCT02076399|183397467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-0.01|0.6642
91752325|NCT02076399|183397468|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15||||0.3365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-0.2|0.3365
91752326|NCT05260333|183397469|OTHER||correlation coefficient|0.81||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0001
91752327|NCT02008357|183397472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.816|0.22|||Natural Cubic Spline (NCS) method|||||0.220|-0.816|0.260
91752328|NCT02008357|183397474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|1.02|||Natural Cubic Spline (NCS) method|||||1.020|-0.089|0.100
91752329|NCT02008357|183397476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.265|0.076|||Natural Cubic Spline (NCS) method|||||0.076|-1.265|0.082
91752330|NCT02008357|183397478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0073|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|-0.028|||ANCOVA|||||-0.028|-0.057|<0.001
91752331|NCT02008357|183397479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.8719||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.02|68.498|||ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal fluid Tau Protein Immunoassay||68.498|-62.020|0.922
91752332|NCT02008357|183397479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6535||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.241|4.311|||ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal Fluid Phosphorylated Tau Protein Immunoassay||4.311|-6.241|0.717
91752333|NCT02008357|183397480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|12738.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|998.7048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10757.047|14719.851|||ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal Fluid Amyloid Beta 1-40 Modified ELISA - INNOTEST||14719.851|10757.047|<0.001
91803886|NCT00679432|183485514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|10.4||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|18.7|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||18.7|2.2|0.0143
91803887|NCT00679432|183485514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|4.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.1|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||12.1|-2.7|0.2200
91803888|NCT00679432|183485515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|5.8||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|17.0|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|Clinical improvement and endoscopic improvement were analyzed hierarchically. If at least one primary endpoint comparison was statistically significant, clinical improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance. If at least one comparison of clinical improvement was statistically significant, endoscopic improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX dose group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance.||17.0|-5.5|0.3146
91882737|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3990
91803889|NCT00679432|183485515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|8.5||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|19.9|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||19.9|-2.8|0.1420
91752334|NCT02008357|183397480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|996.411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.7404|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|875.873|1116.948||p-value using ANCOVA model for endpoint measures: CHG = Baseline + APOE4 + AGE + Treatment.|ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal Fluid Amyloid Beta 1-42 Mod Modified ELISA - INNOTEST||1116.948|875.873|<0.001
91752335|NCT02008357|183397481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0388||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Total hippocampal volume||0.022|-0.131|0.161
91752336|NCT02008357|183397481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4513||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|1.236|||ANCOVA|||Total Lateral Ventricular Volume||1.236|-0.535|0.437
91752337|NCT03553498|183397491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91752338|NCT03553498|183397492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.989
91752339|NCT03553498|183397493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.414
91752340|NCT03553498|183397494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.153
91752341|NCT01498185|183397495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.5425|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.85|35.86||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||35.86|-40.85|
91752342|NCT01498185|183397495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.36|33.82||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||33.82|-35.36|
91752343|NCT01498185|183397495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1548|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.21|28.45||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||28.45|-42.21|
91752344|NCT01498185|183397495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.4617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.22|37.16||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||37.16|-39.22|
91752345|NCT02032641|183397504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91752346|NCT02032641|183397504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.10
91752347|NCT02827500|183397529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|14.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.33|1.88|0.002
91752348|NCT02827500|183397530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.011
91752349|NCT02827500|183397531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference in change in heart rate between the treatment arms.||||0.011
91752350|NCT02827500|183397532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||The apriori threshold for statistical significance is alpha=0.05.|Chi-squared, Corrected|The p-value is obtained using the F-test (combination of Chi-Squared tests) due to multiple imputation.||The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between the treatment arms in the proportion of patients with heart rate \< 70 BPM.||||0.054
91752351|NCT02827500|183397533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.717
91752352|NCT02827500|183397534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.784|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.784
91752353|NCT03343080|183397536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.776
91752354|NCT03343080|183397537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hours post-extubation||||0.296
91752355|NCT01688921|183397560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (GMT with NS / GMT with PJ Stratis) for each antigen did not exceed 1.5 fold.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 99% to rule out the 1.5-fold difference using a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming equal GMTs between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||1.12|0.88|
91752356|NCT01688921|183397561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (GMT with NS / GMT with PJ Stratis) for each antigen did not exceed 1.5 fold.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 99% to rule out the 1.5-fold difference using a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming equal GMTs between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||1.21|0.96|
91752357|NCT01688921|183397562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (GMT with NS / GMT with PJ Stratis) for each antigen did not exceed 1.5 fold.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 99% to rule out the 1.5-fold difference using a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming equal GMTs between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||1.06|0.83|
91803890|NCT00679432|183485515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|9.1||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|20.4|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||20.4|-2.3|0.1189
91803891|NCT00679432|183485516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|As per the hierarchical testing procedure for secondary endpoints, because clinical improvement was not statistically significant in the ITT population, formal statistical comparisons for endoscopic improvement between the 2 budesonide MMX groups and placebo were not conducted. The statistical comparison between the Asacol and placebo groups is shown here.||11.8|-11.8|0.9991
91803892|NCT00824720|183485517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3||0.9737|||||||ANCOVA||Mean difference was calculated as high dose minus placebo.|The alternative hypothesis was that the high dose was different from the placebo.||||0.9737
91803893|NCT00824720|183485517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.4711|||||||ANCOVA||The mean difference was calculated as low dose minus placebo.|The alternative hypothesis is that the low dose was different from placebo.||||0.4711
91803894|NCT01558271|183485534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 490 participants were to be randomized in a 4:1:2 ratio to LY2189265, placebo, or Liraglutide, respectively. This sample size would provide greater than 99% power to demonstrate superiority of LY2189265 to placebo. This computation assumed a true mean difference in HbA1c change from baseline between LY2189265 and placebo being 0.8%, a common standard deviation of 1.1%, a 1-sided significance level of 0.025, and a 9% drop-out rate between randomization and Week 26.||-1.35|-1.79|<0.001
91803895|NCT01558271|183485534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was \<0.4%, then LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Liraglutide. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0.0%, then LY2189265 was declared superior to liraglutide.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 490 participants were to be randomized in a 4:1:2 ratio to LY2189265, placebo, or Liraglutide, respectively. This sample size would provide \>90% power to confirm non-inferiority of LY2189265 to liraglutide by a margin of 0.4%. This computation assumed a true mean difference in HbA1c change from baseline between LY2189265 and Liraglutide being 0%, a common standard deviation of 1.1%, a 1-sided significance level of 0.025, and a 9% drop-out rate between randomization and Week 26.||0.07|-0.27|0.248
91803896|NCT01558271|183485535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.39|0.040
91803897|NCT01558271|183485536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||<0.001
91803898|NCT01558271|183485536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.608
91803899|NCT01558271|183485536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||<0.001
91803900|NCT01558271|183485536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.844
91803901|NCT01558271|183485536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7% at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.112
91803902|NCT01558271|183485536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5% at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.103
91803903|NCT01558271|183485537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.31|-33.11||Treatment comparison for FBG at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-33.11|-47.31|<0.001
91803904|NCT01558271|183485537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|5.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment comparison for FBG at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.||||5.96|-4.82|0.835
91803905|NCT01558271|183485537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.77||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|4.1||Treatment comparison for FBG at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.10|-7.65|0.553
91803906|NCT01558271|183485539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment comparison for body weight at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.||||1.23|-0.02|0.057
91803907|NCT01558271|183485539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.82||Treatment comparison for body weight at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.14|0.168
91803908|NCT01558271|183485539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.57||Treatment comparison for body weight at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.57|-0.64|0.911
91803909|NCT01558271|183485540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.86||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|8.48||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||8.48|-12.20|0.723
91803910|NCT01558271|183485540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|7.91||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||7.91|-7.92|0.998
91803911|NCT01558271|183485540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.83||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|9.38||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||9.38|-7.72|0.848
91803912|NCT01558271|183485540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.03||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|3.42||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||3.42|-9.48|0.357
91803913|NCT01558271|183485540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.49||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|5.36||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting insulin at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||5.36|-10.35|0.533
91803914|NCT01558271|183485540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.03||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|5.25||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting C-peptide at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||5.25|-7.32|0.747
91882738|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4465|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4465
91752358|NCT01688921|183397563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Seroconversion rate defined as the proportion of subjects with either a pre-vaccination titer of \<10 achieving a post-vaccination antibody of HI titer of ≥ 40 or with a pre-vaccination HI titer of ≥ 10 achieving a four-fold or greater increase in post-vaccination HI titer. The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (rate with NS - with PJ Stratis) for each vaccine strain did not exceed 10 percentage points.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.5||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 95% to rule out the 10 percentage points difference using a one-sided α = 0.025, assuming equal seroconversion rates between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||6.5|-4.8|
91752359|NCT01688921|183397564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Seroconversion rate defined as the proportion of subjects with either a pre-vaccination titer of \<10 achieving a post-vaccination antibody of HI titer of ≥ 40 or with a pre-vaccination HI titer of ≥ 10 achieving a four-fold or greater increase in post-vaccination HI titer. The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates(rate with NS - with PJ Stratis) for each vaccine strain did not exceed 10 percentage points|Seroconversion Rate Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.1||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 95% to rule out the 10 percentage points difference using a one-sided α = 0.025, assuming equal seroconversion rates between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||7.1|-4.5|
91752360|NCT01688921|183397565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Seroconversion rate was defined as the proportion of subjects with either a pre-vaccination titer of \<10 achieving a post-vaccination antibody of HI titer of ≥ 40 or with a pre-vaccination HI titer of ≥ 10 achieving a four-fold or greater increase in post-vaccination HI titer.~The upper-bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in seroconversion rates for the A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strains did not exceed 10 percentage points (6.5, 7.1, and 5.9 respectively)."|Seroconversion Rate Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.9||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 91% to rule out the 10 percentage points difference using a one-sided α = 0.025, assuming equal seroconversion rates between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||5.9|-5.2|
91752361|NCT01688921|183397566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immediate adverse events were reported within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccination; therefore, they are all considered related to study treatment.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91752362|NCT01688921|183397567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The safety population included subjects who received the vaccination and for whom follow-up data were available for a specific safety analysis. Therefore, the denominators for different safety tables vary, depending on the availability of the data.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91752363|NCT03697993|183397602|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.0||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|8.7|||Multiple imputation using Wald method|||||8.7|-43.4|0.264
91752364|NCT03697993|183397606|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|24.3|||Fisher Exact|||||24.3|-26.2|1.000
91752365|NCT03697993|183397607|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5|||Proportional odds model using Wald test|||||2.5|0.3|0.894
91752366|NCT03697993|183397608|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|25.3|||Multiple imputation using Wald method|||||25.3|-26.3|0.973
91752367|NCT04384107|183397609|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-1.1|||=|0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site erythema||3.6|-5.9|= 0.641
91752368|NCT04384107|183397609|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.2|||=|0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site induration||5.6|-6.1|= 0.937
91752369|NCT04384107|183397609|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|7.1|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site pain||13.8|0.5|= 0.036
91752370|NCT04384107|183397609|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-4.0|||=|0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||2.2|-10.2|= 0.208
91882739|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4385|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4385
91882740|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2265
91882741|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5985
91882742|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2146|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2146
91882743|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3382|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3382
91752371|NCT04384107|183397610|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.4|||=|0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Decreased appetite||6.0|-6.7|= 0.912
91882744|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0430
91882745|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1128
91752372|NCT04384107|183397610|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|5.9|||=|0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|13.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Irritability||13.0|-1.3|= 0.108
91752373|NCT04384107|183397610|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.0|||=|0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Somnolence||8.4|-6.4|= 0.792
91752374|NCT04384107|183397610|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||=|0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Urticaria||2.8|-3.5|= 0.843
91752375|NCT04384107|183397611|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3||||||||1.3|-1.4|
91752376|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 1: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
91752377|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 3: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||4.5|1.0|< 0.001
91752378|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 4: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|< 0.001
91752379|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 5: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-0.1|-3.0|< 0.001
91752380|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 6A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.2|-2.6|< 0.001
91752381|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 6B: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-1.3|-6.9|< 0.001
91752382|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 7F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
91803915|NCT01558271|183485541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|35.07||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||35.07|21.63|<0.001
91803916|NCT01558271|183485541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.08||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|8.24||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||8.24|-2.09|0.242
91882746|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0632
91752383|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 9V: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
91752384|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 14: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.9|< 0.001
91752385|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 18C: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-0.1|-3.0|< 0.001
91752386|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 19A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
91752387|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 19F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|< 0.001
91752388|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 23F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-0.2|-4.0|< 0.001
91752389|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 22F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||4.3|0.4|<0.001
91752390|NCT04384107|183397612|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-6.8|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 33F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-3.5|-10.6|= 0.048
91752391|NCT04384107|183397613|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.67|||Linear model|||Serotype 1: IgG GMC Ratio||0.67|0.55|< 0.001
91752392|NCT04384107|183397613|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.05|||Linear model|||Serotype 3: IgG GMC Ratio||2.05|1.67|< 0.001
91803917|NCT01558271|183485541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.25|30.4||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||30.40|19.25|<0.001
91882747|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8667|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8667
91882748|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6365|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6365
91882749|NCT00551135|183659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9275
91752393|NCT04384107|183397613|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||Linear model|||Serotype 4: IgG GMC Ratio||0.93|0.76|< 0.001
91752394|NCT04384107|183397613|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.87|||Linear model|||Serotype 5: IgG GMC Ratio||0.87|0.69|< 0.001
91752395|NCT04384107|183397613|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.56|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.63|||Linear model|||Serotype 6A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.63|0.50|= 0.019
91752396|NCT04384107|183397613|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.59|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.68|||Linear model|||Serotype 6B: IgG GMC Ratio||0.68|0.51|= 0.015
91752397|NCT04384107|183397613|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.94|||Linear model|||Serotype 7F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.94|0.75|< 0.001
91752398|NCT04384107|183397613|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97|||Linear model|||Serotype 9V: IgG GMC Ratio||0.97|0.78|< 0.001
91752399|NCT04384107|183397613|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.85|||Linear model|||Serotype 14: IgG GMC Ratio||0.85|0.66|< 0.001
91752400|NCT04384107|183397613|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||Linear model|||Serotype 18C: IgG GMC Ratio||0.82|0.67|< 0.001
91752401|NCT04384107|183397613|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.72|||Linear model|||Serotype 19A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.72|0.59|< 0.001
91752402|NCT04384107|183397613|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.82|||Linear model|||Serotype 19F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.82|0.69|< 0.001
91752403|NCT04384107|183397614|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|107.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.18|120.03||||||Serotype 22F: IgG GMC Ratio||120.03|96.18|
91752404|NCT04384107|183397614|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|32.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.72|38.05||||||Serotype 33F: IgG GMC Ratio||38.05|27.72|
91752405|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||||||Serotype 1: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|
91752406|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.8||||||Serotype 3: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||5.8|1.8|
91803918|NCT01558271|183485541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|6.13||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||6.13|-2.32|0.376
91752407|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||||||Serotype 4: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|
91752408|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 5: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
91803919|NCT01558271|183485541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|6.54||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting insulin at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||6.54|-2.72|0.417
91882750|NCT00551135|183659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2136
91882751|NCT00551135|183659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0094
91882752|NCT00551135|183659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2131
91752409|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 6A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
91752410|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 6B: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
91752411|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 7F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
91752412|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 9V: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
91752413|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 14: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
91752414|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 18C: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
91882753|NCT00551135|183659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3245|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3245
91882754|NCT00551135|183659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4070
91882755|NCT00551135|183659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3490
91882756|NCT00551135|183659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1122
91882757|NCT00551135|183659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1380
91882758|NCT00551135|183659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2023
91752415|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 19A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
91752416|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
91752417|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9||||||Serotype 23F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.9|-1.1|
91752418|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|94.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.8|96.7||||||Serotype 22F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||96.7|91.8|
91752419|NCT04384107|183397615|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.5|91.6||||||Serotype 33F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||91.6|84.5|
91882759|NCT00551135|183659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2639
91752420|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.59||||||Serotype 1: IgG GMC Ratio||0.59|0.47|
91752421|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|1.9||||||Serotype 3: IgG GMC Ratio||1.90|1.53|
91752422|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05||||||Serotype 4: IgG GMC Ratio||1.05|0.80|
91752423|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.75||||||Serotype 5: IgG GMC Ratio||0.75|0.59|
91752424|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.73||||||Serotype 6A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.73|0.56|
91752425|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.84||||||Serotype 6B: IgG GMC Ratio||0.84|0.65|
91752426|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.92||||||Serotype 7F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.92|0.71|
91752427|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.94||||||Serotype 9V: IgG GMC Ratio||0.94|0.73|
91752428|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||||||Serotype 14: IgG GMC Ratio||0.96|0.74|
91752429|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||||||Serotype 18C: IgG GMC Ratio||1.14|0.87|
91752430|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92||||||Serotype 19A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.92|0.73|
91752431|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.94||||||Serotype 19F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.94|0.75|
91752432|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.7||||||Serotype 23F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.70|0.52|
91752433|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|86.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.61|96.95||||||Serotype 22F: IgG GMC Ratio||96.95|77.61|
91752434|NCT04384107|183397616|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|45.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.07|51.54||||||Serotype 33F: IgG GMC Ratio||51.54|40.07|
91752435|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.78||||||Serotype 1: OPA GMT Ratio||0.78|0.55|
91752436|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.59||||||Serotype 3: OPA GMT Ratio||1.59|1.23|
91803920|NCT01558271|183485541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|5.29||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting C-peptide at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||5.29|-3.83|0.753
91752437|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1||||||Serotype 4: OPA GMT Ratio||1.10|0.85|
91752438|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04||||||Serotype 5: OPA GMT Ratio||1.04|0.80|
91752439|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||Serotype 6A: OPA GMT Ratio||0.89|0.65|
91752440|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.95||||||Serotype 6B: OPA GMT Ratio||0.95|0.69|
91752441|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||||||Serotype 7F: OPA GMT Ratio||0.95|0.70|
91752442|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||||||Serotype 9V: OPA GMT Ratio||0.94|0.71|
91752443|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.38||||||Serotype 14: OPA GMT Ratio||1.38|0.97|
91752444|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11||||||Serotype 18C: OPA GMT Ratio||1.11|0.90|
91752445|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.77||||||Serotype 19A: OPA GMT Ratio||0.77|0.61|
91752446|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.04||||||Serotype 19F: OPA GMT Ratio||1.04|0.84|
91803921|NCT01558271|183485542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91803922|NCT01558271|183485542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91882760|NCT00551135|183659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2524
91882761|NCT00551135|183659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0832
91882762|NCT00551135|183659482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 month PS.||||0.2371
91882763|NCT00551135|183659482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4435|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 month PS.||||0.4435
91803923|NCT01558271|183485542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91803924|NCT02610725|183485553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|51 degrees of freedom.|Means were analyzed in (pre-post) format. A negative mean here indicates an increase in positive affect.|Paired-samples t-tests were used to analyze change in affect after participating in the yoga class. Analyses were conducted to measure changes in both positive affect and negative affect. This entry describes positive affect analysis.||-0.46|-3.73|0.013
91803925|NCT02610725|183485553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|8.02|||t-test, 2 sided|51 degrees of freedom|Means were analyzed in a (pre-post) format. A positive mean indicates a decrease in negative affect.|Paired-samples t-tests were used to analyze change in affect after participating in the yoga class. Analyses were conducted to measure changes in both positive affect and negative affect. This entry describes negative affect analysis.||8.02|4.10|<0.001
91882764|NCT00551135|183659482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 month PS.||||0.1692
91882765|NCT00551135|183659482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 month PS.||||0.8169
91882766|NCT00551135|183659482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 month PS.||||0.5592
91882767|NCT00551135|183659482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4453|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 month PS.||||0.4453
91882768|NCT00551135|183659482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 month PS.||||0.4795
91882769|NCT00551135|183659482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 month PS.||||0.2733
91803926|NCT00743483|183485560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2179
91803927|NCT00873912|183485572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on similar fever rate with 300 evaluable subjects (240 vaccine and 60 placebo recipients), the study would provide at least 98% power to rule out a rate increase of 5 percentage points assuming the true difference between the treatment groups is zero and the true fever rate is ≤ 1.0%. Power would be lower if the true difference was different from zero.|rate difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.3|||score statistic|||The percentage of subjects with fever was compared between the two treatment groups based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo). The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI was evaluated against the pre-specified equivalence criterion of 5 percentage points which corresponded to the following hypotheses: - H0 (null): rate difference ≥ 5 percentage points, - HA (alternative): rate difference \< 5 percentage points.||1.3|-7.9|
91882770|NCT00551135|183659482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 month PS.||||0.3173
91882771|NCT04294667|183659485|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|14.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.8|3.3|0.0110
91882772|NCT04294667|183659486|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the CMH risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|7.9||||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.4|-3.6|0.1776
91882773|NCT04294667|183659487|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the CMH risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|10.8||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.7|-0.1|0.0518
91882774|NCT04294667|183659488|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the CMH risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|11.5||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.6|1.4|0.0257
91882775|NCT04294667|183659489|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|7.2||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.0|-1.5|0.1042
91882776|NCT04294667|183659490|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Change(DZP+SOC vs PBO+SOC)|-1.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.9|||MMRM|The Least Squares (LS) Mean, the difference (DZP+SOC versus PBO+SOC), and the 95% CIs was computed from the MMRM.||||-0.9|-2.7|0.0001
91882777|NCT04294667|183659495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0111
91882778|NCT04294667|183659496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0228
91752447|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.74||||||Serotype 23F: OPA GMT Ratio||0.74|0.53|
91752448|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|560.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|474.05|662.63||||||Serotype 22F: OPA GMT Ratio||662.63|474.05|
91752449|NCT04384107|183397617|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|196.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|141.85|271.21||||||Serotype 33F: OPA GMT Ratio||271.21|141.85|
91882779|NCT03634839|183659509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.184||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
91882780|NCT03634839|183659510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.881||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models with flavor as a within-subject factor. A significant main effect of flavor with greater liking of sweet plus cooling flavor than sweet minus cooling flavor will be considered supportive of our hypotheses.||||0.187
91882781|NCT03634839|183659511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.286||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135
91882782|NCT03634839|183659512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.942||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.210
91882783|NCT04198948|183659513|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculation was performed using SAS Proc Power procedure for equivalence test in 2x2 crossover design. For an equivalence range of 80-125%, the within-subject coefficient of variation for the AUC values for gliclazide of 7.8% based on previous PK studies, and expected test/reference geometric mean ratios between 87-115%, 14 volunteers (7 individuals per sequence) are required to show the lack of interaction with 85% power.|Geometric least square mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.48|||||The TOST (two one-sided test) test of equivalence showed that the geometric mean ratio and 90% CI for gliclazide AUC(0-24) between omeprazole and placebo phase was 1.13 (0.86-1.48), with upper confidence limit above the usual 1.25 boundary.|The main evaluated outcome was systemic exposure to gliclazide, expressed as AUC(0-t). The geometric mean was calculated for gliclazide AUC(0-24). The ratio of the geometric means with 90% CIs was assessed by linear mixed models between the two treatment assignments: gliclazide and omeprazole co-administration to that of gliclazide and placebo. The obtained 90% CI was compared with the equivalence 0.8-1.25 range.||1.48|0.86|
91882784|NCT04198948|183659514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.636
91882785|NCT04198948|183659515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.055
91882786|NCT02312206|183659538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5735|1.1889|||Log Rank|||||1.1889|0.5735|0.3028
91882787|NCT01006616|183659541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.031||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.091|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and baseline smoking status (yes/no) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use (yes/no)||||0.091|-0.030|0.325
91882788|NCT01006616|183659541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.029||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.034|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and baseline smoking status (yes/no) and ICS use (yes/no)||||0.034|-0.091|0.370
91882789|NCT01006616|183659541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.131|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and baseline smoking status (yes/no) and ICS use (yes/no)||||0.131|0.004|0.037
91882790|NCT01006616|183659542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.6||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Analysis of Week 26 data|||6.9|-0.6|0.096
91882791|NCT01006616|183659542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|12.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Analysis of Week 26 data|||18.4|7.4|<0.001
91752450|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.75||||||Serotype 1: OPA GMT Ratio||0.75|0.38|
91752451|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.03||||||Serotype 3: OPA GMT Ratio||2.03|1.28|
91882792|NCT01006616|183659542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|26.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Analysis of Week 26 data|||26.9|13.8|<0.001
91752452|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93||||||Serotype 4: OPA GMT Ratio||0.93|0.57|
91752453|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13||||||Serotype 5: OPA GMT Ratio||1.13|0.66|
91752454|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.91||||||Serotype 6A: OPA GMT Ratio||0.91|0.57|
91752455|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.83||||||Serotype 6B: OPA GMT Ratio||0.83|0.52|
91752456|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.07||||||Serotype 7F: OPA GMT Ratio||1.07|0.68|
91752457|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.84||||||Serotype 9V: OPA GMT Ratio||0.84|0.50|
91752458|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.9||||||Serotype 14: OPA GMT Ratio||1.90|1.16|
91752459|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.48||||||Serotype 18C: OPA GMT Ratio||1.48|0.95|
91752460|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01||||||Serotype 19A: OPA GMT Ratio||1.01|0.60|
91752461|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.52||||||Serotype 19F: OPA GMT Ratio||1.52|1.00|
91752462|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.49||||||Serotype 23F: OPA GMT Ratio||0.49|0.28|
91752463|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|155.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.84|238.59||||||Serotype 22F: OPA GMT Ratio||238.59|101.84|
91752464|NCT04384107|183397618|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|16.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.74|24.08||||||Serotype 33F: OPA GMT Ratio||24.08|11.74|
91752465|NCT01048866|183397634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-196.6||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-321.0|-72.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||-72.2|-321.0|0.0021
91752466|NCT01048866|183397635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-19.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-9.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Baseline DSS fitted as a covariate and centre as a fixed effect.||||-9.3|-28.7|0.0002
91882793|NCT03672175|183659573|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.6638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)||1.3|-2.0|0.6638
91752467|NCT01048866|183397636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-179.7||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.7|-53.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||-53.8|-305.7|0.0054
91752468|NCT01048866|183397637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-16.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-7.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||-7.0|-25.9|0.0008
91752469|NCT01048866|183397638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-168.4||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.7|-43.1|||ANOVA|||||-43.1|-293.7|0.0087
91752470|NCT01048866|183397639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-10.0|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate and centre as a fixed effect.||||-10.0|-28.0|<0.0001
91752471|NCT01048866|183397640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-118.9||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.3|57.5|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate and centre as a fixed effect.||||57.5|-295.3|0.1844
91752472|NCT01048866|183397641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91752473|NCT01048866|183397642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8827|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8827
91752474|NCT01048866|183397643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified by centre||||||0.0105
91752475|NCT01048866|183397645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-5.9||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.6|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with participant as a random effect.||||0.6|-12.4|0.0743
91752476|NCT01048866|183397646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-5.5||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|0.8|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with patient as a random effect.||||0.8|-11.7|0.0871
91752477|NCT01048866|183397647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-6.0||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.2|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with participant as a random effect.||||0.2|-12.3|0.0595
91752478|NCT01048866|183397648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.5||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with participant as a random effect.||||0.9|0.1|0.0195
91752479|NCT01048866|183397649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0322|||||||Regression, Logistic|Effect for centre||||||0.0322
91752480|NCT01048866|183397650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0276|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0276
91752481|NCT01048866|183397651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.2||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANOVA|||||-0.0|-0.4|0.0288
91882794|NCT03672175|183659573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||||0.3|-3.1|0.1158
91882795|NCT03672175|183659574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM was used for the analysis. Treatment, BL CGI-S score, BL antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were included in the model and were treated as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||0.2|-0.4|0.6905
91882796|NCT03672175|183659574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for the analysis. Treatment, BL CGI-S score, BL antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were included in the model and were treated as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.5|0.1082
91752482|NCT01048866|183397652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.1||||0.4274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.4274
91752483|NCT03582813|183397653|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in self-perceived Recovery and that this effect would be maintained overtime;||||<.01
91752484|NCT03582813|183397654|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in self-esteem that would be maintained longitudinally||||.031
91752485|NCT03582813|183397655|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in coping mastery that would be maintained longitudinally||||<0.01
91752486|NCT03582813|183397656|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in perceived autonomy support that would be maintained longitudinally||||0.030
91752487|NCT03582813|183397657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.74|||Regression, Logistic|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report greater likelihood of employment that would be maintained longitudinally||4.74|1.01|0.046
91752488|NCT03582813|183397658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.44|||Regression, Logistic|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report greater likelihood of enrollment in educational classes that would be maintained longitudinally||11.44|1.50|<0.01
91752489|NCT00316524|183397660|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that Group 4 (vaccinia experienced subjects receiving a single vaccination) is non-inferior to Group 1 (vaccinia naive subjects receiving 2 vaccinations) in terms of seroconversion rate 2 weeks after the last vaccination was predefined as -5% for the difference in seroconversion rates|Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-3.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.36||||||||||-7.36|
91752490|NCT02525094|183397671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.33||||||||4.33|0.90|
91882797|NCT03672175|183659575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.5725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 3||0.9|-1.7|0.5725
91882798|NCT03672175|183659575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 3||-0.3|-2.8|0.0160
91882799|NCT03672175|183659575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 8||0.9|-2.1|0.4450
91882800|NCT03672175|183659575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.5||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 8||-0.5|-3.6|0.0081
91752491|NCT02789410|183397690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
91752492|NCT02789410|183397691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.590
91752493|NCT02789410|183397692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.971
91752494|NCT01751776|183397693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|2.0506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1843|2.9168|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for Cmax was explored after the first adminstration of BI 65564 on Day 1.||2.9168|1.1843|
91752495|NCT01751776|183397693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.4227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1644|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0869|1.7584|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for Cmax was explored after the last (fourth) adminstration of BI 65564 on Day 22.||1.7584|1.0869|
91882801|NCT03672175|183659575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.8219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.1|-1.6|0.8219
91882802|NCT03672175|183659575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 42||1.6|-2.0|0.8166
91752496|NCT01751776|183397694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|2.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1706|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6607|2.3575|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for AUC 0-infinity was explored after the last adminstration of BI 65564 on Day 22.||2.3575|1.6607|
91752497|NCT01751776|183397695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.4225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0876|1.7574|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for AUCtau was explored after the last administration of BI 65564 on Day 22.||1.7574|1.0876|
91752498|NCT01751776|183397697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.7|||||||||||||Mean Difference in percentage|Observed difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo||||
91752499|NCT01751776|183397697|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Mean Difference (Net)|33.0|||||||||||||Mean Difference in percentage|Expected difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo||||
91752500|NCT01751776|183397697|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|99.9||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 0%||||
91752501|NCT01751776|183397697|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|99.7||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 5%||||
91752502|NCT01751776|183397697|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|98.7||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 10%||||
91752503|NCT01751776|183397697|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|96.0||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 15%||||
91752504|NCT01751776|183397697|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|90.0||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 20%||||
91752505|NCT01751776|183397697|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|79.0||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 25%||||
91882803|NCT03672175|183659575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.0||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 182||2.0|-2.3|0.9000
91882804|NCT03672175|183659575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 182||1.3|-2.7|0.5004
91882805|NCT03672175|183659576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.63||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15: Generalized estimating equation (GEE)||1.63|0.65|0.8903
91882806|NCT03672175|183659576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.25||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||2.25|0.91|0.1207
91882807|NCT03672175|183659576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.7||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||1.70|0.67|0.7897
91752506|NCT01751776|183397697|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|62.5||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 30%||||
91752507|NCT01751776|183397697|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|42.9||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 35%||||
91752508|NCT01751776|183397697|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|24.5||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 40%||||
91752509|NCT01751776|183397697|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|11.1||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 45%||||
91752510|NCT01751776|183397698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk difference, unadjusted|18.2||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|38.6|||One-sided exact test (see description)|One-sided exact test for superiority testing|The exact 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper and Pearson.|unadjusted||38.6|-6.6|0.0754
91752511|NCT01751776|183397698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, adjusted|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|39.0|||||The 95 % confidence interval was determined by root method to determine the cumulative distribution function. Adjusted for treatment, region and anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor (TNF)|adjusted||39.0|-4.6|
91752512|NCT01751776|183397699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, unadjusted|4.5||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|22.3|||one-sided exact test (see description)|one-sided exact test for superiority testing.|The exact 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper and Pearson.|unadjusted||22.3|-18.4|0.3938
91752513|NCT01751776|183397699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, adjusted|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|21.1|||||The 95 % confidence interval was determined by root method to determine the cumulative distribution function. Adjusted for treatment, region and anti-TNF history|adjusted||21.1|-18.9|
91752514|NCT01751776|183397702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|32.7|||||The exact 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper and Pearson.|unadjusted||32.7|-17.6|
91752515|NCT01751776|183397702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, adjusted|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|34.2|||||The 95 % confidence interval was determined by root method to determine the cumulative distribution function. Adjusted for treatment, region and anti-TNF history|adjusted||34.2|-15.9|
91882808|NCT03672175|183659576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.76||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||1.76|0.69|0.6837
91882809|NCT03672175|183659576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.53||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||1.53|0.51|0.6602
91882810|NCT03672175|183659576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.69||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||1.69|0.56|0.9268
91882811|NCT03672175|183659577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.83||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||1.83|0.62|0.8245
91882812|NCT03672175|183659577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.67||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||2.67|0.95|0.0756
91803928|NCT00147446|183485617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilcoxon two smaple test statistics|2.09||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||It was hypothesized that treatment with stress management produced a significant reduction in cumulative Gd+ lesions compared to the control condition during the treatment period||||0.04
91803929|NCT00147446|183485617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|6.55|||Logistic Regression|||It was hypothesized that significantly greater numbers of participants receiving stress management remained free of Gd+ lesions during the treatment, compared to those receiving the control condition.||6.55|1.17|0.02
91803930|NCT00147446|183485618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilcoxon two sample test statistics|2.84||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||It was hypothesized that participants receiving SMT-MS showed a significant reduction in cumulative new T2 lesions, compared to those receiving the control condition during the treatment period.||||0.005
91803931|NCT00147446|183485618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.81|||Logistic Regression|||It was hypothesized that significantly greater numbers of participants receiving SMT-MS remained free of new T2 lesions during the treatment, compared to control condition participants.||6.81|1.38|0.006
91803932|NCT02302807|183485619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.63|0.4134
91803933|NCT02302807|183485619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05||||||||1.05|0.71|
91803934|NCT02302807|183485619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||||||||0.99|0.73|
91882813|NCT03672175|183659577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.01||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||2.01|0.70|0.5309
91803935|NCT01980940|183485637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|5.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.03|6.42|||ANOVA|||The geometric least squares mean ratio (GLSMR) and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 75 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||6.42|4.03|
91803936|NCT01980940|183485637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.05|8.81|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 150 DMSO/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||8.81|6.05|
91803937|NCT01980940|183485637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.55|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 150 DMSO) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.55|0.38|
91803938|NCT01980940|183485637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.83|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 PG/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.83|0.51|
91803939|NCT01980940|183485639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.77|18.18|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 75 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||18.18|4.77|
91803940|NCT01980940|183485639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|8.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.39|10.32|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 150 DMSO/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||10.32|6.39|
91882814|NCT03672175|183659577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.66||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||1.66|0.56|0.9085
91882815|NCT03672175|183659577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.44||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||2.44|0.73|0.3476
91908287|NCT03615183|183711878|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.92|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8527 and placebo ≤ -1.0 copies/mL was 9.42%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK- 8527 and placebo is at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL.||||
91882816|NCT03672175|183659577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.57||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||2.57|0.82|0.2060
91803941|NCT01980940|183485639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.57|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 150 DMSO) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.57|0.39|
91803942|NCT01980940|183485639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.79|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 PG/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.79|0.21|
91882817|NCT03672175|183659578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.65||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, CGI-S BL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||||1.65|0.67|0.8303
91882818|NCT03672175|183659578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.24||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, CGI-S BL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||||2.24|0.91|0.1199
91882819|NCT03672175|183659579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-A total score, anti-depressant use at BL (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||0.9|-1.9|0.5021
91882820|NCT03672175|183659579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-A total score, anti-depressant use at BL (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||0.6|-2.1|0.2868
91803943|NCT01980940|183485640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.57||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.6|8.9|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 2 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 2 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||8.9|-63.6|0.2113
91882821|NCT03672175|183659580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9||MMRM with treatment, BL MADRS total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||1.9|-3.4|0.5987
91882822|NCT03672175|183659580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.7||MMRM with treatment, BL MADRS total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||0.7|-4.7|0.1443
91882823|NCT03672175|183659581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.0||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||4.0|-3.3|0.8499
91882824|NCT03672175|183659581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.8||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||2.8|-4.6|0.6265
91882825|NCT03672175|183659581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.5||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||4.5|-3.2|0.7418
91882826|NCT03672175|183659581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||3.3|-4.3|0.7837
91882827|NCT03672175|183659582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.7||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||2.7|-4.1|0.6848
91882828|NCT03672175|183659582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.6||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.6|-6.1|0.1100
91882829|NCT03672175|183659582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.9||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||4.9|-2.4|0.5090
91882830|NCT03672175|183659582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.8948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.7||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||3.7|-3.2|0.8948
91882831|NCT03672175|183659583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||4.3|-4.5|0.9591
91882832|NCT03672175|183659583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||2.0|-7.0|0.2713
91882833|NCT03672175|183659583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.8048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.4||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||5.4|-4.2|0.8048
91882834|NCT03672175|183659583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|3.9||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||3.9|-5.3|0.7665
91882835|NCT03672175|183659584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.8575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.1||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||4.1|-3.4|0.8575
91882836|NCT03672175|183659584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||1.3|-6.3|0.1978
91803944|NCT01980940|183485640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.7|10.3|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 4 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 4 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||10.3|-55.7|0.2548
91803945|NCT01980940|183485640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.94||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.9|12.0|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 7 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 7 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||12.0|-54.9|0.2880
91803946|NCT01980940|183485640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.52||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.4|15.1|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 11 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 11 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||15.1|-50.4|0.3709
91803947|NCT01980940|183485640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.81||0.3883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.5|16.0|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 14 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 14 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||16.0|-50.5|0.3883
91803948|NCT01980940|183485641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.7|1.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 2 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 2 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||1.6|-29.7|0.1383
91803949|NCT01980940|183485641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.9|4.2|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 4 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 4 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||4.2|-24.9|0.2380
91803950|NCT01980940|183485641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.2691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.9|4.8|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 7 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 7 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||4.8|-23.9|0.2691
91803951|NCT01980940|183485641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.3246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|5.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 11 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 11 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||5.6|-21.8|0.3246
91803952|NCT01980940|183485641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.19||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|6.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 14 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 14 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||6.6|-20.9|0.3881
91803953|NCT01980940|183485642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.25||0.4477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-166.8|62.3|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 2 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 2 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||62.3|-166.8|0.4477
91803954|NCT01980940|183485642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.42||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-143.6|76.1|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 4 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 4 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||76.1|-143.6|0.6084
91882837|NCT03672175|183659584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||4.3|-3.9|0.9298
91882838|NCT03672175|183659584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.8||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.8|-5.2|0.5487
91882839|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Depressed Mood||0.3|-0.2|0.6270
91752516|NCT01751776|183397703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.39|||||difference calculated as BI 655064 120mg minus placebo. The ANCOVA model was used. In this model the mean was adjusted for region, anti-TNF history and baseline DAS28-CRP.|difference calculated as BI 655064 120mg minus placebo.||0.39|-0.67|
91752517|NCT01307462|183397741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based physical functioning score||||.81
91752518|NCT01307462|183397741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based role-physical score||||.18
91752519|NCT01307462|183397741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based bodily pain score||||.48
91752520|NCT01307462|183397741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based general health score||||.26
91752521|NCT01307462|183397741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based vitality score||||.23
91752522|NCT01307462|183397741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based social functioning score||||.36
91752523|NCT01307462|183397741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based role-emotional score||||.41
91752524|NCT01307462|183397741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based mental health score||||.80
91752525|NCT01307462|183397741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 standardized physical component score||||.80
91752526|NCT01307462|183397741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 standardized mental component score||||.23
91752527|NCT01307462|183397742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT physical well-being||||0.28
91752528|NCT01307462|183397742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT social/family well-being||||0.1
91882840|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Depressed Mood||0.2|-0.4|0.5463
91752529|NCT01307462|183397742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT emotional well-being||||0.63
91752530|NCT01307462|183397742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT functional well-being||||0.78
91752531|NCT01307462|183397742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT BMT subscale||||.84
91752532|NCT01307462|183397742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT trial outcome index||||.37
91752533|NCT01307462|183397742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT-G||||.71
91752534|NCT01307462|183397742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT-BMT total||||.54
91752535|NCT01307462|183397743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HAP maximum activity score - highest item still doing||||.37
91752536|NCT01307462|183397743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HAP adjusted activity score - MAS minus stopped||||.39
91752537|NCT01307462|183397743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Modified HAP adjusted activity score||||.39
91752538|NCT01307462|183397744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom skin scale||||.11
91752539|NCT01307462|183397744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom energy scale||||.007
91752540|NCT01307462|183397744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom lung scale||||.20
91752541|NCT01307462|183397744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom eye scale||||.002
91752542|NCT01307462|183397744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom nutrition scale||||.52
91752543|NCT01307462|183397744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom psychological scale||||.22
91752544|NCT01307462|183397744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom mouth scale||||.002
91752545|NCT01307462|183397744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom overall summary scale||||<0.001
91752546|NCT01519674|183397789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.24||||0.011||95.0|0.06|0.43||No corrections for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Linear|||"The null-hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA) in each of the comparisons as given by:~H0: D = 0% against HA: D ≠ 0% D being the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment between the two treatment group comparisons (BID+Met and BID+Sita+Met)."||0.43|0.06|0.011
91752547|NCT01519674|183397789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.11||||0.231||95.0|-0.3|0.07|||Regression, Linear|||The null-hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA) in each of the comparisons as given by: H0: D = 0% against HA: D ≠ 0% D being the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment between the two treatment group comparisons (BID+Sita+Met and OD+Sita+Met).||0.07|-0.30|0.231
91752548|NCT01519674|183397789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.36|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.54|-0.17|||Regression, Linear|||The null-hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA) in each of the comparisons as given by: H0: D = 0% against HA: D ≠ 0% D being the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment between the two treatment group comparisons (BID+Sita+Met and OD+Sita+Met).||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
91752549|NCT01519674|183397790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.022||95.0|0.39|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.93|0.39|0.022
91752550|NCT01519674|183397790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.618||95.0|0.73|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|0.73|0.618
91882841|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Depressed Mood||0.3|-0.3|0.8716
91882842|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Depressed Mood||0.2|-0.4|0.4383
91882843|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Feelings of Guilt||0.3|-0.1|0.4794
91882844|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Feelings of Guilt||0.2|-0.2|0.9717
91882845|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Feelings of Guilt||0.3|-0.1|0.3701
91882846|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Feelings of Guilt||0.3|-0.1|0.3972
91882847|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.5761
91882848|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.4379
91752551|NCT01519674|183397790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.005||95.0|1.2|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.85|1.20|0.005
91752552|NCT01519674|183397791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.02||95.0|0.38|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.92|0.38|0.020
91752553|NCT01519674|183397791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.286||95.0|0.81|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.81|0.286
91752554|NCT01519674|183397791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||<|0.001||95.0|1.39|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.47|1.39|<0.001
91752555|NCT01519674|183397792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.13||||0.52||95.0|-0.26|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||||0.52|-0.26|0.520
91752556|NCT01519674|183397792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.05||||0.788||95.0|-0.34|0.45|||Regression, Linear|||||0.45|-0.34|0.788
91752557|NCT01519674|183397792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.07||||0.708||95.0|-0.46|0.31|||Regression, Linear|||||0.31|-0.46|0.708
91752558|NCT01519674|183397793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.28||||0.291||95.0|-0.24|0.81|||Regression, Linear|||||0.81|-0.24|0.291
91752559|NCT01519674|183397793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.88||||0.001||95.0|-1.41|-0.35|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.35|-1.41|0.001
91752560|NCT01519674|183397793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-1.16|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.69|-0.64|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.64|-1.69|<0.001
91752561|NCT01519674|183397794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.85||||0.005||95.0|0.26|1.45|||Regression, Linear|||||1.45|0.26|0.005
91752562|NCT01519674|183397794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.52||||0.085||95.0|-0.07|1.12|||Regression, Linear|||||1.12|-0.07|0.085
91752563|NCT01519674|183397794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.33||||0.275||95.0|-0.92|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||||0.26|-0.92|0.275
91752564|NCT01519674|183397795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.12||||0.674||95.0|-0.7|0.45|||Regression, Linear|||||0.45|-0.70|0.674
91752565|NCT01519674|183397795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.72||||0.015||95.0|0.14|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||||1.30|0.14|0.015
91752566|NCT01519674|183397795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.84||||0.004||95.0|0.27|1.41|||Regression, Linear|||||1.41|0.27|0.004
91752567|NCT01519674|183397796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.31||||0.08||95.0|-0.04|0.65|||Regression, Linear|||||0.65|-0.04|0.080
91752568|NCT01519674|183397796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.09||||0.613||95.0|-0.26|0.43|||Regression, Linear|||||0.43|-0.26|0.613
91752569|NCT01519674|183397796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.22||||0.213||95.0|-0.56|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||||0.13|-0.56|0.213
91752570|NCT01519674|183397799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.29||||0.8||95.0|-1.97|2.56|||Regression, Linear|||||2.56|-1.97|0.800
91752571|NCT01519674|183397799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.02||||0.989||95.0|-2.26|2.29|||Regression, Linear|||||2.29|-2.26|0.989
91752572|NCT01519674|183397799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.28||||0.809||95.0|-2.52|1.97|||Regression, Linear|||||1.97|-2.52|0.809
91752573|NCT00733135|183397817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||GEE|||||||<0.05
91803955|NCT01980940|183485642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.25||0.5926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-144.7|74.4|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 7 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 7 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||74.4|-144.7|0.5926
91803956|NCT01980940|183485642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.49||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-147.2|62.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 11 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 11 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||62.6|-147.2|0.5022
91803957|NCT01980940|183485642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|63.7||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-149.0|64.9|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 14 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 14 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||64.9|-149.0|0.5125
91803958|NCT01980940|183485643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2632|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 2 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.2632
91803959|NCT01980940|183485643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4703|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 4 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.4703
91803960|NCT01980940|183485643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5507|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 7 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.5507
91803961|NCT01980940|183485643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3992|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 11 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.3992
91803962|NCT01980940|183485643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6626|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 14 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.6626
91803963|NCT01980940|183485643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.315|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of post-trial PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.3150
91803964|NCT03187197|183485674|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 2.||||0.0001
91803965|NCT03187197|183485674|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 3.||||0.0001
91803966|NCT03187197|183485674|OTHER|||||||0.0031|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 2.||||0.0031
91752574|NCT01854632|183397826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.996
91803967|NCT03187197|183485674|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 3.||||0.0001
91803968|NCT03187197|183485675|OTHER|||||||0.7879|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment convenience before PSM.||||0.7879
91752575|NCT03180398|183397837|SUPERIORITY|It was hoped to compare radiomics features, using non-parametric tests, but this was not possible because of the small number of patients accrued.|||||||||||||||||Not enough patients were accrued for radiomics analysis. PI left institution and country. Analysis could not be completed.|||
91803969|NCT03187197|183485675|OTHER|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 treatment convenience before PSM.||||0.6110
91803970|NCT03187197|183485675|OTHER|||||||0.0832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment satisfaction before PSM.||||0.0832
91803971|NCT03187197|183485675|OTHER|||||||0.6488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 treatment satisfaction before PSM.||||0.6488
91803972|NCT03187197|183485675|OTHER|||||||0.1301|||||||Two sample T test|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment convenience after PSM.||||0.1301
91803973|NCT03187197|183485675|OTHER|||||||0.1257|||||||Two sample T test|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment satisfaction after PSM.||||0.1257
91803974|NCT00674700|183485708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||main effects = treatment and pools of study centers, Covariates = age, gender, asthma status, sensitization status and baseline ARTSS|ANCOVA|||||||0.0066
91803975|NCT00674700|183485708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||main effects= treatment and pools of study centers, Covariates = age, gender, asthma status, sensitization status and baseline ARTSS|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91803976|NCT00674700|183485709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0086|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0086
91803977|NCT00674700|183485709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0095
91803978|NCT00964860|183485723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA||All treatment comparisons were 1-sided with the significance level set at 5%. Units on the MGI Scale.|||||0.001
91803979|NCT00964860|183485724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA||All treatment comparisons were 1-sided with the significance level set at 5%|||||0.004
91803980|NCT02585960|183485725|SUPERIORITY||Gaussian Statistic estimate|1.96||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|3.958|||Chi-squared||Approximately Gaussian Statistic is obtained by taking the square root of the Chi-squared test with continuity adjustment.|The proportion of participants with an ABR of 0 during the second 6-month period on BAX 855 prophylaxis, was compared between the 2 prophylaxis arms using a chi-square test with continuity correction at a 2-sided 5% level of significance.||3.958|-0.038|0.0545
91752576|NCT03180398|183397838|OTHER|Analysis could not be completed.|||||||||||||||||PI left institution and country. Analysis could not be completed.|||
91882849|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.6087
91882850|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.9791
91882851|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.1|-0.3|0.2093
91752577|NCT00610441|183397879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6996||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.911|-0.4881||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||-0.4881|-10.911|0.0147
91752578|NCT00610441|183397879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9926||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.2961|5.2814||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||5.2814|-3.2961|0.5910
91752579|NCT00610441|183397880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.799|26.0878|||||Logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment and period, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|||26.0878|1.7990|
91752580|NCT00610441|183397880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3119|2.8701|||||Logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment and period, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|||2.8701|0.3119|
91752581|NCT00610441|183397881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6712|58.1395|||||Since no participants in the Placebo group achieved a 50% reduction, the comparison was done using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method and 0.5 was added to both groups.|||58.1395|0.6712|
91752582|NCT00610441|183397881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1453|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0152|1.388|||||Logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment and period, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|||1.3880|0.0152|
91752583|NCT00610441|183397884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2074|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5654|2.5785|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||2.5785|0.5654|
91752584|NCT00610441|183397884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6951|4.9494|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||4.9494|0.6951|
91752585|NCT00610441|183397885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5402|3.2008|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||3.2008|0.5402|
91752586|NCT00610441|183397885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|3.7309|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||3.7309|0.5240|
91752587|NCT00610441|183397886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3163||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8138|1.1812||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline ESS score as covariate. For statistical analyses, the average score from Days 14 and 21 was used.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||1.1812|-1.8138|0.6155
91752588|NCT00610441|183397886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2934||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7449|3.3317||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline ESS score as covariate. For statistical analyses, the average score from Days 14 and 21 was used.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||3.3317|-0.7449|0.1330
91882852|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.1|-0.3|0.5189
91882853|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.2|-0.2|0.6617
91752589|NCT00610441|183397887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5501||||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9427|2.0429||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline PSQI score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||2.0429|-0.9427|0.3907
91882854|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.3|-0.1|0.2632
91882855|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.1|-0.3|0.2740
91882856|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.0|-0.3|0.1185
91882857|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.2|-0.2|0.9450
91882858|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.1|-0.2|0.6343
91882859|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.1|-0.3|0.3169
91882860|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.0|-0.4|0.0178
91803981|NCT01847274|183485753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.41||Two-sided P-value. PFS was independently evaluated in gBRCAmut cohort and non-gBRCAmut cohort.|Log Rank|Strata: tm to progression after penultimate platinum tx; use of bevacizumab w/penultimate or last platinum tx; best response during last platinum tx.|Niraparib:Placebo, based on the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model using randomization stratification factors.|||0.410|0.173|<0.0001
91882861|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.2|-0.2|0.8504
91882862|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.1|-0.2|0.5647
91882863|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.3|0.5914
91882864|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.4|0.4603
91882865|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.4|0.5637
91882866|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.4|0.4638
91882867|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Retardation||0.2|0.0|0.1846
91882868|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Retardation||0.2|-0.1|0.4837
91882869|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Retardation||0.2|0.0|0.1178
91882870|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.7888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Retardation||0.1|-0.1|0.7888
91882871|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Agitation||0.1|-0.1|0.9496
91882872|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Agitation||0.0|-0.3|0.0497
91752590|NCT00610441|183397887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0065||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9486|0.9357||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline PSQI score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||0.9357|-0.9486|0.9872
91752591|NCT00610441|183397888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1543||||0.7828|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4898|1.1811||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline QIDS-C score as covariate. Scores from Days 14 and 21 were averaged for statistical analyses.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||1.1811|-1.4898|0.7828
91752592|NCT00610441|183397888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4222||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5187|1.363||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline QIDS-C score as covariate. Scores from Days 14 and 21 were averaged for statistical analyses.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||1.3630|-0.5187|0.2883
91752593|NCT00610441|183397889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9685||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.9599|4.0229|||MMRM|To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline TASS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||4.0229|-5.9599|0.6532
91752594|NCT00610441|183397889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1022||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8951|5.0996||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline TASS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||5.0996|-2.8951|0.5247
91752595|NCT00334282|183397901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||1e-07||95.0|0.34|0.62||stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||The estimated value is the hazard ratio comparing pazopanib to placebo.|||0.62|0.34|.0000001
91752596|NCT00130923|183397945|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment slopes|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment slopes in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||0.054
91752597|NCT00130923|183397946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in treatment means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.035
91752598|NCT00130923|183397947|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.57
91752599|NCT00130923|183397948|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.32
91752600|NCT00130923|183397949|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.44
91752601|NCT00130923|183397950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|Statistical test of hypothesis. Value of the Chi-squared statistic is 9.08||||||.003
91752602|NCT01370837|183397967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Arm||||0.84
91752603|NCT01370837|183397967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Foot||||0.76
91882873|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Agitation||0.1|-0.2|0.4189
91882874|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Agitation||0.0|-0.3|0.1342
91882875|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Psychic||0.2|-0.3|0.9202
91882876|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Psychic||0.0|-0.5|0.0260
91882877|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Psychic||0.2|-0.3|0.9370
91752604|NCT01370837|183397967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Arm||||0.53
91803982|NCT01847274|183485754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|0.586||Two-sided P-value. PFS was independently evaluated in gBRCAmut cohort and non-gBRCAmut cohort. Hierarchical testing: HRD+ subset tested first. If HRD+ subset demonstrated statistical significance, overall non-gBRCA cohort was then tested|Log Rank|Strata: tm to progression after penultimate platinum tx; use of bevacizumab w/penultimate or last platinum tx; best response during last platinum tx.|Niraparib:Placebo, based on the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model using randomization stratification factors.|||0.586|0.243|<0.0001
91803983|NCT01847274|183485755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.607||Two-sided P-value. PFS was independently evaluated in gBRCAmut cohort and non-gBRCAmut cohort. Hierarchical testing: HRD+ subset tested first. If HRD+ subset demonstrated statistical significance, overall non-gBRCA cohort was then tested.|Log Rank|Strata: tm to progression after penultimate platinum tx; use of bevacizumab w/penultimate or last platinum tx; best response during last platinum tx.|Niraparib:Placebo, based on the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model using randomization stratification factors.|||0.607|0.338|<0.0001
91803984|NCT01847274|183485756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|0.783||Two-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.783|0.412|0.0005
91803985|NCT01847274|183485757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|0.74||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.740|0.454|<0.0001
91803986|NCT01847274|183485758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.561||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.561|0.268|<0.0001
91803987|NCT01847274|183485759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.727||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.727|0.428|<0.0001
91803988|NCT01847274|183485760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.968||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.968|0.500|0.0302
91803989|NCT01847274|183485761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.022||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.022|0.627|0.0748
91882878|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Psychic||0.2|-0.3|0.8440
91882879|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Somatic||0.3|-0.1|0.4480
91803990|NCT01847274|183485762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.198||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.198|0.606|0.3580
91803991|NCT01847274|183485763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.369||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.369|0.813|0.6868
91803992|NCT01847274|183485764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.878||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.878|0.451|0.0061
91803993|NCT01847274|183485765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.077||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.077|0.654|0.1674
91803994|NCT01847274|183485782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7969|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.7969
91803995|NCT01847274|183485782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8794|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.8794
91803996|NCT01847274|183485783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2399|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.2399
91803997|NCT01847274|183485783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4584|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.4584
91803998|NCT01847274|183485784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8566|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.8566
91803999|NCT01847274|183485784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4705|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.4705
91804000|NCT01847274|183485785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8521|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.8521
91804001|NCT01847274|183485785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9923|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.9923
91804002|NCT01847274|183485786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9997|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.9997
91804003|NCT01847274|183485786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3518|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.3518
91804004|NCT01847274|183485787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9367|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.9367
91804005|NCT01847274|183485787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2502|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.2502
91804006|NCT01847274|183485788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5037|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.5037
91804007|NCT01847274|183485788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.1640
91804008|NCT01847274|183485789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9599|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.9599
91804009|NCT01847274|183485789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.2470
91882880|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Somatic||0.2|-0.1|0.6345
91882881|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Somatic||0.3|-0.1|0.4123
91804010|NCT01847274|183485790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5921|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.5921
91804011|NCT01847274|183485790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7459|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.7459
91804012|NCT01847274|183485791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0259|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|||||||0.0259
91804013|NCT01847274|183485791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2798|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.2798
91804014|NCT01847274|183485798|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.216||||||||1.216|0.997|
91804015|NCT01847274|183485799|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.166||||||||1.166|0.978|
91804016|NCT01847274|183485800|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.695|0.886||||||||0.886|0.695|
91804017|NCT00724932|183485816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Final Values)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.1||Testing was performed using a two-sided test at the 0.05 significance level. There was only one primary comparison, therefore no adjustment for multiplicity was required.|ANOVA||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine the denominator. The estimated value for the geometric mean ratio presents how many times the geometric mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was faster with sugammadex compared to neostigmine.|To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was calculated using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model adjusted for treatment group and trial site.||4.1|2.8|<0.0001
91804018|NCT00724932|183485817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|2.8||The p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine the denominator. The estimated value for the geometric mean ratio presents how many times the geometric mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was faster with sugammadex compared to neostigmine.|To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was calculated using a two-way ANOVA model adjusted for treatment group and trial site.||2.8|2.1|<0.0001
91804019|NCT00724932|183485825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.4||The p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine the denominator. The estimated value for the geometric mean ratio presents how many times the geometric mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was faster with sugammadex compared to neostigmine.|To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was calculated using a two-way ANOVA model adjusted for treatment group and trial site.||3.4|2.5|<0.0001
91882882|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Somatic||0.2|-0.2|0.7523
91882883|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.1|-0.2|0.6505
91882884|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.1|-0.3|0.3674
91752605|NCT01370837|183397967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Foot||||0.07
91752606|NCT01370837|183397967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm vs foot||||0.25
91752607|NCT01370837|183397967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm vs foot||||0.27
91752608|NCT01370837|183397967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm vs foot||||< 0.01
91752609|NCT00740714|183397971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|>|0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.33|2.51||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-values for efficacy outcomes will be 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA is used with the change in total UPDRS of Coenzyme Q10 1200 mg/day arm compared to placebo group.||2.51|-1.33|>0.025
91752610|NCT00740714|183397971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|>|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|3.03||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-values for efficacy outcomes will be 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA is used with the change in total UPDRS of Coenzyme Q10 2400 mg/day arm compared to placebo group.||3.03|-0.85|>0.025
91752611|NCT00740714|183397972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.12|1.68||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Modified Schwab \& England will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||1.68|-2.12|0.7943
91752612|NCT00740714|183397972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.306||95.0|-2.79|1.04||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month on Modified Schwab \& England will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||1.04|-2.79|0.306
91882885|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.2|-0.2|0.8360
91882886|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.1|-0.2|0.6870
91752613|NCT00740714|183397973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.1615|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.06||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Modified Rankin Scale will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.06|-0.25|<0.1615
91752614|NCT00740714|183397973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.13||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-Adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plats and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Modified Rankin will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.13|-0.17|0.7627
91752615|NCT00740714|183397974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.6383|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|3.21||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on PD Quality of Life Scale will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||3.21|-2.10|0.6383
91752616|NCT00740714|183397974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.17||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on PD Quality of Life Scale will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||2.17|-3.20|0.667
91752617|NCT00740714|183397975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.671|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.09|3.06||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Symbol Digit Modalities Test will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||3.06|-2.09|0.671
91752618|NCT00740714|183397975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|1.87||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Symbol Digit Modalities Test will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable||1.87|-3.34|0.671
91752619|NCT00740714|183397976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.04|0.13||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Hoehn \& Yahr Score will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.13|-0.04|0.3445
91804020|NCT02340975|183485899|OTHER|Comparison|Mean Difference (Net)|11.1||||0.2376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|23.0|||Fisher Exact|||||23.0|-0.7|0.2376
91882887|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: General Somatic Symptoms||0.0|-0.3|0.1364
91882888|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: General Somatic Symptoms||0.0|-0.3|0.1578
91882889|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: General Somatic Symptoms||0.2|-0.2|0.9062
91882890|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: General Somatic Symptoms||0.2|-0.2|0.8596
91882891|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Genital Symptoms||0.2|-0.2|0.9488
91882892|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Genital Symptoms||0.0|-0.3|0.1514
91882893|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Genital Symptoms||0.1|-0.2|0.5796
91882894|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Genital Symptoms||0.1|-0.3|0.4739
91908288|NCT00105443|183711895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6931||||0.00583||95.0|0.5549|0.8658||According to the pre-specified O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function, the alpha value for this second interim analysis was 0.0073 (corresponding to a nominal value of 0.0077 after taking into account the first interim analysis).|Log Rank||This is the sorafenib to placebo hazard ratio.|"The 2 arms were compared using a 1-sided log-rank test with an overall alpha of 0.02 stratified by region, ECOG PS and tumor burden. In addition to the final analysis at the end of the study, 2 formal interim analyses of overall survival were planned. An alpha spending function was used to ensure that the false positive rate is less than or equal to 0.02 (1-sided). The study was stopped at the second interim analysis, the results of which are reported here."||0.8658|0.5549|0.00583
91908289|NCT00105443|183711896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0764||||0.7676||95.0|0.8837|1.311|||Log Rank||This is the sorafenib to placebo hazard ratio.|"The 2 arms were compared using a 1-sided log-rank test with an overall alpha of 0.005 stratified by region, ECOG PS and tumor burden. This was a co-primary endpoint with overall survival. No alpha-spending adjustments were necessary as it was only to be analyzed at the end of study."||1.3110|0.8837|0.7676
91752620|NCT00740714|183397976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.239||95.0|-0.04|0.14||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided. with a Bonferroni-adjustd significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assess with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline visit to 16-month visit on Hoehn \& Yahr will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.14|-0.04|.239
91882895|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Hypochondriasis||0.1|-0.1|0.9439
91882896|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Hypochondriasis||0.1|-0.2|0.3891
91882897|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Hypochondriasis||0.3|0.0|0.0308
91752621|NCT00740714|183397977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.536|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|1.091|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final visit to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for all treatment groups.||1.091|-0.018|0.0577
91882898|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Hypochondriasis||0.3|0.0|0.0620
91882899|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Loss of Weight||0.1|-0.2|0.7744
91882900|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Loss of Weight||0.2|-0.1|0.9312
91882901|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Loss of Weight||0.1|-0.2|0.3105
91882902|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Loss of Weight||0.2|-0.1|0.8406
91882903|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insight||0.0|-0.1|0.4834
91752622|NCT00740714|183397977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.647|1.136|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for the treatment group of Coenzyme Q10 2400 mg/day.||1.136|-0.647|0.5889
91752623|NCT00740714|183397977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.3006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|1.831|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for the treatment group of Coenzyme Q10 1200 mg/day.||1.831|-0.569|0.3006
91752624|NCT00740714|183397977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.269||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|4.633|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for the placebo group.||4.633|-0.382|0.096
91752625|NCT00740714|183397978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0199|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.8|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||2.80|0.57|<0.05
91752626|NCT00740714|183397979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.57|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subject experiencing a particular adverse experience||3.57|0.62|<0.05
91752627|NCT00740714|183397980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.2|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||4.20|0.65|<0.05
91752628|NCT00740714|183397981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.79|||ANCOVA||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.79|0.46|<0.05
91752629|NCT00740714|183397982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0199|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.41|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||3.41|0.66|<0.05
91752630|NCT00740714|183397983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.72|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9.72|0.81|<0.05
91752631|NCT00740714|183397984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.52|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.52|0.31|<0.05
91752632|NCT00740714|183397985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.7|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.70|0.36|<0.05
91752633|NCT00740714|183397986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|8.58|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||8.58|0.69|<0.05
91752634|NCT00740714|183397987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.62|0.31|<0.05
91752635|NCT00740714|183397988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9999.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|9999.99|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9999.99|2.77|<0.05
91804021|NCT02340975|183485899|OTHER|Comparison|Median Difference (Net)|2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|22.4|||Fisher Exact|||||22.4|-16.8|1.0000
91752636|NCT00740714|183397989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.12|||Fisher Exact||Odds ration \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.12|0.25|<0.05
91752637|NCT00740714|183397990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|8.01|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||8.01|0.64|<0.05
91752638|NCT00740714|183397991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.24|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio of \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||3.24|0.55|<0.05
91752639|NCT00740714|183397992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9999.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|9999.99|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9999.99|0.48|<0.05
91752640|NCT00740714|183397993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9999.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|9999.99|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9999.99|2.51|<0.05
91752641|NCT01049802|183398024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91752642|NCT01049802|183398025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91752643|NCT01049802|183398026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91752644|NCT01049802|183398027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91752645|NCT01049802|183398028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91752646|NCT03461406|183398126|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 4 Minutes (Parenchymous)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
91882904|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insight||0.0|-0.1|0.0961
91752647|NCT03461406|183398126|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeds 0.8|Relative risk|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 4 Minutes (Soft Tissue)||1.16|0.91|< 0.001
91752648|NCT03461406|183398127|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 7 Minutes (Parenchymous)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
91752649|NCT03461406|183398127|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 7 Minutes (Soft tissue)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
91752650|NCT03461406|183398128|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 10 Minutes (Parenchymous)||1.02|0.94|< 0.001
91752651|NCT03461406|183398128|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 10 Minutes (Soft tissue)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
91752652|NCT01969500|183398147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|6.96|||Linear mixed effects model||Mean difference (Intervention Arm - TAU) in change from baseline to 12 weeks|||6.96|-8.37|.85
91752653|NCT01969500|183398148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.06|||Linear mixed effects model||Mean difference (Intervention Arm - TAU) in change from baseline to 12 weeks|||2.06|-4.66|.44
91752654|NCT02193087|183398151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.36||||||DEN-1||0.36|0.23|
91752655|NCT02193087|183398151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.26||||||DEN-2||1.26|0.90|
91752656|NCT02193087|183398151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.89||||||DEN-3||1.89|1.13|
91752657|NCT02193087|183398151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.95||||||DEN-4||0.95|0.57|
91752658|NCT02741570|183398177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|97.51|0.59|1.03|||Log Rank|stratified regular log-rank test||||1.03|0.59|0.0469
91752659|NCT02741570|183398178|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.4951|TWO_SIDED|97.9|0.8|1.13|||Log Rank|stratified regular log-rank test||||1.13|0.80|0.4951
91752660|NCT02741570|183398179|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95||||||||0.95|0.68|
91752661|NCT02741570|183398180|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.63|||||All Randomized Participants|||1.63|1.19|
91752662|NCT02741570|183398180|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.3|||||All Randomized PD-L1 CPS \>= 20 Participants|||1.30|0.77|
91752663|NCT02741570|183398183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||||0.97|0.60|
91752664|NCT02741570|183398184|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.08||||||||1.08|0.82|
91752665|NCT00946322|183398191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.028
91752666|NCT00946322|183398192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests were used. Due to variable skewness, variables were logarithm-transformed to improve their distributions.||||.022
91752667|NCT00946322|183398193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.043
91752668|NCT00946322|183398194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.482
91752669|NCT00946322|183398195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.009
91752670|NCT00946322|183398196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.001
91752671|NCT00946322|183398197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.027
91752672|NCT00946322|183398198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.177
91752673|NCT01075971|183398199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.19||Analysis of variance with repeated measurements (daily scores from day 1 to day 5) for the whole set of patients was performed adjusted on the formulation (SL vs. FDT). Other independent factors were the subject and the day.|Analysis of variance|||||2.19|1.35|<0.0001
91752674|NCT01241760|183398200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in proportions was above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin of -11%, non-inferiority was established.|Difference in proportion of response, %|1.5||||||95.0|-4.9|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|The 95% confidence interval of the difference in proportions was estimated using a logistic regression model.|Observed data|||12|-4.9|
91752675|NCT01636713|183398209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.191|0.110|<0.001
91752676|NCT01636713|183398209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference= UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.257|0.175|<0.001
91752677|NCT02117349|183398217|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.8|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|401.0||Study was terminated early at 55 randomized subjects, therefore p-value is considered nominal|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) and Wald-based 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) are from logistic regression model comparing the response between treatment arms.||401.0|4.58|= 0.0010
91752678|NCT02033213|183398226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 10 minutes time point.||||0.410
91752679|NCT02033213|183398226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 6 hours time point.||||0.621
91752680|NCT02033213|183398227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 10 minutes time point.||||0.791
91752681|NCT02033213|183398227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 6 hours time point.||||0.410
91752682|NCT02033213|183398228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement aws assessed at 10 minutes time point.||||0.322
91752683|NCT02033213|183398228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 6 hours time point.||||0.574
91752684|NCT02033213|183398229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.030
91752685|NCT02033213|183398229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.096
91752686|NCT02033213|183398230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.362
91752687|NCT02033213|183398231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.020
91752688|NCT03474081|183398232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0167|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.128||The MMRM model included Baseline FEV1, visit, geographical region, and treatment as covariates and visit-by-Baseline FEV1 and visit-by-treatment interaction terms.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.128|0.062|<0.001
91752689|NCT03474081|183398233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0144|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.15||The MMRM model included Baseline FEV1, visit, geographical region, and treatment as covariates and visit-by-Baseline FEV1 and visit-by-treatment interaction terms.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.150|0.094|<0.001
91752690|NCT03474081|183398234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0159|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.118||The MMRM model included Baseline FEV1, visit, geographical region, and treatment as covariates and visit-by-Baseline FEV1 and visit-by-treatment interaction terms.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.118|0.056|<0.001
91752691|NCT01800318|183398283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||RM Anova of effects of treatment groups on PIPP scores: .|ANOVA|||||||0.07
91752692|NCT01800318|183398283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni correction||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in group with 24% sucrose and sham NESAP.||||<0.05
91752693|NCT01800318|183398283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni correction||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in group with NESAP and oral water.||||<0.01
91804022|NCT03948581|183485930|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of variance (ANCOVA) with group, treatment, and injection site as fixed effects and weight as a continuous covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9807|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9011|1.0675||||||||1.0675|0.9011|
91804023|NCT03948581|183485931|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with group, treatment, and injection site as fixed effects and weight as a continuous covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9981|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9223|1.0801||||||||1.0801|0.9223|
91804024|NCT03948581|183485932|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with group, treatment, and injection site as fixed effects and weight as a continuous covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9401|1.0719||||||||1.0719|0.9401|
91804025|NCT02498132|183485948|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model assuming a normal distribution, identity link function, and exchangeable correlation matrix was used to examine the interaction between time and treatment condition on BDI-II depressive symptoms adjusting for the main effects of baseline depressive symptoms, time, and treatment condition.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.05
91804026|NCT00730405|183485961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91882905|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insight||0.0|0.0|0.8290
91882906|NCT03672175|183659585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insight||0.0|0.0|0.9546
91804027|NCT00730405|183485961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804028|NCT00730405|183485961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804029|NCT00730405|183485961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804030|NCT00730405|183485962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804031|NCT00730405|183485962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91882907|NCT03672175|183659586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.4|-2.7|0.1308
91882908|NCT03672175|183659586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.5||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||-0.5|-3.5|0.0096
91752694|NCT01800318|183398283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni correction||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in group with 24% sucrose and NESAp combined.||||<0.05
91804032|NCT00730405|183485962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804033|NCT00730405|183485962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804034|NCT00730405|183485963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804035|NCT00730405|183485963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804036|NCT00730405|183485963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804037|NCT00730405|183485963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804038|NCT00730405|183485964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91752695|NCT01800318|183398283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in standard care group (Sham NESAP with oral water).||||<0.01
91752696|NCT01800318|183398284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
91752697|NCT01800318|183398285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
91752698|NCT01800318|183398287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|F4.048||||||0.008
91804039|NCT00730405|183485964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804040|NCT00730405|183485964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804041|NCT00730405|183485964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804042|NCT00730405|183485965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91882909|NCT03672175|183659586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.7||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.7|-0.7|0.2674
91882910|NCT03672175|183659586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.9771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||1.7|-1.7|0.9771
91882911|NCT03672175|183659587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sSL||6.4|-10.9|0.6110
91882912|NCT03672175|183659587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|0.3||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sSL||0.3|-16.2|0.0581
91882913|NCT03672175|183659587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.9||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sSL||6.9|-15.5|0.4493
91882914|NCT03672175|183659587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|8.6||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sSL||8.6|-16.0|0.5587
91882915|NCT03672175|183659587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.8||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sWASO||5.8|-10.1|0.5976
91882916|NCT03672175|183659587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|10.3||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sWASO||10.3|-9.6|0.9421
91752699|NCT00262847|183398288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.954||||0.448||95.0|0.844|1.078|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||1.078|0.844|0.448
91752700|NCT00262847|183398288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.765|||<|0.001||95.0|0.676|0.866|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||0.866|0.676|<0.001
91752701|NCT00262847|183398289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.069||||0.41||95.0|0.912|1.255|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||1.255|0.912|0.410
91752702|NCT00262847|183398289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.131||95.0|0.746|1.039|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||1.039|0.746|0.131
91752703|NCT03495102|183398331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.29|0.003
91752704|NCT03495102|183398331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.45|<0.001
91752705|NCT03495102|183398332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.4|0.001
91752706|NCT03495102|183398332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-2.1|<0.001
91752707|NCT03495102|183398333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.98|1.12|0.006
91752708|NCT03495102|183398333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.01|1.65|<0.001
91752709|NCT03495102|183398334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-7.8|0.084
91752710|NCT03495102|183398334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-12.3|<0.001
91752711|NCT03875664|183398359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91752712|NCT05065190|183398372|OTHER||Adjusted difference|106.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.13|260.28|||||Adjusted difference between treatment groups was based on a random slope and intercept model with fixed effects for treatment, HRCT pattern, and baseline FVC \[mL\], and including treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions.|||260.28|-47.13|
91752713|NCT03938324|183398381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.0034
91752714|NCT03938324|183398382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5137||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.5137
91882917|NCT03672175|183659587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.5581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|12.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sWASO||12.4|-6.7|0.5581
91882918|NCT03672175|183659587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.82||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|15.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sWASO||15.4|-7.5|0.4997
91882919|NCT03672175|183659587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|44.7||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sTST||44.7|3.4|0.0224
91882920|NCT03672175|183659587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.93||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|38.9||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sTST||38.9|-4.1|0.1117
91882921|NCT03672175|183659587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|42.0||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sTST||42.0|-13.8|0.3208
91882922|NCT03672175|183659587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|36.6||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sTST||36.6|-16.1|0.4440
91804043|NCT00730405|183485965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91804044|NCT00730405|183485965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91804045|NCT00730405|183485965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91804046|NCT00730405|183485966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804047|NCT00730405|183485966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804048|NCT00730405|183485966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804049|NCT00730405|183485966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804050|NCT00963937|183485967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.49||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.02|8.04||Multiplicity was not considered because the primary analysis included a single statistical comparison.|Chi-squared||Percent difference = sumatriptan pooled group minus the placebo group|||8.04|-23.02|0.345
91882923|NCT03672175|183659588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.1|-0.3|0.4737
91804051|NCT00181155|183486001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.007||95.0||||vs. baseline|Two-sided paired t tests|||||||<0.007
91804052|NCT00181155|183486002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||95.0||||vs. baseline|Two-sided paired t tests|||||||<0.02
91804053|NCT02572401|183486003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.21|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.21|.59|<.05
91804054|NCT02572401|183486003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.42|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||1.42|0.69|<.05
91804055|NCT02572401|183486003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.49|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||1.49|.35|<.05
91804056|NCT02572401|183486004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.18|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.18|0.92|<.05
91882924|NCT03672175|183659588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.0|-0.4|0.0138
91804057|NCT02572401|183486004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.16|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion.|The numerator is the treatment.|This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||1.16|0.90|<.05
91882925|NCT03672175|183659588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28||0.4|0.0|0.1098
91882926|NCT03672175|183659588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28||0.3|-0.2|0.6234
91882927|NCT03672175|183659589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.53||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||1.53|0.52|0.6741
91882928|NCT03672175|183659589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.36||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||1.36|0.46|0.3924
91882929|NCT03672175|183659589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.6||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 28||1.60|0.51|0.7307
91804058|NCT02572401|183486004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.42|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||1.42|0.86|<.05
91804059|NCT02572401|183486005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion.|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.24|0.89|<.05
91804060|NCT02572401|183486005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.3|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).||This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.|The numerator is the treatment.|1.30|0.94|<.05
91804061|NCT02572401|183486005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||1.47|0.76|<.05
91804062|NCT02572401|183486006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.48|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.48|0.73|<.05
91804063|NCT02572401|183486006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||1.45|0.71|<.05
91804064|NCT02572401|183486006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.08|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||2.08|.50|<.05
91804065|NCT02572401|183486007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).||The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||0.080|-0.078|<.05
91752715|NCT03938324|183398383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4107||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.4107
91804066|NCT02572401|183486007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.076|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).||This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||0.076|-0.082|<.05
91804067|NCT02572401|183486007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.149|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.||The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||0.149|-0.167|<.05
91804068|NCT01323959|183486008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|99.6|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|"The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, 1 month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.~Samples were analysed both with ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), and VERO-cell (African green monkey kidney cell) neutralisation testing."||99.6|89|
91804069|NCT01323959|183486008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.8|99.1|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||99.1|87.8|
91804070|NCT01323959|183486008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|100.0|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||100|94.8|
91804071|NCT01323959|183486010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|92.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|97.4|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to dose in study NCT01277705. Samples were analysed both with ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), and VERO-cell (African green monkey kidney cell) neutralisation testing.||97.4|82.4|
91804072|NCT01323959|183486010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|88.3|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||88.3|67.9|
91804073|NCT01323959|183486010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|84.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|91.8|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||91.8|73.3|
91804074|NCT01768286|183486026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91804075|NCT01768286|183486026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91804076|NCT01768286|183486026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91804077|NCT01768286|183486026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91804078|NCT00622284|183486047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis of non-inferiority is rejected if the upper bound of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval is less than 0.35%. Superiority testing was not part of the pre-specified Week 52 confirmatory analysis.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0005||97.5|0.13|0.31||Due to multiple testing of the primary endpoints at weeks 52 and 104 a Bonferroni correction was applied and 97.5% confidence intervals produced. This 1-sided p-value for non-inferiority should be compared to the 1-sided threshold of 0.0125.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.31|0.13|0.0005
91882930|NCT03672175|183659589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.7||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 28||1.70|0.52|0.8358
91882931|NCT03672175|183659590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.7375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: PCS Score||1.2|-1.6|0.7375
91882932|NCT03672175|183659590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.5144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: PCS Score||1.0|-1.9|0.5144
91882933|NCT03672175|183659590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.8343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: PCS Score||1.4|-1.7|0.8343
91882934|NCT03672175|183659590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.4569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: PCS Score||2.3|-1.0|0.4569
91804079|NCT00622284|183486048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis of non-inferiority is rejected if the upper bound of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval is less than 0.35%. However, superiority testing is only applicable if the Linagliptin decrease is greater than that in Glimepiride.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0004||97.5|0.09|0.3||This 1-sided p-value should be compared to the 1-sided threshold of 0.0125 for non-inferiority. Due to the pre-specified hierarchial approach, further confirmatory analysis on the Week24 endpoints is only applicable if superiority is already met.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.30|0.09|0.0004
91804080|NCT00622284|183486049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001||97.5|-2.91|-2.09||This Week52 key secondary endpoint was only to be tested (2-sided threshold of 0.025 to allow for multiple testing within a visit) if the Week52 primary hypothesis was rejected.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||-2.09|-2.91|<0.0001
91804081|NCT00622284|183486050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||97.5|-3.17|-2.19||Due to testing of multiple endpoints within a visit a sequential testing strategy (at 2-sided threshold of 0.025) was applied to the key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||-2.19|-3.17|<0.0001
91804082|NCT00622284|183486051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This key secondary endpoint was only to be tested (comparing to a 2-sided threshold of 0.025) if the Week52 body weight change from baseline was confirmatory.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||||<0.0001
91804083|NCT00622284|183486052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Due to testing of multiple endpoints within a visit a sequential testing strategy (at 2-sided threshold of 0.025) was applied to the key secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||||<0.0001
91804084|NCT00622284|183486053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001||95.0|3.51|10.16|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||10.16|3.51|<0.0001
91804085|NCT00622284|183486054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0012||95.0|2.51|10.25|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||10.25|2.51|0.0012
91804086|NCT00622284|183486055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.625||||0.0004||95.0|0.482|0.811|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.811|0.482|0.0004
91804087|NCT00622284|183486056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.654||||0.003||95.0|0.494|0.866|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.866|0.494|0.0030
91804088|NCT00622284|183486057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.648||||0.0025||95.0|0.489|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.859|0.489|0.0025
91804089|NCT00622284|183486058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.689||||0.024||95.0|0.498|0.952|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.952|0.498|0.0240
91804090|NCT00622284|183486059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0018||95.0|0.56|0.875|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.875|0.560|0.0018
91804091|NCT00622284|183486060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.0918||95.0|-21.07|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||1.59|-21.07|0.0918
91804092|NCT02935842|183486076|OTHER|||||||||||||||||First Reliable Change (RC), Reliable Change Index (RCI) were calculated on every individual score. Further, ANOVAs and t-tests were administered in order to verify differences between groups or interventions. Significance levels were set at p \< .05.|Reliable Change / Reliable Change Index according to Jacobson \& Truax (1991). There, on the basis of every individual score, the change in performance (i.e. BL-4Weeks/ BL-6Months) has been calculated and is reported with level of significance as well as effect size.|||
91804093|NCT02935842|183486076|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
91804094|NCT02935842|183486080|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
91804095|NCT02935842|183486082|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
91804096|NCT02774954|183486083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
91804097|NCT02774954|183486084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
91804098|NCT01552694|183486101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Unadjusted p-value compares the change (week 8 - baseline) for plasma hsCRP between the 2 groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91804099|NCT01552694|183486102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Unadjusted analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91804100|NCT01552694|183486103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Unadjusted analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91804101|NCT03338010|183486106|NON_INFERIORITY|0.40% noninferiority margin was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.19|0.545
91804102|NCT03338010|183486107|NON_INFERIORITY|0.40% noninferiority margin was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.19|0.545
91804103|NCT03338010|183486108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Morning Meal Glucose||4.8|-2.8|0.602
91804104|NCT03338010|183486108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Morning Meal Glucose||4.4|-11.8|0.373
91804105|NCT03338010|183486108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Mid-Day Meal Glucose||3.7|-10.3|0.351
91804106|NCT03338010|183486108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal Glucose||12.8|-3.1|0.230
91804107|NCT03338010|183486108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Evening Meal Glucose||8.5|-6.7|0.819
91804108|NCT03338010|183486108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Evening Meal Glucose||10.9|-6.2|0.588
91804109|NCT03338010|183486108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime Glucose||9.5|-6.7|0.732
91752716|NCT03938324|183398384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1708||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.1708
91752717|NCT03938324|183398385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7982||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.7982
91752718|NCT05160766|183398419|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|12.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.661||0.03143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|23.946|||ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.||23.946|1.168|0.03143
91752719|NCT05160766|183398419|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.671||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.621|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.||7.621|1.04|0.0101
91752720|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|12.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.04405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|23.998|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|23.998|0.338|0.04405
91752721|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|14.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.767||0.01744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|25.814|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|25.814|2.61|0.01744
91752722|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|14.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.932||0.02039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.305|26.173|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|26.173|2.305|0.02039
91752723|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|9.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.636||0.04989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|18.656|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|18.656|0.005|0.04989
91752724|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|10.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.373||0.02259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.514|19.111|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|19.111|1.514|0.02259
91752725|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|11.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.634||0.01583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.279|20.924|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|20.924|2.279|0.01583
91752726|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|11.863|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.323||0.00856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.166|20.56|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|20.56|3.166|0.00856
91752727|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.244||0.00258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|11.249|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|11.249|2.41|0.00258
91752728|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.244||0.00748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|10.466|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|10.466|1.63|0.00748
91752729|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|7.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.782||0.00922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.821|12.782|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|12.782|1.821|0.00922
91752730|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.07136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|10.001|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|10.001|-0.419|0.07136
91752731|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.196||0.07218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|8.29|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|8.29|-0.36|0.07218
91752732|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.202||0.02949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|9.155|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|9.155|0.484|0.02949
91752733|NCT05160766|183398420|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.263||0.08403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|8.382|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|8.382|-0.531|0.08403
91752734|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.42797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.475|31.145|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|31.145|-13.475|0.42797
91752735|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.575||0.73961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|24.929|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|24.929|-17.85|0.73961
91752736|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.683||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.524|29.695|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|29.695|-13.524|0.45370
91804110|NCT03338010|183486109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.846
91804111|NCT03338010|183486110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.098
91882935|NCT03672175|183659590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.4||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: MCS Score||4.4|-2.0|0.4663
91882936|NCT03672175|183659590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.0||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: MCS Score||6.0|-0.6|0.1138
91752737|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.187||0.87323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.969|22.241|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|22.241|-18.969|0.87323
91882937|NCT03672175|183659590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.7901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.9||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: MCS Score||3.9|-3.0|0.7901
91882938|NCT03672175|183659590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.8||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: MCS Score||4.8|-1.9|0.3955
91752738|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.848||0.93489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.109|20.728|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis relfects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|20.728|-19.109|0.93489
91752739|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.845||0.74784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.425|25.448|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|25.448|-18.425|0.74784
91752740|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.409||0.84202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.966|23.143|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|23.143|-18.966|0.84202
91752741|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.068||0.15477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.207|13.821|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|13.821|-2.207|0.15477
91752742|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.984||0.37773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.327|11.368|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|11.368|-4.327|0.37773
91752743|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.413|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18||0.29212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.821|12.647|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|12.647|-3.821|0.29212
91752744|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.1414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.998|13.919|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|13.919|-1.998|0.14140
91752745|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.875||0.5709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.434|9.832|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|9.832|-5.434|0.57090
91882939|NCT03672175|183659591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||1.5|-1.8|0.8821
91882940|NCT03672175|183659591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.4||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.4|-2.8|0.1510
91752746|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.071||0.11012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.491|14.548|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|14.548|-1.491|0.11012
91752747|NCT05160766|183398423|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.29755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.759|12.237|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|12.237|-3.759|0.29755
91752748|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.191||0.39426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.995|32.275|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.2 (gamma)."|32.275|-12.995|0.39426
91804112|NCT03338010|183486111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Pre-meal Standard Deviation||2.42|-1.78|0.767
91882941|NCT03672175|183659591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.2926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.5||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.5|-0.8|0.2926
91882942|NCT03672175|183659591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.4785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||1.0|-2.2|0.4785
91882943|NCT01313624|183659626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|0.8||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.7||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||4.7|-3.1|0.68
91882944|NCT01313624|183659627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|1.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.6||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||5.6|-3.0|0.56
91882945|NCT03599622|183659629|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|19.5||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||19.5|-11.0|0.5812
91882946|NCT03599622|183659629|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||2.5|0.6|0.5812
91882947|NCT03599622|183659629|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|7.6||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||7.6|-20.2|0.3720
91882948|NCT03599622|183659629|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||1.5|0.3|0.3720
91882949|NCT03599622|183659630|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|26.3||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||26.3|3.7|0.0198
91882950|NCT03599622|183659630|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||9.8|1.2|0.0198
91882951|NCT03599622|183659630|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|19.0||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||19.0|-2.6|0.1584
91882952|NCT03599622|183659630|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.1||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||6.1|0.7|0.1584
91882953|NCT03599622|183659631|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.3464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|23.6||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||23.6|-8.2|0.3464
91882954|NCT03599622|183659631|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.3464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||2.8|0.7|0.3464
91882955|NCT03599622|183659631|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|14.7||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||14.7|-17.0|0.8857
91882956|NCT03599622|183659631|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.9||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||1.9|0.5|0.8857
91752749|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.765||0.42055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.011|30.539|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617."|30.539|-13.011|0.42055
91804113|NCT03338010|183486111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Daily Mean Standard Deviation||3.3|-2.5|0.781
91882957|NCT03599622|183659632|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|22.9||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||22.9|-6.7|0.2841
91882958|NCT03599622|183659632|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||3.1|0.7|0.2841
91882959|NCT03599622|183659632|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|9.2||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||9.2|-17.6|0.5417
91882960|NCT03599622|183659632|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||1.8|0.3|0.5417
91882961|NCT03599622|183659633|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change From Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-4.3|
91804114|NCT03338010|183486112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-1.2|0.750
91882962|NCT03599622|183659633|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted means, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an analysis of covariance model with factors for geographic region, prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, and concomitant corticosteroid use, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.1||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||-0.1|-3.7|0.0428
91882963|NCT03599622|183659633|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change from Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-4.8|
91882964|NCT03599622|183659633|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted means, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an analysis of covariance model with factors for geographic region, prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, and concomitant corticosteroid use, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.4||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||-0.4|-4.1|0.0177
91882965|NCT03599622|183659633|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change From Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3||||||||0.3|-2.6|
91882966|NCT03599622|183659633|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change from Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-9.7|
91882967|NCT02654132|183659634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.32|0.0043
91882968|NCT02654132|183659635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|10.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.43|2.05|0.0002
91882969|NCT02654132|183659636|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.37|0.0217
91882970|NCT02485899|183659637|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.33|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||||0.33|0.06|<0.0001
91882971|NCT02485899|183659638|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||||||<0.0001
91882972|NCT00623363|183659652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503|||||||Monte Carlo estimates|||Baseline (Day -7)||||0.503
91752750|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.953||0.44391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.683|30.627|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.1 (kappa)."|30.627|-13.683|0.44391
91752751|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.82||0.43775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.402|30.368|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.3 (delta)."|30.368|-13.402|0.43775
91752752|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.892||0.53511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.819|26.2|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.4.2 (delta)."|26.2|-13.819|0.53511
91752753|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.801||0.67576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.295|26.399|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.3."|26.399|-17.295|0.67576
91752754|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.168||0.45443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|31.027|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.526.1 (iota)."|31.027|-14.15|0.45443
91752755|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.218||0.38904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.768|29.569|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452M (omicron)."|29.569|-11.768|0.38904
91752756|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|7.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.47466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.147|27.751|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452R (omicron)."|27.751|-13.147|0.47466
91752757|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.824||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.993|22.749|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.12.1 (omicron)."|22.749|-16.993|0.77110
91752758|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.753||||0.86646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.195|22.701|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75 (omicron)."|22.701|-19.195|0.86646
91882973|NCT00623363|183659652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|39.37||||||Average of Days 1 and 2||39.37|1.82|
91882974|NCT00623363|183659652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.18|22.37||||||Change from Baseline||22.37|-15.18|
91882975|NCT00623363|183659652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|36.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.04|49.14||||||Average of Days 1 and 2||49.14|24.04|
91882976|NCT00623363|183659652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|19.59||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|32.14|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline||32.14|7.04|0.160
91882977|NCT04706793|183659668|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|38.82||||||||38.82|-3.10|
91882978|NCT04706793|183659669|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.28|50.86||||||||50.86|6.28|
91882979|NCT04706793|183659670|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|54.71||||||||54.71|9.58|
91882980|NCT04706793|183659671|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|42.92||||||||42.92|-0.07|
91882981|NCT04706793|183659672|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|38.82||||||||38.82|-3.10|
91882982|NCT04706793|183659673|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|16.68||||||||16.68|-2.40|
91882983|NCT00823836|183659674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of ropinirole PR/XR tablets to ropinirole IR tablets was assessed with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5.|Median Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.09||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: value of change from Week 0 at Week 24 = treatment group + Week 0 value|ANCOVA|||||2.09|-1.41|0.702
91882984|NCT01130168|183659736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-10.9|||ANOVA|||||-10.9|-15.3|<0.0005
91882985|NCT01130168|183659736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.6|||ANOVA|||||-0.6|-4.9|0.016
91882986|NCT01130168|183659737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.3|||ANOVA|||||4.3|-1.7|0.407
91882987|NCT01130168|183659737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-2.9|||ANOVA|||||-2.9|-8.9|<0.0005
91752759|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.705||0.57972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|25.049|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75.2 (omicron)."|25.049|-14.21|0.57972
91752760|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.408||0.90166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.859|20.199|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.3 (omicron)."|20.199|-17.859|0.90166
91752761|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.44||0.92279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.099|22.136|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BF.7 (omicron)."|22.136|-20.099|0.92279
91752762|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.496||0.71191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.675|22.74|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1 (omicron)."|22.74|-15.675|0.71191
91752763|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.755||0.73415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.714|20.703|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1.1 (omicron)."|20.703|-14.714|0.73415
91752764|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|7.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.548||0.45798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.155|26.469|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant XBB.1 (omicron)."|26.469|-12.155|0.45798
91752765|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.819|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.055||0.23582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.169|12.808|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.2 (gamma)."|12.808|-3.169|0.23582
91752766|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.074||0.19354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.713|13.337|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617."|13.337|-2.713|0.19354
91752767|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155||0.17033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.471|13.899|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.1 (kappa)."|13.899|-2.471|0.17033
91752768|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.997||0.13895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|13.808|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.3 (delta)."|13.808|-1.94|0.13895
91752769|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.812||0.26924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.288|11.732|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.4.2 (delta)."|11.732|-3.288|0.26924
91752770|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.996||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.382|13.362|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.3."|13.362|-2.382|0.17080
91752771|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.188||0.18502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.683|13.818|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.526.1 (iota)."|13.818|-2.683|0.18502
91752772|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.938||0.38344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.318|11.195|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452M (omicron)."|11.195|-4.318|0.38344
91752773|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.982||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.565|11.124|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452R (omicron)."|11.124|-4.565|0.41100
91752774|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.014||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.237|10.577|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.12.1 (omicron)."|10.577|-5.237|0.50660
91882988|NCT01130168|183659738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-10.1|||ANOVA|||||-10.1|-21.2|<0.0005
91882989|NCT01130168|183659738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-6.3|||ANOVA|||||-6.3|-17.4|0.001
91882990|NCT01130168|183659739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-9.5|0.186
91882991|NCT01130168|183659739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-10.5|||ANOVA|||||-10.5|-21.7|<0.0005
91882992|NCT01130168|183659740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-6.4|||ANOVA|||||-6.4|-12.1|<0.0005
91882993|NCT01130168|183659740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.3|||ANOVA|||||-0.3|-6.0|0.035
91882994|NCT01130168|183659741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.6|||ANOVA|||||2.6|-6.1|0.428
91882995|NCT01130168|183659741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-4.5|||ANOVA|||||-4.5|-13.1|<0.0005
91882996|NCT01130168|183659742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-10.0|||ANOVA|||||-10.0|-17.5|<0.0005
91882997|NCT01130168|183659742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-1.0|||ANOVA|||||-1.0|-8.5|0.015
91882998|NCT01130168|183659743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.0|-9.9|0.112
91882999|NCT01130168|183659743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-9.8|||ANOVA|||||-9.8|-20.7|<0.0005
91883000|NCT01130168|183659744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-6.2|||ANOVA|||||-6.2|-11.8|<0.0005
91883001|NCT01130168|183659744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-5.8|0.039
91752775|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.242||0.28604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|12.891|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75 (omicron)."|12.891|-3.82|0.28604
91752776|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.11715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.582|14.1|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75.2 (omicron)."|14.1|-1.582|0.11715
91752777|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.957||0.33567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.978|11.613|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.3 (omicron)."|11.613|-3.978|0.33567
91752778|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.775|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.022||0.15232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.147|13.697|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BF.7 (omicron)."|13.697|-2.147|0.15232
91752779|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.808|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.21234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.766|12.383|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1 (omicron)."|12.383|-2.766|0.21234
91752780|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.22687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.866|12.026|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1.1 (omicron)."|12.026|-2.866|0.22687
91752781|NCT05160766|183398428|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.047||0.38832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.475|11.47|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant XBB.1 (omicron)."|11.47|-4.475|0.38832
91752782|NCT02408523|183398444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|0.774||Wald's method was used to calculate the p-value, Hazard Ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs).|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of LCM versus Placebo was based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with an effect for treatment, stratifying for the following combinations of study participants' Baseline PGTCS frequency and Development from interactive response technology (IRT) (\<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Pediatric, \<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Adult, and \> 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period). The reference group was Placebo.||0.774|0.377|<0.001
91752783|NCT02408523|183398445|SUPERIORITY||KM seizure free of LCM vs Placebo|14.1|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|25.1||Superiority of LCM vs Placebo p-value was based on a chi-square test on 1 degree of freedom.|Mantel Haenszel||Stratified difference in proportion of subjects who are seizure-free from PGTCS on Lacosamide (FAS) vs Placebo (FAS).|The key secondary efficacy variable was evaluated using an extended Mantel-Haenszel testing procedure. Baseline PGTCS Frequency from Combined Baseline and development (age from interactive response technology (IRT)) were calculated from IRT.||25.1|3.2|=0.011
91752784|NCT02408523|183398446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|0.921||Wald's method was used to calculate the p-value, Hazard Ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs).|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of LCM versus Placebo was based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with an effect for treatment, stratifying for the following combinations of study participants' Baseline PGTCS frequency and Development from interactive response technology (IRT) (\<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Pediatric, \<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Adult, and \> 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period). The reference group was Placebo.||0.921|0.507|=0.012
91752785|NCT00996801|183398461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.96||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.35||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.35|-3.58|0.012
91752786|NCT00996801|183398461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.81||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-0.25||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.25|-3.37|0.019
91752787|NCT00996801|183398461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.82||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-0.41||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.41|-3.23|0.019
91752788|NCT00996801|183398462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.38|-3.90|<0.001
91752789|NCT00996801|183398462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-1.4||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.40|-3.83|<0.001
91752790|NCT00996801|183398462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-1.02||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.02|-3.22|<0.001
91752791|NCT00996801|183398462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.74||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.52||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.52|-1.99|0.376
91752792|NCT00996801|183398462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.71||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.5||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.50|-1.93|0.376
91752793|NCT00996801|183398462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.22||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.88||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.88|-1.32|0.699
91804115|NCT03338010|183486113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-1.2|0.750
91804116|NCT03338010|183486114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.6|<0.001
91804117|NCT03338010|183486115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Inconvenience of Regimen Transformed Score||1.82|-3.72|0.500
91804118|NCT03338010|183486115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.99||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lifestyle Flexibility Transformed Score||-0.36|-7.62|0.031
91752794|NCT00996801|183398463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.64||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.64|-3.43|0.002
91752795|NCT00996801|183398463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.29||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.09||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.09|-2.48|0.035
91752796|NCT00996801|183398463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.76||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-0.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.38|-3.14|0.009
91752797|NCT00996801|183398463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.86||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.54||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.54|-2.26|0.335
91752798|NCT00996801|183398463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.11||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.08||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.08|-1.30|0.857
91752799|NCT00996801|183398463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.59||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.79||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.79|-1.96|0.542
91752800|NCT00996801|183398464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-1.57||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.57|-4.91|<0.001
91752801|NCT00996801|183398464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-1.57||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.57|-4.78|<0.001
91752802|NCT00996801|183398464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.74||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.74|-4.66|<0.001
91752803|NCT00996801|183398464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.27||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.4||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.40|-2.93|0.180
91752804|NCT00996801|183398464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.4||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.40|-2.81|0.180
91752805|NCT00996801|183398464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.22||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.23||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.23|-2.68|0.180
91752806|NCT00996801|183398465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.54||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.54|-2.18|0.001
91752807|NCT00996801|183398465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-0.55||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.55|-2.46|0.001
91804119|NCT03338010|183486115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.79||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypoglycemic Control Transformed Score||0.95|-4.53|0.200
91804120|NCT03338010|183486115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Glycemic Control Transformed Score||2.88|-2.92|0.988
91804121|NCT03338010|183486115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.45||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insulin Delivery Device Satisfaction Transformed Score||1.51|-4.41|0.337
91804122|NCT03338010|183486115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITSQ Overall Total||0.92|-4.26|0.205
91804123|NCT03338010|183486116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.639
91804124|NCT03338010|183486117|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio|1.19||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.92|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.92|0.74|0.143
91804125|NCT03338010|183486117|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio|1.22||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.23|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.23|0.67|0.945
91804126|NCT00758836|183486118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.7|32.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomial distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||32.2|16.7|<0.001
91883002|NCT01130168|183659745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-6.6|0.267
91752808|NCT00996801|183398465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.91||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.91|-2.93|<0.001
91752809|NCT00996801|183398465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.37||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.46||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.46|-1.21|0.383
91883003|NCT01130168|183659745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.3|||ANOVA|||||-4.3|-12.7|<0.0005
91883004|NCT02804399|183659786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|14.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.78|17.01||||||Mixed model was fitted to obtain ratio of geometric means of Rifampin 600 mg QD + PF-06463922 100 mg SD (test) to PF-06463922 100 mg SD (reference) and the results are presented as percentage. 90% CI was calculated on ratio of geometric means.||17.01|12.78|
91752810|NCT00996801|183398465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.52||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.45||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.45|-1.49|0.383
91752811|NCT00996801|183398465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.94||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.09||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.09|-1.96|0.084
91752812|NCT00996801|183398466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.47||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.94|-1.88|0.680
91752813|NCT00996801|183398466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.28||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.28|-1.30|0.993
91752814|NCT00996801|183398466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.46||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.46|-2.67|0.230
91752815|NCT00996801|183398466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.84||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.61||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.61|-2.29|0.333
91752816|NCT00996801|183398466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.37||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.94|-1.69|0.577
91752817|NCT00996801|183398466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.47||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.12||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.12|-3.07|0.078
91752818|NCT00996801|183398467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.99||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|0.25||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.25|-4.22|0.094
91752819|NCT00996801|183398467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.66||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.5||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.50|-3.82|0.157
91752820|NCT00996801|183398467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.57||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|0.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.38|-3.53|0.157
91752821|NCT00996801|183398467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.43||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.76||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.76|-2.61|0.937
91883005|NCT02804399|183659787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|23.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.58|26.43||||||Mixed model was fitted to obtain ratio of geometric means of Rifampin 600 mg QD + PF-06463922 100 mg SD (test) to PF-06463922 100 mg SD (reference) and the results are presented as percentage. 90% CI was calculated on ratio of geometric means.||26.43|21.58|
91883006|NCT02804399|183659788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|13.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.09|16.12||||||Mixed model was fitted to obtain ratio of geometric means of Rifampin 600 mg QD + PF-06463922 100 mg SD (test) to PF-06463922 100 mg SD (reference) and the results are presented as percentage. 90% CI was calculated on ratio of geometric means.||16.12|12.09|
91883007|NCT00691678|183659889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis measures whether there is a statistically significant change, at the 5% significance level, between the mean WOMAC score among study participants at baseline and at week 24.||||0.004
91883008|NCT02188784|183659891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.03||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.38|76.43|||Regression, Linear|||||76.43|-34.38|0.4570
91883009|NCT02188784|183659892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.9487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.12|22.59|||Regression, Linear|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||22.59|-24.12|0.9487
91804127|NCT00758836|183486118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.6|35.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||35.8|19.6|<0.001
91804128|NCT00758836|183486118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.6|28.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||28.2|12.6|<0.001
91804129|NCT00758836|183486118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion differenece|4.2||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|13.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||13.3|-5.0|0.449
91883010|NCT02188784|183659892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.67||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.71|6.37|||Regression, Linear|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||6.37|-31.71|0.1921
91883011|NCT02188784|183659893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|182.43||||0.4296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.14|637.0|||Regression, Linear|||||637.0|-272.14|0.4296
91908290|NCT00105443|183711897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5764||||7e-06||95.0|0.4484|0.741|||Log Rank||This is the sorafenib to placebo hazard ratio.|"In the analysis of TTP, based on independent radiological review performed to review data up to 12 May 2006, the 2 treatment groups were compared using a 1-sided log rank test with an alpha of 0.025, stratified by region, ECOG PS, and tumor burden."||0.7410|0.4484|0.000007
91908291|NCT00105443|183711898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.95||||0.001641||95.0|-19.56|-4.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sorafenib minus placebo difference|"Disease control rates were compared between treatment groups using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with a 1-sided alpha of 0.025, adjusting for region, ECOG PS, and tumor burden."||-4.35|-19.56|0.001641
91752822|NCT00996801|183398467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|2.01||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.01|-2.21|0.992
91752823|NCT00996801|183398467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.01||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.9||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.90|-1.93|0.992
91752824|NCT00996801|183398468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.47||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.56||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.56|-2.50|0.824
91752825|NCT00996801|183398468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.42||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.43||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.43|-2.28|0.824
91752826|NCT00996801|183398468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.96||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.31||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.31|-3.23|0.624
91752827|NCT00996801|183398468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.78||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.82||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.82|-1.25|0.700
91752828|NCT00996801|183398468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.83||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|3.06||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||3.06|-1.39|0.700
91752829|NCT00996801|183398468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.3||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.19||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.19|-1.60|0.759
91752830|NCT00996801|183398469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.22||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.15|6.72||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||6.72|-39.15|0.227
91804130|NCT00758836|183486118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|17.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||17.1|-1.8|0.182
91804131|NCT00758836|183486119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|40.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.9|49.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||49.0|31.9|<0.001
91883012|NCT02188784|183659894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|7.52|||Regression, Linear|||Change from baseline to week 8||7.52|-0.33|0.0722
91883013|NCT02188784|183659894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.6927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|4.24|||Regression, Linear|||Change from baseline to week 16||4.24|-2.83|0.6927
91883014|NCT02188784|183659895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|7.33|||Regression, Linear|||||7.33|-0.21|0.0643
91883015|NCT02188784|183659896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.58|||Regression, Linear|||||2.58|-1.04|0.4006
91883016|NCT01568112|183659906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|12.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||12.9|-30.8|
91883017|NCT01568112|183659906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||27.8|-14.1|
91908292|NCT03187769|183711905|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.87||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-.41|-3.33|.012
91908293|NCT01623271|183711911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91883018|NCT01568112|183659906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|12.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall redness events||12.9|-30.8|
91883019|NCT01568112|183659906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|25.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall redness events||25.5|-16.4|
91883020|NCT01568112|183659906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall tingling events||1.3|-41.7|
91883021|NCT01568112|183659906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|18.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall tingling events||18.7|-23.3|
91883022|NCT01568112|183659906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall itching events||8.3|-35.2|
91883023|NCT01568112|183659906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|32.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall itching events||32.2|-9.5|
91883024|NCT01568112|183659906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|12.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall warmth events||12.9|-30.8|
91804132|NCT00758836|183486119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.5|48.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||48.5|30.5|<0.001
91804133|NCT00758836|183486119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.1||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|14.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||14.9|-2.9|0.265
91883025|NCT01568112|183659906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|25.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall warmth events||25.5|-16.4|
91883026|NCT01568112|183659907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||8.3|-35.2|
91883027|NCT01568112|183659907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|32.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||32.2|-9.5|
91883028|NCT01568112|183659907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|3.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||3.7|-39.6|
91883029|NCT01568112|183659907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||27.8|-14.1|
91883030|NCT01568112|183659907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||1.3|-41.7|
91883031|NCT01568112|183659907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||27.8|-14.1|
91883032|NCT01568112|183659907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-10.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||-10.6|-52.2|
91883033|NCT01568112|183659907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|21.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||21.0|-21.0|
91883034|NCT01568112|183659907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||1.3|-41.7|
91883035|NCT01568112|183659907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|38.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||38.8|-2.4|
91883036|NCT01568112|183659908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|9.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||9.2|-35.6|
91883037|NCT01568112|183659908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|21.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||21.7|-24.7|
91883038|NCT01568112|183659908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|9.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||9.2|-35.6|
91883039|NCT01568112|183659908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|23.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||23.7|-22.9|
91883040|NCT01568112|183659908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|11.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||11.9|-33.0|
91883041|NCT01568112|183659908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|18.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||18.8|-27.5|
91883042|NCT01568112|183659908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|6.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||6.5|-38.1|
91883043|NCT01568112|183659908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|12.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||12.2|-34.2|
91883044|NCT01568112|183659908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|3.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||3.8|-40.6|
91883045|NCT01568112|183659908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|5.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||5.5|-40.2|
91883046|NCT01568112|183659909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||-0.9|-3.0|
91883047|NCT01568112|183659909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||2.3|0.2|
91883048|NCT01568112|183659909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||-1.2|-3.2|
91752831|NCT00996801|183398469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.85||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|21.61||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||21.61|-17.90|0.853
91752832|NCT00996801|183398469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.14||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.67|9.39||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||9.39|-35.67|0.327
91752833|NCT00996801|183398469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.74||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.91|18.43||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||18.43|-23.91|0.940
91752834|NCT00996801|183398469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|15.33||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|38.52||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||38.52|-7.86|0.273
91752835|NCT00996801|183398469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.33||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|19.9||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||19.90|-19.23|0.973
91752836|NCT00996801|183398470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.29||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.29|-2.66|0.010
91752837|NCT00996801|183398470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.14||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.01||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.01|-2.29|0.053
91752838|NCT00996801|183398470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.11||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.11|-2.19|0.053
91752839|NCT00996801|183398470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.58||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.6||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.60|-1.77|0.509
91752840|NCT00996801|183398470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.25||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.77||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.77|-1.27|0.843
91752841|NCT00996801|183398470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.26||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.92||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.92|-1.43|0.843
91752842|NCT00996801|183398471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|86.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.87|108.29||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||108.29|64.87|<0.001
91752843|NCT00996801|183398471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|82.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|101.66||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||101.66|63.00|<0.001
91752844|NCT00996801|183398471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|107.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.03|133.23||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||133.23|82.03|<0.001
91804134|NCT00758836|183486119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.2||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|14.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||14.5|-4.2|0.362
91752845|NCT00996801|183398471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|22.87||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|49.68||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||49.68|-3.80|0.104
91752846|NCT00996801|183398471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|18.68||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|42.56||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||42.56|-5.11|0.123
91752847|NCT00996801|183398471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|43.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.85|75.06||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||75.06|12.85|0.003
91883049|NCT01568112|183659909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||2.5|0.1|
91883050|NCT01568112|183659909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||-0.7|-2.8|
91804135|NCT00758836|183486119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.3|43.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||43.4|25.3|<0.001
91804136|NCT00293033|183486122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|16.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|The SPID was analyzed using a mixed model of repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, pooled site, and a random effect for subjects.|Onsolis minus placebo|||16.18|3.31|0.004
91804137|NCT00293033|183486123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.91|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.91|-0.40|0.440
91804138|NCT00293033|183486124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.33|-0.44|0.179
91804139|NCT00293033|183486125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.61|0.04|0.047
91804140|NCT00293033|183486126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|30.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.86|8.50|<0.001
91804141|NCT00293033|183486127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.85|48.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.12|15.85|<0.001
91804142|NCT00293033|183486128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.517|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.517
91804143|NCT00293033|183486129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.458|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.458
91804144|NCT00293033|183486130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.223
91804145|NCT00293033|183486131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
91804146|NCT00293033|183486132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91804147|NCT00293033|183486133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91804148|NCT00293033|183486134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.193
91804149|NCT00293033|183486135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.113
91883051|NCT01568112|183659909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||2.3|0.1|
91804150|NCT00293033|183486136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.192
91804151|NCT00293033|183486137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91804152|NCT00293033|183486138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91804153|NCT00293033|183486139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91804154|NCT00293033|183486140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
91804155|NCT00293033|183486141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
91804156|NCT00293033|183486142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
91804157|NCT00293033|183486143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91804158|NCT00293033|183486144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91804159|NCT00293033|183486145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91804160|NCT00293033|183486146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91804161|NCT00293033|183486147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91804162|NCT00293033|183486148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91804163|NCT00293033|183486149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
91804164|NCT00293033|183486150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.498|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.498
91804165|NCT00293033|183486151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
91804166|NCT00293033|183486152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
91804167|NCT00293033|183486153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.963|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.963
91804168|NCT00293033|183486154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91804169|NCT00293033|183486155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91804170|NCT00293033|183486156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91804171|NCT00293033|183486157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.100
91804172|NCT00293033|183486158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91804173|NCT00293033|183486159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91804174|NCT00293033|183486160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91804175|NCT00293033|183486161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91804176|NCT00293033|183486162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91804177|NCT00293033|183486163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.750
91804178|NCT00293033|183486164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91804179|NCT00293033|183486165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
91804180|NCT00293033|183486166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91804181|NCT00293033|183486167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91883052|NCT01568112|183659909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||-0.9|-2.7|
91883053|NCT01568112|183659909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||1.6|-0.4|
91908294|NCT00393887|183711943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Two-sided Fisher's exact test||||0.11
91883054|NCT01568112|183659909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||-1.0|-2.8|
91883055|NCT01568112|183659909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||2.2|0.2|
91883056|NCT01568112|183659910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||0.8|-1.7|
91883057|NCT01568112|183659910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||0.4|-1.8|
91883058|NCT01568112|183659910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||0.6|-2.0|
91883059|NCT01568112|183659910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||0.5|-1.9|
91908295|NCT02459795|183711988|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|12.92|||Yates correction|||||12.92|-7.00|
91752848|NCT00996801|183398472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|187.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|154.44|221.25||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||221.25|154.44|<0.001
91752849|NCT00996801|183398472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|200.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|161.21|240.91||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||240.91|161.21|<0.001
91752850|NCT00996801|183398472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|224.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|180.19|270.39||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||270.39|180.19|<0.001
91752851|NCT00996801|183398472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|48.29||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|93.11||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||93.11|3.75|0.034
91752852|NCT00996801|183398472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|61.27||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|114.22||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||114.22|8.80|0.019
91752853|NCT00996801|183398472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|85.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|144.63||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||144.63|26.70|0.002
91752854|NCT00996801|183398473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|133.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.01|156.75||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||156.75|110.01|<0.001
91883060|NCT01568112|183659910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||0.4|-2.0|
91883061|NCT01568112|183659910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||0.2|-2.1|
91883062|NCT01568112|183659910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||0.1|-2.2|
91883063|NCT01568112|183659910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||-0.0|-2.2|
91883064|NCT01568112|183659910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||0.4|-2.1|
91883065|NCT01568112|183659910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||-0.1|-2.4|
91883066|NCT01568112|183659911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|9.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||9.5|-32.2|
91883067|NCT01568112|183659911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||27.8|-14.1|
91883068|NCT01568112|183659912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||0.1|-41.0|
91883069|NCT01568112|183659912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||27.8|-14.1|
91883070|NCT01568112|183659913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|3.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||3.8|-40.6|
91883071|NCT01568112|183659913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|21.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||21.7|-24.7|
91883072|NCT01568112|183659914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|22.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||22.0|-22.0|
91752855|NCT00996801|183398473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|133.03||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.01|156.75||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||156.75|110.01|0.001
91752856|NCT00996801|183398473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|131.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.7|152.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||152.94|110.70|<0.001
91752857|NCT00996801|183398473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|169.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|141.59|199.11||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||199.11|141.59|<0.001
91752858|NCT00996801|183398473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|58.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.42|88.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||88.04|29.42|<0.001
91752859|NCT00996801|183398473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|57.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.76|83.64||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||83.64|30.76|<0.001
91752860|NCT00996801|183398473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|95.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|130.91||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||130.91|60.40|<0.001
91752861|NCT00996801|183398474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|53.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.31|68.6||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||68.60|39.31|<0.001
91804182|NCT00293033|183486168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|11.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.01|0.92|0.023
91752862|NCT00996801|183398474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|53.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.37|66.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||66.38|41.37|<0.001
91752863|NCT00996801|183398474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|55.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.19|69.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||69.94|41.19|<0.001
91752864|NCT00996801|183398474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|20.53||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|35.03||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||35.03|5.96|0.009
91752865|NCT00996801|183398474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Mean Squares|20.47||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|35.03||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||35.03|5.96|0.009
91752866|NCT00996801|183398474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|22.13||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.47|39.89||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||39.89|4.47|0.009
91752867|NCT00289198|183398479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.256|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.78||Change from Baseline (Day 1) in reflective total nasal symptom scores for Placebo versus that for fluticasone furoate|ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-1.73|<0.001
91752868|NCT00289198|183398480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.459|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.99||Mean change from Baseline in AM pre-dose instantaneous TNSS over entire period for Placebo versus that for Fluticasone furoate|ANCOVA|||||-0.99|-1.93|<0.001
91908296|NCT03259074|183711989|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|1.51||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|9.64||Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.64|-6.63|0.7164
91752869|NCT00289198|183398481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression adjusting for age, gender and country||||||<0.001
91752870|NCT00289198|183398482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.274|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-1.74|<0.001
91804183|NCT00293033|183486169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.25||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|34.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.04|5.63|0.009
91752871|NCT00289198|183398483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.291|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-1.77|<0.001
91752872|NCT00289198|183398484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.118|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.03|-8.21|||ANCOVA|||||-8.21|-20.03|<0.001
91752873|NCT00289198|183398485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.033|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.13|-12.94|||ANCOVA|||||-12.94|-27.13|<0.001
91752874|NCT00289198|183398486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.14|-0.41|<0.001
91804184|NCT00293033|183486170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.72||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.32|58.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||58.20|8.32|0.012
91804185|NCT00293033|183486171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.46||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.69|83.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||83.08|10.69|0.015
91883073|NCT01568112|183659914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|25.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||25.5|-16.4|
91883074|NCT01568112|183659915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|19.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||19.7|-24.2|
91883075|NCT01568112|183659915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|18.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||18.7|-23.3|
91752875|NCT00289198|183398486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
91883076|NCT01568112|183659916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|17.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||17.1|-29.4|
91908297|NCT03259074|183711989|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|1.67||||0.6925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|9.95|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate using marginal standardization method.||||9.95|-6.61|0.6925
91752876|NCT00289198|183398486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.331|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Itching, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.20|-0.47|<0.001
91752877|NCT00289198|183398486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.27|-0.52|<0.001
91752878|NCT00289198|183398487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.22|-0.50|0.001
91752879|NCT00289198|183398487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.23|-0.51|0.001
91752880|NCT00289198|183398487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.372||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Nasal itching score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.24|-0.50|0.001
91752881|NCT00289198|183398487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.372||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.24|-0.50|0.001
91752882|NCT00289198|183398488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.281||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score,Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.14|-0.42|0.001
91804186|NCT01135420|183486207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
91752883|NCT00289198|183398488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.314||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.17|-0.45|0.001
91752884|NCT00289198|183398488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.324||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Nasal itching score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.19|-0.45|0.001
91752885|NCT00289198|183398488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.374||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.25|-0.50|0.001
91752886|NCT00289198|183398489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.292|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.43|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.15|-0.43|<0.001
91752887|NCT00289198|183398489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.264|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.12|-0.40|<0.001
91752888|NCT00289198|183398489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.336|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Itching score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.20|-0.48|<0.001
91752889|NCT00289198|183398489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.412|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.28|-0.54|<0.001
91752890|NCT00289198|183398490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.506||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.85|0.004
91752891|NCT00289198|183398491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.491||||0.007||95.0|-0.85|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-0.85|0.007
91752892|NCT00289198|183398492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.531||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.88|0.003
91804187|NCT00717197|183486214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.46|43.7||||||||43.7|7.46|
91883077|NCT01568112|183659916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|24.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||24.5|-22.1|
91883078|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||1.1|-1.1|
91883079|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.9|-1.1|
91883080|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.8|-1.4|
91883081|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.1|-1.7|
91883082|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||1.6|-0.5|
91883083|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||1.3|-0.7|
91883084|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||0.9|-1.0|
91883085|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||0.8|-1.1|
91883086|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.7|-0.6|
91883087|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.5|-0.6|
91883088|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.3|-1.0|
91883089|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.8|-0.8|
91883090|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||0.6|-1.0|
91883091|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||0.9|-0.8|
91883092|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||||||Bloating||1.1|-0.7|
91883093|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||0.7|-0.9|
91883094|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||0.9|-0.8|
91908298|NCT03259074|183711990|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS mean difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.293|||||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate.|||0.293|-0.646|
91908299|NCT03259074|183711990|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.639|0.315|||||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate.|||0.315|-0.639|
91883095|NCT01568112|183659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||1.1|-0.7|
91883096|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.8|-1.0|
91883097|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.8|-0.8|
91883098|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.4|-1.7|
91883099|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.2|-1.7|
91883100|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||0.6|-0.7|
91883101|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||0.8|-0.7|
91883102|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||0.7|-0.6|
91883103|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||1.3|-0.2|
91883104|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.4|-0.4|
91883105|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.2|-0.4|
91883106|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.6|-0.6|
91883107|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.5|-0.7|
91883108|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||1.0|-0.1|
91883109|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||0.6|-0.2|
91883110|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||0.7|-0.8|
91883111|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||0.8|-0.7|
91883112|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||-0.0|-1.6|
91883113|NCT01568112|183659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||0.5|-1.2|
91883114|NCT01568112|183659919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|30.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||30.0|-11.8|
91883115|NCT01568112|183659919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|30.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||30.0|-11.8|
91883116|NCT01568112|183659920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|23.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||23.3|-18.8|
91883117|NCT01568112|183659920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||27.8|-14.1|
91883118|NCT01568112|183659921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|14.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||14.3|-32.1|
91883119|NCT01568112|183659921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|21.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||21.7|-25.0|
91883120|NCT01568112|183659928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|34.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||34.1|-20.9|
91883121|NCT01568112|183659928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|25.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||25.7|-14.2|
91883122|NCT01568112|183659929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|70.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||70.9|-26.5|
91883123|NCT01568112|183659929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|23.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||23.6|-20.5|
91883124|NCT01568112|183659930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|44.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||44.2|-9.2|
91883125|NCT01568112|183659930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|18.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||18.0|-17.2|
91883126|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|12.26|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||12.26|-6.34|
91908300|NCT03259074|183711991|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|14.27|||||Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline count of vertebral corners with syndesmophyte as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|||14.27|-5.62|
91883127|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.81|0.67|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.67|-8.81|
91883128|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.335|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|26.63|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||26.63|-3.15|
91883129|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|6.77|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||6.77|-2.67|
91883130|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.812|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|25.14|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||25.14|-6.72|
91883131|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|5.63|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||5.63|-11.31|
91883132|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.516|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|12.19|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||12.19|-18.36|
91883133|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.71|8.35|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||8.35|-20.71|
91908301|NCT03259074|183711991|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|11.31|||||Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline count of vertebral corners with syndesmophyte as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|||11.31|-9.13|
91752893|NCT00289198|183398493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.496||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.84|0.005
91752894|NCT00289198|183398494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.09|-0.34|0.001
91752895|NCT00289198|183398494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.137||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Eye tearing/watering score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.02|-0.26|0.028
91883134|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|6.49|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||6.49|-22.90|
91752896|NCT00289198|183398494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.156||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Eye redness, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.04|-0.27|0.010
91752897|NCT00289198|183398495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.215||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.08|-0.35|0.002
91883135|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.536|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.13|11.47|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||11.47|-30.13|
91883136|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.02|4.63|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||4.63|-30.02|
91752898|NCT00289198|183398495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161||||0.016||95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Eye tearing or watering, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.03|-0.29|0.016
91752899|NCT00289198|183398495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Eye redness score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.01|-0.24|0.076
91752900|NCT00289198|183398496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.211||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.08|-0.34|0.001
91752901|NCT00289198|183398496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Eye tearing/watering, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.02|-0.27|0.023
91752902|NCT00289198|183398496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Eye Redness score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.05|-0.30|0.005
91752903|NCT00289198|183398497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.09|-0.35|0.001
91752904|NCT00289198|183398497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Eye Tearing/Watering score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.01|-0.25|0.040
91752905|NCT00289198|183398497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.142||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Eye Redness score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.02|-0.26|0.022
91752906|NCT00289198|183398498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.376||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|14.04|||ANCOVA|||||14.04|2.71|0.004
91804188|NCT03003390|183486219|SUPERIORITY||Posterior probabilities|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Using informative priors of B(1, 1) on the enoxaparin arm and B(18, 82) on the usual care arm, the risks of CADVT were 0.32 (95% CrI: 0.16, 0.51) in the enoxaparin arm and 0.25 (95% CrI: 0.18, 0.33) in the usual care arm. The posterior probability that the absolute difference in the risk of CADVT was lower by 0.06 in the enoxaparin arm was 9.1%. Using minimally informative priors, the risk ratio of CADVT with enoxaparin was 0.55 (95% CrI: 0.24, 1.11).|||
91804189|NCT03003390|183486220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Linear mixed effects model|||||||0.22
91804190|NCT03003390|183486221|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91804191|NCT03003390|183486222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91804192|NCT03003390|183486223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91804193|NCT03003390|183486224|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91908302|NCT03259074|183711992|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS Means|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1517|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.48|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 150 mg||0.48|-0.12|
91752907|NCT00289198|183398499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|15.04|||ANCOVA|||||15.04|3.52|0.002
91752908|NCT00289198|183398500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.638||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|13.39|||ANCOVA|||||13.39|1.89|0.009
91752909|NCT04172467|183398502|OTHER|To estimate the relevance of guideline adherent treatment (GLAD) for the susceptibility to infection, full GLAD is taken as reference category.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|5.42||For effect estimation, hazard ratios are reported with 95% confidence interval. The significance level is set to two-sided ≤ 5% (p ≤ 0.05).|Regression, Cox|The Model developed by Anderson and Gill (1982) is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis.||For the analysis of susceptibility to infection, the time to next infection was examined using the Andersen-Gill model. This model is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis. The null hypothesis is that the GLAD-Score has no effect on susceptibility to infection.||5.42|3.72|<0.001
91752910|NCT04172467|183398502|OTHER|To estimate the relevance of guideline adherent treatment (GLAD) for the susceptibility to infection, full GLAD is taken as reference category.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.21||For effect estimation, hazard ratios are reported with 95% confidence interval. The significance level is set to two-sided ≤ 5% (p ≤ 0.05).|Regression, Cox|The Model developed by Anderson and Gill (1982) is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis.||For the analysis of susceptibility to infection, the time to next infection was examined using the Andersen-Gill model. This model is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis. The null hypothesis is that the GLAD-Score has no effect on susceptibility to infection.||3.21|1.98|<0.001
91752911|NCT04332614|183398503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8791371||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7856042|0.9838058||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9838058|0.7856042|0.0248
91752912|NCT04332614|183398503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5980109|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5159511|0.6931219||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.6931219|0.5159511|<0.0001
91804194|NCT03003390|183486226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
91804195|NCT03311724|183486290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
91804196|NCT03311724|183486290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.7|-2.8|<0.001
91804197|NCT03311724|183486290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
91804198|NCT03311724|183486291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.43|338.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||338.97|9.43|<0.001
91804199|NCT03311724|183486291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|183.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|999.0|||Regression, Logistic||"Maximum confidential interval is \>999"|||999|22.0|<0.001
91804200|NCT03311724|183486291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|157.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|999.0|||Regression, Logistic||"Maximum confidential interval is \>999"|||999|21.63|<0.001
91804201|NCT03311724|183486292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.6|-26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.3|-70.6|<0.001
91804202|NCT03311724|183486292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.7|-35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.2|-80.7|<0.001
91804203|NCT03311724|183486292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-39.2|-84.6|<0.001
91804204|NCT03311724|183486293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.6|-7.1|<0.001
91804205|NCT03311724|183486293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.7|-7.2|<0.001
91804206|NCT03311724|183486293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.9|-7.5|<0.001
91804207|NCT03311724|183486294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-4.7|0.075
91804208|NCT03311724|183486294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.9|0.065
91804209|NCT03311724|183486294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-4.9|0.065
91804210|NCT02955602|183486333|OTHER||||||=|0.2242|||||||ANCOVA|||The analyses will assess the change from baseline in each treatment group and will assess the hypothesis that there are no differences in the percent change in ALP serum level between seladelpar 2 mg and 5 mg treatment groups after 8 weeks of treatment.||||= 0.2242
91804211|NCT02955602|183486333|OTHER||||||=|0.0021|||||||ANCOVA|||The analyses will assess the change from baseline in each treatment group and will assess the hypothesis that there are no differences in the percent change in ALP serum level between seladelpar 2 mg and 10 mg treatment groups after 8 weeks of treatment||||= 0.0021
91804212|NCT02955602|183486333|OTHER||||||=|0.0024|||||||ANCOVA|||The analyses will assess the change from baseline in each treatment group and will assess the hypothesis that there are no differences in the percent change in ALP serum level between seladelpar 5 mg and 10 mg treatment groups after 8 weeks of treatment||||= 0.0024
91804213|NCT01581931|183486353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: the 90% confidence intervall has to be within the intervall (80%, 125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|97.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.63|101.94|||ANOVA||Numerator: FDC tablet; denominator: single tablets of linagliptin and metformin; The dispersion parameter is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||101.94|93.63|
91804214|NCT01581931|183486356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: the 90% confidence intervall has to be within the intervall (80%, 125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|97.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.64|102.07|||ANOVA||Numerator: FDC tablet; denominator: single tablets of linagliptin and metformin; The dispersion parameter is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||102.07|93.64|
91804215|NCT01581931|183486357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: the 90% confidence intervall has to be within the intervall (80%, 125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|98.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|103.21|||ANOVA||Numerator: FDC tablet; denominator: single tablets of linagliptin and metformin; The dispersion parameter is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||103.21|94.55|
91804216|NCT04666051|183486370|SUPERIORITY|Data from both groups has been collected compared to verify significant statistical difference||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
91804217|NCT00980057|183486396|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 12%.||||||0.0002|||||||Farrington-Manning test of two ind. prop|||||||0.0002
91804218|NCT00980057|183486397|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified minimum objective performance criteria was 0.82|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91804219|NCT00980057|183486399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91804220|NCT00980057|183486400|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 15|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91804221|NCT00980057|183486401|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 2.5||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
91804222|NCT00980057|183486402|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.3|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91804223|NCT00980057|183486403|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 30||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0002
91804224|NCT00980057|183486404|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 5.1||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
91804225|NCT01397084|183486416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilocoxon signed-rank test|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to check whether the change in the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to the 8 week visit (Visit 3) compared to the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to baseline (Visit 1) was statistically significant or not.||||<0.001
91804226|NCT02139228|183486420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Ratios|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.76|||ANOVA|||||0.76|0.36|
91804227|NCT02139228|183486421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.2|||Clopper-Pearson|||||-4.2|-18.6|
91804228|NCT00706823|183486429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91804229|NCT00706823|183486430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91883137|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.654|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.48|6.32|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||6.32|-29.48|
91804230|NCT00706823|183486432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91804231|NCT00706823|183486434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.11||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|58.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||58.6|1.1|0.03
91804232|NCT03766581|183486435|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 25 mg QD over Placebo||1.10|0.87|
91804233|NCT03766581|183486435|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 25 mg BID over Placebo||1.15|0.83|
91804234|NCT03766581|183486435|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.16|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 50 mg BID over Placebo||1.16|0.76|
91804235|NCT03766581|183486435|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.18|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 100 mg BID over Placebo||1.18|0.73|
91804236|NCT03766581|183486435|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 200 mg BID over Placebo||1.31|0.69|
91883138|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.44|7.57|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||7.57|-35.44|
91883139|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.369|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.39|18.81|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||18.81|-33.39|
91883140|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.472|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|5.93|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||5.93|-20.40|
91883141|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.455|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|131.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||131.4|-10.78|
91883142|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|59.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.51|191.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||191.2|-71.51|
91883143|NCT01568112|183659931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|136.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||136.6|-27.09|
91908303|NCT03259074|183711992|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented|LS Means|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1545|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 300 mg||0.64|0.03|
91883144|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|14.68|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||14.68|-6.79|
91883145|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.563|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|0.83|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.83|-9.57|
91883146|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|29.86|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||29.86|-2.84|
91883147|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.379|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|7.29|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||7.29|-2.41|
91908304|NCT03259074|183711993|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS Means|0.877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3316|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.53|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 150 mg||1.53|0.22|
91752913|NCT04332614|183398503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8380003||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7285712|0.9638653||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9638653|0.7285712|0.0133
91883148|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|27.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||27.50|-5.81|
91883149|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.671|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.08|7.09|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||7.09|-12.08|
91883150|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.488|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.03|15.64|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||15.64|-19.03|
91883151|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.832|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.93|8.11|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||8.11|-23.93|
91883152|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|17.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||17.60|-23.80|
91883153|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.75|13.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||13.00|-22.75|
91752914|NCT04332614|183398504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3700794|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2870513|0.4771231||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4771231|0.2870513|<0.0001
91883154|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|9.05|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||9.05|-59.20|
91883155|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.89|6.98|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||6.98|-54.89|
91883156|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.847|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.38|10.39|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||10.39|-35.38|
91883157|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.542|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.79|20.13|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||20.13|-32.79|
91883158|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.442|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.87|10.41|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||10.41|-15.87|
91883159|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|185.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||185.8|-22.04|
91883160|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.896|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.13|93.18|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||93.18|-40.13|
91752915|NCT04332614|183398504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.285144|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1881589|0.4321194||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4321194|0.1881589|<0.0001
91752916|NCT04332614|183398504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5565905||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4059477|0.7631354||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.7631354|0.4059477|0.0003
91752917|NCT04332614|183398505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72429741||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49167734|1.0669736||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.0669736|0.49167734|0.103
91752918|NCT04332614|183398505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63578603||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35943749|1.1246013||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.1246013|0.35943749|0.120
91752919|NCT04332614|183398505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06482385||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67282661|1.6852036||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.6852036|0.67282661|0.789
91752920|NCT04332614|183398506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8837908||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7912382|0.9871694||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9871694|0.7912382|0.0286
91752921|NCT04332614|183398506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6000149|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5193168|0.6932528||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.6932528|0.5193168|<0.0001
91752922|NCT04332614|183398506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8225743||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7167043|0.9440832|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.9440832|0.7167043|0.0055
91752923|NCT04332614|183398507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3948795|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.310437|0.5022914||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.5022914|0.3104370|<0.0001
91752924|NCT04332614|183398507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2790595|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1875017|0.4153254||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4153254|0.1875017|<0.0001
91752925|NCT04332614|183398507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6097538||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4528751|0.8209762||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.8209762|0.4528751|0.0011
91752926|NCT04332614|183398508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0049587||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72693253|1.3893201||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.3893201|0.72693253|0.976
91752927|NCT04332614|183398508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7576895||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4741259|1.2108458||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.2108458|0.47412590|0.246
91752928|NCT04332614|183398508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1728665||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79090107|1.7393021||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7393021|0.79090107|0.428
91752929|NCT04332614|183398509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9980487||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8680298|1.147543||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.147543|0.8680298|1
91752930|NCT04332614|183398509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8953032||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7771682|1.031395||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.031395|0.7771682|0.276
91752931|NCT04332614|183398509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8970536||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7785981|1.033531||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.033531|0.7785981|0.289
91752932|NCT04332614|183398510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9313889||||0.94591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6003591|1.444944||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.444944|0.6003591|0.94591
91752933|NCT04332614|183398510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8998642||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2809137|2.817898||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.817898|1.2809137|0.0041
91752934|NCT04332614|183398510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0398184||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3648075|3.048678||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.048678|1.3648075|0.0015
91752935|NCT04332614|183398511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.180837||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6750639|2.065546||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.065546|0.6750639|0.829
91752936|NCT04332614|183398511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.432003||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8279689|2.476702||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.476702|0.8279689|0.404
91752937|NCT04332614|183398511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.212702||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7161724|2.05348||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.053480|0.7161724|0.753
91752938|NCT04332614|183398512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9747188||||0.9284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8501783|1.1175028||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.1175028|0.8501783|0.9284
91804237|NCT03766581|183486457|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.49|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 25 mg QD over Placebo||1.49|0.46|
91883161|NCT01568112|183659932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|135.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||135.2|-31.65|
91883162|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.626|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|3.99|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||3.99|-7.35|
91883163|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|2.62|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||2.62|-6.62|
91883164|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.717|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|12.49|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||12.49|-11.64|
91883165|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.597|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|5.14||||||Diarrhea||5.14|-14.11|
91883166|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.794|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.57|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||2.57|-1.10|
91883167|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||2.40|-1.17|
91883168|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.705|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.79|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||2.79|-5.08|
91752939|NCT04332614|183398512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8518974||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741461|0.9787827||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9787827|0.7414610|0.0612
91752940|NCT04332614|183398512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.873993||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7602296|1.0047804||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.0047804|0.7602296|0.1407
91752941|NCT04332614|183398513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9089673||||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6109603|1.352333||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.352333|0.6109603|0.8848
91752942|NCT04332614|183398513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6914929||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1762411|2.43245||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.432450|1.1762411|0.0127
91752943|NCT04332614|183398513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8608951||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2800275|2.705356||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.705356|1.2800275|0.0033
91804238|NCT03766581|183486457|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.3|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 25 mg BID over Placebo||1.30|0.36|
91883169|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.886|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.19|79.32|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||79.32|-42.19|
91883170|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|8.56|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||8.56|-3.65|
91883171|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|1.83|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||1.83|-3.71|
91883172|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.73|60.38|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||60.38|-48.73|
91883173|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.38|33.91|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||33.91|-28.38|
91883174|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.56|6.83|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||6.83|-35.56|
91883175|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.961|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.88|157.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||157.1|-22.88|
91883176|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|98.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.01|255.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||255.3|-58.01|
91883177|NCT01568112|183659933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.928|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|27.76|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||27.76|-5.22|
91883178|NCT02366143|183659975|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT population||0.74|0.52|<0.0001
91883179|NCT02366143|183659975|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.68|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||0.68|0.38|<0.0001
91883180|NCT02366143|183659976|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.64|0.0164
91883181|NCT02366143|183659977|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.002|||Log Rank|||||1.002|0.707|0.0528
91883182|NCT02366143|183659978|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT population||0.85|0.59|0.0002
91883183|NCT02366143|183659978|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.564||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.76|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||0.760|0.418|0.0001
91883184|NCT02366143|183659979|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|0.649|||Log Rank|||Teff-high Population||0.649|0.374|<.0001
91883185|NCT02366143|183659979|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.72|||Log Rank|||ITT Population||0.720|0.517|<.0001
91883186|NCT02366143|183659981|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.647|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3 Subgroup||0.647|0.352|<.0001
91883187|NCT02366143|183659981|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.639|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 Subgroup||0.639|0.386|<.0001
91883188|NCT02366143|183659982|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.824||||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.169|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3, WT ITT||1.169|0.580|0.2765
91883189|NCT02366143|183659982|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.771||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|1.035|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3, WT ITT||1.035|0.575|0.0829
91883190|NCT02366143|183659983|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.709||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|0.913|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT-WT||0.913|0.551|0.0073
91752944|NCT04332614|183398514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8619131||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5709078|1.301251||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.301251|0.5709078|0.759
91883191|NCT02366143|183659983|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.662||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.907|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3 Population||0.907|0.484|0.0097
91883192|NCT02366143|183659984|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|1.167|||Log Rank|||Teff high-WT||1.167|0.592|0.2843
91752945|NCT04332614|183398514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0950508||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7331329|1.635633||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.635633|0.7331329|0.897
91752946|NCT04332614|183398514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2704886||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8377249|1.926816||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.926816|0.8377249|0.498
91804239|NCT03766581|183486457|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.33|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 50 mg BID over Placebo||1.33|0.39|
91883193|NCT02366143|183659984|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802||||0.1861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.113|||Log Rank|||Teff high||1.113|0.579|0.1861
91883194|NCT02366143|183659984|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.926|||Log Rank|||ITT||0.926|0.630|0.0060
91883195|NCT02366143|183659985|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.786||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.038|||Log Rank|||Teff high-WT||1.038|0.595|0.0894
91883196|NCT02366143|183659985|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.061|||Log Rank|||Teff high||1.061|0.626|0.1276
91883197|NCT02366143|183659985|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.011|||Log Rank|||ITT||1.011|0.733|0.0681
91883198|NCT02366143|183659986|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.901||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|1.188|||Log Rank|||Teff high-WT ITT||1.188|0.683|0.4599
91883199|NCT02366143|183659987|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.523|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.675|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT||0.675|0.406|<.0001
91883200|NCT02366143|183659987|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.283|0.624|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT||0.624|0.283|<.0001
91883201|NCT02366143|183659989|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|6.68||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|13.9|||Z-test|||1-Year ITT-WT Population||13.90|-0.54|0.0697
91883202|NCT02366143|183659989|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|9.71||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|18.73|||Z-test|||2-Year ITT-WT Population||18.73|0.70|0.0347
91883203|NCT02366143|183659989|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|9.89||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|21.29|||Z-test|||1-Year Teff-high WT Population||21.29|-1.51|0.0890
91883204|NCT02366143|183659989|OTHER|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|10.34||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|23.84|||Z-test|||2-Year Teff-high WT Population||23.84|-3.17|0.1336
91883205|NCT02366143|183659990|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|4.18||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|11.48|||Z-test|||1-Year ITT-WT Population||11.48|-3.13|0.2624
91883206|NCT02366143|183659990|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|9.67||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|16.9|||Z-test|||2-Year ITT-WT Population||16.90|2.43|0.0088
91883207|NCT02366143|183659990|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|10.56||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|21.77|||Z-test|||1-Year Teff-high WT Population||21.77|-0.65|0.0649
91883208|NCT02366143|183659990|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|7.27||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|18.69|||Z-test|||2-Year Teff-high WT Population||18.69|-4.15|0.2120
91883209|NCT02366143|183659991|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.6899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.45|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||1.450|0.571|0.6899
91883210|NCT02366143|183659991|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.671||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.089|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||1.089|0.413|0.1043
91883211|NCT02366143|183659991|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232||||0.173||95.0|0.912|1.665|||Log Rank|||ITT WT||1.665|0.912|0.1730
91883212|NCT02366143|183659991|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.084||||0.6145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.483|||Log Rank|||ITT WT||1.483|0.792|0.6145
91883213|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.041||||0.8816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.763|||Log Rank|||Cough for Teff-high WT ITT population||1.763|0.614|0.8816
91883214|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.741||||0.2995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|1.309|||Log Rank|||Cough for Teff-high WT ITT Population||1.309|0.419|0.2995
91883215|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.422|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in Teff-high WT Population||1.422|0.616|0.7578
91883216|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.041||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.56|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in Teff-high WT Population||1.560|0.694|0.8470
91883217|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.659||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|1.133|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in Teff-high WT Population||1.133|0.383|0.1289
91883218|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.2381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.235|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in Teff-high WT Population||1.235|0.430|0.2381
91883219|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.732|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in Teff-high WT||1.732|0.685|0.7163
91752947|NCT03369431|183398520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.784|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the percentage change from baseline in the ATEC Total between Vivomixx and Placebo.~A sample size of 72 participants was needed to determine an effect size of 0.50 with 80% power, with a type 1 error of 5% using a two-sided test. This calculation is based on the assumed effect size of the primary outcome measure, the ATEC. The minimally clinically important difference based on the primary outcome measure with this instrument was 15 points."||||0.784
91752948|NCT03369431|183398521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Abdominal Pain between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.357
91752949|NCT03369431|183398521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Gaseousness between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.290
91752950|NCT03369431|183398521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Diarrhoea between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.418
91752951|NCT03369431|183398521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Constipation between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.734
91752952|NCT03369431|183398521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Pain on Stooling between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.362
91752953|NCT03369431|183398521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Difficulty Swallowing between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.705
91752954|NCT03369431|183398521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change from baseline in frequency of vomiting between Vivomixx and placebo||||0.589
91752955|NCT03369431|183398521|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change from baseline in frequency of blood in stool between Vivomixx and placebo||||1.0
91752956|NCT03369431|183398521|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change from baseline in frequency of blood in vomit between Vivomixx and placebo||||1.0
91752957|NCT03369431|183398522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.635|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of ABC Irritability score between Vivomixx and Placebo||||0.635
91752958|NCT03369431|183398522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of ABC Lethargy/social withdrawal score between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.367
91752959|NCT03369431|183398522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in the ABC Stereotypic behaviour between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.609
91752960|NCT03369431|183398522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of the ABC Hyperactivity/Noncompliance between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.805
91752961|NCT03369431|183398522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank test used.||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of the ABC Inappropriate Speech between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.985
91752962|NCT03369431|183398523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||||||0.661
91752963|NCT01062061|183398525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9733||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9733
91752964|NCT01062061|183398526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91883220|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.145|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in Teff-high WT||1.145|0.420|0.1502
91883221|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.43|||Log Rank|||Cough in ITT-WT Population||1.430|0.713|0.9568
91883222|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.284|||Log Rank|||Cough in ITT-WT Population||1.284|0.619|0.5377
91883223|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.893||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.163|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in ITT-WT Population||1.163|0.685|0.4012
91883224|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.363|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in ITT-WT Population||1.363|0.809|0.7149
91883225|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.7126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.422|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in ITT-WT||1.422|0.786|0.7126
91883226|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.258|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in ITT-WT||1.258|0.675|0.6053
91883227|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.194|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in ITT-WT Population||1.194|0.576|0.3134
91883228|NCT02366143|183659992|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.309|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in ITT-WT Population||1.309|0.633|0.6115
91883229|NCT00575042|183660029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size calculation estimated that with 20 patients, and assuming a 10% drop-out rate, the study would have 80% power to detect a response rate in 35% or more of the study patients. A two-sided p value\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91883230|NCT01536587|183660045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5062||95.0|||||paired t-Test, 2-sided|||||||0.5062
91883231|NCT02666664|183660092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-16.1|||ANCOVA|||||-16.1|-20|<0.001
91908305|NCT03259074|183711993|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented|LS Means|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3357|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.08|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 300 mg||1.08|-0.24|
91752965|NCT02937766|183398544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|The t-test tested the hypothesis of no treatment difference between treatment groups.||||0.9|-0.1|0.093
91752966|NCT02937766|183398545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||The t-test tested the hypothesis of no treatment difference between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.2|0.234
91752967|NCT02753127|183398546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.976||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.117||1-sided|Log Rank|Based on stratified log-rank test stratified by actual stratification factors. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|"Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification factors including Time to progression on 1st line therapy, RAS mutation, and Bev as part of study treatment.~A HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Arm 1 compared with Arm 2."|General population||1.117|0.854|0.3629
91752968|NCT02753127|183398546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.179||1-sided|Log Rank|Based on unstratified log-rank test. P-value is nominal p value without multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard Ratio is for Napabucasin + FOLFIRI ± bev vs FOLFIRI ± bev. Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Napabucasin+ FOLFIRI ± bev compared with FOLFIRI ± bev.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||1.179|0.797|0.3782
91752969|NCT02753127|183398547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.18||1-sided|Log Rank|"Based on stratified log rank test stratified by actual stratification factors~. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment."|"Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification~. A HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Arm 1 compared with Arm 2."|General population||1.180|0.917|0.7307
91752970|NCT02753127|183398547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.064||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.283||1-sided|Log Rank|Based on unstratified log-rank test. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio is for Napabucasin + FOLFIRI ± bev vs FOLFIRI ± bev. Based on unstratified Cox Proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Napabucasin + FOLFIRI ± bev compared with FOLFIRI ± bev.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||1.283|0.883|0.7434
91752971|NCT02753127|183398548|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|0.1||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.2||1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by actual stratification factors. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment .|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on Harmonic Means method adjusting stratification factor|General population||5.2|-4.9|0.4797
91752972|NCT02753127|183398548|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|-3.1||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|4.7||1-sided|Z test|Based on one-sided Z test. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on normal approximation method.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||4.7|-11.0|0.783
91752973|NCT02753127|183398549|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|-0.9||||0.6776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.0||1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by actual stratification factors. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on Harmonic Means method adjusting stratification factor|General population||3.0|-4.8|0.6776
91752974|NCT02753127|183398549|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|-2.0||||0.7513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.7||1-sided|Z test|Based on one-sided Z test. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on normal approximation method.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||3.7|-7.7|0.7513
91752975|NCT00098722|183398554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1802|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.426|-0.616||||||The difference between the treatment least square means (LS means) adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.616|-1.426|
91804240|NCT03766581|183486457|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.25|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 100 mg BID over Placebo||1.25|0.33|
91883232|NCT02666664|183660094|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14|-18.2|<0.001
91883233|NCT02666664|183660095|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-11.6|||ANCOVA|||||-11.6|-15.1|<0.001
91883234|NCT02666664|183660096|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||||-9.8|-12.5|<0.001
91883235|NCT02666664|183660097|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-10.2|||ANCOVA|||||-10.2|-13.6|<0.001
91883236|NCT02666664|183660098|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.96|-16.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-16|-26.96|<0.001
91883237|NCT02666664|183660099|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-11.3|||ANCOVA|||||-11.3|-15.8|<0.001
91883238|NCT02666664|183660108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91883239|NCT00476242|183660120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||||||.047
91883240|NCT03865953|183660128|SUPERIORITY|Analysis used a two-period two-treatment crossover design|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Subject numbers gave a 90% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the mean change from baseline NPRS for the active treatment compared with placebo of at least 1 unit, with a two sided test at a 5% level of significance||0.49|-0.76|0.67
91883241|NCT01667406|183660143|OTHER|Fishers exact conditional test was used to confirm significance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||||||||Data presented using descriptive statistics. Confidence intervals were derived for the difference between the means of different doses.||||
91883242|NCT01667406|183660143|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Phase 2||||<0.05
91883243|NCT01667406|183660143|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic||Estimate of difference in success rates and estimate of odds ratio for success were derived, with P value comparing 2 treatment groups, 95% conﬁdence intervals.|Phase 3||||<0.05
91883244|NCT01667406|183660144|OTHER|secondary outcomes were analysed using descriptive statistics.||||||||||||||||Study data were summarised using standard descriptive methods. Continuous variables following a normal distribution have been summarised using mean and SD.|secondary outcomes were analysed using descriptive statistics.|||
91883245|NCT01777126|183660150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary outcome measure was the interval from surgery to discharge. Discharge means that the patient returns to his home. Preliminary data from our institution showed that all patients received parenteral nutrition very early post-surgery and were discharged after a mean of 19.3 ± 5.6 days. Therefore, the primary objective by implementing the ONP was to reduce the length of stay with 3 days.||||<0.001
91883246|NCT01777126|183660153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The result was considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||<0.01
91908306|NCT03259074|183711994|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.18|||||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method|||8.18|-5.10|
91908307|NCT03259074|183711995|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|5.51|||||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method.|||5.51|-10.18|
91752976|NCT00098722|183398554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1786|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.444|-0.64||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.640|-1.444|
91752977|NCT00098722|183398555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1856|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.379|-0.544||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.544|-1.379|
91752978|NCT00098722|183398555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.523|-0.695||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.695|-1.523|
91752979|NCT00098722|183398556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (less than \[\<\] 100,000 or greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio greater than (\>) 1 favors maraviroc.||8.23|2.56|<0.0001
91752980|NCT00098722|183398556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|10.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||10.78|3.35|<0.0001
91804241|NCT03766581|183486457|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.25|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 200 mg BID||2.25|0.87|
91883247|NCT01777126|183660154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|||||0.487||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test. Results were considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.487
91883248|NCT01777126|183660155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.302
91883249|NCT01777126|183660156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's Exact Test. The result was considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.117
91883250|NCT01777126|183660157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|||||0.049||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square Test. Outcome measures were considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.049
91883251|NCT01777126|183660158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|||||0.698||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square Test. Outcome measures were considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.698
91883252|NCT02232399|183660165|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||To test whether there were any significant differences between the two treatment groups over time (group vs time interaction), a repeated measurement mixed-model approach was used. This assumed an unstructured covariance pattern.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.||To test whether there were any significant differences between the two treatment groups over time (group vs time interaction), a repeated measurement mixed-model approach was used. This assumed an unstructured covariance pattern.||||0.45
91883253|NCT02232399|183660166|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.70
91883254|NCT02706951|183660169|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|35.6||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||35.6|17.5|<0.001
91883255|NCT02706951|183660169|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|38.9||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||38.9|21.0|<0.001
91883256|NCT02706951|183660170|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|33.7||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||33.7|16.8|<0.001
91883257|NCT02706951|183660170|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|42.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||42.1|25.1|<0.001
91883258|NCT02706951|183660171|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.85||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.85|-1.32|<0.001
91883259|NCT02706951|183660171|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-1.17||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-1.17|-1.64|<0.001
91883260|NCT02706951|183660172|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.22||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.22|-0.43|<0.001
91883261|NCT02706951|183660172|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.3||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.30|-0.51|<0.001
91908308|NCT03259074|183711996|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented|Marginal difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|9.69|||Marginal difference||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method|||9.69|-5.34|
91908309|NCT03259074|183711997|OTHER||Marginal difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|7.74||Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method|||7.74|-7.08|
91804242|NCT03766581|183486457|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|7.42|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 50 mg QD over Placebo||7.42|0.83|
91883262|NCT02706951|183660173|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|3.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|5.42||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.42|2.52|<0.001
91908310|NCT02017327|183712008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91752981|NCT00098722|183398556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|7.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.20|2.25|<0.0001
91752982|NCT00098722|183398556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|7.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.85|2.47|<0.0001
91752983|NCT00098722|183398557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|8.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.10|2.72|<0.0001
91752984|NCT00098722|183398557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.62|2.91|<0.0001
91752985|NCT00098722|183398557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.32|2.13|<0.0001
91752986|NCT00098722|183398557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|8.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.02|2.69|<0.0001
91752987|NCT00098722|183398558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.92|2.64|<0.0001
91752988|NCT00098722|183398558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|9.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||9.39|3.13|<0.0001
91752989|NCT00098722|183398558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.00|2.29|<0.0001
91752990|NCT00098722|183398558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.89|2.91|<0.0001
91752991|NCT00098722|183398559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.48|1.95|<0.0001
91752992|NCT00098722|183398559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odd ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.23|1.59|0.0005
91752993|NCT00098722|183398559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|7.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.92|2.26|<0.0001
91752994|NCT00098722|183398559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.64|2.20|<0.0001
91752995|NCT00098722|183398561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|47.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.64|74.25||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||74.25|21.64|
91752996|NCT00098722|183398561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|38.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.96|64.28||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||64.28|11.96|
91804243|NCT03766581|183486457|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.96|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 100 mg QD over Placebo||6.96|0.15|
91804244|NCT03716024|183486458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|26.0|||||omadacycline minus linezolid|||26.0|1.3|
91804245|NCT03716024|183486459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.4|||||omadacycline minus linezolid|||11.4|-1.7|
91804246|NCT03716024|183486460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|26.7|||||omadacycline minus linezolid|||26.7|0.9|
91804247|NCT03716024|183486461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|14.0||||||||14.0|-5.3|
91804248|NCT01056653|183486468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=3.48, partial n2=0.061, observed power=0.639||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Parent Total Score on PCITS at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||=0.03
91804249|NCT01056653|183486468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Parent Total Scores||||0.03
91804250|NCT01056653|183486468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534||||||Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Parent Total Scores||||0.534
91883263|NCT02706951|183660173|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|7.32||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||7.32|4.42|<0.001
91908311|NCT02017327|183712008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0045
91752997|NCT00098722|183398561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|52.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.803|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.06|81.25||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||81.25|23.06|
91752998|NCT00098722|183398561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|58.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.725|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.53|87.4||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||87.40|29.53|
91804251|NCT01056653|183486468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=3.145, partial n2=0.056, observed power=0.593.||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Cognitive Growth Fostering Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.047
91804252|NCT01056653|183486468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Cognitive Growth Fostering Subscale||||0.056
91804253|NCT01056653|183486468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Cognitive Growth Fostering Subscale||||0.267
91804254|NCT01056653|183486468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=3.440, partial n2=0.060, observed power=0.634||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Socio-Emotional Growth Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.036
91804255|NCT01056653|183486468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Socio-Emotional Growth Fostering Subscale||||0.036
91804256|NCT01056653|183486468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Socio-Emotional Growth Fostering Subscale||||1.00
91804257|NCT01056653|183486468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.409||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Sensitivity to Cues Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.665
91804258|NCT01056653|183486468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.313||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Response to Distress Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.732
91804259|NCT01056653|183486469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.49||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Parent Domain scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.61
91804260|NCT01056653|183486469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.96||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Child Domain scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.38
91804261|NCT01056653|183486470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,106)=2.24.||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of WPL-R scores - Evaluation Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.11
91804262|NCT01056653|183486470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,106)=0.379||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of WPL-R scores - Centrality Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.686
91804263|NCT01056653|183486470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,106)=2.158||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of WPL-R scores - Life Change Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.121
91804264|NCT05275400|183486471|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin (NIM) was 0.4%|LS Mean Difference|-0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.013||||||||0.013|-0.191|
91804265|NCT05275400|183486472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.089||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.013|||ANCOVA|||||0.013|-0.191|0.088
91883264|NCT02706951|183660174|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|26.8||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||26.8|12.8|<0.001
91752999|NCT00098722|183398562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|218.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.59|358.54||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||358.54|78.59|
91753000|NCT00098722|183398562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|133.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|70.855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|272.47||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||272.47|-6.03|
91753001|NCT00098722|183398562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|136.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.24|250.62||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||250.62|23.24|
91753002|NCT00098722|183398562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|140.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.15|253.35||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||253.35|27.15|
91753003|NCT00098722|183398563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.56|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.56|0.29|<0.0001
91753004|NCT00098722|183398563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.46|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.46|0.23|<0.0001
91753005|NCT00098722|183398564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1534|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.177|-0.575||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.575|-1.177|
91753006|NCT00098722|183398564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1521|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.181|-0.584||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.584|-1.181|
91753007|NCT00098722|183398564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.855|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|-0.521||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.521|-1.189|
91753008|NCT00098722|183398564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1685|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.364|-0.701||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.701|-1.364|
91753009|NCT02046070|183398578|OTHER|||||||0.4859|||||||Chi-squared|||P-value tests the null hypothesis: CR+VGPR rate=27% in treatment arms obtained using the one-sided Chi-Square test with alpha=0.10.||||0.4859
91753010|NCT02046070|183398578|OTHER|||||||0.6757|||||||Chi-squared|||P-value tests the null hypothesis: CR+VGPR rate=27% in treatment arms obtained using the one-sided Chi-Square test with alpha=0.10.||||0.6757
91753011|NCT02046070|183398579|OTHER|||||||0.9688|||||||Chi-squared|||P-value tests the null hypothesis: CR+VGPR+PR rate=60% obtained using the one-sided Chi-Square test with alpha=0.10.||||0.9688
91753012|NCT05601102|183398617|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.41
91753013|NCT05601102|183398618|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety subscale analysis||||.01
91753014|NCT05601102|183398618|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression subscale||||.42
91753015|NCT05601102|183398619|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
91753016|NCT05601102|183398620|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.15
91753017|NCT05601102|183398621|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
91753018|NCT05601102|183398622|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.22
91753019|NCT05601102|183398623|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
91753020|NCT05601102|183398624|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91753021|NCT05601102|183398625|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.60
91753022|NCT05601102|183398626|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91753023|NCT05601102|183398627|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91753024|NCT06504524|183398640|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.128|||=|0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.804|||Regression, Cox||IPTW hazard ratio (HR) were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.804|0.705|=0.615
91753025|NCT06504524|183398641|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||=|0.4429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.64|0.85|=0.4429
91883265|NCT02706951|183660174|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|39.7||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||39.7|24.6|<0.001
91883266|NCT02706951|183660175|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-41.53||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.56|-16.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-16.50|-66.56|0.001
91883267|NCT02706951|183660175|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-49.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.23|-24.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-24.40|-74.23|<0.001
91883268|NCT02706951|183660176|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|34.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||34.8|18.5|<0.001
91883269|NCT02706951|183660176|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|45.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||45.0|28.6|<0.001
91883270|NCT02706951|183660177|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|25.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||25.8|13.8|<0.001
91883271|NCT02706951|183660177|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|36.9||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||36.9|23.6|<0.001
91883272|NCT03491215|183660178|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.311||||||Group 3 vs Group 2||1.311|0.490|
91908312|NCT01265797|183712018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare outcome measures between two treatment groups in the run-in month minus blinded month||The a priori alpha level was set at p \< 0.05, and a power of 0.80 (80%) was used to compute the number of subjects needed to find a meaningful difference between the verum and sham groups. Assuming that 20% of persons with the sham device and 60% of persons with CES device will meet the primary end point of ≥50% decrease in the frequency of headache days over the course of the study, 27 subjects are enrolled per group.||||0.30
91908313|NCT01265797|183712019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare secondary outcome measures between two treatment groups in the run-in month minus open label month||||||0.89
91908314|NCT01265797|183712020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
91908315|NCT01265797|183712021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the primary and secondary outcome measures between the two treatment groups.||The a priori alpha level was set at p \< 0.05, and beta 0.2. Assuming that 20% of persons with the sham device and 60% of persons with CES device will meet the primary end point of ≥50% decrease in the frequency of headache days over the course of the study, 27 subjects are enrolled per group. The null hypothesis: No difference in the depression score/14 day recall between the two groups.||||0.98
91908316|NCT01265797|183712022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
91908317|NCT01265797|183712023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91804266|NCT05275400|183486473|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.03||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.74|||Negative binomial model|||||1.74|0.62|0.897
91883273|NCT03491215|183660178|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|1.846||||||Group 3 vs. Group 1||1.846|0.532|
91883274|NCT03491215|183660178|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|1.237|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.639|2.394||||||Group 2 vs. Group 1||2.394|0.639|
91883275|NCT03491215|183660179|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.709|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.425|1.184||||||Group 3 vs. Group 2||1.184|0.425|
91883276|NCT03491215|183660179|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.506|1.851||||||Group 3 vs. Group 1||1.851|0.506|
91883277|NCT03491215|183660179|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|1.365|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.686|2.714||||||Group 2 vs. Group 1||2.714|0.686|
91883278|NCT03491215|183660181|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.245|2.352||||||Group 3 vs. Group 2||2.352|0.245|
91883279|NCT03491215|183660181|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.784||||||Group 3 vs. Group 1||1.784|0.150|
91804267|NCT05275400|183486474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.72|||ANCOVA|||||2.72|-1.88|0.722
91804268|NCT05275400|183486475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|2.33|||ANCOVA|||||2.33|-4.01|0.605
91804269|NCT05275400|183486476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-9.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.97|-50.10|0.003
91908318|NCT01265797|183712024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in mean anxiety score/ 14 day recall from the blinded period to open label period|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91753026|NCT06504524|183398642|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.115|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.115|0.390|=0.120
91753027|NCT06504524|183398643|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.71|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||0.71|0.38|=0.0011
91753028|NCT06504524|183398644|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759|||=|0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|1.71|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.710|0.337|=0.503
91753029|NCT06504524|183398645|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.57|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||0.57|0.26|<0.0001
91753030|NCT06504524|183398646|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918|||=|0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.436|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.436|0.587|=0.706
91753031|NCT06504524|183398647|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||=|0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||0.88|0.52|=0.0182
91908319|NCT01265797|183712025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
91908320|NCT01265797|183712026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91908321|NCT01265797|183712027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91908322|NCT01265797|183712028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91908323|NCT01265797|183712029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91908324|NCT03998046|183712060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.85
91908325|NCT03998046|183712062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.20
91908326|NCT03998046|183712063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.38
91908327|NCT03998046|183712064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
91908328|NCT03998046|183712065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
91908329|NCT03998046|183712066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.13
91908330|NCT03998046|183712067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.61
91753032|NCT03859739|183398652|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.79|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 2.44 %.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
91753033|NCT03859739|183398652|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.97|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 7.60%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
91753034|NCT03859739|183398652|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.58|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 74.99%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
91804270|NCT05275400|183486477|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.14||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.56|||Negative binomial model|||||1.56|0.83|0.430
91908331|NCT03998046|183712068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.56
91908332|NCT00078325|183712123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and country as factors.||||||0.0001
91908333|NCT00078325|183712123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and country as factors.||||||0.0008
91908334|NCT00078325|183712124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for country.||||||<0.0001
91908335|NCT00078325|183712124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for country.||||||<0.0001
91908336|NCT01519765|183712125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1611|||||||Fisher Exact|||A consecutive sample will be used as women are recruited. Based on an 80% power and an alpha of 0.05, a sample size of 103 subjects in each arm is required to detect a 20% difference between deliveries within 24hrs between the two treatment arms. An effect size of 20% was selected as this is thought to be a clinically significant difference. This is based on the Wing study showing 50% delivery within 24 hrs with vaginal misoprostol.||||0.1611
91908337|NCT01519765|183712126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
91908338|NCT01519765|183712127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0623|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0623
91908339|NCT01519765|183712128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1141
91908340|NCT01519765|183712129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4469
91804271|NCT05275400|183486478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.071||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-0.38|0.756
91804272|NCT05275400|183486479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|0.02|0.021
91804273|NCT05275400|183486480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-3.37|0.417
91804274|NCT05275400|183486481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||4.59|1.71|<0.001
91804275|NCT05275400|183486481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||5.07|2.05|<0.001
91804276|NCT05275400|183486481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 78||4.94|1.75|<0.001
91883280|NCT03491215|183660181|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.178|2.597||||||Group 2 vs. Group 1||2.597|0.178|
91804277|NCT03727230|183486494|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||In this study, a single-arm clinical trial was conducted. The summarized alloanti-D rate (203/720, 28.2%; 95% CI, 19%-32%) in truly RhD-negative patients with similar mixed diseases after RhD+ RBC transfusion reported in the meta-analysis (Ji YL, et al. Vox Sang 2022; 117: 633-40) was used as the control for comparison with alloanti-D rate identified in Asian-type DEL patients after RhD+ RBC transfusion in the clinical trial.||||< 0.001
91883281|NCT03491215|183660189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.109||||||||1.109|0.858|
91883282|NCT03491215|183660189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.232||||||||1.232|0.735|
91883283|NCT03491215|183660190|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.115||||||||1.115|0.921|
91883284|NCT03491215|183660190|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.258||||||||1.258|0.841|
91883285|NCT03491215|183660191|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.117||||||||1.117|1.012|
91804278|NCT03600818|183486496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.0|||=|0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|31.82||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||31.82|4.15|=0.0193
91804279|NCT03600818|183486497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. If the primary endpoint reaches statistical significance then the secondary endpoint for total cumulative CS dose was tested next.||||<0.0001
91804280|NCT04377620|183486529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|1.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|logistic regression mixed model includes treatment group and ARDS severity as fixed covariates and investigational site as a random effect.||||1.028|0.201|0.0292
91804281|NCT04377620|183486529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|1.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|logistic regression mixed model includes treatment group and ARDS severity as fixed covariates and investigational site as a random effect.||||1.023|0.171|0.0280
91804282|NCT00044083|183486569|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Diagnosis effect on placebo|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91804283|NCT00044083|183486569|OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||Drug Effect on Patients|ANOVA|||||||0.0034
91804284|NCT00044083|183486570|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Diagnosis Effect on Placebo in right DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91804285|NCT00044083|183486570|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Diagnosis Effect of Placebo in left DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.014
91804286|NCT00044083|183486571|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Drug Effect across both groups in left DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.05
91804287|NCT00044083|183486571|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Drug Effect across both groups in right DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.32
91804288|NCT00044083|183486572|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The Effect of Drug on Patients with Schizophrenia in right DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91804289|NCT00044083|183486572|OTHER|||||||0.078||||||Effect of Drug on Patients with Schizophrenia in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.078
91804290|NCT00044083|183486573|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Drug Effect on Healthy Volunteers in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91804291|NCT00044083|183486573|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Drug Effect on Healthy Volunteers in right DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.73
91804292|NCT00044083|183486574|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Main Effect of Genotype across both Placebo and Tolcapone in right DLPFC||||||<0.0001
91804293|NCT00044083|183486574|OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|Main Effect of Genotype across both Placebo and Tolcapone in left DLPFC||||||0.167
91804294|NCT00044083|183486575|OTHER|||||||0.189||||||Drug by Genotype Effect in left DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.189
91804295|NCT00044083|183486575|OTHER|||||||0.041||||||Drug Effect on Val/Val Genotype in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.041
91804296|NCT00044083|183486575|OTHER|||||||0.718||||||Drug Effect on Val/Met Genotype in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.718
91804297|NCT00044083|183486575|OTHER|||||||0.469||||||Drug Effect of Met/Met Genotype in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.469
91804298|NCT00044083|183486576|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||Drug Effect on Positive Syndrome for Patients|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7
91804299|NCT00044083|183486576|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Drug Effect on Negative Syndrome for Patients|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.4
91804300|NCT00044083|183486576|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||Drug Effect on General Pathology for Patients|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.12
91804301|NCT03758066|183486593|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value reported for quality of life measured between baseline and 12-month follow-up with a statistical significance threshold of .05.|Sign test|||A two-tailed non-parametric one-sample paired sign test was used to determine whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis that the mean difference of scores between any of the 2 of 3 timepoints is 0 (Baseline v. 6-month, 6-month v. 12-month, and Baseline v. 12-month).||||.03
91883286|NCT03491215|183660191|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.025|1.25||||||||1.25|1.025|
91883287|NCT02489734|183660211|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk (RR)|3.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.1|||Chi-squared|||||8.1|1.4|0.003
91883288|NCT00424554|183660261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91883289|NCT00107978|183660275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 10% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||||95.0|-2.9|7.9||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.|2-sided 95% confidence interval|2-sided 95% confidence interval calculated on the difference in cure rates between treatment groups.||||7.9|-2.9|
91883290|NCT02669407|183660277|OTHER|Single group|||||<|0.001|||||||Tukey's method|||||||<0.001
91883291|NCT02669407|183660278|OTHER|Single group||||||0.001|||||||Tukey's method|||Baseline, 30 minutes||||0.001
91883292|NCT02669407|183660279|OTHER|Single group||||||0.007|||||||Tukey's method|||baseline, 30 minutes||||0.007
91804302|NCT03758066|183486594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P-value reported for self-reported self-efficacy in chronic disease management between baseline and 12-month follow-up with a statistical significance threshold of .05.|Sign test|||A two-tailed non-parametric one-sample paired sign test was used to determine whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis that the mean difference of scores between any of the 2 of 3 timepoints is 0 (Baseline v. 6-month, 6-month v. 12-month, and Baseline v. 12-month).||||.02
91753035|NCT03859739|183398652|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.78|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 87.41%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
91753036|NCT03859739|183398660|OTHER||Standard Error (SE)|0.146|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 0.25%.|The posterior probability (PP) that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
91753037|NCT03859739|183398660|OTHER||SE|0.146|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 65.41%.|The PP that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
91753038|NCT03859739|183398660|OTHER||SE|0.133|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 99.99%.|The PP that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
91753039|NCT03859739|183398660|OTHER||SE|0.163|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 99.98%.|The PP that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
91753040|NCT03523273|183398740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91753041|NCT03523273|183398741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
91753042|NCT02590562|183398797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||F test|||||||<0.0001
91753043|NCT02590562|183398798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED||||||F test|||||||0.0108
91908341|NCT01519765|183712130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4469
91753044|NCT01457950|183398804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.36|||ANCOVA|||||4.36|2.06|<0.0001
91753045|NCT02963987|183398841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91753046|NCT02963987|183398842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
91753047|NCT02963987|183398843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91753048|NCT02337530|183398849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|7.01|||Fisher Exact|||||7.01|0.28|0.73
91753049|NCT02337530|183398849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|24.8|||Fisher Exact|||||24.8|1.65|0.01
91753050|NCT02337530|183398850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.6|||Log Rank|||||1.60|0.42|0.56
91753051|NCT02337530|183398850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.49|||Log Rank|||||1.49|0.40|0.44
91753052|NCT00989235|183398853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.46|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 29||0.46|-0.11|
91753053|NCT00989235|183398853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.17|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 57||0.17|-0.34|
91753054|NCT00989235|183398853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 85||0.20|-0.37|
91753055|NCT00989235|183398853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.04|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 113||0.04|-0.50|
91753056|NCT00989235|183398853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.32|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 141||0.32|-0.26|
91753057|NCT00989235|183398853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.15|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 169||0.15|-0.41|
91753058|NCT00989235|183398853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.13|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 197||0.13|-0.38|
91753059|NCT00989235|183398853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.25|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 225||0.25|-0.32|
91753060|NCT00989235|183398853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.36|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 253||0.36|-0.19|
91753061|NCT00989235|183398853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.38|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 281||0.38|-0.12|
91753062|NCT00989235|183398853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.22|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 309||0.22|-0.27|
91804303|NCT03758066|183486594|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-value reported for self-reported self-efficacy in chronic disease management between 6- and 12-month follow-up with a statistical significance threshold of .05.|Sign test|||||||.02
91804304|NCT00332163|183486596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-14.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||-14|-51|
91908342|NCT01519765|183712131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.093
91804305|NCT00332163|183486597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-3.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||-3|-42|
91804306|NCT00332163|183486598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (pre-emptive vs. reactive), stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||0.7|0.2|
91804307|NCT00332163|183486600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||0.7|0.2|
91804308|NCT00332163|183486601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|7.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||7|-16|
91804309|NCT00332163|183486602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||10|-10|
91804310|NCT00332163|183486603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|17.0|||||Rate difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||17|-9|
91804311|NCT00332163|183486604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|18.0|||||Rate difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||18|-21|
91804312|NCT00332163|183486605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||2.0|0.9|
91753063|NCT00989235|183398853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.31|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 337||0.31|-0.37|
91753064|NCT00989235|183398853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.55|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 365||0.55|-0.09|
91883293|NCT02669407|183660283|OTHER|Single group||||||0.237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in left ventricular end diastolic dimension||||0.237
91753065|NCT00989235|183398854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|18.0|||normal approximation|For 95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||18.0|-17.2|
91753066|NCT00989235|183398855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|3.2|||normal approximation|For 95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||3.2|-20.3|
91753067|NCT00989235|183398857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.69|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio determined by a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the only covariate.|Through Month 12||1.69|0.45|
91804313|NCT00332163|183486606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||1.5|0.6|
91804314|NCT00332163|183486607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||2.1|0.7|
91804315|NCT00332163|183486608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||||Hazard ratio is estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||1.6|0.6|
91804316|NCT03706079|183486633|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.51||||||||0.51|0.35|
91804317|NCT03706079|183486633|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.96||||||||0.96|0.38|
91804318|NCT00329238|183486636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment and baseline stratification factor in the model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.0137||95.0|0.78|2.64||p-value for non-inferiority. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio was chosen to be 2.85.|Regression, Cox|HR within cohort estimated by Cox regr. with treatment and baseline stratific. factor. Overall HR calc. by pooling with inverse variance weighting.|HR for time to first recurrent VTE or VTE death.|||2.64|0.78|0.0137
91804319|NCT00329238|183486636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2424||||||p-value for superiority. If non-inferiority could be established for HR and for the risk difference, the upper bound of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio was then compared with 1 to evaluate the superiority claim of dabigatran over warfarin.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.2424
91804320|NCT00329238|183486637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment and baseline stratification factor in the model.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.5|1.25||p-value for non-inferiority. The non-inferiority margin for the risk difference was chosen to be 2.80.|Regression, Cox|Risk difference for time to first recurrent VTE/VTE death is calculated based on weighted KM estimates across the cohorts via meta-analysis approach.||||1.25|-0.50|<0.0001
91804321|NCT00329238|183486637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4013||||||p-value for superiority. If non-inferiority could be established for HR and for the risk difference, the upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk difference was then compared with 0 to evaluate the superiority claim of dabigatran over warfarin.|Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.4013
91804322|NCT00329238|183486638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4732||95.0|0.75|1.84|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|HR for time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent VTE or all cause death.|||1.84|0.75|0.4732
91804323|NCT00329238|183486639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.8876||95.0|-1.11|1.28|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent VTE or all cause death at month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||1.28|-1.11|0.8876
91804324|NCT00329238|183486640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4548||95.0|0.64|2.71|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|HR for time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic DVT|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||2.71|0.64|0.4548
91883294|NCT02669407|183660283|OTHER|Single group||||||0.586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in left ventricular end systolic dimension||||0.586
91883295|NCT02669407|183660284|OTHER|Single group||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.175
91883296|NCT02669407|183660286|OTHER|Single group||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.061
91883297|NCT02669407|183660287|OTHER|Single group||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.787
91883298|NCT02669407|183660289|OTHER|Single group||||||0.606|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline, 90 minutes||||0.606
91883299|NCT02669407|183660289|OTHER|Single group||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline, 24 hours||||0.045
91753068|NCT00989235|183398858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|10.7|||normal approximation|For 95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||10.7|-12.9|
91753069|NCT00989235|183398859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|7.3|||normal approximation|95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||7.3|-22.6|
91753070|NCT00989235|183398860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|10.0|||normal approximation|95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||10.0|-31.1|
91883300|NCT04593823|183660376|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.5|||||A win ratio parameter signifies the percentage of wins that a treatment group has achieved when compared against a comparator.|||2.50|0.48|
91883301|NCT04593823|183660377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|15.9|||Chi-squared|||||15.9|-17.0|>0.999
91883302|NCT04593823|183660378|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.8||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|13.6|||Chi-squared|||||13.6|-36.4|0.459
91883303|NCT04593823|183660380|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.887||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|37.784|||ANOVA|Repeated measures analysis||||37.784|-20.010|0.547
91883304|NCT04593823|183660381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.336
91883305|NCT04974723|183660392|NON_INFERIORITY|Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the hazard ratio with teriparatide as reference. Noninferiority of abaloparatide to teriparatide was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HR between abaloparatide versus teriparatide was \<1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1||||||||1.10|0.81|
91883306|NCT04974723|183660393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.3||||||Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the hazard ratio with teriparatide as reference. Noninferiority of abaloparatide to teriparatide was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HR between abaloparatide versus teriparatide was \<1.3.||1.30|0.89|
91753071|NCT03249935|183398871|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Assumptions were that 20% of enrolled chlamydia-infected males will have urethral symptoms and azithromycin treatment failures will occur in 10% of symptomatic men vs. 2% of asymptomatic men. At a one-sided 0.05 significance level with power of 0.80, a sample size of 357 evaluable males would be needed, or approximately 72 symptomatic and 285 asymptomatic males. Assuming 20% of males enrolled would be unevaluable, a total of 446 males was targeted for enrollment.|Given that the study closed early and there were only 4 treatment failures, formal hypothesis testing was not performed.|||
91753072|NCT03249935|183398872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio for age in years as a continuous variable in a logistic regression model predicting treatment failure at day 28||2.62|0.22|0.656
91753073|NCT03249935|183398872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|47.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio for reporting at baseline new partners in the last 30 days (reference group=no new partners) from a logistic model predicting treatment failure at day 28.||47.89|0.45|0.197
91883307|NCT04974723|183660394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.22||||||Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the hazard ratio with teriparatide as reference. Noninferiority of abaloparatide to teriparatide was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HR between abaloparatide versus teriparatide was \<1.3.||1.22|0.95|
91883308|NCT00458393|183660413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|0.824||secondary p-value given.|Log Rank|stratified by site|Efron correction for ties. Placebo is reference. Results typically quoted as efficacy = 100\*(1-HR)|Primary null hypothesis: Relative hazard of 0.7 or less. Secondary null hypothesis: Relative hazard of 1.0 or less.||.824|.404|0.002
91883309|NCT00458393|183660414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.25||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Fisher Exact||||Extensive analysis and methods published in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3966916/|2.25|0.79|0.28
91883310|NCT00458393|183660415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.96|||Fisher Exact|||||2.96|.57|0.54
91883311|NCT00458393|183660416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.65|0.50
91883312|NCT00458393|183660417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.79|0.92
91883313|NCT00458393|183660418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||1.00
91883314|NCT00458393|183660418|SUPERIORITY|Desc|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91883315|NCT00458393|183660419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\< 0.05 for statistical significance. no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91883316|NCT00458393|183660420|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.95|||median regression|||||-0.95|-6.6|0.009
91883317|NCT00458393|183660421|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.3|||median regression|||||9.3|-9.3|1.00
91883318|NCT00458393|183660422|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.1|||median regression|||||1.1|-5.5|0.19
91883319|NCT00458393|183660423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-.18|0.56
91883320|NCT00458393|183660424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is the proportion of mutations is identical.|Detailed resistance data is found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4176446/|||1.00
91883321|NCT00458393|183660425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|54.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||54|-69|0.32
91883322|NCT00458393|183660426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is equal proportion of pills returned||0.01|-0.02|0.53
91883323|NCT00458393|183660427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided||||Detailed methods and results are available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110718/|1.6|-1.1|0.70
91883324|NCT00458393|183660428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
91883325|NCT00458393|183660429|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.42||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold for statistical significance, p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||Full details available in the methods section of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24367497|.42|-.42|0.76
91883326|NCT00458393|183660430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.008||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.03|||Chi-squared|||Null is no difference between arms||0.030|-0.047|0.68
91883327|NCT00458393|183660431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.43|||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference between the arms||1.43|0.89|0.30
91883328|NCT00458393|183660432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Log Rank||||Details in the manuscript https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956614/|1.7|0.8|0.41
91883329|NCT00458393|183660433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.34|0.09
91883330|NCT05178979|183660443|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|1.94||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, lifetime experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.38
91883331|NCT05178979|183660443|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, lifetime experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and are adjusted for multiple time points.||Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.84
91883332|NCT05178979|183660443|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, lifetime experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and are adjusted for multiple time points.||Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.50
91883333|NCT05178979|183660444|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|2.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.37
91883334|NCT05178979|183660444|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for clinic; this value is the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Model controls for clinic||Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.18
91883335|NCT05178979|183660444|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for clinic; this value is the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Model controls for clinic|Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.19
91883336|NCT05178979|183660445|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|10.84||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.004
91883337|NCT05178979|183660445|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||<0.001
91804325|NCT00329238|183486641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.6563||95.0|-0.63|1.0|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic DVT at Month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||1.00|-0.63|0.6563
91804326|NCT00329238|183486642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04||||0.1925||95.0|0.7|5.98|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|Hazard ratio for time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic PE.|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||5.98|0.70|0.1925
91883338|NCT05178979|183660445|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.86
91883339|NCT05178979|183660446|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|21.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Logistic||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
91883340|NCT05178979|183660446|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||update||||0.81
91883341|NCT05178979|183660446|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||update||||<0.001
91883342|NCT05178979|183660447|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|150.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
91883343|NCT05178979|183660447|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
91908343|NCT01519765|183712132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2417
91908344|NCT01519765|183712133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91908345|NCT01519765|183712134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1054
91908346|NCT01519765|183712135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8043|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8043
91804327|NCT00329238|183486643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26||||0.3723||95.0|-0.32|0.84|||Kaplan-Meier||Risk difference for the time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic PE at Month 18|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||0.84|-0.32|0.3723
91804328|NCT00329238|183486644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9921||95.0|0.06|16.22|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|Hazard ratio for time to deaths related to VTE.|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||16.22|0.06|0.9921
91804329|NCT00329238|183486645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.9204||95.0|-0.2|0.23|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to deaths related to VTE at Month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||0.23|-0.20|0.9204
91804330|NCT00329238|183486646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.7405||95.0|0.47|1.72|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|Hazard ratio for time to all deaths|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||1.72|0.47|0.7405
91804331|NCT00329238|183486647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.9622||95.0|-0.89|0.84|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to all deaths at Month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||0.84|-0.89|0.9622
91804332|NCT00329238|183486648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0577||95.0|0.27|1.02|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first MBE.|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors (including active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE as qualifying event) and their interaction.||1.02|0.27|0.0577
91804333|NCT00329238|183486648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first occurrence of any bleeding event.|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors (including active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE as qualifying event) and their interaction.||0.83|0.61|<0.0001
91883344|NCT05178979|183660447|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
91883345|NCT05178979|183660448|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|8.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.01
91883346|NCT05178979|183660448|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.15
91804334|NCT00959764|183486653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Assumed placebo-adjusted effect for both active treatment groups (% increase in BMD)was 1.56% and that the placebo adjusted effect for the rsCT tablets must be at least 0.5 times the placebo adjusted effect for the calcitonin nasal spray (active control treatment group). The null hypothesis to be tested was:~\[Mean(oral) - Mean(placebo)\] - 0.5 x \[Mean(nasal) - Mean(placebo)\] \< 0. Reference Pigeot, et al. 2003"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.45||The P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA|||The overall analysis across groups was an Analysis of Covariance where the study was powered to 80% with an assumption of a standard deviation of 2.5% and a two-sided 5% level of significance. For each treatment group, the BMD at 48 weeks was compared with the BMD at baseline and a % increase was calculated (baseline = 0%). This difference was subjected to the t-test. Two-sided P-value is less than or equal to 0.05 and was not adjusted as multiple comparisons were not done.||1.45|0.08|0.002
91804335|NCT00959764|183486654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for Primary Outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.99||0.0006||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for significance was 0.05|ANCOVA|95% confidence interval not calculated||Same as for Primary Outcome||||0.0006
91804336|NCT00959764|183486655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as Primary Outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.53||0.0012||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA||oral calcitonin vs placebo|Same as Primary Outcome||||0.0012
91804337|NCT02284516|183486656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.096|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|11.28||The primary analysis was performed using a stratified 2-sample t-test (that is, analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]).|ANOVA|||||11.28|3.04|=0.0007
91804338|NCT02284516|183486657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|7.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.792|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.33|11.37||The primary analysis was performed using a stratified 2-sample t-test (that is, analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]).|ANOVA|||Baseline and Day 14||11.37|4.33|<0.0001
91883347|NCT05178979|183660448|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.008
91883348|NCT05178979|183660449|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|172.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic and income and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
91908347|NCT01519765|183712136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.797
91804339|NCT02284516|183486657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|13.2||The primary analysis was performed using a stratified 2-sample t-test (that is, analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]).|ANOVA|||Baseline and Day 42||13.20|5.44|<0.0001
91804340|NCT00864383|183486658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was defined as a between-group difference of less than 6 percentage points in the upper boundary of the two-sided 97.5% Wald confidence interval for the difference in proportion of patients with an unfavorable outcome.|Adjusted difference in proportions|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.7|10.5|||||Adjusted difference from control in proportion of unfavorable outcome - percentage points|||10.5|1.7|
91908348|NCT01519765|183712137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.751
91908349|NCT01519765|183712138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6244
91883349|NCT05178979|183660449|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic and income and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.68
91883350|NCT05178979|183660449|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic and income and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||<0.001
91883351|NCT05178979|183660450|SUPERIORITY|Models control for clinic, income, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Wald Chi-square|25.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
91883352|NCT05178979|183660450|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, income, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.10
91883353|NCT05178979|183660450|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, income, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points||||||0.54
91883354|NCT05178979|183660451|SUPERIORITY|Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Wald Chi-square|36.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
91883355|NCT05178979|183660451|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.97|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.97
91883356|NCT05178979|183660451|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||<0.001
91883357|NCT05178979|183660452|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|9.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.01
91883358|NCT05178979|183660452|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.81
91883359|NCT05178979|183660452|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.04
91883360|NCT05178979|183660453|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|14.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
91883361|NCT05178979|183660453|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.45
91883362|NCT05178979|183660453|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.02
91753074|NCT03249935|183398872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio for Chlamydia viral load at baseline as a continuous variable in a logistic model predicting treatment failure at day 28.||1.01|0.45|0.058
91804341|NCT00864383|183486658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was defined as a between-group difference of less than 6 percentage points in the upper boundary of the two-sided 97.5% Wald confidence interval for the proportion of patients with an unfavorable outcome.|Adjusted difference from control|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.7|16.1|||||Adjusted difference from control in rate of unfavorable outcome- percentage points|||16.1|6.7|
91883363|NCT05178979|183660454|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|11.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, AUDIT score, food insecurity and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.004
91883364|NCT05178979|183660454|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, AUDIT score, food insecurity and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.35
91883365|NCT05178979|183660454|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, AUDIT score, food insecurity and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.04
91883366|NCT05178979|183660455|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|2.84||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, travel time to clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.24
91908350|NCT01519765|183712139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7906
91908351|NCT01519765|183712140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5118
91883367|NCT05178979|183660455|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, travel time to clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.92
91883368|NCT05178979|183660455|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, travel time to clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.21
91883369|NCT00817336|183660456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91883370|NCT00817336|183660457|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|2.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91883371|NCT00817336|183660458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.41||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.31
91883372|NCT00817336|183660459|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.41||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.41
91883373|NCT03311269|183660463|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline for the primary efficacy endpoint=0. The alternative hypothesis is that the mean change does not =0. The primary analysis will be a one-sample t-test for both treatment groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline equals 0. Primary analysis will be performed for each treatment group separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.3||This p-value corresponds to the change from Baseline to Week 12 for both treatment groups (ClariVein RES 1% Injection and ClariVein RES 3% Injection) combined.|t-test, 2 sided|One-Sample||Continuous variables summarized using descriptive statistics, specifically the mean, median, standard deviation, minimum and maximum. Categorical variables summarized using frequencies and percentages. All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated. For efficacy analyses, missing post-treatment data will be imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF). Missing safety data will not be imputed.||-2.3|-6.2|<0.001
91883374|NCT03311269|183660463|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline for the primary efficacy endpoint=0. The alternative hypothesis is that the mean change does not =0. The primary analysis will be a one-sample t-test for both treatment groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline equals 0. Primary analysis will be performed for each treatment group separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.0||This p-value corresponds to the change from Baseline to Week 12 for the ClariVein RES 1% Injection treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|One-Sample||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.||-1.0|-5.8|0.011
91883375|NCT03311269|183660463|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline for the primary efficacy endpoint=0. The alternative hypothesis is that the mean change does not =0. The primary analysis will be a one-sample t-test for both treatment groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline equals 0. Primary analysis will be performed for each treatment group separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.6||This p-value corresponds to the change from Baseline to Week 12 for the ClariVein RES 3% Injection treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|One-Sample||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.||-1.6|-8.7|0.010
91883376|NCT03311269|183660463|OTHER|An ANCOVA was performed to compare the change from baseline for ClariVein RES 1% Injection versus ClariVein RES 3% Injection with treatment as the class variable and with baseline score as the covariate|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.3||This p-value corresponds to the difference between treatment groups (ClariVein RES 1% Injection versus ClariVein RES 3% Injection).|ANCOVA|||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.||1.3|-3.7|0.531
91883377|NCT03311269|183660464|OTHER||Descriptive (Percentage)|94.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|99.9|||||The count of the combined treatment group for the elimination of saphenous vein reflux at Week 12 posttreatment is 17/18 (94.4%).|The secondary efficacy endpoint, the elimination of saphenous vein reflux at Week 12 posttreatment, will be summarized for both treatments combined using the count and percentage, together with a 95% Wilson (score) confidence interval for the proportion.||99.9|72.7|
91883378|NCT03311269|183660464|OTHER||Percentage Difference|11.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|42.8||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.|Chi-squared|||For elimination of saphenous vein reflux at Week 12 posttreatment, the treatment difference for ClariVein RES 1% Injection versus ClariVein RES 3% Injection for the proportion was assessed by a chi-square test together with a 95% Wilson (score) confidence interval for the treatment difference.||42.8|-20.5|1.000
91883379|NCT03845075|183660474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.4671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|13.78||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 4; Safety set; LOCF||13.78|-6.58|0.4671
91883380|NCT03845075|183660474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.11||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|25.36||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 8; Safety set; LOCF||25.36|-5.14|0.1808
91883381|NCT03845075|183660474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.63||||0.4171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|16.33||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 12; Safety set; LOCF||16.33|-7.08|0.4171
91908352|NCT01519765|183712141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91908353|NCT01519765|183712142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.741|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.741
91804342|NCT03344796|183486689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91908354|NCT01519765|183712143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.579
91908355|NCT01519765|183712144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8062|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Score for Nausea and vomiting||||.8062
91908356|NCT01519765|183712144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1505|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Effectiveness||||0.1505
91908357|NCT01519765|183712144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1223|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Patient concern||||0.1223
91753075|NCT01229943|183398873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.17||Tests were stratified by: prior treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy (no vs yes), prior use of octreotide (no vs yes), and prior therapy with sunitinib (no vs yes).|Log Rank|||Based on the log rank test, with 130 patients enrolled over 22 months and followed an additional 24 months, the difference in median PFS between 9 months and 14 months can be detected with approximately 90% power (1-sided, α=0.15).||1.17|0.55|0.12
91883382|NCT03845075|183660474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.33||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|16.1||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 16; Safety set; LOCF||16.10|-5.43|0.3116
91883383|NCT03845075|183660474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|15.72||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 20; Safety set; LOCF||15.72|-4.12|0.2353
91883384|NCT03845075|183660474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.86||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|17.48||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24; Safety set; LOCF||17.48|-5.76|0.3037
91883385|NCT03845075|183660475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31||||0.6543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|4.72||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 4; Safety set; LOCF||4.72|-7.33|0.6543
91883386|NCT03845075|183660475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.94||||0.7941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.38||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 8; Safety set; LOCF||8.38|-6.50|0.7941
91883387|NCT03845075|183660475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.5937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|5.73||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 12; Safety set; LOCF||5.73|-9.72|0.5937
91883388|NCT03845075|183660475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.56||||0.5423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|11.23||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 16; Safety set; LOCF||11.23|-6.11|0.5423
91883389|NCT03845075|183660475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.7226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|8.16||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 20; Safety set; LOCF||8.16|-5.77|0.7226
91883390|NCT03845075|183660475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|10.16||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24; Safety set; LOCF||10.16|-7.85|0.7912
91883391|NCT03845075|183660476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.7023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|5.97||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 4; Safety set; LOCF||5.97|-8.67|0.7023
91883392|NCT03845075|183660476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.9012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|7.61||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 8; Safety set; LOCF||7.61|-8.58|0.9012
91753076|NCT03780959|183398879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by study center and the number of active joints at randomization||||||0.0030
91883393|NCT03845075|183660476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.14||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|10.92||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 12; Safety set; LOCF||10.92|-6.63|0.6138
91883394|NCT03845075|183660476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.23||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|10.72||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 16; Safety set; LOCF||10.72|-8.26|0.7889
91883395|NCT03845075|183660476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.9536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|10.94||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 20; Safety set; LOCF||10.94|-10.34|0.9536
91883396|NCT03845075|183660476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|12.12||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24; Safety set; LOCF||12.12|-6.72|0.5551
91883397|NCT03845075|183660480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.52||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.23|16.2||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24||16.20|-21.23|0.7782
91908358|NCT01519765|183712144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.538||||||Patient satisfaction|Kruskal-Wallis|||Labor satisfaction||||0.5380
91753077|NCT03780959|183398880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
91804343|NCT03344796|183486690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91804344|NCT03344796|183486691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91883398|NCT03845075|183660480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.26||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|7.56||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48||7.56|-22.09|0.3130
91804345|NCT03344796|183486692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Knowledge of sun protection score at baseline compared with score after completion of the arm. The hypothesis is that the focus group, usability test and structured interviews arms will not have significant change in knowledge. It is expected that cohort studies 1 and 2 will have significant change in knowledge of sun protection.||||< 0.1
91804346|NCT02516046|183486722|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.86||||||Inter-reader agreement analysis using Fleiss' kappa. The hypothesis tested was that the observed kappa values were ≥0.64 and the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs were ≥0.55 for the inter-reader agreement among readers.||0.86|0.74|
91804347|NCT03137537|183486735|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91804348|NCT03137537|183486736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91883399|NCT03845075|183660480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.73||||0.4033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.92|8.47||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48||8.47|-19.92|0.4033
91883400|NCT03845075|183660481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|-0.71||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24||-0.71|-14.29|0.0325
91804349|NCT01211730|183486744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.709
91804350|NCT01211730|183486745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.003
91883401|NCT03845075|183660481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.9394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|8.4||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48||8.40|-9.04|0.9394
91883402|NCT03845075|183660481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.91||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|12.18||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 28||12.18|1.65|0.0135
91883403|NCT03845075|183660482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.17||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|0.98||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed.||0.98|-9.31|0.1048
91908359|NCT01519765|183712145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2868||||||This is the overall p value of all rows.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2868
91908360|NCT01699542|183712151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.159
91908361|NCT02943564|183712169|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.73|-1.50|0.8862
91804351|NCT01211730|183486746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0046
91804352|NCT01211730|183486747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.75
91804353|NCT01211730|183486748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.56
91804354|NCT01211730|183486749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.77
91804355|NCT02465515|183486750|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined by testing the hypothesis that the observed hazard ratio is significantly different from the null margin of 1.3 (a one-sided p \<0.025 for such a test with result in appropriate direction being equivalent to the upper 95% confidence limit for the hazard ratio being less than 1.3)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.9||One-sided p-value based on Wald test of hazard ratio (HR) \>=1.3 versus HR \<1.3.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate|||0.90|0.68|<0.0001
91804356|NCT02465515|183486750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1|Wald test|||||||<0.001
91804357|NCT02465515|183486751|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.9||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.90|0.69|<0.001
91804358|NCT02465515|183486752|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate|||1.19|0.73|0.578
91804359|NCT02465515|183486753|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.90|0.61|0.003
91883404|NCT03845075|183660482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.7189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|4.77||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT observed.||4.77|-6.75|0.7189
91908362|NCT02943564|183712169|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.16|-2.07|0.5772
91908363|NCT02943564|183712170|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.29|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.29|-1.48|0.8967
91883405|NCT03845075|183660482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.09||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|6.91||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT observed.||6.91|-0.73|0.1053
91883406|NCT03845075|183660483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.12||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-1.21||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed||-1.21|-5.02|0.0033
91883407|NCT03845075|183660483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58||||0.6663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.41||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF||3.41|-2.24|0.6663
91883408|NCT03845075|183660483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.59||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.98||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT LOCF||5.98|1.21|0.0058
91804360|NCT02465515|183486754|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.14|0.66|0.300
91804361|NCT02465515|183486755|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.04|0.70|0.113
91883409|NCT03845075|183660484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.02||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|0.3||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed||0.30|-6.34|0.0713
91883410|NCT03845075|183660484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.48||||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|0.96||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF||0.96|-5.92|0.1457
91883411|NCT03845075|183660484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.15||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT LOCF||2.15|-0.45|0.1837
91883412|NCT03845075|183660485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.33||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT LOCF||0.33|-0.42|0.7926
91883413|NCT03845075|183660485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.17||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF||0.17|-0.72|0.2124
91883414|NCT03845075|183660485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.43||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT LOCF||0.43|-0.72|0.6084
91883415|NCT03845075|183660486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|16.0||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|34.85||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to week 24; mITT observed. (Like to eat something fatty)||34.85|-2.85|0.0905
91883416|NCT03845075|183660486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.65||||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|35.36||P-value from ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Like some meat/fish)||35.36|-22.05|0.6285
91908364|NCT02943564|183712170|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.39|-1.38|0.9963
91804362|NCT02465515|183486756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.53||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.53|0.33|<0.001
91804363|NCT02465515|183486757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.99||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.99|0.51|0.043
91883417|NCT03845075|183660486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.81||||0.5884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.05|19.43||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Eat something salty).||19.43|-33.05|0.5884
91883418|NCT03845075|183660486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.98||||0.8533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.73|36.68||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Eat something sweet).||36.68|-30.73|0.8533
91883419|NCT03845075|183660486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.33||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.87|7.2||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like to eat something fatty).||7.20|-41.87|0.1529
91883420|NCT03845075|183660486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.75||||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.15|13.65||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like some meat/fish).||13.65|-37.15|0.3399
91883421|NCT03845075|183660486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.95||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.84|1.93||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something salty).||1.93|-49.84|0.0673
91883422|NCT03845075|183660486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.6||||0.1657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.65|10.46||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something sweet).||10.46|-55.65|0.1657
91883423|NCT03845075|183660486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.18||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.31|-8.06||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like to eat something fatty).||-8.06|-52.31|0.0108
91883424|NCT03845075|183660486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.79||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.71|7.13||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like some meat/fish).||7.13|-36.71|0.1710
91883425|NCT03845075|183660486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.86||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-5.93||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something salty).||-5.93|-33.80|0.0083
91883426|NCT03845075|183660486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.98||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.39|1.43||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something sweet).||1.43|-47.39|0.0631
91883427|NCT03845075|183660487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.56||||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|19.53||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed.||19.53|-24.65|0.8082
91883428|NCT03845075|183660487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|23.1||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF.||23.10|-25.94|0.9034
91883429|NCT03845075|183660487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|12.93||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF.||12.93|-26.93|0.4658
91883430|NCT03845075|183660488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.68||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|0.1||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT LOCF.||0.10|-11.46|0.0537
91883431|NCT03845075|183660488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.69||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|3.61||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF.||3.61|-8.98|0.3772
91804364|NCT02465515|183486758|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Month 8||||||<0.001
91804365|NCT02465515|183486758|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Month 16||||||<0.001
91804366|NCT02465515|183486758|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Month 24||||||<0.001
91804367|NCT02465515|183486758|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Final assessment||||||<0.001
91804368|NCT02465515|183486759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.01||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.01|0.43|0.055
91804369|NCT02465515|183486760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.58||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline HbA1c+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline HbA1c-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8|||-0.58|-0.69|<0.001
91804370|NCT02465515|183486760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.45||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline HbA1c+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline HbA1c-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||-0.45|-0.58|<0.001
91883432|NCT03845075|183660488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.03||||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|6.91||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF.||6.91|-0.85|0.1171
91908365|NCT03924752|183712236|OTHER|A two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on different walking conditions (including the baseline of not wearing the exoskeleton) on the subject's overground self-selected walking speed across different locomotion modes by setting the significant value to 0.05. Two independent variables were assistance type (Exo vs No Exo) and different locomotion modes.||||||0.9547||||||This presents the effect of exoskeleton assistance on the user's preferred overground walking speed across different locomotion modes.|ANOVA|||||||0.9547
91804371|NCT02465515|183486761|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.49||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Body Weight+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Body Weight-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8|||-0.49|-0.83|<0.001
91804372|NCT02465515|183486761|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.6||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Body Weight+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Body weight-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||-0.60|-1.06|<0.001
91804373|NCT02465515|183486762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|2.93||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Total Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Total Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8|||2.93|1.85|<0.001
91804374|NCT02465515|183486762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.01||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Total Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Total Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||3.01|1.66|<0.001
91883433|NCT03845075|183660489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.5||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in total cholesterol)||0.50|-0.59|0.8623
91908366|NCT02012621|183712237|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|210.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||210.5|25.7|<0.0001
91804375|NCT02465515|183486763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.07||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8.|||2.07|0.87|<0.001
91804376|NCT02465515|183486763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.31||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||1.31|-0.26|0.192
91804377|NCT02465515|183486764|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.16|0.79|0.644
91804378|NCT02465515|183486768|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.39||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline eGFR+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline eGFR-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8.|||-0.39|-1.84|0.003
91883434|NCT03845075|183660489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.3||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in HDL cholesterol)||0.30|-0.25|0.8327
91753078|NCT04253587|183398882|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was no difference between mean change scores for time-points X conditions.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||Mixed effects ANOVA applied family wise error for post-hoc tests according to a priori hypothesis|ANOVA|||||0.06|-0.06|= 0.016
91753079|NCT04253587|183398883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|=|0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANOVA|effect of condition (F1,20 = 1.616, p = 0.22), effect of time (F1,20 = 0.613, p = 0.44)||||0.03|-0.03|= 0.22
91753080|NCT04732949|183398888|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Hazard Ratio for time to hospital discharge - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.27|0.89|0.509
91753081|NCT04732949|183398889|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Hazard Ratio for time to OSCI recovery - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.28|0.81|0.888
91753082|NCT04732949|183398890|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for progression to severe disease or death - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.15|0.44|0.161
91753083|NCT04732949|183398891|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for intubation or death - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.61|0.45|0.610
91753084|NCT04732949|183398892|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for death - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.67|0.38|0.544
91753085|NCT04732949|183398893|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 7) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.64|0.85|0.323
91753086|NCT04732949|183398893|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 14) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.70|0.81|0.406
91753087|NCT04732949|183398893|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 21) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.43|0.64|0.828
91753088|NCT04732949|183398893|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 28) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.40|0.61|0.706
91753089|NCT04732949|183398894|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 7) - SNG001 vs Placebo||3.22|0.90|0.101
91753090|NCT04732949|183398894|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 14) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.45|0.67|0.942
91753091|NCT04732949|183398894|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 21) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.35|0.68|0.824
91753092|NCT04732949|183398894|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 28) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.28|0.66|0.613
91753093|NCT04732949|183398896|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SNG001 vs Placebo||0.3|-0.1|0.410
91753094|NCT01023672|183398906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis was done per protocol (n=17)||||0.003
91753095|NCT02905006|183398938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91753096|NCT02905006|183398938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91753097|NCT02905006|183398938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91753098|NCT02905006|183398938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91753099|NCT02905006|183398939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.43|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|101.88|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||101.88|4.51|=0.0001
91753100|NCT02905006|183398939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|63.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|309.83|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||309.83|12.90|<0.0001
91753101|NCT02905006|183398939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|62.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.61|308.29|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||308.29|12.61|<0.0001
91753102|NCT02905006|183398939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|130.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|693.51|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||693.51|24.50|<0.0001
91753103|NCT02905006|183398939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.07|342.4|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||342.40|14.07|<0.0001
91804379|NCT02465515|183486768|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.41||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline eGFR+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline eGFR-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16.|||0.41|-1.26|0.315
91804380|NCT00453063|183486773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91804381|NCT00453063|183486774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.304||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.304
91804382|NCT00453063|183486775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91804383|NCT00453063|183486776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.063
91804384|NCT00453063|183486777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.356||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.356
91804385|NCT01918774|183486787|OTHER|Pre-post analysis comparing weeks worked in the 6 months preceding baseline and the 6 month study follow-up.|||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold of significance was p\<.05|within groups t-test|||||||<.001
91883435|NCT03845075|183660489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.42||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in LDL cholesterol)||0.42|-0.53|0.8080
91883436|NCT03845075|183660489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.5791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.07|||ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in triglycerides)||1.07|-0.62|0.5791
91804386|NCT03000439|183486805|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.633|||=|0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.354||1-sided p-value is provided.|Unstratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as covariate. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard ratio in favor of Tofacitinib 5 mg BID to Placebo.|||1.354|0.296|= 0.1171
91883437|NCT03845075|183660489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.77||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in cholesterol)||0.77|-0.71|0.9337
91883438|NCT03845075|183660489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in HDL cholesterol)||0.23|-0.21|0.9305
91883439|NCT03845075|183660489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.59||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in LDL cholesterol)||0.59|-0.40|0.6910
91908367|NCT02012621|183712238|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|30.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.9|2.3|0.0012
91908368|NCT02012621|183712239|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.7|2.6|<0.0001
91908369|NCT00533442|183712269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Biopsy-Proven Acute Rejection of the Kidney (logrank test).||||0.01
91908370|NCT00533442|183712269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Biopsy-Proven Acute Rejection of the Pancreas (logrank test).||||0.01
91804387|NCT03000439|183486806|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|13.6|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 4||13.6|-12.2|
91804388|NCT03000439|183486806|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|11.3|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 8||11.3|-27.9|
91804389|NCT03000439|183486806|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|11.6|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 12||11.6|-33.2|
91804390|NCT03000439|183486806|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|9.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 16||9.8|-37.2|
91804391|NCT03000439|183486806|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|11.5|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 20||11.5|-37.9|
91804392|NCT03000439|183486806|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|11.5|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 24||11.5|-37.9|
91804393|NCT03000439|183486806|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|15.6|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 28||15.6|-34.5|
91804394|NCT03000439|183486806|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|11.5|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 32||11.5|-39.5|
91804395|NCT03000439|183486806|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|16.7|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 36||16.7|-35.5|
91804396|NCT03000439|183486806|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|16.7|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 40||16.7|-35.5|
91804397|NCT03000439|183486806|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|11.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 44||11.8|-41.8|
91804398|NCT03000439|183486806|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|11.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 48||11.8|-41.8|
91908371|NCT00533442|183712269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||Death-Censored Kidney Graft Failure (logrank test).||||0.16
91804399|NCT03000439|183486806|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|11.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 52||11.8|-41.8|
91804400|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.02|5.21|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 4||5.21|-28.02|
91804401|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.37|21.36|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 8||21.36|-18.37|
91804402|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.68|23.6|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 12||23.60|-22.68|
91804403|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|34.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 16||34.10|-13.82|
91804404|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|40.92|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 20||40.92|-8.43|
91804405|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 24||34.39|-15.49|
91804406|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 28||34.33|-16.13|
91804407|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 32||34.33|-16.13|
91804408|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
91804409|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 40||34.33|-16.13|
91804410|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 44||34.33|-16.13|
91908372|NCT00533442|183712269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|||Death-Censored Pancreas Graft Failure (logrank test).||||0.12
91804411|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
91804412|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
91804413|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.02|5.21|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 4||5.21|-28.02|
91804414|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|25.17|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 8||25.17|-15.72|
91804415|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.68|23.6|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 12||23.60|-22.68|
91804416|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|37.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 16||37.48|-10.76|
91804417|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|44.14|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 20||44.14|-5.20|
91804418|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 24||34.39|-15.49|
91804419|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 28||34.33|-16.13|
91804420|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 32||34.33|-16.13|
91804421|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
91804422|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 40||34.33|-16.13|
91804423|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 44||37.56|-12.91|
91804424|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
91908373|NCT00533442|183712269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Log Rank|||Death-Uncensored (Kidney \& Pancreas) Graft Survival (logrank test).||||0.96
91908374|NCT00533442|183712269|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Patient Death (logrank test).|Log Rank|||||||>0.99
91883440|NCT03845075|183660489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.01||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in triglycerides)||1.01|-0.30|0.2688
91753104|NCT02905006|183398940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.23|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|87.76|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||87.76|3.79|=0.0003
91883441|NCT03845075|183660489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.67||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in cholesterol)||0.67|-0.54|0.8262
91883442|NCT03845075|183660489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.8293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in HDL cholesterol)||0.17|-0.20|0.8293
91883443|NCT03845075|183660489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.5486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.49||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in LDL cholesterol)||0.49|-0.27|0.5486
91883444|NCT03845075|183660489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.75||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in triglycerides)||0.75|-0.26|0.3226
91883445|NCT03845075|183660490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|6.73||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Physical component score)||6.73|-5.55|0.8420
91883446|NCT03845075|183660490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74||||0.6693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|6.67||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Mental component score)||6.67|-10.15|0.6693
91753105|NCT02905006|183398940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.19|191.59|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||191.59|8.19|<0.0001
91753106|NCT02905006|183398940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.19|392.93|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||392.93|15.19|<0.0001
91753107|NCT02905006|183398940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|141.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.26|767.72|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||767.72|26.26|<0.0001
91753108|NCT02905006|183398940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.89|288.0|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||288.00|11.89|<0.0001
91753109|NCT02905006|183398941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91753110|NCT02905006|183398941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91908375|NCT00533442|183712270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean eGFR at 12 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.21
91908376|NCT00533442|183712270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean eGFR at 36 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.71
91753111|NCT02905006|183398941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91753112|NCT02905006|183398941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91753113|NCT02905006|183398941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91753114|NCT02905006|183398942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.82|156.38|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||156.38|6.82|<0.0001
91753115|NCT02905006|183398942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|94.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.54|481.86|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||481.86|18.54|<0.0001
91804425|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
91804426|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|10.49|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 4||10.49|-38.14|
91804427|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|13.15|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 8||13.15|-32.28|
91804428|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|24.24|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 12||24.24|-24.70|
91804429|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|31.06|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 16||31.06|-19.31|
91804430|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|44.06|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 20||44.06|-5.81|
91804431|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.55|27.47|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 24||27.47|-23.55|
91804432|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER|The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|Difference in percentage|15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|40.46|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 28||40.46|-10.05|
91804433|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 32||37.56|-12.91|
91804434|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
91883447|NCT03845075|183660490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.83||||0.5444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|4.46||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Physical component score)||4.46|-8.12|0.5444
91883448|NCT03845075|183660490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|4.76||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Mental component score)||4.76|-8.47|0.5595
91804435|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 40||37.56|-12.91|
91804436|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 44||37.56|-12.91|
91804437|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
91804438|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
91804439|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.09|4.46|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 4||4.46|-44.09|
91908377|NCT00533442|183712270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean eGFR at 60 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.33
91908378|NCT00533442|183712271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean Log {C-Peptide Level} at 12 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||.47
91804440|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-17.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.19|5.63|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 8||5.63|-40.19|
91804441|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.66|14.45|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 20||14.45|-29.66|
91804442|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.19|9.77|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 12||9.77|-37.19|
91804443|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|18.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 16||18.61|-26.67|
91804444|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|5.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 32||5.83|-35.32|
91804445|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|17.26|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 24||17.26|-26.02|
91804446|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|12.99|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 28||12.99|-28.89|
91804447|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.65|16.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 36||16.83|-30.65|
91883449|NCT03845075|183660490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.07||||0.4331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|3.41||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Physical component score)||3.41|-7.54|0.4331
91753116|NCT02905006|183398942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|117.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.08|626.89|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||626.89|22.08|<0.0001
91753117|NCT02905006|183398942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|280.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.06|1789.24|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||1789.24|44.06|<0.0001
91753118|NCT02905006|183398942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|107.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.82|558.57|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||558.57|20.82|<0.0001
91753119|NCT02905006|183398943|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||=0.0001
91753120|NCT02905006|183398943|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||=0.0002
91753121|NCT02905006|183398943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||<0.0001
91753122|NCT02905006|183398943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||<0.0001
91753123|NCT02905006|183398943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||<0.0001
91753124|NCT00824005|183399054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.34||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Compare the change in the cell group to the change in the placebo group.||2.34|-0.42|0.169
91753125|NCT00824005|183399055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|12.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in the difference of end systolic volume over time.||12.07|-10.05|0.856
91753126|NCT00824005|183399056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.3||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|10.1||Is the change in percent reversible defect the same between the two groups|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in percent of the defect that is reversible||10.1|-12.5|0.835
91753127|NCT00824005|183399059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change between the two groups||0.14|-0.30|0.471
91753128|NCT00824005|183399060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.784||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average improvement in Canadian Class Score over time between the two groups.||0.16|-0.66|0.227
91753129|NCT00824005|183399061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change in NYHA score between the two groups||0.21|-0.56|0.361
91753130|NCT00824005|183399062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the proportion of particip|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.045||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||Chi-squared|||Difference in the change in anti-anginal meds across groups||0.09|-0.01|0.28
91753131|NCT00824005|183399063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|104.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|409.0||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|303.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in six minute walk distance||303|-95|0.302
91753132|NCT00824005|183399064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.0||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.0|80.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change in BNP(reg) between cell and placebo group||80|-150|0.55
91753133|NCT00824005|183399065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.2||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|23.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in the difference of end diastolic volume between the two groups over time.||23.93|-5.03|0.198
91753134|NCT00824005|183399066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the incidence rates|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.039|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events between the two groups over time. (Incidence rate)||0.039|-0.133|0.47
91753135|NCT00824005|183399067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|3.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change between the two groups||3.36|-4.78|0.7
91753136|NCT03458702|183399088|EQUIVALENCE|It would be expected at baseline that there were no differences between groups.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91753137|NCT03458702|183399088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA for TIME||||<0.001
91753138|NCT03458702|183399089|EQUIVALENCE|It would be expected at baseline there would be no difference between groups.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91753139|NCT03458702|183399089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: Condition x Time Interaction||||<0.001
91753140|NCT03458702|183399089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: TIME||||0.005
91753141|NCT03458702|183399090|EQUIVALENCE|It would be hypothesized that there would not be a difference at baseline.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
91753142|NCT03458702|183399090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: CONDITION X TIME INTERACTION||||0.042
91753143|NCT03458702|183399090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||ANOVA: TIME||||<0.001
91753144|NCT03458702|183399091|EQUIVALENCE|A difference at baseline was not expected.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91753145|NCT03458702|183399091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: TIME||||0.016
91753146|NCT03458702|183399092|EQUIVALENCE|no difference is expected at baseline|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91753147|NCT03458702|183399092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA:TIME||||0.026
91753148|NCT03458702|183399093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
91804448|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.16|19.78|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 40||19.78|-27.16|
91883450|NCT03845075|183660490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.03||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Mental component score)||5.03|-7.90|0.6427
91804449|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 44||22.68|-23.60|
91804450|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 48||22.68|-23.60|
91804451|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 52||22.68|-23.60|
91804452|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.45|0.05|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 4||0.05|-42.45|
91883451|NCT03845075|183660492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.86||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|17.48||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; safety set LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure)||17.48|-5.76|0.3037
91908379|NCT00533442|183712271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean Log {C-Peptide Level} at 36 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.97
91908380|NCT00533442|183712271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean Log {C-Peptide Level} at 60 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.75
91908381|NCT03787472|183712290|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.6|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator of degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||6.6|-5.5|
91908382|NCT03787472|183712291|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.041|||Linear Mixed Model||Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Distance Standard High Contrast Bright||0.041|-0.025|
91753149|NCT04375397|183399136|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.2|20.4|||Miettinen-Nurminen method||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) CI for the adjusted risk difference across strata|The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm were analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method, adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. The MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 at two-sided alpha = 0.2.||20.4|-9.2|=0.599
91753150|NCT04375397|183399136|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|28.7|||Miettinen-Nurminen method||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) CI for the adjusted risk difference across strata|The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm were analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method, adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. The MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 at twosided alpha = 0.2.||28.7|-18.1|=0.599
91753151|NCT04375397|183399137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||=|0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|10.44|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = -3~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||10.44|0.13|=0.886
91753152|NCT04375397|183399137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||=|0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|6.43|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = -2~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||6.43|0.06|=0.705
91753153|NCT04375397|183399137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||=|0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of this 95% CI is infinite.||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = -1~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"|||0.00|=0.996
91753154|NCT04375397|183399137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|32.18|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = 0~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||32.18|0.04|=0.969
91804453|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-18.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.98|1.34|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 8||1.34|-37.98|
91804454|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 12||8.61|-31.65|
91804455|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|12.99|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 16||12.99|-28.89|
91883452|NCT03845075|183660492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|10.16||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; safety set LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure)||10.16|-7.85|0.7912
91883453|NCT03845075|183660492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.29||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|25.83||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure)||25.83|-5.25|0.1773
91908383|NCT03787472|183712291|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.019|||Linear Mixed Model||Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Intermediate Standard High Contrast Bright||0.019|-0.043|
91753155|NCT04375397|183399137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|32.18|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = 1~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||32.18|0.04|=0.969
91804456|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|18.91|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 20||18.91|-16.15|
91804457|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.36|18.37|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 24||18.37|-21.36|
91804458|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 28||11.32|-27.91|
91804459|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.29|4.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 32||4.10|-34.29|
91804460|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 36||8.61|-31.65|
91804461|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.66|14.45|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 40||14.45|-29.66|
91804462|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|17.26|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 44||17.26|-26.02|
91804463|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|21.43|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 48||21.43|-23.04|
91908384|NCT03787472|183712291|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.037|||Linear Mixed Model||Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Near Standard High Contrast Bright||0.037|-0.030|
91908385|NCT02227693|183712292|OTHER||Difference of responder rate vs. placebo|19.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|57.0|||Shirley-Williams test|P-value is based on Shirley-Williams test at a one-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|Difference of responder rate vs. placebo = responder rate for avatrombopag - responder rate for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|||57.0|-18.1|0.146
91804464|NCT03000439|183486809|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|21.43|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 52||21.43|-23.04|
91753156|NCT04375397|183399137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|32.18|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = 3~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||32.18|0.04|=0.969
91804465|NCT03000439|183486817|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.42|7.75|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||7.75|-23.42|
91804466|NCT03000439|183486817|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.94|24.08|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||24.08|-13.94|
91804467|NCT03000439|183486817|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.43|23.04|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||23.04|-21.43|
91804468|NCT03000439|183486817|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|34.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||34.10|-13.82|
91804469|NCT03000439|183486817|OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|40.92|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||40.92|-8.43|
91804470|NCT03000439|183486817|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||34.39|-15.49|
91804471|NCT03000439|183486817|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||34.33|-16.13|
91804472|NCT03000439|183486817|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||34.33|-16.13|
91883454|NCT03845075|183660492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.32||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|12.2||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure)||12.20|-9.55|0.7980
91883455|NCT03845075|183660492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.77||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.94||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From week 24 to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure)||18.94|-3.40|0.1580
91883456|NCT03845075|183660492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.64||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|10.64||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From week 24 to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure)||10.64|-7.36|0.7021
91883457|NCT03845075|183660493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.8728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|21.18||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure mean)||21.18|-18.17|0.8728
91804473|NCT03000439|183486817|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
91804474|NCT03000439|183486817|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||34.33|-16.13|
91804475|NCT03000439|183486817|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||34.33|-16.13|
91804476|NCT03000439|183486817|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
91883458|NCT03845075|183660493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.46||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|11.54||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure mean)||11.54|-6.61|0.5714
91883459|NCT03845075|183660493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.15||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.51|7.22||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 12; mITT LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure mean)||7.22|-27.51|0.2322
91883460|NCT03845075|183660493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.46||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|5.68||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 12; mITT LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure mean)||5.68|-12.61|0.4321
91908386|NCT02227693|183712292|OTHER||Difference of responder rate vs. placebo|54.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|87.7|||Shirley-Williams test|P-value is based on Shirley-Williams test at a one-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|Difference of responder rate vs. placebo = responder rate for avatrombopag - responder rate for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|||87.7|21.4|0.004
91804477|NCT03000439|183486817|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
91804478|NCT03000439|183486823|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.38||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.38|-2.40|
91804479|NCT03000439|183486823|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|4.12||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.12|-2.25|
91804480|NCT03000439|183486823|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.06||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.06|-4.54|
91804481|NCT03000439|183486823|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|2.28||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.28|-3.99|
91804482|NCT03000439|183486823|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.94||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.94|-3.12|
91753157|NCT04375397|183399138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-1.5|||=|0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's test||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC|Median days spent on supplemental oxygen was compared between treatment groups using Van Elteren's test with the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.801
91753158|NCT04375397|183399139|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.7|7.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 7-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||7.3|-6.7|=1.000
91753159|NCT04375397|183399139|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|15.5|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 7-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||15.5|-14.4|=1.000
91753160|NCT04375397|183399139|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.7|7.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 14-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||7.3|-6.7|=1.000
91753161|NCT04375397|183399139|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|15.5|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 14-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||15.5|-14.4|=1.000
91753162|NCT04375397|183399139|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.7|14.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 21-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||14.8|-1.7|=0.267
91753163|NCT04375397|183399139|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|22.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 21-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||22.8|-9.6|=0.267
91753164|NCT04375397|183399139|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.7|14.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 28-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||14.8|-1.7|=0.267
91753165|NCT04375397|183399139|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|22.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 28-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||22.8|-9.6|=0.267
91753166|NCT04375397|183399140|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.8|3.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 7~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||3.3|-24.8|=0.314
91753167|NCT04375397|183399140|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|12.0|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 7~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||12.0|-32.8|=0.314
91753168|NCT04375397|183399140|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.8|3.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 14~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||3.3|-24.8|=0.314
91753169|NCT04375397|183399140|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|12.0|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 14~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||12.0|-32.8|=0.314
91753170|NCT04375397|183399140|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.4|9.2|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 21~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||9.2|-20.4|=0.599
91883461|NCT03845075|183660496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|12.12||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; safety set LOCF. (Change in heart rate)||12.12|-6.72|0.5551
91883462|NCT03845075|183660496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.13||||0.7256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|10.63||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in heart rate)||10.63|-14.88|0.7256
91753171|NCT04375397|183399140|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|18.1|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 21~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||18.1|-28.7|=0.599
91753172|NCT04375397|183399140|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.4|9.2|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 28~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||9.2|-20.4|=0.599
91753173|NCT04375397|183399140|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|18.1|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 28~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||18.1|-28.7|=0.599
91753174|NCT04375397|183399141|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.851|||||||Log Rank|||For the analysis of mechanical ventilation-free survival, the distribution of time to event was estimated by treatment group using Kaplan-Meier methodology and compared between the experimental arm and the control arm using the log-rank test stratified by prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.851
91753175|NCT04375397|183399142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|0.0|||=|0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's test||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC|Median days spent on mechanical ventilation were compared between treatment groups using Van Elteren's test with the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.745
91753176|NCT04375397|183399143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-0.5|||=|0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's test]||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC|Median duration of hospitalization was compared between treatment groups using Van Elteren's test with the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.977
91753177|NCT04375397|183399144|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.969|||||||Log Rank|||For the analysis of time to discharge from hospital, the distribution of time to event was estimated by treatment group using Kaplan-Meier methodology and compared between the experimental arm and the control arm using the log-rank test stratified by prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.969
91753178|NCT00086502|183399148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|<|0.001||95.0|-0.85|-0.54||"Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior antihyperglycemic~agent (AHA) therapy \[not on AHA, monotherapy with oral AHA, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-based combination therapy\]"|ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-0.85|<0.001
91753179|NCT00086502|183399149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.9|<|0.001||95.0|-24.3|-11.0||Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy \[not on AHA, monotherapy with oral AHA, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-based combination therapy\]|ANCOVA|||||-11.0|-24.3|<0.001
91908387|NCT02227693|183712292|OTHER||Difference of responder rate vs. placebo|30.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|65.7|||Shirley-Williams test|P-value is based on Shirley-Williams test at a one-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|Difference of responder rate vs. placebo = responder rate for avatrombopag - responder rate for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|||65.7|-3.9|0.024
91753180|NCT01304329|183399150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.9|105.29|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by empa alone||105.29|98.90|
91753181|NCT01304329|183399151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.06|128.07|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone"||128.07|80.06|
91753182|NCT01304329|183399151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.09|122.07|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin acid~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||122.07|90.09|
91753183|NCT01304329|183399152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.91|123.69|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by empa alone||123.69|96.91|
91753184|NCT01304329|183399153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.3|123.77|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"Cmax of simvastatin.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||123.77|76.30|
91804483|NCT03000439|183486823|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|2.06||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.06|-1.46|
91804484|NCT03000439|183486823|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|5.29||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.29|-7.85|
91804485|NCT03000439|183486823|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.93||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.93|-1.98|
91908388|NCT02227693|183712293|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|14.3||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|40.2||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||40.2|-11.6|0.388
91753185|NCT01304329|183399153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.9|111.44|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"Cmax of simvastatin acid.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||111.44|84.90|
91753186|NCT01304329|183399154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.1|106.06|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by empa alone.||106.06|99.10|
91753187|NCT01304329|183399155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.39|130.29|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||130.29|80.39|
91753188|NCT01304329|183399155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|111.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.93|129.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin acid.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||129.02|95.93|
91753189|NCT05545644|183399160|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
91753190|NCT05545644|183399161|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
91753191|NCT05545644|183399162|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
91753192|NCT05545644|183399162|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Hedges g = .04; SE = .42|||
91753193|NCT05545644|183399163|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
91753194|NCT01643876|183399168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5|||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: in individuals with denture stomatitis, there are no difference in the extent of palatal inflammation before and 3 months after palatal brushing. Assuming that the minimal practically important pre/post difference in the mean change score is 20 percent and the standard deviation of the distribution of the change in score is 0.8, a sample size of 44 participants is required to ensure a power of 90 % of rejecting the null hypothesis if it is indeed false.||||<0.0001
91753195|NCT01643876|183399169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-57.5|||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: in individuals with denture stomatitis, there are no difference in the number of Candida Colony-Forming Units (CFUs), before and 3 months after palatal brushing.||||<0.05
91753196|NCT01945775|183399170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|0.711|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status).||0.711|0.413|<0.0001
91753197|NCT01945775|183399171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|8.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method. Stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status.||8.83|2.93|<0.0001
91753198|NCT01945775|183399172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.073|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status).||1.073|0.670|0.1693
91753199|NCT01945775|183399180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on repeated measures mixed-effect model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate. Analysis was based on restricted maximum likelihood using unstructured covariance matrix.||12.3|4.6|<0.0001
91753200|NCT01945775|183399181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.549|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status).||0.549|0.257|<0.0001
91804486|NCT03000439|183486823|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.35||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.35|-1.86|
91804487|NCT03000439|183486823|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|3.63||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.63|-2.18|
91883463|NCT03845075|183660496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.29||||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|6.48||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From week 24 to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in heart rate)||6.48|-13.05|0.4822
91883464|NCT00409409|183660497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
91883465|NCT01586975|183660498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is not adjusted, and no a priori threshold was used|Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric ANOVA test||||0.0742
91883466|NCT03802617|183660534|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.63|||MMRM|||||0.63|-0.85|0.770
91883467|NCT03802617|183660534|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.04|||MMRM|||||-0.04|-1.55|0.038
91908389|NCT02227693|183712293|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|27.3||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|53.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||53.6|1.0|0.214
91908390|NCT02227693|183712293|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|62.3||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|99.9||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||99.9|24.8|0.012
91753201|NCT01945775|183399182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.392||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.775|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system).||0.775|0.198|0.0053
91753202|NCT02876328|183399183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Each active group is compared to placebo using a 2-sided .0167 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyses are stratified by site.||Analysis applies to both adults and children.||||<.001
91753203|NCT02068118|183399190|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.97|||=|0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths that occurred during hospitalization with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||1.23|0.77|=0.80
91753204|NCT02068118|183399191|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.82|||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.1|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths that occurred during hospitalization with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||1.10|0.62|=0.18
91883468|NCT03802617|183660534|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.03|||MMRM|||||-0.03|-1.54|0.041
91883469|NCT02635386|183660549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|nested repeated measure||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.02
91883470|NCT02635386|183660550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
91883471|NCT02635386|183660551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
91883472|NCT02635386|183660552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|one way with Bonferroni contrast||One way ANOVA with Bonferroni test to compare differences between groups if significant||||<0.0001
91908391|NCT02227693|183712293|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|72.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.3|100.0||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||100.0|44.3|0.001
91908392|NCT02227693|183712293|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|40.9||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|76.2||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||76.2|5.6|0.063
91908393|NCT02227693|183712293|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-27.3||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-1.0||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||-1.0|-53.6|0.245
91908394|NCT02227693|183712293|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|27.3||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|66.8||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||66.8|-12.2|0.386
91883473|NCT02635386|183660553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
91883474|NCT02635386|183660554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measure design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.05
91883475|NCT02635386|183660555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
91804488|NCT03000439|183486823|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.56||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.56|-3.22|
91804489|NCT03000439|183486823|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.3||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-1.76|
91804490|NCT03000439|183486823|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|1.93||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.93|-3.43|
91804491|NCT03000439|183486824|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.61||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.61|-1.80|
91804492|NCT03000439|183486824|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|4.86||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.86|-0.64|
91804493|NCT03000439|183486824|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.21||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.21|-4.25|
91883476|NCT02635386|183660556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
91753205|NCT02068118|183399192|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.6|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.92|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths that occurred during hospitalization with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||0.92|0.39|=0.02
91753206|NCT02068118|183399193|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.68|||||||Log Rank|||Time to first event compared using the log-rank test||||=0.68
91753207|NCT02068118|183399195|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.85|||||||Log Rank|||Time to death from any cause compared using the log-rank test||||=0.85
91753208|NCT02068118|183399196|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.97|||=|0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.21|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).||1.21|0.78|=0.77
91804494|NCT03000439|183486824|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|2.09||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.09|-4.32|
91883477|NCT02635386|183660557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
91883478|NCT02635386|183660558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.01
91883479|NCT02635386|183660559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
91883480|NCT02635386|183660560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
91804495|NCT03000439|183486824|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.98||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.98|-3.04|
91804496|NCT03000439|183486824|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|4.97||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.97|-1.29|
91804497|NCT03000439|183486824|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|5.72||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.72|-5.89|
91804498|NCT03000439|183486824|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|2.41||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.41|-3.79|
91804499|NCT03000439|183486824|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.19||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.19|-1.89|
91804500|NCT03000439|183486824|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|3.58||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.58|-3.63|
91804501|NCT03000439|183486824|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|0.49||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.49|-5.67|
91883481|NCT02635386|183660561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.02
91883482|NCT02635386|183660562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
91883483|NCT02635386|183660563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
91883484|NCT02635386|183660564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.04
91883485|NCT02635386|183660565|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
91883486|NCT02635386|183660566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.04
91883487|NCT02635386|183660567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
91908395|NCT02227693|183712293|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-7.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|28.9||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||28.9|-43.4|1.000
91908396|NCT02227693|183712293|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-18.2||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|4.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 6 (Day 35)||4.6|-41.0|0.496
91753209|NCT02068118|183399197|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.97|||=|0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths from cardiovascular cause that occurred during a hospitalization for cardiovascular cause with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||1.27|0.74|=0.83
91753210|NCT02068118|183399198|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.84|||=|0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.15|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up)||1.15|0.62|=0.28
91883488|NCT02635386|183660568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.05
91883489|NCT02635386|183660569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.001
91883490|NCT02635386|183660570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
91883491|NCT02635386|183660571|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
91883492|NCT00745498|183660572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||With study power of 80%, a significance level of 0.05, and the assumption that IVB injection will decrease postoperative VH incidence from 35% to 10%, a sample size of 40 patients for each group was calculated.||||<0.05
91883493|NCT00267098|183660578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.889||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study;a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have lower risk of events than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|The hazard ratio corresponds to the time until death, a HF urgent care event or visit in which the LVESVI endpoint was met. Data beyond missed LVESVI measurements were excluded. A 95% credible interval was used instead of a 95% confidence interval.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality, a heart failure urgent care visit, or significant increase in LVESVI as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a lower rate of this composite endpoint than patients with right ventricular pacing.||0.889|0.592|0.9990
91889118|NCT00288639|183671090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.232||||95.0|-34.16|-11.28|||||Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-11.28|-34.16|
91883494|NCT00267098|183660579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.843||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.142||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, posterior probabilities, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, were calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio for death can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|Because BLOCK HF was a Bayesian study, a 95% credible interval was used in lieu of a 95% confidence interval. This interval reflects the set of values the Hazard Ratio can take with 95% posterior probability.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.||1.142|0.632|0.865
91753211|NCT02068118|183399199|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.71|||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.04|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up)||1.04|0.48|=0.078
91753212|NCT02068118|183399200|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.5|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.91|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up)||0.91|0.28|=0.023
91753213|NCT02068118|183399201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first unplanned hospital readmission for heart failure compared using multivariable Cox regression model||0.99|0.62|=0.044
91753214|NCT02068118|183399202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.06|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.61||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Physical Functioning score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with physical functioning score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.61|-2.48|=0.17
91753215|NCT02068118|183399202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.8|||=|0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|6.21||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Role Physical score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with role physical score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||6.21|-2.61|=0.23
91753216|NCT02068118|183399202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|4.46|||=|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|8.33||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Bodily Pain score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with bodily pain score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||8.33|0.59|=0.50
91753217|NCT02068118|183399202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|2.52|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|5.12||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA General Health score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with general health score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||5.12|-0.07|=0.19
91883495|NCT00267098|183660580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.9785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.991||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|Because BLOCK HF was a Bayesian study, a 95% credible interval was used in lieu of a 95% confidence interval. This interval reflects the set of values the Hazard Ratio can take with 95% posterior probability.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality or heart failure(HF)-related hospitalization as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of death or first HF hospitalization than patients with right ventricular pacing.||0.991|0.615|0.9785
91883496|NCT00267098|183660581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.695||||0.9886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.866||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|The hazard ratio corresponds to the time from randomization to death or a visit in which LVESVI endpoint was met. Data beyond missed LVESVI measurements were excluded. A 95% credible interval was used instead of a 95% confidence interval.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or II who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality or significant increase in LVESVI as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of death or significant increase in LVESVI than patients with right ventricular pacing."||0.866|0.558|0.9886
91908397|NCT02227693|183712293|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-9.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|19.3||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 6 (Day 35)||19.3|-37.5|1.000
91908398|NCT02227693|183712293|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-18.2||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|4.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 6 (Day 35)||4.6|-41.0|0.476
91804502|NCT03000439|183486824|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.19||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.19|-2.82|
91804503|NCT03000439|183486824|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.36||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.36|-3.27|
91883497|NCT00267098|183660582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.9904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|0.947||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|Because BLOCK HF was a Bayesian study, a 95% credible interval was used in lieu of a 95% confidence interval. This interval reflects the set of values the Hazard Ratio can take with 95% posterior probability.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of first heart failure(HF)-related hospitalization as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of first HF hospitalization than patients with right ventricular pacing.||0.947|0.522|0.9904
91908399|NCT02227693|183712294|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|63.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|92.1||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α= 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||92.1|35.2|0.003
91908400|NCT02227693|183712294|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|30.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|58.4||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α= 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||58.4|1.6|0.090
91908401|NCT02227693|183712294|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|10.0||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|28.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α= 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||28.6|-8.6|0.476
91908402|NCT02227693|183712297|OTHER|||||||0.296||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||||0.296
91908403|NCT02227693|183712297|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||||0.070
91908404|NCT02227693|183712297|OTHER|||||||0.138||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||||0.138
91753218|NCT02068118|183399202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|2.38|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|4.85||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Vitality score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with vitality score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.85|-0.09|=0.034
91753219|NCT02068118|183399202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|4.03|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.47||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Social Functioning score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with social functioning score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||7.47|0.60|=0.025
91908405|NCT02227693|183712297|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 4 (Day 10)||||0.012
91804504|NCT03000439|183486837|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.79||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.79|-0.08|
91908406|NCT02227693|183712297|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 4 (Day 10)||||0.001
91908407|NCT02227693|183712297|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 4 (Day 10)||||0.001
91908408|NCT02227693|183712297|OTHER|||||||0.624||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 5 (Day 17)||||0.624
91908409|NCT02227693|183712297|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 5 (Day 17)||||0.009
91908410|NCT02227693|183712297|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 5 (Day 17)||||0.010
91908411|NCT02227693|183712297|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 6 (Day 35)||||0.154
91804505|NCT03000439|183486837|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.4||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.40|0.25|
91908412|NCT02227693|183712297|OTHER|||||||0.216||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 6 (Day 35)||||0.216
91753220|NCT02068118|183399202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.01|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|4.81||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Role Emotional score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with role emotional score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.81|-2.79|=0.90
91753221|NCT02068118|183399202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|2.26|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|4.37||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Mental Health score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with mental health score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.37|0.16|=0.19
91753222|NCT02068118|183399202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|0.9|||=|0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.28||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Physical Component Summary (PCS) score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with PCS score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||2.28|-0.48|=0.26
91753223|NCT02068118|183399202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.2|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.31||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Mental Component Summary (MCS) score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with MCS score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||2.31|0.08|=0.17
91753224|NCT02068118|183399207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.03|||||||Log Rank|||Time to first event compared using the log-rank test||||=0.03
91753225|NCT02068118|183399208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.15|||||||Log Rank|||Time to first event compared using the log-rank test||||=0.15
91753226|NCT02068118|183399209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first unplanned hospital readmission for heart failure compared using multivariable Cox regression model||0.95|0.53|=0.02
91753227|NCT02068118|183399210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first unplanned hospital readmission for heart failure compared using multivariable Cox regression model||0.98|0.39|=0.043
91753228|NCT00353873|183399216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. If the lower confidence interval for the difference SFC-FP falls above -12 L/min the once daily SFC treatment combination was deemed to be statistically non-inferior. In the event that the lower confidence limit (2.5% 1-sided significance) exceeded 0, and using a separate closed testing procedure, superiority could be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.5|||ANCOVA|||||13.5|1.7|0.012
91753229|NCT00353873|183399217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. If the lower confidence interval for the difference SFC-FP falls above -12 L/min the once daily SFC treatment combination was deemed to be statistically non-inferior. In the event that the lower confidence limit (2.5% 1-sided significance) exceeded 0, and using a separate closed testing procedure, superiority could be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|15.3|||ANCOVA|||||15.3|3.2|0.003
91753230|NCT00353873|183399218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|0.7|0.389
91753231|NCT00353873|183399219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.9|0.7|0.535
91753232|NCT03743064|183399230|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.851|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant.~The null hypothesis for mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks (H0w) and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (H1w) were:~H0w: MWa = MWp H1w: MWa ≠ MWp~Where MWa is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the anamorelin arm and MWp is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the placebo arm."||1.851|0.718|<0.0001
91753233|NCT03743064|183399231|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399||0.7241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.923|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to the placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant. The null hypothesis for mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in patient 5-IASS (H0A) and the corresponding alternative (H1A) were:~H0A: MAa = MAp; H1A: MAa ≠ MAp~Where MAa is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the anamorelin arm and MAp is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the placebo arm."||0.923|-0.641|0.7241
91753234|NCT03743064|183399232|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.579||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|3.216|||ANOVA|||||3.216|0.946|0.0003
91908413|NCT02227693|183712297|OTHER|||||||0.901||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 6 (Day 35)||||0.901
91883498|NCT00267098|183660583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|-1.8||||0.637||||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Difference in Average Ranks|The subjects' individual rates of days hospitalized for HF were ranked, with lower ranks corresponding to fewer days hospitalized for HF.|The posterior probability that the BiV - RV difference in average ranks was below 0 (denoting that the BiV arm had lower ranks than the RV arm, on average) was calculated.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of days hospitalized for heart failure per year as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of days hospitalized for HF than patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.637
91753235|NCT03743064|183399233|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.471|3.337|||ANOVA|||||3.337|1.471|<0.0001
91753236|NCT03743064|183399234|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|1.472|||ANOVA|||||1.472|-0.215|0.1443
91753237|NCT03743064|183399235|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.7376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.734|1.036|||ANOVA|||||1.036|-0.734|0.7376
91753238|NCT00870194|183399249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority Margin of 0.4%||||||0.012||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.012
91753239|NCT00870194|183399249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.53|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Standard Error of the Least Square Mean|Power calculation: 80% assuming 200 patients (100 in each arm), no true difference and 1.0% standard deviation.||0.53|0.07|.012
91753240|NCT00870194|183399250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.038
91753241|NCT00870194|183399251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.027
91753242|NCT00870194|183399252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.480
91753243|NCT00870194|183399253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.038
91753244|NCT00870194|183399254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.266
91753245|NCT00870194|183399255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.095
91753246|NCT00870194|183399256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.567
91883499|NCT00267098|183660584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.012||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 6 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 6 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 6 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.591
91883500|NCT00267098|183660584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.126||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 12 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 12 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 12 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.986
91908414|NCT00132132|183712314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|This analysis is the per protocol unadjusted value||||||0.03
91908415|NCT00132132|183712314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Age adjusted per protocol||||||0.14
91753247|NCT00870194|183399257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.207
91753248|NCT00870194|183399258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.055
91753249|NCT00870194|183399259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.269
91753250|NCT00870194|183399260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.622
91753251|NCT00870194|183399261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.888
91753252|NCT00870194|183399262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.287
91753253|NCT00870194|183399263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.498
91753254|NCT00870194|183399264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.247
91753255|NCT00870194|183399265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||1.00
91753256|NCT01831817|183399371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.1||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.15|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference was First named treatment-second named treatment that a negative difference implied the mean of the second named treatment was larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.15|-0.35|0.4321
91753257|NCT01831817|183399371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.23|-0.73|0.0002
91883501|NCT00267098|183660584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.039||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 12 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 18 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 18 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.726
91883502|NCT00267098|183660584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.035||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 24 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 24 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 24 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.701
91883503|NCT00267098|183660585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.002||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 6 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 6 month change in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in HF stage from randomization to 6 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.534
91883504|NCT00267098|183660585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.026||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 12 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 12 month changes in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' change in HF stage from randomization to 12 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.825
91883505|NCT00267098|183660585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.01||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 18 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 18 month changes in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values denote that the BiV arm had better outcomes over time than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in HF stage from randomization to 18 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.651
91883506|NCT00267098|183660585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|-0.006||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 24 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 24 month changes in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values denote better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in HF stage from randomization to 24 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.425
91883507|NCT00267098|183660589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The posterior distribution for the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL score improvement from randomization to 6 months was determined.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.9976
91908416|NCT00132132|183712314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Per protocol adjusted for age and paternal education. Given the small number of participants with complete data, this model may be overfit.||||||0.006
91908417|NCT00132132|183712315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91908418|NCT01970995|183712316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|13.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.96|16.6||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the biomarker of exposure (BoExp) was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||16.60|10.96|<.001
91804506|NCT03000439|183486837|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.66||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||3.66|-0.79|
91804507|NCT03000439|183486837|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.74||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.74|-0.70|
91804508|NCT03000439|183486837|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.64||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.64|-0.43|
91804509|NCT03000439|183486837|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.81||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.81|0.06|
91804510|NCT03000439|183486837|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.06||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.06|-1.64|
91804511|NCT03000439|183486837|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.03||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.03|-0.04|
91883508|NCT00267098|183660590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The posterior distribution for the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL score improvement from randomization to 12 months was determined.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.9641
91889119|NCT00288639|183671091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-17.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.797||||95.0|-27.36|-7.15|||||Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-7.15|-27.36|
91804512|NCT03000439|183486837|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.79||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.79|-0.09|
91804513|NCT03000439|183486837|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.28||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.28|-0.23|
91804514|NCT03000439|183486837|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.83||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.83|-1.20|
91804515|NCT03000439|183486837|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.91||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.91|-0.49|
91804516|NCT03000439|183486837|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.92||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.92|-0.80|
91804517|NCT03000439|183486838|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.0||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.00|-0.43|
91804518|NCT03000439|183486838|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|2.08||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.08|-0.06|
91804519|NCT03000439|183486838|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|3.64||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.64|-1.13|
91804520|NCT03000439|183486838|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.88||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.68|
91804521|NCT03000439|183486838|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.33||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.33|-0.58|
91804522|NCT03000439|183486838|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.68||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.68|-0.03|
91883509|NCT00267098|183660591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.8416|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The parameter of interest was the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL change from randomization to 18 months.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.8416
91883510|NCT00267098|183660592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The posterior distribution for the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL score improvement from randomization to 24 months was determined.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.7270
91883511|NCT00267098|183660593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|3.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.886|4.815||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF through 6 months was used|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 6 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||4.815|1.886|
91883512|NCT00267098|183660594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|3.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.618|4.839||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF through 12 months was used|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||4.839|1.618|
91883513|NCT00267098|183660595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|4.066||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF at 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||4.066|0.419|
91883514|NCT00267098|183660596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|3.623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.623|5.604||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF through 24 months was used|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||5.604|1.623|
91889120|NCT00288639|183671092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.615||||95.0|-34.16|-10.71|||||1-28 Days. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts.Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-10.71|-34.16|
91883515|NCT00267098|183660597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-7.204|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-4.214||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 6 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||-4.214|-10.12|
91883516|NCT00267098|183660598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-7.255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|-3.829||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-3.829|-10.590|
91883517|NCT00267098|183660599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-8.242|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|-4.574||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-4.574|-11.860|
91883518|NCT00267098|183660600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-7.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|-2.846||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-2.846|-11.690|
91889121|NCT00288639|183671092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.543||||95.0|-34.74|-10.91|||||29-56 Days. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power,true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-10.91|-34.74|
91908419|NCT01970995|183712317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|50.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.88|57.2||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||57.20|44.88|<.001
91753258|NCT01831817|183399371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.24|-0.74|0.0002
91804523|NCT03000439|183486838|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.08||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.08|-2.42|
91804524|NCT03000439|183486838|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.97|-0.14|
91804525|NCT03000439|183486838|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.79||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.79|-0.15|
91804526|NCT03000439|183486838|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.49||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.49|-0.14|
91804527|NCT03000439|183486838|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.96||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.96|-1.28|
91883519|NCT00267098|183660601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-5.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.085|-2.562||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-2.562|-9.085|
91883520|NCT00267098|183660602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-5.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.467|-2.038||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 12 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||-2.038|-9.467|
91889122|NCT00288639|183671092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-27.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.323||||95.0|-39.9|-14.46|||||57-84 Days. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency. .|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-14.46|-39.90|
91908420|NCT01970995|183712318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|10.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.26|12.99||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||12.99|9.26|<.001
91804528|NCT03000439|183486838|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.16||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.16|-0.43|
91804529|NCT03000439|183486838|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.3||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-0.82|
91804530|NCT03000439|183486839|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.5||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.50|-0.07|
91804531|NCT03000439|183486839|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.32|-0.15|
91804532|NCT03000439|183486839|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.28||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.28|-0.17|
91804533|NCT03000439|183486839|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.36||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.36|-0.16|
91804534|NCT03000439|183486839|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.38||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.38|-0.01|
91804535|NCT03000439|183486839|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.35||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.35|-0.12|
91804536|NCT03000439|183486839|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.31||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.31|-0.18|
91804537|NCT03000439|183486839|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.37||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.37|-0.06|
91804538|NCT03000439|183486839|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.36||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.36|-0.14|
91804539|NCT03000439|183486839|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.38||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.38|-0.06|
91804540|NCT03000439|183486839|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.3||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.30|-0.22|
91804541|NCT03000439|183486839|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.38||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.38|-0.20|
91804542|NCT03000439|183486839|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.42|-0.24|
91804543|NCT03000439|183486840|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.24|-0.10|
91804544|NCT03000439|183486840|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.15|-0.19|
91804545|NCT03000439|183486840|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.16|-0.19|
91804546|NCT03000439|183486840|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.23||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.23|-0.20|
91804547|NCT03000439|183486840|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.32||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.32|-0.02|
91804548|NCT03000439|183486840|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.4||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.40|-0.09|
91804549|NCT03000439|183486840|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.34||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.34|-0.16|
91804550|NCT03000439|183486840|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.36||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.36|-0.05|
91804551|NCT03000439|183486840|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.43||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.43|-0.10|
91804552|NCT03000439|183486840|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.39||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.39|-0.06|
91804553|NCT03000439|183486840|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.3||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.30|-0.22|
91804554|NCT03000439|183486840|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.49|-0.18|
91883521|NCT00267098|183660603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-8.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|-4.681||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 18 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||-4.681|-12.910|
91883522|NCT00267098|183660604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-6.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|-1.736||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-1.736|-11.370|
91883523|NCT00267098|183660605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-3.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|3.953||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||3.953|-12.130|
91883524|NCT00267098|183660606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-10.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.33|-0.857||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||-0.857|-19.330|
91883525|NCT00267098|183660607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-8.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|1.623||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||1.623|-18.190|
91883526|NCT00267098|183660608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-11.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.11|-0.956||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||-0.956|-21.110|
91804555|NCT03000439|183486840|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.55||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.55|-0.23|
91753259|NCT01831817|183399371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.38||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.63|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.63|0.13|0.0028
91889123|NCT00288639|183671092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-30.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.11||||95.0|-43.44|-18.06|||||85-112 Days. Response ratio=100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-18.06|-43.44|
91908421|NCT01970995|183712319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|44.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.11|47.97||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||47.97|42.11|<.001
91908422|NCT01970995|183712320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|31.11||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on Total NNAL levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 90 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 90 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||31.11|17.38|<.001
91908423|NCT03699007|183712321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91908424|NCT03699007|183712322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91753260|NCT01831817|183399371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.39||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.63|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline waas the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.63|0.14|0.0022
91753261|NCT01831817|183399371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.01||||0.9606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.24|-0.25|0.9606
91753262|NCT01831817|183399372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.04||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.38|-0.30|0.8030
91753263|NCT01831817|183399372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.48|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.48|-1.16|<0.0001
91753264|NCT01831817|183399372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.53|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.53|-1.20|<0.0001
91753265|NCT01831817|183399372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||1.19|0.53|<0.0001
91753266|NCT01831817|183399372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||1.23|0.58|<0.0001
91804556|NCT03000439|183486841|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.4||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.40|-0.97|
91753267|NCT01831817|183399372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.04||||0.7872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.28|-0.37|0.7872
91908425|NCT03882970|183712355|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.3% NI boundary, 0.35% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin degludec, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.1%, 1 sided significance level of 0.0125, and a dropout rate of 28%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.72|-1.00|<0.001
91753268|NCT01831817|183399373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.9642
91753269|NCT01831817|183399373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||5.00|0.00|0.0016
91753270|NCT01831817|183399373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||5.00|0.00|0.0100
91753271|NCT01831817|183399373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.0020
91753272|NCT01831817|183399373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.0122
91753273|NCT01831817|183399373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.7138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.7138
91753274|NCT01831817|183399374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||5.00|-5.00|0.9834
91753275|NCT01831817|183399374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|5.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||15.00|0.00|0.0001
91753276|NCT01831817|183399374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|2.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||15.00|0.00|0.0003
91753277|NCT01831817|183399374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|-10.00|<0.0001
91753278|NCT01831817|183399374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|-5.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|-10.00|0.0002
91753279|NCT01831817|183399374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.2894
91753280|NCT01831817|183399375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.24||||0.5555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.56|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.56|-1.03|0.5555
91753281|NCT01831817|183399375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.06||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.73|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.73|-0.86|0.8769
91753282|NCT01831817|183399375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.76||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.02|-1.55|0.0562
91753283|NCT01831817|183399375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.18||||0.6562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.6|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.60|-0.95|0.6562
91753284|NCT01831817|183399375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.53||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||1.30|-0.24|0.1788
91753285|NCT01831817|183399375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.7||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.07|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.07|-1.47|0.0734
91753286|NCT01831817|183399376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.19||||0.6727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||1.10|-0.71|0.6727
91753287|NCT01831817|183399376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-1.24||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.34|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||-0.34|-2.14|0.0072
91753288|NCT01831817|183399376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-1.27||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.38|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||-0.38|-2.16|0.0056
91883527|NCT00267098|183660609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|-0.014||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 6 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 6 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.014|-0.235|
91883528|NCT00267098|183660610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|-0.035||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 12 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 12 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.035|-0.287|
91908426|NCT03882970|183712355|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.3% NI boundary, 0.35% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin degludec, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.1%, 1 sided significance level of 0.0125, and a dropout rate of 28%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.17|<0.001
91908427|NCT03882970|183712356|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.3% NI boundary, 0.35% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin degludec, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.1%, 1 sided significance level of 0.0125, and a dropout rate of 28%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-0.73|<0.001
91753289|NCT01831817|183399376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change diference|1.43||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.31|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||2.31|0.56|0.0016
91753290|NCT01831817|183399376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|1.46||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.33|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||2.33|0.59|0.0011
91753291|NCT01831817|183399376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.03||||0.9413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.84|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.84|-0.90|0.9413
91753292|NCT00958217|183399379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2nd order effects of time (2 slope|33.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-values based on likelihood ratio tests for the significance of the first and second order trajectory parameters. Primary tests compared curvilinear trajectories of the two treatment groups.|Linear Mixed Effects Models||We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|Data analyses included comparison of mean scores and linear mixed effects models used to ascertain trajectories for depression symptoms.||||<.05
91753293|NCT00958217|183399380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Second order effect of time (2 slopes)|57.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear Mixed Effects Models||We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|||||<.05
91753294|NCT00958217|183399381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Second order effect of time (2 slopes)|0.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A logit link was used in this model.|We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|Analysis of substance use was conducted using trajectories modeled as a dichotomous outcome using logit links to predict the probability of substance use (any alcohol or drug use) on a particular day.||||<.05
91753295|NCT00958217|183399381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Second order effect of time (2 slopes)|0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A logit link was used in this model|We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|Second statistical analysis evaluates trajectories of heavy drinking (\<5 drinks on a given day) Analysis of heavy drinking was conducted using trajectories modeled as a dichotomous outcome using logit links to predict the probability of heavy drinking (5 or more drinks) on a particular day.||||<.05
91753296|NCT00260065|183399391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|33.0||||||95.0|24.2|43.5||||||||43.5|24.2|
91753297|NCT00260065|183399392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|52.0||||||95.0|41.3|61.7||||||||61.7|41.3|
91753298|NCT02440789|183399401|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.56
91753299|NCT02440789|183399403|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.11
91753300|NCT02440789|183399405|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test; results less than the analysis lower limit (0.7 cp/mL) were imputed to a value of one half the analysis lower limit.||||||0.93
91753301|NCT02440789|183399407|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.041
91753302|NCT02440789|183399410|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.008
91753303|NCT02440789|183399412|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.26
91753304|NCT02440789|183399414|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.75
91753305|NCT02440789|183399416|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.97
91753306|NCT02440789|183399418|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.7
91753307|NCT02440789|183399420|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.47
91908428|NCT03882970|183712357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-10.8|<0.001
91908429|NCT03882970|183712357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.9|-14.0|<0.001
91753308|NCT02440789|183399422|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.72
91753309|NCT02440789|183399424|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.28
91753310|NCT02440789|183399426|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.7
91753311|NCT02440789|183399428|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.28
91753312|NCT02440789|183399430|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.77
91753313|NCT02440789|183399432|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.93
91753314|NCT02440789|183399434|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.65
91753315|NCT02440789|183399436|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.22
91753316|NCT02440789|183399438|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.031
91753317|NCT02440789|183399440|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.005
91753318|NCT02440789|183399442|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.69
91753319|NCT02440789|183399444|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.008
91753320|NCT01999218|183399446|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference is less than 0.3%.|Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22|||||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|||0.22|-0.02|
91753321|NCT01999218|183399446|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference is less than 0.3%.|Difference in the Least Squares means|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||||"Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.~Time was treated as a categorical variable."|||0.30|0.06|
91753322|NCT01999218|183399447|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.7||||||||7.7|-4.5|
91753323|NCT01999218|183399447|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.5||||||||6.5|-5.6|
91753324|NCT01999218|183399448|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.4||||||||6.4|-0.3|
91753325|NCT01999218|183399448|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.7||||||||4.7|-1.7|
91753326|NCT01999218|183399449|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-9.8|||Based on Miettinen & Nurminen method||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|-9.8|-18.4|<0.001
91753327|NCT01999218|183399449|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-12.2|||Based on Miettinen & Nurminen method||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|-12.2|-20.3|<0.001
91753328|NCT01999218|183399450|OTHER||Difference in LSM vs. Glimepiride|-4.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-3.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data analysis||LSM=Least Squares Means||Constrained Longitudinal Data analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-3.80|-4.77|<0.001
91753329|NCT01999218|183399450|OTHER||Difference in the LSM vs. Glimepiride|-3.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-3.38|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-3.38|-4.36|<0.001
91753330|NCT01999218|183399451|OTHER||Difference in the LSM vs. Glimepiride|-4.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-3.25|||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis||||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior anthyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-3.25|-6.29|<0.001
91753331|NCT01999218|183399451|OTHER||Difference in the LSM vs. Glimepiride|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.001|-4.73|-1.67|||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis||||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior anthyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-1.67|-4.73|<0.001
91753332|NCT01073930|183399458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the treatment difference (PICOPREP minus HalfLytely) was \>-9% for the percentage of responders. Superiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference was \>0%.|Mean Difference (Net)|9.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|3.4||||||||||3.4|
91753333|NCT01073930|183399459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|4.9|||||||Ascending colon comparison|||4.9|
91753334|NCT01073930|183399459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|6.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.6|||||||Mid colon comparison|||1.6|
91804557|NCT03000439|183486841|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.84||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.84|-0.68|
91908430|NCT03882970|183712357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-14.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.2|-16.2|<0.001
91908431|NCT03882970|183712358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.5|2.4|0.004
91908432|NCT03882970|183712358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.9|-4.3|0.751
91883529|NCT00267098|183660611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|-0.03||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 18 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 18 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.030|-0.293|
91883530|NCT00267098|183660612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.097||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 24 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 24 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.097|-0.390|
91883531|NCT00267098|183660613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.055||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 6 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 6 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||0.055|-0.185|
91883532|NCT00267098|183660614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.029||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 12 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 12 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||0.029|-0.236|
91883533|NCT00267098|183660615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.087||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 18 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 18 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||0.087|-0.204|
91908433|NCT03882970|183712358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-8.7|0.168
91908434|NCT03882970|183712359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|5.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.01|2.38|<0.001
91908435|NCT03882970|183712359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|10.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.84|4.55|<0.001
91753335|NCT01073930|183399459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.4|||||||Recto-sigmoid colon comparison|||0.4|
91908436|NCT03882970|183712359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|17.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.48|6.65|<0.001
91908437|NCT03882970|183712361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.35|48.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||48.35|18.35|<0.001
91804558|NCT03000439|183486841|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.16||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||3.16|-0.77|
91908438|NCT03882970|183712361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.56|134.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||134.17|47.56|<0.001
91908439|NCT03882970|183712361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|110.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.73|189.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||189.55|64.73|<0.001
91804559|NCT03000439|183486841|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.18||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.18|-1.30|
91804560|NCT03000439|183486841|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.82||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.82|-0.29|
91804561|NCT03000439|183486841|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.64||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.64|-0.46|
91804562|NCT03000439|183486841|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.13||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.13|-2.05|
91804563|NCT03000439|183486841|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.88||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.18|
91804564|NCT03000439|183486841|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.88||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.26|
91804565|NCT03000439|183486841|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.99||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.99|-0.43|
91804566|NCT03000439|183486841|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.03||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.03|-0.45|
91804567|NCT03000439|183486841|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.08||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.08|-0.63|
91753336|NCT01073930|183399459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|5.2|||||||Overall: Ascending, mid, and recto-sigmoid colon comparison|||5.2|
91753337|NCT01073930|183399460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91804568|NCT03000439|183486841|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.57||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.57|-0.66|
91908440|NCT03882970|183712362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.05|-0.57|0.096
91753338|NCT01073930|183399461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91753339|NCT01073930|183399462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91804569|NCT03000439|183486842|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.47||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.73|
91753340|NCT01073930|183399463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91753341|NCT01073930|183399464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91753342|NCT01073930|183399465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91804570|NCT03000439|183486842|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.59||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.59|-0.81|
91804571|NCT03000439|183486842|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.95||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.95|-0.54|
91804572|NCT03000439|183486842|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.10|-0.90|
91804573|NCT03000439|183486842|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.13||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.13|-0.46|
91804574|NCT03000439|183486842|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.63|
91804575|NCT03000439|183486842|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.15||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.15|-2.34|
91804576|NCT03000439|183486842|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.4||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.40|-0.26|
91804577|NCT03000439|183486842|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.26||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.26|-0.30|
91804578|NCT03000439|183486842|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.43||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.43|-0.53|
91804579|NCT03000439|183486842|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.46||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.46|-0.56|
91804580|NCT03000439|183486842|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.69||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.74|
91804581|NCT03000439|183486842|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.32||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.32|-0.91|
91883534|NCT00267098|183660616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|-0.018||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 24 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 24 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||-0.018|-0.339|
91889124|NCT00288639|183671092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-38.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.368||||95.0|-51.79|-25.7|||||113-140 Days. Response ratio=100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-25.70|-51.79|
91908441|NCT03882970|183712362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.06|-0.57|0.113
91804582|NCT03000439|183486843|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.92||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.92|0.09|
91804583|NCT03000439|183486843|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.22||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.22|0.40|
91804584|NCT03000439|183486843|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.53||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.53|-0.47|
91804585|NCT03000439|183486843|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.16||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.16|-0.63|
91804586|NCT03000439|183486843|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.97||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.97|-0.33|
91908442|NCT03882970|183712362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.16|-0.78|0.003
91908443|NCT03882970|183712362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||-0.08|-0.74|0.014
91908444|NCT03882970|183712362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.15|-0.51|0.280
91804587|NCT03000439|183486843|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.2||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.20|-0.10|
91804588|NCT03000439|183486843|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.33||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.33|-0.93|
91804589|NCT03000439|183486843|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.42||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.42|-0.17|
91804590|NCT03000439|183486843|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.98||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.98|-0.02|
91804591|NCT03000439|183486843|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.58||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.58|-0.30|
91804592|NCT03000439|183486843|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.85||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.85|-0.40|
91908445|NCT03882970|183712362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.07|-0.59|0.129
91908446|NCT03882970|183712362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.75|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||3.75|2.26|<0.001
91753343|NCT00541346|183399467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|33.1||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change (Pre-Post) Score at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||33.1|19.6|<0.001
91753344|NCT00541346|183399468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|29.3||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||29.3|16.9|<0.001
91753345|NCT00541346|183399469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|16.8||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.||Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||16.8|5.4|<0.001
91753346|NCT00541346|183399470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|11.1||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||11.1|3.3|<0.001
91753347|NCT00541346|183399471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|4.1|||<|0.01||95.0|1.2|6.9||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||6.9|1.2|<0.01
91753348|NCT00541346|183399472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian random intercept model.|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.2||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||5.2|1.8|<0.001
91753349|NCT00541346|183399473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-5.4||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Above Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear dose and time effects.||-5.4|-16.8|<0.001
91753350|NCT00541346|183399474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|1.94|||>|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|6.82||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||6.82|-2.98|>0.21
91753351|NCT00541346|183399475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|-3.4|||>|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.8||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Above Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear dose and time effects.||0.80|-7.9|>0.06
91753352|NCT00541346|183399476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|-5.26|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|-1.18||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Above Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear dose and time effects.||-1.18|-9.37|<0.01
91753353|NCT00541346|183399477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|7.6|||>|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|20.7||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||20.7|-5.6|>0.11
91753354|NCT05149313|183399519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|27.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.63|40.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.14|15.63|<0.0001
91753355|NCT05149313|183399520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|17.8||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.03|28.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.57|7.03|0.0052
91753356|NCT05149313|183399521|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|18.15||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|30.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.83|5.47|0.0114
91753357|NCT04243330|183399538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.48||the p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.48|-0.46|0.18
91753358|NCT04243330|183399539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.58||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|7.28||the p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.28|-0.11|.06
91753359|NCT04243330|183399540|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.9||the p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|-4.5|0.60
91753360|NCT04243330|183399541|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|4.7||p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-12.8|0.36
91753361|NCT04243330|183399542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.67||p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-8.3|.02
91753362|NCT04243330|183399543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|-5.5|0.82
91753363|NCT03826342|183399553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2964|||||||Generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||Baseline to 2-month assessment||||0.2964
91753364|NCT03826342|183399553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3404|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||2-month assessment to 6-month assessment||||0.3404
91753365|NCT03826342|183399554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7915|||||||Generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||Baseline to 2-month assessment||||0.7915
91753366|NCT03826342|183399554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2131|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||2-month assessment to 6-month assessment||||0.2131
91753367|NCT03826342|183399555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8357|||||||Generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||Baseline to 2-month assessment||||0.8357
91753368|NCT03826342|183399555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||2-month assessment to 6-month assessment||||0.0950
91753369|NCT03826342|183399556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7496|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||||||0.7496
91908447|NCT03882970|183712362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|3.65|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||3.65|2.15|<0.001
91753370|NCT03826342|183399557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4492|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||||||0.4492
91753371|NCT03826342|183399558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0765|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0765
91753372|NCT03826342|183399559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.535
91753373|NCT03826342|183399560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4302
91753374|NCT03826342|183399561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||||||0.8070
91753375|NCT01114360|183399623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures mixed model ANOVA.||The null hypothesis is that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and primary outcomes.||||0.075
91753376|NCT01114360|183399623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
91753377|NCT01114360|183399624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
91753378|NCT01114360|183399625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
91753379|NCT01114360|183399626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.64
91753380|NCT01114360|183399627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
91753381|NCT01114360|183399628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
91753382|NCT01114360|183399629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91753383|NCT01114360|183399630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and primary outcomes.||||0.75
91908448|NCT03882970|183712362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.74|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||3.74|2.24|<0.001
91908449|NCT00814775|183712369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.37|||Regression, Cox||CTrach vs. Fastrach|||2.37|0.55|0.72
91753384|NCT01114360|183399631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.71
91753385|NCT01114360|183399632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.38
91753386|NCT01114360|183399633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.11
91753387|NCT01114360|183399634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.96
91753388|NCT01114360|183399635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
91753389|NCT01114360|183399636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.52
91753390|NCT03007745|183399639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
91753391|NCT03007745|183399639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
91753392|NCT03007745|183399639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted mean changes and adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values|ANCOVA|||Adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values. ANCOVA model included main effects for type of study (home versus in-laboratory), site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure.||||0.9171
91753393|NCT03007745|183399639|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that the lower bound of the non-inferiority analysis of FOSQ-10 would be greater than the a-priori threshold of -1.0.|||||>|0.05||||||"Adjusted group difference in mean change in FOSQ-10 score from baseline to Month 3, controlling for baseline FOSQ and site, was -0.06 ± 061 (SEM) (P = 0.917).~The lower bound of the 95% noninferiority confidence interval was -1.08"|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91753394|NCT03007745|183399640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
91753395|NCT03007745|183399640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
91753396|NCT03007745|183399640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.9251|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure||Adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values. ANCOVA model included main effects for type of study (home versus in-laboratory), site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure.||||0.9251
91753397|NCT03007745|183399641|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test comparing change in score (3-month - baseline) within group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33||0.4116|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||Within arm change from baseline to 3 month follow-up||||0.4116
91753398|NCT03007745|183399641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.2201|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing change in score (3-month - baseline) within group||||0.2201
91753399|NCT03007745|183399641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1732|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure||Adjusted differences in mean changes between groups from baseline to month 3 in participants initiated on CPAP (LOCF applied using 1-month data).||||0.1732
91753400|NCT03007745|183399642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73|<|0.0003|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0003
91753401|NCT03007745|183399642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
91753402|NCT03007745|183399642|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure||Adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values. Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||0.6730
91753403|NCT03007745|183399643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||<0.0001
91753404|NCT03007745|183399643|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group (LOCF applied using 1-month data)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.96||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||0.0001
91753405|NCT03007745|183399643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure|ANCOVA|Adjusted differences in mean changes estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for group differences in mean baseline values||Between group comparison of change in Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) at 3 months (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||0.9903
91753406|NCT03007745|183399647|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) at 3 months (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||>0.05
91908450|NCT00814775|183712370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.54|||Regression, Cox||CTrach vs. Fastrach|||1.54|0.38|0.45
91753407|NCT03007745|183399648|NON_INFERIORITY|The a-priori lower bound selected for the non-inferiority analysis of average daily CPAP use over 3 months was -0.75 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.308|TWO_SIDED|||||Group difference (REVAMP - In-person) in mean CPAP daily use over all days adjusted for investigative site.|ANCOVA|The lower bound of the 95% noninferiority confidence interval was -0.22.||||||0.308
91753408|NCT00765882|183399676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.72||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 145-μg dose and those taking placebo.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 90% based on study NCT00402337 (MCP-103-201) data."||5.72|1.50|0.0012
91753409|NCT00765882|183399676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|8.1||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 290-μg dose and those taking placebo.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 96% based on study NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) data."||8.10|2.20|<0.0001
91753410|NCT00168103|183399720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.525||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.217|-0.033||1-sided P-value. The a priori threshold was 0.024 (overall Type 1 error 0.025 adjusted for alpha spending for an interim analysis).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided|The median difference was estimated by the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||-0.033|-2.217|0.0025
91753411|NCT00168103|183399721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1088||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0392|0.3023||1-sided P-value. The a priori threshold for significance was 0.1 (trend).|Fisher Exact|1-sided|The Odds Ratio was calculated as C1-INH 20 U/kg bw (numerator) versus Placebo (denominator).|Worsened intensity was evaluated between 2 and 4 hours after start of study treatment relative to baseline for at least 1 of the HAE symptoms present at baseline.||0.3023|0.0392|0.0014
91753412|NCT00168103|183399722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.292||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.15|-1.05||1-sided, exploratory test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided|The median difference was estimated by the Hodge-Lehmann estimate.|This was an exploratory analysis.||-1.050|-5.150|0.0237
91753413|NCT00168103|183399723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0642|0.4575|||||The Odds Ratio was calculated as C1-INH 20 U/kg bw (numerator) versus Placebo (denominator).|This was an exploratory analysis.||0.4575|0.0642|
91753414|NCT00168103|183399724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|80.0||||1-sided P-value. The a priori threshold for significance was 0.1 (trend).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.0329
91753415|NCT05268744|183399740|SUPERIORITY|Since all outcomes were normally distributed, one-sided paired t-test was used to compare mean pre- and post-treatment scores to see whether post-treatment scores of ABI-S and SRS had improved compared to pre-treatment scores|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis was no improvement in mean ABI-S and SRS scores at the end of the study, compared to baseline||||<0.05
91753416|NCT02699450|183399742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.4||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|3.4||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||3.4|-0.6|0.37
91753417|NCT02699450|183399742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.5|5.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.6|1.5|0.03
91753418|NCT02699450|183399743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.3|5.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.0|-2.3|0.63
91753419|NCT02699450|183399744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.3||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|4.3||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.3|0.2|0.15
91759523|NCT02391363|183411774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 1.79 (SE = 0.85). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month health service use, controlling for baseline health service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.04
91804593|NCT03000439|183486843|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.88||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.36|
91804594|NCT03000439|183486843|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.09||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.09|-0.87|
91753420|NCT02699450|183399744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.9||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.1|4.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.7|1.1|0.04
91753421|NCT02699450|183399745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.8||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.3|12.8||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||12.8|-11.3|0.94
91753422|NCT02699450|183399745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.4|19.9||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||19.9|-5.4|0.46
91804595|NCT03000439|183486844|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.67||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.67|-0.77|
91804596|NCT03000439|183486844|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.53||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.53|-0.37|
91804597|NCT03000439|183486844|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.3||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-1.06|
91804598|NCT03000439|183486844|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.74||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.74|-1.27|
91804599|NCT03000439|183486844|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.52||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.52|-0.83|
91804600|NCT03000439|183486844|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.71||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.71|-0.61|
91804601|NCT03000439|183486844|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.25||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.25|-1.45|
91804602|NCT03000439|183486844|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.23||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.23|-0.61|
91804603|NCT03000439|183486844|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.71||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.71|-0.34|
91804604|NCT03000439|183486844|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.46||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.46|-0.74|
91804605|NCT03000439|183486844|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.56||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.56|-0.75|
91804606|NCT03000439|183486844|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.81||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.81|-0.68|
91804607|NCT03000439|183486844|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.94||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.94|-1.10|
91804608|NCT03000439|183486845|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|11.66||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||11.66|-14.59|
91753423|NCT02699450|183399746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|6.4||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|20.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||20.5|-7.7|0.56
91753424|NCT02699450|183399747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.6||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|17.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||17.2|-4.0|0.43
91753425|NCT02699450|183399747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.6|17.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||17.0|-2.6|0.34
91753426|NCT02699450|183399748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6|20.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||20.6|-1.6|0.27
91753427|NCT02699450|183399748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.9|18.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||18.5|-4.9|0.45
91753428|NCT02699450|183399749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.8|15.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||15.5|-16.8|0.96
91753429|NCT02699450|183399750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.1|19.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||19.7|0.1|0.19
91753430|NCT02699450|183399750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.3|13.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||13.6|-5.3|0.57
91753431|NCT02699450|183399751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.8||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.5|4.9||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.9|-10.5|0.64
91804609|NCT03000439|183486845|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|5.17||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||5.17|-19.62|
91804610|NCT03000439|183486845|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|6.14||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||6.14|-19.36|
91883535|NCT00267098|183660617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.828|1.506||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||1.506|-2.828|
91883536|NCT00267098|183660618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.843|1.773||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||1.773|-2.843|
91883537|NCT00267098|183660619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.379|2.425||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||2.425|-2.379|
91883538|NCT00267098|183660620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.653|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.337|2.046||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||2.046|-3.337|
91883539|NCT00267098|183660621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.195||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||0.195|-0.031|
91908451|NCT01923129|183712401|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of interest was the rate of AUR, defined as the number of patients with AUR within each study group. A 15% non-inferiority margin was chosen according to clinical relevance estimation. The expected difference between the two groups was 0%. Non-inferiority analysis was performed by calculation of risk difference and its 95% confidence interval according to Newcombe \& Altman.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91908452|NCT00749996|183712405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null-hypothesis: Ho: Δ VAS DIAM = Δ VAS Control will be tested against the alternative hypothesis:HA: Δ VAS DIAM ≠ Δ VAS Control.Where Δ is the average decrease in VAS score (baseline - 6 months). A minimal sample size of 240 analyzable patients is required to demonstrate with 80% power a difference in back pain reduction that is significant at the 95% level, comparing DIAM and Control groups. 268 patients will be enroll to allow of up to 10% attrition.||0.38|-1.59|0.228
91753432|NCT02699450|183399751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.8|6.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||6.2|-9.8|0.78
91804611|NCT03000439|183486845|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|3.27||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||3.27|-20.28|
91883540|NCT00267098|183660622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.086|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.198||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||0.198|-0.022|
91908453|NCT00749996|183712406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null-hypothesis(Ho: Δ ODI DIAM = Δ ODI Control) will be tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA: Δ ODI DIAM ≠ Δ ODI Control). Δ ODI DIAM = average change in the ODI (12 months - baseline) in the DIAM treated patient group and Δ VAS Control =average change in the ODI in the Control group.||6.08|-8.80|0.719
91753433|NCT02699450|183399752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.7|8.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||8.2|-12.7|0.78
91753434|NCT02699450|183399753|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.5||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|6.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||6.7|-7.7|0.93
91753435|NCT02699450|183399753|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.3|4.4||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.4|-8.3|0.69
91753436|NCT02699450|183399754|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.5||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.8|14.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||14.7|-27.8|0.69
91753437|NCT02699450|183399754|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-22.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.5|-1.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-1.2|-44.5|0.18
91753438|NCT02699450|183399755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-49.2||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.2|-14.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-14.2|-84.2|0.07
91753439|NCT02699450|183399756|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-17.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.0|3.4||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||3.4|-38.0|0.28
91804612|NCT03000439|183486845|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|2.62||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.62|-10.53|
91889125|NCT00288639|183671092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-44.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.703||||95.0|-58.47|-30.01|||||\>140 Days. Response ratio= 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power,true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-30.01|-58.47|
91908454|NCT02189213|183712407|OTHER|The parameters were the CGI-Improvement scale which comprises a one-item measures evaluating the following change from the initiation of treatment on a seven-point scale. The hypothesis is that \~50% of subjects receiving treatment will not respond.|||||=|0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At least 50% of subjects will respond to Sertraline treatment (CGI greater than or equal to 2).||||=0.0002
91908455|NCT01445951|183712474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with 0.4 margin|Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36||||||MMRM (mixed model repeated measures) model with auto-regression (1): HbA1c = Baseline HbA1c + region + basal insulin stratum + visit + treatment + (visit\*treatment)||0.36|0.02|
91908456|NCT01445951|183712475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM): FEV1 = Baseline FEV1 + Age + Gender + Race + Baseline Height + Visit + Treatment + (Visit\*Treatment)|||0.04|-0.02|
91753440|NCT02699450|183399756|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.8|-10.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-10.6|-47.8|0.05
91753441|NCT02699450|183399757|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.4||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.7|5.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.0|-29.7|0.36
91753442|NCT02699450|183399757|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.7|-3.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-3.5|-38.7|0.13
91753443|NCT02699450|183399758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-38.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-65.9|-11.3||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-11.3|-65.9|0.07
91753444|NCT02699450|183399759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-20.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.4|-3.8||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-3.8|-36.4|0.12
91753445|NCT02699450|183399759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.3|-12.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-12.0|-41.3|0.02
91753446|NCT02699450|183399760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.08||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|-0.46||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-0.46|-7.70|0.4948
91908457|NCT01445951|183712476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.25|-14.59|||||MMRM: FPG = Baseline FPG + Region + Basal insulin stratum + Visit + Treatment + (Visit\*Treatment)|||-14.59|-56.25|
91908458|NCT01445951|183712479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Weight change from baseline = Baseline weight + Change from baseline in HbA1c + Region + Basal insulin stratum + Treatment|ANCOVA: Weight change from baseline = Baseline weight + Change from baseline in HbA1c + Region + Basal insulin stratum + Treatment|||-0.31|-2.33|0.0102
91908459|NCT01445951|183712479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within treatment analysis of change from Baseline comparing if change was different from zero||||0.4955
91753447|NCT02699450|183399760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.08||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|-0.46||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-0.46|-7.70|0.4960
91753448|NCT02699450|183399761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.08|5.49||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.49|-11.08|1.0000
91753449|NCT02699450|183399762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-6.12||||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.41|3.17||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||3.17|-15.41|0.5759
91753450|NCT02699450|183399762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.15||||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.02|11.33||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||11.33|-5.02|0.7437
91753451|NCT02699450|183399763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.6|12.64||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||12.64|-8.60|1.0000
91753452|NCT00689793|183399791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||Significant level of treatment effect was set at p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Level of fatigue at four weeks:dependant variable. Group allocation and level of fatigue at baseline: independant variables.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in fatigue VAS scores between the treatment and placebo groups at 4 weeks||10|0|0.69
91753453|NCT00689793|183399792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5|<|0.05||95.0|0.0|10.0|||Regression, Linear|Hemoglobin value at four weeks : dependant variable. Group allocation and hemoglobin value at baseline : independant variables.||||10|0|<0.05
91753454|NCT00689793|183399793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|30.0|||Regression, Linear|Ferritin level at 4 weeks : dependant variable. Group allocation and ferritin level at baseline: independant variables.||||30|0|<0.05
91753455|NCT00689793|183399794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.0|||Regression, Linear|Aerobic capacity at 4 weeks : dependant variables. Group allocation and aerobic capacity at baseline : independant variable.||||6|0|0.05
91753456|NCT01811303|183399811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91753457|NCT01811303|183399811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.016||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.016
91753458|NCT02266875|183399813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.320
91753459|NCT02266875|183399814|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91753460|NCT02469714|183399884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between group comparison of total scheduled appointments from 1-13 months||||.04
91753461|NCT02469714|183399884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between group comparison of total achieved appointments from 1-13 months||||.008
91753462|NCT02469714|183399885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.135
91753463|NCT02469714|183399886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.077
91753464|NCT02469714|183399887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.0005
91753465|NCT02469714|183399888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.060
91753466|NCT02469714|183399889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.073
91753467|NCT02469714|183399890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.34
91908460|NCT01445951|183712479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within treatment analysis of change from Baseline comparing if change was different from zero||||0.6807
91804613|NCT03000439|183486845|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|5.21||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||5.21|-8.09|
91804614|NCT03000439|183486845|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|8.03||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||8.03|-16.67|
91804615|NCT03000439|183486845|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|8.25||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||8.25|-13.97|
91804616|NCT03000439|183486845|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.63|2.73||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.73|-24.63|
91804617|NCT03000439|183486845|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|8.18||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||8.18|-16.74|
91804618|NCT03000439|183486845|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-8.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-1.43||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.43|-15.20|
91804619|NCT03000439|183486845|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.92||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.92|-12.60|
91804620|NCT03000439|183486845|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|2.48||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.48|-5.16|
91804621|NCT03000439|183486846|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.19||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.19|-16.30|
91804622|NCT03000439|183486846|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|0.77||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.77|-21.68|
91883541|NCT00267098|183660623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.081|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.058||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||0.058|-0.218|
91908461|NCT01445951|183712479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within treatment analysis of change from Baseline comparing if change was different from zero||||0.0079
91908462|NCT01445951|183712481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5328||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3198|0.8877|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic model with affects for Region, Basal insulin stratum, and Treatment||||0.8877|0.3198|0.0156
91908463|NCT01445951|183712482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model: Region + Basal Insulin Stratum + Treatment + Exposure Time||||||<0.0001
91908464|NCT01445951|183712483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1022|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model: Region + Basal Insulin Stratum + Treatment + Exposure Time||||||0.1022
91804623|NCT03000439|183486846|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.75|2.03||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.03|-23.75|
91804624|NCT03000439|183486846|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-13.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-0.46||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.46|-25.83|
91804625|NCT03000439|183486846|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|-0.47||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.47|-13.56|
91804626|NCT03000439|183486846|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.95||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.95|-11.00|
91804627|NCT03000439|183486846|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-9.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.24|3.54||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.54|-22.24|
91804628|NCT03000439|183486846|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|4.83||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.83|-18.34|
91804629|NCT03000439|183486846|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-15.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.36|-0.63||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.63|-30.36|
91908465|NCT01445951|183712484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.449||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Model: Treatment + Basal insulin stratum + Region + Baseline HbA1c|Gen2 in the numerator, Aspart in the denominator|||0.86|0.23|0.0158
91753468|NCT02469714|183399891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.21
91753469|NCT00892606|183399933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0072
91753470|NCT00892606|183399934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91753471|NCT00892606|183399935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0146
91753472|NCT00140842|183399936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the groups for peak growth hormone on the growth hormone stimulation test.||||<0.05
91753473|NCT00140842|183399937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the groups for visceral adipose tissue||||<0.05
91753474|NCT01515475|183399943|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|18.0|||Barnard's Exact Test|||||18|-12|0.72
91753475|NCT01515475|183399943|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|4.0|||Barnard's Exact Test|||||4|-31|0.14
91753476|NCT01515475|183399951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.11|1.09||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the more hyperopic eye, Older Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||1.09|0.11|0.002
91753477|NCT01515475|183399951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.1|1.06||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the less hyperopic eye, Older Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||1.06|0.10|0.002
91753478|NCT01515475|183399951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.51|0.84||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the more hyperopic eye, Younger Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||0.84|-0.51|0.53
91753479|NCT01515475|183399951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.43|0.86||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the less hyperopic eye, Younger Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||0.86|-0.43|0.38
91753480|NCT01515475|183399952|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-49.0|1.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||"Analysis for the more hyperopic eye:~Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups."||1|-49|0.013
91753481|NCT01515475|183399952|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|-18.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.0|8.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||"Analysis for the less hyperopic eye:~Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups."||8|-42|0.08
91753482|NCT01515475|183399953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Better-Seeing Eye: Older Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.04|-0.02|0.22
91753483|NCT01515475|183399953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Worse-Seeing Eye: Older Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.03|-0.06|0.41
91753484|NCT01515475|183399953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Better-Seeing Eye: Younger Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.01|-0.12|0.02
91753485|NCT01515475|183399953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.19|0.05|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Worse-Seeing Eye: Younger Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.05|-0.19|0.15
91753486|NCT01515475|183399954|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|13.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||13|-18|0.51
91804630|NCT03000439|183486846|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|5.03||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.03|-21.00|
91753487|NCT01515475|183399954|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|14.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||14|-18|0.79
91753488|NCT01515475|183399955|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|13.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||13|-18|0.51
91753489|NCT01515475|183399955|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-24.0|16.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||16|-24|0.68
91753490|NCT01515475|183399956|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.12|0.05||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups.||0.05|-0.12|0.21
91753491|NCT01515475|183399956|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.1|0.04||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups.||0.04|-0.10|0.25
91753492|NCT01515475|183399957|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|13.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups||13|-18|0.51
91753493|NCT01515475|183399957|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-17.0|17.0||No p-value, because there was 0% difference||||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||17|-17|
91753494|NCT01515475|183399958|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.11|0.14||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was used to compare mean change in stereoacuity between treatment groups. The analysis controlled for age at the 3-year visit, anisometropia at the most recent visit, and stereoacuity at enrollment.||0.14|-0.11|0.74
91753495|NCT01515475|183399958|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was used to compare mean change in stereoacuity between treatment groups. The analysis controlled for age at the 3-year visit and anisometropia at the most recent visit.||0.1|-0.4|0.15
91753496|NCT01515475|183399959|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-14.0|26.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups||26|-14|0.53
91753497|NCT01515475|183399959|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.0|2.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||2|-40|0.02
91753498|NCT01996592|183399965|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p-value was calculated|ANOVA|||"PROMIS -perceived stress scale was utilized (a validated test). Scoring ranges from 0-40, with the following ranges indicative of low, moderate, or high perceived stress:~0-13=low stress 14-26=moderate stress 27-40=high perceived stress"||||<0.01
91753499|NCT01996592|183399966|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p-value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91753500|NCT00707746|183399972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤ 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C was 20%. A sample size of 30 patients was planned for this study: 20 patients in the mipomersen group and 10 patients in the placebo group. A 2-sided t-test with an alpha level of 0.05 was expected to provide ≥90% power to detect a 30% difference in LDL-C percent reduction between the 2 groups (35% reduction for the mipomersen group and 5% reduction for the placebo group).||||<0.001
91753501|NCT00707746|183399975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|Wilcoxon signed rank sum|||||||<0.001
91753502|NCT00707746|183399977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91753503|NCT00707746|183399979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91753504|NCT00707746|183399981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91753505|NCT00707746|183399983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91753506|NCT00707746|183399985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91753507|NCT00707746|183399987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91753508|NCT00707746|183399989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.784
91753509|NCT00707746|183399991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
91753510|NCT02573246|183399995|SUPERIORITY|Aimed to recruit 20 participants in each condition to align with other neurostimulation studies where 6-20 adults per condition were sufficient to demonstrate proof-of-concept for novel treatments (Bentwich et al., 2011; Cunningham et al., 2015).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.056||A priori threshold for significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The results presented are between the active right and sham conditions.|A mixed models analysis of variance (MMANOVA) examining regulation duration during each regulation period was conducted using treatment condition (active right, active left, sham), experimental condition (regulation1, regulation2, regulation3), and baseline as predictors.||-.056|-.590|0.019
91753511|NCT02573246|183399995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.508|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed models analysis of variance (MMANOVA) examining regulation duration during each regulation period was conducted using treatment condition (active right, active left, sham), experimental condition (regulation1, regulation2, regulation3), and baseline as predictors.||.508|-.034|.08
91753512|NCT02573246|183399995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|-0.02||A priori threshold for significance was set to .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|we controlled for baseline and for the distance between the brain and the scalp||Regulation duration was transformed using a logarithmic transformation to achieve normality||-.020|-.434|.033
91753513|NCT02573246|183399996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.256||A priori set threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|ANOVA|||A univariate general linear model was employed to test of regulation duration, transformed for normality.||.256|-0.504|.51
91883542|NCT00267098|183660624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.192||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||0.192|-0.095|
91804631|NCT03000439|183486846|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|-3.31||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-3.31|-17.67|
91883543|NCT00267098|183660625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|29.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|48.64||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||48.640|10.040|
91883544|NCT00267098|183660626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|21.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.841|40.87||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||40.870|2.841|
91883545|NCT00267098|183660627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|26.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.247|47.19||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||47.190|6.247|
91883546|NCT00267098|183660628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|23.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.999|44.53||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||44.530|1.999|
91908466|NCT04341441|183712522|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined with one planned interim analysis when 50% of participants had completed their 8 weeks of treatment using an O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending method to ensure an overall type 1 error of 0.05. With a sample size of 900 per group and alpha = 0.0492, the power to detect a 32% reduction in COVID-19 disease rate (10% vs 6.8%) between the placebo and HCQ treated groups, determined at 87%. Study required 1000 per group with a total of 3000 patients to complete the trial.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the comparison between groups, including the non-randomized active comparator, was 0.75.|Mantel Haenszel||Low number of primary events precluded estimated value of risk ratio.|||||0.75
91908467|NCT01692275|183712577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||||||All sites combined (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.7|-1.4|
91908468|NCT01692275|183712577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5||||||All sites combined (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.5|-1.2|
91908469|NCT01692275|183712577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.1|-1.3|
91804632|NCT03000439|183486846|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|1.67||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.67|-13.53|
91883547|NCT00267098|183660629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.089||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||0.089|-0.180|
91883548|NCT00267098|183660630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.058||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||0.058|-0.287|
91883549|NCT00267098|183660631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.22||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||0.220|-0.136|
91883550|NCT00267098|183660632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.311||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||0.311|-0.085|
91908470|NCT01692275|183712577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||0.2|-1.0|
91908471|NCT01692275|183712577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.6||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.6|-1.8|
91908472|NCT01692275|183712577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.5||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.5|-1.8|
91908473|NCT01692275|183712577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.8||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego site (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.8|-1.9|
91908474|NCT01692275|183712577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.5|-1.7|
91908475|NCT01692275|183712578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.2||||||All sites combined (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.2|-3.1|
91753514|NCT02573246|183399996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|0.378|||ANOVA|||||.378|-.364|.97
91753515|NCT02573246|183399996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167031||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215936|0.511921||A priori set significance threshold was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||A t test of the variable 'time it took to return to HR baseline', transformed for normality was used to examine between condition differences at the 1 month follow up.||0.511921|-0.215936|0.39
91753516|NCT02573246|183399997|SUPERIORITY|HF-HRV was transformed using the function lg10\*(HF-HRV\*1000000) in order to be normally distributed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.267||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||In the original study (CR+active left rTMS vs CR+ active right rTMS vs CR+sham rTMS), mixed-effects hierarchical linear models (MMANOVA) with analytically determined covariance structures were used to analyze the repeated measures data. We hypothesized that active neurostimulation would increase HF-HRV during regulation.||.267|.044|.022
91908476|NCT01692275|183712578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||||||All sites combined (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.0|-3.0|
91908477|NCT01692275|183712578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.2||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-0.2|-3.4|
91908478|NCT01692275|183712578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.2||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||0.2|-3.2|
91908479|NCT01692275|183712578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.4||||||Pensacola site (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-0.4|-3.8|
91883551|NCT00267098|183660633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1841||||0.9985||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9985
91908480|NCT01692275|183712578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.2||||||Pensacola site (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-0.2|-3.7|
91908481|NCT01692275|183712578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.1||||||San Diego site (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.1|-4.3|
91753517|NCT02573246|183399997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.000037|0.213074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMANOVA||0.213074|0.000037|0.0499
91753518|NCT02573246|183399997|SUPERIORITY|Aimed to recruit 20 participants in each condition to align with other neurostimulation studies where 6-20 adults per condition were sufficient to demonstrate proof-of-concept for novel treatments (Bentwich et al., 2011; Cunningham et al., 2015).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.172|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.215||Significance threshold was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMANOVA analysis used an unstructured covariance structure.|In the supplemental study (CR+active left rTMS with functional targeting vs CR+sham rTMS), mixed-effects hierarchical linear models (MMANOVA) with analytically determined covariance structures were used to analyze the repeated measures data. We hypothesized that active neurostimulation would increase HF-HRV during regulation when compared with sham.||.215|.129|<.000001
91753519|NCT02573246|183399998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091544||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078086|0.300661||A priori threshold was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in dlPFC activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.|Parameter estimate is the value of the difference between active stimulation and sham stimulation.|Difference between treatment conditions in dlPFC activation change between feeling negative emotions and downregulation of negative affect a week after intervention, when controlling for baseline activation difference||0.300661|-0.078086|.236
91753520|NCT02573246|183399998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.359024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144067||0.020347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.657049||Threshold was set at 0.05 a priori|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in vlpfc activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly higher activation following active intervention in the vlPFC when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. ROI data was extracted using FSL featquery. A univariate general linear model excluding one outlier from the active condition was conducted for this outcome measure.||0.657049|0.061000|0.020347
91753521|NCT02573246|183399998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.221683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461481||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.732963|1.17633||A priori threshold was set to .05|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in vmpfc activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly higher activation following active intervention in the vmPFC when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. ROI data was extracted with FSL featquery.||1.176330|-0.732963|0.635
91753522|NCT02573246|183399998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178029||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188868|0.547692||a priori set threshold was 0.05|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in amygdala activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly lower activation following active intervention in the amygdala when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. ROI data was extracted with featquery (FSL).||0.547692|-0.188868|.324
91753523|NCT02573246|183399998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071185||0.76819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126027|0.168489||A priori set threshold was 0.05|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in insula activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly lower activation following active intervention in the insula when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. FSL featquery tool was used to extract ROI (region of interest) data.||0.168489|-0.126027|0.768190
91753524|NCT02573246|183399999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|1.293||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05|ANOVA|||Likert-type questions about acceptability were rated on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 9 (extremely) and then averaged to create a mean for acceptability. This average score was normally distributed and therefore was entered into a univariate general linear model where acceptability was entered as a dependent variable and condition as a fixed factor.||1.293|-0.553|0.69
91753525|NCT02573246|183399999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|1.139|||ANOVA|||||1.139|-.592|.53
91753526|NCT02573246|183399999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.27||a priory threshold for significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|||we compared differences in acceptability between conditions using an independent samples t-test (acceptability was normally distributed)||0.27|-1.59|0.15
91908482|NCT01692275|183712578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.1||||||San Diego site (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.1|-4.4|
91753527|NCT02573246|183400000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.912||a priori threshold was set to 0.05|ANOVA|||We compared differences between conditions in the perceived feasibility of the procedures. Feasibility average was normally distributed and therefore a general linear model, univariate was employed to test between condition effects.||0.912|-0.322|0.551
91883552|NCT00267098|183660634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2503||||0.9999||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9999
91753528|NCT02573246|183400000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|0.571|||ANOVA|||||.571|-.567|.995
91753529|NCT02573246|183400000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8672|0.6681||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|df = 23||We examined differences in feasibility between the active and sham condition in the sub-study where fMRI targeting was utilized. Average feasibility was normally distributed and therefore an independent samples t-test was used to test this outcome.||0.6681|-0.8672|0.791
91753530|NCT02573246|183400001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.048||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.522964|21.60462||A priori threshold was set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||To test the long-term effects of the intervention, a MMANOVA model was conducted examining between-condition differences at the 1-week and 1-month follow-up in the OQ-45. Baseline was co-varied.||21.604620|-9.522964|0.61
91753531|NCT02573246|183400001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|14.02||a priori threshold was set to .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.02|-15.83|.90
91753532|NCT02573246|183400001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.971581|26.892619||threshold was set to 0.05 a priori|Mixed Models Analysis||HLM models used a compound symmetry covariance structure.|||26.892619|-5.971581|.20
91753533|NCT02573246|183400002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.062356|-0.043203||A priori threshold was set to .05 for significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subjective Units of Distress (SUDS) right before the intervention were co-varied as baseline.|Results reported are for active left vs. sham comparison.|Hypothesized that active neurostimulation would lead to lower daily distress than sham stimulation. We used a hierarchical linear model (HLM) for this analysis with an identity covariance structure (random intercept and random slope).||-0.043203|-1.062356|.034
91753534|NCT02573246|183400002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|1.47||A priori set threshold was .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesized that active neurostimulation will lead to less daily distress than sham neurostimulation during the ambulatory data collection. An HLM analysis was conducted using an unstructured covariance structure and reported distress right before the intervention as baseline.||1.47|-.208|.133
91753535|NCT02573246|183400003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.300772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.670936||0.629061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.708548|4.107||A priori threshold was set to .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Intake values for the dependent measures were covaried. The time by condition interaction term was included.||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to less functional impairment than sham neurostimulation.||4.107|-6.708548|0.629061
91753536|NCT02573246|183400003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.977394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.605189||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.255223|4.300434|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We expected lower functional impairment in the active right versus the sham condition.||4.300434|-6.255223|0.71
91753537|NCT02573246|183400003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.292137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.314194||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.157811|3.573537||A priori set threshold was .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline WSAS was covaried|The analysis compared sham versus active stimulation.|Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology in the substudy also. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to less impairment than sham neurostimulation.||3.573537|-10.157811|0.331
91753538|NCT02573246|183400003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.284589|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276698||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27603|0.845209||A priori set threshold for significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|baseline was covaried||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to more use of cognitive restructuring than sham neurostimulation.||0.845209|-0.276030|0.31
91753539|NCT02573246|183400003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.129377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.150339||0.275257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.394724|28.653479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that active right neurostimulation would yield lower emotional dysregulation after the intervention when compared to sham neurostimulation.||28.653479|-8.394724|0.275257
91753540|NCT02573246|183400003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.212753||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.002351|-0.372281||A priori set significance threshold was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to less emotional dysregulation than sham neurostimulation.||-0.372281|-26.002351|0.044
91753541|NCT02573246|183400003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.927909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.603423||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.508252|20.364071||A priori set threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|baseline was covaried||We expected active stimulation to lead to less emotional dysregulation than sham neurostimulation. A MMANOVA model was employed, controlling for baseline.||20.364071|-18.508252|.924
91753542|NCT02573246|183400003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267983||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.560994|0.525901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we expected more use of cr following active right neurostimulation then after following sham neurostimulation.||0.525901|-0.560994|.95
91883553|NCT00267098|183660635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1978||||0.9978||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9978
91883554|NCT00267098|183660636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2069||||0.9983||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9983
91908483|NCT01692275|183712579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||||||All sites combined (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.6|
91908484|NCT01692275|183712579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||||||All sites combined (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.6|
91908485|NCT01692275|183712579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||0.1|-0.5|
91908486|NCT01692275|183712579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||0.1|-0.5|
91753543|NCT02573246|183400003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389897||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.900919|0.707481||A priori set significance threshold was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline use of cognitive restructuring was covaried||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to more use of cognitive restructuring than sham neurostimulation.||0.707481|-0.900919|.806
91753544|NCT02256267|183400039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.0771|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0671|0.0886||||||||0.0886|0.0671|
91753545|NCT02256267|183400040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.0467|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0376|0.0581||||||||0.0581|0.0376|
91753546|NCT01443130|183400056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2441||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of placental malaria infection based on histology is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2441
91753547|NCT01443130|183400056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of placental malaria infection based on histology is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.000
91753548|NCT01443130|183400057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4941||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria by placental impression smear is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4941
91753549|NCT01443130|183400057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria by placental impression smear is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4990
91753550|NCT01443130|183400058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3089||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.3089
91753551|NCT01443130|183400058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6973||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.6973
91753552|NCT01443130|183400059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal severe anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.00
91753553|NCT01443130|183400059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal severe anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.00
91804633|NCT03000439|183486846|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|1.24||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.24|-6.37|
91804634|NCT03000439|183486847|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.22||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.22|0.20|
91804635|NCT03000439|183486847|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.85||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.85|-0.20|
91804636|NCT03000439|183486847|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.27||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.27|-0.65|
91804637|NCT03000439|183486847|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.41||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.41|-0.26|
91804638|NCT03000439|183486847|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.1||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.10|-0.78|
91804639|NCT03000439|183486847|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.49||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.49|-0.18|
91804640|NCT03000439|183486847|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.27||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.27|-1.43|
91883555|NCT00267098|183660638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.01||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, were calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|The hazard ratio corresponds to the time from randomization to first ventricular arrhythmia occurring post-randomization for each subject. Ventricular arrhythmias occurring prior to randomization were excluded. A 95% credible interval was used.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, NYHA classifications of I-III, and indicated for defibrillation therapy who receive biventricular (BiV) pacing have the same rate of experiencing their first ventricular arrhythmia as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the one-side hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a lower risk of ventricular arrhythmias than subjects with right ventricular pacing.||2.01|0.78|0.189
91883556|NCT05896696|183660741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.26|||Paired sample t-test|||||-1.26|-2.49|<0.0001
91804641|NCT03000439|183486847|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.5||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.50|-0.65|
91883557|NCT05896696|183660742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.73|||paired sample t-test|||||-0.73|-1.70|<0.0001
91804642|NCT03000439|183486847|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.63||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.63|-0.51|
91804643|NCT03000439|183486847|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.47||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.55|
91804644|NCT03000439|183486847|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.5||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.50|-0.82|
91804645|NCT03000439|183486847|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.22||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.22|-1.51|
91804646|NCT03000439|183486847|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.88||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-1.05|
91804647|NCT03000439|183486848|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.3||||||DB at Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-0.32|
91804648|NCT03000439|183486848|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.61||||||DB at Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.61|-0.64|
91804649|NCT03000439|183486848|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.07||||||DB at Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.07|-1.02|
91804650|NCT03000439|183486848|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.14||||||DB at Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.14|-0.69|
91883558|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|3.94|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||3.940|0.258|
91883559|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|2.177|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||2.177|0.497|
91883560|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|3.71|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||3.710|0.317|
91883561|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.212|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|2.74|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.740|0.536|
91908487|NCT01692275|183712579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||||||Pensacola site (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.8|
91753554|NCT01443130|183400060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4979||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of stillbirth is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4979
91753555|NCT01443130|183400060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1166||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of stillbirth is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.1166
91753556|NCT01443130|183400061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6237||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of miscarriage is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.6237
91753557|NCT01443130|183400061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of miscarriage is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.000
91753558|NCT01443130|183400062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5187||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of preterm delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.5187
91753559|NCT01443130|183400062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2163||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of preterm delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2163
91753560|NCT01443130|183400063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5959||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infant mortality within 14 weeks of delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.5959
91753561|NCT01443130|183400063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8127||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infant mortality within 14 weeks of delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.8127
91753562|NCT01443130|183400064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2566||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of low birth weight is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2566
91753563|NCT01443130|183400064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7839||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of low birth weight is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.7839
91753564|NCT01443130|183400065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2553||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of intrauterine growth restriction is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2553
91753565|NCT01443130|183400065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4354||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of intrauterine growth restriction is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4354
91753566|NCT01443130|183400066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of active placental malaria infection is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.3690
91753567|NCT01443130|183400066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4947||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of active placental malaria infection is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4947
91753568|NCT01443130|183400067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria infection (all species) measured by positive parasitemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.0630
91883562|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|4.827|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||4.827|0.247|
91883563|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|2.801|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.801|0.461|
91908488|NCT01692275|183712579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||||||Pensacola site (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.8|
91883564|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|4.03|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||4.030|0.493|
91883565|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|3.994|||||"Risk Ratio of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||3.994|0.301|
91753569|NCT01443130|183400067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4184||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria infection (all species) measured by positive parasitemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4184
91753570|NCT01443130|183400068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Cox proportional hazards|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of clinical malaria (all species) is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.0268
91753571|NCT01443130|183400068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1646||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Cox proportional hazards|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of clinical malaria (all species) is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.1646
91753572|NCT01443130|183400069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4501||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infection in the fetal circulation is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4501
91753573|NCT01443130|183400069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1758||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infection in the fetal circulation is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.1758
91759524|NCT02391363|183411775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 1.56 (SE = 0.74). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month hospital admissions, controlling for baseline hospital admissions.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.04
91759525|NCT02391363|183411776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 2.96 (SE = 0.91). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month hospital admissions, controlling for baseline hospital admissions.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.001
91759526|NCT02391363|183411777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 0.42 (SE = 0.51). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month social service use, controlling for baseline social service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.42
91759527|NCT02391363|183411778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 0.09 (SE = 0.47). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month social service use, controlling for baseline social service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.85
91759528|NCT02391363|183411779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = -0.28 (SE = 0.46). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month psychological service use, controlling for baseline psychological service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.55
91804651|NCT03000439|183486848|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.22||||||DB at Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.22|-1.05|
91804652|NCT03000439|183486848|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.16||||||DB at Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.16|-0.60|
91883566|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|4.03|||||"Risk Ratio of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||4.030|0.493|
91883567|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.954|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.172|7.445|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||7.445|1.172|
91753574|NCT01266590|183400071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0664||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.0664
91753575|NCT00167388|183400092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in mean mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre- to post- feed in the anemic state for babies \<1250 gm||||0.571
91753576|NCT00167388|183400092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in peak systolic blood flow velocity from pre-to post feed for babies \<1250 gm while anemic||||0.345
91753577|NCT00167388|183400092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in superior mesenteric artery blood flow velocity from pre- to post- feed in the anemic state for babies \>1250 gm||||0.006
91753578|NCT00167388|183400092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in peak systolic blood flow velocity from pre-to post feed for babies \>1250 gm while anemic||||0.035
91753579|NCT00167388|183400092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in mean mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \<1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.910
91753580|NCT00167388|183400092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Peak systolic mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \<1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.850
91753581|NCT00167388|183400092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in mean mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \>1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.507
91753582|NCT00167388|183400092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in peak systolic mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \>1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.286
91753583|NCT05501795|183400104|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
91753584|NCT02888743|183400128|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportions|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|14.6|||Chi-squared||Arm A compared with Arm C; normal approximation for confidence interval|||14.6|-14.6|0.99
91753585|NCT02888743|183400128|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportions|-3.8||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.3|9.6|||Chi-squared||Arm B compared with Arm C; normal approximation used for confidence interval.|||9.6|-17.3|0.64
91753586|NCT02888743|183400129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||||1.58|0.60|0.92
91753587|NCT02888743|183400129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.50|0.55
91753588|NCT02888743|183400130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.30|0.24
91753589|NCT02888743|183400130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.45|||Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.36|0.44
91753590|NCT02888743|183400134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||Unadjusted p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91753591|NCT03344172|183400140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.71|||Fisher Exact|||||6.71|0.30|0.63
91753592|NCT03344172|183400141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.25|-1.00|0.13
91753593|NCT01804582|183400151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||An intent to treat analysis was conducted using a linear mixed model to determine if there was any significant difference in change from baseline to 3 months based on time and condition. Data for all participants was included at baseline and 3 months.||||.15
91753594|NCT01804582|183400152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d was calculated to measure the estimation parameter.|||||.53
91753595|NCT01804582|183400153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.80
91753596|NCT01804582|183400154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.33
91753597|NCT01804582|183400155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||Wald Chi-Squared|||||||.21
91753598|NCT01804582|183400156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Phi|0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi Squared (1, N = 229) = 7.99.||The total n=229 included those on medication at 90 days (119 never filled the prescription or changed to a different med)||||.005
91753599|NCT00159913|183400162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.056||95.0|-0.19|15.6||No adjustments for multiple comparisons have been made.|ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||15.60|-0.19|0.056
91753600|NCT00159913|183400162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||||95.0|-6.11|13.73|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||13.73|-6.11|
91753601|NCT00159913|183400162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.84||||95.0|1.72|20.94|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||20.94|1.72|
91753602|NCT00159913|183400162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||||95.0|-1.64|17.6|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||17.60|-1.64|
91753603|NCT00159913|183400163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.172||95.0|-7.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||1.3|-7.5|0.172
91753604|NCT00159913|183400163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||||95.0|-4.5|7.6|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||7.6|-4.5|
91753605|NCT00159913|183400163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||||95.0|-8.9|1.9|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||1.9|-8.9|
91753606|NCT00159913|183400163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||||95.0|-12.4|-2.1|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||-2.1|-12.4|
91908489|NCT01692275|183712579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||||||San Diego site (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.7|
91804653|NCT03000439|183486848|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.64||||||DB at Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.64|-1.60|
91804654|NCT03000439|183486848|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.64||||||DB at Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.64|-1.60|
91804655|NCT03000439|183486848|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.73||||||DB at Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.73|-0.58|
91804656|NCT03000439|183486848|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.65||||||DB at Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.65|-0.53|
91804657|NCT03000439|183486848|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.64||||||DB at Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.64|-0.87|
91804658|NCT03000439|183486848|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.54||||||DB at Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.54|-1.13|
91804659|NCT03000439|183486848|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.11||||||DB at Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.11|-1.00|
91883568|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.152|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|4.432|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||4.432|0.299|
91883569|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|6.743|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||6.743|0.113|
91883570|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.158|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|2.461|||||"Risk Ratio of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug either \> 1.5 × the institutional upper limit normal range (IULN) to ≤ 1.5 × IULN"|Subgroup analyses of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug||2.461|0.545|
91883571|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.244|||||"Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug \> 50 IU/L to ≤ 50 IU/L"|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug||1.244|0.280|
91908490|NCT01692275|183712579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||||||San Diego site (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.1|-0.7|
91804660|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|20.36||||||CHQ01-Global Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||20.36|-8.35|
91804661|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|18.14||||||CHQ01-Global Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||18.14|-12.43|
91804662|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.78|7.4||||||CHQ01-Physical Functioning Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||7.40|-15.78|
91804663|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.06|41.68||||||CHQ01-Physical Functioning Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||41.68|-37.06|
91804664|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|6.43||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Emotional Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||6.43|-17.37|
91804665|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|34.57||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Emotional Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||34.57|-20.92|
91804666|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|6.5||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Physical Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||6.50|-18.95|
91883572|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|1.862|||||"Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug not performed to ≤ 50 IU/L"|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug||1.862|0.038|
91883573|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.849|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||0.849|0.201|
91883574|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|1.194|||||"Risk Ratio of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug \> 1000 /μL to ≤ 1000 /μL"|Subgroup analyses of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug||1.194|0.075|
91908491|NCT01692275|183712580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8||||||All sites combined (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.8|-1.6|
91883575|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|6.362|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||6.362|0.917|
91883576|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.688|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|4.655|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||4.655|0.612|
91883577|NCT05923112|183660749|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.901|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|1.99|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||1.990|0.408|
91883578|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|4.391|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||4.391|0.086|
91753607|NCT00159913|183400164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.041||95.0|-8.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||-0.2|-8.0|0.041
91753608|NCT00159913|183400164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||||95.0|-5.9|4.7|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||4.7|-5.9|
91753609|NCT00159913|183400164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||||95.0|-9.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||0.3|-9.3|
91753610|NCT00159913|183400164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||||95.0|-11.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||-2.7|-11.7|
91753611|NCT00159913|183400165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.795||95.0|-4.07|5.3|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||5.30|-4.07|0.795
91753612|NCT00159913|183400165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||||95.0|-3.31|8.54|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||8.54|-3.31|
91753613|NCT00159913|183400165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||||95.0|-7.09|4.5|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||4.50|-7.09|
91753614|NCT00159913|183400165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||||95.0|-5.24|6.28|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||6.28|-5.24|
91753615|NCT00159913|183400166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.139||95.0|-3.05|21.54|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||21.54|-3.05|0.139
91753616|NCT00159913|183400166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.84||||95.0|-5.21|25.9|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||25.90|-5.21|
91753617|NCT00159913|183400166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||||95.0|-3.78|26.64|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||26.64|-3.78|
91753618|NCT00159913|183400166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||||95.0|-9.16|21.08|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||21.08|-9.16|
91753619|NCT00159913|183400167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.172||95.0|-7.1|1.3|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.3|-7.1|0.172
91753620|NCT00159913|183400167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||||95.0|-5.5|5.9|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||5.9|-5.5|
91753621|NCT00159913|183400167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||||95.0|-8.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.7|-8.5|
91753622|NCT00159913|183400167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||||95.0|-10.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||-0.7|-10.3|
91753623|NCT00159913|183400168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.015||95.0|0.14|1.34|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.34|0.14|0.015
91753624|NCT00159913|183400168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||||95.0|-0.1|1.52|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.52|-0.10|
91753625|NCT00159913|183400168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||||95.0|-0.12|1.35|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.35|-0.12|
91753626|NCT00159913|183400168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||||95.0|0.21|1.58|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.58|0.21|
91883579|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.188|1.491|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||1.491|0.188|
91883580|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|4.723|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||4.723|0.217|
91883581|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|2.594|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.594|0.316|
91883582|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|5.455|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||5.455|0.085|
91908492|NCT01692275|183712580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7||||||All sites combined (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.7|-1.6|
91753627|NCT00159913|183400169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.44||95.0|-1.77|0.77|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||0.77|-1.77|0.440
91753628|NCT00159913|183400169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||||95.0|-1.91|1.57|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.57|-1.91|
91753629|NCT00159913|183400169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||||95.0|-1.73|1.36|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.36|-1.73|
91753630|NCT00159913|183400169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||||95.0|-2.61|0.33|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||0.33|-2.61|
91753631|NCT00159913|183400170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.75||95.0|-4.45|3.21|||ANCOVA|The covariates included in the model were baseline scale, etiology, weight and capability of performing the exercise test.||||3.21|-4.45|0.750
91753632|NCT00159913|183400170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||||95.0|-4.21|5.95|||ANCOVA|||||5.95|-4.21|
91753633|NCT00159913|183400170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||||95.0|-4.68|5.15|||ANCOVA|||||5.15|-4.68|
91753634|NCT00159913|183400170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||||95.0|-7.37|1.45|||ANCOVA|||||1.45|-7.37|
91753635|NCT00159913|183400171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.784||95.0|-3.41|2.58|||ANCOVA|The covariates included in the model were baseline scale, etiology, weight and capability of performing the exercise test.||||2.58|-3.41|0.784
91753636|NCT00159913|183400171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||||95.0|-3.49|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.30|-3.49|
91753637|NCT00159913|183400171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||||95.0|-5.99|1.77|||ANCOVA|||||1.77|-5.99|
91753638|NCT00159913|183400171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||||95.0|-3.06|3.97|||ANCOVA|||||3.97|-3.06|
91753639|NCT00159913|183400172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.184||95.0|0.75|4.45|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||4.45|0.75|0.184
91753640|NCT00159913|183400172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.409||95.0|0.18|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||2.01|0.18|0.409
91753641|NCT00159913|183400172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.146||95.0|0.75|6.69|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||6.69|0.75|0.146
91753642|NCT00159913|183400172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52||||0.006||95.0|1.56|13.1|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||13.10|1.56|0.006
91753643|NCT00159913|183400173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.179||95.0|-2.74|14.53|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||14.53|-2.74|0.179
91753644|NCT00159913|183400173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||||95.0|-9.49|11.77|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||11.77|-9.49|
91753645|NCT00159913|183400173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||||95.0|0.66|21.96|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||21.96|0.66|
91753646|NCT00159913|183400173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||||95.0|-5.02|15.5|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||15.50|-5.02|
91753647|NCT00385723|183400174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.028||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||1.25 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on change from baseline to 4 months||-0.028|-0.19|0.03
91753648|NCT00385723|183400174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.052||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||2.5 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||-0.052|-0.22|0.004
91753649|NCT00385723|183400175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.21||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||1.25 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on change from baseline to 4 months.||-0.21|-0.62|0.0003
91753650|NCT00385723|183400175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.22||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||2.5 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||-0.22|-0.64|0.0002
91804667|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|11.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.24|68.42||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Physical Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||68.42|-46.24|
91883583|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|2.335|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.335|0.267|
91883584|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|7.9|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||7.900|0.845|
91753651|NCT00385723|183400176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.18||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||1.25 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||0.18|-0.64|0.80
91753652|NCT00385723|183400176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.21||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||2.5 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||0.21|-0.61|1.0
91753653|NCT00413010|183400178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||||95.0|-2.16|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, pooled center baseline, HAM-A total score,time,and treatment-by time|Since an interim analysis was conducted and the sample size was larger than the targeted 173 subjects per group, a critical t-value adjustment was 1.977, yielding an adjusted 95% CI shown above.|Null hypothesis: no difference between Pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) BID and Placebo BID treatment groups. An initial sample size of 173 subjects per double-blind treatment group was calculated to provide at least 90% power to detect an effect size (ie, difference in the true means between 2 treatment groups/standard deviation) of 0.36 for the HAM-A total score change from Baseline using a 2-sided nominal significance level of 4.9%.||-0.26|-2.16|
91753654|NCT00413010|183400179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||||95.0|-2.3|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 1||-0.4|-2.3|
91753655|NCT00413010|183400179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||||95.0|-2.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 2||0.1|-2.2|
91753656|NCT00413010|183400179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||||95.0|-2.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 3||-0.2|-2.7|
91753657|NCT00413010|183400179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||||95.0|-2.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 4||-0.1|-2.6|
91753658|NCT00413010|183400179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||||95.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 5||0.5|-2.1|
91753659|NCT00413010|183400179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||||95.0|-2.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 6||0.1|-2.5|
91753660|NCT00413010|183400179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||||95.0|-2.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 8||0.2|-2.9|
91753661|NCT00413010|183400180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||||95.0|1.37|8.24||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responders at each week with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 1||8.24|1.37|
91753662|NCT00413010|183400180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||||95.0|0.9|2.87||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 2||2.87|0.90|
91753663|NCT00413010|183400180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||||95.0|1.76|5.66||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 3||5.66|1.76|
91753664|NCT00413010|183400180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||||95.0|1.06|3.05||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 4||3.05|1.06|
91753665|NCT00413010|183400180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||||95.0|0.9|2.73||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 5||2.73|0.90|
91804668|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|11.06||||||CHQ01-Bodily Pain Subscale Standardized Score: DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||11.06|-13.97|
91753666|NCT00413010|183400180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||||95.0|0.86|2.66||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 6||2.66|0.86|
91753667|NCT00413010|183400180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||||95.0|1.08|3.22||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8||3.22|1.08|
91753668|NCT00413010|183400180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||||95.0|1.12|2.79||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responders at Week 8 (LOCF) with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8 (last observation carried forward, LOCF)||2.79|1.12|
91753669|NCT00413010|183400181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||||95.0|0.94|8.8||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 1||8.80|0.94|
91753670|NCT00413010|183400181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||||95.0|0.72|3.06||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 2||3.06|0.72|
91753671|NCT00413010|183400181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||||95.0|1.09|3.97||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 3||3.97|1.09|
91753672|NCT00413010|183400181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||||95.0|0.99|3.28||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 4||3.28|0.99|
91753673|NCT00413010|183400181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||||95.0|0.82|2.85||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 5||2.85|0.82|
91753674|NCT00413010|183400181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||||95.0|0.71|2.48||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 6||2.48|0.71|
91753675|NCT00413010|183400181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||||95.0|0.85|2.83||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 8||2.83|0.85|
91753676|NCT00413010|183400181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||||95.0|0.92|2.53|||Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responders at Week 8 (LOCF) with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 8 Last Observation Carried Foward (LOCF)||2.53|0.92|
91753677|NCT00413010|183400182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0137||||||P-value corresponds to the 2-sided log-rank test.|Log Rank|2-sided log-rank test||Kaplan Meier product limit estimate for calculating median time in days to onset sustained HAM-A Improvement.||||0.0137
91753678|NCT00413010|183400183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||||95.0|0.96|2.47||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the CGI-I responders at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 1||2.47|0.96|
91804669|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.01|62.41||||||CHQ01-Bodily Pain Subscale Standardized Score: DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||62.41|-28.01|
91804670|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|2.93||||||CHQ01-Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.93|-13.24|
91804671|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-15.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.12|3.06||||||CHQ01-Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.06|-33.12|
91804672|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|6.29||||||CHQ01-Global Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||6.29|-16.92|
91804673|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.35|5.87||||||CHQ01-Global Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.87|-20.35|
91804674|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|15.07||||||CHQ01-Mental Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||15.07|-6.18|
91804675|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.37|9.45||||||CHQ01-Mental Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||9.45|-24.37|
91804676|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|9.13||||||CHQ01-Self Esteem Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||9.13|-9.14|
91804677|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.87|18.7||||||CHQ01-Self Esteem Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||18.70|-33.87|
91883585|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|6.163|||||"Risk Ratio of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||6.163|0.131|
91753679|NCT00413010|183400183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||||95.0|1.01|2.47||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 2||2.47|1.01|
91753680|NCT00413010|183400183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||||95.0|1.09|2.82||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 3||2.82|1.09|
91883586|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|7.9|||||"Risk Ratio of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||7.900|0.845|
91804678|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|14.77||||||CHQ01-General Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||14.77|-4.81|
91804679|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.31|18.28||||||CHQ01-General Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||18.28|-20.31|
91804680|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.33||||||CHQ01-Change in Health Subscale Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.33|-0.40|
91804681|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.65||||||CHQ01-Change in Health Subscale Score; DB Week48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.65|-0.68|
91804682|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|15.1||||||CHQ01-Emotional Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||15.10|-10.59|
91804683|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-25.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.96|10.82||||||CHQ01-Emotional Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||10.82|-60.96|
91804684|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.55|17.29||||||CHQ01-Time Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||17.29|-13.55|
91883587|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|9.63|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||9.630|0.796|
91883588|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|8.827|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||8.827|0.418|
91883589|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
91883590|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|2.062|||||"Risk Ratio of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug either \> 1.5 × the institutional upper limit normal range (IULN) to ≤ 1.5 ×IULN"|Subgroup analyses of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug||2.062|0.184|
91883591|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|1.729|||||"Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug \> 50 IU/L to ≤ 50 IU/L"|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug||1.729|0.249|
91883592|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug not performed to ≤ 50 IU/L"|||
91883593|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|1.836|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||1.836|0.273|
91883594|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|1.79|||||"Risk Ratio of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug \> 1000 /μL to ≤ 1000 /μL"|Subgroup analyses of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug||1.790|0.034|
91753681|NCT00413010|183400183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||||95.0|0.77|2.05||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 4||2.05|0.77|
91753682|NCT00413010|183400183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||||95.0|0.72|2.11||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 5||2.11|0.72|
91883595|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|10.294|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||10.294|0.832|
91753683|NCT00413010|183400183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||||95.0|0.84|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 6||2.50|0.84|
91908493|NCT01692275|183712580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.02||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.02|-1.3|
91753684|NCT00413010|183400183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||||95.0|0.61|1.84||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8||1.84|0.61|
91753685|NCT00413010|183400183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||||95.0|0.71|1.76||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8 (LOCF) Last Observation Carried Forward||1.76|0.71|
91753686|NCT00413010|183400184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||||95.0|1.07|2.3||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Cumulative Logit Model|Based on fitting a logistic regression model for ordinal response of CGI-S scores at Week 8 (LOCF) with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. The odds of having an increasingly better response for pregabalin relative to the odds of having an increasingly better response for placebo.|Week 8 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||2.30|1.07|
91883596|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|5.279|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||5.279|0.296|
91883597|NCT05923112|183660750|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|4.058|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||4.058|0.588|
91883598|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.528|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|1.939|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||1.939|0.144|
91883599|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|2.041|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||2.041|0.849|
91883600|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.351|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.351|0.500|
91883601|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|2.142|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.142|0.781|
91883602|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.715|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||1.715|0.120|
91908494|NCT01692275|183712580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.1|-1.5|
91804685|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-9.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.91|30.53||||||CHQ01-Time Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||30.53|-48.91|
91804686|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|4.9||||||CHQ01-Family Activities Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.90|-12.84|
91804687|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.35|13.75||||||CHQ01-Family Activities Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||13.75|-32.35|
91804688|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|7.81||||||CHQ01-Family Cohesion Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||7.81|-14.84|
91804689|NCT03000439|183486851|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-20.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.03|38.18||||||CHQ01-Family Cohesion Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||38.18|-79.03|
91804690|NCT03000439|183486854|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.54||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.54|-1.02|
91883603|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.653|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||1.653|0.605|
91883604|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.099|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|2.228|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||2.228|0.542|
91908495|NCT01692275|183712580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.7||||||Pensacola site (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.7|-2.0|
91804691|NCT03000439|183486854|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.57||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.57|-0.49|
91804692|NCT03000439|183486854|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.9||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.90|-1.01|
91908496|NCT01692275|183712580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.8||||||Pensacola site (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.8|-2.3|
91908497|NCT01692275|183712580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.0||||||San Diego site (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-1.0|-2.3|
91804693|NCT03000439|183486854|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.58||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.58|-0.49|
91804694|NCT03000439|183486854|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.45||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.45|-0.98|
91804695|NCT03000439|183486854|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.14||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.14|-0.51|
91804696|NCT03000439|183486854|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.03||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.03|-1.87|
91908498|NCT01692275|183712580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5||||||San Diego site (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.5|-1.9|
91804697|NCT03000439|183486854|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.88||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-1.53|
91883605|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.714|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.714|0.667|
91883606|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.705|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.705|0.485|
91908499|NCT01692275|183712581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.97||||||Week 6: All 3 sites combined||0.97|0.54|
91908500|NCT01692275|183712581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0||||||Week 12: All 3 sites combined||1.0|0.58|
91908501|NCT01692275|183712582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.25||||||All sites combined: 6 weeks||0.25|0.13|
91908502|NCT01692275|183712582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.42||||||Walter Reed site: 6 weeks||0.42|0.16|
91908503|NCT01692275|183712582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.33||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site: 6 weeks||0.33|0.10|
91908504|NCT01692275|183712582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.21||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego site: 6 weeks||0.21|0.08|
91908505|NCT01692275|183712583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|2.8||||||All sites combined: 6 weeks||2.8|2.1|
91883607|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.459|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.688|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.688|0.125|
91883608|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.362|||||"Risk Ratio of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 4000/mm³ to \< 4000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug||1.362|0.580|
91883609|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.725|||||"Risk Ratio of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 2000/mm³ to \< 2000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug||1.725|0.728|
91908506|NCT01692275|183712583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.6||||||Walter Reed site: 6 weeks||2.6|1.4|
91804698|NCT03000439|183486854|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.74||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.74|-1.36|
91804699|NCT03000439|183486854|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.69||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.55|
91804700|NCT03000439|183486854|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.39||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.39|-1.01|
91804701|NCT03000439|183486854|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.92||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.92|-1.45|
91804702|NCT03000439|183486854|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.69||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.87|
91804703|NCT03000439|183486863|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-30.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.43|-6.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||-6.94|-53.43|
91883610|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.536|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||1.536|0.639|
91883611|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|3.643|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||3.643|1.093|
91883612|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|3.279|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||3.279|0.977|
91908507|NCT01692275|183712583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.0||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site: 6 weeks||3.0|1.6|
91908508|NCT01692275|183712583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.7||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego site: 6 weeks||3.7|2.5|
91753687|NCT00413010|183400185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||||95.0|-1.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 1||0.0|-1.5|
91753688|NCT00413010|183400185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||||95.0|-1.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 2||0.2|-1.5|
91753689|NCT00413010|183400185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||||95.0|-1.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 3||0.1|-1.6|
91753690|NCT00413010|183400185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||||95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 4||-0.6|-2.1|
91753691|NCT00413010|183400185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||||95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 5||0.5|-1.3|
91753692|NCT00413010|183400185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||||95.0|-1.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 6||0.0|-1.8|
91753693|NCT00413010|183400185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||||95.0|-2.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 8||0.1|-2.1|
91753694|NCT05432167|183400188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.676||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including fixed effects for treatment, visit, stratification variables (SGLT2 inhibitor use and CKD category), and the treatment-by-visit interaction, along with a covariate of the baseline seated SBP value and the baseline seated SBP by visit interaction.||-2.79|-13.36|0.003
91753695|NCT05432167|183400189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.051||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including fixed effects for treatment, visit, stratification variables (SGLT2 inhibitor use and CKD category), and the treatment-by-visit interaction, along with a covariate of the baseline seated SBP value and the baseline seated SBP by visit interaction.||-1.19|-13.24|0.019
91753696|NCT05432167|183400190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.098||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including fixed effects for treatment, visit, stratification variables (SGLT2 inhibitor use and CKD category), and the treatment-by-visit interaction, along with a covariate of the baseline seated SBP value and the baseline seated SBP by visit interaction.||-2.87|-15.10|0.004
91753697|NCT01511809|183400192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference between the two proportions of treatment failure (triple therapy-monotherapy) below the pre-specified margin of non-inferiority of -10% established inferiority. A sample size of 342 patients (171 per treatment arm) provided 80% power (one-sided, alpha 0.05) to establish non-inferiority of ATV/r monotherapy as compared to ATV/r triple therapy with an overall treatment failure (TF) rate of 15% at week 48.|difference between TF proportions|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Here are reported the results of the 48-week interim analyses according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. ITT=F (with re-intensification=failure) and the ITT=S (with re-intensification=success) treatment failure results are shown.~Based on the efficacy data review, in June 2013, an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) recommended to stop further patients' enrolment and to follow-up the enrolled patients until 96 weeks, after having signed an updated informed consent."||||
91753698|NCT00364533|183400206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|91.4|||<|0.001||95.0|49.77|133.07|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||133.07|49.77|<0.001
91753699|NCT00364533|183400206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|81.5|||<|0.001||95.0|38.66|124.29|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||124.29|38.66|<0.001
91753700|NCT00364533|183400206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|81.5|||<|0.001||95.0|39.21|123.8|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||123.80|39.21|<0.001
91753701|NCT00364533|183400206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|82.4|||<|0.001||95.0|38.96|125.88|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||125.88|38.96|<0.001
91753702|NCT00973102|183400236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.47||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|5.25|||Barnard's unconditional Exact Test|||||5.25|1.16|.252
91753703|NCT00973102|183400237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.895|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.895
91753704|NCT02360293|183400240|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.0|122.7|||||Generated through ANCOVA predicting Active Minutes as a function of arm and f/u time, adjusted for Sex, Baseline PA Goal (AM), and type of Smart Phone. Represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.|Estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA, adjusted for baseline AM goal, Type of Smart Phone, and Sex.||122.7|-119.0|
91753705|NCT02360293|183400241|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|5.81|||||Generated through ANCOVA predicting Weight as a function of the interaction of arm and follow-up time. Estimate represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.|The estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA.||5.81|-15.85|
91753706|NCT02360293|183400242|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.969|0.646|||||Generated through ANCOVA predicting PHQ-8 Score as a function of the interaction of arm and follow-up time. Estimate represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.|The estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA.||0.646|-2.969|
91753707|NCT02360293|183400243|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.353|||||"Estimate generated through ANCOVA predicting Pain In Past Week as a function of the interaction of arm and follow-up time. Estimate represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.."|The estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA.||0.353|-1.044|
91753708|NCT02945553|183400256|OTHER|Mixed model analysis of variance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1596.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|202.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91753709|NCT02945553|183400261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91753710|NCT02700165|183400295|OTHER||sucess proportion|78.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|95.3|||||Independent physician reviewers correctly identified 13/14, 11/14 and 10/14, respectively for an overall percentage of correct identification of 34/42 or 81%. Two of three reviewers correctly identified 11/14 (78.6%) photos.|||95.3|49.2|
91753711|NCT01739803|183400299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||To control for experiment-wise Type I error rate in this analysis, a comparison-wise alpha of 0.01 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We projected mean composite adherence rate for all participants to be approximately 80% ± 15. We anticipated at least 10% increase in intervention group adherence at end of intervention. To have 80% power to detect expected difference of 10% at the 2-tailed 5% significance level, sample size needed to be at least 36 RTRs per group. We took a conservative approach, in combination with anticipated attrition over the course of study, and increased enrollment.||||<0.05
91753712|NCT01739803|183400300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91753713|NCT01739803|183400301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91753714|NCT00915148|183400302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The reported p-value corresponds with each area under the ROC assessments|Chi-squared|||In a previous study we investigated women before induction of labor. Using 40 mm as cut-off level for fetal head - perineum distance, the Cesarean section rate in primiparous women was 7% in the group with a short distance and 27% in the group with a long distance. We assumed similar results, with alpha 0.05, power 0.8 and a ratio of 1 : 1 for the numbers of women with a long and short distance. We would need to include 110 women in the study.||||<0.01
91753715|NCT00915148|183400303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||the reported p-value corresponds with each log rank comparison|Log Rank|||"Kaplan Meier plots were used to compare time from a defined prolonged labor in the first stage to delivery for~1. women with fetal head-perineum distance ≤40 mm vs. women with distance \>40 mm measured with 2D ultrasound.~2. women with angle of progression ≥110 degrees vs. women with angle \<110 degrees measured with 2D ultrasound"||||<0.01
91753716|NCT01428336|183400311|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 1ug CST correlation with ITT||0.60|-0.20|
91804704|NCT03000439|183486863|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-23.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.19|0.42|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||0.42|-47.19|
91883613|NCT05923112|183660751|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.772|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.286|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||1.286|0.464|
91883614|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|2.159|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||2.159|0.158|
91883615|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.826|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||1.826|0.667|
91883616|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.311|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.311|0.410|
91883617|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|1.897|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||1.897|0.624|
91883618|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|2.108|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.108|0.141|
91883619|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|1.753|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||1.753|0.547|
91883620|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|2.793|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||2.793|0.662|
91753717|NCT01428336|183400311|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 250ug CST correlation with ITT||-0.01|-0.69|
91753718|NCT01428336|183400311|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.04||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. 30-minute 250ug CST correlation with ITT||0.04|-0.65|
91883621|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|1.349|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.349|0.439|
91883622|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|1.816|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.816|0.507|
91883623|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.242|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|1.627|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.627|0.036|
91908509|NCT01290874|183712635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.31
91753719|NCT01428336|183400312|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.65||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 1ug CST correlation with ITT - free cortisol||0.65|-0.24|
91883624|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.848|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.391|||||"Risk Ratio of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 4000/mm³ to \< 4000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug||1.391|0.518|
91883625|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.547|||||"Risk Ratio of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 2000/mm³ to \< 2000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug||1.547|0.578|
91883626|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.95|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||1.950|0.685|
91883627|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|4.329|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||4.329|1.113|
91883628|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|3.384|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||3.384|0.821|
91883629|NCT05923112|183660752|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.719|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||1.719|0.586|
91883630|NCT05923112|183660753|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|||
91883631|NCT05923112|183660753|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|11.824|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||11.824|0.480|
91883632|NCT05923112|183660753|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.529|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|38.18|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||38.180|0.168|
91883633|NCT05923112|183660753|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.829|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|23.432|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||23.432|0.342|
91908510|NCT02813551|183712723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||||||||1.10|0.53|
91908511|NCT02813551|183712724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.3||||||||3.3|0.4|
91908512|NCT02813551|183712725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|28.0||||||||28|0.3|
91908513|NCT02813551|183712726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3||||||||1.3|1.0|
91908514|NCT02813551|183712729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2||||||||1.2|1.0|
91908515|NCT02813551|183712730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.9||||||||1.9|0.5|
91908516|NCT02813551|183712731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.9||||||||2.9|0.1|
91753720|NCT01428336|183400312|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.15||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 250ug CST correlation with ITT - free cortisol||-0.15|-0.91|
91753721|NCT01428336|183400312|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.14||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. 30-minute 250ug CST correlation with ITT - free cortisol||-0.14|-0.94|
91753722|NCT02449018|183400316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-0.24|0.130
91753723|NCT05011513|183400376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6027|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6027
91753724|NCT05011513|183400378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1796||||||P-value reported for COVID-19 hospitalization and death due to any cause.|Normal approximation|||||||0.1796
91753725|NCT05011513|183400380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0971|||||||Negative binomial|||||||0.0971
91753726|NCT05011513|183400382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.819||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|1.084|||Regression, Logistic|||Main effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.084|0.618|0.1622
91804705|NCT03000439|183486863|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.99|23.76|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||23.76|-23.99|
91804706|NCT03000439|183486863|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|30.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||30.56|-17.20|
91753727|NCT05011513|183400383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4298|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4298
91753728|NCT05011513|183400386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.802||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status (positive/negative), vaccination status (complete/not vaccinated) and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL).||1.050|0.613|0.1086
91804707|NCT03000439|183486863|OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|36.19|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||36.19|-9.92|
91804708|NCT03000439|183486863|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|24.7|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||24.70|-24.24|
91804709|NCT03000439|183486863|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.75|27.66|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||27.66|-20.75|
91753729|NCT05011513|183400387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.333||||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.163|192.472|||Breslow-Day Test|||||192.472|13.163|0.3262
91753730|NCT05011513|183400387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.224|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.36|59.08||||||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1||59.080|8.360|
91753731|NCT01192568|183400418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.612||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|30.9|||ANCOVA|||||30.90|-2.45|0.0928
91753732|NCT01192568|183400419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.089||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.13|58.7|||ANCOVA|||||58.70|11.13|0.0054
91753733|NCT01192568|183400420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.215||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.89|80.07|||ANCOVA|||||80.07|-14.89|0.1739
91753734|NCT01192568|183400421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Results from a pre-specified test (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test p \<= 0.05) determined that the Pre-Am3 and Post-Am3 OTG data should be analyzed separately for the primary analysis.||0.15|-0.53|0.2660
91753735|NCT01192568|183400421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.21|-1.13|0.0070
91753736|NCT02593825|183400422|SUPERIORITY|Significance was based on α = .05. Hedges' g, corrected for small sample bias, was calculated as a measure of effect size using the model-predicted group differences in rate of change in the numerator and the pooled standard deviation estimated from the 3 or 12 month assessment (for short- and long-term effects, respectively) in the denominator.|Slope|1.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Piecewise linear mixed modeling (LMM) was performed to address the study questions. LMM was necessary to account for repeated measures nested within children.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)|Piecewise modeling, using individually-varying timepoints, allowed separate slopes to be estimated across the intervention (baseline to 3 months) and post-intervention (3 to 12 months) phases, and accounted for variation in the time between assessments across children. All models controlled for intercept-level differences by site, as well as intercept- and slope-level differences by baseline-adjusted age and motor severity. Intervention effects were derived via intervention by slope interaction terms. Three-way interaction terms were subsequently added to the models to obtain intervention effects stratified by severity.|||<0.05
91753737|NCT02593825|183400423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear piecewise modeling|||||||.05
91753738|NCT02593825|183400424|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||data shown is for the 12 month time point for the severely delayed group comparison|Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)||||<0.05
91753739|NCT02593825|183400426|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)|LMM was necessary to account for repeated measures nested within children. Piecewise modeling, using individually-varying timepoints, allowed separate slopes to be estimated across the intervention (baseline to 3 months).|||<0.05
91804710|NCT03000439|183486863|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.29|28.28|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||28.28|-16.29|
91753740|NCT02593825|183400427|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)|Piecewise modeling, using individually-varying timepoints, allowed separate slopes to be estimated across the intervention (baseline to 3 months)|||<0.05
91753741|NCT02593825|183400428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.417
91753742|NCT06359080|183400430|EQUIVALENCE|The difference between post treatment CARS scores and pre treatment CARS scores will be statistically significant as measured by independent sample t-test with p\<.05|Mean Difference (Net)|6.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|8.19||It's a calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.19|5.36|<0.05
91753743|NCT00511134|183400439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Descriptive data|||It was hypothesized that the Zyban+Lunesta group would report lower ISI scores at end of trial than the Zyban+Placebo group.||||<0.05
91753744|NCT00511134|183400440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Degrees of freedom=1||It is predicted that subjects taking eszopiclone will be more likely to report abstinence at trial endpoint than those taking placebo.||||<0.05
91753745|NCT03323736|183400498|SUPERIORITY|The Procedural Success endpoint would be successfully met if the lower bound of the 95% Credible Interval (lower limit 0.80) exceeded the 68% success rate performance goal.|Credible Interval|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.91||||||Procedural success rate was compared to the performance goal of 68% using a Bayesian Hierarchical model.||0.91|0.80|
91753746|NCT03323736|183400498|SUPERIORITY|The Procedural Success endpoint would be successfully met if the lower bound of the 95% Credible Interval (lower limit 0.82) exceeded the 68% success rate performance goal.|Credible Interval|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.93||||||Procedural success rate was compared to the performance goal of 68% using a Bayesian Hierarchical model.||0.93|0.82|
91753747|NCT03323736|183400499|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mean tube placement FPS-R score to a performance goal of 4.2.||||||0.0072||||||Mean FPS-R score hypothesized to be less than (superior to) a performance goal of 4.2, at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0072
91753748|NCT03323736|183400500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Pre-specified threshold for superiority was \>80%, at alpha = 0.025.|mid-P method for single proportion|||Tube Patency endpoint would be successfully met if the percentage of subjects with patent tubes was greater than (superior to) 80% (by subject), at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).||||<0.0001
91753749|NCT03323736|183400501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Pre-specified threshold for superiority was \>88%, at alpha = 0.025.|mid-P method for single proportion|||Tube Retention endpoint would be successfully met if the percentage of subjects with retained tubes was greater than (superior to) 88% (by subject), at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).||||<0.0001
91753750|NCT03323736|183400502|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Pre-specified threshold for superiority was \>85%, at alpha = 0.025.|mid-P method for single proportion|||The Anesthesia Effectiveness endpoint would be successfully met if the percentage of subjects with successful anesthesia was greater than (superior to) 85% (by subject), at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).||||<0.0001
91753751|NCT01885910|183400506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
91753752|NCT05063539|183400537|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|3.771|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||3.771|-0.375|
91753753|NCT05063539|183400537|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.354|-1.042|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-1.042|-5.354|
91753754|NCT05063539|183400538|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|3.697|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||3.697|-0.443|
91753755|NCT05063539|183400538|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.277|-2.862||||||||-2.862|-7.277|
91753756|NCT05063539|183400539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|0.488|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.488|-0.763|0.665
91753757|NCT05063539|183400539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|1.736|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.736|0.435|0.001
91753758|NCT05063539|183400540|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.749|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.749|-0.641|0.878
91753759|NCT05063539|183400540|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|2.05|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||2.050|0.615|<0.001
91753760|NCT05063539|183400541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.073|0.811|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.811|-3.073|0.252
91753761|NCT05063539|183400541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.252|1.797|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.797|-2.252|0.825
91753762|NCT05063539|183400542|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.527|1.779|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.779|-2.527|0.733
91753763|NCT05063539|183400542|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565|3.877|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||3.877|-0.565|0.143
91753764|NCT05063539|183400543|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.802|2.158|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||2.158|-1.802|0.860
91753765|NCT05063539|183400543|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.567|-0.456|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||-0.456|-4.567|0.017
91753766|NCT05063539|183400544|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.949|1.387|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.387|-2.949|0.479
91753767|NCT05063539|183400544|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.239|-1.788|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||-1.788|-6.239|<0.001
91753768|NCT05063539|183400545|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|1.642|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.642|-0.445|0.259
91883634|NCT05923112|183660753|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|||
91883635|NCT05923112|183660753|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|3.862|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||3.862|0.161|
91753769|NCT05063539|183400545|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.629|0.541|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.541|-1.629|0.324
91753770|NCT05063539|183400546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|1.313|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.313|-0.946|0.749
91753771|NCT05063539|183400546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.462|-0.134|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||-0.134|-2.462|0.029
91753772|NCT05063539|183400547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.03|-0.01|0.346
91753773|NCT05063539|183400547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.01|-0.04|0.412
91753774|NCT05063539|183400547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.02|-0.04|0.421
91753775|NCT05063539|183400547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.00|-0.05|0.080
91753776|NCT05063539|183400547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.01|-0.07|0.192
91753777|NCT05063539|183400547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.02|-0.07|0.279
91753778|NCT05063539|183400547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Lateral temporal||0.02|-0.04|0.693
91753779|NCT05063539|183400547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Lateral temporal||-0.00|-0.07|0.040
91753780|NCT05063539|183400547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.03|-0.03|0.838
91753781|NCT05063539|183400547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.00|-0.06|0.055
91753782|NCT05063539|183400548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.04|-0.02|0.455
91753783|NCT05063539|183400548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.02|-0.03|0.745
91753784|NCT05063539|183400548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.04|-0.02|0.676
91753785|NCT05063539|183400548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.03|-0.03|0.794
91753786|NCT05063539|183400548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.03|-0.05|0.643
91753787|NCT05063539|183400548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.04|-0.05|0.880
91753788|NCT05063539|183400548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Lateral temporal||0.03|-0.04|0.844
91753789|NCT05063539|183400548|SUPERIORITY|Lateral temporal|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.05|0.388
91753790|NCT05063539|183400548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.04|-0.03|0.815
91753791|NCT05063539|183400548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.02|-0.04|0.562
91753792|NCT05063539|183400549|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.14|0.04|<0.001
91753793|NCT05063539|183400549|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.18|0.08|<0.001
91753794|NCT05063539|183400549|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-1.21|-3.53|<0.001
91753795|NCT05063539|183400549|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-0.43|-2.84|0.008
91753796|NCT05063539|183400549|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.715|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|11.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||11.56|4.79|<0.001
91804711|NCT03000439|183486863|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|28.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||28.52|-20.92|
91753797|NCT05063539|183400549|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.804|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|12.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||12.92|5.81|<0.001
91753798|NCT05063539|183400550|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.13|0.04|<0.001
91883636|NCT05923112|183660753|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment|"Regarding Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|||
91883637|NCT05923112|183660753|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|4.355|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||4.355|0.196|
91883638|NCT05923112|183660753|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|5.84|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||5.840|0.070|
91804712|NCT03000439|183486863|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||34.39|-13.88|
91804713|NCT03000439|183486863|OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|44.67|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||44.67|-3.43|
91804714|NCT03000439|183486863|OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|44.67|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||44.67|-3.43|
91804715|NCT03000439|183486863|OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|41.82|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||41.82|-7.03|
91804716|NCT03000439|183486864|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-26.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.42|-2.81|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||-2.81|-50.42|
91804717|NCT03000439|183486864|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-20.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.91|3.59|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||3.59|-43.91|
91804718|NCT03000439|183486864|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.31|14.72|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||14.72|-34.31|
91753799|NCT05063539|183400550|SUPERIORITY|Bilateral Hippocampus|LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|0.08|<0.001
91753800|NCT05063539|183400550|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-1.08|-3.33|<0.001
91804719|NCT03000439|183486864|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|24.7|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||24.70|-24.24|
91804720|NCT03000439|183486864|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||34.39|-13.88|
91804721|NCT03000439|183486864|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|21.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||21.68|-27.67|
91804722|NCT03000439|183486864|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|21.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||21.68|-27.67|
91804723|NCT03000439|183486864|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.65|16.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||16.83|-30.65|
91804724|NCT03000439|183486864|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|28.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||28.52|-20.92|
91804725|NCT03000439|183486864|OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.43|31.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||31.48|-17.43|
91804726|NCT03000439|183486864|OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|42.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||42.52|-7.03|
91804727|NCT03000439|183486864|OTHER||Difference in percentage|14.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|39.55|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||39.55|-10.52|
91804728|NCT03000439|183486864|OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|42.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||42.52|-7.03|
91804729|NCT03000439|183486865|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.29|4.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||4.10|-34.29|
91804730|NCT03000439|183486865|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|4.65|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||4.65|-29.08|
91804731|NCT03000439|183486865|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||7.10|-25.07|
91804732|NCT03000439|183486865|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|21.23|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||21.23|-12.01|
91804733|NCT03000439|183486865|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|21.23|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||21.23|-12.01|
91804734|NCT03000439|183486865|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||7.10|-25.07|
91753801|NCT05063539|183400550|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-0.28|-2.57|0.015
91753802|NCT05063539|183400550|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||10.40|3.95|<0.001
91753803|NCT05063539|183400550|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|11.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||11.47|4.85|<0.001
91753804|NCT02262078|183400553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91753805|NCT04692077|183400554|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|99.7|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Reported Grade 2 and Above AEs|99.7|51.8|
91804735|NCT03000439|183486865|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.52|6.79|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||6.79|-30.52|
91883639|NCT05923112|183660753|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
91883640|NCT05923112|183660753|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.386|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|3.107|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||3.107|0.048|
91883641|NCT05923112|183660753|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
91883642|NCT05923112|183660753|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
91883643|NCT05923112|183660754|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|||
91753806|NCT04692077|183400555|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|48.3|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Discontinued Early due to Intolerability of Injection or Burden of Study Procedures|48.3|0.3|
91883644|NCT05923112|183660754|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|6.556|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||6.556|0.139|
91753807|NCT04692077|183400556|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|95.7|||||||Exact 95% confidence interval for proportion for Participants who received at least one injection and preferred injectable PrEP at end of step 2.|95.7|22.3|
91753808|NCT04692077|183400560|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|99.7|||||||The Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Number of Participants with Grade 2 or above AEs during Injection Phase.|99.7|51.8|
91804736|NCT03000439|183486865|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||13.94|-24.08|
91804737|NCT03000439|183486865|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|11.87|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||11.87|-22.70|
91883645|NCT05923112|183660754|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.529|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|38.18|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||38.180|0.168|
91883646|NCT05923112|183660754|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|12.119|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||12.119|0.106|
91804738|NCT03000439|183486865|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||8.61|-31.65|
91804739|NCT03000439|183486865|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|16.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||16.48|-20.16|
91753809|NCT04692077|183400561|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|99.7|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Completed All Scheduled Injections among those who received at least one Injection|99.7|51.8|
91753810|NCT04271475|183400595|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.34|0.16|||MMRM||Least square mean and SE of the mean was estimated by mixed model repeated measurements method.|||0.16|-32.34|0.974
91883647|NCT05923112|183660754|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|||
91883648|NCT05923112|183660754|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|2.146|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.146|0.046|
91883649|NCT05923112|183660754|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment|"Regarding Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|||
91883650|NCT05923112|183660754|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|4.928|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||4.928|0.043|
91883651|NCT05923112|183660754|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|10.079|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||10.079|0.091|
91883652|NCT05923112|183660754|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
91883653|NCT05923112|183660754|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.772|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|7.207|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||7.207|0.083|
91883654|NCT05923112|183660754|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
91883655|NCT05923112|183660754|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
91804740|NCT03000439|183486865|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||9.38|-26.66|
91804741|NCT03000439|183486865|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||13.94|-24.08|
91804742|NCT03000439|183486866|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|4.65|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||4.65|-29.08|
91804743|NCT03000439|183486866|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|5.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||5.83|-35.32|
91804744|NCT03000439|183486866|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||11.32|-27.91|
91804745|NCT03000439|183486866|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|20.93|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||20.93|-17.48|
91804746|NCT03000439|183486866|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|18.91|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||18.91|-16.15|
91804747|NCT03000439|183486866|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|11.87|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||11.87|-22.70|
91804748|NCT03000439|183486866|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.52|6.79|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||6.79|-30.52|
91804749|NCT03000439|183486866|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||13.94|-24.08|
91804750|NCT03000439|183486866|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||9.38|-26.66|
91804751|NCT03000439|183486866|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||8.61|-31.65|
91804752|NCT03000439|183486866|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||11.32|-27.91|
91804753|NCT03000439|183486866|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||11.32|-27.91|
91804754|NCT03000439|183486866|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||13.94|-24.08|
91883656|NCT05923112|183660755|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment|"Regarding Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|||
91883657|NCT05923112|183660755|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|14.352|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||14.352|0.059|
91804755|NCT03000439|183486869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||7.10|-25.07|
91804756|NCT03000439|183486869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.25|-2.76|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||-2.76|-35.25|
91804757|NCT03000439|183486869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.98|2.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||2.10|-32.98|
91804758|NCT03000439|183486869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.22|2.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||2.10|-27.22|
91804759|NCT03000439|183486869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||7.10|-25.07|
91804760|NCT03000439|183486869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|4.65|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||4.65|-29.08|
91804761|NCT03000439|183486869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||9.38|-26.66|
91804762|NCT03000439|183486869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||9.38|-26.66|
91804763|NCT03000439|183486869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|16.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||16.48|-20.16|
91883658|NCT05923112|183660755|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|||
91883659|NCT05923112|183660755|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
91753811|NCT00300677|183400612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted geometric means|300.28||||||90.0|192.91|467.43|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||467.43|192.91|
91753812|NCT00300677|183400612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted geometric means|192.72||||||90.0|123.81|300.0|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||300.00|123.81|
91753813|NCT00300677|183400613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted geometric means|300.28||||||90.0|192.91|467.43|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||467.43|192.91|
91753814|NCT00300677|183400613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted geometric means|192.72||||||90.0|123.81|300.0|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||300.00|123.81|
91753815|NCT00300677|183400614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted geometric means|12.39||||||90.0|7.09|21.65|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||21.65|7.09|
91753816|NCT00300677|183400614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted geometric means|31.57||||||90.0|18.06|55.18|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||55.18|18.06|
91753817|NCT00300677|183400615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted mean|12.39||||||90.0|7.09|21.65|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plama (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||21.65|7.09|
91804764|NCT03000439|183486869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|15.72|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||15.72|-25.17|
91804765|NCT03000439|183486869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||11.32|-27.91|
91804766|NCT03000439|183486869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|15.72|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||15.72|-25.17|
91804767|NCT03000439|183486869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.53|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||22.68|-18.53|
91804768|NCT01749137|183486873|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a mixed-effects analysis of covariance model with treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as factors, baseline weight as a covariate, and participant as the random effect.|Treatment Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.04|-2.27|0.059
91804769|NCT01749137|183486874|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a mixed-effects analysis of covariance model with treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as factors, baseline weight as a covariate, and participant as the random effect.|Treatment Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.14|||MMRM|||||0.14|-2.48|0.079
91804770|NCT01749137|183486875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513||||||P-values from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for site and the stratification factor severely obese (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.513
91804771|NCT01749137|183486883|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a mixed-effects analysis of covariance model with treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as factors, baseline weight as a covariate, and participant as the random effect.|Treatment Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.98|||MMRM|||||0.98|-2.50|0.387
91804772|NCT01749137|183486884|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-values from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91804773|NCT03130257|183486895|EQUIVALENCE|The study planned for a sample size of 510 and 80% protocol completion, resulting in sample size 136 per group. With this sample size, the least detectable difference (LDD) is 4.1 mmHg systolic BP (SBP) and 2.8 mmHg diastolic BP (DBP) between any two groups (assuming Standard Deviation 12.1 and 8.3 for SBP and DBP respectively). Actual sample sizes completing protocol were 142, 149, and 111 for Clinic, Home, and Kiosk groups respectively, resulting in LDD of at least 4.3 for SBP and 3.0 for DBP.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||We used linear regression models to estimate the mean difference in BP between diagnostic measurement and daytime average 24-hr BP for each randomization group. Models were estimated using generalized estimating equations with robust standard errors, and adjusted for age, sex, BMI, education, and baseline systolic and diastolic BP. Separate models estimated mean differences (diagnostic protocol - 24-hr BP) between groups for systolic and diastolic BP.||||<0.05
91804774|NCT02064894|183486898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.81
91804775|NCT01976338|183486900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91804776|NCT01112865|183486924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6858|TWO_SIDED|||||Binomial test against the null hypothesis|binomial test|||Null hypothesis: percentage of participants preferring Genotropin Mark VII injection pen = 50%||||0.6858
91883660|NCT05923112|183660755|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|||
91883661|NCT05923112|183660755|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
91883662|NCT05923112|183660755|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
91804777|NCT02197247|183486927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No effect on the PK of AZD9291 after co-administration of rifampicin was concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (Period 2 versus Period 1) of AZD9291 AUCtau and Css,max were both above 50%. The experiment-wide power for the ratios being above 50% was 90% (95% power for each parameter).|Geometric least-squares (LS) mean ratio|27.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.36|30.29|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1).|Natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) with period as fixed effect and patient as random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for AZD9291 in both area under the plasma concentration-time curve during the dosing interval (AUCtau) and Cmax was 34%. A 33% decrease in exposure for AZD9291 when given with rifampicin was also assumed.||30.29|24.36|
91804778|NCT02197247|183486928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No effect on the PK of AZD9291 after co-administration of rifampicin was concluded if the lower bound of the 90% CIs for the ratios (Period 2 versus Period 1) of AZD9291 AUCtau and Css,max were both above 50%. The experiment-wide power for the ratios being above 50% was 90% (95% power for each parameter).|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|21.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.5|23.83|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1).|Natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as fixed effect and patient as random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for AZD9291 in both AUCtau and Cmax was 34%. A 33% decrease in exposure for AZD9291 when given with rifampicin was also assumed.||23.83|19.50|
91804779|NCT02197247|183486929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|95.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.27|107.03|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for AZD9291 alone in separate periods, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone analysis (primary outcome measure).|Natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||107.03|85.27|
91804780|NCT02197247|183486930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|21.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.08|24.72|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||24.72|19.08|
91883663|NCT05923112|183660755|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
91883664|NCT05923112|183660755|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
91883665|NCT05923112|183660755|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
91883666|NCT05923112|183660755|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
91753818|NCT00300677|183400615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted mean|31.57||||||90.0|18.06|55.18|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||55.18|18.06|
91804781|NCT02197247|183486930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|88.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.17|101.07|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||101.07|77.17|
91804782|NCT02197247|183486931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|139.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.74|151.96|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||151.96|127.74|
91804783|NCT02197247|183486931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|100.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.04|110.29|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||110.29|92.04|
91804784|NCT02197247|183486933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|95.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|106.45|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for AZD9291 alone in separate periods, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone analysis (primary outcome measure).|Natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||106.45|86.37|
91804785|NCT02197247|183486934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|18.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.61|21.19|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||21.19|16.61|
91804786|NCT02197247|183486934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|90.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.34|102.27|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||102.27|79.34|
91804787|NCT02197247|183486935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|129.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.14|141.44|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||141.44|119.14|
91883667|NCT05923112|183660755|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
91753819|NCT01300351|183400616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||With a sample size of 220 randomised patients and 150 progression events, if treatment effect is consistent between ethnicities/the study populations, there is an 89% chance the HR \<1.|Log Rank|||The results of this study would be considered to be consistent with that of the CONFIRM study if the hazard ratio (HR) point estimate for the treatment comparison was \<1 (ie, it favoured fulvestrant 500 mg), without the requirement for the benefit of fulvestrant 500 mg to be statistically significant.||1.03|0.54|0.078
91753820|NCT01300351|183400617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.24|0.93|0.107
91804788|NCT02197247|183486935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|100.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.15|110.19|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||110.19|92.15|
91804789|NCT01606007|183486945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.37||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if Saxagliptin+Dapagliflozin+Metformin was superior to both Saxagliptin+Metformin and Dapagliflozin+Metformin.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.37|-0.81|<0.0001
91804790|NCT01606007|183486945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1108||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.05||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if Saxagliptin+Dapagliflozin+Metformin was superior to both Saxagliptin+Metformin and Dapagliflozin+Metformin.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.48|0.0166
91804791|NCT01606007|183486946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.914|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-34.3||Each secondary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if Saxagliptin+Dapagliflozin+Metformin was superior to both Saxagliptin+Metformin and Dapagliflozin+Metformin.|ANCOVA|||LOCF||-34.3|-53.7|<0.0001
91883668|NCT05923112|183660755|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
91804792|NCT01606007|183486946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.923||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|0.5||Each secondary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance testing stops at the endpoint where p-value\>0.05.|ANCOVA|||LOCF||0.5|-18.8|0.0639
91804793|NCT01606007|183486947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.988|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-15.9|||||ANCOVA was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||-15.9|-31.6|
91804794|NCT01606007|183486947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.957|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|1.7|||||ANCOVA was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||1.7|-13.8|
91804795|NCT01606007|183486948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference in percentages|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.5|||||Modified Logistic Regression was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||31.5|14.7|
91804796|NCT01606007|183486948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference in percentages|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.587|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|28.1|||||Modified Logistic Regression was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||28.1|10.1|
91883669|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|2.405|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.405|0.046|
91908517|NCT00102960|183712736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis compares early therapy 40 weeks (ART-40W) relative to deferred therapy (ART-Def)||0.93|0.38|0.02
91753821|NCT01300351|183400618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.80|1.04|0.023
91753822|NCT00673881|183400652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0042
91753823|NCT00673881|183400653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison baseline to end-of-treatment||||0.0002
91804797|NCT01606007|183486949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3451|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.37|||||ANCOVA was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||-1.37|-2.73|
91804798|NCT02499783|183486966|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|||41.7|19.2|<0.001
91804799|NCT02499783|183486967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference Compared to 30%|34.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|42.4|||One Sample Exact Test|The one sample Exact test was performed by comparing it to the clinically meaningful remission rate of 30%.||||42.4|26.2|< 0.001
91804800|NCT02499783|183486968|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|43.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||43.6|23.2|< 0.001
91804801|NCT02499783|183486972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|54.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||54.2|26.7|< 0.001
91804802|NCT02499783|183486973|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|63.5||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||63.5|36.9|< 0.001
91883670|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.56|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||3.560|0.340|
91883671|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|4.056|||||"Risk Ratio of chromosome karyotype Philadelphia chromosome positive to negative"|Subgroup analyses of chromosome karyotype||4.056|0.371|
91883672|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.966|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.966|0.183|
91908518|NCT00102960|183712736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis compares early therapy 96 weeks (ART-96W) relative to deferred therapy (ART-Def)||0.76|0.27|0.002
91908519|NCT00102960|183712741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Cummulative Probability|0.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.25|||Proportion test|||Relative to ART-Def, ART-40W had a 13% difference in the cumulative probability of clinical disease progression or death at 3·5 years||0.25|0.01|0.03
91753824|NCT00673881|183400654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||NS|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison from baseline to end-of-treatment||||NS
91753825|NCT00673881|183400662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91753826|NCT01189292|183400687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|42.0|||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis: Incidence of PONV is the same in both treatment arms||42|12|0.001
91753827|NCT01189292|183400688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|40.0|||Chi-squared|||per protocol analysis||40|7|0.006
91753828|NCT01189292|183400691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model over the mean ranks at all time points measured (4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 48 hours)||||||0.674
91883673|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|2.481|||||"Risk Ratio of hemoglobin level immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 g/dL to ≥ 10 g/dL"|Subgroup analyses of hemoglobin level immediately before the start of this drug||2.481|0.284|
91883674|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|6.621|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||6.621|0.604|
91753829|NCT01189292|183400692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.835
91753830|NCT01173029|183400710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study power calculation was post-hoc based on composite end-point achieved. Number of exposed: 62 Non-exposed to exposed ratio: 0.5 Relative risk worth detecting: 2.5 Attack rate among non-exposed: 23% Alpha risk: 0.05 Calculated power: 89.8%|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.1||not adjusted|Chi-squared, Corrected|1 degree-of-freedom||"Long-term intention-to-treat data analysis:~Student 't' tests Yates's corrected Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test, when appropriate Relative risk estimation Cox proportional-hazard model Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium"||4.1|0.7|0.19
91753831|NCT01173029|183400711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study power calculation was post-hoc based on composite end-point achieved. Number of exposed: 62 Non-exposed to exposed ratio: 0.5 Relative risk worth detecting: 2.5 Attack rate among non-exposed: 23% Alpha risk: 0.05 Calculated power: 89.8%|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.3||not adjusted|Chi-squared, Corrected|1 degree-of-freedom||"Long-term intention-to-treat data analysis:~Student 't' test Yates' corrected Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test Relative risk estimation Cox proportional-hazard model Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium"||7.3|1.01|0.01
91753832|NCT01173029|183400711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Proportional-risk hypothesis was tested using the correlation between Schoenfeld's residuals and time (Schoenfeld's global test). The correlation rho was -0.08, Chi-squared was 0.12, and p was 0.73. Therefore, the hypothesis of proportional risk was accepted, validating the correct application model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.8||The p-value was adjusted for confounders: Framingham risk score, body mass index, ethnic groups|Regression, Cox|The actuarial function of events per time since the first diagnosis of arterial hypertension was plotted for both groups.||Cox proportional hazard model for the composite endpoint (stroke + myocardial infarction) was assessed. By taking pseudo-resistant arterial hypertension as baseline reference, the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was calculated.||4.8|1.1|0.04
91753833|NCT01173029|183400712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistic|0.66|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76||At an optimal value of \>3, polygenic risk score yielded 90% sensitivity and 40% specificity for composite endpoint.|z test|Area under receiver operating characteristic curve.|The optimal cutoff value for polygenic risk score was set to \>3.|Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the polygenic score as predictor of composite endpoint (stroke + myocardial infarction)||0.76|0.56|<0.01
91753834|NCT01173029|183400712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.9||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.2||The p-value was adjusted for confounders: Framingham risk score, body mass index, ethnic group|Regression, Cox|The actuarial function of events per time since the first diagnosis of arterial hypertension was plotted for polygenic risk score\<=3 and \>3.||Cox proportional hazard model of the polygenic risk score\<=3 and \> 3 for the composite endpoint (stroke + myocardial infarction). By taking polygenic risk score\<=3, the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was calculated for polygenic risk score\>3 .||9.2|1.2|0.04
91753835|NCT01842581|183400714|NON_INFERIORITY|Threshold for significance=upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for hazard ratio less than (\<) 1.56.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.959||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|3.672|||Score statistics|||Hazard ratio estimate (hazard of breakthrough HE for rifaximin compared to rifaximin + lactulose) obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with effect for treatment, stratified by analysis region.||3.672|1.045|0.0359
91753836|NCT01842581|183400715|SUPERIORITY|2-sided test at a significance level of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.739||||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|3.382||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using log-rank test stratified by analysis region. Hazard ratio estimate (hazard of breakthrough HE for rifaximin compared to rifaximin + lactulose) obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with effect for treatment, stratified by analysis region.||3.382|0.894|0.0985
91753837|NCT03973905|183400722|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|65.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.93|92.68|||||Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix during third trimester of pregnancy (at least 14 days before delivery) at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||92.68|-64.93|
91753838|NCT03973905|183400723|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|42.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1071.8|97.13|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix before pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||97.13|-1071.80|
91753839|NCT03973905|183400723|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|62.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-439.75|97.35|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix during first or second trimester of pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||97.35|-439.75|
91753840|NCT03973905|183400723|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|-12.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.37|52.16|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix after pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||52.16|-166.37|
91753841|NCT03973905|183400724|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|64.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.51|92.13|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix at any time during pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||92.13|-57.51|
91804803|NCT02499783|183486974|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|37.0||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||37.0|18.2|< 0.001
91804804|NCT02499783|183486976|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|19.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|32.1||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||32.1|7.1|0.002
91804805|NCT02499783|183486978|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-385.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-598.81|-171.5||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-171.50|-598.81|< 0.001
91804806|NCT02499783|183486979|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|15.8||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||15.8|3.9|0.001
91804807|NCT02499783|183486981|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|28.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission at Week 2||28.6|8.2|< 0.001
91804808|NCT02499783|183486981|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|41.7||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission at Week 4||41.7|19.2|< 0.001
91804809|NCT02499783|183486983|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|30.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission (CDAI \< 150) Plus A Reduction in HS-CRP of at Least 50% From Baseline at Week 2||30.2|12.6|< 0.001
91804810|NCT02499783|183486983|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|43.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission (CDAI \< 150) Plus A Reduction in HS-CRP of at Least 50% From Baseline at Week 4||43.6|23.2|< 0.001
91753842|NCT03973905|183400725|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|17.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12529.0|99.46|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix before pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||99.46|-12529.0|
91753843|NCT03973905|183400725|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|85.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.91|98.03|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix during third trimester of pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||98.03|-13.91|
91908520|NCT00102960|183712741|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier Cummulative Probability|0.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.31|||Proportion test|||Relative to ART-Def, ART-96W had a 13% difference in the cumulative probability of clinical disease progression or death at 3·5 years||0.31|0.09|0.0006
91804811|NCT02499783|183486985|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|34.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Response (Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline) at Week 2||34.6|8.7|0.001
91804812|NCT02499783|183486985|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|54.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Response (Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline) at Week 4||54.2|26.7|< 0.001
91753844|NCT03973905|183400725|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|37.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.4|79.25|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix after pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||79.25|-87.40|
91883675|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|3.026|||||"Risk Ratio of myeloblast count immediately before the start of this drug \> 50% to ≤ 50%"|Subgroup analyses of myeloblast count immediately before the start of this drug||3.026|0.278|
91883676|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.264|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|1.93|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||1.930|0.036|
91883677|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|4.161|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||4.161|0.497|
91883678|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|2.03|||||"Risk Ratio of type of the first HSCT after the start of this drug allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant with myeloablative conditioning to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant with nonmyeloablative conditioning"|Subgroup analyses of type of the first HSCT after the start of this drug||2.030|0.187|
91883679|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|2.192|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug||2.192|0.155|
91883680|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|10.293|||||"Risk Ratio of hemoglobin level before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug \< 10 g/dL to ≥ 10 g/dL"|Subgroup analyses of hemoglobin level before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug||10.293|0.630|
91908521|NCT00102960|183712742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate per 100 person years|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value compares event rates per 100 person-years across the three arms|Poisson Regression|||The CHER study compared Grade 3 or 4 clinical event rates per 100 person-years between the three arms using Poisson regression modeling over the study duration of 4.8 years.|The rates per 100 person-years were 33.8 (Arm 1), 21.6 (Arm 2) and 16 (Arm 3)|||<0.0001
91753845|NCT02553538|183400726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91753846|NCT02553538|183400727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91753847|NCT02553538|183400728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91753848|NCT02553538|183400729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91753849|NCT02648217|183400730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|0.02||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.24|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, sex, region, previous OAD treatment, pre-Ramadan trial exposure and visit as factors and age and baseline value of the endpoint as covariates. Interactions between visit and all factors and covariates are included in the model.||0.24|-0.20|0.8426
91753850|NCT00357656|183400737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority by the 200% margin of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of a 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the ratio of means did not exceed 200%.|Mean ratio CI/BI|0.924||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.046||one-sided p-value against the null hypothesis of ration \>=200%|Hypothesis test|||The main analysis used a point estimate and a two-sided 95% confidence interval for ratio of the primary outcome measure of CI over BI combined over the three strata: stratum A: unilateral knee replacement, stratum B: hip surgery, stratum C: shoulder/elbow/ankle/knee (except knee replacement) surgery.||1.046|0.816|0.001
91883681|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|5.87|||||"Risk Ratio of time from the date of final dose of this drug to the date of the first HSCT after the start of this drug ≥ 4 weeks to \< 8 weeks to \< 4 weeks"|Subgroup analyses of time from the date of final dose of this drug to the date of the first HSCT after the start of this drug||5.870|0.237|
91753851|NCT00815191|183400752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority delta of 0.5°C|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.321|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.321|-0.139|<0.0001
91753852|NCT01741532|183400756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0761|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0761
91753853|NCT01741532|183400757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7279
91753854|NCT01741532|183400758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7228|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part I||||0.7228
91753855|NCT01741532|183400758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part II||||0.3677
91753856|NCT01741532|183400758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2182|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part III||||0.2182
91753857|NCT01741532|183400758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1749|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part VI||||0.1749
91753858|NCT01741532|183400759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1524|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1524
91753859|NCT01741532|183400760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2026
91753860|NCT01741532|183400761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Patient self-report, total score||||0.9759
91883682|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.182|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|7.158|||||"Risk Ratio of best overall response progression or relapse to complete remission (CR) or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi)"|Subgroup analyses of best overall response||7.158|0.665|
91883683|NCT05923112|183660757|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|6.037|||||"Risk Ratio of MRD test not performed to negativity achieved"|Subgroup analyses of minimal residual disease (MRD)||6.037|0.392|
91883684|NCT05781750|183660778|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.3||||||Time to complete renal response for zetomipzomib 30 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||3.3|0.2|
91883685|NCT05781750|183660778|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.7||||||Time to complete renal response for zetomipzomib 60 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||6.7|0.7|
91883686|NCT05781750|183660778|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0||||||Time to partial renal response for zetomipzomib 30 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||3.0|0.5|
91883687|NCT05781750|183660778|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.9||||||Time to partial renal response zetomipzomib 60 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||5.9|1.1|
91883688|NCT02309346|183660800|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as a 2% difference. The sample size calculation aimed for 90% power at a 5% one-sided significance level, assuming clinical cure rates of 99% (standard arm) and 100% (experimental arm). This required 95 patients per arm, with a target enrollment of 100 per arm to account for potential dropouts.|Difference between 2 proportions|-0.02||||0.06|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.02||||Chi-squared|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions between the two arms was calculated.||The null hypothesis (H₀) was that the treatment success rate of the once-daily clindamycin regimen is inferior to that of the thrice-daily regimen by a pre-specified non-inferiority margin (delta) of 2%. To achieve 90% power with a one-sided significance level (alpha) of 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis, a sample size of approximately 95 patients per group was required.|||-0.02|0.06
91883689|NCT01777334|183660803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.144|0.081|<0.001
91883690|NCT00992992|183660840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|75.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with unconfirmed complete response (CR).|||75|37|
91883691|NCT00992992|183660840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with unconfirmed complete response unconfirmed (CRu).|||19|0|
91883692|NCT00992992|183660840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|36.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with unconfirmed partial response.|||36|4|
91883693|NCT01182181|183660886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.34|98.95|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.95|92.34|
91908522|NCT00102960|183712743|SUPERIORITY||Rate per 100 person years|0.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Poisson regression|||The event rates per 100 person years were compared across the three arms|The laboratory events per 100 person years across the three arms were: 7 (Deferred arm), 8.1 (early therapy for 40 weeks) and 6 (early therapy for 96 weeks).|||0.46
91753861|NCT01741532|183400761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5781|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Parent proxy-report, total score||||0.5781
91753862|NCT01741532|183400762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6323|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6323
91753863|NCT01741532|183400763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0000
91753864|NCT00613080|183400764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion (reported as percentage)|51.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This study was designed for a one-sided chi-square test to detect at least 12% reduction in the 40% rate of ≥ grade 2 treatment-related preoperative GI AEs from the conventional radiotherapy / capecitabine /oxaliplatin arm of study RTOG-0247 (NCT00081289) with 80% power and a one-sided type I error rate of 0.10.||||0.93
91753865|NCT02698371|183400830|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance between baseline and 24 month follow-up;||||0.025
91753866|NCT02698371|183400830|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE(G4G6) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.189
91753867|NCT02698371|183400830|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE (G4G6) adhesives result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.189
91753868|NCT02698371|183400830|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance from baseline to 24 month follow-up;||||0.025
91753869|NCT02698371|183400830|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.747
91753870|NCT02698371|183400830|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.747
91753871|NCT02698371|183400830|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.070
91753872|NCT02698371|183400830|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Functional-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms success rate from baseline to 24 month recall. For Esthetic and Biological-FDI comparison p values were \> 0.05. Adjusted P-values.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.070
91753873|NCT02698371|183400830|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Retention-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms retention rate from baseline to 24 month recall. Adjusted P-values.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.070
91753874|NCT02698371|183400831|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.025
91804813|NCT02499783|183486987|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|43.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline Plus a Reduction in Hs-CRP of at Least 30% From Baseline at Week 2||43.2|19.6|< 0.001
91804814|NCT02499783|183486987|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|63.5||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline Plus a Reduction in Hs-CRP of at Least 30% From Baseline at Week 4||63.5|36.9|< 0.001
91804815|NCT02499783|183486989|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-43.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.39|-27.3||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in CDAI at Week 2||-27.30|-59.39|< 0.001
91804816|NCT02499783|183486989|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-66.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.2|-49.06||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in CDAI at Week 4||-49.06|-84.20|< 0.001
91883694|NCT01182181|183660887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.14|99.57|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.57|93.14|
91883695|NCT00511797|183660888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.34||Pre-defined sequential tests were applied to protect alpha inflation by multiplicity.|t-test, 1 sided|||Three null hypotheses were sequentially tested. H01: DRSP 3 mg \>= Placebo (Active is equal or less in decrease of score) vs H11: DRSP 3 mg \< Placebo (Active is greater in decrease of score), H02: DRSP 2 mg \>= Placebo vs H12: DRSP 2 mg \< Placebo, H03: DRSP 1 mg \>= Placebo vs H13: DRSP 1 mg \< Placebo.||-0.34|-1.49|<0.001
91753875|NCT02698371|183400831|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE(G4G6) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.189
91753876|NCT02698371|183400831|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE (G4G6) adhesives result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.189
91753877|NCT02698371|183400831|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.025
91753878|NCT02698371|183400831|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.154
91753879|NCT02698371|183400831|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.747
91753880|NCT02698371|183400831|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.070
91753881|NCT02698371|183400831|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.070
91753882|NCT02698371|183400831|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.070
91753883|NCT02698371|183400832|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Esthetic of FDI and of USPHS comparison; Applied to G1G2; G3G4 and G5G6 separately.|Chi-squared|||H0: FDI or USPHS criteria Esthetic outcomes not differ at 24th month follow-up regarding Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes.||||1.000
91753884|NCT02698371|183400832|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Functional of FDI and of USPHS comparison; Applied to G1G2; G3G4 and G5G6 separately.|Chi-squared|||H0: FDI or USPHS criteria Functional outcomes not differ at 24th month follow-up regarding Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes.||||1.000
91753885|NCT02698371|183400832|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.998||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Biologic FDI and of USPHS comparison; Applied to G1G2; G3G4 and G5G6 separately.|Chi-squared|||H0: FDI or USPHS criteria Biological outcomes not differ at 24th month follow-up regarding Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes.||||0.998
91804817|NCT02499783|183486991|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.921|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.183|-8.659||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in hs-CRP Level at Week 2||-8.659|-19.183|< 0.001
91804818|NCT02499783|183486991|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.844|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.206|-12.483||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in hs-CRP Level at Week 4||-12.483|-21.206|< 0.001
91804819|NCT02228460|183486994|OTHER|||||||0.3173||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|McNemar Test|||A McNemar test was used to test the treatment effect based on paired pre-treatment and post-treatment (Week 26) frequencies of skin GL-3 score grouped into the categories (0 to \<2; 2 to 3).||||0.3173
91804820|NCT02228460|183486995|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the mean change from Baseline to Week 26 in skin GL-3 score.||||0.625
91804821|NCT01010061|183487034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.28||Type I error controlled through closed test procedure.|Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.28|0.16|<0.0001
91804822|NCT01010061|183487036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.27|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.27|0.14|<0.0001
91804823|NCT01010061|183487039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|45.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|55.5|||Chi-squared|||Includes subjects with best overall response: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||55.5|34.7|< 0.0001
91883696|NCT00511797|183660888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|<|0.001||95.0|-1.64|-0.55|||t-test, 1 sided|||Second null hypothesis was tested. H02: DRSP 2 mg \>= Placebo vs H12: DRSP 2 mg \< Placebo.||-0.55|-1.64|<0.001
91753886|NCT02698371|183400833|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.029||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Surface Luster-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Luster Performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.029
91883697|NCT00511797|183660888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001||95.0|-2.0|-0.89|||t-test, 1 sided|||Third null hypotheses was tested. H03: DRSP 1 mg \>= Placebo vs H13: DRSP 1 mg \< Placebo.||-0.89|-2.00|<0.001
91753887|NCT02698371|183400833|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.002||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Surface Luster-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Luster performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall;||||0.002
91804824|NCT01010061|183487040|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.26|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.26|0.15|<0.0001
91883698|NCT00511797|183660889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.46|||t-test, 1 sided|||Test results of 3 mg DRSP and placebo at Cycle 4 are shown. 2-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated. To keep consistency with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, 2.5% 1-sided significance levels were used for the statistical tests.||-0.46|-1.74|<0.001
91883699|NCT00511797|183660889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|<|0.001||95.0|-1.95|-0.73|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-0.73|-1.95|<0.001
91804825|NCT01010061|183487041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.94|||Log Rank, Stratified|||||0.94|0.49|0.0196
91804826|NCT01010061|183487042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.28|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.28|0.13|<0.0001
91804827|NCT01010061|183487044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.35|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.35|0.19|<0.0001
91804828|NCT03066804|183487048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8362|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7987|0.8754|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.8754|0.7987|<0.0001
91804829|NCT03066804|183487049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4985||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5267|3.52297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.52297|-8.5267|0.4164
91804830|NCT03066804|183487050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5231||||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9258|1.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9720|-0.9258|0.4791
91804831|NCT03066804|183487051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8993||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6461|1.2518|||longitudinal binary logistic regression|||||1.2518|0.6461|0.5294
91804832|NCT03066804|183487052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.106||||0.4938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8287|1.476|||longitudinal binary logistic regression|||||1.4760|0.8287|0.4938
91804833|NCT03066804|183487053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9798||||0.8314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8122|1.182|||Proportional cumulative odds model|||||1.1820|0.8122|0.8314
91883700|NCT00511797|183660889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317|<|0.001||95.0|-2.16|-0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-0.90|-2.16|<0.001
91883701|NCT02138253|183660945|SUPERIORITY|For the primary efficacy analysis based on the Month 24 biopsy, subjects with a missing Month 24 biopsy had their Ishak fibrosis score imputed. Imputation of missing Ishak fibrosis scores was conducted using multiple imputation (MI). Results were imputed based on age, gender, baseline Ishak fibrosis score, and the Month 12 Ishak fibrosis score.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|26.4||Stratified by baseline Ishak Fibrosis Score strata (F2, F3+F4+F5, and F6).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All screening and post-baseline biopsy data collected were used in the primary analysis, irrespective of the defined protocol visit window. Classification of the Ishak fibrosis score was summarized descriptively by treatment group at baseline, Month 12, and Month 24. Response at Months 12 and 24 were summarized descriptively by treatment group, along with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The risk difference between groups was also was provided with its 95% CI.||26.4|-20.5|0.73
91883702|NCT02138253|183660946|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All screening and post-baseline biopsy data collected were used in the primary analysis, irrespective of the defined protocol visit window. Classification of the Ishak fibrosis score was summarized descriptively by treatment group at baseline, Month 12, and Month 24. Response at Months 12 and 24 were summarized descriptively by treatment group, along with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The risk difference between groups was also was provided with its 95% CI.||28.9|-20.0|0.658
91804834|NCT03066804|183487054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157||||0.637||95.0|-0.8093|0.4953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4953|-0.8093|0.6370
91804835|NCT00740831|183487055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority analysis based on the use of one-sided confidence intervals, using 2.5% level of statistical significance.|Difference in proportions|1.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-9.3||||||Newcombe-Wilson method for CI. Percentage in A minus percentage in C needed to be greater than non-inferiority margin of -20%.|As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals.|||-9.3|
91804836|NCT00740831|183487055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority analysis based on the use of one-sided confidence intervals, using 2.5% level of statistical significance.|Difference in proportions|8.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.4||||||Newcombe-Wilson method for CI. Percentage in B minus percentage in C needed to be greater than non-inferiority margin of -20%.|As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals.|||0.4|
91804837|NCT00740831|183487056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.181||No p-values generated|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance after log transformation of the data|As comparison of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonneferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals|||0.181|-0.003|
91804838|NCT00740831|183487056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.14||No p-values generated|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance after log transformation of the data|As comparison of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonneferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals|||0.14|-0.043|
91804839|NCT00740831|183487057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-14.6||Since comparisons of 2 doses of ulipristal acetate vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction was used, p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and CI adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-14.6|-40.6|<0.001
91804840|NCT00740831|183487057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-16.6||Since comparisons of 2 doses of ulipristal acetate vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction was used, p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and CI adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-16.6|-42.0|<0.001
91804841|NCT00740831|183487058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-14.6||Since planned analyses involved comparisons of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, a Bonferroni correction was used and p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals were similarly adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-14.6|-40.6|<0.001
91804842|NCT00740831|183487058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-29.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-16.6||Since planned analyses involved comparisons of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, a Bonferroni correction was used and p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals were similarly adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-16.6|-42.0|<0.001
91883703|NCT02138253|183660947|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All screening and post-baseline biopsy data collected were used in the primary analysis, irrespective of the defined protocol visit window. Classification of the Ishak fibrosis score was summarized descriptively by treatment group at baseline, Month 12, and Month 24. Response at Months 12 and 24 were summarized descriptively by treatment group, along with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The risk difference between groups was also was provided with its 95% CI.||13.1|-28.8|0.421
91804843|NCT03982368|183487063|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.93||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.32|||ANOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||3.32|-1.47|0.078
91804844|NCT03982368|183487063|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|2.31||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|4.7|||ANOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||4.70|-0.08|0.066
91804845|NCT03982368|183487064|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.71||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.12|||ANOVA|||||4.12|-0.70|0.032
91883704|NCT01390441|183660971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK bioequivalence was assumed if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio for the comparison fell within the range 0.80-1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.16|||ANOVA|||Back-transformed least squares mean and confidence interval from fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values containing treatment as a fixed effect and gender as a covariate.||1.16|0.87|
91804846|NCT03982368|183487064|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.44||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.86|||ANOVA|||||4.86|0.02|0.029
91804847|NCT03982368|183487065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.534
91804848|NCT03982368|183487065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
91804849|NCT03982368|183487066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.486
91804850|NCT03982368|183487066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.564
91804851|NCT03982368|183487068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.810
91804852|NCT03982368|183487068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.733
91804853|NCT03982368|183487069|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.97||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|4.13|||ANOVA|||The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||4.13|-0.19|0.025
91804854|NCT03982368|183487069|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.68||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.83|||ANOVA|||The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||2.83|-1.48|0.243
91804855|NCT03982368|183487070|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.54|||ANOVA|||||4.54|0.28|0.007
91804856|NCT03982368|183487070|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.71||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.85|||ANOVA|||||2.85|-1.43|0.230
91883705|NCT01390441|183660973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|3.6|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part A: MK-8808 500 mg/m\^2 - Part A: MabThera 500 mg/m\^2) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||3.6|-38.6|
91804857|NCT03982368|183487071|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.16||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.8|||ANOVA|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) was used for imputing missing data in the Full analysis set at Week 4.||"The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.~p value for total corneal ancd conjunctival score is reported."||0.80|-3.11|0.799
91804858|NCT03982368|183487071|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.36||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.59|||ANOVA|||The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||1.59|-2.30|0.715
91804859|NCT03982368|183487072|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.54||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.31|||ANOVA|||"The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.~p value for total corneal ancd conjunctival score is reported."||0.31|-3.40|0.831
91804860|NCT03982368|183487072|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.66|||ANOVA|||"The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.~p value for total corneal ancd conjunctival score is reported."||1.66|-2.07|0.750
91804861|NCT03982368|183487073|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.96||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.75|||ANOVA|||||1.75|0.17|0.004
91804862|NCT03982368|183487073|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.28||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|-0.51|0.217
91804863|NCT03982368|183487074|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.92||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.74|||ANOVA|||||1.74|0.10|0.007
91804864|NCT03982368|183487074|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.28||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.10|-0.54|0.225
91804865|NCT03982368|183487075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.680
91804866|NCT03982368|183487075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066
91804867|NCT03982368|183487076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.097
91804868|NCT03982368|183487076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.076
91804869|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.8|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||20.8|12.0|0.289
91804870|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|24.0|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||24.0|15.4|0.032
91883706|NCT01390441|183660973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|10.9|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part B: MK-8808 1000 mg - Part B: MabThera 1000 mg) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||10.9|-44.4|
91804871|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|20.8|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change to baseline to week 8||20.8|11.9|0.095
91804872|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.5||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.8|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||18.8|10.1|0.282
91804873|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.0||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||19.4|10.6|0.169
91804874|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|19.7|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||19.7|11.1|0.129
91804875|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.0||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||18.4|9.7|0.111
91804876|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.0||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.3|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||18.3|9.7|0.107
91804877|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.3||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.9|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||18.9|9.7|0.827
91804878|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.3||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|20.8|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||20.8|11.8|0.688
91804879|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.7||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||20.0|11.4|0.324
91804880|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.9||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|17.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||17.1|8.7|0.949
91804881|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.7||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||20.1|11.4|0.927
91804882|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.8||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|18.8|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||18.8|10.8|0.776
91804883|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.7||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||20.1|11.4|0.418
91804884|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.8||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||19.0|10.6|0.613
91804885|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.8||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|23.2|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||23.2|8.3|0.721
91883707|NCT01390441|183660973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|24.6|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part B: MK-8808 1000 mg - Part B: Rituxan® 1000 mg) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||24.6|-34.9|
91804886|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.6||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|28.0|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||28.0|13.1|0.558
91804887|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.4||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|25.3|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||25.3|11.5|0.809
91804888|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.4||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|26.4|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||26.4|12.4|0.651
91804889|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|23.3|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||23.3|9.5|0.769
91804890|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.3||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.3|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||28.3|14.3|0.454
91804891|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.3||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|25.0|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||25.0|11.6|0.564
91804892|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|27.8|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||27.8|14.1|0.250
91804893|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.9||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|32.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||32.2|15.6|0.853
91804894|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.0||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|28.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||28.0|11.9|0.393
91804895|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|27.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|35.6|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||35.6|20.2|0.010
91804896|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.3||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|25.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||25.4|11.1|0.395
91804897|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|24.8||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|32.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||32.4|17.1|0.068
91804898|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.3||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|26.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||26.4|12.2|0.400
91804899|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|33.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||33.0|18.1|0.021
91883708|NCT01390441|183660973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent differnce|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|38.9|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part B: MabThera® 1000 mg - Part B: Rituxan® 1000 mg) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||38.9|-15.6|
91883709|NCT01390441|183660975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK bioequivalence was assumed if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio for the comparison fell within the range 0.80-1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.1|||ANOVA|||Back-transformed least squares mean and confidence interval from fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values containing treatment as a fixed effect and gender as a covariate.||1.1|0.87|
91804900|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.1||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|30.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||30.0|16.1|0.056
91804901|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.2||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.7|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||20.7|7.6|0.981
91804902|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.0||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|22.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||22.9|11.1|0.525
91804903|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.5||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|16.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||16.0|2.9|0.356
91804904|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.5||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|12.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||12.4|0.7|0.771
91804905|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|8.7||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|15.5|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||15.5|2.0|0.926
91804906|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.9||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||13.9|1.9|0.778
91804907|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|10.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||||0.984
91804908|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.4||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||13.1|1.6|0.514
91804909|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.6||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-12.8|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-12.8|-20.4|0.985
91804910|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-17.8||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-14.0|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-14.0|-21.5|0.646
91804911|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-20.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-16.9|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-16.9|-24.5|0.007
91804912|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.2||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-12.5|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-12.5|-19.9|0.305
91804913|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-15.4|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-15.4|-22.7|0.015
91804914|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-18.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-14.4|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-14.4|-21.5|0.039
91804915|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-16.0|||ANOVA|||||-16.0|-23.3|0.001
91804916|NCT03982368|183487077|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-18.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-15.3|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 16||-15.3|-22.4|0.002
91883710|NCT01390441|183660979|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|The model included a term for treatment.||Estimated difference vs MabThera® at 6 weeks.||0.5|-0.9|
91753888|NCT02698371|183400833|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.618||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Surface Luster-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Luster performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.618
91804917|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.8||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|21.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||21.4|12.2|0.241
91804918|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|24.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||24.4|15.1|0.040
91883711|NCT01390441|183660979|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|The model included a term for treatment.||Estimated difference vs MabThera® at 12 weeks.||1.2|-0.4|
91883712|NCT02446613|183660982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.43|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.1071.|||5.43|-1.41|
91883713|NCT02446613|183660983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|3.75|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.2417.|||3.75|-1.98|
91804919|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.8||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|21.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||21.4|12.3|0.097
91804920|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.3||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|19.9|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||19.9|10.7|0.238
91804921|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.9|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||20.9|12.0|0.070
91804922|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.7||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|21.1|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||21.1|12.3|0.058
91804923|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|13.7||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|18.1|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||18.1|9.3|0.128
91804924|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|20.3|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||20.3|11.6|0.024
91753889|NCT02698371|183400834|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.009||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Staining Margin-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Staining Margin Performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.009
91804925|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|20.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||20.1|10.4|0.865
91804926|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.3||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|22.2|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||22.2|12.4|0.662
91804927|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.7||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|21.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||21.1|12.2|0.266
91804928|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|13.9||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|18.3|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||18.3|9.4|0.824
91804929|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.8||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||19.0|10.6|0.883
91804930|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.3||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|20.4|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||20.4|12.1|0.516
91804931|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY|Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16|Least square mean difference|16.5||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|21.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||21.0|12.1|0.407
91804932|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.9|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||20.9|12.0|0.422
91804933|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.9||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|23.8|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||23.8|8.1|0.615
91804934|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|29.2|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||29.2|13.3|0.626
91804935|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.3||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|25.6|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||25.6|11.1|0.968
91804936|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.1||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|27.4|||ANOVA|||||27.4|12.8|0.689
91804937|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.6||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|22.7|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||22.7|8.5|0.528
91804938|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.0||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|30.1|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||30.1|15.8|0.368
91883714|NCT02446613|183660984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.87|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.2876.|||1.87|-1.08|
91883715|NCT02446613|183660985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|5.34|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.1453.|||5.34|-1.86|
91883716|NCT02446613|183660986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|19.71|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.2665.|||19.71|-10.70|
91883717|NCT02446613|183660987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.97|24.38|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.3266|||24.38|-14.97|
91883718|NCT02446613|183660988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.47|19.2|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.4528|||19.20|-17.47|
91883719|NCT02446613|183660989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|28.04|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.2525|||28.04|-13.69|
91883720|NCT04788511|183660991|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|10.9|||ANCOVA|||The responses at week 52 were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment and stratification (BMI\<35.0 kg/m\^2, BMI\>=35.0 kg/m\^2) as factors and baseline KCCQ-CSS as covariate. The analysis was based on the in-trial period using the FAS population. Missing observations at week 52 were multiple (x1000) imputed from retrieved participants of the same randomized treatment arm.||10.9|4.8|<0.0001
91804939|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.7||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|24.7|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||24.7|10.7|0.764
91804940|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|22.6||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|29.6|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||29.6|15.5|0.184
91804941|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.4||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|34.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||34.2|16.5|0.909
91883721|NCT04788511|183660992|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|-10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-9.4|||ANCOVA|||The responses were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment and stratification (BMI\<35.0 kg/m\^2, BMI\>=35.0 kg/m\^2) as factors and baseline body weight (kg) as covariate. The analysis was based on the in-trial period using the FAS population. Missing observations at week 52 were multiple (x1000) imputed from retrieved participants of the same randomized treatment arm.||-9.4|-11.9|<0.0001
91908523|NCT00102960|183712746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.84|||Regression, Cox||Hazard rate reported above compares early therapy 40 weeks relative to the deferred therapy arm.|The analysis compares ART-40W relative to the ART-Def arm.||0.84|0.27|0.011
91908524|NCT00102960|183712746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.64|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio compares ART-96W relative to the ART-Def arm.|The analysis compares ART-96 Weeks relative to ART-Deferred||0.64|0.18|0.0009
91908525|NCT00102960|183712748|SUPERIORITY||Count of days|0.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value here compares the days spent in hospital across the three arms|Poisson regression||||The total number of days/count of days: 1018 (Arm 1), 533 (Arm 2) and 414 (Arm 3) were compared across the three groups by Poisson regression analysis.|||0.004
91908526|NCT00102960|183712749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.562||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|0.811|||Regression, Cox|||||0.811|0.389|0.0021
91908527|NCT00102960|183712749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||||0.840|0.405|0.0038
91908528|NCT03040999|183712753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by human papilloma virus (HPV) status and overall cancer stage.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by HPV status and overall cancer stage.|||1.15|0.71|0.1997
91908529|NCT03040999|183712756|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-4.24||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-1.63|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||-1.63|-6.85|0.0015
91908530|NCT03040999|183712757|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-0.51||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|2.96|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||2.96|-3.98|0.7719
91804942|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.1||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|30.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||30.0|12.2|0.428
91804943|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|29.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|37.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||37.9|21.6|0.008
91908531|NCT03040999|183712758|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-1.29||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|2.06|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||2.06|-4.64|0.4500
91908532|NCT03040999|183712759|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|1.29||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.02|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||4.02|-1.43|0.3524
91804944|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.3||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|29.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||29.2|13.5|0.222
91804945|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.3||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|33.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||33.4|17.2|0.082
91883722|NCT03178045|183661013|OTHER|Multivariable Logistic Regression|Estimated Increase|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6||||||||3.6|-3.1|
91883723|NCT03178045|183661014|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31||||||||1.31|0.69|
91883724|NCT03178045|183661015|OTHER|Longitudinal mixed effects regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||||||||1.32|0.60|
91908533|NCT03040999|183712760|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-2.05||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|0.37|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||0.37|-4.47|0.0963
91908534|NCT03040999|183712761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03||P-value crossing boundary of 0.0242 required for statistical significance.|Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by human papilloma virus (HPV) status and overall cancer stage.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by HPV status and overall cancer stage.|||1.03|0.68|0.0429
91883725|NCT04211389|183661043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|13.7||Stratification by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||13.70|3.17|<0.0001
91753890|NCT02698371|183400834|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.059||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Staining Margin-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Staining Margin Performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.059
91753891|NCT02698371|183400834|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.829||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Staining Margin-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Staining Margin performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.829
91753892|NCT02698371|183400835|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Colour Stability-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Colour Stability performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
91753893|NCT02698371|183400835|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Colour Stability-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Colour Stability performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
91753894|NCT02698371|183400835|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.064||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Colour Stability-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Colour Stability performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.064
91753895|NCT02698371|183400836|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.006||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Fractures and Retention-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Fractures and Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.006
91753896|NCT02698371|183400836|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Fractures and Retention-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Fractures and Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
91753897|NCT02698371|183400836|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.054||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Fractures and Retention-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Fractures and Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.054
91753898|NCT02698371|183400837|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.01||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Marginal Adaptation-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Adaptation performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.010
91753899|NCT02698371|183400837|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.071||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Marginal Adaptation-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Adaptation performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.071
91753900|NCT02698371|183400837|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.898||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Marginal Adaptation-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Adaptation performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.898
91753901|NCT02698371|183400838|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
91753902|NCT02698371|183400838|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.18||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.180
91883726|NCT04211389|183661044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.207|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.029|5.844|||Log Rank|Unstratified log-rank test|HR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization.|Time to Achieve PASI-50||5.844|3.029|<0.0001
91883727|NCT04211389|183661045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|24.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-75 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||24.19|4.49|<0.0001
91883728|NCT04211389|183661046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|28.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-90 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||28.86|2.45|0.0002
91883729|NCT04211389|183661047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.18||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|53.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||53.68|2.33|0.0004
91883730|NCT04211389|183661048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.27||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|75.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Clear at Week 8 Odds Ratio||75.35|3.10|0.0002
91753903|NCT02698371|183400838|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.918||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.918
91908535|NCT01964352|183712816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.369|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.369|0.293|<0.0001
91908536|NCT01964352|183712816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.148|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.148|0.075|<0.0001
91753904|NCT02698371|183400839|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
91753905|NCT02698371|183400839|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||.317
91753906|NCT02698371|183400839|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.575||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Recurrence of Caries, Erosion \& Abfraction-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.575
91753907|NCT02698371|183400840|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks)-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks) performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
91753908|NCT02698371|183400840|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.107||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks)-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks) performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.107
91908537|NCT01964352|183712816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|0.337|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.337|0.262|<0.0001
91883731|NCT04211389|183661049|SUPERIORITY|WI-NRS Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|||4.58|1.43|0.0026
91883732|NCT04211389|183661049|SUPERIORITY|WI-NRS Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|9.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|||9.18|2.65|<0.0001
91908538|NCT01964352|183712816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.116|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.116|0.044|<0.0001
91908539|NCT01964352|183712816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.258|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.258|0.181|<0.0001
91804946|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.3||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|31.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||31.1|15.6|0.154
91883733|NCT04211389|183661049|SUPERIORITY|WI-NRS Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|6.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|||6.23|2.07|<0.0001
91804947|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|33.6|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||33.6|18.0|0.030
91804948|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|24.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|32.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||32.1|17.1|0.046
91804949|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.4||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|22.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||22.2|8.6|0.861
91804950|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.3||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.7|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||21.7|9.0|0.865
91804951|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|10.5||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|17.3|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||17.3|3.6|0.278
91804952|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.2||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.5|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||13.5|0.9|0.689
91753909|NCT02698371|183400840|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.592||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks)-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks) performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.592
91753910|NCT02698371|183400841|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Surface Staining-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Staining performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
91753911|NCT02698371|183400841|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Surface Staining-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Staining performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
91753912|NCT02698371|183400841|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Surface Staining-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Staining performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
91804953|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.1||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||16.2|2.1|0.993
91804954|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.2||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|15.7|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||15.7|2.8|0.989
91804955|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|10.4||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|17.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||17.0|3.7|0.976
91804956|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.0||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||15.1|2.9|0.778
91804957|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-17.3||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-13.3|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-13.3|-21.2|0.964
91804958|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-18.7||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-14.7|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-14.7|-22.7|0.581
91804959|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-21.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-17.5|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-17.5|-25.2|0.006
91804960|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-17.6||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-13.7|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-13.7|-21.4|0.175
91804961|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.4||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-15.6|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-15.6|-23.1|0.016
91804962|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-16.1|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-16.1|-23.5|0.010
91804963|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-20.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-16.8|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 16||-16.8|-24.3|0.000
91804964|NCT03982368|183487078|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-20.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-17.1|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 16||-17.1|-24.6|0.000
91804965|NCT03982368|183487079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 4||||0.302
91804966|NCT03982368|183487079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 4||||0.224
91883734|NCT04211389|183661050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-20.0|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|LS Mean Difference at Week 4||-20.0|-31.9|<0.0001
91908540|NCT01964352|183712816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.067|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.067|-0.005|0.0872
91883735|NCT04211389|183661050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-19.7|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|LS Mean Difference at Week 8||-19.7|-33.2|<0.0001
91883736|NCT01182207|183661056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.82|107.79|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.79|86.82|
91883737|NCT01182207|183661057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|105.27|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.27|101.10|
91883738|NCT01182207|183661058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.67|104.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.80|100.67|
91883739|NCT01182207|183661059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.45|106.5|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.50|89.45|
91883740|NCT01182207|183661060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.62|102.25|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.25|95.62|
91883741|NCT01182207|183661061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.36|101.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.12|95.36|
91804967|NCT03982368|183487079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 8 (FUP)||||0.000
91883742|NCT01427738|183661062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion with clinical e|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.077|0.166||||||Repeated confidence intervals (RCIs) were used to control type I error.A interim analysis was conducted by a 99.7% CI. The final analyses use a 95.1% CI, based on the Lan-DeMets error-spending function corresponding to the O'Brien-Fleming boundary.76% of 100 participant in arm GV had cure or improvement of OC after 14 days of treatment, and 71.6% of 102 in arm nystatin had cure or improvement of OC. Difference in clinical efficacy rates between GV and nystatin 95.1% CI is 0.044 (-0.077, 0.166).||0.166|-0.077|
91883743|NCT00727506|183661085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148||95.0||||P-value is from an approximate normal test for the 6 month time point.|z-test|||||||0.148
91883744|NCT00727506|183661085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value is an approximate normal test for the six month time point.|z-test|||||||0.008
91883745|NCT00727506|183661087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91908541|NCT01964352|183712817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0124|0.2|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.200|0.0124|<0.0001
91804968|NCT03982368|183487079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 8 (FUP)||||0.885
91804969|NCT03982368|183487079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 12 (FUP)||||0.035
91804970|NCT03982368|183487079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 12 (FUP)||||0.698
91804971|NCT03982368|183487079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 16 (FUP)||||0.016
91804972|NCT03982368|183487079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 16 (FUP)||||0.706
91883746|NCT00727506|183661087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1954||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1954
91883747|NCT00727506|183661088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.78||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|2.912|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by age class (\<=50 vs. \>50 years old) and baseline Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score (70, 80 vs. 90, 100). P-value was two-sided from log-rank test stratified by the same variables.||2.912|1.088|0.0320
91908542|NCT01964352|183712817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.066|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.066|-0.009|0.1381
91753913|NCT02698371|183400842|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.011||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Marginal Discoloration-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Discoloration performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.011
91753914|NCT02698371|183400842|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.034||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Marginal Discoloration-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Discoloration performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.034
91753915|NCT02698371|183400842|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.885||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Marginal Discoloration-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Discoloration performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.885
91753916|NCT02698371|183400843|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Color Match-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Color Match performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
91753917|NCT02698371|183400843|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Color Match-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Color Match performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
91753918|NCT02698371|183400843|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.403||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Color Match-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Color Match performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.403
91753919|NCT02698371|183400844|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Retention-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
91753920|NCT02698371|183400844|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Retention-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
91753921|NCT02698371|183400844|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.04||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Retention-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.040
91753922|NCT02698371|183400845|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie/delta of Marginal Integrity-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Integrity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
91753923|NCT02698371|183400845|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie/delta of Marginal Integrity-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Integrity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
91753924|NCT02698371|183400845|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.211||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie/delta of Marginal Integrity-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Integrity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.211
91753925|NCT02698371|183400846|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.102||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Postoperative Sensitivity-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Sensitivity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.102
91883748|NCT00727506|183661088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.392||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|2.301|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by age class (\<=50 vs. \>50 years old) and baseline KPS score (70, 80 vs. 90, 100). P-value was two-sided from log-rank test stratified by the same variables.||2.301|0.841|0.2044
91883749|NCT01214421|183661125|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means (final values)|0.99||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from the least squares (LS) mean difference between the treatment groups at each visit using MMRM model with factors of treatment, visit, region, baseline, baseline hypertensive status, baseline renal volume status, baseline creatinine clearance status, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of baseline and visit.|1.02|0.96|0.358
91804973|NCT03982368|183487080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 4||||0.210
91804974|NCT03982368|183487080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at weeek 4||||0.260
91804975|NCT03982368|183487080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 8 (FUP)||||0.000
91804976|NCT03982368|183487080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 8 (FUP)||||0.734
91883750|NCT01214421|183661126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (final values)|3.15||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.462|4.836|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from MMRM analysis with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment visit interaction, hypertensive status, renal volume status and creatinine clearance status at baseline, region, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as covariates, and with a heterogeneous toeplitz variance covariance matrix.|4.836|1.462|0.0003
91883751|NCT01214421|183661127|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority for early-treatment and delayed-treatment groups.|Ratio of geometric means (final values)|1.011||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.023|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from testing interaction of time and treatment using linear mixed model in which intercept and time are treated as random effects.|1.023|1.000|0.0462
91883752|NCT01214421|183661128|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority for early-treatment and delayed-treatment groups.|Ratio of geometric means (final values)|-0.113||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from testing interaction of time and treatment using linear mixed model in which intercept and time are treated as random effects.|0.520|-0.746|0.7259
91753926|NCT02698371|183400846|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.18||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Postoperative Sensitivity-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Sensitivity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.180
91883753|NCT01214421|183661129|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means (final values)|0.992||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from linear mixed model with terms of participant, treatment, time, interaction of treatment and time, interaction of participant and time, and baseline for intra-participant comparison between 251 and 271. Time and intercept are treated as random effects.|1.002|0.982|0.1080
91883754|NCT01214421|183661130|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means (final values)|0.361||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.946|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from linear mixed model with terms of participant, treatment, time, interaction of treatment and time, interaction of participant and time, and baseline for intra-participant comparison between 251 and 271. Time and intercept are treated as random effects.|0.946|-0.224|0.2265
91908543|NCT01964352|183712817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.188|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.188|0.113|<0.0001
91753927|NCT02698371|183400846|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.99||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Postoperative Sensitivity-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Sensitivity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.990
91804977|NCT03982368|183487080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 12 (FUP)||||0.050
91908544|NCT01964352|183712817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.3872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.054|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.054|-0.021|0.3872
91804978|NCT03982368|183487080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 12 (FUP)||||0.985
91804979|NCT03982368|183487080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 16 (FUP)||||0.018
91804980|NCT03982368|183487080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 16 (FUP)||||0.580
91804981|NCT03982368|183487081|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.2||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||3.3|-1.0|0.282
91804982|NCT03982368|183487081|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.0|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||6.0|1.7|0.497
91804983|NCT03982368|183487081|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.6||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.8|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.8|0.5|0.734
91804984|NCT03982368|183487081|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.2||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.3|0.1|0.963
91804985|NCT03982368|183487081|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.7||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.8|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||4.8|0.7|0.854
91804986|NCT03982368|183487081|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.8||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.8|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||4.8|0.8|0.881
91804987|NCT03982368|183487081|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.0||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.7|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||5.7|0.3|0.632
91804988|NCT03982368|183487081|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.0|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||7.0|1.7|0.220
91804989|NCT03982368|183487082|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.2||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||3.3|-0.9|0.296
91804990|NCT03982368|183487082|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.7|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||5.7|1.5|0.570
91804991|NCT03982368|183487082|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.7||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.9|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.9|0.5|0.754
91883755|NCT04590404|183661146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for arm, randomization strata (cigarettes/day (CPD), insurance category, cardiac admission, NMR category), \& plan to quit after discharge||The primary outcome was biochemically-verified self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (7dPPA) at 6 months. We modeled outcomes using logistic regression adjusted for randomization stratification factors and plan to quit (stay quit vs. try).||1.82|0.76|0.461
91908545|NCT01964352|183712817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.172|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.172|0.096|<0.0001
91804992|NCT03982368|183487082|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.3||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.5|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.5|0.0|0.972
91804993|NCT03982368|183487082|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.4||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||5.3|1.4|0.793
91804994|NCT03982368|183487082|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.4||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||5.3|1.5|0.766
91804995|NCT03982368|183487082|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.3||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.0|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||6.0|0.6|0.458
91804996|NCT03982368|183487082|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.6||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||7.3|2.0|0.147
91804997|NCT03570697|183487095|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|37.7|||ANCOVA|||||37.7|4.7|0.015
91804998|NCT03570697|183487096|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|37.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.04||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|73.31|||ANCOVA|||||73.31|1.63|0.041
91804999|NCT03570697|183487097|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|32.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.67|52.35|||ANCOVA|||||52.35|12.67|0.003
91805000|NCT03570697|183487098|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-49.6|0.032
91883756|NCT04590404|183661147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.54||Adjusted for arm, randomization strata (cigarettes/day (CPD), insurance category, cardiac admission, NMR category), \& plan to quit after discharge|Regression, Logistic|||The primary outcome was biochemically-verified self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (7dPPA) at 12 months. We modeled outcomes using logistic regression adjusted for randomization stratification factors and plan to quit (stay quit vs. try).||1.54|0.64|0.99
91805001|NCT03570697|183487099|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|31.0|||ANCOVA|||||31.0|1.1|0.036
91805002|NCT03570697|183487100|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-9.5|||ANCOVA|||||-9.5|-50.5|0.005
91805003|NCT03570697|183487101|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-4.04|0.003
91883757|NCT03912532|183661150|OTHER|The Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling (MCP-Mod) is a 2-stage procedure in which dose-response models are selected at the design stage. These candidate models are used for both dose-response testing (MCP step) and estimation (Mod step). The dose-response testing is performed using a multiple comparison method to account for the multiplicity issue associated with the multiple candidate models. Missing responses were imputed using multiple imputation under the assumption of missing at random.||||||0.5534|||||||Multiple comparison procedure step|||||||0.5534
91805004|NCT02571777|183487106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.099|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.099|0.031|<0.001
91805005|NCT02571777|183487106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.111|||MMRM|||||0.111|0.041|<0.001
91805006|NCT02571777|183487107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0406||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.094|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.094|-0.066|0.729
91805007|NCT02571777|183487107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0404||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|-0.006|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.006|-0.165|0.034
91805008|NCT02571777|183487107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0409||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.010|-0.151|0.085
91805009|NCT02571777|183487107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0406||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|-0.005|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.005|-0.164|0.038
91805010|NCT02571777|183487107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.023|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.023|-0.140|0.157
91805011|NCT02571777|183487107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 52||-0.040|-0.202|0.003
91805012|NCT02571777|183487107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.072|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.072|-0.092|0.814
91805013|NCT02571777|183487107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0416||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.09|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.090|-0.073|0.845
91805014|NCT02571777|183487108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.154|||MMRM|||||0.154|0.085|<0.001
91805015|NCT02571777|183487108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.133|||MMRM|||||0.133|0.064|<0.001
91805016|NCT02571777|183487109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.12|||MMRM|||||0.120|0.051|<0.001
91805017|NCT02571777|183487109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.18|||MMRM|||||0.180|0.111|<0.001
91805018|NCT02571777|183487109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.096|||MMRM|||||0.096|0.027|<0.001
91805019|NCT02571777|183487109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.122|||MMRM|||||0.122|0.052|<0.001
91805020|NCT02571777|183487110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0218|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.116|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.116|0.030|<0.001
91805021|NCT02571777|183487110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.181|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.181|0.096|<0.001
91805022|NCT02571777|183487110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.082|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.082|-0.004|0.074
91805023|NCT02571777|183487110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.150|0.065|<0.001
91805024|NCT02571777|183487110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.099|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.099|0.014|0.010
91805025|NCT02571777|183487110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0218|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.145|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.145|0.059|<0.001
91805026|NCT02571777|183487110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.094|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.094|0.007|0.022
91805027|NCT02571777|183487110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.142|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.142|0.056|<0.001
91883758|NCT03522389|183661175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.003
91805028|NCT02571777|183487111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0254|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.145|||MMRM|||||0.145|0.045|<0.001
91883759|NCT03522389|183661175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||<0.001
91805029|NCT02571777|183487111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.198|||MMRM|||||0.198|0.097|<0.001
91805030|NCT02571777|183487111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0256||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.099|||MMRM|||||0.099|-0.001|0.057
91805031|NCT02571777|183487111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0258||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.107|||MMRM|||||0.107|0.006|0.029
91805032|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|23.3|||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||23.3|13.2|<0.001
91805033|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|40.3|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||40.3|30.2|<0.001
91805034|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|20.0|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||20.0|9.8|<0.001
91805035|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|33.1|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||33.1|22.9|<0.001
91805036|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|21.7|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||21.7|11.8|<0.001
91883760|NCT03522389|183661175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
91883761|NCT03522389|183661175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.006
91805037|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|34.1|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||34.1|24.2|<0.001
91805038|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|19.1|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||19.1|9.1|<0.001
91883762|NCT03522389|183661175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.793
91883763|NCT03522389|183661176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||<0.001
91908546|NCT01964352|183712817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.5333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.049|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.049|-0.025|0.5333
91805039|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|24.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|29.3|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||29.3|19.3|<0.001
91805040|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|24.1|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||24.1|13.4|<0.001
91805041|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|34.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|40.1|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||40.1|29.5|<0.001
91805042|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|20.9|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||20.9|10.2|<0.001
91805043|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|33.8|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||33.8|23.2|<0.001
91805044|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|22.8|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||22.8|12.3|<0.001
91805045|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|34.7|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||34.7|24.2|<0.001
91805046|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|20.2|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||20.2|9.7|<0.001
91805047|NCT02571777|183487112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|31.0|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||31.0|20.5|<0.001
91805048|NCT02571777|183487113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.8|||LMM|||||3.8|-3.3|0.907
91805049|NCT02571777|183487113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.0|||LMM|||||7.0|-0.1|0.055
91805050|NCT02571777|183487113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||LMM|||||3.6|-3.6|0.997
91805051|NCT02571777|183487113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.6|||LMM|||||2.6|-4.5|0.606
91883764|NCT03522389|183661176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.039
91883765|NCT03522389|183661176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
91883766|NCT03522389|183661176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
91883767|NCT03522389|183661176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.117
91883768|NCT03522389|183661177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.924
91883769|NCT03522389|183661177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.855
91883770|NCT03522389|183661177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.937
91883771|NCT03522389|183661177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.970
91883772|NCT03522389|183661177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.242
91883773|NCT03522389|183661178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.161
91883774|NCT03522389|183661178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.161
91883775|NCT03522389|183661178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.076
91883776|NCT03522389|183661178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.211
91883777|NCT03522389|183661178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.573
91883778|NCT03522389|183661179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.445
91883779|NCT03522389|183661179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.046
91883780|NCT03522389|183661179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
91883781|NCT03522389|183661179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.028
91883782|NCT03522389|183661179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
91805052|NCT02571777|183487114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.2|||LMM|||||4.2|-2.8|0.712
91805053|NCT02571777|183487114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.2|||LMM|||||7.2|0.2|0.038
91805054|NCT02571777|183487114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.4|||LMM|||||3.4|-3.7|0.943
91805055|NCT02571777|183487114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.6|||LMM|||||2.6|-4.4|0.612
91805056|NCT02571777|183487115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.6|||LMM|||||2.6|-3.3|0.809
91805057|NCT02571777|183487115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.0|||LMM|||||4.0|-1.9|0.467
91805058|NCT02571777|183487115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5|||LMM|||||4.5|-1.5|0.318
91805059|NCT02571777|183487115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.7|||LMM|||||3.7|-2.3|0.640
91883783|NCT04750577|183661180|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0245|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0245
91753928|NCT02698371|183400847|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.157||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Secondary Caries-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Secondary Caries performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.157
91908547|NCT01964352|183712818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.894|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.904|-2.884|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.884|-6.904|<0.0001
91753929|NCT02698371|183400847|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Secondary Caries-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Secondary Caries performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
91805060|NCT02571777|183487116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.2|||LMM|||||3.2|-4.0|0.814
91805061|NCT02571777|183487116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.4|||LMM|||||7.4|0.2|0.036
91805062|NCT02571777|183487116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.7|||LMM|||||6.7|-0.6|0.098
91805063|NCT02571777|183487116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.5|||LMM|||||6.5|-0.7|0.118
91805064|NCT02571777|183487117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.6|||LMM|||Week 26||2.6|-4.2|0.645
91805065|NCT02571777|183487117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.3|||LMM|||Week 26||6.3|-0.5|0.095
91805066|NCT02571777|183487117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||LMM|||Week 26||4.7|-2.1|0.460
91805067|NCT02571777|183487117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.4|||LMM|||Week 26||3.4|-3.5|0.971
91805068|NCT02571777|183487117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.963
91805069|NCT02571777|183487117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.6|||LMM|||Week 52||6.6|-0.3|0.075
91805070|NCT02571777|183487117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7|||LMM|||Week 52||4.7|-2.3|0.517
91805071|NCT02571777|183487117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.956
91805072|NCT02571777|183487118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.20|0.70|0.535
91805073|NCT02571777|183487118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.57|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.57|0.93|0.151
91805074|NCT02571777|183487118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.48|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.48|0.86|0.380
91805075|NCT02571777|183487118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.57|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.57|0.92|0.172
91805076|NCT02571777|183487118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.47|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.47|0.83|0.510
91805077|NCT02571777|183487118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.86|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.86|1.06|0.017
91805078|NCT02571777|183487118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.38|0.79|0.744
91805079|NCT02571777|183487118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.29|0.75|0.922
91805080|NCT02571777|183487119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.63|||Regression, Cox|||||1.63|0.27|0.371
91805081|NCT02571777|183487119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.66|||Regression, Cox|||||2.66|0.37|0.996
91805082|NCT02571777|183487119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.47|||Regression, Cox|||||4.47|0.80|0.145
91805083|NCT02571777|183487119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.43|||Regression, Cox|||||4.43|0.80|0.150
91908548|NCT01964352|183712818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.473|-0.513|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.513|-4.473|0.0136
91883784|NCT04750577|183661180|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0294|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: No assumption was needed.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0294
91883785|NCT04750577|183661180|OTHER|A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||||0.0468||||||MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.|MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: 50 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||||||0.0468
91883786|NCT04750577|183661180|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0586|||||||MCP-Mod Emax model fit|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 6 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0586
91753930|NCT02698371|183400847|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.334||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Secondary Caries-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Secondary Caries performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.334
91753931|NCT02698371|183400848|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.132||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Gingival Bleeding-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Gingival Bleeding performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.132
91883787|NCT04750577|183661180|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0659|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid emax model fit|Model assumption: 30 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0659
91753932|NCT02698371|183400848|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.257||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Gingival Bleeding-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Gingival Bleeding performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.257
91753933|NCT02698371|183400848|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.918||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Gingival Bleeding-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Gingival Bleeding performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.918
91753934|NCT01274611|183400853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A sample of 20 patients, or 40 treatment sites (the unit of randomization), provided 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.68 using a paired t test at a type I error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91753935|NCT01274611|183400854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A sample of 20 patients, or 40 treatment sites (the unit of randomization), provided 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.68 using a paired t test at a type I error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.0|||>|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.01
91753936|NCT00897390|183400876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.009|1.075||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.075|1.009|
91805084|NCT02571777|183487120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.15|0.77|0.523
91805085|NCT02571777|183487120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.84|0.58|<0.001
91805086|NCT02571777|183487120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.06|0.72|0.164
91805087|NCT02571777|183487120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.92|0.63|0.005
91805088|NCT02571777|183487120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.16|0.72|0.476
91805089|NCT02571777|183487120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.85|0.54|<0.001
91805090|NCT02571777|183487120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.09|0.70|0.243
91805091|NCT02571777|183487120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.97|0.63|0.027
91883788|NCT04750577|183661180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.103||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.102|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of 1 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean ofPlacebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.102|-0.309|0.3224
91883789|NCT04750577|183661180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.063||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.15|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of 2 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.150|-0.275|0.5616
91908549|NCT01964352|183712818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.129|-2.114|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.114|-6.129|<0.0001
91753937|NCT00897390|183400876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.019||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.019|0.958|
91753938|NCT00897390|183400878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.013|1.077||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.077|1.013|
91759529|NCT02391363|183411780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = -0.29 (SE = 0.47). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month psychological service use, controlling for baseline psychological service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.54
91805092|NCT02571777|183487120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.12|0.79|0.497
91805093|NCT02571777|183487120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.84|0.60|<0.001
91805094|NCT02571777|183487120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.04|0.73|0.126
91805095|NCT02571777|183487120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.85|0.61|<0.001
91805096|NCT02571777|183487121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.04|0.68|0.120
91805097|NCT02571777|183487121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.78|0.52|<0.001
91805098|NCT02571777|183487121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Generalized linear modeñ|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.06|0.71|0.170
91805099|NCT02571777|183487121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.81||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.99|0.66|0.041
91805100|NCT02571777|183487121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.78||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.00|0.61|0.050
91908550|NCT01964352|183712818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.721|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.008||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.698|0.256|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.256|-3.698|0.0880
91805101|NCT02571777|183487121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.73|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.73|0.45|<0.001
91805102|NCT02571777|183487121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.93||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.17|0.74|0.531
91805103|NCT02571777|183487121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Linear generalized model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.05|0.67|0.117
91805104|NCT02571777|183487121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.79||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.96|0.66|0.016
91805105|NCT02571777|183487121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.72|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.72|0.50|<0.001
91805106|NCT02571777|183487121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.06|0.72|0.161
91805107|NCT02571777|183487121|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.84|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.84|0.58|<0.001
91805108|NCT02571777|183487122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.183
91753939|NCT00897390|183400878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.022||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.022|0.962|
91805109|NCT02571777|183487122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
91805110|NCT02571777|183487122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.155
91805111|NCT02571777|183487122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.007
91805112|NCT02571777|183487122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.172
91883790|NCT04750577|183661180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.251||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.459|-0.043|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of 3 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.043|-0.459|0.0183
91805113|NCT02571777|183487122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
91805114|NCT02571777|183487122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.241
91805115|NCT02571777|183487122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.033
91805116|NCT02571777|183487122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||0.095
91805117|NCT02571777|183487122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
91805118|NCT02571777|183487122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||0.090
91805119|NCT02571777|183487122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
91805120|NCT02571777|183487124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.96|||Regression, Cox|||||1.96|0.12|0.314
91805121|NCT02571777|183487124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.08|0.055
91805122|NCT02571777|183487124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.25|0.306
91805123|NCT02571777|183487124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.94|||Regression, Cox|||||1.94|0.30|0.566
91805124|NCT02571777|183487126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.6|||LMM|||Week 26||2.6|-4.2|0.645
91805125|NCT02571777|183487126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.3|||LMM|||Week 26||6.3|-0.5|0.095
91805126|NCT02571777|183487126|SUPERIORITY||LMM|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||LMM|||Week 26||4.7|-2.1|0.460
91805127|NCT02571777|183487126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.4|||LMM|||Week 26||3.4|-3.5|0.971
91805128|NCT02571777|183487126|SUPERIORITY||LMM|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.963
91805129|NCT02571777|183487126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.6|||LMM|||Week 52||6.6|-0.3|0.075
91805130|NCT02571777|183487126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7|||LMM|||Week 52||4.7|-2.3|0.517
91805131|NCT02571777|183487126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.956
91805132|NCT02571777|183487127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0502||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.118|||MMRM|||||0.118|-0.078|0.690
91805133|NCT02571777|183487127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0502||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.159|||MMRM|||||0.159|-0.038|0.232
91883791|NCT04750577|183661181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.211||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.413|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Least Squares Mean of 1 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.010|-0.413|0.0396
91805134|NCT02571777|183487127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0506||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.045|||MMRM|||||0.045|-0.153|0.285
91883792|NCT04750577|183661181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.327|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Least Squares Mean of 2 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.088|-0.327|0.2568
91908551|NCT01964352|183712818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.419|-0.382|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.382|-4.419|0.0198
91908552|NCT01964352|183712818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.741|1.196|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.196|-2.741|0.4415
91753940|NCT00897390|183400879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|1.077|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.185||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.185|0.978|
91759530|NCT00799266|183411781|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|0.414||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.806|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score at Month 12||0.806|0.022|0.0392
91759531|NCT00799266|183411782|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|0.29||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.673|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score at Month 6||0.673|-0.094|0.1322
91759532|NCT00799266|183411783|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|1.979||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|3.869|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC at Month 6||3.869|0.089|0.0409
91759533|NCT00799266|183411783|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|2.155||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.488|5.798|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC at Month 12||5.798|-1.488|0.2340
91759534|NCT00799266|183411784|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|34.058||||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.385|113.502|||ANCOVA|||Total Body BMC at Month 6||113.502|-45.385|0.3827
91759535|NCT00799266|183411784|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|80.741||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.602|227.084|||ANCOVA|||Total Body BMC at Month 12||227.084|-65.602|0.2634
91759536|NCT00799266|183411785|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-211.782||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-363.765|-59.8|||ANCOVA|||Serum P1NP at Month 6||-59.800|-363.765|0.0631
91759537|NCT00799266|183411785|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-381.132||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-565.416|-196.848|||ANCOVA|||Serum P1NP at Month 12||-196.848|-565.416|0.0049
91759538|NCT00799266|183411786|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-11.223||||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.595|0.149|||ANCOVA|||Serum BSAP at Month 6||0.149|-22.595|0.2129
91759539|NCT00799266|183411786|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-20.435||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.96|-6.909|||ANCOVA|||Serum BSAP at Month 12||-6.909|-33.960|0.0215
91759540|NCT00799266|183411787|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-20.938||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.766|-8.11|||ANCOVA|||Serum NTX at Month 6||-8.110|-33.766|0.0254
91759541|NCT00799266|183411787|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-27.574||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.037|-16.111|||ANCOVA|||Serum NTX at Month 12||-16.111|-39.037|0.0002
91759542|NCT00799266|183411788|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-1.874||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.931|0.182|||ANCOVA|||Serum TRAP-5b at Month 6||0.182|-3.931|0.2178
91759543|NCT00799266|183411788|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-1.837||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.103|0.429|||ANCOVA|||Serum TRAP-5b at Month 12||0.429|-4.103|0.1840
91759544|NCT00799266|183411789|OTHER|The number and percentage of patients with new vertebral fractures at Month 12 were presented by treatment group and between-treatment differences were evaluated using Fisher's exact test.||||||0.2258|||||||Fisher Exact|||New vertebral fractures at Month 12||||0.2258
91759545|NCT00799266|183411790|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.018||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.019|||ANCOVA|||Vertebral morphometry at Month 12||0.019|-0.055|0.3180
91759546|NCT00799266|183411791|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.5226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 3||5.20|0.04|0.5226
91759547|NCT00799266|183411791|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||\>999.99 (\<0.01, \>999.99)|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 6||999.99|0.01|0.5220
91883793|NCT04750577|183661181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.357||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.56|-0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Least Squares Mean of 3 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.154|-0.560|0.0006
91883794|NCT04750577|183661182|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.1|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||5.10|0.99|0.0519
91883795|NCT04750577|183661182|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.36|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||3.36|0.61|0.4159
91908553|NCT01964352|183712819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.282|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.282|0.157|<0.0001
91753941|NCT00897390|183400879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.083||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.083|0.900|
91753942|NCT00897390|183400882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|1.03||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.030|0.921|
91753943|NCT00897390|183400882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.966||||||90.0|0.915|1.02||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.020|0.915|
91753944|NCT00897390|183400883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.962||||||90.0|0.906|1.02||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.020|0.906|
91753945|NCT00897390|183400883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.974||||||90.0|0.92|1.032||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.032|0.920|
91805135|NCT02571777|183487127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0505||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.049|||MMRM|||||0.049|-0.150|0.319
91883796|NCT04750577|183661182|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.55|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||6.55|1.28|0.0106
91908554|NCT01964352|183712819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.5052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.084|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.084|-0.041|0.5052
91908555|NCT01964352|183712819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.271|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.271|0.146|<0.0001
91883797|NCT04750577|183661183|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.53|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||6.53|1.20|0.0176
91883798|NCT04750577|183661183|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.29|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||3.29|0.53|0.5467
91883799|NCT04750577|183661183|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|10.39|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||10.39|1.91|0.0005
91759548|NCT00799266|183411791|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.6019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 9||6.22|0.04|0.6019
91759549|NCT00799266|183411791|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.9652|TWO_SIDED|0.9652|0.01|999.99||0.45 (\<0.01, \>999.99)|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 12||999.99|0.01|0.9652
91759550|NCT00799266|183411792|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.04||||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||2nd metacarpal cortical width at Month 12||0.09|-0.17|0.5165
91759551|NCT01336140|183411837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||"We calculated that a minimum of 248 subjects are needed to attain 80% power to detect 70% reduction in the incidence of the primary endpoint (diarrhea), assuming an event rate of 15% in the control group (2-tailed α = 0.05). We targeted enrolling 300 patients to allow some room for error in our assumptions.~null hypothesis: incidence of diarrhea is no different between the aminophylline arm and the placebo arm."||||0.002
91759552|NCT01336140|183411838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91759553|NCT01336140|183411839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91759554|NCT01336140|183411840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91759555|NCT01504841|183411842|OTHER||%|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|69.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE.|||69.2|10.9|
91759556|NCT01504841|183411842|OTHER||%|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.8|100.0|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE.|||100|39.8|
91759557|NCT01504841|183411845|OTHER||%|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|51.8|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE at least possibly related to study medications.|||51.8|2.5|
91759558|NCT01504841|183411845|OTHER||%|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE at least possibly related to study medication.|||60.2|0|
91759559|NCT01504841|183411846|OTHER||%|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|51.8|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 24, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 24 time point.||51.8|2.3|
91759560|NCT01504841|183411846|OTHER||%|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|80.6|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 24, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 24 time point.||80.6|0.6|
91759561|NCT01504841|183411846|OTHER||%|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|61.0|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 48, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 48 time point.||61|6|
91759562|NCT01504841|183411846|OTHER||%|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|99.4|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 48, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 48 time point.||99.4|19.4|
91759563|NCT01504841|183411850|OTHER||%|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|41.3|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 12, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 12 time point.||41.3|0.2|
91759564|NCT01504841|183411850|OTHER||%|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|93.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 12, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 12 time point.||93.2|6.8|
91759565|NCT01504841|183411850|OTHER||%|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|41.3|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 24, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 24 time point.||41.3|0.2|
91759566|NCT01504841|183411850|OTHER||%|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|80.6|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 24, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 24 time point.||80.6|0.6|
91759567|NCT01504841|183411850|OTHER||%|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|51.8|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 48, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 48 time point.||51.8|2.3|
91759568|NCT01504841|183411850|OTHER||%|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|93.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 48, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 48 time point.||93.2|6.8|
91759569|NCT04756804|183411851|OTHER|This was a descriptive study, no hypothesis testing was performed.|||||||||||||||||This was a descriptive study, no hypothesis testing was performed.|||
91759570|NCT00660179|183411860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.516|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.960|0.516|0.0108
91759571|NCT00660179|183411860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.547|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.392|0.762|||Log Rank|||||0.762|0.392|<0.0001
91759572|NCT00660179|183411861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.669||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.462|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.970|0.462|0.0146
91759573|NCT00660179|183411861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.335|0.747|||Log Rank|||||0.747|0.335|<0.0001
91753946|NCT00897390|183400884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.016||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.016|0.864|
91753947|NCT00897390|183400884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|1.042||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.042|0.891|
91753948|NCT04736199|183400901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|0.707||One-sided|Log Rank|||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.707|0.413|<0.0001
91753949|NCT04736199|183400902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.118||One-sided|Log Rank||significance level of 0.0185 (one-sided)|Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||1.118|0.591|0.1007
91753950|NCT04736199|183400903|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.404|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|0.508||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.508|0.321|
91753951|NCT04736199|183400904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.401|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.558||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.558|0.288|
91753952|NCT04736199|183400905|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.405||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.405|0.231|
91753953|NCT04736199|183400906|OTHER||Rate difference|44.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|51.2||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||51.2|37.4|
91753954|NCT04736199|183400907|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.957||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.957|0.544|
91753955|NCT05926544|183400935|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.16|||||The Standard implementation arm was the reference group.|||1.16|0.18|
91753956|NCT05818137|183400942|OTHER||Change from baseline estimate|-99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.6|-68.4|||||The change from baseline estimate and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-68.4|-129.6|
91753957|NCT05818137|183400945|OTHER||Change from baseline estimate|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|55.5|||||The change from baseline estimate and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||55.5|27.8|
91753958|NCT05818137|183400947|OTHER||Change from baseline estimate|-48.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|-24.8|||||The change from baseline estimate and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-24.8|-77.0|
91753959|NCT05925374|183400953|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91753960|NCT05925374|183400954|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91753961|NCT05925374|183400955|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
91753962|NCT03320330|183400974|OTHER|Recommended Phase 2 dose of pepinemab (VX15/2503), administered to children with recurrent or refractory solid tumors (Part A), was determined by the rolling-6 design.|Recommended Phase 2 dose|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Recommended Phase 2 dose of pepinemab (VX15/2503) is 20 mg/kg.|||||
91753963|NCT05206370|183400986|SUPERIORITY|Abstinence from Week 3 to Week 6|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.475|5.617||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (stratified by site)|||5.617|1.475|0.0008
91753964|NCT05206370|183400986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.485|5.094||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||5.094|1.485|0.0010
91753965|NCT05206370|183400986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.09||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.134||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.134|0.033|0.0006
91753966|NCT05206370|183400987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.566|7.343||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (stratified by site)|Abstinence from Week 9 to Week 12||7.343|2.566|< 0.0001
91753967|NCT05206370|183400987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.575|6.885||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||6.885|2.575|< 0.0001
91759574|NCT00660179|183411862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971||||0.9249|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.477|1.976|||Log Rank|||||1.976|0.477|0.9249
91759575|NCT00660179|183411862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.638||||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.287|1.418|||Log Rank|||||1.418|0.287|0.2037
91805136|NCT02571777|183487128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.101|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.101|0.036|<0.001
91805137|NCT02571777|183487128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0165|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.177|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.177|0.113|<0.001
91805138|NCT02571777|183487128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0167||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.066|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.066|0.000|0.049
91805139|NCT02571777|183487128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.129|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.129|0.064|<0.001
91805140|NCT02571777|183487128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.094|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.094|0.022|0.002
91805141|NCT02571777|183487128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.153|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.153|0.081|<0.001
91805142|NCT02571777|183487128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0185||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.086|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.086|0.013|0.007
91805143|NCT02571777|183487128|SUPERIORITY||MMRM|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.123|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.123|0.051|<0.001
91805144|NCT03652012|183487131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|106.85||As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure.|ANOVA||Mean difference (Healthy Controls - MCI).|"We conducted a two-way factorial ANOVA (Group x Condition). Group has two levels: MCI and Healthy controls. Condition has two levels: active muscle contraction and rest.~As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure."||106.85|1.54|0.044
91805145|NCT03652012|183487131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.87|57.47||As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure.|ANOVA||Mean difference in slope of the stimulus-response curve by muscle contraction condition (Active - Rest).|"We conducted a two-way factorial ANOVA (Group x Condition). Group has two levels: MCI and Healthy controls. Condition has two levels: active muscle contraction and rest.~As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure.~The results presented here reflect the main effect of Condition on the slope of the stimulus-response curve."||57.47|-51.87|0.912
91805146|NCT03652012|183487132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|45.54|||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mean cortical silent period (CSP; units = milliseconds) in the CN group minus mean CSP in the MCI group. Positive values indicate a longer cortical silent period in the control group.|||45.54|-4.33|0.1021
91805147|NCT03652012|183487133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.529|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.529|-0.113|0.19
91805148|NCT03652012|183487134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0078||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.51|0.97
91883800|NCT03459612|183661184|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in Least Square (LS) means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.39|-0.43|<0.0001
91883801|NCT03459612|183661184|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|LS Means|1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.20|0.32|<0.0001
91883802|NCT03459612|183661184|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|LS Means|4.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|6.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.38|3.58|<0.0001
91908556|NCT01964352|183712819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.072|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.072|-0.052|0.7566
91805149|NCT01288235|183487135|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.3||||||||22.3|8.3|
91805150|NCT01288235|183487135|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|28.9||||||||28.9|12.7|
91805151|NCT01288235|183487136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test||||4.9|-2.6|0.543
91805152|NCT01288235|183487137|OTHER||3-Year Local Disease Control Probability|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.1|94.9||||||||94.9|83.1|
91805153|NCT01288235|183487137|OTHER||5-Year Local Disease Control Probability|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|91.9||||||||91.9|78.2|
91805154|NCT01288235|183487137|OTHER||3-Year Distant Disease Control|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.1|99.2||||||||99.2|92.1|
91805155|NCT01288235|183487137|OTHER||5-Year Distant Disease Control|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|98.1||||||||98.1|89.4|
91805156|NCT01288235|183487138|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence of grade 3+|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.5||||||||19.5|6.6|
91805157|NCT01288235|183487138|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence of grade 3+|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|24.3||||||||24.3|9.8|
91883803|NCT03459612|183661185|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|-0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|-1.28|<0.0001
91883804|NCT03459612|183661185|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-1.51|<0.0001
91908557|NCT01964352|183712819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.261|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.261|0.136|<0.0001
91908558|NCT01964352|183712819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.7199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.073|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.073|-0.051|0.7199
91908559|NCT01964352|183712820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.516|2.588|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.588|1.516|<0.0001
91805158|NCT01288235|183487139|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative inc. of hearing loss|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|29.5||||||||29.5|2.9|
91759576|NCT00660179|183411863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.653|1.673|||Log Rank|||||1.673|0.653|0.8312
91759577|NCT00660179|183411863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.771||||0.2509|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.464|1.282|||Log Rank|||||1.282|0.464|0.2509
91759578|NCT01504412|183411902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.42||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.15||Dunnett method was used for adjustment of multiple testing.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.99|0.1995
91759579|NCT01504412|183411902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.37||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.2||Dunnett method was used for adjustment of multiple testing.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.93|0.2886
91759580|NCT01504412|183411902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.3||||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.27||Dunnett method was used for adjustment of multiple testing.|ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.87|0.4704
91759581|NCT01504412|183411903|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.2||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||This analysis assessed placebo vs DS-5565 10 mg/day for the visual analog scale.||0.4|-10.8|0.0691
91759582|NCT01504412|183411903|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.4||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||This analysis assessed placebo vs DS-5565 20 mg/day for the visual analog scale.||0.2|-10.9|0.0577
91759583|NCT01504412|183411903|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.4||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||This analysis assessed placebo vs DS-5565 30 mg/day for the visual analog scale.||-1.8|-13.0|0.0093
91759584|NCT05362058|183411913|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.22|
91759585|NCT05362058|183411914|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.26|
91759586|NCT05362058|183411915|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.28|
91759587|NCT05362058|183411916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.22|0.188
91759588|NCT05362058|183411917|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.09||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|6.08|||ANCOVA|||||6.08|0.09|0.043
91759589|NCT05362058|183411918|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.17|0.260
91759590|NCT05362058|183411919|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.02|||ANCOVA|||||3.02|-2.48|0.848
91759591|NCT05362058|183411920|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.18||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|9.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization + SU Use at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach.||9.30|1.06|0.014
91759592|NCT05362058|183411920|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|4.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization + SU Use at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at week 52 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach.||4.06|-3.65|0.918
91759593|NCT05362058|183411921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.34|-1.06|0.310
91759594|NCT05362058|183411921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.17|-1.19|0.138
91759595|NCT05362058|183411922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.2||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||4.1|-30.5|0.136
91759596|NCT05362058|183411922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||-2.4|-37.0|0.026
91759597|NCT05362058|183411923|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.78|||Negative binomial model|||||1.78|0.94|0.111
91759598|NCT05362058|183411924|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.01||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.89|||Negative binomial model|||||1.89|0.53|0.983
91759599|NCT05362058|183411925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.94|0.064|0.025
91759600|NCT05362058|183411925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.056||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.50|-0.38|0.801
91759601|NCT05362058|183411926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 to Week 12 (Statistical Analysis)||0.41|-0.15|0.374
91759602|NCT05362058|183411926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.67|-0.09|0.130
91759603|NCT05362058|183411926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.72|-0.12|0.162
91759604|NCT05362058|183411927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 to Week 12 (Statistical Analysis)||0.08|-0.15|0.594
91759605|NCT05362058|183411927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.16|-0.04|0.266
91759606|NCT05362058|183411927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.14|-0.10|0.791
91759607|NCT05362058|183411928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 to Week 12 (Statistical Analysis)||2.18|-3.00|0.757
91759608|NCT05362058|183411928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||1.85|-3.72|0.511
91759609|NCT05362058|183411928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.39||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||-0.39|-6.39|0.027
91759610|NCT05362058|183411929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.66||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||3.07|0.26|0.021
91883805|NCT03459612|183661185|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|4.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.45|3.17|<0.0001
91753968|NCT05206370|183400987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.267||p-value for difference in proportions4|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.267|0.141|< 0.0001
91753969|NCT05206370|183400988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|34.619||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (Stratified by site)|Abstinence from Week 6 to Week 24||34.619|1.851|0.0006
91753970|NCT05206370|183400988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.026|27.544||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||27.544|2.026|0.0007
91753971|NCT05206370|183400988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.06||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.075||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.075|0.023|0.0007
91753972|NCT05206370|183400989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.888|12.458||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (stratified by site)|Abstinence from Week 9 to Week 24||12.458|2.888|< 0.0001
91753973|NCT05206370|183400989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.091|12.13||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||12.130|3.091|< 0.0001
91753974|NCT05206370|183400989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.202||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.202|0.110|< 0.0001
91753975|NCT05206370|183400990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|2.297||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (stratified by site)|Relapse free at Week 24||2.297|0.652|0.5538
91805159|NCT01288235|183487139|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative inc. of hearing loss|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|29.5||||||||29.5|2.9|
91883806|NCT03459612|183661186|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Differnce in LS Means|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-2.30|<0.0001
91753976|NCT05206370|183400990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|2.231||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||2.231|0.691|0.5560
91753977|NCT05206370|183400990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2822|||||||Zelen's exact test (Pr ≤ P)|||||||0.2822
91753978|NCT06038123|183401058|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|100.0||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5|93.94|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|One-proportion binomial exact test|||Alternative hypothesis: MRI-related event-free rate within 1-month post-MRI \>90%. Null hypothesis will be rejected if the one-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound is \>90%. Assuming type I error rate of 0.025, even-free rate under null hypothesis being 90% and true even-free rate being 99.5%, the minimum required sample size is 54 MRI scanned patients to achieve 90% power. One-proportion binomial exact test along with a one-sided 97.5% lower (Clopper-Pearson) confidence bound was used.|||93.94|0.002
91753979|NCT05218499|183401060|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.06|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio value below 1 favors brigimadlin.|The primary estimator for the hazard ratio is the median unbiased estimator. The confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio is calculated as a repeated CI. The p-value is obtained using a weighted inverse normal method combining one-sided p-values from two stages.||1.06|0.60|0.0956
91753980|NCT05218499|183401061|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.67|||||An odds ratio value greater than 1 favors brigimadlin.|The primary estimator and CI for the odds ratio is by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel.||5.67|1.52|
91753981|NCT05218499|183401063|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.82|||||An odds ratio value greater than 1 favors brigimadlin.|Odds ratios are calculated from a logistic regression model with the stratification factor (locally advanced vs. metastatic) included as a covariate.||2.82|0.81|
91753982|NCT05218499|183401063|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.84|||||An odds ratio value greater than 1 favors brigimadlin.|Odds ratios are calculated from a logistic regression model with the stratification factor (locally advanced vs. metastatic) included as a covariate. Exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson.||4.84|1.48|
91753990|NCT05010018|183401102|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||welch's t-test|||||||0.22
91753991|NCT05431387|183401114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|7.098||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with whether subjects had smoked \>100 cigarettes in their lifetime (yes, no) as stratification.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio|Abstinence from Week 9 to 12||7.098|1.062|0.0350
91883807|NCT03459612|183661186|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-2.40|<0.0001
91883808|NCT03459612|183661186|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|2.73|<0.0001
91883809|NCT03459612|183661187|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.15|
91883810|NCT03459612|183661187|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.1||||||||1.10|0.22|
91883811|NCT03459612|183661187|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.24||||||||1.24|0.39|
91883812|NCT03459612|183661188|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.96||||||||0.96|0.00|
91753992|NCT05431387|183401114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|6.491||Derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||6.491|1.133|0.0348
91753993|NCT05431387|183401114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.17||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.284||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.284|0.012|0.0120
91753994|NCT05431387|183401115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|4.551|||Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|Abstinence from Week 3 to 6||4.551|0.766|0.2205
91753995|NCT05431387|183401115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.209||||||||0.209|-0.058|
91753996|NCT05431387|183401116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|5.202|||Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|Abstinence from Week 6 to 9||5.202|0.967|0.0850
91753997|NCT05431387|183401116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.263||||||||0.263|-0.019|
91753998|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|7.309||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 2||7.309|0.653|0.3038
91753999|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.06||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.144||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 2||0.144|-0.058|0.3038
91754000|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|3.8||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 3||3.800|0.817|0.1996
91754001|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.11||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.251||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 3||0.251|-0.055|0.1996
91754002|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.458|6.414||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 4||6.414|1.458|0.0035
91754003|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.25||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.395||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 4||0.395|0.078|0.0035
91754004|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|3.809||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 5||3.809|0.905|0.1183
91754005|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.14||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.29||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 5||0.290|-0.035|0.1183
91754006|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|4.585||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 6||4.585|1.035|0.0532
91754007|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.17||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.311||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 6||0.311|-0.004|0.0532
91754008|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.539|6.989||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 7||6.989|1.539|0.0019
91754009|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.26||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.4||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 7||0.400|0.089|0.0019
91754010|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|4.944||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 8||4.944|1.119|0.0246
91754011|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.18||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.33||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 8||0.330|0.014|0.0246
91754012|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.076|4.762||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 9||4.762|1.076|0.0362
91754013|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.18||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.321||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 9||0.321|0.005|0.0362
91754014|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|3.668||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 10||3.668|0.871|0.1215
91754015|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.13||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.281||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 10||0.281|-0.044|0.1215
91754016|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|3.935||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 11||3.935|0.882|0.1123
91754017|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.13||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.274||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 11||0.274|-0.040|0.1123
91754018|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.006|4.626||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 12||4.626|1.006|0.0516
91754019|NCT05431387|183401117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.16||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.298||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 12||0.298|-0.011|0.0516
91754020|NCT05431387|183401118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) means difference|-32.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.6646||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.1192|90.1072||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 2||90.1072|-155.1192|1.0000
91754021|NCT05431387|183401118|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-72.832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.6388||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.3491|49.6842||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 3||49.6842|-195.3491|1.0000
91754022|NCT05431387|183401118|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-74.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.8018||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.2184|49.0381||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 4||49.0381|-197.2184|1.0000
91883813|NCT03459612|183661188|SUPERIORITY||Differnce of Least Square Means|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.14|
91883814|NCT03459612|183661188|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.78||||||||1.78|0.81|
91883815|NCT03459612|183661189|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-1.10|
91883816|NCT03459612|183661189|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.89|
91883817|NCT03459612|183661189|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.96||||||||0.96|-0.09|
91883818|NCT03459612|183661190|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.62||||||||1.62|-1.61|
91883819|NCT03459612|183661190|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Lease Square Means|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|1.01||||||||1.01|-2.49|
91883820|NCT03459612|183661190|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.89||||||||0.89|-2.32|
91883821|NCT03459612|183661191|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-3.52|
91754023|NCT05431387|183401118|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-83.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.7865||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.4354|39.7066||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 5||39.7066|-206.4354|1.0000
91754024|NCT05431387|183401118|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-79.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9139||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.5009|43.5976||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 6||43.5976|-203.5009|1.0000
91754025|NCT05431387|183401118|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-49.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2714||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-174.2006|75.5817||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 7||75.5817|-174.2006|1.0000
91754026|NCT05431387|183401118|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-78.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2237||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.8196|46.6046||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 8||46.6046|-202.8196|1.0000
91754027|NCT05431387|183401118|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-86.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.5025||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.7643|39.7529||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 9||39.7529|-211.7643|1.0000
91754028|NCT05431387|183401118|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-62.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.151||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.1187|61.7592||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 10||61.7592|-187.1187|1.0000
91754029|NCT05431387|183401118|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-63.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2292||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.9952|61.4704||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 11||61.4704|-187.9952|1.0000
91883822|NCT03459612|183661191|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.42||||||||1.42|-2.00|
91883823|NCT03459612|183661191|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-2.08||||||||-2.08|-5.53|
91754030|NCT05431387|183401118|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-57.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2475||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.1302|67.4727||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 12||67.4727|-182.1302|1.0000
91754031|NCT05431387|183401119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.319||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Abstinence from Week 9 to 16||5.319|0.820|0.1470
91754032|NCT05431387|183401119|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.1||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.211||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||||0.211|-0.044|0.1470
91759611|NCT05362058|183411929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||3.44|0.57|0.006
91759612|NCT05362058|183411930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) -LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.63|-1.03|0.638
91759613|NCT05362058|183411930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.60|-1.24|0.499
91759614|NCT05362058|183411930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||1.01|-0.68|0.695
91759615|NCT05362058|183411930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) -LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.71|-1.17|0.626
91759616|NCT05362058|183411931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L Health State Index Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.004|-0.034|0.128
91883824|NCT03459612|183661192|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.15||||||||1.15|-1.71|
91759617|NCT05362058|183411931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ VAS Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.58|-2.80|0.196
91759618|NCT05362058|183411931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L Health State Index Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.008|-0.029|0.285
91883825|NCT03459612|183661192|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.08||||||||1.08|-1.71|
91883826|NCT03459612|183661192|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.27||||||||-1.27|-4.13|
91883827|NCT03459612|183661193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3||0.6875|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.6875
91883828|NCT03459612|183661193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.3750
91883829|NCT03459612|183661193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.0115|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0115
91754033|NCT04088331|183401167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact binomial test|||"Hypotheses:~H0: p ≤ 0.65 H1: p \> 0.65 where p = the proportion of subjects who are a treatment success.~Hypotheses evaluated using a one-sided exact binomial test.~Power calculation assumed a treatment success rate of 80%. With a one-sided type I error of 0.025 and a type II error of 0.10 (90% power), a sample size of 96 subjects needed to demonstrate the proportion of subjects who are a treatment success exceeds 65%."||||< 0.001
91754034|NCT03500172|183401179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.455
91754035|NCT03500172|183401180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962||||||Statistical significance threshold: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.962
91754036|NCT03500172|183401181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU for steady partner, living together vs. single.||0.99|0.61|<0.05
91754037|NCT03500172|183401181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.51||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU for 5-9 new clients in the past month vs. 0 clients in the past month.||2.51|1.02|<0.05
91754038|NCT03500172|183401181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.57||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU for use of marijuana in the past 30 days vs. no marijuana use in the past 30 days||1.57|1.09|<0.05
91754039|NCT03500172|183401181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.52||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those experiencing physical violence in the past 6 months vs. no experience of physical violence in the past 6 months.||1.52|1.01|<0.05
91754040|NCT03500172|183401181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.0||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those who have experienced sexual violence in the past 6 months vs. those who have not||2.00|1.31|<0.05
91754041|NCT03500172|183401181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.29||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those with viral loads from 50-1000 copies/mL at baseline vs. \<50 copies/mL.||3.29|1.65|<0.05
91754042|NCT03500172|183401181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.47|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.36||Threshold for significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those with viral load greater than 1000 copies/mL vs. those with viral load less than 50 copies/mL.||3.36|1.82|<0.05
91883830|NCT03459612|183661194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.1563|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.1563
91883831|NCT03459612|183661194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.5938|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.5938
91754043|NCT03500172|183401182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||Threshold of significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.756
91754044|NCT03500172|183401183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295||||||Threshold of statistical significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.295
91754045|NCT03500172|183401184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149||||||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.149
91754046|NCT03500172|183401185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||Threshold of significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.301
91754047|NCT03500172|183401188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212||||||Threshold of statistical significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.212
91883832|NCT03459612|183661194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.0938|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0938
91883833|NCT03459612|183661195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.1250
91883834|NCT03459612|183661195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.9590
91883835|NCT03459612|183661195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.76||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0097
91883836|NCT02473042|183661199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2787|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2787
91883837|NCT02473042|183661202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8252
91883838|NCT02473042|183661203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8277
91883839|NCT02473042|183661204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3908|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Coping question (Re-categorized)||||0.3908
91883840|NCT02473042|183661204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6029|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Nausea question||||0.6029
91883841|NCT02473042|183661204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7785|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Pain question||||0.7785
91883842|NCT02473042|183661204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8434|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Recovery question (Re-categorized)||||0.8434
91883843|NCT02473042|183661205|OTHER|||||||0.2742|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Coping question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.2742
91883844|NCT02473042|183661205|OTHER|||||||0.2747|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Nausea question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.2747
91883845|NCT02473042|183661205|OTHER|||||||0.5608|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Pain question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.5608
91883846|NCT02473042|183661205|OTHER|||||||0.1014||||||There is no statistically significant association between expectancy and complete PONV control.|Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Recovery question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.1014
91883847|NCT02242643|183661256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|Seroconversion rate (SCR) Difference (%)|-6.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-2.27|||||For A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) vaccine strain.|||-2.27|-10.34|
91908560|NCT01964352|183712820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|1.137|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.137|0.078|0.0246
91754048|NCT03298451|183401205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||The adjusted alpha levels (0.0398) for the two-sided superiority test were derived based upon the exact number of OS events for each comparison using the Lan and DeMets approach that approximates the O'Brien Fleming spending function.|Log Rank|||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). The values of the stratification factors were obtained from IVRS.||||0.0035
91754049|NCT03298451|183401205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). Values of the variables used for adjustment were obtained from IVRS.||0.92|0.66|
91754050|NCT03298451|183401206|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-interiority for the comparison of arm Durva 1500 mg vs Sora 400 mg is declared if the upper limit of the two-sided alpha adjusted CI for HR is less than the NI margin of 1.08.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.67|0.73|1.03|||Regression, Cox||The 95.67% confidence interval were derived based upon the exact number of OS events for each comparison using the Lan and DeMets approach that approximates the O'Brien Fleming spending function.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). Values of the variables used for adjustment were obtained from IVRS.||1.03|0.73|
91754051|NCT03298451|183401206|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was tested sequentially per protocol as non-inferiority was satisfied.||||||0.0674||||||The adjusted alpha levels (0.0433) for the two-sided superiority test were derived based upon the exact number of OS events for each comparison using the Lan and DeMets approach that approximates the O'Brien Fleming spending function.|Log Rank|||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). The values of the stratification factors were obtained from IVRS.||||0.0674
91754052|NCT03824158|183401222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
91754053|NCT03824158|183401223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.76
91754054|NCT03824158|183401224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91754055|NCT03824158|183401225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91754056|NCT03824158|183401226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||Advance directive or living will||||0.002
91754057|NCT03824158|183401226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||POLST||||0.02
91754058|NCT03824158|183401226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||Code Status||||0.78
91754059|NCT03824158|183401226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||Goals of Care discussion||||0.61
91754060|NCT03824158|183401227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
91754061|NCT03824158|183401228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91754062|NCT03824158|183401229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91754063|NCT03824158|183401230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.83
91754064|NCT03824158|183401231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Total Score p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91754065|NCT03824158|183401232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IES-R Total Score p-value||||0.01
91754066|NCT03824158|183401233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91754067|NCT03824158|183401234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91754068|NCT03824158|183401235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91754069|NCT03824158|183401236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4
91754070|NCT03824158|183401237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
91754071|NCT03824158|183401238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
91754072|NCT03824158|183401239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91754073|NCT03824158|183401240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
91754074|NCT03824158|183401241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91754075|NCT04908280|183401244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0308|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0308
91754076|NCT06987201|183401259|OTHER|Test for Difference Between Groups|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.398|-1.902|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.902|-3.398|<0.001
91754077|NCT01299571|183401260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.8||||||95.0|3.2|4.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with adverse events.|||4.4|3.2|
91754078|NCT02486718|183401263|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.013|||Log Rank|||||1.013|0.710|0.0683
91754079|NCT02486718|183401264|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|0.998||||||||0.998|0.691|
91754080|NCT02486718|183401265|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|0.91||||||||0.910|0.545|
91754081|NCT02486718|183401267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|12.23||||||||12.23|-0.28|
91754082|NCT02486718|183401268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|13.36||||||||13.36|-0.06|
91754083|NCT02486718|183401269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|10.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|19.79||||||||19.79|1.56|
91754084|NCT02486718|183401270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|11.9||||||||11.90|-0.94|
91754085|NCT02486718|183401271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|4.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|11.7||||||||11.70|-1.94|
91754086|NCT02486718|183401272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|10.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|19.76||||||||19.76|1.16|
91908561|NCT01964352|183712820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.417|2.487|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.487|1.417|<0.0001
91908562|NCT01964352|183712820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|1.035|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.035|-0.021|0.0599
91908563|NCT01964352|183712820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.983|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.983|0.907|<0.0001
91883848|NCT02242643|183661256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|SCR Difference (%)|-6.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|-2.8|||||For A/Texas/50/2012 (H3N2) vaccine strain|||-2.80|-10.68|
91908564|NCT01964352|183712820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.7081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.626|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.626|-0.425|0.7081
91754087|NCT02486718|183401273|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.761||||||||0.761|0.332|
91754088|NCT04865770|183401320|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.98||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate, on log scale.||1.01|0.96|0.1333
91754089|NCT04865770|183401320|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Right cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate, on log scale.||1.01|0.96|0.2487
91754090|NCT04865770|183401320|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Left cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate, on log scale.||1.00|0.94|0.0907
91754091|NCT04865770|183401321|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral medulla: The responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.03|0.94|0.5619
91754092|NCT04865770|183401321|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Right medulla: The responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.93|0.2774
91754093|NCT04865770|183401321|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.7924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Left medulla: The responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.04|0.94|0.7924
91754094|NCT04865770|183401322|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.1||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral kidney: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.24|0.98|0.0958
91754095|NCT04865770|183401322|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.17||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Right kidney: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.33|1.03|0.0145
91754096|NCT04865770|183401322|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.06||||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||ANCOVA|||Left kidney: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.21|0.94|0.3311
91754097|NCT04865770|183401323|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.8651
91754098|NCT04865770|183401323|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Right cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.7240
91754099|NCT04865770|183401323|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.7195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Left cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.7195
91754100|NCT04865770|183401324|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.9335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral medulla: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.9335
91754101|NCT04865770|183401324|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.6517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Right medulla: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.01|0.98|0.6517
91754102|NCT04865770|183401324|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.9017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Left medulla: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.9017
91754103|NCT04763824|183401334|OTHER|Fisher Exact tests|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Also used Fisher exact tests.||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
91754104|NCT04763824|183401336|OTHER|Fisher exact tests|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
91754105|NCT04763824|183401338|OTHER|Fisher exact tests|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
91754106|NCT04763824|183401340|OTHER|Fisher exact test|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
91754107|NCT04763824|183401342|OTHER|Fisher exact test|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
91883849|NCT02242643|183661256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|SCR Difference (%)|-16.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.68|-12.02|||||For B/Massachusetts/2/2012 (Yamagata) vaccine strain|||-12.02|-20.68|
91883850|NCT02242643|183661256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|SCR Difference (%)|-11.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|-8.21|||||For B/Brisbane/60/2008 (Victoria) vaccine strain.|||-8.21|-15.28|
91883851|NCT02242643|183661257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.95|0.77|
91883852|NCT02242643|183661257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.94|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.94|0.77|
91883853|NCT02242643|183661257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.71|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.71|0.59|
91754108|NCT04763824|183401344|OTHER|Fisher exact test|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
91754109|NCT05579249|183401415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.78|||Regression, Linear|||Week 52 responses were analysed using a binary regression model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.||4.78|2.12|<0.0001
91754110|NCT05028517|183401424|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA Omnibus F test|0.511||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.602
91754111|NCT05028517|183401424|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|-0.22||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.23||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.334.|Regression, Linear|||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Full information maximum likelihood (FMIL) was used for missing data in MPlus. Baseline and FMF Connect group status were entered into the regression model simultaneously. The dependent variable entered was the measure at the 12-week follow-up to determine treatment effects.||0.23|-0.69|.33
91754112|NCT05028517|183401425|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA Omnibus F test|1.245||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.294
91754113|NCT05028517|183401425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.602|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .652||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data in SPSS. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.524
91754114|NCT05028517|183401426|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|2.585||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.039
91754115|NCT05028517|183401426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.893|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .606||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.548
91754116|NCT05028517|183401427|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|2.723||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||0.032
91754117|NCT05028517|183401427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.143|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = 4.595||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.013
91754118|NCT05028517|183401428|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.588||||0.672|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||0.672
91754119|NCT05028517|183401428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.893|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .776||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.463
91754120|NCT05028517|183401429|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|2.612||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||0.038
91883854|NCT02242643|183661257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.69|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.69|0.56|
91883855|NCT05093504|183661298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
91883856|NCT03151551|183661307|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|8.1||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.8|||Regression, Logistic|||After data lock and initial analysis run, a medical inconsistency in baseline PASI data was identified (PASI=0 but BSA≥3%). The scenario was not anticipated or described in protocol or SAP. The inconsistency was resolved using medical judgment. The impacted participants had met baseline criteria for active psoriasis. Therefore, in the primary analysis, participants with baseline PASI=0 \& BSA≥3% were considered PASI100 responders if, and only if, PASI=0 \& BSA=0 achieved at week 24.||15.8|0.5|0.036
91883857|NCT03151551|183661308|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportions of responders on IXE minus ADA is greater than the pre-specified margin -12%, IXE will be deemed non-inferior to ADA.|Rate Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|12.1||||||||12.1|-4.3|
91908565|NCT01964352|183712821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.457|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.524|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.524|0.390|<0.0001
91908566|NCT01964352|183712821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.225|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.225|0.095|<0.0001
91908567|NCT01964352|183712821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.465|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.465|0.331|<0.0001
91908568|NCT01964352|183712821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.165|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.165|0.036|0.0023
91908569|NCT01964352|183712821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.365|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.365|0.229|<0.0001
91754121|NCT05028517|183401429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.462|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = 2.544||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.084
91754122|NCT05028517|183401430|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.196||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.940
91908570|NCT01964352|183712821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.123|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.123|-0.005|0.0701
91759619|NCT05362058|183411931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ VAS Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||1.44|-2.15|0.701
91759620|NCT01393639|183411974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.0|15.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||15|5|
91759621|NCT01393639|183411974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|18.0|31.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||31|18|
91759622|NCT01393639|183411974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|25.0|39.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||39|25|
91759623|NCT01393639|183411974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|29.0|43.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||43|29|
91759624|NCT01393639|183411974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.0|22.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||22|6|
91759625|NCT01393639|183411974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|27.0|42.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||42|27|
91759626|NCT01393639|183411974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-32.0|-17.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||-17|-32|
91759627|NCT01393639|183411974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.0|-4.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||-4|-16|
91759628|NCT01393639|183411974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.0|4.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||4|-9|
91759629|NCT01393639|183411974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.0|8.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||8|-5|
91754123|NCT05028517|183401430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.961|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .040||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.961
91754124|NCT05028517|183401431|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.59||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.671
91759630|NCT01393639|183411975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|17.03|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||17.03|-13.75|
91759631|NCT01393639|183411975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.16|8.75|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||8.75|-22.16|
91759632|NCT01393639|183411975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.45|10.3|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||10.30|-20.45|
91759633|NCT01393639|183411975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.19|3.72|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||3.72|-27.19|
91759634|NCT01393639|183411976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|19.61|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||19.61|-12.92|
91759635|NCT01393639|183411976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.86|9.81|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||9.81|-22.86|
91759636|NCT01393639|183411976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.11|20.55|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||20.55|-12.11|
91759637|NCT01393639|183411976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|29.15|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||29.15|-3.49|
91759638|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|11.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|29.56|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||29.56|-6.84|
91759639|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|30.19|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||30.19|-5.88|
91759640|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|38.17|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||38.17|0.91|
91759641|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|22.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|40.58|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||40.58|3.60|
91759642|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|26.25|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||26.25|-9.38|
91759643|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|34.84|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||34.84|-1.84|
91759644|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.58|10.8|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.80|-28.58|
91759645|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|35.49|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.49|-4.85|
91759646|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|26.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|46.53|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||46.53|6.80|
91759647|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|13.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|33.4|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||33.40|-7.01|
91759648|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|29.33|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||29.33|-11.56|
91759649|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|25.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|45.07|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 comparisons presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||45.07|5.35|
91759650|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|21.85|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||21.85|-17.40|
91759651|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|35.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.45|-4.24|
91883858|NCT03151551|183661309|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|13.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|21.6|||Regression, Logistic|||After data lock and initial analysis run, a medical inconsistency in baseline PASI data was identified (PASI=0 but BSA≥3%). The scenario was not anticipated or described in protocol or SAP. The inconsistency was resolved using medical judgment. The impacted participants had met baseline criteria for active psoriasis. Therefore, in the primary analysis, participants with baseline PASI=0 \& BSA≥3% were considered PASI100 responders if, and only if, PASI=0 \& BSA=0 achieved at week 24.||21.6|5.3|0.001
91883859|NCT03151551|183661310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-2.46|0.155
91754125|NCT05028517|183401431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.523|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2)=1.696||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.190
91754126|NCT05028517|183401432|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.896||||0.468|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.468
91754127|NCT05028517|183401432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.683||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.817|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .384||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.683
91754128|NCT05028517|183401433|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|3.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||0.01
91754129|NCT05028517|183401433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.480|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2)=2.081||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.131
91754130|NCT05028517|183401434|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|1.384||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.257
91754131|NCT05028517|183401434|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.49||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.94||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.055|Regression, Linear|||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Full information maximum likelihood (FMIL) was used for missing data in MPlus. Baseline and FMF Connect group status were entered into the regression model simultaneously. The dependent variable entered was the measure at the 12-week follow-up to determine treatment effects.||0.94|-0.02|.039
91754132|NCT05028517|183401435|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|1.686||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.192
91754133|NCT05028517|183401435|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.47||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.93||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.055|Regression, Linear|||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Full information maximum likelihood (FMIL) was used for missing data in MPlus. Baseline and FMF Connect group status were entered into the regression model simultaneously. The dependent variable entered was the measure at the 12-week follow-up to determine treatment effects.||0.93|0.02|.039
91754134|NCT05028517|183401436|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.651||||0.524|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using ANOVA for 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.524
91754135|NCT05028517|183401436|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.46||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.91||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.066|Regression, Linear|||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Full information maximum likelihood (FMIL) was used for missing data in MPlus. The dependent variable entered was the measure at the 12-week follow-up to determine treatment effects.||0.91|0.00|.048
91754136|NCT05028517|183401437|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|1.32||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.255
91754137|NCT01280695|183401444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.0|-34.0|0.4195
91754138|NCT01280695|183401444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-18.0||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.0|-38.0|0.0811
91754139|NCT01280695|183401444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-20.0||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|-38.0|0.0639
91754140|NCT01280695|183401444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-32.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-12.0|-50.0|0.0022
91754141|NCT01216683|183401450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||one-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study was designed to detect a 16% difference in CR rate from 50% in the Bendamustine + Rituximab arms to 66% in the Bendamustine + Rituximab + Bortezomib arm, with 90% power at the one-sided alpha 0.15 level.||||0.02
91754142|NCT01216683|183401451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires status and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index||||||0.02
91883860|NCT03151551|183661311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.43|-0.54|0.823
91883861|NCT03151551|183661312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.104||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.47|-4.80|0.752
91883862|NCT03151551|183661313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-6.83|0.177
91883863|NCT03151551|183661314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.391||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.38|-4.08|0.332
91883864|NCT03151551|183661315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|-0.86|0.592
91883865|NCT03151551|183661316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.15|0.176
91883866|NCT03151551|183661317|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.7|||Regression, Logistic|||After data lock and initial analysis run, a medical inconsistency in baseline PASI data was identified (PASI=0 but BSA≥3%). The scenario was not anticipated or described in protocol or SAP. The inconsistency was resolved using medical judgment. The impacted participants had met baseline criteria for active psoriasis. Therefore, in the primary analysis, participants with baseline PASI=0 \& BSA≥3% were considered PASI100 responders if, and only if, PASI=0 \& BSA=0 achieved at week 52.||20.7|5.4|<0.001
91883867|NCT03151551|183661318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.26|0.368
91883868|NCT03151551|183661319|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|6.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.5|||Regression, Logistic|||MDA-18 Entheseal Points||14.5|-1.8|0.108
91754143|NCT04327024|183401478|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.08|||ANCOVA|Model included change from baseline as the dependent variable, treatment as the independent variable and baseline peak VO2 as covariate.||||1.08|-1.28|0.862
91754144|NCT04327024|183401479|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.64|||ANCOVA|Model included change from baseline as the dependent variable, treatment as the independent variable and baseline peak VO2 as covariate.||||1.64|-0.76|0.472
91883869|NCT03151551|183661319|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|5.3||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.5|||Regression, Logistic|||MDA-6 Entheseal Points||13.5|-2.9|0.179
91754145|NCT04327024|183401480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|8.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment as the independent variable and visit, visit by treatment, and baseline KCCQ-TSS as covariates.||"H0: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs placebo) = 0 Ha: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs placebo) ≠ 0~A hierarchical test sequence was used for the confirmatory analysis of the primary and secondary objectives in order to address the issue of multiple testing and control the Type I error rate at an overall two-sided 0.05 level."||8.94|-2.65|0.287
91883870|NCT03151551|183661320|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-1.1||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.7|-8.9|0.846
91883871|NCT03151551|183661321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-0.83|0.004
91759652|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|42.23|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||42.23|2.20|
91883872|NCT03151551|183661322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.72|-0.48|0.687
91883873|NCT03151551|183661323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.19|0.507
91883874|NCT03151551|183661324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.951||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|25.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.99|-32.78|0.820
91883875|NCT03151551|183661325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-3.09|0.052
91883876|NCT03151551|183661326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.949||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-4.57|0.005
91883877|NCT03151551|183661327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.68|0.158
91883878|NCT03151551|183661328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.49|0.711
91883879|NCT03151551|183661329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.85|-0.80|0.439
91883880|NCT03151551|183661330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.15|-1.23|0.594
91883881|NCT03151551|183661331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.03|0.979
91883882|NCT03151551|183661332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.782||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.28|1.28|0.008
91883883|NCT03151551|183661333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.78|<0.001
91883884|NCT03151551|183661334|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|5.7||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|13.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Effectiveness of Medication||13.7|-2.4|0.165
91883885|NCT03151551|183661334|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|6.7||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|14.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Effectiveness over Time of Medication||14.8|-1.4|0.098
91883886|NCT03151551|183661334|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.6||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Long Term Safety of Medication||12.6|-3.4|0.241
91883887|NCT03151551|183661334|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.9||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|13.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Satisfaction with Medication||13.0|-3.1|0.215
91883888|NCT03151551|183661334|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Mostly Satisfied to any Questions||9.7|-5.5|0.561
91883889|NCT02783573|183661360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.752|5.776|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.776|-0.752|0.129
91805160|NCT00113022|183487173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.867||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.565|51.006||The test reported here examines the main effect for placebo versus drug.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive value indicates greater depression in the active treatment group compared to placebo.|Per protocol, a linear mixed model with a first order autoregressive covariance structure was used. Baseline was included as a covariate. Drug and visit were main effects with an interaction between them included.||51.006|-46.565|.919
91805161|NCT02021773|183487175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.937||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.28|-1.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.21|-44.28|0.0386
91805162|NCT02021773|183487175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.88|-8.95||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.95|-51.88|0.0057
91805163|NCT00191139|183487222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survival rate|40.6||||||95.0|23.8|56.8|||normal approximation|Count the number of surviving participants at each time interval to get survival rates.||||56.8|23.8|
91883890|NCT02783573|183661360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.725|3.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.296|-3.725|0.903
91883891|NCT02783573|183661361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.488|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.580|-6.488|0.100
91883892|NCT02783573|183661361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.876|0.525|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.525|-6.876|0.092
91908571|NCT02831673|183712822|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment with DTG+ 3TC was to be declared non-inferior to treatment with DTG+TDF/FTC if the lower end of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups in response rates at Week 48 greater than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.5|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<=versus \[vs.\]\>100,000 c/mL) and cluster of differentiation 4+ (CD4+) cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells per cubic millimeter).|||1.5|-6.7|
91754146|NCT04327024|183401481|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment as the independent variable and visit, visit by treatment, and baseline KCCQ-TSS as covariates.||"H0: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs allopurinol) = 0 Ha: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs allopurinol) ≠ 0~A hierarchical test sequence was used for the confirmatory analysis of the primary and secondary objectives in order to address the issue of multiple testing and control the Type I error rate at an overall two-sided 0.05 level."||5.61|-5.90|0.960
91805164|NCT00191139|183487222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survival rate|55.7||||||95.0|36.8|70.9|||normal approximation|Count the number of surviving participants at each time interval to get survival rates.||||70.9|36.8|
91805165|NCT00191139|183487223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|75.0||||||95.0|56.6|88.5|||normal approximation|||||88.5|56.6|
91754147|NCT03968159|183401483|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.8|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.8|-2.5|0.2956
91805166|NCT00191139|183487223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|84.4||||||95.0|67.2|94.7|||Normal approximation|||||94.7|67.2|
91883893|NCT02783573|183661362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.045|3.499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.499|-1.045|0.285
91754148|NCT00443781|183401502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||McNemar|Exact test was used.||Mcnemar test was used to test the difference between paired PD (provocative discography) and F.A.D. (Functional Anesthetic Discography) proportions.||||0.002
91805167|NCT00191139|183487224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
91805168|NCT00191139|183487225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.38
91805169|NCT01817530|183487230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.12|95.05||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||95.05|11.12|< 0.001
91805170|NCT01817530|183487230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805171|NCT01817530|183487230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.72|41.3||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||41.3|6.72|< 0.001
91805172|NCT01817530|183487230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91883894|NCT02783573|183661362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.889|1.843|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.843|-2.889|0.661
91883895|NCT02783573|183661363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.103|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.56|-10.103|0.079
91883896|NCT02783573|183661363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.573|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.62|-7.573|0.486
91883897|NCT02783573|183661364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.391|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.391|-0.890|0.663
91883898|NCT02783573|183661364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.423|0.983|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.983|-1.423|0.717
91883899|NCT02783573|183661366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.297|4.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.889|-4.297|0.899
91883900|NCT02783573|183661366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.267|1.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.238|-7.267|0.164
91883901|NCT02783573|183661367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.891|0.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.362|-2.891|0.126
91883902|NCT02783573|183661367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.867|1.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.566|-1.867|0.862
91883903|NCT02783573|183661368|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.49||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.35|47.26|||ANCOVA|||||47.26|-122.35|0.343
91883904|NCT02783573|183661368|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.12||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.17|38.73|||ANCOVA|||||38.73|-120.17|0.276
91883905|NCT02783573|183661369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.3||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.75|8.87|||ANCOVA|||||8.87|-132.75|0.079
91883906|NCT02783573|183661369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.27||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.88|36.59|||ANCOVA|||||36.59|-104.88|0.303
91754149|NCT01533922|183401505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 once daily (QD) minus Placebo|||0.298|0.191|<0.0001
91754150|NCT01533922|183401505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg|||0.172|0.065|<0.0001
91754151|NCT01533922|183401505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.167|0.061|<0.0001
91754152|NCT01533922|183401505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.271|0.164|<0.0001
91883907|NCT02783573|183661370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.29||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.015|48.659|||ANCOVA|||||48.659|-16.015|0.283
91754153|NCT01533922|183401505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.145|0.038|0.0008
91754154|NCT01533922|183401505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.141|0.034|0.0015
91754155|NCT01533922|183401506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.132|1.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.292|1.132|<0.0001
91754156|NCT01533922|183401506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.070|0.937|0.9633
91754157|NCT01533922|183401506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.8415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.061|0.930|0.8415
91754158|NCT01533922|183401506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.184|1.351|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.351|1.184|<0.0001
91754159|NCT01533922|183401506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.119|0.980|0.1717
91754160|NCT01533922|183401506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated asTiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.110|0.972|0.2610
91754161|NCT01533922|183401507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.001|-0.004|0.0004
91754162|NCT01533922|183401507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.002|-0.001|0.8291
91883908|NCT02783573|183661370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.21||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.929|16.82|||ANCOVA|||||16.820|-42.929|0.349
91883909|NCT02783573|183661371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.457|6.64|||ANCOVA|||||6.640|-3.457|0.494
91883910|NCT02783573|183661371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.743|2.481|||ANCOVA|||||2.481|-6.743|0.323
91883911|NCT02783573|183661372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.76||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.569|31.017|||ANCOVA|||||31.017|-26.569|0.873
91883912|NCT02783573|183661372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.43||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.488|17.096|||ANCOVA|||||17.096|-47.488|0.337
91883913|NCT02783573|183661373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.015|0.927
91883914|NCT02783573|183661373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.015|0.930
91883915|NCT02783573|183661374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.708|0.464|||ANCOVA|||||0.464|-3.708|0.127
91883916|NCT02783573|183661374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.172|-0.991|||ANCOVA|||||-0.991|-5.172|0.004
91883917|NCT00656201|183661378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was an equivalence comparison. The study was designed to detect a 14% pregnancy difference between the arms with 80% power and one interim analysis using O'Brien-Fleming parameters and an experiment-wise alpha level of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Crinone is the numerator and IM Progesterone is the denominator.|||1.8|0.8|<0.05
91908572|NCT02831673|183712823|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.4|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<=vs.\>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells per cubic millimeter).|||3.4|-4.2|
91754163|NCT01533922|183401507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.8570
91805173|NCT01817530|183487230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|25.84||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||25.84|4.79|< 0.001
91754164|NCT01533922|183401507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.002|-0.005|<0.0001
91754165|NCT01533922|183401507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.7294
91754166|NCT01533922|183401507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.4567
91754167|NCT01533922|183401508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.352|0.293|<0.0001
91754168|NCT01533922|183401508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.160|0.101|<0.0001
91754169|NCT01533922|183401508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.143|0.084|<0.0001
91754170|NCT01533922|183401508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.315|0.256|<0.0001
91754171|NCT01533922|183401508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.123|0.063|<0.0001
91754172|NCT01533922|183401508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.106|0.047|<0.0001
91754173|NCT01302054|183401550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-2.02||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||||-2.02|-2.63|<0.0001
91754174|NCT01302054|183401551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.13||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used. Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Multiple hypothesis testing was carried out in a hierarchical sequentially rejective manner. Statistical testing between fesoterodine and placebo (Analysis of covariance \[ANCOVA\]) was carried out only if the change from baseline at Week 12 in UUI episodes for fesoterodine group was found statistically significant (paired t-test).||-0.13|-0.87|0.0079
91754175|NCT01302054|183401552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.07||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||0.07|-0.86|0.0931
91754176|NCT01302054|183401553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.02||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||-0.02|-1.37|0.0438
91754177|NCT01302054|183401554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change at Week 12: the p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91805174|NCT01817530|183487230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91754178|NCT01302054|183401555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|||||Change at Week 12: the p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0095
91754179|NCT01302054|183401556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.58||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||-3.58|-11.10|0.0001
91754180|NCT01302054|183401557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|12.91||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Concern Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||12.91|5.12|<0.0001
91754181|NCT01302054|183401557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|11.62||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Coping Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||11.62|3.87|<0.0001
91754182|NCT01302054|183401557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.45||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Sleep Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||10.45|2.60|0.0012
91805175|NCT01817530|183487230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.81|49.27||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||49.27|7.81|< 0.001
91805176|NCT01817530|183487230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805177|NCT01817530|183487230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|12.3||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||12.3|2.95|< 0.001
91805178|NCT01817530|183487230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805179|NCT01817530|183487230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|22.34||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||22.34|4.79|< 0.001
91805180|NCT01817530|183487230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805181|NCT01817530|183487231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.04|641.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||641.22|38.04|< 0.001
91805182|NCT01817530|183487231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805183|NCT01817530|183487231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|206.88||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||206.88|21.1|< 0.001
91805184|NCT01817530|183487231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805185|NCT01817530|183487231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.42|156.09||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||156.09|17.42|< 0.001
91805186|NCT01817530|183487231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805187|NCT01817530|183487231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.45|61.96||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||61.96|10.45|< 0.001
91805188|NCT01817530|183487231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91908573|NCT02831673|183712824|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.0|||||Week 96. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||0.0|-9.8|
91805189|NCT01817530|183487231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|21.25||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||21.25|4.38|< 0.001
91805190|NCT01817530|183487231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805191|NCT01817530|183487231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|36.67||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||36.67|7.13|< 0.001
91805192|NCT01817530|183487231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805193|NCT01817530|183487232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|123.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.93|584.85||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||584.85|25.93|< 0.001
91805194|NCT01817530|183487232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805195|NCT01817530|183487232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.59|121.03||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||121.03|13.59|< 0.001
91805196|NCT01817530|183487232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805197|NCT01817530|183487232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|48.58||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||48.58|7.44|< 0.001
91805198|NCT01817530|183487232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805199|NCT01817530|183487232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.29|55.77||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||55.77|9.29|< 0.001
91805200|NCT01817530|183487232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805201|NCT01817530|183487232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|24.27||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||24.27|4.88|< 0.001
91908574|NCT02831673|183712825|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.1|||||Week 144. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||2.1|-9.4|
91754183|NCT01302054|183401557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.36||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Social Interaction Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||7.36|0.90|0.0123
91754184|NCT01302054|183401557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|10.57||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Total HRQL - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||10.57|3.63|<0.0001
91754185|NCT01302054|183401558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
91754186|NCT01302054|183401559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0027
91754187|NCT01302054|183401560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment difference at Week 4: p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0427
91754188|NCT01302054|183401560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment difference at Week 12: p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1461
91754189|NCT02639338|183401561|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 83%.|||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated. The statistical test was performed in SOF/VEL for 12 weeks at 0.05 significance level if and only if the statistical test performed in SOF/VEL/VOX for 8 weeks was significant at 0.05 significance level.|Binomial Test|||||||<0.001
91754190|NCT02639338|183401561|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 83%.|||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated. The statistical test was performed in SOF/VEL for 12 weeks at 0.05 significance level if and only if the statistical test performed in SOF/VEL/VOX for 8 weeks was significant at 0.05 significance level.|2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||||||<0.001
91754191|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||||90.0|-3.8|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.59|-3.80|
91754192|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||||90.0|-3.55|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.31|-3.55|
91754193|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99||||||90.0|-7.69|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-2.30|-7.69|
91754194|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||||90.0|-4.58|-1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.34|-4.58|
91754195|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88||||||90.0|-7.58|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-2.19|-7.58|
91754196|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.82||||||90.0|-5.44|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-2.20|-5.44|
91754197|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||||90.0|-4.74|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.64|-4.74|
91754198|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||||90.0|-3.38|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.15|-3.38|
91759653|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|24.53|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||24.53|-14.60|
91805202|NCT01817530|183487232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805203|NCT01817530|183487232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|21.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||21.22|4.46|< 0.001
91805204|NCT01817530|183487232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805205|NCT01817530|183487233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.57|71.32||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||71.32|8.57|< 0.001
91805206|NCT01817530|183487233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805207|NCT01817530|183487233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.57|45.05||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||45.05|6.57|< 0.001
91805208|NCT01817530|183487233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805209|NCT01817530|183487233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|19.92||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||19.92|3.79|< 0.001
91754199|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||||90.0|-4.77|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.62|-4.77|
91754200|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||||90.0|-2.49|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.74|-2.49|
91754201|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||||90.0|-4.99|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.39|-4.99|
91805210|NCT01817530|183487233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805211|NCT01817530|183487233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.11|49.02||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||49.02|7.11|< 0.001
91908575|NCT02831673|183712826|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||The generalized Wilcoxon procedure was used to estimate a p-value for detecting a difference in cumulative incidence curves between treatment groups.|Generalized Wilcoxon procedure||Hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.|||1.16|0.86|0.658
91805212|NCT01817530|183487233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805213|NCT01817530|183487233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|10.04||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.04|2.43|< 0.001
91805214|NCT01817530|183487233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805215|NCT01817530|183487233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.17|26.79|||Regression, Logistic|P value is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||26.79|5.17|< 0.001
91805216|NCT01817530|183487233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805217|NCT01817530|183487234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.02|98.83||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||98.83|10.02|< 0.001
91805218|NCT01817530|183487234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805219|NCT01817530|183487234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.77|35.91||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||35.91|5.77|< 0.001
91805220|NCT01817530|183487234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91908576|NCT02831673|183712830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.1||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|43.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 24. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||43.6|-9.4|0.206
91754202|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||||90.0|-2.47|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.77|-2.47|
91754203|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.22||||||90.0|-6.91|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.52|-6.91|
91754204|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51||||||90.0|-4.13|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.90|-4.13|
91754205|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||||90.0|-4.63|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.76|-4.63|
91754206|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32||||||90.0|-3.94|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.70|-3.94|
91754207|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.36||||||90.0|-8.22|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.50|-8.22|
91754208|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93||||||90.0|-6.29|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.56|-6.29|
91754209|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.91||||||90.0|-10.77|-3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-3.05|-10.77|
91754210|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.79||||||90.0|-8.15|-3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-3.42|-8.15|
91754211|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||||90.0|-9.66|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.94|-9.66|
91754212|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.65||||||90.0|-9.01|-4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-4.29|-9.01|
91754213|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27||||||90.0|-8.13|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.41|-8.13|
91754214|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||||90.0|-6.01|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.29|-6.01|
91883918|NCT01434680|183661379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at 28 days following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two coprimary comparisons, MenC-CRM LIQ and MenC-CRM EMV would be declared equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccines.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log10 transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing MenC-CRM LIQ to MenC-CRM EMV at 28 days after a single vaccination were both within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.00|0.67|<0.05
91883919|NCT01434680|183661379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at 28 days following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two coprimary comparisons,MenC-CRM ROS and MenC-CRM EMV would be declared equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccines.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.41|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log10-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing MenC-CRM ROS to MenC-CRM EMV at 28 days after a single vaccination were both within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.41|0.92|<0.05
91883920|NCT01434680|183661380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at 28 days following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, the two vaccine groups would be declared equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccines.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log10-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The secondary objective was to be assessed only if both primary objectives were met. Because of this, no adjustment for multiplicity was required. MenC-CRM liquid would be declared equivalent to MenC-CRM ROS if the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at approximately 28 days following vaccination was within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.89|0.58|<0.05
91883921|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||||95.0|17.2|17.3||||||IOP 1 year (n=11602)||17.3|17.2|
91883922|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9||||95.0|16.8|17.0||||||IOP 1 year (n=4450)||17.0|16.8|
91908577|NCT02831673|183712830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|33.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 48. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||33.0|-23.9|0.754
91754215|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||||90.0|-5.91|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.81|-5.91|
91754216|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||||90.0|-3.46|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.27|-3.46|
91754217|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||||90.0|-6.16|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.56|-6.16|
91754218|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43||||||90.0|-5.79|-1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.06|-5.79|
91883923|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2||||95.0|17.1|17.5||||||IOP 1 year (n=357)||17.5|17.1|
91883924|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||||95.0|16.4|17.3||||||IOP 1 year (n=220)||17.3|16.4|
91883925|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1||||95.0|17.5|17.8||||||IOP 1 year (n=3277)||17.8|17.5|
91883926|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||||95.0|17.0|17.1||||||IOP 2 years (n=8051)||17.1|17.0|
91883927|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9||||95.0|16.7|16.9||||||IOP 2 years (n=2808)||16.9|16.7|
91883928|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||||95.0|17.0|17.5||||||IOP 2 years (n=175)||17.5|17.0|
91883929|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||||95.0|15.9|17.2||||||IOP 2 years (n=83)||17.2|15.9|
91883930|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||||95.0|16.9|17.2||||||IOP 2 years (n=2002)||17.2|16.9|
91883931|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||||95.0|16.9|17.1||||||IOP 3 years (n=5469)||17.1|16.9|
91908578|NCT02831673|183712831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|42.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 96. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||42.4|-20.7|0.500
91883932|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||||95.0|16.7|17.0||||||IOP 3 years (n=1932)||17.0|16.7|
91883933|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||||95.0|16.9|18.1||||||IOP 3 years (n=64)||18.1|16.9|
91754219|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||||90.0|-7.33|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.39|-7.33|
91754220|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.26||||||90.0|-5.62|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.90|-5.62|
91754221|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||||90.0|-4.13|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||3.59|-4.13|
91754222|NCT00853840|183401570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26||||||90.0|-4.62|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.10|-4.62|
91754223|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.95||||||90.0|4.18|9.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||9.72|4.18|
91754224|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.51||||||90.0|2.73|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.28|2.73|
91754225|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.64||||||90.0|0.87|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||6.42|0.87|
91754226|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89||||||90.0|0.12|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||5.67|0.12|
91754227|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||||90.0|-0.71|4.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||4.83|-0.71|
91754228|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.45||||||90.0|2.68|8.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.22|2.68|
91754229|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12||||||90.0|1.34|6.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||6.89|1.34|
91754230|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.45||||||90.0|0.68|6.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||6.22|0.68|
91754231|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.33||||||90.0|3.7|10.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||10.95|3.70|
91754232|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.83||||||90.0|3.2|10.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||10.45|3.20|
91754233|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.02||||||90.0|1.4|8.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.65|1.40|
91883934|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||||95.0|15.7|17.4||||||IOP 3 years (n=44)||17.4|15.7|
91883935|NCT01012245|183661382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6||||95.0|16.7|17.1||||||IOP 3 years (n=1251)||17.1|16.7|
91883936|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.46|0.47||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=11966)||0.47|0.46|
91883937|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.43|0.44||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=4944)||0.44|0.43|
91883938|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||||95.0|0.35|0.43||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=88)||0.43|0.35|
91754234|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72||||||90.0|1.09|8.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.34|1.09|
91754235|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05||||||90.0|0.43|7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||7.67|0.43|
91754236|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.36||||||90.0|2.73|9.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||9.98|2.73|
91754237|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.08||||||90.0|1.45|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.70|1.45|
91754238|NCT00853840|183401571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||||90.0|-1.74|5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||5.51|-1.74|
91754239|NCT02725593|183401575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.15|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.15|-1.65|0.101
91754240|NCT02725593|183401576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.85|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.85|-2.42|0.340
91754241|NCT02725593|183401577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.96||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|9.62|||Fisher's exact test|||||9.62|-20.11|0.655
91754242|NCT02725593|183401578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|41.11|||Fisher's exact test|||||41.11|0.50|0.056
91754243|NCT03689244|183401579|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.95||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Ratio of Geometric mean of Selexipag to Placebo was reported.||1.07|0.84|0.412
91754244|NCT01355796|183401583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.75|-1.76|<0.05
91754245|NCT00969436|183401614|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-measles seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.52|
91754246|NCT00969436|183401614|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-mumps seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.52|
91754247|NCT00969436|183401614|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|5.02||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-rubella seroconversion rates.||5.02|-2.51|
91754248|NCT00969436|183401614|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|11.57||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-varicella seroconversion rates.||11.57|1.37|
91759654|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|35.63|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.63|-4.51|
91759655|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|23.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|43.06|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||43.06|3.31|
91759656|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.73|14.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||14.45|-24.73|
91759657|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|15.09|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.09|-23.79|
91759658|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|23.02|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||23.02|-16.94|
91759659|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|25.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||25.45|-14.26|
91759660|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-34.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-14.8|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-14.80|-53.40|
91883939|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.47|0.53||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=241)||0.53|0.47|
91883940|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.5|0.52||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=2949)||0.52|0.50|
91883941|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.46|0.47||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=8783)||0.47|0.46|
91883942|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||||95.0|0.42|0.44||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=3396)||0.44|0.42|
91883943|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||||95.0|0.33|0.45||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=31)||0.45|0.33|
91908579|NCT02831673|183712832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|31.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 144.Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||31.5|-34.2|0.934
91754249|NCT00969436|183401614|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-measles seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.46|
91883944|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.44|0.54||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=95)||0.54|0.44|
91754250|NCT00969436|183401614|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-mumps seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.48|
91754251|NCT00969436|183401614|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.02||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-rubella seroconversion rates.||5.02|-2.48|
91754252|NCT00969436|183401614|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|10.29||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-varicella seroconversion rates.||10.29|-1.59|
91754253|NCT00351273|183401623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the percentages of participants with response between all those who received combination therapy vs. placebo||||0.01
91883945|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.5|0.53||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=1934)||0.53|0.50|
91883946|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.44|0.45||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=6344)||0.45|0.44|
91883947|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22||||95.0|0.41|0.43||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=2372)||0.43|0.41|
91883948|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14||||95.0|0.27|0.39||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=25)||0.39|0.27|
91883949|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||||95.0|0.41|0.53||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=36)||0.53|0.41|
91883950|NCT01012245|183661384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26||||95.0|0.48|0.51||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=1283)||0.51|0.48|
91883951|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.45|0.46||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=11433)||0.46|0.45|
91883952|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||||95.0|0.42|0.43||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=4810)||0.43|0.42|
91883953|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||||95.0|0.33|0.42||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=87)||0.42|0.33|
91883954|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.47|0.53||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=232)||0.53|0.47|
91883955|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.5|0.52||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=2703)||0.52|0.50|
91883956|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.44|0.45||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=8427)||0.45|0.44|
91883957|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||||95.0|0.4|0.42||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=3276)||0.42|0.40|
91883958|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||||95.0|0.31|0.45||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=31)||0.45|0.31|
91883959|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.45|0.56||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=92)||0.56|0.45|
91908580|NCT02831673|183712843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum Cystatin C, Week 24|||0.00|-0.04|0.025
91908581|NCT02831673|183712843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum Cystatin C, Week 48|||-0.01|-0.05|0.001
91908582|NCT02831673|183712843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum RBP, Week 24|||1.0|-1.6|0.683
91883960|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.49|0.52||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=1812)||0.52|0.49|
91883961|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.43|0.44||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=6102)||0.44|0.43|
91754254|NCT01672866|183401631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0||||||A mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in least squares mean (LSMean) change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.0|-1.3|
91754255|NCT01672866|183401631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||||||An MMRM with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% CI for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in LSMean change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||0.8|-1.5|
91754256|NCT01672866|183401632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by the presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.73
91754257|NCT01672866|183401632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by the presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.85
91754258|NCT01018095|183401633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were assessed for normality, and tested accordingly. When appropriate, continuous variables were categorized using clinically relevant cut-points. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. The measure of association at TOC was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.0|||Relative risk|The measure of association at TOC and 3 months was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.||It was initially estimated that a total of 380 participants (190 per arm) would be required, with 90% power and a significance level of 5%, to establish equivalency between the two treatment arms.31 Enrollment rates were lower than estimated and only 270 participants (135 per arm) were enrolled.||1.00|0.25|.045
91754259|NCT01018095|183401633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was initially estimated that a total of 380 participants (190 per arm) would be required, with 90% power and a significance level of 5%, to establish equivalency between the two treatment arms.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.98||Continuous variables were assessed for normality, and tested accordingly. When appropriate, continuous variables were categorized using clinically relevant cut-points. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||0.98|0.21|<0.05
91754260|NCT01018095|183401634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were assessed for normality, and tested accordingly. When appropriate, continuous variables were categorized using clinically relevant cut-points. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. The measure of association at 3 months was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.98|||Relative risk|The measure of association at TOC and 3 months was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.||It was initially estimated that a total of 380 participants (190 per arm) would be required, with 90% power and a significance level of 5%, to establish equivalency between the two treatment arms.31 Enrollment rates were lower than estimated and only 270 participants (135 per arm) were enrolled.||0.98|.21|=0.03
91754261|NCT05714943|183401635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.99
91754262|NCT05714943|183401636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
91754263|NCT05714943|183401637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
91754264|NCT05714943|183401638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.57
91754265|NCT05714943|183401639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.32
91754266|NCT05714943|183401640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
91754267|NCT05714943|183401641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.97
91754268|NCT05714943|183401642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.21
91754269|NCT05714943|183401643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.27
91754270|NCT05714943|183401644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
91754271|NCT05714943|183401645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.86
91754272|NCT05714943|183401646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.61
91754273|NCT05714943|183401647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
91754274|NCT05714943|183401648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.08
91754275|NCT05714943|183401649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.08
91754276|NCT05714943|183401650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.06
91754277|NCT05714943|183401651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
91754278|NCT05714943|183401652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.88
91754279|NCT05714943|183401653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.94
91759661|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-9.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.68|9.88|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.88|-29.68|
91759662|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|20.92|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||20.92|-18.02|
91759663|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-12.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.84|7.79|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.79|-31.84|
91883962|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22||||95.0|0.39|0.41||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=2289)||0.41|0.39|
91883963|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||||95.0|0.25|0.38||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=25)||0.38|0.25|
91754280|NCT01122108|183401654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||If a sequence was not found to be statistically significant, then that term was removed from final model. Normality of residuals was investigated for each outcome variable using the Shapiro-Wilk test.|repeated measures analysis of variance|Sensitivity analyses were run to evaluate possible product by sequence interactions||"The BASA scale was previously developed to effectively compare differing Bile acid sequestrant forumulations. The BASA scale should differentiate subject acceptability of Colesevelam HCl 3.75 vs Cholestyramine 12g based upon the sum of ratings for taste, texture, appearance and mixability.~If normality hypothesis was rejected, then further inspection of the distribution utilizing normal quantile-quantile and kernel density plots was employed."||||<0.05
91754281|NCT01595581|183401674|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for categorical variables|Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power was estimated for change in lean mass of 3.0 plus or minus 1.5 kg in healthy men receiving testosterone. Using a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, a sample size of 6 participants per group was calculated.~This statistical analysis applies to lean mass in participants 6 weeks post operative."||||0.35
91754282|NCT01595581|183401674|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power was estimated for change in lean mass of 3.0 plus or minus 1.5 kg in healthy men receiving testosterone. Using a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, a sample size of 6 participants per group was calculated.~This statistical analysis applies to lean mass in participants 12 weeks post operative."||||0.48
91754283|NCT01595581|183401674|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power was estimated for change in lean mass of 3.0 plus or minus 1.5 kg in healthy men receiving testosterone. Using a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, a sample size of 6 participants per group was calculated.~This statistical analysis applies to lean mass in participants 24 weeks post operative."||||0.74
91754284|NCT01969721|183401677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.147||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.147|0.103|<0.0001
91754285|NCT01969721|183401677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.15||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.150|0.107|<0.0001
91754286|NCT01969721|183401677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.124||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.124|0.081|<0.0001
91754287|NCT01969721|183401677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.128||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.128|0.085|<0.0001
91754288|NCT01969721|183401678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.103||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.103|0.061|<0.0001
91759664|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-20.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.98|-0.94|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-0.94|-40.98|
91883964|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||||95.0|0.42|0.57||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=35)||0.57|0.42|
91805221|NCT01817530|183487234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|22.8||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||22.8|4.23|< 0.001
91805222|NCT01817530|183487234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805223|NCT01817530|183487234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|41.26||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||41.26|6.66|< 0.001
91805224|NCT01817530|183487234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805225|NCT01817530|183487234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|14.68||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.68|3.36|< 0.001
91805226|NCT01817530|183487234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91805227|NCT01817530|183487234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|23.76||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.76|4.85|< 0.001
91805228|NCT01817530|183487234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91908583|NCT02831673|183712843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum RBP, Week 48|||1.2|-1.4|0.930
91754289|NCT01969721|183401678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.107||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.107|0.065|<0.0001
91805229|NCT01817530|183487235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91805230|NCT01817530|183487235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91805231|NCT01817530|183487235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91805232|NCT01817530|183487235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91805233|NCT01817530|183487235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91805234|NCT01817530|183487235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91805235|NCT01817530|183487236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91805236|NCT01817530|183487236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91805237|NCT01817530|183487236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91805238|NCT01817530|183487236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91805239|NCT01817530|183487236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91805240|NCT01817530|183487236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91805241|NCT01817530|183487237|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|-1.03||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.03|-6.28|0.007
91805242|NCT01817530|183487237|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|0.46||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.46|-3.44|0.132
91805243|NCT01817530|183487237|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|2.0||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.00|-1.71|0.876
91805244|NCT01817530|183487237|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.04||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-3.92|0.055
91805245|NCT01817530|183487237|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.74||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.74|-1.52|0.898
91805246|NCT01817530|183487237|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.17||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.17|-2.05|0.59
91908584|NCT02831673|183712844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.01|-0.04|0.009
91908585|NCT02831673|183712845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.00|-0.03|0.108
91908586|NCT02831673|183712848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR-cystatin C adjusted, Week 24|||4.0|0.5|0.011
91908587|NCT02831673|183712848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR-cystatin C adjusted, Week 48|||4.5|1.2|<0.001
91805247|NCT01817530|183487238|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.42||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-1.64|0.001
91754290|NCT01969721|183401678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.086||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.086|0.045|<0.0001
91754291|NCT01969721|183401678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.09||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.090|0.048|<0.0001
91754292|NCT01969721|183401679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.071||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.071|0.022|0.0002
91754293|NCT01969721|183401679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.082||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.082|0.034|<0.0001
91754294|NCT01969721|183401679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.067||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.067|0.018|0.0007
91754295|NCT01969721|183401679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.078||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.078|0.029|<0.0001
91759665|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-7.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.82|12.65|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||12.65|-27.82|
91759666|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.36|19.43|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||19.43|-21.36|
91759667|NCT01393639|183411977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-18.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.18|1.73|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||1.73|-38.18|
91805248|NCT01817530|183487238|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.48||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.42|< 0.001
91883965|NCT01012245|183661385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26||||95.0|0.47|0.5||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=1204)||0.50|0.47|
91908588|NCT02831673|183712848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR-creatinine adjusted, Week 24|||4.8|1.6|<0.001
91754296|NCT01969721|183401680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.062||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.062|0.017|0.0007
91754297|NCT01969721|183401680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.065||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.065|0.021|0.0002
91754298|NCT01969721|183401680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.051||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.051|0.006|0.0146
91759668|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|7.38|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||7.38|-11.93|
91759669|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|12.91|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||12.91|-9.15|
91759670|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|13.23|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||13.23|-9.09|
91759671|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|18.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|33.23|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||33.23|4.19|
91759672|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|4.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||4.00|-13.19|
91759673|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|26.41|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||26.41|-0.92|
91908589|NCT02831673|183712848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR- creatinine adjusted, Week 48|||5.1|2.0|<0.001
91908590|NCT02831673|183712851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-1.75|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24|||-1.75|-4.62|<0.001
91908591|NCT02831673|183712851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48|||-1.91|-4.54|<0.001
91908592|NCT02831673|183712852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-1.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.72|-4.96|<0.001
91759674|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|10.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.16|-14.60|
91759675|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|27.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||27.48|-2.90|
91759676|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|24.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.71|41.17|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||41.17|7.71|
91759677|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|16.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|32.29|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||32.29|0.80|
91759678|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|12.98|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||12.98|-12.98|
91759679|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|35.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.48|3.16|
91759680|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|9.57|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||9.57|-18.46|
91759681|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|28.7|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||28.70|-4.49|
91754299|NCT01969721|183401680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.054||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.054|0.009|0.0055
91754300|NCT01969721|183401681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.166||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.166|0.118|<0.0001
91754301|NCT01969721|183401681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.171||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.171|0.123|<0.0001
91754302|NCT01969721|183401681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.135||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.135|0.087|<0.0001
91805249|NCT01817530|183487238|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.25||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-1.12|0.002
91805250|NCT01817530|183487238|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.12||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-1.04|0.118
91805251|NCT01817530|183487238|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.16|0.004
91805252|NCT01817530|183487238|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.59||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.51|< 0.001
91805253|NCT01817530|183487239|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.15||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.79|0.004
91805254|NCT01817530|183487239|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.13||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.4|0.314
91805255|NCT01817530|183487239|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.39||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.12|0.307
91805256|NCT01817530|183487239|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.58|0.106
91805257|NCT01817530|183487239|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.15||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.36|0.424
91805258|NCT01817530|183487239|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.35||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.18|0.528
91883966|NCT04836559|183661413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.38|0.41|0.3571
91908593|NCT02831673|183712853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.40|-4.57|<0.001
91754303|NCT01969721|183401681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.14||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.140|0.092|<0.0001
91754304|NCT01058941|183401685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|3.13||We used a significance level of p = 0.025 for our measure of ADL changes based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment since we have two primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline outcome, time from baseline, age, education category, BMI, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, vitamin E, and Apo-E.||The target enrollment was 60 subjects, allowing for up to a 20% drop-out. It was calculated that with 48 subjects (24 per group) we would have 80% power to see differences in ADL scores over 18 months between the treatment and placebo groups with a significance level of 0.025 based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment, since we had two primary outcomes.||3.13|-3.97|0.82
91754305|NCT01058941|183401686|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.46||We used a significance level of p = 0.025 for our measure of ADAS-cog changes based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment since we have two primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline outcome, time from baseline, age, education category, BMI, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, vitamin E, and Apo-E.||The target enrollment was 60 subjects, allowing for up to a 20% drop-out. It was calculated that with 48 subjects (24 per group) we would have 80% power to see differences in ADL scores over 18 months between the treatment and placebo groups with a significance level of 0.025 based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment, since we had two primary outcomes.||-1.46|-5.90|0.001
91754306|NCT03159104|183401714|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|The difference between final and initial total scholastic skill score was calculated for each participant. Wilcoxon test was used for comparison of these differences because data distribution differs from normal.||9|1|0.0113
91754307|NCT03159104|183401715|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|||5|0|0.0608
91754308|NCT03159104|183401716|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|||0|0|0.0824
91754309|NCT03159104|183401717|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|||1|0|0.2391
91754310|NCT03159104|183401718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0033
91754311|NCT03159104|183401719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0012
91754312|NCT01294163|183401720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Xenon was to be concluded non-inferior to sevoflurane if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference \[mean troponin I level (xenon) - mean troponin I level (sevoflurane)\] was below the prespecified margin of 0.63 ng/mL. Assuming a margin of 0.63, a same concentration of troponin I at 24 hours in the xenon and sevoflurane groups, a common standard deviation of 1.9 ng/mL and a one-sided type I error of 0.025, 164 patients per group were deemed necessary to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.47|||ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95%CI assessed using ANCOVA with 24h troponin I as response, treatment group and pre-induction troponin I as covariates.||||0.47|-1.27|0.02
91754313|NCT01294163|183401729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was to be concluded that xenon was non-inferior to sevoflurane if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference \[mean troponin I level (xenon) - mean troponin I level (sevoflurane)\] was below the margin of 0.15 ng/mL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.11|||ANCOVA|||As the residuals from the primary ANCOVA model were non-normal and skewed, the non-inferiority analysis was repeated using log-transformed blood troponin levels.||0.11|-0.30|0.0186
91754314|NCT01563172|183401730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|6.95||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|10.98||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||10.98|2.91|0.0008
91883967|NCT04836559|183661413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.6306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.75|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.75|0.40|0.6306
91883968|NCT02472145|183661450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.8|||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis 1||2.8|0.8|0.4747
91883969|NCT02472145|183661451|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1||1.37|0.79|0.7817
91883970|NCT03042299|183661479|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the least square (LS) means between formulations (TAK-536 pediatric formulation \[granules\]-TAK-536 commercial formulation \[tablet\]) and the two-sided 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUC 48 as dependent variable, and formulation, group, and period as independent variables.|Point estimate|-0.0731|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1088|-0.0373||||||||-0.0373|-0.1088|
91908594|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.915|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|0.943|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Serum B2M|||0.943|0.887|<0.001
91883971|NCT03042299|183661480|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LS means between formulations (TAK-536 pediatric formulation \[granules\]-TAK-536 commercial formulation \[tablet\]) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Cmax as dependent variable, and formulation, group, and period as independent variables.|Point estimate|-0.0909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1573|-0.0244||||||||-0.0244|-0.1573|
91754315|NCT01563172|183401731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.7||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|9.66||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||9.66|1.74|0.0049
91883972|NCT04069585|183661502|NON_INFERIORITY|To achieve non-inferiority, the observed p-value must be \<= 0.5 taking into account of the non-inferiority margin (i.e., 10mm difference in Pain VAS between the two treatment groups).|||||<|0.0002||||||One-sided paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0002
91754316|NCT01563172|183401732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.77|-6.94||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-6.94|-14.77|<0.0001
91754317|NCT01563172|183401733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|-5.54||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-5.54|-13.68|<0.0001
91754318|NCT01563172|183401734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|15.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|19.31||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||19.31|11.45|<0.0001
91754319|NCT01563172|183401735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|514.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|283.02|744.99||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||744.99|283.02|<0.0001
91754320|NCT01563172|183401736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|265.92||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|492.83||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||492.83|39.00|0.0218
91754321|NCT01563172|183401737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-822.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1047.34|-598.42||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-598.42|-1047.34|<0.0001
91754322|NCT01563172|183401738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-574.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-808.08|-341.5||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-341.50|-808.08|<0.0001
91754323|NCT01563172|183401739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1294.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1069.24|1519.43||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||1519.43|1069.24|<0.0001
91754324|NCT01742065|183401746|SUPERIORITY|To assess effectiveness, we fit generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logistic link to model patient-level data. We weighted patient data so that each clinic's data had an equal weight. Models were adjusted for age, sex, and health center. They used robust variance estimators and independent correlation structures. We specified clinic as a clustering variable to account for intraclinic correlation; the intraclinic correlation coefficient was 0.05 after model covariates adjustment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.8||We report effectiveness as the absolute difference between intervention and usual care clinics in adjusted probabilities calculated using mean values for all covariates;|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|Reported P values based on the corresponding adjusted odds ratio and account for reduced degrees of freedom owing to clustering.||||6.8|.1|.05
91754325|NCT01742065|183401747|OTHER|To assess effectiveness, we fit generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logistic link to model patient-level data. We weighted patient data so that each clinic's data had an equal weight. Models were adjusted for age, sex, and health center. They used robust variance estimators and independent correlation structures. We specified clinic as a clustering variable to account for intraclinic correlation; the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.05 after covariable adjustment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.0||We report effectiveness as the absolute difference between intervention and usual care clinics in adjusted probabilities calculated using mean values for all covariates;|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|Reported P values based on the corresponding adjusted odds ratio and account for reduced degrees of freedom owing to clustering.||||7|.6|.02
91883973|NCT00087555|183661530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.052
91883974|NCT00087555|183661530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
91883975|NCT00087555|183661530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
91883976|NCT01062971|183661531|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was determined if the treatments did not show differences greater than 20%||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91883977|NCT01062971|183661532|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was determined if the treatments did not show differences greater than 20%.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91754326|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.17||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.359|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||0.359|0.083|1.000
91754327|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.23||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.492|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||0.492|0.111|0.9999
91754328|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.26||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.568|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||0.568|0.121|0.9997
91754329|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.31||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.66|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||0.660|0.136|0.9997
91754330|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.29||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.632|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||0.632|0.133|0.9991
91754331|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.46||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|1.081|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.081|0.213|0.9631
91754332|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.33||||0.9941||95.0|0.157|0.789|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||0.789|0.157|0.9941
91754333|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.38||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.891|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||0.891|0.179|0.9875
91754334|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.33||||0.9956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.759|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||0.759|0.151|0.9956
91754335|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.34||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.747|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||0.747|0.157|0.9964
91754336|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.532|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||0.532|0.114|0.9999
91754337|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.29||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.647|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||0.647|0.130|0.9991
91754338|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.36||||0.9852|TWO_SIDED|0.9852|0.137|0.906|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||0.906|0.137|0.9852
91754339|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.51||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.014|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.014|0.230|0.9719
91754340|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.263|6.919|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||6.919|2.263|1.0000
91754341|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.46||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.976|6.052|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||6.052|1.976|1.000
91754342|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.59||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|6.345|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||6.345|2.060|1.0000
91754343|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.82||||0.9806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|3.17|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||3.170|1.031|0.9806
91754344|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.5||||0.9129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.636|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||2.636|0.828|0.9129
91754345|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.92||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.098|3.349|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||3.349|1.098|0.9891
91754346|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|2.29||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.316|3.974|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||3.974|1.316|0.9983
91754347|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.94||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|3.359|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||3.359|1.112|0.9900
91754348|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.27||||0.7996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|2.163|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||2.163|0.729|0.7996
91754349|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.23||||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|2.087|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||2.087|0.718|0.7778
91754350|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.24||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|2.113|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||2.113|0.705|0.7730
91883978|NCT03738397|183661549|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|16.7||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||16.7|2.6|0.007
91908595|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.904|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.929|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Serum B2M|||0.929|0.880|<0.001
91908596|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.656||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|0.877|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine B2M|||0.877|0.491|0.005
91883979|NCT03738397|183661550|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-18.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.753|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.61|-12.8||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD categories in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||-12.80|-23.61|<0.001
91883980|NCT03738397|183661551|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|26.0||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||26.0|14.8|<0.001
91908597|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.672|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|0.821|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine B2M|||0.821|0.551|<0.001
91754351|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.45||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|2.604|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.604|0.814|0.8951
91754352|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.57||||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|1.183|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||1.183|0.276|0.9324
91754353|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.63||||0.8982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|1.257|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.257|0.351|0.8982
91754354|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|4.22||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|8.905|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||8.905|1.910|0.9998
91754355|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.67||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.689|7.97|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||7.970|1.689|0.9993
91754356|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|5.26||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.392|11.754|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||11.754|2.392|1.0000
91883981|NCT03738397|183661552|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|28.6||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||28.6|13.8|<0.001
91754357|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|2.25||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|5.136|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||5.136|0.972|0.9713
91754358|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|2.19||||0.9649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.975|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||4.975|0.940|0.9649
91754359|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.59||||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|3.473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||3.473|0.711|0.8749
91754360|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.99||||0.9566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|4.342|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||4.342|0.899|0.9566
91754361|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.91||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|4.173|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||4.173|0.862|0.9549
91754362|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.81||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|4.005|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||4.005|0.816|0.9275
91805259|NCT01817530|183487240|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.74||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.74|0.80|< 0.001
91908598|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.965||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.092|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine Albumin/Creatinine|||1.092|0.853|0.575
91754363|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.32||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|3.007|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||3.007|0.584|0.7483
91754364|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|2.675|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||2.675|0.516|0.6480
91754365|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.76||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|4.17|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||4.170|0.741|0.9038
91754366|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.38||||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.915|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||3.915|0.490|0.7339
91754367|NCT01597635|183401787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.38||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|3.321|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||3.321|0.651|0.7714
91754368|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.14|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||0.140|0.032|1.0000
91908599|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.891||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.001|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine Albumin/Creatinine|||1.001|0.793|0.051
91908600|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|0.831|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine|||0.831|0.493|<0.001
91883982|NCT03738397|183661553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.25|-21.78||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD categories in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||-21.78|-34.25|<0.001
91883983|NCT03738397|183661554|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|32.7||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||32.7|19.3|<0.001
91883984|NCT03738397|183661555|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.03|-18.02||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD categories in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||-18.02|-28.03|<0.001
91883985|NCT03738397|183661556|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|27.3||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||27.3|12.4|<0.001
91883986|NCT01795859|183661557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-2.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-1.29|||ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-3.69|<0.0001
91883987|NCT01795859|183661558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|49.8|||Difference of proportions|||||49.8|12.4|0.0020
91883988|NCT01795859|183661559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|46.4|||Difference of proportions|||||46.4|11.4|0.0022
91908601|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.695|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|0.839|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine|||0.839|0.576|<0.001
91908602|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.102||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.237|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine Phosphate|||1.237|0.982|0.099
91754369|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.209|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||0.209|0.048|1.0000
91754370|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.11||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.243|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||0.243|0.054|1.0000
91754371|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.547|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||0.547|0.113|0.9996
91883989|NCT01795859|183661560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|4.34||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.27|0.41|0.0308
91908603|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.987||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine Phosphate|||1.100|0.886|0.816
91908604|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.836|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|0.904|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine Protein/Creatinine|||0.904|0.774|<0.001
91908605|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.829|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|0.888|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine Protein/Creatinine|||0.888|0.773|<0.001
91754372|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.29||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.634|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||0.634|0.130|0.9991
91754373|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.32||||0.9979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.682|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||0.682|0.149|0.9979
91908606|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.871||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine RBP 4|||1.020|0.743|0.087
91883990|NCT01795859|183661561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-0.3|0.1415
91883991|NCT02353871|183661574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
91883992|NCT02353871|183661575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 8 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
91883993|NCT02353871|183661575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 15 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
91883994|NCT02353871|183661575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 57 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
91908607|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.748|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.87|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine RBP 4|||0.870|0.644|<0.001
91908608|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.828||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|0.944|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.944|0.727|0.005
91883995|NCT02353871|183661575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 85 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
91883996|NCT02353871|183661575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 113 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
91883997|NCT02353871|183661575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0035||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 148 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||0.0035
91754374|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.19||||1||95.0|0.091|0.417|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||0.417|0.091|1.0000
91754375|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.539|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||0.539|0.119|0.9998
91754376|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.31||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.666|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||0.666|0.141|0.9985
91754377|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.34||||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.73|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||0.730|0.162|0.9977
91754378|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.22||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.468|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||0.468|0.105|0.9999
91754379|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.26||||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.57|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||0.570|0.119|0.9996
91754380|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.82||||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|2.136|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||2.136|0.319|0.6621
91754381|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.79||||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|1.847|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.847|0.324|0.7085
91754382|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.06||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.14|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||0.140|0.028|1.0000
91908609|NCT02831673|183712854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.765|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|0.864|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.864|0.677|<0.001
91754383|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.216|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||0.216|0.043|1.0000
91754384|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.177|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||0.177|0.034|1.0000
91754385|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.2||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.453|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||0.453|0.086|0.9998
91754386|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.17||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.4|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||0.400|0.075|0.9999
91754387|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.4||||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.901|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||0.901|0.173|0.9863
91908610|NCT02831673|183712855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.839||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||0.950|0.742|0.006
91908611|NCT02831673|183712855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.551|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|0.682|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.682|0.445|<0.001
91754388|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.24||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.529|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||0.529|0.103|0.9998
91754389|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.28||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.626|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||0.626|0.119|0.9992
91754390|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.24||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.561|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||0.561|0.102|0.9995
91754391|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.31||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.729|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||0.729|0.131|0.9964
91883998|NCT02353871|183661575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0441||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 183 (End of Study) - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||0.0441
91908612|NCT02831673|183712855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.045||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.175|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine Phosphate.|||1.175|0.928|0.467
91908613|NCT02831673|183712855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.824|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.764|0.889|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.889|0.764|<0.001
91908614|NCT02831673|183712855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|0.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.840|0.651|<0.001
91908615|NCT02831673|183712856|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.916||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.050|0.799|0.205
91883999|NCT02353871|183661576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2422||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 57 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.2422
91884000|NCT02353871|183661576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0917||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 85 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.0917
91884001|NCT02353871|183661576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7064||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 113 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.7064
91884002|NCT02353871|183661576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.701||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 148 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.7010
91884003|NCT02353871|183661576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7894||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 183 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.7894
91908616|NCT02831673|183712856|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.495|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.603|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.603|0.406|<0.001
91754392|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.584|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||0.584|0.107|0.9995
91754393|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.24||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.578|||Ratio of Active/Placebo|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||0.578|0.098|0.9993
91754394|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.34||||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.969|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||0.969|0.119|0.9781
91754395|NCT01597635|183401788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.38||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|1.341|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.341|0.154|0.9375
91754396|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.215|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.215|0.752|0.2598
91754397|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.3949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.273|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.273|0.783|0.3949
91754398|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.294|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.294|0.791|0.4175
91754399|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.292|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.292|0.806|0.4420
91754400|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.262|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.262|0.811|0.4432
91754401|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.229|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.229|0.818|0.4578
91754402|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.167|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.167|0.790|0.3365
91754403|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.95||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.163|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.163|0.770|0.3339
91754404|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.166|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.166|0.786|0.3608
91754405|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|1.168|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.168|0.788|0.3584
91754406|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.073|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.073|0.725|0.1219
91754407|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.21|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.210|0.814|0.4662
91754408|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.247|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.247|0.828|0.5748
91884004|NCT02353871|183661577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
91884005|NCT02353871|183661577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
91908617|NCT02831673|183712856|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.089||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.226|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine Phosphate.|||1.226|0.967|0.160
91884006|NCT02353871|183661577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
91754409|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.4104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.204|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.204|0.786|0.4104
91754410|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.246|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.246|0.817|0.5114
91754411|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.2|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.200|0.783|0.4213
91754412|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.132|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.132|0.731|0.2663
91754413|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.142|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.142|0.720|0.2373
91754414|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.149|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.149|0.721|0.2575
91754415|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|1.127|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.127|0.708|0.2173
91754416|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.143|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.143|0.717|0.2406
91754417|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.151|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.151|0.721|0.2471
91754418|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.157|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.157|0.727|0.2585
91754419|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.17|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.170|0.737|0.3101
91754420|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.16|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.160|0.727|0.2476
91754421|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.222|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.222|0.767|0.3887
91754422|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.146|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.146|0.749|0.2294
91754423|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.8522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.234|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.234|0.916|0.8522
91754424|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.164|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.164|0.890|0.5885
91754425|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.07||||0.8558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.230|0.940|0.8558
91754426|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.07||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.224|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hour||1.224|0.932|0.8374
91754427|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.152|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.152|0.887|0.5886
91754428|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.18|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.180|0.918|0.7532
91754429|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.179|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.179|0.906|0.7108
91754430|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.19|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.190|0.918|0.7445
91754431|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.115|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.115|0.863|0.3759
91754432|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.118|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.118|0.859|0.3980
91754433|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.103|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.103|0.849|0.3231
91754434|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.056|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.056|0.812|0.1245
91754435|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.134|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.134|0.870|0.4631
91908618|NCT02831673|183712856|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.817|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|0.885|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.885|0.753|<0.001
91754436|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.047|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.047|0.801|0.1026
91754437|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.101|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.101|0.850|0.3152
91754438|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.035|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.035|0.803|0.0762
91754439|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.0274||95.0|0.763|1.003|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.003|0.763|0.0274
91754440|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.3594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.112|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.112|0.853|0.3594
91754441|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.197|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.197|0.906|0.7027
91754442|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.246|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.246|0.941|0.8661
91754443|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.228|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.228|0.924|0.8084
91754444|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.13||||0.9504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.3|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.300|0.976|0.9504
91754445|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.164|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.164|0.871|0.5300
91754446|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.8595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.243|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.243|0.942|0.8595
91754447|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.8802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.261|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.261|0.943|0.8802
91754448|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.11||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|1.278|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.278|0.958|0.9232
91754449|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.07||||0.7911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.256|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.256|0.902|0.7911
91754450|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.28||||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.514|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.514|1.059|0.9946
91754451|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.019|1.444|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.444|1.019|0.9830
91754452|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.8024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.261|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.261|0.910|0.8024
91754453|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.166|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.166|0.843|0.4806
91754454|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.223|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.223|0.869|0.6658
91754455|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.03||||0.6131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.212|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.212|0.856|0.6131
91754456|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.197|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.197|0.856|0.5795
91754457|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.85||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.993|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||0.993|0.716|0.0209
91754458|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.187|0.830|0.4823
91754459|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||0.0406|0.85||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.021|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.021|0.703|0.0406
91754460|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.169|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.169|0.844|0.5186
91754461|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.132|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.132|0.824|0.3870
91754462|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.065|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.065|0.770|0.1281
91754463|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.181|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.181|0.837|0.4754
91884007|NCT02353871|183661577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
91884008|NCT02353871|183661577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 85||||<0.0001
91884009|NCT02353871|183661577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||<0.0001
91884010|NCT02353871|183661577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0015||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||0.0015
91884011|NCT02353871|183661578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
91884012|NCT02353871|183661578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
91884013|NCT02353871|183661578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
91884014|NCT02353871|183661578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
91884015|NCT02353871|183661578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 85||||0.0008
91884016|NCT02353871|183661578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0065||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||0.0065
91884017|NCT02353871|183661578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0643||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 148||||0.0643
91884018|NCT02353871|183661578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.367||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||0.3670
91908619|NCT02831673|183712856|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.679|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.76|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.760|0.607|<0.001
91884019|NCT02353871|183661579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
91884020|NCT02353871|183661579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
91884021|NCT02353871|183661579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
91884022|NCT02353871|183661579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
91884023|NCT02353871|183661579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - Dysport 50 U versus Placebo at Day 85||||<0.0001
91884024|NCT02353871|183661579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||<0.0001
91908620|NCT02831673|183712857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Bone ALP|||-1.70|-2.75|<0.001
91908621|NCT02831673|183712857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.98|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Bone ALP|||-1.98|-3.19|<0.001
91754464|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.217|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.217|0.856|0.5627
91754465|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.22|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.220|0.848|0.5552
91754466|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.201|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.201|0.843|0.5030
91754467|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.218|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.218|0.840|0.5558
91754468|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.135|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.135|0.769|0.2709
91754469|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.208|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.208|0.795|0.4143
91754470|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.7886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.348|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.348|0.891|0.7886
91805260|NCT01817530|183487240|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.72||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.72|0.78|< 0.001
91805261|NCT01817530|183487240|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.27||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.27|0.33|< 0.001
91805262|NCT01817530|183487240|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.52||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|0.65|< 0.001
91805263|NCT01817530|183487240|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.16||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.16|0.29|< 0.001
91805264|NCT01817530|183487240|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.26|0.4|< 0.001
91805265|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805266|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805267|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||0.018
91805268|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805269|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805270|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||0.021
91805271|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91754471|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.353|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.353|0.885|0.7607
91805272|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805273|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.032
91805274|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805275|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.007
91805276|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.495
91805277|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805278|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91884025|NCT02353871|183661579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 148||||0.0011
91884026|NCT02353871|183661579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0036||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||0.0036
91884027|NCT02353871|183661580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
91884028|NCT02353871|183661580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
91884029|NCT02353871|183661580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
91884030|NCT02353871|183661580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
91884031|NCT02353871|183661580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 85||||<0.0001
91884032|NCT02353871|183661580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||<0.0001
91884033|NCT02353871|183661580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 148||||<0.0001
91754472|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.13||||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.922|1.4|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.400|0.922|0.8677
91754473|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.7012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.302|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.302|0.847|0.7012
91754474|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.23|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.230|0.805|0.5156
91754475|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.178|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.178|0.783|0.3524
91754476|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.292|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.292|0.845|0.6380
91754477|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.4003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.241|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.241|0.743|0.4003
91805279|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.015
91805280|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91884034|NCT02353871|183661580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||<0.0001
91884035|NCT02353871|183661581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of time to onset of treatment response - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||<0.0001
91884036|NCT02353871|183661581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.561|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox proportional hazard model|Centre, gender and ILA baseline severity score used as covariates.||Comparison of time to onset of treatment response - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
91884037|NCT02554383|183661599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The interactions (1) between treatment \& pathogens and (2) between treatment \& colored nasal discharge are tested simultaneously.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value is adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day, study site, treatment, pathogens, colored nasal discharge \& interaction (2).||Null hypothesis: The effect of treatment with antibiotics does not differ in the subgroups of children defined, respectively, by the presence and by the absence of pathogens in the nasopharynx at enrollment, i.e., there is no significant interaction between treatment and pathogens in the nasopharynx.||||0.02
91908622|NCT02831673|183712857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-3.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 28. Serum Osteocalcin|||-3.23|-5.15|<0.001
91805281|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.002
91805282|NCT01817530|183487241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.329
91805283|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805284|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805285|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||0.036
91805286|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805287|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805288|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.040
91805289|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805290|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||< 0.001
91805291|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.098
91805292|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805293|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.014
91805294|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.409
91805295|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805296|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805297|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.094
91805298|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805299|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.002
91805300|NCT01817530|183487242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.393
91805301|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805302|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805303|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805304|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805305|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805306|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805307|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805308|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805309|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805310|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91908623|NCT02831673|183712857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|-4.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Serum Osteocalcin|||-4.23|-6.22|<0.001
91754478|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.16||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.502|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.502|0.907|0.8817
91754479|NCT01597635|183401789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.14||||0.8145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.505|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.505|0.804|0.8145
91754480|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.6468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.321|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.321|0.765|0.6468
91754481|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.136|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.136|0.658|0.1965
91754482|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.129|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.129|0.694|0.1681
91754483|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.85||||0.0877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.075|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.075|0.669|0.0877
91754484|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.159|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.159|0.715|0.2011
91754485|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.345|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.345|0.842|0.6855
91754486|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.6093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.325|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.325|0.800|0.6093
91754487|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.253|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.253|0.765|0.4350
91754488|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.195|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.195|0.722|0.2232
91754489|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.2|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.200|0.733|0.2716
91754490|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.19|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.190|0.726|0.2866
91754491|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.270|0.780|0.5033
91805311|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805312|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805313|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91754492|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.12|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.120|0.684|0.1493
91754493|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.301|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.301|0.759|0.4947
91754494|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.89||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.161|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.161|0.678|0.1951
91754495|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.8||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.05|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.050|0.612|0.0512
91754496|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.279|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.279|0.775|0.4700
91754497|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.368|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.368|0.811|0.6340
91754498|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.183|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.183|0.689|0.2129
91754499|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.6418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.411|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.411|0.798|0.6418
91754500|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.315|||Ratio of Active/Placebo|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.315|0.754|0.4797
91805314|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91908624|NCT02831673|183712857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-11.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Serum PINP|||-11.1|-16.5|<0.001
91908625|NCT02831673|183712857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-10.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Serum PINP|||-10.3|-15.0|<0.001
91908626|NCT02831673|183712857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1628|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2015|-0.1241|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. CTX-1|||-0.1241|-0.2015|<0.001
91805315|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805316|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91884038|NCT02554383|183661599|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.51|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the presence of one or more pathogens in the nasopharynx at enrollment.||-1.51|-2.40|
91884039|NCT02554383|183661599|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.12|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the absence of one or more pathogens in the nasopharynx at enrollment.||-0.12|-1.63|
91884040|NCT02554383|183661600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The interactions (1) between treatment \& pathogens and (2) between treatment \& colored nasal discharge are tested simultaneously.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value is adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day, study site, treatment, pathogens, colored nasal discharge \& interaction (1).||Null hypothesis: The effect of treatment with antibiotics does not differ in the subgroups of children defined, respectively, by the presence and by the absence of colored nasal discharge at enrollment, i.e., there is no significant interaction between treatment and colored nasal discharge.||||0.37
91884041|NCT02554383|183661600|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-1.16|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the presence of colored nasal discharge at enrollment.||-1.16|-2.09|
91884042|NCT02554383|183661600|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.03|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the absence of colored nasal discharge at enrollment.||-1.03|-2.38|
91884043|NCT02554383|183661601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children experiencing treatment failure.||||0.003
91884044|NCT02554383|183661602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children developing AOM over the first 10 days of follow-up.||||.007
91908627|NCT02831673|183712857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2015|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|-0.1569|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. CTX-1|||-0.1569|-0.2460|<0.001
91908628|NCT02831673|183712858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, Bone ALP|||-1.50|-2.63|<0.001
91805317|NCT01817530|183487243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91908629|NCT02831673|183712858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-3.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, Serum Osteocalcin|||-3.14|-5.20|<0.001
91805318|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805319|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805320|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.020
91805321|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805322|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.002
91884045|NCT02554383|183661603|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children receiving a systemic antibiotic over the first 10 days of follow-up.||||<0.001
91884046|NCT02554383|183661604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children for whom diarrhea or generalized rash was reported.||||0.004
91884047|NCT02554383|183661605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children compliant with study product.||||0.75
91908630|NCT02831673|183712858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-8.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, Serum PINP|||-8.9|-17.6|<0.001
91908631|NCT02831673|183712858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1592|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|-0.1104|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, CTX-1|||-0.1104|-0.2080|<0.001
91908632|NCT02831673|183712859|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-1.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, Bone ALP|||-1.14|-2.23|<0.001
91884048|NCT02554383|183661606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children with a nonsusceptible pathogen at the follow-up visit.||||0.63
91884049|NCT02165826|183661643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.93||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||0.93|0.47|0.017
91884050|NCT02165826|183661643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.92|||||Cox proportional hazards model with study treatment and country as class effects, and baseline FEV1 as a continuous variable.|Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||0.92|0.51|
91884051|NCT02165826|183661643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.07||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.07|0.55|0.114
91884052|NCT02165826|183661643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.02|||||Cox proportional hazards model with study treatment and country as class effects, and baseline FEV1 as a continuous variable.|Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.02|0.58|
91884053|NCT02165826|183661644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.83||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||0.83|0.47|0.001
91884054|NCT02165826|183661644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.04||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.04|0.59|0.091
91884055|NCT04887506|183661671|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (CI) fell within the recommended 0.800-1.250 limits of equivalence when analyzed on a natural log scale, then treatments were therapeutically equivalent based on rounded-up average Days 9 and 10 testosterone levels.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||||The 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) were not evaluable.|Primary analysis of equivalence of TAVT 45 and R AA based on average serum testosterone (ng/dL) (rounded up values of Days 9 and 10).||||
91884056|NCT04887506|183661672|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI fell within the recommended 0.800-1.250 limits of equivalence when analyzed on a natural log scale, then treatments were therapeutically equivalent based on rounded-up average Days 9 and 10 testosterone levels.|Geometric mean ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.007||||||Supplementary analysis of equivalence of TAVT-45 and R-AA based on average serum testosterone (ng/dL) (rounded up values of Days 9 and 10) in the CS-ITT population.||1.007|0.944|
91908633|NCT02831673|183712859|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.83|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, Serum Osteocalcin|||-1.83|-4.00|<0.001
91908634|NCT02831673|183712859|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-6.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, Serum PINP|||-6.2|-12.3|<0.001
91908635|NCT02831673|183712859|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1414|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1771|-0.1056|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, CTX-1|||-0.1056|-0.1771|<0.001
91908636|NCT02831673|183712860|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-3.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24|||-3.0|-9.9|<0.001
91805323|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.061
91908637|NCT02831673|183712860|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48|||-3.4|-9.0|<0.001
91908638|NCT02831673|183712861|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96|||0.0|-5.8|0.048
91884057|NCT04887506|183661673|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI fell within the recommended 0.800-1.250 limits of equivalence when analyzed on a natural log scale, then treatments were therapeutically equivalent based on rounded-up average Days 9 and 10 testosterone levels.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.002||||||Supplementary analysis of equivalence of TAVT-45 and R-AA based on average serum testosterone (ng/dL) (rounded up values of Days 9 and 10) in the mITT population.||1.002|0.978|
91884058|NCT04887506|183661674|EQUIVALENCE|Odds ratio generated using the Wald method.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|4.979|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.979|0.574|0.3408
91884059|NCT01963169|183661675|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for Knowledge outcome using the revised Osteoporosis Knowledge Test.|At 8 week, both intervention groups received the same Bone Power Program intervention. Thus, the analysis for the 8-week outcomes was completed as a two-armed RCT.||||< 0.001
91884060|NCT01963169|183661675|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for the exercise behavior variable assessed by the 9-item Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale.|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||<0.001
91884061|NCT01963169|183661675|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for calcium outcome expectation..|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||0.009
91908639|NCT02831673|183712862|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144|||-1.6|-8.3|0.004
91908640|NCT02831673|183712869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.6||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 24|||4.6|-0.6|0.157
91908641|NCT02831673|183712869|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.2||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 48|||4.2|-1.7|0.414
91908642|NCT02831673|183712870|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.0||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.1||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 96|||4.1|-2.1|0.562
91908643|NCT02831673|183712871|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.9||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.3||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 144|||4.3|-2.4|0.587
91884062|NCT01963169|183661675|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.18||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for exercise self-efficacy.|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||0.002
91884063|NCT01963169|183661675|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.14||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for exercise outcome expectation.|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||0.032
91884064|NCT05238103|183661714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91884065|NCT05238103|183661715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For systolic blood pressure||||0.40
91884066|NCT05238103|183661715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For diastolic blood pressure||||0.25
91884067|NCT05238103|183661716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
91884068|NCT05238103|183661717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91884069|NCT05238103|183661718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91884070|NCT05238103|183661719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For: Global physical health score||||0.16
91754501|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.199|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.199|0.703|0.2659
91754502|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.159|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.159|0.687|0.2102
91754503|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.24|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.240|0.740|0.3623
91754504|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.95||||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.225|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.225|0.730|0.3499
91754505|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.377|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.377|0.787|0.6494
91754506|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.358|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.358|0.766|0.5567
91754507|NCT01597635|183401790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.85||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.073|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.073|0.615|0.1095
91754508|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.644|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.644|0.721|0.6098
91805324|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91884071|NCT05238103|183661719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For: Global mental health score||||0.71
91884072|NCT05238103|183661720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
91884073|NCT05238103|183661721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
91884074|NCT05238103|183661722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91884075|NCT05238103|183661723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
91884076|NCT05238103|183661724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
91884077|NCT05238103|183661725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
91884078|NCT05238103|183661726|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
91884079|NCT05238103|183661727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91884080|NCT05238103|183661733|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of 12.5 meters was chosen to represent about 40% of the minimum important difference of 30 meters in the 6 minute walk test as identified in previous studies. For sample size calculation, to allow for an attrition rate of 20% during follow up after randomization, a total of 200 (100 per group) participants were needed to be recruited and then randomized in a 1:1 ration to Intervention vs. Control groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-9.1||||t-test, 1 sided|||Significance testing: Generalized regression model|||-9.1|0.04
91884081|NCT05739994|183661735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91884082|NCT05739994|183661735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91884083|NCT05739994|183661736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
91884084|NCT05739994|183661736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91884085|NCT02911805|183661737|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91884086|NCT01867047|183661752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for intraoperative mild hypotension||||0.140
91884087|NCT01867047|183661752|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for postoperative mild hypotension||||1.000
91884088|NCT01867047|183661754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for number of participants given vasopressors intraoperatively||||0.102
91884089|NCT01867047|183661757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.700
91884090|NCT01867047|183661758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.702
91754509|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.35||||0.9441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|2.068|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||2.068|0.931|0.9441
91754510|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.12||||0.7173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.621|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.621|0.749|0.7173
91754511|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.949|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.949|0.810|0.8292
91754512|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.23||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.832|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.832|0.775|0.8008
91754513|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.2||||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.799|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.799|0.776|0.7905
91754514|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.958|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.958|0.737|0.7566
91754515|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.25||||0.8349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|2.05|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||2.050|0.812|0.8349
91754516|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.527|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.527|0.713|0.4739
91805325|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.004
91805326|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.085
91805327|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805328|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.012
91805329|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.049
91805330|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805331|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805332|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.056
91805333|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805334|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.005
91805335|NCT01817530|183487244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.088
91805336|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805337|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805338|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.188
91805339|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805340|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.001
91754517|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.647|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.647|0.763|0.6291
91754518|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.18||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.814|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.814|0.830|0.8032
91805341|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.104
91805342|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805343|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.021
91805344|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.859
91805345|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805346|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.006
91805347|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.015
91805348|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805349|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.007
91805350|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.722
91805351|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805352|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805353|NCT01817530|183487245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.032
91805354|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805355|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805356|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.041
91805357|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805358|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91805359|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.008
91805360|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805361|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805362|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.003
91805363|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805364|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
91805365|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.003
91805366|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805367|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805368|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.004
91805369|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91805370|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
91884091|NCT01641653|183661825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is a pilot study no power calculation was performed. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess differences in max intraop glucose between placebo and midazolam groups.||||0.87
91884092|NCT01641653|183661826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||percent change in glucose levels from preoperative level to maximum perioperative measurement level||||0.56
91805371|NCT01817530|183487246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.002
91884093|NCT01641653|183661827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Chi-square with continuity correction|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.12
91884094|NCT02825251|183661828|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95 % CI for the true treatment-difference D (faster aspart minus NovoRapid®) was below 0.4 %.|Treatment difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.17|||ANOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model included treatment, strata (use of own continuous glucose monitoring), previous insulin use, and region as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.17|0.01|
91908644|NCT02831673|183712876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|49.83|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||49.83|-10.23|
91805372|NCT01817530|183487247|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|3.59||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||3.59|-6.65|0.556
91805373|NCT01817530|183487247|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|4.09||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||4.09|-6.33|0.672
91805374|NCT01817530|183487247|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|8.36||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||8.36|-2.39|0.274
91805375|NCT01817530|183487247|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.23||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||1.23|-5.26|0.223
91805376|NCT01817530|183487247|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|1.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||1.22|-5.38|0.215
91884095|NCT00349466|183661919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.027
91908645|NCT02831673|183712876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.07|58.4|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||58.40|-57.07|
91805377|NCT01817530|183487247|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|1.87||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||1.87|-4.75|0.392
91805378|NCT02761252|183487335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3429||0.5721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8693|0.4813|||ANCOVA|||||0.4813|-0.8693|0.5721
91805379|NCT02761252|183487336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4489||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0379|-0.2725|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2725|-2.0379|0.0105
91805380|NCT02761252|183487337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2009||0.4885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5342|0.2557|||ANCOVA|||||0.2557|-0.5342|0.4885
91805381|NCT02761252|183487338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1504||0.81032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3319|0.2596|||ANCOVA|||||0.2596|-0.3319|0.81032
91805382|NCT02761252|183487339|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9322||0.3704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9969|2.6688|||ANOVA|||||2.6688|-0.9969|0.3704
91805383|NCT02761252|183487340|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5735||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8968|4.2228|||ANOVA|||||4.2228|-5.8968|0.7452
91884096|NCT00349466|183661920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.083
91884097|NCT00349466|183661921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.028
91884098|NCT00349466|183661922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.655
91884099|NCT00349466|183661923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.387
91884100|NCT00349466|183661924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
91884101|NCT00349466|183661925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.807
91884102|NCT05064488|183661953|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates digoxin.|Ratio|118.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.89|125.47||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||125.47|111.89|
91884103|NCT05064488|183661954|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates metformin.|Ratio|208.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.48|280.82||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||280.82|155.48|
91884104|NCT05064488|183661955|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates rosuvastatin.|Ratio|99.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.49|121.89||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||121.89|80.49|
91884105|NCT05064488|183661956|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates sumatriptan.|Ratio|89.35||||||90.0|82.7|96.54||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||96.54|82.70|
91884106|NCT05064488|183661957|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates digoxin.|Ratio|100.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.99|117.79||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||117.79|85.99|
91884107|NCT05064488|183661958|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates metformin.|Ratio|203.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|152.93|269.68||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||269.68|152.93|
91884108|NCT05064488|183661959|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates rosuvastatin.|Ratio|91.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.98|109.33||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||109.33|76.98|
91884109|NCT05064488|183661960|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates sumatriptan.|Ratio|81.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.23|88.42||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||88.42|74.23|
91908646|NCT02831673|183712876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.94|129.63|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||129.63|-55.94|
91908647|NCT02831673|183712876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|42.12|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||42.12|-13.38|
91908648|NCT02831673|183712876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|59.85|||||Age\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||59.85|-9.56|
91754519|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.416|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.416|0.626|0.3250
91754520|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.5828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.63|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.630|0.687|0.5828
91884110|NCT05064488|183661974|OTHER||Ratio|106.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.11|111.76||||||||111.76|102.11|
91884111|NCT05064488|183661975|OTHER||Ratio|211.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.34|285.91||||||||285.91|156.34|
91884112|NCT05064488|183661976|OTHER||Ratio|99.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.69|124.42||||||||124.42|79.69|
91884113|NCT05064488|183661977|OTHER||Ratio|88.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.04|96.19||||||||96.19|82.04|
91884114|NCT03616964|183661991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.75|0.711
91884115|NCT03616964|183661992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.50|0.73|0.789
91908649|NCT02831673|183712876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.98|40.34|||||Age 35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||40.34|-55.98|
91908650|NCT02831673|183712876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.47|114.38|||||Age\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||114.38|-55.47|
91754521|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.512|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.512|0.661|0.4546
91884116|NCT03616964|183661993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.72|0.673
91908651|NCT02831673|183712876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.89|85.23|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||85.23|-49.89|
91908652|NCT02831673|183712876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|44.21|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||44.21|-13.90|
91884117|NCT03616964|183661993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.75|0.75|0.528
91884118|NCT03616964|183661995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.64|0.51|0.761
91884119|NCT03616964|183661995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.10|0.65|0.611
91884120|NCT03616964|183661996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.47|0.698
91754522|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.639|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.639|0.719|0.6158
91754523|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.7748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.77|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.770|0.752|0.7748
91754524|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.6565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|1.714|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.714|0.686|0.6565
91754525|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.87||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|1.38|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.380|0.566|0.2773
91754526|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.467|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.467|0.610|0.3606
91754527|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.83||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.317|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.317|0.555|0.2211
91805384|NCT01758432|183487345|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-95.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805385|NCT01758432|183487345|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-130.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805386|NCT01758432|183487345|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-129.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805387|NCT01758432|183487345|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-165.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805388|NCT01758432|183487345|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-167.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805389|NCT01758432|183487345|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-135.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805390|NCT01758432|183487346|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|85559.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
91805391|NCT01758432|183487346|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|105508.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805392|NCT01758432|183487346|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|182753.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805393|NCT01758432|183487346|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|193684.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805394|NCT01758432|183487346|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|178055.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91754528|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.348|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.348|0.587|0.2860
91805395|NCT01758432|183487346|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|169709.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805396|NCT01758432|183487347|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805397|NCT01758432|183487347|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-4.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805398|NCT01758432|183487347|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-6.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805399|NCT01758432|183487347|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-6.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805400|NCT01758432|183487347|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-7.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805401|NCT01758432|183487347|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-6.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91805402|NCT04115839|183487379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|49.6||The stratification factors (Geographic Region, Concurrent Use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, Prior Use of biologic (bio)DMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||49.6|4.3|0.022
91805403|NCT04115839|183487379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|25.0||The stratification factors (Geographic Region, Concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, Prior Use of bioDMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||25.0|-20.5|0.89
91805404|NCT04115839|183487382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|9.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||9.9|-21.6|0.39
91884121|NCT03616964|183661996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.46|0.744
91884122|NCT03616964|183661997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|-2.00|0.665
91884123|NCT03616964|183661997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|-1.95|0.723
91884124|NCT03616964|183661998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.31|0.372
91884125|NCT03616964|183661998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.34|0.555
91884126|NCT03616964|183661999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-1.31|0.251
91805405|NCT04115839|183487382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|14.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||14.5|-19.7|0.65
91884127|NCT03616964|183661999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-1.74|0.333
91884128|NCT03616964|183662000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.86|0.284
91754529|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.4079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.51|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.510|0.609|0.4079
91754530|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.663|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.663|0.614|0.5284
91754531|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.3586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.458|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.458|0.568|0.3586
91754532|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.13||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.853|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.853|0.672|0.6768
91754533|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.77||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.39|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.390|0.488|0.1574
91805406|NCT04115839|183487382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.9||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|-19.4|-19.4|21.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||21.3|-19.4|0.86
91884129|NCT03616964|183662000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-1.08|0.069
91884130|NCT01952847|183662007|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91884131|NCT01952847|183662008|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91884132|NCT01952847|183662011|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91754534|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.584|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.584|0.521|0.3900
91754535|NCT01597635|183401791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.5915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.516|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.516|0.748|0.5915
91805407|NCT04115839|183487382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||16.1|-22.0|0.70
91884133|NCT01952847|183662012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
91884134|NCT01952847|183662013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
91884135|NCT01952847|183662014|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91884136|NCT01952847|183662015|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91884137|NCT01952847|183662016|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91884138|NCT01952847|183662017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.57
91884139|NCT01952847|183662021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91884140|NCT01952847|183662022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91884141|NCT02577003|183662029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.57|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-0.57|-0.98|<0.001
91884142|NCT02577003|183662032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-21.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-21.5|-34.8|<0.001
91884143|NCT02577003|183662033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-48.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.6|-37.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-37.5|-59.6|<0.001
91754536|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.06828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.501|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.501|0.528|0.06828
91754537|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.5674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.609|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.609|0.570|0.5674
91754538|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.66||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.316|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.316|0.321|0.8855
91754539|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.76|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.760|0.531|0.5358
91754540|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.155|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||2.155|0.622|0.6990
91754541|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|1.721|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.721|0.549|0.5130
91805408|NCT04115839|183487382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.4||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|32.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||32.3|-7.5|0.15
91805409|NCT04115839|183487382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|27.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||27.7|-10.1|0.30
91805410|NCT04115839|183487382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|22.3||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|45.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||45.2|-0.7|0.035
91884144|NCT02577003|183662034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-84.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.6|-66.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-66.6|-102.6|<0.001
91884145|NCT02577003|183662035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-1.1|-2.5|<0.001
91884146|NCT01234883|183662036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91884147|NCT01013961|183662037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.722
91884148|NCT01013961|183662038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91754542|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.73||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.731|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.731|0.300|0.7696
91884149|NCT01271504|183662061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5||||||||1.50|0.56|
91884150|NCT01271504|183662062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.5||||||||1.50|0.57|
91884151|NCT01271504|183662064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.62||||||||1.62|0.60|
91884152|NCT02768597|183662066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552|||||||ANOVA|||||||.552
91884153|NCT02768597|183662067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558|||||||ANOVA|||||||.558
91884154|NCT02768597|183662068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.274
91884155|NCT02768597|183662069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.539
91884156|NCT02768597|183662070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.478
91884157|NCT02768597|183662071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|||||||.527
91884158|NCT02768597|183662072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||||||.823
91884159|NCT02768597|183662073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||ANOVA|||||||.231
91884160|NCT02768597|183662074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.595
91884161|NCT02768597|183662075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.789
91754543|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.51||||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.289|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.289|0.203|0.9254
91754544|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.72||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|2.419|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.419|0.216|0.7088
91754545|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.47||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|1.69|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.690|0.112|0.8787
91754546|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.197|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.197|0.714|0.7338
91754547|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.415|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.415|0.703|0.4955
91754548|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|1.788|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.788|0.541|0.5264
91754549|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.6183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.742|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.742|0.454|0.6183
91754550|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.03||||0.5291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|2.118|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||2.118|0.483|0.5291
91754551|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.448|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.448|0.828|0.7400
91754552|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.25||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.683|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.683|0.937|0.9375
91754553|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.9118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.771|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.771|0.896|0.9118
91754554|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.43||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|2.382|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.382|0.866|0.9217
91754555|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.48||||0.8676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.064|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||3.064|0.730|0.8676
91754556|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.83||||0.8835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.135|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.135|0.609|0.8835
91884162|NCT04560374|183662121|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was performed after the completion of the study. 98% power was obtained.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91884163|NCT00420784|183662158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|16.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.36|4.14|<0.001
91884164|NCT00420784|183662158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|19.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.20|4.72|<0.001
91884165|NCT00420784|183662158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.75|1.12|0.024
91884166|NCT00420784|183662160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|12.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.96|3.41|<0.001
91884167|NCT00420784|183662160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|11.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.27|2.91|<0.001
91884168|NCT00420784|183662160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.00|0.95|0.067
91884169|NCT02402322|183662199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the preliminary analysis, we studied the possible group differences in demographic data and pretreatment measures with chi-square tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The participants' pre- and posttreatment scores were studied with repeated measures ANOVA. Within- and between-group effect sizes were calculated using the pooled standard deviation, Cohen's d.||||0.05
91908653|NCT02831673|183712876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|54.54|||||Race group white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||54.54|-9.52|
91884170|NCT02818998|183662208|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.47||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the p-value (adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure) was \< 0.025|ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||1.47|-1.46|<0.0001
91908654|NCT02831673|183712876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.64|57.3|||||Race group African Am/African H.. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||57.30|-110.64|
91754557|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.5446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.33|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.330|0.723|0.5446
91754558|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.95||||0.6267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.333|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.333|0.679|0.6267
91754559|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.7668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.26|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.260|0.612|0.7668
91754560|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.509|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.509|0.588|0.6100
91754561|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.68||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|1.623|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Renin, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.623|0.291|0.8159
91754562|NCT01597635|183401794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.53||||0.7988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|2.657|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Aldosterone, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.657|0.106|0.7988
91754563|NCT01597635|183401795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.12||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|2.024|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||2.024|0.626|0.6536
91754564|NCT01597635|183401795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.3||||0.9066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.955|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.955|0.876|0.9066
91754565|NCT01597635|183401795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.23||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|2.066|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||2.066|0.723|0.7859
91754566|NCT01597635|183401795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.963|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.963|0.413|0.6058
91754567|NCT01597635|183401795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.29||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|3.632|||Ratio of Active/Placebo|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||3.632|0.456|0.6921
91754568|NCT01597635|183401796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.7934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.14|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.140|0.737|0.7934
91754569|NCT01597635|183401796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.317|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.317|0.782|0.5205
91754570|NCT01597635|183401796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.12||||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.865|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.865|0.673|0.6682
91754571|NCT01597635|183401796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.315|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.315|0.744|0.5304
91754572|NCT01597635|183401796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.81||||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.112|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.112|0.582|0.9078
91754573|NCT01597635|183401796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.9907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|1.526|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.526|1.042|0.9907
91754574|NCT01597635|183401796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.27||||0.9973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.005|1.606|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.606|1.005|0.9973
91884171|NCT02818998|183662208|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.42||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the p-value (adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure) was \< 0.025|ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||2.42|-0.52|<0.0001
91884172|NCT02818998|183662209|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|14.38||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|25.37|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||25.37|3.39|0.0105
91884173|NCT02818998|183662209|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|21.22||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|34.8|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||34.80|7.65|0.0023
91884174|NCT02818998|183662210|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|4.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥ 15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||4.49|-3.14|
91908655|NCT02831673|183712876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.44||||||95.0|-76.18|85.06|||||Race group Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||85.06|-76.18|
91908656|NCT02831673|183712876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.68|110.59|||||Race group Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||110.59|-60.68|
91754575|NCT01597635|183401796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.61||||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.331|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||2.331|1.130|0.9954
91884175|NCT02818998|183662210|OTHER||Treatment Difference|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||8.73|-3.40|
91884176|NCT02818998|183662210|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||0.63|-1.94|
91908657|NCT02831673|183712877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|39.8|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||39.8|-24.6|
91754576|NCT01597635|183401796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.65||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|2.588|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.588|1.045|0.9830
91754577|NCT01597635|183401796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.52||||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|2.737|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||2.737|0.867|0.9312
91754578|NCT04557787|183401846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|44.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||44.6|12.2|0.001
91908658|NCT02831673|183712877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|65.9|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||65.9|-59.8|
91754579|NCT04557787|183401846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|44.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||44.4|12.0|0.001
91754580|NCT04557787|183401846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||16.3|-16.0|0.983
91754581|NCT04557787|183401847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||49.4|17.0|<0.001
91884177|NCT02818998|183662210|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|3.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||3.41|-3.68|
91884178|NCT02818998|183662210|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||7.54|-4.10|
91884179|NCT02818998|183662210|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||0.65|-2.00|
91884180|NCT02818998|183662211|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.52|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||1.52|-2.13|<0.0001
91884181|NCT02818998|183662211|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.19|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||3.19|-0.40|<0.0001
91884182|NCT02818998|183662212|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|16.14||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|31.66|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||31.66|0.62|0.0416
91884183|NCT02818998|183662212|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|4.12||||0.5524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|17.77|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||17.77|-9.52|0.5524
91908659|NCT02831673|183712877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.3|123.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||123.5|-78.3|
91908660|NCT02831673|183712877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|35.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||35.1|-24.7|
91805411|NCT04115839|183487382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|33.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||33.5|-9.3|0.22
91884184|NCT02818998|183662213|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|4.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥ 15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||4.05|-2.72|
91884185|NCT02818998|183662213|OTHER||Treatment Difference|4.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|10.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||10.98|-1.73|
91754582|NCT04557787|183401847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|46.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||46.0|13.5|<0.001
91754583|NCT04557787|183401847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|19.7||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||19.7|-12.6|0.667
91754584|NCT04557787|183401848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|7.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||7.0|-14.2|0.503
91754585|NCT04557787|183401848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|11.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||11.2|-10.1|0.916
91754586|NCT04557787|183401848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied||6.5|-14.8|0.438
91754587|NCT04557787|183401849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||10.9|-10.3|0.955
91754588|NCT04557787|183401849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|2.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||2.2|-19.2|0.118
91754589|NCT04557787|183401849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|19.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||19.5|-1.8|0.104
91754590|NCT04557787|183401850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.60|-0.22|0.352
91754591|NCT04557787|183401850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.40|-0.41|0.980
91754592|NCT04557787|183401850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.60|-0.21|0.339
91754593|NCT04557787|183401851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.42||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.42|-0.62|0.700
91884186|NCT02818998|183662213|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||2.87|-1.56|
91884187|NCT02818998|183662213|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|5.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||5.69|-1.89|
91884188|NCT02818998|183662213|OTHER||Treatment Difference|7.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|14.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||14.28|0.81|
91884189|NCT02818998|183662213|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||2.88|-1.61|
91884190|NCT00632021|183662216|EQUIVALENCE|In the primary analysis we compared the number of clinically important medication errors by treatment group using unadjusted negative binomial regression.|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.09||||||||1.09|0.77|
91805412|NCT04115839|183487384|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.8|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.8|-2.8|
91805413|NCT04115839|183487384|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.9|-2.9|
91884191|NCT00632021|183662217|EQUIVALENCE|The association between intervention and time to first unplanned health care event (hospital readmission) was examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.28||||||||1.28|0.63|
91884192|NCT00443209|183662218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-2.6|||Miettenen and Nurminen method||Treatment Difference was compared using the Miettinen and Nurminen (MN) method.|||-2.6|-10.4|<0.001
91884193|NCT00443209|183662219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|1.4|||||Treatment Difference was compared using the MN method.|||1.4|-11.7|
91884194|NCT00443209|183662220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||||Treatment Difference was compared using the MN method.|||2.0|-2.0|
91884195|NCT00443209|183662222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75|||||Based on mixed logistic regression model with a fixed effect term for treatment, baseline pain severity and a random effect term for participant, with the random effect following a normal distribution. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of telcagepant.|||0.75|0.45|
91754594|NCT04557787|183401851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.84||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.84|-0.20|0.227
91754595|NCT04557787|183401851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.1||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.10|-0.94|0.112
91754596|NCT04557787|183401852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.17||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.17|0.22|0.013
91754597|NCT04557787|183401852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.51||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.51|-0.05|0.065
91754598|NCT04557787|183401852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.04||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.04|-0.51|0.497
91754599|NCT04557787|183401853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.88||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.88|0.06|0.027
91754600|NCT04557787|183401853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.02||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.02|0.19|0.005
91754601|NCT04557787|183401853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.28|-0.54|0.532
91754602|NCT04557787|183401854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.56||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.56|-0.26|0.461
91805414|NCT04115839|183487384|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|12.2|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||12.2|-5.9|
91884196|NCT03563313|183662225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91884197|NCT03563313|183662226|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91884198|NCT03563313|183662227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91884199|NCT03563313|183662228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91884200|NCT03563313|183662229|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91884201|NCT03563313|183662230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91884202|NCT02250534|183662274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.26||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.12 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-3.26|-7.41|<0.0001
91884203|NCT02250534|183662274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-5.57||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.03 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 6.07 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.03 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-5.57|-9.51|<0.0001
91884204|NCT01587118|183662292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\</= 0.05|ANOVA|Change from baseline analyses were conducted using simple one-way analysis of variance; and were recalculated using the Kruskal Wallis procedure.||||||<.0001
91884205|NCT01587118|183662293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\</= 0.05|ANOVA|Change from baseline analyses were conducted using simple one-way analysis of variance; and were recalculated using the Kruskal Wallis procedure.||||||.0006
91884206|NCT00537329|183662294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|86.1||||||95.0|70.5|95.3||||||Sample size enrollment of 100 subjects was planned. Assuming an overall response rate of 75 percent (%), a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects responding to treatment would have ranged from 66.3% to 83.7% allowing for 5% nonevaluability. This would have provided a level of precision considered acceptable for this Asian regional study.||95.3|70.5|
91884207|NCT00537329|183662295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|89.2||||||95.0|74.6|97.0||||||EOIT||97.0|74.6|
91754603|NCT04557787|183401854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.73||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.73|-0.09|0.120
91754604|NCT04557787|183401854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.24||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.24|-0.58|0.404
91754605|NCT04557787|183401855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.71||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.71|-0.33|0.478
91754606|NCT04557787|183401855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.58||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.58|-0.46|0.824
91884208|NCT00537329|183662295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|82.8||||||95.0|64.2|94.2||||||2 Wks post EOT||94.2|64.2|
91884209|NCT00537329|183662295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|89.5||||||95.0|66.9|98.7||||||6 Wks post EOT||98.7|66.9|
91884210|NCT00537329|183662295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|72.7||||||95.0|49.8|89.3||||||12 Wks post baseline||89.3|49.8|
91884211|NCT00537329|183662296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|97.1||||||95.0|85.1|99.9||||||EOIT: success (cure/improvement)||99.9|85.1|
91754607|NCT04557787|183401855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.65||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.65|-0.39|0.626
91754608|NCT04557787|183401856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.64||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.64|0.09|0.030
91884212|NCT00537329|183662296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|94.1||||||95.0|80.3|99.3||||||EOT: success (cure/improvement)||99.3|80.3|
91884213|NCT00537329|183662296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|92.9||||||95.0|76.5|99.1||||||2 Wks post EOT: success (cure/improvement)||99.1|76.5|
91884214|NCT00537329|183662296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|94.4||||||95.0|72.7|99.9||||||6 Wks post EOT: success (cure/improvement)||99.9|72.7|
91884215|NCT00537329|183662296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|85.0||||||95.0|62.1|96.8||||||12 Wks post baseline: success (cure/improvement)||96.8|62.1|
91884216|NCT00537329|183662297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|97.3||||||95.0|85.8|99.9||||||EOIT: success (erad/presumed erad)||99.9|85.8|
91884217|NCT00537329|183662297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|97.1||||||95.0|85.1|99.9||||||EOT: success (erad/presumed erad)||99.9|85.1|
91884218|NCT00537329|183662297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|86.2||||||95.0|68.3|96.1||||||2 Wks post EOT: success (erad/presumed erad)||96.1|68.3|
91884219|NCT00537329|183662297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|94.4||||||95.0|72.7|99.9||||||6 Wks post EOT: success (erad/presumed erad)||99.9|72.7|
91884220|NCT00537329|183662297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|84.2||||||95.0|60.4|96.6||||||12 Wks post baseline: success (erad/presumed erad)||96.6|60.4|
91884221|NCT00537329|183662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|50.0||||||95.0|1.3|98.7||||||Neutropenic status: ANC ≤ 500/cmm||98.7|1.3|
91884222|NCT00537329|183662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|75.7||||||95.0|58.8|88.2||||||Neutropenic status: ANC \> 500/cmm||88.2|58.8|
91884223|NCT00537329|183662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|71.4||||||95.0|41.9|91.6||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida albicans||91.6|41.9|
91884224|NCT00537329|183662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|66.7||||||95.0|22.3|95.7||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida glabrata||95.7|22.3|
91884225|NCT00537329|183662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|100.0||||||95.0|39.8|100.0||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida parapsilosis||100.0|39.8|
91884226|NCT00537329|183662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|100.0||||||95.0|2.5|100.0||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida rugosa||100.0|2.5|
91884227|NCT00537329|183662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|72.2||||||95.0|46.5|90.3||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida tropicalis||90.3|46.5|
91884228|NCT00537329|183662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|84.6||||||95.0|54.6|98.1||||||Previous surgery: Any surgery||98.1|54.6|
91884229|NCT00537329|183662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|87.5||||||95.0|47.3|99.7||||||Previous surgery: Abdominal surgery||99.7|47.3|
91908661|NCT02831673|183712877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|45.9|||||Age\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||45.9|-29.1|
91908662|NCT02831673|183712877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|48.9|||||Age 35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||48.9|-53.9|
91884230|NCT00537329|183662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|58.8||||||95.0|32.9|81.6||||||Elderly: Age ≥ 65 years||81.6|32.9|
91884231|NCT00537329|183662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|54.5||||||95.0|23.4|83.3||||||Renal insufficiency (CCC \< 30 mL/min)||83.3|23.4|
91884232|NCT00537329|183662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|81.0||||||95.0|58.1|94.6||||||Use of Central venous catheter = Yes||94.6|58.1|
91884233|NCT00537329|183662304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|71.4||||||95.0|29.0|96.3||||||Receiving chemotherapy = Yes||96.3|29.0|
91884234|NCT01653210|183662312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
91908663|NCT02831673|183712877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.6|110.1|||||Age\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||110.1|-74.6|
91754609|NCT04557787|183401856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.66||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.66|0.11|0.027
91754610|NCT04557787|183401856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.75||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.75|-0.80|0.956
91754611|NCT04557787|183401857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.78||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.78|-0.05|0.084
91754612|NCT04557787|183401857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.81||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.81|-0.02|0.063
91754613|NCT04557787|183401857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.38||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.38|-0.44|0.885
91754614|NCT04135859|183401888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.023
91754615|NCT04135859|183401889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-59.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.06
91754616|NCT04135859|183401890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.43
91759682|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|24.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.63|42.24|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||42.24|6.63|
91759683|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.33|44.65|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||44.65|9.33|
91759684|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|25.31|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.31|-7.53|
91759685|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|38.91|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||38.91|3.88|
91759686|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|24.57|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||24.57|-6.80|
91759687|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|18.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|35.2|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.20|1.96|
91759688|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|35.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.89|53.21|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||53.21|17.89|
91759689|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|29.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.94|46.49|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||46.49|11.94|
91884235|NCT00243022|183662318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91884236|NCT00243022|183662319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91884237|NCT00243022|183662320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
91754617|NCT01291836|183401896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Area under Receiver-Operator Curve (ROC)|0.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|0.73||||||Null Hypothesis: ROC AUC of 0.58; using a one-sided z-test at a significance level of 0.025. Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|0.73|0.586|
91754618|NCT01291836|183401897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ROC AUC|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.702||||||Null Hypothesis: AUC ≤0.55, using a one-sided z-test at a significance level of 0.025. Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|0.702|0.598|
91754619|NCT02855944|183401952|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.639||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|0.835|||Regression, Cox|||||0.835|0.489|0.0010
91754620|NCT02855944|183401953|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.665||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|0.858|||Regression, Cox|||||0.858|0.516|0.0017
91754621|NCT02855944|183401956|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.589||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.976|||Regression, Cox|||||0.976|0.356|0.0401
91754622|NCT02855944|183401957|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.564||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.927|||Regression, Cox|||||0.927|0.343|0.0240
91754623|NCT00966719|183401980|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Fisher Exact|||||1.24|0.56|0.40
91754624|NCT00966719|183401981|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.02|||Fisher Exact|||||3.02|0.44|1
91754625|NCT00966719|183401982|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||Fisher Exact|||||1.10|0.91|1
91754626|NCT00966719|183401983|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Fisher Exact|||||1.26|0.85|0.78
91754627|NCT00966719|183401984|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.94||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|27.3|||Fisher Exact|||||27.30|0.32|0.32
91754628|NCT00966719|183401985|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.38|||Fisher Exact|||||2.38|0.95|0.09
91754629|NCT00966719|183401986|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||Fisher Exact|||||1.27|0.83|0.77
91754630|NCT00966719|183401987|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.15|||Fisher Exact|||||3.15|0.58|0.6
91754631|NCT03242018|183401998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.051|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.051|-0.628|0.0962
91754632|NCT03242018|183401999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.431|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.431|-0.338|0.8124
91754633|NCT03242018|183402000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6033||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5431|0.822|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||0.8220|-1.5431|0.5501
91754634|NCT03242018|183402000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5298||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7524|0.3246|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||0.3246|-1.7524|0.1779
91754635|NCT03242018|183402001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.703||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.197|0.557|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||0.557|-2.197|0.2432
91759690|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|13.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|29.63|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||29.63|-2.96|
91759691|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|32.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.83|49.8|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||49.80|14.83|
91759692|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|15.79|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||15.79|-15.79|
91759693|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|19.67|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||19.67|-12.67|
91759694|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|23.47|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||23.47|-10.13|
91759695|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|14.74|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||14.74|-16.25|
91884238|NCT03636373|183662363|NON_INFERIORITY|On a 10 point Likert Pain Scale, non-inferiority margin for the difference is 1.04. Using a Student t-test, there was 80% power for the difference in pain levels to exceed -1.04.||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Outcome measure Etanercept arm { ( 8 + 0 + 7)/3 = 5} Triamcinolone Arm { (3+0) /2 = 1.5 }||||1.00
91884239|NCT03636373|183662364|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91884240|NCT03636373|183662365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91884241|NCT03636373|183662366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91884242|NCT03636373|183662367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91884243|NCT03636373|183662368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91884244|NCT01575873|183662369|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was shown if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the least-squares means (denosumab minus risedronate) was higher than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -1.1 percentage points for the glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation.|LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.9||One-sided p-value based on the prespecified noninferiority margin for lumbar spine of -1.1%.|ANCOVA||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within the glucocorticoid-continuing and glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulations. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level within each subpopulation.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction."||3.9|2.0|< 0.001
91884245|NCT01575873|183662369|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was shown if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the least-squares means (denosumab minus risedronate) was higher than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.7 percentage points for the glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation.|LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.0||One-sided p-value based on the prespecified noninferiority margins for lumbar spine of -0.7%.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||3.0|1.4|< 0.001
91884246|NCT01575873|183662370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.9||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||3.9|2.0|< 0.001
91884247|NCT01575873|183662370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.0||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||3.0|1.4|< 0.001
91754636|NCT03242018|183402001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.008|-2.810|0.0487
91884248|NCT01575873|183662371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||2.1|0.8|< 0.001
91884249|NCT01575873|183662371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||2.1|1.0|< 0.001
91754637|NCT03242018|183402002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.515||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.066|2.792|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||2.792|-7.066|0.3954
91759696|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|25.96|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.96|-8.19|
91884250|NCT01575873|183662372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.8||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||5.8|3.2|< 0.001
91884251|NCT01575873|183662372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.3||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||4.3|2.0|< 0.001
91884252|NCT01575873|183662373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.9||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||3.9|2.2|< 0.001
91884253|NCT01575873|183662373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.2||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||3.2|1.7|< 0.001
91884254|NCT03698019|183662398|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.004
91884255|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.52||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 1||1.52|0.65|
91884256|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.98||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 50||2.98|1.5|
91884257|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 1|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.06||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 1||1.06|0.43|
91884258|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 50||0.87|0.58|
91884259|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 1||1.08|0.92|
91884260|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 50||1.01|0.6|
91884261|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.96||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 1||1.96|0.83|
91908664|NCT02831673|183712877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|83.1|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||83.1|-62.3|
91884262|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.28||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 50||2.28|1.13|
91759697|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|22.77|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||22.77|-10.50|
91759698|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-15.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.03|-2.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-2.00|-28.03|
91884263|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.81||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 1||0.81|0.33|
91884264|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 50||0.78|0.52|
91759699|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-10.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.93|3.19|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||3.19|-24.93|
91805415|NCT04115839|183487384|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||2.9|-2.9|
91805416|NCT04115839|183487384|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.9|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||11.9|-5.8|
91805417|NCT04115839|183487384|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|16.7|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||16.7|-5.0|
91805418|NCT04115839|183487384|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|11.6|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||11.6|-11.4|
91884265|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 1|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.04||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 1||1.04|0.89|
91884266|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 50||0.84|0.49|
91884267|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.58||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 1||1.58|0.66|
91884268|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.3||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 50||2.3|1.14|
91884269|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.17||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 1||1.17|0.47|
91754638|NCT03242018|183402002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.185|0.386|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.386|-9.185|0.0716
91908665|NCT02831673|183712877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|36.9|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||36.9|-25.6|
91805419|NCT04115839|183487384|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|16.1|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||16.1|-10.0|
91805420|NCT04115839|183487392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was provided from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0|-1|0.24
91805421|NCT04115839|183487392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0|-1|0.22
91805422|NCT04115839|183487392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||1|-1|0.43
91805423|NCT04115839|183487392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||1|-1|0.70
91805424|NCT04115839|183487392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||0|-2|0.10
91805425|NCT04115839|183487392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||1|-1|0.90
91884270|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.57||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 50||0.57|0.38|
91908666|NCT02831673|183712877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|40.9|||||Race group white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||40.9|-28.2|
91754639|NCT03242018|183402003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.103||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.365|0.881|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.881|-7.365|0.1232
91884271|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.02||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 1||1.02|0.87|
91884272|NCT02035696|183662411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 50||0.75|0.44|
91884273|NCT02035696|183662412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.9||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H1N1||18.9|0|
91884274|NCT02035696|183662412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.0||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H3N2||8|-4|
91884275|NCT02035696|183662412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-1.5||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain B||-1.5|-21.1|
91908667|NCT02831673|183712877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.7|62.4|||||Race group African Am/African H.. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||62.4|-122.7|
91754640|NCT03242018|183402003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.077||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.433|-1.292|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.292|-9.433|0.0098
91754641|NCT03242018|183402004|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-20.37||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.75|14.77|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||14.77|-44.75|0.222
91754642|NCT03242018|183402004|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-21.17||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.05|13.1|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||13.10|-45.05|0.1965
91754643|NCT03242018|183402005|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|3.2||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|8.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||8.66|-2.17|0.2420
91754644|NCT03242018|183402005|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.5||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|12.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||12.93|0.04|0.0513
91754645|NCT03242018|183402006|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|20.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||20.61|3.48|0.0066
91754646|NCT03242018|183402006|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|13.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|21.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||21.75|4.28|0.0043
91754647|NCT01852383|183402011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Week 0 to Week 12, not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91754648|NCT01852383|183402012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Change from Week 0 to Week 12, not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 threshold for statistical significance.|Corrlation|||||||<0.1
91754649|NCT01852383|183402013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Week 0 to Week 12, not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91754650|NCT01852383|183402014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Pearson correlation coefficient. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 for statistical significance threshold.|Pearson correlation|||Correlation of maximum duloxetine dose with change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores from 0 Weeks to 12 Weeks.||||<.001
91754651|NCT02968914|183402032|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (%)|94.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.16|101.21|||ANOVA|||||101.21|88.16|
91754652|NCT02968914|183402033|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.41|98.58|||ANOVA|||||98.58|87.41|
91754653|NCT02968914|183402034|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.34|98.75|||ANOVA|||||98.75|86.34|
91754654|NCT00576472|183402136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0452|-0.0208|||ANOVA|||||-0.0208|-0.0452|<.0001
91754655|NCT00576472|183402137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.038|||ANOVA|||||0.0380|0.0190|<.0001
91754656|NCT00576472|183402138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0064||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.000204|0.0285|||ANOVA|||||0.0285|0.000204|0.025
91754657|NCT00576472|183402138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0292|0.0591|||ANOVA|||||0.0591|0.0292|<.0001
91754658|NCT00576472|183402138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0396|0.0586|||ANOVA|||||0.0586|0.0396|<.0001
91754659|NCT00576472|183402138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0083||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00974|0.0499|||ANOVA|||||0.0499|0.00974|.0004
91754660|NCT00576472|183402138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.0445|||ANOVA|||||0.0445|0.0250|<.0001
91754661|NCT00576472|183402138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0083||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00865|0.0185|||ANOVA|||||0.0185|-0.00865|.552
91754662|NCT00576472|183402139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-3.3|||ANOVA|||||-3.3|-11.0|.0005
91754663|NCT00576472|183402140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-6.5|0.0413
91754664|NCT00576472|183402141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.4|||ANOVA|||||-6.4|-11.0|<.0001
91754665|NCT00576472|183402142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0|||ANOVA|||||-7.0|-12.0|<.0001
91754666|NCT00576472|183402143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.6|||ANOVA|||||11.6|4.4|<.0001
91754667|NCT00576472|183402144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.8425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||ANOVA|||||1.9|-2.3|.8425
91754668|NCT00576472|183402145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.9|||ANOVA|||||-0.9|-3.9|.0016
91754669|NCT00576472|183402146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||ANOVA|||||2.3|-1.9|.8329
91754670|NCT00576472|183402148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0077
91754671|NCT00576472|183402148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91754672|NCT00576472|183402148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1408||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1408
91754673|NCT00576472|183402149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0428||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0428
91754674|NCT00576472|183402149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
91754675|NCT00576472|183402149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4258||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4258
91754676|NCT00576472|183402150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
91754677|NCT00576472|183402150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
91754678|NCT00576472|183402150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4086||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4086
91754679|NCT00576472|183402151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91754680|NCT00576472|183402151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
91754681|NCT00576472|183402151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7007
91754682|NCT00576472|183402152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91754683|NCT00576472|183402152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0016
91754684|NCT00576472|183402152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6237||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6237
91754685|NCT00576472|183402153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91754686|NCT00576472|183402153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
91754687|NCT00576472|183402153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6071
91754688|NCT00576472|183402154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1386||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1386
91754689|NCT00576472|183402154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0905||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0905
91754690|NCT00576472|183402154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8039
91754691|NCT00576472|183402155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7496||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7496
91754692|NCT00576472|183402155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9489||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9489
91754693|NCT00576472|183402155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7021||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7021
91754694|NCT00576472|183402156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0190
91754695|NCT00576472|183402156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
91754696|NCT00576472|183402156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1622||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1622
91754697|NCT00576472|183402157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1202||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1202
91754698|NCT00576472|183402157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0103
91754699|NCT00576472|183402157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2831||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2831
91754700|NCT00576472|183402158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7027
91754701|NCT00576472|183402159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7493||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7493
91754702|NCT00576472|183402160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7339||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7339
91754703|NCT00576472|183402161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6148||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6148
91754704|NCT00576472|183402162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4456||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4456
91754705|NCT00576472|183402163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5866||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5866
91754706|NCT00576472|183402164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8918||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8918
91754707|NCT00576472|183402165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4427||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4427
91754708|NCT00576472|183402166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4203||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4203
91754709|NCT00576472|183402167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5754||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5754
91754710|NCT00576472|183402168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0251||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0251
91754711|NCT00576472|183402169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1049
91754712|NCT04405245|183402170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.63|0.8070
91754713|NCT04405245|183402170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.64|0.0130
91754714|NCT02576860|183402198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.799
91754715|NCT02576860|183402199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.858
91754716|NCT02391961|183402208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842672|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: average PSR at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and average PSR at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.842672
91754717|NCT02391961|183402209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972866|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: average PTD at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and average PTD at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.972866
91754718|NCT02391961|183402210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: RA at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and RA at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.95
91754719|NCT02391961|183402211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: MRS at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and MRS at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.9
91754720|NCT02391961|183402212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.990995|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: 25 FWT at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and 25 FWT at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.990995
91754721|NCT02391961|183402213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 2 groups, mean VFQ-25 scores on dalfampridine vs mean VFQ-25 scores on placebo||||0.71
91805426|NCT04115839|183487392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||1|-1|0.88
91805427|NCT04115839|183487392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||1|-1|0.89
91805428|NCT04115839|183487396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|16.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||16.5|-15.9|
91805429|NCT04115839|183487396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|32.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||32.3|-7.1|
91805430|NCT04115839|183487396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|50.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||50.2|3.0|
91805431|NCT04115839|183487396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|40.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||40.4|-4.1|
91805432|NCT04115839|183487398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|11.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||11.5|-5.6|
91805433|NCT04115839|183487398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.9|-2.9|
91805434|NCT04115839|183487398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||27.8|-2.0|
91805435|NCT04115839|183487398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|21.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||21.9|-3.7|
91805436|NCT04115839|183487400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.4||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|36.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||36.3|-5.5|0.098
91805437|NCT04115839|183487400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|11.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||11.0|-21.1|0.40
91754722|NCT02391961|183402214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 2 groups, mean 10-item NOS scores on dalfampridine vs mean 10-item NOS scores on placebo||||0.95
91754723|NCT02011490|183402241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.12|7.11|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (severe renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (severe renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||7.11|4.12|
91754724|NCT02011490|183402241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.17|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (moderate renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (moderate renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||3.17|1.84|
91805438|NCT04115839|183487400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|34.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||34.3|-12.6|0.26
91908668|NCT02831673|183712877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|134.7|||||Race group Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||134.7|-36.3|
91754725|NCT02011490|183402242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.18|7.22|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (severe renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (severe renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||7.22|4.18|
91754726|NCT02011490|183402242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.18|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (moderate renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (moderate renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||3.18|1.84|
91754727|NCT02011490|183402243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.21|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (severe renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (severe renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||1.21|0.73|
91754728|NCT02011490|183402243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.18|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (moderate renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (moderate renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||1.18|0.72|
91754729|NCT01014455|183402255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
91754730|NCT00249613|183402259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.79||Odds ratio is 0.40, confidence interval is 0.21-0.79.|Regression, Logistic||The direction of the comparison would dictate that odds ratio of less than 1 would indicate Women-Only participants are less likely than Mixed-Gender participants to engage in criminal activities.|Logistic regression does not separate arms because group status (women-only vs mixed gender) is the dependent variable in our multinomial logistic regression. Because we were not able to randomly assign after all, we also included a propensity score, and additional variables (substance use in past 30 days at baseline, age, race/ethnicity, childhood sexual abuse history, previous treatment, criminal justice funding source, and primary drug) to adjust for the non-random sampling.||0.79|0.21|0.01
91754731|NCT00249613|183402260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta coefficient|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.7|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models do not separate arms: group status (women-only vs mixed-gender) is the dependent variable. Because we were not able to randomly assign, we also included a propensity score, and additional variables (education, race/ethnicity, marital status, income, history of sexual abuse, criminal justice funding source, had child, mental health symptoms, and a time in treatment by group interaction term) to adjust for the non-random sampling.||0.70|-2.11|0.33
91754732|NCT00249613|183402261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.82|||Regression, Logistic||The direction of the comparison would dictate that odds ratio of less than 1 would indicate Women-Only treatment participants are less likely than the Mixed-Gender group to use drugs or alcohol during the 30 days prior to the 12-Mo follow-up.|Logistic regression does not separate arms because group status (women-only vs mixed gender) is the dependent variable in our multinomial logistic regression. Because we were not able to randomly assign after all, we also included a propensity score, and additional variables (substance use in past 30 days at baseline, age, race/ethnicity, childhood sexual abuse history, previous treatment, criminal justice funding source, and primary drug) to adjust for the non-random sampling.||0.82|0.22|0.01
91754733|NCT01184417|183402263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|32.0||||||||32|4|
91754734|NCT01184417|183402264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|49.0||||||||49|4|
91754735|NCT01184417|183402265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|82.0||||||||82|-4|
91754736|NCT01184417|183402267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|23.0||||||||23|-11|
91754737|NCT04728594|183402278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.69||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with delayed contact as the reference group.||2.69|1.65|<.001
91754738|NCT04728594|183402278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.87||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with delayed contact as the reference group.||2.87|1.77|<.001
91754739|NCT04728594|183402278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with delayed contact as the reference group.||1.30|0.88|<.001
91754740|NCT00128713|183402314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Three one-degree-of-freedom chi-square tests, each comparing a pair of treatment groups. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.||||||0.83
91754741|NCT00128713|183402314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Three one-degree-of-freedom chi-square tests, each comparing a pair of treatment groups. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.||||||0.83
91754742|NCT00128713|183402314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Three one-degree-of-freedom chi-square tests, each comparing a pair of treatment groups. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.||||||0.66
91754743|NCT00128713|183402315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||All analyses are based on intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91754744|NCT00128713|183402315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses are based on intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91754745|NCT00128713|183402315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses are based on intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91754746|NCT00128713|183402316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses were carried out using intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91754747|NCT00128713|183402316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses were carried out using intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91754748|NCT00128713|183402316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||All analyses were carried out using intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91754749|NCT00128713|183402318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||||||Each pair of treatment arms was compared using an exact version of the Mantel-Haenszel test for trend.|Mantel Haenszel|These tests will be carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons||||||0.51
91754750|NCT00128713|183402318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||||||Each pair of treatment arms was compared using an exact version of the Mantel-Haenszel test for trend.|Mantel Haenszel|These tests will be carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons||||||0.82
91754751|NCT00128713|183402318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||||||Each pair of treatment arms was compared using an exact version of the Mantel-Haenszel test for trend.|Mantel Haenszel|These tests will be carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons||||||0.68
91754752|NCT01755455|183402387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Fixed-effect model|||Fixed-effect models accounted for repeated measurements within subjects and treatment sequence. The estimated effect signifies the absolute change from baseline at 6 weeks in the specified outcome measure and (standard error).||||0.81
91754753|NCT01755455|183402388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fixed-effect model|||||||<0.05
91754754|NCT01755455|183402389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fixed-effect model|||Fixed-effect models accounted for repeated measurements within subjects and treatment sequence. The estimated effect signifies the absolute change from baseline at 6 weeks in the specified outcome measure and (standard error).||||<0.05
91754755|NCT01755455|183402390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Fixed-effect model|||||||0.16
91754756|NCT00344500|183402404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Predicted trajectory of mean weight change between matched UC and LB subjects over 12 months (treatment\*time interaction: F(1,1275)=68.75, p\<.01).||General Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) used to illustrate the magnitude of difference between slopes for major outcomes for two hypothetical participants with identical baseline characteristics over 12 months.||||<0.01
91754757|NCT00599755|183402407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|0.55||||||||0.55|0.27|
91754758|NCT00599755|183402408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Concordance correlation coefficient|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|0.92||||||||0.92|0.85|
91754759|NCT00599755|183402412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|0.23||||||||0.23|0.06|
91754760|NCT02198794|183402427|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.17||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||The statistical model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group and dopamine receptor antagonist status at the pre-withdrawal visit as fixed effects and the pre-withdrawal visit value as a covariate.||0.17|-1.42|0.121
91754761|NCT01364740|183402442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
91754762|NCT01364740|183402443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
91754763|NCT01364740|183402444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
91754764|NCT01364740|183402445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
91754765|NCT00789672|183402478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.0||||||Given this was pilot study, no formal sample size estimates were calculated.||1|-6|
91754766|NCT02252965|183402484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin of this efficacy outcome measure is -0.4%.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17||||||||0.17|-0.10|
91754767|NCT02252965|183402485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|-1.52||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.56|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.56|-8.60|0.674
91754768|NCT00680797|183402495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison of pre- to post-intervention insulin levels between the groups receiving E only versus the group receiving no hormone replacement.|ANCOVA|||The major outcome variable being presented is changes in insulin levels. Changes in insulin levels were analyzed using an ANCOVA model that adjusted for baseline insulin and age.||||0.023
91754769|NCT00680797|183402495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison in the change in insulin levels between the groups receiving E with or without T.|ANCOVA|||The major outcome variable being presented is changes in insulin levels. Changes in insulin levels were analyzed using an ANCOVA model that adjusted for baseline insulin and age.||||0.042
91759700|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-10.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|3.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||3.48|-24.83|
91759701|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|22.9|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||22.90|-10.96|
91759702|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-21.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.22|-5.86|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-5.86|-37.22|
91759703|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|10.95|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||10.95|-25.01|
91884276|NCT02035696|183662412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|16.8||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H1N1||16.8|-2.5|
91908669|NCT02831673|183712877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.7|89.7|||||Race group Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||89.7|-94.7|
91754770|NCT04736628|183402496|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.228||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|-0.04|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 1 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.040|-0.417|0.0179
91754771|NCT04736628|183402496|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.209||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.398|-0.02|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 2 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.020|-0.398|0.0307
91754772|NCT04736628|183402496|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.235||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|-0.046|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 3 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.046|-0.425|0.0151
91754773|NCT04736628|183402496|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0053|||||||MCP-Mod E-max model fit|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 6 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0053
91754774|NCT04736628|183402496|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0102|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: 50 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0102
91754775|NCT04736628|183402496|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.023|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: no assumption is needed.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0230
91754776|NCT04736628|183402496|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0292|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 30 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0292
91759704|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|24.41|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||24.41|-14.17|
91759705|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.22|15.67|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.67|-21.22|
91759706|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-25.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.54|-9.14|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-9.14|-42.54|
91884277|NCT02035696|183662412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group differences|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|4.1||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H3N2||4.1|-9.5|
91754777|NCT04736628|183402496|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0468|||||||MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0468
91754778|NCT04736628|183402497|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.217||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|-0.018|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 1 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.018|-0.416|0.0327
91754779|NCT04736628|183402497|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|-0.005|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 2 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.005|-0.408|0.0447
91754780|NCT04736628|183402497|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.187||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.012|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 3 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.012|-0.387|0.0654
91754781|NCT04736628|183402498|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.79||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 1 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.79|1.01|0.0476
91754782|NCT04736628|183402498|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.94||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 2 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||5.94|1.25|0.0119
91805439|NCT04115839|183487400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|32.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||32.2|-14.6|0.39
91805440|NCT04115839|183487400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|46.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||46.9|-6.9|0.088
91805441|NCT04115839|183487400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-7.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|18.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||18.9|-32.9|0.49
91805442|NCT04115839|183487400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|28.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|54.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||54.2|2.4|0.019
91805443|NCT04115839|183487400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|28.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||28.4|-22.5|0.85
91805444|NCT04115839|183487400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.9||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|52.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||52.3|-0.4|0.036
91805445|NCT04115839|183487400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|31.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||31.8|-19.7|0.60
91754783|NCT04736628|183402498|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|7.45||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 3 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||7.45|1.58|0.0019
91884278|NCT02035696|183662412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-1.0||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain B||-1|-20.5|
91884279|NCT02035696|183662412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|15.4||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H1N1||15.4|-4.2|
91884280|NCT02035696|183662412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.3||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H3N2||1.3|-13.4|
91884281|NCT02035696|183662412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-7.2||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain B||-7.2|-27.8|
91908670|NCT02831673|183712878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|38.2|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||38.2|-34.5|
91754784|NCT04736628|183402499|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.55||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 1 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.55|1.00|0.0497
91754785|NCT04736628|183402499|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.61||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 2 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.61|1.00|0.0502
91754786|NCT04736628|183402499|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.49||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 3 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.49|0.98|0.0572
91754787|NCT04051827|183402506|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.739|1.42|||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of midazolam Cmax on Day 24 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 1 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam Cmax (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||1.42|0.739|
91754788|NCT04051827|183402507|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.676|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.859|||||The GMR of midazolam AUC∞ on Day 24 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 1 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam AUC∞ (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90% CIs were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects ANOVA model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||0.859|0.532|
91754789|NCT04051827|183402508|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.92|||||The GMR of midazolam Cmax on Day 25 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 2 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam Cmax (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90% CIs were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects ANOVA model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||1.92|0.886|
91754790|NCT04051827|183402509|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.837|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.673|1.04|||||The GMR of midazolam AUC∞ on Day 25 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 2 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam AUC∞ (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90% CIs were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects ANOVA model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||1.04|0.673|
91754791|NCT01424566|183402517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.42|0.9173
91754792|NCT02690649|183402550|SUPERIORITY||estimated adherence rate for the interve|94.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|95.0|||Regression, Linear|||estimated adherence rate for the intervention group Generalized linear models were used to test the effect of the intervention on medication adherence. These generalized linear models used a Poisson distribution to estimate the rate of adherence with the log of total prescribed doses as an offset term in the linear predictor.||95|92|0.28
91884282|NCT02035696|183662413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Desirability Index Score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Desirability Score: If this difference is negative, then it is defined as non-desirable (D equal to 0), while if the difference is positive, then D will equal to the relative reduction calculated in the following way: D = (TIVe - TIVc Dose )/TIVe.|||||
91754793|NCT02690649|183402551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A negative binomial distribution because the outcome was a count variable and it was over-dispersed.|Regression, Linear|Age, previous patient portal logins, and gender were used as co-variates in the model.||||||<0.001
91754794|NCT02690649|183402552|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.61||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.07||baseline AF knowledge, gender, age, and educational level were all used as co-variates.|Regression, Linear|generalized linear model tested whether AF knowledge at study completion was related to baseline AF knowledge, gender, age, and educational level||||-0.07|-1.14|0.03
91884283|NCT02035696|183662413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Desirability Index Score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Desirability Score: If this difference is negative, then it is defined as non-desirable (D equal to 0), while if the difference is positive, then D will equal to the relative reduction calculated in the following way: D = (TIVe - TIVc Dose )/TIVe.|||||
91805446|NCT04115839|183487402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|19.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||19.8|-7.8|0.31
91754795|NCT00110461|183402569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The change scores were analyzed by using ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline Y-MRS total score as a covariate. For comparing YMRS-Total score in treatment groups at baseline, only treatment was included in the ANOVA model with baseline values as the dependent variable. The LS means obtained from a type III analysis using SAS were used for the treatment comparisons. Two-tailed student's t-tests were used to test differences between the LS means within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.5|-8.49|<0.0001
91754796|NCT00110461|183402569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-5.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||The change scores were analyzed by using ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline Y-MRS total score as a covariate. For comparing YMRS-Total score in treatment groups at baseline, only treatment was included in the ANOVA model with baseline values as the dependent variable. The LS means obtained from a type III analysis using SAS were used for the treatment comparisons. Two-tailed student's t-tests were used to test differences between the LS means within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-5.77|-10.7|<0.0001
91754797|NCT00110461|183402570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.08|-8.7|<0.0001
91754798|NCT00110461|183402570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|15.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||15.03|7.99|<0.0001
91754799|NCT00110461|183402571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.77|12.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||12.84|5.77|<0.0001
91754800|NCT00110461|183402571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|15.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||15.03|7.99|<0.0001
91754801|NCT00110461|183402572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.48|-1.15|<0.0001
91754802|NCT00110461|183402572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.59|-0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.93|-1.59|<0.0001
91754803|NCT00110461|183402573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.25|-4.81|0.0767
91754804|NCT00110461|183402573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.32|-3.69|0.3515
91754805|NCT00110461|183402574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-3.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.73|-8.02|<0.0001
91754806|NCT00110461|183402574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.32|-7.40|<0.0001
91754807|NCT00110461|183402575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-5.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-5.43|-12.3|<0.0001
91754808|NCT00110461|183402575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-4.83|-11.6|<0.0001
91754809|NCT00110461|183402576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|13.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.93|5.07|<0.0001
91754810|NCT00110461|183402576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.87|14.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.14|5.87|<0.0001
91884284|NCT02035696|183662413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Desirability Index Score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Desirability Score: If this difference is negative, then it is defined as non-desirable (D equal to 0), while if the difference is positive, then D will equal to the relative reduction calculated in the following way: D = (TIVe - TIVc Dose )/TIVe.|||||
91884285|NCT00379769|183662423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.2 for the upper limit of the 95 percent confidence interval in time to event analysis comparing RSG to MET/SU stratified by background medication|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||||95.0|0.85|1.16||||||||1.16|0.85|
91884286|NCT00379769|183662447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||||95.0|0.68|1.08||||||||1.08|0.68|
91884287|NCT00379769|183662448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||||95.0|0.78|1.17||||||||1.17|0.78|
91884288|NCT00379769|183662449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||||95.0|0.79|1.18||||||||1.18|0.79|
91884289|NCT00379769|183662450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.68|1.21||||||||1.21|0.68|
91884290|NCT00379769|183662451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.68|1.21||||||||1.21|0.68|
91884291|NCT00379769|183662452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||||95.0|0.8|1.59||||||||1.59|0.80|
91908671|NCT02831673|183712878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|111.5|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||111.5|-31.2|
91884292|NCT00379769|183662453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||||95.0|0.82|1.62||||||||1.62|0.82|
91884293|NCT00379769|183662454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||||95.0|0.54|1.14||||||||1.14|0.54|
91884294|NCT00379769|183662455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||||95.0|0.57|1.18||||||||1.18|0.57|
91884295|NCT00667459|183662487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.032||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.134||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P(p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null noninferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.134|-0.070|0.995
91754811|NCT00110461|183402577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.33|-1.08|0.0003
91754812|NCT00110461|183402577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.66|-1.41|<0.0001
91754813|NCT00110461|183402578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.04|-0.54|0.0878
91884296|NCT00667459|183662487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.736||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated. If the posterior probability is at least 0.95, a claim of superiority can be made.||||0.736
91884297|NCT00667459|183662488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.048||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.118||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the success rates of NDI in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P(p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null noninferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational group will be claimed for this endpoint."||0.118|-0.020|1.0
91884298|NCT00667459|183662488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.912||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.912
91889126|NCT00288639|183671093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|7.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.425||||95.0|-17.6|31.98|||||Simple Partial Seizures. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||31.98|-17.60|
91908672|NCT02831673|183712878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.3|114.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||114.5|-122.3|
91908673|NCT02831673|183712878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|44.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||44.5|-22.9|
91754814|NCT00110461|183402578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.03|-0.55|0.0752
91754815|NCT00110461|183402579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.51|0.2553
91754816|NCT00110461|183402579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.07|-0.71|0.0166
91754817|NCT00110461|183402580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.51|-1.16|<0.0001
91754818|NCT00110461|183402580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.86|-1.51|<0.0001
91754819|NCT00110461|183402581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.40|-1.13|<0.0001
91754820|NCT00110461|183402581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.60|-1.33|<0.0001
91754821|NCT00110461|183402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.85|-4.69|0.1729
91754822|NCT00110461|183402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.75586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|2.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.31|-3.17|0.75586
91754823|NCT00110461|183402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-2.61|-6.90|<0.0001
91754824|NCT00110461|183402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-2.50|-6.78|<0.0001
91754825|NCT00110461|183402584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.03|-3.67|0.0468
91754826|NCT00110461|183402584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.20|-3.85|0.0296
91754827|NCT00110461|183402585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.43|-3.31|0.1309
91908674|NCT02831673|183712878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|49.6|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||49.6|-35.0|
91805447|NCT04115839|183487402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.8||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|5.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||5.5|-11.1|0.48
91908675|NCT02831673|183712878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|55.7|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||55.7|-60.7|
91884299|NCT00667459|183662489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.099||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.161||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.161|0.038|1.0
91884300|NCT00667459|183662489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.999||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.999
91908676|NCT02831673|183712878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|144.5|||||Age\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||144.5|-61.2|
91908677|NCT02831673|183712878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2|101.8|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||101.8|-64.2|
91908678|NCT02831673|183712878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|43.1|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||43.1|-27.4|
91908679|NCT02831673|183712878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|54.0|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||54.0|-23.6|
91908680|NCT02831673|183712878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.3|103.0|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||103.0|-106.3|
91908681|NCT02831673|183712878|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-32.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.2|66.9|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||66.9|-132.2|
91889127|NCT00288639|183671093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|68.058||||95.0|-37.8|-6.69|||||Complex Partial Seizures. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-6.69|-37.80|
91908682|NCT02831673|183712878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.3|129.5|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||129.5|-77.3|
91908683|NCT02831673|183712879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|38.3|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||38.3|-39.2|
91908684|NCT02831673|183712879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|78.8|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||78.8|-69.4|
91805448|NCT04115839|183487402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.5||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|19.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||19.2|-14.1|0.70
91908685|NCT02831673|183712879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.1|145.8|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||145.8|-111.1|
91908686|NCT02831673|183712879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|34.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||34.1|-37.2|
91908687|NCT02831673|183712879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|27.1|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||27.1|-63.2|
91908688|NCT02831673|183712879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.0|64.0|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||64.0|-57.0|
91908689|NCT02831673|183712879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|205.2|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||205.2|-14.8|
91908690|NCT02831673|183712879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|112.3|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||112.3|-62.5|
91908691|NCT02831673|183712879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|33.1|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||33.1|-41.5|
91884301|NCT00667459|183662490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.034||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.021||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.021|-0.085|0.992
91884302|NCT00667459|183662490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.097||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.097
91884303|NCT00667459|183662491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.023||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.023|-0.043|1.0
91884304|NCT00667459|183662491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.273
91884305|NCT00667459|183662492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.019||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.058||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.058|-0.018|1.0
91884306|NCT00667459|183662492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.845||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.845
91908692|NCT02831673|183712879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|41.1|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||41.1|-40.6|
91908693|NCT02831673|183712879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-51.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.6|60.9|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||60.9|-163.6|
91908694|NCT02831673|183712879|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.3|85.0|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction|||85.0|-125.3|
91759707|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-9.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.22|9.62|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.62|-28.22|
91759708|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|23.02|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||23.02|-16.94|
91759709|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|25.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||25.45|-14.26|
91908695|NCT02831673|183712879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|176.2|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||176.2|-43.7|
91759710|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-23.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.26|-4.59|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-4.59|-42.26|
91908696|NCT02831673|183712880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0052||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0047|0.0152|||MMRM||Week 4. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||0.0152|-0.0047|0.302
91884307|NCT00667459|183662493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.047||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.021||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.021|-0.113|0.936
91908697|NCT02831673|183712880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0038||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0136|0.006|||MMRM||Week24. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||0.0060|-0.0136|0.450
91884308|NCT00667459|183662494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.105||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.19||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.190|0.020|1.0
91884309|NCT00667459|183662494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.992||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.992
91884310|NCT00667459|183662496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|||Superiority comparison of the operative time in two treatment groups was assessed.||||0.013
91884311|NCT00667459|183662497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.769||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|||Superiority comparison of the blood loss in two treatment groups was assessed.||||0.769
91908698|NCT02831673|183712880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0004||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0098|0.0106|||MMRM||Week48. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||0.0106|-0.0098|0.934
91908699|NCT02831673|183712881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0012||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0132|0.0107|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0107|-0.0132|0.842
91754828|NCT00110461|183402585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.77|-4.51|0.0058
91908700|NCT02831673|183712882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0008||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0097|0.0113|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0113|-0.0097|0.879
91908701|NCT02831673|183712883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.4|||MMRM||Week 4. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor),Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), Baseline EQ-5D thermometer, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D thermometer\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||2.4|-0.3|0.137
91884312|NCT00667459|183662498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|||Superiority comparison of the hospital stay in two treatment groups was assessed.||||0.273
91908702|NCT02831673|183712883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||MMRM||Week24. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor),Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), Baseline EQ-5D thermometer, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D thermometer\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||2.0|-0.9|0.458
91908703|NCT02831673|183712883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||MMRM||Week48. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor),Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), Baseline EQ-5D thermometer, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D thermometer\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||2.8|0.1|0.031
91908704|NCT02831673|183712884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.2|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||3.2|0.2|0.027
91754829|NCT00110461|183402586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.07|-4.20|0.0430
91759711|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-13.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.35|5.87|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||5.87|-33.35|
91908705|NCT02831673|183712885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||3.6|0.9|0.001
91908706|NCT00150592|183712890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.844||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.844
91754830|NCT00110461|183402586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|1.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.76|-2.37|0.7696
91754831|NCT00110461|183402587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.86|-1.73|0.9418
91754832|NCT00110461|183402587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.98|-1.67|0.19
91908707|NCT00150592|183712891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.274||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Mean reaction time (adjusted) for each randomized treatment group at endpoint.||||||0.274
91754833|NCT00110461|183402588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.86|-1.73|0.9418
91759712|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|23.74|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||23.74|-17.26|
91759713|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|17.07|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||17.07|-23.27|
91759714|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|10.5|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||10.50|-22.77|
91759715|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.63|14.35|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||14.35|-19.63|
91759716|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.06|18.12|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||18.12|-17.06|
91759717|NCT01393639|183411978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.24|9.46|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.46|-23.24|
91759718|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||0.00|0.00|
91759719|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|10.24|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.24|-1.54|
91759720|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|6.52|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||6.52|-2.08|
91759721|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.37|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||13.37|-0.60|
91759722|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|6.52|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||6.52|-2.08|
91759723|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|16.83|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||16.83|0.55|
91759724|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||0.00|0.00|
91759725|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|16.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||16.48|0.53|
91759726|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.96|26.14|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||26.14|4.96|
91759727|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|17.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.27|27.76|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||27.76|6.27|
91759728|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|10.46|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.46|-1.57|
91759729|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|25.59|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.59|4.83|
91759730|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|5.18|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||5.18|-9.62|
91908708|NCT00150592|183712893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.307||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Between errors||||0.307
91754834|NCT00110461|183402588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.98|-1.61|0.8377
91884313|NCT04546217|183662511|SUPERIORITY|Since this is a descriptive analysis, no power calculation was conducted.||||||||||||||||Considering the small sample size, a descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
91884314|NCT04546217|183662512|OTHER|Since this is a descriptive analysis, no power calculation was conducted.||||||||||||||||Considering the small sample size, a descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
91884315|NCT04546217|183662513|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.||||||||||||||||Considering the small sample size, a descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
91884316|NCT04546217|183662514|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in scores post-treatment vs. pre-treatment, and 3 and 6-month follow up vs. post-treatment were calculated.|||||||||||||||||A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
91908709|NCT00150592|183712893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Within errors||||0.552
91908710|NCT00150592|183712893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.917||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Double errors||||0.917
91908711|NCT00150592|183712893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Strategy||||0.068
91908712|NCT00150592|183712894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91908713|NCT00150592|183712895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
91908714|NCT00150592|183712896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91908715|NCT00150592|183712897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.231
91754835|NCT00110461|183402589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.3969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.08|-2.71|0.3969
91754836|NCT00110461|183402589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.68|-3.09|0.2101
91754837|NCT00110461|183402590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-3.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.64|-10.5|<0.0001
91754838|NCT00110461|183402590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-2.16|-8.94|0.0014
91754839|NCT00110461|183402591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|32.4|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||32.40|5.01|0.0074
91754840|NCT00110461|183402591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|51.68|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||51.68|23.41|<0.0001
91754841|NCT00110461|183402592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.57|37.24|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||37.24|9.57|0.0009
91754842|NCT00110461|183402592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.05|42.87|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||42.87|15.05|<0.0001
91884317|NCT04546217|183662515|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in scores post-treatment vs. pre-treatment, and 3 and 6-month follow up vs. post-treatment were calculated.|||||||||||||||||A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
91884318|NCT04546217|183662516|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in scores post-treatment vs. pre-treatment, and 3 and 6-month follow up vs. post-treatment were calculated.|||||||||||||||||A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
91754843|NCT00110461|183402593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.66|-1.29|<0.0001
91754844|NCT00110461|183402593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.70|-1.39|<0.0001
91754845|NCT00110461|183402594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.24|-1.04|0.0020
91805449|NCT04115839|183487402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|3.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||3.6|-20.7|0.17
91805450|NCT04115839|183487402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|25.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||25.6|-12.5|0.34
91805451|NCT04115839|183487402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-0.3||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|16.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||16.4|-16.9|0.98
91805452|NCT04115839|183487402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.7||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|42.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||42.5|-5.1|0.071
91805453|NCT04115839|183487402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|10.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||10.1|-27.7|0.27
91805454|NCT04115839|183487402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|62.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||62.0|19.5|0.002
91805455|NCT04115839|183487402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|32.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||32.6|-2.3|0.082
91805456|NCT04115839|183487404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|11.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||11.5|-5.6|
91754846|NCT00110461|183402594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.41|-1.19|0.0001
91754847|NCT00110461|183402595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.26|-0.96|0.0010
91754848|NCT00110461|183402595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.16|-0.85|0.0053
91754849|NCT00110461|183402596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||0.11|-0.64|0.1726
91754850|NCT00110461|183402596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.12|-0.89|0.0113
91805457|NCT04115839|183487404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||2.9|-2.9|
91805458|NCT04115839|183487404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|11.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||11.0|-5.4|
91805459|NCT04115839|183487404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.9|-2.9|
91805460|NCT04115839|183487404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|29.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||29.5|-4.2|
91805461|NCT04115839|183487404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|5.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||5.7|-11.6|
91805462|NCT04115839|183487404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|36.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||36.3|0.2|
91805463|NCT04115839|183487404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|15.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||15.6|-9.7|
91805464|NCT04115839|183487404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||27.0|-2.0|
91805465|NCT04115839|183487404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|21.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||21.9|-3.7|
91805466|NCT04115839|183487420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|29.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||29.4|-10.4|
91805467|NCT04115839|183487420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|26.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||26.7|-12.5|
91805468|NCT04115839|183487420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|43.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||43.8|-3.8|
91805469|NCT04115839|183487420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|29.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||29.3|-16.3|
91805470|NCT04115839|183487420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|44.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||44.5|-8.8|
91805471|NCT04115839|183487420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|28.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||28.8|-22.9|
91805472|NCT04115839|183487420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|50.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||50.6|-0.5|
91805473|NCT04115839|183487420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|39.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||39.9|-10.5|
91805474|NCT04115839|183487420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|45.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||45.6|-8.7|
91805475|NCT04115839|183487420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|32.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||32.6|-20.5|
91805476|NCT04115839|183487422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|23.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||23.9|-6.0|
91805477|NCT04115839|183487422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|15.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||15.9|-9.4|
91805478|NCT04115839|183487422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|26.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||26.2|-14.7|
91805479|NCT04115839|183487422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|12.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||12.4|-23.4|
91805480|NCT04115839|183487422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|24.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||24.1|-21.5|
91805481|NCT04115839|183487422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|22.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||22.2|-22.2|
91805482|NCT04115839|183487422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|43.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||43.9|-0.8|
91805483|NCT04115839|183487422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|42.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||42.6|-1.4|
91805484|NCT04115839|183487422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|42.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||42.7|-7.7|
91805485|NCT04115839|183487422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|26.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||26.3|-20.2|
91754851|NCT00110461|183402597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.67|-1.31|<0.0001
91884319|NCT03121820|183662550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80.00 % to 125.00 %|Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|93.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.25|99.77|||Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80.00 % -125.00 %.||Memantinol 20 mg Tablets Versus Akatinol Memantine® 20 mg||99.77|88.25|0.05
91884320|NCT03121820|183662551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80.00 % to 125.00 %|Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|92.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|98.55|||Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80.00 % -125.00 %.||Memantinol 20 mg Tablets Versus Akatinol Memantine® 20 mg||98.55|86.37|0.05
91754852|NCT00110461|183402597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.72|-1.39|<0.0001
91884321|NCT01245140|183662552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5731||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9738|32.12|||ANCOVA|||||32.1200|-30.9738|0.9705
91884322|NCT01245140|183662553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4564||95.0||||PPPASI 50 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4564
91908716|NCT01157078|183712910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.11||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.11|-3.14|0.349
91754853|NCT00110461|183402598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.22|-1.04|0.0030
91805486|NCT04115839|183487425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|27.8||||||Week 2||27.8|-9.2|
91805487|NCT04115839|183487425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|21.0||||||Week 2||21.0|-13.5|
91884323|NCT01245140|183662553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6595||95.0||||PPPASI 75 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6595
91884324|NCT01245140|183662555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||Change in Total Pustule Count: BL to Last Visit|Wilcoxon test: Exact Test|||||||0.51
91754854|NCT00110461|183402598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.40|-1.18|0.0001
91754855|NCT00316888|183402599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218|||||||one sample binomial test|||Null hypothesis is that the local failure rate at 3 years is no more than 35%.||||0.218
91754856|NCT00316888|183402599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592|||||||one sample binomial test|||The null hypothesis is that the local failure rate at 3 years is no more than 35%.||||0.592
91754857|NCT02715726|183402611|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-30.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Alirocumab group was compared to ezetimibe group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-30.7|-40.6|<0.0001
91754858|NCT02715726|183402612|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-32.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|A hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-32.6|-42.1|<0.0001
91754859|NCT02715726|183402613|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-30.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.2|-39.5|<0.0001
91754860|NCT02715726|183402614|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-30.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.7|-40.0|<0.0001
91754861|NCT02715726|183402615|SUPERIORITY|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|LS mean difference|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-23.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.9|-30.8|<0.0001
91754862|NCT02715726|183402616|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-24.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.4|-31.2|<0.0001
91805488|NCT04115839|183487425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|28.2||||||Week 4||28.2|-16.8|
91805489|NCT04115839|183487425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|19.0||||||Week 4||19.0|-23.7|
91805490|NCT04115839|183487425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|31.8||||||Week 8||31.8|-21.1|
91884325|NCT01245140|183662556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||Relative change in mPASI score: BL to Last Visit|Wilcoxon test: Exact Test|||||||0.12
91884326|NCT01245140|183662557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared estimation|49.4927||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.083|148.07|||ANCOVA|||||148.07|-49.0830|0.2358
91884327|NCT01245140|183662558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1667||95.0||||mPASI 50 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1667
91884328|NCT01245140|183662558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1667||95.0||||mPASI 75 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1667
91884329|NCT04082429|183662588|SUPERIORITY|Bleeding endpoints were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with the logarithm of the length of the observation period included (in years) as offset with treatment and bleeding frequency prior to screening as factors.|ABR ratio|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.29|0.07|<0.001
91884330|NCT04082429|183662589|SUPERIORITY|Bleeding endpoints were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with the logarithm of the length of the observation period included (in years) as offset with treatment and bleeding frequency prior to screening as factors.|ABR ratio|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.45|0.10|<0.001
91754863|NCT02715726|183402617|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-23.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.6|-31.8|<0.0001
91884331|NCT03118050|183662615|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of bed rest.|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91884332|NCT03118050|183662616|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of bed rest|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91884333|NCT02980523|183662672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91884334|NCT02980523|183662673|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.372|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.372
91884335|NCT02980523|183662674|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.341|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.341
91884336|NCT02980523|183662675|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.001
91754864|NCT02715726|183402618|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-24.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.7|-32.6|<0.0001
91754865|NCT02715726|183402619|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-17.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-17.2|-23.1|<0.0001
91884337|NCT02980523|183662676|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.003
91884338|NCT02980523|183662677|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.216|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.216
91884339|NCT02980523|183662678|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.829|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.829
91754866|NCT02715726|183402620|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-23.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.2|-29.8|<0.0001
91884340|NCT00513747|183662685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1521|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1521
91908717|NCT01157078|183712911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.92|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.92|0.75|0.444
91759731|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|19.6|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||19.60|-2.96|
91884341|NCT00513747|183662686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0097
91884342|NCT00513747|183662687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4645|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4645
91884343|NCT00855413|183662725|OTHER|one sided ANOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The degrees of freedom (df) for the within factor (number of visits - 1) was 2, and the second df is the error df of 17.|ANOVA|||An overall summary score of neurocognitive functioning was created by averaging all tests. Best available demographically corrected normative data were utilized to create z scores and then deficit scores for impairment ratings.Change in neurocognitive functioning was analyzed using a one sided repeated measures ANOVA with neurocognitive performance as the dependent variable (total z score) and time (visit) as the independent variable. Degrees of freedom were 2,17.||||0.03
91884344|NCT00855413|183662727|OTHER|Spearman correlation|spearman correlation|-0.82|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||R = -0.82|Spearman correlation|||Correlation between time (days) to HIV RNA suppression \<200 copies/mL and total z score (mean) was assessed by Spearman correlation|Correlation between time (days) to HIV RNA suppression \<200 copies/mL and total z score (mean) was assessed by Spearman correlation|||<.005
91884345|NCT01536197|183662743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVAs with group (gastric bypass and lap banding) as the between-subjects factor and time (before after surgery).||||||0.19
91908718|NCT01157078|183712912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.61|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.61|0.88|0.130
91884346|NCT01999777|183662745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1972|||||||Wald asymptotic|P-value based on a standard Wald asymptotic test for equality without a continuity correction.||Assumptions included that the proportion of seizures occurring within 6 hours after placebo administration was \~65% and a relative reduction of 50% would result in a reduction of ≥ 32.5 percentage points. Based on a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences in proportions, a sample size of 62 analyzable subjects was chosen to detect a 0.35 difference between group. Sample size estimations were based on nQuery Version 7.0 using the table for CIs for differences in 2 proportions.||||0.1972
91884347|NCT01999777|183662746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1388|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1388
91884348|NCT03735121|183662770|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis that atezolizumab SC is inferior to atezolizumab IV is rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval \[CI\] of the geometric mean ratio is greater than or equal to (≥) the non-inferiority margin 0.8.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.24||||||||1.24|0.88|
91884349|NCT03735121|183662771|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis that atezolizumab SC is inferior to atezolizumab IV is rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio is ≥ the non-inferiority margin 0.8.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.92||||||||0.92|0.83|
91754867|NCT02715726|183402621|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-22.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-22.8|-30.5|<0.0001
91754868|NCT02715726|183402622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-16.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-16.5|-22.1|<0.0001
91754869|NCT02715726|183402623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||17.7|7.1|<0.0001
91754870|NCT02715726|183402624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||22.3|8.3|<0.0001
91754871|NCT02715726|183402625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-34.273|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.262|-29.285||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.285|-39.262|<0.0001
91754872|NCT02715726|183402626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.9|-1.2|0.2280
91754873|NCT02636946|183402699|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM was used for IOP change from baseline. The model includes IOP change from baseline as the response variable and treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-baseline, treatment-by-eye, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-eye interactions as covariates. A Kronecker product of unstructured covariance matrix for study visit and compound symmetry covariance matrix for between eye correlation was used in the analysis.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.13|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 4: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to SLT if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at all scheduled visits (Weeks 4, 12, and 24).||-0.13|-1.28|0.0166
91754874|NCT02636946|183402700|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM was used for IOP change from baseline. The model includes IOP change from baseline as the response variable and treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-baseline, treatment-by-eye, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-eye interactions as covariates. A Kronecker product of unstructured covariance matrix for study visit and compound symmetry covariance matrix for between eye correlation was used in the analysis.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.05|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to SLT if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at all scheduled visits (Weeks 4, 12, and 24).||0.05|-1.09|0.0735
91754875|NCT02636946|183402701|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM was used for IOP change from baseline. The model includes IOP change from baseline as the response variable and treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-baseline, treatment-by-eye, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-eye interactions as covariates. A Kronecker product of unstructured covariance matrix for study visit and compound symmetry covariance matrix for between eye correlation was used in the analysis.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.32|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 24: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to SLT if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at all scheduled visits (Weeks 4, 12, and 24).||0.32|-0.81|0.3928
91754876|NCT01541917|183402715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.02|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since group procedures were initiated.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time (regardless of group) on the outcome variable||-.02|-.06|<.001
91759732|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|20.5|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||20.50|-2.72|
91759733|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|24.89|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||24.89|0.26|
91805491|NCT04115839|183487425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|19.3||||||Week 8||19.3|-31.0|
91884350|NCT03735121|183662781|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|0.54||||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|7.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.63|-6.56|0.8757
91884351|NCT03735121|183662782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.6906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.83|0.6906
91884352|NCT03735121|183662783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.78|0.9766
91884353|NCT03735121|183662784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.42|||Log Rank|||||2.42|0.34|0.8375
91884354|NCT02176863|183662798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0469||||||The overall adjusted p-value for the selected dose of Flebogamma® 5% DIF vs placebo was calculated from the p-values of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 by Posch \& Bauer for testing the equality of means between the selected dose and placebo.|Posch and Bauer Method|||||||0.0469
91884355|NCT02176863|183662799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.8897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.7||MMRM include change from baseline in VAS as dependent variable;treatment,protocol-specified visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,main part affected(fixed effect);baseline as covariate \& measures within-participants at each visit(repeated measure).|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||6.7|-7.7|0.8897
91884356|NCT02176863|183662800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.1615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.8||MMRM include change from baseline in SF-36PCS as dependent variable;treatment protocol-specified visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,main part affected(fixed effect);baseline measure as covariate \& within-participant at each visit(repeated measure).|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||4.8|-0.8|0.1615
91884357|NCT02176863|183662801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.112||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|35.79||MMRM include change from baseline in 6MWD as dependent variable;treatment,protocol-specified visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,main part affected(fixed effect);baseline as covariate \& measures within-participants at each visit(repeated measure).|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||35.79|-4.19|0.1205
91884358|NCT02647645|183662802|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was based on similar studies of cognitive training with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).||||||0.02||||||Probability associated with the test of the interaction between participants' performance and session number in repeated measures analysis of covariance. In light of small sample size, estimated effect size was also calculated (d = 1.78).|ANCOVA|Test was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load.||Analysis results are overall estimated marginal means from repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group as a fixed factor and age, gender, race, education, cluster of differentiation (CD4) cell count, and log viral load as covariates.||||0.02
91908719|NCT01157078|183712913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.14|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||5.14|0.60|0.307
91884359|NCT02647645|183662803|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was based on similar studies of cognitive training with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).||||||0.34||||||Probability associated with the test of the interaction between participants' performance and session number in repeated measures analysis of covariance. In light of small sample size, estimated effect size was also calculated (d = .71).|ANCOVA|Test was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load.||Results are overall estimated marginal means from repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group as a fixed factor and age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load as covariates.||||0.34
91884360|NCT02647645|183662804|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was based on the investigators' estimate of the impact of cognitive training with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on subjective cognitive problems, as similar studies were not available to develop effect size estimates.||||||0.33||||||Probability associated with the test of the interaction between participants' performance and session number in repeated measures analysis of covariance. In light of small sample size, estimated effect size was also calculated (d = .63).|ANCOVA|Test was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load.||Results are overall estimated marginal means from repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group as a fixed factor and age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load as covariates.||||0.33
91884361|NCT02037256|183662806|OTHER||percentage|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.5||||||Median time to engraftment||0.50|0.07|
91884362|NCT01527162|183662807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91805492|NCT04115839|183487425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|45.3||||||Week 12||45.3|-7.0|
91908720|NCT01157078|183712914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.94|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.94|0.71|0.313
91908721|NCT01157078|183712915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.24|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||4.24|0.74|0.201
91805493|NCT04115839|183487425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|34.6||||||Week 12||34.6|-16.9|
91805494|NCT04115839|183487425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|45.6||||||Week 16||45.6|-8.7|
91884363|NCT01527162|183662808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.14
91884364|NCT01527162|183662809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon Sign Rank TEst||||>.54
91884365|NCT01527162|183662809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.20
91884366|NCT04599907|183662819|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.05
91884367|NCT04599907|183662820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is the data for the Level of Botherstatistical analysis"||-0.040|-1.42|<0.05
91884368|NCT04599907|183662820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is the data for the Level of Impact on Daily Activities Statistical Analysis"||-0.40|-1.35|<0.05
91884369|NCT01310699|183662843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
91884370|NCT01310699|183662844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
91884371|NCT02272244|183662922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|7.58|||Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for age, sex, practice, baseline preferred test and baseline overall decision stage||||7.58|3.08|<0.001
91884372|NCT02272244|183662923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|9.47|||Regression, Logistic|Model compares Forward Change to No Change or Backwards Change and is adjusted for all baseline covariates.||||9.47|2.55|<0.001
91884373|NCT02272244|183662924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Multinomial|Model compared rates of SBT, CX and none; model is adjusted for age, sex, practice, baseline preferred test and baseline overall decision stage|||Reference for the outcome is No Screening; reference for the study group is the Standard Intervention group.|||<0.001
91884374|NCT02272244|183662924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|6.7|||Odds Ratio (OR)|Stool Blood Test vs None||||6.70|2.63|0.001
91754877|NCT01541917|183402715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.027|||Multilevel growth model||The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.027|-.055|.51
91754878|NCT01541917|183402716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.46|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values.|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.46|.27|<.001
91754879|NCT01541917|183402716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.252|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.252|-.144|.59
91754880|NCT01541917|183402717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.14|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.14|.10|<.001
91754881|NCT01541917|183402717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.03|-.05|.63
91754882|NCT01541917|183402718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||-.01|-.18|.02
91754883|NCT01541917|183402718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.155|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.155|-.174|.91
91884375|NCT02272244|183662924|SUPERIORITY|Colonscopy vs None|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.79||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|18.74|||Odds Ratio (OR)|||||18.74|4.13|0.001
91884376|NCT02272244|183662925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||Regression, Linear|Model of difference in Preventive Health Model (PHM) total score adjusts for all baseline covariates.|Model compares DSNI to SI.|||0.13|-0.15|0.862
91884377|NCT02272244|183662925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.55|||Regression, Linear|Model of knowledge test score adjusts for all baseline covariates|Model compares DSNI to SI.|||.55|-.47|0.880
91908722|NCT01157078|183712916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.12|-2.10|0.552
91908723|NCT01157078|183712917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.803||95.0|-0.31|0.24|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.24|-0.31|0.803
91754884|NCT01541917|183402719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.04|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values.|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.04|.02|<.001
91759734|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|11.67|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||11.67|-7.23|
91759735|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|17.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|30.64|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||30.64|3.94|
91884378|NCT03670277|183662926|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference will be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|This was a pilot study for assessing the investigational test articles. As such, the sample size was not determined based on any power analysis with regard to the primary endpoint.||0.056|-0.081|
91884379|NCT03670277|183662927|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference will be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|This was a pilot study for assessing the investigational test articles. As such, the sample size was not determined based on any power analysis with regard to the primary endpoint.||0.100|-0.037|
91884380|NCT03670277|183662928|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|3.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.557|4.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|At -30°||4.248|2.557|
91884381|NCT03670277|183662928|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.585|3.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|At +30°||3.277|1.585|
91884382|NCT03670277|183662929|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|3.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.854|4.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test - Control|At -30°||4.225|1.854|
91884383|NCT03670277|183662929|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|2.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test - Control|At +30°||2.599|0.228|
91884384|NCT02660112|183662930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.336
91884385|NCT03733899|183662945|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|12.4|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|5-Mintues Post Treatment||12.4|-7.3|
91884386|NCT03733899|183662945|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|11.5|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|10-Minutes Post Treatment||11.5|-9.6|
91884387|NCT03733899|183662945|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|9.8|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Minutes Post Treatment||9.8|-8.2|
91884388|NCT03733899|183662945|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|12.2|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||12.2|-6.5|
91884389|NCT03733899|183662945|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.7|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Mintues Post Treatment||11.7|-5.7|
91884390|NCT03733899|183662945|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-sqaure Mean Difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.8|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||16.8|-1.4|
91884391|NCT03733899|183662946|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|14.4|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|5-Mintues Post Treatment||14.4|-10.3|
91884392|NCT03733899|183662946|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|12.9|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|10-Minutes Post Treatment||12.9|-12.1|
91884393|NCT03733899|183662946|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|12.1|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Minutes Post Treatment||12.1|-11.4|
91884394|NCT03733899|183662946|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|14.0|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||14.0|-9.2|
91884395|NCT03733899|183662946|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|14.3|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Mintues Post Treatment||14.3|-8.5|
91754885|NCT01541917|183402719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.013|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.013|-.02|.67
91754886|NCT01541917|183402720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.01|-.01|.58
91754887|NCT01541917|183402720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.018|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.018|-.009|.49
91754888|NCT00121641|183402734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-0.33|-0.90|<.0001
91754889|NCT00121641|183402734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.36||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-0.36|-0.93|<.0001
91754890|NCT00121641|183402734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.44||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-0.44|-1.02|<.0001
91754891|NCT00121641|183402735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.47|-9.72||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-9.72|-31.47|0.0002
91754892|NCT00121641|183402735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-3.97||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-3.97|-25.50|0.0074
91754893|NCT00121641|183402735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.79|-11.84||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-11.84|-33.79|<.0001
91754894|NCT00121641|183402736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|11.1||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.9||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||24.9|-3.1|0.1141
91754895|NCT00121641|183402736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|14.0||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|27.6||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||27.6|-0.1|0.0443
91754896|NCT00121641|183402736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|17.1||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|31.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||31.0|2.8|0.0133
91754897|NCT00121641|183402737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6221.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1701.3||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9570.0|-2872.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-2872|-9570|0.0003
91759736|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|10.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.16|-14.60|
91884396|NCT03733899|183662946|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-sqaure Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|18.8|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||18.8|-3.7|
91884397|NCT03733899|183662947|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (5-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|5.1|-13.2|
91884398|NCT03733899|183662947|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (10-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|5.3|-13.9|
91754898|NCT00121641|183402737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6249.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1675.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9546.0|-2952.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-2952|-9546|0.0002
91754899|NCT00121641|183402737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7437.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1707.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10798.0|-4076.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-4076|-10798|<.0001
91754900|NCT01792518|183402772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change in HbA1c is analysed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline log10 (UACR), baseline HbA1c by visit and baseline log10 (UACR) by visit as linear covariates and treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.43|-0.78|<0.0001
91754901|NCT01792518|183402773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.94||||0.1954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.03|||ANCOVA||Ratio of relative change for Linagliptin 5 mg over placebo is presented.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change in UACR is analysed using analysis of covariance model. Model includes baseline HbA1c and baseline log10 (UACR) as linear covariates and treatment as fixed effect.||1.03|0.85|0.1954
91754902|NCT01792518|183402774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.3306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Change in eGFR is analysed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline log10 (UACR), baseline eGFR, baseline HbA1c by visit, baseline log10 (UACR) by visit and baseline eGFR by visit as linear covariates and treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||2.68|-7.95|0.3306
91754903|NCT03263780|183402775|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.25||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.46||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.46|0.19|0.056
91754904|NCT03263780|183402775|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.56||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.78||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.78|0.44|0.56
91754905|NCT03263780|183402775|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.22||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.47||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.47|0.17|0.060
91754906|NCT03263780|183402775|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.5||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.74||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.74|0.39|0.083
91754907|NCT03263780|183402776|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.35||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.65||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.65|0.26|0.096
91754908|NCT03263780|183402776|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.6||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.90|0.46|0.317
91908724|NCT01157078|183712918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.91|0.75|0.440
91908725|NCT01157078|183712919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.23||Analysis for change in MADRS total score from randomization to Week 9.|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.23|-0.91|0.768
91759737|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|20.04|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||20.04|-8.22|
91884399|NCT03733899|183662947|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (5-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|-8.3|-24.4|
91884400|NCT03733899|183662947|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (10-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|-1.4|-17.8|
91884401|NCT03733899|183662947|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (5-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|-4.1|-20.6|
91884402|NCT03733899|183662947|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (10-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|0.2|-16.7|
91884403|NCT03733899|183662948|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin|11.6|-8.7|
91884404|NCT03733899|183662948|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin|18.0|-1.0|
91754909|NCT03263780|183402776|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.66||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.66|0.23|0.063
91754910|NCT03263780|183402776|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.6||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.90|0.46|0.317
91754911|NCT00424268|183402782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|80.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|110.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||110|51|<0.0001
91754912|NCT00424268|183402783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|110.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||110|51|<0.0001
91754913|NCT00424268|183402784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.146||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||1.146|0.515|0.1957
91754914|NCT00424268|183402785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||This secondary endpoint was analyzed in an exploratory manner.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.7|0.1|0.0032
91754915|NCT00424268|183402786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.8||This secondary endpoint was analyzed in an exploratory manner.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||-0.8|-4.5|0.0051
91754916|NCT02409342|183402865|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. OS was tested hierarchically in the efficacy analysis populations.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.595||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.89|||Log Rank|||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||0.890|0.398|0.0106
91754917|NCT02409342|183402866|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. OS was tested hierarchically in the efficacy analysis populations.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.14|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||1.140|0.661|0.3091
91754918|NCT02409342|183402866|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. OS was tested hierarchically in the efficacy analysis populations.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.037||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC/1/2/3-WT||1.037|0.688|0.1070
91754919|NCT02409342|183402867|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.884||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||0.884|0.449|0.0070
91754920|NCT02409342|183402868|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|0.82||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||0.820|0.501|0.0004
91754921|NCT02409342|183402868|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|0.863||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||0.863|0.595|0.0004
91884405|NCT03733899|183662948|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin|17.0|-3.5|
91884406|NCT03733899|183662948|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin|20.8|1.6|
91884407|NCT03733899|183662949|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin: 10-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|12.9|-11.4|
91884408|NCT03733899|183662949|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin: 5-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|19.9|-4.9|
91908726|NCT01157078|183712920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.24|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.24|-0.84|0.373
91754922|NCT02409342|183402869|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in ORR|9.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|23.56||||||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||23.56|-4.07|
91754923|NCT02409342|183402870|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Difference in ORR|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|12.42||||||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||12.42|-9.14|
91754924|NCT02409342|183402870|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Difference in ORR|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|7.39||||||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||7.39|-8.84|
91754925|NCT02409342|183402871|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.365|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.8||||||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||0.800|0.166|
91754926|NCT02409342|183402872|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.409||||||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||0.409|0.135|
91754927|NCT02409342|183402872|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.424||||||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||0.424|0.190|
91754928|NCT02409342|183402873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|14.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|28.55||||||1-Year TC3 or IC3-WT Population||28.55|-0.03|
91754929|NCT02409342|183402874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|38.47||||||2-Years TC3 or IC3-WT Population||38.47|2.94|
91754930|NCT02409342|183402875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|4.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|15.4||||||1-Year TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||15.40|-5.93|
91754931|NCT02409342|183402875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|13.4||||||1-Year TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||13.40|-3.27|
91754932|NCT02409342|183402876|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|19.45||||||2-Years TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||19.45|-1.99|
91754933|NCT02409342|183402876|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|10.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|19.04||||||2-Years TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||19.04|2.83|
91754934|NCT02409342|183402877|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.984||||||Cough in TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||1.984|0.657|
91754935|NCT02409342|183402877|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.43||||||Dyspnoea in TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||1.430|0.555|
91754936|NCT02409342|183402877|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|2.049||||||Chest pain in TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||2.049|0.737|
91754937|NCT02409342|183402879|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|2.03||||||Cough for TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||2.030|0.477|
91754938|NCT02409342|183402879|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|1.604||||||Dyspnea for TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||1.604|0.569|
91754939|NCT02409342|183402879|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|2.222||||||Chest pain for TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||2.222|0.472|
91754940|NCT02409342|183402880|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||SP263 \>=50%-WT Population||1.000|0.500|
91754941|NCT02409342|183402880|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.956||||||SP263 \>=25%-WT Population||0.956|0.502|
91754942|NCT02409342|183402880|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.018||||||SP263 \>=1%-WT Population||1.018|0.579|
91754943|NCT02409342|183402881|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.89||||||SP263 \>=50%-WT Population||0.890|0.511|
91754944|NCT02409342|183402881|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.904||||||SP263 \>=25%-WT Population||0.904|0.539|
91754945|NCT02409342|183402881|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|0.91||||||SP263 \>=1%-WT Population||0.910|0.577|
91754946|NCT02409342|183402882|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.301||||||bTMB \>=10-WT Population||1.301|0.578|
91754947|NCT02409342|183402882|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.748|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.351||||||bTMB \>=16-WT Population||1.351|0.414|
91754948|NCT02409342|183402882|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.638||||||bTMB \>=20-WT Population||1.638|0.362|
91805495|NCT04115839|183487425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|29.5||||||Week 16||29.5|-23.4|
91754949|NCT02409342|183402883|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|1.052||||||bTMB \>=10-WT Population||1.052|0.525|
91754950|NCT02409342|183402883|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.924||||||bTMB \>=16-WT Population||0.924|0.331|
91754951|NCT02409342|183402883|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.062||||||bTMB \>=20-WT Population||1.062|0.295|
91754952|NCT00279812|183402888|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91754953|NCT00279812|183402889|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91754954|NCT00279812|183402890|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91754955|NCT03907033|183402892|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Hydrocodone use||||1.000
91754956|NCT03907033|183402892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Oxycodone use||||0.010
91805496|NCT04115839|183487427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|5.4||||||Week 2||5.4|-11.0|
91805497|NCT04115839|183487427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.1||||||Week 2||11.1|-10.6|
91884409|NCT03733899|183662949|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin: 10-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|15.2|-9.3|
91805498|NCT04115839|183487427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|9.5||||||Week 4||9.5|-15.2|
91805499|NCT04115839|183487427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.9||||||Week 4||4.9|-16.3|
91805500|NCT04115839|183487427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|17.5||||||Week 8||17.5|-16.4|
91805501|NCT04115839|183487427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|8.2||||||Week 8||8.2|-19.9|
91805502|NCT04115839|183487427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|28.7||||||Week 12||28.7|-4.3|
91908727|NCT01157078|183712921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|1.07|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.07|-2.47|0.435
91754957|NCT03907033|183402893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Ibuprofen use||||0.248
91754958|NCT03907033|183402893|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Tylenol use||||1.000
91754959|NCT03907033|183402895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm 24 hours post-surgery||||0.846
91805503|NCT04115839|183487427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|15.6||||||Week 12||15.6|-9.7|
91805504|NCT04115839|183487427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|30.4||||||Week 16||30.4|-4.2|
91805505|NCT04115839|183487427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|28.7||||||Week 16||28.7|-4.5|
91805506|NCT04115839|183487430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|40.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||40.7|-3.8|
91805507|NCT04115839|183487430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|28.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||28.2|-13.5|
91805508|NCT04115839|183487430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|40.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||40.4|-8.5|
91805509|NCT04115839|183487430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|40.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||40.3|-9.4|
91805510|NCT04115839|183487430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|45.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||45.0|-7.5|
91805511|NCT04115839|183487430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|20.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||20.7|-32.5|
91805512|NCT04115839|183487430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|65.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||65.2|15.8|
91805513|NCT04115839|183487430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|49.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||49.5|-2.5|
91805514|NCT04115839|183487430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|46.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||46.9|-6.8|
91805515|NCT04115839|183487430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|33.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||33.1|-21.0|
91805516|NCT04115839|183487434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|31.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||31.0|-31.0|
91805517|NCT04115839|183487434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|56.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||56.7|-12.8|
91805518|NCT04115839|183487434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|46.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||46.5|-37.9|
91805519|NCT04115839|183487434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|46.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||46.3|-35.4|
91805520|NCT04115839|183487434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|59.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||59.9|-25.6|
91805521|NCT04115839|183487434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|26.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||26.8|-53.7|
91805522|NCT04115839|183487434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|71.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||71.2|-14.1|
91754960|NCT03907033|183402895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm 48 hours post-surgery||||0.490
91754961|NCT03907033|183402895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm 72 hours post-surgery||||0.564
91754962|NCT03907033|183402896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine arm at 24 hours post-surgery||||0.264
91754963|NCT03907033|183402896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine arm at 48 hours post-surgery||||0.970
91805523|NCT04115839|183487434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|39.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||39.9|-40.8|
91884410|NCT03733899|183662949|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin: 5-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|19.6|-4.9|
91754964|NCT03907033|183402896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine arm at 72 hours post-surgery||||0.536
91754965|NCT03907033|183402897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 24 hours post-surgery||||0.957
91754966|NCT03907033|183402897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 48 hours post-surgery||||0.353
91754967|NCT03907033|183402897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 72 hours post-surgery||||0.165
91754968|NCT03907033|183402899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 72 hours post-surgery||||0.802
91754969|NCT03907033|183402899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 7-10 days post-surgery||||0.656
91754970|NCT02020408|183402919|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The p value was calculated and adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni).|ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
91754971|NCT02020408|183402920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated and adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni).|General Linear Model|||A General Linear Model using log(\[11C\]raclopride BPND) after amphetamine administration as dependent variable and Diagnostic Group as independent variable was used. Baseline (before amphetamine administration) \[11C\]raclopride BPND was used as covariate.||||<0.05
91754972|NCT02720692|183402955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P\<0.05 applies to Day 1 (0-24 Hours; p=0.0033), Days 1-2 (0-48 Hours; p=0.0077), and Days 1-3 (0-72 Hours; p=0.0152).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91754973|NCT01206582|183402956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for day 3||||0.0002
91754974|NCT01206582|183402956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for day 7||||0.008
91754975|NCT01206582|183402957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for day 3||||0.0003
91754976|NCT01206582|183402964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Day 7||||<0.05
91754977|NCT01206582|183402965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Day 7||||<0.05
91754978|NCT01206582|183402966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Platelets on Day 4||||0.01
91754979|NCT00528801|183402967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, age, and education.|Cases are lower than controls.|Null hypothesis is no difference between cases and controls in the WAIS-III Perormance IQ (PIQ) Index. A linear model controlling for gender, age, and education was used to compare controls versus cases using an F statistic. Based on sample-size calculations, 120 patients and 36 controls were needed to have 80% power to detect an 8-point difference on the WAIS-III PIQ Index.||||0.008
91754980|NCT00528801|183402968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.11||||0.048||95.0|0.026|0.199|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is no difference between cases and controls in the proportion of subjects with lacunae. This was tested using a Fisher's Exact Test.||.199|.026|0.048
91754981|NCT02207491|183402970|NON_INFERIORITY|Clinical noninferiority was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% CIs around the difference (AR-13324 - timolol) was within 1.5 mmHg at all time points and was within 1.0 mmHg at a majority of the time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||Calculated p-value|ANCOVA|Statistical analysis applies at all 3 timepoints on Day 15, Day 43, and Day 90||Assuming zero difference between AR-13324 and timolol, a 2-tailed alpha of 0.05 at each of 9 time points, a common SD of 3.0 mmHg, and a correlation between time points of 0.60 or less, 170 PP subjects per arm were necessary to have 90% power to show clinical noninferiority of AR-13324 to timolol in mean IOP.||||<0.0001
91754982|NCT01939366|183402997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.04||Due to the exploratory character of this trial, no multiple testing adjustment for control of the false positive rate was applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis consisted of the contrasts (mixed model Wald tests) of individual cebranopadol doses versus placebo during Week 6 of Maintenance Phase.||The mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model included fixed effects of pooled sites, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline pain, and a subject-specific random effect. The model was based on the weekly average 24-hour pain intensity of the 2 weeks in the Titration Phase and 6 weeks in the Maintenance Phase. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance structure, denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||0.04|-1.43|0.0621
91754983|NCT01939366|183402997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.02||Due to the exploratory character of this trial, no multiple testing adjustment for control of the false positive rate was applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis consisted of the contrasts (mixed model Wald tests) of individual cebranopadol doses versus placebo during Week 6 of Maintenance Phase.||The mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model included fixed effects of pooled sites, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline pain, and a subject-specific random effect. The model was based on the weekly average 24-hour pain intensity of the 2 weeks in the Titration Phase and 6 weeks in the Maintenance Phase. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance structure, denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||0.02|-1.50|0.0564
91759738|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|31.4|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||31.40|-0.29|
91884411|NCT03733899|183662950|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||||mean difference was calculated as postremoval minus pre-insertion with Test and corneal region.|-3.9|-20.9|
91884412|NCT02358668|183662967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|11.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||11.20|-6.28|0.57
91884413|NCT02358668|183662967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|7.11||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||7.11|-10.3|0.72
91754984|NCT01939366|183402997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.2||Due to the exploratory character of this trial, no multiple testing adjustment for control of the false positive rate was applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis consisted of the contrasts (mixed model Wald tests) of individual cebranopadol doses versus placebo during Week 6 of Maintenance Phase.||The mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model included fixed effects of pooled sites, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline pain, and a subject-specific random effect. The model was based on the weekly average 24-hour pain intensity of the 2 weeks in the Titration Phase and 6 weeks in the Maintenance Phase. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance structure, denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||-0.20|-1.83|0.0153
91754985|NCT03242252|183403071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.054|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.054|-0.245|0.2095
91754986|NCT03242252|183403071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|-0.085|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.085|-0.386|0.0021
91754987|NCT03242252|183403072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2397||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0564|-0.1169|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-0.1169|-1.0564|0.0144
91754988|NCT03242252|183403072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2368||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|-0.0136|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-0.0136|-0.942|0.0436
91754989|NCT03242252|183403073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.034||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.265|1.709|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.709|-6.265|0.2627
91754990|NCT03242252|183403073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.799||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.052|1.0|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1|-6.052|0.1602
91754991|NCT03242252|183403074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.301||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.142|0.958|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.958|-4.142|0.2212
91754992|NCT03242252|183403074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.297||0.2089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.171|0.912|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.912|-4.171|0.2089
91754993|NCT03242252|183403075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.644|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.644|-1.92|< 0.0001
91759739|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|10.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|25.03|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.03|-4.70|
91884414|NCT02358668|183662968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.42||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.42|-0.91|0.66
91884415|NCT02358668|183662968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.18||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.18|-1.03|0.90
91884416|NCT02358668|183662969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.59||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.50|0.86
91884417|NCT02358668|183662969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.38||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.66|0.59
91754994|NCT03242252|183403075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.487|-0.156|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.156|-1.487|0.0155
91754995|NCT03242252|183403076|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-30.72||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.78|-13.07|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||-13.07|-44.78|0.0015
91754996|NCT03242252|183403076|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-36.18||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.91|-18.68|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||-18.68|-49.91|0.0003
91754997|NCT03242252|183403077|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|5.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||5.21|-2.23|0.4328
91754998|NCT03242252|183403077|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||5.17|-2.2|0.4328
91754999|NCT03242252|183403078|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.0||||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|12.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||12.21|-0.23|0.0614
91755000|NCT03242252|183403078|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|7.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|13.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||13.65|1.08|0.023
91755001|NCT00530920|183403117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.997|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0): Median viral load reduction from baseline \>1.2 log10 copies/mL within each group||||0.997
91755002|NCT00530920|183403117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0): Median viral load reduction from baseline \>1.2 log10 copies/mL within each group||||1
91755003|NCT00530920|183403117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.998|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0): Median viral load reduction from baseline \>1.2 log10 copies/mL within each group||||0.998
91755004|NCT00907296|183403134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.26|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.26|0.53|0.3598
91755005|NCT00907296|183403134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.39|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.39|0.59|0.6544
91755006|NCT00907296|183403134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.58|0.64|0.9958
91759740|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|7.27|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||7.27|-16.16|
91759741|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|30.63|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||30.63|-0.68|
91884418|NCT02358668|183662970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.73||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.73|-0.44|0.62
91884419|NCT02358668|183662970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.55||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.55|-0.52|0.97
91759742|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.30|-10.30|
91884420|NCT02358668|183662971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.51||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-0.20|0.40
91884421|NCT02358668|183662971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.44||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.21|0.49
91884422|NCT02358668|183662972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|1.21||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-2.88|0.41
91884423|NCT02358668|183662972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.51||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-3.18|0.15
91884424|NCT02358668|183662973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.18||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.29|0.64
91884425|NCT02358668|183662973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.12||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.30|0.41
91884426|NCT02358668|183662974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|2.05||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||2.05|-4.43|0.46
91755007|NCT00907296|183403134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.37|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.37|0.59|0.6276
91884427|NCT02358668|183662974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|1.21||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-4.72|0.24
91884428|NCT02358668|183662975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.13|0.83
91884429|NCT02358668|183662975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.16|0.48
91884430|NCT02358668|183662976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|11.45||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||11.45|-9.17|0.83
91755008|NCT00907296|183403134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.49|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.49|0.63|0.8819
91755009|NCT00907296|183403134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.42|0.60|0.7197
91755010|NCT00907296|183403134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.7|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.70|0.73|0.6204
91759743|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|18.1|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||18.10|-5.90|
91884431|NCT02358668|183662976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|9.27||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||9.27|-11.1|0.86
91884432|NCT02358668|183662977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.6|72.3||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||72.3|-99.6|0.75
91884433|NCT02358668|183662977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|123.9||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||123.9|-43.9|0.34
91884434|NCT02358668|183662978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-980.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2604.0|643.8||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||643.8|-2604|0.23
91884435|NCT02358668|183662978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|323.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1269.0|1916.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1916.6|-1269|0.68
91884436|NCT02358668|183662979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.6|129.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||129.6|-99.6|0.79
91755011|NCT00907296|183403134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.84|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.84|0.75|0.4779
91755012|NCT00907296|183403134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.53|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.53|0.65|0.9952
91884437|NCT02358668|183662979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|172.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||172.6|-52.5|0.29
91884438|NCT02358668|183662980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-120.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-385.3|144.9||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||144.9|-385.3|0.37
91755013|NCT00907296|183403137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.14|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.14|0.47|0.1713
91759744|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.30|-10.30|
91759745|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|12.64|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||12.64|-8.96|
91759746|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|16.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||16.16|-7.27|
91759747|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|15.77|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||15.77|-7.37|
91759748|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-0.55|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-0.55|-16.83|
91759749|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|5.7|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||5.70|-14.39|
91759750|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.68|2.73|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||2.73|-15.68|
91759751|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|8.41|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||8.41|-13.04|
91759752|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.59|-4.83|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-4.83|-25.59|
91759753|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|6.38|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||6.38|-19.79|
91759754|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|15.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.16|-14.49|
91759755|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.13|16.74|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||16.74|-13.13|
91759756|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-19.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.19|-6.84|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-6.84|-32.19|
91759757|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|6.29|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||6.29|-24.24|
91759758|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.92|7.1|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.10|-23.92|
91759759|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.76|11.32|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||11.32|-20.76|
91759760|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-17.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.36|-2.02|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-2.02|-32.36|
91805524|NCT04115839|183487436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.7||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|34.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||34.7|-21.3|0.55
91805525|NCT04115839|183487436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|39.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||39.3|-17.4|0.24
91805526|NCT04115839|183487436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|35.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||35.0|-22.6|0.47
91805527|NCT04115839|183487436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|39.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||39.6|-18.6|0.25
91884439|NCT02358668|183662980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.1|296.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||296.2|-198.1|0.69
91884440|NCT02358668|183662982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||5.5|-9.8|0.57
91884441|NCT02358668|183662982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||8.6|-6.6|0.79
91884442|NCT02358668|183662983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.8||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.4|0.54
91884443|NCT02358668|183662983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||3.1|-2.0|0.68
91884444|NCT02358668|183662984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.1||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-3.2|0.03
91884445|NCT02358668|183662984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.7|0.86
91805528|NCT04115839|183487436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|58.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||58.3|-21.1|0.44
91805529|NCT04115839|183487436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.8||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|30.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||30.8|-38.4|0.68
91805530|NCT04115839|183487436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.4||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|62.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||62.2|-19.4|0.33
91805531|NCT04115839|183487436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|38.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||38.1|-33.9|0.98
91805532|NCT04115839|183487438|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|24.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||24.5|-24.5|
91805533|NCT04115839|183487438|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|22.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||22.4|-23.9|
91884446|NCT02358668|183662985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.44||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.39|0.90
91884447|NCT02358668|183662985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.63|0.30
91805534|NCT04115839|183487438|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|37.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||37.4|-10.8|
91805535|NCT04115839|183487438|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||23.6|-11.8|
91755014|NCT00907296|183403137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.53|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.53|0.65|0.9958
91755015|NCT00907296|183403137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.97|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.97|0.81|0.2950
91755016|NCT00907296|183403137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.05|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.05|0.44|0.0844
91755017|NCT00907296|183403137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.24|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.24|0.52|0.3225
91755018|NCT00907296|183403137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.81|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.81|0.76|0.4754
91755019|NCT00907296|183403137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.75|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.75|0.74|0.5578
91755020|NCT00907296|183403137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.07|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||2.07|0.87|0.1864
91755021|NCT00907296|183403137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.59|0.68|0.8488
91755022|NCT01177969|183403152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||This analysis applies to the post-treatment assessment (16 weeks after baseline)|ANCOVA|||||||.04
91755023|NCT01177969|183403153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||This analysis applies to the post-treatment assessment (16 weeks after baseline)|ANCOVA|||||||.25
91805536|NCT04115839|183487438|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|17.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||17.1|-46.6|
91805537|NCT04115839|183487438|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|15.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||15.2|-46.3|
91805538|NCT04115839|183487438|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|55.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||55.8|-13.0|
91805539|NCT04115839|183487438|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|31.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||31.5|-22.3|
91805540|NCT04115839|183487440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||6.7|-6.7|
91884448|NCT02358668|183662986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.57||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||2.57|-1.32|0.52
91805541|NCT04115839|183487440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|23.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||23.3|-11.6|
91805542|NCT04115839|183487440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|26.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||26.2|-12.9|
91805543|NCT04115839|183487440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||23.6|-11.8|
91884449|NCT02358668|183662986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|3.05||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||3.05|-0.75|0.24
91884450|NCT02358668|183662987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.038||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.038|-0.035|0.93
91884451|NCT02358668|183662987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.015||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.051||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.051|-0.021|0.40
91884452|NCT02358668|183662988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.2|0.36
91884453|NCT02358668|183662988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.4|0.36
91884454|NCT02358668|183662989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91884455|NCT02358668|183662989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91884456|NCT02358668|183662990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
91755024|NCT04468074|183403173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
91884457|NCT02358668|183662990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91884458|NCT02358668|183662991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91884459|NCT02358668|183662991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
91805544|NCT04115839|183487440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||6.9|-6.9|
91884460|NCT02358668|183662992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.11||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.48|<0.01
91884461|NCT02358668|183662992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.04||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.32|0.13
91884462|NCT02358668|183662993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.18||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-1.01|0.01
91884463|NCT02358668|183662993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.24||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.57|0.42
91884464|NCT02358668|183662994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.14||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-1.35|0.02
91884465|NCT02358668|183662994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.42||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.75|0.57
91884466|NCT02358668|183662995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.12||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.52|<0.01
91884467|NCT02358668|183662995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.34|0.14
91884468|NCT02358668|183662996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.1||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.52|<0.01
91755025|NCT04468074|183403174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0159
91755026|NCT04468074|183403175|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.85||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0066
91755027|NCT03995355|183403224|NON_INFERIORITY|Subjective overall comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least square mean difference|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|20.1|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis||Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||20.1|2.6|
91805545|NCT04115839|183487440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||23.6|-11.8|
91884469|NCT02358668|183662996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.12||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.30|0.38
91884470|NCT02358668|183662997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.07||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.48|0.01
91755028|NCT03995355|183403225|NON_INFERIORITY|Subjective overall comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least square mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|10.4|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||10.4|-5.3|
91755029|NCT03995355|183403226|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.77|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control. No difference was concluded if 1 fall within the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.|||1.770|0.528|
91755030|NCT03995355|183403226|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.203|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control. No difference was concluded if 1 fall within the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.|30-Day follow-up||2.203|0.610|
91755031|NCT03995355|183403227|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.601|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|19.616|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|||19.616|0.178|
91884471|NCT02358668|183662997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.11||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.28|0.41
91755032|NCT03995355|183403228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|15.4|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||15.4|0.7|
91755033|NCT03995355|183403229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.0|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||17.0|1.7|
91755034|NCT00343382|183403239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1675|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1675
91755035|NCT00343382|183403239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5974|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5974
91755036|NCT00343382|183403240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Rigors among arms.||||0.002
91884472|NCT02358668|183662998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.40|0.08
91755037|NCT00343382|183403240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Urinary Frequency among arms||||0.006
91755038|NCT00343382|183403240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of nausea among arms||||0.030
91755039|NCT00343382|183403240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of sweating among arms||||0.062
91755040|NCT03945019|183403243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Previous biologic agent and/or JAK inhibitors exposure, Use of oral corticosteroids treatment at Week 0, Clinical remission at Week 10.||||||<0.0001
91755041|NCT03945019|183403244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Previous biologic agent and/or JAK inhibitors exposure, Use of oral corticosteroids treatment at Week 0, Clinical remission at Week 10.||||||<0.0001
91755042|NCT03002454|183403257|EQUIVALENCE|"Control: 99mTc MDP Injection:fission Investigation: 99mTc MDP Injection:neutron-bombardment~Anticipated sample size of 50 participants with sample size parameters of:~Alpha 0.05 Power 80% Kappa of significance 0.7 - 0.8 Prevalence of abnormal bone scans 30%~Actual study population of 4 participants with 4 out of 4 demonstrating gross abnormal biodistribution therefore the study was terminated and no statistical analysis was conducted."|||||||||||||||||No statistical analysis - insufficient study population|||
91755043|NCT04075409|183403294|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.426|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.112|1.83|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.830|1.112|
91755044|NCT04075409|183403294|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.234|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9619|1.584|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.584|0.9619|
91759761|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-9.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|7.56|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.56|-25.69|
91884473|NCT02358668|183662998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.03||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.38|0.10
91884474|NCT02358668|183662999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.12||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.67|0.01
91884475|NCT02358668|183662999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.18||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.35|0.54
91884476|NCT02358668|183663000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.03||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.81|0.03
91884477|NCT02358668|183663000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.29||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.48|0.63
91884478|NCT02358668|183663001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.13|0.18
91884479|NCT02358668|183663001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.06|0.73
91884480|NCT02358668|183663002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.0||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.15|0.06
91884481|NCT02358668|183663002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.05|0.46
91884482|NCT02358668|183663003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.0||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.15|0.06
91884483|NCT02358668|183663003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.05|0.46
91884484|NCT02358668|183663004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.31|0.03
91908728|NCT01157078|183712922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.25|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.25|-2.56|0.501
91908729|NCT01157078|183712923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.771||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.134|0.901||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.901|-2.134|0.424
91755045|NCT04075409|183403294|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9008|1.483|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.483|0.9008|
91755046|NCT04075409|183403295|OTHER||LS means ratio|2.122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.706|2.638|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.638|1.706|
91755047|NCT04075409|183403295|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.289|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.037|1.603|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.603|1.037|
91755048|NCT04075409|183403295|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.323|2.046|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.046|1.323|
91884485|NCT02358668|183663004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.15||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.13|0.87
91884486|NCT02358668|183663005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.5||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-1.46|0.34
91884487|NCT02358668|183663005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.18||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|-0.73|0.64
91884488|NCT02358668|183663006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.26||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-1.50|0.17
91884489|NCT02358668|183663006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.24||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-0.46|0.37
91884490|NCT02358668|183663007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.31||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-1.62|0.18
91884491|NCT02358668|183663007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.36||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.36|-0.51|0.37
91755049|NCT04075409|183403296|OTHER||LS means ratio|2.124|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.709|2.639|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.639|1.709|
91884492|NCT02358668|183663008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.14||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.09||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-4.36|0.06
91884493|NCT02358668|183663008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|2.58||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.58|-1.71|0.69
91884494|NCT02358668|183663009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91884495|NCT02358668|183663009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91755050|NCT04075409|183403296|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.291|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.039|1.604|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.604|1.039|
91755051|NCT04075409|183403296|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.645|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.324|2.044|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.044|1.324|
91755052|NCT04075409|183403299|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.089|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8859|1.339|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.339|0.8859|
91755053|NCT04075409|183403299|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8489|1.283|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.283|0.8489|
91884496|NCT02358668|183663010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91884497|NCT02358668|183663010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91884498|NCT02358668|183663011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91884499|NCT02358668|183663011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
91884500|NCT02104505|183663012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of change in sputum %PMNs during active treatment vs placebo (crossover design).|||||0.04
91884501|NCT02104505|183663013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91884502|NCT02104505|183663014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6
91884503|NCT02104505|183663015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91755054|NCT04075409|183403299|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8489|1.283|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.283|0.8489|
91805546|NCT04115839|183487440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||7.1|-7.1|
91805547|NCT04115839|183487440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||23.6|-11.8|
91805548|NCT04115839|183487448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.04|-0.22|0.19
91805549|NCT04115839|183487448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.12|-0.15|0.84
91805550|NCT04115839|183487448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.07||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.07|-0.22|0.30
91805551|NCT04115839|183487448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.16|-0.14|0.89
91805552|NCT04115839|183487448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.01|-0.37|0.064
91805553|NCT04115839|183487448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.20|-0.17|0.88
91805554|NCT04115839|183487448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.03||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.03|-0.43|0.023
91805555|NCT04115839|183487448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.17||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.17|-0.23|0.75
91805556|NCT04115839|183487448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.1||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.10|-0.51|0.005
91805557|NCT04115839|183487448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.14||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||0.14|-0.27|0.54
91805558|NCT04115839|183487450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.5||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||4.5|-1.9|0.43
91805559|NCT04115839|183487450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.9||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||2.9|-3.6|0.81
91805560|NCT04115839|183487450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.9||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||9.9|0.2|0.040
91805561|NCT04115839|183487450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.1||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||6.1|-3.4|0.58
91805562|NCT04115839|183487454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.1||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||3.1|-1.2|0.40
91805563|NCT04115839|183487454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.4||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||3.4|-1.0|0.28
91805564|NCT04115839|183487454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.7||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||6.7|0.9|0.011
91805565|NCT04115839|183487454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.0||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||5.0|-0.7|0.14
91805566|NCT01751867|183487467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR %|29.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|47.5|||Exact binomial proportion test||ORR % = Number of participants who achieved response divided by total ITT participants|Null Hypothesis: threshold for statistical significance = 10%||47.5|15.1|0.003
91884504|NCT01730950|183663022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.38|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Bevacizumab|Null hypothesis: median survival time for both arms is 9 months; alternative hypothesis: participants receiving radiation therapy plus bevacizumab will have an improvement in median survival time to 13 months. One hundred and sixty eligible participants provides 80% power to detect a 31% reduction in the hazard ratio to 0.69 at a one-sided significance level of 0.10. Analysis was planned to occur when 135 deaths were reported, expected to occur 16 to 21 months after trial closure.||1.38|0.70|0.46
91884505|NCT01730950|183663023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.18
91884506|NCT01730950|183663024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.001
91884507|NCT01730950|183663025|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.0|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Bevacizumab|||1.00|0.53|0.05
91884508|NCT00078377|183663041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0024||95.0|1.02|4.61|||ANCOVA|The corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||Statistical data is for the Armodafinil Combined treatment (250 mg/day and 150 mg/day groups) compared to the placebo treatment group||4.61|1.02|0.0024
91884509|NCT00078377|183663042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91884510|NCT00581893|183663065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||||||0.50
91889128|NCT00288639|183671093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-23.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.313||||95.0|-55.33|7.64|||||Evolved to Generalized. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||7.64|-55.33|
91755055|NCT04075409|183403300|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.344|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.092|1.653|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.653|1.092|
91755056|NCT04075409|183403300|OTHER||LS means ratio|0.9991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.812|1.229|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.229|0.8120|
91755057|NCT04075409|183403300|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.345|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.093|1.655|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.655|1.093|
91755058|NCT02299076|183403304|SUPERIORITY|Welch Two Sample t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91755059|NCT00162266|183403306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|38.4|||Chi-squared|||||38.4|12.8|<0.001
91755060|NCT00162266|183403306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|19.4|||Chi-squared|||||19.4|-6.2|0.31
91755061|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|5.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|16.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||16.7|-4.9|0.283
91755062|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-11.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-2.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||-2.3|-20.9|0.015
91755063|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|11.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|23.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||23.8|-0.8|0.067
91755064|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-9.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||2.2|-20.8|0.113
91755065|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|34.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||34.8|9.3|<0.001
91755066|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-1.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|11.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||11.3|-13.5|0.86
91755067|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|18.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|31.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||31.4|5.9|0.004
91755068|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.8||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|15.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||15.4|-9.8|0.664
91755069|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||36.7|11.1|<0.001
91755070|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.9||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|19.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||19.9|-6.0|0.292
91755071|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|35.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||35.8|10.2|<0.001
91755072|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.5||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|21.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||21.3|-4.3|0.193
91755073|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|38.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||38.4|12.8|<0.001
91755074|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.6||||0.31||95.0|-6.2|19.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||19.4|-6.2|0.31
91755075|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|40.1|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||40.1|14.5|<0.001
91755076|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|5.7||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|18.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||18.4|-7.1|0.384
91755077|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|41.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||41.8|16.2|<0.001
91805567|NCT01751867|183487467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR %|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|35.3|||Exact binomial proportion test|||Null Hypothesis: threshold for statistical significance = 10%||35.3|17.2|<0.001
91805568|NCT03095066|183487510|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.7||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.4||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).||2.4|-5.8|0.405
91805569|NCT03095066|183487511|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.7||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|13.9||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||13.9|-15.3|0.921
91805570|NCT03095066|183487512|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.3|-1.7|0.150
91805571|NCT03095066|183487512|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.2||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.7||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||4.7|-4.3|0.921
91805572|NCT03095066|183487513|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.3||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.9|-1.3|0.702
91805573|NCT03095066|183487513|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.0||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.6||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||7.6|-3.6|0.469
91805574|NCT03095066|183487514|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.3||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.0|-3.5|0.267
91805575|NCT03095066|183487514|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.6||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.8||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||4.8|-8.0|0.609
91755078|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|4.6||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|17.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||17.2|-8.0|0.476
91805576|NCT03095066|183487515|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.3||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.7|-2.4|0.743
91805577|NCT03095066|183487515|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.2||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.1||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||6.1|-3.8|0.575
91805578|NCT03095066|183487516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.3|-0.5|0.664
91805579|NCT03095066|183487516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.6||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||0.6|-1.9|0.273
91805580|NCT03095066|183487517|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.1|-0.9|0.159
91805581|NCT03095066|183487517|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||1.1|-1.5|0.745
91805582|NCT03095066|183487518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.2|-0.5|0.268
91805583|NCT03095066|183487518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.5||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||0.2|-1.2|0.147
91805584|NCT03095066|183487519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.3|-0.5|0.655
91805585|NCT03095066|183487519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||0.9|-1.2|0.734
91805586|NCT02864498|183487554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||General Linear Model|||||||0.5570
91755079|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|39.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||39.3|13.7|<0.001
91755080|NCT00162266|183403307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|5.8||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|18.6|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||18.6|-7.0|0.377
91755081|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-0.8||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||2.9|-4.5|0.679
91805587|NCT02864498|183487554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8774|||||||General Linear Model|||||||0.8774
91805588|NCT00730132|183487561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Pearson Chi-Square|||Significance of the differences in the number of patients per group who achieved goal TC levels on Visit 2.||||0.007
91755082|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-2.5||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||0.5|-5.5|0.101
91755083|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|15.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||15.7|0.4|0.039
91755084|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-2.1||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||3.6|-7.7|0.474
91755085|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.6||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|16.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||16.5|-3.3|0.192
91755086|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-1.8||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||7.4|-11.0|0.702
91755087|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|11.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|21.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||21.7|1.8|0.02
91884511|NCT01381575|183663066|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference (Cervarix 2 Group minus Cervarix 1 Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.78||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of seroconversion (SCR) rates: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule of 0,6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||0.78|-1.08|
91755088|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|4.5||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|13.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||13.8|-4.8|0.339
91755089|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|17.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|28.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||28.9|7.0|0.001
91755090|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.0||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|11.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||11.7|-7.6|0.682
91755091|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|31.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||31.8|9.3|<0.001
91755092|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|1.2||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||10.9|-8.6|0.813
91755093|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|35.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||35.7|13.8|<0.001
91755094|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|11.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|20.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||20.9|1.2|0.027
91755095|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|15.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|27.0|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||27.0|4.0|0.008
91755096|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|0.8||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|11.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||11.4|-9.8|0.885
91755097|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|35.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||35.4|12.6|<0.001
91755098|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|16.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||16.9|-3.4|0.19
91755099|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|33.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||33.4|9.7|<0.001
91805589|NCT00730132|183487562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Chi square, continuity corrected. Asymptotic significance.|McNemar|||Significance of paired changes in the number of patients who achieved LDL-C target levels on Visit 2, for each treatment group comparison||||<0.001
91805590|NCT00730132|183487563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.757|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.30606||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in TC levels from Baseline at Visit 2||||
91755100|NCT00162266|183403308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.7||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||13.5|-8.1|0.625
91755101|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.5||||0.04||95.0|0.2|6.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||6.8|0.2|0.04
91755102|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.9||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||5.9|-0.2|0.063
91755103|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||13.9|3.5|0.001
91755104|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.8||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||7.3|0.3|0.032
91755105|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|7.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||13.3|2.4|0.005
91755106|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|8.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||8.2|-0.3|0.07
91755107|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|9.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|16.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||16.7|2.7|0.007
91755108|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.4||||0.395||95.0|-3.1|7.8|||Chi-squared|||||7.8|-3.1|0.395
91755109|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|10.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|17.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||17.7|3.4|0.004
91755110|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.4||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||7.8|-3.1|0.395
91755111|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||22.2|7.5|<0.001
91755112|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||14.9|2.7|0.005
91755113|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||21.4|5.0|0.002
91755114|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.5||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.1|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||10.1|-3.0|0.292
91755115|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||29.5|12.4|<0.001
91755116|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||14.3|1.6|0.014
91755117|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|13.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|22.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||22.2|4.4|0.003
91755118|NCT00162266|183403309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|4.8||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|12.6|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||12.6|-3.0|0.227
91755119|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.2676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.61|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 15 Treatment Comparison||5.61|-1.56|0.2676
91755120|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-0.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 15 Treatment Comparison||-0.14|-7.46|0.0418
91884512|NCT01381575|183663066|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference (Cervarix 2 Group minus Cervarix 1 Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.77||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of seroconversion (SCR) rates: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule of 0,6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||0.77|-1.00|
91755121|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.25||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|12.41|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 30 Treatment Comparison||12.41|2.08|0.0061
91755122|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.6713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|4.16||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 30 Treatment Comparison||4.16|-6.45|0.6713
91755123|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.75||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|17.84|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 60 Treatment Comparison||17.84|5.67|0.0002
91755124|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|6.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 60 Treatment Comparison||6.82|-5.62|0.8495
91755125|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|18.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 90 Treatment Comparison||18.56|5.63|0.0003
91755126|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.19||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|10.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 90 Treatment Comparison||10.81|-2.44|0.0003
91755127|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.54||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.28|21.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 120 Treatment Comparison||21.81|7.28|0.0001
91805591|NCT00730132|183487563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.662||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in TC from baseline at Visit 2||||
91805592|NCT00730132|183487563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.8181|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.03545||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in TC from baseline at Visit 2||||
91755128|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|10.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 120 Treatment Comparison||10.64|-3.43|0.3141
91755129|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.96||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.49|25.43|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 150 Treatment Comparison||25.43|8.49|0.0001
91755130|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|10.37|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 150 Treatment Comparison||10.37|-3.73|0.3552
91755131|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.19|30.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 180 Treatment Comparison||30.54|10.19|0.0001
91755132|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.38||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|14.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 180 Treatment Comparison||14.60|0.16|0.0451
91755133|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.83|26.44|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 240 Treatment Comparison||26.44|8.83|0.0001
91755134|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78||||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|10.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 240 Treatment Comparison||10.28|-4.73|0.4669
91755135|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.51|31.48|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 300 Treatment Comparison||31.48|10.51|0.0001
91755136|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||3.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|10.41|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 300 Treatment Comparison||10.41|-4.15|3.13
91755137|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.38||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|30.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 360 Treatment Comparison||30.56|10.20|0.0001
91755138|NCT00162266|183403310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.06||||0.2989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|11.72|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 360 Treatment Comparison||11.72|-3.61|0.2989
91755139|NCT00162266|183403311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2132.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1067.32|3197.94||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 180||3197.94|1067.32|0.0001
91805593|NCT00730132|183487563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.80928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48621||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.307|0.6884|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to New Statin||.6884|-6.3070|.143
91805594|NCT00730132|183487563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56351||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4298|-2.0664|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to Ezetimbe||-2.0664|-9.4298|.001
91805595|NCT00730132|183487563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.93883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38286||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1948|0.3171|||Games-Howell|||New Statin compared to Ezetimibe||.3171|-6.1948|.086
91805596|NCT00730132|183487564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.8174|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.85205||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in LDL-C levels by the end of the study (Visit 2) compared to Baseline (Visit 1)||||
91884513|NCT01381575|183663067|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs) was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Cervarix 2 Group divided by Cervarix 1 Group) was below 2.|Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.22||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||1.22|0.97|
91755140|NCT00162266|183403311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|353.47||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-544.46|1251.41||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 180||1251.41|-544.46|0.4393
91889129|NCT00288639|183671097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-24.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.867||||95.0|-43.66|-6.2|||||Seizure freq. ≤3 / 28 d. Resp. ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-6.20|-43.66|
91755141|NCT00162266|183403311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5641.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2823.46|8459.74||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 360||8459.74|2823.46|0.0001
91805597|NCT00730132|183487564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.2488|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.78727||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in LDL-C levels by the end of the study (Visit 2) compared to Baseline (Visit 1)||||
91805598|NCT00730132|183487564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0665|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5901||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in LDL-C levels by the end of the study (Visit 2) compared to Baseline (Visit 1)||||
91805599|NCT00730132|183487564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01009||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1604|3.2977|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to New Statin||3.2977|-6.1604|.756
91805600|NCT00730132|183487564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97821||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9072|-0.591|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to Ezetimibe||-.5910|-9.9072|.023
91805601|NCT00730132|183487564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81773|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88425||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2523|0.6169|||Games-Howell|||New Statin compared to Ezetimibe||.6169|-8.2523|.107
91805602|NCT00370032|183487565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.131||95.0|-18.4|2.157|||paired t-test Hommel-Simes|||||2.157|-18.4|0.131
91805603|NCT00370032|183487565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.11||||0.131||95.0|-21.2|2.997|||paired t-test Hommel-Simes|||||2.997|-21.2|0.131
91805604|NCT00801632|183487568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|94.7|||||Clopper-Pearson used to derive confidence interval|||94.7|14.7|
91805605|NCT00801632|183487570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on a paired t-test comparing baseline creatinine level with the level at study completion/participant termination.|t-test, 2 sided|The test describes whether the average of the difference is different from zero.||||||0.215
91805606|NCT01203098|183487581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.6||||||Primary analyses were performed on proportion of subjects who experienced thromboembolic events defined as primary efficacy endpoint (incidence of thromboembolic events); incidence of thromboembolic events and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by treatment group, and difference between DU-176b 15 mg and 30 mg groups and its 95% CI were also calculated. For reference, difference between enoxaparin group and each DU-176b group and its 95% CI of each were calculated.||4.6|-7.2|
91805607|NCT01203098|183487581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.8||||||Primary analyses were performed on proportion of subjects who experienced thromboembolic events defined as primary efficacy endpoint (incidence of thromboembolic events); incidence of thromboembolic events and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by treatment group, and difference between DU-176b 15 mg and 30 mg groups and its 95% CI were also calculated. For reference, difference between enoxaparin group and each DU-176b group and its 95% CI of each were calculated.||6.8|-4.6|
91805608|NCT03851705|183487590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68||||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.19|25.83||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|ANCOVA|||||25.83|-29.19|0.9047
91755142|NCT00162266|183403311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1054.38||||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-955.59|3064.35||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 360||3064.35|-955.59|0.3029
91755143|NCT00162266|183403315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.66||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.67|42.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 180||42.66|12.67|0.0003
91755144|NCT00162266|183403315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.68||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 180||||0.3253
91908730|NCT01157078|183712924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.22||Analysis for change in SDS work/school domain score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.22|-0.96|0.214
91755145|NCT00162266|183403315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.14|48.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 360||48.33|16.14|0.0001
91755146|NCT00162266|183403315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.48||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|26.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 360||26.78|-1.82|0.0869
91755147|NCT03449433|183403438|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.1||||||||1.10|0.985|
91755148|NCT02100475|183403453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.46|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in the response after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with treatment and baseline IDegLira dose strata as fixed factors and baseline response as a covariate. Missing data were imputed using LOCF.||0.46|-1.05|0.427
91755149|NCT03268941|183403460|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|7.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|13.52||ANCOVA model was used for analysis. Treatment, underlying disease (DG/IG) were fixed factors. ln of baseline prolactin concentration as covariate, ln of ratio of Cmax to baseline concentration as response. Results in original scale are presented.|ANCOVA|||Change in serum prolactin on Day 1 at the Tmax as a ratio of Cmax to serum prolactin concentration at Baseline.||13.52|4.03|<0.001
91755150|NCT03268941|183403460|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|21.41||ANCOVA model was used for analysis. Treatment, underlying disease (DG/IG) were fixed factors. ln of baseline prolactin concentration as covariate, ln of ratio of Cmax to baseline concentration as response. Results in original scale are presented.|ANCOVA|||Change in serum prolactin on Day 1 at the Tmax as a ratio of Cmax to serum prolactin concentration at Baseline.||21.41|5.91|<0.001
91755151|NCT03268941|183403460|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.94|23.59||ANCOVA model was used for analysis. Treatment, underlying disease (DG/IG) were fixed factors. ln of baseline prolactin concentration - covariate, ln of ratio of Cmax to baseline concentration as response. Results in original scale are presented.|ANCOVA|||Change in serum prolactin on Day 1 at the Tmax as a ratio of Cmax to serum prolactin concentration at Baseline.||23.59|6.94|<0.001
91755152|NCT03268941|183403461|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.648||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.89|37.41||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 7 in Part 1.||37.41|-21.89|0.599
91755153|NCT03268941|183403461|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.469||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.04|37.59||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 7 in Part 1.||37.59|-25.04|0.687
91755154|NCT03268941|183403461|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.45||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.22|39.33||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 7 in Part 1.||39.33|-23.22|0.605
91805609|NCT03851705|183487591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.47||||0.8685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.11|83.05||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|ANCOVA|||||83.05|-70.11|0.8685
91755155|NCT03268941|183403462|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.708||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|31.19||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 1 in Part 1.||31.19|-16.06|0.522
91755156|NCT03268941|183403462|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.143||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|37.43||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 1 in Part 1.||37.43|-11.58|0.293
91755157|NCT03268941|183403462|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.654||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|30.52||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 1 in Part 1.||30.52|-16.52|0.551
91755158|NCT03268941|183403463|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Median Diff|-18.14||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.58|13.56||P-value was obtained with pairwise Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests|||Percent Change in GE time measured by the SmartPill on Day 7 in Part 1.||13.56|-307.58|0.274
91755159|NCT03268941|183403463|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Median Diff|-26.95||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.73|530.49||P-value was obtained with pairwise Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests|||Percent Change in GE time measured by the SmartPill on Day 7 in Part 1.||530.49|-229.73|0.481
91755160|NCT03268941|183403463|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Median Diff|-24.49||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-225.87|98.91||P-value was obtained with pairwise Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests|||Percent Change in GE on time measured by the SmartPill Day 7 in Part 1.||98.91|-225.87|0.382
91755161|NCT03878758|183403473|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in incidence of needle bending with BD Nano vs. Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.04|||Fisher Exact|||||1.04|-1.82|0.591
91755162|NCT03878758|183403473|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.06|||Fisher Exact|||||3.06|-2.8|0.931
91805610|NCT03851705|183487592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|8.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||8.1|-32.2|0.2347
91755163|NCT03878758|183403473|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.42||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|2.75|||Fisher Exact|||||2.75|-1.91|0.723
91884514|NCT01381575|183663067|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs) was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Cervarix 2 Group divided by Cervarix 1 Group) was below 2.|Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.95||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||0.95|0.76|
91884515|NCT05224843|183663114|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|88.8||||||||88.8|73.7|
91884516|NCT05224843|183663115|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|100.0||||||||100|95.4|
91755164|NCT03878758|183403474|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. comparator was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.5|||Fisher Exact|||||-3.5|-9.0|<0.001
91755165|NCT03878758|183403474|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. comparator was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-14.09||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.49|-1.69||Although a site difference was detected - all sites combined p-value was generated,|Fisher Exact|||||-1.69|-26.49|0.026
91755166|NCT03878758|183403474|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs.Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||Fisher Exact|||||0.6|-1.9|0.644
91755167|NCT03878758|183403475|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates.|Overall Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98||||||||0.98|0.62|
91755168|NCT03878758|183403475|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates.|Overall Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16||||||||1.16|0.8|
91755169|NCT03878758|183403475|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates.|Overall Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.49||||||||0.49|0.13|
91755170|NCT03878758|183403476|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Comparator PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BD Nano Pro vs Artsana 34G||-0.141||<0.001
91884517|NCT05224843|183663117|OTHER||Percentage screened positive for EM|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|15.4||||||||15.4|3.5|
91884518|NCT05224843|183663119|OTHER||Percentage who changed after BNI|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|69.9||||||||69.9|4.6|
91884519|NCT05224843|183663120|OTHER||Percentage reported APS from EM positive|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|62.4||||||||62.4|3.6|
91755171|NCT03878758|183403476|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Comparator PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122||||0.104|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BD NANO vs Artsana 33G. A significant site effect was detected at one site; the most conservative p-value is reported.||0.016||0.104
91755172|NCT03878758|183403476|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Comparator PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary. The upper bound of the confidence interval was compared to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.068||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BD NANO vs Comfort EZ 33G||-0.017||0.003
91755173|NCT03878758|183403477|SUPERIORITY|The number and proportion of needle breaking occurrence for each pen needle type were summarized. A 95% confidence interval for difference in proportions between BD Nano Pro and the Comparator was calculated using the score method for independent proportions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.4|
91755174|NCT03878758|183403477|SUPERIORITY|The number and proportion of needle breaking occurrence for each pen needle type were summarized. A 95% confidence interval for difference in proportions between BD Nano Pro and the Comparator was calculated using the score method for independent proportions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.4|
91755175|NCT03878758|183403477|SUPERIORITY|The number and proportion of needle breaking occurrence for each pen needle type were summarized. A 95% confidence interval for difference in proportions between BD Nano Pro and the Comparator was calculated using the score method for independent proportions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.4|
91759762|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|18.68|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||18.68|-17.53|
91755176|NCT01769196|183403479|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in PFS between simtuzumab and simtuzumab placebo. The alternative hypothesis was that there is a difference. These hypotheses were evaluated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted, sLOXL2 level categories and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.45|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted, sLOXL2 level categories, and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||1.45|0.88|0.329
91805611|NCT03851705|183487592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|29.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||29.2|-19.9|0.7058
91805612|NCT03851705|183487592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.5653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||14.1|-25.5|0.5653
91805613|NCT03851705|183487594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9||||0.4589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.3|33.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||33.6|-73.3|0.4589
91884520|NCT01920932|183663121|SUPERIORITY||Binomial proportions|31.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||The comparison of the complete rate between the first 32 evaluable participants and the historical control of HOD99 unfavorable risk patients was estimated by the binomial proportions test.||||In the historical control (HOD99) 17% of patients had CR at week 8. Sample size for this objective is calculated based on a binomial distribution to test H0: p=17% vs. Ha: p\>17%, where p is the true CR rate after 2 cycles of AEPA. 32 patients are needed to detect 20% increase of CR rate with 80% power and 5% type I error. If it shows efficacy, the response results will be reported, and the study will continue to enroll for a total of 77 patients to assess response and EFS.||||
91884521|NCT01920932|183663123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportion of patient's complete response rate between HLHR13 and HOD99 (NCT00145600) unfavorable risk arm 2 (UR2).||||0.004
91884522|NCT01920932|183663124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Log Rank|||The comparison of the EFS between HLHR13 and historical control of HOD99 unfavorable risk 2 arm (UR2) was done by the two-sample log-rank test.||||0.0008
91884523|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Total Score-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
91884524|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Total Score-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.002
91884525|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Total Score-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.067
91805614|NCT03851705|183487594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7||||0.5956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.8|84.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||84.3|-48.8|0.5956
91884526|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Pain and Hurt-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.115
91884527|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Pain and Hurt-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.455
91884528|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Pain and Hurt-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.636
91884529|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Nausea-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
91884530|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Nausea-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||<.001
91805615|NCT03851705|183487594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|47.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||47.7|-62.7|0.7861
91805616|NCT03851705|183487596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.1|-45.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||-45.1|-80.1|<.0001
91805617|NCT03851705|183487596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.5|-37.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||-37.8|-83.5|<.0001
91805618|NCT03851705|183487596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-92.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.4|-64.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||-64.2|-120.4|<.0001
91805619|NCT03851705|183487598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-316.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-420.7|-212.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||-212.6|-420.7|<.0001
91805620|NCT03851705|183487598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-304.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-408.0|-200.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||-200.8|-408.0|<.0001
91884531|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Nausea-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.006
91884532|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Procedural Anxiety-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.099
91884533|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Procedural Anxiety-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.050
91884534|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Procedural Anxiety-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.520
91884535|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Treatment Anxiety-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.024
91884536|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Treatment Anxiety-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.011
91884537|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Treatment Anxiety-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.009
91805621|NCT03851705|183487598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-390.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-504.5|-276.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||-276.3|-504.5|<.0001
91805622|NCT03851705|183487600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|8.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||8.2|-23.9|0.3299
91805623|NCT03851705|183487600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|22.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||22.2|-16.7|0.7778
91805624|NCT03851705|183487600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||12.3|-19.2|0.6613
91805625|NCT03851705|183487601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.4911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|36.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||36.0|-74.0|0.4911
91805626|NCT03851705|183487601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|79.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||79.4|-57.2|0.7461
91805627|NCT03851705|183487601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.8|51.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||51.1|-62.8|0.8370
91805628|NCT03851705|183487604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|4.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||4.2|-29.5|0.1371
91805629|NCT03851705|183487604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|15.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||15.5|-22.6|0.7100
91805630|NCT03851705|183487604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.2278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|6.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||6.6|-27.2|0.2278
91805631|NCT03851705|183487606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|10.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||10.9|-49.7|0.2044
91805632|NCT03851705|183487606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|30.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||30.4|-39.9|0.7875
91805633|NCT03851705|183487606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|15.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||15.7|-47.3|0.3193
91805634|NCT03851705|183487608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.2877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|8.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||8.8|-29.0|0.2877
91805635|NCT03851705|183487608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|25.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||25.7|-19.7|0.7944
91805636|NCT03851705|183487608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.5803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|13.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||13.3|-23.4|0.5803
91805637|NCT03851705|183487610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.6|35.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||35.3|-73.6|0.4848
91805638|NCT03851705|183487610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|80.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||80.3|-56.0|0.7220
91805639|NCT03851705|183487610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.6|49.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||49.5|-63.6|0.8036
91805640|NCT03851705|183487618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.6028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|11.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||11.7|-6.8|0.6028
91805641|NCT03851705|183487618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|14.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||14.0|-11.5|0.8428
91805642|NCT03851705|183487618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|13.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||13.4|-6.6|0.4946
91805643|NCT03851705|183487620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||4.4|-4.0|0.9237
91805644|NCT03851705|183487620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||4.5|-6.5|0.7177
91805645|NCT03851705|183487620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||5.4|-2.9|0.5416
91805646|NCT03851705|183487622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||5.2|-3.2|0.6497
91805647|NCT03851705|183487622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||2.6|-7.9|0.3209
91805648|NCT03851705|183487622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||5.7|-6.3|0.9294
91884538|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Worry-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
91884539|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Worry-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||<.001
91805649|NCT03851705|183487624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|33.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||33.4|-10.8|0.3105
91805650|NCT03851705|183487624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.3018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|10.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||10.5|-33.3|0.3018
91805651|NCT03851705|183487624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.8755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|31.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||31.6|-27.0|0.8755
91805652|NCT03851705|183487626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|7.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||7.6|-11.5|0.6848
91805653|NCT03851705|183487626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|7.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||7.6|-18.5|0.4075
91805654|NCT03851705|183487626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||7.8|-13.4|0.5998
91805655|NCT03851705|183487628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|6.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||6.5|-8.4|0.7958
91805656|NCT03851705|183487628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|7.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||7.4|-12.7|0.6003
91805657|NCT03851705|183487628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|5.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||5.8|-11.0|0.5352
91805658|NCT03851705|183487630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.1716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|4.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||4.0|-21.8|0.1716
91805659|NCT03851705|183487630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|8.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||8.2|-46.2|0.1671
91805660|NCT03851705|183487630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|4.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||4.7|-24.2|0.1808
91805661|NCT03851705|183487632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|9.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||9.1|-28.3|0.3077
91805662|NCT03851705|183487632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|11.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||11.2|-30.1|0.3628
91805663|NCT03851705|183487632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|10.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||10.8|-23.2|0.4669
91805664|NCT03851705|183487638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31||||0.6814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.88|16.27|||ANCOVA|||||16.27|-24.88|0.6814
91805665|NCT03851705|183487639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.8725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|23.51|||ANCOVA|||||23.51|-27.70|0.8725
91805666|NCT03851705|183487640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.9425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|20.72|||ANCOVA|||||20.72|-22.30|0.9425
91805667|NCT03851705|183487641|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.2|0.2|
91805668|NCT00621582|183487644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||comparing results of post-treatment global assessment by patient with that of pre-treatment||||0.01
91805669|NCT03617185|183487654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|0.74||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-4.63|0.15
91805670|NCT03617185|183487654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.33||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-4.98|0.08
91805671|NCT03617185|183487654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|0.74||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-4.43|0.15
91805672|NCT03617185|183487654|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.07||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.02|0.67
91805673|NCT03617185|183487654|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.09||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.19||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|0.002|0.77
91805674|NCT03617185|183487654|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.07||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.02|0.69
91805675|NCT03617185|183487655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.79||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-2.77|0.27
91805676|NCT03617185|183487655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.53||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.53|-2.71|0.18
91805677|NCT03617185|183487655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|3.48||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.48|-0.82|0.21
91884540|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Worry-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.035
91805678|NCT03617185|183487655|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.02||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.05|0.66
91805679|NCT03617185|183487655|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.11||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.02|0.25
91805680|NCT03617185|183487655|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.13|0.09
91805681|NCT03617185|183487656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|3.85||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.85|-3.72|0.97
91805682|NCT03617185|183487656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.31|-7.32|0.03
91884541|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Cognitive Problems-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.037
91884542|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Cognitive Problems-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.043
91884543|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Cognitive Problems-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.044
91884544|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Perceived Physical Appearance-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.091
91908731|NCT01157078|183712925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.54|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.54|-0.59|0.931
91805683|NCT03617185|183487656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|2.05||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.05|-5.18|0.38
91884545|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Perceived Physical Appearance-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.248
91884546|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Perceived Physical Appearance-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.069
91884547|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Communication-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.010
91908732|NCT01157078|183712926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.44|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.44|-0.60|0.755
91805684|NCT03617185|183487657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
91805685|NCT03617185|183487657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91805686|NCT03617185|183487657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91805687|NCT03617185|183487658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|4.86||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.86|-4.26|0.89
91805688|NCT03617185|183487658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.76||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.76|-4.64|0.83
91884548|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Communication-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.292
91884549|NCT01920932|183663129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Communication-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.429
91884550|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.975
91908733|NCT01157078|183712927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.789||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.699|4.346|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||4.346|-2.699|0.646
91805689|NCT03617185|183487658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|5.3||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.3|-4.27|0.82
91805690|NCT03617185|183487658|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.05||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.21||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.11|0.51
91805691|NCT03617185|183487658|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.04||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.11|0.60
91884551|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.032
91755177|NCT01769196|183403480|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in PFS between simtuzumab and simtuzumab placebo in participants with sLOXL2 ≥ 50th percentile. The alternative hypothesis was that there is a difference. These hypotheses were evaluated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||1.43|0.74|0.851
91884552|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.497
91755178|NCT01769196|183403481|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in PFS between simtuzumab and simtuzumab placebo in participants with sLOXL2 ≥ 75th percentile. The alternative hypothesis was that there is a difference. These hypotheses were evaluated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.0|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.00|0.72|0.475
91755179|NCT01769196|183403482|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.37|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted, sLOXL2 level categories, and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.37|0.61|0.602
91755180|NCT01769196|183403483|OTHER|The difference in OS between the treatment groups was assessed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.28|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.28|0.43|0.988
91755181|NCT01769196|183403484|OTHER|The difference in OS between the treatment groups was assessed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.99|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.99|0.30|0.925
91884553|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.399
91755182|NCT00321464|183403513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A synthesis method was used for the non-inferiority test for the hypothesis that denosumab preserves at least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid vs. placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.71|0.95|||Regression, Cox||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prior oral bisphosphonate use, current chemotherapy, and location in Japan).|||0.95|0.71|<0.0001
91755183|NCT00321464|183403514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.01||95.0|0.71|0.95||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Cox||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prior oral bisphosphonate use, current chemotherapy, and location in Japan).|||0.95|0.71|0.010
91755184|NCT00321464|183403515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.77||||0.001||95.0|0.66|0.89||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure|Anderson-Gill model||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prior oral bisphosphonate use, current chemotherapy, and location in Japan).|||0.89|0.66|0.001
91755185|NCT00652951|183403524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 1.|GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 1.||1.07|0.74|
91755186|NCT00652951|183403524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 4.|GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.23|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 4.||1.23|0.84|
91884554|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.451
91884555|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.198
91884556|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.967
91759763|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.07|12.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||12.45|-22.07|
91759764|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|7.37|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.37|-15.77|
91759765|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|15.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.00|-11.21|
91755187|NCT00652951|183403524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 5.|GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 5.||1.15|0.83|
91755188|NCT00652951|183403524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 6B.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.26|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 6B.||1.26|0.69|
91759766|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|7.37|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.37|-15.77|
91884557|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.647
91884558|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.145
91884559|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
91884560|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.073
91884561|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.156
91884562|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.844
91884563|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.206
91884564|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.491
91884565|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.906
91884566|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.580
91884567|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.012
91884568|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.010
91884569|NCT01920932|183663130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.005
91884570|NCT05274750|183663138|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
91884571|NCT05274750|183663139|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.23||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.00|-0.46|0.047
91884572|NCT05274750|183663140|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5 percent (%) reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.22||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.02|-0.46|0.074
91884573|NCT05274750|183663141|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.19||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.00|-0.39|0.055
91884574|NCT05274750|183663142|OTHER|Analysis performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region and previous surgery for nasal polyps. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.8|-3.3|0.002
91908734|NCT01157078|183712928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.14|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.14|-0.31|0.446
91908735|NCT01157078|183712929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.33|-0.06|0.178
91908736|NCT01157078|183712930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|2.12|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.12|-4.22|0.515
91908737|NCT01157078|183712931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0209|0.068||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0680|-0.0209|0.298
91908738|NCT01157078|183712931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|6.26||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||6.26|-2.98|0.484
91908739|NCT03776175|183712937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-44.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.97|-31.65|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in least square (LS) mean between groups||-31.65|-54.97|0.0000
91908740|NCT03776175|183712937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-35.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.4|-20.68|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference LS mean between groups.||-20.68|-47.40|0.0007
91755189|NCT00652951|183403524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 7F.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.13|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel Group groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 7F.||1.13|0.82|
91908741|NCT03776175|183712937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-44.64||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.8|-32.19|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||-32.19|-54.80|0.0000
91755190|NCT00652951|183403524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 9V.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.16|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 9V.||1.16|0.78|
91755191|NCT00652951|183403524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 14.|GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 14.||1.21|0.85|
91908742|NCT03776175|183712937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.21||||0.9836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.66|18.08|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||18.08|-15.66|0.9836
91755192|NCT00652951|183403524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 18C.|GMC ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.03|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over ), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 18C.||2.03|1.28|
91908743|NCT03776175|183712937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.3||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.32|1.06|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||1.06|-27.32|0.1233
91908744|NCT03776175|183712937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-6.82|6.87|||||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 50% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||6.87|-6.82|
91908745|NCT03776175|183712937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-19.86|-8.35|||||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 50% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||-8.35|-19.86|
91908746|NCT01560780|183712997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
91908747|NCT01560780|183712998|EQUIVALENCE|safety end-point with p-value of \<0.05|||||>|0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||>0.99
91908748|NCT01560780|183712999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
91908749|NCT01560780|183713000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
91755193|NCT00652951|183403524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 19F.|GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.36|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 19F.||1.36|0.82|
91759767|NCT01393639|183411979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|9.66|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.66|-14.38|
91908750|NCT01560780|183713001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91908751|NCT01560780|183713003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91908752|NCT00930761|183713004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.06||95.0|0.99|1.51|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: Music therapy does not increase the rate of maternal breastfeeding. Sample size: considering 75% as the expected rate at the time of the infant hospital discharge and an absolute difference of 30% between groups, 95% confidence level (5% alpha error) and 80% power (20% beta error), 94 subjects would need to be enrolled (47 in each study arm). Expecting a 7.5% loss after randomization, 101 was the total number of subjects considered necessary to conduct the study.||1.51|0.99|0.06
91908753|NCT00930761|183713005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.13||95.0|0.73|5.66|||Chi-squared|||||5.66|0.73|0.13
91908754|NCT00930761|183713006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.03||95.0|1.01|1.57|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: Music therapy does not increase the rate of maternal breastfeeding. Sample size: considering 75% as the expected rate at the time of the first follow-up visit and an absolute difference of 30% between groups, 95% confidence level (5% alpha error) and 80% power (20% beta error), 94 subjects would need to be enrolled (47 in each study arm). Expecting a 7.5% loss after randomization, 101 was the total number of subjects considered necessary to conduct the study.||1.57|1.01|0.03
91908755|NCT00930761|183713007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.09||95.0|0.95|1.71|||Chi-squared|||||1.71|0.95|0.09
91908756|NCT01500278|183713014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2||The odds ratio, CI, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with RTG, gender, Baseline duration of RA (\<2 years or \>=2 years), and geographic region as factors and age as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.20|0.67|=0.467
91908757|NCT01500278|183713015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||=|0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.45||The odds ratio, CI and p-value are from a logistic regression model with RTG, gender, Baseline duration of RA (\<2 years or \>=2 years), and geographic region as factors and Baseline DAS28(ESR) and age as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.45|0.82|=0.532
91908758|NCT00595556|183713049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.012
91908759|NCT00595556|183713050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.94
91908760|NCT00595556|183713051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
91908761|NCT00595556|183713052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.006
91908762|NCT00595556|183713053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.3
91908763|NCT00689572|183713079|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed-effects linear regression model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|5.25|||Regression, Linear|Mixed-effects linear regression model included random intercept and slope (for temporal trend)||Difference between ondansetron and placebo groups regarding percentage of cocaine-free days (PCFD)||5.25|-5.43|0.972
91908764|NCT00689572|183713080|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed-effects linear regression model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|7.95|||Regression, Linear|Mixed-effects linear regression model included random intercept and slope (for temporal trend)||Difference between ondansetron and placebo groups regarding percentage of cocaine free urines (PCFU)||7.95|-7.08|0.909
91759768|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.07||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.07|-4.19|
91759769|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-1.57||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.57|-5.63|
91759770|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-0.97||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.97|-5.06|
91755194|NCT00652951|183403524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 23F.|GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 23F.||1.23|0.7|
91755195|NCT00652951|183403525|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for protein D.|GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns protein D.||1.06|0.77|
91805692|NCT03617185|183487658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.17|0.99
91755196|NCT02100969|183403569|SUPERIORITY||"proportion of successes"|0.864||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.0||No adjustment is required as we are not doing multiple comparisons for the primary outcome analyses.|One sample Z test of proportions||One sample Z test of proportions is used. Method of handling missing data (as per protocol) is Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF). Only 2 participants had missing values and in our case the LOCF results reflect a 'best-case' scenario.|"Sample size/power calculations are mentioned in the study protocol.~The study hypotheses are as follows:~H0: Proportion of patients whose QMG scores are increased by no more than 3 points at the end of the SCIg treatment phase ≤ 0.65 HA: Proportion of patients whose QMG scores are increased by no more than 3 points at the end of the SCIg treatment phase \> 0.65"||1.000|0.720|0.0179
91755197|NCT02100969|183403570|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data||The value of the signed rank test statistic is 44.50.|||||0.113
91755198|NCT02100969|183403571|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.612|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.612
91755199|NCT02100969|183403572|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data||The value of the signed-rank test statistic is 53.|||||0.047
91755200|NCT02100969|183403573|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.901|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.901
91755201|NCT02100969|183403574|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.510
91755202|NCT02100969|183403575|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|8.3||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.289
91755203|NCT02100969|183403576|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|715.0||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.0028
91755204|NCT04473664|183403590|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean]|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.1|117.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||117|77.1|
91755205|NCT04473664|183403592|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean]|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.5|201.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUClast statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||201|59.5|
91755206|NCT04473664|183403592|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean]|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.9|207.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUCinf statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||207|57.9|
91755207|NCT04473664|183403596|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|74.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.0|173.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||173|32.0|
91759771|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-1.68||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.68|-5.73|
91759772|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|0.12||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.12|-3.97|
91759773|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|-1.39||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.39|-5.46|
91755208|NCT04473664|183403598|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.3|111.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUClast statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||111|35.3|
91805693|NCT03617185|183487659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91755209|NCT04473664|183403598|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.8|104.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUCinf statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||104|46.8|
91755210|NCT04473664|183403601|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|44.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.0|111.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||111|18.0|
91755211|NCT04473664|183403602|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|51.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.0|165.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUClast statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||165|16.0|
91755212|NCT04473664|183403602|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|51.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.8|168.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUCinf statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||168|15.8|
91755213|NCT02066415|183403617|SUPERIORITY|"A sequential testing procedure, specifically, the hierarchical gate-keeping procedures and Hochberg method, was used to maintain the 2-sided study-wise type I error at 0.05 between the 2 erenumab doses and the primary and secondary endpoints.~This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04."|Difference in LS Means|-2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.39|||Generalized linear mixed model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.39|-3.52|<0.001
91755214|NCT02066415|183403617|SUPERIORITY|"A sequential testing procedure, specifically, the hierarchical gate-keeping procedures and Hochberg method, was used to maintain the 2-sided study-wise type I error at 0.05 between the 2 erenumab doses and the primary and secondary endpoints.~This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01."|Difference in LS Means|-2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.38|-3.51|<0.001
91805694|NCT03617185|183487659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91805695|NCT03617185|183487659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91755215|NCT02066415|183403618|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test after the missing data were imputed as non-response, stratified by stratification factors (region and medication overuse status).||3.27|1.46|<0.001
91755216|NCT02066415|183403618|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test after the missing data were imputed as non-response, stratified by stratification factors (region and medication overuse status).||3.51|1.56|<0.001
91805696|NCT03617185|183487660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.17||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.17|-2.12|0.98
91805697|NCT03617185|183487660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.56||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.56|-2.26|0.71
91805698|NCT03617185|183487660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.31|-2.10|0.92
91805699|NCT03617185|183487660|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference of slope|0.001||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.08|0.98
91805700|NCT03617185|183487660|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.02||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.06|0.66
91805701|NCT03617185|183487660|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.10|0.66
91805702|NCT03617185|183487661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91805703|NCT03617185|183487661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91805704|NCT03617185|183487661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91805705|NCT03617185|183487662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91755217|NCT02066415|183403619|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04.|Difference in LS Means|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.13|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.13|-2.60|<0.001
91805706|NCT03617185|183487662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
91884575|NCT05274750|183663143|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-6.8||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||1.6|-15.2|0.113
91884576|NCT05274750|183663144|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.17||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 21 to Week 24 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.03|-0.37|0.094
91884577|NCT05274750|183663145|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 26 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91805707|NCT03617185|183487662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91805708|NCT03617185|183487663|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the change in participant count (as either having retinopathy or not having retinopathy) from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
91805709|NCT03617185|183487663|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the change in participant count (as either having retinopathy or not having retinopathy) from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
91805710|NCT03617185|183487663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the change in participant count (as either having retinopathy or not having retinopathy) from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.44
91805711|NCT03617185|183487664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal distal motor latency (ms)||0.50|-0.40|0.83
91805712|NCT03617185|183487664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.21||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Peroneal distal motor latency (ms)||0.21|-0.62|0.33
91805713|NCT03617185|183487664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.49||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Peroneal distal motor latency (ms)||0.49|-0.36|0.75
91805714|NCT03617185|183487664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural peak latency (ms)||0.23|-0.49|0.45
91805715|NCT03617185|183487664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Sural peak latency (ms)||0.08|-0.57|0.13
91805716|NCT03617185|183487664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.03||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Sural peak latency (ms)||-0.03|-0.79|0.03
91755218|NCT02066415|183403619|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01.|Difference in LS Means|-2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.82|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.82|-3.28|<0.001
91908765|NCT02813694|183713084|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin= 10%|Treatment difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.5|||||Difference in percentage of Responders for ECR (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). Confidence interval computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic|||4.5|-4.4|
91755219|NCT02066415|183403620|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04.|Difference in LS Means|-9.54||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.98|7.9|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||7.90|-26.98|0.28
91755220|NCT02066415|183403620|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01.|Difference in LS Means|-19.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.71|-1.92|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.92|-36.71|0.030
91755221|NCT01116427|183403623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis was stratified on the presence or absence of subclinical activity as demonstrated by a Gd-enhanced lesion on one MRI in the past year prior to enrollment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91755222|NCT01116427|183403624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the total number of new lesions were converted to ranks and then compared between groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91755223|NCT01116427|183403625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Rank sum test in which the lesion volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and compared between the treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
91805717|NCT03617185|183487664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|1.01||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial distal motor latency (ms)||1.01|-0.002|0.05
91755224|NCT01116427|183403626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which percent brain volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and the ranks were compared between groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91755225|NCT01116427|183403627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which mean numbers of new lesions per participant were converted to ranks and compared between groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
91755226|NCT01116427|183403628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
91755227|NCT01116427|183403630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the change from baseline scores per subject were converted to ranks and compared between treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91755228|NCT01116427|183403631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis was stratified on the presence or absence of subclinical activity as demonstrated by a Gd-enhanced lesion on one MRI in the past year prior to enrollment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91908766|NCT02813694|183713085|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 10%|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.1|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\] and PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||3.1|-6.3|
91755229|NCT01116427|183403632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Rank sum test in which the lesion volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and compared between the treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91755230|NCT01116427|183403633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the percent brain volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and compared between treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91755231|NCT01116427|183403634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
91755232|NCT01116427|183403636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the change from baseline scores per participant were converted to ranks and compared between treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
91755233|NCT03344640|183403679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.84|7.3|||LS mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All Patients at day 99||7.30|-8.84|0.875
91755234|NCT03344640|183403680|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|3.97||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|8.97|||LS mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patientts at day 15||8.97|-1.03|0.190
91755235|NCT03344640|183403680|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|9.11|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 29||9.11|-3.39|
91755236|NCT03344640|183403680|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.761||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.81|6.08|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 57||6.08|-8.81|0.761
91805718|NCT03617185|183487664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.03||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial distal motor latency (ms)||1.03|-0.07|0.08
91755237|NCT03344640|183403680|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.765||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.27|9.03|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 85||9.03|-6.27|0.765
91755238|NCT03344640|183403680|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.491||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|11.45|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 127||11.45|-4.73|0.491
91755239|NCT03344640|183403680|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|2.44||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.19|11.07|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at end of study||11.07|-6.19|0.639
91884578|NCT05274750|183663146|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.092|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.092|0.495|0.128
91755240|NCT03344640|183403681|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus Placebo|1.23||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.81|7.28||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in QuickDASH total score||Statistical analysis results of QuickDASH total score (PD Analysis Set) at day 99||7.28|-4.81|0.735
91884579|NCT05274750|183663147|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|1.124|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.124|0.453|0.146
91908767|NCT02813694|183713085|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margain = 10%|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.3|||||Difference in percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit. Confidence interval computed using a continuity-corrected Z-test.|||3.3|-6.5|
91908768|NCT02813694|183713086|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margain = 10%|Treatment difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.5|||||Difference in percentage of success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\]; PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||0.5|-8.2|
91908769|NCT02813694|183713086|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 10%|Treatment difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|0.7|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). Confidence interval computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic.|||0.7|-8.4|
91908770|NCT04474795|183713087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Compared pre and post training scores||||<0.0001
91908771|NCT04474795|183713088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Comparison of scores pre and post training in individuals who completed training modules||||<0.0001
91908772|NCT04474795|183713089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Patient autonomy||||0.606
91908773|NCT04474795|183713089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Value of tight control||||0.003
91908774|NCT04474795|183713089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Need for Special Training||||0.475
91908775|NCT04474795|183713090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||||||0.009
91908776|NCT00768521|183713119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.18||||0.008||90.0|7.58|41.06||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline used as covariate.|Primary Hypothesis: Tolterodine LA 4 mg is superior to placebo with respect to change from baseline in maximum cystometric capacity at 4 hours post Dose 7 (i.e., steady state). The expected treatment effect is targeted at 40 mL.|||41.06|7.58|0.008
91908777|NCT00768521|183713120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.422||90.0|-11.5|16.71||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline used as covariate.||||16.71|-11.5|0.422
91908778|NCT04770389|183713124|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-44.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-34.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-34.63|-55.20|<0.0001
91908779|NCT04770389|183713125|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-44.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-34.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-34.63|-55.20|<0.0001
91908780|NCT04770389|183713126|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-44.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-34.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-34.63|-55.20|<0.0001
91908781|NCT04770389|183713127|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-43.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.517|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-32.36|||ANCOVA|||||-32.36|-54.29|<0.0001
91908782|NCT04770389|183713128|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-43.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.517|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-32.36|||ANCOVA|||||-32.36|-54.29|<0.0001
91908783|NCT04770389|183713129|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-43.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.517|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-32.36|||ANCOVA|||||-32.36|-54.29|<0.0001
91908784|NCT04770389|183713130|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.63|-23.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-23.09|-43.63|<0.0001
91908785|NCT04770389|183713131|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-33.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.63|-23.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-23.09|-43.63|<0.0001
91908786|NCT04770389|183713132|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-33.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.63|-23.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-23.09|-43.63|<0.0001
91908787|NCT04770389|183713133|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.32|-17.08|||ANCOVA|||||-17.08|-39.32|<0.0001
91908788|NCT04770389|183713134|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.32|-17.08|||ANCOVA|||||-17.08|-39.32|<0.0001
91908789|NCT04770389|183713135|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.32|-17.08|||ANCOVA|||||-17.08|-39.32|<0.0001
91755241|NCT03344640|183403681|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus Placebo|1.51||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|7.79|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in QuickDASH total score||Statistical analysis results of QuickDASH total score (PD analysis set) at End of Study||7.79|-4.76|0.689
91884580|NCT05274750|183663148|OTHER|Logistic regression with covariates of treatment, number of courses of systemic CS in 12 months prior to screening for NP (0, 1, \>1), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, baseline total endoscopic NP score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), region, study and previous surgery for NPs. The study covariate is removed for individual study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||0.86|0.40|0.006
91755242|NCT03344640|183403682|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI vesus placebo|3.5||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|10.54|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in ASES total percentage score||Statistical analysis results of ASES total score (PD analysis) at day 99||10.54|-3.54|0.411
91755243|NCT03344640|183403682|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|1.14||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|8.78|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in ASES total percentage score||Statistical analysis results of ASES total score (PD analysis) at End of Study set)||8.78|-6.50|0.804
91755244|NCT03344640|183403683|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-1.26||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|4.29|||LS Mean|LS Mean change from baseline in Your Health Today Score at day 99||Statistical analysis results of Your Health Today EQ-5D-5L Index score at day 99 (PD Analysis Set)||4.29|-6.81|0.706
91755245|NCT03344640|183403683|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-1.9||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.79|4.99|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in Your Health Today score||Statistical analysis results of Your Health Today EQ-5D-5L Index score at End of Study||4.99|-8.79|0.647
91755246|NCT03344640|183403684|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.01||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.06|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L Index score||Statistical analysis results of of EQ-5D-5L Index score at day 99 (PD Analysis Set)||0.06|-0.03|0.613
91755247|NCT03344640|183403684|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.06|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L Index score||Statistical analysis results of of EQ-5D-5L Index score at End of Study (PD Analysis Set)||0.06|-0.04|0.740
91755248|NCT03344640|183403685|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-5.55||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.07|2.97|||LS Mean|LS MMean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale (PD Analysis Set) at day 99||2.97|-14.07|0.281
91755249|NCT03344640|183403685|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-1.49||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.33|7.35|||LS Mean|LS Mean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale (PD Analysis Set) at End of Study||7.35|-10.33|0.780
91755250|NCT03344640|183403686|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-3.32||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.28|4.64|||LS Mean|LS Mean change from baseline in VAS score||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale (PD Analysis Set) at day 99||4.64|-11.28|0.489
91755251|NCT03344640|183403686|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-8.29||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.26|-0.32|||LS Mean|LS Mean change from baseline in VAS score||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale at End of Study||-0.32|-16.26|0.087
91755252|NCT03344640|183403687|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 99% CL versus placebo|6.1||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|13.91|||LS Mean|LS Mean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of PhGA score using VAS scale at day 99||13.91|-1.90|0.210
91755253|NCT03344640|183403687|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-0.37||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.86|8.11|||LS Mean|LS Mean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of PhGA score using VAS scale at End of Study||8.11|-8.86|0.942
91755254|NCT02809053|183403691|OTHER|The 95%CI (confidence interval) for the difference in the overall response rate (ORR) was calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method based on CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) weight with stratification factor FLIPI-2 (low, intermediate and high risk).|Adjusted Difference Rate (%)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.35|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Adjusted Difference Rate (%) in Overall Response Rate (ORR) of SAIT101 versus MabThera at Week 28.||6.35|-14.80|
91755255|NCT02809053|183403692|OTHER|The 95%CI (confidence interval) for the difference in the overall response rate (ORR) was calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method based on CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) weight with stratification factor FLIPI-2 (low, intermediate and high risk).|Adjusted Difference Rate|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|0.61|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Adjusted Difference Rate of Overall Response Rate (ORR) of SAIT101 versus MabThera at Week 12.||0.61|-20.92|
91755256|NCT02809053|183403697|OTHER|The estimated Hazard Ratio with 95% CI was obtained from Cox regression model; however, stratification factors, ie, FLIPI-2 (low, intermediate and high risk), were only taken into account if FLIPI-2 score=all.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.724|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|3.482|||||Hazard Ration of TTE SAIT101:MabThera|Time to Event (TTE) Hazard Ratio (HR) of SAIT101:MabThera. The TTE is defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date when an event occurs; an event is disease progression as assessed by Investigator, death due to any cause, or the start of new treatment, whichever comes first.||3.482|0.853|
91755257|NCT02809053|183403698|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Difference (%)|101.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.86|107.24|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure pharmacokinetic parameter AUC0-168,w1 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% Confidence Interval (CI)) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera Area Under the Concentration time Curve Day 0 to Week 1 (AUC0-168,w1) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment.||107.24|95.86|
91755258|NCT02809053|183403698|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Difference (%)|96.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.85|103.4|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure PK parameter AUC0-168,w4 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% Confidence Interval (CI)) %) of SAIT101 versus MabThera Area Under the Concentration time Cure Day 0 to Week 4 (AUC0-168,w4) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment.||103.40|90.85|
91884581|NCT05274750|183663149|OTHER|The pooled statistical analyses will be performed using a Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, study, visit and interaction terms for visit by baseline score and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||-0.25|-1.26|0.004
91884582|NCT04328623|183663154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91755259|NCT02809053|183403699|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00|GLS Mean Ratio (%)|99.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.85|103.4|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with Cmax,w1 exposure within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% CI) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera maximum plasma concentration at Week 1 (Cmax,w1) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment.||103.40|90.85|
91755260|NCT02809053|183403699|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Ration (%)|99.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.96|105.92|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure PK parameter Cmax,w4 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% CI) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera maximum plasma concentration at Week 4 (Cmax,w1) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment||105.92|92.96|
91755261|NCT02809053|183403702|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Ratio (%)|95.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.85|102.55|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure PK parameter Ctrough,d29 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% CI) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera trough plasma concentration at the end of the dosing period (Day 29) (Ctrough,d29) (µg/mL) . The statistical comparison of the log-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment||102.55|88.85|
91755262|NCT02809053|183403706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.0|45.4|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 1 (AUEC0-168,w1), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||45.4|-31.0|
91755263|NCT02809053|183403706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.6|57.6|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 2 (AUEC0-168,w2), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||57.6|-21.6|
91755264|NCT02809053|183403706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|61.0|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 3 (AUEC0-168,w3), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||61.0|-18.3|
91755265|NCT02809053|183403706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.3|60.2|||||comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 4 (AUEC0-168,w4), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||60.2|-19.3|
91755266|NCT02809053|183403706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|54.6|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 12 (AUEC0-168,w12), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||54.6|-23.1|
91805719|NCT03617185|183487664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.7||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial distal motor latency (ms)||0.70|-0.27|0.38
91884583|NCT02312557|183663163|OTHER||Proportion|0.19|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.29|||One-sample binomial test of proportion|||||0.29|0.09|<0.01
91884584|NCT02330094|183663181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
91755267|NCT02809053|183403706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.0|51.8|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 28 (AUEC0-168,w28), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||51.8|-26.0|
91755268|NCT02809053|183403710|OTHER|||||||0.587||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Simon|||Exploratory statistical analysis: Comparison of Overall Response Rate (ORR) by Region (European Union / Other). The interaction p-value for the Region subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate.||||0.587
91884585|NCT02330094|183663182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
91805720|NCT03617185|183487665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal amplitude (mV)||||0.48
91805721|NCT03617185|183487665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal amplitude (mV)||||0.31
91805722|NCT03617185|183487665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal amplitude (mV)||||0.23
91805723|NCT03617185|183487665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial amplitude (mV)||||0.65
91884586|NCT02330094|183663183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
91884587|NCT04486313|183663184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8786|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon Test|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.8786
91884588|NCT04486313|183663185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0740
91884589|NCT04486313|183663186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of proportion positive for SARS-CoV-2 at Day 4||||0.4479
91884590|NCT04486313|183663186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2814|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of proportion positive for SARS-CoV-2 at Day 10||||0.2814
91884591|NCT04486313|183663187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from Baseline to Day 4||||0.0665
91805724|NCT03617185|183487665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial amplitude (mV)||||0.69
91805725|NCT03617185|183487665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial amplitude (mV)||||0.69
91805726|NCT03617185|183487666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural amplitude (µV)||||0.82
91805727|NCT03617185|183487666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural amplitude (µV)||||0.26
91805728|NCT03617185|183487666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural amplitude (µV)||||0.62
91805729|NCT03617185|183487667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal CV (m/s)||||0.82
91805730|NCT03617185|183487667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal CV (m/s)||||0.27
91805731|NCT03617185|183487667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal CV (m/s)||||0.52
91805732|NCT03617185|183487668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal F wave index (ms)||||0.32
91805733|NCT03617185|183487668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal F wave index (ms)||||0.43
91805734|NCT03617185|183487668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal F wave index (ms)||||0.48
91805735|NCT03617185|183487668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial F wave index (ms)||||0.75
91884592|NCT04486313|183663187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from Baseline to Day 10||||0.4974
91884593|NCT04486313|183663188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1771|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.1771
91884594|NCT04486313|183663189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2399|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.2399
91884595|NCT04486313|183663190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon Test|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.09
91884596|NCT04486313|183663191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon Test|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.0077
91884597|NCT04486313|183663192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.05
91884598|NCT04486313|183663193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.05
91884599|NCT04486313|183663194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.08
91908790|NCT04770389|183713136|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.12|-37.12|<0.0001
91755269|NCT02809053|183403710|OTHER|||||||0.421||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Simon|||Exploratory statistical analysis. Overall Response Rate by Age Group (18-60 years and \>60 years). The interaction p-value for the Age subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate.||||0.421
91755270|NCT02809053|183403710|OTHER|||||||0.288||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Simon|||Exploratory statistical analysis. Comparison of Overall Response Rate (ORR) by Gender (Male / Female). The interaction p-value for the Gender subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate. The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.||||0.288
91884600|NCT01375751|183663222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.56|-36.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo.||-36.09|-51.56|<0.001
91884601|NCT01375751|183663222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.06|-48.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo.||-48.67|-64.06|<0.001
91884602|NCT01375751|183663223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.6|-51.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.4|-79.6|<0.001
91884603|NCT01375751|183663223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-84.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.8|-70.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-70.7|-98.8|<0.001
91884604|NCT01375751|183663224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.32|-34.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.26|-49.32|<0.001
91884605|NCT01375751|183663224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.95|-45.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.97|-60.95|<0.001
91884606|NCT01375751|183663225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.77|-27.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-27.74|-41.77|<0.001
91884607|NCT01375751|183663225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.18|-39.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.23|-53.18|<0.001
91884608|NCT01375751|183663226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-29.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placbo is the reference|||-29.32|-44.01|<0.001
91884609|NCT01375751|183663226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.32|-37.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.70|-52.32|<0.001
91884610|NCT01375751|183663227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.72|-27.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-27.11|-40.72|<0.001
91884611|NCT01375751|183663227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.41|-37.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.86|-51.41|<0.001
91884612|NCT00882115|183663237|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Data followed the normal distribution, therefore, a parametric repeated measure (mixed model) ANOVA model was used to compare means.||Comparison was made to the 24 h minus baseline change in both control phase and intervention phase.||||<0.001
91884613|NCT00882115|183663237|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Data followed the normal distribution, therefore, a parametric repeated measure (mixed model) ANOVA model was used to compare means.||Comparison waws made to the 6 hour minus baseline change in both control phase and intervention phase.||||<0.01
91884614|NCT02552147|183663238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||.44
91884615|NCT02552147|183663239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.38
91884616|NCT02552147|183663243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.13
91884617|NCT02552147|183663244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.13
91755271|NCT02809053|183403710|OTHER|||||||0.588||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Wilson|||Exploratory statistical analysis. Comparison of Overall Response Rate (ORR) by Anti-drug Antibody (ADA) status (Positive / Negative). The interaction p-value for the ADA subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate.||||0.588
91805736|NCT03617185|183487668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial F wave index (ms)||||0.09
91884618|NCT02552147|183663245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.50
91884619|NCT02552147|183663246|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P value was calculated to \>0.99 and thus rounded to 1.0.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||1.0
91884620|NCT02552147|183663247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.25
91884621|NCT02552147|183663248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.69
91805737|NCT03617185|183487668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial F wave index (ms)||||0.03
91805738|NCT03617185|183487669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.129||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.129|-0.16|0.79
91908791|NCT04770389|183713137|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-29.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.12|-37.12|<0.0001
91805739|NCT03617185|183487669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.01||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-0.2|0.46
91805740|NCT03617185|183487669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.26|0.24
91805741|NCT03617185|183487669|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.001||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.01|0.98
91805742|NCT03617185|183487669|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.002||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.004|0.49
91805743|NCT03617185|183487669|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.004||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.002|0.17
91884622|NCT00940875|183663250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|10.9|||||The 95% CI for the difference of 2 rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||10.9|-17.5|
91884623|NCT00940875|183663251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4798|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Difference between treatment groups in PFS||||0.4798
91884624|NCT00940875|183663251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.3||||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.68|||Wald Test||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox regression model and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS), disease stage, histology, and smoking status.|||2.68|0.63|0.4805
91755272|NCT00884832|183403779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Proportion of semi-formed and loose stools (Bristol Form 5-7) associated with diarrhea subgroup versus no diarrhea subgroup.||||<0.001
91755273|NCT00884832|183403780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
91805744|NCT03617185|183487670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-0.01|0.07
91884625|NCT00940875|183663252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-11.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|17.2|||||The 95% CI for difference of 2 rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Week 8||17.2|-40.3|
91884626|NCT00940875|183663252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-13.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|9.0|||||The 95% CI for difference of 2 rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Week 16||9.0|-36.0|
91884627|NCT00940875|183663254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5393|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Difference between treatment groups in OS||||0.5393
91884628|NCT00940875|183663254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.5399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.66|||Wald Test||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox regression model and stratified by ECOG PS, disease stage, histology, and smoking status.|||1.66|0.38|0.5399
91884629|NCT05186311|183663276|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit (CAL).||||||||||||||||One hundred (100) participants (with paired numerical data) per each analyte provide \> 90% power to ensure that mean biases and confidence intervals are within the clinical acceptance limit (CAL), at medically relevant points, assuming no true bias between the tube types, residual standard deviation (SD) or coefficient of variation (CV) = CAL and collected data cover medically relevant points.|"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
91805745|NCT03617185|183487670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.16|-0.11|0.72
91805746|NCT03617185|183487670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|-0.06|0.33
91805747|NCT03617185|183487671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.064||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.24|-0.11|0.46
91805748|NCT03617185|183487671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-0.04|0.15
91805749|NCT03617185|183487671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.3||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|-0.06|0.20
91805750|NCT03617185|183487672|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|10.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.07
91805751|NCT03617185|183487672|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|3.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.34
91805752|NCT03617185|183487672|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|2.5||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.42
91805753|NCT03617185|183487672|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|9.0||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.77
91908792|NCT04770389|183713138|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.12|-37.12|<0.0001
91805754|NCT03617185|183487673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.35||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Questionnaire||0.35|-1.5|0.21
91805755|NCT03617185|183487673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.8||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Questionnaire||0.80|-0.98|0.85
91805756|NCT03617185|183487673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.5||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Questionnaire||1.50|-0.58|0.37
91805757|NCT03617185|183487673|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Questionnaire||1.02|0.99|0.78
91805758|NCT03617185|183487673|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Questionnaire||1.01|0.98|0.53
91805759|NCT03617185|183487673|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.98||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Questionnaire||1.00|0.96|0.08
91805760|NCT03617185|183487674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91805761|NCT03617185|183487674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91805762|NCT03617185|183487674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
91908793|NCT04770389|183713139|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.88|-29.83|<0.0001
91755274|NCT00884832|183403780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||drug\*group interactions||||0.047
91755275|NCT00884832|183403782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.082
91755276|NCT02337725|183403783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|-4.25|||ANCOVA||Estimated Value was reported for the least squares mean difference between TVP-1012 1mg and Placebo (TVP-1012 1mg - Placebo).|||-4.250|-8.530|<0.0001
91755277|NCT00500760|183403794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||||The difference between the treatment groups is calculated as panitumumab plus chemoradiation minus chemoradiotherapy alone.|||0.09|-0.23|
91755278|NCT00500760|183403795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||||The difference between the treatment groups is calculated as panitumumab plus chemoradiation minus chemoradiotherapy alone.|Difference between treatment groups at 6 months||0.12|-0.18|
91755279|NCT00500760|183403795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.12|||||The difference between the treatment groups is calculated as panitumumab plus chemoradiation minus chemoradiotherapy alone.|Difference between treatment groups at 12 months||0.12|-1.09|
91755280|NCT00500760|183403796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.328||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|2.299|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemoradiation:chemoradiotherapy alone.|||2.299|0.767|0.3106
91755281|NCT00500760|183403797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.961|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemoradiation:chemoradiotherapy alone.|||1.961|0.675|0.6069
91884630|NCT05186311|183663277|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
91884631|NCT05186311|183663278|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
91884632|NCT05186311|183663279|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
91884633|NCT05186311|183663280|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
91884634|NCT05186311|183663281|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
91908794|NCT04770389|183713140|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.88|-29.83|<0.0001
91755282|NCT00500760|183403798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.628||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|3.019|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemoradiation:chemoradiotherapy alone.|||3.019|0.877|0.1223
91805763|NCT03617185|183487674|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.98||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.96|0.18
91805764|NCT03617185|183487674|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.96|0.52
91755283|NCT00500760|183403799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.535||||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|1.262|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an overall response in the panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||1.262|0.217|0.1737
91755284|NCT00500760|183403799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rate|-10.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.56|4.14|||||Difference is presented as the rate in panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm minus the rate in chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||4.14|-24.56|
91755285|NCT00500760|183403800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.087||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|2.712|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having a complete response in the panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||2.712|0.448|1.0000
91884635|NCT05186311|183663282|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
91889130|NCT00288639|183671097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-20.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.334||||95.0|-35.24|-6.33|||||Seizure freq. \>3 / 28 d. Resp. ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-6.33|-35.24|
91889131|NCT05262517|183671109|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.48||||||LS means and CIs were estimated by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) with baseline NRS value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification factor (use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms) as the main effects.||1.48|-1.78|
91755286|NCT00500760|183403800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rate|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|14.71|||||Difference is presented as the rate in panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm minus the rate in chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||14.71|-13.23|
91755287|NCT01264770|183403801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.9|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.90|0.23|0.006
91755288|NCT01264770|183403801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.84|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.84|0.14|0.022
91759774|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.42||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-4.03|
91759775|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|-0.62||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.62|-5.04|
91759776|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-0.64||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.64|-5.07|
91759777|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.56||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.56|-4.98|
91759778|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.59|-3.85|
91759779|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|-1.06||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.06|-5.48|
91759780|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|0.2||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.20|-4.66|
91759781|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-1.77||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.77|-6.62|
91759782|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|-1.31||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.31|-6.15|
91759783|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-1.26||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.26|-6.09|
91889132|NCT05262517|183671110|OTHER||LS mean difference|5.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.35|31.59||||||LS means and CIs were estimated by an analysis of covariance model using REML with baseline NRS value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification factor (use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms) as the main effects.||31.59|-21.35|
91889133|NCT05262517|183671111|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.41||||||LS means, and CIs were based on a generalized linear mixed effect model (GLMEM) that included the baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment group, stratification factor (use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms; yes or no), scheduled time point, and time point by-treatment group interaction.||1.41|-0.99|
91755289|NCT01264770|183403801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.22||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.56|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.56|-0.12|0.280
91755290|NCT01264770|183403802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison with adalimumab a non-inferiority margin of -0.6 in the mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 was defined. The lower 80% confidence interval for treatment difference was below this value so non-inferiority could not be concluded. A p-value is also provided for a 2-sided test of superiority.|Treatment difference|-0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.04|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.40|-1.04|0.005
91759784|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|0.16||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.16|-4.69|
91759785|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|-1.7||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.70|-6.52|
91759786|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-0.25||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.25|-5.34|
91759787|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-1.83||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.83|-6.93|
91759788|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-2.66||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.66|-7.74|
91759789|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-2.36||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.36|-7.43|
91759790|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|-0.2||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.20|-5.28|
91759791|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.05||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.05|-7.10|
91759792|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.33||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.33|-0.73|
91759793|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.84||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.84|-2.18|
91759794|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.44||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.44|-1.61|
91759795|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.73||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.73|-2.27|
91759796|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|3.68||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.68|-0.74|
91805765|NCT03617185|183487674|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.97|0.87
91805766|NCT03617185|183487675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91805767|NCT03617185|183487675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91884636|NCT05186311|183663283|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
91889134|NCT05262517|183671112|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|10.9||||||Stratified by use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms at randomization with Mantel-Haenzsel weighting.||10.9|-21.3|
91755291|NCT01264770|183403802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison with adalimumab a non-inferiority margin of -0.6 in the mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 was defined. The lower 80% confidence interval for treatment difference was below this value so non-inferiority could not be concluded. A p-value is also provided for a 2-sided test of superiority.|Treatment difference|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.94|-0.27|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.27|-0.94|0.020
91755292|NCT01264770|183403802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison with adalimumab a non-inferiority margin of -0.6 in the mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 was defined. The lower 80% confidence interval for treatment difference was below this value so non-inferiority could not be concluded. A p-value is also provided for a 2-sided test of superiority.|Treatment difference|-0.72||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.04|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.40|-1.04|0.004
91755293|NCT01264770|183403803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|5.86|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||5.86|1.59|0.005
91755294|NCT01264770|183403803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|8.05|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||8.05|2.10|<0.001
91889135|NCT05262517|183671115|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|16.6||||||Stratified by use of daily medications/oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms at randomization with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||16.6|-8.7|
91805768|NCT03617185|183487675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91805769|NCT03617185|183487676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|-1.2|-1.2|2.67||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score||2.67|-1.2|0.44
91889136|NCT04421950|183671147|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91889137|NCT00186017|183671148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
91805770|NCT03617185|183487676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|2.1||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score||2.10|-2.16|0.97
91805771|NCT03617185|183487676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.58||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score||2.58|-1.78|0.71
91805772|NCT03617185|183487676|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.02|0.98|0.99
91805773|NCT03617185|183487676|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.02|0.98|0.88
91805774|NCT03617185|183487676|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.00|0.97|0.09
91805775|NCT03617185|183487677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|4.45||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.45|-3.41|0.78
91805776|NCT03617185|183487677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.95||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.95|-3.14|0.63
91805777|NCT03617185|183487677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.58||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.58|-1.55|0.43
91805778|NCT03617185|183487677|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.98|0.43
91805779|NCT03617185|183487677|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.98|0.83
91805780|NCT03617185|183487677|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.94|<0.01
91884637|NCT05186311|183663284|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
91889138|NCT00186017|183671149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.1
91889139|NCT00186017|183671150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.1
91805781|NCT03617185|183487678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|5.59||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.59|-6.68|0.84
91805782|NCT03617185|183487678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|12.97||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.97|-7.57|0.48
91805783|NCT03617185|183487678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|3.18||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.18|-4.94|0.64
91805784|NCT03617185|183487679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
91805785|NCT03617185|183487679|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91805786|NCT03617185|183487679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91805787|NCT03617185|183487679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91805788|NCT03617185|183487680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.44||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||Mcgill Total Score||0.44|-5.66|0.09
91805789|NCT03617185|183487680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|2.41||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||Mcgill Total Score||2.41|-4.36|0.56
91805790|NCT03617185|183487680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.05||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||Mcgill Total Score||1.05|-4.5|0.21
91805791|NCT03617185|183487681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
91908795|NCT04770389|183713141|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.88|-29.83|<0.0001
91805792|NCT03617185|183487681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91805793|NCT03617185|183487681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
91805794|NCT03617185|183487681|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.06|0.46
91805795|NCT03617185|183487681|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.06|0.47
91805796|NCT03617185|183487681|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.003||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.04|0.91
91805797|NCT03617185|183487682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.65||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL- overall QOL||0.65|-0.53|0.83
91884638|NCT05186311|183663285|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
91884639|NCT05186311|183663286|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
91884640|NCT05186311|183663287|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
91884641|NCT01607879|183663322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1497|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1497
91884642|NCT01607879|183663323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91884643|NCT01607879|183663324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
91755295|NCT01264770|183403803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|2.83|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.83|0.76|0.335
91755296|NCT01264770|183403804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.68|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.68|0.20|0.007
91755297|NCT01264770|183403804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.89|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.89|0.26|0.051
91755298|NCT01264770|183403804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.65|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.65|0.20|0.004
91755299|NCT01264770|183403805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.4||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.40|0.17|<0.001
91759797|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.65||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.65|-1.76|
91759798|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.63||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.63|-1.79|
91759799|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.7||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.70|-1.69|
91805798|NCT03617185|183487682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.78||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL- overall QOL||0.78|-0.76|0.97
91755300|NCT01264770|183403805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.43||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.43|0.18|<0.001
91805799|NCT03617185|183487682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.54||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL- overall QOL||0.54|-0.73|0.76
91884644|NCT01607879|183663325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.925
91884645|NCT01607879|183663326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91884646|NCT03721172|183663371|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|22.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||22.8|12.2|<0.0001
91884647|NCT03721172|183663372|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||32.1|19.1|<0.0001
91884648|NCT03721172|183663373|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-2.73|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-2.73|-4.04|<0.0001
91884649|NCT03721172|183663374|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-2.39|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-2.39|-3.47|<0.0001
91908796|NCT04770389|183713142|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-19.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.71|-40.55|<0.0001
91805800|NCT03617185|183487683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91884650|NCT03721172|183663375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|46.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||46.3|29.7|<0.0001
91908797|NCT04770389|183713143|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-30.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-19.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.71|-40.55|<0.0001
91908798|NCT04770389|183713144|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-30.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-19.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.71|-40.55|<0.0001
91805801|NCT03617185|183487683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
91884651|NCT03721172|183663376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||32.8|16.5|<0.0001
91884652|NCT03721172|183663377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||36.3|18.6|<0.0001
91884653|NCT03721172|183663378|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-2.1|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-2.1|-3.7|<0.0001
91805802|NCT03617185|183487683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
91805803|NCT03617185|183487683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
91884654|NCT00607672|183663406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
91884655|NCT00607672|183663407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91884656|NCT00607672|183663408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
91884657|NCT00607672|183663409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
91884658|NCT00607672|183663410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||For plasma transfusion comparison. Ramipril and Candesartan versus placebo|Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91884659|NCT00607672|183663411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||Comparison for norepinephrine use|Chi-squared|||||||0.27
91884660|NCT00607672|183663412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91884661|NCT00607672|183663413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
91908799|NCT04770389|183713145|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.196||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|-8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-8.27|-28.88|0.0005
91908800|NCT04770389|183713146|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.196||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|-8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-8.27|-28.88|0.0005
91884662|NCT00607672|183663414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
91884663|NCT00607672|183663415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
91755301|NCT01264770|183403805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.31||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.31|0.07|0.007
91884664|NCT00607672|183663416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
91884665|NCT00607672|183663417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
91755302|NCT01264770|183403805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.16||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.03||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.03|-0.30|0.049
91755303|NCT01264770|183403805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.02||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.12||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|-0.16|0.803
91755304|NCT01264770|183403805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|-0.1||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.10|-0.37|0.003
91755305|NCT01264770|183403806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.09||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.18||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|0.01|0.059
91755306|NCT01264770|183403806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.09||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.17||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.17|0.01|0.071
91755307|NCT01264770|183403806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.01||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.07||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.07|-0.05|0.758
91759800|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|4.29||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.29|-0.53|
91884666|NCT00607672|183663418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
91884667|NCT00825305|183663483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis states that the Zagreb schedule is inferior to the Essen schedule in terms of day 14 antibody titers assuming no difference between the two schedules and the equivalence limit of 1.5 titer levels (log2).|ratio of log2 mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.4|||ANOVA||Ratio of log2 mean (Zagreb/Essen) on day 14|||0.4|-0.81|
91884668|NCT00825305|183663484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis states that the Zagreb schedule is inferior to the Essen schedule in terms of day 7 antibody titers assuming no difference between the two schedules and the equivalence limit of 1.5 titer levels (log2).|ratio of log2 mean (day7)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.35|||ANOVA||Ratio of log2 means (Zagreb/Essen) on day 7|||0.35|-0.77|
91884669|NCT00825305|183663484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis states that the Zagreb schedule is inferior to the Essen schedule in terms of day 42 antibody titers assuming no difference between the two schedules and the equivalence limit of 1.5 titer levels (log2).|ratio of log2 mean (day 42)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.58|||ANOVA||Ratio of log2 mean (Zagreb/(Essen) on day 42|||0.58|-0.72|
91884670|NCT01385748|183663551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|1.186|||Log Rank|The log rank test at 5% significance level was used.||||1.186|0.387|0.165
91884671|NCT01385748|183663551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.817||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.35|||Log Rank|The log rank test at 5% significance level was used.||||1.35|0.495|0.421
91884672|NCT01385748|183663551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.754||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.175|||Log Rank|The log rank test at 5% significance level was used.||||1.175|0.484|0.211
91805804|NCT03617185|183487684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91805805|NCT03617185|183487684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
91805806|NCT03617185|183487684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91805807|NCT03617185|183487684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91884673|NCT01385748|183663554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||||||Significance threshold = 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.807
91884674|NCT01385748|183663554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971||||||Significance threshold = 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.971
91884675|NCT01385748|183663556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.223||Significance threshold = 5%|Log Rank|||||1.223|0.398|0.199
91884676|NCT01385748|183663556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.817||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.353|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.353|0.493|0.424
91884677|NCT01385748|183663556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.193|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.193|0.489|0.235
91884678|NCT01385748|183663557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.176
91805808|NCT03617185|183487685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91884679|NCT01385748|183663557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.61
91884680|NCT01385748|183663557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.295
91884681|NCT01385748|183663558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Significance threshold = 5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.063
91884682|NCT01385748|183663558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.169
91884683|NCT01385748|183663558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Chi-squared|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.064
91884684|NCT01385748|183663559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.824||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.401|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.401|0.484|0.388
91805809|NCT03617185|183487685|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91805810|NCT03617185|183487685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
91805811|NCT03617185|183487685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91805812|NCT03617185|183487686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|2.36||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.36|-6.37|0.36
91805813|NCT03617185|183487686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|7.71||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||7.71|1.31|<0.01
91884685|NCT01385748|183663559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|1.012|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.012|0.357|0.054
91884686|NCT01385748|183663559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|1.078|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.078|0.444|0.102
91884687|NCT00159263|183663561|OTHER|Friedman ANOVA followed Dunn's pairwise comparisons||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91884688|NCT00159263|183663562|OTHER|Friedman Anova||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91884689|NCT00159263|183663563|OTHER|Friedman Anova||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91884690|NCT03617289|183663567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771||||||Threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.771
91884691|NCT03617289|183663568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.046||||||Threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.046
91884692|NCT03332784|183663612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91884693|NCT03332784|183663612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91884694|NCT03332784|183663612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91884695|NCT00763451|183663634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|-0.232||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0,05 level||"To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in absolute change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 150 patients per group would provide a power of 91% (or 75%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%) and screening BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.232|-0.583|<0.0001
91889140|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference :|-13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-8.7|||||2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 1||-8.7|-18.3|
91759801|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.33||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.33|-2.50|
91759802|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|2.79||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.79|-2.03|
91759803|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.84||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.84|-1.97|
91759804|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.3||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.30|-0.75|
91759805|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.73||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.73|-2.34|
91759806|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.89||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.89|-3.14|
91759807|NCT01393639|183411980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|2.19||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.19|-2.84|
91759808|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-2.91|
91759809|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.73||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.73|-4.17|
91759810|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.29||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.29|-3.76|
91759811|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|-1.4||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.40|-4.82|
91759812|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.33||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.33|-3.13|
91759813|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-1.07||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.07|-4.52|
91759814|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.29||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.29|-3.63|
91759815|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.01||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.01|-3.94|
91759816|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.11||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.11|-4.03|
91759817|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-1.17||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.17|-5.09|
91759818|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.09|-3.85|
91805814|NCT03617185|183487686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.62||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|16.63||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||16.63|-5.37|0.30
91805815|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.58||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Inhibitory Control and Attention Test||7.58|-1.30|0.16
91805816|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.88||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Inhibitory Control and Attention Test||5.88|-2.05|0.33
91805817|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|5.59||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Inhibitory Control and Attention Test||5.59|-2.72|0.49
91755308|NCT01264770|183403806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.12||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.0||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.00|-0.24|0.114
91805818|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|9.44||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dimensional Change Card Sort Test||9.44|-3.48|0.35
91805819|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|9.44||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dimensional Change Card Sort Test||9.44|-3.48|0.10
91884696|NCT00763451|183663634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.317||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0,05 level||"To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in absolute change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 150 patients per group would provide a power of 91% (or 75%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%) and screening BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.317|-0.670|<0.0001
91755309|NCT01264770|183403806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.14||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|-0.01||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.01|-0.26|0.078
91805820|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.24||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|9.82||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dimensional Change Card Sort Test||9.82|-3.34|0.32
91805821|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|9.37||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Picture Sequence Memory Test||9.37|-4.57|0.49
91805822|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|9.56||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Picture Sequence Memory Test||9.56|-3.03|0.30
91805823|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.38||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Picture Sequence Memory Test||6.38|-5.40|0.86
91805824|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|6.24||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||List Sorting Working Memory Test||6.24|-5.39|0.88
91805825|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|6.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||List Sorting Working Memory Test||6.31|-5.14|0.83
91884697|NCT01827046|183663642|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.7|||Chi-squared|||||10.7|-6.8|0.73
91884698|NCT01827046|183663642|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.0|||Multivariate logit model|||Adjusted for age, GCS, stability ICH volume, stability IVH volume, ICH deep location||12|-4|0.33
91884699|NCT01827046|183663643|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.11|||Chi-squared|||||0.11|-0.06|0.55
91884700|NCT01827046|183663643|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.26||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.97|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, stability ICH volume, stability IVH volume and ICH deep location||||1.97|0.82|0.27
91884701|NCT01827046|183663644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
91884702|NCT01827046|183663644|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Adjusted Cox proportional Hazard|Adjusted for age, GCS, Stability ICH volume, Stability IVH volume, ICH deep location, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and race.||||0.98|0.45|0.037
91805826|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|4.76||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||List Sorting Working Memory Test||4.76|-6.02|0.81
91805827|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.29||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.57||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test||1.57|-12.1|0.12
91805828|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|5.84||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test||5.84|-9.53|0.63
91805829|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.87||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.05||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test||4.05|-9.80|0.40
91884703|NCT01827046|183663645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.8|||Logit model|||||0.80|0.62|<0.001
91884704|NCT01827046|183663645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.78|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, stability IVH volume, and ICH deep location||||0.78|0.59|<0.001
91755310|NCT01264770|183403806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|-0.09||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.09|-0.32|0.003
91755311|NCT01264770|183403807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.02||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.03||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.03|-0.07|0.460
91755312|NCT01264770|183403807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.0||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.06||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.06|-0.05|0.903
91805830|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.73||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Cognition Fluid Composite||5.73|-3.63|0.65
91805831|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.68||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|7.54||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Cognition Fluid Composite||7.54|-2.17|0.27
91805832|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.65||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Cognition Fluid Composite||4.65|-4.10|0.90
91805833|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.17||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognition Fluid Composite||0.17|-0.21|0.85
91805834|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognition Fluid Composite||0.09|-0.29|0.28
91884705|NCT01827046|183663646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91884706|NCT01827046|183663647|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11|||Chi-squared|||||0.11|-0.04|0.34
91884707|NCT01827046|183663648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.07|||Chi-squared|||||0.07|-0.10|0.76
91884708|NCT01827046|183663648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.94|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, Stability ICH volume, Stability IVH volume, ICH deep location||||1.94|0.81|0.31
91884709|NCT01827046|183663649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.09|||Chi-squared|||||0.09|-0.07|0.79
91884710|NCT01827046|183663649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.97|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, Stability ICH volume, Stability IVH volume, ICH deep location||||1.97|0.79|0.35
91884711|NCT01827046|183663650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Median test|||||||0.46
91884712|NCT01827046|183663651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Median test|||||||0.75
91884713|NCT01827046|183663652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
91884714|NCT01827046|183663653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
91884715|NCT01827046|183663654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91884716|NCT01827046|183663655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91884717|NCT01827046|183663656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91884718|NCT01827046|183663657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91884719|NCT01827046|183663658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91884720|NCT02357264|183663664|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.162
91884721|NCT05594589|183663665|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Geometric Mean(LSGM) Ratio|0.377||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.81|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSGM ratio was calculated as Lemborexant 5 mg/Placebo.|||0.810|0.175|0.0133
91884722|NCT05594589|183663666|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.48||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|1.038|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on ANCOVA model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSGM ratio was calculated as Lemborexant 10 mg/Placebo.|||1.038|0.222|0.0619
91884723|NCT05594589|183663667|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|7.38||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|15.35|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on ANCOVA model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSM difference was calculated as Lemborexant 5 mg - Placebo.|||15.35|-0.59|0.0689
91884724|NCT05594589|183663668|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.16||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|16.09|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on ANCOVA model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSM difference was calculated as Lemborexant 10 mg - Placebo.|||16.09|0.23|0.0439
91884725|NCT00715117|183663704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91884726|NCT00715117|183663704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91884727|NCT00715117|183663705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bowel symptoms||||>0.05
91908801|NCT04770389|183713147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.196||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|-8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-8.27|-28.88|0.0005
91908802|NCT04770389|183713148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.03|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-4.54|-25.03|0.0051
91908803|NCT04770389|183713149|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.03|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-4.54|-25.03|0.0051
91884728|NCT00715117|183663705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social well-being||||0.035
91884729|NCT00715117|183663705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional well-being||||>0.05
91884730|NCT00715117|183663705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Systemic symptoms|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91884731|NCT00715117|183663705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Image||||>0.05
91884732|NCT00715117|183663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sleep disturbance||||1.0
91884733|NCT00715117|183663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||Unusual dreams||||0.45
91755313|NCT01264770|183403807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.03||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.01||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.01|-0.08|0.172
91884734|NCT00715117|183663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Twitching||||1.0
91884735|NCT00715117|183663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headaches||||1.0
91884736|NCT00715117|183663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Decreased appetite||||1.0
91884737|NCT00715117|183663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Nausea||||1.0
91884738|NCT00715117|183663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hair loss||||1.0
91884739|NCT00715117|183663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue||||1.0
91884740|NCT00715117|183663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flushed ears||||1.0
91884741|NCT00715117|183663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Papules, rash||||1.0
91884742|NCT00715117|183663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Double vision||||1.0
91884743|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.1|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||4.1|1.39|
91884744|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.2|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.2|0.42|
91884745|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.9|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.9|0.98|
91884746|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.91|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.91|0.59|
91884747|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|52.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||52|11|
91884748|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|69.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||69|14|
91884749|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.42|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.42|0.7|
91884750|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|10.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||10|3.01|
91884751|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|13.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||13|3.86|
91884752|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.99|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||4.99|1.4|
91884753|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.97|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.97|0.56|
91884754|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.27|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||5.27|1.47|
91908804|NCT04770389|183713150|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.03|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-4.54|-25.03|0.0051
91805835|NCT03617185|183487687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.19||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognition Fluid Composite||0.19|-0.18|0.99
91805836|NCT03617185|183487688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory Learning||0.49|-0.87|0.57
91805837|NCT03617185|183487688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.28||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory Learning||0.28|-0.81|0.33
91805838|NCT03617185|183487688|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.23||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory Learning||0.23|-1.00|0.22
91805839|NCT03617185|183487688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.81||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Delayed Recall||0.81|-0.23|0.27
91884755|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.13|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.13|0.23|
91805840|NCT03617185|183487688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.37||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Delayed Recall||0.37|-0.69|0.54
91805841|NCT03617185|183487688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.53||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Delayed Recall||0.53|-0.57|0.93
91805842|NCT03617185|183487688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.74||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Recognition||0.74|-0.46|0.64
91805843|NCT03617185|183487688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.27||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Recognition||0.27|-0.70|0.37
91805844|NCT03617185|183487688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.69||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Recognition||0.69|-0.59|0.88
91805845|NCT01964430|183487693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.063|||Log Rank|Stratified by resection status (R0 versus R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus LN).|Estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for strata of resection status (R0 versus R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus LN-).|||1.063|0.729|0.1824
91805846|NCT01964430|183487694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|0.957|||Log Rank|Stratified by resection status (R0 versus. R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus. LN-)|Estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for strata of resection status (R0 versus R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus|||0.957|0.691|0.0128
91805847|NCT00578383|183487718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2).|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.||5.8|0.5|0.009
91884756|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|97.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||97|21|
91884757|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|51.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||51|10|
91884758|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.82|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||0.82|0.2|
91884759|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|48.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||48|12|
91884760|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|9.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|20.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||20|4.69|
91884761|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.21|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.21|0.55|
91884762|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.96|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||4.96|1.27|
91884763|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.57|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||5.57|1.38|
91884764|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.04|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.04|0.28|
91884765|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|94.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||94|26|
91884766|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|52.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||52|14|
91884767|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.04|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.04|0.34|
91884768|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|60.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||60|20|
91884769|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|36.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||36|12|
91884770|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.69|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.69|0.48|
91884771|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|6.74||||||Day 1, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||6.74|1.94|
91884772|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|6.13|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||6.13|1.71|
91884773|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.66|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||0.66|0.16|
91884774|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|121.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|241.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||241|61|
91884775|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||80|20|
91884776|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.05|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.05|0.32|
91884777|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|60.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||60|18|
91884778|NCT01018732|183663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||35|10|
91908805|NCT04770389|183713151|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-23.86|0.0245
91755314|NCT01264770|183403807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.11||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|-0.01||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.01|-0.21|0.082
91908806|NCT04770389|183713152|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-23.86|0.0245
91755315|NCT01264770|183403807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.11||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.0||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.00|-0.21|0.092
91759819|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|-0.88||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.88|-4.79|
91884779|NCT01262092|183663737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2887||||0.035||95.0||||p values \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|Used proc GLIMMIX to model group by time (6 study visits)||"test null hypothesis that gbp and pla did not differ in terms of opioid-positive urines during the buprenorphine detox.~For the analysis, data from 2 participants in the GBP groups were excluded due to evidence of medication diversion (N=1) and not being maintained on the 1600 mg/day dose of GBP (N=1)."||||0.035
91884780|NCT03784820|183663738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.27||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2) \[CBT-E is the reference\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.27|0.04|0.36
91884781|NCT03784820|183663738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.6||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3) \[CBT-E is the reference\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.60|0.02|0.38
91884782|NCT03784820|183663738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|27.39||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4) \[CBT-E is the reference\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.39|0.18|0.54
91884783|NCT03784820|183663739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.51||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|2.09||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.09|-1.06|0.52
91884784|NCT03784820|183663739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.07||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.07|-1.99|0.97
91884785|NCT03784820|183663739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|2.89||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.89|-1.66|0.59
91884786|NCT03784820|183663740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.54||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.54|-0.45|0.86
91884787|NCT03784820|183663740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.06||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|-0.46|0.44
91884788|NCT03784820|183663740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.98||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|-0.36|0.36
91908807|NCT04770389|183713153|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-23.86|0.0245
91884789|NCT03784820|183663741|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.47||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|7.49||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.49|-2.54|0.33
91884790|NCT03784820|183663741|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.18||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|7.95||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.95|-3.59|0.46
91884791|NCT03784820|183663741|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.83||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|10.6||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.60|-2.94|0.27
91908808|NCT04770389|183713154|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.822|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-13.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-13.22|-28.39|<0.0001
91908809|NCT04770389|183713155|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.822|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-13.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-13.22|-28.39|<0.0001
91805848|NCT00578383|183487719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by a visual analog scale.||1.9|0.2|0.006
91805849|NCT00578383|183487720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.9||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2).|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (POSITIVE SCALE).||6.9|1.3|0.001
91805850|NCT00578383|183487721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.1||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2).|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (negative scale)||5.1|-1.1|0.15
91805851|NCT00578383|183487722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.2||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.||6.2|-1.2|0.09
91805852|NCT00578383|183487723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.6||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.||9.6|-3.3|0.19
91805853|NCT00578383|183487724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by a visual analog scale.||2.1|-0.6|0.15
91884792|NCT03784820|183663742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|5.25||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.25|-3.14|0.62
91884793|NCT03784820|183663742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.83||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|7.73||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.73|-4.07|0.54
91805854|NCT00578383|183487725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.6||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by a visual analog scale.||3.6|-0.4|0.04
91805855|NCT00578383|183487726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.2||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by the PANAS (positive scale)||9.2|0.8|0.004
91884794|NCT03784820|183663743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|10.51||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.51|-0.91|0.10
91884795|NCT03784820|183663743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|8.13||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.13|-5.97|0.76
91884796|NCT03784820|183663743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.26||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|8.55||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.55|-2.03|0.23
91884797|NCT03784820|183663743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|6.14||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.14|-6.63|0.94
91884798|NCT03784820|183663743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.46||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|5.46||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-8.38|0.68
91884799|NCT03784820|183663743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|7.84||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.84|-9.06|0.89
91884800|NCT03784820|183663744|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|6.79||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.79|-7.61|0.91
91755316|NCT01264770|183403807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.17||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|-0.08||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.08|-0.27|0.002
91755317|NCT01264770|183403808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|23.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.57|40.0|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||40.00|9.57|<0.001
91755318|NCT01264770|183403808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|22.97||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.84|38.34|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||38.34|7.84|0.006
91755319|NCT01264770|183403808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|5.72||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|21.68|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||21.68|-3.20|0.234
91755320|NCT01264770|183403809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-13.72||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.01|0.0|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.00|-25.01|0.030
91805856|NCT00578383|183487727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.8||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (positive scale)||5.8|1.3|0.30
91805857|NCT00578383|183487728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.8||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by the PANAS (negative scale)||6.8|-4.1|0.52
91884801|NCT03784820|183663744|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.72||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|11.93||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.93|-2.49|0.20
91884802|NCT03784820|183663744|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.78||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|11.2||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.20|-1.63|0.14
91755321|NCT01264770|183403809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-9.49||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.0|6.96|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||6.96|-25.00|0.207
91755322|NCT01264770|183403809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-19.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.01|-6.25|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-6.25|-30.01|0.002
91755323|NCT01264770|183403810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.24||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.38|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.38|0.09|0.007
91755324|NCT01264770|183403810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.22||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.37|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.37|0.07|0.016
91755325|NCT01264770|183403810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.14||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.29|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.29|0.00|0.094
91884803|NCT03784820|183663744|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.86||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|10.49||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.49|-2.76|0.25
91884804|NCT03784820|183663744|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.22||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|9.89||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.89|-1.45|0.14
91884805|NCT03784820|183663744|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.15||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|8.87||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.87|-2.58|0.28
91884806|NCT03784820|183663745|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.73||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|20.19||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.19|-16.73|0.85
91884807|NCT03784820|183663745|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.94||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|29.48||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.48|-13.59|0.47
91884808|NCT03784820|183663745|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.79||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|31.08||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.08|-11.50|0.37
91884809|NCT03784820|183663745|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.36||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|20.03||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.03|-19.31|0.97
91884810|NCT03784820|183663745|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.88||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.85|12.09||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.09|-23.85|0.52
91884811|NCT03784820|183663745|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.55||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.33|13.23||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.23|-20.33|0.68
91884812|NCT03784820|183663746|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|4.47||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.47|-5.02|0.91
91884813|NCT03784820|183663746|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.73||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|9.81||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.81|-0.36|0.07
91884814|NCT03784820|183663746|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|9.23||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.23|-5.73|0.65
91884815|NCT03784820|183663746|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|4.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)||4.12|-8.21|0.52
91884816|NCT03784820|183663746|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|0.51||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-13.74|0.07
91884817|NCT03784820|183663746|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.64||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|-0.56||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.56|-12.73|0.03
91755326|NCT01264770|183403811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.04|-0.36|0.043
91755327|NCT01264770|183403811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.14||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.02|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.02|-0.31|0.158
91755328|NCT01264770|183403811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.16|-0.47|0.001
91755329|NCT01264770|183403812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.08|-0.45|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.45|-5.08|0.050
91755330|NCT01264770|183403812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.33||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.73|1.06|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.06|-3.73|0.360
91755331|NCT01264770|183403812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.99||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.29|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.70|-5.29|0.032
91884818|NCT03784820|183663747|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.88||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.43|15.19||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.19|-13.43|0.90
91884819|NCT03784820|183663747|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.64||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|17.66||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.66|-18.95|0.95
91884820|NCT03784820|183663747|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.37||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.17|19.9||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.90|-17.17|0.89
91884821|NCT03784820|183663747|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.81||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|18.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)||18.98|-7.37|0.39
91884822|NCT03784820|183663747|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.29||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|19.84||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.84|-7.26|0.36
91884823|NCT03784820|183663747|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.55||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|16.91||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.91|-20.00|0.87
91884824|NCT03784820|183663748|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.83||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.83|-2.29|0.84
91884825|NCT03784820|183663748|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.82||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|2.01||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-3.66|0.57
91884826|NCT03784820|183663748|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|3.35||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.35|-2.15|0.67
91884827|NCT03784820|183663748|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.46||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.35||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.35|-1.43|0.63
91884828|NCT03784820|183663748|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.44||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|3.7||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.70|-0.82|0.21
91805858|NCT00578383|183487729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.1||95.0|-1.3|5.8||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (negative scale)||5.8|-1.3|0.10
91805859|NCT03385564|183487744|OTHER|Percentage of patients with CRR at Week 52 without renal flare were analysed using a logistic regression model. Factors in the model included treatment and the covariates: race (Asian versus (vs.) non-Asian) and proteinuria \<3 gram (g)/day vs. ≥3 g/day (or Urine protein (UP)/ Urine creatinine (UC) \<3 vs. UP/UC ≥3) at screening.|Difference|-5.68||||0.7957|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-34.192|22.825|||Regression, Logistic||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the delta method.|||22.825|-34.192|0.7957
91805860|NCT03385564|183487744|OTHER|Percentage of patients with CRR at Week 52 without renal flare were analysed using a logistic regression model. Factors in the model included treatment and the covariates: race (Asian versus (vs.) non-Asian) and proteinuria \<3 gram (g)/day vs. ≥3 g/day (or Urine protein (UP)/ Urine creatinine (UC) \<3 vs. UP/UC ≥3) at screening.|Difference|-9.37||||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.178|12.44|||Regression, Logistic||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the delta method.|||12.440|-31.178|0.5811
91805861|NCT03385564|183487744|OTHER|Percentage of patients with CRR at Week 52 without renal flare were analysed using a logistic regression model. Factors in the model included treatment and the covariates: race (Asian versus (vs.) non-Asian) and proteinuria \<3 gram (g)/day vs. ≥3 g/day (or Urine protein (UP)/ Urine creatinine (UC) \<3 vs. UP/UC ≥3) at screening.|Difference|1.97||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.534|21.48|||Regression, Logistic||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the delta method.|||21.480|-17.534|0.8972
91805862|NCT03385564|183487745|OTHER||Difference|-9.14||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.83|17.02|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||17.02|-32.83|0.8250
91805863|NCT03385564|183487745|OTHER||Difference|-21.23||||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.44|0.51|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||0.51|-39.44|0.2562
91805864|NCT03385564|183487745|OTHER||Difference|-2.0||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.45|16.62|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||16.62|-20.45|0.9632
91884829|NCT03784820|183663748|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.07||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.28||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.28|-1.14|0.34
91884830|NCT03784820|183663749|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.42||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|6.52||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.52|-13.36|0.50
91805865|NCT03385564|183487746|OTHER||Difference|-2.86||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.58|21.1|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||21.10|-28.58|0.9275
91805866|NCT03385564|183487746|OTHER||Difference|-10.0||||0.6064|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.9|10.64|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||10.64|-29.90|0.6064
91805867|NCT03385564|183487746|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.37|18.07|||||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||18.07|-18.37|
91805868|NCT03385564|183487747|OTHER||Difference|3.73||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.53|29.6|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||29.60|-20.53|0.9119
91805869|NCT03385564|183487747|OTHER||Difference|3.73||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.58|24.31|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||24.31|-16.58|0.8510
91805870|NCT03385564|183487747|OTHER||Difference|16.43||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.53|34.73|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||34.73|-3.53|0.3498
91805871|NCT03385564|183487748|OTHER||Difference|5.43||||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.19|23.57|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||23.57|-10.19|0.7921
91805872|NCT03385564|183487750|OTHER||Difference|32.0||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.28|44.74|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||44.74|10.28|0.1016
91805873|NCT03385564|183487750|OTHER||Difference|-3.71||||0.8323|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.79|15.29|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||15.29|-23.79|0.8323
91805874|NCT03385564|183487750|OTHER||Difference|7.0||||0.6247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.5|23.31|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||23.31|-10.50|0.6247
91884831|NCT03784820|183663749|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|6.54||Demand/Withdraw Score: Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.54|-7.49|0.89
91884832|NCT03784820|183663749|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|6.3||Demand/Withdraw Score: Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.30|-7.56|0.86
91884833|NCT03784820|183663749|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.55||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|6.93||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.93|-1.83|0.25
91805875|NCT01146834|183487755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.28|||Chi-squared|||Arm B was initially closed due to low accrual, and Arms D and E were also closed due to no accrual. Arms A and C also had very low accrual. Therefore, the comparison of the primary outcome between Arms A and C is for exploratory purposes only.||0.28|-0.32|0.90
91805876|NCT01146834|183487757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.18|||Fisher Exact|||||0.18|-0.68|0.25
91805877|NCT00826943|183487799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.03
91805878|NCT00826943|183487799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.11
91884834|NCT03784820|183663749|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|8.92||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.92|-4.83|0.56
91884835|NCT03784820|183663749|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.13||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|9.54||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.54|-3.27|0.34
91884836|NCT03784820|183663749|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.05|-1.42||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.42|-19.05|0.02
91755332|NCT01264770|183403813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.02||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.95|1.92|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.92|-3.95|0.568
91884837|NCT03784820|183663749|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|7.95||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.95|-8.18|0.98
91755333|NCT01264770|183403813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.66||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.69|1.38|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.38|-4.69|0.368
91755334|NCT01264770|183403813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.38|0.43|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.43|-5.38|0.160
91805879|NCT00826943|183487799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.45
91805880|NCT00826943|183487800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \< .05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.27
91805881|NCT00826943|183487800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8
91805882|NCT00826943|183487800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.52
91805883|NCT00826943|183487801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
91805884|NCT00826943|183487801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.54
91805885|NCT00826943|183487801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.42
91805886|NCT03338998|183487823|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|1.05||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.717|1.535|||ANCOVA|||||1.535|0.717|0.585
91805887|NCT03329573|183487830|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-infinity) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.006|1.115||||||||1.115|1.006|
91805888|NCT03329573|183487831|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-infinity) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.047||||||||1.047|0.947|
91805889|NCT03329573|183487832|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-t) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.12||||||||1.120|1.010|
91805890|NCT03329573|183487833|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-t) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|1.044||||||||1.044|0.949|
91805891|NCT03329573|183487834|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of Cmax for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.101||||||||1.101|0.952|
91805892|NCT03329573|183487835|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of Cmax for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.968|1.074||||||||1.074|0.968|
91805893|NCT00650260|183487860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
91805894|NCT00650260|183487861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.078
91805895|NCT00650260|183487864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91884838|NCT03784820|183663749|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.7||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.70|-10.10|0.59
91884839|NCT03784820|183663749|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.41||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|5.82||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.82|-0.99|0.16
91884840|NCT03784820|183663749|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.94||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|8.93||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.93|-1.05|0.12
91884841|NCT03784820|183663749|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.26||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.87||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.87|-2.35|0.34
91884842|NCT03784820|183663750|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.53||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.35|0.70
91884843|NCT03784820|183663750|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.42||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.48|0.90
91884844|NCT03784820|183663750|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.82||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.31|0.38
91755335|NCT00129961|183403814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||||||Poisson regression was used to model NMSC counts using the years in study as an offset. The generalized estimated equations (GEE) approach was used to estimate parameters and compare treatment differences.|Poisson regression|Adjusted by baseline strata; Poisson model = strata + treatment.||||||0.022
91755336|NCT00129961|183403815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline lesions||||||0.047
91755337|NCT00129961|183403816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||||||0.015
91755338|NCT00129961|183403817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.799
91755339|NCT00129961|183403818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Well differentiated||||0.014
91755340|NCT00129961|183403818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Moderately differentiated||||0.491
91755341|NCT00129961|183403818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Poorly differentiated||||0.905
91755342|NCT00129961|183403818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Invasive||||0.018
91755343|NCT00129961|183403818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC In Situ||||0.012
91755344|NCT00129961|183403818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Invasive with Perineural Invasion||||0.463
91755345|NCT00129961|183403818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Invasive without Perineural Invasion||||0.004
91755346|NCT00129961|183403818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||BCC Superficial||||0.094
91755347|NCT00129961|183403818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||BCC Nodular||||0.720
91755348|NCT00129961|183403818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||BCC Infiltrative||||0.227
91755349|NCT00129961|183403819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.748||95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||0.748
91755350|NCT00129961|183403820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||||||0.425
91755351|NCT00129961|183403823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.604
91755352|NCT00129961|183403824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.672
91755353|NCT00129961|183403825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
91755354|NCT00129961|183403826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.588
91755355|NCT00129961|183403827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
91755356|NCT00129961|183403828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.030
91755357|NCT04881747|183403869|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.834|0.919||||||||0.919|0.834|
91755358|NCT04881747|183403869|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|0.934||||||||0.934|0.846|
91755359|NCT04881747|183403870|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|0.976||||||||0.976|0.914|
91755360|NCT04881747|183403870|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|0.978||||||||0.978|0.914|
91755361|NCT04881747|183403871|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.972||||||||0.972|0.910|
91755362|NCT04881747|183403871|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.913|0.977||||||||0.977|0.913|
91755363|NCT02138240|183403875|OTHER|Pre-post comparison|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum|||||||<0.001
91884845|NCT03784820|183663751|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.43||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.43|-5.10|0.89
91884846|NCT03784820|183663751|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|5.04||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.04|-4.14|0.85
91884847|NCT03784820|183663751|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.85||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|3.85||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.85|-5.54|0.72
91884848|NCT03784820|183663751|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.05||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|2.63||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.63|-8.73|0.29
91884849|NCT03784820|183663751|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.51||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-9.90|0.08
91884850|NCT03784820|183663751|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.29||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|1.65||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.65|-8.23|0.19
91884851|NCT03784820|183663752|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.67||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|-4.08|0.41
91884852|NCT03784820|183663752|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|3.54||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.54|-2.87|0.84
91755364|NCT02138240|183403878|OTHER|Pre-post comparison of baseline median weight to median weight at 6-month follow up||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum|||||||0.21
91755365|NCT03869333|183403900|OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.504
91805896|NCT05405309|183487866|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The primary analysis was of safety and included all patients who received at least one dose of the investigational regimen. The rate of adverse events was estimated after the first 5 patients were treated at Original DL1 (camonsertib 40mg daily and olaparib 100mg BID dosing 2 days per week, at 28 day cycles)~After the first 5 patients were treated, it was determined that this dosing strategy may not be appropriate for R/R CLL patients and reduced dosing frequency may be necessary to increase the safety of the combination therapy. The protocol and DLs were amended, and sought to enroll an additional 18 patients.~Before the enrollment of 18 additional participants and MTD determination, the study was terminated due to sponsor de-activation of all programs associated with camonsertib."|||
91805897|NCT04997304|183487908|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for AirDuo||||0.0019
91805898|NCT04997304|183487908|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for ProAir||||0.0020
91805899|NCT04997304|183487909|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for AirDuo||||0.0008
91805900|NCT04997304|183487909|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for ProAir||||0.0003
91805901|NCT04997304|183487910|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for AirDuo||||0.04
91884853|NCT03784820|183663752|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.21||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|2.34||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.34|-4.76|0.50
91755366|NCT03869333|183403900|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 22||||0.010
91755367|NCT03869333|183403900|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 43||||0.038
91755368|NCT03869333|183403900|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.016
91755369|NCT03869333|183403900|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 57||||0.058
91755370|NCT03869333|183403900|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 71||||0.038
91805902|NCT04997304|183487910|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0965|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for ProAir||||0.0965
91805903|NCT05231954|183487916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.55||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.55|1.08|0.006
91805904|NCT05231954|183487916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.65|0.081
91805905|NCT05231954|183487917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.05||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.05|1.01|0.044
91755371|NCT03869333|183403901|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.129
91755372|NCT03869333|183403901|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 22||||0.017
91755373|NCT03869333|183403901|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 43||||0.008
91755374|NCT03869333|183403901|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.011
91755375|NCT03869333|183403901|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 57||||0.029
91805906|NCT05231954|183487917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.5||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|0.69|0.919
91805907|NCT04249583|183487930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
91805908|NCT02370160|183487941|OTHER||||||||||||||||||In Phase I: There were 9 subjects treated on dose level 1 (60 µg/kg/dose). There were 6 subjects treated on Dose level 2 (80 µg/kg/dose). There were four DLT events happened in Phase I. One was treated on dose level 1 and the other three were treated on dose level 2. Therefore the MTD was dose level 1.|||
91805909|NCT04487730|183487948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4727||||0.6249|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional connectivity within the orbital prefrontal cortex (OFC; specifically between lateral and medial OFC), significantly changed over time.||||0.6249
91805910|NCT04487730|183487949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8176||||0.525|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and time, as well as time by treatment interaction, and a random effect for subject level.~F value for time by treatment interaction."||||.525
91805911|NCT04487730|183487950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6503||||0.844|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and time, as well as time by treatment interaction, and a random effect for subject level.~F value for time by treatment interaction."||||.844
91805912|NCT03291808|183487960|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.35
91884854|NCT03784820|183663752|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.09||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|2.24||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-4.43|0.52
91884855|NCT03784820|183663752|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.38||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|1.21||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-3.96|0.30
91884856|NCT03784820|183663752|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.25||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-4.78|0.03
91805913|NCT02891850|183487990|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the satisfactory clinical response rates in terms of odds ratio (OR) when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.526|5.06|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||5.060|1.526|0.0007
91805914|NCT02891850|183487991|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change of 6MWD in terms of mean difference when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.56||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|40.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||40.10|5.03|0.0542
91805915|NCT02891850|183487992|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change of NT-proBNP in terms of mean difference when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-169.65||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-426.18|86.88|||t-test, 2 sided|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||86.88|-426.18|0.1067
91805916|NCT02891850|183487993|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change from baseline in WHO FC in terms of mean difference when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||-0.11|-0.42|0.0007
91755376|NCT03869333|183403901|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 71||||0.042
91755377|NCT03869333|183403902|OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.226
91755378|NCT03869333|183403902|OTHER|||||||0.601|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 8||||0.601
91755379|NCT03869333|183403902|OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 29||||0.628
91755380|NCT03869333|183403902|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.878
91755381|NCT03869333|183403903|OTHER|||||||0.762|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.762
91755382|NCT03869333|183403903|OTHER|||||||0.335|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 8||||0.335
91755383|NCT03869333|183403903|OTHER|||||||0.229|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 29||||0.229
91755384|NCT03869333|183403903|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.102
91755385|NCT03869333|183403904|OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 22.||||0.828
91805917|NCT02891850|183487994|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the clinical worsening rates in terms of odds ratio (OR) when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.725|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||0.725|0.013|0.0047
91884857|NCT03784820|183663753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|4.72||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.72|-3.66|0.79
91884858|NCT03786744|183663776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.049367|TWO_SIDED|||||Alternative hypothesis: can be changed of speech, language, communication skills for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups in 2-month Threshold \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.049367
91755386|NCT03869333|183403904|OTHER|||||||0.629|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 43||||0.629
91755387|NCT03869333|183403904|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||>0.999
91755388|NCT03869333|183403904|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 57||||>0.999
91755389|NCT03869333|183403904|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 71||||0.825
91755390|NCT03869333|183403905|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 22.||||0.005
91755391|NCT03869333|183403905|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 43||||0.082
91755392|NCT03869333|183403905|OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||0.293
91755393|NCT03869333|183403905|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 57||||>0.999
91755394|NCT03869333|183403905|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 71||||>0.999
91755395|NCT03869333|183403906|OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 8||||0.828
91755396|NCT03869333|183403906|OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 29||||0.913
91755397|NCT03869333|183403906|OTHER|||||||0.924|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||0.924
91755398|NCT03869333|183403907|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 8||||>0.999
91755399|NCT03869333|183403907|OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 29||||0.412
91908810|NCT04770389|183713156|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.822|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-13.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-13.22|-28.39|<0.0001
91908811|NCT03817775|183713167|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91755400|NCT03869333|183403907|OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||0.847
91805918|NCT02957305|183487995|NON_INFERIORITY|400µg of misoprostol yields a 96% cervical dilation \> 8 mm. We considered 86% of the 200 µg misoprostol group as the minimal acceptable percentage. The non-inferiority margin was determined by 24.46.|treatment difference|25.0||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0||97.5||The null hypothesis: percentage of dilation with 400µg ≥ percentage of dilation with 200µg + 25% Alternative hypothesis: percentage of dilation with 400µg - 25% \< percentage of dilation with 200µg|difference between proportions|difference between percentages and 95% confidence interval||If there is a true difference in favour of the standard treatment of 10% (96% vs 86%), then 184 patients are required to be 95% sure that the upper limit of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (or equivalently a 95% two-sided confidence interval) will exclude a difference in favour of the standard group of more than 25%||97.5||0.025
91805919|NCT02957305|183487995|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was determined by ⅓ of the difference between the 400µg effect (96.7%), compared to the 200 µg dose (23.3%), i.e. 73.4 / 3 = 24.46%|Difference between proportions|0.1146||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.192|||Chi-squared||The difference between both groups was 11.5% (95%CI = 3.7% to 19.2%)|||0.192|0.037|0.004
91884859|NCT03786744|183663776|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.004072|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 2-month of Health/Physical Development/Behaviour for Cord Blood versus Control groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0 and MS Office Excel 2007. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile.||||0.004072
91884860|NCT03786744|183663776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.017258|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 12-month of Health/Physical Development/Behaviour for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0 and MS Office Excel 2007. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile.||||0.017258
91884861|NCT03786744|183663776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.03121|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 1-month of total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.031210
91908812|NCT03817775|183713168|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91908813|NCT03817775|183713169|OTHER|||||||0.7215|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7215
91908814|NCT03817775|183713170|OTHER|||||||0.5675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5675
91908815|NCT03817775|183713171|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91908816|NCT02572752|183713177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||gMean Ratio|97.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.545|100.502|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the gMean of nin Test treatment (T) divided by nin Reference treatment (R1 \& R2). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment (without differentiation between R1 and R2). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. For the two 1-sided t-test procedure, the effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered to be random, whereas the other effects were considered to be fixed||100.502|94.545|<0.0001
91755401|NCT03869333|183403908|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 22||||0.009
91805920|NCT02957305|183487997|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.9
91755402|NCT03869333|183403908|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 43||||0.037
91755403|NCT03869333|183403908|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 50||||0.009
91755404|NCT03869333|183403908|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 57||||0.036
91755405|NCT03869333|183403908|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 71||||0.042
91755406|NCT03869333|183403909|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 22||||0.028
91755407|NCT03869333|183403909|OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 43||||0.088
91805921|NCT01509950|183488052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91805922|NCT02820753|183488073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.51||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference = (Text or Portal) - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.51|0.01|0.04
91805923|NCT02820753|183488074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = (Text or Portal - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.15|-0.08|0.53
91805924|NCT02820753|183488075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.48||The threshold for significance is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = (Text or Portal) - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.48|-1.16|0.41
91805925|NCT02820753|183488076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|5.06||The threshold for significance is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference = (Text or Portal ) - Enhanced Usual Care|||5.06|-1.39|0.27
91805926|NCT02820753|183488077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.23||The threshold for significance is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = (Text or Portal) - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.23|-0.68|0.33
91805927|NCT01652703|183488078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.51|-62.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-62.71|-74.51|<0.001
91884862|NCT03786744|183663776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0||||0.00194|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 2-month of Total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.001940
91884863|NCT03786744|183663776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0||||0.03121|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 6-month of Total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.031210
91805928|NCT01652703|183488078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.84|-46.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-46.86|-58.84|<0.001
91805929|NCT01652703|183488078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.23|-57.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-57.66|-70.23|<0.001
91805930|NCT01652703|183488078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.51|-51.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-51.81|-64.51|<0.001
91805931|NCT01652703|183488079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-96.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.0|-86.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-86.5|-106.0|<0.001
91805932|NCT01652703|183488079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.4|-65.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-65.5|-85.4|<0.001
91805933|NCT01652703|183488079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-88.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.4|-79.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-79.0|-97.4|<0.001
91805934|NCT01652703|183488079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-80.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|-71.4||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-71.4|-90.0|<0.001
91805935|NCT01652703|183488080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1945.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.64|42232.63||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q2W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||42232.63|89.64|<0.001
91889141|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-12.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 3||-12.4|-23.2|
91755408|NCT03869333|183403909|OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 50||||0.146
91884864|NCT03786744|183663776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.01133|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 12-month of Total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.011330
91884865|NCT00569127|183663786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.18||Central-review based progression-free survival was analyzed using the stratified log rank test (which is the score test from the stratified Cox-model) using stratification factors as defined in Section 6.0.|Regression, Cox||The reported hazard ratio estimate is for the comparison of the Octreotide, Bevacizumab arm to the Octreotide, Interferon Alpha-2b arm.|According to the intent-to-treat principle, all eligible patients were included in the analysis according to the randomized treatment assignment, regardless of actual treatments received.||1.18|0.73|0.55
91884866|NCT06314438|183663819|EQUIVALENCE|paired samples t test with significance set at 0.05 p value||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
91884867|NCT06314438|183663820|EQUIVALENCE|paired samples t test with significance level at 0.05||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91884868|NCT06314438|183663821|EQUIVALENCE|paired samples t test with significance set at 0.05 p value|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91884869|NCT00356811|183663851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|64.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CR or PR.|||64.4|37.3|
91884870|NCT02201901|183663874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL 12 weeks (Group 1) over prespecified rate of 1% .||A sample size of 75 participants per treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.0167.||||<0.001
91884871|NCT02201901|183663874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL+RBV 12 weeks (Group 2) over prespecified rate of 1%.||A sample size of 75 participants per treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.0167.||||<0.001
91884872|NCT02201901|183663874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL 24 weeks (Group 3) over prespecified rate of 1%.||A sample size of 75 participants per treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.0167.||||<0.001
91884873|NCT03494985|183663890|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9||p-value was adjusted using Dunnett's method for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|ANOVA model with factors for treatment, study site and DMI stratification (mild, moderate, severe).|First named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive value favours the first named treatment.|||0.9|0.4|<0.0001
91884874|NCT03494985|183663890|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||p-value was adjusted using Dunnett's method for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|ANOVA model with factors for treatment, study site and DMI stratification (mild, moderate, severe).|First named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive value favours the first named treatment.|||1.2|0.6|<0.0001
91884875|NCT03494985|183663890|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9||p-value was adjusted using Dunnett's method for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with factors for treatment, study site and DMI stratification (mild, moderate, severe).|First named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive value favours the first named treatment.|||0.9|0.3|<0.0001
91884876|NCT03459846|183663904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.387|||Regression, Cox|||||1.387|0.641|0.789
91884877|NCT03459846|183663905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.606|||Regression, Cox|||||1.606|0.719|0.728
91884878|NCT03459846|183663906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|3.778|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.778|0.821|0.142
91889142|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-5.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||-5.9|-16.0|
91889143|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-7.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 5||-7.2|-17.8|
91755409|NCT03869333|183403909|OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 57||||0.126
91755410|NCT03869333|183403909|OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 71||||0.273
91755411|NCT03869333|183403911|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 8||||0.348
91755412|NCT03869333|183403911|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 29||||0.179
91755413|NCT03869333|183403911|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 50||||0.089
91755414|NCT02598128|183403914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The independent variables in the mixed model analysis included fixed effect factors for treatment (placebo or RELiZORB).||||||<0.001
91884879|NCT00310180|183663932|SUPERIORITY|Since the noninferiority comparison is formulated using a conventional superiority null hypothesis described as above, a type II error corresponds to concluding that Arm B is not inferior when in fact it is. The design therefore uses a one-sided type I error of 10% and is planned to have 95% power (5% type II error). If the null hypothesis is rejected (at the one-sided 10% level), then it will be concluded that endocrine therapy alone is inferior to chemoendocrine therapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.24||One-sided p value for stratified Cox proportional hazard analysis, stratified on recurrence score, tumor size and menopausal status.|Regression, Cox|||This study uses a noninferiority design, but the noninferiority question is formulated using the conventional superiority null hypothesis of equal DFS on the two arms (that is, the null hypothesis is that Arm B is not inferior to Arm C). The alternative hypothesis is that Arm B has substantially worse DFS than Arm C, specified by a hazard ratio for B vs. C of 1.322.||1.24|0.94|0.13
91884880|NCT00310180|183663936|OTHER|Treatment-by-Age and RS subset was performed via Cox proportional hazard analysis||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Cox|||Treatment interaction test was performed for the 9 age by RS subsets (3 groups for each, age groups \<=50 vs. 51-65 vs. 66-75; RS groups 0-10 vs. 11-25 vs. \>25) in patients randomized to arms B and C||||0.004
91884881|NCT01443403|183663956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.41|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.41|1.02|0.0003
91884882|NCT01443403|183663956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.604||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.14|0.76|0.0014
91884883|NCT01443403|183663956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.74|-0.62|0.3504
91884884|NCT01443403|183663958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.568||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.05|0.81|0.0008
91884885|NCT01443403|183663958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.569||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.04|0.79|0.0009
91884886|NCT01443403|183663958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.73|-0.47|0.2572
91884887|NCT01443403|183663960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.28|0.38|0.0065
91884888|NCT01443403|183663960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.58|0.69|0.0008
91884889|NCT01443403|183663960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.44|-0.43|0.2921
91884890|NCT01443403|183663962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.42|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.42|0.47|0.0039
91884891|NCT01443403|183663962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.67|0.73|0.0007
91884892|NCT01443403|183663962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.46|-0.46|0.3077
91884893|NCT01443403|183663964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|27.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|44.6|||Chi-squared|||||44.6|10.0|0.0030
91884894|NCT01443403|183663964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|31.8||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|48.7|||Chi-squared|||||48.7|15.0|0.0005
91884895|NCT01443403|183663964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.1||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|30.6|||Chi-squared|||||30.6|-4.4|0.1461
91884896|NCT01443403|183663966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|40.8|||Chi-squared|||||40.8|7.8|0.0050
91884897|NCT01443403|183663966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.5||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|40.8|||Chi-squared|||||40.8|8.1|0.0045
91884898|NCT01443403|183663966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.2||||0.2984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|23.6|||Chi-squared|||||23.6|-7.2|0.2984
91884899|NCT01443403|183663968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.17|0.90|<0.0001
91884900|NCT01443403|183663968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.85|0.59|0.0002
91884901|NCT01443403|183663968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.20|-0.05|0.0698
91884902|NCT01443403|183663970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.79|0.58|0.0001
91884903|NCT01443403|183663970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.70|0.49|0.0004
91884904|NCT01443403|183663970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.02|-0.17|0.1648
91884905|NCT01443403|183663972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
91884906|NCT01443403|183663972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91884907|NCT01443403|183663972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0118
91884908|NCT01443403|183663973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91884909|NCT01443403|183663973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0011
91884910|NCT01443403|183663973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
91884911|NCT01443403|183663976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.03|0.62|0.0003
91908817|NCT02572752|183713178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||gMean Ratio|97.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.948|103.463|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the gMean of nin Test treatment (T) divided by nin Reference treatment (R1 \& R2). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An ANOVA model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment (without differentiation between R1 and R2). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. For the two 1-sided t-test procedure, the effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered to be random, whereas the other effects were considered to be fixed.||103.463|90.948|<0.0001
91755415|NCT01378429|183403916|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|35 subjects per arm would have ≥90% power to demonstrate that the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (equivalent to the upper bound of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) of the difference of placebo minus ciclesonide nasal aerosol would be less than 20% of the baseline value of 175 mcg•h/dL or a noninferiority limit of 35 mcg•h/dL assuming a SD of 40 and a one-sided α of 0.025. A total of 40 subjects will be randomly assigned to ensure 35 subjects complete the study per arm.|LS Mean Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|22.6||\<0.025 for a one-sided test.|ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as Placebo - Ciclesonide.|35 subjects per arm would have ≥90% power to demonstrate that the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (equivalent to the upper bound of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) of the difference of placebo minus ciclesonide nasal aerosol would be less than 20% of the baseline value of 175 mcg•h/dL or a noninferiority limit of 35 mcg•h/dL assuming a SD of 40 and a one-sided α of 0.025. A total of 40 subjects will be randomly assigned to ensure 35 subjects complete the study per arm.||22.6|-7.4|
91908818|NCT02572752|183713179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||gMean Ratio|97.149|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.223|100.166|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the gMean of nin Test treatment (T) divided by nin Reference treatment (R1 \& R2). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An ANOVA model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment (without differentiation between R1 and R2). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. For the two 1-sided t-test procedure, the effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered to be random, whereas the other effects were considered to be fixed||100.166|94.223|<0.0001
91908819|NCT03099187|183713192|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Group Means|-134.6||||0.6777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-772.4|503.3||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and is provided for descriptive purpose only|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary Analysis in 2019. Mean FVC decline comparison between treatment groups using a Student's t-test with a two-sided significance level of 0.05||503.3|-772.4|0.6777
91755416|NCT01064687|183403933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.88||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.88|-1.22|<0.001
91755417|NCT01064687|183403933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.66|<0.0001
91884912|NCT01443403|183663976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.22|0.80|<0.0001
91884913|NCT01443403|183663976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.24|-0.15|0.1211
91884914|NCT01443403|183663978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.45|1.28|<0.0001
91884915|NCT01443403|183663978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.15|0.99|0.0002
91884916|NCT01443403|183663978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.76|-0.37|0.2022
91884917|NCT01443403|183663981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0272
91884918|NCT01443403|183663981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1355||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1355
91884919|NCT01443403|183663981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3689||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3689
91884920|NCT01443403|183663983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2126||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.2126
91884921|NCT01443403|183663983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2799||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.2799
91884922|NCT01443403|183663983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6466||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.6466
91884923|NCT01443403|183663985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9826||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.9826
91884924|NCT01443403|183663985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5188||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.5188
91884925|NCT01443403|183663985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5029||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.5029
91755418|NCT01064687|183403933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.67||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.67|-1.01|<0.001
91755419|NCT01064687|183403933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.66|<0.001
91755420|NCT01064687|183403933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.18||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.18|-0.44|<0.001
91755421|NCT01064687|183403933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.18||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.18|-0.44|<0.001
91755422|NCT01064687|183403934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.73|<0.001
91755423|NCT01064687|183403934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.11||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.11|-0.44|<0.001
91755424|NCT01064687|183403934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.73|<0.001
91755425|NCT01064687|183403934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.11||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.11|-0.44|<0.001
91755426|NCT01064687|183403935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.85|-3.58|<0.001
91908820|NCT03099187|183713192|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Group Means|-216.0||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-803.6|371.7||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and is provided for descriptive purpose only|Student's t-test|||Final Analysis in 2020. Mean FVC decline comparison between treatment groups using a Student's t-test with a two-sided significance level of 0.05||371.7|-803.6|0.4682
91755427|NCT01064687|183403935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-0.88|0.571
91755428|NCT01064687|183403935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-2.06|0.007
91755429|NCT01064687|183403935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|0.64|<0.001
91908821|NCT03099187|183713193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0383|||||||rank ANCOVA|||Primary Analysis in 2019||||0.0383
91755430|NCT01064687|183403935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.65|-3.39|<0.001
91755431|NCT01064687|183403936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-1.25|0.507
91755432|NCT01064687|183403936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.19|0.32|0.009
91755433|NCT01064687|183403937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.27|<0.001
91755434|NCT01064687|183403937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.31|0.568
91755435|NCT01064687|183403937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.72|0.006
91755436|NCT01064687|183403937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.24|<0.001
91755437|NCT01064687|183403937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.20|<0.001
91755438|NCT01064687|183403938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.42|0.580
91755439|NCT01064687|183403938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.79|0.14|0.005
91755440|NCT01064687|183403939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-23.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.02|-34.50|<0.001
91755441|NCT01064687|183403939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.62|-5.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.06|-13.62|<0.001
91755442|NCT01064687|183403939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-18.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.24|-29.80|<0.001
91755443|NCT01064687|183403939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.61||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-8.95|0.038
91755444|NCT01064687|183403939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|-13.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.65|-25.18|<0.001
91908822|NCT03099187|183713193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0239|||||||rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||||0.0239
91908823|NCT03099187|183713194|SUPERIORITY||Overall Mean Difference|95.3||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|154.6||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Student's t-test|||Primary Analysis in 2019||154.6|35.9|0.0018
91755445|NCT01064687|183403940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.68||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|-2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.52|-12.84|0.004
91884926|NCT03607422|183664019|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|59.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|66.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.2|53.1|<0.001
91884927|NCT03607422|183664019|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|53.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.9|39.9|<0.001
91884928|NCT03607422|183664020|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|53.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.7|41.0|<0.001
91884929|NCT03607422|183664020|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|40.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.2|27.8|<0.001
91884930|NCT03607422|183664021|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|57.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.1|43.8|<0.001
91884931|NCT03607422|183664021|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.4|25.8|<0.001
91908824|NCT03099187|183713194|SUPERIORITY||Overall Mean Difference|84.3||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|147.8||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Student's t-test|||Final Analysis in 2020||147.8|20.7|0.0096
91908825|NCT03099187|183713195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.69||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Primary Analysis in 2019||0.69|0.25|0.0006
91908826|NCT03099187|183713195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.71||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final Analysis in 2020||0.71|0.26|0.0009
91755446|NCT01064687|183403940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.47||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|-9.66|0.092
91755447|NCT01064687|183403941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|23.4||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.4|7.4|<0.001
91755448|NCT01064687|183403941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|10.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.1|3.9|<0.001
91755449|NCT01064687|183403941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.0||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.0|2.8|<0.001
91755450|NCT01064687|183403941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.5|<0.001
91755451|NCT01064687|183403941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.3|0.004
91755452|NCT01064687|183403941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|20.8||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||20.8|6.7|<0.001
91755453|NCT01064687|183403941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.8|2.9|<0.001
91755454|NCT01064687|183403941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.9||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.9|3.7|<0.001
91755455|NCT01064687|183403941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.6|<0.001
91755456|NCT01064687|183403941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.6||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.6|1.6|<0.001
91755457|NCT01064687|183403942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.6||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.6|2.4|<0.001
91805936|NCT01652703|183488080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|281.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.74|5360.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q2W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||5360.92|14.74|<0.001
91884932|NCT03607422|183664022|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.7|59.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.4|46.7|<0.001
91908827|NCT03099187|183713196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Primary Analysis in 2019||0.84|0.23|0.0114
91908828|NCT03099187|183713196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.88||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final Analysis in 2020||0.88|0.24|0.0168
91908829|NCT03099187|183713197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0874||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|||Primary Analysis in 2019||||0.0874
91755458|NCT01064687|183403942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.5|1.1|0.008
91755459|NCT01064687|183403942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.1|2.3|<0.001
91755460|NCT01064687|183403942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.4|<0.001
91755461|NCT01064687|183403943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.26|43.16||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||43.16|27.26|<0.001
91755462|NCT01064687|183403943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.97|27.28||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.28|14.97|<0.001
91755463|NCT01064687|183403943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.63|30.72||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.72|14.63|<0.001
91755464|NCT01064687|183403943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|14.87||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.87|2.31|0.007
91755465|NCT01064687|183403943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|22.11||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.11|6.06|<0.001
91755466|NCT01064687|183403943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.7||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|3.17||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.17|-14.56|0.207
91755467|NCT01064687|183403943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.54||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|5.32||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.32|-8.41|0.659
91755468|NCT01064687|183403943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|7.56||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.56|-10.37|0.759
91755469|NCT01064687|183403943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.75||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|9.76||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.76|-4.25|0.441
91755470|NCT01064687|183403943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.15||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|4.79||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.79|-13.10|0.362
91805937|NCT01652703|183488080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|536.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.37|10143.4||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q4W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||10143.40|28.37|<0.001
91908830|NCT03099187|183713197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1191||||||p-values are not adjusted for multiplicity and are provided for descriptive purpose only.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||||0.1191
91755471|NCT01064687|183403944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|28.08||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.08|15.20|<0.001
91755472|NCT01064687|183403944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|18.68||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.68|5.56|<0.001
91755473|NCT01064687|183403944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.73||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.43||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.43|-10.90|0.307
91755474|NCT01064687|183403944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.75||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|5.55||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.55|-9.05|0.638
91755475|NCT02265796|183403991|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||the reported p value is for all between group comparisons of the SAQ domains.|t-test, 2 sided|||between group comparison for all SAQ domains||||>0.05
91755476|NCT02265796|183403991|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||reported p value is for the physical limitation, angina frequency and treatment satisfaction domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||>0.05
91755477|NCT02265796|183403991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||reported p value is for the angina stability and quality of life domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||<0.05
91755478|NCT02265796|183403991|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||reported p value is for the physical limitation and treatment satisfaction domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||>0.05
91755479|NCT02265796|183403991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||reported p value is for the angina stability, angina frequency and quality of life domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||<0.05
91755480|NCT02265796|183403992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||"between group comparison for the excellent/good"||||0.58
91755481|NCT02265796|183403992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Between group analysis for fair/poor"||||0.80
91755482|NCT02265796|183403992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||within group analysis of change from baseline for excellent/good||||0.50
91884933|NCT03607422|183664022|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.6|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.3|30.6|<0.001
91884934|NCT03607422|183664023|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.9|63.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||63.0|50.9|<0.001
91884935|NCT03607422|183664023|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.9|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.4|38.9|<0.001
91884936|NCT03607422|183664024|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.5|34.2|<0.001
91884937|NCT03607422|183664024|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.3|23.5|<0.001
91884938|NCT03607422|183664025|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.3|10.6|<0.001
91884939|NCT03607422|183664025|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||10.0|3.4|<0.001
91755483|NCT02265796|183403992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||McNemar|||within group comparison of change from baseline for fair/poor||||0.48
91755484|NCT02265796|183403992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||McNemar|||within group analysis of change from baseline for excellent/good||||0.19
91755485|NCT02265796|183403992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||McNemar|||within group comparison of change from baseline for fair/poor||||0.067
91884940|NCT03607422|183664026|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||10.5|3.8|<0.001
91755486|NCT02265796|183403993|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91755487|NCT00377364|183404077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline RAVLT scores used as covariate.||||<0.05
91755488|NCT00377364|183404080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Baseline ISS scores used as a covariate. ANCOVA results were not significant.||||||<0.05
91755489|NCT00377364|183404081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSD scores used as a covariate.||||<0.05
91755490|NCT00377364|183404083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Baseline YMRS scores used as a covariate.||||||0.05
91755491|NCT00377364|183404085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Baseline ACQ scores used as a covariate.||||||<0.05
91755492|NCT03480009|183404088|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.20
91755493|NCT03480009|183404088|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.20
91755494|NCT03480009|183404089|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ibuprofen||||.81
91755495|NCT03480009|183404089|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||acetaminophen||||.24
91755496|NCT03480009|183404089|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||oxycodone||||.54
91755497|NCT03480009|183404089|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ibuprofen||||.61
91755498|NCT03480009|183404089|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Acetaminophen||||.24
91755499|NCT03480009|183404090|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wald Chi Square|Wald Chi Square from mixed effects linear regression||||||.99
91755500|NCT03480009|183404090|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wald Chi Square|P-value from Wald chi-square from mixed effects linear regression||||||.56
91884941|NCT03607422|183664027|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|12.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||12.9|4.3|<0.001
91884942|NCT03607422|183664028|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-17.8|-28.4|<0.001
91884943|NCT03607422|183664028|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-22.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-16.9|-27.8|<0.001
91884944|NCT03607422|183664029|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|57.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.3|42.2|<0.001
91884945|NCT03607422|183664029|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|45.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.8|30.1|<0.001
91884946|NCT03607422|183664030|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|59.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.1|44.4|<0.001
91884947|NCT03607422|183664030|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.2|43.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.5|28.2|<0.001
91884948|NCT03607422|183664031|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|60.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.6|46.0|<0.001
91889144|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-8.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6A||-8.6|-19.5|
91755501|NCT03480009|183404091|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.07
91889145|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||-10.6|-21.0|
91908831|NCT03099187|183713198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0395||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|||Primary Analysis in 2019||||0.0395
91908832|NCT03099187|183713198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0299||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||||0.0299
91755502|NCT03480009|183404091|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.50
91755503|NCT02014584|183404107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|18.8|||Fisher's Exact Test|||||18.8|-4.7|0.27
91755504|NCT02014584|183404153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.4|||Fisher's Exact Test||DB Week 4|||3.4|-10.4|0.62
91755505|NCT02014584|183404153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|17.6|||Fisher's Exact Test||DB Week 12|||17.6|-4.7|0.34
91755506|NCT02014584|183404153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.7|||Fisher's Exact Test||DB Week 24|||16.7|-4.2|0.31
91884949|NCT03607422|183664031|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|48.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.0|32.7|<0.001
91884950|NCT03607422|183664032|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|62.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||62.3|47.2|<0.001
91884951|NCT03607422|183664032|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|48.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.3|32.3|<0.001
91884952|NCT03607422|183664033|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.8|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.5|42.8|<0.001
91884953|NCT03607422|183664033|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|46.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.3|29.5|<0.001
91884954|NCT03607422|183664034|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||22.7|13.5|<0.0001
91884955|NCT03607422|183664034|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|17.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||17.6|9.2|<0.001
91884956|NCT03607422|183664035|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-49.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.364|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.05|-42.84|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-42.84|-56.05|<0.001
91889146|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 7F||1.1|-6.3|
91755507|NCT02014584|183404155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.0|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 4|||3.0|-0.2|0.082
91755508|NCT02014584|183404155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.9|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 12|||0.9|-3.4|0.25
91805938|NCT01652703|183488080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|595.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.11|11402.67||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q4W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||11402.67|31.11|<0.001
91755509|NCT02014584|183404155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 24|||2.1|-2.0|0.99
91755510|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||t-test from general linear model||Erectile Function DB Week 4|||0.9|-0.4|0.46
91755511|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Erectile Function DB Week 12|||0.3|-1.8|0.14
91884957|NCT03607422|183664035|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-34.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.386|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.81|-27.51|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-27.51|-40.81|<0.001
91884958|NCT03607422|183664036|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-50.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.127|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.28|-44.0|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-44.00|-56.28|<0.001
91884959|NCT03607422|183664036|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-39.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.79|-33.46|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-33.46|-45.79|<0.001
91884960|NCT03607422|183664037|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|61.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||61.7|47.7|<0.001
91884961|NCT03607422|183664037|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.||49.8|34.5|<0.001
91884962|NCT03607422|183664038|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|56.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.5|41.4|<0.001
91884963|NCT03607422|183664038|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|50.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.6|35.0|0.002
91908833|NCT03099187|183713199|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|0.0||||0.7788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||5.00|-5.00|0.7788
91755512|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Erectile Function DB Week 24|||0.5|-1.9|0.27
91755513|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||t-test from general linear model||Intercourse satisfaction DB Week 4|||0.8|-0.1|0.13
91755514|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Intercourse satisfaction DB Week 12|||0.5|-0.8|0.73
91755515|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Intercourse satisfaction DB Week 24|||0.5|-0.8|0.64
91755516|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Orgasmic function DB Week 4|||0.5|-0.1|0.23
91755517|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||t-test from general linear model||Orgasmic function DB Week 12|||0.2|-0.5|0.33
91755518|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Orgasmic function DB Week 24|||0.3|-0.6|0.64
91884964|NCT03607422|183664039|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-40.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.949|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-34.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-34.22|-45.80|<0.001
91889147|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-8.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||-8.9|-19.7|
91755519|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||t-test from general linear model||Sexual desire DB Week 4|||0.7|-0.1|0.19
91755520|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||t-test from general linear model||Sexual desire DB Week 12|||0.2|-0.7|0.28
91755521|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Sexual desire DB Week 24|||0.5|-0.5|1.00
91755522|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Overall sexual satisfaction DB Week 4|||0.5|-0.2|0.28
91755523|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Overall sexual satisfaction DB Week 12|||0.3|-0.5|0.64
91755524|NCT02014584|183404157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Overall sexual satisfaction DB Week 24|||0.3|-0.5|0.69
91755525|NCT02014584|183404159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.4|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 12|||3.4|-1.1|0.33
91755526|NCT02014584|183404159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.6|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 24|||5.6|1.1|0.004
91755527|NCT02014584|183404161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 12|||0.4|-1.7|0.22
91755528|NCT02014584|183404161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 24|||1.0|-2.0|0.50
91755529|NCT02651220|183404173|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was based on 90% confidence interval within 80-125%.|Bioavailability|100.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.78|103.91||||||||103.91|96.78|
91755530|NCT02651220|183404174|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is based on 90% confidence interval within 80-125%.|Bioavailability|99.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.04|103.56||||||||103.56|96.04|
91755531|NCT02651220|183404175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91755532|NCT01439373|183404182|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.119|||||||||Bayesian probability model|"P1= P(p805 \>pPLC +0.3 \| data)= 0.905. A probability of 95% (P1 \> 0.95) or greater was to be considered 'substantial evidence of superiority."|Posterior Distribution of Difference= p805 - pPLC, where, p805 is the RVR rate for GSK2336805 and pPLC is the RVR rate for Placebo. 95% credible set was defined as the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. 95% credible interval for the estimate was 0.22 to 0.68.|||||
91755533|NCT01439373|183404183|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.122|||||||||Bayesian probability model|"P1= P(p805 \>pPLC +0.3 \| data)= 0.822. A probability of 95% (P1 \> 0.95) or greater was to be considered 'substantial evidence of superiority."|Posterior Distribution of Difference= p805 - pPLC, where, p805 is the RVR rate for GSK2336805 and pPLC is the RVR rate for Placebo. 95% credible set was defined as the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. 95% credible interval for the estimate was 0.17 to 0.6|||||
91755534|NCT00574548|183404205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 1: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.33|0.75|
91755535|NCT00574548|183404205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.94|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 3: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.94|1.24|
91755536|NCT00574548|183404205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.41|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 4: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.41|0.74|
91755537|NCT00574548|183404205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 5: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.00|1.01|
91884965|NCT03607422|183664039|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-29.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.941|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|-23.69|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.||||-23.69|-35.24|<0.001
91884966|NCT03607422|183664040|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|54.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.1|35.0|<0.001
91884967|NCT03607422|183664040|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.2|24.7|<0.001
91884968|NCT03607422|183664041|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.8|26.9|<0.001
91884969|NCT03607422|183664041|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||24.9|13.3|<0.001
91884970|NCT03607422|183664042|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|59.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|73.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||73.8|45.9|<0.001
91884971|NCT03607422|183664042|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|55.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.1|70.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.4|41.1|<0.001
91884972|NCT03607422|183664043|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|67.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.3|40.6|<0.001
91759820|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|0.6||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.60|-3.25|
91884973|NCT03607422|183664043|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|53.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.1|25.7|<0.001
91884974|NCT03607422|183664044|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|66.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.1|40.0|<0.001
91884975|NCT03607422|183664044|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.2|21.8|<0.001
91908834|NCT03099187|183713199|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|0.0||||0.8289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||5.00|-5.00|0.8289
91884976|NCT03607422|183664045|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|60.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|72.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||72.9|47.5|<0.001
91884977|NCT03607422|183664045|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.9|33.4|<0.001
91759821|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.04||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.04|-3.90|
91805939|NCT01652703|183488081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.85|-57.27||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-57.27|-67.85|<0.001
91805940|NCT01652703|183488081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.83|-44.08||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-44.08|-54.83|<0.001
91805941|NCT01652703|183488081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.93|-52.22||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-52.22|-63.93|<0.001
91805942|NCT01652703|183488081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.46|-47.63||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.63|-59.46|<0.001
91805943|NCT01652703|183488082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.67|-55.72||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.72|-65.67|<0.001
91805944|NCT01652703|183488082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-41.7||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.70|-51.80|<0.001
91805945|NCT01652703|183488082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.91|-47.97||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.97|-58.91|<0.001
91805946|NCT01652703|183488082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|-41.85||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.85|-52.90|<0.001
91805947|NCT01652703|183488083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.75||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.71|-11.26||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.26|-57.71|0.004
91805948|NCT01652703|183488083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.93||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-0.68||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-0.68|-47.83|0.044
91805949|NCT01652703|183488083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.36||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.32|-11.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.32|-48.32|0.002
91805950|NCT01652703|183488083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.41||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.41|-2.22||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-2.22|-39.41|0.028
91805951|NCT01652703|183488084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.21|-41.76||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.76|-52.21|<0.001
91805952|NCT01652703|183488084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.52|-31.91||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.91|-42.52|<0.001
91805953|NCT01652703|183488084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.32|-41.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.00|-52.32|<0.001
91805954|NCT01652703|183488084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.02|-39.58||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.58|-51.02|<0.001
91884978|NCT03607422|183664046|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|59.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.6|33.2|<0.001
91884979|NCT03607422|183664046|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|48.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.4|21.4|<0.001
91884980|NCT03607422|183664047|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.4|60.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.0|32.4|<0.001
91884981|NCT03607422|183664047|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|45.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.3|17.3|<0.001
91884982|NCT03607422|183664048|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|5.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||10.6|-0.5|0.075
91884983|NCT03607422|183664048|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|12.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.5|3.9|0.005
91755538|NCT00574548|183404205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.51|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 6B: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.51|1.18|
91755539|NCT00574548|183404205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.47|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 7F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.47|1.07|
91755540|NCT00574548|183404205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 9V: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.12|0.79|
91755541|NCT00574548|183404205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 14: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.25|0.58|
91755542|NCT00574548|183404205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.93|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 18C: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.93|0.94|
91755543|NCT00574548|183404205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 19A: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.61|0.96|
91755544|NCT00574548|183404205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 19F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.12|1.09|
91755545|NCT00574548|183404205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.35|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 23F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||4.35|1.86|
91755546|NCT00574548|183404206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.57|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 1: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.57|1.43|
91755547|NCT00574548|183404206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.16|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 3: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.16|1.95|
91755548|NCT00574548|183404206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.96|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 4: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.96|1.12|
91759822|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-0.5||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.50|-4.35|
91884984|NCT03607422|183664049|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|3.2||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||7.6|-1.2|0.151
91805955|NCT01652703|183488085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.14|-55.56||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.56|-67.14|<0.001
91805956|NCT01652703|183488085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.41|-41.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.65|-53.41|<0.001
91805957|NCT01652703|183488085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.73|-51.77||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.77|-63.73|<0.001
91805958|NCT01652703|183488085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.27|-46.18||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.18|-58.27|<0.001
91755549|NCT00574548|183404206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 5: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.31|1.67|
91755550|NCT00574548|183404206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.47|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 6B: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.47|1.19|
91805959|NCT02728050|183488098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Participants on study receiving CLAGM-S were compared to a historical cohort of newly diagnosed AML/high-risk MDS patients treated with CLAG-M alone, matched for mitoxantrone dose, age, and TRM score.~Number of participants in historical cohort = 71. Number of participants in historical cohort who achieved MRD-negative CR = 55 (77.46%)"||||0.48
91805960|NCT02577510|183488118|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Version 21 statistical software (IBM, Armonk, New York). For continuous data, normality was fi rst assessed with the Lilliefors test and then analyzed using a paired t test. Data that did not have a normal distribution, as well as ordinal data, was analyzed using Wilcoxon's signed ranks or McNemar's test. All P values presented were 2-sided and values inferior to 0.05 were considered signifi cant||||0.05
91805961|NCT00777608|183488162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.08|||ANOVA|||||0.08|-0.2|0.231
91805962|NCT00777608|183488163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.008|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 2|||-0.008|-0.3|0.041
91805963|NCT00777608|183488163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.06|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 8|||0.06|-0.3|0.143
91805964|NCT00777608|183488163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.09|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 12|||0.09|-0.2|0.226
91805965|NCT00777608|183488164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.2|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 4|||2.2|-1.2|0.324
91805966|NCT00777608|183488164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|3.1|||ANOVA|||||3.1|-1.5|0.285
91805967|NCT00777608|183488164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.9|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 12|||1.9|-2.6|0.401
91805968|NCT02621060|183488194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91805969|NCT02621060|183488195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
91805970|NCT02621060|183488196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.755
91805971|NCT02621060|183488197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91805972|NCT02621060|183488198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
91805973|NCT02621060|183488199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91884985|NCT03607422|183664050|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|12.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||22.3|3.4|0.008
91884986|NCT03607422|183664051|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-8.0|-28.0|<0.001
91884987|NCT03607422|183664051|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-17.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-7.7|-28.1|0.001
91884988|NCT03607422|183664052|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|68.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.3|34.8|<0.001
91884989|NCT03607422|183664052|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.6|11.8|0.001
91755551|NCT00574548|183404206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|6.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 7F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||6.61|2.76|
91755552|NCT00574548|183404206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.45|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 9V: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||5.45|1.97|
91755553|NCT00574548|183404206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.1|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 14: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.10|0.98|
91755554|NCT00574548|183404206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.69|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 18C: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.69|1.32|
91755555|NCT00574548|183404206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.07|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19A: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.07|1.27|
91755556|NCT00574548|183404206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.74|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.74|1.96|
91755557|NCT00574548|183404206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.45|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 23F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.45|1.05|
91755558|NCT00574548|183404207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 1: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.54|
91755559|NCT00574548|183404207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.49|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 3: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.49|0.99|
91755560|NCT00574548|183404207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 4: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.68|0.43|
91805974|NCT02621060|183488201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
91805975|NCT02621060|183488202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
91805976|NCT02621060|183488203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
91805977|NCT02621060|183488204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
91805978|NCT02621060|183488205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
91805979|NCT02621060|183488206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91805980|NCT02621060|183488207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91805981|NCT02621060|183488208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91805982|NCT02621060|183488209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.059
91805983|NCT02621060|183488210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
91805984|NCT02621060|183488211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91805985|NCT02621060|183488212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.376
91805986|NCT02621060|183488213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.472
91884990|NCT03607422|183664053|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|68.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.0|38.4|<0.001
91884991|NCT03607422|183664053|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|47.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||47.1|16.5|<0.001
91884992|NCT03607422|183664054|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||64.1|33.8|<0.001
91884993|NCT03607422|183664054|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|53.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.6|21.1|<0.001
91884994|NCT03607422|183664055|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|70.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.2|37.4|<0.001
91884995|NCT03607422|183664055|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|59.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.7|24.3|<0.001
91884996|NCT03607422|183664056|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|62.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||62.7|28.0|<0.001
91884997|NCT03607422|183664056|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|48.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.8|10.7|0.002
91884998|NCT03607422|183664057|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|17.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.7|7.5|<0.001
91884999|NCT03607422|183664057|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.5|3.9|0.006
91908835|NCT03099187|183713200|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median difference|0.29||||0.1872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.04||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.04|-0.45|0.1872
91805987|NCT02621060|183488214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.774
91805988|NCT02621060|183488215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.637
91805989|NCT03087643|183488284|OTHER|||||||0.0492|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0492
91885000|NCT03607422|183664058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.284|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.32|-41.55|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-41.55|-70.32|<0.001
91885001|NCT03607422|183664058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.384|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.12|-21.96|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-21.96|-51.12|<0.001
91805990|NCT03087643|183488285|OTHER|||||||0.0283|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0283
91805991|NCT03087643|183488286|OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0321
91805992|NCT03087643|183488287|OTHER|||||||0.0451|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0451
91805993|NCT03087643|183488288|OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0476
91805994|NCT02083783|183488289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|11.6|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference in SKAMP-C scores from baseline to 4 hours postdose.||11.6|-17.9|<0.0001
91805995|NCT02083783|183488290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|50.6|||ANCOVA|||p-value for comparison between change from baseline in placebo vs active treatment||50.6|27.3|<0.0001
91805996|NCT02168361|183488308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is no difference between two regimens in SVR-12.||||.02
91885002|NCT03607422|183664059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.432|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.34|-29.9|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-29.90|-55.34|<0.001
91885003|NCT03607422|183664059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.41|-22.9|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-22.90|-48.41|<0.001
91885004|NCT03607422|183664060|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|68.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.1|36.9|<0.001
91885005|NCT03607422|183664060|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|54.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.9|21.2|<0.001
91885006|NCT03607422|183664061|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|55.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|76.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||76.3|35.5|<0.001
91885007|NCT03607422|183664061|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|72.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||72.9|26.3|<0.001
91885008|NCT03607422|183664062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.492|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.74|-32.06|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-32.06|-57.74|<0.001
91885009|NCT03607422|183664062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.383|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-17.36|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-17.36|-42.60|<0.001
91885010|NCT03607422|183664063|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.8||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|50.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.4|5.2|0.016
91885011|NCT03607422|183664063|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|22.3||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|45.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.7|-1.1|0.062
91885012|NCT03607422|183664064|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|59.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.4|18.4|<0.001
91885013|NCT03607422|183664064|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|5.9||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.6|-11.7|0.510
91885014|NCT03258723|183664077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||<0.0001
91759823|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-0.83||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.83|-4.66|
91885015|NCT03258723|183664078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.0005
91885016|NCT03258723|183664079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1809|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.1809
91885017|NCT03258723|183664080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.0973
91885018|NCT03258723|183664082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within subject change on matched cases.||||0.1992
91885019|NCT03258723|183664083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within subject change on matched cases.||||0.7017
91885020|NCT03258723|183664084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1573|||||||McNemar|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases in low activity group at baseline.||||0.1573
91885021|NCT03258723|183664084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4328|||||||McNemar|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases in medium activity group at baseline.||||0.4328
91885022|NCT03258723|183664084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6698|||||||McNemar|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases in high activity group at baseline.||||0.6698
91885023|NCT03258723|183664085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.5271
91885024|NCT03258723|183664086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||<0.0001
91885025|NCT04832971|183664087|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-51.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.73|-40.7||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)||ARO-ANG3 - Placebo|||-40.70|-61.73|<.0001
91885026|NCT04832971|183664087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value is calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<.0001
91885027|NCT04832971|183664087|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-56.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.09|-46.04||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)||ARO-ANG3 - Placebo|||-46.04|-67.09|<.0001
91885028|NCT04832971|183664087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value is calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<.0001
91885029|NCT04832971|183664087|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-63.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.56|-52.66||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||-52.66|-73.56|<.0001
91885030|NCT04832971|183664087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value is calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<.0001
91885031|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-48.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.53|-38.51||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-38.51|-58.53|<.0001
91885032|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-59.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|-49.12||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-49.12|-69.30|<.0001
91885033|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-63.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.24|-53.18||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-53.18|-73.24|<.0001
91885034|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.31|-42.89||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|m|||Week 8||-42.89|-66.31|<.0001
91885035|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-61.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.07|-49.55||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-49.55|-73.07|<.0001
91885036|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-66.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.9|-54.37||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-54.37|-77.90|<.0001
91908836|NCT03099187|183713200|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|0.27||||0.2019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.02||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||1.02|-0.48|0.2019
91755561|NCT00574548|183404207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 5: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.77|0.43|
91755562|NCT00574548|183404207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 6A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.08|0.67|
91755563|NCT00574548|183404207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 6B: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.12|0.71|
91755564|NCT00574548|183404207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.49|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 7F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.49|0.24|
91755565|NCT00574548|183404207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.51|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 9V: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.26|
91755566|NCT00574548|183404207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 14: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.02|0.60|
91755567|NCT00574548|183404207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 18C: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.87|0.54|
91755568|NCT00574548|183404207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.53|
91755569|NCT00574548|183404207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.69|
91885037|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-44.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.91|-33.01||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-33.01|-56.91|<.0001
91885038|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-43.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.83|-31.92||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-31.92|-55.83|<.0001
91885039|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-52.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.83|-40.18||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-40.18|-63.83|<.0001
91885040|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-65.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.04|-46.29||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-46.29|-85.04|<.0001
91755570|NCT00574548|183404207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.13|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 23F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.13|1.15|
91755571|NCT00574548|183404208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.75|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 1: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.75|0.55|
91755572|NCT00574548|183404208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.01|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 3: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.01|1.52|
91755573|NCT00574548|183404208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.66|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 4: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.66|0.49|
91755574|NCT00574548|183404208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.03|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 5: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.03|0.67|
91805997|NCT00668707|183488355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis conducted was an adjusted logistic regression (adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, smoking history). Results were presented as a relative risk. Based on an estimated 30% outcome rate of recurrence or mortality in the control arm, 294 participants per arm provided 80% power to detect a relative risk of one third at an alpha of 0.05. We inflated this sample size to 346 per arm to account for 15% lost to follow-up.||1.22|0.83|0.94
91885041|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-69.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.54|-49.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-49.80|-88.54|<.0001
91885042|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-75.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.11|-56.71||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-56.71|-95.11|<.0001
91885043|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-60.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.78|-43.71||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-43.71|-76.78|<.0001
91755575|NCT00574548|183404208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.79|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 6B: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.57|
91755576|NCT00574548|183404208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.52|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 7F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.52|0.35|
91885044|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-64.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.83|-47.72||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-47.72|-80.83|<.0001
91885045|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-69.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.85|-53.18||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-53.18|-85.85|<.0001
91755577|NCT00574548|183404208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 9V: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.41|
91755578|NCT00574548|183404208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 14: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.75|
91755579|NCT00574548|183404208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 18C: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.85|0.58|
91755580|NCT00574548|183404208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.74|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.74|0.58|
91755581|NCT00574548|183404208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.39|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.39|0.89|
91755582|NCT00574548|183404208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.73|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 23F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.73|0.50|
91755583|NCT00574548|183404209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 1: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.55|2.03|
91755584|NCT00574548|183404209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.89|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 3: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.89|1.18|
91755585|NCT00574548|183404209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 4: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.55|2.07|
91755586|NCT00574548|183404209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 5: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.61|1.77|
91755587|NCT00574548|183404209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|3.88|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 6B: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.88|1.94|
91755588|NCT00574548|183404209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|12.6|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 7F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||12.60|5.68|
91755589|NCT00574548|183404209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|10.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 9V: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||10.22|4.45|
91755590|NCT00574548|183404209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.18|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 14: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.18|1.02|
91805998|NCT00668707|183488356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||Analysis for the LC-13 scale.||3.7|-1.3|0.36
91805999|NCT00668707|183488356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Symptom Scale.||3.3|-2.5|0.80
91885046|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-51.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.73|-40.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-40.70|-61.73|<.0001
91885047|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-56.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.09|-46.04||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-46.04|-67.09|<.0001
91885048|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-63.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.56|-52.66||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-52.66|-73.56|<.0001
91885049|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-48.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.66|-37.59||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-37.59|-59.66|<.0001
91885050|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-51.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.32|-40.05||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-40.05|-62.32|<.0001
91885051|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-61.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-50.67||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-50.67|-72.60|<.0001
91885052|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-34.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.65|-23.46||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-23.46|-44.65|<.0001
91885053|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.56|-27.25||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-27.25|-48.56|<.0001
91885054|NCT04832971|183664088|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-51.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.71|-40.68||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-40.68|-61.71|<.0001
91755591|NCT00574548|183404209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.89|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 18C: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.89|2.01|
91755592|NCT00574548|183404209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19A: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.13|1.92|
91755593|NCT00574548|183404209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.44|1.80|
91806000|NCT00668707|183488356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.7||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Functional Scale.||2.7|-4.1|0.69
91885055|NCT04832971|183664089|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-20.0||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-20.0|-38.5|<.0001
91885056|NCT04832971|183664089|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-19.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-19.5|-37.9|<.0001
91885057|NCT04832971|183664089|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-27.2||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-27.2|-45.5|<.0001
91908837|NCT03099187|183713201|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-2.0||||0.2995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.0|||rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||4.00|-10.00|0.2995
91908838|NCT03099187|183713201|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-2.0||||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.0||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||4.00|-10.00|0.3372
91885058|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-21.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-21.7|-35.7|<.0001
91885059|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-23.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-23.4|-37.5|<.0001
91885060|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-38.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-31.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-31.2|-45.1|<.0001
91885061|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-19.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-19.7|-36.6|<.0001
91885062|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-18.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-18.1|-35.0|<.0001
91885063|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-25.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-25.6|-42.4|<.0001
91755594|NCT00574548|183404209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.28|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 23F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||4.28|1.92|
91908839|NCT03099187|183713202|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-1.86||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|1.38|||rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.38|-5.06|0.1630
91755595|NCT01209078|183404285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-22.2|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for end of therapy Clinical Success.||||
91755596|NCT01209078|183404285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-24.0|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Follow-up Clinical Success.||||
91755597|NCT01209078|183404286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||-9.4|-60.6|
91755598|NCT01209078|183404287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||-9.4|-60.6|
91806001|NCT00668707|183488356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.9||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Global Scale.||0.9|-8.5|0.11
91806002|NCT00668707|183488357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||0.9|-7.2|0.13
91806003|NCT00668707|183488358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||Sleep Adequacy Analysis.||1.9|-10.0|0.18
91885064|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-17.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-17.6|-34.6|<.0001
91885065|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-13.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-13.3|-30.3|<.0001
91755599|NCT01209078|183404290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 exudate or pus score.||0.74|-0.41|
91755600|NCT01209078|183404290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 exudate or pus score.||0.45|-0.70|
91755601|NCT01209078|183404290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 exudate or pus score.||0.43|-0.74|
91755602|NCT01209078|183404290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 exudate or pus score.||0.95|-0.25|
91908840|NCT03099187|183713202|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-1.74||||0.1851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.55||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||1.55|-5.00|0.1851
91885066|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-23.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-23.1|-39.9|<.0001
91885067|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-21.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-21.4|-37.3|<.0001
91885068|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-22.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-22.9|-38.8|<.0001
91885069|NCT04832971|183664090|OTHER||Difference|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|-31.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-31.6|-47.4|<.0001
91755603|NCT01209078|183404290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 exudate or pus score.||0.72|-0.49|
91755604|NCT01209078|183404290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow- up exudate or pus score.||0.66|-0.53|
91755605|NCT01209078|183404290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow- up exudate or pus score.||0.58|-0.65|
91755606|NCT01209078|183404291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 total SIS.||1.33|-3.04|
91755607|NCT01209078|183404291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 total SIS.||1.41|-2.94|
91755608|NCT01209078|183404291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.75|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 total SIS.||2.75|-1.68|
91755609|NCT01209078|183404291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 total SIS.||4.05|-0.46|
91806004|NCT00668707|183488358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||Sleep problems index II analysis.||4.8|-2.0|0.41
91806005|NCT00668707|183488362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91885070|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-21.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-21.4|-36.4|<.0001
91885071|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-19.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-19.7|-34.8|<.0001
91885072|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-27.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-27.4|-42.3|<.0001
91885073|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-20.0||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-20.0|-38.5|<.0001
91908841|NCT03099187|183713203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.49|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models.|Primary Analysis in 2019. All-cause non-elective hospitalization.||2.49|0.59|0.5922
91755610|NCT01209078|183404291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 total SIS.||3.47|-1.09|
91885074|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-19.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-19.5|-37.9|<.0001
91755611|NCT01209078|183404291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.98|-1.49|
91755612|NCT01209078|183404291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.52|-2.09|
91755613|NCT01209078|183404292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 total SIS.||1.33|-3.04|
91755614|NCT01209078|183404292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 total SIS.||1.41|-2.94|
91755615|NCT01209078|183404292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 total SIS.||2.75|-1.68|
91755616|NCT01209078|183404292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 total SIS.||4.05|-0.46|
91755617|NCT01209078|183404292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 total SIS.||3.47|-1.09|
91755618|NCT01209078|183404292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.98|-1.49|
91755619|NCT01209078|183404292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.52|-2.09|
91755620|NCT01209078|183404293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-68.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.8|-4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 wound area.||-4.95|-132.8|
91755621|NCT01209078|183404293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.54|60.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 wound area.||60.43|-66.54|
91806006|NCT00668707|183488363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Log Rank|||DFS up to five years post-surgery was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test, followed by a hazard ratio calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, and smoking history.||1.07|0.85|0.41
91806007|NCT00668707|183488363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only those with stage I or II cancer (pathologic stage). DFS up to five years post-surgery was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test, followed by a hazard ratio calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, and smoking history.||1.11|0.85|0.66
91806008|NCT00668707|183488363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only those participants who had stage III or IV cancer (pathologic stage). DFS up to five years post-surgery was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test, followed by a hazard ratio calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, and smoking history.||0.92|0.61|0.004
91806009|NCT00668707|183488364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|4.56|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of melatonin changes||4.56|-3.21|0.95
91755622|NCT01209078|183404293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|31.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.53|96.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 wound area.||96.47|-33.53|
91755623|NCT01209078|183404293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|110.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 wound area.||110.31|-22.43|
91806010|NCT00668707|183488364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|7.42|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of placebo changes||7.42|-0.15|0.02
91806011|NCT00668707|183488365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.37
91806012|NCT00668707|183488366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis compares the mean ratios of 6 month cytotoxicity and baseline cytotoxicity between arms.||||0.34
91806013|NCT03846804|183488396|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91755624|NCT01209078|183404293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.03|101.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 wound area.||101.45|-33.03|
91755625|NCT01209078|183404293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.25|103.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow-up wound area.||103.40|-28.25|
91755626|NCT01209078|183404293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.77|105.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow-up wound area.||105.56|-30.77|
91885075|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-27.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-27.2|-45.5|<.0001
91885076|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-15.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-15.9|-32.7|<.0001
91885077|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-15.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-15.1|-31.9|<.0001
91885078|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-22.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-22.9|-39.5|<.0001
91885079|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-9.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-9.7|-27.6|<.0001
91885080|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-6.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-6.8|-24.7|0.0006
91885081|NCT04832971|183664090|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-13.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-13.8|-31.4|<.0001
91755627|NCT01209078|183404294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-35.4|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Staphylococcus aureus (all).||||
91806014|NCT05438888|183488404|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|0.798|||Log Rank|||||0.798|0.711|<0.001
91885082|NCT04832971|183664091|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-18.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.53|-10.8||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-10.80|-26.53|<.0001
91885083|NCT04832971|183664091|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-15.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.36||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-7.36|-23.00|0.0002
91908842|NCT03099187|183713203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.8057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.83|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models.|Primary Analysis in 2019. Respiratory non-elective hospitalization.||2.83|0.26|0.8057
91908843|NCT03099187|183713203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.73|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models|Final Analysis in 2020. All-cause non-elective hospitalization.||2.73|0.63|0.4613
91908844|NCT03099187|183713203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.59|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models.|Final Analysis in 2020. Respiratory non-elective hospitalization.||3.59|0.30|0.9523
91755628|NCT01209078|183404294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-37.5|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for MRSA.||||
91755629|NCT01209078|183404294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-28.6|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for MSSA.||||
91755630|NCT01209078|183404294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-66.7|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Streptococcus pyogenes.||||
91885084|NCT04832971|183664091|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|-14.12||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-14.12|-29.69|<.0001
91885085|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-16.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.41|-10.74||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-10.74|-22.41|<.0001
91885086|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.08|-8.48||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-8.48|-20.08|<.0001
91908845|NCT03099187|183713205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.78|||Log Rank|||||2.78|0.26|0.7871
91908846|NCT03099187|183713206|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.24|0.56|0.3660
91908847|NCT03099187|183713206|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.26|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Final Analysis in 2020||1.26|0.57|0.4173
91908848|NCT03099187|183713207|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.2|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.20|0.52|0.2726
91755631|NCT01209078|183404294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-25.0|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Gram-negative pathogens.||||
91755632|NCT01209078|183404294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-37.5|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for All pathogens.||||
91755633|NCT01209078|183404294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for No pathogens.||||
91755634|NCT00448747|183404301|OTHER||ROC AUC|0.923|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0|0.85|||||||Summary of ROC Analyses following macimorelin administration.|||0.850|
91755635|NCT00448747|183404301|OTHER|Sensitivity|sensitivity (percent)|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||ROC analysis on peak GH concentrations in response to macimorelin: GH cut point of 2.7 ng/mL.||||
91755636|NCT00448747|183404301|OTHER|Specificity|Specificity (percent)|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||ROC analysis on peak GH concentrations in response to macimorelin: GH cut point of 2.7 ng/mL.||||
91755637|NCT00448747|183404301|OTHER|Misclassification|misclassification (percent)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||ROC analysis on peak GH concentrations in response to macimorelin: GH cut point of 2.7 ng/mL.||||
91755638|NCT00448747|183404302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.57|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Summary of IGF-1 before and after AEZS-130 administration: post - pre differences||||
91755639|NCT00448747|183404302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.25|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91885087|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.85|-15.23||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-15.23|-26.85|<.0001
91885088|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.42|-10.29||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-10.29|-24.42|<.0001
91885089|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.16||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.19|-5.13||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-5.13|-19.19|0.0008
91885090|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-16.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.62|-9.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-9.50|-23.62|<.0001
91885091|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.61|-9.81||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-9.81|-24.61|<.0001
91755640|NCT00568126|183404308|SUPERIORITY|Remission rates for maca vs. placebo were compared by chi-squared and by odds ratio (with 95% confidence interval).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|25.2||P values above are calculated. No multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance set a priori as P\<0.05.|Chi-squared||Odds ratio for attaining remission while taking maca vs taking placebo|"Treatment groups were compared based on percentage reaching remission thresholds per scale: a total score of 12 (minimally diminished) or less on the MGH-SFQ scale, and a total score of 10 (very strong/very easily/very satisfying) or less on the ASEX."||25.2|0.18|0.55
91755641|NCT00568126|183404309|SUPERIORITY|Remission rates for maca vs. placebo were compared by chi-squared and by odds ratio (with 95% confidence interval).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.34||P values above are calculated. No multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance set a priori as P\<0.05.|Chi-squared||Odds ratio for attaining remission while taking maca vs taking placebo|"Treatment groups were compared based on percentage reaching remission thresholds per scale: a total score of 12 (minimally diminished) or less on the MGH-SFQ scale, and a total score of 10 (very strong/very easily/very satisfying) or less on the ASEX."||7.34|0.40|0.47
91755642|NCT02429791|183404315|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.0|||||Estimates based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI).|||3.0|-4.3|
91806015|NCT05438888|183488405|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.760|0.622|<0.001
91806016|NCT05438888|183488406|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.638|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.714|||Log Rank|||||0.714|0.570|<0.001
91885092|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.95||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-2.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-2.60|-17.30|0.0082
91885093|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.68|-10.03||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-10.03|-24.68|<.0001
91908849|NCT03099187|183713207|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.24|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Final Analysis in 2020||1.24|0.54|0.3386
91755643|NCT02429791|183404317|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.0|||||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI). No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||4.0|-1.9|
91885094|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.42|-7.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-7.30|-21.42|<.0001
91885095|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.97||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|-5.95||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-5.95|-19.98|0.0003
91885096|NCT04832971|183664092|OTHER||Difference|-20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-13.29||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-13.29|-27.30|<.0001
91885097|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.29|-11.13||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-11.13|-24.29|<.0001
91885098|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.75|-7.72||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-7.72|-20.75|<.0001
91755644|NCT02429791|183404328|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and baseline third agent (25 hydroxy-vitamin D)|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91885099|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-11.79||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-11.79|-24.80|<.0001
91885100|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.53|-10.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-10.80|-26.53|<.0001
91908850|NCT03099187|183713208|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.08|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||||16.08|0.06|0.9969
91755645|NCT02429791|183404328|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.958||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.034||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and baseline biomarker level.|||1.034|0.888|0.275
91755646|NCT02429791|183404328|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.902||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.025||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - INI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and baseline biomarker level.|||1.025|0.793|0.112
91755647|NCT02429791|183404328|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.847||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.942||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and baseline biomarker level.|||0.942|0.763|0.002
91755648|NCT02429791|183404330|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and baseline third agent (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase)|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91755649|NCT02429791|183404330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.724|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|0.772||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.772|0.679|<.001
91755650|NCT02429791|183404330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.825|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.918||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - INI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.918|0.742|<.001
91806017|NCT05438888|183488407|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|0.922|||Log Rank|||||0.922|0.791|<0.001
91806018|NCT05438888|183488408|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.638|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.715|||Log Rank|||||0.715|0.570|<0.001
91885101|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.36||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-7.36|-23.00|0.0002
91885102|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|-14.12||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-14.12|-29.69|<.0001
91885103|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.44|-8.35||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-8.35|-23.44|<.0001
91908851|NCT03099187|183713209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3231|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||||||0.3231
91885104|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.98||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.49|-5.46||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-5.46|-20.49|0.0008
91885105|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|-10.07||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-10.07|-25.01|<.0001
91885106|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.55||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.32|-2.77||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-2.77|-18.32|0.0081
91885107|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.76||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|0.99||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||0.99|-14.52|0.0871
91885108|NCT04832971|183664092|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.91||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.61|-3.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-3.20|-18.61|0.0058
91885109|NCT04832971|183664093|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-16.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-3.3||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-3.3|-28.7|0.0138
91885110|NCT04832971|183664093|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-9.3||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|3.3||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repated Measures|||||3.3|-22.0|0.1480
91885111|NCT04832971|183664093|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-20.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-7.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mxed Models Repeated Measures|||||-7.5|-32.8|0.0019
91885112|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.3||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-2.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-2.2|-24.5|0.0192
91885113|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.4||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|2.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||2.7|-19.6|0.1362
91885114|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-7.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-7.7|-29.8|0.0010
91885115|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.9||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-0.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-0.5|-27.3|0.0428
91806019|NCT05438888|183488409|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|0.934|||Log Rank|||||0.934|0.807|<0.001
91806020|NCT05438888|183488410|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.646|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.830|0.503|<0.001
91885116|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.5||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|8.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||8.9|-17.9|0.5122
91885117|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.6||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-1.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-1.2|-27.9|0.0331
91885118|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|5.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||5.1|-35.8|0.1400
91885119|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.2||||0.9854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|20.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||20.6|-20.2|0.9854
91885120|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-19.8||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|0.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.4|-40.1|0.0552
91885121|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.1||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-0.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-0.4|-25.7|0.0430
91885122|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.0||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|1.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||1.6|-23.6|0.0871
91885123|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-23.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-10.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-10.6|-35.7|0.0004
91885124|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.0||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-2.0||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-2.0|-25.9|0.0219
91885125|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.7||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|3.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||3.2|-20.6|0.1526
91885126|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.0||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-5.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-5.2|-28.9|0.0049
91885127|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-16.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-3.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-3.3|-28.7|0.0138
91885128|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.3||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|3.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||3.3|-22.0|0.1480
91885129|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-7.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-7.5|-32.8|0.0019
91908852|NCT02701387|183713222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||"A 2-factor (implant type x time interval) nonparametric analysis for longitudinal data (Brunner et al. 2002) was used to compare test and control implants across time (baseline + four intervals). The R package nparLD was used (Noguchi et al. 2012)."|nonparametric for longitudinal|||Comparison of ISQ over time. Due to the high number of intervals (T0-T8) relative to the number of observations, data were combined for analysis purposes into 5 comparable intervals as follows: Baseline (T0, unchanged); Tr1=Average of follow-up weeks T1 and T2, Tr2=Average of follow-up weeks T3 and T4; Tr3=Average of follow-up weeks T5 and T6; Tr4=Average of follow-up weeks T7 and T8||||<0.01
91755651|NCT02429791|183404330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.884||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.884|0.742|<.001
91885130|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.3||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|3.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||3.9|-22.4|0.1660
91885131|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.6||||0.6964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|10.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||10.5|-15.7|0.6964
91755652|NCT02429791|183404330|OTHER|||||||0.677||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.677
91755653|NCT02429791|183404330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.817|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|0.863||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.863|0.774|<.001
91755654|NCT02429791|183404330|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (osteocalcin)|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91806021|NCT00844831|183488501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
91885132|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.5||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|1.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||1.5|-24.5|0.0831
91885133|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.0||||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|4.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||4.1|-28.2|0.1425
91885134|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|16.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||16.6|-15.6|0.9494
91885135|NCT04832971|183664094|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.5||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|8.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||8.4|-23.5|0.3535
91885136|NCT04832971|183664095|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo|-54.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.11|-46.4||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-46.40|-62.11|<.0001
91885137|NCT04832971|183664095|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-69.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.58|-61.95||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-61.95|-77.58|<.0001
91885138|NCT04832971|183664095|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-73.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.44|-65.93||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-65.93|-81.44|<.0001
91885139|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-67.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.26|-61.04||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-61.04|-74.26|<.0001
91885140|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-80.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.42|-74.17||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-74.17|-87.42|<.0001
91885141|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-84.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.27|-78.12||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-78.12|-91.27|<.0001
91885142|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-59.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.57|-50.57||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-50.57|-67.57|<.0001
91885143|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-71.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.47|-63.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-63.50|-80.47|<.0001
91908853|NCT04869345|183713230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.05||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05.|Boschloo Test||Maximum likelihood estimate of the Odds Ratio comparing retention rate in LARKSPUR group to Attention Control group|||3.05|0.13|.684
91908854|NCT04869345|183713233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.27||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) degrees of freedom method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||2.27|-2.80|0.835
91908855|NCT04869345|183713233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.0||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.00|-2.12|0.732
91755655|NCT02429791|183404330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.881|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.943||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.943|0.823|<.001
91755656|NCT02429791|183404330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.829||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - INI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.930|0.740|0.001
91755657|NCT02429791|183404330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.691|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.759||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.759|0.628|<.001
91755658|NCT02429791|183404330|OTHER|||||||0.782||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and baseline third agent (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.782
91885144|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-76.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.9|-67.99||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-67.99|-84.90|<.0001
91885145|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-55.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.18|-45.01||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-45.01|-65.18|<.0001
91755659|NCT02429791|183404330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.804|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.872||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.872|0.742|<.001
91885146|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-70.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.6|-60.51||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-60.51|-80.60|<.0001
91885147|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-74.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.95|-64.04||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-64.04|-83.95|<.0001
91885148|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-72.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.88|-65.56||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-65.56|-78.88|<.0001
91885149|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-84.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.72|-77.46||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-77.46|-90.72|<.0001
91885150|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-89.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.59|-82.42||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-82.42|-95.59|<.0001
91885151|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-64.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.4|-58.31||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-58.31|-71.40|<.0001
91885152|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-77.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.98|-70.93||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-70.93|-83.98|<.0001
91885153|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-80.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.06|-74.14||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-74.14|-87.06|<.0001
91755660|NCT02429791|183404343|OTHER|||||||0.317||||||One-sided p-value from weighted least squares chi-squared statistic. A p-value \<=0.10 was used to indicate statistically significant evidence of heterogeneity in the difference in proportions across levels of each analysis strata.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.317
91755661|NCT02429791|183404343|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|1.5|||||NNRTI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||1.5|-7.7|
91755662|NCT02429791|183404343|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.0|||||INI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||9.0|-5.1|
91755663|NCT02429791|183404343|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|10.8|||||PI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||10.8|-5.3|
91806022|NCT00844831|183488503|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9
91755664|NCT02429791|183404351|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 4)|ANCOVA|||||||0.940
91755665|NCT02429791|183404351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.924|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-1.588||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||-1.588|-4.260|<.001
91755666|NCT02429791|183404351|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 24)|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91806023|NCT03156543|183488515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was based on the participants who were positive for C. acnes.||||0.004
91885154|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-54.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.11|-46.4||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-46.40|-62.11|<.0001
91885155|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-69.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.58|-61.95||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-61.95|-77.58|<.0001
91885156|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-73.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.44|-65.93||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-65.93|-81.44|<.0001
91885157|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-54.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.84|-46.67||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-46.67|-62.84|<.0001
91885158|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-66.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.69|-58.52||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-58.52|-74.69|<.0001
91885159|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-73.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.36|-65.38||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-65.38|-81.36|<.0001
91885160|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-45.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.17|-36.69||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-36.69|-54.17|<.0001
91885161|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-57.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.88|-48.41||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-48.41|-65.88|<.0001
91885162|NCT04832971|183664096|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-63.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.19|-54.97||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-54.97|-72.19|<.0001
91885163|NCT04832971|183664097|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-12.0||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-3.9||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-3.9|-20.2|0.0039
91885164|NCT04832971|183664097|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-13.4||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-13.4|-29.8|<.0001
91885165|NCT04832971|183664097|SUPERIORITY||Differeence vs Placebo at week 24|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-16.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-16.5|-32.6|<.0001
91885166|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-6.4||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-6.4|-20.9|0.0003
91885167|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-17.9||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-17.9|-32.6|<.0001
91885168|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-17.3||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-17.3|-31.8|<.0001
91885169|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-7.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-7.5|-22.4|0.0001
91885170|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-17.9||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-17.9|-33.0|<.0001
91885171|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-18.7||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-18.7|-33.7|<.0001
91755667|NCT02429791|183404351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.192||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.656|0.271||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||0.271|-2.656|0.110
91885172|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.9||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.3||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-0.3|-17.6|0.0429
91885173|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-12.0||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-12.0|-29.4|<.0001
91885174|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-11.6||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-11.6|-28.7|<.0001
91885175|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-9.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-9.5|-26.2|<.0001
91885176|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-22.2||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-22.2|-39.0|<.0001
91885177|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-24.0||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-24.0|-40.5|<.0001
91885178|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-6.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-6.5|-22.7|0.0005
91885179|NCT04832971|183664098|OTHER||Difference|-28.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-20.3||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-20.3|-36.6|<.0001
91885180|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-22.4||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-22.4|-38.4|<.0001
91885181|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.0||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-3.9||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-3.9|-20.2|0.0039
91908856|NCT04869345|183713233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.47||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.47|-2.05|0.609
91885182|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-13.4||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-13.4|-29.8|<.0001
91885183|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-16.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-16.5|-32.6|<.0001
91885184|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.4||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-0.6||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-0.6|-16.2|0.0343
91885185|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-9.8||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-9.8|-25.6|<.0001
91885186|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-13.8||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-13.8|-29.3|<.0001
91885187|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.8||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|0.0||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||0.0|-15.6|0.0501
91885188|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-12.2||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-12.2|-27.9|<.0001
91885189|NCT04832971|183664098|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-8.1||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-8.1|-23.5|<.0001
91885190|NCT01107899|183664113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the overall effect of initial inhibition on the day to return to baseline platelet function.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91885191|NCT01107899|183664115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value was obtained from an analysis of covariance model with treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91885192|NCT01107899|183664115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value was obtained from an analysis of covariance model with treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91908857|NCT04869345|183713234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|1.31||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Interference scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||1.31|-2.97|0.445
91908858|NCT04869345|183713234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|3.54||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Interference scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.54|-0.78|0.209
91806024|NCT00056316|183488533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is equal to Behavioral Skills Intervention minus Basic Education Control|||||.05
91885193|NCT01107899|183664115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value was obtained from an analysis of covariance model with treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.025
91885194|NCT03584152|183664123|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis stated that the combination of treatment arm B is worse than the combination of treatment arm A by more than -Δ, where -Δ is the 'non-inferiority margin.'||||||0.156||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.156
91885195|NCT03584152|183664124|OTHER|||||||0.112||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112
91885196|NCT03584152|183664125|OTHER|||||||0.803||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
91806025|NCT00056316|183488534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is equal to Behavioral Skills Intervention minus Basic Education Control|||||.05
91806026|NCT01315678|183488543|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.51||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.13|||Regression, Cox|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||2.13|1.07|0.0286
91885197|NCT03584152|183664126|OTHER|||||||0.403||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.403
91885198|NCT03584152|183664127|OTHER|||||||0.405||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in nausea||||0.405
91885199|NCT03584152|183664127|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Difference between-groups in itchiness||||0.001
91885200|NCT03584152|183664127|OTHER|||||||0.571||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in constipation||||0.571
91885201|NCT03584152|183664127|OTHER|||||||0.078||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in dizziness||||0.078
91885202|NCT03584152|183664127|OTHER|||||||0.724||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in bleeding||||0.724
91885203|NCT03584152|183664127|OTHER|||||||0.795||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in headache||||0.795
91885204|NCT03584152|183664127|OTHER|||||||0.188||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"Difference between-groups in other side effects"||||0.188
91885205|NCT03584152|183664128|OTHER|||||||0.7318||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in SCHNOS-O||||0.7318
91885206|NCT03584152|183664128|OTHER|||||||0.5267||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in SCHNOS-C||||0.5267
91885207|NCT03584152|183664129|OTHER|||||||0.9158||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in VAS-F||||0.9158
91885208|NCT03584152|183664130|OTHER|||||||0.5351||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in VAS-A||||0.5351
91885209|NCT03584152|183664131|OTHER|||||||0.378||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.378
91885210|NCT03584152|183664132|OTHER|||||||0.195||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.195
91885211|NCT03584152|183664133|OTHER|||||||0.682|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.682
91885212|NCT04024462|183664134|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.15|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of pertuzumab (Arm B) relative to the pertuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the pertuzumab Arm B SC dose is inferior to the pertuzumab Arm A IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of pertuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.15|0.99|
91885213|NCT04024462|183664135|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8. Non-inferiority was tested in hierarchical order after the primary outcome measure, to adjust for multiple statistical testing and control the type I error at one sided 5% significance level.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|1.67|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of trastuzumab (Arm B) relative to the trastuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the trastuzumab Arm B SC dose is inferior to the Arm A trastuzumab IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of trastuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.67|1.44|
91885214|NCT04024462|183664136|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only. tpCR was analyzed outside of a hypothesis-testing framework and according to the methodology outlined in the outcome measure description.|Difference in tpCR Rate|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|13.45|||||Difference in tpCR rate was calculated as Arm B: PH FDC SC minus Arm A: P+H IV.|||13.45|-15.21|
91885215|NCT01351805|183664146|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|8.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|15.31||IL-6 from baseline to one year: overall % change= 8.19% (95%CI 1.52-15.31).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and n-3 fatty acid randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||15.31|1.52|0.02
91806027|NCT01315678|183488544|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.66|||Regression, Cox|||||1.66|0.76|0.6031
91885216|NCT01351805|183664146|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|-0.73||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|5.81||4\. IL-6 from baseline to one year: overall % change= -0.73% (95%CI -6.87 to 5.81).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and vitamin D randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||5.81|-6.87|0.97
91885217|NCT01351805|183664146|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicative interaction between strata based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1,p for interaction between strata.||||||0.12||||||Test of multiplicative interaction between the effects of the two supplements|p for interaction|||Test for interaction between effect of vitamin D and effect of omega-3 fatty acids on IL-6 change from baseline to 1 year||||0.12
91885218|NCT01351805|183664147|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|7.12||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|16.87||3\. HsCRP from baseline to one year: overall % change= 7.12% (95%CI -1.81-16.78).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and n-3 fatty acid randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||16.87|-1.81|0.16
91885219|NCT01351805|183664147|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|-3.89||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|4.86||6\. HsCRP from baseline to one year: overall % change= -3.89% (95%CI -11.92-4.86).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and vitamin D randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||4.86|-11.92|0.44
91806028|NCT01315678|183488545|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||||1.44|0.49|0.4861
91885220|NCT01351805|183664147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||P for interaction|||Test for multiplicative interaction between effect of vitamin D and effect of omega-3. based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1.||||0.38
91885221|NCT01351805|183664148|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|0.63||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.31||2\. TNFR2 from baseline to one year: overall % change= 0.63% (95%CI -1.03 to 2.31).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and n-3 fatty acid randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||2.31|-1.03|0.57
91885222|NCT01351805|183664148|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|-1.27||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.39||5\. TNFR2 from baseline to one year: overall % change= -1.27% (95%CI -2.89 to 0.39).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and vitamin D randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||0.39|-2.89|0.13
91885223|NCT01351805|183664148|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicative interaction between strata based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1 with p for interaction between strata.||||||0.74|||||||P for interaction|||Test for multiplicative interaction between effect of vitamin D and effect of omega-3. based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1.||||0.74
91885224|NCT01351805|183664149|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.61|0.05
91755668|NCT02429791|183404351|OTHER|||||||0.048||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 48)|ANCOVA|||||||0.048
91755669|NCT02429791|183404351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.569||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.048|-0.09||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||-0.090|-3.048|0.038
91755670|NCT02429791|183404354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.002
91755671|NCT02429791|183404354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91755672|NCT02429791|183404354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs Total score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.024
91755673|NCT02429791|183404354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91755674|NCT02429791|183404354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91755675|NCT02429791|183404354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.005
91755676|NCT02429791|183404354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.063
91885225|NCT01351805|183664149|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.67|0.19
91885226|NCT01351805|183664149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||P for interaction|p multiplicative interaction between effects of vitamin D and n-3 fa supplements||Test for multiplicative interaction between the effects of randomized treatment groups, vitamin D and n-3 fa on incidence of autoimmune disease.||||0.20
91885227|NCT01351805|183664150|OTHER|We assessed the main effects of the treatment arms comparing all those randomized to omega-3 fatty acids or omega-3 fatty acid placebo, regardless of vitamin D randomization status.||||||0.77||||||Repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess effect of treatment on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and other treatment. Linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time in treatment vs placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures model with censoring for total knee replacement.||Intention to treat analysis using a repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess the effect of treatment arm on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and the other treatment arm. The linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time between participants randomized to treatment versus placebo.||||0.77
91755677|NCT02429791|183404354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.002
91755678|NCT02429791|183404354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.099
91755679|NCT04201093|183404389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-9.2|-13.8|<0.0001
91755680|NCT04201093|183404389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-9.8||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-9.8|-14.4|<0.0001
91755681|NCT04201093|183404390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-1.7|-3.3|<0.0001
91755682|NCT04201093|183404390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-1.7|-3.4|<0.0001
91755683|NCT04201093|183404391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.339|11.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.321|3.339|<0.0001
91755684|NCT04201093|183404391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.968|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|11.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.062|3.220|<0.0001
91889148|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||1.4|-7.9|
91885228|NCT01351805|183664150|OTHER|We assessed the main effects of the treatment arms comparing all those randomized to vitamin D or vitamin D placebo, regardless of omega-3 fatty acid randomization status.||||||0.41||||||Repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess effect of treatment on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and other treatment. Linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time in treatment vs placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear time by treatment interaction (comparing change in WOMAC pain over time in two randomized groups)||Intention to treat analysis using a repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess the effect of treatment arm on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and the other treatment arm. The linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time between participants randomized to treatment versus placebo.|We assessed for effect modification between vitamin D and N-3 FA and tested for other pre-specified interactions. We again used a repeated measures model with censoring for TKR. We adjusted for age, sex and N-3 FA treatment arm (in analyses in which N-3 FA treatment arm was not investigated as a potential modifier).|||0.41
91885229|NCT01351805|183664150|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Differences in WOMAC pain scores in stratified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Active n3fa vs placebo n3fa among those on placebo vitamin D.||||0.42
91885230|NCT01351805|183664150|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Differences in WOMAC pain scores in stratified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Vitamin D vs. vitamin D placebo among those on placebo omega-3 fatty acids- stratified analyses.||||0.18
91885231|NCT01351805|183664150|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Report only in final year. Differences in WOMAC pain scores in cross-classified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Omega-3 fatty acids vs. omega-3 fatty acids placebo among those on active vitamin D.||||0.84
91885232|NCT01351805|183664150|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Report only in final year. Differences in WOMAC pain scores in cross-classified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Omega-3 fatty acids vs. omega-3 fatty acids placebo among those on placebo vitamin D.||||0.76
91885233|NCT01351805|183664151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||HR with 95%CI|Regression, Cox|||HR for incident autoimmune disease in intervention groups vs. placebo (ref=1.0) using Cox models with 95% confidence intervals||||<0.05
91885234|NCT04292470|183664154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
91885235|NCT04292470|183664155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||For statistical testing, we used a general linear model of change in GERD symptoms from baseline to 8 weeks adjusted for the natural log of the index value (of the ratio of the change in skin conductance between patient and physician at baseline) and randomization assignment.||||0.09
91885236|NCT02906020|183664170|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|=|0.1679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.27||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||Least-squares (LS) mean, standard errors (SE) and p-value were estimated from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time point interaction.||6.27|-1.10|=0.1679
91885237|NCT02906020|183664171|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|=|0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|2.68||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||LS mean, SE and P-value were estimated from MMRM analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time point interaction.||2.68|-4.63|=0.5996
91885238|NCT02906020|183664172|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|=|0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|8.32||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||LS mean, SE and P-value were estimated from MMRM analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time-interaction||8.32|-0.06|=0.0535
91885239|NCT02906020|183664173|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||LS mean, SE and P-value: estimated from MMRM analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time-interaction.||0.17|-0.12|=0.7400
91885240|NCT02701062|183664177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2593
91885241|NCT02701062|183664178|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91755685|NCT04201093|183404392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.2|-13.8|<0.0001
91755686|NCT04201093|183404392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-9.8||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.8|-14.4|<0.0001
91755687|NCT04201093|183404393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-9.1||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.1|-14.4|<0.0001
91885242|NCT02701062|183664179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1238|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1238
91885243|NCT02701062|183664180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOS (Total)||||0.6603
91885244|NCT02701062|183664180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0783|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOS (Post-Procedure)||||0.0783
91885245|NCT02701062|183664180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Readmission LOS (per subject)||||0.4282
91885246|NCT02701062|183664181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6603
91885247|NCT02701062|183664181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0783|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOS (Post-Procedure)||||0.0783
91885248|NCT02701062|183664181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Readmission LOS (per subject)||||0.4282
91885249|NCT02701062|183664182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5442|||||||Fisher Exact|||Reoperation||||0.5442
91885250|NCT02701062|183664182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2598|||||||Fisher Exact|||ED Visit||||0.2598
91885251|NCT02701062|183664182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5442|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neurologic Consult||||0.5442
91885252|NCT02701062|183664182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2921|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hospital Readmission (per subject)||||0.2921
91885253|NCT00559377|183664302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comparing FMISO Hypoxic Volume to overall survival||||.42
91885254|NCT00559377|183664302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comparing FMISO T:Bmax to overall survival||||.87
91885255|NCT00559377|183664303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comparison of FMISO Hypoxic Volume to disease-free survival||||.58
91885256|NCT00559377|183664303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comarison of FMISO T:Bmax to progression-free survival||||.98
91885257|NCT00559377|183664304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.004|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation|||The correlation between IHC values and FMISO uptake were analyzed using Spearman correlation where p values less than 0.05 were considered significant.||||<0.05
91885258|NCT00203047|183664315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11820976||0.8023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.26|0.8023
91885259|NCT02229227|183664319|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than or equal to 0.3%, non-inferiority will be concluded.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17||Non-inferiority p-value. P-value from testing the null hypothesis that the difference in change from baseline least squares means (albiglutide-insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean of albiglutide + insulin glargine from insulin lispro + insulin glargine has been presented.|||0.17|-0.05|<0.0001
91885260|NCT02229227|183664321|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.6||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for Baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||0.60|0.31|<0.0001
91885261|NCT02229227|183664322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-3.82|||t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||-3.82|-4.93|<0.0001
91885262|NCT02229227|183664323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-1.0|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 4 has been presented.|Week 4||-1.00|-1.43|
91885263|NCT02229227|183664323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-1.55|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 5 has been presented.|Week 5||-1.55|-2.05|
91885264|NCT02229227|183664323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-2.82|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 10 has been presented.|Week 10||-2.82|-3.51|
91885265|NCT02229227|183664323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-3.54|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 18 has been presented.|Week 18||-3.54|-4.48|
91885266|NCT02229227|183664323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-3.82|||t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 26 has been presented.|Week 26||-3.82|-4.93|<0.0001
91885267|NCT02229227|183664324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.57|-55.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||-55.10|-66.57|<0.0001
91755688|NCT04201093|183404393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-9.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.3|-14.7|<0.0001
91755689|NCT04201093|183404394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I: Week 26||0.5|-1.0|0.4822
91885268|NCT02229227|183664325|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.07|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-0.07|-0.18|<0.0001
91885269|NCT02229227|183664325|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.02|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||-0.02|-0.15|<0.0001
91885270|NCT02229227|183664325|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.17|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||0.17|-0.01|<0.0001
91885271|NCT02229227|183664325|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.21|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||0.21|0.01|<0.0001
91885272|NCT02229227|183664325|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||0.17|-0.05|<0.0001
91885273|NCT02229227|183664326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||-0.25|-0.86|0.0004
91885274|NCT02229227|183664327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.24|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-0.24|-0.84|
91885275|NCT02229227|183664327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||0.13|-0.51|
91885276|NCT02229227|183664327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.22|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||-0.22|-0.85|
91885277|NCT02229227|183664327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||-0.25|-0.86|0.0004
91885278|NCT02229227|183664328|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||Non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for Baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||1.31|0.71|0.7026
91885279|NCT02229227|183664329|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.64||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4|Week 4||1.64|0.84|0.2883
91885280|NCT02229227|183664329|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.15||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||1.15|0.59|0.3034
91885281|NCT02229227|183664329|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||0.98|0.52|0.0151
91885282|NCT02229227|183664329|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||1.03|0.54|0.0518
91885283|NCT02229227|183664329|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||1.31|0.71|0.7026
91885284|NCT02229227|183664330|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.17||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||1.17|0.63|0.2298
91885285|NCT02229227|183664331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.23||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||2.23|0.78|0.2143
91806029|NCT00790023|183488553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.32||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.32|0.57|<0.0001
91806030|NCT00790023|183488553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.45||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.45|0.70|<0.0001
91806031|NCT00790023|183488554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||1.25|0.50|<0.0001
91806032|NCT00790023|183488554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||1.37|0.63|<0.0001
91806033|NCT00790023|183488555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.95|0.28|0.0004
91806034|NCT00790023|183488555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.94|0.27|0.0005
91885286|NCT02229227|183664331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.4703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.91||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||1.91|0.80|0.4703
91885287|NCT02229227|183664331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.14||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||1.14|0.58|0.2139
91806035|NCT00004978|183488590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||P-value is 2-sided using an alpha of .05.|Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio is from unadjusted proportional hazards regression model.|HR is for rIL-2 vs control.|||1.16|0.75|.55
91806036|NCT00004978|183488591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.74|.62
91806037|NCT00004978|183488592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.69|.42
91806038|NCT00004978|183488593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.73|.41
91806039|NCT00004978|183488594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|159.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.0|174.0|||||treatment difference (rIL2 - no rIL2) estimated from a longitudinal model that considers CD4+ measured at followup visits|||174|145|
91806040|NCT00004978|183488596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.0|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio (rIL-2 vs. no rIL-2) for first change in antiretroviral treatment.||||1.00|0.88|.07
91806041|NCT00004978|183488597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.41|||Regression, Cox||HR (IL-2 vs control) for first grade 4 event, ITT analysis.|||1.41|1.07|.003
91806042|NCT00004978|183488598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.97
91806043|NCT00004978|183488599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.76|.74
91806044|NCT02155608|183488611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .38, df = 1/228.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.54
91806045|NCT02155608|183488611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=39.97, df = 1/228||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||<.0001
91806046|NCT02155608|183488611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 8.12, df = 1/228.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.005
91885288|NCT02229227|183664331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.11||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||1.11|0.59|0.0790
91755690|NCT04201093|183404394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.7742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I: Week 26||0.6|-0.9|0.7742
91885289|NCT02229227|183664331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.17||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||1.17|0.63|0.2298
91885290|NCT02229227|183664332|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.77||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||4.77|0.24|0.8292
91755691|NCT04201093|183404394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II: Week 26||-1.7|-3.3|<0.0001
91755692|NCT04201093|183404394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II: Week 26||-1.7|-3.4|<0.0001
91755693|NCT04201093|183404394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-7.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III: Week 26||-7.3|-10.8|<0.0001
91755694|NCT04201093|183404394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-7.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III: Week 26||-7.6|-11.2|<0.0001
91755695|NCT04201093|183404395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.3|-0.6|<0.0001
91755696|NCT04201093|183404395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.2|-0.5|<0.0001
91755697|NCT04201093|183404396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
91755698|NCT04201093|183404396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
91885291|NCT02229227|183664334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.19|-53.57|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-53.57|-59.19|
91885292|NCT02229227|183664334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.78|-59.62|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||-59.62|-67.78|
91755699|NCT04201093|183404397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
91755700|NCT04201093|183404397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
91755701|NCT04201093|183404398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.6047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.5|-0.8|0.6047
91885293|NCT02229227|183664334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.29|-56.7|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||-56.70|-67.29|
91885294|NCT02229227|183664335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.3|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||0.30|-2.25|
91885295|NCT02229227|183664335|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.33|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||2.33|-1.64|
91885296|NCT02229227|183664335|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|2.69|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||2.69|-2.21|
91885297|NCT02229227|183664335|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.04|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||3.04|-2.25|0.7699
91885298|NCT02229227|183664336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.17|-53.94|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-53.94|-58.17|
91885299|NCT02229227|183664336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.68|-61.85|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||-61.85|-67.68|
91885300|NCT02229227|183664336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.69|-59.15|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||-59.15|-66.69|
91885301|NCT02229227|183664336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.85|-57.81|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|week 26||-57.81|-65.85|<0.0001
91885302|NCT02229227|183664338|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|4.86||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||4.86|2.52|<0.0001
91755702|NCT04201093|183404398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.3|-1.0|0.2570
91755703|NCT04201093|183404399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||1.1|-1.4|0.8516
91885303|NCT02229227|183664339|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.6||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||3.60|1.54|<0.0001
91885304|NCT02229227|183664340|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|6.48||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||6.48|2.21|<0.0001
91755704|NCT04201093|183404399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.6421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||1.0|-1.6|0.6421
91885305|NCT01453023|183664372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.4|||||Day 1 HR. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||0.4|-8.8|
91885306|NCT01453023|183664372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|8.5|||||Day 14 HR. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||8.5|-1.1|
91885307|NCT01453023|183664373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.7|||||Day 1 QTcF. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||6.7|-4.4|
91885308|NCT01453023|183664373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.5|||||Day 14 QTcF. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||5.5|-6.0|
91885309|NCT02869867|183664395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.31|2.09|<0.001
91885310|NCT00820664|183664398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.49|||<|0.001||95.0|0.31|1.0||1-sided, alpha=0.05|ANOVA|A one-way ANOVA model with term treatment was fit to the square root transformed response.||||1.00|0.31|<0.001
91885311|NCT00820664|183664398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.19||||0.032||95.0|0.02|1.0||1-sided, alpha=0.05|ANOVA|A one-way ANOVA model with term treatment was fit to the square root transformed response.||||1.00|0.02|0.032
91889149|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||-0.4|-10.6|
91885312|NCT01667549|183664424|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA were done with type of cereal as within-subjects and experimental group as grouping factors. When significant, planned comparisons were carried out. ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month exposure differed from the no-exposure control (timing hypothesis). ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month differed from 3-months exposure and whether these groups differed from no-exposure control (duration hypothesis).||||||0.02||||||Bonferroni adjustment was made and only planned pairwise comparisons with calculated p values of 0.02 or lower significant.|planned comparison|Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned pair-wise comparisons with calculated p value 0.02 or lower were considered significant.||Separate analyses of variance with a priori contrasts specified were conducted: 1) to determine whether the 1-month exposure groups (1M0.5, 1M1.5, and 1M2.5) differed from the no-exposure control group to test the hypothesis that the timing of exposure affected acceptance; and 2) to determine whether 1 month of exposure differed from 3 months (1M0.5, 3M0.5 groups) and whether these groups differed from the no-exposure control group (duration hypothesis).||||0.02
91885313|NCT01667549|183664425|OTHER||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted on maternal gLMS ratings with type of juice and time as the within-subject factors and experimental group as the grouping factor||||<0.02
91755705|NCT02596230|183404411|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.634||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.249||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||1.249|0.322|0.188
91755706|NCT02596230|183404412|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.017||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||2.017|0.300|0.606
91755707|NCT02596230|183404413|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|1.885||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||1.885|0.299|0.542
91755708|NCT02596230|183404414|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|"Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.~Hazard Ratio is actually \<0.01~95% Confidence Interval is not calculable (NA) due to insufficient number of participants with events."|||||0.996
91755709|NCT02596230|183404415|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.828||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||1.828|0.402|0.690
91755710|NCT03270891|183404468|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.0115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and 6 month values||||0.0115
91755711|NCT03270891|183404468|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 6 month comparison||||0.027
91755712|NCT03270891|183404469|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline p value to six month||||0.0327
91755713|NCT03270891|183404469|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.2088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 6 month comparison p value||||0.2088
91755714|NCT03270891|183404470|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.947|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 6 month comparison||||0.947
91755715|NCT00849108|183404479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|0.769||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|0.884||P-Value for sensitivity comparison of PET MPI for the same reader|McNemar|two-sided McNemar test with 1 degree of freedom.|No standard deviation can be calculated for PET sensitivity|||0.884|0.655|0.02
91755716|NCT00849108|183404479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.596||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|0.73||p-value for sensitivity comparison for SPECT MPI for the same reader|McNemar||No standard deviation can be calculated for SPECT sensitivity|||0.730|0.463|0.02
91755717|NCT00849108|183404481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PET specificity|0.877||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|0.952||p-value for comparison of PET specificity for same reader|McNemar||no standard deviation for PET specficity|||0.952|0.801|0.317
91755718|NCT00849108|183404481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SPECT specificity|0.836||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.921||p-value for comparison of SPECT specificity for same reader|McNemar||no standard deviation for SPECT specificity|||0.921|0.751|0.317
91755719|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||60.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.85|60.66
91755720|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||95.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.47|0.97|95.21
91755721|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||74.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.88|74.29
91885314|NCT01667549|183664426|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA were done with type of cereal as within-subjects and experimental group as grouping factors. When significant, planned comparisons were carried out. ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month exposure differed from the no-exposure control (timing hypothesis). ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month differed from 3-months exposure and whether these groups differed from no-exposure control (duration hypothesis).|||||<|0.02||||||Because three comparisons were made for each outcome measure, a Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P's\<0.02 were considered significant.|planned comparison|a Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P's\<0.02 were considered significant.||Separate analyses of variance with a priori contrasts specified were conducted: 1) to determine whether the 1-month exposure groups (1M0.5, 1M1.5, and 1M2.5) differed from the no-exposure control group to test the hypothesis that the timing of exposure affected acceptance; and 2) to determine whether 1 month of exposure differed from 3 months (1M0.5, 3M0.5 groups) and whether these groups differed from the no-exposure control group (duration hypothesis).||||<0.02
91885315|NCT01667549|183664427|OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||Because three comparisons were made for each outcome measure, a Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P\<0.02 were considered significant.|planned comparison|A Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P's\<0.02 were considered significant.||Separate analyses of variance with a priori contrasts specified 1) to determine whether the 1-month exposure groups (1M0.5, 1M1.5, and 1M2.5) differed from the no-exposure control group to test the hypothesis that the timing of exposure affected acceptance; and 2) to determine whether 1 month of exposure differed from 3 months (1M0.5, 3M0.5 groups) and whether these groups differed from the no-exposure control group (duration hypothesis).||||<0.02
91885316|NCT01667549|183664428|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||General linear models were conducted on WLZ scores with time as the within-subjects factor and Group as the between-subjects factor to determine there were differences in growth of the infants over time. This was not done to test hypothesis but to monitor growth of infants during course of trial.||||<0.05
91885317|NCT01407276|183664429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.11|||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|GMR of Panel A:Panel B||||1.11|0.80|
91908859|NCT04869345|183713234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|4.54||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Interference scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||4.54|-0.12|0.063
91755722|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.29||||99.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.58||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.58|1.06|99.48
91755723|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.87||||13.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.66|13.98
91755724|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.28||||97.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.62||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.62|1.01|97.92
91755725|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||80.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.54|0.84|80.24
91755726|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.3||||97.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.66||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.66|1.01|97.79
91755727|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||51.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.81|51.27
91759824|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.03||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-3.88|
91755728|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||90.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.93|90.66
91755729|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||54.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.90|54.89
91755730|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||94.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.24|0.98|94.45
91755731|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.09||||94.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.98|94.09
91755732|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||62.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.91|62.95
91755733|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||96.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.26||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.26|0.99|96.86
91755734|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.09||||94.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.98|94.16
91755735|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.86|48.99
91755736|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||94.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.98|94.51
91755737|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||94.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.97|94.59
91755738|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||61.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.86|61.27
91759825|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.17||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.17|-5.00|
91885318|NCT01407276|183664429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.61|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.61|1.12|
91885319|NCT01407276|183664429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|1.85|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||1.85|1.32|
91908860|NCT04869345|183713235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.13||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Physical Functioning scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||2.13|-1.63|0.792
91755739|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||96.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.34||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.No|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.34|0.99|96.63
91755740|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||94.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.97|94.02
91755741|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||53.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.87|53.24
91755742|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||70.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.91|70.84
91755743|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||74.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.92|74.15
91755744|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||65.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.24|0.87|65.43
91755745|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||97.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.99|97.15
91755746|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||63.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.34||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.34|0.81|63.99
91806047|NCT02155608|183488611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F = 28.96, df = 1/228.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||<.0001
91885320|NCT01407276|183664429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR or Panel G:Panel H|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.55|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.55|1.40|
91885321|NCT01407276|183664429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|2.66|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.66|1.46|
91885322|NCT01407276|183664430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.12|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.12|0.79|
91885323|NCT01407276|183664430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.41|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.41|0.91|
91885324|NCT01407276|183664430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.23|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||1.23|0.66|
91885325|NCT01407276|183664430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.96|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.96|0.57|
91885326|NCT01407276|183664430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|0.95|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.95|0.56|
91755747|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||91.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.41||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.41|0.94|91.99
91755748|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||76.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.94|76.81
91755749|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||67.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Central; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.95|67.01
91755750|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||63.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.85|63.91
91755751|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.18||||96.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.99|96.47
91755752|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||72.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.93|72.17
91755753|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||74.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|74.38
91755754|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||53.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.90|53.85
91755755|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||95.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.98|95.02
91755756|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||92.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.97|92.27
91885327|NCT01407276|183664431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.05|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.05|0.81|
91885328|NCT01407276|183664431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.33||||||90.0|1.07|1.65|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.65|1.07|
91885329|NCT01407276|183664431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.65|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||1.65|1.13|
91885330|NCT01407276|183664431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.79|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||1.79|1.06|
91885331|NCT01407276|183664431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.68|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||1.68|1.00|
91885332|NCT01407276|183664432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.12|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.12|0.75|
91885333|NCT01407276|183664432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.76|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.76|1.19|
91885334|NCT01407276|183664432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|2.24|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||2.24|1.49|
91755757|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||54.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.88|54.65
91759826|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.21||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.21|-4.20|
91885335|NCT01407276|183664432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|2.54|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.54|1.41|
91885336|NCT01407276|183664432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.52|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.52|1.40|
91885337|NCT01407276|183664433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.42|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.42|0.87|
91885338|NCT01407276|183664433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.07|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.07|0.53|
91885339|NCT01407276|183664433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.92|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.92|0.51|
91885340|NCT01407276|183664433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.98|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||0.98|0.50|
91885341|NCT01407276|183664433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.12|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||1.12|0.57|
91885342|NCT01407276|183664434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.25|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.25|0.90|
91885343|NCT01407276|183664434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.89|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||0.89|0.62|
91885344|NCT01407276|183664434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.76|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.76|0.54|
91885345|NCT01407276|183664434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.71|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||0.71|0.39|
91885346|NCT01407276|183664434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.68|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||0.68|0.38|
91885347|NCT01407276|183664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.18|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.18|0.74|
91885348|NCT01407276|183664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.96|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||0.96|0.55|
91885349|NCT01407276|183664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.54|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.54|0.33|
91885350|NCT01407276|183664436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.07|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.07|0.69|
91885351|NCT01407276|183664436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.15|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.15|0.70|
91885352|NCT01407276|183664436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.67|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.67|0.37|
91885353|NCT01407276|183664437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.07|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.07|0.69|
91885354|NCT01407276|183664437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.15|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.15|0.70|
91885355|NCT01407276|183664437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.67|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.67|0.37|
91885356|NCT04092452|183664451|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69||0.4696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|16.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||The null hypothesis for primary efficacy analysis was that the percentage of participants achieving HiSCR response at Week 16 was the same for the active treatment (PF-06650833, PF-06700841 or PF-06826647) and placebo. The treatment was considered superior to control if the difference was statistically significant at the overall 1-sided 0.1 level.||16.7|-15.2|0.4696
91885357|NCT04092452|183664451|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.71||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|34.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||The null hypothesis for primary efficacy analysis was that the percentage of participants achieving HiSCR response at Week 16 was the same for the active treatment (PF-06650833, PF-06700841 or PF-06826647) and placebo. The treatment was considered superior to control if the difference was statistically significant at the overall 1-sided 0.1 level.||34.6|2.7|0.0298
91885358|NCT04092452|183664451|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|19.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||The null hypothesis for primary efficacy analysis was that the percentage of participants achieving HiSCR response at Week 16 was the same for the active treatment (PF-06650833, PF-06700841 or PF-06826647) and placebo. The treatment was considered superior to control if the difference was statistically significant at the overall 1-sided 0.1 level.||19.6|-12.6|0.3606
91885359|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|8.0||||||Week 1||8.0|-15.6|
91885360|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|11.1||||||Week 1||11.1|-12.9|
91885361|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|17.8||||||Week 1||17.8|-8.5|
91885362|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|22.8||||||Week 2||22.8|-6.9|
91885363|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|22.2||||||Week 2||22.2|-7.1|
91885364|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|18.3||||||Week 2||18.3|-11.3|
91885365|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|25.1||||||Week 4||25.1|-7.1|
91885366|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|23.5||||||Week 4||23.5|-8.0|
91806048|NCT02155608|183488611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 6.23, df = 1/57.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.02
91806049|NCT02155608|183488611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 4.18, df = 1/57.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
91806050|NCT02155608|183488611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .12, df = 1/57.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.73
91806051|NCT02155608|183488612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance|Chi-squared|Group: F = 8.75, df = 1/168.||Phase 1a: Assessed effects of group and time on categorical measure CGI-I from Baseline through Visit 4.||||.003
91806052|NCT02155608|183488612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|Time: F = 1.69, df = 3/168.||Phase 1a: Assessed effects of group and time on categorical measure CGI-I from Baseline through Visit 4.||||.17
91806053|NCT02155608|183488612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|Group: Chi-square = .53, df = 1.||Phase 1b: Assessed effects of group on categorical measure CGI-I from at Visit 5 compared to baseline.||||.46
91806054|NCT02155608|183488613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F=.01; df =1/209.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.91
91806055|NCT02155608|183488613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=13.03; df = 1/209.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.0004
91806056|NCT02155608|183488613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .83; df = 1/209.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.37
91806057|NCT02155608|183488613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Time2: F = 7.45, df = 1/209.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.007
91806058|NCT02155608|183488613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .19, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.67
91806059|NCT02155608|183488613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .17, df = 1/50.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.68
91806060|NCT02155608|183488613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 2.05, df = 1/50.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.16
91806061|NCT02155608|183488614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01, df = 1/56.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.91
91806062|NCT02155608|183488614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.12, df = .15||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.15
91806063|NCT02155608|183488614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .21, df = 1/56.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.64
91806064|NCT02155608|183488614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .20, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.66
91806065|NCT02155608|183488614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .50, df = 1/47.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.48
91806066|NCT02155608|183488614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .06, df = 1/47.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.81
91806067|NCT02155608|183488615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .02, df = 1/55.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.89
91755758|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||87.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.95|87.93
91806068|NCT02155608|183488615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.28, df = 1/55.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.14
91908861|NCT04869345|183713235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.09||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Physical Functioning scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.09|-0.69|0.209
91759827|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|-0.72||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.72|-5.17|
91759828|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.23||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.23|-5.65|
91759829|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-1.12||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.12|-5.52|
91759830|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-4.60|
91759831|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-1.68||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.68|-6.07|
91759832|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.34||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.34|-0.10|
91759833|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.05||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.05|-1.36|
91759834|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.48||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.48|-0.94|
91759835|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.38||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.38|-2.01|
91759836|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.12||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.12|-0.79|
91759837|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.82|-1.10|
91759838|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.72||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.72|-1.19|
91759839|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.66||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.66|-2.24|
91759840|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|3.67||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.67|-0.16|
91755759|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||77.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.92|77.57
91755760|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||77.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|77.07
91755761|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||78.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.96|78.42
91755762|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||44.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.93|44.15
91755763|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.89|52.79
91885367|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.4|11.4||||||Week 4||11.4|-19.4|
91885368|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|17.2||||||Week 6||17.2|-15.6|
91755764|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||94.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.24|0.98|94.51
91755765|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||93.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.98|93.16
91755766|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||73.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|73.70
91755767|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||81.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.96|81.04
91755768|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.94|52.58
91885369|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|22.9||||||Week 6||22.9|-9.4|
91885370|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.8|20.2||||||Week 6||20.2|-12.8|
91885371|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.98||0.7798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.2|8.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||8.7|-24.2|0.7798
91806069|NCT02155608|183488615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .06, df = .81.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.80
91806070|NCT02155608|183488615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01, df = 1/58.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.93
91806071|NCT02155608|183488615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.22, df = 1/35.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.15
91806072|NCT02155608|183488615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.23, df = 1/35.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.28
91806073|NCT02155608|183488616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01; df = 1/46.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.91
91806074|NCT02155608|183488616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.62, df = 1/46.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.11
91806075|NCT02155608|183488616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .71; df = .40.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.40
91806076|NCT02155608|183488616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .48. df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.49
91806077|NCT02155608|183488616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.87, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.18
91806078|NCT02155608|183488616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .13, df = 1/38.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.72
91806079|NCT02155608|183488617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F =.25, df = 1/53.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.62
91806080|NCT02155608|183488617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 3.58, df = 1/53.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.06
91806081|NCT02155608|183488617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 2.90, df 1/53.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.09
91806082|NCT02155608|183488617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 3.36, df = 1/58.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.06
91806083|NCT02155608|183488617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 4.20, df = 1/31.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
91806084|NCT02155608|183488617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .66, df = 1/31.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.42
91806085|NCT02155608|183488618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 0.29, df = 1/129.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.29
91806086|NCT02155608|183488618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 5.83, df = 1/129.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.02
91806087|NCT02155608|183488618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.03, df = 1/129.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.31
91806088|NCT02155608|183488618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .16, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.69
91806089|NCT02155608|183488618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .98, df = 1/54.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.33
91806090|NCT02155608|183488618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .88, df = 1/54.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.35
91806091|NCT02155608|183488619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 1.62, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.21
91806092|NCT02155608|183488619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 5.18, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.02
91755769|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||15.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.86|15.85
91755770|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.90|48.69
91755771|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.90|52.25
91755772|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||66.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.91|66.48
91885372|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|16.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||16.8|-15.9|0.4819
91885373|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.19||0.5933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.2|14.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||14.4|-19.2|0.5933
91885374|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.81||0.8421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.1|6.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||6.2|-26.1|0.8421
91885375|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.85||0.209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|24.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||24.2|-8.2|0.2090
91885376|NCT04092452|183664452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.12||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|16.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||16.2|-17.1|0.5183
91885377|NCT04092452|183664453|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|12.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0 or 1||12.1|-12.7|0.5150
91885378|NCT04092452|183664453|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|25.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0 or 1||25.8|-1.4|0.0737
91885379|NCT04092452|183664453|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.7|20.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0 or 1||20.0|-6.7|0.2081
91885380|NCT04092452|183664453|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||0.2957|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|19.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0, 1 or 2||19.4|-9.9|0.2957
91885381|NCT04092452|183664453|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|30.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0, 1 or 2||30.5|0.7|0.0456
91908862|NCT04869345|183713235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.26||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||2.26|-0.35|0.151
91885382|NCT04092452|183664453|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.05||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|24.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0, 1 or 2||24.1|-5.7|0.1558
91885383|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.622|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.16|2.2||||||Week 1||2.20|-26.16|
91885384|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.526|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.09|-1.04||||||Week 1||-1.04|-29.09|
91885385|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.758|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.86|-3.05||||||Week 1||-3.05|-31.86|
91755773|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.88||||9.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.72|9.12
91755774|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||16.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.78|16.95
91755775|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.75|0.89
91755776|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.86|50.40
91755777|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||7.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.76|7.44
91755778|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||56.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.87|56.35
91755779|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||4.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.87|4.03
91755780|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||24.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.89|24.79
91755781|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||77.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.95|77.08
91755782|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||23.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.89|23.07
91755783|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||18.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.88|18.58
91806093|NCT02155608|183488619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 6.89, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.01
91908863|NCT04869345|183713236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.69||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.69|-2.14|0.601
91908864|NCT04869345|183713236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||1.29|-4.60|0.269
91908865|NCT04869345|183713236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|0.61||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.61|-5.47|0.116
91908866|NCT04869345|183713237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline CESD-R-10 scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.22|-0.10|0.479
91908867|NCT04869345|183713237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline CESD-R-10 scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.29|-0.04|0.126
91806094|NCT02155608|183488619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F= 2.16, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.15
91885386|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.465|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.09|3.05||||||Week 2||3.05|-28.09|
91885387|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.338|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.22|12.5||||||Week 2||12.50|-18.22|
91885388|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.438|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.02|10.03||||||Week 2||10.03|-21.02|
91885389|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.214|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.96|13.93||||||Week 4||13.93|-22.96|
91885390|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.131|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.84|0.77||||||Week 4||0.77|-35.84|
91885391|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.507|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.85|15.0||||||Week 4||15.00|-22.85|
91885392|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.452|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.04|29.22||||||Week 6||29.22|-15.04|
91885393|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.688|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.08|7.95||||||Week 6||7.95|-37.08|
91885394|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.808|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.66|13.76||||||Week 6||13.76|-31.66|
91885395|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.057||0.8108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.98|32.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8||32.98|-9.98|0.8108
91885396|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.845||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.28|4.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8||4.98|-37.28|0.1043
91885397|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.355||0.1296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.04|6.9||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8||6.90|-37.04|0.1296
91885398|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.384||0.345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.49|20.42||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12||20.42|-33.49|0.3450
91885399|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.116||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.4|6.04||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12||6.04|-40.40|0.1119
91885400|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.806||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.34|4.37||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.37|-44.34|0.0885
91885401|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.14||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.28|43.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||43.98|-22.28|0.7050
91885402|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.519||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.73|14.48||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.48|-49.73|0.1833
91885403|NCT04092452|183664454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.277||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.76|23.94||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||23.94|-42.76|0.3213
91885404|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|2.9||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.9|-5.9|
91885405|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|2.2||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.2|-6.3|
91885406|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|2.9||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.9|-5.9|
91755784|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||44.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.92|44.94
91885407|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.3||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.3|-5.2|
91885408|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|4.1||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||4.1|-4.3|
91885409|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|4.3||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||4.3|-4.3|
91885410|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|3.8||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.8|-4.5|
91885411|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|2.8||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.8|-5.4|
91885412|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|-0.3||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||-0.3|-8.8|
91755785|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||2.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.00|0.80|2.21
91885413|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|3.3||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.3|-6.5|
91885414|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|0.1||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||0.1|-9.5|
91885415|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|-0.4||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||-0.4|-10.5|
91885416|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|5.6||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||5.6|-3.6|0.6393
91885417|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|4.6||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||4.6|-4.4|0.5178
91885418|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|0.8||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||0.8|-8.5|0.0864
91885419|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.3172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|3.1||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.1|-5.5|0.3172
91885420|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|1.4||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||1.4|-6.8|0.1384
91885421|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|1.5||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||1.5|-7.2|0.1427
91885422|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|2.4||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.4|-7.5|0.1975
91885423|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|0.6||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||0.6|-8.5|0.0755
91885424|NCT04092452|183664455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|2.2||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.2|-7.3|0.1869
91885425|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.659|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|10.59||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||10.59|-17.90|
91885426|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.749|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.16|0.62||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||0.62|-28.16|
91908868|NCT04869345|183713237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.25||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline CESD-R-10 scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.25|-0.12|0.457
91755786|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||6.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.83|6.09
91755787|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||66.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.92|66.60
91755788|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||3.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.81|3.23
91755789|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||20.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.86|20.83
91755790|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||87.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.96|87.60
91755791|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||7.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.84|7.90
91755792|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||23.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.87|23.39
91755793|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||76.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.95|76.16
91806095|NCT02155608|183488619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 4.15, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
91755794|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||22.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal;Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.87|22.54
91806096|NCT02155608|183488619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .07, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.79
91806097|NCT02155608|183488620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.94
91908869|NCT04869345|183713238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.38||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline mDES scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.38|-0.15|0.389
91908870|NCT04869345|183713238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.46||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline mDES scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.46|-0.07|0.157
91755795|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||58.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.91|58.17
91755796|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||6.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.76|6.22
91806098|NCT02155608|183488620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .09, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.76
91806099|NCT02155608|183488620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .75, df =1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.39
91806100|NCT02155608|183488620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 3.06, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.09
91806101|NCT02155608|183488620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .07, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.79
91806102|NCT02155608|183488620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.55, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.22
91885427|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.752|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.91|-3.12||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||-3.12|-31.91|
91885428|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.103|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.91|12.33||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||12.33|-20.91|
91885429|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.904|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.34|14.24||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||14.24|-18.34|
91885430|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.039|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.34|16.68||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.68|-16.34|
91885431|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.227|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.29|16.36||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.36|-17.29|
91885432|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.77|8.63||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||8.63|-24.77|
91885433|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.509|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.35|11.22||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||11.22|-23.35|
91885434|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.71|16.63||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.63|-23.71|
91885435|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.84|4.32||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||4.32|-36.84|
91885436|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.27|8.22||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||8.22|-33.27|
91885437|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.045||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.38|23.96||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||23.96|-12.38|0.7000
91885438|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.876||0.2965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|12.08||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||12.08|-23.70|0.2965
91755797|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||55.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.88|55.85
91885439|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.247||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.83|7.17||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||7.17|-29.83|0.1568
91885440|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.912||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.73|11.17||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||11.17|-24.73|0.2672
91885441|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.517||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.87|0.73||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||0.73|-33.87|0.0576
91885442|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.603||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.74|5.44||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||5.44|-32.74|0.1197
91885443|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.545||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.91|16.65||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.65|-27.91|0.3388
91885444|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.567||0.1376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.12|7.51||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||7.51|-37.12|0.1376
91885445|NCT04092452|183664456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.86||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.12|14.48||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.48|-31.12|0.2741
91885446|NCT04092452|183664457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|10.3||||||Week 4||10.3|-13.0|
91885447|NCT04092452|183664457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.7|1.8||||||Week 4||1.8|-18.7|
91885448|NCT04092452|183664457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|14.1||||||Week 4||14.1|-10.7|
91885449|NCT04092452|183664457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.8372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|17.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||17.7|-4.6|0.8372
91885450|NCT04092452|183664457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|1.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||1.3|-14.1|0.0819
91885451|NCT04092452|183664457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|-0.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||-0.9|-15.2|0.0242
91885452|NCT04092452|183664457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|-2.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||-2.3|-23.1|0.0264
91885453|NCT04092452|183664457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.1|-3.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||-3.9|-25.1|0.0127
91885454|NCT04092452|183664457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.0|-6.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||-6.2|-27.0|0.0059
91885455|NCT04092452|183664457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.97||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.7|3.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||3.5|-22.7|0.1185
91885456|NCT04092452|183664457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.6|-5.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||-5.6|-26.6|0.0040
91885457|NCT04092452|183664457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|-1.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||-1.1|-24.5|0.0418
91885458|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|24.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Pain at its Worst)||24.8|-0.7|0.0559
91885459|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|21.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Pain at its Worst)||21.4|-1.9|0.0758
91885460|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|23.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Pain at its Worst)||23.2|-0.6|0.0637
91755798|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||25.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region;Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|25.44
91755799|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||18.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal;Region; Cetral; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|18.15
91759841|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.04||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.04|-0.81|
91885461|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.84||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|18.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Pain at its Worst)||18.8|-10.3|0.3179
91885462|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|25.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Pain at its Worst)||25.5|-3.5|0.1078
91885463|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|22.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Pain at its Worst)||22.2|-7.0|0.1976
91885464|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32||0.9738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.3|-3.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Pain at its Worst)||-3.6|-34.3|0.9738
91885465|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|22.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Pain at its Worst)||22.9|-11.3|0.2925
91885466|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.18||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.8|13.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Pain at its Worst)||13.7|-19.8|0.6178
91759842|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.57||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.57|-1.26|
91885467|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.04||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.4|-4.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Pain at its Worst)||-4.4|-37.4|0.9769
91885468|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.57||0.6529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.6|13.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Pain at its Worst)||13.2|-21.6|0.6529
91885469|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.36||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.8|4.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Pain at its Worst)||4.3|-29.8|0.8878
91885470|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.9|10.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Pain at its Worst)||10.4|-22.9|0.7259
91885471|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.24||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|31.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Pain at its Worst)||31.6|-2.1|0.0826
91885472|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.7884|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.1|8.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Pain at its Worst)||8.0|-24.1|0.7884
91885473|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.43||0.9326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|1.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Pain at its Worst)||1.1|-33.2|0.9326
91885474|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.681|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.1|12.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Pain at its Worst)||12.2|-22.1|0.6810
91755800|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||8.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.82|8.12
91885475|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.52||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.6|7.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Pain at its Worst)||7.0|-27.6|0.8308
91885476|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.71||0.8063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|7.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Pain at its Worst)||7.4|-24.5|0.8063
91885477|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.27||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|23.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Pain at its Worst)||23.4|-10.4|0.2649
91885478|NCT04092452|183664458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.35||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|22.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Pain at its Worst)||22.4|-11.7|0.3029
91885479|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Average Pain)||21.2|-5.7|0.1687
91885480|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|27.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Average Pain)||27.0|0.6|0.0376
91885481|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.5883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|9.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Average Pain)||9.8|-12.9|0.5883
91885482|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.2|17.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Average Pain)||17.6|-12.2|0.3829
91806103|NCT02155608|183488621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .22, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.64
91885483|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|33.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Average Pain)||33.9|2.5|0.0316
91885484|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.3072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|19.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Average Pain)||19.7|-10.5|0.3072
91885485|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.18||0.8952|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.8|3.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Average Pain)||3.7|-29.8|0.8952
91885486|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.76||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|30.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Average Pain)||30.8|-4.6|0.1157
91885487|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.93||0.4672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|18.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Average Pain)||18.9|-17.1|0.4672
91885488|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.9287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.5|1.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Average Pain)||1.6|-35.5|0.9287
91885489|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.85||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|17.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Average Pain)||17.9|-17.8|0.4984
91885490|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.27||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|3.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Average Pain)||3.9|-33.2|0.9001
91885491|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.53||0.8319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.6|7.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Average Pain)||7.0|-27.6|0.8319
91885492|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.55||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|37.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Average Pain)||37.0|2.3|0.0340
91755801|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||57.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.90|57.39
91885493|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.7359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.4|10.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Average Pain)||10.8|-24.4|0.7359
91755802|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||10|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region;Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.93|10.00
91806104|NCT02155608|183488621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.49, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.19
91806105|NCT02155608|183488621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.49, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.22
91806106|NCT02155608|183488621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 3.95, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
91806107|NCT02155608|183488621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 0.00, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.96
91806108|NCT02155608|183488621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .01, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.92
91806109|NCT02155608|183488622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .07, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.79
91885494|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51||0.9291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.3|1.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Average Pain)||1.3|-33.3|0.9291
91885495|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.44||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.4|16.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Average Pain)||16.9|-17.4|0.5087
91885496|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.8098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.2|8.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Average Pain)||8.1|-27.2|0.8098
91885497|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76||0.8114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.8|7.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Average Pain)||7.2|-24.8|0.8114
91885498|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.44||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|28.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Average Pain)||28.0|-6.4|0.1531
91885499|NCT04092452|183664459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.58||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|20.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Average Pain)||20.7|-14.1|0.3784
91885500|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.661||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.39|3.52||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||3.52|-18.39|0.1321
91885501|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.308||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|-0.14||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||-0.14|-20.90|0.0477
91885502|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.379||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.62|-3.63||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||-3.63|-24.62|0.0134
91885503|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.45|8.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||8.12|-19.45|0.2496
91885504|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.972||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.03|1.2||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||1.20|-25.03|0.0675
91885505|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.054||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.96|1.54||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||1.54|-24.96|0.0730
91806110|NCT02155608|183488622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.10, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.30
91885506|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.892||0.6426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.38|17.88||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||17.88|-11.38|0.6426
91885507|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.457||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.73|6.09||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||6.09|-21.73|0.1776
91885508|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.579||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.28|12.94||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||12.94|-15.28|0.4458
91885509|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.566||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.79|23.68||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||23.68|-7.79|0.7969
91885510|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.09|3.91||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||3.91|-26.09|0.1120
91885511|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.188||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.06|15.16||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||15.16|-15.06|0.5021
91885512|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.296||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.46|18.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||18.12|-12.46|0.6197
91755803|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||29.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.95|29.88
91755804|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||12.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.89|12.63
91759843|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.25||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.25|-1.57|
91759844|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|4.07||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.07|-0.31|
91885513|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.825||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.81|3.22||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||3.22|-25.81|0.1003
91885514|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.908||0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|14.81||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||14.81|-14.50|0.5070
91885515|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.368||0.5283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.74|16.08||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||16.08|-14.74|0.5283
91885516|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.921||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.98|-0.63||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||-0.63|-29.98|0.0431
91885517|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.22|8.45||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||8.45|-21.22|0.2395
91885518|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.617||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.25|18.39||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||18.39|-13.25|0.6054
91885519|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.344||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.91|-6.17||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||-6.17|-36.91|0.0106
91885520|NCT04092452|183664460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.305||0.089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.84|2.77||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||2.77|-27.84|0.0890
91885521|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.963||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.98|3.64||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||3.64|-15.98|0.1505
91885522|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.555||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.19|-1.92||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||-1.92|-20.19|0.0233
91885523|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.926||0.1423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.09|3.41||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||3.41|-16.09|0.1423
91885524|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.202||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|9.7||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||9.70|-14.00|0.3827
91885525|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.741||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.44|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.74|-21.44|0.0624
91885526|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.171||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.04|9.55||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||9.55|-14.04|0.3771
91885527|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.614||0.8247|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.13|22.21||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||22.21|-6.13|0.8247
91885528|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.28|4.33||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||4.33|-22.28|0.1337
91885529|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.523||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.65|19.39||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||19.39|-8.65|0.7357
91885530|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.977||0.9377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|28.55||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||28.55|-0.98|0.9377
91885531|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.29|4.51||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||4.51|-23.29|0.1332
91885532|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.907||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|20.7||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||20.70|-8.60|0.7514
91885533|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.902||0.8433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.67|23.62||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||23.62|-5.67|0.8433
91755805|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||32.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28 The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.91|32.29
91755806|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||69.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.95|69.92
91755807|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||6.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.84|6.10
91755808|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||33.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.89|33.63
91755809|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||86.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.97|86.07
91806111|NCT02155608|183488622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 4.61, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.03
91806112|NCT02155608|183488622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 2.24, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.14
91806113|NCT02155608|183488622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .05, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.82
91806114|NCT02155608|183488622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 3.35, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.07
91885534|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.392||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.64|4.96||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||4.96|-22.64|0.1461
91885535|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.818||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|23.15||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||23.15|-5.86|0.8364
91885536|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.527||0.6085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.68|16.37||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||16.37|-11.68|0.6085
91885537|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.022||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.58|-1.19||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||-1.19|-27.58|0.0365
91885538|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.469||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.5|14.36||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||14.36|-13.50|0.5201
91885539|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.564||0.6813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.05|18.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||18.12|-10.05|0.6813
91885540|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.23||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.91|-4.84||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||-4.84|-31.91|0.0128
91885541|NCT04092452|183664461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.639||0.3181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|10.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||10.12|-18.30|0.3181
91885542|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.19||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||0.19|-0.80|0.1536
91885543|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.02||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||0.02|-0.93|0.0581
91885544|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.01||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||0.01|-0.98|0.0532
91885545|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.31||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||0.31|-0.95|0.2007
91885546|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.06||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||0.06|-1.16|0.0694
91885547|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.23||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||0.23|-1.02|0.1509
91885548|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.5663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.78||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||0.78|-0.64|0.5663
91885549|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.23||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||0.23|-1.13|0.1396
91885550|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.5227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||0.74|-0.69|0.5227
91908871|NCT04869345|183713238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.36||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline mDES scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.36|-0.21|0.593
91759845|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|3.13||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.13|-1.28|
91885551|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.24||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||1.24|-0.24|0.8656
91885552|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.29||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||0.29|-1.13|0.1671
91885553|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.86||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||0.86|-0.62|0.6063
91885554|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.92||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||0.92|-0.59|0.6402
91885555|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.34||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||0.34|-1.11|0.1916
91885556|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456||0.6119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.88||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||0.88|-0.62|0.6119
91885557|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.8||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||0.80|-0.68|0.5568
91885558|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.15||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||0.15|-1.27|0.0976
91885559|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.5001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||0.74|-0.74|0.5001
91885560|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.581|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.83||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||0.83|-0.65|0.5810
91885561|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.34||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||-0.34|-1.80|0.0079
91885562|NCT04092452|183664462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|0.18||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||0.18|-1.31|0.1068
91885563|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.22||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||0.22|-0.72|0.1898
91885564|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.02||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||0.02|-0.88|0.0562
91885565|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|0.16||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||0.16|-0.78|0.1382
91885566|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.2039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.28||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.28|-0.85|0.2039
91885567|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.09||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.09|-1.00|0.0855
91885568|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.39||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.39|-0.74|0.3089
91885569|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.6124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.79||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||0.79|-0.55|0.6124
91885570|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.14||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||0.14|-1.15|0.1003
91885571|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.6875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.87||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||0.87|-0.47|0.6875
91885572|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.21||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||1.21|-0.19|0.8833
91885573|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.25||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||0.25|-1.11|0.1502
91885574|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.6788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.9||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||0.90|-0.50|0.6788
91885575|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.94||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||0.94|-0.51|0.6835
91885576|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.38||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||0.38|-1.02|0.2237
91806115|NCT02155608|183488623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .36, df = 1/52||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.55
91885577|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.7234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||0.98|-0.46|0.7234
91885578|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.4773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.67||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||0.67|-0.72|0.4773
91885579|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.1||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||0.10|-1.25|0.0818
91885580|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.85||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||0.85|-0.55|0.6397
91885581|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||0.74|-0.67|0.5321
91885582|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.2||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||-0.20|-1.59|0.0167
91885583|NCT04092452|183664463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|0.34||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||0.34|-1.09|0.1963
91885584|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|6.0||||||Week 1||6.0|-10.3|
91885585|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|11.3||||||Week 1||11.3|-7.3|
91885586|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|17.4||||||Week 1||17.4|-3.9|
91885587|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|23.4||||||Week 2||23.4|-2.0|
91885588|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|19.7||||||Week 2||19.7|-4.5|
91885589|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|19.6||||||Week 2||19.6|-4.6|
91885590|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.95|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|20.5||||||Week 4||20.5|-5.7|
91885591|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|28.7||||||Week 4||28.7|1.4|
91885592|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|17.5||||||Week 4||17.5|-8.0|
91885593|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|28.0||||||Week 6||28.0|0.7|
91885594|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|24.0||||||Week 6||24.0|-2.2|
91885595|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|23.9||||||Week 6||23.9|-2.6|
91885596|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|23.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||23.9|-3.6|0.1162
91885597|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|27.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||27.0|-0.8|0.0642
91885598|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.36||0.1664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||21.8|-5.7|0.1664
91885599|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|20.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||20.5|-6.1|0.1882
91885600|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|28.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||28.8|1.1|0.0423
91885601|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|16.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||16.3|-9.7|0.3396
91885602|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.3584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|14.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||14.8|-9.4|0.3584
91885603|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.17||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|28.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||28.3|1.5|0.0367
91885604|NCT04092452|183664464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.2486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|17.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||17.8|-7.4|0.2486
91885605|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.29||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.29|-0.69|
91885606|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|-0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.01|-0.96|
91885607|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.06||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.06|-0.91|
91885608|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.35|-0.95|
91908872|NCT04869345|183713239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.24||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PANAS-GEN scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.24|-0.26|0.933
91908873|NCT04869345|183713239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PANAS-GEN scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.31|-0.19|0.642
91806116|NCT02155608|183488623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .09, df = 1/52||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.34
91806117|NCT02155608|183488623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .06, df = 1/52||Phase 1 a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interaction to test for treatment effects.||||.81
91806118|NCT02155608|183488623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .05, df = 1/59||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.83
91885609|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.08|-1.33|
91885610|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.08|-1.21|
91885611|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.05||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.05|-0.54|
91885612|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.37||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.37|-1.15|
91885613|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.73||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.73|-0.85|
91885614|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.49||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.49|-0.24|
91885615|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.64||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.64|-1.03|
91885616|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.08|-0.66|
91885617|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|1.16||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.16|-0.69|
91885618|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.57||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.57|-1.21|
91885619|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|1.38||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.38|-0.49|
91885620|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|1.12||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.12|-0.79|
91885621|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|0.23||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.23|-1.59|
91885622|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.03|-0.88|
91885623|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.13|-0.96|
91885624|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|-0.25||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.25|-2.24|
91885625|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.13|-1.95|
91885626|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.48||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.48|-0.47|
91885627|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.18||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.75|
91885628|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|0.17||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.17|-0.78|
91885629|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.38||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-0.81|
91885630|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.18||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.97|
91885631|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.14||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.14|-1.05|
91885632|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.00|-0.56|
91885633|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.49||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.49|-0.99|
91885634|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.67||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.67|-0.88|
91806119|NCT02155608|183488623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 4.52, df = 1/43||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.04
91885635|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.34||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.34|-0.38|
91885636|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.6||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.60|-1.06|
91885637|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.87||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.87|-0.86|
91885638|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.99||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.99|-0.81|
91885639|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.62||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.62|-1.11|
91806120|NCT02155608|183488623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .12, df = 1/43||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.73
91885640|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.25||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.25|-0.56|
91885641|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.97||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.97|-0.87|
91885642|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.38||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-1.36|
91885643|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.93||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.93|-0.90|
91885644|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.04||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.04|-0.96|
91885645|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|-0.29||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.29|-2.19|
91885646|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.11||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.11|-2.11|
91885647|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.37||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-0.57|
91885648|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.22||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.22|-0.69|
91885649|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.01|-0.94|
91885650|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.35|-0.83|
91885651|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.11||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.11|-1.03|
91885652|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.19|-0.99|
91885653|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.9||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.90|-0.58|
91885654|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.53||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.53|-0.87|
91885655|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.82||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.82|-0.65|
91885656|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|1.54||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.54|-0.15|
91885657|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.8||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.80|-0.83|
91885658|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.08|-0.62|
91885659|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|1.13||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.13|-0.55|
91885660|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.81||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.81|-0.81|
91885661|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|1.35||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.35|-0.35|
91885662|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.95|-0.81|
91885663|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.37||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-1.30|
91885664|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.84||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.84|-0.92|
91885665|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.2||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.20|-0.75|
91885666|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.13|-1.99|
91885667|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.05||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.05|-1.99|
91885668|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.59||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.59|-0.27|
91885669|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|-0.15||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.15|-0.99|
91885670|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.52||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.52|-0.35|
91885671|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.65||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.65|-0.54|
91885672|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.13||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.13|-1.01|
91908874|NCT04869345|183713239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.32||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PANAS-GEN scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.32|-0.18|0.577
91755810|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||41.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|41.38
91885673|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.85||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.85|-0.33|
91885674|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.6||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.60|-0.83|
91885675|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.12||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.12|-1.49|
91755811|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||24.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|24.88
91885676|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.57||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.57|-0.86|
91885677|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.84||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.84|-0.76|
91885678|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|0.26||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.26|-1.29|
91885679|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.92||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.68|
91885680|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.63||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.63|-0.96|
91885681|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|0.24||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.24|-1.31|
91885682|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.92||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.69|
91885683|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.53||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.53|-1.21|
91885684|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.02|-1.64|
91885685|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|1.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.02|-0.72|
91885686|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.15||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.15|-0.70|
91885687|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|0.32||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.32|-1.44|
91885688|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.01||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.01|-0.83|
91885689|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.49||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.49|-0.39|
91885690|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.1||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.10|-0.75|
91885691|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.42||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.42|-0.46|
91806121|NCT02155608|183488624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 1.62, df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.21
91885692|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.45||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.45|-0.65|
91885693|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.27||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.27|-1.33|
91885694|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.19|-0.91|
91885695|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.00|-0.36|
91885696|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.29||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.29|-1.59|
91755812|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||29.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|29.89
91755813|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||7.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.87|7.13
91885697|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.39||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.39|-0.97|
91885698|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.3||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.30|-0.20|
91755814|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||32.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.90|32.91
91806122|NCT02155608|183488624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .74, df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.39
91885699|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.04||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.04|-1.41|
91885700|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.66||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.85|
91885701|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.66||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.96|
91885702|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|-0.33||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.33|-1.89|
91885703|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.52||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.52|-1.13|
91885704|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.95|-0.86|
91885705|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.01||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.01|-1.73|
91885706|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.03|-0.78|
91885707|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.39||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.39|-0.60|
91885708|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|0.0||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.00|-1.90|
91885709|NCT04092452|183664470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.99||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.99|-1.00|
91885710|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.29||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.29|-0.69|
91885711|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|-0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.01|-0.96|
91885712|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.06||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.06|-0.91|
91885713|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.35|-0.95|
91885714|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.08|-1.33|
91885715|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.08|-1.21|
91806123|NCT02155608|183488624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F = 1.88, df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.18
91806124|NCT02155608|183488624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.56; df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.22
91806125|NCT02155608|183488624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 1.72, df = 1/12.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.21
91806126|NCT02155608|183488624|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Test not valid due to insufficient data.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 0.00, df = 1/0.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||1
91885716|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.05||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.05|-0.54|
91885717|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.37||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.37|-1.15|
91885718|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.73||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.73|-0.85|
91885719|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.49||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.49|-0.24|
91908875|NCT04869345|183713240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PSS scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.13|-0.32|0.403
91806127|NCT02155608|183488624|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Test not valid due to insufficient data.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .87, df = 1/0.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||1
91806128|NCT00869349|183488633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects are reported as mean between-group differences from baseline to 21 months using t-tests to determine the differential effect of the intervention versus the education group.||0.0|-1.1|0.04
91806129|NCT00869349|183488634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.8||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects are reported as mean between-group differences from baseline to 21 months using t-tests to determine the differential effect of the intervention versus the education group.||-0.8|-5.6|0.01
91806130|NCT00869349|183488635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects are reported as mean between-group differences from baseline to 21 months using t-tests to determine the differential effect of the intervention versus the education group.||3.1|0.5|0.01
91806131|NCT03984994|183488720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.27
91806132|NCT03984994|183488721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.22
91885720|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.64||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.64|-1.03|
91885721|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.08|-0.66|
91885722|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|1.16||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.16|-0.69|
91885723|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.57||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.57|-1.21|
91885724|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|1.38||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.38|-0.49|
91885725|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|1.12||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.12|-0.79|
91885726|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|0.23||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.23|-1.59|
91885727|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.03|-0.88|
91755815|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||81.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.96|81.15
91885728|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.13|-0.96|
91885729|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|-0.25||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.25|-2.24|
91885730|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.13|-1.95|
91885731|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.48||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.48|-0.47|
91885732|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.18||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.75|
91885733|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|0.17||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.17|-0.78|
91885734|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.38||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-0.81|
91885735|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.18||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.97|
91885736|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.14||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.14|-1.05|
91885737|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.00|-0.56|
91885738|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.49||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.49|-0.99|
91885739|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.67||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.67|-0.88|
91885740|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.34||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.34|-0.38|
91885741|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.6||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.60|-1.06|
91885742|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.87||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.87|-0.86|
91885743|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.99||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.99|-0.81|
91885744|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.62||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.62|-1.11|
91885745|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.25||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.25|-0.56|
91885746|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.97||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.97|-0.87|
91885747|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.38||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-1.36|
91885748|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.93||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.93|-0.90|
91885749|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.04||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.04|-0.96|
91885750|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|-0.29||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.29|-2.19|
91885751|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.11||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.11|-2.11|
91885752|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.37||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-0.57|
91885753|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.22||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.22|-0.69|
91885754|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.01|-0.94|
91885755|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.35|-0.83|
91885756|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.11||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.11|-1.03|
91885757|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.19|-0.99|
91885758|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.9||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.90|-0.58|
91885759|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.53||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.53|-0.87|
91885760|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.82||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.82|-0.65|
91885761|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|1.54||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.54|-0.15|
91885762|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.8||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.80|-0.83|
91885763|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.08|-0.62|
91885764|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|1.13||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.13|-0.55|
91885765|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.81||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.81|-0.81|
91885766|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|1.35||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.35|-0.35|
91885767|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.95|-0.81|
91885768|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.37||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-1.30|
91885769|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.84||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.84|-0.92|
91885770|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.2||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.20|-0.75|
91885771|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.13|-1.99|
91885772|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.05||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.05|-1.99|
91885773|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.59||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.59|-0.27|
91885774|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|-0.15||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.15|-0.99|
91885775|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.52||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.52|-0.35|
91885776|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.65||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.65|-0.54|
91885777|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.13||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.13|-1.01|
91885778|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.85||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.85|-0.33|
91885779|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.6||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.60|-0.83|
91885780|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.12||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.12|-1.49|
91885781|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.57||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.57|-0.86|
91885782|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.84||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.84|-0.76|
91885783|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|0.26||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.26|-1.29|
91885784|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.92||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.68|
91885785|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.63||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.63|-0.96|
91885786|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|0.24||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.24|-1.31|
91885787|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.92||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.69|
91885788|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.53||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.53|-1.21|
91885789|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.02|-1.64|
91885790|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|1.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.02|-0.72|
91885791|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.15||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.15|-0.70|
91885792|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|0.32||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.32|-1.44|
91885793|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.01||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.01|-0.83|
91885794|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.49||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.49|-0.39|
91885795|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.1||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.10|-0.75|
91885796|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.42||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.42|-0.46|
91885797|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.45||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.45|-0.65|
91885798|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.27||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.27|-1.33|
91885799|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.19|-0.91|
91885800|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.00|-0.36|
91885801|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.29||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.29|-1.59|
91885802|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.39||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.39|-0.97|
91885803|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.3||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.30|-0.20|
91885804|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.04||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.04|-1.41|
91885805|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.66||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.85|
91885806|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.66||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.96|
91885807|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|-0.33||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.33|-1.89|
91755816|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||21.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|21.87
91755817|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||24.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|24.49
91885808|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.52||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.52|-1.13|
91885809|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.95|-0.86|
91885810|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.01||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.01|-1.73|
91885811|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.03|-0.78|
91885812|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.39||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.39|-0.60|
91885813|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|0.0||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.00|-1.90|
91885814|NCT04092452|183664471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.99||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.99|-1.00|
91885815|NCT04092452|183664472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.6||||||Week 4||2.6|-1.7|
91885816|NCT04092452|183664472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.7||||||Week 4||1.7|-2.7|
91885817|NCT04092452|183664472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.2||||||Week 4||3.2|-1.4|
91885818|NCT04092452|183664472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.6||||||Week 8||1.6|-2.7|
91885819|NCT04092452|183664472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|1.0||||||Week 8||1.0|-3.3|
91885820|NCT04092452|183664472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.2||||||Week 8||2.2|-2.2|
91885821|NCT04092452|183664472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6||||||Week 12||1.6|-3.2|
91885822|NCT04092452|183664472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|0.3||||||Week 12||0.3|-4.3|
91885823|NCT04092452|183664472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|2.2||||||Week 12||2.2|-2.6|
91885824|NCT04092452|183664472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|4.2||||||Week 16||4.2|-0.7|
91885825|NCT04092452|183664472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|1.2||||||Week 16||1.2|-3.6|
91885826|NCT04092452|183664472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|2.6||||||Week 16||2.6|-2.4|
91885827|NCT04092452|183664473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.6||||||Week 4||2.6|-1.7|
91885828|NCT04092452|183664473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.7||||||Week 4||1.7|-2.7|
91885829|NCT04092452|183664473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.2||||||Week 4||3.2|-1.4|
91755818|NCT02294734|183404486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||55.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.97|55.52
91755819|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||59.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|(FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12, The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.84|59.55
91755820|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.18||||94.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.46||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|(FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.46|0.96|94.01
91755821|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||82.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12, The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.33|0.90|82.27
91755822|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.31||||99.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|1.06|99.22
91755823|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||46.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.75|46.24
91755824|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.29||||98.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.64||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.64|1.02|98.30
91755825|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.25||||92.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.70|0.92|92.60
91755826|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.38||||99.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.81||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.81|1.05|99.01
91806133|NCT03984994|183488722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|251.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.21
91755827|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||58.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.82|58.80
91806134|NCT03984994|183488723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.28
91806135|NCT00709761|183488752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|53.0||||||95.0|40.7|66.0|||||The estimation parameter represents the percentage of participants experiencing either a CR or a PR.|||66.0|40.7|
91755828|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||86.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.91|86.82
91806136|NCT04950998|183488775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|604.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2560.36||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-813.815|2021.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2021.95|-813.815|0.376
91806137|NCT04950998|183488776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|172.168||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.36|60.324|||t-test, 2 sided|||||60.324|-130.36|.444
91806138|NCT00555971|183488784|EQUIVALENCE|This was a statistical analysis to address the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment and placebo groups.||||||0.036|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
91885830|NCT04092452|183664473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.6||||||Week 8||1.6|-2.7|
91908876|NCT04869345|183713240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS PSS scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.01|-0.44|0.062
91755829|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||67.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.92|67.37
91806139|NCT02557555|183488864|OTHER|P-values corresponding to a test of equal proportions (yes/no- 50%/50%)|||||<|0.0001||||||Researched options for labor pain|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
91806140|NCT02557555|183488864|OTHER|P-values corresponding to a test of equal proportions (yes/no- 50%/50%)|||||<|0.0001||||||Pamphlet better explained options for pain|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
91885831|NCT04092452|183664473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|1.0||||||Week 8||1.0|-3.3|
91806141|NCT02557555|183488864|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pamphlet should be given before onset labor pain|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
91806142|NCT02557555|183488864|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pamphlet information helped to reduce anxiety|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
91806143|NCT02557555|183488864|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Information corrected any misconception|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||0.0002
91806144|NCT02557555|183488864|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Written information should always be available|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
91806145|NCT04967443|183488868|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|108.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||108.43|96.14|
91806146|NCT04967443|183488868|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.68|111.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 2x1 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||111.44|98.68|
91806147|NCT04967443|183488868|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.58|109.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Barceloneta)||109.55|99.58|
91806148|NCT04967443|183488869|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|113.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.79|126.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||126.34|102.79|
91806149|NCT04967443|183488869|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|126.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.32|140.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 2x1 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||140.70|114.32|
91885832|NCT04092452|183664473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.2||||||Week 8||2.2|-2.2|
91885833|NCT04092452|183664473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6||||||Week 12||1.6|-3.2|
91885834|NCT04092452|183664473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|0.3||||||Week 12||0.3|-4.3|
91885835|NCT04092452|183664473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|2.2||||||Week 12||2.2|-2.6|
91885836|NCT04092452|183664473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|4.2||||||Week 16||4.2|-0.7|
91755830|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||98.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|1.01|98.35
91885837|NCT04092452|183664473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|1.2||||||Week 16||1.2|-3.6|
91885838|NCT04092452|183664473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|2.6||||||Week 16||2.6|-2.4|
91885839|NCT04092452|183664474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|9.5||||||Week 4||9.5|-9.1|
91885840|NCT04092452|183664474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|9.8||||||Week 4||9.8|-7.4|
91885841|NCT04092452|183664474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|3.4||||||Week 4||3.4|-11.4|
91885842|NCT04092452|183664474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|11.8||||||Week 8||11.8|-3.3|
91885843|NCT04092452|183664474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|14.2||||||Week 8||14.2|-1.8|
91885844|NCT04092452|183664474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|9.8||||||Week 8||9.8|-4.8|
91885845|NCT04092452|183664474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|16.5||||||Week 12||16.5|-1.3|
91885846|NCT04092452|183664474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|15.7||||||Week 12||15.7|-2.0|
91885847|NCT04092452|183664474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|11.3||||||Week 12||11.3|-5.5|
91885848|NCT04092452|183664474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|6.4||||||Week 16||6.4|-6.3|
91885849|NCT04092452|183664474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|15.7||||||Week 16||15.7|-2.8|
91885850|NCT04092452|183664474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|16.9||||||Week 16||16.9|-1.6|
91885851|NCT02127125|183664480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.025||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Sevelamer treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||<0.025
91885852|NCT02127125|183664480|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Synbiotic treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
91885853|NCT02127125|183664481|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Sevelamer treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
91885854|NCT02127125|183664481|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Synbiotic treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
91885855|NCT02127125|183664482|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Sevelamer treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in Lactulose:Mannitol ratio compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
91885856|NCT02127125|183664482|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Synbiotic treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in Lactulose:Mannitol ratio compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
91885857|NCT01255761|183664488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95 % CI was greater than -10 %, the null hypothesis was rejected and RAPID3 was deemed comparable to CDAI in assessing response to Certolizumab Pegol therapy at 12 weeks.|Difference in proportion|-0.119|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|-0.053||Study was intended to show the comparability of RAPID3 with CDAI. Assessment of whether the study objective was met was based on CIs rather than p-values. Both variables need to be significant to claim comparability between the two assessment tools.|ANCOVA|Difference in proportions from ANCOVA with tool as factor \& Baseline DAS28(ESR), gender, age, prior anti-TNF use \& disease duration as covariates.||"The null hypothesis was: (Proportion of Rapid 3 responders)-(Proportion of CDAI responders) ≤ delta with a delta of -10 %.~A 2-sided 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportion of responders was computed."||-0.053|-0.184|
91885858|NCT01255761|183664489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95 % CI was greater than -15 %, the null hypothesis was rejected and RAPID3 was deemed comparable to CDAI in assessing percent of Week 12 responders achieving LDA at Week 52.|Difference in proportion|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.066||Study was intended to show the comparability of RAPID3 with CDAI. Assessment of whether the study objective was met was based on CIs rather than p-values. Both variables need to be significant to claim comparability between the two assessment tools.|ANCOVA|Difference in proportions from ANCOVA with tool as factor \& Baseline DAS28(ESR), gender, age, prior anti-TNF use \& disease duration as covariates.||"The null hypothesis was: (Proportion of Rapid 3 responders)-(Proportion of CDAI responders) ≤ delta with a delta of -15 %.~A 2-sided 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportion of responders was computed."||0.066|-0.093|
91885859|NCT00658606|183664527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
91755831|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||96.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.99|96.86
91755832|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||86.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.95|86.18
91755833|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.16||||98.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|1.02|98.89
91755834|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||91.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.97|91.94
91759846|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.62||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.62|-1.76|
91885860|NCT00658606|183664528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||No adjustments were made to multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
91885861|NCT00658606|183664529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change from Baseline'||||0.001
91885862|NCT00658606|183664530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Results were adjusted for use of concomitant psoriasis treatment.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change from Baseline'||||0.382
91885863|NCT00658606|183664531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Clear or Almost Clear = Yes'||||0.052
91885864|NCT00658606|183664532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Clear or Almost Clear = Yes'||||0.026
91885865|NCT00658606|183664533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'PASI 90 = Yes'||||0.147
91885866|NCT00658606|183664534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.566
91885867|NCT00658606|183664535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.001
91885868|NCT00658606|183664536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.007
91885869|NCT00658606|183664537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.539||95.0||||Results were adjusted for use of concomitant psoriasis treatment.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change from Baseline'||||0.539
91885870|NCT03170518|183664541|SUPERIORITY|Imputed datasets were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, stratification factors (antihyperglycemic agent background and age group), and baseline HbA1c.|Least square mean difference|-0.76|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.25|= 0.002
91885871|NCT01948076|183664566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91885872|NCT01948076|183664567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.043
91885873|NCT01431950|183664581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||||95.0|-0.039|0.192||||||||0.192|-0.039|
91885874|NCT01210651|183664591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1. Alpha was 2-tailed. P-value was calculated, with p-value \< 0.05 required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|Regression, Generalized Least Squares|||A random-effects, generalized least squares (GLS) regression model for depression severity was used to analyze participant BDI scores measured just before 1st assigned session at 0 wks, and just after assigned sessions at 2 wks, 4 wks, 6 wks and 8 wks. BDI Scores were modeled as correlated within participants but independent between participants. The GLS regression model tested the null hypothesis that no significant effects on BDI scores would be found by intervention and intervention-by-time.||||0.034
91885875|NCT01210651|183664592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1, with P-value calculated using a t-distribution and assuming unequal variances in the two samples. Alpha was two-tailed. P-value \< 0.05 was required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis examined Total Change Scores on BDI, using two sample t-test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Total Change Score on BDI for each intervention group would be statistically comparable.||||0.02
91885876|NCT01210651|183664593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1. Alpha was 2-tailed. P-value was calculated, with a p-value \< 0.05 required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact test evaluated null hypothesis that the proportion of study completers with remitted depression would be statistically comparable in the 2 intervention groups.||||0.018
91806150|NCT04967443|183488869|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|118.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.46|130.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Barceloneta)||130.94|106.46|
91806151|NCT04967443|183488870|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.92|107.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||107.27|94.92|
91755835|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||55.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.88|55.32
91755836|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||97.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|1.00|97.17
91755837|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||96.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.99|96.57
91755838|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||79.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.90|79.13
91755839|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||99.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|1.05|99.54
91755840|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||97.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.30|1.00|97.80
91755841|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||71.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.91|71.94
91755842|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||85.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.94|85.30
91755843|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||82.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.94|82.15
91755844|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||72.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.88|72.55
91806152|NCT04967443|183488870|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.97|108.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 2x1 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||108.57|95.97|
91759847|NCT01393639|183411982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.74||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.74|-1.63|
91885877|NCT01210651|183664594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1, with P-value calculated using a t-distribution and assuming unequal variances in the two samples. Alpha was two-tailed. P-value \< 0.05 was required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis examined Total Change Scores on GSES, using an independent samples t-test to evaluate null hypothesis that Total Change Score on GSES for each intervention group would be statistically comparable.||||0.50
91885878|NCT01210651|183664595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1, with P-value calculated using a t-distribution and assuming unequal variances in the two samples. Alpha was two-tailed. P-value \< 0.05 was required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis examined Total Change Scores on RSES, using an independent samples t-test to evaluate null hypothesis that Total Change Score on RSES for each intervention group would be statistically comparable.||||0.053
91885879|NCT02559310|183664596|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Margin = 12.5%.|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.8|||||Difference in percentage of Responders for ECR (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic.|||2.8|-8.5|
91885880|NCT02559310|183664597|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Margin = 10%.|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.9|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\] and PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||3.9|-8.9|
91885881|NCT02559310|183664597|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin = 10%|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.1|||||Difference in percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit. CI computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic.|||4.1|-9.2|
91885882|NCT02559310|183664598|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin = 10%.|Treatment Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.4|||||Difference in percentage of success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\] and PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||3.4|-8.4|
91885883|NCT02559310|183664598|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin = 10%|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.7|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic|||3.7|-8.7|
91885884|NCT04596540|183664599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|0.48|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.48|0.10|0.0008
91885885|NCT04596540|183664599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|0.56|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.56|0.14|0.0002
91885886|NCT04596540|183664600|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.07|-1.55|||ANCOVA|||||-1.55|-5.07|<0.001
91885887|NCT04596540|183664600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.24|-2.66|||ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-6.24|<0.001
91885888|NCT04596540|183664601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-60.96|-19.27|||ANCOVA|||||-19.27|-60.96|<.001
91885889|NCT04596540|183664601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-74.49|-32.66|||ANCOVA|||||-32.66|-74.49|<.001
91885890|NCT04596540|183664602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.52|10.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.66|2.52|<.001
91885891|NCT04596540|183664602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.011|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.54|8.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.59|0.54|0.011
91885892|NCT04596540|183664603|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.02|0.62|||Chi-squared|||||0.62|-0.02|0.0470
91885893|NCT04596540|183664603|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.39||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.12|0.66|||Chi-squared|||||0.66|0.12|0.0022
91885894|NCT04596540|183664604|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.28||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.05|0.51|||Chi-squared|||||0.51|0.05|0.0096
91885895|NCT04596540|183664604|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.35||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|0.6|||Chi-squared|||||0.60|0.10|0.0028
91885896|NCT04596540|183664605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.55|-1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.98|-7.55|<.001
91885897|NCT04596540|183664605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.42|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-6.42|0.003
91885898|NCT04596540|183664606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.46|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.46|0.018
91885899|NCT04596540|183664606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.785|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.25|0.785
91885900|NCT04596540|183664607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.15|0.08|||ANOVA|||||0.08|-0.15|0.500
91885901|NCT04596540|183664607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.15|0.07|||ANOVA|||||0.07|-0.15|0.421
91885902|NCT04596540|183664608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.634|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.14|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Months 1-3)||0.14|-0.22|0.634
91885903|NCT04596540|183664608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.907|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.19|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Month 1-3)||0.19|-0.17|0.907
91885904|NCT00433511|183664635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm C/Arm A|The primary objective of this trial was to determine whether the addition of bevacizumab improved IDFS. A two-step hierarchical approach was used. In the 1st step, Arm C was to be compared to Arm A. If Arm C significantly improved IDFS relative to Arm A, then in the 2nd step, a comparison of Arm B to Arm A was to be performed. If the treatment in both Arm C and Arm B significantly improved IDFS relative to Arm A, then a comparison of Arm C to Arm B was to be performed with respect to IDFS.||1.06|0.71|0.17
91755845|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||98.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.47||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.47|1.02|98.44
91755846|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.11||||78.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.43|0.86|78.24
91755847|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.23||||96.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.52|0.99|96.80
91806153|NCT04967443|183488870|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.09|109.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Barceloneta)||109.23|99.09|
91885905|NCT00433511|183664636|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm C/Arm A|||1.17|0.68|0.41
91885906|NCT00433511|183664636|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.33||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm B/Arm A|||1.33|0.77|0.92
91885907|NCT00433511|183664636|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.13||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm C/Arm B|||1.13|0.72|0.36
91885908|NCT06193967|183664641|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM frequency (number of days with tracking). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885909|NCT06193967|183664641|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM frequency (number of days with tracking). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885910|NCT06193967|183664642|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|"Linear mixed-factor ANOVA was used with between-subject factors of praise and gamification status, a within-subject factor of time (week), and a dependent variable of DSM frequency.~Results reflect outcomes for main effect of time."|||<0.001
91885911|NCT06193967|183664643|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (proportion of items tracked on day of intake). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885912|NCT06193967|183664643|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (proportion of items tracked on day of intake). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885913|NCT06193967|183664644|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|"Linear mixed-factor ANOVA was used with between-subject factors of praise and gamification status, a within-subject factor of time (week), and a dependent variable of DSM timing (Proportion of Items Tracked on Day of Intake).~Results reflect outcomes for main effect of time."|||0.01
91885914|NCT06193967|183664645|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (number of logging sessions). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885915|NCT06193967|183664645|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (number of logging sessions). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885916|NCT06193967|183664646|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|"Linear mixed-factor ANOVA was used with between-subject factors of praise and gamification status, a within-subject factor of time (week), and a dependent variable of DSM timing (number of loging sessions).~Results reflect outcomes for main effect of time."|||<0.0001
91755848|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||91.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.97|91.11
91806154|NCT04502693|183488874|OTHER|Effectiveness of rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) against the selected strain panel between the MenB\_0\_2\_6 and the ACWY groups is above 65%. VE is defined as 1- Risk Ratio (RR) = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in MenB group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage.|VE (Vaccine Effectiveness)|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|81.9|84.4||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by bactericidal activity using enc-hSBA at 1 month after the 3-dose (0,2,6-months) schedule in MenB\_0\_2\_6 group when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY dose in the ACWY group.||84.4|81.9|
91806155|NCT04502693|183488874|OTHER|"Effectiveness of rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for VE against the selected strain panel between the MenB\_0\_ 6 and the ACWY groups is above 65%.~VE is defined as 1- RR = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in MenB group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage."|VE|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|80.4|83.1||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by bactericidal activity using enc-hSBA at 1 month after the 2-dose (0,6-M) schedule in MenB\_0\_6 group when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY dose in the ACWY group.||83.1|80.4|
91806156|NCT04502693|183488875|OTHER|Effectiveness of rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for VE against the selected strain panel between the MenB\_0\_2\_6 and the ACWY groups is above 65%. VE is defined as 1- RR = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in MenB group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage.|VE|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|77.2|80.1||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by bactericidal activity using enc-hSBA at 1 month after the 2-dose (0,2-M) schedule in MenB\_0\_2\_6 group when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY dose in the ACWY group.||80.1|77.2|
91806157|NCT04502693|183488878|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup A at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.10|0.84|
91806158|NCT04502693|183488878|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup A at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||0.98|0.75|
91806159|NCT04502693|183488878|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup A at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.02|0.78|
91806160|NCT04502693|183488878|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup C at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.11|0.76|
91806161|NCT04502693|183488878|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.41||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup C at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.41|0.97|
91885917|NCT06193967|183664647|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of intrinsic motivation at follow-up, and a covariate of intrinsic motivation at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91806162|NCT04502693|183488878|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.54||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup C at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.54|1.05|
91885918|NCT06193967|183664647|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of intrinsic motivation at follow-up, and a covariate of intrinsic motivation at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885919|NCT06193967|183664648|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of scores for child motivation to change eating behaviors at follow-up, and a covariate of baseline scores. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885920|NCT06193967|183664648|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of scores for child motivation to change eating behaviors at follow-up, and a covariate of baseline scores. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885921|NCT06193967|183664649|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885922|NCT06193967|183664649|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885923|NCT06193967|183664650|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885924|NCT06193967|183664650|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||0.03
91885925|NCT06193967|183664651|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885926|NCT06193967|183664651|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||0.02
91885927|NCT06193967|183664652|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885928|NCT06193967|183664652|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885929|NCT06193967|183664653|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885930|NCT06193967|183664653|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
91885931|NCT02349152|183664655|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG\>180 mg/dl) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha= 0.05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow for dropouts.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.0|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis that there was no difference in the percentage of patients with two or more blood glucose values greater than 180mg/dl between the two groups. Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG\>180 mg/dl) to an absolute value of 20%.||3.0|1.3|0.001
91885932|NCT02349152|183664656|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91908877|NCT04869345|183713240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.09||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PSS scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.09|-0.33|0.269
91908878|NCT04869345|183713241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.33||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 11 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 11 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.33|0.07|0.003
91908879|NCT04869345|183713241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.31|0.05|0.006
91908880|NCT04869345|183713241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.12|-0.15|0.796
91908881|NCT04869345|183713242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 11 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 11 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.05|-0.03|0.758
91755849|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||89.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Cetral; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.97|89.30
91755850|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||74.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.87|74.67
91806163|NCT04502693|183488878|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup W at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.02|0.77|
91806164|NCT04502693|183488878|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup W at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.02|0.77|
91755851|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.23||||98.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.48|1.02|98.25
91759848|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.52|3.55||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.55|-12.52|
91885933|NCT02349152|183664657|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG\>180 mg/dl) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha= 0.05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow for dropouts.||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91885934|NCT02349152|183664658|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Intraoperative Blood Glucose||||0.0001
91885935|NCT02349152|183664658|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Peak Intraoperative Blood Glucose||||0.0003
91885936|NCT02349152|183664658|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Lowest Intraoperative Blood Glucose||||0.98
91885937|NCT02349152|183664659|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean post-operative glucose||||0.14
91885938|NCT02349152|183664659|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Peak Postoperative Blood Glucose||||0.25
91885939|NCT02349152|183664660|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91885940|NCT02349152|183664662|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.401|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prebypass||||0.401
91885941|NCT02349152|183664662|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||30 minutes after the start of CPB||||<0.0001
91885942|NCT02349152|183664662|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of CPB||||<0.0001
91908882|NCT04869345|183713242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.04|-0.04|0.880
91908883|NCT04869345|183713242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.03|-0.05|0.652
91908884|NCT01500759|183713262|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91908885|NCT01500759|183713263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91908886|NCT01500759|183713264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91908887|NCT01500759|183713265|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91908888|NCT02116777|183713292|OTHER|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level was determined by the rolling-6 design.|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum Tolerate Dose Level is Dose Level 4 (600 mcg/m²/dose +30 mg/m2/dose (BMN 673) BID + 30 mg/m²/dose (TEM), Max 1000 mcg/day). MTD determined by using the Rolling-6 Design.|||||
91908889|NCT00166205|183713316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of ITT subjects|69.6||||||95.0|63.8|74.9||||||A sample size of 215, the adverse event (AE) rate at three years could be estimated with precision as determined by the interval half-width of approximately ± 7%.||74.9|63.8|
91908890|NCT00166205|183713317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|75.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.8||||95.0|70.5|80.8||||||||80.8|70.5|
91908891|NCT00166205|183713318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|35.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||||95.0|34.9|36.5||||||||36.5|34.9|
91755852|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||87.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.96|87.80
91908892|NCT00166205|183713319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|51.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.8||||95.0|47.6|54.9||||||||54.9|47.6|
91908893|NCT00166205|183713320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.3||||95.0|9.2|11.7|||||Value at 36 months minus value at baseline. Positive values indicate improved Quality of Life (QOL)|||11.7|9.2|
91908894|NCT00166205|183713321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|5.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||||95.0|5.6|5.8||||||||5.8|5.6|
91908895|NCT00166205|183713323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-sided paired t-test would have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative (i.e., that the SAGB system is not inferior to the clinically meaningful result of 36.2 for 224 subjects) assuming: a standard deviation (SD) of (21.6), an equivalent limit difference of (3.6), and a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91908896|NCT00166205|183713324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|56.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7||||95.0|54.5|58.4||||||||58.4|54.5|
91755853|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||91.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.97|91.54
91908897|NCT00166205|183713325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|114.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.3||||95.0|110.1|118.8||||||||118.8|110.1|
91908898|NCT00166205|183713326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|193.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.9||||95.0|188.6|198.4||||||||198.4|188.6|
91908899|NCT00477165|183713330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.196||p\<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided||Repeated-measures logistic regression model, assuming the citalopram effect builds linearly over time starting at week 3.|Null hypothesis: number of patients achieving adequate relief is the same in both Citalopram and Placebo groups||1.196|0.687|0.59
91908900|NCT01977781|183713334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Only the statistical analysis results for burning sensation at 10 weeks are reported below as they where the only tolerability results found to be significantly different between the two arms. All other tolerability measures were found to be the same between the two groups.||||0.0019
91908901|NCT01097746|183713361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants for optimal ≤ 1 cm||4.98|0.58|0.33
91908902|NCT01097746|183713361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.75||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|13.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||suboptimal \> 1 cm||13.34|1.05|0.04
91908903|NCT00960661|183713369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment contrast (BET minus BBT) at week 30 was less than the non inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11||The primary mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) model included baseline HbA1c as covariate, treatment, country, prior use of SUs, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The primary objective is to test the hypothesis that BET is non inferior to BBT with respect to change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 30.||0.11|-0.18|0.6273
91908904|NCT00143312|183713396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude IFI Rate (percent) at 12 months|7.0||||||95.0|2.0|19.0||||||||19|2|
91908905|NCT00143312|183713396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||IFI Rate (percent) at 12 months|10.0||||||95.0|2.0|27.0||||||||27|2|
91908906|NCT00143312|183713397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||IFI Rate (percent) at 6 months|8.82||||||95.0|2.0|24.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||24|2|
91908907|NCT00143312|183713398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||IFI Rate (percent) at End of Prophylaxis|8.82||||||95.0|2.0|24.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||24|2|
91908908|NCT00143312|183713402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survive free of IFI (percent): 6 months|79.0||||||95.0|64.0|91.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||91|64|
91908909|NCT00143312|183713402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survive free of IFI (percent): 12 months|69.0||||||95.0|52.0|83.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||83|52|
91908910|NCT02970292|183713420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4|||mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.4|-4.5|0.0940
91908911|NCT00531752|183713447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.7947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8848||0.6749|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.649|3.2383||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Positive value for the LS mean difference indicates the estimate favors placebo.|Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.2383|-1.649|0.6749
91908912|NCT00531752|183713447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0343||0.4886|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.218|4.0533||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Positive value for the LS mean difference indicates the estimate favors placebo.|Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.0533|-1.218|0.4886
91908913|NCT00531752|183713448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7713||0.5643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.262|3.3121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.3121|-1.262|0.5643
91908914|NCT00531752|183713448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8777||0.3107|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|4.3392|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.3392|-0.5100|0.3107
91908915|NCT00531752|183713448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.3154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4638||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41601|4.2148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.2148|0.41601|0.1196
91908916|NCT00531752|183713448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.524||0.3872|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.649|3.3065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.3065|-0.6490|0.3872
91908917|NCT00531752|183713453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0269||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.162|1.4971|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.4971|-1.162|0.8708
91908918|NCT00531752|183713453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0912||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.44874|3.2726|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.2726|0.44874|0.0927
91908919|NCT00531752|183713453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9037||0.3405|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3008|2.0329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.0329|-0.3008|0.3405
91908920|NCT00531752|183713453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9622||0.8665|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.08|1.4047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.4047|-1.080|0.8665
91908921|NCT00531752|183713453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3886|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9694||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8694|1.6466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.6466|-0.8694|0.6901
91908922|NCT00531752|183713453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0114||0.179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06498|2.6908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.6908|0.06498|0.1790
91759849|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-2.2||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.20|-18.10|
91908923|NCT00531752|183713453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7508||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.90156|2.8502|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.8502|0.90156|0.0156
91908924|NCT00531752|183713453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7842||0.9573|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.06|0.97559|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.97559|-1.060|0.9573
91908925|NCT00531752|183713453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2517||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.462|1.782|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.7820|-1.462|0.8986
91908926|NCT00531752|183713453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3437||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.071|2.4086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.4086|-1.071|0.6204
91908927|NCT00531752|183713453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8742||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6421|1.6261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.6261|-0.6421|0.5759
91885943|NCT02349152|183664662|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Surgery||||<0.0001
91885944|NCT02349152|183664662|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Postoperative (8 hours)||||0.021
91885945|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b Pre bypass||||0.580
91885946|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b CPB-30||||0.815
91885947|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.715|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the CPB-END||||0.715
91885948|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b post-bypass||||0.330
91885949|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b 8 HR||||0.651
91885950|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.439|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 Pre bypass||||0.439
91885951|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 CPB-30||||0.284
91885952|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the CPB-END||||0.779
91885953|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 post-bypass||||0.274
91885954|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.601|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 8HR||||0.601
91885955|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa Pre-bypass||||0.315
91885956|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa CPB-30||||0.062
91885957|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa CPB-END||||0.090
91885958|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa- post-bypass||||0.004
91885959|NCT02349152|183664663|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa-8HR||||0.074
91885960|NCT02349152|183664664|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH Pre-bypass group||||0.740
91885961|NCT02349152|183664664|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH CPB-30 group.||||<0.0001
91885962|NCT02349152|183664664|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH CPB-END||||<0.0001
91885963|NCT02349152|183664664|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH post-bypass||||<0.0001
91885964|NCT02349152|183664664|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH 8-hr||||0.014
91885965|NCT02349152|183664664|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the GH- Pre-bypass||||0.100
91908928|NCT00531752|183713453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9488||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3552|2.1051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.1051|-0.3552|0.3603
91908929|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6664||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.3659|5.6952|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.6952|1.3659|0.0392
91908930|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7848||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.6177|9.2512|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.2512|4.6177|0.0003
91908931|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1861||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.4544|7.1232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.1232|1.4544|0.0547
91908932|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.6799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3261||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.6655|8.6943|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.6943|2.6655|0.0176
91908933|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5085||0.775|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|3.9704|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.9704|-2.530|0.7750
91908934|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6874||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.521|3.4357|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.4357|-3.521|0.9874
91908935|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2268||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.513|2.2629|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.2629|-3.513|0.7799
91908936|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3365||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08338|6.1438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.1438|0.08338|0.1881
91908937|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9677||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8944|4.2094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.2094|-0.8944|0.4032
91908938|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0796||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.2314|8.6193|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.6193|3.2314|0.0059
91908939|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1098||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.643|3.8273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 6: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.8273|-1.643|0.6067
91908940|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2424||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.3709|7.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 6: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.1860|1.3709|0.0614
91908941|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2086||0.7476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.584|2.1546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.1546|-3.584|0.7476
91908942|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4396||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.499|1.8284|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.8284|-4.499|0.5863
91755854|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||68.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.92|68.89
91908943|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0529||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.771|2.5593|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.5593|-2.771|0.9591
91908944|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2048||0.8442|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.294|2.4238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.4238|-3.294|0.8442
91755855|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||98.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|1.01|98.19
91908945|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0533||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01391|5.3613|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.3613|0.01391|0.1977
91755856|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||94.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.98|94.07
91885966|NCT02349152|183664664|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GH-CPB-30||||<0.0001
91885967|NCT02349152|183664664|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the GH-CPB-END||||0.009
91885968|NCT02349152|183664664|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GH-Post-bypass||||0.046
91885969|NCT02349152|183664664|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the GH-8-hr||||0.695
91885970|NCT02349152|183664664|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon Pre Bypass||||0.455
91885971|NCT02349152|183664664|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon CPB-30||||0.059
91885972|NCT02349152|183664664|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon CPB-END||||0.175
91885973|NCT02349152|183664664|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon Post-bypass||||0.062
91885974|NCT02349152|183664664|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon 8-hr||||0.261
91885975|NCT02349152|183664665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||30-day mortality||||0.06
91885976|NCT02349152|183664665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||30-day readmission||||0.03
91885977|NCT02349152|183664665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||Cerebral Vascular Accident||||0.24
91885978|NCT02349152|183664665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation||||0.93
91885979|NCT02349152|183664665|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Renal Failure||||1
91885980|NCT02349152|183664665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Atrial Fibrillation||||0.10
91885981|NCT02349152|183664665|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||cardiac arrest||||1
91885982|NCT02349152|183664666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 0-6||||0.205
91885983|NCT02349152|183664666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 7-12||||0.339
91885984|NCT02349152|183664666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 13-18||||0.006
91885985|NCT02349152|183664666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 19-24||||0.747
91885986|NCT02349152|183664666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 25-30||||0.568
91885987|NCT02349152|183664666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 31-36||||0.924
91885988|NCT02349152|183664666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 37-42||||0.501
91885989|NCT02349152|183664666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 43-48||||0.977
91885990|NCT02349152|183664670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.350
91885991|NCT01124097|183664674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9321|||||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.9321
91885992|NCT01124097|183664674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.2610
91885993|NCT01124097|183664674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4764|||||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.4764
91885994|NCT05878873|183664742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was adjusted using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44.|This estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF.|Statistical analysis comparing cortical activation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in people with multiple sclerosis.||||0.007
91885995|NCT05878873|183664742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was adjusted using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF.|Statistical analysis comparing cortical activation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in healthy controls.||||0.008
91885996|NCT05878873|183664743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was adjusted using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|This estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF at Visit 2.|Statistical analysis comparing savings between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in people with multiple sclerosis.||||0.014
91885997|NCT05878873|183664743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.878|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was corrected with false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF at Visit 2|Statistical analysis comparing savings between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in healthy controls.||||0.878
91885998|NCT05878873|183664744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.898|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was corrected using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF|Statistical analysis comparing rate of adaptation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in people with multiple sclerosis.||||0.898
91755857|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||75.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.92|75.74
91755858|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||95.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.99|95.83
91755859|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||79.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.94|79.80
91755860|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||95.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.99|95.29
91755861|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||96.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.99|96.27
91755862|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||47.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.94|47.62
91759850|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.94|-2.92||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.92|-18.94|
91885999|NCT05878873|183664744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.698|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was corrected using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF|Statistical analysis comparing rate of adaptation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in healthy controls.||||0.698
91886000|NCT00340704|183664817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1725||||95.0|0.6499|1.3579|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss was explored based on the regression model.||1.3579|0.6499|
91886001|NCT00340704|183664821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1884||||95.0|0.5934|1.3666|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope.|Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss was explored based on the regression model.||1.3666|0.5934|
91886002|NCT01732549|183664829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.0315||||||Log-rank test adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). Two-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.0315
91886003|NCT01732549|183664829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.0344|||||||Log Rank|||Unstratified\[b\]||||=0.0344
91886004|NCT01732549|183664830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.443|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.4430
91886005|NCT01732549|183664831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5219|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||0.5219
91886006|NCT01732549|183664832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.5442|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.5442
91886007|NCT01732549|183664833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.112|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.1120
91886008|NCT01732549|183664834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2491|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use (or not) \& region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.2491
91908946|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2467||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.108|4.7375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.7375|-1.108|0.4235
91908947|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9753||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07015|5.2147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.2147|0.07015|0.1882
91908948|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0376||0.5555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|3.8615|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.8615|-1.440|0.5555
91908949|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1934||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.33169|6.0292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.0292|0.33169|0.1533
91908950|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2662||0.3697|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8912|4.9934|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.9934|-0.8912|0.3697
91908951|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3939||0.4652|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.352|4.8801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 12: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.8801|-1.352|0.4652
91908952|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5148||0.8626|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.83|3.7058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 12: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.7058|-2.830|0.8626
91908953|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6168||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.6105|5.8122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 13: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.8122|1.6105|0.0261
91908954|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7026||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0533|4.4756|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 13: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.4756|0.05330|0.1895
91908955|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0732||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.961|6.1913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.1913|-1.961|0.4994
91908956|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3113||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8226|7.9458|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.9458|-0.8226|0.2945
91908957|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9257||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.622|3.1613|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.1613|-4.622|0.8056
91908958|NCT00531752|183713454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8657||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.725|8.4592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.4592|-1.725|0.3922
91908959|NCT00531752|183713455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8744||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.643|-0.3705|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.3705|-2.643|0.0913
91908960|NCT00531752|183713455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9165||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.399|0.98326|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.98326|-1.399|0.8216
91908961|NCT00531752|183713456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6887||0.5466|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.313|0.47668|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.47668|-1.313|0.5466
91908962|NCT00531752|183713456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6772||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9035|0.85312|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.85312|-0.9035|0.9705
91908963|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3001||0.7415|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4892|0.29012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (CQoL): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.29012|-0.4892|0.7415
91908964|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3227||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3703|0.4664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (CQoL): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.46640|-0.3703|0.8822
91908965|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1302||0.3414|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0439|0.29385|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (GLI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.29385|-0.0439|0.3414
91908966|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1418||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0793|0.28814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (GLI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.28814|-0.0793|0.4642
91759851|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|-8.24||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.24|-24.01|
91886009|NCT00121667|183664837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.53||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-0.53|-0.92|<.0001
91886010|NCT00121667|183664837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.63||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-0.63|-1.02|<.0001
91886011|NCT00121667|183664837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.52||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF) .Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-0.52|-0.91|<.0001
91886012|NCT00121667|183664838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|-8.55||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-8.55|-22.55|<.0001
91886013|NCT00121667|183664838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.29|-16.27||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF) .Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-16.27|-30.29|<.0001
91886014|NCT00121667|183664838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.81|-14.68||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF) .Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-14.68|-28.81|<.0001
91886015|NCT00121667|183664839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|20.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|30.5||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||30.5|10.6|<.0001
91886016|NCT00121667|183664839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|36.7||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||36.7|17.0|<.0001
91886017|NCT00121667|183664839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|37.7||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||37.7|17.7|<.0001
91886018|NCT00121667|183664840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5599.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1168.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7894.0|-3305.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-3305|-7894|<.0001
91886019|NCT00121667|183664840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6294.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1176.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8606.0|-3983.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-3983|-8606|<.0001
91908967|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09093||0.5049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0571|0.17926|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (RTI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.17926|-0.0571|0.5049
91908968|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1002||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.051|0.2093|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (RTI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.20930|-0.0510|0.4332
91886020|NCT00121667|183664840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4845.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1175.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7153.0|-2537.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-2537|-7153|<.0001
91886021|NCT03178344|183664859|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.7||||||P value threshold is 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.70
91886022|NCT03178344|183664860|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.71||||||P value threshold is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.71
91886023|NCT03994731|183664890|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in proportions|32.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|48.3||The 2-sided p-value was calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tophi presence at baseline: yes, no) were combined with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||48.3|16.3|< 0.0001
91755863|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||71.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.92|71.55
91755864|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||98.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|1.01|98.29
91755865|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian repeated measures model|1.08||||95.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.99|95.09
91755866|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||93.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.98|93.68
91886024|NCT03994731|183664891|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|29.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.084||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|44.9||The 2-sided p-value was calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||response rate difference (Peg+MTX - Peg+Placebo)|||44.9|13.2|0.0003
91886025|NCT03994731|183664892|SUPERIORITY||Difference|22.8||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|44.4||The comparison of complete response between groups is performed using an unstratified chi-squared test.|Chi-squared||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||44.4|1.2|0.0482
91886026|NCT03994731|183664893|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.6287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.13||Based on mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the following terms: baseline value, tophi presence (Y/N), treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and visit-by-baseline value interaction.|MMRM ANCOVA||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||0.13|-0.21|0.6287
91886027|NCT03994731|183664894|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.766||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.88|-0.97||Based on mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the following terms: baseline value, tophi presence (Y/N), treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and visit-by-baseline value interaction.|MMRM ANCOVA||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||-0.97|-15.88|0.0272
91886028|NCT03994731|183664895|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|-1.48||Based on mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the following terms: baseline value, tophi presence (Y/N), treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and visit-by-baseline value interaction.|MMRM ANCOVA||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||-1.48|-18.84|0.0222
91886029|NCT04937920|183664946|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|-29620.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 5 between DBI-002 probiotic gel (active) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||0.2
91886030|NCT04937920|183664946|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|127195.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 14 between DBI-002 probiotic gel (active) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||1.0
91886031|NCT04937920|183664946|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|-41659.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 5 between aqueous gel (control) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||0.6
91886032|NCT04937920|183664946|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|-483.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 14 between aqueous gel (control) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||1.0
91886033|NCT02844777|183664989|OTHER|||||||0.9518|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9518
91886034|NCT02844777|183664989|OTHER|||||||0.2458|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2458
91886035|NCT02844777|183664990|OTHER|||||||0.6201|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6201
91886036|NCT02844777|183664990|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91886037|NCT02844777|183664991|OTHER|||||||0.2912|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2912
91886038|NCT02844777|183664991|OTHER|||||||0.4168|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4168
91886039|NCT02844777|183664992|OTHER|||||||0.6458|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6458
91886040|NCT02844777|183664992|OTHER|||||||0.0721|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0721
91886041|NCT02844777|183664993|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4200
91886042|NCT02844777|183664993|OTHER|||||||0.0241|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0241
91886043|NCT00150618|183665003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0041
91886044|NCT00150618|183665003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0176||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0176
91886045|NCT00150618|183665003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0016
91886046|NCT00150618|183665003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
91886047|NCT00150618|183665004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
91886048|NCT00150618|183665004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0468||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0468
91886049|NCT00150618|183665004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0056
91886050|NCT00150618|183665004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0237||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0237
91886051|NCT00150618|183665005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0074||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0074
91886052|NCT00150618|183665005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1404||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1404
91886053|NCT00150618|183665005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0055||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0055
91886054|NCT00150618|183665005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0041
91886055|NCT00150618|183665006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0303||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0303
91886056|NCT00150618|183665006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4982||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4982
91886057|NCT00150618|183665006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0017
91886058|NCT00150618|183665006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0063
91886059|NCT00150618|183665007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.0383
91886060|NCT00150618|183665007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5859||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.5859
91886061|NCT00150618|183665007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2136||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.2136
91886062|NCT00150618|183665007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1483||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.1483
91886063|NCT03434028|183665013|SUPERIORITY||difference in mortality rate|-0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.6|||Z-test|||||2.6|-4.4|0.61
91886064|NCT03434028|183665014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||||The mean values is an estimate from the Kaplan-Meier curve, thus it is correct as reported.|||1.2|-0.5|
91886065|NCT03434028|183665015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.4|
91886066|NCT03434028|183665016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.8|
91886067|NCT03434028|183665017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.3||||||||1.3|-0.5|
91886068|NCT03434028|183665018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||||||||1.0|-0.8|
91886069|NCT03434028|183665019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||||||||1.9|-0.3|
91886070|NCT03434028|183665020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.7||||||||1.7|-5.1|
91886071|NCT03434028|183665021|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8||||||||1.8|-1.8|
91886072|NCT03434028|183665022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.1|
91886073|NCT03434028|183665023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||||||||0.4|-0.3|
91886074|NCT03434028|183665024|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.5||||||||1.5|-1.7|
91886075|NCT03434028|183665025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.7||||||||1.7|-3.7|
91886076|NCT03434028|183665026|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.7||||||||4.7|-3.6|
91886077|NCT02037776|183665027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups in Rikkunshito Placebo and Rikkunshito, based on the count of participants categorized in 1 (Significantly improved) through 7 (Much worse), using the Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney).||||0.038
91886078|NCT02037776|183665028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in all symptoms of modified FSSG||||0.027
91886079|NCT02037776|183665028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in GERD symptoms of modified FSSG||||0.089
91886080|NCT02037776|183665028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in dyspeptic symptoms of modified FSSG||||0.148
91886081|NCT02037776|183665029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in total score of PAGI-SYM||||0.051
91886082|NCT02037776|183665029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Heartburn/Regurgitation of PAGI-SYM||||0.947
91886083|NCT02037776|183665029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Nausea/Vomiting of PAGI-SYM||||0.157
91886084|NCT02037776|183665029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Postprandial Fullness/Early satiety of PAGI-SYM||||0.004
91886085|NCT02037776|183665029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Bloating of PAGI-SYM||||0.011
91886086|NCT02037776|183665029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Upper Abdominal Pain of PAGI-SYM||||0.245
91886087|NCT02037776|183665029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Lower Abdominal Pain of PAGI-SYM||||0.387
91886088|NCT02037776|183665030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.034
91886089|NCT02037776|183665031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in PCS of SF-8||||0.270
91886090|NCT02037776|183665031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in MCS of SF-8||||0.342
91886091|NCT02037776|183665032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in overall point score of HAD||||0.036
91886092|NCT02037776|183665032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in depression point score of HAD||||0.084
91886093|NCT02037776|183665032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in anxiety point score of HAD||||0.022
91886094|NCT02296892|183665033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.7588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6903|0.8274|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.8274|0.6903|<0.0001
91886095|NCT01056263|183665041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Five year survival probability|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.94|32.38||||||Five year survival probability was the probability of survival at 5 year after the date of the start of the study treatment based on the Kaplan-Meier estimate.||32.38|10.94|
91886096|NCT03375320|183665051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||<0.0001
91886097|NCT03375320|183665051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||<0.0001
91886098|NCT03375320|183665052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2438|||||||One-sided stratified log-rank|||||||0.2438
91755867|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||96.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|1.00|96.58
91755868|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||56.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.95|56.99
91755869|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||13.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.85|13.08
91886099|NCT03375320|183665052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4426|||||||One-sided stratified log-rank|||||||0.4426
91886100|NCT03375320|183665054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91886101|NCT03375320|183665054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91886102|NCT04556305|183665065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.409
91886103|NCT04556305|183665065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.456
91886104|NCT04556305|183665065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.692
91886105|NCT04556305|183665066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.179
91886106|NCT04556305|183665066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.910
91886107|NCT04556305|183665066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.159
91886108|NCT04556305|183665067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.078
91886109|NCT04556305|183665067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.130
91886110|NCT04556305|183665067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.430
91886111|NCT04556305|183665068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.772
91886112|NCT04556305|183665068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.107
91886113|NCT04556305|183665068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.915
91886114|NCT04556305|183665069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.078
91886115|NCT04556305|183665069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.130
91886116|NCT04556305|183665069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.430
91886117|NCT04556305|183665070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.487
91886118|NCT04556305|183665070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.827|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.827
91886119|NCT04556305|183665070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.908
91886120|NCT04556305|183665071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.371
91886121|NCT04556305|183665071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.633
91886122|NCT04556305|183665071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.230
91886123|NCT04556305|183665072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.798
91886124|NCT04556305|183665072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.461
91886125|NCT04556305|183665072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.419
91886126|NCT04556305|183665073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.619
91755870|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.89|52.99
91755871|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||60.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.90|60.75
91886127|NCT04556305|183665073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.468
91886128|NCT04556305|183665073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.387
91886129|NCT04556305|183665074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.380
91886130|NCT04556305|183665074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.759
91886131|NCT04556305|183665074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.219
91886132|NCT04556305|183665075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.995
91886133|NCT04556305|183665075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.946
91886134|NCT04556305|183665075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.593
91886135|NCT04556305|183665076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.092
91886136|NCT04556305|183665076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.245
91886137|NCT04556305|183665076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.107
91886138|NCT04556305|183665077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.244
91886139|NCT04556305|183665077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.085
91886140|NCT04556305|183665077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.710
91886141|NCT04556305|183665078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.491
91886142|NCT04556305|183665078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.444
91886143|NCT04556305|183665078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.279
91886144|NCT03512197|183665105|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.31||||||||1.31|0.8|
91886145|NCT03512197|183665106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29||||||||1.29|0.59|
91886146|NCT03512197|183665111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.63||||||||1.63|0.60|
91886147|NCT03512197|183665112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.87||||||||2.87|0.88|
91886148|NCT03512197|183665113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.54||||||||1.54|0.41|
91886149|NCT03512197|183665115|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||||||partial neutrophil recovery||1.16|0.75|
91886150|NCT03512197|183665115|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14||||||full neutrophil recovery||1.14|0.72|
91886151|NCT03512197|183665116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52||||||partial platelet recovery||1.52|0.87|
91886152|NCT03512197|183665116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0||||||full platelet recovery||1.00|0.67|
91886153|NCT03358238|183665154|OTHER||Proportion|0.404|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|0.557|||||Type of confidence interval = Clopper-Pearson|||0.557|0.264|
91886154|NCT03358238|183665155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Average Proportions|0.0017||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1774|0.1807||Statistical significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t test. Degrees of freedom = 45.|Two-sample t confidence intervals|Null hypothesis was that the difference in average adherence rates of self-reporting between arms was zero.||0.1807|-0.1774|0.99
91886155|NCT03358238|183665156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0189||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2215|0.1837||Statistical significance was considered an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test. Degrees of freedom = 45|Two-sample t confidence intervals|Null hypothesis was that the difference in average adherence rates to activity tracking between arms was zero.||0.1837|-0.2215|0.85
91886156|NCT03358238|183665157|OTHER||Proportion|0.5385|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3718|0.6991|||||Type of confidence interval = Clopper-Pearson|Estimating proportion of individuals with higher adherence rates for self-report over activity tracking among individuals with unequal adherence rates||0.6991|0.3718|
91886157|NCT03358238|183665157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0828|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis is that among individuals with unequal adherence rates, the proportion of individuals with greater adherence to self-report over activity tracking in the Review Arm is equal to the proportion of individuals with greater adherence to self-report over activity tracking in the No Review Arm.||||0.0828
91806165|NCT04502693|183488878|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup W at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.14|0.86|
91806166|NCT04502693|183488878|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.01||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup Y at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.01|0.73|
91806167|NCT04502693|183488878|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup Y at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||0.98|0.71|
91806168|NCT04502693|183488878|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.14||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup Y at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.14|0.82|
91806169|NCT04502693|183488879|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|19.01|||Difference in percentage of participants|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup A at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||19.01|5.88|
91806170|NCT04502693|183488879|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|47.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.14|56.3||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup C at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||56.30|38.14|
91806171|NCT04502693|183488879|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|35.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.88|44.49||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup W at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||44.49|26.88|
91806172|NCT04502693|183488879|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.38|35.81||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup Y at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||35.81|19.38|
91806173|NCT04502693|183488880|OTHER|Effectiveness of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for VE against the selected strain panel between the ABCWY and the ACWY groups is above 65%. VE is defined as 1- RR = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in ABCWY\_Pooled group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage.|VE|77.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|79.2||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the MenABCWY vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by enc-hSBA at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||79.2|76.6|
91806174|NCT04502693|183488881|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY to rMenB+OMV NZ is demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution is above -5%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.03||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY vaccine (0,6-months schedule) compared to the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine (0,2-months) in terms of percentage of samples with bactericidal serum activity using enc-hSBA against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains.||0.03|-1.25|
91806175|NCT00279305|183488913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0699|0.348|||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||0.348|-0.0699|0.05
91806176|NCT04404361|183488914|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.51||||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|13.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5).||||13.53|-10.55|0.8516
91806177|NCT04404361|183488915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7494|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7494
91755872|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||75.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.92|75.23
91755873|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||28.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.78|28.14
91755874|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||38.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.84|38.43
91755875|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||25.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.80|25.21
91806178|NCT04404361|183488916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR from a CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5) as entered in the IXRS|||3.58|0.46|0.6323
91806179|NCT04404361|183488917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.7541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR from a CMH test Stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5) as entered in the IXRS|||4.96|0.31|0.7541
91886158|NCT03358238|183665158|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.79||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.99||Statistical significance was considered an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test. Degrees of freedom = 46.|"One participant had a single item missing on the Young Mania Rating Scale administered at study start. A zero was imputed for the missing item to recover a total score.~One-sample t confidence intervals."|"One participant had a single item missing on the Young Mania Rating Scale administered at study start. A zero was imputed for the missing item to recover a total score.~Null hypothesis was that the average change in total scores was zero."||1.99|-0.42|0.20
91886159|NCT03358238|183665159|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.7||Statistical significance was considered an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t test. Degrees of freedom = 46|One-sample t confidence intervals|Null hypothesis was that average change in scores on the structured interview guide for the Hamilton rating scale for depression is zero.||2.70|-0.91|0.32
91886160|NCT02633397|183665160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P- Value was the exact logistic regression adjusted for clinical site.||||0.19
91886161|NCT02633397|183665161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P- Value was the exact logistic regression adjusted for clinical site.||||0.42
91886162|NCT02633397|183665162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P- Value was the exact logistic regression adjusted for clinical site.||||0.52
91886163|NCT02633397|183665164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.42|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||0.42|-0.70|0.69
91886164|NCT02633397|183665165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.51||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-117.05|38.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||38.02|-117.05|0.40
91886165|NCT02633397|183665166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.73|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||0.73|-0.11|0.23
91886166|NCT02633397|183665167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||-0.8|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||0.46|-0.62|-0.80
91886167|NCT02633397|183665168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.22|-3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in MAP as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||-3.69|-10.22|<0.001
91886168|NCT02633397|183665169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||0.02|-0.31|0.15
91886169|NCT02633397|183665170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.28|-3.12|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||-3.12|-10.28|0.003
91886170|NCT02633397|183665171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|5.04|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||5.04|2.00|<0.001
91886171|NCT02633397|183665172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|286.56||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-429.86|1002.99|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||1002.99|-429.86|0.51
91886172|NCT02633397|183665173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.18||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-173.69|9.32|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||9.32|-173.69|0.14
91886173|NCT02633397|183665174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept was used to compare microalbuminuria frequency as a function of time and the interaction between time and study arm.||||0.78
91886174|NCT02633397|183665175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept was used to compare macroalbuminuria frequency as a function of time and the interaction between time and study arm.||||0.30
91806180|NCT04404361|183488918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53||"log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus~≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5) as entered in the IXRS"|Log Rank|"stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus~≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5)"|estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5)|||1.53|0.79|0.5666
91806181|NCT04404361|183488920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|12.93|||Chi-squared|||||12.93|0.47|0.2722
91806182|NCT03307967|183488940|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum||||||.07
91806183|NCT03307967|183488941|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum Test||||||.98
91886175|NCT02633397|183665176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.21|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in GFR as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||-0.62|-9.21|0.06
91755876|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||81.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.91|81.73
91755877|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||9.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.76|9.87
91806184|NCT02166905|183488982|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|1.2|||Log Rank||Reference=arm 1|||1.2|0.1|0.177
91806185|NCT02617628|183488988|EQUIVALENCE|The odds ratio for relapse versus non-relapse for the AR group relative to the BR group was analyzed, as well as the corresponding odds ratio for unknown relative to non-relapse.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.27|||Regression, Logistic||Threshold for significance was set at p\<.05|Based on Lee et al. we estimated a 23-33% group difference in relapse by month 3. Power estimates calculated this estimate with a 2-sided alpha of .05 and a baseline sample size of 100 per group resulted in 80% power to detect a difference of approximately 20% (OR = 2.4) between groups assuming a rate of 50% in the control condition and 10% and 20% attrition by 3- and 6-month follow-ups. For the 86 participants randomized and released, with 80% power; and odds ratio of 3.5.||4.27|0.57|0.38
91886176|NCT02633397|183665177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept was used to compare CKD stage frequency as a function of time and the interaction between time and study arm.||||0.56
91908969|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1753||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.473|-0.0177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (More GD than BD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0177|-0.4730|0.1678
91806186|NCT02617628|183488989|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.74486||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||We used Cox proportional hazards regression model to compare the groups on time to reincarceration.||||0.01
91806187|NCT02065375|183488990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-1.2||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|18.9|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 1.0% and placebo were one sided.||||18.9|-21.3|0.4543
91806188|NCT02065375|183488990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|8.2||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|29.8|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 0.5% and placebo were one sided.||||29.8|-13.5|0.2297
91806189|NCT02065375|183488991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-21.6||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|0.0|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 1.0% and placebo were one sided.||||0.00|-43.1|.0280
91806190|NCT02065375|183488991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-24.0||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-2.2|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 0.5% and placebo were one sided.||||-2.2|-45.8|0.0192
91806191|NCT02801331|183489082|EQUIVALENCE|A test of equivalence was conducted for unadjusted comparisons. A chi squared test of proportions was used for unadjusted comparisons.||||||0.6||||||Unadjusted|Chi-squared|||||||.60
91806192|NCT02801331|183489083|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing cumulative morphine dose was performed for the cohort that was treated with morphine (n=60)||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom =58 for cohort analyzed that received morphine treatment.||||||.62
91806193|NCT02801331|183489084|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life discharged among untreated infants who completed hospitalization at study site (n=181).||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 179 based on number of infants who completed hospitalization at study site.||||||0.29
91806194|NCT02801331|183489085|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life discharged among untreated infants (n=121)||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 119 based on number of infants who did not receive morphine treatment.||||||0.55
91806195|NCT02801331|183489086|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life discharged among treated infants, n=60||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 58 based on number of infants who received morphine treatment.||||||0.36
91806196|NCT02801331|183489087|EQUIVALENCE|A test of equivalence was conducted for unadjusted comparisons. A t test of means was used for unadjusted comparisons.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 58 based on number of infants who received morphine treatment.||||||0.56
91806197|NCT02801331|183489088|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life infant started treatment as performed for the cohort that was treated with morphine (n=60)||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 58 based on number of infants who received morphine treatment.||||||0.25
91886177|NCT02633397|183665178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in hemoglobin as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||0.03|-0.52|0.15
91755878|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||63.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.87|63.15
91755879|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||4.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.86|4.03
91806198|NCT02443987|183489092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
91886178|NCT02633397|183665179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in reticulocyte count as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||2.72|0.22|0.05
91886179|NCT02633397|183665180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in WBC count as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||0.63|-0.93|0.75
91886180|NCT02633397|183665181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.28||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.63|6.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in WBC count as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||6.08|-64.63|0.17
91886181|NCT02633397|183665182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|-0.15|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||-0.15|-3.13|0.07
91886182|NCT03036124|183665186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.65|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including the history of hospitalizations due to Heart failure as a factor.||||0.85|0.65|<0.0001
91886183|NCT03036124|183665187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.65|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including the history of hospitalizations due to Heart failure as a factor.||||0.85|0.65|<0.0001
91886184|NCT03036124|183665188|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.0002||95.0|0.65|0.88|||LWYY proportional rates model|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including the history of hospitalizations due to Heart failure as a factor.||||0.88|0.65|0.0002
91886185|NCT03036124|183665189|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio (WR)|1.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.11|1.26||The p-value is obtained from a rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline KCCQ score and stratified by T2DM status at randomization.|Win Ratio|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including baseline score as a covariate.|The composite of change from baseline in total symptom score at 8 months, or death before 8 months.|||1.26|1.11|<0.0001
91886186|NCT03036124|183665190|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1681||95.0|0.44|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including baseline eGFR as a covariate.||||1.16|0.44|0.1681
91886187|NCT03036124|183665191|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0217||95.0|0.71|0.97|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||||0.97|0.71|0.0217
91806199|NCT02443987|183489093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91806200|NCT02443987|183489094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91806201|NCT02443987|183489095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91889150|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19A||1.3|-4.8|
91889151|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||1.2|-4.0|
91806202|NCT02513394|183489099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||Log Rank||This two sided p value was stratified by (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs no) and age (\<=50 vs \>50).|||1.14|0.81|0.65
91806203|NCT02513394|183489100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19||||||||1.19|0.82|
91806204|NCT02513394|183489101|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.28||||||||1.28|0.87|
91806205|NCT02513394|183489102|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.78||||||||1.78|0.98|
91755880|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||30.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.89|30.03
91755881|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||80.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.95|80.34
91755882|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||25.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.89|25.65
91755883|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||24.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.88|24.36
91755884|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.91|48.45
91755885|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||1.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.99|0.81|1.95
91755886|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||14.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.85|14.15
91806206|NCT02513394|183489103|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.23||||||||1.23|0.57|
91886191|NCT01515943|183665294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.0|11.0||Linear contrasts performed with a type I error rate of 2.5% based on a Bonferroni adjustment (overall type I error rate of 5% for 2 pairwise treatment group comparisons).|Biniomial regression|Adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur. Linear contrasts performed with Bonferroni adjustment (alpha=0.025)|Negative values for the treatment group difference favor the HB-PU group. Results of the treatment group comparison are adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur.|The primary outcome was success at 12 weeks. The sample size was computed to have 90% power to detect a treatment group difference between the HB-C versus HB-PU groups, assuming true population success percentages of 30% and 15% for the HB-C and HB-PU groups, respectively, with a type I error rate of 2.5%. The treatment group comparison was adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score (\<28 points vs ≥28 points), mean NPC break (\<10 cm vs ≥10 cm) and mean PFV blur (≥15 pd vs \<15 pd).||11|-19|0.56
91806207|NCT03633695|183489110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|-0.14||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 Group - Control Group|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 Group was greater (i.e. worse) than or equal to that for the Control Group. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean for the IC-8 Group less (i.e., better) than that for the Control Group.||-0.140|-0.214|<.0001
91806208|NCT03633695|183489111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.191|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|-0.158||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 Group - Control Group|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 Group was greater (i.e. worse) than or equal to that for the Control Group. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean for the IC-8 Group less (i.e., better) than that for the Control Group.||-0.158|-0.223|<.0001
91889152|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-12.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||-12.9|-23.6|
91908970|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1925||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1726|0.32695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (More GD than BD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.32695|-0.1726|0.6901
91755887|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||80.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.95|80.61
91755888|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||3.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12.The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.81|3.30
91886192|NCT01515943|183665295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.0|22.0||Linear contrasts performed with a type I error rate of 2.5% based on a Bonferroni adjustment (overall type I error rate of 5% for 2 pairwise treatment group comparisons).|Binomial regression|Adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur. Linear contrasts performed with Bonferroni adjustment (alpha=0.025)|Positive values for the treatment group difference favor the HB-C group. Results of the treatment group comparison are adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur.|The primary outcome was success at 12 weeks. The sample size was computed to have 90% power to detect a treatment group difference between the HB-C versus HB-P groups, assuming true population success percentages of 30% and 10% for the HB-C and HB-PU groups, respectively, with a type I error rate of 2.5%. The treatment group comparison was adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score (\<28 points vs ≥28 points), mean NPC break (\<10 cm vs ≥10 cm) and mean PFV blur (≥15 pd vs \<15 pd).||22|-12|0.52
91886193|NCT01515943|183665301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|17.0|||Bernard's exact test|A p-value was not reported in the manuscript results, but has been included here, reported directly from the analysis.||For the HB-C group, the association between completion of the computer vergence/accommodative therapy (CVAT) program (defined as achieving at least 15 stars for the jump vergence exercise) and overall success at 12 weeks was evaluated using Bernard's exact test.||17|-27|<0.01
91886194|NCT01888874|183665315|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|11.9||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|26.9|||Regression, Logistic|P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||26.9|-3.1|0.1236
91886195|NCT01888874|183665315|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|19.3||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|34.0||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||34|4.7|0.0435
91886196|NCT01888874|183665315|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|24.4||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|38.8||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||38.8|10.1|0.0068
91886197|NCT01888874|183665315|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|12.8||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.6||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||27.6|-2|0.1236
91886198|NCT01888874|183665315|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|15.8||||0.1056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|30.6||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||30.6|1|0.1056
91886199|NCT01888874|183665315|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|48.1||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||48.1|20.7|< 0.0001
91886200|NCT01020877|183665349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test\[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.0|117.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||117|103|
91886201|NCT01020877|183665350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115|98.2|
91908971|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.354||0.9005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.587|1.9274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Living with ADHD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.9274|-1.587|0.9005
91908972|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4667||0.333|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.333|0.46937|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Living with ADHD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.46937|-3.333|0.3330
91755889|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||42.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.88|42.22
91755890|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.09||||95.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.99|95.24
91886202|NCT01020877|183665351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.6|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115|97.6|
91886203|NCT00709228|183665359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||simple proportion|0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.15||||||||0.15|0.06|
91755891|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||6.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.83|6.38
91755892|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||28.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.86|28.82
91755893|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||87.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.97|87.39
91755894|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||23.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.87|23.27
91755895|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||57.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28.The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.90|57.82
91755896|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||9.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.77|9.67
91755897|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||70.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.89|70.73
91755898|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||25.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|25.61
91755899|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||44.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Cetral; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|44.10
91908973|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0857||0.7551|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.051|3.3584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (General well-being): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.3584|-2.051|0.7551
91908974|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.8639|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2354||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.759|-1.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (General well-being): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.968|-7.759|0.0334
91908975|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6119||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.05|6.3281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (PDF): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.3281|-3.050|0.6519
91908976|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9647||0.7631|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.941|6.3423|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (PDF): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.3423|-3.941|0.7631
91908977|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8206||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7227|6.5648|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (R/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.5648|-0.7227|0.3034
91908978|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.0968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0022||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.975|-1.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (R/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.218|-8.975|0.0933
91908979|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.0675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9778||0.0949|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.934|-1.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-B/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.201|-8.934|0.0949
91908980|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.3274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2552||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.55|-3.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-B/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-3.106|-11.55|0.0283
91908981|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5974||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.229|-0.0719|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0719|-4.229|0.1852
91908982|NCT00531752|183713457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7732||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.823|-0.2127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.2127|-4.823|0.1623
91886204|NCT02179177|183665360|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91886205|NCT01516749|183665376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||||||significance was accepted at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Significance of decrease in modified Sartorius score from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.024
91886206|NCT01516749|183665377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Significance was accepted at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Significance of reductions in Physican Global Assessment mean values between baseline and 8 weeks of therapy||||0.006
91886207|NCT01516749|183665377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Significance was accepted at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Significance of reductions in Patient Global Assessment mean values between baseline and 8 weeks of therapy||||0.019
91886208|NCT03635086|183665408|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.9|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||4.9|0.2|0.9998
91886209|NCT03635086|183665408|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.5|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||7.5|0.3|0.9345
91908983|NCT00531752|183713458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.5791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.0449||0.5241|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.02|11.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life productivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||11.860|-35.02|0.5241
91886210|NCT03635086|183665408|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.1|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||2.1|0.1|0.5836
91908984|NCT00531752|183713458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.3367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.6995||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.89|5.2183|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life productivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.2183|-45.89|0.3065
91908985|NCT00531752|183713458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.7878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4438||0.3831|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.15|5.5793|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Psychological health): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.5793|-29.15|0.3831
91755900|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||10.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.82|10.14
91886211|NCT03635086|183665408|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.4||||0.4844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.6|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||10.6|0.5|0.4844
91886212|NCT03635086|183665408|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.8|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||6.8|0.3|0.9725
91886213|NCT03635086|183665408|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.4||||0.4715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||1.9|0.1|0.4715
91886214|NCT03635086|183665408|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.2||||0.5969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.6|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||9.6|0.5|0.5969
91886215|NCT03635086|183665408|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||1.4|0.1|0.2043
91886216|NCT03635086|183665408|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.4|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||7.4|0.3|0.9388
91886217|NCT03635086|183665408|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|5.2||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|23.1|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||23.1|1.2|0.0251
91886218|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||ANOVA|||Day 0||1.6|0.2|0.5263
91886219|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.8|0.4|1.0000
91886220|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.7|0.4|1.0000
91886221|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.7|0.4|1.0000
91886222|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||4.7|0.6|0.5500
91886223|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.6|||ANOVA|||Day 0||4.6|0.6|0.5263
91886224|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.6|||ANOVA|||Day 0||4.6|0.6|0.5263
91886225|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.8|0.4|1.0000
91886226|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.8|0.4|1.0000
91886227|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.7|0.4|1.0000
91886228|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7|||ANOVA|||Day 28||1.7|0.2|0.5321
91886229|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.9|||ANOVA|||Day 28||3.9|0.3|0.9983
91755901|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||62.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.90|62.87
91755902|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||11.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.93|11.82
91755903|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||51.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.95|51.44
91759852|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|2.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.56|-13.45|
91886230|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.1|0.2|0.8234
91886231|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.7|0.2|0.9882
91886232|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.2||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.6|||ANOVA|||Day 28||7.6|0.6|0.3778
91886233|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.2||||0.9878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.1|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.1|0.4|0.9878
91886234|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.6||||0.8213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.3|0.5|0.8213
91886235|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||ANOVA|||Day 28||1.9|0.2|0.6716
91886236|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.7||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.5|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.5|0.2|0.9380
91886237|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.3|0.4|0.9777
91886238|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||4.7|0.3|0.9997
91886239|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||7.2|0.3|0.9287
91886240|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0|||ANOVA|||Day 56||2.0|0.1|0.5598
91886241|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|3.0||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|13.1|||ANOVA|||Day 56||13.1|0.7|0.2117
91886242|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.6|||ANOVA|||Day 56||6.6|0.3|0.9699
91886243|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.4||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.8|0.1|0.4460
91886244|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.8||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.9|||ANOVA|||Day 56||11.9|0.6|0.2920
91886245|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.4|0.1|0.1840
91886246|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.7229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||9.2|0.4|0.7229
91886247|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|6.6||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|28.6|||ANOVA|||Day 56||28.6|1.5|0.0052
91886248|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.0|0.2|0.9777
91886249|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.3|||ANOVA|||Day 182||5.3|0.3|0.9812
91886250|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.2||||0.9979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.5|||ANOVA|||Day 182||4.5|0.3|0.9979
91886251|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||7.9|0.5|0.5880
91908986|NCT00531752|183713458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.1401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4478||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.8|5.5241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Psychological health): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.5241|-31.80|0.3657
91755904|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||9.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.88|9.54
91908987|NCT00531752|183713458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5818||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.36|17.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life outlook): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||17.690|-12.36|0.8188
91908988|NCT00531752|183713458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.1011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.405||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0305|40.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life outlook): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||40.172|8.0305|0.0566
91908989|NCT00531752|183713458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7164||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.55|12.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Relationships): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.057|-10.55|0.9312
91908990|NCT00531752|183713458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4361||0.5194|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.108|18.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Relationships): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||18.336|-6.108|0.5194
91755905|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||30.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.89|30.03
91755906|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||73.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|73.03
91755907|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||4.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.83|4.64
91755908|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||42.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.89|42.13
91755909|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||93.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.98|93.33
91755910|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||27.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|27.33
91908991|NCT00531752|183713459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7573|0.10622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Work/school): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.10622|-0.7573|0.3320
91908992|NCT00531752|183713459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3871||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0769|0.92804|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Work/school): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.92804|-0.0769|0.2767
91759853|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|-6.11||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.11|-22.09|
91755911|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||34.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|34.15
91755912|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||58.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.98|58.42
91755913|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||5.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.86|5.93
91755914|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||35.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.89|35.88
91755915|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||86.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.97|86.41
91755916|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||13.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.94|13.52
91755917|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||32.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD28 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.95|32.84
91755918|NCT02294734|183404487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||78.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.98|78.09
91755919|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||60.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.39|0.66|60.07
91755920|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||51.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.53||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.53|0.65|51.75
91755921|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||65.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.40|0.60|65.66
91886252|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||7.0|0.4|0.7973
91886253|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.8992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||6.0|0.4|0.8992
91886254|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.7||||0.2602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.4|||ANOVA|||Day 182||10.4|0.7|0.2602
91755922|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||81.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.59|81.67
91886255|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.9||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.6|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.6|0.2|0.9991
91755923|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.77||||89.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.51|89.98
91755924|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||43.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.70|43.88
91755925|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||36.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.91|0.64|36.10
91755926|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.7||||95.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.47|95.74
91755927|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.48|0.67|50.74
91755928|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||72.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.44||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.44|0.51|72.81
91755929|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.73||||94.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.50|94.41
91755930|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.83||||81.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.55|81.07
91755931|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.87||||69.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.50|69.29
91759854|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|4.29||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.29|-11.13|
91886256|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.2|||ANOVA|||Day 182||6.2|0.4|0.9028
91886257|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.8|||ANOVA|||Day 182||6.8|0.4|0.7761
91886258|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.7833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1|||ANOVA|||Day 365||2.1|0.2|0.7833
91806209|NCT03633695|183489112|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.007||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 1 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 IOL Group - Control Group|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL Group is inferior to the Control Group by 0.1 logMAR or more. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL group is inferior to the Control Group by less than 0.1 logMAR.||0.007||<.0001
91806210|NCT03633695|183489113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|-0.163||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 IOL Eye (IC-8 IOL Group) - Fellow Eye (IC-8 IOL Group)|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL eyes is greater (i.e., worse) than or equal to that for the fellow eyes. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean for the IC-8 IOL eyes is less (i.e., better) than that for the fellow eyes.||-0.163|-0.198|<.0001
91886259|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Day 365||2.9|0.2|0.9915
91886260|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.9||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 365||3.0|0.3|0.9980
91908993|NCT00531752|183713459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4028||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8887|0.1566|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Social life): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.15660|-0.8887|0.3675
91908994|NCT00531752|183713459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4372||0.8141|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.46345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Social life): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.46345|-0.6700|0.8141
91755932|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||73.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.37||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.37|0.54|73.67
91886261|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.9|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.9|0.4|0.9090
91886262|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.7|0.4|0.9651
91886263|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.7|0.4|0.9112
91806211|NCT03633695|183489114|OTHER||Difference in depth of focus|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference in depth of focus \[IC-8™ IOL Eyes (IC-8™ IOL Group) - Fellow Eyes (IC-8™ IOL Group)\]|||||
91886264|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.4||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.8|||ANOVA|||Day 365||7.8|0.7|0.2570
91886265|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.8|||ANOVA|||Day 365||3.8|0.3|0.9999
91755933|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.87||||75.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.59|75.82
91886266|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.8||||0.6953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.2|||ANOVA|||Day 365||6.2|0.5|0.6953
91886267|NCT03635086|183665411|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.7523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.4|||ANOVA|||Day 365||5.4|0.5|0.7523
91886268|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||1.7|0.1|0.5263
91886269|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.5|0.3|1.0000
91886270|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.4|0.3|1.0000
91886271|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.4|0.3|1.0000
91886272|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.0|||ANOVA|||Day 0||7.0|0.6|0.5500
91886273|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||6.7|0.6|0.5263
91886274|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||6.7|0.6|0.5263
91908995|NCT00531752|183713459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3702||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6657|0.29495|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Family life/home): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.29495|-0.6657|0.6186
91755934|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||54.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.39|0.69|54.22
91755935|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||66.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.35||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.35|0.63|66.46
91755936|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.16||||21.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.71||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; D12D28 . The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.71|0.79|21.45
91886275|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.5|0.3|1.0000
91886276|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.5|0.3|1.0000
91886277|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.4|0.3|1.0000
91886278|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.4|0.1|0.7708
91886279|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.2||||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.4|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.4|0.3|0.9966
91886280|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.7||||0.9503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 28||3.0|0.2|0.9503
91886281|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.7||||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.2|||ANOVA|||Day 28||3.2|0.2|0.9791
91886282|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.2||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.8|||ANOVA|||Day 28||9.8|0.5|0.5739
91886283|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.4|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.4|0.3|0.9918
91886284|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.9|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.9|0.3|0.9748
91886285|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.6|0.1|0.8270
91886286|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.8|0.1|0.8930
91886287|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.7|0.3|0.9999
91886288|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.9105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||3.2|0.1|0.9105
91886289|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 56||5.5|0.2|1.0000
91886290|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.7|0.1|0.3047
91886291|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|5.5||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|29.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||29.2|1.0|0.0423
91886292|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.6||||0.9213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.1|||ANOVA|||Day 56||9.1|0.3|0.9213
91886293|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.8092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||2.8|0.1|0.8092
91886294|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|9.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|48.5|||ANOVA|||Day 56||48.5|1.7|0.0040
91886295|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.8|0.1|0.3347
91886296|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|5.6||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|30.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||30.7|1.0|0.0488
91886297|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|17.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|92.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||92.2|3.3|0.0001
91755937|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||69.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.50|0.50|69.91
91755938|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||75.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.57|75.29
91886298|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.8831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.0|0.1|0.8831
91886299|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.2|||ANOVA|||Day 182||5.2|0.2|1.0000
91886300|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.1|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.1|0.1|0.8916
91886301|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.9||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||9.9|0.4|0.7940
91886302|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.6||||0.9169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||8.9|0.3|0.9169
91886303|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.2|||ANOVA|||Day 182||5.2|0.2|1.0000
91886304|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|3.3||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|17.1|||ANOVA|||Day 182||17.1|0.6|0.2563
91886305|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.3|0.1|0.9237
91886306|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.8|||ANOVA|||Day 182||10.8|0.4|0.7708
91886307|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|3.3||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||16.9|0.6|0.2661
91886308|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANOVA|||Day 365||2.6|0.1|0.7614
91886309|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.3|0.1|0.9905
91908996|NCT00531752|183713459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4028||0.372|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1597|0.88432|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Family life/home): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.88432|-0.1597|0.3720
91886310|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3|||ANOVA|||Day 365||3.3|0.1|0.9330
91886311|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.7|||ANOVA|||Day 365||6.7|0.2|0.9945
91886312|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.4|||ANOVA|||Day 365||8.4|0.3|0.9599
91886313|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.4|||ANOVA|||Day 365||6.4|0.2|0.9942
91886314|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.5||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|12.9|||ANOVA|||Day 365||12.9|0.5|0.4932
91886315|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.6|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.6|0.2|0.9983
91886316|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.3|||ANOVA|||Day 365||9.3|0.3|0.9112
91886317|NCT03635086|183665420|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.2|||ANOVA|||Day 365||10.2|0.4|0.7431
91886318|NCT02493946|183665469|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|80.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|88.0||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders.||88.0|73.7|<0.0001
91886319|NCT02493946|183665470|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|75.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|82.8||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||82.8|67.1|<0.0001
91908997|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.0781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|18.565|31.591|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||31.591|18.565|<0.0001
91908998|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.6481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3551||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.711|22.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||22.585|8.7110|0.0049
91908999|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5248||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.196|0.94237|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.94237|-8.196|0.3078
91909000|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8022||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.2344|12.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.084|2.2344|0.0644
91909001|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.5601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1318||0.1517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49198|8.6281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.6281|0.49198|0.1517
91909002|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3281||0.8252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.056|3.5789|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.5789|-5.056|0.8252
91909003|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2203||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9082|-0.3375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.3375|-0.9082|0.0063
91909004|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2303||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5283|0.06822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.06822|-0.5283|0.3217
91909005|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1065||0.2307|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0091|0.26716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.26716|-0.0091|0.2307
91909006|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1087||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0598|0.22209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.22209|-0.0598|0.4585
91909007|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.6629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8642||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.681|1.3549|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.3549|-8.681|0.3477
91909008|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.8688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0842||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.17|-0.5693|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.5693|-11.17|0.1565
91909009|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9541||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.55|-1.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.311|-11.55|0.1088
91909010|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1517||0.8627|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.654|6.0952|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.0952|-4.654|0.8627
91755939|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||44.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.58||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.58|0.68|44.05
91909011|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.8056||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|80.0|33.532|79.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||79.730|33.532|0.0024
91909012|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.1543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.7622||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|80.0|24.831|73.478|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||73.478|24.831|0.0112
91909013|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.9197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0912||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.9105|14.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||14.929|6.9105|0.0008
91909014|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.4691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3037||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.1876|12.751|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.751|4.1876|0.0129
91909015|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.1078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3667||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.4492|19.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||19.766|8.4492|0.0020
91909016|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.3485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5692||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.4275|20.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||20.270|8.4275|0.0026
91909017|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4103||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.729|4.1309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.1309|-4.729|0.9305
91909018|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.7062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5839||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.36|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.050|-10.36|0.1178
91909019|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5231||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8124|5.7295|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.7295|-0.8124|0.3339
91909020|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.4493|8.2686|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.2686|1.4493|0.0698
91909021|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1859||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5777|-0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0950|-0.5777|0.0762
91909022|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1913||0.4096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4075|0.08935|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.08935|-0.4075|0.4096
91909023|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1033||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07751|0.3455|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.34550|0.07751|0.0455
91909024|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1087||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0598|0.22209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.22209|-0.0598|0.4585
91909025|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6662||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.513|6.5995|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.5995|-5.513|0.9078
91755940|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.82||||94.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region; Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.65|94.93
91755941|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.77||||97.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.59|97.11
91755942|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||85.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.70|85.41
91755943|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||54.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.53||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.53|0.62|54.73
91909026|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1848|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7892||0.6502|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.403|4.0338|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.0338|-8.403|0.6502
91909027|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7234||0.809|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.716|3.9101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.9101|-5.716|0.8090
91909028|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8429||0.5282|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.532|7.4025|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.4025|-2.532|0.5282
91755944|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||72.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.3||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.30|0.61|72.31
91886320|NCT02493946|183665470|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|74.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.2|82.1||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||82.1|66.2|<0.0001
91755945|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.21||||15.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.75||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.75|0.84|15.05
91755946|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.88||||84.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.68|84.87
91759855|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-0.26||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.26|-15.70|
91759856|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|2.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.59|-12.93|
91759857|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.54||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.54|-17.90|
91886321|NCT02493946|183665470|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|53.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|63.1||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||63.1|44.2|<0.0001
91886322|NCT02493946|183665472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.5|71.6||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||71.6|44.5|<0.0001
91886323|NCT02493946|183665472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|56.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.5|69.0||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 29 Cycle 1.||69.0|44.5|<0.0001
91886324|NCT02493946|183665472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|62.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|72.9||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||72.9|52.1|<0.0001
91886325|NCT02493946|183665472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|42.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|55.7||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||55.7|29.5|<0.0001
91886326|NCT02493946|183665473|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|61.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|70.3||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||70.3|51.9|<0.0001
91886327|NCT02493946|183665473|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.8|74.8||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 29 Cycle 1.||74.8|56.8|<0.0001
91909029|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.3231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.8604||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86393|49.782|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||49.782|0.86393|0.1848
91909030|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.4054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.481||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.134|75.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||75.677|25.134|0.0124
91886328|NCT02493946|183665473|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|70.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|78.8||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||78.8|62.2|<0.0001
91886329|NCT02493946|183665473|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|42.0||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||42.0|24.0|<0.0001
91886330|NCT02493946|183665474|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|68.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.2|78.3||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Linear|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||78.3|58.2|<0.0001
91886331|NCT02493946|183665474|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|77.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.6|86.2||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 29 Cycle 1.||86.2|68.6|<0.0001
91886332|NCT02493946|183665474|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|74.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.7|83.1||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||83.1|65.7|<0.0001
91886333|NCT02493946|183665474|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|51.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|59.9||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||59.9|42.0|<0.0001
91886334|NCT02493946|183665475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|15.296|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox proportional hazard model|The cox proportional hazard model used centre, gender and ILA baseline severity score as covariates.||Treatment difference in median time to onset of treatment response.||||<0.0001
91886335|NCT02493946|183665476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|12.0||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference ( BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 8 Cycle 1.||12.0|5.2|<0.0001
91886336|NCT02493946|183665476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.8||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 29 Cycle 1.||14.8|7.4|<0.0001
91886337|NCT02493946|183665476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|14.0||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 57 Cycle 1.||14.0|6.8|<0.0001
91886338|NCT02493946|183665476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|13.3||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 85 Cycle 1.||13.3|5.9|<0.0001
91886339|NCT02493946|183665477|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|13.6||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 8 Cycle 1.||13.6|5.0|<0.0001
91886340|NCT02493946|183665477|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|11.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|16.0||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 29 Cycle 1.||16.0|6.7|<0.0001
91886341|NCT02493946|183665477|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|15.9||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 57 Cycle 1.||15.9|6.4|<0.0001
91886342|NCT02493946|183665477|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.6||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 85 Cycle 1.||12.6|3.7|0.0004
91886343|NCT02493946|183665478|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.6||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 8 Cycle 1.||-0.1|-1.1|0.0174
91886344|NCT02493946|183665478|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 29 Cycle 1.||-0.6|-1.7|<0.0001
91886345|NCT02493946|183665478|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.7||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 57 Cycle 1.||-0.7|-2.0|0.0001
91755947|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.82||||92.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.63|92.24
91759858|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|10.19||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.19|-5.32|
91886346|NCT02493946|183665478|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.8||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 85 Cycle 1.||-0.8|-2.1|<0.0001
91886347|NCT01055704|183665487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.835|0.739|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.739|-0.835|0.902
91886348|NCT01055704|183665487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.841|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.841|-0.578|0.709
91886349|NCT01055704|183665488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.971|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.669||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.415|7.472|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||7.472|-11.415|0.675
91886350|NCT01055704|183665488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.208||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.792|6.233|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||6.233|-10.792|0.591
91886351|NCT01055704|183665489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-34.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.67||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.097|-4.753|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||-4.753|-64.097|0.024
91886352|NCT01055704|183665489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.24||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.962|26.598|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||26.598|-26.962|0.989
91886353|NCT01055704|183665490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|0.025|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.025|-0.827|0.064
91886354|NCT01055704|183665490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.482|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.482|-0.287|0.610
91886355|NCT01055704|183665491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|1.734|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||1.734|-0.278|0.151
91886356|NCT01055704|183665491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|1.017|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||1.017|-0.795|0.806
91886357|NCT01055704|183665492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.583||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.678|27.223|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI as covariates||27.223|-23.678|0.889
91909031|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0205||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.9504|10.781|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||10.781|2.9504|0.0267
91886358|NCT01055704|183665492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.356||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.362|35.577|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||35.577|-10.362|0.274
91886359|NCT01055704|183665493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|0.145|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.145|-0.572|0.236
91886360|NCT01055704|183665493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.357|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.357|-0.412|0.885
91886361|NCT01055704|183665494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.255|0.261|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.261|-1.255|0.192
91886362|NCT01055704|183665494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.756|0.63|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.630|-0.756|0.855
91886363|NCT01814072|183665620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91886364|NCT01814072|183665621|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.1244||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3026|0.5513|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5513|-.3026|0.567
91909032|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.0855|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1677||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.9787|12.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.192|3.9787|0.0134
91909033|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7993||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.5949|14.453|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||14.453|4.5949|0.0152
91755948|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||63.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.75|63.42
91755949|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.17||||9.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.46||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.46|0.93|9.05
91755950|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||66.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.74|66.40
91755951|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.78||||97.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.00|0.60|97.39
91755952|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||16.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.89|16.02
91755953|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||75.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.68|75.69
91886365|NCT01814072|183665621|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.0226||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4495|0.4044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.4044|-.4495|0.917
91886366|NCT01814072|183665621|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.084||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3429|0.5109|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5109|-.3429|0.699
91886367|NCT01814072|183665621|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.1081||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3188|0.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5350|-.3188|0.619
91886368|NCT01814072|183665621|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.4353||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8622|-0.0084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.0084|-.8622|0.046
91886369|NCT01814072|183665622|OTHER||Estimated Change|0.424||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Using the results from primary aim 1, an intervention with only active treatment components with the largest treatment effect that can be obtained for implementation costs of $500 or less was identified and built.||0.850|-0.002|0.051
91886370|NCT02781311|183665629|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.9239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|9.23||P-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including fixed effects of treatment, and covariates of age and baseline TAHC value, with the Type III sum of squares.|ANCOVA|||||9.23|-8.38|0.9239
91886371|NCT02781311|183665630|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.37||P-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including fixed effects of treatment, and covariates of age, with the Type III sum of squares.|ANCOVA|||||0.37|-0.42|0.9101
91886372|NCT01936467|183665671|OTHER||Sensitivity|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91886373|NCT01936467|183665671|OTHER||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91886374|NCT01936467|183665672|OTHER||Sensitivity|88.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91806212|NCT03633695|183489115|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.082||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 1 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 IOL Eyes (IC-8 Group) - Fellow Eyes (IC-8 Group)|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL eyes was inferior to the fellow eyes by 0.1 logMAR or more. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 eyes was inferior to the fellow eyes by less than 0.1 logMAR.||0.082||<.0001
91755954|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||90.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.69|90.22
91886375|NCT01936467|183665672|OTHER||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91886376|NCT01936467|183665673|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91886377|NCT01936467|183665674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
91886378|NCT01936467|183665675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91886379|NCT01936467|183665676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
91886380|NCT00250432|183665677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety with caspofungin 150 mg daily will be non-inferior to that of caspofungin 70/50 mg. Non-inferiority was defined as upper limit of the 2-sided, 95% confidence interval for the difference (150-mg group - 70/50-mg group) must be less than 0.15 (15 percentage points).|Rate Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||||95.0|-4.1|6.8|||||The confidence interval computation was based on the method by Miettinen and Nurminen.|A significant drug-related adverse event was defined as either a drug-related serious adverse event or a drug-related adverse event leading to discontinuation of caspofungin therapy. Comparison between the 2 caspofungin groups was based on upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||6.8|-4.1|
91886381|NCT00250432|183665678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1||||95.0|-5.9|18.4|||||The 95% confidence interval on the difference will be based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|There was no formal hypothesis testing for efficacy in this study. The main efficacy analysis was the number (percentage) of patients with a favorable overall response at the end of caspofungin study therapy, together with the within treatment 95% exact binomial confidence intervals, and the estimated treatment difference, and its 95% confidence interval.||18.4|-5.9|
91886382|NCT01011868|183665679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.78|-0.33||Hypotheses were tested at significance level of 0.025, which is half of overall alpha of 0.05, split equally between 2 treatment comparisons. This maintained the overall type-I (alpha) at 5%. There was no a priori assumption on testing order.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA that included treatment group and geographic region as fixed effects along with baseline HbA1c as covariate.|The primary analysis consisted of the pair-wise comparisons between each dose of empagliflozin versus placebo using the adjusted means from the model.|"The null and alternative hypotheses to be tested:~* H0,1: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo~* H1,1: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-0.33|-0.78|<0.0001
91886383|NCT01011868|183665679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.93|-0.47||Hypotheses were tested at significance level of 0.025, which is half of overall alpha of 0.05, split equally between 2 treatment comparisons. This maintained the overall type-I (alpha) at 5%. There was no a priori assumption on testing order.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA that included treatment group and geographic region as fixed effects along with baseline HbA1c as covariate.|The primary analysis consisted of the pair-wise comparisons between each dose of empagliflozin versus placebo using the adjusted means from the model.|"The null and alternative hypotheses to be tested:~* H0,2: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo~* H1,2: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.47|-0.93|<0.0001
91886384|NCT01011868|183665680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.518|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.262|9.334|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||9.334|3.262|<0.0001
91886385|NCT01011868|183665680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.883|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.859|8.338|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||8.338|2.859|<0.0001
91886386|NCT01011868|183665680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.471|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|5.802|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||5.802|2.077|<0.0001
91886387|NCT01011868|183665680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.825|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.268|6.451|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||6.451|2.268|<0.0001
91886388|NCT01011868|183665680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.802||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.639|4.789|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||4.789|1.639|0.0002
91886389|NCT01011868|183665680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.527|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.051|6.066|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||6.066|2.051|<0.0001
91886390|NCT01011868|183665681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|-19.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-19.27|-37.54|<0.0001
91909034|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.9806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1501|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.602|25.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||25.359|14.602|<.0001
91886391|NCT01011868|183665681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-34.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.67|-24.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||-24.76|-43.67|<0.0001
91755955|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.21||||9.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.62|0.91|9.64
91755956|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||20.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|0.82|20.44
91755957|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||55.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.73|55.06
91755958|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.36||||5.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.97||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.97|0.94|5.29
91755959|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.11||||28.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.77|28.82
91755960|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.81||||93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.61|93.00
91755961|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.42||||1.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.95||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.95|1.03|1.64
91755962|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.38||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.38|0.72|50.71
91886392|NCT01011868|183665681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.62|-0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||-0.89|-20.62|0.0328
91886393|NCT01011868|183665681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.31|-9.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-9.01|-29.31|0.0002
91755963|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.68||||99.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.91|0.51|99.52
91759859|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.83|-3.45||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.45|-18.83|
91909035|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9402||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.59|1.0562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.0562|-6.590|0.3516
91909036|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2323||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.116|7.2838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.2838|-1.116|0.3448
91909037|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3902||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.294|3.1175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.1175|-8.294|0.5583
91909038|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7652||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.4717|13.838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||13.838|1.4717|0.1141
91755964|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||3.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.99|3.10
91755965|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||75.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.71|75.39
91755966|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||93.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.68|93.29
91755967|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.33||||3.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.82||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.82|0.97|3.79
91755968|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||36.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.48|0.76|36.75
91755969|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.72||||99.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.93|0.56|99.32
91755970|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||18.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.93|18.91
91755971|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||47.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.87|47.35
91909039|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1903||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8356|-0.3408|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.3408|-0.8356|0.0034
91755972|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.86|78.00
91755973|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.29||||2.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.67||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.67|1.00|2.65
91755974|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||58.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.73|58.48
91886394|NCT01011868|183665681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.3216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|4.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||4.94|-15.01|0.3216
91886395|NCT01011868|183665681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.24|-1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-1.67|-22.24|0.0229
91886396|NCT01011868|183665682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.38|-14.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-14.86|-35.38|<0.0001
91886397|NCT01011868|183665682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-20.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-20.39|-41.62|<0.0001
91886398|NCT01011868|183665682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.33|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-0.07|-20.33|<0.0484
91886399|NCT01011868|183665682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.84|-8.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-8.99|-29.84|0.0003
91886400|NCT01011868|183665682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.3517||95.0|-14.71|5.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||5.25|-14.71|0.3517
91886401|NCT01011868|183665682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-12.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-2.10|-22.69|0.0185
91886402|NCT01011868|183665683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Week 54 model includes, baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Empagliflozin versus Placebo 10 mg at 54 weeks||-0.84|-10.32|0.0213
91886403|NCT01011868|183665683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Week 54 model includes, baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).|Empagliflozin versus Placebo 25 mg at 54 weeks||-0.77|-10.62|0.0237
91886404|NCT01011868|183665683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.56|-1.77||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA|Model for Week 78 includes baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) and geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s)||"Empagliflozin versus Placebo 10 mg at 78 weeks~H0,1a: No difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo H1,1a: A difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-1.77|-11.56|0.0024
91886405|NCT01011868|183665683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.0|-0.85||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA|Model for Week 78 includes baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) and geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s)||"Empagliflozin versus Placebo 25 mg at 78 weeks~H0,1a: No difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo H1,1a: A difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.85|-11.00|0.0090
91909040|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2064||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4403|0.09599|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.09599|-0.4403|0.4083
91886406|NCT01011868|183665684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-0.18|-3.90|0.0320
91909041|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1055||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13746|0.41127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.41127|0.13746|0.0120
91909042|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1136||0.375|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0457|0.24881|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.24881|-0.0457|0.3750
91755975|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.75||||99.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.No|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.92|0.61|99.64
91755976|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||1.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.4||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.40|1.01|1.90
91755977|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||63.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.81|63.03
91755978|NCT02294734|183404488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.83||||99.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.97|0.72|99.19
91755979|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||67.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.33|0.64|67.19
91755980|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||44.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|0.66|44.80
91755981|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||59.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.46|0.61|59.90
91755982|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||70.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.63|70.12
91755983|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.82||||83.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.54|83.98
91755984|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||34.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.57||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.57|0.73|34.93
91755985|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||32.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.96||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.96|0.65|32.45
91759860|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|1.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.59|-12.44|
91755986|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.7||||95.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.46|95.35
91755987|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.54||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.54|0.66|50.10
91909043|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9301||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.665|5.5387|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.5387|-4.665|0.9119
91909044|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1977||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.79|-0.896|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.8960|-11.79|0.1367
91909045|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1094||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.05|-1.964|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.964|-10.05|0.0595
91909046|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3182||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72505|9.3473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.3473|0.72505|0.1356
91909047|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.2884||0.7528|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.99|26.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||26.303|-15.99|0.7528
91909048|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|67.7022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.4066||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|45.114|90.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||90.290|45.114|0.0003
91909049|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6389||0.2837|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.567|6.2835|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.2835|-0.5670|0.2837
91909050|NCT00531752|183713460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.9251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8913|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.1761|16.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||16.674|9.1761|<0.0001
91909051|NCT00531752|183713461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.8615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9167|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|21.777|31.946|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||31.946|21.777|<0.0001
91909052|NCT00531752|183713461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1817||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.08|9.7713|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.7713|-1.080|0.3034
91909053|NCT00531752|183713461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9408||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.132|10.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||10.780|3.1320|0.0223
91909054|NCT00531752|183713461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0743||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2442|7.7479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.7479|-0.2442|0.2284
91909055|NCT00531752|183713461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.5752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5848||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.9265|13.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||13.224|3.9265|0.0201
91909056|NCT00531752|183713461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8154||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07753|9.9683|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.9683|0.07753|0.1931
91909057|NCT00531752|183713462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1759||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9046|-0.4487|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.4487|-0.9046|0.0003
91909058|NCT00531752|183713462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1871||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5499|-0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0650|-0.5499|0.1055
91759861|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.27|-5.2||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.20|-19.27|
91755988|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||59.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.55|59.37
91806213|NCT03633695|183489123|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.12 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity in Astigmatism Group 2 was inferior to the Astigmatism Group 1 by 0.12 logMAR or more. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean acuity in Astigmatism Group 2 was inferior to Astigmatism Group 1 by less than 0.12 logMAR.||||<.0001
91806214|NCT05426902|183489138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||<0.0001
91806215|NCT05426902|183489139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||0.6
91806216|NCT05426902|183489140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||0.2
91806217|NCT05426902|183489141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||<0.0001
91806218|NCT05426902|183489142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||0.4
91806219|NCT05426902|183489147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I feel good about my medical visit at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
91886407|NCT01011868|183665684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||1.08|-2.81|0.3818
91886408|NCT01011868|183665684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-1.05|-2.89|<0.0001
91886409|NCT01011868|183665684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-1.22|-3.13|<0.0001
91886410|NCT01011868|183665684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-1.45|-5.81|0.0012
91886411|NCT01011868|183665684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-0.85|-5.39|0.0073
91886412|NCT01011868|183665686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-0.26|-0.68|<0.0001
91886413|NCT01011868|183665686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-0.52|-0.95|<0.0001
91886414|NCT01011868|183665686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For non-inferiority, a one-sided test at the significance level of 0.0125 was performed using a chosen margin of 0.3% difference between each dose of empagliflozin and placebo.~If the non-inferiority of empagliflozin to placebo with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c after 78 weeks of treatment could be concluded for a specific dose, subsequent testing of superiority was performed at the significance level of 0.025 for the relevant empagliflozin dose versus placebo comparison."|Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.73|-0.19||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s).|"Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo~H0,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo ≥0.3% H1,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo \<0.3%"||-0.19|-0.73|0.0001
91886415|NCT01011868|183665686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For non-inferiority, a one-sided test at the significance level of 0.0125 was performed using a chosen margin of 0.3% difference between each dose of empagliflozin and placebo.~If the non-inferiority of empagliflozin to placebo with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c after 78 weeks of treatment could be concluded for a specific dose, subsequent testing of superiority was performed at the significance level of 0.025 for the relevant empagliflozin dose versus placebo comparison."|Adjusted mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|-0.34||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s).|"Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo~H0,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo ≥0.3% H1,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo \<0.3%"||-0.34|-0.90|<0.0001
91886416|NCT01011868|183665688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.096||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.846|9.088|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||9.088|1.846|0.0005
91886417|NCT01011868|183665688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.636||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.083|10.321|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||10.321|2.083|0.0002
91886418|NCT01011868|183665688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|3.575|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||3.575|0.856|0.1248
91886419|NCT01011868|183665688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.423||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.203|4.879|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||4.879|1.203|0.0132
91886420|NCT01011868|183665688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.939||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|4.256|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||4.256|0.884|0.0986
91886421|NCT01011868|183665688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.239||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.518|6.911|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||6.911|1.518|0.0024
91886422|NCT04147858|183665689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.539
91886423|NCT04147858|183665689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.425
91886424|NCT04147858|183665690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.824
91886425|NCT04147858|183665690|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
91886426|NCT04147858|183665691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
91886427|NCT04147858|183665691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.603
91886428|NCT04147858|183665692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.871
91886429|NCT04147858|183665692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.352
91886430|NCT04147858|183665693|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
91886431|NCT04147858|183665693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.626
91886432|NCT04147858|183665694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
91886433|NCT04147858|183665694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.726
91886434|NCT04147858|183665695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.888
91886435|NCT04147858|183665695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832
91886436|NCT04147858|183665696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.536
91886437|NCT04147858|183665696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.982
91886438|NCT04147858|183665697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.190
91886439|NCT04147858|183665697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.764
91886440|NCT04147858|183665698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.097
91886441|NCT04147858|183665698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.849|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.849
91886442|NCT02615938|183665699|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No estimated value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups)||||||1
91886443|NCT02615938|183665699|OTHER|McNemar test for paired samples was not calculated as in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no discordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups).|||||||||||||||||No estimated OR value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups) and no P values can be calculated as in any group no responder existed (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no disconcordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups)|||
91886444|NCT02615938|183665699|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No estimated value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups)||||||1.0
91886445|NCT02615938|183665699|OTHER|McNemar test for paired samples was not calculated as in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no discordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups).|||||||||||||||||No estimated OR value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups) and no P values can be calculated as in any group no responder existed (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no disconcordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups)|||
91886446|NCT02615938|183665700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|1.1|0.079|15.16|||Fisher Exact|||||15.16|0.079|1.0
91886447|NCT02615938|183665700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.008|||McNemar|||||0.008|-0.340|1.0
91886448|NCT02615938|183665700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Fisher Exact|No estimated value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups)||||||0.196
91886449|NCT02615938|183665700|OTHER|McNemar test for paired samples was not calculated as in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no discordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups).|||||||||||||||||No estimated OR value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups) and no P values can be calculated as in any group no responder existed (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no disconcordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups)|||
91886450|NCT02615938|183665701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-1.2|0.757
91886451|NCT02615938|183665701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-0.2|0.229
91886452|NCT02615938|183665701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-2.7|0.097
91886453|NCT02615938|183665701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-2.5|0.427
91886454|NCT02615938|183665702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-1.2|0.543
91886455|NCT02615938|183665702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-1.2|0.421
91886456|NCT02615938|183665702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-1.8|0.553
91755989|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.8||||87.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.55|87.99
91806220|NCT05426902|183489147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"My rheumatologist gave me his/her full attention at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.8
91886457|NCT02615938|183665702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.5|-5|0.1020
91886458|NCT02615938|183665703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.4|0.178
91886459|NCT02615938|183665703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-2.6|0.110
91886460|NCT02615938|183665703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.9|-0.6|0.338
91886461|NCT02615938|183665703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.3979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-3|0.3979
91886462|NCT02615938|183665704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-1.6|0.965
91886463|NCT02615938|183665704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|-0.4|0.374
91886464|NCT02615938|183665704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-5.2|0.149
91886465|NCT02615938|183665704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.3|0|0.2963
91886466|NCT02615938|183665705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0|-1.9|0.024
91886467|NCT02615938|183665705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-1.7|0.045
91886468|NCT02615938|183665705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.0|-0.9|0.458
91886469|NCT02615938|183665705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-2.8|0.4216
91886470|NCT02615938|183665706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|0.1|0.063
91886471|NCT02615938|183665706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-0.3|0.410
91886472|NCT02615938|183665706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-2.3|0.574
91886473|NCT02615938|183665707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-0.9|0.730
91886474|NCT02615938|183665707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-0.3|0.170
91886475|NCT02615938|183665707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-2.1|0.724
91886476|NCT02615938|183665707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-2.2|0.487
91886477|NCT02615938|183665708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-1|0.850
91886478|NCT02615938|183665708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-0.4|0.258
91886479|NCT02615938|183665708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.9|0.862
91886480|NCT02615938|183665708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-1.8|0.840
91886481|NCT02615938|183665709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0|-2.6|0.010
91886482|NCT02615938|183665709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-1.5|0.533
91886483|NCT02615938|183665709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|-1.6|0.858
91886484|NCT02615938|183665709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-1.4|0.661
91886485|NCT02615938|183665710|SUPERIORITY|Due to missing values no statistical test resulting in a P was calculated|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-2.7||||||||-2.7|-14|
91886486|NCT02615938|183665710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2|-0.9|0.576
91886487|NCT02615938|183665710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.9|0.884
91886488|NCT02615938|183665710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.4|0.563
91886489|NCT04121897|183665726|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
91886490|NCT04683510|183665739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.647||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|3.746|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.746|0.724|0.2345
91886491|NCT04683510|183665739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.897||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|4.291|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.291|0.839|0.124
91886492|NCT04683510|183665740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.905||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.067|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.067|0.768|0.2352
91886493|NCT04683510|183665740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.924||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.088|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.088|0.785|0.3418
91886494|NCT04683510|183665741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.615|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.615|0.921|0.1653
91886495|NCT04683510|183665741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.213||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|1.609|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.609|0.914|0.181
91889153|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|59.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|64.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 8||64.1|55.6|
91909059|NCT00531752|183713462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4684|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7012|-0.2356|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.2356|-0.7012|0.0119
91909060|NCT00531752|183713462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1866||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3687|0.11608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.11608|-0.3687|0.5016
91909061|NCT00531752|183713462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1738||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5711|-0.1191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.1191|-0.5711|0.0531
91909062|NCT00531752|183713462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1856||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6549|-0.1725|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.1725|-0.6549|0.0306
91909063|NCT00531752|183713463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1731|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5426|0.99157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.99157|0.54260|<0.0001
91909064|NCT00531752|183713463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1847||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28911|0.76798|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.76798|0.28911|0.0059
91909065|NCT00531752|183713463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1431||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0336|0.33878|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.33878|-0.0336|0.2921
91909066|NCT00531752|183713463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1498||0.1929|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.00319|0.39272|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.39272|0.00319|0.1929
91909067|NCT00531752|183713463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1565||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13988|0.54663|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.54663|0.13988|0.0332
91909068|NCT00531752|183713463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1681||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.20006|0.63674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.63674|0.20006|0.0162
91909069|NCT00531752|183713464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36707|0.65345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.65345|0.36707|<0.0001
91909070|NCT00531752|183713464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1174||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21189|0.51664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.51664|0.21189|0.0031
91909071|NCT00531752|183713464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09408||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01366|0.25882|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.25882|0.01366|0.1553
91909072|NCT00531752|183713464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09797||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0205|0.23458|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.23458|-0.0205|0.2809
91909073|NCT00531752|183713464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1146||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07101|0.36803|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.36803|0.07101|0.0603
91755990|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||70.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.36||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.36|0.59|70.87
91755991|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||63.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.51|63.71
91909074|NCT00531752|183713464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1212||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27079|0.58479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.58479|0.27079|0.0008
91759862|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-2.14||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.14|-16.11|
91909075|NCT00531752|183713465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.3264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6944|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.83|-9.828|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-9.828|-16.83|<0.0001
91909076|NCT00531752|183713465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8841||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.87|-4.382|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-4.382|-11.87|0.0068
91909077|NCT00531752|183713465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3172||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.551|-0.5175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.5175|-6.551|0.1346
91909078|NCT00531752|183713465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4268||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.067|4.2494|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.2494|-2.067|0.6552
91909079|NCT00531752|183713465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7614||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.494|-0.9063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.9063|-5.494|0.0765
91909080|NCT00531752|183713465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8976||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.349|-1.407|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.407|-6.349|0.0473
91909081|NCT02374099|183713523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.42|||Log Rank||||Hazard ratio and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by the Cox proportional hazard models.|1.42|0.54|= 0.599
91755992|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||65.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.44|0.57|65.99
91909082|NCT02374099|183713524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3|||=|0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|15.06|||Fisher Exact||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ORR was estimated by the Wilson method.|15.06|-2.47|= 0.1479
91909083|NCT02374099|183713525|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|0.7|||=|0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|19.04|||Fisher Exact||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in clinical benefit rate was estimated by the Wilson method.|19.04|-17.76|= 0.1732
91909084|NCT02374099|183713526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||=|0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.53|||Log Rank||||Hazard Ratio and associated two-sided 95% CI were estimated by the Cox proportional hazard model.|1.53|0.23|= 0.2725
91909085|NCT01033825|183713557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% CI upper bound for the difference between ciclesonide and placebo with placebo dexamethasone (placebo minus ciclesonide) is \<Margin. In order to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of ciclesonide 320 μg to HFA placebo, 46 evaluable subjects per group are needed using a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, a standard deviation of 55 μg h/dL, a non-inferiority margin of 38 μh /dL, assuming no true difference exists.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|13.0|||ANCOVA||Null Hypothesis: the difference in serum cortisol levels between placebo and active (placebo-active)\>=38 Alternative Hypothesis: the difference in serum cortisol levels between placebo and active (placebo-active)\<38|Standard bioequivalence bounds of a 20% difference based on the clinical judgment was used to determine the delta.||13.0|-13.9|>0.05
91909086|NCT01033825|183713557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% CI upper bound for the difference between ciclesonide and placebo with placebo dexamethasone (placebo minus ciclesonide) is \<Margin. In order to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of ciclesonide 320 μg to HFA placebo, 46 evaluable subjects per group are needed using a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, a standard deviation of 55 μg h/dL, a non-inferiority margin of 38 μh /dL, assuming no true difference exists.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|10.2|||ANCOVA|||Standard bioequivalence bounds of a 20% difference based on the clinical judgment was used to determine the delta.||10.2|-15.1|0.025
91755993|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||71.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.60|71.95
91755994|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||48.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.43||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.43|0.71|48.28
91759863|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-2.88||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.88|-16.89|
91755995|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||61.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.39||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.39|0.65|61.06
91909087|NCT01033825|183713557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% CI upper bound for the difference between ciclesonide and placebo with placebo dexamethasone (placebo minus ciclesonide) is \<Margin. In order to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of ciclesonide nasal spray 200 μg to placebo nasal spray 46 evaluable (per protocol) subjects per group are needed using a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, a standard deviation of 55 μg h/dL, a non-inferiority margin of 38 μh /dL|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|25.5|||ANCOVA|||Standard bioequivalence bounds of a 20% difference based on the clinical judgment was used to determine the delta.||25.5|-4.7|>0.05
91909088|NCT01883635|183713617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=40||||||0.14
91909089|NCT01883635|183713618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=40||||||0.65
91909090|NCT01883635|183713619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=40||||||0.51
91909091|NCT01464307|183713620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||The number of subjects included in the MMRM analysis was only 286 because a covariate was missing for 3 subjects.||0.2|-0.1|0.777
91909092|NCT01464307|183713621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804||||||worst-case analysis.|Wilcoxon's Rank-Sum Test|||The statistical analysis provided was for all categories of this outcome measure.||||0.804
91909093|NCT01464307|183713622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.74||observed cases analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4. Number of subjects included in analysis was three less than the observed cases because of a missing covariate for the logistic regression analysis, that is, n=283 for week 4.||1.74|0.63|0.845
91909094|NCT01464307|183713622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.04||observed cases analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8. Number of subjects included in analysis was three less than the observed cases because of a missing covariate for the logistic regression analysis, that is, n=279 for week 8.||2.04|0.73|0.437
91909095|NCT01464307|183713622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.21||observed cases analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12. Number of subjects included in analysis was three less than the observed cases because of a missing covariate for the logistic regression analysis, that is, n=273 for week 12.||2.21|0.59|0.698
91755996|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||18.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.74||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.74|0.82|18.05
91755997|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||61.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|0.53|61.12
91755998|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||64.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.41|0.61|64.40
91909096|NCT00159861|183713632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.132||||||1 Year: Proportion of participants who died.||0.132|0.059|
91909097|NCT00159861|183713632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.243||||||2 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.243|0.144|
91909098|NCT00159861|183713632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.315||||||3 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.315|0.205|
91909099|NCT00159861|183713632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.291|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.348||||||4 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.348|0.234|
91909100|NCT00159861|183713632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|0.437||||||5 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.437|0.302|
91909101|NCT00894556|183713671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLIMMIX)|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within patient.||||||<0.001
91909102|NCT00894556|183713672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLIMMIX)|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within patient.||||||<0.001
91909103|NCT04294901|183713686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Binary mixed effect model with patients nested in providers nested in facilities||It is pre-specified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan to assess all medication groups combined within the Intervention and Control Arms/Groups.||1.38|1.05|0.008
91909104|NCT01733628|183713688|OTHER|Type of statistical Test: Inequality|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.59|0.56|0.8166
91909105|NCT02909985|183713706|SUPERIORITY||F|23.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|(9, 129)||||||<0.0001
91909106|NCT02909985|183713706|SUPERIORITY||F|9.4394|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|(11, 52)||||||<0.0001
91755999|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||38.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.66||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.66|0.69|38.12
91756000|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.67|91.00
91756001|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.81||||94.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.62|94.52
91756002|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||82.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.72|82.11
91756003|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||48.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.64|48.10
91756004|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||65.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.36|0.64|65.66
91756005|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.25||||11.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.8||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.80|0.87|11.46
91756006|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||77.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.70|77.20
91806221|NCT05426902|183489147|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I was able to say everything I wanted to say to my rheumatologist at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
91886496|NCT03771638|183665742|SUPERIORITY|Minimum detectable effects: Under assumptions of the adherence of DBS TFV-DP levels \>=700 fmol/punch in the control condition as 60% and intraclass correlation of repeated binary measures of DBS TFV-DP of 0.69, and retention of 80% of participants at 24 weeks, we will have 80% power in 2-sided tests with a type-1 error rate of 5% to detect average between-group differences in adherence of 23 percentage points.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36||GEE poisson models with robust standard errors were used to assess DBS adherence rates, averaged across visits.|GEE Poisson models|||Null hypothesis: no difference in PrEP adherence levels between DOT Diary Intervention and Control arms||1.36|0.75|0.94
91886497|NCT03771638|183665743|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.62|||Kappa|||Kappa statistic to assess concordance between DBS measurement and self-reported PrEP use||0.62|0.36|
91886498|NCT05101993|183665755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91886499|NCT00965497|183665801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|95.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||There were 13 people that completed so there truly was no power to detect true differences; therefore only trends can be discussed.||||0.01
91886500|NCT03274895|183665840|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin= 0.20|difference in proportion of resolution r|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.154|0.081||||||||0.081|-0.154|
91886501|NCT03274895|183665841|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.042
91886502|NCT03274895|183665842|OTHER|||||||0.577|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.577
91886503|NCT01782690|183665872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2361|||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of Rash=Yes versus Rash=No within Erlotinib plus Gemcitabine arm||||0.2361
91886504|NCT01637077|183665894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.56
91886505|NCT01637077|183665895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.48
91886506|NCT01637077|183665896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Worst pain over the past 24 hours||||0.62
91886507|NCT01637077|183665896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Average pain over the past 24 hours||||0.22
91886508|NCT01637077|183665896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Least pain over the past 24 hours||||0.07
91756007|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||87.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.66|87.35
91806222|NCT05426902|183489149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"My rheumatologist and I agreed on how active my lupus was today at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
91886509|NCT01637077|183665898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
91886510|NCT01637077|183665899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
91886511|NCT01637077|183665900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91886512|NCT01637077|183665901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.12
91886513|NCT01637077|183665902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.78
91886514|NCT01637077|183665903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91886515|NCT01637077|183665904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Sensory neuropathy||||0.46
91886516|NCT01637077|183665904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Autonomic neuropathy||||0.86
91886517|NCT01637077|183665904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Motor neuropathy||||0.40
91886518|NCT02353312|183665918|EQUIVALENCE|Pairwise comparisons of VO2 max means with equal variances between participant on and off treatment.||||||0.823|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.823
91886519|NCT03023423|183665971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.92||||||||1.92|0.03|
91886520|NCT01151423|183665981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.78||Caplacizumab was compared to placebo using a one-sided log-rank test in order to assess superiority at 2.5% significance level.|Stratified log-rank test||The HR was estimated from a Cox proportional Hazards regression model with presence (yes) / absence (no) of 1 PE session prior to randomization as covariate.|The primary analysis consisted of a Kaplan-Meier analysis with time-to-response as endpoint and treatment group as the independent variable and stratified for absence/presence of one PE session prior to randomization.||3.78|1.28|= 0.005
91886521|NCT01227616|183666020|NON_INFERIORITY|The study protocol defined the margin for non-inferiority as 0.5 g/dL meaning non-inferiority would be established in a TP if the lower limit of the 95% confidence limit for the difference between ferumoxytol and iron sucrose mean change was ≥0.5 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Stats. of primary endpoint performed only for TP1 and TP2. 240 subjects retreated should yield 90% power to detect non-inferiority during TP2.||||||<0.05
91886522|NCT05723263|183666027|OTHER||Proportional difference|94.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.2|94.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||It was calculated that 12 clinic sites with 1200 participants randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio between the three arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of test uptake between the pay-it-forward and control group participants, using a two-sided, two-sample t-test (α=0.05), assuming a 0.25\~0.31 cluster coefficient of variation, a \<5% lost-to-follow-up rate, and an intra-class correlation of 0.016.||94.8|94.2|<0.001
91886523|NCT05723263|183666027|OTHER||Proportional difference|87.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.5|88.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||It was estimated that 12 clinic sites with 1200 participants randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio between the three arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of test uptake between the pay-it-forward and control group participants, using a two-sided, two-sample t-test (α=0.05), assuming a 0.25\~0.31 cluster coefficient of variation, a \<5% lost-to-follow-up rate, and an intra-class correlation of 0.016.||88.0|86.5|<0.001
91886524|NCT05723263|183666027|OTHER||Proportional difference|7.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|7.9|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Using a binary outcome and cluster RCT design, we estimated that 12 clinic clusters (two per city) and 1200 participants (100 per cluster) were needed to achieve a 90% power and allow for a 0.05 type-I error to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of test uptake between the pay-it-forward and control arm participants and a \<5% lost-to-follow-up rate. We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in control.||7.9|6.6|>0.05
91886525|NCT05723263|183666028|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91886526|NCT05723263|183666029|OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0059
91886527|NCT05723263|183666030|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91886528|NCT05723263|183666032|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91886529|NCT05723263|183666033|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91886530|NCT05723263|183666034|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91886531|NCT05723263|183666035|OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.727
91886532|NCT05723263|183666036|OTHER||Difference in Probability Difference|-0.047||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.014|||Generalized Estimating Equations||Absolute proportional difference in gonorrhea and chlamydia test uptake rate among community-led clinic participants across the three intervention arms|We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in the control between community-led and public STI clinic participants.||-0.014|-0.080|0.005
91886533|NCT05723263|183666037|OTHER||Difference in Probability Difference|-0.04||||0.015||95.0|-0.073|-0.008|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in the control among MSM and non-MSM participants.||-0.008|-0.073|0.015
91886534|NCT05723263|183666038|OTHER||Difference in Probability Difference|0.015||||0.384||95.0|-0.019|0.049|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in the control among participants 30 years and below and those above 30 years.||0.049|-0.019|0.384
91909107|NCT02495844|183713736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||=|0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|19.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.06|0.90|=0.0679
91909108|NCT00623480|183713755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (On-Demand vs. Prophylaxis)|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|26.5|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for time of follow-up||||26.5|8.1|<0.0001
91756008|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||56.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.77|56.53
91756009|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||7.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.5||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.50|0.94|7.29
91756010|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||55.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.75|55.09
91756011|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.79||||96.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.61|96.49
91756012|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||14.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.44|0.90|14.54
91756013|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||66.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.71|66.85
91756014|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.88||||85.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.70|85.77
91756015|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.24||||8.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.70|0.91|8.67
91756016|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||14.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.75||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.75|0.84|14.80
91756017|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||45.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.37||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.37|0.75|45.69
91756018|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.42||||2.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||2.06|0.99|2.94
91756019|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||13.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.73||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.73|0.85|13.92
91806223|NCT05426902|183489149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I understand the care recommendations that my doctor or provider gave me today at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.8
91909109|NCT00623480|183713756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated diff (prohylaxis vs. OD)|-0.17||||0.6614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.59|||Based on cLDA model|Adjusted for presence/absence of target joint and prior 6 month bleeding frequency||||0.59|-0.92|0.6614
91756020|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||86.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.65|86.40
91756021|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.46||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||2.00|1.06|0.88
91886535|NCT05032066|183666265|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|1.29|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||The primary analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using observed change in FVC % predicted values from all planned post-baseline assessments (Weeks 4, 16, 28, 40 and 52) with covariates of treatment group (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), prior use of IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\], visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||1.29|-3.56|0.4388
91886536|NCT05032066|183666265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.493||0.7959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|2.09|||MMRM|||The primary analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using observed change in FVC % predicted values from all planned post-baseline assessments (Weeks 4, 16, 28, 40 and 52) with covariates of treatment group (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), prior use of IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\], visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||2.09|-2.86|0.7959
91886537|NCT05032066|183666267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854||||0.7179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.417|1.75|||Stratified logistic regression|||The percentage of participants with a decrease in FVC% predicted ≥10% from baseline at Week 52 were analyzed with observed data using a stratified logistic regression model. Baseline value and treatment were considered as factors in the model and prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\] were considered as stratification factors.||1.750|0.417|0.7179
91886538|NCT05032066|183666267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.469||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.236|0.934|||Stratified logistic regression|||The percentage of participants with a decrease in FVC% predicted ≥10% from baseline at Week 52 were analyzed with observed data using a stratified logistic regression model. Baseline value and treatment were considered as factors in the model and prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\] were considered as stratification factors.||0.934|0.236|0.0706
91886539|NCT05032066|183666268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|16.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.109||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|46.73|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\], as used in IRT randomization), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||46.73|-13.30|0.3579
91886540|NCT05032066|183666268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.173||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.35|28.88|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\], as used in IRT randomization), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||28.88|-31.35|0.9460
91886541|NCT05032066|183666269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.6091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|2.6|||MMRM|||Estimated from a MMRM with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included treatment group, time point, treatment by timepoint interaction, and stratification factors as covariates.||2.6|-5.0|0.6091
91806224|NCT05426902|183489150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Follow-Up||||0.02
91886542|NCT05032066|183666269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.6374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|2.7|||MMRM|||Estimated from a MMRM with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included treatment group, time point, treatment by timepoint interaction, and stratification factors as covariates.||2.7|-4.9|0.6374
91886543|NCT05032066|183666270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|8.3|||MMRM|||Impact Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||8.3|-0.6|0.1526
91886544|NCT05032066|183666270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|6.6|||MMRM|||Impact Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||6.6|-2.4|0.4421
91909110|NCT00623480|183713757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated diff (prohylaxis vs. OD)|-0.94||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.26|||Based on cLDA model|Adjusted for presence/absence of target joint and prior 6 month bleeding frequency||||-0.26|-1.61|0.0072
91806225|NCT05426902|183489151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke meets my approval at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
91909111|NCT00623480|183713758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated diff (prohylaxis vs. OD)|13.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|21.08||no p-values computed|Based on cLDA model|Adjusted for presence/absence of target joint and prior 6 month bleeding frequency||||21.08|5.23|
91909112|NCT00847912|183713775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.93
91909113|NCT00847912|183713776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.82|0.93
91909114|NCT00517595|183713781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Within Group 1 (N=48), patients with an ECOG of 0 at baseline (N=18) were compared to patients with an ECOG of 1 at baseline (N=30).||||0.02
91909115|NCT00517595|183713782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Within Group 1 (N=48), patients with an ECOG of 0 at baseline (N=18) were compared to patients with an ECOG of 1 at baseline (N=30).||||0.0041
91909116|NCT05525533|183713815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.24|||Regression, Linear|||||2.24|-1.87|
91909117|NCT05525533|183713815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.82|||Regression, Linear|||||3.82|-0.73|
91909118|NCT05525533|183713817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|18.0|||Regression, Linear|||||18|-2.92|
91909119|NCT05525533|183713817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|31.0|||Regression, Linear|||||31|0.64|
91909120|NCT05525533|183713819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|113.0|||Regression, Linear|||||113|-18|
91756022|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||41.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.43||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.43|0.75|41.25
91909121|NCT05525533|183713819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|189.0|||Regression, Linear|||||189|38|
91909122|NCT05525533|183713820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|8.63|||Regression, Linear|||||8.63|-1.37|
91909123|NCT05525533|183713820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5|||Regression, Linear|||||4.50|-1.50|
91909124|NCT05525533|183713821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.30|-0.36|
91909125|NCT05525533|183713821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.30|-0.54|
91909126|NCT05525533|183713822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|3.72|||Regression, Linear|||||3.72|-3.38|
91909127|NCT05525533|183713822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|15.0|||Regression, Linear|||||15|0.42|
91756023|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.7||||99.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.94|0.52|99.20
91909128|NCT05525533|183713823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|5.02|||Regression, Linear|||||5.02|-0.11|
91909129|NCT05525533|183713823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|6.25|||Regression, Linear|||||6.25|0.33|
91909130|NCT02915523|183713835|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|1.393|||||Stratified HR estimated from a stratified univeriate Cox proportional hazards model. Avelumab + placebo was the reference treatment group.|||1.393|0.581|
91806226|NCT05426902|183489151|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke is appealing to me at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
91909131|NCT02797808|183713850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0083||||||Independent-sample t tests were used to compare the RSFC metrics between groups at baseline and 12 weeks. Bonferroni correction was applied to the alpha level (2-tailed, p\<.05/6= .0083) for multiple testing.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0083
91909132|NCT00535132|183713855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001||||||p-value based on a paired t-test for a within-group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size for this study was based on changes in the MSQ scores within subjects from baseline to endpoint using a one-sample paired t-test. A sample size of 97 subjects was shown to have 90% power at endpoint to detect a mean change from baseline of 0.5 units on the MSQ score, with a standard deviation of 1.5. Allowing for extra variability from subjects with prior generic risperidone (instead of branded risperidone) use, this number was increased to 150 subjects.||||<0.001
91909133|NCT00535132|183713856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
91909134|NCT00535132|183713857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91909135|NCT00535132|183713858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
91909136|NCT00535132|183713859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.002
91909137|NCT00535132|183713860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.033
91909138|NCT00535132|183713861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
91909139|NCT00535132|183713862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
91909140|NCT00535132|183713863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.123
91806227|NCT05426902|183489151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I like SLE@Duke at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.5
91806228|NCT05426902|183489151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I welcome SLE@Duke at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.6
91909141|NCT00535132|183713864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.125
91909142|NCT00535132|183713865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.1|<|0.001||||||p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91909143|NCT00535132|183713866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||0.009
91909144|NCT00535132|183713867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
91806229|NCT05426902|183489152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems fitting at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
91806230|NCT05426902|183489152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems suitable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
91806231|NCT05426902|183489152|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems applicable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
91909145|NCT00535132|183713868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
91909146|NCT00535132|183713869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
91909147|NCT00708500|183713882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|37.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|25.7|49.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||49.1|25.7|<0.0001
91909148|NCT00708500|183713882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|45.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|33.7|56.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||56.8|33.7|<0.0001
91909149|NCT00708500|183713883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|39.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|27.2|51.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||51.0|27.2|<0.0001
91909150|NCT00708500|183713883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|45.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|33.4|56.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||56.8|33.4|<0.0001
91909151|NCT05051904|183713886|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|0.622|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Dabigatran.|||0.622|0.402|<0.0001
91909152|NCT05051904|183713886|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.784||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|0.896|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Rivaroxaban.|||0.896|0.686|0.0004
91909153|NCT05051904|183713886|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.637|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.791|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Dabigatran.|||0.791|0.514|<0.0001
91909154|NCT05051904|183713887|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|0.851|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Dabigatran.|||0.851|0.714|<0.0001
91909155|NCT05051904|183713887|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.827|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio\<1 favors Rivaroxaban|||0.88|0.777|<0.0001
91806232|NCT05426902|183489152|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems like a good match at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
91806233|NCT05426902|183489153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems implementable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.3
91806234|NCT05426902|183489153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems possible at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.3
91806235|NCT05426902|183489153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems doable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.4
91806236|NCT05426902|183489153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems easy to use at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.3
91806237|NCT00429273|183489159|OTHER|Test for differences in treatment outcomes between three different tx|F-Value for variance component|18.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses are based on a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) modelling the effects of the medication when calibrated to optimal dosage and controlling for time effects and within-subject effects. The design is a combined within-between subject design, where each participant is exposed to, and provides information about multiple tx modalities.||||<.01
91806238|NCT01246401|183489167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Welch's T Test|||||||0.431
91806239|NCT01246401|183489168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||Welch's T Test|||||||0.087
91806240|NCT01246401|183489170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Wilcoxon one sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91806241|NCT01246401|183489175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03962|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03962
91806242|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.473|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7096|26.6553|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||26.6553|-15.7096|
91806243|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.784|20.5888|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||20.5888|-21.7840|
91806244|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3489|33.1602|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||33.1602|-9.3489|
91756024|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||3.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.98|3.49
91756025|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||73.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.72|73.09
91756026|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||92.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.69|92.41
91756027|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.38||||2.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.89||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.89|1.01|2.29
91806245|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.671|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9957|24.3384|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + Ezetimibe 10 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||24.3384|-16.9957|
91806246|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2069|37.4425|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 80 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||37.4425|-28.2069|
91886545|NCT05032066|183666270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|6.6|||MMRM|||Symptoms Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||6.6|0.1|0.0936
91886546|NCT05032066|183666270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|5.3|||MMRM|||Symptoms Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||5.3|-1.3|0.3129
91886547|NCT05032066|183666271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.644||0.5832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.71|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||0.71|-1.42|0.5832
91886548|NCT05032066|183666271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|0.09|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||0.09|-2.06|0.1297
91886549|NCT05032066|183666272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|2.9|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||2.90|0.34|0.9996
91886550|NCT05032066|183666272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|4.48|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||4.48|0.66|0.3721
91886551|NCT05032066|183666273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|3.32|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||3.32|0.63|0.4778
91886552|NCT05032066|183666273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|5.61|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||5.61|1.22|0.0438
91756028|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||23.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.56||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters.Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.56|0.81|23.67
91756029|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.75||||98.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.96|0.59|98.87
91756030|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||14.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.95|14.50
91756031|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||30.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.91|30.26
91756032|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||62.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.89|62.84
91756033|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.31||||2.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.70|1.01|2.06
91756034|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||49.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.76|49.97
91756035|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.76||||99.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.94|0.62|99.43
91756036|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.2||||1.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.41||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.41|1.02|1.17
91756037|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||49.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.84|49.78
91756038|NCT02294734|183404489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||98.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.98|0.73|98.66
91886553|NCT02065882|183666309|OTHER|Confirmatory t-test testing of the MCF difference (1 h post-dose minus pre-dose)|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91886554|NCT03660826|183666355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.3||Comparing Arm II vs Arm I (reference group)|Log Rank||||Comparing Arm II vs Arm I (reference group)|2.30|0.91|0.93
91886555|NCT03660826|183666355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.14|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm III vs Arm I||1.14|0.43|0.06
91886556|NCT03660826|183666355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.7|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm IV vs Arm VII||1.70|0.67|0.62
91886557|NCT03660826|183666355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.46|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm V vs Arm VII||1.46|0.58|0.36
91886558|NCT03660826|183666355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.25|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm VI vs VII||1.25|0.49|0.14
91886559|NCT00233480|183666362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t test|||||||0.025
91806247|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.713|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0405|39.8527|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||39.8527|-17.0405|
91756039|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||32.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RUL; Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.97|32.51
91806248|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0153|31.5504|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||31.5504|-21.0153|
91909156|NCT00794677|183713897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Statistical significance was determined for a standard two-period crossover design using JMP software (Version 5.0, SAS Institute. Cary, NC).||||0.03
91909157|NCT00794677|183713898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91756040|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||6.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.99|6.21
91756041|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||15.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; LUL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|15.91
91756042|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||6.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes;LUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.99|6.73
91756043|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||27.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RML Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.96|27.65
91756044|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||12.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RML Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|12.19
91756045|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||11.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.98|11.62
91756046|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||7.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.99|7.66
91806249|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.466|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7517|24.7608|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||24.7608|-23.7517|
91909158|NCT00794677|183713899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.6||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.60
91909159|NCT00794677|183713900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
91909160|NCT00794677|183713901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
91909161|NCT00794677|183713902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.569|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91909162|NCT00794677|183713903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.866|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0000001
91909163|NCT00794677|183713904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.893||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
91909164|NCT00794677|183713905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0000001
91756047|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||28.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; LLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.96|28.88
91756048|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||28.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; LLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.96|28.28
91756049|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||27.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Upper Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.97|27.87
91756050|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||9.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.No|FRC Region; Upper Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.99|9.83
91756051|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||21.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Lower Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.97|21.87
91756052|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||18.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Lower Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.97|18.58
91756053|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||22.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Total Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.98|22.28
91756054|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||10.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Total Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|10.86
91756055|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||84.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RUL; Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.97|84.89
91756056|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||63.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|63.78
91756057|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||69.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; LUL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|69.42
91756058|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||62.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes;LUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|62.63
91759864|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|4.4||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.40|-9.63|
91909165|NCT00563186|183713977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|This statistical analysis applies to the overall VRE, CDI and MRSA infection and colonization events expressed as incidence density (per 1000 patient-days at risk).|Incidence Rate ratio|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.22|||Poisson||Numerator is novel ward and denominator is traditional ward.|"It was calculated that this study will require 9750 patient days of observation in the traditional design wards and 19,500 patient days of observation in the novel design ward to ensure 80% statistical power to detect a 60% difference in the rates of incident cases of selected HAIs and ARO colonizations (the primary outcome measure) with an α level of 0.05 assuming that incident cases in each unit follow Poisson distribution based on well established historic trends on these units"||3.22|0.80|0.18
91756059|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||72.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RML Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|72.55
91806250|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.246|33.7161|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||33.7161|-3.2460|
91806251|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3243|8.9224|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||8.9224|-21.3243|
91806252|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8137|1.1513|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||1.1513|-26.8137|
91806253|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6557|13.1191|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + Ezetimibe 10 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||13.1191|-16.6557|
91806254|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1045|-11.3579|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 80 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||-11.3579|-45.1045|
91806255|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5021|11.3014|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||11.3014|-23.5021|
91909166|NCT00563186|183713979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.9|||Large test for person-time analysis|||||4.9|0.76|0.175
91756060|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||36.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RML Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.97|36.28
91909167|NCT01136655|183713980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.142|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.142|0.087|<0.0001
91756061|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||47.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.96|47.44
91756062|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||22.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.97|22.99
91756063|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||85.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; LLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.94|85.95
91806256|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2721|8.2918|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||8.2918|-25.2721|
91806257|NCT01218204|183489214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0247|6.6498|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||6.6498|-26.0247|
91806258|NCT01218204|183489215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.471|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9323|3.202|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||3.2020|-47.9323|
91806259|NCT01218204|183489215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1027|25.3126|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||25.3126|-38.1027|
91806260|NCT01218204|183489215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5492|1.8605|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||1.8605|-45.5492|
91806261|NCT01218204|183489215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.697|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0846|13.3024|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||13.3024|-45.0846|
91806262|NCT01218204|183489215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2281|15.1569|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||15.1569|-27.2281|
91806263|NCT01218204|183489215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2901|32.6057|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||32.6057|-24.2901|
91886560|NCT01475305|183666368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.05|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|||2.05|0.00|
91886561|NCT01475305|183666369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|6.24|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|RSV infection by quantitative real-time RT-PCR||6.24|0.16|
91886562|NCT01475305|183666369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.05|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|RSV infection by DFA||2.05|0.00|
91886563|NCT01475305|183666369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|6.24|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|RSV infection by Any Method||6.24|0.16|
91886564|NCT04486625|183666410|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the natural log transformed AUC0-24,ss between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|79.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.52|94.96||||||||94.96|66.52|
91886565|NCT04486625|183666411|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% CIs for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|75.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.1|86.43||||||||86.43|66.10|
91886566|NCT04486625|183666412|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUC0-24,ss between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% CIs for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of of adjusted geometric means|124.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.18|153.97||||||||153.97|100.18|
91886567|NCT04486625|183666413|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% CIs for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|102.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.55|119.83||||||||119.83|87.55|
91886568|NCT01411241|183666439|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.4||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-diphtheria. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||1.40|-1.48|
91886569|NCT01411241|183666439|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.07||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-tetanus. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.07|-1.14|
91886570|NCT01411241|183666439|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.08||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-polio 1. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.08|-1.14|
91886571|NCT01411241|183666439|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.4||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-polio 2. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||1.40|-1.48|
91886572|NCT01411241|183666439|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.09||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-polio 3. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.09|-1.15|
91886573|NCT01411241|183666439|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.4||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-PRP. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||1.40|-1.48|
91886574|NCT01411241|183666439|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|2.69||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-PT. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.69|-3.93|
91806264|NCT01218204|183489215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4767|1.906|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||1.9060|-40.4767|
91806265|NCT01218204|183489215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.798|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3842|-12.5064|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-12.5064|-48.3842|
91756064|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||60.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; LLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|60.20
91756065|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||81.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Upper Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.97|81.34
91756066|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||63.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC UpperDay 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|63.04
91806266|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5469|14.7495|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||14.7495|-4.5469|
91886575|NCT01411241|183666439|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|4.06||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-FHA. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||4.06|-4.87|
91886576|NCT00725270|183666448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures ANOVA was run on the Positive Symptom Scale of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, using Baseline and Day 9 ratings. Below is the medication \* time interaction.||||.812
91886577|NCT00725270|183666449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||eta sq|0.157||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.203
91886578|NCT02980042|183666450|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6616||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3666|1.1942|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was necessary because there are repeated measures on subjects.|This is comparing the Switching group to the Comparator group|||1.1942|.3666|0.1996
91886579|NCT02980042|183666451|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5299|1.8872|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects|Comparing Switching group Day 1 to combined Comparator group|||1.8872|.5299|1.0000
91886580|NCT02980042|183666451|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2857||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1006|0.8114|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.|Switching group Day 15 was compared to combined Comparator group.|||.8114|.1006|0.0053
91886581|NCT02980042|183666451|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8571||||0.6474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4385|1.6753|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||1.6753|.4385|0.6474
91886582|NCT02980042|183666455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2857||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1072|0.7613|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||.7613|.1072|0.0075
91886583|NCT02980042|183666455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8571||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4868|1.5093|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||1.5093|.4868|0.5930
91886584|NCT02980042|183666455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|7.9932|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||7.9932|1.1260|0.0209
91806267|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5937|21.9532|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Fo HDLc||21.9532|2.5937|
91886585|NCT02980042|183666460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-5.01||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.01|-27.05|0.005
91886586|NCT02980042|183666461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.56||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||3.56|1.54|<0.0001
91886587|NCT02980042|183666462|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|8.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|10.82||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||10.82|6.33|<0.0001
91886588|NCT02980042|183666463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|-4.55||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-4.55|-10.19|<0.0001
91886589|NCT02980042|183666464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.59|59.05||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||59.05|29.59|<0.0001
91886590|NCT02980042|183666465|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|353.35||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|175.23|531.46||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||531.46|175.23|0.0002
91909168|NCT01136655|183713980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.133|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.133|0.078|<0.0001
91909169|NCT01136655|183713980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.085|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.085|0.030|0.0001
91909170|NCT01136655|183713980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.018|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.018|-0.036|0.5223
91909171|NCT01136655|183713980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.029|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.029|-0.084|0.0001
91909172|NCT01136655|183713980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0138||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|-0.02|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.020|-0.075|0.0007
91909173|NCT01136655|183713980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|-0.086|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.086|-0.142|<0.0001
91909174|NCT01136655|183713980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.028|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.028|-0.084|0.0001
91909175|NCT01136655|183713980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.019|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.019|-0.036|0.5394
91909176|NCT01136655|183713980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.028|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.028|-0.027|0.9863
91909177|NCT01136655|183713981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.155|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.155|0.056|<0.0001
91909178|NCT01136655|183713981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.116|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.116|0.017|0.0092
91909179|NCT01136655|183713981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.5509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.065|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.065|-0.035|0.5509
91909180|NCT01136655|183713981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.01|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.010|-0.088|0.1163
91909181|NCT01136655|183713981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.041|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.041|-0.140|0.0004
91909182|NCT01136655|183713981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0247||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.002|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.002|-0.100|0.0400
91909183|NCT01136655|183713981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.034|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.034|-0.133|0.0011
91909184|NCT01136655|183713981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0254||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|-0.018|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.018|-0.118|0.0077
91909185|NCT01136655|183713981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.033|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.033|-0.067|0.4957
91909186|NCT01136655|183713981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.071|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.071|-0.027|0.3800
91909187|NCT01136655|183713982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.140|0.073|<0.0001
91909188|NCT01136655|183713982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.146|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.146|0.078|<0.0001
91909189|NCT01136655|183713982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.090|0.023|0.0011
91909190|NCT01136655|183713982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0169||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.039|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.039|-0.028|0.7589
91909191|NCT01136655|183713982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.017|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.017|-0.084|0.0035
91909192|NCT01136655|183713982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|-0.022|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.022|-0.089|0.0011
91909193|NCT01136655|183713982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|-0.081|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.081|-0.149|<0.0001
91909194|NCT01136655|183713982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.024|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.024|-0.092|0.0008
91909195|NCT01136655|183713982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.8582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.031|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.031|-0.037|0.8582
91909196|NCT01136655|183713982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.025|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.025|-0.042|0.6276
91909197|NCT01136655|183713983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|0.7|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.700|0.393|<0.0001
91909198|NCT01136655|183713983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.347|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.347|0.194|<0.0001
91756067|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||69.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lower Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|69.67
91909199|NCT01136655|183713983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.396|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.396|0.214|<0.0001
91909200|NCT01136655|183713983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|0.659|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.659|0.371|<0.0001
91909201|NCT01136655|183713983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|0.755|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.755|0.409|0.0002
91909202|NCT01136655|183713983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12||||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.528|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||1.528|0.827|0.4512
91909203|NCT02079987|183714046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||difference-in-difference analysis|A propensity weighted difference-in-difference approach was taken to account for imbalances in assignment and loss to follow-up.||||||0.49
91909204|NCT02079987|183714047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||difference-in-difference analysis|A propensity weighted difference-in-difference approach was taken to account for imbalances in assignment and loss to follow-up.||||||0.23
91909205|NCT02079987|183714048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||A propensity weighted difference-in-difference approach was taken to account for imbalances in assignment and loss to follow-up.|difference-in-difference analysis|||||||0.25
91806268|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.833|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.955|38.7102|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||38.7102|18.9550|
91909206|NCT02079987|183714049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91909207|NCT02079987|183714050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
91909208|NCT02079987|183714051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
91909209|NCT02076997|183714053|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91909210|NCT02076997|183714059|OTHER|||||||||||||||||There was no statistical analysis performed for this aim as it was descriptive|There was no statistical analysis performed for this aim as it was descriptive|||
91909211|NCT02076997|183714060|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91909212|NCT02533063|183714061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.217
91909213|NCT02533063|183714062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.501
91909214|NCT02533063|183714063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.151
91909215|NCT02533063|183714064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.450
91909216|NCT02533063|183714065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.678
91909217|NCT02533063|183714066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.060
91909218|NCT02533063|183714069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.483
91909219|NCT00652366|183714071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|0.88|0.2026
91909220|NCT00652366|183714073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.77|0.6298
91909221|NCT00652366|183714074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-6.1||||0.2543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|5.0|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||5.0|-17.2|0.2543
91909222|NCT00652366|183714074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.56||||||||1.56|0.19|
91909223|NCT00652366|183714076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-15.52||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|1.3|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||1.3|-32.4|0.0603
91909224|NCT00652366|183714078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.60|0.2678
91756068|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||39.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lower Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.97|39.81
91756069|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||73.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Total Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|73.01
91756070|NCT02294734|183404490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Total Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.97|48.97
91756071|NCT02294734|183404491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||2.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|1.00|2.89
91756072|NCT02294734|183404491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||8.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.99|8.49
91886591|NCT02980042|183666466|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|176.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|124.5|229.31||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||229.31|124.50|<0.0001
91756073|NCT02294734|183404491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||86.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|86.21
91886592|NCT02980042|183666467|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.32||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.32|0.07|0.0020
91909225|NCT00652366|183714078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.74|0.8449
91909226|NCT00652366|183714080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.51|0.0217
91909227|NCT00652366|183714080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.57|0.1596
91909228|NCT01970501|183714092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|.72|0.905
91909229|NCT01970501|183714093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.71|0.961
91909230|NCT00708123|183714096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.97||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|7.48||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|The analysis included factors treatment, period and subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||7.48|0.47|0.0265
91756074|NCT02294734|183404491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||75.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Diameter Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.98|75.20
91756075|NCT02294734|183404491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||84.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.97|84.29
91756076|NCT02294734|183404491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||71.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|71.08
91756077|NCT02294734|183404491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||34.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|34.93
91756078|NCT02294734|183404491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||25.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Diameter Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|25.05
91756079|NCT02294734|183404492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||28.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length/Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.97|28.51
91756080|NCT02294734|183404492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||32.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length/Diameter Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.97|32.15
91756081|NCT02294734|183404492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||66.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length/Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|66.51
91806269|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.701|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5562|12.9578|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||12.9578|-5.5562|
91886593|NCT02980042|183666468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.77||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.77|0.32|<0.0001
91886594|NCT02980042|183666469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.16||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.61|-11.72||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-11.72|-80.61|0.0091
91886595|NCT02980042|183666470|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|55.26||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|83.52||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||83.52|27.00|0.0002
91886596|NCT02980042|183666471|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.24||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.96|-5.51||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.51|-28.96|0.0044
91886597|NCT02980042|183666472|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|22.28||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||22.28|9.75|<0.0001
91886598|NCT02980042|183666473|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|429.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|296.07|562.1||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||562.10|296.07|<0.0001
91886599|NCT02980042|183666474|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.16||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||2.16|0.30|0.0101
91756082|NCT02294734|183404492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||45.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length/Diameter Day 28 The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.98|45.28
91756083|NCT02294734|183404500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.5|115.3|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 28|||115.3|-118.5|0.487
91756084|NCT02294734|183404500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|60.6||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.3|194.3|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 84|||194.3|-73.3|0.816
91886600|NCT02980042|183666475|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|12.52||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||12.52|4.87|<0.0001
91886601|NCT02980042|183666476|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.03||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||2.03|1.04|<0.0001
91886602|NCT02980042|183666477|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.91|-27.44||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-27.44|-38.91|<0.0001
91756085|NCT02294734|183404503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.144||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.133|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 28|||0.133|-0.420|0.151
91886603|NCT02980042|183666478|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.26||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.26|-0.98|0.0008
91886604|NCT02980042|183666479|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.79||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||2.79|1.23|<0.0001
91756086|NCT02294734|183404503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.551|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 84|||0.551|-0.305|0.712
91756087|NCT02294734|183404504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.57|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 28|||0.570|-0.216|0.817
91756088|NCT02294734|183404504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.549|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 84|||0.549|-0.324|0.697
91756089|NCT02294734|183404507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.171||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.988|1.388|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.||||1.388|0.988|0.965
91756090|NCT02294734|183404507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.114||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.305|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.||||1.305|0.953|0.913
91759865|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|-5.98||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.98|-19.88|
91806270|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.946|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.612|33.281|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||33.2810|8.6120|
91886605|NCT02980042|183666480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|-5.81||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.81|-9.87|<0.0001
91756091|NCT01943552|183404512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|154.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.08|218.63|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of FEV1 from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||218.63|91.08|<0.0001
91756092|NCT01943552|183404513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.48||0.3509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.55|158.46|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of forced vital capacity (FVC) from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||158.46|-56.55|0.3509
91756093|NCT01943552|183404514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|7.07|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of blood gas analyses from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 for PaO2 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||7.07|-1.54|0.2069
91886606|NCT02980042|183666481|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.2||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.15|-5.25||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.25|-23.15|0.0022
91756094|NCT01943552|183404515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.93|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of blood gas analyses from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 for Oxygen saturation between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||0.93|-0.19|0.1899
91886607|NCT02980042|183666482|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.43|0.17|<0.0001
91909231|NCT00708123|183714096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.66||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|9.18||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|The analysis included factors as treatment, period and subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.18|2.15|0.0017
91909232|NCT00708123|183714097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|-1.69||||0.3413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|1.8||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.80|-5.19|0.3413
91909233|NCT00708123|183714097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|13.76||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||13.76|6.76|<0.0001
91756095|NCT01943552|183404516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.55|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of blood gas analyses from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 for PaCO2 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||1.55|-0.72|0.4758
91756096|NCT01943552|183404517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Statistic|1.82||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For main post-operative pulmonary complications, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis was performed on the SCS. Mantel-Haenszel test with strata based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age was used to compare the number of patients with main post-operative pulmonary complications between the two arms.||||0.1779
91756097|NCT00545103|183404526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.778||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
91756098|NCT00545103|183404526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.159
91756099|NCT00545103|183404526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.368||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.368
91756100|NCT00545103|183404527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.685
91756101|NCT00545103|183404527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.198||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.198
91806271|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|10.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9675|22.0898|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For HDLc||22.0898|-0.9675|
91756102|NCT00545103|183404527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.441||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.441
91886608|NCT02980042|183666483|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.61||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.61|0.22|<0.0001
91886609|NCT02980042|183666484|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.5||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.50|-0.95|<0.0001
91886610|NCT02980042|183666485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|-15.98||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-15.98|-22.64|<0.0001
91886611|NCT02980042|183666486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-4.08||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-4.08|-9.85|<0.0001
91886612|NCT02980042|183666487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.22||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.66|-6.78||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-6.78|-39.66|0.0061
91886613|NCT02980042|183666488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-4.14||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-4.14|-7.24|<0.0001
91886614|NCT02980042|183666489|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.23||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.23|-1.45|0.0077
91886615|NCT02980042|183666490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.27||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.27|-0.37|<0.0001
91886616|NCT00592293|183666544|OTHER||Cumulative incidence|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|27.6||||||||27.6|9.1|
91886617|NCT00592293|183666545|OTHER||Percent Survival, Local Control|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.1|93.7||||||||93.7|78.1|
91886618|NCT01270828|183666550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for the analysis.||||<0.0001
91886619|NCT01270828|183666551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for the analysis.||||<0.0001
91886620|NCT01270828|183666552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used for analysis.||||<0.0001
91886621|NCT01270828|183666553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used for analysis.||||<0.0001
91886622|NCT01270828|183666554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.62|-1.26|<0.0001
91886623|NCT01270828|183666554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.61|-1.21|<0.0001
91886624|NCT01270828|183666555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.75|-1.47|<0.0001
91886625|NCT01270828|183666555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.65|-1.34|<0.0001
91886626|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index I-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.3|-6.1|0.0324
91759866|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|3.83||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.83|-10.03|
91886627|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index I-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.5|-6.1|0.0223
91886628|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index II-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-0.9|-6.6|0.0098
91756103|NCT02358044|183404537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of 95% CIs was compared to pre-specified non-inferiority margin, -10% to evaluate non-inferiority. The Missing=Failure (M=F) approach was used to handle missing values.|Adjusted Difference in Percentage|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Primary Analysis Approach: Non-Inferiority~Analyses of the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was conducted using the Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method. The analysis was adjusted for genotype (1a vs. non-1a) and fibrosis stage (cirrhotic vs. non-cirrhotic). The adjusted differences (grazoprevir+elbasvir arm minus SOF+PR arm) in percentages along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values were provided."||15.3|3.6|<0.001
91756104|NCT02358044|183404537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentage|8.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|The lower bound of 95% CIs was compared to zero to evaluate superiority. The M=F approach was used to handle missing values.||"Secondary Analysis Approach: Superiority~Analyses of the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was conducted using the M\&N method. The analysis was adjusted for genotype (1a vs. non-1a) and fibrosis stage (cirrhotic vs. non-cirrhotic). The adjusted differences (grazoprevir +elbasvir arm minus SOF+PR arm) in percentages along with the corresponding 95% CIs and p-values were provided."||15.3|3.6|0.001
91756105|NCT02358044|183404538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-31.9||||||The percentage of participants with an event were assessed via point estimates with 95% CIs provided for between-group comparisons.||-31.9|-51.1|
91886629|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index II-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-1.4|-6.7|0.0033
91886630|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Disturbance-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-3.5|-11.1|0.0002
91886631|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-5.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Disturbance-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-5.2|-12.2|<0.0001
91886632|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.6|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Snoring-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||5.6|-2.8|0.5264
91886633|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Snoring-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||2.3|-5.2|0.4520
91909234|NCT00708123|183714097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.69|16.68||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||16.68|9.69|<0.0001
91756106|NCT02358044|183404540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-19.6||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Total Tier 1 AEs:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||-19.6|-35.5|<0.001
91759867|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.06|-3.13||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.13|-17.06|
91806272|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.122|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2902|22.5351|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For HDLc||22.5351|-0.2902|
91886634|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.3714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.8|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Awaken Short of Breath or with a Headache-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||1.8|-4.7|0.3714
91886635|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.5639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Awaken Short of Breath or with a Headache-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||2.3|-4.2|0.5639
91886636|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep adequacy-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.3|-2.4|0.3223
91886637|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.6|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep adequacy-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.6|-2.2|0.2742
91756107|NCT02358044|183404540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.4||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Serious drug-related AEs:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||0.6|-6.8|0.078
91756108|NCT02358044|183404540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.8||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"DC due to drug-related AE:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||2.1|-4.4|0.312
91909235|NCT00708123|183714097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|12.05||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||12.05|5.09|<0.0001
91909236|NCT00708123|183714097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.01|14.98||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||14.98|8.01|<0.0001
91909237|NCT00708123|183714097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.59||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.09||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||-1.09|-8.10|0.0104
91909238|NCT00708123|183714097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|11.01||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||11.01|4.04|<0.0001
91909239|NCT00708123|183714097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|2.93||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|6.41||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.41|-0.55|0.0986
91909240|NCT00708123|183714098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|196.74||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.89|354.6||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||354.60|38.89|0.0148
91909241|NCT00708123|183714098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|246.7||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.3|405.1||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||405.10|88.30|0.0024
91909242|NCT00708123|183714098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-49.96||||0.5328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-207.62|107.71||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||107.71|-207.62|0.5328
91909243|NCT00708123|183714098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-406.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-564.0|-248.37||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||-248.37|-564.00|<0.0001
91759868|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.57|-3.77||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.77|-17.57|
91759869|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-0.86||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.86|-14.72|
91806273|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7527|31.6262|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For HDLc||31.6262|9.7527|
91886638|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Somnolence-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.1|-3.2|0.9816
91886639|NCT01270828|183666556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Somnolence-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.2|-2.9|0.9282
91886640|NCT01270828|183666557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||0.4|-0.1|0.1635
91886641|NCT01270828|183666557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0363||95.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||0.5|0.0|0.0363
91886642|NCT01270828|183666558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is for Week 6||||0.432
91886643|NCT01270828|183666558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.987|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is for Week 19||||0.987
91886644|NCT01270828|183666559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.65|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio is the probability of the event occurring in Pregabalin DB relative to the event occurring in Placebo DB.~Odds ratio \> 1 is in favor of Pregabalin DB."|This analysis is for the original score. Proportional odds Logistic regression with a term for treatment in the model.||2.65|1.30|0.0007
91886645|NCT01270828|183666559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.81|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio is the probability of the event occurring in Pregabalin DB relative to the event occurring in Placebo DB.~Odds ratio \> 1 is in favor of Pregabalin DB."|This analysis is for the categorized score. Proportional odds Logistic regression with a term for treatment in the model.||3.81|1.41|0.0009
91886646|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|11.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Bodily pain-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||11.5|3.4|0.0003
91886647|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|11.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Bodily pain-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||11.3|4.0|<0.0001
91886648|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.0|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for General Health Perceptions-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||6.0|0.4|0.0275
91886649|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.0|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for General Health Perceptions-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||8.0|2.8|<0.0001
91886650|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Vitality-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.4|-0.3|0.0735
91886651|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Vitality-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.2|-0.2|0.0684
91886652|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Social Functioning-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.4|-0.7|0.1197
91886653|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Social Functioning-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||5.5|-1.3|0.2210
91886654|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role-Emotional-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.1|-0.5|0.0847
91886655|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.8|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role-Emotional-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.8|0.3|0.0365
91886656|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental Health-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||4.3|-1.2|0.2749
91886657|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental Health-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||5.2|-0.3|0.0806
91756109|NCT02358044|183404540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-8.0||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Neutrophil count \<0.75 x 10\^9/L:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||-8.0|-19.7|<0.001
91756110|NCT02358044|183404540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-7.9||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Hemoglobin \<10 g/dL:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||-7.9|-20.8|<0.001
91886658|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical component-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.4|0.5|0.0082
91886659|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical component-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.7|1.0|0.0008
91886660|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental component-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||2.5|-0.8|0.2097
91886661|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.8|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental component-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||2.8|-0.5|0.1669
91886662|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical functioning-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.7|-1.0|0.1466
91886663|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical functioning-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.7|0.1|0.0439
91886664|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role Physical-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||9.3|0.6|0.0250
91886665|NCT01270828|183666560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|9.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role Physical-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||9.5|1.3|0.0107
91886666|NCT01270828|183666561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19.Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.64|-1.23|<0.0001
91886667|NCT01270828|183666561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.58|-1.12|<0.0001
91886668|NCT01270828|183666562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Anxiety-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.1|-1.2|0.0154
91886669|NCT01270828|183666562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Anxiety-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.3|-1.3|0.0027
91756111|NCT02358044|183404541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of 95% CIs was compared to pre-specified non-inferiority margin, -10% to evaluate non-inferiority. The Missing=Failure (M=F) approach was used to handle missing values.|Adjusted Difference in Percentage|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|15.7||||||Analyses of the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 was conducted using the Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method. The analysis was adjusted for genotype (1a vs. non-1a) and fibrosis stage (cirrhotic vs. non-cirrhotic). The adjusted differences (grazoprevir+elbasvir arm minus SOF+PR arm) in percentages along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values were provided.||15.7|3.3|
91886670|NCT01270828|183666562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Depression-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.1|-1.2|0.0166
91909244|NCT00708123|183714098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|602.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|445.97|759.9||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||759.90|445.97|<0.0001
91909245|NCT00708123|183714098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|652.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|495.05|810.72||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||810.72|495.05|<0.0001
91909246|NCT00708123|183714098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|847.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|690.54|1004.55||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1004.55|690.54|<0.0001
91909247|NCT00708123|183714098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|897.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|739.92|1055.08||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors treatment, period and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1055.08|739.92|<0.0001
91909248|NCT00708123|183714098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|650.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|493.61|808.0||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||808.00|493.61|<0.0001
91909249|NCT00708123|183714098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|244.62||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.62|401.61||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||401.61|87.62|0.0024
91909250|NCT00677014|183714120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.66||95.0|||||ANOVA|As LVESV values were non normal by Q-Q analysis and Shapiro-Wilk test (p\<.05), a square root transform was used. model adjusted for baseline LVESV.||Gate keeping strategy utilized for Type 1 error control described in design paper - negative results observed for initial comparisons - (each at alpha = .05) between fixed and algorithm optimized AV delay and fixed and Echo optimzied AV. Results from both of these comparisons were non-significant.||||.66
91909251|NCT00350142|183714130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91909252|NCT01908101|183714238|OTHER|comparison analysis|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.6||comparison analysis; no P value|||The estimated value is 3.5 months, not years.|Progression free survival (PFS). We hypothesize that metronomic dosing of eribulin will result in a PFS of 4-6 months.||4.6|2.6|
91909253|NCT01979523|183714322|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.74
91909254|NCT03657368|183714330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.3|-0.4|0.042
91909255|NCT03657368|183714330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.9|3.7|||Regression, Linear|||||3.7|-3.9|0.966
91909256|NCT03657368|183714331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.68|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.68|0.519
91909257|NCT03657368|183714331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.63|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.63|0.232
91909258|NCT03657368|183714332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-6.5|2.4|||Regression, Linear|||||2.4|-6.5|0.217
91909259|NCT03657368|183714332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-3.7|5.2|||Regression, Linear|||||5.2|-3.7|0.660
91806274|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.775|9.6768|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||9.6768|-18.7750|
91909260|NCT03657368|183714333|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|1.03||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.97|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.97|0.143
91909261|NCT03657368|183714333|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|0.99||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.93|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.05|0.93|0.649
91909262|NCT01661140|183714361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority if the difference between treatments is statistically significant and the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than 0.9.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.803||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|3.133|||Analysis by logistic regression|||Comparison was Tapering MTX : MTX maintenance. Last post-baseline EULAR response recorded used for participants with a missing result at Week 60.||3.133|1.037|0.036
91909263|NCT00590590|183714391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
91909264|NCT00590590|183714391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
91909265|NCT00590590|183714391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
91909266|NCT00590590|183714392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
91909267|NCT00590590|183714392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
91909268|NCT00590590|183714392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
91909269|NCT00590590|183714393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
91909270|NCT00590590|183714393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
91756112|NCT00903331|183404548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between ACT-064922 and placebo for the change in FVC from baseline to the end of Period 1. The aim was to detect a placebo-corrected change in FVC of ≥ 0.1 L (Standard Deviation = 0.2 L) at a two-sided 0.05 type 1 error level and 80% power.||0.08|-0.09|0.9631
91909271|NCT00590590|183714393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
91909272|NCT00590590|183714394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
91909273|NCT00590590|183714394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
91909274|NCT00590590|183714394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
91909275|NCT00590590|183714395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
91909276|NCT00590590|183714395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
91909277|NCT00590590|183714395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
91909278|NCT00590590|183714396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
91909279|NCT00590590|183714396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
91909280|NCT00590590|183714396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
91909281|NCT00493870|183714417|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.05
91756113|NCT00903331|183404549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118||||0.7056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.996|||Log Rank|||||1.996|0.626|0.7056
91909282|NCT03605680|183714424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS ) Mean Difference|-3.15|||=|0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|-0.51|||MMRM||||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|-0.51|-5.79|=0.0193
91756114|NCT03233438|183404568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|0.6|0.003
91756115|NCT03233438|183404569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.56||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|0.6|0.003
91756116|NCT02219503|183404609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority of the Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir regimen in SVR12 to a historical threshold for sofosbuvir plus pegIFN/ ribavirin (RBV) for the treatment of participants with HCV Genotype 1b (GT1b) infection and cirrhosis was calculated using a 2-sided 95% CI from Wilson's score method. Non-inferiority was to be declared if the lower confidence bound was greater than 72.7%.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Wilson score method.|||100.0|94.0|
91756117|NCT02219503|183404609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Wilson score method.|The superiority of the Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir regimen in SVR12 to a historical threshold for sofosbuvir plus pegIFN/ ribavirin (RBV) for the treatment of participants with HCV Genotype 1b (GT1b) infection and cirrhosis was calculated using a 2-sided 95% CI from Wilson's score method. Superiority was declared if the lower confidence bound was greater than 83.2%.||100.0|94.0|
91756118|NCT03249103|183404612|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||placebo - NYX-2925 20 mg||||0.032
91756119|NCT03249103|183404613|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||placebo - NYX-2925 200 mg||||0.039
91756120|NCT03249103|183404614|OTHER|||||||0.0072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|comparing Week 2 (Placebo) to Week 6 (NYX-2925 200 mg)||||||0.0072
91909283|NCT03605680|183714424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.74|||=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-0.14|||MMRM|||||-0.14|-5.35|=0.0392
91806275|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.337|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4549|3.7803|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||3.7803|-24.4549|
91909284|NCT03605680|183714425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||=|0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.04|||MMRM||||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|-0.04|-0.50|=0.0232
91909285|NCT03605680|183714425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|||=|0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.05|||MMRM||||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|-0.05|-0.51|=0.0162
91909286|NCT01877187|183714467|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= .05. Result is for Day 30 timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||.06
91909287|NCT01877187|183714467|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||.09
91909288|NCT01877187|183714467|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.034
91909289|NCT01877187|183714469|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.19
91909290|NCT01877187|183714469|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.011
91909291|NCT01877187|183714469|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.94
91756121|NCT00257660|183404617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-4.74||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline TWSTRS score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|"Baseline TWSTRS total scores are analysed for all subjects of ITT population, while the analysis at Week 4 excludes the scores for the 7 subjects who were not assessed.~Mean difference = difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport - Placebo)."|||-4.74|-12.94|<0.0001
91756122|NCT00257660|183404618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.91|-4.71||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline TWSTRS score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|"Baseline TWSTRS total scores are analysed for all subjects of ITT population, while the Week 8 analysis excludes the scores for the 24 subjects who were not assessed.~Mean difference = difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport - Placebo)."|||-4.71|-12.91|<0.0001
91756123|NCT00257660|183404619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.12||||0.019||95.0|-7.55|-0.68||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline TWSTRS score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|"Baseline TWSTRS total scores are analysed for all subjects of ITT population, while the Week 12 analysis excludes the scores for the 27 subjects who were not assessed.~Mean difference = difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport - Placebo)."|||-0.68|-7.55|0.019
91886671|NCT01270828|183666562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Depression-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.1|-1.1|0.0217
91886672|NCT01270828|183666563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Severity Index-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-3.0|-5.5|<0.0001
91886673|NCT01270828|183666563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Severity Index-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-2.7|-5.0|<0.0001
91886674|NCT01270828|183666563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Interference Index-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-2.7|-6.5|<0.0001
91756124|NCT00257660|183404620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-24.0|-6.4||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Subject VAS symptom score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 4) excludes 4 subjects (and 13 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-6.4|-24.0|<0.001
91756125|NCT00257660|183404621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.3|-6.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Investigator VAS CD symptom score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 4) excludes 3 subjects (and 8 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-6.1|-22.3|<0.001
91886675|NCT01270828|183666563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Interference Index-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-2.4|-6.0|<0.0001
91886676|NCT01270828|183666564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|17.0|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was the probability of the event occurring in pregabalin CR DB relative to the event occurring in placebo DB. Odds ratio \> 1 was in favor of pregabalin CR.|This analysis is for 'Benefit from treatment'. Proportional odds logistic regression was used with a term for treatment in the model.||17.00|1.34|0.0161
91886677|NCT01270828|183666564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.85|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was the probability of the event occurring in pregabalin CR DB relative to the event occurring in placebo DB. Odds ratio \> 1 was in favor of pregabalin CR.|This analysis is for 'Satisfaction with treatment'. Proportional odds logistic regression was used with a term for treatment in the model.||5.85|1.05|0.0378
91886678|NCT01270828|183666564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.81|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was the probability of the event occurring in pregabalin CR DB relative to the event occurring in placebo DB. Odds ratio \> 1 was in favor of pregabalin CR.|This analysis is for 'Willingness to continue treatment'. Proportional odds logistic regression was used with a term for treatment in the model.||2.81|0.93|0.0901
91759870|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|3.89||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.89|-9.98|
91756126|NCT00257660|183404622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.95|||<|0.001||95.0|-25.8|-8.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Subject VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 4 subjects (and 4 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-8.1|-25.8|<0.001
91886679|NCT02870972|183666580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.458|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.703|-0.214|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.214|-0.703|<0.001
91886680|NCT02870972|183666580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.433||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.127|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.127|-0.740|0.006
91886681|NCT02870972|183666580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.425||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|-0.095|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.095|-0.755|0.012
91886682|NCT02870972|183666580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.033|0.373|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.373|-1.033|<0.001
91886683|NCT02870972|183666580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.1||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.32|-0.52|0.639
91886684|NCT02870972|183666581|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|17.7||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|38.8|||Fisher Exact|||||38.8|-3.4|0.155
91886685|NCT02870972|183666581|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|16.9||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|40.1|||Fisher Exact|||||40.1|-6.3|0.277
91886686|NCT02870972|183666581|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|24.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|49.2|||Fisher Exact|||||49.2|-1.2|0.064
91886687|NCT02870972|183666581|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|-4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|4.2|||Fisher Exact|||||4.2|-13.2|1.000
91886688|NCT02870972|183666581|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|-16.2||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-2.2|||Fisher Exact|||||-2.2|-30.2|0.097
91886689|NCT02870972|183666582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.061||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.094|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.094|-0.216|0.439
91756127|NCT00257660|183404623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-24.2|-7.8||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Investigator VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 3 subjects (and 3 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-7.8|-24.2|<0.001
91759871|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.27|-6.54||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.54|-20.27|
91886690|NCT02870972|183666582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.004||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.19|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.190|-0.198|0.968
91886691|NCT02870972|183666582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.045||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.164|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.164|-0.254|0.667
91886692|NCT02870972|183666582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.197||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.012|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.012|-0.406|0.065
91886693|NCT02870972|183666582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.035||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.301|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.301|-0.232|0.797
91886694|NCT02870972|183666583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.364|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|-0.181|||ANOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.181|-0.547|<0.001
91886695|NCT02870972|183666583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.384||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|-0.154|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.154|-0.613|0.001
91886696|NCT02870972|183666583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.401||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.647|-0.154|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.154|-0.647|0.002
91886697|NCT02870972|183666583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.445|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|-0.198|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.198|-0.692|<0.001
91886698|NCT02870972|183666583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.08||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.234|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.234|-0.394|0.614
91886699|NCT02870972|183666584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.326||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|-0.095|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.095|-0.557|0.006
91886700|NCT02870972|183666584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.293||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.004|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.004|-0.582|0.047
91886701|NCT02870972|183666584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.327||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.016|-0.638|0.040
91756128|NCT00257660|183404624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.05||||0.007||95.0|-19.0|-3.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Subject VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 12) excludes 4 subjects (and 4 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-3.1|-19.0|0.007
91886702|NCT02870972|183666584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.558|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.247|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.247|-0.870|<0.001
91756129|NCT00257660|183404625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.05||||0.028||95.0|-13.3|-0.8||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Investigator VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 12) excludes 3 subjects (and 3 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-0.8|-13.3|0.028
91756130|NCT00257660|183404626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.65||||0.061||95.0|-0.17|7.47||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline SF-36 mental health summary score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 3 subjects (and 37 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||7.47|-0.17|0.061
91886703|NCT02870972|183666584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.057||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.454|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.454|-0.339|0.775
91886704|NCT02870972|183666585|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-4.449||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.453|2.555|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.555|-11.453|0.209
91886705|NCT02870972|183666585|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-9.103||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.639|-1.567|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-1.567|-16.639|0.019
91886706|NCT02870972|183666585|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-11.263||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.808|-3.718|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-3.718|-18.808|0.004
91886707|NCT02870972|183666585|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.04||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.586|13.665|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||13.665|-5.586|0.405
91886708|NCT02870972|183666586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.12||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.826|2.584|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.584|-18.826|0.135
91886709|NCT02870972|183666586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.92||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|2.41|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.410|-20.260|0.121
91886710|NCT02870972|183666586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-24.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.834|-13.137|||ANOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-13.137|-35.834|<0.001
91886711|NCT02870972|183666586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.84||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.316|6.64|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||6.640|-22.316|0.284
91886712|NCT02870972|183666587|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.27||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.132|0.592|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.592|-17.132|0.067
91886713|NCT02870972|183666587|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.073||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.432|2.287|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.287|-16.432|0.136
91886714|NCT02870972|183666587|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-11.484||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.642|-2.325|||ANOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-2.325|-20.642|0.015
91886715|NCT02870972|183666587|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-9.785||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.001|2.431|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.431|-22.001|0.114
91886716|NCT04052425|183666592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.341|11.903||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||11.903|2.341|< 0.0001
91886717|NCT04052425|183666593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.831|9.482||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||9.482|2.831|< 0.0001
91886718|NCT04052425|183666594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.49||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.997|36.048||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||36.048|1.997|0.0038
91886719|NCT04052425|183666595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.795|13.566||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||13.566|1.795|0.0020
91886720|NCT04052425|183666596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|31.29||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||31.290|2.900|0.0002
91886721|NCT04052425|183666597|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-11.64||Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors (Skin Type Fitzpatrick scale Type I, II versus Type III, IV, V, and VI, Region North America/Europe) + Baseline|ANCOVA|||||-11.64|-27.05|< 0.0001
91886722|NCT04052425|183666600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.226|9.578||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||9.578|3.226|< 0.0001
91886723|NCT04052425|183666602|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-30.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.03|-22.19|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-22.19|-39.03|<0.0001
91756131|NCT00257660|183404627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.66||||0.002||95.0|1.73|7.58||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline SF-36 physical health summary score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 3 subjects (and 37 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||7.58|1.73|0.002
91756132|NCT00257660|183404628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.206|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.01|17.26||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|odds ratio|The odds ratio represents the odds of success on Dysport versus Placebo stratified for strata and country||The number of participants considered treatment successes was analysed using a logistic model with treatment, strata (naive or non-naive) and center as factors in the model.||17.26|3.01|<0.0001
91756133|NCT02025439|183404645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91756134|NCT03426631|183404715|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
91756135|NCT00454181|183404716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group meeting the definition of positive response.||||0.30
91756136|NCT00454181|183404717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group meeting the definition of positive response||||0.26
91756137|NCT00454181|183404718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group reporting change in oral warts from baseline to week 24 as better."||||0.50
91756138|NCT00454181|183404719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group reporting change in global oral health from baseline to week 24 as better."||||0.29
91756139|NCT00454181|183404720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects rated as improved with respect to changes in oral warts from baseline to week 24 by the attending investigator."||||0.74
91756140|NCT00454181|183404721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects rated as improved with resepect to changes from baseline to week 24 in global oral health by the attending investigator."||||.71
91756141|NCT02096263|183404724|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigens will be demonstrated if, for each of the three antigens, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio \[Pediarix Group divided by Infanrix hexa Group\] is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.31|||||Adjusted GMC (ANCOVA model adjusted with the vaccine group as fixed effect and the Infanrix vaccination history of the mother during pregnancy as continuous regressor).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Infanrix hexa to Pediarix co-administered with ActHIB, in terms of antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for pertussis antigen, pertussis toxoid (PT), one month after the third dose of the primary vaccination.||1.31|0.92|
91756142|NCT02096263|183404724|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigens will be demonstrated if, for each of the three antigens, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio \[Pediarix Group divided by Infanrix hexa Group\] is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.35|||||Adjusted GMC (ANCOVA model adjusted with the vaccine group as fixed effect and the Infanrix vaccination history of the mother during pregnancy as continuous regressor).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Infanrix hexa to Pediarix co-administered with ActHIB, in terms of antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for pertussis antigen, filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA), one month after the third dose of the primary vaccination.||1.35|0.97|
91806276|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0144|-6.619|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||-6.6190|-36.0144|
91886724|NCT04052425|183666605|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-16.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.28|-10.68|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-10.68|-23.28|<0.0001
91886725|NCT04052425|183666607|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|-4.18|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-4.18|-13.96|0.0003
91886726|NCT04052425|183666609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.746|5.307||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI25||5.307|1.746|< 0.0001
91756143|NCT02096263|183404724|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigens will be demonstrated if, for each of the three antigens, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio \[Pediarix Group divided by Infanrix hexa Group\] is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||||Adjusted GMC (ANCOVA model adjusted with the vaccine group as fixed effect and the Tdap vaccination history of the mother during pregnancy as continuous regressor.).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Infanrix hexa to Pediarix co-administered with ActHIB, in terms of antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for pertussis antigen, pertactin (PRN), one month after the third dose of the primary vaccination.||0.99|0.63|
91756144|NCT01571453|183404767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vortioxetine was declared to be non-inferior to venlafaxine if the upper limit of the calculated two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference at Week 8 between vortioxetine and venlafaxine was less than +2.5 MADRS units versus venlafaxine.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.199||95.0|-3.03|0.63||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The sample size calculation was based on a non-inferiority comparison of the treatment groups in the change from baseline to Week 8 in MADRS total score using a two-sided 95% CI against a margin of +2.5 points. Assuming a standard deviation of 9.0 points and an expected true mean difference between treatments of 0 points, a total of 410 patients (205 per treatment group) were needed to provide a power of 80% for correctly concluding non-inferiority.||0.63|-3.03|0.199
91806277|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.173|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.271|-6.0755|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||-6.0755|-34.2710|
91886727|NCT04052425|183666609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|10.823||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI75||10.823|0.489|0.2921
91886728|NCT04052425|183666609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||||||||The p value was not evaluable because the response rate in the vehicle group was too low.||||T-VASI90||||
91886729|NCT04052425|183666612|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.62|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||0.62|-1.26|0.4970
91886730|NCT01189110|183666616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.83|||Chi-squared|||A two-proportion z-test was used to compare the proportion of self-reported abstinence at 3 weeks between groups.||2.83|0.23|0.74
91886731|NCT00945672|183666667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.959||0.9779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.49|6.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.71|-6.49|0.9779
91886732|NCT00945672|183666667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.815||0.8801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.79|6.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.94|-5.79|0.8801
91886733|NCT00945672|183666667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.9412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.13|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 9: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.70|-6.13|0.9412
91886734|NCT00945672|183666667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.223||0.7486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.38|5.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||5.66|-8.38|0.7486
91886735|NCT00945672|183666667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.171||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|15.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||15.12|1.24|0.0534
91886736|NCT00945672|183666667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.776||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|6.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.31|-6.29|0.9980
91886737|NCT00945672|183666667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958||0.4004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||9.94|-3.25|0.4004
91886738|NCT00945672|183666667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.214||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|8.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 9: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||8.82|-5.20|0.6685
91886739|NCT00945672|183666667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.522||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.77|12.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||12.25|-2.77|0.2968
91886740|NCT00945672|183666667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.494||0.772|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.77|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.16|-8.77|0.7720
91886741|NCT00945672|183666668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.789||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.68|16.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||16.69|-12.68|0.8205
91886742|NCT00945672|183666668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.789||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.31|26.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||26.06|-3.31|0.2007
91886743|NCT00945672|183666668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8789||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.78|23.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||23.59|-5.78|0.3152
91806278|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.472|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.3385|-8.1558|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||-8.1558|-49.3385|
91756145|NCT01571453|183404768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.09||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||0.09|-0.39|0.228
91886744|NCT00945672|183666668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.964||0.8071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.18|12.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||12.79|-17.18|0.8071
91886745|NCT00945672|183666668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.354||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.72|15.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||15.52|-15.72|0.9918
91886746|NCT00945672|183666668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.415||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.73|12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||12.70|-18.73|0.7498
91886747|NCT00945672|183666669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.4855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Month 13: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with cohort by treatment interaction as fixed effect and baseline scores as covariate.||4.60|-1.90|0.4855
91886748|NCT00945672|183666669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.185||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|5.16|||ANCOVA|||Month 13: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with cohort by treatment interaction as fixed effect and baseline scores as covariate.||5.16|-2.27|0.5132
91886749|NCT01150461|183666678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test||||0.02
91886750|NCT01150461|183666679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test||||0.06
91886751|NCT01681992|183666680|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.65|-3.43|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to measles virus at Day 42.||-3.43|-7.65|
91886752|NCT01681992|183666680|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.96|-0.27|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to measles virus at Day 42.||-0.27|-3.96|
91886753|NCT01681992|183666681|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.91|1.04|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.04|-1.91|
91886754|NCT01681992|183666681|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.11|0.91|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||0.91|-2.11|
91886755|NCT01681992|183666682|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -10% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-9.41|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.2|-5.62|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||-5.62|-13.20|
91886756|NCT01681992|183666682|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -10% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.94|-3.49|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||-3.49|-10.94|
91886757|NCT01681992|183666683|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.11|-0.42|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to rubella virus at Day 42.||-0.42|-3.11|
91886758|NCT01681992|183666683|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.5|0.05|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.05|-2.50|
91886759|NCT01681992|183666684|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|0.88|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-measles antibodies at Day 42.||0.88|0.72|
91756146|NCT01571453|183404769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||0.06|-0.35|0.174
91756147|NCT01571453|183404770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.45||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||0.45|-2.09|0.207
91886760|NCT01681992|183666684|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.01|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-measles antibodies at Day 42.||1.01|0.83|
91886761|NCT01681992|183666685|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.76|0.89|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.89|0.76|
91886762|NCT01681992|183666685|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.78|0.91|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.91|0.78|
91886763|NCT01681992|183666686|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.53|0.68|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed titers with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.68|0.53|
91886764|NCT01681992|183666686|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.57|0.74|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed titers with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.74|0.57|
91886765|NCT01681992|183666687|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|0.95|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-rubella antibodies at Day 42.||0.95|0.83|
91886766|NCT01681992|183666687|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|0.95|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-rubella antibodies at Day 42.||0.95|0.83|
91886767|NCT00447590|183666707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||2-sided Exact Binomial Test|||p-Value is from a 2-sided exact binomial test to test the null hypothesis that 30% of subjects have at least 30% EWL.||||<0.0001
91886768|NCT04148989|183666719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-7.0|||Regression, gamma||Change in emergency department door-to-antibiotic time (minutes) associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable gamma regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||-7.0|-18.6|<0.001
91886769|NCT04148989|183666720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||Change in all-cause 30-day mortality risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||1.19|0.68|0.45
91909292|NCT01877187|183714471|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.06
91756148|NCT01571453|183404771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.272||95.0|0.84|1.86||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.86|0.84|0.272
91756149|NCT01571453|183404772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.731||95.0|0.73|1.58||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.73|0.731
91759872|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|17.61||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.61|1.62|
91806279|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.128|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3049|-0.9514|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For LDLc||-0.9514|-23.3049|
91756150|NCT01325714|183404774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = .4) between treatment groups in rate of aggression onset over a 1-year period, assuming 80% power and T1 error rate of 5%. This differential rate in aggression onset is comparable to a 37% rate of aggression onset over a 1 year period for the control group versus 19% for the treatment group. Given this, our goal was to include 220 total participants (after 10% attrition: N = 198).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11||This is the p value from the discrete-time Cox regression time-to-event analyses|Regression, Cox|DF = 1|The enhanced usual care arm is the comparison group.|"Univariate time-to-event analyses, using discrete-time Cox regression models to evaluate differences between PAVeD and EU-PC in the primary outcome of incidence of aggression over time.~We expected that patients with dementia among dyads randomized to PAVeD arm would be less likely to develop aggression compared to those randomized to the enhanced usual care arm."||1.11|0.45|0.13
91756151|NCT01325714|183404774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = .4) between treatment groups in rate of aggression onset over a 1-year period, assuming 80% power and T1 error rate of 5%. This differential rate in aggression onset is comparable to a 37% rate of aggression onset over a 1 year period for the control group versus 19% for the treatment group. Given this, our goal was to include 220 total participants (after 10% attrition: N = 198).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.39||From discrete time-cox regression time-to-event analysis.|Regression, Cox|df = 1|The enhanced usual care arm is the reference group.|Comparison of incidence of non-verbal aggression between treatment groups.||1.39|0.43|0.39
91756152|NCT01325714|183404774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = .4) between treatment groups in rate of aggression onset (the primary outcome) over a 1-year period, assuming 80% power and type I error rate of 5%. This differential rate in aggression onset is comparable to a 37% rate of aggression onset over a 1 year period for the control group (anticipated based on estimated rates from prior work) versus 19% for the treatment group|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37||From discrete-time Cox regression time-to-event analyses|Regression, Cox|df = 1|The usual care arm is the reference group.|Examination of group differences in incidence of verbal aggression. We expected those in paved to have lower incidence of verbal aggression relative to those in enhanced usual care.||1.37|0.51|0.84
91756153|NCT01325714|183404775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.86||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 455) = 0.86||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported worst pain over time.||||0.46
91806280|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.798|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1364|-4.4589|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For LDLc||-4.4589|-27.1364|
91806281|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3413|-11.2372|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For LDLc||-11.2372|-32.3413|
91806282|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.446|-2.4169|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-2.4169|-38.4460|
91886770|NCT04148989|183666721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||Change in all-cause 1-year mortality risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||1.04|0.67|0.10
91886771|NCT04148989|183666722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.|Change in all-cause in-hospital mortality risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|1.10|0.53|0.15
91886772|NCT04148989|183666723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.1|||Regression, gamma||Change in hospital charges ($1000s) associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable gamma regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||2.1|-1.4|0.71
91886773|NCT04148989|183666724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Regression, gamma||Change in hospital length of stay (days) associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable gamma regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||0.1|-0.4|0.19
91806283|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1603|-4.513|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-4.5130|-39.1603|
91806284|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3394|-24.2717|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-24.2717|-52.3394|
91756154|NCT01325714|183404776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|1.43||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported worst pain over time.||||0.23
91886774|NCT04148989|183666725|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.6% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.17||Model adjusted for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.|Regression, Logistic||Change in antimicrobial treatment risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||1.17|1.03|0.005
91886775|NCT04148989|183666726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||Change in risk for possible antimicrobial-associated adverse event associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||1.75|0.68|0.73
91886776|NCT04148989|183666727|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.6% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.33||Model adjusted for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.|Regression, Logistic|||Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.|Change in risk for possible antimicrobial-associated adverse event associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|1.33|0.78|0.90
91886777|NCT04148989|183666728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.17|||Regression, Logistic||Change in new-onset Clostridium difficile colitis risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||2.17|0.49|0.94
91886778|NCT04148989|183666729|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.6% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||Change in new-onset Clostridium difficile colitis risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||2.14|0.93|0.10
91886779|NCT04148989|183666730|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.1% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||Change in risk for antimicrobial administration in the ED associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||1.93|0.69|0.59
91886780|NCT04148989|183666731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.58|||Regression, Linear||Change in total spectrum score of antibiotics administered within 24 hours of ED arrival associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable ??? regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||0.58|0.06|0.02
91886781|NCT04148989|183666732|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 2.0% of eligible patients.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Change in total spectrum score of antibiotics administered within 24 hours of ED arrival associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable linear regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||0.31|0.03|0.02
91886782|NCT03812029|183666733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0015
91886783|NCT03812029|183666733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0121
91886784|NCT03812029|183666733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0371||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0371
91756155|NCT01325714|183404777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|1.45||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 455) = 1.45||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported overall pain over time.||||0.23
91756156|NCT01325714|183404778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.86||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 409) = 0.59||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in patient-reported overall pain over time.||||0.62
91886785|NCT03812029|183666734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91756157|NCT01325714|183404779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.94||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 453) = 0.94.||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in depression over time.||||0.42
91756158|NCT01325714|183404780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|1.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 457) = 1.10||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in pleasant events over time.||||0.35
91756159|NCT01325714|183404781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 456) = 2.00||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver burden over time.||||0.11
91756160|NCT01325714|183404782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|3.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 456) = 3.84||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported mutuality over time.||||0.01
91756161|NCT00721175|183404783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2407407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0920078||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4210726|-0.0604089|||Two-sample test of proportion|||||-.0604089|-.4210726|0.011
91756162|NCT00721175|183404784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0021
91756163|NCT00721175|183404786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.278744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0929622||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4609466|-0.0965414|||Two-sample test of proportion|||||-.0965414|-.4609466|0.004
91756164|NCT03109184|183404792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-Month follow-up between groups odds ratio of DV perpetration|||||
91756165|NCT03109184|183404792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between group odds ratio of DV perpetration|||||
91886786|NCT03812029|183666734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91886787|NCT03812029|183666735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0017
91886788|NCT03812029|183666735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
91756166|NCT03109184|183404792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups odds ratio of DV victimization|||||
91756167|NCT03109184|183404792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups odds ratio of DV victimization|||||
91756168|NCT03109184|183404793|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of general aggression|||||
91756169|NCT03109184|183404793|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of general aggression|||||
91756170|NCT03109184|183404794|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent attitudes support aggression|||||
91756171|NCT03109184|183404794|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent attitudes support aggression|||||
91756172|NCT03109184|183404794|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent attitudes support aggression|||||
91756173|NCT03109184|183404794|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent attitudes support aggression|||||
91756174|NCT03109184|183404795|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent short-term self-regulation|||||
91756175|NCT03109184|183404795|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent short-term self-regulation|||||
91756176|NCT03109184|183404795|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent long-term self-regulation|||||
91756177|NCT03109184|183404795|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent long-term self-regulation|||||
91756178|NCT03109184|183404796|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported open family communication|||||
91756179|NCT03109184|183404796|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported open family communication|||||
91756180|NCT03109184|183404796|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported problems in family communication|||||
91756181|NCT03109184|183404796|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported problems in family communication|||||
91756182|NCT03109184|183404796|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
91756183|NCT03109184|183404796|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
91756184|NCT03109184|183404796|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported open family communication|||||
91756185|NCT03109184|183404796|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported open family communication|||||
91756186|NCT03109184|183404796|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported problems in family communication|||||
91756187|NCT03109184|183404796|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported problems in family communication|||||
91886789|NCT03812029|183666735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.13
91756188|NCT03109184|183404796|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
91756189|NCT03109184|183404796|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
91886790|NCT03812029|183666736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91886791|NCT03812029|183666736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91886792|NCT03812029|183666736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
91886793|NCT03812029|183666737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91886794|NCT03812029|183666737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
91886795|NCT03812029|183666737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
91886796|NCT03812029|183666738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91886797|NCT03812029|183666738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91886798|NCT03812029|183666738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
91886799|NCT03812029|183666739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
91886800|NCT03812029|183666739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0006
91886801|NCT03812029|183666739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
91886802|NCT03812029|183666740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
91886803|NCT03812029|183666740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91886804|NCT03812029|183666740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
91886805|NCT03812029|183666741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0017
91886806|NCT03812029|183666741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0093
91886807|NCT01080300|183666743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.09||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Eltereen|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Frequency at Week 4:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 4."||-1.09|-2.31|0.0003
91886808|NCT01080300|183666743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.48||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Frequency at Week 12:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 12."||-0.48|-1.80|0.1000
91886809|NCT01080300|183666744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.1||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Severity Score at Week 4:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 4."||-0.10|-0.31|<0.0001
91886810|NCT01080300|183666744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.04||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Severity Score at Week 12:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 12."||-0.04|-0.33|0.0004
91886811|NCT01080300|183666745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.19|||Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Frequency at Week 24:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in observed average daily number of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 24."||-0.19|-1.98|0.1510
91756190|NCT03109184|183404797|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent emotion-regulation|||||
91756191|NCT03109184|183404797|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent emotion-regulation|||||
91756192|NCT03109184|183404798|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent distress tolerance|||||
91756193|NCT03109184|183404798|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent distress tolerance|||||
91756194|NCT00602420|183404799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.||3.24|0.10|0.037
91756195|NCT00602420|183404799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.||||0.007
91886812|NCT01080300|183666746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.0|||Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Severity Score at Week 24:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in observed average daily severity score of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 24."||-0.00|-0.44|0.0004
91756196|NCT00649428|183404844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||.00001
91756197|NCT00649428|183404847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||<.00001
91756198|NCT02008227|183404880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.87|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.87|0.62|0.0003
91756199|NCT02008227|183404880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.86|0.62|0.0002
91756200|NCT02008227|183404881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.93|0.58|0.0102
91756201|NCT02008227|183404881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.91|0.58|0.0052
91756202|NCT02008227|183404884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||1.10|0.82|0.4928
91756203|NCT02008227|183404884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.08|0.81|0.3596
91756204|NCT02008227|183404885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||1.12|0.74|0.3806
91909293|NCT01877187|183714471|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.017
91756205|NCT02008227|183404885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.10|0.74|0.3249
91756206|NCT02008227|183404888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.55|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.55|0.18|<0.0001
91756207|NCT02008227|183404888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.55|0.21|<0.0001
91756208|NCT02008227|183404889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.62|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.62|0.15|0.0006
91756209|NCT02008227|183404889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.65|0.22|0.0003
91756210|NCT02008227|183404893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest: Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.93|0.55|0.0111
91756211|NCT02008227|183404893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||Cough: Unstratified Analysis||1.33|0.84|0.6305
91756212|NCT02008227|183404893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea: Unstratified Analysis||1.16|0.81|0.7406
91756213|NCT02008227|183404893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Log Rank|||Arm/Shoulder Pain||1.17|0.73|0.5221
91756214|NCT02008227|183404908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.92|0.70|0.0012
91756215|NCT02008227|183404909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.92|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.92|0.64|0.0045
91756216|NCT02008227|183404910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.84|0.49|0.0012
91756217|NCT02008227|183404911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.68|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.68|0.30|<0.0001
91756218|NCT02008227|183404912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.96||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.85|0.4981
91756219|NCT02008227|183404914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.48||||||||0.48|0.21|
91756220|NCT04566601|183404918|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.69||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||2.69|-1.31|0.4994
91756221|NCT04566601|183404918|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.51||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||1.51|-2.60|0.6014
91756222|NCT04566601|183404918|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.72||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||1.72|-2.17|0.8166
91756223|NCT04566601|183404918|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.24||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||1.24|-1.96|0.6588
91756224|NCT04566601|183404918|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.3914|||||||MCP-Mod sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg, and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 75 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.3914
91756225|NCT04566601|183404918|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.4104|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4104
91756226|NCT04566601|183404918|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.456|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: No parameter assumptions required.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4560
91756227|NCT04566601|183404918|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.4908|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4908
91759873|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|11.85||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.85|-3.96|
91889154|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-2.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 10A||-2.1|-13.1|
91756228|NCT04566601|183404918|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.4974|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4974
91756229|NCT04566601|183404919|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|1.14|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 5mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||1.140|0.207|
91756230|NCT04566601|183404919|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|7.48|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 25mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||7.480|0.829|
91756231|NCT04566601|183404919|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|4.861|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 75mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||4.861|0.698|
91909294|NCT01877187|183714471|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.08
91909295|NCT01877187|183714473|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.020
91909296|NCT01877187|183714473|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.029
91756232|NCT04566601|183404919|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|2.913|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 125mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||2.913|0.642|
91756233|NCT04566601|183404920|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|4.9||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.90|-5.11|0.9675
91909297|NCT01877187|183714473|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.94
91909298|NCT01877187|183714475|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.06
91909299|NCT01877187|183714475|OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.013
91909300|NCT01877187|183714475|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.67
91909301|NCT00382993|183714532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.63|||<|0.001||95.0|2.76|11.49|||ANOVA|||||11.49|2.76|<0.001
91756234|NCT04566601|183404920|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|5.1||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.10|-5.08|0.9969
91756235|NCT04566601|183404920|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.7542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|4.15||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.15|-5.73|0.7542
91756236|NCT04566601|183404920|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.5683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|5.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.19|-2.86|0.5683
91756237|NCT04566601|183404921|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.07||||0.3568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|2.35||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.35|-6.49|0.3568
91756238|NCT04566601|183404921|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|5.75||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.75|-3.33|0.6009
91756239|NCT04566601|183404921|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.98|-4.70|0.8705
91756240|NCT04566601|183404921|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.5262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|4.71||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.71|-2.41|0.5262
91756241|NCT04566601|183404922|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.21||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.21|-3.87|0.0782
91756242|NCT04566601|183404922|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.32||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.32|-1.86|0.8266
91806285|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.502|2.491|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||2.4910|-33.5020|
91806286|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.296|-3.2667|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-3.2667|-40.2960|
91806287|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.421|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3519|-4.4911|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Triglycerides||-4.4911|-38.3519|
91806288|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.361|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.465|-29.2561|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Triglycerides||-29.2561|-63.4650|
91806289|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.843|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7854|-38.9007|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Triglycerides||-38.9007|-70.7854|
91806290|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.756|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7561|2.2448|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||2.2448|-21.7561|
91756243|NCT04566601|183404922|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.74||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.74|-2.28|0.7910
91756244|NCT04566601|183404922|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.51||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.51|-1.77|0.8743
91756245|NCT04566601|183404923|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.37||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.37|-0.47|0.8016
91756246|NCT04566601|183404923|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.2929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.2||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.20|-0.67|0.2929
91756247|NCT04566601|183404923|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.42|0.9666
91756248|NCT04566601|183404923|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.2833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.15||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.15|-0.52|0.2833
91756249|NCT04566601|183404924|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.2||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.20|-0.45|0.4552
91756250|NCT04566601|183404924|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.22||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.22|-0.47|0.4734
91756251|NCT04566601|183404924|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.8388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.29||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.29|-0.36|0.8388
91759874|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|11.13||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.13|-4.80|
91756252|NCT04566601|183404924|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.19|-0.35|0.5540
91756253|NCT00757822|183404925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.6|||>|0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|18.6|||Fisher Exact|||The incidence of PON per arm will be determined and expressed as a percentage of the total patients per arm. Treatment efficacy will be measured as the percentage-point decrease in PON in the treatment arm (Marinol) compared to the standard therapy arm (ondansetron). Null hypothesis: Marinol treatment is not superior to ondansetron treatment. We will test the statistical significance with Fisher's Exact test at a significance level of 0.05||18.6|-9.5|>0.76
91756254|NCT00757822|183404926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.92|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's Exact test was performed comparing the percentage of subjects with at least one VAS score \> 0. (Marinol\>Ondansetron).||||||>0.92
91756255|NCT00757822|183404927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.7|||>|0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|13.3|||Fisher Exact|||||13.3|-12.1|>0.55
91756256|NCT00757822|183404928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||=0.981
91756257|NCT00757822|183404929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.90
91756258|NCT00757822|183404930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.37
91756259|NCT00757822|183404931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ Procedure|||Comparisons at 24-48 hr post-surgery. Null hypothesis: dronabinol is not superior to ondansetron in patient satisfaction.||||>0.75
91756260|NCT00757822|183404931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ procedure|||Comparisons of both arms at 2-6 weeks; null hypothesis: dronabinol is not superior to ondansetron in patient satisfaction||||>0.10
91886813|NCT01080300|183666747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|21.6|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|"Proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in PGIC at Week 12.~Null Hypotheses: no treatment differences, relative to placebo in the proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in the PGIC score at week 12.."||21.6|5.7|0.0008
91886814|NCT01080300|183666747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|21.3|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|"Proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in PGIC at Week 24."||21.3|5.5|0.0009
91756261|NCT00757822|183404932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ procedure|||Comparison of both group responses at 24-48 hours.||||>0.29
91756262|NCT00757822|183404932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ Procedure|||Comparisons of both arms at 2-6 weeks.||||>0.55
91756263|NCT02702180|183404941|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-4.6||||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|2.0|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|Primary endpoint was evaluated using analysis of covariance with treatment, whole lung lavage within 2 months before baseline, and geographic region as factors, and baseline values as covariates. To control type I error, key secondary endpoints were analyzed using a testing hierarchy wherein once daily molgramostim and placebo was compared and if statistical significance was reached, evaluation of intermittent molgramostim and placebo would proceed.||2.0|-11.1|0.1688
91756264|NCT02702180|183404941|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-2.8||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.7|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||3.7|-9.3|0.3968
91756265|NCT02702180|183404942|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|20.6||||0.3159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|61.0|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||61.0|-19.8|0.3159
91756266|NCT02702180|183404942|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|5.6||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|45.2|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||45.2|-34.1|0.7809
91756267|NCT02702180|183404943|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-7.6||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||-1.8|-13.4|0.0103
91756268|NCT02702180|183404943|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-7.0||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24..|||-1.3|-12.7|0.0173
91756269|NCT02702180|183404944|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.284||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|1.881|||Negative binomial regression||The estimated value represents the RR between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups.|||1.881|0.043|0.1918
91756270|NCT02702180|183404944|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.367||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|1.968|||Negative binomial regression||The estimated value represents the RR between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups.|||1.968|0.068|0.2421
91756271|NCT01463072|183405007|OTHER||Percent|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|52.0|||||35% of participants were responders (CR+PR).|||52|21|
91756272|NCT01463072|183405009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|33.1|||Fisher Exact||Ratio is intermediate/high toxicity risk over low toxicity risk|CARG chemotherapy toxicity risk predictive of chemotherapy toxicity (grade 3)||33.1|1.3|0.01
91756273|NCT01463072|183405009|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of group means|1.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio is dose reduction over no dose reduction.|CARG chemotherapy toxicity risk predictive of dose reduction due to chemotherapy toxicity||1.80|1.04|0.02
91756274|NCT00548717|183405040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 1.||||0.77
91909302|NCT03015259|183714569|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an analysis of covariance model was fit on the participants from the test budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort groups, with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate.|Test/Referece LS Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.13|||||Fieller's formula was applied|Only Treatments 1 and 2 were compared for equivalence. Treatment 3 (placebo) was subtracted from both Treatments 1 and 2, as this primary endpoint was baseline adjusted.||1.130|0.958|
91909303|NCT03015259|183714570|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an ANCOVA model was fit with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment-by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate.|Test/Reference LS Mean Ratio|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.14|||||Fieller's formula was applied|Treatments 1 and 2 were baseline adjusted by subtracting Treatment 3 (placebo) from each.||1.140|0.889|
91909304|NCT03015259|183714571|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Comparison of means, no formal statistical comparison|no statistical significance applied|||
91909305|NCT05284760|183714572|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|97.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.66|107.96||||||||107.96|87.66|
91909306|NCT05284760|183714572|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|81.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.06|89.89||||||||89.89|73.06|
91909307|NCT05284760|183714572|OTHER||GMR|37.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.1|45.17||||||||45.17|31.10|
91909308|NCT05284760|183714572|OTHER||GMR|89.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.24|107.79||||||||107.79|74.24|
91909309|NCT05284760|183714573|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|97.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.17|103.17||||||||103.17|92.17|
91909310|NCT05284760|183714573|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|86.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.14|91.89||||||||91.89|82.14|
91909311|NCT05284760|183714573|OTHER||GMR|87.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.92|101.15||||||||101.15|75.92|
91909312|NCT05284760|183714573|OTHER||GMR|95.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.73|110.22||||||||110.22|82.73|
91909313|NCT05284760|183714574|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|99.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.84|106.1||||||||106.10|92.84|
91909314|NCT05284760|183714574|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|86.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.33|93.03||||||||93.03|81.33|
91756275|NCT00548717|183405040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 2.||||0.59
91756276|NCT00548717|183405040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 3.||||0.92
91756277|NCT00548717|183405040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 8.||||0.63
91909315|NCT05284760|183714574|OTHER||GMR|89.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.92|100.99||||||||100.99|78.92|
91909316|NCT05284760|183714574|OTHER||GMR|92.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.77|105.25||||||||105.25|81.77|
91909317|NCT00440947|183714610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be established between the two arms if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<50 c/mL at Week 84 was -12% or greater.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (\<100000/\>=100000)||||12.5|-1.8|0.140
91909318|NCT01827670|183714673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-1.06|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment as fixed factor \& baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% stannous fluoride minus 0.76% sodium monofluorophosphate such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||-1.06|-1.53|<0.0001
91909319|NCT01827670|183714674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.62|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment as fixed factor \& baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a negative difference favored first named treatment|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||-0.62|-1.00|<0.0001
91756278|NCT00548717|183405040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 12.||||0.79
91756279|NCT04971941|183405127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||This P value applies to comparison of IAN with and without DentalVibe|t-test, 2 sided|df =58||Sample size estimation from Nanitsos 2010: Using the P value from the paired T test with 61 degrees of freedom the T statistic calculated at 4.365. From mean difference 9.3 SD was calculated as 16.66 for an effect size of 0.558. This generated a sample size of 44 subjects, receiving 2 injections (1 with DV3 and 1 without), is necessary to attain 95% power for a paired t-test comparing the 2 pain measures at a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05. P value for IAN||2.1|0.4|0.001
91756280|NCT04971941|183405127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.75||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|df= 58||||-1.5|-1.7|0.02
91756281|NCT04971941|183405127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|0.4|0.004
91886815|NCT01080300|183666748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|24.3|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|"Proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in CGIC at Week 12.~Null Hypotheses: no treatment differences, relative to placebo in the proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in the CGIC score at week 12."||24.3|8.4|<0.0001
91756282|NCT04971941|183405128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|14.0|0.4|4.8||This P value applies to comparing IAN with or with DV as measured by SSI tolerability/ability to endure|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.8|0.4|0.001
91756283|NCT04971941|183405128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91756284|NCT04971941|183405128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91756285|NCT04971941|183405128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
91756286|NCT04971941|183405128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91756287|NCT04971941|183405128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
91756288|NCT04971941|183405128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
91756289|NCT04971941|183405128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
91756290|NCT04971941|183405128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
91756291|NCT04971941|183405129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relation between use of DV and numb times. There were no studies from which to perform a power calculation for this outcome measure||||0.459
91756292|NCT00079677|183405130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0003||95.0|1.67|5.46||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05||5.46|1.67|0.0003
91756293|NCT00079677|183405131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05.||||0.0069
91756294|NCT01985360|183405133|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.29||||||||1.29|0.79|
91756295|NCT04598269|183405134|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSM) % Differences|-33.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.971|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.95|-18.08||P-value is based on a 1-sided hypothesis test of the superiority of ATI-1777 relative to the vehicle. Significance level at α = 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||"Fixed factors for treatment, visit, visit\*treatment, baseline measurement. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used to account for within-subject variability.~Week 4: Least Square Means (LSM) % differences ATI-1777 arm minus vehicle arm"|||-18.08|-47.95|<0.001
91756296|NCT04598269|183405135|SUPERIORITY||LSM % Differences|-23.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.971||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.47|-8.59||P-value is based on a 1-sided hypothesis test of the superiority of ATI-1777 relative to the vehicle. Significance level at α = 0.05.|MMRM||"Fixed factors for treatment, visit, visit\*treatment, baseline measurement. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used to account for within-subject variability.~Day 8: LSM % differences ATI-1777 arm minus vehicle arm"|Day 8 statistical analysis||-8.59|-38.47|0.005
91886816|NCT01080300|183666748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|19.0|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 24||19.0|3.0|0.0070
91886817|NCT01080300|183666749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|15.2|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 12||15.2|-0.3|0.0609
91756297|NCT04598269|183405135|SUPERIORITY||LSM % Differences|-23.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.971||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.38|-8.5||P-value is based on a 1-sided hypothesis test of the superiority of ATI-1777 relative to the vehicle. Significance level at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||"Fixed factors for treatment, visit, visit\*treatment, baseline measurement. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used to account for within-subject variability.~Day 15: LSM % differences ATI-1777 arm minus vehicle arm"|Day 15 statistical analysis||-8.50|-38.38|0.005
91756298|NCT04598269|183405136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|63.2||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic||Active/Vehicle|||63.2|3.9|<0.001
91756299|NCT04598269|183405137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|17.0||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|Regression, Linear||Active/Vehicle|||17.0|2.1|0.003
91756300|NCT04598269|183405138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|5.3||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|Regression, Logistic||Active/Vehicle|||5.3|0.6|0.203
91756301|NCT04598269|183405139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 8 statistical analysis||||0.148
91756302|NCT04598269|183405139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 15 statistical analysis||||0.017
91756303|NCT04598269|183405139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Week 4 statistical analysis||||0.002
91756304|NCT04598269|183405140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 8 statistical analysis||||0.088
91756305|NCT04598269|183405140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 15 statistical analysis||||0.022
91756306|NCT04598269|183405140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance.|MMRM|||Week 4 statistical analysis||||<0.001
91756307|NCT04598269|183405141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 8 statistical analysis||||0.014
91756308|NCT04598269|183405141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 15 statistical analysis||||0.069
91886818|NCT01080300|183666749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|15.3|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 24||15.3|-0.7|0.0720
91756309|NCT04598269|183405141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Week 4 statistical analysis||||0.060
91756310|NCT00424190|183405142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure between ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam was calculated. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in clinical cure rate of ceftaroline in comparison with vancomycin plus aztreonam in adult subjects with cSSSI.||6.2|-4.2|
91756311|NCT02963701|183405176|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%|T/R Ratio (%)|99.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.52|101.89|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||101.89|96.52|
91756312|NCT02963701|183405177|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%|T/R Ratio (%)|89.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.88|94.76|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||94.76|83.88|
91756313|NCT02963701|183405178|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|99.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.73|103.95|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|||103.95|95.73|
91756314|NCT02963701|183405179|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|102.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.3|107.27|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|||107.27|97.30|
91756315|NCT02963701|183405180|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|98.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.44|101.57|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%)of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||101.57|96.44|
91756316|NCT02963701|183405181|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|99.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.48|104.04|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||104.04|95.48|
91756317|NCT02963701|183405182|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|95.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.7|100.4|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||100.40|91.70|
91756318|NCT02963701|183405183|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|96.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.92|100.51|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||100.51|91.92|
91756319|NCT02963701|183405184|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|90.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.87|97.21|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||97.21|84.87|
91886819|NCT01080300|183666750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.1825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|9.4|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 12||9.4|-1.8|0.1825
91756320|NCT02963701|183405185|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|101.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.33|104.46|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||104.46|99.33|
91756321|NCT02963701|183405186|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|101.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.4|103.95|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||103.95|99.40|
91756322|NCT02963701|183405187|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|86.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.03|91.28|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||91.28|82.03|
91756323|NCT02963701|183405188|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio (%)|106.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.77|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.3|111.26|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||111.26|101.30|
91756324|NCT01345682|183405189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.792||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.977||Log-rank test stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance score (PS)(0 or 1) and prior use of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody in the Recurrent and/or Metastatic (R/M) setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||0.977|0.643|0.0257
91756325|NCT01345682|183405190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958||||0.6755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.169||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||1.169|0.786|0.6755
91756326|NCT01345682|183405191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|4.14|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||4.14|0.88|0.1010
91756327|NCT01345682|183405192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.26|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||2.26|1.03|0.0353
91886820|NCT01080300|183666750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.7|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 24||10.7|-1.8|0.1662
91886821|NCT01080300|183666751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.97||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 4: LOCF daily sleep interference rating.||-0.97|-1.75|<0.0001
91886822|NCT01080300|183666751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.47||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 12: LOCF daily sleep interference rating.||-0.47|-1.36|<0.0001
91756328|NCT01345682|183405194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|-0.42||Adjusted for baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for R/M HNSCC (Yes or No).|longitudinal models||Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|Changes in scores over time were assessed using longitudinal models, i.e. mixed effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score (PS) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).||-0.42|-8.31|0.0300
91759875|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|5.81||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.81|-9.86|
91756329|NCT01345682|183405195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.9773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.18||Adjusted for baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for R/M HNSCC (Yes or No).|longitudinal models||Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|Changes in scores over time were assessed using longitudinal models, i.e. mixed effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG PS and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).||4.18|-4.30|0.9773
91886823|NCT01080300|183666751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.49||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 24: LOCF daily sleep interference rating.||-0.49|-1.42|<0.0001
91886824|NCT01080300|183666752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.537|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.56||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 4: LOCF daily insomnia severity index (ISI) rating.||-1.56|-3.67|<0.0001
91886825|NCT01080300|183666752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.78||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 12: LOCF daily insomnia severity index (ISI) rating.||-0.78|-2.92|0.0007
91886826|NCT01080300|183666752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.69|||ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 24: LOCF daily insomnia severity index (ISI) rating.||-0.69|-2.84|0.0014
91886827|NCT01080300|183666753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04||The p-value (vs. Placebo) for the test of difference of the LS mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||MENQOL score at Week 4||-0.04|-0.37|0.0137
91886828|NCT01080300|183666753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.02||The p-value (vs. Placebo) for the test of difference of the LS mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||MENQOL score at Week 12||0.02|-0.31|0.0872
91886829|NCT01080300|183666753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.13||The p-value (vs. Placebo) for the test of difference of the LS mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||MENQOL score at Week 24||0.13|-0.23|0.5607
91886830|NCT02269423|183666771|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
91886831|NCT02269423|183666771|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
91886832|NCT02269423|183666771|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
91886833|NCT02269423|183666771|OTHER|||||||0.161||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.161
91886834|NCT02269423|183666771|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.008
91886835|NCT02269423|183666771|OTHER|||||||0.173||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.173
91909320|NCT01827670|183714675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|35.1|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||35.1|19.4|<0.0001
91886836|NCT02269423|183666772|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
91886837|NCT02269423|183666772|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
91886838|NCT02269423|183666772|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
91756330|NCT01345682|183405196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.7767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|4.39||Adjusted for baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for R/M HNSCC (Yes or No).|longitudinal models||Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|Changes in scores over time were assessed using longitudinal models, i.e. mixed effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG PS and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).||4.39|-3.28|0.7767
91756331|NCT01345682|183405197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No). Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|||1.990|0.717|0.494
91756332|NCT01345682|183405198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.95|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No). Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|||1.950|0.687|0.584
91756333|NCT01345682|183405199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.705|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No). Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|||1.705|0.657|0.816
91756334|NCT01345682|183405200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.96||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|||0.96|0.55|0.0217
91806291|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7497|-2.2787|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-2.2787|-25.7497|
91886839|NCT02269423|183666772|OTHER|||||||0.102||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.102
91886840|NCT02269423|183666772|OTHER|||||||0.124||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.124
91886841|NCT02269423|183666772|OTHER|||||||0.918||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.918
91886842|NCT01281839|183666777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR12|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|53.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportions of SVR12 between the treatment groups.||53.0|34.6|<0.001
91886843|NCT01281839|183666778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR72|43.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|52.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportions of SVR72 between the treatment groups.||52.5|34.1|<0.001
91886844|NCT01281839|183666779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR24|44.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||53.2|34.9|<0.001
91886845|NCT01281839|183666780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR4|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|49.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||49.9|32.1|<0.001
91886846|NCT03974022|183666900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||binomial exact test against H0|||||||<0.0001
91886847|NCT03974022|183666900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||binomial exact test against H0|||||||<0.0001
91886848|NCT03811002|183666917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.34|||Log Rank|Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). 1-sided significance level 0.025.|Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm 1.|Assuming exponentially distributed survival times, 480 eligible patients accrued uniformly over 48 months months) with 26 months additional follow-up after the last accrued patient would provide at least 85% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.71 (median survival times of 38 months \[Arm I\] vs. 27 months \[Arm II\]) at a one-sided significance level of 0.025, after adjusting for type 1 error using group sequential methods for two interim analyses.||1.34|0.82|0.5819
91886849|NCT03811002|183666918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Log Rank||Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm 1.|||1.21|0.80|
91886850|NCT03811002|183666921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.41|||||Cause-specific hazard ratio stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm 1.|||1.41|0.52|
91886851|NCT03811002|183666922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||||Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm I.|||1.20|0.76|
91886852|NCT01124838|183666941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was performed on Main Study data, excluding the Japanese sub-study. The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.||0.84|0.39|0.004
91886853|NCT01124838|183666941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank|||An additional analysis of the primary endpoint was performed using the Integrated Study data (Main Study + Japan sub-study). The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||0.74|0.37|<0.001
91909321|NCT01827670|183714676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|7.5||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.4|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||13.4|1.6|0.0138
91909322|NCT01827670|183714677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-12.14||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|-5.77|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline VAS as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a negative difference favored first named treatment|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||-5.77|-18.51|0.0003
91909323|NCT01827670|183714678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-21.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.55|-14.09|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline VAS as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a negative difference favored first named treatment|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments."||-14.09|-29.55|<0.0001
91909324|NCT02595723|183714684|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Overall group difference adjusted for prior group, time, and baseline values.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes prior group, time, and baseline values to control for possible effects.||||||0.003
91909325|NCT00385255|183714705|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentages of subjects with anti-D antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, being ≥ - 10%.|Difference in percentage|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|3.56||||||Difference in seroprotection rates against diphteria toxoid: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-D antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||3.56|-1.36|
91909326|NCT00385255|183714705|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+ Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, being ≥ - 10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.74||||||Difference in seroprotection rates against tetanus toxoid: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-T antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||-0.74|-2.96|
91909327|NCT00385255|183714706|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, being ≥ - 10%.|Difference in percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.68||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against tetanus toxoid: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-T antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||3.68|-0.77|
91756335|NCT01345682|183405201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.89||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||0.89|0.50|0.0040
91756336|NCT01345682|183405202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.97||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||0.97|0.56|0.0268
91756337|NCT03101085|183405225|OTHER|We performed a paired T-test analysis to ascertain whether the COX/CS activity while on S-equol was comparable or different than the COX/CS while on placebo. For each participant, the COX/CS value while on S-equol was subtracted from their COX/CS value while on placebo.|||||>|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||As the order of the intervention does not matter, all 39 participants who contributed data to the final analysis are included together.||||>0.05
91806292|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.675|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8454|-15.5045|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-15.5045|-39.8454|
91756338|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|30.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.76|41.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.25|21.76|
91806293|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6057|-9.269|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-9.2690|-32.6057|
91806294|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0346|-14.3696|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-14.3696|-29.0346|
91806295|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0636|-3.2961|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Non-HDLc||-3.2961|-23.0636|
91806296|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.942|-12.3605|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Non-HDLc||-12.3605|-31.9420|
91806297|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2874|-17.6092|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Non-HDLc||-17.6092|-36.2874|
91806298|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.904|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8484|4.04|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||4.0400|-11.8484|
91806299|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.437|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.346|1.4722|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||1.4722|-14.3460|
91806300|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3923|-2.196|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||-2.1960|-18.3923|
91806301|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7688|-4.3609|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||-4.3609|-19.7688|
91806302|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9778|-1.9039|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||-1.9039|-13.9778|
91806303|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9023|-0.866|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Cholesterol||-0.8660|-15.9023|
91806304|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1404|-8.2592|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Cholesterol||-8.2592|-23.1404|
91806305|NCT01218204|183489216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8395|-9.6161||||||For Cholesterol||-9.6161|-23.8395|
91806306|NCT01218204|183489217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.123|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6276|2.3814|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||2.3814|-26.6276|
91806307|NCT01218204|183489217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9419|-7.3181|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-7.3181|-35.9419|
91806308|NCT01218204|183489217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3924|-26.6205|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-26.6205|-56.3924|
91806309|NCT01218204|183489217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2554|-13.8263|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-13.8263|-42.2554|
91806310|NCT01218204|183489217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5654|-12.4042|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-12.4042|-51.5654|
91806311|NCT01218204|183489217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8358|-5.2472|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-5.2472|-34.8358|
91806312|NCT01218204|183489217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6155|-7.1913|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-7.1913|-36.6155|
91806313|NCT01218204|183489217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.722|-21.7485|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-21.7485|-49.7220|
91806314|NCT01218204|183489218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0123|0.1942|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||0.1942|-1.0123|
91886854|NCT01124838|183666942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations (i.e., observations from each of the participant's eyes).|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.08|-0.37|0.218
91806315|NCT01218204|183489218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9063|0.3141|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||0.3141|-0.9063|
91806316|NCT01218204|183489218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4125|-0.2098|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-0.2098|-1.4125|
91806317|NCT01218204|183489218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9831|0.1394|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||0.1394|-0.9831|
91806318|NCT01218204|183489218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6009|-0.1669|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-0.1669|-0.6009|
91806319|NCT01218204|183489218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.648|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1657|-0.1302|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-0.1302|-1.1657|
91806320|NCT01218204|183489218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.782|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2804|-0.2844|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-0.2844|-1.2804|
91806321|NCT01218204|183489218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3652|-0.4026|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-0.4026|-1.3652|
91806322|NCT00407797|183489234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
91806323|NCT00407797|183489235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
91806324|NCT00407797|183489236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
91806325|NCT00407797|183489237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \<= 6 seizures during Baseline period.||||<.0001
91806326|NCT00407797|183489237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \> 6 seizures during Baseline Period.||||<.0001
91806327|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Sleep Disturbance. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0552
91806328|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Sleep Disturbance. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0350
91909328|NCT00385255|183714707|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertussis toxoid (PT) antigens between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group) being ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMC ratios for anti-PT antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-PT antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||0.82|0.67|
91909329|NCT00385255|183714707|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMC ratios of antibodies against the filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antigens between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group) being ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMC ratio for anti-FHA antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-FHA antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||0.79|0.64|
91909330|NCT00385255|183714707|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertactin (PRN) antigens between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group) being ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.81|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMC ratio for anti-PRN antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-PRN antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||0.81|0.60|
91909331|NCT00385255|183714708|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H1N1 antibody titers ≥ 1:40 being ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|1.23||||||Difference in percentage of subjects with anti-H1N1 antibody titers ≥ 1:40: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H1N1 antibody titers ≥ 1:40, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||1.23|-3.58|
91909332|NCT00385255|183714708|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H3N2 antibody titers ≥ 1:40 being ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.96||||||Difference in percentage of subjects with anti-H3N2 antibody titers ≥ 1:40: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H3N2 antibody titers ≥ 1:40, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||0.96|-2.22|
91909333|NCT00385255|183714708|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-B antibody titers ≥ 1:40 being ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.42||||||Difference in percentage of subjects with anti-B antibody titers ≥ 1:40: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-B antibody titers ≥ 1:40, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||1.42|-2.52|
91756339|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|30.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.66|41.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.17|21.66|
91756340|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|30.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.89|41.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||41.12|21.89|
91756341|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Difference in percentages|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|3.36|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.36|-3.15|
91886855|NCT01124838|183666942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.06|-0.36|0.164
91886856|NCT01124838|183666943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.01|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as factor|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.01|-0.28|0.070
91909334|NCT00385255|183714709|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with ≥ 4-fold increase in anti-H1N1 antibody titers (seroconversion) being ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|7.58||||||Difference in seroconversion rates for anti-H1N1 antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroconversion rates for anti-H1N1 antibody, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||7.58|-2.84|
91909335|NCT00385255|183714709|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with ≥ 4-fold increase in anti-H3N2 antibody titers (seroconversion) being ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.07||||||Difference in seroconversion rates for anti-H3N2 antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroconversion rates for anti-H3N2 antibody, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||10.07|1.10|
91909336|NCT00385255|183714709|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with ≥ 4-fold increase anti-B antibody titers (seroconversion) being ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.2||||||Difference in seroconversion rates for anti-B antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroconversion rates for anti-B antibody, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||7.20|-2.90|
91909337|NCT00345176|183714720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|98.7|0.76|1.07||Adjusted for 3 treatment versus placebo comparisons and interim analyses|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline AMD status|The reference group is placebo.|Each of the 3 active arms was compared to the placebo/control arm.||1.07|0.76|<0.013
91909338|NCT00345176|183714720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|98.7|0.82|1.16||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.82|<0.013
91909339|NCT00345176|183714720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|98.7|0.75|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for multiple comparisons||||1.06|0.75|<0.013
91909340|NCT00345176|183714721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.84|<0.05
91886857|NCT01124838|183666943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.03|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.03|-0.31|0.016
91886858|NCT01124838|183666944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.01|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.01|-0.08|0.096
91886859|NCT01124838|183666944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.0|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.00|-0.09|0.044
91909341|NCT00345176|183714721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.84|<0.05
91909342|NCT00345176|183714721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.83|<0.05
91756342|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.54|48.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.90|28.54|
91756343|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|39.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.16|49.46|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.46|29.16|
91756344|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|38.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.03|49.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||49.06|29.03|
91756345|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.92|-4.12|
91756346|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|59.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.49|69.32|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||69.32|49.49|
91806329|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Snoring. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.6743
91886860|NCT01124838|183666945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.69|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.69|0.34|0.491
91886861|NCT01124838|183666945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.28|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.28|0.28|0.185
91886862|NCT01124838|183666946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.8|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||3.8|-8.5|0.451
91886863|NCT01124838|183666946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.8|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment, race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.8|-9.7|0.174
91886864|NCT01124838|183666947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|2.12||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|5.08|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.08|-0.84|0.160
91886865|NCT01124838|183666947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.77||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|4.52|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||4.52|-0.97|0.205
91886866|NCT01124838|183666948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.88||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|6.29|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||6.29|-2.53|0.401
91909343|NCT00345176|183714722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||Comparison of Lutein/Zeaxantin versus Control for mortality||1.40|0.77|<0.05
91756347|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|57.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.71|66.88|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||66.88|46.71|
91886867|NCT01124838|183666948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|2.36||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|6.45|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||6.45|-1.73|0.256
91886868|NCT01124838|183666949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mena Difference|-0.1||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|4.61|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||4.61|-4.81|0.967
91886869|NCT01124838|183666949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|3.79|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||3.79|-5.53|0.714
91886870|NCT01124838|183666950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|0.56||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|5.68|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.68|-4.56|0.830
91886871|NCT01124838|183666950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|4.34|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese vs. non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||4.34|-5.32|0.842
91886872|NCT00217737|183666956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.11|||||Hazard ratio: Arm B/Arm A|||1.11|0.63|
91909344|NCT00345176|183714722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||Comparison of DHA/EPA versus Placebo for mortality||1.52|0.84|<0.05
91886873|NCT03931746|183666968|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|-3.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||-0.5|-8.0|0.04
91886874|NCT03931746|183666969|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|-2.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft minus No Porcine Xenograft.|||12|-9|0.75
91909345|NCT00345176|183714722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.65|||Regression, Cox|||Comparison of Lutein/Zeaxanthin + DHA/EPA versus Placebo for Mortality||1.65|0.92|<0.05
91909346|NCT00345176|183714723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.84|<0.05
91909347|NCT00606086|183714742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||||1.000
91909348|NCT02692495|183714744|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91806330|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4736|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Snoring. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.4736
91806331|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8173|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Awaken Short of Breath. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.8173
91806332|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9092|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Awaken Short of Breath. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.9092
91806333|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Sleep Adequacy. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.1091
91806334|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Sleep Adequacy. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0944
91806335|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8928|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Somnolence. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.8928
91886875|NCT03931746|183666970|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||20.0|-19.0|1
91886876|NCT03931746|183666971|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft vs. No Porcine Xenograft.|||0.33|-0.26|1
91886877|NCT03931746|183666972|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||4|-6|1
91886878|NCT03931746|183666973|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|0.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||2|-1|0.54
91886879|NCT03931746|183666974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|13.3|||Fisher Exact||"The No Porcine Xenograft group is the reference group."|||13.3|0.03|1
91886880|NCT03931746|183666975|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.167||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.185|||Fisher Exact||"The risk difference is calculated as the outcome risk in the Porcine Xenograft group minus the outcome risk in the No Porcine Xenograft group. The confidence interval for the risk difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method."|||0.185|-0.564|0.43
91886881|NCT03931746|183666976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|55.9|||Fisher Exact||"The No Porcine Xenograft group is the reference group."|||55.9|0.006|1
91886882|NCT01183390|183666978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|102.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.28|95.10|
91806336|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7669|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Somnolence. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.7669
91806337|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1698|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: 9-Item Overall Sleep Problems Index. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.1698
91806338|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: 9-Item Overall Sleep Problem Index. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0898
91886883|NCT01183390|183666979|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.99|101.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.80|96.99|
91886884|NCT04057573|183666985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.737|6.835||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||6.835|1.737|0.0004
91886885|NCT04057573|183666986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.296|6.949||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||6.949|2.296|< 0.0001
91886886|NCT04057573|183666987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.29||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|108.739||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||108.739|2.150|0.0065
91886887|NCT04057573|183666988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.865|9.853||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||9.853|1.865|0.0006
91886888|NCT04057573|183666989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|12.755||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||12.755|1.851|0.0013
91886889|NCT04057573|183666990|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.46|-10.45||Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors (Skin Type Fitzpatrick scale Type I, II versus Type III, IV, V, and VI, Region North America/Europe) + Baseline|ANCOVA|||||-10.45|-28.46|< 0.0001
91756348|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|58.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.32|67.94|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||67.94|48.32|
91756349|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|6.62|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||6.62|-1.17|
91756350|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|45.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.11|55.47|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||55.47|35.11|
91756351|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|42.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.34|53.04|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||53.04|32.34|
91756352|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|43.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.92|54.14|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||54.14|33.92|
91756353|NCT02986854|183405255|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|6.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||6.3|-0.86|
91756354|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|13.41|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.41|1.23|
91756355|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Between group differences in percentage|10.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|16.14|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||16.14|3.54|
91756356|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Between group differences in percentage|9.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|13.58|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.58|2.72|
91756357|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Between group differences in percentage|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|3.24|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.24|-8.17|
91756358|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|14.15|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||14.15|-3.57|
91756359|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|16.52|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||16.52|-1.77|
91756360|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|13.48|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.48|-2.34|
91756361|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|5.82|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||5.82|-9.84|
91756362|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|44.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.25|54.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||54.60|30.25|
91756363|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|38.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.93|48.58|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.58|23.93|
91806339|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Quantity of Sleep. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0465
91806340|NCT00407797|183489243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Quantity of Sleep. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0316
91806341|NCT00407797|183489244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21; change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.2187
91806342|NCT00407797|183489244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF; change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.1905
91756364|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|41.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.15|49.72|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.72|28.15|
91756365|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|17.71|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||17.71|-5.31|
91756366|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.25|37.65|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.65|19.25|
91756367|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|37.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.95|19.60|
91756368|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|37.76|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.76|19.50|
91756369|NCT02986854|183405261|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.86|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.86|-2.56|
91756370|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.23|38.27|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.27|16.23|
91886890|NCT04057573|183666993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.267|6.246||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||6.246|2.267|< 0.0001
91886891|NCT04057573|183666995|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|-18.86|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-18.86|-38.33|<0.0001
91756371|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.78|31.03|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.03|8.78|
91756372|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|24.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.28|33.86|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.86|13.28|
91756373|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|15.42|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||15.42|-0.76|
91756374|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.04|42.14|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||42.14|11.04|
91756375|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|16.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|31.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.90|0.04|
91756376|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.73|36.11|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||36.11|6.73|
91756377|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|10.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|21.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||21.60|-0.42|
91756378|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.65|58.93|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||58.93|28.65|
91756379|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.45|63.13|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||63.13|33.45|
91756380|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|46.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.52|60.59|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||60.59|31.52|
91886892|NCT04057573|183666998|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-19.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|-13.16|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-13.16|-26.55|<0.0001
91909349|NCT00391222|183714747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||As defined in the protocol, the olanzapine arm was not included in the primary outcome comparison. Data on the olanzapine arm are presented in outcome measure 7.|Log Rank|||Comparison between risperidone LAI and placebo was performed using a log-rank test controlling for patient type at screening (acute or non-acute) and for geographic region. As recurrence rates at 9 months were assumed to be 45% for risperidone LAI and 68% for placebo, the study would have approximately 90% power to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 23% in recurrence rates of a mood episode if in Period III 100 patients were randomized to each of the 2 relevant treatment arms.||||0.057
91909350|NCT00391222|183714748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.005
91886893|NCT04057573|183667000|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-11.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.23|-6.67|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-6.67|-17.23|<0.0001
91886894|NCT04057573|183667002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.121|6.63||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI25||6.630|2.121|< 0.0001
91886895|NCT04057573|183667002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|20.192||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI75||20.192|1.045|0.0436
91886896|NCT04057573|183667002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||||||||The p value was not evaluable because the response rate in the vehicle group was too low.||||T-VASI90||||
91886897|NCT04057573|183667005|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.39|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||0.39|-1.60|0.2350
91886898|NCT04991753|183667009|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.45|||=|0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-1.17|=0.224
91886899|NCT01251770|183667025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum Sodium difference at the beginning||||0.030
91886900|NCT01251770|183667025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum Sodium at the end of the study||||0.871
91886901|NCT01251770|183667026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.895
91886902|NCT03299049|183667038|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Cochran-Mantel Haenzel (CMH) adjusted treatment difference (Q8W minus Q4W) is less than 4%.|Adjusted difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.2|||||Adjusted CMH estimate of the difference in the percentage of participants with Plasma HIV-1 \>=50 c/mL between each treatment group (Q8W - Q4W) and corresponding 95% CI is presented.|||2.2|-0.6|
91886903|NCT03299049|183667039|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the CMH adjusted treatment difference (Q8W minus Q4W) is greater than -10%|Adjusted difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.7|||||Adjusted CMH estimate of the difference in the percentage of participants with Plasma HIV-1 \<50 c/mL between each treatment group (Q8W-Q4W) and corresponding 95% CI is presented.|||3.7|-2.1|
91886904|NCT01901419|183667086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.618
91886905|NCT01901419|183667087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.410
91886906|NCT01901419|183667088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
91886907|NCT01901419|183667089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.320
91756381|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|2.69|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.69|-11.84|
91886908|NCT01901419|183667090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512
91886909|NCT01901419|183667091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
91886910|NCT01901419|183667092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.338
91886911|NCT01901419|183667093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.356
91886912|NCT01901419|183667094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
91886913|NCT01901419|183667095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.515
91886914|NCT01901419|183667096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91886915|NCT01901419|183667097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.227
91886916|NCT01901419|183667098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
91886917|NCT01901419|183667099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91886918|NCT01901419|183667100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
91886919|NCT01901419|183667101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.948
91886920|NCT01901419|183667102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.682
91886921|NCT01901419|183667103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.928
91886922|NCT01901419|183667104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
91886923|NCT01901419|183667105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.894
91886924|NCT01901419|183667106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135
91886925|NCT01901419|183667107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
91886926|NCT01901419|183667108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.852
91886927|NCT01901419|183667109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.454
91886928|NCT01901419|183667110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.663
91886929|NCT01901419|183667111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.872
91886930|NCT01901419|183667112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.318
91886931|NCT01901419|183667113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.365
91886932|NCT01901419|183667114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
91886933|NCT01901419|183667115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.640
91886934|NCT00475644|183667120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.86||||||||0.860|0.001|
91886935|NCT00078338|183667137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.943||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.21|0.74|0.643
91886936|NCT02356705|183667169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
91886937|NCT02356705|183667170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
91886938|NCT02356705|183667171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.88
91886939|NCT02356705|183667173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91886940|NCT02356705|183667174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
91886941|NCT01606319|183667185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative rate|0.94||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.28|||log-linear model|log-linear model in which the number of exacerbations was assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution|relative rate with acetaminophen in the numerator and ibuprofen in the denominator|||1.28|.69|0.67
91886942|NCT01606319|183667186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.0019|||ANCOVA|||||.0019|-0.039|0.5
91886943|NCT01606319|183667187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.9|0.69
91886944|NCT01606319|183667188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative rate|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.37|||log-linear model|log-linear model in which the number of exacerbations was assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution|relative rate with acetaminophen in the numerator and ibuprofen in the denominator|||1.37|0.72|.94
91886945|NCT01634269|183667189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion of IF implanted subjects|87.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.7|98.4|||Exact binomial|||||98.4|61.7|0.002
91886946|NCT00584077|183667239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Each subject served as their own control as a comparison of the airway innervated (contralateral native lung) with the denervated airway (allograft)||||<0.01
91886947|NCT00584077|183667240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni test|ANOVA|||For the cross-sectional and longitudinal groups, a comparison of cough frequency after airway irritation of the main carina, and the proximal and distal anastomotic sites was performed using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni test. In the longitudinal cohort, a comparison of the cough frequencies at different airway sites at 1.5 and 12 months was performed using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni test.||||<0.01
91756382|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.53|21.22|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||21.22|7.53|
91756383|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|12.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|20.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||20.89|7.10|
91756384|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.34|21.05|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||21.05|7.34|
91756385|NCT02986854|183405262|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.99|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.99|-0.96|
91756386|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|25.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.39|3.46|
91756387|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|26.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||26.89|5.00|
91806343|NCT00407797|183489245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety: Week 21. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
91886948|NCT01294397|183667247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Ratio of Day 22/Day 1|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.08|||||Two one-sided tests|Log-transformed AUC0-168 was analyzed with a mixed-effects model with treatment as the fixed effect and subject as the random effect. The mean difference between day 22 and day 1 was expressed as a percentage of the reference (day 1). The mean differences and the 90% CIs were back transformed to produce the ratio (day 22 vs. day 1) of the geometric means and the 90% CIs. If the CI for the ratio was within the standard acceptance range of 0.80 to 1.25, absence of an interaction was concluded.||1.08|0.85|
91886949|NCT01294397|183667248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Ratio of Day 22/Day 1|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.05|||||Two one-sided tests|Log-transformed Cmax was analyzed with a mixed-effects model with treatment as the fixed effect and subject as the random effect. The mean difference between day 22 and day 1 was expressed as a percentage of the reference (day 1). The mean differences and the 90% CIs were back transformed to produce the ratio (day 22 vs. day 1) of the geometric means and the 90% CIs. If the CI for the ratio was within the standard acceptance range of 0.80 to 1.25, absence of an interaction was concluded.||1.05|0.81|
91886950|NCT04079634|183667263|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91886951|NCT00479882|183667264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence LDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±3%.|Difference in Least squares mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||3.4|1.3|
91886952|NCT00479882|183667264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence LDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±3%.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.4|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||2.4|0.4|
91909351|NCT00391222|183714748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||<0.0001
91886953|NCT00479882|183667265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence HDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±4%.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||1.0|-1.4|
91886954|NCT00479882|183667265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence HDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±4%.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||0.2|-1.9|
91886955|NCT00479882|183667266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.8|-1.2|0.685
91886956|NCT00479882|183667266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.1|-1.8|
91886957|NCT00479882|183667266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.9|-1.6|0.753
91886958|NCT00479882|183667266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.4|-0.8|
91886959|NCT00479882|183667267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.7|
91886960|NCT00479882|183667267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.5|-0.5|
91886961|NCT00479882|183667267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||1.1|-0.6|0.617
91886962|NCT00479882|183667267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-0.8|
91886963|NCT00479882|183667268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.7|
91886964|NCT00479882|183667268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.8|-0.9|
91886965|NCT00479882|183667268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.7|-0.6|
91886966|NCT00479882|183667268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-0.8|
91886967|NCT00479882|183667269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.7|
91886968|NCT00479882|183667269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.8|-0.9|
91886969|NCT00479882|183667269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.7|-0.6|
91886970|NCT00479882|183667269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-0.8|
91886971|NCT00479882|183667270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Fisher Exact|||Periods I/II||0.5|-0.9|0.497
91886972|NCT00479882|183667271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-1.4|0.449
91886973|NCT00479882|183667271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-1.6|
91886974|NCT00479882|183667271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Period I/II||1.2|-0.8|0.685
91886975|NCT00479882|183667271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.6|-1.0|
91886976|NCT00479882|183667272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||-0.2|-2.4|0.020
91756388|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.91|25.62|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.62|4.91|
91886977|NCT00479882|183667272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-1.6|
91886978|NCT00479882|183667272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.5||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.5|-1.6|0.452
91886979|NCT00479882|183667272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.0|-1.9|
91886980|NCT00479882|183667273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.6|
91886981|NCT00479882|183667273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.2|-0.7|
91886982|NCT00479882|183667273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.9|-0.5|
91886983|NCT00479882|183667273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.3|-0.6|
91886984|NCT00479882|183667274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.8|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||3.8|-6.6|
91886985|NCT00479882|183667274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.3|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||4.3|-8.1|
91886986|NCT00479882|183667274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.3|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||5.3|-5.2|
91886987|NCT00479882|183667274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.4|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||3.4|-8.9|
91886988|NCT00479882|183667275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.1|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||2.1|-2.5|
91886989|NCT00479882|183667275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.2|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||5.2|-0.5|
91886990|NCT00479882|183667275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.2|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||4.2|-1.0|
91886991|NCT00479882|183667275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||5.0|-0.8|
91756389|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||5.50|-8.51|
91756390|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|34.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||34.83|5.25|
91756391|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|35.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||35.50|5.88|
91756392|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.53|34.58|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||34.58|6.53|
91886992|NCT00479882|183667278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||0.9|-0.5|
91886993|NCT00479882|183667278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||0.5|-0.9|
91886994|NCT00479882|183667279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender||||3.1|-1.1|0.341
91886995|NCT00479882|183667279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.1|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender.||||6.1|1.2|0.004
91886996|NCT00479882|183667280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender||||1.5|-2.3|0.690
91886997|NCT00479882|183667280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.2||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender||||2.3|-1.9|0.879
91886998|NCT02362503|183667342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.441||Hypothesis test:µfostemsavir=µPlacebo where µ is a common intercept.|ANCOVA||Difference in covariate-adjusted least squares means between treatment groups (Fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) is presented.|||-0.441|-0.810|<0.0001
91886999|NCT02362503|183667343|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.95|55.45|||||Difference between treatment groups (fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) and 95% confidence interval using Newcombe method is presented for \>0.5 log10 c/mL.|||55.45|32.95|
91887000|NCT02362503|183667343|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.16|44.25|||||Difference between treatment groups (fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) and 95% confidence interval using Newcombe method is presented for \>1.0 log10 c/mL.|||44.25|24.16|
91887001|NCT02362503|183667349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|16.0|||||Difference in covariate-adjusted least squares means between treatment groups (Fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) is presented.|||16.0|-16.8|
91887002|NCT02362503|183667350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|1.151|||||Difference in covariate-adjusted least squares means between treatment groups (Fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) is presented.|||1.151|0.082|
91887003|NCT03519204|183667384|SUPERIORITY||Responder Rate Difference|84.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|94.2||P-value was based on 2-sided Fisher's exact test comparing responder rate between treatment group and no-treated control group.|Fisher Exact|||||94.2|68.2|<0.0001
91887004|NCT03519204|183667386|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109492|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3447|0.7739||P-value was computed using Wilcoxon test with normal approximation.|Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test||The median difference (the location shift) and its 95% CI were computed using Hodges-Lehmann estimation associated with Wilcoxon statistics.|||0.77390|0.34470|<0.0001
91887005|NCT03519204|183667387|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|13.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.861|17.18||P-value was computed using Wilcoxon test with normal approximation.|Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test||The median difference (the location shift) and its 95% CI were computed using Hodges-Lehmann estimation associated with Wilcoxon statistics.|||17.180|8.861|<0.0001
91887006|NCT03392168|183667410|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-12.4|-44.6|0.0007
91887007|NCT03392168|183667410|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-27.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-11.5|-44.2|0.0011
91887008|NCT03392168|183667411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.2||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||7.3|-13.7|0.5493
91887009|NCT03392168|183667411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.9||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.9|-15.7|0.3650
91887010|NCT03392168|183667411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.3||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-5.3|-31.3|0.0064
91887011|NCT03392168|183667411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.8||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.5|-33.0|0.0039
91756393|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||8.40|-9.67|
91756394|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.78|45.45|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||45.45|16.78|
91756395|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|34.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.29|49.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.20|21.29|
91756396|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|32.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|47.13|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||47.13|19.30|
91756397|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|0.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||0.74|-9.45|
91756398|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|23.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||23.95|9.28|
91756399|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|23.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||23.95|9.28|
91756400|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|23.94|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||23.94|9.28|
91756401|NCT02986854|183405263|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.35|-1.31|
91756402|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.19|32.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||32.25|10.19|
91756403|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|25.29|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.29|3.15|
91756404|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|27.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||27.92|7.44|
91756405|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|15.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||15.17|-1.20|
91756406|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|36.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||36.37|5.57|
91756407|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|37.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.00|6.05|
91806344|NCT00407797|183489245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety: LOCF. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
91887012|NCT03392168|183667411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-14.8|-42.9|0.0001
91887013|NCT03392168|183667411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-23.0||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-8.7|-37.3|0.0019
91756408|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|35.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||35.38|6.89|
91756409|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.11|11.03|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||11.03|-12.11|
91756410|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|40.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.26|54.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||54.95|24.26|
91756411|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|42.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.71|57.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||57.17|26.71|
91756412|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|41.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.12|55.55|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||55.55|26.12|
91756413|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|5.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||5.73|-10.41|
91756414|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|32.08|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||32.08|15.26|
91756415|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.86|31.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.74|14.86|
91756416|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.08|31.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.90|15.08|
91756417|NCT02986854|183405264|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.99|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.99|-0.96|
91756418|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|11.23|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||11.23|2.08|
91756419|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|12.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||12.74|3.28|
91756420|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|10.78|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||10.78|2.87|
91756421|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.49|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.49|-6.10|
91756422|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|12.44|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||12.44|-3.04|
91756423|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|13.01|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.01|-2.71|
91756424|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|10.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||10.90|-2.66|
91756425|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|6.43|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||6.43|-7.27|
91887014|NCT03392168|183667412|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.3||||0.3626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.0|-13.6|0.3626
91756426|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|41.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|50.63|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||50.63|28.85|
91756427|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|36.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.39|46.34|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||46.34|24.39|
91806345|NCT00407797|183489245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression: Week 21. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0799
91806346|NCT00407797|183489245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression: LOCF. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0846
91806347|NCT03250845|183489262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: No difference between Multigam 5% and Multigam 10% infusion time Ha: Multigam 10% infusion time is significantly shorter than Multigam 5%||||<0.0001
91806348|NCT03250845|183489263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: No difference in hospitalisation time between Multigam 5% and Multigam 10% infusion Ha: Hospitalisation time with Multigam 10% infusion is significantly shorter than with Multigam 5%||||<0.0005
91806349|NCT03250845|183489265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: No difference in number of nursing actions per patient between Multigam 5% and Multigam 10% infusion Ha: Number of nursing actions per patient is smaller with Multigam 10% infusion||||0.03
91887015|NCT03392168|183667412|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.1||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||1.6|-17.8|0.1011
91887016|NCT03392168|183667412|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.5||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.0|-25.1|0.0017
91887017|NCT03392168|183667412|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-9.4|-29.1|0.0002
91887018|NCT03392168|183667412|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-10.2|-32.4|0.0003
91887019|NCT03392168|183667412|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-10.4|-33.2|0.0003
91887020|NCT03392168|183667412|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-7.8|-29.5|0.0010
91887021|NCT03392168|183667412|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-10.6|-32.9|0.0002
91756428|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|39.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.61|46.33|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||46.33|27.61|
91806350|NCT05973981|183489315|OTHER||Slope|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.63|||||Adjusted for age, sex, and race|||0.63|-0.25|
91806351|NCT05973981|183489315|OTHER||Slope|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.46|||||adjusted for age, sex, and race|||0.46|-0.41|
91806352|NCT02002091|183489316|OTHER|||||||0.706|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.706
91806353|NCT02002091|183489317|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.346
91806354|NCT02002091|183489318|OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.123
91806355|NCT02002091|183489319|OTHER|||||||0.968|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.968
91806356|NCT02002091|183489320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance for P-Value is \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91806357|NCT02002091|183489321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.988|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.988
91806358|NCT02002091|183489322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
91806359|NCT02002091|183489324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.917|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.917
91806360|NCT02002091|183489325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.816|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.816
91806361|NCT02002091|183489326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Statistical significance : p\< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
91806362|NCT02002091|183489328|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||The threshold of statistical difference is P-value \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.025
91756429|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|15.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||15.83|-7.04|
91756430|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|31.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.68|41.79|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.79|22.68|
91756431|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|30.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.85|41.08|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.08|21.85|
91756432|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|31.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.39|41.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.38|22.39|
91756433|NCT02986854|183405265|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|3.52|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.52|-1.81|
91756434|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|30.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.55|38.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.83|19.55|
91756435|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|29.69|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||29.69|10.48|
91756436|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.79|33.21|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.21|15.79|
91756437|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|17.16|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||17.16|1.01|
91756438|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.82|38.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.90|8.82|
91756439|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|29.86|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||29.86|-0.44|
91756440|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.32|33.08|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.08|5.32|
91756441|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|9.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|20.68|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||20.68|-2.45|
91756442|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|50.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.09|63.67|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||63.67|34.09|
91756443|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|49.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.21|63.01|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||63.01|33.21|
91756444|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|49.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.42|62.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||62.60|34.42|
91756445|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||9.92|-8.30|
91756446|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.34|39.75|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||39.75|21.34|
91756447|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|29.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.32|39.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||39.74|21.32|
91806363|NCT02002091|183489331|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||the threshold for statistical significance used is P-value \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
91756448|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.35|39.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||39.73|21.35|
91756449|NCT02986854|183405266|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.67|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.67|-1.60|
91756450|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.85|28.67|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.67|5.85|
91756451|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|29.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||29.25|6.39|
91756452|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|28.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.28|6.85|
91756453|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|7.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||7.20|-8.32|
91756454|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|30.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||30.38|-0.98|
91756455|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|38.16|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.16|7.30|
91756456|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|33.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.37|4.14|
91756457|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-8.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|2.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.38|-18.34|
91756458|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|39.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.76|54.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||54.07|23.76|
91756459|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|42.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.08|56.98|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||56.98|27.08|
91756460|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|40.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.91|55.15|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||55.15|25.91|
91756461|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.89|-10.20|
91887022|NCT03392168|183667413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.67||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|7.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||7.99|-2.65|0.3209
91887023|NCT03392168|183667413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.6||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|9.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||9.08|-1.88|0.1947
91909352|NCT00391222|183714749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.655
91756462|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|28.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.83|12.74|
91756463|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|28.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.83|12.74|
91909353|NCT00391222|183714749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.011
91909354|NCT00391222|183714750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.2882
91909355|NCT00391222|183714750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||<0.0001
91909356|NCT00391222|183714751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline YMRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||<0.001
91909357|NCT00391222|183714751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline YMRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||<0.001
91909358|NCT00391222|183714752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline MADRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||0.480
91909359|NCT00391222|183714752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline MADRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||0.001
91909360|NCT01181011|183714755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|109.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0107||90.0|99.45|119.95||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||119.95|99.45|0.0107
91756464|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.75|28.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.83|12.75|
91756465|NCT02986854|183405267|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.35|-1.31|
91756466|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.44|30.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||30.60|11.44|
91909361|NCT01181011|183714756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|109.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.96|120.71||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||120.71|99.96|0.0139
91756467|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.34|26.43|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||26.43|7.34|
91756468|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|27.43|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||27.43|10.09|
91756469|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|12.04|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||12.04|-3.80|
91909362|NCT01181011|183714757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|97.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.643|112.472||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||112.472|84.643|0.0126
91909363|NCT01181011|183714758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|109.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.87|117.07||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||117.07|102.87|0.0011
91909364|NCT01181011|183714759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|108.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.1|116.0||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||116.0|102.1|0.0006
91909365|NCT01181011|183714760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|106.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.9|112.9||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||112.9|100.9|0.000
91909366|NCT00401375|183714775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.4259||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparisons were made at the overall α=0.05 level (2-sided) using a closed sequential procedure. Placebo and MNTX 24 mg groups were compared first.||||0.4259
91756470|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|30.99|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||30.99|2.92|
91756471|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|31.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.06|2.83|
91887024|NCT03392168|183667413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.58||||0.3561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.24|-14.40|0.3561
91887025|NCT03392168|183667413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.82||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||4.16|-15.79|0.2490
91887026|NCT03392168|183667413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-12.68||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.992|-1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.44|-23.992|0.0276
91887027|NCT03392168|183667413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.04||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||4.36|-18.44|0.2223
91887028|NCT03392168|183667413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.27||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.72|-4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.82|-35.72|0.0108
91887029|NCT03392168|183667413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.67||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.34|-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.01|-32.34|0.0372
91887030|NCT00762476|183667414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||>0.5000
91887031|NCT00762476|183667415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||>0.5000
91887032|NCT00762476|183667416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||0.3451
91887033|NCT01441635|183667417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-205.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.77|-116.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-116.01|-295.77|< 0.001
91887034|NCT01441635|183667417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-189.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.33|-101.53|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-101.53|-278.33|< 0.001
91887035|NCT01441635|183667417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-138.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.86||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.18|-55.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-55.76|-220.18|0.001
91756472|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|29.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||29.39|3.83|
91887036|NCT01441635|183667417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-130.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.68||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.7|-54.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-54.60|-206.70|0.001
91887037|NCT01441635|183667418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-75.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.93|-48.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-48.28|-102.93|< 0.001
91887038|NCT01441635|183667418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-64.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.14|-37.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-37.39|-91.14|< 0.001
91887039|NCT01441635|183667418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.73||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.39|-21.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-21.96|-113.39|0.005
91887040|NCT01441635|183667418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-56.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.24|-40.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-40.45|-73.24|< 0.001
91756473|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|11.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||11.39|-11.35|
91887041|NCT01441635|183667419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91887042|NCT01441635|183667419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91887043|NCT01441635|183667419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91887044|NCT01441635|183667419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91887045|NCT01441635|183667420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91887046|NCT01441635|183667420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91887047|NCT01441635|183667420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91806364|NCT01233258|183489338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||No multiplicity adjustment as only 1 primary endpoint.|ANOVA|No adjustment, no transformation of data seemed to be necessary.||Null hypothesis: bleeding rates are equal, alternative hypothesis rates are unequal. Power calculation: Assumption 5 bleeds per year on prophylactic treatment, 15 on on-demand treatment; 2-sided alpha 5% and 90% power.||||0.0001
91806365|NCT01233258|183489339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||No multiplicity adjustment as this is not primary endpoint.|ANOVA|No adjustment, no transformation of data seemed to be necessary.||Null hypothesis: bleeding rates are equal, alternative hypothesis rates are unequal. Power calculation not done for this comparison as not primary comparison.||||0.0001
91806366|NCT01233258|183489340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|No adjustment, no transformation of data seemed to be necessary.||Null hypothesis: bleeding rates are equal, alternative hypothesis rates are unequal. Power calculation not done for this comparison as not primary comparison.||||0.0001
91806367|NCT01233258|183489341|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 10%|Median Difference (Net)|-0.0001||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|||No multiplicity adjustment as not primary endpoint.|Exact Permutation Test for paired sample||Confidence interval calculated with exact Hodges- Lehmann estimates for CS/EP minus CS/ADJ|Null hypothesis: the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/EP group plus 10% is less than the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/ADJ group. Alternative hypothesis: the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/EP group plus 10% is greater than or equal to the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/ADJ group. No power calculation since this is not the primary comparison.|||-0.0490|0.0001
91806368|NCT00602797|183489386|OTHER|An interim analysis was conducted after 10 patients were accrued. Since response rate seen at the first interim analysis was superior to that seen with standard of care, a new monitoring rule was approved. Toxicity monitoring would occur after 19 patients. If 6/19 patients had ≥grade 4 non-hematological toxicity, accrual will be terminated. This will provide 84% power to detect 40% toxicity.|Proportion|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||If 6/19 patients had ≥grade 4 non-hematological toxicity, accrual will be terminated.|Adverse events will be graded using the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 3.0).||||
91806369|NCT00418457|183489412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.74|0.84
91806370|NCT00418457|183489413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||GEE|||||1.17|0.85|0.70
91806371|NCT00418457|183489414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28|||GEE|||||1.28|0.75|0.81
91806372|NCT00418457|183489415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-0.63|0.96
91806373|NCT00418457|183489416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|0.02|0.043
91806374|NCT03736447|183489421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|84.5|||Farrington-Manning test|||||84.5|50.0|<0.0001
91806375|NCT03736447|183489422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|64.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|81.4|||Farrington-Manning test|||||81.4|47.0|<0.0001
91806376|NCT03736447|183489423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.8|73.5|||Farrington-Manning test|||||73.5|39.8|<0.0001
91887048|NCT01441635|183667420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91887049|NCT01441635|183667421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91887050|NCT01441635|183667421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91806377|NCT02795832|183489434|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.441||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.24|21.34||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Observed case||21.34|-21.24|0.5016
91806378|NCT02795832|183489434|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.964||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.39|18.36||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputations||18.36|-24.39|0.4082
91806379|NCT02795832|183489434|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.138||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.65|4.11||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Last observation carried forward||4.11|-40.65|0.0878
91806380|NCT02795832|183489434|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.748||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.53|-5.66||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Worst case imputation||-5.66|-69.53|0.0275
91887051|NCT01441635|183667421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91887052|NCT01441635|183667421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91887053|NCT01441635|183667423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||2.56|0.97|< 0.001
91887054|NCT01441635|183667423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||2.56|1.00|< 0.001
91887055|NCT01441635|183667423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.75|0.13|0.024
91887056|NCT01441635|183667423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.51|0.28|0.005
91887057|NCT01441635|183667424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.08|-0.63|0.011
91756474|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.64|62.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||62.38|32.64|
91887058|NCT01441635|183667424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.03|-0.59|0.030
91887059|NCT01441635|183667424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||0.06|-0.59|0.109
91887060|NCT01441635|183667424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.19|-0.80|0.002
91887061|NCT01441635|183667425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.67|-18.90|0.020
91887062|NCT01441635|183667425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|1.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.13|-16.36|0.087
91887063|NCT01441635|183667425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.43|-0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.19|-17.43|0.045
91887064|NCT01441635|183667425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.06|-5.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-5.32|-22.06|0.002
91887065|NCT01441635|183667426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-1.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.47|-9.56|0.008
91887066|NCT01441635|183667426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.80|-9.11|0.020
91887067|NCT01441635|183667426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|1.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.91|-9.18|0.194
91887068|NCT01441635|183667426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-3.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-3.07|-11.33|0.001
91887069|NCT01441635|183667429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||< 0.001
91887070|NCT01441635|183667429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||< 0.001
91887071|NCT01441635|183667429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.052
91887072|NCT01441635|183667429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||< 0.001
91887073|NCT01441635|183667430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91887074|NCT01441635|183667430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
91887075|NCT01441635|183667430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
91887076|NCT01441635|183667430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91887077|NCT01441635|183667431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor||||||0.161
91887078|NCT01441635|183667431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.173
91887079|NCT01441635|183667431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.072
91887080|NCT01441635|183667431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.003
91887081|NCT01441635|183667432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.203
91887082|NCT01441635|183667432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.342
91887083|NCT01441635|183667432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
91887084|NCT01441635|183667432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.111
91887085|NCT02627118|183667437|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91887086|NCT01430468|183667455|EQUIVALENCE|With use of previously established criteria for a malpositioned glenoid, deviations of greater than 10 degrees of version from the planned placement were considered relevant.||||||0.11||||||P-value was calculated. Threshold for statistical significance (p\<0.05)|t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute difference between the actual outcome and the planned outcome was compared between the standard surgical group and the glenoid positioning system group with use of a Student t test. Results were considered to be significant at p \< 0.05.||||0.11
91887087|NCT04547023|183667463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|30.1|||Fisher Exact|||||30.1|7.2|0.002
91887088|NCT02614183|183667552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.37|-2.48|<.001
91887089|NCT02614183|183667552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.20|-2.31|<.001
91887090|NCT02614183|183667553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.37||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||3.37|2.05|
91887091|NCT02614183|183667553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|3.18||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||3.18|1.94|
91887092|NCT02614183|183667553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.45||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.45|2.04|
91887093|NCT02614183|183667553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.41||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.41|2.01|
91887094|NCT02614183|183667553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.01||||||Reduction from Baseline = 100%||4.01|1.96|
91887095|NCT02614183|183667553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.75||||||Reduction from Baseline = 100%||3.75|1.81|
91887096|NCT02614183|183667554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|10.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.28|5.20|<.001
91756475|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.87|61.79|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||61.79|31.87|
91756476|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.04|61.31|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||61.31|33.04|
91756477|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.04|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||10.04|-8.60|
91756478|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|35.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|45.62|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||45.62|26.50|
91756479|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|34.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.94|44.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||44.28|24.94|
91756480|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|34.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.78|44.93|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||44.93|25.78|
91756481|NCT02986854|183405268|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.60|0.10|
91756482|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|4.94|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4- Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.94|-6.08|
91756483|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|6.21|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||6.21|-5.32|
91756484|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|4.09|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.09|-5.68|
91756485|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|3.01|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.01|-4.98|
91756486|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|34.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.38|44.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||44.07|22.38|
91887097|NCT02614183|183667554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|9.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.97|4.83|<.001
91887098|NCT02614183|183667555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.33|-2.28|<.001
91887099|NCT02614183|183667555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.14|-2.09|<.001
91887100|NCT02614183|183667556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.52|<.001
91887101|NCT02614183|183667556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.48|<.001
91887102|NCT02614183|183667557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-8.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.97|-18.99|<.001
91887103|NCT02614183|183667557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.68|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.60|-18.68|<.001
91887104|NCT02614183|183667558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.13|-9.45|<.001
91887105|NCT02614183|183667558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.98|-8.39|<.001
91887106|NCT02614183|183667559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive.||||<.160
91887107|NCT02614183|183667559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive.||||.020
91887108|NCT02614183|183667559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neutralizing Antibodies.||||.131
91887109|NCT02614183|183667559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neutralizing Antibodies.||||.009
91887110|NCT04944290|183667582|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.71|
91887111|NCT04944290|183667582|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.26||||||10AM Day 14||0.26|-0.86|
91887112|NCT04944290|183667582|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.58|
91887113|NCT04944290|183667582|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.47||||||||0.47|-0.70|
91887114|NCT00474526|183667590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|6.74|||ANOVA||A (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.||6.74|3.04|
91756487|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|26.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.67|36.13|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||36.13|14.67|
91756488|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|30.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.42|37.97|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||37.97|19.42|
91756489|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|7.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|18.81|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||18.81|-3.25|
91887115|NCT00474526|183667590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|9.79|||ANOVA||C (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.||9.79|4.16|
91887116|NCT00474526|183667590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|58.0|||ANOVA||W (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.||58|24|
91887117|NCT00474526|183667590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|60.0|||ANOVA||Y (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|"Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.~Ratio of GMTs"||60|24|
91887118|NCT00474526|183667599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||ANOVA|||Serogroup A (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||0.95|0.55|
91887119|NCT00474526|183667599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||ANOVA|||Serogroup C (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||1.31|0.81|
91887120|NCT00474526|183667599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.72|||ANOVA|||Serogroup W (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||1.72|1.18|
91887121|NCT00474526|183667599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.58|||ANOVA|||Serogroup Y (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||1.58|1.02|
91887122|NCT00474526|183667602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-8.5|||ANOVA|||Serogroup A (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||-8.5|-21.2|
91887123|NCT00474526|183667602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.3|||ANOVA|||Serogroup C (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||0.3|-7|
91887124|NCT00474526|183667602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1|||ANOVA|||Serogroup W (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||3.1|-1.3|
91887125|NCT00474526|183667602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.7|||ANOVA|||Serogroup Y (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||1.7|-4|
91887126|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.04|0.74|
91756490|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|2.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||2.35|-14.26|
91756491|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.98|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.98|-8.70|
91887127|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.28|0.92|
91887128|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.26|0.79|
91887129|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||||||FHA (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.25|0.85|
91887130|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2||1.32|0.83|
91756492|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|4.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.90|-11.35|
91756493|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-0.57|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||-0.57|-12.25|
91756494|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|40.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.37|50.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||50.92|25.37|
91756495|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|36.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.14|47.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||47.90|22.14|
91756496|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|38.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.79|47.57|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||47.57|24.79|
91756497|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|14.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||14.73|-8.44|
91756498|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|2.31|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||2.31|-14.28|
91756499|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|11.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||11.60|-7.40|
91756500|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.66|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||5.66|-10.70|
91756501|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|-1.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||-1.80|-13.89|
91756502|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|38.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.35|49.88|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.88|24.35|
91756503|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|37.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.23|48.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.95|23.23|
91756504|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|38.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|47.56|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||47.56|24.80|
91756505|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|12.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||12.60|-10.51|
91756506|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|7.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|13.36|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.36|0.15|
91756507|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|9.24|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.24|-3.15|
91806381|NCT02795832|183489435|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.72||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.85|5.51||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Day 5||5.51|-28.85|0.1284
91806382|NCT02795832|183489435|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.95||||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.85|10.95||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Day 8||10.95|-22.85|0.2765
91806383|NCT02795832|183489435|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.01||||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.08|11.06||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Day 10||11.06|-23.08|0.2765
91806384|NCT02795832|183489435|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.24|21.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 15||21.34|-21.24|0.5016
91887131|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.23|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.23|0.75|
91909367|NCT00401375|183714775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.3575||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparisons were made at the overall α=0.05 level (2-sided) using a closed sequential procedure. Placebo and MNTX 24 mg groups were compared first.||||0.3575
91887132|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.55|0.93|
91887133|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.56|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.56|0.85|
91887134|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.88||||||95.0|0.65|1.2|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.2|0.65|
91887135|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.77|||ANOVA|||HIb (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.77|0.97|
91887136|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1|0.7|
91887137|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.03|0.56|
91909368|NCT00950664|183714779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|81 participants required to detect 5 difference in Tsui score, with 80% power. 20% drop out rate assumed, 102 participants needed. Alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.05||95.0|||||Paired-t test|||||||0.05
91806385|NCT02795832|183489436|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|10.75||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||EASI 50||10.75|0.28|0.4789
91806386|NCT02795832|183489436|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|999.0||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||EASI-75||999|0.24|0.3000
91806387|NCT02795832|183489437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|19.2||Results for the ZPL-5212372 and placebo groups are estimated adjusted LS means from the fitted model.|Shapiro-Wilkes test|The p-value tests if the residuals are normally distributed.||||19.20|0.01|0.500
91806388|NCT02795832|183489438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.22||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|2.16|||Shapiro-Wilkes test|||||2.16|-2.02|0.5233
91806389|NCT02795832|183489439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|13.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||||13.26|0.45|0.2455
91806390|NCT02795832|183489440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.521||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|5.09||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< placebo LS mean.|Shapiro-Wilkes test|||||5.09|-10.40|0.2812
91806391|NCT03547583|183489484|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-0.52|||=|0.8008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.17|4.13|||Mixed model repeated-measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline PLS values as covariates.||4.13|-5.17|= 0.8008
91909369|NCT03152019|183714786|SUPERIORITY||percentages|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91909370|NCT04703075|183714796|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.07
91909371|NCT01187953|183714798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.|||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Death|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||>0.999
91909372|NCT01187953|183714798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Graft Failure|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.821
91909373|NCT01187953|183714798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: BPAR|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.900
91909374|NCT01187953|183714798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.|||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Lost to follow up|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||>0.999
91909375|NCT01187953|183714799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Death|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.835
91909376|NCT01187953|183714799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Graft Failure|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.548
91909377|NCT01187953|183714799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: BPAR|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.822
91909378|NCT01187953|183714799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Lost to follow up|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.383
91909379|NCT03449095|183714800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91909380|NCT03449095|183714801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||||||.001
91756508|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|9.55|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||9.55|-1.41|
91756509|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|9.54|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||9.54|-2.48|
91909381|NCT03036293|183714809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.217|2.91|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||2.91|0.217|0.0055
91909382|NCT03036293|183714809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.1|3.96|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate. Yeo-Johnson transformation with λ=1,09 was applied. Statistical inference performed for transformed values.|estimate and CL are backtransformed|Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||3.96|1.1|<0.0001
91909383|NCT03036293|183714809|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence limits were prespecified as \[-2.763; 2.763\]|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.64|2.33|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||2.33|-0.64|0.0008
91756510|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|39.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.76|50.29|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||50.29|25.76|
91756511|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|48.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.89|58.34|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||58.34|33.89|
91756512|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|43.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.79|52.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||52.37|30.79|
91756513|NCT02986854|183405269|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-8.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|3.45|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.45|-19.61|
91887138|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.85||||||95.0|0.7|1.04|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.04|0.7|
91887139|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.26|0.84|
91887140|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||0.93|0.64|
91887141|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||0.97|0.69|
91887142|NCT00474526|183667604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.02|0.62|
91887143|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
91887144|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||4|-2|
91887145|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|12.0|||ANOVA|||PT (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||12|-7|
91887146|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|17.0|||ANOVA|||FHA(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||17|-4|
91887147|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||10|-12|
91887148|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
91887149|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||4|-2|
91887150|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
91887151|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-4|
91887152|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
91887153|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|14.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||14|-3|
91887154|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||2|-5|
91887155|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|(Seroconversion percentage difference (P|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||-1|-14|
91887156|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||5|-4|
91887157|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage di|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||5|-1|
91887158|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||1|-6|
91887159|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|(Seroconversion percentage difference (P|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-4|
91887160|NCT00474526|183667605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||5|-8|
91887161|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.4|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.4|0.96|
91887162|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.27|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.27|0.96|
91887163|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.25|0.87|
91887164|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||ANOVA|||FHA (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.23|0.89|
91887165|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.21|0.81|
91887166|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.17|0.68|
91887167|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.28|0.73|
91887168|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.95||||||95.0|0.69|1.31|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.31|0.69|
91887169|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.4|0.88|
91887170|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.65|||ANOVA|||HIb (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.65|0.98|
91756514|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.7||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4(Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||1.70|0.93|
91909384|NCT03036293|183714810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.54|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||1.54|-0.08|0.08
91756515|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.82||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4(Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||1.82|0.98|
91756516|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.72||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4(Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||1.72|0.97|
91756517|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.17|0.76|
91756518|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|5.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|9.47||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.47|2.84|
91756519|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|7.5||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||7.50|2.24|
91887171|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.09|0.78|
91887172|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.27|0.74|
91887173|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.04|0.71|
91887174|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.14|0.72|
91887175|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.08|0.74|
91887176|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.1|0.74|
91887177|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||0.99|0.6|
91887178|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||0.99|0.69|
91887179|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.09|0.83|
91887180|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.93||||||95.0|0.78|1.1|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.1|0.78|
91909385|NCT03036293|183714810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.66|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||1.66|0.02|0.044
91909386|NCT03036293|183714811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.78|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||1.78|-0.4|0.21
91909387|NCT03036293|183714811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.26|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||2.26|0.14|0.027
91756520|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|8.15||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||8.15|2.62|
91756521|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.91||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.91|0.84|
91756522|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|6.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.84|8.85||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||8.85|4.84|
91756523|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|9.98||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.98|5.44|
91756524|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|9.21||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||9.21|5.23|
91756525|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.10|0.72|
91756526|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|between group GMT ratios|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.04||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||6.04|1.95|
91756527|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.77||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||3.77|1.21|
91756528|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.64||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.64|1.60|
91756529|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.4||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.40|1.07|
91756530|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|13.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.51|25.19||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.19|7.51|
91756531|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|13.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|24.66||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||24.66|7.31|
91756532|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|13.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|24.0||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||24.00|7.70|
91756533|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.56||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.56|0.67|
91909388|NCT03036293|183714812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||1.89|0.98|0.065
91909389|NCT03036293|183714812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||2.33|1.22|0.0015
91909390|NCT03036293|183714812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.7
91909391|NCT03036293|183714812|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||1
91909392|NCT03036293|183714812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.01
91909393|NCT03036293|183714812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.57
91909394|NCT03036293|183714812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||0.25
91806392|NCT03547583|183489484|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-1.46|||=|0.4722|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.02|3.1|||Mixed model repeated-measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline PLS values as covariates.||3.10|-6.02|= 0.4722
91806393|NCT03547583|183489485|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-1.81|||=|0.8054|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.3|14.67|||Mixed model repeated-measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline 6MWT values as covariates.||14.67|-18.30|= 0.8054
91887181|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||ANOVA|||FHA (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.03|0.75|
91887182|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4||0.97|0.66|
91887183|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.02|0.6|
91756534|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|19.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.73|27.51||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||27.51|13.73|
91756535|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|17.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|25.12||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.12|12.50|
91756536|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|18.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|25.73||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||25.73|13.40|
91756537|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.40|0.86|
91756538|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.11||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||3.11|1.13|
91756539|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.08||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.08|1.48|
91806394|NCT03547583|183489485|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-5.49|||=|0.4502|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.77|10.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline 6MWT values as covariates.||10.80|-21.77|= 0.4502
91806395|NCT01269463|183489522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91806396|NCT01269463|183489523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91806397|NCT02657915|183489527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||=|0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|2.57|||ANCOVA|||||2.57|-14.56|=0.165
91806398|NCT04518306|183489540|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.176|-4.486||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MIANALYZE procedure|||The analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) for estimating the difference between Triple ¼ GMRx2 and placebo at Week 4||-4.486|-10.176|<0.0001
91887184|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.09|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.09|0.63|
91887185|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.11|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.11|0.59|
91909395|NCT03036293|183714812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.001
91909396|NCT03036293|183714813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||1.23|0.64|0.46
91909397|NCT03036293|183714813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||1.79|0.9|0.17
91909398|NCT03036293|183714813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.38
91909399|NCT03036293|183714813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||0.67
91909400|NCT03036293|183714813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.85
91909401|NCT03036293|183714813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.71
91909402|NCT03036293|183714813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||0.29
91909403|NCT03036293|183714813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.007
91909404|NCT03036293|183714814|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.00002||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00002|0.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator for location difference provided|Median changes (begin-end) within groups are compared||0.33|-0.00002|0.314
91756540|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.44||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||3.44|1.33|
91909405|NCT03036293|183714814|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator for location difference provided|Median changes (begin-end) within groups are compared||1|0|0.031
91909406|NCT03036293|183714815|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.00001||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.00001|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Lower is better|||-0.00001|-3|0.0021
91909407|NCT03036293|183714815|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.00002||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.00002|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Lower is better|||-0.00002|-1|0.0056
91756541|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.10|0.53|
91756542|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|7.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|12.22||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||12.22|4.05|
91909408|NCT02404103|183714816|EQUIVALENCE|The primary goal of the current study is to determine the effects of Aerospan on lung function in children with small airway obstruction with two doses.||||||0.148|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.148
91756543|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|15.66||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||15.66|5.16|
91909409|NCT02404103|183714816|EQUIVALENCE|A goal was to evaluate whether flunisolide HFA 320 mcg when compared to flunisolide 160 mcg lead to significantly better improvement in the same outcome measures over time.||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.740
91909410|NCT02404103|183714816|EQUIVALENCE|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||0.921|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.921
91909411|NCT02404103|183714817|EQUIVALENCE|The primary goal of the current study is to determine the effects of Aerospan on lung function in children with small airway obstruction.||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.872
91909412|NCT02404103|183714817|EQUIVALENCE|secondary goal was to evaluate whether flunisolide HFA 320 mcg when compared to flunisolide 160 mcg lead to significantly better improvement in the same outcome measures over time.||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||0.820
91909413|NCT02404103|183714817|EQUIVALENCE|A goal was to evaluate whether flunisolide HFA 320 mcg when compared to flunisolide 160 mcg lead to significantly better improvement in the same outcome measures over time.||||||0.582|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.582
91909414|NCT02404103|183714818|EQUIVALENCE|The primary aim is to compare the average change in spirometric values (FEV1 and FEF25-75%) and AX from baseline to Week 6 from participants randomized flunisolide HFA 1 inhalation BID and to flunisolide HFA 2 inhalations BID.||||||0.782|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.782
91909415|NCT02404103|183714818|EQUIVALENCE|The primary aim is to compare the average change in spirometric values (FEV1 and FEF25-75%) and AX from baseline to Week 6 from participants randomized flunisolide HFA 1 inhalation BID and to flunisolide HFA 2 inhalations BID.||||||0.906|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.906
91909416|NCT02404103|183714818|EQUIVALENCE|The primary aim is to compare the average change in spirometric values (FEV1 and FEF25-75%) and AX from baseline to Week 6 from participants randomized flunisolide HFA 1 inhalation BID and to flunisolide HFA 2 inhalations BID.||||||0.102|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.102
91909417|NCT02404103|183714819|EQUIVALENCE|To assess the impact of flunisolide on small airway parameters using spirometry and impulse oscillometry and determine whether there is a dose-related difference (320 mcg vs 160 mcg) with flunisolide HFA in pediatric patients who have evidence of small airway obstruction.||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.620
91909418|NCT02404103|183714819|EQUIVALENCE|To assess the impact of flunisolide on small airway parameters using spirometry and impulse oscillometry and determine whether there is a dose-related difference (320 mcg vs 160 mcg) with flunisolide HFA in pediatric patients who have evidence of small airway obstruction.||||||0.543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.543
91909419|NCT02404103|183714819|EQUIVALENCE|To assess the impact of flunisolide on small airway parameters using spirometry and impulse oscillometry and determine whether there is a dose-related difference (320 mcg vs 160 mcg) with flunisolide HFA in pediatric patients who have evidence of small airway obstruction.||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.6
91909420|NCT01408147|183714829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test the primary hypothesis, a generalized linear mixed effect model was used (intervention group as a fixed effect and clinic and subject as random effects). A group x time interaction term (fixed effect) tested if the change in weight over time differed significantly. The model included participant-level covariates (i.e., ethnicity, weeks postpartum at study entry, lactation, and age).||||<0.0001
91909421|NCT00621504|183714831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (clinical cure rate) between the ceftaroline group and the ceftriaxone group was calculated based on each of the CE and the MITTE Populations at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% for each of the CE and MITTE Populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|12.6|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared to that for ceftriaxone at TOC in the CE and MITTE Populations in adult subjects with CABP.||12.6|-0.2|
91909422|NCT02229552|183714861|OTHER|Repeated measures analysis of variance with zbmi for each year as the repeated dependent measure.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.051
91909423|NCT03860961|183714890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9238||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cluster-randomized trial, cluster=practice, maximum 25 patients/practice. Assuming 14 pts/practice, cluster size coefficient of variation of 0.5, intra-cluster correlation (ρ) of 0.04, design effect 1.51, and 59.8% of Arm A patients meeting the criteria provides 80% power for a two-sided α=0.05 two-sample test of proportions to detect a 15% absolute improvement in percentage of patients meeting the criteria with 544 patients (after adjusted for withdrawal and loss to follow-up).||||0.9238
91909424|NCT03860961|183714891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5609||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included baseline CVD risk score, practice as random covariate (participants nested within practice) and treatment arm.||||||0.5609
91909425|NCT00883337|183714903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5953||95.0||||"Hochberg testing procedure:~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05 for the largest p-value of the 2 pair-wise comparisons~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.025 for the other p-value if the largest p-value \>0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log Rank test with the region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as stratification factors||"The study was sized to detect a difference between Teriflunomide and Rebif groups in the time to failure at a significance level of 0.025 with a power of 81%.~Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and Rebif~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and Rebif"||||0.5953
91909426|NCT00883337|183714903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||"Hochberg testing procedure:~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05 for the largest p-value of the 2 pair-wise comparisons~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.025 for the other p-value if the largest p-value \>0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log Rank test with the region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as stratification factors||"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and Rebif~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and Rebif"||||0.5190
91756544|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|7.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|13.35||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||13.35|4.72|
91909427|NCT03468309|183714918|SUPERIORITY|T-test was used to compare means at baseline and 12-weeks|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91909428|NCT03468309|183714919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91909429|NCT03468309|183714920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Assumption of sphericity had been violated X2(2)=13.61, p\<.01 so Huynh-Feldt correction was used||||||<0.05
91909430|NCT03468309|183714921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91909431|NCT01515787|183714924|NON_INFERIORITY|Disease recurrence or death in order to have 85% power to reject the null hypothesis. Noninferiority of the intervention could be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 90.2% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death did not exceed the 1.29 noninferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.2|0.74|1.14|||kaplan meier|||||1.14|0.74|0.005
91756545|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.14|0.54|
91909432|NCT01515787|183714926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.44||||||||1.44|0.74|
91909433|NCT01515787|183714928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.16||||||||3.16|0.44|
91909434|NCT04091087|183714957|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-14.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.87|-1.86||1-sided|ANOVA|||||-1.86|-26.87|0.0299
91909435|NCT04091087|183714958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.33||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|8.72||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||||8.72|-2.06|0.1546
91909436|NCT04091087|183714959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|9.0||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|19.62||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||19.62|-1.63|0.0819
91909437|NCT04091087|183714959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.47||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|14.25||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||14.25|-15.20|0.4789
91909438|NCT04091087|183714959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.38||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.79|13.03||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||13.03|-13.79|0.4815
91909439|NCT04091087|183714959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.38||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.79|13.03||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||13.03|-13.79|0.4815
91909440|NCT04091087|183714959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.9||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.55|21.35||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||21.35|-3.55|0.1197
91909441|NCT04091087|183714959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|18.18||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.14|29.23||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||29.23|7.14|0.0034
91909442|NCT04091087|183714960|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|5.13||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.09|20.34||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||||20.34|-10.09|0.2896
91909443|NCT04091087|183714961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.77||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.55|28.08||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||28.08|-12.55|0.2648
91909444|NCT04091087|183714961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|17.05||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.99|37.08||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||37.08|-2.99|0.0809
91909445|NCT04091087|183714961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.58|21.99||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||21.99|-18.58|0.4450
91909446|NCT04091087|183714961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.58|21.99||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||21.99|-18.58|0.4450
91909447|NCT04091087|183714961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|20.45||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|39.48||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||39.48|1.43|0.0385
91909448|NCT04091087|183714961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|29.64||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.95|48.33||1 sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||48.33|10.95|0.0045
91909449|NCT04091087|183714962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.49||0.3874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.67|26.43||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||26.43|-18.67|0.3874
91909450|NCT04091087|183714962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.59||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.85|14.91||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||14.91|-23.85|0.3506
91909451|NCT04091087|183714962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|9.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.23||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.97|33.6||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||33.60|-13.97|0.2466
91909452|NCT04091087|183714962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|34.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.74||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.43|61.05||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||61.05|8.43|0.0157
91909453|NCT04091087|183714962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.55||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.99|22.68||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||22.68|-25.99|0.4548
91909454|NCT04091087|183714962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-42.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.99||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.24|-22.15||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||-22.15|-62.24|0.0004
91909455|NCT04091087|183714963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.23|23.06||1 sided|ANOVA|||||23.06|-9.23|0.2383
91909456|NCT04091087|183714964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-29.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.01||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.09|5.18||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||5.18|-65.09|0.0797
91756546|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|25.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.83|35.65||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||35.65|17.83|
91909457|NCT04091087|183714964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-14.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.79||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.81|17.04||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||17.04|-45.81|0.2236
91909458|NCT04091087|183714964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.05||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.12|15.24||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||15.24|-35.12|0.2559
91909459|NCT04091087|183714964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-16.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.44||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.54|21.52||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||21.52|-53.54|0.2392
91909460|NCT04091087|183714964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-13.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.65||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.87|19.85||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||19.85|-45.87|0.2553
91909461|NCT04091087|183714964|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-53.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.05||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-103.26|-2.75||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||-2.75|-103.26|0.0416
91909462|NCT04152161|183714966|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.23|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) = 1 - Hazard Ratio, with 95%CI equal to (VE lower limit, VE upper limit) = (1 - Hazard Ratio upper limit, 1 - Hazard Ratio lower limit)|||0.230|-0.431|
91909463|NCT04152161|183714966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.431|||Log Rank|The 1-sided p-value from the log-rank test was stratified by sex and age group.|Hazard ratio was calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with sex and age group (10-11 years, 12-14 years, and \>14 years) as stratification variables.|||1.431|0.770|0.6193
91909464|NCT04152161|183714967|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.27|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) = 1 - Hazard Ratio, with 95%CI equal to (VE lower limit, VE upper limit) = (1 - Hazard Ratio upper limit, 1 - Hazard Ratio lower limit)|||0.270|-0.395|
91909465|NCT04152161|183714967|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.009||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.395|||Log Rank|The 1-sided p-value from the log-rank test was stratified by sex and age group.|Hazard ratio was calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with sex and age group (10-11 years, 12-14 years, and \>14 years) as stratification variables.|||1.395|0.730|0.5224
91909466|NCT04152161|183714968|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.23|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) = 1 - Hazard Ratio, with 95%CI equal to (VE lower limit, VE upper limit) = (1 - Hazard Ratio upper limit, 1 - Hazard Ratio lower limit)|||0.230|-0.431|
91806399|NCT04518306|183489540|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.305|-5.151||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MIANALYZE procedure|||The analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) for estimating the difference between Triple ½ GMRx2 and placebo at Week 4||-5.151|-11.305|<0.0001
91806400|NCT04518306|183489541|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.649|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.281|-4.681||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-4.681|-11.281|<0.0001
91806401|NCT04518306|183489541|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.588|5.449||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||5.449|-13.588|<0.0001
91806402|NCT04518306|183489542|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.204||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.413|-1.597||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-1.597|-6.413|0.0015
91806403|NCT04518306|183489542|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|-2.595||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-2.595|-7.130|<0.0001
91806404|NCT04518306|183489543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.09||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.811|42.45|||Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||42.450|11.811|0.0002
91806405|NCT04518306|183489543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.199|47.186|||Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||47.186|17.199|<0.0001
91806406|NCT04518306|183489544|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|26.385||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Percentages were calculated from the total number of participants within the randomized set.||26.385|6.070|<0.0001
91806407|NCT04518306|183489544|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.237|36.646||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|Percentages were calculated from the total number of participants within the randomized set||36.646|15.237|<0.0001
91806408|NCT04518306|183489545|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.978|-2.013||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-2.013|-5.978|0.0002
91756547|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|34.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.06|48.23||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.23|24.06|
91806409|NCT04518306|183489545|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-5.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.908|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.328|-3.694||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-3.694|-7.328|<0.0001
91887186|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.19|0.76|
91756548|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|29.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.09|40.52||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||40.52|21.09|
91806410|NCT04518306|183489546|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.752||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-3.287||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ¼ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-3.287|-10.300|0.0003
91806411|NCT04518306|183489546|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.829|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.403|-5.082||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ½ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-5.082|-12.403|<0.0001
91806412|NCT04518306|183489547|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.004||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.865|-1.847||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ¼ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-1.847|-5.865|0.0003
91806413|NCT04518306|183489547|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.915|-2.932||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ½ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-2.932|-7.915|<0.0001
91806414|NCT04518306|183489548|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.541|48.549||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||48.549|19.541|<0.0001
91806415|NCT04518306|183489548|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.218|43.093||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||43.093|14.218|<0.0001
91806416|NCT04518306|183489549|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.637|28.424||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||28.424|3.637|0.0030
91887187|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.37|||ANOVA|||HIb (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.37|0.83|
91756549|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||0.94|0.58|
91756550|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.07||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.07|1.36|
91756551|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.54||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.54|1.51|
91756552|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.14||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.14|1.48|
91756553|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.33||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.33|0.61|
91756554|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|9.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|17.64||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||17.64|5.47|
91756555|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|9.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.31|17.19||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||17.19|5.31|
91756556|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|9.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|16.79||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||16.79|5.59|
91756557|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.54||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.54|0.69|
91756558|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|28.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.23|40.2||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||40.20|20.23|
91756559|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|26.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.09|38.02||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.02|19.09|
91756560|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|27.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|38.26||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||38.26|20.10|
91756561|NCT02986854|183405270|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.35||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.35|0.83|
91756562|NCT02039856|183405282|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences using ordered logistic regression, adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD, and the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights. We verified that proportional odds assumption was met.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.33|||difference-in-differences analysis||The estimated value is predicted change in the odds of WH-PACT achievement, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in the odds of achieving a higher WH-PACT element.||1.33|0.627|0.637
91806417|NCT04518306|183489549|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.72|33.665||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||33.665|8.720|<0.0001
91806418|NCT04518306|183489550|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|2.76|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||2.760|-9.830|
91909467|NCT04152161|183714968|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.431|||Log Rank|The 1-sided p-value from the log-rank test was stratified by sex and age group.|Calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with sex and age group (10-11 years, 12-14 years, and \>14 years) as stratification variables.|||1.431|0.770|0.6193
91909468|NCT01780831|183714993|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.0|48.4||||||||48.4|9|
91909469|NCT01780831|183714993|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.7|46.6||||||||46.6|18.7|
91909470|NCT01780831|183715000|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.0|48.4||||||||48.4|9|
91909471|NCT01780831|183715000|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.6|58.1||||||||58.1|28.6|
91909472|NCT01780831|183715001|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|26.4||||||||26.4|0.3|
91909473|NCT01780831|183715001|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI is not provided since the estimation parameter is 0.|||||
91909474|NCT01780831|183715002|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|26.4||||||||26.4|0.3|
91909475|NCT01780831|183715002|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI is not provided since the estimation parameter is 0.|||||
91909476|NCT01780831|183715003|OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.298
91909477|NCT01780831|183715004|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91909478|NCT01780831|183715005|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
91909479|NCT00983983|183715019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change over time in the ALSFRS-R was analyzed using random-slopes models||||0.07
91756563|NCT02039856|183405283|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for gender, race/ethnicity, years worked at VA, worked in women's health clinic vs general primary care clinic, clinician status vs staff status, fulltime employment, percent of women veterans enrolled at the VA facility. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1195||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.57|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change over time, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in gender sensitivity score between EBQI and control over time||0.57|0.10|0.006
91759876|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|15.42||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.42|0.03|
91909480|NCT00983983|183715021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
91909481|NCT00983983|183715022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0005
91909482|NCT00983983|183715023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91909483|NCT02599961|183715033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-82.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.363|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.0|-60.46||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||Month 0-3||-60.46|-105.00|< 0.0001
91909484|NCT02599961|183715033|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-54.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.097||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.46|-23.36||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|GEE model|||Month 4-6||-23.36|-86.46|0.0006
91909485|NCT02599961|183715033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-52.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.882||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.62|-19.45||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|GEE model|||Month 7-9||-19.45|-85.62|0.0019
91909486|NCT02599961|183715033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-82.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.13|-52.17||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|GEE model|||Month 10-12||-52.17|-113.13|< 0.0001
91909487|NCT01857869|183715039|OTHER||1-Relative Risk|86.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.8|94.6||Two-sided Fisher Exact test was used for the comparison of malaria incidence after first/second CHMI between the compared groups.|Mantel Haenszel|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 100\*(1-Relative Risk \[RR\]).||94.6|66.8|<0.0001
91909488|NCT01857869|183715039|OTHER||1-Relative Risk|62.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.4|80.1||Two-sided Fisher Exact test was used for the comparison of malaria incidence after first/second CHMI between the compared groups.|Mantel Haenszel|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 100\*(1-Relative Risk \[RR\]).||80.1|29.4|0.0009
91909489|NCT03341962|183715061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0188||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1-sided exact test adjusted for stratification factors (prior use of any biologics and concurrent use of corticosteroids), α=0.097||||||0.5836
91909490|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part I, clinically relevant hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|14.53||||||||14.53|0.83|
91909491|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part I, clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.28||||||||0.28|-0.02|
91909492|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|75.47||||||||75.47|0.31|
91909493|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.06|
91756564|NCT02039856|183405284|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for gender, race/ethnicity, years worked at VA, worked in women's health clinic vs general primary care clinic, clinician status vs staff status, fulltime employment, percent of women veterans enrolled at the VA facility. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2253||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.87|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change over time, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in team functioning score between EBQI and control over time.||0.87|-0.01|0.055
91756565|NCT02039856|183405285|SUPERIORITY|We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1922||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated value is the predicted mean, adjusting for weights, worked in women's health vs general PC clinic, years worked at the VA, race/ethnicity, gender, full-time employment, and percent of women veterans enrolled at the VA facility.|||1.04|0.13|0.058
91756566|NCT02039856|183405286|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.36|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA primary care visits, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of patient primary care visits between EBQI and control over time||2.36|0.14|0.008
91756567|NCT02039856|183405287|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for adjusted for survey weights, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD, and the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.51|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA women's health visits, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of patient visits to women's health care between EBQI and control over time||2.51|0.88|0.000
91756568|NCT02039856|183405288|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for adjusted for survey weights, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA hospitalization, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of patient hospitalization for any cause between EBQI and control over time||0.12|-0.15|0.794
91759877|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|10.87||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.87|-4.54|
91759878|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|13.71||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.71|-1.77|
91759879|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|8.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.59|-6.75|
91759880|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|14.43||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||14.43|0.57|
91806419|NCT04518306|183489550|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.276|9.774|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||9.774|-5.276|
91759881|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|7.64||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.64|-6.26|
91909494|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|14.66||||||||14.66|1.01|
91909495|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29||||||||0.29|0.00|
91909496|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.43||||||||2.43|0.58|
91909497|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.11|
91909498|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|54.35||||||||54.35|0.18|
91909499|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.05|
91756569|NCT02039856|183405289|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for adjusted for survey weights, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.306|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA emergency room visits, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of emergency room visits for any cause between EBQI and control over time||0.306|-0.265|0.888
91756570|NCT01174173|183405308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided t-test was performed with p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant a priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0013
91756571|NCT01174173|183405309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided t-test was performed for change in 6-minute walk test and p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant a priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91756572|NCT01174173|183405310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided t-test was performed for difference from baseline and 3-month KCCQ score. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant a priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91756573|NCT01174173|183405312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
91756574|NCT01174173|183405313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91756575|NCT03335774|183405314|SUPERIORITY|To determine if the 'hydrocortisone' arm was indeed superior than 'placebo' to reduce swelling and itching associated with internal hemorrhoids||||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software Version 9.4.All statistical tests were two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. Continuous data were presented using descriptive statistics (i.e. number of subjects, mean, SD, median, minimum, and maximum).Baseline value of each assessment was defined as the latest available assessment obtained prior to the first administration of the study drug.||||0.8918
91756576|NCT03335774|183405315|SUPERIORITY|To determine if the 'hydrocortisone' arm was indeed superior than 'placebo' to reduce swelling and itching associated with internal hemorrhoids||||||0.8323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software Version 9.4.All statistical tests were two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. Continuous data were presented using descriptive statistics (i.e. number of subjects, mean, SD, median, minimum, and maximum).Baseline value of each assessment was defined as the latest available assessment obtained prior to the first administration of the study drug.||||0.8323
91756577|NCT00746863|183405320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0251||95.0||||A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A 2.0 cm difference on a 10.0 cm VAS scale was clinically significant. Assuming a power of 80% to detect a 2.0 difference on scores between groups, standard deviation of 2.2, an α of 0.05, then, 21 patients would be needed in each group for a total of 42 subjects. A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups.||||0.0251
91756578|NCT00746863|183405321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0923||95.0||||Adjusted for multiple comparisions|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups.||||0.0923
91756579|NCT00746863|183405322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4756||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi square was performed to compared the two groups and the patient's ability to pass their voiding trial prior to discharge||||0.4756
91756580|NCT00746863|183405323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups. Normality of continuous variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For categorical data, Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate the data. A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.258
91756581|NCT00746863|183405324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups. Normality of continuous variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For categorical data, Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate the data. A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.435
91756582|NCT00082407|183405372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4% (i.e., noninferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in change in HbA1c between exenatide and biphasic insulin aspart is less than 0.4%.)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2534||95.0|-0.28|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.28|0.2534
91756583|NCT00082407|183405373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0779||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0779
91756584|NCT00082407|183405374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91756585|NCT00082407|183405375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6456||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6456
91756586|NCT00082407|183405377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7888||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7888
91756587|NCT00082407|183405378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3722||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3722
91756588|NCT03464019|183405379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.086||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.623|||Peto-Peto test|||In Part 1, participants who converted following medical assistance were censored at the time of conversion after medical assistance. Participants who presented missing data from time t to the end were censored at the time of last available data. Participants who did not convert or were not censored before 5 hours were censored at 5 hours.||1.623|0.726|0.1212
91806420|NCT04518306|183489551|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.171|1.662|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||1.662|-12.171|
91806421|NCT04518306|183489551|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.585|4.049||||||||4.049|-10.585|
91806422|NCT04518306|183489552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.115|9.352|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||9.352|-4.115|
91756589|NCT03464019|183405379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.857|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.868|4.371||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon|||In Parts 2 and 3, participants converting after additional medication interventions were censored after the end of the observation period.||4.371|1.868|<0.001
91756590|NCT00767806|183405380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory 24-hour average pain score after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.001
91756591|NCT00767806|183405381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.25||P-value is for BPI severity of worst pain - change|ANCOVA|Main effect model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of square)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory severity of worst pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.25|-1.12|0.002
91756592|NCT00767806|183405381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.14||P-value is for BPI severity of least pain - change|ANCOVA|Main effect model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of square)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory severity of least pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.14|-0.85|0.006
91756593|NCT00767806|183405381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.46||P-value is for BPI severity of pain right now - change|ANCOVA|Main effect model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of square)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory severity of pain right now score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.46|-1.25|<0.001
91756594|NCT00767806|183405381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.35||P-value is for BPI interference with general activity - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with general activity score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.35|-1.16|<0.001
91756595|NCT00767806|183405381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.34||P-value is for BPI interference with mood score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with mood score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.34|-1.09|<0.001
91756596|NCT00767806|183405381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.07||P-value is for BPI interference with walking ability - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with walking ability score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.07|-0.84|0.020
91756597|NCT00767806|183405381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.11||P-value is for BPI interference with normal work - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with normal work score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.11|-0.90|0.012
91756598|NCT00767806|183405381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22||P-value is for BPI interference with relations to others - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with relations to others score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.22|-0.92|0.001
91756599|NCT00767806|183405381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.27||P-value is for BPI interference with sleep score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with sleep score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.27|-1.13|0.002
91756600|NCT00767806|183405381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.18||P-value is for BPI interference with enjoyment of life score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with enjoyment of life score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.18|-0.96|0.005
91756601|NCT00767806|183405381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.25||P-value is for BPI average interference score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory average interference score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.25|-0.92|<0.001
91756602|NCT00767806|183405382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.35||p-value is for weekly 24-hour average pain rating score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the weekly 24-hour average pain rating score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.35|-1.05|<0.001
91756603|NCT00767806|183405382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.33||p-value is for weekly 24-hour worst pain score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the weekly 24-hour worst pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.33|-1.08|<0.001
91756604|NCT00767806|183405382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17||p-value is for weekly 24-hour night pain score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the weekly 24-hour night pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.17|-0.87|0.004
91756605|NCT00767806|183405383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||p-value is for number of patients who achieve a \>=30% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating - difference between placebo and duloxetine|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in number of patients who achieve a \>=30% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.108
91756606|NCT00767806|183405384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for number of patients who achieve a \>=50% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating - difference between placebo and duloxetine|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in number of patients who achieve a \>=50% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.006
91756607|NCT00767806|183405385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||p-value is difference between duloxetine and placebo in number of patients who achieve criteria described in null hypothesis|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in number of patients who achieve a \>=30% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity rating from baseline to endpoint and baseline to earlier visit than last visit and maintains a \>=20% reduction of BPI average pain rating from baseline at every visit.||||0.082
91756608|NCT00767806|183405386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo groups in the empirical overall cumulated distribution of the percentage pain reduction|Kolnogorov-Smirnov test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between duloxetine and placebo groups in the empirical cumulated distribution of the percentage pain reduction.||||0.013
91756609|NCT00767806|183405387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Clinical Global Impression of Severity score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Clinical Global Impression of Severity score after 12 weeks of treatment.||0.02|-0.33|0.077
91756610|NCT00767806|183405388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.07||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups Patient's Global Impression of Improvement endpoint value|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: PGI-I=Treatment+Investigator+Baseline(Type III sums of squares). PGI-Severity score from baseline visit was used as the baseline.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups Patient's Global Impression of Improvement endpoint value during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.07|-0.56|0.011
91887188|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||0.95|0.68|
91887189|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.14|0.67|
91887190|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1|0.69|
91887191|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.84||||||95.0|0.67|1.05|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.05|0.67|
91887192|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||0.9|0.62|
91887193|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.1|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.1|0.75|
91909500|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.43||||||||2.43|0.58|
91909501|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.11|
91887194|NCT00474526|183667606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.12|0.69|
91887195|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||4.4|-2.2|
91909502|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.59||||||||3.59|1.04|
91806423|NCT04518306|183489552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.779|11.2||||||||11.200|-2.779|
91756611|NCT00767806|183405389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.34||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire total score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire total score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.34|-1.28|0.255
91756612|NCT00767806|183405390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.37||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Tension-Anxiety subscore|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Tension-Anxiety subscore during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.37|-1.38|<0.001
91756613|NCT00767806|183405390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.12||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Depression-Dejection subscore|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Depression-Dejection subscore during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.12|-0.90|0.133
91756614|NCT00767806|183405390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.37||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Anger-Hostility score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Anger-Hostility score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.37|-1.46|<0.001
91756615|NCT00767806|183405390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.88||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Vigor-Activity score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Vigor-Activity score during 12 weeks of treatment.||1.88|0.38|0.003
91756616|NCT00767806|183405390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.43||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Fatigue-Inertia score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Fatigue-Inertia score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.43|-0.93|0.469
91756617|NCT00767806|183405390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.17||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Confusion-Bewilderment score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Confusion-Bewilderment score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.17|-0.98|0.006
91756618|NCT00767806|183405390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|-1.6||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Total Mood Disturbance score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Total Mood Disturbance score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-1.60|-6.41|0.001
91756619|NCT00767806|183405391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.02||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the 36-SF Health Survey Physical Component score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the 36-SF Health Survey Physical Component score during 12 weeks of treatment.||3.02|-0.53|0.168
91756620|NCT00767806|183405391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.96||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Component score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Component score during 12 weeks of treatment.||3.96|0.53|0.010
91756621|NCT00767806|183405391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.58||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.3||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Bodily Pain Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Bodily Pain Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||8.30|0.86|0.016
91806424|NCT04518306|183489553|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.012|9.35|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||9.350|-4.012|
91806425|NCT04518306|183489553|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.364|5.278|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||5.278|-6.364|
91806426|NCT04518306|183489554|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.928|5.573|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||5.573|-10.928|
91806427|NCT04518306|183489554|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|9.53|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||9.53|1.38|
91806428|NCT04518306|183489555|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.492|7.954|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||7.954|-6.492|
91806429|NCT04518306|183489555|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.171|9.704|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||9.704|-5.171|
91887196|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.6|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.6|-1.9|
91887197|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|7.1|||ANOVA|||PT (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||7.1|-7.7|
91887198|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|5.8|||ANOVA|||FHA(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||5.8|-9.2|
91909503|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.31||||||||0.31|0.01|
91909504|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|5.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|149.72||||||||149.72|0.91|
91756622|NCT00767806|183405391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|7.61||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Health Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Health Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.61|2.15|<0.001
91756623|NCT00767806|183405391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.67||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey General Health Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey General Health Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||5.67|-0.50|0.101
91756624|NCT00767806|183405391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|7.12||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Physical Functioning Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Physical Functioning Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.12|-0.12|0.058
91756625|NCT00767806|183405391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|6.37||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Emotional Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Emotional Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||6.37|-1.52|0.227
91756626|NCT00767806|183405391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|6.21||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Physical Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Physical Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||6.21|-2.39|0.383
91756627|NCT00767806|183405391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|7.61||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Social Functioning Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Social Functioning Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.61|0.38|0.030
91756628|NCT00767806|183405391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.6||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Vitality Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Vitality Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.60|0.59|0.022
91756629|NCT00767806|183405392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United Kingdom population-based Index score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United Kingdom population-based Index score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.12|0.03|<0.001
91759882|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|10.7||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.70|-3.09|
91887199|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-6.0||||||95.0|-12.9|2.2|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.2|-12.9|
91909505|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.01|
91909506|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.21||||||||3.21|0.87|
91756630|NCT00767806|183405392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.08||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United States population-based index score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United States population-based index score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.08|0.02|0.002
91756631|NCT00767806|183405393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Absenteeism score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Absenteeism score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.06|-0.03|0.461
91756632|NCT00767806|183405393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Presenteeism score|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Presenteeism score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.03|-0.09|0.374
91756633|NCT00767806|183405393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.05||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Work Productivity Loss score|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Work Productivity Loss score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.05|-0.09|0.557
91756634|NCT00767806|183405393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.02||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Activity Impairment score|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Activity Impairment score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.02|-0.10|0.007
91756635|NCT00767806|183405395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in uric acid - change|ANOVA|Change Variable = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares). Rank-transformed change was used as change variable in the ANOVA model.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of uric acid during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.010
91756636|NCT00767806|183405396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in albumin - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of Albumin during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.031
91756637|NCT00767806|183405397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in alkaline phosphatase - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of alkaline phosphatase during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.004
91756638|NCT00767806|183405398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in alanine aminotransferase - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of Alanine Aminotransferase during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.013
91756639|NCT00767806|183405399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||p-value for difference between duloxetine and placebo in aspartate aminotransferase - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of aspartate aminotransferase during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.039
91756640|NCT00767806|183405400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in creatinine - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of creatinine during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.024
91756641|NCT00767806|183405401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in total protein - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of total protein during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.019
91756642|NCT00767806|183405402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||95.0||||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of systolic blood pressure|ANOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of systolic blood pressure during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.329
91756643|NCT00767806|183405402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0||||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of diastolic blood pressure|ANOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of diastolic blood pressure during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.562
91756644|NCT00767806|183405404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in pulse rate - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of pulse rate during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.680
91756645|NCT00858208|183405409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0072
91756646|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 6||||0.0433
91756647|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 12||||0.0133
91756648|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 18||||0.0278
91756649|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 24||||0.0160
91756650|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 30||||0.0264
91756651|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 36||||0.0278
91756652|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 42||||0.1854
91756653|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 48||||0.1684
91756654|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4718|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 54||||0.4718
91756655|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 60||||0.4340
91756656|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7765|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 66||||0.7765
91756657|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7544|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 72||||0.7544
91756658|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7201|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 84||||0.7201
91756659|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5692|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 90||||0.5692
91806430|NCT04518306|183489556|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.324|5.548|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||5.548|-6.324|
91909507|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.04|
91756660|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 96||||0.2749
91909508|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (low dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.78||||||||0.78|-0.17|
91909509|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.78||||||||0.78|-0.17|
91756661|NCT00858208|183405410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 102||||0.2749
91756662|NCT00858208|183405412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 6||||0.2970
91756663|NCT00858208|183405412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1392|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 12||||0.1392
91756664|NCT00858208|183405412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 18||||0.0573
91756665|NCT00858208|183405412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 24||||0.7625
91756666|NCT00858208|183405413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2759|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.2759
91756667|NCT01272635|183405423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.98|||Discrete time survival analysis||Hazard ratio: Numerator is Azithromycin and Denominator is Placebo|||0.98|0.41|0.04
91756668|NCT01543776|183405429|NON_INFERIORITY|The above criteria for non-inferiority corresponds to a response rate in the low dose arm that is no more than 15% lower than the response rate in the high dose arm (i.e., non-inferiority margin of 15%), under the assumption that the log ratios are approximately normally distributed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3976|||<|0.1|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.1111|||Calculated p-value.|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.1111|<0.10
91756669|NCT01543776|183405430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.38
91756670|NCT01543776|183405431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91756671|NCT01543776|183405432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.26
91756672|NCT01543776|183405433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91756673|NCT02870101|183405458|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.7|97.0|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||97.0|90.7|
91756674|NCT02870101|183405458|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|99.1|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.1|98.2|
91756675|NCT02870101|183405459|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|91.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.5|94.4|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||94.4|86.5|
91756676|NCT02870101|183405459|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.3|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.3|
91756677|NCT02870101|183405460|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.3|97.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||97.3|91.3|
91756678|NCT02870101|183405460|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|99.2|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.2|98.3|
91756679|NCT02870101|183405461|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.9|98.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||98.3|92.9|
91909510|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (high dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.88||||||||0.88|-0.04|
91909511|NCT03016325|183715113|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.88||||||||0.88|-0.04|
91909512|NCT03016325|183715116|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|75.47||||||||75.47|0.31|
91909513|NCT03016325|183715116|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.06|
91909514|NCT03016325|183715116|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|54.35||||||||54.35|0.18|
91806431|NCT04518306|183489556|SUPERIORITY||number of participants at 95% CI|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.05|||||For this particular parameter we have used number of participants at 95% CI computed from Clopper-Pearson method as no risk difference was found between the Triple ½ (GMRx2) vs placebo|||3.05|0.00|
91806432|NCT04518306|183489557|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.684|2.778|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||2.778|-9.684|
91806433|NCT04518306|183489557|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.684|2.59|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|||2.590|-9.684|
91806434|NCT04518306|183489558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.722|12.959|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|||12.959|-6.722|
91806435|NCT04518306|183489558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.158|12.133|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|||12.133|-7.158|
91806436|NCT04518306|183489559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.585|8.916||||||||8.916|-8.585|
91806437|NCT04518306|183489559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.077|5.161||||||||5.161|-11.077|
91756680|NCT02870101|183405461|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.8|99.5|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.5|98.8|
91756681|NCT02870101|183405462|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|84.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|89.0|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||89.0|79.4|
91806438|NCT04518306|183489560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.664|8.366|||GEE procedure|||||8.366|-17.664|<0.0001
91806439|NCT04518306|183489560|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|17.981|||GEE procedure|||||17.981|-9.040|<0.0001
91806440|NCT03268954|183489561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||=|0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.238|||Log Rank|P-value comparing EFS between treatment groups was based on the 1-sided Cui-Hung-Wang weighted unstratified log-rank test.|HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of EFS in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|IPSS-R indicates the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System.||1.238|0.757|=0.557
91806441|NCT03268954|183489562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.888|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.113||P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on the 1-sided Cui-Hung-Wang weighted unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1: longer survival time in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Overall Survival (OS)||1.113|0.709|=0.152
91756682|NCT02870101|183405462|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.2|99.7|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.7|99.2|
91756683|NCT02870101|183405463|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|88.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.2|92.0|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||92.0|83.2|
91806442|NCT03268954|183489567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037|||=|0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.63||P-value comparing time to AML Transformation between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional HazardRegression with stratification(IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of AML transformation in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Time to AML Transformation in HR MDS Participants||1.630|0.660|=0.562
91806443|NCT03268954|183489567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.512|||=|0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|33.773||P-value comparing time to AML Transformation between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional HazardRegression with stratification(IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of AML transformation in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Time to AML Transformation in HR CMML Participants||33.773|0.068|=0.603
91806444|NCT03268954|183489567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.034|||=|0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.61||P-value comparing time to AML Transformation between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR CMML/MDS.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional HazardRegression with stratification(IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of AML transformation in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Time to AML Transformation in HR MDS/CMML Participants||1.610|0.663|=0.558
91909515|NCT03016325|183715116|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.05|
91806445|NCT03268954|183489568|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-4.18|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|4.83||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants With Complete Remission (CR) and CR+Complete Remission with Incomplete Blood Count Recovery (CRi)||4.83|-13.18|=0.374
91806446|NCT03268954|183489573|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-4.67|||=|0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|4.39||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by low-blast AML, Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants with OR||4.39|-13.72|=0.329
91909516|NCT03016325|183715116|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|5.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|149.72||||||||149.72|0.91|
91806447|NCT03268954|183489574|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-0.44|||=|0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|9.15||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants with OR2||9.15|-10.03|=0.891
91756684|NCT02870101|183405463|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.2|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.2|
91756685|NCT02870101|183405464|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|98.9|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||98.9|86.3|
91756686|NCT02870101|183405464|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.4|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.4|
91756687|NCT02870101|183405465|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.9|89.9|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||89.9|80.9|
91756688|NCT02870101|183405465|OTHER|Estimated Negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|99.6|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.6|98.9|
91756689|NCT02870101|183405466|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|88.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|94.5|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||94.5|76.6|
91756690|NCT02870101|183405466|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.4|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.4|
91756691|NCT02870101|183405467|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|88.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.9|92.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||92.3|83.9|
91756692|NCT02870101|183405467|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|99.1|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.1|98.2|
91756693|NCT02870101|183405468|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|84.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.5|91.7|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||91.7|71.5|
91756694|NCT02870101|183405468|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.5|99.9|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.9|99.5|
91806448|NCT03268954|183489575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.679|||=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.146|||Log Rank|P-value was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups of very high,high,or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of CR||1.146|0.402|=0.072
91756695|NCT02870101|183405469|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.6|87.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||87.3|77.6|
91756696|NCT02870101|183405469|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|99.4|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.4|98.6|
91756697|NCT00126776|183405475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||mean cumulative frequency|||primary outcome is mean cumulative frequency of COPD related hospitlaizations and ED visits ;ver 1 yr: 0.48 for disease management; 0.82 for usual care, difference 0.34 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; P\<0.001)||||< 0.001
91756698|NCT02893917|183405480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.617||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.969|||Regression, Cox|||||0.969|0.392|0.0359
91756699|NCT02893917|183405481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|2.399||no p value provided|Regression, Cox|||||2.399|0.705|
91887200|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||1.0|-4.8|
91909517|NCT03016325|183715116|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.01|
91756700|NCT02893917|183405484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.272|1.504|||Regression, Cox|||HRD positive ONLY||1.504|0.272|
91756701|NCT02893917|183405484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.777|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.348|||Regression, Cox|||HRD negative ONLY||1.348|0.448|
91887201|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.3|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.3|-4.6|
91887202|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.1|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||5.1|-3.2|
91909518|NCT03016325|183715117|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|14.66||||||||14.66|1.01|
91909519|NCT03016325|183715117|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29||||||||0.29|0.00|
91756702|NCT01815840|183405509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|5.7|||||Asymptotic confidence intervals are presented for the difference between treatment arms.|The mean difference in the mean relative reduction between treatment arms, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval, was estimated by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect and the following covariates: number of basal cell carcinomas at baseline, geographical region, immunosuppression status, confirmed basal cell carcinoma nevus syndrome.||5.7|-22.2|
91756703|NCT00434642|183405521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.605||A P-value \< 0.05 was required for significance.|Log Rank|The analysis was stratified for time since the last platinum therapy (6-12, \> 12 months) and cytoreductive surgery for recurrent disease (yes, no).|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to the carboplatin and gemcitabine + placebo group.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the 2 treatment groups, ie, that the hazard ratio is equal to 1. The alternative hypothesis was that progression free survival was longer in the carboplatin and gemcitabine + bevacizumab group, ie, that the hazard ratio is not equal to 1.||0.605|0.388|<0.0001
91756704|NCT00434642|183405522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|29.2||A P-value \< 0.05 was required for significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified for time since the last platinum therapy (6-12, \> 12 months) and cytoreductive surgery for recurrent disease (yes, no).|The difference in response rates and the 95% confidence intervals for response rates were computed using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percentage of patients with an objective response between the 2 treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that a larger percentage of patients had an objective response in the carboplatin and gemcitabine + bevacizumab group.||29.2|13.0|<0.0001
91756705|NCT00434642|183405524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.6479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.176||Summaries of duration of overall survival (median, percentiles) were estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves. The 95% confidence interval for the median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.|Log Rank|The analysis was stratified for time since the last platinum therapy (≤12, \>12 months) and cytoreductive surgery for recurrent disease (Yes, No).|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to the carboplatin and gemcitabine + placebo group.|||1.176|0.771|0.6479
91756706|NCT02868229|183405609|SUPERIORITY||Differences of LS Means|-5.666||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.082|-2.25|||ANCOVA|||The P-value was obtained from rank transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, where the rank transformed change from baseline (CFB) values as the response variable and treatments as a factor and the rank transformed baseline value as its covariate.||-2.250|-9.082|0.002
91756707|NCT02868229|183405609|SUPERIORITY||Differences of LS Means|-6.913|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.613|-3.214|||ANCOVA|||The P-value was obtained from rank transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, where the rank transformed change from baseline (CFB) values as the response variable and treatments as a factor and the rank transformed baseline value as its covariate.||-3.214|-10.613|<0.001
91756708|NCT02868229|183405609|SUPERIORITY||Differences of LS Means|-9.591|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.217|-5.965|||ANCOVA|||The P-value was obtained from rank transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, where the rank transformed change from baseline (CFB) values as the response variable and treatments as a factor and the rank transformed baseline value as its covariate.||-5.965|-13.217|<0.001
91909520|NCT03016325|183715117|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.43||||||||2.43|0.58|
91909521|NCT03016325|183715117|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.11|
91756709|NCT06225466|183405784|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.047|||ANOVA|||||0.047|-0.005|0.123
91756710|NCT06225466|183405785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|0.26|0.102
91756711|NCT06225466|183405786|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|2.37||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.52|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||4.52|1.25|0.008
91756712|NCT03445559|183405787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.98|||Chi-squared|||||0.98|0.30|0.006
91756713|NCT03445559|183405788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.66|||Chi-squared|||||2.66|0.70|0.42
91756714|NCT03445559|183405789|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91756715|NCT04676867|183405805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
91756716|NCT04676867|183405806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
91756717|NCT04676867|183405807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
91887203|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.5|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||3.5|-1.5|
91909522|NCT03016325|183715117|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.21||||||||3.21|0.87|
91806449|NCT03268954|183489576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846|||=|0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|2.339||P-value comparing duration of CR+CRi between treatment groups was based on 1-sided unstratified log-rank.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of Complete Remission + Complete Remission with Incomplete Blood Count Recovery (CRi)||2.339|0.306|=0.373
91806450|NCT03268954|183489577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.889|||=|0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.458||P-value comparing duration of PR or better response between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of Overall Response (OR)||1.458|0.542|=0.320
91756718|NCT04676867|183405808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
91756719|NCT04676867|183405809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
91756720|NCT04676867|183405810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
91756721|NCT04676867|183405811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
91756722|NCT04676867|183405812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
91756723|NCT04676867|183405813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91756724|NCT04676867|183405814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2
91756725|NCT04676867|183405815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2
91756726|NCT04676867|183405817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2
91756727|NCT04676867|183405818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2
91756728|NCT02411929|183405822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test (oral)/Reference (IV) of means|104.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.64|107.91|||||Natural log transformed AUCinf(dn) and AUClast(dn) from Period 1 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences were exponentiated.|Ratio - Test (oral) / Reference (IV) of means||107.91|101.64|
91756729|NCT02411929|183405832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|110.71|||||||||||||The ratio (Test/Reference) of the geometric means of dose normalized natural log transformed Total 14\^C in Urine will be estimated. Total 14\^C\_Urine\_IV is the Reference formulation and Total 14C\_Urine\_Oral is the Test formulation (expressed as a %).|Ratio - Test (Oral) / Reference (IV) (%)||||
91756730|NCT04268173|183405838|EQUIVALENCE|A two sample t-test was conducted to test the null hypothesis that the pre-intervention mean response was equivalent to the post-intervention mean response in the Prevention Navigation group. Hypothesis: A p-value greater than 0.05 suggests the means are not statistically different from one another.||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91756731|NCT02437084|183405857|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|SSPG concentration was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 69||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in steady-state plasma glucose (SSPG) concentration after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 9 - 10 weeks.||||0.01
91756732|NCT02437084|183405858|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Insulin secretion rate AUC was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 63.||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in insulin secretion rate AUC after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 9 - 10 weeks.||||<0.001
91756733|NCT02437084|183405859|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 70||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in fasting plasma glucose concentration after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 - 10 weeks.||||0.10
91756734|NCT02437084|183405860|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Fasting plasma insulin concentration was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 68||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in fasting plasma insulin concentration after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 - 10 weeks.||||0.01
91756735|NCT02437084|183405861|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 70||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in OGTT glucose AUC after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 - 10 weeks.||||0.03
91756736|NCT02437084|183405862|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|OGTT insulin AUC was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 63||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in OGTT insulin AUC after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 weeks.||||0.27
91756737|NCT02228096|183405925|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<0.0001
91756738|NCT02925728|183405965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91756739|NCT02102399|183405967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.001
91756740|NCT02102399|183405968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.345
91756741|NCT02102399|183405969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91756742|NCT02102399|183405970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.171
91756743|NCT02102399|183405971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.022
91909523|NCT03016325|183715117|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.04|
91756744|NCT02102399|183405972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.451
91756745|NCT02102399|183405973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.477
91756746|NCT02102399|183405974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.007
91756747|NCT02102399|183405975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.049
91756748|NCT02102399|183405976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.323
91756749|NCT02102399|183405977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.296
91756750|NCT02102399|183405978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.776
91756751|NCT02102399|183405979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.959
91756752|NCT02102399|183405980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91756753|NCT02102399|183405981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
91887204|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||5|-1.1|
91887205|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0||||||95.0|-2.8|7.7|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||7.7|-2.8|
91756754|NCT02102399|183405982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
91756755|NCT02102399|183405983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91756756|NCT02102399|183405984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
91756757|NCT02102399|183405985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91756758|NCT02102399|183405986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.120
91756759|NCT02102399|183405987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
91756760|NCT02102399|183405988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
91756761|NCT00086411|183406009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2734|<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.25||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|Model included hx of heavy smoking, elevated depression, cigarettes per day, gender, and race|The above was for the main effect of BUP versus NTX on cessation.|Rates of abstinence were addressed using a generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression model. Counseling type and medication type were entered as the main explanatory variables along with time and the interaction of these factors, together with some covariates (described below). The sample size provided 80% power to detect a difference of about 14% between groups across three time points (i.e., 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-treatment initiation.||2.25|0.77|<0.017
91756762|NCT02530996|183406012|OTHER|Power calculations were performed using G\*Power computer software version 3. Sample-size calculations were based on the number of patients needed to detect significant differences in FMD between placebo and BH4.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistics were performed using SPSS software (IBM, Chicago, IL). Paired t-tests were used to identify significant changes in measured variables between placebo and BH4. Unpaired t-tests were used to identify significant changes in measured variables between ordered groups. Based on data published in PMID: 25511849 power calculations for this study of SSc patients were made.||||<0.05
91756763|NCT04484207|183406028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||GEE|||||||0.031
91756764|NCT00752726|183406032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.491||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for treatment, baseline VAT and center effect using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined. For this primary analysis, only one statistical test was performed and therefore, no multiple comparison adjustment was done.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||0.491|0.035|0.0244
91756765|NCT00752726|183406033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0834||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.337||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline VAT and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 12 between the two treatment groups.||0.337|0.007|0.0415
91756766|NCT00752726|183406034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.74||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline weight and center effects, using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||3.74|0.25|0.026
91756767|NCT00752726|183406035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7174||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|3.065||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline total fat mass and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||3.065|0.219|0.0242
91756768|NCT00752726|183406036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.87||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Mean was adjusted for the treatment, baseline total fat mass and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was evaluated.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||2.87|0.07|0.039
91756769|NCT00752726|183406037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|3.63||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline waist circumference and center effects, using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||3.63|-0.24|0.085
91887206|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 4(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||3.3|-3|
91909524|NCT03016325|183715117|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.78||||||||0.78|-0.17|
91909525|NCT03016325|183715117|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.88||||||||0.88|-0.04|
91909526|NCT00513500|183715151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.32||||||95.0|2.19|8.94||||||||8.94|2.19|
91756770|NCT00752726|183406039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0232||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.023||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline liver fat and center effects, using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was evaluated.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||0.023|-0.069|0.3235
91756771|NCT00752726|183406040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|783.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|726.54||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-657.3|2224.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline total calories expended and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was evaluated.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||2224.9|-657.3|0.28
91887207|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|12.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||12.3|-2.2|
91887208|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||3.6|-3.9|
91887209|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||6.2|-1.1|
91887210|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.9|-4.8|
91887211|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.9|-4.8|
91887212|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||1.9|-8|
91887213|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.8|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3.8|-2.3|
91887214|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|2.7|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||2.7|-1.3|
91887215|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.7|||Seroconversion Percentage difference|||PT (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||10.7|-4.8|
91887216|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.8|||ANOVA|||FHA(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||8.8|-7.1|
91887217|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.7|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||5.7|-8|
91887218|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.7|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||4.7|-2|
91887219|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.8|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||4.8|-3|
91887220|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.5|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||4.5|-4.4|
91756772|NCT00752726|183406041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.542||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.72||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean difference was adjusted for the treatment, baseline value and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as placebo minus orlistat.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the treatment groups.||4.72|-1.40|0.2847
91756773|NCT04232215|183406055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.1|||Regression, Linear|A generalized linear model adjusting by intervention group and the order of randomization was conducted.||Difference in ease of use between our standard fetal Doppler and HeraBEAT™ device, as measured by the System Usability Survey (SUS) will be the primary outcome. We aim to recruit 50 participants (50 per arm, with cross-over) for a 99.7% power to detect a 10-point difference in SUS, as this accounts for a withdraw / post-randomization exclusion as high as 10% (assuming a proportion of expectant mothers to withdraw participation after being enrolled or found to not meet criteria after the fact).||6.1|-10.2|0.64
91756774|NCT04232215|183406056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.53|||Chi-squared|||||2.53|0.57|0.63
91756775|NCT01555125|183406057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91756776|NCT01555125|183406057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91756777|NCT01555125|183406058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91756778|NCT01555125|183406058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91756779|NCT04836247|183406080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<.001 is calculated p-value in SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91756780|NCT04836247|183406081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<.001 is calculated p-value in SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91756781|NCT04836247|183406082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<.001 is calculated p-value in SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91756782|NCT04836247|183406083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
91756783|NCT04836247|183406084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91756784|NCT04836247|183406085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91756785|NCT04268745|183406086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.603||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.634|-1.573|||Regression, Linear|||||-1.573|-25.634|0.027
91756786|NCT04268745|183406087|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.405||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.474|8.335|||Regression, Linear|||||8.335|4.474|0.0001
91756787|NCT04268745|183406088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.703||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.235|-9.172|||Regression, Linear|||||-9.172|-28.235|0.0002
91756788|NCT04268745|183406089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.556||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|16.174|||Regression, Linear|||||16.174|0.938|0.028
91756789|NCT04268745|183406090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.665|||Regression, Linear|||||0.665|-0.443|0.695
91756790|NCT04268745|183406091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.514||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.901|0.874|||Regression, Linear|||||0.874|-1.901|0.469
91756791|NCT00896441|183406101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test||||||<0.01
91756792|NCT00896441|183406103|OTHER||||||<|0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Single group t-test||||||<.006
91756793|NCT01078168|183406114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3769||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03025|0.7235||threshold: p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7235|0.03025|0.0347
91756794|NCT02467582|183406138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
91756795|NCT02467582|183406138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.22|||||Unstratified|||1.22|0.27|
91756796|NCT02467582|183406138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.46|||||Stratified|||1.46|0.22|
91756797|NCT02467582|183406139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.089
91756798|NCT02467582|183406139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|1.19|||||Unstratified|||1.19|0.21|
91756799|NCT02467582|183406139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|1.55|||||Stratified|||1.55|0.20|
91756800|NCT02467582|183406140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3
91756801|NCT02467582|183406140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|2.13|||||Unstratified|||2.13|0.23|
91756802|NCT02467582|183406140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|2.43|||||Stratified|||2.43|0.15|
91756803|NCT01593592|183406163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||A total of 70 patients were included; 35 in each arm. The sample size was calculated assuming eradication of H. pylori in at least 70% of treated patients, aiming to detect a difference of 30% based on a 0.80 power to detect significant difference (p =0.05, two-sided).||||
91756804|NCT02397057|183406169|OTHER|Observed cases, logistic regression analysis. Subjects with missing data on Day 42 were excluded from the statistical testing.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.63||p-value was estimated by logistic regression with treatment, region (US, EUR), and baseline RLS medication-related augmentation as fixed factors, and baseline IRLS as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.63|0.70|0.3690
91756805|NCT02397057|183406173|OTHER||Least square(LS) mean difference|-4.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.542||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.083|0.941|||ANCOVA|||LOCF, ANCOVA Analysis||0.941|-9.083|0.1108
91909527|NCT00513500|183715152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.23||||||95.0|0.14|0.38||||||||0.38|0.14|
91909528|NCT00513500|183715153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.44||||||95.0|0.21|0.93||||||||0.93|0.21|
91756806|NCT02397057|183406174|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value was estimated using continuity-corrected chi-square test.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0002
91756807|NCT03927144|183406188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|9.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factor (no. of prior prophylactic migraine treatment failures=1 vs 2) after missing data were imputed as non-response.||||9.82|4.28|<0.0001
91756808|NCT03927144|183406189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.53|16.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for number of prior prophylactic migraine treatment failures=1 vs 2 after missing data were imputed as non-response.||||16.87|7.53|<0.0001
91756809|NCT03927144|183406190|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-1.52|||Linear mixed effects model||AMG334 70 mg/140 mg vs Oral Prophylactic|Comparison of mean change from baseline in monthly migraine days at Week 52||-1.52|-2.74|<0.001
91756810|NCT03927144|183406191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.08|20.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for number of prior prophylactic migraine treatment failures=1 vs 2 after missing data were imputed as non-response.||||20.83|9.08|<0.001
91909529|NCT00790907|183715173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.54|0.267
91887221|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.7|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||2.7|-2.3|
91756811|NCT03002311|183406236|SUPERIORITY|We conducted a conditional power analysis 120 days after 6 months of enrollment. We determined the effect size based on the difference of proportions of follow-up attendance in the intervention and control arms. We used the effect size of 20% to estimate the sample size needed for a two-sided alpha of 0.05 at 90% power and a 1:1 ratio to require 266 participants. Loss to follow-up was estimated to be 20%, increasing target enrollment to 334 total participants.|||||<|0.001|||||||Gray's test|We compared the cumulative incidence function.||||||<0.001
91887222|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||1|-5.3|
91887223|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0||||||95.0|-6.6|3.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3|-6.6|
91887224|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3|-4.2|
91887225|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||9|-4|
91887226|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||6|-2.8|
91887227|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.4|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3.4|-3.7|
91887228|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.8|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||0.8|-7.2|
91887229|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|7.5|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||7.5|-0.8|
91887230|NCT00474526|183667607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0||||||95.0|-3.7|7.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||7|-3.7|
91887231|NCT00474526|183667622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.2|0.67|
91756812|NCT03002311|183406237|SUPERIORITY|This was a secondary analysis so no power analysis was done.||||||0.8||||||We used a two-sided alpha of 0.05 to determine significance.|Gray's test|We compared the cumulative incidence functions.||||||0.8
91887232|NCT00474526|183667622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.02|0.62|
91887233|NCT00474526|183667622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.2|0.67|
91887234|NCT00474526|183667622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.03|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.03|0.63|
91887235|NCT00474526|183667622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.34|0.78|
91756813|NCT04071158|183406313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8||||||Difference in percentage||2.8|-1.4|
91756814|NCT04071158|183406314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.7||||||Difference in percentage||1.7|-4.6|
91756815|NCT04071158|183406315|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0||||||Anti-PT: Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the GMC of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMC of placebo/Tdap arm.||1.00|0.64|
91887236|NCT00474526|183667622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.04||||||95.0|0.81|1.34|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.34|0.81|
91887237|NCT00474526|183667622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.29|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.29|0.69|
91887238|NCT00474526|183667623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||10|-8|
91887239|NCT00474526|183667623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||10|0|
91756816|NCT04071158|183406315|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.7||||||Anti-PT: Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the GMC of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMC of placebo/Tdap arm.||0.70|0.50|
91756817|NCT04071158|183406315|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.76||||||Anti-PT: Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the GMC of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMC of placebo/Tdap arm.||0.76|0.48|
91756818|NCT04071158|183406316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|2.0-fold margin (related to primary objective): primary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups greater than (\>) 0.5.||1.13|0.84|
91756819|NCT04071158|183406317|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|2.0-fold margin (related to primary objective): primary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups \> 0.5.||1.14|0.81|
91756820|NCT04071158|183406322|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|1.5-fold margin (related to secondary objective): secondary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups \> 0.67.||1.13|0.84|
91756821|NCT04071158|183406323|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|1.5-fold margin (related to secondary objective): secondary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups \> 0.67.||1.14|0.81|
91756822|NCT01178099|183406328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 10 mg SD (overall).|||1.33|0.829|
91756823|NCT01178099|183406328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.895|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.718|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 7.5 mg MD.|||1.12|0.718|
91756824|NCT01178099|183406328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.656|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 5 mg MD.|||1.25|0.656|
91756825|NCT01178099|183406329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.664|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 10 mg SD (overall).|||1.37|0.664|
91756826|NCT01178099|183406329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.612|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.436|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 7.5 mg MD.|||0.860|0.436|
91756827|NCT01178099|183406329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.625|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD.|||1.68|0.625|
91756828|NCT01178099|183406330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.070
91756829|NCT01178099|183406331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-95913 metabolite.|||2.10|1.10|
91756830|NCT01178099|183406331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||1.94|1.06|
91756831|NCT01178099|183406331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||2.21|0.918|
91756832|NCT01178099|183406331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.742|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.27|0.742|
91756833|NCT01178099|183406331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 7.5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.05|0.633|
91756834|NCT01178099|183406331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.38|0.658|
91756835|NCT01178099|183406331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.65|0.833|
91887240|NCT00474526|183667623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||5|-13|
91887241|NCT00474526|183667623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||3|-6|
91887242|NCT00474526|183667623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (percentage difference (US1A:US1B))||3|-15|
91887243|NCT00474526|183667623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (percentage difference (US1A:US1B))||11|-4|
91887244|NCT00474526|183667623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 239F (percentage difference (US1A:US1B))||5|-10|
91887245|NCT00474526|183667624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.02|0.61|
91887246|NCT00474526|183667624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.2|0.54|
91887247|NCT00474526|183667624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||0.94|0.58|
91887248|NCT00474526|183667624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||0.82|0.51|
91887249|NCT00474526|183667624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.01|0.6|
91887250|NCT00474526|183667624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.04|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.04|0.56|
91887251|NCT00474526|183667624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.01|0.54|
91887252|NCT00474526|183667625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||5.2|-9.6|
91887253|NCT00474526|183667625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|7.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||7.3|-11.9|
91887254|NCT00474526|183667625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|4.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||4.3|-10.9|
91887255|NCT00474526|183667625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.7|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||2.7|-5.6|
91756836|NCT01178099|183406331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.779|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.48|0.779|
91756837|NCT01178099|183406331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.813|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.30|0.510|
91756838|NCT01178099|183406332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
91756839|NCT01178099|183406333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.060
91756840|NCT01178099|183406334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.219
91806451|NCT03268954|183489578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796|||=|0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.231||P-value comparing duration of overall response 2 between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of Overall Response 2 (OR2)||1.231|0.514|=0.151
91806452|NCT03268954|183489579|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|3.27|||=|0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|15.55||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With RBC-transfusion Independence||15.55|-9.02|=0.573
91806453|NCT03268954|183489579|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-3.43|||=|0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.84|18.97||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With Platelet-transfusion Independence||18.97|-25.84|=0.477
91806454|NCT03268954|183489580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.231|||=|0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|2.119||P-value comparing duration of RBC or platelet transfusion between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard regression;stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:longer duration of transfusion independence in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Duration of RBC Transfusion Independence||2.119|0.715|=0.774
91806455|NCT03268954|183489580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.533|||=|0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|4.147||P-value comparing duration of platelet transfusion between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard regression;stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:longer duration of transfusion independence in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Duration of Platelet Transfusion Independence||4.147|0.567|=0.801
91806456|NCT03268954|183489580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||=|0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.614||P-value comparing duration of RBC or platelet transfusion between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard regression;stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:longer duration of transfusion independence in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Duration of Transfusion Independence||1.614|0.580|=0.450
91756841|NCT01178099|183406335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
91756842|NCT01178099|183406336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.168
91806457|NCT03268954|183489581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||=|0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.234||P-value comparing time to first CR or PR or CRi (low-blast AML) between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups of very high,high,or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Time to First Complete Remission (CR) or Partial Remission (PR) or Complete Remission with Incomplete Blood Count Recovery (CRi)||1.234|0.628|=0.228
91806458|NCT03268954|183489582|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-5.46|||=|0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|5.44||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants With HI||5.44|-16.36|=0.320
91806459|NCT03268954|183489583|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.58||||||Number of Participants With at Least 1 Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HR MDS, CMML or Low-blast AML||5.58|-0.30|
91806460|NCT03268954|183489584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.858|||=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.067||P-value was obtained from a stratified 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML, with treatment as a factor in the model.|Time to Progressive Disease (PD), Relapse after CR (Low-blast AML), Relapse After CR or PR (HR MDS/CMML), or Death||1.067|0.689|=0.084
91806461|NCT03268954|183489586|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-2.85|||=|0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|13.75||P-value for HR MDS/CMML was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OR: HR MDS/CMML Participants||13.75|-19.44|=0.683
91756843|NCT01178099|183406337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-95913 metabolite.|||2.22|1.01|
91806462|NCT03268954|183489586|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|2.36|||=|0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|25.12||P-value for Low-blast AML was obtained from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR: Low-blast AML Participants||25.12|-20.39|=0.840
91887256|NCT00474526|183667625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|-5.6|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||-5.6|-24.1|
91887257|NCT00474526|183667625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|5.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||5.2|-11.6|
91756844|NCT01178099|183406337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||1.58|0.751|
91806463|NCT03268954|183489587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.263||P-value comparing EFS between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification factors (IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of EFS in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Event-Free Survival in Participants who have TP53 Mutations, 17p Deletions, and/or are Determined to be in an Adverse Cytogenetic Risk Group||1.263|0.608|=0.240
91806464|NCT03268954|183489588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.178||P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification factors(IPSS-R risk groups of very high,high,intermediate) and treatment as factor in model.HR\<1: longer survival time in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Overall Survival in Participants who have TP53 Mutations, 17p Deletions, and/or are Determined to be in an Adverse Cytogenetic Risk Group||1.178|0.580|=0.145
91806465|NCT03268954|183489589|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-5.14|||=|0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.95|3.68||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall Response for HR MDS/CMML||3.68|-13.95|=0.261
91887258|NCT00474526|183667625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||7|-7|
91756845|NCT01178099|183406337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||3.20|1.09|
91756846|NCT01178099|183406337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.15|0.660|
91756847|NCT01178099|183406337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.524|0.886|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||0.886|0.524|
91756848|NCT01178099|183406337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.612|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.32|0.612|
91756849|NCT01178099|183406337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.773|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.46|0.773|
91756850|NCT01178099|183406337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.582|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.06|0.582|
91756851|NCT01178099|183406337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.648|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.55|0.648|
91756852|NCT01178099|183406338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.060
91756853|NCT01178099|183406339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||This is the p-value for PRI by flow cytometry. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error|ANCOVA|||||||0.086
91887259|NCT00474526|183667626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A/GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.27|0.86|
91756854|NCT01178099|183406339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0||||This is the p-value for PRI by ELISA. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error|ANCOVA|||||||0.679
91756855|NCT01178099|183406340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to 6.5 µM ADP. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.396
91756856|NCT01178099|183406340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to 20 µM ADP. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.288
91756857|NCT01178099|183406340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to Collagen. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.095
91756858|NCT01178099|183406340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to TRAP-6. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.086
91756859|NCT01178099|183406341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.083
91756860|NCT01178099|183406342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.124
91756861|NCT02473367|183406343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. least-squares mean ratio (GLSMR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|0.32|||||Raltegravir+TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.32|0.24|
91806466|NCT03268954|183489589|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|22.36|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|41.49||P-value was obtained from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall Response for Low-blast AML||41.49|3.22|=0.026
91806467|NCT03820986|183489627|SUPERIORITY|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||0.98|0.67|0.0176
91806468|NCT03820986|183489628|SUPERIORITY|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.48|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||1.48|0.97|0.9521
91806469|NCT03820986|183489633|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.69||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.27||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|cLDA model||Difference in LS means=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL as the response variable, with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factor BRAF mutation status as covariate. No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||-0.27|-7.10|0.0345
91806470|NCT03820986|183489634|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|-2.45|||cLDA model|No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|Difference in LS means=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|Based on a cLDA model with PF as the response variable, with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factor BRAF mutation status as covariate. No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||-2.45|-8.53|0.0004
91887260|NCT00474526|183667626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.18|0.75|
91806471|NCT03820986|183489635|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.0|||Log Rank|No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|HR=Lenvatinib + Pembrolizumab vs. Placebo + Pembrolizumab|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by BRAF mutation status (positive vs wild type or unknown) No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||2.00|1.25|0.0001
91756862|NCT02473367|183406343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.03|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs Leader Antacid/Raltegravir only|||1.03|0.73|
91756863|NCT02473367|183406343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.03|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs TUMS/Raltegravir only|||1.03|0.80|
91756864|NCT02473367|183406344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.32|||||Raltegravir+TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.32|0.21|
91887261|NCT00474526|183667626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.4|0.88|
91806472|NCT03820986|183489636|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.95||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.5|||Log Rank|No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|HR=Lenvatinib + Pembrolizumab vs. Placebo + Pembrolizumab|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by BRAF mutation status (positive vs wild type or unknown). No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||2.50|1.52|.0001
91806473|NCT01638546|183489647|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The study will be performed as a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized Phase II in patients with relapsed sensitive or refractory SCLC. Eligible patients will be randomized 1:1 to one of two treatment arms: ABT-888 and temozolomide as the investigational arm, versus placebo and temozolomide as the control arm. The randomization will be stratified by center and by type or relapse (sensitive vs. refractory). The primary objective is to compare the two treatment regimens with respect to efficacy, expressed as Progression Free Survival (PFS) at 4 months post-randomization. PFS will be calculated as proportion of patients alive and without evidence of disease at 4 months after randomization.|||
91887262|NCT00474526|183667626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||ANOVA|||FHA (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.44|0.9|
91887263|NCT00474526|183667626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.59|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B||1.59|0.92|
91887264|NCT00474526|183667626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.16|||ANOVA|||Hib (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.16|0.63|
91756865|NCT02473367|183406344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.15|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs Leader Antacid/Raltegravir only|||1.15|0.65|
91756866|NCT02473367|183406344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.17|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs TUMS/Raltegravir only|||1.17|0.81|
91756867|NCT02473367|183406345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.61|||||Raltegravir+TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.61|0.45|
91756868|NCT02473367|183406345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.52|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs Leader Antacid/Raltegravir only|||0.52|0.34|
91756869|NCT02473367|183406345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.51|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.51|0.36|
91756870|NCT04816721|183406348|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.28|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 3: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.28|-2.21|0.1249
91806474|NCT00540514|183489662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.313||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.1|1.082|1.593||Statistical significance defined as P-value \< 0.049.|Chi-squared||Response rate ratio = PA/PT. A response rate ratio \> 1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin arm of the study.|The null hypothesis is that the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin regimen response rate (PA) is equal to that of the paclitaxel (Taxol)/carboplatin regimen (PT). Superiority of albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin will be established if the lower bound of the 95.1% CI of the response rate ratio is \> 1.0.||1.593|1.082|0.005
91806475|NCT00540514|183489663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.767|1.06||P-value is based on a stratified log rank test stratified by geographic region (North America/Australia, Eastern Europe, or Asia/Pacific) and histology of primary diagnosis (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or other carcinoma).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin) \<1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin group.|||1.060|0.767|0.214
91806476|NCT00540514|183489664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.797|1.066||P-value is based on a stratified log rank test stratified by geographic region (North America/Australia, Eastern Europe, or Asia/Pacific) and histology of primary diagnosis (Squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or other carcinoma).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin) \<1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin group.|||1.066|0.797|0.271
91806477|NCT00540514|183489665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.074||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.21|||Chi-squared|||||1.210|0.953|0.239
91806478|NCT00540514|183489666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.901||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.244||P-value is based on a stratified log rank test stratified by geographic region (North America/Australia, Eastern Europe, or Asia/Pacific) and histology of primary diagnosis (Squamous cell carcinoma or Non squamous cell carcinoma).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin) \<1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin group.|||1.244|0.652|0.551
91806479|NCT00540514|183489669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.302||95.0|||||Univariate Cox regression|||SPARC correlation with overall survival for the overall SPARC population.||||0.302
91756871|NCT04816721|183406348|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|0.05|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 5: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.05|-2.88|0.0580
91756872|NCT04816721|183406348|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|1.16|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 9: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||1.16|-2.02|0.5877
91756873|NCT04816721|183406348|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.43|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 14: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||2.43|-0.76|0.2932
91756874|NCT04816721|183406349|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.59|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 3: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.59|-0.93|0.6574
91756875|NCT04816721|183406349|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.4728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.58|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 5: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.58|-1.23|0.4728
91806480|NCT00540514|183489670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036||95.0||||A nonsignificant interaction P-value (ie, p-value ≥ 0.100) indicates the treatment regimen effect was consistent within a prognostic factor.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with effects for treatment regimen, prognostic factor (histology), and treatment regimen by prognostic factor interaction.||||||0.036
91887265|NCT00474526|183667627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.2|5.4|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||5.4|-4.2|
91887266|NCT00474526|183667627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.4|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||5.4|-4.2|
91909530|NCT01902290|183715181|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.05||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.103|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline ACQ score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.103|-0.203|0.5219
91909531|NCT01902290|183715182|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.41||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.12|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model under a negative binomial distribution assumption adjusting for stratification factors.|Rate ratio = Brodalumab : Placebo|||2.12|0.93|0.102
91756876|NCT04816721|183406349|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.39|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 9: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.39|-1.79|0.2058
91909532|NCT01902290|183715183|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.038||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.134|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification factors, and baseline ACQ score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.134|-0.210|0.6632
91806481|NCT01651195|183489675|SUPERIORITY|We estimated that, with a power of 85% and at a significance level of 0.05 (Power 0.85, ß=0.14990 and α=0.05), we needed 467 conscripts per group to show a 17% difference between the groups. Each conscript was randomly allocated to the probiotic or the control group according to a computer generated, 8-blocked randomization list.|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact||||"Result variables were analyzed according to intention to treat (ITT) principle. Missing data was handled by statistic modeling. Data on symptom diaries were calculated as follows: the incidence and duration of individual infection symptoms and respiratory episodes were analyzed between the intervention groups using time to event analysis (cox model for hazard) and duration analysis (gamma regression model). The results are expressed as a hazard ratio (incidence rate ratio) of symptoms and the mean duration of symptoms (days) with 95% confidence intervals or standard deviations. The sums of respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms were calculated with gamma regression analysis."|||< 0.05
91806482|NCT01651195|183489676|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
91806483|NCT01651195|183489677|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
91806484|NCT01651195|183489678|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
91806485|NCT04617509|183489711|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FASTED) versus Formulation B (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on Cmax ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric means|1.4514|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.111|1.4514||||||Relative bioavailability (A versus B)||1.4514|1.1110|
91756877|NCT04816721|183406349|OTHER|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.41|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 14: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||1.41|-0.74|0.5391
91756878|NCT04816721|183406351|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.59|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 3: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.59|-0.93|0.6574
91756879|NCT04816721|183406351|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67||||0.5359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|1.47|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 5: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||1.47|-2.81|0.5359
91756880|NCT04816721|183406351|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.73||||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.5|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 9: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||2.50|-7.95|0.3029
91756881|NCT04816721|183406351|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.64||||0.3871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.98|4.69|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 14: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||4.69|-11.98|0.3871
91756882|NCT00997620|183406404|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis was of t testing of the difference of the mean between the baseline and after two weeks. The power analysis was prior to data collection was not performed for this test. The null hypothesis is no different, no difference between placebo and active treatment.||||< .05
91756883|NCT00599638|183406464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.391|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.48|-0.31|0.3910
91756884|NCT00599638|183406464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.78|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.86|-1.78|0.0002
91756885|NCT00599638|183406465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0055||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis was performed compositely for all categories.||1.71|0.30|0.4959
91756886|NCT00599638|183406465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0763||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.69|8.46|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis was performed compositely for all categories.||8.46|1.69|0.0011
91806486|NCT04617509|183489711|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FED) versus Formulation A (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on Cmax ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.5497|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3977|0.7597||||||Relative bioavailability (A FED versus A FASTED)||0.7597|0.3977|
91756887|NCT00599638|183406467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.819||0.338|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.47|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.84|-2.47|0.3380
91756888|NCT00599638|183406467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.268||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.89|-5.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.42|-13.89|0.0022
91806487|NCT04617509|183489712|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FASTED) versus Formulation B (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-inf ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.3441|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0953|1.6495||||||Relative bioavailability (A versus B)||1.6495|1.0953|
91806488|NCT04617509|183489712|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FED) versus Formulation A (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-inf ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.7327|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.591|0.9083||||||Relative bioavailability (A FED versus A FASTED)||0.9083|0.5910|
91806489|NCT04617509|183489713|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FASTED) versus Formulation B (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-24h ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.371|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.112|1.6904||||||Relative bioavailability (A versus B)||1.6904|1.1120|
91756889|NCT03836677|183406502|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio to baseline|1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.13||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||2.13|1.38|<0.0001
91756890|NCT03836677|183406502|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.83||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||1.83|1.28|<0.0001
91756891|NCT03836677|183406503|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.63||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.63|0.39|<0.0001
91756892|NCT03836677|183406503|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.67|0.40|<0.0001
91806490|NCT04617509|183489713|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FED) versus Formulation A (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-24h ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.7083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5728|0.8759||||||Relative bioavailability (A FED versus A FASTED)||0.8759|0.5728|
91806491|NCT00618072|183489726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.181
91806492|NCT00618072|183489726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.026
91887267|NCT00474526|183667627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|6.0||||||95.0|-3.6|15.2|||ANOVA|||PT (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||15.2|-3.6|
91887268|NCT00474526|183667627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|8.2|||ANOVA|||FHA (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||8.2|-10.2|
91887269|NCT00474526|183667627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.6|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||10.6|-7.2|
91887270|NCT00474526|183667627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL) (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||3.6|-3.1|
91887271|NCT00474526|183667627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.3|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL) (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||5.3|-2.2|
91887272|NCT00132678|183667630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|0.27|0.59|||Log Rank|Adjusting for country|RISPERDAL CONSTA hazard in numerator, placebo hazard in denominator.|||0.59|0.27|<0.001
91887273|NCT00132678|183667631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001||95.0|-8.08|-3.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and double-blind baseline value as covariate.|Change in RISPERDAL CONSTA arm minus change in placebo arm.|||-3.79|-8.08|<0.001
91887274|NCT00132678|183667632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.02||95.0|-3.75|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and double-blind baseline value as covariate.|Change in RISPERDAL CONSTA arm minus change in placebo arm.|||-0.32|-3.75|0.020
91887275|NCT00953147|183667633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in iTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.04|0.35|<0.0001
91756893|NCT03836677|183406504|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.37|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||2.11|1.37|<0.0001
91756894|NCT03836677|183406504|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.80|1.26|0.0001
91756895|NCT03836677|183406505|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.63|0.40|<0.0001
91756896|NCT03836677|183406505|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
91756897|NCT03836677|183406506|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.346||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.509|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||0.509|0.182|0.0003
91756898|NCT03836677|183406506|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.273||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.405|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||0.405|0.140|0.0004
91806493|NCT00618072|183489726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.063
91806494|NCT00618072|183489727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.049
91806495|NCT00618072|183489727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.002
91806496|NCT00618072|183489727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.032
91806497|NCT00618072|183489728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.142
91756899|NCT03836677|183406507|OTHER||Mean ratio to baseline|-0.28||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||0.21|-0.77|0.2515
91756900|NCT03836677|183406507|OTHER||Mean ratio to baseline|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||-0.18|-0.81|0.0040
91756901|NCT00462748|183406526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hochberg's FDR was used to power the study; the power was based on a two-sided p value of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment and stratum; treatment by stratum interaction was assessed.||Ho is no difference in proportion achieving the target of LDL-C \< 2mmol/l.. 240 patients per group give a power of at least 85% to detect a 15% difference in this proportion, assuming the percentage decrease from baseline in LDL-C was 25% in the E/S group and 15% in the two comparator groups. A two-sided 0.025 test to allow for multiple comparisons was used.||||<0.001
91756902|NCT00462748|183406526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hochberg's FDR was used to power the study; the power was based on a two-sided p value of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment and stratum; treatment by stratum interaction was assessed.||Ho is no difference in proportion achieving the target of LDL-C \< 2mmol/l.. 240 patients per group give a power of at least 85% to detect a 15% difference in this proportion, assuming the percentage decrease from baseline in LDL-C was 25% in the E/S group and 15% in the two comparator groups. A two-sided 0.025 test to allow for multiple comparisons was used.||||<0.001
91756903|NCT03429543|183406527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.3|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 1 (TG1) consisting of Placebo, Linagliptin 5 mg and Empagliflozin pooled Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||0.30|-0.99|0.2935
91806498|NCT00618072|183489728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.054
91806499|NCT00618072|183489728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.013
91806500|NCT00618072|183489729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.052
91806501|NCT00618072|183489729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.143
91806502|NCT00618072|183489729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.005
91806503|NCT00618072|183489730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.265
91806504|NCT00618072|183489730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.001
91806505|NCT00618072|183489730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.389
91909533|NCT01902290|183715184|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.45||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.24|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model under a negative binomial distribution assumption adjusting for stratification factors.|Rate ratio = Brodalumab : Placebo|||2.24|0.94|0.096
91806506|NCT00618072|183489731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.025
91806507|NCT00618072|183489731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.162
91806508|NCT00618072|183489731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.562
91806509|NCT00618072|183489732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.016
91806510|NCT00618072|183489732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.03
91806511|NCT00618072|183489732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.150
91806512|NCT00618072|183489733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.648
91806513|NCT00618072|183489733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.094
91806514|NCT00618072|183489733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.054
91756904|NCT03429543|183406527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 1 (TG1) consisting of Placebo, Linagliptin 5 mg and Empagliflozin pooled Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||-0.19|-1.50|0.0116
91806515|NCT00618072|183489734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.092
91806516|NCT00618072|183489734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.730
91806517|NCT00618072|183489734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||<0.001
91756905|NCT03429543|183406527|OTHER|Only after having obtained statistically significant results for both hypotheses of the primary family of hypotheses (TG1), the secondary hypotheses were to compare the individual empagliflozin doses versus placebo based on TG2 and TG3.The ANCOVA utilised a weight of zero for patients who were not in the hypothesis test of interest, a value of 2 for re-randomised patients who were in the hypothesis test of interest and a value of 1 otherwise.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.27|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 2 (TG2) consisting of Placebo, Empagliflozin 25mg Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||0.27|-1.31|0.1943
91756906|NCT03429543|183406527|OTHER|Only after having obtained statistically significant results for both hypotheses of the primary family of hypotheses (TG1), the secondary hypotheses were to compare the individual empagliflozin doses versus placebo based on TG2 and TG3.The ANCOVA utilised a weight of zero for patients who were not in the hypothesis test of interest, a value of 2 for re-randomised patients who were in the hypothesis test of interest and a value of 1 otherwise.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.45|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 3 (TG3) consisting of Placebo, Empagliflozin 10mg Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||-0.45|-1.90|0.0015
91756907|NCT03429543|183406528|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.7|43.7|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference calculated as \[treatment\]-\[placebo\].|Risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 90% confidence interval based on the method of Chan and Zhang. Patients were assigned to the treatment they were randomised to at the initial randomisation.||43.7|-58.7|1.0000
91806518|NCT03143894|183489747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
91806519|NCT03143894|183489748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
91806520|NCT03143894|183489749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91806521|NCT05048784|183489756|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the bioequivalence of treatment A (test 1) to treatment B (reference) for Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.04|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and confidence intervals (Cls) were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the natural-log (In) scale.|||1.040|0.980|
91806522|NCT05048784|183489757|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the bioequivalence of treatment A (test 1) to treatment B (reference) for AUClast.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.055|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.055|0.967|
91806523|NCT05048784|183489758|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the bioequivalence of treatment A (test 1) to treatment B (reference) for AUCinf.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.977|1.065|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.065|0.977|
91806524|NCT05048784|183489760|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the food effect of treatment C (test 2) to treatment A (test 1) for Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.836|1.199|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.199|0.836|
91806525|NCT05048784|183489761|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the food effect of treatment C (test 2) to treatment A (test 1) for AUClast.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.447|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.745|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.745|1.200|
91909534|NCT01902290|183715185|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.046||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.046|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.046|-0.137|0.3290
91887276|NCT00953147|183667633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.84||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in iTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||0.84|0.24|0.0005
91887277|NCT00953147|183667634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.92|0.25|0.0014
91887278|NCT00953147|183667634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.72|0.12|0.0122
91887279|NCT00790400|183667662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<0.0001
91887280|NCT02412735|183667688|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2072.|||
91887281|NCT02412735|183667688|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.6427.|||
91887282|NCT02412735|183667689|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2754.|||
91887283|NCT02412735|183667689|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.9087.|||
91887284|NCT02412735|183667690|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2835.|||
91887285|NCT02412735|183667690|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.4739.|||
91887286|NCT02412735|183667691|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2650.|||
91887287|NCT02412735|183667691|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.7004.|||
91887288|NCT02412735|183667692|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.1945.|||
91887289|NCT02412735|183667692|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.8093.|||
91887290|NCT02412735|183667693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.46|||Regression, Cox|P-value was calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|||2.46|0.50|0.7842
91887291|NCT02412735|183667693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.14|||Regression, Cox|P-value was calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|Hazard ratio and 95% CI were calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|||2.14|0.41|0.8754
91806526|NCT05048784|183489762|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the food effect of treatment C (test 2) to treatment A (test 1) for AUCinf.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.484|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.236|1.783|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.783|1.236|
91887292|NCT02412735|183667694|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2309.|||
91887293|NCT02412735|183667694|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.1241.|||
91887294|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|6.43|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 1||6.43|-5.71|0.9072
91887295|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|2.83|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 1||2.83|-9.51|0.2883
91887296|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.6314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.8|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 3||4.80|-7.90|0.6314
91887297|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|1.56|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 3||1.56|-11.37|0.1366
91887298|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|2.72|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 6||2.72|-10.43|0.2497
91887299|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.43|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 6||0.43|-13.00|0.0666
91887300|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.2147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|2.46|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 12||2.46|-10.91|0.2147
91909535|NCT01902290|183715186|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.03||||0.4549||95.0|-0.049|0.109|||Mixed-effect model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, pooled race group, height and FEV1.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.109|-0.049|0.4549
91806527|NCT01603056|183489765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
91806528|NCT01603056|183489766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.627
91756908|NCT03429543|183406528|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.7|43.7|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference calculated as \[treatment\]-\[placebo\].|Risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 90% confidence interval based on the method of Chan and Zhang. Patients were assigned to the treatment they were randomised to at the initial randomisation.||43.7|-58.7|1.0000
91756909|NCT03429543|183406529|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.68||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and categorical covariate age (baseline) and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of response variable and baseline of response variable-by-visit interaction. Covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model within-patient measurements.||1.49|-2.86|0.4828
91756910|NCT03429543|183406529|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38||||0.7047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and categorical covariate age (baseline) and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of response variable and baseline of response variable-by-visit interaction. Covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model within-patient measurements.||1.88|-2.64|0.7047
91756911|NCT03429543|183406530|OTHER|||||||0.8626|||||||Log Rank|||Time to treatment failure was analysed by Kaplan-Meier estimates up to the end of the study. A log-rank test compared linagliptin and empagliflozin pooled versus placebo up to Week 26.||||0.8626
91756912|NCT03429543|183406530|OTHER|||||||0.2827|||||||Log Rank|||Time to treatment failure was analysed by Kaplan-Meier estimates up to the end of the study. A log-rank test compared linagliptin and empagliflozin pooled versus placebo up to Week 26.||||0.2827
91756913|NCT03429543|183406531|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.41||||0.6438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.49|17.67|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||17.67|-28.49|0.6438
91756914|NCT03429543|183406531|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.18||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.61|-11.74|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||-11.74|-58.61|0.0035
91756915|NCT03429543|183406531|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.62||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|72.7|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||72.70|4.54|0.0310
91756916|NCT03429543|183406531|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.05||||0.1994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.01|53.11|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||53.11|-13.01|0.1994
91756917|NCT03429543|183406532|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||3.41|-0.48|0.1394
91756918|NCT03429543|183406532|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.19|-2.68|0.4476
91806529|NCT01603056|183489767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
91806530|NCT01603056|183489768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.641
91806531|NCT01603056|183489769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.818|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.818
91806532|NCT01603056|183489770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
91806533|NCT01603056|183489771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.497
91806534|NCT01603056|183489772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.222
91806535|NCT01603056|183489773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.438
91806536|NCT01603056|183489774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.465
91806537|NCT01603056|183489775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
91806538|NCT01603056|183489776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.719
91806539|NCT02270957|183489840|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
91806540|NCT02270957|183489841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.587|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.587
91806541|NCT02270957|183489842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||None of the endpoints were met in any pre-specified unbiased Full Analysis Set analysis|Chi-squared|||||||0.587
91806542|NCT02535312|183489857|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
91806543|NCT02535312|183489858|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
91806544|NCT01539538|183489859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of - 15% for lower boundary of 95% confidence interval|difference in proportion|12.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|22.11|||one-sided, z-test|||||22.11|3.69|<0.001
91756919|NCT03429543|183406532|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||3.90|-3.80|0.9789
91756920|NCT03429543|183406532|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||2.99|-5.68|0.5092
91756921|NCT03429543|183406533|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||4.22|-2.40|0.5870
91756922|NCT03429543|183406533|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.88|-4.72|0.3967
91887301|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|-1.55|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 12||-1.55|-15.19|0.0162
91887302|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|2.74|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 18||2.74|-11.69|0.2230
91887303|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|1.45|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 18||1.45|-13.27|0.1152
91756923|NCT03429543|183406533|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|11.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||11.47|-6.42|0.5414
91756924|NCT03429543|183406533|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|10.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||10.13|-10.13|0.9995
91756925|NCT03429543|183406534|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||4.02|-1.03|0.2433
91759883|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|9.96||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.96|-3.87|
91887304|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|4.67|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 24||4.67|-9.75|0.4884
91887305|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.98|-0.25|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 24||-0.25|-14.98|0.0426
91887306|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.3056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|3.54|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 36||3.54|-11.27|0.3056
91756926|NCT03429543|183406534|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||2.56|-2.52|0.9878
91806545|NCT01539538|183489859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|12.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91756927|NCT03429543|183406534|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.33||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|15.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||15.65|-9.00|0.5670
91756928|NCT03429543|183406534|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.62||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||4.95|-18.19|0.2348
91756929|NCT03429543|183406535|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|6.0||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|19.9|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||19.9|-7.7|0.3536
91756930|NCT03429543|183406535|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|11.7||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|26.3|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||26.3|-2.4|0.0914
91756931|NCT03429543|183406535|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|-23.3||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||27.1|-67.9|0.5455
91756932|NCT03429543|183406535|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|-23.3||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||27.1|-67.9|0.5455
91756933|NCT03429543|183406536|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|2.4||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|19.5|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||19.5|-15.2|0.7789
91756934|NCT03429543|183406536|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|10.1||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|28.1|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||28.1|-7.7|0.2548
91756935|NCT03429543|183406536|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|-23.3||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||27.1|-67.9|0.5455
91756936|NCT03429543|183406536|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|26.7||||0.5671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.8|70.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||70.8|-30.8|0.5671
91756937|NCT01600092|183406537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G1||1.07|0.79|
91806546|NCT03897465|183489860|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0||Upper Limit= +Infinity|||||Descriptive analysis of the primary endpoint was provided on per protocol population. The overall difference LomatuellPro (LP) - UrgoTul (UT) of the % of patients meeting main efficacy criterion was calculated with 95% bilateral confidence interval (CI). If lower limit of the 95% CI did not exceed the -10% value of pre-specified non-inferiority margin, non-inferiority had to be accepted. As a sensitivity analysis, the same analysis was performed on mITT (modified Intention-to-treat) population.|||-10|
91887307|NCT02412735|183667695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|1.54|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 36||1.54|-13.59|0.1184
91756938|NCT01600092|183406537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.33|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G2||1.33|0.99|
91806547|NCT02042183|183489929|OTHER|||||||0.1609||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) frequency (\<1.5 or ≥1.5)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1609
91806548|NCT00378378|183489937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.258||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for the change from basline||||0.258
91909536|NCT01902290|183715187|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.128||||0.6317||95.0|-0.396|0.653|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline value.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.653|-0.396|0.6317
91756939|NCT01600092|183406537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|3.74|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G3||3.74|2.75|
91756940|NCT01600092|183406537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.2|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G4||1.20|0.94|
91756941|NCT01600092|183406537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.35|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype P1A\[8\]||1.35|1.00|
91756942|NCT01561963|183406542|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% confidence interval (CI) limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|96.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.56|104.82|||||Apremilast + IV Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUCt of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||104.82|88.56|
91756943|NCT01561963|183406542|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|27.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.63|30.34|||||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUCt of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||30.34|25.63|
91756944|NCT01561963|183406543|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.99|104.12|||||Apremilast + IV Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUC∞ of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||104.12|87.99|
91756945|NCT01561963|183406543|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|27.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.7|30.41|||||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUC∞ of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||30.41|25.70|
91756946|NCT01561963|183406544|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|113.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.18|123.91|||||Apremilast + IV Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of Cmax of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||123.91|103.18|
91756947|NCT01561963|183406544|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.84|62.25|||||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of Cmax of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||62.25|51.84|
91756948|NCT01561963|183406545|OTHER||Median Difference|-0.25||||0.2656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Apremilast + IV Rifampin - Apremilast Alone|Tmax was analyzed using nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||0.00|-0.75|0.2656
91756949|NCT01561963|183406545|OTHER||Median Difference|-0.5||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin - Apremilast Alone|Tmax was analyzed using nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||0.00|-1.00|0.1141
91806549|NCT00378378|183489937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for the change from baseline.||||0.735
91806550|NCT00378378|183489937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.194||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for the change from baseline.||||0.194
91756950|NCT04018313|183406549|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|105.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.91|116.31||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||116.31|95.91|
91756951|NCT04018313|183406549|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax|Ratio of geometric least square means|98.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.76|108.58||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||108.58|89.76|
91806551|NCT00378378|183489938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.361||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for baseline to endpoint||||0.361
91909537|NCT01902290|183715188|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.277||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.936|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline stratification factors.||||1.936|0.843|0.238
91909538|NCT01902290|183715189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.351||95.0|0.78|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for stratification factors.||||2.01|0.78|0.351
91909539|NCT01902290|183715190|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.001||||0.987||95.0|-0.174|0.171|||Mixed-effects model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline AQLQ score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.171|-0.174|0.9870
91759884|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|17.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.18|3.43|
91759885|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|10.22||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.22|-3.59|
91759886|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.57||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.57|-4.10|
91759887|NCT01393639|183411984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|12.48||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.48|-1.25|
91759888|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|8.31||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.31|-7.56|
91759889|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.01|-0.3||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.30|-16.01|
91759890|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.01|-6.2||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.20|-22.01|
91759891|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-4.06||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.06|-19.70|
91759892|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|8.48||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.48|-7.33|
91759893|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-4.98||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.98|-20.80|
91759894|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|8.58||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.58|-9.31|
91759895|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.43|-0.53||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.53|-18.43|
91759896|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.39|-4.44||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.44|-22.39|
91909540|NCT01902290|183715191|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.635||||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|11.089|||Mixed-effect model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, pooled race group, height and AM PEFR.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|Analysis of morning peak flow||11.089|-9.820|0.9053
91909541|NCT01902290|183715191|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.92||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.515|16.354|||Mixed-effects model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, pooled race group, height and PM PEFR.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|Analysis of evening peak flow||16.354|-4.515|0.2661
91756952|NCT04018313|183406549|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|93.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.09|102.68||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||102.68|85.09|
91756953|NCT04018313|183406550|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.96|113.89||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||113.89|94.96|
91756954|NCT04018313|183406550|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.79|108.61||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||108.61|90.79|
91756955|NCT04018313|183406550|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|95.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.36|104.37||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||104.37|87.36|
91756956|NCT04018313|183406551|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|113.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.15|124.11||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||124.11|103.15|
91756957|NCT04018313|183406551|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|103.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.83|113.8||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||113.80|94.83|
91756958|NCT04018313|183406551|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|91.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.87|100.52||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||100.52|83.87|
91756959|NCT03592368|183406802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91756960|NCT03592368|183406804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91756961|NCT03592368|183406805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.12
91909542|NCT01902290|183715192|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.021||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.627|0.586|||Mixed-effect model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, race group, height and PEFR variation.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.586|-8.627|0.0871
91756962|NCT01107665|183406816|OTHER||Log Rank HR|0.784||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|.41|0.49
91756963|NCT02814175|183406824|OTHER|Between group difference|point estimate difference|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|38.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factor which is the duration of prior MTX 15 mg ew use of ≤ 3 months or \> 3 months.||||38.9|17.8|< 0.001
91756964|NCT02170870|183406837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Mean GI symptom score during lipid infusion in controls vs diabetics adjusted for treatment status (ie, exendin or placebo)||||0.06
91909543|NCT00774345|183715196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on the stratified cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups.|||1.15|0.61|0.276
91909544|NCT01627860|183715205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Seizure free rate|23.57||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|49.0|||ANOVA||Difference in Seizure free rate (Monotherapy minus Add on therapy)|||49.00|-4.21|0.0759
91909545|NCT01627860|183715206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean percent change|18.3||||0.7102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.0|117.7|||ANCOVA||Difference in mean percent change of seizure frequency (Monotherapy minus Add on therapy)|||117.7|-81.0|0.7102
91909546|NCT01225731|183715208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|28.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.41|44.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||44.36|13.41|0.001
91756965|NCT02170870|183406837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Mean GI symptom score during lipid infusion in controls vs functional dyspepsia adjusted for treatment status (ie, exendin or placebo)||||0.0001
91756966|NCT00125957|183406839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the mean change MADRS score between Wellbutrin-Placebo and Placebo-Wellbutrin treatment groups||||.04
91756967|NCT00125957|183406840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the median HAM-D score between Wellbutrin-Placebo and Placebo-Wellbutrin treatment groups||||0.09
91756968|NCT04207749|183406849|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in CLCDVA was declared if the upper confidence limit was less than 0.10 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02||Since noninferiority hypotheses are being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Mixed effects repeated measures||Least squares mean difference (LID015385 minus Biofinity).|||0.02|-0.00|
91756969|NCT04207749|183406850|NON_INFERIORITY|Proportion of subjects is presented. Noninferiority in proportion of subjects achieving CLCDVA 20/20 or better in each eye was declared if the lower confidence limit was greater than -0.10.|Difference in proportion|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||Since noninferiority hypotheses are being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Farrington-Manning||Lens difference (LID015385 minus Biofinity)|||0.04|-0.06|
91756970|NCT03416127|183406857|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.031
91756971|NCT03416127|183406858|OTHER|||||||0.963|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.963
91756972|NCT03416127|183406859|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.236
91756973|NCT03416127|183406860|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
91756974|NCT03416127|183406861|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
91756975|NCT03416127|183406862|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.162
91756976|NCT03416127|183406863|OTHER|||||||0.686|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.686
91756977|NCT03416127|183406864|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91756978|NCT03416127|183406865|OTHER|||||||0.945|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.945
91756979|NCT03416127|183406866|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.332
91756980|NCT03416127|183406867|OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.075
91756981|NCT03416127|183406868|OTHER|||||||0.903|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.903
91756982|NCT03416127|183406869|OTHER|||||||0.697|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.697
91756983|NCT03416127|183406870|OTHER|||||||0.668|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.668
91756984|NCT03416127|183406871|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.308
91756985|NCT03416127|183406872|OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.318
91909547|NCT01225731|183715208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.42|71.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||71.58|48.42|<0.001
91756986|NCT03416127|183406873|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.880
91756987|NCT03416127|183406874|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.376
91756988|NCT03416127|183406875|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.210
91756989|NCT03416127|183406876|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.880
91756990|NCT03416127|183406877|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.059
91756991|NCT03416127|183406878|OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.978
91756992|NCT03416127|183406879|OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.122
91756993|NCT03416127|183406880|OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.551
91756994|NCT00924508|183406881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and post-treatment comparison||||<0.001
91756995|NCT00924508|183406881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and post-treatment comparison||||<0.001
91756996|NCT00924508|183406881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and post-treatment comparison||||<0.001
91756997|NCT00741013|183406901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Only a single statistical analysis was performed upon completion of the study.|ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance was performed to determine whether lovastatin or rhAPC effectively reduced endotoxin-induced lung inflammation.||||<0.05
91756998|NCT01754493|183406909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-18.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.44|-12.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in total MADRS symptom scores for MDD. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (wks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-12.63|-23.44|<.05
91756999|NCT01754493|183406910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-20.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.44|-13.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in total GSRS symptom scores for IBS. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (wks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-13.97|-27.44|<0.05
91757000|NCT01754493|183406911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in CGI-MDD score. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-1.03|-2.16|<0.05
91757001|NCT01754493|183406911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in CGI-IBS score. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-1.11|-1.99|<0.05
91757002|NCT01754493|183406912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of overall pain. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||1.10|-1.16|<0.05
91757003|NCT01754493|183406912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.47|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample with all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessed the rate of change in VAS score of pain interfering with daily activities. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a 1st-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (wks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis||2.01|-1.07|<0.05
91757004|NCT01754493|183406912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of headaches. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||1.10|-2.28|<0.05
91757005|NCT01754493|183406912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of back pain. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||.87|-1.56|<0.05
91757006|NCT01754493|183406912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of shoulder pain. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||1.03|-2.00|<0.05
91757007|NCT01754493|183406913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-4.38|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample with all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in PHQ-15 scores of somatization symptoms. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-1.36|-7.39|<0.05
91757008|NCT01452919|183406932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.17||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.170
91757009|NCT01452919|183406933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.109||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 0.5.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.109
91757010|NCT01452919|183406933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.372||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 1.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.372
91757011|NCT01452919|183406933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.555||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 1.5.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.555
91757012|NCT01452919|183406933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.806||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 2.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.806
91757013|NCT01452919|183406934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.762||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.762
91806552|NCT00378378|183489938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.603||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for baseline to endpoint.||||0.603
91806553|NCT00378378|183489938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for baseline to endpoint.||||0.193
91806554|NCT00601458|183489982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.7||||0.005||97.8|-73.6|-8.0||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|ANOVA||The natural log scale treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) and 97.8% CI for the treatment difference were exponentiated and reported as a percentage reduction in 24-h cumulative hydromorphone consumption.|||-8.0|-73.6|0.005
91806555|NCT00601458|183489982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.4||||0.0001||97.8|-81.7|-34.6||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|ANOVA||The natural log scale treatment difference (naproxen - placebo) and 97.8% CI for the treatment difference were exponentiated and reported as a percentage reduction in 24-h cumulative hydromorphone consumption.|||-34.6|-81.7|0.0001
91806556|NCT00601458|183489983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.004||95.0|0.183|2.95||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|Log Rank||Hodges-Lehmann procedure was used to obtain an estimate of the difference in medians and an exact CI for the difference in medians|||2.95|0.183|0.004
91806557|NCT00601458|183489983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.001||95.0|1.77|6.72||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|Log Rank||Hodges-Lehmann procedure was used to obtain an estimate of the difference in medians and an exact CI for the difference in medians|||6.72|1.77|<0.001
91757014|NCT01452919|183406935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.506||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.506
91757015|NCT01452919|183406936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.515||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.515
91909548|NCT01225731|183715208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|61.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.33|73.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||73.37|50.33|<0.001
91757016|NCT01452919|183406939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.966||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.966
91757017|NCT01452919|183406940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.895||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.895
91757018|NCT00151476|183406945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|14.49||||||95.0|3.48|301.64|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|"Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); twenty-fifth (25th) percentile presented due to limited number of subjects.~Index date based on most recent colon and or rectum adenomatous polyps evaluation, most recent duodenal adenomatous polyps evaluation, and most recent desmoids tumors evaluation for Matched Control, Not Matched Celecoxib, and All Celecoxib Treated, respectively.~Only 13 matched pairs identified: p-values not computed in analysis of time-to-event endpoints"||301.64|3.48|
91757019|NCT00151476|183406945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|5.06||||||95.0|3.48|11.76|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||11.76|3.48|
91757020|NCT00151476|183406945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|5.52||||||95.0|3.48|14.49|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||14.49|3.48|
91757021|NCT00151476|183406946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|5.98||||||95.0|0.0|33.77|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||33.77|0.00|
91757022|NCT00151476|183406946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|19.81||||||95.0|0.0|33.77|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||33.77|0.00|
91757023|NCT00151476|183406947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|137.34||||||95.0|104.73|183.48|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile. Index date based on most recent colon and or rectum adenomatous polyps evaluation, most recent duodenal adenomatous polyps evaluation, and most recent desmoids tumors evaluation for Matched Control, Not Matched Celecoxib, and All Celecoxib Treated, respectively.||183.48|104.73|
91757024|NCT00151476|183406947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|169.94||||||95.0|104.73|183.48|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||183.48|104.73|
91757025|NCT00151476|183406948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|11.28||||||95.0|9.07|38.24|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||38.24|9.07|
91757026|NCT00151476|183406949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|20.63||||||95.0|8.05|48.03|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||48.03|8.05|
91757027|NCT00151476|183406949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|40.21||||||95.0|8.31|105.68|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||105.68|8.31|
91757028|NCT00151476|183406949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|19.81||||||95.0|16.03|56.34|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||56.34|16.03|
91757029|NCT00151476|183406949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|20.22||||||95.0|12.35|40.31|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||40.31|12.35|
91757030|NCT00151476|183406951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|21.22||||||95.0|4.07|64.16|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related events (months); 25th percentile.||64.16|4.07|
91757031|NCT00151476|183406951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|19.81||||||95.0|3.68|64.16|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related events (months); 25th percentile.||64.16|3.68|
91757032|NCT03446456|183406958|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in changes of BOLD signal in the brain.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00264||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrected|t-test, 2 sided|||Percentage of BOLD signal change was calculated as the BOLD signal in the right supplementary motor area (SMA, a typical brain area responding to pain stimulation), divided by the BOLD signal of the whole-brain average during the 24 trials of 20-second painful stimulations. The percentage of BOLD signal changes in SMA during the 20-second painful stimulations were compared between the Saline group and the Vasopressin group using an equivalence test.||||0.982
91757033|NCT03446456|183406959|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in heating temperature that was used for the testing phase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.282||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrected|ANCOVA|The drug group (Vasopressin vs. Saline) was set as a between-subject factor. Age and race were treated as covariates.||||||0.269
91757034|NCT03446456|183406960|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in implicit racial biases.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.378|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Drug group (Vasopressin vs. Saline) was set as between-subject factor. Age and race were treated as covariates.||"Response latencies were recorded to calculate the IAT difference score (D). A difference score (D) was calculated based on the following steps: 1) Compute the standard deviation (SD) of response latencies from overall trials; 2) M1 is the mean of the response latencies in the condition where White people and good share the same response key. M2 is the mean of the latencies in the condition where African-American/Asian people and good share the same response key; 3) D = (M2-M1)/SD."||||0.378
91757035|NCT03446456|183406961|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in self-reported pain intensity ratings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrected|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and heating temperature used during the testing phase were treated as covariates.||||||0.014
91757036|NCT04856904|183407003|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.0|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||||-2|-4.4|< 0.0001
91806558|NCT00518986|183489984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3043||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study drug was fixed factor and corresponding baseline value was a covariate.||Since there were two primary outcome measures the Hochberg procedure was used to control overall Type 1 error rate at the 0.05 level. If both p-values for the primary variables were \<= 0.05 the treatment was claimed to be significant for both variables. If 1 p-value was \> 0.05and the other was \<=0.025, the variable with a p-value \<= 0.025 was claimed as significant.||||0.3043
91757037|NCT04856904|183407004|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|=|0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 1: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||0.3|-0.3|= 0.9476
91757038|NCT04856904|183407004|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|=|0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 2: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-0.1|-1.1|= 0.0248
91806559|NCT00518986|183489985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared|P-value for comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test||Since there were two primary outcome measures the Hochberg procedure was used to control overall Type 1 error rate at the 0.05 level. If both p-values for the primary variables were \<= 0.05 the treatment was claimed to be significant for both variables. If 1 p-value was \> 0.05and the other was \<=0.025, the variable with a p-value \<= 0.025 was claimed as significant.||||0.0120
91806560|NCT00518986|183489986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||Nominal p-value is presented, but statistical significance cannot be claimed. As a key secondary variable significance could be claimed only if treatment effect was significant for both primary efficacy variables.|ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline as covariate.||||0.0027
91806561|NCT00518986|183489987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0019
91757039|NCT04856904|183407004|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|=|0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 4: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-0.2|-1.4|= 0.0072
91757040|NCT04856904|183407004|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 8: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-0.7|-2.1|< 0.0001
91757041|NCT04856904|183407004|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.3|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 12: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-1.3|-2.9|< 0.0001
91757042|NCT04856904|183407004|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.6|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 16: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-1.6|-3.8|< 0.0001
91757043|NCT04856904|183407004|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.5|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 20: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-1.5|-3.5|< 0.0001
91757044|NCT01641822|183407020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.743||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|1.238|||Negative binomial regression|||Ratio between rates||1.238|0.446|0.25
91757045|NCT01641822|183407021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.2||The p-value is from an MMRM analysis. The model includes terms for baseline value, previous exacerbations (1, 2, ≥ 3), treatment, visit (categorical), and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in change in FEV1 % predicted||3.2|-0.55|0.16
91757046|NCT01641822|183407022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentages||||0.67
91806562|NCT00518986|183489988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3145|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3145
91806563|NCT00518986|183489989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2196|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2196
91806564|NCT00518986|183489990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2017||||||P-value is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.2017
91806565|NCT00518986|183489991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032||||||P-value from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0032
91806566|NCT00518986|183489992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0207||||||P-value from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0207
91806567|NCT00518986|183489993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0529||||||P-value was generated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0529
91887308|NCT01006980|183667696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.55|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio for death for vemurafenib relative to dacarbazine and the associated 95% confidence interval were computed using an unstratified Cox regression model.|The trial had a power of 80% to detect a hazard ratio of 0.65 for overall survival with an alpha level of 0.045 (an increase in median survival from 8 months for dacarbazine to 12.3 months for vemurafenib), one interim analysis for overall survival at 50% information.||0.55|0.26|<0.0001
91757047|NCT01641822|183407023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.59|||Log Rank|||Comparison of time to exacerbation||1.59|0.50|0.71
91757048|NCT01641822|183407024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.642||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|1.164|||Negative binomial regression|||Comparison of hospitalization rate||1.164|0.355|0.14
91757049|NCT01641822|183407025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|7.82||The p-value is from an MMRM analysis. The model includes terms for baseline value, previous exacerbations (1, 2, ≥ 3), treatment, visit (categorical), and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in change in CFQ-R RSS||7.82|-1.71|0.21
91757050|NCT03847909|183407038|SUPERIORITY|P value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect, age category, baseline eGFR category, baseline Uox value as covariates for adjustment.|Difference of Least Mean Square|5171.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1144.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2929.3|7414.2|||ANCOVA|||||7414.2|2929.3|<0.0001
91806568|NCT00518986|183489994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0011
91806569|NCT00518986|183489995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0064
91806570|NCT00518986|183489996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1072|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1072
91806571|NCT00518986|183489997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0355
91806572|NCT00518986|183489998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0591|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0591
91887309|NCT01006980|183667697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.33|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios for treatment with vemurafenib, as compared with dacarbazine, were estimated with the use of unstratified Cox regression.|The trial had a power of 90% to detect a hazard ratio of 0.55 for progression-free survival with an alpha level of 0.005 (an increase in median survival from 2.5 months for dacarbazine to 4.5 months for vemurafenib).||0.33|0.20|<.0001
91887310|NCT04307940|183667713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|23.51||All p-values were presented using two-sided test with alpha 0.05 and were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||23.51|6.10|0.001
91887311|NCT04307940|183667713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|39.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.08|50.18||All p-values were presented using two-sided test with alpha 0.05 and were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||50.18|29.08|<0.001
91887312|NCT04307940|183667713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.26|35.39||All p-values were presented using two-sided test with alpha 0.05 and were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||35.39|14.26|<0.001
91887313|NCT03445533|183667722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9394||||||p-value was calculated for percentage difference (B-A) using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by metastasis stage and BRAF mutation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|ORR and OS comprise a primary endpoint family; both have a priori hypotheses and were tested for statistical significance.||The ORR was defined as a percentage of subjects meeting criteria of CR and PR to calculate the p-value.||||0.9394
91887314|NCT03445533|183667723|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.955||||0.6775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.186||The p-value was calculated using the log rank test stratified by metastasis stage and BRAF mutation.|Log Rank|ORR and OS comprise a primary endpoint family; both have a priori hypotheses. ORR will be tested first followed by OS.|Hazard ratio and 95% CI (B/A) are estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by metastasis stage and BRAF mutation.|||1.186|0.770|0.6775
91887315|NCT03334253|183667730|SUPERIORITY|"The following assumptions were used in the power calculation:~* 2:1 randomization~* treatment group difference of 0.50D~* standard deviation of 0.80D~* type 1 error of 5% (2-sided)~* up to 10% loss to follow up"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15|||||Atropine - Placebo Adjusted mean difference, adjusting for baseline refractive error, age, iris color (brown vs. not brown), and race (East Asian vs. non-East Asian).|Null Hypothesis: no difference in mean change in SER from baseline to 24 months between the atropine and placebo groups||0.15|-0.19|
91887316|NCT03334253|183667731|SUPERIORITY|"The following assumptions were used in the power calculation:~* 2:1 randomization~* treatment group difference of 0.50D~* standard deviation of 0.80D~* type 1 error of 5% (2-sided)~* up to 10% loss to follow up"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||||Atropine-Placebo Adjusted mean difference, adjusting for baseline refractive error, age, iris color (brown vs. not brown), and race (East Asian vs. non-East Asian).|Null Hypothesis: no difference in mean change in SER from baseline to 24 months between the atropine and placebo groups||0.17|-0.25|
91887317|NCT03926195|183667767|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|19.2|||||Difference in percentage and 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a stratified Mantel-Haenszel test.|||19.2|-7.5|
91887318|NCT03926195|183667769|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.5|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||3.5|-6.4|
91887319|NCT03926195|183667771|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|36.8|||||Difference in medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||36.8|-37.1|
91887320|NCT03926195|183667773|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|20.8|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||20.8|-6.0|
91887321|NCT03926195|183667775|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||0.1|-0.6|
91887322|NCT03926195|183667777|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||1|-3|
91806573|NCT00518986|183489999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0025
91887323|NCT03054337|183667779|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.51|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||1.51|0.29|0.0045
91887324|NCT03054337|183667779|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.21|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.21|0.98|<0.0001
91887325|NCT03054337|183667779|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.7|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.70|1.49|<0.0001
91887326|NCT03054337|183667785|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.55|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.55|0.13|0.0018
91909549|NCT01225731|183715208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|69.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.96|80.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||80.99|58.96|<0.001
91909550|NCT01225731|183715209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|19.37||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.15|33.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||33.58|5.15|0.009
91909551|NCT01225731|183715209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|54.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.63|66.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||66.26|42.63|<0.001
91806574|NCT00518986|183490000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0794||||||P-value for treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0794
91757051|NCT00869401|183407075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.16||Using Logrank Test|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.54|.222
91757052|NCT00869401|183407077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.59|0.183
91757053|NCT00082381|183407084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4% (i.e., noninferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in change in HbA1c between exenatide and insulin glargine is less than 0.4%.)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4602||95.0|-0.09|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.09|0.4602
91757054|NCT00082381|183407085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7839||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7839
91757055|NCT00082381|183407086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91887327|NCT03054337|183667785|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.72|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.72|0.30|<0.0001
91757056|NCT00082381|183407087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91757057|NCT00082381|183407089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3002
91757058|NCT00082381|183407090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3385||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3385
91757059|NCT01786252|183407104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare differences between endometrial glandular and stromal dating within the vehicle group.||||<0.05
91757060|NCT01786252|183407104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare differences between endometrial glandular and stromal dating within the hCG group.||||>0.05
91757061|NCT01786252|183407104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare stromal staging between hCG and IVF media group.||||<0.01
91757062|NCT01786252|183407104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare differences between endometrial glandular dating between hCG and IVF media groups.||||>0.05
91757063|NCT01786252|183407105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91757064|NCT01786252|183407106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91757065|NCT01786252|183407107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91757066|NCT03322423|183407119|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.01 logMAR for distance.|Least-Square Mean Estimate|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.035|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.035|-0.080|
91757067|NCT03322423|183407119|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.01 logMAR for distance.|Least-Square Mean Estimate|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.054|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.054|-0.099|
91757068|NCT03322423|183407120|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.17 logMAR for near.|LS Mean Estimate|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.17|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.170|0.112|
91757069|NCT03322423|183407120|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.17 logMAR for near.|LS Mean Estimate|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.17|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.170|0.112|
91757070|NCT03322423|183407121|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was above 32 CLUE points.|LS Mean Estimate|45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|49.9|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||49.9|41.2|
91757071|NCT03322423|183407121|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was above 32 CLUE points.|LS Mean Estimate|46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|50.8|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||50.8|42.1|
91757072|NCT02453555|183407133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 in Empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 in Linagliptin 5 mg + Placebo 10 mg group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.91|-1.36|<0.0001
91806575|NCT00518986|183490001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0888||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0888
91806576|NCT00518986|183490002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0433
91806577|NCT00518986|183490003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0105
91887328|NCT03054337|183667785|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.86|0.45|<0.0001
91887329|NCT03054337|183667785|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.01|-0.01|0.7804
91887330|NCT03054337|183667785|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.00|0.0986
91887331|NCT03054337|183667785|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.00|0.1661
91757073|NCT02453555|183407135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in All Empagliflozin group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in All Placebo group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.99|-1.45|<0.0001
91757074|NCT02453555|183407136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in Empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in Linagliptin 5 mg + Placebo 25 mg group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.96|-1.45|<0.0001
91757075|NCT02453555|183407137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in Empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in All Placebo group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.84|-1.34|<0.0001
91757076|NCT03045341|183407138|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||BWL versus no BWL||||0.0001
91757077|NCT03045341|183407138|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||NB versus placebo||||0.58
91757078|NCT03045341|183407139|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||BWL versus no BWL||||0.0001
91757079|NCT03045341|183407139|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||NB versus placebo||||0.63
91757080|NCT03045341|183407140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||Analyses used all available data.||||.004
91757081|NCT03178669|183407146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1806|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|5.47||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.47|0.75|0.1806
91757082|NCT03178669|183407146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6649|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|2.24||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.24|0.20|0.6649
91757083|NCT03178669|183407146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.53|9.47||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.47|1.53|0.0247
91887332|NCT03054337|183667787|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.942||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.2|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||5.20|1.40|0.0010
91887333|NCT03054337|183667787|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.953|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|7.22|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||7.22|3.38|<0.0001
91887334|NCT03054337|183667787|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|9.11|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||9.11|5.37|<0.0001
91757084|NCT03178669|183407146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.52|3.88||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.88|0.52|0.3279
91887335|NCT03054337|183667787|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.22|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.22|-0.39|0.5889
91909552|NCT01225731|183715209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|56.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.43|68.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||68.03|44.43|<0.001
91806578|NCT00518986|183490004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0523|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0523
91806579|NCT00518986|183490005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0289
91806580|NCT00518986|183490006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1272|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1272
91806581|NCT00518986|183490007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0349|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0349
91806582|NCT00518986|183490008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0094
91806583|NCT00518986|183490009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0754|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0754
91806584|NCT00518986|183490010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0105
91757085|NCT03178669|183407147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2115|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|4.99||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.99|0.69|0.2115
91757086|NCT03178669|183407147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|1.34||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.34|0.06|0.8498
91757087|NCT03178669|183407147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.01|6.62||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.62|1.01|0.0977
91806585|NCT00518986|183490011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2888|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2888
91757088|NCT03178669|183407147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|2.84||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.84|0.32|0.5220
91757089|NCT03178669|183407148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|2.94||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.94|0.74|0.2335
91806586|NCT00518986|183490012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0130
91806587|NCT00518986|183490013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0354|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0354
91806588|NCT00518986|183490014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3854||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are subjects with worst fatigue score \< 7 after baseline||||0.3854
91806589|NCT00518986|183490015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders were defined as subjects with worst fatigue score \< 7||||0.0145
91806590|NCT00518986|183490016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6475||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders were patients with worst fatigue scores \< 7||||0.6475
91806591|NCT00518986|183490017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are subjects with worst fatigue score \< 7||||0.0118
91757090|NCT03178669|183407148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|2.69||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.69|0.73|0.2511
91757091|NCT03178669|183407148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.96|3.52||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.52|0.96|0.1162
91757092|NCT03178669|183407148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|2.4||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.40|0.63|0.3467
91806592|NCT00518986|183490018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3483||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from the Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Responders are subjects with a worst fatigue score of \< 7||||0.3483
91806593|NCT00518986|183490019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0879|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0879
91806594|NCT00518986|183490020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0277|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0277
91806595|NCT00518986|183490021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1245|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1245
91806596|NCT00518986|183490022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0305|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0305
91806597|NCT00518986|183490023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0129
91887336|NCT03054337|183667787|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.34|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.34|-0.27|0.8074
91887337|NCT03054337|183667787|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.6952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.24|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.24|-0.36|0.6952
91887338|NCT03054337|183667789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3702|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.3702
91887339|NCT03054337|183667789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5524|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.5524
91757093|NCT03178669|183407149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.6326|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.5||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.50|0.50|0.6326
91757094|NCT03178669|183407149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.37||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.37|0.45|0.7127
91757095|NCT03178669|183407149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.2658|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|2.34||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.34|0.75|0.2658
91757096|NCT03178669|183407149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.8301|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|1.16||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.16|0.36|0.8301
91757097|NCT03178669|183407150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|1.27||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.27|0.32|0.7994
91757098|NCT03178669|183407150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.16|0.72||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.72|0.16|0.9665
91757099|NCT03178669|183407150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|2.82||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.82|0.80|0.2049
91757100|NCT03178669|183407150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|1.6||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.60|0.42|0.6504
91757101|NCT03178669|183407151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.9207|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.18|0.93||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.93|0.18|0.9207
91887340|NCT03054337|183667789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1589|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.1589
91887341|NCT03054337|183667789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.0092
91887342|NCT03054337|183667789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||<0.0001
91887343|NCT03054337|183667789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||<0.0001
91757102|NCT03178669|183407151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.9228|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|0.92||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.92|0.19|0.9228
91757103|NCT03178669|183407151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.39|1.61||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.61|0.39|0.6636
91757104|NCT03178669|183407151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.34|1.41||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.41|0.34|0.7449
91806598|NCT00518986|183490024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0308
91887344|NCT03054337|183667791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9092|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.9092
91887345|NCT03054337|183667791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1484|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.1484
91757105|NCT02914561|183407152|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||20.7|4.7|0.0017
91757106|NCT02914561|183407152|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.2||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||12.7|-2.4|0.1730
91887346|NCT03054337|183667791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1313|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.1313
91887347|NCT03054337|183667793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.1080
91887348|NCT03054337|183667793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.0002
91887349|NCT03054337|183667793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||<0.0001
91887350|NCT03054337|183667793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0672|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0672
91909553|NCT01225731|183715209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|67.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.42|78.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||78.88|56.42|<0.001
91909554|NCT01225731|183715210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|31.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.22|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||46.0|16.22|<0.001
91757107|NCT02914561|183407152|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||19.9|4.1|0.0023
91757108|NCT02914561|183407152|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|1.8||||0.6038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||8.7|-5.2|0.6038
91757109|NCT02914561|183407153|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.5||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of corticosteroids (Yes/No), immunomodulators (Yes/No), and prior exposure to biologic agents (0, \>=1) at Day 1.||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||12.9|-2.0|0.1365
91887351|NCT03054337|183667793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0004
91887352|NCT03054337|183667793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||<0.0001
91887353|NCT03054337|183667800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0895|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0895
91887354|NCT03054337|183667800|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91887355|NCT03054337|183667800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3845|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3845
91887356|NCT02838979|183667812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.15
91887357|NCT02838979|183667813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.18||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.86
91887358|NCT02838979|183667814|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.44
91887359|NCT02838979|183667815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.36
91887360|NCT02838979|183667816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.87||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.60
91887361|NCT01762904|183667817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91887362|NCT01762904|183667818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91887363|NCT01762904|183667819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91887364|NCT00609947|183667822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.8|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||"The null and alternative hypotheses were:~H0: µSVS ≥µM H1: µSVS \< µM where µSVS was the mean in-segment 8-month percent diameter stenosis for the SVS study and µM was the mean in-segment 6-month percent diameter stenosis for Micro-Driver."|t-test, 2 sided|The sample size was not reduced below 158 evaluable subjects in order to support the analysis of the primary safety endpoint.||The 8-month in-segment percent diameter stenosis from Endeavor SVS subjects was compared to the 6-month in-segment percent diameter stenosis from Micro Driver subjects. This study assessed the superiority of SVS against the Micro-Driver regarding in-segment percent diameter stenosis at 8 months post procedure.||||<0.001
91887365|NCT00609947|183667823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0041|ONE_SIDED|95.0||20.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null and alternative hypotheses of interest are:~H0: xSVS \>= 20% vs. H1: xSVS \< 20%, where x is the true SVS 12-month MACE rate.~The assessment of the null hypothesis will be carried out at the one-sided 0.05 level of significance. Rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the SVS 12-month MACE rate is significantly below 20%."||20||0.0041
91887366|NCT00874731|183667841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.76|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|3.76|-2.80|
91887367|NCT00874731|183667844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|2.74|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|2.74|-3.83|
91887368|NCT00874731|183667845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.14|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|2.14|-4.50|
91887369|NCT00874731|183667846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.79|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|3.79|-2.85|
91887370|NCT00874731|183667847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.47|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|4.47|-2.10|
91806599|NCT00518986|183490025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0679
91909555|NCT01225731|183715210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|55.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.48|66.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||66.63|44.48|<0.001
91757110|NCT02914561|183407153|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|2.4||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||9.5|-4.8|0.5103
91757111|NCT02914561|183407153|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|0.1||||0.9797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of corticosteroids (Yes/No), immunomodulators (Yes/No), and prior exposure to biologic agents (\<=1, \>1) at Day 1.||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||6.6|-6.5|0.9797
91757112|NCT02914561|183407153|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|2.4||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||8.8|-3.9|0.4264
91757113|NCT02914561|183407154|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|13.7||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||28.4|-1.0|0.0839
91757114|NCT02914561|183407154|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.8288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||15.0|-12.1|0.8288
91757115|NCT02914561|183407155|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|20.6||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||33.1|8.2|0.0038
91757116|NCT02914561|183407155|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.8||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||18.3|-6.6|0.3466
91806600|NCT00518986|183490026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0153
91909556|NCT01225731|183715210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|59.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.6|70.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||70.55|48.60|<0.001
91909557|NCT01225731|183715210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|72.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.02|82.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||82.37|62.02|<0.001
91909558|NCT00577642|183715221|OTHER|single group|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-tests were used to compare differences of NTX cytokine levels at study entry versus end-of-study.||||<0.05
91757117|NCT02914561|183407156|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|6.9||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||15.2|-1.4|0.0963
91757118|NCT02914561|183407156|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|4.2||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||12.2|-3.9|0.3050
91757119|NCT02914561|183407156|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|11.9||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||20.2|3.7|0.0039
91757120|NCT02914561|183407156|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|1.1||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||8.5|-6.2|0.7556
91757121|NCT02914561|183407157|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, ≥1).||20.8|3.2|0.0074
91757122|NCT02914561|183407157|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.5||||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|14.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, ≥1).||14.1|-3.2|0.2159
91757123|NCT02914561|183407157|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|11.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||20.6|2.6|0.0110
91757124|NCT02914561|183407157|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|8.2||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||16.7|-0.4|0.0593
91757125|NCT02914561|183407158|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|16.8||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||31.6|2.0|0.0382
91909559|NCT01556425|183715222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|21.6|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||21.6|0.2|0.48
91909560|NCT01556425|183715222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.6|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.6|0.1|0.61
91909561|NCT01556425|183715222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|54.9|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||54.9|0.7|0.11
91909562|NCT01556425|183715222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|24.9|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||24.9|0.3|0.39
91909563|NCT01556425|183715222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|85.5|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||85.5|1.3|0.03
91909564|NCT01556425|183715223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.4|0.1|0.30
91909565|NCT01556425|183715223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.2|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.2|0.03|0.08
91909566|NCT01556425|183715223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.8|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||5.8|0.1|0.91
91909567|NCT01556425|183715223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|15.8|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||15.8|0.4|0.34
91909568|NCT01556425|183715223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|26.1|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||26.1|0.8|0.09
91909569|NCT01783080|183715224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
91806601|NCT00518986|183490027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0296|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0296
91806602|NCT00518986|183490028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0107
91909570|NCT01783080|183715226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
91909571|NCT00853671|183715255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Pearson Correlation|||||||<0.0001
91909572|NCT00853671|183715257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Pearson Correlation|||Pearson Correlation||||<0.0001
91909573|NCT04099251|183715270|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||Regression, Cox|||||0.59|0.30|< 0.0001
91909574|NCT04311502|183715282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.79|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).|Arm 1 vs Arm 2|This comparison is adjusting for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).||1.79|0.82|0.21
91909575|NCT04311502|183715283|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.45|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|"The point estimate and 90% two-sided confidence intervals for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a Grade 3 or higher AE that is at least one-grade increase from baseline at any time during the 65-week study period was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.~This outcome measure is limited to data obtained up to September 25, 2023."||0.45|0.14|<0.01
91909576|NCT04311502|183715283|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.44|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|"The point estimate and 90% two-sided confidence intervals for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a Grade 3 or higher AE that is at least one-grade increase from baseline at any time during the 65-week study period was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.~All data through week 65."||0.44|0.11|<0.01
91909577|NCT04311502|183715284|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|The point estimate and 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a favorable outcome through week 65 was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||-0.06|-0.47|0.01
91909578|NCT04311502|183715285|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.04|||Wald chi-square||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|The point estimate and 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a favorable outcome through week 65 was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||-0.04|-0.46|0.02
91909579|NCT04311502|183715286|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to test for a difference in proportions|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||Fisher Exact||Difference in proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2); exact confidence interval|||0.05|-0.22|0.35
91909580|NCT04311502|183715288|SUPERIORITY||GEE|24.04|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.13|32.94|||Regression, Linear|||||32.94|15.13|<0.01
91909581|NCT04311502|183715290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|21.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Compares the odds of participants having maximum occurrence of QTcF change from baseline of ≥30 ms and \<60 ms, or ≥60 ms between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the safety set using the proportional odds model.||21.30|2.40|<0.01
91909582|NCT04311502|183715290|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.41|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.58|||exact unconditional||Arm 1 - Arm 2|Proportion of Participants with Worst Changes in QTcF from Screening \>= 30 ms over visits at Weeks 2, 8, 13||0.58|0.17|<0.01
91909583|NCT04311502|183715291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.8||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for HIV status (positive/negative) and TB disease according to chest X-ray (advanced/not advanced)|Arm 1 vs. Arm 2|||1.80|0.84|0.18
91909584|NCT04311502|183715292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.71||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|||This comparison is adjusting for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).||1.71|0.80|0.25
91909585|NCT04311502|183715293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.35|||Fisher Exact|||||0.35|-0.07|0.23
91909586|NCT04311502|183715294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24|||Fisher Exact|||||0.24|-0.11|0.56
91909587|NCT04311502|183715295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.18|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|The point estimate and 90% two-sided confidence intervals for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing an SAE through week 65 was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||0.18|-0.04|0.27
91909588|NCT04311502|183715296|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to test for a difference in proportions|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||Fisher Exact||Difference in proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2); exact confidence interval|||0.13|-0.10|1
91909589|NCT04311502|183715297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Screening||1.39|0.57|0.597
91909590|NCT04311502|183715297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Entry||1.44|0.58|0.70
91909591|NCT04311502|183715297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 2||1.03|0.40|0.07
91909592|NCT04311502|183715297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 4||0.98|0.34|0.04
91757126|NCT02914561|183407158|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.8||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||20.0|-8.5|0.4263
91757127|NCT02914561|183407159|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|10.9||||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|26.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||26.4|-4.7|0.1827
91757128|NCT02914561|183407159|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|4.0||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||19.2|-11.1|0.5944
91806603|NCT00518986|183490029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as patients with a total score on FOSQ \> 17.9||||0.0100
91806604|NCT00518986|183490030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0854||95.0||||P-value for treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects with a total score of \> 17.9||||0.0854
91806605|NCT00518986|183490031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects with a total score \> 17.9||||0.0027
91806606|NCT00518986|183490032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0189||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects who had a total score of \> 17.9||||0.0189
91909593|NCT04311502|183715297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.67|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 6||1.67|0.41|0.60
91909594|NCT04311502|183715297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.88|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 8||1.88|0.33|0.595
91909595|NCT04311502|183715297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.44|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 10||2.44|0.25|0.66
91757129|NCT02914561|183407160|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|15.2||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||29.3|1.0|0.0512
91909596|NCT04311502|183715297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.39|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 12||6.39|0.21|0.86
91909597|NCT04311502|183715298|SUPERIORITY||Slope|20.43|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|35.16|||Regression, Linear|||This comparison is adjusting for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).||35.16|5.71|<0.01
91909598|NCT05032157|183715315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by week and interaction of baseline score by week.|UAS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 1 with UAS7 as primary efficacy endpoint)||-5.46|-9.91|< 0.001
91909599|NCT05032157|183715316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti- IgE, biologics, week, baseline score, and both interaction of treatment by week and interaction of baseline score by week.|ISS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-2.16|-4.29|<0.001
91909600|NCT05032157|183715317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.634|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti- IgE biologics, week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by week and interaction of baseline score by week.|HSS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-3.23|-5.71|< 0.001
91909601|NCT05032157|183715318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|6.18|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|Disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) at Week 12||6.18|2.39|< 0.001
91909602|NCT05032157|183715319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|11.78|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|Complete absence of hives and itch (UAS7 = 0) at Week 12||11.78|2.83|< 0.001
91909603|NCT05032157|183715320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|16.85|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|Early onset of disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) at Week 2||16.85|3.72|< 0.001
91909604|NCT05032157|183715321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.58|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics and baseline DLQI score.|Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) = 0-1 at Week 12||4.58|1.65|< 0.001
91909605|NCT05032157|183715322|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|3.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.71|||Regression, Linear||Negative binomial regression with log link includes treatment arm as fixed effect, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics as covariates. A rate ratio \>1 favors LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|Disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) up to Week 12||4.71|2.26|< 0.001
91909606|NCT05032157|183715323|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.49|||Regression, Linear||Negative binomial regression with log link included treatment arm as fixed effect, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, baseline AAS7 = 0 response as covariates. A rate ratio \> 1 favors LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|Angioedema occurrence-free weeks (AAS7 = 0 response) up to Week 12||1.49|1.17|< 0.001
91909607|NCT02049944|183715339|OTHER|we used t-test on the regression coefficient for the group indicator to test for differences in means categorical variables were evaluated using fisher's exact test of association linear regression for log transformed start adipose concentrations were calculated by dose specific group|Median Difference (Final Values)|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||To detect the number of subjects who obtained a minimal inhibitory concentration (\>4mg/ml) following increased 3g dose of cefazolin. Compare this number to the historical cohort who had received 2g of cefazolin (standard dosing)||||
91909608|NCT00631371|183715350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Log Rank|||P value was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior nephrectomy \[yes/no\] and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center \[MSKCC\] risk factors \[good/intermediate/poor\] at time of randomization). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.3|0.9|0.8
91909609|NCT00631371|183715351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||Log Rank|||P-value was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior nephrectomy \[yes/no\] and MSKCC risk factors \[good/intermediate/poor\] at time of randomization). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.4|1.0|0.9
91909610|NCT00631371|183715352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value (2-sided), risk ratio and associated 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior nephrectomy and MSKCC risk group as randomized.||1.3|0.8|1.0
91909611|NCT00631371|183715353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Log Rank|||P value was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior nephrectomy \[yes/no\] and MSKCC risk factors \[good/intermediate/poor\] at time of randomization). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.3|0.9|0.6
91909612|NCT03354663|183715364|OTHER|Single arm trial|Proportion|0.047|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0864|||Binomial Exact Test|||"The hypothesis is formally expressed as:~H0: P ≥ 16.2% Ha: P \< 16.2%, where P is the percentage of subjects with a primary safety endpoint event. The hypothesis will be tested based on a one-sided exact test of binomial proportions at the one-sided 0.05 alpha level."||0.0864||<0.0001
91757130|NCT02914561|183407160|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|-0.2||||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||13.0|-13.3|0.9801
91806607|NCT00518986|183490033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects with total score \> 17.9||||0.0240
91806608|NCT00518986|183490034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3320
91806609|NCT00518986|183490035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8930
91909613|NCT03354663|183715365|OTHER|"The hypothesis is formally expressed as:~H0: P \< 90% Ha: P ≥ 90%, where P is the percentage of subjects with acute success. The hypothesis will be tested based on a one-sided exact test of binomial proportions at the one-sided 0.05 alpha level. Rejection of the null hypothesis will indicate study success."|Proportion|0.98||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.9495||||Binomial Exact Test||||||0.9495|0.0001
91909614|NCT03354663|183715370|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate|82.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.7|87.6|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from recurrence at 1-year|Kaplan Meier Estimate of freedom from recurrence.||87.6|74.7|
91909615|NCT03354663|183715371|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier survival estimate|68.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|75.1||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from recurrence or need for anti-arrhythmic medication||75.1|59.9|
91757131|NCT02914561|183407161|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|14.0||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||33.1|-5.1|0.1900
91909616|NCT03691974|183715385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.4||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.32||Analyses are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.32|-0.55|0.4192
91909617|NCT03691974|183715386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.80|-0.00|0.0521
91909618|NCT03691974|183715387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.15||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||3.15|-0.52|0.1593
91909619|NCT03691974|183715388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.7757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.19||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.19|-1.59|0.7757
91909620|NCT03691974|183715389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.09||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.09|-1.87|0.6063
91909621|NCT03691974|183715390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.39||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.39|-3.30|0.4203
91909622|NCT03691974|183715391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.123|-0.538||Analyses are based on multiple imputation with MMRM model with terms for baseline WOMAC subscale score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-0.538|-2.123|0.0010
91909623|NCT03691974|183715392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.212|-0.625||Analyses were based on multiple imputation with MMRM model with terms for baseline WOMAC subscale score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-0.625|-2.212|0.0005
91909624|NCT03962439|183715402|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|F-value|1.61||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and education.||Repeated measures ANCOVA testing whether change in episodic memory from baseline to 16 weeks interacted with condition (Time x Condition).||||.211
91757132|NCT02914561|183407161|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|-5.5||||0.4248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||11.6|-22.6|0.4248
91757133|NCT02914561|183407162|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|19.9||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|34.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||34.0|5.7|0.0122
91757134|NCT02914561|183407162|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|2.0||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||16.1|-12.0|0.7708
91757135|NCT02914561|183407163|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|32.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||32.3|-8.3|0.2631
91757136|NCT02914561|183407163|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|-3.4||||0.6444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|14.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||14.0|-20.9|0.6444
91757137|NCT01300455|183407172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|5.09|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||5.09|0.22|
91757138|NCT01300455|183407175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|0.42|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.42|-0.49|
91757139|NCT01300455|183407175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.33|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.33|-0.45|
91757140|NCT01300455|183407176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|2.79|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||2.79|-1.31|
91806610|NCT00518986|183490036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1774||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1774
91909625|NCT03962439|183715404|OTHER|Null hypothesis significance testing|F-value|1.66||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and education.||Repeated measures ANCOVA testing whether change in speed of processing from baseline to 16 weeks interacted with condition (Time x Condition).||||.203
91909626|NCT03962439|183715406|OTHER|Null hypothesis significance testing|F-value|0.28||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and education.||Repeated measures ANCOVA testing whether change in reasoning from baseline to week 16 interacted with condition (Time x Condition).||||.760
91909627|NCT00746252|183715415|OTHER|||||||0.495||||||Threshold of significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean weight gain between groups.||||.495
91909628|NCT01137773|183715453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91909629|NCT01137773|183715454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
91757141|NCT01300455|183407176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.59|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.59|-0.10|
91757142|NCT01300455|183407176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|1.01|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||1.01|-0.59|
91757143|NCT01300455|183407176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.65|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.65|-0.09|
91909630|NCT00439946|183715455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.84
91909631|NCT00439946|183715456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
91909632|NCT00439946|183715457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
91909633|NCT00439946|183715458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||0.50
91909634|NCT00439946|183715459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.00
91909635|NCT00439946|183715460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||0.50
91909636|NCT00439946|183715461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.0
91909637|NCT00439946|183715462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||0.75
91757144|NCT01300455|183407177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.49|||Difference of Least Squares Means|||Day 1, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.49|-0.61|
91757145|NCT01300455|183407177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.5|||Difference of the Least Sqares Means|||Day 1, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.50|-0.41|
91806611|NCT00518986|183490037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1000
91909638|NCT00439946|183715463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.0
91757146|NCT01300455|183407177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.1|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.10|-1.13|
91757147|NCT01300455|183407177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.5|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.50|-0.24|
91757148|NCT01300455|183407177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.43|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.43|-0.40|
91757149|NCT01300455|183407177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.25|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.25|-0.61|
91757150|NCT01300455|183407178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|2.26|||Difference of Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||2.26|-3.20|
91909639|NCT00439946|183715464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.00
91909640|NCT00439946|183715465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95||95.0||||p-value for: Gather/set-up|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.95
91909641|NCT00439946|183715465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0||||p-value for: Prepare drug|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.02
91909642|NCT00439946|183715465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0||||p-value for: Connect drug|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.20
91909643|NCT00439946|183715465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0||||p-value for: Change dressing|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.48
91909644|NCT00439946|183715465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0||||p-value for: Total time|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.11
91887371|NCT00874731|183667848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|5.78|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|5.78|-0.79|
91887372|NCT00874731|183667849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.76|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|5.76|-0.80|
91887373|NCT00874731|183667850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.17|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|7.17|0.60|
91887374|NCT00874731|183667851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|1.86|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|1.86|-4.85|
91887375|NCT00790205|183667896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.09|0.88|<0.001
91757151|NCT00651625|183407198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||non-applicable|||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||group comparisons using t-test and confidence intervals.||||0.05
91887376|NCT00790205|183667897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.08|0.89|<0.001
91887377|NCT00790205|183667898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.11|0.89|<0.001
91887378|NCT00790205|183667899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.10|0.89|<0.001
91757152|NCT04583956|183407269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.61|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation (MI) for participants lost to follow-up before Day 8 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital while participants lost to follow-up after discharge to home are assigned a score of 2.||1.61|0.59|0.927
91757153|NCT04583956|183407270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Odds ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal score, age, and baseline C-Reactive Protein (CRP).||2.25|0.36|0.829
91757154|NCT04583956|183407271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||1.56|0.84|0.399
91757155|NCT04583956|183407272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.71|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for those lost to follow-up before Day 15 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 after discharge are given a score of 2.||1.71|0.62|0.910
91757156|NCT04583956|183407273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.93|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for those lost to follow-up before Day 15 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 after discharge are given a score of 2.||1.93|0.68|0.617
91757157|NCT04583956|183407306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.46|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Hazard ratio (HR), confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||1.46|0.82|0.550
91757158|NCT04583956|183407307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.48|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Hazard ratio (HR), confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||1.48|0.82|0.523
91806612|NCT00518986|183490038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2428||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2428
91806613|NCT00518986|183490039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1816||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1816
91806614|NCT00518986|183490040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1627||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1627
91887379|NCT00790205|183667900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in mortality due to all causes was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.24|0.91|0.435
91757159|NCT01370265|183407310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for hyperemic global MBF between Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention), alpha level of 0.05.||||0.14
91757160|NCT01370265|183407312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Cardiac Flow Rate (CFR) between Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention), alpha level of 0.05||||0.21
91887380|NCT00790205|183667901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in mortality due to all causes was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.14|0.90|0.875
91887381|NCT00790205|183667902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group and history of CHF at baseline as explanatory variables.||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in CHF cases requiring hospitalization was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.19|0.81|0.858
91909645|NCT00439946|183715466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0||||p-value for: CAMPHOR Symptom Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.31
91909646|NCT00439946|183715466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84||95.0||||p-value for CAMPHOR Activity Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.84
91757161|NCT01370265|183407313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention), for Hyperemic MBF Anterior, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.57
91806615|NCT00518986|183490041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0018
91806616|NCT00518986|183490042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0096
91806617|NCT00518986|183490043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0126||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0126
91757162|NCT01370265|183407313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for Hyperemic MBF Septum, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.13
91757163|NCT01370265|183407313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention)for Hyperemic MBF Inferior, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.44
91757164|NCT01370265|183407313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for Hyperemic MBF Lateral, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.74
91757165|NCT01370265|183407314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention for CFR Anterior, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.78
91887382|NCT00790205|183667903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group and history of CHF at baseline as explanatory variables.||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in CHF cases requiring hospitalization was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.20|0.83|0.983
91887383|NCT00790205|183667910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.77|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.77|0.61|<0.001
91909647|NCT00439946|183715466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0||||p-value for CAMPHOR Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.03
91909648|NCT00439946|183715466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0||||p-value for CAMPHOR Total Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.22
91887384|NCT00790205|183667911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.79|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.79|0.63|<0.001
91887385|NCT00790205|183667912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.75|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.75|0.65|<0.001
91887386|NCT00790205|183667913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.77|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.77|0.68|<0.001
91887387|NCT01993849|183667923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.59||The p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.59|-3.81|0.69
91887388|NCT00422734|183667943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required for this variable|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
91887389|NCT00422734|183667944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Subject. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. To adjust for multiplicity, statistical significance at 0.025 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
91887390|NCT00422734|183667944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Partner. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. To adjust for multiplicity, statistical significance at 0.025 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
91887391|NCT00422734|183667945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
91887392|NCT00422734|183667946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
91887393|NCT00422734|183667947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for subject scores|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
91887394|NCT00422734|183667947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for partner scores|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
91887395|NCT00422734|183667948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for SEP Question 2. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
91887396|NCT00422734|183667948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for SEP Question 3. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
91757166|NCT01370265|183407314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for CFR Septum, alpha level of 0.05||||0.42
91757167|NCT01370265|183407314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention for CFR Inferior, alpha level of 0.05||||0.96
91757168|NCT01370265|183407314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for CFR Lateral, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.13
91757169|NCT01370265|183407315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for resting heart rate, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.28
91757170|NCT01370265|183407315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for hyperemic heart rate, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.51
91887397|NCT00422734|183667949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for SEP Question 4|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
91887398|NCT00422734|183667949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for SEP Question 5|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
91887399|NCT00422734|183667950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
91887400|NCT00422734|183667951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
91887401|NCT00422734|183667952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 1|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
91887402|NCT00422734|183667952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 2|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
91887403|NCT00422734|183667953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 1|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
91887404|NCT00422734|183667953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 2|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
91887405|NCT00422734|183667954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEP Question 1|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
91757171|NCT01370265|183407316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for systolic blood pressure, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.31
91887406|NCT00422734|183667954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEP Question 2|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
91887407|NCT00422734|183667955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Total Score|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
91887408|NCT00422734|183667955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Sexual Relationship|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
91887409|NCT00422734|183667955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Confidence|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
91887410|NCT00422734|183667956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Self-Esteem|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
91887411|NCT00422734|183667956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Overall Relationship|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
91887412|NCT00848484|183667957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.277
91757172|NCT01370265|183407316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for diastolic blood pressure, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.08
91757173|NCT01115673|183407328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|469.37|||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.|SPRID6 = 0.25 times (PRID at 15 min + PRID at 30 min + PRID at 45 min + PRID at 60 min + PRID at 75 min + PRID at 90 min) + 0.5 times (PRID at 120 minutes) + PRID at 3 hours + PRID at 4 hours + PRID at 5 hours + PRID at 6 hours.|First test H1: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs placebo at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level; If H1 was rejected then, Test H2: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs acetaminophen 650 mg, and Test H3: acetaminophen 650 mg vs placebo; H2 and H3 were each tested at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level.||||<0.001
91887413|NCT00848484|183667958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among five secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
91887414|NCT00848484|183667959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among five secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.933
91887415|NCT00848484|183667960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among 5 secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
91887416|NCT00848484|183667961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among five secondary cognition endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
91757174|NCT01115673|183407328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|102.09||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.|SPRID6 = 0.25 times (PRID at 15 min + PRID at 30 min + PRID at 45 min + PRID at 60 min + PRID at 75 min + PRID at 90 min) + 0.5 times (PRID at 120 minutes) + PRID at 3 hours + PRID at 4 hours + PRID at 5 hours + PRID at 6 hours.|First test H1: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs placebo at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level; If H1 was rejected then, Test H2: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs acetaminophen 650 mg, and Test H3: acetaminophen 650 mg vs placebo; H2 and H3 were each tested at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level.||||0.001
91757175|NCT01115673|183407328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|367.28|||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.|SPRID6 = 0.25 times (PRID at 15 min + PRID at 30 min + PRID at 45 min + PRID at 60 min + PRID at 75 min + PRID at 90 min) + 0.5 times (PRID at 120 minutes) + PRID at 3 hours + PRID at 4 hours + PRID at 5 hours + PRID at 6 hours.|First test H1: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs placebo at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level; If H1 was rejected then, Test H2: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs acetaminophen 650 mg, and Test H3: acetaminophen 650 mg vs placebo; H2 and H3 were each tested at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level.||||<0.001
91887417|NCT00848484|183667962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among 5 secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
91887418|NCT02567708|183667966|OTHER||Posterior median difference.|0.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0468||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.102||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.102|-0.083|0.57
91887419|NCT02567708|183667967|OTHER||Posterior median difference.|0.013|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0501||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.113||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.113|-0.084|0.61
91887420|NCT02567708|183667968|OTHER|The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Posterior median difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0818||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.21|||Bayesian model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.210|-0.111|0.731
91887421|NCT02567708|183667969|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-0.009|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0712||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.131||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.131|-0.151|0.44
91887422|NCT02567708|183667969|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.024|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.057||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.137||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.137|-0.087|0.66
91887423|NCT02567708|183667970|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0609||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.099||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.099|-0.140|0.35
91887424|NCT02567708|183667970|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0578||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.156||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.156|-0.071|0.76
91887425|NCT02567708|183667970|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.038|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0559||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.148||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 28. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.148|-0.073|0.76
91887426|NCT02567708|183667971|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.083|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6175||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|1.346||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||1.346|-1.102|0.56
91757176|NCT01115673|183407329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|226.7|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91806618|NCT01930123|183490108|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.98||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91909649|NCT00439946|183715467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Effectiveness Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.55
91909650|NCT00439946|183715467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Side-Effects Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.50
91909651|NCT00439946|183715467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Convenience Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.01
91909652|NCT00439946|183715467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Global Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.52
91909653|NCT03548051|183715473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.05|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.65||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in proportions between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||0.65|-0.58|>0.999
91909654|NCT03548051|183715476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.05|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.65||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in proportions between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||0.65|-0.58|>0.999
91909655|NCT03548051|183715477|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||A Log-Rank permutation test for small samples was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the time to first CDAD recurrence between treatment arms.||||>0.999
91909656|NCT00812214|183715492|SUPERIORITY|For the purpose of the power calculation, it was assumed that the difference in total sleep time between the treatment groups is 40 minutes, with a standard deviation of 60. The pilot nature of the study allowed the use of alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.2, with two-sided comparison, generating a required sample size of 37 subjects per arm.||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|two-tailed student's t-test for independent samples||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the 6 week average total sleep time||||0.33
91757177|NCT01115673|183407329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.14||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
91909657|NCT00812214|183715493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the eszopiclone and placebo groups in the number of awakenings/night at 6 weeks.||||0.03
91909658|NCT00812214|183715495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in sleep quality averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.1
91909659|NCT00812214|183715495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in daytime alertness averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.29
91909660|NCT00812214|183715495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in daytime fatigue averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.05
91909661|NCT00812214|183715495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in daytime functioning averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.76
91909662|NCT00812214|183715497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in average days/week between eszopiclone and placebo groups at 6 weeks.||||0.89
91909663|NCT00812214|183715498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in headache duration between eszopiclone and placebo groups at 6 weeks.||||0.98
91909664|NCT00812214|183715499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in headache intensity between eszopiclone and placebo groups at 6 weeks.||||0.82
91909665|NCT03325673|183715510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Independent t-test|||||||0.116
91909666|NCT03325673|183715511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Insertion||||0.468
91757178|NCT01115673|183407329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|178.56|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757179|NCT01115673|183407330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|242.67|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757180|NCT01115673|183407330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.95||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
91806619|NCT01930123|183490109|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mild fibrosis vs. advanced fibrosis||||0.006
91909667|NCT03325673|183715511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After 2 hours||||0.235
91909668|NCT03325673|183715511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Day||||0.152
91909669|NCT03325673|183715512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.488
91909670|NCT03325673|183715513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.072
91909671|NCT02684981|183715514|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V2||||< 0.0001
91909672|NCT02684981|183715514|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in convenience PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V3||||< 0.0001
91909673|NCT02684981|183715515|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V2||||< 0.0001
91909674|NCT02684981|183715515|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V3||||< 0.0001
91909675|NCT02684981|183715516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in convenience PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at initiation stage (V2)||||< 0.001
91909676|NCT02684981|183715516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.509|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in convenience PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at continuation stage (V3)||||< 0.001
91909677|NCT02684981|183715517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at initiation stage (V2)||||< 0.001
91909678|NCT02684981|183715517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at continuation stage (V3)||||< 0.001
91909679|NCT02684981|183715525|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Median convenience and satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores at last assessment compared to second assessment||||< 0.001
91909680|NCT00452699|183715549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|0.07|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|0.07|<0.001
91909681|NCT01602692|183715553|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||End of PACU Mean Pain Level p-value between arms||||0.24
91909682|NCT01602692|183715553|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hrs Post-op Mean Current Pain p-value between arms||||0.76
91757181|NCT01115673|183407330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|188.72|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91909683|NCT01602692|183715553|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hrs Post-op Mean Worst Pain p-value between arms||||0.78
91909684|NCT01602692|183715553|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hrs Post-op Mean Least Pain p-value between arms||||0.41
91909685|NCT01602692|183715554|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||PACU IV hydromorphone p-value between arms||||0.10
91909686|NCT01602692|183715554|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hr Post-op oxycodone p-value between arms||||0.71
91909687|NCT00326898|183715560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.23|||Stratified logrank test|Stratified logrank test was performed. Stratification factors include basis of risk group, histologic subtype, performance status and type of surgery.||||1.23|0.85|0.80
91909688|NCT00326898|183715560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.8|1.17|||Stratified logrank test|Stratified logrank test was performed. Stratification factors include basis of risk group, histologic subtype, performance status and type of surgery.||||1.17|0.80|0.72
91909689|NCT00326898|183715561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.52|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified proportional hazards model with Arm C (placebo arm) as the reference group.|||1.52|0.90|
91909690|NCT00326898|183715561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.75|1.28|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified proportional hazards model with Arm C (placebo arm) as the reference group.|||1.28|0.75|
91909691|NCT00781456|183715581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, weekly baseline migraine frequency, and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|||0.87|-0.82|0.954
91806620|NCT01930123|183490110|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|56.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.09
91909692|NCT00781456|183715582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.17||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, baseline weekly migraine frequency and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|Comparison of percentage of participants with a reduction of 50% or more in migraine frequency during the first month of treatment.||1.17|-0.55|0.479
91909693|NCT00781456|183715582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.37||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, baseline weekly migraine frequency and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|Comparison of percentage of participants with a reduction of 50% or more in migraine frequency during the second month of treatment||1.37|-0.36|0.256
91887427|NCT02567708|183667971|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.014|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6672||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.271|1.341||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||1.341|-1.271|0.51
91757182|NCT01115673|183407331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.037||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.037
91757183|NCT01115673|183407331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.294||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.294
91757184|NCT01115673|183407331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66||||0.006||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.006
91887428|NCT02567708|183667971|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-0.113|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5148||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|0.908||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 28. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo..|||0.908|-1.125|0.41
91887429|NCT02567708|183667972|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||1.7|-0.6|0.81
91887430|NCT02567708|183667975|OTHER||Posterior median ratio|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.063||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median ratio is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg/ Placebo.|||1.00|0.78|0.97
91887431|NCT02567708|183667975|OTHER||Posterior median ratio|0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.071||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median ratio is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg/ Placebo.|||1.09|0.83|0.76
91887432|NCT02567708|183667975|OTHER||Posterior median ratio|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.085||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than one.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 28. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median ratio is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg/ Placebo.|||1.18|0.84|0.51
91887433|NCT00706654|183667984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority of was performed using a 95% confidence interval (CI, 2-sided) for the difference in the estimated percentage of patients meeting exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse criteria by the end of Week 26. Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was below the predefined margin, 11.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|3.99|||z-statistics||The 95% CI of the difference in proportions of subjects with impending relapse events between aripiprazole IM depot 300 or 400 mg mg and oral aripiprazole were provided using the pooled SE with assumption of normality of the estimated difference.|Sample sizes were estimated to achieve 93% power for the primary non-inferiority 2-sided comparison at 0.05 significance using large sample normal approximations for the distribution of the difference in binomial proportions. The assumed proportion of impending relapse at or before Week 26 for the oral aripiprazole 10-30 mg arm was 18% and the predefined non-inferiority margin was 11.5%. The sample size was projected to be 260 each for the IM depot 300 or 400 mg and oral 10-30 mg arms.||3.99|-5.26|0.7871
91887434|NCT00706654|183667984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.68||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.09|-6.27||Once non-inferiority was declared, superiority of depot 300/400 mg over depot 25/50 mg was tested by the difference between the proportion of subjects experiencing impending relapse by the end of Week 26 (2-sided 0.05 significance level z-statistic).|z-statistics|The same method was used to compare IM depot 300 or 400 mg with IM depot 25 or 50 mg in the estimated proportion of subjects with impending relapse.||For the superiority comparison (assay sensitivity analysis) of IM depot 300 or 400 mg to IM depot 25 or 50 mg, on a 2:1 randomization, sample sizes of 260 and 130, respectively, were calculated to provide about 95% power at the 0.05 significance level (2-sided). A superiority margin of 17% was assumed.||-6.27|-23.09|0.0006
91887435|NCT00706654|183667986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.8750
91887436|NCT00706654|183667986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.0001
91887437|NCT00706654|183667987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.3700
91887438|NCT00706654|183667987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1097||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.1097
91887439|NCT02097303|183667990|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Comparison of ALP levels before and after treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.00001
91887440|NCT02097303|183667990|OTHER|||||||0.487||||||Comparison of PSA levels before and after treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4870
91806621|NCT02899793|183490111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||Subgroup difference in ORRs||||0.024
91757185|NCT01115673|183407332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.85|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757186|NCT01115673|183407332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.946||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.946
91887441|NCT02975102|183668004|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 33 evaluable patients per treatment group was calculated to provide at least 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of CBL-101 to Vismed Multi. Assumptions included a non-inferiority margin of 2 grades and a standard deviation of 2.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||||Treatment difference : CBL-101 - Vismed Multi|||0.3|-1.2|
91887442|NCT02975102|183668005|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
91887443|NCT02975102|183668006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0002
91887444|NCT02975102|183668007|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
91887445|NCT02975102|183668008|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
91887446|NCT02975102|183668009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0186||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0186
91887447|NCT02975102|183668010|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
91887448|NCT02975102|183668011|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
91887449|NCT02975102|183668012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0011
91887450|NCT02975102|183668013|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
91887451|NCT02975102|183668014|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
91757187|NCT01115673|183407332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.99|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757188|NCT01115673|183407333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.68|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91887452|NCT02975102|183668015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.005
91887453|NCT02975102|183668016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0008
91887454|NCT02975102|183668017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0026
91887455|NCT02975102|183668018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||Significance level of 0.05 . P-Value result provided only for Global Question|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.077
91887456|NCT02975102|183668019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6097||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.6097
91887457|NCT02975102|183668020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.231
91887458|NCT02975102|183668021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0135||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0135
91887459|NCT02975102|183668022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.575
91887460|NCT00594022|183668033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1275|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.1275
91887461|NCT05262751|183668038|OTHER||gMean Ratio|16.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.28|38.24|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 34.1|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||38.24|7.28|
91887462|NCT05262751|183668038|OTHER||gMean Ratio|13.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.1|22.64|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 34.1|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||22.64|8.10|
91887463|NCT05262751|183668038|OTHER||gMean Ratio|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.24|51.04|||||gMean Ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 28.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||51.04|34.24|
91887464|NCT05262751|183668038|OTHER||gMean Ratio|42.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.9|52.76|||||gMean Ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 28.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||52.76|34.90|
91887465|NCT05262751|183668039|OTHER||gMean Ratio|9.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.91|14.8|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 44.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||14.80|5.91|
91887466|NCT05262751|183668039|OTHER||gMean Ratio|12.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.93|19.43|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 44.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||19.43|7.93|
91909694|NCT00781456|183715582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.88||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, baseline weekly migraine frequency and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|Comparison of percentage of participants with a reduction of 50% or more in migraine frequency during the third month of treatment.||0.88|-1.16|0.788
91909695|NCT00781456|183715583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.19||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the 91-day treatment period.||0.09|-0.47|0.182
91909696|NCT00781456|183715583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.04||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.19|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the first month of treatment||0.19|-0.71|0.853
91909697|NCT00781456|183715583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.26||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.19|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the second month of treatment||0.19|-0.71|0.249
91909698|NCT00781456|183715583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.4||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the third month of treatment||0.10|-0.90|0.119
91909699|NCT00781456|183715584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the first month of treatment.||||0.457
91909700|NCT00781456|183715584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the second month of treatment.||||0.361
91909701|NCT00781456|183715584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the third month of treatment.||||0.018
91909702|NCT00781456|183715584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the 91-day treatment period.||||0.709
91909703|NCT04852848|183715606|EQUIVALENCE|In our original power calculation, we expected to randomly assign 200 individuals to the Connect2Test (n = 100) and control conditions (n = 100). Power calculations were conducted using G\*Power assuming a two-tailed test with alpha = .05, power = .80, and an estimated COVID-19 testing rate in the Connect2Test condition of 20%. With these assumptions, the minimum detectable effect size (odds ratio) is 2.46, which corresponds to a moderate Cohen's d (0.49).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.27|||Chi-squared||The control condition was the reference category (Connect2Test intervention = 1, Control = 0).|||2.27|0.61|.6298
91757189|NCT01115673|183407333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.661||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.661
91909704|NCT04175626|183715609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the rate of TLF for the Orsiro stent at 1 year to a performance goal of 6.9%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The null hypothesis (Ho) was stated as: The TLF rate of the Orsiro stent at 1 year is greater than or equal to 6.9%. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was stated as: The TLF rate of the Orsiro stent at 1 year is less than 6.9%.||||<0.0001
91909705|NCT01709149|183715626|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.14|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||0.14|-1.30|0.1140
91909706|NCT01709149|183715627|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.963||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|4.34|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||4.34|-3.38|0.8083
91909707|NCT01709149|183715628|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.627||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.2|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||-0.20|-6.60|0.0372
91757190|NCT01115673|183407333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.62|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91806622|NCT00729651|183490119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.0|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline vitamin D level as covariate.|Mantel-Haenszel estimator of the common odds ratio was calculated by using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for subjects' proportions with vitamin D deficiency changes at 16 weeks (visit 4) from baseline (visit 1) between treatment groups.|||0.08|0.00|<0.0001
91806623|NCT00729651|183490120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0091||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Least squares mean is mean of serum PTH percentage changes adjusted serum PTH level at baseline.||||||0.0091
91909708|NCT01709149|183715629|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|6.28|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||6.28|2.23|<0.0001
91909709|NCT01709149|183715630|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|2.63|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||2.63|-1.13|0.4328
91909710|NCT01709149|183715631|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.399||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|8.9|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||8.90|-8.40|0.9546
91757191|NCT01115673|183407334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.56|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757192|NCT01115673|183407334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.13||95.0||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.13
91887467|NCT05262751|183668039|OTHER||gMean Ratio|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.25|49.11|||||gMean Ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 40.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||49.11|29.25|
91887468|NCT05262751|183668039|OTHER||gMean Ratio|35.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.66|46.55|||||gMean ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 40.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||46.55|27.66|
91887469|NCT05262751|183668040|OTHER||gMean Ratio|12.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.73|21.71|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 58.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||21.71|6.73|
91887470|NCT05262751|183668040|OTHER||gMean Ratio|23.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.51|42.42|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 58.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||42.42|13.51|
91887471|NCT05262751|183668040|OTHER||gMean Ratio|68.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.07|93.86|||||gMean ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 50.0|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||93.86|50.07|
91887472|NCT05262751|183668040|OTHER||gMean Ratio|66.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.77|91.64|||||gMean ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 50.0|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||91.64|48.77|
91887473|NCT05262751|183668041|OTHER||gMean Ratio|11.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.88|16.11|||||gMean ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.5|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||16.11|8.88|
91887474|NCT05262751|183668041|OTHER||gMean Ratio|13.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.59|18.46|||||gMean ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.5|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||18.46|10.59|
91887475|NCT05262751|183668041|OTHER||gMean Ratio|32.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.46|39.01|||||gMean ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 29.3.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||39.01|26.46|
91887476|NCT05262751|183668041|OTHER||gMean Ratio|31.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.71|38.3|||||gMean ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 29.3.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||38.30|25.71|
91887477|NCT01727505|183668076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.44
91887478|NCT01727505|183668077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||.75
91887479|NCT01727505|183668078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2
91887480|NCT01727505|183668079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
91887481|NCT01727505|183668080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||.049
91757193|NCT01115673|183407334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.67|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91887482|NCT01727505|183668081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.006
91887483|NCT01154140|183668082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.454|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.596||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log rank test, stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG PS),race,brain metastases. 1-sided log-rank test at 0.0247 level of significance was used to compare PFS between the 2 arms.|Log Rank|||||0.596|0.346|<0.0001
91887484|NCT01154140|183668083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.053||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG PS, race group and brain metastases.|Log Rank||HR was calculated based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG PS, race group, and brain metastases. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio (less than)\<1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.|||1.053|0.548|0.0489
91887485|NCT01154140|183668085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|39.3||P-value was obtained from a Pearson chi-square test.|Pearson chi-square test||95% CI was calculated based on normal distribution.|If the PFS endpoint was significant, ORR was to be considered significant if the 2-sided p-value from Pearson chi-square test was (less than or equal to)\<= 0.0494.||39.3|19.5|<0.0001
91909711|NCT01709149|183715632|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.207||0.6166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.91|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||7.91|-4.70|0.6166
91909712|NCT00763815|183715652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.386||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms; randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), metformin use (yes, no); country as fixed effects; baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 300 patients in lixisenatide arm and 150 patients in placebo arm would provide a power of 96% (or 86%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.386|-0.731|<0.0001
91909713|NCT02429414|183715691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91757194|NCT01115673|183407335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.97|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757195|NCT01115673|183407335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42||||0.041||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.041
91757196|NCT01115673|183407335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.55|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757197|NCT01115673|183407336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.97|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757198|NCT01115673|183407336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.34||||0.02||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.02
91757199|NCT01115673|183407336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.63|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757200|NCT01115673|183407337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.46|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757201|NCT01115673|183407337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.08||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
91757202|NCT01115673|183407337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.38|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757203|NCT01115673|183407338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.42|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757204|NCT01115673|183407338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.83||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
91757205|NCT01115673|183407338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.59|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757206|NCT01115673|183407339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.99|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757207|NCT01115673|183407339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757208|NCT01115673|183407339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.42|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757209|NCT01115673|183407340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.04|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757210|NCT01115673|183407340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757211|NCT01115673|183407340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.22|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91909714|NCT02429414|183715692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0209
91909715|NCT02429414|183715693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
91909716|NCT01849172|183715710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91757212|NCT01115673|183407341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.45|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757213|NCT01115673|183407341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.58||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
91757214|NCT01115673|183407341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.87|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757215|NCT01115673|183407342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.35||||0.028||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.028
91757216|NCT01115673|183407342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.462||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.462
91757217|NCT01115673|183407342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.48||||0.008||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.008
91757218|NCT01115673|183407343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.81|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91806624|NCT00729651|183490121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.01|0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|It was analyzed by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline vitamin D level as covariate.|Mantel-Haenszel estimator of the common odds ratio was calculated by using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for subjects' proportions with vitamin D deficiency changes at 16 weeks (visit 4) from baseline (visit 1) between treatment groups.|||0.04|0.01|<0.0001
91806625|NCT03310021|183490123|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-65.5||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-58.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-58.00|-78.00|0.0275
91909717|NCT01604265|183715726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline pain score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows: Change in 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale Pain Score = Baseline Pain Score + Treatment||-0.39|-2.11|0.005
91909718|NCT01604265|183715727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline sleep score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale sleep Score = Baseline Sleep Score + Treatment"||-0.50|-2.27|0.003
91757219|NCT01115673|183407343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.907||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.907
91757220|NCT01115673|183407343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.11|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757221|NCT01115673|183407344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.19|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757222|NCT01115673|183407344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.655||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.655
91757223|NCT01115673|183407344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.87|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757224|NCT01115673|183407345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.15|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757225|NCT01115673|183407345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||0.155||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.155
91757226|NCT01115673|183407345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91909719|NCT01604265|183715728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.896||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|10.055|||Regression, Logistic|||"The proportion of patients who considered their condition Very Much Improved or Much Improved was compared between treatment groups using a Fisher's Exact Test. Results were presented in terms of difference in percentages, and 95% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial, and p-value."||10.055|1.510|0.005
91806626|NCT03310021|183490123|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-61.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-44.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-44.00|-65.00|0.025
91806627|NCT03310021|183490123|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-32.5||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-9.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-9.00|-47.00|0.0136
91757227|NCT01115673|183407346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.69|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757228|NCT01115673|183407346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.04||||0.05||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.05
91757229|NCT01115673|183407346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.65|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757230|NCT01115673|183407347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.83|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757231|NCT01115673|183407347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.74||||0.032||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.032
91757232|NCT01115673|183407347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.1|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757233|NCT01115673|183407348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.36|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757234|NCT01115673|183407348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.52||||0.003||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.003
91757235|NCT01115673|183407348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.84|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757236|NCT01115673|183407349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.8|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757237|NCT01115673|183407349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.04||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
91757238|NCT01115673|183407349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.75|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757239|NCT01115673|183407350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.84|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757240|NCT01115673|183407350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91806628|NCT03310021|183490123|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-36.5||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-9.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-9.00|-62.00|0.0136
91806629|NCT03310021|183490123|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.0|-38.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-38.00|-70.00|0.025
91757241|NCT01115673|183407350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.02|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757242|NCT01115673|183407351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.4|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757243|NCT01115673|183407351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.68|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91806630|NCT03310021|183490123|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-66.0||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-61.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-61.00|-68.00|0.0119
91806631|NCT03310021|183490123|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-15.5||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|17.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||17.00|-38.00|0.2667
91806632|NCT03310021|183490123|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-68.0||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|-59.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-59.00|-74.00|0.0238
91806633|NCT03310021|183490123|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-56.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-39.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-39.00|-65.00|0.0007
91806634|NCT03310021|183490123|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-35.0||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-24.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-24.00|-53.00|0.0121
91757244|NCT01115673|183407351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.72|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757245|NCT01115673|183407352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.94|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757246|NCT01115673|183407352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
91757247|NCT01115673|183407352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.55|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757248|NCT01115673|183407353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.65||||0.027||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.027
91757249|NCT01115673|183407353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49||||0.365||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.365
91757250|NCT01115673|183407353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.14||||0.005||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.005
91757251|NCT01115673|183407354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.65|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757252|NCT01115673|183407354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.923||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.923
91757253|NCT01115673|183407354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91806635|NCT03310021|183490124|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-80.0||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-77.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-77.00|-83.00|0.0256
91887486|NCT01154140|183668088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.067||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.4|||Pearson chi-square test|||The confidence interval for the difference in percentage was based on normal distribution.||19.4|0.8|0.0381
91757254|NCT01115673|183407355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.87|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757255|NCT01115673|183407355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.653||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.653
91757256|NCT01115673|183407355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.49|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91806636|NCT03310021|183490124|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-79.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|-67.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-67.00|-97.00|0.025
91757257|NCT01115673|183407356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.71|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757258|NCT01115673|183407356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.21||||0.138||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.138
91757259|NCT01115673|183407356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.49|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757260|NCT01115673|183407357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|93.66|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91806637|NCT03310021|183490124|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-37.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|5.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||5.00|-66.00|0.074
91806638|NCT03310021|183490124|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-10.5||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|10.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||10.00|-59.00|0.1066
91806639|NCT03310021|183490124|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-84.0||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-71.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-71.00|-87.00|0.0219
91806640|NCT03310021|183490124|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-78.0||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-74.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-74.0|-83.00|0.0262
91757261|NCT01115673|183407357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.46||||0.043||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.043
91757262|NCT01115673|183407357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.2|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757263|NCT01115673|183407358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|94.8|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757264|NCT01115673|183407358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.08||||0.024||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.024
91757265|NCT01115673|183407358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.72|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757266|NCT01115673|183407359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757267|NCT01115673|183407359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
91757268|NCT01115673|183407359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.23|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91806641|NCT03310021|183490124|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-50.0||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|0.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||0.00|-65.00|0.0412
91806642|NCT03310021|183490124|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-89.5||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.0|-77.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-77.00|-93.00|0.0269
91806643|NCT03310021|183490124|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-84.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.0|-69.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-69.00|-86.00|0.0026
91806644|NCT03310021|183490124|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-65.0||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|-57.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-57.00|-76.00|0.0181
91806645|NCT03310021|183490125|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-81.06||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.99|-71.96|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-71.96|-92.99|0.0282
91806646|NCT03310021|183490125|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-69.15||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.91|-48.64|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-48.64|-96.91|0.0282
91806647|NCT03310021|183490125|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-57.39||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.07|-40.03|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-40.03|-72.07|0.0085
91887487|NCT01154140|183668089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.441|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|0.582||P-value was obtained from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR \<1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.||0.582|0.335|<0.0001
91887488|NCT01154140|183668090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.595||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|1.048||P-value was obtained from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.||1.048|0.338|0.0347
91887489|NCT01154140|183668091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.387|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.524||P-value was obtained from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.||0.524|0.286|<0.0001
91887490|NCT01154140|183668098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.591||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.773||Two-sided p-value from the unstratified log rank test was used.|Log Rank|||HR was calculated based on the Cox Proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.||0.773|0.452|0.0002
91887491|NCT01154140|183668099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.8303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|16.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Global QoL: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||16.92|10.74|<0.0001
91887492|NCT01154140|183668099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3532||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||6.11|0.60|0.0170
91887493|NCT01154140|183668099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|10.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 emotional functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||10.46|4.57|<0.0001
91887494|NCT01154140|183668099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.4035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|13.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 physical functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||13.32|7.48|<0.0001
91806648|NCT03310021|183490125|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-54.96||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.42|-25.5|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-25.50|-80.42|0.0085
91806649|NCT03310021|183490125|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-100.25||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.08|-84.48|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-84.48|-133.08|0.0282
91806650|NCT03310021|183490125|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-79.87||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.36|-65.74|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-65.74|-86.36|0.0282
91806651|NCT03310021|183490125|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-65.02||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.54|-39.17|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-39.17|-89.54|0.0085
91806652|NCT03310021|183490125|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-91.29||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.88|-60.83|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-60.83|-128.88|0.0282
91806653|NCT03310021|183490125|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-81.49||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.05|-65.96|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-65.96|-91.05|0.0034
91806654|NCT03310021|183490125|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-58.47||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.86|-46.12|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-46.12|-110.86|0.0189
91806655|NCT03310021|183490126|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.39||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.48|-52.62|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-52.62|-66.48|0.0282
91806656|NCT03310021|183490126|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.26||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.34|-26.94|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-26.94|-70.34|0.0282
91806657|NCT03310021|183490126|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-36.76||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.14|-29.76|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-29.76|-46.14|0.0085
91806658|NCT03310021|183490126|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-36.82||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.81|-20.46|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-20.46|-55.81|0.0085
91806659|NCT03310021|183490126|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-61.67||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.82|-43.78|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-43.78|-75.82|0.0282
91887495|NCT01154140|183668099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.5513|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|19.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 role functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||19.81|11.29|<0.0001
91887496|NCT01154140|183668099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7641|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|12.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 social functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||12.84|4.69|<0.0001
91887497|NCT01154140|183668100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.4976|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|-8.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 appetite loss: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-8.97|-18.03|<0.0001
91887498|NCT01154140|183668100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4336||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 constipation: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||0.13|-9.00|0.0570
91887499|NCT01154140|183668100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.4906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.98|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 diarrhea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||16.00|8.98|<0.0001
91887500|NCT01154140|183668100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-13.4622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-9.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 dysponea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-9.73|-17.20|<0.0001
91887501|NCT01154140|183668100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9987|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|-11.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 fatigue: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-11.48|-18.52|<0.0001
91887502|NCT01154140|183668100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8186||||0.6681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 financial difficulties: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||2.92|-4.56|0.6681
91887503|NCT01154140|183668100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 insomnia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-5.87|-14.22|<0.0001
91887504|NCT01154140|183668100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4446||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 nausea and vomiting: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-0.05|-6.84|0.0468
91887505|NCT01154140|183668100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.9277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-6.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 pain: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-6.62|-13.23|<0.0001
91887506|NCT01154140|183668101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8149||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 alopecia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-1.11|-8.52|0.0108
91909720|NCT01604265|183715729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-6.82||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||-0.37|-13.28|0.039
91909721|NCT01604265|183715730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-6.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-1.77|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||-1.77|-12.12|0.009
91909722|NCT01604265|183715731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|2.54||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|6.71|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||6.71|-1.64|0.230
91909723|NCT01604265|183715732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.53||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|0.15|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.15|-5.22|0.064
91909724|NCT01604265|183715733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.18|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||5.18|-4.60|0.905
91757269|NCT01115673|183407360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.22|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91909725|NCT01604265|183715734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|2.68||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|7.37|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||7.37|-2.01|0.257
91909726|NCT01604265|183715735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.63|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.63|-3.64|0.164
91909727|NCT01604265|183715737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.09||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.23|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||1.23|-1.06|0.880
91909728|NCT01604265|183715738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.64||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.46|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.46|-1.75|0.249
91909729|NCT01604265|183715739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.06||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.24|-0.13|0.535
91757270|NCT01115673|183407360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.87||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
91757271|NCT01115673|183407360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.35|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757272|NCT01115673|183407361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757273|NCT01115673|183407361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.39|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757274|NCT01115673|183407361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.44|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757275|NCT01115673|183407362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.44|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757276|NCT01115673|183407362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757277|NCT01115673|183407362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.94|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91806660|NCT03310021|183490126|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-67.63||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|-61.99|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-61.99|-77.40|0.0282
91806661|NCT03310021|183490126|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-40.33||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.77|-11.17|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-11.17|-59.77|0.0085
91806662|NCT03310021|183490126|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.18||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.02|-48.14|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-48.14|-101.02|0.0282
91757278|NCT01115673|183407363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.39|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757279|NCT01115673|183407363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.98||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
91757280|NCT01115673|183407363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.41|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757281|NCT01115673|183407364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757282|NCT01115673|183407364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.26
91757283|NCT01115673|183407364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757284|NCT01115673|183407365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757285|NCT01115673|183407365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.934
91757286|NCT01115673|183407365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757287|NCT01115673|183407366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects not rescuing during the 6-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 6 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
91757288|NCT01115673|183407366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects not rescuing during the 6-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 6 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
91757289|NCT01115673|183407366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects not rescuing during the 6-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 6 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
91757290|NCT01115673|183407367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757291|NCT01115673|183407367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
91806663|NCT03310021|183490126|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-54.63||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.14|-41.19|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-41.19|-59.14|0.0027
91757292|NCT01115673|183407367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757293|NCT01115673|183407368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757294|NCT01115673|183407368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91806664|NCT03310021|183490126|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-38.14||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.78|-15.37|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-15.37|-65.78|0.0189
91806665|NCT03310021|183490127|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|965.09||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|474.48|1377.35|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1377.35|474.48|0.0282
91806666|NCT03310021|183490127|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1127.29||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|769.46|1575.02|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1575.02|769.46|0.0282
91757295|NCT01115673|183407368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757296|NCT01115673|183407369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.45|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757297|NCT01115673|183407369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.006||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.006
91757298|NCT01115673|183407369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.16|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757299|NCT01115673|183407370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757300|NCT01115673|183407370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
91757301|NCT01115673|183407370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91757302|NCT01959841|183407384|NON_INFERIORITY|Wherein the non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. If the one-sided P-value was less than 0.025 between the ASP2151(400mg) once daily and the valaciclovir 1000 mg three times daily, non-inferiority of ASP2151 to valaciclovir was assumed.||||||2.41e-06|||||||Modified Farrington-Manning test|||The non-inferiority of each ASP2151 dose level versus valaciclovir was assessed stepwise using a closed testing procedure.First step analysis was performed in the ASP2151(400mg) once daily.||||0.00000241
91806667|NCT03310021|183490127|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|574.89||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|307.65|1175.28|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1175.28|307.65|0.0085
91887507|NCT01154140|183668101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3926|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 coughing: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-4.72|-12.06|<0.0001
91887508|NCT01154140|183668101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6651||||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 dysphagia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||3.11|-1.78|0.5938
91887509|NCT01154140|183668101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.008|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-6.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 dyspnoea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-6.06|-11.96|<0.0001
91887510|NCT01154140|183668101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8828||||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 haemoptysis: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||0.06|-1.82|0.0656
91887511|NCT01154140|183668101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0475||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|-2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 pain in arm or shoulder: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-2.88|-9.22|0.0002
91887512|NCT01154140|183668101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0959|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|-4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 pain in chest: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-4.84|-11.35|<0.0001
91887513|NCT01154140|183668101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7717||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.24|-3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 pain in other parts: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-3.31|-10.24|0.0001
91887514|NCT01154140|183668101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3521||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 peripheral neuropathy: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||6.59|0.11|0.0427
91887515|NCT01154140|183668101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1521||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 sore mouth: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||0.69|-5.00|0.1382
91759897|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|0.33||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.33|-17.48|
91757303|NCT01959841|183407384|NON_INFERIORITY|Wherein the non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. If the one-sided P-value was less than 0.025 between the ASP2151(200mg) once daily and the valaciclovir 1000 mg three times daily, non-inferiority of ASP2151 to valaciclovir was assumed.||||||0.0688|||||||Modified Farrington-Manning test|||The analysis was performed in the ASP2151(200 mg) once daily only when non-inferiority of the ASP2151(400 mg) 0nce daily to valaciclovir 1000 mg three times daily was assumed.||||0.0688
91757304|NCT01128192|183407399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose level||||0.240
91757305|NCT01128192|183407399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose level||||0.339
91757306|NCT01128192|183407400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
91757307|NCT01128192|183407400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P Value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
91757308|NCT01128192|183407400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P Value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
91757309|NCT01128192|183407400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
91757310|NCT01128192|183407400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
91757311|NCT01128192|183407400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
91757312|NCT01128192|183407401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma insulin level||||0.019
91887516|NCT01154140|183668102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9908||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D VAS subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose were included as random effects).||7.17|0.81|0.0139
91887517|NCT00358644|183668106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|23.6||||||95.0|13.2|37.0||||||||37.0|13.2|
91887518|NCT00401258|183668125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91887519|NCT00401258|183668126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average pain severity statistical analysis||||<.001
91757313|NCT01128192|183407401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma insulin level||||<0.001
91757314|NCT01128192|183407402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
91757315|NCT01128192|183407402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
91757316|NCT01128192|183407402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
91757317|NCT01128192|183407402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
91757318|NCT01128192|183407402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
91757319|NCT01128192|183407402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
91757320|NCT01128192|183407403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Baseline Insulin Level||||<0.001
91757321|NCT01128192|183407403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Change in Baseline Insulin Level||||<0.001
91757322|NCT01128192|183407404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-10 minutes||||<0.001
91757323|NCT01128192|183407404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 10-180 minutes||||<0.001
91757324|NCT01128192|183407404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
91757325|NCT01128192|183407404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-10 minutes||||<0.001
91757326|NCT01128192|183407404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 10-180 minutes||||<0.001
91757327|NCT01128192|183407404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
91757328|NCT01128192|183407405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Basal EGP||||0.608
91757329|NCT01128192|183407405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Basal EGP||||0.132
91757330|NCT01128192|183407406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose % EGP Inhibition||||0.178
91757331|NCT01128192|183407406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose % EGP Inhibition||||0.111
91757332|NCT01128192|183407407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in high-dose % EGP Inhibition||||0.573
91757333|NCT01128192|183407408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.956
91757334|NCT01128192|183407408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.125
91757335|NCT01128192|183407409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in High-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.993
91757336|NCT01128192|183407409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in High-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.956
91757337|NCT03121365|183407417|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development Cognitive Composite Scores between infants 12-18 months old in the Standard and Digital Arms||||.7635
91887520|NCT00401258|183668126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average pain interference statistical analysis||||<.001
91887521|NCT00401258|183668127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
91757338|NCT03121365|183407417|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.0996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language Composite Scores between infants 12-18 months old in the Standard and Digital Arms||||.0996
91757339|NCT03121365|183407417|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.2291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Gross Motor Composite Scores between infants 12-18 months old in the Standard and Digital Arms||||.2291
91757340|NCT03121365|183407418|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||StimQ scores between infants 6 months of age and 9 months of age in the board book arm and e-book arm||||.0180
91757341|NCT03121365|183407418|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.4144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||StimQ scores between infants 9 months of age and 12 months of age in the board book arm and e-book arm||||.4144
91757342|NCT03121365|183407418|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.4251|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||StimQ scores between infants 6 months of age and 12 months of age in the board book arm and e-book arm||||.4251
91757343|NCT03121365|183407419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||Difference in Board Book Reading|Chi-squared|||||||0.235
91757344|NCT03121365|183407420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91757345|NCT03121365|183407421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.601
91757346|NCT03121365|183407422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.219
91757347|NCT03121365|183407423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91757348|NCT03121365|183407424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.574
91757349|NCT03121365|183407425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.430
91757350|NCT03121365|183407426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91757351|NCT03121365|183407427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.861
91757352|NCT00655629|183407429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.92|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.45|-5.38|||ANCOVA|||Power adjustment for 3 primary efficacy variables (3 variables have to be significant in favor of Vardenafil to conclude efficacy). Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-5.38|-8.45|<0.0001
91757353|NCT00655629|183407430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.972|||<|0.0001||95.0|-32.688|-19.256|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-19.256|-32.688|<0.0001
91757354|NCT00655629|183407431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.432|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.439|-26.425|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-26.425|-40.439|<0.0001
91887522|NCT00401258|183668128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91887523|NCT00401258|183668130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
91757355|NCT00655629|183407432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|53.8693|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted for age group and center||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
91757356|NCT00655629|183407433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.078|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.41|-9.746|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-9.746|-22.41|<0.0001
91757357|NCT00655629|183407434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.134|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.281|-25.987|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-25.987|-40.281|<0.0001
91757358|NCT00655629|183407435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.934|||<|0.0001||95.0|-41.119|-26.749|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-26.749|-41.119|<0.0001
91757359|NCT00655629|183407436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.902|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.724|-14.081|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-14.081|-27.724|<0.0001
91757360|NCT00655629|183407438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.866|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.599|-11.133|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-11.133|-22.599|<0.0001
91757361|NCT00655629|183407439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|-31.547|-20.533|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-20.533|-31.547|<0.0001
91757362|NCT00655629|183407440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.496|||<|0.0001||95.0|-24.676|-14.315|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-14.315|-24.676|<0.0001
91757363|NCT00655629|183407441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.418|||<|0.0001||95.0|-24.439|-12.396|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-12.396|-24.439|<0.0001
91757364|NCT00655629|183407442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.379|||<|0.0001||95.0|-28.006|-16.753|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-16.753|-28.006|<0.0001
91757365|NCT00655629|183407443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.758|||<|0.0001||95.0|-36.736|-24.779|||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-24.779|-36.736|<0.0001
91757366|NCT00655629|183407444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|60.2391|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted for age group and center||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
91757367|NCT02277925|183407445|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.14|||Chi-squared|||||5.14|0.59|0.30
91757368|NCT02277925|183407446|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.96|0.43
91757369|NCT02277925|183407447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.7|-14.7|0.39
91757370|NCT00244101|183407455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.03||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95 % CI calculated for PS (reference) versus ISX or NCPAP.||1.03|0.59|
91757371|NCT00244101|183407455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.27||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95% CI calculated for PS (reference) versus NCPAP.||1.27|0.25|
91757372|NCT00244101|183407456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.94||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95 % CI calculated for PS (reference) versus ISX.||1.94|0.49|
91887524|NCT00401258|183668131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91887525|NCT00401258|183668132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Refers to work/school sub-scale|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91887526|NCT00401258|183668132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||||||Refers to social sub scale|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
91887527|NCT00401258|183668132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Refers to family sub scale|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
91887528|NCT04297618|183668153|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91757373|NCT00244101|183407456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.09||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95% CI calculated for PS (reference) versus NCPAP.||1.09|0.64|
91757374|NCT04097379|183407457|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.327||0.2366||90.0|-68.7|172.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||172.1|-68.7|0.2366
91887529|NCT04297618|183668154|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91887530|NCT03838731|183668157|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||=|0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.77|||Cox Proportional Hazard|||||0.77|0.17|= 0.0083
91887531|NCT03838731|183668158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.48|||Cox Hazard Model|||Day 29||0.48|0.12|< 0.0001
91757375|NCT04097379|183407457|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|38.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.1||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.7|153.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||153.1|-76.7|0.2892
91757376|NCT04617496|183407502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91757377|NCT04617496|183407503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91757378|NCT04508530|183407539|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1||||0.00855|TWO_SIDED|5.0|0.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|0.2|0.00855
91757379|NCT04508530|183407540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0||||0.0718|ONE_SIDED|2.5||6.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||||6.7||0.0718
91757380|NCT04508530|183407541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0111
91757381|NCT04530552|183407542|OTHER||See above|0.895|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posterior probability of observing a response rate ≥ 50%||||
91757382|NCT04530552|183407542|OTHER||See above|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posterior probability of observing a response rate ≥ 25%||||
91757383|NCT04530552|183407543|OTHER|Two-sided paired t-test at 2.5% significance level (Bonferroni correction)||||||0.034||||||Two-sided paired t-test at 2.5% significance level (Bonferroni correction)|paired t-test|||||||0.034
91757384|NCT04530552|183407543|OTHER|||||||0.252||||||Two-sided paired t-test at 2.5% significance level (Bonferroni correction)|paired t-test|||||||0.252
91887532|NCT03838731|183668158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||=|0.0222||95.0|0.22|0.89|||Cox Hazard Model|||Day 57||0.89|0.22|= 0.0222
91887533|NCT03838731|183668158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||=|0.0003||95.0|0.13|0.56|||Cox Hazard Model|||Day 85||0.56|0.13|= 0.0003
91887534|NCT03838731|183668159|SUPERIORITY|Day 8|LS Mean Difference|13.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|20.77|||MMRM|||||20.77|6.35|<0.001
91887535|NCT03838731|183668159|SUPERIORITY|Day 29|LS Mean Difference|16.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|26.24|||MMRM|||||26.24|6.18|= 0.002
91757385|NCT04530552|183407544|OTHER|||||||1||||||Significance level of 2.5% (Bonferroni correction)|Pearson correlation|||Correlation with % change PSA at end-of-intervention||||1.0
91757386|NCT04530552|183407544|OTHER|||||||1||||||Significance level of 2.5% (Bonferroni correction)|Pearson correlation|||Correlation with % change PSA at end-of-intervention||||1.0
91757387|NCT04530552|183407545|OTHER|||||||0.658||||||two-sided paired t-test (no Bonferroni adjustment)|paired t-test|||||||0.658
91757388|NCT04530552|183407545|OTHER|||||||0.167||||||Two-sided paired t-test (no Bonferroni adjustment)|paired t-test|||||||0.167
91757389|NCT00454584|183407566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||||||<0.001
91757390|NCT00454584|183407566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||To control the overall type I error rate at 0.05 level in the primary endpoint analysis, a step-down test procedure was applied. First, ustekinumab 90 mg and etanercept were compared. Then ustekinumab 45 mg and etanercept would be compared.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and etanercept at an overall significant level of 0.05. Sample Size: Assuming the PASI 75 response rates of ustekinumab 90 mg, 45 mg, etanercept are 65%, 64%, and 50% , respectively, with 325 participants each in the ustekinumab 90 mg and etanercept groups, the power to detect a treatment difference is 97%. With 200 participants in the ustekinumab 45 mg group, the complete power to further detect a treatment difference was 87%.||||0.012
91757391|NCT00454584|183407567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||||||<0.001
91757392|NCT00454584|183407567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and etanercept at an overall significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91757393|NCT00454584|183407568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||||||<0.001
91757394|NCT00454584|183407568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and etanercept at an overall significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91759898|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|6.38||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.38|-11.57|
91806668|NCT03310021|183490127|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|715.34||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|535.38|836.4|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||836.40|535.38|0.0085
91806669|NCT03310021|183490127|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1141.17||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|964.03|1736.78|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1736.78|964.03|0.0282
91887536|NCT03838731|183668159|SUPERIORITY|Day 57|LS Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94|=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|22.2|||MMRM|||||22.20|2.40|= 0.016
91887537|NCT03838731|183668159|SUPERIORITY|Day 85|LS Mean Difference|12.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|21.65|||MMRM|||||21.65|3.43|= 0.008
91887538|NCT03838731|183668160|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.53|||MMRM|||Day 8||0.53|0.21|< 0.001
91887539|NCT03838731|183668160|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.68|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.68|0.23|<0.001
91887540|NCT03838731|183668160|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.55|||MMRM|||Day 57||0.55|0.13|= 0.002
91887541|NCT03838731|183668160|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.47|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.47|0.15|= 0.002
91887542|NCT03838731|183668161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|=|0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.29|||MMRM|||Day 8||1.29|-0.85|= 0.675
91757395|NCT02250664|183407570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.26||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.12 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-3.26|-7.41|<0.0001
91757396|NCT02250664|183407570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-5.57||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANOVA|||The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.|Group difference = 0.03 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|-5.57|-9.51|<0.0001
91757397|NCT02522442|183407578|OTHER|Pilot study, not powered for any endpoint.||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|||Pilot study, not powered for any endpoint.||||0.377
91757398|NCT02522442|183407579|OTHER|Pilot study, not powered for any endpoint.||||||0.624|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.624
91757399|NCT00975143|183407583|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority: upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference \< 4.|LS Mean Difference|0.1382||||0.5077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2712|0.5475||P values are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for Baseline total nodular lesion count, gender and analysis site.|ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the adjusted least square mean difference (CIP-ISOTRETINOIN minus Isotretinoin) was calculated using the ANCOVA model.||Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value||0.5475|-0.2712|0.5077
91757400|NCT00975143|183407584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the two co-primary endpoints were significant, a 95% 2 sided CI on the difference between treatments (CIP-Isotretinoin minus Isotretinoin) was calculated.|Proportion difference|-3.48|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.4|||Normal approximation|95% CI on difference in proportions (CIP-Isotretinoin minus Isotretinoin) was estimated using normal approximation.||The analysis of the secondary efficacy endpoint was based on observed cases only, with no imputation for missing values.||1.4|-8.4|>0.05
91757401|NCT00975143|183407585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority: lower bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference \> -10.|Proportion difference|-2.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|3.74|||Normal approximation|||||3.74|-7.94|>0.05
91757402|NCT02428413|183407626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91757403|NCT02428413|183407627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91757404|NCT00915551|183407735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91757405|NCT00915551|183407736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91757406|NCT01031979|183407749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta|-1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.59|||mixed effects/hierarchical linear model|||||-0.59|-2.29|<0.001
91757407|NCT01031979|183407750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.87||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||.39
91757408|NCT01031979|183407751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.55||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||.58
91757409|NCT01031979|183407752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta|-1.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.49|||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||-0.49|-2.71|.03
91757410|NCT03831100|183407753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|0.9||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The mean for each study arm represents the mean difference in the score at the post-treatment timepoint relative to the score at baseline. The mean difference (net) represents the mean model-based difference between study arms.|||0.9|-5.0|0.25
91759899|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|-4.78||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.78|-22.73|
91887543|NCT03838731|183668161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.33|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.33|-1.70|= 0.182
91887544|NCT03838731|183668161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|=|0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.32|||MMRM|||Day 57||1.32|-1.12|= 0.866
91887545|NCT03838731|183668161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|=|0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.32|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.32|-2.08|= 0.146
91887546|NCT03838731|183668162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|=|0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.63|||MMRM|||Day 8||0.63|-0.35|= 0.572
91887547|NCT03838731|183668162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|=|0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.41|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.41|-0.41|= 0.997
91887548|NCT03838731|183668162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|=|0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.49|||MMRM|||Day 57||0.49|-0.36|= 0.756
91887549|NCT03838731|183668162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.16|-0.46|= 0.333
91887550|NCT03838731|183668163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.5|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.36|64.65|||MMRM|||Day 8||64.65|14.36|= 0.003
91887551|NCT03838731|183668163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|54.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.01|78.12|||MMRM|||Day 29||78.12|30.01|< 0.001
91806670|NCT03310021|183490127|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1198.83||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|988.82|1670.3|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1670.30|988.82|0.0282
91806671|NCT03310021|183490127|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|721.21||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|585.92|1108.92|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1108.92|585.92|0.0085
91806672|NCT03310021|183490127|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1204.62||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1001.72|1471.45|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1471.45|1001.72|0.0282
91806673|NCT03310021|183490127|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1180.5||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|857.21|1296.02|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1296.02|857.21|0.0027
91806674|NCT03310021|183490127|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|976.59||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|585.99|1498.37|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1498.37|585.99|0.0189
91806675|NCT03310021|183490128|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|826.9||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|505.4|1362.11|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1362.11|505.40|0.0282
91806676|NCT03310021|183490128|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1125.7||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|873.87|1552.77|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1552.77|873.87|0.0282
91806677|NCT03310021|183490128|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|538.84||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|291.2|1077.46|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1077.46|291.20|0.0085
91757411|NCT03831100|183407754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|-2.5||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The mean for each study arm represents the mean difference in the score at the post-treatment timepoint relative to the score at baseline. The mean difference (net) represents the mean model-based difference between study arms.|||-2.5|-9.1|.006
91806678|NCT03310021|183490128|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|687.57||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|500.92|902.73|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||902.73|500.92|0.0085
91806679|NCT03310021|183490128|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1012.45||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|859.08|1352.05|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1352.05|859.08|0.0282
91887552|NCT03838731|183668163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|33.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.28|=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|62.08|||MMRM|||Day 57||62.08|4.79|= 0.023
91757412|NCT03831100|183407755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|0.0||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The mean for each study arm represents the mean difference in the score at the post-treatment timepoint relative to the score at baseline. The mean difference (net) represents the mean model-based difference between study arms.|||0.0|-15.9|.10
91806680|NCT03310021|183490128|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1057.27||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|818.96|1634.3|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1634.30|818.96|0.0282
91806681|NCT03310021|183490128|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|630.81||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|421.78|1124.28|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1124.28|421.78|0.0085
91806682|NCT03310021|183490128|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|925.84||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|663.74|1216.28|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1216.28|663.74|0.0282
91806683|NCT03310021|183490128|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|871.11||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|631.67|1051.06|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1051.06|631.67|0.0027
91806684|NCT03310021|183490128|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|874.44||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|637.25|1412.21|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1412.21|637.25|0.0189
91806685|NCT01049308|183490195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Descriptive data to describe prevalence of cognitive impairment in outpatient veterans with chronic heart failure||||
91806686|NCT03396367|183490228|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.372||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|1.302||Condition (referent = education control).|Latent Growth Curve||Variable:|||1.302|-.558|.433
91806687|NCT03396367|183490228|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.017||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.087|||Latent Growth Curve||Variable: Communication Compentence|||.087|-.121|.749
91806688|NCT03396367|183490228|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.073||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.087|||Latent Growth Curve||Moderating Variable: Communication Competence by Condition|||.087|-.121|.302
91806689|NCT03396367|183490228|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.027||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.236|||Latent Growth Curve||Variable: Relationship Satisfaction|||.236|-.182|.799
91806690|NCT03396367|183490228|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.211||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.092|||Latent Growth Curve||Moderating Variable: Relationship Satisfaction by Condition|||.092|-.514|.173
91887553|NCT03838731|183668163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|41.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.92|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|67.09|||MMRM|||Day 85||67.09|15.10|= 0.003
91806691|NCT03396367|183490229|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.427||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|1.04||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at baseline.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.04|-.186|.172
91806692|NCT03396367|183490229|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.281||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.623|0.061||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|||||.061|-.623|.054
91806693|NCT03396367|183490229|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.125||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.26||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention across the 3-,6-,9-, and 12- month follow-ups.|Latent Growth Curve|||||.260|-.011|.036
91806694|NCT03396367|183490230|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.245||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.913|1.403||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at baseline.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.403|-.913|.679
91806695|NCT03396367|183490230|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.301||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.938|1.336||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.336|-1.938|.359
91806696|NCT03396367|183490230|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.048||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|0.593||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention across the 3-,6-,9-, and 12- month follow-ups.|Latent Growth Curve|||||.593|-.496|.431
91757413|NCT03831100|183407756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.6|-8.6||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||-8.6|-25.6|.002
91757414|NCT03831100|183407757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|2.0||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores|||2.0|-8.8|0.30
91757415|NCT03831100|183407758|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-9.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|-4.2||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-4.2|-15.2|0.005
91757416|NCT03831100|183407759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|0.4||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||0.4|-6.4|0.064
91757417|NCT03831100|183407760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-0.8||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-0.8|-7.8|0.046
91757418|NCT03831100|183407761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|2.1||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||2.1|-5.2|0.49
91757419|NCT03831100|183407762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|0.3||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||0.3|-6.5|0.14
91757420|NCT03831100|183407763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|6.3||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||6.3|0.2|0.082
91757421|NCT03831100|183407764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|5.7||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||5.7|-0.4|0.15
91757422|NCT03831100|183407765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|-0.7||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-0.7|-5.2|0.22
91757423|NCT03831100|183407766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|-0.1||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-0.1|-5.8|0.093
91887554|NCT03838731|183668164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|205.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.09|=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|410.17|||MMRM|||Day 8||410.17|0.69|= 0.049
91757424|NCT01732770|183407779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of (denosumab - zoledronic acid) was compared with the non-inferiority margin of -0.46% for assessing non-inferiority.|Treatment Difference|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the non-inferiority analysis the 1-sided significance level was 2.5%.||2.6|1.6|<0.0001
91759900|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|8.88||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.88|-9.32|
91759901|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.39|-3.17||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.17|-21.39|
91887555|NCT03838731|183668164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|244.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|99.05|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.6|443.59|||MMRM|||Day 29||443.59|45.60|= 0.017
91887556|NCT03838731|183668164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|183.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.91|=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|377.35|||MMRM|||Day 57||377.35|-11.29|= 0.064
91887557|NCT03838731|183668164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|241.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|114.0|=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.44|469.57|||MMRM|||Day 85||469.57|12.44|= 0.039
91887558|NCT01483144|183668219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine plus sulindac is the numerator and sulindac plus eflornithine placebo is the denominator.|Intent to treat population with all FAP-related events||1.3|0.4|0.1210
91887559|NCT01483144|183668219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine plus sulindac is the numerator and eflornithine plus sulindac placebo is the denominator.|Intent to treat population with all FAP-related events||1.2|0.4|0.1076
91887560|NCT01483144|183668219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine and sulindac is the numerator and sulindac and eflornithine placebo is the denominator. Reduction in relative risk for FAP-related events with the combination.|Lower GI population||0.8|0.0|0.0201
91887561|NCT01483144|183668219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7||Threshold of significance was p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine and sulindac is the numerator and eflornithine and sulindac placebo is the denominator.|Lower GI population||0.7|0|0.0101
91887562|NCT01483144|183668220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8127||||||The threshold of significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8127
91887563|NCT01483144|183668220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8133||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8133
91887564|NCT01483144|183668221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.999
91887565|NCT01483144|183668221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2152||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2152
91757425|NCT01732770|183407780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI) of (denosumab - zoledronic acid) was compared with the non-inferiority margin of -0.51% for assessing non-inferiority.|Treatment Difference|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the non-inferiority analysis the 1-sided significance level was 2.5%.||1.7|1.0|<0.0001
91887566|NCT04624243|183668228|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 16 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.3|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-8.3|0.241
91887567|NCT04624243|183668228|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 24 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.3|4.9|||ANCOVA|||||4.9|-6.3|0.784
91757426|NCT01732770|183407781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the superiority analysis the 2-sided significance level was 5%.||2.6|1.6|<0.0001
91757427|NCT01732770|183407782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the superiority analysis the 2-sided significance level was 5%.||1.7|1.0|<0.0001
91757428|NCT04493281|183407801|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included factors accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects nested in sequences, period, and treatment. For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-t for oral suspension and intravenous formulation were required to be within the range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio (PO/IV)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04||||||||1.04|0.91|
91757429|NCT04493281|183407802|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included factors accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects nested in sequences, period, and treatment. For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-inf for oral suspension and intravenous formulation were required to be within the range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio (PO/IV)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.04||||||||1.04|0.92|
91757430|NCT04493281|183407803|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included factors accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects nested in sequences, period, and treatment. For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of Cmax for oral suspension and intravenous formulation were required to be within the range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio (PO/IV)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.36||||||||1.36|1.09|
91757431|NCT03176771|183407848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.6|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||"Control for multiplicity was accomplished through the a fixed-sequence testing procedure for Week 6 outcomes:~* AIMS dyskinesia total score mean change from baseline (CFB): MT-5199 80 mg vs. placebo.~* AIMS: MT-5199 40 mg vs. PBO. For a test result in the above list to be considered statistically significant, all of the test results higher in the list must have been significant at the 0.05 level of significance."||-2.6|-4.5|<0.001
91757432|NCT03176771|183407848|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.3|-3.0|<0.001
91757433|NCT03176771|183407849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.027
91757434|NCT03176771|183407849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91757435|NCT03176771|183407850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.3|-2.7|0.013
91757436|NCT03176771|183407850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.1|-3.5|<0.001
91757437|NCT03176771|183407851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.021
91757438|NCT03176771|183407851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANOVA|||||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
91757439|NCT04776135|183407866|OTHER|AUC0-t was log-transformed and analyzed by analysis of variance using administration groups, the administration route, study periods, and subjects as factors. Estimates of the mean values on the log scale, the mean difference between administration routes on the log scale, and 90% CIs for the difference were back transformed to present mean ratios and their 90% CIs for administration via NGT to oral administration.|Ratio (NGT/oral)|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.936|1.041|||ANOVA|||For AUC0-t, MT-1186 orally Versus MT-1186 via NGT||1.041|0.936|
91757440|NCT04776135|183407866|OTHER|AUC0-inf was log-transformed and analyzed by analysis of variance using administration groups, the administration route, study periods, and subjects as factors. Estimates of the mean values on the log scale, the mean difference between administration routes on the log scale, and 90% CIs for the difference were back transformed to present mean ratios and their 90% CIs for administration via NGT to oral administration.|Ratio (NGT/oral)|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.033|||ANOVA|||For AUC0-inf, MT-1186 orally Versus MT-1186 via NGT||1.033|0.931|
91757441|NCT04776135|183407867|OTHER|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed by analysis of variance using administration groups, the administration route, study periods, and subjects as factors. Estimates of the mean values on the log scale, the mean difference between administration routes on the log scale, and 90% CIs for the difference were back transformed to present mean ratios and their 90% CIs for administration via NGT to oral administration.|Ratio (NGT/oral)|1.052|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.227|||ANOVA|||MT-1186 orally Versus MT-1186 via NGT||1.227|0.903|
91757442|NCT03392649|183407900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91757443|NCT03392649|183407901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
91757444|NCT03392649|183407902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91757445|NCT03392649|183407903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
91757446|NCT03392649|183407904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
91757447|NCT03392649|183407905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
91757448|NCT03392649|183407906|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91887568|NCT04624243|183668230|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 16 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS PSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.1|0.096
91757449|NCT03392649|183407907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91757450|NCT03703856|183407915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||Change in ADAS-Cog score over time||||0.68
91757451|NCT03703856|183407916|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91757452|NCT03703856|183407917|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91887569|NCT04624243|183668230|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 24 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS PSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.2|0.094
91757453|NCT01192412|183407942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.35||||||We estimated that with a sample size of 514 per group, the study would have 80% power, at a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05, assuming primary outcome rates of 33% in the tight-control group and 25% in the less-tight-control group, a 10% rate of crossover, a 1% loss to follow-up, and two interim analyses, as calculated with the chi-square test with the use of East software (Cytel) and the Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming-type boundaries for early stopping.||1.35|0.77|
91757454|NCT01192412|183407943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.84||||||||3.84|0.79|
91757455|NCT02421588|183407944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.6294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.309|||Log Rank|||PFS between treatments||1.309|0.854|0.6294
91757456|NCT02421588|183407944|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|30.7|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||30.7|18.4|
91757457|NCT02421588|183407944|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|34.4|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||34.4|20.9|
91757458|NCT02421588|183407944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5032|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 6 months between treatments||||0.5032
91887570|NCT04624243|183668231|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 16 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 CGI-S change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.254
91757459|NCT02421588|183407944|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 12 months|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|13.3|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||13.3|4.7|
91757460|NCT02421588|183407944|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 12 months|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.5|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||12.5|3.3|
91757461|NCT02421588|183407944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6742|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 12 months between treatments||||0.6742
91757462|NCT02421588|183407945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.987||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.209|||Log Rank|||PFS between treatments||1.209|0.805|0.7673
91757463|NCT02421588|183407945|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|35.4|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||35.4|22.8|
91757464|NCT02421588|183407945|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|33.9|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||33.9|21.3|
91757465|NCT02421588|183407945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7385|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 6 months between treatments||||0.7385
91757466|NCT02421588|183407945|SUPERIORITY||PFS (%) at 12 months|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|12.7|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||12.7|4.8|
91757467|NCT02421588|183407945|SUPERIORITY||PFS (%) at 12 months|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|12.2|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||12.2|4.2|
91757468|NCT02421588|183407945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8245|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 12 months between treatments||||0.8245
91757469|NCT02421588|183407946|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.183|||Log Rank|||OS between treatments||1.183|0.772|0.8021
91887571|NCT04624243|183668231|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 24 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 CGI-S change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.959
91757470|NCT02421588|183407946|SUPERIORITY||OS at 12 months|48.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|54.8|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 12 months||54.8|41.3|
91757471|NCT02421588|183407946|SUPERIORITY||OS (%) at 12 months|45.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|52.0|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 12 months||52.0|38.4|
91757472|NCT02421588|183407946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5515|||||||Normal approximation|||OS (%) at 12 months between treatments||||0.5515
91757473|NCT02421588|183407946|SUPERIORITY||OS (%) at 24 months|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|28.2|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 24 months||28.2|16.8|
91757474|NCT02421588|183407946|SUPERIORITY||OS (%) at 24 months|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|28.7|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 24 months||28.7|17.1|
91757475|NCT02421588|183407946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9253|||||||Normal approximation|||OS (%) at 24 months between treatments||||0.9253
91757476|NCT02421588|183407947|SUPERIORITY||ORR|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|19.8|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate||19.8|10.1|
91757477|NCT02421588|183407947|SUPERIORITY||ORR|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|17.8|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate||17.8|8.6|
91887572|NCT04624243|183668235|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-6.5|-10.4|<0.001
91887573|NCT04624243|183668235|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.3|-5.2|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-5.2|-9.3|<0.001
91887574|NCT04624243|183668236|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.4|-4.6|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-4.6|-7.4|<0.001
91887575|NCT04624243|183668236|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|-4.2|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-4.2|-7.0|<0.001
91887576|NCT04896008|183668295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.43||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% confidence interval were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||0.43|0.13|<0.0001
91887577|NCT04896008|183668296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.07||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||1.07|0.17|0.0313
91887578|NCT04896008|183668297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.78||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||0.78|0.15|0.0039
91887579|NCT04896008|183668298|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-7.29||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.65|2.41||Two-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype)|||2.41|-17.65|0.135
91887580|NCT04896008|183668299|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-1.88||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by a randomization stratification factor (PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by a randomization stratification factor (PAH subtype).|||-1.88|-4.25|<0.001
91887581|NCT04896008|183668300|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|33.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.41|46.98||Two-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by a randomization stratification factor (PAH subtype).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by a randomization stratification factors (PAH subtype).|||46.98|18.41|<0.001
91757478|NCT02421588|183407947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6772|||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall response rate between treatments||||0.6772
91757479|NCT02421588|183407948|SUPERIORITY||ORR|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.3|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate (ORR)||21.3|11.3|
91757480|NCT02421588|183407948|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate (ORR)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|22.3|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate (ORR)||22.3|12.1|
91757481|NCT02421588|183407948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8976|||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall response rate (ORR) between treatments||||0.8976
91757482|NCT02421588|183407949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|2.569|||Log Rank|||Duration of response between treatments||2.569|0.769|0.2631
91757483|NCT02421588|183407950|SUPERIORITY|Duration of response between treatments|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056||||0.8276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.743|||Log Rank|||||1.743|0.64|0.8276
91757484|NCT02421588|183407951|SUPERIORITY||ORR (%)|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|33.8|||||Percent of Participants|ORR (%) by CA-125||33.8|20.2|
91757485|NCT02421588|183407951|SUPERIORITY||ORR (%)|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|26.3|||||Percent of Participants|ORR (%) by CA-125||26.3|13.7|
91757486|NCT02421588|183407951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1231|||||||Fisher Exact|||ORR (%) by CA-125 between treatments||||0.1231
91757487|NCT03436693|183408029|OTHER|Point Estimate|Difference(Multiple imputation method)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|21.5||||||||21.5|1.2|
91757488|NCT03436693|183408030|OTHER|Point Estimate|Difference(Multiple imputation method)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.7||||||||11.7|-4.1|
91757489|NCT03436693|183408031|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSMean|1.09||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.40|-1.21|0.351
91757490|NCT03436693|183408032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.55|||Regression, Cox|||||1.55|0.23|0.293
91757491|NCT03436693|183408033|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMean|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.646|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.646|0.418|<0.001
91757492|NCT04481789|183408034|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Rosuvastatin + Edaravone / Rosuvastatin Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.08|0.97|
91887582|NCT04896008|183668301|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2339.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3378.74|-1299.44||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||-1299.44|-3378.74|<0.001
91887583|NCT04896008|183668302|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.78|-14.59||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||-14.59|-27.78|<0.001
91887584|NCT04896008|183668303|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-339.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-511.09|-168.06||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||-168.06|-511.09|<0.001
91887585|NCT04896008|183668304|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|27.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.85|40.98||Two-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||40.98|12.85|<0.001
91757493|NCT04481789|183408034|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Sildenafil + Edaravone / Sildenafil Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.99||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||0.99|0.88|
91757494|NCT04481789|183408034|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Furosemide + Edaravone / Furosemide Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.09||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.09|0.98|
91757495|NCT04481789|183408035|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Rosuvastatin + Edaravone / Rosuvastatin).|LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.06|0.91|
91757496|NCT04481789|183408035|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Sildenafil + Edaravone / Sildenafil Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.1||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.10|0.80|
91757497|NCT04481789|183408035|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Furosemide + Edaravone / Furosemide Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.23||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.23|0.96|
91806697|NCT03396367|183490231|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.251||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.814|1.311||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at baseline.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.311|-3.814|.326
91806698|NCT03396367|183490231|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.246||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.383|1.875||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.875|-1.383|.384
91806699|NCT03396367|183490231|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.856||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|1.659||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention across the 3-,6-,9-, and 12- month follow-ups.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.659|.052|.019
91806700|NCT01411774|183490234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||p \< .05 was the threshold of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis for the outcomes used linear mixed-effects models, with treatment group as the between-participant factor and time as the within group factor||||||.95
91887586|NCT04896008|183668305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.22|102.73||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||102.73|23.22|<0.001
91887587|NCT04896008|183668306|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.5||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.16||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype)|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||1.16|-0.18|0.119
91757498|NCT04481789|183408050|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 1 Hour After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.017||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.017|0.697|
91806701|NCT03292588|183490250|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations in the first year. The model included an offset term to account for differential follow-up among participants. To account for adaptive randomization, the model was also adjusted for study site, number of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils (\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age), total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L) and treatment dose (40 mg or 100 mg).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.96|||Regression, Negative Binomial|Adjusted relative rate of exacerbations in the first year.||||0.96|0.56|0.027
91887588|NCT01810939|183668319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||||||||0.81|0.7|
91887589|NCT01810939|183668320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Test for difference between treatment groups in proportion with serum potassium ≥ 5.5 mEq/L||||<0.001
91887590|NCT01810939|183668321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Test for difference between treatment groups in proportion with serum potassium ≥ 5.1 mEq/L||||<0.001
91887591|NCT01810939|183668322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Longitudinal mixed models|Test that the mean change is significantly different from zero.||Estimation of mean change in serum potassium from Part A Baseline to Part A Week 4 and test mean change different from zero.||||<0.001
91887592|NCT01810939|183668323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Test for difference between treatment groups in serum potassium change in Part B||||< 0.001
91887593|NCT03559062|183668362|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91887594|NCT03559062|183668363|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
91757499|NCT04481789|183408050|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90% CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 4 Hours After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.891||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.891|0.610|
91887595|NCT03559062|183668364|OTHER|||||||0.0546|||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.0546
91887596|NCT01757197|183668366|OTHER|Not evaluable.|Other|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Not evaluable.||||Not evaluable.|Not evaluable.|||
91887597|NCT05646719|183668370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.20|1.23|<0.01
91887598|NCT05646719|183668370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91806702|NCT03292588|183490251|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 12.||Week 12||0.24|-0.81|0.290
91806703|NCT03292588|183490251|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 24.||Week 24||0.55|-0.69|0.820
91806704|NCT03292588|183490251|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 36.||Week 36||0.09|-1.11|0.096
91806705|NCT03292588|183490251|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 48.||Week 48||0.52|-0.65|0.831
91806706|NCT03292588|183490251|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 52.||Week 52||0.64|-0.60|0.947
91887599|NCT03322540|183668382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-6.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|8.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Point estimate was assessed based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by predominant tumor histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||8.7|-21.5|0.8000
91757500|NCT04481789|183408051|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90% CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 1 Hour After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.657|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.379|1.137||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.137|0.379|
91757501|NCT04481789|183408051|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 4 Hours After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.301|0.903||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.903|0.301|
91887600|NCT01677299|183668400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-22.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment A.||||-8|-37|<0.05
91887601|NCT01677299|183668400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-20.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment B.||||-9|-30|<0.05
91887602|NCT01677299|183668400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-16.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment C.||||-8|-24|<0.05
91887603|NCT01677299|183668400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-21.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment D.||||-11|-31|<0.05
91887604|NCT01677299|183668401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|1.4|<0.05
91887605|NCT01677299|183668401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio of (Day 5/Baseline)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|1.5|<0.05
91887606|NCT01677299|183668401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|1.4|<0.05
91887607|NCT01677299|183668401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|1.5|<0.05
91887608|NCT01677299|183668402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|1.4|<0.05
91887609|NCT01677299|183668402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|1.2|<0.05
91887610|NCT01677299|183668402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|1.3|<0.05
91887611|NCT01677299|183668402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|1.4|<0.05
91887612|NCT00755417|183668423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.81|-0.11||Based on F test of type III analysis for pairwise comparison at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4||-0.11|-1.81|0.0117
91887613|NCT00755417|183668423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.35|-0.66||Based on F test of type III analysis|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4.||-0.66|-2.35|<0.0001
91887614|NCT00755417|183668424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.183|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.49|0.38||Based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12||0.38|-1.49|0.1830
91887615|NCT00755417|183668424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.46|0.4||Based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12.||0.40|-1.46|0.1975
91887616|NCT00755417|183668425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|-0.08||Based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4.||-0.08|-0.44|0.0016
91887617|NCT00755417|183668425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|-0.14||Based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4.||-0.14|-0.51|<0.0001
91887618|NCT00755417|183668426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.02||Based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12.||0.02|-0.43|0.0433
91806707|NCT03292588|183490252|SUPERIORITY|A generalized logit model was used to analyze Physician Global Assessment Tool at Visit 14. The model included treatment arm as fixed effect as primary exposure but was also adjusted for study site, # of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils ((\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age) \& total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L). No imputation of missing data was used for participants who weren't assessed for quality of life measurements at Visit 14.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Physician Global Assessment Tool||1.64|0.62|0.974
91806708|NCT03292588|183490253|SUPERIORITY|A generalized logit model was used to analyze the Patient Global Assessment Tool at Visit 14. The model included treatment arm as fixed effect as the primary exposure but was adjusted for study site, # of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils ((\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age) \& total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L). No imputation of missing data was used for participants who weren't assessed for quality of life measurements at Visit 14.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient Global Assessment Tool||1.24|0.42|0.238
91806709|NCT03292588|183490254|SUPERIORITY|A generalized mixed model as described in section 8.3.1 was used to analyze each spirometry and impulse oscillometry parameter, separately, at each visit where the lung function was collected.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 12||0.013|-0.023|0.591
91806710|NCT03292588|183490254|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.011||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 24||0.008|-0.031|0.265
91806711|NCT03292588|183490254|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 36||0.033|-0.012|0.345
91806712|NCT03292588|183490254|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.013||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 48||0.036|-0.009|0.248
91887619|NCT00755417|183668426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.42|0.03||Based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12.||0.03|-0.42|0.0468
91757502|NCT05216224|183408064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|4.52||Significance level of 0.05|MMRM|Fixed effect terms for treatment, study visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline count of inflammatory abscesses and nodules as a covariate.||||4.52|1.50|>0.999
91757503|NCT03245008|183408072|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.86||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.86|-1.57|<0.001
91757504|NCT03245008|183408072|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.07||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.76|0.103
91887620|NCT03443414|183668436|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.21|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo).||0.210|0.069|<0.001
91757505|NCT03245008|183408073|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.92||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.92|-1.60|<0.001
91757506|NCT03245008|183408073|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.05||||||||-0.05|-0.84|
91757507|NCT02678923|183408102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.73||||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.52||Baseline parameter value as a covariate and treatment group as factor, adjusting for country and prior statin use.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|-0.07|0.0738
91757508|NCT00552409|183408198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|251.0|||Regression, Linear||Mean urine ACR on treatment was 17% lower among participants assigned to cholecalciferol, compared to participants assigned to placebo, adjusted for baseline values.|||251|-56|
91806713|NCT03292588|183490254|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 52||0.020|-0.023|0.864
91806714|NCT03292588|183490255|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 12||3.0|-3.8|0.816
91806715|NCT03292588|183490255|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 24||0.6|-7.4|0.095
91806716|NCT03292588|183490255|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.5||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 36||5.5|-2.4|0.444
91806717|NCT03292588|183490255|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 48||4.6|-3.3|0.751
91806718|NCT03292588|183490255|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 52||1.3|-6.5|0.184
91806719|NCT03292588|183490256|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations (per year. The model included an offset term to account for differential follow-up among participants. To account for adaptive randomization, the model was also adjusted for study site, number of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils (\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age), total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L) and treatment dose (40 mg or 100 mg).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Did not meet FDA-approved dosing||1.31|0.55|0.458
91806720|NCT03292588|183490257|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations (per year. The model included an offset term to account for differential follow-up among participants. To account for adaptive randomization, the model was also adjusted for study site, number of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils (\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age), total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L) and treatment dose (40 mg or 100 mg).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||Regression, Negative Binomial|||Fit FDA-approved dosing||0.95|0.47|0.025
91757509|NCT01304589|183408200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91757510|NCT01304589|183408201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|paired T-test|"Subjects completed a tampon insertion pain test once a week. The values were averaged and compared pre-treatment versus post-treatment."||||||.003
91757511|NCT01304589|183408202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91757512|NCT01304589|183408203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91757513|NCT00659230|183408222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.18||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.27|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|The analysis was conducted using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model consisted of two factors - treatment at two levels and time (5 time points including baseline) and group by time interaction.||0.27|-0.64|0.723
91757514|NCT00659230|183408223|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.07||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.39|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|||0.39|-.52|0.540
91757515|NCT00659230|183408224|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.18||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.27|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|||0.27|-0.64|0.951
91757516|NCT00659230|183408225|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.11||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.56|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|||0.56|-0.35|0.396
91757517|NCT05342597|183408250|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.128|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.128|0.931|
91757518|NCT05342597|183408250|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.871|1.056|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.056|0.871|
91757519|NCT05342597|183408250|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.827|1.002|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.002|0.827|
91757520|NCT05342597|183408250|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.712|0.901|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.901|0.712|
91757521|NCT05342597|183408251|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|1.083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.821|1.429|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.429|0.821|
91887621|NCT03443414|183668436|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.27|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo).||0.270|0.131|<0.001
91887622|NCT03443414|183668436|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.222|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo).||0.222|0.083|<0.001
91887623|NCT03443414|183668436|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.146|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.216|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo).||0.216|0.075|<0.001
91757522|NCT05342597|183408251|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.661|1.15|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.150|0.661|
91806721|NCT03292588|183490258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.63|0.3587
91887624|NCT03443414|183668437|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.002|||=|0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.065|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo).||0.065|-0.061|=0.953
91887625|NCT03443414|183668437|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.068|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.13|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo).||0.130|0.006|=0.032
91757523|NCT05342597|183408251|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.621|1.082|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.082|0.621|
91757524|NCT05342597|183408251|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.362|0.794|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.794|0.362|
91757525|NCT02354222|183408286|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-1.16|<0.001
91757526|NCT02354222|183408287|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-7.9|||ANCOVA|||||-7.9|-23.3|<0.001
91757527|NCT02354222|183408288|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.23|||ANCOVA|||||2.23|0.63|<0.001
91757528|NCT02354222|183408289|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-55.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|-37.6|||ANCOVA|||||-37.6|-74.1|<0.001
91757529|NCT02354222|183408290|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|-25.2|||ANCOVA|||||-25.2|-49.9|<0.001
91757530|NCT02159118|183408386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91757531|NCT02159118|183408387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
91757532|NCT02159118|183408388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91757533|NCT02159118|183408389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91757534|NCT02159118|183408390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91757535|NCT02159118|183408391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
91887626|NCT03443414|183668437|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.009|||=|0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.072|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo).||0.072|-0.053|=0.773
91887627|NCT03443414|183668437|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.035|||=|0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.099|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo).||0.099|-0.028|=0.272
91887628|NCT03443414|183668438|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.087|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.129|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.129|0.045|<0.001
91887629|NCT03443414|183668438|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.137|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.137|0.053|<0.001
91757536|NCT02159118|183408392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91757537|NCT02159118|183408393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91757538|NCT02159118|183408394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91757539|NCT01716104|183408432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
91757540|NCT01716104|183408433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
91757541|NCT01716104|183408434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0008
91757542|NCT01716104|183408435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0011
91757543|NCT01716104|183408436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0054
91757544|NCT01716104|183408437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0437
91757545|NCT01716104|183408438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0862|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0862
91757546|NCT01716104|183408439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0621|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0621
91757547|NCT01716104|183408440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0142
91757548|NCT00117793|183408442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study limb on limb volume was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.05
91757549|NCT00117793|183408443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0056||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study limb on activity level was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||=0.0056
91757550|NCT00117793|183408444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0021||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study limb on limb pistoning was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||=0.0021
91757551|NCT01818492|183408450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0134|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%.||||0.0134
91757552|NCT01818492|183408451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%||||0.0031
91887630|NCT03443414|183668438|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.07|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.112|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.112|0.028|=0.001
91806722|NCT03808493|183490272|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUClast, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the least square means (LS-Means) between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0211|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0752|0.0329||||||||0.0329|-0.0752|
91806723|NCT03808493|183490272|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUClast, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0778|0.0815||||||||0.0815|-0.0778|
91806724|NCT03808493|183490273|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Cmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0698|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1404|0.0008||||||||0.0008|-0.1404|
91806725|NCT03808493|183490273|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Cmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0811|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1658|0.0036||||||||0.0036|-0.1658|
91806726|NCT03808493|183490274|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUC∞, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0731|0.0333||||||||0.0333|-0.0731|
91806727|NCT03808493|183490274|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUC∞, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.076|0.083||||||||0.0830|-0.0760|
91757553|NCT01818492|183408452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%||||0.0205
91757554|NCT01818492|183408453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%.||||0.0053
91757555|NCT02772978|183408470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|Fisher transformation|||The comparison group represents the difference in ICR and the baseline impulsiveness scale, non-planning subscale.||||0.04
91757556|NCT02772978|183408471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold is set to p \< 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons.|Fisher transformation|||||||< 0.05
91757557|NCT03624127|183408516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.51|36.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.81|9.51|<0.0001
91806728|NCT03808493|183490275|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Tmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.1902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0199|0.3605||||||||0.3605|0.0199|
91887631|NCT03443414|183668438|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.122|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.122|0.038|<0.001
91757558|NCT03624127|183408517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.49|18.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.95|6.49|<0.0001
91757559|NCT03624127|183408518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|37.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.72|6.91|<0.0001
91757560|NCT03624127|183408518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.60|1.51|0.0002
91806729|NCT03808493|183490275|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Tmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.2142|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0558|0.3725||||||||0.3725|0.0558|
91806730|NCT03808493|183490276|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) MRT∞,ev, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0311|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0022|0.0599||||||||0.0599|0.0022|
91806731|NCT03808493|183490276|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) MRT∞,ev, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0306|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003|0.0616||||||||0.0616|-0.0003|
91806732|NCT03808493|183490277|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) λz, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0209|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0112|0.053||||||||0.0530|-0.0112|
91757561|NCT03624127|183408519|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|239.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||239.36|4.09|<0.0001
91757562|NCT03624127|183408520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|9.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.84|2.07|<0.0001
91806733|NCT03808493|183490277|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) λz, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0135|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0508|0.0238||||||||0.0238|-0.0508|
91806734|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 3|Geometric Mean Titers Ratio (GMT Ratio)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.97|0.72|
91757563|NCT03624127|183408520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.29|295.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||295.75|5.29|<0.0001
91757564|NCT03624127|183408521|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-4.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4.9|-12.8|<0.0001
91757565|NCT03624127|183408522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.67||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|105.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||105.50|1.77|0.0013
91757566|NCT03624127|183408522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.42|0.76|0.1702
91757567|NCT03624127|183408523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|10.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.53|3.46|<0.0001
91757568|NCT03624127|183408524|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.96|0.73|0.1049
91757569|NCT03624127|183408525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.91|1.78|<0.0001
91757570|NCT03624127|183408526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.78|1.70|<0.0001
91757571|NCT03624127|183408527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.69|21.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.25|6.69|<0.0001
91757572|NCT03624127|183408527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|6.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.04|2.21|<0.0001
91757573|NCT03624127|183408528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|4.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.83|2.16|<0.0001
91757574|NCT03624127|183408529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.60|2.53|<0.0001
91757575|NCT03624127|183408530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.05|1.71|<0.0001
91757576|NCT03624127|183408531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|1.96|<0.0001
91757577|NCT03624127|183408532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|2.06|<0.0001
91757578|NCT03624127|183408533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.19|1.55|0.0002
91806735|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 6A|GMT Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.94|0.66|
91806736|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 7F|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.85|0.63|
91757579|NCT00006400|183408546|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis was done using an intention-to-treat principle.||||||0.21||||||The spleen endpoint was to be tested at an overall alpha = 0.04. Originally there was a second primary outcome to be tested at alpha = 0.01, but this outcome was dropped.|Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or decreased to absent) and not worsening (from decreased to decreased, normal to normal, or decreased to normal) as measured by splenic uptake on a technetium-99m (99mTc) sulfur colloid liver-spleen scan. Children with missing data or absent spleen function at baseline were excluded from the analysis (26 subjects from hydroxyurea and 23 subjects from placebo group were excluded).||||0.21
91757580|NCT00006400|183408547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||This was originally a second primary outcome to be tested at alpha = 0.01, but was later dropped from the protocol. We analyzed the available data.|ANOVA|||The change from baseline to exit as measured by DTPA GFR were compared between treatment groups.||||0.93
91757581|NCT00006400|183408548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||All secondary outcomes were tested at alpha=0.01|ANOVA|||The change from baseline to exit as measured by GFR (calculated using Shwartz formula) were compared between treatment groups.||||0.43
91757582|NCT00006400|183408549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||All secondary outcomes were to be tested at alpha = 0.01|ANOVA|||The change in GFR from baseline to exit were compared between treatment groups. GFR was calculated using new Schwartz formula.||||0.48
91757583|NCT00666224|183408550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.77||Type of unifocal presentation at baseline, past corticosteroid treatment (Yes/No) for the initial attack prior to randomization, and center effects as covariates.|Regression, Cox|||||0.77|0.40|0.0005
91757584|NCT00666224|183408551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.61|||Quasi-Likelihood NB* Regression|"\*NB = Negative Binomial~Center and baseline number of enhancing lesions as covariates."||||0.61|0.29|<0.0001
91757585|NCT00666224|183408552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric means ratio|0.87||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||ANCOVA|Used log-transformed measurements comparing the adjusted geometric means of T2 volume. Center and baseline T2 volume used as covariates.||||0.95|0.79|0.0013
91757586|NCT00666224|183408555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.61||Type of unifocal presentation, past corticosteroid treatment (Yes/No) for the initial attack prior to randomization and center effects as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.61|0.27|<0.0001
91757587|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.37||||||Serotype 1: Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs).||1.37|0.95|
91757588|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||||||Serotype 3: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.88|
91757589|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17||||||Serotype 4: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.78|
91757590|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||Serotype 5: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.77|
91757591|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.5||||||Serotype 6A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.50|1.03|
91757592|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21||||||Serotype 6B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.21|0.85|
91757593|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.17||||||Serotype 7F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.82|
91757594|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33||||||Serotype 9V: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.93|
91757595|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.27||||||Serotype 14: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.27|0.90|
91757596|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||Serotype 18C: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.07|0.72|
91757597|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||Serotype 19A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.81|
91757598|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21||||||Serotype 19F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.21|0.81|
91757599|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.16||||||Serotype 23F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.72|
91757600|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4||||||Serotype 8: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.40|1.00|
91757601|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36||||||Serotype 10A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.36|0.91|
91757602|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.6||||||Serotype 11A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.60|1.03|
91757603|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33||||||Serotype 12F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.88|
91757604|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.46||||||Serotype 15B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.46|0.91|
91757605|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43||||||Serotype 22F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.43|0.87|
91757606|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3||||||Serotype 33F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.30|0.83|
91757607|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.46||||||Serotype 1: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.46|1.01|
91757608|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||||||Serotype 3: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.26|0.96|
91757609|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22||||||Serotype 4: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.22|0.82|
91757610|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31||||||Serotype 5: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.31|0.89|
91757611|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.69||||||Serotype 6A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.69|1.16|
91757612|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.35||||||Serotype 6B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.35|0.94|
91757613|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||||||Serotype 7F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.81|
91757614|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||||||Serotype 9V: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.25|0.87|
91757615|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33||||||Serotype 14: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.94|
91909730|NCT02706873|183715741|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|31.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||31.1|16.3|<0.001
91909731|NCT02706873|183715741|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|35.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||35.4|20.6|<0.001
91909732|NCT02706873|183715742|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|36.8||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||36.8|22.8|<0.001
91757616|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13||||||Serotype 18C: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.13|0.75|
91757617|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2||||||Serotype 19A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.20|0.86|
91757618|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17||||||Serotype 19F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.78|
91757619|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25||||||Serotype 23F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.25|0.78|
91757620|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||||||Serotype 8: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.83|
91806737|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 8|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.82|0.61|
91757621|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3||||||Serotype 10A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.30|0.87|
91757622|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24||||||Serotype 11A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.80|
91757623|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42||||||Serotype 12F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.42|0.94|
91757624|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33||||||Serotype 15B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.82|
91757625|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.26||||||Serotype 22F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.26|0.77|
91757626|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29||||||Serotype 33F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.29|0.82|
91757627|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28||||||Serotype 1: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.28|0.89|
91757628|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24||||||Serotype 3: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.95|
91757629|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27||||||Serotype 4: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.27|0.85|
91757630|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.41||||||Serotype 5: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.41|0.96|
91757631|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.36||||||Serotype 6A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.36|0.93|
91757632|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33||||||Serotype 6B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.93|
91757633|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19||||||Serotype 7F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.19|0.83|
91757634|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12||||||Serotype 9V: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.78|
91887632|NCT03443414|183668438|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.065|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.129|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.129|0.001|=0.048
91887633|NCT03443414|183668438|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.119|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.183|||LS mean difference|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.183|0.055|<0.001
91887634|NCT03443414|183668438|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.085|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.149|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.149|0.022|=0.008
91887635|NCT03443414|183668438|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.072|||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.137|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.137|0.008|=0.028
91757635|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.24||||||Serotype 14: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.88|
91757636|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29||||||Serotype 18C: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.29|0.86|
91757637|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25||||||Serotype 19A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.25|0.91|
91757638|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.17||||||Serotype 19F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.79|
91757639|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37||||||Serotype 23F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.37|0.85|
91757640|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 8: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||0.98|0.70|
91757641|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17||||||Serotype 10A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.78|
91757642|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96||||||Serotype 11A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||0.96|0.62|
91757643|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31||||||Serotype 12F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.31|0.87|
91757644|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.15||||||Serotype 15B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.15|0.71|
91909733|NCT02706873|183715742|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|38.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||38.5|24.5|<0.001
91806738|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 9N|GMT Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.79||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.79|0.57|
91887636|NCT03933462|183668442|SUPERIORITY|"Categorical preference endpoints that answered at the final visit (e.g., Which device do you prefer?) were analyzed with a One-sample Binomial Test that compared the observed proportion to a 50/50 split."|||||<|0.001|||||||One Sample Binomial|||||||<0.001
91887637|NCT03355209|183668492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (A-P)|-19.88||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.02|-8.74|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann (HL) method|||-8.74|-31.02|0.0008
91887638|NCT03355209|183668495|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (A-P)|-10.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.99|3.99|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann (HL) method|||3.99|-24.99|0.1460
91887639|NCT03355209|183668496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|7.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.59|1.43|0.0051
91887640|NCT03355209|183668496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.70|1.23|0.0150
91887641|NCT03355209|183668497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Visit 12||2.97|0.84|0.1565
91887642|NCT03355209|183668497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Visit 12||3.52|0.98|0.0567
91887643|NCT01151215|183668541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75||Statistical significance threshold at this interim analysis was 5%|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified for the IVRS stratification factor of disease classification (locally advanced / metastatic disease)|The Hazard Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + anastrozole 1mg / Placebo + anastrozole 1mg, ie a hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + anastrozole 1mg|345 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 233 progression events, based on HR=0.60, 90% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 9 months for the placebo arm. An interim analysis with futility boundary was introduced based on an IDMC recommendation.||1.75|0.77|0.485
91887644|NCT01151215|183668541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.06|||Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified for the IVRS stratification factor of disease classification (locally advanced / metastatic disease)|The Hazard ratio is for AZD8931 20mg + anastrozole 1mg / Placebo + anastrozole 1mg, ie a hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD8931 20mg + anastrozole 1mg|345 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 233 progression events, based on HR=0.6, 90% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 9 months for the placebo arm. An interim analysis with futility boundary was introduced based on an IDMC recommendation.||2.06|0.91|0.135
91887645|NCT01299480|183668585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB80 \[A22\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
91887646|NCT01299480|183668585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2001 \[A56\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
91887647|NCT01299480|183668585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2948 \[B24\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
91887648|NCT01299480|183668585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2707 \[B44\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
91887649|NCT01299480|183668585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB80 \[A22\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
91887650|NCT01299480|183668585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2001 \[A56\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
91887651|NCT01299480|183668585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2948 \[B24\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
91887652|NCT01299480|183668585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2707 \[B44\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
91887653|NCT01299480|183668587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB80 \[A22\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
91887654|NCT01299480|183668587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2001 \[A56\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
91887655|NCT01299480|183668587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2948 \[B24\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
91887656|NCT01299480|183668587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2707 \[B44\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
91806739|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 10A|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.91|0.65|
91806740|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 11A|GMT Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.75||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.75|0.54|
91806741|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 12F|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.94|0.62|
91806742|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 15A|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.85||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.85|0.60|
91806743|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 15C|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.87|0.58|
91757645|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12||||||Serotype 22F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.69|
91757646|NCT03828617|183408575|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.24||||||Serotype 33F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.79|
91806744|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 16F|GMT Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.81||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.81|0.59|
91887657|NCT01621776|183668592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|145.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.04||0.971||95.0|129.73|160.47|||ANOVA||This is a three arm study that is not seeking to engage in comparison between individual arms, therefore the mean difference across the study arms is reported.|||160.47|129.73|.971
91887658|NCT01621776|183668593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|161.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.67||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|144.91|177.28|||ANOVA||This is a three arm study that is not seeking to engage in comparison between individual arms, therefore the mean difference across the study arms is reported.|||177.28|144.91|.698
91887659|NCT01621776|183668594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|220.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.97||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|197.22|243.71|||ANOVA||This is a three arm study that is not seeking to engage in comparison between individual arms, therefore the mean difference across the study arms is reported.|||243.71|197.22|.806
91887660|NCT04916730|183668603|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91887661|NCT02078492|183668617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We assumed a minimal clinically significant difference (MCSD) of 1.3 between the three ketorolac groups at the 30-minute pain assessment and a standard deviation of 3.0. A power analysis determined that a sample of 78 subjects per group provided at least 80% power to detect an MCSD of at least 1.3 at 30 minutes with α=0.05.||||||0.783|||||||ANOVA|2 degrees of freedom||The main hypothesis was that there would be equivalence of dose effect across the three groups at every time point, and the primary comparison consisted of the pain assessment at 30 minutes.||||.783
91887662|NCT00760747|183668618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-4.0|0.692
91757647|NCT03354273|183408579|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 1: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
91757648|NCT03354273|183408579|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.0182|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 1: Specificity||||0.0182
91757649|NCT03354273|183408579|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 2: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
91757650|NCT03354273|183408579|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.0002|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 2: Specificity||||0.0002
91806745|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 17F|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.86|0.62|
91806746|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 19A|GMT Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.85|0.65|
91806747|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 20A|GMT Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.87|0.63|
91806748|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 22F|GMT Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.91|0.65|
91806749|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 23A|GMT Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.96|0.63|
91806750|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 23B|GMT Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.72|0.44|
91757651|NCT03354273|183408579|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 3: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
91806751|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 24F|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.86|0.61|
91757652|NCT03354273|183408579|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.997|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 3: Specificity||||0.9970
91806752|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 31|GMT Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.83||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.83|0.56|
91806753|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 33F|GMT Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||1.01|0.70|
91806754|NCT05526716|183490286|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 35B|GMT Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of serotypes is \>0.50.||0.89|0.67|
91806755|NCT05526716|183490287|NON_INFERIORITY|A/H1N1|GMT Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||0.97|0.70|
91806756|NCT05526716|183490287|NON_INFERIORITY|A/H3N2|GMT Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||0.93|0.67|
91887663|NCT00760747|183668619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|0.456
91887664|NCT00760747|183668620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|0.517
91887665|NCT00760747|183668621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.3|0.526
91887666|NCT00760747|183668622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.4|0.898
91887667|NCT00760747|183668627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 2|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-2.9|0.927
91887668|NCT00402051|183668633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-Month PFS Rate|52.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|65.3||||||Hypothesis testing was done independently for each treatment arm (no direct treatment group comparison).||65.3|40.3|
91887669|NCT00402051|183668633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-Month PFS Rate|39.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|50.8||||||Hypothesis testing was done independently for each treatment arm (no direct treatment group comparison).||50.8|27.8|
91887670|NCT00402051|183668635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Best Overall Response Rate (%)|32.3||||||95.0|21.2|45.1||||||Response rates were evaluated separately for each treatment arm||45.1|21.2|
91887671|NCT00402051|183668635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Best Overall Response Rate (%)|20.0||||||95.0|11.1|31.8||||||Response rates were evaluated separately for each treatment arm||31.8|11.1|
91887672|NCT00789360|183668715|OTHER||Maximum LS mean change difference|0.0917|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.028|0.212|||||Maximum difference occurred at 10 hours|The largest treatment difference (Loxapine - Placebo) in change in FEV1 from baseline by spirometry||0.212|-0.028|
91887673|NCT00789360|183668716|OTHER||Maximum LS mean change difference|-0.154|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|-0.019|||||Greatest difference occurred at 9 hours after Dose 1|||-0.019|-0.290|
91887674|NCT00955708|183668775|OTHER|Primary endpoint was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. In addition, Greenwood's formula was used to calculate the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound.|Kaplan-Meier Rate|95.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.0||||||The lower one-sided 95% confidence bound was pre-specified to be greater than 92.5%.|The endpoint data reflected here is a modified primary endpoint analysis requested by the Food and Drug Administration early in the registry to include data that is related to the left ventricular lead function in a chronic setting.|||94.0|
91887675|NCT00955708|183668775|OTHER|Primary endpoint was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. In addition, Greenwood's formula was used to calculate the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound.|Kaplan-Meier Rate|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|100.0|||||||The non-modified primary endpoint analysis initially included confirmed chronic LV lead related complications that result in permanent loss of therapy, invasive intervention, injury or death, and are deemed attributable to a structural lead failure by an independent Clinical Events Committee (CEC). These results are represented here.|||100|
91889155|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|61.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 11A||61.9|53.1|
91757653|NCT03354273|183408579|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
91757654|NCT03354273|183408579|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.0781|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Majority Rule: Specificity||||0.0781
91757655|NCT03354273|183408580|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|22.4|||McNemar|The hypothesis tests were 1-sided McNemar's tests with a significance level of 0.025 for sensitivity.||Reader 1: Sensitivity||22.4|6.5|<0.0001
91757656|NCT03354273|183408580|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|2.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.7|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||9.7|-4.9|0.0004
91757657|NCT03354273|183408580|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|12.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|21.0|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||21.0|4.7|0.0002
91806757|NCT05526716|183490287|NON_INFERIORITY|B/Victoria|GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||0.95|0.70|
91806758|NCT05526716|183490287|NON_INFERIORITY|B/Yamagata|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||1.00|0.78|
91806759|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 3|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02||||||||1.02|0.80|
91806760|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 6A|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.11||||||||1.11|0.79|
91806761|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 7F|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9||||||||0.90|0.67|
91887676|NCT01735175|183668813|EQUIVALENCE|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.26|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|The difference between LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim was 0.07 days (95% CI \[-0.12, 0.26\]). 95% CIs were within the predefined margin of ±1 day confirming equivalence.|"The hierarchical test procedure aimed to show that~1. LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® are equivalent with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin±1 day), and, if so~2. LA-EP2006 is non-inferior to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin of -0.6 days)."||0.26|-0.12|0.05
91887677|NCT01735175|183668813|NON_INFERIORITY|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.26|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|LA-EP2006 is non-inferior to Neulasta® because the lower bound of the 95% CI is entirely above the non-inferiority margin of -0.6 days.|"The hierarchical test procedure aimed to show that~1. LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® are equivalent with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin±1 day), and, if so~2. LA-EP2006 is non-inferior to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin of -0.6 days)."||0.26|-0.12|0.05
91887678|NCT02103114|183668823|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline)||||||0.982|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.982
91887679|NCT02103114|183668823|EQUIVALENCE|T2 (30 minutes after study drug)|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91887680|NCT02103114|183668823|EQUIVALENCE|T3 (30 minutes on CPB)||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91887681|NCT02103114|183668823|EQUIVALENCE|T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91887682|NCT02103114|183668823|EQUIVALENCE|T6 (POD 2)||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.840
91887683|NCT02103114|183668823|EQUIVALENCE|T7 (POD 4)||||||0.475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.475
91887684|NCT02103114|183668824|EQUIVALENCE|T4 (just prior to coming off of CPB)||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
91887685|NCT02103114|183668825|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline)||||||0.855|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.855
91887686|NCT02103114|183668825|EQUIVALENCE|T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.225
91887687|NCT02103114|183668825|EQUIVALENCE|T6 (POD 2)||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.313
91887688|NCT02103114|183668825|EQUIVALENCE|T7 (POD 4)||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91887689|NCT02103114|183668828|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline) to T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.056
91887690|NCT02103114|183668829|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline) to T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.545|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.545
91887691|NCT02103114|183668831|EQUIVALENCE|Baseline (intraoperatively) (Time 1) to before termination of bypass (Time 4)||||||0.757|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.757
91887692|NCT02103114|183668834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Fresh Frozen Plasma exposures||||||0.2741
91887693|NCT02103114|183668834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Platelet exposures||||||0.0351
91887694|NCT02103114|183668834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Cryoprecipitate exposures||||||0.073
91887695|NCT02103114|183668834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Red Blood Cell exposures||||||0.0196
91887696|NCT02103114|183668835|EQUIVALENCE|protamine time plus 24 hours||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
91887697|NCT02103114|183668837|EQUIVALENCE|24 Hours Post-Operatively||||||0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0004
91887698|NCT02103114|183668838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.927|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.927
91887699|NCT02103114|183668839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.738
91887700|NCT02103114|183668840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.231
91887701|NCT02103114|183668841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.661|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
91887702|NCT02103114|183668843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91887703|NCT02103114|183668844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.342|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.342
91887704|NCT02103114|183668845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.961|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.961
91887705|NCT01266161|183668855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.45|31.07||p-Value from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with treatment, baseline PSR, gender terms. To protect type I error at 5% significance, 2 primary parameters tested sequentially: SPRID 8-12 not declared significant unless SPRID 0-12 was significant.|ANOVA|||||31.07|16.45|<0.001
91806762|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 8|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||||||||0.95|0.70|
91757658|NCT03354273|183408580|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.8|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||11.8|-2.1|<0.0001
91757659|NCT03354273|183408580|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.9|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||19.9|6.6|<0.0001
91806763|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 9N|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||||||||1.05|0.75|
91806764|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 10A|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94||||||||0.94|0.67|
91806765|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 11A|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96||||||||0.96|0.72|
91806766|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 12F|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||||||||1.01|0.69|
91806767|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 15A|GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.9||||||||0.90|0.63|
91887706|NCT01266161|183668856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|12.71||p-Value from ANOVA model, with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms. To protect type I error at 5% significance, 2 primary parameters tested sequentially: SPRID 8-12 not declared significant unless SPRID 0-12 was significant.|ANOVA|||||12.71|4.13|<0.001
91887707|NCT01266161|183668857|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|8.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.94|11.95||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 0-12.||11.95|5.94|<0.001
91887708|NCT01266161|183668857|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.85||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 8-12.||4.85|1.45|<0.001
91887709|NCT01266161|183668857|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|6.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|10.27||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 12-24.||10.27|2.84|<0.001
91887710|NCT01266161|183668857|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|2.02||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|4.37||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 20-24.||4.37|-0.33|0.091
91887711|NCT01266161|183668857|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|14.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.12|20.79||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 0-24.||20.79|9.12|<0.001
91887712|NCT01266161|183668857|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|5.87||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|10.33||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 24-36.||10.33|1.42|0.010
91887713|NCT01266161|183668857|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|3.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.83||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 32-36.||5.83|1.13|0.004
91887714|NCT01266161|183668857|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|6.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|10.36||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 36-48.||10.36|1.82|0.006
91887715|NCT01266161|183668857|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|2.41||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.73||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 44-48.||4.73|0.09|0.042
91887716|NCT01266161|183668857|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|10.97||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|18.45||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 24-48.||18.45|3.49|0.004
91887717|NCT01266161|183668858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|0.1|0.34|||proportional hazards model|||||0.34|0.10|<0.001
91887718|NCT01266161|183668859|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-48.01|||<|0.001||95.0|-64.46|-31.56||p-Values from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the first dosing interval (0 to 12 hours).||-31.56|-64.46|<0.001
91887719|NCT01266161|183668859|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-25.53|||<|0.001||95.0|-39.78|-11.28||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the second dosing interval (12 to 24 hours).||-11.28|-39.78|<0.001
91887720|NCT01266161|183668859|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-24.05||||0.002||95.0|-38.93|-9.18||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the third dosing interval (24 to 36 hours).||-9.18|-38.93|0.002
91887721|NCT01266161|183668859|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-13.6||||0.035||95.0|-26.41|-0.79||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the fourth dosing interval (36 to 48 hours).||-0.79|-26.41|0.035
91887722|NCT01266161|183668859|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-48.01|||<|0.001||95.0|-64.42|-31.6||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the study overall (0 to 48 hours).||-31.60|-64.42|<0.001
91887723|NCT01266161|183668859|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard models|0.086||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.57|||Andersen-Gill (AG)|||Time to First Dose Rescue Medication Over Entire Study Period (0-48 Hours)||0.57|0.01|0.011
91887724|NCT01266161|183668860|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.84|||<|0.001||95.0|0.5|1.19||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.||1.19|0.50|<0.001
91887725|NCT01266161|183668860|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.53|||<|0.001||95.0|1.11|1.94||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1 hour.||1.94|1.11|<0.001
91887726|NCT01266161|183668860|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.0|||<|0.001||95.0|1.56|2.44||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1.5 hours.||2.44|1.56|<0.001
91887727|NCT01266161|183668860|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.29|||<|0.001||95.0|1.86|2.73||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 2 hours.||2.73|1.86|<0.001
91887728|NCT01266161|183668860|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.18|||<|0.001||95.0|1.69|2.68||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 4 hours.||2.68|1.69|<0.001
91757660|NCT03354273|183408580|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|1.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.4|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 3: Specificity||8.4|-6.0|0.0011
91806768|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 15C|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.02||||||||1.02|0.71|
91806769|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 16F|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||||||||0.99|0.70|
91806770|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 17F|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
91887729|NCT01266161|183668860|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.92|||<|0.001||95.0|0.46|1.38||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA||Treatment difference (ibuprofen minus placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model.|Ibuprofen versus placebo at 6 hours.||1.38|0.46|<0.001
91887730|NCT01266161|183668860|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.04|||<|0.001||95.0|0.54|1.54||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 8 hours.||1.54|0.54|<0.001
91887731|NCT01266161|183668860|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.1|||<|0.001||95.0|0.59|1.6||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 10 hours.||1.60|0.59|<0.001
91887732|NCT01266161|183668860|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.5||||0.052||95.0|0.0|1.01||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 12 hours.||1.01|-0.00|0.052
91887733|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|0.16|0.59||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.||0.59|0.16|<0.001
91887734|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|0.63|1.18||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1 hour.||1.18|0.63|<0.001
91887735|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.22|||<|0.001||95.0|0.91|1.52||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1.5 hours.||1.52|0.91|<0.001
91887736|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.4|||<|0.001||95.0|1.1|1.71||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 2 hours.||1.71|1.10|<0.001
91887737|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.32|||<|0.001||95.0|0.97|1.67||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 4 hours.||1.67|0.97|<0.001
91806771|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 19A|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||||||||0.93|0.71|
91887738|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.61|||<|0.001||95.0|0.3|0.91||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 6 hours.||0.91|0.30|<0.001
91887739|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|0.31|0.97||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 8 hours.||0.97|0.31|<0.001
91887740|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.66|||<|0.001||95.0|0.36|0.97||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 10 hours.||0.97|0.36|<0.001
91887741|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.27||||0.089||95.0|-0.04|0.59||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 12 hours.||0.59|-0.04|0.089
91887742|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.0|||<|0.001||95.0|0.7|1.29||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 16 hours.||1.29|0.70|<0.001
91887743|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.47||||0.004||95.0|0.15|0.78||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 20 hours.||0.78|0.15|0.004
91887744|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.04||||0.821||95.0|-0.28|0.35||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 24 hours.||0.35|-0.28|0.821
91887745|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.56||||0.001||95.0|0.23|0.9||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 28 hours.||0.90|0.23|0.001
91887746|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.62|||<|0.001||95.0|0.3|0.94||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 32 hours.||0.94|0.30|<0.001
91887747|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.25||||0.127||95.0|-0.07|0.57||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 36 hours.||0.57|-0.07|0.127
91757661|NCT03354273|183408580|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.2|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||19.2|4.1|0.0003
91806772|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 20A|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||||||||0.97|0.70|
91806773|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 22F|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.10|0.80|
91806774|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 23A|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03||||||||1.03|0.70|
91806775|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 23B|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||||1.02|0.72|
91806776|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 24F|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05||||||||1.05|0.69|
91757662|NCT03354273|183408580|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|2.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.3|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||9.3|-5.0|0.0004
91757663|NCT03354273|183408581|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|24.4||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|43.4|||McNemar|||Reader 1: Sensitivity||43.4|5.4|0.0127
91757664|NCT03354273|183408581|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|9.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|20.2|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||20.2|-1.2|0.0001
91757665|NCT03354273|183408581|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|22.0||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|41.7|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||41.7|2.2|0.0195
91757666|NCT03354273|183408581|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|16.8|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||16.8|-3.2|0.0004
91757667|NCT03354273|183408581|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|17.1||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|32.4|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||32.4|1.7|0.0174
91806777|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 31|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
91757668|NCT03354273|183408581|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|0.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|11.3|||Nam's RMLE|||||11.3|-9.9|0.0240
91806778|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 33F|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.94||||||||0.94|0.69|
91806779|NCT05526716|183490288|OTHER|Serotype 35B|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
91806780|NCT01438957|183490317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
91806781|NCT01438957|183490317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.003
91806782|NCT01438957|183490317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.086
91806783|NCT01438957|183490317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel-extension test|Stratified by the anesthesia type||Dose-response relationship is assessed using Mantel-extension test. In this analysis, dose of placebo group is hypothesized as 0 microg/kg. Dose-response relationship among Dexmedetomidine 4 dose groups excluding placebo group is also assessed using Mantel-extension test.||||<0.001
91887748|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.67|||<|0.001||95.0|0.35|1.0||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 40 hours.||1.00|0.35|<0.001
91757669|NCT03354273|183408581|SUPERIORITY||Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|17.1||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|35.6|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||35.6|-1.5|0.0448
91757670|NCT03354273|183408581|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|17.0|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||17.0|-3.4|0.0004
91757671|NCT03354273|183408582|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|12.0||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|23.9|||McNemar|||Reader 1: Sensitivity||23.9|0.0|0.0116
91757672|NCT03354273|183408582|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.2|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||16.2|-2.9|0.0003
91757673|NCT03354273|183408582|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.8||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|18.9|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||18.9|-5.2|0.1085
91757674|NCT03354273|183408582|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|21.1|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||21.1|2.1|<0.0001
91757675|NCT03354273|183408582|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|13.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|23.5|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||23.5|3.8|0.0017
91757676|NCT03354273|183408582|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|2.8||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.1|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 3: Specificity||12.1|-6.6|0.0034
91909734|NCT02706873|183715743|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.8||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||28.8|14.3|<0.001
91909735|NCT02706873|183715743|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|30.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||30.1|15.7|<0.001
91909736|NCT02706873|183715744|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.53||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.2||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||-0.20|-0.85|0.001
91757677|NCT03354273|183408582|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|7.7||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|19.0|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||19.0|-3.6|0.0641
91757678|NCT03354273|183408582|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|5.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|14.6|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||14.6|-4.6|0.0010
91757679|NCT03354273|183408583|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.0||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|24.6|||McNemar|||Reader 1: Sensitivity||24.6|-2.6|0.0294
91757680|NCT03354273|183408583|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|3.9||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.1|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||16.1|-8.3|0.0117
91757681|NCT03354273|183408583|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.6||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|20.3|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||20.3|-7.1|0.1444
91806784|NCT01438957|183490318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
91806785|NCT01438957|183490318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||<0.001
91806786|NCT01438957|183490318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.006
91806787|NCT01438957|183490318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.329
91757682|NCT03354273|183408583|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|23.7|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||23.7|-0.4|0.0001
91757683|NCT03354273|183408583|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|8.8||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|18.9|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||18.9|-1.3|0.0440
91757684|NCT03354273|183408583|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|7.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|20.3|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 3: Specificity||20.3|-4.8|0.0022
91757685|NCT03354273|183408583|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|4.4||||0.2164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|17.2|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||17.2|-8.4|0.2164
91757686|NCT03354273|183408583|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|9.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|22.0|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||22.0|-2.6|0.0006
91757687|NCT00303485|183408584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in median|-64.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.28|-46.21|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-46.21|-80.28|< 0.0001
91806788|NCT01438957|183490319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
91806789|NCT01438957|183490319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||<0.001
91887749|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.34||||0.036||95.0|0.02|0.67||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 44 hours.||0.67|0.02|0.036
91887750|NCT01266161|183668861|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.26||||0.091||95.0|-0.04|0.56||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 48 hours.||0.56|-0.04|0.091
91887751|NCT01266161|183668862|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.22|||<|0.001||95.0|0.69|1.74||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.||1.74|0.69|<0.001
91887752|NCT01266161|183668862|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.43|||<|0.001||95.0|1.77|3.09||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1 hour.||3.09|1.77|<0.001
91887753|NCT01266161|183668862|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|3.22|||<|0.001||95.0|2.49|3.95||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1.5 hours.||3.95|2.49|<0.001
91887754|NCT01266161|183668862|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|3.7|||<|0.001||95.0|2.98|4.42||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 2 hours.||4.42|2.98|<0.001
91887755|NCT01266161|183668862|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|3.5|||<|0.001||95.0|2.67|4.33||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 4 hours.||4.33|2.67|<0.001
91887756|NCT01266161|183668862|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.53|||<|0.001||95.0|0.79|2.27||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 6 hours.||2.27|0.79|<0.001
91887757|NCT01266161|183668862|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.67|||<|0.001||95.0|0.87|2.48||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 8 hours.||2.48|0.87|<0.001
91887758|NCT01266161|183668862|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.76|||<|0.001||95.0|0.97|2.54||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 10 hours.||2.54|0.97|<0.001
91887759|NCT01266161|183668862|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.78||||0.056||95.0|-0.02|1.58||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 12 hours.||1.58|-0.02|0.056
91887760|NCT01266161|183668863|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|14.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.38|19.25||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0 to 12 hours.||19.25|10.38|<0.001
91887761|NCT01266161|183668863|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|5.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|7.98||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo from 8 to 12 hours.||7.98|2.57|<0.001
91887762|NCT01266161|183668864|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportion|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.55||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the first dosing interval.||-0.55|-0.91|<0.001
91887763|NCT01266161|183668864|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportions|-0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.4||Treatment difference (ibuprofen minus placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on CMH-adjusted proportions and corresponding standard errors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the second dosing interval.||-0.40|-1.05|<0.001
91887764|NCT01266161|183668864|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportions|-0.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the third dosing interval.||-0.06|-0.90|0.002
91887765|NCT01266161|183668864|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportion|-0.68||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.35||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the fourth dosing interval.||-0.35|-1.02|0.021
91887766|NCT01266161|183668864|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportion|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.51||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the overall study duration.||-0.51|-0.89|<0.001
91887767|NCT01266161|183668867|SUPERIORITY||Gamma statistic|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95||p-Value from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR score and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 24 hours||0.95|0.74|<0.001
91757688|NCT04099511|183408603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.693
91757689|NCT04099511|183408604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.536
91757690|NCT04099511|183408605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.260
91757691|NCT04099511|183408606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.387
91757692|NCT04099511|183408607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
91757693|NCT04099511|183408608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
91757694|NCT04099511|183408609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.388
91757695|NCT04099511|183408610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.308
91757696|NCT06581094|183408614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Normal walk, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.478
91757697|NCT06581094|183408614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Normal walk, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.612
91806790|NCT01438957|183490319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.006
91887768|NCT01266161|183668867|SUPERIORITY||Gamma statistic|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-Value from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR score and gender.||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 48 hours||0.92|0.66|<0.001
91887769|NCT04692467|183668868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference reflects the difference in mean change (i.e., mean change = 12 months minus baseline for each arm) between the intervention arm and SOC arm (direction = intervention arm minus SOC arm).|||-3.01|-8.77|<0.0001
91887770|NCT05672771|183668930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.355|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.355
91887771|NCT05672771|183668931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||This is the difference between the Different Mixed and Placebo Control conditions.|||||<.02
91887772|NCT05672771|183668932|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||for contrasts of DM, DS, and ST groups relative to the PC group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91887773|NCT03321253|183668951|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91887774|NCT02209181|183668998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.522|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.42|21.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||21.35|11.42|<0.001
91887775|NCT02209181|183668998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.503||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|9.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||9.51|-0.35|0.068
91887776|NCT02209181|183668998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|21.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||21.18|11.21|<0.001
91887777|NCT02209181|183668998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.503|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|-6.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-6.88|-16.73|<0.001
91887778|NCT02209181|183668998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|4.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.80|-5.17|0.941
91887779|NCT02209181|183668999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.42|-0.19|0.448
91887780|NCT02209181|183668999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.22|-0.38|0.618
91887781|NCT02209181|183668999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.23|0.621
91887782|NCT02209181|183668999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.11||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.11|-0.49|0.207
91887783|NCT02209181|183668999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.26|-0.34|0.794
91887784|NCT02209181|183669000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.86|0.82|<0.001
91887785|NCT02209181|183669000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.72||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.72|-0.30|0.420
91757698|NCT06581094|183408614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Stand up/squat down, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.534
91887786|NCT02209181|183669000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.97|-0.06|0.083
91757699|NCT06581094|183408614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Stand up/squat down, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.538
91757700|NCT06581094|183408614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Bend to biggest angle, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.195
91806791|NCT01438957|183490319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.371
91757701|NCT06581094|183408614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Bend to biggest angle, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.232
91806792|NCT01438957|183490320|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
91887787|NCT02209181|183669000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.62|-1.64|<0.001
91887788|NCT02209181|183669000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.37||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.37|-1.40|<0.001
91887789|NCT02209181|183669001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|3.59||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.59|2.28|<0.001
91887790|NCT02209181|183669001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.29||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.29|-0.02|0.058
91887791|NCT02209181|183669001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.89||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.89|0.57|<0.001
91887792|NCT02209181|183669001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-1.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.65|-2.96|<0.001
91887793|NCT02209181|183669001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.04|-2.37|<0.001
91887794|NCT02209181|183669002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|4.46||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.46|3.01|<0.001
91887795|NCT02209181|183669002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.49|0.06|0.035
91887796|NCT02209181|183669002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.67|1.21|<0.001
91887797|NCT02209181|183669002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-2.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.24|-3.68|<0.001
91887798|NCT02209181|183669002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.07|-2.52|<0.001
91757702|NCT06581094|183408614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Normal walk, Left.||||0.369
91757703|NCT06581094|183408614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Normal walk, Right.||||0.593
91757704|NCT06581094|183408614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Stand up/squat down, Left.||||0.918
91757705|NCT06581094|183408614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Stand up/squat down, Right.||||0.990
91757706|NCT06581094|183408614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Bend to biggest angle, Left.||||0.263
91757707|NCT06581094|183408614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Bend to biggest angle, Right.||||0.235
91757708|NCT06581094|183408615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of up-and-go test on baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.399
91757709|NCT06581094|183408615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of timed up-and-go test.||||0.106
91757710|NCT06581094|183408616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of AROM, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.502
91757711|NCT06581094|183408616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of AROM, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.724
91757712|NCT06581094|183408616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of PROM, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.414
91757713|NCT06581094|183408616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of PROM, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.563
91757714|NCT06581094|183408616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of AROM, Left.||||0.110
91757715|NCT06581094|183408616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of AROM, Right.||||0.245
91757716|NCT06581094|183408616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of PROM, Left.||||0.113
91757717|NCT06581094|183408616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of PROM, Right.||||0.395
91757718|NCT06581094|183408617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Pain on baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.823
91757719|NCT06581094|183408617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Stiffness on baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.895
91806793|NCT01438957|183490320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.001
91806794|NCT01438957|183490320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.212
91887799|NCT02209181|183669003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|4.77||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.77|3.21|<0.001
91887800|NCT02209181|183669003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.64||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.64|0.09|0.028
91887801|NCT02209181|183669003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.26|1.70|<0.001
91887802|NCT02209181|183669003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.35|-3.90|<0.001
91887803|NCT02209181|183669003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.73|-2.29|<0.001
91887804|NCT02209181|183669004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.65|2.92|<0.001
91887805|NCT02209181|183669004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.88|0.16|0.021
91887806|NCT02209181|183669004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.93|2.19|<0.001
91887807|NCT02209181|183669004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.91||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.91|-3.63|<0.001
91887808|NCT02209181|183669004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.15||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.15|-1.59|0.104
91887809|NCT02209181|183669005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.07|2.18|<0.001
91887810|NCT02209181|183669005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.92||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.92|0.04|0.041
91887811|NCT02209181|183669005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.09|2.19|<0.001
91887812|NCT02209181|183669005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.21||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.21|-3.09|<0.001
91887813|NCT02209181|183669005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.97|-0.93|0.973
91887814|NCT02209181|183669006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.87|1.87|<0.001
91887815|NCT02209181|183669006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.88|-0.10|0.079
91887816|NCT02209181|183669006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|4.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.27|2.27|<0.001
91757720|NCT06581094|183408617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Physical function on baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.682
91757721|NCT06581094|183408617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Pain.||||0.303
91757722|NCT06581094|183408617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Stiffness.||||0.148
91757723|NCT06581094|183408617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Physical function.||||0.283
91757724|NCT05740618|183408619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||MCC60 was analyzed using a linear repeated measure model including visit number, skew of the deposition histogram as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91757725|NCT05740618|183408620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline cough clearance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91757726|NCT05740618|183408621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline Mucociliary Clearance (MCC) Over 90 Minutes.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91757727|NCT05740618|183408622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline FEV1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91757728|NCT05740618|183408623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline CFQR-R respiratory domain.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91757729|NCT05740618|183408624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline CFRSD-CRISS.||||||0.13
91757730|NCT02354235|183408656|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.60|-1.15|<0.001
91757731|NCT02354235|183408657|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-29.2|||ANCOVA|||||-29.2|-48.5|<0.001
91757732|NCT02354235|183408658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.45|||ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-3.20|<0.001
91757733|NCT02354235|183408659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-100.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.2|-78.4|||ANCOVA|||||-78.4|-122.2|<0.001
91757734|NCT02354235|183408660|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-50.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|-36.9|||ANCOVA|||||-36.9|-64.9|<0.001
91757735|NCT03688100|183408676|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.62||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Emergency Department visits AT 3 MONTHS||0.86|0.45|0.005
91757736|NCT03688100|183408676|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means for ED visits, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Emergency Department visits AT 6 MONTHS||0.86|0.60|0.008
91757737|NCT03688100|183408676|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.73||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means for ED visits , BA is numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Emergency Department visits AT 12 MONTHS||0.85|0.62|0.0001
91757738|NCT03688100|183408677|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model|||Differences in the number of hospital readmissions between BA and MEDS at 3, 6, and 12 months||||>0.05
91757739|NCT03688100|183408678|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.83||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.92||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Days in the Hospital at 3 months||0.92|0.75|0.002
91757740|NCT03688100|183408678|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.81||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.87||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Days in the Hospital at 6 MONTHS||0.87|0.75|0.005
91757741|NCT03688100|183408678|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.68||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Days in the Hospital AT 12 MONTHS||0.68|0.60|<0.0001
91757742|NCT03688100|183408679|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Kaplan Meier survival plots|||||||>0.05
91757743|NCT04783077|183408680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.5|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated odds ratio of return donation attempt represents WhatsApp compared to control.|The primary analysis applies only to the RCT participants (N=130). Docudrama participants were not assessed for return blood donation. Analysis used fitted logistic regression with outcome donation attempted (Y/N) on the modiﬁed intention-to-treat (mITT) population, adjusted for type of donor (FRD, VNRBD).|Missing data on the primary outcome from the mITT analysis was handled using multiple imputation via chained equations with 50 imputations, and included stratum, group assignment (WhatsApp, Control) and ethnicity. Ethnicity was the only baseline variable with a minimum Kendall's tau of 0.2 with donation attempt.|8.50|0.61|0.23
91757744|NCT00439374|183408692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.35||||||All deliveries less than 37 weeks||1.35|0.79|
91757745|NCT00439374|183408692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||||||Spontaneous deliveries||1.40|0.70|
91757746|NCT00439374|183408692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.84||||||Medically-indicated deliveries||1.84|0.65|
91757747|NCT00439374|183408693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
91887817|NCT02209181|183669006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.0||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.00|-2.98|<0.001
91887818|NCT02209181|183669006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.40|-0.61|0.440
91887819|NCT02209181|183669007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.57|1.52|<0.001
91887820|NCT02209181|183669007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.83||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.83|-0.21|0.118
91887821|NCT02209181|183669007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.16|2.10|<0.001
91887822|NCT02209181|183669007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.71|-2.75|<0.001
91887823|NCT02209181|183669007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.62|-0.44|0.262
91887824|NCT02209181|183669008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.96||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.96|0.88|<0.001
91887825|NCT02209181|183669008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.61||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.61|-0.45|0.271
91887826|NCT02209181|183669008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.99||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.99|1.91|<0.001
91887827|NCT02209181|183669008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.32|-2.37|0.011
91887828|NCT02209181|183669008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.07|-0.01|0.052
91887829|NCT02209181|183669009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.29||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.29|0.21|0.018
91887830|NCT02209181|183669009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.56|-0.50|0.310
91887831|NCT02209181|183669009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.85|1.76|<0.001
91757748|NCT00439374|183408694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.8||||||||1.80|0.61|
91757749|NCT00439374|183408695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.21||||||||1.21|0.58|
91757750|NCT00439374|183408696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.43||||||||1.43|0.54|
91757751|NCT00439374|183408697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.3||||||||1.30|0.36|
91757752|NCT00439374|183408698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15||||||||1.15|0.82|
91757753|NCT00439374|183408699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.29||||||||1.29|0.55|
91757754|NCT00439374|183408700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.55||||||||1.55|0.77|
91757755|NCT00439374|183408701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.33||||||||5.33|0.43|
91757756|NCT00439374|183408702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.72||||||||1.72|0.78|
91887832|NCT02209181|183669009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.31|-1.75|0.172
91757757|NCT00439374|183408703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.41||||||||2.41|0.56|
91757758|NCT00439374|183408705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.58||||||||1.58|0.34|
91757759|NCT00439374|183408706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.52||||||||2.52|0.84|
91757760|NCT00439374|183408707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.46||||||||1.46|0.79|
91757761|NCT00439374|183408708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||||||Any side effect||1.13|0.92|
91757762|NCT00439374|183408708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17||||||Injection site||1.17|0.93|
91757763|NCT00439374|183408708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|22.78||||||Urticaria||22.78|1.11|
91757764|NCT00439374|183408708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.83||||||Nausea||1.83|0.27|
91757765|NCT00439374|183408709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.3||||||Analysis is for the total composite||1.30|0.46|
91757766|NCT00439374|183408710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
91757767|NCT00439374|183408718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
91887833|NCT02209181|183669009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.60|0.51|0.004
91757768|NCT04033068|183408719|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2003|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 0.2003
91757769|NCT04033068|183408720|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1448|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 0.1448
91757770|NCT04033068|183408721|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9111|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 0.9111
91757771|NCT04033068|183408722|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 1.0000
91757772|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.9|||=|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||5.5|0.2|= 0.9990
91757773|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.8|||=|0.9798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.2|||ANOVA|||Day 0||5.2|0.1|= 0.9798
91757774|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.2|||=|0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|10.1|||ANOVA|||Day 0||10.1|0.1|= 0.9958
91757775|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.8|||=|0.9935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||5.5|0.1|= 0.9935
91757776|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.3|||=|0.9852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|10.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||10.7|0.2|= 0.9852
91757777|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.6|||=|0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||14.4|0.2|= 0.9440
91757778|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.2|||=|0.9943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.5|0.2|= 0.9943
91757779|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.0|||=|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.1|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.1|0.2|= 0.9999
91757780|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.2|||=|0.6476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|14.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||14.3|0.4|= 0.6476
91757781|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.8|||=|0.9911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.3|0.2|= 0.9911
91757782|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.9|||=|0.7647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.0|||ANOVA|||Day 28||12.0|0.3|= 0.7647
91757783|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.3|||=|0.6447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.8|||ANOVA|||Day 28||15.8|0.3|= 0.6447
91757784|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.3|||=|0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.3|||ANOVA|||Day 56||5.3|0.3|= 0.9638
91757785|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.7|||=|0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||7.7|0.4|= 0.7837
91757786|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.9|||=|0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.3|||ANOVA|||Day 56||15.3|0.5|= 0.3427
91757787|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.3|||=|0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||5.8|0.3|= 0.9578
91757788|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.2|||=|0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||11.7|0.4|= 0.5637
91757789|NCT04033068|183408724|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.7|||=|0.8471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.6|||ANOVA|||Day 56||9.6|0.3|= 0.8471
91757790|NCT01817959|183408738|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.001||||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.205|0.207||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||||0.207|-0.205|0.9863
91757791|NCT01817959|183408739|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.024||||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.184|0.232||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||||0.232|-0.184|0.7115
91757792|NCT01817959|183408740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.21||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.63||Treatment p value|Regression, Logistic|||Analytical statistics are reported for Day 75 after transplant 2||1.63|0.03|0.1346
91757793|NCT01817959|183408741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.93||Treatment p value|Regression, Logistic|||||4.93|0.17|0.9130
91757794|NCT01817959|183408742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.66||Treatment p value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.66|0.16|0.5467
91757795|NCT01817959|183408743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1383|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1383
91757796|NCT01817959|183408745|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.021||||0.6952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.088||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||0.088|-0.130|0.6952
91757797|NCT01817959|183408745|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.028||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.124||This is a treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||0.124|-0.068|0.5560
91757798|NCT01817959|183408745|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.056||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.154||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|Treatment p value||This is the analytic statics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.154|-0.042|0.2537
91757799|NCT01817959|183408746|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-7.4||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|20.3||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||20.3|-35.2|0.5910
91757800|NCT01817959|183408746|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|4.2||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|20.2||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|Treatment p value||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||20.2|-11.8|0.5966
91757801|NCT01817959|183408746|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|6.1||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|24.4||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||24.4|-12.1|0.5005
91757802|NCT01817959|183408747|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.21||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.63||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||0.63|-0.21|0.3253
91757803|NCT01817959|183408747|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.16||||0.6069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.78||Treatment p value|least square mean difference|||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||0.78|-0.46|0.6069
91757804|NCT01817959|183408747|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.17||||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.93||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|Treatment p value||This is the analytic statics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.93|-0.56|0.6437
91757805|NCT01817959|183408748|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|2.0||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.9||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||6.9|-3.0|0.4290
91806795|NCT01438957|183490321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.869
91757806|NCT01817959|183408748|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.0||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|8.3||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||8.3|-6.3|0.7853
91757807|NCT01817959|183408748|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.9||||0.6583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.4||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||10.4|-6.6|0.6583
91757808|NCT01817959|183408752|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.0||||0.9949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.28||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||1.28|-1.28|0.9949
91757809|NCT01817959|183408752|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.1||||0.8753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.38||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||1.38|-1.18|0.8753
91806796|NCT01438957|183490322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.897
91757810|NCT01817959|183408752|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.59||||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.8||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.80|-1.97|0.3955
91757811|NCT01817959|183408753|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.105||||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.075||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||0.075|-0.286|0.2444
91757812|NCT01817959|183408753|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.218||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|-0.019||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||-0.019|-0.417|0.0328
91757813|NCT01817959|183408753|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.177||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.039||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.039|-0.393|0.1059
91757814|NCT00559988|183408795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.064||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.75|0.732
91757815|NCT03916484|183408815|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||No a priori threshold for statistical significance was specified.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.33
91757816|NCT03916484|183408816|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91757817|NCT03916484|183408816|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91757818|NCT03916484|183408816|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91757819|NCT03916484|183408816|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91757820|NCT03916484|183408816|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91757821|NCT03916484|183408817|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||No a priori threshold for statistical significance was specified.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
91757822|NCT03916484|183408818|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91757823|NCT03916484|183408818|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||McNemar|||||||0.07
91757824|NCT03916484|183408818|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|||||||0.003
91757825|NCT03916484|183408819|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||McNemar|||||||0.25
91887834|NCT02209181|183669010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.84||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.84|-0.17|0.102
91757826|NCT03916484|183408819|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.002
91757827|NCT03916484|183408819|OTHER|||||||0.453|||||||McNemar|||||||0.453
91757828|NCT03916484|183408819|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||||||0.500
91757829|NCT03916484|183408819|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|||||||0.003
91757830|NCT04943432|183408820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2 - T1||||0.06
91757831|NCT04943432|183408820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3 - T1||||0.68
91757832|NCT04943432|183408822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.01
91757833|NCT04943432|183408822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.32
91757834|NCT04943432|183408823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.44
91757835|NCT04943432|183408823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.007
91757836|NCT04943432|183408827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.01
91757837|NCT04943432|183408827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.11
91757838|NCT04943432|183408828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.82
91757839|NCT04943432|183408828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.36
91909737|NCT02706873|183715744|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.27||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||-0.27|-0.91|<0.001
91909738|NCT02706873|183715745|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.67||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.||||-0.67|-1.09|<0.001
91909739|NCT02706873|183715745|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.8||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.80|-1.21|<0.001
91909740|NCT02706873|183715746|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.25||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.25|-0.44|<0.001
91909741|NCT02706873|183715746|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.28||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.28|-0.47|<0.001
91909742|NCT02706873|183715747|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|32.4||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||32.4|17.6|<0.001
91757840|NCT04943432|183408829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.34
91757841|NCT04943432|183408829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.02
91757842|NCT04943432|183408831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.14
91757843|NCT04943432|183408831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.29
91757844|NCT04943432|183408833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||<.001
91757845|NCT04943432|183408833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.23
91806797|NCT01438957|183490323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.897
91757846|NCT01727414|183408853|SUPERIORITY|General linear mixed models were used to evaluate the subtype\*dose interaction to determine if the subtypes have unique MPH dose-response curves, with the outcome being Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder total symptom scores (minimum=0, maximum=54, higher=worse)|Slope|0.29|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91757847|NCT03281304|183408854|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|25.0||||||Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.0|0.5|
91757848|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|13.4||||||Month 1: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||13.4|-7.5|
91757849|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|22.8||||||Month 3: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||22.8|0.1|
91806798|NCT01438957|183490324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
91757850|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.2||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.2|2.9|
91757851|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.8||||||Month 9: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||31.8|8.0|
91757852|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|28.7||||||Month 12: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.7|2.2|
91806799|NCT01438957|183490324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.002
91806800|NCT01438957|183490324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.116
91806801|NCT01438957|183490325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.088
91806802|NCT01438957|183490326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.085
91757853|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|27.9||||||Month 15: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||27.9|0.0|
91757854|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|28.5||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.5|-0.7|
91757855|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|21.9||||||Month 21: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||21.9|-8.0|
91757856|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|20.4||||||Month 24: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||20.4|-9.3|
91806803|NCT01438957|183490327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.005
91806804|NCT01438957|183490327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.014
91887835|NCT02209181|183669010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.35|-0.64|0.479
91887836|NCT02209181|183669010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.86|1.85|<0.001
91887837|NCT02209181|183669010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.52|-1.47|0.345
91887838|NCT02209181|183669010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.02||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.02|1.01|<0.001
91887839|NCT02209181|183669011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.51|-0.52|0.338
91887840|NCT02209181|183669011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.54||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.54|-0.47|0.299
91887841|NCT02209181|183669011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.73|1.70|<0.001
91887842|NCT02209181|183669011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.04|-0.97|0.942
91887843|NCT02209181|183669011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.24|1.21|<0.001
91887844|NCT02209181|183669012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.53||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.53|-0.48|0.306
91887845|NCT02209181|183669012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.49|-0.51|0.335
91806805|NCT01438957|183490327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.055
91806806|NCT01438957|183490328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.737
91909743|NCT02706873|183715747|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|33.9||The nominal p-value is reported|Chi-squared, Corrected|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|33.9|19.0|<0.001
91909744|NCT02706873|183715748|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|4.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.5||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.50|3.00|<0.001
91909745|NCT02706873|183715748|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|5.59||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.59|3.09|<0.001
91909746|NCT02706873|183715749|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.71||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.71|-1.12|<0.001
91757857|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|23.6||||||Month 27: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||23.6|-7.0|
91757858|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|18.3||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.3|-12.8|
91757859|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|17.2||||||Month 33: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.2|-14.4|
91887846|NCT02209181|183669012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.80|1.78|<0.001
91887847|NCT02209181|183669012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.97|-1.03|0.946
91887848|NCT02209181|183669012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.28|1.25|<0.001
91887849|NCT02209181|183669013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.56|-0.45|0.279
91887850|NCT02209181|183669013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.53||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.53|-0.46|0.292
91887851|NCT02209181|183669013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.68|1.66|<0.001
91887852|NCT02209181|183669013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.98||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.98|-1.02|0.971
91887853|NCT02209181|183669013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.12||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.12|1.11|<0.001
91887854|NCT02209181|183669014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.50|-0.50|0.329
91887855|NCT02209181|183669014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.31|-0.68|0.531
91806807|NCT01438957|183490329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.11
91806808|NCT01438957|183490330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.567
91806809|NCT01438957|183490331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.044
91806810|NCT01438957|183490331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.234
91806811|NCT01438957|183490332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.729
91887856|NCT02209181|183669014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.54||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.54|1.53|<0.001
91887857|NCT02209181|183669014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.81||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.81|-1.17|0.722
91887858|NCT02209181|183669014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.04|1.03|<0.001
91887859|NCT02209181|183669015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.42|-0.54|0.380
91887860|NCT02209181|183669015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.12||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.12|-0.83|0.767
91887861|NCT02209181|183669015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.49|1.52|<0.001
91887862|NCT02209181|183669015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.68|-1.27|0.557
91887863|NCT02209181|183669015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.05||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.05|1.08|<0.001
91806812|NCT01438957|183490333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.082
91887864|NCT02209181|183669016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.35|-0.83|0.640
91887865|NCT02209181|183669016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.22|-0.94|0.798
91887866|NCT02209181|183669016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.42|1.23|<0.001
91887867|NCT02209181|183669016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.96||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.96|-1.20|0.829
91887868|NCT02209181|183669016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.16|0.97|<0.001
91806813|NCT01438957|183490334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.451
91806814|NCT01438957|183490335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.873|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.873
91806815|NCT01438957|183490336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.374
91806816|NCT00133952|183490344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.67|||Fisher Exact|||||2.67|0.15|0.724
91806817|NCT00133952|183490345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.3||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|9.8|||Mixed models repeated measures|||||9.8|-16.5|0.616
91757860|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 36: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
91757861|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|11.9||||||Month 39: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||11.9|-20.2|
91757862|NCT03281304|183408856|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|19.9||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||19.9|-11.7|
91757863|NCT03281304|183408857|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|24.1||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||24.1|-1.5|
91806818|NCT00133952|183490346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.44|0.68|0.971
91806819|NCT00133952|183490348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.5||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6|||Mixed models repeated measures|||||1.6|-0.6|0.344
91806820|NCT00133952|183490349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.663
91806821|NCT00133952|183490350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.23|0.37|0.203
91806822|NCT00133952|183490352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.92|0.46|0.749
91887869|NCT02209181|183669017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.06|0.117
91887870|NCT02209181|183669017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.25|0.687
91887871|NCT02209181|183669017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.43|-0.21|0.497
91887872|NCT02209181|183669017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.13|-0.51|0.239
91887873|NCT02209181|183669017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.18|-0.46|0.376
91887874|NCT02209181|183669018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.42|1.14|<0.001
91806823|NCT04592874|183490353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.7975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||1.15|-1.49|0.7975
91806824|NCT04592874|183490353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.98|-1.61|0.6341
91806825|NCT04592874|183490353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||1.43|-1.18|0.8489
91806826|NCT04592874|183490354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||2.01|-2.81|0.7417
91806827|NCT04592874|183490354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.67|-4.16|0.1559
91806828|NCT04592874|183490354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||2.11|-2.78|0.7850
91806829|NCT04592874|183490355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.7934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|4.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||4.28|-5.58|0.7934
91757864|NCT03281304|183408857|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|35.0||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||35.0|3.6|
91757865|NCT03281304|183408857|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|28.3||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.3|-3.5|
91806830|NCT04592874|183490355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.9259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.32|-4.84|0.9259
91887875|NCT02209181|183669018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.94||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.94|-0.33|0.350
91887876|NCT02209181|183669018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.08||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.08|-0.21|0.183
91887877|NCT02209181|183669018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.84||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.84|-2.11|<0.001
91887878|NCT02209181|183669018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.7||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.70|-1.98|<0.001
91887879|NCT02209181|183669019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|4.61||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.61|2.94|<0.001
91887880|NCT02209181|183669019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.71|0.05|0.037
91887881|NCT02209181|183669019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.3||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.30|0.63|<0.001
91887882|NCT02209181|183669019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-2.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.07|-3.73|<0.001
91887883|NCT02209181|183669019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.47|-3.15|<0.001
91887884|NCT02209181|183669020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|5.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.25|3.43|<0.001
91887885|NCT02209181|183669020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.75||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.75|-0.06|0.067
91887886|NCT02209181|183669020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.17||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.17|1.34|<0.001
91887887|NCT02209181|183669020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.59||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.59|-4.40|<0.001
91757866|NCT03281304|183408857|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|18.0||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.0|-12.5|
91757867|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|13.4||||||Month 1: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||13.4|-7.5|
91887888|NCT02209181|183669020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.17||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.17|-3.00|<0.001
91806831|NCT04592874|183490355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.87|-4.04|0.7147
91909747|NCT02706873|183715749|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.99||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.99|-1.40|<0.001
91909748|NCT02706873|183715750|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.17||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.17|-0.37|<0.001
91909749|NCT02706873|183715750|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.21||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.21|-0.41|<0.001
91909750|NCT02706873|183715751|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|26.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|34.3||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||34.3|19.3|<0.001
91909751|NCT02706873|183715751|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|39.6||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||39.6|24.8|<0.001
91909752|NCT02706873|183715752|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|27.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|35.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||35.2|20.3|<0.001
91909753|NCT02706873|183715752|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|40.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||40.2|25.4|<0.001
91909754|NCT02706873|183715753|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|5.03||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.03|2.42|<0.001
91909755|NCT02706873|183715753|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|4.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|5.72||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.72|3.12|<0.001
91909756|NCT02706873|183715754|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|9.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||16.2|3.5|0.002
91909757|NCT02706873|183715754|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|17.8||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||17.8|5.4|<0.001
91909758|NCT02706873|183715755|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|24.9||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||24.9|12.1|<0.001
91757868|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|22.8||||||Month 3: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||22.8|0.1|
91806832|NCT04592874|183490356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.6403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.09|-3.14|0.6403
91757869|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|25.6||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.6|2.4|
91757870|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.8||||||Month 9: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||31.8|8.0|
91757871|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|28.7||||||Month 12: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.7|2.2|
91757872|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|27.9||||||Month 15: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||27.9|0.0|
91757873|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|29.9||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||29.9|0.7|
91757874|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|20.6||||||Month 21: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||20.6|-9.5|
91757875|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|21.9||||||Month 24: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||21.9|-8.0|
91757876|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|25.1||||||Month 27: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.1|-5.7|
91806833|NCT04592874|183490356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.51|-2.71|0.5016
91806834|NCT04592874|183490356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||7.08|-1.21|0.1631
91757877|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|19.7||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||19.7|-11.4|
91806835|NCT04592874|183490357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|3.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||3.51|-4.57|0.7945
91806836|NCT04592874|183490357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.9371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||4.25|-3.92|0.9371
91757878|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|17.2||||||Month 33: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.2|-14.4|
91806837|NCT04592874|183490357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.7991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||4.64|-3.58|0.7991
91806838|NCT04592874|183490358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.6458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.11|-0.17|0.6458
91887889|NCT02209181|183669021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.84||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.84|3.90|<0.001
91887890|NCT02209181|183669021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.09|0.16|0.023
91887891|NCT02209181|183669021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.93|1.98|<0.001
91887892|NCT02209181|183669021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-2.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.78|-4.71|<0.001
91887893|NCT02209181|183669021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.94||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.94|-2.89|<0.001
91887894|NCT02209181|183669022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|5.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.78|3.64|<0.001
91887895|NCT02209181|183669022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.42|0.30|0.012
91887896|NCT02209181|183669022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.81||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.81|2.66|<0.001
91806839|NCT04592874|183490358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.21|-0.06|0.2779
91909759|NCT02706873|183715755|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|29.5||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||29.5|16.4|<0.001
91909760|NCT02706873|183715756|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|27.3||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||27.3|13.2|<0.001
91757879|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 36: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
91757880|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|13.3||||||Month 39: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||13.3|-18.8|
91757881|NCT03281304|183408858|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
91757882|NCT03281304|183408859|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|30.8||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||30.8|-0.4|
91757883|NCT03281304|183408859|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|28.3||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.3|-3.5|
91757884|NCT03281304|183408859|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|16.7||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||16.7|-14.0|
91757885|NCT03281304|183408860|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.8|
91757886|NCT03281304|183408862|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Month 1||0.3|-0.1|
91757887|NCT03281304|183408862|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||Month 3||0.2|-0.2|
91757888|NCT03281304|183408862|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Month 6||0.3|-0.2|
91757889|NCT03281304|183408864|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-1.2|
91757890|NCT03281304|183408866|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Month 1||0.3|-0.3|
91757891|NCT03281304|183408866|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||||||Month 3||0.2|-0.3|
91757892|NCT03281304|183408866|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Month 6||0.3|-0.3|
91757893|NCT03281304|183408868|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|23.1||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||23.1|-0.3|
91757894|NCT03281304|183408868|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|32.6||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||32.6|3.5|
91757895|NCT03281304|183408868|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|28.1||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.1|-3.3|
91757896|NCT03281304|183408868|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|16.1||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||16.1|-16.1|
91757897|NCT03281304|183408869|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|22.0||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||22.0|1.3|
91757898|NCT03281304|183408869|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|26.4||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||26.4|-4.2|
91757899|NCT03281304|183408869|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|25.2||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.2|-5.8|
91806840|NCT04592874|183490358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.18|-0.10|0.5355
91909761|NCT02706873|183715756|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|26.5||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||26.5|12.3|<0.001
91757900|NCT03281304|183408869|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
91757901|NCT00241904|183408892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||Intention to treat analysis was used||||<0.001
91757902|NCT00241904|183408893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||||||0.003
91757903|NCT00241904|183408894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||||||0.034
91757904|NCT00241904|183408895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||||||<0.001
91757905|NCT01990612|183408904|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0|||Chi-squared|Group sequential method to control type I error w/ Lan-DeMets characterization of O'Brien-Fleming boundary. 2-tailed p-value \<0.46 considered stat sig|One interim analysis was performed; in final analysis of the primary outcome, a two-tailed P value of less than 0.046 considered to indicate statistical significance. Since adjustment is minimal, we report 95% confidence interval for relative risk.|||1.00|0.64|0.049
91757906|NCT01990612|183408905|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.33|||||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes. Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||3.33|0.12|
91757907|NCT01990612|183408906|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93||||||||0.93|0.55|
91909762|NCT02706873|183715757|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|33.0||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||33.0|19.1|<0.001
91909763|NCT02706873|183715757|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|38.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||38.2|24.2|<0.001
91909764|NCT02706873|183715758|SUPERIORITY|For the Japan sub-study, no multiplicity adjustments were applied and only nominal p-values were provided for all efficacy analyses.|Response Rate Difference|28.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|48.9|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||48.9|7.7|0.004
91909765|NCT02706873|183715758|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|28.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|50.7|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||50.7|5.3|0.022
91909766|NCT02706873|183715758|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|45.2|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||45.2|-2.4|0.086
91909767|NCT02706873|183715759|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|38.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|58.5|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||58.5|18.6|<0.001
91909768|NCT02706873|183715759|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|68.6|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||68.6|21.8|<0.001
91909769|NCT02706873|183715759|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|72.6|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||72.6|27.4|<0.001
91909770|NCT02706873|183715760|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|34.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|47.1|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||47.1|22.0|<0.001
91909771|NCT02706873|183715760|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|70.7|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||70.7|33.0|<0.001
91887897|NCT02209181|183669022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|-2.29||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.29|-4.41|<0.001
91887898|NCT02209181|183669022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.09|-2.05|0.074
91909772|NCT02706873|183715760|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|82.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||82.0|46.5|<0.001
91909773|NCT02706873|183715761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.95|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.95|-1.92|<0.001
91909774|NCT02706873|183715761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-1.30|-2.42|<0.001
91909775|NCT02706873|183715761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.36|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-1.36|-2.48|<0.001
91909776|NCT02706873|183715762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.34|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.34|-0.75|<0.001
91909777|NCT02706873|183715762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.51|-0.99|<0.001
91909778|NCT02706873|183715762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.51|-0.99|<0.001
91909779|NCT02706873|183715763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|8.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||8.80|3.15|<0.001
91909780|NCT02706873|183715763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|11.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||11.19|4.66|<0.001
91909781|NCT02706873|183715763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|10.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||10.20|3.33|<0.001
91909782|NCT02706873|183715764|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|70.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||70.0|32.5|<0.001
91909783|NCT02706873|183715764|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|59.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|81.1|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||81.1|38.8|<0.001
91909784|NCT02706873|183715764|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|60.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|81.5|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||81.5|39.9|<0.001
91909785|NCT02706873|183715765|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|49.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.6|68.3|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||68.3|30.6|<0.001
91909786|NCT02706873|183715765|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|74.8|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||74.8|30.2|<0.001
91757908|NCT01990612|183408907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.37|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.37|0.32|
91757909|NCT01990612|183408908|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.37|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.37|0.35|
91887899|NCT02209181|183669023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|4.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.97|2.63|<0.001
91887900|NCT02209181|183669023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.48|0.16|0.026
91887901|NCT02209181|183669023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.99||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.99|2.64|<0.001
91887902|NCT02209181|183669023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.32|-3.64|<0.001
91887903|NCT02209181|183669023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.19||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.19|-1.16|0.978
91887904|NCT02209181|183669024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.62|2.18|<0.001
91887905|NCT02209181|183669024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|2.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.28|-0.13|0.081
91887906|NCT02209181|183669024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|5.14||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.14|2.69|<0.001
91887907|NCT02209181|183669024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.11||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.11|-3.53|<0.001
91887908|NCT02209181|183669024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.74|-0.71|0.407
91887909|NCT02209181|183669025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.1||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.10|1.56|<0.001
91887910|NCT02209181|183669025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|2.14||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.14|-0.38|0.170
91887911|NCT02209181|183669025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|4.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.87|2.33|<0.001
91887912|NCT02209181|183669025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-0.69||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.69|-3.21|0.002
91887913|NCT02209181|183669025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.04|-0.50|0.235
91887914|NCT02209181|183669026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.39|0.82|0.001
91887915|NCT02209181|183669026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.87|-0.68|0.355
91887916|NCT02209181|183669026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|4.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.65|2.07|<0.001
91909787|NCT02706873|183715765|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|84.3|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||84.3|44.2|<0.001
91757910|NCT01990612|183408909|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|8.12|||||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes. Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||8.12|0.91|
91757911|NCT01990612|183408910|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.76|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.76|0.31|
91757912|NCT01990612|183408911|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.19|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.19|0.35|
91757913|NCT01990612|183408912|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.55|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.55|0.38|
91757914|NCT01990612|183408913|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.42|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||3.42|0.48|
91757915|NCT01990612|183408914|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.79|||||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes. Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.79|0.06|
91757916|NCT01990612|183408915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||||0.93|0.76|<0.001
91757917|NCT01990612|183408916|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.92||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||||0.92|0.36|0.02
91757918|NCT01990612|183408917|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.72|0.07
91757919|NCT01990612|183408918|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Chi-squared|||||1.07|0.83|0.35
91757920|NCT01990612|183408919|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52|||Chi-squared|||||1.52|0.87|0.33
91757921|NCT01990612|183408921|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.55|||Chi-squared||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes.|||1.55|0.13|0.26
91757922|NCT01990612|183408922|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.74||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||||0.74|0.56|<0.001
91757923|NCT01990612|183408923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.82|0.81
91757924|NCT01990612|183408924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6-96 hours after delivery||||<0.001
91757925|NCT01990612|183408924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 4-8 weeks after delivery||||0.01
91757926|NCT01990612|183408925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for Worst labor pain score||||<0.001
91757927|NCT01990612|183408925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for Overall labor pain score||||<0.001
91757928|NCT01990612|183408926|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1|||Chi-squared|||||1.10|0.53|0.15
91757929|NCT01990612|183408927|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.99||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|26.8|||Chi-squared|The P-values has not been adjusted for multiplicity of comparisons of secondary outcomes.|Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes.|||26.8|0.26|1.00
91757930|NCT01990612|183408929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.01
91757931|NCT01990612|183408930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.68|0.56
91757932|NCT01990612|183408931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.28|||Chi-squared|||||1.28|0.64|0.56
91757933|NCT01990612|183408932|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.74|||Chi-squared||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes.|||2.74|0.20|0.75
91757934|NCT01990612|183408933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.81|0.91
91757935|NCT01990612|183408934|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66|||Chi-squared|||||1.66|0.66|0.84
91757936|NCT01990612|183408935|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.79|0.13
91757937|NCT01990612|183408936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||||<0.001
91757938|NCT01990612|183408937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.01
91757939|NCT01990612|183408938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.002
91757940|NCT01990612|183408940|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15||Odds ratios from multinomial logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|||Multinomial logistic regression using participants who are breastfeeding only as the reference group. This analysis compares the participants who are breastfeeding and formula feeding to participants who are only breastfeeding.||1.15|0.89|0.88
91909788|NCT02706873|183715766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||0.09|-3.47|0.063
91909789|NCT02706873|183715766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|-0.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.35|-4.45|0.022
91806841|NCT02321800|183490439|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of noninferiority was 20%. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the 2 treatment groups was greater than -20%. If the noninferiority inference based on the 20% margin was concluded successfully, noninferiority inference based on the 15% margin was performed.|Treatment Difference|18.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|28.92||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||28.92|8.23|
91806842|NCT02321800|183490440|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|7.79||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||7.79|-6.48|
91806843|NCT02321800|183490441|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|4.92||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||4.92|-3.48|
91909790|NCT02706873|183715766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.45||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-0.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.35|-4.54|0.022
91909791|NCT02706873|183715767|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|36.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|58.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||58.0|14.4|0.001
91909792|NCT02706873|183715767|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|34.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|59.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||59.0|10.2|0.010
91909793|NCT02706873|183715767|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|33.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|58.1|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||58.1|7.9|0.016
91909794|NCT01857713|183715768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that the study would be successful if the mean % reduction is significantly greater than 25%. Assuming a 35% reduction in RSI, a power of 80%, one-sided significance level of 0.05, 85 subjects are required for the study. It was decided to recruit up to 100 subjects for this study.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The sample size was based on the primary effectiveness variable (% reduction in RSI from Baseline to Week 4). It was assumed that the study would be successful if the mean % reduction is significantly greater than 25%. Assuming a 35% reduction in RSI, a power of 80%, one-sided significance level of 0.05, 85 subjects are required for the study. It was decided to recruit up to 100 subjects for this study.||||<0.05
91909795|NCT00797732|183715787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.17
91909796|NCT01087905|183715816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) versus Six Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT). We hypothesized that Six Weeks of NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention (e.g., 6 wks NRT)."||1.61|0.98|.076
91909797|NCT01087905|183715816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving NRT Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus NRT Combination Therapy (Nicotine Patch plus Nicotine Gum). We hypothesized that Combination NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention (e.g., Combination NRT)."||1.75|1.06|.017
91909798|NCT01087905|183715816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Standard Cessation Counseling (No CMAC) versus Standard Cessation Counseling plus CMAC. We hypothesized that Standard Counseling plus CMAC would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Standard Counseling Only.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention (e.g., Standard Counseling plus CMAC)."||1.14|0.69|.343
91909799|NCT01087905|183715817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||Inclusion of the Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling (CMAC) factor (No CMAC versus CMAC) as a control variable did not change the results of this analysis.|"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus Two Weeks of Combination NRT (Patch+Gum). We hypothesized that Two Weeks of Combination NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention."||2.14|1.04|.029
91909800|NCT01087905|183715817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.97|||Regression, Logistic||Inclusion of the Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling (CMAC) factor (No CMAC versus CMAC) as a control variable did not change the results of this analysis.|"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus SIx Weeks of NRT Monotherapy. We hypothesized that Six Weeks of NRT Monotherapy would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention."||1.97|0.96|.079
91806844|NCT02321800|183490442|OTHER||Treatment Difference|15.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|25.92||||||||25.92|4.69|
91909801|NCT01087905|183715817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.45|||Regression, Logistic||Inclusion of the Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling (CMAC) factor (No CMAC versus CMAC) as a control variable did not change the results of this analysis.|"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus Six Weeks of Combination NRT (Patch+Gum). We hypothesized that Six Weeks of Combination NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention."||2.45|1.20|.003
91909802|NCT01087905|183715818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|357.0||||||95.0||||There is no p-value for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).|Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|Unit of measurement for ICER is U.S. dollars.||In this analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is computed. ICER is a measure of the added cost per added quit for two treatments. ICER was computed as the cost difference between the least intensive treatment group (2 weeks of nicotine patch only) and a more intensive comparison group divided by the difference in the quit rates of the two groups being compared; ICER for the group that received 2 weeks of nicotine patch and nicotine gum = (213-178)/(.482-.384) = $357.||||
91909803|NCT01087905|183715818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|712.0||||||95.0||||There is no p-value for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).|Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|Unit of measurement for ICER is U.S. dollars.||In this analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is computed. ICER is a measure of the added cost per added quit for two treatments. ICER was computed as the cost difference between the least intensive treatment group (2 weeks of nicotine patch only) and a more intensive comparison group divided by the difference in the quit rates of the two groups being compared; ICER for the group that received 6 weeks of nicotine patch only = (233-178)/(.462-.384) = $712.||||
91909804|NCT01087905|183715818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|1290.0||||||95.0||||There is no p-value for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).|Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|Unit of measurement for ICER is U.S. dollars.||In this analysis, the Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is computed. ICER is a measure of the added cost per added quit for two treatments. ICER was computed as the cost difference between the least intensive treatment group (2 weeks of nicotine patch only) and a more intensive comparison group divided by the difference in the quit rates of the two groups being compared; ICER for the group that received 6 weeks of nicotine patch and nicotine gum = (348-178)/(.516-.384) = $1290.||||
91909805|NCT02873936|183715819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|46.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||46.3|23.5|<0.001
91909806|NCT02873936|183715819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|37.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||37.9|15.0|<0.001
91909807|NCT02873936|183715820|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. Least squares (LS)-Mean, 95% confidence interval (CI), and P-value were provided from mixed effects model for repeated measure (MMRM). Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.19|-0.45|<0.001
91909808|NCT02873936|183715820|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.14||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.14|-0.40|<0.001
91909809|NCT02873936|183715821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|35.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||35.8|14.7|<0.001
91909810|NCT02873936|183715821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|32.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||32.0|11.4|<0.001
91757941|NCT01990612|183408940|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Multinomial logistic regression using participants who are breastfeeding only as the reference group. This analysis compares the participants who are only formula feeding to participants who are only breastfeeding.||1.12|0.86|0.78
91757942|NCT02980133|183408962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) investigational center, previous therapy (ICS or NCS), and IMP treatment group.||5.3|-1.6|0.285
91757943|NCT02980133|183408963|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) investigational center, previous therapy (inhaled corticosteroid \[ICS\] or noncorticosteroid \[NCS\]), and investigational medicinal product (IMP) treatment group.||8.8|3.2|<0.001
91887917|NCT02209181|183669026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.23|-2.78|0.021
91909811|NCT02873936|183715822|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.1|2.5|<0.001
91909812|NCT02873936|183715822|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.2|1.6|<0.001
91909813|NCT02873936|183715823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|28.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||28.3|8.6|<0.001
91909814|NCT02873936|183715823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|23.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||23.4|4.6|0.003
91909815|NCT02873936|183715824|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.3|2.6|<0.001
91909816|NCT02873936|183715824|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.5|0.9|0.007
91909817|NCT02873936|183715825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|23.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||23.7|6.4|<0.001
91909818|NCT02873936|183715825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|22.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||22.6|5.7|<0.001
91909819|NCT02873936|183715825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|38.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||38.5|17.5|<0.001
91909820|NCT02873936|183715825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|27.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||27.2|7.1|<0.001
91757944|NCT02980133|183408963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) investigational center, previous therapy (ICS or NCS), and IMP treatment group.||9.8|4.1|<0.001
91909821|NCT02873936|183715825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|37.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||37.6|15.8|<0.001
91909822|NCT02873936|183715825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|26.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||26.9|5.9|0.002
91909823|NCT02873936|183715826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||8.8|-1.9|0.16
91757945|NCT01854281|183408972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis: there is no difference in the occurence of arterial bubbles after simulated dive between closure and PFO groups.||||0.02
91757946|NCT01854281|183408972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis: there is no difference in the occurence of arterial bubbles after simulated dive between closure and PFO groups.||||<0.01
91757947|NCT03208088|183408973|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 1 - Control.|||11.6|0.1|
91757948|NCT03208088|183408973|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 2 - Control.|||8.1|-4.0|
91757949|NCT03208088|183408974|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 3 - Control.|||4.6|-7.5|
91757950|NCT03208088|183408974|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 4 - Control.|||2.3|-9.0|
91909824|NCT02873936|183715826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||11.6|-0.0|0.039
91909825|NCT02873936|183715826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|23.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||23.5|6.5|<0.001
91909826|NCT02873936|183715826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||15.2|0.1|0.036
91909827|NCT02873936|183715826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|33.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||33.3|14.5|<0.001
91909828|NCT02873936|183715826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||20.6|3.7|0.004
91909829|NCT02873936|183715827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|37.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||37.4|14.6|<0.001
91909830|NCT02873936|183715827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|30.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||30.0|7.5|<0.001
91909831|NCT02873936|183715827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|46.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||46.3|23.6|<0.001
91757951|NCT00360724|183408982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|9.43||||0.003|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|df 1,55|time X Drug group, f=9.43,df 1,55, p=.003|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||.003
91806845|NCT02321800|183490443|OTHER||Treatment Difference|17.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.92|27.58||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||27.58|6.92|
91909832|NCT02873936|183715827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|32.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||32.1|8.8|<0.001
91909833|NCT02873936|183715828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-7.0|0.003
91909834|NCT02873936|183715828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-6.0|0.027
91909835|NCT02873936|183715828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-8.0|<0.001
91909836|NCT02873936|183715828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-7.0|<0.001
91757952|NCT00360724|183408984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|8.72||||0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|d.f. 1,55|Time x Treatment: F=8.72, d.f=1,55, p=0.05|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||0.05
91757953|NCT00360724|183408985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|5.33||||0.025|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|d.f. 1,55||Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||0.025
91757954|NCT00360724|183408986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|0.26||||0.6|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|d.f.=1,55||Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||0.6
91757955|NCT00360724|183408991|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91909837|NCT02873936|183715828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-10.0|<0.001
91757956|NCT00360724|183408992|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91757957|NCT00605345|183408999|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the response rate of the CERA group was greater than the observed response rate of the darbepoetin group minus 15%. The calculated lower limit of an acceptable difference in response rates thus, was based on the actual percentage of responders in the darbepoetin group and this percentage minus 15% had to be excluded."||||||0.5947|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5947
91757958|NCT02577016|183409005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.62|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-0.62|-1.05|<0.001
91757959|NCT02577016|183409008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-31.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-31.2|-53.7|<0.001
91757960|NCT02577016|183409009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.0|-50.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-50.0|-84.0|<0.001
91757961|NCT02577016|183409010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-5.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-5.2|-17.2|<0.001
91757962|NCT05399290|183409011|OTHER|Chi square analysis was conducted to detect any significant between group differences (100 mg vs 20 mg) in perceived acne severity.||||||0.677|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.677
91757963|NCT05399290|183409011|OTHER|Friedman's test was conducted for the 100 mg treatment arm to detect any significant within group differences in perceived acne severity.||||||0.002|||||||Friedman's test|||||||0.002
91757964|NCT05399290|183409011|OTHER|Friedman's test was conducted for the 20 mg treatment arm to detect any significant within group differences in perceived acne severity.||||||0.018|||||||Fried|||||||0.018
91757965|NCT00510744|183409024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired changes in fat absorption assessed by parametric (t test) or non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney)||||<0.05
91757966|NCT00849862|183409046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.2||||||90.0|85.0|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100|85.0|
91757967|NCT00849862|183409047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0||||||90.0|96.3|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|96.3|
91757968|NCT00849862|183409048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.6||||||90.0|96.2|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|96.2|
91757969|NCT01532869|183409054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) mean|-2.7||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.45|-5.85|0.0915
91757970|NCT01532869|183409056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.43||||0.9336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|9.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Intestinal VAS Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.91|-10.78|0.9336
91757971|NCT01532869|183409056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-4.12||||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Breathing VAS Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||6.96|-15.21|0.4609
91757972|NCT01532869|183409056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.28||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|12.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Raynaud Syndrome Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||12.13|-14.70|0.8493
91757973|NCT01532869|183409056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|4.89||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|18.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Finger Ulcers Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||18.37|-8.59|0.4717
91757974|NCT01532869|183409056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.08||||0.9876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Overall Disease Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.78|-9.93|0.9876
91806846|NCT02321800|183490444|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|7.39||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||7.39|-4.83|
91806847|NCT02321800|183490445|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|5.25||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||5.25|-3.04|
91806848|NCT02321800|183490446|OTHER||Treatment Difference|13.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|24.63||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||24.63|3.21|
91806849|NCT02321800|183490451|OTHER||Treatment Difference|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|9.44||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||9.44|-4.66|
91806850|NCT02321800|183490452|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|6.05||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||6.05|-6.57|
91806851|NCT02321800|183490453|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|1.29||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||1.29|-3.42|
91806852|NCT02321800|183490454|OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|18.41||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||18.41|-0.37|
91806853|NCT01115101|183490520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|VAS score at 24h were defined as primary endpoint because of the expectation of the maximal effect at this time. Testing for differences of continuous variables between the study groups at baseline was accomplished by the 2-sample t test for independent samples or the Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Test selection was based on evaluating the variables for normal distribution employing the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.||"The sample size of n=120 was computed to detect a difference in VAS score at 24h of 1.2 (30% reduction) at a power of 80%, a two-sided significance level of 0.05.~Because measurements were made several times on the same patients within in two independent groups, GLM Repeated Measurement procedure was applied to test null hypotheses about the effects of both the between-subject factor (study group) and the within-subject factor (time)."||||<0.05
91806854|NCT02454296|183490527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91806855|NCT02454296|183490528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91806856|NCT02454296|183490529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91806857|NCT03366337|183490597|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|9.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3743|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|12.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||12.13|6.5|<0.0001
91806858|NCT03366337|183490597|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.75|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||11.25|4.75|<0.0001
91806859|NCT03366337|183490597|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2792||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|10.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||10.16|0.76|0.0247
91806860|NCT03366337|183490597|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.216||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|12.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||12.55|3.11|0.0030
91806861|NCT00769392|183490598|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||single factor analysis of variance|||A comparison of injection discomfort using mean pain scores for all 4 anesthesia intervention agents used in this study.||||0.28
91806862|NCT00769392|183490599|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||single factor analysis of variance|||A comparison of discomfort of all 4 anesthesia intervention agents used in this study using mean pain scores.||||0.17
91806863|NCT02296320|183490600|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction|31.9||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|56.8|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The key efficacy analyses were based on 5000 mg MEDI4893 and placebo. Participants who received 2000 mg MEDI4893 were summarized descriptively.||56.8|-7.5|0.166
91806864|NCT01697566|183490636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Weight||||0.006
91806865|NCT01697566|183490636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fat Mass||||<0.001
91806866|NCT01697566|183490638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
91806867|NCT01447433|183490640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.58|-0.70|0.441
91806868|NCT01447433|183490641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Fat Mass||1.70|0.05|0.038
91806869|NCT01447433|183490641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Lean Mass||0.07|-1.06|0.082
91806870|NCT01447433|183490641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Visceral Fat Mass||0.32|0.03|0.018
91806871|NCT01447433|183490642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.09|0.10|0.031
91909838|NCT02873936|183715828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-7.0|0.006
91909839|NCT02873936|183715829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-5.0|0.008
91909840|NCT02873936|183715829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-2.0|0.65
91909841|NCT02873936|183715829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
91909842|NCT02873936|183715829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|0.008
91909843|NCT02873936|183715829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
91909844|NCT02873936|183715829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-4.0|0.039
91909845|NCT02873936|183715830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-17.0|<0.001
91757975|NCT01532869|183409056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-6.8||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|4.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Intestinal VAS Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||4.71|-18.30|0.2407
91757976|NCT01532869|183409056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.54||||0.7742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|12.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Breathing VAS Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||12.26|-9.18|0.7742
91757977|NCT01532869|183409056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-4.48||||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.28|9.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Raynaud Syndrome Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.31|-18.28|0.5182
91806872|NCT01447433|183490643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|10.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.29|1.15|0.016
91757978|NCT01532869|183409056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-5.8||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|5.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Finger Ulcers Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||5.59|-17.20|0.3106
91806873|NCT01447433|183490644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|4.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Waist Circumference||4.58|-2.31|0.508
91806874|NCT01447433|183490644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|2.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Abdominal Circumference||2.98|-5.42|0.560
91757979|NCT01532869|183409056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-7.82||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|3.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Overall Disease Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||3.48|-19.11|0.1717
91757980|NCT01532869|183409057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.02||||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction||0.225|-0.186|0.8503
91757981|NCT01532869|183409057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.207||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.056|-0.471|0.1212
91887918|NCT02209181|183669026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.55|-0.03|0.056
91887919|NCT02209181|183669027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.50|-0.09|0.067
91887920|NCT02209181|183669027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.68|-0.89|0.547
91887921|NCT02209181|183669027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.46||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.46|1.86|<0.001
91887922|NCT02209181|183669027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.47|-2.10|0.214
91887923|NCT02209181|183669027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.26|0.66|0.003
91887924|NCT02209181|183669028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.95||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.95|-0.57|0.281
91887925|NCT02209181|183669028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.47|-1.03|0.729
91887926|NCT02209181|183669028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|4.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.47|1.95|<0.001
91887927|NCT02209181|183669028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.78|-1.72|0.459
91887928|NCT02209181|183669028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.78|1.26|<0.001
91887929|NCT02209181|183669029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.55|-1.00|0.674
91887930|NCT02209181|183669029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.79||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.79|-0.74|0.417
91887931|NCT02209181|183669029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.33||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.33|1.77|<0.001
91909846|NCT02873936|183715830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-16.0|<0.001
91909847|NCT02873936|183715830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-12.0|-24.0|<0.001
91757982|NCT01532869|183409058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.99||||0.8118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Clinician's Global Assessment at Week 24.The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||7.23|-9.20|0.8118
91757983|NCT01532869|183409058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-9.02||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Clinician's Global Assessment at Week 48.The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||1.00|-19.04|0.0768
91757984|NCT01532869|183409059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-3.85||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||5.34|-13.04|0.4063
91757985|NCT01532869|183409059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-8.3||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||2.71|-19.31|0.1371
91757986|NCT01532869|183409060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.43||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|5.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in FACIT-Fatigue Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||5.82|-2.97|0.5197
91757987|NCT01532869|183409060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|2.75||||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in FACIT-Fatigue Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||6.88|-1.38|0.1886
91757988|NCT01532869|183409061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.79||||0.3651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in 5-D Itch Scale at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||2.51|-0.94|0.3651
91757989|NCT01532869|183409061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.11||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in 5-D Itch Scale at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.94|-3.16|0.2841
91757990|NCT01532869|183409062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-3.55||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.12|-7.23|0.0579
91757991|NCT01532869|183409063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.5|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment and the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit. The continuous covariate of baseline mRSS score was also included in the model.||9.50|0.60|0.2159
91757992|NCT04566692|183409129|NON_INFERIORITY|The bi-weekly treatment was considered non-inferior to the weekly treatment if the lower bound of the 90% CI was \> 0.8.|GLSM Ratio|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.003|1.0685||||||Geometric least-squares means (GLSMs), GLSM ratio, and 90% CI of GLSM ratio were determined from a mixed-effect model for the log-transformed parameter value with treatment period (weekly or bi-weekly) as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.0685|1.0030|
91909848|NCT02873936|183715830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-19.0|<0.001
91909849|NCT02873936|183715830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-12.0|-25.0|<0.001
91909850|NCT02873936|183715830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-19.0|<0.001
91757993|NCT04566692|183409132|NON_INFERIORITY|The biweekly treatment was considered non-inferior to the weekly treatment if the lower bound of the 90% CI was \> 0.8.|GLSM Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9447|0.9957||||||GLSMs, GLSM ratio, and 90% CI of GLSM ratio were determined from a mixed-effect model for the log-transformed parameter value with treatment period (weekly or bi-weekly) as a fixed effect and participants as a random effect.||0.9957|0.9447|
91757994|NCT00590577|183409141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001||95.0|-13.71|-5.85||Used analysis of covariance model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone palmitate 25, 100, 150 mg eq.) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. P-values adjusted for multiplicity for comparison with placebo using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|The overall type I error rate for testing all paliperidone palmitate doses vs. placebo for both the primary outcome and key secondary outcome was controlled at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 2 families of hypotheses (in each family, comparison of each paliperidone palmitate dose vs. placebo) were tested using a parallel gatekeeping procedure that adjusts for multiplicity by using Dunnett's method in each family of hypotheses and using Bonferroni's inequality between different families.||-5.85|-13.71|<0.001
91757995|NCT00590577|183409141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001||95.0|-12.62|-4.78||Used analysis of covariance model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone palmitate 25, 100, 150 mg eq.) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. P-values adjusted for multiplicity for comparison with placebo using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|The overall type I error rate for testing all paliperidone palmitate doses vs. placebo for both the primary outcome and key secondary outcome was controlled at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 2 families of hypotheses (in each family, comparison of each paliperidone palmitate dose vs. placebo) were tested using a parallel gatekeeping procedure that adjusts for multiplicity by using Dunnett's method in each family of hypotheses and using Bonferroni's inequality between different families.||-4.78|-12.62|<0.001
91757996|NCT00590577|183409141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.034||95.0|-9.01|-1.1||Used analysis of covariance model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone palmitate 25, 100, 150 mg eq.) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. P-values adjusted for multiplicity for comparison with placebo using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|The overall type I error rate for testing all paliperidone palmitate doses vs. placebo for both the primary outcome and key secondary outcome was controlled at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 2 families of hypotheses (in each family, comparison of each paliperidone palmitate dose vs. placebo) were tested using a parallel gatekeeping procedure that adjusts for multiplicity by using Dunnett's method in each family of hypotheses and using Bonferroni's inequality between different families.||-1.10|-9.01|0.034
91757997|NCT00590577|183409142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.001||95.0|3.26|9.12||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity between PANSS total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and PSP, as well as different dose levels in comparison with placebo, using the Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping method.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|Analysis of the key secondary endpoint was conducted using an analysis of covariance model with treatment and country as factors, and the baseline PSP score as a covariate. The Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping approach was used to adjust for multiple testing.||9.12|3.26|<0.001
91757998|NCT00590577|183409142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.007||95.0|1.43|7.31||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity between PANSS total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and PSP, as well as different dose levels in comparison with placebo, using the Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping method.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|Analysis of the key secondary endpoint was conducted using an analysis of covariance model with treatment and country as factors, and the baseline PSP score as a covariate. The Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping approach was used to adjust for multiple testing.||7.31|1.43|0.007
91757999|NCT00590577|183409142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.509||95.0|-1.96|3.95||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity between PANSS total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and PSP, as well as different dose levels in comparison with placebo, using the Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping method.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|Analysis of the key secondary endpoint was conducted using an analysis of covariance model with treatment and country as factors, and the baseline PSP score as a covariate. The Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping approach was used to adjust for multiple testing.||3.95|-1.96|0.509
91758000|NCT00590577|183409143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons with placebo were without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||<0.001
91758001|NCT00590577|183409143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Comparisons with placebo were without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.005
91758002|NCT00590577|183409143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||Comparisons with placebo were without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.140
91758003|NCT03927404|183409145|OTHER|We used median (Inter-quartile range) to describe the continuous measures of limb health such as TEWL, Hydration, and Oxygenation levels at each visit and each location of the measurements in the sound (SL) and residual limbs (RL).|||||<|0.05||||||In a bivariate analysis, we used two-sided equality of the median test for the matched pairs of observations|bivariate analysis|||||||<0.05
91909851|NCT02873936|183715831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-17.0|<0.001
91909852|NCT02873936|183715831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-15.0|<0.001
91909853|NCT02873936|183715831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-11.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-11.0|-22.0|<0.001
91909854|NCT02873936|183715831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-18.0|<0.001
91909855|NCT02873936|183715831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-18.0|<0.001
91909856|NCT02873936|183715831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-11.0|0.052
91909857|NCT02873936|183715832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-21.0|<0.001
91909858|NCT02873936|183715832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-19.0|<0.001
91909859|NCT02873936|183715832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-11.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-11.0|-23.0|<0.001
91909860|NCT02873936|183715832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-19.0|<0.001
91909861|NCT02873936|183715832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-23.0|<0.001
91758004|NCT03927404|183409147|OTHER|We used median (Inter-quartile range) to describe the continuous measures of limb health such as TEWL, Hydration, and Oxygenation levels at each visit and each location of the measurements in the sound (SL) and residual limbs (RL).||||||0.05||||||In a bivariate analysis, we used two-sided equality of the median test for the matched pairs of observations|bivariate analysis|||||||0.05
91806875|NCT01447433|183490644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hip Circumference||2.70|-0.74|0.255
91806876|NCT01447433|183490645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic Blood Pressure||5.3|-12.9|0.404
91806877|NCT01447433|183490645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|7.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||7.41|-5.52|0.768
91806878|NCT01447433|183490646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||TC||0.20|-0.36|0.565
91806879|NCT01447433|183490646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||TG||0.39|-0.24|0.636
91806880|NCT01447433|183490646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||HDL||0.06|-0.58|0.112
91806881|NCT01447433|183490646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||LDL||0.05|-0.11|0.647
91806882|NCT01447433|183490647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.35|-0.10|0.260
91806883|NCT01447433|183490648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|4.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.17|-2.44|0.598
91806884|NCT01447433|183490649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|98.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|89.0||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.6|278.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||278.7|-81.6|0.275
91806885|NCT04518293|183490652|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM).|LS Means Difference|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.774|-4.107|||MIANALYZE procedure|||The LS means (LSM) difference (95% CI) in home seated SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-4.107|-6.774|<.0001
91806886|NCT04518293|183490652|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.723|-1.251|||MIANALYZE procedure|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.251|-3.723|<.0001
91806887|NCT04518293|183490652|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.758|-3.091|||MIANALYZE procedure|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.091|-5.758|<.0001
91806888|NCT04518293|183490653|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.307|-3.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 between dual-TA arms.||-3.902|-7.307|<.0001
91806889|NCT04518293|183490653|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.212||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.718|-1.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.933|-6.718|0.0005
91806890|NCT04518293|183490653|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.984|-4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-4.680|-7.984|<.0001
91806891|NCT04518293|183490654|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.703|-3.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-3.317|-6.703|<.0001
91887932|NCT02209181|183669029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.52|-1.02|0.698
91806892|NCT04518293|183490654|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.293|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.700|-5.293|0.0002
91806893|NCT04518293|183490654|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.965|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.251|-3.444|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.444|-7.251|<.0001
91887933|NCT02209181|183669029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|4.05||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.05|1.49|<0.001
91806894|NCT04518293|183490655|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.692|-2.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-2.757|-4.692|<.0001
91806895|NCT04518293|183490655|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.702|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.897|-2.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-2.128|-4.897|<.0001
91806896|NCT04518293|183490655|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.812|-3.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.189|-5.812|<.0001
91909862|NCT02873936|183715832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-19.0|<0.001
91909863|NCT02873936|183715833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.11|-0.33|<0.001
91909864|NCT02873936|183715833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.04|-0.26|0.006
91909865|NCT02873936|183715833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.21||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.21|-0.51|<0.001
91909866|NCT02873936|183715833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.08|-0.37|0.003
91909867|NCT02873936|183715834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.578|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-7.41||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.41|-13.61|<0.001
91909868|NCT02873936|183715834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.577|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|-5.82||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.82|-12.02|<0.001
91909869|NCT02873936|183715834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.19|-7.69||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.69|-14.19|<0.001
91909870|NCT02873936|183715834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.651|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|-5.73||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.73|-12.22|<0.001
91909871|NCT02873936|183715834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.964|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.00|-13.73|<0.001
91758005|NCT01229449|183409148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91758006|NCT01229449|183409148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91758007|NCT01229449|183409148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91758008|NCT01229449|183409148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91758009|NCT01229449|183409148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.72
91758010|NCT01229449|183409148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91758011|NCT01229449|183409148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
91758012|NCT01229449|183409148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
91758013|NCT01229449|183409148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91758014|NCT01229449|183409148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91758015|NCT02641067|183409158|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.04||||||||2.04|1.00|
91758016|NCT02641067|183409159|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.92||||||||1.92|0.99|
91758017|NCT02641067|183409160|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.15||||||||1.15|0.61|
91909872|NCT02873936|183715834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.987|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-2.98||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.98|-10.80|<0.001
91909873|NCT02873936|183715835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|32.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||32.1|8.1|<0.001
91909874|NCT02873936|183715835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|26.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||26.5|2.4|0.013
91909875|NCT02873936|183715835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|34.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||34.1|10.3|<0.001
91909876|NCT02873936|183715835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|33.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||33.6|10.0|<0.001
91909877|NCT02873936|183715835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|44.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||44.9|21.8|<0.001
91909878|NCT02873936|183715835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|30.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||30.5|6.8|0.001
91909879|NCT02873936|183715836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-1.1|<0.001
91909880|NCT02873936|183715836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
91909881|NCT02873936|183715836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.9|-1.5|<0.001
91909882|NCT02873936|183715836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-1.3|<0.001
91909883|NCT02873936|183715836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.5|<0.001
91909884|NCT02873936|183715836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91806897|NCT04518293|183490656|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.392|-1.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-1.469|-3.392|<.0001
91909885|NCT02873936|183715837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|21.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||21.2|3.5|0.004
91909886|NCT02873936|183715837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|21.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||21.5|4.0|0.003
91909887|NCT02873936|183715837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|38.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||38.4|16.3|<0.001
91909888|NCT02873936|183715837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|27.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||27.7|6.2|0.001
91909889|NCT02873936|183715838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|13.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||13.7|1.3|0.012
91909890|NCT02873936|183715838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|15.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||15.5|2.7|0.006
91758018|NCT01300260|183409175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|3.64||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.64|2.41|<0.001
91758019|NCT01300260|183409175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) means ratio|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|7.13||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||7.13|4.09|<0.001
91758020|NCT01300260|183409176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|3.59||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.59|2.66|<0.001
91758021|NCT01300260|183409176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|13.0||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||13.0|4.82|<0.001
91758022|NCT01300260|183409177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|5.0||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||5.00|3.45|<0.001
91758023|NCT01300260|183409177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|4.78||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||4.78|2.99|<0.001
91758024|NCT01300260|183409178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|2.04||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.31||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.31|1.26|0.011
91758025|NCT01300260|183409178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|3.47||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.47|1.71|<0.001
91758026|NCT01300260|183409179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.22||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.43||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.43|1.04|0.021
91758027|NCT01300260|183409179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.53||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.53|1.27|<0.001
91909891|NCT02873936|183715838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||23.1|5.6|<0.001
91909892|NCT02873936|183715838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|26.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||26.2|8.5|<0.001
91758028|NCT01300260|183409180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.43||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.8||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.80|1.14|0.009
91758029|NCT01300260|183409180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|1.94||P-value is 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.94|1.59|<0.001
91758030|NCT02533726|183409181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.75|||Fisher Exact|||Per-protocol (PP) analysis, consistent with regulatory guidance (FDA).||.75|.1|.012
91758031|NCT02533726|183409181|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.74|||Fisher Exact|||Per protocol analysis adjusted for admitting team, unit of admission, and risk for pressure injury.||0.74|0.06|0.015
91758032|NCT01147848|183409187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.037||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.015|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, region, sex, age, and treatment.|||0.015|-0.088|0.162
91758033|NCT02540265|183409201|OTHER||Effect Size|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91758034|NCT02540265|183409201|OTHER||Effect Size|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91758035|NCT02540265|183409202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0049
91758036|NCT02540265|183409202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0076
91758037|NCT02540265|183409203|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SPID 0-6, SPID 0-12, SPID 0-24, SPID 12-24, SPID 12-48, and SPID 24-48|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91758038|NCT02540265|183409203|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SPID 0-6, SPID 0-12, SPID 0-24, SPID 12-24, SPID 12-48, and SPID 24-48|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91758039|NCT00324233|183409223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||equivalence testing|||||||0.56
91758040|NCT01972789|183409226|NON_INFERIORITY|This is a non-inferiority study design, with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 5 letters between intensive and relaxed groups. That is, if the change from Baseline in BCVA at Month 24 in the intensive group is not more than 5 letters higher than the relaxed group, then the relaxed group is regarded not inferior to the intensive group|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.32|-2.51|0.787
91887934|NCT02209181|183669030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.66|-0.87|0.541
91887935|NCT02209181|183669030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.79||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.79|-0.73|0.409
91887936|NCT02209181|183669030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.39|1.85|<0.001
91887937|NCT02209181|183669030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.39|-1.12|0.834
91887938|NCT02209181|183669030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.0||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.00|1.45|<0.001
91887939|NCT02209181|183669031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.63||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.63|-0.90|0.573
91887940|NCT02209181|183669031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.74|-0.77|0.448
91887941|NCT02209181|183669031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.25|1.71|<0.001
91887942|NCT02209181|183669031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.38|-1.13|0.848
91887943|NCT02209181|183669031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.89||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.89|1.35|<0.001
91887944|NCT02209181|183669032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.50|-1.04|0.720
91887945|NCT02209181|183669032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.45||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.45|-1.07|0.763
91887946|NCT02209181|183669032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.09|1.55|<0.001
91887947|NCT02209181|183669032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.22|-1.30|0.952
91887948|NCT02209181|183669032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.86|1.31|<0.001
91887949|NCT02209181|183669033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.39|-1.10|0.821
91758041|NCT01972789|183409227|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.31||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.58|-3.20|0.833
91758042|NCT01972789|183409228|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-21.39||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.17|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-43.17|0.054
91806898|NCT04518293|183490656|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.371|-1.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.201|-3.371|<.0001
91806899|NCT04518293|183490656|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.562|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.882|-2.664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.664|-4.882|<.0001
91909893|NCT02873936|183715841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.2|-10.0|<0.001
91909894|NCT02873936|183715841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.2|-7.9|<0.001
91909895|NCT02873936|183715841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-6.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.5|-12.6|<0.001
91909896|NCT02873936|183715841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-4.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.5|-10.6|<0.001
91909897|NCT02873936|183715841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-5.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.5|-11.9|<0.001
91909898|NCT02873936|183715841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.6|-8.2|0.003
91909899|NCT02873936|183715842|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-5.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.1|-11.1|<0.001
91806900|NCT04518293|183490657|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|19.487|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||19.487|5.630|0.0003
91909900|NCT02873936|183715842|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.9|-8.9|<0.001
91909901|NCT02873936|183715842|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-7.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.5|-13.8|<0.001
91806901|NCT04518293|183490657|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.392|20.394|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||20.394|6.392|0.0001
91806902|NCT04518293|183490657|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.812|28.013|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||28.013|13.812|<.0001
91806903|NCT04518293|183490658|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.31||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.044|17.535|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||17.535|3.044|0.0044
91806904|NCT04518293|183490658|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.08||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|15.373|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||15.373|0.804|0.0262
91909902|NCT02873936|183715842|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-5.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.5|-11.8|<0.001
91909903|NCT02873936|183715842|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.8|-13.5|<0.001
91909904|NCT02873936|183715842|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.7|-9.4|<0.001
91909905|NCT02873936|183715844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.1|<0.001
91909906|NCT02873936|183715844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.4|0.6|0.005
91909907|NCT02873936|183715844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.9|1.9|<0.001
91909908|NCT02873936|183715844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.2|1.1|0.002
91758043|NCT01972789|183409229|OTHER||Negative Binomial Regression|1.11||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.18|||Mixed Model|||||1.18|1.04|0.001
91758044|NCT01972789|183409230|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|-0.28|0.338
91887950|NCT02209181|183669033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.22|-1.25|0.978
91887951|NCT02209181|183669033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.13|1.63|<0.001
91887952|NCT02209181|183669033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.07|-1.39|0.799
91887953|NCT02209181|183669033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.98||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.98|1.49|<0.001
91887954|NCT02209181|183669034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.13|-1.62|0.726
91887955|NCT02209181|183669034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.25|-1.48|0.869
91758045|NCT01972789|183409231|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12||2.80|0.74|0.284
91758046|NCT01972789|183409231|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24||2.33|0.71|0.407
91758047|NCT01972789|183409232|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.04|0.12|0.217
91806905|NCT04518293|183490658|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.201|25.746|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.746|11.201|<.0001
91806906|NCT04518293|183490659|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.707|22.837|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||22.837|9.707|<.0001
91806907|NCT04518293|183490659|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.03||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.982|18.658|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||18.658|4.982|0.0004
91806908|NCT04518293|183490659|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.412|24.432|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||24.432|11.412|<.0001
91758048|NCT01972789|183409233|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.42|0.615
91758049|NCT01972789|183409234|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.54|0.819
91806909|NCT04518293|183490660|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.45||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.993|16.433|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||16.433|3.993|0.0007
91806910|NCT04518293|183490660|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.93||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.337|15.058|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||15.058|2.337|0.0046
91806911|NCT04518293|183490660|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.792|18.073|||Wald test|||||18.073|5.792|<.0001
91806912|NCT04518293|183490661|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.086|-5.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-5.144|-7.086|<.0001
91806913|NCT04518293|183490661|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-1.932|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.932|-4.060|<.0001
91806914|NCT04518293|183490661|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.274|-3.912|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.912|-6.274|<.0001
91806915|NCT04518293|183490662|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.069|-2.632|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-2.632|-4.069|<.0001
91887956|NCT02209181|183669034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.9||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.90|1.13|<0.001
91887957|NCT02209181|183669034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.50|-1.24|0.851
91887958|NCT02209181|183669034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.15||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.15|1.38|<0.001
91887959|NCT02209181|183669035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.042
91887960|NCT02209181|183669035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.779
91887961|NCT02209181|183669035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||<0.001
91889156|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-0.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 12F||-0.7|-11.7|
91758050|NCT01972789|183409236|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.32||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|630.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||630.5|0.03|0.565
91758051|NCT01972789|183409237|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|1.03|0.034
91758052|NCT00418574|183409238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.099||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|1.315|||Regression, Cox|||||1.315|0.919|0.301
91758053|NCT01707381|183409248|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.773|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.166|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = BOL-303259-X 0.024% - Timolol maleate 0.5%.|||-1.166|-2.380|<0.001
91806916|NCT04518293|183490662|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.998|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.200|-2.998|<.0001
91806917|NCT04518293|183490662|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.617|-2.649|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.649|-4.617|<.0001
91758054|NCT01707381|183409249|OTHER||Bonferroni t-test used for paired compar|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||the bonferroni result applies to nocturnal supine OPP data comparing BOL group to timolol group|Statistical analysis of nocturnal (supine) OPP was performed among baseline, the BOL-303259-X treatment and timolol treatment using ANOVA. the criteria for statistical significance was P\<0.05. Post hoc Bonferroni T-tests were then utilized to compare BOL and timolol groups.||||<0.05
91806918|NCT04518293|183490663|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.137|-2.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-2.908|-4.137|<.0001
91806919|NCT04518293|183490663|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.803|-1.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.376|-2.803|<.0001
91806920|NCT04518293|183490663|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.446|-2.713|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.713|-4.446|<.0001
91806921|NCT04518293|183490664|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.713|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.983|-4.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-4.169|-6.983|<.0001
91806922|NCT04518293|183490664|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.218|-0.607|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-0.607|-3.218|0.0043
91806923|NCT04518293|183490664|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.745|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.214|-2.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.274|-5.214|<.0001
91909909|NCT02873936|183715846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.2|0.4|0.019
91806924|NCT04518293|183490665|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.324|-5.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-5.168|-7.324|<.0001
91806925|NCT04518293|183490665|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.941|-1.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.507|-3.941|<.0001
91806926|NCT04518293|183490665|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.537|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.489|-3.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.368|-5.489|<.0001
91806927|NCT04518293|183490666|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.749|21.824|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||21.824|7.749|<.0001
91806928|NCT04518293|183490666|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.46||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|15.501|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||15.501|1.580|0.0146
91806929|NCT04518293|183490666|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.953|23.171|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||23.171|8.953|<.0001
91806930|NCT04518293|183490667|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.778|25.226|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.226|10.778|<.0001
91806931|NCT04518293|183490667|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.64||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|13.926|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||13.926|-0.613|0.0674
91909910|NCT02873936|183715846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.6|-0.2|0.073
91758055|NCT01707381|183409250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.915|-0.625|||ANOVA||Treatment Difference = BOL-303259-X 0.024% - Timolol maleate 0.5%.|||-0.625|-2.915|0.004
91758056|NCT03596450|183409252|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.36||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Estimate and p-value are based on logistic regression model with logit link function, treatment as categorical effect, and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.79|1.03|0.033
91909911|NCT02873936|183715846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|0.0|0.045
91909912|NCT02873936|183715846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-1.0|0.32
91909913|NCT02873936|183715846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.2|-0.5|0.12
91909914|NCT02873936|183715846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.4|-2.3|0.96
91909915|NCT02873936|183715848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.7|1.6|<0.001
91909916|NCT02873936|183715848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.4|1.2|0.002
91909917|NCT02873936|183715848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.1|2.1|<0.001
91909918|NCT02873936|183715848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.7|-0.5|0.11
91909919|NCT02873936|183715851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|11.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||11.0|2.0|0.009
91909920|NCT02873936|183715851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||12.0|3.0|0.003
91909921|NCT02873936|183715851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||13.0|3.0|0.003
91758057|NCT04016077|183409328|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Geometric Means|118.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.96|159.64|||ANOVA|||||159.64|87.96|
91758058|NCT04016077|183409329|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Geometric Means|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.48|145.23|||ANOVA|||||145.23|74.48|
91758059|NCT03036189|183409340|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
91758060|NCT03036189|183409341|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.42||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
91758061|NCT03036189|183409342|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
91909922|NCT02873936|183715851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||12.0|2.0|0.006
91909923|NCT02873936|183715851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||15.0|3.0|0.002
91909924|NCT02873936|183715851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||14.0|2.0|0.007
91909925|NCT02054897|183715860|SUPERIORITY|Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg minus Placebo|For the primary HbA1c endpoint, superiority was planned to be tested for semaglutide 1.0 mg versus placebo. The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.25|-1.81|< 0.0001
91909926|NCT02054897|183715860|SUPERIORITY|Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-1.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg minus Placebo|For the primary HbA1c endpoint, superiority was planned to be tested for semaglutide 0.5 mg versus placebo, if superiority for semaglutide 1.0 mg was concluded. The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.15|-1.71|< 0.0001
91909927|NCT01119248|183715880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.25|-0.48|<.001
91909928|NCT01119248|183715881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||pre- MRI body temperature was associated with change in body temperature after MRI by bivariate analysis. The values presented are adjusted for body surface area, type of MRI, room temperature and duration of MRI||-0.43|-0.95|0.0001
91909929|NCT01119248|183715882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91909930|NCT01332357|183715921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.46||The unadjusted risk of experiencing a recurrent event associated with not initiating a controller medication at index event discharge|Regression, Cox|||||2.46|1.56|<0.0001
91909931|NCT01332357|183715921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.25||The adjusted risk of experiencing a recurrent event associated with not initiating a controller medication at index event discharge|Regression, Cox|Covariates included demographics, IP or ED index event, primary asthma diagnosis, Charlson score, and pre-index medication||||2.25|1.42|<0.0001
91909932|NCT01332357|183715921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.005|1.011||The risk of experiencing a recurrent event associated with not initiating a controller medication at index event discharge by time interaction|Regression, Cox|Evaluates the impact of each day treatment with a controller was delayed||||1.011|1.005|<0.0001
91909933|NCT00328627|183715927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.41||For the primary analysis, the overall average HbA1c response of the Alogliptin/pioglitazone combination groups was compared with that of the pioglitazone alone groups at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||The null hypothesis was that the doses of alogliptin do not have any additive effect on glycemic control (HbA1c) in addition to the effect produced by pioglitazone alone. The alternative hypothesis was that at least the higher dose of alogliptin would have an additive effect on glycemic control (HbA1c) in addition to the effect produced by pioglitazone alone.||-0.41|-0.67|<0.001
91909934|NCT00328627|183715927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.41|-0.66|<0.001
91909935|NCT00328627|183715959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.48||As a supportive analysis, each of the individual combination treatment groups was compared with the component treatment groups receiving aloliptin alone and pioglitazone alone at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level with no multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.48|-0.93|<0.001
91758062|NCT03036189|183409343|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
91758063|NCT03036189|183409344|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
91758064|NCT03036189|183409345|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.49||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
91758065|NCT03036189|183409346|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
91758066|NCT03036189|183409347|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.45||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
91758067|NCT03036189|183409348|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91758068|NCT03036189|183409349|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91909936|NCT00328627|183715959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.38|-0.81|<0.001
91909937|NCT00328627|183715959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.15|-0.59|0.001
91909938|NCT00328627|183715959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.30|-0.74|<0.001
91909939|NCT00328627|183715959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.001
91909940|NCT00328627|183715959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.25|-0.70|<0.001
91909941|NCT00328627|183715959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.27|-0.71|<0.001
91909942|NCT00328627|183715959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.25|-0.70|<0.001
91909943|NCT00328627|183715959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.68|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.68|-1.13|<0.001
91909944|NCT00328627|183715959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.33|-0.77|<0.001
91909945|NCT00328627|183715959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.48|-0.92|<0.001
91909946|NCT00328627|183715959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.39|-0.83|<0.001
91909947|NCT00691483|183716099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|9.56||To preserve the type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure to be used for the analysis of CA for Week 9 through Week 12 and the CA for Week 9 through Week 24.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Sample size to be based on a continuity-corrected Chi-square 2-sided test with a 0.05 significance level and a 3:1 randomization ratio of Varenicline to placebo. 652 subjects to provide \>=90% power to detect Varenicline versus placebo differences in primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints (assuming placebo CA rates of 0.24 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.18 \[Weeks 9-24\] and Varenicline CA rates of 0.46 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.31 \[Weeks 9-24\]) (odds ratio of \>=2.67 \[Weeks 9-12\] and \>=2.10 \[Weeks 9-24\]).||9.56|3.80|<0.0001
91909948|NCT00691483|183716100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|7.55||To preserve the type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure to be used for the analysis of CA for Week 9 through Week 12 and the CA for Week 9 through Week 24.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Sample size to be based on a continuity-corrected Chi-square 2-sided test with a 0.05 significance level and a 3:1 randomization ratio of Varenicline to placebo. 652 subjects to provide \>=90% power to detect Varenicline versus placebo differences in primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints (assuming placebo CA rates of 0.24 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.18 \[Weeks 9-24\] and Varenicline CA rates of 0.46 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.31 \[Weeks 9-24\]) (odds ratio of \>=2.67 \[Weeks 9-12\] and \>=2.10 \[Weeks 9-24\]).||7.55|2.62|<0.0001
91909949|NCT00691483|183716101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|8.13||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||8.13|2.96|<0.0001
91909950|NCT00691483|183716102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|8.75||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Week 12. Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||8.75|3.66|<0.0001
91909951|NCT00691483|183716102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|6.58||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Week 24. Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||6.58|2.58|<0.0001
91758069|NCT03036189|183409350|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.99||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
91758070|NCT03036189|183409351|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.05||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91758071|NCT03036189|183409352|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.0||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91758072|NCT03036189|183409353|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-23.01||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
91758073|NCT03262441|183409354|OTHER||Slope|-0.00033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0014||||||||0.0014|-0.0020|
91758074|NCT03262441|183409355|OTHER||Slope|0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0036|0.0056||||||||0.0056|-0.0036|
91758075|NCT03262441|183409356|OTHER||Slope|0.0024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.0078||||||||0.0078|-0.003|
91758076|NCT01455194|183409375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1175||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.109|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean difference were derived from an ANCOVA model with baseline ACQ and age as covariates, and treatment, centre pool, sex, and prestudy ICS dose as factors.||0.109|-0.353|0.2988
91909952|NCT00691483|183716103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|6.67||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||6.67|2.58|<0.0001
91909953|NCT04623242|183716105|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.063|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance||||||||
91909954|NCT04623242|183716105|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.255|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.061|||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance||||||||
91909955|NCT04623242|183716106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.92|-2.46|0.805
91909956|NCT04623242|183716107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.823||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of equality (any treatment difference)||2.43|-4.83|0.512
91909957|NCT04623242|183716108|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1115|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.864|-0.417|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.417|-0.864|<0.001
91909958|NCT04623242|183716109|OTHER|Test of equality (any difference in the proportion of increase in the endpoint)|Ratio|0.3443||||0.5573|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5573
91909959|NCT04623242|183716110|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.60|-1.77|0.707
91909960|NCT04623242|183716111|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.40|-1.35|0.283
91909961|NCT04623242|183716112|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.07|-1.34|0.674
91758077|NCT01455194|183409375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.266|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean difference were derived from an ANCOVA model with baseline ACQ and age as covariates, and treatment, centre pool, sex, and prestudy ICS dose as factors.||0.266|-0.198|0.7741
91758078|NCT01455194|183409375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1172||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.074|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean difference were derived from an ANCOVA model with baseline ACQ and age as covariates, and treatment, centre pool, sex, and prestudy ICS dose as factors.||0.074|-0.387|0.1835
91909962|NCT04623242|183716113|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.828||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.42|-4.86|0.507
91909963|NCT04623242|183716114|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.38|-4.41|0.553
91758079|NCT01455194|183409377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate|0.0||||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment comparisons were carried out using an exact Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test.|||4.000|-3.000|0.8465
91758080|NCT01455194|183409377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate|1.0||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment comparisons were carried out using an exact Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test.|||5.000|-2.000|0.4175
91909964|NCT04623242|183716115|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|-2.18|0.098
91909965|NCT04623242|183716116|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|6.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.68|-1.22|0.173
91909966|NCT04623242|183716117|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.998||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.71|-8.10|0.940
91909967|NCT04623242|183716118|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.524||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.49|36.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||36.62|-30.49|0.854
91909968|NCT04623242|183716119|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.448||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|39.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.75|-30.00|0.781
91909969|NCT04623242|183716120|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|6.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.67|-10.05|0.689
91909970|NCT04623242|183716121|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.689||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.87|-1.86|0.474
91909971|NCT04623242|183716122|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|-1.36|0.886
91909972|NCT04623242|183716123|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.20|-1.03|0.873
91909973|NCT04623242|183716124|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.87|-4.71|0.394
91909974|NCT04623242|183716125|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.81|-2.41|0.776
91909975|NCT04623242|183716126|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|-2.78|0.283
91909976|NCT04623242|183716127|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-2.33|0.634
91909977|NCT04623242|183716128|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.155|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.074|||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance||||||||
91758081|NCT01455194|183409378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4186|||||||Fisher Exact|||Well-controlled Asthma||||0.4186
91758082|NCT01455194|183409378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Fisher Exact|||Well-controlled Asthma||||0.1460
91758083|NCT01455194|183409378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6017|||||||Fisher Exact|||Well-controlled Asthma||||0.6017
91758084|NCT01455194|183409378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3305|||||||Fisher Exact|||ACQ Improvement||||0.3305
91758085|NCT01455194|183409378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|||||||Fisher Exact|||ACQ Improvement||||0.4860
91758086|NCT01455194|183409378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8922|||||||Fisher Exact|||ACQ Improvement||||0.8922
91758087|NCT01455194|183409379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0806||0.6062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.221|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|Well-controlled Asthma||1.221|0.890|0.6062
91758088|NCT01455194|183409379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0669||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.197|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ Improvement||1.197|0.921|0.4674
91758089|NCT01455194|183409379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1597||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|1.642|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|Well-controlled Asthma||1.642|0.878|0.2523
91758090|NCT01455194|183409379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1354||0.5026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.191|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ Improvement||1.191|0.700|0.5026
91758091|NCT01455194|183409379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.219|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|Well-controlled Asthma||1.219|0.661|0.4893
91758092|NCT01455194|183409379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1351||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.538|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ Improvement||1.538|0.906|0.2193
91758093|NCT01455194|183409380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0917||0.5397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.266|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 0.5||1.266|0.884|0.5397
91806932|NCT04518293|183490667|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.839|25.392|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.392|10.839|<.0001
91758094|NCT01455194|183409380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0738||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.161|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.0||1.161|0.870|0.9458
91758095|NCT01455194|183409380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0708||0.7213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.178|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.25||1.178|0.893|0.7213
91758096|NCT01455194|183409380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0692||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.202|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.5||1.202|0.917|0.4807
91758097|NCT01455194|183409380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.884|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 0.5||1.884|0.934|0.1150
91758098|NCT01455194|183409380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1467||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.431|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.0||1.431|0.805|0.6281
91758099|NCT01455194|183409380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1415||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.397|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.25||1.397|0.803|0.6853
91758100|NCT01455194|183409380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1388||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.385|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.5||1.385|0.804|0.6995
91758101|NCT01455194|183409380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1744||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.178|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 0.5||1.178|0.595|0.3080
91758102|NCT01455194|183409380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1461||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.25|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.0||1.250|0.705|0.6645
91758103|NCT01455194|183409380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1408||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.308|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.25||1.308|0.753|0.9564
91758104|NCT01455194|183409380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1375||0.7367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.371|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.5||1.371|0.800|0.7367
91758105|NCT01455194|183409381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2583||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|2.267|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \<1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|||2.267|0.824|0.2264
91758106|NCT01455194|183409381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5001||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|5.602|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \<1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|||5.602|0.789|0.1373
91758107|NCT01455194|183409381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4365||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.074|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \<1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|||2.074|0.375|0.7732
91758108|NCT01455194|183409382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2880
91758109|NCT01455194|183409382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2864|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2864
91759902|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.53|-7.36||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-7.36|-25.53|
91759903|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.42|-0.34||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.34|-18.42|
91909978|NCT04623242|183716129|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0562||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.132|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.132|-0.093|0.726
91909979|NCT04623242|183716130|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.295|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.295|-0.130|0.439
91909980|NCT04623242|183716131|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.033|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.033|-0.034|0.967
91909981|NCT04623242|183716132|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0377||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.092|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.092|-0.059|0.669
91759904|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|4.57||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.57|-13.61|
91759905|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|-4.69||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.69|-22.87|
91759906|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|11.6||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.60|-7.90|
91759907|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.51|-0.93||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.93|-20.51|
91759908|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|-8.77||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.77|-28.28|
91759909|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.67|-3.25||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.25|-22.67|
91759910|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|2.3||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.30|-17.21|
91759911|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-6.48||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.48|-26.00|
91759912|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.34|21.2||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||21.20|5.34|
91759913|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|12.59||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.59|-3.12|
91759914|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|6.68||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.68|-9.10|
91759915|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|8.81||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.81|-6.79|
91759916|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|22.38||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||22.38|4.39|
91759917|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|13.27||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.27|-4.73|
91759918|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|9.35||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.35|-8.68|
91759919|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|14.12||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||14.12|-3.77|
91806933|NCT04518293|183490668|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.902|24.286|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||24.286|9.902|<.0001
91806934|NCT04518293|183490668|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.632|19.293|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||19.293|4.632|0.0010
91806935|NCT04518293|183490668|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.622|29.796|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||29.796|15.622|<.0001
91806936|NCT04518293|183490669|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.579|25.124|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.124|11.579|<.0001
91806937|NCT04518293|183490669|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.22||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.963|19.123|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||19.123|4.963|0.0005
91806938|NCT04518293|183490669|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.06|22.914|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||22.914|9.060|<.0001
91806939|NCT04518293|183490670|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.529|2.768||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants discontinuing trial medication due to AE/SAE at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.768|-1.529|
91758110|NCT00148941|183409402|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.08|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.080|0.871|
91909982|NCT04623242|183716133|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|116.419||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.14|195.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||195.22|-264.14|0.768
91758111|NCT00148941|183409402|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.07|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.070|0.863|
91758112|NCT00148941|183409402|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.103|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.103|0.890|
91758113|NCT00148941|183409402|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.097|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.097|0.866|
91806940|NCT04518293|183490670|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|2.475||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants discontinuing trial medication due to AE/SAE at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.475|-2.098|
91806941|NCT04518293|183490670|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|2.475||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants discontinuing trial medication due to AE/SAE at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||2.475|-2.098|
91806942|NCT04518293|183490676|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|7.116||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||7.116|0.494|
91806943|NCT04518293|183490676|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.927|4.02||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.020|-3.927|
91806944|NCT04518293|183490676|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|6.764||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||6.764|-0.070|
91806945|NCT04518293|183490677|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.136||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||5.136|-0.500|
91806946|NCT04518293|183490677|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.513|4.517||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.517|-1.513|
91909983|NCT04623242|183716135|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2737.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6558.467||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15678.06|10202.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10202.81|-15678.06|0.677
91909984|NCT04623242|183716136|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1078.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1788.474||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4603.28|2446.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2446.64|-4603.28|0.547
91909985|NCT04623242|183716137|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1935.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|385.538|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2717.64|-1154.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1154.18|-2717.64|<0.001
91909986|NCT04623242|183716138|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.014||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.56|-29.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-29.68|-124.56|0.003
91909987|NCT04623242|183716139|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.54||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.04|101.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||101.83|-40.04|0.388
91909988|NCT04623242|183716140|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.624||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|12.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.45|-13.97|0.909
91758114|NCT00148941|183409402|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.988|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||0.988|0.780|
91758115|NCT00148941|183409402|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.901|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.014|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.014|0.800|
91758116|NCT00148941|183409403|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.063|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.063|0.828|
91758117|NCT00148941|183409403|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.091|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.091|0.850|
91758118|NCT00148941|183409403|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.162|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.162|0.906|
91758119|NCT00148941|183409403|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|0.976|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||0.976|0.783|
91759920|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|22.68||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||22.68|4.44|
91759921|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|10.64||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.64|-7.64|
91909989|NCT04623242|183716141|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0593||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.296|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.296|0.059|0.004
91909990|NCT04623242|183716142|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.355||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|2.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.35|-3.21|0.754
91909991|NCT04623242|183716144|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|229362.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14863.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|199264.32|259460.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||259460.27|199264.32|<0.001
91909992|NCT04623242|183716145|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|32906.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1697.541|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29406.49|36406.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||||36406.72|29406.49|<0.001
91909993|NCT04623242|183716146|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1286.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|140.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1002.79|1569.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1569.90|1002.79|<0.001
91909994|NCT04623242|183716147|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9867.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1212.232|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7419.38|12315.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12315.15|7419.38|<0.001
91909995|NCT02921971|183716150|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|0.08||Above p-value is one-sided p-value. Threshold for significance is at 0.05 level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||Analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model. The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata as per IVRS, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint and strata-by-timepoint interactions, as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline and baseline-by-timepoint interactions.||0.08|-4.71|0.0291
91909996|NCT01166230|183716176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.141
91909997|NCT01166230|183716177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.041
91909998|NCT01166230|183716178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.056
91909999|NCT01968460|183716182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.13||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-2.13|-7.20|0.0004
91758120|NCT00148941|183409403|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.057|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.057|0.849|
91758121|NCT00148941|183409403|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.209|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.209|0.971|
91758122|NCT00148941|183409403|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.148|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertactin (PRN) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.148|0.867|
91758123|NCT00148941|183409403|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.2|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertactin (PRN) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.200|0.907|
91758124|NCT00148941|183409403|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.202|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertactin (PRN) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.202|0.909|
91758125|NCT00148941|183409404|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.181|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.181|0.836|
91806947|NCT04518293|183490677|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.855|3.633||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.633|-2.855|
91910000|NCT01968460|183716182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-1.36||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-1.36|-6.32|0.0027
91910001|NCT01968460|183716183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.84||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-0.84|-2.86|0.0004
91910002|NCT01968460|183716183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.44||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||0.44|-2.41|0.005
91910003|NCT01968460|183716184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|44.77||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using two-tailed tests.|Regression, Logistic|||A subject will be defined as a treatment responder in case that the improvement from baseline to the Week12 / Last Observed Value (LOV) in the CGI-S will be of 1 point or more. Baseline adjusted logistic regression (SAS® LOGISTIC procedure) stratified by GeoSite using the STRATA sub-command with the following effects: treatment group and baseline CGI-S measurement was used to test the between the active groups and placebo contrasts.||44.77|1.47|0.0165
91910004|NCT01968460|183716184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|24.9||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests.|Regression, Logistic|||||24.90|0.72|0.111
91910005|NCT01968460|183716185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.83||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-0.83|-4.80|0.0058
91910006|NCT01968460|183716185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.39||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-0.39|-4.26|0.0191
91910007|NCT01968460|183716186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-0.8||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.80|-5.72|0.0097
91910008|NCT01968460|183716186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-0.012||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.012|-4.91|0.0509
91910009|NCT02597855|183716189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The difference of polyp regression rate between two groups were compared.||||<0.05
91910010|NCT02597855|183716190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was used for a comparison of best corrected visual acuity assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months between type1 and type2.||best corrected visual acuity was compared between two groups||||<0.05
91758126|NCT00148941|183409404|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.172|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.172|0.831|
91758127|NCT00148941|183409404|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.18|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.180|0.836|
91759922|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|6.44||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.44|-11.76|
91759923|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|13.46||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.46|-4.65|
91759924|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.34|27.84||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||27.84|8.34|
91910011|NCT04283123|183716221|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
91910012|NCT04283123|183716221|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
91910013|NCT04283123|183716222|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
91910014|NCT04283123|183716222|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
91758128|NCT00148941|183409404|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.314|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.314|0.951|
91759925|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|15.32||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.32|-4.27|
91887962|NCT02209181|183669035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.196
91887963|NCT02209181|183669035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.006
91887964|NCT02209181|183669036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.9|1.1|<0.001
91887965|NCT02209181|183669036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.8|-0.0|0.077
91887966|NCT02209181|183669036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.6|0.8|<0.001
91887967|NCT02209181|183669036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.7|-1.6|<0.001
91887968|NCT02209181|183669036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.1|-0.7|0.148
91887969|NCT05472740|183669077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91887970|NCT05131477|183669098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-20.3|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-20.3|-43.9|<0.0001
91887971|NCT05131477|183669098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-15.6|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-15.6|-39.1|<0.0001
91887972|NCT05131477|183669098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-10.4|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-10.4|-34.0|0.0002
91887973|NCT05131477|183669098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||||-18.5|-41.9|<0.0001
91887974|NCT05131477|183669099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-23.8|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-23.8|-49.8|<0.0001
91887975|NCT05131477|183669099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-11.6|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-11.6|-37.7|0.0002
91887976|NCT05131477|183669099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-13.1|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-13.1|-39.2|<0.0001
91887977|NCT05131477|183669099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-13.9|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-13.9|-39.7|<0.0001
91887978|NCT05131477|183669100|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.42|0.16|< 0.0001
91887979|NCT05131477|183669100|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.40|0.14|< 0.0001
91887980|NCT05131477|183669100|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.44|0.18|<0.0001
91887981|NCT05131477|183669100|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.42|0.16|<0.0001
91887982|NCT05131477|183669100|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.5|0.23|<0.0001
91887983|NCT05131477|183669100|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.34|0.07|0.0040
91887984|NCT05131477|183669100|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.45|0.17|<0.0001
91887985|NCT05131477|183669100|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.23||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.36|0.09|0.0016
91910015|NCT04283123|183716223|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
91758129|NCT00148941|183409404|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.183|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.183|0.856|
91758130|NCT00148941|183409404|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\] for Anti-poliovirus type 2.|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.06|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.060|0.765|
91759926|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|7.46||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.46|-12.03|
91887986|NCT05131477|183669101|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.17||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.27|0.06|0.0022
91887987|NCT05131477|183669101|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.09||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.18|0|0.0562
91887988|NCT05131477|183669101|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.14||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.24|0.04|0.0054
91887989|NCT05131477|183669101|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.31|0.1|0.0003
91887990|NCT05131477|183669101|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.47|0.21|<0.0001
91887991|NCT05131477|183669101|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.22||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.34|0.1|0.0008
91887992|NCT05131477|183669101|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.41|0.16|<0.0001
91887993|NCT05131477|183669101|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.18||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.3|0.06|0.0046
91887994|NCT05131477|183669102|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.19||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.3|0.09|0.0006
91887995|NCT05131477|183669102|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.14||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.24|0.04|0.0057
91887996|NCT05131477|183669102|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.16||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.26|0.05|0.0038
91887997|NCT05131477|183669102|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.18||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.28|0.07|0.0011
91887998|NCT05131477|183669102|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.23||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.35|0.11|0.0002
91887999|NCT05131477|183669102|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.17||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.28|0.06|0.0038
91888000|NCT05131477|183669102|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.21||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.32|0.09|0.0006
91888001|NCT05131477|183669102|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|20.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||32|9|0.0008
91888002|NCT02726945|183669185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Data from the groups showed a strong non-normal distribution, thus non-parametric methods were used with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison .~Statistical significance was defined as either of the treatment groups to be superior to the placebo group."||||0.023
91888003|NCT02726945|183669185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Data from the groups showed a strong non-normal distribution, thus non-parametric methods were used with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison .~Statistical significance was defined as either of the treatment groups to be superior to the placebo group."||||0.043
91888004|NCT02473965|183669210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.868|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.787||The statistical inference was tested as 2-sided with alpha=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||An unstratified analysis using Fisher's exact test was used for treatment comparison without adjustment for stratified baseline prednisone equivalent dose level due to the small cell size. The odds ratio and confidence intervals are calculated overall (i.e. all mITT subjects).||2.787|0.270|=1.00
91888005|NCT02473965|183669211|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.536|=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|26.68|||ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison of percent change in daily CS dose from baseline to Week 39. The Analysis of Covariance model included the percent change from baseline in daily CS dose as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect and baseline daily CS dose as covariate.||26.68|-23.52|=0.900
91888006|NCT01681277|183669233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1386|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9354|1.5062|||||"Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.~PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually the Standard Error of the slope"|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 for Cmax,ss was analysed.||1.5062|0.9354|
91910016|NCT04283123|183716223|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
91910017|NCT04442230|183716226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6602|||||||Fisher Exact|||The p-values from significance tests were obtained at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||0.6602
91910018|NCT01903837|183716229|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 10 points|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.6|||Least Square Mean Difference|||||2.6|-2.0|0.3
91758131|NCT00148941|183409404|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.314|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.314|0.941|
91758132|NCT00148941|183409404|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.22|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.220|0.876|
91758133|NCT00148941|183409404|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.099|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.099|0.787|
91758134|NCT00148941|183409404|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|GMT ration|0.792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.922|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of anti-poliovirus type 1 (measured by the GMT ratio of Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group over SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|0.922|0.680|
91758135|NCT00148941|183409404|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|0.925|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of anti-poliovirus type 2 (measured by the GMT ratio of Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group over SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|0.925|0.696|
91758136|NCT00148941|183409404|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.085|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of anti-poliovirus type 3 (measured by the GMT ratio of Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group over SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|1.085|0.811|
91806948|NCT04518293|183490678|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.911|3.129||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.129|-3.911|
91806949|NCT04518293|183490678|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|2.744||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.744|-4.519|
91910019|NCT01903837|183716230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
91910020|NCT01903837|183716230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91910021|NCT01903837|183716231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91910022|NCT01903837|183716231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91910023|NCT03759665|183716234|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.75||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.50|0.00|0.044
91910024|NCT03759665|183716236|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.13||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.25|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.25|-0.13|0.206
91759927|NCT01393639|183411986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|12.98||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.98|-6.42|
91806950|NCT04518293|183490678|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.228|3.647||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.647|-3.228|
91888007|NCT01681277|183669235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.3135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1206|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0652|1.5618|||||"Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.~PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually the Standard Error of the slope"|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 for AUCt,ss was analysed.||1.5618|1.0652|
91888008|NCT02271984|183669241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|39.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.7|46.0|||||Percentage of Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio (Treatment A/Treatment B) is reported.|||46.0|34.7|
91888009|NCT02271984|183669241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.5|33.2|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment C1/Treatment A) is reported.|||33.2|22.5|
91888010|NCT02271984|183669241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|260.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|214.0|316.4|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment C2/Treatment A) is reported.|||316.4|214.0|
91888011|NCT02271984|183669241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|167.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.9|194.0|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment A/Treatment D) is reported.|||194.0|143.9|
91888012|NCT02271984|183669241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|115.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.8|134.1|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment E/Treatment A) is reported.|||134.1|99.8|
91888013|NCT01088984|183669256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||1-sided p-value is calculated against the null hypothesis of a response rate of 5%.|binomial parameter exact method|||||||1.0000
91888014|NCT02304705|183669264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.052
91888015|NCT00770029|183669269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference response rate|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.68|||Fisher Exact|||The efficacy of the treatment was confirmed if H0 was rejected at a given α of 5%, that means if the two sided p-value was ≤0.05. Power of 90%||0.68|0.52|<0.0001
91888016|NCT05620108|183669275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
91888017|NCT05602727|183669276|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means (MK-1942 - Placebo)|LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|5.8|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||5.8|-1.6|0.186
91888018|NCT05602727|183669276|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means (MK-1942 - Placebo)|LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.2|2.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.4|-5.2|0.400
91888019|NCT05602727|183669280|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.0|2.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.2|-8.0|0.196
91888020|NCT05602727|183669280|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.6|1.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.3|-9.6|0.081
91888021|NCT02038842|183669284|OTHER|The co-primary immunogenicity endpoint is analysed per arm, in a frequentist framework, in all randomised participants having received at least one vaccine administration and still HIV-negative at W30.|||||=|0.02||||||One-sided test for the observed proportion being superior to the theoretical decision threshold of 50%.|Binomial|||Trial was designed to compare the observed proportion of responders at week 30 within each group to a predefined minimum immunogenicity level of 50%.||||=0.02
91888022|NCT05504954|183669287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.59|0.04|0.15
91888023|NCT05504954|183669289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.89|0.81|0.10
91888024|NCT05504954|183669290|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|5.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.78|27.78|||Regression, Linear|||||27.78|-17.78|0.65
91888025|NCT05504954|183669291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.70
91888026|NCT05504954|183669292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
91888027|NCT05504954|183669293|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91888028|NCT05504954|183669294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.64
91888029|NCT03412773|183669307|NON_INFERIORITY|"Overall survival (OS) was compared between the tislelizumab group (Arm A) and the sorafenib group (Arm B) by testing the null hypothesis of noninferiority: the null hypothesis assumes the hazard ratio (HR) for tislelizumab versus sorafenib is greater than or equal to 1.08, while the alternative hypothesis assumes the hazard ratio is less than 1.08.~Noninferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95.003% confidence interval (CI) for the HR was less than 1.08"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.003|0.712|1.019|||||The hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model with treatment, geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG (0 vs. 1) as covariates.|||1.019|0.712|
91888030|NCT03412773|183669307|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of tislelizumab over sorafenib was tested for OS using a stratified log-rank test in the ITT analysis set only when noninferiority was demonstrated. Superiority was declared if the one-sided p-value crosses the boundary of 0.0223 (1-sided p-value \< 0.0223) in favor of Arm A in the stratified log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|1.019||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.019|0.712|0.0398
91888031|NCT03412773|183669308|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ORR difference|8.28||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|12.7||The nominal P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, conducted at a 0.05 significance level, was stratified by geography, macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread, etiology, and ECOG.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis assumed that ORR is equal in both groups, while the alternative hypothesis assumed ORR is higher in the tislelizumab group (Arm A).||12.70|3.85|0.0003
91910025|NCT03759665|183716239|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.0327||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0327|0.104|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||0.1040|-0.0327|0.210
91758137|NCT00148941|183409405|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.21||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) booster responses (i.e measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|1.21|-0.98|
91910026|NCT03759665|183716239|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.0291||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0863|0.0262|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.0262|-0.0863|0.212
91910027|NCT03759665|183716240|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.75|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||-0.75|-1.75|<0.001
91759928|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-0.06||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.06|-14.07|
91806951|NCT04518293|183490679|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.993|2.816||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.816|-3.993|
91888032|NCT03412773|183669309|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ORR difference|9.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|13.78||The nominal P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, conducted at a 0.05 significance level, was stratified by geography, macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread, etiology, and ECOG.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.78|4.71|<0.0001
91888033|NCT03412773|183669310|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.33||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.33|0.92|0.1364
91888034|NCT03412773|183669311|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.26||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.26|0.90|0.2622
91888035|NCT03412773|183669314|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.38||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.38|0.94|0.0859
91888036|NCT03412773|183669315|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.34|0.94|0.1182
91888037|NCT03412773|183669321|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.8||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||-0.8|-3.8|0.0033
91888038|NCT03412773|183669322|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.7||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||-0.7|-4.7|0.0096
91888039|NCT03412773|183669323|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.3||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||7.3|1.4|0.0037
91910028|NCT03759665|183716240|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||2.00|0.50|0.001
91910029|NCT03759665|183716242|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.031||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment with IB1001||0.000|-0.063|0.020
91910030|NCT03759665|183716242|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.042|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.021|0.063|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.063|0.021|<0.001
91759929|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|-5.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.56|-19.34|
91888040|NCT03412773|183669324|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.2||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||8.2|1.8|0.0022
91758138|NCT00148941|183409405|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-0.09||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|-0.09|-6.55|
91758139|NCT00148941|183409406|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|3.71||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|3.71|-3.83|
91758140|NCT00148941|183409406|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.21||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|3.21|-2.50|
91758141|NCT00148941|183409406|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|1.14||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of pertactin (PRN) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|1.14|-3.79|
91758142|NCT00148941|183409407|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority objective was considered demonstrated, when the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference between groups (SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups minus Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group) in percentage of subjects reporting increased circumferential swelling was equal or less than 2%.|Difference in percentage|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.16||||||Non-inferiority of the SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of the incidence of increased circumferential swelling at the SB213503 and Infanrix injection site, defined as an injection site swelling diameter that involves \> 50% of the length of the upper arm that also is associated with a \> 30 mm increase of the mid-upper arm circumference compared to the baseline measurement.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|0.16|-1.26|
91758143|NCT01092663|183409440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
91758144|NCT01092663|183409441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
91758145|NCT01092663|183409442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effects between the 2 groups||||>0.05
91758146|NCT01092663|183409443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
91758147|NCT01092663|183409444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
91758148|NCT01092663|183409445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.05
91758149|NCT01092663|183409446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Treament difference in fasting EGP between the 2 groups were compared.||||>0.05
91758150|NCT01092663|183409447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between groups was evaluated||||>0.05
91888041|NCT01028677|183669348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis of fear emotion||||.61
91888042|NCT01028677|183669349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Positive Symptoms||||0.008
91888043|NCT01028677|183669349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative Symptoms||||0.002
91888044|NCT01028677|183669349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||General Symptoms||||0.04
91758151|NCT01092663|183409448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired ttest||Difference in treatment effect between groups was evaluated||||>0.05
91758152|NCT01092663|183409449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
91758153|NCT01092663|183409450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||=0.01
91758154|NCT01092663|183409451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||differerences in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
91758155|NCT01092663|183409452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
91758156|NCT01092663|183409453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
91758157|NCT01092663|183409454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
91758158|NCT01092663|183409455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
91758159|NCT01092663|183409456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.05
91758160|NCT01092663|183409457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.05
91758161|NCT01092663|183409458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.01
91758162|NCT01092663|183409459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.01
91758163|NCT01092663|183409460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
91758164|NCT00788710|183409461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91758165|NCT00788710|183409461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91758166|NCT00788710|183409462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91758167|NCT00788710|183409462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91758168|NCT00788710|183409463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91758169|NCT00788710|183409463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91758170|NCT04407234|183409469|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.803|0.967|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.967|0.803|
91758171|NCT04407234|183409469|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.28|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.28|1.05|
91758172|NCT04407234|183409470|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.446|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.509|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.509|0.390|
91758173|NCT04407234|183409470|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.589|0.783|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.783|0.589|
91758174|NCT04407234|183409472|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.01||||||||1.01|0.778|
91758175|NCT04407234|183409472|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.42||||||||1.42|1.07|
91758176|NCT04407234|183409473|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.766|0.999||||||||0.999|0.766|
91758177|NCT04407234|183409473|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.25||||||||1.25|0.938|
91758178|NCT04407234|183409474|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.453|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.376|0.545||||||||0.545|0.376|
91758179|NCT04407234|183409474|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.979||||||||0.979|0.660|
91758180|NCT04407234|183409475|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.438|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.364|0.527||||||||0.527|0.364|
91758181|NCT04407234|183409475|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.471|0.698||||||||0.698|0.471|
91758182|NCT00727558|183409481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1943||||97.47|0.1721|0.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.554|0.1721|
91758183|NCT00727558|183409482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03555||||97.47|-0.1734|-0.1037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A.||-0.1037|-0.1734|
91758184|NCT00727558|183409483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1548||||98.7|0.04983|0.3968|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.3968|0.04983|
91758185|NCT00727558|183409484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2054||||98.7|0.03714|0.3875|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A.||0.3875|0.03714|
91758186|NCT00727558|183409485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1563||||98.7|0.213|0.6735|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.6735|0.213|
91758187|NCT00727558|183409486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1648||||98.7|-0.2375|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.132|-0.2375|
91758188|NCT00727558|183409487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04448||||97.47|-0.2469|-0.1599|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A by having a lower level of inferior region corneal staining||-0.1599|-0.2469|
91888045|NCT01028677|183669349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Positive Symptoms||||0.05
91888046|NCT01028677|183669349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative Symptoms||||0.08
91888047|NCT01028677|183669349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||General Symptoms||||0.025
91888048|NCT01028677|183669351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
91888049|NCT01028677|183669353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||IRI-total||||.784
91758189|NCT02262754|183409491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.6||||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-2.36, 0.542\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. A last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used for missing data.||0.60|-0.28|
91806952|NCT04518293|183490679|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.513|4.517||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.517|-1.513|
91806953|NCT04518293|183490679|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.596|2.44||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.440|-4.596|
91806954|NCT04518293|183490680|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.196|9.222||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||9.222|4.196|
91806955|NCT04518293|183490680|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.883|5.257||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||5.257|-1.883|
91888050|NCT01028677|183669353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Distress analysis||||1.00
91888051|NCT01028677|183669353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perspective-Taking||||.03
91888052|NCT01028677|183669353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional empathy analysis||||.135
91888053|NCT01028677|183669353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fantasy Analysis||||.681
91888054|NCT01028677|183669353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Distress analysis||||1.00
91888055|NCT01016262|183669397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0047||||||Statistical significance was assessed at the two-sided 5% level. As there was only a single pre-specified primary analysis, there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The comparison between MAX-002 and placebo during the DB phase with respect to the primary outcome measure was the single pre-specified primary analysis, and the null hypothesis was that the percentages were equal between the two groups.||||0.0047
91888056|NCT01016262|183669397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0346||||||Statistical significance was assessed at the two-sided 5% level. As there was only a single pre-specified primary analysis, there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The comparison between Canasa® and placebo during the DB phase with respect to the primary outcome measure was a pre-specified tertiary analysis only.||||0.0346
91888057|NCT01128270|183669402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean of one group (2A)|1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.97||||Analysis applies only to Arm 2A. (Period 3)|Only arm 2A is relevant to this variable. There is no intended statistical comparison, but the point estimate for the mean level and 95% confidence interval are provided.|No comparison is relevant. The statistical method is how we obtained the point estimate and confidence interval. No test was intended.||1.97|1.31|
91888058|NCT01128270|183669403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2432.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1403.0||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1260.0|3606.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Only relevant to Arm 2B.||3606|1260|0.0017
91888059|NCT01128270|183669404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.51||||||Only relevant for arm 2B||0.51|0.24|
91888060|NCT03738475|183669406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||Based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for the change from baseline between treatment groups.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.0056
91888061|NCT03738475|183669410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0799||||||Based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for the change from baseline between treatment groups.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.0799
91888062|NCT03738475|183669412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289||||||Based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for the change from baseline between treatment groups.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.2890
91888063|NCT01304498|183669441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 16||1.11|0.85|<0.001
91888064|NCT01304498|183669441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.29|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 18||1.29|0.91|<0.001
91888065|NCT03325777|183669455|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.27||a priori threshold is p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models||||1.27|.14|=.014
91910031|NCT03759665|183716243|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|3.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||3.5|3.0|<0.001
91758190|NCT02262754|183409491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.87||||||An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-2.36, 0.542\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. A last observation carried forward LOCF was used for missing data.||0.87|-0.02|
91888066|NCT03325777|183669456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|172.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.0|238.0||a priori threshold for significance was p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||238|106|<.001
91888067|NCT03004404|183669459|OTHER||Slope|0.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0743|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5959|0.9001|||||Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|In the SRD part of the trial, dose proportionality for AUC0-inf was assessed in the 25 mg to 400 mg dose groups (BI 730357 tablets administered under fasted conditions) using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).||0.9001|0.5959|
91910032|NCT03759665|183716243|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|5.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||5.0|4.5|<0.001
91758191|NCT02262754|183409491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.18||||||An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-2.36, 0.542\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. A last observation carried forward LOCF was used for missing data.||0.18|-0.70|
91888068|NCT03004404|183669459|OTHER||Ratio T/R|118.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.57|149.03|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet 400mg fed1 (T)/400mg fed2(R), T/R.|Relative bioavailability of AUC0-inf for the SRD part was performed to test the effect of food intake on the PK of 400 mg BI 730357 tablets. The intra-individual comparison of fed conditions was done using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||149.03|94.57|
91888069|NCT03004404|183669459|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T1/R (%)|124.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.858|133.255|||||Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: oral solution in fasted state (test treatment T1)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T1/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of AUC0-inf was based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for Oral solution (PfOS) fasted (T1) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of Auc0-inf and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|133.255|116.858|
91888070|NCT03004404|183669459|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T2/R (%)|125.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.89|138.8|||||Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet in fed state (test treatment T2)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T2/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of AUC0-inf was based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for tablet fed (T2) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of AUC0-inf and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|138.80|112.89|
91888071|NCT03004404|183669460|OTHER||Slope|0.7065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0587|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5863|0.8267|||||Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1|In the SRD part of the trial, dose proportionality for Cmax was assessed in the 25 mg to 400 mg dose groups (BI 730357 tablets administered under fasted conditions) using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).||0.8267|0.5863|
91888072|NCT03004404|183669460|OTHER||Ratio T/R|151.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.107|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.781|186.248|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet 400mg fed1 (T)/400mg fed2(R), T/R.|Relative bioavailability of the Cmax for the SRD part was performed to test the effect of food intake on the PK of 400 mg BI 730357 tablets. The intra-individual comparison of fed conditions was done using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale.||186.248|122.781|
91888073|NCT03004404|183669460|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T1/R (%)|293.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|259.044|331.891|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: oral solution in fasted state (test treatment T1)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T1/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of Cmax based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for Oral solution (PfOS) fasted (T1) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of Cmax and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|331.891|259.044|
91888074|NCT03004404|183669460|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T2/R (%)|180.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.369|200.732|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet in fed state (test treatment T2)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T2/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of Cmax was based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for tablet fasted (T2) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of Cmax and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|200.732|162.369|
91758192|NCT02262754|183409497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.3||||||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.76|
91758193|NCT02262754|183409497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.65||||||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects.||0.65|-0.41|
91758194|NCT02262754|183409497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.17||||||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.87|
91758195|NCT02262754|183409498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.36||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.36|-0.20|
91888075|NCT01937975|183669461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.09|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.09|0.87|
91888076|NCT01937975|183669461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.25|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.25|0.58|
91888077|NCT01937975|183669461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.22|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.22|0.56|
91888078|NCT01937975|183669461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|2.49|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.49|1.09|
91806956|NCT04518293|183490680|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.979|-1.6||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-1.600|-10.979|
91806957|NCT04518293|183490681|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|5.632||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||5.632|0.123|
91806958|NCT04518293|183490681|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.245|4.134||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.134|-2.245|
91806959|NCT04518293|183490681|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.968|0.819||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||0.819|-6.968|
91806960|NCT04518293|183490682|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.863|2.231||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.231|-0.863|
91806961|NCT04518293|183490682|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.897|2.231||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.231|-0.897|
91806962|NCT04518293|183490682|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.494|1.913||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.913|-1.494|
91806963|NCT04518293|183490683|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.931|1.149||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||1.149|-1.931|
91806964|NCT04518293|183490683|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.979|1.143||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.143|-1.979|
91806965|NCT04518293|183490683|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|1.453||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.453|-1.374|
91806966|NCT04518293|183490684|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.014|2.087||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.087|-2.014|
91806967|NCT04518293|183490684|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.015|2.633||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.633|-1.015|
91806968|NCT04518293|183490684|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.015|2.633||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||2.633|-1.015|
91806969|NCT04518293|183490685|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.501|1.385||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||1.385|-2.501|
91888079|NCT01937975|183669462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.19|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.19|0.81|
91888080|NCT01937975|183669462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.16|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.16|0.54|
91806970|NCT04518293|183490685|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.078|1.108||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.108|-3.078|
91806971|NCT04518293|183490685|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.571|1.37||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.370|-2.571|
91806972|NCT04518293|183490686|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|10.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.422|15.138||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||15.138|5.422|
91806973|NCT04518293|183490686|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.776|8.49||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||8.490|-2.776|
91806974|NCT04518293|183490686|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.807|4.174||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||4.174|-7.807|
91806975|NCT04518293|183490687|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|9.867||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||9.867|0.531|
91888081|NCT01937975|183669462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.14|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.14|0.53|
91910033|NCT05098041|183716252|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The point estimates and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) of Cmax for Soticlestat and Rifampin versus Soticlestat alone were calculated using the exponentiation of the point estimates of the difference between treatment regimen and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the natural-log (ln)-transformed Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|13.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.73|17.79|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Rifampin/Soticlestat Alone).|||17.79|9.73|
91910034|NCT05098041|183716253|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The point estimates and 90% CIs for the GMR of AUC∞ for Soticlestat and Rifampin versus Soticlestat alone were calculated using the exponentiation of the point estimates of the difference between treatment regimen and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC∞.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|16.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.53|21.5|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Rifampin/Soticlestat Alone).|||21.50|12.53|
91910035|NCT05098041|183716254|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The point estimates and 90% CIs for the GMR of AUClast for Soticlestat and Rifampin versus Soticlestat alone were calculated using the exponentiation of the point estimates of the difference between treatment regimen and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|14.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.94|18.64|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Rifampin/Soticlestat Alone).|||18.64|11.94|
91910036|NCT05098041|183716255|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|||=|0.0791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.202|0.0|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test||Difference was calculated as (Soticlestat + Rifampin) - Soticlestat Alone. The difference of medians (treatment effect) and the corresponding 90% CI was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann method and Walsh Averages.|||0.000|-0.202|=0.07910
91910037|NCT01297270|183716257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||30.6|10.7|<0.0001
91910038|NCT01297270|183716257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||27.4|7.3|0.0007
91910039|NCT01297270|183716258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||30.6|10.7|<0.0001
91910040|NCT01297270|183716258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||26.7|6.5|0.0014
91910041|NCT02112370|183716268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Swallowing difficulty||||0.008
91910042|NCT02112370|183716268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior neck pain||||0.016
91910043|NCT02112370|183716268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Right chest pain||||0.019
91910044|NCT02112370|183716268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Left chest pain||||0.035
91910045|NCT02112370|183716268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Back pain||||0.089
91910046|NCT02112370|183716268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior neck pain||||0.634
91910047|NCT02500628|183716308|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between fibromyalgia and non-fibromyalgia group||||0.77
91758196|NCT02262754|183409498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.07||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.07|-0.48|
91910048|NCT02500628|183716309|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
91910049|NCT02500628|183716310|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between fibromyalgia and non-fibromyalgia patients.||||0.92
91910050|NCT02111993|183716326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This p-value correlates to Δ4 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91910051|NCT02111993|183716326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||This p-value correlates to Δ8 hr cTnT.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91910052|NCT02111993|183716326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This p-value correlates to Δ20 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91910053|NCT02111993|183716327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||This p-value correlates to Δ4 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91910054|NCT02111993|183716327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||This p-value correlates to Δ8 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91910055|NCT02111993|183716327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This p-value correlates to Δ20 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91910056|NCT02111993|183716328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||This p-value correlates to Δ4 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91910057|NCT02111993|183716328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||This p-value correlates to Δ8 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91910058|NCT02111993|183716328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||This p-value correlates to Δ20 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91910059|NCT04074928|183716333|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.836||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H1N1, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the A/H1N1 vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||0.836|0.645|
91910060|NCT04074928|183716333|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|0.809||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Yamagata, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the B/Yamagata vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||0.809|0.656|
91758197|NCT02262754|183409498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.56||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.56|0.01|
91806976|NCT04518293|183490687|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|9.397||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||9.397|-0.136|
91806977|NCT04518293|183490687|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.299|3.567||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.567|-7.299|
91806978|NCT04518293|183490688|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.825|3.019|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.019|-3.825|0.9677
91806979|NCT04518293|183490688|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.35||||0.1952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|1.125|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.125|-6.550|0.1952
91888082|NCT01937975|183669462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|2.42|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.42|1.06|
91910061|NCT04074928|183716333|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|0.972||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Victoria, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the B/Victoria vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||0.972|0.791|
91910062|NCT04074928|183716334|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|-11.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.447|-6.423||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H1N1, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the A/H1N1 vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||-6.423|-16.447|
91806980|NCT04518293|183490688|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53||||0.7453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.428|2.642|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||2.642|-4.428|0.7453
91806981|NCT04518293|183490689|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.12||||0.9415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.657|3.222|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.222|-3.657|0.9415
91806982|NCT04518293|183490689|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.53||||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.799|1.019|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.019|-6.799|0.1719
91806983|NCT04518293|183490689|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.16||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|1.326|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.326|-6.380|0.2342
91888083|NCT01937975|183669463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.22|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.22|0.75|
91888084|NCT01937975|183669463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.48|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.48|0.57|
91888085|NCT01937975|183669463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.42|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.42|0.54|
91888086|NCT01937975|183669463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|2.77|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.77|0.99|
91888087|NCT01937975|183669466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.15|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.15|0.92|
91888088|NCT01937975|183669466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.73|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.73|0.80|
91758198|NCT02262754|183409498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.34||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.34|-0.43|
91888089|NCT01937975|183669466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.78|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.78|0.82|
91888090|NCT01937975|183669466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.92|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||0.92|0.40|
91888091|NCT01937975|183669467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.42|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||1.42|0.63|
91888092|NCT01937975|183669467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.94|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||0.94|0.39|
91888093|NCT01937975|183669468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.21|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.21|1.08|
91888094|NCT01937975|183669468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.14|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.14|0.65|
91758199|NCT02262754|183409498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.15||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.15|-0.62|
91758200|NCT02262754|183409498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.58||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.58|-0.19|
91758201|NCT02262754|183409498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.45||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.45|-0.39|
91758202|NCT02262754|183409498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.16||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.16|-0.69|
91758203|NCT02262754|183409498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||||90.0|-0.12|0.71||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.71|-0.12|
91758204|NCT02262754|183409498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.55||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.55|-0.40|
91758205|NCT02262754|183409498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.11||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.11|-0.84|
91758206|NCT02262754|183409498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.91||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.91|-0.03|
91758207|NCT02262754|183409499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.08||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.08|-0.03|
91758208|NCT02262754|183409499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.02||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.02|-0.09|
91758209|NCT02262754|183409499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.12||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.12|0.01|
91758210|NCT02262754|183409499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.1||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.10|-0.09|
91758211|NCT02262754|183409499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.05||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.05|-0.15|
91758212|NCT02262754|183409499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.15||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.15|-0.04|
91758213|NCT02262754|183409499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.12||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.12|-0.12|
91758214|NCT02262754|183409499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.07||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.07|-0.16|
91888095|NCT01937975|183669468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.3|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.30|0.75|
91888096|NCT01937975|183669468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.51|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.51|1.38|
91888097|NCT01937975|183669469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.32|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.32|1.17|
91888098|NCT01937975|183669469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.06|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.06|0.56|
91888099|NCT01937975|183669469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.32|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.32|0.69|
91888100|NCT01937975|183669469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|2.93|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.93|1.46|
91888101|NCT01937975|183669470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.26|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.26|1.00|
91888102|NCT01937975|183669470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.13|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.13|0.62|
91888103|NCT01937975|183669470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.27|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.27|0.70|
91888104|NCT01937975|183669470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|2.28|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.28|1.21|
91758215|NCT02262754|183409499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.16||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.16|-0.07|
91758216|NCT02262754|183409499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.14||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.14|-0.16|
91758217|NCT02262754|183409499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.05||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.05|-0.24|
91758218|NCT02262754|183409499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.23||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.23|-0.05|
91888105|NCT01937975|183669473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.92|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||0.92|0.83|
91758219|NCT02262754|183409500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.73||||||\>=30 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.73|0.54|
91888106|NCT01937975|183669473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.53|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.53|0.88|
91888107|NCT01937975|183669473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.34|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.34|0.77|
91888108|NCT01937975|183669473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.72|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||0.72|0.40|
91888109|NCT01937975|183669474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.3|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||1.30|0.70|
91888110|NCT01937975|183669474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.89|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||0.89|0.45|
91888111|NCT01602510|183669491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.86|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.25|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.25|0.59|=0.438
91888112|NCT01602510|183669491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.86|||=|0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.25|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.25|0.59|=0.212
91888113|NCT01602510|183669491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.86|||=|0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.25|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.25|0.59|=0.724
91888114|NCT01602510|183669492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95|||=|0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.66|0.55|=0.869
91888115|NCT01602510|183669492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.66|0.55|=0.061
91888116|NCT01602510|183669492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95|||=|0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.66|0.55|=0.505
91888117|NCT01602510|183669493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.79|||=|0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.32|0.48|=0.369
91888118|NCT01602510|183669493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.79|||=|0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.32|0.48|=0.955
91888119|NCT01602510|183669493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.79|||=|0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.32|0.48|=0.874
91910063|NCT04074928|183716334|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|-14.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|-9.983||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Yamagata, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the B/Yamagata vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||-9.983|-19.610|
91910064|NCT04074928|183716334|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|-5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.327|-1.44||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Victoria, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the B/Victoria vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||-1.440|-10.327|
91910065|NCT04074928|183716335|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.16||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H3N2, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the A/H3N2 vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||1.160|0.927|
91910066|NCT04074928|183716336|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.443|7.812||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H3N2, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the A/H3N2 vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||7.812|-1.443|
91910067|NCT04074928|183716337|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.024||||||A/H1N1, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.024|0.790|
91910068|NCT04074928|183716337|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.195||||||B/Yamagata, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.195|0.968|
91758220|NCT02262754|183409500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.51||||||\>=30 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||2.51|0.81|
91888120|NCT01602510|183669494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.40|0.73|=0.927
91888121|NCT01602510|183669494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.40|0.73|=0.036
91888122|NCT01602510|183669494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02|||=|0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.40|0.73|=0.509
91910069|NCT04074928|183716337|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.202||||||B/Victoria, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.202|0.986|
91910070|NCT04074928|183716338|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|-2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.526|2.461||||||A/H1N1, SCR difference, Day 29/57||2.461|-7.526|
91910071|NCT04074928|183716338|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.912|4.911||||||B/Yamagata, SCR difference, Day 29/57||4.911|-4.912|
91758221|NCT02262754|183409500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.2||||||\>=30 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.20|0.39|
91758222|NCT02262754|183409500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.81||||||\>=50 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.81|0.37|
91758223|NCT02262754|183409500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|2.35||||||\>=50 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||2.35|0.53|
91758224|NCT02262754|183409500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.6||||||\>=50 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.60|0.33|
91888123|NCT01602510|183669495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|=0.833
91888124|NCT01602510|183669496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||=|0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.245
91888125|NCT01602510|183669497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||=|0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.0|=0.155
91888126|NCT01602510|183669498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||=|0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-1.4|= 0.661
91888127|NCT01602510|183669499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||=|0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-3.7|= 0.945
91910072|NCT04074928|183716338|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.805|5.353||||||B/Victoria, SCR difference, Day 29/57||5.353|-2.805|
91910073|NCT04074928|183716339|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|1.165||||||A/H3N2, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.165|0.914|
91910074|NCT04074928|183716340|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.006|6.856||||||A/H3N2, SCR difference, Day 29/57||6.856|-3.006|
91910075|NCT01505634|183716353|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the relebactam 250 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI was not lower than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Percent Difference|-3.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Difference (Diff) in Favorable MR||3.2|-11.2|0.005
91910076|NCT01505634|183716353|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the relebactam 125 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI was not lower than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Percent Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Favorable MR||5.9|-6.4|< 0.001
91806984|NCT04518293|183490690|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.87||||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.316|3.215|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.215|-9.316|0.3548
91910077|NCT01505634|183716354|OTHER|ECI #1 is a confirmed elevated AST or ALT ≥5X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 250 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|1.0||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Event of Clinical Interest (ECI) #1||5.5|-2.7|0.315
91910078|NCT01505634|183716354|OTHER|ECI #1 is a confirmed elevated AST or ALT ≥5X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 125 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|1.0||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with ECI #1||5.5|-2.7|0.315
91910079|NCT01505634|183716355|OTHER|Event of Clinical Interest (ECI) #2 is elevated AST or ALT ≥3X ULN, elevated total bilirubin ≥2X ULN, and with an ALP \<2X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 250 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.8||No participants met the criteria for ECI #2.|Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff Participants with ECI #2||3.8|-3.7|> 0.999
91910080|NCT01505634|183716355|OTHER|Event of Clinical Interest (ECI) #2 is elevated AST or ALT ≥3X ULN, elevated total bilirubin ≥2X ULN, and with an ALP \<2X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 125 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.8||No participants met the criteria for ECI #2.|Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with ECI #2||3.8|-3.7|> 0.999
91910081|NCT01505634|183716356|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.7||||||95.0|-14.3|10.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs||10.9|-14.3|
91910082|NCT01505634|183716356|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|12.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs||12.0|-13.4|
91910083|NCT01505634|183716357|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with SAEs||5.9|-5.8|
91758225|NCT02262754|183409506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.7||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.70|-1.06|
91758226|NCT02262754|183409506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.03||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.03|-1.80|
91910084|NCT01505634|183716357|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with SAEs||2.8|-7.6|
91910085|NCT01505634|183716358|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR AEs||9.8|-7.5|
91910086|NCT01505634|183716358|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|8.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR AEs||8.6|-8.4|
91910087|NCT01505634|183716359|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR SAEs||4.6|-4.5|
91758227|NCT02262754|183409506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|1.61||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||1.61|-0.15|
91910088|NCT01505634|183716359|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR SAEs||2.8|-5.5|
91910089|NCT01505634|183716360|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to AEs||6.8|-4.4|
91910090|NCT01505634|183716360|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to AEs||3.7|-6.1|
91910091|NCT01505634|183716361|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to DR AEs||6.2|-3.6|
91910092|NCT01505634|183716361|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to DR AEs||4.6|-4.5|
91910093|NCT01505634|183716362|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Diarrhoea||7.8|-5.5|
91910094|NCT01505634|183716362|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Diarrhoea||3.6|-8.1|
91910095|NCT01505634|183716362|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Nausea||6.5|-6.4|
91910096|NCT01505634|183716362|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Nausea||9.2|-4.6|
91910097|NCT01505634|183716362|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Bacteriuria||1.9|-9.0|
91910098|NCT01505634|183716362|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Bacteriuria||3.6|-8.1|
91910099|NCT01505634|183716362|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: White blood cells urine positive||1.9|-9.0|
91910100|NCT01505634|183716362|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: White blood cells urine positive||1.9|-9.0|
91910101|NCT01505634|183716362|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Headache||10.4|-3.7|
91806985|NCT04518293|183490690|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.94||||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.356|6.8|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||6.800|-5.356|0.7529
91806986|NCT04518293|183490690|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.32||||0.4563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.791|3.772|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.772|-8.791|0.4563
91910102|NCT01505634|183716362|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Headache||5.1|-7.2|
91910103|NCT00960843|183716369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was no difference between arms. Original power calculation specified 24 per group and this was achieved under initial randomization. However, due to failure to follow protocol specified adjustment criteria, pressure and weight data from one site had to be excluded.||||0.0520
91910104|NCT00960843|183716370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0225
91910105|NCT00960843|183716371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0193||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0193
91910106|NCT00610987|183716372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.12
91910107|NCT00254501|183716373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0757||||||Adjusted for baseline Hemoglobin A-1C.|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis is mean change in usual care group equals mean change in Empower group.~Power calculation required 150 per group assuming 25% would withdraw prior to 12 months."||||0.0757
91806987|NCT04518293|183490691|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.9691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.063|5.859|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||5.859|-6.063|0.9691
91910108|NCT00254501|183716374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in LDL from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.44
91910109|NCT00254501|183716374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in HDL from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.16
91910110|NCT00254501|183716374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in total cholesterol from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.14
91910111|NCT00254501|183716374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in triglycerides from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.92
91910112|NCT00254501|183716375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3856|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in cost of total health care from baseline to 12 months between groups. Analyses not adjusted for other variables.||||.3856
91910113|NCT00254501|183716375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6413|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in cost of diabetes medications from baseline to 12 months between groups. Analyses not adjusted for other variables.||||.6413
91910114|NCT00254501|183716375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analyses not adjusted for other variables.||||.4303
91910115|NCT00254501|183716376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in Diabetes Empowerment Scale from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.785
91910116|NCT00254501|183716376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in Adherence Starts with Knowledge (ASK-20) from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.302
91910117|NCT00254501|183716376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in Understanding of Diabetes from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.0024
91910118|NCT04249687|183716392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
91910119|NCT04249687|183716393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
91910120|NCT01508702|183716394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.37|0.19|<0.0001
91806988|NCT04518293|183490691|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.59||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.018|2.462|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.462|-10.018|0.2454
91806989|NCT04518293|183490691|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.33||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.583|5.488|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||5.488|-6.583|0.9130
91806990|NCT02446483|183490700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point Estimate Percent|101.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.81|107.15||||||||107.15|95.81|
91806991|NCT02446483|183490701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point Estimate Percent|98.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.54|105.28||||||Comparison of T- rabeprazole 20 mg and R- rabeprazole 20 mg for AUC0-t.||105.28|92.54|
91806992|NCT02446483|183490701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point Estimate Percent|98.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.81|104.71||||||Comparison of Treatment A- rabeprazole 20 mg and Treatment B- rabeprazole 20 mg for AUC0-infinity.||104.71|91.81|
91806993|NCT02446483|183490702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon's Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.0029
91806994|NCT04545385|183490736|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|4.071|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment, baseline FEV1, weight, age group, and gender.||4.071|0.545|0.7817
91806995|NCT01146418|183490792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.0|||Clopper-Pearson method|Difference calculated using generalized linear model including covariates for treatment group and age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs \>38 yrs)||||3.0|-6.5|
91806996|NCT01146418|183490793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.4|||Clopper-Pearson method|Difference calculated using generalized linear model including covariates for treatment group and age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs \>38 yrs)||||3.4|-5.7|
91806997|NCT03334539|183490794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.11||||0.3378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.34||P-value was calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.12|0.3378
91806998|NCT03334539|183490794|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35||P-value was calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.10|0.2883
91806999|NCT03334539|183490794|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.24||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.22|0.9293
91807000|NCT03334539|183490795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.1473
91807001|NCT03334539|183490795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.7|0.2321
91807002|NCT03334539|183490795|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|0.8217
91807003|NCT04523220|183490871|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.59|||=|0.222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.21||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.21|0.28|= 0.222
91807004|NCT04523220|183490871|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||=|0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.42||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.42|0.36|= 0.427
91807005|NCT04523220|183490872|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.64||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.64|0.98|= 0.128
91807006|NCT04523220|183490872|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.61||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.61|0.96|= 0.166
91807007|NCT00256750|183490876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-1.1|9.0||||||||9.0|-1.1|
91807008|NCT00256750|183490876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.5|8.1|||||If the lower bound of the CI (belatacept-CsA) was \> -10%, then the corresponding belatacept regimen was considered non-inferior to CsA.|||8.1|-2.5|
91888128|NCT01602510|183669500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-1.66|=0.047
91888129|NCT01825577|183669501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.55
91888130|NCT01825577|183669502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.67
91888131|NCT03518567|183669557|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.78||||4e-08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|"hits purchased on the MPT predicting hits actually purchased and smoked in the laboratory.~covariate: baseline total individual income"||||||.00000004
91888132|NCT03518567|183669558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09||9e-09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000000009
91758228|NCT02262754|183409506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|0.29||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.29|-1.69|
91758229|NCT02262754|183409506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.11||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.11|-2.11|
91888133|NCT03518567|183669559|SUPERIORITY||correlation|0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation|Correlation between puffs on the topography device and grams of cannabis used per week.||||||.87
91888134|NCT01791972|183669578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.982|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|-12.14||Significance level is 0.05.|mixed-effect analysis of covariance|Fixed effects of sequence, trt group, period, and center, within period baseline FEV1 as a covariate, and random effect for patient within sequence.||||-12.14|-20.19|<0.0001
91888135|NCT01791972|183669579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84||Terms for treatment and period, computed with the generalized estimating equations (GEE) algorithm, which adjusts for potential correlation between measurements on the same patient. Significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.53|<0.0001
91888136|NCT00630734|183669593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||Threshold of significance was P\<0.05.|ANOVA|||Relative change data were compared between SLCO1B1 diplotype groups using one-way ANOVA (with post-hoc Bonferroni tests).||||0.43
91888137|NCT00630734|183669594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.28
91888138|NCT00630734|183669595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
91888139|NCT00630734|183669596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
91888140|NCT00630734|183669597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
91888141|NCT00630734|183669598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
91888142|NCT00630734|183669599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
91888143|NCT00630734|183669600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
91888144|NCT00630734|183669601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.006
91888145|NCT00630734|183669602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91888146|NCT01040169|183669654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91888147|NCT01040169|183669655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91888148|NCT05239598|183669660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|13.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.0|-4.0|0.287
91888149|NCT05239598|183669661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||5 minutes post intervention||8.6|-5.2|0.625
91888150|NCT05239598|183669661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|10.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||30 minutes post intervention||10.5|-5.5|0.526
91888151|NCT05239598|183669662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.1|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine: 5 minutes Post-Intervention||8.1|-4.2|0.511
91888152|NCT05239598|183669662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|5.4||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.6|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine: 30 minutes post-intervention||18.6|-10.7|0.408
91888153|NCT05239598|183669662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|17.5|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine: 60 minutes post-intervention||17.5|-15.2|0.907
91888154|NCT05239598|183669662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.9|||Signed Rank|||Placebo: 5 minutes post intervention||-0.9|-6.5|0.008
91888155|NCT05239598|183669662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-2.2|||Signed Rank|||Placebo: 30 minutes post-intervention||-2.2|-10.1|0.080
91888156|NCT05239598|183669662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-3.9|||Signed Rank|||Placebo: 60 minutes post-intervention||-3.9|-22.3|0.001
91888157|NCT05239598|183669663|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.8|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine 5 minutes post-intervention||5.8|-2.2|0.212
91888158|NCT05239598|183669663|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.9|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine 30 minutes post-intervention||6.9|-2.3|0.334
91888159|NCT05239598|183669663|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.8|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine 60 minutes post-intervention||6.8|-3.1|0.269
91888160|NCT05239598|183669663|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.7|||Signed Rank|||Placebo 5 minutes post-intervention||-0.7|-7.1|0.026
91888161|NCT05239598|183669663|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.0|||Signed Rank|||Placebo 30 minutes post-intervention||2.0|-9.4|0.182
91888162|NCT05239598|183669663|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0|||Signed Rank|||Placebo 60 minutes post-intervention||4.0|-7.7|0.353
91888163|NCT04855734|183669694|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.962||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.396||Threshold for significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.396|0.661|0.835
91888164|NCT04855734|183669695|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.826||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.986||\<0.05 was threshold for significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning/Peace subscale which was a primary outcome.||0.986|0.75|0.032
91888165|NCT04855734|183669701|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.052||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.157||\<0.05 threshold for significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caregiver strain subscale scores at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||1.157|0.959|0.284
91888166|NCT04855734|183669701|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratioj|0.931||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.048||\<0.05 threshold for significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caregiver distress subscale controlling for baseline levels.||1.048|0.827|0.228
91758230|NCT02262754|183409506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|1.39||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||1.39|-0.57|
91758231|NCT02262754|183409506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.6||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.60|-1.42|
91910121|NCT04472429|183716395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.84||tested at the 1-sided 2.5% level|stratified log-rank test||A stratified Cox regression with Efron's method for tie handling was used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||0.84|0.47|0.0006
91910122|NCT01180660|183716408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|19.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|27.0|||Regression, Linear|||A sample size of 22 subjects per group was estimated to achieve 90% power to detect a 16 point difference in the aggregated Qor-40 score for the two study groups to be compared assuming an overall standard deviation of 16 points similar to what was observed in a previous investigation.||27|3|.01
91910123|NCT03461757|183716416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.2|6.5|< 0.0001
91910124|NCT03461757|183716417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|13.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.2|3.4|0.0009
91910125|NCT03461757|183716418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|21.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.3|10.8|< 0.0001
91910126|NCT03461757|183716419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.2|15.1|< 0.0001
91910127|NCT03461757|183716420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.2|15.1|< 0.0001
91910128|NCT03461757|183716421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.7|4.9|< 0.0001
91910129|NCT03461757|183716422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-10.7|-19.3|< 0.0001
91758232|NCT02262754|183409506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|-0.27||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.27|-2.28|
91910130|NCT03461757|183716423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.2|8.3|< 0.0001
91910131|NCT03461757|183716424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.9|12.0|< 0.0001
91910132|NCT03461757|183716425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.0|2.5|0.0018
91910133|NCT03461757|183716426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|6.3|< 0.0001
91910134|NCT03461757|183716427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.8||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|13.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.9|3.7|0.0007
91910135|NCT03461757|183716428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.6|4.3|0.0002
91758233|NCT02262754|183409506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|1.85||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||1.85|-0.12|
91758234|NCT02262754|183409507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|0.35||||||Week 4: An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-3.28, 1.19\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. LOCF was used for missing data.||0.35|-1.63|
91758235|NCT02262754|183409507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|-0.45||||||Week 4: An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-3.28, 1.19\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. LOCF was used for missing data.||-0.45|-2.40|
91758236|NCT02262754|183409507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|1.8||||||Week 4: An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-3.28, 1.19\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. LOCF was used for missing data.||1.80|-0.22|
91910136|NCT03461757|183716429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.6|7.1|< 0.0001
91910137|NCT03461757|183716430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|6.9|< 0.0001
91910138|NCT03461757|183716431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.4|1.2|0.0128
91910139|NCT03461757|183716432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.1|4.4|< 0.0001
91910140|NCT03461757|183716433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|5.3|0.0003
91910141|NCT03461757|183716434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.1|4.9|< 0.0001
91910142|NCT03461757|183716435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|0.5|0.0314
91910143|NCT03461757|183716436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.4||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|2.3|0.0025
91758237|NCT02262754|183409508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|0.78||||||Total recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.78|-1.52|
91758238|NCT02262754|183409508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.2||||||Total recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.20|-2.10|
91758239|NCT02262754|183409508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.71||||||Total recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||1.71|-0.56|
91758240|NCT02262754|183409508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|0.02||||||Total Recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.02|-2.06|
91807009|NCT00256750|183490877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-33.3|-13.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine||||-13.7|-33.3|<.0001
91888167|NCT04855734|183669701|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.984||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.032||\<0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family well-being subscale controlling for baseline levels.||1.032|0.94|0.504
91888168|NCT04855734|183669701|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.995||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.024||\<0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Caregiving Appraisals subscale at 3 month follow up, controlling for baseline levels.||1.024|0.967|0.741
91888169|NCT03832595|183669709|EQUIVALENCE|We determined that 1,653 patients provide 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.64, or a 5% absolute risk reduction in intervention arm, assuming a primary end-point rate of 15% in the usual care group at 24 months, 20% loss to follow-up, α = 0.05, and within-practice intra-class correlation of 0.01|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.38|0.67|0.82
91888170|NCT03832595|183669710|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Slope difference|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.029||||||||0.029|-0.008|
91888171|NCT03832595|183669711|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43||||||||1.43|1.02|
91888172|NCT03832595|183669712|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.25||||||||1.25|0.51|
91888173|NCT03832595|183669713|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|53.78||||||||53.78|0.03|
91888174|NCT03832595|183669714|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|9.96||||||||9.96|0.12|
91888175|NCT03939689|183669739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with adjustment for stratification factor (prostate cancer risk factor at Screening) was carried out by using complete cases for the FAS population (missing data were not imputed for this analysis). Intermediate risk at Screening: hemoglobin (Hgb) ≥11 g/dL and LDH \<262 IU/L and ALP \<414 IU/L. High-risk at Screening: Hgb \<11 g/dL or LDH ≥262 IU/L or ALP ≥414 IU/L.||||0.0025
91888176|NCT03939689|183669740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806||||||The p-value is based on the chi-squared test of the difference in proportions between treatment groups if expected cell frequencies are all greater than 5; otherwise, the p-value is from the Fisher's exact test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.8060
91888177|NCT03939689|183669741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5924||||||Log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk groups.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis and Greenwood formula used for estimating event-free rates and 95% confidence intervals.||||.5924
91888178|NCT03939689|183669742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5924||||||Log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk groups.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis and Greenwood formula used for estimating event-free rates and 95% confidence intervals.||||0.5924
91888179|NCT03939689|183669743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6199||||||P value from the log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk group at Screening.|Log Rank|||Event-free rates and 95% CI were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier method and Greenwood formula.||||0.6199
91888180|NCT03939689|183669744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1823||||||P-value from the log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk group at Screening.|Log Rank|||Event free rates and 95% CI were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier method and Greenwood formula.||||.1823
91888181|NCT03939689|183669745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||P-value from the log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk group at Screening.|Log Rank|||Event-free rates and 95% CI were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier method and Greenwood formula.||||0.0006
91888182|NCT03317990|183669771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.75|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model adjusted for recruitment site, participant's age, and IIEF-5 at baseline, in participants with available data||4.75|1.62|<0.0001
91888183|NCT03317990|183669772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.41|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.41|-2.42|0.006
91888184|NCT05332912|183669823|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.066|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 26||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in number of correct items in Mental Rotation performance following 8 weeks of experiential training.||||=.066
91888185|NCT05332912|183669823|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.056|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation performance following 8 weeks of experiential training will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome who received 8 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention who had not received 8 weeks of intervention.||||=.056
91758241|NCT02262754|183409508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.25|-0.17||||||Total Recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.17|-2.25|
91758242|NCT02262754|183409508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|1.19||||||Total Recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||1.19|-0.82|
91758243|NCT02262754|183409508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.15||||||Delayed recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.15|-1.39|
91758244|NCT02262754|183409508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.45||||||Delayed recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.45|-0.80|
91758245|NCT02262754|183409508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.02||||||Delayed recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.02|-1.21|
91758246|NCT02262754|183409508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|-0.28||||||Delayed recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.28|-1.42|
91888186|NCT05332912|183669823|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 55||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation performance following 8 weeks of experiential training will not differ for Typically Developing Children Immediate Intervention and Down Syndrome Participants Immediate intervention.||||=.65
91758247|NCT02262754|183409508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.46||||||Delayed recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.46|-0.67|
91758248|NCT02262754|183409508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.2||||||Delayed recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.20|-1.29|
91758249|NCT02262754|183409509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.58||||||A repeated measures logistic regression model included treatment and week as fixed effects and LBPI baseline as a covariate. Participant was included as a repeated effect.||1.58|0.61|
91758250|NCT02262754|183409509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.14||||||A repeated measures logistic regression model included treatment and week as fixed effects and LBPI baseline as a covariate. Participant was included as a repeated effect.||3.14|1.33|
91758251|NCT02262754|183409509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.74||||||A repeated measures logistic regression model included treatment and week as fixed effects and LBPI baseline as a covariate. Participant was included as a repeated effect.||0.74|0.31|
91758252|NCT02262754|183409510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.2||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.20|-0.19|
91758253|NCT02262754|183409510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.05||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.05|-0.34|
91758254|NCT02262754|183409510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.35||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.35|-0.05|
91758255|NCT02262754|183409510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.18||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.18|-0.26|
91910144|NCT03461757|183716437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|12.7||P-Value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary endpoints listed after this endpoint in the hierarchy were not tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.7|-0.9|0.0898
91910145|NCT03861559|183716439|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
91910146|NCT03861559|183716440|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91910147|NCT03861559|183716442|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91910148|NCT03861559|183716443|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91910149|NCT03861559|183716444|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91910150|NCT03861559|183716446|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
91910151|NCT03861559|183716447|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91910152|NCT03861559|183716448|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91910153|NCT03861559|183716450|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
91910154|NCT03861559|183716451|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91910155|NCT03861559|183716452|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91910156|NCT03861559|183716454|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91910157|NCT03861559|183716455|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91910158|NCT03861559|183716456|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91910159|NCT03861559|183716457|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91910160|NCT03861559|183716458|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91910161|NCT03861559|183716459|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91910162|NCT02997904|183716460|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5829|1.4288|||ANOVA|||Ho: Total Number of lice and eggs removed with Resultz® ≤ Total number of lice and eggs removed with sham control Ha: Total Number of lice and eggs removed with Resultz® \> Total Number of lice and eggs removed with sham control||1.4288|0.5829|<0.0001
91910163|NCT02997904|183716461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1157|1.3011||The P-Values were \<0.0001 in both comparison groups; total number lice removed and total number of eggs removed|GLIMMX|||Comparison of total number of lice removed and total number of eggs removed were analyzed separately||1.3011|1.1157|<0.0001
91910164|NCT02997904|183716461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04565|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6993|0.8805|||GLIMMX|||||0.8805|0.6993|<0.0001
91910165|NCT00879697|183716462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The effect of training in both groups were assessed by a 2-way ANOVA (Time x Group) for repeated measures. When significance was obtained, the Newman-Keuls post hoc test was used to identify the differences.||||<0.05
91910166|NCT03649061|183716483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To compare the two randomization groups, a linear mixed model with DAS28-CRP as outcome (Bell et al. 2014), including random intercepts per patient, adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP, randomization timepoint, and RF and/or ACPA seropositivity was used.||||<0.05
91910167|NCT03649061|183716484|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A binomial generalized linear mixed effect model for repeated measures of remission from randomization up until 28 weeks after was carried out, with adjustment for baseline DAS28-CRP, moment of randomization, and RF and/or ACPA seropositivity.||||<0.05
91910168|NCT01295216|183716526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.4|||||Systolic blood pressure at 12 months|||1.40|-2.15|
91910169|NCT01295216|183716526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.32|||||Diastolic blood pressure for 12 months|||1.32|-1.29|
91910170|NCT01534533|183716543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||>0.05
91910171|NCT01534533|183716544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.992
91910172|NCT01534533|183716545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.672
91910173|NCT01534533|183716546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.402
91910174|NCT01534533|183716547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.636
91910175|NCT04999267|183716554|OTHER|Pre-intervention vs. Post-intervention analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91910176|NCT04999267|183716555|OTHER|Pre-intervention vs. Post-intervention analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91910177|NCT02469090|183716594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-3.7||The null-hypothesis to be tested was: H0: APL-130277 is the same as placebo in its effect on the motor function against the 2-sided alternative: H1: Either of the treatment groups is superior to the other in its effect on the motor function.|LS mean difference|To control the family-wise type I error rate, the primary and secondary end points were tested in hierarchical order in the order presented||Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used to estimate the treatment difference(APL-130277-placebo) Observed change from pre-dose MDS-UPDRS Part III score values after 30 minutes were response values. Treatment group, visit and the interaction between the treatment group and visit were fixed factors. Change from pre-dose in MDS-UPDRS Part III score after 30 minutes at the last TV at which the randomized dose was given up through TV6 was used as a covariate||-3.7|-11.5|0.0002
91910178|NCT02469090|183716595|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.81||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|7.644|||Adjusted Odds Ratio|||"This was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (with logit link function) for binomial data. The model included the observed outcomes as the response values, with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and the ON/OFF assessment at the last open-label titration visit at which the randomized dose was given as a covariate."||7.644|1.036|0.0426
91910179|NCT02469090|183716596|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.8||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.84||The hierarchical testing stopped at this endpoint due to non-significant result. P-values for endpoints after this endpoint have not been presented and the confidence interval presented are unadjusted for multiplicity.|Adjusted odds ratio|||"This was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (with logit link function) for binomial data. The model included the observed outcomes as the response values, with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and the ON/OFF assessment at the last open-label titration visit at which the randomized dose was given as a covariate."||7.84|1.00|0.0501
91910180|NCT02469090|183716599|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.159|0.959||||||||0.959|-3.159|
91910181|NCT02469090|183716600|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|47.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.84|66.36||||||||66.36|28.84|
91910182|NCT02469090|183716601|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.162|6.12||||||||6.120|-2.162|
91910183|NCT02469090|183716602|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.2||||||||-0.2|-6.7|
91910184|NCT02469090|183716603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|5.69||||||Median Time to effect for APL-130277 versus placebo patients||5.69|1.99|
91910185|NCT03823391|183716612|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|-0.15|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Between groups difference was a single-arm comparison of LS mean of ABBV-3373 estimated from the MMRM model above minus the historical mean of adalimumab (-2.13).|Two primary comparisons were performed between ABBV-3373 and adalimumab. The first was the comparison of ABBV-3373 to historical adalimumab reference value -2.13 based on a meta-analysis consisting of 242 subjects from 3 historical adalimumab studies in which the success criterion was 2-sided P value ≤ 0.1.||-0.15|-0.89|0.022
91910186|NCT03823391|183716612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.899||||||Posterior probability|Historical data borrowing|Based on posterior distribution of means for each group, the probability of Treatment mean - Control mean \< 0 given the observed data was calculated.||The second comparison was ABBV-3373 to adalimumab with combined in-trial and borrowed historical adalimumab data using a Bayesian historical borrowing approach in which the success criterion was posterior probability of ABBV-3373 being better than adalimumab \> 95%. When borrowing 30 historical adalimumab subjects, the combined least squares mean change from Baseline was -2.29.||||0.899
91910187|NCT03823391|183716612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.45|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|The mean difference in change from Baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Week 12 between ABBV-3373 and adalimumab was also estimated only based on in-study data.||0.45|-0.74|0.683
91910188|NCT03823391|183716613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.207||0.601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.08|3.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||3.70|-7.08|0.601
91910189|NCT03823391|183716614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.205||0.737|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|4.3|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||4.30|-6.47|0.737
91910190|NCT03823391|183716615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.49|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis included treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||0.49|-0.92|0.612
91910191|NCT03823391|183716616|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-4.0||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.5|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Response rate difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||20.5|-28.5|0.877
91807010|NCT00256750|183490877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-32.6|-12.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine||||-12.9|-32.6|<.0001
91910192|NCT03823391|183716617|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-13.1||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.2|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors.|Response rate difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||11.0|-37.2|0.426
91910193|NCT05030311|183716623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, visit week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by visit week and interaction of baseline score by visit week.|||-4.00|-8.45|<0.001
91910194|NCT05030311|183716624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, visit week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by visit week and interaction of baseline score by visit week.|ISS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-1.56|-3.70|<0.001
91910195|NCT05030311|183716625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, visit week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by visit week and interaction of baseline score by visit week.|HSS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-2.36|-4.85|<0.001
91910196|NCT05030311|183716626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.||Disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) at Week 12||4.84|2.00|<0.001
91910197|NCT05030311|183716627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|6.82|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.||Complete absence of hives and itch (UAS7 = 0) at Week 12||6.82|2.16|<0.001
91888187|NCT05332912|183669824|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.039|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in number of correct items in Mental Rotation performance following 16 weeks of experiential training.||||=.039
91888188|NCT05332912|183669824|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 48||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention condition and received 16 weeks of experiential training in Mental Rotation will exhibit a similar change in performance as Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention condition who received only 8 weeks of experiential training.||||= .32
91888189|NCT05332912|183669824|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.73||||||df = 55|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation performance following 16 weeks of experiential training will not differ for Typically Developing Children Immediate Intervention and Down Syndrome Participants Immediate intervention.||||=.73
91888190|NCT05332912|183669825|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.023|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 26||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in Perspective Taking performance following 8 weeks of experiential training.||||=.023
91888191|NCT05332912|183669825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 48||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Perspective Taking performance following 8 weeks of experiential training will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome who received 8 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention who had not received 8 weeks of intervention.||||.23
91888192|NCT05332912|183669825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 55||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention Condition who received 8 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Immediate Intervention who also received 8 weeks of intervention.||||.42
91888193|NCT05332912|183669826|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 26||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in Perspective Taking performance following 16 weeks of experiential training.||||=.01
91888194|NCT05332912|183669826|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 48||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Perspective Taking will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention Condition who received16 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention condition who received 8 weeks of intervention.||||=.28
91888195|NCT05332912|183669826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 55||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Perspective Taking will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention Condition who received16 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Immediate Intervention who also received 16 weeks of intervention.||||.23
91888196|NCT01174446|183669839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence will be established if 90% C.I. of ratio is contained completely in the margins of equivalence of 0.8 to 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric Means|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.09||||||||1.09|1.03|
91888197|NCT01174446|183669866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.7790
91888198|NCT01174446|183669866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8999||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.8999
91888199|NCT01174446|183669867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0056
91888200|NCT01174446|183669867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4130
91888201|NCT01174446|183669868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9059||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.9059
91888202|NCT01174446|183669868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4098||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4098
91888203|NCT01174446|183669869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0189||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0189
91888204|NCT01174446|183669869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2974||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2974
91888205|NCT01174446|183669870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2009||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2009
91888206|NCT01174446|183669870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3552||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3552
91888207|NCT01174446|183669871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5143||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5143
91888208|NCT01174446|183669871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9223||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.9223
91888209|NCT01174446|183669872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0162||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0162
91888210|NCT01174446|183669872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3176||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3176
91888211|NCT01174446|183669873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.821||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.8210
91888212|NCT01174446|183669873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5565||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5565
91888213|NCT01174446|183669874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0146||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0146
91888214|NCT01174446|183669874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4048||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4048
91888215|NCT01174446|183669875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1258||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.1258
91888216|NCT01174446|183669875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2567||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2567
91888217|NCT01174446|183669876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1048||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.1048
91888218|NCT01174446|183669876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.6410
91888219|NCT01174446|183669877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0663||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0663
91888220|NCT01174446|183669877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4890
91888221|NCT01174446|183669878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0562||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0562
91888222|NCT01174446|183669878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3864||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3864
91888223|NCT01174446|183669879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5792||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5792
91888224|NCT01174446|183669880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4208||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4208
91888225|NCT01174446|183669881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5000
91888226|NCT01174446|183669882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0633||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0633
91888227|NCT01174446|183669882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9363||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.9363
91910198|NCT05030311|183716628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|39.77|||Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|||39.77|6.18|<0.001
91910199|NCT05030311|183716629|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.61|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with log link, using treatment arm, geographical region, and prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics as covariates.||||3.61|2.01|<0.001
91758256|NCT02262754|183409510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.07||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.07|-0.37|
91758257|NCT02262754|183409510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.33||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.33|-0.10|
91758258|NCT02262754|183409510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.38||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.38|-0.09|
91888228|NCT00847626|183669890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-9.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||-9.5|-15.8|<0.001
91888229|NCT00847626|183669890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-10.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||-10.9|-16.7|<0.001
91888230|NCT00847626|183669891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.2|-16.2|<0.001
91888231|NCT00847626|183669891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-6.4||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-6.4|-13.4|<0.001
91888232|NCT00847626|183669891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-12.1||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.1|-19.2|<0.001
91888233|NCT00847626|183669891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-8.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.9|-15.8|<0.001
91888234|NCT00847626|183669891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-12.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.3|-19.3|<0.001
91888235|NCT00847626|183669891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.5|-16.5|<0.001
91910200|NCT05030311|183716630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.9|||Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics and baseline DLQI score.|||3.90|1.53|<0.001
91758259|NCT02262754|183409510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.25||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.25|-0.21|
91758260|NCT02262754|183409510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.36||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.36|-0.10|
91758261|NCT02262754|183409510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.38||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.38|-0.13|
91758262|NCT02262754|183409510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.05||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.05|-0.46|
91758263|NCT02262754|183409510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.58||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.58|0.08|
91910201|NCT05030311|183716631|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.41|||Regression, Linear||Statistical model used a negative binomial regression with log link included treatment arm as fixed effect, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, baseline AAS7 = 0 response as covariates.|Angioedema occurrence-free weeks (AAS7 = 0 response) up to Week 12||1.41|1.12|<0.001
91910202|NCT01485627|183716642|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference in difference|0.34||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Models included fixed-effects terms for phase (pre- vs postrandomization), study arm, and the Phase\*Arm interaction. Estimated effect is the between-arm difference in adjusted mean difference from prerandomization to postrandomization samples.|The primary outcome was a composite of 4 prespecified communication measures matched to the goals of communication training, as follows: Active Patient Participation Coding \[APPC\], Verona VR-CoDES, Prognostic and Treatment Choices \[PTCC\] Informing subscale, and PTCC Balanced Framing subscale. The 4 measures were z-score transformed and averaged to produce the composite measure.||0.62|0.06|0.05
91910203|NCT01485627|183716643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.214
91910204|NCT01485627|183716644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.56|0.05
91910205|NCT01485627|183716646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.677
91910206|NCT01485627|183716647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
91910207|NCT01425203|183716648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|41.5||Multiplicity adjustment for controlling type 1 error for the primary comparison was based on the step-down approach.|Miettinen and Nurminen Method||The difference, 95% CI and p-value are adjusted by stratification factors of IL-28B genotype and previous treatment, based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The primary statistical comparison was conducted on the FAS using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method at alpha level of 0.050 adjusted for stratification factors, including IL28B genotype and previous treatment as specified at the time of randomization.||41.5|16.4|<0.0001
91910208|NCT01425203|183716649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|42.5||Multiplicity adjustment for controlling type 1 error for key secondary comparison based on a step-down approach. Key-secondary comparison was tested only if statistical significance of primary comparison was met at alpha level of 0.050.|Miettinen and Nurminen Method||The difference, 95% CI and p-value are adjusted by stratification factors of IL-28B genotype and previous treatment, based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The key secondary statistical comparison was conducted on the mITT using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method at alpha level of 0.050 adjusted for stratification factors.||42.5|17.3|<0.0001
91910209|NCT01425203|183716650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|45.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|57.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method||The difference, 95% CI and p-value are adjusted by stratification factors of IL-28B genotype and previous treatment, based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The percentage of participants achieving EVR at TW8 was compared using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method at alpha level of 0.050 adjusted for stratification factors in the FAS population.||57.0|33.2|<0.0001
91910210|NCT02264990|183716663|SUPERIORITY|A fixed sequence testing procedure was used for analyses of the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints to control for the familywise error rate. If veliparib plus C/P treatment was not statistically significantly better compared to the investigators' choice of standard therapy for the primary efficacy endpoint of OS in LSP+ participants, then statistical significance would not be declared for any of the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.644||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|1.048||Statistical significance was determined by a two-sided P value ≤ 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|Hazard ratio obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates being ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.048|0.396|0.113
91758264|NCT02262754|183409511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.08||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.08|-0.42|
91758265|NCT02262754|183409511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.12||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||-0.12|-0.62|
91758266|NCT02262754|183409511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.45||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.45|-0.05|
91758267|NCT02262754|183409511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.21||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.21|-0.38|
91758268|NCT02262754|183409511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.01||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.01|-0.58|
91910211|NCT02264990|183716664|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.08|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by investigator's preferred platinum therapy, gender, and ECOG performance status.|The hazard ratio was obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates of ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.080|0.388|0.260
91910212|NCT02264990|183716665|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for the covariates of ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|Odds ratio is from covariate adjusted logistic regression with the covariates being ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.90|0.23|0.455
91807011|NCT00256750|183490878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens|Difference in Percent|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|3.3|17.1|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||17.1|3.3|
91807012|NCT00256750|183490878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens. The 20% non-inferiority margin was not met in the belatacept MI group.|Difference in Percent|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.5|22.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||22.2|7.5|
91807013|NCT00256750|183490879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.3|18.7||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 12 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 12||18.7|7.3|<0.0001
91807014|NCT00256750|183490879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|8.9|20.4||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 12 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 12||20.4|8.9|<0.0001
91807015|NCT00256750|183490879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|11.5|23.4||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 24 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 24||23.4|11.5|<0.0001
91807016|NCT00256750|183490879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|8.5|20.5||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 24 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 24||20.5|8.5|<0.0001
91807017|NCT00256750|183490880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of superiority using DerSimonian-Laird statistic at 0.027 level of significance.|Difference in Percent|-8.5||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-17.9|0.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity corrected chi-square test at a significance level of 0.027 was performed.||||0.9|-17.9|0.0581
91807018|NCT00256750|183490880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of superiority using DerSimonian-Laird statistic at 0.027 level of significance.|Difference in Percent|-14.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-23.2|-5.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity corrected chi-square test at a significance level of 0.027 was performed.||||-5.0|-23.2|0.0010
91807019|NCT00256750|183490885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-14.6|-3.3|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Percent treatment difference measured as Belatacept - LI minus Cyclosporine||-3.3|-14.6|
91807020|NCT00256750|183490885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-16.1|-5.1|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Percent treatment difference measured as Belatacept - LI minus Cyclosporine||-5.1|-16.1|
91888236|NCT00847626|183669891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-10.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.5|-17.5|<0.001
91888237|NCT00847626|183669891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-13.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-13.7|-20.6|<0.001
91888238|NCT00847626|183669891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-9.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.9|-17.0|<0.001
91807021|NCT00256750|183490889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|10.3|20.3|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 12||20.3|10.3|
91807022|NCT00256750|183490889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|10.1|20.1|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 12||20.1|10.1|
91807023|NCT00256750|183490889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|12.0|23.1|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 24||23.1|12.0|
91807024|NCT00256750|183490889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|12.0|23.3|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 24||23.3|12.0|
91807025|NCT00256750|183490889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|15.4|27.4|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 36||27.4|15.4|
91807026|NCT00256750|183490889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|14.8|26.9|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 36||26.9|14.8|
91807027|NCT00256750|183490891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.7||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-12.6|0.5||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 12||0.5|-12.6|0.0687
91807028|NCT00256750|183490891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.8||||0.4825|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-10.2|4.4||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 12||4.4|-10.2|0.4825
91910213|NCT02264990|183716666|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.176|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|The hazard ratio was obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates of LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.176|0.827|0.846
91910214|NCT02264990|183716667|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.235|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|The hazard ratio was obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates of LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.235|0.867|0.473
91910215|NCT02264990|183716668|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for the covariates of LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|Odds ratio is from covariate adjusted logistic regression with the covariates being LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.24|0.59|0.409
91910216|NCT04749459|183716669|OTHER|A minimum of 10 valid results was defined as the number required to produce mean study product (or control standard) SPF with 95% confidence interval (CI) within +/- 17% of the measured mean SPF of the study product (or control standard).|||||||||||||||||CSM Classic: CIs +/- 13.7% P2 Control Standard (vs. CSM Classic) CIs +/- 16.4%|||
91910217|NCT04749459|183716669|OTHER|A minimum of 10 valid results was defined as the number required to produce mean study product (or control standard) SPF with 95% confidence interval (CI) within +/- 17% of the measured mean SPF of the study product (or control standard).|||||||||||||||||CSM Strawberry Flavor: CIs +/- 16.6% P2 Control Standard (vs CSM Strawberry Flavour): CIs +/- 16.0%|||
91910218|NCT00267748|183716672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.089||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|2.803|||Log Rank|||For High risk factor, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||2.803|0.423|0.860
91910219|NCT00267748|183716672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.306|||Log Rank|||For intermediate risk factor, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.306|0.623|0.583
91910220|NCT00267748|183716672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|1.074|||Log Rank|||For low risk factor, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.074|0.288|0.075
91910221|NCT00267748|183716672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.827||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.124|||Log Rank|||For overall stratified analysis, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.124|0.609|0.220
91910222|NCT00267748|183716672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|1.044|||Log Rank|||For overall unstratified analysis, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model. Two-sided unstratified Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.044|0.572|0.090
91910223|NCT00267748|183716673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.11||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.6|||Chi-squared|||Response rate was estimated for each treatment group, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on the difference in response rate between the 2 treatments was computed. P-value was calculated from a Pearson chi-square test.||14.6|-6.4|0.444
91758269|NCT02262754|183409511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.49||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.49|-0.09|
91910224|NCT00267748|183716675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.071||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|2.387|||Log Rank|||For high risk factor, the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||2.387|0.481|0.866
91758270|NCT02262754|183409511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.21||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.21|-0.36|
91758271|NCT02262754|183409511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|-0.1||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||-0.10|-0.67|
91758272|NCT02262754|183409511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.59||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.59|0.03|
91758273|NCT02262754|183409511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.21||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.21|-0.42|
91910225|NCT00267748|183716675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.741|||Log Rank|||For intermediate risk factor,the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.741|0.785|0.439
91910226|NCT00267748|183716675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.238||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|2.851|||Log Rank|||For low risk factor, the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||2.851|0.538|0.614
91910227|NCT00267748|183716675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|1.612|||Log Rank|||For overall stratified analysis, the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.612|0.838|0.365
91910228|NCT00267748|183716676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6737|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value was calculated using sample t-test.||||0.6737
91910229|NCT00267748|183716677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value was calculated using sample t-test.||||0.1967
91910230|NCT02275338|183716688|OTHER|||||||0.0055||||||The expected proportion of responders using Lanreotide was 50%, 1 sided test, 2.5% significance level alpha and power of 80% using Z-test for binomial proportion.|Binomial test|||One sided binomial test to compare percentage of responding subjects to theoretical proportion of 30%.||||0.0055
91910231|NCT01100944|183716706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91910232|NCT01100944|183716715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Fold change at Cycle 2 Day 1 vs. pre was assessed. Only differences with p\<0.005 could be potentially considered statistically significant while those with 0.005\<p\<0.05 would represent trends towards a difference.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.30
91758274|NCT02262754|183409511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|-0.12||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||-0.12|-0.75|
91758275|NCT02262754|183409511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.63||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.63|0.02|
91910233|NCT01100944|183716715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 2 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
91910234|NCT01100944|183716715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 3 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
91910235|NCT01100944|183716716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||||||Fold change at Cycle 2 Day 1 vs. pre was assessed.Only differences with p\<0.005 could be potentially considered statistically significant while those with 0.005\<p\<0.05 would represent trends towards a difference.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.76
91910236|NCT01100944|183716716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 2 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0009
91910237|NCT01100944|183716716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 3 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
91758276|NCT02262754|183409512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.56||||||Odds Ratios were based on a logistic regression model and included treatment as a fixed effect.||1.56|0.46|
91758277|NCT02262754|183409512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.81||||||Odds Ratios were based on a logistic regression model and included treatment as a fixed effect.||0.81|0.23|
91758278|NCT02262754|183409512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|3.65||||||Odds Ratios were based on a logistic regression model and included treatment as a fixed effect.||3.65|1.06|
91758279|NCT00223704|183409515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||This P-value is for the main comparison of receiving any transfusion.|Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91758280|NCT00223704|183409516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.88
91758281|NCT00223704|183409517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.43
91758282|NCT00223704|183409518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||The P-value reflects the difference in Interleukin-6 concentrations among the 3 treatment groups over the course of the study (baseline, post-bypass, postoperative day 1 and 2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The time course for Interleukin-6 concentrations were analyzed using mixed-effects models with fixed effects of drug treatment (placebo, aminocaproic acid, HOE 140) and time since randomization. We included a random subject effect and a first-order autoregressive process to account for the correlation in the response variable in the mixed-effects model||||0.92
91910238|NCT01100944|183716717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||Fold change at Cycle 2 Day 1 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.95
91910239|NCT01100944|183716717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 2 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
91910240|NCT01100944|183716717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 3 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
91910241|NCT03603496|183716727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.5|||Chi-squared||Comparing TTCM as numerator, QL as denominator (reference group)|Two-stage multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. 1st stage: we imputed missing data from surveys. 2nd stage: we imputed missing data from biochemical sample collection. Null hypothesis was no difference between arms in biochemically-validated past 7-day abstinence from cigarettes and other conventional tobacco products at 6-months. Sample of 1350 (675/group) was planned to detect a 6.5% difference (23.0% vs. 16.5%) with 84% power and 2-sided p\<0.05.||1.50|0.92|.19
91910242|NCT03603496|183716728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.35|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.35|1.08|.002
91910243|NCT03603496|183716729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.37|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.37|1.09|.001
91758283|NCT00223704|183409519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value reflects the difference in D-dimer concentrations among the 3 treatment groups over the course of the study (baseline, 30min, 60min, post-bypass, and postoperative day 1)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The time course for D-dimer concentrations were analyzed using mixed-effects models with fixed effects of drug treatment (placebo, aminocaproic acid, HOE 140) and time since randomization. We included a random subject effect and a first-order autoregressive process to account for the correlation in the response variable in the mixed-effects model||||<0.001
91758284|NCT02126839|183409529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|33.94|||mixed model repeated measures analysis|Fixed effects of treatment group, treatment day, and study day by treatment interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as a covariate.||||33.94|16.10|<0.0001
91758285|NCT02126839|183409530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.76|104.91|||mixed model repeated measures|Fixed effects of treatment group, treatment day, and study day by treatment interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as a covariate.||||104.91|47.76|<0.0001
91758286|NCT00826618|183409600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare final visual acuity to baseline visual acuity||||0.0015
91758287|NCT01496469|183409655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A total of 120 enrolled participants (60 participants per treatment group) was sufficient to achieve 80 percent (%) power to detect a difference of 6.0 mmHg between the placebo and febuxostat 80 mg treatment groups by a 2 sample t-test of the mean change from Baseline at Week 6 in 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||3.4|-3.9|0.882
91758288|NCT01496469|183409656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi as covariates.||3.2|-1.9|0.613
91758289|NCT01496469|183409657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi as covariates.||-2.9|-3.9|<0.001
91758290|NCT02219334|183409664|EQUIVALENCE|Historical data at the institution for similar patients had a mean length of stay(LOS) of 25.7 hours (standard deviation-\[SD\] =10.3) from 9/2012- 9/13 was observed for 134 patients admitted to the emergency department observation unit and treated with the standard of care (NeoSucker). Given a LOS-SD of 10.3 hours, 75 subjects per treatment group would provide 80% statistical power at the 5% significance level to demonstrate equivalence in the two treatments' length of stay within ±5 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|15.72|||two one-sided t-test (TOST)||Due to slower than anticipated patient recruitment, the target size of 75 participants per treatment group was not reached.|The primary hypothesis of length of stay equivalence within a margin of ± 5 hours was tested using the two one-sided t-test (TOST) procedure, with a 5% significance level.||15.72|-10.74|<0.05
91758291|NCT02381015|183409668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
91758292|NCT02381015|183409669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91758293|NCT02381015|183409670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
91758294|NCT02381015|183409671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.49
91758295|NCT02381015|183409672|OTHER||Beta|93.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The statistical analysis shows the relation between risk given and risk recall at the immediate post results assessment for the total number of participants.||||0.42
91758296|NCT02381015|183409673|OTHER||Beta|94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.33
91758297|NCT00930553|183409702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|22.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|27.06|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||27.06|18.33|
91758298|NCT00930553|183409702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|29.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.42|34.49|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||34.49|25.42|
91758299|NCT00930553|183409703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|9.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|15.56|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||15.56|5.54|
91758300|NCT00930553|183409703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|7.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|13.9|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||13.90|4.48|
91758301|NCT00930553|183409703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|20.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.67|28.03|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||28.03|14.67|
91758302|NCT00930553|183409703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.63|18.58|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||18.58|7.63|
91758303|NCT00930553|183409704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|32.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.96|39.28|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||39.28|26.96|
91910244|NCT03603496|183716730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.29|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.29|0.98|.079
91910245|NCT03603496|183716731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.44|||Chi-squared|||Participants lost to follow-up or with missing data are counted as having received no treatment. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.44|1.21|<.0001
91910246|NCT03603496|183716732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.5|||Chi-squared|||Participants lost to follow-up or with missing data are counted as having received no treatment. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.50|1.23|<.0001
91910247|NCT03603496|183716733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.66|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.66|1.02|.033
91910248|NCT00004259|183716738|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.32|||Log Rank|||The hypothesized median survival time was 36 months for the RT+BCNU/CCNU arm and 54 months for the RT+TMZ arm, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67. A sample size of 216 evaluable patients per arm would provide 90% power with a one-sided significance level of 0.05. The final analysis was planned after 155 deaths were observed. Interim efficacy analyses were planned after 52 and 104 deaths, with an interim futility analysis planned at 128 deaths.||1.32|0.67|0.36
91910249|NCT00004259|183716740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.16||2-sided|Gray's test||Reference level = RT + BCNU/CCNU|||1.16|0.55|0.46
91910250|NCT00004259|183716741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|Chi-squared|||Overall toxicity||||<0.001
91910251|NCT00004259|183716741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||2-sided|Chi-squared|||Non-hematologic toxicity||||0.76
91910252|NCT00004259|183716742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.4|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Methylated MGMT|||3.40|0.93|0.08
91910253|NCT00004259|183716743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.35|||Log Rank|Two-sided confidence interval = 0.5|Reference level = Methylated|||2.35|0.70|0.41
91910254|NCT03594227|183716744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.98|-4.54||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The planned sample size is approximately 95 enrolled subjects with approximately 45 subjects enrolled with AT or AU. Because the primary efficacy analysis of mean percent reduction in hair loss using SALT scores is expected to be more sensitive than the SALT50 responder analysis, the power for the primary analysis is also expected to be no less than 80%.||-4.54|-33.98|0.011
91910255|NCT03594227|183716744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-9.36||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The planned sample size is approximately 95 enrolled subjects with approximately 45 subjects enrolled with AT or AU. Because the primary efficacy analysis of mean percent reduction in hair loss using SALT scores is expected to be more sensitive than the SALT50 responder analysis, the power for the primary analysis is also expected to be no less than 80%.||-9.36|-38.80|0.001
91910256|NCT03594227|183716744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.133||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.41|-4.67||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The planned sample size is approximately 95 enrolled subjects with approximately 45 subjects enrolled with AT or AU. Because the primary efficacy analysis of mean percent reduction in hair loss using SALT scores is expected to be more sensitive than the SALT50 responder analysis, the power for the primary analysis is also expected to be no less than 80%.||-4.67|-34.41|0.010
91910257|NCT03594227|183716745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.33|-4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.02|-34.33|0.013
91910258|NCT03594227|183716745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.69|-9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.38|-39.69|0.002
91910259|NCT03594227|183716745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.281||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.48|-3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.86|-34.48|0.014
91910260|NCT03594227|183716746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.359||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.45|-21.14|0.025
91758304|NCT00930553|183409704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|42.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.08|48.28|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||48.28|37.08|
91758305|NCT00930553|183409705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|16.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|28.47|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||28.47|9.75|
91758306|NCT00930553|183409705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|13.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.47|22.33|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||22.33|8.47|
91758307|NCT02967510|183409738|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.304
91910261|NCT03594227|183716746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.359||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.40|-25.10|0.003
91910262|NCT03594227|183716746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.434|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.49|-7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.60|-27.49|<0.001
91910263|NCT03594227|183716747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.95|-3.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.84|-24.95|0.008
91910264|NCT03594227|183716747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.56|-8.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.45|-29.56|<0.001
91910265|NCT03594227|183716747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.679||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|-6.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.86|-28.18|0.001
91807029|NCT00256750|183490891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.1||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-12.3|1.5||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 24||1.5|-12.3|0.1267
91807030|NCT00256750|183490891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.2||||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.8|5.4||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 24||5.4|-9.8|0.6405
91807031|NCT00256750|183490891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-4.6||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-12.0|2.5|||Chi-squared|Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.||Month 36||2.5|-12.0|0.2043
91807032|NCT00256750|183490891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.9||||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-8.8|7.1||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 36||7.1|-8.8|0.9481
91807033|NCT00256750|183490892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.31|0.74|||Chi-squared||Odds ratio is estimated by a cumulative logit model.|||0.74|0.31|0.0002
91910266|NCT03594227|183716748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|31.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.8|0.7|0.124
91807034|NCT00256750|183490892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.6||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.38|0.92|||Chi-squared||Odds ratio is estimated by a cumulative logit model.|||0.92|0.38|0.0092
91807035|NCT00256750|183490893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-67.6|43.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||43.2|-67.6|
91807036|NCT00256750|183490893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-72.3|52.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||52.2|-72.3|
91910267|NCT03594227|183716748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|38.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.3|0.8|0.079
91910268|NCT03594227|183716748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|27.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.7|0.5|0.177
91910269|NCT03594227|183716749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|31.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.8|0.7|0.124
91807037|NCT00256750|183490894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-7.51|5.23|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||5.23|-7.51|
91910270|NCT03594227|183716749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|38.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.3|0.8|0.079
91910271|NCT03594227|183716749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|27.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.7|0.5|0.177
91910272|NCT03594227|183716750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.471
91807038|NCT00256750|183490894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.01|4.15|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||4.15|-9.01|
91910273|NCT03594227|183716750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
91807039|NCT00256750|183490895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-11.4|-3.3||||||Systolic, Month 12||-3.3|-11.4|
91910274|NCT03594227|183716750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.367
91807040|NCT00256750|183490895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-10.1|-2.0||||||Systolic, Month 12||-2.0|-10.1|
91807041|NCT00256750|183490895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.8|-0.7||||||Diastolic, Month 12||-0.7|-5.8|
91807042|NCT00256750|183490895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.1|0.0||||||Diastolic, Month 12||0.0|-5.1|
91807043|NCT00256750|183490895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.2|-0.6||||||Systolic, Month 24||-0.6|-9.2|
91807044|NCT00256750|183490895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.9|-1.1||||||Systolic, Month 24||-1.1|-9.9|
91807045|NCT00256750|183490895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-4.4|0.5||||||Diastolic, Month 24||0.5|-4.4|
91807046|NCT00256750|183490895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.0|0.1||||||Diastolic, Month 24||0.1|-5.0|
91807047|NCT00256750|183490895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-10.0|-1.6||||||Systolic, Month 36||-1.6|-10.0|
91910275|NCT03594227|183716751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.187
91910276|NCT03594227|183716751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.375
91910277|NCT03594227|183716751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.581
91910278|NCT03594227|183716752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.444
91910279|NCT03594227|183716752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.861
91910280|NCT03594227|183716752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.182
91910281|NCT03594227|183716753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.258
91910282|NCT03594227|183716753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.263
91910283|NCT03594227|183716753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.101
91910284|NCT03594227|183716754|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
91910285|NCT03594227|183716754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.277
91910286|NCT03594227|183716754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.159
91910287|NCT03594227|183716755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.407
91910288|NCT03594227|183716755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.894
91910289|NCT03594227|183716755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.179
91910290|NCT03594227|183716756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.691
91910291|NCT03594227|183716756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
91910292|NCT03594227|183716756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.262
91910293|NCT03594227|183716757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91910294|NCT03594227|183716757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
91910295|NCT03594227|183716757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.289
91910296|NCT03594227|183716758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
91758308|NCT02967510|183409738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.109
91910297|NCT03594227|183716758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.660
91910298|NCT03594227|183716758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.704
91910299|NCT03594227|183716759|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
91910300|NCT03594227|183716759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.911
91910301|NCT03594227|183716759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.110
91910302|NCT03594227|183716760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.430
91910303|NCT03594227|183716760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.288
91910304|NCT03594227|183716760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.582
91910305|NCT03594227|183716761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.194
91910306|NCT03594227|183716761|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
91910307|NCT03594227|183716761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
91910308|NCT03594227|183716762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.248
91910309|NCT03594227|183716762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.150
91910310|NCT03594227|183716762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
91758309|NCT02967510|183409738|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.119
91758310|NCT02967510|183409739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.031|-0.444|||ANCOVA|||||-0.444|-1.031|<0.001
91910311|NCT03594227|183716763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.341
91910312|NCT03594227|183716763|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
91910313|NCT03594227|183716763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.068
91910314|NCT03594227|183716765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.098
91910315|NCT03594227|183716765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.082
91910316|NCT03594227|183716765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.313
91910317|NCT03594227|183716766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.883
91910318|NCT03594227|183716766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.954
91910319|NCT03594227|183716766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.295
91910320|NCT03594227|183716767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.361
91910321|NCT03594227|183716767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.182
91910322|NCT03594227|183716767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.815
91910323|NCT03594227|183716768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.522
91910324|NCT03594227|183716768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
91910325|NCT03594227|183716768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.414
91910326|NCT03594227|183716769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.94|-2.53|0.882
91910327|NCT03594227|183716769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-6.31|0.011
91910328|NCT03594227|183716769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.951||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.76|-2.76|0.999
91910329|NCT03594227|183716770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
91910330|NCT03594227|183716770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.319
91910331|NCT03594227|183716770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.094
91910332|NCT03594227|183716771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.584
91910333|NCT03594227|183716771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.287
91910334|NCT03594227|183716771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.144
91910335|NCT03594227|183716772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.341
91910336|NCT03594227|183716772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
91910337|NCT03594227|183716772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
91910338|NCT03594227|183716773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.827|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.827
91910339|NCT03594227|183716773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.742
91910340|NCT03594227|183716773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.462
91910341|NCT03594227|183716774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.836
91910342|NCT03594227|183716774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.540
91910343|NCT03594227|183716774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.672
91910344|NCT03594227|183716775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.469
91910345|NCT03594227|183716775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.219
91910346|NCT03594227|183716775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
91910347|NCT03389854|183716780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.001
91910348|NCT03389854|183716780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.90
91910349|NCT03389854|183716781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.001
91910350|NCT03389854|183716781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs. Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.40
91910351|NCT03389854|183716782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.01
91910352|NCT03389854|183716782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs. Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.64
91910353|NCT03389854|183716783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.06
91910354|NCT03389854|183716783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.66
91910355|NCT03389854|183716784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91910356|NCT03389854|183716785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91910357|NCT03389854|183716786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91910358|NCT01618214|183716819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||||95.0|-0.19|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||FAS||0.14|-0.19|
91758311|NCT02967510|183409739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.051|-0.458|||ANCOVA|||||-0.458|-1.051|<0.001
91758312|NCT02967510|183409739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|-0.369|||ANCOVA|||||-0.369|-0.951|<0.001
91758313|NCT02967510|183409740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.278|||ANCOVA|||||0.278|0.147|<0.001
91910359|NCT01179009|183716824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The p-value above represents the interaction between the treatment group and time.|ANOVA|||||||0.53
91910360|NCT01179009|183716825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The p-value above comes from a model where the treatment group is used to predict the CGI improvement score.|Ordinal regression|||||||0.06
91807048|NCT00256750|183490895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-11.7|-3.3||||||Systolic, Month 36||-3.3|-11.7|
91888239|NCT00847626|183669891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-12.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.7|-19.7|<0.001
91888240|NCT00847626|183669891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-9.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.3|-16.3|<0.001
91888241|NCT00847626|183669891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-12.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.6|-19.4|<0.001
91888242|NCT00847626|183669892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||3.5|-13.0|0.255
91888243|NCT00847626|183669892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-10.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||-10.6|-25.9|<0.001
91888244|NCT00847626|183669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-7.0||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.0|-13.6|< 0.001
91888245|NCT00847626|183669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-7.0||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.0|-13.7|<0.001
91910361|NCT00623428|183716826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|"The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.~(second column)."|In order to detect an improvement in SVR rate across all strata equivalent to an odds ratio of 2 (i.e. an increase in SVR by 15 to 16 percentage points at a power of 80% and a two-sided significance level of 0.05, 160 patients per treatment group (320 patients in total) were required.||1.43|0.45|0.4557
91910362|NCT00623428|183716827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||1.06|0.33|0.0788
91758314|NCT02967510|183409740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.213|||ANCOVA|||||0.213|0.078|<0.001
91758315|NCT02967510|183409740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.226|||ANCOVA|||||0.226|0.097|<0.001
91807049|NCT00256750|183490895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.4|-0.4||||||Diastolic, Month 36||-0.4|-5.4|
91910363|NCT00623428|183716828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||3.87|0.48|0.5654
91910364|NCT00623428|183716830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||1.21|0.38|0.1934
91910365|NCT00623428|183716831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||1.21|0.38|0.1934
91888246|NCT00847626|183669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-8.4||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.4|-15.1|<0.001
91888247|NCT00847626|183669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-10.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.6|-17.3|<0.001
91888248|NCT00847626|183669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-10.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.3|-17.1|<0.001
91888249|NCT00847626|183669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-8.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.7|-15.4|<0.001
91888250|NCT00847626|183669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-7.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.6|-14.2|<0.001
91888251|NCT00847626|183669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-10.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.9|-17.6|<0.001
91888252|NCT00847626|183669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.3|-15.0|<0.001
91888253|NCT00847626|183669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-13.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-13.6|-20.4|<0.001
91888254|NCT00847626|183669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-7.8||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.8|-14.7|<0.001
91888255|NCT00847626|183669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.4||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.4|-16.2|<0.001
91888256|NCT03301155|183669908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Comparison performed on the regression parameters scale. Estimates for mean time obtained under assumption of exponentially distributed time-to-event.||||||0.001
91888257|NCT03301155|183669908|SUPERIORITY|superiority margin for hazard ratio was prespecified as 0.846. Lower hazard is better thus the upper confidence limit of HR expected to be lesser than margin|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.839|||Regression, Cox||Lower HR is better|||0.839|0.496|0.0218
91888258|NCT03301155|183669909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Adjusted with Holm method for multiple comparrisons|Fisher Exact|||Comparison between groups on week 4||||0.0003
91888259|NCT03301155|183669909|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted with Holm method for multiple comparrisons||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between groups on week 8||||0.0003
91888260|NCT03301155|183669909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between groups on week 12||||0.0021
91888261|NCT03301155|183669910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1372|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1372
91888262|NCT03301155|183669911|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91888263|NCT03301155|183669912|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91888264|NCT00384189|183669942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|18.3|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and age as covariates. One-sided p-value, significance level 2.5%.||||18.3|1.4|0.0116
91888265|NCT00384189|183669942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|17.8|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and age as covariates. One-sided p-value, significance level 2.5%.||||17.8|0.9|0.0148
91888266|NCT00384189|183669942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|20.4|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and age as covariates. One-sided p-value, significance level 2.5%.||||20.4|3.5|0.0028
91888267|NCT00384189|183669943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1362||||||Two-sided p-value, significance level 5%.|Log Rank|||||||0.1362
91888268|NCT00384189|183669943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0891||||||Two-sided p-value, significance level 5%.|Log Rank|||||||0.0891
91888269|NCT00384189|183669943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1574||||||Two-sided p-value, significance level 5%.|Log Rank|||||||0.1574
91888270|NCT00384189|183669944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||One-sided p-value for superiority, significance level 2.5%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
91888271|NCT00384189|183669944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||One-sided p-value for superiority, significance level 2.5%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
91888272|NCT00384189|183669944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||One-sided p-value for superiority, significance level 2.5%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91888273|NCT02942004|183669956|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.664||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-2.2|||MMRM|||Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.20|-8.80|0.0013
91888274|NCT02942004|183669956|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.47|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.47|-6.90|0.0252
91910366|NCT01692301|183716851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-6.45|0.010
91758316|NCT02967510|183409741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-0.603|<0.001
91758317|NCT02967510|183409741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|-0.365|||ANCOVA|||||-0.365|-0.572|<0.001
91758318|NCT02967510|183409741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|-0.331|||ANCOVA|||||-0.331|-0.531|<0.001
91758319|NCT02967510|183409742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.47
91807050|NCT00256750|183490895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.0|-0.9||||||Diastolic, Month 36||-0.9|-6.0|
91888275|NCT02942004|183669957|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.936||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-1.79|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.79|-9.46|0.0044
91888276|NCT02942004|183669957|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.899||0.0481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-0.03|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-7.56|0.0481
91888277|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.951||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.93|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.93|-1.83|0.9591
91888278|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.917||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.97|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.97|-1.66|0.8677
91888279|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.208||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.28|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-4.51|0.0827
91888280|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.7968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|2.02|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.02|-2.62|0.7968
91888281|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|0.61|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.61|-4.69|0.1292
91888282|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.7801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.21|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.21|-2.94|0.7801
91888283|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.59|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.59|-4.10|0.3840
91888284|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.395||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|0.71|-2.05|3.48|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.48|-2.05|0.6097
91888285|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.07|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.07|-7.50|0.0094
91910367|NCT02249143|183716868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.62|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|13.22|||Regression, Linear|||FRC values over time were modeled using linear mixed effects regression with treatment group vs. time interaction and repeated measures for the randomization, 2 week, and discharge time points. Compound symmetric covariance structures were used to account for the correlation of FRC values within each patient. We compared outcomes between the two treatment groups and included adjustments for gender, twin gestation, and weight at randomization.||13.22|0.02|<0.05
91910368|NCT02249143|183716869|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91910369|NCT02249143|183716869|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Group differences in the secondary outcomes were tested at randomization, two weeks, and discharge using independent samples t-tests.||||
91910370|NCT01967537|183716910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mann-Whitney|||||||0.23
91910371|NCT02425826|183716914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-39.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.39|-25.3|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||-25.30|-54.39|<0.0001
91758320|NCT02967510|183409742|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|0|-1|=0.448
91910372|NCT02425826|183716915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||-1.0|-3.9|0.0008
91910373|NCT02425826|183716916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|31.1||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) is based on normal approximation|||31.1|11.0|<0.0001
91910374|NCT02425826|183716917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|13.7||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|Two-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation|||25.7|1.7|0.0365
91910375|NCT02425826|183716918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-11.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-4.5|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate.||The treatment comparison was only done for Week 16; End of Phase||-4.5|-18.8|0.0016
91910376|NCT02425826|183716919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|11.8||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|27.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was based on 2-sided CMH tests stratified by sites.|Two-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation.|||27.6|-4.0|0.0463
91910377|NCT02425826|183716920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|25.24|||ANOVA|Based on 2-way ANOVA with treatment and site as factors.||TSQM-Effectiveness||25.24|10.36|<0.0001
91910378|NCT02425826|183716920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.3433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|15.4|||ANOVA|Based on 2-way ANOVA with treatment and site as factors.||TSQM - Side Effects||15.40|-5.40|0.3433
91910379|NCT02425826|183716920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|7.06|||ANOVA|Based on 2-way ANOVA with treatment and site as factors.||TSMQ-Convenience||7.06|-4.25|0.6250
91910380|NCT02425826|183716920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.16|20.97|||ANOVA|||TSQM-Global Satisfaction||20.97|7.16|<0.0001
91910381|NCT02425826|183716922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.08|-19.91|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate||||-19.91|-54.08|<0.0001
91910382|NCT02425826|183716923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|41.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|Two-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation|||41.8|16.3|<0.0001
91910383|NCT02425826|183716924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|13.5||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|2-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation.|||22.7|4.4|0.0136
91910384|NCT00631748|183716932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|We compared TLFB at baseline and at end of study.||We used a repeated-measures ANCOVA to compare cocaine usage between the two groups. This incorporated the multiple administrations of the Timeline Followback measure.||||<0.25
91910385|NCT00631748|183716933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||End-of-trial abstinence was defined as a negative urine drug screen (for cocaine) for three consecutive weeks at the end of the study.||||.65
91910386|NCT03829657|183716936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.29|0.27|0.196
91910387|NCT00562588|183716982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.067||||0.683||95.0|0.78|1.461|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary endpoint tele-mRS on day 90 was available in 527 of 543 treated patients (97.1%).||1.461|0.78|0.683
91910388|NCT00562588|183716983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, age, weight, baseline SBP, diabetes, previous stroke and baseline NIHSS||Early treatment initiation (immediately after the index event) with Aggrenox was compared to late initiation of Aggrenox after 7 days of treatment with ASA mono||||0.607
91910389|NCT00562588|183716984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.202||95.0|0.442|1.189|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Early treatment initiation (immediately after the index event) with Aggrenox was compared to late initiation of Aggrenox after 7 days of treatment with ASA mono||1.189|0.442|0.202
91758321|NCT02967510|183409742|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.451
91807051|NCT00256750|183490896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.9|17.1|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|At Month 12||17.1|-2.9|
91807052|NCT00256750|183490896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.6|12.9|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|At Month 12||12.9|-6.6|
91758322|NCT02967510|183409743|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.329
91758323|NCT02967510|183409743|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.348
91807053|NCT00256750|183490897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|7.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.79|16.71|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|||16.71|-2.79|
91807054|NCT00256750|183490897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.86|13.35|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|||13.35|-5.86|
91888286|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.577||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|0.8|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.80|-5.45|0.1440
91888287|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|-1.91|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.91|-8.33|0.0020
91888288|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.572||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|1.76|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.76|-4.47|0.3906
91888289|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.735||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.05|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.05|-7.93|0.0110
91888290|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|0.02|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-6.68|0.0511
91888291|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.738||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-1.58|||MMRM|||Change at hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.58|-8.47|0.0046
91888292|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|0.83|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.83|-5.88|0.1389
91888293|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.837||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|-0.43|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.43|-7.71|0.0288
91888294|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.797||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|1.98|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.98|-5.15|0.3799
91807055|NCT00256750|183490902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-21.4|1.0||||||||1.0|-21.4|
91807056|NCT00256750|183490902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-19.9|2.7||||||||2.7|-19.9|
91807057|NCT00256750|183490904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens|Difference in Percent|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|5.0|18.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 6||18.2|5.0|
91807058|NCT00256750|183490904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens|Difference in Percent|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|9.6|23.8|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 6||23.8|9.6|
91807059|NCT00256750|183490904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|1.2|15.4|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used|Month 24||15.4|1.2|
91807060|NCT00256750|183490904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.5|23.0|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 24||23.0|7.5|
91807061|NCT00256750|183490904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.6|15.0|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 36||15.0|0.6|
91807062|NCT00256750|183490904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.0|22.6|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 36||22.6|7.0|
91807063|NCT00256750|183490906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||-0.6|-6.6|
91807064|NCT00256750|183490906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||-0.6|-6.6|
91807065|NCT00256750|183490910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.5|5.3||||||Month 12||5.3|-6.5|
91807066|NCT00256750|183490910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.9|4.8||||||||4.8|-6.9|
91807067|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.6||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||2.6|-1.6|0.6573
91807068|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||3.9|-0.4|0.1198
91807069|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.2||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||3.2|-0.1|0.0672
91888295|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.139||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|1.32|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.32|-7.16|0.1747
91807070|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.6||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||3.6|0.2|0.0257
91807071|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.9||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||2.9|-1.2|0.4146
91807072|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.7327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.4||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||2.4|-1.7|0.7327
91807073|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.8||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||3.8|0.4|0.0144
91807074|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.8||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||4.5|1.1|0.0015
91910390|NCT02164981|183717003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, as there was only one primary outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||Given the sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD), we used a two-stage test (weighted z-test, Tamura approach: CHANGE\_score = BASELINE\_value + GROUP (i.e., SNP vs. placebo)) to combine the data on treatment effects from phases 1 and 2 (weighted equally). Assessments were on Day -1 (phase 1 baseline), Day 13 (phase 1 outcome, phase 2 baseline) and Day 28 (phase 2 outcome). Only participants who at least started the infusion were included in analysis (i.e., modified intent to treat).||||0.57
91910391|NCT02164981|183717003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, as there was only one primary outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||The same analysis as in Analysis 1 was conducted, except that CLOZAPINE (i.e., patient used clozapine vs. other antipsychotic) was added as a covariate.||||0.54
91910392|NCT02164981|183717004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Exploratory efficacy outcome, hence no adjustment for multiple comparison.|ANCOVA|||||||0.35
91910393|NCT02164981|183717004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Exploratory efficacy outcome, hence no adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||||0.37
91910394|NCT02164981|183717005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
91910395|NCT02164981|183717005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
91910396|NCT02164981|183717006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
91910397|NCT02164981|183717006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.83
91758324|NCT02967510|183409743|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.266
91758325|NCT02967510|183409744|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.122
91758326|NCT02967510|183409744|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.188
91758327|NCT02967510|183409744|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.222
91758328|NCT02967510|183409745|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.393
91758329|NCT02967510|183409745|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.221
91758330|NCT02967510|183409745|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.432
91758331|NCT02967510|183409746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.487|||ANCOVA|||||1.487|-1|=0.65
91758332|NCT02967510|183409746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||=|0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.568|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|-1.568|=0.361
91910398|NCT02164981|183717012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
91807075|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.4||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||3.4|-0.8|0.2340
91807076|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.6||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||2.6|-1.7|0.6635
91807077|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.8||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.5||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||3.5|0.1|0.0417
91910399|NCT02164981|183717012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
91910400|NCT02164981|183717015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
91807078|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.7||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.4||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||4.4|0.9|0.0026
91807079|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.1||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||4.1|-0.3|0.0953
91807080|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.7||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||3.7|-0.8|0.1961
91807081|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.9||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||3.9|0.3|0.0191
91807082|NCT00256750|183490912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.5||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||3.5|-0.1|0.0684
91807083|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.9|||ANOVA|Domain Score = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 6||3.9|-0.2|0.0714
91910401|NCT02164981|183717015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
91910402|NCT01662440|183717040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the Rabies vaccine considered non-inferior to the conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 97.5% Confidence Intervals (CI) of the difference in the percentages of subjects with RVNA titer ≥0.5 IU/mL measured 7 days after last active vaccination is greater than -5.|Difference in percentages of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|2.8||||||To establish non-inferiority of the immune response of Rabies vaccine (administered concomitantly with JE vaccine) accelerated schedule as compared to conventional schedule at 7 days after last active vaccination.||2.8|-2.8|
91910403|NCT01662440|183717041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the JE vaccine is considered non-inferior to the conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with PRNT50 titer ≥1:10 measured 28 days after last active vaccination is greater than -10.|Difference in percentages of subjects|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.8|7.9||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of JE vaccine (administered concomitantly with Rabies vaccine) accelerated schedule as compared to conventional schedule at 28 day after last active vaccination||7.9|-4.8|
91910404|NCT01662440|183717042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conventional schedule of Rabies vaccine co-administered with JE vaccine considered non inferior to the conventional schedule of Rabies vaccine administered alone if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs measured 28 days after last active vaccination is greater than 0.667.|Between groups ratio of GMCs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of Rabies vaccine (administered concomitantly with JE vaccine) as compared to Rabies vaccines (administered alone) as given according to conventional schedule at 28day after last active vaccination||1.32|0.86|
91758333|NCT02967510|183409746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|||=|0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.188|1.257|||ANCOVA|||||1.257|-1.188|=0.522
91910405|NCT01662440|183717043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conventional schedule of JE vaccine co-administered with Rabies vaccine considered non inferior to the conventional schedule of JE vaccine administered alone if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs measured 28 days after last active vaccination is greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of JE vaccine (administered concomitantly with Rabies vaccine) as compared to JE vaccine (administered alone) as given according to conventional schedule at day 28 after last active vaccination.||1.13|0.68|
91910406|NCT01662440|183717044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the Rabies vaccine is considered non-inferior to the Rabies vaccine conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with RVNA titer ≥0.5 IU/mL measured 28 days after last active vaccine administration is greater than -5.|Difference in percentages of subjects|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.4||||||Non-inferiority of the Rabies immune response (administered concomitantly with JE vaccine) as given according to an accelerated schedule as compared Rabies vaccine (administered alone) as given to a conventional schedule at day 28 after last active vaccination||1.4|-3.8|
91910407|NCT01662440|183717045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the JE vaccine considered non-inferior to the conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with PRNT50 titer ≥1:10 measured 7 days after last active vaccine administration is greater than -10.|Difference in percentages of subjects|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.2||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of JE vaccine (administered concomitantly with Rabies vaccine) as given according to an accelerated schedule as compared to JE vaccine (administered alone) as given according to a conventional schedule at 7day after last active vaccine administration.||6.2|-4.1|
91910408|NCT01765673|183717059|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||paired t test|||||||0.218
91807084|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.1|||ANOVA|Domain score = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 6||4.1|-0.0|0.0536
91807085|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.3||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 6||2.2|-1.6|0.7543
91910409|NCT01765673|183717060|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||paired t test|||||||0.017
91910410|NCT01765673|183717061|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||paired t test|||||||0.022
91758334|NCT02967510|183409747|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|0.079|||ANCOVA|||||0.079|-1.204|=0.043
91758335|NCT02967510|183409747|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.158|0.137|||ANCOVA|||||0.137|-1.158|=0.061
91758336|NCT02967510|183409747|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|||=|0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.111|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.111|=0.071
91758337|NCT02967510|183409748|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.012
91758338|NCT02967510|183409748|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.007
91807086|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.1||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 6||3.0|-0.8|0.2499
91807087|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.2||||0.8332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 6||2.3|-1.9|0.8332
91910411|NCT01765673|183717062|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||paired t test|||||||0.719
91910412|NCT01765673|183717063|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||paired t test|||||||0.418
91910413|NCT01765673|183717064|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||paired t test|||||||0.038
91910414|NCT01765673|183717065|OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||paired t test|||||||0.086
91910415|NCT01765673|183717066|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||paired t test|||||||0.16
91910416|NCT01765673|183717067|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||paired t test|||||||0.052
91910417|NCT01765673|183717068|OTHER|||||||0.827|||||||paired t test|||||||0.827
91910418|NCT01765673|183717069|OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||paired t test|||||||0.088
91910419|NCT01765673|183717070|OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||paired t test|||||||0.152
91910420|NCT01765673|183717071|OTHER|||||||0.229|||||||paired t test|||||||0.229
91910421|NCT01765673|183717072|OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||paired t test|||||||0.121
91910422|NCT01765673|183717073|OTHER|||||||0.239|||||||paired t test|||||||0.239
91910423|NCT01765673|183717074|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||paired t test|||||||0.03
91910424|NCT01765673|183717075|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||paired t test|||||||0.067
91910425|NCT01765673|183717076|OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||paired t test|||||||0.396
91910426|NCT01765673|183717077|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||paired t test|||||||0.373
91910427|NCT01765673|183717078|OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||paired t test|||||||0.744
91910428|NCT03257267|183717099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.796||One-sided p-value|Stratified Log-rank Test|||||0.796|0.555|<0.00001
91910429|NCT03257267|183717100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.741||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|0.882|||Stratified Log-rank Test|||||0.882|0.623|0.00031
91910430|NCT03257267|183717101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.136||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.798|5.468|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||5.468|1.798|0.00002
91910431|NCT03257267|183717106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.00024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.855||One-sided p-value|Stratified Log-rank Test|||||0.855|0.570|0.00024
91910432|NCT01982292|183717112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.5|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.38|10.38|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in percentage of patients with positive antibody status||10.38|-9.38|>0.9999
91807088|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 6||3.4|-0.9|0.2523
91807089|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.9||||0.3018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 6||2.7|-0.8|0.3018
91807090|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.6||||0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 6||2.3|-1.2|0.5437
91807091|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 6||3.6|-0.9|0.2370
91807092|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 6||4.5|-0.1|0.0588
91807093|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Physical, Month 6||4.0|-0.0|0.0502
91910433|NCT01982292|183717112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.38|9.38||||||Difference in percentage of patients with negative antibody status||9.38|-10.38|
91910434|NCT04872101|183717132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|28.5||5% significance level (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||28.5|15.8|<0.001
91758339|NCT02967510|183409748|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
91807094|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|3.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.6|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 6||5.6|1.5|0.0007
91807095|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.3||||0.7637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 6||2.4|-1.8|0.7637
91807096|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 6||2.5|-1.7|0.7006
91807097|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 6||3.4|-0.4|0.1222
91910435|NCT04872101|183717133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|29.8||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||29.8|16.0|<0.001
91910436|NCT04872101|183717134|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.3||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||12.3|0.8|0.043
91910437|NCT04872101|183717135|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|35.8||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||35.8|19.0|<0.001
91758340|NCT02967510|183409749|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.438
91807098|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 6||4.1|0.2|0.0289
91807099|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 12||3.8|-0.1|0.0571
91807100|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.9||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 12||4.9|0.9|0.0042
91807101|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 12||3.7|0.1|0.0423
91807102|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 12||4.1|0.4|0.0174
91910438|NCT04872101|183717136|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.2||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.2|15.1|<0.001
91910439|NCT04872101|183717137|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|36.7||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||36.7|21.3|<0.001
91758341|NCT02967510|183409749|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.388
91758342|NCT02967510|183409749|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.259
91758343|NCT02967510|183409750|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.022
91758344|NCT02967510|183409750|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.02
91758345|NCT02967510|183409750|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.003
91758346|NCT02967510|183409751|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.002
91910440|NCT04872101|183717138|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|25.6||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||25.6|11.0|<0.001
91910441|NCT04872101|183717139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|12.0||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||12.0|1.1|0.031
91758347|NCT02967510|183409751|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.331
91758348|NCT02967510|183409751|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.043
91758349|NCT02967510|183409752|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.022
91758350|NCT02967510|183409752|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.032
91758351|NCT02967510|183409752|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.001
91759930|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|-5.91||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.91|-19.79|
91759931|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.79|-9.06||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-9.06|-22.79|
91807103|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 12||3.0|-1.1|0.3630
91888296|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|3.12|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.12|-5.13|0.6310
91888297|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.045||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-0.87|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.87|-8.98|0.0178
91888298|NCT02942004|183669958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|0.41|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.41|-7.43|0.0786
91888299|NCT02942004|183669959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.4|||GEE method|||Hour 60: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||17.4|1.7|0.0052
91888300|NCT02942004|183669959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.9|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||6.9|1.0|0.0493
91888301|NCT02942004|183669959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.5|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||6.5|1.0|0.0572
91888302|NCT02942004|183669959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||3.0|0.5|0.6768
91888303|NCT02942004|183669959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|16.8|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||16.8|1.7|0.0035
91888304|NCT02942004|183669959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.8|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||7.8|1.1|0.0347
91888305|NCT02942004|183669960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|17.8|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||17.8|2.1|0.0011
91888306|NCT02942004|183669960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.6|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||7.6|0.9|0.0828
91910442|NCT04872101|183717140|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|32.5||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.5|17.5|<0.001
91910443|NCT04872101|183717141|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|23.7||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||23.7|10.2|<0.001
91910444|NCT04872101|183717142|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|35.1||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||35.1|17.0|<0.001
91910445|NCT04872101|183717143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|37.4||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||37.4|21.7|<0.001
91910446|NCT04872101|183717144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|27.8||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||27.8|13.1|<0.001
91910447|NCT04872101|183717145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|29.0||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||29.0|15.4|<0.001
91910448|NCT04872101|183717146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|39.5||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||39.5|23.1|<0.001
91910449|NCT04872101|183717147|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|39.3||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||39.3|22.7|<0.001
91807104|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.6|||ANOVA|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 12||2.6|-1.6|0.6319
91910450|NCT04872101|183717148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-34.6||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HECSI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-34.6|-56.4|<0.001
91910451|NCT04872101|183717149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.8||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline DLQI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-2.8|-5.0|<0.001
91807105|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.8||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 12||3.7|-0.0|0.0503
91807106|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.9||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 12||2.8|-0.9|0.3291
91807107|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 12||3.1|-1.2|0.3860
91807108|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.0||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 12||2.3|-2.2|0.9672
91807109|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 12||4.1|0.1|0.0392
91807110|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 12||4.5|0.5|0.0151
91807111|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.3978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 12||2.7|-1.1|0.3978
91758352|NCT02967510|183409753|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.176
91807112|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 12||3.5|-0.4|0.1263
91807113|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 12||4.2|0.4|0.0160
91807114|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.6||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 12||4.5|0.7|0.0075
91758353|NCT02967510|183409753|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.358
91807115|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 24||2.4|-1.6|0.6990
91807116|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 24||3.5|-0.6|0.1608
91807117|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 24||4.0|0.3|0.0214
91807118|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.00886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 24||4.4|0.6|0.00886
91807119|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.2||||0.2555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 24||3.3|-0.9|0.2555
91807120|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 24||2.9|-1.4|0.4804
91807121|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 24||4.2|0.2|0.0276
91807122|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 24||3.5|-0.4|0.1285
91807123|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 24||3.9|-0.5|0.1352
91807124|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 24||3.5|-1.0|0.2663
91807125|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 24||4.5|0.5|0.0164
91807126|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|3.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 24||5.9|1.9|0.0002
91807127|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 24||3.3|-0.7|0.1914
91807128|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.6882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 24||2.4|-1.6|0.6882
91807129|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 24||4.0|-0.0|0.0547
91807130|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 24||3.8|-0.3|0.0992
91807131|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 36||4.4|0.2|0.0339
91807132|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 36||3.1|-1.1|0.3572
91807133|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 36||4.2|0.3|0.0211
91888307|NCT02942004|183669960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.1|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||3.1|0.4|0.7749
91888308|NCT02942004|183669960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||1.7|0.2|0.3401
91758354|NCT02967510|183409753|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.21
91758355|NCT02967510|183409754|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||1|0|=0.106
91758356|NCT02967510|183409754|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||1|0|=0.229
91758357|NCT02967510|183409754|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.345
91758358|NCT02967510|183409755|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.026
91758359|NCT02967510|183409755|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.424
91758360|NCT02967510|183409755|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.414
91758361|NCT02967510|183409756|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.36
91758362|NCT02967510|183409756|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.12
91758363|NCT02967510|183409756|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.266
91758364|NCT02967510|183409757|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.47
91758365|NCT02967510|183409757|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.137
91807134|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 36||4.0|0.0|0.0450
91758366|NCT02967510|183409757|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.133
91758367|NCT02967510|183409758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||=|0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|2.153|||ANCOVA|||||2.153|-0.669|=0.85
91758368|NCT02967510|183409758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.87|||=|0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|2.361|||ANCOVA|||||2.361|-0.611|=0.877
91758369|NCT02967510|183409758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.009|0.728|||ANCOVA|||||0.728|-2.009|=0.178
91758370|NCT02967510|183409759|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|||=|0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.854|0.531|||ANCOVA|||||0.531|-0.854|=0.323
91758371|NCT02967510|183409759|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||=|0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.917|0.484|||ANCOVA|||||0.484|-0.917|=0.272
91758372|NCT02967510|183409759|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.084|||ANCOVA|||||0.084|-1.29|=0.043
91807135|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 36||3.7|-0.7|0.1710
91888309|NCT02942004|183669960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.0|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||6.0|0.8|0.1052
91888310|NCT02942004|183669960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.3507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.2|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||4.2|0.6|0.3507
91888311|NCT02942004|183669961|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.294||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|-3.56|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||-3.56|-20.58|0.0058
91888312|NCT02942004|183669961|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.188||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.19|2.41|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||2.41|-14.19|0.1622
91888313|NCT02942004|183669961|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|-0.16|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||-0.16|-18.02|0.0462
91888314|NCT02942004|183669961|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.6124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|6.49|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||6.49|-10.97|0.6124
91888315|NCT02942004|183669961|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.556||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.71|-2.66|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||-2.66|-20.71|0.0116
91888316|NCT02942004|183669961|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.464||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|0.58|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||0.58|-17.10|0.0667
91888317|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.9681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.39|0.9681
91888318|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.28|0.6337
91910452|NCT04872101|183717150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.4||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.4|-2.4|<0.001
91910453|NCT04872101|183717151|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD itch score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
91910454|NCT04872101|183717152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.5||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD pain score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.5|-2.6|<0.001
91910455|NCT04872101|183717153|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.62||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.62|-0.99|<0.001
91910456|NCT04872101|183717154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.62||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS PDAL score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.62|-1.01|<0.001
91910457|NCT04872101|183717155|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|35.9||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||35.9|17.0|<0.001
91910458|NCT00879229|183717167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.0||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|17.0||This is an exact Wilcoxon rank sum test p-value for testing equality of ambrisentan and placebo distributions.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||17|-54|0.696
91910459|NCT02475681|183717182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The primary test to compare PFS between treatment arms was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR (Arm B/Arm A) and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||0.17|0.06|<0.0001
91910460|NCT02475681|183717183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.3|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The test to compare PFS between treatment Arms A and C was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||0.30|0.13|<0.0001
91910461|NCT02475681|183717184|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||||22.3|8.3|<0.0001
91910462|NCT02475681|183717184|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.||||14.9|-1.0|0.0763
91910463|NCT02475681|183717185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The test to compare TTNT between treatment Arms A versus B and Arms A versus C was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||0.26|0.08|<0.0001
91758373|NCT02967510|183409760|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.009
91807136|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 36||3.6|-0.9|0.2484
91910464|NCT02475681|183717185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.4||P-value based on stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS|Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||||0.40|0.15|<0.0001
91910465|NCT02475681|183717186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.06|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The test to compare overall survival between treatment Arms A versus B and Arms A versus C was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||1.06|0.21|0.0577
91910466|NCT02475681|183717186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.27|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||||1.27|0.28|0.1556
91910467|NCT01262365|183717189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.307|||=|0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.923|||Regression, Logistic|p-values have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||Odds Ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||1.923|0.888|=0.175
91910468|NCT01262365|183717189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.164|||=|0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.714|||Regression, Logistic|p-values have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||Odds Ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||1.714|0.790|=0.442
91910469|NCT00527605|183717195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|-20.23|-8.22|||t-test, 2 sided||Dutasteride arm minus placebo arm.|||-8.22|-20.23|<0.0001
91910470|NCT02762513|183717240|OTHER||Median overall survival time (months)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Median calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.|||||
91910471|NCT02762513|183717241|OTHER||Median PFS time (months)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Median calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.|||||
91910472|NCT02111564|183717246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.09|0.52|0.136
91910473|NCT02111564|183717247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.23|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||4.23|0.84|0.124
91758374|NCT02967510|183409760|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.025
91759932|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|2.99||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.99|-10.89|
91910474|NCT02111564|183717248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.42|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.42|0.62|0.751
91910475|NCT02111564|183717249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.89|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.89|0.22|0.023
91910476|NCT02111564|183717250|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.97|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.97|0.54|0.033
91910477|NCT02111564|183717251|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.02|0.60|0.073
91910478|NCT02111564|183717252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.09|0.58|0.156
91910479|NCT00179309|183717321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Multiple comparisons were not done.|Log Rank|||48 evaluable pts will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between two arms (24 evaluable pts per arm). Using standard formulae (e.g. nQuery Advisor v5), this number was selected to provide 80% power to detect a difference between 4.2 month median progression free survival (PFS) on the docetaxel alone arm and 8 month median PFS on the arm receiving PANVAC plus docetaxel, with a one-tailed alpha=0.10,assuming 36 months accrual and an additional 12 months of follow-up after the last pt has been enrolled.||||0.12
91910480|NCT04986202|183717323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.02||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||2.02|-3.86|0.537
91910481|NCT04986202|183717323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.09||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||1.09|-4.71|0.221
91910482|NCT04986202|183717324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|10.5||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||10.5|-5.7|0.559
91910483|NCT04986202|183717324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|13.3||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||13.3|-2.7|0.195
91910484|NCT04986202|183717325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.41||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.41|-4.71|0.289
91910485|NCT04986202|183717325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.13||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||2.13|-3.86|0.571
91758375|NCT02967510|183409760|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
91758376|NCT02967510|183409761|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.04
91758377|NCT02967510|183409761|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.259
91758378|NCT02967510|183409761|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.104
91758379|NCT02967510|183409762|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
91758380|NCT02967510|183409762|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
91758381|NCT02967510|183409762|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
91758382|NCT02967510|183409763|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
91758383|NCT02967510|183409763|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.054
91758384|NCT02967510|183409763|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|<0.001
91758385|NCT02967510|183409764|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.008
91758386|NCT02967510|183409764|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.01
91758387|NCT02967510|183409764|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.001
91758388|NCT02967510|183409765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.071|-0.548|||ANCOVA|||||-0.548|-1.071|<0.001
91758389|NCT02967510|183409765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.013|-0.484|||ANCOVA|||||-0.484|-1.013|<0.001
91758390|NCT02967510|183409765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.916|-0.397|||ANCOVA|||||-0.397|-0.916|<0.001
91758391|NCT02967510|183409766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.535|||ANCOVA|||||0.535|0.337|<0.001
91758392|NCT02967510|183409766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.494|||ANCOVA|||||0.494|0.291|<0.001
91758393|NCT02967510|183409766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|0.439|||ANCOVA|||||0.439|0.245|<0.001
91807137|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 36||3.2|-0.6|0.1836
91910486|NCT04986202|183717325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||3.30|-3.80|0.890
91910487|NCT04986202|183717325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|2.46||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||2.46|-4.55|0.558
91910488|NCT04986202|183717326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|6.6||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||6.6|-11.1|0.619
91910489|NCT04986202|183717326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.4||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||11.4|-5.8|0.522
91910490|NCT04986202|183717326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|15.8||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||15.8|-4.4|0.267
91910491|NCT04986202|183717326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.1||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||12.1|-7.6|0.657
91910492|NCT04986202|183717327|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.95||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.05|0.86|0.312
91910493|NCT04986202|183717327|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.01|0.83|0.070
91758394|NCT02967510|183409767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|-0.371|||ANCOVA|||||-0.371|-0.575|<0.001
91758395|NCT02967510|183409767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|-0.383|||ANCOVA|||||-0.383|-0.592|<0.001
91758396|NCT02967510|183409767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
91758397|NCT00787189|183409779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0005
91758398|NCT02227394|183409841|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.187||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.098|0.724|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.724|-1.098|0.727
91910494|NCT04986202|183717327|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.12|0.91|0.911
91910495|NCT04986202|183717327|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.12|0.91|0.837
91910496|NCT04986202|183717327|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.95||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.07|0.84|0.370
91910497|NCT04986202|183717327|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.93||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.04|0.83|0.205
91910498|NCT04986202|183717328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.2|-0.2|0.183
91910499|NCT04986202|183717328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||0.7|-0.8|0.898
91910500|NCT04986202|183717328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.1|-0.4|0.316
91910501|NCT04986202|183717328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||0.8|-0.7|0.934
91910502|NCT04986202|183717329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.647|2.366||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||2.366|-1.647|0.725
91910503|NCT04986202|183717329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.594||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.571|1.382||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.382|-2.571|0.555
91910504|NCT04986202|183717329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.657||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|3.025||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||3.025|-1.710|0.586
91910505|NCT04986202|183717329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.815||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.108|1.478||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.478|-3.108|0.486
91910506|NCT04986202|183717330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.9||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||3.9|-4.1|0.968
91910507|NCT04986202|183717330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.6||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.6|-6.3|0.251
91910508|NCT04986202|183717330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.7||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||5.7|-4.8|0.872
91910509|NCT04986202|183717330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.1||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|No formal hypothesis testing and p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||4.1|-6.2|0.682
91910510|NCT04986202|183717332|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.029||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.236||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.236|0.857|0.760
91910511|NCT04986202|183717332|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.209||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.448||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.448|1.010|0.039
91910512|NCT04986202|183717332|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.111||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.326||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.326|0.931|0.241
91910513|NCT04986202|183717332|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.19||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|1.414||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.414|1.001|0.049
91910514|NCT04986202|183717332|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.151||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.401||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.401|0.946|0.158
91910515|NCT04986202|183717332|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.159||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.404||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.404|0.957|0.131
91910516|NCT04986202|183717333|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0111||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8819|1.1592||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.1592|0.8819|0.874
91910517|NCT04986202|183717333|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9157||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8002|1.0479||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.0479|0.8002|0.200
91910518|NCT04986202|183717333|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.1063||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|1.2631||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.2631|0.9690|0.135
91910519|NCT04986202|183717333|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0842||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9527|1.2339||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.2339|0.9527|0.220
91758399|NCT02227394|183409842|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002|0.007|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.007|-0.002|0.366
91910520|NCT04986202|183717333|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0496||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9211|1.196||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.1960|0.9211|0.467
91910521|NCT04986202|183717333|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0312||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|1.1711||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.1711|0.9080|0.636
91910522|NCT03806127|183717353|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|12.3|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus ≥ 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|||12.3|-16.1|
91910523|NCT03806127|183717354|OTHER||CMH Difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|22.9|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|IBS-D Participants||22.9|-4.8|
91910524|NCT03806127|183717354|OTHER||CMH Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.7|16.4|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|IBS-M Participants||16.4|-16.7|
91910525|NCT03806127|183717354|OTHER||CMH Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|15.9|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|All Participants||15.9|-5.4|
91910526|NCT03806127|183717355|OTHER||CMH Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|14.9|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|||14.9|-11.7|
91758400|NCT02227394|183409844|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.035|0.084|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.084|-0.035|0.486
91758401|NCT02227394|183409845|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.049||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.052|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.150|-0.052|0.413
91758402|NCT02227394|183409846|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.289|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.090|-0.289|0.375
91910527|NCT03806127|183717356|OTHER||CMH Difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|18.8|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus ≥ 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|||18.8|-5.5|
91910528|NCT02163434|183717360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91910529|NCT02163434|183717361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91910530|NCT02163434|183717362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91910531|NCT02163434|183717364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91910532|NCT02163434|183717365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
91910533|NCT01289015|183717382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||p-value|0.001|||<|0.025||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test statistic after stratification was used to compare subjects with complete cure between NAFT-600 and placebo.||"In order to compare complete cure rate in the NAFT-600 group with that of the placebo group, the following one-sided hypothesis test was carried out:~H0 (null): p1\<=p0 versus Ha (alternate): p1\>p0, where p0 and p1 are the proportions of subjects with complete cure in the proportions of subjects with complete cure in the placebo and NAFT-600 treatment groups respectively."||||<0.025
91910534|NCT05726318|183717388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.78
91910535|NCT05726318|183717390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.78
91910536|NCT05726318|183717391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.68
91910537|NCT05726318|183717393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.78
91910538|NCT05726318|183717394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
91910539|NCT04302727|183717395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91910540|NCT04302727|183717395|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fully adjusted model||1.93|-1.19|0.64
91910541|NCT04302727|183717396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||<0.0001
91910542|NCT04302727|183717396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.67
91910543|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with diabetes-Month 4||||0.02
91910544|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants without diabetes-Month 4||||<0.0001
91910545|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with diabetes-Month 12||||0.82
91910546|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants without diabetes-Month 12||||0.75
91910547|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with diabetes-Month 24||||0.87
91910548|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants without diabetes-Month 24||||0.27
91807138|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 36||2.9|-1.0|0.3303
91888319|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.3|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.64|0.4690
91888320|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.46|0.9905
91888321|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.27|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.68|0.3984
91888322|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.55|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.55|-0.37|0.7042
91888323|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.32|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.66|0.4941
91888324|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.65|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.65|-0.30|0.4572
91888325|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.9866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.47|0.9866
91888326|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.38|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.38|-0.53|0.7490
91888327|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.08|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-1.06|0.0235
91888328|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.9286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.45|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-0.50|0.9286
91888329|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.01|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.99|0.0544
91888330|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.22|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.74|0.2903
91910549|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Females-Month 4||||<0.0001
91910550|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Females-Month 12||||0.66
91910551|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Females-Month 24||||0.96
91910552|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Males-Month 4||||0.0003
91888331|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.23|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.23|-1.19|0.0044
91807139|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 36||4.8|0.2|0.0299
91888332|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.11|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.83|0.1339
91888333|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.11|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.11|-1.04|0.0149
91888334|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.22|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.68|0.3213
91888335|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.04|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.94|0.0703
91888336|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.42|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.53|0.8152
91888337|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.0805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.07|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-1.13|0.0805
91888338|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.6964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.69|0.6964
91888339|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.29|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.92|0.2998
91888340|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.3|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.85|0.3448
91888341|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.17|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.17|-1.15|0.0089
91888342|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.05|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.92|0.0772
91758403|NCT02227394|183409847|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.092|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.110|-0.092|0.879
91758404|NCT02227394|183409848|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.149|0.195|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.195|-0.149|0.819
91758405|NCT02227394|183409849|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.070|-1.870|0.643
91758406|NCT02227394|183409850|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.122|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.122|-0.100|0.866
91758407|NCT02227394|183409851|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.054||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.043|0.152|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.152|-0.043|0.346
91758408|NCT02227394|183409852|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.029||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.001|0.058|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.058|0.001|0.093
91758409|NCT02227394|183409853|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.074||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.386|0.238|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.238|-0.386|0.686
91758410|NCT02227394|183409855|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.368||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.659|6.922|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.922|-27.659|0.312
91758411|NCT02227394|183409856|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.361|0.321|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.321|-0.361|0.920
91758412|NCT02227394|183409857|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.513|0.673|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.673|-0.513|0.818
91807140|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 36||4.2|-0.4|0.1141
91888343|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.6809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.3|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.46|0.6809
91888344|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.43|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.30|0.7297
91888345|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.02|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.87|0.0626
91888346|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.29|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.58|0.5196
91888347|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.05|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.88|0.0772
91910553|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Males-Month 12||||0.34
91807141|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.7||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 36||4.7|0.7|0.0087
91910554|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Males-Month 24||||0.20
91910555|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Whites-Month 4||||<0.0001
91910556|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Whites-Month 12||||0.83
91910557|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Whites-Month 24||||0.54
91910558|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||African Americans-Month 4||||0.008
91910559|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||African Americans-Month 12||||0.58
91910560|NCT04302727|183717397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||African Americans-Month 24||||0.79
91807142|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.6||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 36||4.7|0.6|0.0128
91910561|NCT04302727|183717398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||<0.001
91910562|NCT04302727|183717398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.57
91910563|NCT04302727|183717398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.32
91910564|NCT04302727|183717399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.77
91910565|NCT04302727|183717399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.48
91910566|NCT04302727|183717399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.68
91910567|NCT04302727|183717400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.91
91807143|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 36||3.5|-0.5|0.1369
91807144|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 36||2.5|-1.5|0.6331
91807145|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 36||4.3|0.1|0.0361
91807146|NCT00256750|183490913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 36||4.2|-0.0|0.0525
91807147|NCT00256750|183490914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.024|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|-0.015||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 6. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.015|-0.032|<0.0001
91910568|NCT04302727|183717400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.52
91910569|NCT04302727|183717400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.97
91910570|NCT04302727|183717401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.29
91910571|NCT04302727|183717401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91910572|NCT04302727|183717401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.09
91910573|NCT04302727|183717402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.96
91910574|NCT04302727|183717402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.77
91910575|NCT04302727|183717402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.94
91910576|NCT04302727|183717403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.55
91910577|NCT04302727|183717403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.83
91910578|NCT04302727|183717403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.44
91910579|NCT04302727|183717404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.99
91910580|NCT04302727|183717404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.71
91910581|NCT04302727|183717404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.44
91910582|NCT04302727|183717405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.05
91910583|NCT04302727|183717405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.42
91910584|NCT04302727|183717405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.02
91910585|NCT04302727|183717406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.10
91910586|NCT04302727|183717406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.56
91910587|NCT04302727|183717406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91910588|NCT04302727|183717407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.96
91910589|NCT04302727|183717407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.88
91910590|NCT04302727|183717407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.29
91910591|NCT04302727|183717408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.82
91910592|NCT04302727|183717408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.25
91910593|NCT04302727|183717408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.48
91910594|NCT04302727|183717409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.0007
91910595|NCT04302727|183717409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.51
91910596|NCT04302727|183717409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.91
91910597|NCT04302727|183717410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.83
91910598|NCT04302727|183717410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.68
91910599|NCT04302727|183717410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.64
91910600|NCT04302727|183717411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||<0.0001
91807148|NCT00256750|183490914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.019|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|-0.011||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 6. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.011|-0.028|<0.0001
91807149|NCT00256750|183490914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|-0.014||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 6.||-0.014|-0.031|<0.0001
91807150|NCT00256750|183490914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|-0.017||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 6.||-0.017|-0.035|<0.0001
91807151|NCT00256750|183490914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.024|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|-0.016||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 12. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.016|-0.032|<0.0001
91807152|NCT00256750|183490914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|-0.012||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 12. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.012|-0.029|<0.0001
91758413|NCT02227394|183409858|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.789|20.011|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.011|2.789|0.034
91758414|NCT02227394|183409859|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.323|17.523|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.523|-6.323|0.427
91807153|NCT00256750|183490914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|-0.017||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 12.||-0.017|-0.034|<0.0001
91807154|NCT00256750|183490914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.025|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|-0.016||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 12.||-0.016|-0.034|<0.0001
91910601|NCT04302727|183717411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||<0.0001
91807155|NCT00256750|183490914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.013||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 24. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.013|-0.030|<0.0001
91910602|NCT04302727|183717411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.005
91758415|NCT04302545|183409862|OTHER|Other Primary outcomes were the extent of injury, operative time, blood loss and proportion of subjects receiving a blood transfusion. Postoperatively, subjects were assessed for secondary outcomes of UTI, micturition problems, and fistula formation during the hospital stay and for the next 3 months. Postoperative micturition problems were feeling of incomplete evacuation, frequency, urgency, urethral and extra-urethral incontinence.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.178|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.094||The threshold for statistical significance was \<.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Null Hypothesis: During the cesarean section of women with adhesions of the previous cesarean section that obscure the bladder, the bladder injury rate is not significantly decreased in cystoinflation group compared to the control.~In this study, the bladder injury rate was seven times lesser in cystoinflation group compared to the control, thereby strongly supporting our hypothesis. The power of the study for bladder injury was 0.988, calculated with statistical software G'Power version 3.1."||-.094|-.261|<.0001
91758416|NCT04302545|183409863|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-211.776|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-290.7|-132.84|||Regression, Linear|||||-132.84|-290.70|<0.0001
91758417|NCT04302545|183409864|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.634|3.634|||Regression, Linear|||Null Hypothsis:Cystoinflation is ineffective to prevent bladder injury in adhesions of previous C-section.The cystoinflation was to be cosidered ineffective if proportion of bladder injury in study group was less than %0% of the control.The power of the study for bladder injury prevention was.988,calculated with statistical software G'Power version3.1.||3.634|-3.634|1
91758418|NCT04302545|183409865|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.093||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.708|-0.479|||Regression, Linear|||||-.479|-1.708|.001
91910603|NCT04302727|183717412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Month 4|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91910604|NCT04302727|183717412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12||||0.40
91910605|NCT04302727|183717412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 24||||0.82
91910606|NCT04302727|183717413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.44
91910607|NCT04302727|183717413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.03
91910608|NCT04302727|183717413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.28
91910609|NCT04302727|183717414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.32
91910610|NCT04302727|183717414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.03
91807156|NCT00256750|183490914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|-0.007||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 24. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.007|-0.024|<0.0001
91807157|NCT00256750|183490914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|-0.015||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 24||-0.015|-0.031|<0.0001
91807158|NCT00256750|183490914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.013||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 24||-0.013|-0.030|<0.0001
91807159|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||2.7|-1.2|0.4498
91910611|NCT04302727|183717414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.005
91910612|NCT04302727|183717415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.10
91910613|NCT04302727|183717415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.16
91910614|NCT04302727|183717415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.27
91758419|NCT04302545|183409866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|-0.073|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.073|-0.226|<0.0001
91758420|NCT04302545|183409867|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.103||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|-0.035|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.035|-0.171|0.003
91758421|NCT04302545|183409868|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.654||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|1.991|||Regression, Linear|||||1.991|-0.682|.336
91758422|NCT04302545|183409869|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.393||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.725|-0.06|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.06|-0.725|.021
91758423|NCT04302545|183409870|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.813|-0.963|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.963|-2.813|<0.0001
91758424|NCT04302545|183409871|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.318|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.021|-0.614|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.614|-2.021|<.0001
91758425|NCT04302545|183409873|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.065||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|-0.023|||Regression, Linear|||||-.023|-.108|.003
91758426|NCT02516592|183409874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.084|0.005|0.028
91758427|NCT02516592|183409875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.94|-0.03|0.063
91758428|NCT02516592|183409876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.167|0.037|0.002
91758429|NCT02516592|183409877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.3|0.319
91758430|NCT02516592|183409878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.20|0.662
91758431|NCT00300365|183409881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91758432|NCT01727336|183409911|OTHER||recommended dose for Part 2|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The recommended dose level for Part 2 was determined to be 0.9 mg/kg|||||
91758433|NCT04118595|183409978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
91758434|NCT04118595|183409979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.41
91758435|NCT04118595|183409980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
91758436|NCT04118595|183409981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.64
91758437|NCT04118595|183409982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.57
91758438|NCT04118595|183409983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.43
91758439|NCT04118595|183409984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.19
91758440|NCT04118595|183409985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.15
91758441|NCT04118595|183409986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
91758442|NCT04118595|183409987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
91758443|NCT02684188|183410028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 112(68 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.030
91807160|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||3.9|-0.1|0.0584
91807161|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.1||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||2.7|-0.5|0.1595
91910615|NCT04302727|183717416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.10
91910616|NCT04302727|183717416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.01
91910617|NCT04302727|183717416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.06
91910618|NCT04302727|183717417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.41
91910619|NCT04302727|183717417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.24
91910620|NCT04302727|183717417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.74
91910621|NCT04302727|183717418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.13
91758444|NCT02684188|183410028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 110 (66 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.025
91758445|NCT02684188|183410028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 104 (61 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.037
91758446|NCT02684188|183410028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 98 (57 baseline and 41 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.011
91758447|NCT02684188|183410028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (56 baseline and 39 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.050
91758448|NCT02684188|183410028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (53 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.055
91758449|NCT02684188|183410028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 83 (49 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.137
91758450|NCT02684188|183410029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 112(68 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.279
91888348|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.35|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.55|0.6610
91888349|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.27|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.67|0.4007
91888350|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.74|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.74|-0.18|0.2292
91910622|NCT04302727|183717418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.10
91910623|NCT04302727|183717418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.12
91910624|NCT04302727|183717419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.002
91759933|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|-6.57||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.57|-20.44|
91759934|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.65|0.16||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.16|-14.65|
91759935|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|-4.68||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.68|-19.38|
91759936|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-8.35||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.35|-23.10|
91910625|NCT04302727|183717419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||<0.001
91910626|NCT04302727|183717419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||<0.001
91910627|NCT01294800|183717435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.7||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.02|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.02|-1.37|0.0564
91807162|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||3.3|0.0|0.0457
91910628|NCT01294800|183717435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.22|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.22|-1.16|0.1844
91910629|NCT01294800|183717435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.3||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.36|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.36|-1.04|0.3386
91910630|NCT01294800|183717436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of responders|5.7||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|19.0|||A generalized linear mixed model|||||19.00|-7.75|0.404
91910631|NCT01294800|183717436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of responders|5.7||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|18.81|||A generalized linear mixed model|||||18.81|-7.73|0.390
91758451|NCT02684188|183410029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 110 (66 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.211
91758452|NCT02684188|183410029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 104 (61 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.424
91758453|NCT02684188|183410029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 98 (57 baseline and 41 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.191
91758454|NCT02684188|183410029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (56 baseline and 39 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.478
91758455|NCT02684188|183410029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (53 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.452
91758456|NCT02684188|183410029|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.||||||0.381||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic||||For day 90, 83 (49 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.381
91758457|NCT02684188|183410030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 115 (70 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.502
91807163|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||3.2|-0.6|0.1729
91910632|NCT01294800|183717436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of responders|-4.9||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.78|7.97|||A generalized linear mixed model|||||7.97|-17.78|0.508
91910633|NCT01294800|183717437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.7||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.43|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.43|-0.00|0.0509
91910634|NCT01294800|183717437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.5||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.19|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.19|-0.23|0.1847
91910635|NCT01294800|183717437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.5||||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.19|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.19|-0.25|0.2021
91910636|NCT00493038|183717463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||||95.0|-1.9|6.2|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates between the two treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus amoxicillin/clavulanate).|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||6.2|-1.9|
91910637|NCT00493038|183717464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||||95.0|-7.9|6.8||||||Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||6.8|-7.9|
91910638|NCT00493038|183717465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||||95.0|-3.8|7.1||||||Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||7.1|-3.8|
91910639|NCT01888640|183717488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2||To account for multiple tests involving pairwise treatment group comparisons, p-values were adjusted using Bonferroni's method|Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2-Visit 3||-0.2|-1.8|0.008
91807164|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||2.7|-1.1|0.4209
91807165|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.6||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||3.2|-0.0|0.0526
91910640|NCT01888640|183717488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.0|-2.6|<0.0001
91910641|NCT01888640|183717489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-2.2|0.002
91910642|NCT01888640|183717489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.0|-2.8|<0.0001
91807166|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||3.9|0.6|0.0077
91807167|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.4||||0.1849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||3.4|-0.6|0.1849
91807168|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||2.8|-1.3|0.4633
91910643|NCT01888640|183717490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-2.1|0.0006
91910644|NCT01888640|183717490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.6|-2.2|<0.0001
91910645|NCT01888640|183717491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-2.4|0.001
91910646|NCT01888640|183717491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.9|-2.9|<0.0001
91910647|NCT01888640|183717492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.2|-2.2|0.011
91807169|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.4||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||3.0|-0.3|0.0971
91807170|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||3.8|0.5|0.0102
91807171|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||4.5|0.4|0.0186
91807172|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||4.0|-0.2|0.0775
91888351|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.01|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.92|0.0540
91888352|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.46|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.44|0.9590
91888353|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.08|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.79|0.1048
91888354|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.39|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.44|0.8979
91888355|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.05|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.82|0.0819
91888356|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.08|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.77|0.1099
91888357|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.88|0.0373
91888358|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.01|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.81|0.0577
91888359|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.15|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.69|0.2023
91910648|NCT01888640|183717492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.0|-3.0|<0.0001
91910649|NCT01888640|183717493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.1|-2.2|0.016
91910650|NCT01888640|183717493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.6|-2.6|0.0002
91807173|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.6||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||3.3|-0.2|0.0768
91910651|NCT01888640|183717494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.3|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||0.3|-10.4|0.074
91910652|NCT01888640|183717494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-1.8|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.8|-12.4|0.005
91910653|NCT01888640|183717495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.1|-1.7|0.018
91910654|NCT01888640|183717495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-1.9|0.0006
91758458|NCT02684188|183410030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 113 (68 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.286
91758459|NCT02684188|183410030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 107 (63 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.347
91758460|NCT02684188|183410030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 101 (59 baseline and 42 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.250
91888360|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.4444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.56|0.4444
91888361|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.24|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.64|0.3645
91888362|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.4035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.24|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.60|0.4035
91888363|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.3|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.62|0.4877
91888364|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.22|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.68|0.3134
91888365|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.07|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.89|0.0922
91888366|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.04|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.87|0.0761
91888367|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.22|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.64|0.3275
91888368|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.3041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.2|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.64|0.3041
91910655|NCT01888640|183717496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.01|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.01|-1.3|0.043
91910656|NCT01888640|183717496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.0|-1.3|0.048
91910657|NCT01888640|183717497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.0|-1.0|0.036
91888369|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.01|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.59|0.0450
91888370|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.37|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.19|0.5351
91888371|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS men difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.56|0.0525
91888372|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.7932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.31|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.24|0.7932
91888373|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.06|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.45|0.1300
91888374|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.42|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.07|0.1631
91888375|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.23|0.8215
91888376|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.51|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.51|0.01|0.0380
91888377|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.16|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.33|0.5070
91888378|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.43|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.04|0.1094
91888379|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.30|0.3112
91888380|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.33|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.05|0.1345
91910658|NCT01888640|183717497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-1.4|<0.0001
91910659|NCT01888640|183717498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||1.5|-2.3|>0.99
91910660|NCT01888640|183717498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||1.3|-2.4|>0.99
91910661|NCT01888640|183717499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||4.1|-1.9|>0.99
91910662|NCT01888640|183717499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.3|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||||5.3|-0.6|0.17
91910663|NCT01888640|183717500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||3.1|-0.7|0.36
91910664|NCT01888640|183717500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.8|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||2.8|-0.8|0.58
91910665|NCT01888640|183717501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|96.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||96|-58|>0.99
91910666|NCT01888640|183717501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|117.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||117|-34|>0.99
91910667|NCT01888640|183717502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||0.7|-0.2|0.96
91910668|NCT01888640|183717502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||1.0|0.1|0.008
91910669|NCT01888640|183717503|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||||>0.99
91910670|NCT01888640|183717503|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||||>0.99
91910671|NCT00684788|183717510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|20.02|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||20.02|1.61|=0.008
91910672|NCT00684788|183717511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0033
91888381|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.12|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.24|0.5148
91910673|NCT00684788|183717514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.42|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.42|0.32|0.939
91910674|NCT00684788|183717516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|16.245|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||16.245|0.071|0.959
91910675|NCT01142726|183717517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical testing of the 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints was conducted in a hierarchical fashion to maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%.|At Month 12|Power estimate assumed 2-sided alpha level of 5% and that 60% of abatacept (ABA)+methotrexate (MX) patients (pts) would be in DAS28-CRP remission at Month 12 compared with 38% of MX monotherapy pts. Also assumed that 48% of ABA monotherapy pts would be in DAS28-CRP remission at Month 12, yielding an expected treatment difference from MX of 10% in favor of ABA monotherapy; 116 pts randomized to ABA monotherapy would yield a half-length of the 95% CI around that 10% treatment difference of 13.5%.||3.43|1.18|0.010
91910676|NCT01142726|183717517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.18|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical testing of the 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints was conducted in a hierarchical fashion to maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%.|At Months 12 and 18|Conditional on statistical significance of the 1st coprimary efficacy analysis (CEA), a sample of 116 patients per arm would provide 98% power for the 2nd CEA comparison of the percentage of patients in DAS28-CRP remission at Months 12 and 18 between the abatacept (ABA)+methotrexate (MTX) arm and the MTX monotherapy arm for intent-to treat population. This sample size calculation assumed 30% remission in the ABA+MTX arm and 8% in the monotherapy arm at Month 18 and a 2-sided alpha level of 5%.||6.18|1.02|0.045
91910677|NCT01142726|183717518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.57|||||At Month 12|||1.57|0.55|
91910678|NCT01142726|183717518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.14|||||At Months 12 and 18|||5.14|0.81|
91910679|NCT02109484|183717541|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.||||||0.0165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0165
91910680|NCT02109484|183717541|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.||||<0.0001
91910681|NCT02109484|183717541|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91888382|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.1|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.25|0.3863
91888383|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.41|0.0209
91888384|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS men difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.01|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.35|0.0616
91888385|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.33|0.1860
91888386|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.16|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.22|0.7730
91888387|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.44|0.1593
91888388|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.6371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.31|0.6371
91910682|NCT02109484|183717542|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pair-wise comparisons between Cohort B Placebo group and the active vaccination groups were peformed||||<0.0001
91888389|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.18|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.32|0.5655
91888390|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.36|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-0.12|0.3326
91888391|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.3577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.22|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.59|0.3577
91888392|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.11|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.66|0.1646
91910683|NCT02109484|183717542|EQUIVALENCE|Pair-wise comparisons between Cohort B Placebo group and the active vaccination groups were performed|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91910684|NCT02109484|183717542|EQUIVALENCE|Pair-wise comparisons between Cohort B Placebo group and the active vaccination groups were performed||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
91758461|NCT02684188|183410030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 98 (58 baseline and 40 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.220
91758462|NCT02684188|183410030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 90 (55 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.116
91758463|NCT02684188|183410030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 86 (51 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.126
91758464|NCT02684188|183410031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 3; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 115 (70 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.597
91758465|NCT02684188|183410031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 7; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 113 (68 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.504
91888393|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.46|0.0545
91758466|NCT02684188|183410031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 14; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 107 (63 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.558
91758467|NCT02684188|183410031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472||||||Comments (covariates): P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 21; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 101 (59 baseline and 42 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.472
91758468|NCT02684188|183410031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 30; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 98 (58 baseline and 40 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.462
91758469|NCT02684188|183410031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 60; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 90 (55 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.394
91758470|NCT02684188|183410031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368||||||Comments (covariates): P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 90; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 86 (51 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.368
91758471|NCT02684188|183410032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE+ score.|Poisson regression|||The following hypotheses were tested: H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 114 (70 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.946
91758472|NCT02684188|183410032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 111 (67 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.613
91758473|NCT02684188|183410032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE+ score.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 105 (62 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.541
91758474|NCT02684188|183410032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE score.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 98 (58 baseline and 40 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.765
91910685|NCT02109484|183717543|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A pair wise comparison between the Adjusted Seroresponses in the placebo group and the Group B 10 mcg P2-VP8 was performed.||||0.0004
91758475|NCT02684188|183410032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE+ score.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (57 baseline and 38 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.919
91888394|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.11|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.35|0.2903
91888395|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.45|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|0.01|0.0395
91888396|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.14|0.4690
91888397|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.6066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.20|0.6066
91888398|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.27|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.26|0.9737
91888399|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.42|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.17|0.4030
91888400|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.36|0.6357
91888401|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.24|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.29|0.8605
91888402|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.30|0.7534
91888403|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.23|-1.03|0.0021
91759937|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-6.63||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.63|-21.27|
91888404|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.80|0.0394
91888405|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.20|-1.03|0.0039
91888406|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.69|0.1591
91888407|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.73|0.1402
91888408|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.10|-0.91|0.0143
91888409|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.65|0.2293
91888410|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.05|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.74|0.0884
91910686|NCT02109484|183717543|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A pair wise comparison between the Adjusted Seroresponses in the placebo group and the Cohort B 30 mcg P2-VP8 vaccine group was performed.||||<0.0001
91888411|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.80|0.0622
91910687|NCT02109484|183717543|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A pair-wise comparison between the Adjusted Seroresponses in Cohort B Placebo group and the Cohort B P2-VP8 group was performed.||||<0.0001
91888412|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.06|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.74|0.0955
91888413|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.92|0.0173
91910688|NCT01890642|183717550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91910689|NCT01890642|183717551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.80
91758476|NCT02684188|183410032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE score.|Poisson regression|P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE score.||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (54 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.999
91758477|NCT02684188|183410032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 83 (50 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.995
91758478|NCT02684188|183410033|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures ANOVA model was used to model the SF12 Physical Health score as a function of treatment group. The likelihood ratio test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of the repeated measures, patient age, and the number of people in a household. All hypotheses were 2-sided and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||||0.371||||||The P-value comparing the means for the 2 groups averaged across the 7 days is p = 0.371, after adjusting for covariates.|ANOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: Hoi: There is no difference in mean SF12 Physical Health scores between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1i: The mean SF12 Physical Health scores differ between the standard and enhanced discharge groups.||||0.371
91888414|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.12|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.69|0.1687
91888415|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.74|0.3861
91888416|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.4|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.59|0.7060
91888417|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.14|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-1.05|0.0112
91888418|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.86|0.0570
91888419|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.26|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.26|-1.08|0.0018
91888420|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.83|0.0443
91888421|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.37|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.04|0.1197
91888422|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.7171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.24|0.7171
91910690|NCT01890642|183717552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91910691|NCT01890642|183717553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0001
91910692|NCT01890642|183717554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.37
91910693|NCT01223703|183717583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The analysis was done following an intention-to-treat approach by means of the unpaired student t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriated.||"null hypothesis is no difference n3 PUFA administration and placebo. To demonstrate an effect size of 0.5 in LVEF, a sample of 65 patients in each group was calculated to have 80% power to detect such 0.5 effect size with alpha=0.05 (2-tailed) at the Student t test.~for unpaired data."||||< 0.05
91758479|NCT02684188|183410034|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures ANOVA model was used to model the SF-12 Mental Health score as a function of treatment group. The likelihood ratio test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of the repeated measures, patient age, income, and county. All hypotheses were 2-sided and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||||0.232||||||The P-value comparing the means for the 2 groups averaged across the 7 days is p = 0.232, after adjusting for covariates.|ANOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: Hoi: There is no difference in mean SF-12 Mental Health scores between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1i: The mean SF-12 Mental Health scores differ between the standard and enhanced discharge groups.||||0.232
91888423|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.7151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.32|0.7151
91888424|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.18|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.35|0.5210
91888425|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.33|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.23|0.7332
91888426|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.39|0.4163
91888427|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.8625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.28|0.8625
91888428|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.6196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.19|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.32|0.6196
91888429|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.80|0.0373
91888430|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.74|0.0644
91910694|NCT01223703|183717584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The analysis was done following an intention-to-treat approach by means of the unpaired student t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriated.||||||< 0.05
91910695|NCT00562354|183717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.84|0.39|
91759938|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|1.43||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.43|-13.31|
91910696|NCT00562354|183717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.01|0.54|
91910697|NCT00562354|183717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.11|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.11|0.50|
91910698|NCT00562354|183717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.9|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.90|0.38|
91910699|NCT00562354|183717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.74|0.37|
91910700|NCT00562354|183717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.02|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.02|0.52|
91910701|NCT00562354|183717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.95|0.46|
91910702|NCT00562354|183717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.25|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.25|0.45|
91910703|NCT00562354|183717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.02|0.54|
91758480|NCT02684188|183410035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806|||||||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: H0: There is no difference in the mean CTM3 score between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1: Patients in the enhanced discharge group will have a higher mean CTM3 rating than patients in the standard discharge group.|An analysis of covariance was used to model the CTM3 discharge planning score as a function of treatment group. An ANOVA F-test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of patient age and income. The hypothesis test for the group comparison was 1-sided, hypotheses to assess significance of covariates were 2-sided, and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The covariates Sex, County, Number in Household, LACE+ score, and PAM10 score did not differ in their mean CTM3 scores so were not retained in the model.|||0.806
91910704|NCT00562354|183717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.79|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.79|0.35|
91759939|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.54|-8.79||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.79|-23.54|
91910705|NCT00562354|183717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.67|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.67|0.34|
91910706|NCT00562354|183717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.88|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformation of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.88|0.37|
91910707|NCT00562354|183717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.79|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.79|0.30|
91910708|NCT00562354|183717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.0||||||Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.0|-12.1|
91910709|NCT00562354|183717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|3.5||||||Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.5|-11.6|
91910710|NCT00562354|183717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.2||||||Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.2|-9.6|
91910711|NCT00562354|183717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.5||||||Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.5|-13.7|
91910712|NCT00562354|183717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.1||||||Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.1|-5.7|
91910713|NCT00562354|183717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.1||||||Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.1|-5.9|
91910714|NCT00562354|183717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.9||||||Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-0.9|-10.8|
91910715|NCT00562354|183717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|6.9||||||Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||6.9|-8.7|
91910716|NCT00562354|183717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1||||||Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.1|-4.0|
91758481|NCT02684188|183410036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||ANOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: H0: There is no difference in the mean RTM14 score between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1: Patients in the enhanced discharge group will have a higher mean RTM14 rating than patients in the standard discharge group.|A repeated measures ANOVA model (over the 6 time measurement periods) was used to model the RTM14 score as a function of treatment group. The likelihood ratio test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of the repeated measures, patient age, income, and whether or not a patient had visited a hospital or ED prior to that day. The hypothesis test for the group comparison was 1-sided, hypotheses to assess significance of covariates were 2-sided, and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The covariates Sex, Number in household, LACE+ score, and PAM10 score were not significant in explaining SF-12 scores so were not retained in the model.|||0.742
91758482|NCT02684188|183410037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||: H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 114 (70 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.717
91910717|NCT00562354|183717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.5||||||Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.5|-7.6|
91910718|NCT00562354|183717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.7||||||Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.7|-2.8|
91910719|NCT00562354|183717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.7||||||Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.7|-8.8|
91910720|NCT00562354|183717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|1.5||||||Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||1.5|-14.1|
91910721|NCT00562354|183717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|0.3||||||Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||0.3|-15.1|
91910722|NCT00562354|183717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|3.5||||||Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.5|-14.5|
91910723|NCT00562354|183717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-1.0||||||Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.0|-21.4|
91910724|NCT00562354|183717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.9||||||Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.9|-13.5|
91910725|NCT00562354|183717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|4.0||||||Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.0|-14.3|
91910726|NCT00562354|183717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-0.8||||||Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-0.8|-24.6|
91910727|NCT00562354|183717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|1.5||||||Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||1.5|-16.3|
91910728|NCT00562354|183717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-5.0||||||Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-5.0|-29.5|
91910729|NCT00562354|183717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|2.4||||||Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.4|-21.4|
91910730|NCT00562354|183717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-1.3||||||Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.3|-19.3|
91910731|NCT00562354|183717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.9||||||Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||7.9|-6.2|
91910732|NCT00562354|183717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|4.5||||||Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.5|-12.2|
91910733|NCT00562354|183717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.3||||||Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||7.3|-12.5|
91758483|NCT02684188|183410037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 111 (67 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.479
91758484|NCT02684188|183410037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 105 (62 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.329
91910734|NCT00562354|183717600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|2.1||||||Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.1|-13.8|
91910735|NCT00562354|183717600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|5.0||||||Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||5.0|-15.9|
91758485|NCT02684188|183410037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|||0.780
91910736|NCT00562354|183717600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-5.9||||||Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-5.9|-30.1|
91910737|NCT00562354|183717600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|6.9||||||Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||6.9|-11.6|
91910738|NCT00562354|183717600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-1.2||||||Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.2|-22.6|
91910739|NCT00562354|183717600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|1.9||||||Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||1.9|-23.8|
91910740|NCT00562354|183717600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|0.4||||||Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||0.4|-19.3|
91910741|NCT00562354|183717600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-26.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-14.1||||||Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-14.1|-39.0|
91910742|NCT00562354|183717600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|6.1||||||Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||6.1|-18.7|
91758486|NCT02684188|183410037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (57 baseline and 38 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.779
91888431|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.66|0.1347
91888432|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.65|0.1269
91888433|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.65|0.1650
91888434|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.08|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.66|0.1291
91888435|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.77|0.0402
91888436|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.76|0.0342
91888437|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.68|0.1269
91888438|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3945
91910743|NCT00562354|183717600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-1.7||||||Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.7|-22.6|
91888439|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.5828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.47|0.5828
91888440|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.6625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.44|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.28|0.6625
91910744|NCT00562354|183717600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|8.1||||||Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||8.1|-9.8|
91910745|NCT00562354|183717600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-1.2||||||Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.2|-21.7|
91758487|NCT02684188|183410037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (54 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.848
91888441|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.21|-1.07|0.0041
91888442|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.67|0.2222
91888443|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.07|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.07|-0.93|0.0245
91888444|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.28|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.55|0.5119
91888445|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.82|0.0299
91888446|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.60|0.2824
91888447|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.43|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.08|0.1768
91910746|NCT00562354|183717600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|3.4||||||Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.4|-18.5|
91888448|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.31|0.6498
91888449|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.25|0.7689
91888450|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.47|0.2236
91888451|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.6952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.35|0.6952
91910747|NCT00562354|183717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.86|0.43|
91758488|NCT02684188|183410037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 83 (50 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.857
91758489|NCT00488826|183410038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1097.0||||||90.0|793.6|1461.0||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 4.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||1461|793.6|
91758490|NCT00488826|183410038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|54.6||||||90.0|35.36|85.49||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 6B.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||85.49|35.36|
91758491|NCT00488826|183410038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.48||||||90.0|79.81|142.0||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 9V|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||142.0|79.81|
91888452|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.06|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.51|0.1184
91888453|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.45|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-0.14|0.3031
91888454|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.14|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.44|0.3091
91888455|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.61|0.1525
91888456|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.07|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.62|0.1214
91888457|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.3811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3811
91888458|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.51|0.3851
91758492|NCT00488826|183410038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|134.3||||||90.0|80.83|197.1||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 14.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||197.1|80.83|
91758493|NCT00488826|183410038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|200.3||||||90.0|151.9|302.4||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 18C.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||302.4|151.9|
91758494|NCT00488826|183410038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|181.3||||||90.0|119.8|253.1||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 19F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||253.1|119.8|
91758495|NCT00488826|183410038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.02||||||90.0|57.93|150.5||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 23F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||150.5|57.93|
91758496|NCT00488826|183410039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|665.1||||||90.0|473.3|851.2||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 4.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||851.2|473.3|
91758497|NCT00488826|183410039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|22.2||||||90.0|13.99|31.77||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 6B.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||31.77|13.99|
91758498|NCT00488826|183410039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.7||||||90.0|56.41|103.6||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 9V.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||103.6|56.41|
91888459|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.63|0.1373
91888460|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.62|0.1360
91888461|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.08|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.62|0.1264
91888462|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.67|0.0567
91888463|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.41|0.7447
91888464|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.7727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.39|0.7727
91888465|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.44|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.28|0.6590
91888466|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.51|0.3951
91889157|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|57.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|62.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 15B||62.1|53.3|
91889158|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|57.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|62.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 22F||62.1|53.3|
91758499|NCT00488826|183410039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.48||||||90.0|61.09|147.5||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 14.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||147.5|61.09|
91910748|NCT00562354|183717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.0|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.00|0.63|
91910749|NCT00562354|183717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.91|0.48|
91910750|NCT00562354|183717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.85|0.50|
91910751|NCT00562354|183717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.97|0.52|
91910752|NCT00562354|183717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.9|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.90|0.48|
91758500|NCT00488826|183410039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|164.0||||||90.0|114.9|232.9||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 18C.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||232.9|114.9|
91888467|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.28|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.63|0.4576
91888468|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.7609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.37|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.51|0.7609
91888469|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.58|0.6220
91910753|NCT00562354|183717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.97|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.97|0.56|
91910754|NCT00562354|183717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.61|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.61|0.35|
91888470|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.47|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.47|-0.42|0.9081
91758501|NCT00488826|183410039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|81.45||||||90.0|57.98|119.1||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 19F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||119.1|57.98|
91758502|NCT00488826|183410039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|44.7||||||90.0|29.48|68.71||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 23F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||68.71|29.48|
91758503|NCT00422383|183410080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Difference|-0.01||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis stratified by region, prior biologic use, rheumatoid factor (RF) status, and treatment.|||0.10|-0.13|0.8156
91807174|NCT00256750|183490915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.2||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||2.9|-0.6|0.1876
91807175|NCT00256750|183490917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-1.3|10.1||||||Month 24||10.1|-1.3|
91807176|NCT00256750|183490917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.2|9.6||||||Month 24||9.6|-2.2|
91807177|NCT00256750|183490917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.9|9.8||||||Month 36||9.8|-2.9|
91807178|NCT00256750|183490917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.8|10.0||||||||10.0|-2.8|
91888471|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.65|0.1668
91807179|NCT00256750|183490918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.8||||||Month 12||12.8|-1.0|
91888472|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.05|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.69|0.0935
91888473|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.17|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.42|0.4038
91910755|NCT00562354|183717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.03|0.56|
91910756|NCT00562354|183717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.74|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.74|0.43|
91807180|NCT00256750|183490918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.9||||||Month 12||18.9|4.2|
91807181|NCT00256750|183490918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.1||||||Month 24||9.1|-5.5|
91807182|NCT00256750|183490918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|17.6||||||Month 24||17.6|1.9|
91807183|NCT00256750|183490918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.4||||||Month 36||8.4|-6.6|
91807184|NCT00256750|183490918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|16.4||||||Month 36||16.4|0.4|
91807185|NCT04659161|183490928|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-5.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||||Statistics are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model includes the treatment group (KarXT or placebo), visit, and the interaction between the treatment group and visit as fixed factors, and baseline PANSS total score, site, age, and gender as covariates. An unstructured covariance matrix is used to model the correlation among repeated measurements and the denominator degrees of freedom are computed using the Kenward-Roger method.|-5.2|-13.9|<0.0001
91807186|NCT04659161|183490929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
91807187|NCT04659161|183490930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.0055
91807188|NCT04659161|183490931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||0.0022
91888474|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.33|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.24|0.7559
91888475|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.2006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.59|0.2006
91888476|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.43|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.26|0.6334
91888477|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.32|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.60|0.5431
91888478|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.5278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.59|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.59|-0.30|0.5278
91888479|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.4312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.28|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.64|0.4312
91888480|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.64|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.64|-0.25|0.3947
91888481|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.6081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.36|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-0.61|0.6081
91888482|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.5|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.50|-0.44|0.8949
91888483|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.09|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.84|0.1120
91888484|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.76|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.76|-0.15|0.1842
91888485|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.81|0.2646
91807189|NCT04659161|183490932|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
91910757|NCT00562354|183717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.66|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.66|0.38|
91910758|NCT00562354|183717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.6|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.60|0.29|
91910759|NCT00562354|183717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.82|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.82|0.42|
91910760|NCT00784654|183717610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
91910761|NCT00784654|183717611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91910762|NCT00784654|183717612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||||-9.8|-15.4|<0.001
91910763|NCT00784654|183717615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91910764|NCT00784654|183717619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91910765|NCT00784654|183717620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.5|||ANCOVA|||||9.5|3.5|<0.001
91910766|NCT00784654|183717621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91910767|NCT00784654|183717622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-0.26|<0.001
91910768|NCT00784654|183717625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.726||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.726
91910769|NCT00802204|183717632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|describe.....||Baseline outcome measurements are compared between lean and obese. Baseline and post outcome measurements are compared for the obese who completed VLCD||||<0.05
91910770|NCT00802204|183717632|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare baseline and post-diet outcome measures||||<0.05
91910771|NCT02600507|183717652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-0.37|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.37|-4.42|0.021
91910772|NCT02600507|183717652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|0.32|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.32|-3.65|0.099
91910773|NCT02600507|183717653|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.09|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.09|-0.59|0.008
91910774|NCT02600507|183717653|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.01|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.01|-0.50|0.040
91910775|NCT05048719|183717654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-1.13|<0.001
91910776|NCT05048719|183717654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.12|-1.85|<0.001
91758504|NCT00422383|183410080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Difference|0.07||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status, and treatment.|||0.19|-0.05|0.2419
91910777|NCT05048719|183717654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.98|-1.75|<0.001
91910778|NCT05048719|183717654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.25|-1.96|<0.001
91910779|NCT05048719|183717654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.32|-2.02|<0.001
91910780|NCT05048719|183717655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.47|0.626
91758505|NCT00422383|183410083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status and treatment.|ANOVA|||||||0.7127
91807190|NCT04659161|183490933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
91910781|NCT05048719|183717655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.18|<0.001
91910782|NCT05048719|183717655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-1.08|<0.001
91910783|NCT05048719|183717655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.29|<0.001
91910784|NCT05048719|183717655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-1.36|<0.001
91910785|NCT05048719|183717656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|20.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.75|2.21|<0.001
91910786|NCT05048719|183717656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.92|117.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||117.16|9.92|<0.001
91910787|NCT05048719|183717656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|48.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|196.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||196.24|11.90|<0.001
91910788|NCT05048719|183717656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.61|153.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||153.64|13.61|<0.001
91910789|NCT05048719|183717656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.26|294.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||294.48|20.26|<0.001
91910790|NCT05048719|183717656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.13|0.48|0.678
91910791|NCT05048719|183717656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|17.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.24|2.19|<0.001
91910792|NCT05048719|183717656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|29.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.79|2.55|<0.001
91758506|NCT00422383|183410083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status and treatment.|ANOVA|||||||0.1018
91888486|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.8101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.44|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.56|0.8101
91888487|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.09|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-1.07|0.0215
91888488|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.24|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.72|0.3226
91888489|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.04|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.98|0.0339
91888490|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.9824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.47|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.47|-0.46|0.9824
91888491|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.08|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.93|0.0950
91888492|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.32|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.67|0.4865
91888493|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.9861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.58|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|-0.57|0.9861
91888494|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.54|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.54|-0.59|0.9266
91889159|NCT04546425|183671163|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|16.0|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 33F||16.0|4.5|
91889160|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1||0.69|0.54|
91889161|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.79|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3||0.79|0.64|
91758507|NCT00422383|183410084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5029|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status, and treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5029
91758508|NCT00422383|183410084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status, and treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0495
91758509|NCT00238238|183410122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
91758510|NCT00238238|183410123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
91758511|NCT01007838|183410124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||Statistical significance was accepted if p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Omnibus ANCOVA. An interaction would suggests patients responded to exercise differently than controls||||0.30
91758512|NCT01007838|183410124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0||||Statistical significance was accepted if p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Follow up ANOVA in chronic kideny disease patients only. An interaction would suggest patients allocated to the resistance exercise group increased muscle size more than those allocated to the sham exercise group.||||0.0017
91758513|NCT01007838|183410124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||Statistical sigficance was accepted if p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Follow up ANOVA in healthy controls only. An interaction would suggest healthy controls allocated to the resistance exercise group increased muscle size more than those allocated to the sham exercise group.||||0.024
91758514|NCT04978818|183410126|NON_INFERIORITY|The anti-PRP IgG GMC for children receiving dose 1 of Vaxelis® was defined a priori as non-inferior if it was within a 1.5-fold margin of the GMC for children receiving dose 1 of PedvaxHIB®, corresponding to the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the IgG GMC ratio (Vaxelis® to PedvaxHIB®) being greater than 0.67.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Concentration|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis||The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.67. Thus, Vaxelis® post-dose 1 anti-PRP IgG immunogenicity met the non-inferiority criterion compared to PedvaxHIB®.|||1.41|0.75|0.85
91758515|NCT04978818|183410127|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
91888495|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.04|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-1.17|0.0360
91888496|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.02|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-1.06|0.0583
91888497|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.02|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-1.03|0.0404
91888498|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.12|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.87|0.1352
91888499|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.58|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|0.10|0.0056
91888500|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.4|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.06|0.1537
91888501|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.58|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|0.07|0.0142
91888502|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.56|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.56|0.06|0.0159
91888503|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.2255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.42|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.10|0.2255
91910793|NCT05048719|183717656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|22.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.30|3.05|<0.001
91888504|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.46|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.05|0.1069
91888505|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.39|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.19|0.4932
91888506|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.12|0.2634
91888507|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.9284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.28|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.25|0.9284
91888508|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.9459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.26|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.25|0.9459
91888509|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.46|0.2908
91888510|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.6834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.35|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.23|0.6834
91888511|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.15|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.41|0.3579
91888512|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.30|0.8270
91888513|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.18|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.34|0.5292
91910794|NCT05048719|183717656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|43.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.01|4.51|<0.001
91758516|NCT04978818|183410128|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
91888514|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.23|0.8790
91910795|NCT05048719|183717657|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|22.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.90|2.93|<0.001
91758517|NCT04978818|183410129|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
91758518|NCT04978818|183410130|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
91758519|NCT04978818|183410131|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91758520|NCT04978818|183410132|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91807191|NCT02197130|183490942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|3.49|||MMRM|MMRM: A linear mixed-effect repeated measures model||||3.49|-0.45|0.2033
91910796|NCT05048719|183717657|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.57|82.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||82.69|7.57|<0.001
91910797|NCT05048719|183717657|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|62.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.26|316.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||316.63|12.26|<0.001
91910798|NCT05048719|183717657|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.56|259.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||259.97|17.56|<0.001
91910799|NCT05048719|183717657|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|129.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.72|628.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||628.09|26.72|<0.001
91910800|NCT05048719|183717657|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.96|0.43|0.802
91758521|NCT01345669|183410138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.126||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.569|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs. Placebo) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|DFS was analysed using a stratified log-rank test with nodal status (N0- N2a vs. N2b-N3) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1) being the stratification factors.||1.569|0.809|0.4806
91888515|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.06|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.46|0.1347
91888516|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.40|0.2874
91888517|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.09|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.61|0.0086
91888518|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.29|0.7864
91888519|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.21|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.48|0.4383
91888520|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.8767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.31|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.36|0.8767
91807192|NCT02197130|183490942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.118||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|1.5|||MMRM|||||1.50|-2.20|0.7549
91910801|NCT05048719|183717657|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|10.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.31|1.16|0.026
91910802|NCT05048719|183717657|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|40.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.51|1.83|0.006
91910803|NCT05048719|183717657|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|32.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.71|2.67|<0.001
91910804|NCT05048719|183717657|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.02|79.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||79.70|4.02|<0.001
91910805|NCT05048719|183717658|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.3|-32.7|<0.001
91910806|NCT05048719|183717658|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-31.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.7|-53.4|<0.001
91910807|NCT05048719|183717658|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-29.3|-52.7|<0.001
91910808|NCT05048719|183717658|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|-32.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.0|-53.5|<0.001
91910809|NCT05048719|183717658|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.2|-55.3|<0.001
91910810|NCT05048719|183717658|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.8|-10.6|<0.001
91910811|NCT05048719|183717658|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.5|-31.4|<0.001
91910812|NCT05048719|183717658|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.2|-30.7|0.002
91910813|NCT05048719|183717658|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.9|-31.4|<0.001
91910814|NCT05048719|183717658|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.1|-33.2|<0.001
91910815|NCT05048719|183717659|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-3.7|0.153
91910816|NCT05048719|183717659|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.2|-6.4|<0.001
91758522|NCT01345669|183410139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates|-6.27||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.04|2.5|||Log Rank||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates of Afatinib vs. Placebo is provided.|Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were calculated for each treatment group, separately, and the estimates of DFS probabilities from the curves and 95% Confidence interval (CI) (using the Greenwood standard error estimate) were tabulated||2.50|-15.04|0.1610
91758523|NCT01345669|183410140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.444||||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|2.332||p-value (two-sided) from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||2.332|0.895|0.1301
91888521|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.03|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.63|0.0341
91888522|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.5629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.21|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.38|0.5629
91888523|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.16|-0.67|0.0016
91888524|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.50|0.0495
91888525|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.25|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.36|0.7177
91888526|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.9401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.31|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.29|0.9401
91888527|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.15|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.44|0.3201
91888528|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.8286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.32|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.25|0.8286
91910817|NCT05048719|183717659|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-9.8|<0.001
91910818|NCT05048719|183717659|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-9.4|<0.001
91910819|NCT05048719|183717659|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.9|-9.9|<0.001
91910820|NCT05048719|183717659|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-2.0|0.914
91910821|NCT05048719|183717659|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-4.7|0.015
91758524|NCT01345669|183410141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.431||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|2.068|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and p-value from logistic regression analysis of 'improved vs. not improved' stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3) for Swallowing (Q5-Q8 from QLQ-HN35).||2.068|0.991|0.0561
91910822|NCT05048719|183717659|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-8.1|<0.001
91910823|NCT05048719|183717659|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-7.8|<0.001
91910824|NCT05048719|183717659|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.2|-8.3|<0.001
91758525|NCT01345669|183410141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.446||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|2.098|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and p-value from logistic regression analysis of 'improved vs. not improved' stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3) for Pain HN35 (Q1-Q4 from QLQ-HN35).||2.098|0.996|0.0523
91758526|NCT01345669|183410141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.818||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.158|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and p-value from logistic regression analysis of 'improved vs. not improved' stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3) for Global health status/QoL(Q29-Q30 from QLQ-C30).||1.158|0.577|0.2570
91758527|NCT01345669|183410142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.7||P-value from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||For swallowing scale; Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||1.700|0.986|0.0591
91807193|NCT02197130|183490954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.39|||MMRM|||Week 13||2.39|0.69|0.0030
91888529|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.15|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.49|0.3022
91888530|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.27|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.35|0.8022
91888531|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.5665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.23|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.42|0.5665
91888532|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.36|0.8170
91888533|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.63|0.0404
91888534|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.45|0.3128
91889162|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4||0.69|0.52|
91889163|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.7|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5||0.70|0.52|
91889164|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.65|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A||0.65|0.45|
91889165|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.61|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B||0.61|0.43|
91889166|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.8|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F||0.80|0.64|
91889167|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V||0.69|0.50|
91888535|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.51|0.2400
91888536|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.2|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.42|0.4840
91888537|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.7768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.32|0.7768
91888538|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.31|0.7713
91888539|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.02|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.58|0.0716
91888540|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.18|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.41|0.4317
91888541|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.2115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.12|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.52|0.2115
91888542|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.2818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.14|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.48|0.2818
91888543|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.1|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.46|0.2018
91888544|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.33|0.6554
91888545|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.46|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.21|0.4754
91888546|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.37|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.28|0.7776
91910825|NCT02025426|183717677|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.547
91910826|NCT02025426|183717679|OTHER|||||||0.925|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.925
91910827|NCT02025426|183717680|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.498
91910828|NCT02025426|183717681|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.201
91910829|NCT02025426|183717682|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91888547|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.35|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.50|0.7172
91888548|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.26|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.55|0.4791
91888549|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.17|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.48|0.3562
91888550|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.34|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.30|0.8859
91888551|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.28|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.49|0.5888
91888552|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.3992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3992
91758528|NCT01345669|183410142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.456||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|1.905||P-value from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||For pain HN35 scale; Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||1.905|1.113|0.0049
91758529|NCT01345669|183410142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.604||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.238|2.079||P-value from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||For global health status/QoL scale; Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||2.079|1.238|0.0002
91758530|NCT01345669|183410143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom calculated using the Kenward-Roger method.|Afatinib minus Placebo mean adjusted for total with data for baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Scores (swallowing scale) over time were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score and nodal status.||3.45|-0.81|0.2232
91758531|NCT01345669|183410143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom calculated using the Kenward-Roger method.|Afatinib minus Placebo mean adjusted for total with data for baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Scores (pain scale) over time were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score and nodal status.||5.36|1.12|0.0028
91758532|NCT01345669|183410143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom calculated using the Kenward-Roger method.|Afatinib minus Placebo mean adjusted for total with data for baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Scores (global health/QoL) over time were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score and nodal status.||-1.49|-5.33|0.0005
91888553|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.80|0.1212
91889168|NCT04546425|183671164|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14||0.96|0.70|
91758533|NCT01793883|183410159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.251
91758534|NCT01793883|183410159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.818
91758535|NCT03738618|183410175|OTHER||Treatment difference|43.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|47.6|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|||47.6|36.5|<0.001
91758536|NCT03738618|183410176|OTHER||Treatment difference|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|25.7|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Ongoing Pregnancy Rate in the Fresh Cycle||25.7|14.9|<0.001
91888554|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.22|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.66|0.3185
91888555|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.62|0.4809
91888556|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.8953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.48|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.48|-0.42|0.8953
91888557|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.31|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.57|0.5616
91888558|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.8571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.47|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.47|-0.39|0.8571
91888559|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.21|-1.05|0.0037
91888560|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.02|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.84|0.0386
91910830|NCT02025426|183717683|OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.962
91758537|NCT03738618|183410180|OTHER||Treatment difference|26.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|30.8|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||30.8|19.8|<0.001
91758538|NCT03738618|183410180|OTHER||Treatment difference|52.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|56.3|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate cumulatively||56.3|44.9|<0.001
91758539|NCT03738618|183410181|OTHER||Treatment difference|23.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|27.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||27.2|16.7|<0.001
91758540|NCT03738618|183410181|OTHER||Treatment difference|45.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|49.9|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate cumulatively||49.9|38.5|<0.001
91888561|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.20|-1.05|0.0044
91910831|NCT02025426|183717684|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91910832|NCT01008280|183717732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time effects for the number of drinking days.||||<0.01
91758541|NCT03738618|183410183|OTHER||Treatment difference|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|36.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate in the fresh cycle||36.2|24.9|<0.001
91758542|NCT03738618|183410183|OTHER||Treatment difference|58.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|63.0|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate cumulatively||63.0|51.9|<0.001
91758543|NCT03738618|183410195|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91758544|NCT03738618|183410196|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91758545|NCT03738618|183410197|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.190
91758546|NCT03738618|183410198|OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.396
91910833|NCT01008280|183717732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group effects for the number of drinking days.||||>0.01
91910834|NCT01008280|183717732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time by group effects for the number of drinking days.||||>0.01
91910835|NCT01008280|183717733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time effects for the number of drinks.||||<0.01
91910836|NCT01008280|183717733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group effects for the number of drinks.||||>0.01
91910837|NCT01008280|183717733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group by time effects for the number of drinks.||||>0.01
91910838|NCT01008280|183717734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time effects for the number of heavy drinking days.||||<0.01
91910839|NCT01008280|183717734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group effects for the number of heavy drinking days.||||>0.01
91910840|NCT01008280|183717734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group by time effects for the number of heavy drinking days.||||>0.01
91910841|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|849.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|786.0|921.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||921|786|<0.0001
91910842|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1879.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1636.0|2112.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, nonAEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||2112|1636|<0.0001
91910843|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5681.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5257.0|6077.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||6077|5257|<0.0001
91758547|NCT01959139|183410307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.34|||Regression, Cox|||||3.34|1.28|<0.01
91910844|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|273.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|251.0|295.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||295|251|<0.0001
91910845|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1021.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|819.0|1211.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||1211|819|<0.0001
91758548|NCT01959139|183410308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.66|||Regression, Cox|||||2.66|1.14|0.01
91758549|NCT02255461|183410335|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression model was built for outcome neutropenia (0/1/2). Explanatory variable AUC was transformed by dividing by 100.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||||||||1.15|0.97|
91758550|NCT02255461|183410336|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression model was built for outcome lymphopenia (0/1/2). Explanatory variable AUC was transformed by dividing by 100.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||||||||1.15|0.97|
91758551|NCT02255461|183410337|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression model was built for outcome leukopenia (0/1/2). Explanatory variable AUC was transformed by dividing by 100.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.2||||||||1.20|1.01|
91758552|NCT01963845|183410347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
91758553|NCT01963845|183410348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7583|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in AST values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.7583
91758554|NCT01963845|183410349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8569|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in ALT values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.8569
91910846|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|72.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||72|48|<0.0001
91910847|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2555.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|834.0|4281.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||4281|834|0.0080
91910848|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4041.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3776.0|4305.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||4305|3776|<0.0001
91910849|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|105.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|114.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||114|97|<0.0001
91910850|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|384.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|358.0|413.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||413|358|<0.0001
91910851|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|56.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Neurologist Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||56|40|<0.0001
91910852|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|892.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|584.0|1192.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Epilepsy-Related Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||1192|584|<0.0001
91910853|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|12258.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10482.0|14083.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||14083|10482|<0.0001
91910854|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|322.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|245.0|398.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||398|245|<0.0001
91910855|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|841.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|556.0|1078.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, non-AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1078|556|<0.0001
91910856|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3248.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2790.0|3714.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||3714|2790|<0.0001
91910857|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|164.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.0|190.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||190|138|<0.0001
91758555|NCT01963845|183410350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7984|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in LDL values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.7984
91910858|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|628.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|409.0|819.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||819|409|<0.0001
91910859|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|42.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||42|18|<0.0001
91910860|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|235.0||||0.7628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1367.0|1798.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1798|-1367|0.7628
91758556|NCT01963845|183410351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in HOMA-IR values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.5560
91759940|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|1.32||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.32|-13.50|
91888562|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.46|0.8308
91888563|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.02|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.87|0.0388
91888564|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.12|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.71|0.1622
91888565|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.09|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.89|0.0179
91888566|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.4283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.55|0.4283
91888567|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.15|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.72|0.1899
91888568|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.37|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.48|0.8022
91888569|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.62|0.3780
91888570|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.36|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-0.47|0.8110
91888571|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.8908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.5|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.50|-0.58|0.8908
91888572|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.76|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.76|-0.28|0.3596
91759941|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|-5.65||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.65|-20.46|
91759942|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|-7.93||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-7.93|-22.69|
91910861|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2306.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2016.0|2603.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||2603|2016|<0.0001
91910862|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|74.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||74|52|<0.0001
91910863|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|211.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|179.0|245.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||245|179|<0.0001
91910864|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|33.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Neurologist Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||33|15|<0.0001
91910865|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|277.0||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|581.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Epilepsy-Related Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||581|-19|0.0581
91910866|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5437.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3672.0|7142.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||7142|3672|<0.0001
91910867|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1019.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|836.0|1191.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1191|836|<0.0001
91910868|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1047.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|564.0|1486.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, Non-AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1486|564|<0.0001
91910869|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|9128.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7346.0|11125.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||11125|7346|<0.0001
91910870|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|459.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|326.0|622.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||622|326|<0.0001
91910871|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2427.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1587.0|3290.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||3290|1587|<0.0001
91758557|NCT01357551|183410352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.13||A priori threshold was p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Parameters included common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, dummy-coded time, and indicators for the maintenance X each follow-up time point||The sample size estimate was based on the primary hypothesis that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have less mean weight regain at week 56 than those randomized to usual care. The week 0 standard deviation was estimated as 24.6kg, the correlation between week 0 and week 56 as 0.95, and the week 56 dropout rate as 10%. To detect a difference of 3.5 kg with 90% power and a type I error rate of 5%, 230 total (115 in each group) randomized patients were needed.||3.13|.07|.04
91758558|NCT01357551|183410353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-125.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.64||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-280.71|29.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, indicators for week 26 \& 56, group X time interaction||The hypothesis was that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have less caloric intake at week 56 than those randomized to usual care.||29.72|-280.71|.11
91807194|NCT02197130|183490954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|1.17|||MMRM|||Week 13||1.17|-0.45|0.4656
91910872|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|357.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|225.0|525.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologists Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||525|225|<0.0001
91910873|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|502.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|234.0|768.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||768|234|<0.0001
91910874|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6483.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5329.0|7927.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||7927|5329|<0.0001
91910875|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|150.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.0|199.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||199|112|<0.0001
91910876|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|516.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|401.0|645.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||645|401|<0.0001
91910877|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|158.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|231.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Neurologist Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||231|97|<0.0001
91910878|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|113.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Epilepsy-Related Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||113|58|<0.0001
91910879|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14582.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12019.0|17097.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||17097|12019|<0.0001
91910880|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|420.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|210.0|630.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||630|210|<0.0001
91910881|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|658.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|217.0|1131.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, Non-AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1131|217|<0.0001
91758559|NCT01357551|183410354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate ratio|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, indicators for week 26 \& 56, group X time interaction; negative binomial distribution with log link||The hypothesis was that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have higher rates of walking per week at week 56 than those randomized to usual care.||1.68|0.63|.91
91759943|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.66|-5.96||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.96|-20.66|
91888573|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.49|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.49|-0.67|0.7617
91888574|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.5498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.39|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.73|0.5498
91888575|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.76|0.2066
91888576|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.18|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.73|0.2321
91888577|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.27|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.49|0.5582
91888578|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.56|0.2945
91910882|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6040.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3442.0|8795.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||8795|3442|<0.0001
91910883|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|268.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|425.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||425|81|0.0020
91910884|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-991.0|944.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||944|-991|0.9670
91910885|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.0||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|302.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||302|-77|0.2563
91910886|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|328.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|588.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||588|90|0.0100
91910887|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4984.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3168.0|7335.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||7335|3168|<0.0001
91910888|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|112.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|166.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||166|70|<0.0001
91910889|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|236.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|403.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||403|70|0.01
91910890|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.0||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|145.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||145|-22|0.1061
91910891|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|93.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||93|28|<0.0001
91758560|NCT01357551|183410355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate ratio|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, indicators for week 26 \& 56, group X time interaction; negative binomial distribution with log link||The hypothesis was that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have higher rates of moderate physical activity per week at week 56 than those randomized to usual care.||2.03|0.57|.83
91910892|NCT01390909|183717739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7673.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4571.0|10989.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||10989|4571|<0.0001
91910893|NCT02354703|183717740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||a priori significance P\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|adjusted for baseline value||||||0.94
91910894|NCT02354703|183717741|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||a priori significance is P\<0.05|Chi-squared|adjusted for baseline value||||||1.00
91910895|NCT02354703|183717742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||a priori threshold is P\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|adjusted for baseline value||||||0.73
91910896|NCT00122135|183717752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.77
91758561|NCT06292130|183410360|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91910897|NCT03269344|183717753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
91910898|NCT03269344|183717754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91910899|NCT03269344|183717755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91910900|NCT03269344|183717756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91910901|NCT03269344|183717757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
91910902|NCT03269344|183717758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91910903|NCT04681170|183717776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.859|-45.9612|||t-test, 1 sided|||This was a single-arm study, no comparative group can be assigned; the comparison made for the primary efficacy endpoint is done only between baseline and Week 24 in paediatric subjects (5 to ≤17 years of age). Analysis was made using the one-sample t-test to test the null hypothesis that the percentage change from Baseline was equal to zero against the alternative hypothesis that the percentage change from Baseline was not equal to zero.||-45.9612|-61.8590|<0.0001
91758562|NCT06292130|183410361|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91758563|NCT00118742|183410367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.9||||0.0012||95.0|14.8|35.0|||ANCOVA|||||35.0|14.8|0.0012
91758564|NCT00118742|183410368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.7|35.6|||ANCOVA|||||35.6|15.7|<0.0001
91758565|NCT00118742|183410369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.7||||0.0053||95.0|13.7|43.7|||ANCOVA|||||43.7|13.7|0.0053
91758566|NCT00118742|183410370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|12.5|29.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for calculated creatinine clearance at 6 months posttransplant||29.6|12.5|<0.0001
91758567|NCT00118742|183410370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|9.9|26.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for calculated creatinine clearance at 12 months posttransplant||26.6|9.9|<0.0001
91910904|NCT01394081|183717798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<.0001
91910905|NCT01394081|183717799|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|log rank Mantel Cox χ2 = 25.4||||||<.0001
91910906|NCT02118792|183717816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91910907|NCT05215600|183717899|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 1 and 2 years|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Test (Pooled)||||||<0.001
91910908|NCT05215600|183717900|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 1 and 2 years|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Test (Pooled)||||||<0.001
91910909|NCT04868903|183717965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Prespecified primary analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the effect of pooled moderate or high versus low dose||Pooled moderate or high versus low dose|Prespecified covariates were male sex, non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity, \>30 minutes sun exposure daily, moderate or severe insomnia, COVID-19 exposure outside work, employment, randomization date, and study site. Most covariates were binary after combining infrequent, ordinal variables. Baseline 25(OH)D level, age, and randomization date were continuous. An indicator was added for randomization after February 28, 2021 because only participants randomized after then could be active in the study when infection risk increased after Omicron arrived in Chicago about December 1, 2021. Due to differences in enrollment timing by study branch and site could affect baseline COVID-19 risk, we stratified Cox regression by study branch and site. This model satisfied proportional hazards.|1.06|0.51|0.10
91758568|NCT00118742|183410370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.6||||0.0006||95.0|10.2|37.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for calculated creatinine clearance at 24 months posttransplant||37.0|10.2|0.0006
91758569|NCT00183625|183410408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.66
91910910|NCT04868903|183717965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Secondary analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose||Moderate versus low dose|Covariates were male sex, non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity, \>30 minutes sun exposure daily, moderate or severe insomnia, COVID-19 exposure outside work, employment, randomization date, and study site. Most covariates were binary after combining infrequent, ordinal variables. Baseline 25(OH)D level, age, and randomization date were continuous. An indicator was added for randomization after February 28, 2021 because only participants randomized after then could be active in the study when infection risk increased after Omicron arrived in Chicago about December 1, 2021. Due to differences in enrollment timing by study branch and site could affect baseline COVID-19 risk, we stratified Cox regression by study branch and site. This model satisfied proportional hazards.|0.98|0.39|0.042
91910911|NCT04868903|183717965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.86|||Regression, Cox|Secondary analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose||High versus low dose|Covariates were male sex, non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity, \>30 minutes sun exposure daily, moderate or severe insomnia, COVID-19 exposure outside work, employment, randomization date, and study site. Most covariates were binary after combining infrequent, ordinal variables. Baseline 25(OH)D level, age, and randomization date were continuous. An indicator was added for randomization after February 28, 2021 because only participants randomized after then could be active in the study when infection risk increased after Omicron arrived in Chicago about December 1, 2021. Due to differences in enrollment timing by study branch and site could affect baseline COVID-19 risk, we stratified Cox regression by study branch and site. This model satisfied proportional hazards.|1.86|0.53|0.99
91910912|NCT04868903|183717965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||Multivariable logistic regression with the prespecified covariates and study branch to examine the effect of pooled moderate or high versus low dose|Secondary analysis, pooled moderate versus low dose||1.43|0.27|0.26
91910913|NCT04868903|183717965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||Multivariable logistic regression with the prespecified covariates and study branch to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose|Secondary analysis, moderate versus low dose||1.04|0.13|0.06
91910914|NCT04868903|183717965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.71|||Regression, Logistic||Multivariable logistic regression with the prespecified covariates and study branch to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose|Secondary analysis, high versus low dose||6.71|0.41|0.47
91910915|NCT03975647|183717970|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.95|||Log Rank||HR was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model. (line of treatment for metastatic: first versus \[vs\] other; hormone receptor status: negative vs positive; presence or history of brain metastases: yes vs no; ECOG status: 0,1 at randomization.|||0.950|0.607|0.0163
91910916|NCT03975647|183717972|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.639||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|0.891|||Log Rank||HR was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model. (line of treatment for metastatic: first versus \[vs\] other; hormone receptor status: negative vs positive; presence or history of brain metastases: yes vs no; ECOG status: 0,1 at randomization.|||0.891|0.459|0.0078
91910917|NCT03975647|183717973|OTHER|||||||0.2055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2055
91758570|NCT00183625|183410409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||The p-value listed is for the medication by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression of body mass index on medication group (risp or olanz), time (in days over first 18 months of study) and a group by time interaction with site and baseline timepoint indicators as covariates. The model included a random slope and intercept for time.||||.0176
91758571|NCT02524158|183410411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.340
91758572|NCT02524158|183410412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91758573|NCT02524158|183410413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91758574|NCT02524158|183410414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91910918|NCT03735667|183717983|NON_INFERIORITY|A Bayesian analysis based on 10,000 samples from the posterior distribution, using a piecewise exponential survival model. The criteria for non-inferiority is met if the posterior probability of non-inferiority is greater than the non-inferiority test threshold.|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis was used to test the non-inferiority hypothesis for the primary endpoint using a non-inferiority margin of 8%. The pre-specified success criteria (the non-inferiority test threshold) was a posterior probability of non-inferiority greater than 97.5%. The observed posterior probability of non-inferiority was 77.9%. The posterior median percentage difference in the rate of the primary outcome was 6.63% (95% Bayesian credible interval: 3.04% to 10.20%).|||
91910919|NCT03092726|183718012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (LSM) Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.5||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Differences of least squares (LS) means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a mixed-effect, repeated measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline to each week from weeks 1 to 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 1 to 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||0.50|-0.38|0.590
91910920|NCT03092726|183718016|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentages|-6.6||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.7|5.7||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||5.7|-18.7|0.874
91910921|NCT03092726|183718016|SUPERIORITY||Differences of percentages|-5.6||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|6.7||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||EOT: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||6.7|-17.7|0.838
91910922|NCT03092726|183718017|SUPERIORITY||Differences of percentages|2.2||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|14.4||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||14.4|-10.0|0.412
91910923|NCT03092726|183718017|SUPERIORITY||Differences of percentages|4.3||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|16.4||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||EOT: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||16.4|-7.9|0.269
91910924|NCT03092726|183718018|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|2.68||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 2: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||2.68|-4.05|0.369
91910925|NCT03092726|183718018|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|3.24||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 4: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||3.24|-4.51|0.393
91910926|NCT03092726|183718018|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|5.3|||MMRM|||Week 8: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||5.30|-3.57|0.626
91910927|NCT03092726|183718018|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.16|5.34||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||EOT: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using an ANCOVA model that was performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response, treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.34|-3.16|0.664
91910928|NCT03092726|183718019|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|3.22||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 2: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||3.22|-2.90|0.534
91758575|NCT02524158|183410415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.044
91758576|NCT02524158|183410416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91758577|NCT02524158|183410417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.010
91758578|NCT02524158|183410418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.66
91758579|NCT02524158|183410419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.10
91910929|NCT03092726|183718019|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|4.91||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 4: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||4.91|-1.98|0.758
91910930|NCT03092726|183718019|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|5.96||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 8: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||5.96|-2.56|0.745
91910931|NCT03092726|183718019|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|5.69||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||EOT: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using an ANCOVA model that was performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response, treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.69|-2.34|0.755
91910932|NCT03092726|183718020|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.629|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|1.17||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 2: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||1.17|-0.78|0.629
91910933|NCT03092726|183718020|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.41|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|1.04||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 4: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||1.04|-1.37|0.410
91910934|NCT03092726|183718020|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.22||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 8: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||1.22|-1.11|0.531
91910935|NCT03092726|183718020|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|1.28||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||EOT: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using an ANCOVA model that was performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response, treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.28|-0.93|0.603
91910936|NCT03092726|183718021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.67||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||Week 2: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.67|0.68|0.811
91910937|NCT03092726|183718021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.22||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||Week 4: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.22|0.50|0.368
91910938|NCT03092726|183718021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.21||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||Week 8: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.21|0.50|0.357
91910939|NCT03092726|183718021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.24||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||EOT: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.24|0.52|0.407
91910940|NCT00428974|183718029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||12 weeks, 2mg CF101 vs. Placebo||||0.031
91910941|NCT00428974|183718030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91758580|NCT02524158|183410420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.202
91758581|NCT02524158|183410421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.369
91807195|NCT02197130|183490954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.02|||MMRM|||Week 26||2.02|0.39|0.0149
91807196|NCT02197130|183490954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.86|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.86|-0.66|0.8233
91807197|NCT02197130|183490956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.6|||MMRM|||Week 13||0.60|0.11|0.0181
91807198|NCT02197130|183490956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.28|||MMRM|||Week 13||0.28|-0.18|0.7133
91807199|NCT02197130|183490956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.39|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.39|-0.15|0.4657
91807200|NCT02197130|183490956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.28|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.28|-0.22|0.8339
91807201|NCT02615145|183490963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1110
91807202|NCT02615145|183490963|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.64||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|4.56||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.56|-1.28|0.2704
91807203|NCT02615145|183490963|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.09||||0.9516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|2.98||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.98|-3.17|0.9516
91807204|NCT02615145|183490963|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.73||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.01||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.01|-3.46|0.0489
91758582|NCT02524158|183410422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.50
91758583|NCT02524158|183410423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.067
91758584|NCT02524158|183410425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.071
91758585|NCT02524158|183410426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.92
91758586|NCT02524158|183410427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.036
91758587|NCT02524158|183410428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.071
91758588|NCT01835158|183410429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95|||Log Rank|||||.95|.46|0.012
91758589|NCT01835158|183410430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.26||||||||1.26|0.50|
91758590|NCT00596830|183410432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.179||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.404||The p-value stated is the 2-sided p-value from the log rank test stratified by gender, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, and histology.|Log Rank|||||1.404|0.990|0.064
91758591|NCT00596830|183410433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.103||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.315||2-sided p-value is from the unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||HR was based on the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.315|0.925|0.270
91758592|NCT00596830|183410434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk difference|-1.472||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.6|||Chi-squared||Risk difference confidence interval was calculated based on a normal distribution.|||5.6|-8.6|0.685
91758593|NCT00939562|183410450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|102.95||||||90.0|94.74|111.86|||||The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were exponentiated to provide the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Doxycycline carragenate=Reference, doxycycline monohydrate=Test.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model (sequence, period and treatment were fixed effects and subject within sequence was a random effect).||111.86|94.74|
91758594|NCT00939562|183410451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|104.67||||||90.0|98.95|110.73|||||The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs were exponentiated to provide the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Doxycycline carragenate=Reference, doxycycline monohydrate=Test.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model (sequence, period and treatment were fixed effects and subject within sequence was a random effect).||110.73|98.95|
91758595|NCT00098306|183410507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1571|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.141|-0.435||||||The difference between the treatment least square means (LS means) adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.435|-1.141|
91758596|NCT00098306|183410507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1568|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.275|-0.57||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.570|-1.275|
91758597|NCT00098306|183410508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (less than \[\<\] 100,000 or greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio greater than (\>) 1 favors maraviroc.||4.67|1.78|<0.0001
91758598|NCT00098306|183410508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.95|2.26|<0.0001
91758599|NCT00098306|183410508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|6.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.64|2.36|<0.0001
91758600|NCT00098306|183410508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|8.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.59|3.04|<0.0001
91910942|NCT04418765|183718050|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.5||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 1 of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20, 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction. A testing strategy was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.||-2.5|-3.9|<0.0001
91910943|NCT04418765|183718050|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 3 of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM with month (Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 13-16, Weeks 17-20, Weeks 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||-2.0|-3.4|<0.0001
91910944|NCT04418765|183718051|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|10.01||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 2 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||10.01|4.41|<0.0001
91910945|NCT04418765|183718051|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|7.47||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 4 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||7.47|3.29|<0.0001
91910946|NCT04418765|183718052|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-3.0||Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5a of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.||"Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM with month (Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 13-16, Weeks 17-20, Weeks 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||-3.0|-4.5|<0.0001
91758601|NCT00098306|183410509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.13|1.63|<0.0001
91758602|NCT00098306|183410509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|4.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.54|1.79|<0.0001
91888579|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.18|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.64|0.2684
91888580|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.9396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.39|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.42|0.9396
91888581|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.05|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.05|-0.82|0.0283
91888582|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.12|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.63|0.1794
91888583|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.07|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.68|0.1091
91888584|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.31|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.41|0.7921
91888585|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.14|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-0.80|0.0055
91888586|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.03|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.67|0.0300
91888587|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.11|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.11|-0.84|0.0118
91888588|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.14|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.57|0.2266
91888589|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.20|-0.92|0.0025
91807205|NCT02615145|183490963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9785||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.9785
91910947|NCT04418765|183718052|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.2||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6a of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.||"Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM with month (Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 13-16, Weeks 17-20, Weeks 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||-2.2|-3.8|<0.0001
91910948|NCT04418765|183718053|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.22|30.15||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5b of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||30.15|5.22|<0.0001
91910949|NCT04418765|183718053|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|24.35||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6b of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||24.35|4.16|<0.0001
91910950|NCT04418765|183718054|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.2||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5c of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Analysis was performed using MMRM with the following fixed effects: visit, country, stratification factor (MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline HIT-6 Total Score as a continuous covariate, baseline score-by-visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratum-by-visit interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||-4.2|-6.7|<0.0001
91910951|NCT04418765|183718054|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.5||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6c of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Analysis was performed using MMRM with the following fixed effects: visit, country, stratification factor (MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline HIT-6 Total Score as a continuous covariate, baseline score-by-visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratum-by-visit interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||-2.5|-5.0|<0.0001
91910952|NCT01926782|183718096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-52.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-59.8|-45.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 24||-45.0|-59.8|<0.0001
91910953|NCT01926782|183718096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-62.3|-48.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 21-24||-48.1|-62.3|<0.0001
91910954|NCT01926782|183718097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-58.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-65.0|-52.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 24||-52.4|-65.0|<0.0001
91888590|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.69|0.0555
91888591|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.23|-0.93|0.0013
91888592|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.03|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.64|0.0775
91888593|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.3|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.30|-1.05|0.0006
91888594|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.75|0.0415
91888595|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.75|0.0581
91888596|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.3|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.45|0.6826
91888597|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.06|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.83|0.0912
91888598|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.3988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.25|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.62|0.3988
91758603|NCT00098306|183410509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.67|1.83|<0.0001
91758604|NCT00098306|183410509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.32|2.08|<0.0001
91758605|NCT00098306|183410510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.88|1.92|<0.0001
91758606|NCT00098306|183410510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|5.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.68|2.22|<0.0001
91910955|NCT01926782|183718097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-65.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.4|-59.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 21-24||-59.5|-70.4|< 0.0001
91910956|NCT01926782|183718098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.6|-53.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||-53.4|-64.6|<0.0001
91910957|NCT01926782|183718099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-67.7|-56.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-56.2|-67.7|<0.0001
91910958|NCT01926782|183718100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.5|-53.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.0|-64.5|<0.0001
91910959|NCT01926782|183718101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-62.3|-50.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-50.3|-62.3|<0.0001
91910960|NCT01926782|183718102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-65.0|-54.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-54.1|-65.0|<0.0001
91910961|NCT01926782|183718103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.8|-54.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-54.0|-64.8|<0.0001
91910962|NCT01926782|183718104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-45.8|-33.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.1|-45.8|<0.0001
91910963|NCT01926782|183718105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-53.2|-43.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.2|-53.2|<0.0001
91910964|NCT01926782|183718106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.9|-39.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.1|-49.9|<0.0001
91758607|NCT00098306|183410510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.31|2.05|<0.0001
91758608|NCT00098306|183410510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.51|2.50|<0.0001
91807206|NCT02615145|183490963|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.13||||0.9379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|3.11||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.11|-3.37|0.9379
91807207|NCT02615145|183490963|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.07||||0.9678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|3.47||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.47|-3.33|0.9678
91910965|NCT01926782|183718107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-55.0|-45.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-45.6|-55.0|<0.0001
91910966|NCT01926782|183718108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.9|-36.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.2|-49.9|<0.0001
91910967|NCT01926782|183718109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-55.3|-44.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.8|-55.3|<0.0001
91910968|NCT01926782|183718110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-54.8|-43.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.3|-54.8|<0.0001
91910969|NCT01926782|183718111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-57.6|-47.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.9|-57.6|<0.0001
91910970|NCT01926782|183718112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-36.6|-26.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-26.3|-36.6|<0.0001
91910971|NCT01926782|183718113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.9|-31.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-31.1|-38.9|<0.0001
91758609|NCT00098306|183410511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.04|1.46|0.0006
91888599|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.0|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.91|0.0504
91888600|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.6019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.32|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.55|0.6019
91888601|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.17|-1.05|0.0070
91888602|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.62|0.3785
91888603|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.9609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.32|0.9609
91888604|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.29|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.32|0.9183
91888605|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.02|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.57|0.0710
91888606|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.45|0.2607
91910972|NCT01926782|183718114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.0|-39.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.2|-49.0|<0.0001
91758610|NCT00098306|183410511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.23|1.90|<0.0001
91807208|NCT02615145|183490963|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.2||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.1||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.10|-1.70|0.8373
91888607|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.13|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.50|0.2466
91910973|NCT01926782|183718115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.7|-39.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.9|-49.7|<0.0001
91758611|NCT00098306|183410511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.25|2.32|<0.0001
91758612|NCT00098306|183410511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|8.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.77|2.82|<0.0001
91758613|NCT00098306|183410513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|54.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.435|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.07|78.92||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||78.92|30.07|
91758614|NCT00098306|183410513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|58.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.378|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.63|83.26||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||83.26|34.63|
91758615|NCT00098306|183410513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|58.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.677|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.66|83.46||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||83.46|33.66|
91888608|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.45|0.3461
91888609|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.60|0.0919
91888610|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.36|0.7554
91888611|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.74|0.0150
91888612|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.0|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.64|0.0482
91888613|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.28|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.28|-0.93|0.0003
91888614|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.06|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.56|0.1182
91888615|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.24|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.24|-0.87|0.0008
91888616|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.54|0.1379
91758616|NCT00098306|183410513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|68.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.69|93.25||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||93.25|43.69|
91758617|NCT00098306|183410514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|284.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.779|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|182.51|385.92||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||385.92|182.51|
91758618|NCT00098306|183410514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|303.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|201.9|404.23||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||404.23|201.90|
91888617|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.14|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-0.71|0.0040
91888618|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.42|0.3100
91888619|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.26|-0.85|0.0003
91888620|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.05|-0.61|0.0223
91888621|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.70|0.0276
91888622|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.29|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.35|0.8516
91888623|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.63|0.1669
91888624|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.23|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.48|0.4935
91888625|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.07|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.07|-0.86|0.0202
91758619|NCT00098306|183410514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|213.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.679|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.77|310.92||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||310.92|115.77|
91758620|NCT00098306|183410514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|235.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.416|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.68|332.8||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||332.80|138.68|
91807209|NCT02615145|183490963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.417|7.32|||paired t-test|paired t-test of whether difference in means is 0||Week 12 vs Baseline across all participants||7.320|5.417|< 0.0001
91888626|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.2683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.58|0.2683
91888627|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.0|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.65|0.0531
91758621|NCT00098306|183410515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.60|0.34|<0.0001
91758622|NCT00098306|183410515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.5|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.50|0.28|<0.0001
91758623|NCT00098306|183410516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.961|-0.432||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.432|-0.961|
91758624|NCT00098306|183410516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.065|-0.538||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.538|-1.065|
91758625|NCT00098306|183410516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.767|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1497|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|-0.474||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.474|-1.061|
91758626|NCT00098306|183410516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1494|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|-0.638||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.638|-1.225|
91758627|NCT00098306|183410517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.853|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1621|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.217|-0.489||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.489|-1.217|
91758628|NCT00098306|183410517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1618|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.385|-0.658||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.658|-1.385|
91758629|NCT00820222|183410555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.63|||Odds Ratio||The Odds Ratio is based on a logistic regression model. The P-value for the test of Odds Ratio is 1.|||1.63|0.26|0.360
91758630|NCT00820222|183410556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.64|||Log Rank||A HR \> 1 indicates a higher risk for lapatinib+capecitabine compared with trastuzumab+capecitabine.|||1.64|1.04|0.021
91758631|NCT00820222|183410558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.9|||Log Rank||A HR \> 1 indicates a higher risk for lapatinib+capecitabine compared with trastuzumab+capecitabine.|||1.90|0.95|0.095
91758632|NCT00820222|183410559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7984||||0.2731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5407|1.1771|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Overall Response (CR+PR)||1.1771|0.5407|0.2731
91758633|NCT00820222|183410560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9016||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6315|1.2866|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Clinical Benefit||1.2866|0.6315|0.6106
91758634|NCT01336023|183410583|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg was confirmed when 95% confidence interval for the treatment differences for change in HbA1c lies entirely below 0.3%.~IDegLira minus IDeg"|Treatment Contrast|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.36|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IDeg|||-0.36|-0.58|
91758635|NCT01336023|183410583|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority of IDegLira over liraglutide was confirmed when the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference for change in HbA1c lies entirely below 0%.~IDegLira minus Liraglutide"|Treatment contrast|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.53|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus Liraglutide|||-0.53|-0.75|
91758636|NCT00767819|183410618|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the confidence interval was used to support the decision in favor of p0 or p1: if the lower limit of the confidence interval overlapped p0, the hypothesis that p is greater than or equal to p1 could be rejected; on the other side, if the lower limit of the confidence interval excluded p0, the hypothesis that p is greater than or equal to p1 could be accepted.|percentage of participants|40.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|29.5|52.4|||Clopper-Person confidence interval|||||52.4|29.5|0.1
91758637|NCT03916081|183410624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Vehicle|-1.18||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.983|0.619||MMRM = mixed effects model for repeated measures vIGA-AD = validated Investigator Global Assessment scale for Atopic Dermatitis|MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.619|-2.983|0.356
91807210|NCT02615145|183490963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.936|11.362|||paired t-test|paired t-test of whether difference in means is 0||Week 48 vs Baseline across all participants||11.362|8.936|< 0.0001
91910974|NCT01926782|183718116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-54.5|-44.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.6|-54.5|<0.0001
91910975|NCT01926782|183718117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.2|-42.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-42.0|-52.2|<0.0001
91910976|NCT01926782|183718118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.4|-32.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.4|-40.4|<0.0001
91910977|NCT01926782|183718119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-36.5|-29.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.1|-36.5|<0.0001
91910978|NCT01926782|183718120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|20.9|221.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||221.0|20.9|<0.0001
91910979|NCT01926782|183718121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.7|47.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||47.8|13.7|<0.0001
91910980|NCT01926782|183718122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|280.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|56.7|1385.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1385.7|56.7|<0.0001
91910981|NCT01926782|183718123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|20.3|83.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model||83.8|20.3|<0.0001
91910982|NCT01926782|183718124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|90.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.5|498.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||498.3|16.5|<0.0001
91910983|NCT01926782|183718125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.4|104.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||104.4|23.4|<0.0001
91910984|NCT01926782|183718126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|297.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|27.9|3160.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||3160.6|27.9|<0.0001
91910985|NCT01926782|183718127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|34.1|176.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||176.8|34.1|<0.0001
91758638|NCT03916081|183410624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Vehicle|-1.6||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.382|0.178|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.178|-3.382|0.097
91910986|NCT01926782|183718128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.0|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-18.3|-37.0|<0.0001
91910987|NCT01926782|183718129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.5|-22.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-22.7|-35.5|<0.0001
91910988|NCT01926782|183718130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.4|-14.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-14.5|-32.4|<0.0001
91910989|NCT01926782|183718131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.8|-20.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-20.4|-32.8|<0.0001
91910990|NCT01926782|183718132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.1|12.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||12.6|3.1|0.0003
91910991|NCT01926782|183718133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.9|8.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||8.4|1.9|0.0004
91910992|NCT01926782|183718134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.6|11.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant)||11.1|2.6|0.0004
91910993|NCT01926782|183718135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.8|8.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||8.7|1.8|0.0007
91910994|NCT01926782|183718136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.9||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.3|-2.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-2.6|-21.3|0.0042
91910995|NCT01926782|183718137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.5|-8.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-8.6|-21.5|<0.0001
91910996|NCT01926782|183718138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.9|-5.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-5.2|-22.9|0.0004
91910997|NCT01926782|183718139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.3|-6.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-6.9|-20.3|<0.0001
91910998|NCT01926782|183718140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.0|10.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||10.2|3.0|<0.0001
91910999|NCT01926782|183718141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|5.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 300 mg vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.4|-0.1|0.0306
91758639|NCT03916081|183410625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.37||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.789|4.044|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||4.044|-26.789|0.248
91758640|NCT03916081|183410625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.28||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.666|5.114|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||5.114|-25.666|0.349
91758641|NCT03916081|183410625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.82||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|-22.52|-22.52|10.88|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 2 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||10.880|-22.520|0.912
91758642|NCT03916081|183410625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.17||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.686|7.341|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 2 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||7.341|-25.686|0.548
91758643|NCT03916081|183410625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.53||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.157|3.097|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||3.097|-30.157|0.164
91758644|NCT03916081|183410625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.48||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.921|-0.048|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||-0.048|-32.921|0.049
91758645|NCT03916081|183410626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.412|0.568|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.568|-2.412|0.440
91807211|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5751||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EOT||||0.5751
91758646|NCT03916081|183410626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.061|0.914|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.914|-2.061|0.875
91758647|NCT03916081|183410627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.352
91758648|NCT03916081|183410627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.803
91758649|NCT03916081|183410627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.250
91758650|NCT03916081|183410627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.756
91758651|NCT03916081|183410627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.097
91758652|NCT03916081|183410627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.054
91758653|NCT03916081|183410628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.178
91758654|NCT03916081|183410628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.046
91758655|NCT03916081|183410628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.469
91758656|NCT03916081|183410628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.446
91911000|NCT02296242|183718150|OTHER||Highest dose (mg) with no DLTs.|600.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||In Part 1, 2 patients experienced DLTs in the 750 mg b.i.d. treatment group (2/7; 29%). There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the 600 mg b.i.d. group or 300 mg b.i.d. group. Therefore, based on these results, 600 mg b.i.d. was selected as the MTD dose (and RP2D dose) which was used as the treatment dose in Part 2 of the study.||||
91911001|NCT03504397|183718163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.734||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.91||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||0.910|0.591|0.0024
91911002|NCT03504397|183718164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.954||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||0.954|0.644|0.0075
91911003|NCT03504397|183718165|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.687||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||1.687|0.994|0.0280
91911004|NCT03504397|183718166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|1.071||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||1.071|0.475|0.0508
91911005|NCT03504397|183718167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.492|||Log Rank||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|||1.492|0.874|0.1685
91758657|NCT03916081|183410628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.009
91758658|NCT03916081|183410628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.045
91758659|NCT03916081|183410629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.317
91758660|NCT03916081|183410629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.182
91758661|NCT03916081|183410629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.485
91758662|NCT03916081|183410629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.913
91758663|NCT03916081|183410629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.288
91758664|NCT03916081|183410630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.340
91758665|NCT03916081|183410630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.146
91911006|NCT03504397|183718168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4536|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. Stratification factors were Region, Number of Metastatic Sites and Prior Gastrectomy.||||||0.4536
91911007|NCT03504397|183718169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|1.087|||Log Rank||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|||1.087|0.573|0.0721
91888628|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.22|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.41|0.5609
91888629|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.30|0.6779
91888630|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.4559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.15|0.4559
91888631|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.2254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.1|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.43|0.2254
91888632|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.32|0.6437
91888633|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.6678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.32|0.6678
91888634|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.24|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.27|0.9321
91888635|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.32|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.31|0.9778
91888636|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.9307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.29|0.9307
91888637|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.6791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.27|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.41|0.6791
91758666|NCT03916081|183410630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.967
91888638|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.38|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.38|-0.28|0.7769
91888639|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.7206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.38|0.7206
91911008|NCT00419380|183718190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Two by two contingency table was used to compare our outcome, tube patency yes/no, by our two independent variables, dornase alfa (Pulmozyme®) and Ofloxin.||||.36
91911009|NCT00419380|183718191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Two by two contingency table was used to compare our outcome, presence/absence of ear drainage, by our two independent variables, dornase alfa (Pulmozyme®) and Ofloxin.|Chi-squared|||||||.26
91911010|NCT03099707|183718192|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.2||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|43.0|||Fisher Exact|||||43|0.6|0.105
91911011|NCT01885000|183718266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0065|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.0065
91911012|NCT01885000|183718267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0328|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who satisfied with appearance.||||= 0.0328
91911013|NCT01885000|183718267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who appearance acceptable.||||= 0.5312
91911014|NCT01885000|183718267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0756|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who appearance concerned.||||= 0.0756
91911015|NCT01885000|183718267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0083|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who embarrassed with facial redness.||||= 0.0083
91758667|NCT03916081|183410630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.088
91758668|NCT03916081|183410631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|1.852|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.852|-1.098|0.989
91758669|NCT03916081|183410631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.566|1.367|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.367|-1.566|>0.999
91758670|NCT03916081|183410631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.702|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||2.702|-1.510|0.966
91807212|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.29||||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|9.23||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EoT||9.23|-4.66|0.5176
91911016|NCT01885000|183718267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0076|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who self-conscious.||||= 0.0076
91911017|NCT01885000|183718267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2186|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who's frequency control last 24 hours||||= 0.2186
91911018|NCT01885000|183718267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2373|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who are frustrated.||||= 0.2373
91911019|NCT01885000|183718267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7769|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who cover up or camouflage.||||= 0.7769
91911020|NCT01885000|183718267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8764|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who pay attention to the known triggers.||||= 0.8764
91911021|NCT01885000|183718267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6149|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who avoid the known triggers.||||= 0.6149
91911022|NCT01885000|183718267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8361|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who interfering with social life.||||= 0.8361
91758671|NCT03916081|183410631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.415|1.744|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.744|-2.415|0.999
91911023|NCT01885000|183718267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6259|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Interfering with work life||||= 0.6259
91911024|NCT01885000|183718268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5821|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for Mobility.||||= 0.5821
91911025|NCT01885000|183718268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8864|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for Self-Care.||||= 0.8864
91911026|NCT01885000|183718268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9579|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for usual activities.||||= 0.9579
91911027|NCT01885000|183718268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1344|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for Pain/Discomfort.||||= 0.1344
91911028|NCT01885000|183718268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1881|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety/Depression||||= 0.1881
91911029|NCT01885000|183718269|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3935|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.3935
91911030|NCT01885000|183718270|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.4162
91911031|NCT03716869|183718278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was conducted using the intent-to-treat principle. Analysis for primary and secondary outcomes that compared universal to targeted screening was conducted using mixed effects logistic regression.||3.10|1.39|<0.001
91911032|NCT03716869|183718279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|6.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.93|5.07|<0.001
91911033|NCT03716869|183718281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.38|2.49|<0.001
91911034|NCT03716869|183718287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.71|10.58|||Regression, Logistic||Test of interaction terms from mixed-effects logistic regression for subgroup analyses. Information above is sex x rand group interaction for identification of MDD symptoms among females. For males, OR 4.05 (95% CI 3.26-5.03).||"Sex x rand group interaction p=0.005 for SAP confirmation of need for follow-up.~Females 4.73 (3.19-7.02) Males 2.09 (1.38-3.16)~Sex x rand group interaction p=0.37 for treatment initiation. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05."|10.58|6.71|<0.001
91911035|NCT03716869|183718287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|11.35|||Regression, Logistic||Information above is for race/ethnicity x rand group interaction for identification of MDD symptoms for non-Hispanic white students. For non-Hispanic Black students OR 2.55 (95% CI 1.97-3.31), Hispanic 7.45 (4.98-11.17), other 12.41 (7.34-21.00).||"Race/ethnicity x rand group p=0.007 for SAP confirmation of need for follow-up. non-Hispanic white 2.24 (1.59-3.15) non-Hispanic Black 4.19 (2.03-8.65) Hispanic 10.15 (4.06-25.36) Other 12.22 (1.59-94.12)~Race/ethnicity x rand group interaction p=0.15 for treatment initiation. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05."|11.35|6.58|<0.001
91911036|NCT03716869|183718287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|6.44|||Regression, Logistic||Information above is location x rand group interaction for identification of MDD symptoms among urban students. For rural students and identification of depressive symptoms OR 13.60 (95% CI 7.28-25.42).||"Location x rand group interaction p=0.27 for SAP confirmation of need for follow-up. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05.~Location x rand group interaction p=0.36 for treatment initiation. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05."|6.44|4.65|0.006
91911037|NCT01789814|183718290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Prasugrel treatment when compared to Clopidogrel was associated with significant reduction in platelets aggregation for all plateles agonist (ADD, SFFFLRN, AYPGKF) at all measured time points.|t-test, 2 sided|||Each patient will have paired samples representing their baseline as well as an on-drug sample. The magnitude of platelet inhibition for each studied agonist will be performed utilizing mean maximal change from baseline in light transmission aggregometry. The paired samples will be analyzed using a two-tailed student's t-test. Statistical significance will be assumed to occur when p\<0.05.||||0.001
91911038|NCT01046825|183718301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5550
91911039|NCT01046825|183718302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3605|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3605
91911040|NCT01046825|183718303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6181|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6181
91911041|NCT01077973|183718313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.12||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-placebo) and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI): based on LS means from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by stating pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium versus (vs.) placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||1.00|-3.23|0.299
91911042|NCT01077973|183718314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.14||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by stating pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium vs. placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||1.14|0.52|0.193
91911043|NCT01077973|183718315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.24|0.50|0.304
91911044|NCT01077973|183718315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.59||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.59|0.65|0.936
91758672|NCT03916081|183410631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.624|2.119|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||2.119|-2.624|>0.999
91758673|NCT03916081|183410631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.285|1.398|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.398|-3.285|0.798
91911045|NCT01077973|183718316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.04||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.04|0.41|0.072
91911046|NCT01077973|183718316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.41||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.41|0.58|0.652
91807213|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.324||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.64||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EoT||7.64|-7.00|0.9308
91888640|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.45|0.3549
91888641|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.05|-0.70|0.0231
91888642|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.55|0.1450
91888643|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.60|0.0855
91888644|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.15|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.47|0.3068
91888645|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.13|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.13|-0.77|0.0069
91888646|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.51|0.2174
91888647|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.06|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.63|0.1020
91888648|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.33|0.9587
91888649|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.69|0.1690
91888650|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.7919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.44|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.34|0.7919
91888651|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.89|0.0192
91911047|NCT01077973|183718316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.07||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.07|0.49|0.108
91911048|NCT01077973|183718317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.26|-0.65|0.402
91911049|NCT01077973|183718317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.26|-0.64|0.407
91911050|NCT01077973|183718317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.37|-0.38|0.991
91911051|NCT01077973|183718317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.24|-0.75|0.313
91911052|NCT01077973|183718317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.37|-0.62|0.621
91911053|NCT01077973|183718317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.28|-0.54|0.533
91911054|NCT01077973|183718317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.28|-0.79|0.352
91911055|NCT01077973|183718317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.38|-0.69|0.573
91911056|NCT01077973|183718317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|-0.54|0.657
91911057|NCT01077973|183718318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.14|-0.36|0.382
91911058|NCT01077973|183718318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.10|-0.39|0.242
91911059|NCT01077973|183718318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.24|-0.17|0.720
91911060|NCT01077973|183718318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.11|-0.43|0.235
91758674|NCT03916081|183410632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.075|0.506|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.506|-2.075|0.466
91807214|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.96||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|2.13||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EoT||2.13|-6.06|0.3462
91888652|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.22|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.56|0.3887
91888653|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.72|0.0719
91758675|NCT03916081|183410632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.322|0.255|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.255|-2.322|0.180
91758676|NCT03916081|183410632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.921|1.069|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.069|-1.921|0.967
91758677|NCT03916081|183410632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.205|0.762|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.762|-2.205|0.684
91758678|NCT03916081|183410632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.221|1.003|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.003|-2.221|0.856
91758679|NCT03916081|183410632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.105|1.089|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.089|-2.105|0.932
91758680|NCT03916081|183410633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.637
91758681|NCT03916081|183410633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.124
91758682|NCT03916081|183410633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.196
91758683|NCT03916081|183410633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.985
91758684|NCT03916081|183410633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.401
91758685|NCT03916081|183410633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.996
91758686|NCT00235716|183410634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.15||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.39||p-value adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||5.39|0.92|0.03
91758687|NCT00235716|183410634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|4.2||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||4.20|-0.24|0.40
91758688|NCT00235716|183410634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.76||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|4.0||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||4.00|-0.48|0.49
91759944|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-1.68||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.68|-16.44|
91807215|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7016||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 Weeks after EoT||||0.7016
91758689|NCT00235716|183410634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.85||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.85|-3.63|0.60
91758690|NCT00235716|183410634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.01||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||2.01|-2.44|0.85
91759945|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.82|-7.06||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-7.06|-21.82|
91807216|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.61||||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|3.49||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 weeks after EoT||3.49|-8.71|0.4002
91888654|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.66|0.1195
91888655|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.9552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.16|0.9552
91888656|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.01|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.31|0.0384
91888657|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.30|0.2582
91888658|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.05|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.32|0.1511
91888659|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.16|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.34|0.4631
91888660|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.33|0.4628
91888661|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.23|0.9005
91888662|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.38|0.1121
91911061|NCT01077973|183718318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.20|-0.34|0.630
91911062|NCT01077973|183718318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.32|0.393
91911063|NCT01077973|183718318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.18|-0.46|0.382
91911064|NCT01077973|183718318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.32|-0.32|0.995
91911065|NCT01077973|183718318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.12|-0.41|0.287
91911066|NCT01077973|183718319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.37|-0.98|0.377
91911067|NCT01077973|183718319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|-1.01|0.324
91911068|NCT01077973|183718319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|-0.52|0.902
91911069|NCT01077973|183718319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.33|-1.17|0.273
91807217|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.33||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|4.08||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 weeks after EoT||4.08|-8.74|0.4750
91911070|NCT01077973|183718319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.56|-0.94|0.616
91911071|NCT01077973|183718319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.39|-0.85|0.471
91911072|NCT01077973|183718319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.45|-1.24|0.356
91911073|NCT01077973|183718319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|-1.00|0.722
91911074|NCT01077973|183718319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|-0.94|0.493
91807218|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.282||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.77||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 weeks after EoT||3.77|-3.21|0.8740
91911075|NCT01077973|183718320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.20|-0.75|0.259
91911076|NCT01077973|183718320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.26|-0.69|0.378
91911077|NCT01077973|183718320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.33|-0.45|0.762
91911078|NCT01077973|183718320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|-1.17|0.281
91911079|NCT01077973|183718320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.55||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.55|-0.97|0.582
91911080|NCT01077973|183718320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.42|-0.83|0.523
91911081|NCT01077973|183718321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.45||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.45|-1.35|0.327
91911082|NCT01077973|183718321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.58|-1.21|0.489
91758691|NCT00235716|183410634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.39||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||3.39|-1.04|0.60
91758692|NCT00235716|183410635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||p- value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons because its a 3 degrees of freedom test for any treatment group differences|Log Rank|3 degrees of freedom test||||||0.69
91911083|NCT01077973|183718321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.61|-0.88|0.726
91759946|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|3.09||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.09|-12.53|
91911084|NCT01077973|183718321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|-2.09|0.320
91911085|NCT01077973|183718321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.92|-1.86|0.506
91911086|NCT01077973|183718321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.92|-1.38|0.691
91911087|NCT01077973|183718322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.72||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.62||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.62|-2.07|0.292
91807219|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7211||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||||0.7211
91807220|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-3.67||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|5.39||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||5.39|-12.7|0.4256
91807221|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-3.01||||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|6.54||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||6.54|-12.6|0.5347
91807222|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.654||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|5.54||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||5.54|-4.23|0.7920
91888663|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.17|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.40|0.4167
91888664|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.40|0.4071
91888665|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.07|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.53|0.1278
91888666|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.01|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.57|0.0573
91888667|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.2|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.42|0.4842
91888668|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.02|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.58|0.0692
91888669|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.44|0.4028
91888670|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.02|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.63|0.0354
91888671|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.07|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.55|0.1228
91888672|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.10|-0.70|0.0099
91911088|NCT01077973|183718322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.82||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.82|-1.87|0.439
91911089|NCT01077973|183718322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.92|-1.31|0.733
91911090|NCT01077973|183718322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.68||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.43|-2.80|0.526
91911091|NCT01077973|183718322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|1.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.31|-2.19|0.624
91911092|NCT01077973|183718323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.02||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.03|17.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.07|-11.03|0.672
91911093|NCT01077973|183718323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.47||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.61|8.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.68|-17.61|0.467
91911094|NCT01077973|183718323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.55||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|18.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.05|-2.96|0.164
91911095|NCT01077973|183718323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.52||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|10.92||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.92|-25.96|0.427
91758693|NCT00235716|183410636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.92||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.92|-0.54|0.84
91758694|NCT00235716|183410636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.84||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.84|-0.61|0.84
91807223|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.355|7.935|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference from 0||Baseline to EOT across all participants||7.935|3.355|< 0.0001
91807224|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.113|12.299|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference versus 0||Baseline vs 12 weeks after EOT across all participants||12.299|8.113|< 0.0001
91807225|NCT02615145|183490968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.259|12.992|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference versus 0||baseline vs 48 weeks after EOT across all participants||12.992|7.259|< 0.0001
91911096|NCT01077973|183718323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.66||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|12.25||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.25|-23.57|0.537
91911097|NCT01077973|183718323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.83||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|13.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.22|-16.88|0.813
91911098|NCT01077973|183718323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.5||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|8.24||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.24|-19.24|0.455
91911099|NCT01077973|183718323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.63|9.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.59|-17.63|0.570
91911100|NCT01077973|183718323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|10.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.50|-13.80|0.792
91911101|NCT01077973|183718323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|9.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.33|-17.82|0.556
91911102|NCT01077973|183718323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.77||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|10.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.69|-16.24|0.689
91911103|NCT01077973|183718323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|10.14||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.14|-13.45|0.786
91911104|NCT01077973|183718324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.06||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|22.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||22.99|-10.86|0.480
91911105|NCT01077973|183718324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.34||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.55|21.23||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.23|-12.55|0.612
91911106|NCT01077973|183718324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.47||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|15.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.55|-12.60|0.839
91911107|NCT01077973|183718324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-13.2||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|2.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.99|-29.40|0.130
91911108|NCT01077973|183718324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.83||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|7.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.73|-23.39|0.331
91807226|NCT02615145|183490969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3869||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3869
91807227|NCT02615145|183490969|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.89||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|1.79||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-5.57|0.3125
91911109|NCT01077973|183718324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.59|8.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.59|-19.59|0.450
91911110|NCT01077973|183718324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|9.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.33|-17.82|0.556
91911111|NCT01077973|183718324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.77||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|10.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.69|-16.24|0.689
91807228|NCT02615145|183490969|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.65||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|1.18||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.18|-6.48|0.1741
91758695|NCT00235716|183410636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.1||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.10|-0.36|0.84
91758696|NCT00235716|183410636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.84||95.0|-0.56|0.9||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.90|-0.56|0.84
91807229|NCT02615145|183490969|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.76||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|1.42||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.42|-2.94|0.4941
91807230|NCT02615145|183490969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.271|1.096|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference vs 0||Change from Baseline to Final visit across all participants||1.096|-1.271|0.8842
91888673|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.12|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.53|0.2174
91888674|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.60|0.0820
91888675|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.60|0.2642
91888676|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.72|0.0718
91888677|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.3055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.2|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.64|0.3055
91888678|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.21|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.59|0.3533
91888679|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.4514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.24|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.53|0.4514
91888680|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.25|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.51|0.4907
91888681|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.24|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.36|0.6949
91758697|NCT00235716|183410636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.98||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.98|-0.47|0.84
91888682|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.40|0.4670
91888683|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.25|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.39|0.6556
91888684|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.29|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.32|0.9272
91888685|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.57|0.1395
91888686|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.14|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.50|0.2601
91888687|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.5626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.22|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.40|0.5626
91888688|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.4622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.19|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.42|0.4622
91888689|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.2858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.46|0.2858
91888690|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.2|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.38|0.5369
91888691|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.52|0.1510
91888692|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.38|0.5107
91807231|NCT02320669|183490973|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.083|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.432|||Regression, Cox|||||1.432|.82|<.05
91911112|NCT01077973|183718324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|10.14||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.14|-13.45|0.786
91911113|NCT01077973|183718324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|9.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.33|-17.82|0.556
91911114|NCT01077973|183718324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.77||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|10.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.69|-16.24|0.689
91911115|NCT01077973|183718324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|10.14||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.14|-13.45|0.786
91911116|NCT01077973|183718327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.89||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|11.1||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.10|-3.33|0.355
91911117|NCT01077973|183718327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.21||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|4.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.20|-6.62|0.623
91911118|NCT01077973|183718327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.1||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.11|-0.90|0.094
91911119|NCT01077973|183718327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.43||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|19.29||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.29|-10.43|0.565
91911120|NCT01077973|183718327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.09||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|11.97||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.97|-16.15|0.765
91911121|NCT01077973|183718327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.47||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|18.37||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.37|-5.43|0.288
91807232|NCT00006237|183490975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.49
91807233|NCT00006237|183490976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
91807234|NCT01600638|183490985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91807235|NCT01600638|183490986|OTHER||sucess proportion|0.7823|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.951||||||||0.951|0.614|
91807236|NCT00911820|183491004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.714
91807237|NCT00911820|183491006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.605
91911122|NCT01077973|183718327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.87||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|18.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.27|-20.00|0.928
91911123|NCT01077973|183718327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-6.4||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.14|12.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.33|-25.14|0.495
91911124|NCT01077973|183718327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.46||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|20.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.59|-9.66|0.477
91807238|NCT00911820|183491007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.721
91888693|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.45|0.3301
91888694|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.5139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.19|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.39|0.5139
91888695|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.40|0.4073
91888696|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.38|0.4649
91888697|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.6926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.22|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.34|0.6926
91888698|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.22|0.7260
91888699|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.47|0.1486
91888700|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.36|0.4800
91888701|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.7792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.40|0.7792
91888702|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.8644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.37|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.31|0.8644
91888703|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.35|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.27|0.7994
91888704|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.57|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.57|-0.03|0.0811
91758698|NCT00235716|183410636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.8||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.80|-0.65|0.84
91759947|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.21|-4.59||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.59|-20.21|
91888705|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.23|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.34|0.6978
91888706|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.28|0.9749
91888707|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.3158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.24|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.08|0.3158
91888708|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.05|0.1901
91888709|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.7229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.12|0.7229
91888710|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.2715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.22|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.06|0.2715
91888711|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.5421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.22|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.12|0.5421
91888712|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.7215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.14|0.7215
91888713|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.31|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.07|0.2246
91888714|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.19|0.9671
91888715|NCT02942004|183669962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.29|0.6527
91911125|NCT02780648|183718434|OTHER|||||||0.824||||||This p-value represents the type III p-value for overall treatment phase variable significance. An a priori alpha level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For Cohort B, pain scores were compared across treatment phase (before, during, and after) using ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures.||||0.824
91911126|NCT02780648|183718435|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite global health status / quality of life score as the outcome.||||||0.27||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite global health status / quality of life scores across treatment phase.||||0.270
91911127|NCT02780648|183718436|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite physicial functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.179||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite physical functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.179
91911128|NCT02780648|183718436|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite role functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.789||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite role functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.789
91911129|NCT02780648|183718436|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite emotional functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.303||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite emotional functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.303
91911130|NCT02780648|183718436|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite cognitive functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.989||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite cognitive functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.989
91911131|NCT02780648|183718436|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite social functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.436||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite social functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.436
91911132|NCT02780648|183718437|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite fatigue symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.659||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite fatigue symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.659
91911133|NCT02780648|183718437|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite nausea and vomiting symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.295||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite nausea and vomiting symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.295
91758699|NCT00235716|183410637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-0.33||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.33|-3.28|0.10
91758700|NCT00235716|183410637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|0.07||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.07|-2.85|0.25
91911134|NCT02780648|183718437|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite pain symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.299||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite pain symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.299
91911135|NCT02780648|183718437|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite dyspnea symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.794||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite dyspnea symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.794
91911136|NCT02780648|183718437|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite insomnia symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.45||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite insomnia symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.450
91911137|NCT02780648|183718437|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite appetite loss symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.389||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite appetite loss symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.389
91911138|NCT02780648|183718437|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite constipation symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.011||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|The odds of having a higher constipation symptom composite score after treatment were less than during or before treatment.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite constipation symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.011
91911139|NCT02780648|183718437|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite diarrhea symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.101||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite diarrhea symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.101
91911140|NCT02780648|183718437|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite financial difficulty symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.306||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite financial difficulty symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.306
91911141|NCT01097304|183718443|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91911142|NCT01097304|183718444|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91911143|NCT01097304|183718445|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||signed rank test|||||||<0.01
91911144|NCT01097304|183718446|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91759948|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.25|-8.71||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.71|-24.25|
91759949|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|-4.44||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.44|-19.94|
91759950|NCT01393639|183411988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|0.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.04|-15.50|
91911145|NCT02685709|183718447|NON_INFERIORITY|An assessment of NI was made by comparing the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in biochemical control (octreotide capsules - SRLs) to a NI margin of -20%.|95% CI Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|-19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|0.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen (M&N)|||||0.5|-19.9|
91911146|NCT02685709|183718448|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The statistical analysis was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method.|||
91911147|NCT02685709|183718449|OTHER||||||||||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The statistical analysis was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method.|||
91911148|NCT02685709|183718450|OTHER|||||||||||||Confidence interval was applied||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The statistical analysis was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method.|||
91911149|NCT02685709|183718451|OTHER||||||||||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.|Based on this analysis 63.0% of patients in the octreotide capsule group and 51.4% of patients in the SRL injection group entered the Study Extension phase.|||
91760181|NCT00286494|183412062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment, treatment regimen and geographic region as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and baseline value for the endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at wk 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.28|-0.67|<0.001
91760182|NCT00286494|183412062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.41||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment, treatment regimen and geographic region as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and baseline value for the endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at wk 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.41|-0.80|<0.001
91760183|NCT00286494|183412063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.16||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.16|-0.36|<0.001
91760184|NCT00286494|183412063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.21||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.21|-0.41|<0.001
91760185|NCT00286494|183412064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.27|-0.56|<0.001
91760186|NCT00286494|183412064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.40|-0.69|<0.001
91760187|NCT00286494|183412065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.30|-0.63|<0.001
91760188|NCT00286494|183412065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.43||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.43|-0.75|<0.001
91760189|NCT00286494|183412066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.26||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.26|-0.63|<0.001
91760190|NCT00286494|183412066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.40|-0.76|<0.001
91760191|NCT00286494|183412067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
91760192|NCT00286494|183412067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.36||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.36|-0.74|<0.001
91760193|NCT00286494|183412068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-3.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-3.9|-18.9|0.003
91760194|NCT00286494|183412068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-8.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.0|-23.0|<0.001
91760195|NCT00286494|183412069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-11.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-11.9|-26.4|<0.001
91760196|NCT00286494|183412069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-12.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.3|-26.6|<0.001
91760197|NCT00286494|183412070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-13.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-13.6|-27.5|<0.001
91760198|NCT00286494|183412070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-16.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-16.0|-29.9|<0.001
91760199|NCT00286494|183412071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-8.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.7|-24.4|<0.001
91760200|NCT00286494|183412071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-13.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-13.3|-28.9|<0.001
91760201|NCT00286494|183412072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-2.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.4|-18.5|0.011
91760202|NCT00286494|183412072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-8.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.3|-24.3|<0.001
91760203|NCT00286494|183412073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-1.0|-18.9|0.029
91760204|NCT00286494|183412073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-5.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.5|-23.3|0.002
91760205|NCT00286494|183412074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.9|-24.2|<0.001
91760206|NCT00286494|183412074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.7|-23.8|<0.001
91760207|NCT00286494|183412075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-4.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-4.8|-23.1|0.003
91760208|NCT00286494|183412075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-5.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.0|-23.3|0.003
91760209|NCT00286494|183412076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.499||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen, \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.499|0.147|<0.001
91760210|NCT00286494|183412076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.438||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen, \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.438|0.126|<0.001
91760211|NCT00286494|183412077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.628||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|1.425||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.425|0.277|0.266
91760212|NCT00286494|183412077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.658||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|1.487|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.487|0.292|0.315
91760213|NCT00286494|183412078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.1|-10.6|0.003
91760214|NCT00286494|183412078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-0.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.7|-9.1|0.023
91760215|NCT00286494|183412079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.1|-8.3|0.043
91760216|NCT00286494|183412079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.6|-5.5|0.489
91760217|NCT00286494|183412080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.3|-8.8|0.068
91760218|NCT00286494|183412080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.1|-8.9|0.056
91760219|NCT00286494|183412081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.2|-4.9|0.884
91760220|NCT00286494|183412081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.5|-4.5|0.993
91760221|NCT00286494|183412082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-1.3|-9.4|0.009
91760222|NCT00286494|183412082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.0|-7.0|0.143
91760223|NCT00286494|183412083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.5|-8.6|0.080
91760224|NCT00286494|183412083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.9|-5.2|0.782
91760225|NCT00286494|183412084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.70|-2.68|0.249
91760226|NCT00286494|183412084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.80|-2.56|0.303
91760227|NCT00286494|183412085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.15||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.15|-2.46|0.478
91760228|NCT00286494|183412085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.17||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.17|-1.41|0.674
91760229|NCT00286494|183412086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|3.06||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.06|-2.18|0.743
91760230|NCT00286494|183412086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.02||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.02|-3.18|0.662
91760231|NCT00286494|183412087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|2.45||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.45|-0.96|0.390
91760232|NCT00286494|183412087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.38|-1.00|0.423
91760233|NCT00286494|183412088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.46|-1.87|0.807
91760234|NCT00286494|183412088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.51||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.51|-1.79|0.867
91760235|NCT00286494|183412089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.33|-1.10|0.483
91807239|NCT00583778|183491028|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were analyzed using STATA 10 SE.Categorical variables were described using frequencies and relative frequencies. Distribution of continuous variables were evaluated for normality using the Shapiro-Walk test and graphically using histograms and box plots. Because most data were non-parametric, they were described using the median and 25th and 75th percentiles (interquartile range) and then compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.|This study was designed to detect an absolute difference of 12 % in change of FEV-1percent predicted, with a standard deviation of 25% based on data provided to us from previous studies conducted by Sepracor. Based on this assumption, we sought to enter 76 patients in each group to have an 80% power to detect a 12 % absolute difference in charge of FEV-1 percent predicted over time at an alpha of 0.05. This accounted for a potential 10% dropout rate after randomization.|||< 0.05
91760236|NCT00286494|183412089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.51||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.51|-0.89|0.352
91760237|NCT00286494|183412090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.022||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.022|-0.092|0.001
91760238|NCT00286494|183412090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|-0.024||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.024|-0.093|0.001
91760239|NCT00286494|183412091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.014||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.014|-0.084|0.006
91760240|NCT00286494|183412091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.016||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.016|-0.086|0.004
91760241|NCT00286494|183412092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.000|-0.092|0.050
91760242|NCT00286494|183412092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|-0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.012|-0.102|0.014
91760243|NCT00286494|183412093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.009|-0.064|0.144
91760244|NCT00286494|183412093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.006||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.006|-0.067|0.105
91760245|NCT00286494|183412094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.019||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.019|-0.100|0.004
91760246|NCT00286494|183412094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.011||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.011|-0.092|0.012
91760247|NCT00286494|183412095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|-0.005||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.005|-0.095|0.028
91760248|NCT00286494|183412095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.006||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.006|-0.082|0.093
91760249|NCT00286494|183412096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.255||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.255|-0.280|0.928
91760250|NCT00286494|183412096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.324||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.324|-0.212|0.683
91760251|NCT00286494|183412097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.265||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.265|-0.277|0.967
91760252|NCT00286494|183412097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.405||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.405|-0.135|0.327
91760253|NCT00286494|183412098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.226||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.226|-0.363|0.649
91760254|NCT00286494|183412098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.243||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.243|-0.344|0.735
91760255|NCT00286494|183412099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.492||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.492|-0.053|0.114
91760256|NCT00286494|183412099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.51||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.510|-0.033|0.086
91760257|NCT00286494|183412100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.273||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.273|-0.221|0.835
91760258|NCT00286494|183412100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.378||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.378|-0.115|0.296
91760259|NCT00286494|183412101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.380|-0.134|0.349
91760260|NCT00286494|183412101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.479||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.479|-0.034|0.089
91760261|NCT00286494|183412102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.815||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.736|13.358|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||13.358|1.736|0.003
91760262|NCT00286494|183412102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.533|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.017|15.176|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||15.176|2.017|<0.001
91807240|NCT01806545|183491073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|-0.11||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.025||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.025|-0.242|0.1197
91760263|NCT00286494|183412103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.903||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.067|3.393|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.393|1.067|0.029
91760264|NCT00286494|183412103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.301||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regiment \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.100|1.291|0.005
91760265|NCT00286494|183412104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.783|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.547|5.005|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.005|1.547|<0.001
91760266|NCT00286494|183412104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.917|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.147|7.146|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.146|2.147|<0.001
91760267|NCT00286494|183412105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.392|7.146|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.146|2.392|<0.001
91760268|NCT00286494|183412105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.247|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.027|9.094|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||9.094|3.027|<0.001
91760269|NCT00286494|183412106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.789|7.532|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.532|1.789|<0.001
91760270|NCT00286494|183412106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.693|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.303|9.56|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||9.560|2.303|<0.001
91760271|NCT00286494|183412107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.107|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||11.107|1.300|0.015
91760272|NCT00286494|183412107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.196||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.806|14.95|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||14.950|1.806|0.002
91760273|NCT00286494|183412108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.959||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|8.362|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||8.362|0.459|0.364
91760274|NCT00286494|183412108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.849||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|11.672|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||11.672|0.696|0.146
91760275|NCT00286494|183412109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.65||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose,baseline value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.65|-0.45|0.718
91760276|NCT00286494|183412109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.58||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.58|-0.52|0.906
91760277|NCT00286494|183412110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.78||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.78|-0.50|0.672
91760278|NCT00286494|183412110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.67||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.67|-0.61|0.922
91760279|NCT00286494|183412111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.96||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.96|-0.56|0.607
91807241|NCT01806545|183491074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|-0.08||||0.1962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.045||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.045|-0.204|0.1962
91760280|NCT00286494|183412111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.76||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.76|-0.77|0.985
91760281|NCT00286494|183412112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.22|-0.37|0.294
91760282|NCT00286494|183412112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.84||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.84|-0.74|0.900
91760283|NCT03100058|183412257|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-3.17|<0.0001
91760284|NCT03100058|183412257|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-3.36|<0.0001
91760285|NCT03100058|183412257|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-4.86|<0.0001
91760286|NCT03100058|183412257|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-3.44|||ANCOVA|||||-3.44|-5.39|<0.0001
91760287|NCT03100058|183412257|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-2.53|<0.0001
91760288|NCT03100058|183412257|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-1.36|||ANCOVA|||||-1.36|-4.11|<0.0001
91760289|NCT03100058|183412257|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|-2.68|||ANCOVA|||||-2.68|-5.54|<0.0001
91760290|NCT03100058|183412257|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|-3.43|||ANCOVA|||||-3.43|-5.54|<0.0001
91760291|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.67|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||6.67|0.85|0.099
91760292|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio, log|1.18||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.84|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||3.84|0.36|0.779
91760293|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|10.11|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||10.11|1.35|0.011
91760294|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|12.88|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||12.88|2.41|<.001
91760295|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.74|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||3.74|0.36|0.812
91760296|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.69|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||5.69|0.66|0.229
91760297|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|11.46|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||11.46|1.61|0.004
91760298|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|14.93|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||14.93|2.72|<.001
91760299|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|12.41|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||12.41|0.10|0.943
91760300|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|15.77|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||15.77|0.28|0.465
91760301|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|17.15|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||17.15|0.15|0.696
91760302|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|12.1|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||12.10|0.38|0.389
91760303|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|11.87|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||11.87|0.09|0.976
91760304|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|11.7|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||11.70|0.09|0.986
91760305|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|22.18|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||22.18|0.56|0.181
91760306|NCT03100058|183412258|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|20.54|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||20.54|0.77|0.100
91760307|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.29||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|38.76|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||38.76|1.02|0.048
91760308|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio, log|3.94||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|28.03|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dsyglycemic)||28.03|0.55|0.171
91760309|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|47.27|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||47.27|1.09|0.041
91760310|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|60.93|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||60.93|2.32|0.003
91807242|NCT01806545|183491075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.090
91807243|NCT01806545|183491076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.193
91807244|NCT01806545|183491077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.231
91760311|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|11.72|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||11.72|0.08|0.976
91760312|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.78||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|56.44|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||56.44|1.37|0.022
91760313|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.5||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|46.99|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||46.99|1.20|0.032
91760314|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.28||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|60.46|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||60.46|2.11|0.005
91760315|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|21.28|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||21.28|0.48|0.227
91760316|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.85|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||7.85|0.06|0.763
91760317|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|28.7|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||28.70|0.76|0.095
91760318|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|24.83|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||24.83|1.14|0.033
91760319|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|8.1|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||8.10|0.06|0.788
91760320|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.62|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||7.62|0.06|0.751
91760321|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.05||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|51.09|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||51.09|1.27|0.027
91760322|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|34.0|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||34.00|1.30|0.023
91760323|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.78|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||4.78|0.05|0.528
91760324|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.68|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||6.68|0.17|0.958
91760325|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.49|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||9.49|0.30|0.546
91760326|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding test|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|11.75|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||11.75|0.81|0.098
91760327|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|8.7|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||8.70|0.31|0.563
91760328|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.38|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||5.38|0.06|0.610
91760329|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|9.16|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||9.16|0.32|0.528
91760330|NCT03100058|183412259|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|16.9|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||16.90|1.23|0.023
91760331|NCT03100058|183412260|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.37|||ANCOVA|||||1.37|-2.96|0.470
91760332|NCT03100058|183412260|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-3.64|0.199
91760333|NCT03100058|183412260|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-3.64|<0.001
91760334|NCT03100058|183412260|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-3.56|0.206
91760335|NCT03100058|183412260|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||||-0.88|-5.18|0.006
91760336|NCT03100058|183412260|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-3.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.30|-5.70|0.002
91760337|NCT03100058|183412260|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.51|||ANCOVA|||||-1.51|-5.10|<0.001
91760338|NCT03100058|183412260|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|-2.82|0.391
91760339|NCT03100058|183412260|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|-3.10|0.259
91807245|NCT01806545|183491078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.158
91760340|NCT03100058|183412260|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-4.91|0.048
91760341|NCT03100058|183412261|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.61|||ANCOVA|||||2.61|-0.62|0.225
91760342|NCT03100058|183412261|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-2.62|0.247
91760343|NCT03100058|183412261|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-3.75|0.019
91760344|NCT03100058|183412261|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-2.96|0.015
91760345|NCT03100058|183412261|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-2.97|0.106
91760346|NCT03100058|183412261|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-3.54|0.020
91760347|NCT03100058|183412261|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-3.44|0.035
91760348|NCT03100058|183412261|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-3.22|0.004
91760349|NCT03100058|183412262|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-0.05|0.082
91760350|NCT03100058|183412262|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.63|0.319
91760351|NCT03100058|183412262|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.05|0.008
91760352|NCT03100058|183412262|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.76|0.015
91760353|NCT03100058|183412262|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.50|0.707
91760354|NCT03100058|183412262|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.65|0.280
91760355|NCT03100058|183412262|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.80|0.086
91760356|NCT03100058|183412262|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.72|0.030
91760357|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|1.07|||ANCOVA|||SBP||1.07|-6.64|0.156
91760358|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|0.89|||ANCOVA|||SBP||0.89|-7.11|0.127
91760359|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|-2.42|||ANCOVA|||SBP||-2.42|-10.52|0.002
91760360|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.42|||ANCOVA|||SBP||0.42|-5.86|0.089
91760361|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|1.57|||ANCOVA|||SBP||1.57|-6.12|0.245
91760362|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|3.02|||ANCOVA|||SBP||3.02|-4.65|0.678
91760363|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||SBP||-0.19|-8.07|0.040
91807246|NCT01806545|183491079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.895|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.213|0.423||||||Treatment difference at week 12||0.423|-2.213|
91760364|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||SBP||-0.19|-6.61|0.038
91760365|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|1.96|||ANCOVA|||DBP||1.96|-3.38|0.601
91760366|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.34|||ANCOVA|||DBP||2.34|-3.20|0.760
91760367|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.01|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.01|-5.60|0.051
91760368|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|0.38|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.38|-3.98|0.105
91760369|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|2.98|||ANCOVA|||DBP||2.98|-2.36|0.820
91760370|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|0.74|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.74|-4.58|0.157
91760371|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|2.49|||ANCOVA|||DBP||2.49|-2.99|0.859
91760372|NCT03100058|183412263|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|0.04|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.04|-4.41|0.054
91760373|NCT03100058|183412265|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.66|||ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.84|0.355
91760374|NCT03100058|183412265|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-1.83|0.373
91760375|NCT03100058|183412265|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-1.24|||ANCOVA|||||-1.24|-4.36|<0.001
91760376|NCT03100058|183412271|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||ANCOVA|||||1.42|0.81|0.632
91760377|NCT03100058|183412271|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.55|||ANCOVA|||||1.55|0.86|0.352
91760378|NCT03100058|183412271|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.41||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.92|||ANCOVA|||||1.92|1.04|0.027
91760379|NCT03100058|183412271|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.35|||ANCOVA|||||1.35|0.85|0.587
91807247|NCT01806545|183491079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.791|1.327||||||Treatment difference at week 26||1.327|-1.791|
91807248|NCT01806545|183491080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.2||||||Analysis of week 12||0.200|-0.273|
91760380|NCT03100058|183412271|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.47|||ANCOVA|||||1.47|0.82|0.508
91760381|NCT03100058|183412271|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|0.76|0.945
91760382|NCT03100058|183412271|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||ANCOVA|||||1.45|0.81|0.602
91760383|NCT03100058|183412271|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||ANCOVA|||||1.35|0.84|0.612
91760384|NCT03100058|183412271|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||ANCOVA|||||1.16|0.68|0.382
91760385|NCT03100058|183412271|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|0.67|0.310
91760386|NCT03100058|183412271|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.65|0.525
91760387|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.37|5.65|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||5.65|-21.37|0.254
91760388|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|11.99|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||11.99|-17.44|0.716
91760389|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||-0.86|-30.30|0.038
91760390|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|4.06|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||4.06|-18.15|0.213
91807249|NCT01806545|183491080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.318||||||Analysis of week 26||0.318|-0.165|
91807250|NCT01806545|183491081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.404||||||Analysis of week 12||0.404|-0.096|
91760391|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|11.96|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||11.96|-15.38|0.806
91760392|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|11.21|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||11.21|-15.80|0.739
91760393|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.36|15.26|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||15.26|-12.36|0.837
91760394|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.71|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||-0.07|-22.71|0.049
91760395|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|9.82|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.82|-7.22|0.764
91760396|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|11.63|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||11.63|-6.43|0.571
91760397|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.46|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.46|-9.30|0.987
91760398|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|9.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|16.87|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||16.87|2.85|0.006
91760399|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|5.48|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||5.48|-12.03|0.463
91760400|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|9.01|||ANOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.01|-8.18|0.925
91760401|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|10.53|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||10.53|-7.19|0.711
91760402|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|11.26|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||11.26|-3.10|0.265
91760403|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|7.36|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||7.36|-7.31|0.995
91760404|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|11.81|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||11.81|-3.52|0.288
91760405|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|12.5|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||12.50|-3.50|0.269
91760406|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|7.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|13.27|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||13.27|1.23|0.018
91760407|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|9.73|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||9.73|-5.32|0.565
91760408|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|9.09|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||9.09|-5.67|0.649
91760409|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|8.36|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||8.36|-6.87|0.847
91760410|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|7.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|13.43|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||13.43|1.14|0.020
91760411|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.09|9.57|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.57|-17.09|0.579
91760412|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|19.02|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||19.02|-9.08|0.487
91760413|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|10.3|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||10.30|-18.96|0.561
91760414|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|20.25|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||20.25|-1.68|0.097
91760415|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|5.26|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||5.26|-22.10|0.227
91760416|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.22|9.64|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.64|-17.22|0.580
91760417|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|9.03|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.03|-18.67|0.494
91760418|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|9.65|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.65|-12.81|0.782
91760419|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|17.54|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||17.54|-13.82|0.816
91760420|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|8.02||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|23.42|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||23.42|-8.13|0.341
91760421|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|9.99||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.39|13.91|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||13.91|-25.39|0.566
91760422|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.98||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|8.36|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||8.36|-3.38|0.405
91760423|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|7.87|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||7.87|-3.92|0.511
91760424|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|9.79|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.79|-4.83|0.506
91760425|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.7|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||10.70|-4.20|0.392
91760426|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|10.53|||ANOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||10.53|-4.45|0.426
91760427|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|17.8|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||17.80|-0.72|0.071
91760428|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|11.42|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||11.42|-5.56|0.498
91760429|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|10.9|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||10.90|-6.17|0.586
91760430|NCT03100058|183412272|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|12.67|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||12.67|-8.47|0.696
91807251|NCT01806545|183491081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.565|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|1.152||||||Analysis of week 26||1.152|-0.023|
91760431|NCT00465088|183412277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An n = 81 for niacin extended-release with simvastatin and n = 54 for atorvastatin would provide \> 99% power to detect a 13% increase in HDL-C with niacin extended-release with simvastatin relative to atorvastatin, assuming an SD of 16%||||<0.001
91760432|NCT00479856|183412317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|33.3||||||95.0|7.5|70.1||||||||70.1|7.5|
91760433|NCT05758402|183412350|OTHER||Rate difference|1.21||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|5.13|||Chi-squared||Rate difference = detection rate of PsA in EARP group - detection rate of PsA in routine practice group|||5.13|-2.71|0.544
91760434|NCT05758402|183412351|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Chi-squared|||Sensitivity||||0.256
91760435|NCT05758402|183412351|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Specificity||||<0.001
91760436|NCT05758402|183412351|OTHER|||||||0.336|||||||Fisher Exact|||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||||0.336
91760437|NCT05758402|183412351|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||||0.490
91760438|NCT05758402|183412352|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Age characteristics||||0.101
91760439|NCT05758402|183412353|OTHER|||||||0.836|||||||Chi-squared|||Gender characteristics||||0.836
91760440|NCT05758402|183412354|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Body Mass Index (BMI) characteristics||||0.520
91760441|NCT05758402|183412355|OTHER|||||||0.216|||||||Chi-squared|||Drinking history characteristics||||0.216
91807252|NCT02442869|183491096|SUPERIORITY||Net difference in proportion|1.73||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|15.35|||Chi-squared|Df (1)|NNT = 5.59|Due to the large number of zeroes in the Suicidal Ideation (SI)-Current Subscale of the SSI at post (over a third of the participants reported no SI at the end of treatment), a zero-altered model was utilized which divided the outcome into (1) the probability of any SI and (2) the intensity of SI when non-zero, as done in other studies. This analysis tested the difference between the CAMS and TAU arms based on number of participants reporting no SI post Stage 1 treatment.||15.35|-2.41|0.19
91760442|NCT05758402|183412355|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||Chi-squared|||Smoking history characteristics||||0.719
91760443|NCT05758402|183412356|OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of Psoriasis (PsO) characteristics||||0.831
91760444|NCT05758402|183412357|OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||Fisher Exact|||Family history of psoriasis (PsO) characteristics||||0.274
91760445|NCT05758402|183412357|OTHER|||||||0.272|||||||Fisher Exact|||Family history of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) characteristics||||0.272
91760446|NCT05758402|183412358|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score characteristics||||0.622
91760447|NCT05758402|183412359|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Status of hard-to-treat area involvement characteristics||||<0.001
91760448|NCT05758402|183412359|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Status of musculoskeletal symptoms characteristics||||<0.001
91760449|NCT05758402|183412360|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of left hand characteristics||||<0.001
91760450|NCT05758402|183412360|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of right hand characteristics||||0.010
91760451|NCT05758402|183412360|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of left foot characteristics||||0.001
91760452|NCT05758402|183412360|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of right foot characteristics||||<0.001
91760453|NCT05758402|183412360|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total NAPSI score characteristics||||0.001
91760454|NCT05758402|183412361|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SJC66 total joint count characteristics||||<0.001
91760455|NCT05758402|183412361|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||TJC68 total joint count characteristics||||<0.001
91760456|NCT05758402|183412361|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SJC66/TJC68 total joint count characteristics||||<0.001
91760457|NCT05758402|183412362|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Fisher Exact|||Heart diseases||||0.043
91760458|NCT05758402|183412362|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke||||1.000
91760459|NCT05758402|183412362|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Diabetes||||1.000
91760460|NCT05758402|183412362|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||Hyperlipidemia||||0.019
91760461|NCT05758402|183412362|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Chi-squared|||Hypertension||||0.073
91760462|NCT05758402|183412362|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fatty liver||||0.377
91760463|NCT02332291|183412364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.8642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analyses utilized a logistic regression model with remission status (defined as final MADRS \<= 7) as the dependent variable. The independent variable of interest was treatment arm assignment, and the model included age, sex, and baseline depression severity by MADRS as covariates.||||0.0689
91760464|NCT02332291|183412365|SUPERIORITY||Slope, fixed effect|-1.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|344 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed model. MADRS score was the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, sex, and treatment assignment. The primary variable of interest for this analysis was an interaction term between time and treatment assignment. A statistically significant interaction term would indicate that one treatment arm experienced a greater change in MADRS score over time than the other treatment arm.||||0.0001
91760465|NCT02332291|183412366|SUPERIORITY||Slope, fixed effects|-0.3117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1566||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|150 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed models, with QIDS score being the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, sex, and treatment assignment. The primary variable of interest was an interaction term between time and treatment assignment.||||0.0483
91760466|NCT02332291|183412367|OTHER|Analyses tested for effects of time in this one-arm, open-label study phase.|Slope, fixed effect|-1.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|128 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed models, with MADRS score being the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, and sex. The primary variable of interest was time, to indicate a change in depression severity over time with open-label treatment.||||<0.0001
91807253|NCT02442869|183491097|SUPERIORITY||Net difference in proportion|1.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.25
91760467|NCT02332291|183412368|OTHER|Analyses tested for effects of time in this one-arm, open-label study phase.|Slope, fixed effects|-0.2342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0908||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|61 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed models, with QIDS score being the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, and sex. The primary variable of interest was time, to indicate a change in depression severity over time with open-label treatment.||||0.0123
91760468|NCT02332291|183412369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.924||0.742|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analyses used a linear model. Final AES score at week 8 was the dependent variable. Independent variables included age, sex, baseline AES score, baseline MADRS score, and treatment assignment. Treatment assignment was the independent variable of interest.||||0.742
91760469|NCT02332291|183412370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.4705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.352||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analyses used a linear regression model. Final RRS score at week 8 was the dependent variable. Independent variables included age, sex, baseline RRS score, baseline MADRS score, and treatment assignment. Treatment assignment was the independent variable of interest.||||0.0232
91760470|NCT01424228|183412374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.367|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.367
91760471|NCT01868334|183412397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square tests for comparisons between-arm changes in vaccination rates between Baseline and Year 1 for RCCT study period||||||0.05
91760472|NCT01868334|183412397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||||||Cochran-Armitage trend tests for percentage point difference between Baseline and Year 1 for RCCT study period|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.05
91760473|NCT01868334|183412398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square tests for comparisons between-arm changes in vaccination rates between pre and post intervention for Pre-post study period||||||0.05
91760474|NCT01868334|183412398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||||||Cochran-Armitage trend tests for difference between pre and post changes in vaccination rates for Pre-Post study period|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.05
91760475|NCT02478255|183412403|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91760476|NCT00571974|183412409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||One-sided exact binomial test to compare the observed response rate to the 20% rate envisioned under the original null hypothesis.|One-sided exact binomial test|Because all but one subject responded to treatment, the Fisher's exact test was addedd.||The Simon two-stage minimax design with 9 subjects in the first stage and 8 subjects in the second stage, yielding 17 subjects overall. This design's early termination rule was ≤3/9 responses in the first stage, and its success criterion was ≥7/17 responses overall. This design had 80% power at 5% alpha to distinguish an efficacious 50% response rate from a null-hypothesis 20% response rate.||||0.0001
91760477|NCT02813889|183412410|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0146||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0261|-0.0031||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||-0.0031|-0.0261|0.0054
91760478|NCT02813889|183412411|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0331|-0.007||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||-0.0070|-0.0331|0.0005
91760479|NCT02813889|183412412|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0146||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0267|-0.0026||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||-0.0026|-0.0267|0.0088
91760480|NCT02813889|183412413|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0059||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.0062||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||0.0062|-0.0180|0.7624
91760481|NCT02813889|183412414|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0129||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0007|0.0251||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0251|0.0007|0.0326
91760482|NCT02813889|183412415|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0309|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0138|0.048||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0480|0.0138|<0.0001
91760483|NCT02813889|183412416|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.017||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0045|0.0295||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0295|0.0045|0.0025
91760484|NCT02813889|183412417|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0066||||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0059|0.0191||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0191|-0.0059|0.6782
91760485|NCT02813889|183412418|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|1.064||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|2.122||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||2.122|0.006|0.0479
91807254|NCT02442869|183491098|SUPERIORITY|Power analyses. We determined that with a sample size of 62 clients, the outcome analyses had at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.80 (Ahn etal., 2001)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|t(60) = 2.15||||1.05|0.04|0.035
91760486|NCT02813889|183412419|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.278||||0.9947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|1.477||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||1.477|-0.921|0.9947
91760487|NCT02813889|183412420|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.835||||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|1.945||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||1.945|-0.274|0.2614
91760488|NCT02813889|183412421|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|1.176||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|2.286||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||2.286|0.066|0.0314
91760489|NCT02813889|183412422|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.074||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.255|0.1059||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||0.1059|-2.255|0.0958
91760490|NCT02813889|183412423|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5248||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1243|2.1739||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||2.1739|-1.1243|0.9660
91760491|NCT02813889|183412424|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4198||||0.9462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6278|0.7882||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||0.7882|-1.6278|0.9462
91760492|NCT02813889|183412425|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0705||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2785|0.1375||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||0.1375|-2.2785|0.1129
91760493|NCT05224453|183412443|SUPERIORITY|Parametric t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-3.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.78|-6.21|<0.05
91760494|NCT05224453|183412444|SUPERIORITY|Parametric t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|-0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.86|-6.53|<0.05
91760495|NCT05224453|183412444|SUPERIORITY|Parametric t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.44|-3.84|<0.05
91760496|NCT02974257|183412447|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model with an independent variance-covariance matrix to account for the correlation of within-patient repeated measures was used and linear contrasts were used to estimate the mean difference between treatment arms at 48 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.1||Global p-value from the mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis|If patients died before 48 hours lactate levels were imputed by carrying forward the last known value before the event with a 20% increase||||6.1|-3.1|0.9
91760497|NCT02974257|183412448|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||AUC-VO2 normally distributed, used a linear regression model to compare mean AUC-VO2 between treatment groups controlling for average temperature.||0.56|-1.29|0.42
91760498|NCT02974257|183412449|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH specific activity between thiamine and placebo groups at 48 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model.||||0.3|-0.9|0.07
91760499|NCT00793325|183412459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<15 years and \>=15 years in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.575
91760500|NCT00793325|183412460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Male and Female in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.206
91760501|NCT00793325|183412461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Severity. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between mild, moderate and severe in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.033
91760502|NCT00793325|183412461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Severity. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the frequency of treatment related adverse events across increasing levels of severity."||||=0.207
91760503|NCT00793325|183412462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Past history of any disease. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With past history of any disease and Without past history any disease in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.013
91760504|NCT00793325|183412463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Complication(s). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With complication(s) and Without complication(s)in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.009
91760505|NCT00793325|183412464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Function Disorder. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between with Hepatic Function Disorder and without Hepatic Function Disorder in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||<0.001
91760506|NCT00793325|183412465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Impairment. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With Renal Impairment and Without Renal Impairment in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||<0.001
91760507|NCT00793325|183412466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drug(s). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With Concomitant Drug(s) and Without Concomitant Drug(s) in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.003
91760508|NCT00793325|183412467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the growth rate SD score for calendar age between SGA at one year and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
91760509|NCT00793325|183412467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the growth rate SD score for calendar age between SGA at two years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
91760510|NCT00793325|183412467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the growth rate SD score for calendar age between SGA at three years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
91807255|NCT03521934|183491099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-cardiovascular (non-CV) death treated as a competing event.||0.85|0.52|< 0.001
91807256|NCT03521934|183491100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.83|0.49|< 0.001
91807257|NCT03521934|183491101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.22|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||1.22|0.58|= 0.36
91760511|NCT00793325|183412468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the height SD score for calendar age between SGA at one year and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
91760512|NCT00793325|183412468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the height SD score for calendar age between SGA at two years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
91807258|NCT03521934|183491102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.92|0.56|
91807259|NCT03521934|183491103|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.86||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.86|0.54|
91760513|NCT00793325|183412468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the height SD score for calendar age between SGA at three years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
91760514|NCT02920749|183412570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The P value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant. With type I α = 5% and with type II (power) of 90%, we therefore needed 27 patients/group.|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS version 21 for Windows (IBM Corporation) software. All data are expressed as means ± SD. Mann-Whitney test was performed to assess the differences between patient subgroups.||||<0.05
91760515|NCT02920749|183412571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The P value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant. With type I α = 5% and with type II (power) of 90%, we therefore needed 27 patients/group.|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS version 21 for Windows (IBM Corporation) software. All data are expressed as means ± SD. Mann-Whitney test was performed to assess the differences between patient subgroups.||||<0.05
91760516|NCT05438576|183412577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.27|1.05|0.032
91760517|NCT05438576|183412582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.64|0.74|0.621
91807260|NCT03521934|183491104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.14||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction.||1.14|0.59|
91807261|NCT03521934|183491105|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.0||||||The change from baseline to Month 4 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups as factor and baseline KCCQ-12 score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||7|1.3|
91807262|NCT03521934|183491106|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.98||||||Rate of decline in eGFR observed over time was analyzed by MMRM with absolute change in eGFR from baseline as the outcome, a random effect for intercept, and fixed effects for treatment, baseline value, and time.||0.98|-1.3|
91807263|NCT01391559|183491110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91807264|NCT00489541|183491140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||A superiority test of TAXUX Element vs bare metal (BMS) Express historical control. The null hypothesis that the true difference in means (TAXUS Element - BMS Express) is equal to zero was tested against the two-sided alternative that the true difference in means is different from zero. A sample size of 224 patients in the TAXUS Element group (190 after 15% attrition due to angiographic follow-up) provided 85% power.||-0.30|-0.54|<0.0001
91807265|NCT00489541|183491141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||12-month TLR rate|7.34|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.8|||Chi-squared|||One-sided, single-sample binomial test to compare the observed TLF rate in PERSEUS SV to the pre-specified performance goal (19.5%). The normal approximation of the test statistic was used. The null hypothesis that the true TAXUS Element TLF rate is greater than or equal to the performance goal was tested against the one-sided alternative that the true rate is less than the performance goal. A sample size of 224 patients (accounting for 5% attrition to follow-up) provided 80% power.||10.8||<0.0001
91760518|NCT02881762|183412587|OTHER|Comparison of mean change analyzed with unpaired t-test for parametric data. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in HCV viral load between Maraviroc and No Maraviroc||||0.13
91760519|NCT02881762|183412588|OTHER|Comparison of difference in mean analyzed with paired t-test for parametric data. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|||||>|0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in HCV viral load between baseline and 7 days of maraviroc.||||>0.5
91760520|NCT00774800|183412614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|1.54||||0.0011||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||0.0011
91760521|NCT00774800|183412614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|3.06|||<|0.0001||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||<0.0001
91760522|NCT00774800|183412615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|1.35||||0.0057||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||0.0057
91760523|NCT00774800|183412615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|1.66|||<|0.0001||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||<0.0001
91760524|NCT00774800|183412616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-18.33|||<|0.0001||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||<0.0001
91760525|NCT00774800|183412616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-62.46||||0.0018|||||||ANOVA|Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||0.0018
91760526|NCT01843062|183412618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||The primary endpoint was to be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided p-value was less than 0.05. P-value and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.87|0.61|0.8205
91760527|NCT01843062|183412619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.73||P-value and CIs were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.73|0.42|0.6549
91760528|NCT01843062|183412620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||P-value and CIs were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.87|0.61|0.8205
91760529|NCT01843062|183412621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.73||P-value and CIs were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.73|0.42|0.6549
91760530|NCT03549104|183412641|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We will evaluate the effects of within-group and between-group differences from baseline (Week 0) to program completion (Week 8) to calculate effect sizes for sample size estimation for a future larger study.|||
91760531|NCT03549104|183412642|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We will evaluate the effects of within-group and between-group differences from baseline (Week 0) to program completion (Week 8) to calculate effect sizes for sample size estimation for a future larger study.|||
91760532|NCT03549104|183412643|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We will evaluate the effects of within-group and between-group differences from baseline (Week 0) to program completion (Week 8) to calculate effect sizes for sample size estimation for a future larger study.|||
91807266|NCT04182763|183491144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wald test after neg binomial regression|Chi-squared with 3 d.f.||Mean counts of events per person were calculated from a negative binomial regression model with categorical coefficients for active dose levels, controlling for the baseline number of prescriptions. A joint test of the null hypothesis that the three regression parameters representing active treatment = 0 was done.||||0.50
91807267|NCT04182763|183491149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||Two-sided threshold of p\<.10|Linear contrast / test for trend|Contrast after mixed-effects GLM with log link, random subject intercept, treatment, PKAN type, and time (1 mo vs 3d).||Test that high \> med \> low \> placebo vs the null that all groups are equal at 1 month + 3 days after first dose. Adjusted for PKAN type (classical or atypical), because randomization was stratified on type, and time point.||||0.105
91807268|NCT04182763|183491149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Two-sided threshold of p\<.10|Linear contrast / test for trend|Contrast after GLM with log link, treatment, and PKAN type.||Test that high \> med \> low \> placebo vs the null that all groups are equal at 6 months after first dose. PKAN type (classical or atypical) was included because randomization was stratified on type. The study hypothesis was that expression levels would not vary significantly at this time point.||||0.55
91807269|NCT01774604|183491220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.33
91760533|NCT04124705|183412644|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for stratified response rate difference was greater than the non-inferiority margin, the null hypothesis would be rejected and the noninferiority of Armour Thyroid to levothyroxine would be declared.|Stratified Response Rate Difference|-15.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-4.23|||||The response rate difference (Armour Thyroid group minus Levothyroxine group) and the 95% confidence interval were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel-weighted method with the age group (age \< 65 years or ≥ 65 years) as a stratification factor.|The null hypothesis was that Armour Thyroid would be inferior to levothyroxine for the primary efficacy endpoint, sustained TSH response. The non-inferiority hypothesis test was performed at a 1-sided 2.5% level of significance (equivalent to a two-sided 5% level of significance).||-4.23|-26.10|
91760534|NCT04124705|183412645|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for stratified response rate difference was greater than the non-inferiority margin, the null hypothesis would be rejected and the noninferiority of Armour Thyroid to levothyroxine would be declared.|Stratified Response Rate Difference|-10.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.65|-2.38|||||The response rate difference (Armour Thyroid group minus Levothyroxine group) and the 95% confidence interval were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel-weighted method with the age group (age \< 65 years or ≥ 65 years) as a stratification factor.|The null hypothesis was that Armour Thyroid would be inferior to levothyroxine for titration TSH response. The non-inferiority hypothesis test was performed at a 1-sided 2.5% level of significance.||-2.38|-18.65|
91760535|NCT04164732|183412646|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|1.94|||longitudinal mixed effects (MMRM) model|||||1.94|-0.71|0.5506
91760536|NCT00395850|183412649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.02|||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures Logistic Regression|Repeated Measures Generalized Linear Models on a Binomial distribution, thus a Repeated Measures Logistic Regression||Used placebo group as contrast to determine whether slopes of disulfiram groups differed from slope of placebo group data||||<0.05
91760537|NCT00395850|183412650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91760538|NCT02540993|183412658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825|||=|0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.928||P-value from stratified log-rank test. Significance was considered to be achieved if p-value ≤ 0.03282695.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.928|0.732|= 0.0014
91760539|NCT02540993|183412659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|0.989||P-value from stratified log-rank test. Significance was considered to be achieved if p-value ≤ 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.989|0.747|= 0.0339
91760540|NCT02540993|183412660|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.895|||=|0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.075||P-value from stratified log-rank test. Significance was considered to be achieved if p-value ≤ 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.075|0.746|= 0.2348
91760541|NCT02540993|183412661|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946|||=|0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.022||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.022|0.876|= 0.1623
91760542|NCT02540993|183412662|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Ratio of least squares means|0.688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|0.715||P-value from F-test of equal means between the treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||0.715|0.662|< 0.0001
91807270|NCT01774604|183491221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91807271|NCT01774604|183491222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91807272|NCT01774604|183491223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
91807273|NCT01774604|183491224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
91807274|NCT01774604|183491225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
91807275|NCT01774604|183491226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
91807276|NCT01727297|183491228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.11||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Age was treated as a continuous variable in years.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of a one year increase in age on a patient's risk of developing AF. Descriptive statistics (mean±standard deviation) for age were 75.7±7.9 years among patients with AF, and 69.4±10.0 among patients without AF|The null hypothesis was that age did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.11|1.05|< 0.001
91807277|NCT01727297|183491228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.08||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons. BMI was treated as a continuous variable.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of a one unit increase in BMI on a patient's risk of developing AF. Descriptive statistics (mean ± standard deviation) for BMI were 31.0 ± 6.6 among patients with AF, and 31.2 ± 6.4 among patients without AF|The null hypothesis was that body mass index (BMI) did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.08|1.01|0.02
91807278|NCT01727297|183491228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.61||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of being male on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that gender did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient for being male in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.61|0.77|0.56
91760543|NCT02540993|183412663|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|0.9||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.900|0.648|= 0.0012
91760544|NCT02951429|183412676|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage of participants|3.06||||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|17.97|||Chi-squared|||||17.97|-11.30|0.6527
91760545|NCT02951429|183412677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||Log Rank|Log-rank test based on the time to the first event to compare the two treatment arms.||||1.34|0.67|0.7568
91760546|NCT02951429|183412678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.15|||Log Rank|Log-rank test based on the time to the first event to compare the two treatment arms.||||1.15|0.68|0.3760
91760547|NCT02951429|183412679|SUPERIORITY||Difference (95% CI)|2.85||||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|17.84|||Chi-squared|||||17.84|-12.13|0.7046
91760548|NCT02951429|183412680|SUPERIORITY||Difference (95% CI)|0.94||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41|||Log Rank|||||1.41|0.62|0.7550
91760549|NCT02951429|183412681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.65|0.9174
91760550|NCT02951429|183412682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.62|||Log Rank|||||1.62|0.70|0.7748
91760551|NCT02951429|183412683|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.4258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.50|0.38|0.4258
91760552|NCT02951429|183412685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.3161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.31|0.3161
91760553|NCT02951429|183412695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from baseline|-206.59||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-920.03|506.85|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||506.85|-920.03|0.5646
91760554|NCT02951429|183412696|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.33||||0.5255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|2.36|||ANCOVA|Difference in mean change in total score: -4.22||||2.36|-9.98|0.5255
91760555|NCT02951429|183412697|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Difference in mean change in total score: -5.07||||6.00|-18.00|0.4263
91760556|NCT03997825|183412704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91760557|NCT03997825|183412705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91760558|NCT05546229|183412738|OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|8 degrees of freedom||patient plasma versus isf value for methadone||||.0049
91760559|NCT05546229|183412739|OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|8 degrees of freedom||||||.0025
91760560|NCT00847197|183412751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.3||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The test for the treatment difference in terms of percentage change from baseline to a given time point was done using the contrast statement.||For the analysis of percent change from baseline in LDL-C at study endpoint, a Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) method was used. The repeated measures model included terms for treatment, time (Day 15, 29), and the interaction of time-by-treatment. The analysis model also adjusted for baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, region and gender.||4.3|-3.9|0.926
91760561|NCT00847197|183412752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.1||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The test for the treatment difference in terms of percentage change from baseline to a given time point was done using the contrast statement.||For the analysis of percent change from baseline in LDL-C at study endpoint, a Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) method was used. The repeated measures model included terms for treatment, time (Day 15, 29), and the interaction of time-by-treatment. The analysis model also adjusted for baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, region and gender.||8.1|1.0|0.013
91760562|NCT00847197|183412753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.9|||Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05.||Triglycerides was analyzed by non-parametric methods with terms for treatment, gender and region. Specifically, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was applied to the Tukey's normal scores of the percent change from baseline. The estimate of the difference in medians between MK1903 and the placebo groups utilizing the Hodges-Lehmann estimate and a distribution-free 95% CI for the difference based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test was provided.||-1.9|-18.9|0.02
91760563|NCT03824587|183412782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.13|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-1.13|0.0004
91760564|NCT03824587|183412783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0097
91760565|NCT03824587|183412784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0027
91760566|NCT03824587|183412785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0011
91760567|NCT02921087|183412802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for the primary outcome (change in overall VAS at day 7) mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.07
91760568|NCT02921087|183412804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for accommodative response mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.01
91760569|NCT02921087|183412805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for the change in CISS, mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.77
91760570|NCT02921087|183412806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for the CLDEQ-8, mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.69
91760571|NCT02921087|183412807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for phoria, mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.87
91760572|NCT01128244|183412812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.20
91760573|NCT01128244|183412813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance, P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.62
91760574|NCT01128244|183412814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance, P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.001
91807279|NCT01727297|183491228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.59||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having diabetes on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that diabetes did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.59|0.74|0.66
91807280|NCT01727297|183491228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.69||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having heart failure on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that heart failure did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.69|0.69|0.73
91760575|NCT01128244|183412815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance, P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.45
91760576|NCT01128244|183412816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test of treatment effect.|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were analyzed by paired t-test adjusted for multiple testing by Sidak methods.|t-test, 2 sided|||Data were analyzed by paired t-test adjusted for multiple testing by Sidak methods.||||<0.05
91760577|NCT01363908|183412833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0781
91760578|NCT01363908|183412833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.5000
91760579|NCT01363908|183412833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2609|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.2609
91760580|NCT01363908|183412833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9219|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.9219
91760581|NCT01363908|183412835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6875|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.6875
91760582|NCT01363908|183412835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||1.0000
91760583|NCT01363908|183412835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.8181
91760584|NCT01363908|183412835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.5566
91760585|NCT01363908|183412837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0475
91760586|NCT01363908|183412837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.4410
91760587|NCT01363908|183412837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0417
91807281|NCT01727297|183491228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.6||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having hypertension on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that hypertension did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||2.60|0.58|0.58
91760588|NCT01363908|183412837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.0409
91760589|NCT01363908|183412838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.9901
91760590|NCT01363908|183412838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.3039
91760591|NCT01363908|183412838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0044
91760592|NCT01363908|183412838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.0395
91760593|NCT05258149|183412839|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.46|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A|||2.46|1.10|
91760594|NCT05258149|183412840|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.79|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A|||2.79|1.27|
91760595|NCT05258149|183412841|NON_INFERIORITY|A Non-Inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.42|1.3|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A||confidence intervals were adjusted using 98.33% per each secondary endpoint|1.30|0.42|
91760596|NCT05258149|183412842|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.91|2.75|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A||confidence intervals were adjusted using 98.33% per each secondary endpoint|2.75|0.91|
91760597|NCT05258149|183412843|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.24|3.5|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A||confidence intervals were adjusted using 98.33% per each secondary endpoint|3.50|1.24|
91807282|NCT01727297|183491228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having renal impairment on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that renal impairment did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.32|0.64|0.65
91760598|NCT01013194|183412850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4340
91760599|NCT01013194|183412851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at 1 year Follow-up||||0.0076
91760600|NCT01013194|183412852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at 1 year Follow-up||||0.0437
91760601|NCT04273893|183412859|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Changes from baseline ALC were conducted using repeated measures models with an unstructured covariance matrix and model terms for tumor location, follow-up time. Adjustments for stratification factors were made using least squares means.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91760602|NCT02936843|183412875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided||TTEST, two sided||||0.41
91760603|NCT01393821|183412890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6311|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6311
91760604|NCT01318408|183412896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessing effects on cognition over time.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The intent-to-treat group included all individuals who initiated levetiracetam. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine changes in participants' scores for cognition, function, and behavior between baseline and 12 weeks.Change in MMSE test scores was the primary outcome measure.||||.01
91760605|NCT01318408|183412897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessing cognitive effects over time.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Lower scores (negative change) indicate improvements on the ADAS-cog.||||||.02
91760606|NCT02932748|183412902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A global one-way ANOVA was followed by two pairwise t-tests on the comparisons of interest, i.e., IP vs. EUC, and GP vs IP for weight change across 6 months, evaluated at p ≤ 0.025, using both intent-to-treat and completer only data.|ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91760607|NCT00475904|183412910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2709||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||In the initial analysis, the efficacy of the test treatment NP-1 cream was compared with placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The analysis was conducted using the ITT population to compare the mean changes in pain scores from baseline to endpoint for the 2 treatments; the LOCF approach was employed for patients who did not complete the trial.||1.08|0.01|0.0441
91760608|NCT00475904|183412911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To conclude that the NP-1 was not inferior to gabapentin, the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference between treatments for the endpoint mean pain score was required to be below the non-inferiority margin of 0.70.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2311||0.8409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.43||To conclude that the NP-1 was not inferior to gabapentin, the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference between treatments for the endpoint mean pain score was required to be below the non-inferiority margin of 0.70.|ANCOVA|||the primary hypothesis of this study was that NP-1 topical cream (amitriptyline 4%/ketamine 2%) administered twice daily in doses of 4 gm for 4 weeks is not inferior to the standard treatment (oral gabapentin 600 mg 3 times daily) for relieving the pain of adult patients with PHN.||0.43|-0.33|0.8409
91760609|NCT00880191|183412912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Complete Responders by Arm - Days 2-6, the primary analysis utilizes Fisher's exact test to compare the percentage of complete responders in each group (dex/gabapentin vs. dex/placebo), with complete response being defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue therapy for days 2 through 6. If a patient does not complete the study or does not provide complete data, they will be assumed to be a non-responder.||||0.2344
91760610|NCT00880191|183412913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3694|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis described above was repeated using a slightly different alternate definition of complete response: no emetic episodes, no more than a mean of 2.5 on the nausea numeric analogue scale, and no rescue agents.||||0.3694
91760611|NCT00066963|183412921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.6|||Mantel Haenszel|2 d.f.|Counseling Only vs FV 2x/yr+Counseling|Planned sample size of 384 participants (128/study arm) (alpha = 0.05, power = 90%, 50% attrition, χ2 test) to detect caries incidence differences, based on caries incidence in the literature (20% to 50% over two years). 50% attrition in the sample size calculation was selected based on the literature (e.g. Weinstein et al., 1994 reported 53% attrition in six months.)||7.6|1.9|<0.001
91760612|NCT00773747|183412922|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.774|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|0.941|||Regression, Cox|||Cox model stratified by myeloma stage at enrollment, history of a bone marrow transplant, and number of prior treatment regimens, with a single treatment covariate.||0.941|0.636|= 0.0100
91760613|NCT00773747|183412924|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.858||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.184|||Regression, Cox|||Cox model stratified by myeloma stage at enrollment, history of a bone marrow transplant, and number of prior treatment regimens, with a single treatment covariate.||1.184|0.622|0.3496
91760614|NCT03422536|183412933|EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified significance criteria were met by exclusion of the historical control PFS of 2.0 months. As confirmation, the one-sample log rank test was computed with expected survival estimated using an exponential distribution of 2.0 months.||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05|Log Rank|||||||.04
91760615|NCT03422536|183412938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Cox|||c-Met positivity was compared across groups: HPV+ vs HPV-||||.005
91760616|NCT03422536|183412938|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||Log Rank|||Post-hoc comparison of progression free survival (PFS) in cMet positive vs. c-Met negative patients.||0.8|0.1|.02
91760617|NCT03422536|183412938|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.8|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P , .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at cMet positivity in HPV- patients in the combination arm.||0.8|0.03|0.03
91760618|NCT03422536|183412938|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|17.5|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P , .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at cMet positivity in HPV+ patients in the combination arm.||17.5|0.6|.20
91760619|NCT03422536|183412938|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Log Rank|||Post-hoc comparison of progression free survival (PFS) in HGF positive vs. HGF negative patients.||2.0|0.9|.10
91760620|NCT03422536|183412938|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.7|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P , .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at HGF expression in HPV- patients in the combination arm.||4.7|0.4|.60
91760621|NCT03422536|183412938|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.1|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P \< .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at HGF expression in HPV+ patients in the combination arm.||13.1|0.9|.07
91760622|NCT01973998|183412942|EQUIVALENCE|The primary outcome is time from randomization to a composite outcome of all cause re-hospitalization and all-cause mortality, whichever comes first. The primary analysis will be a log-ranked test and associated Kaplan-Meier plot, unadjusted for any covariates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.654|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4789|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|10.0|1.175|2.133||Because this is a pilot study the intent is to see if there is a signal that would justify a larger clinical trial. Therefore the significance level has been set to 0.1 and the power has been set at 0.7.|Log Rank|||||2.133|1.175|<0.1
91760623|NCT01973998|183412942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.654|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4789||0.1|TWO_SIDED|10.0|1.175|2.133|||Log Rank|||A total of 100 patients is required in a 2 treatment parallel-design study. There is a 70% probability that the study will detect a treatment difference at a 2-sided 10% significance level, if the true hazard ratio is 1.654. This is based on the assumption that the accrual period will be 36 months and the follow up period will be 6 months and the median time to event is 8 months. The total number of events will be 73.||2.133|1.175|0.1
91760624|NCT02160145|183412971|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.271|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.684||A 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to the primary analysis of the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Weighted Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with effects of treatment and randomization stratification factors and covariate baseline.||Tolvaptan versus placebo. Treatment difference in the change of eGFR assessed the efficacy of tolvaptan treatment as compared with placebo in subjects with late-stage CKD due to ADPKD who tolerated tolvaptan during an initial run-in period.||1.684|0.859|<0.0001
91760625|NCT02160145|183412972|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|1.403||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied when the primary endpoint reached a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in treatment effect was derived from a linear mixed model with effects of treatment, time, treatment ime interaction, acute haemodynamic effect, pretreatment baseline, and randomization stratification factors. An unstructured variance matrix was assumed for the random intercept and time.||1.403|0.618|<0.0001
91760626|NCT01620528|183412987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760627|NCT01620528|183412987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760628|NCT01620528|183412988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760629|NCT01620528|183412988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760630|NCT01620528|183412989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||< 0.001
91760631|NCT01620528|183412989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||< 0.001
91760632|NCT01620528|183412990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
91760633|NCT01620528|183412990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
91760634|NCT01620528|183412991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||0.004
91760635|NCT01620528|183412991|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||< 0.001
91760636|NCT01620528|183412992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||0.910
91760637|NCT01620528|183412992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||< 0.001
91760638|NCT01620528|183412993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||0.185
91760639|NCT01620528|183412993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||< 0.001
91760640|NCT01620528|183412994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.144|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||0.144
91760641|NCT01620528|183412994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||0.003
91760642|NCT01620528|183412995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.424|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.424
91760643|NCT01620528|183412995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.002
91760644|NCT01620528|183412996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760645|NCT01620528|183412996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760646|NCT01620528|183412997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760647|NCT01620528|183412997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760648|NCT01620528|183412998|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91807283|NCT01727297|183491228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.2||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having COPD on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.20|0.45|0.22
91760649|NCT01620528|183412998|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760650|NCT01620528|183412999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760651|NCT01620528|183412999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760652|NCT01620528|183413000|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760653|NCT01620528|183413000|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760654|NCT01620528|183413001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.103
91760655|NCT01620528|183413001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.023
91760656|NCT01620528|183413002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.031
91760657|NCT01620528|183413002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760658|NCT01620528|183413003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760659|NCT01620528|183413003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760660|NCT01620528|183413004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.005
91760661|NCT01620528|183413004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760662|NCT01620528|183413005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
91760663|NCT01620528|183413005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760664|NCT01620528|183413006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.306
91760665|NCT01620528|183413006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.239
91760666|NCT01620528|183413007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.855
91760667|NCT01620528|183413007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.012
91760668|NCT01620528|183413008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.010
91760669|NCT01620528|183413008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760670|NCT01620528|183413009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.061
91760671|NCT01620528|183413009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760672|NCT01620528|183413010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.126
91760673|NCT01620528|183413010|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91760674|NCT01620528|183413011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.34|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.34|-0.65|< 0.001
91760675|NCT01620528|183413011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|-0.49|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.49|-0.81|< 0.001
91760676|NCT01620528|183413012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|-0.49|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.49|-0.79|< 0.001
91760677|NCT01620528|183413012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.51|-1.2|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.20|-1.51|< 0.001
91760678|NCT01620528|183413013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.83|-0.53|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.53|-0.83|< 0.001
91760679|NCT01620528|183413013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.54|-1.23|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.23|-1.54|< 0.001
91760680|NCT01620528|183413014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|-0.49|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.49|-0.81|< 0.001
91807284|NCT01727297|183491228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having a prior stroke (more than one year pre-device implant) on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that prior stroke more than one year pre-device implant did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.38|0.54|0.53
91807285|NCT01727297|183491228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.15||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having coronary artery disease on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that coronary artery disease did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.15|0.53|0.21
91807286|NCT01727297|183491228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.17||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having sleep apnea on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that sleep apnea did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.17|0.45|0.19
91807287|NCT01727297|183491228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.14||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having a family history of AF on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that family history of AF did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||5.14|0.76|0.16
91807288|NCT01727297|183491228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.43||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having vascular disease on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that vascular disease did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.43|0.56|0.63
91807289|NCT01192516|183491232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, gender, pain level, and body mass index at baseline.||||||.85
91807290|NCT01192516|183491235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, gender, and body mass index.||||||.06
91807291|NCT01192516|183491238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, and pain at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.36
91760681|NCT01620528|183413014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.49|-1.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.16|-1.49|< 0.001
91807292|NCT01217801|183491275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|93.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.15|98.63|||Regression, Linear|||Linear mixed effect model, log transformed AUC, LSMeans for treatment Film and Tablet, the difference between the LSMeans and 90%CI calculated and transformed to geometric means, ratio estimates and 90%CI||98.63|89.15|0.05
91807293|NCT00291577|183491316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.89||||||90.0|80.34|121.73|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU011248 C1D2 vs C2D3. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, no statistical hypothesis testing was done since the primary purpose was to assess the tolerability of the combination of SU011248 with docetaxel.||121.73|80.34|
91807294|NCT00291577|183491316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|81.96||||||90.0|59.76|112.41|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU012662 C1D2 vs C2D3||112.41|59.76|
91807295|NCT00291577|183491316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|97.81||||||90.0|80.44|118.94|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Total drug C1D2 vs C2D3||118.94|80.44|
91807296|NCT00291577|183491317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.23||||||90.0|82.75|123.83|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU011248 C1D2 vs C2D3||123.83|82.75|
91807297|NCT00291577|183491317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|81.72||||||90.0|62.4|107.04|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU012662 C1D2 vs C2D3||107.04|62.40|
91807298|NCT00291577|183491317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.0||||||90.0|82.95|120.56|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Total drug C1D2 vs C2D3||120.56|82.95|
91807299|NCT00291577|183491321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.18||||||90.0|78.73|124.95|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||124.95|78.73|
91760682|NCT01620528|183413015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.75|-0.43|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.43|-0.75|< 0.001
91760683|NCT01620528|183413015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.58|-1.25|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.25|-1.58|< 0.001
91760684|NCT01620528|183413016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-24.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.288|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.45|-16.69|||mixed-effects model|||||-16.69|-31.45|< 0.001
91760685|NCT01620528|183413016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-31.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.299|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.41|-23.6|||mixed-effects model|||||-23.60|-38.41|< 0.001
91760686|NCT01620528|183413017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-30.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.107||-30.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.77|-23.82|||mixed-effects model|||||-23.82|-37.77|-30.79
91760687|NCT01620528|183413017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-63.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.148|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.85|-56.71|||mixed-effects model|||||-56.71|-70.85|< 0.001
91760688|NCT01620528|183413018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-32.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-39.35|-25.08|||mixed-effects model|||||-25.08|-39.35|< 0.001
91760689|NCT01620528|183413018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-64.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-72.19|-57.68|||mixed-effects model|||||-57.68|-72.19|< 0.001
91760690|NCT01620528|183413019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-29.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.272|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.28|-22.59|||mixed-effects model|||||-22.59|-37.28|< 0.001
91760691|NCT01620528|183413019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-61.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.356|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-69.44|-54.36|||mixed-effects model|||||-54.36|-69.44|< 0.001
91760692|NCT01620528|183413020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-28.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.96|-21.31|||mixed-effects model|||||-21.31|-35.96|< 0.001
91760693|NCT01620528|183413020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-66.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.321|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-73.95|-59.04|||mixed-effects model|||||-59.04|-73.95|< 0.001
91760694|NCT01620528|183413021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.479|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.2|-13.57|||mixed-effects model|||||-13.57|-29.20|< 0.001
91760695|NCT01620528|183413021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-60.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.557|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-68.77|-52.79|||mixed-effects model|||||-52.79|-68.77|< 0.001
91760696|NCT01620528|183413022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.111|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.14|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||0.02|-0.14|0.111
91760697|NCT01620528|183413022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|-0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.01|-0.18|0.008
91760698|NCT01620528|183413023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.092|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||0.02|-0.18|0.092
91760699|NCT01620528|183413023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|-0.08|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.08|-0.28|< 0.001
91760700|NCT01620528|183413024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.017|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|-0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.01|-0.23|0.017
91760701|NCT01620528|183413024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.18|-0.41|< 0.001
91760702|NCT01620528|183413025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|-0.07|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.07|-0.31|< 0.001
91760703|NCT01620528|183413025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|-0.27|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.27|-0.51|< 0.001
91760704|NCT01620528|183413026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.27|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.03|-0.27|0.004
91760705|NCT01620528|183413026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.52|-0.27|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.27|-0.52|< 0.001
91760706|NCT01620528|183413027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.748||0.024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.4|-0.06|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.06|-12.40|0.024
91760707|NCT01620528|183413027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.756||0.005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.9|-1.53|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.53|-13.90|0.005
91760708|NCT01620528|183413028|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.226||0.078|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.93|1.56|||mixed-effects model|||||1.56|-12.93|0.078
91760709|NCT01620528|183413028|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-13.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.249|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.01|-6.42|||mixed-effects model|||||-6.42|-21.01|< 0.001
91760710|NCT01620528|183413029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.475||0.015|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.27|-0.66|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.66|-16.27|0.015
91760711|NCT01620528|183413029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-22.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.514|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-30.38|-14.6|||mixed-effects model|||||-14.60|-30.38|< 0.001
91760712|NCT01620528|183413030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-14.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.673|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.36|-5.87|||mixed-effects model|||||-5.87|-22.36|< 0.001
91760713|NCT01620528|183413030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-30.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.729|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.78|-22.04|||mixed-effects model|||||-22.04|-38.78|< 0.001
91760714|NCT01620528|183413031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.736||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.94|-3.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-3.16|-19.94|0.002
91760715|NCT01620528|183413031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-29.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.788|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.19|-21.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-21.18|-38.19|< 0.001
91760716|NCT01620528|183413032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.805||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.92|-3.83|||mixed-effects model|||||-3.83|-20.92|0.001
91760717|NCT01620528|183413032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-29.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.868|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.66|-21.28|||mixed-effects model|||||-21.28|-38.66|< 0.001
91760718|NCT01620528|183413033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.038|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||0.01|-0.22|0.038
91760719|NCT01620528|183413033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.488|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.08|||mixed-effects model|||||0.08|-0.16|0.488
91760720|NCT01620528|183413034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.252|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||||0.07|-0.20|0.252
91760721|NCT01620528|183413034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.058|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||0.02|-0.25|0.058
91760722|NCT01620528|183413035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.34|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.03|-0.34|0.009
91760723|NCT01620528|183413035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.18|-0.50|< 0.001
91760724|NCT01620528|183413036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.06|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||0.03|-0.30|0.060
91760725|NCT01620528|183413036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|-0.1|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.10|-0.44|< 0.001
91760726|NCT01620528|183413037|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.118|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|0.05|||mixed-effects model|||||0.05|-0.28|0.118
91760727|NCT01620528|183413037|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.48|-0.13|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.13|-0.48|< 0.001
91760728|NCT01620528|183413038|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.313|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.14|0.05|||mixed-effects model|||||0.05|-0.14|0.313
91760729|NCT01620528|183413038|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|-0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.02|-0.22|0.006
91760730|NCT01620528|183413039|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.519|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.13|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||||0.07|-0.13|0.519
91760731|NCT01620528|183413039|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.11|-0.32|< 0.001
91760732|NCT01620528|183413040|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.037|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||0.01|-0.23|0.037
91760733|NCT01620528|183413040|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|-0.17|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.17|-0.41|< 0.001
91760734|NCT01620528|183413041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.19|0.05|||mixed-effects model|||||0.05|-0.19|0.200
91760735|NCT01620528|183413041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.42|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.18|-0.42|< 0.001
91760736|NCT01620528|183413042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.34|||ANOVA|||||-0.34|-0.72|< 0.001
91760737|NCT01620528|183413042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.56|||ANOVA|||||-0.56|-0.93|< 0.001
91760738|NCT01620528|183413043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.19|||ANOVA|||||-0.19|-0.58|< 0.001
91760739|NCT01620528|183413043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.82|||ANOVA|||||-0.82|-1.21|< 0.001
91760740|NCT01620528|183413044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.41|||ANOVA|||||-0.41|-0.81|< 0.001
91760741|NCT01620528|183413044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.92|||ANOVA|||||-0.92|-1.32|< 0.001
91760742|NCT01620528|183413045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.42|||ANOVA|||||-0.42|-0.83|< 0.001
91760743|NCT01620528|183413045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-1.05|||ANOVA|||||-1.05|-1.47|< 0.001
91760744|NCT01620528|183413046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.48|||ANOVA|||||-0.48|-0.91|< 0.001
91760745|NCT01620528|183413046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-1.1|||ANOVA|||||-1.10|-1.54|< 0.001
91760746|NCT01620528|183413047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.48|||ANOVA|||||-0.48|-0.96|< 0.001
91760747|NCT01620528|183413047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-1.11|||ANOVA|||||-1.11|-1.59|< 0.001
91760748|NCT01620528|183413048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.03|-0.52|0.011
91760749|NCT01620528|183413048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.16|-0.65|< 0.001
91760750|NCT01620528|183413049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.77|-0.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.16|-0.77|<0.001
91760751|NCT01620528|183413049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||-0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.27|-0.65|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.65|-1.27|-0.96
91760752|NCT01620528|183413050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.17|-0.44|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.44|-1.17|< 0.001
91760753|NCT01620528|183413050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.98|-1.24|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.24|-1.98|< 0.001
91760754|NCT01620528|183413051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.05|-0.3|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.30|-1.05|< 0.001
91760755|NCT01620528|183413051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.99|-1.23|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.23|-1.99|< 0.001
91760756|NCT01620528|183413052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.04|-0.25|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.25|-1.04|< 0.001
91760757|NCT01620528|183413052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|-1.2|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.20|-2.00|< 0.001
91760758|NCT01620528|183413053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|-3.21|||ANCOVA|||||-3.21|-9.37|< 0.001
91760759|NCT01620528|183413053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-9.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|-6.61|||ANCOVA|||||-6.61|-12.91|< 0.001
91760760|NCT01620528|183413054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-9.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|-5.91|||ANCOVA|||||-5.91|-12.66|< 0.001
91760761|NCT01620528|183413054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-18.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.22|-15.27|||ANCOVA|||||-15.27|-22.22|< 0.001
91760762|NCT01620528|183413055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.48|-8.66|||ANCOVA|||||-8.66|-16.48|< 0.001
91760763|NCT01620528|183413055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|-21.09|||ANCOVA|||||-21.09|-29.12|< 0.001
91760764|NCT01620528|183413056|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|3.02|||ANCOVA|||||3.02|-4.59|0.685
91760765|NCT01620528|183413056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|-1.05|||ANCOVA|||||-1.05|-9.04|0.013
91760766|NCT01620528|183413057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-9.43|0.047
91760767|NCT01620528|183413057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-13.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|-8.84|||ANCOVA|||||-8.84|-18.89|< 0.001
91760768|NCT01620528|183413058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|1.02|||ANCOVA|||||1.02|-10.43|0.107
91760769|NCT01620528|183413058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-17.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|-11.5|||ANCOVA|||||-11.50|-23.52|< 0.001
91760770|NCT01620528|183413059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-0.61|0.741
91760771|NCT01620528|183413059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-1.90|0.002
91760772|NCT01620528|183413060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.16|0.172
91760773|NCT01620528|183413060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-1.97|< 0.001
91760774|NCT01620528|183413061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.90|0.016
91760775|NCT01620528|183413061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-2.65|< 0.001
91760776|NCT01620528|183413062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-1.63|0.080
91760777|NCT01620528|183413062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-2.25|0.003
91760778|NCT01620528|183413063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-1.44|0.106
91760779|NCT01620528|183413063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-2.67|< 0.001
91760780|NCT01620528|183413064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.48|-1.97|0.232
91760781|NCT01620528|183413064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-0.93|||ANCOVA|||||-0.93|-3.48|< 0.001
91760782|NCT01620528|183413065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.65|0.013
91760783|NCT01620528|183413065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.90|-2.35|< 0.001
91760784|NCT01620528|183413066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-2.24|0.005
91760785|NCT01620528|183413066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||||-0.71|-2.56|< 0.001
91760786|NCT01620528|183413067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-2.53|< 0.001
91760787|NCT01620528|183413067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-1.19|||ANCOVA|||||-1.19|-3.02|< 0.001
91760788|NCT01620528|183413068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||||-0.38|-2.05|0.004
91760789|NCT01620528|183413068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-3.06|< 0.001
91760790|NCT01620528|183413069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.74|0.013
91760791|NCT01620528|183413069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.04|||ANCOVA|||||-1.04|-2.58|< 0.001
91760792|NCT01620528|183413070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-2.22|0.007
91760793|NCT01620528|183413070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||||-1.54|-3.44|< 0.001
91760794|NCT01620528|183413071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-2.57|0.326
91760795|NCT01620528|183413071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-3.67|0.031
91760796|NCT01620528|183413072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-3.13|0.107
91760797|NCT01620528|183413072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-5.28|< 0.001
91760798|NCT01620528|183413073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-2.63|0.219
91760799|NCT01620528|183413073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.28|||ANCOVA|||||-1.28|-4.59|< 0.001
91760800|NCT01620528|183413074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-3.01|0.026
91760801|NCT01620528|183413074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-2.43|||ANCOVA|||||-2.43|-5.34|< 0.001
91760802|NCT01620528|183413075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|-2.00|0.502
91760803|NCT01620528|183413075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.56|||ANCOVA|||||-1.56|-4.70|< 0.001
91760804|NCT01620528|183413076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-3.02|0.108
91760805|NCT01620528|183413076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-6.19|< 0.001
91760806|NCT01620528|183413077|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.90|0.001
91760807|NCT01620528|183413077|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-1.76|0.004
91760808|NCT01620528|183413078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.02|-1.49|0.045
91760809|NCT01620528|183413078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-1.81|0.006
91760810|NCT01620528|183413079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-1.19|0.103
91760811|NCT01620528|183413079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-1.64|0.003
91760812|NCT01620528|183413080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|-1.01|0.390
91760813|NCT01620528|183413080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-1.75|0.003
91760814|NCT01620528|183413081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-0.72|0.460
91760815|NCT01620528|183413081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-1.57|< 0.001
91760816|NCT01620528|183413082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-1.28|0.095
91760817|NCT01620528|183413082|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-2.01|< 0.001
91760818|NCT01620528|183413083|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.19|-2.61|0.462
91760819|NCT01620528|183413083|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.30|-5.16|0.001
91760820|NCT01620528|183413084|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-3.93|0.039
91760821|NCT01620528|183413084|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.90|-6.82|< 0.001
91760822|NCT01620528|183413085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-4.21|0.032
91760823|NCT01620528|183413085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|-2.86|||ANCOVA|||||-2.86|-6.95|< 0.001
91760824|NCT01620528|183413086|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-4.26|0.010
91760825|NCT01620528|183413086|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-3.36|||ANCOVA|||||-3.36|-7.14|< 0.001
91760826|NCT01620528|183413087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-3.02|0.215
91760827|NCT01620528|183413087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.20|-7.06|< 0.001
91760828|NCT01620528|183413088|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-4.53|0.053
91760829|NCT01620528|183413088|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|-4.41|||ANCOVA|||||-4.41|-9.17|< 0.001
91760830|NCT01620528|183413089|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-1.01|||ANCOVA|||||-1.01|-3.24|< 0.001
91760831|NCT01620528|183413089|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-1.49|||ANCOVA|||||-1.49|-3.71|< 0.001
91760832|NCT01620528|183413090|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-3.40|0.002
91760833|NCT01620528|183413090|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.32|||ANCOVA|||||-1.32|-3.98|< 0.001
91760834|NCT01620528|183413091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-3.39|< 0.001
91760835|NCT01620528|183413091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-1.76|||ANCOVA|||||-1.76|-4.23|< 0.001
91760836|NCT01620528|183413092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-2.80|0.017
91760837|NCT01620528|183413092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.98|||ANCOVA|||||-1.98|-4.50|< 0.001
91760838|NCT01620528|183413093|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-2.22|0.038
91760839|NCT01620528|183413093|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.74|||ANCOVA|||||-1.74|-3.91|< 0.001
91760840|NCT01620528|183413094|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-3.13|0.006
91760841|NCT01620528|183413094|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-2.44|||ANCOVA|||||-2.44|-5.06|< 0.001
91911182|NCT05103332|183718570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-6.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort \& handle primary \& key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for SBP, assessed using ABPM, while participants were on \& within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-6.6|-12.9|<0.0001
91911183|NCT05103332|183718571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|=|0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-0.8||MMRM: Fixed factors: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black/all other races); Covariates: Baseline (BA) 24-hour mean SBP using ABPM \& BA eGFR. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort \& handle primary \& key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for SBP, assessed using ABPM, while subjects were on \& within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-0.8|-8.2|=0.0183
91911184|NCT05103332|183718572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-14.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for office SBP assessed while participants were on and within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-14.2|-22.8|<0.0001
91911185|NCT05103332|183718573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-7.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for SBP assessed by ABPM, were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-7.3|-14.7|<0.0001
91911186|NCT05103332|183718574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-10.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for office SBP were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-10.3|-16.9|<0.0001
91911187|NCT05103332|183718575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|33.29||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black or all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05.||33.29|4.61|<0.0001
91911188|NCT05103332|183718586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-6.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for office SBP assessed while participants were on and within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-6.9|-13.4|<0.0001
91911189|NCT05103332|183718587|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-5.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for SBP assessed by ABPM, were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-5.3|-10.6|<0.0001
91760842|NCT04569357|183413098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 25%.||||0.0199
91760843|NCT04569357|183413099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0096|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean changes of ADHD-RS-V scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||||0.0096
91760844|NCT04569357|183413100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean changes of ADHD-RS-V scores (attention deficit subscale) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||||0.0063
91760845|NCT04569357|183413101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0525|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean changes of ADHD-RS-V scores (hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||||0.0525
91760846|NCT04569357|183413102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Therapeutic effect analysis.||||0.0024
91760847|NCT04569357|183413102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side effects analysis.||||0.1722
91760848|NCT04569357|183413102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy index analysis.||||0.0012
91760849|NCT04569357|183413103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.13
91807300|NCT00291577|183491322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.98||||||90.0|78.73|114.58|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||114.58|78.73|
91760850|NCT04569357|183413104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to Systolic pressure data.||||0.81
91760851|NCT04569357|183413104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to Diastolic pressure data.||||0.22
91760852|NCT04569357|183413105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.13
91760853|NCT04569357|183413106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
91760854|NCT04569357|183413107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
91760855|NCT04569357|183413108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
91760856|NCT04569357|183413109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0254
91760857|NCT01122849|183413110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.12||||0.5456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.28||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 7||0.28|-0.52|0.5456
91760858|NCT01122849|183413110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.07||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 7||0.07|-0.75|0.1029
91760859|NCT01122849|183413110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.62||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 7||0.62|-0.19|0.2879
91760860|NCT01122849|183413110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.8213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.56||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q3 at Day 7||0.56|-0.45|0.8213
91760861|NCT01122849|183413110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.24||||0.3457||95.0|-0.74|0.27||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q3 at Day 7||0.27|-0.74|0.3457
91760862|NCT01122849|183413110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q3 at Day 7||0.79|-0.20|0.2364
91760863|NCT01122849|183413110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.57||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q17 at Day 7||0.57|-0.21|0.3553
91760864|NCT01122849|183413110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.3369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q17 at Day 7||0.20|-0.58|0.3369
91760865|NCT01122849|183413110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.76||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q17 at Day 7||0.76|-0.01|0.0591
91760866|NCT01122849|183413110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.31||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 7||0.31|-0.42|0.7686
91760867|NCT01122849|183413110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 7||-0.09|-0.83|0.0151
91760868|NCT01122849|183413110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.77||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 7||0.77|0.05|0.0256
91760869|NCT01122849|183413111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.3||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1at Day 14||0.30|-0.52|0.5958
91760870|NCT01122849|183413111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.11||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 14||0.11|-0.73|0.1429
91760871|NCT01122849|183413111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 14||0.62|-0.21|0.3348
91760872|NCT01122849|183413111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.4425||95.0|-0.32|0.72||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q3 at Day 14||0.72|-0.32|0.4425
91760873|NCT01122849|183413111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q3 at Day 14||0.34|-0.71|0.4795
91760874|NCT01122849|183413111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.9||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q3 at Day 14||0.90|-0.13|0.1375
91807301|NCT00291577|183491324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate (percent)|73.7||||||95.0|48.8|90.9|||||Two-sided Confidence Interval (CI) (%) from exact method based on F distribution.|Overall confirmed objective response rate (CR + PR)||90.9|48.8|
91807302|NCT00291577|183491325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate (percent)|89.5||||||95.0|66.9|98.7|||||Two-sided CI (%) from exact method based on F distribution.|Clinical Benefit Rate (CR + PR + SD \> = 24 weeks)||98.7|66.9|
91760875|NCT01122849|183413111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.31||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q17 at Day 14||0.31|-0.56|0.5750
91760876|NCT01122849|183413111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.04||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q17 at Day 14||-0.04|-0.92|0.0337
91760877|NCT01122849|183413111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.79||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q17 at Day 14||0.79|-0.08|0.1061
91760878|NCT01122849|183413111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.7092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.34||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 14||0.34|-0.50|0.7092
91760879|NCT01122849|183413111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.06||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day14||-0.06|-0.91|0.0250
91760880|NCT01122849|183413111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q18 at Day 14||0.82|0.00|0.0503
91807303|NCT00291577|183491327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.57||||||90.0|79.9|114.32|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||114.32|79.90|
91807304|NCT00291577|183491328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|112.39||||||90.0|81.05|155.85|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||155.85|81.05|
91807305|NCT00291577|183491329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.79||||||90.0|79.82|114.96|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||114.96|79.82|
91807306|NCT03473977|183491336|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
91807307|NCT03473977|183491337|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.75
91807308|NCT03473977|183491338|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
91807309|NCT03473977|183491339|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91807310|NCT03473977|183491340|OTHER|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
91760881|NCT01122849|183413112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|3.59||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 7||3.59|-1.92|0.5462
91760882|NCT01122849|183413112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.37||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|0.42||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 7||0.42|-5.16|0.0942
91760883|NCT01122849|183413112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.2||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of sleep problems at Day 7||5.93|0.48|0.0221
91760884|NCT01122849|183413112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.72||||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|2.68||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Sleep Time problems at Day 7||2.68|-4.11|0.6731
91760885|NCT01122849|183413112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.57||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|0.83||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Sleep time problems at Day 7||0.83|-5.98|0.1354
91760886|NCT01122849|183413112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.86||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.21||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of sleep time problems at Day 7||5.21|-1.50|0.2722
91760887|NCT01122849|183413112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.71||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.14||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on walking in the morning at Day 7||2.14|-3.55|0.6195
91760888|NCT01122849|183413112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.83||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.96||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison at day 7 for symptoms for walking in the morning||-0.96|-6.70|0.0099
91760889|NCT01122849|183413112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.12||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|5.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 7||5.93|0.32|0.0298
91760890|NCT01122849|183413112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.7211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.4||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 7||1.40|-2.01|0.7211
91760891|NCT01122849|183413112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.8||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.9||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 7||0.90|-2.51|0.3500
91760892|NCT01122849|183413112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.5||||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.18||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 7||2.18|-1.19|0.5564
91807311|NCT03473977|183491341|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.014
91807312|NCT03473977|183491342|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain Score Comparison||||0.78
91807313|NCT03473977|183491342|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-pain score comparison||||0.34
91807314|NCT03473977|183491342|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction score comparison||||0.66
91807315|NCT00545662|183491343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14||a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression estimated global OR. GEE accounted for correlations of the scales. Models adjusted for site \& injury severity.|The odds in the citicoline group were compared to the odds in the placebo group.|"Null hypothesis: The placebo and citicoline groups do not differ at 90-days on the Core Battery~Power:~1. Two sided type I error of 0.05~2. 85% power~3. Expected OR=1.40 for the global statistic~4. Response rate in the control group~5. Correlations among the nine measures were accounted for. Response rates for the whole sample were a weighted average of the rates provided by TBI severity.~1240 participants were required to detect an OR \>= 1.4 for the global statistic."||1.14|0.83|0.76
91807316|NCT03845985|183491344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.838
91807317|NCT03845985|183491345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.620
91807318|NCT03845985|183491346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.713
91807319|NCT03845985|183491347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.509
91760893|NCT01122849|183413113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.35||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Sleep Problems at Day 14||3.35|-2.20|0.6804
91760894|NCT01122849|183413113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.31||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.49||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 14||1.49|-4.12|0.3524
91760895|NCT01122849|183413113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.89||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|4.63||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 14||4.63|-0.86|0.1739
91760896|NCT01122849|183413113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.98||||0.2463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.36||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||Comparison for Sleep time problems at Day 14||5.36|-1.41|0.2463
91760897|NCT01122849|183413113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.28||||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|3.68|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep time problems at Day 14||3.68|-3.11|0.8677
91760898|NCT01122849|183413113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|5.04||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep time problems at Day 14||5.04|-1.65|0.3136
91760899|NCT01122849|183413113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|2.65||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 14||2.65|-2.93|0.9183
91760900|NCT01122849|183413113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.68||||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.13||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 14||0.13|-5.50|0.0614
91760901|NCT01122849|183413113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.54||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|5.29||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 14||5.29|-0.21|0.0695
91760902|NCT01122849|183413113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.1||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day14||2.10|-1.03|0.4947
91760903|NCT01122849|183413113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.72||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 14||1.72|-1.42|0.8454
91807320|NCT03845985|183491348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.491
91807321|NCT03845985|183491349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.715
91760904|NCT01122849|183413113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 14||1.93|-1.17|0.6223
91760905|NCT01122849|183413114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.34||||0.4258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|2.01||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|LS Mean Difference|||Comparison at Day 7||2.01|-4.68|0.4258
91760906|NCT01122849|183413114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.05||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|0.33||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison at Day 7||0.33|-6.43|0.0764
91760907|NCT01122849|183413114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.71||||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|4.97||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison at Day 7||4.97|-1.56|0.2986
91760908|NCT01122849|183413115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.12||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|4.29||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||4.29|-2.05|0.4820
91760909|NCT01122849|183413115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.81||||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|1.39||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||1.39|-5.02|0.2607
91760910|NCT01122849|183413115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.93||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|6.02||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||6.02|-0.16|0.0623
91760911|NCT01122849|183413116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.36||||0.5278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|9.39||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||9.39|-18.1|0.5278
91760912|NCT01122849|183413116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.14||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|23.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||23.93|-3.64|0.1458
91760913|NCT01122849|183413116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.5||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-0.91||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-28.1|0.0370
91760914|NCT01122849|183413117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1||||0.4483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|8.29|||ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||||8.29|-18.5|0.4483
91760915|NCT01122849|183413117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.28||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|27.77|||ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||||27.77|0.79|0.0385
91760916|NCT01122849|183413117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-19.37||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-6.23|||ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||||-6.23|-32.5|0.0046
91760917|NCT01122849|183413118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.24||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|25.02||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||25.02|5.45|0.0029
91760918|NCT01122849|183413118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.74||||0.4683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|14.01||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||14.01|-6.53|0.4683
91760919|NCT01122849|183413118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|21.55||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||21.55|1.44|0.0259
91760920|NCT01122849|183413119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.79||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|19.19||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||19.19|-3.62|0.1764
91760921|NCT01122849|183413119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|12.94||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||12.94|-11.7|0.9183
91807322|NCT03845985|183491350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.665
91807323|NCT03845985|183491351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.875
91807324|NCT03845985|183491352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Risk and Aggression/Liquid Courage/Sociability Subscale||||.610
91760922|NCT01122849|183413119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.16||||0.2313||95.0|-4.7|19.01||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||19.01|-4.70|0.2313
91760923|NCT01122849|183413120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.63||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.63|-0.09|0.1345
91760924|NCT01122849|183413120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.04|-0.68|0.0815
91760925|NCT01122849|183413120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.94||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.94|0.24|0.0015
91760926|NCT01122849|183413120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean differnence|-1.03||||0.0292||95.0|-1.96|-0.11||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 7||-0.11|-1.96|0.0292
91760927|NCT01122849|183413120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.47||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q4 at Day 7||1.47|-0.39|0.2497
91760928|NCT01122849|183413120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.66||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 7||-0.66|-2.48|0.0011
91760929|NCT01122849|183413121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.8063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.51||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.51|-0.40|0.8063
91760930|NCT01122849|183413121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differnence|-0.35||||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.11||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.11|-0.82|0.1356
91760931|NCT01122849|183413121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.41||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.87|-0.05|0.0786
91807325|NCT03845985|183491352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Self-Perception/Cognitive and Behavioral Impairment Subscale||||.658
91807326|NCT03845985|183491352|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Sexuality Subscale||||1.000
91807327|NCT03845985|183491352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Tension Reduction Subscale||||.007
91760932|NCT01122849|183413121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.32||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparisons for Q4 at Day 14||0.32|-1.75|0.1693
91760933|NCT01122849|183413121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.08||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.13||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||2.13|0.03|0.0438
91760934|NCT01122849|183413121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.78||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||-0.78|-2.82|0.0009
91760935|NCT01122849|183413122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.13||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.13|-0.62|0.1991
91760936|NCT01122849|183413122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.21||||0.2964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.19||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q2 at Day 7||0.19|-0.60|0.2964
91760937|NCT01122849|183413122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.35||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q2 at Day 7||0.35|-0.42|0.8495
91760938|NCT01122849|183413122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.35||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.62||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 7||2.62|0.08|0.0381
91760939|NCT01122849|183413122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.4005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.82||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q4 at Day 7||1.82|-0.74|0.4005
91760940|NCT01122849|183413122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.81||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.07||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q4 at Day 7||2.07|-0.45|0.2020
91760941|NCT01122849|183413123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.09||||0.5741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.23|-0.41|0.5741
91760942|NCT01122849|183413123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.39|-0.26|0.6935
91760943|NCT01122849|183413123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.16||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q2 at Day 14||0.16|-0.47|0.3330
91760944|NCT01122849|183413123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.39||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.73||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||2.73|0.04|0.0434
91760945|NCT01122849|183413123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.32||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.67||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||1.67|-1.02|0.6333
91760946|NCT01122849|183413123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|2.37||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||2.37|-0.25|0.1091
91760947|NCT01457846|183413137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.57||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.12|2.21||1-sided|Regression, Cox|||||2.21|1.12|0.9581
91760948|NCT01457846|183413138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.89|1.95||1-sided|Regression, Cox|||||1.95|0.89|0.8156
91760949|NCT01457846|183413139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.02|0.35||1-sided|Regression, Logistic|||||0.35|0.02|0.9970
91760950|NCT00383162|183413142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.001||95.0|2.17|9.36|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||9.36|2.17|<0.001
91807328|NCT03845985|183491353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.407
91807329|NCT03845985|183491354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.893
91807330|NCT03845985|183491355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.709
91760951|NCT03533244|183413199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218||||||To reserve the family-wise error rate, the main treatment effect will be first assessed at the global level at alpha = 0.05. If this is significant, then pairwise comparisons will be conducted using the Bonferroni adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||An empirical sample size estimation was used as this was an exploratory study. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between AG-86893 and AG-86893 Vehicle. It is expected that the active group is at least 50% better than the vehicle.||||0.218
91807331|NCT03926169|183491358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|6.0||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.8|22.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.8|-10.8|0.422
91807332|NCT03926169|183491358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|1.3||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.4|18.1||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.1|-15.4|0.858
91760952|NCT03533244|183413199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.290
91807333|NCT03926169|183491359|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|-3.0||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.8|15.9||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|-21.8|0.725
91807334|NCT03926169|183491359|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|8.8||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.3|27.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.8|-10.3|0.301
91807335|NCT03926169|183491360|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|3.7||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.5|21.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.8|-14.5|0.650
91807336|NCT03926169|183491360|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|12.3||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.7|31.3||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.3|-6.7|0.147
91807337|NCT03926169|183491361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|-6.5||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.8|8.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.8|-21.8|0.342
91807338|NCT03926169|183491361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|-10.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-25.3|4.2||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.2|-25.3|0.108
91807339|NCT03926169|183491362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.179|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.5|0.9||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.9|-3.5|0.179
91807340|NCT03926169|183491362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.105|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.8|0.6||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.6|-3.8|0.105
91807341|NCT03926169|183491363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3385||0.727|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.646|0.883||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.883|-0.646|0.727
91807342|NCT03926169|183491363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3273||0.963|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.755|0.724||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.724|-0.755|0.963
91807343|NCT03926169|183491364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2941||0.886|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.622|0.706||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.706|-0.622|0.886
91807344|NCT03926169|183491364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2851||0.409|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.408|0.879||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.879|-0.408|0.409
91807345|NCT03926169|183491365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3212||0.434|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.977|0.473||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.473|-0.977|0.434
91760953|NCT03533244|183413200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.193
91760954|NCT03533244|183413200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.399
91760955|NCT03533244|183413201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
91760956|NCT03533244|183413201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
91807346|NCT03926169|183491365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3123||0.813|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.779|0.631||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.631|-0.779|0.813
91760957|NCT03368235|183413248|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4569||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|1.431||Based on MMRM model with the baseline DAS28-CRP score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||MMRM = mixed model repeated measures.||1.431|-0.487|0.315
91760958|NCT03368235|183413249|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.807||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.34||Logistic regression model with the treatment group, country and baseline DAS28-CRP as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment comparison ACR20: AZD9567 Vs prednisolone||5.34|0.12|0.807
91807347|NCT04974697|183491393|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 40 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|58.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.9|65.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample means t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power, that 22 subjects were required to test superiority for myope.||65.4|50.9|
91807348|NCT04974697|183491393|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 32 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|62.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample means t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power, that 18 subjects were required to test superiority for hyperope.||62.8|47.2|
91760959|NCT03368235|183413249|OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment comparison ACR50: AZD9567 Vs prednisolone||||0.198
91760960|NCT03368235|183413249|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment comparison ACR70: AZD9567 Vs prednisolone||||0.183
91760961|NCT03368235|183413250|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.81||The MMRM with the baseline SJC66 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||2.81|-1.98|0.717
91760962|NCT03368235|183413251|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.115||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|5.46||The MMRM with the baseline TJC68 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||5.46|-7.69|0.724
91760963|NCT03368235|183413252|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|3.32||The MMRM with the baseline TJC28 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||3.32|-3.43|0.973
91807349|NCT04974697|183491394|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.00 logMAR for Distance.|Least-square Mean|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|-0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated by using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power , 42 subjects were required to test superiority for distance (4m).||-0.091|-0.167|
91807350|NCT04974697|183491394|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Intermediate.|Least-square Mean|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated by using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power , 7 subjects were required to test superiority for intermediate (64 cm).||-0.008|-0.084|
91807351|NCT04974697|183491394|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Near.|Least-square Mean|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated by using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power , 36 subjects were required to test superiority for near (40 cm).||0.105|0.029|
91760964|NCT03368235|183413253|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.03||The MMRM with the baseline SJC28 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||2.03|-1.50|0.757
91760965|NCT03368235|183413254|OTHER||LS mean difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.67||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|30.1||The MMRM with the baseline GH score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||30.1|-10.5|0.325
91760966|NCT03368235|183413255|OTHER||LS mean difference|4.756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4725||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.514|12.025||The MMRM with the baseline CRP score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||12.025|-2.514|0.187
91760967|NCT03368235|183413256|OTHER||LS mean difference|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.1||The MMRM with the baseline participant's assessment of pain score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||38.1|-6.0|0.144
91760968|NCT03368235|183413257|OTHER||LS mean difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.0||The MMRM with the baseline disease activity score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||16.0|-8.3|0.512
91760969|NCT03368235|183413258|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2381||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.631||The MMRM with the baseline physical function score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||0.631|-0.370|0.589
91760970|NCT01743040|183413264|NON_INFERIORITY|15% equivalency margin against performance of SPECT nuclear stress test OPC. Both sensitivity and specificity were measured and the equivalency margin was set the same for both parameters.The goal was to test the Sensitivity and specificity of CADence as compared to SPECT nuclear stress test OPC. Both were measured and reported in this study. The Sensitivity of CADence was 78% (95% CI 76.1-90.8%) while the specificity was 36% (95% CI 32-39%).||||||0.012|||||||Exact binomial test|||The goal was to test the Sensitivity and specificity of CADence as compared to SPECT nuclear stress test OPC. Both were measured and reported in this study. The Sensitivity of CADence was 78% (95% CI 76.1-90.8%) while the specificity was 36% (95% CI 32-39%).||||0.012
91760971|NCT00825812|183413293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean time to recovery|5.7||||||95.0|4.9|6.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA, adjusted for center effects, on log transformed times from start of administration of IMP to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9.|Ratio of time to recovery of 0.9 T4/T1 ratio (neostigmine time / sugammadex time).|The primary analysis was the comparison of the two treatments among Chinese subjects.||6.6|4.9|
91760972|NCT00825812|183413293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean time to recovery|4.8||||||97.5|3.7|6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA, adjusted for center effects, on log transformed times from start of administration of IMP to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9.|Ratio of time to recovery of 0.9 T4/T1 ratio (neostigmine time / sugammadex time).|A key secondary analysis was the comparison of the two treatments among Caucasian subjects.||6.0|3.7|
91760973|NCT00825812|183413293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was considered if the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for median difference in recovery time (T4/T1 ratio to 0.9) was within the pre-specified range of -60 to +60 seconds.|median difference (seconds)|7.0||||||97.5|-5.0|21.0|||||Estimated median difference (Chinese - Caucasian) in seconds for the time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 (after sugammadex).|A key secondary analysis was the comparison for equivalence between Chinese subjects and Caucasian subjects.||21|-5|
91760974|NCT00986362|183413300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.613||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|4.509|||Fisher Exact|||||4.509|0.070|0.679
91760975|NCT03755661|183413304|OTHER|pilot data to estimate effect size f-squared as the parameter as primary outcome||||||0.048||||||provide inferential statistics for data completion. Study is not designed to detect significant differences between groups|Regression, Linear|R-square change = .12; F-change (1, 20) = 4.44||pilot study to calculate effect size, study is not powered to detect significant group differences|"Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of heavy drinking episodes entered in step 1 and condition in step 2~f- squared = .22"|||.048
91760976|NCT03755661|183413305|SUPERIORITY|"The main outcome variable is f-squared as an estimate of differences between conditions controlling for baseline value.~A statistical test is provided only for completeness as this study is not powered to detect significant effects"||||||0.34||||||F-change (1, 20) = 0.97|Regression, Linear|||pilot trial to compute effect size estimate|Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .05, r-squared change = .04|||.34
91760977|NCT03755661|183413306|SUPERIORITY|This is a pilot trial to estimate effect sizes and not powered to detect significant differences||||||0.2||||||data provided for completeness, not powered to test differences|Regression, Linear|F-change (1, 20) = 1.80|||Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .09, r-squared change = .058|||.20
91760978|NCT03755661|183413307|SUPERIORITY|Pilot trial not powered to detect significant group differences. Data from analyses presented for completeness. Primary outcome is effect size estimates||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Linear|F-change (1, 20) = 1.83||Pilot trial not powered to detect significant group differences|Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .09, r-squared change = .048|||.19
91760979|NCT03755661|183413308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||F-change (1, 19) = 1.34|Regression, Linear|||Not powered to test significant differences. provide data on effect size estimate below|Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .05, r-squared change = .04|||.26
91760980|NCT02038075|183413309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||To determine the effectiveness of brief CBT compared with treatment as usual, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to analyze time to the first suicide attempt. Time to suicide attempt was measured by calculating the total number of days from enrollment to the first suicide attempt. For participants without a suicide attempt, the total number of days from enrollment to the last assessment was calculated.||.87|.16|.02
91760981|NCT04000581|183413319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change is equal between the groups, while the alternative is that an increased difference is observed in arm 2. The hypotheses are evaluated using a one-sided, two-sample t-test.||||0.329
91760982|NCT02519595|183413333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
91760983|NCT02519595|183413334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
91760984|NCT02519595|183413335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
91760985|NCT02519595|183413337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events in ED||||0.8
91760986|NCT02519595|183413337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||Post discharge Emesis||||0.5
91760987|NCT02519595|183413338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
91760988|NCT00387036|183413339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||||90.0|-1.59|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-1.59|
91760989|NCT00387036|183413340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||||90.0|-0.28|6.61||||||||6.61|-0.28|
91760990|NCT03188510|183413341|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.805|1.17||||||||1.17|0.805|
91760991|NCT03188510|183413341|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|1.22||||||||1.22|0.841|
91760992|NCT03188510|183413341|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|1.18||||||||1.18|0.819|
91760993|NCT03188510|183413342|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.811|1.18||||||||1.18|0.811|
91760994|NCT03188510|183413342|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.21||||||||1.21|0.833|
91760995|NCT03188510|183413342|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.18||||||||1.18|0.817|
91760996|NCT01736618|183413351|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|92.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|91.4|||||||"Ho: The Type I Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 85.0%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 85.0% Ha: The Type I Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 85.0%.~Ha: p1 \> 85.0% The null hypothesis will be rejected if the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound of the proportional means model estimate, using the Peto method for standard error, exceeds the performance goal of 85.0%."|||91.4|
91760997|NCT01736618|183413352|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson exact confidence bound|98.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.4|||||||"Ho: Overall Shock Effectiveness in Converting Spontaneous Discrete Episodes of VT/VF through 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 94.0%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 94.0% Ha: Overall Shock Effectiveness in Converting Spontaneous Discrete Episodes of VT/VF through 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 94.0%.~Ha: p1 \>94.0% The null hypothesis will be rejected if the lower one-sided 95% exact confidence bound of the estimate exceeds the performance goal of 94.0%."|||97.4|
91760998|NCT01736618|183413353|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|99.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.8|||||||"Ho: The Electrode-Related Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 92.5%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 92.5% Ha: The Electrode-Related Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 92.5%.~Ha: p1 \> 92.5% The null hypothesis will be rejected if the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound of the proportional means model estimate, using the Peto method for standard error, exceeds the performance goal of 92.5%."|||98.8|
91760999|NCT01736618|183413354|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson exact confidence bound|94.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.5|||||||"Ho: The 1st Shock Effectiveness in Converting Induced (Acute) \& Spontaneous Discrete VT/VF Episodes to 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 84.0%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 84.0% Ha: The 1st Shock Effectiveness in Converting Induced (Acute) \& Spontaneous Discrete VT/VF Episodes to 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 84.0%.~Ha: p1 \>84.0% The null hypothesis will be rejected if lower one-sided 95% exact confidence bound of the estimate exceeds the performance goal of 84.0%."|||93.5|
91761000|NCT04167137|183413363|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Because only 1 participant experienced a DLT (Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome in Arm 1 Cohort 6), no MTD could be reached.|Because only 1 participant experienced a DLT (Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome in Arm 1 Cohort 6), no MTD could be reached.|||
91761001|NCT03058692|183413380|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
91761002|NCT03058692|183413380|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.56
91761003|NCT03058692|183413381|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.74
91761004|NCT03058692|183413381|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.73
91761005|NCT03058692|183413382|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.66
91761006|NCT03058692|183413382|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.48
91761007|NCT03058692|183413383|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.32
91761008|NCT03058692|183413383|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>0.99
91761009|NCT03058692|183413384|OTHER|||||||0.0078||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.0078
91761010|NCT03058692|183413384|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.94
91761011|NCT03058692|183413385|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
91761012|NCT03058692|183413385|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.5
91761013|NCT03058692|183413386|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
91761014|NCT03058692|183413386|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
91761015|NCT03058692|183413387|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
91761016|NCT03058692|183413388|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
91761017|NCT03058692|183413388|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.5
91761018|NCT03058692|183413389|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>0.99
91807352|NCT04974697|183491395|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||13.7|3.1|
91761019|NCT03058692|183413389|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.74
91761020|NCT03058692|183413390|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.50
91761021|NCT03058692|183413390|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.90
91761022|NCT03058692|183413391|OTHER|||||||0.87||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.87
91761023|NCT03058692|183413391|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.57
91761024|NCT03058692|183413392|OTHER|||||||0.82||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.82
91761025|NCT03058692|183413392|OTHER|||||||0.076||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.076
91761026|NCT03058692|183413393|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>0.99
91807353|NCT04974697|183491395|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||11.2|-1.2|
91807354|NCT04974697|183491396|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||13.7|0.0|
91807355|NCT04974697|183491396|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||11.3|-4.7|
91807356|NCT04974697|183491397|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||17.4|5.0|
91807357|NCT04974697|183491397|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||17.3|2.8|
91807358|NCT03302234|183491405|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.74156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor history.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor history.|||1.37|0.85|0.74156
91807359|NCT03302234|183491406|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor history.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site and predominant tumor history.|||1.30|0.86|0.71720
91807360|NCT03302234|183491407|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.1||||0.50644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|One-sided p-value for testing|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site and predominant tumor history.|||8.1|-8.2|0.50644
91807361|NCT03302234|183491409|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9815||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7386|1.3042|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor histology.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor histology.|||1.3042|0.7386|0.9112
91807362|NCT03302234|183491412|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.42||||0.8151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|3.12|||cLDA Model|Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) Model|Based on a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable, with covariates for treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors (ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, \& predominant tumor histology) as covariates.|||3.12|-3.96|0.8151
91807363|NCT02216591|183491417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|Mixed-model general linear model with age and education included as covariates. Time x arm interaction was significant, F(1,16) = 7.76, p = 0.013.||||||.013
91807364|NCT02216591|183491418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|Mixed-model general linear model with age and education included as covariates. Time x arm interaction was not significant, F(1,16) = 1.29, p = 0.274||||||.274
91807365|NCT02216591|183491419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|Mixed-model general linear model with age and education included as covariates. Time x arm interaction was not significant, F(1,16) = .72, p = 0.410||||||.410
91807366|NCT01372462|183491420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test||The primary endpoint was difference in endurance between nasal cannula oxygen and NIOV+O2. Assuming 153 sec clinically important difference, 183 sec SD, and α=0.05, a sample size of 15 yielded 85% power.||||<0.05
91807367|NCT01372462|183491420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91807368|NCT01372462|183491420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91807369|NCT01372462|183491421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test||One-way, repeated-measures ANOVA and Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test||||< 0.05
91807370|NCT01372462|183491421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91807371|NCT01372462|183491421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91807372|NCT01372462|183491422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||One-way, repeated-measures ANOVA and Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons tests|ANOVA|Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons tests||Per protocol||||<0.05
91807373|NCT01372462|183491422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91807374|NCT01372462|183491422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91807375|NCT01125605|183491439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with GLM (Generalized Linear Model) of SAS® (with type III sums of squares); including the baseline value of the sum score as a covariate||decrease of the sum score between baseline (visit 1) and last observation was exploratively analysed||||0.0033
91807376|NCT01125605|183491439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with GLM (Generalized Linear Model) of SAS® (with type III sums of squares); including the baseline value of the sum score as a covariate||decrease of the sum score between baseline (visit1) and last observation by duration of treatment||||0.0002
91807377|NCT01125605|183491440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0014
91807378|NCT01125605|183491441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0125
91807379|NCT01125605|183491442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0006
91807380|NCT01125605|183491443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0016
91807381|NCT01125605|183491444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0504||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0504
91807382|NCT01125605|183491446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0002
91807383|NCT02674529|183491517|OTHER|This was a mechanistic trial and non-inferiority or equivalence analysis were not performed.|regression coefficient|-1.29864|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Drug (antidepressant vs. placebo) prediction of changes in mood as measured by the MADRS scores.||||||0.58
91807384|NCT02674529|183491517|OTHER||r|0.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation|Change in MADRS after 8 weeks correlation with brain responses during the baseline fMRI task.||||||0.05
91807385|NCT02674529|183491518|OTHER|This is a mechanistic trial, we did not perform non-inferiority or equivalence analysis.|regression coefficient|-1.4328918|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8
91761027|NCT03058692|183413393|OTHER|||||||0.75||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.75
91761028|NCT03058692|183413394|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.50
91807386|NCT02674529|183491519|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The resulting voxel-wise parametric maps are thresholded with height and extent values generated by Monte Carlo simulations with 3dClustSim to protect against overall type I error at p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||At the group-level, a random-effects analysis determines the main effects of the regressors of interest (e.g., high vs. low expectancy) resulting in statistical parametric maps (t or F statistics). To control for potential confounders, sex and depression severity will be entered as covariates in statistical models.||||<0.05
91807387|NCT03761277|183491539|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit is non-inferior to VAS at Baseline, i.e., the change in pain intensity is not greater than 0 by more than 10 points from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit, with change calculated as 6-Month - Baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-7.1|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit is non-inferior to VAS at Baseline, i.e., the change in pain intensity is not greater than 0 by more than 10 points from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit.|Due to non-normality, the non-inferiority test was conducted using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, rather than a one-sample t-test. Mean reduction in VAS and the upper 97.5% confidence limit are presented, but the change from baseline was evaluated using non-parametric analysis methods.|-7.1||< 0.001
91807388|NCT03761277|183491539|SUPERIORITY|This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit are less than VAS at Baseline, i.e., the reduction in pain intensity is less than 0 from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit, with change calculated as 6-Month - Baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-7.1|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit are less than VAS at Baseline, i.e., the reduction in pain intensity is less than 0 from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit.|Due to non-normality, the superiority test was conducted using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, rather than a one-sample t-test. Mean reduction in VAS and 95% confidence interval are presented, but the change from baseline was evaluated using non-parametric analysis methods.|-7.1|-22.7|< 0.001
91807389|NCT00759031|183491542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91807390|NCT00543140|183491543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6919|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed as only one hypothesis was tested in this study. The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Exact Binomial method|||The primary analysis used a one-sided binomial exact test method by Clopper and Pearson to determine if the rate of reoperations observed in Years 4 and 5 (combined) of the study was significantly less than 8%. The null hypothesis was that the reoperation rate was greater than or equal to 8%.||||0.6919
91807391|NCT02483520|183491557|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|0.03||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||2.08|-2.02|.977
91807392|NCT02483520|183491558|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-0.22||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||1.64|-2.09|.812
91807393|NCT02483520|183491561|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-1.5||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||1.64|-4.64|.343
91807394|NCT02483520|183491562|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-4.79||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||-1.08|-8.51|.012
91807395|NCT02483520|183491563|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|0.77||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||1.47|0.07|.033
91807396|NCT02483520|183491566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for differences between mean group changes using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at 3 months||||.211
91761029|NCT03058692|183413394|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.50
91761030|NCT03058692|183413395|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>.99
91761031|NCT03058692|183413395|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>.99
91761032|NCT03058692|183413396|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.81
91761033|NCT03058692|183413396|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.47
91761034|NCT03058692|183413397|OTHER|||||||0.0061||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.0061
91761035|NCT03058692|183413397|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.28
91761036|NCT03058692|183413398|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.36
91761037|NCT03058692|183413398|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.32
91761038|NCT03058692|183413399|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.42
91807397|NCT02483520|183491566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for within- group changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank test between baseline and 3 months||||<.001
91807398|NCT02483520|183491567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for differences between mean group changes using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at 3 months||||.476
91807399|NCT02483520|183491567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for within- group changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank test between baseline and 3 months||||.005
91761039|NCT03058692|183413399|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.26
91761040|NCT03058692|183413400|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
91761041|NCT03058692|183413400|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.56
91761042|NCT03058692|183413401|OTHER|||||||0.97||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.97
91761043|NCT03058692|183413401|OTHER|||||||0.62||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.62
91761044|NCT03058692|183413402|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.15
91761045|NCT03058692|183413402|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.18
91761046|NCT03058692|183413403|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.94
91761047|NCT03058692|183413403|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
91761048|NCT03058692|183413404|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.14
91807400|NCT02483520|183491568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for differences between mean group changes using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at 3 months||||.677
91761049|NCT03058692|183413404|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.26
91761050|NCT03058692|183413405|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.72
91761051|NCT03058692|183413405|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.31
91761052|NCT03058692|183413406|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.31
91807401|NCT02483520|183491568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for within- group changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank test between baseline and 3 months||||.020
91807402|NCT02483520|183491569|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-0.62||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||0.94|-2.18|.432
91911190|NCT05103332|183718588|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-6.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for office SBP were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-6.3|-10.9|<0.0001
91911191|NCT05103332|183718589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|10.61||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black or all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05.||10.61|2.43|<0.0001
91911192|NCT05103332|183718600|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for office SBP assessed while participants were on and within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-3.3|-10.2|=0.0002
91761053|NCT03058692|183413406|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.22
91807403|NCT02483520|183491570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.255
91761054|NCT03058692|183413407|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.16
91761055|NCT03058692|183413407|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.44
91761056|NCT03058692|183413408|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.67
91761057|NCT03058692|183413408|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.48
91761058|NCT03058692|183413409|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||<0.001
91761059|NCT03058692|183413409|OTHER|||||||0.62||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.62
91761060|NCT03058692|183413410|OTHER|||||||0.0093||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.0093
91761061|NCT03058692|183413410|OTHER|||||||0.51||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.51
91761062|NCT03058692|183413411|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.54
91807404|NCT01104493|183491575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0 (null): Rate difference ≥ 5 percentage points This corresponded to a null hypothesis of: HA (alternative): rate difference \< 5 percentage points.|rate difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.6|||score statistic|||Comparison of the rate of fever between the 2 treatment groups was based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals (CIs) for the rate increase (Monovalent vaccine minus Placebo) evaluated against the prespecified equivalence criterion of 5 percentage points.||2.6|-5.2|
91761063|NCT03058692|183413411|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.43
91761064|NCT03058692|183413412|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.44
91761065|NCT03058692|183413412|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.014
91761066|NCT03058692|183413413|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||<0.001
91761067|NCT03058692|183413413|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.96
91761068|NCT03058692|183413414|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.65
91761069|NCT03058692|183413414|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
91761070|NCT03058692|183413415|OTHER|||||||0.35||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.35
91761071|NCT03058692|183413415|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.66
91807405|NCT02033694|183491582|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||Hypothesis 1 (Vulnerable Patient Hypothesis) first fit a univariate proportional hazards regression model in which maxLCBI4mm is the only independent variable and NC-MACE during 2 years is the outcome. The null hypothesis tested by the Wald test that the regression coefficient in a proportional hazards regression model is significantly different from 0. This analysis determined whether maxLCBI4mmI is a risk factor for NC-MACE.||1.35|1.09|0.0004
91807406|NCT02033694|183491582|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||Hypothesis 2 (Vulnerable Plaque Hypothesis) first fit a univariate proportional hazards regression model in which maxLCBI4mm in the coronary artery segment is the measure of exposure and NC-MACE during 2 years caused by a new culprit lesion in that segment is the outcome. This analysis was performed with adjustment for the potential clustering effect within patient utilizing the Wei, Lin and Weissfeld (WLW) methodology. This analysis determined whether maxLCBI4mm is a risk factor NC-MACE.||1.60|1.30|<0.0001
91807407|NCT02033694|183491583|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.22|||Regression, Cox|||Secondary Hypothesis 1 (Vulnerable Patient)- Cox proportional hazards regression model to assess a threshold of maxLCBI4mm \> 400 as the independent variable and NC-MACE during 2 years as the outcome.||3.22|1.48|<0.0001
91807408|NCT02033694|183491583|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|4.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|7.45|||Regression, Cox|||Secondary Hypothesis 2 (Vulnerable Plaque)- Cox proportional hazards regression model to assess a threshold of maxLCBI4mm \> 400 in the coronary artery segment as the independent variable and NC-MACE during 2 years caused by a new culprit lesion in that segment is the outcome.||7.45|2.39|<0.0001
91807409|NCT02111772|183491584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.049
91761072|NCT03058692|183413416|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.86
91761073|NCT03058692|183413416|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
91761074|NCT04255862|183413434|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE) was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC.|Geometric Mean Ratio|103.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.4|123.8||||||||123.8|86.4|
91761075|NCT04255862|183413434|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC.|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.9|135.0||||||||135.0|97.9|
91761076|NCT04255862|183413435|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC0-t.|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|121.5||||||||121.5|87.0|
91761077|NCT04255862|183413435|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC0-t.|Geometric Mean Ratio|113.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|131.9||||||||131.9|97.4|
91761078|NCT04255862|183413436|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.3|119.7||||||||119.7|90.3|
91761079|NCT04255862|183413436|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio|114.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|131.4||||||||131.4|99.5|
91761080|NCT00555880|183413464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sign Statistic|3.0||||0.146|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test||Sign test was performed per analysis plan.|||||0.1460
91807410|NCT02111772|183491585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||<0.001
91807411|NCT01425281|183491598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|"Null and alternative hypotheses for superiority testing.~H0: EndpointABSORB BVS = EndpointXIENCE H1: EndpointABSORB BVS ≠ EndpointXIENCE"||Angiographic vasomotion reactivity following nitrate administration, the test was analyzable for 388 paired lesions (Absorb arm \[258 lesions\] vs Xience arm \[130 lesions\]).||||0.49
91761081|NCT00555880|183413465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sign statistic|2.5||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test||Sign test was performed per analysis plan.|||||0.2266
91761082|NCT00555880|183413466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|97.9||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCL-Placebo)|Analysis of treatment difference||||0.0418
91761083|NCT00555880|183413467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|91.1||||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a one-way ANOVA model|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCL-Placebo)|||||0.1928
91761084|NCT00555880|183413468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from a 2-sample t-test for difference in mean|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9479
91761085|NCT00555880|183413469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-5.7||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCl - Placebo)|Analysis of treatment||||0.0590
91761086|NCT00555880|183413470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Dizziness, Lightheadedness, and Feeling Faint-Analysis of treatment||||0.0633
91761087|NCT00555880|183413470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Problems with Vision-Analysis of treatment||||0.0191
91761088|NCT00555880|183413470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Weakness-Analysis of treatment||||0.0727
91761089|NCT00555880|183413470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Fatigue-Analysis of treatment||||0.2820
91807412|NCT01425281|183491599|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test with non-inferiority margin of 0.140mm||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|"Null and alternative hypotheses for superiority testing.~H0: EndpointABSORB BVS = EndpointXIENCE H1: EndpointABSORB BVS ≠ EndpointXIENCE"||Follow-up angiographic analysis was available for 298 lesions in the Absorb arm and 151 lesions in the Xience arm.||||0.78
91807413|NCT02509156|183491741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|6.11|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||6.11|-4.52|0.746
91911193|NCT05103332|183718601|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|=|0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for SBP assessed by ABPM, were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||1.0|-4.6|=0.2103
91761090|NCT00555880|183413470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Trouble Concentrating-Analysis of treatment||||0.0880
91761091|NCT00555880|183413470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6439|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Head/Neck Discomfort-Analysis of treatment||||0.6439
91761092|NCT00555880|183413473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Final systolic pressure-Analysis of treatment||||0.0378
91761093|NCT00555880|183413473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Final diastolic pressure-Analysis of treatment||||0.0108
91761094|NCT00555880|183413475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|92.4||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCl - Placebo)|Analysis of treatment difference||||0.0296
91761095|NCT00555880|183413480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||Analysis of treatment||||0.0342
91761096|NCT03004911|183413489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.740
91761097|NCT03004911|183413490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
91761098|NCT03004911|183413491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.747
91761099|NCT03004911|183413492|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
91761100|NCT03004911|183413493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
91761101|NCT02610777|183413520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.286||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor.|||1.286|0.577|0.464
91761102|NCT02610777|183413521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.706|||=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.061||P-value comparing EFS between treatment groups was based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of EFS in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Event-Free Survival (EFS)||1.061|0.469|=0.092
91761103|NCT02610777|183413524|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.562|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.579||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor.|||1.579|0.200|=0.267
91761104|NCT02610777|183413525|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|9.61|||=|0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|28.04||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||28.04|-8.83|=0.312
91761105|NCT02610777|183413526|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|5.63||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|24.44||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||24.44|-13.19|0.560
91761106|NCT02610777|183413527|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|8.64|||=|0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|26.38||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||26.38|-9.09|=0.343
91761107|NCT02610777|183413528|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-18.82|||=|0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.91|15.26||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||15.26|-52.91|=0.296
91761108|NCT02610777|183413529|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|13.16|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|30.81||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||30.81|-4.49|=0.152
91761109|NCT02610777|183413530|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|10.53|||=|0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|30.18||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||30.18|-9.13|=0.301
91761110|NCT02610777|183413531|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|13.16|||=|0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|35.44||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||35.44|-9.12|=0.254
91761111|NCT02610777|183413532|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-4.71|||=|0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|28.92||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||28.92|-38.33|=0.787
91761112|NCT02610777|183413533|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789|||=|0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|2.02||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||2.020|0.308|=0.620
91761113|NCT02610777|183413534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.719|||=|0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|1.653||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.653|0.313|=0.436
91761114|NCT02610777|183413535|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||=|0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.662||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.662|0.395|=0.565
91761115|NCT02610777|183413536|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||=|0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|3.109||P-value comparing duration of CR in low blast AML between treatment groups is based on unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||3.109|0.057|=0.383
91807414|NCT02509156|183491742|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.024
91807415|NCT02509156|183491743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.26|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in global strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||1.26|-2.68|0.328
91761116|NCT02610777|183413537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.206|||=|0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|2.081||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor. HR\>1 for the treatment indicates a shorter time to first CR, CRi or PR in the Pevonedistat Combination arm compared to the Azacitidine only arm.|||2.081|0.699|=0.498
91761117|NCT02610777|183413538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.905|||=|0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|3.62||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor. HR\<1for the treatment indicates a longer time to Subsequent Therapy in the Pevonedistat Combination arm compared to the Azacitidine only arm.|||3.620|0.226|=0.888
91761118|NCT02610777|183413539|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|19.231|||=|0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.925|45.386||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With RBCs-transfusion Independence||45.386|-6.925|=0.162
91761119|NCT02610777|183413539|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|20.0|||=|0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.381|66.381||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With Platelet-transfusion Independence||66.381|-26.381|=0.454
91761120|NCT02610777|183413541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.198||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor. HR\<1for the treatment indicates a longer time to PD, Relapse, or Death in the Pevonedistat Combination arm compared to the Azacitidine only arm.|||1.198|0.521|=0.266
91761121|NCT01724866|183413547|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.27|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||1.27|0.19|0.296
91761122|NCT01724866|183413547|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.64|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.64|-0.28|0.002
91761123|NCT01724866|183413547|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.06|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-values was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||-0.06|-0.56|<0.001
91761124|NCT01724866|183413548|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.74|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.74|0.06|0.001
91761125|NCT01724866|183413548|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.24|-0.16|<0.001
91761126|NCT01724866|183413548|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.06|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.06|-0.19|<0.001
91807416|NCT02509156|183491744|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.261|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.261
91807417|NCT02509156|183491745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|1.35|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in regional strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||1.35|-4.51|0.071
91807418|NCT02509156|183491746|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.689|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.689
91807419|NCT02509156|183491747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|14.45|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||14.45|-12.33|0.935
91807420|NCT02509156|183491748|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.325|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.325
91807421|NCT02509156|183491749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|13.08|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||13.08|-11.75|0.919
91807422|NCT02509156|183491750|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.183|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.183
91807423|NCT02509156|183491751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.15|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in LV sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||0.15|0.003|0.124
91807424|NCT02509156|183491752|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. A time by treatment interaction was assessed.|There was a significant treatment and time interaction (p=0.024), so we report a slope for each treatment arm.|||
91807425|NCT02509156|183491753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.74|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in scar percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||1.74|-3.05|0.993
91807426|NCT02509156|183491754|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.151
91807427|NCT02509156|183491755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.96||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|81.89|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in distance walked was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||81.89|-5.84|0.056
91807428|NCT02509156|183491756|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06||0.583|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.583
91807429|NCT02509156|183491757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.49|4.84|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||4.84|-30.49|0.048
91807430|NCT02509156|183491758|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.0002
91807431|NCT02509156|183491759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-315.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|295.0||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-947.5|315.8|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in NT-proBNP was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed. p-values were obtained from transformed data.||315.80|-947.50|0.199
91807432|NCT02509156|183491760|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-23.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|202.08||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported. Log transformation used for the regression. p-values were obtained from transformed data.||||0.229
91761127|NCT01724866|183413549|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.72|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.72|-0.07|0.002
91761128|NCT01724866|183413549|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.3|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.30|-0.27|<0.001
91761129|NCT01724866|183413549|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.28|-0.27|<0.001
91761130|NCT01724866|183413550|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.47|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||2.47|-0.01|0.781
91761131|NCT01724866|183413550|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.38|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.38|-0.17|<0.001
91761132|NCT01724866|183413550|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.22|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.22|-0.23|<0.001
91761133|NCT01724866|183413551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.8|1.1|0.002
91761134|NCT01724866|183413551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.4|0.6|0.711
91761135|NCT01724866|183413551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||0.9|0.1|0.028
91761136|NCT01724866|183413552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.4|0.8|0.672
91761137|NCT01724866|183413552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.3|0.5|0.348
91761138|NCT01724866|183413552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.9|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||2.9|0.4|0.973
91761139|NCT01724866|183413553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.4|0.8|0.618
91761140|NCT01724866|183413553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.6|0.5|0.661
91761141|NCT01724866|183413553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.8|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||2.8|0.3|0.754
91761142|NCT01724866|183413554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.7|1.1|0.009
91761143|NCT01724866|183413554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.8|0.7|0.527
91761144|NCT01724866|183413554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||3.9|0.4|0.815
91761145|NCT01724866|183413555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.008
91761146|NCT01724866|183413555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.911
91761147|NCT01724866|183413555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.002
91761148|NCT01724866|183413556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.005
91761149|NCT01724866|183413556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.633
91761150|NCT01724866|183413556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.027
91911194|NCT05103332|183718602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for office SBP were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-2.3|-6.8|<0.0001
91911195|NCT05103332|183718603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.23||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black or all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05.||3.23|0.87|=0.1230
91911196|NCT02043548|183718629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||GEE|||||||0.86
91911197|NCT02043548|183718630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.77
91911198|NCT02043548|183718631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||binomial test|||||||0.40
91911199|NCT02043548|183718632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
91911200|NCT02043548|183718633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||GEE|||||||0.78
91911201|NCT02043548|183718633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91761151|NCT01724866|183413557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.015
91761152|NCT01724866|183413557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.571
91911202|NCT02600494|183718657|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|3.53||p-value is Hochberg-adjusted|Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.53|-1.83|0.514
91911203|NCT02600494|183718657|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|1.79||p-value is Hochberg adjusted|Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.79|-3.73|0.895
91911204|NCT02600494|183718658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||||1.400|0.712|0.993
91911205|NCT02600494|183718658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.307|||Regression, Cox|||||1.307|0.657|0.665
91911206|NCT04179175|183718686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test, with region and body weight (\<90 kg, ≥ 90 kg) as strata||||1.29|0.59|0.250
91911207|NCT04179175|183718686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test, with region and body weight (\<90 kg, ≥ 90 kg) as strata||||1.05|0.47|0.044
91911208|NCT01696435|183718689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori, two-sided tests with an alpha level of 0.025 were used to account for the 2 co-primary outcomes (depression event and mood scores).|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.09|.87|0.62
91911209|NCT01696435|183718689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.26||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori, two-sided tests with an alpha level of 0.025 were used to account for the 2 co-primary outcomes (depression event and mood scores).|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.26|1.01|0.03
91911210|NCT01696435|183718690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of whether the mean difference in change comparing the treatment groups is different than zero. See full SAP for all details.||0.05|-0.04|
91911211|NCT01696435|183718690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of whether the mean difference in change comparing the treatment groups is different than zero. See full SAP for all details.||0.07|-0.01|
91911212|NCT01696435|183718691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.13|0.87|0.88
91911213|NCT01696435|183718691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.33|1.03|0.02
91911214|NCT01696435|183718692|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.||1.19|0.76|0.67
91911215|NCT01696435|183718692|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.27|||Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.||1.27|0.82|0.88
91761153|NCT01724866|183413557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.066
91761154|NCT01724866|183413558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.106
91761155|NCT01724866|183413558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.156
91761156|NCT01724866|183413558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.005
91911216|NCT01745146|183718768|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.047||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Trait Anger. Missing outcomes reported at non-responders.||||0.047
91911217|NCT01745146|183718768|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.549||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Anger Expression-Out. Missing outcomes reported at non-responders.||||0.549
91911218|NCT01745146|183718768|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.511||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for BAAQ. Missing outcomes reported at non-responders.||||0.511
91911219|NCT01745146|183718768|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.031||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Trait Anger. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.031
91911220|NCT01745146|183718768|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.483||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Anger Expression-Out. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.483
91911221|NCT01745146|183718768|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.53||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for BAAQ. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.530
91911222|NCT01745146|183718768|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.421||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's Chi-squared||Significance of difference in overall post-treatment response rate. Missing outcomes included as non-responders.||||0.421
91911223|NCT01745146|183718768|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.332||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's Chi-squared||Significance of difference in overall post-treatment response rate. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.332
91761157|NCT01724866|183413559|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.8||||||||0.80|0.25|
91761158|NCT01724866|183413559|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.04||||||||2.04|0.53|
91761159|NCT01724866|183413559|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.54||||||||4.54|1.40|
91761160|NCT01724866|183413560|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.8||||||||0.80|0.30|
91761161|NCT01724866|183413560|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.79||||||||1.79|0.70|
91761162|NCT01724866|183413560|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.79||||||||2.79|1.07|
91761163|NCT01724866|183413561|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.89||||||||0.89|0.34|
91761164|NCT01724866|183413561|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.85||||||||1.85|0.71|
91761165|NCT01724866|183413561|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.49||||||||2.49|0.97|
91761166|NCT01724866|183413562|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1||||||||1.10|0.40|
91761167|NCT01724866|183413562|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.38||||||||2.38|0.87|
91761168|NCT01724866|183413562|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.96||||||||2.96|1.23|
91761169|NCT01724866|183413567|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|2.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|24.9|||Fisher Exact|||||24.9|-20.2|1.000
91761170|NCT01724866|183413567|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-26.7|1.000
91761171|NCT01724866|183413567|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-26.7|1.000
91761172|NCT01724866|183413569|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-6.2||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|16.9|||Fisher Exact|||||16.9|-28.5|0.469
91761173|NCT01724866|183413569|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-5.6||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|18.7|||Fisher Exact|||||18.7|-29.3|0.710
91761174|NCT01724866|183413569|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-11.1||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|13.3|||Fisher Exact|||||13.3|-34.6|0.199
91761175|NCT01340586|183413579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.787|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.616|1.006||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.006|0.616|
91761176|NCT01340586|183413579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.173||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose after hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.173|0.697|
91761177|NCT01340586|183413579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.723|1.049||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over ESRD Dose after hemodialysis||1.049|0.723|
91761178|NCT01340586|183413581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.553||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.553|0.907|
91761179|NCT01340586|183413581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.097|1.758||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose after hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.758|1.097|
91761180|NCT01340586|183413581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.707|1.033||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over ESRD Dose after hemodialysis||1.033|0.707|
91761181|NCT01340586|183413583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.165|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.543||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.543|0.880|
91761182|NCT01340586|183413583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.357|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.066|1.728||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose after hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.728|1.066|
91761183|NCT01340586|183413583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.707|1.042||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over ESRD Dose after hemodialysis||1.042|0.707|
91761184|NCT01173601|183413608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338||||||In order to test the primary outcome between each LY2216684 dose and placebo while controlling the overall Type I error at 0.05, the significance level was a priori partitioned equally between the 2 LY2216684 dose-placebo comparisons at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
91761185|NCT01173601|183413608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||||||In order to test the primary outcome between each LY2216684 dose and placebo while controlling the overall Type I error at 0.05, the significance level was a priori partitioned equally between the 2 LY2216684 dose-placebo comparisons at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.201
91761186|NCT04737278|183413629|OTHER|test of the hypothesis that the score on day 28 is different from the baseline score in the Placebo group|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91761187|NCT04737278|183413629|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||test of the hypothesis that the score on day 28 is different than the baseline score||||0.01
91761188|NCT04737278|183413630|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28. Between group comparison was made using ANCOVA accounting for baseline values, no significance at p\<0.05. Within group comparisons were made using the paired Student's t test.||||0.15
91761189|NCT04737278|183413631|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91761190|NCT04737278|183413631|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison made between placebo and Cunermuspir at baseline||||0.03
91761191|NCT04737278|183413631|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison made at day 28||||0.01
91761192|NCT04737278|183413631|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between baseline and day 28||||0.07
91761193|NCT04737278|183413632|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||base line between group comparisons||||0.54
91761194|NCT04737278|183413632|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
91761195|NCT04737278|183413633|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
91761196|NCT04737278|183413634|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||The original report from KGK Synergize/Science did not specify if the results are ANCOVA or a between group comparison at 2ay 28||||<0.01
91761197|NCT04737278|183413635|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
91761198|NCT04737278|183413636|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.48
91761199|NCT04737278|183413637|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
91761200|NCT04737278|183413638|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
91761201|NCT04737278|183413639|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91761202|NCT04737278|183413640|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91761203|NCT04737278|183413641|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91761204|NCT04737278|183413642|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.48
91761205|NCT04737278|183413643|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.06
91761206|NCT04737278|183413644|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91761207|NCT04737278|183413645|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91761208|NCT04737278|183413645|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of neutrophils from baseline to day 28||||0.05
91761209|NCT04737278|183413646|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91761210|NCT04737278|183413647|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison of baseline values||||0.47
91761211|NCT04737278|183413647|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison performed on data from day 28||||0.24
91761212|NCT04737278|183413648|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison of eosinophil counts at day 28||||0.11
91761213|NCT04737278|183413649|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The day 28 basophil counts on day 28 were compared between the two arms of this study.||||0.98
91807433|NCT02128113|183491769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|26.95||||0.4529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.|Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension (pooled) - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension pooled (0.5% and 1.0%) versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.4529
91911224|NCT04316585|183718769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|8.28|||Bayesian Logistic Regression Model|The model was adjusted for treatment (GSK2982772 vs placebo), baseline PASI score and prior biologic use (yes/no).|Posterior median and 95% CrI for the true difference in proportion of responders (GSK2982772 - placebo).|Bayesian logistic regression. An informative prior was used for the placebo response in this statistical analysis, the prior for placebo response rate was of the form: 90% weight on Be (5.39, 69) and 10% on Be (1/3,1/3). The prior was derived from historical data from similar clinical trials using meta-analytic predictive prior (MAP) approach. All other parameters took vague priors.||8.28|-9.19|
91911225|NCT04316585|183718769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|8.07|||Bayesian Logistic Regression Model|The model was adjusted for treatment (GSK2982772 vs placebo), baseline PASI score and prior biologic use (yes/no).|Posterior median and 95% CrI for the true difference in proportion of responders (GSK2982772 - placebo).|||8.07|-4.81|
91911226|NCT00130832|183718781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8 greater than -10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.2|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing seroprotection rate difference with the non-inferiority margin of 0.10 with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.||Seroprotection rate (proportion of subjects who achieve the seroprotection criteria: neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8) for poliovirus type 1||1.4|-2.2|<0.001
91911227|NCT00130832|183718781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8 greater than -10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing seroprotection rate difference with the non-inferiority margin of 0.10 with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.||Seroprotection rate (proportion of subjects who achieve the seroprotection criteria: neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8) for poliovirus type 2||1.6|-1.4|<0.001
91911228|NCT00130832|183718781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8 greater than -10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing seroprotection rate difference with the non-inferiority margin of 0.10 with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.||Seroprotection rate (proportion of subjects who achieve the seroprotection criteria: neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8) for poliovirus type 3||2.3|-2.3|<0.001
91911229|NCT00130832|183718782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio (concomitant group over staggered group) greater than 0.50.|GMT Ratio|0.54||||0.277||95.0|0.42|0.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on log titer of serum anti-rotavirus IgA||||0.69|0.42|0.277
91911230|NCT00130832|183718782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve 3-fold rise in serum anti-rotavirus IgA greater than -10%.|Percentage Point Difference|-4.4||||0.002||95.0|-8.0|-1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing percentage difference with the non-inferiority margin of 10 percentage point with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|Percentage point difference (concomitant - staggered)|||-1.4|-8.0|0.002
91911231|NCT03195517|183718784|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91911232|NCT03195517|183718785|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91911233|NCT03195517|183718786|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91911234|NCT03195517|183718787|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91911235|NCT03195517|183718788|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91911236|NCT03195517|183718789|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91911237|NCT03195517|183718790|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91911238|NCT03195517|183718791|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91911239|NCT03195517|183718792|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91911240|NCT03195517|183718793|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91911241|NCT03118297|183718795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91911242|NCT03118297|183718796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
91911243|NCT03118297|183718797|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91911244|NCT03118297|183718798|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91911245|NCT03118297|183718799|OTHER|No statistical test performed|||||||||||||||||Significance testing not performed. All values below prespecified limit of 5.0 ng/mL.|||
91911246|NCT01121393|183718802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on PFS compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||<0.0001
91911247|NCT01121393|183718802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.389||||||A Cox proportional-hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation category was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) between the 2 treatment arms.||0.389|0.203|
91911248|NCT01121393|183718803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.522|12.679|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model, stratified by EGFR mutation category was used to compare the objective response rate between the 2 treatment arms.||12.679|4.522|<0.0001
91911249|NCT01121393|183718804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.843|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.039|7.24|||Regression, Logistic|||stratified for EGFR mutation group||7.240|2.039|<0.0001
91911250|NCT01121393|183718805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on OS compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||0.4013
91911251|NCT01121393|183718805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.144||||||A Cox proportional hazard model stratified (by EGFR mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test the effect of afatinib on OS compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||1.144|0.715|
91911252|NCT01121393|183718809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-10.19|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline sum of diameters and EGFR mutation group||||-10.19|-17.10|<0.0001
91761214|NCT04737278|183413650|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||This p value is for the treatment source. Visits (p=0.422) and visits x treatments (p=0.153) did not meet the threshold of significance.|ANOVA|||"All other statistical analyses were performed by KGK Synergize. This site was used to determine that the NLR were normally distributed https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/normality-test-calculator.php~Because these data fulfilled the assumptions of ANOVA, the data were analyzed using this site:~http://vassarstats.net/anova2u.html"||||0.025
91911253|NCT01121393|183718812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on HRQOL compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||0.0001
91911254|NCT01121393|183718812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.458|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.692||||||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by EGFR mutation group||0.692|0.303|
91911255|NCT01121393|183718813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on HRQOL compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||<0.0001
91911256|NCT01121393|183718813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.724||||||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by EGFR mutation group||0.724|0.394|
91911257|NCT01121393|183718814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on HRQOL compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||0.0220
91911258|NCT01121393|183718814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.956||||||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by EGFR mutation group||0.956|0.511|
91911259|NCT03988335|183718824|OTHER|The primary endpoints were first tested at alpha of 10% (2-sided). If the larger p-value was less than 10% (2-sided), both primary endpoints were to be declared statistically significant. If the larger p-value was greater than 10%, but the smaller p-value was less than 5% (2-sided), then the primary endpoint with the smaller p-value was to be declared statistically significant.||||||0.24|||||||Hochberg's method|||||||0.24
91911260|NCT03988335|183718825|OTHER|The primary endpoints were first tested at alpha of 10% (2-sided). If the larger p-value was less than 10% (2sided), both primary endpoints were to be declared statistically significant. If the larger p-value was greater than 10%, but the smaller p-value was less than 5% (2-sided), then the primary endpoint with the smaller p-value was to be declared statistically significant.||||||0.804|||||||Hochberg's method|||||||0.804
91911261|NCT02171611|183718831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|175.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.904|216.149|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMeans of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual coefficient variation (gCV).|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||216.149|141.904|
91911262|NCT02171611|183718831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|154.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.425|188.161|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment (T2) vs. the Reference treatment (R). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||188.161|127.425|
91911263|NCT02171611|183718832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|175.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.924|216.772|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||216.772|141.924|
91911264|NCT02171611|183718832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|158.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.052|192.255|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||192.255|130.052|
91761215|NCT04737278|183413651|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of blood glucose in the Cunermuspir arm between enrollment baseline and day 28.||||0.06
91761216|NCT04737278|183413651|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of enrollment baseline blood glucose and day 28 in the placebo arm||||0.04
91761217|NCT04737278|183413651|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.92
91761218|NCT04737278|183413652|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
91761219|NCT04737278|183413653|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
91761220|NCT04737278|183413654|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
91761221|NCT04737278|183413655|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
91761222|NCT04737278|183413655|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91761223|NCT04737278|183413655|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Blood sodium concentration between baseline and day 28 in the Placebo group.||||0.01
91761224|NCT04737278|183413656|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.58
91911265|NCT02171611|183718833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|186.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.659|236.665|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||236.665|147.659|
91911266|NCT02171611|183718833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|166.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.221|208.326|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||208.326|133.221|
91911267|NCT02171611|183718834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|181.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.428|226.776|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||226.776|145.428|
91911268|NCT02171611|183718834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|166.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.25|207.328|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||207.328|134.25|
91911269|NCT02171611|183718835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|182.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.727|229.297|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||229.297|144.727|
91911270|NCT02171611|183718835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|160.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.633|199.306|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||199.306|129.633|
91911271|NCT02171611|183718836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|182.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.993|229.075|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||229.075|144.993|
91911272|NCT02171611|183718836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|164.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.421|203.14|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||203.14|132.421|
91911273|NCT00137111|183718885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial proportion|79.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.69|82.85|||Binomial proportion|||Of the 498 eligible patients, 492 were successfully evaluated with day 46 MRD measurement.||82.85|75.69|
91911274|NCT00137111|183718886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062||||||p-value from t-test after stratified for lineage and ploidy|t-test, 2 sided|||t-test stratified for lineage and ploidy||||.0062
91911275|NCT00137111|183718887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||p-value from t-test after adjusted for lineage and ploidy|t-test, 2 sided|||t-test adjusting for lineage and ploidy||||.15
91911276|NCT00137111|183718888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9.5e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00000095
91911277|NCT00137111|183718889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||7e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0000007
91911278|NCT00852995|183718896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00028
91911279|NCT00852995|183718896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0899
91911280|NCT00852995|183718896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1586|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1586
91911281|NCT00852995|183718896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0295
91911282|NCT00852995|183718898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 01|ANCOVA|||||||.037
91911283|NCT00852995|183718898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 02|ANCOVA|||||||.064
91911284|NCT00852995|183718898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 03|ANCOVA|||||||.161
91807434|NCT02128113|183491769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|64.31||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.|Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.1276
91807435|NCT02128113|183491769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-11.08||||0.7996|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.|Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.7996
91807436|NCT02128113|183491770|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-13.55||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.75|-0.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||-0.36|-26.75|0.0647
91807437|NCT02128113|183491770|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-15.15||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.34|-1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||-1.96|-28.34|0.0517
91807438|NCT02128113|183491771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-0.11||||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|8.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||8.68|-8.91|0.9258
91807439|NCT02128113|183491771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-3.03||||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|6.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||6.21|-12.27|0.6547
91807440|NCT02128113|183491772|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-13.56||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.84|-0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||-0.28|-26.84|0.0657
91807441|NCT02128113|183491772|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Difference in proportion of patients|-15.15||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|-1.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|||-1.88|-28.42|0.0526
91807442|NCT02128113|183491773|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|0.0||||0.8771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|10.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||10.87|-10.87|0.8771
91807443|NCT02128113|183491773|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|1.35||||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|12.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||12.02|-9.32|0.8248
91807444|NCT02128113|183491774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|27.21||||0.4686|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension pooled (0.5% and 1.0%) versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.4686
91807445|NCT02128113|183491774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|49.99||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.2636
91807446|NCT02128113|183491774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.74||||0.9691|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.9691
91807447|NCT01750242|183491775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% of leads|86.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|73.7|||||||A 95% lower confidence bound was calculated on the percentage of leads where an overlap existed. A subject may have 1 or 2 leads included in the analysis.|||73.7|
91807448|NCT01750242|183491776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-18.4||||||Summary statistics on the UPDRS III score. A higher score is more motor dysfunction.||-18.4|-26.5|
91889302|NCT00935532|183671482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of exenatide QW to insulin glargine with respect to change in HbA1c was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was less than 0.4%. Change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<8.5%, \>=8.5%), background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.26||No adjustments for multiplicity will be performed|ANCOVA|||The expected changes in HbA1c from baseline were considered to be the same between the groups, and the common standard deviation assumed to be 1.2%. Assuming a type I error of 0.025 (one-sided), a power of 0.9 and a noninferiority margin of 0.4%, 191 subjects per group would be necessary to confirm the noninferiority by the two-sample t-test. When the proportion of the subjects missing post-baseline data was assumed to be 10%, the target number of subjects were 420 in total (210 subjects/group).||-0.26|-0.59|<.001
91889303|NCT00935532|183671483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c\<=7% at endpoint were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which background OAD and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU served as the stratification factors.||||<.001
91889304|NCT00935532|183671484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c\<=6.5% at endpoint were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which background OAD and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU served as the stratification factors.||||<.001
91889305|NCT00935532|183671485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in FSG from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline FSG as a covariate.||1.07|-11.62|0.103
91889306|NCT00935532|183671486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.56|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.56|-2.46|<.001
91911285|NCT00852995|183718898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 04|ANCOVA|||||||.39
91761225|NCT04737278|183413656|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of blood potassium concentration upon enrollment and day 28 in the Cunermuspir participants||||<0.001
91911286|NCT00852995|183718898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 05|ANCOVA|||||||.079
91911287|NCT00852995|183718898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 06|ANCOVA|||||||.069
91911288|NCT00852995|183718898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 07|ANCOVA|||||||.026
91911289|NCT00852995|183718898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 08|ANCOVA|||||||.133
91911290|NCT00852995|183718898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 09|ANCOVA|||||||.089
91911291|NCT00852995|183718898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 10|ANCOVA|||||||.057
91911292|NCT00852995|183718898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 11|ANCOVA|||||||.127
91911293|NCT00852995|183718898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.395
91911294|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0133
91911295|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3839|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3839
91911296|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5721|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5721
91911297|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.232
91911298|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0787
91911299|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7919|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7919
91911300|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6881|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6881
91911301|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9832
91911302|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0466
91911303|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8435|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8435
91911304|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8743
91911305|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2884|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2884
91911306|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0387
91761226|NCT04737278|183413656|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of blood potassium concentrations from enrollment to day 28 in participants in the Placebo arm.||||<0.001
91761227|NCT04737278|183413657|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.87
91761228|NCT04737278|183413657|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between baseline and day 28 chloride concentrations in the Cunermuspir group||||0.003
91761229|NCT04737278|183413657|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of blood chloride concentrations between baseline and day 28 in Placebo Arm participants||||0.003
91761230|NCT04737278|183413658|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bilirubin concentrations between Placebo and Cunermuspir compared at day 28||||0.36
91761231|NCT04737278|183413658|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||comparison of bilirubin concentrations between baseline and day 28 in the Cunermuspir Arm||||0.72
91761232|NCT04737278|183413658|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||bilirubin concentrations compared between baseline and Day 28 in the Placebo Arm||||0.35
91761233|NCT04737278|183413659|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91911307|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8461
91911308|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9574
91911309|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2994
91911310|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1024
91911311|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8759
91911312|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9008
91911313|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4618
91911314|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2439
91911315|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.749
91911316|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3749
91911317|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.015
91911318|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0078
91911319|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.07
91911320|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.208
91911321|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0413
91911322|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0054
91911323|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2031
91911324|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0894
91911325|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0288
91911326|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6964|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6964
91911327|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.59
91911328|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7146
91911329|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5008
91911330|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1235
91761234|NCT04737278|183413659|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between baseline and day 28 values in Cunermuspir group||||0.4
91761235|NCT04737278|183413659|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between baseline and day 28 values for the Placebo Arm||||0.8
91761236|NCT04737278|183413660|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison of AST enzyme activity in blood on day 28 between Cunermuspir and Placebo||||0.62
91761237|NCT04737278|183413660|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to day 28 comparison||||0.24
91761238|NCT04737278|183413660|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to day 28 comparison of AST activity in Placebo group||||0.11
91761239|NCT04737278|183413661|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Comparison of GGT activities in blood of two arms: Cunermuspir and Placebo on Day 28|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between placebo and Cunermuspir at day 28||||0.11
91761240|NCT04737278|183413661|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Comparison of GGT activities in participants' blood at baseline and on day 28||||0.01
91807449|NCT03765918|183491777|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|9.3|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|12.8||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||12.8|6.7|<0.00001
91807450|NCT03765918|183491778|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|13.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.7||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||18.7|9.7|<0.00001
91761241|NCT04737278|183413661|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|||Comparison of GGT activity in blood between Placebo Arm participants at baseline and on day 28||||0.97
91761242|NCT04737278|183413662|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||Between group comparisons were made using ANCOVA||||0.03
91761243|NCT04737278|183413662|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline with day 28||||0.10
91761244|NCT04737278|183413662|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between baseline and day 28 serum copper concentrations in the Placebo Arm||||0.89
91761245|NCT03671213|183413663|SUPERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. If non-inferiority was met, superiority could be tested. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \> 0.0%.||||||||||||||||For missing data in both Arms/Groups, multiple imputation was performed for the primary CCS analysis|Device group differences and two-sided 90% and 97.5% confidence interval lower bounds (LB) adjusting for propensity score (PS) subclass based on PS subclass weights (ATT). Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \> 0.0%. Two-sided 97.5% LB is evaluated rather than two-sided 95.0% LB since the superiority type 1 error is split between testing superiority in terms of Month 24 CCS and then separately for a set of superiority secondary endpoints with type 1 error control maintained through the use of Hochberg approach (following demonstration of non-inferiority).|||
91761246|NCT03223337|183413672|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square(LS) Mean|1.9973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1063|3.6057|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||3.6057|1.1063|
91761247|NCT03223337|183413672|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6471|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1267|2.4079|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4079|1.1267|
91761248|NCT03223337|183413672|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6404|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0744|2.5048|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5048|1.0744|
91761249|NCT03223337|183413672|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4931|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0876|2.0498|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0498|1.0876|
91761250|NCT03223337|183413672|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6222|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1594|2.2696|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2696|1.1594|
91761251|NCT03223337|183413672|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3145|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9896|1.7462|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7462|0.9896|
91761252|NCT03223337|183413673|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.035|2.0523|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0523|1.0350|
91761253|NCT03223337|183413673|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3919|2.6968|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.6968|1.3919|
91761254|NCT03223337|183413673|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.8312|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3342|2.5133|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5133|1.3342|
91761255|NCT03223337|183413673|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4654|2.7378|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.7378|1.4654|
91761256|NCT03223337|183413673|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2818|2.2847|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2847|1.2818|
91761257|NCT03223337|183413673|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5365|2.536|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5360|1.5365|
91761258|NCT03223337|183413673|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9081|2.3484|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3484|0.9081|
91807451|NCT03765918|183491779|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|9.8|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|13.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||13.3|7.0|<0.00001
91911331|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5488
91761259|NCT03223337|183413676|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1061|3.6066|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||3.6066|1.1061|
91807452|NCT03765918|183491780|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|3.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.3|1.5|0.0006
91761260|NCT03223337|183413676|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6509|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1285|2.415|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4150|1.1285|
91761261|NCT03223337|183413676|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6421|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0732|2.5125|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5125|1.0732|
91761262|NCT03223337|183413676|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.5169|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0994|2.093|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0930|1.0994|
91761263|NCT03223337|183413676|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.624|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1599|2.2736|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2736|1.1599|
91761264|NCT03223337|183413676|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3143|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9887|1.747|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7470|0.9887|
91761265|NCT03223337|183413677|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0344|2.0513|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0513|1.0344|
91761266|NCT03223337|183413677|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3935|2.7224|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.7224|1.3935|
91761267|NCT03223337|183413677|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.8392|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.335|2.534|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5340|1.3350|
91761268|NCT03223337|183413677|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.0161|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4711|2.763|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.7630|1.4711|
91761269|NCT03223337|183413677|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7303|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2932|2.3151|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3151|1.2932|
91761270|NCT03223337|183413677|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5426|2.5594|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5594|1.5426|
91761271|NCT03223337|183413677|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9086|2.3609|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3609|0.9086|
91761272|NCT03223337|183413678|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9786|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0557|3.7084|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||3.7084|1.0557|
91761273|NCT03223337|183413678|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2791|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9241|1.7705|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7705|0.9241|
91761274|NCT03223337|183413678|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2487|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8675|1.7974|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7974|0.8675|
91761275|NCT03223337|183413678|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.1802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9165|1.5197|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5197|0.9165|
91761276|NCT03223337|183413678|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2726|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.7012|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7012|0.9520|
91761277|NCT03223337|183413678|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0409|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7927|1.3668|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.3668|0.7927|
91761278|NCT03223337|183413679|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7122|1.4316|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4316|0.7122|
91761279|NCT03223337|183413679|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2498|2.5498|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5498|1.2498|
91761280|NCT03223337|183413679|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7337|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2343|2.4353|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4353|1.2343|
91761281|NCT03223337|183413679|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7628|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2898|2.4092|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4092|1.2898|
91761282|NCT03223337|183413679|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6413|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2055|2.2347|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2347|1.2055|
91761283|NCT03223337|183413679|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.8289|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3992|2.3904|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3904|1.3992|
91761284|NCT03223337|183413679|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3367|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8288|2.1557|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.1557|0.8288|
91911332|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4343|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4343
91911333|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1114
91761285|NCT03223337|183413680|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.1869|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.1869|0.6900|
91761286|NCT03223337|183413680|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.7415|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5617|0.9787|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.9787|0.5617|
91761287|NCT03223337|183413680|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.7299|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4387|1.2145|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.2145|0.4387|
91761288|NCT03223337|183413680|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.1703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.5219|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5219|0.9000|
91761289|NCT03223337|183413680|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.9585|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6664|1.3786|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.3786|0.6664|
91761290|NCT03223337|183413680|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7833|1.2778|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.2778|0.7833|
91761291|NCT03223337|183413681|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7876|1.4197|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4197|0.7876|
91761292|NCT03223337|183413681|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0143|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7332|1.4032|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4032|0.7332|
91761293|NCT03223337|183413681|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7695|1.4002|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4002|0.7695|
91761294|NCT03223337|183413681|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3427|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7635|2.3615|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3615|0.7635|
91761295|NCT03223337|183413681|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0296|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6996|1.5151|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5151|0.6996|
91761296|NCT03223337|183413681|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2721|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8409|1.9245|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.9245|0.8409|
91761297|NCT03223337|183413681|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2072|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9398|1.5508|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5508|0.9398|
91761298|NCT03223337|183413682|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6822|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.50|-1.00|0.6822
91761299|NCT03223337|183413682|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2391220 (M2)(Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.5767
91761300|NCT03223337|183413682|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.5||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2487818 (M4)(Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.50|-1.00|0.5880
91761301|NCT03223337|183413682|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2506102 (M5)(Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.7716
91761302|NCT03223337|183413682|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.00|-1.00|0.4093
91761303|NCT03223337|183413682|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.9837
91761304|NCT03223337|183413683|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.50|-1.00|0.6224
91761305|NCT03223337|183413683|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.00|-1.00|0.8042
91761306|NCT03223337|183413683|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.8423
91761307|NCT03223337|183413683|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.5207
91761308|NCT03223337|183413683|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.8423
91761309|NCT03223337|183413683|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|1.0000
91761310|NCT03223337|183413683|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|0.00|0.8042
91761311|NCT03688074|183413702|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.35||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter : Eosinophils (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.05, 0.41)|0.35|0.06|<0.001
91761312|NCT03688074|183413702|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.36||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.86||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: Neutrophils (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.94, 1.97)|1.86|0.99|0.106
91761313|NCT03688074|183413702|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.12||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: T cells CD3+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.86, 1.46)|1.40|0.90|0.389
91761314|NCT03688074|183413702|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.18||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.48||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: T cells CD4+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.90, 1.55)|1.48|0.94|0.216
91761315|NCT03688074|183413702|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.83||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.09||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: Mast cells Tryptase+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.61, 1.15)|1.09|0.64|0.260
91807453|NCT03765918|183491781|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|4.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||7.6|2.1|0.0011
91761316|NCT03688074|183413702|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.19||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.92||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: Mast cells Chymase+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.67, 2.10)|1.92|0.74|0.546
91761317|NCT01362608|183413705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|-11.2|||ANCOVA|||||-11.2|-28.2|<0.0001
91761318|NCT01362608|183413706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.71|||Regression, Cox|||||0.71|0.10|0.0043
91761319|NCT03928717|183413736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91761320|NCT03928717|183413737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91761321|NCT03350815|183413753|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.25||No P value as no hypothesis was tested|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ASDAS inactive disease response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation)||2.25|0.28|
91761322|NCT03350815|183413754|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.66||No P value as no hypothesis was tested|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of reduction in ASDAS \>= 1.1 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation)||8.66|0.50|
91761323|NCT03350815|183413755|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Least Square Mean of Treatment Differenc|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.75||Least squares means (LSMs) of the treatment groups, LSM treatment difference and 95% confidence interval for treatment difference are from mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit and TNF-alpha inhibitor status as factors|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of total BASDAI change from Week 16 using MMRM - in Treatment Period 2 (FAS)||0.75|-0.29|
91761324|NCT03350815|183413756|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.24||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status (naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of BASDAI50 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||3.24|0.50|
91761325|NCT03350815|183413757|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.73||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status (naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of BASDAI20 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||1.73|0.43|
91761326|NCT03350815|183413758|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.46||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status (naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ASAS40 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||3.46|0.49|
91761327|NCT03350815|183413759|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.41||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status(naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ASAS partial remission response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||2.41|0.44|
91911334|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2119|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2119
91911335|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0194
91761328|NCT03350815|183413760|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.01||Least squares means (LSMs) of the treatment groups, LSM treatment difference and 95% confidence interval for treatment difference are from mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit and TNF-alpha inhibitor status as factors|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of change from Week 16 in ASAS-Health Index using MMRM by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (FAS)||1.01|-0.74|
91761329|NCT03350815|183413761|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|1.61||Least squares means (LSMs) of the treatment groups, LSM treatment difference and 95% confidence interval for treatment difference are from mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit and TNF-alpha inhibitor status as factors|Regression, Logistic|||||1.61|-3.62|
91761330|NCT03526146|183413762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.002
91761331|NCT03526146|183413763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.047
91761332|NCT03526146|183413764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.006
91761333|NCT03526146|183413765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.05
91807454|NCT03765918|183491782|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|3.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.6|1.6|0.0006
91889307|NCT00935532|183671487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|-3.45|||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline total cholesterol as a covariate.||-3.45|-12.33|<.001
91761334|NCT03526146|183413766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.009
91761335|NCT00536471|183413788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||Repeated Measures Analysis for Group A change from baseline to 8 week endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit||||||0.051
91761336|NCT00536471|183413788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Repeated Measures Analysis for Group B change from baseline to 8 week endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit||||||<0.001
91761337|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91761338|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91761339|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-value for Maier 8 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
91761340|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Maier 8 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91761341|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.202
91761342|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91761343|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value for Bech 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.027
91761344|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Bech 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91761345|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.076
91761346|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91761347|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.149
91761348|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.062
91761349|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.629
91761350|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.194
91807455|NCT03765918|183491789|OTHER|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.29||||0.4671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|2.2||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||2.20|-4.78|0.4671
91889308|NCT00935532|183671488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pre-treatment with SU as factors and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||1.09|-1.64|0.689
91761351|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.525||95.0||||P-value for Maier 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.525
91761352|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value for Maier 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.595
91761353|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.736
91761354|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.368
91761355|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||P-value for Bech 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.660
91761356|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-value for Bech 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.334
91761357|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.568
91761358|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.216
91761359|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.646
91889309|NCT00935532|183671489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at endpoint to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.06|0.94|0.990
91761360|NCT00536471|183413789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.275
91761361|NCT00536471|183413790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
91761362|NCT00536471|183413790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91761363|NCT00536471|183413790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.449
91761364|NCT00536471|183413790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.167
91761365|NCT00536471|183413791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
91761366|NCT00536471|183413791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91761367|NCT00536471|183413791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.653
91761368|NCT00536471|183413791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.417
91761369|NCT00536471|183413792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change(Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.204
91761370|NCT00536471|183413792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
91761371|NCT00536471|183413792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
91761372|NCT00536471|183413792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
91761373|NCT00536471|183413793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.023
91761374|NCT00536471|183413793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.100
91761375|NCT00536471|183413793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
91911336|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.506
91761376|NCT00536471|183413793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
91761377|NCT00536471|183413794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.332
91761378|NCT00536471|183413794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.041
91761379|NCT00536471|183413794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.775||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
91761380|NCT00536471|183413794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.588
91761381|NCT00536471|183413795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.624
91761382|NCT00536471|183413795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.473
91761383|NCT00536471|183413795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.787
91761384|NCT00536471|183413795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.086
91761385|NCT00536471|183413796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.099
91761386|NCT00536471|183413796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.223
91807456|NCT03765918|183491790|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.03||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|1.21||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.21|-7.27|0.1606
91807457|NCT03765918|183491791|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.41||||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.15||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||2.15|-4.96|0.4374
91761387|NCT00536471|183413796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.473
91761388|NCT00536471|183413796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.233
91761389|NCT00536471|183413797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.577
91761390|NCT00536471|183413797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.567
91761391|NCT00536471|183413798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.670
91761392|NCT00536471|183413798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
91761393|NCT00536471|183413798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.930
91761394|NCT00536471|183413798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.567
91761395|NCT00536471|183413799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.896
91761396|NCT00536471|183413799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.796||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.796
91761397|NCT00536471|183413799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
91807458|NCT03765918|183491792|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.39||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|4.13||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.13|-3.35|0.8379
91761398|NCT00536471|183413799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.381
91807459|NCT03765918|183491793|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.39||||0.8643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|4.07||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.07|-4.84|0.8643
91807460|NCT03765918|183491794|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.29||||0.8813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.54||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||3.54|-4.12|0.8813
91761399|NCT00536471|183413800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
91761400|NCT00536471|183413800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91761401|NCT00536471|183413800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.665
91761402|NCT00536471|183413800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.253
91761403|NCT00536471|183413801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.723
91761404|NCT00536471|183413801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.312
91761405|NCT00536471|183413801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
91807461|NCT03765918|183491801|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.34||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|3.45||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||3.45|-2.76|0.8287
91761406|NCT00536471|183413801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.913
91761407|NCT00536471|183413802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.234
91761408|NCT00536471|183413802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.216
91761409|NCT00536471|183413802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
91807462|NCT03765918|183491802|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.53||||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|4.18||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.18|-3.12|0.7761
91761410|NCT00536471|183413802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.908
91761411|NCT00536471|183413803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.789
91761412|NCT00536471|183413803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
91761413|NCT00536471|183413803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.414
91761414|NCT00536471|183413803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.717
91761415|NCT00536471|183413804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.780
91807463|NCT03765918|183491803|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.65||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|3.84||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||3.84|-2.54|0.6880
91807464|NCT03765918|183491804|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.45||||0.3858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|1.83||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.83|-4.73|0.3858
91807465|NCT03765918|183491805|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.45||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.62||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.62|-6.53|0.2370
91761416|NCT00536471|183413804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.152
91807466|NCT03765918|183491806|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.76||||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.67||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.67|-5.20|0.3138
91807467|NCT03765918|183491813|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.28||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.05|1.48||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.48|-8.05|0.1763
91807468|NCT03765918|183491814|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.18||||0.6882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|4.59||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.59|-6.95|0.6882
91807469|NCT03765918|183491815|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.52||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|2.35||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||2.35|-7.39|0.3103
91807470|NCT03765918|183491816|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.48||||0.8475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|4.45||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.45|-5.41|0.8475
91807471|NCT03765918|183491817|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.42||||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|5.51||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||5.51|-6.36|0.8881
91807472|NCT03765918|183491818|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.22||||0.9307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|4.78||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.78|-5.22|0.9307
91807473|NCT03765918|183491825|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|1.3||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|5.85||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||5.85|-3.25|0.5752
91761417|NCT00536471|183413804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.637
91807474|NCT03765918|183491826|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.98||||0.7196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|6.34||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||6.34|-4.38|0.7196
91761418|NCT00536471|183413804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
91807475|NCT03765918|183491827|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.74||||0.7522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|5.37||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||5.37|-3.88|0.7522
91807476|NCT03765918|183491828|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.24||||0.9255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.82||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.82|-5.30|0.9255
91807477|NCT03765918|183491829|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|2.22||||0.4926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|8.6||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||8.60|-4.15|0.4926
91807478|NCT03765918|183491830|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.99||||0.7087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|6.21||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||6.21|-4.23|0.7087
91807479|NCT03765918|183491837|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.75||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.14|-6.65|0.1654
91807480|NCT03765918|183491838|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.26||||0.9117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|4.8||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.80|-4.29|0.9117
91911337|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2317|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2317
91911338|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1144
91761419|NCT00536471|183413805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.517
91761420|NCT00536471|183413805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.256
91761421|NCT00536471|183413805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
91761422|NCT00536471|183413805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.268
91761423|NCT00536471|183413806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.741||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.741
91761424|NCT00536471|183413806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.722
91761425|NCT00536471|183413806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
91761426|NCT00536471|183413806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.268
91761427|NCT00536471|183413807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.723
91807481|NCT03765918|183491839|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.22||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|1.82||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.82|-6.25|0.2808
91761428|NCT00536471|183413807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.949
91761429|NCT00536471|183413807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
91761430|NCT00536471|183413807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.268
91761431|NCT00536471|183413808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.682
91761432|NCT00536471|183413808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91761433|NCT00536471|183413808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.200
91761434|NCT00536471|183413808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.813
91761435|NCT00536471|183413809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.438
91761436|NCT00536471|183413809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91761437|NCT00536471|183413809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
91761438|NCT00536471|183413809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
91761439|NCT00536471|183413810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.588
91761440|NCT00536471|183413810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.758
91761441|NCT00536471|183413810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
91761442|NCT00536471|183413810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
91761443|NCT00536471|183413811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.507
91761444|NCT00536471|183413811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
91761445|NCT00536471|183413811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
91761446|NCT00536471|183413811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
91761447|NCT00536471|183413812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.487
91761448|NCT00536471|183413812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.678
91761449|NCT00536471|183413812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
91807482|NCT03765918|183491840|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.77||||0.1577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|1.08||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.08|-6.62|0.1577
91807483|NCT03765918|183491841|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.81||||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|1.97||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.97|-7.59|0.2485
91807484|NCT03765918|183491842|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.03||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|0.96||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||0.96|-7.03|0.1364
91807485|NCT03765918|183491848|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.00411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value was based on log-rank test stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.||||0.92|0.58|0.00411
91807486|NCT03765918|183491849|SUPERIORITY|HR and associated 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.00217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.88|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.||||0.88|0.49|0.00217
91807487|NCT03765918|183491850|SUPERIORITY|HR and associated 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.||||0.89|0.55|0.00140
91807488|NCT00299975|183491869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis.||||||<0.05
91761450|NCT00536471|183413812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
91761451|NCT00536471|183413813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.505
91761452|NCT00536471|183413813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.135
91761453|NCT00536471|183413813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
91761454|NCT00536471|183413813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
91761455|NCT00536471|183413814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
91761456|NCT00536471|183413814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91761457|NCT00536471|183413814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.576
91761458|NCT00536471|183413814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.676
91807489|NCT00299975|183491870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis.||||||<0.05
91807490|NCT00299975|183491871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91807491|NCT00299975|183491872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91807492|NCT00299975|183491873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis was implemented between three treatment groups in each time frame.||||||<0.05
91761459|NCT00536471|183413815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.675
91761460|NCT00536471|183413815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.139
91761461|NCT00536471|183413815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.576
91761462|NCT00536471|183413815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.676
91761463|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91761464|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
91761465|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.020
91761466|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.324
91761467|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
91807493|NCT00299975|183491874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91807494|NCT00299975|183491875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91761468|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91761469|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
91761470|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
91761471|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.201
91761472|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.069
91761473|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.368
91761474|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.435
91761475|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.090
91761476|NCT00536471|183413816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.313
91761477|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
91761478|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.584
91761479|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.251
91761480|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.265
91761481|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.366
91807495|NCT00299975|183491876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91807496|NCT00299975|183491877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91807497|NCT00299975|183491878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91807498|NCT00299975|183491879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91807499|NCT00299975|183491881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
91761482|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.257
91761483|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.426
91761484|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.234
91761485|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.765
91761486|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.522||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.522
91761487|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.986
91761488|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.602
91761489|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.110
91761490|NCT00536471|183413817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment(Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.505
91761491|NCT00536471|183413818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.366
91761492|NCT00536471|183413818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
91807500|NCT00299975|183491882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
91807501|NCT00299975|183491883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
91761493|NCT00536471|183413818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.229
91761494|NCT00536471|183413818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.044
91761495|NCT00536471|183413818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.092
91761496|NCT00536471|183413818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91761497|NCT00536471|183413818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score(Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.142
91761498|NCT00536471|183413818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91761499|NCT00536471|183413819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.921
91761500|NCT00536471|183413819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.895
91761501|NCT00536471|183413819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.789
91761502|NCT00536471|183413819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.761
91761503|NCT00536471|183413819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.519
91761504|NCT00536471|183413819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.755
91807502|NCT00299975|183491884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
91807503|NCT04380116|183491886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||ANOVA|||||||.366
91911339|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6786|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6786
91761505|NCT00536471|183413819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.829
91761506|NCT00536471|183413819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.723
91761507|NCT00536471|183413820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.753
91761508|NCT00536471|183413820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.036
91761509|NCT00536471|183413822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.342
91761510|NCT00536471|183413822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.111
91761511|NCT00536471|183413824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.302
91761512|NCT00536471|183413824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
91761513|NCT00536471|183413824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.325
91761514|NCT00536471|183413824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.423
91889310|NCT03083665|183671507|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction over Placebo|24.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|35.5||Statistical testing with control of Type I error rate were based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA with log-transformed \[log(x+1)\] Treatment Period 28-day adjusted partial seizure frequency.|||35.5|11.7|0.0005
91761515|NCT00536471|183413825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.731
91761516|NCT00536471|183413825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
91761517|NCT00536471|183413825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
91761518|NCT00536471|183413825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
91761519|NCT00536471|183413825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.950
91761520|NCT00536471|183413825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.442
91761521|NCT00536471|183413825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.218
91761522|NCT00536471|183413825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.648
91761523|NCT00536471|183413826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0||||P-value for 12 week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.653
91761524|NCT00536471|183413826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for 12 week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
91761525|NCT00536471|183413826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||P-value for 12 week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.665
91761526|NCT00536471|183413826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||P-value for 12 week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.127
91761527|NCT00536471|183413827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.475
91761528|NCT00536471|183413827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.561
91761529|NCT00536471|183413827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.213||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.213
91761530|NCT00536471|183413827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.536
91761531|NCT00536471|183413827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.158
91761532|NCT00536471|183413827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.759
91889311|NCT03083665|183671507|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction over Placebo|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|43.1||Statistical testing with control of Type I error rate were based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA with log-transformed \[log(x+1)\] Treatment Period 28-day adjusted partial seizure frequency.|||43.1|21.9|<0.0001
91761533|NCT00536471|183413827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.190
91761534|NCT00536471|183413827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.852
91761535|NCT00536471|183413828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
91761536|NCT00536471|183413828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91761537|NCT00536471|183413828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.705
91761538|NCT00536471|183413828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.388
91761539|NCT00536471|183413829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
91761540|NCT00536471|183413829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
91761541|NCT00536471|183413829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.982
91761542|NCT00536471|183413829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.407
91761543|NCT00536471|183413830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91761544|NCT00536471|183413830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
91761545|NCT00536471|183413830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.231
91761546|NCT00536471|183413830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.040
91761547|NCT00536471|183413831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.914
91761548|NCT00536471|183413831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
91761549|NCT00536471|183413831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.296
91761550|NCT00536471|183413831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
91761551|NCT00536471|183413831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.874
91761552|NCT00536471|183413831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.614||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.614
91761553|NCT00536471|183413831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.146
91761554|NCT00536471|183413831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.877||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.877
91761555|NCT00536471|183413832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
91761556|NCT00536471|183413832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
91761557|NCT00536471|183413832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.701
91911340|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7735
91761558|NCT00536471|183413832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.081
91761559|NCT00536471|183413833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91807504|NCT01370356|183491962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|12.53||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used. A fixed-sequence procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 10-week CA for Weeks 15 - 24, 2) CA for Weeks 21 - 24, 3) CA for Weeks 21 - 52.|Regression, Logistic|||Assuming true CA rate of 6.9% for placebo and 17.2% for varenicline (odds ratio ≥ 2.8), a study randomizing 1404 participants (1:1 ratio) has ≥90% power to detect a difference between the two groups. Analysis was done using a logistic regression model; treatment effect as explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including treatment-by-center interaction.||12.53|6.09|<0.0001
91761560|NCT00536471|183413833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.672
91761561|NCT00536471|183413833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.874
91761562|NCT00536471|183413833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.390
91761563|NCT00536471|183413838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Bilirubin - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.046
91761564|NCT00536471|183413838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value for Creatinine - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.031
91761565|NCT00536471|183413838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Uric Acid - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
91889312|NCT03635099|183671529|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
91761566|NCT00536471|183413838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value for Bilirubin - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.033
91761567|NCT00536471|183413838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Uric Acid - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.013
91761568|NCT00536471|183413839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Hematocrit - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.037
91761569|NCT00536471|183413839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for Hematocrit - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.029
91761570|NCT00536471|183413840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for MCV - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.013
91761571|NCT00536471|183413840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value for MCV - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.014
91761572|NCT00536471|183413841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Chloride - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.022
91761573|NCT00536471|183413841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||P-value for Urea Nitrogen - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.044
91761574|NCT00536471|183413841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Chloride - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
91761575|NCT00536471|183413841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||P-value for Cholesterol - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.045
91761576|NCT00536471|183413841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||P-value for Sodium - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.043
91761577|NCT00536471|183413842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
91761578|NCT00536471|183413842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
91761579|NCT00536471|183413843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.033
91761580|NCT00536471|183413844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
91761581|NCT00536471|183413845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||P-value for Lymphocytes - High.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
91889313|NCT03635099|183671529|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
91761582|NCT00536471|183413845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||P-value for Potassium - Low.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
91761583|NCT00536471|183413846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value for Lymphocytes - High.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
91761584|NCT00536471|183413846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value for Potassium - Low.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
91761585|NCT00536471|183413847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value for Lymphocytes - High.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
91761586|NCT00536471|183413847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Hemoglobin - Low.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
91761587|NCT01979952|183413883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.237|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.227|15.579|||ANCOVA|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated.||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HRCT QLF score as covariate||15.579|-9.227|
91761588|NCT01979952|183413884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3829|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.258|15.296|||ANCOVA|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HRCT QLF score as covariate||15.296|-10.258|
91761589|NCT01979952|183413885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|69.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|146.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated.||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix.||146.75|-8.74|
91911341|NCT00852995|183718899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.758
91807505|NCT01370356|183491963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|7.61||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used. A fixed-sequence procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 10-week CA for Weeks 15 - 24, 2) CA for Weeks 21 - 24, 3) CA for Weeks 21 - 52.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model including treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. In addition, the interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including the treatment-by-center interaction. However, the inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of the treatment by center interaction.||7.61|4.21|<0.0001
91807506|NCT01370356|183491964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|5.5||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used. A fixed-sequence procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 10-week CA for Weeks 15 - 24, 2) CA for Weeks 21 - 24, 3) CA for Weeks 21 - 52.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model including treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. In addition, the interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including the treatment-by-center interaction. However, the inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of the treatment by center interaction.||5.50|2.94|<0.0001
91761590|NCT01979952|183413886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated.||MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix.||5.00|-0.29|
91761591|NCT01979952|183413888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.434|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|4.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model included treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as fixed effects and patient as random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for within patient variation||4.79|-4.89|
91761592|NCT01979952|183413889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|17.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|50.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model included treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as fixed effects and patient as random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for within patient variation||50.09|-14.21|
91761593|NCT01979952|183413890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model included treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as fixed effects and patient as random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for within patient variation||11.25|-1.47|
91761594|NCT01053988|183413909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.053||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.104||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.104|0.003|0.040
91761595|NCT01053988|183413909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.103|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.153|0.052|<0.001
91761596|NCT01053988|183413909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.192|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.243||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.243|0.141|<0.001
91761597|NCT01053988|183413909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.224|0.123|<0.001
91761598|NCT01053988|183413909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.170|0.070|<0.001
91911342|NCT00852995|183718900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.017
91761599|NCT01053988|183413909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.14||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.140|0.039|<0.001
91761600|NCT01053988|183413909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.071||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.121||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.121|0.021|0.006
91761601|NCT01053988|183413910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.033||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.088|-0.022|0.241
91761602|NCT01053988|183413910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.067||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.121|0.012|0.017
91761603|NCT01053988|183413910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.184||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.184|0.074|<0.001
91761604|NCT01053988|183413910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.115|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.169|0.060|<0.001
91761605|NCT01053988|183413910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.082||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.136||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.136|0.028|0.003
91761606|NCT01053988|183413910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.062||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.117||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.117|0.008|0.025
91761607|NCT01053988|183413910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.048||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.102|-0.006|0.082
91761608|NCT00719355|183413923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.4||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A priori level of significance was set at p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA using intent-to-treat procedures, was used for the primary outcome variable. Analyses were adjusted for age.||Observed power for our primary analysis was 0.64.||||0.033
91911343|NCT00852995|183718900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.041
91761609|NCT00719355|183413924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.65||0.109||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA was used with intent to treat analysis. The co-variant was age.||||||0.109
91761610|NCT04260347|183413939|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.064||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.784|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.784|0.345|1.000
91761611|NCT04260347|183413940|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.889||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.08|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.08|0.699|0.254
91761612|NCT04260347|183413941|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.089||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.237|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.237|0.942|0.280
91761613|NCT04260347|183413942|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|0.016||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.128|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in the mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.128|-0.096|0.916
91761614|NCT04260347|183413943|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.066||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.261|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.261|0.872|0.561
91761615|NCT04260347|183413944|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.231||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.756|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.756|0.707|0.522
91761616|NCT04260347|183413945|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|-0.021||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.091|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.091|-0.133|0.810
91761617|NCT04260347|183413946|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|-0.085||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.03|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.03|-0.199|0.179
91761618|NCT04260347|183413947|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|0.042||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.156|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.156|-0.072|0.275
91761619|NCT02828020|183414130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.66||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.66|1.25|0.0023
91761620|NCT02828020|183414130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.95||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.95|1.41|0.0003
91761621|NCT02828020|183414131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.28||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||2.28|1.27|0.0023
91761622|NCT02828020|183414131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.17||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||2.17|1.22|0.0023
91761623|NCT02828020|183414132|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.23||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.23|1.28|0.0023
91761624|NCT02828020|183414132|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.21||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.21|1.28|0.0023
91761625|NCT02828020|183414133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.07||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||3.07|1.65|0.0023
91761626|NCT02828020|183414133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.24||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||3.24|1.77|0.0023
91761627|NCT02828020|183414134|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.44||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.44|1.01|0.0577
91761628|NCT02828020|183414134|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.97||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.97|1.28|0.0037
91761629|NCT02828020|183414135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.19||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.19|1.22|0.0577
91761630|NCT02828020|183414135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.42||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.42|1.36|0.0037
91911344|NCT00852995|183718900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.017
91761631|NCT02828020|183414136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.09||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.09|1.16|0.0577
91761632|NCT02828020|183414136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.95||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.95|1.10|0.0577
91761633|NCT02828020|183414137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.79||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.79|0.96|0.0962
91761634|NCT02828020|183414137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.83|1.00|0.0962
91761635|NCT02578186|183414144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0312|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0312
91761636|NCT02713659|183414161|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory standard score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the Early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.85
91761637|NCT02713659|183414161|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expressive standard score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the Early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.53
91761638|NCT02713659|183414161|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total standard score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the Early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.49
91761639|NCT02713659|183414162|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total read scale score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.57
91889314|NCT03635099|183671529|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
91761640|NCT02713659|183414163|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Number of up to date child well visits between the early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm at 6 months of age||||0.23
91761641|NCT02713659|183414163|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||Number of up to date child vaccinations between the early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm at 6 months of age||||0.71
91761642|NCT02714283|183414219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|Due to the small sample size in the macrolide monotherapy group, for this outcome, the results are considered exploratory/descriptive only.||1.14|0.51|0.19
91761643|NCT02714283|183414220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.57|1.23|<0.0001
91761644|NCT02714283|183414221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.09|0.67|0.21
91761645|NCT02714283|183414222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||0.82|0.64|<0.0001
91761646|NCT02714283|183414223|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.32|0.80|0.87
91761647|NCT02714283|183414224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.07|0.76|0.23
91761648|NCT02714283|183414225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.25|0.96|0.20
91761649|NCT02714283|183414226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.21|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.21|1.08|<0.0001
91761650|NCT02714283|183414227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.51|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.51|0.66|0.99
91761651|NCT02714283|183414228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.25|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.25|1.07|0.0005
91761652|NCT02964767|183414232|OTHER||||||<|0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.049
91761653|NCT03777059|183414233|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.64||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.64|-1.78|<.0001
91761654|NCT03777059|183414233|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.82||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.82|-1.94|<.0001
91889315|NCT03635099|183671529|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|44.2|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||44.2|15.8|0.0062
91761655|NCT03777059|183414233|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.15||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.15|-2.28|<.0001
91761656|NCT03777059|183414234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.81||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.81|-2.03|<.0001
91761657|NCT03777059|183414234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.92||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.92|-2.13|<.0001
91761658|NCT03777059|183414234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.1||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.10|-2.32|<.0001
91761659|NCT03777059|183414235|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.82||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.82|-1.81|<.0001
91761660|NCT03777059|183414235|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.83||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.83|-1.82|<.0001
91761661|NCT03777059|183414235|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.01||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.01|-2.00|<.0001
91761662|NCT03777059|183414236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|4.56||Odds ratio and p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment group, Baseline value, and prior exposure to a migraine prevention medications with proven efficacy as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|2.05|<.0001
91761663|NCT03777059|183414236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.26||Odds ratio and p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment group, Baseline value, and prior exposure to a migraine prevention medications with proven efficacy as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.26|2.37|<.0001
91761664|NCT03777059|183414236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.71||Odds ratio and p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment group, Baseline value, and prior exposure to a migraine prevention medications with proven efficacy as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.71|2.56|<.0001
91807507|NCT01370356|183491965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|12.51||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Week 12. Analysis was done using logistic regression model with treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model with treatment-by-center interaction. The inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of treatment by center interaction.||12.51|6.03|<0.0001
91761665|NCT03777059|183414237|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|14.36||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||14.36|5.45|<.0001
91761666|NCT03777059|183414237|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.229|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|14.46||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||14.46|5.71|<.0001
91761667|NCT03777059|183414237|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.231|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.42|15.18||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||15.18|6.42|<.0001
91761668|NCT03777059|183414238|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.17||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.17|-2.56|0.0856
91761669|NCT03777059|183414238|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.18||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.18|-3.91|0.0003
91761670|NCT03777059|183414238|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.96||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.96|-4.68|<.0001
91761671|NCT03777059|183414239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.11||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.11|-2.27|0.0743
91761672|NCT03777059|183414239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.8||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.80|-3.18|0.0011
91761673|NCT03777059|183414239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-1.28||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.28|-3.65|<.0001
91761674|NCT01449006|183414256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||This pilot study was conducted to generate effect sizes for a potential larger investigation. The study design and small sample size had limited power to detect a statistically significant effect at p\<0.05, so no p-value threshold was strictly set.|Mixed Models Analysis|41 data points included (control n=14; maraviroc: n=27); n=1 control did not attend 12-month visit.||The primary outcome was analysed using a mixed-effect regression model with arm and time as fixed linear effects, arm\*time interaction as a non-linear fixed effect and participant as a random effect to account for participant attrition.||||0.05
91761675|NCT01449006|183414256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.71|||||Positive value reflects improved neurocognitive functioning in maraviroc arm compared to control arm.|Clinical relevance of the effect size observed at 6-months was assessed by generating Cohen's d statistic and 90% confidence interval (CI) around the estimate.||1.71|-0.19|
91761676|NCT01449006|183414256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|1.55|||||Positive value reflects improved neurocognitive functioning in maraviroc arm compared to control arm.|Clinical relevance of the effect size observed at 12-months was assessed by generating Cohen's d statistic and 90%CI around the estimate.||1.55|-0.47|
91761677|NCT01449006|183414257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Change in CSF neopterin levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.82
91761678|NCT01449006|183414258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.49
91807508|NCT01370356|183491965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|5.98||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Week 24. Analysis was done using logistic regression model with treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model with treatment-by-center interaction. The inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of treatment by center interaction.||5.98|3.51|<0.0001
91911345|NCT00852995|183718900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.011
91761679|NCT01449006|183414258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.94
91761680|NCT01449006|183414258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.80
91761681|NCT01449006|183414258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.72
91761682|NCT01449006|183414259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.95
91761683|NCT01449006|183414259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.66
91761684|NCT01449006|183414259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.56
91761685|NCT01449006|183414259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.29
91761686|NCT01449006|183414259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Glx/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.95
91761687|NCT02214290|183414260|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|post-hoc comparisons were used to determine within-group and between-group differences.||||||<0.001
91761688|NCT02214290|183414261|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|post-hoc comparisons were used to determine within-group and between-group differences.||||||<0.001
91761689|NCT02214290|183414262|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|post-hoc comparisons were used to determine within-group and between-group differences.||||||<0.001
91761690|NCT03369249|183414306|SUPERIORITY||log ratio of rate ratios|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.75||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|generalized estimating equations||Standard error of the Beta regression coefficient.|||0.75|-0.46|0.635
91761691|NCT04112303|183414321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate was compared to the pre-specified efficacy threshold of 78% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91761692|NCT03781414|183414360|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective would be demonstrated, if the composite efficacy failure rate difference between any of the two CFZ533 arms and the TAC arm is less than the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (0.15) with probability \>80%.|Rate difference|0.0759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0729|0.2165||||||||0.2165|-0.0729|
91911346|NCT00852995|183718900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.014
91911347|NCT00852995|183718900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.029
91761693|NCT03781414|183414360|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective would be demonstrated, if the composite efficacy failure rate difference between any of the two CFZ533 arms and the TAC arm is less than the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (0.15) with probability \>80%.|Rate difference|0.1696|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0072|0.3276||||||||0.3276|0.0072|
91807509|NCT01370356|183491965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.44||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Week 52. Analysis was done using logistic regression model with treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model with treatment-by-center interaction. The inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of treatment by center interaction.||3.44|2.05|<0.0001
91807510|NCT01370356|183491966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.47||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model including treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. In addition, the interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including the treatment-by-center interaction. However, the inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of the treatment by center interaction.||3.47|2.05|<0.0001
91807511|NCT03129100|183491995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|9.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.35|2.03|<0.001
91807512|NCT03129100|183491996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|11.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.03|1.66|0.003
91807513|NCT03129100|183491996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|11.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.02|1.77|0.001
91807514|NCT03129100|183491998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|11.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.41|1.78|0.001
91807515|NCT03129100|183491998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|11.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.31|1.88|<0.001
91807516|NCT03129100|183491999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|12.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.69|2.11|<0.001
91807517|NCT03129100|183491999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|12.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.47|2.20|<0.001
91807518|NCT03129100|183492000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.17|1.90|<0.001
91807519|NCT03129100|183492000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|8.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.09|1.56|0.003
91807520|NCT03129100|183492001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|11.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.72|2.07|<0.001
91807521|NCT03129100|183492001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|8.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.32|1.57|0.003
91807522|NCT03129100|183492002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Patient Global||-1.1|-3.1|<0.001
91807523|NCT03129100|183492002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Patient Global||-1.0|-2.9|<0.001
91807524|NCT03129100|183492002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Spinal Pain||-1.0|-3.1|<0.001
91807525|NCT03129100|183492002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Spinal Pain||-0.8|-2.8|<0.001
91807526|NCT03129100|183492002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||BASFI||-0.72|-2.39|<0.001
91807527|NCT03129100|183492002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||BASFI||-0.59|-2.20|<0.001
91807528|NCT03129100|183492002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.28|||ANCOVA|||Inflammation||-1.28|-3.05|<0.001
91807529|NCT03129100|183492002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||Inflammation||-0.95|-2.66|<0.001
91807530|NCT03129100|183492003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|13.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.35|2.13|<0.001
91807531|NCT03129100|183492003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|9.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.45|1.75|0.001
91807532|NCT03129100|183492004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9586|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.729|-3.987|||ANCOVA|||||-3.987|-11.729|<0.001
91807533|NCT03129100|183492004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.655|-2.304|||ANCOVA|||||-2.304|-9.655|0.002
91807534|NCT03129100|183492005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.40|0.062
91807535|NCT03129100|183492005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.43|0.018
91807536|NCT03129100|183492006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-0.56|0.757
91807537|NCT03129100|183492006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-0.77|0.670
91807538|NCT03129100|183492007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-1.07|0.236
91807539|NCT03129100|183492007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.92|0.373
91807540|NCT03129100|183492008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.459||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-0.98|0.885
91761694|NCT02161757|183414384|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|0.93||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.21|0.72|0.5859
91911348|NCT00852995|183718900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.021
91911349|NCT00852995|183718900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.041
91911350|NCT00852995|183718900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.044
91911351|NCT00852995|183718900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.013
91911352|NCT00852995|183718900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.024
91911353|NCT00852995|183718900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.027
91761695|NCT02161757|183414384|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|0.9||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.17|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||1.17|0.70|0.4406
91761696|NCT02161757|183414384|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|7.01||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.76|28.39|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||28.39|-20.76|0.5859
91807541|NCT03129100|183492008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-0.95|0.735
91807542|NCT03129100|183492009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.47|||ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.53|0.294
91807543|NCT03129100|183492009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-1.54|0.164
91807544|NCT03129100|183492010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-4.3|0.063
91911354|NCT00852995|183718902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for Kaplan-Meier Days to Closure|ANCOVA|||||||0.0211
91911355|NCT00852995|183718902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.83||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.04|||Regression, Cox|||||3.04|1.09|.0212
91911356|NCT00852995|183718902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.59
91911357|NCT00852995|183718902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.05||This is the P-value for the Cox Hazard Ratio|Regression, Cox|||||2.05|.69|0.53
91911358|NCT00852995|183718902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Kaplan-Meier Days to Closure||||||0.26
91911359|NCT00852995|183718902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.44||This is the P-value for the Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|Regression, Cox|||||2.44|0.84|0.19
91911360|NCT00852995|183718902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for Kaplan Meier Days to Closure|ANCOVA|||||||0.10
91911361|NCT00852995|183718902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.77||P-value for Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|Regression, Cox|||||2.77|0.97|0.06
91911362|NCT02508194|183718906|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-106.9|44.3|||||The CI was estimated by an exact conditional method.|2 sided 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was used to compare vaccine efficacy (VE). VE = (\[1 - relative risk (RR)\] \*100%), where RR was the RR of ARA-RI in the MEDI7510 group compared with the placebo group. A lower bound of the 90% CI greater than (\>) 0% would demonstrate the efficacy of MEDI7510.||44.3|-106.9|
91911363|NCT00511355|183718925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0849||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0849
91911364|NCT00511355|183718927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
91911365|NCT00511355|183718928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4191||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.4191
91911366|NCT00511355|183718929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0010
91911367|NCT00511355|183718933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3779||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.3779
91911368|NCT00511355|183718934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5027||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.5027
91911369|NCT00511355|183718935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0041
91911370|NCT00511355|183718936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9662||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.9662
91911371|NCT00511355|183718937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0004
91761697|NCT02161757|183414384|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|9.76||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.16|30.5|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||30.50|-17.16|0.4406
91761698|NCT02161757|183414385|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean difference|6.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|9.73|||||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of percent change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures analysis performed on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment."||9.73|2.34|
91761699|NCT02161757|183414385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|5.77|||||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of percent change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis performed on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment."||5.77|-1.58|
91761700|NCT02161757|183414386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.04|-0.23|
91761701|NCT02161757|183414386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.12|-0.15|
91807545|NCT03129100|183492010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-3.3|0.211
91807546|NCT03129100|183492011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-2.7|0.334
91761702|NCT02161757|183414387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.31|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.31|-0.01|
91807547|NCT03129100|183492011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.0|0.168
91807548|NCT03129100|183492013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.5|0.100
91807549|NCT03129100|183492013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.5|0.047
91807550|NCT03129100|183492014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-1.83|0.068
91807551|NCT03129100|183492014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-1.40|0.307
91807552|NCT03129100|183492015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4684||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3011|5.5053|||ANCOVA|||||5.5053|-0.3011|0.079
91807553|NCT03129100|183492015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3978||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3541|5.1734|||ANCOVA|||||5.1734|-0.3541|0.087
91807554|NCT03129100|183492016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1752||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4864|3.1605|||ANCOVA|||||3.1605|-1.4864|0.477
91807555|NCT03129100|183492016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1192||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|4.5138|||ANCOVA|||||4.5138|0.0880|0.042
91807556|NCT03129100|183492017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-2.02|0.058
91807557|NCT03129100|183492017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-1.71|0.147
91807558|NCT03129100|183492018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0334||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0329|0.1164|||ANCOVA|||||0.1164|-0.0329|0.213
91807559|NCT03129100|183492018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0319||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0324|0.1101|||ANCOVA|||||0.1101|-0.0324|0.225
91807560|NCT03129100|183492019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.383||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|-1.95|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-1.95|-19.28|0.017
91761703|NCT02161757|183414387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.28|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.28|-0.03|
91761704|NCT02161757|183414388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||-0.02|-0.29|
91761705|NCT02161757|183414388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.01|-0.26|
91761706|NCT02161757|183414389|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.54||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.96|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||0.96|0.30|0.0369
91761707|NCT02161757|183414389|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.78||||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.33|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||1.33|0.46|0.3603
91761708|NCT02161757|183414391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.29|-0.51|
91761709|NCT02161757|183414391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.24|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.24|-0.56|
91761710|NCT02161757|183414392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|16.03|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||16.03|-3.53|
91761711|NCT02161757|183414392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|11.53|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||11.53|-7.99|
91761712|NCT02161757|183414392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|16.87|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||16.87|-2.60|
91761713|NCT02161757|183414392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|10.35|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||10.35|-9.13|
91761714|NCT02161757|183414393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|1.69|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||1.69|-5.29|
91761715|NCT02161757|183414393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.12|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||1.12|-5.84|
91761716|NCT02161757|183414394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from two separate models, from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.28|0.71|0.732
91761717|NCT02161757|183414394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from two separate models, from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||1.19|0.65|0.421
91761718|NCT02106403|183414421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.46||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|11.29|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||11.29|-0.37|0.0659
91761719|NCT02106403|183414421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.99||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|10.81|||ANCOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||10.81|-0.84|0.0928
91761720|NCT02106403|183414421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|6.31|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||6.31|-5.35|0.8711
91807561|NCT03129100|183492019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.199||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.44|1.16|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||1.16|-15.44|0.091
91911372|NCT00511355|183718938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0019
91911373|NCT00511355|183718939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9662||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.9662
91911374|NCT00511355|183718940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0187||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0187
91911375|NCT00511355|183718941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
91911376|NCT00511355|183718942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6886||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.6886
91911377|NCT00511355|183718943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
91911378|NCT00511355|183718944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
91911379|NCT00511355|183718945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0083||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0083
91911380|NCT00511355|183718946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0455||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0455
91911381|NCT00511355|183718947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0063
91807562|NCT03129100|183492020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-1.7|0.531
91807563|NCT03129100|183492020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.4|0.743
91807564|NCT03789474|183492023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.443
91807565|NCT03789474|183492024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.063
91911382|NCT00511355|183718948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
91911383|NCT00511355|183718949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
91911384|NCT00511355|183718950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0078
91911385|NCT00511355|183718951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0016
91911386|NCT00511355|183718952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0003
91911387|NCT00511355|183718953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0009
91807566|NCT03789474|183492025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.057
91807567|NCT03789474|183492026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.038
91911388|NCT00511355|183718954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0024
91911389|NCT00511355|183718955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3653||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.3653
91911390|NCT00511355|183718956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
91911391|NCT00511355|183718957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
91761721|NCT02106403|183414422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.43||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|18.42|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||18.42|4.43|0.0016
91807568|NCT03789474|183492027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.072
91807569|NCT03789474|183492028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.189
91761722|NCT02106403|183414422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.69|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||8.69|-5.31|0.6323
91761723|NCT02106403|183414422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.73||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|16.73|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||16.73|2.74|0.0069
91807570|NCT03789474|183492029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.358
91807571|NCT03789474|183492030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.406
91807572|NCT03789474|183492031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.256
91807573|NCT03789474|183492032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.066
91807574|NCT03789474|183492033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.316
91807575|NCT03789474|183492034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.971
91807576|NCT03789474|183492035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.030
91807577|NCT03789474|183492036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.009
91807578|NCT03789474|183492037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.704
91807579|NCT03789474|183492038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.350
91807580|NCT03789474|183492039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.708
91807581|NCT03789474|183492040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.711|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.711
91807582|NCT03789474|183492041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.956
91807583|NCT03789474|183492042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.139
91807584|NCT03789474|183492043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.035
91807585|NCT03789474|183492044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.502
91807586|NCT03789474|183492045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.350
91807587|NCT03789474|183492046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.380
91807588|NCT03789474|183492047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.914
91807589|NCT03789474|183492048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.915
91807590|NCT03789474|183492049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.087
91807591|NCT03789474|183492050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.011
91807592|NCT03789474|183492051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.207
91807593|NCT03789474|183492052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.142
91807594|NCT03789474|183492053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.021
91807595|NCT03789474|183492054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91807596|NCT03789474|183492055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.030
91807597|NCT03789474|183492056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.048
91807598|NCT03789474|183492057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.047
91807599|NCT03789474|183492058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
91807600|NCT03789474|183492059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91807601|NCT03789474|183492060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
91807602|NCT03789474|183492061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.020
91807603|NCT03789474|183492062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91807604|NCT03789474|183492063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.053
91807605|NCT03789474|183492064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.746
91807606|NCT03789474|183492065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
91807607|NCT03789474|183492066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
91807608|NCT03789474|183492067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.043
91807609|NCT03789474|183492068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.160
91807610|NCT02010775|183492108|OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LS) Mean Difference|-3.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-2.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-2.19|-5.58|< 0.001
91807611|NCT02010775|183492108|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-4.62|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-4.62|-8.02|<0.001
91807612|NCT02010775|183492108|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-5.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-5.22|-8.56|<0.001
91807613|NCT02010775|183492108|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.35|-6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-6.00|-9.35|<0.001
91807614|NCT02010775|183492109|OTHER||Percentage Difference|31.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||53.3|9.8|0.008
91807615|NCT02010775|183492109|OTHER||Percentage Difference|48.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|67.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using CMH tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||67.8|28.6|< 0.001
91807616|NCT02010775|183492109|OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.1|72.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using CMH tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||72.6|36.1|< 0.001
91807617|NCT02010775|183492109|OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.1|72.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using CMH tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||72.6|36.1|<0.001
91807618|NCT02984709|183492134|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.47||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||0.47|-0.81|0.593
91807619|NCT02984709|183492135|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-1.137||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|2.99||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||2.99|-5.27|0.581
91807620|NCT02984709|183492136|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.587||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.34||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||0.34|-1.52|0.206
91807621|NCT02984709|183492137|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-2.494||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.11|5.13||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||Child-reported family conflict||5.13|-10.11|0.511
91807622|NCT02984709|183492137|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-3.354||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|1.73||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||Parent-reported family conflict||1.73|-8.44|0.190
91911392|NCT00511355|183718958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5668||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.5668
91911393|NCT00511355|183718959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.1770
91911394|NCT00511355|183718960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
91911395|NCT00217087|183718988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0098
91911396|NCT00217087|183718989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
91911397|NCT00217087|183718990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|the only participant who reported a decrease quality of life related that to a recent surgery not their esophagus.||||||0.2
91911398|NCT00802685|183718991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|36.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Oxygen duration (days) during the first 28 days will be equal between treatment arms.||36|4|0.858
91911399|NCT00802685|183718992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.953||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|2.309|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||null hypothesis: The proportion of subjects on O2 at 36 wk PMA will be equal between treatment arms.||2.309|0.393|0.8
91911400|NCT03208231|183718996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.79
91911401|NCT03208231|183718997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91807623|NCT02984709|183492138|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.396||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|5.36||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||5.36|-4.57|0.873
91807624|NCT02984709|183492139|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|2.996||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|14.56||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||14.56|-8.57|0.603
91807625|NCT01362205|183492176|OTHER|||||||0.2454|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2454
91807626|NCT02854631|183492222|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.||||||1.00
91911402|NCT01328951|183719039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis.||1.22|0.85|0.8183
91911403|NCT01328951|183719039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.5256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.32|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Stratified according to tumor histology, stage of disease, objective response at Baseline, bevacizumab use, smoking status, and region of enrollment.||1.32|0.87|0.5256
91911404|NCT01328951|183719040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Event-Free Rate|-0.4||||0.9207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|7.45|||Chi-squared|||||7.45|-8.25|0.9207
91911405|NCT01328951|183719042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis.||1.11|0.80|0.4759
91911406|NCT01328951|183719042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Stratified according to tumor histology, stage of disease, objective response at Baseline, bevacizumab use, smoking status, and region of enrollment.||1.06|0.72|0.1635
91911407|NCT01328951|183719043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Event-Free Rate|-2.89||||0.4069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.93|||Chi-squared|||||3.93|-9.70|0.4069
91911408|NCT01328951|183719044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|2.78||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|6.35|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using the Anderson-Hauck method.|||6.35|-0.78|0.1097
91911409|NCT01328951|183719044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.72|||||The 95% CI for OR was constructed using the Wald method.|||3.72|0.87|
91761724|NCT02106403|183414423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|18.04|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||18.04|6.23|<0.0001
91761725|NCT02106403|183414423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|3.72|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||3.72|-8.09|0.4645
91761726|NCT02106403|183414423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.41|20.22|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||20.22|8.41|<0.0001
91761727|NCT02106403|183414424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.41||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|12.38|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||12.38|0.44|0.0357
91761728|NCT02106403|183414424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|8.0|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||8.00|-3.95|0.5030
91761729|NCT02106403|183414424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|10.36|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||10.36|-1.59|0.1482
91807627|NCT02854631|183492223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.||||||0.061
91761730|NCT01496846|183414426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901|||||||Chi-squared|We used the Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact test on the raw data depending on the number of data points in the table cells.||||||.901
91761731|NCT01496846|183414426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|We used the Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact test on the raw data depending on the number of data points in the table cells.||||||.004
91911410|NCT01328951|183719046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|1.99||||0.6062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|9.72|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using the Anderson-Hauck method.|||9.72|-5.74|0.6062
91761732|NCT01496846|183414427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||Chi-squared|We used the Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact test on the raw data depending on the number of data points in the table cells.||||||.437
91911411|NCT01328951|183719046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.49|||||The 95% CI for OR was constructed using the Wald method.|||1.49|0.79|
91761733|NCT02024724|183414434|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-30.0||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|10.0|||Chi-squared|||||10.00|-45.00|.196
91761734|NCT02019875|183414435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|18.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.3|-21.2|0.884
91761735|NCT02019875|183414435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|20.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.7|-19.5|0.955
91761736|NCT02019875|183414435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.6|-26.5|0.53
91761737|NCT02019875|183414435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.9|-27.6|0.434
91761738|NCT02019875|183414435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.6|-24.2|0.796
91761739|NCT02019875|183414436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-6.0|0.62
91761740|NCT02019875|183414436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|-3.1|0.482
91761741|NCT02019875|183414436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.4|-3.4|0.559
91761742|NCT02019875|183414436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.5|-1.2|0.138
91761743|NCT02019875|183414436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-7.1|0.477
91761744|NCT02019875|183414437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.3|-11.0|0.98
91761745|NCT02019875|183414437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.7|-10.0|0.81
91761746|NCT02019875|183414437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.2|-10.8|0.91
91761747|NCT02019875|183414437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.8|-8.9|0.68
91761748|NCT02019875|183414437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.6|-11.9|0.96
91761749|NCT02019875|183414438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-2.7|0.17
91761750|NCT02019875|183414438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-1.0|0.44
91761751|NCT02019875|183414438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-1.7|0.94
91761752|NCT02019875|183414438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|2.1|<0.0001
91761753|NCT02019875|183414438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|2.2|<0.0001
91761754|NCT02019875|183414439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.012|-0.027|0.43
91761755|NCT02019875|183414439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.003|-0.037|0.09
91761756|NCT02019875|183414439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.009|-0.031|0.29
91761757|NCT02019875|183414439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.015|-0.025|0.61
91761758|NCT02019875|183414439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.014|-0.03|0.46
91761759|NCT02019875|183414440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|26.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.7|-52.0|0.53
91761760|NCT02019875|183414440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.5|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.5|-84.5|0.03
91761761|NCT02019875|183414440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|32.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.8|-47.3|0.72
91761762|NCT02019875|183414440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|42.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||42.2|-36.6|0.89
91761763|NCT02019875|183414440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|80.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||80.6|-4.7|0.08
91761764|NCT02019875|183414441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.5|110.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.2|-104.5|0.96
91761765|NCT02019875|183414441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.2|124.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||124.2|-94.2|0.79
91761766|NCT02019875|183414441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|180.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||180.5|-37.9|0.20
91761767|NCT02019875|183414441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.1|104.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||104.7|-110.1|0.96
91761768|NCT02019875|183414441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.7|168.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||168.2|-64.7|0.38
91761769|NCT03202134|183414442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91761770|NCT03202134|183414443|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91761771|NCT03202134|183414444|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91761772|NCT03202134|183414445|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91761773|NCT03202134|183414446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
91761774|NCT00966550|183414450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91761775|NCT01128946|183414451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.63|26.48||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||26.48|19.63|<0.0001
91761776|NCT01128946|183414452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.33|14.17||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.17|7.33|<0.0001
91761777|NCT01128946|183414452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.74|15.67||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.67|8.74|<0.0001
91761778|NCT01128946|183414452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|15.72||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.72|8.90|<0.0001
91761779|NCT01128946|183414452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.46||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.91||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||4.91|-2.00|0.4070
91807628|NCT02854631|183492224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.||||||0.060
91911412|NCT03485820|183719071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|9.6||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||9.6|-7.1|0.76
91911413|NCT03485820|183719072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.0||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||5.0|-8.6|0.60
91911414|NCT03485820|183719073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.05|-0.06|0.83
91911415|NCT03485820|183719074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.77||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression , number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.77|0.01|0.046
91911416|NCT03485820|183719075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.96||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.96|0.08|0.02
91911417|NCT03485820|183719076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|0.8||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.8|-21.9|0.07
91911418|NCT04289116|183719077|SUPERIORITY||Chi Square|1.36||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.20
91761780|NCT01128946|183414452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-7.4||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-7.40|-14.30|<0.0001
91761781|NCT01128946|183414453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.46|14.96||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.96|11.46|<0.0001
91761782|NCT01128946|183414453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|10.55||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.55|7.04|<0.0001
91761783|NCT01128946|183414453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|9.8||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.80|6.25|<0.0001
91807629|NCT02854631|183492225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91807630|NCT02854631|183492241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test (2-sided) was used to explore differences between groups in the percentage of participants with response/non-response.||||||0.30
91807631|NCT01179568|183492276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with inverse probability weighting controlled for randomization stratification variables (site and baseline MDD) \& race/ethnicity||Our prespecified primary analysis was cross-sectional, comparing treatment response rates for CIT vs PLA at week 12 (aim 1), based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants. With 10% of 440 target enrollment lost to follow-up we had a power of 76-83% to detect predicted between-group difference in response (CGT with PLA, 40%; CGT with CIT, 60%; CIT 40%; and PLA 20%)||1.81|0.82|<0.05
91807632|NCT01179568|183492276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with inverse probability weighting controlled for randomization stratification variables (site and baseline MDD) \& race/ethnicity||Our prespecified primary analysis was cross-sectional, comparing treatment response rates for CIT with CGT vs PLA with CGT at week 20 (aim 2) based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants.||1.17|0.88|<0.05
91807633|NCT01179568|183492276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with inverse probability weighting controlled for randomization stratification variables (site and baseline MDD) \& race/ethnicity||Our prespecified primary analysis was cross-sectional, comparing treatment response rates for CIT with CGT vs CIT at week 20 (aim 3) based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants.||1.46|1|<0.05
91807634|NCT01179568|183492277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in ICG scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.74
91807635|NCT01179568|183492278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in ICG scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||.53
91807636|NCT01179568|183492278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in ICG scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91807637|NCT01179568|183492279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in WSAS scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||.59
91807638|NCT01179568|183492280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in WSAS scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.||||.40
91807639|NCT01179568|183492280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in WSAS scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.||||.005
91807640|NCT03727347|183492281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Hypothesis was that the improvement (decrease) in rTNSS mean score, from baseline to 12 weeks, would exceed 1 point||||||<0.0001
91807641|NCT02881554|183492294|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between mid-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.05
91911419|NCT04289116|183719077|SUPERIORITY||Chi Square|0.03||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.58
91911420|NCT04289116|183719078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.08
91911421|NCT04289116|183719078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.02
91807642|NCT02881554|183492294|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between post-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.001
91807643|NCT02881554|183492294|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between mid-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.05
91807644|NCT02881554|183492294|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between post-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.01
91807645|NCT02881554|183492294|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between mid-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||0.13
91911422|NCT04209855|183719090|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.785|||Log Rank|||||0.785|0.513|<0.0001
91911423|NCT00507559|183719099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is compared to a historical control group, in which 11.1% of subjects experienced one or more MAE within 30 days.||||<0.001
91807646|NCT02881554|183492294|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between post-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.05
91761784|NCT01128946|183414453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|6.16||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||6.16|2.66|<0.0001
91761785|NCT01128946|183414453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.77||||0.3942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.0||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||1.00|-2.54|0.3942
91761786|NCT01128946|183414453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|-3.41||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-3.41|-6.95|<0.0001
91807647|NCT02881554|183492294|OTHER|Non-parametric|Spearman's correlation coefficient|-0.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Spearman rank correlation|||Null hypothesis = no monotonic association between the baseline TLF and Child-Pugh scores. Spearman rank correlation was performed to assess association between baseline TLF and Child-Pugh scores.||||0.002
91807648|NCT01852110|183492299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.37|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||1.37|-1.00|0.7623
91807649|NCT01852110|183492303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.54|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||2.54|-2.42|0.9604
91807650|NCT01852110|183492304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.22|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.22|-0.01|0.0829
91807651|NCT00279591|183492316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91807652|NCT00903695|183492320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8133||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA calculation: F-ratio = 0.06, t-test = -0.25."||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.8133
91761787|NCT02467842|183414455|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (pooled TIV/QIV)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1||||||GMR of A/H1N1 strain (GMTs of pooled TIV/QIV)||1.10|0.94|
91761788|NCT02467842|183414455|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (pooled TIV/QIV)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01||||||GMR of A/H3N2 strain (GMTs of pooled TIV/QIV)||1.01|0.87|
91761789|NCT02467842|183414455|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.95||||||GMR of B/Yamagata strain (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.95|0.82|
91761790|NCT02467842|183414455|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.97||||||GMR of A/H1N1 strain (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.97|0.83|
91807653|NCT00903695|183492321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||a priori threshold for statistical sginficance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA calculation: F-ratio=1.22, t-test=1.1"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.31
91807654|NCT00903695|183492322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 1.5, t-test = -1.23"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.27
91807655|NCT00903695|183492323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 1.7, t-test = 1.3"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.24
91807656|NCT00903695|183492324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 0.15, t-test = 0.39"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.71
91807657|NCT00903695|183492325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 2.25, ttest = -1.5"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.18
91807658|NCT00903695|183492326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 1.06, t-test = -1.03"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.34
91807659|NCT01549860|183492327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.024
91761791|NCT02467842|183414456|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|4.06||||||Diff. SCR of A/H1N1 strain (SCR of pooled TIV minus QIV)||4.06|-6.07|
91761792|NCT02467842|183414456|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-5.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|0.04||||||Diff. SCR of A/H3N2 strain (SCR of pooled TIV minus QIV)||0.04|-10.08|
91761793|NCT02467842|183414456|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-7.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-1.0||||||Diff. SCR of B/Yamaga strain (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||-1.00|-13.12|
91761794|NCT02467842|183414456|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|3.09||||||Diff. SCR of B/Victoria (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||3.09|-9.26|
91761795|NCT02467842|183414460|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.0 for each B strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||||||GMR of B/Yamagata strain (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.81|0.70|
91761796|NCT02467842|183414460|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.0 for each B strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81||||||GMR of B/Victoria (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.81|0.69|
91761797|NCT02467842|183414461|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator-experimental) was ≤0% in each B strain.|Difference in percentage|-18.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.61|-13.36||||||Diff. SCR of B/Yamaga strain (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||-13.36|-24.61|
91761798|NCT02467842|183414461|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator-experimental) was ≤0% in each B strain.|Difference in percentage|-12.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|-6.45||||||Diff. SCR of B/Victoria strain (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||-6.45|-18.79|
91761799|NCT00766051|183414477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.0||The P value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons or for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||The expected outcome was that infants in the intervention group would exhibit significantly less number of days to attain oral feeding.||11|5|<0.005
91761800|NCT00766051|183414478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.275|||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|This correlation is between the intervention groups' initial level of relaxation and final level of relaxation during the oral feeding period.||Pearson Correlation, 2-tailed||||< 0.01
91761801|NCT00766051|183414479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|<|0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0||6.7|||t-test, 1 sided||An increase in this test scale score means more parent confidence.|"Parent pre-post one sided t test of parents' global confidence, measured parental confidence in feeding, handling, and interacting with their infant."||6.7||< .02
91761802|NCT00766051|183414480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3|<|0.03|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.54|||t-test, 1 sided||An increase in this test scale score means an increase in the parents' perception of their infants' easiness during caregiving.|Parent pre-post one sided t test on the Easiness Scale of the Mother and Baby Scales in how parents percieve their interactions (alert-responsiveness, mood) with their infant and infant sleep patterns .||4.54||< .03
91761803|NCT01320202|183414481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means between SFP & PBO|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||LS Mean (SE) and p-value are from ANCOVA model with baseline Hgb as covariate. Model also includes indicator variable for baseline ESA dose stratum.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91761804|NCT00635882|183414496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||<0.001
91761805|NCT00635882|183414496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.003
91761806|NCT00635882|183414496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.018
91761807|NCT00635882|183414497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||<0.001
91761808|NCT00635882|183414497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.002
91761809|NCT00635882|183414497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.002
91761810|NCT00635882|183414498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eosinophils as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline EOS as a covariate."||||0.024
91761811|NCT00635882|183414498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eosinophils as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline EOS as a covariate."||||0.051
91761812|NCT00635882|183414498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.336|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eosinophils as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline EOS as a covariate."||||0.336
91807660|NCT01549860|183492329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0126|TWO_SIDED|||||The MIST+SOC subjects decreased in their reported mean pain scores and reduced from a median of 3.0 to 0.6 cm after four weeks of study treatment.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0126
91807661|NCT01599234|183492415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.23||||0.22||95.0|-0.59|0.14|||ANCOVA|||The initial model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline as a covariate and treatment group, centre group, ambulatory status at baseline and previous use of cannabis as main effects. Interactions between the main effects were investigated, and if they had little influence then they were dropped from the model. These tests were performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect.||0.14|-0.59|0.220
91807662|NCT01599234|183492416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.341||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.167|||ANCOVA|||The numbers of responders was analysed using the difference in proportions and the odds ratio comparing the treatment groups with the provision of 95% CIs for the difference and odds ratio. The two groups were compared using ANCOVA with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre and treatment group as factors.||2.167|0.830|0.231
91807663|NCT01599234|183492417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.16||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.61|||ANCOVA|||The change at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment, centre group and ambulatory status at baseline as factors and baseline score as a covariate.||1.61|-1.94|0.857
91807664|NCT01599234|183492418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.07||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using ANCOVA with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre and treatment group as factors.||0.40|-0.55|0.734
91807665|NCT01599234|183492420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment, centre group and ambulatory status at baseline as factors and baseline score as a covariate.||1.0|-2.0|0.624
91807666|NCT01599234|183492421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.248||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.849|||Regression, Logistic|||The two treatment groups were to be compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The model was to incorporate ambulatory status at baseline and centre group.||1.849|0.842|0.270
91807667|NCT01599234|183492422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.15||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.64|||ANCOVA|||The change at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment, centre group and ambulatory status at baseline as factors and baseline score as a covariate.||1.64|-1.95|0.867
91807668|NCT01599234|183492423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.373|||ANCOVA|||The numbers of responders was analysed using the difference in proportions and the odds ratio comparing the treatment groups with the provision of 95% CIs for the difference and odds ratio. The two groups were compared using ANCOVA with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre and treatment group as factors.||2.373|0.622|0.569
91807669|NCT00869206|183492449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the published data on the effect of a standard of dosing schedule of \> zoledronic acid compared to placebo, we choose ∆= 7%, πT= 42%, and πS= 35%. With a total of 1230 eligible patients (615 per arm), the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis using a one-sided test is at most 0.05 (Type I error α) when θ≥ 7% and the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (the power) is at least 82% when θ≤0|||||<=|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<=.05
91807670|NCT00869206|183492450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.00394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00962||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for tumor type, baseline creatinine, prior SREs, prior bisphosphonates, age, gender, race, BSA, and baseline performance status||||||0.68
91807671|NCT00869206|183492451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0034||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for tumor type, baseline creatinine, prior SRE, prior bisphosphonates, age, gender, BSA, race, and baseline performance status||||||0.64
91807672|NCT00869206|183492453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.7|-0.3|0.10
91807673|NCT03462082|183492479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.326~\*Gait Velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.163
91807674|NCT03462082|183492479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.749~\*Gait Velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.749
91807675|NCT03462082|183492480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.155~\*MDS-UPDRS (total) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to report the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.031
91807676|NCT03462082|183492480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.902~\*MDS-UPDRS total for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to report the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.778
91807677|NCT03462082|183492480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.157~\*MDS-UPDRS (motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.039
91807678|NCT03462082|183492480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.902~\*MDS-UPDRS (motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.451
91911424|NCT00271817|183719114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-41.4|-35.4||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||-35.4|-41.4|<0.001
91911425|NCT00271817|183719115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-36.5|-30.6||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||-30.6|-36.5|<0.001
91911426|NCT00271817|183719116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|18.8|25.3||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||25.3|18.8|<0.001
91911427|NCT00271817|183719117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.6|-14.7||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG and gender|"Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic."|||-14.7|-22.6|<0.001
91911428|NCT00271817|183719118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|18.0|25.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||25.0|18.0|<0.001
91761813|NCT00635882|183414499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Day 15.||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline PD15 as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline PD15 as a covariate."||||0.120
91761814|NCT00635882|183414499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.103|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Day 15.||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline PD15 as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline PD15 as a covariate."||||0.103
91761815|NCT00635882|183414499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Day 15.||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline PD15 as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline PD15 as a covariate."||||0.048
91761816|NCT00635882|183414500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.018
91761817|NCT00635882|183414500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.261|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.261
91761818|NCT00635882|183414500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.334|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.334
91761819|NCT00635882|183414501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.037
91761820|NCT00635882|183414501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.643|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.643
91761821|NCT00635882|183414501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.963|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.963
91761822|NCT00635882|183414502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||<0.001
91761823|NCT00635882|183414502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.002
91761824|NCT00635882|183414502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||<0.001
91761825|NCT00635882|183414503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||<0.001
91761826|NCT00635882|183414503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.057
91761827|NCT00635882|183414503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.005
91761828|NCT06037408|183414510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.759||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.99|-50.27||Sidak's test was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom, 42.19||||-50.27|-63.99|0.0001
91761829|NCT06037408|183414511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.459|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.26|36.99|||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom, 28.16.||||36.99|13.26|<0.0001
91761830|NCT01211340|183414512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The first analysis examined change from baseline to last available measure prior to death or the end of the study. The pre/post change was calculated for each participant and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare usual care and intervention groups with respect to changes. All randomized caregivers with at least 1 post baseline measure were included in the analysis.||||.18
91761831|NCT01211340|183414512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|No significant difference found between groups||The secondary analysis used a linear mixed model to test for groups differences over time. To account for repeated- measures nature of the data and the varying duration of participation, both participant specific intercept and slopes were treated as random effects. To minimize the leverage of relatively small number of participants with extremely long follow-up times we limited the number of days followed to 122, which was the 75th percentile of the days in the combined study.||||.18
91761832|NCT01211340|183414512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Spearmans rank|No differences found||To test the effects of the dose of meetings on association with overall Caregiver Perceptions of Pain Medicine Questionaire (CPMQ) change we used Spearman rank correlation coefficient||||.18
91761833|NCT01211340|183414513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcxon Rank Sum Test|||The first analysis examined change from baseline to last available measure prior to death or the end of the study. The pre/post change was calculated for each participant and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare usual care and intervention groups with respect to changes. All randomized caregivers with at least 1 post baseline measure were included in the analysis.||||.15
91761834|NCT01211340|183414513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||The secondary analysis used a linear mixed model to test for groups differences over time. To account for repeated- measures nature of the data and the varying duration of participation, both participant specific intercept and slopes were treated as random effects. To minimize the leverage of relatively small number of participants with extremely long follow-up times we limited the number of days followed to 122, which was the 75th percentile of the days in the combined study.||||.15
91761835|NCT01211340|183414514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The first analysis examined change from baseline to last available measure prior to death or the end of the study. The pre/post change was calculated for each participant and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare usual care and intervention groups with respect to changes. All randomized caregivers with at least 1 post baseline measure were included in the analysis.||||.89
91761836|NCT01211340|183414514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Linear|||The secondary analysis used a linear mixed model to test for groups differences over time. To account for repeated- measures nature of the data and the varying duration of participation, both participant specific intercept and slopes were treated as random effects. To minimize the leverage of relatively small number of participants with extremely long follow-up times we limited the number of days followed to 122, which was the 75th percentile of the days in the combined study.||||.89
91761837|NCT03139344|183414520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91761838|NCT03139344|183414520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91761839|NCT03139344|183414521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91761840|NCT03139344|183414521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91761841|NCT03139344|183414522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
91761842|NCT03139344|183414522|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91761843|NCT03139344|183414523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.148
91761844|NCT03139344|183414523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
91761845|NCT03139344|183414524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.069
91761846|NCT03139344|183414524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91761847|NCT03139344|183414525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.118
91761848|NCT03139344|183414525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.010
91761849|NCT03139344|183414526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.059
91761850|NCT03139344|183414526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.015
91761851|NCT03139344|183414527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.010
91761852|NCT03139344|183414527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91761853|NCT03139344|183414528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
91761854|NCT03139344|183414529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.345
91761855|NCT03139344|183414530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.264
91761856|NCT03139344|183414531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
91761857|NCT03139344|183414532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
91761858|NCT03139344|183414533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.109
91761859|NCT03139344|183414534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.895
91761860|NCT03139344|183414535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.573
91761861|NCT03139344|183414536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.858
91761862|NCT02697435|183414547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value is calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91761863|NCT04230213|183414549|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio falls within the 80% to 125% range.|Geometric mean ratio (percentage)|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.78|117.17|||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|||117.17|89.78|
91807679|NCT03462082|183492480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.333~\*MDS-UPDRS (axial motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.111
91807680|NCT03462082|183492480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.030~\*MDS-UPDRS (axial motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.005
91807681|NCT03462082|183492481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.984
91807682|NCT03462082|183492481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.067
91807683|NCT03462082|183492482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.440
91761864|NCT04230213|183414550|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio falls within the 80% to 125% range.|Geometric mean ratio (Percentage)|105.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.16|124.39|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA model.|||124.39|89.16|
91761865|NCT00524472|183414580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97||"P-values for combined sites: significant if P \< 0.0085 for efficacy. Adjusted for interim analysis.~Confidence intervals adjusted for interim analysis."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Hyperinsulinemic-normoglycemic clamp|||0.97|0.39|0.0043
91761866|NCT00524472|183414581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HN vs. standard|||1.13|0.75|0.29
91761867|NCT00524472|183414582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.91|0.99
91761868|NCT00524472|183414583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.31|||Regression, Cox||HN vs. Standard|||1.31|0.98|0.025
91761869|NCT00524472|183414584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HN vs. standard|||3.11|0.74|0.12
91761870|NCT00524472|183414585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HN vs. Standard|||1.07|0.72|0.085
91761871|NCT02748070|183414586|OTHER|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 week||||0.819
91761872|NCT02748070|183414586|OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 month||||0.665
91761873|NCT02748070|183414586|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 3 months||||0.071
91761874|NCT02748070|183414586|OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 6 months||||0.097
91761875|NCT02748070|183414587|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 week||||0.376
91761876|NCT02748070|183414587|OTHER|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 month||||0.685
91761877|NCT02748070|183414587|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 3 months||||0.388
91761878|NCT02748070|183414587|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 6 months||||0.233
91761879|NCT00928694|183414598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) Study Primary Hypothesis: Single 160 mg doses of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate following consumption of a standard breakfast are bioequivalent (the true geometric mean ratios (GMRs) \[U.S./UK\] for the AUC(0 to infinity) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of fenofibric acid after administration of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate with food are contained in the interval \[0.80, 1.25\]).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96||||||90.0|0.9|1.02||||||||1.02|0.90|
91761880|NCT00928694|183414599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) Study Primary Hypothesis: Single 160 mg doses of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate following consumption of a standard breakfast are bioequivalent (the true GMRs \[U.S./UK\] for the AUC(0 to infinity) and Cmax of fenofibric acid after administration of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate with food are contained in the interval \[0.80, 1.25\]).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.9|1.06||||||||1.06|0.90|
91761881|NCT04412707|183414627|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.053|||||CVC vs. PVC, where CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs. central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.053|0.849|
91807684|NCT03462082|183492482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.051
91807685|NCT03462082|183492483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.945
91807686|NCT03462082|183492483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.024
91807687|NCT03462082|183492484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Gait velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.097
91807688|NCT03462082|183492484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Gait velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.750
91807689|NCT03462082|183492485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (mean) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.128
91807690|NCT03462082|183492485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (mean) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.117
91807691|NCT03462082|183492485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (right) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.145
91807692|NCT03462082|183492485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (right) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.056
91807693|NCT03462082|183492485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (left) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.151
91807694|NCT03462082|183492485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (left) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.129
91807695|NCT03462082|183492485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length difference for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.698
91807696|NCT03462082|183492485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length difference for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.779
91807697|NCT03462082|183492486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length ratio for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.874
91807698|NCT03462082|183492486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.976||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length ratio for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.976
91807699|NCT03462082|183492486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length symmetry for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.859
91807700|NCT03462082|183492486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length symmetry for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.860
91807701|NCT03462082|183492487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.480~\*Pitch (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.040
91807702|NCT03462082|183492487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Pitch (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.883
91807703|NCT03462082|183492487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.781~\*Pitch (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.071
91807704|NCT03462082|183492487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Pitch (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.327
91807705|NCT03462082|183492488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.487
91807706|NCT03462082|183492488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.861
91807707|NCT03462082|183492488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.411
91807708|NCT03462082|183492488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.997
91807709|NCT03462082|183492489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Jitter for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.388
91807710|NCT03462082|183492489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Jitter for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.684
91807711|NCT03462082|183492490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Shimmer for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.850
91807712|NCT03462082|183492490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Shimmer for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.712
91761882|NCT04412707|183414628|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|1.053|||||CVC vs. PVC, where CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs. central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.053|0.861|
91761883|NCT04412707|183414629|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.863|1.058|||||CVC vs. PVC, where CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs. central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.058|0.863|
91761884|NCT04412707|183414631|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.736|1.222|||||CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|For melflufen: Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.222|0.736|
91807713|NCT03462082|183492491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.501
91911429|NCT00271817|183719119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-21.8|-13.6||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG and gender.|"Median difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic."|||-13.6|-21.8|<0.001
91911430|NCT00271817|183719120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-10.4|-4.2||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Median difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin|||-4.2|-10.4|<0.001
91911431|NCT00271817|183719121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.004||95.0|-8.0|-1.5||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin|||-1.5|-8.0|0.004
91911432|NCT00271817|183719122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-7.7|-2.1||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||-2.1|-7.7|<0.001
91911433|NCT00271817|183719123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-10.4|-5.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin|||-5.0|-10.4|<0.001
91911434|NCT01411085|183719158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The assessment was between baseline and values for last 8 weeks.||||0.317
91911435|NCT01564862|183719159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.21||P-value was from an ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||3.21|0.28|0.019
91911436|NCT01564862|183719159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.733||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|2.65||P-value was from an ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.65|-0.23|0.099
91911437|NCT01564862|183719159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.96||P-value was from an ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.96|-0.89|0.460
91911438|NCT01564862|183719160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.0||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-4.1|0.001
91807714|NCT03462082|183492491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.216
91807715|NCT03462082|183492492|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Non-adjusted P-Values were \>0.05 and Holm-adjusted P-Values were 1.00 for all comparisons, except for the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised: Delayed Recall. For this test, the non-adjusted P-Value was 0.04 and the Holm-adjusted P-Value was 0.44.|Friedman test|Using ranks for repeated measures (3 conditions)||||||>0.05
91807716|NCT00919724|183492493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1||||||Comparison between HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected groups. Comparison adjusted for age, gender, race, height, and brachial artery baseline diameter.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.10
91807717|NCT00166114|183492494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi Square test was performed comparing actual vs. expected non- and partial response or response to either escitalopram or desipramine treatment.||||.918
91807718|NCT03266107|183492520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91807719|NCT03266107|183492521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91807720|NCT03266107|183492524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91807721|NCT02548650|183492537|NON_INFERIORITY|Under the null hypothesis that the mean aggregation between dual and triple therapy is not equal to 0 and a common standard deviation of 13%, a sample size of 28 patients per group with a valid primary end point time point allowed for the 95% confidence interval (CI) to stay within ± 10% with a 80% power and a two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|21.0|||ANOVA|||The primary end point of our study was the comparison of CAT-induced MPA measured by LTA between triple (vorapaxar plus DAPT) and dual (vorapaxar plus clopidogrel) therapy. We hypothesized that dual therapy would be non-inferior to triple therapy after 30±5 days of treatment||21|3|>0.05
91807722|NCT01191801|183492539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.0305|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Unstratified one sided P-Value|Unstratified Log Rank|Since the sample size was increased, the primary analysis used the weighted statistic proposed by Cui, Hung, and Wang (Cui 1999).||||||0.0305
91807723|NCT01191801|183492540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P-Value|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91807724|NCT01191801|183492543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P-Value|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91911439|NCT01564862|183719160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.5||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-4.5|<0.001
91807725|NCT01191801|183492544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Unstratified one-sided P-Value|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91807726|NCT01191801|183492545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One sided P-Value|Log Rank|||||||0.3134
91807727|NCT00320411|183492574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.2||||||95.0|8.6|29.4||||||||29.4|8.6|
91911440|NCT01564862|183719161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1211||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|-0.052||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.052|-0.528|0.017
91761885|NCT04412707|183414631|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|[adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)]|0.846|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.748|0.957|||||CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|For desmethyl-melflufen: Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||0.957|0.748|
91807728|NCT00320411|183492576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|32.3||||||95.0|20.0|44.7||||||||44.7|20.0|
91807729|NCT00320411|183492577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|22.8||||||95.0|11.6|34.0||||||||34.0|11.6|
91807730|NCT01537393|183492624|NON_INFERIORITY|The two treatment groups will be declared equivalent if the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes the pre-defined non-inferiority limit of 4%.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.4|||||||The bootstrap re-sampling technique were used to account for potentially correlated data from donors who donated both corneas in this study and potentially correlated data from 2 study eyes of the same study participant. The technique will sample with replacement from the observed dataset. Confidence intervals will be calculated using the bias-corrected and accelerated method. The number of bootstraps will be 100,000.|5.4||
91807731|NCT01537393|183492624|OTHER|Confounding and treatment interactions were assessed in Cox proportional hazards regression models|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.71|||Regression, Cox|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio||||2.71|1.09|0.02
91807732|NCT01537393|183492625|OTHER|The primary analysis to assess the effect of PT on 3 year ECD was conducted with a mixed linear model adjusting for baseline ECD, corneal diagnosis, and potential confounders, including storage solution, preparation by eye bank vs surgeon, and accounting for correlated data from participants with 2 study eyes or 2 corneas from the same donor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|138.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline ECD, diagnosis, storage solution, preparation by eye bank/surgeon, participants with 2 study eyes/ 2 corneas from the same donor||||138|8|0.03
91807733|NCT00036270|183492630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|"Analysis at 2.75 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in DFS between the two treatments for the first 2.75 years.~To maintain overall alpha of 0.05, 2 adjustments made: first, a nominal alpha of 0.0302 was used for the primary endpoint. Second, level of significant was 0.0012 for interim analysis."||1.03|0.77|0.118
91911441|NCT01564862|183719161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.169||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.169|-0.638|<0.001
91911442|NCT03809611|183719174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|4.56||One-sided p-value for treatment difference|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.56|-1.34|0.1832
91911443|NCT03809611|183719175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|4.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.78|0.72|0.2830
91911444|NCT00313209|183719177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|71.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||71|27|<0.0001
91911445|NCT00313209|183719178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|82.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||82|38|<0.0001
91911446|NCT00313209|183719179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.08||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||1.08|0.58|0.1408
91911447|NCT00313209|183719180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.4|-0.2|0.4654
91911448|NCT00313209|183719181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.2||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||2.2|-1.2|0.5457
91911449|NCT03124563|183719199|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and functional health||||||=.006
91911450|NCT03124563|183719200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and functional health||||||.034
91761886|NCT04412707|183414632|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|1.126|||||Data above refer to meflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.126|0.684|
91911451|NCT03124563|183719201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and education||||||.065
91911452|NCT03124563|183719202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and level of education||||||.308
91911453|NCT03124563|183719203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||ANOVA|||||||.349
91911454|NCT03124563|183719204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and level of education||||||.022
91761887|NCT04412707|183414632|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|0.982|||||Data above refer to desethyl-melflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||0.982|0.819|
91761888|NCT04412707|183414633|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|1.124|||||Data above refer to melflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence \& administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.124|0.684|
91911455|NCT00119158|183719226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|modified EASI (eczema area severity index) was considered equivalent if p value was greater than \>0.05|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91911456|NCT00608985|183719233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-8.8|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-8.8|-21.8|<0.0001
91911457|NCT00608985|183719233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-19.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-19.5|-34.3|<0.0001
91911458|NCT00608985|183719233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-0.3|-13.5|0.0376
91911459|NCT00608985|183719234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-13.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-6.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||-6.5|-20.3|0.0001
91911460|NCT00608985|183719234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-12.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||-12.3|-27.3|<0.0001
91911461|NCT00608985|183719234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|11.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||11.0|-3.8|0.3358
91911462|NCT00608985|183719235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-7.3||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-1.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-1.3|-13.3|0.0186
91761889|NCT04412707|183414633|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|0.989|||||Data above refer to desethyl-melflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence \& administration route as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||0.989|0.833|
91911463|NCT00608985|183719235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-4.6|-16.4|0.0006
91911464|NCT00608985|183719235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-6.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-6.6|-18.8|<0.0001
91911465|NCT00608985|183719236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.3||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-3.0|-15.3|0.0035
91911466|NCT00608985|183719236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-4.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-4.3|-15.0|0.0006
91911467|NCT00608985|183719236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-9.8|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-9.8|-22.0|<0.0001
91911468|NCT00608985|183719237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||2.5|-11.0|0.2237
91911469|NCT00608985|183719237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||0.3|-12.3|0.0607
91911470|NCT00608985|183719237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.5||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||-4.0|-17.3|0.0017
91911471|NCT00608985|183719238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|0.9|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||0.9|-9.1|0.1187
91761890|NCT00699608|183414647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.267||95.0|-2.74|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA used (fixed effects: adjusted period baseline, participant baseline, age, gender, period and treatment group; random effect: participant).||||0.76|-2.74|0.267
91761891|NCT03329092|183414685|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.4|||||The confidence interval (CI) for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.4|-6.6|
91761892|NCT03329092|183414686|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.2|||||The CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||13.2|-7.0|
91761893|NCT03329092|183414687|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|12.1|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.1|-10.2|
91911472|NCT00608985|183719238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-2.7|-11.5|0.0017
91911473|NCT00608985|183719238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.1||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.4|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-1.4|-10.8|0.0121
91911474|NCT03987854|183719272|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|-7.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||-6.16|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91911475|NCT03987854|183719273|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||-3.29|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91911476|NCT03987854|183719274|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||7.52|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91911477|NCT03987854|183719275|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||5.03|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91911478|NCT03987854|183719276|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|2.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6.81|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91911479|NCT03987854|183719277|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||3.46|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
91911480|NCT03987854|183719278|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||3.26|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
91911481|NCT03987854|183719279|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||3.49|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
91761894|NCT03329092|183414688|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.7|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||14.7|-8.4|
91761895|NCT03329092|183414689|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|13.0|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||13.0|-7.4|
91761896|NCT03329092|183414689|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|23.1|||Difference||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||23.1|-15.5|
91761897|NCT03329092|183414690|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.6|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||16.6|-4.0|
91761898|NCT03329092|183414690|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|17.3|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||17.3|-31.9|
91761899|NCT03329092|183414717|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.5|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||11.5|-6.2|
91761900|NCT03329092|183414718|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|9.4|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.4|-10.7|
91761901|NCT03329092|183414719|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.9|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.9|-8.3|
91761902|NCT03329092|183414720|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.0|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.0|-8.5|
91761903|NCT03329092|183414721|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|11.9|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||11.9|-6.9|
91761904|NCT03329092|183414721|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|23.4|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||23.4|-15.2|
91761905|NCT03329092|183414722|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|13.2|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||13.2|-5.2|
91761906|NCT03329092|183414722|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|14.9|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||14.9|-32.6|
91761907|NCT02206035|183414797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.95
91761908|NCT02206035|183414797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.26
91761909|NCT02206035|183414797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.63
91761910|NCT02206035|183414797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.76
91761911|NCT02206035|183414798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.99
91761912|NCT02206035|183414798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.48
91761913|NCT02206035|183414798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91761914|NCT02206035|183414798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.96
91761915|NCT02206035|183414799|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||<0.001
91761916|NCT02206035|183414799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.75
91761917|NCT02206035|183414799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.28
91761918|NCT02206035|183414799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.82
91761919|NCT02206035|183414800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.54
91761920|NCT02206035|183414800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.61
91761921|NCT02206035|183414800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.42
91761922|NCT02206035|183414800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.38
91761923|NCT02206035|183414801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.10
91761924|NCT02206035|183414801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.32
91761925|NCT02206035|183414801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.63
91761926|NCT02206035|183414801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.30
91761927|NCT01934010|183414802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test to assess if there is a difference in deterioration of hearing threshold between subjects that received 1 treatment cycle with AM-101 or others who received 2 treatment cycles.||||0.128
91761928|NCT01934010|183414802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test to assess if there is a difference in deterioration of hearing threshold between subjects that received 1 treatment cycle with AM-101 or others who received 3 treatment cycles.||||0.075
91761929|NCT01934010|183414802|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test to assess if there is a difference in deterioration of hearing threshold between subjects that received 2 treatment cycles with AM-101 or others who received 3 treatment cycles.||||1
91761930|NCT01934010|183414803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4403|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4403
91761931|NCT01934010|183414805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2401|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2401
91761932|NCT01934010|183414805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0022
91761933|NCT01934010|183414805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1001
91761934|NCT01934010|183414806|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91807734|NCT00036270|183492631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|"Analysis at 5 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in DFS between the two treatments for the first 5 years.~To maintain overall alpha of 0.05, a nominal alpha of 0.0302 was used."||1.08|0.88|0.604
91807735|NCT00036270|183492632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|Analysis at 5 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in OS between the two treatments for the first 5 years. Overall alpha of 0.05 was maintained.||1.14|0.89|0.951
91807736|NCT00036270|183492634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|Analysis at 5 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in time to relapse between the two treatments for the first 5 years. Overall alpha of 0.05 was maintained.||1.06|0.83|0.293
91807737|NCT01218243|183492640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|6.36|||ANCOVA|||||6.36|2.67|< 0.01
91807738|NCT01218243|183492641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|16.44|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.44|-9.76|>0.05
91807739|NCT01218243|183492642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.78|||ANCOVA|||||1.78|-1.41|> 0.05
91807740|NCT01218243|183492643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.05|||ANCOVA|||||5.05|1.36|< 0.01
91807741|NCT01218243|183492644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|6.18|||ANCOVA|||||6.18|2.07|<0.01
91807742|NCT01197560|183492645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to all participants; row 1||||0.079
91807743|NCT01197560|183492645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to GCB Subtype; row 2||||0.279
91911482|NCT02004873|183719311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier survival probability (%)|96.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.66|93.3|97.6||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0067, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|z-test, 1-sided||"The major complication free rate (i.e. survival probability) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.~The coverage level for the confidence interval was 98.66%, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis."|"Null hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is less than or equal to 83%.~Alternative hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is greater than 83%."||97.6|93.3|<0.0001
91911483|NCT02004873|183719312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects (%)|98.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.66|95.4|99.6||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0067, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|Exact Binomial test||The coverage level for confidence interval was 98.66%, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|"Null hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with an adequate pacing capture threshold at 6-months post-implant is less than or equal to 80%.~Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with an adequate pacing capture threshold at 6-months post-implant is greater than 80%."||99.6|95.4|<0.0001
91807744|NCT01197560|183492645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to non-GCB Sub-type; row 3||||0.179
91807745|NCT01197560|183492646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to all participants||||0.091
91807746|NCT01197560|183492647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.109
91807747|NCT01197560|183492648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to all participants; row 1||||0.160
91807748|NCT01197560|183492649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.529|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.529
91807749|NCT01197560|183492650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.972
91807750|NCT01197560|183492651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.020
91807751|NCT01197560|183492652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.211
91807752|NCT02207244|183492684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
91807753|NCT02207244|183492685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
91807754|NCT02207244|183492686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
91807755|NCT02207244|183492687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
91807756|NCT02207244|183492688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
91807757|NCT02207244|183492689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||p value is based on the log-rank test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91807758|NCT02207244|183492690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91807759|NCT02207244|183492691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -10.0%|Difference in Percentage|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|23.2|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided Mantel Haenszel (MH) Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||23.2|10.0|< 0.001
91807760|NCT02207244|183492691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91807761|NCT02207244|183492692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -10.0%|Difference in Percentage|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|30.4|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||30.4|16.0|< 0.001
91807762|NCT02207244|183492692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91807763|NCT02207244|183492693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -10%|Difference in percentage|17.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|24.4|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||24.4|11.4|< 0.001
91807764|NCT02207244|183492693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91761935|NCT00377858|183414811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 0.3% based on prior studies indicating an HbA1c difference of 0.6% in patients treated with lispro and sulfonylurea compared with those treated with sulfonylurea and metformin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.097||95.0|-0.03|0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for (Insulin Lispro Mid Mixture minus Insulin Glargine).|Assuming 15% drop-out rate after randomization, remaining 213 patients in each treatment group would allow confirmation of noninferiority with no treatment difference and a noninferiority limit of 0.3% using upper limit of 2-sided confidence interval at significance level of 0.05 with 80% power.||0.37|-0.03|0.097
91761936|NCT00377858|183414812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.047||95.0|0.0|0.33||P-value for 12 Week Interval.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.33|0.00|0.047
91807765|NCT02207244|183492694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91807766|NCT02207244|183492695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on ANOVA model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91807767|NCT02207244|183492696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91807768|NCT03791489|183492706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91807769|NCT03791489|183492707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||Threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
91807770|NCT01414010|183492762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Statistical analysis was performed using a variety of computer packages including XLstat, NCSS 2007, R and NCSS 2010"||||<0.05
91807771|NCT00357968|183492763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.04|48.38|||ANCOVA|||||48.38|38.04|<0.0001
91807772|NCT00357968|183492764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|14.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.26|10.6|<0.0001
91807773|NCT00357968|183492765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.35|51.15|||ANCOVA|||||51.15|38.35|<0.0001
91761937|NCT00377858|183414812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.043||95.0|0.01|0.35||P-value for 24 Week Interval.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.35|0.01|0.043
91807774|NCT00357968|183492770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91807775|NCT00357968|183492771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0629||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0629
91807776|NCT00357968|183492772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1827||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1827
91807777|NCT00357968|183492773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-47.4|||ANCOVA|||||-47.4|-61.2|<0.0001
91807778|NCT00357968|183492774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-60.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.1|-54.0|||ANCOVA|||||-54.0|-67.1|<0.0001
91807779|NCT00357968|183492775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-49.2|||ANCOVA|||||-49.2|-63.2|<0.0001
91807780|NCT00357968|183492776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.5|-25.7|<0.0001
91807781|NCT00357968|183492777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.00|-2.95|0.7058
91807782|NCT00357968|183492778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33||||0.4029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|1.82|||ANCOVA|||||1.82|-4.48|0.4029
91807783|NCT00357968|183492779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.06|0.7893
91807784|NCT00357968|183492780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.25|0.4528
91807785|NCT03919799|183492781|SUPERIORITY|The LOCF imputation was followed by logistic regression analysis. Comparison analysis between belumosudil dose regimen and placebo was performed using a logistic regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.82||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||5.82|0.19|0.9472
91807786|NCT03919799|183492781|SUPERIORITY|The LOCF imputation was followed by logistic regression analysis. Comparison analysis between belumosudil dose regimen and placebo was performed using a logistic regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||2.35|0.07|0.3078
91807787|NCT03919799|183492782|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analysis used rank-transformed data, with CRISS score as a dependent variable and treatment, visit, and visit x treatment interaction as fixed effects. Visit was a repeated factor, and analyses were done through week 24.|Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.9889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|6.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||6.42|-6.51|0.9889
91807788|NCT03919799|183492782|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analysis using rank-transformed data, with CRISS score as a dependent variable and treatment, visit, and visit x treatment interaction as fixed effects. Visit was a repeated factor, and analyses were done through week 24.|Least square mean difference|-4.18||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|2.23||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||2.23|-10.59|0.1916
91807789|NCT03919799|183492784|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||3.6|-4.7|0.7710
91807790|NCT03919799|183492784|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.6||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||8.8|0.5|0.0308
91807791|NCT03919799|183492785|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.4||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||7.7|-4.9|0.6533
91761938|NCT00377858|183414812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.343||95.0|-0.1|0.29||P-value for 36 Week Interval.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.29|-0.10|0.343
91761939|NCT00377858|183414813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432||95.0||||P-value for Week 12: HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.432
91761940|NCT00377858|183414813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week: HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.602
91761941|NCT00377858|183414813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week: HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.370
91761942|NCT00377858|183414813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week: HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.198
91761943|NCT00377858|183414813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week: HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.636
91761944|NCT00377858|183414813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week: HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.185
91761945|NCT00377858|183414813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value for 36 Week: HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.393
91761946|NCT00377858|183414813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0||||P-value for 36 Week: HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.739
91761947|NCT00377858|183414813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0||||P-value for 36 Week: HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.396
91761948|NCT00377858|183414813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.227
91761949|NCT00377858|183414813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.482
91761950|NCT00377858|183414813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.108
91761951|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.014||95.0|0.12|1.04||P-value for Baseline: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.04|0.12|0.014
91761952|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.735||95.0|-0.51|0.72||P-value for Baseline: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.72|-0.51|0.735
91761953|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.051||95.0|0.0|1.08||P-value for Baseline: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.08|-0.00|0.051
91761954|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.536||95.0|-0.39|0.75||P-value for Baseline: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.75|-0.39|0.536
91761955|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.793||95.0|-0.48|0.62||P-value for Baseline: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.62|-0.48|0.793
91761956|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.693||95.0|-0.43|0.64||P-value for Baseline: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.64|-0.43|0.693
91761957|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.499||95.0|-0.38|0.77||P-value for Baseline: 0300 Hours.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.77|-0.38|0.499
91761958|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||<|0.001||95.0|0.26|0.92||P-value for 12 Week: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.92|0.26|<0.001
91761959|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.278||95.0|-0.22|0.78||P-value for 12 Week: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.78|-0.22|0.278
91761960|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.009||95.0|0.14|0.93||P-value for 12 Week: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.93|0.14|0.009
91911484|NCT02004873|183719313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects (%)|99.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.66|97.5|100.0||Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons for secondary objectives was used. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0067, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|Exact Binomial test||The coverage level for confidence interval was 98.66%, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|"Null hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with VCMT within 0.5 Volts of auto decrement PCT at 6 months post-implant is less than or equal to 85%.~Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with VCMT within 0.5 Volts of auto decrement PCT at 6 months post-implant is greater than 85%."||100.0|97.5|<0.0001
91761961|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.049||95.0|0.0|0.97||P-value for 12 Week: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.97|0.00|0.049
91761962|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||<|0.001||95.0|0.35|1.18||P-value for 12 Week: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.18|0.35|<0.001
91761963|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.63|-0.7||P-value for 12 Week: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.70|-1.63|<0.001
91761964|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.506||95.0|-0.59|0.29||P-value for 12 Week: 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.29|-0.59|0.506
91761965|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|||<|0.001||95.0|0.31|0.99||P-value for 24 Week: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.99|0.31|<0.001
91761966|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.094||95.0|-0.07|0.91||P-value for 24 Week: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.91|-0.07|0.094
91761967|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.408||95.0|-0.24|0.59||P-value for 24 Week: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.59|-0.24|0.408
91761968|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.351||95.0|-0.25|0.71||P-value for 24 Week: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.71|-0.25|0.351
91761969|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.01||95.0|0.13|0.98||P-value for 24 Week: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.98|0.13|0.010
91761970|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.029||95.0|-0.92|-0.05||P-value for 24 Week: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.05|-0.92|0.029
91761971|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.816||95.0|-0.45|0.35||P-value for 24 Week: 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.35|-0.45|0.816
91761972|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.008||95.0|0.13|0.85||P-value for 36 Week: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.85|0.13|0.008
91761973|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.438||95.0|-0.71|0.31||P-value for 36 Week: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.31|-0.71|0.438
91761974|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.548||95.0|-0.54|0.29||P-value for 36 Week: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.29|-0.54|0.548
91761975|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.964||95.0|-0.5|0.52||P-value for 36 Week: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.52|-0.50|0.964
91807792|NCT03919799|183492785|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.5||||0.6338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||5.0|-8.1|0.6338
91761976|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.453||95.0|-0.27|0.6||P-value for 36 Week: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.60|-0.27|0.453
91761977|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.096||95.0|-0.84|0.07||P-value for 36 Week: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.07|-0.84|0.096
91761978|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.77||95.0|-0.51|0.37||P-value for 36 Week: 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.37|-0.51|0.770
91761979|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.01||95.0|0.11|0.8||P-value for Endpoint: Morning Pre-Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.80|0.11|0.010
91761980|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.201||95.0|-0.8|0.17||P-value for Endpoint: Morning Postprandial Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.17|-0.80|0.201
91761981|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.43||95.0|-0.57|0.24||P-value for Endpoint: Midday Pre-Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.24|-0.57|0.430
91761982|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.814||95.0|-0.52|0.41||P-value for Endpoint: Midday Postprandial Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.41|-0.52|0.814
91807793|NCT03919799|183492786|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.6||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|31.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||31.8|-2.5|0.0916
91807794|NCT03919799|183492786|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.6||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|8.6|||MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||8.6|-25.7|0.3146
91911485|NCT02004873|183719314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.35. The Micra sensor indicated rate is considered proportional to the workload if the 90% CI for the Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter falls into \[0.65, 1.35\].|Slope|0.864|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|0.961||Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons for secondary objectives was used. Two One-sided Test (TOST) procedure was used at the 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided|Two One-sided Test (TOST)|A random effect linear regression model was used to assess if the Micra sensor-indicated rate was proportional to the workload using the Kay-Wilkoff model. The Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter was estimated along with its 90% CI.|Null hypothesis: Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter is \< 0.65 or \> 1.35 Alternative hypothesis: Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter is between 0.65 and 1.35||0.961|0.768|<0.001
91911486|NCT02799069|183719347|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 210 subjects per treatment arm (per protocol set) has a power of at least 90% to establish non-inferiority of BF-200 ALA to Metvix using a non-inferiority margin of -15% and assuming response rates of 70% for both BF-200 ALA and Metvix. The power calculation was based on a one-sided Z-test with continuity correction (unpooled) with a significance level of 0.025.The establishment of non-inferiority was performed for the PP set and verified for robustness on the ITT.|Difference to BF-200 ALA|14.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|5.9||||||||||5.9|
91911487|NCT02799069|183719347|SUPERIORITY||Difference to BF-200 ALA|61.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|71.0|||Chi-squared|||"Superiority of BF-200 ALA compared to placebo:~A sample size of 264: 88 patients (BF-200 ALA: placebo) will have a power of more than 90% to establish superiority of BF-200 ALA over placebo, even if very conservative response rates of 65% for the BF-200 ALA group and 40% for placebo are assumed using a chi-square test with continuity correction and a two-sided significance level of 0.05."||71.0|51.2|0.0000
91911488|NCT02799069|183719348|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 210 subjects per treatment arm (per protocol set) has a power of at least 90% to establish non-inferiority of BF-200 ALA to Metvix using a non-inferiority margin of -15% and assuming response rates of 70% for both BF-200 ALA and Metvix. The power calculation was based on a one-sided Z-test with continuity correction (unpooled) with a significance level of 0.025.The establishment of non-inferiority was performed for the PP set and verified for robustness on the ITT.|Difference to BF-200 ALA|14.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|6.0||||||||||6.0|
91911489|NCT02799069|183719348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to BF-200 ALA|59.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.4|70.4|||Chi-squared|||||70.4|48.4|0.0000
91911490|NCT02799069|183719349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to BF-200 ALA|72.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.7|84.2|||Chi-squared|||||84.2|59.7|0.0000
91911491|NCT02799069|183719349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to BF-200 ALA|17.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|6.6||||||||||6.6|
91911492|NCT03440814|183719404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.294||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline growth hormone use and HQ-CT total score. All available subject data were used with no imputation of missing data.|alpha=0.05 level of significance|||0.89|-4.24|0.1983
91911493|NCT03440814|183719405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment groups were compared using CMH mean score test with modified ridit scores, stratified by the randomization stratification variables.||||||0.0294
91911494|NCT03440814|183719406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4089|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment groups were compared using CMH mean score test with modified ridit scores, stratified by the randomization stratification variables.||||||0.4089
91807795|NCT03919799|183492787|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.0||||0.3753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|12.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||12.8|-32.8|0.3753
91761983|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.427||95.0|-0.24|0.57||P-value for Endpoint: Evening Pre-Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.57|-0.24|0.427
91761984|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.009||95.0|-1.0|-0.14||P-value for Endpoint: Evening Postprandial Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.14|-1.00|0.009
91761985|NCT00377858|183414814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.569||95.0|-0.51|0.28||P-value for Endpoint: 0300 Hours. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.28|-0.51|0.569
91761986|NCT00377858|183414815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.776||95.0|-0.14|0.19||P-value for Baseline MODD.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.19|-0.14|0.776
91761987|NCT00377858|183414815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27||||0.737||95.0|-6.14|8.68||P-value for Baseline M-Value.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||8.68|-6.14|0.737
91807796|NCT03919799|183492787|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.7||||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|22.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||22.1|-23.5|0.9481
91807797|NCT03919799|183492788|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.036||||0.8387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||0.320|-0.392|0.8387
91807798|NCT03919799|183492788|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.039||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|0.395||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||0.395|-0.317|0.8234
91761988|NCT00377858|183414815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.701||95.0|-0.19|0.13||P-value for 12 Week MODD.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.13|-0.19|0.701
91761989|NCT00377858|183414815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.58||||0.4||95.0|-2.11|5.27||P-value for 12 Week M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||5.27|-2.11|0.400
91807799|NCT03919799|183492789|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.009||||0.7535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.413|16.395||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||16.395|-22.413|0.7535
91807800|NCT03919799|183492789|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-21.015||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.419|-1.611||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||-1.611|-40.419|0.0348
91807801|NCT03919799|183492790|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|45.566||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.621|87.512||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||87.512|3.621|0.0343
91761990|NCT00377858|183414815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.321||95.0|-0.26|0.09||P-value for 24 Week MODD.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.09|-0.26|0.321
91807802|NCT03919799|183492790|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-21.984||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.93|19.962||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||19.962|-63.930|0.2922
91807803|NCT03919799|183492791|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.757||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.933|37.419||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||37.419|-70.933|0.5320
91807804|NCT03919799|183492791|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.02||||0.8804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.156|58.196||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||58.196|-50.156|0.8804
91807805|NCT03919799|183492792|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.522||||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.837|95.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||95.880|-80.837|0.8628
91807806|NCT03919799|183492792|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-42.442||||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.242|43.359|||MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||43.359|-128.242|0.3196
91807807|NCT02142959|183492852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.1||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|65.0|-0.2|0.0||Omaveloxolone treatment arms were compared with Vehicle Lotion using a hierarchical testing strategy to control the overall type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factors: treatment grp \& wk of visit; covariates of site, smoking status \& surgery. Missing data imputed using each patient's worst-observation.||Comparison of omaveloxolone lotion pooled (0.5% and 3%) versus vehicle lotion||0.0|-0.2|0.237
91807808|NCT02142959|183492852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||Omaveloxolone treatment arms were compared with Vehicle Lotion using a hierarchical testing strategy to control the overall type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factor: treatment grp \& visit wk; Covariates: site, smoking status \& breast surgery. Missing data imputed using each patient's worst-observation||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Lotion 0.5% versus Vehicle Lotion||0.0|-0.2|>0.05
91911495|NCT03440814|183719407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline body fat mass value as a covariate, and randomization stratification variables (as randomized) as factors.||||-0.15|-1.95|0.0225
91761991|NCT00377858|183414815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52||||0.179||95.0|-1.16|6.21||P-value for 24 Week M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||6.21|-1.16|0.179
91761992|NCT00377858|183414815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.573||95.0|-0.22|0.12||P-value for 36 Week MODD.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.12|-0.22|0.573
91761993|NCT00377858|183414815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.629||95.0|-4.79|2.9||P-value for 36 Week M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||2.90|-4.79|0.629
91761994|NCT00377858|183414815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.25||95.0|-0.26|0.07||P-value for Endpoint MODD. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.07|-0.26|0.250
91761995|NCT00377858|183414815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.362||95.0|-5.44|1.99||P-value for Endpoint M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.99|-5.44|0.362
91761996|NCT00377858|183414816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.094
91761997|NCT00377858|183414816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91761998|NCT00377858|183414816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.430
91761999|NCT00377858|183414816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91762000|NCT00377858|183414816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91762001|NCT00377858|183414816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.756
91762002|NCT00377858|183414817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.022
91762003|NCT00377858|183414817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.218
91762004|NCT00377858|183414817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.311
91762005|NCT00377858|183414817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.615
91762006|NCT00377858|183414817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.018
91762007|NCT00377858|183414817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.255
91762008|NCT00377858|183414818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0||||P-value for Overall Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.416
91762009|NCT00377858|183414819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.12|-0.05||P-value for Daily Basal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.05|-0.12|<0.001
91762010|NCT00377858|183414819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||<|0.001||95.0|0.04|0.11||P-value for Daily Prandial.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.11|0.04|<0.001
91762011|NCT00377858|183414819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.017||95.0|0.01|0.12||P-value for Daily Total.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.12|0.01|0.017
91762012|NCT00377858|183414820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.65|-4.26||P-value for Daily Basal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-4.26|-9.65|<0.001
91762013|NCT00377858|183414820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.05|||<|0.001||95.0|3.39|8.71||P-value for Daily Prandial.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||8.71|3.39|<0.001
91762014|NCT00377858|183414820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2||||0.017||95.0|0.93|9.46||P-value for Daily Total.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||9.46|0.93|0.017
91762015|NCT00377858|183414821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|0.24|0.42||P-value for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.42|0.24|<0.001
91762016|NCT00377858|183414821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.003||95.0|0.07|0.36||P-value for Week 24.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.36|0.07|0.003
91762017|NCT00377858|183414821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.002||95.0|0.09|0.4||P-value for Week 30.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.40|0.09|0.002
91762018|NCT00377858|183414821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.005||95.0|0.07|0.38||P-value for Week 36.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.38|0.07|0.005
91762019|NCT00377858|183414821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.011||95.0|0.04|0.34||P-value for Endpoint. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.34|0.04|0.011
91762020|NCT00377858|183414822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.803||95.0|-0.8|0.62||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.62|-0.80|0.803
91762021|NCT04042909|183414829|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.632|1.013||This is the p-value of the CAA vs AO factor in the model.|Regression, Linear|We used linear regression, controlling for baseline value of outcome and sex, to determine change in the outcome as a function of condition.||Our main hypothesis is that, relative to Assessment-Only control, the Counter Attitudinal Advocacy intervention will decrease alcohol consumption (drinks per week) from baseline to 6-months.||1.013|-1.632|.646
91762022|NCT04042909|183414830|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-0.39|||Regression, Linear|We used regression, controlling for baseline value of outcome and sex, to determine pre-post change in the outcome as a function of condition.||Our main hypothesis is that, relative to Assessment-Only control, the Counter Attitudinal Advocacy intervention will decrease alcohol problems from baseline to 6-months.||-0.39|-3.41|.014
91762023|NCT01147055|183414843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|18.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.14|20.54||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||20.54|16.14|
91762024|NCT01147055|183414844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|31.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.43|37.51||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||37.51|26.43|
91762025|NCT01147055|183414845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.48|20.02||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||20.02|15.48|
91762026|NCT01147055|183414850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.64|6.49||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||6.49|4.64|
91762027|NCT01147055|183414851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|5.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.86|6.81||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||6.81|4.86|
91762028|NCT01147055|183414853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|11.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.02|13.45||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||13.45|9.02|
91762029|NCT02123823|183414942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.97||||0.9057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.65|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for visceral involvement.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for visceral involvement.|||1.65|0.57|0.9057
91762030|NCT02123823|183414945|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.7||||0.5598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for visceral involvement at screening.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||2.32|0.20|0.5598
91762031|NCT02123823|183414946|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.03||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.8|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for visceral involvement.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for visceral involvement.|||1.80|0.59|0.9146
91762032|NCT02123823|183414947|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.7||||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for visceral involvement.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||1.59|0.31|0.4008
91807809|NCT02142959|183492852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factor: treatment grp \& visit wk; Covariates: site, smoking status \& breast surgery. Missing data imputed using each patient's worst-observation||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Lotion 3% versus Vehicle Lotion||0.1|-0.1|>0.05
91807810|NCT02970422|183492853|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= .57||Relief of breathlessness||||.91
91807811|NCT02970422|183492853|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 3.56||Improve your ability to perform activities in and out of your home||||.31
91807812|NCT02970422|183492853|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value=.32||Prevent lung flare-ups||||.96
91807813|NCT02970422|183492853|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 8.09||Discuss COPD and its progression||||.04
91807814|NCT02970422|183492853|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value: 1.41||Improve your physical well-being||||.70
91807815|NCT02970422|183492853|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 10.81||Relief of breathlessness||||.01
91807816|NCT02970422|183492853|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 2.41||Improve your ability to perform activities in and out of your home||||.49
91807817|NCT02970422|183492853|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= .44||Prevent lung flare-ups||||.93
91807818|NCT02970422|183492853|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 1.87||Discuss COPD and its progression||||.60
91807819|NCT02970422|183492853|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 3.61||Improve your physical well-being||||.31
91807820|NCT02970422|183492854|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value: 1.31||To relieve breathlessness in adults living with COPD||||.73
91807821|NCT02970422|183492854|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 4.28||To prevent the development of COPD||||.23
91807822|NCT02970422|183492854|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.51||To prevent lung flare-ups in adults living with COPD||||.14
91911496|NCT03440814|183719408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model for repeated measurements was used. All available data collected before the March 1, 2020 cutoff from each subject were included.|alpha=0.05 level of significance|||-0.19|-6.06|0.0369
91807823|NCT02970422|183492854|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 2.28||To increase the ability of adults living with COPD to exercise||||.52
91807824|NCT02970422|183492854|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.88||To improve the maximal amount of exercise of adults living with COPD in and out of the home||||.11
91807825|NCT02970422|183492854|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.57||To relieve breathlessness in adults living with COPD||||.14
91807826|NCT02970422|183492854|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 1.29||To prevent the development of COPD||||.73
91807827|NCT02970422|183492854|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 4.64||To prevent lung flare-ups in adults living with COPD||||.20
91807828|NCT02970422|183492854|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.02||To increase the ability of adults living with COPD to exercise||||.17
91807829|NCT02970422|183492854|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square value= 9.97||To improve the maximal amount of exercise of adults living with COPD in and out of the home||||.02
91807830|NCT02970422|183492855|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi squared value= 17.20||Activity 1: Walking from one place to another outside of your home on a flat surface||||.05
91807831|NCT02970422|183492855|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 4.56||Activity 2: Moving from one place to another using motorized transportation||||.87
91807832|NCT02970422|183492855|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 6.85||Activity 3: Climbing two or more flights of stairs||||.65
91807833|NCT02970422|183492855|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 10.00||Activity 4: Walking up a hill||||.35
91911497|NCT01437397|183719409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.144|0.073|<0.0001
91807834|NCT02970422|183492855|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 18.75||Activity 5: Participating in regular exercise requiring physical effort, to maintain or improve health or fitness||||.03
91807835|NCT02970422|183492855|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 35.52||Activity 1: Walking from one place to another outside of your home on a flat surface||||.00
91807836|NCT02970422|183492855|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 10.23||Activity 2: Moving from one place to another using motorized transportation||||.33
91807837|NCT02970422|183492855|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 23.94||Activity 3: Climbing two or more flights of stairs||||.00
91807838|NCT02970422|183492855|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 22.80||Activity 4: Walking up a hill||||.01
91807839|NCT02970422|183492855|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 20.43||Activity 5: Participating in regular exercise requiring physical effort, to maintain or improve health or fitness||||.02
91807840|NCT02970422|183492856|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric led to equal variance (levene's test) which couldn't be assumed, independent samples were taken (Kruskal-Wallis)|||F(3,144)=137.82|||.00
91807841|NCT02970422|183492857|OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|Factorial ANOVA used because variance could be assumed|||F(3,144)=55.89 Partial ETA squared (effect size)=0.54|||.000
91807842|NCT02970422|183492858|OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA|||F(3,142)=7.61|||.00
91807843|NCT02970422|183492859|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA|||F(3,142)=1.21|||.31
91807844|NCT02970422|183492860|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric independent sample Kruskal-Wallis test (failed variance assumed|||F(3,139)=8.09|||.04
91807845|NCT02970422|183492861|OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA|||F(3,143)=8.01|||.00
91807846|NCT00646776|183492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.188|1.835|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||1.835|1.188|
91807847|NCT00646776|183492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|2.489|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.025|3.06|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||3.060|2.025|
91807848|NCT00646776|183492876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.402|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.052|1.867|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||1.867|1.052|
91807849|NCT00646776|183492877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.098|||ANOVA|||||1.098|0.817|
91807850|NCT00646776|183492878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.745||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5569|0.9967|||ANOVA|||||0.9967|0.5569|0.0963
91807851|NCT00646776|183492879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.723|1.015|||ANOVA|||||1.015|0.723|
91807852|NCT00646776|183492882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.538|0.809|||ANOVA|||||0.809|0.538|
91807853|NCT00646776|183492883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.651|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.986|||ANOVA|||||0.986|0.430|
91807854|NCT00646776|183492884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.696|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.563|0.862|||ANOVA|||||0.862|0.563|
91762033|NCT01635855|183414955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One-sided binomial|8.5|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.6||Ho (null): Ps \>= 22% versus Ha (alternate): Ps \< 22% where Ps is the proportion of subjects with common severe adverse events in the post-approval study. Ho is rejected if upper limit of the 95% CI of Ps \< 22% and the one-sided p-value \<= 0.025.|One sided binomial distribution|The upper limit of the 95% two-sided CI for a proportion is equivalent to the 97.5% one-sided CI for that proportion for normal approximations.||The analysis was performed by comparing the proportion of subjects with severe common adverse events in the post-market study to that occurred in the pre-market studies. It was pre-specified in the protocol that the proportion of subjects with severe common adverse events in the pre-market studies was 22%.||13.6|3.5|< 0.025
91762034|NCT00095173|183414973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.59|||Log Rank||Abatacept over placebo|||0.59|0.16|0.0002
91762035|NCT00095173|183414974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91807855|NCT00646776|183492890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|10.902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.135|14.61|||ANOVA|||||14.610|8.135|
91807856|NCT00646776|183492891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|7.766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.133|9.833|||ANCOVA|||||9.833|6.133|
91807857|NCT00646776|183492892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|11.451|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.147|16.095|||ANOVA|||||16.095|8.147|
91807858|NCT00646776|183492893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.783|2.691|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||2.691|1.783|
91807859|NCT01753856|183492906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807860|NCT01753856|183492907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in CC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91807861|NCT01753856|183492907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in CC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91807862|NCT01753856|183492907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in CC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
91807863|NCT01753856|183492907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in EC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91807864|NCT01753856|183492907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in EC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
91807865|NCT01753856|183492907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in EC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
91807866|NCT01753856|183492907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in IC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91807867|NCT01753856|183492907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in IC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91807868|NCT01753856|183492907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in IC.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91807869|NCT01753856|183492907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in PC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91911498|NCT01437397|183719409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.123|0.052|<0.0001
91762036|NCT02343406|183414988|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.02||2-sided|Log Rank|||Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||1.02|0.5|= 0.062
91807870|NCT01753856|183492907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in PC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91807871|NCT01753856|183492907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in PC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91807872|NCT01753856|183492908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807873|NCT01753856|183492908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807874|NCT01753856|183492908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807875|NCT01753856|183492909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807876|NCT01753856|183492909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807877|NCT01753856|183492909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807878|NCT01753856|183492909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807879|NCT01753856|183492910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Remodeling-Based Bone Formation in the CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
91807880|NCT01753856|183492910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Modeling-Based Bone Formation in the CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
91807881|NCT01753856|183492910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Remodeling-Based Bone Formation in the EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91807882|NCT01753856|183492910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Modeling-Based Bone Formation in the EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91807883|NCT01753856|183492910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|||||Remodeling-Based Bone Formation in the PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.661
91807884|NCT01753856|183492910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|||||Modeling-Based Bone Formation in the PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.661
91807885|NCT01753856|183492912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807886|NCT01753856|183492912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807887|NCT01753856|183492912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
91762037|NCT02343406|183414988|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||=|0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.48||2-sided|Log Rank|||Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||1.48|0.73|= 0.835
91762038|NCT02343406|183414989|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.77|||=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.07||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.07|0.55|= 0.123
91762039|NCT02343406|183414989|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||=|0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.84||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.84|0.93|= 0.117
91762040|NCT02343406|183414997|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.16||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with stratification factors. Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||16.16|0.6|= 0.06
91762041|NCT02343406|183414997|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||=|0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|12.49||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with stratification factors. Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||12.49|0.12|= 0.767
91762042|NCT02343406|183414998|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67|||=|0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.13||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.13|0.4|= 0.127
91762043|NCT02343406|183414998|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||=|0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.49||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.49|0.52|= 0.64
91762044|NCT00874848|183415008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2895|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2895
91762045|NCT03089541|183415014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Eating/Drinking using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7). The significance level was 0.05.||0.52|0.06|0.002
91762046|NCT03089541|183415014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Traveling using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7)). The significance level was 0.05.||7.65|0.92|0.07
91762047|NCT03089541|183415014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Working/Reading/Studying using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7). The significance level was 0.05.||3.64|0.59|0.40
91762048|NCT03089541|183415014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Socializing using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7). The significance level was 0.05.||3.53|0.51|0.60
91762049|NCT03089541|183415014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Model on Public Space adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7)). The significance level was 0.05.||3.38|0.96|0.06
91762050|NCT05169424|183415015|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of exacerbation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.133||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.293|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||1.293|0.993|0.064
91762051|NCT05169424|183415015|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.045
91762052|NCT05169424|183415015|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.063
91762053|NCT05169424|183415016|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.372|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||1.372|0.996|0.057
91762054|NCT05169424|183415017|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.116||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.279|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||1.279|0.974|0.114
91762055|NCT05169424|183415018|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|2.424|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||2.424|0.779|0.273
91762056|NCT05169424|183415019|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.792|||Regression, Cox|||||1.792|0.780|0.429
91762057|NCT05169424|183415019|OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
91762058|NCT05169424|183415019|OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.932
91762059|NCT05169424|183415020|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.645|||Regression, Cox|||||1.645|0.582|0.935
91762060|NCT05169424|183415021|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.159||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||||1.790|0.750|0.507
91762061|NCT05169424|183415022|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.291||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|5.405|||Regression, Cox|||||5.405|0.309|0.726
91762062|NCT05169424|183415023|OTHER|||||||0.874|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.874
91762063|NCT05169424|183415023|OTHER||Exponential estimate|0.895||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.974|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||0.974|0.823|0.01
91762064|NCT05169424|183415024|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.899
91762065|NCT05169424|183415024|OTHER||Exponential estimate|0.897||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|0.976|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||0.976|0.824|0.012
91762066|NCT05169424|183415025|OTHER|||||||0.974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974
91807888|NCT01753856|183492913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91762067|NCT05169424|183415025|OTHER||Exponential estimate|1.135||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.812|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||1.812|0.711|0.595
91762068|NCT05169424|183415026|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.622
91762069|NCT05169424|183415026|OTHER||Exponential estimate|1.008||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.094|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||1.094|0.928|0.855
91762070|NCT05169424|183415027|OTHER|||||||0.328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.328
91762071|NCT01371734|183415065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.94|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR Low Dose||3.94|-2.23|0.587
91762072|NCT01371734|183415065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|4.61|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR High Dose||4.61|-1.56|0.333
91762073|NCT01371734|183415066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.015||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR Low Dose||0.32|-0.29|0.923
91762074|NCT01371734|183415066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.161||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.47|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR High Dose||0.47|-0.14|0.302
91762075|NCT01371734|183415067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||||0.729
91762076|NCT01371734|183415067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||||0.756
91762077|NCT01371734|183415067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.765
91762078|NCT01371734|183415067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.475
91762079|NCT01371734|183415067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||||0.310
91762080|NCT01371734|183415067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 3||||0.105
91762081|NCT01371734|183415067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.254
91762082|NCT01371734|183415067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.887
91762083|NCT01371734|183415067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.475
91762084|NCT01371734|183415067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.407
91762085|NCT01371734|183415067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||0.696
91762086|NCT01371734|183415067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||0.462
91762087|NCT01371734|183415068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.806||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|1.951|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||1.951|0.333|0.633
91762088|NCT01371734|183415068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.285|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||1.285|0.245|0.172
91762089|NCT01371734|183415068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.939||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.644|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.644|0.536|0.826
91762090|NCT01371734|183415068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.511|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.511|0.489|0.599
91762091|NCT01371734|183415068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.713||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.265|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||1.265|0.402|0.248
91762092|NCT01371734|183415068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.564||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.995|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||0.995|0.320|0.048
91762093|NCT01371734|183415068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.708||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.216|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||1.216|0.412|0.210
91762094|NCT01371734|183415068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.964||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.646|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||1.646|0.564|0.893
91762095|NCT01371734|183415068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.714||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.235|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||1.235|0.413|0.228
91762096|NCT01371734|183415068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.916||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.579|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||1.579|0.531|0.751
91762097|NCT01371734|183415068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.974||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.689|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||1.689|0.561|0.925
91762098|NCT01371734|183415068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.764||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|1.331|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||1.331|0.438|0.342
91762099|NCT00145574|183415071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1122|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary null hypotheses were tested sequentially in the following order: 1) no difference between the high-dose colesevelam HCl and placebo for percent change in LDL-C from study baseline to Week 8 endpoint with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) and 2) no difference between the low-dose colesevelam HCl and placebo for percent change in LDL-C from study baseline to Week 8 endpoint with LOCF. The hypotheses were tested at a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||||0.1122
91762100|NCT00145574|183415071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91762101|NCT00145574|183415072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5260
91762102|NCT00145574|183415072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0085
91762103|NCT00145574|183415073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91762104|NCT00145574|183415073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
91762105|NCT00145574|183415074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0155||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0155
91762106|NCT00145574|183415074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91762107|NCT00145574|183415075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3482||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3482
91762108|NCT00145574|183415075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
91762109|NCT00145574|183415076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91762110|NCT00145574|183415076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91762111|NCT00145574|183415077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7433||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7433
91762112|NCT00145574|183415077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91762113|NCT00621140|183415085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.85|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.53|-0.85|<0.0001
91807889|NCT01753856|183492913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
91807890|NCT01753856|183492913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91911499|NCT01437397|183719410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.079|0.011|0.010
91911500|NCT01437397|183719410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.060|-0.008|0.133
91911501|NCT01437397|183719411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|2.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||2.018|0.854|<0.0001
91911502|NCT01437397|183719411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||1.972|0.818|<0.0001
91911503|NCT01437397|183719412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.462|-2.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||-2.244|-6.462|<0.0001
91911504|NCT01437397|183719412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.819|-1.637|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||-1.637|-5.819|0.0005
91911505|NCT00866307|183719414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.6|64.4|||Agresti-Coull Confidence Interval|||Per protocol, percentage of high risk-High patients taking less than 49 weeks from day 1 of consolidation to day 1 of maintenance therapy is compared to a null fixed rate (\<=73%). A 90% two-sided Agresti-Coull confidence interval will be constructed and the lower bound examined. Will reject null if lower bound of confidence interval is above 73%.||64.4|35.6|
91911506|NCT00866307|183719415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.7|67.4|||Agresti-Coull Confidence Interval|||Per protocol, percentage receiving at least 8 doses is compared to a null fixed rate (\<=42%). A 90% two-sided Agresti-Coull confidence interval will be constructed. Will reject null if lower bound of confidence interval is above 42%.||67.4|38.7|
91911507|NCT02573155|183719430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0265|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0585|0.163|||ANCOVA|||||0.163|0.0585|<0.0001
91911508|NCT02573155|183719430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0272|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.264|||ANCOVA|||||0.264|0.156|<0.0001
91762114|NCT00621140|183415086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.58|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.34|-0.58|<0.0001
91911509|NCT06245551|183719448|OTHER|The analysis is applied to the All-subjects data.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.78|-15.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.25|-19.78|<0.001
91911510|NCT00970853|183719475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The original sample for this study (N=302) was sufficient for an 80% detection of differences in means of at least 1/2 standard deviation. This analysis presents the results of the follow-up of the original sample.||||||0.39||||||non-adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91911511|NCT00970853|183719476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.99
91911512|NCT00970853|183719477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91911513|NCT00970853|183719478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.40
91911514|NCT00970853|183719479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.56
91762115|NCT00621140|183415087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.76|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.47|-0.76|<0.0001
91762116|NCT00621140|183415088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.49|-0.82|<0.0001
91762117|NCT00621140|183415089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.0001||95.0|-30.37|-16.26|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-16.26|-30.37|<0.0001
91762118|NCT00621140|183415090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.0001||95.0|-23.11|-12.08|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-12.08|-23.11|<0.0001
91762119|NCT00621140|183415091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.21|-14.75|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-14.75|-27.21|<0.0001
91807891|NCT01753856|183492913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.850
91807892|NCT01753856|183492914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
91911515|NCT00970853|183719480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.34
91911516|NCT00970853|183719481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.85
91807893|NCT01753856|183492914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in the CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91911517|NCT00970853|183719482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.61
91911518|NCT00970853|183719483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.67
91911519|NCT06232317|183719494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.61
91911520|NCT06232317|183719495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.014
91911521|NCT06232317|183719500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91911522|NCT01358864|183719501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|63.2||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.2|42.4|<0.0001
91911523|NCT01358864|183719501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|48.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|58.9||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.9|38.2|<0.0001
91911524|NCT01358864|183719501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|14.9||||||||14.9|-6.0|
91911525|NCT01358864|183719501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.7||||||||10.7|-10.9|
91911526|NCT01358864|183719501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 12 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||<0.0001
91807894|NCT01753856|183492914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91911527|NCT01358864|183719501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 24 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||0.0001
91911528|NCT01358864|183719503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|54.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|65.0||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.0|44.4|<0.0001
91911529|NCT01358864|183719503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|50.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|60.8||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.8|40.1|<0.0001
91911530|NCT01358864|183719503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|14.9||||||||14.9|-5.8|
91911531|NCT01358864|183719503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.7||||||||10.7|-10.9|
91911532|NCT01358864|183719503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 12 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||<0.0001
91911533|NCT01358864|183719503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 24 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||0.0001
91911534|NCT03194373|183719514|SUPERIORITY|Power to detect a 20% improvement in disease control rate (DCR). Based on historical data, the DCR in R/M HNSCC with single agent platinum therapy is 40%. We hypothesize that addition of Palbociclib will increase DCR at 12 weeks to 60%. Two-stage design. Type I error rate of 0.059 and power of 0.80 when the true response rate is 0.60 with alpha=0.05. The two-stage sample size calculations assume a null probability of 0.40.|Proportion|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|59.0||||||||59|13|
91911535|NCT03194373|183719515|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Median survival times were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method with standard error computed using Greenwood's formula. All analyses were done using SAS 9.4 software.|||
91911536|NCT03194373|183719516|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Median survival times were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method with standard error computed using Greenwood's formula. All analyses were done using SAS 9.4 software.|||
91911537|NCT00931359|183719524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Factors of treatment group and analysis center were considered||||||<0.001
91911538|NCT00931359|183719525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.019
91911539|NCT05568888|183719571|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 6-hour mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 6-hour mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (ITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-2.5||||1.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-0.13||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 6-hour mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||-0.13|-5.02|1.9
91911540|NCT05568888|183719571|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 6-hour mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 6-hour mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-2.8||||3.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.13||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 6-hour mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||0.13|-5.80|3.1
91807895|NCT01753856|183492914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91911541|NCT05568888|183719572|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 24-hour in-hospital mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 24-hour in-hospital mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-3.6||||3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|0.15||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 24-hour in-hospital mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||0.15|-7.35|3.0
91762120|NCT00621140|183415092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.05|-13.68|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-13.68|-27.05|<0.0001
91762121|NCT00621140|183415093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.869||||0.0006||95.0|1.575|5.225|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||5.225|1.575|0.0006
91762122|NCT00621140|183415095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.436||||0.0323||95.0|1.078|5.507|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||5.507|1.078|0.0323
91762123|NCT00621140|183415097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.243|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.665|6.755|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||6.755|2.665|<0.0001
91762124|NCT00621140|183415098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-82.33|-34.43|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-34.43|-82.33|<0.0001
91762125|NCT02669121|183415128|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|99.99|-13.181|0.997|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the Cox proportional hazard (PH) model. The 99.99% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 99.99% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.997|-13.181|
91762126|NCT02669121|183415129|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.01|0.208|0.816|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of CI for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the PH model. The 95.01% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 95.01% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.816|0.208|
91762127|NCT02669121|183415130|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.816|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of CI for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the PH model. The 95% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 95% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.816|0.208|
91762128|NCT02669121|183415131|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.977|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of CI for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the PH model. The 95% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 95% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.977|-0.711|
91762129|NCT03216746|183415132|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91762130|NCT03637517|183415176|EQUIVALENCE|2 comparisons performed: Reg. B vs. Reg. A, \& Reg.C vs. Reg. B. Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to that of each reference reg. assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model. Bioequivalence between a test reg. and the reference reg. is concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means Log scale|0.926||||0.4847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.771|1.113|||ANOVA|||||1.113|0.771|0.4847
91762131|NCT03637517|183415176|EQUIVALENCE|2 comparisons performed: Reg. B vs. Reg. A, \& Reg.C vs. Reg. B. Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to that of each reference reg. assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model. Bioequivalence between a test reg. and the reference reg. is concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means Log scale|0.79||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|0.95|||ANOVA|||||0.950|0.658|0.0370
91762132|NCT03637517|183415177|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|0.899||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.805|1.004|||ANOVA|||||1.004|0.805|0.1135
91762133|NCT03637517|183415177|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|1.175||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.051|1.312|||ANOVA|||||1.312|1.051|0.0192
91807896|NCT01753856|183492914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91762134|NCT03637517|183415178|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|0.898||||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.787|1.024|||ANOVA||Regimen B to A|||1.024|0.787|0.1759
91762135|NCT03637517|183415178|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|1.172||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.027|1.338|||ANOVA||Regimen C to B|||1.338|1.027|0.0496
91807897|NCT01753856|183492914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807898|NCT01753856|183492914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.931
91807899|NCT01753856|183492914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.549
91807900|NCT01753856|183492915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807901|NCT01753856|183492915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807902|NCT01753856|183492915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807903|NCT01753856|183492915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807904|NCT01753856|183492915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807905|NCT01753856|183492915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807906|NCT01753856|183492915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807907|NCT01753856|183492915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807908|NCT01753856|183492916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807909|NCT01753856|183492916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807910|NCT01753856|183492916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807911|NCT01753856|183492916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807912|NCT01753856|183492916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807913|NCT01753856|183492916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807914|NCT01753856|183492916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807915|NCT01753856|183492916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.028
91807916|NCT01753856|183492917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807917|NCT01753856|183492917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807918|NCT01753856|183492917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807919|NCT01753856|183492918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807920|NCT01753856|183492918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807921|NCT01753856|183492918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807922|NCT01753856|183492919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807923|NCT01753856|183492919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807924|NCT01753856|183492919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807925|NCT01753856|183492920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807926|NCT01753856|183492920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807927|NCT01753856|183492920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807928|NCT01753856|183492921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807929|NCT01753856|183492921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807930|NCT01753856|183492921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807931|NCT01753856|183492921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807932|NCT01753856|183492921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807933|NCT01753856|183492921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807934|NCT01753856|183492922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91807935|NCT01753856|183492922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807936|NCT01753856|183492922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.214
91807937|NCT01753856|183492922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
91807938|NCT01753856|183492922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807939|NCT01753856|183492922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807940|NCT01753856|183492923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807941|NCT01753856|183492924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807942|NCT01753856|183492924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91762136|NCT03637517|183415179|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means|-0.2857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.866979|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4313|2.8599||||||||2.8599|-3.4313|
91762137|NCT03637517|183415179|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means|9.3571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.866979|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2115|12.5028|||||Regimen C to B|||12.5028|6.2115|
91762138|NCT03637517|183415181|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|0.866||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|1.032|||ANOVA|||(ANOVA) will be performed for Tmax, the terminal phase elimination rate constant β, and the natural logarithms of Cmax, AUCt, AUC168, AUCinf, and C168. The model will include the effects for regimen. For the tests on regimen effects, the denominator sum of squares will be the residual sum of squares for error. Within the ANOVA modeling framework, the test regimen will be compared to the respective reference regimen by a test with a significance level of 0.05.||1.032|0.727|0.1745
91762139|NCT03637517|183415181|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|1.185||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.411||For tests on regimen effects, the denominator sum of squares is the residual sum of squares for error. Within the ANOVA modeling framework, the test regimen is compared to the respective reference regimen by a test with a significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|||||1.411|0.995|0.1105
91762140|NCT03637517|183415182|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|LEAST SQUARES MEANS FOR LOGARITHMS.|0.901||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.759|1.069|||ANOVA|||||1.069|0.759|0.3100
91762141|NCT03637517|183415182|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|LEAST SQUARES MEANS FOR LOGARITHMS.|1.156||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.371|||ANOVA|||||1.371|0.974|0.1619
91762142|NCT00118430|183415243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||This reported p-value was calculated (and does not merely represent the threshold for significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91807943|NCT01753856|183492924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807944|NCT01753856|183492925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91762143|NCT00118430|183415244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||This reported p-value was calculated (and does not merely represent the threshold for significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
91762144|NCT00118430|183415245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91762145|NCT00118430|183415246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Poisson|||||||<0.001
91762146|NCT00534976|183415247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-4.65||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.020
91762147|NCT00534976|183415248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-4.33||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.005
91807945|NCT01753856|183492925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91762148|NCT00534976|183415249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-120.86||||0.022||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.022
91762149|NCT00534976|183415250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-122.82||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.013
91762150|NCT00534976|183415251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-8.27||||0.064||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.064
91762151|NCT00534976|183415252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-7.06||||0.054||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus Placebo|||||0.054
91762152|NCT00534976|183415253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Proportions|-1.6||||1||95.0||||P-value provided is for comparison between the two proportions: Montelukast versus placebo.|McNemar||Montelukast minus placebo|||||1.000
91762153|NCT00534976|183415254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Proportions|-3.2||||||95.0|||||||Montelukast minus placebo|||||
91807946|NCT01753856|183492925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807947|NCT01753856|183492926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of DLs in the CC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807948|NCT01753856|183492926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of double labels in EC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||0.004
91807949|NCT01753856|183492926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of double labels in IC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91807950|NCT01753856|183492926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of double labels in the PC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||0.850
91807951|NCT01753856|183492927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807952|NCT01753856|183492927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
91807953|NCT01753856|183492927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.678
91807954|NCT01753856|183492928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807955|NCT01753856|183492928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91807956|NCT01753856|183492928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91762154|NCT00264537|183415296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||A positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between golimumab+MTX and placebo+MTX and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons at a 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response comparing Group 1 vs combined Groups 3 and 4. The sample size of 150 patients per treatment group will provide \>98% power to detect a difference in ACR 50 response between treatment groups at alpha=0.05, assuming 50% of patients with screening C-reactive protein (CRP)\<1.5mg/dL, and the difference in ACR 50 response of 15-20% in patients with screening CRP\<1.5mg/dL and 20-25% in subjects with screening CRP\>=1.5mg/dL, between Groups 1 vs 3 or 4||||0.053
91762155|NCT00264537|183415296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response comparing Groups 1 vs 3.||||0.042
91762156|NCT00264537|183415296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response comparing Groups 1 vs 4.||||0.177
91807957|NCT02324569|183492981|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.826|-0.443|||ANCOVA|||||-0.443|-0.826|<0.0001
91807958|NCT02016560|183492991|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.581||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|2.581||A p-value of \<0.05 was the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted for baseline age, American National Adult Reading Test (ANART) score, and baseline CDR-SB score.||The specific hypothesis tested was that the hazard of progressing to the clinically meaningful event (defined as CDR-SB value change of at least 1 within 18 months) will be significantly greater for subjects with flortaucipir scans rated by majority interpretation as predicted to progress (Advanced AD scan pattern), as compared to subjects with scans rated as not predicted to progress (Moderate or Not AD scan pattern).||2.581|0.968|0.067
91807959|NCT02016560|183492992|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was set.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age||ANCOVA model comparing the mean SUVr between AD and Older Cognitively Healthy within amyloid positive group.||||<0.0001
91807960|NCT02016560|183492992|OTHER|||||||0.0622||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was set.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age||ANCOVA model comparing the mean SUVr between MCI and Older Cognitively Healthy within the amyloid positive group.||||0.0622
91807961|NCT02016560|183492992|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was set.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age||ANCOVA model comparing the mean SUVr between AD and MCI within the amyloid positive group.||||<0.0001
91807962|NCT02016560|183492993|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether the least squares mean change is significantly different than zero|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SUVr change from baseline as dependent variable, baseline SUVr, age, and visit as independent variables, using an unstructured covariance structure for amyloid positive subjects only.||||<0.0001
91807963|NCT02016560|183492993|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether the least squares mean change is significantly different than zero||||||0.7851|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SUVr change from baseline as dependent variable, baseline SUVr, age, and visit as independent variables, using an unstructured covariance structure for amyloid negative subjects only.||||0.7851
91807964|NCT02016560|183492994|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The hypothesis tested was that, of the 5 independent imaging physicians, at least 3 will have the lower bounds of 2-sided 95% confidence intervals ≥50%, for both sensitivity and specificity.|||
91807965|NCT02016560|183492995|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.0925||||0.4361|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson|||Pearson's correlation coefficient||||0.4361
91807966|NCT03758274|183492996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Based on simple path model in Mplus.|||||||0.746
91807967|NCT03758274|183492997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247|||||||Based on simple path model in Mplus.|||||||0.247
91807968|NCT03758274|183492998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.689|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.689
91807969|NCT00842712|183493063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|1.048|||Log Rank|||PFS Time: Independent read||1.048|0.492|0.0845
91807970|NCT00842712|183493064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.5912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|1.286|||Log Rank|||||1.286|0.642|0.5912
91807971|NCT00842712|183493065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.171|||Log Rank|||||1.171|0.564|0.2648
91807972|NCT00309387|183493108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.68|0.03
91807973|NCT00208091|183493116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.06
91807974|NCT00208091|183493117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.23
91807975|NCT02899988|183493119|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|41.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.9|16.9|0.009
91807976|NCT02899988|183493119|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3|72.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.3|45.3|<0.001
91807977|NCT02899988|183493119|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|79.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||79.6|53.7|<0.001
91807978|NCT02899988|183493120|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.7|5.7|0.039
91807979|NCT02899988|183493120|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.1|18.6|0.007
91807980|NCT02899988|183493120|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.1|18.6|0.007
91807981|NCT02899988|183493121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|89.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.97|5.62|<0.001
91807982|NCT02899988|183493121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|74.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|87.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||87.0|62.1|<0.001
91807983|NCT02899988|183493121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|70.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.6|83.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.7|57.6|<0.001
91807984|NCT02899988|183493122|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.7|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0)||25.7|5.7|0.041
91807985|NCT02899988|183493122|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0)||44.1|18.6|0.007
91807986|NCT02899988|183493122|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0)||44.1|18.6|0.008
91807987|NCT02899988|183493122|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|49.1|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0/1)||49.1|21.5|<0.001
91807988|NCT02899988|183493122|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|81.7|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0/1)||81.7|55.6|<0.001
91807989|NCT02899988|183493122|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.4|80.0|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0/1)||80.0|53.4|<0.001
91807990|NCT02899988|183493123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91807991|NCT02899988|183493123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91807992|NCT02899988|183493123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91807993|NCT02899988|183493124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91807994|NCT02899988|183493124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91807995|NCT02899988|183493124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91807996|NCT02899988|183493125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91807997|NCT02899988|183493125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91807998|NCT02899988|183493125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91807999|NCT02899988|183493126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||||0.009
91808000|NCT02899988|183493126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||||0.002
91808001|NCT02899988|183493126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||||0.087
91808002|NCT02899988|183493126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Summary||||<0.001
91808003|NCT02899988|183493126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Summary||||<0.001
91808004|NCT02899988|183493126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Summary||||<0.001
91808005|NCT03454581|183493134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91808006|NCT03454581|183493135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
91808007|NCT03454581|183493136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
91808008|NCT03454581|183493137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||<0.05
91808009|NCT03454581|183493138|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||<0.01
91808010|NCT03454581|183493139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
91808011|NCT03454581|183493140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
91808012|NCT03454581|183493141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
91808013|NCT00411645|183493150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.902||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|1.92||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|||1.920|0.424|0.789
91808014|NCT00411645|183493151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.721||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.008||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay||1.008|0.515|0.056
91808015|NCT00411645|183493151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.979||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.375||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||1.375|0.697|0.904
91808016|NCT00411645|183493151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.838||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.161||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR assay||1.161|0.606|0.289
91808017|NCT00411645|183493151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.891||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.239||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||1.239|0.640|0.493
91808018|NCT00411645|183493152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.129
91808019|NCT00411645|183493152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted hazard ratio|0.83||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.06||The p-value from Wald Chi-Square test for treatment effect.|Wald Chi-squared||Maribavir versus placebo; based on Cox's proportional hazards regression model: time = recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) + transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity) + treatment.|||1.06|0.65|0.130
91808020|NCT00411645|183493153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||||0.542
91808021|NCT00411645|183493153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||||0.637
91762157|NCT00264537|183415296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This sample size (150 patients per treatment group) will provide approximately 85% power to claim non-inferiority of golimumab alone (Group 2) compared with MTX alone (Group 1) at alpha= 0.05 using a one-sided equivalence test assuming the proportion of golimumab alone (Group 2) treated patients with ACR 50 response is not less than 10% compared with proportion of patients with ACR 50 response in MTX alone (Group 1) treated group.|Difference in ACR 50 Response Rate(%)|3.3||||0.521||95.0|-6.8||The upper bound of 95% CI was not produced because it was not relevant to the pre-specified analysis||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)|The positive difference indicates in favor of golimumab+placebo compared to placebo+MTX; The upper bound of CI is not applicable.|"Null hypothesis: Group 2 is inferior to Group 1. Noninferiority of golimumab will be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI is above -10%. The 10% non-inferiority margin was chosen because this difference is not clinically admissible. Under the above noted assumed response rates, this corresponds to preservation of at least 70% \[(33% - 10%)/33%\*100\] of the expected MTX benefit."|||-6.8|0.521
91762158|NCT00264537|183415297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.011
91762159|NCT00264537|183415297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.028
91762160|NCT00264537|183415297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.028
91762161|NCT00264537|183415297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.677
91762162|NCT00264537|183415298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.178
91762163|NCT00264537|183415298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.250
91762164|NCT00264537|183415298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.240
91762165|NCT00264537|183415298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.339
91762166|NCT00264537|183415299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||If this test is significant, a pairwise comparison between Group 3 and Group 1, and between Group 4 and Group 1 will be performed|ANOVA|A 2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores with 1 factor: screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; ≥ 1.5 mg/dL)||Null Hypothesis: No difference in vdH-S score comparing Groups 1 vs Groups 3 and 4 combined. The sample size of 150 subjects in each treatment group (Group 1, Group 3, Group 4) will provide \> 95% power to detect a difference in the vdH-S score between treatment groups using a 2-sided t-test on van der Waerden normal scores of change from baseline in vdH-S score at α = 0.05, assuming a mean change from baseline in vdH-S score of 3.5 for the placebo group and 1 for Groups 3 and 4.||||0.006
91762167|NCT00264537|183415299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|A 2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores with 1 factor: screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in vdH-S score comparing Groups 1 vs 3.||||0.015
91762168|NCT00264537|183415299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|A 2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores with 1 factor: screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in vdH-S score comparing Groups 1 vs 4.||||0.025
91762169|NCT00264537|183415300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.003
91762170|NCT00264537|183415300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.010
91762171|NCT00264537|183415300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.014
91762172|NCT00264537|183415300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.545
91762173|NCT00997594|183415304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Just a comparison of the percentage of hypertension between the 2 patient groups.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.05
91762174|NCT00806988|183415334|OTHER|An intention-to-treat analysis using a two-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test, at a 0.05 alpha level was used. This analysis accommodated missing LVESVI outcomes owing to death by assigning deceased patients the worst ranks in order according to the time of death. In the case of data that were missing for reasons other than death, we used multiple imputation to calculate the 12-month LVESVI on the assumption that the data were missing at random.||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary null hypothesis was that there would be no significant between-group difference in the LVESVI at 12 months.||||0.61
91762175|NCT00806988|183415335|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
91762176|NCT04775953|183415342|SUPERIORITY|For participants with the same DOOR, quality-of-life (QoL) was used as a tiebreaker and was calculated as change from baseline QoL to Day 70 QoL score, as assessed by questions from the PROMIS physical function item bank (PROMIS Item Bank v2.0, short form 6b) on the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) Bloodstream Infection QoL Measure. Superiority of dalbavancin is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the DOOR probability is greater than 50%.|Pr(Better DOOR in dalbavancin arm)|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.84|55.68|||||The DOOR probability is calculated using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney statistic corrected for ties.|Null Hypothesis: Probability that a participant in the dalbavancin arm has a better DOOR than a participant in the standard of care arm plus one-half the probability of equal DOOR is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR).||55.68|39.84|
91808022|NCT00411645|183493153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 12 months post-transplant||||0.825
91762177|NCT04775953|183415343|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -20%. Non-inferiority of dalbavancin is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical efficacy is greater than -20%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|14.0|||||Difference in proportions of clinical efficacy for dalbavancin compared to standard of care and 95% confidence interval obtained from a linear regression model.|Null Hypothesis: The proportion of clinical efficacy in the dalbavancin arm minus the proportion of clinical efficacy in the standard of care arm is -20%.||14|-12|
91762178|NCT01980095|183415407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||One-sample Z-test, RHB-105 subjects only|||||||0.001
91762179|NCT00856544|183415420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|27.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.94|36.13||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||36.13|17.94|<0.0001
91808023|NCT00411645|183493154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.669||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|0.946||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay||0.946|0.474|0.022
91808024|NCT00411645|183493154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|1.247||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||1.247|0.617|0.468
91808025|NCT00411645|183493154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.772||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.075||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay or CMV DNA PCR assay||1.075|0.555|0.125
91808026|NCT00411645|183493154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.731||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.026||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||1.026|0.521|0.069
91808027|NCT00411645|183493154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.913||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|2.508||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of EC-confirmed disease||2.508|0.332|0.860
91808028|NCT00411645|183493155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.835||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|1.693||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 12 months post-transplant||1.693|0.411|0.617
91808029|NCT00411645|183493156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.048||||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.457||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||1.457|0.754|0.7808
91808030|NCT00411645|183493156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.068||||0.6946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.479||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||1.479|0.771|0.6946
91808031|NCT00411645|183493157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.186||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|2.375||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||2.375|0.592|0.6304
91762180|NCT00856544|183415420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|21.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|30.65||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||30.65|12.39|<0.0001
91762181|NCT00856544|183415421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.26||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares mean difference (LS Mean Difference) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatments, visits and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.44|<0.0001
91808032|NCT00411645|183493157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.726||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.066||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||1.066|0.495|0.1019
91808033|NCT02289690|183493177|OTHER||RP2D for veliparib in mg BID for 14 days|240.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The RP2D for veliparib was determined to be 240 mg BID for 14 days with carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/mL\*min) on Day 1 and etoposide (100 mg/m²) on Days 1 to 3 during 21-day cycles for 4 cycles.|A primary objective of Phase 1 was to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for veliparib combined with carboplatin and etoposide. The RP2D was determined by the rate of DLTs and overall tolerability of veliparib plus carboplatin and etoposide.||||
91808034|NCT02289690|183493193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.503|0.88|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A).|"The primary efficacy analysis in the Phase 2 portion of the study was the comparison of PFS among participants who received veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A) vs. placebo in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm C).~Statistical significance was determined by a two-sided p-value ≤ 0.2"||0.880|0.503|0.059
91808035|NCT02289690|183493193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.744|1.288|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio of \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm B).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.288|0.744|0.924
91808036|NCT02289690|183493194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.432||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.092|1.879|||Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test stratified by LDH level.|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio of \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.879|1.092|0.088
91808037|NCT02289690|183493194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.104|1.931|||Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test stratified by LDH level.|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio of \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm B).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.931|1.104|0.083
91762182|NCT00856544|183415421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.16||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatments, visits and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.35|<0.0001
91808038|NCT02289690|183493195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.1|3.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level.|Odds ratio was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level. An odds ratio of \> 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||3.2|1.1|0.115
91808039|NCT02289690|183493195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level.|Odds ratio was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level. An odds ratio of \> 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm B).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.3|0.5|0.604
91762183|NCT00856544|183415422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|15.45||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||15.45|5.80|<0.0001
91762184|NCT00856544|183415422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.42||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|10.77||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||10.77|2.07|0.0038
91911542|NCT05568888|183719573|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 30 days in-hospital mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 30 days in-hospital mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-6.0||||1.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-0.68||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 30 days in-hospital mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||-0.68|-11.42|1.4
91762185|NCT04808141|183415473|EQUIVALENCE|For a power of 80% and a two-sided 0.05 significance level, we calculated that 102 individuals would be necessary to detect a 10-point difference between the two groups. To guarantee that the study was adequately powered to detect equivalence, a posteriori analysis was conducted using the Two One-Sided Test (TOST) methodology (simulation-based power analysis).|Median Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|5.81||the threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|robust method on the medians||||5.81|-2.42|0.412
91911543|NCT05568888|183719574|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare difference in proportion of subjects between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of subjects who undergo surgical or interventional radiological procedures to stop bleeding related to the primary injury up to 24 hours difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-2.5||||18.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|3.05||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypotheses: The proportion of subjects who undergo surgical or interventional radiological procedures to stop bleeding related to the primary injury up to 24 hours in BE1116 is no better than the control.|Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|3.05|-7.98|18.9
91911544|NCT02193074|183719580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|50.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.81|66.48|||Fisher Exact||exact unconditional confidence interval|||66.48|31.81|< 0.0001
91911545|NCT02193074|183719581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0046|||||||Log Rank|Based on log-rank test stratified by disease duration.||||||0.0046
91911546|NCT02193074|183719581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3156|0.8902|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening.||||0.8902|0.3156|0.0164
91911547|NCT02193074|183719582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||DIfference in percentages|68.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.27|81.99|||Fisher Exact|||||81.99|51.27|< 0.0001
91911548|NCT02193074|183719583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041|||||||Log Rank|Based on log-rank test stratified by disease duration (primary analysis).||||||0.0041
91911549|NCT02193074|183719583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.372||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1787|0.7745|||Cox proportional hazards|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening (sensitivity analysis).||||0.7745|0.1787|0.0082
91911550|NCT02193074|183719585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|30.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.35|48.09|||Fisher Exact|||||48.09|10.35|0.0004
91911551|NCT02193074|183719586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0003
91911552|NCT02193074|183719586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1002|0.5753|||Cox proportional hazards|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening.||||0.5753|0.1002|0.0014
91911553|NCT02193074|183719587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3953|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3953
91911554|NCT02193074|183719587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.6268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.6698|||Cox proportional hazards|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening.||||1.6698|0.4270|0.6268
91911555|NCT03784079|183719698|OTHER||Emax|-1.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.484|-1.389||||||||-1.389|-2.484|
91911556|NCT03784079|183719698|OTHER||EC50|7.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|13.602||||||||13.602|0.585|
91911557|NCT03784079|183719698|OTHER||s2e|0.137|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.212||||||||0.212|0.062|
91911558|NCT03784079|183719699|OTHER||Emax|-1.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.479|-1.379||||||||-1.379|-2.479|
91911559|NCT03784079|183719699|OTHER||EC50|0.446|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.861||||||||0.861|0.030|
91911560|NCT03784079|183719699|OTHER||s2e|0.139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.216||||||||0.216|0.063|
91911561|NCT03784079|183719700|OTHER||Emax|-1.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.498|-1.354||||||||-1.354|-2.498|
91911562|NCT03784079|183719700|OTHER||EC50|0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.386||||||||0.386|0.007|
91911563|NCT03784079|183719700|OTHER||s2e|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.222||||||||0.222|0.065|
91911564|NCT01844986|183719716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.41|0.23|<0.0001
91911565|NCT01844986|183719716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.97||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.97|0.23|
91911566|NCT01844986|183719717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.53||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.53|0.60|0.8903
91911567|NCT01844986|183719717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.28||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||2.28|0.29|
91911568|NCT01844986|183719718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.23|<0.0001
91911569|NCT01844986|183719718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.99||Not applicable due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||0.99|0.23|
91911570|NCT01844986|183719719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.72||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.72|0.35|0.0002
91911571|NCT01844986|183719719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.35||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.35|0.23|
91911572|NCT01844986|183719720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.779|-1.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, visit and baseline TOI with the treatment by visit and baseline TOI by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||-1.216|-4.779|0.0010
91911573|NCT01844986|183719721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.22|<0.0001
91911574|NCT01844986|183719721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.23||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.23|0.29|
91911575|NCT01844986|183719722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.63||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.63|0.32|<0.0001
91911576|NCT01844986|183719722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.26||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.26|0.25|
91911577|NCT01844986|183719723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.79|0.51|<0.0001
91762186|NCT04808141|183415473|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.926||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.05||The threshold for statistical analysis was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.42|0.849
91911578|NCT01844986|183719723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.42||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.42|0.47|
91911579|NCT01844986|183719724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.22|<0.0001
91911580|NCT03160560|183719814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||<0.010
91911581|NCT03160560|183719814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||.932
91911582|NCT03160560|183719814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.853
91911583|NCT03160560|183719814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline-2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.032
91911584|NCT03160560|183719814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||<0.001
91911585|NCT03160560|183719814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||.750
91911586|NCT03160560|183719814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.810
91911587|NCT03160560|183719814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.006
91911588|NCT00403260|183719815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of the PA group compared to the comparator group with regard to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 using the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction). Non-inferiority of PA to MQ + AS was concluded if the lower limit of the CI for the difference was \>-5%.|ACPR percent difference|1.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.1||If non-inferiority of PA was demonstrated, the p-value associated with a superiority test is calculated based on a 2-sided Chi-square test. If the calculated p-value is \<5%, then the superiority of PA compared to MQ+AS was statistically demonstrated.|Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (MQ + AS) by more than 5%.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is not inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (MQ + AS) by more than -5%."||3.1|-0.2|0.106
91911589|NCT04137887|183719841|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of QIV-HD effectiveness over QIV-SD was demonstrated if the lower bound of the Confidence intervals (CIs) for relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE); expressed in percentage (%) was more than (\>) 0%.|Relative Vaccine Effectiveness|5.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|20.66|||||rVE: % reduction of 1st occurrence of cardiovascular/respiratory hospitalization cases in QIV-HD group compared to QIV-SD group. 2-sided 95% CIs for rVE was calculated by exact method assuming Binomial distribution of number of cases in both groups.|||20.66|-12.43|
91762187|NCT04808141|183415474|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.1||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|robust method on the medians||||1.10|-0.71|0.666
91762188|NCT04808141|183415475|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-2.62||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.87|4.8||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust test on the medians||||4.80|-14.87|0.122
91762189|NCT04808141|183415476|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|3.32||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|5.9||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||5.90|-3.11|0.788
91762190|NCT04808141|183415477|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.23||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|LR to assess the odds between groups for consuming analgesics at 8 weeks using the CG as a reference.||||1.23|0.00|0.081
91762191|NCT04808141|183415477|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.71||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|LR to assess the odds between groups for consuming opioids at 8 weeks using the CG as a reference.||||1.71|0.00|0.985
91762192|NCT04808141|183415478|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.78||the threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||1.78|-2.10|0.871
91762193|NCT04808141|183415479|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.59||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||1.59|-0.59|0.360
91762194|NCT04808141|183415480|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837
91762195|NCT04808141|183415481|EQUIVALENCE||Z-score|-1.28||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Ordinal Regression|||||||0.886
91762196|NCT04808141|183415482|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.46||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||2.46|-2.20|0.095
91762197|NCT04808141|183415484|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.8||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.662
91762198|NCT04808141|183415485|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-1.97||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|3.33|||Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||3.33|-12.69|0.246
91762199|NCT04808141|183415486|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|2.69||the threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians.||||2.69|-6.50|0.408
91762200|NCT04808141|183415487|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|9.87||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||9.87|-6.22|0.650
91762201|NCT04808141|183415488|EQUIVALENCE||Difference in proportions|18.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
91889316|NCT03635099|183671529|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|38.6|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||38.6|12.5|
91762202|NCT00394706|183415495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7||Two sided test with an a priori threshold of 0.05 for declaring statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate of the rate of MRS \<= 3 in Analyze Later arm minus rate in Analyze early arm.|Comparison of the rates of MRS \<=3 in Analyze Early vs. Analyze Later arms using a linear mixed effect model with an identity link and random effects to account for the cluster randomization.||0.7|-1.1|0.59
91762203|NCT00394706|183415495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8||To adjust for group sequential monitoring, the point estimate was bias-adjusted (Whitehead 1986) and confidence intervals and P values calculated from the maximum likelihood based ordering of the outcome(Emerson and Fleming, 1990)|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate of the rate of MRS \<= 3 in the active ITD arm minus the rate in the Sham ITD arm.|Comparison of the rates of MRS \<=3 in Active ITD and Sham treatment arms, adjusted for sequential monitoring.||0.8|-1.1|0.71
91762204|NCT00394706|183415496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Two sided test with an a priori threshold of 0.05 for declaring statistical significance.|GEE||Estimate of the rate of survival to hospital discharge in Analyze Later arm minus rate in Analyze early arm.|Comparison of the rates of survival to hospital discharge in Analyze Early vs. Analyze Later arms using a generalized estimating equations model with an identity link, grouping on cluster.||1.1|-1.2|0.92
91762205|NCT00394706|183415496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Estimate of the rate of survival to hospital discharge in the active ITD arm minus rate in the Sham ITD arm.|Comparison of the rates of survival to hospital discharge in Active ITD and Sham treatment arms.||1.1|-1.2|0.99
91762206|NCT00394706|183415497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.34|||||Mean MRS for Analyze Later minus mean MRS for Analyze Early (i.e. positive values favor Analyze Later).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.34|-0.20|
91762207|NCT00394706|183415497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.44|||||Mean MRS for Active ITD minus mean MRS for Sham ITD (i.e. positive values favor the active device).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.44|-0.17|
91762208|NCT00394706|183415498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.83|||||Mean ALFI-MMSE for Analyze Later minus mean ALFI-MMSE for Analyze Early (i.e. positive values favor Analyze Later).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.83|-0.71|
91762209|NCT00394706|183415498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.28|||||Mean ALFI-MMSE for Active ITD minus mean ALFI-MMSE for Sham ITD (i.e. positive values favor the active device).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.28|-1.61|
91762210|NCT00394706|183415499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||||Mean HUI for Analyze Later minus mean HUI for Analyze Early (i.e. positive values favor Analyze Later).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.05|-0.06|
91762211|NCT00394706|183415499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||||Mean HUI for Active ITD minus mean HUI for Sham ITD (i.e. positive values favor the active device).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.05|-0.08|
91762212|NCT05274269|183415501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|11.3|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||11.3|7.2|< 0.0001
91762213|NCT05274269|183415502|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-24.5|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-24.5|-32.1|< 0.0001
91762214|NCT05274269|183415503|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|23.5|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||23.5|15.5|< 0.0001
91762215|NCT05274269|183415504|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.69|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||0.69|0.24|< 0.0001
91762216|NCT05274269|183415505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||1.9|0.6|< 0.0001
91762217|NCT00709618|183415530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|55.4|||||The estimated value respresents the percentage of participants with a complete response or a partial response.|||55.4|26.4|
91762218|NCT04759157|183415554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||mixed model|||||||.30
91762219|NCT04759157|183415555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||This estimate is comparing intervention to control from baseline to 3 month for both patients and partners|We conducted multilevel models evaluating sleep disturbance score by assessment, group and patient versus partner status.||1.43|-6.63|.206
91762220|NCT01746225|183415571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; One-sided .05 alpha-level test|Log Rank|One-sided test||For each arm separately, PFS was compared to the historic PFS of first-line docetaxel using a one-sample one-sided log-rank test, of the null hypothesis, H0: median PFS≤7 months vs. H1: median PFS\>7 months.||||0.12
91762221|NCT01746225|183415571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; One-sided .05 alpha-level test|Log Rank|One-sided test||For each arm separately, PFS was compared to the historic PFS of first-line docetaxel using a one-sample one-sided log-rank test, of the null hypothesis, H0: median PFS≤7 months vs. H1: median PFS\>7 months.||||.03
91762222|NCT01746225|183415571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; One-sided .05 alpha-level test|Log Rank|One-sided test||For each arm separately, PFS was compared to the historic PFS of first-line docetaxel using a one-sample one-sided log-rank test, of the null hypothesis, H0: median PFS≤7 months vs. H1: median PFS\>7 months.||||.20
91762223|NCT00595478|183415577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.18|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Odds ratio for 0 ETG-positive samples for MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||2.18|0.29|0.66
91762224|NCT00595478|183415577|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|0.93||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Mean ratio for number of ETG-positive samples, if \>0 ETG-positive samples: MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||1.22|0.71|0.61
91762225|NCT00595478|183415578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.62|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Odds ratio for 0% days using alcohol during the 36 week follow-up period: MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||2.62|0.26|0.74
91762226|NCT00595478|183415578|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|0.74||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Mean ratio for percentage of days with alcohol use during the 36 week follow-up period, if alcohol was used: MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||.92|.59|0.007
91762227|NCT02708355|183415588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.028||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|1.055|||Regression, Logistic|||Association between percentage of time with intragastric pH\>4 and relief of 24 -hour heartburn was assessed using logistic regression model with relief of 24- hour heartburn at Day 14 as dependent variable and change in percentage of time with intragastric pH\>4 as the independent variable, controlling for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI).||1.055|1.001|0.0442
91762228|NCT04090242|183415589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21||The p value is for the comparison between interventional and control group on change of DES score between baseline and end of study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||With assumptions made in statistical analysis plan, a sample size of 43 subjects per arm had \>80% power to detect a significant difference between the two arms (based on a 2-sided t-test, 95% CI for DES difference between groups). Adding a 10% buffer, planned enrollment was 96 subjects. However, enrollment ended early with about 25 subjects in each arm (56 subjects total). Thus, power decreased to 56%. The study was not sufficiently powered under these conditions.||0.21|-0.53|0.392
91808040|NCT00299104|183493208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing all three treatment groups||||0.0016
91808041|NCT00299104|183493208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1824||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline rheumatoid factor (RF) status||||0.1824
91911590|NCT04137887|183719842|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of QIV-HD effectiveness over QIV-SD was demonstrated if the lower bound of the CIs for rVE, expressed in % was \> 0%.|Relative Vaccine Effectiveness|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.99|30.14|||||rVE: % reduction of 1st occurrence of cardiovascular/respiratory hospitalization cases in QIV-HD group compared to QIV-SD group. 2-sided 95% CIs for rVE was calculated by exact method assuming Binomial distribution of number of cases in both groups.|Statistical analysis for diseases of respiratory system.||30.14|-27.99|
91911591|NCT04137887|183719842|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of QIV-HD effectiveness over QIV-SD was demonstrated if the lower bound of the CIs for rVE, expressed in % was \> 0%.|Relative Vaccine Effectiveness|7.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.04|25.0|||||rVE: % reduction of 1st occurrence of cardiovascular/respiratory hospitalization cases in QIV-HD group compared to QIV-SD group. 2-sided 95% CIs for rVE was calculated by exact method assuming Binomial distribution of number of cases in both groups.|Statistical analysis for diseases of circulatory system.||25.00|-15.04|
91911592|NCT01790503|183719866|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.71|0.456
91911593|NCT01790503|183719866|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.77|0.619
91911594|NCT01790503|183719866|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.65|0.272
91911595|NCT01790503|183719867|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between age subgroups: 18-64 years vs 65+ years||||0.440
91911596|NCT01790503|183719867|OTHER|||||||0.699|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between extent of surgery subgroups: complete resection vs partial resection||||0.699
91911597|NCT01790503|183719867|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline KPS subgroups: 70-89 vs 90-100||||0.003
91911598|NCT01790503|183719867|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between MGMT status subgroups: methylated vs unmethylated||||0.201
91762229|NCT00195663|183415633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical tests were performed in a hierarchical manner. If there was a statistically significant difference in favor of adalimumab + MTX combination treatment, the second primary analysis of the modified Total Sharp Score was to be performed.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||The study was powered to demonstrate the superiority of adalimumab + MTX combination therapy vs. MTX monotherapy in the proportion of subjects who achieved an ACR50 response at 52 weeks. Power calculations were based on 250 subjects in each group using a chi-squared test with a continuity correction and an alpha = 0.05 significance level. With 250 subjects in each group, a difference of 0.13 in response rates could be detected with 80% power.||||<0.001
91762230|NCT00195663|183415634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical tests were performed in a hierarchical manner. If there was a statistically significant difference in favor of adalimumab + MTX combination treatment on the ACR50 response, the second primary analysis of modified TSS would be performed.||||<0.001
91762231|NCT00195663|183415635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91762232|NCT00195663|183415636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91762233|NCT00195663|183415637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91762234|NCT00195663|183415638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91762235|NCT00195663|183415639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91762236|NCT00195663|183415640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91762237|NCT00195663|183415641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5402||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5402
91762238|NCT01898013|183415682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91762239|NCT01898013|183415683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
91762240|NCT01898013|183415684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
91762241|NCT01898013|183415685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
91762242|NCT01898013|183415686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.63
91762243|NCT01898013|183415687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
91762244|NCT01100775|183415690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Hits between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.898
91762245|NCT01100775|183415690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarms between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.701
91762246|NCT01100775|183415690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Hits between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.16
91911599|NCT01790503|183719869|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.60|0.389
91911600|NCT01790503|183719869|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.63|0.393
91911601|NCT01790503|183719869|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.63|0.469
91911602|NCT01790503|183719870|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between age subgroups: 18-64 years vs 65+ years||||0.063
91911603|NCT01790503|183719870|OTHER|||||||0.969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between extent of surgery subgroups: complete resection vs partial resection||||0.969
91911604|NCT01790503|183719870|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline KPS subgroups: 70-89 vs 90-100||||<0.001
91911605|NCT01790503|183719870|OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between MGMT status subgroups: methylated vs unmethylated||||0.501
91911606|NCT01790503|183719871|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between age subgroups: 18-64 years vs 65+ years||||0.705
91911607|NCT01790503|183719871|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between extent of surgery subgroups: complete resection vs partial resection||||>0.999
91911608|NCT01790503|183719871|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline KPS subgroups: 70-89 vs 90-100||||0.099
91911609|NCT01790503|183719871|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between MGMT status subgroups: methylated vs unmethylated||||0.348
91762247|NCT01100775|183415690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean False Alarms between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.701
91762248|NCT01100775|183415691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.161
91762249|NCT01100775|183415691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarm Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.028
91762250|NCT01100775|183415691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.899|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.899
91762251|NCT01100775|183415691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean False Alarms Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.521
91762252|NCT01100775|183415692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean total amount offered during the trust game between the galantamine and placebo groups||||0.67
91762253|NCT01100775|183415693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean correct responses between galantamine and placebo||||0.32
91762254|NCT01100775|183415694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the number of correct response on Trial 1 between galantamine and placebo||||0.659
91762255|NCT01100775|183415694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the number of correct response on Trial 2 between galantamine and placebo||||0.541
91762256|NCT01100775|183415694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the number of correct response on Trial 3 between galantamine and placebo||||0.838
91762257|NCT01100775|183415695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A comparison the mean correct responses between galantamine and placebo||||0.548
91762258|NCT01100775|183415696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.871
91762259|NCT01100775|183415697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Affect between galantamine and placebo||||0.626
91762260|NCT01100775|183415697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Social Skill between galantamine and placebo||||0.234
91762261|NCT01100775|183415698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Facial Affect Total Responses between galantamine and placebo||||0.797
91762262|NCT01100775|183415698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Facial Affect Total Hits between galantamine and placebo||||0.669
91762263|NCT01100775|183415698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Facial Affect Total False Alarms between galantamine and placebo||||0.668
91762264|NCT04677504|183415707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||"Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs.~eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World)."||1.14|0.51|
91762265|NCT04677504|183415708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.47|||Log Rank|||"Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs.~eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World)."||1.47|0.64|0.8857
91762266|NCT04677504|183415712|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs. eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.63|||Regression, Cox|||Quality of Life||2.63|0.93|
91762267|NCT04677504|183415712|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs. eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||Physical Function Scale||1.36|0.48|
91762268|NCT04677504|183415712|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs. eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||Role Function Scale||1.85|0.68|
91762269|NCT03182907|183415717|OTHER|The AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in Cohort 1 was compared to the AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in adults using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The comparison adult PK dataset used was based on participants from 2 adult trials (NCT01241552 and NCT01513239) as a historical control.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.18|||||GMR was calculated as the Cohort 1 geometric mean (GM) AUC0-inf / Adult GM AUC0-inf.|||1.18|0.95|
91762270|NCT03182907|183415717|OTHER|The AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in Cohort 2 was compared to the AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in adults using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The comparison adult PK dataset used was based on participants from 2 adult trials (NCT01241552 and NCT01513239) as a historical control.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.89|||||GMR was calculated as the Cohort 2 GM AUC0-inf / Adult GM AUC0-inf.|||0.89|0.75|
91762271|NCT03182907|183415718|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate the estimated difference in percentage and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in bezlotoxumab versus placebo arms.|Difference in percentage|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|7.7||||||||7.7|-14.5|
91762272|NCT03182907|183415719|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate the estimated difference in percentage and associated 95% CIs in bezlotoxumab versus placebo arms.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.5||||||||3.5|-9.7|
91762273|NCT03182907|183415720|OTHER|Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by age cohort (12 to \<18 years of age, 1 to \<12 years of age) with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight was used to generate the treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted difference|-3.7|||=|0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|8.0|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||8.0|-20.0|= 0.5701
91762274|NCT03182907|183415721|OTHER|Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by age cohort (12 to \<18 years of age, 1 to \<12 years of age) with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight was used to generate the treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted difference|0.8|||=|0.9165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|17.6|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||17.6|-11.8|= 0.9165
91762275|NCT03182907|183415722|OTHER|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate the treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted Difference|-3.1|||=|0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|9.0|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.0|-19.9|= 0.6542
91762276|NCT03182907|183415723|OTHER|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted difference|0.1|||=|0.9873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|17.4|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||17.4|-13.0|= 0.9873
91911610|NCT04183335|183719876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|15.41||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||15.41|2.78|<0.0001
91911611|NCT04183335|183719877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|8.98||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||8.98|1.81|0.0004
91911612|NCT04183335|183719878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|19.05||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||19.05|2.49|<0.0001
91911613|NCT04183335|183719879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.44|-14.9||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-14.90|-38.44|<0.0001
91911614|NCT04183335|183719880|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|-4.05||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-4.05|-8.34|<0.0001
91911615|NCT04183335|183719881|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-1.28||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-1.28|-3.07|<0.0001
91911616|NCT04183335|183719882|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.6||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-0.67||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-0.67|-4.52|0.0082
91911617|NCT04183335|183719890|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.15||Threshold of significance at \<0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|||-0.15|-1.25|0.0119
91911618|NCT00049673|183719897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.53|0.18
91911619|NCT00049673|183719898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.43|0.0001
91762277|NCT02058563|183415805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for the determination of non-inferiority for measles, mumps, and rubella viruses: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_MMR) was to be equal to or above 0.67 for anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti rubella antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||||Number of subjects in the INV-MMR Group and in the COM-MMR Group considered for calculating the adjusted GMC ratio, are respectively 432 and 435 and adjusted GMCs = 1790.2 (LL=1669.6;UL=1919.5) and 1781.5 (LL=1661.8;UL=1909.7) respectively|Non-inferiority of INV\_MMR vaccine to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of Geometric Mean Concentration (GMCs) for anti measles, anti mumps and anti rubella antibodies at Day 42.The 95% CI for adjusted geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and the adjusted GMC ratio were obtained using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations including the vaccine group (for adjusted GMC ratio) as fixed effect, gender, age and country groups as continuous effects and the pre-vaccination log-transformed||1.11|0.91|
91911620|NCT01535729|183719900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.318|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 70-74 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.318|0.684|0.756
91911621|NCT01535729|183719900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.07|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 75-79 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.070|0.518|0.110
91911622|NCT01535729|183719900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.692|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ≥ 80 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.692|0.656|0.829
91911623|NCT01535729|183719915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.299|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 70-74 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.299|0.741|0.895
91911624|NCT01535729|183719915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|0.947|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 75-79 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||0.947|0.501|0.022
91911625|NCT01535729|183719915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.759|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ≥ 80 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.759|0.767|0.479
91808042|NCT00299104|183493208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.0004
91889317|NCT03635099|183671529|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|36.7|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||36.7|10.9|
91762278|NCT02058563|183415806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for the determination of non-inferiority for measles, mumps, and rubella viruses: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_MMR) was to be equal to or above 0.67 for anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti rubella antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16|||||Number of subjects in the INV-MMR Group and in the COM-MMR Group considered for calculating the adjusted GMC ratio, are respectively 432 and 435 and adjusted GMCs = 113.5 (LL=106.0;UL=121.6) and 107.8 (LL=100.7;UL=115.4) respectively.|Non-inferiority of INV\_MMR vaccine to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of Geometric Mean Concentration (GMCs) for anti measles, anti mumps and anti rubella antibodies at Day 42.The 95% CI for adjusted geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and the adjusted GMC ratio were obtained using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations including the vaccine group (for adjusted GMC ratio) as fixed effect, gender, age and country groups as continuous effects and the pre-vaccination log-transformed.||1.16|0.96|
91762279|NCT02058563|183415807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for the determination of non-inferiority for measles, mumps, and rubella viruses: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_MMR) was to be equal to or above 0.67 for anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti rubella antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||||Number of subjects in the INV-MMR Group and in the COM-MMR Group considered for calculating the adjusted GMC ratio, are respectively 432 and 435 and adjusted GMCs = 76.1 (LL=71.5;UL=81.0) and 74.6 (LL=70.2;UL=79.4) respectively.|Non-inferiority of INV\_MMR vaccine to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of Geometric Mean Concentration (GMCs) for anti measles, anti mumps and anti rubella antibodies at Day 42.The 95% CI for adjusted geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and the adjusted GMC ratio were obtained using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations including the vaccine group (for adjusted GMC ratio) as fixed effect, gender, age and country groups as continuous effects and the pre-vaccination log-transformed||1.11|0.93|
91762280|NCT00483938|183415827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||SVR: Group A versus Group B||||0.510
91762281|NCT00483938|183415828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||SVR: Group C versus Group D||||1.000
91762282|NCT00483938|183415828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||SVR: Group E versus Group F||||1.000
91762283|NCT00483938|183415829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||ETR: Group A versus Group B||||0.792
91762284|NCT00483938|183415829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612|||||||Fisher Exact|||ETR: Group C versus Group D||||0.612
91762285|NCT00483938|183415829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||ETR: Group E versus Group F||||0.490
91762286|NCT00483938|183415829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complete EVR: Group C versus Group D||||0.363
91762287|NCT00483938|183415829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complete EVR: Group E versus Group F||||1.000
91762288|NCT00042991|183415851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91762289|NCT00042991|183415852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0546||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||19 patients had Enhancing tumor at both Baseline and Post-RT time points. Thus, the following test was based on these 19 patients.||||0.0546
91762290|NCT00042991|183415853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91762291|NCT00042991|183415854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91762292|NCT03334812|183415887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.51|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||SCD/HNWB||0.51|-0.15|0.1219
91762293|NCT03334812|183415887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||DTBT/HWB||0.25|-0.28|0.5438
91762294|NCT03334812|183415888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.3067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||0.31|-0.19|0.3067
91762295|NCT03334812|183415890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.23||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|56.32|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Week 4||56.32|-3.86|0.0404
91762296|NCT03334812|183415890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.82||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|82.1|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Week 12||82.10|-26.5|0.1381
91762297|NCT03334812|183415890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.8||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-19.3|66.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28 (EOS)||66.89|-19.3|0.1168
91762298|NCT03334812|183415891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.25|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||SCD/HNWB - Week 12||0.25|-0.26|0.5175
91762299|NCT03334812|183415891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.6|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||SCD/HNWB - Week 28||0.60|-0.22|0.1476
91762300|NCT02508428|183415896|EQUIVALENCE|Differences in survivorship among the Marathon and Enduron liners were evaluated with a Log Rank test.|||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Log Rank|||Survivorship was evaluated using liner revision for wear/osteolysis as an endpoint using a Kaplan-Meier analysis.||||<0.001
91762301|NCT02508428|183415897|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the wear rates were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.27||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|0.17|<0.001
91808043|NCT00299104|183493209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing all three treatment groups||||0.0004
91808044|NCT00299104|183493209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1194||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.1194
91808045|NCT00299104|183493209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.0001
91808046|NCT00299104|183493210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.3803||95.0|-0.05|0.13||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||0.13|-0.05|0.3803
91808047|NCT00299104|183493210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.0309||95.0|0.01|0.18||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||0.18|0.01|0.0309
91808048|NCT00299104|183493211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3752||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab (0.5 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||0.3752
91808049|NCT00299104|183493211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab (1.0 g x 2) + Methotrexate verus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and Baseline RF status.||||0.0081
91808050|NCT00299104|183493212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5939||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing all three treatment groups.||||0.5939
91808051|NCT00299104|183493212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5478||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.5478
91808052|NCT00299104|183493212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3096||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.3096
91808053|NCT00299104|183493217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||<0.0001
91808054|NCT00299104|183493217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||<0.0001
91808055|NCT00299104|183493227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (0.5 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate stratified for region and RF status.||||<0.0001
91911626|NCT01535729|183719916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.941|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between female and male was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor gender.||0.941|0.569|0.015
91808056|NCT00299104|183493227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (1.0 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||<0.0001
91808057|NCT00299104|183493233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Week 104: Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline rheumatoid factor (RF) status.||||<0.0001
91808058|NCT00299104|183493237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (0.5 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||<0.0001
91808059|NCT00299104|183493237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (1.0 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||<0.0001
91808060|NCT03167411|183493256|EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of the least squares (LS) geometric means of Cmax when bexagliflozin is dosed in combination with exenatide versus when dosed alone, with 80-125% defined as the lack of interaction boundaries. 90% confidence intervals was constructed.|Point Estimate (%)|125.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.45|150.24|||||Estimated ratio (%) of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||150.24|104.45|
91808061|NCT03167411|183493259|EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of the least squares (LS) geometric means of AUC0-inf when bexagliflozin is dosed in combination with exenatide versus when dosed alone, with 80-125% defined as the lack of interaction boundaries. 90% confidence intervals was constructed.|Point Estimate (%)|137.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.28|154.75|||||Estimated ratio (%) of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||154.75|122.28|
91808062|NCT00420927|183493266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Chi-squared|P value is from Pearson's chi-square test.||||||0.023
91808063|NCT00420927|183493267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.082
91808064|NCT00420927|183493268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.280
91808065|NCT00420927|183493268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.287
91808066|NCT00420927|183493269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.026
91808067|NCT00420927|183493269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.009
91808068|NCT00420927|183493270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.060
91808069|NCT00420927|183493270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.063
91808070|NCT00420927|183493271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.395
91808071|NCT00420927|183493271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.640
91808072|NCT00420927|183493272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.159
91808073|NCT00420927|183493272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.217
91808074|NCT00420927|183493273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.060
91808075|NCT00420927|183493273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.043
91808076|NCT00420927|183493274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.004
91808077|NCT00420927|183493274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.049
91808078|NCT00420927|183493275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.240
91808079|NCT00420927|183493275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.271
91808080|NCT00420927|183493276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.230
91808081|NCT00420927|183493276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.550
91808082|NCT00420927|183493277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.301
91911627|NCT01535729|183719917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.402|2.582|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ex-smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.582|1.402|0.000
91911628|NCT01535729|183719917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.248|2.557|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.557|1.248|0.002
91911629|NCT01535729|183719920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.962|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between female and male was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor gender.||0.962|0.535|0.027
91808083|NCT00420927|183493277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.188
91808084|NCT00420927|183493278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.314
91808085|NCT00420927|183493278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.235
91808086|NCT00420927|183493279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.030
91808087|NCT00420927|183493279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.403
91808088|NCT00420927|183493280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.036
91808089|NCT00420927|183493280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.349
91808090|NCT00420927|183493281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.037
91808091|NCT00420927|183493281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||<0.001
91808092|NCT00420927|183493282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.192
91808093|NCT00420927|183493282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.241
91808094|NCT00420927|183493283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.028
91808095|NCT00420927|183493283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
91808096|NCT00420927|183493284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.074
91808097|NCT00420927|183493284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.077
91808098|NCT01025752|183493285|NON_INFERIORITY|A 20% (1.4) reduction in NRS for pain intensity from baseline was considered minimally clinically important the non-inferiority margin was set at one NRS unit. The required sample size was 230 participants. Because enrollment was slower than expected and the standard deviation in the primary outcome was less than the initial power calculation (1.6 vs. 2.45) we conducted a sample size recalculation, based on observed data to determine that we would need 42 completers per arm for 80% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.8||Non-inferiority margin of 1|Mixed Models Analysis|The models includes treatment arm, time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline NRS, stratification variables (distance from VA \& back pain cause)|The upper limit (0.80) fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.|post-treatment (12 weeks) time point||0.80|-0.67|0.007
91808099|NCT01025752|183493285|NON_INFERIORITY|A 20% (1.4) reduction in NRS for pain intensity from baseline was considered minimally clinically important the non-inferiority margin was set at one NRS unit. The required sample size was 230 participants. Because enrollment was slower than expected and the standard deviation in the primary outcome was less than the initial power calculation (1.6 vs. 2.45) we conducted a sample size recalculation, based on observed data to determine that we would need 42 completers per arm for 80% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.49||Non-inferiority margin of 1|Mixed Models Analysis|The models includes treatment arm, time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline NRS, stratification variables (distance from VA \& back pain cause)|The upper limit (0.49) fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.|3 month post-baseline time point||0.49|-0.94|<0.0001
91808100|NCT01025752|183493285|NON_INFERIORITY|A 20% (1.4) reduction in NRS for pain intensity from baseline was considered minimally clinically important the non-inferiority margin was set at one NRS unit. The required sample size was 230 participants. Because enrollment was slower than expected and the standard deviation in the primary outcome was less than the initial power calculation (1.6 vs. 2.45) we conducted a sample size recalculation, based on observed data to determine that we would need 42 completers per arm for 80% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.71||The non-inferiority margin is 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|The models includes treatment arm, time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline NRS, stratification variables (distance from VA \& back pain cause)|The upper limit (0.71) fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.|6 month post- baseline time point.||0.71|-0.86|0.004
91911630|NCT01535729|183719921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.362|2.749|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ex-smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.749|1.362|0.000
91889318|NCT03635099|183671529|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0004||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Linear model fit.|||||||0.0004
91889319|NCT03635099|183671529|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0012||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Logistic model fit.|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg and 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 100 mg.||||||0.0012
91889320|NCT03635099|183671529|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0008||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax1 model fit.|Model assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0008
91889321|NCT03635099|183671529|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0217||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax2 model fit.|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0217
91889322|NCT03635099|183671529|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0004||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Exponential model fit.|Model assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||||||0.0004
91889323|NCT03635099|183671530|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.3|-2.3|0.4758
91889324|NCT03635099|183671530|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
91889325|NCT03635099|183671530|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
91889326|NCT03635099|183671530|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|41.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||41.3|13.7|0.0095
91889327|NCT03635099|183671530|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0007||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Linear model fit.|||||||0.0007
91889328|NCT03635099|183671530|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0023||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Logistic model fit.|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg and 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 100 mg.||||||0.0023
91889329|NCT03635099|183671530|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0018||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax1 model fit.|Model assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0018
91889330|NCT03635099|183671530|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0386||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax2 model fit.|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0386
91911631|NCT01535729|183719921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.239|2.859|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.859|1.239|0.003
91808101|NCT01025752|183493286|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.09|-0.74|0.12
91808102|NCT01025752|183493286|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.18|-0.87|0.20
91808103|NCT01025752|183493286|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.52|-0.57|0.93
91808104|NCT01025752|183493287|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point||1.29|-2.29|0.58
91762302|NCT02508428|183415898|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the incidences of clinically important osteolysis were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.3||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||0.30|0.006|<0.001
91762303|NCT02508428|183415899|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the rate of satisfaction among the groups were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"||||||0.48||||||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Since there were no patients with Marathon liners who were unsatisfied with the outcome of their hip replacement, a relative risk and the associated confidence interval could not be calculated.||||0.48
91762304|NCT02508428|183415900|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the Harris Hip Scores among the groups were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"||||||0.4||||||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.40
91762305|NCT00108862|183415917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.08|-2.0|8.0||The analysis was stratified by screening CD4 (\<50 cells/mm3 vs =\>50). Interim reviews employed group sequential monitoring using an O'Brien-Fleming use function. At final analysis, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0492.|Z-test, 2-sided|A 2-sided Z-test was used to compare the two percents. The test was weighted by the inverse of the Greenwood's variance in each CD4 stratum.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent failed in the Deferred ART arm minus the percent failed in the Immediate ART arm.|Assuming that immediate ART was better than deferred ART and that the combined rate in the deferred ART arm was 25% compared to 15% in the immediate ART arm (a 40% reduction), and assuming 10% loss to follow-up in a two-sided, two-sample 0.05-level asymptotically-normal test with 400 participants in each arm, there was 90% power. The percents tested were Kaplan-Meier estimators at week 48 with the associated Greenwood's variance.||8|-2|0.45
91808105|NCT01025752|183493287|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point||0.41|-3.46|0.12
91808106|NCT01025752|183493287|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point||1.20|-2.42|0.51
91762306|NCT00108862|183415918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.08|2.0|21.0||Interim reviews employed group sequential monitoring using an\> O'Brien-Fleming use function. At final analysis, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0492.|Z-test, 2-sided||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent failed in the Deferred ART arm minus the percent failed in the Immediate ART arm.|The study was not powered for this pre-specified subgroup analysis.||21|2|0.02
91762307|NCT00108862|183415919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.08|-7.0|4.0||Interim reviews employed group sequential monitoring using an O'Brien-Fleming use function. At final analysis, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0492.|Z-test, 2-sided||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent failed in the Deferred ART arm minus the percent failed in the Immediate ART arm.|The study was not powered for this pre-specified subgroup analysis.||4|-7|0.67
91808107|NCT01025752|183493288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.87|-2.30|0.83
91808108|NCT01025752|183493288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||3.98|-1.68|0.42
91808109|NCT01025752|183493288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.24|-3.40|0.68
91808110|NCT01025752|183493289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||4.16|-1.66|0.40
91808111|NCT01025752|183493289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||3.58|-2.82|0.81
91808112|NCT01025752|183493289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|5.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||5.82|-0.96|0.16
91808113|NCT01025752|183493290|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks time point). (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.80|-2.32|0.85
91808114|NCT01025752|183493290|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||1.73|-4.27|0.40
91808115|NCT01025752|183493290|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.83|-4.30|0.68
91808116|NCT01025752|183493291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.40|-2.28|0.17
91808117|NCT01025752|183493291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||1.16|-1.39|0.86
91808118|NCT01025752|183493291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||1.97|-1.22|0.64
91762308|NCT00900666|183415929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|a priori power calculation suggested N=26 for each group.||||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05 threshold|ANOVA|Correlations with walking speed and time since injury were initially performed to determine whether ANCOVA would be be more appropriate.||ANOVA||||0.761
91808119|NCT00843024|183493311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.3||Adjusted for multiplicity according to the fixed sequence testing strategy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sumatriptan 10 mg/Naproxen 60 mg minus placebo|||0.30|0.09|0.003
91808120|NCT00843024|183493311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.26||Adjusted for multiplicity according to the fixed-sequence testing strategy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sumatriptan 30 mg/Naproxen180 mg minus placebo|||0.26|0.07|0.003
91808121|NCT00843024|183493311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.22||Adjusted for multiplicity according to the fixed-sequence testing strategy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sumatriptan 85 mg/Naproxen 500 mg minus placebo|||0.22|0.05|0.003
91808122|NCT00887978|183493377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|10.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|22.0|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||Using an allocation ratio of 1:1 between UT-15C SR and placebo, a fixed sample size of approximately 266 subjects would provide at least 90% power at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided hypothesis) to detect a 30 meter between-treatment difference in the change from Baseline in distance traversed during the 6-Minute Walk, assuming a standard deviation of 75 meters. A total sample size of approximately 300 subjects was determined to account for discontinuations during the enrollment period.||22.0|-2.0|0.089
91808123|NCT00887978|183493378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91808124|NCT00887978|183493379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) Estimate|0.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|-1.0|0.22
91808125|NCT00887978|183493380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) estimate|0.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Imputation strategies were implemented for the 26 UT-15C subjects and 17 placebo subjects without values reported at Week 16.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|0.0|0.43
91808126|NCT00887978|183493382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) estimate|0.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||1.0|0.0|0.30
91808127|NCT00887978|183493385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|14.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||||28.0|0.0|0.058
91808128|NCT00887978|183493386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|15.0||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|29.0|||ANCOVA|||||29.0|-1.0|0.054
91808129|NCT00887978|183493388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|4.0||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24.0|-16.0|0.674
91808130|NCT00887978|183493389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|28.0||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|59.0|||ANCOVA|||||59.0|1.0|0.059
91808131|NCT00887978|183493390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|10.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|31.0|||ANCOVA|||||31.0|-10.0|0.22
91808132|NCT00887978|183493391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|3.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||||28.0|-23.0|0.99
91808133|NCT00887978|183493392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||0.84||95.0|-25.0|22.0|||ANCOVA|||||22.0|-25.0|0.84
91911632|NCT02814565|183720032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||The 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.6179
91762309|NCT00900666|183415930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.896
91762310|NCT00684775|183415957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|25.0|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||25.0|1.44|=0.002
91762311|NCT00684775|183415958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0081
91762312|NCT00684775|183415959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.6|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.6|.5|0.56
91762313|NCT00684775|183415960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.53|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.53|.6|=0.41
91762314|NCT00684775|183415961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.36|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.36|.42|0.75
91762315|NCT00684775|183415962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1543|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1543
91762316|NCT00684775|183415963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.1|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.1|.81|0.15
91762317|NCT00555672|183415972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|45.5|||Fisher Exact|Exact Method based on the F Distribution.||||45.5|13.3|
91762318|NCT02324816|183415988|OTHER||success proportion|73.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.8|90.9||||||||90.9|48.8|
91762319|NCT03401671|183415989|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.0229|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8473|1.2349||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and ethnic group as a fixed effect.||1.2349|0.8473|
91762320|NCT03401671|183415991|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|0.9324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8016|1.0846||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and ethnic group as a fixed effect.||1.0846|0.8016|
91762321|NCT03401671|183415992|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|0.9318|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8005|1.0846||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and ethnic group as a fixed effect.||1.0846|0.8005|
91762322|NCT02305238|183416007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.0||||||||3.0|-3.8|
91762323|NCT02305238|183416008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mantel-Haenszel (MH) adjusted difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.0||||||||4.0|-5.7|
91762324|NCT02305238|183416009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||MH adjusted difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|9.8||||||||9.8|-12.7|
91762325|NCT02305238|183416010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|12.7||||||||12.7|-24.3|
91762326|NCT02305238|183416011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||MH adjusted difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|12.7||||||||12.7|-10.6|
91762327|NCT02815644|183416014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|55.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.087|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.22|64.33|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean.|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin after food intake compared to while in the fasting state was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||64.33|48.22|
91762328|NCT02815644|183416015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|74.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.27|84.64|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||84.64|66.27|
91762329|NCT02815644|183416016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|82.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.38|86.18|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||86.18|78.38|
91762330|NCT02815644|183416017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|85.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.38|88.68|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||88.68|83.38|
91762331|NCT02815644|183416018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|88.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.89|96.03|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||96.03|80.89|
91762332|NCT02815644|183416019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|86.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.61|89.13|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||89.13|83.61|
91762333|NCT02815644|183416020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R Ratio|82.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.38|86.18|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||86.18|78.38|
91762334|NCT02218008|183416021|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2. The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 1/1 compared to placebo.||-0.3|-2.7|0.018
91762335|NCT02218008|183416022|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.2||ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2. The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 1/1 compared to placebo.||-0.2|-3.6|0.026
91911633|NCT02814565|183720033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4338|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.4338
91911634|NCT02814565|183720033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1657|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 14. The 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.1657
91911635|NCT02814565|183720034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0393|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0393
91911636|NCT02814565|183720035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0330
91762336|NCT02218008|183416023|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypotheses were evaluated using a 6-step, fixed sequence approach to adjust for multiple comparisons. Using this method, hypothesis testing (using alpha=0.05) continued through the sequence until statistical significance was not achieved. Steps 1-3 included testing the ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg dose vs placebo for the 3 primary endpoints.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.2||ALKS 5461 is compared to placebo within each of the 2 stages, and resulting treatment effects from each stage are combined for a single hypothesis test using equal weights of 0.5 for both stages.|Mixed Models Analysis|||ALKS 5461 is compared to placebo within each of the 2 stages (i.e., ALKS 5461 2/2 S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2/2 S2 vs Placebo S2). Efficacy was estimated as a weighted average across 2 stages using equal weights.||0.2|-3.6|0.076
91808134|NCT04600921|183493393|SUPERIORITY|The parameters required to calculate sample size were the expected rate of VT/VF episodes/year in the placebo group, the minimal VT/VF rate ratio to be detected in the ertugliflozin group compared with the placebo group, the average follow-up of treatment duration, the negative binomial dispersion parameter, type 1 error probability, and the desired power.|Rate Ratio|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.61||The yearly rate ratio was adjusted for baseline number of sVT/VF episodes.|Negative binomial regression model|A prespecified sensitivity analysis was done to mitigate the effect of outliers by using the robust estimation approaches for negative binomial model.|Ertugliflozin is the numerator and the placebo is the denominator.|We compared the rate of sVT/VF episodes between experimental arms after 52 weeks.The initial sample calculation was based on the mathematical formula provided by Zhu and Lakkis for comparing event rates of two negative binomial distributiuons. To detect a 30% reduction in VT/VF episode rates in the ertugliflozin group compared to placebo group, with 80% power and an alpha level of 0.05, accounting for 5% drop out in each group, a total sample size of 402 was estimated to be required.||0.61|0.04|<0.001
91808135|NCT04600921|183493394|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.97||||||The number of incident nsVT episodes were analyzed using a beta binomial model.||0.97|0.12|
91808136|NCT04600921|183493395|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.81||||||The number of appropriate ICD therapies were analyzed by using beta binomial model.||1.81|0.13|
91808137|NCT04600921|183493396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change|0.17|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||The change in NTproBNP levels was analyzed by using a multiple linear regression model.||0.69|-0.35|>0.05
91808138|NCT04600921|183493397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|3.13||||||The change in HbA1c levels from baseline to week 52 was analyzed by multiple linear regression model.||3.13|-1.69|
91808139|NCT04600921|183493398|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7||||||||1.7|0.2|
91808140|NCT05425745|183493413|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.22|-30.39|||ANCOVA|||||-30.39|-42.22|<.0001
91808141|NCT05425745|183493414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.572|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.79|-30.78|||ANCOVA|||||-30.78|-44.79|<.0001
91808142|NCT05425745|183493415|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-41.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.14|-31.76||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-31.76|-51.14|<.0001
91808143|NCT05425745|183493416|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.58|-20.2||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-20.20|-28.58|<.0001
91808144|NCT05425745|183493417|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.583|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.38|-19.25||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-19.25|-29.38|<.0001
91808145|NCT05425745|183493418|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.114|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.88|-19.67||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-19.67|-31.88|<.0001
91808146|NCT05425745|183493419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-34.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.661|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.67|-29.24||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-29.24|-39.67|<.0001
91808147|NCT05425745|183493420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.241|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.36|-26.65||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-26.65|-39.36|<.0001
91808148|NCT05425745|183493421|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.535|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.38|-28.58||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-28.58|-46.38|<.0001
91808149|NCT05425745|183493422|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|138.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.42|150.9||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||150.90|126.42|<.0001
91808150|NCT05425745|183493423|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|131.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.595|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|118.27|144.13||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||144.13|118.27|<.0001
91808151|NCT05425745|183493424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|121.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.333|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.02|135.76||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||135.76|107.02|<.0001
91808152|NCT05425745|183493425|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-45.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.88|-26.0||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-26.00|-65.88|<.0001
91808153|NCT05425745|183493426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-54.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.924||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.13|22.53||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05; therefore hierarchical testing was stopped for subsequent secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|||||22.53|-131.13|0.1648
91808154|NCT02700815|183493433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.06|-1.15|0.0303
91808155|NCT02700815|183493433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||0.60|-0.18|0.2886
91808156|NCT02700815|183493433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.33|-1.10|0.0003
91808157|NCT02700815|183493434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-72 h) between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||0.07|-0.80|0.0956
91762337|NCT01278797|183416076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test/Reference ratio of geometric means|94.51||||0.005||90.0|91.6|97.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC72 and Included treatment, sequence, period and subject-within-sequence effects.||Telmisartan/Amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg versus Telmisartan 80 mg + Amlodipine 10 mg The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent since the 90% confidence interval of the test to reference ratio is entirely contained within the 80-125% bioequivalence range.||97.51|91.60|0.005
91808158|NCT02700815|183493434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.61|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-72 h) between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||0.61|-0.01|0.0564
91808159|NCT02700815|183493434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-72 h) between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||-0.25|-0.87|0.0004
91808160|NCT02700815|183493435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-120 h) between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||-0.04|-0.97|0.0347
91808161|NCT02700815|183493435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-120 h) between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||0.65|-0.02|0.0622
91808162|NCT02700815|183493435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-120 h) between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||-0.35|-1.01|<0.0001
91762338|NCT01278797|183416077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test/Reference ratio of geometric means|94.1||||0.0093||90.0|90.7|97.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed CMAX and Included treatment, sequence, period and subject-within-sequence effects.||Telmisartan/Amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg versus Telmisartan 80 mg + Amlodipine 10 mg The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent since the 90% confidence interval of the test to reference ratio is entirely contained within the 80-125% bioequivalence range.||97.63|90.70|0.0093
91889331|NCT03635099|183671530|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0004||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Exponential model fit.|Model assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||||||0.0004
91889332|NCT03635099|183671531|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.7|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.7|-11.7|1.0000
91911637|NCT02814565|183720035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0262|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0262
91911638|NCT02814565|183720036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5756|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.5756
91911639|NCT02814565|183720036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4395|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.4395
91911640|NCT02814565|183720036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0905|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 14. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0905
91911641|NCT02814565|183720037|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Day 3. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test to compare the number of responders between the Placebo and the Cyclobenzaprine HCl 15 mg treatment group to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance."||||1.0000
91911642|NCT02814565|183720037|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Day 7. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test to compare the number of responders between the Placebo and the Cyclobenzaprine HCl 15 mg treatment group to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance."||||1.0000
91911643|NCT02814565|183720037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2757|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Day 14. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test to compare the number of responders between the Placebo and the Cyclobenzaprine HCl 15 mg treatment group to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance."||||0.2757
91911644|NCT02814565|183720038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.3020
91762339|NCT01278797|183416078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.153|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA was applied to TMAX and Included treatment, sequence, period and subject-within-sequence effects.||Telmisartan/Amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg versus Telmisartan 80 mg + Amlodipine 10 mg||||0.153
91762340|NCT00588354|183416079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||3.60|-0.52|0.159
91762341|NCT00588354|183416080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||2.01|-1.79|0.910
91762342|NCT00588354|183416081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|6.96|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||6.96|-1.04|0.162
91762343|NCT00588354|183416082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|10.12|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||10.12|1.22|0.022
91762344|NCT00588354|183416083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|12.29|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||12.29|-0.57|0.089
91911645|NCT02814565|183720038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2367|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2367
91911646|NCT02814565|183720038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0250
91911647|NCT02814565|183720039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4428|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.4428
91911648|NCT02814565|183720039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1163|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.1163
91911649|NCT02814565|183720039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0489|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0489
91911650|NCT02814565|183720040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5275|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.5275
91911651|NCT02814565|183720040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0880
91911652|NCT02814565|183720040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2542|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2542
91911653|NCT02814565|183720041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.6920
91911654|NCT02814565|183720041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0749|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0749
91808163|NCT02700815|183493436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.882||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 30% from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||3.21|1.10|0.0202
91808164|NCT02700815|183493436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 30% from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||1.09|0.49|0.1206
91808165|NCT02700815|183493436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.629||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 30% from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||2.39|1.11|0.0122
91808166|NCT02700815|183493437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.729||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.09|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 50% from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||3.09|0.97|0.0643
91808167|NCT02700815|183493437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.833||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 50% from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||1.22|0.57|0.3479
91808168|NCT02700815|183493437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.125||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 50% from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||3.22|1.40|0.0004
91808169|NCT02700815|183493438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.44|-1.67|0.0008
91808170|NCT02700815|183493438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||0.64|-0.24|0.3726
91808171|NCT02700815|183493438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.68|-1.56|<0.0001
91808172|NCT02700815|183493439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||1.53|-1.78|0.8810
91808173|NCT02700815|183493439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||1.49|-0.87|0.6094
91808174|NCT02700815|183493439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.2047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||1.95|-0.42|0.2047
91889333|NCT03635099|183671531|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|37.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||37.3|3.9|0.0540
91889334|NCT03635099|183671531|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.5||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||31.4|-0.4|0.1167
91808175|NCT02700815|183493440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||4.27|-0.98|0.2193
91889335|NCT03635099|183671531|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|45.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|63.2|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||63.2|26.8|0.0006
91889336|NCT03635099|183671531|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|45.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|69.6|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||69.6|22.0|
91889337|NCT03635099|183671531|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|59.2|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||59.2|11.3|
91889338|NCT03635099|183671532|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
91889339|NCT03635099|183671532|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
91889340|NCT03635099|183671532|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|29.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||29.3|5.7|0.0465
91889341|NCT03635099|183671532|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|18.0|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||18.0|0.6|
91889342|NCT03635099|183671532|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.2|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||11.2|-1.7|
91889343|NCT03635099|183671533|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
91889344|NCT03635099|183671533|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
91889345|NCT03635099|183671533|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.8|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||6.8|-2.2|
91889346|NCT03635099|183671533|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.0|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||7.0|-2.2|
91889347|NCT03635099|183671534|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.3|-2.3|0.4758
91889348|NCT03635099|183671534|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
91889349|NCT03635099|183671534|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|23.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||23.3|2.3|0.0942
91889350|NCT03635099|183671534|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|41.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||41.3|13.7|0.0095
91889351|NCT03635099|183671534|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
91889352|NCT03635099|183671534|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
91889353|NCT03635099|183671534|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
91889354|NCT03635099|183671534|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||47.0|18.0|0.0040
91889355|NCT03635099|183671534|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
91889356|NCT03635099|183671534|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|35.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|49.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||49.8|20.2|0.0025
91762345|NCT00588354|183416084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|13.25|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||13.25|0.83|0.038
91889357|NCT03635099|183671535|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
91762346|NCT00588354|183416085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||2.09|-11.75|0.186
91762347|NCT00588354|183416086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|6.26|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||6.26|-6.96|0.918
91762348|NCT03364309|183416087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.57|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|33.57|<0.0001
91762349|NCT03364309|183416087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.49|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|52.49|<0.001
91762350|NCT03364309|183416088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.76|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|32.76|<0.001
91762351|NCT03364309|183416088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.87|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|64.87|<0.001
91762352|NCT03364309|183416090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.88|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|31.88|<0.001
91762353|NCT03364309|183416090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.96|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|46.96|<0.001
91762354|NCT03364309|183416092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.68|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|13.68|<0.001
91762355|NCT03364309|183416092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.09|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|15.09|<0.001
91762356|NCT03364309|183416093|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.604|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.33|-10.71|<0.001
91762357|NCT03364309|183416093|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-8.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.59|-10.96|<0.001
91762358|NCT03364309|183416094|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.673|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|-6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.79|-13.38|<0.001
91762359|NCT03364309|183416094|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.677|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.11|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.51|-12.11|<0.001
91762360|NCT03364309|183416095|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-34.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.94|-30.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-30.98|-38.94|<0.001
91762361|NCT03364309|183416095|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-36.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-32.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.37|-40.30|<0.001
91762362|NCT03364309|183416096|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.62|-14.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.86|-18.62|<0.001
91762363|NCT03364309|183416096|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.954|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-16.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.05|-19.80|<0.001
91762364|NCT03364309|183416097|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6681|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.915|7.541|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.541|4.915|<0.001
91762365|NCT03364309|183416097|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.536|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6668|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.225|7.847|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.847|5.225|<0.001
91762366|NCT03364309|183416098|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9489|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.328|7.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.058|3.328|<0.001
91762367|NCT03364309|183416098|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.946|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.503|7.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.222|3.503|<0.001
91762368|NCT03364309|183416099|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.4|-2.9|<0.001
91762369|NCT03364309|183416099|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.3|-2.9|<0.001
91762370|NCT03364309|183416100|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.15|-5.56|0.003
91762371|NCT03364309|183416100|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.67|-6.90|<0.001
91762372|NCT03364309|183416101|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-50.5|0.022
91762373|NCT03364309|183416101|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.87||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.5|-47.8|0.031
91762374|NCT04522141|183416121|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.038
91762375|NCT04522141|183416121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.941
91762376|NCT04522141|183416122|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.003
91762377|NCT04522141|183416122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.027
91762378|NCT04522141|183416123|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||< .001
91762379|NCT04522141|183416123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.411
91762380|NCT04522141|183416124|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect weekly self-control||||< .001
91808176|NCT02700815|183493440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.949||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||2.15|-1.58|0.7672
91808177|NCT02700815|183493440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||3.88|0.15|0.0339
91808178|NCT02144233|183493457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
91808179|NCT02785354|183493483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.66|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI ) (and death as a competing risk).||0.66|0.51|<0.0001
91808180|NCT02785354|183493483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.92|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.92|0.75|0.0006
91808181|NCT02785354|183493484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.66|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.66|0.46|<0.0001
91808182|NCT02785354|183493484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.79|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.79|0.58|<0.0001
91808183|NCT02785354|183493485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.88|0.63|0.0007
91808184|NCT02785354|183493485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||1.14|0.85|0.8341
91808185|NCT02785354|183493486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.95|0.65|0.0147
91808186|NCT02785354|183493486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||1.00|0.71|0.0501
91808187|NCT02785354|183493487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.82|0.67|<0.0001
91808188|NCT02785354|183493487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.84|0.71|<0.0001
91808189|NCT02785354|183493488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.76|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.76|0.66|<0.0001
91808190|NCT02785354|183493488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.89|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.89|0.79|<0.0001
91808191|NCT00848081|183493490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||||||1-sided test|Fisher Exact|||The p-value is from a one-sided Fisher's exact test with a significance level of 0.05. A total of 142 subjects per treatment arm would provide 91% power to detect the difference between a Group 1 proportion of 0.03 and a Group 2 proportion of 0.13.||||0.403
91808192|NCT00848081|183493492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||p-value is on change from baseline|ANCOVA|||The LS mean, standard error, 2-sided 95% confidence interval and p-value for the difference between placebo and tadalafil 5 mg are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||0.130
91808193|NCT00848081|183493493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||||||p-value is on change from baseline|ANOVA|The p-value is from Type III sums of squares ANOVA on rank-transformed data.||||||0.258
91762381|NCT04522141|183416124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction weekly self-control||||0.176
91808194|NCT00848081|183493494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||ANOVA|P-value is from Type III sums of squares ANOVA on rank-transformed data; p-value is on change from baseline.||||||0.828
91889358|NCT03635099|183671535|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
91762382|NCT04522141|183416125|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||> .05
91762383|NCT04522141|183416125|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||> .05
91762384|NCT04522141|183416126|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.031
91762385|NCT04522141|183416126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.||Time by condition interaction||||0.260
91762386|NCT04522141|183416127|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.016
91762387|NCT04522141|183416127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.363
91762388|NCT04522141|183416128|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||> .05
91762389|NCT04522141|183416128|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||> .05
91762390|NCT04522141|183416129|OTHER|||||||0.389||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.389
91762391|NCT04522141|183416129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.516
91762392|NCT04522141|183416130|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.005
91762393|NCT04522141|183416130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.555
91762394|NCT04522141|183416131|OTHER|||||||0.206||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.206
91762395|NCT04522141|183416131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.026
91762396|NCT03052049|183416132|OTHER|t-test|p value|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|||||0.05
91762397|NCT03052049|183416133|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91762398|NCT03052049|183416134|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91762399|NCT03052049|183416135|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91762400|NCT03052049|183416136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91762401|NCT03304873|183416154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0004
91762402|NCT03304873|183416155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.99
91762403|NCT01868477|183416174|OTHER|difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|48.16||||||||48.16|-24.0|
91762404|NCT00620113|183416195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|6.64||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by Least-Squares means (LS mean) and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||6.64|4.16|<0.001
91762405|NCT00620113|183416195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|6.35||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||6.35|3.90|<0.001
91762406|NCT00620113|183416195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|4.75||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||4.75|2.33|<0.001
91808195|NCT00875212|183493495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated measure anova|The median value of each parameter (pH baseline, minimal pH) was obtained and these values were compared between each group|The study was based on the use of dentifrices for daily oral hygiene in a crossover design. The null hyphothesis was no difference between pH values of the groups. The statistical analysis was by repeated measurements ANOVA.||||0.001
91911655|NCT02814565|183720041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2371|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2371
91911656|NCT01978093|183720050|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (HibCY group minus the PedHIB group) in the percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentrations ≥1.0 mg/mL is to be≥-10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|4.3|||Group difference in proportions|Before concluding on the primary objectives for Rotarix, Prevnar 13 and Havrix, this primary objective regarding anti-PRP needs to be reached||Difference between HibCY and PedHIB groups in percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentrations equal to or above the cut-off value of 1.0 µg/mL one month after the fourth dose in HibCY Group and third dose in PedHIB Group.||4.30|-2.12|
91911657|NCT01978093|183720051|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI on the ratio of anti-rotavirus IgA GMC (HibCY group over PedHIB group) is to be ≥0.5|Adjusted GMC ratios|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.77|1.9|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub-cohorts;97.5% confidence interval calculated for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 Post dose 3)\& Epoch 002 (Havrix \& Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used in order to test these objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for anti-Rota IgA concentrations 2 months after the second dose of Rotarix vaccine||1.90|0.77|
91911658|NCT01978093|183720052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.47|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio (Ancova Model: adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix \& Prevnar13 post dose 4),Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.47|0.95|
91911659|NCT01978093|183720052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.42|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.42|0.93|
91911660|NCT01978093|183720052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 is to be≥ 0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.31|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.31|0.90|
91911661|NCT01978093|183720052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 is to be ≥ 0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.47|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.47|0.95|
91911662|NCT01978093|183720052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.03|1.63|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.63|1.03|
91911663|NCT01978093|183720052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.88|1.55|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.55|0.88|
91808196|NCT00875212|183493495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated-measurements ANOVA||The comparison was based on mean and median values of plaque pH in different moments of cariogenic challenge. The null hypothesis was that no diference between the groups wil be found. The test hypothesis was that the experimental dentifrice of CaGP-F would provide a better control of plaque pH after 14 days of use.||||0.001
91808197|NCT00875212|183493496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated measurements ANOVA|The difference of pH values between groups was above 1.0 unit.|The groups were compared by repeated measurements anova. There was no power calculation, but a pilot study to check the minimal number necessary of subjects in order to find a signifcant difference between interventions.||||0.01
91808198|NCT01752907|183493497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment difference = bone pain DVD - general education DVD|There was no statistical hypothesis testing for this study. The clinical hypothesis was that a difference in mean maximum pain of 0.5 (scale 0 to 10) in favor of bone pain education would be a clinically relevant difference.||1.0|-0.4|0.3479
91808199|NCT02990910|183493526|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi square test was used to compare the count data,p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
91808200|NCT02064868|183493530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.98||One-sided p-value|Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test|||||0.98|0.51|0.0172
91808201|NCT02064868|183493531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02||Two-sided p-value|Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test|||||1.02|0.61|0.0634
91808202|NCT02064868|183493532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91808203|NCT02064868|183493533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
91808204|NCT02064868|183493534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1392|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1392
91808205|NCT02064868|183493536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3115|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5||||0.3115
91808206|NCT02064868|183493536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1236|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||||0.1236
91808207|NCT00482612|183493537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline TST was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91808208|NCT00482612|183493537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline TST was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91808209|NCT00482612|183493537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline TST was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91808210|NCT00482612|183493538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline SL was used as a covariate.||||||0.0014
91808211|NCT00482612|183493538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline SL was used as a covariate.||||||0.0135
91808212|NCT00482612|183493538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline SL was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91808213|NCT04180488|183493559|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-4.23||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|-1.84||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-1.84|-6.63|0.0005
91808214|NCT04180488|183493559|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.87||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.07||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.043 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.07|-5.68|0.0449
91808215|NCT04180488|183493559|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.54||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-0.43||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.43|-4.65|0.0184
91808216|NCT04180488|183493560|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-8.53||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-3.9||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-3.90|-13.16|0.0003
91808217|NCT04180488|183493560|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-4.65||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|-0.65||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.65|-8.65|0.0226
91808218|NCT04180488|183493561|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-4.38||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-1.98||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-1.98|-6.78|0.0003
91808219|NCT04180488|183493561|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.17||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-0.19||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.19|-4.15|0.0316
91808220|NCT04180488|183493562|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.413||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.596|7.299||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was performed on association between responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7\<28,\>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline and region.||7.299|1.596|0.0014
91808221|NCT04180488|183493562|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.507||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.231|5.107||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||5.107|1.231|0.0109
91889359|NCT03635099|183671536|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.3|-2.3|0.4758
91911664|NCT01978093|183720052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.91|1.34|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.34|0.91|
91911665|NCT01978093|183720052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.0|1.55|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.55|1.00|
91911666|NCT01978093|183720052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.5|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.50|0.90|
91911667|NCT01978093|183720052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.01|1.52|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.52|1.01|
91911668|NCT01978093|183720052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.43|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.43|0.94|
91911669|NCT01978093|183720052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.89|1.29|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.29|0.89|
91911670|NCT01978093|183720052|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.91|1.53|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.53|0.91|
91911671|NCT01978093|183720053|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI on the difference (HibCY group minus the PedHIB group) in the percentage of subjects with anti-HAV concentrations ≥15 mIU/mL is to be≥-10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.76|3.91|||Group difference in proportions||To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix \& Prevnar13 post dose 4),Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|Difference between HibCY and PedHIB groups in percentage of subjects with anti-HAV concentrations equal to or above the cut-off value of 15 mIU/mL one month after the second Havrix dose.||3.91|-3.76|
91911672|NCT01978093|183720054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.04|1.51|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.51|1.04|
91889360|NCT03635099|183671536|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
91889361|NCT03635099|183671536|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
91889362|NCT03635099|183671536|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|44.2|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||44.2|15.8|0.0062
91889363|NCT03635099|183671536|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
91889364|NCT03635099|183671536|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
91889365|NCT03635099|183671536|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|38.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||38.4|11.6|0.0143
91889366|NCT03635099|183671536|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
91889367|NCT03635099|183671536|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
91889368|NCT03635099|183671536|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||47.0|18.0|0.0040
91889369|NCT03635099|183671537|OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||2.8|-1.9|0.7008
91889370|NCT03635099|183671537|OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.6268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||3.0|-1.8|0.6268
91889371|NCT03635099|183671537|OTHER||Adjusted mean|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||5.1|0.3|0.0266
91889372|NCT03635099|183671537|OTHER||Adjusted mean|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||6.3|1.7|0.0009
91889373|NCT03635099|183671537|OTHER||Adjusted mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.8|||||MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||5.8|0.4|
91889374|NCT03635099|183671537|OTHER||Adjusted mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.8|||||MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||5.8|0.4|
91889375|NCT03635099|183671538|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|15.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||15.1|-10.1|0.7144
91889376|NCT03635099|183671538|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|15.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||15.4|-10.0|0.6970
91889377|NCT03635099|183671538|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|15.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||15.4|-10.0|0.6970
91889378|NCT03635099|183671538|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||30.6|-0.6|0.1250
91889379|NCT03635099|183671538|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|36.1|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||36.1|-20.3|
91889380|NCT03635099|183671538|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|34.3|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||34.3|-21.9|
91889381|NCT04103892|183671601|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM|||||2.09|-4.60|0.46
91889382|NCT04103892|183671602|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-0.65|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.65|-9.91|0.03
91889383|NCT05576662|183671603|OTHER||Pooled treatment coefficient|0.026||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|||||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Nonparametric permutation test||Weighted average of treatment coefficients. A pooled treatment coefficient \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a pooled treatment coefficient \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|A proportional odds logistic regression model was fit for severity of each core symptom at week 10, adjusting for baseline severity of the corresponding symptom and fit using only those who experienced the symptom at baseline. A test statistic for overall efficacy was calculated as the weighted average of the treatment coefficient in the proportional odds model for each symptom with inverse variance weighting. The p-value was obtained by a nonparametric permutation test.||||0.903
91808222|NCT04180488|183493563|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.848||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.301|6.234||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||6.234|1.301|0.0075
91808223|NCT04180488|183493563|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.137||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.371|7.176||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||7.176|1.371|0.0045
91808224|NCT04180488|183493564|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.908||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.173|7.209||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||7.209|1.173|0.0199
91808225|NCT04180488|183493564|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.677||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.127|6.359||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||6.359|1.127|0.0187
91808226|NCT04180488|183493565|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|0.93||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.34||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||2.34|-0.48|0.1940
91808227|NCT04180488|183493566|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.37||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.13||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.13|-4.60|0.0377
91808228|NCT04180488|183493567|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-5.02||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|-0.72||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.72|-9.32|0.0223
91808229|NCT04180488|183493568|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.645||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|6.061||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||6.061|1.154|0.0215
91808230|NCT04180488|183493569|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.872||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|3.923||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||3.923|0.893|0.0971
91808231|NCT03562481|183493611|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance for a 2x2 crossover study implemented using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1, accounting of sequence and period effects.|F statistic|0.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Analysis of variance for a 2x2 crossover study implemented using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1, accounting of sequence and period effects.||||||0.38
91889384|NCT05576662|183671604|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.94||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of fatigue score at day 15||2.94|0.82|0.174
91889385|NCT05576662|183671604|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.25||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of brain fog score at day 15||2.25|0.65|0.548
91889386|NCT05576662|183671604|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.16||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of dyspnea score at day 15||1.16|0.33|0.134
91889387|NCT05576662|183671604|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.69||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of body aches score at day 15||2.69|0.78|0.241
91762407|NCT00620113|183416196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.98||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.98|2.14|<0.001
91762408|NCT00620113|183416196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.12||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.12|1.29|<0.001
91762409|NCT00620113|183416196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.57||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||2.57|0.77|<0.001
91762410|NCT00620113|183416199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.31||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||4.31|1.85|<0.001
91762411|NCT00620113|183416199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.86||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.08||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.08|0.64|0.003
91911673|NCT01978093|183720054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.24|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.24|0.83|
91911674|NCT01978093|183720054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|1.31|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.31|0.92|
91911675|NCT01978093|183720054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.28|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.28|0.87|
91911676|NCT01978093|183720054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.01|1.44|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.44|1.01|
91911677|NCT01978093|183720054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.36|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.36|0.94|
91762412|NCT00620113|183416199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.43||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.43|1.03|<0.001
91762413|NCT00620113|183416200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|6.14||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||6.14|3.18|<0.001
91762414|NCT00620113|183416200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.3||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||5.30|2.37|<0.001
91762415|NCT00620113|183416200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.43||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.88||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.88|0.99|0.002
91762416|NCT00620113|183416201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-50.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.43|-34.84||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-34.84|-66.43|<0.001
91762417|NCT00620113|183416201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-44.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.42|-28.21||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-28.21|-60.42|<0.001
91762418|NCT00620113|183416201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-35.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.33|-19.16||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-19.16|-52.33|<0.001
91762419|NCT00620113|183416202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-60.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.7|-35.13||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-35.13|-85.70|<0.001
91808232|NCT03562481|183493612|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as a non-statistically significant difference.|F statistic|1.21||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for 2x2 crossover study using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1 and accounting for sequence and period effects.||||0.28
91762420|NCT00620113|183416202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-60.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.91|-35.49||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-35.49|-85.91|<0.001
91808233|NCT03562481|183493613|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on statistical significance in the cross-over ANOVA.|F statistic|11.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||This is adjusted for period and sequence effects and is statistically significant at the p\<0.05 level.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for 2x2 crossover study using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1 adjusting for perio and sequence effects.||||0.003
91762421|NCT00620113|183416202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-38.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.94|-11.52||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-11.52|-65.94|<0.001
91762422|NCT00620113|183416203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-42.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.55|-20.27||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-20.27|-65.55|<0.001
91762423|NCT00620113|183416203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-37.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.32|-14.59||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-14.59|-60.32|0.001
91762424|NCT00620113|183416203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-26.77||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.37|-3.16||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-3.16|-50.37|0.017
91762425|NCT00620113|183416204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-15.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.11|-5.93||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-5.93|-25.11|<0.001
91762426|NCT00620113|183416204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-12.55||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.16|-2.94||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-2.94|-22.16|0.009
91762427|NCT00620113|183416204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.48||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|12.74||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||12.74|-7.79|0.598
91762428|NCT00620113|183416205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-26.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-10.42||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-10.42|-43.30|<0.001
91762429|NCT00620113|183416205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-28.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.97|-12.75||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-12.75|-44.97|<0.001
91762430|NCT00620113|183416205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-5.61||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|12.56||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||12.56|-23.79|0.458
91762431|NCT04072887|183416215|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235||0.628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.027|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.050|-0.027|0.628
91762432|NCT04072887|183416215|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0144||0.425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.035|||ANCOVA|||||0.035|-0.012|0.425
91808234|NCT03562481|183493614|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined based on the statistical significance of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Z score|-0.996||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sign test|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.33
91808235|NCT03562481|183493615|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined based on the statistical significance of the chi square test.|Chi-square test|0.81||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
91911678|NCT01978093|183720054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.29|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.29|0.93|
91911679|NCT01978093|183720054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.33|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.33|0.94|
91911680|NCT01978093|183720054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.96|1.41|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.41|0.96|
91911681|NCT01978093|183720054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.35|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.35|0.97|
91911682|NCT01978093|183720054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.31|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.31|0.90|
91911683|NCT01978093|183720054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB Group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.34|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.34|0.95|
91911684|NCT01978093|183720054|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.50|1.00|
91911685|NCT03124784|183720071|EQUIVALENCE|ARMS\<= 3 %SpO2 Error per International Organization For Standardization (ISO) -80601-2-61 Pilot study Monte Carlo simulation provided 80% Power with 25 subjects for an expected ARMS\< 3 % SpO2.|ARMS|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Accuracy Root Mean Square (ARMS)|Per ISO-80601-2-61, the Root Mean Square difference (SpO2-SaO2) is the measure of merit for desaturation studies.|||
91808236|NCT03562481|183493616|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on statistical significance in the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|0.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Stuart-Maxwell test of marginal homogeneity implemented with the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1||||0.65
91808237|NCT03562481|183493617|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on significance in the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|0.14||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Test of symmetry or marginal homogeneity (Stuart-Maxwell) implemented with the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1.||||0.71
91808238|NCT03562481|183493618|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on statistical significance in the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|1.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Test of symmetry (marginal homogeneity, Stuart-Maxwell) implemented using the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1.||||0.32
91762433|NCT04072887|183416215|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0174||0.463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.016|0.041|||ANCOVA|||||0.041|-0.016|0.463
91762434|NCT04072887|183416215|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0173||0.244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|-0.008|0.244
91762435|NCT04072887|183416215|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176||0.793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.024|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.024|0.793
91762436|NCT01153724|183416244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|113.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.893|121.197||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol||121.197|105.893|0.0101
91762437|NCT01153724|183416245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|108.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.59|116.487||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||116.487|101.590|0.0009
91762438|NCT01153724|183416245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean|85.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.277|93.253||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||93.253|79.277|0.0711
91762439|NCT01153724|183416248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|114.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.5||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.94|131.932||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||131.932|99.940|0.1539
91762440|NCT01153724|183416248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|74.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.068||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.619|83.266||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||83.266|66.619|0.8574
91762441|NCT01153724|183416249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|74.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.6||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.105|79.418||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol||79.418|69.105|0.9646
91762442|NCT01979133|183416252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.012
91762443|NCT01979133|183416253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.005
91762444|NCT01979133|183416254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.017
91762445|NCT01979133|183416255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.038
91762446|NCT01979133|183416256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.034
91762447|NCT01979133|183416257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.231
91762448|NCT01979133|183416258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.066
91762449|NCT00486824|183416259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91762450|NCT04371666|183416286|OTHER||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5494||0.8802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.176||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Random coefficient model|||||1.176|-1.010|0.8802
91762451|NCT00445770|183416291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline+treatment +pooled study center+prior methotrexate use. If overall treatment effect statistically significant, 3 pairwise comparisons conducted, otherwise no further testing was made.|ANCOVA|||It was estimated that with 180 participants per group, there would be 81% power for the overall test. With this sample size and 0.05 (2-sided) type I error, there was 88% power to detect a 1.33 difference for the change of mTSS from baseline to 52 weeks between the etanercept 25 mg twice weekly group and Methotrexate group, assuming that the common standard deviation of the change of mTSS from baseline was 4.||||<0.0001
91762452|NCT00445770|183416291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91762453|NCT00445770|183416291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An outcome showing that etanercept 10 mg was superior to methotrexate and the presence of numerical difference ≤0.5 mTSS units between etanercept 25 mg and etanercept 10 mg would support non-inferiority for the 2 etanercept treatments.||||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2634
91762454|NCT00445770|183416292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91762455|NCT00445770|183416292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91762456|NCT00445770|183416292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2248
91762457|NCT00445770|183416293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762458|NCT00445770|183416293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762459|NCT00445770|183416293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7260
91911686|NCT05587296|183720075|SUPERIORITY||Diffrence in Least Squares (LS) means|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||<0.0001
91911687|NCT05587296|183720076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
91911688|NCT05587296|183720081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
91911689|NCT05587296|183720082|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Last Squares Means|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
91911690|NCT04735653|183720095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used instead of ANOVA due to the non-normality of the adherence outcomes. We did not block on clinic due to differences in sample characteristics by site.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Medication adherence was compared between groups with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||<0.001
91911691|NCT04735653|183720096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A chi-squared test was used instead of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test due to site differences. Site differences will be incorporated into multivariable models to investigate moderating effects with treatment on the outcome in future analyses.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91911692|NCT04735653|183720097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||||Adjustment for site was not performed. Site differences will be incorporated into multivariable models to investigate moderating effects with treatment on the outcome in future analyses.|||-0.1|-0.5|
91911693|NCT04589988|183720100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.068
91911694|NCT04589988|183720101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.063
91911695|NCT04589988|183720102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.724
91911696|NCT04589988|183720103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.447
91911697|NCT04589988|183720104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, work status, and depression score at baseline.||||0.696
91911698|NCT04589988|183720105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.798
91911699|NCT04589988|183720106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.135
91762460|NCT00445770|183416293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91911700|NCT04589988|183720107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, work status, and depression score at baseline.||||0.291
91762461|NCT00445770|183416293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762462|NCT00445770|183416293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5717|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.5717
91762463|NCT00445770|183416294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91808239|NCT03562481|183493619|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on the statistical significance of the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|1.29||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Test of symmetry (marginal homogeneity, Stuart-Maxwell) implemented using the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1.||||0.26
91889388|NCT05576662|183671604|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.92||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of gastrointestinal symptoms score at day 15||1.92|0.55|0.922
91911701|NCT04589988|183720108|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.83||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.76|||Negative binomial regression||IRR reflects REBIL intervention group versus control group.|Fall rates were compared between REBIL and control groups using negative binomial regression. The model adjusted for age, sex, ace, and depression score at baseline. The null hypothesis was that fall rates do not differ between groups.||1.76|0.40|0.631
91911702|NCT01202656|183720109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.72
91911703|NCT03728309|183720123|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|53.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|63.5||The p-value and 95% CI are computed by pooling 30 imputed data sets using SAS PROC MIANALYZE with normal approximation.|SAS PROC MIANALYZE|||||63.5|43.5|<0.001
91911704|NCT03728309|183720125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|36.0|||2-sample, t-test|||||36.0|21.0|<0.001
91911705|NCT03728309|183720126|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|65.7|||Fisher's Exact Test||Comparison of treatment group versus control group at Month 1, responder rate difference, 95% CI for risk difference and p-value was estimated based on Fisher's exact test using mITT population with baseline AFLS score of 2 or 3 on both cheeks.|||65.7|40.1|<0.001
91911706|NCT03403205|183720127|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.13||Test was performed at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model, which included treatment, cohort, and baseline value. Missing imputation was performed: 1) for intermediate missing, interpolation was used to fill out missing values. 2) For participants who die, baseline dNCC was carried forward from discontinuation to week 48. 3) For others, multiple imputation was used to impute missing dNCC assuming data were missing not at random.||2.13|1.14|< 0.0001
91911707|NCT03403205|183720127|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.94||Test was performed at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model, which included treatment, cohort, and baseline value. Missing imputation was performed: 1) for intermediate missing, interpolation was used to fill out missing values. 2) For participants who die, baseline dNCC was carried forward from discontinuation to week 48. 3) For others, multiple imputation was used to impute missing dNCC assuming data were missing not at random.||4.94|2.65|< 0.0001
91911708|NCT05130463|183720143|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||Comparison of the change in HbA1c from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
91911709|NCT05130463|183720144|OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Comparison of the change in HbA1c from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0014
91911710|NCT05130463|183720149|OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Comparison of the change in FPG from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||FPG at baseline vs FPG after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.0008
91911711|NCT05130463|183720150|OTHER|||||||0.0068||||||Comparison of the change in FPG from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||FPG at baseline vs FPG after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.0068
91911712|NCT05130463|183720151|OTHER|||||||0.1867||||||Comparison of the change in body weight from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level||Body weight at baseline vs Body weight after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.1867
91911713|NCT05130463|183720152|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Comparison of the change in body weight from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||Body weight at baseline vs Body weight after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.0003
91911714|NCT05130463|183720153|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Comparison of the change in SBP from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||SBP at baseline vs SBP after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.0020
91911715|NCT05130463|183720153|OTHER|||||||0.0132||||||Comparison of the change in DBP from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||DBP at baseline vs DBP after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.0132
91911716|NCT05130463|183720154|OTHER|||||||0.7591||||||Comparison of the change in SBP from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||SBP at baseline vs SBP after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.7591
91762464|NCT00445770|183416294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0013
91762465|NCT00445770|183416294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0186
91762466|NCT00445770|183416294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762467|NCT00445770|183416294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0006
91762468|NCT00445770|183416294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1123
91808240|NCT00856284|183493622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||0.059||||||The null hypotheses were tested in a fixed order at the 1-sided 0.0125 significance level at Weeks 52 and 104, independently: H01: Alogliptin 25 mg was inferior in HbA1c change from Baseline vs glipizide. H02: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was inferior vs glipizide. H03: Alogliptin 25 mg was not superior vs glipizide. H04: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was not superior vs glipizide. Each subsequent null hypothesis was tested only if all previously tested null hypotheses were rejected with respect to Weeks 52 and 104.||0.059||
91762469|NCT00445770|183416295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=0.5||||<0.0001
91808241|NCT00856284|183493622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||0.003||||||||0.003||
91808242|NCT00856284|183493628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.13|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||-0.006||||||The null hypotheses were tested in a fixed order at the 1-sided 0.0125 significance level at Weeks 52 and 104, independently: H01: Alogliptin 25 mg was inferior in HbA1c change from Baseline vs glipizide. H02: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was inferior vs glipizide. H03: Alogliptin 25 mg was not superior vs glipizide. H04: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was not superior vs glipizide. Each subsequent null hypothesis was tested only if all previously tested null hypotheses were rejected with respect to Weeks 52 and 104.||-0.006||
91808243|NCT00856284|183493628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||0.035||||||||0.035||
91808244|NCT01577329|183493656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||This is a calculated P value and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||This is a calculated P value comparing two groups at baseline and follow-up||||0.05
91808245|NCT01059825|183493664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.25||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.25|-0.65|0.002
91808246|NCT01059825|183493664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.69||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.89|-0.49||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.49|-0.89|0.000
91808247|NCT01059825|183493664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|-0.42||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.42|-0.82|0.000
91808248|NCT01059825|183493664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.72||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.93|-0.52||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.52|-0.93|0.000
91808249|NCT01059825|183493664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.97|-0.56||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.56|-0.97|0.000
91762470|NCT00445770|183416295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=0.5||||0.0002
91762471|NCT00445770|183416295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=0.5||||0.3022
91762472|NCT00445770|183416295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=3.0||||0.0001
91762473|NCT00445770|183416295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=3.0||||0.0002
91762474|NCT00445770|183416295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=3.0||||0.3120
91762475|NCT00445770|183416295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=SDD||||0.0010
91762476|NCT00445770|183416295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=SDD||||0.0285
91762477|NCT00445770|183416295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=SDD||||0.0433
91762478|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0032
91762479|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762480|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1224
91762481|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762482|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762483|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8037|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.8037
91762484|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91911717|NCT05130463|183720154|OTHER|||||||0.5161||||||Comparison of the change in DBP from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||DBP at baseline vs DBP after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.5161
91762485|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762486|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.5495
91762487|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762488|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762489|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4948
91762490|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762491|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762492|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.4663
91762493|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762494|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762495|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9357|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.9357
91762496|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762497|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762498|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7439|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7439
91762499|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762500|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762501|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.8611
91762502|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762503|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762504|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.6731
91762505|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762506|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762507|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.2616
91762508|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91808250|NCT01059825|183493665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.13||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|-0.03||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.03|-0.24|0.049
91808251|NCT01059825|183493665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.29||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|-0.18||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.18|-0.39|0.000
91808252|NCT01059825|183493665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.22||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.32|-0.11||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.11|-0.32|0.004
91808253|NCT01059825|183493665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|-0.06||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.06|-0.27|0.020
91808254|NCT01059825|183493665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.36|-0.15||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.15|-0.36|0.001
91808255|NCT01059825|183493666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|-0.23||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.23|-0.50|0.000
91808256|NCT01059825|183493666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.59|-0.32||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.32|-0.59|0.000
91808257|NCT01059825|183493666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.44||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|-0.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-0.57|0.000
91808258|NCT01059825|183493666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.36||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|-0.22||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.22|-0.49|0.000
91808259|NCT01059825|183493666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.44||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|-0.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-0.57|0.000
91808260|NCT01059825|183493667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.47||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.64|-0.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-0.64|0.000
91808261|NCT01059825|183493667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.66||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.83|-0.49||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.49|-0.83|0.000
91808262|NCT01059825|183493667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.63||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8|-0.45||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.45|-0.80|0.000
91808263|NCT01059825|183493667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.65||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|-0.47||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.47|-0.82|0.000
91808264|NCT01059825|183493667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.84|-0.5||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.50|-0.84|0.000
91808265|NCT01059825|183493669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.15||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.75|-0.55||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.55|-1.75|0.007
91808266|NCT01059825|183493669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.75||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.35|-1.14||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.14|-2.35|0.000
91808267|NCT01059825|183493669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.76|-1.54||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.54|-2.76|0.000
91808268|NCT01059825|183493669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.52|-1.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.30|-2.52|0.000
91762509|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0001
91762510|NCT00445770|183416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1158
91762511|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762512|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762513|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.4237
91762514|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762515|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0002
91762516|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5738|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.5738
91762517|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762518|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762519|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.1606
91762520|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91808269|NCT01059825|183493669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.45||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|1.06||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.06|-0.15|0.833
91911718|NCT00487539|183720167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91762521|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0016
91762522|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2412
91762523|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762524|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762525|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.5882
91762526|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762527|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0001
91762528|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.2257
91762529|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762530|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0003
91762531|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2075
91762532|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762533|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0050
91762534|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0461
91762535|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0002
91762536|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0101
91762537|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.2351
91762538|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0002
91762539|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.1179
91762540|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0214
91762541|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91808270|NCT01059825|183493670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.42||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|-0.11||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.11|-0.73|0.043
91911719|NCT00487539|183720167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91911720|NCT00487539|183720168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91808271|NCT01059825|183493670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.13||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|-0.81||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.81|-1.44|0.000
91762542|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0790
91808272|NCT01059825|183493670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.22|-0.59||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.59|-1.22|0.000
91808273|NCT01059825|183493670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.87||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.18|-0.55||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.55|-1.18|0.000
91911721|NCT00487539|183720168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91762543|NCT00445770|183416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0168
91762544|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762545|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762546|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6337
91762547|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762548|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762549|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.7407
91762550|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762551|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762552|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.3473
91762553|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762554|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762555|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7529
91762556|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762557|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762558|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.5216
91762559|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762560|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762561|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.1078
91762562|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762563|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762564|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1280
91762565|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762566|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762567|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0291
91762568|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762569|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762570|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0729
91762571|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762572|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762573|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0271
91762574|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762575|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762576|NCT00445770|183416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0453
91762577|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762578|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762579|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.7488
91762580|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91808274|NCT01059825|183493670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.45||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|0.76||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.76|0.14|0.967
91762581|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762582|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.5680
91762583|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762584|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762585|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.9241
91762586|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762587|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762588|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7146
91762589|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762590|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0001
91762591|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.6574
91762592|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762593|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0004
91762594|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2936|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.2936
91762595|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762596|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0005
91762597|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2179
91762598|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762599|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762600|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3704|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.3704
91762601|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762602|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762603|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.8047
91762604|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762605|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762606|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.5277
91762607|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762608|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762609|NCT00445770|183416299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.9371
91762610|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0027
91762611|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0015
91762612|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.8875
91762613|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0015
91762614|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0011
91762615|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.9694
91762616|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.0020
91762617|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.0005
91762618|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.7271
91762619|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0235
91762620|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0061
91762621|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6427
91762622|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0036
91762623|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0029
91762624|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.9713
91762625|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0060
91762626|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0060
91762627|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.9762
91762628|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0554
91762629|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0181
91762630|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.6642
91762631|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0073
91762632|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0290
91762633|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5919|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.5919
91762634|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0371
91762635|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0346
91762636|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9955|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.9955
91762637|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0187
91911722|NCT00487539|183720169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0014
91762638|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0645
91762639|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.5920
91762640|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0095
91762641|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.2112
91762642|NCT00445770|183416300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1649
91762643|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762644|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762645|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.8972
91762646|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762647|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91808275|NCT01059825|183493671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.17|-0.36||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.36|-1.17|0.008
91762648|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3736|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.3736
91762649|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762650|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762651|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.9324
91762652|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762653|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762654|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8982|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8982
91762655|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762656|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0007
91762657|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.3180
91762658|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762659|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0011
91762660|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.3302
91762661|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762662|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0002
91762663|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6563|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.6563
91762664|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762665|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762666|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.8894
91762667|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762668|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762669|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7826|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.7826
91762670|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91889389|NCT05576662|183671604|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.94||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of cardiovascular symptoms score at day 15||0.94|0.26|0.032
91889390|NCT05576662|183671605|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.09||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||1.09|0.27|0.09
91889391|NCT05576662|183671606|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.44||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||2.44|0.21|.60
91889392|NCT05576662|183671607|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.15||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of severity at week 5||3.15|0.83|0.156
91889393|NCT05576662|183671607|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.72||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of severity at week 10||3.72|1.06|0.03
91889394|NCT05576662|183671607|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.6||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of severity at week 15||4.60|1.27|0.01
91889395|NCT05576662|183671608|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.77||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - fatigue"||1.77|0.45|0.744
91889396|NCT05576662|183671608|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.37||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - brain fog"||1.37|0.32|0.259
91889397|NCT05576662|183671608|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.99||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - body aches"||3.99|0.65|0.286
91889398|NCT05576662|183671608|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.24||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - cardiovascular symptoms"||2.24|0.38|0.846
91889399|NCT05576662|183671608|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.73||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.||"Analysis of data for Time to relief - shortness of breath"||4.73|0.51|0.410
91889400|NCT05576662|183671608|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.11||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - gastrointestinal symptoms"||2.11|0.42|0.880
91889401|NCT05576662|183671609|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.38||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||1.38|0.40|0.33
91889402|NCT05576662|183671610|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|3.1||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||3.10|-1.96|.66
91889403|NCT05576662|183671611|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.15||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||3.15|-2.40|0.79
91889404|NCT05576662|183671612|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|3.75||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||3.75|-2.55|.70
91889405|NCT05576662|183671613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.28||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||3.28|-3.21|.98
91889406|NCT05576662|183671614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|7.53||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of data for change of systolic blood pressure||7.53|-4.06|0.555
91762671|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0003
91762672|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5343|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.5343
91762673|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762674|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762675|NCT00445770|183416301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.9313
91762676|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762677|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762678|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8044|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.8044
91762679|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762680|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0003
91889407|NCT05576662|183671614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|3.79||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of data for change of diastolic blood pressure||3.79|-5.15|0.764
91762681|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4652|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.4652
91762682|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762683|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762684|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.5612
91762685|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0002
91762686|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0002
91762687|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9749
91762688|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0001
91762689|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0004
91762690|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.7290
91762691|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762692|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0003
91762693|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.5004
91762694|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762695|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762696|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5727|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.5727
91762697|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762698|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762699|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6713|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.6713
91762700|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762701|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0001
91762702|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.7663
91762703|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762704|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0002
91762705|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.7073
91762706|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762707|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0001
91762708|NCT00445770|183416302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.7973
91762709|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762710|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762711|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||0.1053
91762712|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
91911723|NCT00487539|183720169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91911724|NCT00487539|183720170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||<0.0001
91911725|NCT00487539|183720170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||<0.0001
91762713|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762714|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.0144
91762715|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762716|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762717|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1851|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.1851
91762718|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762719|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.0001
91762720|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.2883
91762721|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762722|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.0007
91762723|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.2221
91762724|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762725|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0147
91762726|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0201
91762727|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762728|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0036
91762729|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0789
91762730|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762731|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0008
91762732|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1903|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.1903
91762733|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762734|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.0048
91762735|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.1059
91762736|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762737|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0018
91762738|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.2589
91762739|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762740|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0040
91762741|NCT00445770|183416303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.2326
91762742|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762743|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762744|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4751|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.4751
91762745|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762746|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762747|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4653|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.4653
91762748|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762749|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762750|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7953|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.7953
91762751|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762752|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762753|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0848
91762754|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762755|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762756|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6112|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.6112
91762757|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762758|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0002
91762759|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3671|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.3671
91762760|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762761|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762762|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7618|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.7618
91762763|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762764|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762765|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.4358
91762766|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.0008
91762767|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762768|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6267|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.6267
91762769|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762770|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.0004
91762771|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3564|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.3564
91762772|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.0007
91762773|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.0035
91762774|NCT00445770|183416304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4749|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.4749
91762775|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762776|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.0001
91762777|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4376|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.4376
91762778|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762779|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762780|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3947|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.3947
91762781|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762782|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762783|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7378|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.7378
91762784|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0001
91762785|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762786|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.5680
91762787|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.0003
91762788|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762789|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3978|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.3978
91762790|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762791|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0001
91762792|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7229|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.7229
91762793|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762794|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762795|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7236|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.7236
91762796|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762797|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762798|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.9719
91762799|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762800|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762801|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9349|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.9349
91762802|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762803|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.0002
91762804|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7226|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.7226
91762805|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762806|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762807|NCT00445770|183416305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.5512
91762808|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.0162
91762809|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.0035
91762810|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8928|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.8928
91808276|NCT01059825|183493671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.32||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.73|-0.91||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.91|-1.73|0.000
91889408|NCT05576662|183671615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|5.12||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||5.12|-6.15|0.856
91889409|NCT05576662|183671616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|3.42||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||3.42|-4.24|0.833
91889410|NCT05576662|183671617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.7||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of day 15 data||0.70|-0.06|0.096
91889411|NCT05576662|183671617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.64||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 5 data||0.64|-0.20|0.293
91889412|NCT05576662|183671617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.62||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 10 data||0.62|-0.25|0.396
91889413|NCT05576662|183671617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.77||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 15 data||0.77|-0.02|0.064
91889414|NCT05576662|183671618|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.67||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of day 15 data||0.67|-0.30|0.444
91889415|NCT05576662|183671618|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.28||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 5 data||0.28|-0.78|0.346
91889416|NCT05576662|183671618|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.67||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 10 data||0.67|-0.48|0.738
91889417|NCT05576662|183671618|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.76||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 15 data||0.76|-0.43|0.578
91889418|NCT05576662|183671619|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.03||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 5 data||1.03|-1.41|0.758
91889419|NCT05576662|183671619|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.97||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 10 data||0.97|-1.46|0.693
91889420|NCT05576662|183671619|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.61||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 15 data||1.61|-0.87|0.558
91889421|NCT05576662|183671620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.92||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of fatigue data||0.92|0.33|0.02
91889422|NCT05576662|183671620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.82||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of brain fog data||0.82|0.31|0.01
91889423|NCT05576662|183671620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.33||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of body aches data||2.33|0.74|0.34
91911726|NCT01844895|183720193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||A mixed-effect model of log (Cminss) with device and substudy baseline weight category (\< 60 kg,60-100 kg, \> 100 kg) as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used. Point estimates and 90% CIs for device differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale. No adjustment was made for multiplicity. PK comparability was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means were contained within 80% to 125%.||1.00|0.83|
91911727|NCT01318109|183720199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.751|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.923|-0.579||||||||-0.579|-0.923|
91911728|NCT01318109|183720199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.019|-0.697||||||||-0.697|-1.019|
91911729|NCT01318109|183720200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|-0.135||||||||-0.135|-0.247|
91911730|NCT01318109|183720200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|-0.143||||||||-0.143|-0.242|
91911731|NCT01318109|183720201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.386|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|-0.303||||||||-0.303|-0.469|
91911732|NCT01318109|183720201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.484|-0.323||||||||-0.323|-0.484|
91911733|NCT01318109|183720202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.621|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|-0.486||||||||-0.486|-0.757|
91911734|NCT01318109|183720202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.814|-0.569||||||||-0.569|-0.814|
91911735|NCT01318109|183720203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|-12.4||||||||-12.40|-26.12|
91762811|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.0009
91911736|NCT01318109|183720203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.43|-16.12||||||||-16.12|-30.43|
91911737|NCT01318109|183720204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.54|-10.66||||||||-10.66|-24.54|
91911738|NCT01318109|183720204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.32|-14.39||||||||-14.39|-28.32|
91911739|NCT01318109|183720205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.95|-11.79||||||||-11.79|-25.95|
91911740|NCT01318109|183720205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.43|-10.9||||||||-10.90|-25.43|
91762812|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.0007
91762813|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.6348
91762814|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.0026
91762815|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762816|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4629|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.4629
91911741|NCT01318109|183720206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.32|-10.16||||||||-10.16|-26.32|
91911742|NCT01318109|183720206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.87|-13.88||||||||-13.88|-30.87|
91911743|NCT01318109|183720207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.14|2.37||||||||2.37|-20.14|
91911744|NCT01318109|183720207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.34|3.52||||||||3.52|-16.34|
91911745|NCT06485479|183720208|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91911746|NCT06485479|183720208|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91911747|NCT06485479|183720208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
91911748|NCT06485479|183720209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91911749|NCT06485479|183720209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91762817|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0841
91762818|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0007
91911750|NCT06485479|183720209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.35
91911751|NCT06485479|183720210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91911752|NCT06485479|183720210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91911753|NCT06485479|183720210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.62
91911754|NCT06485479|183720211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
91911755|NCT06485479|183720211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.17
91911756|NCT06485479|183720211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.33
91911757|NCT06485479|183720212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91911758|NCT06485479|183720212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91911759|NCT06485479|183720212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.38
91911760|NCT06485479|183720213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.6
91911761|NCT06485479|183720213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.65
91911762|NCT06485479|183720213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.4
91911763|NCT06142643|183720214|OTHER|"A responder was defined by subjects with a score 1 (very much improved), 2 (much improved) or 3 (improved) on the GAIS.~Inferential analysis for the primary evaluation criterion For the derived outcome responder rate at M1 (1 month after injection) for the GAIS Investigator, a binomial exact test (bilateral approach) vs 60% was applied for the overall score. This test compared the proportion of improvement to 60%."|||||<|0.0001||||||Power of 80%, significant result (alpha = 5%).|t-test, 2 sided|Null hypothesis stated that less than 60% of subjects were responders with GAIS. Under the alternative hypothesis, 75% of subjects were responders.||||||<0.0001
91911764|NCT06142643|183720215|OTHER|"A responder was defined by subjects with a score 1 (very much improved), 2 (much improved) or 3 (improved) on the GAIS.~Inferential analysis for the primary evaluation criterion For the derived outcome responder rate at M1 (1 month after injection) for the GAIS Investigator, a binomial exact test (bilateral approach) vs 60% was applied for the overall score. This test compared the proportion of improvement to 60%."|||||<|0.0001||||||Power of 80%, significant result (alpha = 5%).|t-test, 2 sided|Null hypothesis stated that less than 60% of subjects were responders with GAIS. Under the alternative hypothesis, 75% of subjects were responders.||||||<0.0001
91911765|NCT04982250|183720223|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|11.0|||||Risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using regression models with Gaussian distributions, identify links, study group fixed effects, and index peer random effects (to adjust for clustering).|The sample size calculation was based on the primary PrEP initiation outcome at follow-up; 80 clusters (40 per study group) provided 80% power to detect a 17% difference in PrEP initiation between the enhanced (80%) and standard (63%) groups, assuming three referred peers per cluster (75% of those recommended), an intra-cluster correlation coefficient of 0.05, and an alpha level of 0.05.||11|-26|
91911766|NCT04982250|183720228|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|54.0||||||||54|24|
91911767|NCT04982250|183720229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.0||||||||13|-10|
91911768|NCT04982250|183720230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|2.0||||||||2|-40|
91911769|NCT04982250|183720231|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|2.5||||||||2.5|-36.3|
91762819|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.1957
91911770|NCT04982250|183720232|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||||||||1.1|-0.2|
91911771|NCT04685876|183720239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.355
91911772|NCT04685876|183720239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.578
91911773|NCT04685876|183720241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.248
91911774|NCT04685876|183720241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.297
91762820|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.0093
91911775|NCT04685876|183720242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.748
91911776|NCT04685876|183720242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.395
91762821|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.0326
91762822|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7426|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.7426
91762823|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0013
91762824|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0015
91762825|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.6552
91762826|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.0005
91911777|NCT04685876|183720243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.152
91911778|NCT04685876|183720243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.482
91911779|NCT04401267|183720322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7139|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7139
91911780|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|99.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.05|149.43||||||Buprenorphine||149.43|66.05|
91911781|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|163.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.82|242.34||||||Buprenorphine||242.34|110.82|
91911782|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|281.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.1|423.33||||||Buprenorphine||423.33|187.10|
91911783|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|78.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.14|117.98||||||Buprenorphine||117.98|52.14|
91911784|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|126.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.87|195.97||||||Buprenorphine||195.97|81.87|
91911785|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|208.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.21|318.18||||||Buprenorphine||318.18|137.21|
91911786|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|358.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|231.92|555.17||||||Buprenorphine||555.17|231.92|
91911787|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|78.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.03|138.49||||||Norbuprenorphine||138.49|44.03|
91911788|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|74.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.26|142.41||||||Norbuprenorphine||142.41|39.26|
91911789|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|11.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.35|20.66||||||Norbuprenorphine||20.66|6.35|
91911790|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|71.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.0|129.49||||||Norbuprenorphine||129.49|39.00|
91911791|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|109.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.14|207.75||||||Norbuprenorphine||207.75|58.14|
91911792|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|105.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.17|212.24||||||Norbuprenorphine||212.24|52.17|
91911793|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|16.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|30.94||||||Norbuprenorphine||30.94|8.40|
91911794|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|79.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.03|157.12||||||Naloxone||157.12|40.03|
91911795|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|317.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.93|611.54||||||Naloxone||611.54|164.93|
91911796|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1401.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|707.55|2777.46||||||Naloxone||2777.46|707.55|
91911797|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|105.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.39|209.59||||||Naloxone||209.59|53.39|
91911798|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|74.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.09|155.71||||||Naloxone||155.71|36.09|
91911799|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|300.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.44|607.21||||||Naloxone||607.21|148.44|
91911800|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1325.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|638.03|2752.55||||||Naloxone||2752.55|638.03|
91911801|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|85.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.06|111.61||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||111.61|66.06|
91911802|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|123.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.27|159.13||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||159.13|96.27|
91911803|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|91.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.21|118.62||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||118.62|70.21|
91911804|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|84.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.23|110.2||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||110.20|65.23|
91911805|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|101.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.52|134.06||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||134.06|76.52|
91808277|NCT01059825|183493671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.24||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.65|-0.83||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.83|-1.65|0.000
91911806|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|145.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.43|191.26||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||191.26|111.43|
91911807|NCT01846455|183720336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|107.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.33|142.47||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||142.47|81.33|
91762827|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.0004
91762828|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6294|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.6294
91911808|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|120.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.35|172.82||||||Buprenorphine||172.82|83.35|
91911809|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|107.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.85|153.36||||||Buprenorphine||153.36|75.85|
91911810|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|171.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.93|250.15||||||Buprenorphine||250.15|117.93|
91911811|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|112.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.66|163.91||||||Buprenorphine||163.91|77.66|
91911812|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|106.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.43|158.43||||||Buprenorphine||158.43|71.43|
91911813|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|95.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.36|141.99||||||Buprenorphine||141.99|64.36|
91911814|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|152.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.08|224.83||||||Buprenorphine||224.83|103.08|
91911815|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|135.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.44|242.16||||||Norbuprenorphine||242.16|75.44|
91911816|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|67.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.82|118.68||||||Norbuprenorphine||118.68|38.82|
91911817|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|48.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.01|86.69||||||Norbuprenorphine||86.69|27.01|
91762829|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762830|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.0001
91911818|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|76.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.75|137.22||||||Norbuprenorphine||137.22|42.75|
91911819|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|176.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.62|329.17||||||Norbuprenorphine||329.17|94.62|
91911820|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|88.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.6|161.59||||||Norbuprenorphine||161.59|48.60|
91911821|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|63.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.87|117.83||||||Norbuprenorphine||117.83|33.87|
91911822|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|100.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.3|196.53||||||Naloxone||196.53|51.30|
91911823|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|270.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.86|513.9||||||Naloxone||513.90|141.86|
91911824|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1129.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|577.22|2211.44||||||Naloxone||2211.44|577.22|
91911825|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|126.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.5|247.11||||||Naloxone||247.11|64.50|
91911826|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|79.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.79|163.06||||||Naloxone||163.06|38.79|
91911827|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|213.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.07|427.17||||||Naloxone||427.17|107.07|
91911828|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|894.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|436.49|1834.8||||||Naloxone||1834.80|436.49|
91911829|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|111.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.94|143.44||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||143.44|85.94|
91911830|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|111.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.02|142.16||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||142.16|87.02|
91911831|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|83.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.32|107.35||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||107.35|64.32|
91911832|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|83.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.75|108.08||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||108.08|64.75|
91911833|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|132.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.93|174.53||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||174.53|100.93|
91911834|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|132.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.12|173.1||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||173.10|102.12|
91911835|NCT01846455|183720337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|99.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.54|130.61||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||130.61|75.54|
91911836|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|125.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.46|197.24||||||Buprenorphine||197.24|79.46|
91911837|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|220.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.33|360.81||||||Buprenorphine||360.81|135.33|
91911838|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|249.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.19|383.14||||||Buprenorphine||383.14|162.19|
91808278|NCT01059825|183493671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.49|-0.67||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward..||||-0.67|-1.49|0.000
91808279|NCT01059825|183493671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.04|0.86||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.86|0.04|0.922
91911839|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|94.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.44|158.02||||||Buprenorphine||158.02|56.44|
91911840|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|132.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.86|222.84||||||Buprenorphine||222.84|78.86|
91911841|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|233.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.63|403.68||||||Buprenorphine||403.68|135.63|
91911842|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|263.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.52|448.03||||||Buprenorphine||448.03|155.52|
91911843|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|159.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.21|324.79||||||Norbuprenorphine||324.79|78.21|
91911844|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|106.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.47|217.91||||||Norbuprenorphine||217.91|52.47|
91911845|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.74|177.5||||||Norbuprenorphine||177.50|42.74|
91911846|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|182.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.79|372.89||||||Norbuprenorphine||372.89|89.79|
91911847|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|122.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.24|250.19||||||Norbuprenorphine||250.19|60.24|
91911848|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|69.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.45|142.82||||||Naloxone||142.82|33.45|
91911849|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|282.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.59|562.3||||||Naloxone||562.30|141.59|
91911850|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1497.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|724.85|3094.59||||||Naloxone||3094.59|724.85|
91911851|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|87.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.3|190.59||||||Naloxone||190.59|40.30|
91911852|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|78.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.34|181.12||||||Naloxone||181.12|34.34|
91911853|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|321.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.65|716.52||||||Naloxone||716.52|144.65|
91911854|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1708.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|744.08|3924.47||||||Naloxone||3924.47|744.08|
91911855|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.92|116.38||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||116.38|60.92|
91911856|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|110.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.02|150.17||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||150.17|82.02|
91911857|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|81.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.03|111.92||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||111.92|60.03|
91911858|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|82.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.89|114.42||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||114.42|59.89|
91808280|NCT01059825|183493672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.03||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.51|-0.56||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.56|-1.51|0.003
91911859|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|101.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.96|138.0||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||138.00|74.96|
91911860|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|134.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.07|177.82||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||177.82|101.07|
91911861|NCT01846455|183720338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.93|132.61||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||132.61|73.93|
91911862|NCT02066792|183720346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21||two-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||At 3 month follow-up||-.21|-.81|<.001
91911863|NCT02066792|183720346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23||Two-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||3 month follow-up||.23|-.37|.635
91911864|NCT02066792|183720346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||||-.18|-.80|.002
91911865|NCT02066792|183720346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||3 month follow-up||-.14|-.73|.004
91911866|NCT02066792|183720346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||3 month follow-up||-.11|-.72|.008
91911867|NCT01449708|183720347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.27||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.61|||Chi-squared|||||1.61|1.01|0.04
91911868|NCT01449708|183720349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|7.29|||Chi-squared|||Grouping of surgical procedures into three categories, analysis using bonferroni correction, 1) ReY group( gastric bypass, conversion to gastric bypass and revision gastric bypass) 2) Gastric Band (GB), 3) sleeve gastrectomy (SG)||7.29|1.28|0.009
91911869|NCT02889796|183720350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|32.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||32.8|20.6|<0.001
91911870|NCT02889796|183720350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|26.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||26.2|13.6|<0.001
91911871|NCT02889796|183720351|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.22||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.22|-0.36|<0.001
91911872|NCT02889796|183720351|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.10|-0.24|<0.001
91911873|NCT02889796|183720352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|30.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||30.0|19.6|<0.001
91911874|NCT02889796|183720352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|19.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||19.3|9.7|<0.001
91911875|NCT02889796|183720352|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 using non-responder imputation (NRI).|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||||<0.001
91911876|NCT02889796|183720352|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 using NRI.||||||0.002||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||||0.002
91911877|NCT02889796|183720352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|17.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||17.0|3.9|0.001
91911878|NCT02889796|183720352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||6.3|-6.2|0.99
91911879|NCT02889796|183720353|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
91911880|NCT02889796|183720353|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.10|-0.40|0.001
91911881|NCT02889796|183720354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|32.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||32.4|20.2|<0.001
91911882|NCT02889796|183720354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||21.4|9.4|<0.001
91911883|NCT02889796|183720354|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 using NRI.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||||<0.001
91911884|NCT02889796|183720354|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 using NRI.||||||0.054||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||||0.054
91911885|NCT02889796|183720354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|13.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||13.6|-1.0|0.069
91911886|NCT02889796|183720354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-4.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|2.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||2.6|-11.8|0.18
91911887|NCT02889796|183720355|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.6|2.8|<0.001
91762831|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4652|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.4652
91762832|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762833|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.0002
91762834|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2233|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.2233
91762835|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762836|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.0003
91762837|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.6772
91762838|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762839|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762840|NCT00445770|183416306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.6160
91762841|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762842|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762843|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4929|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||0.4929
91889424|NCT05576662|183671620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.48||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of cardiovascular symptoms data||2.48|0.76|0.29
91762844|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762845|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762846|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9693|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.9693
91762847|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762848|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762849|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.4139
91762850|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762851|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762852|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.8905
91762853|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762854|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762855|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6877|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.6877
91762856|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762857|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762858|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4511|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.4511
91762859|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762860|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762861|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.2786
91762862|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762863|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762864|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.1230
91762865|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762866|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762867|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5061|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.5061
91762868|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762869|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762870|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.1354
91762871|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762872|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762873|NCT00445770|183416307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1734|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.1734
91762874|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762875|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762876|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6417
91762877|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762878|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91889425|NCT05576662|183671620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.38||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of shortness of breath data||2.38|0.73|0.35
91762879|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.4698
91762880|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762881|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762882|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.1214
91762883|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762884|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762885|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4654
91762886|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762887|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762888|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.4006
91762889|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762890|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762891|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1636|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.1636
91762892|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91762893|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
91911888|NCT02889796|183720355|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.0|2.2|<0.001
91911889|NCT02889796|183720356|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.7|<0.001
91911890|NCT02889796|183720356|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.7|1.5|<0.001
91911891|NCT02889796|183720357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||10.9|5.1|<0.001
91911892|NCT02889796|183720357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||7.3|2.3|<0.001
91911893|NCT02889796|183720357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|20.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||20.9|11.9|<0.001
91911894|NCT02889796|183720357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|10.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||10.9|3.1|<0.001
91911895|NCT02889796|183720357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|33.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||33.3|21.4|<0.001
91911896|NCT02889796|183720357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|22.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||22.5|10.9|<0.001
91911897|NCT02889796|183720357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|31.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||31.0|18.3|<0.001
91911898|NCT02889796|183720357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|25.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||25.8|13.1|<0.001
91911899|NCT02889796|183720359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||4.1|0.5|0.008
91911900|NCT02889796|183720359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||2.2|-0.5|0.18
91911901|NCT02889796|183720359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||10.6|4.6|<0.001
91911902|NCT02889796|183720359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||4.0|-0.3|0.067
91911903|NCT02889796|183720359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|24.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||24.1|14.6|<0.001
91911904|NCT02889796|183720359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|16.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||16.2|7.5|<0.001
91762894|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2635|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2635
91911905|NCT02889796|183720359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|26.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||26.9|15.7|<0.001
91911906|NCT02889796|183720359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||20.0|9.2|<0.001
91911907|NCT02889796|183720361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|27.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||27.9|16.7|<0.001
91911908|NCT02889796|183720361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|17.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||17.9|7.2|<0.001
91762895|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762896|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762897|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0965
91762898|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91889426|NCT05576662|183671620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.47||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of gastrointestinal symptoms data||2.47|0.79|0.25
91889427|NCT03008005|183671635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
91889428|NCT03008005|183671636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
91889429|NCT05292586|183671637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.104|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.148|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.148|0.061|<0.001
91889430|NCT05292586|183671638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.173|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.173|0.076|<0.001
91889431|NCT05292586|183671639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.139|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.139|0.063|<0.001
91889432|NCT05292586|183671640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.154|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.154|0.071|<0.001
91889433|NCT05292586|183671641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.069||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.115|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.115|0.023|0.003
91889434|NCT05292586|183671642|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.044||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.088|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline -- Week 4~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.088|0.000|0.050
91889435|NCT05292586|183671642|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.041||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.089|||ANCOVA|||"2\_Change from baseline -- Week 8~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.089|-0.007|0.098
91889436|NCT05292586|183671642|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.043||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"3\_Change from baseline -- Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.086|-0.001|0.056
91889437|NCT05292586|183671643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.327||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.855|||Logistic regression model|||1\_Responders at Week 4||1.855|0.949|0.098
91889438|NCT05292586|183671643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.772|||Logistic regression model|||2\_Responders at Week 8||1.772|0.898|0.180
91889439|NCT05292586|183671643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.568||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.117|2.203|||Logistic regression model|||3\_Responders at Week 12||2.203|1.117|0.009
91889440|NCT05292586|183671644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.822|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.284|2.587|||Logistic regression model|||1\_Responders at Week 12||2.587|1.284|<0.001
91889441|NCT05292586|183671645|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|8.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|14.27|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline; Week 0 -- Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||14.27|3.30|0.002
91889442|NCT05292586|183671646|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|8.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|14.14|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline; Week 0 -- Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||14.14|3.32|0.002
91889443|NCT05292586|183671647|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.112||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline in ACQ-7 at Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||-0.013|-0.211|0.026
91889444|NCT05292586|183671647|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.02||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.118|||ANCOVA|||"2\_Change from baseline in ACQ-5 at Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.118|-0.077|0.686
91889445|NCT05292586|183671648|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.82||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|7.33|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||7.330|0.310|0.033
91889446|NCT05292586|183671649|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.78||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|7.985|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||7.985|-0.425|0.078
91889447|NCT00475228|183671650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91889448|NCT02367040|183671659|SUPERIORITY|PFS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|0.688||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||0.688|0.393|0.000002
91889449|NCT02367040|183671659|SUPERIORITY|PFS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.557||||3e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.722||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||0.722|0.431|0.000003
91889450|NCT02367040|183671659|SUPERIORITY|PFS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.643||||0.000199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.823||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At final analysis||0.823|0.502|0.000199
91889451|NCT02367040|183671660|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in ORR|32.99|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.95|42.03||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At primary completion date||42.03|23.95|<0.000001
91889452|NCT02367040|183671660|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in ORR|30.67|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|39.72||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||39.72|21.63|<0.000001
91889453|NCT02367040|183671661|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in CRR|19.27|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.57|26.96||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At primary completion date||26.96|11.57|<0.000001
91889454|NCT02367040|183671661|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in CRR|18.92||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.11|26.73||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||26.73|11.11|0.000001
91889455|NCT02367040|183671662|SUPERIORITY|DOR was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Kaplan-Meier estimates|0.7||||0.030371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|1.018||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||1.018|0.481|0.030371
91889456|NCT02367040|183671662|SUPERIORITY|DOR was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.761||||0.051976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|1.059||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||1.059|0.547|0.051976
91889457|NCT02367040|183671663|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in DCR|4.43||||0.097339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|11.12||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At primary completion date||11.12|-2.26|0.097339
91889458|NCT02367040|183671663|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in DCR|4.43||||0.097339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|11.12||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||11.12|-2.26|0.097339
91889459|NCT02367040|183671664|SUPERIORITY|TTP was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.476|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.635||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||0.635|0.357|<.000001
91889460|NCT02367040|183671664|SUPERIORITY|TTP was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.505|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.659||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||0.659|0.387|<.000001
91889461|NCT02367040|183671665|SUPERIORITY|OS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||0.436458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|1.368||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.368|0.691|0.436458
91889462|NCT02367040|183671666|SUPERIORITY|Time to deterioration in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.69261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.331||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||1.331|0.843|0.692610
91889463|NCT02367040|183671666|SUPERIORITY|Time to deterioration in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.661145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.302||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||1.302|0.841|0.661145
91889464|NCT02367040|183671667|SUPERIORITY|Time to improvement in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.510038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.355||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||1.355|0.732|0.510038
91889465|NCT02367040|183671667|SUPERIORITY|Time to improvement in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.40597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.398||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||1.398|0.768|0.405970
91889466|NCT02477618|183671671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.056||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|2.118|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.118|0.527|0.878
91911909|NCT02889796|183720361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|26.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||26.1|13.4|<0.001
91911910|NCT02889796|183720361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|20.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||20.2|7.5|<0.001
91911911|NCT02889796|183720361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||24.9|13.0|<0.001
91911912|NCT02889796|183720361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|24.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||24.5|12.6|<0.001
91911913|NCT02889796|183720363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.12||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.12|-0.22|<0.001
91911914|NCT02889796|183720363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.04|-0.14|<0.001
91911915|NCT02889796|183720363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.13|-0.24|<0.001
91911916|NCT02889796|183720363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.04|-0.15|<0.001
91911917|NCT02889796|183720363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.19|-0.34|<0.001
91911918|NCT02889796|183720363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.11|-0.26|<0.001
91911919|NCT02889796|183720365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
91889467|NCT02477618|183671672|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|2.507|||Regression, Cox|||||2.507|0.222|0.636
91889468|NCT02477618|183671673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.623||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|1.282|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.282|0.303|0.199
91889469|NCT02477618|183671674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|1.466|||Regression, Cox|||||1.466|0.318|0.328
91889470|NCT02477618|183671676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|1.763|||Regression, Cox|||||1.763|0.193|0.339
91889471|NCT02477618|183671677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.086||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|2.189|||Regression, Cox|||||2.189|0.539|0.817
91889472|NCT02477618|183671678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.9|0.567
91889473|NCT07025837|183671702|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 2 compared to the baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
91889474|NCT07025837|183671702|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
91889475|NCT07025837|183671702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6342||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.6342
91889476|NCT07025837|183671702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0231||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0231
91889477|NCT07025837|183671702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0862||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0862
91889478|NCT07025837|183671702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0033
91889479|NCT07025837|183671703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1176||||||Week 2 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.1176
91762899|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91889480|NCT07025837|183671703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0030
91889481|NCT07025837|183671703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91889482|NCT07025837|183671703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889483|NCT07025837|183671703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889484|NCT07025837|183671704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9751||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.9751
91889485|NCT07025837|183671704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0078
91889486|NCT07025837|183671704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
91889487|NCT07025837|183671704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889488|NCT07025837|183671704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889489|NCT07025837|183671704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889490|NCT07025837|183671705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0544||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0544
91889491|NCT07025837|183671705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0036
91889492|NCT07025837|183671705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91889493|NCT07025837|183671705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889494|NCT07025837|183671705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889495|NCT07025837|183671705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to Baseline|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889496|NCT07025837|183671706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91889497|NCT07025837|183671706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889498|NCT07025837|183671706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889499|NCT07025837|183671706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889500|NCT07025837|183671706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889501|NCT07025837|183671706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889502|NCT07025837|183671707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1438||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.1438
91889503|NCT07025837|183671707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0092
91889504|NCT07025837|183671707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
91889505|NCT07025837|183671707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0015
91889506|NCT07025837|183671707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91889507|NCT07025837|183671707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889508|NCT07025837|183671708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0041
91889509|NCT07025837|183671708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91889510|NCT07025837|183671708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889511|NCT07025837|183671708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889512|NCT07025837|183671708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889513|NCT07025837|183671708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889514|NCT07025837|183671709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0249
91889515|NCT07025837|183671709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889516|NCT07025837|183671709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889517|NCT07025837|183671709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889518|NCT07025837|183671709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889519|NCT07025837|183671709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889520|NCT07025837|183671710|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
91889521|NCT07025837|183671710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7453||||||Week 4 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.7453
91889522|NCT07025837|183671710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2118||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.2118
91889523|NCT07025837|183671710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0111
91889524|NCT07025837|183671710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0150
91889525|NCT07025837|183671710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
91889526|NCT07025837|183671711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0199
91889527|NCT07025837|183671711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889528|NCT07025837|183671711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889529|NCT07025837|183671711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889530|NCT07025837|183671711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889531|NCT07025837|183671711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889532|NCT07025837|183671712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4438||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.4438
91889533|NCT07025837|183671712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0412||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0412
91889534|NCT07025837|183671712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0943||||||Week 6 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.0943
91889535|NCT07025837|183671712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0017
91889536|NCT07025837|183671712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889537|NCT07025837|183671712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0007
91889538|NCT07025837|183671713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6148||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.6148
91889539|NCT07025837|183671713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7953||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.7953
91889540|NCT07025837|183671713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0019
91889541|NCT07025837|183671713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0008
91889542|NCT07025837|183671713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889543|NCT07025837|183671713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91889544|NCT07025837|183671714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0067
91889545|NCT07025837|183671714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0055
91889546|NCT07025837|183671714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889547|NCT07025837|183671714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889548|NCT07025837|183671714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889549|NCT07025837|183671714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889550|NCT07025837|183671715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1476||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.1476
91889551|NCT07025837|183671715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0106
91889552|NCT07025837|183671715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91889553|NCT07025837|183671715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889554|NCT07025837|183671715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889555|NCT07025837|183671715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889556|NCT07025837|183671716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3224||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.3224
91889557|NCT07025837|183671716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0426||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0426
91889558|NCT07025837|183671716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0039
91889559|NCT07025837|183671716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0040
91889560|NCT07025837|183671716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0013
91889561|NCT07025837|183671716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0005
91889562|NCT07025837|183671717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3032||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.3032
91889563|NCT07025837|183671717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0237
91889564|NCT07025837|183671717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0010
91889565|NCT07025837|183671717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889566|NCT07025837|183671717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91889567|NCT07025837|183671717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889568|NCT07025837|183671718|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
91889569|NCT07025837|183671718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1147||||||Week 4 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.1147
91889570|NCT07025837|183671718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0016
91889571|NCT07025837|183671718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0048
91889572|NCT07025837|183671718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889573|NCT07025837|183671718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0005
91889574|NCT07025837|183671719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0461||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0461
91889575|NCT07025837|183671719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.002
91889576|NCT07025837|183671719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91889577|NCT07025837|183671719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889578|NCT07025837|183671719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889579|NCT07025837|183671719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91889580|NCT04854850|183671736|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91889581|NCT04092530|183671740|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for time; clustering by clinical site accounted for with random intercept||Please note that there were only 7 units (community health clinics) analyzed at Level 2 of this multilevel study, but due to the crossover design of the study, they were each observed under both the Control and Intervention conditions. Therefore, the Units Analyzed entered above reflect the 7 clinics under both conditions and should not be summed to 14.||1.05|0.64|0.12
91889582|NCT04092530|183671741|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for time; random intercept for clinical site||||1.13|0.70|0.33
91889583|NCT04092530|183671742|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for time; random intercept for clinical site||||3.73|0.33|0.88
91889584|NCT04020185|183671746|OTHER||maximum tolerated dose (monotherapy)|1200.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91889585|NCT00527787|183671751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjetcs developing gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of study treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of gastric ulcers at 6 months. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||7.7|1.9|0.001
91889586|NCT00527787|183671752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91889587|NCT00527787|183671753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91889588|NCT00527787|183671754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
91889589|NCT00527787|183671755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91889590|NCT02783027|183671760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two sample t-test on the change in sleep quality from baseline to 4 months.||||||0.76
91889591|NCT02783027|183671761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Test for group\*time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91911920|NCT02889796|183720365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-3.0|0.010
91911921|NCT02889796|183720365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
91911922|NCT02889796|183720365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
91911923|NCT02889796|183720365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
91911924|NCT02889796|183720365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
91911925|NCT02889796|183720365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
91911926|NCT02889796|183720365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91911927|NCT02889796|183720367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-2.0|0.002
91911928|NCT02889796|183720367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-2.0|0.047
91911929|NCT02889796|183720367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91911930|NCT02889796|183720367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91911931|NCT02889796|183720367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91911932|NCT02889796|183720367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
91889592|NCT02783027|183671762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test for group\*time interaction.||||||<0.0001
91889593|NCT02783027|183671763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test for group\*time interaction.||||||<0.0001
91889594|NCT02783027|183671764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two sample t-test for change in Occupational Fatigue Exhaustion Recovery (OFER) inter-shift recovery between groups||||||0.91
91889595|NCT01712061|183671871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean changes|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||ANCOVA|Bayesian ANCOVA with covariates for baseline UACR and systolic blood pressure (SBP).||||1.09|0.75|
91889596|NCT00504777|183671893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91889597|NCT00504777|183671896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0054
91889598|NCT01572740|183671908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-1.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.47|-1.13|||ANCOVA|||||-1.13|-1.47|<0.0001
91889599|NCT01572740|183671909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-0.99|<0.0001
91889600|NCT01572740|183671910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.83|||<|0.0006||95.0|-1.3|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-1.30|<0.0006
91889601|NCT01572740|183671911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.26||||0.2511||95.0|-0.7|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.70|0.2511
91889602|NCT01572740|183671912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-1.87|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.37|-1.38|||ANCOVA|||||-1.38|-2.37|<0.0001
91889603|NCT01572740|183671913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-1.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.73|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||||-0.83|-1.73|<0.0001
91889604|NCT01572740|183671914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.73||||0.0023||95.0|-1.2|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-1.20|0.0023
91889605|NCT01572740|183671915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.39||||0.1787||95.0|-0.97|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.97|0.1787
91889606|NCT01572740|183671916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.14||||0.4806||95.0|-0.54|0.25|||ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.54|0.4806
91889607|NCT01572740|183671917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.35||||0.2074||95.0|-0.91|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.91|0.2074
91889608|NCT01401153|183671920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation based on parallel group design --\> revealed that 68 children are needed to detect a difference of 45ms in the mean reaction time between the groups, with α=.05 and a power of 0.8.||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||Power calculation had been performed.||||0.79
91889609|NCT01401153|183671921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.07
91889610|NCT01401153|183671922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.61
91889611|NCT01401153|183671923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been perfomed based on this measure||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.03
91889612|NCT01401153|183671924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.25|||||||Generalized linear models|The fixed statement considered treatment, test day and the interaction between treatment and test day||||||0.25
91889613|NCT01401153|183671925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.7|||||||Generalized linear models|||||||0.70
91889614|NCT01401153|183671926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.33|||||||Generalized linear models|||||||0.33
91889615|NCT01401153|183671927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.63|||||||Generalized linear models|||||||0.63
91889616|NCT01401153|183671928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.62
91889617|NCT01401153|183671929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.11
91889618|NCT01401153|183671930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.45
91889619|NCT01401153|183671931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.13
91889620|NCT01401153|183671932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.68
91889621|NCT01401153|183671933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.67
91889622|NCT00672737|183672006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0025|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0009|0.0041|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for IGFBP-1: for every 1-pg/mL increase in its serum level the cold pain threshold will additionally increase by 0.0025 seconds for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||0.0041|0.0009|<0.05
91762900|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4437|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.4437
91889623|NCT00672737|183672006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.9694||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9127|-0.0261|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for SaO2: for every 1-%-absolute decrease in the nadir SaO2 the cold pain threshold will additionally increase by 0.9694 seconds for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||-0.0261|-1.9127|0.05
91889624|NCT00672737|183672007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0001|-0.0001|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for IGFBP-1: for every 1-pg/mL increase in its serum level, the heat pain threshold will additionally decrease by 0.0001 'C for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||-0.0001|-0.0001|<0.05
91889625|NCT00672737|183672007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0172|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.0556|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for SaO2: for every 1-%-absolute decrease in the nadir SaO2, the heat pain threshold will additionally increase by 0.0172 'C for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||0.0556|-0.018|<0.05
91889626|NCT02193490|183672030|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91889627|NCT02193490|183672031|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.078
91889628|NCT02193490|183672032|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91889629|NCT02299414|183672033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||Chi-squared|||||.92|.73|<0.001
91889630|NCT02299414|183672033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.9||||||||.90|.70|
91889631|NCT02299414|183672033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.89||||||||.89|.60|
91889632|NCT02299414|183672033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.64||||||||1.64|.49|
91889633|NCT02299414|183672033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21||||||||1.21|.54|
91889634|NCT02299414|183672034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Chi-squared|||||1.36|0.85|0.56
91889635|NCT02299414|183672035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.26||||||||1.26|.45|
91889636|NCT02299414|183672036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91||||||||0.91|0.77|
91889637|NCT02299414|183672037|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99||||||||.99|.77|
91889638|NCT02299414|183672038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.3||||||||1.3|.45|
91889639|NCT02299414|183672039|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18||||||||1.18|.98|
91762901|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762902|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762903|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.1663
91762904|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762905|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762906|NCT00445770|183416308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1049
91762907|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762908|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762909|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment||Week 2||||0.0442
91762910|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
91889640|NCT02299414|183672040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.89||||||||.89|.69|
91889641|NCT02299414|183672041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04||||||||1.04|0.68|
91889642|NCT02299414|183672042|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9||||||||.90|.74|
91889643|NCT02299414|183672043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.1||||||||1.10|.93|
91889644|NCT02299414|183672044|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.27||||||||1.27|.59|
91889645|NCT02299414|183672045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02||||||||1.02|.81|
91889646|NCT02299414|183672046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97||||||||.97|.71|
91889647|NCT02299414|183672047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.11|
91889648|NCT02299414|183672048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.56||||||||0.56|0.05|
91889649|NCT02299414|183672049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|20.9||||||||20.9|-17.6|
91889650|NCT02299414|183672050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||||1.17|.81|
91889651|NCT02299414|183672051|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.42||||||||1.42|.55|
91889652|NCT02299414|183672052|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.05||||||||1.05|.18|
91889653|NCT02299414|183672053|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06||||||||1.06|.71|
91762911|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762912|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.0681
91762913|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762914|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
91911933|NCT02889796|183720367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91911934|NCT02889796|183720367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
91911935|NCT02889796|183720369|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-11.0|<0.001
91911936|NCT02889796|183720369|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-7.0|<0.001
91911937|NCT02889796|183720369|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
91911938|NCT02889796|183720369|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-7.0|<0.001
91911939|NCT02889796|183720369|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-16.0|<0.001
91911940|NCT02889796|183720369|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
91911941|NCT02889796|183720369|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-14.0|<0.001
91762915|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.0966
91762916|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762917|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.0006
91762918|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1242|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.1242
91762919|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762920|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.001
91911942|NCT02889796|183720369|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
91911943|NCT02889796|183720371|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-10.0|<0.001
91911944|NCT02889796|183720371|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-8.0|<0.001
91911945|NCT02889796|183720371|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-11.0|<0.001
91911946|NCT02889796|183720371|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-9.0|<0.001
91911947|NCT02889796|183720371|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-10.0|<0.001
91911948|NCT02889796|183720371|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-10.0|<0.001
91911949|NCT02889796|183720371|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-11.0|<0.001
91911950|NCT02889796|183720371|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-10.0|<0.001
91911951|NCT02889796|183720373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
91911952|NCT02889796|183720373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-8.0|<0.001
91911953|NCT02889796|183720373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
91762921|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.1521
91762922|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
91762923|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0070
91911954|NCT02889796|183720373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-9.0|<0.001
91911955|NCT02889796|183720373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-9.0|-15.0|<0.001
91911956|NCT02889796|183720373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-13.0|<0.001
91911957|NCT02889796|183720373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-14.0|<0.001
91911958|NCT02889796|183720373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-12.0|<0.001
91911959|NCT02889796|183720375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-8.96||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.96|-12.70|<0.001
91911960|NCT02889796|183720375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.58|-5.87||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.87|-9.58|<0.001
91911961|NCT02889796|183720375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-7.45||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.45|-11.33|<0.001
91911962|NCT02889796|183720375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-5.42||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.42|-9.29|<0.001
91762924|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0140
91762925|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
91889654|NCT02299414|183672054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.35||||||||1.35|.24|
91889655|NCT02299414|183672055|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||||||||1.12|.85|
91889656|NCT02299414|183672056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.37||||||||1.37|0.30|
91889657|NCT02299414|183672057|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.06||||||||7.06|.14|
91889658|NCT02299414|183672058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08||||||||1.08|.81|
91889659|NCT02299414|183672059|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.16||||||||1.16|0.62|
91889660|NCT02299414|183672060|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05||||||||1.05|.36|
91889661|NCT02299414|183672061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.2|
91889662|NCT02299414|183672062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.1|
91889663|NCT02299414|183672063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.002||||||||0.002|-0.12|
91889664|NCT02299414|183672064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.02|
91889665|NCT02299414|183672065|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.06||||||||1.06|0.90|
91911963|NCT02889796|183720375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.961|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-6.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.13|-9.90|<0.001
91911964|NCT02889796|183720375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-4.58||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.58|-8.35|<0.001
91911965|NCT02889796|183720375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-5.93||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.93|-9.88|<0.001
91911966|NCT02889796|183720375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-4.62||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.62|-8.56|<0.001
91911967|NCT02889796|183720377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||18.9|5.7|<0.001
91911968|NCT02889796|183720377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||13.1|-0.1|0.043
91911969|NCT02889796|183720377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|22.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||22.8|9.8|<0.001
91911970|NCT02889796|183720377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||14.7|1.5|0.011
91911971|NCT02889796|183720377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|27.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||27.0|14.9|<0.001
91911972|NCT02889796|183720377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|19.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||19.9|7.3|<0.001
91911973|NCT02889796|183720377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|22.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||22.8|10.5|<0.001
91911974|NCT02889796|183720377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|20.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||20.3|7.8|<0.001
91911975|NCT02889796|183720379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
91911976|NCT02889796|183720379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
91911977|NCT02889796|183720379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-0.9|<0.001
91911978|NCT02889796|183720379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.001
91911979|NCT02889796|183720379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.1|<0.001
91911980|NCT02889796|183720379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
91911981|NCT02889796|183720379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.1|<0.001
91911982|NCT02889796|183720379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
91911983|NCT02889796|183720381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|13.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||13.1|5.8|<0.001
91911984|NCT02889796|183720381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||7.7|1.4|0.004
91911985|NCT02889796|183720381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||21.1|11.3|<0.001
91911986|NCT02889796|183720381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|15.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||15.8|6.5|<0.001
91911987|NCT02889796|183720381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|33.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||33.3|20.6|<0.001
91911988|NCT02889796|183720381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|25.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||25.8|13.1|<0.001
91911989|NCT02889796|183720383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||6.7|2.1|<0.001
91911990|NCT02889796|183720383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||2.6|-0.5|0.17
91911991|NCT02889796|183720383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|14.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||14.4|7.1|<0.001
91911992|NCT02889796|183720383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|9.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||9.0|2.6|<0.001
91911993|NCT02889796|183720383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|38.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||38.0|26.4|<0.001
91911994|NCT02889796|183720383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|24.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||24.6|13.4|<0.001
91911995|NCT02889796|183720383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|19.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||19.9|5.6|<0.001
91911996|NCT02889796|183720383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-0.5||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||6.5|-7.5|0.88
91911997|NCT02889796|183720383|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 at using NRI.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||||<0.001
91762926|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
91911998|NCT02889796|183720383|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 at using NRI.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||||<0.001
91911999|NCT02889796|183720389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.2|-5.9|<0.001
91912000|NCT02889796|183720389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.6|-4.3|<0.001
91912001|NCT02889796|183720389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.8|-6.6|<0.001
91912002|NCT02889796|183720389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.4|-5.3|<0.001
91912003|NCT02889796|183720389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-4.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.6|-7.3|<0.001
91912004|NCT02889796|183720389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.1|-5.8|<0.001
91912005|NCT02889796|183720389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-4.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.5|-6.9|<0.001
91912006|NCT02889796|183720389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.9|-5.3|<0.001
91912007|NCT02889796|183720391|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.4|-7.1|<0.001
91912008|NCT02889796|183720391|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.2|-5.0|<0.001
91912009|NCT02889796|183720391|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-4.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.6|-7.6|<0.001
91912010|NCT02889796|183720391|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.1|-6.0|<0.001
91912011|NCT02889796|183720391|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-5.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.4|-8.2|<0.001
91912012|NCT02889796|183720391|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.7|-6.5|<0.001
91912013|NCT02889796|183720391|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-5.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.3|-7.8|<0.001
91912014|NCT02889796|183720391|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-3.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.5|-6.1|<0.001
91912015|NCT02889796|183720393|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.77|0.042
91912016|NCT02889796|183720393|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.02||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.02|-0.77|0.039
91912017|NCT02889796|183720394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|6.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|11.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.5.||11.1|2.2|0.002
91912018|NCT02889796|183720394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|3.9||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.5.||8.6|-0.8|0.073
91912019|NCT02889796|183720394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|7.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.||12.5|1.5|0.009
91912020|NCT02889796|183720394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|5.0||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|10.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.||10.6|-0.6|0.061
91912021|NCT02889796|183720394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|5.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ SDC (1.36).||9.4|1.6|0.004
91912022|NCT02889796|183720394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|4.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ SDC (1.36).||8.8|0.7|0.012
91912023|NCT02889796|183720398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.4|1.9|<0.001
91912024|NCT02889796|183720398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|1.0|<0.001
91912025|NCT02889796|183720398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|2.1|<0.001
91912026|NCT02889796|183720398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|2.0|<0.001
91912027|NCT02889796|183720402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.9|<0.001
91808281|NCT01059825|183493672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.04|-1.09||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.09|-2.04|0.000
91808282|NCT01059825|183493672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.68||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.16|-1.21||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.21|-2.16|0.000
91889666|NCT04954326|183672090|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratios of the Lyophilisate compared to the Liquid formulations for AUCinf should be completely contained within the predefined \[80.00%-125.00%\] equivalence interval.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|102.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.4|115.6|||ANOVA|||AUCinf was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effect for formulation. The two one-sided tests procedures were performed on the geometric mean ratio (GMR) between test (S95014 lyophilizate) and reference (S95014 liquid formulation) treatments. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio was obtained within the framework of the ANOVA.||115.6|91.4|0.05
91889667|NCT04954326|183672091|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratios of the Lyophilisate compared to the Liquid formulations for Cmax should be completely contained within the predefined \[80.00%-125.00%\] equivalence interval.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.9|105.5|||ANOVA|||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effect for formulation. The two one-sided tests procedures were performed on the geometric mean ratio (GMR) between test (S95014 lyophilizate) and reference (S95014 liquid formulation) treatments. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio was obtained within the framework of the ANOVA.||105.5|82.9|0.05
91889668|NCT04954326|183672092|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratios of the Lyophilisate compared to the Liquid formulations for Cday14 should be completely contained within the predefined \[80.00%-125.00%\] equivalence interval.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|121.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.7|149.6|||ANOVA|||Cday14 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effect for formulation. The two one-sided tests procedures were performed on the geometric mean ratio (GMR) between test (S95014 lyophilizate) and reference (S95014 liquid formulation) treatments. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio was obtained within the framework of the ANOVA.||149.6|98.7|0.05
91889669|NCT01310231|183672095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.31||One-sided p-value for group-effect obtained from Cox model. The prespecified threshold was 0.20 (one-sided).|Regression, Cox|Cox model for PFS with metf/plac and the two randomization stratification variables line of chemotherapy and hormone receptor status.|Ratio of hazard of progression in the Metformin group relative to hazard in the Placebo group|Power: Final study plan called for 40 progression events, giving 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.58 for PFS with a one-sided type I error of 20%, where the relatively high type I error reflects the Phase II status of the trial||2.31|0.63|0.71
91889670|NCT01310231|183672096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|6.99||Two-side p-value from a logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included metf/plac and the two stratification variables line of chemotherapy and hormone receptor status.||||6.99|0.45|0.41
91889671|NCT01495598|183672106|OTHER|Other = Kaplan Meier||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
91889672|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.19||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNƴ among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.19
91889673|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.72||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNƴ among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.72
91889674|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNƴ among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
91889675|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL4 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91889676|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL4 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91889677|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL4 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91912028|NCT02889796|183720402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|0.6|0.002
91912029|NCT02889796|183720402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|0.4|0.006
91912030|NCT02889796|183720402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|0.7|0.001
91912031|NCT02889796|183720402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-0.1|0.086
91912032|NCT02889796|183720402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.9|-0.2|0.12
91912033|NCT02889796|183720406|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.8|<0.001
91912034|NCT02889796|183720406|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.2|1.2|<0.001
91912035|NCT02889796|183720406|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.5|<0.001
91912036|NCT02889796|183720406|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.6|<0.001
91912037|NCT02889796|183720412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.0|0.0|0.049
91912038|NCT02889796|183720412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.0|-0.0|0.069
91912039|NCT02889796|183720412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|4.0|<0.001
91912040|NCT02889796|183720412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|4.0|<0.001
91912041|NCT02889796|183720412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-0.0|0.060
91912042|NCT02889796|183720412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|2.0|0.003
91912043|NCT02787863|183720455|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.05
91912044|NCT02787863|183720456|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.05
91912045|NCT02479802|183720464|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change from Baseline at Week 48.||||<0.0001
91912046|NCT02479802|183720465|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change from Baseline at Week 48.||||0.0006
91912047|NCT01784965|183720490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91912048|NCT01087541|183720511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.01||95.0|0.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1|0|<0.01
91912049|NCT01087541|183720513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|15.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15|2|<0.001
91912050|NCT04161495|183720519|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be established if the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI was less than 4.|Mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|-1.11||||||Hierarchical testing framework: used to control type I error for secondary OM analyses. Statistical testing of Arm A intra-participant comparison non-inferiority continued only when estimation of previous OM was statistically significant at 0.05 level. For Arm A intra-participant comparison, mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by NB regression model in which treatment (BIVV001 prophylaxis vs historical prophylaxis vs historical prophylaxis) was treated as covariate.||-1.11|-3.49|
91912051|NCT04161495|183720521|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was less than 1.|Rate ratio|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.42|||Negative binomial regression mode|||Tested according to hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous OM was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen). For test about Arm A intra-participant comparison superiority, rate ratio and 95% CI were estimated using NB regression model in which treatment (BIVV001 prophylaxis vs historical prophylaxis) was treated as covariate.||0.42|0.13|<0.0001
91912052|NCT04161495|183720523|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-3.36|||Unstructured covariance matrix|An unstructured covariance matrix within a participant was used.||Testing according to hierarchical testing procedure. Only performed if previous OM \[Annualized Bleeding Rate During the Efficacy Period in Prophylaxis Arm - Superiority Analysis\] was statistically significant for considered dosing regimen). Least square (LS) mean difference, standard error and 95% confidence interval were estimated by mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) using visit as fixed effect and Baseline Haem-A-QOL physical health score as covariate.||-3.36|-10.13|0.0001
91912053|NCT04161495|183720524|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-0.63|||Unstructured covariance matrix|An unstructured covariance matrix within a participant was used.||Testing according to hierarchical testing procedure. Only performed if previous OM \[Change From Baseline in Haem-A-QOL Physical Health Score at Weeks 26 and 52: Prophylaxis Arm\] was statistically significant for considered dosing regimen). LS mean difference, standard error and 95% confidence interval were estimated by MMRM using visit as fixed effect and PROMIS Pain Intensity 3a score as covariate.||-0.63|-3.26|0.0042
91912054|NCT04161495|183720525|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.37||An unstructured covariance matrix within a participant was used.|Unstructured covariance matrix|||Testing according to hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous OM \[Change From Baseline in PROMIS Pain Intensity 3a First Item at Week 52: Prophylaxis Arm\] was statistically significant for considered dosing regimen). LS mean difference, standard error and 95% confidence interval were estimated by MMRM using visit as fixed effect and Baseline Haem-A-QOL physical health score as covariate.||-0.37|-2.70|0.0101
91912055|NCT01764633|183720591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.92|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups at a significance level of 0.05.||0.92|0.79|< 0.0001
91912056|NCT01764633|183720592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.88|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at the 0.05 level, the key secondary endpoint (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) was tested at a significance level of 0.05.||0.88|0.73|< 0.0001
91912057|NCT01764633|183720593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary and key secondary endpoints reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of cardiovascular death was tested at a significance level of 0.05.||1.25|0.88|0.6188
91762927|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0815
91762928|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
91808283|NCT01059825|183493672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.78||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.26|-1.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.30|-2.26|0.000
91912058|NCT01764633|183720594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.5368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints at an overall significant level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||1.19|0.91|0.5368
91912059|NCT01764633|183720595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.82|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.82|0.65|< 0.0001
91912060|NCT01764633|183720596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.95|0.66|0.0101
91912061|NCT01764633|183720597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.86|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.86|0.71|< 0.0001
91912062|NCT01764633|183720598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||1.13|0.86|0.8179
91912063|NCT01764633|183720599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.92|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.92|0.65|0.0035
91912064|NCT04781816|183720607|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.26|6.85||||||Analysis was performed using mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline CLASI-A, post-baseline visit, geographical region, disease subtype, baseline use of CQ/HCQ, intervention group, visit-by- intervention group interaction, and visit-by-baseline-CLASI-A interaction.||6.85|-18.26|
91912065|NCT02123485|183720626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
91912066|NCT03545906|183720628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.075
91912067|NCT03545906|183720629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.018
91912068|NCT03545906|183720630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.039
91912069|NCT03545906|183720631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.265
91912070|NCT03423342|183720638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The updated p-value is calculated and not a threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91912071|NCT03423342|183720639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91912072|NCT03423342|183720640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91912073|NCT03423342|183720641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91912074|NCT03423342|183720642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91912075|NCT03423342|183720643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91912076|NCT00662792|183720674|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.158|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. salmeterol (Salm50DPI) for FEV1 AUC0-12||0.158|0.102|<0.0001
91912077|NCT00662792|183720674|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.097|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs Tiotropium (Tio18GEL) for FEV1 AUC0- 12||0.097|0.042|<.0001
91912078|NCT00662792|183720674|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.004|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.025 one-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||0.004|-0.052|0.0914
91912079|NCT00662792|183720675|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as d=0.050 L.|Difference of adjusted means|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.093|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Non-Inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Salmeterol (Salm50DPI) for FEV1AUC12-24||0.093|0.036|<.0001
91912080|NCT00662792|183720675|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as d=0.050 L.|Difference of adjusted means|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.093|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Non-inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) of FEV1AUC12-24||0.093|0.036|<.0001
91912081|NCT00662792|183720675|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.028|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||-0.028|-0.086|0.0001
91912082|NCT00662792|183720676|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.166|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Salmeterol (Salm50DPI) of Peak FEV1||0.166|0.102|<.0001
91912083|NCT00662792|183720676|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.098|||ANOVA|Analysis of with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.025 one-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) of PeakFEV1.||0.098|0.034|<.0001
91912084|NCT00662792|183720676|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.006|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S\_DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||0.006|-0.058|0.1093
91762929|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0002
91762930|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0886|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0886
91889678|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.005||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.005
91889679|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.06
91889680|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
91912085|NCT00662792|183720677|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as d=0.050 L.|Differences of adjusted means|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.092|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Non-inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Salmeterol (Salm50DPI) of trough FEV1||0.092|0.024|0.0008
91912086|NCT00662792|183720677|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as a delta of 0.050 L.|Difference of adjusted means|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.063|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Non-inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) of trough FEV1||0.063|-0.004|0.0857
91912087|NCT00662792|183720677|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|-0.003|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||-0.003|-0.071|0.0317
91912088|NCT00662792|183720678|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.124|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. salmeterol (Salm50DPI) for FEV1 AUC0-24||0.124|0.071|<.0001
91912089|NCT00662792|183720678|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted mean difference|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.093|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) for FEV1 AUC24||0.093|0.041|<.0001
91912090|NCT00662792|183720678|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|-0.014|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.014|-0.067|0.0029
91762931|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762932|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.0003
91762933|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.1488
91912091|NCT00662792|183720679|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.132|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.132|0.034|0.0010
91912092|NCT00662792|183720679|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.226|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.226|0.127|<.0001
91912093|NCT00662792|183720679|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.005|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.005|-0.095|0.0757
91912094|NCT00662792|183720680|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.137|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.137|0.033|0.0015
91912095|NCT00662792|183720680|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.171|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.171|0.066|<.0001
91912096|NCT00662792|183720680|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|-0.032|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.032|-0.138|0.0017
91912097|NCT00662792|183720681|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.131|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.131|0.037|0.0005
91912098|NCT00662792|183720681|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.194|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.194|0.100|<.0001
91912099|NCT00662792|183720681|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|-0.018|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.018|-0.113|0.0074
91912100|NCT00662792|183720682|SUPERIORITY||Differences of adjusted means|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.109|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.109|-0.008|0.0898
91912101|NCT00662792|183720682|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.201|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.201|0.083|<.0001
91912102|NCT00662792|183720682|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.002|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.002|-0.116|0.0601
91912103|NCT00662792|183720683|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.033|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.033|-0.089|0.3652
91912104|NCT00662792|183720683|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.103|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.103|-0.020|0.1816
91912105|NCT00662792|183720683|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|-0.033|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.033|-0.157|0.0026
91912106|NCT00662792|183720684|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|16.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||16.8|6.9|<.0001
91912107|NCT00662792|183720684|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|29.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||29.2|19.2|<.0001
91762934|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
91912108|NCT00662792|183720684|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.1804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||1.6|-8.5|0.1804
91912109|NCT00662792|183720685|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||13.4|3.5|0.0008
91912110|NCT00662792|183720685|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|15.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||15.5|5.6|<.0001
91912111|NCT00662792|183720685|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-8.0|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S\_DPI)|||-8.0|-17.9|<.0001
91912112|NCT00662792|183720686|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|14.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||14.6|5.7|<.0001
91912113|NCT00662792|183720686|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|21.9|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||21.9|12.9|<.0001
91912114|NCT00662792|183720686|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-3.7|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S\_DPI)|||-3.7|-12.7|0.0004
91912115|NCT00662792|183720687|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|18.9|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||18.9|7.2|<.0001
91912116|NCT00662792|183720687|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|28.9|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||28.9|17.2|<.0001
91912117|NCT00662792|183720687|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.6|-11.2|0.0769
91912118|NCT00662792|183720688|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.3775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|9.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||9.1|-3.5|0.3775
91912119|NCT00662792|183720688|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|13.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||13.4|0.7|0.0285
91912120|NCT00662792|183720688|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-2.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-2.5|-15.2|0.0065
91912121|NCT00662792|183720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Morning PEF||10.4|1.0|0.0182
91912122|NCT00662792|183720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Morning PEF||11.1|1.6|0.0091
91912123|NCT00662792|183720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-3.3|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Morning PEF||-3.3|-12.8|0.0010
91912124|NCT00662792|183720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|16.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Evening PEF||16.2|5.8|<.0001
91912125|NCT00662792|183720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|28.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Evening PEF||28.6|18.1|<.0001
91912126|NCT00662792|183720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Evening PEF||6.8|-3.8|0.5766
91912127|NCT00662792|183720693|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.071|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Morning FEV1||0.071|0.008|0.0137
91912128|NCT00662792|183720693|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.059|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Morning FEV1||0.059|-0.005|0.0981
91912129|NCT00662792|183720693|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.01|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Morning FEV1||0.010|-0.054|0.1827
91912130|NCT00662792|183720693|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.092|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Evening FEV1||0.092|0.022|0.0014
91912131|NCT00662792|183720693|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.14|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Evening FEV1||0.140|0.070|<.0001
91912132|NCT00662792|183720693|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.2584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.056|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Evening FEV1||0.056|-0.015|0.2584
91912133|NCT00662792|183720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Daytime||-0.02|-0.11|0.0027
91912134|NCT00662792|183720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Daytime||0.03|-0.06|0.4587
91912135|NCT00662792|183720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Daytime||0.08|-0.01|0.1535
91912136|NCT00662792|183720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.05|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Night-time||-0.05|-0.14|0.0002
91912137|NCT00662792|183720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Night-time||-0.04|-0.14|0.0006
91912138|NCT00662792|183720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Night-time||0.04|-0.06|0.5784
91912139|NCT00662792|183720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|24 hours||-0.04|-0.14|0.0003
91912140|NCT00662792|183720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|24 hours||-0.02|-0.12|0.0042
91912141|NCT00662792|183720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.9978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|24 hours||0.05|-0.05|0.9978
91912142|NCT00662792|183720695|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.11|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Daytime||-0.11|-0.55|0.0029
91912143|NCT00662792|183720695|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.14|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Daytime||-0.14|-0.58|0.0012
91912144|NCT00662792|183720695|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Daytime||0.25|-0.02|0.0829
91762935|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0006
91912145|NCT00662792|183720695|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Night-time||-0.04|-0.30|0.0115
91912146|NCT00662792|183720695|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Night-time||0.04|-0.22|0.1772
91912147|NCT00662792|183720695|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.27|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Night-time||0.27|-0.18|0.6895
91912148|NCT00662792|183720695|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.21|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Over 24 hours||-0.21|-0.84|0.0013
91912149|NCT00662792|183720695|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.15|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Over 24 hours||-0.15|-0.78|0.0040
91912150|NCT00662792|183720695|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.48|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Over 24 hours||0.48|-0.16|0.3287
91912151|NCT00662792|183720696|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.03|-0.03|0.9956
91912152|NCT00662792|183720696|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.02|-0.03|0.7100
91912153|NCT00662792|183720696|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.04|-0.02|0.3659
91912154|NCT00662792|183720697|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.4416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.02|-0.04|0.4416
91912155|NCT00662792|183720697|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.02|-0.03|0.7058
91912156|NCT00662792|183720697|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.1494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.05|-0.01|0.1494
91762936|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0979|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0979
91762937|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762938|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0001
91912157|NCT00662792|183720698|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.06|-0.06|0.9980
91912158|NCT00662792|183720698|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.08|-0.04|0.4618
91912159|NCT00662792|183720698|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.12|0.00|0.0418
91912160|NCT00662792|183720699|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.03|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.03|-0.08|0.4206
91912161|NCT00662792|183720699|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.06|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.06|-0.05|0.8723
91912162|NCT00662792|183720699|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.11|-0.01|0.1005
91912163|NCT00411554|183720713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin (Sitagliptin minus Voglibose) = 0.2 percent|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.51|-0.28||"This p-value corresponds to a test of superiority that was performed after success was achieved in the test of non-inferiority (reported under Estimation below), according to the pre-specified analysis plan"|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to compare two groups|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to show non-inferiority and superiority to voglibose (closed procedure) and to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.28|-0.51|<0.001
91912164|NCT00411554|183720714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-10.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-15.3|-6.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to compare two groups|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to show superiority to voglibose and to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-6.2|-15.3|<0.001
91912165|NCT00411554|183720715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-18.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-26.7|-10.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to compare two groups|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to show superiority to voglibose and to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-10.9|-26.7|<0.001
91912166|NCT02342015|183720760|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91912167|NCT02342015|183720761|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||paired Student's t-test|||||||<0.05
91912168|NCT01849770|183720771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.56|||Random slopes model|||||0.56|-1.03|0.561
91912169|NCT01849770|183720771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.66|||Random slopes model|||||0.66|-1.04|0.662
91912170|NCT01849770|183720772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.22|||Random slopes model|||||4.22|-0.80|0.178
91912171|NCT01849770|183720772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.91|||Random slopes model|||||1.91|-3.80|0.510
91912172|NCT01639872|183720778|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.99
91912173|NCT01639872|183720779|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.25
91912174|NCT00720109|183720782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.8|51.4|||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test equivalent to Z-test of proportions.||The a priori plan was to compare MRD positivity rate with that on a prior study, AALL0031 (n=72 Cohorts 1-5 of AALL0031 with 71% MRD positive). Out of 59 patients with end-Induction MRD on AALL0622, 40.7% were MRD positive. Per protocol, rates will be compared with a 2 sample Z-test of proportions, 1-sided test, alpha=5%.||51.4|30.8|<0.001
91912175|NCT00720109|183720783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage|10.5|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.3|19.3|||Binomial Test||The pre-specified threshold for the estimated percentage of MRD positivity at End Consolidation was set to 16%. Results show an upper bound on the (Agresti-Coull) confidence interval of 19.3%.|||19.3|5.3|=0.13
91912176|NCT02177201|183720790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The antiemetic effect was not significantly different for two groups in this study||||0.05
91912177|NCT02177201|183720790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||77 patients was needed in each groups for an 20% effect size, 5% alpha and 80% statistical power for postoperative vomiting.||||<0.05
91912178|NCT05853380|183720791|OTHER|The primary outcome was considered successful if the bootstrapped upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was \< 3.0. Power was assessed by bootstrapping 95% confidence intervals at different n sizes on a product development population.|RMSD|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87||||||Subjects with simultaneously collected HR and PR comparator data were assigned to the comparison group.|The upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was 0.87, meeting the significance threshold of \< 3.0. The study tested hypothesis of accuracy \< 3.0 RMSD by showing the upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was \< 3.0. The upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was 0.87, meeting the target threshold of \< 3.0.|0.87|0.67|
91912179|NCT02926950|183720837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.309|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.309|-0.64|< 0.0001
91912180|NCT02926950|183720838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0538|-1.0909|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and country as fixed effects, and baseline 2- hour postprandial glucose as a covariate.||-1.0909|-2.0538|< 0.0001
91912181|NCT02926950|183720839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2247|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2006|-0.3198|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-0.3198|-1.2006|= 0.0007
91912182|NCT02926950|183720840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.591|-1.144|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-1.144|-2.591|< 0.0001
91912183|NCT02926950|183720841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.422|=|0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-0.497|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.497|-6.07|= 0.0209
91912184|NCT02926950|183720842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.992|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.479|-1.592|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.592|-5.479|= 0.0004
91912185|NCT02926950|183720843|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|5.4|||=|0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|10.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of nonresponder in the analysis.||10.06|0.75|= 0.0238
91912186|NCT02926950|183720844|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|13.9|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|20.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of nonresponder in the analysis.||20.89|6.91|= 0.0001
91912187|NCT02392429|183720850|NON_INFERIORITY|we tested the null hypothesis that the NPV of the post-treatment FLT PET/CT scan was less than or equal to the NPV of the day 14 nadir bone marrow biopsy (estimated to be 0.64 by Hussein et al) against the one-sided alternative hypothesis that the NPV was greater than 0.64 using the exact binomial test.|||||>|0.99|||||||binomial exact test|||||||>0.99
91912188|NCT02392429|183720851|NON_INFERIORITY|we tested the null hypothesis that the PPV of the post-treatment FLT PET/CT scan was less than or equal to the PPV of the day 14 nadir bone marrow biopsy (estimated to be 0.79by Hussein et al) against the one-sided alternative hypothesis that the PPV was greater than 0.79 using the exact binomial test.||||||0.06|||||||binomial exact test|||||||0.06
91912189|NCT02392429|183720855|EQUIVALENCE|no margin was assumed||||||0.68|||||||log-rank test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed for the positive and negative scan groups, and the null hypothesis that the survival distributions of the two groups were equal was tested using the log-rank test.||||0.68
91912190|NCT02392429|183720856|EQUIVALENCE|no margin was assumed||||||0.08|||||||log-rank test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed for the positive and negative scan groups, and the null hypothesis that the survival distributions of the two groups were equal was tested using the log-rank test.||||0.08
91912191|NCT03266016|183720857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.77|||Proportional Odds Logistic Regression|||This analysis is comparing length of weaning between REDvent acute group and control acute group.||2.77|1.01|.045
91912192|NCT03266016|183720857|SUPERIORITY||Proportional odds logistic regression|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.6||||||Weaning Phase||2.6|0.7|
91912193|NCT03266016|183720858|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25|||||Negative binomial model.|||1.25|0.84|
91912194|NCT03266016|183720859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7||||||||2.7|0.4|
91912195|NCT03266016|183720860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.47||||||||2.47|0.44|
91912196|NCT03266016|183720861|SUPERIORITY||Proportional odds logistic regression|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.55||||||||2.55|1.01|
91912197|NCT01664793|183720901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square tests for comparisons of between-arm changes in vaccination rates from pre to post intervention.||||||<0.05
91912198|NCT02787850|183720905|OTHER||sucess proportion|86.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.9|95.6||||||||95.6|71.9|
91912199|NCT02787850|183720905|OTHER||success proportion|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.7|90.1||||||||90.1|57.7|
91912200|NCT02787850|183720905|OTHER||success proportion|87.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.3|94.9||||||||94.9|76.3|
91912201|NCT02787850|183720905|OTHER||success proportion|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.3|95.8||||||||95.8|66.3|
91912202|NCT02322710|183720911|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the observed difference between healing rates at D21 (Urgotul® - Tullegras M.S.®) in the PP population did not exceed +10%.|Difference in Percentages|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||10.0||||||||10.0||
91912203|NCT05064059|183720928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||1.20|0.80|0.4183
91912204|NCT05064059|183720929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.64||One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||1.64|1.09|0.9967
91912205|NCT05064059|183720930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.1||One-sided, nominal p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method||Difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||10.1|2.5|0.0007
91912206|NCT05064059|183720934|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-3.08||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|0.93||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||0.93|-7.09|0.1318
91912207|NCT05064059|183720935|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.95||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|3.02||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||3.02|-4.93|0.6370
91912208|NCT05064059|183720936|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.86||||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|9.57||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||9.57|-1.85|0.1846
91912209|NCT05064059|183720937|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.56||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|6.08||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||6.08|-4.96|0.8410
91912210|NCT05064059|183720938|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||1.58|0.64|0.5094
91912211|NCT05064059|183720939|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.33||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||2.33|0.98|0.9704
91912212|NCT05064059|183720940|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.98||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||2.98|1.11|0.9905
91912213|NCT05064059|183720941|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.26||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization|||3.26|1.06|0.9853
91762939|NCT00445770|183416309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.1740
91762940|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior Methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762941|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
91762942|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0274
91762943|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
91762944|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
91912214|NCT02397473|183720983|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-6.72|0.036
91912215|NCT02397473|183720984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|Koch's nonparametric randomization-based ANCOVA.||||||0.046
91912216|NCT02397473|183720985|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.57|-3.23|0.493
91912217|NCT02397473|183720986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.046||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.242|7.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.469|1.242|0.016
91912218|NCT02397473|183720987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.312||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|3.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.426|.502|0.575
91912219|NCT02397473|183720988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.965||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|1.819|||Mixed Models Analysis|Pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures.||||1.819|.512|0.910
91808284|NCT01059825|183493672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.24||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|0.71||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.71|-0.24|0.741
91808285|NCT01059825|183493674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.13||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.92|0.65||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.65|-4.92|0.163
91808286|NCT01059825|183493674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.48||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.28|-0.68||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.68|-6.28|0.056
91808287|NCT01059825|183493674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.88||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.7|-0.05||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.05|-5.70|0.096
91808288|NCT01059825|183493674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.37||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.21|-0.53||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.53|-6.21|0.064
91808289|NCT01059825|183493674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.54||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.33|2.26||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.26|-3.33|0.403
91808290|NCT01059825|183493675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.37||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.91|2.17||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.17|-2.91|0.425
91808291|NCT01059825|183493675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.81||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.38|-0.23||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.23|-5.38|0.082
91808292|NCT01059825|183493675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.35||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.92|2.21||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.21|-2.92|0.430
91808293|NCT01059825|183493675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.47||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.05|-0.89||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.89|-6.05|0.043
91808294|NCT01059825|183493675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.01||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.55|3.58||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||3.58|-1.55|0.694
91808295|NCT01059825|183493676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.38||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.81|1.05||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.05|-3.81|0.234
91808296|NCT01059825|183493676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.59||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.03|-0.14||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.14|-5.03|0.087
91808297|NCT01059825|183493676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.86||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.33|-0.4||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.40|-5.33|0.068
91912220|NCT02397473|183720989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.929||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|1.923|||Mixed Models Analysis|Pseudolikelihood-based repeated measures model||||1.923|0.449|0.841
91912221|NCT01415752|183721022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||one-sided stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||||||0.25
91808298|NCT01059825|183493676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.77||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.25|1.71||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.71|-3.25|0.346
91808299|NCT01059825|183493676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.21|1.7||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.70|-3.21|0.346
91808300|NCT01059825|183493677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.1||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.87|1.67||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.67|-3.87|0.306
91808301|NCT01059825|183493677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.41||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.19|0.37||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.37|-5.19|0.133
91808302|NCT01059825|183493677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.61||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.42|0.2||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.20|-5.42|0.117
91808303|NCT01059825|183493677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.87||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.69|-0.04||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.04|-5.69|0.097
91808304|NCT01059825|183493677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.0||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.78|0.79||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.79|-4.78|0.179
91912222|NCT01415752|183721023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||one-sided stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||||||0.178
91912223|NCT01496066|183721062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91912224|NCT01496066|183721063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
91912225|NCT01496066|183721064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
91912226|NCT01496066|183721065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0318
91912227|NCT01496066|183721066|EQUIVALENCE|a two-group t-test of equivalence in means was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.06|-0.02||||||||-0.02|-0.06|
91912228|NCT01340209|183721068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||0.106|-0.082|0.7971
91808305|NCT01059825|183493679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.93||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.62|-0.24||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.24|-3.62|0.072
91808306|NCT01059825|183493679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.81||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.51|-0.11||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.11|-3.51|0.086
91912229|NCT01340209|183721068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||0.207|0.018|0.0203
91912230|NCT01340209|183721069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||0.068|-0.141|0.4944
91912231|NCT01340209|183721069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||0.188|-0.023|0.1270
91912232|NCT01340209|183721070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.282||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.634|24.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||24.630|-23.634|0.9677
91912233|NCT01340209|183721070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|34.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.346||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.919|58.432|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium Respimat 5 μg minus placebo||58.432|9.919|0.0058
91912234|NCT01340209|183721071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.182||0.3468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.388|26.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||26.680|-9.388|0.3468
91912235|NCT01340209|183721071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.238||0.5013||95.0|-11.927|24.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||24.359|-11.927|0.5013
91912236|NCT01340209|183721072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.196||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.601|29.517|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||29.517|-6.601|0.2132
91912237|NCT01340209|183721072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.245||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.759|34.555|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||34.555|-1.759|0.0766
91808307|NCT01059825|183493679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.99||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.71|-2.27||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-2.27|-5.71|0.002
91912238|NCT01340209|183721073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.5629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.637|1.436|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||1.436|-2.637|0.5629
91912239|NCT01340209|183721073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.5871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.473|2.601|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||2.601|-1.473|0.5871
91912240|NCT01789970|183721092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.0||5% significance level|ANCOVA|The model included treatment, study center, opioid status, and baseline WPI score.|Placebo - Hydrocodone ER|The least squares means of the change from baseline to week 12 in WPI were compared between the active drug and placebo treatment groups.||1.00|0.26|<0.001
91912241|NCT01789970|183721093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.91||5% significance level|ANCOVA|The model included treatment, study center, opioid status, and baseline WPI score.|Placebo - Hydrocodone ER|The least squares means of the change from baseline to week 12 in API were compared between the active drug and placebo treatment groups.||0.91|0.25|<0.001
91912242|NCT01789970|183721094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.01||5% significance level|Wald chi-square|Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, baseline worst pain intensity (WPI), opioid status, and center in the model||||1.01|0.5|0.059
91912243|NCT01789970|183721095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.96||5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|stratified by center with the following effects: treatment group, baseline API, and opioid status.|Hydrocodone ER / Placebo|API increase \>=30% and API \>=5||0.96|0.47|0.0293
91912244|NCT01789970|183721096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.65||5% significance level|ANCOVA|Model with the following effects: treatment, study center, opioid status, and baseline RMDQ score.|Placebo - Hydrocodone ER|||0.65|-1.20|0.557
91912245|NCT02475655|183721105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. One-sided 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants experiencing safety milestones from Entry to Week 5.||||0.67
91912246|NCT02475655|183721108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.04||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Plasma Interleukin 6 (IL-6) from baseline to week 4/5.||1.04|0.69|0.18
91912247|NCT02475655|183721110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. One-sided 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants experiencing safety milestones from Entry to Week 12.||||0.40
91912248|NCT02475655|183721114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.27|6.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine clearance from Entry to Week 1/2.||6.90|-4.27|0.70
91912249|NCT02475655|183721114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.06|8.29||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine clearance from Entry to Week 4/5.||8.29|-5.06|0.69
91912250|NCT02475655|183721114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.35||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|12.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine clearance from Entry to 10/12.||12.5|0.16|0.09
91912251|NCT02475655|183721116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine from Entry to Week 1/2.||0.03|-0.06|0.58
91912252|NCT02475655|183721116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.04||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine from Entry to Week 4/5.||0.04|-0.06|0.79
91912253|NCT02475655|183721116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|-0.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine from Entry to 10/12.||-0.02|-0.11|0.016
91912254|NCT02475655|183721118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-679.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1146.0|-212.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from Entry to Week 1/2.||-212|-1146|0.018
91912255|NCT02475655|183721118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-651.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1110.0|-192.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from Entry to Week 4/5.||-192|-1110|0.021
91912256|NCT02475655|183721118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.6||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-461.0|528.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from Entry to Week 10/12.||528|-461|0.91
91912257|NCT02475655|183721120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.15||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in hemoglobin from Entry to Week 1/2.||0.15|-0.42|0.45
91912258|NCT02475655|183721120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|-0.23||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in hemoglobin from Entry to Week 4/5.||-0.23|-0.87|0.005
91912259|NCT02475655|183721120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.95||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in hemoglobin from Entry to Week 10/12.||0.95|-0.65|0.75
91912260|NCT02475655|183721122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37754.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19609.0|55898.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in platelet values from Entry to Week 1/2.||55898|19609|<0.001
91912261|NCT02475655|183721122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27832.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9849.0|45815.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in platelet values from Entry to Week 4/5.||45815|9849|0.012
91912262|NCT02475655|183721122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5376.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8592.0|19344.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in platelet values from Entry to Week 10/12.||19344|-8592|0.52
91912263|NCT02475655|183721124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.96||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|9.14||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) (SGOT) values from Entry to Week 1/2.||9.14|0.78|0.05
91912264|NCT02475655|183721124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.47|11.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) (SGOT) values from Entry to Week 4/5.||11.8|4.47|<0.001
91912265|NCT02475655|183721124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.95||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|6.81||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) (SGOT) values from Entry to Week 10/12.||6.81|1.08|0.025
91912266|NCT02475655|183721126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|8.33||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) (SGPT) values from Entry to Week 1/2.||8.33|1.46|0.020
91912267|NCT02475655|183721126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.84|17.1||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) (SGPT) values from Entry to Week 4/5.||17.1|4.84|0.004
91912268|NCT02475655|183721126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|8.39||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) (SGPT) values from Entry to Week 10/12.||8.39|0.88|0.043
91912269|NCT02475655|183721127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.44||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Plasma Interleukin 6 (IL-6) from baseline to Week 10/12.||1.44|0.84|0.56
91912270|NCT02475655|183721127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Plasma Interleukin 6 (IL-6) from Week 4/5 to Week 10/12.||1.73|1.09|0.026
91912271|NCT02475655|183721128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.99||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in soluble CD14 (sCD14) from baseline to Week 4/5.||0.99|0.80|0.07
91912272|NCT02475655|183721128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.12||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in soluble CD14 (sCD14) from baseline to Week 12.||1.12|0.80|0.59
91912273|NCT02475655|183721128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.24||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in soluble CD14 (sCD14) from Week 4/5 to Week 12.||1.24|0.90|0.56
91912274|NCT02475655|183721129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|142.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.6|227.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Baseline to Week 2.||227|57.6|0.007
91762945|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.0344
91912275|NCT02475655|183721129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|74.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|156.7||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Baseline to Week 5.||156.7|-8.23|0.14
91912276|NCT02475655|183721129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-143.0|65.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Baseline to Week 12.||65.5|-143|0.54
91808308|NCT01059825|183493679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.64||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.37|-0.92||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.92|-4.37|0.025
91762946|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762947|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
91762948|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.0293
91912277|NCT02475655|183721129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-112.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-231.0|5.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Week 5 to Week 12.||5.90|-231|0.12
91912278|NCT02475655|183721131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.49||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|GEE|A GEE model for binary data was used to compare changes in iSCA because a substantial proportion of data was below the assay limit.|Risk ratio is Ruxolitinib risk divided by No Study Treatment risk.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in HIV-1 RNA by iSCA from Entry to Week 5.||1.49|0.65|0.94
91912279|NCT02475655|183721131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.46||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|GEE|A GEE model for binary data was used to compare changes in iSCA because a substantial proportion of data was below the assay limit.|Risk ratio is Ruxolitinib risk divided by No Study Treatment risk.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in HIV-1 RNA by iSCA from Entry to Week 12.||1.46|0.37|0.46
91912280|NCT02475655|183721131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.48||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|GEE|A GEE model for binary data was used to compare changes in iSCA because a substantial proportion of data was below the assay limit.|Risk ratio is Ruxolitinib risk divided by No Study Treatment risk.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in HIV-1 RNA by iSCA from Week 5 to Week 12.||1.48|0.46|0.59
91912281|NCT02475655|183721132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF alpha) from entry to Week 5.||1.01|0.76|0.11
91912282|NCT02475655|183721132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.33||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF alpha) from entry to Week 12.||1.33|0.64|0.71
91912283|NCT02475655|183721133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.86||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 1 beta (IL-1 beta) from entry to Week 5.||1.86|0.87|0.30
91912284|NCT02475655|183721133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.59||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|4.49||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 1 beta (IL-1 beta) from entry to Week 12.||4.49|0.56|0.46
91912285|NCT02475655|183721134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.29||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.84||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 7 (IL-7) from entry to Week 5.||1.84|0.90|0.24
91912286|NCT02475655|183721134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.74||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 7 (IL-7) from entry to Week 12.||1.74|0.81|0.46
91912287|NCT02475655|183721139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.72||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 10 (IL-10) from entry to Week 5.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|1.72|0.77|0.56
91912288|NCT02475655|183721139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|2.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 10 (IL-10) from entry to Week 12.||2.01|0.47|0.95
91912289|NCT02475655|183721140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.56||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in TInterleukin 15 (IL-15) from entry to Week 5.||1.56|1.15|0.002
91912290|NCT02475655|183721140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.34||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in TInterleukin 15 (IL-15) from entry to Week 12.||1.34|0.86|0.60
91912291|NCT02475655|183721141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 18 (IL-18) from entry to Week 5.||1.07|0.82|0.40
91912292|NCT02475655|183721141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.27||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 18 (IL-18) from entry to Week 12.||1.27|0.83|0.82
91912293|NCT02475655|183721142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 1 (TGF beta-1) from entry to Week 5.||2.02|1.11|0.028
91912294|NCT02475655|183721142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|5.25||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 1 (TGF beta-1) from entry to Week 12.||5.25|0.79|0.21
91912295|NCT02475655|183721143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.79||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 2 (TGF beta-2) from entry to Week 5.||1.79|1.08|0.031
91912296|NCT02475655|183721143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|2.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 2 (TGF beta-2) from entry to Week 12.||2.02|0.46|0.93
91912297|NCT02475655|183721144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|4.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 3 (TGF beta-3) from entry to Week 5.||4.05|0.61|0.43
91912298|NCT02475655|183721144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 3 (TGF beta-3) from entry to Week 12.||1.50|0.30|0.41
91912299|NCT02475655|183721145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|-0.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.07|-0.61|0.038
91912300|NCT02475655|183721145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.51||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.51|0.03|0.07
91912301|NCT02475655|183721146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|-0.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.13|-1.62|0.05
91912302|NCT02475655|183721146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|1.88||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.88|-0.16|0.16
91762949|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762950|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
91762951|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.0452
91912303|NCT02475655|183721147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|-0.97||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25hi+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.97|-2.46|<0.001
91912304|NCT02475655|183721147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.82||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25hi+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.82|-0.50|0.68
91808309|NCT01059825|183493679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.88||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|2.58||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.58|-0.82|0.746
91912305|NCT02475655|183721148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.69||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.69|-0.70|0.98
91912306|NCT02475655|183721148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.82||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.82|-1.13|0.79
91912307|NCT02475655|183721149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.75|5.22||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||5.22|1.75|0.001
91912308|NCT02475655|183721149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|0.68||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|0.68|-3.28|0.28
91912309|NCT02475655|183721150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.76|9.31||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||9.31|3.76|<0.001
91912310|NCT02475655|183721150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|3.18||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||3.18|-3.56|0.92
91912311|NCT02475655|183721151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.47||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.47|-0.61|0.82
91808310|NCT01059825|183493680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.69||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.27|0.9||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.90|-2.27|0.289
91912312|NCT02475655|183721151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|1.34||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.34|0.18|0.033
91912313|NCT02475655|183721152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.55||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.55|-0.53|0.98
91912314|NCT02475655|183721152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|1.57||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.57|-0.46|0.37
91912315|NCT02475655|183721153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.72|-1.87||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-1.87|-4.72|<0.001
91912316|NCT02475655|183721153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|-0.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||-0.03|-1.42|0.09
91912317|NCT02475655|183721154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.29|-3.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-3.50|-7.29|<0.001
91912318|NCT02475655|183721154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.51|0.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.05|-2.51|0.11
91912319|NCT02475655|183721155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.78|0.7||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.70|-3.78|0.26
91912320|NCT02475655|183721155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.41|1.62||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.62|-2.41|0.74
91912321|NCT02475655|183721156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||3.00|-1.90|0.71
91912322|NCT02475655|183721156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|2.78||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||2.78|-2.15|0.83
91912323|NCT02475655|183721157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|-0.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CX3CR1+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.50|-2.16|0.010
91912324|NCT02475655|183721157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.68||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CX3CR1+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.68|-1.02|0.74
91912325|NCT02475655|183721158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.24||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.22|-1.27||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-1.27|-5.22|0.008
91912326|NCT02475655|183721158|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|2.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||2.05|-2.38|0.90
91912327|NCT02475655|183721161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.83|4.61||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) from Entry to Week 5.||4.61|-1.83|0.47
91912328|NCT02475655|183721161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|5.18||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) from Entry to Week 12.||5.18|-0.77|0.22
91912329|NCT02475655|183721162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.34||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|2.35||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 5.||2.35|-11.0|0.28
91912330|NCT02475655|183721162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.81||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.6|-3.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 12.||-3.02|-16.6|0.019
91912331|NCT02475655|183721163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.02|1.41||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 5.||1.41|-3.02|0.55
91912332|NCT02475655|183721163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.36|-0.04||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 12.||-0.04|-3.36|0.09
91808311|NCT01059825|183493680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.7||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.31|0.91||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.91|-2.31|0.288
91808312|NCT01059825|183493680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.41||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.01|0.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.19|-3.01|0.130
91762952|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762953|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
91762954|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.0313
91889681|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0003||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL8 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0003
91889682|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL8 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0002
91889683|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.01||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL8 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.01
91889684|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
91889685|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.91||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.91
91889686|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.64||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.64
91889687|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.7||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.70
91889688|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.59||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.59
91889689|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.26||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.26
91889690|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL13 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0008
91889691|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL13 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91889692|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL13 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
91889693|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.005||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNFα among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.005
91889694|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNFα among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
91889695|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNFα among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
91889696|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.42||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IP-10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.42
91889697|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.85||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IP-10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.85
91889698|NCT01495598|183672116|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.16||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IP-10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.16
91912333|NCT02475655|183721164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|0.23||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 5.||0.23|-3.17|0.15
91889699|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.07||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.07
91889700|NCT01495598|183672117|NON_INFERIORITY|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.13
91889701|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.15||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.15
91889702|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
91889703|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.06
91889704|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.79||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.79
91889705|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
91889706|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.008
91889707|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.12||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.12
91889708|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
91889709|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
91889710|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.36||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.36
91889711|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD19+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.002
91889712|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD19+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0002
91889713|NCT01495598|183672117|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD19+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91889714|NCT01495598|183672118|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.13
91889715|NCT01495598|183672118|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.65
91889716|NCT01495598|183672118|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.32
91889717|NCT01495598|183672118|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.06
91889718|NCT01495598|183672118|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
91889719|NCT01495598|183672119|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.56
91889720|NCT01495598|183672119|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.65
91889721|NCT01495598|183672119|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.56
91889722|NCT05140915|183672146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.77
91889723|NCT02284009|183672221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.24|||||Analysis was performed using a Bayesian model incorporating historical placebo data using a robust mixture prior. Values above are 95% credible intervals. Probability of treatment difference (Albiglutide - Placebo) \>= 0.2 nmol/L = 0.097.|||0.24|0.00|
91912334|NCT02475655|183721164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|1.35||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 12.||1.35|-4.59|0.37
91912335|NCT02475655|183721165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.51|0.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) from Entry to Week 5.||0.80|-2.51|0.39
91912336|NCT02475655|183721165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|1.19||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) from Entry to Week 12.||1.19|-2.59|0.54
91912337|NCT02475655|183721166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.02||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|-0.06||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 5.||-0.06|-12.0|0.10
91912338|NCT02475655|183721166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.39||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|-1.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 12.||-1.73|-11.1|0.026
91912339|NCT02475655|183721167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.26|7.82||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 5.||7.82|-7.26|0.95
91912340|NCT02475655|183721167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|4.45||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 12.||4.45|-12.6|0.43
91912341|NCT02475655|183721168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.08|7.54||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 5.||7.54|-5.08|0.74
91912342|NCT02475655|183721168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.76||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|11.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 12.||11.5|-3.94|0.42
91912343|NCT02475655|183721169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.99|1.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) from Entry to Week 5.||1.73|-2.99|0.66
91912344|NCT02475655|183721169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.93|0.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) from Entry to Week 12.||0.80|-3.93|0.27
91912345|NCT02475655|183721170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|-2.46||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 5.||-2.46|-11.7|0.013
91912346|NCT02475655|183721170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.06|5.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 12.||5.07|-8.06|0.70
91912347|NCT02475655|183721171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 5.||0.07|-0.05|0.79
91912348|NCT02475655|183721171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.08||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 12.||0.08|-0.07|0.91
91912349|NCT02475655|183721172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.82|3.12||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 5.||3.12|-8.82|0.43
91762955|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
91912350|NCT02475655|183721172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.53|6.6||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 12.||6.60|-6.53|0.99
91912351|NCT02475655|183721173|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.88||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Cellular HIV-1 DNA from entry to Week 5.||2.73|1.29|0.007
91912352|NCT02475655|183721173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Cellular HIV-1 DNA from entry to Week 12.||1.90|0.90|0.23
91912353|NCT02475655|183721174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.72||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in cellular HIV-1 total RNA from entry to Week 5.||1.72|0.87|0.32
91912354|NCT02475655|183721174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.56||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in cellular HIV-1 total RNA from entry to Week 12.||1.56|0.68|0.91
91912355|NCT02475655|183721175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants with detectable CMV at any on-treatment time point (ever shedding at weeks 1, 2, 4, or 5).||||0.40
91912356|NCT02475655|183721175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants with detectable CMV at any post-treatment time point (ever shedding at weeks 10 or 12).||||0.87
91912357|NCT02475655|183721179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.88||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Integrated DNA from entry to Week 5.||1.88|0.15|0.40
91912358|NCT02475655|183721179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|4.34||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Integrated DNA from entry to Week 12.||4.34|0.20|0.93
91912359|NCT04311086|183721210|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
91912360|NCT04311086|183721211|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
91912361|NCT04311086|183721212|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment||||>0.05
91762956|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0019
91762957|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0781
91762958|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
91912362|NCT04311086|183721213|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
91912363|NCT04311086|183721217|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||<0.05
91912364|NCT04311086|183721218|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91912365|NCT04311086|183721219|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
91912366|NCT04311086|183721220|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
91912367|NCT02499029|183721233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||A series of hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the effects of treatment group (NAC or placebo) on PTSD symptomatology, craving, substance use, and depression. Baseline levels of the respective outcome measures were entered in Step 1 of the model to adjust for any baseline differences. Treatment group was entered as the predictor in Step 2. The significance threshold was set at a p-value of .05 (two-sided) for all statistical tests.||||.05
91912368|NCT04823949|183721234|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.88|||Chi-squared|||||1.88|1.33|<0.001
91912369|NCT04823949|183721235|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.49|||Fisher Exact|||||3.49|0.52|.530
91912370|NCT04823949|183721236|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.53||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.9|||Fisher Exact|||||6.90|0.92|.059
91912371|NCT04823949|183721237|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.04|||Fisher Exact|||||3.04|0.23|.792
91912372|NCT04823949|183721238|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.94|.210
91912373|NCT00756938|183721239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.22||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|8.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for dose, weight (as a continuous covariate) and presence of co-morbidities/end organ damage||||8.90|-6.45|0.753
91912374|NCT00756938|183721240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.81||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.51|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for dose, weight (as a continuous covariate) and presence of co-morbidities/end organ damage||||9.51|-5.90|0.643
91912375|NCT00441545|183721249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1130
91912376|NCT00441545|183721250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0249||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0249
91912377|NCT02347176|183721253|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.968||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|0.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.99|-6.78|0.143
91912378|NCT02347176|183721253|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.951||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|-0.51|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.51|-8.22|0.027
91912379|NCT02347176|183721253|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.932||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|-1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.13|-8.76|0.011
91912380|NCT02347176|183721254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.29|0.974
91912381|NCT02347176|183721254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.65|0.61|0.281
91912382|NCT02347176|183721254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|8.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.37|0.95|0.061
91912383|NCT01081795|183721276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.4||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.1646
91912384|NCT01081795|183721276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.8|0.4479
91912385|NCT01081795|183721277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.1|0.1547
91912386|NCT01081795|183721277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|0.2624
91912387|NCT01081795|183721278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.2464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|0.2464
91912388|NCT01081795|183721278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.3148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|0.3148
91912389|NCT01081795|183721279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.8762
91912390|NCT01081795|183721279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.3031
91912391|NCT01081795|183721280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.1145
91912392|NCT01081795|183721280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.3971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.6|0.3971
91912393|NCT01081795|183721281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.3|0.1866
91912394|NCT01081795|183721281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.4|0.1507
91912395|NCT01081795|183721283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.1743
91912396|NCT01081795|183721283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.2165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.2165
91912397|NCT01081795|183721284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|5.1||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|14.0||Month 6|Fisher Exact|||||14.0|-3.8|0.3083
91912398|NCT01081795|183721284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|2.0||||0.7235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.6||Month 6|Fisher Exact|||||10.6|-6.6|0.7235
91912399|NCT01707693|183721295|SUPERIORITY|repeated measures mixed model analysis of covariance, with the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||||0.023||||||P-value calculated from repeated measures model adjusting for age with a log transformation applied. P-values are one-sided.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
91912400|NCT01707693|183721296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||\* P-value calculated from repeated measures model adjusting for age with a log transformation applied.|ANCOVA|\* P-value calculated from repeated measures model adjusting for age with a log transformation applied.||||||0.011
91912401|NCT01707693|183721297|OTHER|2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
91912402|NCT01707693|183721298|OTHER|counts of stage of change||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Armitage trend test||||||.001
91912403|NCT00143455|183721326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.236||||0.0556||95.0|0.995|1.536|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||A non-inferiority test was combined with a superiority test based on a closed testing procedure. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (control/test) estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model, with an indicator for the control arm, was less than 0.80.||1.536|0.995|0.0556
91912404|NCT00143455|183721327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.343||||0.143||95.0|0.905|1.993|||Chi-squared|||||1.993|0.905|0.143
91912405|NCT00143455|183721328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority test was combined with a superiority test based on a closed testing procedure. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (control/test) estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model, with an indicator for the control arm, was less than 0.80.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.011||95.0|1.071|1.701|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.701|1.071|0.0110
91912406|NCT00143455|183721329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.354||||0.0831||95.0|0.961|1.908|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.908|0.961|0.0831
91912407|NCT00143455|183721330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.7544||95.0|0.771|1.208|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.208|0.771|0.7544
91912408|NCT02682901|183721333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means are statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.603
91912409|NCT02682901|183721334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means are statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068
91912410|NCT02682901|183721335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means are statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.493
91912411|NCT02682901|183721336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.524
91912412|NCT02682901|183721337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.630
91912413|NCT02682901|183721338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.537
91912414|NCT02682901|183721339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.530
91912415|NCT02682901|183721340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91912416|NCT03850912|183721348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.104||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (chemo and surgical patients combined)||1.290|0.944|0.214
91912417|NCT03850912|183721348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.927||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.201|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.201|0.715|0.565
91912418|NCT03850912|183721348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.225||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.490|1.008|0.042
91912419|NCT03850912|183721349|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.272|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||1.272|1.000|0.050
91912420|NCT03850912|183721349|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.012||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.225|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.225|0.836|0.903
91912421|NCT03850912|183721349|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.418|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.418|1.040|0.014
91912422|NCT03850912|183721350|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.002||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.139|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||1.139|0.881|0.978
91912423|NCT03850912|183721350|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.046|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.046|0.697|0.126
91912424|NCT03850912|183721350|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.302|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.302|0.933|0.254
91912425|NCT03850912|183721351|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.068||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.183|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||1.183|0.964|0.209
91912426|NCT03850912|183721351|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.992||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.159|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.159|0.850|0.924
91912427|NCT03850912|183721351|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.122||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.286|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.286|0.979|0.099
91762959|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0001
91912428|NCT03850912|183721352|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.328||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.593|-0.062|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||-0.062|-2.593|0.04
91912429|NCT03850912|183721352|OTHER||Difference|-1.958||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.269|-0.646|||Regression, Logistic|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||-0.646|-3.269|0.004
91912430|NCT03850912|183721353|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.925||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.985|0.136|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.136|-1.985|0.09
91912431|NCT03850912|183721353|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.516||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.474|-0.557|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||-0.557|-2.474|0.002
91912432|NCT03850912|183721354|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.767||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.532|0.433|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.433|-2.532|0.17
91912433|NCT03850912|183721354|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.198|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.259|-1.137|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||-1.137|-3.259|<0.0001
91912434|NCT03850912|183721355|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.8084||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.048|0.431|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.431|-2.048|0.2
91912435|NCT03850912|183721355|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.652||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.496|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||0.496|-1.800|0.27
91912436|NCT03850912|183721356|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.617||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.386|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.386|-1.620|0.23
91912437|NCT03850912|183721356|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.434||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|1.431|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||1.431|-0.563|0.39
91912438|NCT03850912|183721357|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.829|0.429|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.429|-1.829|0.22
91912439|NCT03850912|183721357|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.58||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.632|0.472|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||0.472|-1.632|0.28
91912440|NCT03850912|183721358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.842|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|0.913|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (chemo and surgical patients combined)||0.913|0.776|<0.001
91912441|NCT03850912|183721358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|0.885|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.885|0.688|<0.001
91912442|NCT03850912|183721358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.889||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.990|0.799|0.032
91912443|NCT03850912|183721359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|0.949|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||0.949|0.839|<0.001
91912444|NCT03850912|183721359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.872||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.954|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.954|0.796|0.003
91912445|NCT03850912|183721359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.909||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.989|0.835|0.027
91912446|NCT03850912|183721360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.636|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|0.682|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||0.682|0.593|<0.001
91912447|NCT03850912|183721360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.611|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.679|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.679|0.550|<0.001
91912448|NCT03850912|183721360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.655|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.719|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.719|0.597|<0.001
91912449|NCT03850912|183721361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.769|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.811|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||0.811|0.729|<0.001
91912450|NCT03850912|183721361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|0.858|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.858|0.737|<0.001
91912451|NCT03850912|183721361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|0.796|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.796|0.686|<0.001
91912452|NCT00848354|183721383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by country, was used to calculate p-value. Assuming ACR50 response at Week 24 to be 23% in the DMARD combination therapy group and 37% in the etanercept + methotrexate group, a study enrolling 276 participants assigned to etanercept + methotrexate and 138 participants assigned to DMARD combination therapy has 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates testing at the type I error = 0.05 level.||||<0.0001
91912453|NCT00848354|183721384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
91912454|NCT00848354|183721385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for vitality domain at Week 24.||||0.0003
91912455|NCT00848354|183721385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for mental component at Week 24.||||0.0002
91912456|NCT00848354|183721385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for physical component at Week 24.||||<0.0001
91912457|NCT00848354|183721386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on ranks of change in mTSS with treatment group and center main effects and the Baseline rank as covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0270
91912458|NCT00848354|183721387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
91912459|NCT00848354|183721390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|18.2||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||18.2|2.25|<0.0001
91912460|NCT00848354|183721390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|9.49||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||9.49|2.62|<0.0001
91912461|NCT00848354|183721390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.94||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.94|2.19|<0.0001
91912462|NCT00848354|183721390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|6.53||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||6.53|2.57|<0.0001
91912463|NCT00848354|183721390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|6.16||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||6.16|2.51|<0.0001
91912464|NCT00848354|183721390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.93||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||5.93|2.46|<0.0001
91912465|NCT00848354|183721390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|8.53||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||8.53|3.41|<0.0001
91912466|NCT00848354|183721392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|6.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||6.21|2.37|<0.0001
91912467|NCT00848354|183721392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.11||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||5.11|2.19|<0.0001
91912468|NCT00848354|183721392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.43||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||4.43|1.90|<0.0001
91912469|NCT00848354|183721392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.96||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||4.96|2.06|<0.0001
91912470|NCT00848354|183721392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|6.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||6.21|2.46|<0.0001
91912471|NCT00848354|183721392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|6.22||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.22|2.45|<0.0001
91912472|NCT00848354|183721392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|7.78||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||7.78|3.13|<0.0001
91912473|NCT00848354|183721394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.19||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|40.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||40.9|0.66|0.1086
91912474|NCT00848354|183721394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|12.3||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||12.3|1.04|0.0392
91912475|NCT00848354|183721394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|13.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||13.6|2.04|<0.0001
91912476|NCT00848354|183721394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|13.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||13.6|2.39|<0.0001
91912477|NCT00848354|183721394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.09||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||7.09|2.02|<0.0001
91912478|NCT00848354|183721394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.60|2.02|<0.0001
91912479|NCT00848354|183721394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|7.46||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||7.46|2.36|<0.0001
91912480|NCT00848354|183721396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
91912481|NCT00848354|183721398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|10.0||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value.||10.00|3.88|<0.0001
91912482|NCT00848354|183721399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|17.39||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value.||17.39|3.49|<0.0001
91912483|NCT00848354|183721400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.46||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||5.46|2.24|<0.0001
91912484|NCT00848354|183721400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.55||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||8.55|2.91|<0.0001
91912485|NCT00848354|183721400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|12.02||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||12.02|2.93|<0.0001
91912486|NCT00848354|183721400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|9.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||9.21|2.27|<0.0001
91912487|NCT00848354|183721400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|13.48||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||13.48|2.74|<0.0001
91912488|NCT00848354|183721400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.72||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||15.72|3.00|<0.0001
91912489|NCT00848354|183721400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|15.63||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||15.63|3.74|<0.0001
91912490|NCT00848354|183721402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|4.86||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||4.86|2.04|<0.0001
91912491|NCT00848354|183721402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.82||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||6.82|2.85|<0.0001
91912492|NCT00848354|183721402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.38||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||6.38|2.50|<0.0001
91912493|NCT00848354|183721402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|6.41||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||6.41|2.37|<0.0001
91912494|NCT00848354|183721402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|9.76||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||9.76|3.19|<0.0001
91912495|NCT00848354|183721402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|9.52||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||9.52|3.16|<0.0001
91912496|NCT00848354|183721402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|11.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.21|3.87|<0.0001
91912497|NCT00848354|183721404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.4||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||5.40|2.30|<0.0001
91912498|NCT00848354|183721404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|7.71||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.71|3.07|<0.0001
91912499|NCT00848354|183721404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|8.41||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||8.41|2.98|<0.0001
91912500|NCT00848354|183721404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|7.58||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||7.58|2.55|<0.0001
91912501|NCT00848354|183721404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.74||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||10.74|3.15|<0.0001
91912502|NCT00848354|183721404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|11.73||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||11.73|3.25|<0.0001
91912503|NCT00848354|183721404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|11.33||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.33|3.67|<0.0001
91912504|NCT00848354|183721406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.13||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||9.13|1.05|0.0349
91912505|NCT00848354|183721406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.60|1.98|<0.0001
91912506|NCT00848354|183721406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.88||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.88|2.10|<0.0001
91912507|NCT00848354|183721406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.06||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||5.06|2.02|<0.0001
91912508|NCT00848354|183721406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|6.96||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||6.96|2.78|<0.0001
91912509|NCT00848354|183721406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.90|2.80|<0.0001
91912510|NCT00848354|183721406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|9.85||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||9.85|3.82|<0.0001
91912511|NCT00848354|183721408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|6.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||6.60|2.74|<0.0001
91912512|NCT00848354|183721408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|7.18||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.18|2.94|<0.0001
91912513|NCT00848354|183721408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|8.61||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||8.61|3.15|<0.0001
91912514|NCT00848354|183721408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|9.93||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||9.93|3.36|<0.0001
91912515|NCT00848354|183721408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|13.09||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||13.09|3.91|<0.0001
91912516|NCT00848354|183721408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||15.80|4.50|<0.0001
91912517|NCT00848354|183721408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|10.47||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||10.47|3.50|<0.0001
91808313|NCT01059825|183493680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.44||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.05|-0.84||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.84|-4.05|0.026
91912518|NCT00848354|183721410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|56.88||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||56.88|0.96|0.0250
91808314|NCT01059825|183493680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.49||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|3.08||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||3.08|-0.11|0.883
91912519|NCT00848354|183721410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.45||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||5.45|1.00|0.0466
91912520|NCT00848354|183721410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.36||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.36|1.50|0.0007
91912521|NCT00848354|183721410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.18||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||5.18|1.70|<0.0001
91912522|NCT00848354|183721410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.05||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||5.05|1.85|<0.0001
91912523|NCT00848354|183721410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|6.87||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.87|2.47|<0.0001
91912524|NCT00848354|183721410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|11.38||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.38|3.72|<0.0001
91912525|NCT00848354|183721412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3054||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||||0.3054
91912526|NCT00848354|183721412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.53||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.53|0.58|0.4044
91912527|NCT00848354|183721412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.26||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||6.26|1.02|0.0388
91912528|NCT00848354|183721412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|6.34||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||6.34|1.31|0.0059
91912529|NCT00848354|183721412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|9.29||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||9.29|1.99|<0.0001
91912530|NCT00848354|183721412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|12.24||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||12.24|2.88|<0.0001
91912531|NCT00848354|183721412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|23.32||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||23.32|3.61|<0.0001
91912532|NCT00848354|183721414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|56.88||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||56.88|0.96|0.0250
91912533|NCT00848354|183721414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.45||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||5.45|1.00|0.0466
91912534|NCT00848354|183721414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.36||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.36|1.50|0.0007
91912535|NCT00848354|183721414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.18||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||5.18|1.70|<0.0001
91912536|NCT00848354|183721414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.05||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||5.05|1.85|<0.0001
91912537|NCT00848354|183721414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|6.87||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.87|2.47|<0.0001
91912538|NCT00848354|183721414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|11.38||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.38|3.72|<0.0001
91912539|NCT00848354|183721416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.07||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||7.07|2.90|<0.0001
91912540|NCT00848354|183721416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|6.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||6.80|2.36|<0.0001
91912541|NCT00848354|183721416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|9.72||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||9.72|2.82|<0.0001
91912542|NCT00848354|183721416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|10.47||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||10.47|2.63|<0.0001
91912543|NCT00848354|183721416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|13.48||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||13.48|3.16|<0.0001
91762960|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1279|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.1279
91912544|NCT00848354|183721416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|18.17||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||18.17|3.86|<0.0001
91912545|NCT00848354|183721416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|15.62||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||15.62|3.94|<0.0001
91762961|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
91762962|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0004
91762963|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0807
91762964|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
91762965|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.0002
91762966|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.418|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.4180
91762967|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
91762968|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0061
91762969|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1615|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.1615
91762970|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
91762971|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0130
91762972|NCT00445770|183416310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0948
91762973|NCT03228212|183416340|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|9.09|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 60 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||9.09|1.16|
91762974|NCT03228212|183416341|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logmar was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.00621|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.03|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 40 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 0.05 difference in LogMAR visual acuity at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||0.03|0.01|
91762975|NCT03228212|183416342|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 90% was used. Lower limit of 95% credible interval was compared to 90%|proportion|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||Bayesian Methods|Bayesian Methods-Jefferys prior for binomial proportion was used to calculate 95% credible interval.||It was calculated that 70 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures. Analysis was only performed on eyes wearing the Tesl lens.||1|0.96|
91762976|NCT03228212|183416343|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0043|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0237|0.0129|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data|Mean difference calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect 5% difference between the Test and Control lens with respect to the proportion of eyes with Grade 3 or higher slit lamp findings across all study visits. Sample size was determined using simulations methods. Sample size for this study was primarily driven by the slit lamp findings.||0.0129|-0.0237|
91808315|NCT01059825|183493681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.67||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.07|-0.27||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.27|-3.07|0.063
91912546|NCT00848354|183721418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|5.73||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||5.73|2.35|<0.0001
91912547|NCT00848354|183721418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.22||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.22|3.00|<0.0001
91762977|NCT03228212|183416344|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|10.74|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Sample size calculations were based on the primary endpoints.||10.74|3.69|
91762978|NCT03228212|183416345|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.29|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Sample size calculations were based on the primary endpoints.||6.29|0.36|
91762979|NCT01807299|183416364|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|5.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.05
91762980|NCT01938040|183416391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91762981|NCT02309944|183416403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs. Standard Wound Closure||||0.27
91762982|NCT02309944|183416403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Logistic|Multivariate Model (adjusted for ascites and previous laparotomy)||Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs. Standard Wound Closure||||0.24
91762983|NCT02848222|183416444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for significance was p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.02
91762984|NCT02451943|183416450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.303|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.303|0.841|0.6945
91762985|NCT02451943|183416451|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.951||||0.7618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.312|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.312|0.690|0.7618
91762986|NCT02451943|183416452|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.231||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.009|1.502|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.502|1.009|0.0422
91762987|NCT02451943|183416458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.616||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.093|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.093|0.347|0.0934
91762988|NCT02451943|183416459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.413|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.413|0.892|0.3347
91762989|NCT03937713|183416462|OTHER|Calculations were approximated by those of a simple two-sample t-test for mean differences in PSQI in response to BBTI||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The sample size selected for this preliminary trial was based on the analysis of the PSQI as the primary outcome. Assuming a correlation coefficient of 0.7 between pre-and post-treatment, 21 patients per arm were needed to achieve 80% power at a significance level of 5% in order to detect a clinically significant difference of 3 units in PSQI. To compensate for an anticipated attrition rate of 25%, the recruitment target was set at 52 participants.||||0.05
91762990|NCT02871635|183416467|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.028|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 4 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.028|0.870|
91762991|NCT02871635|183416467|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.044|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 4 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.044|0.856|
91762992|NCT02871635|183416468|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.871|1.148|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.148|0.871|
91762993|NCT02871635|183416468|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.178|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.178|0.848|
91762994|NCT02871635|183416469|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.078|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.078|0.751|
91762995|NCT02871635|183416469|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.116|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.116|0.725|
91762996|NCT00412893|183416535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference was compared to the protocol prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound was smaller than 10%, isavuconazole was declared as non-inferior to voriconazole with respect to the primary outcome measure.|Adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.759|5.683|||||The treatment difference (isavuconazole minus voriconazole) was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method. The strata included Geographical Regions, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Approximately 255 patients per group were to be enrolled to ensure at least 80% power to demonstrate that the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for a treatment difference in favor of the comparator was no larger than 10%.||5.683|-7.759|
91762997|NCT00412893|183416536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.336|12.572|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||12.572|-9.336|
91912548|NCT00848354|183721418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|8.06||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||8.06|3.05|<0.0001
91912549|NCT00848354|183721418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|8.96||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||8.96|3.18|<0.0001
91912550|NCT00848354|183721418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|10.06||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||10.06|3.23|<0.0001
91912551|NCT00848354|183721418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|14.2||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||14.20|4.37|<0.0001
91762998|NCT00412893|183416536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.277|10.329|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||10.329|-11.277|
91762999|NCT00412893|183416536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.993|18.379|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||18.379|-1.993|
91763000|NCT00412893|183416537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|6.34|||||The treatment difference (isavuconazole minus voriconazole) was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method. The strata included Geographical Regions, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|||6.340|-9.150|
91763001|NCT00412893|183416539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.64|11.531|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment Comparison||11.531|-10.640|
91763002|NCT00412893|183416539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.368|5.802|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||5.802|-17.368|
91763003|NCT00412893|183416539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.116|11.758|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||11.758|-11.116|
91763004|NCT00412893|183416540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.429|15.087|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||15.087|-7.429|
91763005|NCT00412893|183416540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.917|10.586|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 Comparison||10.586|-11.917|
91763006|NCT00412893|183416540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|19.83|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 Comparison||19.830|-1.624|
91763007|NCT00412893|183416541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.936|16.268|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||16.268|-4.936|
91763008|NCT00412893|183416541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.338|16.032|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||16.032|-5.338|
91763009|NCT00412893|183416541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.231|19.186|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||19.186|-1.231|
91763010|NCT00412893|183416542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.043|16.026|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||16.026|-6.043|
91763011|NCT00412893|183416542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted treatment Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.873|11.22|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||11.220|-10.873|
91763012|NCT00412893|183416542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted treatment Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.533|15.939|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||15.939|-6.533|
91763013|NCT00412893|183416543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.429|17.218|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||17.218|-8.429|
91912552|NCT00848354|183721418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|9.65||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||9.65|3.40|<0.0001
91912553|NCT00848354|183721420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
91912554|NCT00848354|183721422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
91912555|NCT00848354|183721424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
91912556|NCT00848354|183721426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
91912557|NCT00848354|183721428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||||<0.0001
91912558|NCT00848354|183721428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||||0.0007
91912559|NCT00848354|183721428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0009
91912560|NCT00848354|183721428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||||0.0007
91912561|NCT00848354|183721428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0005
91912562|NCT00848354|183721428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||||<0.0001
91912563|NCT00848354|183721428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
91912564|NCT00848354|183721430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
91912565|NCT00848354|183721432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
91912566|NCT00848354|183721434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
91912567|NCT00848354|183721436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value.||||0.1975
91808316|NCT01059825|183493681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.29||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.69|-0.88||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.88|-3.69|0.019
91912568|NCT00848354|183721437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0044
91912569|NCT00848354|183721438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
91912570|NCT00848354|183721440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||||<0.0001
91912571|NCT00848354|183721440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||||<0.0001
91912572|NCT00848354|183721440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0002
91912573|NCT00848354|183721440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||||0.0007
91912574|NCT00848354|183721440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0001
91912575|NCT00848354|183721440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||||<0.0001
91912576|NCT00848354|183721440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0021
91912577|NCT00848354|183721441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0001
91912578|NCT00848354|183721441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||<0.0001
91912579|NCT00848354|183721441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0003
91912580|NCT00848354|183721443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||<0.0001
91912581|NCT00848354|183721443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0264
91912582|NCT00848354|183721443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0002
91912583|NCT00848354|183721445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0005
91912584|NCT00848354|183721445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||<0.0001
91808317|NCT01059825|183493681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.01||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.43|-0.59||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.59|-3.43|0.035
91912585|NCT00848354|183721445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
91912586|NCT00848354|183721447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 8, Week 16, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
91912587|NCT00848354|183721448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0061
91912588|NCT00848354|183721448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0730
91912589|NCT00848354|183721448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
91912590|NCT00848354|183721449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0066
91912591|NCT00848354|183721449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0036
91912592|NCT00848354|183721449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
91912593|NCT00848354|183721450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||<0.0001
91912594|NCT00848354|183721450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0013
91763014|NCT00412893|183416543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.071|10.073|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||10.073|-15.071|
91763015|NCT00412893|183416543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.633|14.499|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||14.499|-8.633|
91763016|NCT00412893|183416544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.145|17.696|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||17.696|-5.145|
91763017|NCT00412893|183416544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.335|19.356|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||19.356|-3.335|
91763018|NCT00412893|183416544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.187|16.332|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||16.332|-6.187|
91763019|NCT03951077|183416546|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-5.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.38|3.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.49|-15.38|0.300
91763020|NCT03951077|183416546|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-5.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.65|3.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.86|-15.65|0.320
91808318|NCT01059825|183493681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.3||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.73|0.12||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.12|-2.73|0.121
91912595|NCT00848354|183721450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0002
91912596|NCT00848354|183721451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0021
91912597|NCT00848354|183721451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||<0.0001
91912598|NCT00848354|183721451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
91912599|NCT00848354|183721452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0062
91912600|NCT00848354|183721452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0007
91912601|NCT00848354|183721452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
91912602|NCT00848354|183721453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||<0.0001
91912603|NCT00848354|183721453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0073
91912604|NCT00848354|183721453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
91912605|NCT00915343|183721456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.806|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|0.862||Comparison of log S-cortisol AUC between OD and TID regimens was adjusted for both period effect and subject effect using generalized linear model (GLM) in statistical analysis system (SAS).|ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-24h for OD treatment divided by AUC0-24h for TID treatment.|||0.862|0.753|<0.0001
91912606|NCT00915343|183721457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-111.989|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.98|89.999|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||89.999|-133.980|<0.0001
91912607|NCT00915343|183721458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|110.417||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.755|204.078|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||204.078|16.755|0.0357
91912608|NCT00915343|183721459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-38.076|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.276|25.876|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||25.876|-50.276|<0.0001
91763021|NCT03951077|183416546|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-5.6||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.87|3.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.59|-14.87|0.315
91763022|NCT03951077|183416546|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-6.7||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.63|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.19|-16.63|0.265
91808319|NCT01059825|183493681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.29||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.13|1.7||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.70|-1.13|0.602
91912609|NCT00915343|183721460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-65.782||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.201|22.362|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||22.362|-109.201|0.0033
91912610|NCT00915343|183721461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-148.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.469|-106.561|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-106.561|-189.469|<0.0001
91912611|NCT00915343|183721462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-108.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.193|-76.42|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-76.420|-140.193|<0.0001
91912612|NCT00915343|183721463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|0.27||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.512|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.512|0.028|0.0214
91912613|NCT00915343|183721464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-1.042||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|0.015|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.015|-2.098|0.0714
91912614|NCT00915343|183721465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.007||||0.6687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.024|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.024|-0.038|0.6687
91912615|NCT00915343|183721466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|0.049||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.093|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.093|0.006|0.0280
91912616|NCT00915343|183721467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|5.509||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|10.268|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||10.268|0.751|0.0003
91912617|NCT00915343|183721468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.533|-7.067|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-7.067|-20.533|<0.0001
91912618|NCT00915343|183721469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|1.064||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.097|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-4h for OD treatment divided by AUC0-4h for TID treatment.|AUC0-4h||1.097|1.032|0.0002
91912619|NCT00915343|183721469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.617|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.675|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC4-12h for OD treatment divided by AUC4-12h for TID treatment.|AUC4-12h||0.675|0.563|<0.0001
91912620|NCT00915343|183721469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|0.525|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC6-12h for OD treatment divided by AUC6-12h for TID treatment.|AUC6-12h||0.525|0.424|<0.0001
91912621|NCT00915343|183721469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.588||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|0.775|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC12-24h for OD treatment divided by AUC12-24h for TID treatment.|AUC12-24h||0.775|0.446|0.0003
91912622|NCT00915343|183721469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.894|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.935|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-10h for OD treatment divided by AUC0-10h for TID treatment.|AUC0-10h||0.935|0.856|<0.0001
91912623|NCT00915343|183721469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.695|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|0.765|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC4-10h for OD treatment divided by AUC4-10h for TID treatment.|AUC4-10h||0.765|0.632|<0.0001
91912624|NCT00915343|183721469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|0.605|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC6-10h for OD treatment divided by AUC6-10h for TID treatment.|AUC6-10h||0.605|0.482|<0.0001
91912625|NCT00915343|183721469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.412|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.504|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC10-24h for OD treatment divided by AUC10-24h for TID treatment.|AUC10-24h||0.504|0.338|<0.0001
91912626|NCT00915343|183721469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.776|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|0.843|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC(0-inf) for OD treatment divided by AUC(0-inf) for TID treatment.|AUC(0-inf)||0.843|0.714|<0.0001
91912627|NCT00915343|183721469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|1.069||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|2.521|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC(24h-inf) for OD treatment divided by AUC(24h-inf) for TID treatment.|AUC(24h-inf)||2.521|0.453|0.8770
91912628|NCT00915343|183721470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.806|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|0.862|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUCtau for OD treatment divided by AUCtau for TID treatment.|||0.862|0.753|<0.0001
91912629|NCT00915343|183721471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|0.851|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUCtau/dose for OD treatment divided by AUCtau/dose for TID treatment.|||0.851|0.734|<0.0001
91912630|NCT00915343|183721472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.785|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|0.831|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-24h/dose for OD treatment divided by AUC0-24h/dose for TID treatment.|||0.831|0.741|<0.0001
91912631|NCT00915343|183721473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.885|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|0.926|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-10h/dose for OD treatment divided by AUC0-10h/dose for TID treatment.|||0.926|0.844|<0.0001
91808320|NCT01059825|183493682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.2||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.86|-0.54||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.54|-3.86|0.045
91912632|NCT00915343|183721474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|1.053||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.086|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-4h/dose for OD treatment divided by AUC0-4h/dose for TID treatment.|||1.086|1.020|0.0020
91912633|NCT00915343|183721475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.0|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-0.000|-0.001|<0.0001
91912634|NCT00915343|183721476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|-0.001|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-0.001|-0.002|<0.0001
91912635|NCT00915343|183721477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.055||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.334|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.334|-0.444|0.7827
91912636|NCT00915343|183721478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.001||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.0|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-0.000|-0.001|0.0015
91912637|NCT00915343|183721479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|6.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|12.646|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC Extrapolation for OD treatment divided by AUC Extrapolation for TID treatment.|||12.646|2.940|<0.0001
91912638|NCT00915343|183721480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|33.532||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.734|65.329|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||65.329|1.734|0.0396
91912639|NCT00915343|183721481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.08||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.177|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.177|-0.017|0.1032
91912640|NCT00915343|183721482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean|-0.078||||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.094|||Fisher's test|Fisher's non||Patient||0.094|-0.250|0.3767
91912641|NCT00915343|183721482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean|-0.064||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.107|||Fisher's test|Fisher's non||Investigator||0.107|-0.235|0.4625
91912642|NCT00915343|183721483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6072|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||Patient||||0.6072
91912643|NCT00915343|183721483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||Investigator||||1.0000
91912644|NCT00915343|183721484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.6||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's test|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||Comparison of Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Physical Component Score||||0.3332
91912645|NCT00915343|183721484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|0.9||||0.3405|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's test|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||Comparison of Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Mental Component Score||||0.3405
91763023|NCT03951077|183416546|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-0.8||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.1|11.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||11.48|-13.10|0.914
91763024|NCT03951077|183416547|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.429||0.087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.628|-0.231|||MMRM|||P-value is from mixed-effect model repeated measure (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-0.231|-11.628|0.087
91763025|NCT03951077|183416547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-8.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.435||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.533|-3.118|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-3.118|-14.533|0.012
91763026|NCT03951077|183416547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.356|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.673|-10.519|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-10.519|-21.673|<0.001
91763027|NCT03951077|183416547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.593||0.091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.116|-0.176|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-0.176|-12.116|0.091
91763028|NCT03951077|183416547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.431|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.418|-6.016|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-6.016|-17.418|< 0.001
91763029|NCT00086047|183416548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.8||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.22|1.57|0.007
91763030|NCT01395901|183416551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the primary efficacy analysis, the confidence interval (CI) was built on the FAS using the stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with correction of continuity. The non-inferiority margin was -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.7||||||"The null hypothesis (H0) was stated as:~• H0 : CR 0-24 hr palonosetron - CR 0-24 hr ondansetron \<-10%~The alternative hypothesis (H1) was stated as:~• H1 : CR 0-24 hr palonosetron - CR 0-24 hr ondansetron \>-10%~A power of 80% was used for sample size computation."||1.7|-10.5|
91763031|NCT01751984|183416602|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-22.1|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-22.1|-35.4|<0.0001
91763032|NCT01751984|183416603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-11.8|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 2. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-11.8|-24.3|<0.0001
91763033|NCT01751984|183416603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|-24.7|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 4. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-24.7|-35.2|<0.0001
91763034|NCT01751984|183416603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-20.8|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 6. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-20.8|-36.9|<0.0001
91763035|NCT01751984|183416603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-19.8|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 8. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-19.8|-37.2|<0.0001
91763036|NCT01751984|183416604|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.8||||0.1892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|2.9|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||2.9|-14.5|0.1892
91763037|NCT01751984|183416605|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-13.9|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.9|-28.0|<0.0001
91763038|NCT01751984|183416606|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-12.7|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-12.7|-24.2|<0.0001
91763039|NCT01751984|183416607|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|18.7|||=|0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|40.8|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||40.8|-3.5|=0.0962
91763040|NCT01751984|183416608|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.3|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-6.0|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-6.0|-24.6|=0.0019
91763041|NCT01751984|183416609|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.2|||=|0.2555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|3.2|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||3.2|-11.7|=0.2555
91763042|NCT01751984|183416610|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|11.7||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|32.1|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||32.1|-8.8|0.2563
91808321|NCT01059825|183493682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.49||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.16|0.18||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.18|-3.16|0.126
91808322|NCT01059825|183493682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.03||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.72|-1.34||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.34|-4.72|0.011
91808323|NCT01059825|183493682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.99||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.69|-0.3||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-3.69|0.066
91808324|NCT01059825|183493682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.48||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.15|1.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.19|-2.15|0.357
91808325|NCT01059825|183493684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.29|-13.69||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-13.69|-28.29|0.000
91808326|NCT01059825|183493684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-25.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.17|-18.47||P-value is one-sided.P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-18.47|-33.17|0.000
91808327|NCT01059825|183493684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.64|-26.83||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-26.83|-41.64|0.000
91912646|NCT00915343|183721485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8418|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Change From Baseline to 6 months in Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Physical Component Score||||0.8418
91808328|NCT01059825|183493684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-32.02||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.49|-24.56||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-24.56|-39.49|0.000
91808329|NCT01059825|183493684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.05||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.39|-12.72||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-12.72|-27.39|0.000
91912647|NCT00915343|183721485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.355|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Change From Baseline to 6 months in Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Mental Component Score||||0.3550
91808330|NCT01059825|183493685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.96||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.58|-13.34||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-13.34|-28.58|0.000
91808331|NCT01059825|183493685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-21.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.27|-13.86||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-13.86|-29.27|0.000
91808332|NCT01059825|183493685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-32.54||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-40.2|-24.88||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-24.88|-40.20|0.000
91808333|NCT01059825|183493685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.05|-14.61||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-14.61|-30.05|0.000
91808334|NCT01059825|183493685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.19|-12.96||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-12.96|-28.19|0.000
91808335|NCT01059825|183493686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.16|-15.01||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-15.01|-29.16|0.000
91808336|NCT01059825|183493686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-27.94||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.06|-20.83||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-20.83|-35.06|0.000
91808337|NCT01059825|183493686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-33.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-40.29|-25.95||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-25.95|-40.29|0.000
91808338|NCT01059825|183493686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-31.79||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.02|-24.56||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-24.56|-39.02|0.000
91912648|NCT00915343|183721486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-2.9||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||||||0.0823
91912649|NCT00915343|183721487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5982|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.5982
91912650|NCT00915343|183721488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|2.3||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's test|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||||||0.0632
91912651|NCT00915343|183721489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8676|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.8676
91912652|NCT00915343|183721490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.9700
91912653|NCT00915343|183721491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.2624
91912654|NCT00915343|183721492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91912655|NCT00915343|183721494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||<0.0001
91912656|NCT00915343|183721495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-272.3||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0034
91763043|NCT01751984|183416611|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-23.7||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|18.0|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||18.0|-65.4|0.2565
91763044|NCT01751984|183416612|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.0||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|32.0|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||32.0|-24.1|0.7760
91763045|NCT01751984|183416613|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson methodology|61.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.4|78.1||Based on Fisher's exact test comparing the proportion of participants who achieved LDL-C goal at Week 8 (End of Study) in the ETC-1002 and placebo groups.|Fisher Exact||ETC-1002 minus placebo for the proportion of participants who achieved LDL-C goal at Week 8 (End of Study). The confidence interval was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||78.1|45.4|<0.0001
91763046|NCT00587158|183416616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0005
91763047|NCT00587158|183416617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4571||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4571
91763048|NCT00587158|183416618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2290
91763049|NCT00587158|183416619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at baseline was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.17
91763050|NCT00587158|183416619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at 21 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.005
91763051|NCT00587158|183416619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at 90 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||<0.0001
91763052|NCT00587158|183416619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at one year was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.0004
91763053|NCT00587158|183416620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at baseline was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.833
91763054|NCT00587158|183416620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at 21 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.553
91763055|NCT00587158|183416620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at 90 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.035
91763056|NCT00587158|183416620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at one year was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.171
91763057|NCT00587158|183416621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
91763058|NCT00587158|183416622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91763059|NCT00587158|183416625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91763060|NCT00587158|183416626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91763061|NCT00587158|183416627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91763062|NCT00587158|183416628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The number of subjects with mild interstitial fibrosis (Banff ci score \> 0 and \< 2) at one year was compared between treatment groups.||||1.0
91763063|NCT00587158|183416628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The number of subjects with moderate to mild interstitial fibrosis (Banff ci score greater than or equal to 2) at one year was compared between treatment groups.||||0.04
91763064|NCT01915173|183416661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||All 4 arms were combined to compare the Standard Interview groups to the Expanded Interview groups. We calculated that we had 45-74% power to detect a 30-40% difference in responders between groups in the pre-specified primary outcome measure, the percent of subjects with a 50% or greater improvement in GERD symptom severity.||||0.01
91763065|NCT01915173|183416661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||All 4 arms were combined to compare the Placebo groups to the Supplement groups. We calculated that we had 45-74% power to detect a 30-40% difference in responders between groups in the pre-specified primary outcome measure, the percent of subjects with a 50% or greater improvement in GERD symptom severity.||||0.33
91763066|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.86||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm A vs Arm B shift test on Angiopoietin -- 2 prior to cycle 2. Wilcoxon rank-sum test p-value.||||0.86
91912657|NCT03505021|183721501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.258||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.032|2.547|||ANCOVA|||||2.547|-2.032|0.8253
91912658|NCT03505021|183721502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.69||||0.4277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.74|37.12|||ANCOVA|||||37.12|-15.74|0.4277
91912659|NCT03505021|183721503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.051||||0.6733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.327|||Regression, Cox|||||1.327|0.833|0.6733
91912660|NCT03505021|183721504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.762||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|8.654|||ANCOVA|||||8.654|-1.129|0.1295
91912661|NCT03505021|183721505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.066|-0.040|0.6230
91912662|NCT03505021|183721506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.272||||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.666|0.122|||ANCOVA|||||0.122|-0.666|0.1752
91912663|NCT01299766|183721528|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.74|||Poisson regression with robust SE (GEE)|||Poisson regression with robust standard errors (GEE) was used to jointly model decline in HVLT-R Total Recall score ≥ 6 words at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months by treatment group. The model included time, treatment, time-by-treatment interaction terms, and baseline HVLT-R Total Recall score.||0.74|0.02|.02
91912664|NCT01299766|183721529|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|2.47||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects linear regression was used to model the trajectory. Fixed effects for time (as a continuous variable), treatment group, time-by-treatment group interaction, and age at baseline were included. Random intercepts and slopes were included to account for within-subject correlation.||5.07|-.14|.064
91912665|NCT02944448|183721558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.4|0.7093
91912666|NCT02944448|183721559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.6|-13.1|0.6007
91912667|NCT02944448|183721560|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.4563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-3.0|0.4563
91912668|NCT02944448|183721561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-1.0|0.8693
91912669|NCT02944448|183721562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.6516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-9.1|0.6516
91912670|NCT02944448|183721563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression, including treatment, baseline weekly pain score, and OA joint as independent variables.|Ratio between treatment odds of achieving a treatment response.|||1.1|0.5|0.1033
91912671|NCT02944448|183721564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression, including treatment, baseline weekly pain score, and OA joint as independent variables.|Ratio between treatment odds of achieving a treatment response.|||1.2|0.5|0.2831
91912672|NCT02944448|183721565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment as a main effect and OA joint as a covariate.|"Ratio between treatment odds of having a PGIC of Very Much Improved or Much Improved."|||2.0|0.9|0.1959
91912673|NCT02944448|183721566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test stratified by Primary OA joint (Hip or Knee) and Baseline Week Mean of the Daily NRS (\<6.7 or \>=6.7) (Van Elteren test).||||||0.2858
91912674|NCT02944448|183721567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression, including treatment, baseline pain score, and OA joint as independent variables.|Ratio between treatment odds of withdrawing from treatment due to lack of analgesic efficacy.|||2.7|0.3|0.8002
91912675|NCT00804687|183721568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0602||95.0|-0.258|0.006|||Linear mixed model|||||0.006|-0.258|0.0602
91912676|NCT00804687|183721568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0043||95.0|-0.328|-0.063|||Linear mixed model|||||-0.063|-0.328|0.0043
91763067|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.76||||||Angiopoietin -- 2 prior to cycle 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Angiopoietin -- 2 prior to cycle 3||||0.76
91763068|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.14||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tie--2 Prior to cycle 2||||0.14
91912677|NCT00804687|183721568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.075|||Linear mixed model|||||0.075|-0.206|0.3513
91912678|NCT00804687|183721569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|8.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.267||0.0003||95.0|4.104|13.104|||Linear mixed model|||||13.104|4.104|0.0003
91912679|NCT00804687|183721569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|4.699|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.289||0.0428||95.0|0.155|9.243|||Linear mixed model|||||9.243|0.155|0.0428
91912680|NCT00804687|183721569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-3.905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.277||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.424|0.614|||Linear mixed model|||||0.614|-8.424|0.0895
91912681|NCT00805740|183721583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|53.3||||||The 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||53.3|-12.3|
91912682|NCT00805740|183721584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|55.6||||||2-week follow-up: The 95% CI was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||55.6|-13.6|
91763069|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.069||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tie -- 2 prior to cycle 3||||0.069
91763070|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.19||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF -- A prior to cycle 2||||0.19
91763071|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.046||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF--A prior to cycle 3||||0.046
91912683|NCT00805740|183721584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|47.3||||||6-week follow-up: The 95% CI was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||47.3|-23.3|
91912684|NCT00805740|183721586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|27.9||||||The 95% CI was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||27.9|-39.0|
91808339|NCT01059825|183493686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-23.17||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.28|-16.07||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-16.07|-30.28|0.000
91912685|NCT05227690|183721603|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|=|0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.4|-7.5|=0.1765
91912686|NCT05227690|183721603|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|=|0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.3|-5.6|=0.6007
91912687|NCT05227690|183721604|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|=|0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.10|-0.39|=0.2534
91912688|NCT05227690|183721604|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|=|0.6774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.19|-0.30|=0.6774
91912689|NCT05227690|183721605|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|=|0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.2|-3.2|=0.3596
91912690|NCT05227690|183721605|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|=|0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||1.6|-2.7|=0.6053
91912691|NCT05227690|183721605|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|=|0.8149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.7|-3.4|=0.8149
91912692|NCT05227690|183721605|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|=|0.9058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||2.9|-3.2|=0.9058
91808340|NCT01059825|183493687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.87|-15.27||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-15.27|-28.87|0.000
91912693|NCT05227690|183721605|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|=|0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.3|-4.4|=0.5419
91808341|NCT01059825|183493687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-28.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.35|-21.67||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-21.67|-35.35|0.000
91808342|NCT01059825|183493687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-35.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-42.3|-28.51||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-28.51|-42.30|0.000
91808343|NCT01059825|183493687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.76|-27.86||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-27.86|-41.76|0.000
91808344|NCT01059825|183493687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.75||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.58|-15.92||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-15.92|-29.58|0.000
91808345|NCT00106392|183493692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0||||P-Values were not adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A group sequential design using the O'Brien and Fleming stopping rule will require 58 evaluable patients per group to detect a 5-point difference in the Erectile Function domain of the IIEF with a power of 80% and an overall significance level of 5%.||||0.111
91808346|NCT00106392|183493693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.453
91808347|NCT00106392|183493694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.790
91808348|NCT00106392|183493695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.099
91808349|NCT00106392|183493696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
91808350|NCT00106392|183493697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.879||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.879
91808351|NCT02557698|183493707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0=Intervention and control groups do not differ with respect to the TEWL forearm at visit 3 H1=The TEWL on the forearm at visit 3 differs between the groups||-0.8|-3.1|0.002
91808352|NCT02557698|183493708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.2|-3.5|<0.001
91808353|NCT02557698|183493709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-3.2|0.024
91808354|NCT02557698|183493710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-3.1|0.017
91808355|NCT02557698|183493711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.7|-3.9|0.964
91889724|NCT03841526|183672254|OTHER|Parameters that did not meet normality criterion were analyzed non-parametrically. Overall treatment effect was assessed using Friedman's test.||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis was analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing the mean incidence rates among the 3 treatment groups in the Outpatient Phase. If the performed Friedman's test yielded an overall p-value less than 0.05, post-hoc analysis of groups means were conducted to statistically determine which group means differed.||||0.0002
91889725|NCT03841526|183672254|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Tukey Test/Kruskal-Wallis Test|Tukey Test (if the difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed) or Kruskal-Wallis Test (if not normally distributed).||If the overall treatment effect was significant, pairwise treatment comparisons were assessed using: If a difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed, the Tukey Test was used or if not normally distributed and the distribution was highly skewed, the sign test/Kruskal-Allis test was used.||||<0.0001
91808356|NCT02557698|183493712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.2|0.5|0.025
91808357|NCT02557698|183493713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-2.5|0.458
91808358|NCT02557698|183493714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-3.5|0.066
91808359|NCT02557698|183493715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-13.7|0.171
91808360|NCT02557698|183493716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-15.3|0.059
91808361|NCT02557698|183493717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-0.2|0.400
91808362|NCT02557698|183493718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.1|0.100
91808363|NCT02557698|183493719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91808364|NCT02557698|183493720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.914
91808365|NCT02557698|183493721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.822
91808366|NCT02557698|183493722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
91808367|NCT02557698|183493723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.259
91808368|NCT02557698|183493724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.581
91808369|NCT02557698|183493725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.182
91808370|NCT02557698|183493726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.759
91808371|NCT02557698|183493727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.831
91808372|NCT02557698|183493728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
91808373|NCT02557698|183493729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.4|-0.3|0.07
91808374|NCT02557698|183493730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.7|0.4|0.029
91808375|NCT02557698|183493731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-1.8|0.325
91808376|NCT02557698|183493732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.6|0.365
91808377|NCT02557698|183493733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-8.5|0.143
91808378|NCT02557698|183493734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.2|-6.5|0.662
91808379|NCT02557698|183493735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.4|0.326
91808380|NCT02557698|183493736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.2|0.687
91808381|NCT01737944|183493737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A - SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment B - SC injection without the device was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-inf)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|96.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.33|100.31||||||||100.31|92.33|
91889726|NCT03841526|183672254|OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||Tukey Test/Kruskal-Wallis Test|Tukey Test (if the difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed) or Kruskal-Wallis Test (if not normally distributed).||If the overall treatment effect was significant, pairwise treatment comparisons were assessed using: If a difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed, the Tukey Test was used or if not normally distributed and the distribution was highly skewed, the sign test/Kruskal-Allis test was used.||||0.0032
91889727|NCT03841526|183672254|OTHER|||||||0.2072|||||||Tukey Test/Kruskal-Wallis Test|Tukey Test (if the difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed) or Kruskal-Wallis Test (if not normally distributed).||If the overall treatment effect was significant, pairwise treatment comparisons were assessed using: If a difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed, the Tukey Test was used or if not normally distributed and the distribution was highly skewed, the sign test/Kruskal-Allis test was used.||||0.2072
91889728|NCT03841526|183672257|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91889729|NCT03841526|183672258|OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8590
91889730|NCT03238963|183672280|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.192|||Chan and Zhang method|95% confidence interval was calculating using the Chan and Zhang method.|Risk difference of BI 1467335 10 milligram (mg) group minus Placebo group.|||0.192|-0.053|
91889731|NCT01424813|183672291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08||Significance at the 0.05 level.|mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.08|0.57|<0.0001
91889732|NCT01424813|183672292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.46||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.46|0.68|<0.0001
91889733|NCT01424813|183672307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.06||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.06|0.41|<0.0001
91889734|NCT01424813|183672308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.99||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||0.99|0.38|<0.0001
91889735|NCT00515671|183672350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8868|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.8868
91889736|NCT00515671|183672351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3328|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.3328
91889737|NCT02683772|183672374|NON_INFERIORITY|The method proposed for this analysis was a one-sided paired t-test using a significance level of 0.05 and a non-inferiority margin of 2 events/hour|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.23||0.0134|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0134
91889738|NCT00225017|183672382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|25 subjects per arm will have 80% power to detect a difference between groups in mean FMD change of 2.9%, and 90% power to detect a mean FMD change of 3.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.384|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.312|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.312|-2.080|0.601
91889739|NCT00225017|183672383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.009||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.009
91889740|NCT00225017|183672384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.141
91889741|NCT01498887|183672392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3118
91889742|NCT03079297|183672405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|7.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.56|-3.56|0.4128
91889743|NCT03079297|183672406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4286|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4286
91889744|NCT03079297|183672407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.999
91889745|NCT03079297|183672408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9932||||||P-value for Adverse effect burden 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9932
91889746|NCT03079297|183672408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9932||||||P-value for Adverse effect burden 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9932
91889747|NCT03079297|183672408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2242||||||P-value for Adverse effect burden 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2242
91889748|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7282||||||P-value for General fatigue 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.7282
91889749|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8781||||||P-value for General fatigue 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.8781
91889750|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||P-value for General fatigue 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.226
91889751|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2158||||||P-value for Mental fatigue 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2158
91889752|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081||||||P-value for Mental fatigue 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0081
91912694|NCT05227690|183721605|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|=|0.8585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.7|-3.1|=0.8585
91912695|NCT05227690|183721605|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|=|0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.7|-5.1|=0.5521
91912696|NCT05227690|183721605|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|=|0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.3|-4.6|=0.7540
91912697|NCT05227690|183721605|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|=|0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.7|-5.7|=0.4842
91912698|NCT05227690|183721605|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|=|0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.4|-5.0|=0.6999
91912699|NCT05227690|183721605|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|=|0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.4|-7.5|=0.1765
91912700|NCT05227690|183721605|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|=|0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.3|-5.6|=0.6007
91912701|NCT05227690|183721606|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|=|0.5822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.09|-0.15|=0.5822
91912702|NCT05227690|183721606|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|=|0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.13|-0.11|=0.9244
91912703|NCT05227690|183721606|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|=|0.9348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.18|-0.17|=0.9348
91912704|NCT05227690|183721606|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|=|0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.14|-0.21|=0.7160
91763072|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.029||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PIGF Prior to Cycle 2||||0.029
91763073|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.2||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PIGF prior to cycle 3||||0.20
91912705|NCT05227690|183721606|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.6883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.16|-0.24|=0.6883
91763074|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.11||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGFR--3 prior to cycle 2||||0.11
91763075|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.068||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGFR--3 prior to cycle 3||||0.068
91763076|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.61||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF--C prior to cycle 2||||0.61
91763077|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.27||||||Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF--C prior to cycle 3||||0.27
91763078|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.61||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL--8 prior to cycle 2||||0.61
91763079|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.49||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL--8 prior to cycle 3||||0.49
91763080|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.82||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ICAM--1 prior to cycle 2||||0.82
91763081|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.069||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ICAM--1 prior to cycle 3||||0.069
91763082|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.34||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VCAM--1 prior to cycle 2||||0.34
91763083|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.046||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VCAM--1 prior to cycle 3||||0.046
91763084|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.11||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FGF2 prior to cycle 2||||0.11
91763085|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.23||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FGF2 prior to cycle 3||||0.23
91763086|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.37||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PDGF--AA prior to cycle 2||||0.37
91763087|NCT01664182|183416677|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.35||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PDGF--AA prior to cycle 3||||0.35
91763088|NCT05292131|183416687|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE) was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for AUC.|Geometric Mean Ratio (percentage [%])|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|105.4||||||||105.40|90.20|
91763089|NCT05292131|183416688|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for AUC0-t.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|97.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|104.55||||||||104.55|90.10|
91763090|NCT05292131|183416689|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|96.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|104.47||||||||104.47|88.60|
91763091|NCT05292131|183416692|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for t½.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.18|108.59||||||||108.59|94.18|
91763092|NCT05292131|183416693|EQUIVALENCE|The point estimate and the 90% CI for the median treatment differences for tmax was computed according to the Hodges-Lehmann's method.|Hodges-Lehman Estimate|0.4897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0073|0.9567||||||||0.9567|-0.0073|
91763093|NCT01345188|183416694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.058
91763094|NCT01345188|183416695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.048
91763095|NCT01345188|183416696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||||||>0.05
91912706|NCT05227690|183721606|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.5973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.25|-0.14|=0.5973
91912707|NCT05227690|183721606|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.1392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.05|-0.38|=0.1392
91912708|NCT05227690|183721606|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|=|0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.23|-0.21|=0.9421
91912709|NCT05227690|183721606|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|=|0.5431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.16|-0.30|=0.5431
91912710|NCT05227690|183721606|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|=|0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.26|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.26|-0.20|=0.8160
91912711|NCT05227690|183721606|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|=|0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.10|-0.39|=0.2534
91912712|NCT05227690|183721606|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|=|0.6774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.19|-0.30|=0.6774
91912713|NCT05227690|183721607|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and Baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio|1.9|||=|0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||3.99|0.90|=0.0904
91912714|NCT05227690|183721607|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and Baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio|1.96|||=|0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||4.13|0.93|=0.0756
91912715|NCT05227690|183721614|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.2418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.2|0.0|=0.2418
91912716|NCT05227690|183721614|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.5720
91912717|NCT05227690|183721614|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.7459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.7459
91912718|NCT05227690|183721614|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.6729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.6729
91808382|NCT01737944|183493737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment C-IM injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-inf)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|101.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.17|105.56||||||||105.56|97.17|
91808383|NCT01737944|183493738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment B-SC injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-24)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|96.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.32|100.28||||||||100.28|92.32|
91808384|NCT01737944|183493738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment C-IM injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-24)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|101.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.06|105.4||||||||105.40|97.06|
91808385|NCT01737944|183493739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment B-SC injection without the device was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of Cmax/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.93|106.47||||||||106.47|87.93|
91808386|NCT01737944|183493739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment C-IM injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of Cmax/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|89.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.61|98.78||||||||98.78|81.61|
91912719|NCT05227690|183721615|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.3783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.2|-0.1|=0.3783
91912720|NCT05227690|183721615|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.2|=0.2242
91763096|NCT04607837|183416714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.35||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|19.94|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common risk difference using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the risk difference being 0.||19.94|-5.24|0.2524
91808387|NCT02495168|183493752|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fit on the participants from the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort groups only, with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate. If the treatment-by-site interaction factor was not significant at the 0.05 level, the model was to be rerun without the interaction term.|Test/Referece LS Mean Ratio|101.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|111.9|||||Fieller's formula was applied to calculate the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort LS mean ratio; covariance between treatment means was assumed to be 0.|||111.9|92.7|
91912721|NCT05227690|183721615|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.8626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.8626
91889753|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6768||||||P-value for Mental fatigue 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.6768
91763097|NCT04607837|183416715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.61||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|26.91|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||26.91|4.31|0.0068
91808388|NCT02495168|183493753|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.334|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.673|2.996||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate and Placebo participants only.||2.996|1.673|<0.0001
91808389|NCT02495168|183493753|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.939|3.273||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on Symbicort and Placebo participants only.||3.273|1.939|<0.0001
91889754|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076||||||P-value for Physical fatigue 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0076
91889755|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0858||||||P-value for Physical fatigue 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0858
91889756|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065||||||P-value for Physical fatigue 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2065
91889757|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9712||||||P-value for Reduced motivation 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9712
91889758|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7572||||||P-value for Reduced motivation 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.7572
91808390|NCT02495168|183493754|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an ANCOVA model was fit on the participants from the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort groups only, with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment-by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate. If the treatment-by-site interaction factor was not significant at the 0.05 level, the model was to be rerun without the interaction term.|Test/Reference LS Mean Ratio|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|114.5|||||Fieller's formula was applied to calculate the 90% CI for the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort LS mean ratio; covariance between treatment means was assumed to be 0.|||114.5|87.0|
91912722|NCT05227690|183721615|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.6106
91912723|NCT05227690|183721616|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.4219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|=0.4219
91912724|NCT05227690|183721616|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.3933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|=0.3933
91912725|NCT05227690|183721616|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.0|0.0|=0.7366
91912726|NCT05227690|183721616|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.4639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.1|=0.4639
91912727|NCT02634580|183721619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.23|-31.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-31.48|-47.23|<0.0001
91912728|NCT02634580|183721620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.68|-31.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-31.60|-48.68|< 0.0001
91912729|NCT02634580|183721621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.9|-61.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-61.3|-93.9|<0.0001
91912730|NCT02634580|183721622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.7|-62.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-62.0|-96.7|<0.0001
91912731|NCT02634580|183721623|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|56.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|70.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||70.70|34.10|<0.0001
91912732|NCT02634580|183721624|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|52.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.36|67.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||67.52|30.36|< 0.0001
91912733|NCT02634580|183721625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-20.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.08|-30.80|<0.0001
91912734|NCT02634580|183721626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.63|-20.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.04|-31.63|<0.0001
91808391|NCT02495168|183493755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.226||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate and Placebo participants only.||0.226|0.093|<0.0001
91808392|NCT02495168|183493755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.164|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.229||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on Symbicort and Placebo participants only.||0.229|0.099|<0.0001
91912735|NCT02634580|183721627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.38|-26.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-26.68|-40.38|< 0.0001
91912736|NCT02634580|183721628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|-25.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-25.94|-40.94|<0.0001
91912737|NCT02634580|183721629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-29.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-29.04|-42.30|< 0.0001
91912738|NCT02634580|183721630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.98|-29.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-29.22|-43.98|<0.0001
91912739|NCT02634580|183721631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.26|-21.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-21.97|-35.26|< 0.0001
91763098|NCT04607837|183416716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.24||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|21.71|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.71|-5.22|0.2302
91808393|NCT03247530|183493763|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-2.6|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-2.6|-8.9|0.0004
91912740|NCT02634580|183721632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-20.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.09|-34.00|< 0.0001
91912741|NCT02634580|183721633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.65|-30.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-30.50|-43.65|<0.0001
91763099|NCT04607837|183416717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.12||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|21.55|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.55|-7.32|0.3339
91763100|NCT04607837|183416718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.68||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|13.13|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||13.13|-11.76|0.9141
91808394|NCT03247530|183493763|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-3.8|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-3.8|-10.0|<0.0001
91808395|NCT03247530|183493764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.2|-0.7|0.0020
91808396|NCT03247530|183493764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.3|-0.8|<0.0001
91808397|NCT03247530|183493765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-6.5|0.0003
91808398|NCT03247530|183493765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-6.6|0.0002
91808399|NCT03247530|183493766|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.24|0.0019
91808400|NCT03247530|183493766|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.26|0.0020
91912742|NCT02634580|183721634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.39|-29.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-29.20|-43.39|<0.0001
91912743|NCT02634580|183721635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.83|-20.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.43|-41.83|<0.0001
91808401|NCT03247530|183493767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|24.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.6|4.3|0.0063
91808402|NCT03247530|183493767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|31.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.6|11.3|<0.0001
91808403|NCT03247530|183493768|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-4.5|0.9974
91912744|NCT02634580|183721636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.57|-18.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-18.84|-43.57|<0.0001
91912745|NCT02634580|183721637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|18.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||18.13|-11.15|0.63
91912746|NCT02634580|183721638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|11.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|30.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||30.87|-7.29|0.22
91912747|NCT02634580|183721639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|14.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||14.14|1.78|0.012
91808404|NCT03247530|183493768|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.7|-6.1|0.4557
91808405|NCT03247530|183493769|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-1.2|-4.6|0.0006
91912748|NCT02634580|183721640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|12.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||12.00|-0.82|0.086
91912749|NCT02634580|183721641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|13.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||13.87|-15.22|0.93
91912750|NCT02634580|183721642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.88||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|27.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||27.43|-12.15|0.44
91808406|NCT03247530|183493769|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-1.9|-5.2|<0.0001
91808407|NCT03247530|183493769|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-0.9|-4.1|0.0026
91808408|NCT03247530|183493769|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.7|-4.8|<0.0001
91808409|NCT03247530|183493770|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-4.2|0.1292
91808410|NCT03247530|183493770|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.3447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.4|0.3447
91808411|NCT03247530|183493771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment||||0.0005
91808412|NCT03247530|183493771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment||||0.0212
91808413|NCT03247530|183493771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0115|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment||||0.0115
91808414|NCT03247530|183493771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment||||0.0027
91808415|NCT03247530|183493771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0066|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment||||0.0066
91808416|NCT03247530|183493771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment||||0.0065
91763101|NCT04607837|183416719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.56||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|21.25|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.25|-2.13|0.1089
91912751|NCT02653768|183721657|OTHER|As noted above, a statistical test was not specified at this time point. Rather, the data for all time points were included in the model and are presented here descriptively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-2.0||||||This analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 3-month follow-up. We have not included a p-value because there was no pre-specified hypothesis for this time point. Rather, these are additional data obtained from the overall model, for which the 9-month time point was primary and included a pre-specified hypothesis.||-2.0|-8.2|
91912752|NCT02653768|183721657|OTHER|As noted above, a statistical test was not specified at this time point. Rather, the data for all time points were included in the model and are presented here descriptively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.3||||||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-month follow-up. We have not included a p-value because there was no pre-specified hypothesis for this time point. Rather, these are additional data obtained from the overall model, for which the 9-month time point was primary and included a pre-specified hypothesis.||2.3|-5.2|
91912753|NCT02653768|183721657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 9-month follow-up. This is the primary outcome assessment time point.||-3.2|-10.5|0.0003
91912754|NCT02653768|183721658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis between-group difference in change from baseline to 9-month follow-up for the 30 second chair stand.||1.3|-0.6|0.43
91912755|NCT02653768|183721659|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-6.1|0.23
91912756|NCT01970176|183721676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91912757|NCT01970176|183721677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91912758|NCT01970176|183721678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91912759|NCT03083886|183721743|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.997|||GEE with log link and Poisson errors|||||.997|.87|.04
91912760|NCT03083886|183721743|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.45|||GEE with log link and Poisson errors|||||1.45|1.35|<0.001
91912761|NCT03083886|183721744|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.9|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-3.9|-7.7|<0.001
91912762|NCT03083886|183721744|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-2.6|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-2.6|-5.9|<0.001
91912763|NCT03083886|183721745|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-5.7|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-5.7|-9.4|<0.001
91912764|NCT03083886|183721745|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-5.0|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-5.0|-8.4|<0.001
91912765|NCT03083886|183721746|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.8|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||6.8|2.6|<0.001
91912766|NCT03083886|183721746|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|7.9|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||7.9|4.1|<0.001
91763102|NCT04607837|183416720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.19||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|19.75|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||19.75|2.63|0.0104
91763103|NCT04607837|183416721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07||||0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.06|19.92|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||19.92|-22.06|0.9203
91808417|NCT03247530|183493771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5826|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment||||0.5826
91808418|NCT03247530|183493771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment||||0.0099
91912767|NCT03083886|183721747|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|8.7|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||8.7|5.0|<0.001
91912768|NCT03083886|183721747|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|8.4|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||8.4|5.0|<0.001
91912769|NCT01562548|183721766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.21||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.8||P-value was associated with t-test for difference of LS means|t-test, 2 sided|The model included factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect).|Least Square mean from Mixed Model including factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect). Difference was First named treatment - second named treatment|Null hypotheses was tested as: H01: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 600mg and placebo. H02: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and placebo. H03: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and Guaifenesin 600mg.||0.80|-1.23|0.68
91912770|NCT01562548|183721766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|0.35||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.42||P-value associated with t-test for difference of LS means|t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean from Mixed Model including factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect). Difference was First named treatment - second named treatment|Null hypotheses was tested as: H01: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 600mg and placebo. H02: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and placebo. H03: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and Guaifenesin 600mg.||1.42|-0.72|0.52
91912771|NCT01562548|183721766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|0.24||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.13||P-value associated with t-test for difference of LS means|t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean from Mixed Model including factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect). Difference was Second named treatment - first named treatment|Null hypotheses was tested as: H01: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 600mg and placebo. H02: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and placebo. H03: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and Guaifenesin 600mg.||1.13|-0.64|0.58
91912772|NCT03066102|183721803|OTHER|||||||0.227||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on reposition error of scapular elevation. Muscle fatigue would increase reposition error during scapular elevation. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance.||||0.227
91912773|NCT03066102|183721803|OTHER|||||||0.764||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on reposition error of scapular protraction. Muscle fatigue would increase reposition error during scapular protraction. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance.||||0.764
91912774|NCT03066102|183721804|OTHER|||||||0.413||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of upper trapezius during scapular elevation.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.413
91912775|NCT03066102|183721804|OTHER|||||||0.984||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of lower trapezius during scapular elevation.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.984
91912776|NCT03066102|183721804|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of serratus anterior during scapular elevation.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.006
91912777|NCT03066102|183721804|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of upper trapezius during scapular protraction.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.154
91912778|NCT03066102|183721804|OTHER|||||||0.096||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of lower trapezius during scapular protraction.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.096
91763104|NCT04607837|183416722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.49||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|20.68|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||20.68|-3.71|0.1726
91763105|NCT04607837|183416723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.71||||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.31|34.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||34.90|-38.31|0.9272
91763106|NCT04607837|183416724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.49||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|20.68|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||20.68|-3.71|0.1726
91763107|NCT04607837|183416725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.64||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|33.67|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||33.67|3.61|0.0151
91763108|NCT04607837|183416726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.96||||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|21.13|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.13|-9.22|0.4419
91912779|NCT03066102|183721804|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of serratus anterior during scapular protraction.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.037
91912780|NCT03066102|183721805|OTHER|||||||8.5e-05||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle strength of serratus anterior during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~Muscle fatigue would decrease muscle strength during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.000085
91912781|NCT03066102|183721805|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle strength of upper trapezius during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~Muscle fatigue would decrease muscle strength during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.037
91912782|NCT03066102|183721805|OTHER|||||||0.382||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle strength of lower trapezius during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~Muscle fatigue would decrease muscle strength during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.382
91912783|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.000467||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on scapular posterior tilt during scaption. Muscle fatigue would change scapular kinematics during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during each angle of scaption.||||0.000467
91912784|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.093||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.093
91912785|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.062||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.062
91912786|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.04
91912787|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.000147||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.000147
91912788|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||1.2e-05||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.000012
91912789|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.007
91912790|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.059
91763109|NCT04607837|183416727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.33||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.78|36.89|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||36.89|9.78|0.0007
91763110|NCT04607837|183416728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.99||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|26.79|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||26.79|3.19|0.0128
91763111|NCT04607837|183416729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.24||||0.1492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|24.14|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||24.14|-3.67|0.1492
91763112|NCT04607837|183416730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18||||0.9774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.18|12.53|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||12.53|-12.18|0.9774
91763113|NCT04607837|183416731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.83||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|36.49|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||36.49|9.17|0.0011
91763114|NCT04607837|183416732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|25.56|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||25.56|-3.95|0.1513
91763115|NCT04607837|183416733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.07||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|24.87|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||24.87|-4.73|0.1823
91763116|NCT05236257|183416754|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.63|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||0.63|0.07|0.0058
91763117|NCT05236257|183416754|OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.0023
91763118|NCT05236257|183416755|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.13|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||1.13|0.05|0.0703
91763119|NCT05236257|183416755|OTHER|||||||0.0486|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.0486
91912791|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.032||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.032
91912792|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||1.5e-05||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on scapular internal rotation during scaption Muscle fatigue would change scapular kinematics during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during each angle of scaption.||||0.000015
91912793|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.296||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.296
91912794|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.457||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.457
91912795|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.311||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.311
91912796|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.004
91912797|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.002
91912798|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.137||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.137
91912799|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.636||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.636
91912800|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.406||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.406
91912801|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on scapular upward rotation during scaption. Muscle fatigue would change scapular kinematics during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during each angle of scaption.||||0.001
91912802|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.650
91912803|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.141
91763120|NCT05236257|183416756|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.12|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||1.12|0.05|0.696
91763121|NCT05236257|183416756|OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.0476
91763122|NCT05236257|183416758|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.5713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.77|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||1.77|0.36|0.5713
91763123|NCT05236257|183416758|OTHER|||||||0.5695|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.5695
91763124|NCT05236257|183416759|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.06|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||3.06|0.03|0.3200
91763125|NCT05236257|183416759|OTHER|||||||0.294|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.2940
91808419|NCT03247530|183493771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment||||0.0225
91763126|NCT05870865|183416761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.28||||0.5483|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5483
91763127|NCT05870865|183416761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.89||||0.4123|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4123
91763128|NCT05870865|183416761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66||||0.8177|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8177
91763129|NCT05870865|183416762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.4601|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4601
91763130|NCT05870865|183416762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0804|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0804
91763131|NCT05870865|183416762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
91763132|NCT05870865|183416763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.2146|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2146
91763133|NCT05870865|183416763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8851|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8851
91763134|NCT05870865|183416763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.1835|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1835
91808420|NCT03247530|183493771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment||||0.0008
91808421|NCT03247530|183493771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment||||0.0020
91808422|NCT03247530|183493771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment||||0.0002
91912804|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.021
91912805|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.005
91912806|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.083||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.083
91912807|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.389||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.389
91912808|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.542||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.542
91912809|NCT03066102|183721806|OTHER|||||||0.263||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.263
91912810|NCT03066102|183721807|OTHER|||||||0.331||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of upper trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on muscle activation changed of upper trapezius during each angle of scaption."||||0.331
91912811|NCT03066102|183721807|OTHER|||||||0.627||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of lower trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on muscle activation changed of lower trapezius during each angle of scaption."||||0.627
91912812|NCT03066102|183721807|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of serratus anterior during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during each angle of scaption."||||0.042
91763135|NCT05870865|183416764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7982|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7982
91763136|NCT05870865|183416764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.564|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5640
91763137|NCT05870865|183416764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2939
91763138|NCT05870865|183416765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.3579|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3579
91763139|NCT05870865|183416765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3466
91763140|NCT05870865|183416765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9527|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9527
91763141|NCT03828019|183416773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for the 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline).|Estimated parameter is the Odds Ratios (ADA/CID). Result greater than 1 indicates ADA is superior in achieving successful corticosteroid sparing|The sample size estimation: Adalimumab was estimated to be successful in 75% of patients. The overall success rate with conventional immunosuppression was estimated to be 51%. A sample size of 222 (111 per treatment group) provided 90% power to detect a difference in cumulative percent of 75% versus 51%||3.25|1.06|0.029
91763142|NCT03828019|183416774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.86|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ADA/ Odds CID|Generalized estimating equations were used to fit logistic regression models to compare the cumulative proportion of corticosteroid sparing between the two treatment groups over time while accounting for correlation between replicate measurements on the same individual with an unstructured covariance matrix. 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline) were included||3.86|0.94|0.072
91763143|NCT03828019|183416775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.46|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is ADA/CID where value greater than 1 indicates ADA is superior for corticosteroid (prednisone) discontinuation|Generalized estimating equations were used to fit logistic regression models to compare the cumulative proportion of corticosteroid sparing between the two treatment groups over time while accounting for correlation between replicate measurements on the same individual with an unstructured covariance matrix. 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline) were included||3.46|0.67|0.30
91763144|NCT03828019|183416776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.19|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ADA/ Odds CID where value greater than 1 indicate greater corticosteroid sparing success in the ADA group|Generalized estimating equations were used to fit logistic regression models to compare the cumulative proportion of corticosteroid discontinuation between the two treatment groups over time while accounting for correlation between replicate measurements on the same individual with an unstructured covariance matrix. 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline) were included||3.19|1.06|0.028
91763145|NCT03828019|183416777|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rate of steroid (mg/day ADA/CID|0.86||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.01|||negative binomial model||Number greater than 1 would indicate rate of steroid use is higher in participants assigned to ADA|||1.01|0.73|0.061
91763146|NCT03828019|183416778|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|0.4||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used with a linear link. The fixed effects included initial steroid dose and immunosuppression use at baseline. Additional visit indicators (months 1-12) and corresponding treatment by visit interaction terms. An unstructured correlation was used to model repeated measurements by eye . A person-level random intercept was added to account for between-eye correlations.||3.1|-2.3|0.77
91763147|NCT03828019|183416779|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of odds ratios|0.55||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.94|||Regression, Logistic||estimate is the ratio of odds ratios - OR ADA / OR CID. Value less than 1 indicates ADA is better at reducing macular edema.|Mixed effects models with a log link were used to assess treatment differences . The outcome measure was the odds ratio of having macular edema (OCT central subfield thickness \> 300 um) at 12 months compared to baseline (BL). The treatment effect was the ratio of Odds ratios (ADA/CID) at 12 months. Values less than one indicate improvement in macular edema for the ADA treatment group relative to the CID group. Decrease in subfield thickness is good||0.94|0.31|0.028
91763148|NCT03828019|183416780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.98|||negative binomial model|||||1.98|0.61|0.76
91763149|NCT03828019|183416781|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.16||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.7|||Regression, Cox|||. Kaplan Meier techniques and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate time to event outcomes||0.70|0.04|0.014
91763150|NCT03828019|183416782|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.82|||Regression, Cox|||||1.82|0.43|0.74
91763151|NCT03828019|183416783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.34|||Ratio of odds ratios||Treatment comparison is the ratio of the odds ratios for each treatment group (ADA/CID) at 12 months. Values greater than one indicate greater improvement in health for the ADA treatment group relative to the CID group.|||1.34|0.43|0.35
91763152|NCT03828019|183416784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.73|-0.95|0.24
91763153|NCT03828019|183416785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.61|-2.43|0.70
91763154|NCT03828019|183416786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.6|-1.4|0.28
91912813|NCT03066102|183721807|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during ascending 30\~60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.021
91912814|NCT03066102|183721807|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during ascending 60\~90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.018
91912815|NCT03066102|183721807|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during ascending 90\~120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.002
91912816|NCT03066102|183721807|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during descending 120\~90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.002
91912817|NCT03066102|183721807|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during descending 90\~60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.035
91912818|NCT03066102|183721807|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during descending 60\~30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.05
91912819|NCT03066102|183721808|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle onset timing of upper trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle onset timing during scaption. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.5
91912820|NCT03066102|183721808|OTHER|||||||0.843||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle onset timing of lower trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle onset timing during scaption. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.843
91763155|NCT03828019|183416787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.67|||Regression, Cox|||||0.67|0.07|0.009
91763156|NCT02211456|183416827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The data derived from this study was complex multi-level data with errors due to patient-level and intra-patient repeat factors. Accordingly, we used generalized multi-level modelling (GLMM) with random effects.||6.3|1|<0.05
91763157|NCT02910102|183416828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.3565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|2.23||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpoint was tested at two-sided 5% level of significance, with no adjustments for multiplicity.||||2.23|-6.04|0.3565
91763158|NCT02910102|183416829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|3.38||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpoint was tested at two-sided 5% level of significance, with no adjustments for multiplicity.||||3.38|-3.73|0.9220
91912821|NCT03066102|183721808|OTHER|||||||0.466||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle onset timing of serratus anterior during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle onset timing during scaption. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.466
91912822|NCT03237065|183721809|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Rate difference with 95% Newcombe confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for stratum, using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose was compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95% CI, adjusting for strata (underlying disease and screening s-phosphate) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|"Power:~The power was set to 80%. Assuming incidences of 15% for iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 40% for ferric carboxymaltose, 49 subjects in each treatment group were required to detect a difference between the treatment groups. The significance level was set to 5%."||-49.8|-76.6|<0.0001
91912823|NCT03237065|183721810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0511|||||||Log Rank|||The time with hypophosphatemia from baseline to day 35 was estimated by a Kaplan- Meier plot. The treatment groups were compared by a log-rank test. Only subjects who had one or more s-phosphate value(s) \<2 mg/dL were included.||||0.0511
91912824|NCT03237065|183721811|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose was compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95 % CI, adjusting for strata (type of underlying disease (women with IDA due to gynaecological blood losses; yes/no) and screening s-phosphate level (\< or ≥ 3.5 mg/dL)) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||-31.6|-57.7|<0.0001
91912825|NCT03237065|183721812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.62|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.62|0.30|<0.0001
91912826|NCT03237065|183721812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.76|0.32|<0.0001
91912827|NCT03237065|183721812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.96|0.49|<0.0001
91912828|NCT03237065|183721812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.46|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.46|0.99|<0.0001
91912829|NCT03237065|183721812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.51|0.98|<0.0001
91912830|NCT03237065|183721812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.43|0.91|<0.0001
91912831|NCT03237065|183721813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.38|18.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||18.59|9.38|<0.0001
91912832|NCT03237065|183721813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.45|22.23|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||22.23|9.45|<0.0001
91912833|NCT03237065|183721813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|28.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||28.59|14.72|<0.0001
91912834|NCT03237065|183721813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.28|43.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||43.06|29.28|<0.0001
91912835|NCT03237065|183721813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.99|45.72|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||45.72|29.99|<0.0001
91912836|NCT03237065|183721813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|42.26|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||42.26|26.80|<0.0001
91808423|NCT04786990|183493777|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91808424|NCT04786990|183493777|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91808425|NCT04786990|183493778|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91912837|NCT03237065|183721815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-96.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.8|-73.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-73.8|-119.8|<0.0001
91763159|NCT02863328|183416838|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.4% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Treatment difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.3|-0.6|< 0.0001
91763160|NCT02863328|183416838|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.3|-0.6|< 0.0001
91763161|NCT02863328|183416838|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
91763162|NCT02863328|183416838|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
91763163|NCT02863328|183416839|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.1|||=|0.7593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.5|-0.7|= 0.7593
91763164|NCT02863328|183416839|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.4|||=|0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.0|= 0.1358
91889759|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||P-value for Reduced motivation 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0588
91889760|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1857||||||P-value for Reduced activity 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.1857
91889761|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9225||||||P-value for Reduced activity 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9225
91889762|NCT03079297|183672409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0414||||||P-value for Reduced activity 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0414
91889763|NCT03079297|183672410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4603||||||P-value for Psychosocial function 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.4603
91889764|NCT03079297|183672410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2521||||||P-value for Psychosocial function 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2521
91889765|NCT03079297|183672410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6635||||||P-value for Psychosocial function 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.6635
91763165|NCT02863328|183416867|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Empagliflozin 25 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.20|0.60|0.3552
91763166|NCT02863328|183416868|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.19||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Cox proportional hazards model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Empagliflozin 25 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.19|0.47|0.2250
91763167|NCT00429169|183416913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||regression coefficient|-0.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.023||The p-value applies to the interaction term of Treatment X Baseline Suicidal Ideation severity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized least squares model of Scale for Suicidal Ideation score during 8-week acute treatment of major depressive disorder.||-0.023|-0.57|0.03
91763168|NCT02936635|183416920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.619||0.2821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.035|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.23|-11.035|0.2821
91763169|NCT02936635|183416921|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.242||0.2118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.711|3.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.067|-13.711|0.2118
91763170|NCT02936635|183416922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.946|1.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.801|-2.946|0.6354
91763171|NCT02936635|183416923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.509||0.8887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.186|2.763|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.763|-3.186|0.8887
91763172|NCT03652181|183416953|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the year 1 change is equivalent to year 2 change in mean QSM||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
91763173|NCT03652181|183416954|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the year 1 change is equivalent to year 2 change in mean DCEQP||||||0.3459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3459
91763174|NCT03652181|183416955|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the year 1 change is equivalent to year 2 numbers||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91763175|NCT02451917|183416976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power to detect a mean difference of 0.7% in the primary endpoint(A1c), considering a 15% dropout rate and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.00045||||||The intention-to-treat population consisted of all randomized participants.|ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power to detect a mean difference of 0.7% in the primary endpoint (A1c), considering a 15% dropout rate and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%. Test for data normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics) was performed at baseline for each sequence of the therapy.||||0.00045
91763176|NCT02451917|183416977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%. Test for data normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics) was performed at baseline for each sequence of the therapy.|number of total events per patient|0.0||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model - total hypoglycemic events per patient during 24 weeks|ANOVA||The calculated value for the estimation parameter was zero, since the best treatment option for those with diabetes is reach a good glycemic control without hypoglycemia.|Analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model - total hypoglycemic events per patient during 24 weeks||||0.35
91763177|NCT02451917|183416977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.|number of nocturnal events per patient|0.0||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model - number of nocturnal hypoglycemic events per patient during 24 weeks|ANOVA||The calculated value for the estimation parameter was zero, since the best treatment option for those with diabetes is reach a good glycemic control without hypoglycemia.|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.047
91763178|NCT02451917|183416978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test was applied to compare percentages of the time spent in hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia and euglycemia on CGM readings.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||<0.05
91763179|NCT02451917|183416979|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.668|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.668
91763180|NCT02451917|183416980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18r andomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.999|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18r andomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.999
91808426|NCT04786990|183493778|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91808427|NCT04786990|183493780|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91889766|NCT03079297|183672411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7839||||||P-value for Anhedonia 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.7839
91763181|NCT02451917|183416981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.999|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.999
91763182|NCT02451917|183416982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.994|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.994
91763183|NCT03726489|183416989|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||13.5|0.8|<0.001
91763184|NCT03726489|183416989|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||13.8|-5.4|<0.001
91763185|NCT03726489|183416989|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|17.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||17.0|-2.2|<0.001
91763186|NCT03726489|183416989|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%. The sample size for this subgroup did not meet our a priori sample size required for 80% power.|Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|36.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||36.6|0.8|<0.001
91763187|NCT03726489|183416989|OTHER|HTE was assessed using an omnibus Wald test of all interaction regression parameters in order to minimize multiple testing and consequent alpha inflation.||||||0.347||||||HTE was assessed using an omnibus Wald test of all interaction regression parameters in order to minimize multiple testing and consequent alpha inflation.|Regression, Logistic|We fit models for each of the two primary outcomes with skin type, treatment arm, and their interaction as predictors.||Analysis for heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) including all skin phototypes.||||0.347
91763188|NCT03726489|183416990|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|25.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||25.3|11.8|<0.001
91763189|NCT03726489|183416990|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|31.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||31.5|11.0|<0.001
91763190|NCT03726489|183416990|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|26.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||26.6|6.4|<0.001
91889767|NCT03079297|183672411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248||||||P-value for Anhedonia function 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0248
91889768|NCT03079297|183672411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199||||||P-value for Anhedonia 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0199
91889769|NCT02993406|183672414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.79|0.004
91889770|NCT02993406|183672415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.76|0.0058
91889771|NCT02993406|183672416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.66|0.0016
91889772|NCT02993406|183672417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.72|0.0013
91889773|NCT02993406|183672418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.67|0.1593
91889774|NCT02993406|183672419|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.88|0.6227
91889775|NCT02993406|183672420|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.6608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.90|0.6608
91889776|NCT04325282|183672457|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change after active rTMS (post-rTMS compared to pre-rTMS).||||0.04
91889777|NCT04325282|183672457|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change after sham rTMS (post-rTMS compared to pre-rTMS).||||0.46
91889778|NCT04325282|183672457|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change induced by active rTMS versus sham rTMS||||0.12
91889779|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||<0.0001
91889780|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.69||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.69
91889781|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||<0.0001
91889782|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||<0.0001
91889783|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.43
91889784|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cM-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||<0.0001
91889785|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.002
91889786|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.54||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.54
91889787|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.007||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-cM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.007
91889788|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.002
91889789|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.32||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.32
91889790|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.01
91889791|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cF connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.003
91808428|NCT04786990|183493780|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0002
91808429|NCT04786990|183493781|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91808430|NCT04786990|183493781|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated for the comparison between time points for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed. There is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91808431|NCT04786990|183493782|OTHER|||||||0.0685||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0685
91808432|NCT04786990|183493782|OTHER|||||||0.2575||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.2575
91808433|NCT04786990|183493783|OTHER|||||||0.0832||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0832
91808434|NCT04786990|183493783|OTHER|||||||0.3715||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.3715
91808435|NCT04786990|183493784|OTHER|||||||0.0042||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0042
91808436|NCT04786990|183493784|OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0019
91808437|NCT04786990|183493785|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91808438|NCT04786990|183493785|OTHER|||||||0.0025||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0025
91808439|NCT04786990|183493786|OTHER|||||||0.0161||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0161
91808440|NCT04786990|183493786|OTHER|||||||0.0122||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0122
91808441|NCT04786990|183493787|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91808442|NCT04786990|183493787|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91808443|NCT04786990|183493788|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0002
91808444|NCT04786990|183493788|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91808445|NCT04786990|183493789|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91808446|NCT04786990|183493789|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91808447|NCT04786990|183493790|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0005
91808448|NCT04786990|183493791|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0005
91912838|NCT03237065|183721815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7||||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|3.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||3.4|-34.9|0.1064
91763191|NCT03726489|183416990|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%. The sample size for this subgroup did not meet our a priori sample size required for 80% power.|Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|35.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||35.9|-3.7|0.001
91763192|NCT03726489|183416990|OTHER|||||||0.873||||||HTE was assessed using an omnibus Wald test of all interaction regression parameters in order to minimize multiple testing and consequent alpha inflation.|Regression, Logistic|We fit models for each of the two primary outcomes with skin type, treatment arm, and their interaction as predictors.||Analysis for heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) including all skin phototypes.||||0.873
91763193|NCT03726489|183416991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|10.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||10.4|7.1|<0.0001
91763194|NCT03726489|183416991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.05|11.71||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||11.71|7.05|<0.0001
91763195|NCT03726489|183416991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|11.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||11.14|5.82|<0.0001
91763196|NCT03726489|183416991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.82||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|12.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||12.58|1.06|0.0213
91808449|NCT04786990|183493792|OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0016
91912839|NCT03237065|183721815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-251.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.2|-196.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-196.2|-307.2|<0.0001
91912840|NCT03237065|183721815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.7|-54.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-54.5|-103.7|<0.0001
91912841|NCT03237065|183721815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-40.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-40.5|-83.0|<0.0001
91912842|NCT03237065|183721815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-5.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-5.9|-30.1|0.0039
91912843|NCT03237065|183721816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.5||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.1|16.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||16.1|-131.1|0.1243
91763197|NCT03726489|183416992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|18.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||18.7|10.4|<0.0001
91763198|NCT03726489|183416992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|16.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||16.01|6.93|<0.0001
91763199|NCT03726489|183416992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.77|19.98||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||19.98|7.77|<0.0001
91808450|NCT04786990|183493793|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.8900
91912844|NCT03237065|183721816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7||||0.5547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|91.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||91.0|-49.7|0.5547
91912845|NCT03237065|183721816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-155.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-234.7|-76.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-76.6|-234.7|0.0005
91912846|NCT03237065|183721816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.3||||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.0|31.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||31.5|-86.0|0.3516
91912847|NCT03237065|183721816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|13.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||13.7|-62.3|0.1988
91912848|NCT03237065|183721816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|41.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||41.2|-18.6|0.4379
91912849|NCT03237065|183721817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.70|-1.06|0.6869
91912850|NCT03237065|183721817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.22|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.22|-2.29|0.1037
91912851|NCT03237065|183721817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.25|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.25|-2.99|0.0213
91912852|NCT03237065|183721817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-0.34|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.34|-3.47|0.0176
91912853|NCT03237065|183721817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|0.27|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.27|-3.01|0.0999
91912854|NCT03237065|183721817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.04|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.04|-1.77|0.8878
91912855|NCT03237065|183721818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.66|25.95|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||25.95|17.66|<0.0001
91889792|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cF connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.29
91912856|NCT03237065|183721818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.64||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|13.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||13.33|-4.05|0.2923
91912857|NCT03237065|183721818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.37|26.74|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||26.74|12.37|<0.0001
91912858|NCT03237065|183721818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.96|40.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||40.14|25.96|<0.0001
91912859|NCT03237065|183721818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|29.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||29.43|14.20|<0.0001
91912860|NCT03237065|183721818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.03||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|16.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||16.90|1.16|0.0250
91912861|NCT03237065|183721819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.5134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.11|-0.22|0.5134
91912862|NCT03237065|183721819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.32|-0.24|0.7579
91912863|NCT03237065|183721819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.14|-0.41|0.3169
91808451|NCT04786990|183493794|OTHER|||||||0.3269||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.3269
91808452|NCT04786990|183493795|OTHER|||||||0.5085||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.5085
91808453|NCT04786990|183493796|OTHER|||||||0.3484||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.3484
91808454|NCT04786990|183493797|OTHER|||||||0.4385||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.4385
91808455|NCT04786990|183493798|OTHER|||||||0.5073||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.5073
91808456|NCT04786990|183493799|OTHER|||||||0.9119||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.9119
91763200|NCT03726489|183416992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.84||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|58.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||58.35|7.32|0.0127
91912864|NCT03237065|183721819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.18|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.18|-0.76|0.0018
91912865|NCT03237065|183721819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.24|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.24|-0.77|0.0003
91912866|NCT03237065|183721819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.05|-0.50|0.1063
91912867|NCT03237065|183721820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.57||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|11.85|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||11.85|-2.72|0.2166
91912868|NCT03237065|183721820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64||||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|4.19|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||4.19|-13.47|0.2997
91912869|NCT03237065|183721820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|8.56|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||8.56|-7.75|0.9221
91912870|NCT03237065|183721820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.69||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.07|-5.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-5.32|-26.07|0.0034
91912871|NCT03237065|183721820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.93|-11.16|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-11.16|-33.93|0.0002
91912872|NCT03237065|183721820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.42|-14.21|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-14.21|-35.42|<0.0001
91912873|NCT03237065|183721821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.03|-0.10|0.3048
91912874|NCT03237065|183721821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.13|-0.02|0.1641
91912875|NCT03237065|183721821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.12|-0.02|0.1333
91912876|NCT03237065|183721821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.16|-0.17|0.9385
91912877|NCT03237065|183721821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.14|0.00|0.0408
91912878|NCT03237065|183721821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.2376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.12|-0.03|0.2376
91912879|NCT03237065|183721823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.05|-0.67|0.0882
91763201|NCT03726489|183416993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||-0.35|-1.27|0.001
91912880|NCT03237065|183721823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.06|-0.74|0.0941
91912881|NCT03237065|183721823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.66|-0.02|0.0628
91763202|NCT03726489|183416993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||-0.16|-1.51|0.0158
91763203|NCT03726489|183416993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.19||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||-0.19|-1.58|0.0130
91763204|NCT03726489|183416993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||1.11|-1.94|0.5910
91763205|NCT03726489|183416993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.82||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes at Week 24||0.82|-0.33|0.395
91763206|NCT03726489|183416993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.93||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II at Week 24||0.93|-0.69|0.774
91763207|NCT03726489|183416993|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.41||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV at Week 24||1.41|-0.36|0.242
91763208|NCT03726489|183416993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.83||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI at Week 24||1.83|-2.72|0.692
91763209|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.59||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Initiation||0.68|-5.86|0.1209
91763210|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.13||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.75||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Initiation||1.75|-6.0|0.2581
91763211|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.04||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|2.65||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Initiation||2.65|-8.73|0.2952
91763212|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.61||||0.6324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|7.89||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Initiation||7.89|-13.12|0.6324
91763213|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15||||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.85||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Discontinuation||2.85|-2.56|0.9163
91763214|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31||||0.8551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|3.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Discontinuation||3.66|-3.03|0.8551
91763215|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.72||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|5.48||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Discontinuation||5.48|-4.05|0.7678
91763216|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.03||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|2.82||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Discontinuation||2.82|-8.88|0.3446
91763217|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.26||||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|3.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Initiation at Week 24||3.11|-5.64|0.5716
91763218|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44||||0.8756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|5.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Initiation at Week 24||5.14|-6.03|0.8756
91763219|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.07||||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|5.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Initiation at Week 24||5.04|-9.18|0.5686
91763220|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.39||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|14.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Initiation at Week 24||14.7|-17.5|0.8660
91763221|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.8779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.62||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Discontinuation at Week 24||2.62|-2.24|0.8779
91763222|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.28||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Discontinuation at Week 24||3.28|-2.52|0.7985
91763223|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.69||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|5.09||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Discontinuation at Week 24||5.09|-3.71|0.7585
91763224|NCT03726489|183416994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.78||||0.3422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|2.59||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Discontinuation at Week 24||2.59|-8.15|0.3422
91763225|NCT03726489|183416995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|0.55||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||0.55|-6.95|0.094
91763226|NCT03726489|183416995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.26||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|-0.26||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||-0.26|-10.26|0.0393
91763227|NCT03726489|183416995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|1.44||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||1.44|-9.28|0.1505
91763228|NCT03726489|183416995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.42||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|29.84||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||29.84|-9.0|0.2840
91763229|NCT03726489|183416996|OTHER||Mean|19.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||||
91763230|NCT03726489|183416996|OTHER||Mean|18.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||||
91763231|NCT03726489|183416996|OTHER||Mean|23.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.71|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||||
91763232|NCT03726489|183416996|OTHER||Mean|9.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.66|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||||
91763233|NCT03726489|183416997|OTHER||Mean|50.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||||
91763234|NCT03726489|183416997|OTHER||Mean|53.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.05|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||||
91763235|NCT03726489|183416997|OTHER||Mean|49.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.43|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||||
91763236|NCT03726489|183416997|OTHER||Mean|39.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||||
91912882|NCT03237065|183721823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.79|0.14|0.0056
91912883|NCT03237065|183721823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.55|0.00|0.0492
91912884|NCT03237065|183721823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.64|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.64|-0.05|0.0882
91912885|NCT03237065|183721824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|22.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||22.3|-35.3|0.6568
91912886|NCT03237065|183721824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2||||0.4929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.0|45.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||45.5|-94.0|0.4929
91912887|NCT03237065|183721824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.7||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.3|-21.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-21.1|-162.3|0.0113
91912888|NCT03237065|183721824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-240.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-318.4|-162.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-162.3|-318.4|<0.0001
91912889|NCT03237065|183721824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-196.1|-74.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-74.0|-196.1|<0.0001
91912890|NCT03237065|183721824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.7||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.2|-22.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-22.2|-113.2|0.0039
91912891|NCT03237065|183721825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.2||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|48.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||48.5|-0.0|0.0503
91912892|NCT03237065|183721825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.5794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||9.8|-5.5|0.5794
91808457|NCT04786990|183493800|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0140
91763237|NCT03726489|183416998|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|17.42||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||17.42|6.52|<0.0001
91763238|NCT03726489|183416998|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|16.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|24.75||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||24.75|7.54|<0.0001
91808458|NCT04786990|183493801|OTHER|||||||0.1542||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.1542
91808459|NCT04786990|183493802|OTHER|||||||0.0086||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0086
91808460|NCT04786990|183493803|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91808461|NCT04786990|183493803|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91808462|NCT04786990|183493804|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91808463|NCT04786990|183493804|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91808464|NCT04786990|183493805|OTHER|||||||0.5582||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Week 4; Morning PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score versus Evening PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score"||||0.5582
91912893|NCT03237065|183721825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.1|-54.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-54.3|-70.1|<0.0001
91808465|NCT04786990|183493806|OTHER|||||||0.5061||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Week 8; Morning PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score versus Evening PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score"||||0.5061
91808466|NCT02846779|183493835|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||||||||1.03|0.75|
91808467|NCT02846779|183493835|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||||||||1.06|0.77|
91808468|NCT02846779|183493836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.34|
91808469|NCT02846779|183493836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-0.43|
91808470|NCT02846779|183493837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||||||||1.11|0.95|
91808471|NCT02846779|183493837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06||||||||1.06|0.92|
91808472|NCT02846779|183493838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||||||||1.02|0.97|
91808473|NCT02846779|183493838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0||||||||1.00|0.96|
91808474|NCT02846779|183493839|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.53||||||||1.53|1.24|
91808475|NCT02846779|183493839|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07||||||||1.07|0.85|
91808476|NCT02846779|183493840|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.41||||||||1.41|1.06|
91808477|NCT02846779|183493840|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.32||||||||1.32|0.99|
91808478|NCT05353985|183493846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.017|||=|0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.197||P-value was based on a MMRM analysis with treatment group, week, treatment-by-week interaction, \& the randomization stratification factors as fixed effects \& baseline CDSD GI symptom severity scores as covariates, and participant as a random effect.|MMRM|||||0.197|-0.162|=0.847
91808479|NCT05353985|183493847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.331|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|-0.181||P-value was based on a ANCOVA model with treatment group and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and baseline Vh:Cd as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.181|-0.481|<0.001
91808480|NCT00524368|183493850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If at Week 48, the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval of the difference between DRV/rtv once daily and DRV/rtv twice daily exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of the DRV/rtv q.d. versus the DRV/rtv b.i.d. therapy was concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.0019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.092|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes treatment as factor and baseline viral load (log10) as covariate.|Difference in proportion of response DRV/rtv once daily minus DRV/rtv twice daily estimated from the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 70% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 306 participants were required per treatment arm to establish noninferiority of darunavir (DRV)/ritonavir (rtv) once daily versus DRV/rtv twice daily with a maximum allowable difference of 12%, with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 and 90% power.||0.092|-0.054|<0.001
91808481|NCT00524368|183493851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If at Week 48, the lower limit of this 95% 2-sided CI of the difference between DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d. exceeded -12%, noninferiority of DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d. could be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.075|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed factor and baseline plasma viral load as a covariate.|Difference in proportion of response between 2 treatment groups (DRV/rtv q.d. minus DRV/rtv b.i.d)|||0.075|-0.060|<0.001
91808482|NCT00524368|183493852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least square means|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.182|||ANCOVA|Including 1 factor for treatment, and including the covariate baseline log10 plasma viral load|Difference between least square means between the DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d. treatment groups at Week 48.|||0.182|-0.188|0.977
91808483|NCT00524368|183493853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.191|||Cox proportional hazards|Including treatment as fixed factor and baseline plasma viral load as a covariate||||1.191|0.824|0.917
91808484|NCT00524368|183493854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.945|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.279|||Regression, Cox|Including baseline log10 viral load as covariate||||1.279|0.699|0.716
91763239|NCT03726489|183416998|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|13.46||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||13.46|-2.35|<0.0001
91808485|NCT00524368|183493855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.115|||ANCOVA|Including 1 factor for treatment, and including the covariate baseline log10 plasma viral load|Difference in least square means between the 2 treatment groups (DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d)|||0.115|-0.169|0.711
91808486|NCT00524368|183493856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.26||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|14.2|||ANCOVA|The model includes treatment as factor and baseline CD4 count and baseline viral load (log10) as covariates.|Difference in least square means DRV/rtv once daily minus DRV/rtv twice daily estimated from the ANCOVA model.|||14.20|-26.09|0.562
91763240|NCT03726489|183416998|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|35.09||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||35.09|7.65|<0.0001
91808487|NCT00524368|183493857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.06|||ANCOVA|Including factors for treatment, and baseline log10 plasma viral load and baseline FAHI score as covariates|Difference in least square means DRV/rtv once daily minus DRV/rtv twice daily estimated from the ANCOVA model.|||4.06|-2.97|0.761
91808488|NCT00040937|183493864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||4-yr survival (%)|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|74.0|||Kaplan and Meier|||The study was designed to have 82% power for detecting a 50% improvement in survival from a median of 4 years, as observed in SWOG S9321.||74|55|
91808489|NCT00410046|183493911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Admissions to hospital||||1.0
91808490|NCT00410046|183493911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||Therapeutic warm bath sessions||||0.23
91808491|NCT00410046|183493911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567|||||||Fisher Exact|||Physiotherapist visits||||0.567
91808492|NCT00410046|183493911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||Out-patient physician visit||||0.475
91808493|NCT00410046|183493912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA, baseline was a covariate.||Inpatient hospitalization days per patient||||0.628
91808494|NCT00410046|183493912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|||Therapeutic warm bath sessions per patient||||0.045
91808495|NCT00410046|183493912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||ANCOVA|||Physiotherapist visits per patient||||0.361
91808496|NCT00410046|183493912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816|||||||ANCOVA|||Out-patient physician visit per patient||||0.816
91808497|NCT00410046|183493913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis completed for patients with sick leave during the past 12 months||||1.00
91808498|NCT00410046|183493914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.906
91808499|NCT00410046|183493919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743||||||Comparison of Hospitalization 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Hospitalization during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.743
91808500|NCT00410046|183493919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||Comparison of Therapeutic warm bath 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Therapeutic warm bath during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentages||||0.362
91808501|NCT00410046|183493919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Comparison of Visit to physiotherapist 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Visit to physiotherapist during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
91808502|NCT00410046|183493919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||||||Comparison of Out-patient physician 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Out-patient physician during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.091
91808503|NCT00410046|183493920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||||||Comparison of Sick leave 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Sick leave during 48 weeks of treatment|Fisher Exact|||||||0.576
91808504|NCT03010254|183493925|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.097||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.097|-0.180|<0.001
91808505|NCT03010254|183493927|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0115|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.059|||||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF).The 1-sided 97.5% Upper Confidence Limit is presented.|||0.059||
91912894|NCT03237065|183721825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-3.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-3.5|-10.4|0.0001
91912895|NCT03237065|183721825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-2.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-2.4|-9.1|0.0008
91912896|NCT03237065|183721825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-1.6|-8.1|0.0040
91912897|NCT03237065|183721826|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-2.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The rate difference with 95% Newcombe confidence interval, adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, could not be estimated due to lack of events. Thus, the unadjusted treatment difference is presented together with 95% Wald-based confidence interval. The p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics.||-2.6|-18.8|0.0090
91912898|NCT00353418|183721911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6119||95.0|0.68|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Sample sizes of 133 and 267 patients for RBV 800 mg daily and RBV 1000 or 1200 mg daily, respectively, provided the following probabilities of detecting the specified differences in SVR with a 0.05 level two-sided chi-square test of significance:~RBV 800 mg SVR - 0.30; RBV 1000 or 1200 mg SVR - 0.40; Probability - 0.49~RBV 800 mg SVR - 0.30; RBV 1000 or 1200 mg SVR - 0.45; Probability - 0.83"||1.93|0.68|0.6119
91912899|NCT00355394|183721941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91912900|NCT00355394|183721942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91912901|NCT00355394|183721943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.46
91912902|NCT00355394|183721944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91912903|NCT00355394|183721945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91912904|NCT00355394|183721946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
91912905|NCT01175902|183721947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To prove the non-inferiority of Cosopt to Xalatan, the sample size calculation was based on the assumption that non-inferiority margin of trough IOP of 1.5mmHg. A sample size of n=21 patients per group, this study has 80% power (1-β=0.80) and α=0.05, crossover-designed analysis.~In this study, the upper limit of the 95% CI is expected above the maximal acceptable clinically significant difference of 1.5 mmHg of IOP."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.|Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.|Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.||||0.05
91912906|NCT00699907|183721953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.012
91912907|NCT00699907|183721953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
91912908|NCT00699907|183721954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.010
91912909|NCT00699907|183721954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
91912910|NCT00699907|183721955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0006
91912911|NCT00699907|183721955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
91912912|NCT00699907|183721956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.009
91912913|NCT00699907|183721956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
91912914|NCT00699907|183721957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.037
91912915|NCT00699907|183721957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
91912916|NCT00699907|183721958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.010
91912917|NCT00699907|183721958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
91912918|NCT00699907|183721959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
91912919|NCT00699907|183721959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
91912920|NCT00699907|183721960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.006
91912921|NCT00699907|183721960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
91912922|NCT00699907|183721961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
91912923|NCT00699907|183721961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
91912924|NCT02161211|183721962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Chi-squared|df = 2||Null hypothesis = no difference in frequency in relapse between groups||||.673
91912925|NCT02161211|183721963|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-squared|-0.278||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.084|||Wald Chi-squared|Negative binomial regression with offset of natural log of possible drinking days||||.084|-.64|.133
91912926|NCT02161211|183721963|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-squared|0.101||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.44|||Wald Chi-squared|||||.44|-.24|.562
91912927|NCT02161211|183721964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||ANOVA|F(2,105) = .019||||||.982
91912928|NCT02161211|183721965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = no difference in proportion between the groups||||.685
91912929|NCT02161211|183721966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = no significant difference in frequency of hazardous drinking between groups||||.608
91808506|NCT03010254|183493928|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.048||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.048|-0.133|<0.001
91808507|NCT03010254|183493929|OTHER||Mean difference in depth of focus|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis testing was not pre-specified.|||Mean difference in depth of focus (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||||
91808508|NCT03010254|183493930|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was -0.15 log unit|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0551|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.287||||||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF). The 1-sided 97.5 Lower Limit Confidence Interval is presented.|Without glare|||-0.287|
91808509|NCT03010254|183493930|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was -0.15 log unit|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0541|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.287||||||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF). The 1-sided 97.5 Lower Limit Confidence Interval is presented.|With glare|||-0.287|
91889793|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-cF connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.02
91889794|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.003
91889795|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.66||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.66
91808510|NCT03010254|183493931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.77|31.04|||||95% CI for the difference (DFT015 - SN60WF) is estimated using Miettinen-Nurminen method (1985).|||31.04|8.77|
91808511|NCT03010254|183493932|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|35.06|||||95% CI for the difference (DFT015 - SN60WF) is estimated using Miettinen-Nurminen method (1985).|||35.06|7.92|
91808512|NCT02715076|183493933|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||mixed-effects model|||||||<0.05
91808513|NCT01404325|183493934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91808514|NCT01075204|183493963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0|||||Chi-squared|9 degrees of freedom.||Logistic regression: Omnibus Test of Model Coefficients (all the nine variables are considered together).||||0.334
91808515|NCT02310568|183493982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.784|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||3.9|-2.8|0.784
91889796|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.008||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iM-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.008
91889797|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.005||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.005
91889798|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.87||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.87
91889799|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.11||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.11
91889800|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.012||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.012
91808516|NCT02310568|183493982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|5.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||5.8|-0.6|0.184
91763241|NCT03726489|183416999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.68||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|20.08||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||20.08|3.27|0.0065
91763242|NCT03726489|183416999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.31||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|24.49||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||24.49|0.03|0.0478
91763243|NCT03726489|183416999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.25||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|25.98||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||25.98|0.52|0.0431
91763244|NCT03726489|183416999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|28.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||28.50|-25.50|0.9133
91763245|NCT03726489|183417000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|-0.07||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||-0.07|-15.73|0.048
91763246|NCT03726489|183417000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.67||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.15|2.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||2.80|-24.15|0.1199
91763247|NCT03726489|183417000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|4.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||4.66|-15.26|0.2953
91763248|NCT03726489|183417000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83||||0.5124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.77|18.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||18.11|-35.77|0.5124
91763249|NCT03726489|183417001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|19.87||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||19.87|1.93|0.0173
91763250|NCT03726489|183417001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.06||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|26.94||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||26.94|-0.81|0.0662
91763251|NCT03726489|183417001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.58||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|21.57||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||21.57|-4.42|0.1976
91912930|NCT03138876|183721973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91912931|NCT03889639|183721977|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 5 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95 percentage (%) confidence interval (CI) were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-56.16||||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-193.99|17.05|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 5 mg/Placebo||17.05|-193.99|0.1673
91763252|NCT03726489|183417001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.04||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|40.69||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||40.69|-14.60|0.3595
91763253|NCT03726489|183417002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.55||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|16.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||16.14|-1.05|0.0853
91763254|NCT03726489|183417002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.26||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|16.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||16.06|-11.54|0.7488
91763255|NCT03726489|183417002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.12||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|22.26||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||22.26|-2.03|0.1051
91763256|NCT03726489|183417002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.39||||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|42.27||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||42.27|-7.48|0.1792
91808517|NCT02310568|183493982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||1.6|-5.7|0.360
91808518|NCT02310568|183493984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|5.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||5.0|-3.2|0.708
91808519|NCT02310568|183493984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.0|-5.2|0.646
91808520|NCT02310568|183493984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.352|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|5.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||5.6|-1.6|0.352
91808521|NCT02310568|183493984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.495|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|7.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.3|-3.1|0.495
91808522|NCT02310568|183493984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|7.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.6|-2.7|0.422
91808523|NCT02310568|183493984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|4.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.2|-5.0|0.889
91808524|NCT02310568|183493984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.324||90.0|-2.0|7.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.4|-2.0|0.324
91808525|NCT02310568|183493984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|4.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.9|-4.5|0.939
91808526|NCT02310568|183493984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|6.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||6.7|-1.7|0.308
91808527|NCT02310568|183493984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.846|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|7.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.6|-6.0|0.846
91808528|NCT02310568|183493984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|3.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.7|-9.8|0.449
91808529|NCT02310568|183493984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51||0.295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|9.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||9.9|-2.3|0.295
91808530|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-4.0|0.514
91808531|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.0|-4.5|0.302
91808532|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.8|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Total Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||3.8|-2.6|0.736
91808533|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||7.8|-5.6|0.775
91912932|NCT03889639|183721977|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 15 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-62.8||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.24|41.91|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 15 mg/Placebo||41.91|-356.24|0.3540
91808534|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|4.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||4.5|-9.4|0.553
91808535|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|9.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Total Score ( Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||9.3|-2.2|0.299
91808536|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.994|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-1.1|0.994
91808537|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.87|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-0.9|0.870
91763257|NCT03726489|183417003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|7.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||7.50|-1.37|0.175
91808538|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-1.3|0.885
91808539|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|2.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.7|-3.5|0.834
91808540|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-5.1|0.281
91808541|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|4.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||4.1|-0.9|0.272
91808542|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.4|-2.1|0.249
91808543|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||-0.6|-2.9|0.016
91763258|NCT03726489|183417003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.8904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|5.51||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||5.51|-6.34|0.8904
91763259|NCT03726489|183417003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.59||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|14.88||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||14.88|0.31|0.0412
91763260|NCT03726489|183417003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|24.38||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||24.38|-13.38|0.5481
91763261|NCT03726489|183417003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.403|||Regression, Cox|Failure event corresponds to DLQI assessment greater than 5. Model adjusted for skin phototype.|Office phototherapy is the reference group.|Cox proportional hazards model for maintaining treatment response after week 12.||1.403|0.471|0.458
91763262|NCT03726489|183417004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.34|45.86||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||45.86|30.34|<0.0001
91763263|NCT03726489|183417004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.39|50.33||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||50.33|27.39|<0.0001
91808544|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.285|TWO_SIDED|0.285|-0.5|2.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.3|-0.5|0.285
91808545|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score ( Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.8|-3.1|0.635
91808546|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.7|-4.4|0.217
91808547|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|3.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||3.6|-1.2|0.399
91808548|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.429|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.5|-1.5|0.429
91763264|NCT03726489|183417004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.73|53.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||53.68|30.73|<0.0001
91763265|NCT03726489|183417004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.74||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|41.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||41.11|-9.63|0.2340
91808549|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.3|-1.7|0.260
91808550|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.799|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.3|-1.0|0.799
91808551|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.5|-1.7|0.738
91763266|NCT03726489|183417005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.25|50.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||50.66|37.25|<0.0001
91808552|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.5||0.691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-2.7|0.691
91808553|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.9|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.9|-1.0|0.417
91912933|NCT03889639|183721977|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 30 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|13.49||||0.7674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.05|66.89|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 30 mg/Placebo||66.89|-126.05|0.7674
91912934|NCT03889639|183721977|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 60 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|85.02||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.02|96.88|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 60 mg/Placebo||96.88|28.02|0.0178
91912935|NCT03889639|183721978|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 5 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|10.17||||0.7736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.49|56.73|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 5 mg/Placebo||56.73|-86.49|0.7736
91912936|NCT03889639|183721978|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 15 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|37.07||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|71.32|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 15 mg/Placebo||71.32|-38.08|0.2480
91912937|NCT03889639|183721978|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 30 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|38.5||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.61|75.85|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 30 mg/Placebo||75.85|-56.61|0.3081
91912938|NCT03889639|183721978|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 60 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|89.34||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.39|96.41|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 60 mg/Placebo||96.41|68.39|0.0001
91912939|NCT03889639|183721979|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 5 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-62.16||||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.44|16.38|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 5 mg/Placebo||16.38|-214.44|0.1525
91912940|NCT03889639|183721979|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 15 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-47.38||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-312.91|47.4|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 15 mg/Placebo||47.40|-312.91|0.4606
91912941|NCT03889639|183721979|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 30 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|2.9||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.96|60.54|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 30 mg/Placebo||60.54|-138.96|0.9490
91912942|NCT03889639|183721979|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 60 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|65.05||||0.2324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.21|93.77|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 60 mg/Placebo||93.77|-96.21|0.2324
91912943|NCT01703858|183721983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|98.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.501|105.272|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|B : BI-113608 vs. A : BI-113608 - Comparison with oral solution||105.272|92.501|0.0000
91912944|NCT01703858|183721983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|70.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.331|78.962|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|C : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||78.962|62.331|0.9644
91912945|NCT01703858|183721983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|83.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.648|94.346|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||94.346|73.648|0.2835
91763267|NCT03726489|183417005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|49.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||49.70|30.0|<0.0001
91763268|NCT03726489|183417005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.09|60.27||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||60.27|40.09|<0.0001
91763269|NCT03726489|183417005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.35|57.87||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||57.87|14.35|<0.0001
91763270|NCT03726489|183417006|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|9.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||9.0|-19.4|0.1773
91763271|NCT03726489|183417006|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.88||||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|12.33||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||12.33|-26.09|0.4073
91763272|NCT03726489|183417006|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.42||||0.8247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|10.41||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||10.41|-35.24|0.8247
91808554|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||3.7|-3.7|0.998
91763273|NCT03726489|183417006|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|37.88||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|79.77||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||79.77|-4.01|0.0133
91763274|NCT03726489|183417007|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|20.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||20.14|-7.11|0.002
91763275|NCT03726489|183417007|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.77||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|25.89||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||25.89|-10.35|0.0137
91763276|NCT03726489|183417007|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.61|23.61||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||23.61|-21.61|0.1656
91763277|NCT03726489|183417007|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|22.73||||0.1225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|70.62||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||70.62|-25.16|0.1225
91912946|NCT01703858|183721983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|117.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.7||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.923|130.867|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. C : BI-113608 - Food effect||130.867|104.923|0.1599
91912947|NCT01703858|183721983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|97.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.072|107.719|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|D : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Pantoprazole effect||107.719|88.072|0.0020
91912948|NCT01703858|183721984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|89.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.3||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.893|104.973|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|B : BI-113608 vs. A : BI-113608 - Comparison with oral solution||104.973|75.893|0.1261
91912949|NCT01703858|183721984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|54.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.4||0.9808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.711|73.157|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|C : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||73.157|40.711|0.9808
91912950|NCT01703858|183721984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|94.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.2||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.175|124.731|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||124.731|72.175|0.1449
91912951|NCT01703858|183721984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|169.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.7||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.093|231.419|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. C : BI-113608 - Food effect||231.419|124.093|0.9463
91912952|NCT01703858|183721984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|81.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.3||0.4564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.811|99.848|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|D : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Pantoprazole effect||99.848|65.811|0.4564
91808555|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-5.8|0.353
91763278|NCT03726489|183417008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.105||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.192|||Marginal contrast||Positive values indicate higher proportion in the home group.|Difference of proportion at week 16. Calculated using contrasts of predictive margins following logistic regression with robust variance estimators via generalized estimating equations and exchangeable correlation. Missing data for DLQI are imputed using multiple imputation via chained equations (10 imputations), and the estimates are combined using standard rules.||0.192|0.018|0.0183
91763279|NCT03726489|183417008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.064||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.158|||Marginal contrast||Positive values indicate higher proportion in the home group.|Difference of proportion at week 20. Calculated using contrasts of predictive margins following logistic regression with robust variance estimators via generalized estimating equations and exchangeable correlation. Missing data for DLQI are imputed using multiple imputation via chained equations (10 imputations), and the estimates are combined using standard rules.||0.158|-0.029|0.177
91912953|NCT01703858|183721985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|98.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|105.225|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|B : BI-113608 vs. A : BI-113608 - Comparison with oral solution||105.225|92.500|0.0000
91912954|NCT01703858|183721985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|70.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3||0.9635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.43|79.038|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|C : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||79.038|62.430|0.9635
91912955|NCT01703858|183721985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|83.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7||0.2771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.774|94.412|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||94.412|73.774|0.2771
91912956|NCT01703858|183721985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|117.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.6||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.958|130.787|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. C : BI-113608 - Food effect||130.787|104.958|0.1584
91912957|NCT01703858|183721985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|97.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.066|107.741|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|D : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Pantoprazole effect||107.741|88.066|0.0020
91912958|NCT00993031|183721996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.67|||Chi-squared|||||2.67|.26|.76
91912959|NCT00993031|183721997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.46|||Chi-squared|||||2.46|.29|.76
91912960|NCT00993031|183721998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.59|||Chi-squared|||||1.59|.36|.45
91912961|NCT00993031|183722000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.66|||Chi-squared|||||1.66|.89|.21
91912962|NCT00993031|183722001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.83|||Chi-squared|||||1.83|.98|.06
91912963|NCT03506295|183722012|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.496||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|1.469|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.469|0.168|0.7878
91912964|NCT01834729|183722017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Least squares means|||||||0.78
91912965|NCT01834729|183722018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Least squares means|||||||0.57
91912966|NCT04673786|183722020|EQUIVALENCE|Predefined equivalence margin: -10% to 10%|Treatment difference (%) and 90% CI|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|4.32|||ANCOVA|Multiple imputation (MI) with the Missing at random (MAR) assumption was applied.||||4.32|-0.23|
91912967|NCT00725075|183722037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change From Baseline|-2.26||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|1.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the baseline value as covariate and with treatment group and center as fixed factors||Comparison of Mean Change in Baseline: Least Squared Estimates with Statistical Inference.||1.74|-6.25|0.267
91912968|NCT00725075|183722037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change From Baseline|-0.08||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|3.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the baseline value as covariate and with treatment group and center as fixed factors||Comparison of Mean Change in Baseline: Least Squared Estimates with Statistical Inference.||3.74|-3.91|0.966
91912969|NCT02340663|183722053|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91912970|NCT02340663|183722054|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
91912971|NCT02340663|183722055|OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.665
91912972|NCT02340663|183722056|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.249
91912973|NCT02340663|183722057|OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.626
91912974|NCT02340663|183722058|OTHER|||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.695
91912975|NCT02340663|183722059|OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.255
91912976|NCT02340663|183722060|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.049
91912977|NCT02340663|183722063|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.750
91912978|NCT02340663|183722064|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The P-value given is the computed value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91912979|NCT02340663|183722065|OTHER|||||||0.544|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.544
91912980|NCT02340663|183722066|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.220
91912981|NCT02340663|183722067|OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.081
91912982|NCT02340663|183722068|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91912983|NCT02340663|183722069|OTHER|||||||0.731|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.731
91912984|NCT02340663|183722070|OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.238
91912985|NCT02340663|183722071|OTHER|||||||0.952||||||"The P-value refers to the difference in group means, see Group Means row in the table."|ANOVA|||||||0.952
91912986|NCT02340663|183722072|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||"The P-value refers to the difference in group means, see Group Means row in the table."|ANOVA|||||||0.53
91912987|NCT02340663|183722073|OTHER|||||||0.292||||||"The P-value refers to the difference in group means, see Group Means row in the table."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.292
91912988|NCT02340663|183722074|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.||||0.289
91912989|NCT02340663|183722075|OTHER|||||||0.287||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.287
91912990|NCT02340663|183722076|OTHER|||||||0.505||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.505
91912991|NCT02340663|183722077|OTHER|||||||0.643||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.643
91912992|NCT02340663|183722078|OTHER|||||||0.923||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.923
91912993|NCT03694925|183722120|OTHER||Specificity|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the true negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
91912994|NCT03694925|183722120|OTHER||Specificity|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the true negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
91912995|NCT03694925|183722120|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of true positives over the number of total positives.|||||
91912996|NCT03694925|183722120|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of true positives over the number of total positives.|||||
91912997|NCT03694925|183722120|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.852|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
91912998|NCT03694925|183722120|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
91912999|NCT03694925|183722120|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
91913000|NCT03694925|183722120|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
91913001|NCT03694925|183722121|OTHER||Specificity|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the number of aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of aseptics.|||||
91913002|NCT03694925|183722121|OTHER||Specificity|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the number of aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of aseptics.|||||
91913003|NCT03694925|183722121|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of septic positives over the number of septics.|||||
91913004|NCT03694925|183722121|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of septic positives over the number of septics.|||||
91913005|NCT03694925|183722121|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.813|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
91913006|NCT03694925|183722121|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
91913007|NCT03694925|183722121|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
91913008|NCT03694925|183722121|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. NPV=98.5%|||
91913009|NCT01459705|183722125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-22.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.69|||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
91913010|NCT01459705|183722125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91913011|NCT01459705|183722125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|9.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91913012|NCT01459705|183722126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.03|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91913013|NCT01459705|183722127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|13.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91913014|NCT06523491|183722235|SUPERIORITY||F value|23.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of 1 and 2 NOLTREX courses with placebo was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group"||No sample size calculation was performed. In the survey took part 57 patients from the parent study and OLE. The study did not have a formal hypothesis. The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (OLE visit 0) in the WOMAC-T at the end of 12-month follow-up (EOF) visit was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.00
91913015|NCT06523491|183722235|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|353.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.27||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|178.91|527.45||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||527.45|178.91|0.00
91763280|NCT03726489|183417008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.011||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.079|||Marginal contrast||Positive values indicate higher proportion in the home group.|Difference of proportion at week 24. Calculated using contrasts of predictive margins following logistic regression with robust variance estimators via generalized estimating equations and exchangeable correlation. Missing data for DLQI are imputed using multiple imputation via chained equations (10 imputations), and the estimates are combined using standard rules.||0.079|-0.101|0.815
91913016|NCT06523491|183722235|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-292.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.04||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-480.37|-104.01||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-104.01|-480.37|0.00
91763281|NCT00853151|183417009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||90.0||||p-value is for LY2428757 plus TT223 3 mg versus LY2428757 plus TT223 placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, baseline therapy, strata, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of baseline HbA1c.||||||0.623
91763282|NCT00853151|183417009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||95.0||||p-value is for LY2428757 plus TT223 2 mg versus LY2428757 plus TT223 placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, baseline therapy, strata, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of baseline HbA1c.||||||0.809
91763283|NCT01510158|183417049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.36|0.17|<0.0001
91763284|NCT01510158|183417049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.41|0.22|<0.0001
91763285|NCT01510158|183417050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.61|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.61|0.61|0.9796
91763286|NCT01510158|183417050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.6125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.43|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.43|0.54|0.6125
91763287|NCT01510158|183417051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.08|-0.51|0.0183
91763288|NCT01510158|183417051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.5974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.2|-0.37|0.5974
91763289|NCT03078556|183417052|OTHER||Ratio|1.271|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1894|1.3582|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3582|1.1894|
91763290|NCT03078556|183417052|OTHER||Ratio|1.0341|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0097|1.0591|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0591|1.0097|
91763291|NCT03078556|183417053|OTHER||Ratio|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0699|1.2468|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2468|1.0699|
91763292|NCT03078556|183417053|OTHER||Ratio|1.0635|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0413|1.0861|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0861|1.0413|
91763293|NCT03078556|183417054|OTHER||Ratio|1.2756|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1919|1.3651|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3651|1.1919|
91763294|NCT03078556|183417054|OTHER||Ratio|1.0372|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0116|1.0634|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0634|1.0116|
91763295|NCT03078556|183417055|OTHER||Ratio|1.1578|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0718|1.2507|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2507|1.0718|
91763296|NCT03078556|183417055|OTHER||Ratio|1.0702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0464|1.0946|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0946|1.0464|
91763297|NCT03078556|183417056|OTHER||Ratio|1.2805|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.189|1.379|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3790|1.1890|
91763298|NCT03078556|183417056|OTHER||Ratio|1.1956|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1437|1.2498|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.2498|1.1437|
91763299|NCT03078556|183417057|OTHER||Ratio|1.141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0533|1.2361|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2361|1.0533|
91763300|NCT03078556|183417057|OTHER||Ratio|1.3176|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2616|1.376|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.3760|1.2616|
91763301|NCT03078556|183417058|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.000|0.000|
91763302|NCT03078556|183417058|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.000|0.000|
91763303|NCT03078556|183417059|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.004|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.000|-0.004|
91763304|NCT03078556|183417059|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.000|0.000|
91763305|NCT03078556|183417060|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.248|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.248|-0.500|
91763306|NCT03078556|183417060|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.253|-0.001|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||-0.001|-0.253|
91763307|NCT03078556|183417061|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.497|0.132|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.132|-0.497|
91763308|NCT03078556|183417061|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.376|-0.001|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||-0.001|-0.376|
91763309|NCT03078556|183417070|OTHER||Ratio|1.2774|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1931|1.3676|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3676|1.1931|
91763310|NCT03078556|183417070|OTHER||Ratio|1.0475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0185|1.0773|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0773|1.0185|
91763311|NCT03078556|183417071|OTHER||Ratio|1.1599|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0711|1.256|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2560|1.0711|
91763312|NCT03078556|183417071|OTHER||Ratio|1.0807|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0539|1.1081|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.1081|1.0539|
91763313|NCT03078556|183417072|OTHER||Ratio|0.7868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7363|0.8408|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.8408|0.7363|
91763314|NCT03078556|183417072|OTHER||Ratio|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9442|0.9904|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9904|0.9442|
91763315|NCT03078556|183417073|OTHER||Ratio|0.8658|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8021|0.9347|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.9347|0.8021|
91763316|NCT03078556|183417073|OTHER||Ratio|0.9403|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9207|0.9604|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9604|0.9207|
91763317|NCT03078556|183417074|OTHER||Ratio|0.7859|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7318|0.844|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.8440|0.7318|
91913017|NCT06523491|183722235|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-645.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.68||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-876.07|-414.67||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-414.67|-876.07|0.00
91913018|NCT06523491|183722235|SUPERIORITY||F value|23.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of 1 and 2 NOLTREX courses with placebo was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group"||The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (study 1 visit 1) in the WOMAC-T at visit 5 was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.00
91913019|NCT06523491|183722235|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-292.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.04||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-480.37|-104.01|||Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-104.01|-480.37|0.00
91913020|NCT06523491|183722235|SUPERIORITY||[LS-means difference|-645.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.68||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-876.07|-414.67||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-414.67|-876.07|0.00
91913021|NCT01354028|183722267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1303||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom =1||"Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in sleep efficiency in preterm infants on the day of massage versus the day without massage.~Power calculation: the sample size was determined by convenience for this pilot study"||||0.1303
91913022|NCT01354028|183722270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||Pearson's chi square|Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference in massage therapy or no massage therapy in number of infants who will be asleep at the end of massage or the corresponding time frame on the non massage day.~Pearson's chi square=4.98"||||0.026
91913023|NCT02109159|183722271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Chi-squared||This analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis including all participants randomised.|||1.4|0.8|0.44
91913024|NCT02109159|183722271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Chi-squared||This analysis was conducted on a per-protocol (PP) basis including only those who watched the videos.|||1.7|0.8|0.47
91763318|NCT03078556|183417074|OTHER||Ratio|0.9704|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9157|1.0284|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0284|0.9157|
91913025|NCT02109159|183722272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided||This analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis including all participants randomised.|||0.04|-0.02|0.53
91913026|NCT02109159|183722272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||This analysis was conducted on a per-protocol (PP) basis including only those who watched the videos.|||0.8|-0.5|0.56
91913027|NCT03968419|183722283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.56|21.23||||||Difference in MPR rate||21.23|-25.56|
91763319|NCT03078556|183417075|OTHER||Ratio|0.8571|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7914|0.9282|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.9282|0.7914|
91763320|NCT03078556|183417075|OTHER||Ratio|0.9153|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8613|0.9728|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9728|0.8613|
91913028|NCT01641939|183722301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.6||One sided p-value with correction for interim treatment selection due to adaptive seamless phase design.|Log Rank|Log-Rank test, inverse normal combination test.||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy.||1.60|0.87|0.8589
91913029|NCT01641939|183722302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.03||||||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy.||2.03|0.32|
91763321|NCT03078556|183417076|OTHER||Ratio|1.2632|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1811|1.3511|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3511|1.1811|
91763322|NCT03078556|183417076|OTHER||Ratio|0.9598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9268|0.9941|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9941|0.9268|
91763323|NCT03078556|183417077|OTHER||Ratio|1.1425|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0597|1.2317|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2317|1.0597|
91913030|NCT01641939|183722302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.92||||||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy.||4.92|0.82|
91913031|NCT01641939|183722302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.96||||||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Trastuzumab Emtansine 3.6 mg||0.96|0.23|
91913032|NCT01641939|183722304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.43|||Log Rank|||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy||1.43|0.89|0.308
91913033|NCT05022641|183722339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6
91913034|NCT05022641|183722340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.65
91913035|NCT05022641|183722341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.02
91763324|NCT03078556|183417077|OTHER||Ratio|0.9548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9299|0.9804|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9804|0.9299|
91763325|NCT03078556|183417078|OTHER||Ratio|1.1839|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0921|1.2834|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2834|1.0921|
91763326|NCT03078556|183417078|OTHER||Ratio|0.8874|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.834|0.9443|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9443|0.8340|
91913036|NCT05022641|183722342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
91913037|NCT05022641|183722344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.6
91913038|NCT03881007|183722345|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.17||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.84|0.359
91763327|NCT03078556|183417079|OTHER||Ratio|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9958|1.167|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.1670|0.9958|
91763328|NCT03078556|183417079|OTHER||Ratio|0.9049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8474|0.9663|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9663|0.8474|
91763329|NCT03078556|183417080|OTHER||Ratio|1.1545|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0208|1.3058|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.3058|1.0208|
91763330|NCT03078556|183417080|OTHER||Ratio|0.9577|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9126|1.0049|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.0049|0.9126|
91763331|NCT03078556|183417081|OTHER||Ratio|1.3256|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1837|1.4845|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4845|1.1837|
91763332|NCT03078556|183417081|OTHER||Ratio|0.9114|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8658|0.9593|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9593|0.8658|
91763333|NCT03078556|183417082|OTHER||Ratio|1.1481|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0154|1.2982|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2982|1.0154|
91763334|NCT03078556|183417082|OTHER||Ratio|0.9524|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9086|0.9983|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9983|0.9086|
91763335|NCT03078556|183417083|OTHER||Ratio|1.3176|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.175|1.4775|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4775|1.1750|
91763336|NCT03078556|183417083|OTHER||Ratio|0.9048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8592|0.9528|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9528|0.8592|
91763337|NCT03078556|183417084|OTHER||Ratio|1.0808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9527|1.2261|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2261|0.9527|
91763338|NCT03078556|183417084|OTHER||Ratio|0.7097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6474|0.7779|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.7779|0.6474|
91763339|NCT03078556|183417085|OTHER||Ratio|1.2096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0521|1.3908|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.3908|1.0521|
91763340|NCT03078556|183417085|OTHER||Ratio|0.6826|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5861|0.795|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.7950|0.5861|
91763341|NCT03078556|183417086|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.254|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.378|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.378|0.250|
91763342|NCT03078556|183417086|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.127|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.127|0.000|
91763343|NCT03078556|183417087|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.250|0.000|
91763344|NCT03078556|183417087|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.125|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.125|0.000|
91763345|NCT03078556|183417088|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.017|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.872|4.496|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||4.496|1.872|
91763346|NCT03078556|183417088|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.751|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||2.751|1.500|
91763347|NCT03078556|183417089|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.748|3.751|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||3.751|1.748|
91763348|NCT03078556|183417089|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.503|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|2.252|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||2.252|0.998|
91913039|NCT03881007|183722346|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|5.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|136.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||136.56|1.52|0.024
91763349|NCT03078556|183417098|OTHER||Ratio|1.0849|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9613|1.2245|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2245|0.9613|
91763350|NCT03078556|183417098|OTHER||Ratio|0.9363|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8913|0.9836|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9836|0.8913|
91763351|NCT03078556|183417099|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.2477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1013|1.4136|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4136|1.1013|
91763352|NCT03078556|183417099|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8836|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8351|0.935|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9350|0.8351|
91763353|NCT03078556|183417100|OTHER||Ratio|0.8661|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7658|0.9796|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.9796|0.7658|
91763354|NCT03078556|183417100|OTHER||Ratio|1.0442|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9951|1.0957|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.0957|0.9951|
91763355|NCT03078556|183417101|OTHER||Ratio|0.7544|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6736|0.8448|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.8448|0.6736|
91763356|NCT03078556|183417101|OTHER||Ratio|1.0972|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0424|1.155|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.1550|1.0424|
91763357|NCT03078556|183417104|OTHER||Ratio|0.8654|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7629|0.9816|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.9816|0.7629|
91763358|NCT03078556|183417104|OTHER||Ratio|1.0841|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9139|1.286|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.2860|0.9139|
91763359|NCT03078556|183417105|OTHER||Ratio|0.7657|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6702|0.8749|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.8749|0.6702|
91913040|NCT03881007|183722347|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.09||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.95|0.61|0.774
91763360|NCT03078556|183417105|OTHER||Ratio|1.197|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0869|1.3182|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.3182|1.0869|
91913041|NCT03881007|183722348|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.59||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.63|0.2|0.323
91913042|NCT03881007|183722350|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.21||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.72|0.86|0.279
91763361|NCT03078556|183417106|OTHER||Ratio|1.2929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1281|1.4819|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4819|1.1281|
91763362|NCT03078556|183417106|OTHER||Ratio|1.2015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1074|1.3036|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.3036|1.1074|
91763363|NCT03078556|183417107|OTHER||Ratio|1.469|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3009|1.6588|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.6588|1.3009|
91763364|NCT03078556|183417107|OTHER||Ratio|1.1935|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1142|1.2785|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.2785|1.1142|
91763365|NCT01466127|183417131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91763366|NCT00571038|183417132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2417
91763367|NCT00571038|183417133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8586
91763368|NCT00571038|183417134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0432
91763369|NCT00571038|183417135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0604
91763370|NCT00571038|183417136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0438
91763371|NCT00571038|183417137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1418|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1418
91913043|NCT00847587|183722352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 8 additional hours was chosen to be clinically relevant, as many common medical interventions (such as epidural anesthesia, cesarean delivery, labor induction, and general stress) have been reported to delay time to lactogenesis stage II by up to 12 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|120.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|7.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||It was assumed that both groups would have a mean of 54 hours to lactogenesis with a common standard deviation of 12 hours based on previous reports of lactogenesis in women with uncomplicated vaginal deliveries. Setting the noninferiority margin at 8 additional hours, using an alpha 0.05 level comparison, to achieve 80% power a sample size of n=34 evaluable subjects was required in each group. The calculation was performed using N Solution 2007 Professional Software.||7.7|-10.6|<0.05
91913044|NCT00847587|183722353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-1.3|<0.05
91913045|NCT04669678|183722378|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||1.11|0.65|0.306
91913046|NCT04669678|183722378|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.09|0.60|0.874
91913047|NCT04669678|183722378|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.19|0.91|0.646
91913048|NCT04669678|183722378|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.28|0.82|0.869
91913049|NCT04669678|183722378|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.88|0.30|0.044
91763372|NCT00571038|183417138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Pr \<= P||||||0.0070
91763373|NCT00571038|183417139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8395|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8395
91763374|NCT00571038|183417140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2194|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2194
91913050|NCT04669678|183722378|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.46|0.28|<0.001
91913051|NCT04669678|183722378|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.49|0.27|<0.001
91763375|NCT00571038|183417141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9191
91763376|NCT00571038|183417142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9633|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9633
91763377|NCT00571038|183417143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5901
91913052|NCT04669678|183722378|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.54|0.35|<0.001
91763378|NCT00571038|183417144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9820
91913053|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||2.74|0.57|0.641
91913054|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||2.80|0.87|0.204
91913055|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||2.15|0.77|0.415
91913056|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||4.06|1.23|0.027
91913057|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||4.73|0.73|0.274
91913058|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||3.13|1.07|0.065
91763379|NCT00571038|183417145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3979|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3979
91763380|NCT00571038|183417146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1471
91763381|NCT00571038|183417147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6123|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6123
91763382|NCT00571038|183417148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5861|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5861
91763383|NCT00571038|183417149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4489
91763384|NCT00571038|183417150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2527
91763385|NCT00571038|183417151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7314
91763386|NCT00571038|183417152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9839|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9839
91763387|NCT02588261|183417181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.611||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.391|||Log Rank|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of ASP8273 treatment group.||2.391|1.086|0.992
91763388|NCT02588261|183417183|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||||1.000
91763389|NCT02588261|183417184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.674||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.165|2.406|||Log Rank|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of ASP8273 treatment group.||2.406|1.165|0.998
91913059|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||3.75|0.79|0.252
91913060|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||4.33|1.57|0.002
91913061|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20||1.34|0.46|0.460
91913062|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||2.20|1.15|0.019
91913063|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||4.27|1.10|0.061
91913064|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||2.71|0.99|0.106
91913065|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||3.36|0.93|0.144
91913066|NCT04669678|183722379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||4.16|1.36|0.011
91913067|NCT05425563|183722387|OTHER||Slope|8.3269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8792|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
91913068|NCT05425563|183722388|OTHER||Slope|8.0809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5414|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
91913069|NCT05425563|183722389|OTHER||Slope|8.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
91913070|NCT05425563|183722396|OTHER||Slope|34.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
91913071|NCT05425563|183722397|OTHER||Slope|33.9754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
91913072|NCT05425563|183722398|OTHER||Slope|31.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
91913073|NCT00997516|183722417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91913074|NCT00997516|183722418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91913075|NCT00997516|183722427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall body satisfaction||||0.86
91913076|NCT00997516|183722427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Damage to body||||0.18
91913077|NCT00997516|183722427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical attractiveness||||0.04
91913078|NCT00997516|183722427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Masculinity/femininity||||0.34
91913079|NCT00997516|183722427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Looking at oneself naked||||0.63
91913080|NCT00997516|183722428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Cosmetic appearance of abdomen||||0.48
91913081|NCT00997516|183722428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Cosmetic appearance of scars||||0.09
91913082|NCT00997516|183722428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with scars||||0.25
91913083|NCT00997516|183722428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Discomfort of scars||||0.81
91913084|NCT00997516|183722428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Overall impression of scars||||<0.01
91913085|NCT00584233|183722429|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical test will be to assess non-inferiority. The non-inferiority margin is -0.04 in AUC. Key parameters are the number of participating patients, the number of radiologists reading the images in the study. Power analysis was conducted using the standard simulation from the ROC literature (Roe and Metz, Academic Radiology 1997). With a total of 100 participating patients and 4 participating readers, we achieve a power \>80% with a non-inferiority margin of -0.04.|Obuchowski Rockette methodology|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.975|||Obuchowski Rockette|||The analysis is intended to evaluate non-inferiority in observer performance between CE-bCT and CE-bMRI as assessed by the area under the ROC curve (AUC). The null hypothesis is that the observed difference in average AUC for CE-bCT and CE-bMRI will be outside of a non-inferiority margin of -0.04. See below for details of the power analyses.||.975|.025|0.05
91913086|NCT03178487|183722494|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.|Response Rate Difference|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|39.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.5|12.6|<0.001
91913087|NCT03178487|183722495|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.68|-1.14|<0.001
91913088|NCT03178487|183722496|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.|LS Mean Difference|-6.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-4.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-4.41|-9.01|<0.001
91913089|NCT03178487|183722497|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including BASDAI 50; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|Response Rate Difference|21.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.0|8.5|0.002
91913090|NCT03178487|183722498|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including ASQoL; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-1.54||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.3|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.30|-2.78|0.016
91913091|NCT03178487|183722499|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including ASAS PR; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|Response Rate Difference|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.6|10.0|<0.001
91913092|NCT03178487|183722500|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including BASFI; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.39|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.39|-1.60|0.001
91913093|NCT03178487|183722501|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including BASMI(lin); within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.02|-0.43|0.030
91808556|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|5.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Total Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||5.4|-1.3|0.296
91763390|NCT02588261|183417185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||||0.839
91763391|NCT02588261|183417186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.298||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|2.548|||Log Rank|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of ASP8273 treatment group.||2.548|0.661|0.780
91763392|NCT02287467|183417199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio is hIVIG vs. placebo. A value greater than 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Odds ratio of being in a better category, as assessed using a proportional odds model. Multiple imputation techniques were used to impute an outcome for 4 patients for whom the outcome was unknown.||1.97|0.79|.33
91763393|NCT02287467|183417200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo. An odds ratio greater than 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Odds ratio for being in a better category, from a proportional odds model||1.48|0.61|.84
91763394|NCT02287467|183417201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio is for hIVIG vs. placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Odds ratio for being in a better group, from a proportional odds model.||1.33|0.57|.52
91763395|NCT02287467|183417202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio for hIVIG vs placebo. An odds ratio \> 1.0 favors the hIVIG group.|||2.74|0.81|.20
91808557|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.5|-1.8|0.841
91763396|NCT02287467|183417203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|hazard ratio is hIVIG vs placebo; a hazard ratio \>1 favors the hIVIG group.|Deaths during hospitalization are censored after day 7.||1.45|.85|.44
91913094|NCT03178487|183722502|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including MASES; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.0|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.00|-1.68|0.049
91913095|NCT03178487|183722503|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including WPAI; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-5.52||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|2.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||2.78|-13.82|0.190
91913096|NCT03178487|183722504|OTHER|"To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.~ASAS HI was to be evaluated only if the group of endpoints tested by Hochberg procedure were all significant."|LS Mean Difference|-1.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.37||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped during the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.37|-2.37|0.007
91913097|NCT03178487|183722505|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|24.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|38.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|38.0|10.2|0.001
91913098|NCT03178487|183722506|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-2.08||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.08|-5.31|<0.001
91913099|NCT03178487|183722507|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|-4.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-4.14|-8.27|<0.001
91913100|NCT03178487|183722508|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-1.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.08|-4.01|<0.001
91913101|NCT03021642|183722633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|98.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.67|103.96||||||||103.96|93.67|
91913102|NCT03021642|183722634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS mean ratio|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.43|103.59||||||||103.59|88.43|
91913103|NCT03021642|183722635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS mean ratio|96.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.8|103.36||||||||103.36|90.8|
91913104|NCT03021642|183722636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.025|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.025|-1.000|0.8981
91913105|NCT02474082|183722675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|35.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.40|7.79|<.0001
91913106|NCT04317274|183722696|OTHER||Slope|-0.19||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Note: original plan was to conduct ANOVAs, but failed tests of assumptions||We tested for interaction effect of order and video version within the high cholesterol group.||||0.21
91913107|NCT04317274|183722696|OTHER||Slope|-1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Original plan was to conduct ANOVAs, but failed tests of assumptions||We tested for interaction effect of order and video version within the colorectal cancer group.||||<0.001
91913108|NCT04317274|183722697|OTHER||Slope|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||We examined the correlation between SDM Process and SDM-Q9 scores in the high cholesterol group.||||<.001
91913109|NCT04317274|183722697|OTHER||Slope|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient]|||We examined the correlation between SDM Process and SDM-Q9 scores in the colorectal cancer group.||||<.001
91913110|NCT00430508|183722701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.97|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-6.97|<0.0001
91913111|NCT00430508|183722701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.79|-2.03|||ANCOVA|||||-2.03|-4.79|<0.0001
91913112|NCT00430508|183722701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.1788||95.0|-2.32|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-2.32|0.1788
91913113|NCT00430508|183722702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.54|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-5.54|<0.0001
91913114|NCT00430508|183722702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.39|-1.98|||ANCOVA|||||-1.98|-4.39|<0.0001
91913115|NCT00430508|183722702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1081||95.0|-2.19|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-2.19|0.1081
91913116|NCT00430508|183722703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.13|-4.66|||ANCOVA|||||-4.66|-10.13|<0.0001
91913117|NCT00430508|183722703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.4|-2.91|||ANCOVA|||||-2.91|-7.4|<0.0001
91913118|NCT00430508|183722703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.0255||95.0|-4.79|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-4.79|0.0255
91913119|NCT00430508|183722704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.0|-4.26|||ANCOVA|||||-4.26|-9.00|<0.0001
91913120|NCT00430508|183722704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.7|-2.81|||ANCOVA|||||-2.81|-6.70|<0.0001
91913121|NCT00430508|183722704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.0812||95.0|-3.66|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-3.66|0.0812
91913122|NCT00430508|183722705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||||95.0|1.69|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.21|1.69|
91913123|NCT00430508|183722705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||||95.0|1.5|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.24|1.50|
91913124|NCT00430508|183722705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||||95.0|1.07|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|1.07|
91913125|NCT00430508|183722706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.78|-3.36|||ANCOVA|||||-3.36|-6.78|<0.0001
91913126|NCT00430508|183722706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.54|-1.78|||ANCOVA|||||-1.78|-4.54|<0.0001
91913127|NCT00430508|183722706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1452||95.0|-2.43|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-2.43|0.1452
91913128|NCT00430508|183722707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.79|-3.17|||ANCOVA|||||-3.17|-6.79|<0.0001
91913129|NCT00430508|183722707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.79|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||||-1.87|-4.79|<0.0001
91913130|NCT00430508|183722707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1629||95.0|-2.52|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-2.52|0.1629
91913131|NCT00430508|183722708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.4|-3.62|||ANCOVA|||||-3.62|-7.40|<0.0001
91913132|NCT00430508|183722708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||<|0.0009||95.0|-4.12|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||||-1.07|-4.12|<0.0009
91913133|NCT00430508|183722708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1985||95.0|-2.55|0.53|||ANCOVA|||||0.53|-2.55|0.1985
91913134|NCT00288080|183722720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0398|||||||Log Rank|||The study was designed to detect an improvement in the 4-year overall survival rate from 86% (AS+RT) to 93% (AS+RT+CT). Assuming an exponential survival distribution for each arm, then an absolute improvement of 7% in the 4-year overall survival rate translates to a 51% relative reduction (hazard ratio 0.49) in the yearly death rate. Under a 1-sided significance level of 0.05 and 90% power, at least 78 deaths and 486 cases were required to perform the primary endpoint analysis.||||0.0398
91913135|NCT00288080|183722721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22|||||||Log Rank|||Biochemical control rates at 4 years were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by a two-sided log-rank test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.22
91913136|NCT00288080|183722723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||Log Rank|||Distant failure rates at 4 years were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by a two-side log-rank test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.21
91913137|NCT00288080|183722724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0484|||||||Log Rank|||Disease-free survival rates were compared by a two-sided log-rank test at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0484
91913138|NCT04849780|183722737|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 80 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two arms would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean change from baseline overall comfort. Sample size was determined using a 2-sided Satterthwaite t-test assuming unequal variances with an alpha level of 5%. A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Population Mean Difference|29.279|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.602|33.732|||Bootstrapping methods||Population Mean difference was calculated as Arm 1 minus Arm 2|||33.732|24.602|
91913139|NCT04849780|183722738|NON_INFERIORITY|Sample size was determined based on the primary hypothesis only. A non-inferiority margin of 3 points was used.|LS Mean|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-8.6|||Heterogeneous Mixed model analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Arm 1 minus Arm 2 (subjects' own contact lens)|||-8.6|-12.7|
91913140|NCT04849780|183722739|NON_INFERIORITY|Sample size was determined based on the primary hypothesis only. A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|LS Mean|25.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|32.9|||Heterogeneous Mixed model analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Arm 2 (senofilcon A), minus Arm 2 (subjects' own contact lens)|||32.9|19.0|
91913141|NCT04849780|183722740|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 3 points was used.|LS Mean|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-7.0|||Heterogeneous mixed model analysis||Mean difference was calculated as Arm 2 (senofilcon A) minus Arm 2 (subjects' own contact lens)|||-7.0|-10.1|
91913142|NCT00087646|183722741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Group A Vs Group D||3.31|1.21|0.0060
91913143|NCT00087646|183722742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.51|0.63|0.9228
91913144|NCT00087646|183722743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.52|1.40|0.0006
91913145|NCT00087646|183722744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 12||4.18|1.66|<.0001
91913146|NCT00087646|183722744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24||1.79|0.89|0.1955
91913147|NCT00087646|183722744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48||1.93|0.95|0.0883
91913148|NCT00087646|183722745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Groups A vs Groups D (Week 12)||3.19|1.67|<.0001
91913149|NCT00087646|183722745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.3389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Groups A vs Groups D (Week 24)||1.60|0.85|0.3389
91913150|NCT01331304|183722749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Because this study has co-primary outcomes (CGI-EI and NCAs), the analyses of the treatment effect in the two primary hypotheses each involved a two-tailed alpha-level of 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the first co-primary aim, mixed-effects linear regression analyses compared the two intervention groups on the repeated assessments of the CGI-EI over 6 months.||||0.59
91913151|NCT01331304|183722750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the second co-primary, patient monthly rates of NCAs (determined by dividing total number of NCAs during follow-up by the length of follow-up - to account for attrition and resulting differential exposure time) for treatment groups were compared using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.118
91913152|NCT01331304|183722751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Analysis of this secondary outcome was not corrected for multiple comparisons. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effects linear regression analyses compared the two intervention groups on the repeated collection of measures relevant to calculation of the Framingham Risk Score over 6 months||||0.11
91913153|NCT01331304|183722752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Analysis of this secondary outcome was not corrected for multiple comparisons. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effects linear regression analyses compared the two intervention groups on the repeated assessment of the LIFE-RIFT over 6 months||||0.70
91913154|NCT01687712|183722791|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in pregnancy rates (Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA) did not exceed 8% (i.e. a one-sided hypothesis test at the 2.5% level of significance). The difference in rates (\& Wald CI) was estimated using a logistic regression model with binomial distribution and identity link, with treatment and site as factors.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.7|||||"Note that risk in this context is the risk of clinical pregnancy. The difference is in the direction Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA."|"The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:~H0: p2- p1 \> ∆ and H1: p2- p1 ≤ ∆,~where p1 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the AFOLIA treatment group, p2 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the Gonal f® treatment group, and Δ is the non-inferiority margin of 8%."||8.7|-1.3|
91913155|NCT01687712|183722792|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in pregnancy rates (Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA) did not exceed 8% (i.e. a one-sided hypothesis test at the 2.5% level of significance). The difference in rates (\& Wald CI) was estimated using a logistic regression model with binomial distribution and identity link, with treatment and site as factors.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.1|||||"Note that risk in this context is the risk of clinical pregnancy. The difference is in the direction Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA."|"The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:~H0: p2- p1 \> ∆ and H1: p2- p1 ≤ ∆,~where p1 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the AFOLIA treatment group, p2 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the Gonal f® treatment group, and Δ is the non-inferiority margin of 8%."||8.1|-2.5|
91913156|NCT01687712|183722796|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were tested against a null of zero at the two-side 5% significance level.||||||0.612||||||P-values are based upon Type III sums of squares.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and Site are included as factors.||"The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:~H0: p2- p1 = 0 and H1: p2- p1 ≠0,~where p1 is the least squares adjusted mean number of oocytes retrieved in the AFOLIA treatment group and p2 is the least squares adjusted mean number of oocytes retrieved in the Gonal f® treatment group."||||0.612
91913157|NCT03551743|183722832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-65.02||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0344
91913158|NCT03551743|183722832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-92.38||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
91913159|NCT03551743|183722832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-46.26||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91808558|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.7|-2.6|0.332
91913160|NCT03551743|183722833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|88722.37||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0032
91913161|NCT03551743|183722833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|151500.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91913162|NCT03551743|183722833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|198560.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
91913163|NCT03551743|183722834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-76.05||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1874
91913164|NCT03551743|183722834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-27.98||||0.386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.386
91913165|NCT03551743|183722834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-49.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91913166|NCT03434977|183722843|OTHER||Ratio|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|0.986||||||The shown data were ratio of fed conditions divided by fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the least square (LS) means difference (fed-fasted) or confidence interval (CI). The difference in LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Cmax as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||0.986|0.890|
91913167|NCT03434977|183722844|OTHER||LS-Means Difference|0.9083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1821|1.6345||||||The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (non-natural log) PK parameters tmax as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.6345|0.1821|
91913168|NCT03434977|183722845|OTHER||Ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.943|1.056||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUClast as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.056|0.943|
91913169|NCT03434977|183722846|OTHER||Ratio|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|1.056||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUC∞ as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.056|0.942|
91913170|NCT03434977|183722847|OTHER||Ratio|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.932|1.041||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters T1/2z as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.041|0.932|
91913171|NCT03434977|183722848|OTHER||Ratio|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.006|1.091||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters MRTlast, ev as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.091|1.006|
91913172|NCT03434977|183722849|OTHER||Ratio|1.037|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.996|1.081||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters MRT∞, ev as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.081|0.996|
91913173|NCT03434977|183722850|OTHER||Ratio|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.959|1.071||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters λz as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.071|0.959|
91913174|NCT03434977|183722851|OTHER||Ratio|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.062||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters CL/F as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.062|0.947|
91913175|NCT03434977|183722852|OTHER||Ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.916|1.068||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Vz/F as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.068|0.916|
91913176|NCT02363478|183722883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This statistical analysis applies to changes of amplitude of contractions, resting LES pressure and IRP between baseline and week 4.||||||<0.05
91913177|NCT02363478|183722886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This statistical analysis applies to changes of amplitude of heartburn, regurgitation, chest pain and dysphagia between baseline and week 4.||||||0.05
91913178|NCT00930059|183722888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|0.9||The primary test of significance was 1-sided, and a nominal Type I error rate a = 0.05 was employed.|ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) mean difference and p-values were based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||0.90|-1.52|0.3353
91913179|NCT00930059|183722889|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.6073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|1.38||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: LS mean difference and p-values were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||1.38|-0.99|0.6073
91913180|NCT00930059|183722889|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|0.84||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: LS mean difference and p-values were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||0.84|-1.56|0.3086
91913181|NCT00930059|183722889|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|0.58||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: LS mean difference and p-values were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||0.58|-1.82|0.1970
91913182|NCT00930059|183722890|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.29||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 3: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.29|-0.18|0.6547
91913183|NCT00930059|183722890|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.31||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 6: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.31|-0.16|0.7020
91763397|NCT02287467|183417204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|6.15|||Regression, Cox|stratified by baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|hazard ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo; a hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors the hIVIG group.|||6.15|.48|.40
91763398|NCT02287467|183417205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo; an odds ratio \> 1.0 favors hIVIG|||1.98|.38|.74
91808559|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Social Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.2|-0.6|0.359
91763399|NCT02287467|183417206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.54|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline RNA, geographic region, and influenza subtype|Change is calculated as day 3 - baseline. Difference in changes is hIVIG - placebo.|||.54|-.26|.49
91913184|NCT00930059|183722890|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.06||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 9: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.06|-0.41|0.1138
91913185|NCT00930059|183722890|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.04||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 12: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.04|-0.44|0.0816
91913186|NCT00930059|183722892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.7634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|2.27||No adjustments have been made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||2.27|-0.89|0.7634
91913187|NCT00930059|183722892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|2.45||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||2.45|-0.75|0.8077
91913188|NCT00930059|183722892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|2.57||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||2.57|-0.66|0.8350
91913189|NCT00930059|183722892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.4377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|1.48||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||1.48|-1.78|0.4377
91913190|NCT01916980|183722959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes terms of visit, group and visit by group interaction; visit is treated as a categorical variable||Analysis of the change from Baseline in least squares (LS) mean for the Desloratadine: Eczema/Dermatitis group||||<0.001
91913191|NCT01916980|183722959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes terms of visit, group and visit by group interaction; visit is treated as a categorical variable||Analysis of the change from Baseline in LS mean for the Desloratadine: Dermal Pruritus group||||<0.001
91913192|NCT00741156|183722988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91913193|NCT01815229|183722990|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value applies to cell count at removal|t-test, 2 sided|||Tracheal lavages (TL) were done in intubated humans to obtain cell counts.||||<0.05
91913194|NCT04033367|183722992|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-6.9||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-6.90|-24.13|<0.001
91913195|NCT04033367|183722993|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.96|-17.78||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-17.78|-37.96|<0.001
91913196|NCT04033367|183722994|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.56|-9.56||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-9.56|-20.56|<0.001
91808560|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.6|-2.1|0.347
91913197|NCT04033367|183722995|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-1.18||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-1.18|-2.97|<0.001
91913198|NCT04033367|183722996|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-1.53||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-1.53|-5.68|<0.001
91913199|NCT04033367|183722997|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.97||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|28.79||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||28.79|-8.86|0.297
91913200|NCT02723201|183723007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.402|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.505|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed least square (LS) means and its CI, respectively.||0.505|0.320|<0.001
91913201|NCT02723201|183723007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.216||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.016|1.455|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||1.455|1.016|0.249
91913202|NCT02723201|183723007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.055|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.041|0.074|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.074|0.041|<0.001
91913203|NCT02723201|183723007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.685||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.499|0.939|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.939|0.499|0.054
91913204|NCT02723201|183723009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.648||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.497|0.844|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.844|0.497|0.007
91913205|NCT02723201|183723009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.18||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.088|1.279|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||1.279|1.088|0.423
91913206|NCT02723201|183723009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.116|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.077|0.176|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.176|0.077|<0.001
91913207|NCT02723201|183723009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.836||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.731|0.957|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.957|0.731|0.037
91913208|NCT03193398|183723015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.5939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.6|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||Difference in LS Means (BTRX-246040 - Placebo)||3.6|-6.3|0.5939
91913209|NCT03193398|183723016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.5503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.3|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Investigator-administered MADRS-6 Total Score at week 8||2.3|-4.4|0.5503
91913210|NCT03193398|183723017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.8|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||2.8|-1.1|0.3906
91913211|NCT03193398|183723018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1||+/-|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||3.1|-1.3|0.4187
91913212|NCT03193398|183723019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|5.5|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||5.5|-11.5|0.4869
91913213|NCT03193398|183723020|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.7|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||4.7|-2.4|0.5178
91913214|NCT01394705|183723047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.65
91913215|NCT01394705|183723047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
91913216|NCT01394705|183723048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91913217|NCT01064167|183723083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Given that the frequency of RBC transfusion for OPCAB surgery is about 55%, to detect 35% reduction in TA group, with power=o.8 and α=0.05, a group of 107 patients in each arm is required. We estimated a crossover rate of 20%. The final sample size for randomization purposes increased to a total of 260 patients. The Chi-square test was used to test the differences in categorical variables between both groups.If one or more cells had an expected count less than 5, Fisher's Exact Test was used.||||<0.05
91913218|NCT01064167|183723084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91913219|NCT01060059|183723107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if Baseline Gender (Male vs. Female), was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.46|0.62|0.831
91913220|NCT01060059|183723107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.76||Baseline Medical conditions (yes vs. no)|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis was used to find factors associated with treatment choice at baseline. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing are omitted in this analysis. Weight was removed (high correlation with BMI) and also fasting blood glucose (lab value) was removed (high correlation with HbA1c). Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones-with modes.||1.76|0.74|0.554
91913221|NCT01060059|183723107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.42||Baseline gastrointestinal symptoms (yes vs. no)|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis was used to find factors associated with treatment choice at baseline. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing are omitted in this analysis. Weight was removed (high correlation with BMI) and also fasting blood glucose (lab value) was removed (high correlation with HbA1c). Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones-with modes.||3.42|0.43|0.714
91913222|NCT01060059|183723108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if Baseline HbA1c was 1% more, was it associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||0.78|0.60|<0.001
91913223|NCT01060059|183723109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if longer duration of diabetes was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.00|0.96|0.055
91913224|NCT01060059|183723110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if older age (1 year older), was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||0.99|0.95|<0.001
91913225|NCT01060059|183723111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher BMI (1 kg/m\^2 higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.23|1.15|<0.001
91913226|NCT01060059|183723112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if greater height (1 cm higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.05|1.00|0.026
91913227|NCT01060059|183723113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.77|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline creatinine (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||0.77|0.18|0.007
91913228|NCT01060059|183723113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline fasting HDL cholesterol (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.00|0.97|0.094
91913229|NCT01060059|183723113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline fasting total cholesterol (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.01|1.00|0.259
91913230|NCT01060059|183723113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline fasting triglycerides (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.00|1.00|0.123
91913231|NCT01128829|183723114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Each subject served as their own control. We compared insulin concentrations when subjects consumed sucralose before a glucose load (experimental condition) with those on the day consumed water before a glucose load (control condition).||||0.025
91763400|NCT02287467|183417207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study.|Odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo.|||1.97|0.5|.93
91913232|NCT01920711|183723119|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8698||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7526|1.0052||1-sided p-value 0.0294|Proportional Rates Model (LWYY)|Treatment as fixed-effect factor and stratified by region and with robust variance estimate.||Primary Composite Events||1.0052|0.7526|0.0587
91913233|NCT01920711|183723119|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8511||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7216|1.0039||1-sided p-value 0.0278|Joint Frality Model|Treatment and region as fixed-effect factors||Total Hospitalizations for heart failure||1.0039|0.7216|0.0556
91913234|NCT01920711|183723119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9531||||0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7863|1.1551||1-sided p-value 0.3120|Cox's proportional hazard model|||Cardiovascular Death||1.1551|0.7863|0.6241
91913235|NCT01920711|183723120|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean of Difference|1.0264||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0047|2.0576|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Clinical Summary Score||2.0576|-0.0047|0.0510
91913236|NCT01920711|183723121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4475||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1294|1.8552|||Repeated measures cumulative odds model|The response variable is the change from baseline to any scheduled time points up to Month 8.||NYHA Class Change||1.8552|1.1294|0.0035
91913237|NCT01920711|183723122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5041||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3312|0.7673|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||Composite renal endpoint||0.7673|0.3312|0.0014
91913238|NCT01920711|183723122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9295||||0.9588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0581|14.861|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||Renal Death||14.861|0.0581|0.9588
91913239|NCT01920711|183723122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5774||||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2272|1.4672|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||Reaching ESRD||1.4672|0.2272|0.2484
91913240|NCT01920711|183723122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4407||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2798|0.6942|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||\>=50% decline in eGFR from baseline||0.6942|0.2798|0.0004
91913241|NCT01920711|183723123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9696||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8352|1.1255|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||All-cause mortality||1.1255|0.8352|0.6846
91913242|NCT06033079|183723180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.95||||||||2.95|0.32|
91913243|NCT06033079|183723181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.233
91913244|NCT06033079|183723182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.37||||||||2.37|0.30|
91763401|NCT02287467|183417208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is for hIVIG group vs placebo|||1.82|0.5|.81
91763402|NCT02287467|183417209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study|Odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) of being in a better category. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Proportional odds for being in a better category||1.95|0.70|.55
91763403|NCT02287467|183417210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo|||2.31|.5|.77
91763404|NCT02287467|183417211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is expressed as hIVIG vs placebo|||2.34|0.7|.34
91808561|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||-0.4|-3.2|0.041
91913245|NCT06033079|183723183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.82||||||||1.82|0.32|
91913246|NCT06033079|183723184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|7.51||||||||7.51|0.34|
91913247|NCT06033079|183723185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.42||||||||1.42|0.13|
91913248|NCT06033079|183723186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|7.9||||||||7.90|0.41|
91913249|NCT04202679|183723188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.0||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||5.00|1.08|0.0216
91913250|NCT04202679|183723189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|22.66||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||22.66|3.56|<0.0001
91913251|NCT04202679|183723190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|9.55||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||9.55|2.02|<0.0001
91913252|NCT04202679|183723191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|18.11||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05||18.11|2.03|0.0001
91913253|NCT04202679|183723192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.52||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||7.52|1.13|0.0194
91913254|NCT04202679|183723193|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.81|-12.51||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-12.51|-33.81|<0.0001
91913255|NCT04202679|183723194|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|-4.36||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-4.36|-8.42|<0.0001
91913256|NCT04202679|183723195|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.73||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-0.73|-2.49|0.0003
91913257|NCT04202679|183723196|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.3||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||1.30|-0.22|0.1658
91913258|NCT04202679|183723204|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.04||Threshold of significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|||-0.04|-1.18|0.0370
91913259|NCT01250379|183723212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank||The 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in the analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level.|||0.97|0.65|0.0204
91913260|NCT01250379|183723212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||0.97|0.67|0.0245
91913261|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.88|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: HR-neg||0.88|0.40|0.0088
91913262|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: HR-pos/HER-neg||1.05|0.67|0.1196
91913263|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: PFS \<6 months||0.90|0.43|0.0110
91763405|NCT02287467|183417212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62||adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) is for being in a better category. An odds ratio \>1 favors the hIVIG group.|||1.62|.50|.73
91763406|NCT02287467|183417213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) is for being in a better category.|Multiple imputation was used to estimate the outcome for 3 participants for whom the outcome was partially unknown.||1.59|0.55|.82
91913264|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: PFS ≥6 months||1.03|0.65|0.0816
91913265|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.98|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: taxane chemo||0.98|0.31|0.0395
91913266|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: non-taxane chemo||1.06|0.68|0.1385
91913267|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.75|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: vinorelbine chemo||0.75|0.22|0.0029
91913268|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: LDH ≤ 1.5 ULN||0.96|0.62|0.0171
91913269|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.16|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: LDH \> 1.5 ULN||1.16|0.46|0.1797
91913270|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: \< 65 years of age||0.97|0.62|0.0229
91913271|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.16|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: ≥ 65 years of age||1.16|0.51|0.2139
91913272|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: \< 70 years of age||0.89|0.59|0.0021
91763407|NCT02287467|183417214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.42|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|Odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) for a better outcome. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Multiple imputation was used to estimate the outcome for one participant.||8.42|1.21|.02
91913273|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.39|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: ≥ 70 years of age||2.39|0.64|0.5216
91913274|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: \< 3 metastatic organ sites||0.94|0.58|0.0148
91913275|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: ≥ 3 metastatic organ sites||1.17|0.61|0.3102
91913276|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: B-free ≤ 6 weeks||1.04|0.64|0.0967
91913277|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.0|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: B-free \> 6 weeks||1.00|0.51|0.0489
91913278|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.92|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free ≤ 24 months||0.92|0.41|0.0176
91913279|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.11|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free \> 24 months||1.11|0.66|0.2318
91913280|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.03|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free ≤ 12 months||1.03|0.26|0.0568
91913281|NCT01250379|183723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free \> 12 months||1.05|0.66|0.1143
91913282|NCT01250379|183723214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|12.4|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson methodology.|||12.4|-4.2|0.3457
91913283|NCT01250379|183723216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.99|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.99|0.51|0.9825
91913284|NCT01250379|183723216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.3601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.34|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||2.34|0.73|0.3601
91913285|NCT01250379|183723219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.06|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.06|0.59|0.1080
91913286|NCT01250379|183723219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.02|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.02|0.59|0.0625
91913287|NCT01250379|183723221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.05|0.68|0.1349
91913288|NCT01250379|183723221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.03|0.68|0.0863
91913289|NCT01250379|183723223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.02|0.65|0.0744
91913290|NCT01250379|183723223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.00|0.66|0.0503
91913291|NCT01250379|183723226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.21|0.76|0.7253
91913292|NCT01250379|183723226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.16|0.75|0.5332
91913293|NCT01314716|183723246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in least squares mean|4.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.2||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||8.2|1.1|0.011
91913294|NCT01314716|183723247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|1.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.0||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||5.0|-2.7|0.56
91913295|NCT01327157|183723252|EQUIVALENCE|The comparison among the groups, from the results obtained by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), was done through analysis of variance models (ANOVA) with two factors.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was considered for values of p \<0.05 and it was used The Minitab statistical software, version 15.1 to obtain the results.|t-test, 1 sided|The comparison between the groups in each study period (initial) was done through the t-test for two independent samples.||"We assessed the quality of oral functions in the first query to check the status of discomfort before treatment in both groups, using VAS..~Statistical significance was considered for values of p \<0.05 and it was used The Minitab statistical software, version 15.1 to obtain the results"||||0.524
91913296|NCT01327157|183723253|EQUIVALENCE|"Only the treatment group was analysed. The dental contacts were evaluated in models and gnathostats demarcated after the points were counted in the models before and after treatment If an increase in the number of dental contacts after occlusal adjustment was detected, in relation of the models.~The models are made in the first and last query, after four visits with one month interval between them."|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The brand carbon mark was done on the treatment group in the first and last query.||||<0.001
91913297|NCT01327157|183723254|EQUIVALENCE|The comparison among the groups, from the results obtained by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), was done through analysis of variance models (ANOVA) with two factors. The comparison among the groups, in each period of the study (initial and final) was done through t test for two independent samples.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We assessed the quality of oral functions in the last query to check the status of discomfort after ninety days in both groups, control and treatment, using VAS.~The statistical significance was considered to p\<0.05 values and it was used the Minitab statistics software, 15.1 version, to get the results."||||0.002
91913298|NCT01327157|183723255|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.705
91913299|NCT01327157|183723256|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
91913300|NCT01928381|183723257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-0.34|0.5695
91913301|NCT01928381|183723257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-0.43|0.8905
91913302|NCT01928381|183723257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|-0.30|0.4822
91913303|NCT01928381|183723258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||In direction of Pregabalin|||0.82|-0.20|0.2237
91913304|NCT01928381|183723258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||In direction of Pregabain, positive control|||0.08|-0.93|0.0978
91913305|NCT01928381|183723258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-0.62|0.6610
91913306|NCT02531646|183723260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence interval (-0.25, 0.25)||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician.They were rounded to fit four digits."|Equivalence test|||||||0.000
91913307|NCT02531646|183723261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence interval (-0.25, 0.25)||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician.They were rounded to fit four digits."|Equivalence test|||||||0.000
91913308|NCT02531646|183723262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician.They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
91913309|NCT02531646|183723263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician. They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
91913310|NCT02531646|183723264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician. They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.007
91913311|NCT02531646|183723266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician. They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
91913312|NCT01582308|183723279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|18.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.97|21.67||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||21.67|14.97|<.001
91913313|NCT01582308|183723279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|62.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.21|67.74||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||67.74|58.21|<.001
91913314|NCT01582308|183723279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.11||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|2.33||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||2.33|-0.10|0.128
91808562|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|2.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Work Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.4|-0.4|0.212
91808563|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.2|-1.2|0.954
91913315|NCT01582308|183723279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|88.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.77|90.76||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||90.76|85.77|<.001
91913316|NCT01582308|183723279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|44.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.51|55.23||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||55.23|34.51|<.001
91913317|NCT01582308|183723279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-17.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.21|-13.25||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||-13.25|-21.21|<.001
91913318|NCT01582308|183723279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|70.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.46|82.2||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||82.20|58.46|<.001
91913319|NCT01582308|183723279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-61.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.76|-55.18||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||-55.18|-68.76|<.001
91913320|NCT01582308|183723279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|25.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.37|35.48||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||35.48|15.37|<.001
91913321|NCT01582308|183723279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|87.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.06|94.61||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||94.61|80.06|<.001
91913322|NCT01227902|183723341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|52.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||52.9|27.1|
91913323|NCT01227902|183723341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|44.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||44.9|19.1|
91913324|NCT01227902|183723341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|64.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||64.8|35.2|
91913325|NCT01227902|183723341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|56.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|70.5|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||70.5|43.3|
91913326|NCT01227902|183723341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|44.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|51.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||51.4|37.6|
91913327|NCT02554929|183723358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.74||P value adjusted for multiple comparison; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Values above are for the primary outcome measure of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV, Clinical Severity Rating (ADIS-CSR) score for SAD.|In our previous study, 42% participants in the CBT arm lost their primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or selective mutism (SM) post-intervention versus none of the comparison group participants. In the present study, we conservatively estimated that 10% of comparison group children will lose their primary diagnosis. A sample size of 70 achieves a power of 81% to detect a 32% difference between treatments, using a two-sided Chi-squared test with a significance level of 0.05.||0.74|-0.91|0.002
91913328|NCT02554929|183723358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.48||P value adjusted for multiple comparison; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Values above are for the primary outcome measure of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV, Clinical Severity Rating (ADIS-CSR) score for SM.|In our previous study, 42% participants in the CBT arm lost their primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or selective mutism (SM) post-intervention versus none of the comparison group participants. In the present study, we conservatively estimated that 10% of comparison group children will lose their primary diagnosis. A sample size of 70 achieves a power of 81% to detect a 32% difference between treatments, using a two-sided Chi-squared test with a significance level of 0.05.||1.48|-0.95|0.002
91913329|NCT02554929|183723361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|8.08||P value adjusted for multiple comparison; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value of the estimation parameter corresponds to the difference between change in CGAS scores for participants in the CBT arm, in comparison to those in the socialization arm, from pre-treatment to 6-month follow-up.|In our previous study, 42% participants in the CBT arm lost their primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or selective mutism (SM) post-intervention versus none of the comparison group participants. In the present study, we conservatively estimated that 10% of comparison group children will lose their primary diagnosis. A sample size of 70 achieves a power of 81% to detect a 32% difference between treatments, using a two-sided Chi-squared test with a significance level of 0.05.||8.08|-4.28|0.002
91913330|NCT04660643|183723366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.0|-22.9|<.001
91913331|NCT04660643|183723367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.9|-17.0|<.001
91913332|NCT04660643|183723368|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.4|-18.8|<.001
91913333|NCT04660643|183723369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-12.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.7|-14.1|<.001
91913334|NCT04660643|183723370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-6.8|<.001
91913335|NCT04660643|183723371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-7.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.15|-10.14|<.001
91913336|NCT04660643|183723372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.38|<.001
91913337|NCT04660643|183723373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-31.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-24.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.4|-37.7|<.001
91913338|NCT04660643|183723374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-3.28|-7.76|<.001
91913339|NCT04660643|183723374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|-3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL Cholesterol||-3.15|-9.87|<.001
91913340|NCT04660643|183723374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||5.8|0.6|0.014
91913341|NCT04660643|183723374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-15.1|-24.0|<.001
91913342|NCT04660643|183723374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|-16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-16|-24.9|<.001
91913343|NCT04660643|183723374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FFA||-3.0|-17.9|0.008
91913344|NCT04660643|183723375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP||-4.6|-8.1|<.001
91913345|NCT04660643|183723375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP||-2.4|-4.8|<.001
91913346|NCT04660643|183723376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|1.7|<.001
91913347|NCT04660643|183723377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12.0|6.8|<0.001
91913348|NCT04660643|183723378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|95.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.72|168.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||168.09|54.72|<0.001
91913349|NCT04660643|183723379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.32|121.99|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5% body weight reduction from baseline||121.99|18.32|<0.001
91913350|NCT04660643|183723379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.46|148.39|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10% body weight reduction from baseline||148.39|34.46|<0.001
91913351|NCT04660643|183723379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.06|152.14|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15% body weight reduction from baseline||152.14|42.06|<0.001
91913352|NCT04660643|183723379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|140.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.06|300.29|||Regression, Logistic|||≥20% body weight reduction from baseline||300.29|66.06|<0.001
91913353|NCT04660643|183723380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.013|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.046|||Log Rank||Unstratified hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model with Baseline Weight (kg), Analysis Country, Sex, IWRS MTD at Week 36, Weight at randomization (kg) as covariates.|||0.046|0.004|<.001
91913354|NCT04660643|183723381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-6.8|<.001
91913355|NCT04660643|183723382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.4|-18.8|<.001
91913356|NCT04660643|183723383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.4|-17.5|<.001
91913357|NCT04660643|183723384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.2|-15.1|<.001
91913358|NCT04660643|183723385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.43|-10.40|<.001
91913359|NCT04660643|183723386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.39|<.001
91913360|NCT04660643|183723387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-27.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.9|-40.6|<.001
91913361|NCT04660643|183723388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|-4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-4.72|-9.27|<.001
91913362|NCT04660643|183723388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.707|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|-4.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL Cholesterol||-4.21|-10.91|<.001
91913363|NCT04660643|183723388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.418||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||5.43|-0.14|0.064
91913364|NCT04660643|183723388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-15.3|-24.7|<.001
91913365|NCT04660643|183723388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-16.4|-25.8|<.001
91913366|NCT04660643|183723388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-11.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.793||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.98|-4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FFA||-4.06|-18.98|0.004
91913367|NCT04660643|183723389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP||-5.1|-8.7|<.001
91913368|NCT04660643|183723389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP||-2.6|-5.1|<.001
91913369|NCT04660643|183723390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|1.7|<.001
91913370|NCT04660643|183723391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12.0|6.5|<.001
91913371|NCT01276821|183723415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non - Inferiority Analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis Efficacy of nebulised hypertonic saline (3%) with L-Epinephrine is not higer than as compared to L-Epinephrine given with 0.9% normal saline in the management of children aged 6 weeks to 24 months with mild to moderately severe bronchiolitis.~Alternate Hypothesis:~Nebulised hypertonic saline (3%) with L-Epinephrine is superior to 0.9% Normal saline with L-Epinephrine in the management of children aged 6 weeks to 24 months with mild to moderately severe bronchiolitis."||1.82|0.78|<0.05
91913372|NCT00066690|183723422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.04|||Log Rank||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||1.04|0.66|0.1
91913373|NCT00066690|183723422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.86|||||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||0.86|0.53|
91913374|NCT00066690|183723423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.03|||Log Rank||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||1.03|0.3|0.09
91913375|NCT00066690|183723423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83|||||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||0.83|0.49|
91763408|NCT02287467|183417215|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|1.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|longitudinal regression with adjustment for baseline titer|Ratio of hIVIG group to placebo group. A ratio \> 1.0 indicates higher titers for the hIVIG group.|HAI measurements were log-transformed to compute treatment differences and the model was adjusted for baseline titer.||2.7|0.84|.18
91913376|NCT00066690|183723424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Log Rank||T was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||1.18|0.66|0.40
91913377|NCT00066690|183723424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.96|||||T was the reference group in the estimation of hazard ratio.|||0.96|0.52|
91913378|NCT00066690|183723425|SUPERIORITY|\[not specified\]|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||Log Rank||T was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio|||0.92|0.48|0.01
91913379|NCT00066690|183723425|SUPERIORITY|\[not specified\]|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.15|||||T was the reference group in the estimation of hazard ratio|||1.15|0.62|
91913380|NCT02939131|183723428|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not. The study was designed for at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.8 standard deviations (SD), which corresponded to a difference of four points. We assumed an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) between 0.02 and 0.16 and allowed for 10% non-evaluability. In a pre-planned interim analysis, we estimated the ICC based on the entry QIDS-SR to be 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.86||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|-0.94|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the mean of the ESC group from the mean of the COMB-R group. Because a lower score indicated less severe depressive symptoms, a negative value indicated superiority.|||-0.94|-6.79|0.01
91913381|NCT02939131|183723429|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|65.5|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with response for the ESC group from that of the COMB-R group. A positive value indicates the COMB-R group had a higher mean percent of participants with response compared to the ESC group.|||65.5|23.1|<0.001
91913382|NCT02939131|183723430|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|52.9|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with remission for the ESC group from the COMB-R group so a positive value indicates the COMB-R group has more participants with remission.|||52.9|8.9|0.01
91808564|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.6|-1.8|0.407
91913383|NCT02939131|183723431|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.0|262.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Group mean for ESC is subtracted from the group mean for COMB-R. The group means are the means of the site mean CD4 cell counts.|||262|-223|0.86
91913384|NCT02939131|183723432|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean for the ESC group from the group mean of the COMB-R group. The group means are the means of the site mean log10 HIV RNA copies/mL.|||0.99|-0.65|0.66
91913385|NCT02939131|183723433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates COMB-R group had a site-level average of more days in last 30 with missed HIV medication doses.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed HIV medication doses reported at week 24.||4.0|0.1|0.04
91913386|NCT02939131|183723433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference reflects greater number of days with missed HIV medication doses in last 30 days for COMB-R group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed HIV medication doses reported at week 48.||5.2|-5.0|0.96
91913387|NCT02939131|183723434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference means the COMB-R group rated adherence to HIV medications better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking HIV medication doses; reported at week 24.||0.4|-1.1|0.27
91913388|NCT02939131|183723434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the COMB-R group rated their adherence better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking HIV medication doses; reported at week 48.||0.9|-0.4|0.44
91913389|NCT02939131|183723435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the COMB-R group rated their adherence better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take HIV medication as instructed; reported at week 24.||0.2|-1.1|0.14
91913390|NCT02939131|183723435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the COMB-R group rated their adherence better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take HIV medication as instructed; reported at week 48.||1.1|-0.6|0.49
91913391|NCT02939131|183723436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group had more days with missed depression medications than those in the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed depression medication doses reported at week 24.||4.4|0.0|0.05
91763409|NCT02287467|183417216|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|1.31||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|longitudinal analysis of log-transformed titers adjust for baseline titer.|Ratio of geometric means of hIVIG vs placebo. A ratio \>1.0 indicates higher titers in the hIVIG group on day 7.|||1.8|0.93|.13
91763410|NCT02287467|183417217|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.94||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|log-transformed titers adjusted for baseline titer|ratio of geometric mean for hIVIG vs placebo. A ratio \> 1.0 indicates higher titers at day 7 for the hIVIG group.|||1.5|0.58|.78
91913392|NCT02939131|183723436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group reported more days with missed doses than those in the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed depression medication doses reported at week 48.||7.1|-12.5|0.53
91913393|NCT02939131|183723437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group were better at taking medications.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking depression medication; reported at week 24.||0.2|-1.5|0.13
91913394|NCT02939131|183723437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group were better at taking their medications.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking depression medication; reported at week 48.||2.0|-1.1|0.53
91913395|NCT02939131|183723438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group reported better adherence.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take depression medication as instructed; reported at week 24.||0.1|-1.3|0.07
91913396|NCT02939131|183723438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group reported better adherence than those in the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take depression medication as instructed; reported at week 48.||2.3|-0.8|0.28
91913397|NCT02939131|183723439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.6|0.44
91913398|NCT02939131|183723441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The average number of scheduled study visits through week 24 was computed for each site. The analysis was of these site-level averages. These values were compared between study groups||0.3|-0.4|0.67
91913399|NCT02939131|183723441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||We computed the average number of scheduled study visits through week 48 for each site. We then averaged the site-level values and compared study groups.||0.5|-0.7|0.74
91913400|NCT02939131|183723442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the mean of the ESC group from the mean of the COMB-R group. Because a lower score indicated less severe depressive symptoms, a negative value indicated superiority.|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.||0.76|-4.74|0.14
91913401|NCT02939131|183723443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|50.0|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with response for the ESC group from that of the COMB-R group. A positive value indicates the COMB-R group had a higher mean percent of participants with response compared to the ESC group.|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.||50.0|0.5|0.05
91913402|NCT02939131|183723444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|44.8|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with remission for the ESC group from the COMB-R group so a positive value indicates the COMB-R group has more participants with remission.|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.||44.8|-12.3|0.24
91913403|NCT02939131|183723445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.79||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|11.28||This is the test of effect modification by sex at birth|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates that the treatment difference (lower QIDS-SR score with COMB-R than with ESC) was greater for females compared to males.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||11.28|2.30|0.01
91913404|NCT02939131|183723445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|1.93||This is the test of effect modification by age group|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates the treatment difference is greater for younger compared to older participants.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||1.93|-7.05|0.23
91913405|NCT02939131|183723445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|2.95||This is the test of the effect modification of viral suppression status|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment difference among those with viral suppression at study entry compared to those without viral suppression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups.Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||2.95|-8.48|0.31
91913406|NCT02939131|183723445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|5.95||This is the test of effect modification by QIDS-SR depression level at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates a greater treatment difference among those with moderate levels of depression compared to severe depression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups.Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||5.95|-4.29|0.72
91913407|NCT02939131|183723445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|5.31||This is the test of effect modification by mode of transmission|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value would indicate a greater treatment difference for those with perinatal HIV acquisition compared to behavioral acquisition.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||5.31|-5.91|0.91
91913408|NCT02939131|183723445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|6.57||This is the test of effect modification by HIV CDC stage level|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate a greater treatment effect for those with less than HIV CDC Stage 3 compared to those with CDC Stage 3 HIV illness.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||6.57|-3.91|0.57
91763411|NCT01456169|183417234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-11.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline trough, sitting, clinic SBP as a covariate.||The type I error was controlled using a 2-step hierarchical testing procedure. In the first step, the high dose (40/25 mg) of Azilsartan medoxomil + chlorthalidone was compared to Azilsartan medoxomil alone. If the comparison in step 1 was statistically significant at a significance level of 5%, then step 2 was performed by comparing the low dose (40/12.5 mg) and monotherapy at the 5% significance level.||-11.8|-17.6|<0.001
91913409|NCT02939131|183723445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.93||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|13.59||This is the test of effect modification of CD4 Stage 3 at entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates a greater treatment effect among those with less than Stage 3 CD4 count at entry compared to those with Stage 3 CD4 count.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups..||13.59|-1.73|0.10
91913410|NCT02939131|183723445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|4.6||This is the test of effect modification by Nadir Stage 3 level at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment effect among those with Stage 3 Nadir CD4 compare to those with less than Stage 3 Nadir CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||4.60|-7.74|0.58
91913411|NCT02939131|183723446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.81||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.53|-19.1||This is the test of effect modification by sex at birth.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment response (higher percent with response in COMB-R than in ESC group) among females compared to males.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||-19.10|-116.53|0.01
91913412|NCT02939131|183723446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.08||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|94.38||This is the test of effect modification by age group.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value reflects a greater treatment effect among younger participants compared to older participants.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||94.38|-8.23|0.09
91913413|NCT02939131|183723446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.13|55.49||This is the test of effect modification by viral suppression status.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment response among those with suppressed viral status at entry compared to those without viral suppression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||55.49|-51.13|0.93
91808565|NCT02310568|183493986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Family Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-0.6|0.412
91808566|NCT02310568|183493987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.7|-2.2|0.856
91808567|NCT02310568|183493987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.9|-1.7|0.647
91808568|NCT02310568|183493987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.3|-3.0|0.817
91808569|NCT02310568|183493987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.2|-3.8|0.670
91808570|NCT02310568|183493987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|3.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||3.5|-2.3|0.736
91808571|NCT02310568|183493987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.0|-4.7|0.496
91808572|NCT02310568|183493987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||3.8|-1.9|0.575
91808573|NCT02310568|183493987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|4.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||4.3|-1.2|0.362
91808574|NCT02310568|183493987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.6|-3.7|0.771
91808575|NCT02310568|183493988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 1: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||1.26|0.45|
91808576|NCT02310568|183493988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 1: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||1.54|0.23|
91913414|NCT02939131|183723446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.28|49.0||This is the test of effect modification by entry QIDS-SR depression level.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate a greater treatment response for those with severe depressive symptoms at study entry compared to those with moderate depression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||49.00|-42.28|0.87
91913415|NCT02939131|183723446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.65||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.91|105.2||This is the test of effect modification by mode of transmission.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate a larger treatment response for those with perinatal transmission compared to behavioral.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||105.20|-21.91|0.17
91913416|NCT02939131|183723446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|124.83||This is the test of effect modification by HIV CDC stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value reflects a greater treatment response for those with HIV CDC Stage 3 classification compared to those with CDC classification less than Stage 3.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||124.83|-26.02|0.17
91913417|NCT02939131|183723446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.69||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.76|94.15||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 Stage at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect greater treatment response for those with CD4 Stage 3 compared to those with less than Stage 3 CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||94.15|-70.76|0.71
91913418|NCT02939131|183723446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.48||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.46|94.5||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 Nadir stage at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value reflects a larger treatment response among those with Stage 3 Nadir CD4 compared to those with less than Stage 3 Nadir CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||94.50|10.46|0.02
91913419|NCT02939131|183723447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.84|7.72||This is the test of effect modification by sex at birth|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment effect (higher percent with remission for COMB-R than for ESC) among females.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||7.72|-97.84|0.09
91913420|NCT02939131|183723447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.38|46.2||This is the test of effect modification by age group.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a larger treatment effect among younger participants compared to older participants.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||46.20|-43.38|0.95
91913421|NCT02939131|183723447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.47|51.65||This is the test of effect modification by viral suppression status.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with suppressed viral load compared to those without viral suppression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||51.65|-40.47|0.79
91808577|NCT02310568|183493988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Stage 1: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||2.32|0.69|
91808578|NCT02310568|183493988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 2: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||5.78|0.27|
91913422|NCT02939131|183723447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.97||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.88|26.94||This is the test of effect modification by QIDS-SR level at entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with moderate depression symptomatology at entry compared to those with severe depression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||26.94|-58.88|0.42
91913423|NCT02939131|183723447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.99||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.24|61.22||This is the test of effect modification by mode of transmission.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with perinatal transmission compared to behavioral transmission.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||61.22|-41.24|0.68
91913424|NCT02939131|183723447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.21||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.62|42.2||This is the test of effect modification by HIV CDC stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment response among those with HIV CDC Stage 3 classification compared to those with less than Stage 3 classification.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||42.20|-70.62|0.57
91913425|NCT02939131|183723447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.97||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.12|51.17||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 Stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with less than Stage 3 CD4 levels compared to those with Stage 3 CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||51.17|-141.12|0.26
91913426|NCT02939131|183723447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.53||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.97|72.02||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 nadir stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment effect by those with Stage 3 CD4 Nadir compared to those with less than Stage 3.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||72.02|-52.97|0.72
91913427|NCT02939131|183723448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|28.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The percent of participants with alcohol use ever at week 24 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||28.1|-8.4|0.26
91913428|NCT02939131|183723448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|24.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The percent of participants with alcohol use ever at week 48 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||24.6|-37.1|0.66
91913429|NCT02939131|183723449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|31.7|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group.|The percent of participants with regular frequency alcohol use at week 24 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||31.7|-22.3|0.71
91913430|NCT02939131|183723449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|59.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group.|The percent of participants at each site with regular alcohol use at week 48 was computed. These site-level percents were compared across treatments||59.6|-6.3|0.10
91913431|NCT02939131|183723450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The average number of drinks per day reported at week 24 was computed for each site and these site-level averages were compared across treatments.||0.2|-2.6|0.09
91913432|NCT02939131|183723450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level average numbers of drinks per day reported at week 48 were computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||1.0|-0.8|0.79
91913433|NCT02939131|183723451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group anc vice versa|The site-level average number of days with binge drinking at week 24 were computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatments.||0.8|-0.9|0.87
91913434|NCT02939131|183723451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa|The site-level average number of days with binge drinking reported at week 48 were computed and the site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||0.8|-0.8|0.99
91913435|NCT02939131|183723452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|26.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The percent of participants with tobacco use ever at week 24 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||26.0|-19.7|0.77
91913436|NCT02939131|183723452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|38.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group.|The percent of participants with tobacco use ever at week 48 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||38.4|-8.9|0.20
91913437|NCT02939131|183723453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|33.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the site level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of regular use of tobacco at week 24. The percent of participants at each site with regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||33.3|-2.8|0.09
91913438|NCT02939131|183723453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|55.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of regular frequency use of tobacco at week 48. Site level percentages of the numbers of participants with regular tobacco use were computed and compared across treatment groups.||55.3|-14.0|0.21
91913439|NCT02939131|183723454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|28.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 24 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||28.3|-12.4|0.41
91913440|NCT02939131|183723454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|36.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 48 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||36.8|-10.9|0.26
91913441|NCT02939131|183723454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|29.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using any illegal substance excluding marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 24 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||29.5|-20.2|0.69
91913442|NCT02939131|183723454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|23.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using any illegal substance excluding marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 48 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||23.5|-24.8|0.96
91913443|NCT02939131|183723455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|44.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates a higher site-level percentage of participants reporting regular use fof marijuana in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis for regular use of marijuana (cannabis) at week 24. The percent of participants at each site reporting regular use (of those reporting any use) was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatments.||44.1|-23.9|0.53
91913444|NCT02939131|183723455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|34.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages of regular use of marijuana (cannabis) in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis of regular use of marijuana (cannabis) at week 48. Of those reporting ever used, the percent at each site reporting regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||34.9|-35.1|1.0
91913445|NCT02939131|183723455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|65.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages of regular substance use in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis of regular use of any illegal substance, excluding cannabis, at week 24. Of those reporting ever used, the percent at each site reporting regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||65.5|-16.2|0.18
91913446|NCT02939131|183723455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|22.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages of regular substance use in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis of regular use of any illegal substance, excluding cannabis, at week 48. Of those reporting ever used, the percent at each site reporting regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||22.9|-59.5|0.34
91808579|NCT02310568|183493988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|24.51|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 2: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||24.51|0.19|
91913447|NCT02939131|183723456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|39.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percents in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. The percentage of participants at a site who reported using sex as a commodity was calculated and the site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatments.||39.6|-12.9|0.29
91913448|NCT02939131|183723456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|24.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group|This is the analysis for week 48. The percentage of participants at a site who reported using sex as a commodity was calculated and the site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatments.||24.5|-17.0|0.70
91913449|NCT02939131|183723457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|19.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates the site-level averages were higher for the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||19.4|-13.7|0.71
91913450|NCT02939131|183723457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|8.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 48. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||8.1|-17.5|0.44
91913451|NCT02939131|183723458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||19.8|-5.3|0.23
91913452|NCT02939131|183723458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 48. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||12.7|-17.5|0.73
91913453|NCT02939131|183723459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level averages were higher in COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. Numbers of partners were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||1.5|-0.4|0.24
91913454|NCT02939131|183723459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 48. Numbers of partners were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||1.0|-0.3|0.22
91913455|NCT02939131|183723460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|23.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percents of low frequency condom use in COMB-R treatment group and vice versa.|This is the analysis for week 24 data. We computed the percent of participants reporting low frequency of condom use in past three months by site, averaged the site-level percents and compared these averages across treatment arms.||23.9|-40.4|0.57
91913456|NCT02939131|183723460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|This is the analysis for week 48 data. We computed the percent of participants reporting low frequency of condom use in past three months by site, averaged the site-level percents and compared these averages across treatment arms.||9.5|-53.1|0.15
91913457|NCT02939131|183723461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|27.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site level percents were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|We computed the site-level percentages of participants reporting low frequency condom use at week 24, then averaged the site-level percentages by treatment group and compared these group average percents.||27.2|-40.9|0.65
91913458|NCT02939131|183723461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|-5.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|We computed the site-level percentages of participants reporting low frequency condom use at week 48, then averaged the site-level percentages by treatment group and compared these group average percents.||-5.8|-69.7|0.02
91913459|NCT02939131|183723462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|8.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates COMB-R participants attended more sessions than ESC|We averaged the number of counseling sessions for each site and compared these site-level averages.||8.1|-3.0|0.33
91913460|NCT02939131|183723467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|38.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants in the COMB-R group were taking medications, based on site-level percentages.|This is the analysis for the percent of participants on any psychiatric medication at week 24. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||38.2|-0.9|0.06
91913461|NCT02939131|183723467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|35.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference means the site-level percentages of those taking medications were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on antidepressant medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||35.5|-0.7|0.06
91913462|NCT02939131|183723467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|40.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates the site-level percentages of those taking medications were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on SSRI antidepressant medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||40.6|4.2|0.02
91913463|NCT02939131|183723467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|9.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level percentages of those on medication were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on non-SSRI antidepressant medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||9.6|-17.3|0.54
91913464|NCT02939131|183723467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate the site-level percentages of those on medications were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on non-antidepressant psychiatric medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||15.4|-25.4|0.60
91763412|NCT01456169|183417234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline trough, sitting, clinic SBP as a covariate||||-6.5|-12.4|<0.001
91763413|NCT00479336|183417276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model using change in body weight from baseline at the final timepoint as the criterion variable and dose as the explanatory variable was fitted to the dataset. The null hypothesis of whether the regression coefficient is zero (analysis using t-statistics) was tested at a two-tailed significance level of 0.05, and estimated values for the slope and 95% confidence interval were calculated.||0.020|-0.061|0.3167
91763414|NCT02631551|183417284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSP 301 NS vs GSP 301 placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||<0.0001
91763415|NCT02631551|183417284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSP 301 NS vs Olopatadine HCl NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0029
91763416|NCT02631551|183417284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0587|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSP 301 NS vs Mometasone furoate NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0587
91913465|NCT02939131|183723468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|24.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate more time on medication in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on any psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||24.8|-32.5|0.77
91913466|NCT02939131|183723468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|33.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate more study time on medication in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on single SSRI psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||33.5|-37.3|0.91
91913467|NCT02939131|183723468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2|26.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate more time on medication in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on SSRI+other psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||26.9|-60.2|0.40
91913468|NCT02939131|183723468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|40.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate more time on medication in COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on a single non-SSRI psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||40.1|-67.0|0.52
91913469|NCT02939131|183723468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-778.0|785.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Because of sparseness, the confidence intervals for this site-level analysis are very large.|A positive difference indicates more time on medication in the COMB-R group. There was data from only one site in the ESC group and 2 sites in the COMB-R group. The confidence interval for the difference is quite large and the test is unreliable.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on non-SSRI+other psychiatric medication across treatment groups. This analysis is unstable because of sparseness.||785.7|-778.0|0.96
91913470|NCT02939131|183723468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|23.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would reflect more time on medications in the COMB-R group|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on antidepressant medication across treatment groups.||23.0|-31.4|0.74
91913471|NCT02939131|183723469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the site level average interim counseling sessions was higher in the COMB-R group.|We compared the site-level average number of interim counseling sessions between treatment groups.||8.2|-2.8|0.29
91913472|NCT02939131|183723471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates higher site-level averages in the COMB-R group.|The average score for all participants at each site was computed. These site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||0.38|0.02|0.03
91913473|NCT02939131|183723472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group and vice versa|The average of scores for all participants' clinicians at each site was computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatments.||0.29|-0.43|0.69
91913474|NCT02939131|183723473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.03|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level averages were higher for the COMB-R group than the ESC group and vice versa.|The average scores for all participants' prescribing clinicians at each site were computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||1.03|0.26|0.004
91913475|NCT02939131|183723474|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|14.36|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtract group mean for ESC from group mean for COMB-R. The group means are the means of the site-level percentages of participants with events.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ signs/symptoms through week 24. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||14.36|-14.04|0.98
91913476|NCT02939131|183723474|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|12.98|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean for the ESC group from that of the COMB-R group. The group mean is the mean of the site-specific percentages of participants with events.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ diagnoses through week 24.The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||12.98|-7.85|0.60
91913477|NCT02939131|183723474|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.The group mean is the mean of the site-specific percentages of participants with events as defined above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|11.02|||t-test, 2 sided||The ESC group mean percent of participants reporting a trigger event was subtracted from the COMB-R group mean.|This is the analysis of the triggering events (psychiatric hospitalizations or suicide attempts) through week 24. A participant is counted once if they had reported any such event prior to the upper bound of the week 24 window. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event were computed.The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||11.02|-2.21|0.17
91913478|NCT02939131|183723475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|14.13|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants with events in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ signs/symptoms through week 48. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||14.13|-13.85|0.98
91913479|NCT02939131|183723475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|19.89|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants with events in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ diagnoses through week 48. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||19.89|-8.60|0.40
91913480|NCT02939131|183723475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|11.29|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants with events in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of new trigger events through week 48. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||11.29|-5.27|0.44
91913481|NCT03569202|183723476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8837||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7081|10.4756||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||10.4756|-6.7081|0.662
91913482|NCT03569202|183723476|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.6445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7199|-18.5692||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-18.5692|-30.7199|<0.0001
91913483|NCT03569202|183723476|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6036|-20.4529||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-20.4529|-32.6036|<0.0001
91913484|NCT03569202|183723477|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9808||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6005|7.639||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||7.6390|-13.6005|0.575
91913485|NCT03569202|183723477|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.75||||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2593|2.7593||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||2.7593|-12.2593|0.2098
91913486|NCT03569202|183723477|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7692||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2785|5.7401||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||5.7401|-9.2785|0.6381
91913487|NCT03569202|183723478|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8462||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6792|2.3715||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||2.3715|-0.6792|0.271
91763417|NCT02631551|183417284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0755|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Olopatadine HCl NS vs GSP 301 Placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0755
91913488|NCT03569202|183723478|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7115||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.7901||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||2.7901|0.6330|0.0025
91913489|NCT03569202|183723478|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8654||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2132|1.944||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||1.9440|-0.2132|0.1134
91913490|NCT03569202|183723479|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1731||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1016|7.4477||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||7.4477|-3.1016|0.412
91913491|NCT03569202|183723479|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01923||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7105|3.749||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||3.7490|-3.7105|0.9918
91913492|NCT03569202|183723479|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1538||||0.2516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8836|1.5759||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||1.5759|-5.8836|0.2516
91913493|NCT03569202|183723480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5093||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007267|1.0113||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||1.0113|0.007267|0.047
91913494|NCT03569202|183723480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5596||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2046|0.9146||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||0.9146|0.2046|0.0026
91913495|NCT03569202|183723480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05032||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3047|0.4053||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||0.4053|-0.3047|0.7770
91913496|NCT03569202|183723481|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|-0.7604||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.447
91913497|NCT03569202|183723481|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.014
91808580|NCT02310568|183493988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Stage 2: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||2.09|0.16|
91913498|NCT03569202|183723481|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.070
91913499|NCT03569202|183723482|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|-0.6396||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.522
91913500|NCT03569202|183723482|OTHER|||||||0.119||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.119
91913501|NCT03569202|183723482|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.900
91763418|NCT02631551|183417284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mometasone furoate NS vs GSP 301 Placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0043
91763419|NCT01284517|183417285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.176|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis (H0) assumes equal values between analysis groups in mean change from baseline in MADRS score, alternative hypothesis (HA) assumes unequal values between groups. Sample size determined by two-sample t-test. A mean difference of 3.25 units in change in MADRS score for the Lurasdone 20-120 mg arm over placebo with common standard deviation of 9 units was used. N=162 subjects per arm (total N=324) yields power of 90%. A 5% adjustment for drop-outs gives N=340, or N=170 per arm.||||0.176
91763420|NCT01284517|183417286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.095|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.095
91808581|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.4|0.801
91808582|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.5|0.416
91808583|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.3|0.634
91808584|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.6|0.470
91808585|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.5|0.683
91808586|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-0.5|0.775
91808587|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.4|0.848
91808588|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-0.2|0.490
91808589|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.7|0.433
91808590|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.4|0.796
91808591|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.3|0.624
91808592|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-0.5|0.844
91808593|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.0|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-0.7|0.743
91808594|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-1.3|0.356
91913502|NCT03569202|183723483|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|-0.5387||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.590
91913503|NCT03569202|183723483|OTHER|||||||0.043||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.043
91913504|NCT03569202|183723483|OTHER|||||||0.442||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.442
91913505|NCT03569202|183723485|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|0.9208||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.357
91913506|NCT03569202|183723485|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.001
91913507|NCT03569202|183723485|OTHER|||||||0.065||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.065
91763421|NCT01284517|183417287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.992|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.992
91763422|NCT03393494|183417288|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8|112.2|||Fieller's method|||||112.2|97.8|
91808595|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-0.2|0.180
91808596|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.589|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.2|-0.6|0.589
91808597|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-0.8|0.873
91808598|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.667|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-0.6|0.667
91808599|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.1|-0.5|0.548
91808600|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.567|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-1.0|0.567
91808601|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.3|-0.2|0.208
91808602|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.9|-1.2|0.858
91808603|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-1.7|0.329
91808604|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-0.4|0.272
91808605|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.5|-0.6|0.946
91808606|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.3|-0.8|0.407
91808607|NCT02310568|183493989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.436|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.8|-0.3|0.436
91808608|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.1|-0.6|0.325
91808609|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.3|0.996
91763423|NCT03393494|183417289|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|104.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.1|108.5|||Fieller's method|||||108.5|94.1|0.05
91913508|NCT03569202|183723486|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|1.044||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.296
91913509|NCT03569202|183723486|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.012
91913510|NCT03569202|183723486|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||>0.05
91913511|NCT03569202|183723488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9911||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6117|11.6295||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||11.6295|-15.6117|0.764
91913512|NCT03569202|183723488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0625||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.928|-6.197||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-6.1970|-27.9280|0.0038
91913513|NCT03569202|183723488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0714||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.285|-6.8579||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-6.8579|-23.2850|0.0011
91913514|NCT02167945|183723513|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
91913515|NCT02167945|183723513|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.358|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.358|0.044|<0.001
91913516|NCT02167945|183723514|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
91913517|NCT02167945|183723514|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.031||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.38|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.380|0.003|0.007
91913518|NCT02167945|183723515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
91913519|NCT02167945|183723515|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.156|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.156|0.009|<0.001
91913520|NCT02167945|183723516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.860
91913521|NCT02167945|183723516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.997
91913522|NCT02167945|183723517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.608
91913523|NCT02167945|183723517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.992
91913524|NCT02167945|183723518|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
91763424|NCT01521507|183417302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stage 1 primary and secondary outcomes were tested in order under a closed form testing method. Secondary outcome was tested only if primary outcome was statistically significant. If both outcomes were significant, overall study alpha was 0.025.|z-statistic|p-value was based on z-statistic of the sum of weighted average of difference in scores between groups at each site divided by the sum of the weights.||The null and alternative hypotheses are H0: µt ≤ µc vs. Ha: µt \> µc, where µt and µc are the mean changes in total meibomian gland scores from Baseline to 3 Months for the LipiFlow (test) and Warm Compress and Lid Hygiene (active control) groups, respectively. For the Stage 1 Primary Outcome, the minimum sample size was 24 subjects per group with a power of 90% and a one-sided alpha of 0.025.||||<0.0001
91808610|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.6|0.377
91808611|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.1|-0.7|0.291
91808612|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-0.4|0.925
91808613|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.7|0.390
91913525|NCT02167945|183723518|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.313|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.313|0.057|<0.001
91763425|NCT01521507|183417302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supportive multivariate mixed model was also performed for this outcome controlling for significant demographic and baseline characteristics.||||0.0020
91763426|NCT01521507|183417303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9098|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stage 2 Primary Outcome was analyzed with a multivariate mixed model with the subgroup as a fixed effect while controlling for other covariates.||The null and alternative hypotheses for the Stage 2 Primary Outcome was: H0: µi= µj for all i and j where i≠j versus Ha: µi ≠ µj for at least one i and j, where µi is the mean total meibomian gland score at 12 Months for the ith subgroup. The null hypothesis was tested with a two-sided test at alpha=0.05. Since Stage 2 was an observational design, no minimum sample size was calculated for Stage 2.||||0.9098
91763427|NCT01521507|183417304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|||||Stage 1 primary and secondary outcomes were tested in order under a closed form testing method. Secondary outcome was tested only if primary outcome was statistically significant. If both outcomes were significant, overall study alpha was 0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null and alternative hypotheses are H0: µt ≤ µc vs. Ha: µt \> µc, where µt and µc are the mean changes in total OSDI scores from Baseline to 3 Months for the LipiFlow (test) and Warm Compress and Lid Hygiene (active control) groups, respectively. For the Stage 1 Secondary Outcome, the minimum sample size was 84 per group with a power of 80% and a one-sided alpha of 0.025.||||0.0068
91763428|NCT01521507|183417304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supportive multivariate mixed model was also performed for this outcome controlling for significant demographic and baseline characteristics.||||0.0419
91763429|NCT01521507|183417305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|||||Stage 2 Secondary Outcome was analyzed with a multivariate mixed model with the subgroup as a fixed effect while controlling for other covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for the Stage 2 Secondary Outcome was: H0: µi= µj for all i and j where i≠j versus Ha: µi ≠ µj for at least one i and j, where µi is the mean total OSDI score at 12 Months for the ith subgroup. The null hypothesis was tested with a two-sided test at alpha=0.05. Since Stage 2 was an observational design, no minimum sample size was calculated for Stage 2.||||0.0237
91808614|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.7|0.502
91808615|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.7|-0.2|0.348
91808616|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.1|-1.0|0.160
91913526|NCT02167945|183723520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.21|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.21|-3.30|0.026
91913527|NCT02167945|183723520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.91|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.91|-1.97|0.472
91913528|NCT02167945|183723520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.4|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.40|-2.47|0.159
91913529|NCT02167945|183723520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.36|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.36|-2.95|0.125
91913530|NCT02167945|183723520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.29|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||1.29|-1.78|0.756
91913531|NCT02167945|183723520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.75|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.75|-2.32|0.315
91913532|NCT02167945|183723521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.75|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.75|-3.30|0.216
91808617|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.5|0.965
91913533|NCT02167945|183723521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.17|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.17|-3.58|0.074
91913534|NCT02167945|183723521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.05|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.05|-3.67|0.056
91913535|NCT02167945|183723521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.16|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||1.16|-2.84|0.411
91913536|NCT02167945|183723521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.11|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.11|-3.55|0.065
91913537|NCT02167945|183723521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-0.25|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 24||-0.25|-3.91|0.026
91913538|NCT02167945|183723522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.14|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes (PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.14|-3.86|0.035
91913539|NCT02167945|183723522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.42|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.42|-3.88|0.015
91913540|NCT02167945|183723522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.01|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 12||-0.01|-3.46|0.048
91913541|NCT02167945|183723522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.22|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||1.22|-2.67|0.466
91913542|NCT02167945|183723522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.13|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.13|-3.70|0.035
91913543|NCT02167945|183723522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.43|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.43|-4.01|0.015
91913544|NCT00094757|183723532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.39||Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status (on vs. not on prior therapy)|ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-0.82|<0.001
91913545|NCT00094757|183723532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.26|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status (on vs. not on prior therapy)||||-0.26|-0.70|<0.001
91913546|NCT00094757|183723533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-8.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status||||-8.9|-30.5|<0.001
91913547|NCT00094757|183723533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9|<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-6.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status||||-6.1|-27.6|<0.002
91913548|NCT02623335|183723536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.353|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Options questions||||0.353
91913549|NCT02623335|183723536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.923|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Expectations questions||||0.923
91913550|NCT02623335|183723536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Risks questions||||0.255
91913551|NCT02623335|183723536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|239047259.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Advance directives questions||||0.094
91913552|NCT02623335|183723537|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores between T2 and T1||||0.84
91913553|NCT02623335|183723537|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.15||||0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores between T3 and T1||||0.645
91913554|NCT02623335|183723538|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.37||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.411
91913555|NCT02623335|183723539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.412|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.412
91913556|NCT02623335|183723540|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.25||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
91913557|NCT02623335|183723541|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.72||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6-8 weeks post-enrollment (T2)||||0.106
91913558|NCT02623335|183723541|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-1.12||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-4 months post-enrollment post-enrollment (T3)||||0.007
91913559|NCT02623335|183723542|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|0.97||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6-8 weeks post-enrollment (T2)||||0.034
91913560|NCT02623335|183723542|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|1.12||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-4 months post-enrollment (T3)||||0.019
91913561|NCT02623335|183723543|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|1.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6-8 weeks post-enrollment (T2)||||0.022
91913562|NCT02623335|183723543|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|0.94||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-4 months post-enrollment post-enrollment (T3)||||0.053
91913563|NCT02623335|183723545|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|5.04||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91913564|NCT00523991|183723718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.27||"There was only one primary endpoint and the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS-Means"|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model included treatment, site, and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline in the model.||||0.27|0.18|<0.001
91913565|NCT00523991|183723722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|0.09|0.18||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|Terms include treatment, site, and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.18|0.09|<0.001
91913566|NCT00523991|183723726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.19|0.29||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|Terms include treatment, site, and peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.29|0.19|<0.001
91913567|NCT00523991|183723742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|0.09|0.18||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"Terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.18|0.09|<0.001
91913568|NCT00523991|183723743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|0.16|0.25||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.25|0.16|<0.001
91913569|NCT00523991|183723744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.28||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium vesus placebo||0.28|0.18|<0.001
91913570|NCT00523991|183723745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.2|0.29||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.29|0.20|<0.001
91913571|NCT00523991|183723746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.001||95.0|0.2|0.3||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.30|0.20|<0.001
91913572|NCT00523991|183723750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||<|0.001||95.0|0.24|0.38||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity area under the curve at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.38|0.24|<0.001
91913573|NCT00523991|183723754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.28||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and trough forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.28|0.14|<0.001
91913574|NCT00523991|183723758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|0.24|0.42||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and peak forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.42|0.24|<0.001
91913575|NCT00523991|183723774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.28||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.28|0.14|<0.001
91913576|NCT00523991|183723775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.001||95.0|0.21|0.36||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.36|0.21|<0.001
91913577|NCT00523991|183723776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.001||95.0|0.23|0.38||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.38|0.23|<0.001
91763430|NCT04034004|183417306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain ratings were collected while lying in the supine and after each straight leg rasise test (SLR 1; SLR 2). A 2 (group) X 2 (SLR 1-rest vs. SLR 2-meditation) X 2 (supine vs. SLR) X 3 (session) repeated measure mixed model ANOVA was conducted to determine if mindfulness and non-mindfulness meditation attenuate SLR induced pain through endogenous opioids. Simple effects tests tested significant main effects and interactions to test primary study hypotheses and between-group differences.||||.05
91808618|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.7|-0.2|0.389
91808619|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.8|0.433
91913578|NCT00523991|183723777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|0.25|0.4||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.40|0.25|<0.001
91913579|NCT00523991|183723778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||<|0.001||95.0|0.26|0.45||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.45|0.26|<0.001
91913580|NCT00523991|183723785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.927||95.0|-0.38|0.41||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and albuterol use at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.41|-0.38|0.927
91913581|NCT00523991|183723786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.174
91763431|NCT04317040|183417312|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.398||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.918|||Log Rank||Cox-Regression Model|||1.918|1.020|0.0367
91763432|NCT04317040|183417314|OTHER|Risk difference (RD) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method and p-value was calculated based on Chi-squared test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0555||||0.3281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1665|0.0555|||Chi-squared||Mantel-Haenszel method|||0.0555|-0.1665|0.3281
91808620|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.8|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.8|-0.9|0.940
91808621|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.7|-1.0|0.757
91808622|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.9|-0.7|0.836
91808623|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.1|-0.9|0.827
91913582|NCT00523991|183723787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.186
91913583|NCT00523991|183723788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.045
91913584|NCT00523991|183723789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.223
91913585|NCT00523991|183723790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.010
91913586|NCT00523991|183723791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.086
91913587|NCT00523991|183723793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.729||95.0|-2.97|4.24||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||4.24|-2.97|0.729
91808624|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.3|-0.6|0.507
91913588|NCT00523991|183723794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.149||95.0|-5.9|0.9||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.90|-5.90|0.149
91913589|NCT00523991|183723795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.763||95.0|-4.0|2.93||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||2.93|-4.00|0.763
91913590|NCT00523991|183723796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.313||95.0|-5.45|1.75||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||1.75|-5.45|0.313
91913591|NCT00523991|183723797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.682||95.0|-4.6|3.01||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||3.01|-4.60|0.682
91913592|NCT00523991|183723798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76||||0.043||95.0|-7.39|-0.13||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||-0.13|-7.39|0.043
91913593|NCT00523991|183723800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.823||95.0|-6.01|4.79||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||4.79|-6.01|0.823
91913594|NCT00523991|183723801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.767||95.0|-7.86|5.81||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||5.81|-7.86|0.767
91913595|NCT00523991|183723802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.754||95.0|-4.12|5.67||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||5.67|-4.12|0.754
91913596|NCT00523991|183723803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.995||95.0|-6.31|6.27||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||6.27|-6.31|0.995
91913597|NCT00523991|183723804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.72||95.0|-7.77|5.39||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||5.39|-7.77|0.720
91913598|NCT00523991|183723805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88||||0.064||95.0|-12.1|0.35||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.35|-12.10|0.064
91913599|NCT00523991|183723807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.718||95.0|-7.21|4.98||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||4.98|-7.21|0.718
91913600|NCT00523991|183723808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.912||95.0|-7.9|7.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||7.06|-7.90|0.912
91913601|NCT00523991|183723809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79||||0.162||95.0|-1.55|9.13||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||9.13|-1.55|0.162
91763433|NCT04317040|183417315|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.558||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|0.954|||Log Rank||Cox Regression Model|||0.954|0.327|0.0306
91913602|NCT00523991|183723810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.471||95.0|-4.51|9.69||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||9.69|-4.51|0.471
91913603|NCT00523991|183723811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.961||95.0|-6.52|6.84||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||6.84|-6.52|0.961
91913604|NCT00523991|183723812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.158||95.0|-11.73|1.94||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||1.94|-11.73|0.158
91913605|NCT00523991|183723814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.469||95.0|-3.01|6.49||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||6.49|-3.01|0.469
91913606|NCT00523991|183723815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.79||||0.079||95.0|-0.68|12.26||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||12.26|-0.68|0.079
91913607|NCT00523991|183723816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.051||95.0|-0.02|8.23||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||8.23|-0.02|0.051
91913608|NCT00523991|183723817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43||||0.075||95.0|-0.35|7.21||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||7.21|-0.35|0.075
91913609|NCT00523991|183723818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.306||95.0|-1.39|4.38||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||4.38|-1.39|0.306
91913610|NCT00523991|183723819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.363||95.0|-7.39|2.73||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||2.73|-7.39|0.363
91808625|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-1.1|0.632
91913611|NCT00523991|183723821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.668||95.0|-0.03|0.02||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.02|-0.03|0.668
91913612|NCT00523991|183723822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.78||95.0|-0.02|0.03||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.03|-0.02|0.780
91913613|NCT00523991|183723823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.61||95.0|-0.03|0.02||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.02|-0.03|0.610
91913614|NCT00523991|183723824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.554||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.04|-0.02|0.554
91913615|NCT00523991|183723825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.549||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.04|-0.02|0.549
91913616|NCT00523991|183723826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.568||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.04|-0.02|0.568
91913617|NCT00523991|183723828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.358||95.0|-0.18|0.07||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.07|-0.18|0.358
91913618|NCT00523991|183723829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.219||95.0|-0.2|0.05||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.05|-0.20|0.219
91913619|NCT00523991|183723830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.518||95.0|-0.1|0.19||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.19|-0.10|0.518
91913620|NCT00523991|183723831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.455||95.0|-0.09|0.21||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.21|-0.09|0.455
91913621|NCT00523991|183723832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.927||95.0|-0.16|0.15||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.15|-0.16|0.927
91913622|NCT00523991|183723833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.933||95.0|-0.17|0.16||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.16|-0.17|0.933
91913623|NCT00523991|183723834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.996
91913624|NCT00523991|183723835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.196
91913625|NCT00523991|183723836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.800
91913626|NCT00523991|183723837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.215
91913627|NCT00523991|183723838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.205
91913628|NCT00523991|183723839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.622
91913629|NCT00523991|183723840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.446
91913630|NCT00523991|183723842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.819||95.0|-0.05|0.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.06|-0.05|0.819
91763434|NCT04317040|183417316|OTHER|Risk difference (RD) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method and p-value was calculated based on Chi-squared test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.027||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.097|||Chi-squared||Mantel-Haenszel method used to report all-cause mortality by Day 15|Day 15||0.0970|-0.0430|0.4491
91763435|NCT04317040|183417316|OTHER|Risk difference (RD) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method and p-value was calculated based on Chi-squared test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0146||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1049|0.0756|||Chi-squared||Mantel-Haenszel method used to report all-cause mortality by Day 29|Day 29||0.0756|-0.1049|0.7512
91889801|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.46||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.46
91889802|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-iM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.02
91889803|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iT-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.01
91889804|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.99||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iT-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.99
91889805|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iT-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.04
91889806|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.01
91889807|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.31||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.31
91889808|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.05
91889809|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.03
91889810|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.2||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.20
91889811|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-cM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.04
91763436|NCT04317040|183417319|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.416||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|1.945|||Log Rank||Cox Regression model|||1.945|1.031|0.0311
91889812|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.05
91889813|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.59||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.59
91889814|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-iM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.12
91889815|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.10
91889816|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.57||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.57
91889817|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.06||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iM-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.06
91889818|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.12
91889819|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.69||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.69
91889820|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cM-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.14
91889821|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.12
91889822|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.6||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.60
91889823|NCT04325282|183672458|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iM-cM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.04
91889824|NCT02175641|183672526|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed-effects models with a logistic link|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.62|>0.05
91913631|NCT00523991|183723843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.204||95.0|-0.1|0.02||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.02|-0.10|0.204
91913632|NCT00523991|183723844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.67||95.0|-0.08|0.05||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.05|-0.08|0.670
91913633|NCT00523991|183723845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.63||95.0|-0.09|0.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.06|-0.09|0.630
91913634|NCT00523991|183723846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.704||95.0|-0.1|0.07||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.07|-0.10|0.704
91913635|NCT00523991|183723847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.579||95.0|-0.11|0.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.06|-0.11|0.579
91913636|NCT00523991|183723849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.54||||0.916||95.0|-464.02|416.94||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||416.94|-464.02|0.916
91913637|NCT00523991|183723850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.42||||0.899||95.0|-520.19|457.34||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||457.34|-520.19|0.899
91913638|NCT00523991|183723851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|181.99||||0.495||95.0|-341.75|705.73||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||placebo versus tiotropium||705.73|-341.75|0.495
91913639|NCT00523991|183723852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|258.83||||0.318||95.0|-250.37|768.03||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||768.03|-250.37|0.318
91913640|NCT00523991|183723853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|211.18||||0.45||95.0|-338.04|760.39||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||760.39|-338.04|0.450
91913641|NCT00523991|183723854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.46||||0.858||95.0|-512.2|615.12||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||615.12|-512.20|0.858
91913642|NCT03439033|183723856|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53|||McNemar||Risk difference reflects PSMA PET/MRI Scan detection proportion minus MRI scan detection proportion.|||0.53|0.30|<0.0001
91913643|NCT03285243|183723884|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori, All p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91913644|NCT03285243|183723885|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||a priori, all p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.002
91913645|NCT03175549|183723886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|29.38||A priori threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error was calculated using bootstrap methods which is considered best for MEM.|||29.38|-10.22|0.36
91913646|NCT03175549|183723887|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posted results show mean change in drinking for the drug group relative to placebo for each day of the 11 days of ad libidum drinking (Days 1-11) permitted during the 14 days (2 weeks) of medication.||||<0.025
91913647|NCT03175549|183723887|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|473 daily observations within 43 individuals.|The apremilast group showed a significantly more rapid reduction in drinks per day relative to placebo.|||||0.025
91913648|NCT02435849|183723888|OTHER|testing the null hypothesis that ORR within 3 months is less than or equal to 20%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<.0001
91913649|NCT02435849|183723890|OTHER|testing the null hypothesis that ORR with MRD negative within 3 months is less than or equal to 15%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<.0001
91913650|NCT02435849|183723891|OTHER|testing the null hypothesis that ORR with MRD negative within 3 months is less than or equal to 15%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<.0001
91913651|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-79.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0819|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.56|-77.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-77.11|-81.56|<0.0001
91913652|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-87.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0887|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.8|-85.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-85.84|-88.80|<0.0001
91913653|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-83.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0905|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-85.65|-81.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-81.78|-85.65|<0.0001
91913654|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-92.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-93.15|-90.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-90.98|-93.15|<0.0001
91913655|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-84.814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0971|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.64|-82.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-82.74|-86.64|<0.0001
91913656|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-92.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1114|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-93.85|-91.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-91.74|-93.85|<0.0001
91913657|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-79.465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.69|-76.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-76.96|-81.69|<0.0001
91913658|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-88.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0963|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.06|-87.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-87.18|-90.06|<0.0001
91913659|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-78.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0824|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.11|-76.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-76.52|-81.11|<0.0001
91913660|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-86.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0899|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.82|-84.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-84.55|-87.82|<0.0001
91913661|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-79.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0664|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.36|-77.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-77.78|-81.36|<0.0001
91913662|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-84.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0715|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.34|-83.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-83.50|-86.34|<0.0001
91913663|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|72.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0809|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|55.37|92.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-alpha: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||92.40|55.37|<0.0001
91913664|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|98.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0897|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|75.92|122.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-alpha: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||122.96|75.92|<0.0001
91913665|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-80.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0668|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.84|-78.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-beta: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-78.33|-81.84|<0.0001
91808626|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.3|-0.5|0.442
91808627|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-1.1|0.643
91913666|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-83.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0733|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.92|-81.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-beta: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-81.69|-84.92|<0.0001
91913667|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-78.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0602|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-80.06|-76.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Abeta total: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate||-76.62|-80.06|<0.0001
91913668|NCT02793232|183723972|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-85.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0653|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.57|-84.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Abeta total: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-84.05|-86.57|<0.0001
91808628|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-0.2|0.188
91913669|NCT03979274|183724016|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|98.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|102.68||||||||102.68|94.55|
91913670|NCT03979274|183724017|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|97.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.34|104.26||||||||104.26|91.34|
91913671|NCT03979274|183724020|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.45|101.03||||||||101.03|98.45|
91913672|NCT03979274|183724021|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.7|100.85||||||||100.85|97.70|
91913673|NCT02301403|183724027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.14|1.69|<.001
91913674|NCT02302963|183724028|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|||||<|0.001|||||||GLM Repeated Measures|Repeated-measures general linear model was used to compare HCLC versus SAP data. A P-value of \< 0.001 was considered the threshold for significance.||||||<0.001
91913675|NCT00632853|183724076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8741|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8741
91913676|NCT01724528|183724088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-196.794|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.6|-154.988|||ANCOVA|||Treatment, TLS risk (intermediate/high) and sUA level at baseline (≤ 7.5 mg/dL and \> 7.5 mg/dL) were inserted in the ANCOVA model as covariates||-154.988|-238.600|<0.0001
91913677|NCT01724528|183724089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|4.097||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6467|8.8406|||ANCOVA|||Treatment, TLS risk (intermediate/high) and sUA level at baseline (≤ 7.5 mg/dL and \> 7.5 mg/dL) were inserted in the ANCOVA model as covariates||8.8406|-0.6467|0.0903
91913678|NCT01724528|183724090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0231||||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0153|0.0654|||Wilson's confidence interval|||||0.0654|-0.0153|0.1993
91913679|NCT01724528|183724091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.875||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4408|1.7369|||Chi-squared|||||1.7369|0.4408|0.8488
91913680|NCT01724528|183724092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.994||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9691|1.0199|||Chi-squared|||||1.0199|0.9691|1.0000
91913681|NCT00466310|183724094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Unadjusted p value is .0041|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A wilcoxon rank sum test was performed comparing baseline plasmalogen values, comparing schizophrenia subjects vs controls.P values from this analysis were adjusted for false discovery rates by the method of Storey and Tribshiani.||||0.0149
91913682|NCT01493180|183724096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576
91913683|NCT04024501|183724157|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|106.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.73|122.96|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 22||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 2/Treatment 1||122.96|91.73|
91913684|NCT04024501|183724157|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|50.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.34|59.1|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 22||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 1||59.10|42.34|
91913685|NCT04024501|183724157|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|47.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.85|55.68|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 15||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 2||55.68|39.85|
91913686|NCT04024501|183724157|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.49|68.92|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 15||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 4||68.92|49.49|
91913687|NCT04024501|183724157|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|85.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.78|99.43|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 1||99.43|73.78|
91913688|NCT04024501|183724157|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|80.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.48|93.62|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 2||93.62|69.48|
91913689|NCT04024501|183724157|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.61|104.09|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 1||104.09|77.61|
91913690|NCT04024501|183724157|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.94|98.2|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 2||98.20|72.94|
91913691|NCT04024501|183724157|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|179.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.57|212.99|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 3||212.99|151.57|
91913692|NCT04024501|183724157|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|104.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|122.11|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 4||122.11|90.18|
91913693|NCT04024501|183724158|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|100.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.94|118.65|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 2/Treatment 1||118.65|84.94|
91913694|NCT04024501|183724158|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|41.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.74|49.0|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 1||49.00|34.74|
91913695|NCT04024501|183724158|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|41.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.61|48.81|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 2||48.81|34.61|
91913696|NCT04024501|183724158|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|53.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.09|63.59|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 4||63.59|45.09|
91913697|NCT04024501|183724158|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|77.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.19|91.06|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 1||91.06|65.19|
91913698|NCT04024501|183724158|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|76.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.94|90.71|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 2||90.71|64.94|
91913699|NCT04024501|183724158|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.93|100.03|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 1||100.03|70.93|
91913700|NCT04024501|183724158|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|99.64|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 2||99.64|70.65|
91913701|NCT04024501|183724158|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|204.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|171.22|243.42|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 3||243.42|171.22|
91913702|NCT04024501|183724158|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|109.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.06|129.83|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 4||129.83|92.06|
91913703|NCT04024501|183724159|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|124.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.09|154.54|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 2/Treatment 1||154.54|101.09|
91913704|NCT04024501|183724159|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|33.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.15|42.01|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 1||42.01|27.15|
91913705|NCT04024501|183724159|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|27.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.72|33.61|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 2||33.61|21.72|
91913706|NCT04024501|183724159|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|36.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.61|45.82|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 4||45.82|29.61|
91913707|NCT04024501|183724159|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.15|113.36|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 1||113.36|74.15|
91913708|NCT04024501|183724159|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.33|90.7|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 2||90.70|59.33|
91913709|NCT04024501|183724159|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|67.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.37|84.12|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 1||84.12|54.37|
91913710|NCT04024501|183724159|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|54.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.5|67.3|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 2||67.30|43.50|
91913711|NCT04024501|183724159|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|200.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.15|250.32|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 3||250.32|160.15|
91913712|NCT04024501|183724159|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.3|91.75|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 4||91.75|59.30|
91913713|NCT04187092|183724169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||The 12-week changes in the KOOS scores, and the 12-week changes in the IKDC scores were analyzed by way of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Covariates: Age and sex of the subject, the subject's baseline outcome measure, the subject's baseline IKDC Total score, and the subject's standardized intake date (i.e., i.e., subject's intake date minus the intake date of the first enrolled subject) served as the ANCOVA concomitant adjustment variables||||<0.05
91913714|NCT03216382|183724193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05. The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.93
91913715|NCT03216382|183724194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||this value represents the interaction between condition and the intervention time period The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine linear change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on uncontrollability of worry||||.74
91913716|NCT03216382|183724194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||this value represents the interaction between condition and the intervention time period (squared) The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine quadratic change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on uncontrollability of worry||||.44
91913717|NCT03216382|183724195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.17
91913718|NCT03216382|183724196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time .|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine linear change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on self-focused attention||||.50
91913719|NCT03216382|183724196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The apriori threshold for significance was a= 0.05. The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and intervention period (days 7-14, squared).|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine quadratic change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on self-focused attention||||.02
91913720|NCT03216382|183724197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.46
91913721|NCT03216382|183724198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.53
91913722|NCT03216382|183724199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05. The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.07
91913723|NCT03216382|183724200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||the apriori threshold for significance was 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.58
91913724|NCT03216382|183724201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.86
91913725|NCT03216382|183724202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.39
91913726|NCT00454779|183724258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.002|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors|Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemotherapy:chemotherapy alone.|||1.002|0.395|0.051
91913727|NCT00454779|183724258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors||||||0.048
91913728|NCT00454779|183724259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|24.12|||||With Mantel-Haenszel weights within strata defined by randomization factors recorded in the IVRS|||24.12|-11.67|
91913729|NCT00454779|183724259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||||95.0|0.57|3.33|||||Calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment indicator and randomization factors (recorded on the CRF) as covariates|||3.33|0.57|
91913730|NCT00454779|183724260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|23.85|||||With Mantel-Haenszel weights within strata defined by randomization factors recorded in the IVRS|||23.85|-8.29|
91913731|NCT00454779|183724260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||||95.0|0.62|5.26|||||Calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment indicator and randomization factors (recorded on the CRF) as covariates|||5.26|0.62|
91913732|NCT00454779|183724263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.103||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.717|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors|Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemotherapy:chemotherapy alone|||1.717|0.709|0.663
91913733|NCT00454779|183724263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors||||||0.666
91913734|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient estimate|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.84||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -4.65|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall physical aggression % change from baseline||1.84|0.37|<0.001
91913735|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.62|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.29||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.83|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall injury perpetration % change from baseline||1.29|0.30|<0.01
91913736|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.77||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.31|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner physical aggression % change from baseline||3.77|0.36|<0.01
91913737|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.38||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.26|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner injury % change from baseline||1.38|0.19|<0.05
91913738|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.28||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.79|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner physical aggression % change from baseline||2.28|0.66|<0.001
91913739|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.98||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.01|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner injury % change from baseline||1.98|0.32|<0.05
91913740|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.46||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -4.81|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall physical aggression % change from baseline||1.46|0.25|<0.001
91913741|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.44||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.74|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall injury perpetration % change from baseline||2.44|0.45|<0.001
91913742|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.48|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.78||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.59|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner physical aggression % change from baseline||1.78|0.13|<0.01
91913743|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.48|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.47||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -1.81|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner injury % change from baseline||1.47|0.16|>0.05
91913744|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.08||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -4.10|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner physical aggression % change from baseline||2.08|0.60|<0.001
91913745|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.09|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.95||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.17|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner injury % change from baseline||2.95|0.40|<0.01
91913746|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -4.69||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall physical aggression % change from baseline||||<0.001
91913747|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.32||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall injury % change from baseline||||<0.01
91913748|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.90||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner physical aggression % change from baseline||||<0.01
91913749|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z Score: -1.02||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner injury % change from baseline||||>0.05
91808629|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.9|-1.4|0.701
91808630|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-1.8|0.271
91889825|NCT02175641|183672527|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time by treatment interaction coefficien|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.804|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.804
91889826|NCT02175641|183672528|OTHER||Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91889827|NCT02175641|183672529|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|time*treatment interaction coefficient|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
91889828|NCT02175641|183672530|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
91889829|NCT02175641|183672531|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
91889830|NCT02175641|183672532|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
91889831|NCT02175641|183672533|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
91889832|NCT03031496|183672556|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|91.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.77|95.43|||||Comparison of AUC (0-t) of hydrochlorothiazide for test and reference product has been presented.|||95.43|87.77|
91889833|NCT03031496|183672556|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|102.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.12|106.91|||||Comparison of AUC (0-t) of amiloride for test and reference product has been presented.|||106.91|98.12|
91889834|NCT03031496|183672557|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|82.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.37|88.74|||||Comparison of Cmax of hydrochlorothiazide for test and reference product has been presented.|||88.74|77.37|
91889835|NCT03031496|183672557|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|103.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.42|110.86|||||Comparison of Cmax of amiloride for test and reference product has been presented.|||110.86|97.42|
91889836|NCT03031496|183672558|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|92.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.75|96.12|||||Comparison of Tmax of hydrochlorothiazide for test and reference product has been presented.|||96.12|88.75|
91889837|NCT03031496|183672558|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|101.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.84|105.23|||||Comparison of Tmax of amiloride for test and reference product has been presented.|||105.23|97.84|
91889838|NCT01399697|183672577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.700
91889839|NCT01399697|183672578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.328
91889840|NCT01399697|183672579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.518
91889841|NCT01399697|183672580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.358
91889842|NCT01399697|183672581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|0.032||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.184|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and DAS28 value at Week 16 as covariate.|||0.184|-0.119|0.674
91889843|NCT01399697|183672582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.873||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.775|1.03|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and mental component score (MCS) as covariate.|||1.030|-4.775|0.204
91889844|NCT01399697|183672583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|3.376||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|6.076|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and physical component score (PCS) as covariate.|||6.076|0.676|0.015
91889845|NCT01399697|183672584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.969||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.526|7.464|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and VAS performed by the participant at Week 16 as a covariate.|||7.464|-5.526|0.769
91889846|NCT01399697|183672585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.216||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.573|4.141|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and VAS performed by the investigator at Week 16 as covariate.|||4.141|-6.573|0.655
91889847|NCT00392925|183672601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||Based on an Analysis of Covariance model including factors for treatment group, sex, enrollment body mass index (BMI) category, lead-in body weight loss category, and baseline (Day 1) weight as a covariate. The p-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between treatments. Analysis performed two-sided at a 5% significance level to compare treatment groups.||||0.0004
91889848|NCT04145700|183672629|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Hazard Ratio|2.62||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.19|4.46|||Bayesian hierarchical model|||To conclude success for the intervention, the Bayesian analysis must yield a minimum of 99% posterior probability for PFS Hazard ratio less than 1 \[i.e., Pr(HR \< 1) \> 99%\]. The Bayesian analyses below include posterior mean of Hazard ratio, posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and credible intervals instead of confidence intervals.||4.46|1.19|0.051
91889849|NCT01840410|183672644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|12.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.91|6.97|<0.001
91763437|NCT00799903|183417336|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.85|1.03||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.85|0.199
91763438|NCT00799903|183417337|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.82|0.045
91763439|NCT00799903|183417338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.84|0.019
91763440|NCT00799903|183417339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.11||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.83|0.594
91808631|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-0.6|0.445
91913750|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z Score: -4.01||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner physical aggression % change from baseline||||<0.01
91913751|NCT01337973|183724272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.21||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall non-partner injury % change from baseline||||<0.01
91913752|NCT01337973|183724273|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient estimate|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.47||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -3.52|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to heavy drinking % change from baseline"||1.47|0.62|<0.001
91913753|NCT01337973|183724273|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.32||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.98|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to cocaine use % change from baseline"||1.32|0.18|<0.01
91913754|NCT01337973|183724273|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.13|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to marijuana use % change from baseline"||1.8|0.4|<0.05
91763441|NCT00799903|183417340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.77|0.108
91808632|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.5|-0.8|0.714
91913755|NCT01337973|183724273|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.32||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.48|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to illicit drug use % change from baseline"||1.32|0.54|<0.05
91763442|NCT00799903|183417341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.81|0.920
91763443|NCT00799903|183417342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.88|0.397
91763444|NCT00799903|183417343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.90|0.870
91763445|NCT02518971|183417344|OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.345
91763446|NCT02518971|183417345|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Student T-Test|||||||.378
91763447|NCT02518971|183417346|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91763448|NCT02518971|183417347|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.497
91763449|NCT02518971|183417348|OTHER|||||||0.207|||||||Student T-test|||||||.207
91763450|NCT01514201|183417365|OTHER|This was descriptive in nature. Two of the first 5 patients who were escalated to 175 mg/m2 of temozolomide during the maintenance intra-patient dose escalation had dose-modifying toxicities (DMTs). Since the ad hoc stopping rule was met, intra-patient dose escalation was halted and all subsequent patients were to receive 135 mg/m2 of temozolomide during maintenance.|Percentage of patients with DMTs|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Intra-patient dose escalation of temozolomide during maintenance was assessed based on similar rules employed in traditional 3+3 designs. For example intra-patient dose escalation would be halted if at any time 2 out of first 2-6 patients experienced dose-modifying toxicities at a given dose level or if 4 out of first 12 patients experienced dose-modifying toxicities at a given dose level.||||
91763451|NCT00566852|183417392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Significance level was 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: patients on memantine will experience less decline than patients receiving placebo. Based on a one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with alpha=0.025, 221 patients per arm would be required to have 80% statistical power to detect a mean difference of 0.87 in the HVLT-R change scores between the two treatment arms. Assuming that 20% of patients may be ineligible, or die prior to the 24 week assessment, the target sample size for randomization was set to 536.||||0.059
91763452|NCT00566852|183417393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0692||||||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks||||0.0692
91763453|NCT00566852|183417393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4541||||||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||16 weeks||||0.4541
91763454|NCT00566852|183417393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397||||||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||52 weeks||||0.3970
91913756|NCT01337973|183724273|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.71||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -4.94|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to heavy drinking % change from baseline"||1.71|0.78|<0.001
91913757|NCT01337973|183724273|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.61|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.16||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.56|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to cocaine use % change from baseline"||2.16|0.17|<0.05
91913758|NCT01337973|183724273|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|1.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.44||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.86|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to marijuana use % change from baseline"||2.44|0.57|<0.01
91913759|NCT01337973|183724273|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -3.51|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to illicit drug use % change from baseline"||1.48|0.61|<0.001
91808633|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.4|-0.8|0.515
91913760|NCT01337973|183724273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -4.65||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to heavy drinking % change from baseline"||||<0.001
91763455|NCT00566852|183417394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Gray's test|||A one-sided log-rank test with alpha 0.025 accruing 221 patients/arm with 12 months of follow-up would ensure 98% statistical power to detect a 33% relative reduction in the monthly hazard rate with the use of memantine. Gray's test was used to test for a statistically significant difference in the distribution of neurocognitive failure times and Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the treatment difference.||0.99|0.62|0.01
91763456|NCT00566852|183417395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assuming normally distributions, the two sample t-test assuming equal variances would be used to compare the arms at the 0.025 significance level. If normality assumptions were not met, the Wilcoxon rank sum would be used.||||0.77
91763457|NCT00566852|183417396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3|||Log Rank|||The stratified log-rank test was used to test for a statistically significant difference in survival distributions with a one-sided alpha of 0.025 . In addition, the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the treatment difference.||1.3|0.87|0.27
91763458|NCT00566852|183417397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.31|||Log Rank|||The stratified log-rank test was used to test for a statistically significant difference in survival distributions with a one-sided alpha of 0.025 . In addition, the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the treatment difference.||1.31|0.86|0.025
91763459|NCT04531241|183417399|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort and vision at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||1.1|-6.8|
91913761|NCT01337973|183724273|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -1.45||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to cocaine use % change from baseline"||||>0.05
91913762|NCT01337973|183724273|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -1.5||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to marijuana use % change from baseline"||||>0.05
91913763|NCT01337973|183724273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.58||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to illicit drug use % change from baseline"||||<0.05
91913764|NCT03244033|183724281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.57|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site (p\<.001) and for whether physician contextualized plan (AOR 2.14, p=.001), and random effects of physician and patient.||Logistic mixed effects regression modeling likelihood of red flag improved/resolved (vs. not) during outcome period with fixed effects of intervention, site, and whether contextual factor was incorporated into care plan, and random effects of patient and provider. Red flags may be clustered in patients; patients are clustered in providers.||1.64|.57|.91
91913765|NCT03244033|183724282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, source of red flag, visible/concealed recorder, and random effects of physician and patient.|OR\>1 indicates greater likelihood in intervention group vs. control.|Logistic mixed effects regression modeling likelihood of provider probing red flag (vs. not) during visit with fixed effects of intervention, site, \\whether red flag was select on pre-visit questionnaire, and whether audiorecorder was visible to provider, and random effects of patient and provider. Red flags may be clustered in patients; patients are clustered in providers.||3.86|1.13|0.02
91913766|NCT03244033|183724283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, source of factor, recorder visible/concealed, and random effects of physician and patient.|OR \> 1 indicates greater likelihood in intervention group vs. control.|Logistic mixed effects regression modeling likelihood of provider incorporating contextual factor into care plan (vs. not) at visit with fixed effects of intervention, site, whether red flag was select on pre-visit questionnaire, whether audiorecorder was visible to provider, whether factor was identified by provider probe, whether factor was revealed by patient, and random effects of patient and provider. Red flags may be clustered in patients; patients are clustered in providers.||5.41|1.32|.006
91913767|NCT04428411|183724284|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91913768|NCT04428411|183724285|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91913769|NCT04428411|183724286|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91913770|NCT04428411|183724287|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91913771|NCT04428411|183724288|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91808634|NCT02310568|183493990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.7|-0.5|0.778
91913772|NCT04428411|183724289|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91913773|NCT04428411|183724290|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91913774|NCT04428411|183724291|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91913775|NCT04428411|183724292|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91808635|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-2.1|0.562
91913776|NCT04428411|183724293|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 4||||0.0001
91913777|NCT04428411|183724293|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 12||||0.0001
91913778|NCT04428411|183724294|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 4||||0.0001
91913779|NCT04428411|183724294|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 12||||0.0001
91913780|NCT04428411|183724295|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 4||||0.0001
91913781|NCT04428411|183724295|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 12||||0.0001
91913782|NCT02918019|183724314|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.57||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||Poisson regression|||||0.84|0.39|0.0049
91913783|NCT02918019|183724314|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78||||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.12|||Poisson regression|||||1.12|0.54|0.1838
91913784|NCT02918019|183724314|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.63||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.91|||Poisson regression|||||0.91|0.44|0.0144
91913785|NCT00408694|183724350|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis, H0: Incidence of patients with either grade 4 hemorrhage or any grade 5 adverse event for the protocol treatment regimen ≤ 0.05. Alternative hypothesis, HA: Incidence of patients with either grade 4 hemorrhage or any grade 5 adverse event for the protocol treatment regimen ≥ 0.15.|If 3 of the first 14 patients or 4 of the first 42 patients experience the specified adverse events, then the regimen is considered unacceptable as calculated by the Fleming method for a two-stage design with type I error and the statistical power were set at 0.14 and 0.83, respectively.|||
91913786|NCT01700192|183724359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.40|-1.20|<0.001
91913787|NCT01700192|183724359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-9.7||||||||-9.7|-25.0|
91913788|NCT01700192|183724362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.30|-1.00|<0.001
91913789|NCT01700192|183724362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-7.3||||||||-7.3|-24.4|
91913790|NCT01700192|183724363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.05|||Zero-inflated Log-normal Model|||||0.05|-0.35|0.154
91913791|NCT01700192|183724363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|4.3||||||||4.3|-41|
91913792|NCT01700192|183724364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.60|-1.70|<0.001
91913793|NCT01700192|183724364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-4.0||||||||-4.0|-24.6|
91913794|NCT01700192|183724365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-3.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-3.10|-9.10|<0.001
91913795|NCT01700192|183724365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-8.3||||||||-8.3|-22.7|
91913796|NCT01017952|183724374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.99|0.66|0.040
91913797|NCT01017952|183724374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.97|0.64|0.024
91913798|NCT01017952|183724374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.85|0.56|<0.001
91913799|NCT01017952|183724375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.71|0.177
91913800|NCT01017952|183724375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.66|0.036
91913801|NCT01017952|183724375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||Regression, Cox|||||0.82|0.54|<0.001
91808636|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.2|-1.9|0.708
91913802|NCT01017952|183724376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.07|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.07|0.65|0.154
91913803|NCT01017952|183724376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||0.99|0.60|0.041
91913804|NCT01017952|183724376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.84|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||0.84|0.51|<0.001
91913805|NCT01017952|183724377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.034||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.066||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.066|0.003|0.034
91913806|NCT01017952|183724377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.024||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.056|-0.008|0.143
91913807|NCT01017952|183724377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.026||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.057|-0.006|0.115
91913808|NCT02979431|183724391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was analysed using log-rank test to compare time-to-BQL between each of the ALX-0171 treatment groups and the combined placebo group. The tests were performed in a sequential way to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.05.||||<0.001
91913809|NCT02979431|183724391|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was analysed using log-rank test to compare time-to-BQL between each of the ALX-0171 treatment groups and the combined placebo group. The tests were performed in a sequential way to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.05.||||=0.001
91913810|NCT02979431|183724391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was analysed using log-rank test to compare time-to-BQL between each of the ALX-0171 treatment groups and the combined placebo group. The tests were performed in a sequential way to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.05.||||<0.001
91913811|NCT02979431|183724392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5843|=|0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A comparison for change from Baseline in GSS to Day 2, 5 hours post-dose was performed using a contrast analysis on a longitudinal mixed model with random factor subject and fixed effects baseline value, treatment group and timepoint, including the treatment-by-timepoint interaction term. All data up to + including Day 3 were used in the longitudinal mixed model. The Kenward-Roger approximation of degrees of freedom was used.The model was fitted using an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.||||=0.271
91913812|NCT02979431|183724392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.4904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5862|=|0.404|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.404
91913813|NCT02979431|183724392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.2156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5842|=|0.713|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.713
91913814|NCT01405053|183724416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.558||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|15.7|||ANCOVA|||The primary statistical model for comparing the 2 treatment groups was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) mixed model for repeated measures with baseline score, age, and sex as covariates, and treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as factors.||15.7|-10.5|0.6928
91913815|NCT02642094|183724440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0020
91913816|NCT02642094|183724441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
91913817|NCT02642094|183724442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91913818|NCT02642094|183724443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0072
91913819|NCT02642094|183724444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3093
91913820|NCT00993928|183724452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Q3: Percent change in sleep latency from baseline to week 7.||||0.85
91913821|NCT00993928|183724452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Q6A: Percent change in time to fall back asleep from baseline to week 7.||||0.86
91913822|NCT00993928|183724454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
91913823|NCT00993928|183724456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare percent change from baseline to week 7 Distress Thermometer score.||||0.64
91913824|NCT03550066|183724457|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority limit, d, is selected as the largest difference that is clinically acceptable. Here the non-inferiority limit is d=.6 (a medium to large effect size).||||||0.18||||||Threshold for statistical significance: \<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91913825|NCT05574062|183724471|NON_INFERIORITY|-7.5% non-inferiority margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.04|11.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (run-in) values|||11.72|8.04|
91913826|NCT05574062|183724472|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 0.4% HbA1c|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression model adjusted for baseline (continuation phase period1) values|||0.31|-0.03|
91913827|NCT05574062|183724473|NON_INFERIORITY|non- inferiority margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (screening) values|||-0.46|-0.76|
91913828|NCT05574062|183724474|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.04|11.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (run-in) values|||11.72|8.04|<.0001
91913829|NCT05574062|183724475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (screening) values|||-0.46|-0.76|<.0001
91913830|NCT05574062|183724476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression model adjusted for baseline (period1) values|||0.31|-0.03|0.1097
91913831|NCT05574062|183724477|NON_INFERIORITY|non inferiority margin of -7.5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.38|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression adjusted for baseline (continuation phase period 1) values|||2.38|-0.04|
91913832|NCT05574062|183724478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.38|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression adjusted for baseline (continuation phase period 1) values|||2.38|-0.04|0.0581
91808637|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-1.9|0.852
91913833|NCT02288273|183724514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91913834|NCT02321436|183724586|OTHER|The treatment difference (Dysport® versus placebo) was tested using a non-parametric, two-sided, stratified log rank test.||||||0.0176||||||Significance level (α) = 5%|Log Rank|||||||0.0176
91913835|NCT02321436|183724586|OTHER|The treatment difference (Dysport® versus placebo) was tested using a non-parametric, two-sided, stratified Wilcoxon test.||||||0.048||||||Significance level (α) = 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0480
91913836|NCT02321436|183724587|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.47||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 2 (Week 4).||-0.47|-1.54|0.0005
91913837|NCT02321436|183724587|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.47||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 3 (Week 6).||-0.47|-1.63|0.0007
91913838|NCT02321436|183724587|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.48||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 4 (Week 8).||-0.48|-1.62|0.0006
91913839|NCT02321436|183724587|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.31||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 5 (Week 10).||-0.31|-1.36|0.0027
91913840|NCT02321436|183724587|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.26||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 6 (Week 12).||-0.26|-1.39|0.0052
91913841|NCT02321436|183724587|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.31||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 7 (Week 16).||0.31|-1.35|0.2037
91913842|NCT02321436|183724587|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.7656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.94||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 8 (Week 20).||0.94|-1.25|0.7656
91913843|NCT02321436|183724587|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.8521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.23||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 9 (Week 24).||1.23|-1.46|0.8521
91913844|NCT02321436|183724587|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.81||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 10 (Week 28).||0.81|-1.24|0.6582
91913845|NCT02321436|183724588|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|11.1||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 2 (Week 4).||11.1|-9.5|0.8754
91913846|NCT02321436|183724588|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|11.1||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 3 (Week 6).||11.1|-12.8|0.8805
91913847|NCT02321436|183724588|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.6992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 4 (Week 8).||9.6|-14.0|0.6992
91913848|NCT02321436|183724588|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|12.8||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 5 (Week 10).||12.8|-13.0|0.9882
91913849|NCT02321436|183724588|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|21.2||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 6 (Week 12).||21.2|-11.9|0.5646
91913850|NCT02321436|183724588|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.2325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|9.0||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 7 (Week 16).||9.0|-34.0|0.2325
91913851|NCT02321436|183724588|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.2441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|11.1||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 8 (Week 20).||11.1|-39.4|0.2441
91913852|NCT02321436|183724588|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|15.7||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 9 (Week 24).||15.7|-33.7|0.4311
91913853|NCT02321436|183724588|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|24.3||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 10 (Week 28).||24.3|-33.3|0.7310
91913854|NCT02321436|183724589|OTHER|||||||0.6128||||||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) p-value represents the strength of the association between treatment and global assessments of changes at the last visit, adjusted for symptomatic status at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p value significance level = 5%||||||0.6128
91913855|NCT00546052|183724593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.999||95.0|-0.02|0.06|||t-test, 1 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is + 0.5%.||0.06|-0.02|0.999
91913856|NCT00546052|183724594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62||0.999||95.0|0.01|0.07|||t-test, 1 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is + 0.5mmol/L.||0.07|0.01|0.999
91808638|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.8|-3.0|0.347
91913857|NCT00546052|183724596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.34|<|0.001||95.0|-17.62|-16.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is 0 mm Hg||-16.27|-17.62|<0.001
91913858|NCT00546052|183724597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.39|<|0.001||95.0|-10.29|-9.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is 0 mm Hg.||-9.39|-10.29|<0.001
91913859|NCT00546052|183724598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||<0.001
91913860|NCT00546052|183724599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||<0.001
91808639|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-2.2|0.759
91913861|NCT00546052|183724600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.1||0.084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.084
91913862|NCT00546052|183724601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0||0.654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.654
91913863|NCT00546052|183724602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.5||0.336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.336
91913864|NCT00546052|183724603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.001
91913865|NCT00546052|183724604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.8||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.001
91913866|NCT00546052|183724605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.613
91913867|NCT02851173|183724619|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. CU group.||||0.79
91913868|NCT02851173|183724619|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. MCI group.||||0.87
91913869|NCT02851173|183724619|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. CU group. 3 outliers removed, whose scores were outside 1.5 times the interquartile range.||||0.16
91913870|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left middle frontal gyrus 1.||||0.22
91913871|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left medial frontal/superior frontal gyrus.||||0.69
91808640|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-2.9|0.574
91913872|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right superior parietal lobule.||||0.25
91913873|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left inferior parietal lobule.||||0.86
91913874|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left middle frontal gyrus 2.||||0.28
91913875|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right superior frontal gyrus.||||0.12
91808641|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-2.1|0.831
91913876|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right middle frontal gyrus.||||0.26
91913877|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||The contract of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right inferior frontal gyrus.||||0.83
91913878|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left middle frontal gyrus 1.||||0.55
91913879|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left medial frontal/superior frontal gyrus.||||0.76
91913880|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right superior parietal lobule.||||0.38
91913881|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left inferior parietal lobule.||||0.93
91913882|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left middle frontal gyrus 2.||||0.41
91913883|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right superior frontal gyrus.||||0.06
91913884|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right middle frontal gyrus.||||0.18
91913885|NCT02851173|183724620|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right inferior frontal gyrus.||||0.84
91913886|NCT02851173|183724621|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction.||||0.53
91913887|NCT02851173|183724621|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy).||||0.74
91913888|NCT02851173|183724622|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction.||||0.72
91763460|NCT04531241|183417400|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have a 0.05 logMAR unit difference in logMAR visual acuity at LLHC and HLLC lighting conditions at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR units was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0199|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Low Luminance High Contrast||0.0|-0.0199|
91913889|NCT02851173|183724622|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy).||||0.97
91913890|NCT05900115|183724641|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.77
91913891|NCT05900115|183724642|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
91913892|NCT05900115|183724643|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28
91913893|NCT05900115|183724644|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.68
91808642|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.3|-1.4|0.705
91913894|NCT05900115|183724645|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.01
91913895|NCT05900115|183724646|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.18
91763461|NCT04531241|183417400|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have a 0.05 logMAR unit difference in logMAR visual acuity at LLHC and HLLC lighting conditions at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR units was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0066|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0173|0.0087|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|High Luminance Low Contrast||0.0087|-0.0173|
91913896|NCT05900115|183724647|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.83
91913897|NCT05900115|183724648|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.56
91913898|NCT05900115|183724649|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary dichotomous outcomes at posttest, we used logistic regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|.38|0.85
91913899|NCT05900115|183724650|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.00
91913900|NCT01641120|183724665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||<.05
91913901|NCT01641120|183724666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||0.193
91913902|NCT01641120|183724667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||0.035
91913903|NCT01641120|183724668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||.005
91913904|NCT02324270|183724669|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of mean changes between test and reference products was contained within the interval, \[0.80,1.25\], then the products were considered to be equivalent.|Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.08||||||||1.08|0.94|
91913905|NCT02324270|183724670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
91913906|NCT02324270|183724670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91913907|NCT03521791|183724671|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.133|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.133
91913908|NCT03521791|183724672|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.045
91913909|NCT03521791|183724673|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.333|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.333
91913910|NCT03521791|183724674|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
91913911|NCT03521791|183724675|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.394|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.394
91913912|NCT03521791|183724676|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
91913913|NCT03521791|183724678|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.114|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.114
91913914|NCT03521791|183724679|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.117|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.117
91913915|NCT03521791|183724680|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.626|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.626
91913916|NCT00680836|183724681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-1.0|0.26
91763462|NCT04531241|183417401|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have a 1 hour difference in average daily wear time at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of 1 hour was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0731|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1968|0.0933|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.0933|-0.1968|
91808643|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-2.7|0.600
91913917|NCT00680836|183724682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|0.0|0.98
91913918|NCT00680836|183724683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91913919|NCT00680836|183724684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Chi-squared|||||0.2|-0.2|0.64
91913920|NCT00680836|183724685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-0.7|0.72
91913921|NCT00680836|183724686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.5|0.86
91913922|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.993||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.043|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 0 hr.|||1.043|0.946|0.791
91913923|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.05|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 1 hr.|||1.050|0.952|>0.999
91913924|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.001||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.051|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 1 hr 15 min.|||1.051|0.953|0.975
91913925|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.05|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 1 hr 45 min.|||1.050|0.952|>0.999
91913926|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.003||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.053|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 2 hr.|||1.053|0.955|0.908
91913927|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.025||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|1.077|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 2 hr 45 min.|||1.077|0.977|0.312
91913928|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.008||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.058|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 3 hr.|||1.058|0.960|0.763
91913929|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.15|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 3 hr 30 min.|||1.150|1.043|<0.001
91913930|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.046||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.098|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 3 hr 45 min.|||1.098|0.996|0.070
91913931|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.971||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.02|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 4 hr 15 min.|||1.020|0.925|0.238
91913932|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.975||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.023|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 4 hr 30 min.|||1.023|0.928|0.298
91913933|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.994||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.044|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 4 hr 45 min.|||1.044|0.947|0.821
91913934|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.991||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.04|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 5 hr.|||1.040|0.944|0.715
91913935|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.008||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.058|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 5 hr 15 min.|||1.058|0.960|0.759
91913936|NCT01475734|183724700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.05|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 5 hr 30 min.|||1.050|0.952|>0.999
91913937|NCT01734655|183724758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation analysis|||||||<.01
91913938|NCT01734655|183724759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation analysis|||||||<.01
91913939|NCT01734655|183724760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation analysis|||||||<.01
91913940|NCT00700180|183724786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.8||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||bFGF (high versus low)||1.80|0.63|0.8127
91913941|NCT00700180|183724786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.08||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||E-selectin (high versus low)||3.08|1.06|0.0285
91913942|NCT00700180|183724786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.85||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||ICAM (high versus low)||1.85|0.64|0.7478
91913943|NCT00700180|183724786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.33||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||PlGF (high versus low)||2.33|0.58|0.6761
91913944|NCT00700180|183724786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.09||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||VEGF A (high versus low)||2.09|0.72|0.4601
91913945|NCT00700180|183724786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.29||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||VEGFR-1 (high versus low)||1.29|0.46|0.3193
91913946|NCT00700180|183724786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.45||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||VEGFR-2 (high versus low)||2.45|0.85|0.1758
91913947|NCT00700180|183724788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.78|0.9454
91913948|NCT00700180|183724789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Responses Rates|9.34||||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Approximate 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||21.0|-2.4|0.1737
91913949|NCT00700180|183724790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|11.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||11.7|-8.2|0.6148
91913950|NCT00700180|183724792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.7587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.69|||Log Rank|||||1.69|0.68|0.7587
91913951|NCT00700180|183724794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.87|0.3120
91913952|NCT02288247|183724797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||From the Cox proportional hazards model with covariates for treatment and disease progression in Period 1 (radiographic, nonradiographic).|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.96|0.53|0.027
91913953|NCT02288247|183724798|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.82||From the Cox proportional hazards model with covariates for treatment and disease progression in Period 1 (radiographic, nonradiographic).|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.82|0.41|0.002
91913954|NCT02288247|183724800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||From the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by disease progression (radiographic, non-radiographic) in Period 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.142
91913955|NCT02288247|183724803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.13||From the Cox proportional hazards model with covariates for treatment and disease progression in Period 1 (radiographic, nonradiographic).|Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.13|0.47|0.994
91913956|NCT04871711|183724813|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|16.1||5% significance level (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||16.1|3.6|0.006
91913957|NCT04871711|183724814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|32.6||Evaluated at 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.6|15.5|<0.001
91913958|NCT04871711|183724815|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|31.7||Evaluated at 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||31.7|14.0|<0.001
91913959|NCT04871711|183724816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.9||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||18.9|5.7|0.001
91913960|NCT04871711|183724817|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|15.6||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||15.6|5.3|<0.001
91913961|NCT04871711|183724818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|29.4||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||29.4|12.6|<0.001
91913962|NCT04871711|183724819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|26.5||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||26.5|12.5|<0.001
91913963|NCT04871711|183724820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|14.7||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||14.7|3.8|0.004
91913964|NCT04871711|183724821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|30.6||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||30.6|14.4|<0.001
91913965|NCT04871711|183724822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|26.5||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||26.5|12.5|<0.001
91913966|NCT04871711|183724823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|30.9||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||30.9|12.4|<0.001
91913967|NCT04871711|183724824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|32.7||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.7|15.2|<0.001
91913968|NCT04871711|183724825|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|27.5||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||27.5|11.8|<0.001
91913969|NCT04871711|183724826|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|24.3||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||24.3|10.1|<0.001
91808644|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.8|-2.3|0.848
91913970|NCT04871711|183724827|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|34.3||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||34.3|17.2|<0.001
91808645|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|3.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.5|-0.6|0.237
91763463|NCT04531241|183417402|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort and vision at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.3|-5.5|
91913971|NCT04871711|183724828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|33.0||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||33.0|15.5|<0.001
91913972|NCT04871711|183724829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-23.8||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HECSI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-23.8|-46.7|<0.001
91913973|NCT04871711|183724830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.6||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline DLQI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-2.6|-4.7|<0.001
91913974|NCT04871711|183724831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.2||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.2|-2.2|<0.001
91913975|NCT04871711|183724832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD itch score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.2|-2.3|<0.001
91913976|NCT04871711|183724833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.0||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD pain score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.0|-2.1|<0.001
91913977|NCT04871711|183724834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.45||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.45|-0.83|<0.001
91913978|NCT04871711|183724835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.4||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS PDAL score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.40|-0.79|<0.001
91808646|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-4.0|0.224
91763464|NCT01702246|183417421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91763465|NCT01702246|183417422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91763466|NCT01702246|183417423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91763467|NCT04209205|183417446|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|25.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.61|32.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.43|17.61|<.0001
91808647|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.8|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.8|-1.9|0.747
91808648|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28). Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.0|-2.8|0.764
91808649|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|3.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.0|-1.3|0.487
91808650|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.744|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|3.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.2|-2.1|0.744
91808651|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|4.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.1|-1.1|0.340
91808652|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-3.3|0.477
91808653|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|3.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.7|-1.5|0.482
91808654|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.0|-3.1|0.719
91808655|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|4.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.0|-0.7|0.245
91763468|NCT04209205|183417447|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|30.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|40.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.05|21.14|<.0001
91763469|NCT04209205|183417448|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|17.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|23.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.85|10.48|<.0001
91808656|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.586|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|4.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.4|-2.3|0.586
91808657|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|1.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.8|-4.8|0.440
91808658|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|5.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||5.6|-0.5|0.159
91763470|NCT04209205|183417449|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|41.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.64|52.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||52.13|30.64|<.0001
91763471|NCT04209205|183417450|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-1.38|<.0001
91763472|NCT04209205|183417451|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.32|<.0001
91763473|NCT04209205|183417452|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.676|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|2.80|<.0001
91763474|NCT04209205|183417453|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.68|1.01|0.0024
91763475|NCT04209205|183417454|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|-3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.26|-8.96|<.0001
91913979|NCT04871711|183724836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|33.9||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||33.9|15.0|<0.001
91913980|NCT01665144|183724838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.95|0.65|0.0134
91913981|NCT01665144|183724839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.10|0.80|0.4398
91913982|NCT01665144|183724840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-613.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-800.2|-426.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Month 12||-426.0|-800.2|<0.0001
91913983|NCT01665144|183724840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-777.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|108.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-990.6|-564.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Month 24||-564.4|-990.6|<0.0001
91913984|NCT01665144|183724840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-695.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-877.3|-513.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Average over Month 12 and Month 24||-513.3|-877.3|<0.0001
91913985|NCT01665144|183724841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.92|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.92|0.60|0.0058
91913986|NCT01665144|183724842|SUPERIORITY||ARR ratio|0.445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.587|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.587|0.337|<0.0001
91913987|NCT01665144|183724843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.7|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.70|0.41|<0.0001
91913988|NCT01665144|183724845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.19|||Repeated measures model|||Month 12||0.19|-3.85|0.0764
91913989|NCT01665144|183724845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.359||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|1.44|||Repeated measures model|||Month 24||1.44|-3.89|0.3671
91913990|NCT01665144|183724846|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.126|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.191|||Negative binomial regression model|||Month 12||0.191|0.083|<0.0001
91763476|NCT04209205|183417455|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|27.49||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.43|42.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.55|12.43|0.0003
91913991|NCT01665144|183724846|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.178|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.362|||Negative binomial regression model|||Month 24||0.362|0.087|<0.0001
91913992|NCT01665144|183724847|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.266|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.328|||Regression model|Repeated measures negative binomial regression model||Month 12||0.328|0.215|<0.0001
91913993|NCT01665144|183724847|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.142|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.196|||Regression model|Repeated measures negative binomial regression model||Month 24||0.196|0.103|<0.0001
91913994|NCT01665144|183724848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0367|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.247|||Repeated measures model|||Month 12||0.247|0.103|<0.0001
91913995|NCT01665144|183724848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0549||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.236|||Repeated measures model|||Month 24||0.236|0.021|0.0196
91913996|NCT01665144|183724849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.11|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Without superimposed relapses at baseline||1.11|0.68|
91913997|NCT01665144|183724849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.91|||Cox proportional hazard model|||With superimposed relapses at baseline||0.91|0.49|
91913998|NCT01665144|183724849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Without superimposed relapses post-treatment||1.06|0.69|
91913999|NCT01665144|183724849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19|||Cox proportional hazard model|||With superimposed relapses post-treatment||1.19|0.53|
91914000|NCT01665144|183724850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.91|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Rapidly evolving patients||0.91|0.46|
91763477|NCT04209205|183417456|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|16.35||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|28.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.82|3.88|0.0102
91763478|NCT00999544|183417466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Area-under-the-curve (AUC) scores were derived from time course data and analyzed using two-factor ANOVA \[aprepitant dose (3 levels)x oxycodone dose (3 levels)\].~All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.1 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and were considered significant when P 0.05."||||<.05
91914001|NCT01665144|183724850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Not rapidly evolving patients||1.09|0.69|
91914002|NCT01665144|183724851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99|||Cox proportional hazard model|||With moderate or severe course of disease||0.99|0.65|
91914003|NCT01665144|183724851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Without moderate or severe course of disease||1.13|0.47|
91914004|NCT02105415|183724880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.7|||ANCOVA|||5 minutes||2.7|-6.9|0.385
91914005|NCT02105415|183724880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.8|||ANCOVA|||10 minutes||2.8|-10.8|0.241
91763479|NCT02178995|183417495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||||||HRTSD p-value = 0.037; p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|Within-subjects contrasts, n=31, df=1||||||0.037
91914006|NCT02105415|183724880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.6|||ANCOVA|||15 minutes||5.6|-7.2|0.802
91914007|NCT02105415|183724881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.605
91914008|NCT02105415|183724882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANCOVA|||Pre-treatment||||0.212
91914009|NCT02105415|183724882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||ANCOVA|||New-onset pressors (within 3 minutes)||||0.308
91914010|NCT02105415|183724882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||ANCOVA|||Delayed-onset pressors (within 24 hrs)||||0.691
91914011|NCT02105415|183724884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.911
91914012|NCT02105415|183724885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||ANCOVA|||Red blood cell||||0.069
91914013|NCT02105415|183724885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|||Non-red blood cell||||0.046
91914014|NCT02105415|183724885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||ANCOVA|||Colloid||||0.502
91914015|NCT02105415|183724886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.994
91914016|NCT02105415|183724887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.233
91914017|NCT00695565|183724944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis does not take into account the subjects' screening capsaicin response (measure of nociceptor function).||||0.168
91914018|NCT00695565|183724944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Each subject was screened for responsiveness of nociceptors in the skin to a capsaicin stimulus (rated on 0-10 pain scale; 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain). The interaction term composed of treatment assignment and capsaicin threshold was examined at the prespecified alpha level of 0.1.~This analysis includes subjects with a capsaicin rating of ≥ 2. Thirty (30) subjects in the Placebo group and 33 subjects in the active Clonidine Topical Gel (ARC-4558) group had capsaicin scores ≥ 2."||||0.014
91914019|NCT01462266|183724958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Adjusting for participant's use of metformin at Visit 1/Screening Visit (i.e., on metformin, or not on metformin)||||-1.2|-8.3|0.009
91914020|NCT01106846|183724963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.947
91914021|NCT00644787|183724966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference of 7.5 mm in VAS score was selected as the threshold value for clinical non-inferiority of Fentanyl 1-day transdermal patch to Fentanyl 3-day transdermal patch.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.23||||||||6.23|-3.50|
91914022|NCT01680900|183724980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.48|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.48|-2.60|0.05
91914023|NCT01680900|183724981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91914024|NCT01680900|183724982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.08|-0.75|<0.05
91914025|NCT01680900|183724986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.21|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.21|-0.74|0.05
91914026|NCT03048422|183724987|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.7||||||Difference in proportions for intention-to-treat analysis.||10.7|2.0|
91914027|NCT03048422|183724987|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.3||||||Difference in proportions for per-protocol analysis.||10.3|1.6|
91914028|NCT03048422|183724987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.7|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference in proportions for superiority and intention-to-treat analysis.||10.7|2.0|0.005
91914029|NCT03048422|183724988|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-0.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||-0.3|-17.3|0.043
91914030|NCT03048422|183724988|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||9.1|-8.8|0.97
91914031|NCT03048422|183724988|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-0.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.1|-17.1|0.047
91914032|NCT03048422|183724989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|2.9|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||2.9|-14.2|0.098
91914033|NCT03048422|183724989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|11.7|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF-EFV/FTC/TDF).||11.7|-5.9|0.26
91763480|NCT02178995|183417495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||D' p = 0.055. p \< 0.05 considered significant.|ANOVA|Within-subjects contrasts, placebo v 10mg v 20mg.||||||0.055
91763481|NCT02178995|183417495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRTSD 10mg vs 20mg||||0.758
91763482|NCT02178995|183417495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||d' 10mg vs 20mg||||0.499
91763483|NCT02178995|183417496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
91763484|NCT02178995|183417496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SDMT 10mg vs 20mg||||0.071
91763485|NCT02178995|183417497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.154
91763486|NCT02178995|183417497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MCG 10mg vs 20mg||||0.779
91763487|NCT02178995|183417498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||HRTSD P\<0.0001|t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group comparison, HRTSD||||<0.0001
91914034|NCT03048422|183724989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|5.8|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF-EFV/FTC/TDF).||5.8|-11.3|0.26
91914035|NCT03048422|183724990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|6.3|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimated difference of DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF.||6.3|-12.8|0.25
91914036|NCT03048422|183724990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|7.5|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TDF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||7.5|-12.1|0.32
91914037|NCT03048422|183724990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|3.2|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TAF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||3.2|-14.3|0.11
91914038|NCT03048422|183724991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|22.0|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference in proportions between arms for intention-to-treat analysis with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG groups - EFV/FTC/TDF).||22.0|9.3|< 0.0001
91914039|NCT03048422|183724992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference in proportions for intention-to-treat analysis with null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG arms - EFV/FTC/TDF).||3.2|-3.3|0.97
91914040|NCT03048422|183724993|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.1|||Kaplan-Meier|||||3.1|1.9|< 0.001
91914041|NCT03048422|183724994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|9.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||9.1|-1.8|0.19
91914042|NCT03048422|183724994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-5.2|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-5.2|-17.9|< 0.001
91914043|NCT03048422|183724994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-1.2|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-1.2|-14.6|0.022
91808659|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||2.4|-1.6|0.720
91808660|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||1.9|-2.0|0.991
91914044|NCT03048422|183724995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||10.1|-5.9|0.61
91914045|NCT03048422|183724995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||6.6|-9.4|0.74
91914046|NCT03048422|183724995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.8|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||8.8|-7.4|0.86
91914047|NCT03048422|183724996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.9|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG groups - EFV/FTC/TDF).||11.9|-3.4|0.27
91914048|NCT03048422|183724997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|7.5|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference combined DTG arms-EFV/FTC/TDF.||7.5|-7.6|0.49
91914049|NCT03048422|183724998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|12.0|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimated difference of combined DTG arms - EFV/FTC/TDF.||12.0|-3.8|0.15
91914050|NCT03048422|183724999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-0.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||-0.3|-17.3|0.043
91914051|NCT03048422|183724999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||8.6|-9.3|0.95
91914052|NCT03048422|183724999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.1||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.6|-17.6|0.037
91914053|NCT03048422|183725000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06|||Regression, Ordinal|||Null hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1, with odds of experiencing a worse outcome equal between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||1.06|0.50|0.095
91914054|NCT03048422|183725000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.19|||Regression, Ordinal|||Null hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1, with odds of experiencing a worse outcome equal between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||1.19|0.58|0.30
91914055|NCT03048422|183725000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Regression, Ordinal|||Null hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1, with odds of experiencing a worse outcome equal between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.88|0.42|0.008
91914056|NCT03048422|183725001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||2.1|-1.2|0.28
91914057|NCT03048422|183725001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.4|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||1.4|-1.5|0.47
91914058|NCT03048422|183725001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||2.2|-1.3|0.31
91914059|NCT03048422|183725002|SUPERIORITY|The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimated difference of DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.3|||Z-test|||||1.3|-3.4|0.20
91914060|NCT03048422|183725002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.9|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TDF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||-0.9|-8.9|0.008
91914061|NCT03048422|183725002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-2.2|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TAF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||-2.2|-9.7|<0.001
91914062|NCT03048422|183725003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.093||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.023|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference in weekly change in creatinine clearance from baseline (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.023|-0.208|0.12
91914063|NCT03048422|183725003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.158|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference in weekly change in creatinine clearance from baseline (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.158|-0.061|0.39
91914064|NCT03048422|183725003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.072|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference in weekly change in creatinine clearance from baseline (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.072|-0.161|0.45
91914065|NCT03048422|183725004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|10.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at delivery (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||10.5|-11.3|0.94
91914066|NCT03048422|183725004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|14.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at delivery (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||14.9|-6.5|0.44
91914067|NCT03048422|183725004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at delivery (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||9.3|-1.8|0.18
91914068|NCT03048422|183725004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|31.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at week 26 (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||31.1|-8.9|0.27
91914069|NCT03048422|183725004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at week 26 (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.1|-22.6|0.048
91914070|NCT03048422|183725004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|20.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at week 26 (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||20.5|-21.0|0.98
91914071|NCT03048422|183725005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||1.3|-3.1|0.40
91914072|NCT03048422|183725005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.6|-8.0|0.023
91914073|NCT03048422|183725005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.8|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-1.8|-8.7|0.003
91914074|NCT03048422|183725007|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|1.5|||Wald test of two proportions|||||1.5|-8.8|0.16
91914075|NCT03048422|183725007|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||||3.3|-8.7|0.38
91914076|NCT03048422|183725007|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.9|||Wald test of two proportions|||||-0.9|-11.8|0.023
91914077|NCT03048422|183725008|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.5|||Wald test of two proportions|||||1.5|-13.9|0.12
91914078|NCT03048422|183725008|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|10.0|||Wald test of two proportions|||||10.0|-6.0|0.63
91914079|NCT03048422|183725008|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|3.4|||Wald test of two proportions|||||3.4|-11.7|0.28
91914080|NCT03048422|183725009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.103|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.103|0.013|0.011
91914081|NCT03048422|183725009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.07|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.070|-0.014|0.19
91914082|NCT03048422|183725009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.133|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.133|0.040|< 0.001
91914083|NCT03048422|183725010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.048|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.048|-0.005|0.11
91914084|NCT03048422|183725010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.049|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.049|-0.000|0.055
91914085|NCT03048422|183725010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.07|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.070|0.022|< 0.001
91914086|NCT03048422|183725011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.045|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.045|0.001|0.041
91914087|NCT03048422|183725011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.055|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.055|0.013|0.002
91914088|NCT03048422|183725011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.078|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.078|0.036|< 0.001
91914089|NCT04247425|183725028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||0.59
91889850|NCT02206061|183672661|OTHER|Repeated measure analyses testing the overall treatment effect were performed by fitting the Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) with SFD at the three follow-up time points (3, 5, 7 months) as the dependent variable and treatment as independent variable. Normal error and identity link was specified and standard error was calculated using Sandwich estimator. Baseline SFDs, poverty level, and the presence of smokers in the home were controlled in the regression model.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
91889851|NCT01077518|183672696|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox propor.hazards regression|0.82||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.07|0.62|0.1390
91889852|NCT01077518|183672697|OTHER||Stratified Cox propor.hazards regression|0.76||||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.06|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.06|0.55|0.1076
91889853|NCT01077518|183672698|OTHER|||||||0.8003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for stratum||for All participants||||0.8003
91889854|NCT01077518|183672699|OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for stratum||for Follicular Lymphoma (FL) participants||||0.6130
91889855|NCT01077518|183672700|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.21|||Stratified Log Rank|||for All patients||1.21|0.62|0.4046
91889856|NCT01077518|183672701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25|||Stratified Log Rank|||for FL participants||1.25|0.55|0.3768
91889857|NCT04662060|183672732|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.04||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model|Two-sided Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, and receipt of baseline receipt of monoclonal antibodies.||A two-sided log rank test at the 0.04999 level of significance for the final analysis required 78 events (i.e., sustained symptom resolution) to provide 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.91. Based on previous outpatient COVID-19 trials at Stanford, assumed placebo and treatment arm median time to symptom resolution of 10 and 5 days, respectively, for a total sample size of 120 patients. Participants with missing data lasting through Day 28 were censored on Day 28.||1.04|0.34|0.07
91889858|NCT04662060|183672733|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Linear mixed-effects regression model|||A generalized linear mixed effects model with parameterization was utilized to capture the difference in change in viral shedding at day 10 between treatment arms. SARS-CoV2 viral RNA CT values were transformed using a standard Reference curve.||||0.20
91889859|NCT04662060|183672735|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.01|||Linear mixed-effects regression model|||||1.01|0.38|0.05
91889860|NCT04662060|183672736|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.01||||||||1.01|0.34|
91889861|NCT04662060|183672737|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence of ED visits||||0.21
91889862|NCT04157400|183672739|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
91889863|NCT04157400|183672740|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91889864|NCT04157400|183672741|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Segments of EMG recorded during walking at self-selected walking speed were used to investigate complexity of muscle synergies using a nonnegative matrix factorization (NNMF) algorithm (MATLAB®, Mathworks, Natick, MA). The approach involves calculation of an mxt matrix of the original EMG data (EMG0), where m represents the number of muscles being measured and t represents a time base normalized to percentage of gait cycle. The algorithm also calculates two surrogate matrices, mxn and nxt, where n is the amplitude of muscle activation. The product of the surrogate matrices are considered a reconstruction of EMG (EMGr). EMGr for each module is then compared to EMG0 by finding the variability accounted for (VAF). A threshold necessary for module classification was chosen to be 90% for all conditions (8 muscles + 6 phases of gait) based on similar studies in the literature. Classifications were not increased unless the higher module VAF was at least 5% higher than the preceding module.|||
91889865|NCT02819024|183672745|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
91889866|NCT03548220|183672780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||2-sided p-value|Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91889867|NCT03548220|183672781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|18.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.41|24.01|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 2.913|||24.01|12.41|<0.0001
91889868|NCT03548220|183672784|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.82|-14.7|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 5.788|||-14.70|-37.82|<0.0001
91889869|NCT03548220|183672785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.81||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.88|-25.74|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 22.488|||-25.74|-115.88|0.0027
91889870|NCT03548220|183672786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.158||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.273|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 0.0578|||0.273|0.043|0.0079
91889871|NCT03548220|183672787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1391|-0.0632|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 0.01904|||-0.0632|-0.1391|<0.0001
91889872|NCT03548220|183672788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.11||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.41|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 1.352|||-0.41|-5.80|0.0247
91889873|NCT03548220|183672789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.25||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-0.12|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 1.574|||-0.12|-6.39|0.0421
91889874|NCT05718466|183672855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
91889875|NCT05718466|183672856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
91889876|NCT01882543|183672857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||A sample size of 28 subjects per group had 80% power to detect a 1.5-point difference in the change from baseline pain score between AQX-1125 and placebo assuming a between-subject SD of 2.0 and a 2-sided 5% significance level. Average daily pain scores were calculated using an average of up to the last 7 recordings within 9 days before each visit. Missing data, including premature discontinuation, was imputed using the LOCF approach for the primary efficacy end point of average daily pain score||0.0|-2.1|0.061
91889877|NCT01882543|183672858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||E-diary maximum daily pain scores were calculated using an average of up to the last 7 recordings within 9 days before each visit. Missing data, including premature discontinuation, was imputed using the LOCF approach for the secondary efficacy variable of maximum daily pain score||-0.1|-2.5|0.030
91763488|NCT02178995|183417498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||HRTSD p \<0.001 for healthy controls|t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group comparison, HRTSD, healthy controls||||0.001
91763489|NCT02178995|183417498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group comparisons by 2-way ANOVA, HRTSD||||0.322
91763490|NCT02178995|183417498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group comparison, epilepsy, D'||||<0.0001
91763491|NCT02178995|183417498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group analysis, healthy controls, d'||||0.037
91763492|NCT02178995|183417498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Intra-group analysis by 2-way ANOVA, d'||||0.08
91763493|NCT02178995|183417499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91763494|NCT02178995|183417499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
91763495|NCT02178995|183417499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|||||||ANOVA|||Group x time interaction by 2-way ANOVA||||0.443
91808661|NCT02310568|183493993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|2.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||2.4|-1.5|0.704
91763496|NCT02178995|183417500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91763497|NCT02178995|183417500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91763498|NCT02178995|183417500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||ANOVA|||Between-groups analysis by 2-way ANOVA||||0.906
91763499|NCT02178995|183417501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.274
91763500|NCT02178995|183417502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91763501|NCT02178995|183417503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Hits p = 0.04|ANOVA|||||||0.04
91889878|NCT01882543|183672859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.5|-2.8|0.008
91889879|NCT01882543|183672860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.2|-3.0|0.028
91889880|NCT01882543|183672861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-1.3|-9.5|0.011
91889881|NCT01882543|183672862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.4||ICSI/PI|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-1.4|-8.8|0.007
91889882|NCT01882543|183672862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.9||ICSI|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.9|-4.6|0.005
91889883|NCT01882543|183672862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.5||ICPI|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.5|-4.5|0.014
91889884|NCT01882543|183672863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.6||Mental Component|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||3.6|-6.3|0.592
91889885|NCT01882543|183672863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.7||Physical Component|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||6.7|-1.6|0.221
91889886|NCT01882543|183672864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.1|-5.5|0.040
91889887|NCT01253135|183672866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.3393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.84|||Prentice-Wilcoxon test||The Confidence Interval was based on a t-distribution|||0.84|-3.08|.3393
91889888|NCT01253135|183672867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Testing was by a Log Rank test with significance being at P \< 0.05||||||.4771
91889889|NCT00264303|183672887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.005||95.0|0.08|0.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline CIU composite score as covariate.||||0.43|0.08|0.005
91889890|NCT00264303|183672888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.041||95.0|0.01|0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline CIU composite score as covariate||||0.34|0.01|0.041
91889891|NCT00264303|183672889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.004||95.0|0.04|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pruritus severity score as covariate.||||0.22|0.04|0.004
91889892|NCT00264303|183672890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.002||95.0|0.06|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pruritus duration as covariate.||||0.26|0.06|0.002
91889893|NCT00264303|183672891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.009||95.0|0.03|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled centers as factors and baseline pruritus duration score as covariate.||||0.22|0.03|0.009
91763502|NCT02178995|183417503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Omissions p = 0.038|ANOVA|||||||0.038
91763503|NCT02178995|183417503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||||||Commissions p = 0.329|ANOVA|||||||0.329
91763504|NCT02178995|183417503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hits 10mg vs 20mg||||0.876
91763505|NCT02178995|183417503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Omissions 10mg vs 20mg||||0.932
91763506|NCT02178995|183417503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Commissions 10mg vs 20mg||||0.898
91808662|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.9|-0.9|0.539
91889894|NCT00264303|183672892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||<|0.001||95.0|0.07|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline severity as covariate.||The primary hypothesis to be tested in this study was that the clinical efficacy of Levocetirizine 5 mg is superior to that of Desloratidine 5 mg||0.26|0.07|<0.001
91808663|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.9|-0.7|0.439
91889895|NCT02815579|183672893|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|-0.08||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators produced a difference-in-difference estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||0.84|-1.0|0.86
91808664|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-1.6|0.914
91889896|NCT02815579|183672894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|0.32||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||0.92|-0.28|0.23
91889897|NCT02815579|183672895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||3.78|-1.01|0.26
91889898|NCT02815579|183672896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|0.84||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||2.47|-0.79|0.31
91889899|NCT02815579|183672897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|-0.34||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||0.53|-1.22|0.44
91889900|NCT02815579|183672898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||-2.92|-4.16|<0.001
91889901|NCT02815579|183672899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||-0.04|-0.39|0.02
91889902|NCT02815579|183672900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||0.84|-0.82|0.98
91889903|NCT02815579|183672901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||-0.15|-0.59|0.001
91889904|NCT02815579|183672902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|-0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||-0.20|-1.45|0.001
91889905|NCT02815579|183672903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.52|<0.001
91889906|NCT02389452|183672904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91889907|NCT02311673|183672922|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.5|-3.1|0.420
91889908|NCT02311673|183672922|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|One sided p-value.|A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.6|-2.3|0.348
91889909|NCT02311673|183672922|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.9|-1.3|0.779
91889910|NCT02311673|183672924|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.5||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|54.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||54.8|-11.8|0.901
91889911|NCT02311673|183672924|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|18.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||18.5|-26.3|0.362
91889912|NCT02311673|183672924|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|20.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||20.5|-28.0|0.378
91914090|NCT04247425|183725029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||0.02
91763507|NCT02178995|183417504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline rate of seizures (expressed as seizures per 28 days) pre-trial against the rate experienced during the double-blind portion of our trial.||||0.7116
91763508|NCT02178995|183417505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Attention/Concentration subscale||||<0.0001
91763509|NCT02178995|183417505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Memory subscale||||<0.0001
91763510|NCT02178995|183417505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language subscale||||0.002
91763511|NCT02178995|183417505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy/fatigue subscale||||0.001
91763512|NCT02178995|183417506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hits v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||0.003
91763513|NCT02178995|183417506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hits v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.033
91763514|NCT02178995|183417506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||ANOVA|||2-way ANOVA epilepsy vs healthy hits||||0.079
91889913|NCT02311673|183672925|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|62.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||62.2|-20.9|0.840
91889914|NCT02311673|183672925|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.2||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|18.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||18.4|-38.7|0.236
91889915|NCT02311673|183672925|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.4||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|17.4|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|One sided p-value.||||17.4|-44.2|0.191
91889916|NCT02311673|183672926|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.5||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|63.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|63.8|-24.8|0.812
91889917|NCT02311673|183672926|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|27.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||27.4|-29.9|0.464
91889918|NCT02311673|183672926|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|28.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||28.4|-33.6|0.432
91889919|NCT02311673|183672927|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.9||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|93.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||93.2|6.7|0.988
91889920|NCT02311673|183672927|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.0||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|45.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||45.6|-13.7|0.859
91889921|NCT02311673|183672927|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.2||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|54.3||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||54.3|-9.8|0.916
91889922|NCT02311673|183672928|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.7||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|73.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||73.8|-8.4|0.943
91889923|NCT02311673|183672928|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|16.1||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||16.1|-24.4|0.339
91889924|NCT02311673|183672928|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|27.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||27.2|-25.0|0.533
91889925|NCT02311673|183672936|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.6|-3.0|0.439
91889926|NCT02311673|183672936|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.6|-2.3|0.366
91889927|NCT02311673|183672936|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.8|-1.4|0.744
91914091|NCT04247425|183725030|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||1.0
91914092|NCT04247425|183725031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||0.09
91763515|NCT02178995|183417506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Omissions epilepsy v1 vs v5||||0.001
91763516|NCT02178995|183417506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Omissions v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.029
91763517|NCT02178995|183417506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Epilepsy v healthy ANOVA Omissions||||0.048
91763518|NCT02178995|183417506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Commissions v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||<0.0001
91763519|NCT02178995|183417506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Commissions v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.42
91763520|NCT02178995|183417506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||Healthy vs epilepsy ANOVA (2-way) commissions||||0.019
91763521|NCT02178995|183417507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91808665|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-1.3|0.892
91808666|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.0|-0.8|0.463
91889928|NCT02311673|183672937|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.8|-0.7|0.883
91889929|NCT02311673|183672937|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||0.9|-1.3|0.338
91889930|NCT02311673|183672937|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.2|-1.6|0.381
91889931|NCT02311673|183672939|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.0||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|Statistical analysis is provided for percent change from baseline at Day 56.||7.0|-4.5|0.679
91889932|NCT02311673|183672939|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.7||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|Statistical analysis is provided for percent change from baseline at Day 56.||4.7|-3.3|0.641
91889933|NCT02311673|183672939|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|Statistical analysis is provided for percent change from baseline at Day 56.||6.4|-2.6|0.809
91889934|NCT02311673|183672940|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||3.6|-2.6|0.633
91889935|NCT02311673|183672940|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.3|-2.1|0.528
91889936|NCT02311673|183672940|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.9||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.9|-2.0|0.648
91889937|NCT02311673|183672942|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.1||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||3.1|-1.8|0.712
91889938|NCT02311673|183672942|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.5|-1.9|0.414
91889939|NCT02311673|183672942|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.5||One sided p-value|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.5|-1.3|0.732
91889940|NCT01006252|183672944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified log rank|||||||0.121
91914093|NCT00762515|183725047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|baseline is used a factor||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91763522|NCT02178995|183417508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Note: Stimulant side-effect score \*decreased\* with addition of open-label stimulant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91763523|NCT02178995|183417509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BDI epilepsy v1 vs v5||||0.014
91763524|NCT02178995|183417509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Healthy controls BDI v1 vs v5||||0.04
91763525|NCT02178995|183417509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison 2-way ANOVA BDI||||0.191
91763526|NCT02178995|183417509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BAI visit 1 vs visit 5 epilepsy||||0.42
91763527|NCT02178995|183417509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BAI visit 1 vs visit 5 healthy controls||||0.477
91763528|NCT02178995|183417509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||ANOVA|||Between-groups comparison 2-way ANOVA BAI||||0.792
91763529|NCT02178995|183417509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AES visit 1 vs visit 5 epilepsy||||0.045
91763530|NCT02178995|183417509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AES visit 1 vs visit 5 healthy controls||||0.646
91763531|NCT02178995|183417509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||ANOVA|||Between-groups comparison 2-way ANOVA AES||||0.222
91763532|NCT02178995|183417510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Health Perceptions||||0.011
91889941|NCT01006252|183672945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.048||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified log rank|Analysis adjusted for Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH); Disease Stage; Sex; Previous Single Agent Immunotherapy Treatment; Age Group||||||0.048
91889942|NCT01006252|183672946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Unadjusted normal distribution|Unadjusted normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates||||||0.396
91889943|NCT01006252|183672948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Unadjusted normal distribution|Unadjusted normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates.||||||0.483
91889944|NCT01006252|183672949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.505||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified log rank|||||||0.505
91889945|NCT01006252|183672950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value given for Overall Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.902
91889946|NCT01006252|183672950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||P-value given for Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.970
91889947|NCT01006252|183672952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value given for Overall Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.902
91889948|NCT01006252|183672952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||P-value given for Overall Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.970
91889949|NCT01006252|183672953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||95.0||||P-value given for Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.547
91889950|NCT01006252|183672953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value given for Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.414
91889951|NCT01006252|183672955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||95.0||||P-value given for Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.547
91889952|NCT01006252|183672955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value given for Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.414
91889953|NCT00414908|183672958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Non parametric ANCOVA|||The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means respectively in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules are equal). The hypothesis corresponded to the primary objective to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo. A non-parametric ANCOVA was used because the necessary assumptions were not met for the parametric ANCOVA.||||<0.0001
91889954|NCT00414908|183672959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Non parametric ANCOVA|||The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means respectively in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules are equal). The hypothesis corresponded to the primary objective to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo. A non-parametric ANCOVA was used because the necessary assumptions were not met for the parametric ANCOVA.||||0.0002
91914094|NCT00762515|183725048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|baseline to be used a factor||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91763533|NCT02178995|183417510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall QOL (subjectively rated by participants on the scale)||||0.01
91763534|NCT02178995|183417510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Function||||0.164
91763535|NCT02178995|183417510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Role Limitations (Emotional)||||0.065
91763536|NCT02178995|183417510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Role Limitations (Physical)||||0.014
91763537|NCT02178995|183417510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain||||0.128
91763538|NCT02178995|183417510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Work/Driving/Social||||0.026
91763539|NCT02178995|183417510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional Wellbeing||||0.077
91763540|NCT02178995|183417510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Health Discouragement||||0.007
91763541|NCT02178995|183417510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Seizure Worry||||0.063
91889955|NCT00414908|183672960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-112.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|-147.04|-77.87|||ANCOVA|||"The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase capsules are equal).~The hypothesis was to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo.~For this secondary efficacy variable, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was assumed with the treatment group as a fixed factor and the Stool fat at baseline as a covariate."||-77.87|-147.04|<0.0001
91763542|NCT02178995|183417510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Medication Effects||||0.609
91889956|NCT00414908|183672961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-11.68|||<|0.0001||95.0|-17.3|-6.06|||ANCOVA|||"The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase capsules are equal).~The hypothesis was to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo. For this secondary efficacy variable, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was assumed with the treatment group as a fixed factor and the Stool nitrogen at baseline as a covariate."||-6.06|-17.30|<0.0001
91889957|NCT00414908|183672962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.76||||0.005||95.0|-1.27|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||"The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase capsules are equal). The hypothesis was to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase capsules over placebo.~For this secondary efficacy variable, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was assumed with the treatment group as a fixed factor and the Stool frequency at baseline as a covariate."||-0.24|-1.27|0.005
91889958|NCT00414908|183672966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|Mean difference based on all subjects combined using the paired t-test between baseline and visit 8 or early termination||||||<0.001
91889959|NCT04143945|183672980|OTHER|Comparison|Estimated treatment difference|2.6||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.1|||ANOVA|||The intensity of pain was analysed by a fixed analysis of variance model with VAS pain score as the dependent variable, and product, injection side (right side, left side), injection number (first injection, second injection), and participant as fixed effects.||5.1|0.1|0.0395
91889960|NCT01240915|183672998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.69||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||0.69|0.12|0.96
91889961|NCT01240915|183672999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.54|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.22||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 8||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||0.22|-0.19|0.54
91889962|NCT01240915|183673000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.67|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.3||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 8||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||0.30|-0.15|0.67
91889963|NCT01240915|183673007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|1.42||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||1.42|0.73|0.53
91889964|NCT01240915|183673007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.48||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.02|2.14||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||2.14|1.02|0.91
91889965|NCT01240915|183673007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.38||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|2.23||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||2.23|0.86|0.81
91889966|NCT01240915|183673007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.51||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.51|0.59|0.44
91889967|NCT01240915|183673007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72|1.94||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.94|0.72|0.67
91889968|NCT01240915|183673007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.84||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.84|0.68|0.62
91889969|NCT01240915|183673007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|1.57||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.57|0.58|0.95
91889970|NCT01240915|183673007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49|1.36||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.36|0.49|0.30
91889971|NCT01240915|183673008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.17||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.91|1.51||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||1.51|0.91|0.79
91889972|NCT01240915|183673008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|1.63||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||1.63|0.90|0.80
91889973|NCT01240915|183673008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.75||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.63|4.64||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||4.64|1.63|0.99
91914095|NCT00692211|183725049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.32||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Study powered to detect 10% difference in proportion of screening adherence based on alpha of 0.05, beta 0.20.||2.32|1.04|0.01
91914096|NCT00880750|183725098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A standard 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the difference in least square means of the primary pharmacodynamic (PD) variable between the granules formulation and the reference chewable tablet formulation. A critical reference representing +/- 20% of the reference chewable tablet formulation least squares mean was constructed. PD equivalence was to be claimed if the 90% CI was completely contained within the critical reference range of (-3.47, 3.47).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.18|
91914097|NCT00880750|183725099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A standard 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the difference in least square means of the primary pharmacodynamic (PD) variable between the granules formulation and the reference chewable tablet formulation. A critical reference representing +/- 20% of the reference chewable tablet formulation least squares mean was constructed. PD equivalence was to be claimed if the 90% CI was completely contained within the critical reference range of (-3.40, 3.40).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.80|-3.17|
91914098|NCT00880750|183725100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.34||||||90.0|1.26|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|After application of the log transformation AUC 0-48 was analysed using a mixed effect linear model.||The LS means and associated SEs for granules and tablets as well as the difference between granules and tablets were determined. From the LS mean and SE of the difference, a 90% CI was constructed for the difference of the logs of granules and tablets. An exponential transformation was applied to the lower and upper limits of the CI. This created a point estimate and 90% CI for the ratio of LS means for granules to tablets.||1.42|1.26|
91914099|NCT00880750|183725101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.26||||||90.0|1.2|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|After application of the log transformation Cmax was analysed using a mixed effect linear model.||The LS means and associated SEs for granules and tablets as well as the difference between granules and tablets were determined. From the LS mean and SE of the difference, a 90% CI was constructed for the difference of the logs of granules and tablets. An exponential transformation was applied to the lower and upper limits of the CI. This created a point estimate and 90% CI for the ratio of LS means for granules to tablets.||1.33|1.20|
91914100|NCT00880750|183725102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||||90.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|The median difference and 90% CI for the median difference was then calculated based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate for Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test||||0.50|0.00|
91914101|NCT03242954|183725103|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.101|||Regression, Linear|||||0.101|0.001|0.5148
91914102|NCT03242954|183725104|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.389|||Regression, Linear|||||0.389|0.169|<.0001
91914103|NCT03242954|183725105|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.4324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.073|||GEE Linear model|||||0.073|0.001|0.4324
91914104|NCT03242954|183725106|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.374|||GEE Linear model|||||0.374|0.175|<.0001
91914105|NCT02265913|183725108|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% of success|Equivalence ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|105.0|||Fieller's method|||||105|92|
91914106|NCT00670007|183725113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.279|||=|0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|0.53||A 1-sided P-value \< 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Early Start minus Delayed Start (ie, the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval \[CI\] being \> zero) will indicate superiority of Early Start compared with Delayed Start.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (for TLC + FRC combined) was a linear random regression model with country, inspiration state, time since Day 1 \[CE1226\_4001\], and treatment-by time interaction as fixed effects and subject and subject-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.530|-1.089|= 0.752
91914107|NCT00670007|183725113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.371|||=|0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.159|0.417||A 1-sided P-value \< 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Early Start minus Delayed Start (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being \> zero) will indicate superiority of Early Start compared with Delayed Start.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (for TLC) was a linear random regression model with country, time since Day 1 \[CE1226\_4001\], and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and subject and subject-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.417|-1.159|= 0.823
91914108|NCT00670007|183725113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.176|||=|0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.738||A 1-sided P-value \< 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Early Start minus Delayed Start (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being \> zero) will indicate superiority of Early Start compared with Delayed Start.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (for FRC) was a linear random regression model with country, time since Day 1 \[CE1226\_4001\], and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and subject and subject-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.738|-1.09|= 0.648
91914109|NCT00670007|183725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.53||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.179|1.12||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in lung density (for TLC + FRC combined) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects and inspiration state as a repeated random effect.||1.120|-2.179|0.526
91914110|NCT00670007|183725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.486||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.126|1.154||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in lung density (for TLC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||1.154|-2.126|0.558
91914111|NCT00670007|183725114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.019||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.858|1.895||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in lung density (for FRC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||1.895|-1.858|0.984
91763543|NCT02178995|183417510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social Support||||0.626
91763544|NCT02178995|183417510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social Isolation||||0.103
91763545|NCT02178995|183417511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Variability v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||<0.0001
91763546|NCT02178995|183417511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Variability v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.096
91763547|NCT02178995|183417511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Variability 2-way ANOVA healthy vs epilepsy||||0.136
91763548|NCT02178995|183417511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perseverations v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||0.17
91889974|NCT01240915|183673008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.96||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.19|3.25||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||3.25|1.19|0.96
91889975|NCT01240915|183673008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.98||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.15|3.41||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||3.41|1.15|0.95
91889976|NCT01240915|183673008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.3||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.52|3.48||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||3.48|1.52|0.99
91889977|NCT01240915|183673008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.63||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.63|0.74|0.62
91889978|NCT01240915|183673008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.51||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.98|2.32||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.32|0.98|0.89
91889979|NCT01240915|183673009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|2.19||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||2.19|0.66|0.34
91889980|NCT01240915|183673009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|2.23||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||2.23|0.68|0.33
91889981|NCT01240915|183673009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|5.67||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||5.67|0.99|0.10
91889982|NCT01240915|183673009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28|1.55||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.55|0.28|0.74
91889983|NCT01240915|183673009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|2.64||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||2.64|0.41|0.48
91889984|NCT01240915|183673009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|2.03||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.03|0.38|0.58
91889985|NCT01240915|183673009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.33|1.66||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.66|0.33|0.68
91889986|NCT01240915|183673009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21|1.23||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.23|0.21|0.84
91889987|NCT01240915|183673010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|3.07||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||3.07|0.22|0.57
91889988|NCT01240915|183673011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|1.23||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.23|0.12|0.85
91889989|NCT01240915|183673012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.21|4.24||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||4.24|1.21|0.05
91889990|NCT01240915|183673012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.95||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||1.95|0.61|0.43
91889991|NCT01240915|183673012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|2.76||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||2.76|0.45|0.44
91889992|NCT01240915|183673012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|3.04||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||3.04|0.50|0.38
91889993|NCT01240915|183673012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|1.04||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.04|0.14|0.89
91889994|NCT01240915|183673012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|2.42||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.42|0.45|0.47
91889995|NCT01240915|183673012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|3.57||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||3.57|0.70|0.24
91889996|NCT01240915|183673012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|1.32||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.32|0.22|0.81
91889997|NCT01240915|183673013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|1.24||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.24|0.20|0.84
91889998|NCT01240915|183673014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.73||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||0.73|0.12|0.96
91889999|NCT01240915|183673015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.87|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|1.24||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.24|-0.08|0.87
91890000|NCT01240915|183673016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.8|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.74||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||0.74|-0.15|0.80
91890001|NCT01240915|183673016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.77|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|0.84||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||0.84|-0.23|0.77
91890002|NCT01240915|183673016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.666||0.74|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.42|1.3||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.30|-0.42|0.74
91914112|NCT00670007|183725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.294||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.645|4.233||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the percent change in lung density (for TLC + FRC combined) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects and inspiration state as a repeated random effect.||4.233|-3.645|0.883
91914113|NCT00670007|183725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.151||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.172|3.87||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the percent change in lung density (for TLC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||3.870|-4.172|0.941
91914114|NCT00670007|183725115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|1.787||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|6.014||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the percent change in lung density (for FRC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||6.014|-2.440|0.404
91914115|NCT00618722|183725125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||0.0|-0.9|0.043
91914116|NCT00618722|183725125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||0.0|-0.8|0.050
91914117|NCT00618722|183725125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||0.2|-0.7|0.249
91763549|NCT02178995|183417511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perseverations v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.104
91763550|NCT02178995|183417511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|||||||ANOVA|||Perseverations 2-way ANOVA healthy vs epilepsy||||0.661
91808667|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.611|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.1|-2.1|0.611
91808668|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.4|-0.6|0.321
91914118|NCT00618722|183725126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||3.1|0.7|0.003
91914119|NCT00618722|183725126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||2.6|0.1|0.030
91914120|NCT00618722|183725126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||2.8|0.4|0.012
91763551|NCT02178995|183417512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|||||||ANOVA|||Variability ANOVA||||0.397
91763552|NCT02178995|183417512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|||Perseverations ANOVA||||0.745
91763553|NCT02178995|183417512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||10mg vs 20mg variability||||0.362
91763554|NCT02178995|183417512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||10mg vs 20mg perseverations||||0.745
91763555|NCT02178995|183417513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||HRT ANOVA||||0.48
91763556|NCT02178995|183417513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRT 10mg vs 20mg||||0.793
91763557|NCT02178995|183417514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRT v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||0.5
91763558|NCT02178995|183417514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRT v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.075
91763559|NCT02178995|183417514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||HRT epilepsy vs healthy ANOVA||||0.2
91808669|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.3|-0.5|0.294
91808670|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-1.7|0.987
91914121|NCT00618722|183725127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|38.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|65.2|||Fisher Exact|||||65.2|12.6|0.015
91914122|NCT00618722|183725127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|28.9||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|57.5|||Fisher Exact|||||57.5|0.4|0.096
91914123|NCT00618722|183725127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|44.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|68.8|||Fisher Exact|||||68.8|20.6|0.003
91914124|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.6|0.0|0.078
91914125|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Repeated easures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.4|-0.3|0.781
91914126|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.5|-0.1|0.146
91763560|NCT00287222|183417515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage progression free at 27 weeks|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.97||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|53.0|||one-sided exact binomial test|||Estimating the percentage of participants that remain free of disease progression at 27 weeks from the onset of treatment, and testing that proportion against a null-hypothesis proportion of 0.04 using the one-sided exact binomial test at 5% alpha, based upon historical data from the literature.||53|10|0.0006
91890003|NCT01240915|183673016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.645||0.88|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|1.59||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.59|-0.08|0.88
91890004|NCT01240915|183673016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.705||0.72|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|1.33||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.33|-0.50|0.72
91890005|NCT01240915|183673016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.656||0.97|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|2.06||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.06|0.37|0.97
91890006|NCT01240915|183673016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.75|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|1.25||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.25|-0.39|0.75
91890007|NCT01240915|183673016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||0.85|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|1.63||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.63|-0.16|0.85
91890008|NCT01240915|183673017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753||0.75|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|1.49||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.49|-0.46|0.75
91890009|NCT01240915|183673018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.51|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.19||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||0.19|-0.18|0.51
91890010|NCT01240915|183673018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|0.25||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||0.25|-0.16|0.62
91890011|NCT01240915|183673018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.29|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|0.16||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||0.16|-0.39|0.29
91890012|NCT01240915|183673018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.74|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|0.4||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||0.40|-0.14|0.74
91890013|NCT01240915|183673018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.36|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.37|0.21||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||0.21|-0.37|0.36
91890014|NCT01240915|183673018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.56|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|0.34||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||0.34|-0.26|0.56
91890015|NCT01240915|183673018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|0.09||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||0.09|-0.51|0.18
91890016|NCT01240915|183673018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.31|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|0.2||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||0.20|-0.45|0.31
91890017|NCT02574845|183673024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T1/REF (%)|101.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.49|116.15|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 10 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||116.15|89.49|
91890018|NCT02574845|183673024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T2/REF (%)|106.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.12|117.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 50 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||117.11|96.12|
91890019|NCT02574845|183673024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T3/REF (%)|152.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.12|171.41|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 500 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||171.41|135.12|
91890020|NCT02574845|183673024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T4/REF (%)|106.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.34|121.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 1 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||121.30|94.34|
91890021|NCT02574845|183673024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T5/REF (%)|115.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.93|131.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 5 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||131.82|101.93|
91890022|NCT02574845|183673025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T1/REF (%)|102.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.19|120.42|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 10 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||120.42|87.19|
91890023|NCT02574845|183673025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T2/REF (%)|106.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.54|123.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 50 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||123.69|92.54|
91914127|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.6|0.0|0.076
91914128|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.3|-0.3|0.975
91914129|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.5|-0.1|0.183
91914130|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.7|0.1|0.017
91914131|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.7|0.1|0.022
91914132|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.6|0.0|0.081
91914133|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.2|0.510
91914134|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.2|-0.5|0.330
91890024|NCT02574845|183673025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T3/REF (%)|154.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.7|180.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 500 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||180.24|131.70|
91914135|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.3|0.720
91914136|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.5|-0.1|0.205
91914137|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.2|-0.5|0.410
91914138|NCT00618722|183725128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.4|-0.2|0.436
91914139|NCT00618722|183725129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|12.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||12.3|-9.1|0.762
91914140|NCT00618722|183725129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|5.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|14.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||14.2|-3.8|0.248
91914141|NCT00618722|183725129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.3||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|19.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||19.1|-0.4|0.061
91914142|NCT00925600|183725131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper bound of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval, or equivalently upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority bound of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|7.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The primary endpoint was summarized with the point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||7.2|-6.3|0.0026
91914143|NCT00925600|183725132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.0||||||The point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||2.0|-6.4|
91914144|NCT00925600|183725133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.3||||||The point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||5.3|-5.9|
91890025|NCT02574845|183673025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T4/REF (%)|106.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.78|124.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 1 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||124.30|91.78|
91914145|NCT00925600|183725134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.3||||||The point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||3.3|-7.6|
91914146|NCT00624221|183725138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size of 40 subjects was estimated based on having 80% power to determine greater than 10% difference in cell loss between groups with estimated standard deviation of 17 and estimated correlation of 0.5.||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired difference t-test|||||||0.10
91914147|NCT00200057|183725183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81||No multiplicity adjustments were made for the primary outcome analysis. Two-tailed p-values were considered statistically significant if they were less than 0.05.|Exact Binomial|||The exact Binomial test (two-sided) for one-sample proportions was used to test the null hypothesis that the success rate is equal to 0.5.||0.81|0.64|<0.0001
91914148|NCT00200057|183725184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Exact Binomial|||The exact Binomial test (two-sided) for one-sample proportions was used to test the null hypothesis that the success rate is equal to 0.5.||0.81|0.64|<0.0001
91914149|NCT00200057|183725185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
91914150|NCT00200057|183725186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
91914151|NCT00200057|183725187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
91914152|NCT00200057|183725188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
91914153|NCT00200057|183725189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.79||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Exact Binomial|||The exact Binomial test (two-sided) for one-sample proportions was used to test the null hypothesis that the success rate is equal to 0.5.||0.79|0.62|<0.0001
91914154|NCT00778830|183725206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8078|2.1491||||||||2.1491|0.8078|
91914155|NCT05512949|183725214|NON_INFERIORITY|The ID-dose regimen is considered non-inferior if the lower bound of the confidence interval (original scale) is no less than half that of the standard dose, giving a NI margin of 0.5 (NI= -0.301 log10 scale).|Geometric mean titer ratio (GMTR)|0.7||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Significance can be considered if P \<0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test with unequal variance, noninferiority (NI) margin of 0.5 and two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||The selection of the noninferiority (NI) margin was based on the pivotal Phase 3 trial by Pittman et al., in 2019 comparing one dose of ACAM2000 and the now licensed 2-dose standard MVA-BN regimen, which provided an estimated relative (peak) immune response of approximately 2-times higher for MVA-BN. An NI margin of 0.5 corresponds to an immune response of the lower-dose MVA-BN at least as high as what would be expected for ACAM2000.||1.0|0.5|0.045
91914156|NCT05512949|183725214|NON_INFERIORITY|The ID-dose regimen is considered non-inferior if the lower bound of the confidence interval (original scale) is no less than half that of the standard dose, giving a NI margin of 0.5 (NI= -0.301 log10 scale).|Geometric mean titer ratio (GMTR)|0.4||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6||Significance can be considered if P \<0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test with unequal variance, noninferiority (NI) margin of 0.5 and two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||The selection of the noninferiority (NI) margin was based on the pivotal Phase 3 trial by Pittman et al., in 2019 comparing one dose of ACAM2000 and the now licensed 2-dose standard MVA-BN regimen, which provided an estimated relative (peak) immune response of approximately 2-times higher for MVA-BN. An NI margin of 0.5 corresponds to an immune response of the lower-dose MVA-BN at least as high as what would be expected for ACAM2000.||0.6|0.3|0.162
91914157|NCT05512949|183725217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.888
91914158|NCT05512949|183725217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.708
91914159|NCT03988907|183725247|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.26||||||||1.26|0.93|
91914160|NCT03988907|183725248|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.2||||||||1.20|1.02|
91914161|NCT03988907|183725249|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.28||||||||1.28|1.06|
91914162|NCT03988907|183725250|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.27||||||||1.27|0.99|
91914163|NCT03988907|183725251|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.3||||||||1.30|1.11|
91914164|NCT03988907|183725252|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.41||||||||1.41|1.14|
91914165|NCT04656990|183725283|SUPERIORITY||Slope|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91914166|NCT04656990|183725286|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.4|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.04
91914167|NCT03106779|183725340|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference in the MMR rate|12.2||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor, i.e. cytogenetic response status (MCyR vs no MCyR) at screening||||22.30|2.19|0.029
91914168|NCT04233229|183725355|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time In Range (TIR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|39.8||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||39.8|15.0|<.001
91914169|NCT04233229|183725356|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time In Range (TIR) during diurnal period at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|35.5||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||35.5|10.6|<.001
91914170|NCT04233229|183725357|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time In Range (TIR) during nocturnal period at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|55.8||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||55.8|25.8|<.001
91914171|NCT04233229|183725358|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Above Range (TAR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-15.0||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||-15.0|-40.5|<.001
91914172|NCT04233229|183725359|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Above Range (TAR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-7.9||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||-7.9|-32.4|0.003
91914173|NCT04233229|183725360|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Below Range (TBR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||1.3|-1.0|0.79
91914174|NCT04233229|183725361|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Below Range (TBR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||0.4|-0.3|0.84
91914175|NCT04233229|183725362|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and glucose variability (% CV Coefficient of Variation) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.6||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||7.6|-0.2|0.060
91914176|NCT04233229|183725363|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with 2 factors: HbA1c value at baseline and study group|Adjusted means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.7||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||-0.7|-1.9|<.001
91914177|NCT04233229|183725364|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and total daily insulin dose at selection|Adjusted means difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.5||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.2|41.2||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||41.2|-78.2|0.52
91914178|NCT04233229|183725365|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and body weight at study initiation visit|Adjusted means difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.1||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||6.1|-0.4|0.08
91914179|NCT04652804|183725366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.19||||||Reference group: Low Intensity Intervention||1.19|1.00|
91914180|NCT04652804|183725366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05||||||Reference Group: Low Intensity Intervention||1.05|0.90|
91914181|NCT04652804|183725366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15||||||Reference group: High Intensity Intervention||1.15|0.80|
91914182|NCT04652804|183725366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||||||Reference group: High Intensity Intervention||1.04|0.77|
91763561|NCT02114606|183417517|OTHER|Overall agreement was calculated using Cohen's Kappa, with endoscopic biopsy as the gold standard.||||||0.0001||||||A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Cohen's Kappa|||All participants enrolled (EoE Patients) provided both a Cytosponge specimen and endoscopic biopsy. The results of these specimens were compared to examine overall agreement.||||0.0001
91763562|NCT01910402|183417534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hypothesis was to show that the antiviral effect of the DTG/ABC/3TC FDC administered QD was non-inferior to QD ATV+RTV+TDF/FTC FDC. Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -12%|Adjusted difference in proportion|10.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|17.8||If the primary and PP analyses both demonstrated non-inferiority, then as per pre-specified analysis, superiority of DTG/ABC/3TC FDC versus ATV+RTV+TDF/FTC FDC was tested in the ITT-E population at the 2-sided 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.8|3.1|0.005
91763563|NCT01910402|183417556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.107|||Multiple Imputed Dataset - MAR|||||0.107|-0.159|0.7053
91763564|NCT01910402|183417557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.106||||0.3165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.101|||Multiple Imputed Dataset - MAR|||||0.101|-0.313|0.3165
91763565|NCT01910402|183417572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.779|||ANCOVA||BSAP ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.779|0.683|<0.001
91763566|NCT01910402|183417572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.693|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|0.741|||ANCOVA||PTP ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.741|0.647|<0.001
91763567|NCT01910402|183417572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.629|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|0.68|||ANCOVA||Osteocalcin ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.680|0.581|<0.001
91890026|NCT02574845|183673025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T5/REF (%)|117.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.27|141.65|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 5 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||141.65|98.27|
91890027|NCT02574845|183673026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T1/REF (%)|101.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.23|114.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 10 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||114.82|89.23|
91890028|NCT02574845|183673026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T2/REF (%)|107.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|117.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 50 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||117.81|97.65|
91890029|NCT02574845|183673026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T3/REF (%)|146.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.21|158.62|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 500 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||158.62|135.21|
91890030|NCT02574845|183673026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T4/REF (%)|105.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|121.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 1 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||121.00|92.20|
91890031|NCT02574845|183673026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T5/REF (%)|118.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.75|130.67|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 5 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||130.67|106.75|
91890032|NCT03151993|183673027|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis would be declared if the lower limit of the 95% CI for an mRS score of 0-1 on day 90 did not cross the margin of noninferiority of 16%. The non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using Welch's t-test for the primary outcome only.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.7|||Welch's t-test|||||20.7|-1.7|<0.01
91890033|NCT01145898|183673046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6261||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||There will be (as shown) differences in the number of subjects based upon the time of analysis due to patient loss, data of insufficient quality at visit, or change in the drug use during period of study (patient switched off treatment by their doctor) so the number of data points varies throughout the analysis by availability.||||.6261
91890034|NCT01145898|183673047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6081||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.6081
91890035|NCT01145898|183673048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1822||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1822
91890036|NCT01145898|183673049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2383
91890037|NCT01145898|183673050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2383
91890038|NCT01145898|183673051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1564||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1564
91890039|NCT01145898|183673052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2265||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2265
91890040|NCT01145898|183673053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4645||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.4645
91890041|NCT01145898|183673054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5998||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5998
91890042|NCT01145898|183673055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8119||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.8119
91890043|NCT01145898|183673056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1319
91890044|NCT01145898|183673057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0199||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.0199
91890045|NCT01145898|183673058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7597
91890046|NCT01145898|183673059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2528||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2528
91890047|NCT03101462|183673071|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A/H1N1 Day 0||||0.89
91890048|NCT03101462|183673071|OTHER|||||||0.00082||||||This is the calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H1N1 Day 7||||0.00082
91890049|NCT03101462|183673071|OTHER|||||||7.6e-05||||||This is the calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H1N1 Day 45||||0.000076
91890050|NCT03101462|183673071|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A/H3N2 Day 0||||0.63
91890051|NCT03101462|183673071|OTHER|||||||0.0186||||||This is the calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H3N2 Day 7||||0.0186
91914183|NCT01235962|183725398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.862||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.063|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.063|0.699|0.1649
91914184|NCT01235962|183725399|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.998||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.311|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.311|0.759|0.9880
91914185|NCT01235962|183725401|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.802||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.954|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.954|0.675|0.0126
91914186|NCT01235962|183725402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.001||||0.9959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.257|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.257|0.796|0.9959
91914187|NCT01235962|183725404|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.693||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.943|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.943|0.510|0.0201
91914188|NCT01235962|183725405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.004||||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.521|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.521|0.662|0.9865
91914189|NCT01235962|183725406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-3.397|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.486|-2.307|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-2.307|-4.486|<.001
91914190|NCT01235962|183725406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.043||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.003|0.917|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.917|-1.003|0.930
91914191|NCT01235962|183725406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.119||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|1.196|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.196|-0.958|0.828
91914192|NCT01235962|183725406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.347||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.658|0.964|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.964|-1.658|0.603
91914193|NCT01235962|183725406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.17||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.843|1.503|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.503|-1.843|0.841
91914194|NCT01235962|183725407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-1.619|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.283|-0.955|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.955|-2.283|<.001
91914195|NCT01235962|183725407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24 M DFS FU)|-0.114||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.522|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.522|-0.750|0.726
91914196|NCT01235962|183725407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36 M DFS FU)|-0.09||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|0.609|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.609|-0.789|0.801
91914197|NCT01235962|183725407|SUPERIORITY||Meat Difference (48 M DFS FU)|-0.212||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.32|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.320|-1.044|0.617
91914198|NCT01235962|183725407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54 M DFS FU)|0.341||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.828|1.51|||adjusted for baseline score using mixedm|||||1.510|-0.828|0.565
91763568|NCT01910402|183417572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.655|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.706|||ANCOVA||Type 1 Collagen C-Telopeptide ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.706|0.609|<0.0001
91763569|NCT01910402|183417572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.852|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|0.914|||ANCOVA||Vitamin D ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.914|0.794|<0.0001
91763570|NCT01910402|183417574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016||95.0||||Week 4|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
91914199|NCT01235962|183725408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-0.077||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.051|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.051|-0.205|0.238
91914200|NCT01235962|183725408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.052||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.081|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.081|-0.185|0.442
91914201|NCT01235962|183725408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.016||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.158|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.158|-0.125|0.819
91914202|NCT01235962|183725408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.119||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.073|||analysis of covariance|analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.073|-0.311|0.223
91914203|NCT01235962|183725408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.203||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|0.028|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.028|-0.435|0.085
91914204|NCT01235962|183725409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-1.394|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-1.129|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-1.129|-1.660|<.001
91914205|NCT01235962|183725409|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (24M DFS FU)|0.117||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.249|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.249|-0.015|0.083
91914206|NCT01235962|183725409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.081||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.236|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.236|-0.074|0.307
91914207|NCT01235962|183725409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.029||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.191|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.191|-0.249|0.796
91914208|NCT01235962|183725409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.016||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.205|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-models||||0.205|-0.237|0.885
91914209|NCT01235962|183725410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Differencec (Week 52)|-0.27||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.092|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.092|-0.633|0.143
91914210|NCT01235962|183725410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|0.069||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.475|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.475|-0.336|0.736
91914211|NCT01235962|183725410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.188||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|0.623|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.623|-0.247|0.397
91914212|NCT01235962|183725410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|0.081||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.649|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.649|-0.488|0.781
91914213|NCT01235962|183725410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.278||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.094|0.539|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.539|-1.094|0.503
91914214|NCT01235962|183725411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 thermo)|-0.717||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.751|1.318|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.318|-2.751|0.490
91914215|NCT01235962|183725411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU- thermo)|-0.285||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.358|1.788|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.788|-2.358|0.788
91914216|NCT01235962|183725411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU- thermo)|1.18||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.901|3.262|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||3.262|-0.901|0.266
91914217|NCT01235962|183725411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - thermo)|0.725||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.779|3.229|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||3.229|-1.779|0.570
91914218|NCT01235962|183725411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - thermo)|2.023||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.205|6.251|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||6.251|-2.205|0.346
91914219|NCT01235962|183725411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 - UI)|-0.018||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.004|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.004|-0.040|0.111
91914220|NCT01235962|183725411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU - UI)|-0.02||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.003|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.003|-0.044|0.094
91914221|NCT01235962|183725411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU - UI)|0.01||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.037|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.037|-0.018|0.490
91914222|NCT01235962|183725411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - UI)|-0.009||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.024|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.024|-0.043|0.580
91914223|NCT01235962|183725411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - UI)|0.017||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.063|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.063|-0.029|0.473
91914224|NCT01235962|183725412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-3.536|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.466|-2.606|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-2.606|-4.466|<.001
91914225|NCT01235962|183725412|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.102||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|0.738|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.738|-0.942|0.812
91914226|NCT01235962|183725412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.233||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.155|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.155|-0.690|0.621
91914227|NCT01235962|183725412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|0.082||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.959|1.122|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.122|-0.959|0.878
91914228|NCT01235962|183725412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|0.412||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.887|1.712|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.712|-0.887|0.533
91914229|NCT01235962|183725413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-1.515|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.078|-0.952|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.952|-2.078|<.001
91914230|NCT01235962|183725413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|0.014||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.561|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.561|-0.534|0.961
91914231|NCT01235962|183725413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.043||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.641|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.641|-0.555|0.888
91914232|NCT01235962|183725413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.061||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.736|0.614|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.614|-0.736|0.858
91914233|NCT01235962|183725413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|0.452||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|1.309|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.309|-0.404|0.300
91914234|NCT01235962|183725414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-0.103||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|0.004|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.004|-0.211|0.059
91914235|NCT01235962|183725414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.041||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.074|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.074|-0.155|0.487
91914236|NCT01235962|183725414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.037||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.16|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.160|-0.085|0.885
91914237|NCT01235962|183725414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.032||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.119|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.119|-0.183|0.676
91914238|NCT01235962|183725414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.015||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.153|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.153|-0.183|0.859
91914239|NCT01235962|183725415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (Week 52)|-1.535|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.769|-1.3|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-1.300|-1.769|<.001
91914240|NCT01235962|183725415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (24M DFS FU)|0.089||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.202|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.202|-0.025|0.127
91914241|NCT01235962|183725415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (36M DFS FU)|0.123||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.255|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.255|-0.009|0.069
91914242|NCT01235962|183725415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (48M DFS FU)|0.049||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.208|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.208|-0.110|0.544
91914243|NCT01235962|183725415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|0.061||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.246|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.246|-0.124|0.518
91914244|NCT01235962|183725416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (Week 52)|-0.374||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.695|-0.053|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.053|-0.695|0.022
91914245|NCT01235962|183725416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (24M DFS FU)|-0.104||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.462|0.253|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.253|-0.462|0.567
91914246|NCT01235962|183725416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.072||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.446|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.446|-0.302|0.706
91914247|NCT01235962|183725416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|0.12||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.583|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.583|-0.343|0.612
91914248|NCT01235962|183725416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.045||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.496|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.496|-0.587|0.870
91914249|NCT01235962|183725417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 - thermo.)|-2.116||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.872|-0.359|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.359|-3.872|0.018
91763571|NCT01910402|183417574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91763572|NCT01910402|183417574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Week 24|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91763573|NCT01910402|183417574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||Week 48|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91763574|NCT02660853|183417618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus during exacerbation.||||0.745
91763575|NCT02660853|183417622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.326
91763576|NCT03594773|183417628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.63|||t-test, 2 sided|df=56, equal variances assumed||||2.63|-3.62|.752
91763577|NCT03594773|183417629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|6.52|||t-test, 2 sided|df=49, equal variances assumed||||6.52|-4.01|.633
91890052|NCT03101462|183673071|OTHER|||||||0.0052||||||This is the calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H3N2 Day 45||||0.0052
91890053|NCT03101462|183673071|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Influenza B Day 0||||0.25
91890054|NCT03101462|183673071|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Influenza B Day 7||||0.061
91890055|NCT03101462|183673071|OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Influenza B Day 45||||0.0025
91890056|NCT03101462|183673072|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.24
91890057|NCT03101462|183673072|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.76
91890058|NCT03101462|183673072|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.06
91890059|NCT03101462|183673072|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.56
91890060|NCT03101462|183673072|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.04
91890061|NCT03101462|183673072|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.16
91890062|NCT03101462|183673072|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.02
91890063|NCT03101462|183673072|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.94
91890064|NCT03101462|183673072|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.002
91890065|NCT03101462|183673072|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.16
91890066|NCT03101462|183673072|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.02
91890067|NCT03101462|183673072|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.98
91890068|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.04
91890069|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.02
91890070|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.95
91890071|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.17
91890072|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.06
91890073|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.14
91890074|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.02
91890075|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.09
91890076|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.01
91890077|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.08
91890078|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.16
91890079|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.76
91890080|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.84
91890081|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.04
91890082|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.07
91890083|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.27
91890084|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.11
91890085|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.46
91890086|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.006
91890087|NCT03101462|183673073|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.41
91890088|NCT03101462|183673074|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H1N1 HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.72
91890089|NCT03101462|183673074|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H3N2 HA, Day 0 and 45||||0.06
91890090|NCT03101462|183673074|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza B HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.75
91890091|NCT03101462|183673074|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H1N1 HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.05
91890092|NCT03101462|183673074|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H3N2 HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.0004
91890093|NCT03101462|183673074|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza B HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.02
91890094|NCT03101462|183673075|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fold increase IgA anti-H1N1 HA, Day 7||||0.02
91890095|NCT03101462|183673075|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fold increase IgA anti-H3N2, Day 7||||0.67
91890096|NCT03101462|183673075|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fold increase IgA anti-influenza B HA, Day 7||||0.30
91914250|NCT01235962|183725417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU - thermo)|-0.253||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.014|1.508|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.508|-2.014|0.778
91914251|NCT01235962|183725417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU - thermo)|0.847||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.724|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||2.724|-1.030|0.376
91914252|NCT01235962|183725417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - thermo)|0.131||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.032|2.294|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||2.294|-2.032|0.905
91914253|NCT01235962|183725417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - thermo)|0.401||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.269|3.071|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||3.071|-2.269|0.768
91914254|NCT01235962|183725417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 - UI)|-0.026||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|-0.007|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.007|-0.044|0.007
91914255|NCT01235962|183725417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU - UI)|-0.016||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.005|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.005|-0.036|0.130
91914256|NCT01235962|183725417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU - UI)|0.007||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.03|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.030|-0.015|0.520
91914257|NCT01235962|183725417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - UI)|-0.014||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.011|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.011|-0.040|0.276
91914258|NCT01235962|183725417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - UI)|-0.007||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.024|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.024|-0.037|0.665
91914259|NCT03543410|183725419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.625||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.489|-0.09||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.090|-6.489|0.044
91763578|NCT03594773|183417630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|4.44|||t-test, 2 sided|df=49, equal variances assumed||||4.44|-2.53|.586
91763579|NCT01200368|183417655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was greater than (\>) -0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||||||Serotype 4: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI).||2.1|-2.2|
91763580|NCT01200368|183417655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.1||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||1.1|-5.2|
91914260|NCT03543410|183725419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.273|0.017||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.017|-6.273|0.051
91914261|NCT03543410|183725420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.658|0.095||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.095|-0.658|0.143
91914262|NCT03543410|183725420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.15||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.150|-0.588|0.243
91914263|NCT01727258|183725423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|14.25||If Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse is better than Colgate Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse and Colgate Regular. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||14.25|7.45|<0.001
91914264|NCT01727258|183725423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.729||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|1.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.67|-5.16|0.314
91914265|NCT01727258|183725423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.735|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|16.03||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||16.03|9.17|<0.001
91914266|NCT01727258|183725424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|8.41||If Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse is better than Colgate Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse and Sensodyne. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.41|3.76|<0.001
91763581|NCT01200368|183417655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.1|-2.1|
91763582|NCT01200368|183417655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 14: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.1|-2.1|
91914267|NCT01727258|183725424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.183||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|2.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.52|-2.16|0.881
91914268|NCT01727258|183725424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.182|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|8.24||Significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.24|3.57|<0.001
91914269|NCT01727258|183725425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.866||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|-1.05||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-1.05|-12.38|0.020
91914270|NCT01727258|183725425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|5.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.78|-5.52|0.964
91914271|NCT01727258|183725425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.845||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|-1.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-1.23|-12.47|0.017
91914272|NCT01727258|183725426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.327||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.35|-13.50|0.039
91914273|NCT01727258|183725426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.317||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.61||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||11.61|-1.50|0.130
91914274|NCT01727258|183725426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.313|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.53|-5.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-5.43|-18.53|<0.001
91914275|NCT01727258|183725427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.163||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|-2.0||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-2.00|-14.51|0.010
91914276|NCT01727258|183725427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|10.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||10.51|-1.98|0.179
91914277|NCT01727258|183725427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.172|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|-6.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-6.25|-18.79|<0.001
91808671|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.3|-1.2|0.599
91914278|NCT01727258|183725428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.543|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.93|-4.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-4.93|-18.93|<0.001
91808672|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.6|-0.7|0.322
91914279|NCT01727258|183725428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.534||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|12.53||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||12.53|-1.44|0.119
91914280|NCT01727258|183725428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|-10.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-10.42|-24.52|<0.001
91914281|NCT00820755|183725461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.959||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.25|||Log Rank|||Exploratory analysis to test the null hypothesis of no difference between maintenance therapy regimen. Model is adjusted by histology (interactive voice response system \[IVRS\]) and tumor response status at the end of combination therapy ('complete response \[CR\] or partial response \[PR\]' versus 'other').||1.250|0.736|0.1265
91914282|NCT00820755|183725463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.774||||0.0622||95.0|0.613|0.976|||Log Rank|||Exploratory analysis to test the null hypothesis of no difference between maintenance therapy regimen. Model is adjusted by histology (IVRS) and tumor response status at the end of combination therapy ('CR or PR' versus 'other').||0.976|0.613|0.0622
91914283|NCT01486199|183725469|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing absorptive clearance in CF children vs adult controls||||0.002
91914284|NCT01486199|183725470|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mucociliary clearance in CF children compared to healthy adults||||0.20
91914285|NCT01486199|183725471|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing absorptive clearance at t=0 vs t=2 years in pediatric CF subjects||||0.24
91914286|NCT01486199|183725472|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing mucociliary clearance at t=0 and t=2yrs in pediatric CF subjects||||0.87
91914287|NCT02063035|183725473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1318|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1318
91914288|NCT03604445|183725479|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
91914289|NCT03604445|183725479|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
91808673|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-2.4|0.704
91914290|NCT03604445|183725479|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
91914291|NCT03604445|183725479|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
91914292|NCT03604445|183725479|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
91914293|NCT03604445|183725479|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.003|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
91914294|NCT03604445|183725479|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.035|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0.001|||
91914295|NCT03604445|183725479|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.176|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0.018|||
91808674|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|2.7|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.7|-2.0|0.804
91914296|NCT03604445|183725479|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.129|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0.83|||
91914297|NCT02551159|183725522|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.32||2 sided|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis of number of deaths||1.32|0.69|0.787
91914298|NCT02551159|183725524|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.39||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.39|0.80|0.634
91914299|NCT02551159|183725526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.8||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.80|0.94|0.287
91914300|NCT02551159|183725526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.76||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.76|0.99|0.028
91914301|NCT02551159|183725527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.37||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of number with a response||0.37|0.10|<0.001
91914302|NCT02551159|183725527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.57||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of number with a response||0.57|0.20|<0.001
91914303|NCT02551159|183725529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27||2 sided|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis of number of deaths||1.27|0.83|0.811
91914304|NCT02551159|183725529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis of number of deaths||1.25|0.87|0.624
91914305|NCT02551159|183725532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.68||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.68|1.10|0.006
91914306|NCT02551159|183725532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.53||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.53|1.06|0.008
91914307|NCT02551159|183725533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.33||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||||0.33|0.13|<0.001
91914308|NCT02551159|183725533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.41||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||||0.41|0.20|<0.001
91914309|NCT01890421|183725554|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|-0.7||||0.8694|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.5||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 1 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant cad per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - primary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||-8.5|0.8694
91914310|NCT01890421|183725554|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|21.7||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 2 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant cad per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - primary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||21.7|<0.0001
91914311|NCT01890421|183725554|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|24.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.6||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 3 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant cad per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - primary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||16.6|<0.0001
91914312|NCT01890421|183725555|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference]|7.4||||0.0455|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.5||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 1 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - additional secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||0.5|0.0455
91914313|NCT01890421|183725555|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference]|34.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|25.2||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 2 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - additional secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||25.2|<0.0001
91914314|NCT01890421|183725555|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|30.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|21.7||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 3 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - additional secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||21.7|<0.0001
91914315|NCT01890421|183725560|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|35.8|||McNemar 2-sided test,alpha level of 5%|||Statistical analysis 1 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on investigator's assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI. Maximum stenosis severity at least \>=50% by QCA.||35.8|18.5|<0.0001
91914316|NCT01890421|183725560|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|34.4|||McNemar 2-sided test,alpha level of 10%|||Statistical analysis 2 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on investigator's assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI. Maximum stenosis severity at least \>=50% by QCA.||34.4|19.9|<0.0001
91914317|NCT03657459|183725609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0096|||||||Chi-squared|Pearsons Chi Square||||||0.0096
91914318|NCT03657459|183725610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||no adjustment|Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square||||||0.90
91914319|NCT01482910|183725675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|13.4||Hierarchical testing procedure was used in the order of pre-defined fixed sequence (primary endpoint first, then confirmatory secondary efficacy point next). A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline BCVA as a covariate, and treatment group and baseline BCVA group (\<45 letters vs ≥45 letters) as fixed factors|Least square mean difference (EYLEA-PDT) was estimated from ANCOVA, where a positive value is in favor of EYLEA.|Null hypothesis: mean changes are identical in both groups. A sample size of 300 subjects with a 3:1 (EYLEA to PDT) randomization ratio is sufficient to detect the superiority of EYLEA to PDT assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a power of 90%, a treatment difference of 7.5 letters and a common standard deviation of 14 letters.||13.4|6.8|<0.0001
91914320|NCT01482910|183725676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|12.9||Hierarchical testing procedure was used in the order of pre-defined fixed sequence (primary endpoint first, then confirmatory secondary efficacy point next). A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted for baseline BCVA group (\<45 letters vs ≥45 letters)|Proportion difference (EYLEA-PDT) was estimated from CMH, where a positive value is in favor of EYLEA.|Null hypothesis: proportions are identical in both groups||12.9|0.4|0.0359
91914321|NCT01058096|183725683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine - placebo|||-1.9|-6.7|0.0004
91914322|NCT01058096|183725684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||MMRM analysis||cariprazine - placebo|||-0.1|-0.7|0.0027
91914323|NCT05099640|183725689|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-395.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-463.07|-328.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-328.66|-463.07|<0.0001
91914324|NCT05099640|183725690|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.973|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.09|-54.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-54.35|-74.09|<0.0001
91914325|NCT05099640|183725691|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|294.24|||Chi-squared|||||294.24|5.30|<0.0001
91914326|NCT05099640|183725692|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.28|245.34|||Chi-squared|||||245.34|12.28|<0.0001
91914327|NCT05099640|183725693|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-289.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.29|-223.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 1 and 2: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-223.50|-356.29|<0.0001
91914328|NCT05099640|183725693|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-375.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.424|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-435.88|-315.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 3 and 4: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-315.06|-435.88|<0.0001
91914329|NCT05099640|183725693|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-395.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-463.07|-328.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 5 and 6: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-328.66|-463.07|<0.0001
91914330|NCT05099640|183725694|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.45|-30.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 1 and 2: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-30.59|-54.45|<0.0001
91914331|NCT05099640|183725694|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.531|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.02|-52.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 3 and 4: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-52.03|-70.02|<0.0001
91914332|NCT05099640|183725694|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.973|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.09|-54.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 5 and 6: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-54.35|-74.09|<0.0001
91914333|NCT05099640|183725699|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-492.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.588|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-614.59|-369.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-369.87|-614.59|<0.0001
91914334|NCT05099640|183725700|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-74.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.436|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.72|-51.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-51.74|-97.72|<0.0001
91914335|NCT01552681|183725715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is testing for treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with adjustments for screening stimulated salivary flow.|ANCOVA|||Missing Week 24 assessments were imputed by carrying forward the last observed post-baseline value.||||0.33
91914336|NCT00236080|183725738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Number of participants analyzed was determined by those participants who had at least 1 postbaseline efficacy assessment. Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. There were 20 patients in each of the 5 treatment groups, for a total of 100 patients. It is expected that the sample size will provide sufficient information for describing the specified evaluations.||||||0.1236||||||The p-value of Overall Treatment to Placebo|ANCOVA|This analysis adjusted for the difference among the treatment groups at baseline.||Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. The null hypothesis was Ho: μplacebo = μ150 = μ200 = μ250 = μprovigil versus Ha: at least 2 of the means are different, where μ represented the change from baseline to the endpoint.||||0.1236
91914337|NCT00236080|183725739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using the adjusted p value from Tukey's least significant difference (LSD) test for armodafinil at 200 mg/day. Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. There were 20 patients in each of the 5 treatment groups, for a total of 100 patients.||||||0.0945||||||The p-value of Overall Treatment to Placebo|ANCOVA|||Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. The null hypothesis was Ho: μplacebo = μ150 = μ200 = μ250 = μprovigil versus Ha: at least 2 of the means are different, where μ represented the change from baseline to the endpoint .||||0.0945
91914338|NCT01214044|183725740|OTHER|A paired t-test was done to see if the time of the dim light melatonin onset changed from baseline to post-treatment.||||||0.2||||||A priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||A within subjects comparison was done to compare the time of the dim light melatonin onset before treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 3) and after treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 11).||||0.2
91914339|NCT01214044|183725741|OTHER|A paired t-test was done to see if the Hamilton-21 score decreased from baseline to post-treatment.||||||0.01||||||A priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test||"We hypothesized that there would be a decrease in the Hamilton-21 score with escitalopram treatment.~A within subjects comparison was done to compare the Hamilton-21 score before treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 3) and after treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 11)."||||0.01
91914340|NCT01214044|183725742|OTHER|A paired t-test was done to see if the Beck Depression Inventory-II score decreased from baseline to post-treatment.||||||0.14||||||A priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test||"We hypothesized that there would be a decrease in the Beck Depression Inventory-II score with escitalopram treatment.~A within subjects comparison was done to compare the Beck Depression Inventory-II score before treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 3) and after treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 11)."||||0.14
91808675|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-3.2|0.559
91914341|NCT01214044|183725743|OTHER|Spearman's rank-order correlation (non-parametric test) was used.||||||0.06||||||Spearman's rho (rs) = 0.66|Spearman's rank-order correlation|||We hypothesized that there would be a correlation between the change in phase angle difference and the decrease in the Hamilton-21 score with escitalopram treatment. The phase angle difference is the interval, in hours, between the dim light melatonin onset (a marker of biological time) and the average midpoint of sleep during the prior week.||||0.06
91808676|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|3.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.4|-1.0|0.369
91808677|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.313|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|4.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.3|-1.1|0.313
91808678|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|3.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.6|-1.8|0.560
91914342|NCT01214044|183725743|OTHER|Spearman's rank-order correlation (non-parametric test) was used.||||||0.48||||||Spearman's rho (rs) = 0.02|Spearman's rank-order correlation|||We hypothesized that there would be a correlation between the change in phase angle difference and the decrease in the Beck Depression Inventory-II score with escitalopram treatment. The phase angle difference is the interval, in hours, between the dim light melatonin onset (a marker of biological time) and the average midpoint of sleep during the prior week.||||0.48
91914343|NCT04698525|183725744|NON_INFERIORITY|"A new treatment (memantine) that is not much worse or non-inferior to the standard treatment (valproate) may be attractive if, compared to it, it is expected to cause fewer side effects or improve quality of life or if its dosing regimen is easier to tolerate."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||"Comparison between VPA and Memantine was:~0.9 p-value (two-tailed)"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"Memantine 3.534 z corrected for ties 0.0004 p-value (two-tailed)~VPA 3.418 z corrected for ties 0.0006 p-value (two-tailed)"||Null hypothesis: Memantine is as effective as valproate in treating episodic migraine.|We made also student t|10|0|0.9
91914344|NCT02211261|183725792|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|17.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.44|36.95|||||PF-06293620 0.3 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||36.95|8.44|
91808679|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|3.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.2|-1.8|0.635
91914345|NCT02211261|183725792|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|32.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.64|49.51|||||PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||49.51|21.64|
91914346|NCT02211261|183725792|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|35.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.6|51.95|||||PF-06293620 3.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||51.95|23.60|
91914347|NCT02211261|183725792|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|53.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.36|77.78|||||PF-06293620 6.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||77.78|36.36|
91808680|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.538|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|3.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.8|-1.8|0.538
91914348|NCT02211261|183725794|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|7.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.7|11.4|||||PF-06293620 0.3 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||11.40|4.70|
91914349|NCT02211261|183725794|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|32.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.67|50.12|||||PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||50.12|20.67|
91914350|NCT02211261|183725794|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|34.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.57|52.52|||||PF-06293620 3.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||52.52|22.57|
91914351|NCT02211261|183725794|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|51.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.26|77.31|||||PF-06293620 6.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||77.31|34.26|
91914352|NCT02175680|183725824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|The time to Virologic Failure for the subjects treated with PRO 140 monotherapy was compared to historical data.|||The median time to Virologic Failure for historical controls was 29 days.|||<0.0001
91914353|NCT01913483|183725847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9458||||||The primary endpoint analysis was to assess the superiority of bivalirudin versus UFH in BARC ≥3 bleeds within the 48 hours post study drug initiation or at hospital discharge, whichever occurred first.|Chi-squared|||Assuming a bleeding event rate of 5.0% in the heparin control treatment group and 3.2% in the bivalirudin group (36% relative risk reduction, a sample size of 3900 participants was to provide more than 80% power with a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05). This estimate took into consideration that the interim efficacy analysis was to be performed when approximately 70% of participants were enrolled using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.||||0.9458
91914354|NCT00535925|183725857|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Cox Shared Frailty Model, adjusted for age, sex, SBP, Hb, eGFR, albuminuria, HbA1c, total cholesterol, triglycerides (log-scaled) to reduce bias risk.||||||<0.05
91914355|NCT04506294|183725890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.536
91914356|NCT02986230|183725935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on the composite of cancer screening by 1 year post-index for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two contrasts were 2-sided with P-values \< 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
91914357|NCT02986230|183725935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on the composite of cancer screening by 1 year post-index date for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in randomization process. Tests of the planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values \< 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
91914358|NCT02986230|183725936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on completion of the HPV vaccination series by 12 months post-index date. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
91914359|NCT02986230|183725936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on completion of the HPV vaccination series by 12 months post-index date. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
91914360|NCT02986230|183725937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on completion of lung cancer screening by 12 months post-index date. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
91914361|NCT02986230|183725937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the intervention effect on the completion of lung cancer screening by 12 months post-index. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
91914362|NCT00874250|183725938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.98||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|0.996|||Binomial Test|||||0.996|0.895|0.0024
91914363|NCT01469000|183725947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.93||1-sided.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for gender, performance status, previous adjuvant /neoadjuvant treatment, age, smoking history, mutation type, and country.||||0.93|0.48|0.009
91914364|NCT01469000|183725948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9||1 sided.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for gender, performance status, previous adjuvant /neoadjuvant treatment, age, smoking history, mutation type, and country.||||0.90|0.46|0.005
91914365|NCT01469000|183725949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.16||1 sided.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for gender, performance status, previous adjuvant /neoadjuvant treatment, age, smoking history, mutation type, and country.||||1.16|0.51|0.105
91914366|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.78||||||Patient-rated Loss of Appetite: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.78|0.77|
91914367|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42||||||Patient-rated Fatigue: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.42|0.60|
91914368|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.3||||||Patient-rated Cough: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||2.30|0.84|
91914369|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.71||||||Patient-rated Dyspnea: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.71|0.65|
91914370|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.02||||||Patient-rated Hemoptysis: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.02|0.32|
91914371|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91||||||Patient-rated Pain: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.91|0.64|
91914372|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.77||||||Patient-rated Overall Symptoms: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.77|0.68|
91914373|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.17||||||Patient-rated Interference: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||2.17|0.88|
91914374|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.74||||||Patient-rated Quality of Life: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.74|0.72|
91914375|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.49||||||Observer-rated Loss of Appetite: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||2.49|0.97|
91914376|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.93||||||Observer-rated Fatigue: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||1.93|0.82|
91914377|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.15||||||Observer-rated Cough:Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||2.15|0.72|
91914378|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.83||||||Observer-rated Dyspnea: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||1.83|0.64|
91914379|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.91||||||Observer-rated Hemoptysis: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||2.91|0.60|
91914380|NCT01469000|183725953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03||||||Observer-rated Pain: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||1.03|0.41|
91914381|NCT01116544|183726009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.005
91914382|NCT01116544|183726010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis called for sample sizes of 32 participants in each treatment group. The study was close before reaching this number of participants.|||||<|0.001||||||Hypothesis: significant increase in score (post-tx - pre-tx) for both groups|ANCOVA|FMA scores adjusted for baseline differences.||||||<0.001
91914383|NCT01116544|183726011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Across both groups, whether score increased following completion of intervention|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91914384|NCT01116544|183726012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||||||Across both treatment groups|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91914385|NCT01116544|183726013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data combined between 2 treatment groups||||0.001
91914386|NCT01116544|183726014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Both treatment groups combined||||>0.05
91914387|NCT02419508|183726035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
91914388|NCT02419508|183726036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91914389|NCT02419508|183726037|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91914390|NCT02419508|183726038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91914391|NCT02419508|183726039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91914392|NCT02419508|183726040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91914393|NCT02419508|183726041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91914394|NCT01332071|183726042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|96.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.44|99.83|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||99.83|93.44|
91914395|NCT01332071|183726043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|97.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.25|102.5|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||102.50|93.25|
91914396|NCT01332071|183726044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|99.72|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||99.72|93.32|
91914397|NCT01332071|183726045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|95.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.67|100.1|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||100.10|91.67|
91914398|NCT01332071|183726046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|94.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|99.22|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||99.22|90.70|
91808681|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|2.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.9|-2.7|0.942
91914399|NCT01332071|183726047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|97.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|102.86|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||102.86|93.15|
91914400|NCT01738971|183726051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative probability|3.13|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|5.13|||t-test, 2 sided|see above description of analysis taking into account cluster randomisation||"Cluster randomised study design - statisitical analysis takes this into account. Analaysis was conducted at a cluster level and the proportions in each cluster using effective contraception were compared between groups by 2-sample t tests, weighted by the different number of patients in each cluster.~Comparison of number of women using effective contraception at 6-8 weeks in progestogen only pill group compared to control."||5.13|1.90|<0.001
91914401|NCT01738971|183726051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative probability|2.57||||0.006||95.0|1.55|4.27||see above comments regarding analysis taking cluster randomised account into consideration|t-test, 2 sided|||"Cluster randomised study design - statisitical analysis takes this into account. Analaysis was conducted at a cluster level and the proportions in each cluster using effective contraception were compared between groups by 2-sample t tests, weighted by the different number of patients in each cluster.~Comparison of number of women using effective contraception at 6-8 weeks in rapid access group compared to control."||4.27|1.55|0.006
91808682|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.555|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|3.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.5|-1.7|0.555
91914402|NCT02065453|183726134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The data will be analyzed using linear regression, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and chi-square analysis.||||<0.001
91914403|NCT03694392|183726142|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 15.3% (5.9%, 23.8%)|||0.94|0.76|<0.05
91914404|NCT03694392|183726143|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 15.9% (-9.2% to 35.2%)|||1.09|0.65|<0.05
91914405|NCT03694392|183726144|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 16.7% (-5.6% to 34.4%)|||1.06|0.66|<0.05
91914406|NCT03694392|183726145|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 2.4% (-8.1% to 11.9%)|||1.08|0.88|<0.05
91914407|NCT03694392|183726146|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.8|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -15.7% (-79.5% to 25.5%)|||1.80|0.75|<0.05
91914408|NCT03694392|183726147|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -0.1% (-6.0% to 5.4%)|||1.06|0.95|<0.05
91914409|NCT03694392|183726148|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.5|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 1.8% (-2.2% to 5.5%)|||5.5|-2.2|<0.05
91914410|NCT03694392|183726149|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|22.1|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 9.4% (-5.4% to 22.1%)|||22.1|-5.4|<0.05
91914411|NCT03694392|183726150|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 6.2% (-2.2% to 13.9%)|||1.02|0.86|<0.05
91914412|NCT03694392|183726151|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.52|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -6.9% (-51.6% to 24.6%)|||1.52|0.75|<0.05
91914413|NCT03694392|183726152|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 5.2% (-18.8% to 24.4%)|||1.12|0.76|<0.05
91914414|NCT03694392|183726153|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.93|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 10.8% (6.6% to 14.7%)|||0.93|0.85|<0.05
91914415|NCT03694392|183726154|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -0.1% (-6.2% to 5.6%)|||1.06|0.94|<0.05
91914416|NCT03694392|183726155|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.0|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -45.5% (-100.2% to -5.8%)|||2.00|1.06|<0.05
91914417|NCT03694392|183726156|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.99|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 10.2% (1.4% to 18.2%)|||0.99|0.82|<0.05
91914418|NCT03694392|183726157|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -16.2% (-43.0% to 5.5%)|||1.43|0.95|<0.05
91914419|NCT03694392|183726158|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 15.7% (6.0% to 24.5%)|||0.94|0.76|<0.05
91914420|NCT03694392|183726159|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.34|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 10.3% (-33.9% to 39.9%)|||1.34|0.60|<0.05
91914421|NCT01542307|183726172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.674
91914422|NCT01542307|183726173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91914423|NCT01542307|183726174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91914424|NCT01542307|183726175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
91914425|NCT01542307|183726176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
91914426|NCT01542307|183726177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91914427|NCT01542307|183726178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91914428|NCT01542307|183726179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
91914429|NCT02274688|183726189|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||Wald Chi-Square=11.29, df=3, P=0.01|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.01
91914430|NCT02274688|183726190|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||Wald Chi-Square=3.01, df=3, p=0.23|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.23
91914431|NCT02274688|183726191|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||Wald Chi-Square=4.25, df=3, p=0.23|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.23
91914432|NCT02274688|183726192|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.55|||||||Wald Chi-Square=2.12, df=3, p=0.55|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.55
91914433|NCT02274688|183726193|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.32|||||||Wald Chi-Square=3.52, df=3; p=0.32|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.32
91914434|NCT02274688|183726194|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.26|||||||Wald Chi-Square=4.02, df=3, p=0.26|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.26
91914435|NCT02274688|183726195|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.22|||||||Wald Chi-Square=4.44, df=3, p=0.22|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.22
91914436|NCT02274688|183726196|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08||||||F(3,507)=2.24, P=0.08|Regression Poisson|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.08
91914437|NCT02274688|183726197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wald Chi-Square=3.24, df=3, p=0.36|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||0.36
91914438|NCT00947531|183726199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|-4.13||P-value obtained from the F-test statistic of Cerebrolysin versus Placebo as part of ANCOVA (analysis of covariance). No adjustment for multiple comparisons was needed. The overall significance level alpha was fixed at alpha = 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The study was designed to show significant differences in each of the two primary variables. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was needed.||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the two treatment groups. A sample size of 103 evaluable patients per treatment group was estimated to allow for the detection of a significant group difference of 4.1 points in ADAS-cog+ weak 24 change score (standard deviation \[SD\] 9.0) in favor of Cerebrolysin with a power of 90% and a probability level of alpha-level 0.025 (one-sided).||-4.13|-8.22|< 0.0001
91914439|NCT01773421|183726229|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with sequence, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed to obtain the treatment estimates.|Geometric Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.15||||||||1.15|0.97|
91914440|NCT01773421|183726230|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with sequence, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed to obtain the treatment estimates.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.2||||||||1.2|1.02|
91763583|NCT01200368|183417655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.1|-2.1|
91763584|NCT01200368|183417655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.3||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-1.1|
91763585|NCT01200368|183417655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.9||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.9|-4.2|
91914441|NCT01773421|183726231|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with sequence, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed to obtain the treatment estimates.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.27||||||||1.27|1|
91914442|NCT02804763|183726266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0727||||||The lowest p-value (z-statistic with the highest value) was used to establish proof of dose response.|MCP-Mod|||"Multiple contrast testing (MCP-mod methodology) was used to test for a statistically significant dose-response relationship between the primary endpoint (BICLA at Week 24) and dose, which would indicate a drug effect of DZP over Placebo.~The best fitting statistically significant model could be used to estimate the dose needed to achieve desired treatment effect."||||=0.0727
91914443|NCT02804763|183726267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||=|0.2699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.8||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using a logit link function for the odds ratios and p-values.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||3.8|0.7|=0.2699
91808683|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|2.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.7|-4.1|0.728
91763586|NCT01200368|183417655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.3||||||Serotype 1: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||7.3|0.9|
91914444|NCT02804763|183726267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||=|0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.8||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using a logit link function for the odds ratios and p-values.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||4.8|0.9|=0.1036
91914445|NCT02804763|183726267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||=|0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.3||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using a logit link function for the odds ratios and p-values.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||4.3|0.8|=0.1518
91914446|NCT02804763|183726267|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs PBO|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|32.4||Crude difference in proportion responding and standard Wald asymptotic 95 % CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Chi-squared||Difference and 95 % Wald CI in proportion of responders for SOC + DZP dose 1 iv Q4W (FAS) versus SOC + Placebo iv Q4W (FAS).|Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||32.4|-9.2|
91914447|NCT02804763|183726267|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs PBO|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|38.0||Crude difference in proportion responding and standard Wald asymptotic 95 % CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Chi-squared||Difference and 95 % Wald CI in proportion of responders for SOC + DZP dose 2 iv Q4W (FAS) versus SOC + Placebo iv Q4W (FAS).|Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||38.0|-3.3|
91914448|NCT02804763|183726267|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs PBO|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|35.4||Crude difference in proportion responding and standard Wald asymptotic 95 % CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Chi-squared||Difference and 95 % Wald CI in proportion of responders for SOC + DZP dose 3 iv Q4W (FAS) versus SOC + Placebo iv Q4W (FAS).|Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||35.4|-5.5|
91914449|NCT02804763|183726267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs PBO|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|32.5||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using an identity link function for the LS mean differences.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||32.5|-8.7|
91914450|NCT02804763|183726267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs PBO|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|38.3||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using an identity link function for the LS mean differences.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||38.3|-3.2|
91763587|NCT01200368|183417655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.7||||||Serotype 3: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||6.7|-0.2|
91763588|NCT01200368|183417655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.7||||||Serotype 5: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||6.7|-0.2|
91808684|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-5.2|0.362
91914451|NCT02804763|183726267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs PBO|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|35.6||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using an identity link function for the LS mean differences.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||35.6|-5.2|
91914452|NCT00445302|183726324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|87.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.59|119.26||||||||119.26|63.59|
91914453|NCT00445302|183726324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means(%)|106.6||||||90.0|78.99|143.87||||||||143.87|78.99|
91914454|NCT00445302|183726324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|106.76||||||90.0|79.11|144.08||||||||144.08|79.11|
91914455|NCT00445302|183726327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|121.74||||||90.0|91.86|161.43||||||||161.43|91.86|
91914456|NCT00445302|183726327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|151.44||||||90.0|115.78|198.09||||||||198.09|115.78|
91914457|NCT00445302|183726327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|169.51||||||90.0|129.59|221.72||||||||221.72|129.59|
91914458|NCT01400932|183726329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-15.8|||ANCOVA|||||-15.8|-26.2|<0.001
91914459|NCT01400932|183726330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914460|NCT01400932|183726330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914461|NCT01400932|183726330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914462|NCT01400932|183726330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914463|NCT01400932|183726331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914464|NCT01400932|183726331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914465|NCT01400932|183726331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914466|NCT01400932|183726331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914467|NCT01400932|183726331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914468|NCT01400932|183726331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Week 1; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91914469|NCT01400932|183726331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||Week 2; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
91914470|NCT01400932|183726331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914471|NCT01400932|183726331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914472|NCT01400932|183726331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914473|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914474|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914475|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914476|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914477|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914478|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914479|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914480|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914481|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914482|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914483|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Week 1; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91914484|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914485|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914486|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914487|NCT01400932|183726332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914488|NCT01400932|183726333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914489|NCT01400932|183726334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.174
91914490|NCT01400932|183726334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
91914491|NCT01400932|183726334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91914492|NCT01400932|183726334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91914493|NCT01400932|183726334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914494|NCT01400932|183726335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914495|NCT01400932|183726335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914496|NCT01400932|183726335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914497|NCT01400932|183726335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914498|NCT01400932|183726335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91914499|NCT00282243|183726344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|88.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.42|92.29|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of AUC0-24. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 14 and 42) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 28 and 56). The natural log (ln) was used to transform AUC0-24 prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||92.29|85.42|
91914500|NCT00282243|183726346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|81.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.88|85.08|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of Cmin. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 14 and 42) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 28 and 56). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmin prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||85.08|77.88|
91914501|NCT01070329|183726365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22||The P-value is for the main effect of treatment. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.75|<0.001
91914502|NCT01070329|183726366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|-2.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.62|-5.77|<0.001
91914503|NCT01070329|183726367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.42||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Work/School Work score. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-1.47|<0.001
91914504|NCT01070329|183726367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.53||This the p-value for the Disrupt Social Life/Leisure score. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-1.42|<0.001
91914505|NCT01070329|183726367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.49||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Family Life/Home score. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-1.41|<0.001
91914506|NCT01070329|183726367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-1.61||P-value for the SDS Total score. First gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes with stepwise comparisons of treatments until outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.61|-4.16|<0.001
91914507|NCT01070329|183726368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the second gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91914508|NCT01070329|183726369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||This third gated secondary outcome measure failed to meet statistical significance. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.173
91914509|NCT01070329|183726370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fourth gated secondary outcome measure. Statistical significance was not evaluated; prior gated secondary outcome measure failed (p\>0.05).||||-1.48|-4.13|
91914510|NCT01070329|183726371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.34||This is the p-value for the Change at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.34|0.00|0.050
91914511|NCT01070329|183726371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|2.9||This is the p-value for the Change up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||2.90|-0.12|0.071
91914512|NCT01070329|183726372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.82||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.82|0.00|0.050
91808685|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.538|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|4.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.3|-2.0|0.538
91914513|NCT01070329|183726372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.1||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.10|0.50|0.007
91914514|NCT01070329|183726372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|3.5||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.50|-0.09|0.063
91914515|NCT01070329|183726372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.02||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.02|0.60|0.004
91914516|NCT01070329|183726373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fifth gated secondary outcome measure. Statistical significance was not evaluated; the third gated secondary outcome measure failed (p\>0.05).||||-0.96|-3.18|
91914517|NCT01070329|183726374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.15||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.93|0.007
91914518|NCT01070329|183726374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.22||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.93|0.002
91914519|NCT01070329|183726375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
91914520|NCT01070329|183726376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.27||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Worst Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.85|<0.001
91914521|NCT01070329|183726376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.13||This is the p-value for main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Least Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.64|0.003
91914522|NCT01070329|183726376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Average Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.75|<0.001
91914523|NCT01070329|183726376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.27||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Pain Right Now score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.86|<0.001
91914524|NCT01070329|183726376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.11||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with General Activity score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.75|0.008
91914525|NCT01070329|183726376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.15||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Mood score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.80|0.004
91914526|NCT01070329|183726376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.12||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Walking Ability Score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.72|0.006
91914527|NCT01070329|183726376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.09||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Normal Work score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.72|0.012
91914528|NCT01070329|183726376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Relations with Others score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.70|0.029
91914529|NCT01070329|183726376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.02||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Sleep score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.75|0.037
91914530|NCT01070329|183726376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.14||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Enjoyment of Life score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.81|0.006
91914531|NCT01070329|183726376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.15||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Interference score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.74|0.004
91914532|NCT01070329|183726377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.49||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-0.90|<0.001
91914533|NCT01070329|183726378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0||||This is the p-value for Suicidal Ideation. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
91914534|NCT03706365|183726390|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.111|||Log Rank|||||1.111|0.619|0.2123
91914535|NCT03706365|183726391|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.637||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|0.856|||Log Rank|||||0.856|0.474|0.0026
91914536|NCT03706365|183726392|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.2899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.160|0.611|0.2899
91914537|NCT03706365|183726394|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|1.419|||Log Rank|||||1.419|0.377|0.3531
91808686|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.949|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||1.8|-2.0|0.949
91914538|NCT03706365|183726395|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.285|||Log Rank|||||1.285|0.669|0.6507
91914539|NCT03706365|183726396|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.131|||Log Rank|||||1.131|0.522|0.1807
91914540|NCT03706365|183726401|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.314|||Log Rank|||||1.314|0.665|0.6970
91914541|NCT01175005|183726430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91914542|NCT03222427|183726442|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.769|1.18||||||||1.18|0.769|
91914543|NCT00254566|183726444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the difference in clinical success rates is greater than -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||||95.0|-5.8|3.9|||||Risk difference is the difference in percentage of participants with cure and the 95% Confidence Interval|95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in cure rates will be constructed using a method of linear stratification that weights according to the reciporcal of the variance. Stratification will be by steriod use at time of randomization.||3.9|-5.8|
91914544|NCT00254566|183726445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the difference in clinical success rates is greater than -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||||95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Risk difference is the difference in the percentage of participants with Cure and the 95% CI|95% CI for the difference in cure rates will be constructed using a method of linear stratification that weights according to the reciporcal of the variance. Stratification will be by steriod use at time of randomization.||3.4|-8.5|
91914545|NCT00254566|183726446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the difference in clinical success rates is greater than -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||||95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Risk difference is the difference in percentage of participants with cure and the 95% Confidence|95% CI for the difference in cure rates will be constructed using a method of linear stratification that weights according to the reciprocal of the variance. Stratification will be by steroid use at time of randomization.||3.4|-8.5|
91914546|NCT00254566|183726447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||||95.0|-4.5|3.3|||||Risk difference is the difference in eradication rates of pathogens by treatment|||3.3|-4.5|
91914547|NCT00254566|183726448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.33||||0.159||95.0|0.9|2.0||p-value was estimated from Cox's Proportional Hazard model with steriod use and country as factors and baseline FEV1 fitted as covariate|Regression, Cox|||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time taken for 1st 25th quartile of subjects to experience recurrence of AECB. Estimate of median time to event couldn't be calculated because \<50% of subjects in analysis population experienced a recurrence. The ratio of the treatment groups' recurrence rate (hazard ratio) estimated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for steroid use, frequency of AECB in previous 12 months, country and baseline Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1).||2.0|0.9|0.159
91914548|NCT00254566|183726449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.57||95.0|-0.21|0.12|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use, and country fitted as factor and baseline CCQ total scores and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.12|-0.21|0.57
91914549|NCT00254566|183726449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.82||95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.10|-0.13|0.82
91914550|NCT00254566|183726450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.81||95.0|-0.21|0.17|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use and country fitted as factors and baseline CCQ total score and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.17|-0.21|0.81
91763589|NCT01200368|183417655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.8||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||5.8|-1.9|
91763590|NCT01200368|183417655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.3||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||7.3|0.9|
91808687|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||1.5|-2.3|0.708
91808688|NCT02310568|183493994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|2.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||2.2|-1.5|0.752
91808689|NCT02310568|183493995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed effect, and baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28).||2.45|0.37|
91914551|NCT00254566|183726450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.87||95.0|-0.12|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.14|-0.12|0.87
91914552|NCT00254566|183726451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.385||95.0|-0.27|0.1|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use and country fitted as factors and baseline CCQ total score and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.10|-0.27|0.385
91914553|NCT00254566|183726451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.56||95.0|-0.17|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.09|-0.17|0.56
91914554|NCT00254566|183726452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.62||95.0|-0.26|0.16|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use and country fitted as factors and baseline CCQ total score and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.16|-0.26|0.62
91914555|NCT00254566|183726452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8||95.0|-0.18|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.14|-0.18|0.80
91808690|NCT02310568|183493995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|6.88|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed effect, and baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28).||6.88|0.39|
91808691|NCT02310568|183493995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed effect, and baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28).||1.49|0.23|
91914556|NCT01989221|183726453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean GCSI-DD scores during one week at baseline were compared to mean GCSI-DD scores during the second week of Sancuso treatment.|||||<0.01
91914557|NCT01989221|183726454|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Mean nausea and vomiting symptom scores during one week at baseline were compared to mean symptom scores during the second week of Sancuso treatment.|||||<0.01
91914558|NCT01688050|183726516|OTHER|The primary safety endpoint of this study is analyzed using only descriptive statistics and it is not analyzed for the purpose of statistical inference|All-cause mortality rate (%)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.88|||||Wald method|||5.88|0|
91914559|NCT01688050|183726517|OTHER|The primary safety endpoint of this study is analyzed using only descriptive statistics and it is not analyzed for the purpose of statistical inference|Aortic injury-related mortality rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.1|||||Exact method|||7.1|0|
91914560|NCT01688050|183726518|OTHER|The primary effectiveness endpoint of this study is analyzed using only descriptive statistics and it is not analyzed for the purpose of statistical inference|Device success rate (%)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.6|100.0|||||Wald method|||100|90.6|
91914561|NCT00927368|183726519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean stimulating catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.29||Significance criterion of 0.00694 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to stimulating catheter on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.29|-0.61|< 0.001
91914562|NCT00927368|183726519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating catheter minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.61||Significance criterion of 0.01735 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to stimulating needle on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.61|-0.29|0.03
91914563|NCT00927368|183726519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean catheter minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.33||Significance criterion of 0.01041 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to ultrasound alone on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.33|-0.57|< 0.001
91914564|NCT00927368|183726519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.57||Significance criterion of 0.01388 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating catheter on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.57|-0.33|0.02
91914565|NCT00927368|183726519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.16||Significance criterion of 0.00347 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to ultrasound alone on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.16|-0.72|< 0.001
91914566|NCT00927368|183726519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.72||Significance criterion of 0.02082 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating needle on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.72|-0.16|0.11
91914567|NCT00927368|183726520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating catheter minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|34.0||Significance criterion of 0.02082 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to stimulating needle on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||34|-17|0.04
91808692|NCT02989194|183494001|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.158||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 2. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.158
91914568|NCT00927368|183726520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean stimulating catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|21.0||Significance criterion of 0.00347 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to stimulating catheter on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||21|-25|0.002
91914569|NCT00927368|183726520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating catheter minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|21.0||Significance criterion of 0.01735 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to ultrasound alone on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||21|-25|0.03
91808693|NCT02989194|183494001|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.025||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 3. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.025
91808694|NCT02989194|183494001|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.007||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 4. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.007
91808695|NCT02989194|183494001|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.061||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 5. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.061
91808696|NCT02989194|183494001|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.107||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 6. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.107
91808697|NCT02989194|183494001|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.237||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 7. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.237
91808698|NCT02989194|183494001|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.497||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 8. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.497
91808699|NCT02989194|183494001|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.704||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 9. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.704
91808700|NCT02989194|183494001|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.585||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 10. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.585
91808701|NCT02989194|183494012|SUPERIORITY|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to assess the difference between the VIS410 total and placebo treatment groups from nasopharyngeal swabs based on the TCID50.||||0.083
91808702|NCT02989194|183494013|SUPERIORITY|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.169||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.169
91808703|NCT02989194|183494014|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive Statistics. Statistical comparisons were performed using log rank test.||||||0.028||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate the median time. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level, unless specifically stated otherwise. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference. All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|||0.028
91808704|NCT02989194|183494016|EQUIVALENCE|Descriptive Statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.173||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate the median time, 25th percentile and 75th percentile.||All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.173
91808705|NCT00711711|183494017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All outcomes and control variables were compared between the treatment and the control group at each time point using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test or the chi-square test, as appropriate. The change in swelling from second day to seventh day, that is, during the treatment period, was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The significance level was set at P\<.05.||||0.51
91914570|NCT00927368|183726520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean stimulating catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|23.0||Significance criterion of 0.00694 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating catheter on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||23|-24|0.005
91914571|NCT00927368|183726520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|25.0||Significance criterion of 0.01041 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to ultrasound alone on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||25|-22|0.006
91914572|NCT00927368|183726520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|29.0||Significance criterion of 0.01388 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating needle on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||29|-20|0.02
91914573|NCT00927368|183726521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Stimulating needle versus stimulating catheter.||||0.11
91914574|NCT00927368|183726521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|75.0|||ANOVA|||Stimulating needle versus ultrasound guidance alone||75|6|0.01
91914575|NCT00927368|183726521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|102.0|||ANOVA|||Stimulating catheter versus ultrasound guidance alone||102|31|< 0.001
91914576|NCT00927368|183726522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost, measured in dollars|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Incremental cost (additional cost of stimulating needle compared to ultrasound alone).|We calculated incremental cost, defined as the additional cost of one strategy to the next less costly strategy.||||
91763591|NCT01200368|183417655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.3||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||7.3|1.0|
91914577|NCT00927368|183726522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost, measured in dollars|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We estimated incremental cost, or additional cost of stimulating needle + catheter stimulation to stimulating needle alone.|We calculated incremental cost, defined as the additional cost of one strategy to the next less costly strategy.||||
91914578|NCT00927368|183726522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost, measured in dollars|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We calculated incremental cost, or the additional cost of stimulating needle + stimulating catheter to ultrasound alone.|We calculated incremental cost, defined as the additional cost of one strategy to the next less costly strategy.||||
91914579|NCT00964431|183726544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8912|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.816|13.275|||ANCOVA|||||13.275|5.816|<0.001
91914580|NCT00356031|183726572|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
91914581|NCT00356031|183726573|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
91914582|NCT01110395|183726611|OTHER|Bland and Altman|Mean + SD|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|||TWO_SIDED|||||Bland Altman|mean + SD|Bland Altman|We have provided all the information that is available to us. The PI has left the institution and we are unable to contact him. We have no further data to correct the errors.|We are unable to provide any further data that has been requested. We have supplied all the data that we can possibly provide because the PI has left the institution and we are unable to contact him. We have no other data.|There are no other statistical analysis. We have provided all the information that is available to us. We have no other data available to us because the PI has left the institution and we are unable to contact him.|||
91914583|NCT01110395|183726611|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mean + SD|||||||<0.05
91914584|NCT01925209|183726694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.331||0.221|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-19.63|54.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||||54.80|-19.63|0.2210
91914585|NCT01925209|183726694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.176||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.21|55.4|||mixed model repeated measure|||||55.40|-18.21|0.1909
91763592|NCT01200368|183417656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.94|0.71|
91763593|NCT01200368|183417656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.97|0.64|
91914586|NCT01925209|183726694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.121||0.9263|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-37.97|35.36|||mixed models repeated measures|||||35.36|-37.97|0.9263
91914587|NCT05384041|183726729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Regression, Linear|||Intent to Treat analyses||||0.056
91914588|NCT05384041|183726730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active - Control) at Week 1||||0.048
91914589|NCT05384041|183726731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2595|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.2595
91914590|NCT05384041|183726731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1286|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.1286
91914591|NCT05384041|183726731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.1449
91808706|NCT00711711|183494018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All outcomes and control variables were compared between the treatment and the control group at each time point using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test or the chi-square test, as appropriate. The change in swelling from second day to seventh day, that is, during the treatment period, was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The significance level was set at P\<.05.||||0.58
91914592|NCT05384041|183726732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.2065
91914593|NCT05384041|183726732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1349|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.1349
91914594|NCT05384041|183726732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.1142
91763594|NCT01200368|183417656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.86||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.86|0.64|
91763595|NCT01200368|183417656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.98|0.70|
91763596|NCT01200368|183417656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.85|0.63|
91763597|NCT01200368|183417656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.08|0.72|
91763598|NCT01200368|183417656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.98|0.66|
91763599|NCT01200368|183417657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.6|-3.1|
91763600|NCT01200368|183417657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.2|-2.1|
91763601|NCT01200368|183417657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.6|-3.1|
91763602|NCT01200368|183417657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.6|-3.1|
91763603|NCT01200368|183417658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.15||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.15|1.50|
91763604|NCT01200368|183417658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.28|0.92|
91763605|NCT01200368|183417658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.22|0.86|
91763606|NCT01200368|183417658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.25|0.87|
91763607|NCT01200368|183417658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.16||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.16|1.54|
91763608|NCT01200368|183417658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.25||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.25|1.59|
91763609|NCT01200368|183417659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 4: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
91914595|NCT05384041|183726733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.231
91914596|NCT05384041|183726733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.192
91914597|NCT05384041|183726733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.045
91914598|NCT05384041|183726735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
91914599|NCT05384041|183726736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.0026
91914600|NCT05384041|183726736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4706|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.4706
91914601|NCT05384041|183726736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.0197
91914602|NCT05384041|183726736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4858|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.4858
91914603|NCT05384041|183726736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0183|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.0183
91914604|NCT05384041|183726736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7885|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.7885
91914605|NCT05384041|183726737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||<0.001
91914606|NCT05384041|183726737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.450
91914607|NCT05384041|183726737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.008
91914608|NCT05384041|183726737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.438
91914609|NCT05384041|183726737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.016
91914610|NCT05384041|183726737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.355
91914611|NCT05384041|183726738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.046
91914612|NCT05384041|183726738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.351
91763610|NCT01200368|183417659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
91914613|NCT05384041|183726738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.053
91914614|NCT05384041|183726738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.120
91914615|NCT05384041|183726738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.170
91914616|NCT05384041|183726738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.122
91914617|NCT05384041|183726739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.044
91914618|NCT05384041|183726739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.751|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.751
91763611|NCT01200368|183417659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
91914619|NCT05384041|183726739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.013
91914620|NCT05384041|183726739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.318
91914621|NCT05384041|183726739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.173
91914622|NCT05384041|183726739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.142
91914623|NCT05384041|183726740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.026
91914624|NCT05384041|183726740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.241
91914625|NCT05384041|183726740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.059
91914626|NCT05384041|183726740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.478
91914627|NCT05384041|183726740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.009
91914628|NCT05384041|183726740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.729
91914629|NCT05384041|183726741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.044
91914630|NCT05384041|183726741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.067
91914631|NCT05384041|183726741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.016
91914632|NCT05384041|183726741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.006
91914633|NCT05384041|183726741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.036
91914634|NCT05384041|183726741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.016
91914635|NCT05384041|183726741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.914
91914636|NCT05384041|183726741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.887
91914637|NCT05384041|183726741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.791
91914638|NCT00510276|183726750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|8.2||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||8.20|1.44|0.005
91914639|NCT00510276|183726751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|10.12||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 relationship subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||10.12|1.68|0.006
91914640|NCT00510276|183726752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.46||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 relationship subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||10.46|1.00|0.018
91914641|NCT00510276|183726753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|8.39||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 psychological health subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||8.39|0.33|0.034
91914642|NCT00510276|183726754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|7.12||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 life outlook subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||7.12|-0.33|0.074
91914643|NCT00510276|183726755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in CGI-ADHD-S score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.24|-0.63|<0.001
91914644|NCT00510276|183726756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in CAARS-S:SV score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-2.15|-5.94|<0.001
91914645|NCT00510276|183726757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in PGI-I scores at 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.04|-0.45|0.020
91914646|NCT00510276|183726758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in MADRS score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.35|-1.19|0.282
91914647|NCT00510276|183726759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BAI score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||1.19|-2.21|0.556
91914648|NCT00510276|183726760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Tested was the null hypothesis that AAQOL-29 total score and CAARS-Inv:SV total score are not correlated.||||<0.001
91914649|NCT00510276|183726761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of alcohol score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.08|-0.39|0.198
91914650|NCT00510276|183726762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of caffeine score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.26|-0.33|0.825
91914651|NCT00510276|183726764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of nicotine score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||2.17|-0.53|0.233
91914652|NCT00510276|183726765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of marijuana score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.37|-0.24|0.676
91914653|NCT00510276|183726766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in Fagerstorm Test for Nicotine Dependence score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.39|-1.00|0.382
91914654|NCT00510276|183726767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in SASS score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.78|-1.24|0.656
91914655|NCT00510276|183726768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|0.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in Driving Behavior Survey Self-Report score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.86|-4.08|0.201
91914656|NCT00510276|183726769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference in CAARS-Inv:SV score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between the atomoxetine group and the placebo group. With approximately 220 patients per arm, assuming a 68% completion rate and an estimated effect size of atomoxetine over placebo of 0.35, using a 5% significance level, the analysis was expected to have 90% power to detect a difference between atomoxetine and placebo at week 12.||-2.72|-7.39|<0.001
91914657|NCT00510276|183726770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|17.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in Driving Behavior Survey Other-Report score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||17.63|-16.41|0.933
91914658|NCT00510276|183726771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-0.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Behavioral regulation score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.81|-5.09|0.007
91914659|NCT00510276|183726772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A emotional control section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.35|-1.50|0.219
91914660|NCT00510276|183726773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-2.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A GEC section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-2.78|-12.37|0.002
91914661|NCT00510276|183726774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Inconsistency section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.29|-0.47|0.644
91914662|NCT00510276|183726775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEFS-A infrequency score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.25|-0.02|0.097
91914663|NCT00510276|183726776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Inhibit Section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.37|-1.57|0.002
91914664|NCT00510276|183726777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Initiate section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.02|-1.33|0.044
91914665|NCT00510276|183726778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-1.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Metacognition section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-1.55|-7.43|0.003
91914666|NCT00510276|183726779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A negativity section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.23|-0.51|0.456
91914667|NCT00510276|183726780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Organization of Materials section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.00|-1.31|0.051
91914668|NCT00510276|183726781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Plan/Organize section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.47|-2.19|0.002
91914669|NCT00510276|183726782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A SHIFT section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.01|-1.04|0.045
91914670|NCT00510276|183726783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Self Monitor Section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.32|-1.35|0.001
91914671|NCT00510276|183726784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Task Monitor section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.19|-1.23|0.008
91914672|NCT00510276|183726785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Working Memory section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.63|-1.98|<0.001
91914673|NCT00510276|183726786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in ESS score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.04|-1.42|0.065
91914674|NCT00510276|183726787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Tested was smoking status across treatment.||Tested was the null hypothesis that smoking status is not a predictor of response to atomoxetine treatment compared with placebo||||0.788
91914675|NCT00510276|183726788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||Tested was smoking status across treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tested was the null hypothesis that smoking status is not a predictor of strong response to atomoxetine treatment compared with placebo||||0.482
91914676|NCT05523973|183726830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
91914677|NCT05523973|183726831|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91808707|NCT00616200|183494027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Sickness Impact Profile scores improved.||||.001
91914678|NCT05523973|183726832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Sign test|||||||0.09
91914679|NCT05523973|183726833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Sign test|||||||.722
91914680|NCT05523973|183726834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Sign test|||||||.28
91914681|NCT05523973|183726835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Sign test|||||||.15
91914682|NCT05523973|183726836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Sign test|||||||.8
91914683|NCT05523973|183726837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.12
91914684|NCT05523973|183726838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Sign test|||||||.92
91914685|NCT00132041|183726889|OTHER||Success rate|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.317|||||logistic regression model without correcting for the clustering effect|logistic regression was used to estimate the success rate||0.317|0.091|
91914686|NCT00132041|183726889|OTHER||Success rate|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.252||||||logistic regression model after specifying site as cluster (using GEE approach).||0.252|0.136|
91914687|NCT00132041|183726890|OTHER||Success rate|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.317|||||logistic regression model without correcting for the clustering effect|logistic regression was used to estimate the success rate||0.317|0.091|
91914688|NCT00132041|183726890|OTHER||Slope|-3.7913||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9056|-1.6769|||Generlaized estimating equations|Multivariate logistic model. P-value for number of RFA sessions dichotomized 1: more than 1; using the latter as the reference.|This estimate is for the effect of a single RFA sessions (v multiple sessions) in the multivariate model response:18 mo success/failure; covariates: tumor size,repeated RFA, local tumor recurrence, remote tumor occurrence, and age and gender.|multivariate logistic regression model was fit using GEEs to correct for site clustering effects, in which, the response variable was success/failure at 18 months and the covariates were tumor size, whether or not a patient received repeated RFA, whether or not a local tumor recurrence occurred, whether or not a remote tumor occurrence occurred, and two common confounding factors - age and gender||-1.6769|-5.9056|0.0004
91914689|NCT00132041|183726891|OTHER||GEE|-0.9101||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6894|-0.1308|||Generlaized Estimating Equations|multivariate GEE model using logistic link|Estimation parameter is for tumor size when controlling for other covariates.|Effect of tumor size in the multivariate model with response:18 mo success/failure; covariates: tumor size,repeated RFA, local tumor recurrence, remote tumor occurrence, and age and gender.||-0.1308|-1.6894|0.0221
91914690|NCT00132041|183726893|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2496||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||assuming unequal variance (Satterthwaite p)|t-test, 2 sided||Difference represents the size of tumors that do no recur minus those that do.|the mean tumor size in the two groups, recurred and non recurred tumors, will be compared using a t-test assuming H0: recur=non-recurr||||0.06
91914691|NCT00132041|183726895|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.38|||||Twelve tumors were detected in the liver specimens, but only one of those was identified by the CT central readers|||0.38|0.00|
91914692|NCT00132041|183726895|OTHER||Specificity|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.994|||||The central CT readers correctly identified three out of the four patients without pathologic evidence of tumor|Specificity||0.994|0.194|
91914693|NCT00132041|183726897|OTHER|McNemar's Test to compare success rates after assuming transplants as successes versus after assuming transplants as failures.||||||0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0001
91914694|NCT05197803|183726898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The study compared the results between the unaided condition vs. aided condition (BTE)||||0.0001
91914695|NCT05197803|183726898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The study compared the results between the unaided condition vs. aided condition (RIC)||||0.0001
91914696|NCT00167245|183726939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91914697|NCT00167245|183726940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.45
91914698|NCT00167245|183726941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.2|-2.1|0.4
91914699|NCT01307033|183726984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2|||Constained logitudinal data analysis|Model included treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups||||2.2|-1.7|
91914700|NCT01307033|183726985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.5|||Constained longitudinal data analysis|Model included treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups||||0.5|-5.0|
91914701|NCT06062264|183727005|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.06||||||Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination|Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received portal-based PCP video reminder messages to the arm receiving standard health system portal messages (control).|1.06|1.00|
91914702|NCT06062264|183727005|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received portal-based PCP video reminder messages to the arm receiving standard health system portal messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.06|0.99|
91914703|NCT05256888|183727008|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"In a linear model to assess group effects on fatigue at 12 weeks, adjusting for baseline levels of fatigue:~Effect of group = -1.77±1.08, p=0.11, favoring the TRE group."||||0.11
91914704|NCT02487108|183727009|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.931|57.855|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment and center as factors and the baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||57.855|19.931|<0.001
91914705|NCT02487108|183727009|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.122|62.881|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment and center as factors and the baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||62.881|25.122|<0.001
91914706|NCT02487108|183727009|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.589|72.282|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment and center as factors and the baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||72.282|34.589|<0.001
91914707|NCT02522767|183727048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.32||The p-value was based on chi-square test without a continuity correction.|Chi-squared|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||3.32|0.73|>0.05
91914708|NCT02522767|183727051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.29||The p-value was based on chi-square test without a continuity correction.|Chi-squared|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||3.29|0.96|>0.05
91914709|NCT02522767|183727052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.15|||Generalized estimating equation approach|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||2.15|0.78|>0.05
91914710|NCT02522767|183727053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.02||The p-value was based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as a factor.|Times to normal stool pattern were compared between treatment groups, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||2.02|0.91|>0.05
91914711|NCT02522767|183727054|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Repeated-measures ANCOVA||A repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix was used to calculate estimate.|Change from baseline scores were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||-0.08|-0.41|<0.05
91914712|NCT02522767|183727055|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.39|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|0.67|||Repeated-measures ANCOVA||A repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix was used to calculate estimate.|Change from baseline scores were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||0.67|-5.46|>0.05
91914713|NCT02522767|183727056|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-289.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-514.96|-64.42|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used to calculate estimates.|Changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||-64.42|-514.96|<0.05
91914714|NCT02522767|183727057|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|12.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|20.5|||Repeated-measures ANCOVA||A repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix was used to calculate estimates.|Change from baseline scores were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||20.50|5.10|<0.05
91914715|NCT01872338|183727082|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.87|||negative binomial regression|||||.87|.29|.015
91914716|NCT01872338|183727083|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.82|||negative binomial regression|||||.82|.22|.01
91914717|NCT01872338|183727084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|repeated measures, overall time by condition effect||||||.34
91914718|NCT01872338|183727085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||repeated measures, overall time by condition effect|Regression, Linear|||||||.23
91914719|NCT03683394|183727086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.26||Adjusted for baseline value, sex, race/ethnicity education, comorbidity score and phone assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models (LMMs) for the changes from baseline to each follow-up assessment.||||0.26|0.04|0.008
91914720|NCT03683394|183727087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.21||Adjusted for baseline value, sex, race/ethnicity education, comorbidity score and phone assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models (LMMs) for the changes from baseline to each follow-up assessment.||||0.21|0.02|0.002
91914721|NCT03683394|183727088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.14||Adjusted for baseline value, sex, race/ethnicity education, comorbidity score and phone assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models (LMMs) for the changes from baseline to each follow-up assessment.||||2.14|0.08|0.03
91914722|NCT03683394|183727089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.19||Adjusted for age and sex.|Fisher Exact|In an exploratory outcome, we examined incidence of a low CASI score or a diagnosis of MCI or dementia by treatment group.||||2.19|0.19|0.52
91763612|NCT01200368|183417659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 14: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
91914723|NCT02769728|183727097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||0.001
91914724|NCT02769728|183727098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||0.081
91914725|NCT02769728|183727099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||0.114
91914726|NCT02769728|183727100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||0.021
91914727|NCT02769728|183727101|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||1.00
91914728|NCT02086331|183727102|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Intraclass correlation of repeated measures - 0.96, p=0.08|||
91914729|NCT01838044|183727153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 5 compared between two study arms.||0.42|-0.72|0.6012
91914730|NCT01838044|183727154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of weekly mean pain NRS score in Arm B at Week 10.||1.83|1.02|<0.0001
91914731|NCT01838044|183727155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of weekly mean pain NRS score in Arm B compared between two study arms at Week 10.||0.95|-0.48|0.5128
91914732|NCT01838044|183727157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 5 based on comparison between treatment groups.||0.32|-0.22|0.7251
91914733|NCT01838044|183727157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 10 based on comparison between treatment groups.||0.46|-0.06|0.1255
91914734|NCT01838044|183727159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 5 compared between treatment groups.||0.29|-0.97|0.2856
91914735|NCT01838044|183727159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.3987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 10 compared between treatment groups.||0.41|-1.02|0.3987
91914736|NCT00330187|183727167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.4|0.9|0.07
91914737|NCT01751971|183727168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|37.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value would represent a greater reduction in AHI with oxygen (% sham) in the high vs low loop gain group.|"Primary statistical comparison was the percent reduction in AHI----\[AHI(sham)-AHI(oxygen)\]/AHI(sham) %----between two phenotypic patient subgroups. Patient subgroups were defined by the loop gain (LG1) measured on the sham night as high or low (a priori cutoff LG1=0.7)."||37.1|-16|0.4
91914738|NCT01751971|183727168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|24.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Positive estimation parameter would indicate lower AHI on oxygen versus sham.|Here we aimed to confirm that there was a difference between AHI on oxygen vs sham (overall, i.e. in unselected patients). This test, however was not part of our primary objective.||24.1|10.7|<0.001
91914739|NCT01751971|183727168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|42.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|64.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Positive estimated value would indicate a greater percentage reduction in AHI (oxygen vs. sham) in favorable vs. unfavorable subgroups.|"The primary goal of the study was to identify a phenotypic subgroup of patients with sleep apnea that responds preferentially to oxygen (percent reduction in AHI----\[AHI(sham)-AHI(oxygen)\]/AHI(sham) %). We defined patient subgroups (favorable versus unfavorable) based on the four key phenotypic traits (loop gain, collapsibility, arousal threshold, muscle responses) measured on the sham night, with the use of multiple logistic regression and leave-one-out cross validation."||64.6|21.0|0.001
91914740|NCT01649947|183727174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|72.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is comprised of evaluable patients who had measureable disease and received at least one cycle of therapy and had disease evaluated.||72|8.9|0.01
91914741|NCT01162421|183727184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.3||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|20.8|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||||20.8|-23.4|0.907
91914742|NCT01162421|183727185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.2||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|24.1|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||24.1|-17.7|0.762
91914743|NCT01162421|183727185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|17.5|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||17.5|-28.1|0.650
91914744|NCT01162421|183727186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P= 0.05.||Month 6||-0.10|-1.62|0.027
91914745|NCT01162421|183727186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.667||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.12||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P= 0.05.||Month 12||-0.12|-2.79|0.033
91914746|NCT01162421|183727186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.403||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.60|-5.05|0.120
91914747|NCT01162421|183727187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.7||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|1.6||P-value is based on two sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval is based on Wilson confidence limits.|||1.6|-27.0|0.095
91914748|NCT01162421|183727188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.1||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|33.97|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||33.97|-9.79|0.281
91914749|NCT01162421|183727188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|27.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|48.93||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||48.93|4.98|0.021
91914750|NCT01162421|183727188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|28.63|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||28.63|-15.29|0.552
91914751|NCT01162421|183727188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.2||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.04|9.72|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||9.72|-34.04|0.281
91914752|NCT01162421|183727188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.64|7.78|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||7.78|-36.64|0.209
91914753|NCT01162421|183727188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.6||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.74|2.62|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||2.62|-41.74|0.091
91763613|NCT01200368|183417659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
91914754|NCT01162421|183727189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.6||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|36.26|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||36.26|-5.05|0.148
91914755|NCT01162421|183727189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|41.61|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||41.61|-0.14|0.060
91914756|NCT01162421|183727189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.7||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|31.29|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||31.29|-13.85|0.451
91914757|NCT01162421|183727189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.3||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|31.43|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||31.43|-12.82|0.413
91914758|NCT01162421|183727189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.3||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.74|15.23|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||15.23|-29.74|0.528
91914759|NCT01162421|183727189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.5||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.61|12.56|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||12.56|-31.61|0.399
91763614|NCT01200368|183417659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.4||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-3.9|
91763615|NCT01200368|183417659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
91763616|NCT01200368|183417659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.0||||||Serotype 1: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.0|-2.9|
91763617|NCT01200368|183417659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.0||||||Serotype 3: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.0|-2.9|
91914760|NCT01162421|183727190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.5||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|27.06|||Fisher Exact|||Month 3||27.06|-1.70|0.111
91914761|NCT01162421|183727190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|36.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||36.53|2.74|0.031
91914762|NCT01162421|183727190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|22.31|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||22.31|-16.74|0.780
91914763|NCT01162421|183727190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.5||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|35.04|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||35.04|-2.07|0.092
91763618|NCT01200368|183417659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 5: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
91914764|NCT01162421|183727190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|30.4|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||30.40|-8.86|0.290
91914765|NCT01162421|183727190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-16.9||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.86|4.01|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||4.01|-37.86|0.116
91914766|NCT01162421|183727191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 3||-1.2|-5.9|0.004
91914767|NCT01162421|183727191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-2.3|-6.8|<0.001
91914768|NCT01162421|183727191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 9||-0.4|-5.1|0.021
91914769|NCT01162421|183727191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 12||-0.1|-4.0|0.037
91763619|NCT01200368|183417659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
91763620|NCT01200368|183417659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
91914770|NCT01162421|183727191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||2.5|-3.7|0.702
91914771|NCT01162421|183727191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||1.8|-2.8|0.644
91914772|NCT01162421|183727192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 3||-0.1|-3.7|0.039
91914773|NCT01162421|183727192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-1.8|-5.0|<0.001
91914774|NCT01162421|183727192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 9||-0.6|-3.8|0.008
91914775|NCT01162421|183727192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 12||-0.2|-3.0|0.028
91914776|NCT01162421|183727192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||1.2|-2.6|0.452
91914777|NCT01162421|183727192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.8|-2.3|0.343
91914778|NCT01162421|183727193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.7|-7.3|0.220
91914779|NCT01162421|183727193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-3.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-3.3|-11.0|<0.001
91914780|NCT01162421|183727193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 9||0.0|-7.5|0.050
91914781|NCT01162421|183727193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||3.2|-4.6|0.725
91914782|NCT01162421|183727193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||4.1|-5.1|0.837
91914783|NCT01162421|183727193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||2.9|-4.5|0.661
91914784|NCT01162421|183727194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.7|-4.4|0.156
91763621|NCT01200368|183417659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
91914785|NCT01162421|183727194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-1.9|-6.1|<0.001
91914786|NCT01162421|183727194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 9||-0.1|-4.9|0.040
91914787|NCT01162421|183727194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||1.5|-3.1|0.492
91914788|NCT01162421|183727194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||2.0|-3.2|0.649
91914789|NCT01162421|183727194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||1.4|-3.0|0.464
91914790|NCT01162421|183727195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-2.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 3||-2.2|-22.5|0.018
91914791|NCT01162421|183727195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-13.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-13.7|-37.3|<0.001
91914792|NCT01162421|183727195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|2.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||2.3|-21.0|0.113
91914793|NCT01162421|183727195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|7.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||7.9|-14.9|0.544
91914794|NCT01162421|183727195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|11.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||11.2|-12.5|0.916
91914795|NCT01162421|183727195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|11.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||11.6|-11.8|0.983
91914796|NCT01162421|183727196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|7.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||7.6|-12.2|0.641
91914797|NCT01162421|183727196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|6.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||6.0|-16.4|0.358
91914798|NCT01162421|183727196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|16.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||16.4|-5.9|0.352
91914799|NCT01162421|183727196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|10.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||10.6|-10.5|0.990
91914800|NCT01162421|183727196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|17.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||17.1|-4.3|0.238
91914801|NCT01162421|183727196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|18.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||18.1|-4.0|0.207
91914802|NCT01162421|183727197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|9.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||9.5|-11.5|0.850
91914803|NCT01162421|183727197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|2.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.5|-19.4|0.129
91914804|NCT01162421|183727197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|11.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||11.6|-10.8|0.937
91763622|NCT01200368|183417660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.15|0.77|
91763623|NCT01200368|183417660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.53||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.53|0.98|
91763624|NCT01200368|183417660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.98|0.67|
91914805|NCT01162421|183727197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|8.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||8.8|-13.5|0.670
91763625|NCT01200368|183417660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.12|0.81|
91763626|NCT01200368|183417660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.01|0.67|
91763627|NCT01200368|183417660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.21||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||2.21|1.39|
91914806|NCT01162421|183727197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|16.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||16.7|-5.9|0.341
91914807|NCT01162421|183727197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|15.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||15.3|-9.2|0.621
91914808|NCT01162421|183727198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|7.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||7.9|-5.3|0.697
91914809|NCT01162421|183727198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||7.5|-10.5|0.744
91914810|NCT01162421|183727198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||8.0|-7.7|0.967
91914811|NCT01162421|183727198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|9.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||9.5|-3.7|0.377
91914812|NCT01162421|183727198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||12.4|-1.5|0.122
91763628|NCT01200368|183417660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.07|0.70|
91763629|NCT01200368|183417660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.99||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.99|1.31|
91763630|NCT01200368|183417660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.35||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||0.35|0.24|
91763631|NCT01200368|183417660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.54||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.54|1.07|
91914813|NCT01162421|183727198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||9.2|-4.4|0.490
91914814|NCT01162421|183727199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.1|-1.0|0.102
91914815|NCT01162421|183727199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 6||-0.3|-1.5|0.003
91914816|NCT01162421|183727199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.2|-0.9|0.214
91914817|NCT01162421|183727199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.3|-0.8|0.339
91914818|NCT01162421|183727199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.6|-0.6|0.973
91914819|NCT01162421|183727199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.5|-0.6|0.755
91914820|NCT01162421|183727200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.4||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|25.13|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 3||25.13|-7.09|0.316
91914821|NCT01162421|183727200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|42.85|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 6||42.85|6.09|0.014
91914822|NCT01162421|183727200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.2||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|17.66|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||17.66|-24.10|0.762
91914823|NCT01162421|183727200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|33.54|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||33.54|-7.46|0.220
91914824|NCT01162421|183727200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.5||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|17.86|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||17.86|-24.90|0.747
91914825|NCT01162421|183727200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.4||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|18.01|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||18.01|-26.80|0.701
91914826|NCT01162421|183727201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.5||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|30.78|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||30.78|-9.83|0.318
91914827|NCT01162421|183727201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|22.7||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|44.39|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 6||44.39|1.03|0.047
91914828|NCT01162421|183727201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|27.71|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||27.71|-17.74|0.668
91914829|NCT01162421|183727201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.8||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|30.56|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||30.56|-14.88|0.500
91914830|NCT01162421|183727201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|20.1|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||20.10|-25.52|0.816
91914831|NCT01162421|183727201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.7||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.38|11.99|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||11.99|-33.38|0.358
91914832|NCT01162421|183727202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|28.0|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||28.00|-12.17|0.444
91914833|NCT01162421|183727202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.1||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|41.83|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||41.83|-1.53|0.076
91763632|NCT01200368|183417660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.12||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.12|1.46|
91763633|NCT01200368|183417660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.52||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.52|1.04|
91914834|NCT01162421|183727202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.7||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|25.52|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||25.52|-20.10|0.816
91914835|NCT01162421|183727202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.1||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|30.87|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||30.87|-14.61|0.485
91914836|NCT01162421|183727202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|20.1|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||20.10|-25.52|0.816
91914837|NCT01162421|183727202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.7||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.38|11.99|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||11.99|-33.38|0.358
91763634|NCT01200368|183417660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.24||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.24|1.54|
91808708|NCT02057406|183494060|SUPERIORITY|The EPA/DHA arm versus placebo at Week 12.||||||0.74|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment HAMD values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline HAMD value as covariates. This analysis was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing HAMD endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||0.74
91808709|NCT02057406|183494060|SUPERIORITY|High EPA group versus placebo group at Week 12.||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment HAMD values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline HAMD value as covariates. This analysis was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing HAMD endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||0.45
91914838|NCT01162421|183727203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.6||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|33.99|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||33.99|-10.84|0.316
91914839|NCT01162421|183727203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.1||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|25.54|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||25.54|-15.43|0.630
91914840|NCT01162421|183727203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.4||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.94|20.21|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||20.21|-20.94|0.972
91914841|NCT01162421|183727203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.1||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.83|6.7|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||6.70|-34.83|0.186
91914842|NCT01162421|183727203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.6||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|4.26|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||4.26|-29.46|0.142
91914843|NCT01162421|183727203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.0||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.34|11.52|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||11.52|-20.34|0.727
91914844|NCT01162421|183727204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|22.22|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||||22.22|-9.21|0.486
91914845|NCT01162421|183727205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.29|-0.23|0.809
91914846|NCT01162421|183727205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.09||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.09|-0.44|0.194
91763635|NCT01200368|183417661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
91763636|NCT01200368|183417661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
91763637|NCT01200368|183417661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
91763638|NCT01200368|183417661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
91763639|NCT01200368|183417662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.24||||||GMC ratio for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.24|0.97|
91914847|NCT01162421|183727205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.29||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.29|-0.24|0.863
91914848|NCT01162421|183727205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.35||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.35|-0.16|0.452
91914849|NCT01162421|183727205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.33||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.33|-0.23|0.738
91914850|NCT01162421|183727205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.38||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.38|-0.21|0.572
91763640|NCT01200368|183417662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||||||GMC ratio for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.06|0.77|
91914851|NCT01162421|183727206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.9||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.05|10.31|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||10.31|-34.05|0.299
91914852|NCT01162421|183727206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.77|19.77|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||19.77|-25.77|0.796
91914853|NCT01162421|183727206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|29.22|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||29.22|-15.30|0.540
91763641|NCT01200368|183417663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1||||||GMC ratio for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.10|0.87|
91763642|NCT01200368|183417663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||||||GMC ratio for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.05|0.81|
91763643|NCT01200368|183417664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15||||||GMC ratio for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.15|0.88|
91763644|NCT01200368|183417664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19||||||GMC ratio for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.19|0.85|
91763645|NCT01200368|183417665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||||||GMC ratio for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.11|0.84|
91763646|NCT01200368|183417665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.91||||||GMC ratio for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||0.91|0.70|
91763647|NCT01290757|183417674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Scaled average BE is rejected, if the calculated upper 95% confidence limit of the linearized criterion is positive.|Upper 95% CI of the linearized criterion|-0.082|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Linearized regulatory criterion according to Tothfalusi et al (Pharmaceutical Research, 2001). The square of the difference in treatment responses divided by within-subject variance of the reference formulation minus square of ln(1.25)/0.25|Capsugel minus Qualicaps||||
91763648|NCT01290757|183417674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|126.33||||||90.0|119.45|133.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||133.60|119.45|
91763649|NCT01290757|183417675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Scaled average BE is rejected, if the calculated upper 95% confidence limit of the linearized criterion is positive.|Upper 95% CI of the linearized criterion|-0.085|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Linearized regulatory criterion according to Tothfalusi et al (Pharmaceutical Research, 2001). The square of the difference in treatment responses divided by within-subject variance of the reference formulation minus square of ln(1.25)/0.25|Capsugel minus Qualicaps||||
91914854|NCT01162421|183727206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.6||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.39|12.19|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||12.19|-31.39|0.392
91914855|NCT01162421|183727206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.3||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|19.37|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||19.37|-25.96|0.776
91914856|NCT01162421|183727206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-16.1||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.64|6.4|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||6.40|-38.64|0.166
91914857|NCT01162421|183727207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.84|9.01|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||9.01|-30.84|0.283
91914858|NCT01162421|183727207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|28.0|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||28.00|-12.17|0.444
91914859|NCT01162421|183727207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.6||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|23.38|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||23.38|-20.16|0.885
91914860|NCT01162421|183727207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.54|20.64|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||20.64|-22.54|0.931
91914861|NCT01162421|183727207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.63|23.03|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||23.03|-18.63|0.836
91914862|NCT01162421|183727207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.63|23.03|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||23.03|-18.63|0.836
91914863|NCT01162421|183727208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||5.4|-3.6|0.699
91914864|NCT01162421|183727208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||7.7|-2.1|0.261
91914865|NCT01162421|183727208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||3.2|-6.2|0.514
91914866|NCT01162421|183727208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||2.3|-7.7|0.283
91763650|NCT01290757|183417675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|125.49||||||90.0|118.69|132.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||132.67|118.69|
91914867|NCT01162421|183727208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||3.4|-7.5|0.461
91763651|NCT01290757|183417676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|124.74||||||90.0|118.32|131.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||131.51|118.32|
91763652|NCT01290757|183417677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|126.22||||||90.0|119.36|133.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||133.47|119.36|
91763653|NCT01290757|183417678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|125.3||||||90.0|118.42|132.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||132.59|118.42|
91914868|NCT01162421|183727208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||4.5|-6.6|0.703
91914869|NCT01162421|183727209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.94|15.16|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 3||15.16|-17.94|1.000
91914870|NCT01162421|183727209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.4||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|8.81|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 6||8.81|-22.34|0.468
91914871|NCT01162421|183727209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.9||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.88|3.16|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 9||3.16|-27.88|0.142
91914872|NCT01162421|183727209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.6||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|19.83|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 12||19.83|-11.08|0.712
91914873|NCT01162421|183727209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.2||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|22.89|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 18||22.89|-8.92|0.482
91914874|NCT01162421|183727209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.2||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|7.69|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 24||7.69|-21.18|0.418
91914875|NCT01162421|183727210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|7.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||7.4|-16.3|0.453
91914876|NCT01162421|183727210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|4.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||4.0|-19.7|0.187
91914877|NCT01162421|183727210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|9.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||9.4|-16.1|0.598
91914878|NCT01162421|183727210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.75||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|15.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||15.0|-8.2|0.558
91914879|NCT01162421|183727210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|15.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||15.6|-10.1|0.669
91914880|NCT01162421|183727210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|13.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||13.5|-11.3|0.865
91914881|NCT01162421|183727211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.13|-0.10|0.809
91914882|NCT01162421|183727211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.17|-0.08|0.447
91914883|NCT01162421|183727211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.09|-0.16|0.579
91914884|NCT01162421|183727211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.12||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.12|-0.11|0.922
91914885|NCT01162421|183727211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.12|-0.14|0.894
91914886|NCT01162421|183727211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.10|-0.17|0.611
91914887|NCT01162421|183727212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|6.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||6.3|-11.3|0.572
91914888|NCT01162421|183727212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|18.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||18.2|-2.4|0.130
91763654|NCT01290757|183417679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|124.49||||||90.0|118.11|131.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||131.21|118.11|
91763655|NCT00570310|183417680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.003||90.0|-2.25|-0.6||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA||Primary Hypothesis: In 'primary responder population', pregabalin is superior to placebo in maintaining pain control measured by change (3-day average: end of the randomization period versus end of maintenance period) in evening pain intensity.|||-0.60|-2.25|0.003
91763656|NCT00570310|183417681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.67|||<|0.001||95.0|5.26|10.08||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||10.08|5.26|<0.001
91763657|NCT00759161|183417690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided sign test|||||||< 0.001
91763658|NCT01337336|183417702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.002||95.0|1.08|1.56|||Chi-squared||Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.56|1.08|0.002
91763659|NCT01337336|183417703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.002||95.0|1.02|2.38||COPD-related hospitalization|Chi-squared||Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.38|1.02|0.002
91914889|NCT01162421|183727212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||8.1|-12.9|0.649
91914890|NCT01162421|183727212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|6.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||6.9|-12.3|0.579
91914891|NCT01162421|183727212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|8.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||8.9|-11.1|0.826
91914892|NCT01162421|183727212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|9.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||9.0|-13.8|0.675
91914893|NCT01162421|183727213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||4.3|-2.0|0.458
91914894|NCT01162421|183727213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.1|-4.9|0.419
91914895|NCT01162421|183727213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||3.4|-2.3|0.692
91914896|NCT01162421|183727213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||5.0|-1.8|0.357
91914897|NCT01162421|183727213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||4.7|-2.0|0.420
91763660|NCT01337336|183417703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002||95.0|1.14|2.39||COPD-related ER visit|Chi-squared||Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.39|1.14|0.002
91914898|NCT01162421|183727213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||4.5|-1.8|0.380
91914899|NCT01162421|183727214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 3||1.1|0.0|0.046
91914900|NCT01162421|183727214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 6||1.3|0.3|0.003
91914901|NCT01162421|183727214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.8|-0.2|0.204
91914902|NCT01162421|183727214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.7|-0.2|0.227
91914903|NCT01162421|183727214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.5|-0.4|0.860
91914904|NCT01162421|183727214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.6|-0.3|0.476
91914905|NCT01260454|183727242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is open-label, uncontrolled data; the comparison is made between each individual's baseline.||||0.03
91914906|NCT00091832|183727245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.245
91914907|NCT00091832|183727246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.848
91914908|NCT00091832|183727247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||||95.0|0.68|4.35|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||4.35|0.68|
91914909|NCT00091832|183727247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||||95.0|0.51|3.24|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||3.24|0.51|
91763661|NCT01337336|183417703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.503||95.0|0.93|1.4|||Chi-squared|COPD-related physician + Rx visit|Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.40|0.93|0.503
91914910|NCT00091832|183727247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.34|2.29|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||2.29|0.34|
91914911|NCT00091832|183727247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||||95.0|0.51|3.2|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||3.20|0.51|
91914912|NCT00091832|183727247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||||95.0|0.7|4.34|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||4.34|0.70|
91914913|NCT00091832|183727248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||||95.0|0.69|4.79|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||4.79|0.69|
91914914|NCT00091832|183727248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||||95.0|0.25|1.76|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.76|0.25|
91763662|NCT01337336|183417703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71|||<|0.001||95.0|1.26|2.31|||Chi-squared|COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit|Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.31|1.26|<0.001
91763663|NCT01337336|183417705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.46||||0.0004||95.0|1.01|2.09||COPD-related hospitalization|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.09|1.01|0.0004
91914915|NCT00091832|183727248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||||95.0|0.24|1.77|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.77|0.24|
91914916|NCT00091832|183727248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||||95.0|0.22|1.58|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.58|0.22|
91914917|NCT00091832|183727248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||||95.0|0.25|1.92|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.92|0.25|
91914918|NCT00091832|183727249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||||95.0|0.51|1.31|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.31|0.51|
91914919|NCT00091832|183727249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||||95.0|0.64|1.65|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.65|0.64|
91914920|NCT00091832|183727249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||||95.0|0.68|1.74|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.74|0.68|
91914921|NCT00091832|183727249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||||95.0|0.68|1.74|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.74|0.68|
91914922|NCT00091832|183727249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||||95.0|0.71|1.83|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.83|0.71|
91914923|NCT00091832|183727260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.543||||||95.0|0.159|1.856|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||1.856|0.159|
91914924|NCT00091832|183727260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||||95.0|0.159|1.859|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||1.859|0.159|
91914925|NCT00091832|183727260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791||||||95.0|0.266|2.355|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||2.355|0.266|
91914926|NCT00091832|183727260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||||95.0|0.389|2.963|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||2.963|0.389|
91914927|NCT00091832|183727260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||||95.0|0.158|1.847|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||1.847|0.158|
91914928|NCT00091832|183727261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||||95.0|0.51|7.17|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||7.17|0.51|
91914929|NCT00091832|183727261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||||95.0|0.36|3.97|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||3.97|0.36|
91914930|NCT00091832|183727261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||||95.0|0.26|2.52|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||2.52|0.26|
91763664|NCT01337336|183417705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.27||||0.208||95.0|0.89|1.82||COPD-related ER visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.82|0.89|0.208
91763665|NCT01337336|183417705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.671||95.0|0.9|1.32||COPD-related physician + Rx visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.32|0.90|0.671
91914931|NCT00091832|183727261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||||95.0|0.5|7.05|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||7.05|0.5|
91914932|NCT00091832|183727261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||||95.0|0.5|7.05|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||7.05|0.5|
91914933|NCT03434379|183727265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.79|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 18 months; Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP: \<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.79|0.42|0.0006
91914934|NCT03434379|183727265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 30 months; Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP: \<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.85|0.52|0.0009
91763666|NCT01337336|183417705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.31||||0.009||95.0|1.05|1.72||COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.72|1.05|0.009
91914935|NCT03434379|183727266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
91914936|NCT03434379|183727267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.76|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 18 months; Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.76|0.25|0.0026
91914937|NCT03434379|183727267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.8|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 30 months; Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.80|0.35|0.0019
91914938|NCT03434379|183727268|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.90|0.40|0.0117
91914939|NCT03434379|183727269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||5.01|1.68|<0.0001
91914940|NCT03434379|183727270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||5.71|2.02|<0.0001
91914941|NCT03434379|183727271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|12.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||12.66|2.99|<0.0001
91914942|NCT03434379|183727272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.7|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.70|0.08|0.0051
91763667|NCT01337336|183417705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.16||||0.052||95.0|0.98|1.37||COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit/physician + Rx visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.37|0.98|0.052
91914943|NCT03434379|183727273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.73|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.73|0.12|0.0048
91914944|NCT03434379|183727274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.15|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||2.15|0.16|0.4187
91914945|NCT03434379|183727275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.74|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.74|0.46|<.0001
91914946|NCT03434379|183727276|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.57|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.57|0.36|<.0001
91914947|NCT03434379|183727277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.92|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.92|0.53|0.0105
91914948|NCT03434379|183727278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.90|0.52|0.0063
91914949|NCT03434379|183727279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.57|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.57|0.35|<.0001
91914950|NCT03434379|183727280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.78|||Log Rank|||AFP \<400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.78|0.32|0.0019
91914951|NCT03434379|183727280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.06|||Log Rank|||AFP \>/= 400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||1.06|0.42|0.0879
91914952|NCT03434379|183727281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.68|||Log Rank|||AFP\<400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.68|0.37|<.0001
91914953|NCT03434379|183727281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.15|||Log Rank|||AFP \>/=400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||1.15|0.53|0.2159
91763668|NCT00757237|183417709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The treatment difference (TIS-AZLI) and standard error from the ANCOVA model were used to compute the two-sided 95% confidence interval. If the 95% upper boundary was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 4%, then the null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-3.86||Based on the Benjamini \& Hochberg method, non-inferiority at Day 28 for relative change in FEV1 percent predicted was assessed at the 0.05 level, given the significance of the coprimary endpoint (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, and previous inhaled tobramycin use for all participants.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: AZLI was inferior to TIS by more than 4% in the mean relative change of FEV1 percent predicted at Day 28. With 120 subjects per treatment group there was at least 85% power to declare noninferiority based on relative change from baseline at Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted using the upper bound of a 2-tailed 95% CI for the difference in means with a noninferiority margin of 4, assuming a common standard deviation of 18% and true difference in means \[TIS-AZLI\] of -3.2%.||-3.86|-11.73|0.0001
91914954|NCT03434379|183727282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.57|||Log Rank|||AFP \<400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.57|0.31|<0.0001
91914955|NCT03434379|183727282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.73|||Log Rank|||AFP \>/=400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.73|0.35|0.0002
91914956|NCT03434379|183727283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.73|||Log Rank|||Physical Functioning: Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.73|0.39|<.0001
91914957|NCT03434379|183727283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84|||Log Rank|||Role Functioning: Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.84|0.46|0.0019
91914958|NCT03434379|183727283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.85|||Log Rank|||GHS/QoL: Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.85|0.46|0.0028
91914959|NCT03434379|183727288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|13.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||13.86|1.53|0.0036
91914960|NCT03434379|183727289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|12.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||12.87|1.72|0.0013
91914961|NCT03434379|183727290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|17.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||17.39|1.47|0.0052
91914962|NCT03434379|183727291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.85|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||5.85|0.02|0.4581
91914963|NCT03434379|183727292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.91|||Log Rank||Lower limit: \<0.01|Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.91|0.01|0.0100
91914964|NCT03434379|183727293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.69|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||3.69|0.03|0.3477
91914965|NCT03434379|183727294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.89|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.89|0.40|0.0103
91914966|NCT03434379|183727295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.71|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.71|0.33|0.0002
91914967|NCT03434379|183727296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.07|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||1.07|0.43|0.0927
91914968|NCT03434379|183727297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.06|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||1.06|0.43|0.0861
91914969|NCT03434379|183727298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.74|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.74|0.33|0.0004
91914970|NCT03434379|183727299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.78|||Log Rank|||Physical Functioning: Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.78|0.26|0.0035
91914971|NCT03434379|183727299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.2214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.23|||Log Rank|||Role Functioning: Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||1.23|0.42|0.2214
91808710|NCT02057406|183494061|SUPERIORITY|Active supplements (2:1 EPA/DHA and High EPA combined) versus placebo at Week 12.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment EPA values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline EPA value as covariates. This analyses was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing EPA endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||<0.0001
91808711|NCT02057406|183494061|SUPERIORITY|2:1 EPA/DHA versus High EPA at Week 12.||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment EPA values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline EPA value as covariates. This analyses was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing EPA endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||0.12
91914972|NCT03434379|183727299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.88|||Log Rank|||GHS/QoL: Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.88|0.32|0.0135
91914973|NCT02022826|183727326|OTHER||percentage of agreement|76.0||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|83.0|||McNemar|||||83|69|0.0052
91808712|NCT04492618|183494062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91808713|NCT01635101|183494078|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-91.0|67.3|||ANOVA|||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means||67.3|-91.0|0.736
91808714|NCT01635101|183494078|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-75.9|78.7|||ANOVA|||LS Mean Difference||78.7|-75.9|0.967
91914974|NCT02022826|183727327|OTHER||precentage of agreement|92.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|96.0|||McNemar|||||96|87|1.00
91914975|NCT03179436|183727331|OTHER||Percent Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||Percent Difference|Comparision based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||14.1|-8.7|
91914976|NCT01634555|183727343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Irinotecan .||||1.05|0.83|
91914977|NCT01634555|183727343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Metabolite SN-38.||||1.04|0.88|
91914978|NCT01634555|183727345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Irinotecan.||||1.12|0.97|
91914979|NCT01634555|183727345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Metabolite SN-38.||||1.12|0.85|
91914980|NCT01506882|183727348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|73.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|84.2||||||"The primary efficacy variable was to be calculated as the proportion p=n/N of subjects (n) staying seizure free for 6 months out of the total number of subjects (N). For this proportion p, an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed based on the F distribution.~The hypothesis H0: p=0.4 was to be formally rejected in favor of H1: p\>0.4, if the lower confidence limit for p was greater than 0.4."||84.2|60.9|
91914981|NCT04025632|183727364|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds|0.55||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.57||Conducted using a 2-sided Van Elteren test, which represents an extension of the Wilcoxon rank sum test for comparing 2 treatments in a stratified experiment using within-stratum ranks assigning greater weight to rank sums from smaller strata.|2-sided Van Elteren test||The magnitude of association between treatment groups was expressed as in Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds followed by the 95% confidence intervals.|||1.57|0.19|0.464
91914982|NCT04025632|183727366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.088||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|5.535||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups was calculated using logistic regression with investigational medicinal product and strata as fixed factors.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.535|0.214|0.919
91914983|NCT04025632|183727367|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.688||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.781|1.404||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-coenzyme A reductase \[HMGCR\]+/anti-signal recognition particle \[SRP\]+) as fixed factors with Baseline 3TUG as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||1.404|-2.781|0.496
91914984|NCT04025632|183727368|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.89||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|13.95||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline proximal MMT as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||13.95|-6.18|0.431
91914985|NCT04025632|183727369|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.204||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.855|1.448||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline Physician Global Activity VAS as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||1.448|-1.855|0.800
91914986|NCT04025632|183727370|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.281||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.829||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline Patient Global Activity VAS as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||0.829|-3.390|0.221
91914987|NCT04025632|183727371|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.147||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.601|0.307||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline HAQ as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||0.307|-0.601|0.508
91914988|NCT04025632|183727372|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.143||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.123|0.837|||Linear Mixed Effect Model|Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline MDAAT as a covariate.|The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||0.837|-1.123|0.765
91914989|NCT04025632|183727373|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.53||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|15.55||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline FACIT-Fatigue Scale as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||15.55|-4.49|0.265
91914990|NCT02216695|183727380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.4|||Regression, Logistic||This is OR for 65 to 74 years age group with \< 65 years as the reference group|||1.40|1.30|
91914991|NCT02216695|183727380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|1.79|||Regression, Logistic||This is OR for age group 75 to 84 years age group with \< 65 years as reference|||1.79|1.66|
91914992|NCT02216695|183727380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||This is OR for age group equal to greater than 85 years age group with \< 65 years as reference|||2.19|1.89|
91763669|NCT00757237|183417710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.0023||||||Based on the Benjamini \& Hochberg method, superiority at Weeks 4, 12, and 20 of actual change in FEV1 percent predicted was tested at the 0.05 level, given the significance of the coprimary endpoint (p\<0.05).|MMRM analysis|MMRM analysis included Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, previous inhaled tobramycin use, treatment, visit, and treatment/visit interaction.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|"Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the mean actual change of FEV1 percent predicted across 3 treatment courses among all participants.~With 120 subjects per treatment group, there was at least 90% power at a 5% significance level to detect differences based upon actual change from baseline in FEV1 percent predicted (3.61%, 2.98%, 2.32%) between AZLI and TIS at Weeks 4, 12, and 20 with a common standard deviation of 9%."||||0.0023
91914993|NCT02216695|183727381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||This is the OR for 1998-2003 discharge period with 2003-08 as the reference group|||1.30|1.10|
91914994|NCT02216695|183727381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||This is the OR for 2008-13 discharge period with 2003-08 as the reference group|||1.18|1.07|
91914995|NCT02591615|183727382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2176|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2176
91914996|NCT02591615|183727383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.64|||Log Rank|||||1.64|0.67|0.84
91914997|NCT05195528|183727393|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.81|22.45||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||22.45|11.81|<0.0001
91914998|NCT05195528|183727393|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|22.04||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||22.04|11.36|<0.0001
91914999|NCT05195528|183727394|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|21.6||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||21.60|9.93|<0.0001
91915000|NCT05195528|183727394|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.84|19.54||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||19.54|7.84|<0.0001
91915001|NCT01552902|183727395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LSM|-3.4|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least squares mean (LSM), the difference in LSM and its 95% confidence interval (CI), and the p-value were from a mixed effects model for repeated measures that included treatment group, visit, interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline score as a covariate, and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline score with the visit. The model was based on Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method of estimation and utilized an unstructured covariance.||-1.3|-5.4|= 0.0013
91915002|NCT01552902|183727395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LSM|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM, the difference in LSM and its 95% CI, and the p-value were from a mixed effects model for repeated measures that included treatment group, visit, interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline score as a covariate, and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline score with the visit. The model was based on REML method of estimation and utilized an unstructured covariance.||-6|-11|< 0.0001
91915003|NCT01552902|183727395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LSM|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM, the difference in LSM and its 95% CI, and the p-value were from a mixed effects model for repeated measures that includes treatment group, visit, interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline score as a covariate, and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline score with the visit. The model was based on REML method of estimation and utilized an unstructured covariance.||-2.6|-7.6|< 0.0001
91915004|NCT00168831|183727412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
91915005|NCT00168831|183727412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
91915006|NCT00168831|183727413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.713|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.052||0.0004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||0.0004
91915007|NCT00168831|183727413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059||0.0012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||0.0012
91915008|NCT00168831|183727414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
91915009|NCT00168831|183727414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
91915010|NCT00168831|183727415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.782||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.89|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg vs. Placebo|||0.890|0.687|0.0002
91915011|NCT00168831|183727415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.725|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|0.828|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg vs. Placebo|||0.828|0.635|<0.0001
91915012|NCT00168831|183727459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91915013|NCT00168831|183727459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA||Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91915014|NCT00168831|183727460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91915015|NCT00168831|183727460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91915016|NCT00168831|183727461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91915017|NCT00168831|183727461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91915018|NCT00168831|183727462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91915019|NCT00168831|183727462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91915020|NCT00168831|183727463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91915021|NCT00168831|183727463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91915022|NCT00168831|183727464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0169||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||0.0169
91915023|NCT00168831|183727464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91915024|NCT02357420|183727473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Measures mixed effects model (MMRM)|MMRM analysis used treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors and baseline values as the covariates.||||||0.36
91915025|NCT02357420|183727473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||MMRM|MMRM analysis used treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors and baseline values as the covariates.||||||0.25
91915026|NCT02357420|183727473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||MMRM|MMRM analysis used treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors and baseline values as the covariates.||||||0.59
91915027|NCT01808612|183727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 522 participants were to be enrolled. Randomization was to be 2:1:3 (20 mg fluoxetine:40 mg fluoxetine:placebo). Assuming 5% of participants would have missing post-baseline data, the study had 85% power to detect an effect size of 0.33 (20 mg fluoxetine compared to placebo on HAMD21 total score) based on simulations with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||2.00|-0.55|0.264
91915028|NCT03072160|183727552|OTHER|||||||0.926||||||CD4|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.926
91915029|NCT03072160|183727552|OTHER|||||||0.445||||||CD8|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.445
91915030|NCT03072160|183727552|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Tregs|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.210
91915031|NCT03072160|183727552|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||Natural Killer (NK) cells|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.780
91915032|NCT01046695|183727560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Decrease in OME use in the TENS Unit during the first and second 24 hours.||||.005
91915033|NCT01046695|183727560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Decrease in OME use in the Control Arm during the first and second 24 hours.||||.11
91915034|NCT01046695|183727561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
91915035|NCT04426695|183727563|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.02||P-value for change from baseline on log scale for each treatment group was based on the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.51|0.0663
91915036|NCT04426695|183727563|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.0204||95.0|-0.57|0.05||P-value for change from baseline on log scale for each treatment group was based on the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.57|0.0204
91763670|NCT00757237|183417711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The treatment difference (TIS-AZLI) and standard error from the ANCOVA model were used to compute the two-sided 95% confidence interval. If the 95% upper boundary was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 4%, then the null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|-5.14||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially by the closed testing procedure initiated by the significance of the primary endpoints. Given the coprimary endpoints were met at the 0.05 level, this non-inferiority endpoint was tested at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment and Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: AZLI was inferior to TIS by more than 4% in terms of the participant means in relative change of FEV1 percent predicted at Day 28 among all participants having \>= 84 days of inhaled tobramycin use in the previous 12 months.||-5.14|-13.86|<0.0001
91763671|NCT00757237|183417712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.0002||||||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially to control the Type I error rate based on the closed testing procedure. Given the significance of the coprimary endpoints and previous secondary endpoint, this endpoint was also tested at the 0.05 level.|MMRM analysis|MMRM analysis included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, visit, treatment, and treatment/visit interaction for all participants.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the mean actual change of FEV1 percent predicted across 3 treatment courses in the stratum of subjects having \>=84 days of inhaled tobramycin use in the previous 12 months.||||0.0002
91915037|NCT04426695|183727563|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.05||P-value for change from baseline on log scale for each treatment group was based on the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.|ANCOVA|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||-0.05|-0.51|0.0172
91915038|NCT04426695|183727564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0431||||||P-value was derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0431
91915039|NCT04426695|183727564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7975||||||P-value was derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7975
91915040|NCT04426695|183727564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2048||||||P-value was derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.2048
91915041|NCT04426695|183727565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0039
91763672|NCT00757237|183417713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|||||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially to control the Type I error rate based on the closed testing procedure. Given the significance of the coprimary endpoints and previous secondary endpoint, this endpoint was also tested at the 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups with respect to time to need for IV antipseudomonal antibiotics for respiratory events.||||0.0025
91915042|NCT04426695|183727565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2415||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2415
91915043|NCT04426695|183727565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0195
91915044|NCT04426695|183727566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0085
91915045|NCT04426695|183727566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9902||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9902
91763673|NCT00757237|183417714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1114||||||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially to control the Type I error rate based on the closed testing procedure. Given the significance of the coprimary endpoints and previous secondary endpoint, this endpoint was also tested at the 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups with respect to time to first respiratory hospitalization.||||0.1114
91808715|NCT01327885|183494088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||=|0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.954||The P-value was calculated by 2-sided log-rank test as stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio is based on a stratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS as strata.|Statistical analysis was designed to detect superiority of Arm A (eribulin) over Arm B (dacarbazine). OS was compared between the two treatment arms using a two-sided stratified log-rank test at a nominal significance level of 0.0455 (adjusted for the interim analysis). This was the primary analysis that was performed when the target number of events (\~353 deaths) was observed.||0.954|0.618|=0.0169
91915046|NCT04426695|183727566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1486||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.1486
91915047|NCT04426695|183727567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0092
91915048|NCT04426695|183727567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2210
91915049|NCT04426695|183727567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0249
91915050|NCT04426695|183727568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0045
91915051|NCT04426695|183727568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0714||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0714
91915052|NCT04426695|183727568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0061
91915053|NCT04426695|183727569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
91915054|NCT04426695|183727569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3544||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3544
91915055|NCT04426695|183727569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0212
91915056|NCT04426695|183727575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0575||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0575
91915057|NCT04426695|183727575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3133||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3133
91763674|NCT00757237|183417715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.61||||0.0048||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, Day 0 CFQ-R RSS score, and previous inhaled tobramycin use.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS scores at Day 28.||||0.0048
91915058|NCT04426695|183727575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0849
91915059|NCT04426695|183727576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2167||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2167
91915060|NCT04426695|183727576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4123||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4123
91915061|NCT04426695|183727576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2206||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2206
91915062|NCT04426695|183727577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0383||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0383
91915063|NCT04426695|183727577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3296||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3296
91915064|NCT04426695|183727577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0766||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0766
91915065|NCT04426695|183727578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0070
91915066|NCT04426695|183727578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0507||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0507
91915067|NCT04426695|183727578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0051
91915068|NCT04426695|183727579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0174
91915069|NCT04426695|183727579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2900
91763675|NCT00757237|183417716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13||||0.0189||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, Day 0 CFQ-R RSS score, and previous inhaled tobramycin use.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the average actual change in respiratory symptoms at the end of each treatment course (Weeks 4, 12, and 20).||||0.0189
91763676|NCT00757237|183417717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.12||||0.0097||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, and previous inhaled tobramycin use.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the global satisfaction results of the TSQM at Week 20 (Day 140).||||0.0097
91915070|NCT04426695|183727579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0454||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0454
91915071|NCT04426695|183727580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0040
91915072|NCT04426695|183727580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0413||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0413
91915073|NCT04426695|183727580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0032
91915074|NCT04426695|183727581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0105
91915075|NCT04426695|183727581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0622||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0622
91915076|NCT04426695|183727581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0088
91915077|NCT04426695|183727582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0275
91915078|NCT04426695|183727582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0223
91915079|NCT04426695|183727582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0072
91915080|NCT04426695|183727583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1032||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1032
91915081|NCT04426695|183727583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3350
91915082|NCT04426695|183727583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1314||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1314
91915083|NCT04426695|183727584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00024||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00024
91915084|NCT04426695|183727584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0054
91915085|NCT04426695|183727584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
91915086|NCT04426695|183727591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0533||||||P-value based on stratified log-rank test with the type of background standard-of-care and baseline serostatus as stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.0533
91915087|NCT04426695|183727591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0411||||||P-value based on stratified log-rank test with the type of background standard-of-care and baseline serostatus as stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.0411
91915088|NCT04426695|183727591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229||||||P-value based on stratified log-rank test with the type of background standard-of-care and baseline serostatus as stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.0229
91915089|NCT04426695|183727592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.0218
91763677|NCT00757237|183417718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|negative binomial regression method|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the total number of respiratory hospitalizations from Day 0 to Day 168 (end of study).||||0.044
91915090|NCT04426695|183727592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.0156
91915091|NCT04426695|183727592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.0067
91915092|NCT04426695|183727596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2162||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2162
91915093|NCT04426695|183727596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8783||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8783
91915094|NCT04426695|183727596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5583||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5583
91763678|NCT00757237|183417719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|negative binomial regression method|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the total number of respiratory events requiring IV and/or inhaled antipseudomonal antibiotics (other than randomized treatment) from Day 0 to Day 168 (end of study).||||0.004
91763679|NCT00757237|183417720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups with respect to time to need for inhaled and/or IV antipseudomonal antibiotics for respiratory events.||||0.0004
91915095|NCT04426695|183727596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7189||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7189
91915096|NCT04426695|183727596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0429||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0429
91915097|NCT04426695|183727596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2103||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2103
91915098|NCT04426695|183727597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0223
91915099|NCT04426695|183727597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1256||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1256
91915100|NCT04426695|183727597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0230
91915101|NCT04426695|183727597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1298||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1298
91915102|NCT04426695|183727597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2642||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2642
91915103|NCT04426695|183727597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0970
91915104|NCT04426695|183727598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0147
91915105|NCT04426695|183727598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0669||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0669
91915106|NCT04426695|183727598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0094
91915107|NCT04426695|183727598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1306||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1306
91915108|NCT04426695|183727598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3576||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3576
91915109|NCT04426695|183727598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1476||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1476
91915110|NCT04426695|183727599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0481
91915111|NCT04426695|183727599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0535||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0535
91915112|NCT04426695|183727599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0199
91915113|NCT04426695|183727599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2784||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2784
91915114|NCT04426695|183727599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2510
91915115|NCT04426695|183727599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1702||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1702
91915116|NCT04426695|183727600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0500
91915117|NCT04426695|183727600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0663||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0663
91915118|NCT04426695|183727600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0229
91915119|NCT04426695|183727600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0208||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0208
91915120|NCT04426695|183727600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0388||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0388
91915121|NCT04426695|183727600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0092
91915122|NCT04426695|183727604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0370
91915123|NCT04426695|183727604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1596|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.1596
91915124|NCT04426695|183727604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0444|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0444
91915125|NCT04426695|183727604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1802|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.1802
91915126|NCT04426695|183727604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0407|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0407
91915127|NCT04426695|183727604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0523|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0523
91915128|NCT04426695|183727605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0245|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0245
91915129|NCT04426695|183727605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0554|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0554
91915130|NCT04426695|183727605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0179|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0179
91915131|NCT04426695|183727605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0035
91915132|NCT04426695|183727605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91915133|NCT04426695|183727605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91763680|NCT01843023|183417722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.558|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91915134|NCT04426695|183727606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0013
91915135|NCT04426695|183727606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
91915136|NCT04426695|183727606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91915137|NCT04426695|183727606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0250
91915138|NCT04426695|183727606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0012
91915139|NCT04426695|183727606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
91915140|NCT04426695|183727607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0623|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0623
91763681|NCT01843023|183417724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.722|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91915141|NCT04426695|183727607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0203
91915142|NCT04426695|183727607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0193
91763682|NCT01397461|183417728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||"The treatment comparison was done using only the outcomes of Clinical success and Clinical failure. The p value of the chi square test (without continuity correction) and corresponding 95% asymptotic (Wald) CI for the difference in success rates for the ozenoxacin versus placebo were provided. The analysis was performed to test the superiority of ozenoxacin versus placebo.~Text extracted from the statistical analysis plan. No additional data was pre-specified for the statistical comparison"||||0.003
91915143|NCT04426695|183727607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1206|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.1206
91915144|NCT04426695|183727607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0911|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0911
91915145|NCT04426695|183727607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0645
91915146|NCT04426695|183727608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0623|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0623
91915147|NCT04426695|183727608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0203
91915148|NCT04426695|183727608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0193
91915149|NCT04426695|183727608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1206|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.1206
91915150|NCT04426695|183727608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0911|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0911
91915151|NCT04426695|183727608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0645
91915152|NCT04426695|183727609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0481
91915153|NCT04426695|183727609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9880
91915154|NCT04426695|183727609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2498||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2498
91915155|NCT04426695|183727609|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
91915156|NCT04426695|183727609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0457||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0457
91915157|NCT04426695|183727609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2153||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2153
91915158|NCT04426695|183727610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0811||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0811
91915159|NCT04426695|183727610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6701||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6701
91915160|NCT04426695|183727610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2006||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2006
91915161|NCT04426695|183727610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3313||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3313
91763683|NCT02204072|183417786|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.7|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs Enzalutamide|||1.70|0.57|0.9549
91915162|NCT04426695|183727610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5542||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5542
91915163|NCT04426695|183727610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2214||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2214
91915164|NCT04426695|183727611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0389||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0389
91915165|NCT04426695|183727611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5208||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5208
91915166|NCT04426695|183727611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1079||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1079
91915167|NCT04426695|183727611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3315||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3315
91915168|NCT04426695|183727611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5797||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5797
91915169|NCT04426695|183727611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3036||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3036
91915170|NCT04426695|183727612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0364
91763684|NCT02204072|183417789|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.5425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.06|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs. Enzaludamide.|||2.06|0.68|0.5425
91915171|NCT04426695|183727612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2795||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2795
91915172|NCT04426695|183727612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0588
91915173|NCT04426695|183727612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0364
91915174|NCT04426695|183727612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2795||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2795
91915175|NCT04426695|183727612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0588
91915176|NCT04426695|183727613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2635||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2635
91915177|NCT04426695|183727613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8013||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8013
91915178|NCT04426695|183727613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4160
91763685|NCT02204072|183417790|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.5534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.9|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs. Enzalutamide.|||1.90|0.71|0.5534
91763686|NCT02204072|183417791|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.18|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs. Enzalutamide.|||1.18|0.35|0.1514
91763687|NCT02204072|183417795|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.579||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|12.515|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio, p-value and confidence interval were obtained from logistic regression model.||||12.515|0.269|0.6186
91915179|NCT04426695|183727613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2194||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2194
91915180|NCT04426695|183727613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3240
91915181|NCT04426695|183727613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1981||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1981
91915182|NCT00559273|183727629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value was the probability that the number of responders is greater than or equal to the observed number, although the true response rate was smaller or equal to 60%. Null hypothesis (H0): p-value \<=0.6; alternate hypothesis (H1): p-value \>0.6.||||<0.0001
91915183|NCT00559273|183727629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value was the probability that the number of responders is greater than or equal to the observed number, although the true response rate was smaller or equal to 60%. Null hypothesis (H0): p-value \<=0.6; alternate hypothesis (H1): p-value \>0.6.||||<0.0001
91915184|NCT00559273|183727630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MIRCERA treatment was regarded as non-inferior to the darbepoetin alfa reference group if the lower limit of the CI was greater than -0.75 g/dL.|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.180|-0.252|<0.0001
91915185|NCT03653390|183727645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 6 months.||||||<0.01
91915186|NCT03653390|183727645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.24||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.22|||Tukey's HSD test|This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||0.22|-2.71|0.11
91915187|NCT03653390|183727645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-0.95|||Tukey's HSD test|This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.95|-3.85|<0.01
91915188|NCT03653390|183727645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.32|||Tukey's HSD test|This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||0.32|-2.64|0.16
91915189|NCT03653390|183727646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 6 months.||||||<0.01
91915190|NCT03653390|183727646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|-0.3||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.30|-4.05|0.018
91915191|NCT03653390|183727646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.26||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.41||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.41|-4.12|0.012
91915192|NCT03653390|183727646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.81||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||1.81|-1.98|0.99
91915193|NCT03653390|183727647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 3 months.||||||0.382
91915194|NCT03653390|183727648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 3 months.||||||0.29
91915195|NCT03653390|183727649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 3 months.||||||0.057
91915196|NCT03653390|183727650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in number of trips from baseline to 12 months.||||||0.21
91915197|NCT03653390|183727651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in radius of gyration from baseline to 12 months.||||||0.79
91915198|NCT03653390|183727652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in number of trips from baseline to 12 months.||||||0.26
91915199|NCT03653390|183727653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in minutes from baseline to 12 months.||||||<0.01
91915200|NCT03653390|183727653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.7|38.4||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||38.4|-95.7|0.57
91915201|NCT03653390|183727653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|66.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|132.6||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||132.6|0.56|0.048
91915202|NCT03653390|183727653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|95.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|158.7||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||158.7|31.8|<0.01
91915203|NCT03653390|183727654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 12 months.||||||<0.01
91915204|NCT03653390|183727654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.55||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.13||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.13|-2.97|0.028
91915205|NCT03653390|183727654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.75|||Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.75|-3.55|<0.01
91915206|NCT03653390|183727654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.83||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||0.83|-2.03|0.59
91915207|NCT00849667|183727656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.21|0.81|0.4513
91915208|NCT00849667|183727656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.06|0.70|0.0761
91915209|NCT00849667|183727657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.27|0.78|0.4823
91915210|NCT00849667|183727657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.13|0.68|0.1616
91915211|NCT00849667|183727658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.21|0.72|0.2938
91915212|NCT00849667|183727658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.02|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.02|0.58|0.0318
91915213|NCT00849667|183727659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.21|0.85|0.5636
91915214|NCT00849667|183727659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.09|0.76|0.1560
91915215|NCT00849667|183727661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.8||||0.6864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.0|-5.4|0.6864
91915216|NCT00849667|183727661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.4||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.6|-4.8|0.4923
91915217|NCT00849667|183727664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% serological response||4.1|-4.9|0.8106
91915218|NCT00849667|183727664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.1||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% serological response||8.8|1.4|0.0064
91915219|NCT00849667|183727664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.1||||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||75% serological response||10.2|-2.0|0.3005
91915220|NCT00849667|183727664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.7||||0.2445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||75% serological response||9.9|-2.5|0.2445
91915221|NCT00849667|183727664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.3||||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Serologic response leading to normalization||13.4|-2.8|0.2797
91763688|NCT02204072|183417797|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.891||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|5.059|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, p-value and confidence interval were obtained from logistic regression model.|||5.059|0.727|0.1920
91763689|NCT00367835|183417837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91763690|NCT00367835|183417838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91915222|NCT00849667|183727664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.9||||0.2136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Serologic response leading to normalization||13.0|-3.2|0.2136
91915223|NCT01262625|183727684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 1.25|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.75|||Regression, Cox|||||1.75|0.61|0.19
91915224|NCT01262625|183727685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||DeLong|(DeLong et al 1988)||||||0.08
91915225|NCT01262625|183727685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||DeLong|(DeLong et al 1988)||||||0.02
91915226|NCT00110994|183727688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|1.034|||log rank test|||||1.034|0.428|0.068
91915227|NCT00110994|183727689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.57|||log rank test|||||1.570|0.627|0.973
91915228|NCT00110994|183727691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|0.98|||log rank test|||||0.980|0.391|0.039
91915229|NCT00110994|183727692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.427||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|1.601|||log rank test|||||1.601|0.114|0.194
91915230|NCT00110994|183727694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.908
91915231|NCT00110994|183727695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
91763691|NCT00367835|183417839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91763692|NCT00367835|183417840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91763693|NCT00367835|183417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91763694|NCT00367835|183417842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91763695|NCT00367835|183417843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91763696|NCT03453489|183417849|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837
91915232|NCT00110994|183727696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.201
91915233|NCT00110994|183727697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.168
91915234|NCT04398732|183727698|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from Baseline in percent BSA at Month 12.||||0.0001
91915235|NCT04398732|183727699|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in DLQI at Month 12.||||0.0001
91915236|NCT04398732|183727700|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in PASI at Month 12.||||0.0001
91915237|NCT04398732|183727701|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Student's t-test|||Baseline||||0.036
91915238|NCT04398732|183727701|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 4||||0.0001
91915239|NCT04398732|183727701|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 12||||0.0001
91915240|NCT04398732|183727702|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Student's t-test|||Baseline||||0.42
91915241|NCT04398732|183727702|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 4||||0.0001
91915242|NCT04398732|183727702|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 12||||0.0001
91915243|NCT04398732|183727703|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Student's t-test|||Baseline||||0.72
91915244|NCT04398732|183727703|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 4||||0.0001
91915245|NCT04398732|183727703|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 12||||0.0001
91915246|NCT04398732|183727704|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from Baseline in percent BSA at Month 4.||||0.0001
91915247|NCT04398732|183727705|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in DLQI at Month 4.||||0.0001
91915248|NCT04398732|183727706|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in PASI at Month 4.||||0.0001
91763697|NCT04346654|183417852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5133|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5133
91763698|NCT04346654|183417853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5133|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5133
91763699|NCT00999518|183417877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.35||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.35|-0.40|
91915249|NCT00464204|183727713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-331.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1033.0||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-640.0|-21.0||One-sided t-test assuming unequal variances (as variances were significantly different between treatment groups).No multiple comparisons were made. A priori threshold for statistical significance for the confirmatory analysis on FAS: 0.025 one-sided.|t-test, 1 sided||Considered difference: Voluven® minus NaCl 0.9 %|"Null-hypothesis: The amount of study drug required to achieve initial hemodynamic stabilization in patients treated with Voluven® is higher than or equal to this amount in patients treated with NaCl.~Alternative hypothesis: The amount of study drug required to achieve initial hemodynamic stabilization is lower in patients treated with Voluven® than in patients treated with NaCl."||-21|-640|0.0185
91915250|NCT00109473|183727771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91915251|NCT03213366|183727776|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0095||||0.5783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04676|0.02776|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||0.02776|-0.04676|0.5783
91915252|NCT03213366|183727776|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01692||||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05318|0.01933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||0.01933|-0.05318|0.3185
91915253|NCT03213366|183727777|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03674||||0.07863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00516|0.07863|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||0.07863|-0.00516|0.07863
91915254|NCT03213366|183727777|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02594||||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01648|0.06836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||0.06836|-0.01648|0.1999
91915255|NCT03213366|183727778|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000443||||0.8963|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.8963
91915256|NCT03213366|183727778|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.004308||||0.3229|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks||||0.3229
91763700|NCT00999518|183417877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.68||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% CI.||0.68|-0.80|
91763701|NCT00999518|183417877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.83||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% CI.||0.83|-1.15|
91915257|NCT03213366|183727779|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.008705||||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|||||This t-test was for the random effects model not for comparing the difference between the arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2433
91915258|NCT03213366|183727779|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01358||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.0839
91915259|NCT03213366|183727780|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.302||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.2114
91763702|NCT00999518|183417877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.47||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% CI.||0.47|-0.93|
91763703|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.683||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.683|0.259|
91763704|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|2.457||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.457|0.387|
91915260|NCT03213366|183727780|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03149||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.2141
91915261|NCT03213366|183727781|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0278||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.0124
91915262|NCT03213366|183727781|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03052||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.0022
91915263|NCT03213366|183727782|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05747||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.1021
91915264|NCT03213366|183727782|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05101||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.133
91915265|NCT03213366|183727783|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0209||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.0818
91915266|NCT03213366|183727783|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03103||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.0334
91915267|NCT02532855|183727787|NON_INFERIORITY|For the primary hypothesis, sitagliptin will be considered non-inferior to dapagliflozin if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-group difference in least squares mean change from baseline in A1C (sitagliptin minus dapagliflozin) is less than 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin). Longitudinal data analysis (LDA), Antihyperglycemic agent (AHA), Least squares means (LSM)|Difference in LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04||||LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.26|
91915268|NCT02532855|183727787|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-0.15||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04|||Longitudinal data analysis|LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.26|0.006
91915269|NCT02532855|183727788|OTHER||Difference in % (Sit. - Dap.)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.1||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||5.1|-10.7|
91915270|NCT02532855|183727789|OTHER||Difference in % (Sit. - Dap.)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||3.0|-3.0|
91915271|NCT02532855|183727790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-5.7||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|1.8|||LDA|LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.8|-13.3|0.138
91915272|NCT02532855|183727791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.3||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline 2-hour PPG value as a covariate.||||5.3|-12.1|
91915273|NCT02532855|183727792|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|1.4||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline glucagon AUC value as a covariate.||||1.4|-10.1|
91763705|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|2.398||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.398|0.392|
91763706|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|2.398||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.398|0.392|
91763707|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.629|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|1.96||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.960|0.202|
91763708|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|3.376||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.376|0.411|
91763709|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|3.414||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.414|0.438|
91915274|NCT02532855|183727793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|22.0||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline insulin AUC value as a covariate.||||22.0|-12.2|
91915275|NCT02532855|183727794|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline insulin AUC to glucagon AUC ratio value as a covariate.||||1.3|-0.1|
91915276|NCT02532855|183727795|OTHER|The percentage of participants was estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques from LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.|Difference in % (Sit. - Dap.)|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|23.2||||Miettinen and Nurminen (M\&N) method with multiple imputation from a LDA Model.||||23.2|7.7|
91915277|NCT02532855|183727796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.3||||LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||8.3|-1.2|
91915278|NCT00666926|183727810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent) test / reference|155.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.66|220.95|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means Day 21 versus Day 1. Values have been transformed from the log scale.|Participants in the PF-00562271 125 mg BID cohort who received MDZ (test) administered prior to PF-00562271 (reference) dosing.||220.95|109.66|
91915279|NCT00666926|183727811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent) test / reference|315.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|227.6|437.97|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means Day 21 versus Day 1. Values have been transformed from the log scale.|Participants in the PF-00562271 125 mg BID cohort who received MDZ (test) administered prior to PF-00562271 (reference) dosing.||437.97|227.60|
91763710|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.778|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|2.335||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.335|0.259|
91763711|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.327||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.327|0.370|
91763712|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|2.749||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.749|0.427|
91915280|NCT00666926|183727812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent) test / reference|496.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|206.24|1195.92|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means Day 21 versus Day 1. Values have been transformed from the log scale.|Participants in the PF-00562271 125 mg BID cohort who received MDZ (test) administered prior to PF-00562271 (reference) dosing.||1195.92|206.24|
91915281|NCT01960855|183727832|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.033
91915282|NCT01960855|183727832|OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.004
91763713|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.952||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.952|0.295|
91763714|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.952||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.952|0.295|
91763715|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|2.682||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.682|0.285|
91915283|NCT01960855|183727832|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91915284|NCT01960855|183727832|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91915285|NCT01960855|183727833|OTHER||||||=|0.364|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.364
91915286|NCT01960855|183727833|OTHER||||||=|0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.014
91915287|NCT01960855|183727833|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.003
91915288|NCT01960855|183727833|OTHER||||||=|0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.008
91915289|NCT01960855|183727834|OTHER||||||=|0.093|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.093
91915290|NCT01960855|183727834|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91915291|NCT01960855|183727834|OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.004
91915292|NCT01960855|183727834|OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.004
91915293|NCT01960855|183727835|OTHER||||||=|0.366|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.366
91915294|NCT01960855|183727835|OTHER||||||=|0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.17
91915295|NCT01960855|183727835|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.003
91915296|NCT01960855|183727835|OTHER||||||=|0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.028
91915297|NCT01960855|183727836|OTHER||||||=|0.126|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.126
91915298|NCT01960855|183727836|OTHER||||||=|0.072|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.072
91915299|NCT01960855|183727836|OTHER||||||=|0.012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.012
91915300|NCT01960855|183727836|OTHER||||||=|0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.021
91763716|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.366|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|4.006||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||4.006|0.466|
91915301|NCT01879410|183727837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.139|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg minus FSC 250/50 mcg.|||0.139|0.063|<0.001
91915302|NCT02058147|183727839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.898|-0.665||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide|Analysis was performed using Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-0.665|-0.898|<0.0001
91915303|NCT02058147|183727839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|-0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-0.194|-0.384|
91915304|NCT02058147|183727839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|-0.194||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Test of superiority was also performed as a secondary endpoint according to hierarchical testing procedure. Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction, as a covariate.||-0.194|-0.384|<0.0001
91915305|NCT02058147|183727840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.63|47.59||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.|"HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||47.59|33.63|<0.0001
91915306|NCT02058147|183727840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|36.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.81|42.95||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.|"HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||42.95|29.81|<0.0001
91763717|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|2.394||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.394|0.235|
91763718|NCT00999518|183417879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|3.168||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.168|0.356|
91915307|NCT02058147|183727840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|14.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.37|20.25||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.|"HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||20.25|8.37|<0.0001
91915308|NCT02058147|183727840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.13|22.58||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.|"HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||22.58|10.13|<0.0001
91915309|NCT02058147|183727841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.498|-1.77||Threshold for significance ≤0.05. The hierarchical testing continued only when primary hypotheses (superiority: FRC to lixisenatide; non-inferiority: FRC to insulin glargine for HbA1c) was statistically significant.|ANCOVA||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0,≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening \& country as fixed effects \& baseline plasma glucose excursion value as a covariate. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially per pre-specified order.||-1.77|-2.498|<0.0001
91915310|NCT02058147|183727842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.891|-0.91||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-0.91|-1.891|<0.0001
91763719|NCT00999518|183417882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.263||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.848|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.848|0.560|0.5731
91763720|NCT00999518|183417882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.656||||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.980|0.689|0.2592
91915311|NCT02058147|183727843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.246|-1.682||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline FPG value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-1.682|-2.246|<0.0001
91915312|NCT02058147|183727844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.645|-1.158||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline 7-point SMPG value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-1.158|-1.645|<0.0001
91763721|NCT00999518|183417882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9181||||1.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|2.417|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.417|0.452|1.045
91763722|NCT00999518|183417882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.306||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|2.997|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.997|0.569|0.5289
91763723|NCT00999518|183417882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|2.074|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||2.074|0.385|0.7930
91763724|NCT00999518|183417882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.167||||0.7386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|2.892|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||2.892|0.471|0.7386
91763725|NCT00999518|183417882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.036||||0.9354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||2.460|0.437|0.9354
91763726|NCT00999518|183417882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|1.899|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||1.899|0.341|0.6207
91763727|NCT02178696|183417925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.23||A p\<0.001 was established for regions a priori hypothesized (e.g. nucleus accumbens).|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|0.016|<0.001
91763728|NCT01101035|183418051|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the upper 1-sided CI for the hazard ratio was less than 1.3. Critical boundary of 2.359 (75% interim) based on the Lan-DeMets-O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function was used for CI estimation.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99|||||ONE_SIDED|97.0||1.23|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of any MACE was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as a covariate and Baseline renal function as a stratification factor.|Statistical analysis for the primary endpoint was based on 1-sided repeated confidence intervals (CIs), using critical values from a 1-sided stopping boundary for a group sequential design (GSD), to preserve an overall false-rejection rate of 2.5%, to assess non-inferiority at each interim analysis and the final analysis.||1.23||
91763729|NCT01101035|183418052|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of any APTC event was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as a covariate and Baseline renal function status as a stratification factor.|||1.28|0.92|
91915313|NCT02058147|183727844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.892|-0.495||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline 7-point SMPG value-by-visit interaction, as a covariate.||-0.495|-0.892|<0.0001
91915314|NCT02058147|183727845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.15|24.01||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8%, ≥8%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening.||24.01|12.15|<0.0001
91763730|NCT01101035|183418053|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.73|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of cardiovascular death was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.73|1.03|
91763731|NCT01101035|183418054|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of non-fatal MI was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.21|0.72|
91915315|NCT02058147|183727846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|18.45||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening.||18.45|7.5|< 0.0001
91915316|NCT02058147|183727847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.4857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.632|1.252||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects.||1.252|-2.632|0.4857
91915317|NCT00773279|183727858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment difference, PDS290 minus FlexPen, in HbA1c after 12 weeks of treatment. PDS290 was to be declared non-inferior to FlexPen® if the upper limit of that CI would be less than the non-inferiority margin 0.40 % (absolute)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||||95.0|-0.127|0.032|||Linear mixed effect model|Linear mixed effect model with period and delivery systems as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||The null hypothesis is that PDS290 be not non-inferior to FlexPen® with respect to HbA1c after 12 weeks of treatment; non-inferiority margin is 0.4 % (absolute).||0.032|-0.127|
91915318|NCT01948830|183727892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 level. Non-inferiority with respect to BCVA: H01: μtreat and extend - μmonthly ≤ - Δ versus HA1: μtreat and extend - μmonthly \> - Δ where μtreat and extend and μmonthly are the unknown mean changes from baseline in BCVA to Month 12 in the treat and extend regimen and the monthly regimen, respectively. Δ is the non-inferiority margin and is pre-defined to be 5 letters for the justification of the margin.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91915319|NCT01557166|183727923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-6.1||||0.015||95.0|-11.0|-1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with treatment, country and sex as fixed factors, and the baseline value of AHI, baseline BMI and baseline age as covariates.||Let μ liraglutide 3.0mg and μ placebo denote mean change in AHI for liraglutide 3.0 mg and placebo,respectively. The null-hypothesis and the alternative was H0: μliraglutide 3.0mg = μplacebo against the alternative HA: μliraglutide 3.0mg ≠ μplacebo.||-1.19|-11.0|0.015
91763732|NCT01101035|183418055|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.41|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of non-fatal stroke was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.41|0.73|
91915320|NCT02411747|183727937|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Beta: 0.8, p significant if p \> 0.005||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent samples t-test||||0.34
91915321|NCT02149810|183727938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.109||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.31||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models, controlling for baseline score, were used to compare the SSM and TAU groups' change score from baseline to 12-week on SDNN.||The primary focus of this study was the interaction effect of treatment on heart rate variability at Weeks 0 and 12. On the assumption that this effect size is medium (Cohen's f = .25), calculations (using G\*Power) 23 indicate that a sample size of 80 yield power estimates of .99 for both the interaction and the main effect of time. The study enrolled 95 participants to account for participant attrition.||0.31|-0.09|0.28
91915322|NCT02149810|183727939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.034||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.51||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models, controlling for baseline score, were used to compare the SSM and TAU groups' change score from baseline to 12-week on LF HRV.||||0.51|-0.44|0.89
91915323|NCT02149810|183727940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-0.26||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-5.05|0.030
91915324|NCT02149810|183727941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.37||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.36||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-4.37|0.021
91915325|NCT02149810|183727942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|29.01||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.01|-7.01|0.22
91915326|NCT02149810|183727943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|12.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.37|-8.54|0.72
91763733|NCT01101035|183418056|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.26|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of unstable angina with urgent coronary revascularization was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.26|0.59|
91915327|NCT02149810|183727944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.15||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-1.46|0.018
91915328|NCT02149810|183727945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.94|21.66||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.66|-21.94|0.99
91915329|NCT02149810|183727946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|10.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Generalised linear models were used to compare the proportion of participants who responded to the intervention (≥50% decrease from baseline on the HRSD, defined a priori) at the end of intervention (week 12).||10.53|1.01|0.049
91915330|NCT02149810|183727947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.64||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Generalised linear models were used to compare the proportion of the proportion of participants who achieved remission (scores ≤7 on the HRSD, defined a priori) at the end of intervention (week 12).||10.64|1.06|0.040
91915331|NCT00428597|183727948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.000118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.662||Log-rank test statistic and 2-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on the Cox Proportional hazards model|||0.662|0.263|0.000118
91763734|NCT01101035|183418057|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the upper 1-sided CI for the hazard ratio was less than 1.3. Critical boundary of 2.014 (final analysis) based on the Lan-DeMets-O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function was used for CI estimation.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.87|1.23|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of any MACE was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as a covariate and Baseline renal function as a stratification factor.|Statistical analysis for the primary endpoint was based on 1-sided repeated confidence intervals (CIs), using critical values from a 1-sided stopping boundary for a group sequential design (GSD), to preserve an overall false-rejection rate of 2.5%, to assess non-inferiority at each interim analysis and the final analysis.||1.23|0.87|
91763735|NCT00797277|183418091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was no previous study comparing these 2 treatments. We hypothesized that the mean difference between the 2 treatments would be small.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||we hypothesized that there would be no statistical significant difference between the 2 groups in the primary outcome.||||<0.05
91763736|NCT01957202|183418095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.255|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.895|-1.616|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-1.616|-2.895|<0.0001
91915332|NCT00428597|183727949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|17.5|||||Confidence interval (CI) using exact method based on binomial distribution.|||17.5|4.1|
91915333|NCT00428597|183727952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.409||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.894||2-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.894|0.187|0.0204
91915334|NCT00428597|183727953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1543||||0.6799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.6||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||6.6|-4.3|0.6799
91915335|NCT00428597|183727954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4404||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.0||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||4|-6.9|0.6058
91915336|NCT00428597|183727955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5575||||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.2||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||3.2|-10.3|0.3008
91915337|NCT00428597|183727956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7911||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.3||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||8.3|-2.8|0.3230
91915338|NCT00428597|183727957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5113||||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.5||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||9.5|-6.5|0.7113
91915339|NCT00428597|183727958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6672||||0.6487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.5||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||5.5|-8.9|0.6487
91763737|NCT01957202|183418095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.566|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.208|-1.925|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-1.925|-3.208|<0.0001
91915340|NCT00428597|183727959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|10.1||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||10.1|-6.4|0.6545
91763738|NCT01957202|183418095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.531||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.342|-0.719|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.719|-2.342|0.0003
91763739|NCT01957202|183418095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.842|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.654|-1.029|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-1.029|-2.654|<0.0001
91763740|NCT01957202|183418095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.097|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.857|-3.337|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-3.337|-4.857|<0.0001
91763741|NCT01957202|183418095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.311||||0.3699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|0.372|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.372|-0.994|0.3699
91915341|NCT00428597|183727960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0035||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.0||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||2|-10|0.1936
91915342|NCT00428597|183727961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.3801|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.4||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||28.4|14.3|<0.0001
91915343|NCT00428597|183727962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.23||||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.1||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||12.1|-1.6|0.1339
91915344|NCT00428597|183727963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7816||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.7||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||8.7|-5.1|0.6138
91915345|NCT00428597|183727964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2778||||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.1||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||7.1|-6.6|0.9367
91763742|NCT01957202|183418096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.364|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.853|-0.874|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.874|-1.853|<0.0001
91915346|NCT00428597|183727965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.753||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.0||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||15|0.5|0.0372
91915347|NCT00428597|183727966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1463||||0.6939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.9||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||6.9|-4.6|0.6939
91915348|NCT00428597|183727967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5128||||0.3711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|4.2||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||4.2|-11.2|0.3711
91915349|NCT02863068|183728039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2967||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in methemoglobin at baseline and EOS for all participants between treatment arms using a Wilcoxon signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in methemoglobin from baseline to end of study (EOS) for all participants.||||0.2967
91915350|NCT02863068|183728040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2818||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in total ulcerated surface area at baseline and EOS between treatment arms using a Wilcoxon signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total ulcerated surface area from baseline to end of study (EOS)||||0.2818
91915351|NCT02863068|183728040|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test for differences in frequencies between treatment arms||Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms||||1.0
91915352|NCT02863068|183728041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3754||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in average pain at baseline and EOS between treatment arms using a Wilcoxon signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in average pain from baseline to end of study (EOS)||||0.3754
91915353|NCT02863068|183728043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in methemoglobin at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in methemoglobin from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.1165
91763743|NCT01957202|183418096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.809|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.809|-0.169|0.1975
91763744|NCT01957202|183418096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.252|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.635|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.635|-1.870|<0.0001
91763745|NCT01957202|183418096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.432||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|1.042|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||1.042|-0.179|0.1648
91763746|NCT01957202|183418096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.932||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.506|-0.358|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.358|-1.506|0.0016
91915354|NCT02863068|183728043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4583||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in methemoglobin at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in methemoglobin from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.4583
91915355|NCT02863068|183728044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in total ulcerated surface area at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total ulcerated surface area from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.068
91915356|NCT02863068|183728044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in total ulcerated surface area at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total ulcerated surface area from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.5
91915357|NCT02863068|183728044|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||1.0
91915358|NCT02863068|183728044|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test for differences in frequencies between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||1.0
91915359|NCT02863068|183728045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4298||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in average pain at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in average pain from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.4298
91763747|NCT01957202|183418096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.684|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.208|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||2.208|1.160|<0.0001
91915360|NCT02863068|183728045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2701||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in average pain at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in average pain from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.2701
91915361|NCT00008385|183728066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.37||This p value should be compared to the nominal p value of 0.0035 adjusting for the previous interim analyses|Log Rank||The 95% confidence interval was repeated confidence interval for the risk ratio|||2.37|0.64|0.294
91915362|NCT00008385|183728067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
91915363|NCT00008385|183728068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.154
91915364|NCT02064764|183728131|OTHER|Log-Rank Test For Comparing Treatment and Control||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.28
91915365|NCT02064764|183728132|OTHER|||||||0.7348|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7348
91915366|NCT00600171|183728141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.164|||ANCOVA|||||0.164|-0.036|0.208
91915367|NCT00600171|183728141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.168|||ANCOVA|||||0.168|-0.029|0.169
91915368|NCT00600171|183728141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.230|0.030|0.011
91915369|NCT00600171|183728141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.220|0.023|0.016
91915370|NCT00600171|183728141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.261|||ANCOVA|||||0.261|0.062|0.001
91763748|NCT01957202|183418097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174||||0.3052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.16|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.160|-0.508|0.3052
91915371|NCT03990870|183728178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91915372|NCT03990870|183728181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91915373|NCT03990870|183728183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
91915374|NCT01014585|183728196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.27|0.0004
91915375|NCT01014585|183728196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|18.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
91915376|NCT01014585|183728196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|45.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
91915377|NCT01014585|183728197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.20|0.0002
91763749|NCT01957202|183418097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187||||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.523|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.523|-0.149|0.2725
91763750|NCT01957202|183418097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.536||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.952|-0.12|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.120|-0.952|0.0118
91763751|NCT01957202|183418097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.175||||0.4049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.239|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.239|-0.588|0.4049
91915378|NCT01014585|183728197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|22.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
91915379|NCT01014585|183728198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.4104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.46|0.4104
91915380|NCT01014585|183728198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|18.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
91915381|NCT01014585|183728198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|30.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
91915382|NCT00508391|183728200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis utilized an objective performance criteria of 63% with a clinically significant difference of 12%. For the non-inferiority hypothesis, the one-sided Type I error was set to 0.05 and the statistical power was set to 80%.|Objective Performance Criteria|63.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|54.8||||Non-inferiority comparison|||"Efficacy was assessed in a non-inferiority, responder classification design where the proportion of total subjects classified as not worsened after changing from optimized to simultaneous biventricular pacing was compared to an objective performance criteria.~An effect of gender analysis was performed on the primary efficacy endpoint to compare the proportion of males and females classified as not worsened after changing from optimized to simultaneous biventricular pacing."|||54.8|
91763752|NCT01957202|183418097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.349||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|0.041|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.041|-0.739|0.0793
91763753|NCT01957202|183418097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.361||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.719|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.719|0.004|0.0478
91763754|NCT01957202|183418098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.215||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.509|0.079|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.079|-0.509|0.1502
91763755|NCT01957202|183418098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075||||0.6177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.221|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.221|-0.370|0.6177
91763756|NCT01957202|183418098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.701||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.322|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.322|-1.080|0.0004
91763757|NCT01957202|183418098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.934|-0.187|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.187|-0.934|0.0035
91763758|NCT01957202|183418098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.775|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.123|-0.428|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.428|-1.123|<0.0001
91763759|NCT01957202|183418098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.3807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.456|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.456|-0.175|0.3807
91763760|NCT00080301|183418125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0003||95.17|0.64|0.88||Test was stratified by 1) presence of visceral metastases in liver or lung, 2) minimum of either doxorubicin 420 mg/m2 or epirubicin 360 mg/m2, and relapse \> 6 months in adjuvant setting, and 3) prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. (yes/no)|Log Rank|95.17% confidence interval is adjusted for the interim analysis.||Study required 615 events to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.77 using a 2-sided α = 0.05 log-rank test. The analysis was a comparison between the 2 treatment arms using a 2-sided α=0.0483 log-rank test (adjusted for an interim analysis using the O'Brien Fleming spending function) to reject the null hypothesis of equality of progression free survival. The analysis was conducted when 639 events (310 in combination:329 in capecitabine) were observed from the 752 randomized patients.||0.88|0.64|.0003
91763761|NCT00080301|183418126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.2|4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study had 95 percent power to detect a significant difference in ORR if the true response rate was 32 percent in the combination arm and 20 percent in the capecitabine arm.||4.50|2.20|<.0001
91763762|NCT00080301|183418129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1936||95.17|0.77|1.05||Test was stratified by presence of visceral metastases in liver or lung (y/n), minimum of either doxorubicin 420 mg/m2 or epirubicin 360 mg/m2, and relapse \> 6 months in adjuvant setting (y/n), and prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease (y/n).|Log Rank|Test was conducted at the α=0.05 level and no adjustments were performed.|Confidence Interval adjusted for interim analysis.|Study required 631 deaths to achieve 80% power to detect a Hazard ratio of 0.8 using a 2-sided α = 0.05 log rank test. The analysis was a comparison between the 2 treatment arms using a 2-sided α=0.05 log-rank test to reject the null hypothesis of equality of survival. The analysis was conducted when 639 deaths (318 in combination:321 in capecitabine) were observed from the 752 randomized patients.||1.05|0.77|0.1936
91763763|NCT00080301|183418131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wei-Lachin|||There was a statistically significant difference between groups in change from baseline FBSI score favoring capecitabine. A mean change from baseline of 2.5 was considered a clinically meaningful difference (minimally important difference or MID). On-treatment mean changes in the FBSI did not reach the MID in either group.||||.0002
91763764|NCT00991939|183418132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|0.708|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value is the proportion of success in the high dose pulse dexamethasone group minus the proportion of success in the standard prednisone group.|Four subjects were not included in this analysis because not enough data was available to assess the primary outcome at the time the study was terminated.||0.708|-0.975|1.00
91763765|NCT01965704|183418146|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
91763766|NCT01965704|183418147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test||The 95% confidence interval between the ondansetron group and the placebo group was calculated with the use of Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Difference in overall length of stay.||4.3|-8.0|0.56
91763767|NCT01965704|183418147|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test||The 95% confidence interval between the ondansetron group and the placebo group was calculated with the use of Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Difference in length of stay as calculated with maximum length capped at 15 days.||0.2|-4.0|0.07
91763768|NCT01965704|183418148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test||The 95% confidence interval between the ondansetron group and the placebo group was calculated with the use of Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|||2.7|-8.8|0.31
91763769|NCT02524171|183418152|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|-0.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91763770|NCT02524171|183418152|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|-0.88|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
91763771|NCT02524171|183418153|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91763772|NCT02524171|183418153|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
91915383|NCT00508391|183728201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis has a one-sided Type I error of 0.05 with an 80% statistical power.|Objective Performance Criteria|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.6||||Non-inferiority comparison|||Safety will be evaluated in a non-inferiority format. The null hypothesis is the percent of subjects that did not experience an adverse event with an active interventricular delay feature at two months is inferior to 90% with a clinically significant difference of 10%|||97.6|
91915384|NCT00364182|183728234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-24.5||P-values based on a model including terms for treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and the interaction of these terms with repeated measures on participants.|ANOVA|||||-24.5|-36.5|<0.0001
91915385|NCT00364182|183728234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-26.6||P-values based on a model including terms for treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and the interaction of these terms with repeated measures on participants.|ANOVA|||||-26.6|-38.5|<0.0001
91915386|NCT00364182|183728234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.2||P-values based on a model including terms for treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and the interaction of these terms with repeated measures on participants.|ANOVA|||||5.2|-1.2|0.2167
91915387|NCT00364182|183728235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.6|0.1|0.002
91915388|NCT00364182|183728235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.8|0.1|0.021
91915389|NCT00364182|183728235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.9|0.2|0.004
91915390|NCT00364182|183728235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.8|-0.1|0.093
91915391|NCT00364182|183728236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.1|-0.4|0.000
91915392|NCT00364182|183728236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.2|-0.5|0.0000
91915393|NCT00364182|183728236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.1|-0.5|0.002
91915394|NCT00364182|183728236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.0|-0.5|0.031
91915395|NCT00364182|183728240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.9|||ANOVA|||||4.9|-9.2|0.544
91915396|NCT00364182|183728240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.3|||ANOVA|||||4.3|-7.5|0.592
91915397|NCT00364182|183728240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|8.4|||ANOVA|||||8.4|-1.1|0.131
91808716|NCT01327885|183494089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||=|0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.085||P-value was calculated by 2-sided log-rank test, as stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio is based on a stratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS as strata.|The PFS and PFS rate at 3, 6, and 12 months (95% confidence interval (CI)) was calculated using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) product-limit method and Greenwood Formula. PFS was compared between the treatment arms using two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.||1.085|0.710|=0.2287
91915398|NCT02928952|183728266|SUPERIORITY|Assessed group by time differences from week 12 to week 24. Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.153|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for Age and Duration of Diabetes||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.153
91915399|NCT02928952|183728266|SUPERIORITY|Assessed group by time differences from week 12 to week 24. Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||||||0.026
91915400|NCT02928952|183728266|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||Within group analysis of intervention effect on Diabetes Distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes, PAID scale) over time stratified by hemoglobin A1c\<8.5% and =/\>8.5.||||0.012
91915401|NCT02928952|183728267|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||||0.604|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||.604
91915402|NCT02928952|183728268|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.911|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for Age and Duration of Diabetes||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.911
91915403|NCT02928952|183728269|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||||||0.940
91915404|NCT02928952|183728270|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.305|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for Age and Duration of Diabetes||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.305
91915405|NCT02928952|183728271|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.228|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||||||0.228
91763773|NCT02524171|183418154|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|10.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91763774|NCT02524171|183418154|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|14.64|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
91915406|NCT02928952|183728272|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Differing sample sizes are due to attrition and missed research visits. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.671|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.671
91915407|NCT02928952|183728273|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.571|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.571
91915408|NCT02928952|183728274|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.003
91915409|NCT02928952|183728275|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.632|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.632
91915410|NCT02928952|183728276|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.219
91915411|NCT02928952|183728277|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.931|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.931
91763775|NCT02524171|183418155|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|1.45|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews||||||>0.05
91808717|NCT01327885|183494090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||The P-value was calculated using the stratified CMH method, the stratified factors included histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio between eribulin and dacarbazine was calculated by stratified CMH method. The stratified factors were as described above. The 2-sided 95% CI of the odds ratio is based on asymptotic normal approximation.|The PFR12wks was compared between the treatment arms using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.||1.9|0.8|0.253
91808718|NCT01327885|183494091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||The P-value was calculated using the CMH method. The stratified factors were histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The Odds Ratio between eribulin and dacarbazine was calculated by stratified CMH method. The stratified factors were as described above. The 2-sided 95% CI of Odds Ratio is based on asymptotic normal approximation.|The PFR12wks was compared between the treatment arms using stratified CMH chi-square test stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.||1.4|0.7|=0.741
91808719|NCT03975790|183494094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4695|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4695
91808720|NCT03975790|183494094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7644|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7644
91915412|NCT02928952|183728278|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.627|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.627
91915413|NCT02928952|183728279|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.60
91915414|NCT02928952|183728280|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.461|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.461
91915415|NCT02928952|183728281|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.906|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.906
91915416|NCT02928952|183728282|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.856|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.856
91915417|NCT02928952|183728283|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.89|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.89
91915418|NCT01850615|183728288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.72|||||Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated treatment difference (faster aspart+basal minus basal only), which was calculated using the FAS, was below 0%.|Change from baseline in HbA1c after 18 weeks of treatment was analysed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measurements (MMRM) where all calculated changes in HbA1c from baseline at visits 16, 22 and 28 were included in the analysis. This model included treatment, region and strata as fixed factors, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||-0.72|-1.17|
91915419|NCT00706628|183728296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0577|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0577
91915420|NCT00706628|183728296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0863|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0863
91915421|NCT00706628|183728298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.4823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1754|1.7892||||||||1.7892|1.1754|
91915422|NCT02921425|183728310|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
91915423|NCT02921425|183728312|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
91763776|NCT02524171|183418155|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|1.22|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
91915424|NCT02921425|183728313|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
91915425|NCT02921425|183728315|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||systolic blood pressure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
91915426|NCT02921425|183728315|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||diastolic blood pressure||||.001
91915427|NCT02921425|183728317|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.019
91915428|NCT01227967|183728321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-0.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z-test, 2-sided|Comparison of randomized arms was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent detectable in the Combination Therapy minus the percent detectable in the Oseltamivir Monotherapy.|Assuming that pooled percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR at Day 3 is 50%, assuming that the Combination Therapy was better than the Oseltamivir Monotherapy and that the detectable rate in the Combination Therapy was 42.5% compared to 57.5% in the Oseltamivir Monotherapy (a 15% reduction), and assuming 10% subjects with missing qPCR at Day 3, in a two-sided, two-sample 0.05-level t- test with 546 participants combined across both arms, there was 90% power.||-0.2|-19.8|0.046
91915429|NCT03403400|183728336|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.893||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between groups in mCTSIB Ha: There is a significant difference between groups in mCTSIB||||.640
91763777|NCT02524171|183418156|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.04|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91763778|NCT02524171|183418156|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||>0.05
91915430|NCT03403400|183728336|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.196||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the prescribed walking group and the control group in mCTSIB Ha: There is a significant difference between the prescribed walking group and the control group in mCTSIB||||.18
91763779|NCT02524171|183418157|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6mo.(Beta value)|0.04|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91808721|NCT03975790|183494094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8316|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8316
91808722|NCT03975790|183494095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9829
91808723|NCT03975790|183494095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8021|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8021
91808724|NCT03975790|183494095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8376|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8376
91915431|NCT03403400|183728337|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.803||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the groups in TUG Ha: There is a significant difference between the groups in TUG||||.67
91915432|NCT03403400|183728337|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.14||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference in TUG between the prescribed walking and control group Ha: There is a significant difference in TUG between the prescribed walking and control group||||.71
91915433|NCT03403400|183728338|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.803|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the groups in DGI Ha: There is a significant difference between the groups in DGI||||.67
91915434|NCT03403400|183728338|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.66||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the prescribed walking group and the control group in DGI Ha: There is a significant difference between the prescribed walking group and control group in DGI||||.42
91915435|NCT03403400|183728339|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|4.386||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the groups in DHI Ha: There is a significant difference between the groups in DHI||||.11
91915436|NCT03403400|183728339|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|4.351||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference in DHI between the prescribed walking group and the control group Ha: There is a significant difference in DHI between the prescribed walking group and the control group||||.04
91915437|NCT01107444|183728354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||||||The t-test was based on the logarithm of the ratio of tumor size at Cycle 2 to that at baseline as this measure follows a normal distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.284
91915438|NCT01446419|183728448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|P-value from ANCOVA with factors of tx group, analysis center and tx group by analysis center interaction, and a covariate of baseline ODI score.||||||0.019
91915439|NCT05032950|183728470|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|368.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|318.91|425.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed Cmax of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||425.41|318.91|
91915440|NCT05032950|183728471|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|1430.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1204.54|1697.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUCinf of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||1697.71|1204.54|
91915441|NCT05032950|183728472|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|1451.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1224.42|1721.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUClast of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||1721.35|1224.42|
91915442|NCT05032950|183728477|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|387.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|335.25|447.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed Cmax of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||447.21|335.25|
91915443|NCT05032950|183728478|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|1645.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1385.75|1953.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUCinf of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios||1953.11|1385.75|
91915444|NCT05032950|183728479|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|1677.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1414.59|1988.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUClast of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||1988.69|1414.59|
91915445|NCT04343651|183728515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.818
91915446|NCT04343651|183728516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.41|||Likelihood test-Cox Prop. hazards model|Stratification factors: Baseline NEWS Total score and Age.||||1.41|0.43|0.4138
91915447|NCT01583374|183728540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1||||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights|||6.2|-14.3|0.4383
91915448|NCT01583374|183728540|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.7427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||8.5|-12.0|0.7427
91915449|NCT01583374|183728541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.32|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.32|-0.41|0.8032
91808725|NCT03975790|183494096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2864|||||||t-test|||||||0.2864
91915450|NCT01583374|183728541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.19|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.19|-0.53|0.3624
91915451|NCT01583374|183728542|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.40|-0.33|0.8618
91915452|NCT01583374|183728542|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.27|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.27|-0.45|0.6262
91763780|NCT02524171|183418157|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
91808726|NCT03975790|183494096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1583|||||||t-test|||||||0.1583
91763781|NCT02524171|183418158|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91808727|NCT03975790|183494096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4546|||||||t-test|||||||0.4546
91808728|NCT03975790|183494097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test|||||||0.0280
91808729|NCT03975790|183494097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106|||||||t-test|||||||0.0106
91808730|NCT03975790|183494097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7293|||||||t-test|||||||0.7293
91808731|NCT03975790|183494098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9215|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9215
91808732|NCT03975790|183494098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6078|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6078
91915453|NCT01583374|183728543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.6958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on the CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||12.2|-8.1|0.6958
91915454|NCT01583374|183728543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|14.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on the CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||14.5|-5.8|0.4051
91915455|NCT01583374|183728544|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.5126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.99|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.99|-0.49|0.5126
91915456|NCT01583374|183728544|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28||||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.01|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||1.01|-0.46|0.4624
91915457|NCT01583374|183728545|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.76|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||1.76|-1.18|0.6997
91915458|NCT01583374|183728545|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.42|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||1.42|-1.50|0.9587
91915459|NCT01583374|183728546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.3307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.17|-0.06|0.3307
91915460|NCT01583374|183728546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.14|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.14|-0.08|0.5938
91915461|NCT01265524|183728553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The efficacy and the safety analyses were done using the ITT population with Week 8/EOS data for the patients who did not complete the 8-week treatment period excluded. The ITT population included all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug.||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Corrections for multiplicity were not performed and P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Continuous or ordinal data were analyzed using RM-ANCOVA using change from baseline values to compare CLP and placebo treatments.||||||0.014
91915462|NCT01265524|183728557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The efficacy and the safety analyses were done using the ITT population with Week 8/EOS data for the patients who did not complete the 8-week treatment period excluded. The ITT population included all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug.||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Corrections for multiplicity were not performed and P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Continuous or ordinal data were analyzed using RM-ANCOVA using change from baseline values to compare CLP and placebo treatments.||||||0.0002
91915463|NCT01265524|183728558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The efficacy and the safety analyses were done using the ITT population with Week 8/EOS data for the patients who did not complete the 8-week treatment period excluded. The ITT population included all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug.||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Corrections for multiplicity were not performed and P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Continuous or ordinal data were analyzed using RM-ANCOVA using change from baseline values to compare CLP and placebo treatments.||||||0.072
91915464|NCT03219164|183728577|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the 14-day treatment regimen was claimed if the lower bound of 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit of the treatment difference (14-day course group vs 28-day course group) was above the noninferiority margin of -20%.|Difference in percentage|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|8.6|||||The difference in percentage between treatment groups, and the associated 95% CIs were constructed based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method using age as stratification factor.|||8.6|-24.6|
91915465|NCT03219164|183728579|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The historical pooled data from published results for the percentage of participants with successful PA eradication at 28 days post-treatment with TNS was estimated to be 77%.|||
91915466|NCT03932799|183728602|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for workers' compensation-based covariates: age, gender, urban/rural residence, coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 era injury, days from injury to Report of Accident, injury type, injury complexity/severity, days from injury to first opioid prescription, more than 7 days of opioids in acute phase, and health care utilization during baseline period/acute phase.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.38||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Robust variance estimates"||0.38|0.16|<.001
91915467|NCT03932799|183728603|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for workers' compensation-based covariates: age, gender, urban/rural residence, COVID-19 era injury, days from injury to Report of Accident, injury type, injury complexity/severity, days from injury to first opioid prescription, more than 7 days of opioids in acute phase, health care utilization during baseline period/acute phase, and time indicator for each time period (0,1,2).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.31||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Generalized estimating equation|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Outcome modeled longitudinally over the 3 time periods (3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months)~* Time periods clustered at the individual worker level~* Exchangeable working correlation structure~* Robust variance estimates"||1.31|0.53|.43
91915468|NCT03932799|183728606|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for workers' compensation-based covariates: age, gender, urban/rural residence, COVID-19 era injury, days from injury to Report of Accident, injury type, injury complexity/severity, days from injury to first opioid prescription, more than 7 days of opioids in acute phase, health care utilization during baseline period/acute phase, and time indicator for each time period (0,1,2).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.14||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Generalized estimating equation|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Outcome modeled longitudinally over the 3 time periods (3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months)~* Time periods clustered at the individual worker level~* Exchangeable working correlation structure~* Robust variance estimates"||6.14|1.50|.002
91915469|NCT03932799|183728607|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey covariates: days from injury to baseline survey, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and physical therapy (PT) utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.32|0.71|.84
91915470|NCT03932799|183728608|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.49||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.49|0.71|.88
91915471|NCT03932799|183728609|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.11||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.11|0.49|.15
91763782|NCT02524171|183418158|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|-0.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||<0.05
91763783|NCT02524171|183418159|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||<0.05
91763784|NCT02524171|183418159|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
91763785|NCT02524171|183418160|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta|0.69|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91763786|NCT02524171|183418160|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|-0.89|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
91808733|NCT03975790|183494098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6258|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6258
91763787|NCT02524171|183418161|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91763788|NCT02524171|183418161|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
91808734|NCT03975790|183494099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3586|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3586
91808735|NCT03975790|183494099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5117|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5117
91808736|NCT03975790|183494100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5372|||||||t-test|||||||0.5372
91808737|NCT03975790|183494100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6155|||||||t-test|||||||0.6155
91808738|NCT03975790|183494100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9696|||||||t-test|||||||0.9696
91808739|NCT03975790|183494101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2514|||||||t-test|||||||0.2514
91808740|NCT03975790|183494101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9851|||||||t-test|||||||0.9851
91808741|NCT03975790|183494101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4309|||||||t-test|||||||0.4309
91808742|NCT03975790|183494102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6033|||||||t-test|||||||0.6033
91808743|NCT03975790|183494102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test|||||||0.3480
91915472|NCT03932799|183728610|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.21|0.60|.38
91915473|NCT03932799|183728611|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.28||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Leisure or social activities outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||2.28|0.91|.12
91915474|NCT03932799|183728611|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.07||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Getting out with friends or family outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||2.07|0.74|.42
91915475|NCT03932799|183728611|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.51||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Doing household chores outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.51|0.63|.91
91915476|NCT03932799|183728611|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.21||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Using transportation outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||2.21|0.64|.59
91915477|NCT03932799|183728612|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.75||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.75|0.88|.22
91915478|NCT03932799|183728613|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.47||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||3.47|1.12|.02
91763789|NCT02524171|183418162|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|6.53|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91763790|NCT02524171|183418162|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|5.68|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63||||>0.05
91763791|NCT02524171|183418163|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.83|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91808744|NCT03975790|183494102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5375|||||||t-test|||||||0.5375
91915479|NCT03932799|183728614|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.83||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.83|0.95|.10
91915480|NCT03932799|183728616|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|beta|-0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||0.01|-0.03|.53
91915481|NCT03932799|183728617|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|beta|0.16||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.32||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||0.32|-0.00|.053
91915482|NCT03932799|183728618|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|beta|0.22||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.38||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||0.38|0.05|.01
91915483|NCT03932799|183728619|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.35||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.35|0.42|.35
91915484|NCT01097629|183728620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|26.3|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|34.3||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 97.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||34.3|18.3|<0.00001
91915485|NCT01097629|183728621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|25.1|||<|1e-05||95.0|16.0|34.2||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 95.7%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||34.2|16.0|<0.00001
91915486|NCT01097629|183728622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-22.3||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 99.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-22.3|-36.6|<0.00001
91915487|NCT01097629|183728623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-22.1||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 WASO, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-22.1|-36.7|<0.00001
91808745|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.0345
91915488|NCT01097629|183728624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.8||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-6.9||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.9%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-6.9|-18.8|0.00003
91915489|NCT01097629|183728625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.2||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-7.0||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-7.0|-19.4|0.00003
91915490|NCT01097629|183728626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.1||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-6.4||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 81.4%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-6.4|-17.8|0.00004
91915491|NCT01097629|183728627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.6||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.8||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 LPS, had planned marginal power of 76.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||2.8|-10.1|0.26510
91915492|NCT01097629|183728628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|26.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|33.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||33.1|19.8|<0.00001
91915493|NCT01097629|183728629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-42.0|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-35.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-35.3|-48.6|<0.00001
91763792|NCT02524171|183418163|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.46|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||<0.01
91763793|NCT02524171|183418164|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91763794|NCT02524171|183418164|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)|-0.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||>0.05
91808746|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2316|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.2316
91808747|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7349|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.7349
91808748|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0774|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.0774
91808749|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4228|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.4228
91808750|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0583|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.0583
91808751|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9683|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.9683
91915494|NCT01097629|183728630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.1|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-8.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-8.4|-17.7|<0.00001
91915495|NCT01097629|183728631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-14.9|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-14.9|-28.6|<0.00001
91915496|NCT02613208|183728644|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.392|||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CEA level considering baseline CTC count||||<0.001
91915497|NCT02613208|183728644|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.088||||0.444|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CEA level considering CTC count at cycle 2||||0.444
91915498|NCT02613208|183728646|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.373|||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CA 15.3 level considering baseline CTC count||||<0.001
91915499|NCT02613208|183728646|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.129||||0.241|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CA 15.3 level considering CTC count at cycle 2||||0.241
91915500|NCT04574999|183728654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91915501|NCT04574999|183728655|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91763795|NCT02524171|183418165|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|-0.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91763796|NCT02524171|183418165|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|-0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||<0.05
91763797|NCT02524171|183418166|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|0.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91763798|NCT02524171|183418166|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|-0.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||<0.05
91763799|NCT02524171|183418167|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||<0.05
91763800|NCT02524171|183418167|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|0.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||>0.05
91763801|NCT02868554|183418175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
91763802|NCT02868554|183418176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91763803|NCT05282927|183418202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.98|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization: site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others) and rurality (high sites serving ≥50% rural/highly rural Veterans vs. low sites serving \<50% rural/highly rural Veterans)||0.98|-1.07|0.92
91763804|NCT05282927|183418203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.9|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization: site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others) and rurality (high sites serving ≥50% rural/highly rural Veterans vs. low sites serving \<50% rural/highly rural Veterans).||1.90|-0.03|0.056
91763805|NCT01100320|183418219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|104.52|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||104.52|95.40|
91763806|NCT01100320|183418220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.11|95.09|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||95.09|90.11|
91808752|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8877|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.8877
91808753|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9228|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.9228
91915502|NCT04574999|183728657|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91915503|NCT04574999|183728658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91915504|NCT00206726|183728664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CR rate|0.0833||||0.014||90.0|0.0334|0.1673||2-sided p-value computed from an exact binomial test comparing the observed rate versus 2% historical rate|exact binomial test|||Comparison of CR rate versus 2 percent (%) historic control (p-value and 90% confidence interval)||0.1673|0.0334|0.014
91915505|NCT05148884|183728676|OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.0016
91915506|NCT05148884|183728676|OTHER|||||||0.6886|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.6886
91915507|NCT05148884|183728677|OTHER|||||||0.0281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.0281
91915508|NCT05148884|183728677|OTHER|||||||0.7953|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.7953
91915509|NCT02162862|183728749|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
91915510|NCT02162862|183728749|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
91915511|NCT02162862|183728749|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.102
91915512|NCT02162862|183728750|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
91915513|NCT02162862|183728750|OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.646
91763807|NCT01100320|183418221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.13|95.13|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||95.13|90.13|
91915514|NCT02162862|183728750|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
91915515|NCT03116113|183728753|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3181|||||||Fisher's Exact-Boschloo test|||||||=0.3181
91915516|NCT03116113|183728753|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5177|||||||Fisher's Exact-Boschloo test|||||||=0.5177
91915517|NCT03051633|183728834|SUPERIORITY|Event: Dichotimized self-reported first-time alcohol use in known participant history prior to data-collection, where substance use was not previously reported in prior measurement occasions of this four-wave longitudinal study. Episodes: Episodes represent the period of time between measurement occasions, as such, each episode represents the measured period of time between each wave of assessments. Censoring: If substance use was reported, censoring indicator indicates the risk period|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.42||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|-0.126|||Regression, Logistic|Discrete time hazard model represents a survival analysis, with the outcome parameters reflecting a hazard ratio rather than odds.||Discrete time hazard represents the conditional probability that a student will experience first time alcohol use during a given measurement period, given that students did not use alchohol in a previous measurement period. Thus for each model, we tested the following hypothesis: Controlling for age at first-assessment, students attending BUYOI-assigned schools will have a lower risk of substance use uptake by the end of their eighth-grade year, relative to students attending control schools.||-0.126|-0.714|.004
91915518|NCT03051633|183728835|SUPERIORITY|Event: dichotimized self-reported first-time alcohol intoxication in known participant history prior to data collection, where intoxication was not reported in prior measurement occasions. Episodes: Represent the period of time between measurement occasions, thus, each episode represents the measured period of time between each assessment wave. Censoring: Indicates the risk period during which particpants experienced intoxication uptake.|Hazard Ratio, log|-0.39||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.762|-0.018|||Regression, Logistic|Discrete time hazard model represents a survival analysis, with the outcome parameters reflecting a hazard ration rather than odds.||Discrete time hazard represents the conditional probability that a student will experience first time alcohol initiation during a given measurement period, given that students did not become intoxicated in a previous measurement period. Thus, for each model, we tested the following hypothesis: controlling for age at first assessment, students attending BUYOI-assigned schools will have a lower risk of substance use uptake at the end of their eight grade year||-0.018|-0.762|.037
91763808|NCT04181762|183418222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|0.9|||Regression, Logistic||Difference from placebo and 95% CI are from a logistic regression model with treatment group, stratification factor (SoC) and race as factors and baseline UPCR as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|Complete Renal Response (CRR) at Week 52||0.9|-26.3|0.0662
91763809|NCT04181762|183418224|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|8.4|||||95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) are constructed using the exact binomial test.|Partial Renal Response (PRR) at Week 52||8.4|-23.7|
91808754|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7661|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.7661
91915519|NCT03051633|183728836|SUPERIORITY|Event: Dichotimized self-reported first-time marijuana use in known participant history prior to data-collection, where marijuana use was not previously reported in prior measurement occasions of this four-wave longitudinal study. Episodes: Episodes represent the period of time between measurement occasions, as such, each episode represents the measured period of time between each wave of assessments. Censoring: If marijuana use was reported, censoring indicator indicates the risk period.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.17||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.444|||Regression, Logistic|Discrete time hazard model represents a survival analysis, with the outcome parameters reflecting a hazard ratio rather than odds.||Discrete time hazard represents the conditional probability that a student will experience first time marijuana use during a given measurement period, given that students did not use marijuana in a previous measurement period. Thus for each model, we tested the following hypothesis: Controlling for age at first-assessment, students attending BUYOI-assigned schools will have a lower risk of marijuana use uptake by the end of their eighth-grade year, relative to students attending control schools.||0.444|-0.104|0.228
91915520|NCT00393718|183728842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: Upper limit of confidence interval of mean difference(= Liraglutide - Glibenclamide) is less than 0.4%. Superiority criterion: Upper limit of confidence interval of mean difference(= Liraglutide - Glibenclamide) is less than 0.0%.|Least Squares Mean|-0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.3||p-value is for the null hypothesis for superiority. A significance level of a one-sided 2.5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included HbA1C at baseline as a covariate and treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects.~Hypothesis for non-inferiority:~H0: μ0.9 - μG ≥ 0.4, H1: μ0.9 - μG \< 0.4,~Hypothesis for superiority:~H0: μ0.9 - μG ≥ 0.0, H1: μ0.9 - μG \< 0.0, where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively. When non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority was evaluated based on the closed testing procedure."||-0.30|-0.70|<0.0001
91915521|NCT00393718|183728843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.49||||||95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-0.27|-0.71|
91915522|NCT00393718|183728844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-12.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-18.2|-7.5||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-7.5|-18.2|<0.0001
91915523|NCT00393718|183728845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-11.7||||||95.0|-18.6|-4.9|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-4.9|-18.6|
91915524|NCT00393718|183728846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-93.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|-119.61|-66.5||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-66.50|-119.61|<0.0001
91915525|NCT00393718|183728847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-74.51||||||95.0|-105.75|-43.27|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-43.27|-105.75|
91915526|NCT00393718|183728848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-17.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|-25.0|-10.27||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-10.27|-25.00|<0.0001
91915527|NCT00393718|183728849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-17.21||||||95.0|-26.32|-8.09|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-8.09|-26.32|
91915528|NCT00393718|183728850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-19.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.99|-11.94||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-11.94|-27.99|<0.0001
91915529|NCT00393718|183728851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-13.03||||||95.0|-21.46|-4.6|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-4.60|-21.46|
91915530|NCT00393718|183728852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.91|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.34|-1.48||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-1.48|-2.34|<0.0001
91915531|NCT00393718|183728853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.71||||||95.0|-2.25|-1.18|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-1.18|-2.25|
91915532|NCT00393718|183728854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.2||||||95.0|0.12|0.35|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'All hypoglycaemic episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||0.35|0.12|
91808755|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3034|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.3034
91808756|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2765|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.2765
91808757|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8652|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.8652
91808758|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2243|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.2243
91808759|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3449|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.3449
91808760|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3529|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.3529
91808761|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1012|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.1012
91808762|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4123|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.4123
91915533|NCT00393718|183728854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.18||||||95.0|0.09|0.36|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Minor episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||0.36|0.09|
91915534|NCT00393718|183728854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.2||||||95.0|0.11|0.34|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Symptoms only' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||0.34|0.11|
91808763|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2742|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.2742
91808764|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.1009
91808765|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0318|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.0318
91808766|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4808|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.4808
91808767|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0778|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.0778
91808768|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2871|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.2871
91808769|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7356|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.7356
91808770|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4975|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.4975
91808771|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7143|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.7143
91808772|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3559|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.3559
91808773|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7725|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.7725
91808774|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3875|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.3875
91808775|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.0225
91808776|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4427|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.4427
91808777|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4094|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.4094
91808778|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8775|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.8775
91808779|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3525|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.3525
91808780|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4724|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.4724
91808781|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.7170
91808782|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2909|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.2909
91808783|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5057|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.5057
91808784|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2613|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.2613
91808785|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9901|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.9901
91808786|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4768|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.4768
91808787|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.0219
91808788|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5172|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.5172
91808789|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0278|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.0278
91808790|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6103|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.6103
91808791|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1682|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.1682
91808792|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3654|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.3654
91808793|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7637|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.7637
91808794|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8693|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.8693
91808795|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7349|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.7349
91808796|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7324|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.7324
91808797|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4182|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.4182
91808798|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.6200
91808799|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6064|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.6064
91808800|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.6360
91808801|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9445|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.9445
91808802|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8135|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.8135
91915535|NCT03902080|183728870|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.02|<0.0001
91915536|NCT03902080|183728871|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.37|<0.0001
91915537|NCT03902080|183728872|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.36|=0.0015
91915538|NCT03902080|183728873|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269|=|0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-1.33|=0.0034
91915539|NCT03902080|183728874|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-1.2|<0.0001
91915540|NCT03902080|183728875|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|21.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.02|9.13|<0.0001
91915541|NCT01279057|183728925|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals were contained within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%, then the two products were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Ratio Test/Ref. Least Squares (LS) Means|104.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.421|124.21||||||||124.210|87.421|
91763810|NCT02534909|183418271|OTHER|Bayesian analysis of response rate in serum LDH (period 1 completers only)|Median response rate|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.9|100.0|||||95% Credibility Interval for Response Rate|Up to Week 4||100.0|81.9|
91763811|NCT02534909|183418272|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 1 Day 29 serum LDH levels||0.23|0.15|<0.001
91763812|NCT02534909|183418272|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 2 Day 365 serum LDH levels||0.23|0.15|<0.001
91915542|NCT01279057|183728926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91915543|NCT01279057|183728926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91915544|NCT01279057|183728927|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|106.635|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.256|127.79||||||||127.790|89.256|
91915545|NCT01279057|183728928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91915546|NCT01279057|183728928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91915547|NCT01279057|183728929|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|115.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.129|143.949||||||||143.949|94.129|
91915548|NCT01279057|183728930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0018
91915549|NCT01279057|183728930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0441|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0441
91915550|NCT01279057|183728931|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|117.712|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.41|146.583||||||||146.583|95.410|
91915551|NCT01279057|183728932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0018
91915552|NCT01279057|183728932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0451|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0451
91915553|NCT00542620|183728948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.25% or equivalently if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D\>0.25% against HA: D=\<0.25%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (mixing injections minus separate injections).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.691||||0.001||95.0|-1.049|-0.334||If non-inferiority was confirmed, the superiority of the mixed injection group over separate injection group was to be investigated|ANCOVA|Baseline HbA1c as covariate||||-0.334|-1.049|0.001
91915554|NCT00542620|183728949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.25% or equivalently if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D\>0.25% against HA: D=\<0.25%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (mixing injections minus separate injections).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.594||||0.003||95.0|-0.97|-0.219||If non-inferiority was confirmed, the superiority of the mixed injection group over separate injection group was to be investigated.|ANCOVA|Baseline HbA1c as covariate.||||-0.219|-0.970|0.003
91915555|NCT00542620|183728950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.59||0.573||95.0|-38.77|22.08|||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline fructosamine and the change in insulin administration mode||||22.08|-38.77|0.573
91915556|NCT00542620|183728951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.063
91915557|NCT00542620|183728952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.389
91915558|NCT00542620|183728953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.856
91915559|NCT00542620|183728954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.917
91763813|NCT02534909|183418272|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 3 Day 1429 serum LDH levels||0.20|0.14|<0.001
91763814|NCT02534909|183418272|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 4 Day 141 serum LDH levels||0.24|0.15|<0.001
91808803|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6705|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.6705
91915560|NCT00542620|183728955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.209
91915561|NCT00542620|183728956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.220
91915562|NCT00542620|183728957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment for baseline value||||||0.234
91915563|NCT00542620|183728958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.534
91915564|NCT00542620|183728959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.722
91915565|NCT00542620|183728960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.727
91915566|NCT00542620|183728961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.411
91915567|NCT00542620|183728962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.471
91915568|NCT00542620|183728965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.127
91915569|NCT00542620|183728966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.1
91915570|NCT00542620|183728967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.166
91915571|NCT00542620|183728968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.023
91915572|NCT00542620|183728969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.439
91915573|NCT00542620|183728970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.202
91915574|NCT00542620|183728971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.665
91915575|NCT00849017|183728978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-1.11|<0.0001
91915576|NCT00849017|183728978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.77|||ANCOVA|||||-0.77|-1.31|<0.0001
91915577|NCT02908100|183729026|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|-8.5|0.373
91915578|NCT02908100|183729026|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.5||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|-7.3|0.339
91915579|NCT02908100|183729027|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|8.7||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.5|-6.1|0.223
91915580|NCT02908100|183729027|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|3.0||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|-11.8|0.737
91915581|NCT02908100|183729028|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|4.1||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.9|-10.7|0.614
91915582|NCT02908100|183729028|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|4.1||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.9|-10.7|0.607
91915583|NCT02908100|183729029|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|-8.5|0.410
91915584|NCT02908100|183729029|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.4||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|-8.5|0.418
91915585|NCT02908100|183729030|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|14.9||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||43.7|-14|0.378
91915586|NCT02908100|183729030|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.5||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||36.7|-21.7|0.732
91915587|NCT02908100|183729030|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-0.4||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||28.4|-29.2|0.500
91915588|NCT02908100|183729030|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|8.6||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||38.7|-21.4|0.234
91915589|NCT02908100|183729030|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|15.5||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||46|-14.9|0.364
91915590|NCT02908100|183729030|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|15.2||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|44.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||44.4|-14.1|0.134
91915591|NCT02908100|183729030|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-7.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||23.3|-37.6|0.830
91915592|NCT02908100|183729030|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-2.2||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||27.8|-32.1|0.963
91915593|NCT02908100|183729031|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|19.0||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|47.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||47.5|-9.4|0.189
91915594|NCT02908100|183729031|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.7||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||35.2|-21.9|0.909
91915595|NCT02908100|183729031|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-0.4||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||28.4|-29.2|0.500
91915596|NCT02908100|183729031|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|3.3||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||33.8|-27.1|0.234
91915597|NCT02908100|183729031|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|15.5||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||46|-14.9|0.364
91915598|NCT02908100|183729031|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.2||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||36.3|-22|0.310
91915599|NCT02908100|183729031|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-2.1||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||28.2|-32.5|0.922
91915600|NCT02908100|183729031|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-5.9||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||23.7|-35.4|0.701
91915601|NCT02908100|183729032|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|3.1||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||17.1|-10.9|0.692
91915602|NCT02908100|183729032|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|1.9||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||15.9|-12|0.871
91915603|NCT02908100|183729032|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|11.2||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||25.1|-2.8|0.105
91915604|NCT02908100|183729032|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.7||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||21.6|-6.1|0.286
91915605|NCT02908100|183729033|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-1.6||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||13.6|-16.8|0.936
91915606|NCT02908100|183729033|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-2.9||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|12.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||12.4|-18.2|0.683
91915607|NCT02908100|183729033|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|11.7||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||26.8|-3.4|0.086
91915608|NCT02908100|183729033|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|0.9||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||16.1|-14.2|0.879
91915609|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.758|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|0.67|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.67|-6.38|
91915610|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|1.78|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.78|-3.75|
91915611|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.26|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.26|-3.52|
91915612|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|1.6|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.60|-5.34|
91915613|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.422|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.2|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.20|-2.50|
91915614|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.607|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|0.77|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.77|-5.67|
91915615|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.08|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.08|-3.99|
91763815|NCT00676013|183418310|OTHER|ANOVA and all pairwise comparisons using Tukey test.|Multiple pairwise comparisons|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 is a threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||We conducted a multiple four group comparison (all pairwise comparisons were conducted). An Anova was conducted to assess statistical significance.|0.05|||0.05
91763816|NCT00577824|183418311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni's method was used to adjustment for multiplicity, and significant level was set to 2.5%(two-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as the covariate.||||||<0.001
91763817|NCT00577824|183418312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
91763818|NCT00577824|183418313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
91763819|NCT00577824|183418314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity. Significance level was 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.002
91763820|NCT00577824|183418315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity. Significance level was 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
91763821|NCT00577824|183418316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
91763822|NCT00577824|183418317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.580
91763823|NCT00577824|183418318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91763824|NCT00577824|183418319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.490
91763825|NCT00577824|183418320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91763826|NCT00577824|183418321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
91763827|NCT00577824|183418323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.708
91763828|NCT00577824|183418324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.974||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974
91763829|NCT00577824|183418326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.200
91763830|NCT00577824|183418327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91808804|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8331|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.8331
91808805|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4158|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional; endocrine; and metabolic disorders||||0.4158
91915616|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.55|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.55|-2.68|
91915617|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.584|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|2.18|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.18|-4.17|
91915618|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.97|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.97|-1.20|
91915619|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.845|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.73|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.73|-4.66|
91915620|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.449|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|3.05|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.05|-2.76|
91915621|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.498|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|3.86|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.86|-2.15|
91915622|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.817|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|2.53|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.53|-4.76|
91915623|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.476|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.66|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.66|-2.25|
91915624|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|0.34|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.34|-5.95|
91915625|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.237|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|1.56|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.56|-3.39|
91915626|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.275|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|1.2|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.20|-3.91|
91915627|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.548|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|1.21|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.21|-4.99|
91915628|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|2.08|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.08|-2.97|
91915629|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.699|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|-0.58|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||-0.58|-7.39|
91915630|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|0.81|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.81|-4.54|
91915631|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.379|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.41|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.41|-4.12|
91915632|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.674|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|1.23|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.23|-5.47|
91808806|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional; endocrine; and metabolic disorders||||0.6360
91915633|NCT02631538|183729052|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|3.24|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.24|-2.21|
91915634|NCT00110019|183729067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test is used for overall survival comparison, stratified on AJCC stage, ECOG Performance status and prior therapy status|Arm II is the reference group|||1.18|0.87|0.863
91915635|NCT00110019|183729068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.03||priori threshold for statistical significance: P\<0.05|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test is used for progression-free survival comparison, stratified on AJCC stage, ECOG Performance status and prior therapy status|Arm II is the reference group|||1.03|0.78|0.092
91915636|NCT00110019|183729069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance: P\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.427
91915637|NCT01577238|183729071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91915638|NCT04276207|183729076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.377||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.896|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.142|-0.896|0.1450
91915639|NCT04276207|183729077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.262||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|-0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.117|-0.406|0.0010
91915640|NCT04276207|183729078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.61||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|-2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||-2.49|-22.73|0.0173
91915641|NCT04276207|183729078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2||0.81|-10.69|0.0243
91915642|NCT04276207|183729079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||||0.945
91915643|NCT04276207|183729079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2||||0.888
91915644|NCT01256177|183729080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-1.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-1.04|-5.39|0.004
91915645|NCT01256177|183729081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, baseline score, and bipolar strata.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||4.13|1.56|0.001
91808807|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional; endocrine; and metabolic disorders||||0.3336
91808808|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6402|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.6402
91808809|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8068|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.8068
91808810|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5983|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.5983
91808811|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9759|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.9759
91915646|NCT01256177|183729082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, baseline score, and bipolar strata.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||3.86|1.46|0.001
91915647|NCT01256177|183729083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 1 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.15|-2.79|0.029
91915648|NCT01256177|183729083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 2 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.69|-4.16|0.006
91915649|NCT01256177|183729083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 4 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-1.25|-5.00|0.001
91915650|NCT01256177|183729083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.05|-4.12|0.045
91915651|NCT01256177|183729083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-1.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-1.04|-5.39|0.004
91915652|NCT01256177|183729084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline HAM-D total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in HAM-D total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.61|-3.88|0.007
91915653|NCT01256177|183729085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline CGI-BP-S score for overall BP illness as covariate, trt, bipolar strata, visit, trt-visit interaction as fixed effect and centre as random.||Change from baseline to Week 8 assessment in the CGI-BP-S score for overall Bipolar (BP) illness based on observed cases (OC)||-0.17|-0.84|0.003
91915654|NCT01256177|183729085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline CGI-BP-S score for depression as covariate, trt, Bipolar strata, visit, trt-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 assessment in the CGI-BP-S score of depression based on observed cases (OC)||-0.13|-0.81|0.007
91915655|NCT01256177|183729086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio between treatment groups was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, baseline score and bipolar Strata.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||3.36|1.26|0.004
91915656|NCT01256177|183729087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS item 10 score as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effect and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in MADRS item 10 score for suicidal ideation based on observed cases (OC)||-0.07|-0.38|0.005
91915657|NCT01256177|183729088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio between treatment groups was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, strata and baseline score.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||2.38|0.03|0.233
91808812|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.1360
91915658|NCT00862251|183729107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change in least-square means|-14.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|-9.91|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-9.91|-19.61|<0.001
91915659|NCT00862251|183729108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change in Least Square Means|-13.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|-6.79|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-6.79|-20.44|<0.001
91915660|NCT00862251|183729109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change in least squares mean|-15.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.65|-8.81|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|||||-8.81|-22.65|<0.001
91915661|NCT00862251|183729110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Change in Least Squares Means|-3.81||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|0.17|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.17|-7.78|0.060
91915662|NCT00862251|183729111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.2|2.5|<0.001
91915663|NCT00862251|183729111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.6|1.3|<0.001
91915664|NCT00862251|183729112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|8.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.5|2.3|<0.001
91915665|NCT00862251|183729113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.6|1.9|<0.001
91808813|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1815|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.1815
91808814|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2731|||||||Chi-squared|||Genitourinary symptoms/ill-defined conditions||||0.2731
91808815|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8327|||||||Chi-squared|||Genitourinary symptoms/ill-defined conditions||||0.8327
91808816|NCT03975790|183494103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Chi-squared|||Genitourinary symptoms/ill-defined conditions||||0.3420
91808817|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid arthritis/related disease||||0.0590
91808818|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7055|||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid arthritis/related disease||||0.7055
91915666|NCT00862251|183729114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|-5.28|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-5.28|-11.38|<0.001
91915667|NCT00862251|183729114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.63||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-0.13|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-0.13|-5.13|0.039
91915668|NCT00862251|183729115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.88||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|2.77|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.77|-8.53|0.316
91915669|NCT00862251|183729115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.16||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.43|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.43|-6.75|0.356
91915670|NCT00862251|183729116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.47||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.45|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||3.45|-2.50|0.756
91915671|NCT00862251|183729116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Sqares Mean Difference|-0.52||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.92|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.92|-2.96|0.675
91915672|NCT00862251|183729117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.93|-7.31|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-7.31|-15.93|<0.001
91915673|NCT00862251|183729117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.18||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|0.35|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||0.35|-6.71|0.078
91915674|NCT00862251|183729118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.23|-8.1|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-8.10|-20.23|<0.001
91915675|NCT00862251|183729118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Sqares Mean Difference|-2.56||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|2.41|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.41|-7.53|0.313
91915676|NCT00862251|183729119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-4.23|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-4.23|-12.10|<0.001
91915677|NCT00862251|183729119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.83||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|1.4|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.40|-5.05|0.266
91915678|NCT00862251|183729120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.16|-5.75|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-5.75|-17.16|<0.001
91915679|NCT00862251|183729120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.13||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|2.54|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.54|-6.81|0.371
91915680|NCT00862251|183729121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-4.56|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-4.56|-11.46|<0.001
91915681|NCT00862251|183729121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.95||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-0.12|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-0.12|-5.78|0.041
91915682|NCT00862251|183729122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.57||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|4.06|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||4.06|-0.93|0.218
91915683|NCT00862251|183729122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.83|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.83|-2.27|0.832
91915684|NCT00862251|183729123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|-4.47|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-4.47|-13.36|<0.001
91915685|NCT00862251|183729123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.52||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|1.13|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.13|-6.17|0.175
91915686|NCT00862251|183729124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.78||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|14.32|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||14.32|-19.88|0.749
91915687|NCT00862251|183729124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.69||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|18.1|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||18.10|-8.73|0.494
91915688|NCT00531960|183729150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.70|0.8060
91915689|NCT00531960|183729152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.05|||Log Rank|||||2.05|0.75|0.4063
91915690|NCT00531960|183729153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-17.28||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|0.3|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference of 2 rates was determined by using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||0.3|-34.8|0.0444
91915691|NCT00531960|183729154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-12.2||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|2.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in disease control was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||2.8|-27.3|0.0944
91915692|NCT04258579|183729155|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks|19.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.59|22.67||||||||22.67|15.59|
91915693|NCT04258579|183729155|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks|16.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|21.24||||||||21.24|12.50|
91915694|NCT04258579|183729155|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.24|18.76||||||||18.76|11.24|
91915695|NCT04258579|183729156|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 1|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|24.5||||||||24.50|19.70|
91915696|NCT04258579|183729156|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 2|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|21.8||||||||21.80|18.00|
91915697|NCT04258579|183729156|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 3|8.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.68|10.18||||||||10.18|7.68|
91915698|NCT04258579|183729156|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 4|26.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.32|28.94||||||||28.94|24.32|
91915699|NCT04258579|183729156|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 1|22.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.87|25.23||||||||25.23|19.87|
91915700|NCT04258579|183729156|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 2|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.87|23.13||||||||23.13|18.87|
91915701|NCT04258579|183729156|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 3|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|9.99||||||||9.99|7.39|
91915702|NCT04258579|183729156|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 4|27.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.07|29.69||||||||29.69|25.07|
91915703|NCT04258579|183729156|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 1|22.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.18|25.06||||||||25.06|20.18|
91915704|NCT04258579|183729156|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 2|21.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.84|23.32||||||||23.32|19.84|
91915705|NCT04258579|183729156|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 3|9.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|10.46||||||||10.46|7.92|
91915706|NCT04258579|183729156|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 4|27.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.53|30.09||||||||30.09|25.53|
91915707|NCT04258579|183729157|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline|22.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.56|25.34||||||||25.34|19.56|
91915708|NCT04258579|183729157|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks|20.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.65|23.41||||||||23.41|17.65|
91915709|NCT04258579|183729158|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 1|19.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.24|22.54||||||||22.54|17.24|
91915710|NCT04258579|183729158|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 2|22.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.72|25.2||||||||25.20|19.72|
91915711|NCT04258579|183729158|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 3|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.72|18.28||||||||18.28|13.72|
91915712|NCT04258579|183729158|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 4|17.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.34|20.24||||||||20.24|15.34|
91915713|NCT04258579|183729158|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 1|22.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.05|26.53||||||||26.53|19.05|
91915714|NCT04258579|183729158|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 2|26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.96|30.44||||||||30.44|22.96|
91915715|NCT04258579|183729158|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 3|17.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.57|20.33||||||||20.33|14.57|
91915716|NCT04258579|183729158|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 4|20.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.23|23.15||||||||23.15|18.23|
91915717|NCT00331006|183729175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.1875||||0.043|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.053|||the a priori p-value was 0.05 for statistical significance|Exact Binomial|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants in which the inhibitor level falls to less than 5 BU/mL between weeks 6 to 22 and remains below 5 BU/mL at 5-7 days following re-challenge with factor VIII is no more than 0.05|||.053|0.043
91915718|NCT00331006|183729176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.524|||Exact Binomial|||No hypothesis about the value of this proportion was specified in the study design||0.524|0.073|
91808819|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3088|||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid arthritis/related disease||||0.3088
91915719|NCT01225562|183729187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.96|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||0.96|0.75|0.0080
91915720|NCT01225562|183729187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||0.95|0.74|0.0043
91915721|NCT01225562|183729188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.06|0.71|0.1547
91915722|NCT01225562|183729188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.01|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.01|0.68|0.0676
91915723|NCT01225562|183729189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.16|0.86|0.9851
91915724|NCT01225562|183729189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.04|0.76|0.1350
91915725|NCT01225562|183729190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.7|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||3.70|1.96|<0.0001
91915726|NCT01225562|183729190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.21|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||3.21|1.68|<0.0001
91915727|NCT01375764|183729191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|-27.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-27.80|-44.08|<0.001
91808820|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.0036
91808821|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3772|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.3772
91808822|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.3000
91808823|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7354|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.7354
91808824|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1435|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.1435
91808825|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2876|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.2876
91915728|NCT01375764|183729191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.97|-19.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-19.67|-35.97|<0.001
91915729|NCT01375764|183729191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Tretament Difference|-26.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.08|-17.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-17.93|-34.08|<0.001
91915730|NCT01375764|183729192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.73|-40.84||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-40.84|-53.73|<0.001
91808826|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2848|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.2848
91808827|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.1830
91808828|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6453|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.6453
91808829|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8717|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.8717
91915731|NCT01375764|183729193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-76.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.9|-58.3||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-58.3|-94.9|<0.001
91915732|NCT01375764|183729193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|-37.1||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-37.1|-74.0|<0.001
91915733|NCT01375764|183729193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8|-34.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-34.5|-70.8|<0.001
91915734|NCT01375764|183729194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-91.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.7|-75.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-75.0|-108.7|<0001
91915735|NCT01375764|183729195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.93|-26.28||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-26.28|-40.93|<0.001
91915736|NCT01375764|183729195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.99|-19.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-19.32|-33.99|<0.001
91915737|NCT01375764|183729195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.13|-17.59||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-17.59|-32.13|<0.001
91915738|NCT01375764|183729196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.81|-39.18||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-39.18|-50.81|<0.001
91915739|NCT01375764|183729197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Teatment Difference|-29.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.84|-22.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-22.92|-36.84|<0.001
91915740|NCT01375764|183729197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-15.16||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-15.16|-29.10|<0.001
91808830|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8717|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.8717
91808831|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3422|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.3422
91808832|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3465|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.3465
91808833|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4953|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.4953
91808834|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9796|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.9796
91808835|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4187|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.4187
91808836|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.1510
91808837|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0751|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.0751
91808838|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7577|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.7577
91808839|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.8020
91808840|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9879|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.9879
91808841|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1717|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.1717
91808842|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3065|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.3065
91808843|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.9920
91808844|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4626|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.4626
91808845|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8922|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.8922
91808846|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7143|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.7143
91808847|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8212|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.8212
91808848|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5732|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.5732
91808849|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7319|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.7319
91808850|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9272|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.9272
91808851|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1441|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.1441
91808852|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1859|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.1859
91808853|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3109|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.3109
91915741|NCT01375764|183729197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.29|-14.48||Testing based on a signficance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-14.48|-28.29|<0.001
91808854|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3313|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.3313
91808855|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1279|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.1279
91808856|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7575|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.7575
91915742|NCT01375764|183729198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.81|-32.64||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-32.64|-43.81|<0.001
91915743|NCT01375764|183729199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.56|-24.34||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-24.34|-37.56|<0.001
91915744|NCT01375764|183729199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.53|-17.29||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-17.29|-30.53|<0.001
91915745|NCT01375764|183729199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.92|-15.8||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-15.80|-28.92|<0.001
91915746|NCT01375764|183729200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.77|-32.07||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-32.07|-43.77|<0.001
91915747|NCT01375764|183729201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.57|-27.52||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-27.52|-40.57|<0.001
91915748|NCT01375764|183729201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.35|-20.27||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-20.27|-33.35|<0.001
91915749|NCT01375764|183729201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.57|-18.62||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-18.62|-31.57|<0.001
91915750|NCT01375764|183729202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.99|-35.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-35.50|-46.99|<0.001
91915751|NCT01552343|183729203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0187||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Correlation - no adjustments||||0.0187
91808857|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1583|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.1583
91915752|NCT01552343|183729203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Partial correlation - baseline # of voids||||0.0094
91915753|NCT01552343|183729203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0383||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Partial correlation - baseline NI total score||||0.0383
91915754|NCT01552343|183729203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Partial correlation - age category||||0.0133
91915755|NCT01552343|183729203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.||Partial correlation - gender||||0.0128
91808858|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1569|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.1569
91808859|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0745|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.0745
91808860|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0933|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.0933
91808861|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.7910
91808862|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6755|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.6755
91808863|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4183|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.4183
91808864|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6749|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.6749
91808865|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6626|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.6626
91808866|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5766|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.5766
91808867|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8376|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.8376
91808868|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2857|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.2857
91808869|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.9560
91808870|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4384|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.4384
91808871|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6082|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.6082
91915756|NCT01552343|183729204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|18.8|||||Non-Responders - Responders|Nocturia Impact (NI) Total Score (Q1-Q11)||18.8|2.7|
91915757|NCT01552343|183729204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|9.6|||||Non-Responders - Responders|Overall Impact Question (Q12)||9.6|-9.6|
91915758|NCT01552343|183729207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|3.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Nocturia Impact (NI) Total Score: Screening||3.1|-20.3|0.1471
91915759|NCT01552343|183729207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.6||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-1.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Nocturia Impact (NI) Total Score: Baseline||-1.2|-26.0|0.0318
91915760|NCT01552343|183729207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.8||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-0.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Overall Impact Question (Q12): Screening||-0.3|-31.2|0.0463
91915761|NCT01552343|183729207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-0.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Overall Impact Question (Q12): Baseline||-0.7|-34.6|0.0413
91915762|NCT01552343|183729208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.3|||ANCOVA|Covariates baseline score, treatment and age stratum (\<65, \>=65).||Treatment effect. NI total scores are transformed to a 0-100 scale where 0 is good and 100 bad.||6.3|-6.6|0.9647
91915763|NCT02732951|183729218|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.45||0.3199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.23|49.13|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Fixed effects of treatment, prior anti-diabetic macular oedema treatment status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within patient errors.|Null hypothesis = The CSFT change from baseline at Week 12 is equal in both groups||49.13|-16.23|0.3199
91808872|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.3374
91808873|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5984|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.5984
91915764|NCT00391599|183729278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91915765|NCT00391599|183729280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91915766|NCT00928070|183729307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.24||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline, and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-0.24|-1.05|0.0018
91915767|NCT00928070|183729308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.38||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline, and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-0.38|-1.27|0.0003
91915768|NCT00928070|183729309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
91915769|NCT00928070|183729309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0001
91915770|NCT00928070|183729311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.4||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.40|-1.35|0.0003
91915771|NCT00928070|183729311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.39||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.39|-1.29|0.0003
91915772|NCT00928070|183729312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
91915773|NCT00928070|183729312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
91915774|NCT00928070|183729314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.43||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.43|-1.77|0.0014
91808874|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8568|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.8568
91808875|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.7698
91808876|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7089|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.7089
91808877|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3446|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.3446
91808878|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0815|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.0815
91808879|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.4020
91808880|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4246|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional: endocrine/metabolic disorders||||0.4246
91915775|NCT00928070|183729314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.70|-2.10|<0.0001
91915776|NCT00928070|183729315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0002
91915777|NCT00928070|183729315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
91915778|NCT00928070|183729317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered Baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.10|-0.39|0.2511
91915779|NCT00928070|183729317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.05||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered Baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.05|-0.53|0.0189
91915780|NCT00928070|183729318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0010
91915781|NCT00928070|183729320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-2.3||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-2.30|-7.04|0.0001
91915782|NCT00928070|183729320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|-2.66||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-2.66|-7.27|<0.0001
91915783|NCT00928070|183729321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.11||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 4: =\<3.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<3.5/day and \>3.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.11|-0.56|0.0035
91915784|NCT00928070|183729321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.7089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|2.92||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 4: \>3.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<3.5/day and \>3.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||2.92|-2.01|0.7089
91915785|NCT00928070|183729321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.21||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12: =\<2.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<2.5/day and \>2.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.21|-0.61|<0.0001
91915786|NCT00928070|183729321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.09||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12: \>2.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<2.5/day and \>2.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||1.09|-0.78|0.7437
91915787|NCT00928070|183729322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 4- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0009
91915788|NCT00928070|183729322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: CMH test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0021
91915789|NCT00928070|183729324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-9.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-5.45||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-5.45|-12.85|<0.0001
91808881|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8118|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional: endocrine/metabolic disorders||||0.8118
91808882|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7454|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional: endocrine/metabolic disorders||||0.7454
91808883|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3559|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.3559
91915790|NCT00928070|183729324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-3.61||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-3.61|-11.60|0.0002
91915791|NCT00928070|183729326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|12.25||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||12.25|4.09|<0.0001
91915792|NCT00928070|183729326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|6.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|11.15||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||11.15|2.77|0.0012
91915793|NCT00928070|183729326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.95||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||7.95|0.05|0.0472
91915794|NCT00928070|183729326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|5.46||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.46|-0.55|0.1087
91915795|NCT00928070|183729326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|9.28||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||9.28|2.31|0.0012
91915796|NCT00928070|183729326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|9.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.75|13.33||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||13.33|4.75|<0.0001
91915797|NCT00928070|183729326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|9.67||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||9.67|0.96|0.0169
91915798|NCT00928070|183729326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|8.17||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||8.17|-0.08|0.0546
91808884|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.7698
91808885|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7323|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.7323
91808886|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5935|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.5935
91915799|NCT00928070|183729326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|5.55||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.55|-0.85|0.1497
91915800|NCT00928070|183729326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|9.23||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||9.23|1.84|0.0034
91915801|NCT00928070|183729327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|16.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.43|22.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model with treatment and center as factors was used to calculate p-value.||22.08|10.43|<0.0001
91915802|NCT00928070|183729328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not satisfied, neither dissatisfied nor satisfied, satisfied: CMH test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used.||||<0.0001
91808887|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3928|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.3928
91808888|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7089|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.7089
91808889|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8746|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory disease||||0.8746
91915803|NCT00928070|183729330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.15||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline value, and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||0.15|-0.51|0.2788
91808890|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3835|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory disease||||0.3835
91808891|NCT03975790|183494104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4992|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory disease||||0.4992
91808892|NCT03975790|183494105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2336|||||||t-test|||||||0.2336
91808893|NCT03975790|183494105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2109|||||||t-test|||||||0.2109
91808894|NCT03975790|183494105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0691|||||||t-test|||||||0.0691
91808895|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9758|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.9758
91808896|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9978|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.9978
91808897|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9861|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.9861
91808898|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5744|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.5744
91808899|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8542|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.8542
91808900|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8363|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.8363
91808901|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0473|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0473
91915804|NCT00928070|183729331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Van Elteren's test|||Change at Week 4: Van Elteren's test adjusted by baseline PVR quartile was used to calculate p-value. The median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||8.00|0.00|0.0021
91915805|NCT00928070|183729331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|11.0||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Van Elteren's test|||Change at Week 12: Van Elteren's test adjusted by baseline PVR quartile was used to calculate p-value. The median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||11.00|3.00|<0.0001
91915806|NCT00624520|183729354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|891.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical Analysis presented for comparison groups Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management vs. Patient Education at 6 months post|ANOVA|||"Initial sample size calculation, based on previous published data of effects sizes of anger stress management on heart rate and blood pressure responses in a veteran population, indicated a study population of 138 patients should detect a reduction in Double Product response to mental stress following psychological intervention, with over 90% power, assuming 20% drop-out rate."||||0.18
91915807|NCT00624520|183729355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91915808|NCT00624520|183729356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91915809|NCT00624520|183729357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
91915810|NCT00624520|183729358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.048
91915811|NCT00624520|183729359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91915812|NCT00624520|183729360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91808902|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0327|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0327
91915813|NCT00624520|183729361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91808903|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5348|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.5348
91915814|NCT00624520|183729362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
91915815|NCT00624520|183729363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|0.38||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value refers to a repeated measures within-group comparison in the CBSM group using ANCOVA with baseline DP elevation as covariate from baseline to 3 months post.|ANCOVA||Range of Cohen's d for small effect is 0.20 - 0.50|||||0.025
91915816|NCT00624520|183729364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.0||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical Analysis presented for comparison groups Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management vs. Patient Education at 6 months post|ANOVA|||"Initial sample size calculation, based on previous published data of effects sizes of anger stress management on heart rate and blood pressure responses in a veteran population, indicated a study population of 138 patients should detect a reduction in Double Product response to mental stress following psychological intervention, with over 90% power, assuming 20% drop-out rate."||||0.81
91808904|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6934|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.6934
91915817|NCT01570244|183729385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|140.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.84|148.47|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Ethinylestradiol||148.47|133.84|
91915818|NCT01570244|183729386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Odds Ratio (OR)|114.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.49|124.97|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Ethinylestradiol||124.97|105.49|
91915819|NCT01570244|183729387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|171.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.2|183.33|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Ethinylestradiol||183.33|160.20|
91915820|NCT01570244|183729390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric mean ratio|140.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.4|144.78|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Levonorgestrel||144.78|136.40|
91915821|NCT01570244|183729391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.81|119.92|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Levonorgestrel||119.92|110.81|
91915822|NCT01570244|183729392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|153.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.99|162.14|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Levonorgestrel||162.14|145.99|
91915823|NCT03183128|183729410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.58||P-value presented for both hypothesis tests: H0: RR≥1 and H0: RR≥0.833.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|||0.58|0.18|<0.001
91808905|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6017|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.6017
91808906|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4768|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.4768
91808907|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2315|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.2315
91808908|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2588|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.2588
91808909|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8576|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.8576
91808910|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5909|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.5909
91808911|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0570
91915824|NCT03183128|183729411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.67||P-value presented is for the hypothesis test: H0: RR ≥1.0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate is stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|CDI recurrence rates at Week 4||0.67|0.19|<0.001
91915825|NCT03183128|183729411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.65||P-value presented is for the hypothesis test: H0: RR ≥1.0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate is stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|CDI recurrence rates at Week 12||0.65|0.24|<0.001
91915826|NCT03183128|183729411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.73||P-value presented is for the hypothesis test: H0: RR ≥1.0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate is stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|CDI recurrence rates at Week 24||0.73|0.30|<0.001
91915827|NCT00348140|183729469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||1.8|-1.2|0.739
91915828|NCT00348140|183729469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||2.4|-0.8|0.343
91915829|NCT00348140|183729470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.9|-1.1|0.783
91915830|NCT00348140|183729470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||1.1|-1.1|0.940
91915831|NCT00348140|183729471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||=|0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.8|-1.1|=0.763
91915832|NCT00348140|183729471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||=|0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.9|-1.1|=0.800
91915833|NCT00348140|183729472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.4|-0.7|0.611
91808912|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0408|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0408
91915834|NCT00348140|183729472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.4|-0.6|0.741
91915835|NCT00348140|183729473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.4|0.913
91915836|NCT00348140|183729473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.5|0.481
91915837|NCT00348140|183729474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.4|0.557
91808913|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6465|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.6465
91808914|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5654|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.5654
91808915|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8371|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.8371
91808916|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9654|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.9654
91808917|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.1013
91808918|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.1580
91915838|NCT00348140|183729474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.5|0.404
91915839|NCT00348140|183729475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.8|-0.5|0.633
91915840|NCT00348140|183729475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.8|-0.4|0.575
91915841|NCT00348140|183729475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||0.7|-0.6|0.820
91915842|NCT00348140|183729475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||0.6|-0.7|0.908
91915843|NCT00348140|183729475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||1.1|-0.3|0.292
91915844|NCT00348140|183729475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.7|-0.7|0.978
91915845|NCT00348140|183729475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||1.0|-0.6|0.691
91915846|NCT00348140|183729475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.8|-0.9|0.849
91915847|NCT00348140|183729476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 12||0.2|-0.2|0.938
91808919|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1663|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.1663
91915848|NCT00348140|183729476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 12||0.2|-0.2|0.887
91915849|NCT00348140|183729476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.2|-0.4|0.465
91915850|NCT00348140|183729476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.3|-0.2|0.596
91915851|NCT00348140|183729476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.2|-0.4|0.452
91915852|NCT00348140|183729476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.2|-0.4|0.429
91915853|NCT00348140|183729477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.386
91915854|NCT00348140|183729477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.999
91915855|NCT00348140|183729478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||2.5|-0.2|0.090
91808920|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6563|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.6563
91808921|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5785|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.5785
91808922|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4166|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.4166
91808923|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0636|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.0636
91808924|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3137|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.3137
91808925|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4568|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.4568
91808926|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5785|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.5785
91808927|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9541|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.9541
91808928|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1956|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.1956
91808929|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3633|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.3633
91808930|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9481|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.9481
91808931|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3653|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.3653
91915856|NCT00348140|183729478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||1.3|-1.3|0.957
91808932|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9255|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.9255
91808933|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5137|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.5137
91808934|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6338|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.6338
91808935|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6329|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.6329
91808936|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9228|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.9228
91808937|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8433|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.8433
91808938|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1175|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1175
91808939|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1215|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1215
91808940|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9007|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.9007
91808941|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8789|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.8789
91808942|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8305|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.8305
91808943|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0694|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.0694
91808944|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8606|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.8606
91808945|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3363|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.3363
91808946|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3319|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.3319
91808947|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5615|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.5615
91808948|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8898|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.8898
91808949|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.3670
91808950|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8155|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.8155
91808951|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7091|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.7091
91808952|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9769|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.9769
91808953|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5032|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.5032
91808954|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.5631
91808955|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4426|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.4426
91808956|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5734|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.5734
91808957|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3071|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.3071
91808958|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1608|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.1608
91808959|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4092|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.4092
91808960|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1215|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.1215
91808961|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7279|||||||Chi-squared|||Atorvastatin Calcium||||0.7279
91808962|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7703|||||||Chi-squared|||Atorvastatin Calcium||||0.7703
91808963|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6254|||||||Chi-squared|||Atorvastatin Calcium||||0.6254
91808964|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.1615
91808965|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.5050
91808966|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1592|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.1592
91808967|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6088|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.6088
91808968|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4713|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.4713
91808969|NCT03975790|183494106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3399|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.3399
91808970|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2349|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.2349
91808971|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3956|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.3956
91808972|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.5500
91808973|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7131|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.7131
91808974|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.9420
91808975|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0571|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0571
91808976|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0490
91808977|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.5631
91808978|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2198|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.2198
91808979|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.3850
91808980|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.1165
91808981|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4291|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.4291
91915857|NCT00348140|183729478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||2.2|-0.9|0.395
91915858|NCT00348140|183729478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||0.7|-2.5|0.275
91915859|NCT00348140|183729478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||3.4|0.1|0.039
91915860|NCT00348140|183729478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||1.6|-1.8|0.895
91915861|NCT00348140|183729478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||2.3|-2.1|0.914
91915862|NCT00348140|183729478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||1.3|-3.2|0.430
91808982|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.3850
91808983|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8143|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.8143
91915863|NCT00348140|183729479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 8||0.6|-1.1|0.583
91915864|NCT00348140|183729479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 8||0.6|-1.1|0.631
91915865|NCT00348140|183729479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 16||1.1|-0.8|0.812
91808984|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7272|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.7272
91915866|NCT00348140|183729479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 16||1.0|-0.9|0.952
91915867|NCT00348140|183729479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 24||0.2|-2.1|0.117
91915868|NCT00348140|183729479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.1|-2.1|0.074
91915869|NCT00348140|183729479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.3|-2.4|0.141
91915870|NCT00348140|183729479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.7|-2.1|0.331
91915871|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|11.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 12||11.2|-2.9|0.251
91915872|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 12||13.2|-1.4|0.113
91808985|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0501|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0501
91808986|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0500
91808987|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3116|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.3116
91808988|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4882|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.4882
91808989|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9505|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.9505
91808990|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.4080
91808991|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7644|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.7644
91808992|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4146|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.4146
91808993|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1348|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.1348
91808994|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5948|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.5948
91808995|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5785|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.5785
91808996|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1033|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.1033
91915873|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|10.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 24||10.2|-7.1|0.723
91915874|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 24||13.2|-6.3|0.482
91915875|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 36||12.6|-9.5|0.785
91915876|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|13.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 36||13.8|-9.4|0.711
91915877|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|15.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 48||15.2|-7.2|0.484
91763831|NCT00362648|183418328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy = 1-Relative Risk|39.3|||<|0.001||95.0|19.1|54.7||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of subjects with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo / vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test||Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|The number randomized is different from the number analyzed because some data were excluded from the analysis: subjects were classified as unevaluable due to wildtype rotavirus in stool before 14 days Postdose 3, incomplete clinical and/or laboratory results, or stool samples collected out of day range. Rotavirus gastroenteritis cases are subjects with one or more positive episodes. The most severe positive episode is used for the date of the case.||54.7|19.1|<0.001
91808997|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2117|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.2117
91808998|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.9920
91915878|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|15.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 48||15.4|-8.5|0.572
91915879|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|17.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 12||17.3|-3.6|0.197
91915880|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|18.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 12||18.4|-3.5|0.183
91915881|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|22.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 24||22.6|-2.6|0.121
91915882|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|19.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 24||19.3|-5.8|0.291
91763832|NCT00362648|183418328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy = 1-Relative Risk|48.3|||<|0.001||95.0|22.3|66.1||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of subjects with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo / vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test||Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|The number randomized is different from the number analyzed because some data were excluded from the analysis: subjects were classified as unevaluable due to wildtype rotavirus in stool before 14 days Postdose 3, incomplete clinical and/or laboratory results, or stool samples collected out of day range. Rotavirus gastroenteritis cases are subjects with one or more positive episodes. The most severe positive episode is used for the date of the case.||66.1|22.3|<0.001
91808999|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.9212
91809000|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.9212
91809001|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4384|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.4384
91809002|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.0162
91809003|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3239|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.3239
91809004|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4837|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.4837
91809005|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7183|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.7183
91809006|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2667|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.2667
91809007|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.4510
91809008|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7993|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.7993
91809009|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9896|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.9896
91915883|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|22.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 36||22.9|-8.9|0.389
91915884|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|12.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 36||12.6|-15.0|0.865
91915885|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|19.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 48||19.6|-11.3|0.596
91915886|NCT00348140|183729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|14.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 48||14.2|-14.7|0.975
91915887|NCT00348140|183729481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 12||-0.1|-4.7|0.043
91915888|NCT00348140|183729481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 12||0.1|-4.5|0.056
91915889|NCT00348140|183729481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 36||2.1|-2.8|0.758
91915890|NCT00348140|183729481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 36||0.5|-4.5|0.109
91915891|NCT00348140|183729481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 48||-0.0|-5.2|0.050
91915892|NCT00348140|183729481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 48||-0.9|-6.0|0.009
91915893|NCT00348140|183729482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Ultility score Week 12||0.03|-0.02|0.662
91915894|NCT00348140|183729482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Ultility score Week 12||0.02|-0.03|0.503
91915895|NCT00348140|183729482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 36||0.03|-0.03|0.892
91915896|NCT00348140|183729482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 36||0.00|-0.05|0.083
91915897|NCT00348140|183729482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 48||0.02|-0.05|0.366
91809010|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8576|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.8576
91809011|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9373|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.9373
91809012|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1253
91809013|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1851|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1851
91809014|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8697|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.8697
91809015|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9719|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.9719
91915898|NCT00348140|183729482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 48||0.02|-0.03|0.769
91915899|NCT00348140|183729483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 12||0.3|-0.7|0.529
91915900|NCT00348140|183729483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 12||0.4|-0.7|0.620
91915901|NCT00348140|183729483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 36||0.3|-1.0|0.284
91915902|NCT00348140|183729483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 36||0.9|-0.4|0.488
91915903|NCT00348140|183729483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 48||1.0|-0.5|0.549
91915904|NCT00348140|183729483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.9|-0.6|0.780
91915905|NCT00348140|183729484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.3|0.106
91915906|NCT00348140|183729484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.2|0.229
91915907|NCT00348140|183729485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.324
91915908|NCT00348140|183729485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.987
91915909|NCT00348140|183729486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|0.00|0.038
91915910|NCT00348140|183729486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|0.08|<0.001
91915911|NCT00348140|183729499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.3|-0.4|0.748
91915912|NCT00348140|183729499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.5|-0.3|0.617
91915913|NCT00348140|183729499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 16||0.3|-0.5|0.708
91915914|NCT00348140|183729499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 16||0.2|-0.5|0.400
91915915|NCT00348140|183729499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.4|-0.4|0.928
91915916|NCT00348140|183729499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.7|-0.1|0.178
91763833|NCT00362648|183418329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|78.3||||||95.0|71.7|84.0||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||84.0|71.7|
91763834|NCT00362648|183418329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|18.5||||||95.0|13.3|24.8||||||Serotype G1||24.8|13.3|
91763835|NCT00362648|183418329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|9.0||||||95.0|5.3|14.0||||||Serotype G2||14.0|5.3|
91763836|NCT00362648|183418329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|6.3||||||95.0|3.3|10.8||||||Serotype G3||10.8|3.3|
91763837|NCT00362648|183418329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|26.5||||||95.0|20.3|33.3||||||Serotype G4||33.3|20.3|
91763838|NCT00362648|183418329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|14.4||||||95.0|9.7|20.2||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||20.2|9.7|
91763839|NCT00362648|183418329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|20.1||||||95.0|14.4|27.0||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||27.0|14.4|
91763840|NCT00362648|183418329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|2.2||||||Serotype G1||2.2|0.0|
91915917|NCT00348140|183729499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.5|-0.3|0.626
91915918|NCT00348140|183729499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.5|-0.3|0.608
91915919|NCT00348140|183729499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.4|-0.5|0.865
91915920|NCT00348140|183729499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.8|-0.1|0.149
91915921|NCT04666038|183729510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.536||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|0.746||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio (HR) \& 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.746|0.385|0.0002
91915922|NCT04666038|183729511|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.475|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.669||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.669|0.338|<0.0001
91915923|NCT04666038|183729512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.749||The 2-sided p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.749|0.679|0.7202
91915924|NCT04666038|183729513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.365|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|0.524||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.524|0.254|<0.0001
91915925|NCT04666038|183729514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.387|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.534||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.534|0.280|<0.0001
91915926|NCT01228903|183729524|EQUIVALENCE|(Doehner et al.) CHF patients on allopurinol (n= 14) had improved BA-FMD= 10.6 ± 2.0 (mean ± SE) vs placebo (n= 14, FMD= 6.7 ± 0.1); difference in means= 3.9. Yiginer et al. found a similar difference in metabolic syndrome. A sample size of 34/group will have 80% power to detect a difference in means of 3.9 (common standard deviation=5.6, two group t-test=0.050 two-sided significance). Accounting for a potential drop-out rate17%, n= 40/group was recruited.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated value represents the difference between the change from baseline in both groups.|The null hypothesis was the there will be no difference between the placebo and allopurinol. The power for the study was calculated (as appropriate) based on the prior literature.||||0.47
91915927|NCT02867761|183729530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.37|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.37|0.60|0.65
91915928|NCT02867761|183729534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.30
91915929|NCT02867761|183729535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.49
91915930|NCT02867761|183729536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.96
91915931|NCT02867761|183729537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||<0.001
91809016|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.9380
91915932|NCT02867761|183729540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with any symptoms (shortness of breath, chest tightness, wheezing, cough, or sputum)||||0.35
91915933|NCT02867761|183729540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with shortness of breath||||0.61
91915934|NCT02867761|183729540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with chest tightness||||0.48
91915935|NCT02867761|183729540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with wheezing||||0.81
91809017|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1079|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.1079
91809018|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2588|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.2588
91809019|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9358|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.9358
91809020|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1984|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.1984
91915936|NCT02867761|183729540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with cough||||0.17
91915937|NCT02867761|183729540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with sputum||||0.64
91915938|NCT02867761|183729540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with use of albuterol.||||0.84
91915939|NCT01194440|183729600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Bonferonni|Adjusting for multiple comparisons in the analyses, a Bonferonni-corrected p-value of 0.05/5 = 0.01 to represent statistical significance was used.||The primary hypothesis of the study is that administration of zoledronic acid with letrozole would result in a significant decline in the percentage of women experiencing AIMSS compared to letrozole treatment alone (historical control).||||<0.001
91915940|NCT03158220|183729629|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.77||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 16||0.77|0.63|< 0.001
91915941|NCT03158220|183729629|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.8||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 18||0.80|0.64|< 0.001
91915942|NCT03158220|183729629|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.74||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 31||0.74|0.60|< 0.001
91915943|NCT03158220|183729629|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 33||0.80|0.67|< 0.001
91915944|NCT03158220|183729629|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 45||0.76|0.60|< 0.001
91915945|NCT03158220|183729629|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.78||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 52||0.78|0.64|< 0.001
91915946|NCT03158220|183729629|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.76||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 58||0.76|0.63|< 0.001
91915947|NCT03158220|183729632|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as % Women 27-45 Years of Age minus % Women 16-26 Years of Age.|||1.4|-6.4|0.212
91915948|NCT03158220|183729633|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.4|||||Difference in percentages calculated as % Women 27-45 Years of Age minus % Women 16-26 Years of Age.|||3.4|-7.3|
91915949|NCT03158220|183729634|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as % Women 27-45 Years of Age minus % Women 16-26 Years of Age.|||0.9|-3.1|0.300
91915950|NCT02525549|183729636|NON_INFERIORITY|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|93.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|102.0|||Fieller's method|||||102.00|88.6|
91915951|NCT02525549|183729637|NON_INFERIORITY|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|109.4|||Fieller's method|||||109.4|92.3|
91915952|NCT00484315|183729654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the TAXUS Element stent was to be accepted if the Bayesian posterior probability that the difference in 12-month TLF between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 4.1%, given the data, was at least 95%. The sample size of 1264 subjects (resulting in 1200 after accounting for 5% attrition) was determined through simulations based on Bayesian modeling.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0155||0.9996|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.85||The p-value is the posterior probability that the difference in 12-month TLF between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 4.1%, given the data observed.|Bayesian modeling||Values are based on the posterior distribution of the difference in TLF rates between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express. The upper limit is the 1-Sided 95% posterior credible interval, based off the 95th percentile of the posterior distribution.|Bayesian modeling was used to determine if the 12-month TLF rate for the TAXUS Element stent was non-inferior to the 12-month TLF rate in the TAXUS Express2 control. The null hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element TLF rate is at least 4.1% greater than the TAXUS Express TLF rate. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element TLF rate is less than 4.1% greater than the TAXUS Express TLF rate.||1.85||0.9996
91763841|NCT00362648|183418329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|3.0||||||95.0|1.0|6.8||||||Serotype G2||6.8|1.0|
91763842|NCT00362648|183418329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|2.4||||||95.0|0.6|5.9||||||Serotype G3||5.9|0.6|
91763843|NCT00362648|183418329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|2.4||||||95.0|0.6|5.9||||||Serotype G4||5.9|0.6|
91763844|NCT00362648|183418329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|4.7||||||95.0|2.1|9.1||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||9.1|2.1|
91763845|NCT00362648|183418330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|87.8||||||95.0|80.9|92.9||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||92.9|80.9|
91763846|NCT00362648|183418330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|32.1||||||95.0|24.2|40.8||||||Serotype G1||40.8|24.2|
91763847|NCT00362648|183418330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|9.9||||||95.0|5.4|16.4||||||Serotype G2||16.4|5.4|
91763848|NCT00362648|183418330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|28.2||||||95.0|20.7|36.8||||||Serotype G3||36.8|20.7|
91763849|NCT00362648|183418330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|18.3||||||95.0|12.1|26.0||||||Serotype G4||26.0|12.1|
91763850|NCT00362648|183418330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|27.5||||||95.0|20.0|36.0||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||36.0|20.0|
91763851|NCT00362648|183418330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|18.2||||||95.0|12.0|25.8||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||25.8|12.0|
91915953|NCT00484315|183729655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the TAXUS Element stent was to be accepted if the Bayesian posterior probability that the difference in mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 0.20, given the data, was at least 95%. The sample size of 330 subjects (resulting in 280 after accounting for 15% attrition) was determined through simulations based on Bayesian modeling.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0294|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08253||0.997|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1078||P-value is posterior probability that the difference in mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 0.20, given the data observed. Non-inferiority was concluded, as this probability is greater than 95%.|Bayesian modeling||Based on posterior distribution of the difference in mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express. Upper limit is 1-Sided 95% posterior credible interval, based off the 95th percentile of posterior distribution.|Natural log (ln) transformation was used to improve normality of the secondary endpoint distribution. Bayesian modeling was used to determine if the mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) for the TAXUS Element stent was non-inferior to the mean ln(9-month %DS) for TAXUS Express. Null hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element mean was at least 0.20 greater than the TAXUS Express mean. Alternative hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element mean is less than 0.20 greater than the TAXUS Express TLF mean.||0.1078||0.9970
91809021|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8542|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.8542
91915954|NCT01078805|183729663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 6 to 12 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0177
91915955|NCT01078805|183729663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 12 to 18 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0019
91915956|NCT01078805|183729663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0143||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 18 to 24 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0143
91915957|NCT01078805|183729664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0689||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 6 to 12 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0689
91763852|NCT00362648|183418330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|2.3||||||95.0|0.5|6.5||||||Serotype G1||6.5|0.5|
91763853|NCT00362648|183418330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.8||||||95.0|0.0|4.1||||||Serotype G2||4.1|0.0|
91763854|NCT00362648|183418330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|3.0||||||95.0|0.8|7.6||||||Serotype G3||7.6|0.8|
91763855|NCT00362648|183418330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|2.8||||||Serotype G4||2.8|0.0|
91763856|NCT00362648|183418330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|5.3||||||95.0|2.2|10.6||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||10.6|2.2|
91763857|NCT03375489|183418331|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established for patient-reported quality of life if the 90% confidence interval for the estimated difference in means was within the margin of ±4 points on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung Questionnaire.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|3.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||The difference in week-24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment and controlling for baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung Questionnaire scores.||3.9|0.1|0.04
91763858|NCT03375489|183418332|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established for patient-reported communication with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences if the 90% confidence interval for the estimated difference in proportions was within the margin of ±8%.|Estimated Difference in Proportions|3.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|8.1||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|binomial generalized estimating equation|||The difference between groups in the proportions of patients reporting that they communicated with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences was estimated using a binomial generalized estimating equation model with robust standard errors, the identity link function, and a main effect for group assignment.||8.1|-1.8|0.26
91763859|NCT03375489|183418333|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established for patient length of stay in hospice if the 90% confidence interval for the estimated difference in mean days was within the margin of ±6 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|7.4||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|Regression, Linear|||The difference in mean length of stay in hospice between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment.||7.4|-7.0|0.46
91763860|NCT03375489|183418334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in estimated proportions|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-8.6||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|binomial generalized estimating equation|||The proportion of palliative care visits with caregiver participation was compared using a binomial generalized estimating equation model with robust standard errors, the identity link function, and a main effect for group assignment.||-8.6|-17.6|<0.001
91763861|NCT03375489|183418335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|Regression, Linear|||The difference in week-24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment.||1.7|-1.0|>0.99
91763862|NCT03375489|183418336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|Regression, Linear|||The difference in week-24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment.||2.3|-1.5|>0.99
91763863|NCT03838978|183418347|SUPERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. If non-inferiority was met, superiority could be tested. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \> 0.0%.||||||||||||||||For missing data in both Arms/Groups, multiple imputation was performed for the primary CCS analysis.|Device group differences and two-sided 90% and 97.5% confidence interval lower bounds (LB) adjusting for propensity score (PS) subclass based on PS subclass weights (ATT). Noninferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \>0.0%. Two-sided 97.5% LB is evaluated rather than two-sided 95.0% LB since the superiority type 1 error is split between testing superiority in terms of Month 24 CCS and then separately for a set of superiority secondary endpoints with type 1 error control maintained through the use of Hochberg approach (following demonstration of non-inferiority).|||
91809022|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2973|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.2973
91809023|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1046|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.1046
91763864|NCT03071393|183418353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91915958|NCT01078805|183729664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 12 to 18 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0412
91915959|NCT01078805|183729664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0631||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 18 to 24 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0631
91915960|NCT01078805|183729665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91915961|NCT01078805|183729666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91915962|NCT04722991|183729677|OTHER|Bayesian inference with non-informative priors|Point estimate|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.029|||||Median of posterior distribution|||0.029|-0.080|
91915963|NCT02246621|183729694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.698|||Log Rank|||||0.698|0.418|0.000002
91915964|NCT02246621|183729696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
91915965|NCT02246621|183729698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.501
91915966|NCT02246621|183729699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.101
91763865|NCT03071393|183418354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91809024|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7961|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.7961
91763866|NCT03071393|183418355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91809025|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.2140
91809026|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8578|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.8578
91763867|NCT03071393|183418356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Uncorrected p values are reported.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91809027|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7131|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.7131
91809028|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8421|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.8421
91809029|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7637|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.7637
91809030|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6355|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.6355
91809031|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5425|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.5425
91809032|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.0410
91809033|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8251|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.8251
91809034|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2871|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.2871
91809035|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.1174
91809036|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9702|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.9702
91809037|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3109|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.3109
91915967|NCT02246621|183729703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.688|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.688
91915968|NCT02246621|183729704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.466|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
91915969|NCT00821678|183729707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-3.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-6.19|0.002
91915970|NCT00821678|183729708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.001
91915971|NCT00821678|183729709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.33|0.48
91915972|NCT00821678|183729710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.67||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.91|0.45|0.02
91915973|NCT00821678|183729713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.86||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|0.46|0.65
91915974|NCT00821678|183729714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.6|3.2|<0.001
91915975|NCT00110305|183729723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in response rate|0.5||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|11.3||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and Nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N\[t\]RTIs) used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||11.3|-10.4|0.92
91915976|NCT00110305|183729723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|9.0||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||9.0|-13.6|0.56
91915977|NCT00110305|183729723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|8.4||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||8.4|-14.0|0.62
91915978|NCT00110305|183729723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-1.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.5||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||7.5|-10.5|0.80
91915979|NCT00110305|183729724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|7.6||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and Nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N\[t\]RTIs) used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||7.6|-17.1|0.45
91915980|NCT00110305|183729724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|7.7||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||7.7|-17.3|0.45
91915981|NCT00110305|183729724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|12.8||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||12.8|-12.9|0.99
91915982|NCT00110305|183729724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in response|2.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.3||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||13.3|-8.1|0.63
91915983|NCT00110305|183729726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.8||||||95.0|-14.7|9.1||||||||9.1|-14.7|
91915984|NCT01252966|183729747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Longitudinal logistic regression with fitted generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to estimate an overall treatment effect odds ratio including both the EOT and 6-month time points and relevant covariates (e.g., baseline smoking rate, age, Shipley IQ score). The study (n=213) had 80% power to detect small to medium effects on quit rates (corresponding to Cohen's one-sample d=0.38).||1.13|0.42|0.14
91915985|NCT01252966|183729749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression models were used to estimate effects of treatment on change in cognitive performance. Age, Shipley IQ score, number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, and EOT smoking status were included as covariates.||||0.30
91915986|NCT01252966|183729750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression models were used to estimate effects of treatment on change in cognitive performance. Age, Shipley IQ score, number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, and EOT smoking status were included as covariates.||||0.30
91915987|NCT01252966|183729751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||||||Results would not survive correction for multiple hypothesis testing.|Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression models were used to estimate effects of treatment on change in cognitive performance. Age, Shipley IQ score, number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, and EOT smoking status were included as covariates.||||0.033
91915988|NCT03275870|183729761|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||p value \<0.05 used as threshold for significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
91763868|NCT00286429|183418369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.3||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 26. For comparison of either alogliptin dose vs. placebo (2-sample t test), study sample size \>=390 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the per protocol analysis set assuming a standard deviation of 0.8%, a 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting the per protocol criteria.||-0.30|-0.72|<0.001
91809038|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6744|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.6744
91809039|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8121|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.8121
91809040|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9451|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.9451
91809041|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||Chi-squared|||Cephalexin||||0.1660
91809042|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9549|||||||Chi-squared|||Cephalexin||||0.9549
91809043|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3104|||||||Chi-squared|||Cephalexin||||0.3104
91809044|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0489|||||||Chi-squared|||Ibuprofen||||0.0489
91809045|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1515|||||||Chi-squared|||Ibuprofen||||0.1515
91809046|NCT03975790|183494107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9481|||||||Chi-squared|||Ibuprofen||||0.9481
91809047|NCT03975790|183494108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2178|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2178
91915989|NCT03275870|183729762|OTHER|||||||0.213||||||P value of \<0.05 used as threshold for significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213
91915990|NCT02054702|183729801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||<0.0001
91915991|NCT02054702|183729801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||<0.0001
91915992|NCT02054702|183729802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4244|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test composite battery score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.4244
91915993|NCT02054702|183729802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test composite battery score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.7623
91915994|NCT02054702|183729803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery of early phase battery score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.8759
91915995|NCT02054702|183729803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery of early phase battery score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.2176
91915996|NCT02054702|183729804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of GML from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.8420
91915997|NCT02054702|183729804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3781|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of GML from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.3781
91915998|NCT02054702|183729805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of detection task from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.1807
91915999|NCT02054702|183729805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2802|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of detection task from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.2802
91916000|NCT02054702|183729806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of identification task from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.8622
91916001|NCT02054702|183729806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of identification task from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.4848
91916002|NCT02054702|183729807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8588|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of one card learning task from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.8588
91916003|NCT02054702|183729807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9928|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of one card learning task from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.9928
91916004|NCT02054702|183729808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in CGI-S from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||<0.0001
91916005|NCT02054702|183729808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in CGI-S from baseline to week 6 were observed for aripiprazole.||||<0.0001
91763869|NCT00286429|183418369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 26. For comparison of either alogliptin dose vs. placebo (2-sample t test), study sample size \>=390 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the per protocol analysis set assuming a standard deviation of 0.8%, a 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting the per protocol criteria.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
91809048|NCT03975790|183494108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5237|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5237
91916006|NCT02054702|183729811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and total score at baseline as covariate was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in SLOF total score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||<0.0001
91916007|NCT02054702|183729811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The ANCOVA model, with treatment group as main effect and total score at baseline as covariate, was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in SLOF total score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||<0.0001
91916008|NCT02054702|183729812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model, with treatment group as main effect and total score at baseline as covariate, was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in BIS-11 item total score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.0392
91916009|NCT02054702|183729812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model, with treatment group as main effect and total score at baseline as covariate, was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in BIS-11 item total score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.9716
91916010|NCT03486392|183729813|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square (LS) Means|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|-4.19|||Dunnett's method|||||-4.19|-9.31|< 0.001
91916011|NCT03486392|183729813|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.921|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|-5.84|||Dunnett's method|||||-5.84|-10.31|< 0.001
91916012|NCT03486392|183729813|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-10.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|-7.78|||Dunnett's method|||||-7.78|-12.31|< 0.001
91916013|NCT03486392|183729813|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|-3.57|||Dunnett's method|||||-3.57|-7.99|< 0.001
91916014|NCT02304926|183729829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91809049|NCT03975790|183494108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7964|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7964
91809050|NCT03975790|183494109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9085
91809051|NCT03975790|183494109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6283|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6283
91809052|NCT03975790|183494109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7293|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7293
91809053|NCT03975790|183494110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9392|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9392
91809054|NCT03975790|183494110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3063|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3063
91809055|NCT03975790|183494110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3467|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3467
91916015|NCT02304926|183729830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916016|NCT02304926|183729831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916017|NCT02304926|183729832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91916018|NCT02304926|183729833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91916019|NCT02304926|183729834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916020|NCT02304926|183729835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916021|NCT02304926|183729836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91763870|NCT00286429|183418370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.09||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.09|-0.34|<0.001
91809056|NCT03975790|183494111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7977|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7977
91809057|NCT03975790|183494111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5241|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5241
91916022|NCT02304926|183729837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916023|NCT02304926|183729838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916024|NCT02304926|183729839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916025|NCT02304926|183729840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916026|NCT02304926|183729841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916027|NCT02304926|183729842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916028|NCT02304926|183729843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916029|NCT02304926|183729844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91809058|NCT03975790|183494111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4702|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4702
91809059|NCT03975790|183494112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1461|||||||t-test|||||||0.1461
91809060|NCT03975790|183494112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1411|||||||t-test|||||||0.1411
91809061|NCT03975790|183494112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4201|||||||t-test|||||||0.4201
91809062|NCT03975790|183494113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3955|||||||t-test|||||||0.3955
91809063|NCT03975790|183494113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6356|||||||t-test|||||||0.6356
91809064|NCT03975790|183494113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3833|||||||t-test|||||||0.3833
91809065|NCT03975790|183494114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3292|||||||t-test|||||||0.3292
91809066|NCT03975790|183494114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2959|||||||t-test|||||||0.2959
91809067|NCT03975790|183494114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6962|||||||t-test|||||||0.6962
91809068|NCT03975790|183494115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8138|||||||t-test|||||||0.8138
91809069|NCT03975790|183494115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test|||||||0.0070
91809070|NCT03975790|183494115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0358|||||||t-test|||||||0.0358
91809071|NCT03975790|183494116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8453|||||||t-test|||||||0.8453
91809072|NCT03975790|183494116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4806|||||||t-test|||||||0.4806
91809073|NCT03975790|183494116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4809|||||||t-test|||||||0.4809
91809074|NCT03975790|183494117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3076|||||||t-test|||||||0.3076
91809075|NCT03975790|183494117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2509|||||||t-test|||||||0.2509
91809076|NCT03975790|183494117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7827|||||||t-test|||||||0.7827
91916030|NCT02304926|183729845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916031|NCT02304926|183729846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91916032|NCT02304926|183729847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916033|NCT02304926|183729848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91916034|NCT02076165|183729849|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of participants who completed all 5 treatment sessions, comparing ABC-I to CBT-I.||||=.120
91916035|NCT02076165|183729850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|=|0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||The average deviation, in minutes, between the recommended and actual bed time. Negative values indicate the number of minutes earlier than the recommended bed time that the participant went to bed, indicating greater non-adherence.|||6.32|-7.75|=.843
91916036|NCT02076165|183729851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17|=|0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|7.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||The average deviation, in minutes, between the recommended and actual rise time. Positive values indicate the number of minutes later than the recommended rise time that the participant got out of bed, indicating greater non-adherence.|||7.35|-12.91|=0.590
91916037|NCT02076165|183729852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|=|0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis||The proportion of nights participants who did not follow the recommendation to get out of bed if awake more than 20 minutes. Higher numbers indicate greater non-adherence.|||0.096|-0.093|=0.979
91916038|NCT02076165|183729853|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For sleep diary estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to post-treatment for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||3.74|-2.92|=0.004
91916039|NCT02076165|183729854|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For sleep diary estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to 3-month follow-up for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||4.23|-2.72|.003
91916040|NCT02076165|183729855|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For actigraphically-estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to post-treatment for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||2.57|-1.21|<0.001
91916041|NCT02076165|183729856|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For actigraphically-estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.14|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to 3-month follow-up for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||3.36|-1.14|<.001
91916042|NCT02076165|183729857|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). With respect to ISI, this represents a 2 point difference between the treatment effects.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the ISI score from baseline to post-treatment for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||1.98|-0.98|=0.048
91916043|NCT02076165|183729858|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). With respect to ISI, this represents a 2 point difference between the treatment effects.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the ISI score from baseline to 3-month follow-up for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||1.17|-2.32|=0.008
91916044|NCT01950819|183729865|NON_INFERIORITY|p vale for non inferiority margin is 10 %|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.3|||Logistic Regression Model|||calculated at month 12||7.3|-1.4|0.001
91916045|NCT00820573|183729895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"A general unstructured variance-covariance matrix (ANOVA) was applied for measurements at different periods. Between-group comparisons after 6 wks of treatment were assessed using the ANOVA model at alpha=0.05 (two-sided).~16 subjects provide \~90% power to detect difference in EGP of 0.28 mg/kg.min (95% CI = 0.17 mg/kg.min)."||||<0.05
91916046|NCT00820573|183729896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||multivariate analysis was performed to compare results amongst all four groups||||<0.05
91916047|NCT00820573|183729897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA||||0.05
91916048|NCT00820573|183729898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91916049|NCT01360645|183729899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||The primary analysis was performed on the Efficacy Sample by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with an unstructured variance covariance structure in which the change from the end of Phase A (Week 8) in MADRS Total Score (at Weeks 9 to 14) was the dependent variable. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||-1.54|-4.70|0.0001
91916050|NCT01360645|183729900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||||-1.54|-4.87|0.0002
91916051|NCT01360645|183729901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||||-0.03|-0.86|0.0372
91916052|NCT01360645|183729902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||||-0.03|-0.88|0.0349
91916053|NCT01360645|183729903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.34|-2.25|0.0080
91916054|NCT01360645|183729903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.54|-2.91|0.0045
91916055|NCT01360645|183729903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-1.30|-3.96|0.0001
91916056|NCT01360645|183729903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-1.18|-4.01|0.0004
91916057|NCT01360645|183729903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-1.70|-4.68|0.0000
91916058|NCT01360645|183729904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.34|-2.28|0.0086
91809077|NCT03975790|183494118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4261|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.4261
91916059|NCT01360645|183729904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.30|-2.74|0.0149
91809078|NCT03975790|183494118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5247|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.5247
91809079|NCT03975790|183494118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2809|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.2809
91809080|NCT03975790|183494118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1153|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.1153
91809081|NCT03975790|183494118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.1344
91916060|NCT01360645|183729904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-1.05|-3.78|0.0006
91916061|NCT01360645|183729904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-1.04|-4.00|0.0009
91916062|NCT01360645|183729904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-3.28|-4.84|0.0000
91916063|NCT01360645|183729905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.08|-0.38|0.0022
91916064|NCT01360645|183729905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.05|-0.38|0.0115
91916065|NCT01360645|183729905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-0.03|-0.41|0.0255
91916066|NCT01360645|183729905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.16|-0.57|0.0005
91916067|NCT01360645|183729905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.20|-0.62|0.0001
91916068|NCT01360645|183729905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.17|-0.60|0.0005
91916069|NCT01360645|183729906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.10|-0.40|0.0010
91916070|NCT01360645|183729906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.02|-0.37|0.0290
91916071|NCT01360645|183729906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-0.01|-0.40|0.0422
91916072|NCT01360645|183729906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.18|-0.61|0.0003
91916073|NCT01360645|183729906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.20|-0.64|0.0002
91916074|NCT01360645|183729906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.19|-0.65|0.0003
91916075|NCT01360645|183729907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.02|-0.25|0.0229
91916076|NCT01360645|183729907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.00|-0.28|0.0459
91916077|NCT01360645|183729907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-0.05|-0.37|0.0097
91916078|NCT01360645|183729907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.08|-0.42|0.0038
91916079|NCT01360645|183729907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.18|-0.54|0.0001
91916080|NCT01360645|183729907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14.||-0.15|-0.52|0.0004
91809082|NCT03975790|183494118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8229|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.8229
91916081|NCT01360645|183729908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.04|-0.27|0.0109
91916082|NCT01360645|183729908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||0.03|-0.25|0.1286
91916083|NCT01360645|183729908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||0.00|-0.32|0.0521
91916084|NCT01360645|183729908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.06|-0.42|0.0084
91916085|NCT01360645|183729908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.16|-0.54|0.0003
91916086|NCT01360645|183729908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.15|-0.53|0.0006
91916087|NCT01360645|183729909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.32|-2.82|0.0139
91916088|NCT01360645|183729909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.04|-3.01|0.0436
91916089|NCT01360645|183729909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||0.55|-2.75|0.1903
91916090|NCT01360645|183729909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||0.26|-3.21|0.0951
91916091|NCT01360645|183729909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||0.09|-3.59|0.0626
91916092|NCT01360645|183729909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.06|-3.87|0.0435
91916093|NCT01360645|183729910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.47|-2.95|0.0069
91809083|NCT03975790|183494119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7816|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.7816
91809084|NCT03975790|183494119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7124|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.7124
91916094|NCT01360645|183729910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||0.35|-2.68|0.1322
91916095|NCT01360645|183729910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||0.98|-2.41|0.4055
91916096|NCT01360645|183729910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||0.55|-3.08|0.1715
91916097|NCT01360645|183729910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||0.48|-3.33|0.1424
91916098|NCT01360645|183729910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||0.44|-3.52|0.1270
91916099|NCT01360645|183729911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.3079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Work/School: Week 11||0.26|-0.81|0.3079
91809085|NCT03975790|183494119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6148|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.6148
91809086|NCT03975790|183494119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4876|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.4876
91809087|NCT03975790|183494119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7826|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.7826
91809088|NCT03975790|183494119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8337|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.8337
91809089|NCT03975790|183494120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1344
91809090|NCT03975790|183494120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0095
91809091|NCT03975790|183494120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1406|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1406
91809092|NCT03975790|183494121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9379|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9379
91809093|NCT03975790|183494121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3025
91809094|NCT03975790|183494121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3388|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3388
91809095|NCT03975790|183494122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8205|||||||t-test|||||||0.8205
91809096|NCT03975790|183494122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0467|||||||t-test|||||||0.0467
91809097|NCT03975790|183494122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1083|||||||t-test|||||||0.1083
91809098|NCT03975790|183494123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8899|||||||t-test|||||||0.8899
91916100|NCT01360645|183729911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Work/School: Week 14||0.34|-0.73|0.4771
91916101|NCT01360645|183729911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Social life: Week 11||-0.08|-0.92|0.0195
91916102|NCT01360645|183729911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Social life: Week 14||-0.04|-0.96|0.0323
91916103|NCT01360645|183729911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Family life: Week 11||-0.18|-1.07|0.0058
91916104|NCT01360645|183729911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Family life: Week 14||-0.13|-1.07|0.0129
91916105|NCT01360645|183729912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Work/School Week 11||0.36|-0.71|0.5151
91916106|NCT01360645|183729912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Work/School Week 14||0.41|-0.70|0.6080
91916107|NCT01360645|183729912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Social life-Week 11||-0.06|-0.92|0.0267
91916108|NCT01360645|183729912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Social life-Week 14||-0.08|-1.01|0.0224
91916109|NCT01360645|183729912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Family life-Week 11||-0.11|-1.01|0.0146
91916110|NCT01360645|183729912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Family life-Week 14||-0.14|-1.09|0.0113
91916111|NCT01360645|183729913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.22|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA\_Last observation carry forward (LOCF) model with treatment and trial site as main effects, and baseline (end of Phase A \[Week 8\]) value as a covariate was used.||-1.22|-3.47|0.0001
91916112|NCT01360645|183729914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.12|||ANCOVA|||||-1.12|-3.47|0.0002
91916113|NCT01360645|183729915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA\_LOCF model with treatment and trial site as main effects, and baseline (end of Phase A \[Week 8\]) value as a covariate was used.||-0.17|-2.17|0.0219
91916114|NCT01360645|183729916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-2.13|0.0376
91916115|NCT01360645|183729917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.63||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.44|1.09|0.0176
91916116|NCT01360645|183729918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.54||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.35|1.01|0.0429
91916117|NCT01360645|183729919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.68||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.86|0.98|0.0586
91916118|NCT01360645|183729920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.67||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.90|0.97|0.0671
91809099|NCT03975790|183494123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6183|||||||t-test|||||||0.6183
91916119|NCT01360645|183729921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.10|1.23|0.0003
91916120|NCT01360645|183729922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.69||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.27|1.27|0.0002
91916121|NCT00754156|183729925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91809100|NCT03975790|183494123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6496|||||||t-test|||||||0.6496
91809101|NCT03975790|183494124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5027|||||||t-test|||||||0.5027
91809102|NCT03975790|183494124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2375|||||||t-test|||||||0.2375
91809103|NCT03975790|183494124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5577|||||||t-test|||||||0.5577
91916122|NCT00516919|183729931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||F statistic|0.45|||=|0.51||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate = Baseline (pre-treatment) BMI; Degrees of freedom = (1, 76)||Test for group differences in BMI at post-treatment, controlling for baseline BMI.||||=0.51
91916123|NCT00516919|183729931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||F statistic|0.69|||=|0.41||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate = Baseline (pre-treatment) BMI; Degrees of freedom = (1, 76)||Test for group differences in BMI at 6-month follow-up, controlling for baseline BMI.||||=0.41
91916124|NCT03371355|183729932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-2|-41|0.0343
91916125|NCT03371355|183729932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-28.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-28|-56|<0.0001
91916126|NCT03371355|183729932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-37.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-17.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-17|-52|0.0009
91916127|NCT03371355|183729933|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-49.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.68|-37.06|||ANCOVA|||||-37.06|-62.68|<0.0001
91916128|NCT03371355|183729933|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-71.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.47|-58.85|||ANCOVA|||||-58.85|-84.47|<0.0001
91916129|NCT03371355|183729933|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-59.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.04|-45.44|||ANCOVA|||||-45.44|-74.04|<0.0001
91916130|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.5||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.59|-1.39|||ANCOVA|||TC||-1.39|-31.59|0.0327
91916131|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.15|-21.94|||ANCOVA|||TC||-21.94|-52.15|<0.0001
91916132|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.23|-15.05|||ANCOVA|||TC||-15.05|-48.23|0.0003
91916133|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|20.54|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C||20.54|-5.55|0.2560
91916134|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.6||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.26|4.05|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C||4.05|-21.26|0.1795
91916135|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.8||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.48|4.95|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C||4.95|-22.48|0.2065
91916136|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.1515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|1.01|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||1.01|-6.43|0.1515
91916137|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.29|-4.91|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||-4.91|-12.29|<0.0001
91916138|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||-0.12|-8.18|0.0436
91916139|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.1||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|-1.33|||ANCOVA|||VLDL-C||-1.33|-16.94|0.0224
91916140|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.94|-7.84|||ANCOVA|||VLDL-C||-7.84|-22.94|0.0001
91916141|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.8||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.86|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||VLDL-C||-2.78|-18.86|0.0091
91916142|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Non-HDL-C||1.42|-29.12|0.0748
91916143|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.68|-13.18|||ANCOVA|||Non-HDL-C||-13.18|-43.68|0.0004
91916144|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.4||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|-10.64|||ANCOVA|||Non-HDL-C||-10.64|-44.08|0.0016
91916145|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.44||||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|6.8|||ANCOVA|||ApoB||6.80|-11.68|0.6005
91809104|NCT03975790|183494125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6908|||||||t-test|||||||0.6908
91809105|NCT03975790|183494125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0859|||||||t-test|||||||0.0859
91809106|NCT03975790|183494125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2764|||||||t-test|||||||0.2764
91809107|NCT03975790|183494126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1906|||||||t-test|||||||0.1906
91809108|NCT03975790|183494126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8744|||||||t-test|||||||0.8744
91916146|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.83||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.07|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||ApoB||-0.59|-19.07|0.0374
91916147|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.28||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|5.0|||ANCOVA|||ApoB||5.00|-15.55|0.3100
91916148|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.002||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.09|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-48||0.09|-2.10|0.0728
91916149|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.803||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-48||-0.69|-2.91|0.0018
91916150|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.091||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.12|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-48||0.12|-2.30|0.0759
91916151|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.887||||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|8.11|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-100||8.11|-9.89|0.8451
91916152|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.59||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.59|1.41|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-100||1.41|-16.59|0.0973
91916153|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.418||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|6.61|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-100||6.61|-13.45|0.5000
91916154|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.753||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-2.03|||ANCOVA|||ApoCIII||-2.03|-7.47|0.0008
91916155|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.499|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-5.82|||ANCOVA|||ApoCIII||-5.82|-11.18|<0.0001
91916156|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|-3.93|||ANCOVA|||ApoCIII||-3.93|-9.78|<0.0001
91916157|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-7.85|||ANCOVA|||ApoA1||-7.85|-25.80|0.0003
91916158|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.07|-26.24|||ANCOVA|||ApoA1||-26.24|-44.07|<0.0001
91916159|NCT03371355|183729934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.89|-11.39|||ANCOVA|||ApoA1||-11.39|-30.89|<0.0001
91916160|NCT03371355|183729935|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0128||||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.10|0.8299
91916161|NCT03371355|183729935|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0144||||0.8102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.13|0.8102
91916162|NCT03371355|183729935|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0146||||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.14|0.8223
91916163|NCT03371355|183729936|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|16.02|||ANCOVA|||Lp(a)||16.02|-0.35|0.0604
91916164|NCT03371355|183729936|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6||||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|9.74|||ANCOVA|||Lp(a)||9.74|-6.61|0.7048
91916165|NCT03371355|183729936|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|7.2|||ANCOVA|||Lp(a)||7.20|-10.65|0.7024
91916166|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-45.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|-33.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ANGPTL3||-33|-54|<0.0001
91916167|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|-54.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ANGPTL3||-54|-69|<0.0001
91809109|NCT03975790|183494126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3295|||||||t-test|||||||0.3295
91916168|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-47.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ANGPTL3||-47|-66|<0.0001
91916169|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-1|-16|0.0309
91916170|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-12.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-12|-26|<0.0001
91916171|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-9|-25|<0.0001
91916172|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|6.0||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||21|-7|0.4016
91916173|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||6|-18|0.2589
91916174|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-12.0||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||1|-24|0.0616
91916175|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-8.0||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||4|-18|0.1918
91916176|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||-14|-32|<0.0001
91916177|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|3.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||3|-21|0.1132
91916178|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-5|-40|0.0177
91916179|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-23.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-23|-51|<0.0001
91916180|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-30.0||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-12.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-12|-45|0.0033
91916181|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||0|-18|0.0523
91916182|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-18.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-9|-26|0.0002
91809110|NCT03975790|183494127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.0056
91916183|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-19.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-9|-28|0.0004
91916184|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-3.0||||0.4204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||5|-12|0.4204
91916185|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||0|-16|0.0441
91916186|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||2|-16|0.1324
91916187|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-29.0||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-48||7|-53|0.1009
91916188|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-52.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-28.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-48||-28|-68|0.0005
91916189|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-21.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|24.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-48||24|-50|0.3004
91809111|NCT03975790|183494127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4222|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.4222
91809112|NCT03975790|183494127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.0041
91809113|NCT03975790|183494127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2277|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.2277
91809114|NCT03975790|183494127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2812|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.2812
91809115|NCT03975790|183494127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0772|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.0772
91916190|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-2.0||||0.6135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-100||7|-10|0.6135
91916191|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.1127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-100||2|-15|0.1127
91916192|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-5.0||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-100||4|-14|0.2576
91916193|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-36.0||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-16.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoCIII||-16|-52|0.0017
91916194|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-45.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoCIII||-45|-68|<0.0001
91916195|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-47.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-29.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoCIII||-29|-61|<0.0001
91763871|NCT00286429|183418370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.20|-0.45|<0.001
91763872|NCT00286429|183418371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.31||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.31|-0.65|<0.001
91809116|NCT03975790|183494128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.2930
91809117|NCT03975790|183494128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.4390
91916196|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-11.0||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoAI||-2|-20|0.0193
91916197|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-19.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoAI||-19|-33|<0.0001
91916198|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-14.0||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoAI||-4|-23|0.0063
91809118|NCT03975790|183494128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.1530
91916199|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-2.0||||0.8873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|23.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|FFA||23|-21|0.8873
91916200|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-8.0||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|15.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|FFA||15|-27|0.4404
91916201|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-1.0||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|27.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|FFA||27|-22|0.9665
91916202|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-7.0||||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Lp\[a\]||10|-21|0.4133
91916203|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-6.0||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|11.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Lp\[a\]||11|-20|0.4750
91809119|NCT03975790|183494128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9439|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.9439
91809120|NCT03975790|183494128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4477|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.4477
91809121|NCT03975790|183494128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4519|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.4519
91809122|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9829|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular Disease||||0.9829
91809123|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8021|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular Disease||||0.8021
91809124|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8376|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular Disease||||0.8376
91809125|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5927|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||0.5927
91809126|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5202|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||0.5202
91809127|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8517|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||0.8517
91809128|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||8.33|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma||||8.33
91809129|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7483|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma||||0.7483
91809130|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9713|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma||||0.9713
91916204|NCT03371355|183729937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-4.0||||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|15.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Lp\[a\]||15|-20|0.6354
91916205|NCT03371355|183729938|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.2||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.53|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.10|-42.53|0.1799
91916206|NCT03371355|183729938|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.8||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.83|39.49|||ANCOVA|||||39.49|-11.83|0.2867
91916207|NCT03371355|183729938|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.78|31.14|||ANCOVA|||||31.14|-26.78|0.8812
91916208|NCT03371355|183729939|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.3995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.94|0.3995
91916209|NCT03371355|183729939|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08||||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.75|||ANCOVA|||||0.75|-0.59|0.8155
91916210|NCT03371355|183729939|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.86|||ANCOVA|||||0.86|-0.54|0.6466
91809131|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9148|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney disease||||0.9148
91916211|NCT03371355|183729940|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.39||||0.7393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|6.89|||ANCOVA|||||6.89|-9.66|0.7393
91916212|NCT03371355|183729940|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|8.18|||ANCOVA|||||8.18|-8.45|0.9744
91916213|NCT03371355|183729940|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.58||||0.4477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|12.91|||ANCOVA|||||12.91|-5.75|0.4477
91916214|NCT03371355|183729941|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.794||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|3.14|||ANCOVA|||||3.14|-6.72|0.4710
91916215|NCT03371355|183729941|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26||||0.9169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|5.2|||ANCOVA|||||5.20|-4.68|0.9169
91916216|NCT03371355|183729941|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.133||||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.70|-3.44|0.4484
91916217|NCT03371355|183729942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.2||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.17|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-50.17|0.0916
91916218|NCT03371355|183729942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.51|15.63|||ANCOVA|||||15.63|-38.51|0.4032
91916219|NCT03371355|183729942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9||||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.56|31.45|||ANCOVA|||||31.45|-27.56|0.8959
91916220|NCT03371355|183729943|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.16|0.3202
91916221|NCT03371355|183729943|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.8485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.11|0.8485
91763873|NCT00286429|183418371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.39||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.39|-0.73|<0.001
91916222|NCT03371355|183729943|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0314||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.08|0.5812
91809132|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7248|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney disease||||0.7248
91809133|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney disease||||0.8200
91809134|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9657|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes||||0.9657
91809135|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9255|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes||||0.9255
91916223|NCT03371355|183729944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43||||0.6157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.15|||ANCOVA|||||2.15|-1.28|0.6157
91916224|NCT03371355|183729944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.69|||ANCOVA|||||1.69|-1.66|0.9869
91916225|NCT03371355|183729944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.42|||ANCOVA|||||1.42|-2.07|0.7084
91916226|NCT03371355|183729945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.79||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|10.0|||ANCOVA|||SBP||10.00|-4.41|0.4431
91916227|NCT03371355|183729945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.08||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|9.22|||ANCOVA|||SBP||9.22|-5.05|0.5630
91916228|NCT03371355|183729945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.63||||0.6634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|5.79|||ANCOVA|||SBP||5.79|-9.06|0.6634
91916229|NCT03371355|183729945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.11||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|8.92|||ANCOVA|||DBP||8.92|-0.71|0.0937
91916230|NCT03371355|183729945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.49||||0.1522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|8.28|||ANCOVA|||DBP||8.28|-1.31|0.1522
91916231|NCT03371355|183729945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.62||||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|6.59|||ANCOVA|||DBP||6.59|-3.35|0.5188
91916232|NCT03371355|183729946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.57||||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.39|||ANCOVA|||Weight||2.39|-1.24|0.5299
91916233|NCT03371355|183729946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.8919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.65|||ANCOVA|||Weight||1.65|-1.89|0.8919
91916234|NCT03371355|183729946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.44|||ANCOVA|||Weight||1.44|-2.25|0.6653
91916235|NCT03371355|183729946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.35||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|8.14|||ANCOVA|||SBP||8.14|-3.43|0.4213
91916236|NCT03371355|183729946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.23||||0.6696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|6.96|||ANCOVA|||SBP||6.96|-4.49|0.6696
91916237|NCT03371355|183729946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.23||||0.6819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.73|||ANCOVA|||SBP||4.73|-7.20|0.6819
91916238|NCT03371355|183729946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.01||||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|11.31|||ANCOVA|||DBP||11.31|-1.28|0.1171
91916239|NCT03371355|183729946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.94||||0.2155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|10.21|||ANCOVA|||DBP||10.21|-2.33|0.2155
91916240|NCT03371355|183729946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7||||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|8.2|||ANCOVA|||DBP||8.20|-4.79|0.6034
91916241|NCT03371355|183729947|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.98||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.44|||ANCOVA|||||4.44|-2.48|0.5752
91916242|NCT03371355|183729947|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.09||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.59|||ANCOVA|||||7.59|0.58|0.0230
91916243|NCT03371355|183729947|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.57||||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.25|||ANCOVA|||||5.25|-2.10|0.3965
91916244|NCT03371355|183729948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.44||||0.3023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|36.26|||ANCOVA|||||36.26|-11.39|0.3023
91916245|NCT03371355|183729948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|26.03||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|50.19|||ANCOVA|||||50.19|1.87|0.0350
91916246|NCT03371355|183729948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.27||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|37.55|||ANCOVA|||||37.55|-13.02|0.3374
91916247|NCT03371355|183729950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.59||||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|4.31|||ANCOVA|||||4.31|-9.49|0.4583
91763874|NCT00286429|183418372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.37|-0.77|<0.001
91809136|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9575|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes||||0.9575
91809137|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||0.9410
91809138|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9146|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||0.9146
91916248|NCT03371355|183729950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.71||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.00|-12.43|0.0943
91916249|NCT03371355|183729950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.57||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|2.32|||ANCOVA|||||2.32|-11.45|0.1909
91916250|NCT03371355|183729951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.1||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|16.22|||ANCOVA|||ALT||16.22|-2.10|0.1294
91809139|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9641|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||0.9641
91809140|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2596|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety||||0.2596
91916251|NCT03371355|183729951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|23.59|||ANCOVA|||ALT||23.59|5.98|0.0012
91916252|NCT03371355|183729951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.9||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|18.11|||ANCOVA|||ALT||18.11|-0.36|0.0594
91916253|NCT03371355|183729951|SUPERIORITY||[Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|10.45|||ANCOVA|||AST||10.45|-0.47|0.0730
91916254|NCT03371355|183729951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|13.7|||ANCOVA|||AST||13.70|3.17|0.0020
91916255|NCT03371355|183729951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|12.0|||ANCOVA|||AST||12.00|1.05|0.0200
91916256|NCT03371355|183729952|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.19||||0.4812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|2.16|||ANCOVA|||||2.16|-4.55|0.4812
91916257|NCT03371355|183729952|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53||||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|1.83|||ANCOVA|||||1.83|-4.88|0.3679
91916258|NCT03371355|183729952|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.18||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-7.72|0.0210
91916259|NCT03371355|183729953|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.73|0.6227
91916260|NCT03371355|183729953|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.97|0.1950
91916261|NCT03371355|183729953|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-1.00|0.2271
91916262|NCT03371355|183729954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|17.06||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.57|207.69|||ANCOVA|||SAT||207.69|-173.57|0.8591
91916263|NCT03371355|183729954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|32.92||||0.7404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.11|229.95|||ANCOVA|||SAT||229.95|-164.11|0.7404
91916264|NCT03371355|183729954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.3||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.5|182.9|||ANCOVA|||SAT||182.90|-215.50|0.8711
91916265|NCT03371355|183729954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.95||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.64|186.53|||ANCOVA|||VAT||186.53|-176.64|0.9569
91916266|NCT03371355|183729954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.26||||0.8025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.53|168.02|||ANCOVA|||VAT||168.02|-216.53|0.8025
91916267|NCT03371355|183729954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|22.02||||0.8202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.09|214.12|||ANCOVA|||VAT||214.12|-170.09|0.8202
91916268|NCT03371355|183729955|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|6.69|||ANCOVA|||||6.69|-6.47|0.9734
91809141|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2228|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety||||0.2228
91809142|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7824|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety||||0.7824
91809143|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver disease||||0.4184
91809144|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4371|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver disease||||0.4371
91809145|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2074|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver disease||||0.2074
91809146|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785|||||||Chi-squared|||Sleep disorders||||0.7850
91809147|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1288|||||||Chi-squared|||Sleep disorders||||0.1288
91809148|NCT03975790|183494129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2839|||||||Chi-squared|||Sleep disorders||||0.2839
91809149|NCT03975790|183494130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2242|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2242
91809150|NCT03975790|183494130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0014
91809151|NCT03975790|183494130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0557|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0557
91809152|NCT03975790|183494131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5944|||||||Chi-squared|||Switch immediately||||0.5944
91916269|NCT03371355|183729955|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.8333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|5.86|||ANCOVA|||||5.86|-7.25|0.8333
91916270|NCT03371355|183729955|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.66||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|-4.99|0.6207
91916271|NCT03371355|183729956|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01||||0.8026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.04|0.8026
91916272|NCT03371355|183729956|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.4917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.07|0.4917
91916273|NCT03371355|183729956|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.05|0.8916
91916274|NCT03371355|183729957|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|-0.50|0.7280
91916275|NCT03371355|183729957|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.69|0.7354
91916276|NCT03371355|183729957|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.84|0.4682
91916277|NCT00868790|183729959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|-17.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.3|-6.1|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-6.1|-28.3|0.013
91916278|NCT00868790|183729959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-23.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.5|-12.4|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-12.4|-34.5|<0.001
91916279|NCT00868790|183729959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-25.0|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (metformin-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-25.0|-44.8|<0.001
91916280|NCT00868790|183729960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-11.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|-5.4|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-5.4|-17.5|0.002
91809153|NCT03975790|183494131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9255|||||||Chi-squared|||Switch immediately||||0.9255
91916281|NCT00868790|183729960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|-15.8|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-15.8|-27.8|<0.001
91916282|NCT00868790|183729960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-36.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.0|-30.0|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-30.0|-42.0|<0.001
91916283|NCT00868790|183729960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-20.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.0|-10.1|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (metformin-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-10.1|-30.0|0.001
91916284|NCT00868790|183729961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-14.9||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.0|3.2|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||3.2|-33.0|0.174
91916285|NCT00868790|183729961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-20.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.4|-2.4|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-2.4|-38.4|0.063
91916286|NCT00868790|183729961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-78.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-96.4|-59.8|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-59.8|-96.4|<0.001
91809154|NCT03975790|183494131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7824|||||||Chi-squared|||Switch immediately||||0.7824
91809155|NCT03975790|183494131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3975|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then switch||||0.3975
91809156|NCT03975790|183494131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0552|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then switch||||0.0552
91763875|NCT00286429|183418372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.34|-0.75|<0.001
91916287|NCT00868790|183729961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-49.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.9|-31.8|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (metformin-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-31.8|-66.9|<0.001
91916288|NCT00868790|183729962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.8||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|3.1|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||3.1|-4.6|0.742
91916289|NCT00868790|183729962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.4|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||8.4|0.6|0.060
91916290|NCT00868790|183729962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|7.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|11.7|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||11.7|3.8|0.002
91916291|NCT00868790|183729962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-3.9||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|2.3|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||2.3|-10.2|0.248
91916292|NCT03400800|183729993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.66|-50.35||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-50.35|-56.66|<0.0001
91916293|NCT03400800|183729994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.57|-46.77||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-46.77|-51.57|<0.0001
91916294|NCT03400800|183729995|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-51.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.01|-48.72||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-48.72|-55.01|<.0001
91916295|NCT03400800|183729996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.39|-46.48||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-46.48|-51.39|<0.0001
91916296|NCT03400800|183729997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.97|-76.57||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-76.57|-81.97|<0.0001
91916297|NCT03400800|183729998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.78|-27.81||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-27.81|-31.78|<0.0001
91916298|NCT03400800|183729999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.21|-36.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-36.67|-41.21|<0.0001
91916299|NCT03400800|183730000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.04|-40.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-40.60|-46.04|<0.0001
91916300|NCT01512264|183730002|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.58.||||0.006
91763876|NCT00286429|183418373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.37|-0.79|<0.001
91809157|NCT03975790|183494131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3914|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then switch||||0.3914
91809158|NCT03975790|183494131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2036|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then restart||||0.2036
91916301|NCT01512264|183730002|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.27.||||0.015
91916302|NCT01512264|183730002|OTHER|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment + 1 week of nerTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.54.||||0.203
91916303|NCT01512264|183730002|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.63.||||0.010
91916304|NCT01512264|183730003|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.54.||||0.410
91916305|NCT01512264|183730003|OTHER|||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.57.||||0.618
91916306|NCT01512264|183730003|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for 2 weeks of Sham Treatment + 1 week of nerTMS group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 1.31.||||1.000
91916307|NCT01512264|183730003|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 4.35.||||0.019
91916308|NCT01512264|183730005|OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.69.||||0.118
91916309|NCT01512264|183730005|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.28.||||0.482
91916310|NCT01512264|183730005|OTHER|||||||0.368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.37.||||0.368
91809159|NCT03975790|183494131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then restart||||0.1336
91809160|NCT03975790|183494131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7095|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then restart||||0.7095
91809161|NCT03975790|183494131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue without switch or restart||||0.2241
91809162|NCT03975790|183494131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue without switch or restart||||0.0024
91809163|NCT03975790|183494131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1204|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue without switch or restart||||0.1204
91809164|NCT03975790|183494132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8424
91809165|NCT03975790|183494132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3278|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3278
91916311|NCT01512264|183730005|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.70.||||0.147
91916312|NCT01512264|183730006|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.54.||||0.410
91916313|NCT01512264|183730006|OTHER|||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.25.||||0.695
91916314|NCT01512264|183730006|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.25.||||0.175
91916315|NCT01512264|183730006|OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.60.||||0.518
91916316|NCT01512264|183730008|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.71.||||0.109
91916317|NCT01512264|183730008|OTHER|||||||0.485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.28.||||0.485
91916318|NCT01512264|183730008|OTHER|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.07.||||0.864
91916319|NCT01512264|183730008|OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.43.||||0.341
91916320|NCT01512264|183730009|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.12.||||0.899
91916321|NCT01512264|183730009|OTHER|||||||0.519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.19.||||0.519
91916322|NCT01512264|183730009|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.09.||||1.000
91916323|NCT01512264|183730009|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.84.||||0.140
91916324|NCT01512264|183730011|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.24.||||0.520
91916325|NCT01512264|183730011|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.97.||||0.800
91916326|NCT01512264|183730011|OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.68.||||0.148
91916327|NCT01512264|183730011|OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.67.||||0.787
91916328|NCT01512264|183730012|OTHER|||||||0.239|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -3.12.||||0.239
91916329|NCT01512264|183730012|OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 2.71.||||0.212
91916330|NCT01512264|183730012|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -3.10.||||0.120
91809166|NCT03975790|183494132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3336
91916331|NCT01512264|183730012|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.14.||||0.263
91809167|NCT03975790|183494133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2036|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2036
91809168|NCT03975790|183494133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1336
91809169|NCT03975790|183494133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7095
91809170|NCT03975790|183494135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<0.0001
91809171|NCT03975790|183494135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<.0001
91916332|NCT00854828|183730022|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91916333|NCT00896532|183730035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from Placebo|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|9.9||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||9.9|7.5|< 0.0001
91916334|NCT00896532|183730035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from placebo|5.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|6.9||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||6.9|4.3|< 0.0001
91916335|NCT00896532|183730035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from Placebo|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|8.7||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||8.7|6.1|< 0.0001
91916336|NCT00896532|183730035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from Placebo|8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|9.8||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||9.8|7.3|< 0.0001
91916337|NCT00996203|183730057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||EQ-5D scores at Baseline Versus Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91916338|NCT00996203|183730060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||General health at baseline Versus Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91916339|NCT00996203|183730062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline Versus Week 24 DAS28 scores|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91916340|NCT00996203|183730064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Mean HAQ scores at Baseline Versus Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91916341|NCT00848120|183730151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Week 24 versus baseline||||<0.001
91916342|NCT00848120|183730152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Week 24 versus baseline||||<0.001
91916343|NCT00848120|183730153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.001
91763877|NCT00286429|183418373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.33|-0.75|<0.001
91763878|NCT00286429|183418374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
91763879|NCT00286429|183418374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.35||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.35|-0.79|<0.001
91809172|NCT03975790|183494135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<.0001
91809173|NCT03975790|183494136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0309|||||||Chi-squared|||Leflunomide||||0.0309
91809174|NCT03975790|183494136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9978|||||||Chi-squared|||Leflunomide||||0.9978
91809175|NCT03975790|183494136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2629|||||||Chi-squared|||Leflunomide||||0.2629
91809176|NCT03975790|183494136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfasalazine||||0.0225
91916344|NCT02238847|183730168|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was set at 20%. This was chosen to support a practical study size while still able to identify major differences if this were the case.|||||<|0.01||||||Reported p-value of \<0.01 is calculated p-value. (p\<0.05 was considered significant)|Exact Non-inferiority|||||||<0.01
91916345|NCT02238847|183730169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
91916346|NCT01988090|183730178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7635|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7635
91916347|NCT01988090|183730180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91809177|NCT03975790|183494136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4456|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfasalazine||||0.4456
91916348|NCT01439945|183730206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|Weekly hot flash score was treated as a repeated measure for each patient.||||||0.13
91916349|NCT01439945|183730206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|Weekly hot flash score was treated as a repeated measure for each patient.||||||0.67
91763880|NCT00286429|183418375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 1. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||3.3|-25.9|0.128
91809178|NCT03975790|183494136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5065|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfasalazine||||0.5065
91809179|NCT03975790|183494136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6617|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine||||0.6617
91809180|NCT03975790|183494136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7309|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine||||0.7309
91809181|NCT03975790|183494136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9861|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine||||0.9861
91809182|NCT03975790|183494137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0880
91809183|NCT03975790|183494137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91809184|NCT03975790|183494137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0065
91809185|NCT03975790|183494138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5157
91809186|NCT03975790|183494138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1231|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1231
91809187|NCT03975790|183494138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2109|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2109
91809188|NCT03975790|183494139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8424
91809189|NCT03975790|183494139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3278|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3278
91809190|NCT03975790|183494139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3336
91809191|NCT03975790|183494140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0654|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0654
91809192|NCT03975790|183494140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7315
91916350|NCT01439945|183730207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|Weekly number of hot flashes were treated as a repeated measure for each patient.||||||0.25
91916351|NCT01439945|183730207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||Weekly number of hot flashes were treated as a repeated measure for each patient.|ANOVA|||||||0.55
91916352|NCT01439945|183730210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91916353|NCT01439945|183730211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.47
91916354|NCT01439945|183730211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
91916355|NCT02440581|183730289|OTHER|T-tests||||||0.443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.443
91916356|NCT02440581|183730290|OTHER|T-tests||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.490
91916357|NCT02440581|183730291|OTHER|T-tests|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91916358|NCT02440581|183730292|OTHER|T-Tests||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.083
91916359|NCT02440581|183730293|OTHER|T-tests||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.283
91916360|NCT00654498|183730294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|-2.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-2.46|-6.58|<0.0001
91916361|NCT00654498|183730295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test stratified by centre||||||<0.0001
91916362|NCT00654498|183730296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test stratified by centre||||||<0.0001
91916363|NCT00654498|183730297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test stratified by centre||||||<0.0001
91916364|NCT00654498|183730298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1386||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1386
91916365|NCT00654498|183730299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.83|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.83|-2.14|<0.0001
91916366|NCT00654498|183730300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.73|-1.99|<0.0001
91916367|NCT00654498|183730301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.72|-2.00|<0.0001
91916368|NCT00654498|183730302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.02|-1.06|0.0402
91916369|NCT00654498|183730303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||0.04|-0.69|0.0771
91916370|NCT00654498|183730304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.22|-1.20|0.0048
91916371|NCT00654498|183730305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91916372|NCT01445678|183730338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|0.54||||||||0.54|-8.91|
91916373|NCT01445678|183730339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|2.59||||||||2.59|-4.52|
91916374|NCT01445678|183730340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|0.89||||||||0.89|-7.23|
91916375|NCT01445678|183730341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.33||||||||2.33|-3.4|
91916376|NCT01445678|183730342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|0.94||||||||0.94|-9.09|
91916377|NCT01445678|183730343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|2.37||||||||2.37|-0.88|
91916378|NCT01565980|183730355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the comparison of least square (LS) means represent the effect of the trial arm. The effect sizes are calculated as Cohen's d: difference between LS means divided by the standard deviation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The outcome measure was analyzed using linear mixed effects models (LME). The main effect of the trial arm was evaluated by averaging time 2 and time 3 values of the outcomes within the LME model. The resulting least square (LS) means and their standard errors are reported.||||<.05
91916379|NCT01565980|183730356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91916380|NCT01565980|183730357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91916381|NCT01565980|183730358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91809193|NCT03975790|183494140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1897|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1897
91809194|NCT03975790|183494141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5146|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5146
91916382|NCT01565980|183730359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91916383|NCT01565980|183730360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91916384|NCT01565980|183730361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values above 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant in this study.|Descriptive statistics for outcomes|||||||<0.05
91916385|NCT02078219|183730369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.99|-21.57|||ANCOVA, LOCF|||||-21.57|-36.99|<0.0001
91916386|NCT02078219|183730369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.97|-41.52|||ANCOVA, LOCF|||||-41.52|-56.97|<0.0001
91916387|NCT02078219|183730369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-45.67|||ANCOVA, LOCF|||||-45.67|-61.00|<0.0001
91916388|NCT00891202|183730388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.82|-23.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model fitted with treatment and baseline spleen severity (low spleen severity: spleen volume less than or equal to \[\<=\] 20 multiples of normal spleen volume, high spleen severity: spleen volume greater than \[\>\] 20 multiples of normal spleen volume).||-23.24|-36.82|<0.0001
91916389|NCT04533711|183730397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|24.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.38|-7.68|0.3086
91916390|NCT04533711|183730398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.93||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|26.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.92|-5.06|0.1820
91916391|NCT04533711|183730399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|308.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|667.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||667.1|-50.2|0.094
91916392|NCT04533711|183730400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|352.0||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|729.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||729.2|-25.2|0.0691
91916393|NCT04533711|183730401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85||||0.4953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|10.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.94|-22.6|0.4953
91916394|NCT04533711|183730402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0.8041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|15.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.49|-20.0|0.8041
91916395|NCT04533711|183730403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.99|-2.86|0.9645
91763881|NCT00286429|183418375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-1.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 1. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-1.2|-31.1|0.034
91763882|NCT00286429|183418376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|9.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 2. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||9.7|-17.9|0.563
91763883|NCT00286429|183418376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|1.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 2. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||1.7|-26.4|0.084
91809195|NCT03975790|183494141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7121|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7121
91809196|NCT03975790|183494141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4434
91809197|NCT03975790|183494142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8966|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8966
91809198|NCT03975790|183494142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2105|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2105
91809199|NCT03975790|183494142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3336
91809200|NCT03975790|183494144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3610
91809201|NCT03975790|183494144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4519|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4519
91809202|NCT03975790|183494144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9612|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9612
91809203|NCT03975790|183494145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8135|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8135
91916396|NCT04533711|183730404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.68||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-5.85|0.0989
91916397|NCT04533711|183730405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|-0.77|0.7667
91763884|NCT00286429|183418377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|4.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.1|-24.7|0.160
91809204|NCT03975790|183494145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5910
91809205|NCT03975790|183494145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7635|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7635
91809206|NCT03975790|183494146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5970
91809207|NCT03975790|183494146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7055|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7055
91809208|NCT03975790|183494147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5435|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5435
91809209|NCT03975790|183494147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6790
91809210|NCT03975790|183494147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9676|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9676
91809211|NCT03975790|183494148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8035
91809212|NCT03975790|183494148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4184
91809213|NCT03975790|183494148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3950
91809214|NCT03975790|183494150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7871|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7871
91809215|NCT03975790|183494150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0722|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0722
91809216|NCT03975790|183494150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1810
91809217|NCT03975790|183494151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1984|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1984
91809218|NCT03975790|183494151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2043|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2043
91809219|NCT03975790|183494151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0439|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0439
91809220|NCT03975790|183494152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1702|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1702
91809221|NCT03975790|183494152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5926|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5926
91809222|NCT03975790|183494152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3088|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3088
91809223|NCT03975790|183494153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9141|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9141
91809224|NCT03975790|183494153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7623|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7623
91809225|NCT03975790|183494153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8517|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8517
91809226|NCT03975790|183494154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1208|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1208
91809227|NCT03975790|183494154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0425|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0425
91916398|NCT04533711|183730406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-1.87|0.0894
91916399|NCT02689492|183730409|OTHER||Intercept|68.5027|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0355|||||||||||Standard deviation is actually standard error.|||||
91916400|NCT02689492|183730410|OTHER||Intercept|95.4051|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9951|||||||||||Standard deviation is actually standard error.|||||
91916401|NCT02689492|183730411|OTHER||Intercept|74.8895|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0048|||||||||||Standard deviation is actually standard error.|||||
91916402|NCT02338843|183730458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.76|13.3|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified logistic regression model. Adjusted by baseline MAP and APACHE II, vasopressin use and average NED 6 hours prior to randomization.||||13.3|4.76|<0.001
91916403|NCT01993888|183730473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91916404|NCT03124459|183730480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|22.1|||ANCOVA|||||22.1|4.9|0.01
91916405|NCT03124459|183730481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-6.8|0.16
91916406|NCT03124459|183730482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.5||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|74.0|||ANCOVA|||||74|-3.2|0.13
91916407|NCT03124459|183730483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-7.1|0.73
91916408|NCT03124459|183730484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-4.6|0.51
91763885|NCT00286429|183418377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-2.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-2.8|-32.1|0.020
91763886|NCT00286429|183418378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.9||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-4.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 8. The treatment effect was be evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-4.0|-33.7|0.013
91916409|NCT03124459|183730489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-8.4|0.63
91916410|NCT00522392|183730490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Stratified log rank test was used to compare progression-free survival between the two arms.||||0.092
91916411|NCT00522392|183730491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the response rates between the two arms.||||0.029
91916412|NCT00522392|183730492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank test was used to compare overall survival between the two arms.||||0.48
91916413|NCT03932812|183730494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.206
91916414|NCT03932812|183730495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.793||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.101
91916415|NCT03932812|183730496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.836
91916416|NCT03932812|183730497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.567|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value: presented value is for month 6. Since the outcome measure is count data, a log link function is used. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and intervention.|The outcome for this analyses is use of emergency care.||||0.567
91916417|NCT03932812|183730498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value: presented value is for month 6. Since the outcome measure is count data, a log link function is used. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and intervention.|||||0.014
91916418|NCT03932812|183730499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value: presented value is for month 6. Since the outcome measure is count data, a log link function is used. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and intervention.|||||0.010
91809228|NCT03975790|183494154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
91809229|NCT03975790|183494155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8698|||||||t-test|||||||0.8698
91809230|NCT03975790|183494155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391|||||||t-test|||||||0.7391
91809231|NCT03975790|183494155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7043|||||||t-test|||||||0.7043
91809232|NCT03975790|183494156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536|||||||t-test|||||||0.0536
91809233|NCT03975790|183494156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9313|||||||t-test|||||||0.9313
91916419|NCT03932812|183730500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.682||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.188
91916420|NCT03575104|183730521|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-11.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.604|-5.633||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.025; statistically significant = YES||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-5.633|-17.604|0.0001
91916421|NCT03575104|183730521|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-2.74||||0.3669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.693|3.215||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00977; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||3.215|-8.693|0.3669
91916422|NCT03575104|183730522|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS Mean difference to placebo|-10.25||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|-3.548||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.01563; statistically significant = YES||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-3.548|-16.95|0.0028
91916423|NCT03575104|183730522|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS Mean difference to placebo|-1.95||||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.666|4.764||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||4.764|-8.666|0.5686
91916424|NCT03575104|183730523|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-6.45||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.282|-0.614||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.025; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-0.614|-12.282|0.0303
91763887|NCT00286429|183418378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-4.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-4.5|-34.5|0.011
91809234|NCT03975790|183494156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||t-test|||||||0.3740
91809235|NCT03975790|183494157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6963|||||||t-test|||||||0.6963
91809236|NCT03975790|183494157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9816|||||||t-test|||||||0.9816
91809237|NCT03975790|183494157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8349|||||||t-test|||||||0.8349
91809238|NCT03975790|183494158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test|||||||0.0003
91809239|NCT03975790|183494158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9431|||||||t-test|||||||0.9431
91809240|NCT03975790|183494158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2964|||||||t-test|||||||0.2964
91916425|NCT03575104|183730523|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-2.61||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|3.197||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00195; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||3.197|-8.41|0.3782
91916426|NCT03575104|183730524|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-9.01||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.339|-2.684||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00313; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-2.684|-15.339|0.0053
91916427|NCT03575104|183730524|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-3.19||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.528|3.146||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||3.146|-9.528|0.3233
91916428|NCT03575104|183730525|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|16.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.224|24.035||Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.0125; statistically significant = YES|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||24.035|8.224|<.0001
91916429|NCT03575104|183730525|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|13.37|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.507|21.226||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||21.226|5.507|= 0.0009
91916430|NCT03575104|183730526|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|19.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.125|27.994||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00781; statistically significant = YES||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||27.994|10.125|<.0001
91916431|NCT03575104|183730526|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|13.58|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.691|22.475||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||22.475|4.691|= 0.0028
91809241|NCT03975790|183494159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2614|||||||t-test|||||||0.2614
91809242|NCT03975790|183494159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test|||||||0.0014
91809243|NCT03975790|183494159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0535|||||||t-test|||||||0.0535
91809244|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051|||||||t-test|||1 months before index date||||0.0051
91809245|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3041|||||||t-test|||1 months before index date||||0.3041
91916432|NCT03575104|183730527|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-0.75|||=|0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.581|0.071||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00625; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.071|-1.581|= 0.0733
91916433|NCT03575104|183730527|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-0.43|||=|0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.251|0.392||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||0.392|-1.251|= 0.3048
91916434|NCT03575104|183730528|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-1.25|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.276||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00391; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-0.276|-2.230|= 0.0120
91916435|NCT03575104|183730528|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-0.73|||=|0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|0.239||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||0.239|-1.706|= 0.1393
91916436|NCT03575104|183730529|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.93||||0.2506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||1.05|0.82|0.2506
91916437|NCT03575104|183730529|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.91|0.71|0.0004
91916438|NCT03575104|183730530|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.96||||0.5037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.09||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||1.09|0.84|0.5037
91916439|NCT03575104|183730530|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.81||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.93|0.71|0.0021
91809246|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4432|||||||t-test|||1 months before index date||||0.4432
91809247|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8641|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.8641
91809248|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0435|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.0435
91809249|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.1530
91809250|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1188|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.1188
91809251|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6807|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.6807
91809252|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1772|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.1772
91809253|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6104|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.6104
91809254|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9564|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.9564
91809255|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7688|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.7688
91916440|NCT03293654|183730544|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.39|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.39|1.18|
91916441|NCT03293654|183730544|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.22|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.22|1.03|
91916442|NCT03293654|183730544|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.24|||||Ratio of GLSM, EU is the numerator and US Avastin acts as the denominator|||1.24|1.05|
91916443|NCT03293654|183730545|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.22|||||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator|1.22|1.09|
91916444|NCT03293654|183730545|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.22|||||MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator|||1.22|1.09|
91916445|NCT03293654|183730545|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||||EU Avastin corresponds to the numerator and US Avastin corresponds to the denominator|||1.13|1|
91916446|NCT03293654|183730552|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.07|||||MB02 in numerator and EU Avastin in denominator|||1.07|0.962|
91763888|NCT00286429|183418379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|11.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||11.3|-18.9|0.624
91809256|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5685|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.5685
91763889|NCT00286429|183418379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|13.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||13.8|-16.7|0.853
91809257|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5122|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.5122
91809258|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4321|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.4321
91809259|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7892|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.7892
91809260|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2874|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2874
91809261|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2662|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2662
91809262|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3091|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.3091
91809263|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5783|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.5783
91809264|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4021|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.4021
91809265|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.7670
91809266|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6978|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.6978
91809267|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6328|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.6328
91809268|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0541|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.0541
91809269|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.6999
91916447|NCT03293654|183730552|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.996|1.13|||||MB02 is numerator and US Avastin is denominator|||1.13|0.996|
91916448|NCT03293654|183730552|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.983|1.11|||||EU Avastin in the numerator and US Avastin in the denominator|||1.11|0.983|
91916449|NCT03293654|183730553|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.07|||||MB02: EU Avastin|||1.07|0.969|
91916450|NCT03293654|183730553|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|1.12|||||MB02: US Avastin|||1.12|0.998|
91916451|NCT03293654|183730553|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.1|||||EU Avastin: US Avastin|||1.1|0.981|
91916452|NCT03293654|183730554|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|0.986|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.08|||||MB02: EU Avastin|||1.08|0.903|
91916453|NCT03293654|183730554|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.19|||||MB02: US Avastin|||1.19|1.01|
91916454|NCT03293654|183730554|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.22|||||EU Avastin: US Avastin|||1.22|1.02|
91916455|NCT01111305|183730577|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as p≥0.05||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
91916456|NCT00891995|183730586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||One-sided p-value.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline C-peptide AUC, age, gender and diabetic ketoacidosis.||||||0.49
91916457|NCT00891995|183730589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline A1c, age, gender and Diabetic ketoacidosis||||||0.40
91809270|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.3590
91916458|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.96|15.24|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 10 mg versus Placebo Day 1||15.24|-21.96|
91916459|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.01|6.4|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 50 mg versus Placebo Day 1||6.40|-30.01|
91916460|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.99|-8.32|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 125 mg versus Placebo Day 1||-8.32|-42.99|
91916461|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|34.53|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 10 mg versus Placebo Day 28||34.53|-5.06|
91809271|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.9360
91809272|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.6260
91809273|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7797|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.7797
91809274|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0934|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.0934
91809275|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.3960
91809276|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4292|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.4292
91809277|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.8540
91809278|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.9600
91916462|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|23.08|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 50 mg vs Placebo Day 28||23.08|-14.64|
91916463|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|24.47|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 125 mg versus Placebo Day 28||24.47|-11.18|
91916464|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.73|2.9|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of the Placebo arm||2.90|-28.73|
91916465|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|22.05|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of GSK962040 10 mg arm||22.05|-11.69|
91916466|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.13|19.36|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of GSK962040 50 mg arm||19.36|-13.13|
91916467|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.47|34.3|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of GSK962040 125 mg arm||34.30|4.47|
91916468|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 1 Diabetes, Day 1|Intercept estimate was 125.45 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|-0.129|-0.320|
91916469|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 1 Diabetes, Day 28|Intercept estimate was 125.45 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|0.016|-0.171|
91916470|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 2 Diabetes, Day 1|Intercept estimate was 113.23 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|-0.129|-0.320|
91916471|NCT01262898|183730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.078||||||95.0|-0.171|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 2 Diabetes, Day 28|Intercept estimate was 113.23 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|0.016|-0.171|
91916472|NCT02388295|183730643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.13|ONE_SIDED|||||Not adjusted|ANOVA||larger negative values (powered to detect -0.50)|Change from baseline within treatment arm||||0.13
91916473|NCT02388295|183730643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.91|ONE_SIDED|||||not adjusted|ANOVA||larger negative values (powered to detect -0.50)|Change from baseline||||0.91
91916474|NCT02388295|183730643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.68|ONE_SIDED||||||ANOVA|no adjustments|larger negagtive values (powereed to detect -0.50)|Change from baseline||||0.68
91916475|NCT02388295|183730643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustment|ANOVA||Looking for negative direction to indicate treatment better than placebo|Secondary objective - comparison to placebo||||0.32
91916476|NCT02388295|183730643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustment|ANOVA||lookin for negative difference compared to placebo|Secondary objective||||0.45
91916477|NCT01355289|183730676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % of Responders|31.62||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|57.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.84|5.39|0.0236
91916478|NCT01355289|183730676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % of Responders|60.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|85.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||85.27|36.30|0.0003
91916479|NCT01355289|183730676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % of Responders|58.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.92|85.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||85.88|30.92|0.0003
91809279|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9374|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.9374
91809280|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6674|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.6674
91809281|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0776|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.0776
91916480|NCT03618030|183730734|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis used a mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on the full day laboratory classroom PERMP-T scores.||||.0003
91916481|NCT00860470|183730735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.06|0.86|0.36
91916482|NCT00860470|183730736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.20|0.88|0.78
91916483|NCT00860470|183730737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.04|0.63|0.11
91916484|NCT00860470|183730738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.99|0.81|0.02
91916485|NCT00860470|183730739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.91|0.80|<0.001
91916486|NCT00860470|183730740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.97|0.57|0.03
91916487|NCT00860470|183730741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.86|0.62|<0.001
91916488|NCT00860470|183730742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.93|0.81|0.87
91916489|NCT00860470|183730743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.91|0.85|<0.001
91916490|NCT00860470|183730744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.01|0.96|0.13
91809282|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.3350
91916491|NCT00888238|183730749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.7|||<|0.001||90.0|1.47|1.93|||ANOVA|||||1.93|1.47|<0.001
91916492|NCT00888238|183730750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.3|||<|0.001||90.0|1.08|1.52|||ANOVA|||||1.52|1.08|<0.001
91916493|NCT01032629|183730755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.12|0.78|=0.4576
91916494|NCT01032629|183730755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.0|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.00|0.68|=0.0467
91916495|NCT01032629|183730755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||Cox proportional hazard method|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.03|0.75|0.1120
91916496|NCT01032629|183730756|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Mean|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.224|=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.571|7.154|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||7.154|-1.571|=0.210
91916497|NCT01032629|183730756|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Mean|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.261|=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|8.504|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||8.504|-0.368|=0.072
91809283|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8461|||||||t-test|||2 month after index date||||0.8461
91916498|NCT01032629|183730757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.97|0.67|
91916499|NCT01032629|183730757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.85|0.58|
91916500|NCT01032629|183730758|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.374||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.374|-0.429|
91809284|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8111|||||||t-test|||2 month after index date||||0.8111
91809285|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7267|||||||t-test|||2 month after index date||||0.7267
91809286|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2453|||||||t-test|||3 month after index date||||0.2453
91809287|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5889|||||||t-test|||3 month after index date||||0.5889
91809288|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4162|||||||t-test|||3 month after index date||||0.4162
91809289|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0307|||||||t-test|||4 month after index date||||0.0307
91809290|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1147|||||||t-test|||4 month after index date||||0.1147
91916501|NCT01032629|183730758|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.731||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.731|-0.079|
91916502|NCT01032629|183730759|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.94||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.940|0.800|
91916503|NCT01032629|183730759|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.910|0.770|
91916504|NCT01032629|183730760|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|2.755||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||2.755|0.599|
91916505|NCT01032629|183730760|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.328||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||2.328|0.160|
91916506|NCT01032629|183730761|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|-0.177||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.177|-0.355|
91916507|NCT01032629|183730761|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|-0.227||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.227|-0.405|
91916508|NCT01032629|183730762|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.794|-0.374||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.374|-0.794|
91916509|NCT01032629|183730762|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|-0.523||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.523|-0.945|
91916510|NCT01032629|183730763|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||||95.0|-3.472|-2.454||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-2.454|-3.472|
91916511|NCT01032629|183730763|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.125|-3.103||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-3.103|-4.125|
91916512|NCT01032629|183730764|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.998|-1.914||||||Statistical analysis (Systolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-1.914|-3.998|
91916513|NCT01032629|183730764|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.579|-3.484||||||Statistical analysis (Systolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-3.484|-5.579|
91916514|NCT01032629|183730764|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.437|-0.205||||||Statistical analysis (Diastolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.205|-1.437|
91763890|NCT00286429|183418380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|4.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.9|-24.7|0.190
91916515|NCT01032629|183730764|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.245|-1.007||||||Statistical analysis (Diastolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-1.007|-2.245|
91916516|NCT01032629|183730765|OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.07||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.070|-0.040|
91916517|NCT01032629|183730765|OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.080|-0.030|
91916518|NCT01032629|183730766|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.259||||||Statistical analysis (Cholesterol) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.259|0.105|
91916519|NCT01032629|183730766|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.307||||||Statistical analysis (Cholesterol) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.307|0.152|
91916520|NCT01032629|183730766|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.065||||||Statistical analysis (HDL-C)||0.065|0.031|
91916521|NCT01032629|183730766|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.075||||||Statistical analysis (HDL-C) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.075|0.040|
91916522|NCT01032629|183730766|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.17||||||Statistical analysis (LDL-C) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.170|0.046|
91916523|NCT01032629|183730766|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.226||||||Statistical analysis (LDL-C) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.226|0.102|
91916524|NCT01032629|183730767|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.076||||||||0.076|-0.040|
91916525|NCT01032629|183730767|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.094||||||||0.094|-0.023|
91916526|NCT00619957|183730780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|5.6|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||5.60|3.46|<0.0001
91809291|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9481|||||||t-test|||4 month after index date||||0.9481
91809292|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4455|||||||t-test|||5 month after index date||||0.4455
91809293|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9445|||||||t-test|||5 month after index date||||0.9445
91809294|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6191|||||||t-test|||5 month after index date||||0.6191
91916527|NCT00619957|183730781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.47|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.47|1.66|<0.0001
91916528|NCT00619957|183730782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.16|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||4.16|2.19|<0.0001
91916529|NCT00619957|183730783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|5.66|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||5.66|3.49|<0.0001
91916530|NCT00619957|183730784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.99|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||0.99|-0.19|0.1856
91916531|NCT00619957|183730785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.65||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.25|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.25|0.05|0.0346
91916532|NCT00619957|183730786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.41|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||2.41|0.98|<0.0001
91916533|NCT00619957|183730787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.17|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||2.17|0.76|<0.0001
91916534|NCT00619957|183730788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.36|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.36|-0.36|0.2538
91916535|NCT00619957|183730789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.74|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.74|-0.01|0.0537
91763891|NCT00286429|183418380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|4.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 16. The treatment effect was be evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.1|-25.8|0.154
91763892|NCT00286429|183418381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|2.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||2.3|-27.8|0.097
91809295|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||t-test|||6 month after index date||||0.0805
91916536|NCT00619957|183730790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.15|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||2.15|0.32|0.0081
91809296|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7037|||||||t-test|||6 month after index date||||0.7037
91809297|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4288|||||||t-test|||6 month after index date||||0.4288
91809298|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3731|||||||t-test|||7 month after index date||||0.3731
91809299|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4803|||||||t-test|||7 month after index date||||0.4803
91809300|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5831|||||||t-test|||7 month after index date||||0.5831
91809301|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0944|||||||t-test|||8 month after index date||||0.0944
91809302|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test|||8 month after index date||||0.8800
91809303|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4949|||||||t-test|||8 month after index date||||0.4949
91809304|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6373|||||||t-test|||9 month after index date||||0.6373
91809305|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0497|||||||t-test|||9 month after index date||||0.0497
91916537|NCT00619957|183730791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.94|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.94|0.18|0.0187
91916538|NCT00619957|183730792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.34|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.34|-0.19|0.1408
91916539|NCT00619957|183730793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.92|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.92|0.23|0.0129
91916540|NCT00619957|183730794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.26|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.26|1.35|<0.0001
91916541|NCT00619957|183730795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.08|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.08|1.22|<0.0001
91916542|NCT00619957|183730796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.52|-35.67|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-35.67|-51.52|<0.0001
91916543|NCT00619957|183730797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.01|-31.43|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-31.43|-58.01|<0.0001
91916544|NCT00619957|183730798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.99|-28.67|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled centers.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-28.67|-55.99|<0.0001
91916545|NCT00619957|183730799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.38|-33.72|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-33.72|-59.38|<0.0001
91916546|NCT00619957|183730800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.01|-33.29|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-33.29|-57.01|<0.0001
91916547|NCT00619957|183730801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.43|-8.32|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-8.32|-23.43|<0.0001
91809306|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1695|||||||t-test|||9 month after index date||||0.1695
91763893|NCT00286429|183418381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-4.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-4.7|-35.1|0.010
91916548|NCT00619957|183730802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.08|-12.91|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-12.91|-31.08|<0.0001
91916549|NCT00619957|183730803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.75|-13.17|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-13.17|-30.75|<0.0001
91916550|NCT00619957|183730804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.11||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.02|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-6.02|-24.20|0.0012
91916551|NCT00619957|183730805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.24|-7.49|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-7.49|-25.24|0.0003
91916552|NCT00619957|183730806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-11.99|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-11.99|-19.29|<0.0001
91916553|NCT00619957|183730807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.61|-16.59|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.59|-25.61|<0.0001
91916554|NCT00619957|183730808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-16.98|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.98|-27.80|<0.0001
91916555|NCT00619957|183730809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.84|-16.47|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.47|-39.84|<0.0001
91916556|NCT00619957|183730810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.63|-16.87|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.87|-37.63|<0.0001
91916557|NCT00619957|183730811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.8794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.71|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.71|-1.99|0.8794
91809307|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6373|||||||t-test|||10 month after index date||||0.6373
91916558|NCT00619957|183730812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.67|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.67|-2.62|0.6658
91916559|NCT00619957|183730813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.81|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.81|-2.39|0.7840
91916560|NCT00619957|183730814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||||<0.0001
91916561|NCT00619957|183730815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.771||||0.7284||95.0|0.184|3.226|||Log Rank|||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.226|0.184|0.7284
91916562|NCT00619957|183730816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.688||||0.5293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.932|||Log Rank|||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.932|0.245|0.5293
91916563|NCT00723957|183730817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41||
91916564|NCT00723957|183730817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5735|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is 1-sided||||0.5735
91916565|NCT00723957|183730818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10||
91916566|NCT00723957|183730818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is 1-sided||||0.1750
91916567|NCT00723957|183730819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15||
91916568|NCT00723957|183730819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.316|ONE_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||P-value is 1-sided||||0.316
91763894|NCT00286429|183418382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||12.2|-19.2|0.662
91809308|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7866|||||||t-test|||10 month after index date||||0.7866
91916569|NCT00723957|183730825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.1|||Regression, Cox||β3T+ subgroup|||2.10||
91916570|NCT00723957|183730825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.9|||Regression, Cox||β3T- subgroup|||0.90||
91916571|NCT00723957|183730825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.4|||Regression, Cox||Overall population|||1.40||
91916572|NCT01763164|183730826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was obtained from the stratified unadjusted Cox model. P-value was obtained from the one-sided stratified log-rank test.||0.80|0.47|< 0.001
91809309|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7643|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.7643
91809310|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2307|||||||t-test|||11 month after index date||||0.2307
91809311|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6712|||||||t-test|||11 month after index date||||0.6712
91809312|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6953|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.6953
91809313|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3675|||||||t-test|||12 month after index date||||0.3675
91809314|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8027|||||||t-test|||12 month after index date||||0.8027
91916573|NCT01763164|183730827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was obtained from the stratified unadjusted Cox model. P-value was obtained from the one-sided stratified log rank test.||1.33|0.75|0.499
91916574|NCT01763164|183730828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmed ORR: The p-value (2-sided) was computed from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test statistic.||||0.015
91916575|NCT01763164|183730828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmed ORR + Unconfirmed ORR: The p-value (2-sided) was computed from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test statistic.||||0.002
91916576|NCT01763164|183730841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.13|||Log Rank|||||2.13|0.96|
91916577|NCT01763164|183730844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.06|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test and Cox PH model were stratified by American joint committee on cancer stage, prior line immunotherapy and ECOG performance status. P-value was one tailed and was based on the log-rank score test. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.||4.06|1.19|0.995
91916578|NCT01264939|183730847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|-3.08||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.08|-5.97|<0.0001
91916579|NCT01264939|183730848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-6.86||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-6.86|-13.17|<0.0001
91916580|NCT01264939|183730849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|-4.07||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.07|-7.72|<0.0001
91916581|NCT01264939|183730850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.68||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||2.68|1.47|<0.0001
91916582|NCT01264939|183730851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
91916583|NCT01264939|183730852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
91916584|NCT01264939|183730853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|-3.96||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.96|-7.25|<0.0001
91916585|NCT01264939|183730854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|-3.06||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.06|-6.28|<0.0001
91916586|NCT01264939|183730855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||0.0006
91916587|NCT01264939|183730856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
91916588|NCT01171612|183730889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.086||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|2.299|||Chi-squared|||Reference group were patients who maintained antiplatelet drugs (aspirin and/or clopidogrel) during the 4 days before surgery||2.299|0.513|0.479
91916589|NCT01171612|183730889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.638||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|3.662|||Chi-squared|||||3.662|0.733|0.479
91916590|NCT00565617|183730892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
91916591|NCT01173653|183730907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi square|23.02|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91809315|NCT03975790|183494160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4817|||||||t-test|||12 month after index date||||0.4817
91809316|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||t-test|||1 month before index date||||0.0063
91809317|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||t-test|||1 month before index date||||0.0162
91809318|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8715|||||||t-test|||1 month before index date||||0.8715
91809319|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2799|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.2799
91916592|NCT00125034|183730908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.516||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|2.335|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||Assuming a difference in rate of best confirmed response of at least 20% between the 2 treatments, ie an approximately 70% response rate under cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 \& 50% under FOLFOX-4 alone for the stratum with ECOG PS0-1 \& 66% and 45% respectively for the ECOG PS2 stratum, the common OddsR over the strata was expected to be 2.33. A sample size of approximately 146/group was calculated as necessary to detect a significant overall response of at least 2.33 at level α=0.05 with a power of 90%||2.335|0.975|0.064
91916593|NCT00125034|183730909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.551||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.717|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||||4.717|1.380|0.0027
91916594|NCT00125034|183730910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.459||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|0.924|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||||0.924|0.228|0.0290
91916595|NCT00125034|183730911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.931||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.23|||Stratified Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.230|0.705|0.6170
91916596|NCT00125034|183730912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.567||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|0.856|||Stratified Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||0.856|0.375|0.0064
91916597|NCT00125034|183730913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|2.679|||Stratified Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||2.679|1.104|0.0153
91916598|NCT00125034|183730914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.303|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.303|0.791|0.9050
91916599|NCT00125034|183730915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.219|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.219|0.599|0.3854
91916600|NCT00125034|183730916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.2004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.906|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.906|0.873|0.2004
91916601|NCT03529409|183730930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.287||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|-0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.066|-.507|.01
91916602|NCT03529409|183730931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|5.5||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.55. The estimate below is for post-treatment, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.50|-1.61|.28
91916603|NCT03529409|183730932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|157.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|382.0||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.38. The estimate below is for post-treatment, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||382|-67|.16
91916604|NCT03529409|183730933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.0||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.90. The estimate below is for post-treatment, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.00|-1.51|.77
91916605|NCT03529409|183730934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.67||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.55. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.67|-2.24|.63
91809320|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0126|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.0126
91916606|NCT03529409|183730935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|84.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.0|304.0||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.38. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||304|-136|.44
91916607|NCT03529409|183730936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.58||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.90. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-1.85|.87
91916608|NCT03529409|183730941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|1.55||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.89. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.55|-2.49|.65
91916609|NCT03529409|183730942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|17.1||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.66. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.1|-10.5|.63
91916610|NCT03529409|183730943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.28||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.94. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.28|-.34|.85
91809321|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2126|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.2126
91809322|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7004|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.7004
91809323|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1476|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.1476
91809324|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2057|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.2057
91916611|NCT03532100|183730964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and coupling ratio was carried out using conditional F-tests with degrees of freedom estimated using the Kenward-Roger method.||||0.029
91916612|NCT03532100|183730964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 3:1||||0.047
91916613|NCT03532100|183730964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 2:1||||0.016
91763895|NCT00286429|183418382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-1.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-1.7|-33.4|0.030
91763896|NCT00286429|183418383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.551||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.063||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants with marked hyperglycemia. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||1.063|0.286|0.075
91916614|NCT03532100|183730964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and coupling ratio was carried out using conditional F-tests with degrees of freedom estimated using the Kenward-Roger method.||||0.340
91916615|NCT03532100|183730964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and coupling ratio was carried out using conditional F-tests with degrees of freedom estimated using the Kenward-Roger method.||||0.040
91916616|NCT03532100|183730964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 3:1||||0.036
91916617|NCT03532100|183730964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 2:1||||0.028
91916618|NCT03896581|183730966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.402|22.969|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.969|5.402|<0.001
91916619|NCT03896581|183730967|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.233|||ANCOVA|||||-0.233|-0.420|<0.001
91916620|NCT03896581|183730969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.365|73.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||73.940|12.365|<0.001
91916621|NCT03896581|183730970|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.037|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.386|7.688|||ANCOVA|||||7.688|4.386|<0.001
91809325|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2905|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.2905
91809326|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8273|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.8273
91916622|NCT03896581|183730971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.119|27.999|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.999|6.119|<0.001
91916623|NCT02660580|183730993|EQUIVALENCE|MSB11022 was considered equivalent to EU-Humira if the 95% CI for the treatment difference was included in the equivalence interval \[-15%, 15%\]).|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.98||||||||2.98|-1.21|
91916624|NCT02660580|183731009|EQUIVALENCE|MSB11022 was considered equivalent to EU-Humira if the 95% stratified Newcombe Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in percentage was included in the equivalence interval (-18, 18).|Percentage difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|4.07||||||||4.07|-7.82|
91916625|NCT00951821|183731034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-3.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.5||Effect sizes were also calculated due to small sample size|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported statistic (-3.3) is the difference in the change from baseline to follow-up between the two treatment arms, estimated in a mixed effect regression model.|||5.5|-12.1|.46
91916626|NCT00951821|183731035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.4||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistic provided (0.4) is the difference in the change in BDI score from baseline to follow-up by treatment group.|||3.06|-2.36|.75
91916627|NCT01903876|183731044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.044
91916628|NCT01903876|183731045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence||||||0.042|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.042
91916629|NCT02300129|183731068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|||||P value associated to treatment effect in the model. Study design with a power of 80% and a type I error at 5% (two-sided).|ANOVA|Analysis of variance including sequence, subject (sequence), period and treatment as factors in the model||||||0.7420
91809327|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.627|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.6270
91809328|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3256|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.3256
91809329|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.5631
91809330|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4491|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.4491
91809331|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2009|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2009
91809332|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3011|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.3011
91809333|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2065
91809334|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.6098
91916630|NCT02747927|183731084|OTHER||VE|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|85.3||Statistical significance was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the VE was above 25%. Since the hypotheses was tested in a confirmatory manner at a 2-sided significance level of 5%, the calculated p-value was compared with 0.025.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Assuming true VE of 60% and, virologically confirmed cases of dengue fever induced by any dengue serotype occurring from 30 days post 2nd vaccination (Day 120) until end of Part 1 would provide at least 90% power to rule out vaccine effect of ≤25%.||85.3|73.3|<0.001
91763897|NCT00286429|183418383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.364||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.695||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants with marked hyperglycemia. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.695|0.191|0.002
91763898|NCT00286429|183418384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.619||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo arm. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants requiring rescue. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.619|0.198|<0.001
91763899|NCT00286429|183418384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.339|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.608||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants requiring rescue. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.608|0.189|<0.001
91763900|NCT00286429|183418385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.443||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-Peptide at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.443|-0.131|0.286
91809335|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2586|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.2586
91916631|NCT02747927|183731085|OTHER||VE|90.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.6|94.7||Statistical significance was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the VE was above 0%. Since the hypotheses was tested in a confirmatory manner at a 2-sided significance level of 5%, the calculated p-value was compared with 0.025.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||94.7|82.6|<0.001
91916632|NCT02747927|183731086|OTHER||VE|69.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|79.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||79.9|54.8|
91916633|NCT02747927|183731086|OTHER||VE|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|97.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||97.6|89.9|
91916634|NCT02747927|183731086|OTHER||VE|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|64.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||64.1|27.1|
91916635|NCT02747927|183731086|OTHER||VE|50.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|85.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||85.8|-69.7|
91916636|NCT02747927|183731087|OTHER||VE|66.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|77.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||77.5|49.1|
91916637|NCT02747927|183731088|OTHER||VE|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.5|81.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||81.9|68.5|
91916638|NCT02747927|183731089|OTHER||VE|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-978.5|91.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||91.1|-978.5|
91916639|NCT02747927|183731098|OTHER||VE|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|56.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region|||56.0|37.1|
91763901|NCT00286429|183418385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.477||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.188|0.765||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.765|0.188|0.001
91809336|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4074|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.4074
91809337|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.0345
91809338|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4377|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.4377
91809339|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7191|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.7191
91809340|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.0199
91809341|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1032|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.1032
91916640|NCT02747927|183731099|OTHER||VE|55.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|70.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||70.0|34.5|
91916641|NCT02747927|183731100|OTHER||VE|73.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.3|83.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||83.9|56.3|
91916642|NCT02747927|183731101|OTHER||VE|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.4|98.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||98.6|72.4|
91916643|NCT02747927|183731102|OTHER||VE|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.1|85.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||85.9|70.1|
91916644|NCT02747927|183731103|OTHER||VE|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|87.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||87.4|57.1|
91916645|NCT02747927|183731103|OTHER||VE|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.9|93.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||93.2|69.9|
91916646|NCT02747927|183731103|OTHER||VE|62.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|91.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||91.5|-69.7|
91916647|NCT02747927|183731103|OTHER||VE|77.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|88.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||88.5|54.8|
91916648|NCT02747927|183731104|OTHER||VE|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|89.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||89.7|57.8|
91916649|NCT02747927|183731104|OTHER||VE|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.6|95.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||95.4|57.6|
91916650|NCT02747927|183731104|OTHER||VE|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|98.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||98.8|13.5|
91916651|NCT02747927|183731104|OTHER||VE|42.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.5|92.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||92.0|-307.5|
91916652|NCT02747927|183731104|OTHER||VE|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|89.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||89.5|-45.1|
91916653|NCT02747927|183731105|OTHER||VE|79.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|86.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||86.9|68.3|
91916654|NCT02747927|183731105|OTHER||VE|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.4|85.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||85.8|36.4|
91916655|NCT02747927|183731105|OTHER||VE|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|93.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||93.2|66.6|
91916656|NCT02747927|183731105|OTHER||VE|75.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.8|97.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||97.8|-168.8|
91916657|NCT02747927|183731105|OTHER||VE|81.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|91.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||91.6|57.2|
91916658|NCT02747927|183731106|OTHER||VE|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.3|98.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||98.1|79.3|
91916659|NCT02747927|183731107|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-849.4|100.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||100.0|-849.4|
91916660|NCT02747927|183731108|OTHER||VE|67.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|77.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||77.5|52.1|
91916661|NCT02747927|183731109|OTHER||VE|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|77.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||77.4|16.2|
91916662|NCT02747927|183731109|OTHER||VE|86.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.8|95.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||95.0|63.8|
91916663|NCT02747927|183731109|OTHER||VE|51.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|73.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||73.9|9.9|
91916664|NCT02747927|183731109|OTHER||VE|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|96.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||96.0|47.4|
91916665|NCT02747927|183731110|OTHER||VE|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.1|85.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||85.5|39.1|
91916666|NCT02747927|183731110|OTHER||VE|57.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|85.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||85.7|-27.2|
91916667|NCT02747927|183731110|OTHER||VE|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|98.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||98.8|14.0|
91916668|NCT02747927|183731110|OTHER||VE|36.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.1|82.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||82.9|-138.1|
91916669|NCT02747927|183731110|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.1|100.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||100.0|43.1|
91916670|NCT02747927|183731111|OTHER||VE|65.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|78.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||78.1|46.4|
91916671|NCT02747927|183731111|OTHER||VE|56.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|80.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||80.7|0.8|
91916672|NCT02747927|183731111|OTHER||VE|85.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|95.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||95.2|54.4|
91916673|NCT02747927|183731111|OTHER||VE|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|77.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||77.6|8.3|
91916674|NCT02747927|183731111|OTHER||VE|75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|93.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||93.9|2.2|
91916675|NCT02747927|183731112|OTHER||VE|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|95.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||95.1|53.7|
91916676|NCT02747927|183731114|OTHER||VE|74.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|80.3|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||80.3|66.6|
91916677|NCT02747927|183731115|OTHER||VE|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.7|80.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||80.0|51.7|
91916678|NCT02747927|183731115|OTHER||VE|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.5|92.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||92.2|74.5|
91916679|NCT02747927|183731115|OTHER||VE|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|73.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||73.9|19.1|
91916680|NCT02747927|183731115|OTHER||VE|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|88.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||88.7|62.4|
91916681|NCT02747927|183731116|OTHER||VE|75.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|85.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||85.0|59.3|
91916682|NCT02747927|183731116|OTHER||VE|76.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|88.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||88.9|50.0|
91916683|NCT02747927|183731116|OTHER||VE|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|97.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||97.8|53.7|
91916684|NCT02747927|183731116|OTHER||VE|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.9|79.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||79.2|-84.9|
91916685|NCT02747927|183731116|OTHER||VE|78.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|93.3|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||93.3|29.7|
91916686|NCT02747927|183731117|OTHER||VE|73.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.4|80.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||80.9|64.4|
91916687|NCT02747927|183731117|OTHER||VE|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|79.3|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||79.3|37.8|
91916688|NCT02747927|183731117|OTHER||VE|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.1|92.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||92.1|71.1|
91916689|NCT02747927|183731117|OTHER||VE|58.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|78.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||78.5|18.5|
91916690|NCT02747927|183731117|OTHER||VE|79.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.1|89.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||89.9|59.1|
91916691|NCT02747927|183731118|OTHER||VE|90.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.8|95.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||95.8|78.8|
91916692|NCT02747927|183731119|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-849.4|100.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||100.0|-849.4|
91916693|NCT00450580|183731144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms is greater than -12%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||||95.0|-11.4|9.5||||||||9.5|-11.4|
91916694|NCT00988247|183731181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.5|-1.5|<0.001
91916695|NCT00988247|183731182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.5|-1.4|<0.001
91763902|NCT00286429|183418386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.536||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-Peptide at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.536|-0.132|0.236
91763903|NCT00286429|183418386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.712||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-Peptide at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.712|0.032|0.032
91763904|NCT00286429|183418387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.554||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.554|-0.302|0.562
91809342|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.9040
91809343|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0316|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.0316
91809344|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6748|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.6748
91916696|NCT00988247|183731183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.6|-1.6|<0.001
91916697|NCT00988247|183731184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.6|-1.6|<0.001
91916698|NCT00988247|183731185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.3||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and pooled center in the model.||||0.1|-0.7|0.143
91916699|NCT00988247|183731186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.49||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and pooled center in the model.||||0.1|-1.1|0.130
91809345|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2679|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.2679
91809346|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.5010
91809347|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3228|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.3228
91809348|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7881|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.7881
91809349|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0876|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.0876
91809350|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1226|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.1226
91809351|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9753|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.9753
91809352|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0336|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.0336
91809353|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2551|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.2551
91809354|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6189|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.6189
91809355|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7051|||||||t-test|||2 months after index date||||0.7051
91916700|NCT01169779|183731194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|-0.162||Statistical testing:2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%), sulfonylurea use (Yes,No), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% in change in HbA1c at Week 24 between lixisenatide arm and placebo arm, 190 patients per group would provide a power of 96% assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.162|-0.551|0.0004
91916701|NCT00432237|183731205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916702|NCT00432237|183731205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916703|NCT00432237|183731206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916704|NCT00432237|183731206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916705|NCT00432237|183731207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916706|NCT00432237|183731207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916707|NCT00432237|183731208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916708|NCT00432237|183731208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916709|NCT00432237|183731209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916710|NCT00432237|183731209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916711|NCT00432237|183731210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916712|NCT00432237|183731210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916713|NCT00432237|183731211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916714|NCT00432237|183731211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916715|NCT00432237|183731212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91763905|NCT00286429|183418387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.616||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.616|-0.251|0.407
91916716|NCT00432237|183731212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
91916717|NCT01354132|183731213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91916718|NCT01354132|183731214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91916719|NCT01354132|183731215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91916720|NCT01354132|183731216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91916721|NCT01354132|183731217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Speed of Processing||||0.022
91916722|NCT01354132|183731218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.270
91916723|NCT01354132|183731219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.153
91916724|NCT01354132|183731220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.876
91809356|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9775|||||||t-test|||2 months after index date||||0.9775
91916725|NCT01354132|183731221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.464
91916726|NCT01354132|183731222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.741
91916727|NCT01354132|183731223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91916728|NCT01354132|183731224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91916729|NCT01354132|183731225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
91916730|NCT01354132|183731226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6732|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.6732
91916731|NCT01354132|183731227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8786
91916732|NCT01354132|183731228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5622|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5622
91916733|NCT01354132|183731229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9574|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9574
91916734|NCT01354132|183731230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0043
91916735|NCT01354132|183731231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3804
91916736|NCT01354132|183731232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9403|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9403
91916737|NCT01354132|183731233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9215|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9215
91916738|NCT00956930|183731234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.122||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.557|||Log Rank|||||0.557|0.027|0.007
91916739|NCT04355013|183731242|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Bland-Altman for repeated measures|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.77||||||Arterial outlet-nasopharyngeal temperatures||0.77|-1.10|
91916740|NCT04355013|183731242|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.95|||Bland-Altman|||Arterial-venous inflow temperatures||0.95|-0.63|
91916741|NCT04355013|183731242|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.74|||Bland-Altman|||Arterial outlet-bladder||0.74|-1.98|
91916742|NCT04355013|183731242|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.54|||Bland-Altman|||Arterial outlet- Tcore||1.54|-1.38|
91916743|NCT04355013|183731242|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.38||||||Nasopharyngeal-venous inflow temperatures||1.38|-0.73|
91763906|NCT00286429|183418388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.500|-0.344|0.716
91809357|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7643|||||||t-test|||2 months after index date||||0.7643
91916744|NCT04355013|183731242|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.59||||||Nasopharyngeal-bladder temperatures||0.59|-1.50|
91916745|NCT04355013|183731242|OTHER|Bland-Altman for repeated measures|Bland-Altman for repeated measures|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.39||||||Nasopharyngeal-Tcore temperatures||1.39|-0.90|
91916746|NCT02348099|183731243|OTHER|"A student's paired t-test will be used to determine the difference if any in CV of Glucose between injection sites. In the third phase, area under the curve will be measured to determine differences between insulin absorption levels. Statistical analysis will be performed using SPSS version 15.0.0 and SAS version 8.2 A power calculation is a statistical method used to determine the minimum sample size needed to detect a statistically significant effect of a certain size."|Odds Ratio (OR)|95.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"A student's paired t-test will be used to determine the difference if any in CV of glucose between injection sited.~If the null hypothesis is true, it suggests that any changes witnessed in an experiment are because of random chance and not because of changes made to variables in the experiment. A power calculation is a statistical method used to determine the minimum sample size needed to detect a statistically significant effect of a certain size."|a P-Value is \<0.01|||<0.01
91916747|NCT03430986|183731247|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.726|2.349|||MMRM|MMRM included treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effect using an unstructured covariance matrix.||||2.349|1.726|<0.0001
91916748|NCT03430986|183731248|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|82.4|||Fisher Exact|2-sided test comparing responder rate between treatment group and control group.||||82.4|50.0|<0.0001
91916749|NCT01412957|183731269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-2.59||||0.0096|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|The primary hypothesis was that panitumumab plus BSC would improve overall survival compared to BSC alone. A comparison between treatments was performed using the log-rank test stratified by the randomization factors at a 5% significance level.||||0.0096
91916750|NCT01412957|183731270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-6.08|||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|PFS in the ITT Analysis Set was tested at a significance level of 5% conditional on a significant treatment effect on overall survival in the ITT Analysis Set.||||<0.0001
91916751|NCT01412957|183731271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-2.47||||0.0135|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|Overall survival in the Wild-type RAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a significance level of 5% conditional on a significant treatment effect for progression-free survival in the ITT Analysis Set.||||0.0135
91916752|NCT01412957|183731272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-5.98|||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|PFS in the Wild-type RAS Efficacy Analysis Set was to be compared at a significance level of 5% if overall survival in the wild-type RAS Efficacy Anaysis Set demonstrated a significant treatment effect.||||<0.0001
91809358|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2953|||||||t-test|||3 months after index date||||0.2953
91916753|NCT01412957|183731273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.47|123.77|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus BSC arm relative to the odds in BSC alone arm.|ORR was not formally tested and the p-values are descriptive only. An exact test was used to test the hypothesis that the common odds ratio for panitumumab plus BSC relative to BSC alone for the objective response is equal to 1.0 stratified by the randomization factors.||123.77|7.47|<0.0001
91809359|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6257|||||||t-test|||3 months after index date||||0.6257
91809360|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4753|||||||t-test|||3 months after index date||||0.4753
91809361|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0926|||||||t-test|||4 months after index date||||0.0926
91809362|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||t-test|||4 months after index date||||0.0013
91916754|NCT01412957|183731274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|101.62|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus BSC arm relative to the odds in BSC alone arm.|ORR was not formally tested and the p-values are descriptive only. An exact test was used to test the hypothesis that the common odds ratio for panitumumab plus BSC relative to BSC alone for the objective response is equal to 1.0 stratified by the randomization factors.||101.62|5.89|<0.0001
91916755|NCT00954109|183731289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91916756|NCT00954109|183731290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91916757|NCT00288574|183731298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||The proportion of patients successfully completing the trial in the fluoxetine and placebo groups was compared using the chi-squared statistic.||||0.57
91916758|NCT00288574|183731299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in body weight, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.75
91916759|NCT00288574|183731300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment of BDI in fluoxetine versus placebo groups||||0.007
91916760|NCT00288574|183731301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in BDI, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.79
91916761|NCT00288574|183731302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in RSES, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.69
91916762|NCT00288574|183731303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in Q-LES-Q, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.78
91916763|NCT00288574|183731304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in Drive for Thinness subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.19
91916764|NCT00288574|183731305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in Bulimia subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.46
91916765|NCT00288574|183731306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment on Body Dissatisfaction subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.86
91809363|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||t-test|||4 months after index date||||0.0065
91916766|NCT00288574|183731307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment on Perfectionism subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.25
91809364|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2212|||||||t-test|||5 months after index date||||0.2212
91809365|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9688|||||||t-test|||5 months after index date||||0.9688
91809366|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647|||||||t-test|||5 months after index date||||0.5647
91809367|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||t-test|||6 months after index date||||0.0023
91809368|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1142|||||||t-test|||6 months after index date||||0.1142
91809369|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3842|||||||t-test|||6 months after index date||||0.3842
91809370|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9097|||||||t-test|||7 months after index date||||0.9097
91916767|NCT00288574|183731308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment on the YBC-EDS, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.26
91916768|NCT02292771|183731340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.879|6.479|||Finite mixture model|||||6.479|-8.879|0.3797
91916769|NCT02292771|183731341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.44|0.9520
91916770|NCT02292771|183731342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.46|0.9520
91916771|NCT02292771|183731343|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.5672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.76|||ANCOVA|||||1.76|0.73|0.5672
91916772|NCT02292771|183731344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.71|0.30|0.5066
91916773|NCT02292771|183731350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.84|0.12|0.7790
91916774|NCT02292771|183731351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|0.51|0.6646
91916775|NCT02292771|183731352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|7.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.24|0.75|0.1432
91916776|NCT02292771|183731353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.15|0.43|0.5250
91916777|NCT02292771|183731354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.58|0.13|0.4682
91916778|NCT04596891|183731382|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA|F ratio|20.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The F ratio is used to evaluate the main effect of time in the ANOVA in relation to the critical F ratio.|No control group, open trial for feasibility/safety||||<0.001
91916779|NCT04596891|183731382|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test (baseline to post-treatment)|paired-samples t-test|5.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|12.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.93|-1.79|0.002
91916780|NCT04596891|183731387|OTHER|ANOVA|F ratio|8.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The F ratio is used to evaluate the main effect of time in the ANOVA in relation to the critical F ratio. If it exceeds the critical F ratio, the null hypothesis (no effect of time) is rejected.|||||<0.001
91916781|NCT00961532|183731414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested the hypothesis that there would be a change from baseline to 60 minutes after the start of the desmopressin (DDAVP) infusion.||||0.014
91916782|NCT02511522|183731421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.004
91916783|NCT02511522|183731422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test adjusting for the stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.068
91916784|NCT02511522|183731423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.45
91916785|NCT02511522|183731424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.07
91809371|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3885|||||||t-test|||7 months after index date||||0.3885
91809372|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3834|||||||t-test|||7 months after index date||||0.3834
91809373|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3075|||||||t-test|||8 months after index date||||0.3075
91916786|NCT04854499|183731434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.314|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|2.136|||||HR along with its 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by the stratification factors at randomization.|||2.136|0.809|
91916787|NCT04854499|183731438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.985||||||||1.985|0.603|
91916788|NCT04854499|183731439|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|2.147|||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.147|0.449|
91916789|NCT04854499|183731439|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|2.321|||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.321|0.383|
91916790|NCT02354833|183731466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91916791|NCT02354833|183731467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is comparing the percentage of participants with Nausea||||0.28
91916792|NCT02354833|183731467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is comparing the percentage of participants with Emesis||||< 0.001
91916793|NCT02354833|183731468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
91916794|NCT02354833|183731469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91916795|NCT01933932|183731470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation.||||1.12|0.77|0.4355
91916796|NCT01933932|183731471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.3|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation.||||1.30|0.85|0.6431
91916797|NCT01933932|183731472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation||||2.62|1.00|0.0515
91916798|NCT01933932|183731474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation||||1.86|0.74|0.5007
91916799|NCT01933932|183731475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.11|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation.||||1.11|0.74|0.3438
91916800|NCT02157883|183731486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Upper bound of the 90% CIs below 200%.|Geometric mean ratio|79.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.15|87.21|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. Results based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||87.21|73.15|
91916801|NCT02157883|183731487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Upper bound of the 90% CIs below 200%.|Geometric mean ratio|124.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.61|134.53|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. Results based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||134.53|114.61|
91916802|NCT02157883|183731494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|75.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.18|89.69|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||89.69|64.18|
91916803|NCT02157883|183731495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|108.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.36|124.19|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||124.19|94.36|
91916804|NCT02157883|183731496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|44.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.94|49.21|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||49.21|39.94|
91916805|NCT02157883|183731497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|49.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.7|54.99|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||54.99|43.70|
91916806|NCT05617521|183731517|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was assessed over the primary outcome of the study based on pre-experimental data estimation. It was calculated that 142 participants were needed to detect a 60-second difference in CIT, with 90% power and two-side alpha 0.05. It was found that 186 participants were needed to detect a 20% reduction in the use of ancillary maneuvers. As a preventive measure in case of withdrawal or exclusion, the sample was expanded by 10%, a total of 206 patients||||||0.008||||||The comparative analysis of the CIT was previously subjected to normality evaluation by the Shapiro-Wilk test. According to the rejection of normal distribution, comparative data analysis has been performed with a two-way Mann-Whitney U test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91916807|NCT05617521|183731518|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was assessed over the primary outcome of the study based on pre-experimental data estimation. It was calculated that 142 participants were needed to detect a 60-second difference in CIT, with 90% power and two-side alpha 0.05. It was found that 186 participants were needed to detect a 20% reduction in the use of ancillary maneuvers. As a preventive measure in case of withdrawal or exclusion, the sample was expanded by 10%, a total of 206 patients.|||||<|0.001||||||For the comparison of abdominal pressure, Pearson chi-square test was used. The statistical significance level was accepted as p \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91916808|NCT05617521|183731519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The comparative analysis of the CIL was previously subjected to normality evaluation by the Shapiro-Wilk test. According to the rejection of normal distribution, comparative data analysis has been performed with a two-way Mann-Whitney U test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91916809|NCT05617521|183731520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.321
91916810|NCT05617521|183731521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
91809374|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9075|||||||t-test|||8 months after index date||||0.9075
91809375|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5993|||||||t-test|||8 months after index date||||0.5993
91809376|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0775|||||||t-test|||9 months after index date||||0.0775
91809377|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1536|||||||t-test|||9 months after index date||||0.1536
91809378|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8553|||||||t-test|||9 months after index date||||0.8553
91809379|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6295|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.6295
91809380|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0551|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.0551
91809381|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2215|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.2215
91809382|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1948|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.1948
91809383|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6621|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.6621
91916811|NCT05617521|183731522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91916812|NCT05617521|183731523|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
91916813|NCT05617521|183731525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91916814|NCT05617521|183731526|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91916815|NCT05617521|183731527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91916816|NCT05617521|183731528|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was assessed over the primary outcome of the study based on pre-experimental data estimation. It was calculated that 142 participants were needed to detect a 60-second difference in CIT, with 90% power and two-side alpha 0.05. It was found that 186 participants were needed to detect a 20% reduction in the use of ancillary maneuvers. As a preventive measure in case of withdrawal or exclusion, the sample was expanded by 10%, a total of 206 patients.||||||0.01||||||For the comparison of position change, Pearson chi-square test was used. The statistical significance level was accepted as p \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91916817|NCT05617521|183731529|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91916818|NCT00792298|183731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|12.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||16.3|9.5|<0.001
91916819|NCT00792298|183731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||10.9|4.4|<0.001
91916820|NCT00792298|183731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||14.2|7.4|<0.001
91916821|NCT00792298|183731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||10.9|4.6|<0.001
91916822|NCT00792298|183731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||11.0|4.2|<0.001
91916823|NCT00792298|183731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||13.6|7.2|<0.001
91916824|NCT00792298|183731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|5.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||8.6|1.9|0.002
91916825|NCT00792298|183731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|4.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||7.8|1.6|0.003
91763907|NCT00286429|183418388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.583||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.583|-0.272|0.474
91763908|NCT00286429|183418389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.482||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.482|-0.324|0.700
91763909|NCT00286429|183418389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|0.45||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.450|-0.366|0.839
91809384|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6629|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.6629
91809385|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5699|||||||t-test|||12 months after index date||||0.5699
91809386|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7105|||||||t-test|||12 months after index date||||0.7105
91809387|NCT03975790|183494161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5965|||||||t-test|||12 months after index date||||0.5965
91809388|NCT03232801|183494162|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared|4.86||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
91809389|NCT03232801|183494163|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared|0.45||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.503
91809390|NCT01111149|183494233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Serum Cotinine at Week 12||||>0.05
91916826|NCT00792298|183731532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-24.3|-49.4|<0.001
91916827|NCT00792298|183731532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-15.7|-42.1|<0.001
91809391|NCT01111149|183494233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Serum Nicotine at Week 12||||>0.05
91916828|NCT00792298|183731532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-33.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-21.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-21.5|-46.4|<0.001
91916829|NCT00792298|183731532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-33.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-20.2|-46.3|<0.001
91916830|NCT00792298|183731532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-12.3|-37.1|<0.001
91916831|NCT00792298|183731532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-15.1|-41.0|<0.001
91916832|NCT00792298|183731532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-8.8|-33.5|<0.001
91916833|NCT00792298|183731532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-21.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-8.7|-34.2|0.001
91809392|NCT01111149|183494233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Urine Cotinine at Week 12||||>0.05
91809393|NCT01111149|183494233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Urine Nicotine at Week 12||||>0.05
91809394|NCT01111149|183494234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis for 50% Reduction in Number of Cigarettes Smoked (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809395|NCT01111149|183494234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for 30% Reduction in Carbon Monoxide (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809396|NCT01111149|183494234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for 30% Reduction in Serum Cotinine (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809397|NCT01111149|183494234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for 30% Reduction in Urine Cotinine (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809398|NCT01111149|183494235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Total Composite (Week 12)||||>0.05
91916834|NCT00792298|183731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-13.1|-37.7|<0.001
91916835|NCT00792298|183731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-9.5||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||0.7|-19.7|0.068
91916836|NCT00792298|183731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-10.9|-35.3|<0.001
91763910|NCT00286429|183418390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.61||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.610|-0.045|0.091
91916837|NCT00792298|183731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-3.8||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||6.3|-13.8|0.459
91916838|NCT00792298|183731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-9.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||2.8|-21.5|0.130
91916839|NCT00792298|183731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-12.3|-32.3|<0.001
91916840|NCT00792298|183731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-3.4||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||8.7|-15.6|0.577
91916841|NCT00792298|183731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-2.3||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||7.5|-12.2|0.644
91916842|NCT00792298|183731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-22.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-6.2|-38.3|0.007
91809399|NCT01111149|183494235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Total Global (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809400|NCT01111149|183494235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Affective Flattening (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809401|NCT01111149|183494235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Alogia (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809402|NCT01111149|183494235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Avolition (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809403|NCT01111149|183494235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Anhedonia (Week 12)||||>0.05
91916843|NCT00792298|183731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-19.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-2.6|-36.6|0.024
91916844|NCT00792298|183731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-15.2|-46.9|<0.001
91916845|NCT00792298|183731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-15.7||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||0.8|-32.3|0.063
91916846|NCT00792298|183731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-17.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-1.7|-33.1|0.030
91916847|NCT00792298|183731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-24.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-8.3|-41.0|0.003
91916848|NCT00792298|183731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-19.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-3.0|-35.1|0.020
91916849|NCT00792298|183731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-20.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-3.4|-37.0|0.019
91916850|NCT00670709|183731535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0000001
91916851|NCT00670709|183731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||HD subjects vs control subjects||||<0.005
91809404|NCT01111149|183494235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Attention (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809405|NCT01111149|183494235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of Inappropriate Affect at Week 12||||>0.05
91809406|NCT01111149|183494236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for CPT % Omissions (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809407|NCT01111149|183494236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for CPT% commissions (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809408|NCT01111149|183494236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for perseveration % (week 12)||||>0.05
91809409|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Anxiety at week 12||||>0.05
91809410|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Dizziness at week 12||||>0.05
91809411|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Mania at week 12||||>0.05
91916852|NCT02649634|183731554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
91916853|NCT02649634|183731555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
91916854|NCT02649634|183731556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment adherence was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean number of TrymGym sessions missed.||||.65
91916855|NCT02649634|183731557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
91916856|NCT02649634|183731558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
91916857|NCT02649634|183731559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91916858|NCT02649634|183731560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91916859|NCT02649634|183731561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91916860|NCT02649634|183731562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91916861|NCT02649634|183731563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91916862|NCT02649634|183731564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91809412|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for abnormal dreams at week 12||||>0.05
91809413|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Abdominal Pain at week 12||||>0.05
91809414|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Headache at week 12||||>0.05
91809415|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Insomnia at week 12||||>0.05
91809416|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Nausea at week 12||||>0.05
91809417|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Psychosis at week 12||||>0.05
91916863|NCT02649634|183731565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91916864|NCT02649634|183731566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91916865|NCT02649634|183731567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91916866|NCT02649634|183731568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91916867|NCT02649634|183731569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91916868|NCT02649634|183731570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean global self efficacy rating on the WEL.||||>.05
91916869|NCT02649634|183731571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean self efficacy rating on the ESE.||||>.05
91916870|NCT02649634|183731572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean global self efficacy rating on the WEL.||||>.05
91916871|NCT02649634|183731573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean self efficacy rating on the ESE.||||>.05
91916872|NCT02649634|183731574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Importance of Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Importance of Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
91763911|NCT00286429|183418390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.457||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.457|-0.207|0.459
91916873|NCT02649634|183731575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Readiness for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Readiness for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
91916874|NCT02649634|183731576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Confidence for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Confidence for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
91916875|NCT02649634|183731577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Importance of Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Importance of Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
91916876|NCT02649634|183731578|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Readiness for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Readiness for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
91916877|NCT02649634|183731579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Confidence for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Confidence for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
91916878|NCT02706938|183731641|OTHER|One tail paired t test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3267|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1604||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6263|2.027||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.0270|0.6263|0.0002
91916879|NCT02706938|183731641|OTHER|McNemar's chi squared statistic|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.359||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6255|-0.0924||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|McNemar|||||-0.0924|-0.6255|0.0082
91916880|NCT02706938|183731642|OTHER|One tail paired t test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9131|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.5093||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5987|3.7724||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||3.7724|-17.5987|0.099
91916881|NCT02706938|183731642|OTHER|McNemar's chi squared statistic|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0263||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2651|0.2125||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|McNemar|||||0.2125|-0.2651|0.8084
91916882|NCT01261559|183731648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0|||Regression, Linear|A multivariate linear regression model was fitted for the main outcome of percent relative dose, with age, BMI, and bra cup size as covariates.||Powered to detect difference of 10% at 80% power if 66 or more subjects enrolled.||25|4|0.003
91916883|NCT01360996|183731669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91916884|NCT01360996|183731670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91916885|NCT01360996|183731671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91916886|NCT01360996|183731672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91916887|NCT01360996|183731673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.0001
91916888|NCT01360996|183731674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91916889|NCT01360996|183731675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
91916890|NCT03377634|183731676|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in PROMIS Pain intensity, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline pain intensity||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
91916891|NCT03377634|183731677|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in PROMIS pain interference, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline pain interference||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.99
91916892|NCT03377634|183731678|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in SPPB, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline SPPB||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.14
91916893|NCT03377634|183731679|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in weight, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline weight||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.11
91916894|NCT03377634|183731680|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in activity time, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline stepping time||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.65
91916895|NCT03377634|183731681|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in sitting time, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline sitting time||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.41
91916896|NCT03377634|183731682|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in sit to stand transitions, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline transitions||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.28
91916897|NCT00584870|183731736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.67|-0.67||p-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and statistical test was 1-sided with 0.1 significance level.|Repeated Measures Model|||LS mean difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with baseline, center, treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed main effects and participant as random effect.||-0.67|-1.67|0.001
91916898|NCT01015833|183731806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.4|0.8|0.24
91916899|NCT01015833|183731808|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.2|0.72|0.98
91916900|NCT01656772|183731811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin d = -0.05. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if Z \> 1.645 or, equivalently, if the corresponding p-value was less than 0.05.||||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted to take into account the correlation between multiple PVs on the same subject. The sample estimate of the intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated as the Pearson sample correlation coefficient for all pairs of observations.|Farrington and Manning|||The primary effectiveness endpoint is the successful navigation and EGM recording of each pre-specified pulmonary vein (PV). The RF ablation treatment was not part of the investigational procedure. The null hypothesis was to be tested at the α = 0.05 significance level using a test statistic Z based on the Farrington and Manning likelihood score statistic with adjustment to take into account the correlation between multiple observations (PVs) on the same subject.||||0.0405
91916901|NCT01656772|183731812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin d= 0.07. The one-sided null hypothesis was to be tested at the α = 0.05 significance level using a standard unpooled asymptotically normal test statistic. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if Z \< -1.7046 or, equivalently, if the corresponding p-value was less than 0.05.||||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-statistic|||||||.0441
91916902|NCT02730260|183731813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||Test of the null hypothesis that directive and nondirective coaching have equal smoking cessation rates.||||0.41
91916903|NCT02730260|183731813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio based on the parameter estimate for the variable, IncomeAboveMedian (0=false, 1=true), from the logistic regression model representing the a priori hypothesis, which specified income, race, and intervention as independent and interacting variables, and smoking cessation at last contact as the dependent variable. An unbalanced variable, PriorQuit (0-=none in the past year, 1=at least one in the past year) was added to the a priori model.||||<0.03
91916904|NCT02730260|183731813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio for PriorQuit, from the logistic regression model representing the a priori hypothesis, which specified income, race, and intervention as independent and interacting variables, and smoking cessation at last contact as the dependent variable. This variable, PriorQuit (0-=none in the past year, 1=at least one in the past year) was added to the a priori model because it was not balanced after randomization.||||<0.03
91809418|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Dry Mouth at week 12||||>0.05
91916905|NCT04743856|183731860|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Apriori p-value for significance was \<0.05. Models were not adjusted for additional covariates and multiple comparisons adjustment was not performed.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models for binomial outcomes were run to determine if there were significant differences in meeting goal over time.||||||0.63
91916906|NCT04743856|183731861|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1106.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|592.76||0.0665||||||Apriori significance level was p\<0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were not adjusted for additional variables.||||||0.0665
91916907|NCT04696861|183731877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.961
91809419|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Chest Pain at Week 12||||>0.05
91809420|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Irregular Heart Beat at week 12||||>0.05
91809421|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Weakness/Fainting at week 12||||>0.05
91809422|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Diarrhea at week 12||||>0.05
91916908|NCT04696861|183731878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.961
91916909|NCT04696861|183731879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.368
91916910|NCT04696861|183731881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.634
91916911|NCT04696861|183731882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.832
91916912|NCT04696861|183731884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.624
91916913|NCT04696861|183731885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.833
91916914|NCT04696861|183731886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.7
91916915|NCT04696861|183731887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.79
91916916|NCT04696861|183731888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.55
91916917|NCT04696861|183731889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.823
91916918|NCT04696861|183731890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.942
91916919|NCT04696861|183731891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.207
91916920|NCT04696861|183731892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.594
91916921|NCT04696861|183731893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.738
91916922|NCT04696861|183731894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.845
91916923|NCT01870739|183731902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0616||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4178|0.2947|||Linear Model|Treatment as fixed effect and corresponding baseline as covariate.||||0.2947|-0.4178|0.7324
91916924|NCT01870739|183731903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0371||||0.8614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4582|0.3839|||Linear Model|Treatment as a fixed effect and corresponding baseline as a covariate||||0.3839|-0.4582|0.8614
91916925|NCT01870739|183731904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0812||||0.7946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6987|0.5362|||Linear Model|Treatment as a fixed effect and corresponding baseline as a covariate||||0.5362|-0.6987|0.7946
91916926|NCT00960076|183731931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.31||||||||-0.31|-0.73|
91916927|NCT00960076|183731932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.36|-9.28||||||||-9.28|-37.36|
91916928|NCT00960076|183731933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|-4.5||||||||-4.50|-21.86|
91916929|NCT00960076|183731934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.2||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.0|||ANCOVA|||||22.0|0.2|0.0459
91916930|NCT05067127|183732015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares (LS) mean|-1.143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.436|-0.85|||MMRM|||An mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed categorical effect for treatment group, visit, disease type, baseline immunosuppressants use, stratification factors, and the visit-by-treatment group interactions as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of baseline log-transformed uPCR, was utilized to analyze the log-transformed ratio of uPCR at Week 26 compared to baseline.||-0.85|-1.436|<0.0001
91916931|NCT05067127|183732016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.516|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.105|124.026|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline eGFR values, baseline log-transformed uPCR values, disease type, and stratification factors.||124.026|6.105|<0.0001
91916932|NCT05067127|183732017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.932|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.401|113.897|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline log-transformed uPCR values, disease type, and stratification factors.||113.897|8.401|<0.0001
91916933|NCT05067127|183732018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.002||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.803|0.798|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed effect, adjusted for baseline C3G histologic index activity score, disease type, and stratification factors.||0.798|-2.803|0.2753
91916934|NCT05067127|183732019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.392|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.477|115.852|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline C3c staining, disease type, and stratification factors.||115.852|6.477|<0.0001
91916935|NCT05067127|183732020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.312||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|12.122|||MMRM|||An MMRM model included fixed categorical effect for treatment group, visit, disease type, stratification factors, and the visit-by-treatment group interactions as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of baseline eGFR, was utilized to analyze the mean change from baseline to Week 26 in eGFR.||12.122|0.501|0.0333
91916936|NCT05067127|183732021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.753||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.106|15.716|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline proteinuria values, disease type, and stratification factors.||15.716|2.106|0.0006
91916937|NCT05067127|183732022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|88.341||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.863|880.544|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline albumin values, disease type, and stratification factors.||880.544|8.863|0.0001
91916938|NCT05067127|183732023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.999||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.175|9999.999|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline C3 levels, stratification factors and disease type.||9999.999|12.175|0.0094
91916939|NCT05067127|183732024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.562||||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.739|3.863|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effect, adjusted for baseline, disease type, and stratification factors.||3.863|-2.739|0.7384
91916940|NCT05067127|183732025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.345||||0.5648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.237|5.927|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effect, adjusted for baseline, disease type, and stratification factors.||5.927|-3.237|0.5648
91916941|NCT01499173|183732027|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Actual p value shown here; not threshold.|multilevel linear regression|||||||<0.01
91916942|NCT01499173|183732028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||multilevel linear regression|||||||0.34
91916943|NCT01499173|183732029|OTHER|odds ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Odds ratio was calculated for each question comparing 1 week data with 1 month data||||
91916944|NCT03304522|183732042|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.876|-0.293|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.293|-1.876|<0.0001
91916945|NCT03304522|183732045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.111|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.911|-0.312|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.312|-1.911|<0.0001
91916946|NCT03304522|183732047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.3|-1.5|<0.0001
91916947|NCT00885365|183732055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority is shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is above the non-inferiority margin set at -4.5%.|difference of least square means|-0.5||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Based on previous studies, the difference between reference and placebo after 4-week treatment is assumed to be about 12% and the non-inferiority margin safely placed at 4.5%. With a between-patient SD of 13.5% and estimated difference between treatments of zero, sample size of 143 per group allows a 80% power to show the non-inferiority of Bramitob® versus TOBI®. Accounting for an expected dropout rate of 11%, a minimum of 160 participants per group is required.||1.59|-2.58|0.640
91916948|NCT00885365|183732057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|-0.01||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||0.05|-0.08|0.634
91916949|NCT00885365|183732058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|-0.55||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||1.69|-2.78|0.630
91916950|NCT00885365|183732059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|-0.02||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||0.06|-0.09|0.693
91916951|NCT00885365|183732060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|0.51||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|4.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||4.09|-3.06|0.777
91916952|NCT00885365|183732061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|0.04||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||0.15|-0.08|0.505
91916953|NCT00885365|183732062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.39||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<= 0.050.|ANCOVA|treatment and country are fixed effects and baseline log10 bacterial load (CFU/g) value is a covariate||Analysis of Week 4 data||0.39|-0.31|0.820
91916954|NCT00885365|183732065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<= 0.050.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test controlling for country.||Week 4||||0.692
91916955|NCT00885365|183732065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<= 0.050.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test controlling for country.||Week 8||||0.128
91916956|NCT01756456|183732078|SUPERIORITY|Each of the comparisons was conducted on the data for the Phase II segment of the study using a 2 × 2 chi-square test, based on the null hypothesis that there is no association between treatment (rhNGF or Vehicle Control) and response (Complete Healing at Week 4 \[Yes/No\]).|Difference in percentage|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.06|15.88|54.71|||Chi-squared|||Phase II||54.71|15.88|<0.001
91916957|NCT01756456|183732078|SUPERIORITY|Each of the comparisons was conducted on the data for the Phase II segment of the study using a 2 × 2 chi-square test, based on the null hypothesis that there is no association between treatment (rhNGF or Vehicle Control) and response (Complete Healing at Week 4 \[Yes/No\]).|Difference in percentage|38.4|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.06|18.96|57.83|||Chi-squared|||||57.83|18.96|=0.001
91916958|NCT01756456|183732079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.8|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|97.06|3.66|47.87|||Chi-squared|||||47.87|3.66|=0.016
91916959|NCT01756456|183732079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.7|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.06|11.91|57.41|||Chi-squared|||||57.41|11.91|=0.002
91916960|NCT01756456|183732080|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|2.4|||=|0.818|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-20.3|25.08|||Chi-squared|||At week 6 - reading center||25.08|-20.30|=0.818
91916961|NCT01756456|183732080|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-6.3|||=|0.571|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-30.62|17.96|||Chi-squared|||at week 6 - central reading center||17.96|-30.62|=0.571
91809423|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Vomiting at week 12||||>0.05
91916962|NCT01756456|183732080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.3|||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-3.11|43.79|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - investigator||43.79|-3.11|=0.064
91916963|NCT01756456|183732080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.1|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-0.89|47.04|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - investigator||47.04|-0.89|=0.041
91916964|NCT01756456|183732080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.9|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|97.06|0.07|43.64|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - central reading center||43.64|0.07|=0.031
91916965|NCT01756456|183732080|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|26.9|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|97.06|5.57|48.28|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - central reading center||48.28|5.57|=0.008
91916966|NCT01756456|183732080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.1|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|97.06|4.18|48.01|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - investigator||48.01|4.18|=0.011
91916967|NCT01756456|183732080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.9|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|97.06|3.55|48.33|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - investigator||48.33|3.55|=0.014
91916968|NCT01756456|183732081|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|13.7|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|27.57|||Chi-squared|||week 4||27.57|-0.19|=0.065
91916969|NCT01756456|183732081|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|12.4|||=|0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|26.78|||Chi-squared|||week 4||26.78|-2.05|=0.097
91916970|NCT01756456|183732081|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|16.9|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|31.92|||Chi-squared|||week 6||31.92|1.97|=0.036
91916971|NCT01756456|183732081|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|15.6|||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|31.12|||Chi-squared|||week 6||31.12|0.04|=0.054
91916972|NCT01756456|183732081|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|17.1|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|32.72|||Chi-squared|||week 8||32.72|1.45|=0.043
91916973|NCT01756456|183732081|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|11.4|||=|0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|26.93|||Chi-squared|||week 8||26.93|-4.08|=0.157
91916974|NCT01756456|183732082|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|8.9|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|16.5|||ANCOVA|||||16.50|1.33|=0.022
91916975|NCT01756456|183732082|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|5.0|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.88|||ANCOVA|||||12.88|-2.90|=0.213
91916976|NCT01756456|183732083|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|5.5|||=|0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|25.48|||Chi-squared|||week 4||25.48|-14.53|=0.592
91916977|NCT01756456|183732083|SUPERIORITY|week 4|difference in percentage|-2.3|||=|0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|19.4|||Chi-squared|||||19.40|-24.01|=0.835
91916978|NCT01756456|183732083|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|27.7|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|47.22|||Chi-squared|||week 6||47.22|8.10|=0.008
91916979|NCT01756456|183732083|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|12.4|||=|0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|34.68|||Chi-squared|||week 6||34.68|-9.91|=0.282
91809424|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Constipation at week 12||||>0.05
91916980|NCT01756456|183732083|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|10.2|||=|0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|29.45|||Chi-squared|||||29.45|-9.15|=0.303
91916981|NCT01756456|183732083|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|7.9|||=|0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|27.92|||Chi-squared|||week 8||27.92|-12.13|=0.442
91916982|NCT01756456|183732084|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-2.6|||=|0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|17.71|||Chi-squared|||week 4||17.71|-22.87|=0.597
91916983|NCT01756456|183732084|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-2.3|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.26|18.71|||Chi-squared|||week 4||18.71|-23.26|>0.999
91916984|NCT01756456|183732084|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-7.8|||=|0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|13.76|||Chi-squared|||week 6||13.76|-28.70|=0.183
91916985|NCT01756456|183732084|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-10.0|||=|0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.41|11.88|||Chi-squared|||week 6||11.88|-31.41|=0.116
91916986|NCT01756456|183732084|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-10.8|||=|0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|10.35|||Chi-squared|||week 8||10.35|-31.30|=0.134
91916987|NCT01756456|183732084|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-7.9|||=|0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.51|13.52|||Chi-squared|||week 8||13.52|-29.51|=0.307
91916988|NCT01756456|183732086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.62|||Chi-squared|||week 4||4.62|1.03|=0.041
91916989|NCT01756456|183732086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||=|0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.11|||Chi-squared|||week 4||4.11|0.92|=0.081
91809425|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Confusion at week 12||||>0.05
91809426|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Irritability at week 12||||>0.05
91809427|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for drooling at week 12||||>0.05
91809428|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Cold Sweats at week 12||||>0.05
91916990|NCT01756456|183732086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.88|||Chi-squared|||week 8||5.88|1.04|=0.040
91916991|NCT01756456|183732086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||=|0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.52|||Chi-squared|||week 8||4.52|0.82|=0.132
91916992|NCT01756456|183732091|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|15.8|||=|0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|33.97|||Chi-squared|||week 4||33.97|-2.36|=0.097
91916993|NCT01756456|183732091|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|13.2|||=|0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|32.15|||Chi-squared|||week 4||32.15|-5.72|=0.175
91916994|NCT01756456|183732091|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|16.9|||=|0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|37.0|||Chi-squared|||week 6||37.00|-3.11|=0.105
91916995|NCT01756456|183732091|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|11.0|||=|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|31.57|||Chi-squared|||week 6||31.57|-9.64|=0.300
91916996|NCT01756456|183732091|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|27.5|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|46.67|||Chi-squared|||week 8||46.67|8.33|=0.008
91916997|NCT01756456|183732091|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|19.0|||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|38.83|||Chi-squared|||week 8||38.83|-0.91|=0.068
91916998|NCT00813995|183732092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparison|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91916999|NCT03094195|183732098|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|Multiplicity adjustment for the pairwise comparisons has been performed using the Hochberg procedure. Adjusted p-value 0.689||||0.9|-1.3|0.689
91917000|NCT03094195|183732098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|Multiplicity adjustment for the pairwise comparisons has been performed using the Hochberg procedure. Adjusted p-value 0.689||||0.6|-1.6|0.350
91917001|NCT03094195|183732102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.2|0.3|0.908
91917002|NCT03094195|183732102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.5|0.4|0.609
91917003|NCT03094195|183732103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.2|0.3|0.800
91917004|NCT03094195|183732103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.5|0.4|0.653
91917005|NCT03094195|183732105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-0.4|0.225
91763912|NCT00286429|183418392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.65||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.589|100.682||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||100.682|1.589|0.016
91763913|NCT00286429|183418392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.255||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.401|90.379||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level||90.379|1.401|0.023
91763914|NCT00286429|183418393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.777|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.047|16.305||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||16.305|2.047|<0.001
91809429|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Blurred Vision at week 12||||>0.05
91809430|NCT01111149|183494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Leg Pain/Cramps||||>0.05
91917006|NCT03094195|183732105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-1.0|0.914
91917007|NCT01651780|183732109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Relative Risk|0.77||||0.2692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.48|0.2692
91917008|NCT01651780|183732110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Relative Risk|0.89||||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.64|0.4967
91917009|NCT02116621|183732196|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.19|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|||0.19|-2.91|
91917010|NCT02116621|183732197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: -0.79 (-2.37 to 0.80); baseline to 26 weeks: -1.36 (-2.91 to 0.19); baseline to 52 weeks: 0.16 (-1.47 to 1.79)|||0.21
91917011|NCT02116621|183732198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 0.31 (-1.18 to 1.81); baseline to 26 weeks: -1.41 (-2.87 to 0.06); baseline to 52 weeks: -1.24 (-2.77 to 0.30)|||0.06
91917012|NCT02116621|183732199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks:-0.66 (-2.55 to 1.24); baseline to 26 weeks: 0.93 (-0.92 to 2.79); baseline to 52 weeks: 0.76 (-1.19 to 2.70)|||0.35
91917013|NCT02116621|183732200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 0.30 (-1.01 to 1.61); baseline to 26 weeks: -0.17 (-1.45 to 1.12); baseline to 52 weeks: -0.26 (-1.61 to 1.09)|||0.86
91917014|NCT02116621|183732201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 1.05 (-2.54 to 4.64); baseline to 26 weeks: 1.90 (-1.66 to 5.47); baseline to 52 weeks: 0.08 (-3.61 to 3.77).|||0.70
91763915|NCT00286429|183418393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.784|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|27.039||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||27.039|3.540|<0.001
91809431|NCT01111149|183494238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for FTND (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809432|NCT01111149|183494238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS 24 Hour Total (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809433|NCT01111149|183494238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS 7 day total (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809434|NCT01111149|183494238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS Resistance (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917015|NCT02116621|183732202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 4.24 (-2.73 to 11.20); baseline to 26 weeks: 4.64 (-2.25 to 11.54); baseline to 52 weeks: -1.91 (-9.07 to 5.26).|||0.20
91917016|NCT02116621|183732203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 1.76 (-2.37 to 5.89); baseline to 26 weeks: 2.55 (-1.50 to 6.60); baseline to 52 weeks: 1.53 (-2.70 to 5.77).|||0.66
91917017|NCT02116621|183732204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 7.77 (-2.87 to 18.42); baseline to 26 weeks: 7.29 (-3.16 to 17.75); baseline to 52 weeks: 4.13 (-6.81 to 15.07).|||0.44
91917018|NCT02116621|183732205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 2.15 (-2.84 to 7.13); baseline to 26 weeks: 3.31 (-1.57 to 8.19); baseline to 52 weeks: 1.00 (-4.11 to 6.11).|||0.58
91917019|NCT02116621|183732206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 1.81 (-4.41 to 8.02); baseline to 26 weeks: -1.57 (-7.68 to 4.54); baseline to 52 weeks: 1.11 (-5.27 to 7.48).|||0.73
91917020|NCT02116621|183732207|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.06|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|||0.06|-2.87|
91917021|NCT02116621|183732208|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.79|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|2.79|-0.92|
91917022|NCT02116621|183732209|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.12|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|1.12|-1.45|
91917023|NCT02116621|183732210|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|5.47|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|5.47|-1.66|
91917024|NCT02116621|183732211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|11.54|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|11.54|-2.25|
91917025|NCT02116621|183732212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.6|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|6.60|-1.50|
91809435|NCT01111149|183494239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of Beck Depression Inventory (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917026|NCT02116621|183732213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|7.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|17.75|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|17.75|-3.16|
91917027|NCT02116621|183732214|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|8.19|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|8.19|-1.57|
91917028|NCT02116621|183732215|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|4.54|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|4.54|-7.68|
91917029|NCT02116621|183732216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|21.24|||Regression, Linear|||||21.24|2.59|0.01
91917030|NCT02116621|183732217|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.8|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||0.80|-2.37|
91917031|NCT02116621|183732218|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.81|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||1.81|-1.18|
91917032|NCT02116621|183732219|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.61|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||1.61|-1.01|
91917033|NCT02116621|183732220|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.24|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||1.24|-2.55|
91917034|NCT02116621|183732221|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.64|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||4.64|-2.54|
91917035|NCT02116621|183732222|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|4.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|11.2|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||11.20|-2.73|
91917036|NCT02116621|183732223|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|5.89|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||5.89|-2.37|
91917037|NCT02116621|183732224|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|18.42|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||18.42|-2.87|
91917038|NCT02116621|183732225|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|7.13|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||7.13|-2.84|
91809436|NCT01111149|183494240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAS (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809437|NCT01111149|183494240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BAS items 1-3 (week 12)||||>0.05
91809438|NCT01111149|183494240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BAS item 4 (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917039|NCT02116621|183732226|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|8.02|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||8.02|-4.41|
91917040|NCT02116621|183732227|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.79|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||1.79|-1.47|
91917041|NCT02116621|183732228|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.3|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||0.30|-2.77|
91917042|NCT02116621|183732229|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.09|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||1.09|-1.61|
91917043|NCT02116621|183732230|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.7|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||2.70|-1.19|
91917044|NCT02116621|183732231|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|3.77|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||3.77|-3.61|
91917045|NCT02116621|183732232|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|5.26|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||5.26|-9.07|
91917046|NCT02116621|183732233|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.77|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||5.77|-2.70|
91917047|NCT02116621|183732234|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|15.07|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||15.07|-6.81|
91917048|NCT02116621|183732235|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|6.11|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||6.11|-4.11|
91917049|NCT02116621|183732236|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|7.48|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||7.48|-5.27|
91917050|NCT02116621|183732237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.41||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|18.96|||Regression, Linear|||||18.96|-0.15|0.054
91917051|NCT01813890|183732292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|105.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|179.2||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group|Based on participant availability in Taiwan it was expected that 60 subjects (20 per group) would be enrolled. In consultation with the Taiwan health authority, the overall two-sided significance level was set at 0.20 (0.10 for each tapentadol versus placebo comparison). Assuming a standard deviation of 134.4, this sample size would provide 71.5% power to detect a between-group difference in SPID48 of 94.1 and 81.2% power to detect a between-group difference of 107.52.||179.2|32.0|0.006
91917052|NCT01813890|183732292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|126.58||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.5|203.7||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group.|Based on participant availability in Taiwan it was expected that 60 subjects (20 per group) would be enrolled. In consultation with the Taiwan health authority, the overall two-sided significance level was set at 0.20 (0.10 for each tapentadol versus placebo comparison). Assuming a standard deviation of 134.4, this sample size would provide 71.5% power to detect a between-group difference in SPID48 of 94.1 and 81.2% power to detect a between-group difference of 107.52.||203.7|49.5|0.004
91917053|NCT03952559|183732306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.21|0.58|0.7261
91917054|NCT03952559|183732306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.41|0.95|0.0718
91917055|NCT03952559|183732306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.89|2.02|<0.0001
91917056|NCT03952559|183732309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.59|0.9615
91917057|NCT03952559|183732309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.83|0.2010
91917058|NCT03952559|183732309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.95|1.38|0.0017
91917059|NCT03952559|183732310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.01|0.43|0.8544
91917060|NCT03952559|183732310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.91|0.98|0.0561
91917061|NCT03952559|183732310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|5.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.82|1.54|0.0012
91917062|NCT03952559|183732311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.349||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|-4.16|0.2627
91917063|NCT03952559|183732311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.342||0.2135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|-4.31|0.2135
91917064|NCT03952559|183732311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-5.36|0.0443
91917065|NCT03952559|183732312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.4943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.30|0.4943
91917066|NCT03952559|183732312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.70|0.80|0.1677
91917067|NCT03952559|183732312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.70|1.06|0.0336
91917068|NCT03952559|183732313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.77|0.42|0.8866
91917069|NCT03952559|183732313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.26|0.70|0.2316
91917070|NCT03952559|183732313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.59||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.22|1.08|0.0328
91917071|NCT03952559|183732314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.98|0.70|0.5361
91917072|NCT03952559|183732314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.06|0.73|0.4417
91917073|NCT03952559|183732314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.43|1.16|0.0121
91917074|NCT03952559|183732315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|0.37|0.7706
91917075|NCT03952559|183732315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.86|0.38|0.7409
91917076|NCT03952559|183732315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|8.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.63|1.15|0.0253
91917077|NCT03952559|183732316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.1317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|-8.95|0.1317
91917078|NCT03952559|183732316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.564||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-10.19|0.0451
91917079|NCT03952559|183732316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.566||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|-2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.58|-12.66|0.0031
91917080|NCT03952559|183732317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.11|0.4238
91917081|NCT03952559|183732317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.08|0.44|0.5118
91917082|NCT03952559|183732317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|11.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.52|1.34|0.0129
91917083|NCT03952559|183732318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.168||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|2.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.75|-5.77|0.4852
91917084|NCT03952559|183732318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.50|-5.98|0.4205
91917085|NCT03952559|183732318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-9.59|0.0138
91917086|NCT03952559|183732319|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91917087|NCT03952559|183732319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.540
91917088|NCT03952559|183732319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.302
91917089|NCT03952559|183732320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|14.35|||ANOVA|||||14.35|-5.41|0.375
91917090|NCT03952559|183732320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|13.0|||ANOVA|||||13.00|-6.76|0.536
91917091|NCT03952559|183732320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|12.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|22.05|||ANOVA|||||22.05|2.29|0.016
91917092|NCT03952559|183732321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-49.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.28||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.81|4.42|||ANOVA|||||4.42|-102.81|0.073
91917093|NCT03952559|183732321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-37.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.29||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.0|16.23|||ANOVA|||||16.23|-91.00|0.172
91917094|NCT03952559|183732321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-80.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.98|-26.75|||ANOVA|||||-26.75|-133.98|0.004
91917095|NCT03952559|183732322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-1.38|0.0829
91917096|NCT03952559|183732322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-1.22|0.1752
91917097|NCT03952559|183732322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-1.82|0.0029
91917098|NCT03952559|183732323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.60|0.2688
91917099|NCT03952559|183732323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.85|0.0166
91917100|NCT03952559|183732323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.75|0.0908
91917101|NCT03952559|183732324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.3409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|-2.79|0.3409
91917102|NCT03952559|183732324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-3.43|0.1022
91917103|NCT03952559|183732324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.953||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-3.43|0.1024
91917104|NCT03952559|183732325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.54|0.1436
91917105|NCT03952559|183732325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.00|-0.61|0.0483
91917106|NCT03952559|183732325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.80|0.0012
91917107|NCT03952559|183732326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.755||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||3.63|-3.27|0.9183
91917108|NCT03952559|183732326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||1.93|-4.09|0.4805
91917109|NCT03952559|183732326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.812||0.3488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||1.86|-5.26|0.3488
91917110|NCT03952559|183732326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.2388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|7.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||7.66|-4.85|0.2388
91917111|NCT03952559|183732326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.542||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||3.98|-10.23|0.0098
91917112|NCT03952559|183732326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.1698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|7.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||7.42|-5.18|0.1698
91917113|NCT03952559|183732327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.813||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||3.88|-3.24|0.8611
91917114|NCT03952559|183732327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.571||0.5098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||2.05|-4.12|0.5098
91917115|NCT03952559|183732327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||1.27|-6.08|0.1997
91917116|NCT03952559|183732327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.351||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|8.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||8.35|-5.11|0.1957
91917117|NCT03952559|183732327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.864||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|7.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||7.32|-8.19|0.0881
91917118|NCT03952559|183732327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.379||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||8.28|-5.27|0.1604
91917119|NCT03952559|183732328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|-1.93|0.2987
91917120|NCT03952559|183732328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.632||0.3096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-1.88|0.3096
91917121|NCT03952559|183732328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|-1.55|0.6341
91917122|NCT03952559|183732329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.323||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|17.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.09|-6.54|0.2871
91917123|NCT03952559|183732329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.835||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|17.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.29|-7.83|0.3093
91917124|NCT03952559|183732329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.788||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.22|8.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.21|-18.22|0.2912
91917125|NCT03952559|183732330|SUPERIORITY|Absenteeism Change from Baseline|LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.119||0.6079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.54|-7.74|0.6079
91917126|NCT03952559|183732330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.092||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||4.24|-7.94|0.5492
91917127|NCT03952559|183732330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.281||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||1.53|-11.39|0.1338
91917128|NCT03952559|183732330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|6.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||6.08|-7.96|0.7928
91917129|NCT03952559|183732330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.553||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||1.69|-12.30|0.1366
91917130|NCT03952559|183732330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.792||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||0.71|-14.21|0.0760
91917131|NCT03952559|183732330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.561||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||4.80|-13.16|0.3602
91917132|NCT03952559|183732330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.516||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||2.65|-15.14|0.1678
91917133|NCT03952559|183732330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.808||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||-2.08|-21.00|0.0170
91917134|NCT03952559|183732330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.174||0.1645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||1.82|-10.66|0.1645
91917135|NCT03952559|183732330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.158||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||1.34|-11.07|0.1240
91917136|NCT03952559|183732330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.163||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-0.80|-13.23|0.0270
91917137|NCT03952559|183732331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.778||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.43|-3.49|0.4778
91917138|NCT03952559|183732331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.743||0.4649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|7.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.39|-3.38|0.4649
91917139|NCT03952559|183732331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.755||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.94|-0.89|0.1013
91917140|NCT03952559|183732332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.27|0.6574
91917141|NCT03952559|183732332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.9488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.35|0.9488
91917142|NCT03952559|183732332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.4546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.47|0.4546
91917143|NCT03952559|183732333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-0.79|0.8133
91917144|NCT03952559|183732333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-1.11|0.2517
91917145|NCT03952559|183732333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-1.32|0.0803
91917146|NCT01986062|183732341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91917147|NCT01986062|183732342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91917148|NCT01986062|183732343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91917149|NCT01986062|183732344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91917150|NCT01986062|183732345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91917151|NCT01986062|183732346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91917152|NCT02587338|183732358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.74
91917153|NCT02587338|183732359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062
91809439|NCT01111149|183494241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for systolic blood pressure (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917154|NCT00630331|183732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|83.8|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|61.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||61.0|<0.001
91809440|NCT01111149|183494241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for diastolic blood pressure (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917155|NCT00630331|183732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|88.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|67.4|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||67.4|<0.001
91917156|NCT00630331|183732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.999||97.5||||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|For strain A/H3N2, the vaccine efficacy of the CCI vaccine vs. placebo was not evaluable since no influenza case was observed in the placebo group.||Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain. Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks.||||0.999
91917157|NCT00630331|183732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.394|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-410.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-410|0.394
91917158|NCT00630331|183732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|78.4||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5|52.1|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||52.1|0.004
91917159|NCT00630331|183732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|80.3||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5|54.7|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||54.7|0.002
91917160|NCT00630331|183732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.992||97.5||||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|For strain A/H3N2, the vaccine efficacy of the IVV vaccine vs. placebo was not evaluable since no influenza case was observed in the placebo group.||Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain. Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks.||||0.992
91917161|NCT00630331|183732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.4|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-429.4|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-429.4|0.400
91809441|NCT01111149|183494242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Vital Signs - Weight (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809442|NCT01111149|183494243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Smoking Abstinence - Number of Cigarettes Smoked (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917162|NCT00630331|183732375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|58.7||||0.078|ONE_SIDED|97.5|33.5|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||33.5|0.078
91917163|NCT00630331|183732375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|87.3||||0.104|ONE_SIDED|97.5|4.6|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||4.6|0.104
91917164|NCT00630331|183732375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|97.5|36.3|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||36.3|0.030
91917165|NCT00630331|183732375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|50.0||||0.376|ONE_SIDED|97.5|17.5|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||17.5|0.376
91917166|NCT00630331|183732375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|58.6||||0.085|ONE_SIDED|97.5|32.9|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||32.9|0.085
91917167|NCT00630331|183732375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.033|ONE_SIDED|97.5|33.9|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||33.9|0.033
91917168|NCT00630331|183732375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|73.6||||0.265|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-30.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-30.0|0.265
91917169|NCT00630331|183732375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|51.7||||0.319|ONE_SIDED|97.5|19.4|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||19.4|0.319
91917170|NCT00630331|183732376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|69.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|55.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||55.0|<0.001
91917171|NCT00630331|183732376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|89.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|73.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||73.0|<0.001
91809443|NCT01111149|183494244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Smoking Abstinence - Exhaled Carbon Monoxide (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809444|NCT01111149|183494245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Vital Signs - Pulse (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809445|NCT01111149|183494246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Lifetime Suicidal Ideation (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809446|NCT01111149|183494246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Lifetime Suicide Attempts (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917172|NCT00630331|183732376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|75.6||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|97.5|35.1|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||35.1|0.040
91917173|NCT00630331|183732376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|49.9||||0.37|ONE_SIDED|97.5|18.2|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||18.2|0.37
91917174|NCT00630331|183732376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|63.0||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|46.7|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||46.7|0.003
91917175|NCT00630331|183732376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|81.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|60.9|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||60.9|<0.001
91917176|NCT00630331|183732376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|49.3||||0.53|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-9.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-9.0|0.53
91917177|NCT00630331|183732376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|53.2||||0.26|ONE_SIDED|97.5|22.2|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||22.2|0.26
91917178|NCT01302808|183732386|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91917179|NCT02761967|183732403|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical power of the study for the temporal variables was 82%. Multiple linear regression models were obtained for the first and second stages and for the total duration of delivery.||||||0.776|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.776
91917180|NCT01955707|183732406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.26||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to baseline using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) use.||0.26|-0.09|
91917181|NCT01955707|183732406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.09||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.3||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.30|0.91|0.779
91917182|NCT01955707|183732407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.27||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to baseline using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.27|-0.09|
91917183|NCT01955707|183732407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.09||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.31||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.31|0.92|0.797
91917184|NCT01955707|183732408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.24||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to baseline using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.24|-0.13|
91917185|NCT01955707|183732408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.05||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.27||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.27|0.88|0.684
91917186|NCT01955707|183732409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.11||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to 24 hours using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.11|-0.12|
91917187|NCT01955707|183732409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.12||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.12|0.89|0.487
91917188|NCT01955707|183732410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.1||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to 24 hours using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.10|-0.14|
91917189|NCT01955707|183732410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|0.98||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.11||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.11|0.87|0.402
91917190|NCT01955707|183732411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.13||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to Day 5 using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for for treatment, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.13|-0.18|
91917191|NCT01955707|183732411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|0.98||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.14||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.14|0.84|0.394
91917192|NCT01955707|183732412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|-0.25||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|1.98||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at 24 hours. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||1.98|-2.48|0.427
91917193|NCT01955707|183732412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|1.71||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|3.94||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at Day 5. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||3.94|-0.52|0.896
91763916|NCT00286429|183418394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.674|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.579|4.53||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥0.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.530|1.579|<0.001
91917194|NCT01955707|183732412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|3.15||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|5.4||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at Day 30. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||5.40|0.89|0.989
91917195|NCT01955707|183732412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|1.93||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|4.25||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at Day 90. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||4.25|-0.38|0.915
91917196|NCT01955707|183732413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.45||One sided p-value based on Van Elteren's test, adjusting for baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).|Van Elteren's test|||Analysis of distribution of mRS scores at Day 5. Odds ratio from a proportional-odds logistic regression model assuming a common odds ratio across all cut points of the mRS score. Covariates include baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).||1.45|0.55|0.564
91917197|NCT01955707|183732413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.1||One-sided p-value based on Van Elteren's test, adjusting for baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).|Van Elteren's test|||Analysis of distribution of mRS scores at Day 30. Odds ratio from a proportional-odds logistic regression model assuming a common odds ratio across all cut points of the mRS score. Covariates include baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).||2.10|0.80|0.077
91917198|NCT01955707|183732413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.86||One -sided p-value based on Van Elteren's test, adjusting for baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).|Van Elteren's test|||Analysis of the distribution of mRS scores at Day 90. Odds ratio from a proportional-odds logistic regression model assuming a common odds ratio across all cut points of the mRS score. Covariates include baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).||1.86|0.71|0.243
91809447|NCT01111149|183494247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Total Composite Score - Week 12||||>0.05
91917199|NCT01955707|183732414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.68||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.19|10.56||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of Barthel Index at Day 5. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling Barthel Index using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, and location of stroke.||10.56|-9.19|0.455
91917200|NCT01955707|183732414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|1.21||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.76|11.19||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of Barthel Index at Day 30. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling Barthel Index using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, and location of stroke.||11.19|-8.76|0.420
91917201|NCT01955707|183732414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|3.56||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.64|13.75|||repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of Barthel Index at Day 90/Final Visit. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling Barthel Index using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, and location of stroke.||13.75|-6.64|0.283
91917202|NCT01817790|183732427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.13||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in Daily rTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.13|-0.59|0.0024
91917203|NCT01817790|183732428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM rTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.10|-0.56|0.0057
91917204|NCT01817790|183732429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.0009||95.0|-0.65|-0.17||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM rTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.17|-0.65|0.0009
91917205|NCT01817790|183732430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM reflective symptom scores for Eye itching/burning between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.02|-0.19|0.0117
91917206|NCT01817790|183732431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0005||95.0|-0.23|-0.06||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM reflective symptom scores for Eye itching/burning between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.06|-0.23|0.0005
91917207|NCT01817790|183732432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.0023||95.0|-0.22|-0.06||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM reflective symptom scores for Eye Tearing/Watering between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.06|-0.22|0.0023
91917208|NCT01817790|183732433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.26|-0.09||p-value was nor adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM reflective symptom scores for Eye Tearing/watering between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.09|-0.26|<0.0001
91917209|NCT01817790|183732434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0304||95.0|-0.18|-0.01||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM reflective symptom scores for Eye Redness between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.01|-0.18|0.0304
91763917|NCT00286429|183418394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.819|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.653|4.808||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥0.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.808|1.653|<0.001
91917210|NCT01817790|183732435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0361||95.0|-0.19|-0.01||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM reflective symptom scores for Eye Redness between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.01|-0.19|0.0361
91917211|NCT01817790|183732436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.06||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM iTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.06|-0.50|0.0129
91917212|NCT01817790|183732437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.07||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in rNCSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.07|-0.22|0.0002
91917213|NCT01817790|183732438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||95.0||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Using this test controlling for investigative site. The response variable lied on ordinal scale of measurement.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the end of treatment assessment of response between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||||0.0118
91917214|NCT01817790|183732439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in objective assessment of conjunctival redness between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||0.10|-0.12|0.8586
91917215|NCT01817790|183732440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.29||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in MiniRQLQ scores between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.29|-0.65|<0.0001
91917216|NCT01817790|183732441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.3||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Activities' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray||-0.30|-0.68|<0.0001
91917217|NCT01817790|183732442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.24||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Practical Problems' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.24|-0.64|<0.0001
91917218|NCT01817790|183732443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.33||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Nose Symptoms' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.33|-0.73|<0.0001
91917219|NCT01817790|183732444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.23||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Eye Symptoms' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.23|-0.65|<0.0001
91917220|NCT01817790|183732445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.21||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Other Symptoms' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.21|-0.64|<0.0001
91917221|NCT02847598|183732472|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean Difference|-3.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.2|||MMRM|||A Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||-0.2|-6.7|0.037
91917222|NCT02847598|183732473|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.29||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-4.88|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-4.88|-43.70|0.015
91917223|NCT02847598|183732473|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.71|-14.12|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-14.12|-52.71|<0.001
91917224|NCT02847598|183732473|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.55|-11.42|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-11.42|-44.55|0.001
91917225|NCT02847598|183732476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.93||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|6.08|||MMRM|||Week 12: A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||6.08|-25.94|0.220
91917226|NCT02847598|183732476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.96||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.82|7.9|||MMRM|||Week 16: A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group (BIIB059 450 mg vs. placebo), study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the endpoint, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||7.90|-25.82|0.293
91917227|NCT02847598|183732476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.74||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|0.79|||MMRM|||Week 24: A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||0.79|-32.28|0.062
91917228|NCT02847598|183732477|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.75|-11.97|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-11.97|-48.75|0.001
91917229|NCT02847598|183732477|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.46|-18.87|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-18.87|-55.46|<0.001
91809448|NCT01111149|183494247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Total Global - Week 12||||>0.05
91917230|NCT02847598|183732477|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.71|-10.4|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-10.40|-41.71|0.001
91917231|NCT02847598|183732483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.5|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||-0.5|-3.0|0.007
91917232|NCT02847598|183732485|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.58|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group (BIIB059 450 mg vs. placebo), study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the endpoint, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||0.58|-0.90|0.667
91917233|NCT03797001|183732531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91917234|NCT03804671|183732535|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including the fixed effect for 'formulation' and 'subject' as a random effect.|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|70.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.69|87.23|||||The geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 18.7. Ratio was calculated as (AUC0-∞/dose) oral /(AUC0-∞/dose) intravenous multiplied by 100.|||87.23|56.69|
91917235|NCT01552057|183732536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||0.06|-0.70|0.0988
91917236|NCT01552057|183732537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.22||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.22|-0.76|0.0003
91917237|NCT01552057|183732538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.18||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.18|-0.71|0.0012
91917238|NCT01552057|183732539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.35||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-1.45||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-1.45|-9.26|0.0073
91917239|NCT01552057|183732540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.34||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|7.35||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning||7.35|1.32|0.0049
91917240|NCT01552057|183732540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|11.94||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Role-Physical||11.94|3.57|0.0003
91917241|NCT01552057|183732540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.67||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|8.59||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain||8.59|2.76|0.0002
91809449|NCT01111149|183494247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Hallucinations - Week 12||||>0.05
91809450|NCT01111149|183494247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Delusions - Week 12||||>0.05
91809451|NCT01111149|183494247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for SAPS Bizarre Behavior - Week 12||||>0.05
91809452|NCT01111149|183494247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Thought Disorder - Week 12||||>0.05
91809453|NCT01111149|183494248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Total - Week 12||||>0.05
91917242|NCT01552057|183732540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.96||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||General Health||5.96|0.53|0.0192
91917243|NCT01552057|183732540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.25||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Vitality||10.25|3.15|0.0002
91917244|NCT01552057|183732540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.04||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|11.34||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Social Functioning||11.34|2.74|0.0014
91917245|NCT01552057|183732540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|13.83||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional||13.83|4.41|0.0002
91917246|NCT01552057|183732540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|11.43||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Mental Health||11.43|4.39|<0.0001
91917247|NCT01552057|183732541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.38||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-1.38|-4.32|0.0002
91917248|NCT01552057|183732542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.44||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||WPI||-0.44|-2.12|0.0029
91917249|NCT01552057|183732542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Symptom Severity||0.06|-0.79|0.0906
91917250|NCT01552057|183732543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.03||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Average Pain||0.03|-0.70|0.0755
91917251|NCT01552057|183732543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Worst Pain||-0.06|-0.88|0.0232
91917252|NCT01552057|183732544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Worst Pain||-0.12|-0.99|0.0126
91917253|NCT01552057|183732544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Least Pain||-0.12|-0.87|0.0092
91917254|NCT01552057|183732544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.15||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Pain Right Now||-0.15|-1.00|0.0083
91917255|NCT01552057|183732544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With General Activity||0.06|-0.98|0.0807
91917256|NCT01552057|183732544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.22||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Mood||-0.22|-1.29|0.0057
91917257|NCT01552057|183732544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.09||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Walking Ability||0.09|-0.84|0.1114
91917258|NCT01552057|183732544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.09||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Normal Work||0.09|-0.94|0.1081
91917259|NCT01552057|183732544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.07||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Relationships With Other People||-0.07|-1.04|0.0264
91917260|NCT01552057|183732544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.32||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Sleep||0.32|-0.81|0.3959
91917261|NCT01552057|183732544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.15||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Enjoyment of Life||-0.15|-1.18|0.0119
91917262|NCT01552057|183732544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.07||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Average Interference||-0.07|-0.96|0.0222
91917263|NCT01552057|183732545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.09|-0.71|0.0113
91917264|NCT01552057|183732546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.27||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.27|-0.94|0.0005
91917265|NCT01552057|183732547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.37||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.37|-1.07|<0.0001
91917266|NCT01552057|183732548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.06|-0.82|0.0226
91917267|NCT01552057|183732549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.02||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.74|0.0408
91917268|NCT03895203|183732550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.583|10.943|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.943|4.583|<0.001
91917269|NCT03895203|183732551|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.187|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|-0.125|||ANCOVA|||||-0.125|-0.249|<0.001
91917270|NCT03895203|183732553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|63.039|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.211|178.918|||Regression, Logistic|||||178.918|22.211|<0.001
91917271|NCT03895203|183732554|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.337|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.229|5.444|||ANCOVA|||||5.444|3.229|<0.001
91917272|NCT03895203|183732555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.447|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.668|8.088|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.088|3.668|<0.001
91809454|NCT01111149|183494248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Positive Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
91809455|NCT01111149|183494248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Negative Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
91809456|NCT01111149|183494248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Mania Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
91917273|NCT03895203|183732556|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.327||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.524|-0.13|||ANOVA|||||-0.130|-0.524|0.001
91917274|NCT03895203|183732557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.904||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.074|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.074|1.180|0.008
91917275|NCT03895203|183732558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.437||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.559|7.574|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.574|1.559|0.002
91917276|NCT03895203|183732560|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.281||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|-0.111|||ANCOVA|||||-0.111|-0.452|0.001
91917277|NCT04572633|183732570|OTHER||Wilson Score|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.72|100.0|||||Bootstrap sampling with replacement method to account for potential within-subject lesion correlations. Subject is the bootstrap sampling unit, 1,000,000 iterations for bootstrap resampling, and the bias-corrected and accelerated method was used.|||100|83.72|
91917278|NCT04572633|183732571|OTHER||Wilson Score|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|18.23||||||||18.23|2.35|
91917279|NCT03155997|183732578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747||||0.00957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.932|||Log Rank|Stratified by Interactive Web Response Systems (IWRS) Geographical Region, IWRS Prior Treatment, IWRS Menopausal Status|Stratified by IWRS Geographical Region, IWRS Prior Treatment, IWRS Menopausal Status|||0.932|0.598|0.00957
91917280|NCT03155997|183732580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|0.92|||||Stratified by IWRS Geographical Region, IWRS Prior Treatment, IWRS Menopausal Status|||0.920|0.559|
91917281|NCT00004054|183732592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.43|||Log Rank|||The original target sample size was 1440 patients with a requirement of 340 deaths to test the hypothesis of overall survival (OS) efficacy of the hormones and RT plus chemotherapy arm; the design is based on detecting a 6% absolute improvement in 5-year OS from 79% to 85%, or a 33% relative reduction in the yearly hazard rate, with 90% power and a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.43|0.76|0.81
91917282|NCT00004054|183732593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level of 0.05|Fine-Gray regression model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.27|0.74|0.82
91917283|NCT00004054|183732594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.1|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Fine-Gray regression model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.10|0.28|0.09
91917284|NCT00004054|183732595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.36|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Fine-Gray regression model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.36|0.48|0.42
91917285|NCT00004054|183732596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.19|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Cox proportional hazards model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.19|0.75|0.61
91917286|NCT02507349|183732604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||<0.0001
91917287|NCT02507349|183732604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and age group 1) where age group 1 is defined by 0 (reference) if \<=35; 1 if (35\<age\<=49); 2 if age \>49.||||0.0033
91917288|NCT02507349|183732604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3164|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and SMI group). Participants with a diagnosis of major depression, schizoaffective or schizophrenia were classified into the SMI group and the reference group (Non-SMI) included diagnosis of anxiety, PTSD, depression/dysthymia/depression nos.||||0.3164
91917289|NCT02507349|183732604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0482|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of time, treatment, and the basis subgroups (no symptoms =group 1; at least 1 severe symptom = group 2)||||0.0482
91917290|NCT02507349|183732604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9928|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction of Treatment, time, and subgroup of side effects. Subgroup of side effect= 0 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 1, 2, or 3 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are minimally bothered by medication side effects at baseline); Subgroup of side effect= 1 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 4-10 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are moderately or very bothered by medication side effects at baseline)||||0.9928
91917291|NCT02507349|183732605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6243|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.6243
91917292|NCT02507349|183732605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1969|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.1969
91917293|NCT02507349|183732605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and age group 1) where age group 1 is defined by 0 (reference) if \<=35; 1 if (35\<age\<=49); 2 if age \>49||||0.0042
91917294|NCT02507349|183732605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and SMI group). Participants with a diagnosis of major depression, schizoaffective or schizophrenia were classified into the SMI group and the reference group (Non-SMI) included diagnosis of anxiety, PTSD, depression/dysthymia/depression nos.||||0.0002
91917295|NCT02507349|183732605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7254|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of time, treatment, and the basis subgroups (no symptoms =group 1; at least 1 severe symptom = group 2)||||0.7254
91917296|NCT02507349|183732605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction of Treatment, time, and subgroup of side effects. Subgroup of side effect= 0 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 1, 2, or 3 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are minimally bothered by medication side effects at baseline); Subgroup of side effect= 1 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 4-10 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are moderately or very bothered by medication side effects at baseline)||||0.0580
91917297|NCT02507349|183732606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.4677
91809457|NCT01111149|183494248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Disorientation Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
91809458|NCT01111149|183494248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Depression Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
91809459|NCT01111149|183494249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Hit Reaction Time - CPT (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809460|NCT01111149|183494250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Variability of Standard Error - CPT (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809461|NCT01111149|183494251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Detectibility (d') of Continuous Performance Test (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917298|NCT02507349|183732606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0940
91917299|NCT02507349|183732607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8733|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.8733
91917300|NCT02507349|183732607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0113|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0113
91917301|NCT02507349|183732608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.2328
91917302|NCT02507349|183732608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0005
91917303|NCT02507349|183732609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.0033
91917304|NCT02507349|183732610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1649|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.1649
91917305|NCT02507349|183732610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0016
91917306|NCT02507349|183732611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.0080
91917307|NCT02507349|183732612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91917308|NCT02507349|183732613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
91917309|NCT00473876|183732634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|The differences between baseline and post-intervention (4 months) was analyzed using independent t-test, comparing metformin and placebo.||Null hypothesis: Metformin has no effect on peak VO2. We targetted 66 subjects and power calculation based on our previous observational study of CHF with insulin resistance with mean peak VO2 of 11.||||0.08
91917310|NCT00473876|183732635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.72||0.034||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|Compare between metformin and placebo arm.||Null hypothesis: Metformin has no effect on the ratio between VCO2 (production of CO2) and VE (ventilation), it is also called the VE/VCO2 slope||||0.034
91917311|NCT04373460|183732680|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.8|||Fisher Exact|||||5.8|1.0|0.005
91917312|NCT04373460|183732681|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||Rate per person-years|||||0.02|-0.11|0.16
91917313|NCT04373460|183732682|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|0.18||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32|||Rate per person-years|||||0.32|0.03|0.02
91917314|NCT04373460|183732683|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Rate per person-years|||||0.02|-0.01|0.32
91917315|NCT04373460|183732688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
91917316|NCT04373460|183732692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.525|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|1.425||||||||1.425|0.192|
91917317|NCT03359902|183732703|SUPERIORITY||beta|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed effects model was conducted to account for carryover and order effects in this crossover trial.~Assuming α = 0.05, two-sided test, and 60 participants in total. If the carryover effect is negligible, we will have 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.604 for memory improvement"||||0.11
91917318|NCT01795547|183732704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the primary endpoint was considered confirmed if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI at Week 28 was \> -5 or equivalently if the p-value for the 1-sided test of H0: D ≤ -5 against H1: D \> -5 was ≤2.5%, where D was the mean treatment difference (aripiprazole minus paliperidone). Superiority was then tested as pre-specified with the FAS and demonstrated for aripiprazole over paliperidone, since the lower bound of the 95% CI was \>0.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.666||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|9.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||Comparison of aripiprazole versus paliperidone was made using estimates from a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) using an unstructured covariance matrix.||9.015|0.316|0.036
91917319|NCT01795547|183732705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.492||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.935|-0.049||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||-0.049|-2.935|0.043
91917320|NCT01795547|183732706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.283||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|-0.09||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||-0.090|-0.477|0.004
91917321|NCT01795547|183732707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.331||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.782||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||0.782|-0.120|0.149
91917322|NCT01795547|183732708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.753||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|3.412||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||3.412|0.093|0.039
91917323|NCT01795547|183732709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.764||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|3.672||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||3.672|-0.143|0.070
91917324|NCT01795547|183732710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.922||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|2.119||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||2.119|-0.275|0.130
91917325|NCT01795547|183732711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.007||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.402|4.417||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||4.417|-2.402|0.561
91917326|NCT01795547|183732712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.695||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.511|0.121||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||0.121|-1.511|0.095
91917327|NCT00642642|183732713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|McNemar|Paired test of proportions||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the response rates between the two treatment arms.~Statistical test: McNemar's paired test of proportions Significance level: two sided alpha of 0.05 for each of the two co-primary endpoints.~Assumptions for power calculations:~Response rate for azficel-T treated cheek = 40% Response rate for placebo treated cheek = 20% 10% dropout rate; dropouts counted as failures. Low correlation between cheeks \& 50% correlation between endpoints"||||0.0109
91809462|NCT01111149|183494252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Response Style Indicator (Beta) for CPT (week 12)||||>0.05
91809463|NCT01111149|183494253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for WISDM Total (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809464|NCT01111149|183494253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for WISDM Cognition (Week 12)||||>0.05
91809465|NCT01111149|183494253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for WISDM Craving (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917328|NCT00642642|183732714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|McNemar|paired test of proportions||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the response rates between the two treatment arms.~Statistical test: McNemar's paired test of proportions Significance level: two sided alpha of 0.05 for each of the two co-primary endpoints.~Assumptions for power calculations:~Response rate for azficel-T treated cheek = 40% Response rate for placebo treated cheek = 20% 10% dropout rate; dropouts counted as failures. Low correlation between cheeks \& 50% correlation between endpoints"||||<0.0001
91917329|NCT00151892|183732717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentages of subjects in remission at 6 months of the two treatment groups will be computed. Non-inferiority of SPD476 to Asacol will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI lies above the non-inferiority margin of -10%.|Difference in proportions|0.02||||||95.0|-0.04|0.08||||||The null hypothesis to be tested is that the true difference in proportions is less than or equal to -10%.||0.08|-0.04|
91917330|NCT01272583|183732722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||1.0
91917331|NCT01272583|183732723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||GLP-1 intact|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA||||||<0.001
91917332|NCT01272583|183732723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||GLP-1 Total|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.98
91917333|NCT01272583|183732723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||GIP intact|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.049
91917334|NCT01272583|183732723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||GIP total|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA||||||0.44
91917335|NCT01272583|183732724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.14
91917336|NCT01272583|183732725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.98
91917337|NCT01272583|183732726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.22
91917338|NCT01272583|183732727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.01
91917339|NCT01272583|183732727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|Post Hoc testing||||||<0.05
91917340|NCT01272583|183732728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.76
91917341|NCT04672083|183732736|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"CPT31 dose proportionality will be examined across dose groups using a power model approach or ANOVA model, as appropriate.PK parameters will be analyzed using a power model that will have the following form: parameter = intercept × dose\^slope + random error.~Using the natural log (ln) transformation, a power model can be expressed as a linear regression equation: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + random error. For dose proportionality, the slope = 1; for dose independence, = 0."||||<0.05
91917342|NCT04672083|183732737|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"CPT31 dose proportionality will be examined across dose groups using a power model approach or ANOVA model, as appropriate.PK parameters will be analyzed using a power model that will have the following form: parameter = intercept × dose\^slope + random error.~Using the natural log (ln) transformation, a power model can be expressed as a linear regression equation: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + random error. For dose proportionality, the slope = 1; for dose independence, = 0."||||<0.05
91917343|NCT04672083|183732738|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% confidence interval for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
91917344|NCT04672083|183732739|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
91917345|NCT04672083|183732740|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
91763918|NCT00286429|183418395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.651|6.06||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||6.060|1.651|<0.001
91763919|NCT00286429|183418395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.989|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.083|7.64||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||7.640|2.083|<0.001
91809466|NCT01111149|183494254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS % Urge to Smoke (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917346|NCT04672083|183732741|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
91917347|NCT04672083|183732742|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
91917348|NCT04672083|183732743|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentrations for all subjects in Cohorts 1-3 were below the limit of quantification.||||<0.05
91917349|NCT04672083|183732744|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentrations for all subjects in Cohorts 1-3 were below the limit of quantitation||||<0.05
91917350|NCT04672083|183732745|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentrations for all subjects in Cohorts 1-3 were below the limit of quantitation||||<0.05
91917351|NCT04672083|183732746|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
91917352|NCT02764541|183732747|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference in anti-proliferative activity of Letrozole vs Tamoxifen by measuring the fold-change in percent Ki67 from baseline to day15 in log scale within hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients with invasive ductal carcinoma||||||0.0045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0045
91917353|NCT02764541|183732747|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference in anti-proliferative activity of Letrozole vs Tamoxifen by measuring the fold-change in percent Ki67 from baseline to day15 in log scale within hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients with invasive lobular carcinoma||||||0.0161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0161
91917354|NCT02764541|183732748|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference of pathologic response measured by RCB index between Arm C and Arm D||||||0.9288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9288
91917355|NCT02764541|183732750|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference of pathologic response measured by RCB index between Arm C and Arm D|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||||0.32|-0.29|0.920
91917356|NCT02764541|183732751|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference of RCB response rate between Arm C and Arm D||||||0.758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
91917357|NCT00749190|183732757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 1 mg minus placebo|||-0.03|-0.44|0.0226
91917358|NCT00749190|183732757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.18||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 5 mg minus placebo|||-0.18|-0.59|0.0002
91917359|NCT00749190|183732757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.51||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10 mg minus placebo|||-0.51|-0.91|<0.0001
91917360|NCT00749190|183732757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.5||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25 mg minus placebo|||-0.50|-0.91|<0.0001
91917361|NCT00749190|183732757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.43||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 50 mg minus placebo|||-0.43|-0.84|<0.0001
91917362|NCT03726268|183732794|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.970
91809467|NCT01111149|183494254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS % Strong Urge (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917363|NCT03726268|183732794|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.631
91917364|NCT03726268|183732795|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91917365|NCT03726268|183732795|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91917366|NCT03726268|183732796|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91917367|NCT03726268|183732796|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91917368|NCT03726268|183732797|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91917369|NCT03726268|183732797|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91917370|NCT03726268|183732798|OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.105
91917371|NCT03726268|183732798|OTHER|||||||0.531|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.531
91917372|NCT00490542|183732799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.2||||||||10.2|0.6|
91917373|NCT03136107|183732818|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical criterion defined in ISO 24444:2010 is that the 95 %CI is within ±17 % of the mean SPF||||||||||||||||CI % values (which is the percentage that half the 95 % CI represents of the mean values).|Test product CI of ±16.4% and reference product CI of ±16.6% of the mean SPF.|||
91917374|NCT01707992|183732823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.937|||=|0.7057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.313||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazards model|||The primary analysis for the comparison between laquinimod 0.6 mg versus placebo was conducted using the baseline adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. Categorical EDSS at baseline (less than or equal to \[\<=\] 4 or greater than \[\>\] 4), country/geographical region (CGR), categorical age at baseline (\<=38 or \>38), and T2 volume at baseline were included as covariates in the model.||1.313|0.668|= 0.7057
91917375|NCT03498521|183732847|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|0.75||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.95|||Stratified log-rank|||||0.95|0.59|0.0177
91917376|NCT02848833|183732875|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91917377|NCT02848833|183732878|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91917378|NCT02848833|183732879|OTHER|Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91917379|NCT02848833|183732880|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91917380|NCT02848833|183732881|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91917381|NCT04167345|183732929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.3|1.1|<.0001
91917382|NCT04167345|183732929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9|1.1|<.0001
91809468|NCT01111149|183494255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for AIMS Total (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917383|NCT04167345|183732931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.0||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|0.5|0.0114
91917384|NCT04167345|183732931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5|1.1|0.0009
91917385|NCT00824564|183732967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.63||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.7|61.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference with associated standard error (SE), and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||61.7|-172.7|0.348
91917386|NCT00824564|183732968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.78||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|89.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference with associated SE and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||89.3|-41.3|0.466
91917387|NCT00824564|183732969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 1 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||2.2|-20.7|0.109
91917388|NCT00824564|183732969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 4 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||-0.1|-13.4|0.045
91917389|NCT00824564|183732969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 8 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||1.8|-15.4|0.119
91917390|NCT00824564|183732969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|7.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 24 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||7.5|-52.9|0.139
91917391|NCT00824564|183732970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.1||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.2|288.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||288.6|-238.2|0.849
91917392|NCT00824564|183732971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used at 5% level of significance.||||0.714
91917393|NCT00824564|183732972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at end of surgery, a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.96|-0.21|0.208
91917394|NCT00824564|183732972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at 1 hour post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.61|-0.40|0.682
91917395|NCT00824564|183732972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at day 1 post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.63|-0.35|0.569
91917396|NCT00824564|183732972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at day 2 post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.70|-0.29|0.413
91763920|NCT00286429|183418396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.732|11.953||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||11.953|1.732|0.002
91763921|NCT00286429|183418396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|12.052||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||12.052|1.740|0.002
91809469|NCT01111149|183494255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for AIMS Severity Index (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917397|NCT00824564|183732972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at day 4/ET post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.66|-0.44|0.686
91917398|NCT00824564|183732973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test at 5% level of significance was used as the event rate was low and the expected count for any cell in the (unstratified) 2\*2 contingency table was less than 5.||||0.241
91917399|NCT02073487|183732998|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91917400|NCT02886702|183733005|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval on the difference between the proportions to be within \[-20%, +20%\].|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||||90.0|-12.6|3.6||p-value not calculated|Yates' corrected confidence interval|||||3.6|-12.6|
91917401|NCT02886702|183733005|SUPERIORITY|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) for missing efficacy values||||||0.352|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.3520
91917402|NCT02886702|183733006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8105|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.8105
91917403|NCT02886702|183733006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.0613
91917404|NCT02886702|183733007|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||1.0000
91917405|NCT02886702|183733007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0712|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.0712
91917406|NCT00054847|183733014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.84||Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for stratification factors and characteristics that were potentially predictive of graft patency. We also performed prespecified subgroup analyses and assessed treatment subgroup interaction.|Chi-squared|We performed as-treated and per-protocol analyses \& multiple imputations as sensitivity analyses to the intent-to-treat analysis on primary end point.||The study was designed to have 90% power to detect 1-year patency rates of 92% in radial artery vs 83% in saphenous vein grafts, with a 2-sided type I error of 5%and an expected 1-year catheterization completion rate of 65%.||1.84|.62|.82
91917407|NCT00054847|183733015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.61
91917408|NCT00054847|183733016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.99
91917409|NCT01147926|183733040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91917410|NCT02207907|183733179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.491|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.317|-14.664|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA analysis with treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline MGI and BI as covariates|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-14.664|-20.317|<0.0001
91917411|NCT02207907|183733180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.201|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|-0.165|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA analysis with treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline MGI and BI as covariates|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.165|-0.237|<0.0001
91917412|NCT01025635|183733194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|study center adjusted||||||0.017
91917413|NCT01025635|183733195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|with factors treatment group, study center, and baseline lesion count as covariate||||||<0.001
91917414|NCT00929240|183733236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.383|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.551||Stratified by interactive voice/Web response system (IVRS), estrogen receptor (ER) status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level.|Log Rank||Stratified by IVRS, ER status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and LDH level.|||0.551|0.266|<0.0001
91809470|NCT01111149|183494255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for AIMS Global Score (Week 12)||||>0.05
91917415|NCT00929240|183733236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.429|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.597|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis||||0.597|0.309|<0.0001
91917416|NCT00929240|183733237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|20.3|||Chi-squared||CIs with Hauck-Anderson adjustment for difference in rates of bevacizumab + capecitabine arm to bevacizumab alone arm.|||20.3|-2.1|0.113
91917417|NCT00929240|183733238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.6|||Chi-squared||CIs with Hauck-Anderson adjustment for difference in rates of Bevacizumab+Capecitabine group to Bevacizumab only group.|||4.6|-2.6|0.580
91809471|NCT02221947|183494259|OTHER||mean Tmax(h)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||SD=0.206|Bryostatin plasma concentration: mean Tmax (h)||||
91809472|NCT02221947|183494259|OTHER||mean (h*ng/mL)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||SD=0.330|Bryostatin plasma concentration AUC0-last (h\*ng/mL)||||
91917418|NCT00929240|183733240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.685||Stratified by IVRS, ER status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and LDH level.|Log Rank|||||0.685|0.263|<0.0003
91917419|NCT00929240|183733240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.516||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|0.798||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank|||||0.798|0.334|0.002
91917420|NCT00929240|183733243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.383|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.551||Stratified by IVRS, ER status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and LDH level.|Log Rank||Stratification variables are randomisation stratification parameters as of IVRS: ER status, Visceral metastasis (yes/no), Response to initial phase, LDH concentration level.|||0.551|0.266|<0.0001
91917421|NCT00929240|183733243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.591||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was determined using the cox regression model.|||0.591|0.305|<0.0001
91917422|NCT01834404|183733268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.057
91917423|NCT01834404|183733269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.052
91917424|NCT01834404|183733270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
91917425|NCT01834404|183733271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.99
91917426|NCT01834404|183733272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
91917427|NCT01834404|183733273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.22
91917428|NCT01834404|183733274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.032
91917429|NCT01834404|183733275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This p-value was based on a rank transformation.||||0.030
91917430|NCT01834404|183733276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
91917431|NCT01834404|183733277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.72
91917432|NCT01834404|183733278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.90
91917433|NCT01834404|183733279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91917434|NCT01834404|183733280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91917435|NCT01276288|183733300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|107.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|118.07||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus HCT divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||118.07|97.11|0.0092
91917436|NCT01276288|183733300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|107.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.14|116.11||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus TOR divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||116.11|100.14|0.0030
91917437|NCT01276288|183733301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|102.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.55|119.29||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ HCT divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||119.29|88.55|0.0199
91917438|NCT01276288|183733301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|107.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.3||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.9|118.04||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||118.04|97.90|0.0086
91917439|NCT01276288|183733302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|96.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.08|104.05||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus HCT divided by HCT"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||104.05|89.08|0.0008
91917440|NCT01276288|183733303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|101.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.1||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.63|116.85||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ HCT divided by HCT"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||116.85|88.63|0.0114
91917441|NCT01276288|183733304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|101.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.06|103.88||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus TOR divided by TOR"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||103.88|99.06|<0.0001
91917442|NCT01276288|183733304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|104.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.39|108.62||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M1 divided by TOR-M1"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||108.62|100.39|<0.0001
91917443|NCT01276288|183733304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|103.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.93|111.01||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M3 divided by TOR-M3"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||111.01|95.93|0.0005
91917444|NCT01276288|183733305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|104.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.81|116.25||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR divided by TOR"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||116.25|93.81|0.0066
91917445|NCT01276288|183733305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|102.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.13|111.97||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M1 divided by TOR-M1"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||111.97|94.13|0.0012
91809473|NCT01574326|183494273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.37|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.||Primary efficacy endpoint, change from baseline to Week 2 in serum phosphorus, was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline phosphorus and screening BSA as covariates and fixed effect for treatment. No center effect was included in the model. The estimate of the treatment difference (Sevelamer Carbonate - Placebo) and its 95% CI were presented. Significance was to be declared if the p-value was ≤0.05.||-0.37|-1.44|0.001
91917446|NCT01276288|183733305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|102.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|107.42||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M3 divided by TOR-M3"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||107.42|97.65|<0.0001
91917447|NCT01478958|183733318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238||||||Overall diet effect. No post-hoc analyses required. Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI, age, gender and intervention diet used as prognostic factors in model.||To detect a 2% inter-group difference in FMD (primary outcome) using a SD of 2.3, 90% power and 5% significance level, n=171 participants were required (n=57 per group), increasing to n=228 to include a 25% dropout rate.||||0.238
91917448|NCT01478958|183733318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Effect of the SFA-rich diet relative to baseline.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI and age, gender and intervention diet were used as prognostic factors in the model.||||||0.021
91917449|NCT01478958|183733318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Effect of MUFA-rich diet relative to baseline.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI and age, gender and intervention diet were used as prognostic factors in the model.||||||>0.05
91917450|NCT01478958|183733318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Effect of n-6 PUFA-rich diet relative to baseline.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI and age, gender and intervention diet were used as prognostic factors in the model.||||||>0.05
91917451|NCT05003115|183733337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-6.36||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|1.44|||Regression, Linear|||||1.44|-14.17|0.101
91917452|NCT05003115|183733338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.59|||Regression, Linear|||||0.59|-0.79|0.78
91917453|NCT05003115|183733339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-0.95||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.94|||Regression, Linear|||||0.94|-2.83|0.314
91917454|NCT05003115|183733340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-1.04||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.92|||Regression, Linear|||||3.92|-6.00|0.679
91763922|NCT00286429|183418398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.24|-0.81|0.291
91809474|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||||90.0|-0.041|-0.007|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.007|-0.041|
91917455|NCT05003115|183733341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.25|||Regression, Linear|||||2.25|-2.23|0.994
91917456|NCT05003115|183733342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-1.22||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.89|||Regression, Linear|||||0.89|-3.33|0.258
91917457|NCT05003115|183733343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-0.4||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|3.96|||Regression, Linear|||||3.96|-4.75|0.857
91917458|NCT01147809|183733350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|21.1||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|52.5|||ANCOVA|||||52.5|-3.9|0.103
91917459|NCT01147809|183733372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|12.9||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|51.1|||ANCOVA|||||51.1|-15.6|0.407
91917460|NCT01147809|183733373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-4.4||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|37.4|||ANCOVA|||||37.4|-33.5|0.802
91917461|NCT01307423|183733381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|20.7|||Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||20.7|3.5|0.0062
91917462|NCT01307423|183733381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|23.5|||Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||23.5|6.1|0.0010
91917463|NCT01307423|183733382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.168||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|-0.071|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.071|-0.265|0.0008
91917464|NCT01307423|183733382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.217|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|-0.12|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.120|-0.314|<.0001
91917465|NCT01307423|183733383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|24.4||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.4|7.7|0.0002
91917466|NCT01307423|183733383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|19.4||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||19.4|3.3|0.0063
91917467|NCT01307423|183733384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.168||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.271|-0.065||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||-0.065|-0.271|0.0014
91917468|NCT01307423|183733384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.219|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|-0.117||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||-0.117|-0.322|<.0001
91917469|NCT01307423|183733385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.38||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.01||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||4.01|0.75|0.0043
91917470|NCT01307423|183733385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.82||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||4.82|1.55|0.0002
91917471|NCT01307423|183733386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|24.0||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.0|4.8|0.0037
91917472|NCT01307423|183733386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|30.7||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||30.7|11.3|<.0001
91917473|NCT01307423|183733387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate||||-0.0|-10.0|0.0485
91763923|NCT00286429|183418398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.32||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.32|-0.74|0.439
91917474|NCT01307423|183733387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-2.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate||||-2.8|-12.8|0.0022
91917475|NCT01307423|183733388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||0.6|-0.8|0.7696
91917476|NCT01307423|183733388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.3|-1.7|0.0038
91809475|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||||90.0|-0.04|-0.003|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.003|-0.040|
91809476|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||||90.0|-0.038|0.001|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.001|-0.038|
91917477|NCT01307423|183733389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.2|-1.6|
91917478|NCT01307423|183733389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.0|-1.4|
91917479|NCT01307423|183733390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-2.78|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-2.78|-7.04|
91917480|NCT01307423|183733390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|-3.51|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-3.51|-7.78|
91917481|NCT01307423|183733391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.25|-0.67|<0.0001
91917482|NCT01307423|183733391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32|||ANCOVA||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.32|-0.74|<0.0001
91917483|NCT01307423|183733392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.87|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||2.87|-0.63|
91917484|NCT01307423|183733392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.31|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||4.31|0.80|
91917485|NCT01307423|183733393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Difference|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.65|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||3.65|0.28|
91917486|NCT01307423|183733393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.41|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||5.41|2.02|
91917487|NCT01307423|183733394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|28.6|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||28.6|10.5|
91917488|NCT01307423|183733394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|27.2|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||27.2|9.2|
91917489|NCT01307423|183733395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.5|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.5|-10.6|
91763924|NCT00286429|183418399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.55|-0.67|0.841
91917490|NCT01307423|183733395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.7|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.7|-10.8|
91917491|NCT01307423|183733396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.0|
91917492|NCT01307423|183733396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.2|-1.6|
91917493|NCT01307423|183733397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.3|-1.7|
91917494|NCT01307423|183733397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.1|-1.4|
91917495|NCT01307423|183733398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-2.84|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.84|-7.31|
91917496|NCT01307423|183733398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-2.89|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.89|-7.38|
91917497|NCT01307423|183733399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.23|-0.70|<0.0001
91917498|NCT01307423|183733399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.22|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.22|-0.69|0.0001
91917499|NCT01307423|183733400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.93|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||2.93|-0.68|
91917500|NCT01307423|183733400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.15|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||4.15|0.52|
91917501|NCT01307423|183733401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|15.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||15.5|-10.2|
91917502|NCT01307423|183733401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|29.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||29.8|4.2|
91917503|NCT01307423|183733402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|20.4|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||20.4|-7.8|
91917504|NCT01307423|183733402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|16.4|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||16.4|-12.6|
91917505|NCT01307423|183733403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|25.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||25.8|6.4|
91917506|NCT01307423|183733403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|29.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||29.1|9.6|
91917507|NCT01307423|183733404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|18.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||18.8|-6.8|
91917508|NCT01307423|183733404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|30.6|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||30.6|5.3|
91917509|NCT01307423|183733405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|25.9|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||25.9|-2.1|
91917510|NCT01307423|183733405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|19.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||19.8|-9.2|
91917511|NCT01307423|183733406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|26.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||26.8|8.8|
91917512|NCT01307423|183733406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.0|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||20.0|2.7|
91917513|NCT01307423|183733407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|12.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||12.5|1.3|
91809477|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||||90.0|-0.058|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.019|-0.058|
91809478|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.065|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.020|-0.065|
91917514|NCT01307423|183733407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.4|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||12.4|1.2|
91917515|NCT01307423|183733408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.2|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||6.2|-0.4|
91917516|NCT01307423|183733408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||6.1|-0.4|
91917517|NCT01307423|183733409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||16.3|3.2|
91809479|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.043|0.002|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.002|-0.043|
91917518|NCT01307423|183733409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|12.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||12.3|0.2|
91917519|NCT01307423|183733410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.1|-4.1|
91917520|NCT01307423|183733410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.8|-3.7|
91917521|NCT01307423|183733411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|12.6|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||12.6|-8.1|
91917522|NCT01307423|183733411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|29.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||29.3|6.3|
91917523|NCT01307423|183733412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|23.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||23.5|-4.8|
91917524|NCT01307423|183733412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|21.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||21.5|-7.2|
91917525|NCT01307423|183733413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|17.7|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||17.7|-4.8|
91917526|NCT01307423|183733413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|27.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||27.1|3.4|
91917527|NCT01307423|183733414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|24.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.8|-3.8|
91917528|NCT01307423|183733414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|19.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||19.3|-9.5|
91917529|NCT00805207|183733454|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
91917530|NCT00805207|183733454|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91917531|NCT00805207|183733454|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||P-value is the main effect of treatment (i.e., Before vs. After) from ANOVA|ANOVA|VLDL-TG secretion rates were skewed and log transformed prior to performing ANOVA||||||0.88
91917532|NCT00805207|183733454|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||P-value is the main effect of group (i.e., Testosterone, Progesterone, Estrogen and Control) from ANOVA|ANOVA|VLDL-TG secretion rates were skewed and log transformed prior to performing ANOVA||||||0.26
91917533|NCT00805207|183733454|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P value is the group by treatment interaction from the ANOVA|ANOVA|VLDL-TG secretion rates were skewed and log transformed prior to performing ANOVA||||||0.98
91917534|NCT00805207|183733455|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91917535|NCT00805207|183733455|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91917536|NCT00805207|183733455|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91917537|NCT00805207|183733455|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.87
91917538|NCT00805207|183733455|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.57
91917539|NCT00805207|183733456|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91917540|NCT00805207|183733456|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91917541|NCT00805207|183733456|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.53
91809480|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.066|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.020|-0.066|
91917542|NCT00805207|183733456|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
91917543|NCT00805207|183733457|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
91917544|NCT00805207|183733458|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91917545|NCT00805207|183733458|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P-value is the main effect of treatment (i.e., Before vs. After) from ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91917546|NCT00805207|183733458|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||P-value is the main effect of group (i.e., Testosterone, Progesterone, Estrogen and Control) from ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||0.96
91917547|NCT00805207|183733458|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value is the group by treatment interaction from the ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91917548|NCT00805207|183733458|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Tukey test|||||||<0.01
91917549|NCT00805207|183733458|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Tukey test|||||||<0.01
91917550|NCT00805207|183733458|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Tukey test|||||||>0.10
91917551|NCT00805207|183733458|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Tukey test|||||||>0.10
91917552|NCT00064701|183733459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-8.9|5.2||||||||5.2|-8.9|
91917553|NCT00064701|183733459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-9.9|4.0||||||||4.0|-9.9|
91917554|NCT00064701|183733460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.6||||||||0.6|-7.2|
91917555|NCT00064701|183733460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.2||||||||3.2|-3.1|
91917556|NCT00064701|183733461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.9||||||||0.9|-8.5|
91917557|NCT00064701|183733461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1||||||||4.1|-4.0|
91917558|NCT00064701|183733462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 6 Months|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-3.0||||||Comparison of tacrolimus with cyclosporine at 6 months||-3.0|-13.1|
91917559|NCT00064701|183733462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 6 Months|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.8||||||Comparison of Tacrolimus Modified Release with Cyclosporine at 6 months||1.8|-9.5|
91917560|NCT00064701|183733462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 12 Months|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-0.3||||||Comparison of tacrolimus with cyclosporine at 12 months||-0.3|-12.0|
91917561|NCT00064701|183733462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 12 months|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.8||||||Comparison of Tacrolimus Modified Release with Cyclosporine at 12 months||2.8|-9.6|
91917562|NCT00064701|183733472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.5||||||||5.5|-6.5|
91917563|NCT00064701|183733472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.9||||||||6.9|-3.9|
91917564|NCT00064701|183733473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|6.6||||||||6.6|-9.1|
91917565|NCT00064701|183733473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.6||||||||8.6|-7.1|
91917566|NCT01818297|183733474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.14|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|||Due to early termination, the study was insufficiently powered to test the primary objective. This analysis is exploratory and descriptive in nature and cannot be considered conclusive.|Z-test|The Z-test (using an unpooled standard deviation, without continuity correction) was used to test the difference in responder rates between groups.|The Estimation Parameter is the difference between the responder rates in the Treatment and Control groups. The difference is calculated as Treatment - Control. A positive number represents a higher responder rate in the Treatment group.|The original sample size estimate for the primary objective was based on the following assumptions: 109 subjects in each arm with a responder rate of 22% in the Control group and 40% in the Treatment group, and a one-sided α= 0.05 using a Z test with unpooled variance, would result in 90% power. Because the study terminated early, the actual sample size (32 in Treatment, 30 in Control) resulted in 47% power under the same assumptions.|||-5.8|0.14
91917567|NCT02630953|183733522|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.22||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.15|28.7||Significance level was set at .05 a priori.|quantile regression|Bootstrapped standard errors (10,000 replications)||Using a series of quantile regression models with bootstrapped standard errors (10,000 replications) we examined the potential treatment effects on MVPA at follow-ups, controlling for baseline. Quantile regression models the median outcome instead of the mean, and are appropriate when data is skewed (as was the case in both self-reported and objectively measured MVPA).||28.70|-41.15|0.24
91917568|NCT02630953|183733523|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.37|47.37||Significance was set at .05 a priori|quantile regression|||Using a series of quantile regression models with bootstrapped standard errors (10,000 replications) we examined the potential treatment effects on MVPA at follow-up, controlling for baseline||47.37|-32.37|0.73
91917569|NCT02630953|183733524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|>|0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set at .05 a priori|Regression, Linear|||Using a series of generalized linear models with identity link, we examined treatment effects on biomarkers at 6 months controlling for baseline and potential confounders.||||>.06
91917570|NCT01957137|183733568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3773|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The final model included cycling, period and the interaction between cycling and period.||||||0.3773
91917571|NCT01957137|183733569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2396|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The final model included cycling and period.||||||0.2396
91917572|NCT01957137|183733570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8874|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The final model included cycling and period.||||||0.8874
91917573|NCT02901431|183733625|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted LSMeans|-0.16||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.23|-2.56|0.911
91917574|NCT02901431|183733626|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjused LSMean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|2.43||||||Week 12||2.43|-1.85|
91917575|NCT02901431|183733626|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.67|2.22||||||Week 24||2.22|-2.67|
91917576|NCT02901431|183733627|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|1.92||||||Communication Domain Standard Score, Week 12||1.92|-2.36|
91917577|NCT02901431|183733627|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|3.02||||||Communication Domain Standard Score, Week 24||3.02|-1.60|
91917578|NCT02901431|183733627|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|3.12||||||Socialization Domain Standard Score, Week 12||3.12|-2.10|
91917579|NCT02901431|183733627|SUPERIORITY|Socialization Domain Standard Score, Week 24|Difference in adjusted LSMean|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|2.51||||||||2.51|-3.74|
91917580|NCT02901431|183733627|SUPERIORITY|Daily Living Skills Domain Standard Score, Week 12|Difference in adjusted LSMean|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|4.9||||||||4.90|-0.63|
91917581|NCT02901431|183733627|SUPERIORITY|Daily Living Skills Domain Standard Score, Week 24|Differences in adjusted LSMean|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.87|3.22||||||||3.22|-2.87|
91917582|NCT02901431|183733633|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Adjusted LS Means|3.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||6.70|0.78|
91917583|NCT02901431|183733633|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Adjusted LS means|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|5.29||||||Week 24||5.29|-0.73|
91917584|NCT02901431|183733635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted LS Means|0.01||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-1.99|0.992
91809481|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.058|-0.009|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.009|-0.058|
91917585|NCT00215150|183733692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Results are from a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the difference from endpoint to baseline for the intent to treat sample from the open label phase of the project.||||< 0.001
91917586|NCT00215150|183733692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Results are from a Kruskal Wallis test on the ziprasidone/placebo groups from the randomization phase of the project.||||> .05
91917587|NCT03464045|183733729|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Crude hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Crude HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model with as-treated exposure (continuous exposure to the study drugs, defined as having consecutive treatment episodes separated by a grace period of 30 days, starting from index date) as the only included variable. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.06|0.61|0.122
91917588|NCT03464045|183733729|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.18|||Regression, Cox||Base hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|"Base HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level to avoid converge failure.~Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes."||1.18|0.67|0.417
91763925|NCT00286429|183418399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.43||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.43|-0.80|0.556
91763926|NCT00286429|183418400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.46|-0.81|0.586
91763927|NCT00286429|183418400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.37|-0.91|0.404
91763928|NCT00286429|183418401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.72||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.72|-0.62|0.874
91809482|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.039|0.009|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.009|-0.039|
91809483|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.027|0.017|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.017|-0.027|
91809484|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.037|0.012|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.012|-0.037|
91917589|NCT03464045|183733729|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Adjusted HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching, and pre-specified time-varying covariates. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.17|0.66|0.376
91917590|NCT03464045|183733730|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Crude hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Crude HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model with as-treated exposure (continuous exposure to the study drugs, defined as having consecutive treatment episodes separated by a grace period of 30 days, starting from index date) as the only included variable. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.15|0.55|0.220
91917591|NCT03464045|183733730|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.32|||Regression, Cox||Base hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|"Base HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level to avoid converge failure.~Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes."||1.32|0.63|0.628
91809485|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.076|-0.014|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.014|-0.076|
91809486|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.076|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.013|-0.076|
91917592|NCT03464045|183733730|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.33|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Adjusted HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching, and pre-specified time-varying covariates. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.33|0.63|0.632
91917593|NCT03464045|183733731|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29|||Regression, Cox||Crude hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Crude HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model with as-treated exposure (continuous exposure to the study drugs, defined as having consecutive treatment episodes separated by a grace period of 30 days, starting from index date) as the only included variable. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.29|0.54|0.420
91917594|NCT03464045|183733731|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Regression, Cox||Base hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|"Base HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level to avoid converge failure.~Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes."||1.38|0.57|0.606
91917595|NCT03464045|183733731|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Adjusted HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching, and pre-specified time-varying covariates. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.38|0.57|0.609
91917596|NCT03878147|183733737|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||4.01|0.78|<.01
91917597|NCT03878147|183733737|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.44||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||2.44|-0.80|.32
91917598|NCT03878147|183733737|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|0.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.16|-3.74|.07
91917599|NCT03878147|183733737|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||1.68|-2.10|.83
91917600|NCT03878147|183733738|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.42||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.42|-0.71|.65
91917601|NCT03878147|183733738|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.58|-0.54|.95
91917602|NCT03878147|183733738|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.13||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.13|-0.92|.34
91917603|NCT03878147|183733738|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.58|-0.73|.81
91917604|NCT03878147|183733739|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.043||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.043|0.004|.01
91917605|NCT03878147|183733739|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.040|0.003|.02
91917606|NCT03878147|183733739|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.05|-0.01|.19
91917607|NCT03878147|183733739|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.04|-0.01|.19
91917608|NCT05817045|183733746|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.31|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to sustained resolution of COVID-19 signs and symptoms without subsequent recurrence or disease progression (until the end of the study) Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.310|0.777|0.948
91917609|NCT05817045|183733746|SUPERIORITY|Per-Protocol Population|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.337||adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score.|NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to sustained resolution of COVID-19 signs and symptoms without subsequent symptom recurrence or disease progression (until the end of the study) Per-Protocol Population||1.337|0.774|0.902
91917610|NCT05817045|183733746|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.342|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19;|NPANCOVA analysis for time to sustained resolution of COVID-19 signs and symptoms without subsequent symptom recurrence or disease progression (until the end of the study) - Secondary Analysis (FAS excluding subjects that were qPCR negative at baseline)||1.342|0.782|0.859
91917611|NCT05817045|183733748|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.596|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virologic rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.596|1.047|0.017
91917612|NCT05817045|183733748|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.665|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19;|NPANCOVA analysis for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) (Per-Protocol population)||1.665|1.059|0.014
91917613|NCT05817045|183733748|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|1.69|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) - Secondary analysis - (FAS excluding subjects that were qPCR negative at baseline)||1.690|1.086|0.007
91917614|NCT05817045|183733748|SUPERIORITY|SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test type: Flowflex|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|1.997|||||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|Cox proportional hazards model for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) (FAS)||1.997|1.064|
91917615|NCT05817045|183733748|SUPERIORITY|SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test type: BinaxNOW|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.561|||||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|Subgroup Analysis - Cox proportional hazards model for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) (FAS)||1.561|0.801|
91917616|NCT02148029|183733825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|||3.1|-1.1|0.34
91917617|NCT02148029|183733826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|||8.0|-7.1|0.89
91917618|NCT02148029|183733827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|8.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Physical Functioning (PF) domain score.||8.4|-20.3|0.43
91917619|NCT02148029|183733827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Role limitations due to Physical health problems (RP) domain score.||11.6|-1.6|0.13
91917620|NCT02148029|183733827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Role limitations due to mental health or Emotional problems (RE) domain score.||8.2|-2.8|0.33
91917621|NCT02148029|183733827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|20.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the energy/fatigue/Vitality (VT) domain score.||20.0|-8.7|0.43
91917622|NCT02148029|183733827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|8.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Mental Health/emotional well-being (MH) domain score.||8.6|-13.8|0.64
91917623|NCT02148029|183733827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|12.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Social Functioning (SF) domain score.||12.8|-20.5|0.64
91917624|NCT02148029|183733827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|29.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Bodily Pain (BP) domain score.||29.7|-10.7|0.35
91917625|NCT02148029|183733827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the General Health (GH) domain score.||7.0|-14.1|0.50
91917626|NCT02148029|183733828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.5|27.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|||27.7|-95.5|0.27
91917627|NCT02148029|183733829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Reflux - No reflux|||0.1|-3.4|0.07
91917628|NCT02148029|183733830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = PTS - No PTS|||0.9|-0.8|0.91
91763929|NCT00286429|183418401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.65||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.65|-0.70|0.948
91763930|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||2.12|1.03|
91763931|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||1.28|0.67|
91763932|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.96|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||1.96|0.97|
91917629|NCT03905928|183733831|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||This was a whole-brain, voxel-wise general linear model conducted in FSL software using a one-sample t-test on the tobacco\>strawberry condition contrasts conducted at the subject-level.|A whole-brain, one-sample t-test was used with a voxel threshold p \<.001 and cluster threshold p\<.05. This method results in unique p-values for each cluster identified.|||
91917630|NCT03905928|183733832|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||This was a whole-brain, voxel-wise repeated measures ANOVA conducted using FSL software on activation from baseline to post-intervention that differ by the nicotine groups (18 mg/ml vs. 0 mg/ml) for the tobacco\>strawberry condition contrasts calculated at the subject-level. The means and standard deviations presented are the average post-pre scan difference scores of the BOLD percentage signal change of tobacco \> strawberry contrasts for each group.|A whole-brain, repeated measures ANOVA was used with a voxel threshold p \<.025 and cluster threshold p\<.05. This method results in unique p-values for each cluster identified.|||
91917631|NCT03905928|183733833|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||This was a whole-brain, voxel-wise repeated measures ANOVA conducted using FSL software on activation from baseline to post-intervention between the flavor groups (tobacco vs. strawberry) for the tobacco\>strawberry condition contrasts calculated at the subject-level. The means and standard deviations presented are the average post-pre scan difference scores of the BOLD percentage signal change of tobacco \> strawberry contrasts for each group.|A whole-brain, repeated measures ANOVA was used with a voxel threshold p \<.025 and cluster threshold p\<.05. This method results in unique p-values for each cluster identified.|||
91917632|NCT03905928|183733834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a one-way ANOVA to compare the change in e-cigarette dependence (week 4 - week 2 PSECDI difference score) between the four e-cigarette groups.||||0.573
91917633|NCT03905928|183733836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a one-way ANOVA to compare changes in self-reported craving across all groups.||||.022
91917634|NCT05424276|183733837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.895||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.522|2.985||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment||2.985|-4.522|0.686
91917635|NCT05424276|183733837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.876||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.745|4.687||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment||4.687|-2.745|0.606
91917636|NCT05424276|183733837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.925||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.539|5.086||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment||5.086|-2.539|0.509
91917637|NCT05424276|183733838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.717|2.611||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment||2.611|-1.717|0.683
91917638|NCT05424276|183733838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.783|3.495||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment||3.495|-0.783|0.212
91917639|NCT05424276|183733838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.749|2.654||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment||2.654|-1.749|0.685
91917640|NCT05424276|183733839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.304||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of treatment||0.304|-0.139|0.463
91917641|NCT05424276|183733839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.383||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.383|-0.051|0.133
91917642|NCT05424276|183733839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.286||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.286|-0.159|0.575
91917643|NCT05424276|183733840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.092||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 week of dosing||0.092|-0.488|0.178
91917644|NCT05424276|183733840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.3||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.300|-0.274|0.931
91917645|NCT05424276|183733840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|0.163||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.163|-0.426|0.380
91917646|NCT05424276|183733841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.669||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.308|0.342||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.342|-2.308|0.144
91917647|NCT05424276|183733841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.096||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||-0.096|-2.720|0.036
91917648|NCT05424276|183733841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.514|0.18||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.180|-2.514|0.089
91917649|NCT05424276|183733842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.668||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.127|3.477||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||3.477|-3.127|0.916
91917650|NCT05424276|183733842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|5.621||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||5.621|-0.921|0.158
91917651|NCT05424276|183733842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.941|5.768||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||5.768|-0.941|0.157
91917652|NCT05424276|183733843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.645||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.952|0.602||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.602|-1.952|0.297
91917653|NCT05424276|183733843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.639||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.032|0.5||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.500|-2.032|0.233
91917654|NCT05424276|183733843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.818|1.783||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.783|-0.818|0.464
91917655|NCT05424276|183733844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.346|7.898||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||7.898|-7.346|0.943
91917656|NCT05424276|183733844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.769||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.547|8.402||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||8.402|-6.547|0.806
91917657|NCT05424276|183733844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.884||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.686|8.719||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||8.719|-6.686|0.794
91917658|NCT05424276|183733845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.193|0.4||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.400|-2.193|0.173
91917659|NCT05424276|183733845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.644||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.828|0.725||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.725|-1.828|0.393
91917660|NCT05424276|183733845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.246|0.323||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.323|-2.246|0.141
91917661|NCT05424276|183733846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|1.366||Study not sized for efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.366|-0.925|0.704
91917662|NCT05424276|183733846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.742|1.494||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.494|-0.742|0.506
91917663|NCT05424276|183733846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.227|1.063||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.063|-1.227|0.888
91917664|NCT05424276|183733847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.067||Study was not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.067|0.013|0.004
91917665|NCT05424276|183733847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.047||Study was not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.047|-0.006|0.125
91917666|NCT05424276|183733847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.046||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.046|-0.009|0.179
91917667|NCT05424276|183733848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.094||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.094|-0.283|0.321
91917668|NCT05424276|183733848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.114||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.114|-0.259|0.444
91917669|NCT05424276|183733848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.053||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.053|-0.332|0.154
91917670|NCT05424276|183733849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.212||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.212|-0.199|0.950
91917671|NCT05424276|183733849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.067||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.067|-0.338|0.189
91917672|NCT05424276|183733849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.114|-0.301|0.374
91917673|NCT05424276|183733850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.131||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.131|-0.101|0.803
91917674|NCT05424276|183733850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.12||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.120|-0.110|0.935
91763933|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.09|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||3.09|1.27|
91763934|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||1.37|0.63|
91763935|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.84|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||2.84|1.20|
91763936|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.85|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.85|0.96|
91917675|NCT05424276|183733850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.121||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.121|-0.116|0.968
91917676|NCT03619213|183733897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.92|0.73|0.0008
91917677|NCT03619213|183733898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.95|0.73|0.0085
91917678|NCT03619213|183733899|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89|||LWYY proportional rates model|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.89|0.67|0.0003
91917679|NCT03619213|183733900|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||LWYY proportional rates model|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.90|0.65|0.0017
91917680|NCT03619213|183733901|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||The p-value is obtained from a rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline KCCQ score, stratified by T2DM status at randomisation.|Win Ratio|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including baseline score as a covariate.|The composite of change from baseline in KCCQ Total Symptom Score at 8 months, or death before 8 months.|Comparison Group: Placebo||1.21|1.03|0.0086
91917681|NCT03619213|183733902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.05|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||1.05|0.74|0.1678
91917682|NCT03619213|183733903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||1.07|0.83|0.3425
91917683|NCT00461175|183733909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a two group test of equivalence in proportions. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one sided α of 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) non-inferiority limit on hazard ratio of 2; and 4) an incidence of 0.5 and 1.0 per 1000 insertions.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.7|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for the following prognostic factors: age, BMI, breastfeeding at time of insertion and parity status.|The null hypothesis to be tested was: The perforation incidence ratio for LNG IUS vs. copper IUD is higher than or equal to 2.||2.70|0.96|
91917684|NCT00461175|183733909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a two group test of equivalence in proportions. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one sided α of 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) non-inferiority limit on hazard ratio of 2; and 4) an incidence of 0.5 and 1.0 per 1000 insertions.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.78|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for the following prognostic factors: age, BMI, time since last delivery, experience of the inserting health care provider.|The null hypothesis to be tested was: The perforation incidence ratio for LNG IUS vs. copper IUD is higher than or equal to 2.||2.78|0.99|
91917685|NCT00461175|183733910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearl Index|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.09||||||||0.09|0.04|
91917686|NCT00461175|183733910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearl Index|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.64||||||||0.64|0.42|
91917687|NCT00461175|183733910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.25|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for the following prognostic factors: age, BMI, and parity.|||0.25|0.10|
91917688|NCT02514044|183733911|OTHER|"We also performed normalization by calculating the dependent variable as the percentage of change (proportional change) as it follows; (1) (post-active values - pre-active values)/ (pre-active values) and (2) (post-placebo values - pre-placebo values)/ (pre-placebo series). We compared the percentage of change in Bedside WAB-R® aphasia and language quotients and blood pressures for the experiments with active- and placebo drugs combined active tDCS with MIT using a two-tailed paired t-test."||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test for all reported measures. We compared scores of Bedside WAB-R® subtests Bedside WAB-R® AQ and LQ from before the study intervention and after the intervention in both experiments by using a two-tailed and paired t-test.||||0.008
91917689|NCT02514044|183733912|OTHER|"We also performed normalization by calculating the dependent variable as the percentage of change (proportional change) as it follows; (1) (post-active values - pre-active values)/ (pre-active values) and (2) (post-placebo values - pre-placebo values)/ (pre-placebo series). We compared the percentage of change in Bedside WAB-R® aphasia and language quotients and blood pressures for the experiments with active- and placebo drugs combined active tDCS with MIT using a two-tailed paired t-test."||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test for all reported measures. We compared scores of Bedside WAB-R® subtests Bedside WAB-R® AQ and LQ from before the study intervention and after the intervention in both experiments by using a two-tailed and paired t-test.||||0.02
91917690|NCT01053312|183733942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The level of association between SUVR and the amyloid levels was analyzed using a regression model.|R²|0.688||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Contralateral to the biopsy Site||||0.098
91917691|NCT01053312|183733942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The level of association between SUVR and the amyloid levels was analyzed using a regression model.|R²|0.482||||0.268|||||||Regression, Linear|||Ipsilateral to the biopsy Site||||0.268
91917692|NCT01053312|183733942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The level of association between SUVR and the amyloid levels was analyzed using a regression model.|R²|0.685||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|||Composite Region||||0.099
91917693|NCT02203149|183733968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|10.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||95% confidence intervals were provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events, comparing participants in the Part 2 Immediate Treatment (Grazoprevir + Elbasvir) Arm with the Part 2 Deferred Treatment (Placebo) Arm during the double blinded period through FUWK4. These analyses were performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||10.0|-14.5|
91917694|NCT02203149|183733969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||95% confidence intervals were provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events, comparing participants in the Part 2 Immediate Treatment (Grazoprevir + Elbasvir) Arm with the Part 2 Deferred Treatment (Placebo) Arm during the double blinded period through FUWK4. These analyses were performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||2.8|-6.0|
91917695|NCT02537678|183733972|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation (SD) as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.006|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.26||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 SD units.|Treatment difference = standard Trauma Focused -CBT - stepped care Trauma Focused-CBT||-3.26|.006
91917696|NCT02537678|183733973|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation (SD) as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.47||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 SD units.|Treatment difference = standard Trauma Focused -CBT - stepped care Trauma Focused-CBT||-3.47|.004
91917697|NCT02537678|183733974|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.5||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.50|.001
91917698|NCT02537678|183733975|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.94||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.94|<0.001
91917699|NCT02537678|183733976|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.044|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.33||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-6.33|.044
91917700|NCT02537678|183733977|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.07||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.07|0.002
91763937|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.25|0.70|
91917701|NCT02537678|183733978|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation (SD) as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.016|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.06||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.06|0.016
91917702|NCT02537678|183733979|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.72||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.72|0.003
91917703|NCT02537678|183733980|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.007|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.89||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.89|0.007
91763938|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.72|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.72|0.91|
91763939|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||2.53|0.81|
91763940|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||1.37|0.49|
91763941|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||2.06|0.67|
91763942|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.78|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||2.78|1.33|
91763943|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||1.17|0.61|
91763944|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.32|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||2.32|1.13|
91763945|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||12|4.25|
91917704|NCT02537678|183733981|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.008|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.24||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.24|0.008
91917705|NCT02537678|183733982|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.015|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.88||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.88|0.015
91917706|NCT02537678|183733983|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.024|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.68||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-5.68|0.024
91917707|NCT02537678|183733984|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.39||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.39|0.001
91917708|NCT02537678|183733985|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.47||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.47|0.003
91917709|NCT02537678|183733986|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.3||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.30|<0.001
91917710|NCT02537678|183733987|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.29||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.29|0.001
91917711|NCT02537678|183733988|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.38||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.38|0.004
91917712|NCT02537678|183733989|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.19||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.19|<0.001
91917713|NCT02537678|183733990|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.005|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.33||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.33|0.005
91917714|NCT02537678|183733991|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.028|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.99||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.99|0.028
91917715|NCT02537678|183733992|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.009|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.64||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.64|0.009
91917716|NCT02537678|183733993|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.006|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.82||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.82|0.006
91917717|NCT02537678|183733994|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.31||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.31|0.001
91917718|NCT02537678|183733995|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.43||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-1.43|<0.001
91917719|NCT02537678|183733996|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority margin for the PCL-5, the clinically significant change threshold is 10 points although adult PTSD trials have used -5 to -10 points. We used -8.8 as the margin which was based on an expert panel and prior studies with adults. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.04||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-5.04|<0.001
91763946|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||1.50|0.59|
91917720|NCT02537678|183733997|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority margin for the PCL-5, the clinically significant change threshold is 10 points although adult PTSD trials have used -5 to -10 points. We used -8.8 as the margin which was based on an expert panel and prior studies with adults. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.87||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-6.87|0.003
91917721|NCT02537678|183733998|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority margin for the PCL-5, the clinically significant change threshold is 10 points although adult PTSD trials have used -5 to -10 points. We used -8.8 as the margin which was based on an expert panel and prior studies with adults.Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.8||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-5.80|<0.001
91917722|NCT00432809|183734028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91917723|NCT00432809|183734028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91917724|NCT00432809|183734028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||0.59
91917725|NCT00432809|183734032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91917726|NCT00432809|183734032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91917727|NCT00432809|183734032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
91809487|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.071|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.008|-0.071|
91917728|NCT00432809|183734033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91917729|NCT00432809|183734033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91917730|NCT00432809|183734033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91917731|NCT00432809|183734034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91809488|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||90.0|-0.074|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.008|-0.074|
91917732|NCT00432809|183734034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91917733|NCT00432809|183734034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.23
91917734|NCT00432809|183734035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Therapy vs. Gastric Bypass||||<0.001
91917735|NCT00432809|183734035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917736|NCT00432809|183734035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
91917737|NCT00432809|183734036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91917738|NCT00432809|183734036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91917739|NCT00432809|183734036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91917740|NCT00432809|183734037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91917741|NCT00432809|183734037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91917742|NCT00432809|183734037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91917743|NCT00432809|183734038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91917744|NCT00432809|183734038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91917745|NCT00432809|183734038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
91917746|NCT00432809|183734039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91917747|NCT00432809|183734039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91917748|NCT00432809|183734039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
91917749|NCT00432809|183734040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
91917750|NCT00432809|183734040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
91917751|NCT00432809|183734040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
91917752|NCT00432809|183734041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91917753|NCT00432809|183734041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91917754|NCT00432809|183734041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.98
91917755|NCT00432809|183734042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91917756|NCT00432809|183734042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91917757|NCT00432809|183734042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91917758|NCT00432809|183734043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91917759|NCT00432809|183734043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91917760|NCT00432809|183734043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91917761|NCT00432809|183734044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917762|NCT00432809|183734044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||1.001
91917763|NCT00432809|183734044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
91917764|NCT00432809|183734045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917765|NCT00432809|183734045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917766|NCT00432809|183734045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91917767|NCT00432809|183734046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917768|NCT00432809|183734046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917769|NCT00432809|183734046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91917770|NCT00432809|183734047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917771|NCT00432809|183734047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91917772|NCT00432809|183734047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91917773|NCT00432809|183734048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917774|NCT00432809|183734048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91917775|NCT00432809|183734048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
91917776|NCT00432809|183734049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917777|NCT00432809|183734049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917778|NCT00432809|183734049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
91917779|NCT00432809|183734050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91917780|NCT00432809|183734050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
91917781|NCT00432809|183734050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91917782|NCT00432809|183734051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917783|NCT00432809|183734051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917784|NCT00432809|183734051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91763947|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|6.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|11.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||11|4.03|
91763948|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.23|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||1.23|0.30|
91763949|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|5.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|10.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||10|2.96|
91917785|NCT00432809|183734052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917786|NCT00432809|183734052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91917787|NCT00432809|183734052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91917788|NCT01499290|183734053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was determined by comparing the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for risk difference (corresponding to a 97.5% 1-sided lower bound) to the non-inferiority marging of -12.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|1.58||||||The primary objective of this study (FDA agreed) was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for CAZ-AVI compared to that for Meropenem at TOC in the mMITT in adult subjects with cIAI.||1.58|-8.64|
91917789|NCT01499290|183734054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was determined by comparing the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for risk difference (corresponding to a 97.5% 1-sided lower bound) to the non-inferiority marging of -12.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.1||||||The co-primary objective of this study (ROW agreed) was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for CAZ-AVI compared to that for Meropenem at TOC in the MITT in adult subjects with cIAI.||2.10|-6.90|
91917790|NCT01499290|183734055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was determined by comparing the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for risk difference (corresponding to a 97.5% 1-sided lower bound) to the non-inferiority marging of -12.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|2.89||||||The co-primary objective of this study (ROW agreed) was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for CAZ-AVI compared to that for Meropenem at TOC in the CE in adult subjects with cIAI.||2.89|-4.61|
91917791|NCT00552110|183734066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Multiplicity for multiple treatment comparisons was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA); classification variables: treatment, center, dosing sequence (stratification variable); covariate: baseline score||"Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same mean change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS as that of OXY twice daily.~Power calculation: The target randomization of 875 subjects (175 subjects per treatment arm) was needed to detect a treatment difference of 0.8 point or more in change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS, with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and 90% power, assuming a pooled standard deviation of 2.3 points."||||0.002
91917792|NCT00552110|183734066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same mean change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS as that of OXY twice daily.||||<0.001
91917793|NCT00552110|183734066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the administration of MFNS once daily has the same mean change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS as that of placebo.||||<0.001
91917794|NCT00552110|183734067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021||95.0||||Multiplicity for multiple treatment comparisons was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA; classification variables: treatment, center, dosing sequence (stratification variable); covariate: baseline score||Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same standardized AUC(0-4 hr) of the change from baseline in nasal congestion score as that of MFNS once daily.||||0.021
91917795|NCT00552110|183734067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same standardized AUC (0-4hr) of the change from baseline in nasal congestion score as that of MFNS once daily||||<0.001
91917796|NCT00552110|183734067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the administration of OXY twice daily has the same standardized AUC(0-4 hr) of the change from baseline in nasal congestion score as that of placebo||||<0.001
91917797|NCT00700804|183734069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Effects of calcium (Ca), protein \& their interaction were tested using repeated measures analysis of variance (subjects nested under High or Low Ca)|Reported analysis is the main effect of Calcium (High vs Low) from the Mixed Model Analysis which averages across the two levels of dietary protein. The main effect of protein and the calcium x protein interaction were not statistically significant.|||||0.05
91917798|NCT05775289|183734070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.56|||Log Rank|||||1.56|0.63|0.9705
91917799|NCT05775289|183734071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.43|0.42|0.4056
91917800|NCT04336397|183734099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5|||Chi-squared|||||1.5|1.0|0.04
91917801|NCT04336397|183734099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91917802|NCT00046228|183734108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.551||95.0|0.67|1.23||The null hypothesis was tested at the significance level of 0.049. If it is significant, the significance level of null hypotheses tested in the analyses 2 and 3 will be adjusted according to the modified Hochberg approach.|Log Rank|Independent Clinical Endpoints Committee confirmed components of primary endpoint except for death \& resuscitated v fib assessed by the investigator)||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in terms of the primary efficacy outcome. Assuming the relative risk reduction for the reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI group versus the Primary PCI group is 15% in lower risk, 25% in medium risk, and 35% in high risk, the power of this comparison (1,000 subjects per group) is 83.4 %.||1.23|0.67|0.551
91917803|NCT00046228|183734108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.858||95.0|0.72|1.31|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in terms of the primary efficacy outcome. Assuming the relative risk reduction for the Abciximab facilitated PCI versus the Primary PCI group is 12.7%, in lower risk, 17.9% in medium risk, and 25.0% in high risk, the power of this comparison (1000 subjects per group) is 54.1%||1.31|0.72|0.858
91917804|NCT00046228|183734108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.676||95.0|0.69|1.27|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in terms of the primary efficacy outcome. Assuming the relative risk reduction for the reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI versus the abciximab facilitated PCI group is 2.6% in lower risk, 8.7% in medium risk, and 13.3% in high risk, the power of this comparison (1,000 subjects per group) is 13.5%.||1.27|0.69|0.676
91917805|NCT00046228|183734109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.247||95.0|0.57|1.16|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in complications of MI within 90 days.||1.16|0.57|0.247
91917806|NCT00046228|183734109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.278||95.0|0.58|1.17|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in complications of MI within 90 days.||1.17|0.58|0.278
91917807|NCT00046228|183734109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.944||95.0|0.68|1.43|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in complications of MI within 90 days.||1.43|0.68|0.944
91917808|NCT00046228|183734110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.494||95.0|0.74|1.84|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in 90-day all cause mortality.||1.84|0.74|0.494
91917809|NCT00046228|183734110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.338||95.0|0.79|1.95|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in 90-day all cause mortality.||1.95|0.79|0.338
91917810|NCT00046228|183734110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.781||95.0|0.61|1.45|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in 90-day all cause mortality.||1.45|0.61|0.781
91917811|NCT00046228|183734111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.016||95.0|1.08|2.1|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in ST-segment resolution \>70% from baseline.||2.10|1.08|0.016
91917812|NCT00046228|183734111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.67||95.0|0.76|1.52|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in ST-segment resolution \>70% from baseline.||1.52|0.76|0.670
91917813|NCT00046228|183734111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.042||95.0|1.01|1.93|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in ST-segment resolution \>70% from baseline.||1.93|1.01|0.042
91917814|NCT00046228|183734112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.603||95.0|0.62|1.32|||Log Rank|||||1.32|0.62|0.603
91917815|NCT00046228|183734112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.765||95.0|0.73|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.73|0.765
91917816|NCT00046228|183734112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.415||95.0|0.59|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.59|0.415
91917817|NCT00046228|183734113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of ICH.||||0.218
91917818|NCT00046228|183734113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of ICH.||||0.497
91917819|NCT00046228|183734113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in the risk of ICH.||||0.062
91917820|NCT00046228|183734114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.001||95.0|1.63|3.19|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of non-ICH TIMI bleeding events.||3.19|1.63|<0.001
91917821|NCT00046228|183734114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.025||95.0|1.05|2.15|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of non-ICH TIMI bleeding events.||2.15|1.05|0.025
91917822|NCT00046228|183734114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.008||95.0|1.12|2.05|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in the risk of non-ICH TIMI bleeding events.||2.05|1.12|0.008
91917823|NCT00046228|183734115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.439
91917824|NCT00046228|183734115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.438
91917825|NCT00046228|183734115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91917826|NCT00046228|183734116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91917827|NCT00046228|183734116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.020
91917828|NCT00046228|183734116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91917829|NCT00046228|183734117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.434||95.0|0.69|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.69|0.434
91917830|NCT00046228|183734117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.589||95.0|0.71|1.22|||Chi-squared|||||1.22|0.71|0.589
91917831|NCT00046228|183734117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.809||95.0|0.74|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.74|0.809
91917832|NCT01587989|183734125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.327||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.820|-0.165|0.188
91917833|NCT01587989|183734125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 12.||||0.015
91917834|NCT01587989|183734125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted change in DAS28 score from Weeks 12-24.||||0.304
91917835|NCT01587989|183734126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.732
91917836|NCT01587989|183734127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.207
91917837|NCT01587989|183734128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.453
91917838|NCT01587989|183734129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.084
91917839|NCT01587989|183734130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.842
91917840|NCT01587989|183734131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical standardized value||||0.417
91917841|NCT01587989|183734131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mental standardized value||||0.112
91917842|NCT01587989|183734132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fatigue||||0.655
91917843|NCT01587989|183734132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.839|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain||||0.839
91917844|NCT01587989|183734133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Effectiveness||||0.580
91917845|NCT01587989|183734133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side-effects||||0.975
91917846|NCT01587989|183734133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Convenience||||0.421
91917847|NCT01587989|183734133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Global satisfaction||||0.277
91917848|NCT04211337|183734150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.475|||Log Rank|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|||0.475|0.165|<0.0001
91917849|NCT04211337|183734151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.254|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.423|||Log Rank|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|||0.423|0.153|<0.0001
91917850|NCT04211337|183734152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.3||Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib)|Clopper-Pearson method|||||6.3|2.2|<0.0001
91917851|NCT04211337|183734153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.275||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.587|||Log Rank|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).||||0.587|0.129|0.0004
91917852|NCT04211337|183734156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.1||Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.10|-0.23|<0.0001
91917853|NCT05818124|183734187|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.48||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|3.0|||ANOVA|||||3.00|-3.97|0.783
91917854|NCT05818124|183734188|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.21||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.21|||ANOVA|||||-0.21|-4.21|0.032
91917855|NCT05818124|183734189|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.2||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.47|||ANOVA|||||1.47|-1.07|0.756
91917856|NCT05818124|183734190|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson exact binomial method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|23.21||||||||23.21|-23.21|
91917857|NCT05818124|183734191|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|20.27||||||||20.27|-25.78|
91917858|NCT05818124|183734192|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson exact binomial method|Difference in Percentage|-8.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.26|13.38||||||||13.38|-30.26|
91917859|NCT05818124|183734193|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-5.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|13.97||||||||13.97|-25.18|
91917860|NCT05818124|183734194|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-5.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|13.97||||||||13.97|-25.18|
91917861|NCT05818124|183734195|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-8.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.63|10.5||||||||10.50|-27.63|
91917862|NCT05818124|183734198|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.33|0.51|0.3102
91917863|NCT05818124|183734199|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.14|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.14|0.27|0.0779
91917864|NCT05818124|183734202|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.79||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.10|-7.47|0.045
91917865|NCT05818124|183734203|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.56||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|1.69|||ANOVA|||||1.69|-6.81|0.226
91917866|NCT05818124|183734204|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.27|||ANOVA|||||0.27|-3.47|0.090
91917867|NCT05818124|183734205|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.74||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|3.66|||ANOVA|||||3.66|-2.19|0.609
91917868|NCT05818124|183734206|OTHER|Difference in Least Squares Mean|Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.34||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.72|||ANOVA|||||1.72|-1.04|0.614
91917869|NCT05818124|183734207|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.37||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.83|||ANOVA|||||1.83|-1.09|0.608
91917870|NCT05818124|183734208|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.43||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.25|||ANOVA|||||1.25|-0.39|0.288
91917871|NCT05818124|183734209|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.09||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.97|||ANOVA|||||0.97|-0.80|0.842
91917872|NCT05818124|183734212|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.71|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||0.71|0.14|0.0042
91917873|NCT05818124|183734213|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.46|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.46|0.33|0.3290
91917874|NCT05818124|183734214|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.34|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.34|0.27|0.1502
91809489|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.088|-0.025|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.025|-0.088|
91917875|NCT05818124|183734215|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.92|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||2.92|0.59|0.4865
91917876|NCT05818124|183734218|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.79||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.36|4.78|||ANOVA|||||4.78|-14.36|0.313
91917877|NCT05818124|183734219|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.87||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|2.36|||ANOVA|||||2.36|-16.11|0.138
91917878|NCT05818124|183734220|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.74||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|4.74|||ANOVA|||||4.74|-3.26|0.706
91917879|NCT05818124|183734221|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.58||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.95|||ANOVA|||||1.95|-5.10|0.367
91917880|NCT05818124|183734227|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.14||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.92|||ANOVA|||||1.92|-10.20|0.177
91917881|NCT05818124|183734228|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.97||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.29|||ANOVA|||||1.29|-3.24|0.395
91917882|NCT05818124|183734240|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean|Difference in least squares means|-0.94||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.22|||ANOVA|||||0.22|-2.10|0.110
91917883|NCT05818124|183734241|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.27|||ANOVA|||||0.27|-3.47|0.090
91809490|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.071|-0.007|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.007|-0.071|
91917884|NCT01431287|183734268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.157||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.157|0.108|<0.0001
91917885|NCT01431287|183734268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.127||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.127|0.078|<0.0001
91917886|NCT01431287|183734268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.145||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.145|0.096|< 0.0001
91917887|NCT01431287|183734268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.155||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.155|0.106|<0.0001
91917888|NCT01431287|183734268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.115||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.115|0.066|<0.0001
91917889|NCT01431287|183734268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.036||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.036|-0.013|0.3394
91917890|NCT01431287|183734268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.167||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.167|0.118|<0.0001
91917891|NCT01431287|183734268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.054|0.005|0.0173
91917892|NCT01431287|183734268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.014||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.014|-0.035|0.4210
91917893|NCT01431287|183734268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.064||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.064|0.015|0.0014
91917894|NCT01431287|183734269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.063|<0.0001
91917895|NCT01431287|183734269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.075|0.024|0.0001
91917896|NCT01431287|183734269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.092||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.092|0.042|<0.0001
91917897|NCT01431287|183734269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.087||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.087|0.037|<0.0001
91917898|NCT01431287|183734269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.054|0.004|0.0231
91917899|NCT01431287|183734269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.046||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.046|-0.004|0.1073
91917900|NCT01431287|183734269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.108||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.108|0.058|<0.0001
91917901|NCT01431287|183734269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.063||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.063|0.013|0.0029
91809491|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||||90.0|-0.079|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.010|-0.079|
91917902|NCT01431287|183734269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.6939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.030|-0.020|0.6939
91917903|NCT01431287|183734269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.058|0.008|0.0097
91917904|NCT01431287|183734270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|-0.608||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.608|-2.778|0.0022
91917905|NCT01431287|183734270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.313|-0.153||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.153|-2.313|0.0252
91809492|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.055|0.016|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.016|-0.055|
91809493|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.079|-0.004|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.004|-0.079|
91917906|NCT01431287|183734270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.113|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.052|-2.113|0.0620
91917907|NCT01431287|183734270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|0.618||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.618|-1.531|0.4051
91917908|NCT01431287|183734270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.649|0.507||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.507|-1.649|0.2988
91917909|NCT01431287|183734270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.731|0.407||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.407|-1.731|0.2249
91917910|NCT01431287|183734270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.195|-0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.042|-2.195|0.0418
91917911|NCT01431287|183734270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.552|0.633||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.633|-1.552|0.4097
91917912|NCT01431287|183734270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.664|0.515||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.515|-1.664|0.3013
91917913|NCT01431287|183734270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.2||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||1.200|-0.970|0.8355
91917914|NCT01431287|183734271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.684||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.684|0.155|0.0019
91809494|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.091|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.019|-0.091|
91809495|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.081|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.010|-0.081|
91809496|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.073|0.002|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.002|-0.073|
91809497|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.121|-0.038|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.038|-0.121|
91809498|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||||90.0|-0.124|0.003|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.003|-0.124|
91809499|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||90.0|-0.098|-0.033|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39 (LOCF); Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.033|-0.098|
91917915|NCT01431287|183734271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.619||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.619|0.092|0.0082
91917916|NCT01431287|183734271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.681||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.681|0.152|0.0020
91917917|NCT01431287|183734271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.554||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.554|0.027|0.0307
91917918|NCT01431287|183734271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.616||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.616|0.089|0.0088
91917919|NCT01431287|183734271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.266||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.266|-0.259|0.9801
91917920|NCT01431287|183734271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.557||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.557|0.030|0.0289
91917921|NCT01431287|183734271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.6382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.33||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.330|-0.202|0.6382
91917922|NCT01431287|183734271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.3525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.391||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.391|-0.140|0.3525
91917923|NCT01431287|183734271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.203|-0.327|0.6457
91917924|NCT01431287|183734272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.058|0.008|0.0095
91917925|NCT01431287|183734272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.040|<0.0001
91917926|NCT01431287|183734272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.058|0.007|0.0112
91763950|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||6.73|1.70|
91763951|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.54|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||5.54|1.20|
91763952|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.56|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||2.56|0.66|
91763953|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|7.11|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||7.11|1.57|
91917927|NCT01431287|183734272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.119|0.068|<0.0001
91917928|NCT01431287|183734272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.039|<0.0001
91917929|NCT01431287|183734272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.9514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.026||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.026|-0.024|0.9514
91917930|NCT01431287|183734272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.119|0.069|<0.0001
91917931|NCT01431287|183734272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|-0.007||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.007|-0.057|0.0131
91917932|NCT01431287|183734272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.036||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.036|-0.086|<0.0001
91917933|NCT01431287|183734272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.054|0.004|0.0243
91917934|NCT01431287|183734273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.170|0.119|<0.0001
91917935|NCT01431287|183734273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.136||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.136|0.085|<0.0001
91917936|NCT01431287|183734273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.144|0.094|<0.0001
91809500|NCT00137046|183494276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.085|-0.004|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.004|-0.085|
91917937|NCT01431287|183734273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.132||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.132|0.081|<0.0001
91917938|NCT01431287|183734273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.11||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.110|0.059|<0.0001
91917939|NCT01431287|183734273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.051||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.051|0.000|0.0470
91917940|NCT01431287|183734273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.158||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.158|0.107|<0.0001
91917941|NCT01431287|183734273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.060|0.009|0.0083
91917942|NCT01431287|183734273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.038||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.038|-0.013|0.3329
91917943|NCT01431287|183734273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.047|-0.004|0.0958
91917944|NCT01431287|183734274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.158||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.158|0.105|<0.0001
91917945|NCT01431287|183734274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.139|0.086|<0.0001
91917946|NCT01431287|183734274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.144|0.092|<0.0001
91917947|NCT01431287|183734274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.144|0.092|<0.0001
91917948|NCT01431287|183734274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.125|0.072|<0.0001
91917949|NCT01431287|183734274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.040|-0.012|0.3008
91917950|NCT01431287|183734274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.158||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.158|0.105|<0.0001
91917951|NCT01431287|183734274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.046||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.046|-0.007|0.1484
91917952|NCT01431287|183734274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.027||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.027|-0.026|0.9981
91917953|NCT01431287|183734274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.046||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.046|-0.007|0.1480
91917954|NCT01431287|183734275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.040|<0.0001
91917955|NCT01431287|183734275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.061||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.061|0.011|0.0050
91917956|NCT01431287|183734275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.089|0.039|<0.0001
91917957|NCT01431287|183734275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.088|0.037|<0.0001
91917958|NCT01431287|183734275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.061||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.061|0.010|0.0057
91917959|NCT01431287|183734275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.026||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.026|-0.025|0.9633
91917960|NCT01431287|183734275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.088|0.038|<0.0001
91917961|NCT01431287|183734275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.054|0.004|0.0250
91917962|NCT01431287|183734275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.027||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.027|-0.023|0.8949
91917963|NCT01431287|183734275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.052|0.002|0.0351
91809501|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||||90.0|-0.06|0.122|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.122|-0.060|
91917964|NCT01431287|183734276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.105|0.055|<0.0001
91917965|NCT01431287|183734276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.073||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.073|0.022|0.0002
91917966|NCT01431287|183734276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.101||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.101|0.051|<0.0001
91917967|NCT01431287|183734276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.086|0.036|<0.0001
91917968|NCT01431287|183734276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.069||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.069|0.018|0.0007
91917969|NCT01431287|183734276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.029||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.029|-0.022|0.7755
91917970|NCT01431287|183734276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.039|<0.0001
91917971|NCT01431287|183734276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.058|0.007|0.0118
91917972|NCT01431287|183734276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.040|-0.010|0.2416
91917973|NCT01431287|183734276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.043|-0.008|0.1792
91917974|NCT01431287|183734277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.125|0.074|<0.0001
91917975|NCT01431287|183734277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.084||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.084|0.033|<0.0001
91917976|NCT01431287|183734277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.107||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.107|0.057|<0.0001
91917977|NCT01431287|183734277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.073||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.073|0.023|0.0002
91917978|NCT01431287|183734277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.067||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.067|0.016|0.0014
91917979|NCT01431287|183734277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.043|-0.008|0.1747
91917980|NCT01431287|183734277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.091||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.091|0.040|<0.0001
91917981|NCT01431287|183734277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.066||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.066|0.016|0.0016
91917982|NCT01431287|183734277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.060|0.009|0.0081
91917983|NCT01431287|183734277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.032||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.032|-0.019|0.6110
91917984|NCT01431287|183734278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.111||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.111|0.059|<0.0001
91917985|NCT01431287|183734278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.076||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.076|0.025|0.0001
91917986|NCT01431287|183734278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.102||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.102|0.051|<0.0001
91917987|NCT01431287|183734278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.095||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.095|0.044|<0.0001
91917988|NCT01431287|183734278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.068||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.068|0.016|0.0013
91917989|NCT01431287|183734278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.034||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.034|-0.017|0.5274
91917990|NCT01431287|183734278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.103||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.103|0.052|<0.0001
91917991|NCT01431287|183734278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.060|0.009|0.0083
91917992|NCT01431287|183734278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.033|-0.018|0.5744
91917993|NCT01431287|183734278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.053||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.053|0.001|0.0381
91917994|NCT01431287|183734279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.108||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.108|0.055|<0.0001
91917995|NCT01431287|183734279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.079||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.079|0.027|<0.0001
91917996|NCT01431287|183734279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.091||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.091|0.039|<0.0001
91917997|NCT01431287|183734279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.081||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.081|0.029|<0.0001
91917998|NCT01431287|183734279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.063||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.063|0.011|0.0052
91917999|NCT01431287|183734279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.2273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.042|-0.010|0.2273
91918000|NCT01431287|183734279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.097|0.045|<0.0001
91918001|NCT01431287|183734279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.055||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.055|0.002|0.0330
91918002|NCT01431287|183734279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.037||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.037|-0.016|0.4327
91918003|NCT01431287|183734279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.044||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.044|-0.008|0.1764
91809502|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||||90.0|0.033|0.239|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.239|0.033|
91918004|NCT01431287|183734280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.105|0.007|0.0241
91918005|NCT01431287|183734280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.148||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.148|0.051|<0.0001
91918006|NCT01431287|183734280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.119|0.021|0.0049
91918007|NCT01431287|183734280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.196||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.196|0.098|<0.0001
91918008|NCT01431287|183734280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.162||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.162|0.064|<0.0001
91918009|NCT01431287|183734280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.5831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.035|-0.063|0.5831
91918010|NCT01431287|183734280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.182||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.182|0.084|<0.0001
91918011|NCT01431287|183734280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.006||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.006|-0.092|0.0822
91918012|NCT01431287|183734280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|-0.028||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.028|-0.126|0.0020
91918013|NCT01431287|183734280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.083||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.083|-0.015|0.1774
91918014|NCT01431287|183734281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.268||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.268|0.169|<0.0001
91918015|NCT01431287|183734281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.193||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.193|0.094|<0.0001
91918016|NCT01431287|183734281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.258||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.258|0.160|<0.0001
91918017|NCT01431287|183734281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.203|0.104|<0.0001
91918018|NCT01431287|183734281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.183||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.183|0.084|<0.0001
91918019|NCT01431287|183734281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.059||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.059|-0.040|0.6974
91918020|NCT01431287|183734281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.213||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.213|0.114|<0.0001
91918021|NCT01431287|183734281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.125|0.026|0.0027
91809503|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||||90.0|0.0|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.224|-0.000|
91918022|NCT01431287|183734281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.105|0.006|0.0269
91918023|NCT01431287|183734281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.4343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.069||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.069|-0.030|0.4343
91918024|NCT01431287|183734282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.248||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.248|0.148|<0.0001
91918025|NCT01431287|183734282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.197||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.197|0.096|<0.0001
91918026|NCT01431287|183734282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.258||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.258|0.158|<0.0001
91918027|NCT01431287|183734282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.242|0.143|<0.0001
91918028|NCT01431287|183734282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.206||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.206|0.106|<0.0001
91918029|NCT01431287|183734282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.040|-0.060|0.6980
91918030|NCT01431287|183734282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.233||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.233|0.132|<0.0001
91918031|NCT01431287|183734282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.102||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.102|0.001|0.0442
91918032|NCT01431287|183734282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.065||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.065|-0.035|0.5514
91918033|NCT01431287|183734282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.086|-0.014|0.1569
91918034|NCT01431287|183734283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.253||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.253|0.150|<0.0001
91918035|NCT01431287|183734283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.234||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.234|0.132|<0.0001
91918036|NCT01431287|183734283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.269||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.269|0.167|<0.0001
91763954|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.59|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||2.59|0.51|
91918037|NCT01431287|183734283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.232||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day\^interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.232|0.130|<0.0001
91918038|NCT01431287|183734283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.25||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.250|0.148|<0.0001
91918039|NCT01431287|183734283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.035|-0.067|0.5373
91918040|NCT01431287|183734283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.216||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.216|0.114|<0.0001
91918041|NCT01431287|183734283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.070|-0.033|0.4763
91918042|NCT01431287|183734283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.088|-0.015|0.1613
91918043|NCT01431287|183734283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.4908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.033|-0.069|0.4908
91918044|NCT01431287|183734284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.173||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.173|0.072|<0.0001
91918045|NCT01431287|183734284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.012|0.0154
91918046|NCT01431287|183734284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.181||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.181|0.080|<0.0001
91918047|NCT01431287|183734284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.134||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.134|0.033|0.0012
91918048|NCT01431287|183734284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.121||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.121|0.020|0.0061
91763955|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||6.12|1.40|
91763956|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|7.57|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||7.57|1.49|
91763957|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.18|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||1.18|0.23|
91763958|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||12|2.84|
91763959|NCT02451514|183418405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||6.92|1.38|
91918049|NCT01431287|183734284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.7518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.042|-0.059|0.7518
91918050|NCT01431287|183734284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.126||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.126|0.025|0.0034
91918051|NCT01431287|183734284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.11||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.110|0.009|0.0209
91918052|NCT01431287|183734284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.097|-0.004|0.0708
91918053|NCT01431287|183734284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.064||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.064|-0.038|0.6148
91918054|NCT01431287|183734285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.215||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.215|0.114|<0.0001
91918055|NCT01431287|183734285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.122||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.122|0.020|0.0064
91918056|NCT01431287|183734285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.203|0.102|<0.0001
91918057|NCT01431287|183734285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.126||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.126|0.025|0.0035
91918058|NCT01431287|183734285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.109||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.109|0.008|0.0233
91918059|NCT01431287|183734285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.063||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.063|-0.039|0.6413
91763960|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|16.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||16|4.41|
91809504|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||||90.0|0.141|0.374|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.374|0.141|
91763961|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.27|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||1.27|0.39|
91763962|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|11.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||11|3.14|
91763963|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|197.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|452.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||452|86|
91918060|NCT01431287|183734285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.138||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.138|0.037|0.0007
91918061|NCT01431287|183734285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.144|0.043|0.0003
91918062|NCT01431287|183734285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.127||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.127|0.026|0.0030
91918063|NCT01431287|183734285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.068||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.068|-0.034|0.5159
91918064|NCT01431287|183734286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.261||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.261|0.159|<0.0001
91918065|NCT01431287|183734286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.141||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.141|0.038|0.0006
91918066|NCT01431287|183734286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.234||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.234|0.132|<0.0001
91918067|NCT01431287|183734286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.119|0.017|0.0094
91918068|NCT01431287|183734286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.011|0.0174
91918069|NCT01431287|183734286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.2888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.079||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.079|-0.023|0.2888
91918070|NCT01431287|183734286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.146|0.044|0.0003
91918071|NCT01431287|183734286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.172||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.172|0.070|<0.0001
91918072|NCT01431287|183734286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.166||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.166|0.064|<0.0001
91763964|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||2.07|0.47|
91763965|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|193.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.0|442.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||442|84|
91918073|NCT01431287|183734286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.057||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.057|-0.045|0.8241
91918074|NCT01431287|183734287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.208||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.208|0.108|<0.0001
91918075|NCT01431287|183734287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.122||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.122|0.022|0.0048
91918076|NCT01431287|183734287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.2||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.200|0.101|<0.0001
91918077|NCT01431287|183734287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.152||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.152|0.053|<0.0001
91918078|NCT01431287|183734287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.014|0.0116
91918079|NCT01431287|183734287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.7577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.058|-0.042|0.7577
91918080|NCT01431287|183734287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.16||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.160|0.061|<0.0001
91918081|NCT01431287|183734287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.136||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.136|0.037|0.0007
91918082|NCT01431287|183734287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.097|-0.002|0.0621
91918083|NCT01431287|183734287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.089|-0.011|0.1266
91918084|NCT01431287|183734288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.209||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.209|0.104|<0.0001
91918085|NCT01431287|183734288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.139|0.034|0.0013
91918086|NCT01431287|183734288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.223||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.223|0.118|<0.0001
91918087|NCT01431287|183734288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.154||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.154|0.049|0.0001
91918088|NCT01431287|183734288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.153||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.153|0.048|0.0002
91918089|NCT01431287|183734288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.6093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.039|-0.066|0.6093
91918090|NCT01431287|183734288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.14||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.140|0.035|0.0011
91918091|NCT01431287|183734288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.123||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.123|0.017|0.0095
91918092|NCT01431287|183734288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.121||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.121|0.016|0.0108
91918093|NCT01431287|183734288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.9627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.054|-0.051|0.9627
91918094|NCT01431287|183734289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.162||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.162|0.074|<0.0001
91918095|NCT01431287|183734289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.169||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.169|0.077|<0.0001
91918096|NCT01431287|183734289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.114||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.114|0.028|0.0012
91918097|NCT01431287|183734289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.137||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.137|0.050|<0.0001
91918098|NCT01431287|183734289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.121||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.121|0.031|0.0010
91763966|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|6.27|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||6.27|1.96|
91763967|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.0|0.37|
91763968|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.85|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||3.85|1.23|
91918099|NCT01431287|183734289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.092|0.003|0.0384
91918100|NCT01431287|183734289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.185||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.185|0.097|<0.0001
91918101|NCT01431287|183734289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.04||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.040|-0.049|0.8428
91918102|NCT01431287|183734289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.02||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.020|-0.065|0.3048
91918103|NCT01431287|183734289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.063||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.027|0.4311
91918104|NCT01431287|183734290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.139||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.139|0.057|<0.0001
91918105|NCT01431287|183734290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.149||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.149|0.063|<0.0001
91918106|NCT01431287|183734290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.091||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.091|0.010|0.0136
91918107|NCT01431287|183734290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.116||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.116|0.035|0.0003
91918108|NCT01431287|183734290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.101||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.101|0.016|0.0065
91918109|NCT01431287|183734290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.089||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.089|0.005|0.0277
91918110|NCT01431287|183734290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.164||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.164|0.081|<0.0001
91918111|NCT01431287|183734290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.7116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.034||Comments ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.049|0.7116
91918112|NCT01431287|183734290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.016||Comments ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.016|-0.065|0.2332
91918113|NCT01431287|183734290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.059||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.059|-0.025|0.4374
91918114|NCT01431287|183734291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.244||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.244|0.077|0.0002
91918115|NCT01431287|183734291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.228||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.228|0.053|0.0017
91918116|NCT01431287|183734291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.21||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.210|0.046|0.0022
91918117|NCT01431287|183734291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.259||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.259|0.093|<0.0001
91918118|NCT01431287|183734291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.194||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.194|0.022|0.0141
91763969|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||6.92|1.84|
91763970|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.29|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||1.29|0.40|
91763971|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||4.89|1.33|
91763972|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.18|35.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||35|8.18|
91763973|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||1.53|0.41|
91918119|NCT01431287|183734291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.118||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.118|-0.053|0.4581
91918120|NCT01431287|183734291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.293||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.293|0.124|<0.0001
91918121|NCT01431287|183734291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.105||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.105|-0.064|0.6335
91918122|NCT01431287|183734291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.034||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.129|0.2530
91918123|NCT01431287|183734291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.153||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.153|-0.017|0.1188
91918124|NCT01431287|183734292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.217||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.217|0.057|0.0008
91918125|NCT01431287|183734292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.209||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.209|0.042|0.0032
91918126|NCT01431287|183734292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.183||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.183|0.027|0.0085
91918127|NCT01431287|183734292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.235||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.235|0.077|0.0001
91918128|NCT01431287|183734292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.176||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.176|0.011|0.0255
91918129|NCT01431287|183734292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.113||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.113|-0.049|0.4393
91809505|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||||90.0|0.04|0.273|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.273|0.040|
91918130|NCT01431287|183734292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.269||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.269|0.108|<0.0001
91918131|NCT01431287|183734292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.7784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.092|-0.069|0.7784
91918132|NCT01431287|183734292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.026||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.026|-0.129|0.1965
91918133|NCT01431287|183734292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.144||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.144|-0.019|0.1315
91918134|NCT01431287|183734293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.239|-1.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-1.043|-3.239|0.0001
91918135|NCT01431287|183734293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.033|-2.230|0.0435
91918136|NCT01431287|183734293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.623|-0.432||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.432|-2.623|0.0063
91918137|NCT01431287|183734293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.611|0.577||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.577|-1.611|0.3545
91918138|NCT01431287|183734293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.614|0.578||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.578|-1.614|0.3542
91918139|NCT01431287|183734293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.702|0.476||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.476|-1.702|0.2697
91918140|NCT01431287|183734293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.227|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.033|-2.227|0.0434
91918141|NCT01431287|183734293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.095||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.095|-2.114|0.0732
91918142|NCT01431287|183734293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.092||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.092|-2.114|0.0724
91918143|NCT01431287|183734293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|1.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.104|-1.102|0.9983
91918144|NCT01431287|183734294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.985|-0.718||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.718|-2.985|0.0014
91809506|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||||90.0|0.065|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.300|0.065|
91918145|NCT01431287|183734294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.444|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.573|0.686||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.686|-1.573|0.4413
91918146|NCT01431287|183734294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.569|-0.304||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.304|-2.569|0.0129
91918147|NCT01431287|183734294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|1.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.070|-1.182|0.9222
91918148|NCT01431287|183734294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.157|1.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.100|-1.157|0.9602
91918149|NCT01431287|183734294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.533|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.703|-1.533|0.4669
91918150|NCT01431287|183734294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.598|0.656||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.656|-1.598|0.4126
91918151|NCT01431287|183734294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.551|-0.265||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.265|-2.551|0.0158
91918152|NCT01431287|183734294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|-0.24||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.240|-2.521|0.0177
91918153|NCT01431287|183734294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.164|1.109||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.109|-1.164|0.9624
91918154|NCT01431287|183734295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.862||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.862|0.329|<0.0001
91918155|NCT01431287|183734295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.907||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.907|0.373|<0.0001
91918156|NCT01431287|183734295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.69||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.690|0.156|0.0019
91918157|NCT01431287|183734295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.712||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.712|0.179|0.0011
91918158|NCT01431287|183734295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.735||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.735|0.201|0.0006
91809507|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||||90.0|0.06|0.319|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.319|0.060|
91809508|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||||90.0|0.19|0.443|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.443|0.190|
91809509|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||||90.0|-0.037|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.224|-0.037|
91809510|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||||90.0|-0.103|0.145|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.145|-0.103|
91809511|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||||90.0|-0.023|0.248|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.248|-0.023|
91809512|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||||90.0|0.126|0.419|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.419|0.126|
91809513|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||||90.0|0.219|0.507|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.507|0.219|
91809514|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||||90.0|0.128|0.428|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.428|0.128|
91809515|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||||90.0|0.144|0.442|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.442|0.144|
91809516|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||||90.0|0.058|0.369|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.369|0.058|
91809517|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||||90.0|0.101|0.386|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.386|0.101|
91809518|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||||90.0|0.079|0.376|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.376|0.079|
91809519|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||||90.0|0.079|0.372|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.372|0.079|
91809520|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||||90.0|0.055|0.368|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.368|0.055|
91809521|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||||90.0|0.18|0.483|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.483|0.180|
91809522|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||||90.0|0.302|0.622|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.622|0.302|
91809523|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||||90.0|0.221|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.600|0.221|
91809524|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||||90.0|0.183|0.718|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.718|0.183|
91809525|NCT00137046|183494278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||||90.0|-0.174|0.237|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.237|-0.174|
91809526|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||||90.0|-25.24|-4.39|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-4.39|-25.24|
91809527|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||||90.0|-35.16|-14.51|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-14.51|-35.16|
91918159|NCT01431287|183734295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.2045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.438||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.438|-0.094|0.2045
91809528|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||||90.0|-37.56|-14.75|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-14.75|-37.56|
91763974|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|28.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||28|6.59|
91918160|NCT01431287|183734295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|0.885||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.885|0.351|<0.0001
91918161|NCT01431287|183734295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.223||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.223|-0.313|0.7432
91918162|NCT01431287|183734295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.8687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.245||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.245|-0.290|0.8687
91918163|NCT01431287|183734295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.8709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.246||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.246|-0.290|0.8709
91918164|NCT01431287|183734296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|0.898||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.898|0.362|<0.0001
91918165|NCT01431287|183734296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.703|0.166|0.0015
91918166|NCT01431287|183734296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.687||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.687|0.151|0.0022
91918167|NCT01431287|183734296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.495||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.495|-0.041|0.0966
91918168|NCT01431287|183734296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.492||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.492|-0.045|0.1029
91918169|NCT01431287|183734296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.478||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.478|-0.056|0.1220
91763975|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|160.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||160|34|
91763976|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||1.53|0.38|
91763977|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|121.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||121|27|
91763978|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||4.83|1.46|
91763979|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|6.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||12|3.96|
91763980|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|32.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||32|10|
91763981|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.71|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||2.71|0.72|
91809529|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||||90.0|-30.56|-8.36|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-8.36|-30.56|
91809530|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||||90.0|-50.93|-29.0|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-29.00|-50.93|
91763982|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|37.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||37|12|
91763983|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|55.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||55|15|
91763984|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||1.38|0.47|
91763985|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|31.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||31|12|
91763986|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.27|26.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||26|9.27|
91763987|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||1.28|0.17|
91809531|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||||90.0|-27.65|-4.51|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-4.51|-27.65|
91809532|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||||90.0|-24.69|-2.39|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-2.39|-24.69|
91809533|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||||90.0|-30.88|-6.84|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-6.84|-30.88|
91763988|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|48.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||48|8.20|
91763989|NCT02451514|183418409|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|22.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||22|3.78|
91763990|NCT02451514|183418422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.87|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459||0.87|0.28|
91763991|NCT02451514|183418422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.11|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364||2.11|0.40|
91763992|NCT02451514|183418422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, NZ98/254||1.38|0.50|
91763993|NCT02451514|183418422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.44|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, M10713||1.44|0.44|
91763994|NCT02451514|183418422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, H44/76||1.07|0.34|
91763995|NCT02451514|183418422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, 5/99||1.12|0.52|
91763996|NCT02451514|183418422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|4.75|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup A||4.75|1.89|
91763997|NCT02451514|183418422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|4.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|7.31|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup C||7.31|3.01|
91763998|NCT02451514|183418422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|13.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup W||13|5.84|
91763999|NCT02451514|183418422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup Y||12|3.96|
91764000|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each serotype 1, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.05|0.88|
91764001|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 5, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.81|0.69|
91764002|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6A, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.26|0.96|
91809534|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12||||90.0|-9.83|16.96|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin.Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||16.96|-9.83|
91918170|NCT01431287|183734296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.707||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.707|0.170|0.0014
91918171|NCT01431287|183734296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.465||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.465|-0.074|0.1542
91918172|NCT01431287|183734296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.461||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.461|-0.077|0.1626
91918173|NCT01431287|183734296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||djusted mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.274||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.274|-0.265|0.9765
91918174|NCT01431287|183734297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.925||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.925|0.370|<0.0001
91918175|NCT01431287|183734297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.6||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.600|0.045|0.0226
91918176|NCT01431287|183734297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.649||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.649|0.093|0.0089
91918177|NCT01431287|183734297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.609||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.609|0.056|0.0186
91918178|NCT01431287|183734297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.324||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.324|-0.231|0.7441
91918179|NCT01431287|183734297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.551||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.551|0.001|0.0492
91918180|NCT01431287|183734297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.884||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.884|0.332|<0.0001
91918181|NCT01431287|183734297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.605||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.605|0.045|0.0230
91809535|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||||90.0|-31.32|-4.27|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-4.27|-31.32|
91809536|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||||90.0|-33.44|-7.99|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-7.99|-33.44|
91918182|NCT01431287|183734297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.317||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.317|-0.240|0.7855
91918183|NCT01431287|183734297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.564||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.564|0.007|0.0442
91918184|NCT01056107|183734313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.0075
91918185|NCT01056107|183734313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|||||||<0.001
91918186|NCT03783195|183734321|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.76||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in liver fat as compared to high GRS group.||0.76|-1.77|0.40
91918187|NCT03783195|183734322|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|2.57||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in liver fat as compared to high GRS group.||2.57|-3.33|0.71
91918188|NCT03783195|183734323|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.33|-10.72||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in VLDL-TG as compared to high GRS group.||-10.72|-31.33|0.0006
91918189|NCT03783195|183734324|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Median Difference (Net)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis focuses on the changes in the area under the curve (AUC) for measurements at different time points between the two GRS groups.||0.46|-0.27|0.59
91918190|NCT03783195|183734325|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.75|-4.38||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum triglycerides as compared to high GRS group.||-4.38|-37.75|0.017
91918191|NCT03783195|183734326|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis focuses on the changes in the area under the curve (AUC) for measurements baseline and 3hr timepoints at week 0 and week 3 between the two GRS groups.||0.33|-0.37|0.89
91918192|NCT03783195|183734327|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|5.55||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have less increase in HDL cholesterol as compared to high GRS group.||5.55|-14.28|0.36
91918193|NCT03783195|183734328|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.40|-0.27|0.67
91918194|NCT03783195|183734329|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.53||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.76|3.69||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in LDL cholesterol as compared to high GRS group.||3.69|-45.76|0.09
91918195|NCT03783195|183734330|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.24|0.69
91918196|NCT03783195|183734331|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-29.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.28||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.39|3.17||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in total cholesterol as compared to high GRS group.||3.17|-62.39|0.07
91918197|NCT03783195|183734332|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.26|0.80
91918198|NCT03783195|183734333|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.91||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum uric acid as compared to high GRS group.||0.91|-0.18|0.17
91918199|NCT03783195|183734334|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.58|0.22
91918200|NCT03783195|183734335|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.0009||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum ALT as compared to high GRS group.||-0.0009|-0.03|0.04
91918201|NCT03783195|183734336|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|-0.52|0.53
91918202|NCT03783195|183734337|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.5||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|58.08||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum AST as compared to high GRS group.||58.08|-16.9|0.25
91918203|NCT03783195|183734338|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.59|0.20
91809537|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||||90.0|-11.06|14.66|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||14.66|-11.06|
91809538|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||||90.0|-23.61|6.17|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||6.17|-23.61|
91809539|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.84||||90.0|-29.28|-3.4|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-3.40|-29.28|
91809540|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||||90.0|-26.6|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||0.63|-26.60|
91809541|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||||90.0|-24.39|3.94|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||3.94|-24.39|
91809542|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||||90.0|-43.19|-14.09|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-14.09|-43.19|
91809543|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||||90.0|-23.69|5.71|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||5.71|-23.69|
91809544|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||||90.0|-24.04|5.0|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||5.00|-24.04|
91809545|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.67||||90.0|-24.71|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||3.92|-24.71|
91918204|NCT03783195|183734339|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.78||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|75.67||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum ALP as compared to high GRS group.||75.67|-17.76|0.21
91809546|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||||90.0|-21.42|9.09|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||9.09|-21.42|
91809547|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44||||90.0|-20.98|10.21|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||10.21|-20.98|
91809548|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.77||||90.0|-38.43|7.26|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||7.26|-38.43|
91809549|NCT00137046|183494281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.27||||90.0|-15.79|21.46|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||21.46|-15.79|
91809550|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||||90.0|-0.846|-0.199|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.199|-0.846|
91809551|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||||90.0|-1.541|-0.685|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.685|-1.541|
91809552|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||||90.0|-1.836|-0.882|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.882|-1.836|
91809553|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||||90.0|-1.702|-0.666|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.666|-1.702|
91809554|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||||90.0|-1.984|-0.869|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.869|-1.984|
91918205|NCT03783195|183734340|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.321|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.321|-0.214|0.67
91809555|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||||90.0|-2.35|-1.084|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-1.084|-2.350|
91918206|NCT03783195|183734341|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.28||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum GGT as compared to high GRS group.||0.28|-0.12|0.41
91918207|NCT03783195|183734342|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|-0.44|0.49
91918208|NCT02240134|183734345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds ratio for air filter treatment relative to placebo|Mixed effects logistic regression model with presence of LRTI as outcome (yes or no); assigned treatment as primary exposure variable relative to placebo; adjusted for child age and person-time at-risk; nested random term: home:cohort:area. Results presented as odds ratios with 95% Confidence Intervals.||3.32|0.46|0.68
91918209|NCT02240134|183734345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds ratio for filter treatment relative to placebo|Mixed effects logistic regression model with presence of LRTI as outcome (yes or no); assigned treatment as primary exposure variable relative to placebo; adjusted for child age and person-time at-risk; nested random term: home:cohort:area. Results presented as odds ratios with 95% Confidence Intervals.||2.72|0.35|0.96
91918210|NCT02240134|183734346|SUPERIORITY||percent differences in geometric mean PM|-6.96||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|24.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with natural-log transformed 6-day mean indoor PM2.5 as outcome; assigned treatment as primary exposure variable; adjusted for child age; nested random term: cohort:area. Results presented as effect estimates with 95% Confidence Intervals and reported as percent differences in geometric mean PM2.5.||24.55|-30.50|0.250
91918211|NCT02240134|183734346|SUPERIORITY||percent differences in geometric mean PM|11.77||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|49.72||Statistical significance selected as 95% confidence interval of the estimation parameter that excludes the null value, 0.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in indoor PM2.5 for education treatment versus placebo.|Linear mixed model with natural-log transformed 6-day mean indoor PM2.5 as outcome; assigned treatment as primary exposure variable; adjusted for child age; nested random term: cohort:area. Results presented as effect estimates with 95% Confidence Intervals and reported as percent differences in geometric mean PM2.5.||49.72|-16.57|0.295
91918212|NCT01380899|183734347|SUPERIORITY|IHC analyses revealed intense α-synuclein positive immunostaining in PD patients, showing small nodular deposits from 1 to 2 μm in diameter in the SCL of the epidermis including the epidermal component adjacent to hair follicles, and in cells from PSUs, while control subjects presented null immunoreaction. The α-synuclein inclusions in the two groups of patients were morphologically similar but quantitatively different. These inclusions appeared to be juxtanuclear.|Median Difference (Net)|57.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.85|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|62.6||The presence of alpha-synuclein aggregates expressed as % of cells with inclusions was tested for normality (Shapiro-Wilk test). Then, with the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U tests (software Statistica 7.0 at 95% confidence).|Kruskal-Wallis|The groups were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U tests.|The expression of the abnormal protein (alpha-synuclein) must be different between the three groups (PD, AP, and control)|The patients were stratified according to the clinical diagnosis made on the basis of the clinical findings, the MRI, and the progression of the disease. Both the clinical diagnosis and the semiquantitative histological analysis were carried out independently and blind to each other. The presence of aggregates of abnormal a-synuclein, expressed as the percentage of cells with positive inclusions in each experimental group, was tested for normality with the Shapiro-Wilk test.|The patients were stratified according to the clinical diagnosis based on the clinical findings, the MRI, and the progression of the disease. Both the clinical diagnosis and the semiquantitative histological analysis were carried out independently and blind to each other. The presence of aggregates of abnormal α-synuclein, expressed as the percentage of cells with positive inclusions in each experimental group, was tested for normality with the Shapiro-Wilk test. Next, the groups were analyzed with the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U tests. One independent analysis was performed for each structure, namely the epidermis, PSU, and EG. Assessments were performed using the software Statistica 7.0 (Tulsa, OK) at 95% confidence.|62.6|44.9|< 0.01
91918213|NCT02091440|183734352|OTHER|Single group|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91918214|NCT02091440|183734353|OTHER|Single group|Kaplan-Meier Survival|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91918215|NCT02091440|183734354|OTHER|Single group|Incidence|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91918216|NCT02091440|183734355|OTHER|Single group|Incidence|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91918217|NCT02091440|183734356|OTHER|Single group|Change from baseline|19.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|31.4|||||Confidence interval based on t-distribution.|||31.4|7.5|
91918218|NCT02091440|183734357|OTHER|Single group|Percentage change|-83.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage change from 24 months to screening in NYHA classes III and IV. Percentage change is 16.67% - 100% = -83.33%|||||
91918219|NCT02091440|183734358|OTHER|Single group|Change from baseline|130.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|275.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.9|418.9|||||Confidence interval based on t-distribution.|||418.9|-158.9|
91918220|NCT03576144|183734360|OTHER||Slope|1.0474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0283|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9997|1.0951|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for AUC0-12 of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.0951|0.9997|
91918221|NCT03576144|183734361|OTHER||Slope|1.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9451|1.0732|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the is actually standard error of slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for Cmax of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.0732|0.9451|
91918222|NCT03576144|183734362|OTHER||Slope|1.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0325|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9972|1.1069|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.1069|0.9972|
91918223|NCT03576144|183734363|OTHER||Slope|1.0361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0379|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9722|1.1001|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.1001|0.9722|
91809556|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||||90.0|-1.95|-0.596|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.596|-1.950|
91809557|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||||90.0|-1.792|-0.346|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.346|-1.792|
91809558|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||||90.0|-1.475|-0.096|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.096|-1.475|
91918224|NCT05224258|183734391|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.38% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
91918225|NCT05224258|183734391|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.5% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint.|||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
91918226|NCT05224258|183734392|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% with a margin of 7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|67.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||67.9|63.5|<0.001
91918227|NCT05224258|183734392|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% with a margin of 7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.4|78.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||78.9|75.4|<0.001
91918228|NCT05224258|183734393|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.71% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.4|0.3|<0.001
91918229|NCT05224258|183734393|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.86% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.4|0.2|<0.001
91918230|NCT05224258|183734394|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|65.7||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|67.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||67.9|63.5|0.208
91918231|NCT05224258|183734394|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.4|78.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||78.9|75.4|<0.001
91809559|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||||90.0|-1.114|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||0.224|-1.114|
91809560|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||||90.0|-1.133|1.025|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||1.025|-1.133|
91918232|NCT01381094|183734419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.35||||||||1.35|0.24|
91918233|NCT01381094|183734419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.33||||||||1.33|0.20|
91918234|NCT01381094|183734419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.83||||||||1.83|0.73|
91809561|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||||90.0|-2.438|-0.235|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.235|-2.438|
91918235|NCT01381094|183734419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.0||||||||2.00|0.91|
91918236|NCT01381094|183734419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91918237|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9355|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.9355
91918238|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6594|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.6594
91918239|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0203|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0203
91809562|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||||90.0|-2.356|-0.568|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.568|-2.356|
91809563|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564||||90.0|-2.316|-0.454|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.454|-2.316|
91809564|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||||90.0|-1.877|-0.034|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.034|-1.877|
91809565|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588||||90.0|-1.97|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.030|-1.970|
91809566|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||||90.0|-2.041|0.121|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||0.121|-2.041|
91809567|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||||90.0|-2.77|-0.565|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.565|-2.770|
91809568|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||||90.0|-3.013|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.730|-3.013|
91809569|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||||90.0|-3.084|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.690|-3.084|
91809570|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||||90.0|-4.264|-1.324|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-1.324|-4.264|
91809571|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||||90.0|-5.088|-1.485|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-1.485|-5.088|
91809572|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.486|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.857||||90.0|-2.901|-0.071|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.071|-2.901|
91809573|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||||90.0|-5.382|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.880|-5.382|
91809574|NCT00137046|183494282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.866||||90.0|-2.918|-0.055|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.055|-2.918|
91809575|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||||90.0|-0.981|-0.506|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.506|-0.981|
91809576|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||||90.0|-1.073|-0.522|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.522|-1.073|
91809577|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||||90.0|-0.949|-0.384|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.384|-0.949|
91809578|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||||90.0|-1.123|-0.528|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.528|-1.123|
91809579|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||||90.0|-0.923|-0.296|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.296|-0.923|
91809580|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||||90.0|-0.91|-0.245|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.245|-0.910|
91809581|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||||90.0|-0.962|-0.263|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.263|-0.962|
91809582|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.736|-0.034|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.034|-0.736|
91809583|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||||90.0|-0.197|0.497|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.497|-0.197|
91918240|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0369|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0369
91918241|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY|p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).|||||=|0.3713|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.3713
91918242|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.163|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1630
91764003|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6B, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.69||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.69|1.18|
91764004|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 7F, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.2||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.20|0.99|
91764005|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 9V, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.18|0.98|
91764006|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 14, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.07|0.81|
91764007|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19A, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.04|0.83|
91809584|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||||90.0|-0.16|0.492|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.492|-0.160|
91918243|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7615|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.7615
91918244|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0040
91918245|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0003
91764008|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19F, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.92||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.92|0.76|
91764009|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 23F, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.15|0.91|
91764010|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 1, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.97||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.97|0.82|
91918246|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3978|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.3978
91809585|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||||90.0|-0.274|0.411|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.411|-0.274|
91809586|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||||90.0|-0.876|-0.043|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.043|-0.876|
91809587|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||||90.0|-0.986|-0.172|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.172|-0.986|
91809588|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||||90.0|-0.88|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.040|-0.880|
91809589|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||||90.0|-0.822|0.053|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.053|-0.822|
91809590|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||||90.0|-1.372|-0.487|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.487|-1.372|
91809591|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||||90.0|-1.296|-0.351|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.351|-1.296|
91809592|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||||90.0|-0.965|-0.084|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.084|-0.965|
91809593|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||||90.0|-1.104|-0.191|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.191|-1.104|
91809594|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.853|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||||90.0|-1.34|-0.367|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.367|-1.340|
91809595|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||||90.0|-0.89|0.111|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.111|-0.890|
91809596|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||||90.0|-1.119|-0.153|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.153|-1.119|
91809597|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||||90.0|-1.0|-0.043|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.043|-1.000|
91809598|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||||90.0|-1.315|-0.173|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.173|-1.315|
91809599|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||||90.0|-2.42|-0.335|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.335|-2.420|
91809600|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||||90.0|-1.183|-0.258|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39 (LOCF); Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.258|-1.183|
91809601|NCT00137046|183494291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||||90.0|-0.594|0.472|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.472|-0.594|
91809602|NCT02268084|183494322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that the active treatment group does not differ from the sham group in changes in the PCL-M total scores.||||.007
91809603|NCT02268084|183494323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.326
91809604|NCT03552198|183494346|OTHER|||||||0.964|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline measures, tested for differences between intervention and control groups in preventative behaviours at 4 weeks||We predicted that the groups receiving the alternative format of air quality notifications would report greater frequency of behaviour change at 4 weeks compared to the groups receiving the usual format.||||.964
91809605|NCT03552198|183494347|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|χ2(1)=4.11, V=0.229||We predicted that more respondents in the intervention groups (i.e. receiving alternative health advice) would consider making permanent changes to their daily travel route, exercise location or exercise time compared to the control groups||||0.043
91809606|NCT03552198|183494348|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||We predicted that the alternative health advice would lead to greater actual behaviour change compared to the usual format||||>0.05
91918247|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0083|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0083
91918248|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0323|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0323
91918249|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0003
91918250|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0001
91918251|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.423|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.4230
91918252|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0023|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0023
91918253|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0009|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0009
91764011|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 5, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2||0.80|0.67|
91764012|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6A, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.2||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2||1.20|0.91|
91918254|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
91918255|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
91918256|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5291|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.5291
91918257|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
91918258|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0222|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0222
91918259|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
91918260|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
91918261|NCT01381094|183734420|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9314|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9314
91809607|NCT03552198|183494349|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline intentions, tested for differences between groups in intentions in relation to an high-air-pollution scenario at 4 weeks||We predicted that the alternative format would lead to stronger intentions to adhere to recommendations associated with an hypothetical high air pollution episode compared to the usual format.||||>0.05
91918262|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5219|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.5219
91918263|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6743|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.6743
91918264|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0078|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0078
91918265|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0301|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0301
91918266|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4502|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.4502
91918267|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6967|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6967
91918268|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7385|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.7385
91918269|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0176|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0176
91918270|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0057|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0057
91918271|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5551|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5551
91809608|NCT01767155|183494353|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|69.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.6|75.1||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months||75.1|63.6|
91809609|NCT01767155|183494353|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|45.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|52.0||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||52.0|39.5|
91809610|NCT01767155|183494353|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|77.3||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months||77.3|66.0|
91918272|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0086|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0086
91918273|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2385|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.2385
91918274|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0007|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0007
91918275|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0002
91918276|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8895|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8895
91918277|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0127|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0127
91918278|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0076|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0076
91918279|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0007|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0007
91809611|NCT01767155|183494353|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|44.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|50.7||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||50.7|38.2|
91809612|NCT01767155|183494353|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3|||Log Rank|2-sided||A Cox model with treatment effects was used to estimate the hazard ratio and perform hypothesis testing. The estimated hazard ratio and the 95% CI of the hazard ratio were presented.||1.30|0.87|0.5441
91809613|NCT01767155|183494354|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.5907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45|||Mantel Haenszel|2-sided test||Hypothesis testing between the two treatment arms was performed using a Mantel Haenszel test. The odds ratio and 95% CI of the odds ratio were presented.||1.45|0.52|0.5907
91918280|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
91918281|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5522|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.5522
91918282|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0031|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0031
91918283|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2188|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2188
91918284|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0054|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0054
91918285|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0037|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0037
91918286|NCT01381094|183734421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9521|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9521
91918287|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3943|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.3943
91918288|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2096|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.2096
91809614|NCT01767155|183494355|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|46.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|53.6||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months.||53.6|39.5|
91809615|NCT01767155|183494355|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|27.4||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||27.4|14.6|
91809616|NCT01767155|183494355|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|54.7||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months||54.7|40.0|
91918289|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0637|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0637
91918290|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5016|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.5016
91918291|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7549|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.7549
91918292|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5991|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5991
91918293|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4258|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.4258
91918294|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0336|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0336
91918295|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0258|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0258
91918296|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2412|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.2412
91809617|NCT01767155|183494355|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|19.3||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||19.3|6.9|
91809618|NCT01767155|183494355|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.11|||Log Rank|2-sided||Hypothesis testing between the two treatment arms was performed using a log rank test.||1.11|0.71|0.3089
91809619|NCT01767155|183494356|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52|||Mantel Haenszel|2-sided||Hypothesis testing between the two treatment arms was performed using a Mantel Haenszel test.||1.52|0.76|0.6924
91918297|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0031|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0031
91918298|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7705|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.7705
91809620|NCT00371137|183494359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Overall Comparison||||>0.001
91809621|NCT00371137|183494359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of placebo and Xyrem 4.5g||||<0.001
91809622|NCT00371137|183494359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of placebo and Xyrem 6.0g||||0.015
91809623|NCT02837783|183494381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.283
91809624|NCT04774328|183494391|OTHER|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-39.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.818||0.4812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.97|74.4|||ANOVA|||||74.40|-152.97|0.4812
91809625|NCT04774328|183494392|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-158.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.232||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.29|-24.87|||ANOVA|||"Applies to evoked measure of after coughing."||-24.87|-291.29|0.0222
91809626|NCT04774328|183494392|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.19||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.61|34.53|||ANOVA|||"Applies to evoked measure for after sitting up."||34.53|-144.61|0.2158
91809627|NCT04774328|183494392|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.532||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.93|9.48|||ANOVA|||"Applies to evoked measure of after ambulation."||9.48|-166.93|0.0777
91809628|NCT04774328|183494393|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.7245||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.764|17.014|||ANOVA|||Entry applies to OC 0-96 hours.||17.014|-35.764|0.4690
91809629|NCT04774328|183494393|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.5059||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.208|21.958|||ANOVA|||Applies to OC 0 - Day 8.||21.958|-38.208|0.5811
91809630|NCT02927080|183494445|SUPERIORITY|Percent Change in Total Muscle Volume (TMV) of the TA muscle in patients with FSHD administered ACE-083 when compared to placebo During Part 2 (randomized, controlled portion)|Mean Difference (Net)|9.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.876||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.17|15.92|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in TMV||15.92|3.17|0.0138
91809631|NCT02927080|183494445|SUPERIORITY|Percent Change in Total Muscle Volume (TMV) of the BB muscle in patients with FSHD administered ACE-083 when compared to placebo During Part 2 (randomized, controlled portion)|Mean Difference (Net)|16.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.75|23.02|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in TMV||23.02|9.75|<0.0001
91809632|NCT02927080|183494447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.86|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||D190 Absolute change from baseline in FF for the TA group administered ACE-083 when compared to Placebo in part 2||-0.59|-4.86|0.0359
91809633|NCT02927080|183494447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.359||0.3582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|0.99|||ANCOVA|||D190 Absolute change from baseline in FF for the BB group administered ACE-083 when compared to Placebo in part 2||0.99|-3.49|0.3582
91809634|NCT02927080|183494448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.068||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.97|1.41|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in 6 Minute Walk Test (MWT) distance from baseline||1.41|-11.97|0.1945
91809635|NCT02927080|183494448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.968||0.3451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.48|12.86|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in time to complete a 10 meter walk/run||12.86|-3.48|0.3451
91809636|NCT02927080|183494448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03||0.9402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.47|10.37|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in time to complete 4-stair climb (ascend)||10.37|-9.47|0.9402
91809637|NCT02927080|183494449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.78|60.46|||ANCOVA|||||60.46|11.78|0.0183
91809638|NCT02927080|183494450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|5.69|||ANCOVA|||||5.69|0.09|0.0895
91809639|NCT02927080|183494451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.459||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.67|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in FSHD-HI, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures Part 2 (Randomized, Controlled Portion)- Total Score for TA group part 2; compared to Placebo||3.70|-7.67|0.5661
91809640|NCT02927080|183494451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.618||0.976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.06|5.84|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in FSHD-HI, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures Part 2 (Randomized, Controlled Portion)- Total Score for BB group part 2; compared to Placebo||5.84|-6.06|0.9760
91809641|NCT02670083|183494471|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.53||||||||0.53|-0.86|
91809642|NCT02670083|183494472|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.87||||||||1.87|-2.39|
91809643|NCT02670083|183494473|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.88||||||||1.88|-2.08|
91809644|NCT02670083|183494474|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.10|
91809645|NCT02670083|183494475|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.486|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.29||||||||1.29|-0.62|
91809646|NCT02670083|183494476|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.679|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|5.18||||||||5.18|-1.43|
91809647|NCT02670083|183494477|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|3.79||||||||3.79|-1.35|
91809648|NCT02670083|183494479|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.723|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.9||||||||0.90|-1.95|
91809649|NCT02670083|183494480|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.6||||||||1.60|-0.81|
91809650|NCT02670083|183494481|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|10.86||||||||10.86|-13.64|
91809651|NCT02670083|183494482|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|6.27||||||||6.27|-2.64|
91809652|NCT02670083|183494483|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.222|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|5.32||||||||5.32|-3.45|
91809653|NCT02670083|183494489|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.24|
91809654|NCT02670083|183494490|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.17||||||||1.17|-3.72|
91809655|NCT02670083|183494491|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.89||||||||0.89|-0.10|
91918299|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0024|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0024
91918300|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0006
91764013|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6B, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.04|0.74|
91764014|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 7F, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.83||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.83|0.68|
91764015|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 9V, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.97|0.80|
91764016|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 14, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.09|0.83|
91764017|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19A, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.98|0.79|
91809656|NCT05620563|183494496|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.87|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.87|-0.28|
91809657|NCT05620563|183494497|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.82|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.82|-1.13|
91918301|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6189|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.6189
91918302|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0075|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0075
91764018|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19F, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.20|0.97|
91764019|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 24F, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.15|0.92|
91764020|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.01|0.85|
91764021|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 5, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.07||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.07|0.90|
91809658|NCT05620563|183494498|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.05|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.05|-0.99|
91809659|NCT05620563|183494499|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.69|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.69|-3.82|
91918303|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0259|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0259
91918304|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
91918305|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
91918306|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8898|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.8898
91918307|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0010
91918308|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2864|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2864
91918309|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
91918310|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0016|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0016
91764022|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6A, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.09|0.82|
91764023|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6B, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.74|0.52|
91918311|NCT01381094|183734422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9697|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9697
91918312|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=1.0000
91918313|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0055|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0055
91918314|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0009|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0009
91918315|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0002
91918316|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9722|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.9722
91918317|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=1.0000
91809660|NCT05620563|183494500|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.51|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.51|-0.33|
91809661|NCT05620563|183494501|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.95|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.95|-0.35|
91918318|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0008|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0008
91918319|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0002
91809662|NCT05620563|183494502|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|9.99|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||9.99|-5.70|
91809663|NCT05620563|183494503|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.24|-0.39|
91809664|NCT05620563|183494504|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|24.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.48|166.06|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||166.06|-115.48|
91809665|NCT05620563|183494505|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.09|
91809666|NCT01442493|183494559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
91809667|NCT01442493|183494560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
91809668|NCT01442493|183494561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91809669|NCT01442493|183494562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
91809670|NCT01442493|183494563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
91809671|NCT01442493|183494564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91809672|NCT01442493|183494565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91809673|NCT03454997|183494592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|7.1||||||comparison of baseline and 6 months across both groups||7.1|3.9|
91809674|NCT03454997|183494592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.1||||||between groups differences of change between baseline and 6 months||1.1|-2.3|
91809675|NCT03454997|183494593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||leading behavioral weight loss group baseline to 6 months comparison||0.4|-1.4|
91809676|NCT03454997|183494593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||||||leading behavioral weight loss group between group comparison of change||1.0|-2.0|
91809677|NCT03454997|183494593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||||||completing weight ins baseline to 6 month comparison||0.2|-1.4|
91809678|NCT03454997|183494593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5||||||completing weigh ins between groups comparison of change||0.5|-2.5|
91918320|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||<0.0001
91918321|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6579|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6579
91809679|NCT03454997|183494593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3||||||managing a group session baseline to 6 months comparison||0.3|-1.2|
91809680|NCT03454997|183494593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1||||||managing a group session between groups comparison of change||1.1|-2.0|
91809681|NCT03454997|183494594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.9||||||comparison between baseline and 6 months across groups||2.9|-2.0|
91809682|NCT03454997|183494594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|0.8||||||between groups comparison of change post training to 6 months||0.8|-9.1|
91809683|NCT03454997|183494595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.3||||||comparison of baseline to 6 months across both groups||0.3|-6.9|
91809684|NCT03454997|183494595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|1.8||||||comparison of between group differences baseline to 6 months||1.8|-11.4|
91809685|NCT03454997|183494596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||||||Comparison of Baseline \& 6 Months across both groups||1.1|-0.4|
91809686|NCT03454997|183494596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||||||Between Groups Differences of Change between Baseline \& 6 Months||0.2|-2.0|
91809687|NCT03454997|183494597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.3||||||comparison of between group differences baseline to 6 months||3.3|-4.5|
91809688|NCT03454997|183494597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2||||||comparison of baseline to 6 months across groups||0.2|-3.1|
91809689|NCT03454997|183494598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.6||||||comparison of baseline and 6 months across groups||-1.6|-6.1|
91809690|NCT03454997|183494598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|6.9||||||between groups differences of change between baseline to 6 months||6.9|-20.2|
91809691|NCT05025241|183494642|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||<0.0001
91809692|NCT05025241|183494643|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0003
91809693|NCT05025241|183494644|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0156
91918322|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4102|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.4102
91809694|NCT05025241|183494645|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0005
91809695|NCT05025241|183494646|OTHER|||||||0.0647|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants.||||0.0647
91809696|NCT05025241|183494647|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0984|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0984
91809697|NCT05025241|183494648|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0013|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0013
91809698|NCT05025241|183494649|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0191|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0191
91809699|NCT05025241|183494650|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0013|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0013
91809700|NCT05025241|183494651|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.1710
91809701|NCT05025241|183494652|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0066|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0066
91809702|NCT05025241|183494653|OTHER|change form baseline||||||0.1094|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.1094
91809703|NCT05025241|183494654|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0156
91809704|NCT05025241|183494655|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0326|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0326
91809705|NCT00110149|183494725|OTHER|As the study was not able to be completed the simple number of patients per outcome is listed.|||||||||||||||||The trial was to measure the response rate and EFS of patients but the manufacturer of the investigational agent closed and sold the agent to a new company so the trial was not able to be completed.|||
91918323|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0023|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0023
91918324|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0052|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0052
91809706|NCT01018186|183494737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.08|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 12|||2.08|1.34|
91809707|NCT01018186|183494737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.13|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 28|||2.13|1.29|
91809708|NCT01018186|183494737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 52|||1.33|0.83|
91809709|NCT01018186|183494737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.89|||||Ratio of FF/VI 200/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 12|||1.89|1.22|
91809710|NCT01018186|183494737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84|||||Ratio of FF/VI 200/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 28|||1.84|1.11|
91809711|NCT01018186|183494737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38|||||Ratio of FF/VI 200/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 52|||1.38|0.87|
91809712|NCT01018186|183494738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.08|||ANCOVA|||||2.08|1.34|<0.001
91809713|NCT01018186|183494738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.89|||ANCOVA|||||1.89|1.22|<0.001
91809714|NCT01018186|183494739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.13|||ANCOVA|||||2.13|1.29|<0.001
91809715|NCT01018186|183494739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.43||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84|||ANCOVA|||||1.84|1.11|0.006
91809716|NCT01018186|183494740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.05||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33|||ANCOVA|||||1.33|0.83|0.674
91809717|NCT01018186|183494740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.09||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38|||ANCOVA|||||1.38|0.87|0.444
91918325|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0017|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0017
91918326|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7378|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.7378
91918327|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3371|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.3371
91918328|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0916|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0916
91809718|NCT00923247|183494845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1, day 1 vs. cycle 3, day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib Cmax (normalized to dose).||||0.019
91809719|NCT00923247|183494846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib AUCinf (normalized to dose).||||0.052
91809720|NCT00923247|183494847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib half-life.||||0.440
91918329|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4656|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.4656
91809721|NCT00923247|183494848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib clearance.||||0.016
91809722|NCT00923247|183494849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase I portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib volume of distribution.||||0.010
91809723|NCT01691781|183494869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||This p-value reflects the difference in PTH means among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in PTH, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.049
91809724|NCT01691781|183494869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||This p-value reflects the difference in PTH means among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in PTH, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among normal control participants (without primary hyperparathyroidism).||||0.80
91809725|NCT01691781|183494870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||This p-value reflects the comparison of means among the primary hyperparathyroidism group only.|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in urinary aldosterone excretion rate, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.22
91918330|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1629|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.1629
91809726|NCT01691781|183494870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||This p-value reflects the mean difference in 24h aldosterone excretion rate among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in urinary aldosterone excretion rate, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.86
91809727|NCT01691781|183494871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||This p-value reflects the statistic for the comparison of mean calcium levels for the primary hyperparathyroidism group.|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in serum calcium, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.48
91809728|NCT01691781|183494871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||This p-value reflects the statistic for the comparison of mean calcium levels for the normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism.|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in serum calcium, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.80
91809729|NCT03978520|183494872|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|12.8|||=|0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||27.1|-1.6|=0.081
91809730|NCT03978520|183494872|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.9|||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||31.9|1.8|=0.028
91809731|NCT03978520|183494872|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-4.7|||=|0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||11.4|-20.8|=0.566
91809732|NCT03978520|183494873|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.3|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||32.6|3.9|=0.013
91809733|NCT03978520|183494873|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.1|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|33.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||33.2|3.0|=0.018
91918331|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7032|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.7032
91918332|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5194|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5194
91809734|NCT03978520|183494873|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-1.2|||=|0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||15.2|-17.6|=0.882
91809735|NCT03978520|183494874|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.7|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||29.4|0.0|=0.049
91918333|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8516|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.8516
91918334|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0017|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0017
91918335|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0656|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0656
91918336|NCT01381094|183734423|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6495|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.6495
91918337|NCT01381094|183734424|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2065|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.2065
91918338|NCT01381094|183734424|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1807|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.1807
91918339|NCT01381094|183734424|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7869|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.7869
91764024|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 7F, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.76|0.62|
91918340|NCT01381094|183734424|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4743|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.4743
91764025|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 9V, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.90|0.74|
91764026|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 14, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.17|0.89|
91809736|NCT03978520|183494874|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.9|||=|0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||30.1|-2.2|=0.091
91918341|NCT01381094|183734424|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6407|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.6407
91918342|NCT01381094|183734425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
91918343|NCT01381094|183734425|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
91918344|NCT01381094|183734425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
91918345|NCT01381094|183734425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
91764027|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19A, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.06|0.85|
91764028|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19F, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.44||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.44|1.16|
91918346|NCT01381094|183734425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
91918347|NCT01381094|183734426|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
91918348|NCT01381094|183734426|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0004
91918349|NCT01381094|183734426|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
91918350|NCT01381094|183734426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
91918351|NCT01381094|183734426|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
91918352|NCT01381094|183734427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
91764029|NCT03197376|183418431|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 23F, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.13|0.89|
91764030|NCT03197376|183418432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10%, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 1|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.0|1.9||||||||1.9|-0.0|
91764031|NCT03197376|183418432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 5|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.2|5.0||||||||5.0|1.2|
91918353|NCT01381094|183734427|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0043|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0043
91918354|NCT01381094|183734427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
91918355|NCT01381094|183734427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
91918356|NCT01381094|183734427|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0001
91918357|NCT01381094|183734428|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0027|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0027
91918358|NCT01381094|183734428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
91918359|NCT01381094|183734428|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0001
91764032|NCT03197376|183418432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 6A|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|9.5||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 6A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||9.5|1.1|
91764033|NCT03197376|183418432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 6B|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.2|6.4||||||||6.4|-2.2|
91764034|NCT03197376|183418432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 7F|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|2.7||||||||2.7|-0.1|
91764035|NCT03197376|183418432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 9V|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|2.5||||||||2.5|-1.9|
91764036|NCT03197376|183418432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 14|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|1.0||||||||1.0|-1.4|
91918360|NCT01381094|183734428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
91918361|NCT01381094|183734428|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0005|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0005
91918362|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6051|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6051
91918363|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5197|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5197
91918364|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1073|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1073
91918365|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1321|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1321
91918366|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4358|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.4358
91918367|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8109|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8109
91918368|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2575|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.2575
91918369|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8361|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8361
91764037|NCT03197376|183418432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 19A|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.1|22.5||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 19A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||22.5|15.1|
91918370|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0294|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0294
91918371|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8809|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8809
91918372|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4971|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.4971
91918373|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3994|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.3994
91918374|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5022|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.5022
91918375|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9916|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.9916
91918376|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2292|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.2292
91918377|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1331|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.1331
91918378|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5518|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5518
91918379|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9032|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9032
91918380|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2387|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2387
91918381|NCT01381094|183734434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4251|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.4251
91764038|NCT03197376|183418432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 19F|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|0.5||||||||0.5|-1.9|
91764039|NCT03197376|183418432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 23F|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.6|21.1||||||||21.1|13.6|
91918382|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0448|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0448
91764040|NCT03197376|183418433|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.0|2.32||||||||2.32|2.00|
91764041|NCT03197376|183418433|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.28|1.47||||||||1.47|1.28|
91764042|NCT03197376|183418433|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.78|1.01||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 6A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||1.01|0.78|
91764043|NCT03197376|183418433|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.24||||||||1.24|0.93|
91918383|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0004
91918384|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0813|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0813
91918385|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0038|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0038
91764044|NCT03197376|183418433|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.19|1.41||||||||1.41|1.19|
91764045|NCT03197376|183418433|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.0||||||||1.00|0.85|
91764046|NCT03197376|183418433|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|1.37||||||||1.37|1.10|
91764047|NCT03197376|183418433|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|1.63||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 19A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||1.63|1.30|
91764048|NCT03197376|183418433|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.67|0.8||||||||0.80|0.67|
91764049|NCT03197376|183418433|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.63|2.01||||||||2.01|1.63|
91764050|NCT03197376|183418434|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for diphtheria|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
91764051|NCT03197376|183418434|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Tetanus|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
91764052|NCT03197376|183418434|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Hepatitis B|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5||||||||2.5|-0.4|
91764053|NCT03197376|183418434|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Hib|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||||||||1.2|-2.5|
91764054|NCT03197376|183418434|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Polio type 1|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5||||||||1.5|-1.3|
91764055|NCT03197376|183418434|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Polio type 2|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|9.3||||||||9.3|-3.2|
91764056|NCT03197376|183418434|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Polio type 3|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.8||||||||1.8|-3.0|
91918386|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6861|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6861
91918387|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0553|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0553
91764057|NCT03197376|183418434|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Rotavirus|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.1||||||||7.1|-7.1|
91764058|NCT03197376|183418435|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMC ratio exceeded 0.5 (for pertussis antigens).|GMC Ratio for anti-pertussis toxoid|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.09||||||||1.09|0.62|
91764059|NCT03197376|183418436|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMC ratio exceeded 0.5 (for pertussis antigens).|GMC Ratio for anti-fimbriae 2/3|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.25||||||||1.25|0.77|
91809737|NCT03978520|183494874|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-6.3|||=|0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|9.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||9.9|-22.5|=0.447
91918388|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0004
91918389|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
91918390|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
91764060|NCT03197376|183418443|SUPERIORITY|Proportions with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 µg/mL will be compared using a z-test for proportions. The test will be done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, will also be reported|Difference for Type 6A|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|69.8|76.3||||||||76.3|69.8|
91764061|NCT03197376|183418443|SUPERIORITY|Proportions with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 µg/mL will be compared using a z-test for proportions. The test will be done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, will also be reported|Difference for Type 19A|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|50.3|58.9||||||||58.9|50.3|
91764062|NCT03197376|183418444|SUPERIORITY|For each of the two serotypes, GMCs are compared by a two-sample t-test on the difference between means of log10 (antibody). The test was done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, are also be reported|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.68|9.43||||||||9.43|7.68|
91764063|NCT03197376|183418444|SUPERIORITY|For each of the two serotypes, GMCs are compared by a two-sample t-test on the difference between means of log10 (antibody). The test was done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, are also be reported|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|5.64|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.14|6.18||||||||6.18|5.14|
91764064|NCT03197376|183418445|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 1|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|23.6||||||||23.6|11.0|
91764065|NCT03197376|183418445|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 5|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.2||||||||6.2|-0.0|
91764066|NCT03197376|183418445|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 6A|82.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.7|86.6||||||||86.6|76.7|
91764067|NCT03197376|183418445|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 6B|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|14.6||||||||14.6|4.5|
91764068|NCT03197376|183418445|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 7F|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2||||||||2.2|-1.1|
91764069|NCT03197376|183418445|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 9V|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
91764070|NCT03197376|183418445|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type14|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.2||||||||2.2|-4.0|
91809738|NCT03978520|183494875|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.7|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||28.9|4.5|=0.007
91918391|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7379|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.7379
91918392|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.072|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0720
91918393|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0002
91764071|NCT03197376|183418445|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 19A|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|60.1||||||||60.1|46.0|
91764072|NCT03197376|183418445|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 19F|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.2||||||||1.2|-4.9|
91764073|NCT03197376|183418445|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 23F|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
91764074|NCT03197376|183418446|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.98||||||||3.98|2.40|
91918394|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
91918395|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
91918396|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6781|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.6781
91918397|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0524|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0524
91918398|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0367|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0367
91764075|NCT03197376|183418446|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.72||||||||1.72|1.12|
91764076|NCT03197376|183418446|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|186.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|144.0|241.0||||||||241|144|
91764077|NCT03197376|183418446|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.69||||||||2.69|1.42|
91764078|NCT03197376|183418446|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.39||||||||1.39|0.96|
91764079|NCT03197376|183418446|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.49||||||||0.49|0.29|
91764080|NCT03197376|183418446|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.27||||||||1.27|0.67|
91764081|NCT03197376|183418446|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|17.7||||||||17.7|10.2|
91764082|NCT03197376|183418446|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81||||||||0.81|0.54|
91764083|NCT03197376|183418446|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.09||||||||4.09|2.25|
91764084|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.52||||||||1.52|1.31|
91918399|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6671|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.6671
91918400|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6861|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.6861
91918401|NCT01381094|183734435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9012|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9012
91918402|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3953|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.3953
91918403|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.085|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0850
91918404|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6045|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6045
91918405|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7743|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.7743
91918406|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5326|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5326
91918407|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3465|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.3465
91809739|NCT03978520|183494875|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|44.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo||44.0|18.1|<0.001
91918408|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2756|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.2756
91918409|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1414|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.1414
91918410|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6941|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.6941
91809740|NCT03978520|183494875|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-13.7|||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||1.0|-28.4|=0.068
91918411|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9403|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.9403
91918412|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.831|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.8310
91918413|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0654|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0654
91918414|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4169|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.4169
91918415|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0103|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0103
91918416|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3968|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.3968
91918417|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0325|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0325
91918418|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2151|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2151
91918419|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8436|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.8436
91918420|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5962|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5962
91764085|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.95||||||||0.95|0.81|
91764086|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|4.96||||||||4.96|4.01|
91764087|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|6.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|7.26||||||||7.26|5.70|
91809741|NCT03978520|183494876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|=|0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.23|||Mixed-effect model repeat measurement|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement model included fixed effects of Tx, visit and Tx-by-visit interaction, stratification factors (Baseline corticosteroid dose \> 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤ 10 mg or \>10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\<10 or ≥ 10), baseline interferon score (high/low/NA, baseline immunosuppressant (yes/no)), and continuous fixed covariates of measurements at Baseline."||1.23|-0.84|=0.710
91918421|NCT01381094|183734436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3957|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.3957
91918422|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0294|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0294
91918423|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0021|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0021
91764088|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.19||||||||2.19|1.89|
91764089|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.5||||||||1.50|1.29|
91764090|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.51||||||||1.51|1.21|
91764091|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.91||||||||2.91|2.40|
91764092|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.63||||||||1.63|1.36|
91764093|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|2.72||||||||2.72|2.29|
91764094|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.28||||||||1.28|1.06|
91764095|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.74||||||||0.74|0.61|
91918424|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0004
91918425|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0001
91918426|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0925|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0925
91918427|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0433|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0433
91918428|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
91918429|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0005|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0005
91918430|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
91918431|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1626|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.1626
91918432|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0366|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0366
91918433|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0004
91918434|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0012|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0012
91918435|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
91918436|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1779|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.1779
91918437|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5867|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5867
91918438|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1306|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.1306
91764096|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|4.11||||||||4.11|2.97|
91918439|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9889|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9889
91918440|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2026|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2026
91918441|NCT01381094|183734437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5703|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5703
91918442|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||<0.0001
91918443|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0092|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0092
91918444|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0012|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0012
91918445|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||<0.0001
91809742|NCT03978520|183494876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545|=|0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.1|||Mixed-effect model repeat measurement|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement model included fixed effects of Tx, visit and Tx-by-visit interaction, stratification factors (Baseline corticosteroid dose \> 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤ 10 mg or \>10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\<10 or ≥ 10), baseline interferon score (high/low/NA, baseline immunosuppressant (yes/no)), and continuous fixed covariates of measurements at Baseline."||1.10|-1.05|=0.963
91809743|NCT03978520|183494876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|=|0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.25|||Mixed-effect model repeat measurement|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement model included fixed effects of Tx, visit and Tx-by-visit interaction, stratification factors (Baseline corticosteroid dose \> 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤ 10 mg or \>10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\<10 or ≥ 10), baseline interferon score (high/low/NA, baseline immunosuppressant (yes/no)), and continuous fixed covariates of measurements at Baseline."||1.25|-0.90|=0.754
91809744|NCT03978520|183494877|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-1.06|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.39|||Binomial regression|||"Mild/Moderate~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.39|-1.74|=0.002
91809745|NCT03978520|183494877|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.69|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.03|||Binomial regression|||"Mild/Moderate~Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.03|-1.41|=0.059
91918446|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1157|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1157
91918447|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0069|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0069
91918448|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0034|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0034
91918449|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0067|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0067
91918450|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
91918451|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0401|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0401
91918452|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0042|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0042
91918453|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
91809746|NCT03978520|183494877|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.37|||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.27|||Binomial regression|||"Mild/Moderate~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.27|-1.01|=0.252
91918454|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0002
91918455|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
91918456|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0422|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0422
91918457|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0232|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0232
91918458|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0243|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0243
91918459|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0001
91918460|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1089|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.1089
91918461|NCT01381094|183734438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0833|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0833
91918462|NCT01381094|183734440|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5456|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.5456
91918463|NCT01381094|183734440|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0053|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.0053
91918464|NCT01381094|183734440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||<0.0001
91918465|NCT01381094|183734440|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.0040
91918466|NCT01381094|183734440|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2017|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.2017
91918467|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.885||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.885|0.357|
91918468|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|1.072||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.072|0.349|
91918469|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.981||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||0.981|0.274|
91918470|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|0.796||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.796|0.217|
91918471|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.021||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.021|0.262|
91918472|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|1.503||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.503|0.291|
91918473|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.254||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.254|0.366|
91764097|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|4.59||||||||4.59|3.23|
91809747|NCT03978520|183494877|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.1|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.17|||Binomial regression|||"Severe~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.17|-0.37|=0.467
91918474|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.134||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.134|0.520|
91918475|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.15||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.150|0.427|
91918476|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|1.015||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.015|0.329|
91918477|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.728||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.728|0.231|
91918478|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.657||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.657|0.484|
91918479|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.563||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.563|0.350|
91918480|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|3.697||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||3.697|0.659|
91918481|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.853||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.853|0.433|
91918482|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|1.039||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.039|0.437|
91918483|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|1.004||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.004|0.374|
91918484|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.921||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.921|0.338|
91918485|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.23||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.230|0.427|
91764098|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|1.82||||||||1.82|1.47|
91764099|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.62||||||||1.62|1.31|
91918486|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|1.386||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.386|0.384|
91918487|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|2.353||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.353|0.559|
91918488|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.082||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.082|0.556|
91918489|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.919||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||0.919|0.394|
91918490|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|1.007||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.007|0.386|
91918491|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.7||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.700|0.263|
91918492|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.842||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||0.842|0.299|
91918493|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.903||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.903|0.255|
91918494|NCT00996840|183734517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|1.192||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.192|0.281|
91918495|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|0.75||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.750|0.312|
91918496|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.229||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.229|0.399|
91918497|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.254||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.254|0.370|
91918498|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.368|1.231||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.231|0.368|
91918499|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.857||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.857|0.456|
91918500|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|2.002||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||2.002|0.445|
91918501|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.723||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.723|0.476|
91918502|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.08||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.080|0.488|
91764100|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.42||||||||1.42|1.03|
91918503|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.317||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.317|0.476|
91918504|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|1.26||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.260|0.417|
91918505|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|1.13||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.130|0.379|
91764101|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|4.33||||||||4.33|2.99|
91764102|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.75||||||||1.75|1.38|
91918506|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|2.12||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||2.120|0.583|
91918507|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|2.146||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||2.146|0.539|
91918508|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|2.574||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.574|0.735|
91918509|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.783||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.783|0.400|
91918510|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.277||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.277|0.539|
91918511|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.589||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.589|0.613|
91918512|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.924|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.467||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.467|0.582|
91918513|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|2.11||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||2.110|0.716|
91918514|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|2.312||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||2.312|0.719|
91918515|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|2.916||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.916|1.053|
91918516|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|0.803||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.803|0.419|
91918517|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.996||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||0.996|0.433|
91918518|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|1.171||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.171|0.477|
91918519|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.421|1.024||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.024|0.421|
91918520|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.279||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.279|0.451|
91918521|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.701||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.701|0.550|
91918522|NCT00996840|183734518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.229||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.229|0.450|
91918523|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.773|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.985||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.985|0.607|
91918524|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.795|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.084||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.084|0.583|
91918525|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.135||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.135|0.533|
91918526|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.931||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.931|0.430|
91918527|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|1.103||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.103|0.397|
91918528|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.756||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.756|0.286|
91918529|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|0.935||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||0.935|0.295|
91918530|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.18||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.180|0.768|
91918531|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.269||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.269|0.733|
91918532|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.992|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.387||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.387|0.710|
91918533|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.285||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.285|0.649|
91918534|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|1.051||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.051|0.415|
91918535|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|1.072||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.072|0.445|
91918536|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|1.239||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.239|0.423|
91918537|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.144||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.144|0.789|
91918538|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.249||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.249|0.777|
91918539|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.428||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.428|0.797|
91918540|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|1.239||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.239|0.686|
91918541|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.287||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.287|0.583|
91918542|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.95||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.950|0.444|
91918543|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|1.14||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.140|0.457|
91918544|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.897|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.075||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.075|0.748|
91918545|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.119||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.119|0.703|
91918546|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.123||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.123|0.638|
91918547|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.084||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.084|0.609|
91918548|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.855||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||0.855|0.394|
91918549|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.639||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.639|0.301|
91918550|NCT00996840|183734519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.714||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||0.714|0.285|
91918551|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.119||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.119|0.646|
91918552|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.411||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.411|0.814|
91918553|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.478||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.478|0.790|
91918554|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.266||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.266|0.715|
91918555|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.918|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.285||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.285|0.655|
91918556|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.395||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.395|0.735|
91918557|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.64||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.640|0.831|
91918558|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.167||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.167|0.713|
91918559|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.233||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.233|0.753|
91764103|NCT03197376|183418447|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.65||||||||2.65|1.98|
91764104|NCT03197376|183418448|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.71||||||||2.71|2.02|
91764105|NCT03197376|183418448|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.79||||||||1.79|1.38|
91764106|NCT03197376|183418448|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.67|14.0||||||||14.0|9.67|
91764107|NCT03197376|183418448|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.15||||||||2.15|1.65|
91764108|NCT03197376|183418448|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.8||||||||1.80|1.37|
91809748|NCT03978520|183494877|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.26|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02|||Binomial regression|||"Severe~Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.02|-0.49|=0.033
91918560|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.214||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.214|0.693|
91764109|NCT03197376|183418448|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.99||||||||0.99|0.76|
91764110|NCT03197376|183418448|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.82||||||||1.82|1.21|
91764111|NCT03197376|183418448|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|5.06||||||||5.06|3.52|
91764112|NCT03197376|183418448|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.73||||||||0.73|0.55|
91764113|NCT03197376|183418448|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.24||||||||2.24|1.63|
91764114|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.44||||||||4.44|2.72|
91764115|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.13||||||||3.13|2.06|
91764116|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.42||||||||3.42|1.83|
91764117|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|3.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|5.69||||||||5.69|2.48|
91764118|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|5.18||||||||5.18|2.92|
91764119|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|6.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|10.52||||||||10.52|4.45|
91764120|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.65||||||||3.65|1.64|
91918561|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.123||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.123|0.673|
91918562|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.55||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.550|0.840|
91918563|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.505||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.505|0.837|
91918564|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.063|2.045||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.045|1.063|
91918565|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.031||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.031|0.672|
91918566|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.092||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.092|0.707|
91918567|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.307||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.307|0.800|
91918568|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.187||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.187|0.761|
91918569|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.262||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.262|0.743|
91918570|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.193||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.193|0.718|
91918571|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.613||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.613|0.936|
91918572|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.923|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.131||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.131|0.753|
91918573|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|0.943||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||0.943|0.625|
91918574|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.042||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.042|0.655|
91918575|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.942||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.942|0.615|
91918576|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.003||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.003|0.608|
91918577|NCT00996840|183734520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.851||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.851|0.524|
91918578|NCT00996840|183734520|OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.122||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.122|0.659|
91918579|NCT00603239|183734525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustments for multiplicity were made.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in HbA1c is equal between the two treatment groups. Greater than 99% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.88% in change in HbA1c from baseline using a 2-sided t-test at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91918580|NCT00603239|183734526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|CMH test|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Proportion of subjects with HbA1c \<= 7% is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.113
91918581|NCT00603239|183734527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|CMH test|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c \<= 6.5% is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.004
91918582|NCT00603239|183734528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in FSG is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.009
91918583|NCT00603239|183734529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline to endpoint in body weight is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.176
91918584|NCT00603239|183734531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change form baseline in HOMA-B is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.009
91918585|NCT00603239|183734532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in HOMA-S is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.794
91918586|NCT00603239|183734533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|Fisher Exact|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Incidence of minor hypoglycemia episodes is equal between the two treatment groups.||||1.00
91918587|NCT00603239|183734534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in IWQOL-Lite Total Score is equal between the two treatment groups. This statistical analysis is for the Total Score only.||||0.342
91918588|NCT00603239|183734535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05)|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in EQ-5D score is equal between the two treatment groups. This statistical analysis is for the EQ-5D Health State Score only.||||0.186
91918589|NCT02210780|183734545|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.29|43.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization strata (moderate \[IGA=3\] vs. severe \[IGA=4\] AD).||43.75|24.29|<0.0001
91918590|NCT02210780|183734546|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|40.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.4|51.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization strata (moderate \[IGA=3\] vs. severe \[IGA=4\] AD).||51.01|29.40|<0.0001
91918591|NCT02210780|183734547|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.38|44.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization strata (moderate \[IGA=3\] vs. severe \[IGA=4\] AD).||44.66|23.38|<0.0001
91918592|NCT02210780|183734548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|-1.55|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model which includes treatment, randomization strata, and baseline value as covariates.||-1.55|-2.72|<0.0001
91918593|NCT02210780|183734549|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.5|-13.1|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model that includes treatment, randomization strata and baseline value as covariates.||-13.1|-22.5|<0.0001
91918594|NCT02210780|183734551|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|-1.7|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA model which includes treatment, randomization strata, and baseline values as covariates.||-1.7|-3.0|<0.0001
91918595|NCT02210780|183734552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|-6.6|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA model which included treatment, randomization strata, and baseline value as covariates.||-6.6|-9.9|<0.0001
91918596|NCT05127486|183734607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||1.38|0.81|0.695
91918597|NCT05127486|183734608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.56|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||1.56|0.89|
91918598|NCT05127486|183734609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||1.79|0.89|
91918599|NCT05127486|183734610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.82|
91918600|NCT05127486|183734611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-1.11|
91918601|NCT05127486|183734612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.90|
91809749|NCT03978520|183494877|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|0.15|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.37|||Binomial regression|||"Severe~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.37|-0.06|=0.156
91918602|NCT05127486|183734613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.73|
91918603|NCT05127486|183734614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.86|
91918604|NCT05127486|183734615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|7.37|||ANCOVA|||Total score||7.37|1.42|
91918605|NCT05127486|183734615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.58|||ANCOVA|||RF-R||8.58|1.90|
91918606|NCT05127486|183734615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.71|||ANCOVA|||RF-P||6.71|1.06|
91918607|NCT05127486|183734615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|6.44|||ANCOVA|||EF||6.44|-0.08|
91918608|NCT05127486|183734616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|2.08|||ANCOVA|||||2.08|-6.94|
91918609|NCT00775021|183734618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1618|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03501|0.2334|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilconA minus nelfilcon A. Analysis is adjusted for lens type, period, lens type by period interaction, gender, lens type by gender interaction as fixed effects, subject nested within site as random effect.|The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A contact lenses will have equal to ro higher ratings of overall comfort than nelfilcon A contact lenses.||0.2334|-0.03501|
91918610|NCT00775021|183734619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07768|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.108|0.06501|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A. Analysis adjusted for lens type, period, lens by period interaction, gender, lens by gender interaction as fixed effects, subject nested within site and eye within subject as random effect.|The alternative hypothesis is that eyes that wore etafilcon A contact lenses will have less inferior region corneal staining than eyes that wore nelfilcon A contact lenses.||0.06501|-0.1080|
91918611|NCT00775021|183734620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1799|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.0055|0.4001|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A contact lenses have equal to or higher comfort ratings at the end of the day than nelfilcon A.||0.4001|-0.0055|
91918612|NCT00775021|183734621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1741|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.5016|-0.1088|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A contact lenses will have equal or higher ratings of initial comfort than nelfilcon A contact lenses.||-0.1088|-0.5016|
91918613|NCT00775021|183734622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.1301|0.2489|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis is that etaflicon A contact lenses have equal to or higher ratings of ease of handling than nelfilcon A contact lenses.||0.2489|-0.1301|
91918614|NCT00363415|183734623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||<|0.01||95.0|1.27|1.92|||Log Rank|||||1.92|1.27|<0.01
91918615|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sex: Male|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91918616|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for Sex: Female|Log Rank|||||||0.023
91918617|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Race: Caucasian.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91918618|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for Race: Non-Caucasian.|Log Rank|||||||0.030
91918619|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Performance Status: 0 or 1.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91918620|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||P-value for ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Performance Status: 2.|Log Rank|||||||0.519
91918621|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0||||P-value for Region: United States.|Log Rank|||||||0.084
91918622|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Region: European Union.|Log Rank|||||||0.001
91918623|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Region: Intercontinental Region.|Log Rank|||||||0.003
91918624|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for LDH (lactate dehydrogenase): \>Upper Limit of Normal.|Log Rank|||||||0.005
91918625|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Age: \<=65 years.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91918626|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Age: \>65 years.|Log Rank|||||||0.013
91809750|NCT03978520|183494877|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-1.16|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.44|||Binomial regression|||"Overall~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.44|-1.89|=0.002
91809751|NCT03978520|183494877|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.95|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.19|||Binomial regression|||"Overall~Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.19|-1.70|=0.014
91809752|NCT03978520|183494877|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.22|||=|0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.46|||Binomial regression|||"Overall~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.46|-0.89|=0.526
91809753|NCT02421315|183494911|OTHER|a t-test comparing groups in a specific region-of-interest (ROI); the insula|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.224|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that compared to HC, children and adolescents with OCD would have increased activation in subcortical structures (insula, and putamen) comprising a right hemisphere dorsal frontostriatal circuit.||0.224|-0.004|0.0585
91809754|NCT02421315|183494912|SUPERIORITY|We selected 'arbitrary units' as the unit of measure here because we are looking at connectivity strengths|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49512921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06553315||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||"NBS controls for family-wise error rate using permutation testing to identify components or clusters of contiguous region-to-region connections. A statistical threshold of p\<.05 with 20,000 permutations was used."|t-test, 1 sided||Direction of the comparison: HC\>OCD|Whole-Brain Connectome-Level Analyses were performed on the FC-strength indices between 352 regions. Edge-wise functional connectivity analyses was then be conducted across the resulting matrix comprised of 352 nodes and 123,904 edges, using the Network-Based Statistics (NBS) Toolbox. We hypothesized that youth with OCD would show altered FC between task-control circuit regions.||||.037
91809755|NCT02421315|183494912|OTHER||Slope|-0.521|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Separate cross-lagged panel models were computed in the OCD group for the three functional connections that differed significantly across groups at baseline (see Statistical Analysis 1). These models were constructed using IBM SPSS Amos (v.23) to test for directional relationships between OCD symptoms and FC pre- to post-treatment in the OCD patients. CY-BOCS total scores at each time point were used as the OCD symptoms measure.||||<.05
91809756|NCT02421315|183494913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0018|0.218|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.218|0.0018|0.0464
91809757|NCT02421315|183494914|SUPERIORITY|only participants were assigned to groups (OCD, HC) and we measured streamline count in these participants to index structural connectivity|Slope|-102.67|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||"NBS controls for family-wise error rate using permutation testing to identify components or clusters of contiguous region-to-region connections. A statistical threshold of p=.025 with 10,000 permutations was used."|Regression, Linear||Direction of comparison: HC\>OCD|Whole-Brain Connectome-Level Analyses were performed on the structural connectivity indices (streamline count) between 164 regions. Edge-wise structural connectivity analyses was then be conducted across the resulting matrix comprised of 164 nodes and 26,896 edges, using the Network-Based Statistics (NBS) Toolbox.||||<0.025
91809758|NCT01405456|183494990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Insulin Stimulated Glucose Uptake measured during euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp procedure from baseline to 6 months||||0.71
91809759|NCT01405456|183494991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Visceral Adipose Tissue area as measured by magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen from baseline to 6 months||||0.42
91918627|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value for Number Metastatic Sites: \<=2.|Log Rank|||||||0.092
91918628|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Number Metastatic Sites: \>=3.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91918629|NCT00363415|183734624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for History of Brain Metastases: No.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91918630|NCT03193866|183734630|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.9|-1.8|
91809760|NCT01405456|183494992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Liver Fat (Intrahepatic Lipid) as measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy from baseline to 6 months||||0.51
91809761|NCT01405456|183494993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Intramyocellular Lipid of calf muscles as measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy from baseline to 6 months||||0.04
91809762|NCT01405456|183494994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Flow Mediated Vasodilation (maximum percentage) from baseline to 6 months||||0.44
91809763|NCT01405456|183494995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean serum measurements of Potassium||||0.07
91918631|NCT03193866|183734630|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.5|-6.8|
91918632|NCT03193866|183734630|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.3|-1.7|
91918633|NCT03193866|183734630|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.4|-4.3|
91918634|NCT03193866|183734630|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.6|-1.3|
91918635|NCT03193866|183734630|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.3|-2.7|
91918636|NCT03193866|183734630|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.4|-2.0|
91918637|NCT03193866|183734630|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.1|-3.2|
91918638|NCT03193866|183734631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|8.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.8|-7.5|
91764121|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|5.36||||||||5.36|2.47|
91764122|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.14||||||||3.14|1.80|
91918639|NCT03193866|183734631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|12.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||12.8|-18.5|
91918640|NCT03193866|183734631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.6|-8.8|
91918641|NCT03193866|183734631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.2|-8.1|
91918642|NCT03193866|183734631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.9|-5.7|
91918643|NCT03193866|183734631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.0|-4.7|
91918644|NCT03193866|183734631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.9|-6.2|
91918645|NCT03193866|183734631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|7.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.5|-10.8|
91918646|NCT03193866|183734632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.3|-2.5|
91918647|NCT03193866|183734632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|3.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.4|-12.5|
91918648|NCT03193866|183734632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.8|-2.5|
91918649|NCT03193866|183734632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-0.1|-4.9|
91918650|NCT03193866|183734632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.1|-2.6|
91764123|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|7.06||||||||7.06|3.49|
91918651|NCT03193866|183734632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-4.2|
91918652|NCT03193866|183734632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-4.0|
91918653|NCT03193866|183734632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||5.8|-0.6|
91918654|NCT03193866|183734633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.8|-2.2|
91918655|NCT03193866|183734633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|3.7||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.7|-20.3|
91809764|NCT01405456|183494996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Hemoglobin A1c from baseline to 6 months||||0.70
91809765|NCT01405456|183494997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in C-Reactive Protein from baseline to 6 months||||0.10
91809766|NCT01405456|183494998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor 1 from baseline to 6 months||||0.37
91809767|NCT01405456|183494999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Adiponectin from baseline to 6 months||||0.78
91809768|NCT01405456|183495000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in IL-6 from baseline to 6 months||||0.10
91809769|NCT01405456|183495001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in MCP-1 from baseline to 6 months||||0.04
91809770|NCT02044393|183495012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|74.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.371|87.959|||||"ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. Estimated value and its confidence interval (CI) are in percentage unit.~The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance."|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment (in plasma)||87.959|62.371|
91918656|NCT03193866|183734633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.5|-2.6|
91809771|NCT02044393|183495012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|86.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.04|95.56|||||"ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. Estimated value and its confidence interval (CI) are in percentage unit.~The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance."|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment (in whole blood)||95.56|78.04|
91809772|NCT02044393|183495013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|95.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.195|108.537|||||ratio of test to reference treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of test to reference treatment (in plasma)||108.537|84.195|
91918657|NCT03193866|183734633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.9||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.9|-5.8|
91918658|NCT03193866|183734633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.7||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.7|-2.9|
91809773|NCT02044393|183495013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|93.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.142|101.57|||||ratio of test to reference treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of test to reference treatment (in whole blood)||101.570|86.142|
91809774|NCT02044393|183495014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|74.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.946|89.035|||||ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment (in plasma)||89.035|62.946|
91918659|NCT03193866|183734633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.6||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.6|-4.5|
91918660|NCT03193866|183734633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.5|-4.7|
91918661|NCT03193866|183734633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.4|-1.7|
91918662|NCT03193866|183734634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.48|0.30|
91764124|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.97|7.96||||||||7.96|4.97|
91764125|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|3.98||||||||3.98|2.56|
91764126|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|10.84||||||||10.84|3.55|
91764127|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.7||||||||4.70|2.25|
91764128|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|3.69||||||||3.69|2.13|
91764129|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|4.04||||||||4.04|2.15|
91809775|NCT02044393|183495014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|88.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.6|98.95|||||ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment (in whole blood)||98.95|78.60|
91918663|NCT03193866|183734634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.42||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.42|0.11|
91764130|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.46||||||||2.46|1.06|
91764131|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|9.21||||||||9.21|3.88|
91764132|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.68||||||||2.68|1.45|
91764133|NCT03197376|183418449|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|5.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|8.63||||||||8.63|3.80|
91764134|NCT03197376|183418450|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.72||||||||2.72|1.25|
91764135|NCT03197376|183418450|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.64||||||||1.64|0.79|
91764136|NCT03197376|183418450|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|68.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.07|125.09||||||||125.09|37.07|
91764137|NCT03197376|183418450|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.46||||||||2.46|1.25|
91764138|NCT03197376|183418450|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.34||||||||2.34|1.28|
91764139|NCT03197376|183418450|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.32||||||||1.32|0.65|
91918664|NCT03193866|183734634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.23||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.23|0.10|
91918665|NCT03193866|183734634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.13||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.13|-0.03|
91918666|NCT03193866|183734634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.19||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.19|0.08|
91918667|NCT03193866|183734634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.16||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.16|0.01|
91918668|NCT03193866|183734634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.21|0.06|
91918669|NCT03193866|183734634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.33||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.33|0.13|
91918670|NCT03193866|183734635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-66.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-66.6|-76.6|
91918671|NCT03193866|183734635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-66.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|-56.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-56.4|-76.3|
91918672|NCT03193866|183734635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-47.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-41.7||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-41.7|-53.0|
91918673|NCT03193866|183734635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-43.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-36.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-36.6|-49.6|
91918674|NCT03193866|183734635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-41.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-36.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-36.2|-46.4|
91918675|NCT03193866|183734635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-28.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-28.0|-39.8|
91918676|NCT03193866|183734635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-28.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-28.0|-39.7|
91918677|NCT03193866|183734635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-49.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-41.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-41.6|-58.0|
91764140|NCT03197376|183418450|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.51||||||||3.51|1.38|
91764141|NCT03197376|183418450|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|12.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.36|21.37||||||||21.37|7.36|
91764142|NCT03197376|183418450|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.46||||||||1.46|0.70|
91764143|NCT03197376|183418450|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|4.45||||||||4.45|2.21|
91764144|NCT03197376|183418451|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be shown if a two-sided 95% CI for the treatment-group difference in response proportions (proportion with Synflorix co-administration minus proportion with PNEUMOSIL co-administration) has an upper limit of \< 0.10.|Absolute difference for measles|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.4||||||||7.4|-3.3|
91764145|NCT03197376|183418451|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be shown if a two-sided 95% CI for the treatment-group difference in response proportions (proportion with Synflorix co-administration minus proportion with PNEUMOSIL co-administration) has an upper limit of \< 0.10.|Absolute difference for rubella|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.0||||||||4.0|-0.9|
91764146|NCT03197376|183418451|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be shown if a two-sided 95% CI for the treatment-group difference in response proportions (proportion with Synflorix co-administration minus proportion with PNEUMOSIL co-administration) has an upper limit of \< 0.10.|Absolute difference for yellow fever|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.9||||||||5.9|0.2|
91764147|NCT03197376|183418452|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 1|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|23.7||||||||23.7|8.0|
91764148|NCT03197376|183418452|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 5|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.8||||||||15.8|-1.4|
91764149|NCT03197376|183418452|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 6A|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|38.1||||||||38.1|21.8|
91764150|NCT03197376|183418452|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 6B|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|23.6||||||||23.6|10.1|
91764151|NCT03197376|183418452|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 7F|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|24.5||||||||24.5|8.4|
91764152|NCT03197376|183418452|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 9V|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.5||||||||8.5|-8.8|
91764153|NCT03197376|183418452|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 14|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.3||||||||22.3|7.5|
91764154|NCT03197376|183418452|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 19A|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|22.5||||||||22.5|7.3|
91764155|NCT03197376|183418452|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 19F|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.0||||||||-8.0|-19.0|
91764156|NCT03197376|183418452|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 23F|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|25.4||||||||25.4|8.2|
91764157|NCT03197376|183418453|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.89||||||||1.89|1.42|
91764158|NCT03197376|183418453|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.4||||||||1.40|1.03|
91764159|NCT03197376|183418453|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.78||||||||2.78|2.01|
91764160|NCT03197376|183418453|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.66||||||||1.66|1.27|
91764161|NCT03197376|183418453|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.49||||||||1.49|1.12|
91764162|NCT03197376|183418453|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09||||||||1.09|0.81|
91764163|NCT03197376|183418453|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.72||||||||1.72|1.15|
91918678|NCT03193866|183734636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-0.1|
91809776|NCT02692716|183495023|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Non-inferiority of oral semaglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the HR was strictly below 1.8.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority).|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first event adjudication committee (EAC) confirmed MACE was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.11|0.57|< 0.0001
91809777|NCT02692716|183495023|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||Unadjusted two-sided p-value from test of no difference from 1 (superiority).|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed MACE was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.11|0.57|= 0.1749
91809778|NCT02692716|183495024|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||=|0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed expanded cardiovascular outcome was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.10|0.61|= 0.1827
91809779|NCT02692716|183495025|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||=|0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.92||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed cardiovascular death (including undetermined cause of death) was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||0.92|0.27|= 0.0261
91809780|NCT02692716|183495025|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||=|0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed non-fatal myocardial infarction was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.90|0.73|= 0.5044
91809781|NCT02692716|183495025|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||=|0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.57||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed non-fatal stroke was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.57|0.35|= 0.4350
91809782|NCT02692716|183495025|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||=|0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.01||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed unstable angina pectoris requiring hospitalisation was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||4.01|0.60|= 0.3605
91809783|NCT02692716|183495025|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.55||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed hospitalisation for heart failure was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.55|0.48|= 0.6227
91809784|NCT02692716|183495026|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.05|0.56|= 0.0952
91809785|NCT02692716|183495027|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the on-treatment observation period. Time from first dose of trial product to first EAC-confirmed fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their on-treatment observation period.||1.66|0.66|0.8583
91809786|NCT02692716|183495028|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.56||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed fatal or non-fatal stroke was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.56|0.37|0.4485
91809787|NCT02692716|183495029|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.84||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed all-cause death was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||0.84|0.31|0.0078
91918679|NCT03193866|183734636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.4|-0.3|
91918680|NCT03193866|183734636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.2|
91764164|NCT03197376|183418453|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.68||||||||1.68|1.14|
91764165|NCT03197376|183418453|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.74||||||||0.74|0.50|
91764166|NCT03197376|183418453|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.81||||||||1.81|1.24|
91764167|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.06||||||||0.06|0.05|
91764168|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.33||||||||0.33|0.27|
91918681|NCT03193866|183734636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.3|
91764169|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.16||||||||0.16|0.13|
91764170|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.11||||||||0.11|0.10|
91764171|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.11||||||||0.11|0.09|
91764172|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.23||||||||0.23|0.19|
91764173|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.17||||||||0.17|0.13|
91764174|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.26||||||||0.26|0.20|
91764175|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.15||||||||0.15|0.12|
91764176|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.12||||||||0.12|0.10|
91764177|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.08||||||||0.08|0.06|
91764178|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.45||||||||0.45|0.35|
91764179|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||||||||0.86|0.62|
91764180|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.16||||||||0.16|0.12|
91764181|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.13||||||||0.13|0.11|
91764182|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.22||||||||0.22|0.18|
91764183|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.19||||||||0.19|0.13|
91918682|NCT03193866|183734636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.1|
91918683|NCT03193866|183734636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.2|
91764184|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78||||||||0.78|0.52|
91764185|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.16||||||||0.16|0.12|
91764186|NCT03197376|183418454|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.16||||||||0.16|0.12|
91764187|NCT03197376|183418455|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 1|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|42.1||||||||42.1|4.5|
91764188|NCT03197376|183418455|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 5|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|25.5||||||||25.5|-5.8|
91764189|NCT03197376|183418455|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 6A|65.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|78.0||||||||78.0|48.3|
91918684|NCT03193866|183734636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.2|-0.1|
91764190|NCT03197376|183418455|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 6B|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|39.4||||||||39.4|6.4|
91764191|NCT03197376|183418455|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 7F|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|10.8||||||||10.8|-5.2|
91764192|NCT03197376|183418455|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 9V|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
91764193|NCT03197376|183418455|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type14|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|18.3||||||||18.3|-8.5|
91764194|NCT03197376|183418455|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 19A|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|50.8||||||||50.8|16.5|
91764195|NCT03197376|183418455|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 19F|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.2||||||||19.2|-8.4|
91764196|NCT03197376|183418455|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 23F|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
91764197|NCT03197376|183418456|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1||||||||2.1|0.8|
91764198|NCT03197376|183418456|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4||||||||2.4|0.7|
91764199|NCT03197376|183418456|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|32.1||||||||32.1|6.3|
91764200|NCT03197376|183418456|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.8||||||||6.8|2.1|
91764201|NCT03197376|183418456|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||||||||1.6|0.6|
91764202|NCT03197376|183418456|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7||||||||1.7|0.3|
91764203|NCT03197376|183418456|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4||||||||2.4|0.5|
91764204|NCT03197376|183418456|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|10.8||||||||10.8|2.4|
91918685|NCT03193866|183734636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-0.1|
91918686|NCT03193866|183734637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||11.9|-2.2|
91918687|NCT03193866|183734637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|20.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||20.6|-2.6|
91918688|NCT03193866|183734637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.2|-7.6|
91918689|NCT03193866|183734637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.1|-9.4|
91918690|NCT03193866|183734637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|3.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.4|-8.6|
91809788|NCT02692716|183495030|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from date of first dose of trial product to date of end of treatment visit. Time from first dose to first AE leading to permanent trial product discontinuation was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the date of their end of treatment visit or at their end of study date, whichever came first.||2.30|1.42|<0.0001
91918691|NCT03193866|183734637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|12.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||12.2|-4.7|
91918692|NCT03193866|183734637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|8.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.1|-6.9|
91918693|NCT03193866|183734637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|14.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||14.1|-6.3|
91918694|NCT03193866|183734638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-34.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-27.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-27.9|-40.3|
91809789|NCT02564042|183495062|OTHER||Proportion difference|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|76.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID has been presented|||76.6|25.9|
91809790|NCT02564042|183495062|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|73.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD has been presented|||73.2|22.2|
91809791|NCT02564042|183495062|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|60.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID has been presented|||60.5|6.3|
91764205|NCT03197376|183418456|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3||||||||2.3|0.4|
91918695|NCT03193866|183734638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|-21.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-21.5|-43.0|
91918696|NCT03193866|183734638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-15.7||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-15.7|-27.9|
91918697|NCT03193866|183734638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-1.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-1.2|-14.5|
91918698|NCT03193866|183734638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-18.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-18.3|-28.9|
91918699|NCT03193866|183734638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-6.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-6.5|-18.9|
91764206|NCT03197376|183418456|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.4||||||||9.4|2.0|
91764207|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|0.03|
91764208|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.14||||||||0.14|0.09|
91764209|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08||||||||0.08|0.03|
91764210|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07||||||||0.07|0.03|
91764211|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.38||||||||0.38|0.18|
91764212|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.23||||||||0.23|0.06|
91764213|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.11||||||||0.11|0.05|
91764214|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.3||||||||0.30|0.09|
91764215|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.18||||||||0.18|0.05|
91764216|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18||||||||0.18|0.08|
91764217|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|0.03|
91764218|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.1||||||||0.10|0.05|
91764219|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.48||||||||0.48|0.09|
91764220|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.03||||||||0.03|0.01|
91918700|NCT03193866|183734638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-20.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-20.2|-32.8|
91918701|NCT03193866|183734638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|-23.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-23.2|-40.1|
91764221|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.65||||||||0.65|0.30|
91764222|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.2||||||||0.20|0.06|
91764223|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.22||||||||0.22|0.06|
91764224|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.49||||||||0.49|0.14|
91764225|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||||||||0.14|0.06|
91764226|NCT03197376|183418457|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.12||||||||0.12|0.05|
91764227|NCT01773187|183418468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pre-specified||||0.0003
91764228|NCT01773187|183418469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2368|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pre-specified||||0.2368
91764229|NCT00112125|183418476|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety analysis was a test of the non-inferiority of CCM therapy compared to OMT with respect to the proportion of subjects experiencing death or hospitalization within 50 weeks using the Blackwelder non-inferiority test12 with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.125.||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
91764230|NCT00112125|183418477|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was selected to be 12.5% and α was set at .05, which resulted in a sample size of 198 subjects per group. A percentage of subjects (∼7%) were expected to be lost to followup, so that a total sample size of 428 subjects (214 per group) was selected.||||||0.125|||||||Blackwelder|||||||0.125
91764231|NCT00186901|183418485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||Baseline where N=134||||0.86
91764232|NCT00186901|183418485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||12 Month BMD Z-Score Calculation where N=109||||0.99
91764233|NCT00186901|183418485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.54||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||24 Month BMD Z-Score calculation where N=91||||0.54
91764234|NCT00186901|183418485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||36 Month (End of Study) BMD Z-Score calculation where N=84||||0.31
91764235|NCT00186901|183418486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
91764236|NCT00186901|183418487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0023||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0023
91764237|NCT00186901|183418488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0092
91764238|NCT00186901|183418489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55|||Z-test|||275 received a QCT and 121 received a DXA scan. 121 paired scans were evaluated.||0.55|0.25|<0.0001
91764239|NCT00186901|183418490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||Z-test|||218 patients were assessed at 12 months and received a QCT Scan. 94 patients were also assessed using the DEXA Scan. Comparison of the two methods used 94 paired studies to arrive at a correlation coefficient.||0.67|0.38|<0.0001
91764240|NCT00186901|183418491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.66|||Z-test|||188 patients were assessed at baseline and received a QCT Scan. 90 patients were also assessed using the DEXA Scan. Comparison of the two methods used 90 paired studies to arrive at a correlation coefficient.||0.66|0.36|<0.0001
91764241|NCT00186901|183418492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||Z-test|||180 patients were assessed at 36 months and received a QCT Scan. 89 patients were also assessed using the DXA Scan. Comparison of the two methods used 89 paired studies to arrive at a correlation coefficient.||0.63|0.30|<0.0001
91764242|NCT00186901|183418493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Kruskal Wallis|||||||0.40
91764243|NCT00186901|183418494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Kruskal Wallis|||||||0.21
91764244|NCT00122369|183418496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||Bonferoni correction was made so that results with p\<0.0167 are considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||The impact of knowing or not knowing the diagnosis became so overwhelming and group composition with regard of whether and which result had been communicated changed daily in the post-biopsy follow-up, so that the originally planned analysis of the impact of Self-Hynotic Relaxation or Empathic Attention on cortisol measures became underpowered. Therefore we focused on the analysis of the impact of diagnosis.||||0.014
91764245|NCT00122369|183418496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||95.0||||Bonferoni correction was made so that results with p\<0.0167 are considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
91764246|NCT00122369|183418496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0||||Bonferoni correction was made so that results with p\<0.0167 are considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.138
91764247|NCT00122369|183418497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||The null-hypothesis was that there would be no difference among groups.||||0.56
91764248|NCT00122369|183418509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
91809792|NCT02564042|183495062|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|55.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD has been presented|||55.9|1.6|
91809793|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|26.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented|||26.6|-21.0|
91809794|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|6.3||||||95.0|-20.5|32.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented|||32.4|-20.5|
91809795|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|39.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented|||39.1|-9.6|
91809796|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|29.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented|||29.9|-23.6|
91809797|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|28.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented|||28.1|-22.2|
91809798|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|27.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|52.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||52.4|-0.5|
91809799|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|25.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|49.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented|||49.3|-0.4|
91809800|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|35.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||35.7|-18.4|
91918702|NCT03193866|183734639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-27.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-27.0|-39.4|
91918703|NCT03193866|183734639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-19.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-19.8|-41.4|
91918704|NCT03193866|183734639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-14.7||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-14.7|-27.0|
91918705|NCT03193866|183734639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-0.3|-13.6|
91809801|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|31.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented|||31.7|-19.7|
91809802|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|68.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented|||68.4|16.6|
91809803|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|61.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented|||61.3|8.7|
91809804|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|57.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented|||57.2|3.5|
91809805|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|58.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented|||58.7|6.3|
91809806|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|49.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|72.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented|||72.4|20.1|
91809807|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|73.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||73.2|22.2|
91809808|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|56.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented|||56.1|1.0|
91809809|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|41.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|65.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||65.0|12.7|
91809810|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|49.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|72.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||72.4|20.1|
91809811|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|60.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|80.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||80.1|33.2|
91809812|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|56.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||56.5|0.2|
91809813|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|66.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||66.5|14.4|
91809814|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|74.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||74.4|23.2|
91809815|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|74.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||74.0|24.4|
91809816|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|60.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||60.5|6.3|
91809817|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|48.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|71.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||71.1|19.7|
91918706|NCT03193866|183734639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-18.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-18.3|-29.2|
91764249|NCT00122369|183418509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||0.45
91764250|NCT00122369|183418509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
91764251|NCT00122369|183418509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||<0.01
91764252|NCT00122369|183418509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||<0.001
91764253|NCT00122369|183418509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||<0.01
91764254|NCT00122369|183418522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
91764255|NCT00122369|183418522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
91764256|NCT00122369|183418522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
91764257|NCT00122369|183418522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||0.024
91764258|NCT00122369|183418522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||0.018
91764259|NCT00122369|183418522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||0.73
91764260|NCT01052077|183418527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18||||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.39||ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and Week 8 value as convariate, is used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.39|-2.75|0.1416
91764261|NCT01052077|183418528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.26||ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, is used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.26|-0.69|0.3778
91764262|NCT01052077|183418529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.24||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||-0.24|-2.38|0.0162
91764263|NCT01052077|183418529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.65||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 10||-0.65|-3.15|0.0031
91764264|NCT01052077|183418529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.58||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||-0.58|-3.44|0.0061
91764265|NCT01052077|183418529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.72||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||-0.72|-3.69|0.0038
91764266|NCT01052077|183418529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-0.32||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||-0.32|-3.32|0.0174
91764267|NCT01052077|183418529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18||||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.39||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.39|-2.75|0.1416
91764268|NCT01052077|183418530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.03||ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, is used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||0.03|-0.21|0.1481
91764269|NCT01052077|183418530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.01||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 10||0.01|-0.28|0.0691
91764270|NCT01052077|183418530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.0||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||-0.00|-0.35|0.0457
91764271|NCT01052077|183418530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.08||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||-0.08|-0.45|0.0061
91764272|NCT01052077|183418530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.01||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||0.01|-0.38|0.0572
91764273|NCT01052077|183418530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.1||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.10|-0.29|0.3318
91918707|NCT03193866|183734639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-6.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-6.1|-18.6|
91918708|NCT03193866|183734639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-19.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-19.0|-31.7|
91764274|NCT01052077|183418531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.6272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.69||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||1.69|-1.02|0.6272
91764275|NCT01052077|183418531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.54||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo||Week 10||1.54|-1.48|0.9697
91764276|NCT01052077|183418531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.44||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||1.44|-2.00|0.7490
91764277|NCT01052077|183418531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.9459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.81||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||1.81|-1.94|0.9459
91764278|NCT01052077|183418531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.88||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||1.88|-1.91|0.9893
91764279|NCT01052077|183418531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.17||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||2.17|-1.89|0.8918
91764280|NCT01052077|183418532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.57||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.57|-1.71|0.3247
91764281|NCT01052077|183418533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5616||||||Cohran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||||0.5616
91764282|NCT01052077|183418533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 10||||0.1900
91764283|NCT01052077|183418533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0501||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||||0.0501
91764284|NCT01052077|183418533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||||0.0137
91764285|NCT01052077|183418533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0711||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||||0.0711
91764286|NCT01052077|183418533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3438||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||||0.3438
91764287|NCT01052077|183418534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response rate|2.79||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 9||8.81|0.88|0.0679
91764288|NCT01052077|183418534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.78||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 10||3.14|1.01|0.0360
91764289|NCT01052077|183418534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.53||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 11||2.35|0.99|0.0521
91764290|NCT01052077|183418534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.93||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 12||2.86|1.31|0.0008
91764291|NCT01052077|183418534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.64||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 13||2.38|1.14|0.0074
91764292|NCT01052077|183418534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.47||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 14||2.08|1.03|0.0339
91764293|NCT01052077|183418535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|2.27||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 9||9.30|0.55|0.2404
91764294|NCT01052077|183418535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|2.04||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 10||4.98|0.83|0.0983
91764295|NCT01052077|183418535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.67||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 11||2.82|0.99|0.0496
91764296|NCT01052077|183418535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|2.12||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 12||3.46|1.31|0.0019
91764297|NCT01052077|183418535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.77||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 13||2.67|1.17|0.0068
91764298|NCT01052077|183418535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.71||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.57||The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||2.57|1.14|0.0089
91764299|NCT01052077|183418536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.23||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 9||2.18|0.70|0.4605
91764300|NCT01052077|183418536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.2||||0.3267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 10||1.72|0.83|0.3267
91764301|NCT01052077|183418536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.37||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 11||1.80|1.05|0.0230
91764302|NCT01052077|183418536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.36||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 12||1.71|1.08|0.0105
91764303|NCT01052077|183418536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.26||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 13||1.58|1.01|0.0417
91764304|NCT01052077|183418536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.15||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.44||CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||1.44|0.91|0.2345
91764305|NCT00870545|183418543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores measured across three time points (baseline, 6 and 12 months)||||.003
91764306|NCT00870545|183418544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in score over time (baseline, 6 and 12 months)||||.20
91764307|NCT00870545|183418545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores measured across three time points (baseline, 6 and 12 months)||||<.001
91764308|NCT00870545|183418546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in score over time (baseline, 6 months, 12 months)||||.26
91764309|NCT00870545|183418547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in scores over time (baseline, 6 months, and 12 months)||||.04
91764310|NCT00870545|183418548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in score over time (baseline, 6 months, and 12 months)||||.10
91764311|NCT03857542|183418557|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|15.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|22.7||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion differences were calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||22.7|7.7|<.0001
91764312|NCT03857542|183418558|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.5||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.1||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion difference was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||13.1|-0.1|0.0548
91764313|NCT03857542|183418559|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|5.9||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.2||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion difference was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||12.2|-0.5|0.0693
91764314|NCT03857542|183418560|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|5.2||MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value; Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||5.2|2.9|<.0001
91764315|NCT03857542|183418561|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|9.9||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.3||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||16.3|3.5|0.0141
91764316|NCT03857542|183418562|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control||||1.0|0.5|<.0001
91764317|NCT03857542|183418563|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.4||MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||4.4|2.4|<.0001
91764318|NCT03857542|183418564|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|3.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.0||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion differences were calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||10.0|-2.3|0.2200
91764319|NCT03857542|183418565|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||3.7|1.5|<.0001
91764320|NCT03857542|183418566|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.4||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.5||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||19.5|5.2|0.0141
91764321|NCT03857542|183418567|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||1.0|0.5|<.0001
91764322|NCT03857542|183418568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.2|-0.5|0.0002
91809818|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|53.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented|||53.9|-36.9|
91764323|NCT03857542|183418569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.2|-0.4|0.0002
91764324|NCT02709330|183418574|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||Matched historical controls will be identified from the PatientsLikeMe database.||||0.99
91764325|NCT02709330|183418575|OTHER|||||||0.0748|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0748
91764326|NCT02709330|183418576|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Lin's Concordance|||||||<0.00001
91764327|NCT02709330|183418580|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Lin's Concordance|||||||<0.00001
91764328|NCT03152591|183418592|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.88||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline in average fasting free testosterone was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which included treatment as a categorical factor, baseline body weight and log transformed baseline average fasting free testosterone as a covariate.|1.11|0.70|0.353
91764329|NCT03152591|183418593|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|1.25||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.68|0.92|0.218
91764330|NCT03152591|183418594|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|1.27||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.78|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.78|0.90|0.249
91764331|NCT03152591|183418595|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|1.15||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.36|0.97|0.173
91764332|NCT03152591|183418596|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.82||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|0.99|0.68|0.089
91764333|NCT03152591|183418597|OTHER||Ration LIK066/Placebo|0.69||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.01|0.48|0.109
91764334|NCT03152591|183418598|OTHER||Ration LIK066/Placebo|0.76||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|0.89|0.65|0.008
91809819|NCT02564042|183495063|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|81.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented|||81.6|-6.3|
91809820|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|21.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented|||21.9|-28.8|
91809821|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|25.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented|||25.1|-25.4|
91809822|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|35.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented|||35.3|-17.5|
91809823|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|33.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented .|||33.3|-15.4|
91809824|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|36.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented .|||36.1|-17.1|
91809825|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented|||31.0|-19.3|
91809826|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|36.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||36.7|-18.2|
91809827|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|43.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented .|||43.6|-6.9|
91809828|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|38.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||38.9|-15.1|
91809829|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|37.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented .|||37.4|-13.6|
91809830|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|66.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented|||66.0|13.8|
91809831|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|61.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented|||61.3|8.7|
91809832|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|58.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented .|||58.2|4.8|
91809833|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|63.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||63.9|12.8|
91809834|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|76.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||76.6|25.9|
91809835|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|73.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||73.2|22.2|
91809836|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|60.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented|||60.5|6.3|
91809837|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|55.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||55.9|1.6|
91809838|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|74.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||74.0|22.0|
91809839|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|81.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||81.0|34.6|
91809840|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|51.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||51.0|-6.1|
91809841|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|61.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||61.6|7.8|
91809842|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|53.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|75.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||75.6|24.7|
91809843|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|53.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|75.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||75.5|25.8|
91809844|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|29.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|55.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||55.0|-0.3|
91809845|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|60.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||60.2|6.5|
91809846|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|53.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented|||53.9|-36.9|
91809847|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|81.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented|||81.6|-6.3|
91809848|NCT02564042|183495072|OTHER||Proportion difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|80.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented|||80.6|-35.7|
91809849|NCT01170754|183495099|NON_INFERIORITY|Inferiority between the two groups was defined as a difference of 10% in the overall BBPS score||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
91809850|NCT01170754|183495100|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.13
91809851|NCT01170754|183495101|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.31
91809852|NCT01170754|183495102|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.87
91809853|NCT01170754|183495103|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
91809854|NCT01170754|183495104|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.47
91809855|NCT01170754|183495105|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.34
91764335|NCT03152591|183418599|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.91||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.07|0.77|0.340
91764336|NCT03152591|183418600|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.79||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.08|0.58|0.204
91764337|NCT03868254|183418601|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.0001
91764338|NCT03868254|183418601|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.0001
91764339|NCT03868254|183418602|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.0001
91764340|NCT03868254|183418602|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0001
91764341|NCT03868254|183418603|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0030
91764342|NCT03868254|183418603|OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0018
91764343|NCT03868254|183418604|OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0053
91764344|NCT03868254|183418604|OTHER|||||||0.0472|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0472
91764345|NCT00786799|183418622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change in Aberrant Behavior Checklist Hyperactivity subscale (ABC-H) score is the same for both groups.||||0.40
91764346|NCT04640311|183418637|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9699|1.09|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 1 has been presented.|||1.090|0.9699|
91764347|NCT04640311|183418637|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9602|1.081|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 2 has been presented.|||1.081|0.9602|
91764348|NCT04640311|183418638|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.977|1.083|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 1 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.083|0.9770|
91764349|NCT04640311|183418638|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9496|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8914|1.012|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 2 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.012|0.8914|
91764350|NCT04640311|183418638|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9533|1.07|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 4 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.070|0.9533|
91764351|NCT04640311|183418638|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9679|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9115|1.028|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 6 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.028|0.9115|
91764352|NCT04640311|183418638|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9511|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8948|1.011|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 8 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.011|0.8948|
91764353|NCT04640311|183418639|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9308|1.166|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 1 has been presented.|||1.166|0.9308|
91764354|NCT04640311|183418639|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9349|1.175|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 2 has been presented.|||1.175|0.9349|
91764355|NCT04640311|183418640|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8936|1.056|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 1 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.056|0.8936|
91764356|NCT04640311|183418640|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9006|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8107|1.0|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 2 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.000|0.8107|
91764357|NCT04640311|183418640|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8665|1.087|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 4 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.087|0.8665|
91764358|NCT04640311|183418640|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9675|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8778|1.066|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 6 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.066|0.8778|
91764359|NCT04640311|183418640|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.8606|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.777|0.9532|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 8 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||0.9532|0.7770|
91764360|NCT03906071|183418651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||The p-value is based on a unstratified log-rank test. (2-Sided)|Log Rank||Based on the unstratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.05|0.70|0.144
91764361|NCT02152761|183418665|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Group Ratio (BYM - Placebo)|1.057|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|1.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||Holm-Bonferroni method: Used to adjust the Type I error for two comparisons (BYM338 700 mg/Placebo) at Week 24. No control for multiplicity was made at Week 12.|week 12||1.076|1.037|<.0001
91764362|NCT02152761|183418665|SUPERIORITY||Treatment group rratio (BYM - Placebo)|1.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.064|||Mixed Models Analysis||Holm-Bonferroni method: Used to adjust the Type I error for two comparisons (BYM338 700 mg/Placebo) at Week 24. No control for multiplicity was made at Week 12.|week 12||1.064|1.024|<.0001
91764363|NCT02152761|183418666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.071||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.034||Treatment Difference (BYM-Placebo)|Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||0.034|-0.175|0.1829
91918709|NCT03193866|183734639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-29.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-20.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-20.8|-38.2|
91918710|NCT03193866|183734640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.00|-0.07|
91918711|NCT03193866|183734640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.06|-0.09|
91764364|NCT02152761|183418666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|0.011||||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||0.119|-0.096|0.8365
91764365|NCT02152761|183418667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.371||||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.311|1.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||1.053|-1.311|0.5802
91764366|NCT02152761|183418667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of the Treatment Difference|0.833||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|1.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||1.801|-0.135|0.0913
91764367|NCT02152761|183418668|SUPERIORITY||Falls Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.8353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.21|||Negative binomial regression|||||2.21|0.53|0.8353
91764368|NCT02152761|183418668|SUPERIORITY||Falls Rate Ratio|1.58||||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.18|||Negative binomial regression|||||3.18|0.78|0.2015
91764369|NCT02152761|183418668|SUPERIORITY||Falls Rate Ratio|1.25||||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.0|||Negative binomial regression|||week 24||3.00|0.52|0.3999
91764370|NCT02968368|183418697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.93|||ANCOVA|||||0.930|0.102|0.0149
91764371|NCT02968368|183418702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.097||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.07|60.992|||ANCOVA|||||60.992|17.070|0.0006
91764372|NCT02968368|183418705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.282||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.928|7.001|||ANCOVA|||||7.001|1.928|0.0007
91764373|NCT02968368|183418706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|3.261|||ANCOVA|||||3.261|0.457|0.0098
91764374|NCT02859246|183418709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04||||||A two tail P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.04
91764375|NCT02859246|183418710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.2||||||A two tail P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.2
91764376|NCT00855816|183418722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for significance: p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model based on intent to treat sample.||Null hypothesis: there will be no differences in PTSD hyperarousal symptom changes in individuals who did receive the experimental intervention vs. those who did not .||||.27
91764377|NCT01526213|183418723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean AUC Ratio (GFJ/mGFJ)|0.96||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||For juice comparisons, fexofenadine + furanocoumarin-free grapefruit juice will be the test agent (numerator) and fexofenadine + grapefruit juice will be the reference standard (denominator).||1.5|0.4|0.78
91764378|NCT02562716|183418737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||For each arm, the observed 2-year overall survival (OS) was compared to the null hypothesis of 40%, assuming a 58% alternative hypothesis, 88% power, and a 1-sided significance of 0.05.||||.15
91764379|NCT02562716|183418737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|||For each arm, the observed 2-year overall survival (OS) was compared to the null hypothesis of 40%, assuming a 58% alternative hypothesis, 88% power, and a 1-sided significance of 0.05.||||.14
91764380|NCT04915729|183418753|NON_INFERIORITY|pre-specified non-inferiority margin for risk ratio = 0.937|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0278|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9678|1.0915|||Modified Possion Regression Model|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = continuous covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.0915|0.9678|
91764381|NCT04915729|183418754|OTHER|log-binomial regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0671||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9573|1.1895||p-value was for superiority testing|Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.1895|0.9573|0.2412
91764382|NCT04915729|183418755|OTHER|Modified Poisson regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0078||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9614|1.0564||p-value was for superiority testing|Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = continuous covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.0564|0.9614|0.7480
91764383|NCT04915729|183418756|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.3511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|baseline NIHSS, age, time to administration since stroke symptoms onset = linear covariates; treatment = fixed effects|Difference in LSmean tenecteplase vs alteplase|||0.50|-1.40|0.3511
91764384|NCT04915729|183418757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0418||||0.4806|||||||Regression, Logistic|Assumption-free ordinal analysis|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||||0.4806
91764385|NCT04915729|183418758|OTHER|Poisson regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0189||||0.5116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9635|1.0774|||Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.0774|0.9635|0.5116
91764386|NCT04915729|183418759|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.005||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.701|||Suissa-Shuster test||tenecteplase versus alteplase|||2.701|0.370|1.000
91764387|NCT04915729|183418760|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.795||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|1.232|||Chi-squared||tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.232|0.513|0.303
91764388|NCT04915729|183418761|OTHER|Modified Poisson regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9215||||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6578|1.2908||p-value was for superiority testing|Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = continuous covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.2908|0.6578|0.6345
91764389|NCT03710642|183418885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008096||||0.9904|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9904
91764390|NCT03710642|183418886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.54||||0.30328|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.30328
91764391|NCT03710642|183418887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31122||||0.21981|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21981
91764392|NCT03710642|183418888|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.36277||||0.6366|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.6366
91764393|NCT03710642|183418889|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39602||0.9267|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9267
91764394|NCT03710642|183418890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0694||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2038
91764395|NCT03710642|183418891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.388||||0.54133|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.54133
91764396|NCT00226811|183418896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR rate (percentage)|7.7||||||95.0|2.9|16.0|||||Clinical benefit response rate: percent of patients with confirmed complete response, confirmed partial response or stable disease for at least 24 wks according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, relative to total treated patients|||16.0|2.9|
91764397|NCT00226811|183418901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||OR rate (percentage)|2.6||||||95.0|0.3|9.0|||||Percentage of patients with confirmed complete response or confirmed partial response according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), relative to the total number of treated patients.|||9.0|0.3|
91764398|NCT01010971|183418927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.45||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.45|0.59|<0.0001
91764399|NCT01010971|183418927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.46|0.61|<0.0001
91764400|NCT01010971|183418928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.29|0.07|<0.0001
91764401|NCT01010971|183418928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.29|0.08|<0.0001
91764402|NCT01010971|183418929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.71||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.71|-0.03|0.1444
91764403|NCT01010971|183418929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.89||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.89|0.15|0.0124
91764404|NCT01010971|183418930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.94||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||0.94|0.30|0.0124
91764405|NCT01010971|183418930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.95||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||0.95|0.33|
91764406|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
91764407|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764408|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .99
91764409|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91764410|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .20
91764411|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
91764412|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
91764413|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764414|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .03
91764415|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91809856|NCT01170754|183495106|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.18
91764416|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764417|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764418|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
91764419|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
91764420|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
91764421|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764422|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
91764423|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
91764424|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
91764425|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
91764426|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764427|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
91764428|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764429|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
91764430|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764431|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764432|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764433|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764434|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764435|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
91764436|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
91764437|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764438|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
91764439|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764440|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91764441|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
91764442|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
91764443|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.83
91809857|NCT01170754|183495107|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
91918712|NCT03193866|183734640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.03|-0.03|
91918713|NCT03193866|183734640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.05|-0.03|
91764444|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
91764445|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91764446|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
91764447|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
91764448|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764449|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91764450|NCT01128426|183418955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764451|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
91764452|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764453|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91764454|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764455|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764456|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764457|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
91764458|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
91764459|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764460|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
91764461|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.36
91764462|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
91764463|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
91764464|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764465|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764466|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764467|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
91764468|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91918714|NCT03193866|183734640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.04|-0.02|
91918715|NCT03193866|183734640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.06|-0.01|
91918716|NCT03193866|183734640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.06|0.00|
91918717|NCT03193866|183734640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.03|-0.06|
91918718|NCT03193866|183734641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.2||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||5.2|-3.3|
91918719|NCT03193866|183734641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.4|-9.4|
91918720|NCT03193866|183734641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.4|-4.2|
91918721|NCT03193866|183734641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.8|-5.9|
91918722|NCT03193866|183734641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.5|-2.9|
91918723|NCT03193866|183734641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.8|-4.0|
91918724|NCT03193866|183734641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.9||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.9|-7.0|
91918725|NCT03193866|183734641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||5.4|-2.9|
91764469|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
91918726|NCT03193866|183734642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-2.9||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-2.9|-8.1|
91918727|NCT03193866|183734642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.0||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-1.0|-10.9|
91918728|NCT03193866|183734642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-0.8|-4.0|
91918729|NCT03193866|183734642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.5|-2.1|
91918730|NCT03193866|183734642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.6|-2.2|
91918731|NCT03193866|183734642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.8|-0.3|
91918732|NCT03193866|183734642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.6||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.6|0.9|
91918733|NCT03193866|183734642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.0||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.0|0.2|
91918734|NCT02688647|183734681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5733|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||GAP Stage I-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 38.85 (95% CI: -126.99, 204.69) mL||||0.5733
91918735|NCT02688647|183734681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6967|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||GAP Stage II-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = -39.96 (95% CI: -288.63, 208.71) mL||||0.6967
91918736|NCT02688647|183734681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||GAP Stage III-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 94.16 (95% CI: -1103.56, 1291.88) mL||||0.5003
91918737|NCT02688647|183734681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4866|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||No Prior Pirfenidone or Nintedanib-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = -34.13 (95% CI: -137.08, 68.82)||||0.4866
91809858|NCT01170754|183495108|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.92
91918738|NCT02688647|183734684|SUPERIORITY|GAP Stage I-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 1.88 (95% CI: -2.69, 6.45)||||||0.3391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.3391
91918739|NCT02688647|183734684|SUPERIORITY|GAP Stage II-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = -1.72 (95% CI: -8.13, 4.69)||||||0.5201|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.5201
91918740|NCT02688647|183734684|SUPERIORITY|GAP Stage III-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 2.48 (95% CI: -23.84, 28.81)||||||0.4426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.4426
91918741|NCT02688647|183734684|SUPERIORITY|No Prior Use of Pirfenidone or Nintedanib-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 8.70 (95% CI: -78.76, -96.17)||||||0.426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.4260
91918742|NCT02688647|183734694|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.8561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.86 (0.16, 4.48)||||0.8561
91809859|NCT01170754|183495109|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.60
91918743|NCT02688647|183734694|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.8608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.17, 4.33)||||0.8608
91918744|NCT02688647|183734695|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.34 (95% CI: 0.14, 0.79)||||0.0084
91918745|NCT02688647|183734695|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard Ratio: 0.47 (95% CI: 0.22, 1.03)||||0.0508
91918746|NCT02688647|183734697|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.34 (95% CI: 0.02, 5.54)||||0.4251
91918747|NCT02688647|183734697|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.27 (95% CI: 0.02, 4.45)||||0.3294
91918748|NCT03093402|183734716|SUPERIORITY|The fixed effects included treatment, time, time² , time- and time² by treatment interactions. The Screening FSS score and the Screening 7-day average maximum daily pain NRS were included as covariates. Within-subject random effects for intercept and slopes for time and time² were fit using an unstructured covariance matrix, assuming a different structure for placebo and pooled active treatment groups.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active treatment arms versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from Day 1 to Day 84 for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated mean change (95% confidence interval) from Day 1 to Day 84 for Placebo was -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9).|The null hypothesis is that linear trends from Day 1 to Day 84 are equivalent for each active JBT-101 cohort and placebo. The overall test is a 3 degree of freedom F test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.||0.6|-2.5|0.4190
91918749|NCT03093402|183734716|SUPERIORITY|The fixed effects included treatment, time, time² , time- and time² by treatment interactions. The Screening FSS score and the Screening 7-day average maximum daily pain NRS were included as covariates. Within-subject random effects for intercept and slopes for time and time² were fit using an unstructured covariance matrix, assuming a different structure for placebo and pooled active treatment groups.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.3||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active treatment arms versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from Day 1 to Day 84 for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated mean change (95% confidence interval) from Day 1 to Day 84 for Placebo was -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9).|The null hypothesis is that linear trends from Day 1 to Day 84 are equivalent for each active JBT-101 cohort and placebo. The overall test is a 3 degree of freedom F test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.||0.3|-2.7|0.4190
91918750|NCT03093402|183734716|SUPERIORITY|The fixed effects included treatment, time, time² , time- and time² by treatment interactions. The Screening FSS score and the Screening 7-day average maximum daily pain NRS were included as covariates. Within-subject random effects for intercept and slopes for time and time² were fit using an unstructured covariance matrix, assuming a different structure for placebo and pooled active treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active treatment arms versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from Day 1 to Day 84 for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated mean change (95% confidence interval) from Day 1 to Day 84 for Placebo was -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9).|The null hypothesis is that linear trends from Day 1 to Day 84 are equivalent for each active JBT-101 cohort and placebo. The overall test is a 3 degree of freedom F test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.||0.8|-2.2|0.4190
91918751|NCT03093402|183734726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 29.||||0.594
91918752|NCT03093402|183734726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 57.||||0.487
91918753|NCT03093402|183734726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 85.||||0.760
91764470|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
91764471|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764472|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91764473|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.75
91764474|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764475|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91918754|NCT03093402|183734726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 113.||||0.676
91918755|NCT03093402|183734727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 29 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.796
91918756|NCT03093402|183734727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 57 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.955
91809860|NCT01170754|183495110|NON_INFERIORITY|Inferiority between groups was defined as a difference of 10% in the overall BBPS score.||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.98
91809861|NCT02692703|183495111|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment as compared with the historical rate for the current standard of care regimens (SOF/LDV + RBV or SOF + DCV + RBV) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 86% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.3|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥96%, 90 participants provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the regimen to the historical rate for current standard of care regimens (SOF/LDV + RBV OR SOF + DCV + RBV) (94%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|95.3|
91809862|NCT01077856|183495138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized Prevalence Ratio (SPR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.0|||||SPR is the age-adjusted ratio of percentage of live births with a major congenital anomaly (Women who received Gardasil / Women in the general population)|||2.00|0.89|
91809863|NCT01077856|183495138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized Prevalence Ratio (SPR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.77|||||SPR is the age-adjusted ratio of percentage of live births with a major congenital anomaly (Women who received Gardasil / Women in the general population)|||4.77|0.00|
91809864|NCT01077856|183495138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized Prevalence Ratio (SPR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.02|||||SPR is the age-adjusted ratio of percentage of live births with a major congenital anomaly (Women who received Gardasil / Women in the general population)|||2.02|0.00|
91809865|NCT02533427|183495143|OTHER||% Geometric Least Square Mean(GLSM)Ratio|107.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.19|111.69|||||Test/Reference: Norelgestromin Part B/Part A|Norelgestromin Part B/Part A||111.69|103.19|
91809866|NCT02533427|183495144|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|115.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.49|124.5|||||Test/Reference: Norgestrel Part B/Part A|Norgestrel Part B/Part A||124.50|106.49|
91809867|NCT02533427|183495145|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|105.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.95|114.66|||||Test/Reference: Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A|Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A||114.66|96.95|
91918757|NCT03093402|183734727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 85 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.211
91918758|NCT03093402|183734727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 113 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.481
91918759|NCT03093402|183734728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 29 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.790
91918760|NCT03093402|183734728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 57 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.843
91918761|NCT03093402|183734728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 85 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.637
91918762|NCT03093402|183734728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 113 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.243
91918763|NCT03093402|183734729|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 57 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>=100% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||>0.999
91918764|NCT03093402|183734729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 85 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 100% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.861
91809868|NCT02533427|183495146|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|248.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.11|1870.81|||||Test/Reference: Norgestimate Part B/Part A|Norgestimate Part B/Part A||1870.81|33.11|
91809869|NCT02533427|183495147|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|107.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.78|118.65|||||Test/Reference: Norelgestromin Part B/Part A|Norelgestromin Part B/Part A||118.65|97.78|
91809870|NCT02533427|183495148|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|115.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.12|122.37|||||Test/Reference: Norgestrel Part B/Part A|Norgestrel Part B/Part A||122.37|108.12|
91809871|NCT02533427|183495149|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|121.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.1|138.12|||||Test/Reference: Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A|Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A||138.12|106.10|
91809872|NCT02533427|183495150|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|112.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.19|144.14|||||Test/Reference: Norgestimate Part B/Part A|Norgestimate Part B/Part A||144.14|87.19|
91809873|NCT02533427|183495151|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|114.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.4|121.39|||||Test/Reference: Norelgestromin Part B/Part A|Norelgestromin Part B/Part A||121.39|107.40|
91809874|NCT02533427|183495152|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|121.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.85|133.44|||||Test/Reference: Norgestrel Part B/Part A|Norgestrel Part B/Part A||133.44|110.85|
91809875|NCT02533427|183495153|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|92.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.55|104.45|||||Test/Reference: Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A|Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A||104.45|82.55|
91809876|NCT01979016|183495170|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-69.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.5|-46.2|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model.||-46.2|-92.5|< 0.0001
91809877|NCT01979016|183495171|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|37.0|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.82|55.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||55.25|18.82|= 0.0006
91809878|NCT01979016|183495172|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|48.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|68.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||68.30|28.00|< 0.0001
91809879|NCT01979016|183495173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.52|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-1.52|-3.80|< 0.0001
91809880|NCT01979016|183495174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.08|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.31|-24.85|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-24.85|-71.31|= 0.0001
91809881|NCT01979016|183495175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-14.0|-29.0|<0.0001
91809882|NCT01979016|183495176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-21.1|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-21.1|-41.5|< 0.0001
91809883|NCT01979016|183495177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-31.3|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by MMRM model.||-31.3|-62.0|< 0.0001
91809884|NCT01979016|183495178|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.38|77.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 50% reduction from baseline in EASI score (EASI-50). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||77.73|33.38|< 0.0001
91809885|NCT01979016|183495178|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|51.9|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.59|74.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 75% reduction from baseline in EASI score (EASI-75). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||74.12|29.59|= 0.0001
91809886|NCT01979016|183495178|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|33.3|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.55|51.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 90% reduction from baseline in EASI score (EASI-90). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||51.11|15.55|= 0.0011
91809887|NCT01979016|183495179|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|48.1|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|69.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 50% reduction from baseline in SCORAD Score (SCORAD-50). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||69.3|27.0|= 0.0002
91809888|NCT01979016|183495179|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|11.1|||=|0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 75% reduction from baseline in SCORAD Score (SCORAD-75). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||23.0|-0.7|= 0.0792
91809889|NCT01979016|183495179|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|7.4|||=|0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 90% reduction from baseline in SCORAD Score (SCORAD-90). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||17.3|-2.5|= 0.1573
91809890|NCT01979016|183495180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-6.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-6.6|-14.3|< 0.0001
91809891|NCT01979016|183495181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.9|-28.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-28.5|-63.9|< 0.0001
91809892|NCT01979016|183495183|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-2.39|||ANCOVA|||||-2.39|-5.02|< 0.0001
91809893|NCT02602496|183495227|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.9942||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.9942
91809894|NCT02602496|183495227|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0062|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0062
91809895|NCT02602496|183495227|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.6843|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.6843
91809896|NCT02602496|183495228|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.5096||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.5096
91809897|NCT02602496|183495228|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.2276|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.2276
91809898|NCT02602496|183495228|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0006
91809899|NCT02602496|183495229|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.9708||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.9708
91809900|NCT02602496|183495229|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.1642|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.1642
91809901|NCT02602496|183495229|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.6043|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.6043
91809902|NCT02602496|183495230|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0868||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.0868
91809903|NCT02602496|183495230|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0083|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0083
91809904|NCT02602496|183495230|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0151|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0151
91809905|NCT02602496|183495231|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.9255||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.9255
91809906|NCT02602496|183495231|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0454|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0454
91809907|NCT02602496|183495231|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.292|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.2920
91809908|NCT02602496|183495232|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.2252||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.2252
91809909|NCT02602496|183495232|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.4715|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.4715
91809910|NCT02602496|183495232|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.7157|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.7157
91809911|NCT02602496|183495233|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.8323||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.8323
91809912|NCT02602496|183495233|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.8927|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.8927
91809913|NCT02602496|183495233|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.3173|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.3173
91809914|NCT02602496|183495234|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.27||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age and gender|ANOVA|||||||0.27
91809915|NCT01985867|183495241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.5|||risk analysis (prospective)|||||1.5|0.24|0.399
91809916|NCT01985867|183495242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.7|-0.6|0.589
91809917|NCT01985867|183495243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.0|0.5|0.005
91809918|NCT01985867|183495244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.659
91809919|NCT01985867|183495245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.790
91809920|NCT01985867|183495246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.698
91809921|NCT01985867|183495247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.2|||risk analysis (prospective)|||||6.2|0.9|0.120
91809922|NCT01985867|183495248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.116
91809923|NCT01985867|183495249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.8|-0.6|0.612
91809924|NCT01985867|183495250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.0|0.0|0.004
91809925|NCT01985867|183495251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.708
91809926|NCT01985867|183495252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|-1.0|0.522
91809927|NCT01985867|183495253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|0.0|0.185
91809928|NCT01985867|183495254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.973
91809929|NCT01985867|183495255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.642
91809930|NCT02648178|183495271|OTHER|We used a linear mixed model to estimate associations between cigarette smoking and that of e-cigarette smoking, by week and their interactions. We also used the same model to estimate association between biomarkers such as NNAL (4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol), Nicotine, Cotinine, Hydro and Creatinine and CO (Carbon Monoxide) level,by week and their interactions.||||||||||||We tested whether there were significant associations between cigarette smoking and e-cigarette smoking, as well as whether there were significant associations between biomarkers mentioned above with CO level.||We provided estimated values of coefficients from model and their 95% confidence intervals.|||We used a linear mixed model to estimate associations between cigarette smoking and that of e-cigarette smoking, week and their interactions. We also used the same model to estimate association between biomarkers such as NNAL, Nicotine, Cotinine, Hydro and Creatinine and CO level, week and their interactions.|||
91809931|NCT02205814|183495282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Fourhundred evaluable patients were supposed to provide approximately 80% power in rejecting the null hypothesis of equality between any dose of fasitibant and placebo based on previous results and an overall significance level of 5% (two-sided).|mixed linear model for repeated measures|||||||<0.05
91809932|NCT02205814|183495283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Fourhundred evaluable patients were supposed to provide approximately 80% power in rejecting the null hypothesis of equality between any dose of fasitibant and placebo based on previous results and an overall significance level of 5% (two-sided).|mixed linear model for repeated measures|||All secondary efficacy variables were analysed on the ITT population only. Multiplicity was adjusted using the Hochberg procedure. The continuous secondary efficacy variables were analysed over time and were treated in the same way as the primary efficacy variable with respective output.||||<0.05
91809933|NCT02397785|183495298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8979|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 52 participants (26 in each arm) was sufficient to detect a 30% reduction in the VAS score (⍺ = 0.05, β = 0.80) from baseline to 12 weeks using paired t-tests, assuming average pain of 80-90 on the VAS and 10% drop-out. Because stratified randomization was performed on the basis of levator ani muscle spasm, there was an imbalance between the size of the sham and active groups, and 58 subjects were ultimately recruited with approval from the Institutional Review Board.||||0.8979
91809934|NCT02397785|183495299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9338|||||||Sign test|||||||0.9338
91809935|NCT02397785|183495300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1568|||||||Sign test|||||||0.1568
91809936|NCT02397785|183495301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3817|||||||Sign test|||||||0.3817
91809937|NCT02397785|183495302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2860
91809938|NCT02397785|183495303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2884|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2884
91809939|NCT02397785|183495304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0855|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0855
91809940|NCT02397785|183495305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0287|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0287
91809941|NCT02397785|183495306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2887|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2887
91809942|NCT02397785|183495307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9954|||||||Sign test|||||||0.9954
91809943|NCT02397785|183495308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0574
91809944|NCT02397785|183495309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7827|||||||Sign test|||||||0.7827
91809945|NCT02397785|183495310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2114|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2114
91918765|NCT03093402|183734730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.7||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated tender joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -6.3 (-12.0, -0.7).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||8.7|-4.8|0.390
91918766|NCT03093402|183734730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.2||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated tender joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -6.3 (-12.0, -0.7).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||8.2|-4.9|0.390
91918767|NCT03093402|183734730|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.6||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated tender joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -6.3 (-12.0, -0.7).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.6|-8.6|0.390
91918768|NCT03093402|183734731|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated swollen joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -4.0 (-5.7, -2.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||3.0|-1.6|0.556
91918769|NCT03093402|183734731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.0||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count at Day 85 for each JBT-101 cohort versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated swollen joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -4.0 (-5.7, -2.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||2.0|-2.5|0.556
91918770|NCT03093402|183734731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.4||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated swollen joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -4.0 (-5.7, -2.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.4|-3.1|0.556
91764476|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764477|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
91764478|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764479|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
91764480|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.83
91764481|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
91764482|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
91809946|NCT02397785|183495311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4986|||||||Sign test|||||||0.4986
91764483|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.83
91764484|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
91764485|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764486|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
91764487|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
91764488|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91809947|NCT02397785|183495312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Sign test|||||||0.4610
91809948|NCT02397785|183495313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2556|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2556
91809949|NCT02397785|183495314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0723|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0723
91809950|NCT02397785|183495315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7456
91809951|NCT02397785|183495316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1380
91764489|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
91764490|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
91764491|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91764492|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91764493|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
91764494|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
91764495|NCT01128426|183418956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
91764496|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
91764497|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764498|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764499|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
91764500|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.20
91764501|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764502|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
91764503|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
91764504|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764505|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764506|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
91764507|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91764508|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
91764509|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.36
91764510|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764511|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
91764512|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764513|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764514|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764515|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91764516|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
91764517|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
91764518|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764519|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
91764520|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91918771|NCT03093402|183734732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 29.||||0.669
91918772|NCT03093402|183734732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 57.||||0.432
91918773|NCT03093402|183734732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 85.||||0.780
91918774|NCT03093402|183734732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 113.||||0.285
91764521|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764522|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
91764523|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764524|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
91764525|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764526|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764527|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764528|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91809952|NCT02397785|183495317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3155
91764529|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
91764530|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764531|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
91764532|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764533|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91764534|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
91764535|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
91764536|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.97
91764537|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764538|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
91764539|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
91764540|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91809953|NCT02756689|183495324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91809954|NCT02756689|183495325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91809955|NCT02756689|183495326|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3|||Chi-squared|||||5.3|0.8|0.09
91809956|NCT02756689|183495327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
91809957|NCT02756689|183495328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.4|||Chi-squared|||||11.4|0.9|0.06
91809958|NCT02756689|183495329|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.8|||Chi-squared|||||2.8|0.2|0.74
91809959|NCT02756689|183495330|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91809960|NCT02756689|183495331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91809961|NCT02756689|183495332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91918775|NCT03093402|183734734|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 29.||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.872
91918776|NCT03093402|183734734|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 57.||||||0.895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.895
91918777|NCT03093402|183734734|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 85.||||||0.669|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.669
91764541|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
91764542|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
91764543|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
91764544|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91764545|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91764546|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
91764547|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764548|NCT01128426|183418957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
91764549|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764550|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764551|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91764552|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
91809962|NCT02756689|183495333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
91809963|NCT02756689|183495334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91809964|NCT02756689|183495335|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.7|||Chi-squared|||||4.7|0.2|>0.99
91809965|NCT02756689|183495336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.7|0.3|0.43
91809966|NCT02756689|183495337|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.3|0.1|0.09
91809967|NCT02756689|183495338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Chi-squared|||||3.8|0.1|0.68
91809968|NCT02756689|183495339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.6|||Chi-squared|||||2.6|0.3|0.73
91809969|NCT02756689|183495340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91809970|NCT02756689|183495341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.4|||Chi-squared|||||15.4|0.1|>0.99
91809971|NCT02756689|183495342|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91809972|NCT02756689|183495343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91809973|NCT02756689|183495344|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.3|||Chi-squared|||||2.3|0.03|0.37
91809974|NCT02756689|183495345|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91809975|NCT02756689|183495346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.3|||Chi-squared|||||5.3|0.05|0.62
91809976|NCT02756689|183495347|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||Chi-squared|||||3.2|0.3|>0.99
91809977|NCT02756689|183495348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.234
91809978|NCT02756689|183495349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91809979|NCT02756689|183495350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91809980|NCT02756689|183495351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91809981|NCT02756689|183495352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
91809982|NCT02756689|183495353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
91809983|NCT02756689|183495354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91809984|NCT02756689|183495355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91809985|NCT02756689|183495356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91764553|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.86
91764554|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
91809986|NCT02756689|183495357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
91809987|NCT02756689|183495358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91809988|NCT02756689|183495359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91809989|NCT02756689|183495360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91764555|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91764556|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
91764557|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91764558|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91809990|NCT02756689|183495361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91809991|NCT02756689|183495362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91809992|NCT02756689|183495363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91809993|NCT02756689|183495364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91809994|NCT02557646|183495365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Cumulative dose of ribavirin \>90%: the relationship between cumulative dose and SVR response in participants in whom the cumulative dose of ribavirin exceeded 90% was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0437
91809995|NCT02557646|183495367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6859|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the starting dose ribavirin and virological response was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.6859
91809996|NCT02557646|183495368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the starting dose ribavirin and sustained virological response (SVR) was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.3740
91809997|NCT02557646|183495369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The relationship between the body weight-normalized dose of ribavirin and virological response was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0263
91809998|NCT02557646|183495370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the body weight-normalized dose of ribavirin and sustained virological (SVR) response was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0475
91809999|NCT02557646|183495376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the cumulative dose of ribavirin and relapse rate was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.1499
91810000|NCT02557646|183495377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5885|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the starting dose of ribavirin and relapse rate was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.5885
91810001|NCT02557646|183495378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the body weight-normalized dose of ribavirin and relapse rate was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0062
91810002|NCT01288469|183495395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.62|-46.03||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|ANCOVA||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Throughout the ANCOVA model, the Alirocumab + atorvastatin 80 mg group was compared to the placebo + atorvastatin 80 mg group using appropriate contrast and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was provided.||-46.03|-65.62|<0.0001
91810003|NCT01606436|183495413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.44||||||Comparison at 0.5 hours postdose.||2.44|-1.20|
91810004|NCT01606436|183495413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|4.73||||||Comparison at 2.0 hours postdose.||4.73|1.05|
91810005|NCT01606436|183495413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|3.95||||||Comparison at 3.0 hours postdose.||3.95|0.28|
91810006|NCT01606436|183495413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|3.32||||||Comparison at 4.0 hours postdose.||3.32|-0.36|
91810007|NCT01606436|183495413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|3.32||||||Comparison at 5.0 hours postdose.||3.32|-0.36|
91810008|NCT01606436|183495413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.64|5.32||||||Comparison at 6.0 hours postdose.||5.32|1.64|
91810009|NCT01606436|183495413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|3.97||||||Comparison at 8.0 hours postdose.||3.97|0.27|
91810010|NCT01606436|183495413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|3.51||||||Comparison at 12.0 hours postdose.||3.51|-0.17|
91810011|NCT01606436|183495413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|3.59||||||Comparison at 0.5 hours postdose.||3.59|-1.57|
91810012|NCT01606436|183495413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|7.57||||||Comparison at 2.0 hours postdose.||7.57|2.40|
91918778|NCT03093402|183734734|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 113.||||||0.668|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.668
91918779|NCT03093402|183734735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline SELENA-SLEDAI Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline SLEDAI score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 SLEDAI mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.5|-2.3|.820
91918780|NCT03093402|183734735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.8||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline SELENA-SLEDAI Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline SLEDAI score for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 SLEDAI mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.8|-2.0|.820
91918781|NCT03093402|183734735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline SELENA-SLEDAI Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline SLEDAI score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 SLEDAI mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.1|-2.6|.820
91918782|NCT03093402|183734736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.4||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG total score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.3 (-7.0, -1.5).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.4|-3.0|.244
91764559|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764560|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91764561|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
91764562|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
91764563|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.88
91764564|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
91764565|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
91764566|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
91764567|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764568|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764569|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
91764570|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
91764571|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764572|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
91764573|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
91764574|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764575|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
91810013|NCT01606436|183495413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.71|8.86||||||Comparison at 3.0 hours postdose.||8.86|3.71|
91810014|NCT01606436|183495413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.78|8.93||||||Comparison at 4.0 hours postdose.||8.93|3.78|
91810015|NCT01606436|183495413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.11|7.31||||||Comparison at 12.0 hours postdose.||7.31|2.11|
91810016|NCT01911689|183495421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The independent T test was used to determine the differences for the T2\* value between the Control group and AP group.||||<0.01
91810017|NCT01911689|183495422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The independent T test was used to determine the differences for the T2\* value between the edematous AP and necrotizing AP||||0.05
91810018|NCT01911689|183495423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the differences in the T2\* value between the mild, moderate, and severe AP groups according to the MRSI score.||||<0.01
91810019|NCT01911689|183495423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the T2\* value in the mild and moderate AP according to MRSI||||0.0111
91810020|NCT01911689|183495423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the T2\* value between the mild and severe AP||||0.002
91810021|NCT01911689|183495423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the T2\* value between the moderate and severe AP according to MRSI||||0.071
91918783|NCT03093402|183734736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.0||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG total score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG score for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.3 (-7.0, -1.5).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||2.0|-5.2|.244
91810022|NCT01911689|183495424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.629
91810023|NCT00748033|183495428|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.0650
91918784|NCT03093402|183734736|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.9||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG total score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.3 (-7.0, -1.5).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.9|-6.2|.244
91918785|NCT03093402|183734737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.4||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline PGA score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -0.43 (-0.70, -0.15).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.40|-0.27|0.408
91810024|NCT00748033|183495429|OTHER|||||||0.2487|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.2487
91810025|NCT00748033|183495430|OTHER|||||||0.7288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.7288
91810026|NCT00748033|183495431|OTHER|||||||0.0045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.0045
91810027|NCT00748033|183495432|OTHER|||||||0.4561|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test if the difference between 5s and 24h is equal to 0.||Testing the hypothesis that 5s and 24 h are equal at insertion.||||0.4561
91810028|NCT00748033|183495433|OTHER|||||||0.1797|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test if the difference between 5s and 24h is equal to 0.||Testing the hypothesis that 5s and 24 h are equal at withdrawal.||||0.1797
91810029|NCT00748033|183495434|OTHER|||||||0.5171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test if the difference between 5s and 24h is equal to 0.||The mean perception of the 5s and the 24h catheter is calculated for each patient. The patients are then divided in two groups depending on the order the patients received the two catheters and the hypotheses that the mean of the 5s and the 24h catheter is equal in the two groups are tested. If the test results in a significant p-value it can be concluded that a carry-over effect is present.||||0.5171
91810030|NCT00748033|183495435|OTHER|||||||0.7105|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean perception of the 5s and the 24h catheter is calculated for each patient. The patients are then divided in two groups depending on the order the patients received the two catheters and the hypotheses that the mean of the 5s and the 24h catheter is equal in the two groups are tested. If the test results in a significant p-value it can be concluded that a carry-over effect is present.||||0.7105
91810031|NCT00748033|183495436|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
91810032|NCT00748033|183495437|OTHER|||||||0.0346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0346
91810033|NCT00748033|183495438|OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0016
91810034|NCT03334448|183495441|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|0.957||||||||0.957|0.818|
91810035|NCT03334448|183495442|SUPERIORITY||Ration of Lease Square Means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.09||||||||1.09|0.83|
91810036|NCT02326025|183495443|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.13|||||Log(PK) is participant and treatment and random error, where participant is fitted as a random effect.|||1.13|0.964|
91810037|NCT02326025|183495443|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.957|1.11||||||||1.11|0.957|
91810038|NCT02326025|183495444|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.16||||||||1.16|0.770|
91810039|NCT02326025|183495444|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|1.33||||||||1.33|0.801|
91810040|NCT02643082|183495475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|1.65|<0.0001
91810041|NCT02643082|183495476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|0.26|<0.0001
91764576|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.46
91764577|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764578|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764579|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.88
91764580|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91764581|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
91764582|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91764583|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764584|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
91764585|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.90
91764586|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
91764587|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
91764588|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
91764589|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
91764590|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
91764591|NCT01128426|183418958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764592|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
91764593|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.49
91764594|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
91764595|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764596|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764597|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764598|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
91764599|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764600|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
91764601|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91764602|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91764603|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
91764604|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
91764605|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
91764606|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91810042|NCT02643082|183495477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|0.25|<0.0001
91810043|NCT02643082|183495478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.92|1.67|<0.0001
91810044|NCT02643082|183495479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Between Treatments|0.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.569|0.318|<0.0001
91810045|NCT02643082|183495480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|0.82|<0.0001
91810046|NCT02289417|183495481|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|19.2||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of oral (PO) corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||33.6|3.4|0.0142
91810047|NCT02289417|183495481|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|7.7||||0.2689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method|||22.0|-6.9|0.2689
91810048|NCT02289417|183495482|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|14.6||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|31.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||31.5|-3.6|0.1224
91810049|NCT02289417|183495482|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|19.4||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|36.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||36.0|1.1|0.0401
91810050|NCT02289417|183495483|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|5.2||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||16.7|-5.7|0.2472
91810051|NCT02289417|183495483|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|3.1||||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||14.6|-7.5|0.4628
91810052|NCT02289417|183495484|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|32.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|47.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||47.4|13.8|0.0005
91810053|NCT02289417|183495484|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|3.7||||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||21.5|-14.4|0.6878
91764607|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
91764608|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
91764609|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.30
91764610|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91810054|NCT02289417|183495485|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|11.5||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||26.1|-4.1|0.1388
91810055|NCT02289417|183495485|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|13.5||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|27.7||Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||27.7|-1.6|0.0788
91810056|NCT02289417|183495486|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|24.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||40.1|7.5|0.0046
91810057|NCT02289417|183495486|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|6.0||||0.4476||95.0|-9.8|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||21.6|-9.8|0.4476
91810058|NCT02289417|183495487|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|16.7||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|33.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||33.5|-1.4|0.0755
91810059|NCT02289417|183495487|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|19.8||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||36.4|1.5|0.0370
91810060|NCT02289417|183495488|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|14.6||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||31.4|-3.3|0.1167
91810061|NCT02289417|183495488|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|18.1||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||34.9|-0.3|0.0534
91810062|NCT02289417|183495489|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|16.6||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|33.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||33.3|-1.5|0.0758
91810063|NCT02289417|183495489|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|32.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|47.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||47.5|14.9|0.0004
91810064|NCT02725710|183495494|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.56
91810065|NCT01782222|183495507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.50|-2.42|0.977
91918786|NCT03093402|183734737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline PGA score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -0.43 (-0.70, -0.15).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.26|-0.40|0.408
91810066|NCT01782222|183495507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.18|-2.61|0.859
91810067|NCT01782222|183495508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-2.28|-12.30|0.005
91810068|NCT01782222|183495508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-1.21|-10.90|0.015
91810069|NCT01782222|183495509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|1.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||1.76|-8.17|0.200
91810070|NCT01782222|183495509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|2.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.10|-8.19|0.239
91810071|NCT01782222|183495510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|4.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||4.31|-8.48|0.519
91810072|NCT01782222|183495510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|1.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||1.17|-11.29|0.111
91810073|NCT01782222|183495511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Treatment containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||0.15|-7.39|0.060
91810074|NCT01782222|183495511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Treatment containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-0.30|-7.46|0.034
91810075|NCT01782222|183495512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||0.40|-1.16|0.334
91810076|NCT01782222|183495512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||0.77|-0.74|0.968
91810077|NCT01782222|183495513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.66|-2.34|0.899
91810078|NCT01782222|183495513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Treatment containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.03|-2.68|0.785
91810079|NCT01782222|183495514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-1.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-1.01|-8.91|0.014
91918787|NCT03093402|183734737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.16||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline PGA score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -0.43 (-0.70, -0.15).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.16|-0.50|0.408
91918788|NCT03093402|183734738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.48||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.24|-5.72||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -5.27 (-16.11, 5.56).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||-5.72|-37.24|0.070
91918789|NCT03093402|183734738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.33|4.54||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -5.27 (-16.11, 5.56).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.54|-25.33|0.070
91764611|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
91764612|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.45
91764613|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
91764614|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764615|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91764616|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
91764617|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
91764618|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
91764619|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764620|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
91764621|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
91764622|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
91764623|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
91764624|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764625|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91810080|NCT01782222|183495514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|-1.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-1.03|-8.63|0.013
91810081|NCT03200860|183495516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91810082|NCT03200860|183495517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91810083|NCT03200860|183495518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91810084|NCT03200860|183495519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
91810085|NCT03200860|183495520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.31
91810086|NCT03200860|183495521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
91810087|NCT02634320|183495557|OTHER|Statistical test is to confirm the change from baseline is statistically different from 0.||||||0.078||||||Change from baseline at last on-treatment visit|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
91810088|NCT00064844|183495594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||chi square|7.25|||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|df = 1, N = 96||||||<0.01
91810089|NCT01428453|183495595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|39.8||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|92.0|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Abeta1-42 and Age.|Comparison of CSF Abeta42 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||92.0|-12.4|0.133
91810090|NCT01428453|183495595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-250.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|265.66||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-771.9|271.2|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Abeta1-40 and Age.|Comparison of CSF Abeta40 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||271.2|-771.9|0.829
91810091|NCT01428453|183495596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.036|||||The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Ratio Abeta1-42/Abeta1-40 and Age.|||0.036|-0.003|
91810092|NCT01428453|183495597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.4||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.5|30.3|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF tau and Age.|Comparison of CSF tau between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||30.3|-144.5|0.902
91810093|NCT01428453|183495597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.8|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF P-tau and Age.|Comparison of P-tau between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||1.8|-7.9|0.892
91810094|NCT01428453|183495598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.167||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.313||The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Working Memory/Executive Function Composite Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Working Memory/Executive Function Composite Score by Visit.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.|||0.313|0.021|0.026
91810095|NCT01428453|183495599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.26|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Albumin Quotient and Age.||||0.26|-0.74|0.828
91810096|NCT01428453|183495600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.2|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||Comparison of Abeta42 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg. The analysis method for Plasma parameters was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline, Treatment by Visit, Baseline by Visit and Age.|||1.2|-3.9|
91810097|NCT01428453|183495600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||||95.0|-10.2|12.2|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||Comparison of Abeta40 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg. The analysis method for Plasma parameters was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline, Treatment by Visit, Baseline by Visit and Age.|||12.2|-10.2|
91810098|NCT01428453|183495601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.01|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||The analysis method for Plasma parameters was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline, Treatment by Visit, Baseline by Visit and Age.|||0.010|-0.016|
91810099|NCT01428453|183495603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.067|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.057|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||"The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Score by Visit. A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.~placebo."|||0.057|-0.191|
91810100|NCT01428453|183495603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.138||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.267||The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Overall Composite Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Overall Composite Score by Visit.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis|The probability (effect size) for change from Baseline in CogState battery overall composite score \>0 is presented.|A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo. Comparison of overall composite score between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg at Week 24.|||0.267|0.010|0.982
91810101|NCT01428453|183495604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.13|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis|The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Score by Visit.|Comparison of attention composite score between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg at Week 12. A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.|||0.130|-0.257|
91810102|NCT01428453|183495604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.269|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis|The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Score by Visit.|Comparison of attention composite score between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg at Week 24. A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.|||0.269|-0.130|
91810103|NCT04216329|183495613|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.02
91810104|NCT04216329|183495613|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value 0.07 represents the difference between baseline depression scores and completion of treatment scores.|Students t-test|||||||0.07
91810105|NCT04216329|183495613|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.02
91810106|NCT04216329|183495613|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value 0.07 represents the difference between baseline depression scores and completion of treatment scores.|Students t-test|||||||0.07
91810107|NCT04216329|183495613|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.02
91810108|NCT04216329|183495613|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value 0.07 represents the difference between baseline depression scores and completion of treatment scores.|Students t-test|||||||0.07
91810109|NCT04216329|183495615|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.09
91810110|NCT04216329|183495615|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.09
91810111|NCT04216329|183495615|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.09
91810112|NCT03918447|183495621|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122|=|0.3886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|3.19|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline eGFR as a covariate, and treatment group as fixed effects.||3.19|-1.25|=0.3886
91764626|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
91764627|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764628|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764629|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
91764630|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764631|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764632|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764633|NCT01128426|183418959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764634|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
91764635|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
91764636|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91764637|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
91764638|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.86
91764639|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764640|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
91764641|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.10
91764642|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
91764643|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764644|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
91764645|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
91764646|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
91764647|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
91764648|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91764649|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
91764650|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.29
91764651|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
91764652|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||1.00
91764653|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91810113|NCT03918447|183495623|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|9.47|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) model used baseline eGFR as a covariate, and the following fixed factors: treatment group, time (Week 1 to 100, excluding Week 52), and the interaction between treatment and time. Within-participant errors are modeled using an unstructured covariance matrix.||9.47|6.41|<0.0001
91810114|NCT01774968|183495628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 325 participants were to be randomized (in a 1:1 ratio of U-500R insulin TID:BID) and 260 were to complete the study (with a 20% dropout rate). The 260 completers would provide a 66.4% chance to show equivalence of TID and BID algorithms, 14.4% chance to show noninferiority of TID, 2.5% chance to superiority of TID, 14.4% chance to show noninferiority of BID, and 2.5% chance to show superiority of BID, assuming a difference in HbA1c change of 0% and a standard deviation of 1.1%.||0.12|-0.33|0.3709
91810115|NCT05355805|183495644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.075||0.3055|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error was estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR75."||||0.3055
91810116|NCT05355805|183495644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.427||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error was estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR75."||||0.6192
91810117|NCT05355805|183495647|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.229||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR90."||||0.1606
91810118|NCT05355805|183495647|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.294||0.5116|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR90."||||0.5116
91810119|NCT05355805|183495648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.019||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR100."||||0.0514
91810120|NCT05355805|183495648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.764||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR100."||||0.3322
91918790|NCT03093402|183734738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.81||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|4.16||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -5.27 (-16.11, 5.56).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.16|-25.78|0.070
91918791|NCT03093402|183734739|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|3.99||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physical Function T-score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.8 (-0.8, 4.3).|||3.99|-3.38|0.979
91918792|NCT03093402|183734739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|3.93||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physical Function T-score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.8 (-0.8, 4.3).|||3.93|-3.13|0.979
91810121|NCT05355805|183495649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR50."||||0.3258
91810122|NCT05355805|183495649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.775||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR50."||||0.4068
91810123|NCT05355805|183495650|SUPERIORITY|Predictors in the regression model for missing values at Week 16 are Baseline Hurley stage, baseline abscess count, baseline inflammatory nodule count, baseline draining fistula count, sex, race, age, BMI and Prior Biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS plus counts of abscess, inflammatory nodule, and draining fistula at prior scheduled assessment. Missing flare values in both the placebo and izokibep groups are imputed using observed data from the placebo group only.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.661||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error will be used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Missing data of abscess and inflammatory nodules counts at scheduled visits are imputed assuming monotone missingness pattern."||||0.3329
91810124|NCT05355805|183495650|SUPERIORITY|Predictors in the regression model for missing values at Week 16 are Baseline Hurley stage, baseline abscess count, baseline inflammatory nodule count, baseline draining fistula count, sex, race, age, BMI and Prior Biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS plus counts of abscess, inflammatory nodule, and draining fistula at prior scheduled assessment. Missing flare values in both the placebo and izokibep groups are imputed using observed data from the placebo group only.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.574||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Missing data of abscess and inflammatory nodules counts at scheduled visits are imputed assuming monotone missingness pattern."||||0.5882
91810125|NCT05355805|183495651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.995||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.5422
91810126|NCT05355805|183495651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.77||0.6569|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.6569
91918793|NCT03093402|183734739|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|4.31||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Physical Function Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.8 (-0.8, 4.3).|||4.31|-2.77|0.979
91918794|NCT03093402|183734740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|3.26||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Anxiety T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.8 (-4.8, 1.2).|||3.26|-6.14|0.788
91918795|NCT03093402|183734740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|2.96||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Anxiety T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.8 (-4.8, 1.2).|||2.96|-6.07|0.788
91764654|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
91764655|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
91764656|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764657|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
91764658|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
91764659|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764660|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91764661|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764662|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
91764663|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
91764664|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764665|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
91764666|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
91764667|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
91764668|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764669|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764670|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
91764671|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91764672|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91764673|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91764674|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764675|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
91764676|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.65
91764677|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764678|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.10
91764679|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
91764680|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
91764681|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764682|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
91764683|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764684|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91764685|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764686|NCT01128426|183418960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764687|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
91764688|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
91764689|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91764690|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
91764691|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764692|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764693|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
91764694|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
91764695|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91764696|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
91764697|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
91764698|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91764699|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764700|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91764701|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
91764702|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.80
91764703|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
91764704|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
91764705|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
91764706|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.76
91764707|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
91764708|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
91764709|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91764710|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764711|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764712|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764713|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764714|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
91764715|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
91918796|NCT03093402|183734740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.94||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Anxiety T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.8 (-4.8, 1.2).|||4.94|-4.00|0.788
91764716|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91764717|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
91764718|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764719|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764720|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764721|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
91764722|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91810127|NCT05355805|183495652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.951||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.4031
91810128|NCT05355805|183495652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.959||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.0327
91764723|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764724|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91764725|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91764726|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764727|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764728|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.80
91764729|NCT01128426|183418961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764730|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764731|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91764732|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
91764733|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91764734|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
91764735|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
91764736|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764737|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
91764738|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
91764739|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.84
91764740|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.64
91764741|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91764742|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
91764743|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
91764744|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91764745|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91764746|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
91764747|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764748|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764749|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
91764750|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.90
91764751|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
91764752|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764753|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91764754|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764755|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764756|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764757|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
91764758|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
91764759|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.54
91764760|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764761|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764762|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764763|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764764|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764765|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
91764766|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
91764767|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764768|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764769|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764770|NCT01128426|183418962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764771|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91764772|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
91764773|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91764774|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91764775|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764776|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91764777|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764778|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91764779|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
91764780|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.58
91764781|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
91764782|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.39
91764783|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
91764784|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
91764785|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91764786|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91764787|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
91764788|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
91764789|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764790|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.32
91764791|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
91764792|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.76
91764793|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.29
91764794|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.58
91764795|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
91764796|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
91764797|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764798|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91810129|NCT00534430|183495658|EQUIVALENCE|Given the small sample-size of the disease sub-groups, this was a hypothesis generating study.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments.||Log-rank test. (Mantel-Haenszel test). Null hypothesis is all four groups are statistically from the same population. Alternative hypothesis is that at least one of the groups is from a population different from the remaining groups. Anticipated sample-sizes comparing Active ALL (anticipated N= 12) with the combined AML patients (anticipated N=38) was deemed to be too small for formal hypothesis testing.||||>0.05
91810130|NCT00534430|183495659|EQUIVALENCE|Given the small sample-size of the disease sub-groups, this was a hypothesis generating study.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Gray's Test|No adjustments.||Gray's estimate. (Fine and Gray). Null hypothesis is all four groups are statistically from the same population. Alternative hypothesis is that at least one of the groups is from a population different from the remaining groups. Anticipated sample-sizes comparing Active ALL (anticipated N= 12) with the combined AML patients (anticipated N=38) was deemed to be too small for formal hypothesis testing||||>0.05
91810131|NCT02423577|183495660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.98|0.1436
91810132|NCT01986855|183495661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.03||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, eGFR stratum (\<45 or ≥45 mL/min/1.73m\^2), baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.18|-0.23|0.807
91810133|NCT01986855|183495661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.15||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.06||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, eGFR stratum (\<45 or ≥45 mL/min/1.73m\^2), baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.06|-0.35|0.155
91810134|NCT01986855|183495662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||12.1|-4.8|
91810135|NCT01986855|183495662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|2.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||2.3|-16.3|
91810136|NCT01986855|183495663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||9.0|-2.7|
91810137|NCT01986855|183495663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||3.7|-6.5|
91810138|NCT01986855|183495664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.03||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.23||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.23|-0.28|0.828
91810139|NCT01986855|183495664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.09||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.17|-0.35|0.496
91810140|NCT01986855|183495665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.96||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable. P-value is nominal.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.96|-2.57|<0.001
91810141|NCT01986855|183495665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.02||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable. P-value is nominal.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-1.02|-2.66|<0.001
91810142|NCT01986855|183495666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.42||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|2.29||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||2.29|-5.13|0.451
91810143|NCT01986855|183495666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-3.46||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|0.31||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.31|-7.24|0.072
91810144|NCT01986855|183495667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-6.81||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-19.47|5.85||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||5.85|-19.47|0.291
91810145|NCT01986855|183495667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-15.51||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-2.53||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable. P-value is nominal.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-2.53|-28.50|0.019
91810146|NCT01986855|183495668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.16||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.56||Adjusted Odds Ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and a covariate for baseline A1C.|Logistic regression model|||||2.56|0.53|0.713
91810147|NCT01986855|183495668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.06||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.55||Adjusted Odds Ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and a covariate for baseline A1C.|Logistic regression model|||||2.55|0.44|0.890
91810148|NCT02014597|183495679|OTHER|||||||0.0583||||||Scotopic logCS|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0583
91810149|NCT02014597|183495679|OTHER|||||||0.1762||||||Photopic logCS|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1762
91810150|NCT02014597|183495680|OTHER|||||||0.183||||||Scotopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and MD.||||0.183
91810151|NCT02014597|183495680|OTHER|||||||0.771||||||Photopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and MD.||||0.771
91810152|NCT02014597|183495680|OTHER|||||||0.492||||||Scotopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and PSD.||||0.492
91810153|NCT02014597|183495680|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Photopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and PSD.||||0.830
91810154|NCT00754624|183495715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|-0.037|||Random coefficient|Adjusted for Baseline FEV1 value||A random coefficient model with a random intercept and slope associated with each subject, was fitted (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS) to the observed FEV1 data to estimate the annual rate of decline. The model included terms for baseline FEV1 and time (in years) of FEV1 measurements. Missing pulmonary functions were not imputed.||-0.037|-0.059|
91810155|NCT00754624|183495716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.043|||Random Coefficient|Adjusted for Baseline FVC value||A random coefficient model with a random intercept and slope associated with each subject, was fitted (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS) to the observed FVC data to estimate the annual rate of decline. The model included terms for baseline FVC and time (in years) of FVC measurements. Missing pulmonary functions were not imputed.||-0.043|-0.072|
91810156|NCT00754624|183495717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.311|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.454|-0.168|||Random Coefficient|Adjusted for Baseline DLCo value||A random coefficient model with a random intercept and slope associated with each subject, was fitted (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS) to the observed DLco data to estimate the annual rate of decline. The model included terms for baseline DLco and time (in years) of DLco measurements. Missing pulmonary functions were not imputed.||-0.168|-0.454|
91918797|NCT03093402|183734741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|3.16||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Depression T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.7(-4.6, 1.3).|||3.16|-6.14|0.766
91810157|NCT01571427|183495722|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.25
91810158|NCT01571427|183495722|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample (CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 combined). Analyses within each CDR group are exploratory.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: AMONG CDR=0 group (N=49)||||0.25
91810159|NCT01571427|183495722|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses within each CDR group are exploratory.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analyses 3: AMONG CDR=0.5 (Mild Cognitive Impairment) group, N=34 .||||0.85
91810160|NCT01571427|183495723|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.02
91810161|NCT01571427|183495723|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant based on the Bonferroni multiple comparison adjusted P value of P\<0.004.|Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: AMONG CDR=0 group (N=49)||||0.003
91918798|NCT03093402|183734741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.11||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Depression T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.7(-4.6, 1.3).|||5.11|-3.60|0.766
91810162|NCT01571427|183495723|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analyses 3: CDR=0.5 (Mild Cognitive Impairment) group, N=34||||0.65
91810163|NCT01571427|183495724|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.98
91810164|NCT01571427|183495724|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: Among CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.96
91810165|NCT01571427|183495724|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: Among CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.83
91810166|NCT01571427|183495725|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.68
91810167|NCT01571427|183495725|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.69
91810168|NCT01571427|183495725|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.86
91810169|NCT01571427|183495726|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.92
91810170|NCT01571427|183495726|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.92
91810171|NCT01571427|183495726|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.94
91810172|NCT01571427|183495727|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.46
91810173|NCT01571427|183495727|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.61
91810174|NCT01571427|183495727|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.80
91810175|NCT01571427|183495728|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.88||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.72
91918799|NCT03093402|183734741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|3.07||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Depression T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.7(-4.6, 1.3).|||3.07|-5.55|0.766
91810176|NCT01571427|183495728|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.84
91810177|NCT01571427|183495728|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.40
91810178|NCT01571427|183495729|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.38
91764799|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764800|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91810179|NCT01571427|183495729|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.39
91810180|NCT01571427|183495729|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.59
91810181|NCT01571427|183495730|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.03
91810182|NCT01571427|183495730|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.24
91918800|NCT03093402|183734742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|5.17||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Fatigue T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.7 (-8.3, -1.1).|||5.17|-6.04|0.982
91918801|NCT03093402|183734742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|4.5||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Fatigue T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.7 (-8.3, -1.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.50|-6.22|0.982
91918802|NCT03093402|183734742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|4.36||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Fatigue T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.7 (-8.3, -1.1).|||4.36|-6.32|0.982
91764801|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91764802|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764803|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91764804|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
91918803|NCT03093402|183734743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|4.91||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -3.5 (-6.8, -0.3).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.91|-4.74|0.607
91918804|NCT03093402|183734743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|7.71||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -3.5 (-6.8, -0.3).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||7.71|-1.85|0.607
91918805|NCT03093402|183734743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|6.09||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -3.5 (-6.8, -0.3).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||6.09|-3.22|0.607
91918806|NCT03093402|183734744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|4.3||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Social Role Satisfaction T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 4.2 (0.8, 7.6).|||4.30|-4.66|0.981
91918807|NCT03093402|183734744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|4.86||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Social Role Satisfaction T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 4.2 (0.8, 7.6).|||4.86|-3.84|0.981
91918808|NCT03093402|183734744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.08||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Social Role Satisfaction T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 4.2 (0.8, 7.6).|||4.08|-4.62|0.981
91764805|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91764806|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
91764807|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764808|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.30
91764809|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
91764810|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764811|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
91764812|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764813|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764814|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764815|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
91764816|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91764817|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91764818|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.76
91890097|NCT01669577|183673079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE(Generalyzed Estimation Equation)|0.989214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982855|0.995613||arterial hemoglobin Oxygen saturation|ANOVA|Non parametric(NPar) ANOVA|GEE model (dichotomous response variable)with logit link function. The NPar ANOVA (p\<0.1 for death) was the test used for inclusion in the model variables for the final models - backward method, with alpha equal to 0.05.|"significance level of 0.05, power of 0.80, moderate correlation of 0.5 between time periods and assumption that the variability is equal within each factor (non-sphericity). Due to the effect size between 0.1 and 0.5, there was no need for samples larger than 140 patients. A total of 200 patients was defined conservatively, with a margin for possible deaths. The software G\*Power 3.1.7 was used for sample size calculation.~Fischer's test, Mann-Whitney, t-test; Non parametric ANOVA and GEE"||0.995613|0.982855|< 0.001
91918809|NCT03093402|183734745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.29||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.9 (-7.6, -2.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||2.29|-6.00|0.653
91918810|NCT03093402|183734745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.88||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.9 (-7.6, -2.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.88|-3.10|0.653
91764819|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.54
91764820|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764821|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764822|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764823|NCT01128426|183418963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91764824|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .63
91764825|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
91764826|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764827|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.60
91764828|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
91764829|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764830|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764831|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91764832|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764833|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
91764834|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
91764835|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764836|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
91764837|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764838|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
91764839|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
91764840|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.36
91764841|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
91764842|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91764843|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.81
91764844|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.75
91764845|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764846|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91764847|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764848|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764849|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
91764850|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
91764851|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764852|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764853|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
91764854|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.78
91764855|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.84
91764856|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.44
91890098|NCT01669577|183673079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|0.99728|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995791|0.998772|||ANOVA|||diastolic arterial blood pressure||0.998772|0.995791|< 0.001
91890099|NCT01669577|183673079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|1.046961|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012521|1.082572|||ANOVA|||lactate||1.082572|1.012521|< 0.004
91890100|NCT01669577|183673079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|0.973987|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965308|0.982744|||ANOVA|||Glasgow coma score||0.982744|0.965308|<0.001
91890101|NCT01669577|183673079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|1.000013|||<|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.000025|||ANOVA|||amount of Infused crystalloids||1.000025|1.000000|<0.023
91890102|NCT01327846|183673083|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE|H11: The hazard rate of first adjudication committee confirmed MACE in the canakinumab 300 mg dose group is greater than or equal to the hazard rate of the placebo group||0.99|0.75|0.0648
91890103|NCT01327846|183673083|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE|H21: The hazard rate of first adjudication committee confirmed MACE in the canakinumab 150 mg dose group is greater than or equal to the hazard rate of the placebo group||0.98|0.74|0.0241
91890104|NCT01327846|183673083|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE|H31: The hazard rate of first adjudication committee confirmed MACE in the canakinumab 50 mg dose group is greater than or equal to the hazard rate of the placebo group.||1.07|0.80|0.1895
91890105|NCT01327846|183673083|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||CV death|||1.16|0.77|0.572
91890106|NCT01327846|183673083|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||CV death|||1.10|0.73|0.296
91890107|NCT01327846|183673083|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||CV death|||1.12|0.73|0.369
91890108|NCT01327846|183673083|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||MI (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.01|0.69|0.067
91890109|NCT01327846|183673083|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||MI (fatal and non-fatal)|||0.92|0.63|0.006
91810183|NCT01571427|183495730|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.04
91810184|NCT01571427|183495731|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.65
91810185|NCT01571427|183495731|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.64
91810186|NCT01571427|183495731|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.42
91890110|NCT01327846|183673083|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||MI (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.14|0.78|0.542
91890111|NCT01327846|183673083|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.0|||||MI (non-fatal)|||1.00|0.68|
91890112|NCT01327846|183673083|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||||MI (non-fatal)|||0.92|0.62|
91890113|NCT01327846|183673083|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14|||||MI (non-fatal)|||1.14|0.78|
91890114|NCT01327846|183673083|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||Stroke (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.12|0.56|0.190
91890115|NCT01327846|183673083|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.35||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||Stroke (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.35|0.71|0.912
91890116|NCT01327846|183673083|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||Stroke (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.43|0.74|0.871
91890117|NCT01327846|183673083|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.13|||||Stroke (nonfatal)|||1.13|0.57|
91890118|NCT01327846|183673083|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.37|||||Stroke (nonfatal)|||1.37|0.72|
91890119|NCT01327846|183673083|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.45|||||Stroke (nonfatal)|||1.45|0.75|
91890120|NCT01327846|183673086|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.94||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE or unstable angina|||0.94|0.72|0.0648
91890121|NCT01327846|183673086|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE or unstable angina|||0.95|0.73|0.0241
91890122|NCT01327846|183673086|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE or unstable angina|||1.03|0.79|0.1895
91890123|NCT01327846|183673086|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.86||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||unstable angina|||0.86|0.39|0.007
91890124|NCT01327846|183673086|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.94||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||unstable angina|||0.94|0.44|0.022
91890125|NCT01327846|183673086|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||unstable angina|||1.05|0.48|0.086
91890126|NCT01327846|183673087|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.23||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank|||||1.23|0.83|0.8456
91890127|NCT01327846|183673087|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.29||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank|||||1.29|0.87|0.8456
91890128|NCT01327846|183673087|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank|||||1.20|0.80|0.6541
91890129|NCT01327846|183673088|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality or MI or Stroke|||0.99|0.77|0.028
91890130|NCT01327846|183673088|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.96||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality or MI or Stroke|||0.96|0.75|0.011
91890131|NCT01327846|183673088|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality or MI or Stroke|||1.07|0.83|0.377
91890132|NCT01327846|183673089|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality|||1.10|0.79|0.406
91890133|NCT01327846|183673089|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality|||1.09|0.78|0.329
91810187|NCT01571427|183495732|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.45
91810188|NCT01571427|183495732|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.93
91810189|NCT01571427|183495732|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.40
91810190|NCT01571427|183495733|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.30
91890134|NCT01327846|183673089|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality|||1.13|0.81|0.597
91890135|NCT04608773|183673110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.501|||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of Dry mouth score between Refresh and Biotene. ANCOVA model was performed by regressing the difference in after-treatment measurement between Refresh and Biotene over the difference of baseline between Refresh and Biotene. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two- sided)||||<0.501
91890136|NCT04608773|183673111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.109
91890137|NCT04608773|183673112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.107
91890138|NCT04608773|183673113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.489
91890139|NCT04608773|183673114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.213
91890140|NCT04608773|183673115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.486
91890141|NCT02833077|183673117|SUPERIORITY||Responder Rate Difference|28.85||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.16|45.6||If the 2-sided p-value is \< 0.05, the responder rate is greater for treatment than for control group, and point estimate of the responder rater for treatment group is greater than 50%, then treatment will be considered superior to control group.|Fisher's exact test|||Superiority of treatment group was established if responder rate at month 6 was statistically greater than that for the control group at month 6 and the observed responder rate at month 6 for the treatment group was greater than 50%.||45.60|11.16|0.0019
91890142|NCT02833077|183673118|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level to demonstrate that the mean overall satisfaction score at month 6 visit is statistically greater than that at the baseline for the treatment group.|Two sided paired t-test|||||||<.0001
91890143|NCT00972322|183673121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.87|-0.82|||Least Squares Means Difference||Placebo - MK-8245 on Day 28|||-0.82|-29.87|0.083
91890144|NCT00316017|183673124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who survived to day 28 day between the three groups.||||0.91
91890145|NCT00316017|183673125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in ARDS-free survival through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.94
91890146|NCT00316017|183673126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in average Worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scores (MODS) through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.73
91890147|NCT00316017|183673127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with the Presence of Nosocomial Infection through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.8
91890148|NCT00316017|183673128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of PRBC units given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.69
91890149|NCT00316017|183673129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average amount of Total fluids given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.57
91890150|NCT00316017|183673130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Ventilator-free days through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.66
91918811|NCT03093402|183734745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|3.67||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.9 (-7.6, -2.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||3.67|-4.31|0.653
91918812|NCT03093402|183734746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.29||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1).|||0.29|-2.56|0.245
91918813|NCT03093402|183734746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.8||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1).|||0.80|-1.93|0.245
91918814|NCT03093402|183734746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.09||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1).|||0.09|-2.64|0.245
91918815|NCT03093402|183734747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|3.54||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Cognitive Function T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.4 (-1.5, 4.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||3.54|-4.45|0.608
91918816|NCT03093402|183734747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|5.47||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Cognitive Function T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.4 (-1.5, 4.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||5.47|-2.27|0.608
91918817|NCT03093402|183734747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|5.45||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Cognitive Function T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.4 (-1.5, 4.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||5.45|-2.25|0.608
91918818|NCT00331760|183734787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||A sample size of 42 patients provides 64% power to detect a reduction in short-term grade 2 or higher bowel AEs from historical rate of 40% to 25%.||||0.12
91918819|NCT00331760|183734787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||A sample size of 42 patients provides 88% power to detect a reduction in short-term grade 2 or higher bowel AEs from historical rate of 40% to 20%.||||0.043
91918820|NCT00619229|183734801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|2.55||The criterion for significance (α) was set at one-sided α = 0.025, which means that only an effect in the expected direction was interpreted.|ANCOVA||For exploratory testing an Analysis of Variance-Covariance (ANCOVA) F-test with dependent variable 'difference in visual acuity', fixed factors 'treatment' and 'centre' and Baseline value as a covariate was used.|"The primary goal of the study was to test the following null hypothesis:~H0: μAlprostadil ≤ μPlacebo, against the alternative hypothesis H1: μAlprostadil \> μPlacebo, where μ denotes the mean differences in visual acuity between measurements at 3 months after the end of study drug infusion minus measurements at baseline as assessed as line difference on the standard ETDRS charts."||2.55|-0.674|0.1220
91918821|NCT03417440|183734812|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-898.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2884.82|1088.82||A single model was run including variables indicating Proof Positive (yes/no), Coach Me (yes/no), and On Your Feet (yes/no) and their interaction terms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||1088.82|-2884.82|.37
91764857|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764858|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
91764859|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764860|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91918822|NCT03417440|183734812|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-2602.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4687.44|-516.69||A single model was run including variables indicating Proof Positive (yes/no), Coach Me (yes/no), and On Your Feet (yes/no) and their interaction terms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||-516.69|-4687.44|.02
91918823|NCT03417440|183734812|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-1244.9||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3287.6|797.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||797.85|-3287.60|.23
91918824|NCT03417440|183734812|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|1468.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1368.93|4306.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||4306.02|-1368.93|0.31
91918825|NCT03417440|183734812|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|388.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2397.51|3173.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||3173.62|-2397.51|0.78
91918826|NCT03417440|183734812|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|1991.2||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-865.52|4847.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||4847.86|-865.52|0.17
91918827|NCT03417440|183734812|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-590.7||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4591.17|3409.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||3409.75|-4591.17|0.77
91918828|NCT03417440|183734813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|118.7||0.17|ONE_SIDED|90.0||8.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||8.3||0.17
91918829|NCT03417440|183734813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|117.8||0.94|ONE_SIDED|90.0||68.8||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||68.8||0.94
91918830|NCT03417440|183734813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|52.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|116.4||0.99|ONE_SIDED|90.0||82.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||82.7||0.99
91918831|NCT03417440|183734814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0||0.47|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-12.5|0.47
91918832|NCT03417440|183734814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0||0.315|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-8.3|0.315
91918833|NCT03417440|183734814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0||0.355|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-9.4|0.355
91918834|NCT03417440|183734815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.86|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.3|0.86
91918835|NCT03417440|183734815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.38|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.6|0.38
91918836|NCT03417440|183734815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.66|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.1|0.66
91918837|NCT03417440|183734816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.2||0.69|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-6.9|0.69
91918838|NCT03417440|183734816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.2||0.6|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-6.0|0.60
91918839|NCT03417440|183734816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0||0.11|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.2|0.11
91918840|NCT03417440|183734817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.94|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.7|0.94
91918841|NCT03417440|183734817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.73|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.4|0.73
91918842|NCT03417440|183734817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.22|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.1|0.22
91918843|NCT03417440|183734818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.46|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.3|0.46
91918844|NCT03417440|183734818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||0.96|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.7|0.96
91918845|NCT03417440|183734818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.495|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.3|0.495
91764861|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
91918846|NCT03417440|183734819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5||0.445|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.1|0.445
91918847|NCT03417440|183734819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4||0.92|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-2.5|0.92
91918848|NCT03417440|183734819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5||0.23|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.5|0.23
91918849|NCT03417440|183734820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.78|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.5|0.78
91918850|NCT03417440|183734820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.98|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.7|0.98
91918851|NCT03417440|183734820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.13|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.1|0.13
91918852|NCT03417440|183734821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.285|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||0.6||0.285
91918853|NCT03417440|183734821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.5|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.1||0.50
91918854|NCT03417440|183734821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.92|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.3||0.92
91918855|NCT03417440|183734822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.42|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.9|0.42
91918856|NCT03417440|183734822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.82|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.9|0.82
91764862|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91918857|NCT03417440|183734822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.58|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.2|0.58
91918858|NCT03417440|183734823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.45|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.9|0.45
91918859|NCT03417440|183734823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9||0.49|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.0|0.49
91918860|NCT03417440|183734823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9||0.61|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.2|0.61
91918861|NCT03417440|183734824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.84
91918862|NCT03417440|183734824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.96
91918863|NCT03417440|183734824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.41
91918864|NCT03417440|183734825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.13
91918865|NCT03417440|183734825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91918866|NCT03417440|183734825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91918867|NCT03417440|183734826|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.10435||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Self-efficacy for Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.3116
91918868|NCT03417440|183734826|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.17742||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Correlation between Self-regulation of Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.0838
91918869|NCT03417440|183734826|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.09834||||0.351|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Family Social Support for Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.3510
91918870|NCT03417440|183734826|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.04562||||0.6659|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Outcome Expectation for Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.6659
91918871|NCT03417440|183734826|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.04831||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Aging Self-perceptions (Attitude Toward Own Aging) change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.6402
91918872|NCT03417440|183734826|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.13128||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Views of Aging--Psychosocial Loss change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.2048
91918873|NCT03417440|183734826|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.10022||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Views of Aging--Physical Change change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.3445
91918874|NCT03417440|183734826|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.00866||||0.934|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Views of Aging--Psychological Growth change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.9340
91918875|NCT00963807|183734838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.336
91918876|NCT00371267|183734867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.27
91918877|NCT00371267|183734868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.35
91918878|NCT00371267|183734869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.74
91918879|NCT00371267|183734870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
91918880|NCT00371267|183734871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
91918881|NCT01575912|183734900|OTHER|||||||0.121||||||using Mann Whitney test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.121
91918882|NCT02966314|183734945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|126.47|||Regression, Logistic|Accounting for repeated measures||||126.47|2.77|0.003
91918883|NCT02966314|183734947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|17.63|||Regression, Linear|||||17.63|1.24|0.03
91918884|NCT02966314|183734949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|720.54|||Regression, Logistic|Accounting for repeated measures||||720.54|1.49|0.03
91918885|NCT02966314|183734951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|25.3|||Regression, Linear|Accounting for multiple measures, using poisson distribution with natural log link||||25.3|1.9|0.005
91918886|NCT00826514|183734995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.209||||||Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value, age and treatment as covariates.||0.209|-1.150|
91764863|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91918887|NCT00826514|183734998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.901|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.754|1.905||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI Total Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.905|-4.754|
91918888|NCT00826514|183734998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.931|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.701|0.591||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI PD Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.591|-2.701|
91918889|NCT00826514|183734998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.789|1.541||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI US Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.541|-0.789|
91918890|NCT00826514|183734998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.785|0.631||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI QoL Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.631|-1.785|
91918891|NCT00826514|183734999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.649|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|1.348||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.348|-0.990|
91918892|NCT00826514|183735000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.829|1.452||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.452|-1.829|
91918893|NCT00826514|183735001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-33.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.026|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.144|-2.968||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||-2.968|-64.144|
91918894|NCT00826514|183735002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.364|0.415||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.415|-1.364|
91918895|NCT00826514|183735003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.146|0.401||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.401|-3.146|
91918896|NCT00826514|183735004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.417|0.334||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.334|-0.417|
91918897|NCT00826514|183735005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.791|1.822||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.822|-1.791|
91918898|NCT00826514|183735006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.833|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.763|4.407||||||Week 6: Logistic regression model with age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||4.407|0.763|
91764864|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
91764865|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
91764866|NCT01128426|183418964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
91764867|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764868|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
91764869|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91918899|NCT00826514|183735006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.388|2.575||||||Week 16: Logistic regression model with age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||2.575|0.388|
91918900|NCT01773473|183735017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35||||||||0.35|-0.01|
91764870|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.55
91764871|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764872|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
91764873|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764874|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764875|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764876|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.43
91764877|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
91764878|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
91764879|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764880|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
91918901|NCT02620020|183735040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.34||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-0.88|0.3876
91918902|NCT02620020|183735040|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.12||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-1.32|0.0180
91918903|NCT02620020|183735040|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.07||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-1.26|0.0288
91918904|NCT02620020|183735042|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-0.77||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-3.65|0.0028
91918905|NCT02620020|183735042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.54||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-3.36|0.0068
91918906|NCT02620020|183735042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-1.06||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.06|-3.88|0.0006
91918907|NCT02620020|183735043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.46|0.1501
91918908|NCT02620020|183735043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.41|0.2603
91918909|NCT02620020|183735043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.07||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.59|0.0135
91764881|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764882|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
91764883|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
91764884|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
91764885|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
91764886|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
91764887|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764888|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
91764889|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
91764890|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
91764891|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
91764892|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764893|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764894|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764895|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.82
91764896|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764897|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.55
91764898|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
91764899|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
91764900|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.81
91764901|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764902|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
91764903|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764904|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764905|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.64
91918910|NCT05292755|183735054|OTHER|One-way ANOVA was used to compare mean Faith's phylogenetic diversity before and after treatment for each intervention group at a two-tailed 95% confidence interval.||||||0.232|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.232
91764906|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.97
91764907|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.31
91764908|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764909|NCT01128426|183418965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764910|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
91764911|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.78
91764912|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method.The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91764913|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
91764914|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
91764915|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
91764916|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764917|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764918|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91764919|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
91764920|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
91764921|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764922|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764923|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764924|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
91764925|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
91764926|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
91764927|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
91764928|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
91764929|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
91764930|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
91764931|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
91764932|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
91764933|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
91764934|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
91764935|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91918911|NCT05292755|183735055|OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA was used to compare mean Shannon's diversity indices before and after treatment for each intervention group at a two-tailed 95% confidence interval.||||0.224
91810191|NCT01571427|183495733|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.75
91810192|NCT01571427|183495733|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.12
91810193|NCT03590041|183495771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Linear Mixed Model adjusted for a priori patient covariates: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Health Literacy, Food Availability, Charlson Score, Mental Illness, Substance use. Adjusted P-value represents the significance test for the time x group interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that patients in Patient-Driven SMAs would have greater reductions in Diabetes Distress than those in Standardized SMAs. We expected seeing an effect size of a .6 unit decrease (.30) in Standardized SMAs and 1.2 unit decrease (.60) in Patient-Driven SMAs. We estimate we have \>80% power to detect effect sizes between .29 (ICC=3%) and .34 (ICC=5%).||||0.04
91810194|NCT03590041|183495772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Linear Mixed Model adjusted for a priori patient covariates: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Health Literacy, Food Availability, Charlson Score, Mental Illness, Substance use. Adjusted P-value represents the significance test for the time x group interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that patients in the Patient-Driven condition would have a greater reduction in HbA1c than patients in the Standardized condition. We estimate we have \>80% power to detect effect sizes between .29 (ICC=3%) and .34 (ICC=5%).||||0.82
91764936|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764937|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764938|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
91764939|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
91764940|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91890151|NCT00316017|183673131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Days alive out of the ICU through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.82
91764941|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764942|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.82
91764943|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
91764944|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.78
91764945|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.65
91764946|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
91764947|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
91764948|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.81
91764949|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91764950|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91890152|NCT00316017|183673132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Days alive out of the hospital through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.98
91890153|NCT00316017|183673133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who survived to hospital discharge between the three groups.||||0.85
91890154|NCT00316017|183673134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who received zero units of PRBC in the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.48
91810195|NCT02254486|183495789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in success rate|0.14||||0.528|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-8.15|||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, the primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 to Trisulfate Solution (TS) (10% margin). Success rate was number of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of number of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - TS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-8.15|0.528
91810196|NCT02254486|183495790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|6.58||||0.059|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.69|||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and with 1-sided p-value \<0.025; the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 to Trisulfate Solution (TS) (10% margin). Success rate was number of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of number of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - TS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-1.69|0.059
91810197|NCT02254486|183495791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|-3.01||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.36|5.28||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to Trisulfate Solution with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - TS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||5.28|-11.36|0.863
91810198|NCT02254486|183495792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.||||||0.66||||||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to Trisulfate Solution with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - TS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||||0.660
91918912|NCT05292755|183735056|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||Repeated measures Mann-U-Whitney|||Repeated measures Mann-U-Whitney tests were used to compare changes in weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances between intervention groups before and after intervention at a two-tailed 95% confidence interval.||||0.227
91918913|NCT00707577|183735070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|random effects regression models for panel data adjusted for clustering within team||||||<0.05
91918914|NCT00190775|183735071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included visit, baseline, treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and treatment by visit.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine - Placebo.|Approximately 500 participants were randomized to atomoxetine or placebo (1:1) which provided at least 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.64 points on the CAARS-Inv:SV Total ADHD Symptoms Score assuming a SD of 9.85 based on 2-sided significance level of 0.05 using a 2-sample t-test. Mean and SD assumptions were associated with effect size of 0.37 and 30% missing data rate. These assumptions applied to Weeks 12 and 24 treatment effects. Marginal power at Weeks 12 and 24 was 86%.||||<0.001
91918915|NCT00190775|183735072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.905
91918916|NCT00190775|183735072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.491
91918917|NCT00190775|183735072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.600
91918918|NCT00190775|183735072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.052
91918919|NCT00190775|183735072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.514
91918920|NCT00190775|183735072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.515
91918921|NCT00190775|183735072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.315
91918922|NCT00190775|183735073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.176
91764951|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91918923|NCT00190775|183735073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.122
91918924|NCT00190775|183735073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.931
91918925|NCT00190775|183735073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.788
91918926|NCT00190775|183735073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.190
91918927|NCT00190775|183735073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.360
91918928|NCT00190775|183735073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.446
91764952|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91918929|NCT00190775|183735074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.575
91918930|NCT00190775|183735074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.705
91918931|NCT00190775|183735074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.686
91918932|NCT00190775|183735074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.618
91918933|NCT00190775|183735074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.903
91918934|NCT00190775|183735074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.807
91764953|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91764954|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91918935|NCT00190775|183735074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.403
91918936|NCT00190775|183735075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.941||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.941
91764955|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91764956|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.97
91764957|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
91764958|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91764959|NCT01128426|183418966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764960|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764961|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91764962|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91764963|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
91918937|NCT00190775|183735075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.788
91918938|NCT00190775|183735075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.391
91918939|NCT00190775|183735075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.685
91918940|NCT00190775|183735075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.774
91918941|NCT00190775|183735075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.360
91918942|NCT00190775|183735075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.446
91918943|NCT00190775|183735076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.617||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.617
91918944|NCT00190775|183735076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.789
91918945|NCT00190775|183735076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.670
91918946|NCT00190775|183735076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.018
91918947|NCT00190775|183735076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.405||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.405
91918948|NCT00190775|183735077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.544
91918949|NCT00190775|183735077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.494
91918950|NCT00190775|183735077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.547
91918951|NCT00190775|183735077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.059
91918952|NCT00190775|183735077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.918
91918953|NCT00190775|183735078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.334
91918954|NCT00190775|183735078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.087
91918955|NCT00190775|183735078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.795
91918956|NCT00190775|183735078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.955
91918957|NCT00190775|183735078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.788
91764964|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
91764965|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91918958|NCT00190775|183735079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.248
91764966|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
91764967|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.20
91764968|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
91764969|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
91918959|NCT00190775|183735079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.163
91918960|NCT00190775|183735079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.947
91918961|NCT00190775|183735079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.214
91918962|NCT00190775|183735079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.543
91918963|NCT00190775|183735080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included visit, baseline, treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and treatment by visit.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine - Placebo.|Approximately 500 participants were randomized to atomoxetine or placebo (1:1) which provided at least 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.64 points on the CAARS-Inv:SV Total ADHD Symptoms Score assuming a SD of 9.85 based on 2-sided significance level of 0.05 using a 2-sample t-test. Mean and SD assumptions were associated with effect size of 0.37 and 30% missing data rate. These assumptions applied to Weeks 12 and 24 treatment effects. Marginal power at Weeks 12 and 24 was 86%.||||0.001
91918964|NCT00190775|183735081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-Value for Total Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.446
91918965|NCT00190775|183735081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-Value for Life Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.134
91918966|NCT00190775|183735082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.056
91918967|NCT00190775|183735082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Competence.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.459
91918968|NCT00190775|183735082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Isolation.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.435
91918969|NCT00190775|183735082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Attachment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.677
91810199|NCT02254486|183495793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.||||||0.953||||||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to Trisulfate Solution with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in PDR was calculated as NER1006 rate - Trisulfate Solution rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||||0.953
91810200|NCT02254486|183495794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formal hierarchical testing of this key secondary endpoints was not performed due to the results of the non-inferiority analysis.||||||0.781|||||||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchichally in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit (CL) for difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of Trisulate Solution. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||||0.781
91810201|NCT01493570|183495805|OTHER||Ratio CSF to Plasma in %|28.31||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.418|31.532||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA||Intra Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 17.50 .|Dose-adjusted CSF to plasma ratio for Cmax. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model was used with 'subject nested within treatment' considered as random effect.||31.532|25.418|1.0000
91810202|NCT00267046|183495813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fine and Gray method.|||||||<0.001
91810203|NCT02772081|183495818|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-15.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||First Administration; Treatment comparison. Adjusted difference, its 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value are estimated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||17.1|-47.9|0.390
91810204|NCT02772081|183495824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|23.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of standalone oxygen supplementation||23.8|-13.8|0.563
91810205|NCT02772081|183495824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|21.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of NIV||21.7|-19.7|0.612
91810206|NCT02772081|183495827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.619||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.447|0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||T0, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.210|-1.447|0.137
91810207|NCT02772081|183495827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.268||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|1.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||5 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||1.140|-0.604|0.534
91810208|NCT02772081|183495827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.27||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597|1.136|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||15 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||1.136|-0.597|0.530
91810209|NCT02772081|183495827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.641||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|1.389|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||30 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||1.389|-0.108|0.091
91918970|NCT00190775|183735082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Health.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.376
91918971|NCT00190775|183735082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Role Restriction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.176
91810210|NCT02772081|183495827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.463||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.903|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||1 hour, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.903|0.023|0.040
91918972|NCT00190775|183735082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Depression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.030
91810211|NCT02772081|183495827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.166||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.703|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||6 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.703|-0.371|0.532
91810212|NCT02772081|183495827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.048||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.674|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||12 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.674|-0.578|0.877
91810213|NCT02772081|183495827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.244||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|0.776|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||24 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.776|-0.289|0.356
91918973|NCT00190775|183735082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Spouse.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.434
91918974|NCT00190775|183735083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.578
91918975|NCT00190775|183735083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||P-Value for Defensive Responding.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.062
91918976|NCT00190775|183735083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Distractibility/Hyperactive.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.567
91810214|NCT02772081|183495827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.303||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.841|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||48 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.841|-0.235|0.258
91764970|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.10
91764971|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91764972|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91810215|NCT02772081|183495827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.022||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||72 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.660|-0.616|0.945
91810216|NCT02772081|183495827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.075||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|0.436|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||120 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.436|-0.586|0.766
91764973|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91764974|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
91764975|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.56
91764976|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
91764977|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.46
91918977|NCT00190775|183735083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Adaptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.383
91918978|NCT00190775|183735083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Reinforces Parent.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.963
91918979|NCT00190775|183735083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Demandingness.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.075
91764978|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
91764979|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
91764980|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764981|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
91764982|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
91764983|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.82
91764984|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91764985|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91764986|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
91764987|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
91764988|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
91764989|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91764990|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91764991|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
91764992|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91810217|NCT02772081|183495828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.051||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.243|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||T0, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.243|-0.141|0.590
91764993|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
91764994|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
91764995|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method]|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
91764996|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
91764997|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91764998|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91764999|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
91765000|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91765001|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91810218|NCT02772081|183495828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.051||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.107|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||5 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.107|-0.210|0.511
91810219|NCT02772081|183495828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.05||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.096|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||15 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.096|-0.196|0.488
91765002|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
91765003|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91765004|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
91765005|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91765006|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
91765007|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91765008|NCT01128426|183418967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.94
91765009|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.56
91765010|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.43
91765011|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91765012|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
91765013|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91765014|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
91765015|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91765016|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.32
91765017|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
91765018|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
91765019|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
91810220|NCT02772081|183495828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.11||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.019|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||30 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.019|-0.239|0.091
91918980|NCT00190775|183735083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Mood.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.854
91765020|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.31
91765021|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.43
91765022|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91765023|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
91765024|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91765025|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.44
91765026|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
91765027|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
91765028|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91765029|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
91765030|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
91765031|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91765032|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
91765033|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
91765034|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
91765035|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
91765036|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
91765037|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
91765038|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
91765039|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
91765040|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.31
91765041|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
91765042|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91765043|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
91765044|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
91765045|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
91765046|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91765047|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
91765048|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
91765049|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
91918981|NCT00190775|183735083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Acceptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.671
91765050|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.72
91765051|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91765052|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91765053|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91765054|NCT01128426|183418968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
91765055|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91765056|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
91765057|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
91765058|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
91765059|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
91810221|NCT02772081|183495828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.027|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||1 hour, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.027|-0.076|0.344
91765060|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
91765061|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91765062|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91765063|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
91765064|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
91765065|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91765066|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
91765067|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.46
91765068|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
91765069|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.49
91765070|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
91765071|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
91765072|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
91765073|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91765074|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91765075|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
91765076|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
91765077|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91765078|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.45
91765079|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
91810222|NCT02772081|183495828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.026||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.033|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||6 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.033|-0.084|0.376
91810223|NCT02772081|183495828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.055|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||12 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.055|-0.135|0.396
91810224|NCT02772081|183495828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.026||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.021|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||24 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.021|-0.074|0.268
91810225|NCT02772081|183495828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.037||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.014|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||48 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.014|-0.089|0.147
91810226|NCT02772081|183495828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.055|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||72 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.055|-0.055|0.994
91918982|NCT00190775|183735084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-Value for Total Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.280
91918983|NCT00190775|183735084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-Value for Life Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.34
91810227|NCT02772081|183495828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.004||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.04|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||120 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.040|-0.048|0.853
91810228|NCT02772081|183495829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-10.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|1.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||T0; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||1.7|-22.6|0.090
91810229|NCT02772081|183495829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||5 min; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||5.8|-6.4|0.917
91810230|NCT02772081|183495829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||15 min; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||5.6|-8.5|0.668
91810231|NCT02772081|183495829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|4.0||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||30 min; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||9.6|-1.5|0.149
91810232|NCT02772081|183495829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.8||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||1 hour; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||5.5|-1.9|0.318
91918984|NCT00190775|183735085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.103
91918985|NCT00190775|183735085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Competence.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.182
91810233|NCT02772081|183495829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.6||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6 hour; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||3.7|-0.6|0.148
91918986|NCT00190775|183735085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Isolation.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.161
91810234|NCT02772081|183495829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||12 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||10.2|-3.6|0.333
91810235|NCT02772081|183495829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||24 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||4.0|-2.2|0.560
91810236|NCT02772081|183495829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||48 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||4.3|-0.3|0.089
91810237|NCT02772081|183495829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.9||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||72 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||4.4|-0.5|0.115
91810238|NCT02772081|183495829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.1||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||120 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||3.3|-1.0|0.284
91810239|NCT02772081|183495830|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-15.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Any intubation procedure in first 72 hours of life.||8.2|-39.6|0.220
91918987|NCT00190775|183735085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Attachment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.472
91810240|NCT02772081|183495830|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|4.9||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Any intubation procedure within 36 weeks PMA.||32.5|-22.8|0.741
91918988|NCT00190775|183735085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Health.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.949
91918989|NCT00190775|183735085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Role Restriction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.848
91918990|NCT00190775|183735085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Depression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.050
91918991|NCT00190775|183735085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Spouse.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.840
91918992|NCT00190775|183735086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.785
91918993|NCT00190775|183735086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||P-Value for Defensive Responding.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.081
91765080|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
91765081|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
91765082|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91765083|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
91765084|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
91765085|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
91765086|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91765087|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
91765088|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
91765089|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91765090|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91765091|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
91765092|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
91765093|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
91765094|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
91765095|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91765096|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.54
91765097|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
91765098|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
91765099|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
91765100|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91765101|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
91765102|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.29
91765103|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
91765104|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
91765105|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
91765106|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91765107|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91765108|NCT01128426|183418969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
91765109|NCT05729568|183418989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least-squares means|-56.0||||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.0|20.0|||ANCOVA||Difference in least-squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model of change from baseline CD4 cell count with treatment as fixed effect and baseline CD4 cell count as a covariate.|||20|-132|0.1436
91765110|NCT00550953|183419002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|9.63|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as telmisartan 40 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg fixed-dose combination minus telmisartan 40 mg monotherapy|||9.63|6.41|<0.0001
91765111|NCT00632619|183419012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.106
91918994|NCT00190775|183735086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Distractibility/Hyperactive.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.518
91765112|NCT00632619|183419013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline which was week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.015
91918995|NCT00190775|183735086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Adaptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.883
91765113|NCT00632619|183419014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was conducted to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.38
91765114|NCT00632619|183419015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.016
91765115|NCT00632619|183419016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.095
91765116|NCT00428948|183419026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.708|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.269|-2.147|||Linear mixed model||The variance of the random effect intercept was zero and resulted in a non-positive, definite variance-covariance matrix for the random effects.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percentage change per year in total kidney volume between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||-2.147|-3.269|<0.0001
91765117|NCT00428948|183419027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.865||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|0.965|||Recurrent event analysis||Tolvaptan divided by placebo.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the ADPKD clinical progression events/100 follow-up years between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||0.965|0.775|0.0095
91765118|NCT00428948|183419028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slope|0.977|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.357|||Mixed Models Analysis|Derived from testing the time treatment interaction using linear mixed model in which both intercept and slope are fixed and random effects.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change in renal function per year between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||1.357|0.597|<0.0001
91765119|NCT00428948|183419029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slope|-0.246||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.059|0.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|Derived from testing the time treatment interaction using linear mixed model in which both intercept and slope are fixed and random effects.|Placebo minus tolvaptan.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean arterial blood pressure in non-hypertensive participants between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||0.566|-1.059|0.5520
91918996|NCT00190775|183735086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Reinforces Parent.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.439
91918997|NCT00190775|183735086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Demandingness.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.167
91918998|NCT00190775|183735086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Mood.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.381
91918999|NCT00190775|183735086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Acceptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.906
91810241|NCT02772081|183495831|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|16.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of invasive MV in first 28 days PNA.||16.3|-32.3|0.333
91810242|NCT02772081|183495831|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.5|33.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of invasive MV within 36 weeks PMA.||33.5|-49.5|0.334
91810243|NCT02772081|183495832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-28.6||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.9|63.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of invasive mechanical ventilation.||63.6|-120.9|0.596
91810244|NCT02772081|183495833|SUPERIORITY||CMH adjusted difference|-18.6||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|9.8||The percentage of neonates needing invasive MV in the first 72 hours of life, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, adjusted for gestational age (GA) group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Invasive MV in the first 72 hours of life.||9.8|-47.0|0.219
91810245|NCT02772081|183495833|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-3.4||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Invasive MV in first 28 days PNA||26.7|-33.5|0.826
91810246|NCT02772081|183495833|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-3.4||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Invasive MV within 36 weeks PMA.||26.7|-33.5|0.826
91810247|NCT03950167|183495846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting CCK level difference: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
91810248|NCT03950167|183495846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial CCK level difference: hyperemesis group-control group|Since this is the first study comparing both CCK levels and GB functions in patients diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) and healthy pregnant women, a power analysis was not feasible.||||0.05
91810249|NCT03950167|183495847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting GB wall thickness: Hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
91810250|NCT03950167|183495847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial GB wall thickness: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
91810251|NCT03950167|183495848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting GB volume: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
91810252|NCT03950167|183495848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial GB volume: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
91810253|NCT03950167|183495849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting GB ejection fraction: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
91919000|NCT00190775|183735087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.420
91810254|NCT03950167|183495849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial GB ejection fraction: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
91810255|NCT00759954|183495850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for a nonparametric comparison of Tmax values and a significant difference was defined a priori as p \< 0.05.|mean ratio|97.19|||<|0.05||90.0|91.31|103.45|||ANOVA|||||103.45|91.31|<0.05
91810256|NCT00759954|183495852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for a nonparametric comparison of Tmax values and a significant difference was defined a priori as p \< 0.05.|mean ratio|95.82|||<|0.05||90.0|92.93|98.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance for the log-transformed AUC. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC(Test)/AUC(Ref) is provided.||||98.80|92.93|< 0.05
91810257|NCT00759954|183495853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for a nonparametric comparison of Tmax values and a significant difference was defined a priori as p \< 0.05.|mean ratio|98.1|||<|0.05||90.0|94.2|102.1|||ANOVA|||||102.1|94.2|< 0.05
91810258|NCT00982592|183495879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.70|0.874
91810259|NCT00982592|183495881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.05|||Log Rank|||||2.05|0.83|0.253
91810260|NCT01741701|183495884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91810261|NCT01741701|183495885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change between groups from baseline to 4 months||||0.51
91810262|NCT01741701|183495886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in the change from baseline to 4 months||||0.97
91810263|NCT01741701|183495887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in the change from baseline to 4 months||||.77
91810264|NCT01741701|183495888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in change from baseline to 4 months||||.90
91810265|NCT01741701|183495889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in change from baseline to 4 months||||.95
91810266|NCT04677374|183495890|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Test of proportions|||||||0.044
91919001|NCT00190775|183735087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.249
91919002|NCT00190775|183735087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.927
91810267|NCT04677374|183495890|OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||Test of proportions|||||||0.259
91810268|NCT04677374|183495890|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Test of proportions|||||||0.044
91810269|NCT04677374|183495891|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.93||||||||4.93|1.01|
91810270|NCT04677374|183495891|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.0||||||||4.00|0.69|
91810271|NCT04677374|183495891|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.36||||||||5.36|1.00|
91810272|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|7.7||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 1.||7.70|-3.48|
91810273|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|11.07||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 1.||11.07|-0.41|
91810274|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|8.33||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 1.||8.33|-3.35|
91810275|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|5.36||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 2.||5.36|-6.11|
91810276|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|10.29||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 2.||10.29|-1.57|
91810277|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|10.65||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 2.||10.65|-1.45|
91810278|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|1.93||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.93|-10.44|
91810279|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|6.32||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 7.||6.32|-7.22|
91810280|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|5.33||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 7.||5.33|-8.25|
91810281|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|6.29||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 8.||6.29|-5.98|
91810282|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|15.08||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 8.||15.08|1.52|
91810283|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|10.5||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 8.||10.50|-2.85|
91810284|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|4.97||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 14.||4.97|-7.16|
91810285|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|13.66||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 14.||13.66|-0.11|
91810286|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|10.15||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 14.||10.15|-3.58|
91810287|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|5.4||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 15.||5.40|-7.64|
91810288|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|10.89||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 15.||10.89|-3.71|
91810289|NCT00372112|183495912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|9.18||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 15.||9.18|-4.96|
91810290|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.0||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 1.||12.0|-7.7|
91810291|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|13.1||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 1.||13.1|-7.2|
91810292|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.1||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 1.||10.1|-10.2|
91810293|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|10.4||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 2.||10.4|-6.1|
91810294|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|14.3||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 2.||14.3|-2.8|
91810295|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.1||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 2.||10.1|-6.9|
91810296|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.2||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 7.||6.2|-16.1|
91810297|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|10.2||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 7.||10.2|-14.0|
91810298|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|7.5||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 7.||7.5|-17.1|
91810299|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|10.9||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 8.||10.9|-4.1|
91810300|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|19.0||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 8.||19.0|2.6|
91810301|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|11.4||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 8.||11.4|-5.2|
91810302|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|2.7||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 14.||2.7|-17.0|
91810303|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.8||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 14.||16.8|-6.0|
91810304|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|8.0||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 14.||8.0|-13.8|
91810305|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.3||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 15.||8.3|-7.8|
91810306|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|15.6||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 15.||15.6|-2.1|
91810307|NCT00372112|183495914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|13.3||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 15.||13.3|-4.5|
91919003|NCT00190775|183735087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.205
91919004|NCT00190775|183735087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.673
91919005|NCT00190775|183735087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.881
91919006|NCT00190775|183735087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||P-Value for Dysfunctional Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.808
91919007|NCT00190775|183735087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-Value for Negative Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.498
91919008|NCT00190775|183735087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0||||P-Value for Positive Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.283
91919009|NCT00190775|183735088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.784
91765120|NCT00428948|183419030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03|||ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline renal pain as a covariate.|Derived from ANCOVA with factors of treatment and baseline stratification factor interaction and covariate renal pain baseline.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change in renal pain between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||0.03|-0.20|0.1604
91765121|NCT00428948|183419031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.233|||Recurrent event analysis||Derived from rate and mean model of time to recurrent event analysis with factor treatment.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the hypertensive events per 100 follow-up years in non-hypertensive participants between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||1.233|0.805|0.9704
91765122|NCT00428948|183419032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|2.017|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Tolvaptan divided by placebo.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percentage of participants with a clinically sustained decrease of blood pressure leading to a sustained reduction in antihypertensive therapy between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||2.017|0.602|0.7532
91765123|NCT03559933|183419037|SUPERIORITY||Logistic regression model|95.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.15|96.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject and stimulation within subject as random effects with multiple observations per subject was accounted for.||The proportion of successful capture was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model accounting for subject and stimulation within subject as random effects with multiple observations per subject. The null hypothesis was tested comparing the lower bound of the 98.75% two-sided confidence interval for the estimated percent diaphragm capture rate to the performance goal of 80%. If the lower bound was greater than 80%, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the endpoint was considered met.||96.66|93.15|0.0125
91765124|NCT02119663|183419042|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|2.83||||||||2.830|0.886|
91919010|NCT00190775|183735088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.864
91919011|NCT00190775|183735088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.884
91919012|NCT00190775|183735088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.072
91919013|NCT00190775|183735088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.120
91919014|NCT00190775|183735088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925||95.0||||P-Value Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.925
91765125|NCT01099397|183419082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P-value at baseline|McNemar|McNemar was used at each of three time points to compare prediabetes diagnosis by fasting versus 2-hour OGTT||p\<0.05 was considered significant at baseline; the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose), the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose)||||0.41
91765126|NCT01099397|183419082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||P-value at 9 weeks|McNemar|McNemar was used at each of three time points to compare prediabetes diagnosis by fasting versus 2-hour OGTT||p\<0.05 was considered significant at 9 week assessment; the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose), the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose)||||0.59
91919015|NCT00190775|183735088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0||||P-Value for Dysfunctional Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.444
91919016|NCT00190775|183735088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-Value for Negative Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.166
91919017|NCT00190775|183735088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-Value for Positive Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.875
91919018|NCT00190775|183735089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Mother.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.895
91919019|NCT00190775|183735089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Father.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.792
91919020|NCT00190775|183735089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||P-Value for Child Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.318
91919021|NCT00190775|183735089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||95.0||||P-Value for Child Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.914
91919022|NCT00190775|183735089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.961||95.0||||P-Value for Child Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.961
91919023|NCT00190775|183735089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0||||P-Value for Child Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.807
91765127|NCT01099397|183419082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0||||P-value at 18 weeks|McNemar|McNemar was used at each of three time points to compare prediabetes diagnosis by fasting versus 2-hour OGTT||p\<0.05 was considered significant at 18 week assessment; the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose), the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose)||||0.41
91765128|NCT02363959|183419083|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91765129|NCT02363959|183419084|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
91765130|NCT02363959|183419085|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91765131|NCT02363959|183419086|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91765132|NCT02363959|183419087|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91765133|NCT02363959|183419088|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91765134|NCT03421106|183419090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
91919024|NCT00190775|183735089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827||95.0||||P-Value for Child Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.827
91919025|NCT00190775|183735090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Mother.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.828
91919026|NCT00190775|183735090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Father.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.401
91919027|NCT00190775|183735090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||P-Value for Child Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.300
91765135|NCT00650845|183419146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that in both MRI groups approximately 12% of the patients would have an increase in serum creatinine of at least 25% with respect to baseline values after imaging procedures, 120 evaluable patients (2 x 60) were needed to ensure with 80% power, at 5% one-sided significance level, that the difference between the two MRI procedures was less than 15% which was the non-inferiority clinical limit of the difference established for this study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.7||||||The clinical non-inferiority limit of (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was fixed at -15%. The exact 95%Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was \[-7.9%; +6.7%\]||6.7|-7.9|
91765136|NCT00650845|183419147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine level fluctuation in terms of difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the serum creatinine changes from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.291
91765137|NCT00650845|183419148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that in both MRI groups approximately 12% of the patients would have an increase in serum creatinine of at least 25% with respect to baseline values after imaging procedures, 120 evaluable patients (2 x 60) were needed to ensure with 80% power, at 5% one-sided significance level, that the difference between the two MRI procedures was less than 15% which was the non-inferiority clinical limit of the difference established for this study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|8.9||||||The clinical non-inferiority limit of (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was fixed at -15%. The exact 95%CI of the difference (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was \[-14.1%; +8.9%\]||8.9|-14.1|
91765138|NCT00650845|183419149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine level fluctuation in terms of difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the serum creatinine changes from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.040
91765139|NCT00650845|183419150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||eGFR fluctuation in terms of percentage and mean difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the relative or absolute eGFR variation from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.301
91765140|NCT00650845|183419151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||eGFR fluctuation in terms of percentage and mean difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the relative or absolute eGFR variation from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.051
91765141|NCT01525615|183419180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.269||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time), log10 (baseline endurance time) by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo. This treatment comparison is the first one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.269|1.020|0.0209
91919028|NCT00190775|183735090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-Value for Child Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.575
91919029|NCT00190775|183735090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0||||P-Value for Child Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.772
91919030|NCT00190775|183735090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0||||P-Value for Child Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.918
91919031|NCT00190775|183735090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||P-Value for Child Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.636
91919032|NCT00190775|183735091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Score.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.583
91919033|NCT00190775|183735091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0||||P-Value for Hyperactive-Impulsive Symptom ADHD Score.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.997
91919034|NCT00190775|183735091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Symptom ADHD Score.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.333
91919035|NCT00190775|183735092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-Value for Oppositional Defiant Disorder Flag|Fisher Exact|||||||.792
91919036|NCT00190775|183735092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||P-Value for Conduct Disorder Flag.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.675
91765142|NCT01525615|183419180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|1.213||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo. This treatment comparison is the second one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain. Since the p-value for this treatment comparison is \>0.05, the hierarchical testing chain is broken and all of the following hypothesis tests in this hierarchical chain are considered as descriptive only.||1.213|0.973|0.1419
91765143|NCT01525615|183419180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.166||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0. This treatment comparison is not included in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.166|0.941|0.3970
91919037|NCT00190775|183735093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-Value for PSOC Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.875
91919038|NCT00190775|183735093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||P-Value for Satisfaction Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.569
91810308|NCT00372112|183495929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0031|0.2293|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 1.||0.2293|-0.0031|
91810309|NCT00372112|183495929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0408|0.2771|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 1.||0.2771|0.0408|
91919039|NCT00190775|183735093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0||||P-Value for Efficacy Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.399
91919040|NCT00190775|183735094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||P-Value for PSOC Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.365
91919041|NCT00190775|183735094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P-Value for Satisfaction Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.620
91919042|NCT00190775|183735094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0||||P-Value for Efficacy Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.462
91919043|NCT00190775|183735095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.001
91919044|NCT00190775|183735095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-Value for Hyperactivity Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.004
91919045|NCT00190775|183735095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
91810310|NCT00372112|183495929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0764|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0375|0.1903|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 1.||0.1903|-0.0375|
91919046|NCT00190775|183735095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
91919047|NCT00190775|183735095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Hyperactivity Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
91919048|NCT00190775|183735095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
91919049|NCT00190775|183735096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 8 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
91919050|NCT00190775|183735096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
91919051|NCT00190775|183735097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0||||P-Value for 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.553
91919052|NCT00190775|183735097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||P-Value for 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.797
91919053|NCT00190775|183735098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-Value for State Anxiety Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.108
91919054|NCT00190775|183735098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-Value for Trait Anxiety Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.026
91765144|NCT01525615|183419181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Tretament ratio|1.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.467||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo. Since the hierarchical testing chain has been broken, even though this treatment comparison is included as the 3rd one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain, this hypothesis test is descriptive only.||1.467|0.996|0.0552
91919055|NCT00190775|183735098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0||||P-Value is for State Anxiety Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.897
91919056|NCT00190775|183735098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0||||P-Value is for Trait Anxiety Score at 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.171
91919057|NCT00190775|183735099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.892
91919058|NCT00190775|183735099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.003
91919059|NCT00190775|183735099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.007
91765145|NCT01525615|183419181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.475||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean, 95% confidence limits transformed from log10 to original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method. This hypothesis test is descriptive.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo||1.475|0.995|0.0562
91765146|NCT01525615|183419181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.205||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0. This treatment comparison is not included in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.205|0.826|0.9822
91765147|NCT01525615|183419182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.336||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hypothesis test is descriptive.|LSMean=Least square mean.|||0.336|0.133|<0.0001
91919060|NCT00190775|183735099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.533
91919061|NCT00190775|183735099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.054
91919062|NCT00190775|183735099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.012
91810311|NCT00372112|183495929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0178|0.3305|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 7.||0.3305|0.0178|
91919063|NCT00190775|183735099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.457
91919064|NCT00190775|183735099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.001
91919065|NCT00190775|183735099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.021
91810312|NCT00372112|183495929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1713|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.3365|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 7.||0.3365|0.0060|
91919066|NCT00190775|183735099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.710
91919067|NCT00190775|183735099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
91919068|NCT00190775|183735099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.005
91919069|NCT00190775|183735100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.722
91919070|NCT00190775|183735100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.011
91919071|NCT00190775|183735100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.005
91919072|NCT00190775|183735100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.779
91919073|NCT00190775|183735100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.004
91919074|NCT00190775|183735100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.002
91810313|NCT00372112|183495929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0233|0.2987|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 7.||0.2987|-0.0233|
91919075|NCT00190775|183735100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.716
91919076|NCT00190775|183735100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.071
91919077|NCT00190775|183735100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.034
91919078|NCT00190775|183735100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.938
91919079|NCT00190775|183735100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.004
91919080|NCT00190775|183735100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.005
91919081|NCT00190775|183735101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.546
91919082|NCT00190775|183735101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.530
91919083|NCT00190775|183735101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.569
91919084|NCT00190775|183735101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||95.0||||P-Vaue for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.986
91919085|NCT00327444|183735121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean difference|31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.59||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.56|53.05||Estimated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks) at randomization.|ANOVA|Estimated from ANOVA model with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks).|The LS mean difference is estimated for aflibercept versus placebo (aflibercept-placebo).|||53.05|10.56|0.0019
91919086|NCT00327444|183735122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean difference|375.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|205.99||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.48|797.42||Estimated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks) at randomization.|ANOVA|Estimated from ANOVA model with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks).|The LS mean difference was estimated for aflibercept versus placebo (aflibercept-placebo).|||797.42|-46.48|0.0160
91919087|NCT00327444|183735123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-0.54||Estimated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks) at randomization.|ANOVA|Estimated from ANOVA model with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks).|The LS mean difference is estimated for aflibercept versus placebo (aflibercept-placebo).|||-0.54|-4.33|0.0035
91919088|NCT02249052|183735125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.394|-71.265|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-71.265|-95.394|<0.0001
91919089|NCT02249052|183735126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.8947|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6686|0.987|||Sign test|||||.9870|.6686|<.0001
91919090|NCT01658514|183735131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|51.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.77|70.23||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Normal Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||70.23|37.77|0.0011
91919091|NCT01658514|183735131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|73.8||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.97|97.43||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Mild RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||97.43|55.97|0.0733
91919092|NCT01658514|183735131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|56.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.25|76.1||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Moderate RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||76.10|42.25|0.0028
91919093|NCT01658514|183735131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|52.4||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.61|73.02||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Severe RI Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||73.02|37.61|0.0025
91919094|NCT01658514|183735132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|65.5||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.32|92.68||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Normal Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||92.68|46.32|0.0474
91919095|NCT01658514|183735132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|77.3||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.72|105.41||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Mild RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||105.41|56.72|0.1691
91919096|NCT01658514|183735132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|56.6||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.73|78.63||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Moderate RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||78.63|40.73|0.0064
91919097|NCT01658514|183735132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|54.6||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.68|79.11||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Severe RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||79.11|37.68|0.0097
91919098|NCT01658514|183735133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9444|TWO_SIDED|||||R² for Placebo-adjusted Change from Pre-dose Value in Lactate Versus Metformin Concentration|Pearson Correlation|||||||0.9444
91919099|NCT01658514|183735133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||R² for placebo-adjusted change from pre-dose value in lactate versus metformin concentration|Pearson Correlation|||||||<0.0001
91919100|NCT00144170|183735135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||24.0|12.9|0.0001
91919101|NCT00144170|183735136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
91919102|NCT00144170|183735137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||31.1|18.6|0.0001
91919103|NCT00144170|183735138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|35.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.1|22.5|0.0001
91919104|NCT00144170|183735139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||35.7|23.2|0.0001
91919105|NCT00144170|183735140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||32.6|20.5|0.0001
91919106|NCT00144170|183735141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||27.9|16.2|0.0001
91919107|NCT00144170|183735142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|24.7||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.7|13.3|0.0001
91919108|NCT00144170|183735143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.4||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.4|13.0|0.0001
91919109|NCT00144170|183735144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|22.7||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|11.7|0.0001
91919110|NCT00144170|183735145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|22.4||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|11.7|0.0001
91919111|NCT00144170|183735146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|22.5||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.5|12.0|0.0001
91919112|NCT00144170|183735147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|21.5||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.5|11.2|0.0001
91919113|NCT00144170|183735148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|21.3||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.3|11.1|0.0001
91919114|NCT00144170|183735149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|20.6||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.6|10.6|0.0001
91810314|NCT00372112|183495929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0266|0.3046|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 14.||0.3046|-0.0266|
91919115|NCT00144170|183735150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
91919116|NCT00144170|183735151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
91919117|NCT00144170|183735152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
91919118|NCT00144170|183735226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1026||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.1026
91919119|NCT00332202|183735233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.216|||Log Rank|||||1.216|0.689|0.541
91919120|NCT00332202|183735239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 2||||0.606
91919121|NCT00332202|183735239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 4||||0.971
91919122|NCT00332202|183735239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 6||||0.580
91919123|NCT00332202|183735239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 12||||0.265
91919124|NCT00332202|183735239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 18||||0.460
91919125|NCT00332202|183735239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 24||||0.441
91919126|NCT00332202|183735239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 36||||0.357
91919127|NCT00332202|183735240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 6||||0.267
91919128|NCT00332202|183735240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 24||||0.807
91919129|NCT00332202|183735240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 33||||0.864
91919130|NCT00332202|183735241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.420|0.415|0.400
91919131|NCT00332202|183735241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.309||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|3.08|||Regression, Cox|||||3.080|0.557|0.539
91919132|NCT00332202|183735242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.775||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|3.329|||Regression, Cox|||||3.329|0.947|0.084
91919133|NCT00332202|183735242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.286||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|3.137|||Regression, Cox|||||3.137|0.527|0.585
91919134|NCT00655928|183735244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91919135|NCT02370121|183735245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91919136|NCT02370121|183735246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91919137|NCT02370121|183735247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91919138|NCT02370121|183735248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91919139|NCT02370121|183735249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91919140|NCT02370121|183735250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91919141|NCT02370121|183735251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91765148|NCT01525615|183419182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.309||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hypothesis test is descriptive.||||0.309|0.105|<0.0001
91919142|NCT02370121|183735252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91919143|NCT02370121|183735253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91919144|NCT02370121|183735254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91919145|NCT02370121|183735255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91919146|NCT02370121|183735256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91919147|NCT02370121|183735257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91919148|NCT02370121|183735258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91919149|NCT02370121|183735259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91919150|NCT02370121|183735260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91919151|NCT02370121|183735261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91919152|NCT04551014|183735264|NON_INFERIORITY|For polypectomy without submucosal injection of EverLiftTM to be considered non-inferior, we calculated that 115 polyps were needed in each group to achieve an alpha value of 0.05, power of 90%, and non-inferiority margin of -10%.||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
91919153|NCT04551014|183735265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91919154|NCT04551014|183735266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697||||||P-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||||0.697
91919155|NCT04108429|183735281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model - this analysis accounts for repeated measures from each participant over the course of Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8||||.830
91919156|NCT04108429|183735282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model - this analysis accounts for repeated measures from each participant over the course of Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8||||.759
91919157|NCT04108429|183735283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Simulation Modeling Analysis (SMA) for T|||Counseling center utilization data were examined using Simulation Modeling Analysis (SMA) for Time-Series data to determine if there were changes in utilization between the pre-implementation and implementation phases. SMA evaluates the statistical significance of between-phase changes in data streams and also accounts for the presence of autocorrelation (the non-independence of data points in time-series data streams).||||.275
91919158|NCT04108429|183735285|SUPERIORITY|generalized linear mixed model||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.002
91919159|NCT04108429|183735286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model||||.489
91919160|NCT04108429|183735287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model||||.001
91919161|NCT00275561|183735294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.74
91919162|NCT00275561|183735295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
91919163|NCT00275561|183735296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91919164|NCT01392183|183735305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.22|||||Adjusted Hazard Ratio comparing Median PFS of pazopanib (treatment group) to Temsirolimus (control group) as first line of treatment. HR \>1 treatment group performed better, \< 1 the control group performed better =1 groups performed equally.|||2.22|0.84|
91919165|NCT01392183|183735306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.93|||||Adjusted HR comparing Median OS of pazopanib (treatment group) to Temsirolimus (control group) as first line of treatment. HR \>1 treatment group performed better, \< 1 the control group performed better =1 groups performed equally.|||1.93|0.7|
91919166|NCT01587950|183735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|13.52|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||13.52|-15.50|0.8918
91919167|NCT01587950|183735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.89||||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|10.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.14|-19.91|0.5183
91919168|NCT01587950|183735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.89||||0.5718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|9.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.80|-17.59|0.5718
91919169|NCT01587950|183735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.37||||0.6591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|18.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||18.56|-11.82|0.6591
91765149|NCT01525615|183419182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.126||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hypothesis test is descriptive.||||0.126|-0.072|0.5892
91765150|NCT01525615|183419183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|1.248||ANCOVA model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with categorical effects of treatment and (log10-transformed) baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|This hypothesis test is descriptive.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo||1.248|1.015|0.0245
91765151|NCT01525615|183419183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.223|||ANCOVA|Descriptive||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo||1.223|0.994|0.0655
91765152|NCT01525615|183419183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.132|||ANCOVA|Descriptive||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0||1.132|0.921|0.6912
91919170|NCT01587950|183735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.02||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|12.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.13|-18.17|0.6921
91765153|NCT01525615|183419184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.103|1.37||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo. Hypothesis test is descriptive||1.370|1.103|0.0002
91765154|NCT01525615|183419184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|1.362||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo. Hypothesis test is descriptive.||1.362|1.095|0.0004
91765155|NCT01525615|183419184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.12||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0. Hypothesis test is descriptive.||1.12|0.905|0.9062
91765156|NCT01525615|183419185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.279||ANCOVA model for inspiratory capacity (liters) with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.279|0.051|0.0049
91765157|NCT01525615|183419185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.316||ANCOVA model for inspiratory capacity (liters) with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.316|0.088|0.0006
91765158|NCT01525615|183419185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.076||ANCOVA model for inspiratory capacity (liters) with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.076|-0.151|0.5162
91765159|NCT01525615|183419186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.326||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.326|0.124|<0.0001
91765160|NCT01525615|183419186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.288||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.288|0.086|0.0003
91765161|NCT01525615|183419186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.4541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.137||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.137|-0.061|0.4541
91765162|NCT01525615|183419187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.0||ANCOVA model for mean slope of the intensity of breathing discomfort with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||-0.000|-0.004|0.0468
91919171|NCT01587950|183735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.39||||0.3513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|7.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.20|-19.98|0.3513
91919172|NCT01587950|183735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.96||||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|23.88|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||23.88|-5.96|0.2346
91919173|NCT01587950|183735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.24||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|21.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||21.39|-8.92|0.4138
91919174|NCT01587950|183735309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.72||||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|10.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.99|-16.44|0.6931
91919175|NCT01587950|183735310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.39||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.04|8.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.26|-21.04|0.3867
91919176|NCT01587950|183735310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.22||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.41|3.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||3.96|-26.41|0.1448
91919177|NCT01587950|183735310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.83||||0.4874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.66|8.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.99|-18.66|0.4874
91919178|NCT01587950|183735310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.87||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.23|5.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||5.49|-25.23|0.2038
91765163|NCT01525615|183419187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.0||ANCOVA model for mean slope of the intensity of breathing discomfort with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||-0.000|-0.005|0.0180
91765164|NCT01525615|183419187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.6856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.002||ANCOVA model for mean slope of the intensity of breathing discomfort with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.002|-0.002|0.6856
91765165|NCT01525615|183419188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.001||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||-0.001|-0.005|0.0081
91765166|NCT01525615|183419188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.001||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||-0.001|-0.005|0.0099
91765167|NCT01525615|183419188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.9626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.002||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.002|-0.002|0.9626
91765168|NCT01525615|183419189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.000|-0.004|0.0598
91919179|NCT01587950|183735310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.12||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|4.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||4.19|-26.43|0.1518
91919180|NCT01587950|183735310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.25||||0.8567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.98|12.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.49|-14.98|0.8567
91919181|NCT01587950|183735310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.01||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|26.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, at 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||26.08|-4.06|0.1493
91919182|NCT01587950|183735310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.45||||0.4798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|20.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||20.76|-9.86|0.4798
91919183|NCT01587950|183735310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.56||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.42|8.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.29|-19.42|0.4255
91919184|NCT01587950|183735311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.96||||0.7769||95.0|-15.71|11.8||ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||11.80|-15.71|0.7769
91765169|NCT01525615|183419189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||-0.000|-0.005|0.0218
91765170|NCT01525615|183419189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.003||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.003|-0.002|0.6549
91765171|NCT01525615|183419190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.224||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.224|0.116|<0.0001
91765172|NCT01525615|183419190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.239||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.239|0.129|<0.0001
91765173|NCT01525615|183419190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.04||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.040|-0.067|0.6105
91765174|NCT01525615|183419191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.3||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.300|0.192|<0.0001
91765175|NCT01525615|183419191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.328||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.328|0.218|<0.0001
91765176|NCT01525615|183419191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.027||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.027|-0.080|0.3236
91765177|NCT01525615|183419192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.305||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.305|0.196|<0.0001
91765178|NCT01525615|183419192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.312||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.312|0.202|<0.0001
91919185|NCT01587950|183735311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.32||||0.3811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.64|8.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.00|-20.64|0.3811
91919186|NCT01587950|183735311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.36||||0.5044||95.0|-17.35|8.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.63|-17.35|0.5044
91919187|NCT01587950|183735311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.68||||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|8.84|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.84|-20.20|0.4374
91919188|NCT01587950|183735311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.02||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|10.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.41|-18.46|0.5796
91919189|NCT01587950|183735311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66||||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|14.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05||14.64|-11.32|0.7994
91765179|NCT01525615|183419192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.047||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.047|-0.060|0.8156
91919190|NCT01587950|183735311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.75||||0.2784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|21.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||21.93|-6.42|0.2784
91765180|NCT00330759|183419215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A synthesis approach was used for a non-inferiority test of the hypothesis that denosumab preserves at least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid vs. placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0007||95.0|0.71|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by tumor type, previous skeletal-related event, and systematic anti-cancer therapy||||0.98|0.71|0.0007
91919191|NCT01587950|183735311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.68||||0.3581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|21.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||21.12|-7.75|0.3581
91919192|NCT01587950|183735311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.07||||0.8703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|11.97|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||11.97|-14.11|0.8703
91919193|NCT03128957|183735312|EQUIVALENCE|Given the small sample permutation are feasible.||||||0.036|||||||permutation test|Given the non-parametric nature of spearman's correlation coefficient and a small sample we used a permutation test to calculate p-values.||Non-parametric covariance adjusted Spearman's correlation ρ\_s. To test the Null that Ho: ρ\_s.=0 vs alternative that Ha: ρ\_s.≠0, we used a method that calculates the probability that it would be greater than or equal to the observed ρ ̂, given the null hypothesis, by using a permutation test. An advantage of this approach is that it automatically takes into account the number of tied data values in the sample and the way they are treated in computing the rank correlation.||||0.036
91919194|NCT03128957|183735313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Set point 1 (FiO2 0.3 and PaCO2 30 mmHg) compared to set point 2 (FiO2 1.0 and PaCO2 40 mmHg)||||0.015
91919195|NCT03128957|183735314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Set point 1 (FiO2 0.3 and PaCO2 30 mmHg) compared to set point 2 (FiO2 1.0 and PaCO2 40 mmHg)||||0.047
91919196|NCT00684177|183735315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.4||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|18.4|||Chi-squared|||||18.4|-1.6|0.098
91919197|NCT00684177|183735316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.6|||Chi-squared|||||23.6|0.6|0.04
91765181|NCT00330759|183419216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.06||95.0|0.71|0.98|||Regression, Cox|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by tumor type, previous skeletal-related event, and systematic anti-cancer therapy|||0.98|0.71|0.060
91765182|NCT00330759|183419217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.145||95.0|0.77|1.04|||Anderson-Gill model|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by tumor type, previous skeletal-related event, and systematic anti-cancer therapy|||1.04|0.77|0.145
91919198|NCT00684177|183735317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.6|||Chi-squared|||||23.6|0.6|0.04
91919199|NCT03263091|183735347|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.582||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|3.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The odds ratio along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test adjusting for the stratification factors (EPO level, International Prognostic Scoring System - Revised \[IPSS-R\] risk category and RBC transfusion burden).||3.290|0.761|0.217
91919200|NCT00265941|183735362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.32|||Log Rank||Reference arm = RT + cisplatin|A total of 945 patients were required (900 analyzable) to test for a 25% reduction in the hazard associated with progression-free survival with 84% statistical power using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 significance level (0.0238 after 3 interim analyses).||1.32|0.88|0.76
91919201|NCT00265941|183735363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank significance level of 0.025|Reference level = RT + cisplatin|Arms were compared using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 significance level.||1.21|0.74|0.32
91919202|NCT00265941|183735364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.7|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level of 0.025|Reference level = RT + cisplatin|||1.70|0.99|0.97
91919203|NCT00265941|183735369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|2-sided significance level of 0.05||3 months||||0.74
91919204|NCT00265941|183735369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|2-sided significance level of 0.05||12 months||||0.99
91919205|NCT00265941|183735370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Diet 3-month||||0.13
91919206|NCT00265941|183735370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level 0.05||Diet 12-month||||0.87
91919207|NCT00265941|183735370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Eating 3-month||||0.39
91919208|NCT00265941|183735370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Eating 12-month||||0.16
91919209|NCT00265941|183735370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Speech 3-month||||0.81
91919210|NCT00265941|183735370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Speech 12-month||||0.67
91919211|NCT00265941|183735371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||||||0.016
91919212|NCT00265941|183735372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.51|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low EGFR|Progression-free survival is compared between favorable risk and unfavorable risk groups.||1.51|0.79|0.60
91919213|NCT00265941|183735372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.76|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low EGFR|Overall survival is compared between favorable risk and unfavorable risk groups.||1.76|0.81|0.37
91919214|NCT00265941|183735372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.46|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low EGFR|Local-regional failure||1.46|0.60|0.76
91919215|NCT00265941|183735373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.75|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low|Progression-free survival is compared between low and high SUVmax groups.||0.75|0.12|0.01
91919216|NCT00265941|183735373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.2|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low|Overall survival (OS) is compared between low and high SUVmax groups.||1.20|0.12|0.10
91919217|NCT00265941|183735373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.97|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low|Loco-regional control (LRC) is compared between low and high SUVmax groups.||0.97|0.10|0.04
91919218|NCT00318292|183735382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.003||95.0|-3.2|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.7|-3.2|.003
91919219|NCT02432807|183735402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2219
91919220|NCT02432807|183735403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1817|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1817
91919221|NCT00310310|183735450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
91919222|NCT00310310|183735451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.023
91919223|NCT00310310|183735452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.8
91919224|NCT00310310|183735454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.96
91919225|NCT00310310|183735455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.59
91919226|NCT00310310|183735456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.00
91919227|NCT00310310|183735457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
91919228|NCT00310310|183735458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
91919229|NCT00310310|183735459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.38
91919230|NCT03093155|183735521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.49|||Regression, Cox|||||0.49|0.20|<0.001
91919231|NCT03093155|183735522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91919232|NCT03093155|183735523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||||0.84|0.38|0.018
91919233|NCT03093155|183735524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.77
91919234|NCT03093155|183735525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Fisher Exact|||The RECIST responses were categorized as SD/PD or NA compared to PR or Better as a binary outcome.||||0.068
91919235|NCT01075178|183735530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|0.81|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.96|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||0.96||
91919236|NCT01075178|183735531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.95|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||0.95||
91919237|NCT01075178|183735532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|1.05|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.64|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||1.64||
91919238|NCT01075178|183735533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|0.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.19|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||2.19||
91919239|NCT03431012|183735618|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|ANCOVA|ANCOVAs, setting baseline intentions as a covariate, were performed to determine whether post-exposure mean intentions differed between groups.||We predicted that Virus Agency (VA) and Positive Framing (PF) would lead to greater adherence intentions, compared to the human agency (HA) and negative framing (NF) versions respectively.||||>.05
91919240|NCT03431012|183735619|OTHER||||||=|0.113||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, it was predicted that the Virus Agency would lead to higher worry than the human agency assignment.||||=.113
91919241|NCT03431012|183735620|OTHER||||||=|0.809||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, it was predicted that the Virus Agency would lead to higher perceptions of susceptibility than the human agency assignment.||||=.809
91919242|NCT03431012|183735621|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, it was predicted that the Virus Agency would lead to higher perceptions of severity of the pandemic than the human agency assignment.||||0.025
91765183|NCT06083987|183419248|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|false discovery rate q-value calculated with Yekutieli method in Stata||||||0.86
91919243|NCT03431012|183735622|OTHER||||||=|0.199||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, we predicted that the Agency Assignment would not affect self-efficacy, i.e. people's perceived ability to use the antivirals as recommended.||||=0.199
91919244|NCT03431012|183735623|OTHER||||||=|0.484||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, we predicted that Positive framing of the side effects would lead to higher response efficacy.||||=0.484
91919245|NCT03431012|183735624|OTHER||||||=|0.494||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, we predicted that Positive framing of the side effects would lead to lower response costs compared to Negative Framing.||||=0.494
91919246|NCT01748799|183735627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Omnibus analysis for Cannabis Withdrawal Scale (CWS) data was a Repeated measures ANOVA (including all the experimental conditions) followed by pair-wise comparisons. The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.||||<0.01
91919247|NCT01748799|183735627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Omnibus analysis for Cannabis Withdrawal Checklist (CWC) data was a Repeated measures ANOVA (including all the experimental conditions) followed by pair-wise comparisons. The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.||||0.01
91765184|NCT06083987|183419249|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.32||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91919248|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in neuropathy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
91765185|NCT06083987|183419250|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.1||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91765186|NCT06083987|183419251|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91765187|NCT06083987|183419252|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.41||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91765188|NCT04473963|183419302|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between subjects Randomized to Treatment vs subjects Randomized to Control||||||0.277|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.277
91765189|NCT04473963|183419304|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence between subjects Randomized to Control and subjects Randomized to Treatment"||||||0.042|||||||Kaplan-Meyer Log Rank|||||||0.042
91765190|NCT04473963|183419309|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence between procedure time of subjects Randomized to Treatment and subjects Randomized to Control. The Not-Randomized group was not included in the analysis."|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91810315|NCT00372112|183495929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0177|0.3635|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 14.||0.3635|0.0177|
91919249|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean problems maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.29||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in problems maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean problems maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
91919250|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry mouth score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
91919251|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.01
91919252|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in vomit score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.01
91919253|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry eyes score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
91919254|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.19||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in heartburn score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
91919255|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.16||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in diarrhea score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.21
91919256|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.14||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in constipation score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.33
91765191|NCT02123849|183419313|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.04
91765192|NCT02123849|183419314|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91765193|NCT02123849|183419315|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91765194|NCT02123849|183419316|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91765195|NCT02123849|183419317|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
91765196|NCT02123849|183419318|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.97
91810316|NCT00372112|183495929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0956|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0686|0.2599|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 14.||0.2599|-0.0686|
91919257|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in appetite change score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.46
91919258|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.46
91919259|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.07||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fatigue score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.58
91919260|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean cough score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in cough score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean cough score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.92
91919261|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean urination score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in urination score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean urination score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.84
91919262|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in clumsy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.83
91919263|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fever score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fever score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fever score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.72
91919264|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.06||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in pain during sex score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.48
91919265|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dizziness score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.54
91919266|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.09||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in muscle aches score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.56
91765197|NCT02123849|183419319|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.97
91810317|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.608|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.608|-0.590|
91765198|NCT02123849|183419320|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.06
91919267|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.22
91919268|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.11||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.40
91919269|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.13||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in anxiety score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.35
91919270|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.17||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
91919271|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
91919272|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.2||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.15
91919273|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.08
91919274|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean depression score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.34||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in depression score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean depression score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
91919275|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.01
91919276|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry mouth score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
91765199|NCT01717872|183419323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MAC blade lifting the tongue versus Miller blade lifting the epiglottis||||>0.05
91765200|NCT01717872|183419324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91765201|NCT01717872|183419325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0004
91765202|NCT03187119|183419331|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.41||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|linear mixed model|||The reference group for this model is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan Group.||||0.42
91919277|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.24||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
91919278|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.24||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry eyes score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
91919279|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.13||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.71
91919280|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.11||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in vomit score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.41
91919281|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.08||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in neuropathy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.84
91919282|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean urination score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.07||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in urination score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean urination score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.71
91919283|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.05||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in appetite change score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.88
91919284|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.93
91919285|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.93
91919286|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in muscle aches score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.94
91765203|NCT03187119|183419331|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-14.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.03
91765204|NCT03187119|183419331|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.33||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of group and time.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.89
91919287|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.004||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in diarrhea score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.97
91919288|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fatigue score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.95
91919289|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in anxiety score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.95
91919290|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in constipation score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.93
91919291|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fever score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.06||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fever score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fever score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.84
91919292|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean cough score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in cough score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean cough score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.84
91919293|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in heartburn score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.54
91919294|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in pain during sex score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.13
91765205|NCT03187119|183419332|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.59||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.31
91765206|NCT03187119|183419332|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.9||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.73
91765207|NCT03187119|183419332|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of group and time.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.92
91765208|NCT03187119|183419333|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.52||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|generalized linear mixed model|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.06
91765209|NCT03187119|183419333|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.57||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|generalized linear mixed model|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.07
91919295|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.18||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in clumsy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.18
91919296|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.19||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.29
91919297|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.12
91919298|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.24||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.10
91919299|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.25||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.01
91919300|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.26||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
91919301|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dizziness score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
91919302|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.27||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.09
91919303|NCT03182738|183735649|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean depression score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in depression score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean depression score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.05
91919304|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-2.09||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
91919305|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.94||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
91765210|NCT03187119|183419333|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effects of group and time.|generalized linear mixed model|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.33
91919306|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.79||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
91919307|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.78||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
91919308|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.04||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm"|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.98
91919309|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.55||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.||||0.83
91919310|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.84||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.||||0.83
91919311|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.43||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
91919312|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.07||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
91919313|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.23||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|||0.96
91919314|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.77||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
91919315|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|1.05||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
91919316|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|1.5||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
91919317|NCT03182738|183735650|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|2.04||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.64
91919318|NCT02886715|183735670|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval for the least-squares mean Test/Reference ratios to be within 80-125%|Test-to-Reference Ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.39|103.31||p-value was no calculated|ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||103.31|94.39|
91919319|NCT02886715|183735670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-0.87|||ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||-0.87|-9.46|0.0185
91919320|NCT02886715|183735672|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval for the least-squares mean Test/Reference ratios to be within 80-125%|Test-to-Reference Ratio|98.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.42|103.61||p-value was no calculated|ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||103.61|93.42|
91919321|NCT02886715|183735672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-0.3|||ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||-0.30|-8.48|0.0354
91919322|NCT01128387|183735685|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Dose of Pantiumumab (in combination with Cisplatin \& Fluorouracil - see below)||||
91919323|NCT01128387|183735685|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Dose of Cisplatin||||
91919324|NCT01128387|183735685|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|750.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Dose of Fluorourcil||||
91919325|NCT01535235|183735687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91919326|NCT01535235|183735688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91919327|NCT02120417|183735694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.694|1.252|||Log Rank|The P-value was analyzed by Log-Rank Test stratified by Hormone Receptor Status.||||1.252|0.694|0.762
91919328|NCT01440101|183735704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value obtained from the Mann-Whitney U test stratified by the presence or absence of Gd+ lesions at baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91919329|NCT01440101|183735707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value obtained from the Van Elteren test stratified by the presence or absence of Gd+ lesions at baseline.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.001
91919330|NCT01440101|183735708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.006
91765211|NCT03187119|183419334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2-3 for the main effects of time and prescription and Analyses 4-6 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||.002
91765212|NCT03187119|183419334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effects of time and prescription and Analyses 4-6 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.07
91810318|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.829|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.829|-0.354|
91919331|NCT01440101|183735709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|0.586|||Fisher Exact|||Relapse-free proportions compared using a two-sided Fisher exact test. In the analysis, participants with unknown status are considered to have relapsed.||0.586|0.223|<0.001
91919332|NCT01440101|183735710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||||||P-value for comparison between the treated and placebo groups was based on analysis of covariance, adjusted for the baseline VAS score.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||||0.729
91919333|NCT01440101|183735710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||||||P-value for comparison between the treated and placebo groups was based on analysis of covariance, adjusted for the baseline VAS score.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.942
91919334|NCT00885079|183735723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for change from baseline in the FCS score was determined by comparing the non-inferiority margin (0.4) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the 2 treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.24||An analysis of change from baseline of FCS was performed using t-test. The level of singnificanse was 5 % (2-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-1.47|<0.05
91919335|NCT00885079|183735724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91919336|NCT00609622|183735804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.705||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.272|5.751|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated from a 1-sided, log-rank test stratified for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (0 vs. 1), Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH): greater than (\>) 1.5 vs. less than or equal to (\<=) 1.5 \* upper limit of normal range (ULN), and Prior Adjuvant Treatment (yes vs. no).||5.751|1.272|0.9963
91919337|NCT00609622|183735805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.618||||0.9289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|3.096|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated from a 1-sided, log-rank test stratified for ECOG Performance Status (0 vs. 1), Baseline LDH: \>1.5 vs. \<=1.5 \* ULN, and Prior Adjuvant Treatment (yes vs. no).||3.096|0.845|0.9289
91919338|NCT00609622|183735808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-Distribution|3.956||||0.5898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.412|18.324|||Chi-squared|||||18.324|-10.412|0.5898
91919339|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.01|-2.82|0.0515
91919340|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.22|-3.11|0.0876
91919341|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.81||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.02|-3.64|0.0522
91919342|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.64||||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.52|-3.81|0.1339
91919343|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.57|-3.68|0.4233
91919344|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.24|-5.18|0.2211
91919345|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.8184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||4.04|-3.22|0.8184
91919346|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.9||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|17.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||17.23|0.57|0.0380
91919347|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.3266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|17.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||17.81|-6.61|0.3266
91919348|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.75||||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|27.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||27.76|-16.26|0.4667
91919349|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
91765213|NCT03187119|183419334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.43||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of prescription. Please see Analyses 1-2 for the main effects of time and group and Analyses 4-6 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||.69
91919350|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.52|-2.80|0.5587
91919351|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.6122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.81|-1.37|0.6122
91919352|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.86|-1.87|0.4642
91919353|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.54|-2.41|0.2105
91919354|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.76|-0.57|0.1950
91919355|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.5779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.75|-1.55|0.5779
91919356|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.6314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.50|-2.15|0.6314
91919357|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.87|-2.85|0.7554
91919358|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.94||||0.3781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.22|5.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||5.34|-13.22|0.3781
91919359|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.85||||0.5715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|8.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||8.13|-13.83|0.5715
91919360|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.58||||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.08|3.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.93|-19.08|0.1271
91919361|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
91919362|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.6785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.58|-1.03|0.6785
91919363|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.4623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.74|-1.63|0.4623
91919364|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.9302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.20|-1.31|0.9302
91919365|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.7502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.33|-1.84|0.7502
91919366|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.9335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.95|-2.12|0.9335
91919367|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.17|-2.40|0.9191
91919368|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.27|-3.46|0.6750
91919369|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.43|-4.20|0.5874
91919370|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|16.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||16.06|-7.53|0.4507
91919371|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.3087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|12.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||12.08|-4.28|0.3087
91919372|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.9635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|15.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||15.76|-16.26|0.9635
91919373|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
91919374|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.6699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.53|-2.37|0.6699
91919375|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.34||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||-0.70|-3.98|0.0055
91919376|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04||||0.2793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.85|-2.92|0.2793
91919377|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.2999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.99|-3.17|0.2999
91810319|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.654|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.654|-0.469|
91919378|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.29|-3.82|0.3270
91919379|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.9779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.45|-2.39|0.9779
91919380|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.8344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|3.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.45|-4.25|0.8344
91919381|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||6.41|-3.50|0.5494
91919382|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|22.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||22.85|3.15|0.0136
91919383|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.78||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|25.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||25.29|2.26|0.0247
91919384|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|22.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||22.91|-12.91|0.3527
91919385|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
91919386|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|0.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.53|-4.05|0.1309
91919387|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.01|-2.72|0.0510
91919388|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.3858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.95|-2.44|0.3858
91919389|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.15|-2.90|0.3943
91919390|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.27|-3.53|0.3499
91919391|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.9567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.50|-2.64|0.9567
91919392|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77||||0.2901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.58|-5.12|0.2901
91919393|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|2.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.92|-5.05|0.5857
91919394|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.9635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|12.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||12.02|-12.56|0.9635
91919395|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.36|10.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||10.56|-15.36|0.6850
91919396|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.75||||0.4968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|11.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||11.73|-19.23|0.4968
91919397|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
91919398|NCT00609622|183735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.5891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.55|-2.71|0.5891
91919399|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.24|-2.50|0.5081
91919400|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.79|-2.67|0.6977
91765214|NCT03187119|183419334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 5-7 for other interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.37
91765215|NCT03187119|183419334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.14||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the prescription x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 4 and 6 for other interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.12
91765216|NCT03187119|183419334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x PAAP group x prescription interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 4-5 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference groups for this analysis is the 2x per day group.||||0.006
91810320|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.591|0.988|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.988|-0.591|
91810321|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.633|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|1.418|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.418|-0.152|
91919401|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.33|-5.85|0.0797
91810322|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.797|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.797|-0.667|
91810323|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|0.67|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.670|-0.476|
91810324|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.408|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|1.024|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.024|-0.208|
91919402|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|3.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.17|-5.62|0.5808
91919403|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|4.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||4.38|-6.44|0.7046
91810325|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|0.631|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.631|-0.471|
91919404|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.18||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|10.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||10.76|-2.40|0.2052
91919405|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.27||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||16.46|0.07|0.0483
91919406|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.93||||0.6832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|24.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||24.26|-16.41|0.6832
91919407|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.05|20.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||20.05|-18.05|0.9081
91919408|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.7289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.88|16.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||16.38|-12.88|0.7289
91919409|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
91919410|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|2.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.95|-4.43|0.6921
91765217|NCT03187119|183419334|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x WAAP group x prescription interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 4-5 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||These analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is 2x per day group.||||0.006
91765218|NCT03187119|183419335|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.18
91765219|NCT03187119|183419335|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.71
91765220|NCT03187119|183419335|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of time and group.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.96
91765221|NCT03187119|183419337|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.74
91765222|NCT03187119|183419337|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.83
91765223|NCT03187119|183419337|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of time and group.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.03
91765224|NCT03187119|183419338|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.08
91765225|NCT03187119|183419338|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.25
91919411|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.19|-0.19|0.9788
91919412|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.2747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.09|-0.33|0.2747
91919413|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.2776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.14|-0.50|0.2776
91919414|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.1403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.09|-0.62|0.1403
91919415|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.50|-0.55|0.9151
91765226|NCT03187119|183419338|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of time and group.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.03
91919416|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.3277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.05|-0.36|0.3277
91765227|NCT00824473|183419339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|<|0.001||95.0|-2.12|-0.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Overall change from baseline||-0.74|-2.12|<0.001
91765228|NCT00824473|183419340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1697|<|0.001||95.0|-0.94|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.27|-0.94|<0.001
91765229|NCT00824473|183419341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3391|<|0.001||95.0|-2.06|-0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Overall change from baseline||-0.73|-2.06|<0.001
91919417|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.86|-0.86|1.0000
91919418|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.67|-1.53|0.5661
91919419|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.15|-2.95|0.7309
91919420|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.25||||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|4.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||4.66|-2.16|0.3273
91919421|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
91919422|NCT00609622|183735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.27|-0.39|0.7108
91765230|NCT00824473|183419342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2741|<|0.001||95.0|-1.47|-0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||reflective TOSS change in baseline||-0.39|-1.47|<0.001
91765231|NCT00824473|183419343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||change from baseline||||0.010
91919423|NCT00666562|183735856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91919424|NCT03168867|183735932|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91919425|NCT01021111|183735956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The values from the three jumps were averaged in order to have one mean value per subject per session. Paired Student t-tests (baseline vs. follow-up) were used to evaluate the effects of the training.||||<0.01
91919426|NCT01021111|183735957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson|||The association between the change in the thigh coronal angular velocity from baseline to follow-up and the change in the knee abduction moment from baseline to follow-up was assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient (R), alpha =0.05||||<0.05
91919427|NCT02469246|183735997|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Percentages|-3.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-8.9|1.1|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of the primary efficacy endpoint was to assess the noninferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||1.1|-8.9|0.15
91919428|NCT02469246|183735998|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in Percentages|-6.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-0.3|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the non-inferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||-0.3|-12.3|0.042
91919429|NCT02469246|183735999|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in Percentages|1.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.0|3.5|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the non-inferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||3.5|-1.0|0.45
91919430|NCT02469246|183736000|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in Percentages|1.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.2|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the non-inferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||4.2|-1.0|0.34
91919431|NCT02469246|183736001|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Percentages|-1.6||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.2|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the noninferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||4.2|-7.4|0.62
91919432|NCT02469246|183736002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Percentages|-5.9||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|0.4|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the noninferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||0.4|-12.2|0.069
91765232|NCT01359904|183419345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
91919433|NCT02469246|183736003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-32.0||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-4.0||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||-4|-61|0.026
91765233|NCT01359904|183419346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||post intervention hemoglobin A1c levels||||0.67
91765234|NCT01359904|183419347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.20
91765235|NCT01359904|183419348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91765236|NCT03369418|183419367|SUPERIORITY|One tailed t-tests for independent groups were performed to test the hypothesis that active device will be superior to sham in decreasing the combined HAD score. This was accomplished by Contrast analysis within the framework of a random effects general linear mixed effects (RE GLMM) model.||||||0.013||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.013
91765237|NCT03369418|183419368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.33
91919434|NCT02469246|183736004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-39.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.0|-8.0||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||-8|-70|0.013
91919435|NCT02469246|183736005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.179||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.598||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.598|-0.240|0.40
91919436|NCT02469246|183736006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.165||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.678||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.678|-0.348|0.53
91919437|NCT02469246|183736007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.151||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.767||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.767|-0.465|0.63
91919438|NCT02469246|183736008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.056||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|0.713||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.713|-0.825|0.89
91919439|NCT03352245|183736014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
91919440|NCT03352245|183736015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91919441|NCT03352245|183736016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.166
91919442|NCT03352245|183736017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
91919443|NCT03352245|183736018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
91919444|NCT03352245|183736019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.911|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.911
91919445|NCT03352245|183736020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.456
91919446|NCT03352245|183736021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.515
91919447|NCT03352245|183736022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.144|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.144
91919448|NCT03352245|183736023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.28||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
91919449|NCT03352245|183736024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.254
91919450|NCT03352245|183736025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.051
91919451|NCT03352245|183736026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.643
91765238|NCT01426958|183419369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|119.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.239|126.811||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||126.811|112.239|0.1009
91919452|NCT03352245|183736027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.290
91919453|NCT03352245|183736028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
91919454|NCT03352245|183736029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.237
91919455|NCT03352245|183736030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.861
91919456|NCT02690701|183736039|SUPERIORITY|This superiority trial compares secukinumab with placebo with a view of demonstrating the superiority of secukinumab over placebo with regards to a specific outcome measure.|Least Square Mean|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.3712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.064|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis (Analysis of Covariance) of change from baseline in target to background ratio for regions of the aorta at Week 12 (Full Analysis Set)||0.064|-0.169|0.3712
91919457|NCT02700451|183736069|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval|||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of OME total in the first 72H is the same across these arms||||<0.001
91919458|NCT02700451|183736069|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval|||||<|0.001||||||The thresholds for statistical significant was p = 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of OME total to discharge is the same across these arms||||<0.001
91919459|NCT02700451|183736070|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.048|||||||Chi-squared|||Similar Distribution of opioid use between the 3 arms||||0.048
91919460|NCT02700451|183736071|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.595|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.595
91919461|NCT02700451|183736074|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.732|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Current pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.732
91919462|NCT02700451|183736074|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.896|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Best pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.896
91919463|NCT02700451|183736074|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Worst pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.004
91919464|NCT02700451|183736074|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.325|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Current pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.325
91919465|NCT02700451|183736074|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.283|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Best pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.283
91919466|NCT02700451|183736074|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Worst pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.610
91919467|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with General Activity is the same across the 3 arms||||0.016
91919468|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.294|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Mood is the same across the 3 arms||||0.294
91919469|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Walking Ability is the same across the 3 arms||||0.016
91919470|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.082|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Normal work is the same across the 3 arms||||0.082
91919471|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.117|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Relation with other is the same across the 3 arms||||0.117
91919472|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.061|||||||Fisher Exact|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Sleep is the same across the 3 arms||||0.061
91919473|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.023|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Enjoyment of life is the same across the 3 arms||||0.023
91765239|NCT01426958|183419369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|110.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.9||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.837|117.006||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||117.006|103.837|0.0009
91919474|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.681|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with General Activity is the same across the 3 arms||||0.681
91919475|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.405|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Mood is the same across the 3 arms||||0.405
91919476|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.458|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Walking Ability is the same across the 3 arms||||0.458
91919477|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.482|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Normal work is the same across the 3 arms||||0.482
91919478|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.544|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Relation with other is the same across the 3 arms||||0.544
91919479|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.202|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Sleep is the same across the 3 arms||||0.202
91765240|NCT01426958|183419369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|91.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.6||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.519|97.614||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||97.614|86.519|0.0004
91765241|NCT01426958|183419370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|104.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.681|112.002||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||112.002|96.681|0.0002
91765242|NCT01426958|183419370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|105.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.425|114.53||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||114.530|96.425|0.0012
91765243|NCT01426958|183419370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|99.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.328|106.61||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||106.610|93.328|0.0000
91810326|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.149|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.149|-0.660|
91919480|NCT02700451|183736075|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Enjoyment of life is the same across the 3 arms||||0.580
91919481|NCT02700451|183736077|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.928|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at 24H is the same across the 3 arms||||0.928
91810327|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.796|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|1.766|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.766|-0.174|
91765244|NCT01426958|183419371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|118.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.712|125.822||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||125.822|111.712|0.0702
91765245|NCT01426958|183419371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|110.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.936|116.913||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||116.913|104.936|0.0005
91765246|NCT01426958|183419371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|92.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.9||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.928|98.341||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||98.341|86.928|0.0003
91919482|NCT02700451|183736077|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.906|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at 48H is the same across the 3 arms||||0.906
91919483|NCT02700451|183736077|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.926|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at 72H is the same across the 3 arms||||0.926
91919484|NCT02700451|183736077|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.934|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at Discharge is the same across the 3 arms||||0.934
91919485|NCT02700451|183736078|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.078|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of patient receiving at least 1 transfusion is the same across the 3 arms||||0.078
91919486|NCT02700451|183736079|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||792|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0792
91919487|NCT02700451|183736080|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.034|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Length of stay in day is the same across these arms||||0.034
91919488|NCT02700451|183736080|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Length of stay in hour is the same across these arms||||0.030
91919489|NCT02700451|183736081|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.974|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of the PCS score between the 3 arms||||0.974
91919490|NCT02700451|183736081|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.444|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of the MCS between the 3 ams||||0.444
91919491|NCT02700451|183736082|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.215|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.215
91919492|NCT02700451|183736083|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison PCS score between the 3 arms||||0.044
91919493|NCT02700451|183736083|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.767|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison MCS score between the 3 arms||||0.767
91919494|NCT02700451|183736084|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.191|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.191
91919495|NCT02930174|183736100|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
91919496|NCT02930174|183736101|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.342
91919497|NCT02930174|183736102|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.184|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.184
91919498|NCT02930174|183736103|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.283
91919499|NCT02930174|183736104|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.204|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.204
91919500|NCT02930174|183736105|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.136
91919501|NCT03303989|183736114|SUPERIORITY|Efficacy of MMF was examined by the proportion of responders in MMF+Peg compared to PBO+Peg. Rates of the primary outcome were compared using proportions and 95% confidence intervals and tested for differences using Fisher's exact test.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to compare baseline and clinical characteristics between treatment groups as appropriate.||||<0.01
91919502|NCT04325503|183736150|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0905||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.159||A priori threshold statistical significance p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 9||||0.159|0.022|0.015
91919503|NCT04325503|183736151|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.333||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.216||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 8||||2.216|-1.550|0.694
91919504|NCT04325503|183736152|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.444||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|3.252||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 8||||3.252|-0.363|0.103
91810328|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.742|1.03|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.030|-0.742|
91919505|NCT04325503|183736153|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.554|2.372||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 10||||2.372|-6.554|0.321
91919506|NCT04325503|183736154|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.185||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.544|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||0.544|-0.175|0.265
91810329|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.556|0.669|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.669|-0.556|
91810330|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|0.491|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.491|-0.767|
91919507|NCT04325503|183736155|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.143||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.296|15.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 6||||15.0|1.296|0.0270
91919508|NCT04325503|183736156|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.||||||0.153||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.153
91919509|NCT01642212|183736161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91919510|NCT01642212|183736162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.75||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.808|-1.687||LS mean estimates were determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and the baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.687|-11.808|0.0096
91919511|NCT01642212|183736163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.49||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.895|1.92||LS mean estimates were determined using the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 8||1.920|-6.895|0.2649
91919512|NCT01642212|183736163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.91||||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.322|2.501||LS mean estimates were determined using the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 12||2.501|-8.322|0.2878
91919513|NCT01642212|183736165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of \</= 15 Eosinophils/HPF||||0.0001
91919514|NCT01642212|183736165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of \</= 1 Eosinophils/HPF||||<0.0001
91919515|NCT01642212|183736166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 30% DSQ score reduction||||0.0206
91919516|NCT01642212|183736166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 50% DSQ score reduction||||0.0275
91919517|NCT01642212|183736167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of response and \>/= 30% DSQ score reduction||||0.0026
91919518|NCT01642212|183736167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of response and \>/= 50% DSQ score reduction||||0.0199
91919519|NCT01642212|183736168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-22.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.345|-14.334|||ANCOVA|LS mean based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-14.334|-30.345|<0.0001
91919520|NCT01642212|183736169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.172|-2.358||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-2.358|-5.172|<0.0001
91919521|NCT01642212|183736170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-35.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.438|-17.57||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of proximal eosinophil count||-17.570|-53.438|0.0002
91919522|NCT01642212|183736170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-59.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.173|-34.948||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of mid- eosinophil count||-34.948|-84.173|<0.0001
91919523|NCT01642212|183736170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-67.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.573|-41.18||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of distal eosinophil count||-41.180|-93.573|<0.0001
91919524|NCT01642212|183736171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-18.44||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.593|-7.293||LS mean estimates were based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-7.293|-29.593|0.0015
91919525|NCT01642212|183736172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference was determined by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of distribution of scores across all responses||||0.1170
91919526|NCT01642212|183736173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of heartburn||||0.1947
91919527|NCT01642212|183736173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of chest pain||||0.8029
91919528|NCT01642212|183736173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of regurgitation||||0.4963
91919529|NCT01642212|183736173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5257|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of abdominal pain||||0.5257
91919530|NCT01642212|183736173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of nausea||||0.5219
91919531|NCT01642212|183736173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of vomiting||||0.2886
91919532|NCT01642212|183736176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. Both responses (no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of symptoms of participants with no symptoms at baseline||||0.1600
91919533|NCT01642212|183736178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 30% DSQ+pain score reduction||||0.0606
91919534|NCT01642212|183736178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 50% DSQ+pain score reduction||||0.0165
91919535|NCT01642212|183736179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7817
91919536|NCT01642212|183736180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.04||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 8||0.040|-0.222|0.1686
91919537|NCT01642212|183736180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.8046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.21||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 12||0.210|-0.269|0.8046
91919538|NCT01642212|183736180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.219||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 16||0.219|-0.199|0.9239
91919539|NCT01642212|183736181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.806|1.339||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 8||1.339|-2.806|0.4835
91919540|NCT01642212|183736181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.92||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.974|0.132||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 12||0.132|-3.974|0.0662
91919541|NCT01642212|183736181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.006|0.41||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 16||0.410|-4.006|0.1091
91919542|NCT00702143|183736190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups||||0.0002
91919543|NCT00702143|183736190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups||||<0.0001
91919544|NCT00702143|183736190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups||||0.0014
91919545|NCT00702143|183736192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance P value testing for an overall difference in the mean cortical SUVR between the clinical diagnostic groups.||||<0.0001
91919546|NCT00702143|183736192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||<0.0001
91765247|NCT00040443|183419372|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91765248|NCT05280717|183419383|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9821|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8825|1.093|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with AUC(D1- 29) as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.0930|0.8825|
91765249|NCT05280717|183419384|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0108|1.2539|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.2539|1.0108|
91765250|NCT05280717|183419387|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.876|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6391|2.1472|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||2.1472|1.6391|
91765251|NCT05280717|183419387|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.5991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4086|1.8153|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.8153|1.4086|
91919547|NCT00702143|183736192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||<0.0001
91919548|NCT00702143|183736192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.0003
91765252|NCT05280717|183419388|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|2.0798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8223|2.3737|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||2.3737|1.8223|
91765253|NCT05280717|183419388|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.6955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4913|1.9276|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.9276|1.4913|
91810331|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.765|0.391|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.391|-0.765|
91919549|NCT03871491|183736194|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.79||We calculated P values to test each of the primary hypotheses at an alpha level of 0.05 overall, with a nominal alpha level of 0.0001 at the interim analysis.|Regression, Logistic|Used multiple imputation for missing outcomes by means of logistic regression imputation.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of maternal death or sepsis within 6 weeks (42 days) post-delivery||0.79|0.56|<0.001
91919550|NCT03871491|183736195|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09||We calculated P values to test each of the primary hypotheses at an alpha level of 0.05 overall, with a nominal alpha level of 0.0001 at the interim analysis.|Regression, Logistic|Used multiple imputation for missing outcomes by means of logistic regression imputation.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of Intrapartum/Neonatal Death or Sepsis Within 4 Weeks (28 Days) Post-delivery in Intervention vs. Placebo Group||1.09|0.95|0.56
91919551|NCT03871491|183736196|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.77||||||||0.77|0.55|
91919552|NCT03871491|183736197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|36.14||||||||36.14|0.45|
91765254|NCT05280717|183419393|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8578|1.0469|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUCinf as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.0469|0.8578|
91765255|NCT05280717|183419393|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.5482|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.377|1.7407|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUCinf as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.7407|1.3770|
91765256|NCT05280717|183419393|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.4167|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2627|1.5894|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUCinf as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.5894|1.2627|
91919553|NCT03871491|183736199|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.79||||||||0.79|0.55|
91919554|NCT03871491|183736200|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.75||||||||0.75|0.43|
91919555|NCT03871491|183736201|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99||||||||0.99|0.65|
91919556|NCT03871491|183736202|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85||||||||0.85|0.56|
91919557|NCT03871491|183736203|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.01||||||||1.01|0.95|
91919558|NCT03871491|183736205|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82||||||||0.82|0.52|
91919559|NCT03871491|183736206|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15||||||||1.15|0.70|
91919560|NCT03871491|183736207|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.84||||||||0.84|0.73|
91919561|NCT03871491|183736208|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.41||||||||1.41|0.84|
91919562|NCT03871491|183736209|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||||||||1.1|0.96|
91919563|NCT03871491|183736210|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47||||||||1.47|0.73|
91919564|NCT03871491|183736211|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.07||||||||1.07|0.88|
91919565|NCT03871491|183736213|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21||||||||1.21|0.96|
91919566|NCT03871491|183736214|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.12||||||||1.12|0.94|
91919567|NCT03871491|183736215|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0||||||||1.0|0.93|
91919568|NCT03871491|183736216|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|10.1||||||||10.1|0.71|
91919569|NCT05202808|183736219|NON_INFERIORITY|"The endothelial cell loss (ECL) at 6 months was compared between the LAL and Control groups. The statistical hypothesis is:~* H0: Median(LAL) - Median(control) ≥ 5% vs~* Ha: Median(LAL) - Median(control) \< 5%~The median ECL for the LAL group is at most 5% higher than the median ECL for the Control group.~The first co-primary safety endpoint is met if the median ECL of the LAL group is non-inferior to the Control group using a right-tail Wilcoxon test using a significance level of 0.05."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.66|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||With a one-sided significance level of 0.05, a power of 0.80, a randomization ratio of 2:1, and then the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon asymptotic relative efficiency (A.R.E.) efficiency adjustment, the sample size per two-sample t-test is 192 LAL eyes and 96 Control eyes (total of 288), with an assumed dropout rate of 10%.||1.66|-1.00|<0.0001
91919570|NCT05202808|183736221|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|7.15|||||Light adjustable lens (LAL) and Light Delivery Device (LDD) group is the numerator and Control group is the denominator. At Month 6, the odds of achieving UCDVA of 20/20 or better were 4.61 times greater for the LAL group than the Control group.|||7.15|2.97|
91919571|NCT05202808|183736222|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.05|36.14|||||Light adjustable lens (LAL) and Light Delivery Device (LDD) group is the numerator and the Control group is the denominator. The odds of achieving Absolute MRCYL of 0.5D or less was 20.74 for the LAL group versus the Control group at month 6.|||36.14|12.05|
91919572|NCT05202808|183736223|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.89|23.57|||||Light adjustable lens (LAL) and Light Delivery Device (LDD) group is the numerator and the Control group is the denominator. The odds of achieving simultaneous Absolute MRSE and MRCL of 0.5 D or less was 14.46 in the LAL group vs. Control at month 6.|||23.57|8.89|
91919573|NCT04996797|183736224|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|36.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||36.5|11.8|<.0001
91919574|NCT04996797|183736227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|43.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||43.2|17.4|<0.0001
91919575|NCT04996797|183736228|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|56.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||56.9|27.4|<.0001
91919576|NCT04996797|183736229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.8||||0.0224||95.0|2.1|37.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factor of biologic status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||37.9|2.1|0.0224
91919577|NCT04996797|183736230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.0223||95.0|1.8|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||24.6|1.8|0.0223
91919578|NCT04996797|183736231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6||||0.0009||95.0|12.1|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||42.9|12.1|0.0009
91919579|NCT04996797|183736232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|14.3|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||39.6|14.3|<0.0001
91919580|NCT04996797|183736233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||||95.0|-2.4|36.4|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||36.4|-2.4|
91919581|NCT04996797|183736234|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8||||||95.0|0.4|42.2|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||42.2|0.4|
91919582|NCT04996797|183736235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||||95.0|-6.9|26.9|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||26.9|-6.9|
91919583|NCT04996797|183736236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.9||||||95.0|5.0|48.3|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||48.3|5.0|
91919584|NCT04996797|183736237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|41.0|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||41.0|0.2|
91765257|NCT03573323|183419405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91765258|NCT03573323|183419406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91765259|NCT03573323|183419407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91765260|NCT03573323|183419408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91765261|NCT03573323|183419409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91919585|NCT04996797|183736238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||39.6|14.3|<0.0001
91919586|NCT04996797|183736239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2||||||95.0|0.2|41.0|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||41.0|0.2|
91919587|NCT04996797|183736240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|17.2|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||46.8|17.2|<0.0001
91919588|NCT04996797|183736241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.6||||||95.0|-1.7|38.7|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||38.7|-1.7|
91919589|NCT02747004|183736352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293||||||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization factors of presence of liver metastases and prior use of Tamoxifen in the advanced/metastatic setting.||||||0.2930
91919590|NCT02747004|183736352|OTHER|Informal phase 2 non-inferiority.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.535|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization factors of presence of liver metastases and prior use of Tamoxifen in the advanced/metastatic setting.||||1.535|0.711|
91919591|NCT05087030|183736362|NON_INFERIORITY|The analysis was performed with an ANCOVA model with %CfB in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 as the dependent variable, covariates were treatment arm (RGB-14-P and US-licensed Prolia).|Estimated Difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.465|0.826|||ANCOVA|||||0.826|-0.465|
91919592|NCT05087030|183736362|SUPERIORITY|Non-Superiority Test|Estimated Difference|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.099|1.191|||ANCOVA|||||1.191|-0.099|
91919593|NCT05087030|183736363|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.046|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Study Treatment Groups||1.046|0.978|0.494
91919594|NCT05087030|183736364|OTHER||Estimated difference|-0.31||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.792|0.165|||Mixed model repeated measures|||at Week 26||0.165|-0.792|0.199
91919595|NCT05087030|183736364|OTHER||Estimated difference|-0.16||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.358|||mixed model repeated measures|||At Week 52||0.358|-0.680|0.543
91919596|NCT05087030|183736365|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.03||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.703|0.769|||mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 26||0.769|-0.703|0.929
91919597|NCT03658954|183736375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing for group effect.||||0.75
91919598|NCT03658954|183736376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing for group effect.||||0.05
91919599|NCT03658954|183736377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing for group effect.||||0.02
91919600|NCT04885257|183736380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
91919601|NCT02811744|183736433|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as no significant difference between study groups on a T-test.||||||0.5||||||No adjustments on the comparison. There was no multiple comparison adjustment for the p value, as this was the primary outcome. This is the experimental p value; the threshold for significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No power calculation. This is an exploratory study.||||0.5
91919602|NCT01896232|183736436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Etelcalcetide was considered non-inferior to cinacalcet if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the treatment difference (cinacalcet - etelcalcetide) was \< 12%, the prespecified margin for non-inferiority.|Stratified Treatment Difference|-10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.45|-3.51||||||"The analysis was conducted on the Full Analysis Set (683 participants). Imputation under the non-inferiority null method was applied to participants who did not have PTH data during the EAP.~The Mantel-Haenszel estimator was used to calculate the treatment difference between the proportions (Cinacalcet - Etelcalcetide) stratified by screening PTH level and region."||-3.51|-17.45|
91919603|NCT01896232|183736437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The CMH-stratified odds ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|"Achievement of \> 50% reduction in mean predialysis serum PTH from baseline during the EAP was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening PTH level and region.~Superiority of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet was tested at the 5% significance level (2-sided)."||2.23|1.21|0.001
91919604|NCT01896232|183736438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The CMH stratified odds ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|"Achievement of \> 30% reduction in mean predialysis serum PTH from baseline during the EAP was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH level and region.~Superiority of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet was tested at the 5% significance level (2-sided)."||2.17|1.16|0.004
91919605|NCT01896232|183736439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Rate Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||The treatment rate ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|"Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with Poisson regression, including screening value of the number of days of nausea and vomiting, treatment, stratification factors (screening PTH level and region), study weeks, and treatment by study weeks as covariates.~Superiority of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet was tested at the 5% significance level (2-sided)."||1.49|0.89|0.27
91919606|NCT01896232|183736440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-2.21|||||Treatment difference is Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet.|Analyzed using a repeated measures mixed effects model, including treatment group, randomization stratification factors (screening PTH level and region), study week, and study week by treatment as fixed effects.||-2.21|-4.76|
91919607|NCT01896232|183736441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.59|||||The CMH-stratified odds ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by screening PTH level and region.||1.59|0.83|
91919608|NCT01896232|183736442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||||Treatment difference is Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet.|Analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for screening PTH level and region.||0.12|-0.18|
91919609|NCT01896232|183736443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Rate Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.72|||||The treatment rate ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|This analysis was conducted using a generalized linear mixed model with Poisson regression including screening value of the number of episodes of vomiting, treatment, stratification factors (screening PTH level and region), study weeks, and treatment by study weeks as covariates.||1.72|0.86|
91919610|NCT00686205|183736444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|99.94||||||95.0|99.88|99.97|||Binomial Exact|Sample size is based on power of 80%, alpha level of 0.05, using the binomial distribution when comparing to a lower bound of specificity at 99.84.||||99.97|99.88|
91810332|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|0.806|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.806|-0.619|
91919611|NCT00686205|183736445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0||||||95.0|99.76|100.0|||Binomial Exact|||||100.00|99.76|
91919612|NCT01929083|183736448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.04
91919613|NCT01929083|183736449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.003
91919614|NCT01929083|183736450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for incidence of fatigue/malaise|Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
91919615|NCT01929083|183736450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||p values for incidence of headache|Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
91919616|NCT01929083|183736450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of mood changes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91919617|NCT01929083|183736450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of breast tenderness|Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91919618|NCT01929083|183736450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of hypotension|Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
91919619|NCT01929083|183736450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of vertigo requiring discontinuation of therapy|Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
91919620|NCT01929083|183736451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.02
91919621|NCT01929083|183736452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.002
91919622|NCT01929083|183736453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for bradycardia|Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
91919623|NCT01929083|183736453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for burning at infusion site|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91919624|NCT01929083|183736453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for transient QTc interval \> 500 ms|Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.99
91919625|NCT01929083|183736454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.43
91919626|NCT01929083|183736455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.36
91919627|NCT01929083|183736456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
91919628|NCT01929083|183736457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0001
91919629|NCT00087438|183736491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Test statistic = \[ln(estimated hazard rate) - ln(hypothesized hazard rates)\] / \[1/square root (number of patients with local progression by two years\]. Reject null hypothesis at an alpha level of 0.05 if test statistics is less than -1.645.|z-test, one-sided|||Null hypothesis = 60% two-year local control (0.02128/mo. hazard rate); alternative = 80% (0.0093/mo.) assuming at least approximately exponential distribution of time to local progression. Using the asymptotic properties of the ratio of the logarithms of hazard rates, less than 18 cases of local progression were required for a Type I error rate of 0.05 with 80% power to detect a difference in local control rates at least this large. Hazard rate estimated using life table two-year estimates.||||0.013
91919630|NCT00283387|183736498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91810333|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.105|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.105|-0.390|
91919631|NCT03068715|183736517|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MADRS scores were assessed with generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) that used Satterthwaite approximation of degrees of freedom and robust estimation of coefficients to handle violations of model assumptions. Fixed effects of time, treatment group (sham vs. active) and their interaction were assessed.||||<0.001
91919632|NCT03068715|183736518|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||=|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDRS-17 scores were assessed with generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) that used Satterthwaite approximation of degrees of freedom and robust estimation of coefficients to handle violations of model assumptions. Fixed effects of time, treatment group (sham vs. active) and their interaction were assessed.||||=0.001
91919633|NCT03068715|183736521|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||=|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDRS-17 scores were assessed with generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) that used Satterthwaite approximation of degrees of freedom and robust estimation of coefficients to handle violations of model assumptions. Fixed effects of time, treatment group (sham vs. active) and their interaction were assessed.||||=0.001
91919634|NCT03068715|183736522|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-t test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.308
91919635|NCT03068715|183736522|SUPERIORITY|FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis. sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas.|||||=|0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.778
91919636|NCT03068715|183736522|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.468
91919637|NCT03068715|183736522|SUPERIORITY|FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis. sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas.|||||=|0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.486
91919638|NCT03068715|183736523|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.447|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.447
91919639|NCT03068715|183736523|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.115
91919640|NCT03068715|183736523|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.546
91919641|NCT03068715|183736523|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.607|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.607
91919642|NCT03068715|183736524|SUPERIORITY||P value of the interaction|0.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons at this time.|Mixed Models Analysis|We were interested in the interaction between treatment condition and timepoint.||We conducted a linear mixed models analysis, with a focus on the interaction term. No power analysis for this measure because number of participants was determined by other primary study aims.||||<0.05
91919643|NCT03068715|183736525|SUPERIORITY|The SDNN (the standard deviation of the RR intervals) was recorded using ECG. It was not necessary to conduct a power analysis for this measure because the number of participants in the study was based on other considerations (primary treatment goals of the study).|P value of the interaction|0.245|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For reporting purposes here the p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|We were interested in the significance of the interaction between treatment group and timepoint.||We used a linear mixed models analysis, with the fixed factors being treatment group and timepoint.||||<0.05
91919644|NCT00728416|183736526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline in average AM/PM PRIOR nasal congestion score over 15 days: MFNS 200 mcg daily vs placebo. The difference in LS means (MFNS - Placebo) was calculated from an ANCOVA model with treatment, site and baseline AM/PM PRIOR Nasal Congestion Score as covariates.||-0.19|-0.43|<0.001
91919645|NCT00728416|183736527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline in average AM/PM PRIOR TNSS over 15 days: MFNS 200 mcg daily vs placebo. The difference in LS means (MFNS - Placebo) was calculated from an ANCOVA model with treatment, site and baseline AM/PM TNSS as covariates.||-0.83|-1.72|<0.001
91919646|NCT00509106|183736539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (clinical cure rate) between the ceftaroline group and the ceftriaxone group was calculated based on the MITTE Population at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% for the MITTE populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.7|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared with that for ceftriaxone at TOC in the MITTE Population in adult subjects with CABP.||12.7|-1.0|
91919647|NCT01051739|183736577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||The a priori threshold of statistical significance is p\<0.05|Kaplan Meyer survival curves|||||||.21
91919648|NCT00636818|183736603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91919649|NCT00636818|183736604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91919650|NCT00636818|183736605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91919651|NCT00636818|183736606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
91919652|NCT00636818|183736607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91919653|NCT00636818|183736608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Word Test: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91919654|NCT00636818|183736608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Color Test: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91919655|NCT00636818|183736608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||P-value for Color-Word Test: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
91919656|NCT00636818|183736609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.791
91919657|NCT00636818|183736609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91919658|NCT00636818|183736609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
91765262|NCT03573323|183419410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91765263|NCT03573323|183419411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91765264|NCT03573323|183419412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91765265|NCT03573323|183419413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.414
91765266|NCT04502290|183419419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was used, where null hypothesis stated that the percent change in the number of blocks after intervention will be not statistically significant.||||.04
91765267|NCT04502290|183419420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was used, where null hypothesis stated that the percent change in the motor evoked potnetial after intervention will be not statistically significant.||||.02
91919659|NCT00636818|183736609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-value for Role-Physical: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.446
91919660|NCT00636818|183736609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.365
91919661|NCT00636818|183736609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0||||P-value for General Health Perception: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
91919662|NCT00636818|183736609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||P-value for Vitality: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.043
91919663|NCT00636818|183736609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||P-value for Social Functioning: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.086
91919664|NCT00636818|183736609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for Role-Emotional: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
91919665|NCT00636818|183736609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91765268|NCT04502290|183419421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was used, where null hypothesis stated that the percent change in the force after intervention will be not statistically significant.||||.04
91765269|NCT01290614|183419460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91765270|NCT01290614|183419461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91765271|NCT02109640|183419463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute percentage difference|17.1||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|40.7||Absolute % difference 17.1 (95% CI -10.0,40.7)|Fisher Exact|||||40.7|-10.0|0.264
91919666|NCT02201940|183736614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Participants in the SOF/VEL group were compared to the performance goal of 85% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.|Binomial test|||||||< 0.001
91765272|NCT02109640|183419464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.222
91765273|NCT02109640|183419465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
91765274|NCT02336230|183419468|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||P-value was calculated from the binomial distribution under the assumption of a 0.45 success rate for the null hypothesis.|Binomial Distribution|||||||0.0003
91765275|NCT02336230|183419470|OTHER|||||||0.0032||||||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline aGVHD grade.|CHM test|||||||0.0032
91919667|NCT01511445|183736634|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was specified as 15 NDI points (0-100 scale).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.5|||Fisher Exact||A negative value means that the PEEK change was slightly larger than the silicon nitride study arm.|The null hypothesis was that the mean change in NDI scores from pre-op to 24 months was equal in the two study arms.||4.5|-7.3|0.641
91919668|NCT01511445|183736635|NON_INFERIORITY|The definition of fusion is rotation on flexion-extension films of less than or equal to four degrees and translation less than 1.25 mm.||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that the fusion rates would be equal in the two study arms. The comparison includes patients with flexion-extension films at 24 months (as-treated population).||||0.710
91919669|NCT00397150|183736636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence ratio|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.92||||||||3.92|1.33|
91765276|NCT01379183|183419477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91765277|NCT01379183|183419478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
91765278|NCT01379183|183419479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.96
91919670|NCT00397150|183736641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.11||||||||2.11|1.70|
91919671|NCT00397150|183736642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence ratio|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.63||||||||2.63|1.12|
91919672|NCT02863198|183736680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91919673|NCT02863198|183736681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91919674|NCT02863198|183736682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91919675|NCT02863198|183736683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91919676|NCT02863198|183736684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91919677|NCT02863198|183736685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91919678|NCT01697345|183736692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.092|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0378|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.928|-6.256|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-6.256|-13.928|<0.0005
91919679|NCT01697345|183736693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.859|-0.741|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.741|-1.859|<0.0005
91919680|NCT01697345|183736694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.369||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.495|-0.755|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.755|-2.495|0.002
91919681|NCT01697345|183736695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.876||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.692|-0.308|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.308|-2.692|0.018
91919682|NCT01697345|183736696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18168||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9508|-0.4492|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.44920|-1.95080|0.005
91919683|NCT01697345|183736697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.355||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.761|-1.039|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.039|-2.761|0.001
91919684|NCT01697345|183736698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.567|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.793|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.706|-1.428|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.428|-3.706|<0.0005
91919685|NCT01976806|183736700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Compound-symmetry covariance structure with age, sex, BMI, race, baseline pocket depth, baseline RBC DHA level, and intervention group variables|Mean change in pocket depth (3-month follow-up minus baseline) among dental sites with baseline pocket depths \>=5 mm in the DHA intervention group versus the placebo group.|Intent-to-treat basis with a type I error rate of 0.05. The follow-up pocket depth, was assessed in linear mixed effects models with a compound-symmetry covariance structure and age, sex, BMI, race, baseline pocket depth, baseline red blood cell (RBC) DHA level (dichotomized at median), and intervention group as fixed-effect variables.||||<0.05
91919686|NCT00045032|183736749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91919687|NCT00045032|183736749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.67|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.67|0.44|
91919688|NCT00045032|183736750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.000
91919689|NCT00045032|183736750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.53|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.53|0.34|
91919690|NCT00045032|183736753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91919691|NCT00045032|183736753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.67|
91919692|NCT00045032|183736753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91919693|NCT00045032|183736753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.85|0.67|
91919694|NCT00045032|183736758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.68|
91919695|NCT00045032|183736758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.87|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.87|0.69|
91919696|NCT00045032|183736765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.7962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.17|0.89|0.7962
91919697|NCT00045032|183736767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2379|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2379
91919698|NCT00045032|183736767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.21|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||1.21|0.47|
91919699|NCT00045032|183736768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
91919700|NCT00045032|183736768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.28|
91919701|NCT00045032|183736771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0005
91919702|NCT00045032|183736771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.88|0.65|
91919703|NCT00045032|183736771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
91919704|NCT00045032|183736771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.63|
91919705|NCT00045032|183736773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.64|
91919706|NCT00045032|183736773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.62|
91919707|NCT00045032|183736775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.21|0.84|0.9156
91919708|NCT00045032|183736777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91919709|NCT00045032|183736777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.64|
91919710|NCT00045032|183736777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91919711|NCT00045032|183736777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.61|
91919712|NCT00045032|183736779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.11|0.80|0.4755
91919713|NCT00045032|183736781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91919714|NCT00045032|183736781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.87|0.67|
91919715|NCT00045032|183736781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91919716|NCT00045032|183736781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.85|0.65|
91919717|NCT00045032|183736783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.17|0.85|0.9626
91919718|NCT00045032|183736785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91919719|NCT00045032|183736785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.64|
91919720|NCT00045032|183736785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91919721|NCT00045032|183736785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.61|
91919722|NCT00045032|183736787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.10|0.80|0.4500
91919723|NCT00045032|183736789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91919724|NCT00045032|183736789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.62|
91919725|NCT00045032|183736789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91919726|NCT00045032|183736789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.59|
91919727|NCT00045032|183736791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.15|0.80|0.6823
91919728|NCT00045032|183736793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.13|0.84|0.7251
91919729|NCT03528681|183736834|OTHER||Back-transformed mean difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|0.959|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results are derived from a longitudinal model applied to log-transformed S-K measurements adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates. The back-transformation is to the original scale of the S-K measurement||0.959|0.902|<0.001
91919730|NCT03528681|183736834|OTHER||Back-transformed mean difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|0.876|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results are derived from a longitudinal model applied to log-transformed S-K measurements adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates. The back-transformation is to the original scale of the S-K measurement||0.876|0.825|<0.001
91919731|NCT03528681|183736839|OTHER|The analysis uses a generalized mixed model which includes a random intercept and logit link. The model includes all S-K data values collected at the scheduled visits between Days 8-29, dichotomized as normal and abnormal, as response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|6.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.67|2.17|<0.001
91919732|NCT03528681|183736839|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.45|21.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis uses a generalized mixed model which includes a random intercept and logit link. The model includes all S-K data values collected at the scheduled visits between Days 8-29, dichotomized as normal and abnormal, as response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.||21.00|6.45|<0.001
91919733|NCT03528681|183736840|OTHER|The model included normokalaemia status (yes, no) on Day 29 as binary response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|6.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.05|1.07|0.035
91919734|NCT03528681|183736840|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|15.27|||Regression, Logistic|||The model included normokalaemia status (yes, no) on Day 29 as binary response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.||15.27|2.56|<0.001
91919735|NCT03528681|183736841|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|8.31|||Regression, Linear|||Results derived from a linear regression model with the following covariates: treatment group; baseline S-K values (Open-label phase and Randomized treatment phase); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||8.31|3.13|<0.001
91919736|NCT03528681|183736841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.57|13.71|||Regression, Linear|||Results derived from a linear regression model with the following covariates: treatment group; baseline S-K values (Open-label phase and Randomized treatment phase); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||13.71|8.57|<0.001
91919737|NCT03528681|183736844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-105.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.293|-49.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|||S-Aldo Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||-49.203|-161.293|<0.001
91919738|NCT03528681|183736844|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-137.267|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.596|-81.937|||Mixed Models Analysis|||S-Aldo Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||-81.937|-192.596|<0.001
91765279|NCT01379183|183419480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.71
91919739|NCT03528681|183736844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-Renin Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||0.147|-0.120|0.839
91919740|NCT03528681|183736844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-Renin Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||0.070|-0.195|0.355
91765280|NCT01379183|183419481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
91765281|NCT01379183|183419482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
91765282|NCT01695135|183419486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.74|||Log Rank|||||0.740|0.376|0.0002
91765283|NCT01775371|183419522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Z-test 2-sided||The direction of the comparison is the Patient Controlled Analgesia minus the standard care group|The rate of change of NRS pain scores per hour was calculated using a mixed effects linear model. Time is represented as a linear spline with knot at 30 minutes to support the separate estimation of early and late phase rates of change. Fixed effects in the analysis includes study-group indicator, early and late phase time, and interactions between study-group and time. The principal hypothesis test was a z-test of the coefficient of the study group late phase interaction term.||1.5|0.6|<0.001
91919741|NCT03528681|183736846|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.57|||Regression, Cox|||The model included time to reoccurrence of hyperkalaemia as response variable (event: hyperkalaemia or discontinue treatment in RTP due to high S-K levels), baseline eGFR, OLP and RTP baseline S-K values as well as age (\< 55, 55-64, \> 64 years) and baseline binary indicators for RAASi, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus as covariates. Placebo is the reference group||0.57|0.27|<0.001
91919742|NCT03528681|183736846|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.25|||Regression, Cox|||The model included time to reoccurrence of hyperkalaemia as response variable (event: hyperkalaemia or discontinue treatment in RTP due to high S-K levels), baseline eGFR, OLP and RTP baseline S-K values as well as age (\< 55, 55-64, \> 64 years) and baseline binary indicators for RAASi, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus as covariates. Placebo is the reference group||0.25|0.10|<0.001
91919743|NCT03518840|183736849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3329|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6299|-1.2932|||paired t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the baseline ASLR score following four weeks of SIJ belt therapy.||-1.2932|-2.6299|<.001
91919744|NCT03518840|183736850|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3353|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.619|-1.2757|||paired t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the baseline NRS score following four weeks of SIJ belt therapy.||-1.2757|-2.6190|<.001
91919745|NCT00473694|183736875|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|17.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.95|21.42||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||21.42|13.95|<0.0001
91919746|NCT00473694|183736876|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|14.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.18|21.67||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||21.67|10.18|<0.0001
91919747|NCT00473694|183736877|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|15.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|19.95||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||19.95|12.58|<0.0001
91919748|NCT00473694|183736878|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|18.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.98|24.35||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||24.35|13.98|<0.0001
91919749|NCT00473694|183736879|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|17.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.62|21.31||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||21.31|13.62|<0.0001
91919750|NCT00473694|183736880|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.85|24.38||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||24.38|12.85|<0.0001
91765284|NCT01775371|183419523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91765285|NCT01775371|183419524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91765286|NCT01775371|183419525|OTHER|Responses occur with equal probability|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|One-sample chi-squared test of hypothesis that the responses occur with equal probability||These outcomes are based on the nurses who took care of patients in the study||||<0.001
91919751|NCT01485614|183736930|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.19|||=|0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin is compared against that of Placebo (pooled)."||||0.30|-0.68|= 0.448
91919752|NCT01485614|183736932|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|14.9||"Percentage of participants with ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin was compared against that of Placebo/Metformin with Miettinen \& Nurminen."||||||14.9|-10.0|
91919753|NCT01485614|183736934|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.8||"Percentage of participants with ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin was compared against that of Placebo/Metformin with Miettinen \& Nurminen."||||||10.8|-1.3|
91919754|NCT01485614|183736937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.7|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|21.2||"Percentage of participants with an A1C goal (7.0%) in the arm Sitagliptin was compared against the arm Placebo (pooled)."|Miettinen and Nurminen||||For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method based on the Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) model was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal.|21.2|-8.1|= 0.374
91919755|NCT01485614|183736939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.6|||=|0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|18.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|"The percentage of participants with an A1C at the A1C goal (6.5%) in the arm Sitagliptin was compared against the arm Placebo (pooled)."|||For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method based on the LDA model was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal.|18.3|-11.6|= 0.639
91765287|NCT01775371|183419526|OTHER|All responses occur with equal probability|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|One-sample chi-squared test of hypothesis that the responses occur with equal probability||This outcome is based on the physicians who took care of the patients in the study||||<0.001
91810334|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|0.877|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.877|-0.522|
91919756|NCT01485614|183736944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|1.5|||=|0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin was compared against that of Placebo (pooled)."||||17.5|-14.4|= 0.849
91919757|NCT03617926|183737024|SUPERIORITY|In case superiority is not proven, non-inferiority is tested. As non-inferiority margin (δ), a 7.5% worse cure rate is regarded as clinically not relevant. The following null hypothesis will be used: H0, NI: pT-pR \< δ, whereby δ = -7.5%. The lower, 95% confidence interval of the difference pT-pR will be used for the test. If H0, NI will be rejected, non-inferiority cannot be shown.||||||0.023||||||A priori treshold p value of 0.05 for statistical significance was set prior to study start.|Chi-squared|||"Efficacy analyses is performed on the ITT population (all subjects who were included and randomized in the study, with available baseline value of the primary endpoint and at least one follow-up visit). All statistical tests are performed at a 5% level of significance. The aim of this analysis is to show superiority for the cure rate of the test product versus a predefined limit of 70%. The following null hypothesis will be tested: H0, prim: pT - pR = 0 and Ha: pT - pR \> 15%~I"||||0.023
91919758|NCT02015819|183737073|OTHER||||||||||||||||||MFD was determined to be 1.5x10\^8 in combination with oral 5-FC 37.5 mg/kg and leucovorin 25 mg every 6 hours for 7 days.|||
91919759|NCT01075087|183737088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3|-26|.05
91919760|NCT01486264|183737090|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the baseline TWSTRS Severity subscale score, was used to test the non-inferiority of Short Flex versus Long Flex treatment. Non-inferiority margin delta equal to (=) 2 points.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.1||||||||0.1|-2.9|
91919761|NCT03584009|183737105|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.96||||0.7286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|12.94||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.94|-16.86|0.7286
91919762|NCT03584009|183737106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.45||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.61|0.7853
91919763|NCT03584009|183737107|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.96||||0.5978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.29|8.37||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.37|-12.29|0.5978
91919764|NCT03584009|183737109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.43||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|||3.43|1.02|0.0403
91919765|NCT04112914|183737114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.021
91919766|NCT04112914|183737115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.638|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.638
91810335|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|-0.001|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||-0.001|-0.586|
91919767|NCT04112914|183737116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.72|0.55|0.338
91919768|NCT04112914|183737117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.606
91919769|NCT04112914|183737118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.508
91919770|NCT04112914|183737119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.042
91919771|NCT04112914|183737120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.128
91919772|NCT00768560|183737121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.69||||||90.0|-12.62|-6.77|||||40 mg BID minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in SBP from baseline was estimated by using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||-6.77|-12.62|
91919773|NCT00768560|183737121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||90.0|-2.87|2.98|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in SBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||2.98|-2.87|
91919774|NCT00768560|183737121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.75||||||90.0|6.83|12.67|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg BID|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in SBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||12.67|6.83|
91919775|NCT00768560|183737121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.97||||||90.0|-5.5|-2.44|||||40 mg BID minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in DBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||-2.44|-5.50|
91919776|NCT00768560|183737121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||||90.0|-2.21|0.85|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in DBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||0.85|-2.21|
91919777|NCT00768560|183737121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29||||||90.0|1.76|4.82|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg BID|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in DBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||4.82|1.76|
91919778|NCT00389207|183737131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.684||95.0|-0.062|0.095||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening VL and CD4+ categories (only 373 NVP patients due to empty cells)||||0.095|-0.062|0.684
91919779|NCT00389207|183737131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|0.025||||0.584||95.0|-0.065|0.115||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=186 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.115|-0.065|0.584
91919780|NCT00389207|183737131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|0.009||||0.855||95.0|-0.084|0.101||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=187 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.101|-0.084|0.855
91919781|NCT00389207|183737132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.038||||0.321||95.0|-0.112|0.037||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=373 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.037|-0.112|0.321
91919782|NCT00389207|183737143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.461||||0.0403||95.0|0.22|0.966|||Regression, Cox|||||0.966|0.220|0.0403
91919783|NCT00389207|183737147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.097||||0.0109||95.0|-0.171|-0.022||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=373 NVP QD+BID patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients||||-0.022|-0.171|0.0109
91919784|NCT00389207|183737147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.072||||0.1033||95.0|-0.158|0.015||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=186 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.015|-0.158|0.1033
91919785|NCT00389207|183737147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.122||||0.0073||95.0|-0.212|-0.033||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=187 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.033|-0.212|0.0073
91919786|NCT00389207|183737148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.117||||0.0031||95.0|-0.194|-0.04||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=373 NVP QD+BID patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.040|-0.194|0.0031
91919787|NCT00389207|183737148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.096||||0.0365||95.0|-0.186|-0.006||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=186 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.006|-0.186|0.0365
91919788|NCT00389207|183737148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.139||||0.0033||95.0|-0.231|-0.046||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=187 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.046|-0.231|0.0033
91919789|NCT00389207|183737151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.001||||0.9784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.066|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 48||0.066|-0.065|0.9784
91919790|NCT00389207|183737151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.064||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.123|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 96||0.123|0.005|0.0331
91919791|NCT00389207|183737151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.058||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.121|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 144||0.121|-0.005|0.0691
91919792|NCT00389207|183737151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|-0.023||||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.038|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 48||0.038|-0.084|0.4585
91919793|NCT00389207|183737151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.015||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.064|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 96||0.064|-0.034|0.5438
91919794|NCT00389207|183737151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.016||||0.5659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.071|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 144||0.071|-0.039|0.5659
91919795|NCT00389207|183737152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.0002||95.0|0.57|0.839|||Regression, Cox|||||0.839|0.570|0.0002
91919796|NCT00389207|183737152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.519|0.764|||Regression, Cox|||Cox regression on responders only (N=289 in Nevirapine QD+BID and N=175 in Atazanvir/ritonavir)||0.764|0.519|<0.0001
91919797|NCT00389207|183737153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762||||0.1329||95.0|0.535|1.086|||Regression, Cox|||||1.086|0.535|0.1329
91810336|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.371|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|-0.085|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||-0.085|-0.657|
91919798|NCT00389207|183737154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.0444||95.0|0.539|0.992|||Regression, Cox|||||0.992|0.539|0.0444
91919799|NCT02039947|183737167|SUPERIORITY||Response rate|59.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|70.4|||percent||Percent|||70.4|47.3|<.0001
91919800|NCT01772134|183737175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.187|0.107|<0.001
91919801|NCT01772134|183737175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.178|0.097|<0.001
91919802|NCT01740362|183737179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|137.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.77|194.69||||||1 way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on natural log-transformed AUC(0-∞) analyzed using linear model with degrees of renal impairment(creatinine clearance\[CLcr, discrete\]) evaluated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effect. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) mixed procedure (PROC MIXED) was used. Anti-log of adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550\[mild renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550\[normal renal function\]), 90% confidence interval (CI) were taken to estimate mean ratio and 90% CI.||194.69|96.77|
91919803|NCT01740362|183737179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|142.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.53|202.24||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed AUC (0 - ∞) were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[moderate renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||202.24|100.53|
91919804|NCT01740362|183737179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|222.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.02|315.89||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed AUC (0 - ∞) were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[severe renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||315.89|157.02|
91919805|NCT01740362|183737180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|93.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.22|129.06||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed Cmax were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[mild renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||129.06|67.22|
91919806|NCT01740362|183737180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|104.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.18|144.34||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed Cmax were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[moderate renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||144.34|75.18|
91919807|NCT01740362|183737180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|117.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.91|163.02||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed Cmax were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[severe renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||163.02|84.91|
91919808|NCT00594399|183737186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus test of difference between groups over time with Bonferroni correction and adjustment for baseline value of insulin|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
91919809|NCT00594399|183737189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus test of difference between groups over time with Bonferroni correction and adjustment for baseline value of glucose|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91919810|NCT00594399|183737192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus test of difference between groups over time with adjustment for baseline value of physical activity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91919811|NCT03830281|183737193|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.06|0.565
91919812|NCT03830281|183737194|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-12.2|||ANCOVA|||||-12.2|-36.0|<0.001
91919813|NCT03830281|183737195|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-13.0|||ANCOVA|||||-13.0|-42.6|< 0.001
91919814|NCT03830281|183737196|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis during daytime is reported.||2.8|-1.4|0.532
91919815|NCT03830281|183737196|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis during 24-hour period is reported.||2.5|-1.8|0.738
91919816|NCT03192904|183737240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91919817|NCT03133767|183737266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.608
91810337|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.153|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.133|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.133|-0.440|
91919818|NCT03133767|183737267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
91919819|NCT03133767|183737268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
91919820|NCT03133767|183737269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.361
91919821|NCT03133767|183737270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.509
91919822|NCT00488631|183737295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (i.e., testing golimumab 100 mg vs. placebo first, then, if positive, testing 50 mg vs. placebo).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants in clinical response through Week 54 were summarized using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.010
91919823|NCT00488631|183737295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (i.e., testing golimumab 100 mg vs. placebo first, then, if positive, testing 50 mg vs. placebo).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants in clinical response through Week 54 were summarized using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||<0.001
91919824|NCT00488631|183737296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.122
91919825|NCT00488631|183737296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.004
91919826|NCT00488631|183737297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with mucosal healing at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.011
91765288|NCT00216671|183419561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of early initiation was inferred if the upper 95% confidence boundary for the difference of change in PANSS total score from baseline in favor of the routine approach is less than 6.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|6.99||An ANCOVA model with treatment as factor was used. The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was performed based on the least-squares means obtained from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||Assuming a difference of 3 points in favor of early initiation of treatment with Risperdal Consta, a sample size of 87 subjects per treatment arm has a power of 80% to demonstrate non-inferiority at the 0.025-level (1-sided). It was expected that about 20% of randomized subjects had to be excluded from the per-protocol (PP) analysis. Therefore, 220 subjects were to be included.||6.99|-9.24|0.784
91765289|NCT00216671|183419564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in CGI-S from baseline to endpoint was analyzed as is with no derived calculations. CGI-S scores were coded as follows: 0=normal, not at all ill, 1=borderline, etc. and 6=among the most extremely ill patients.The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.800
91765290|NCT00216671|183419564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in CGI-S from baseline to endpoint was analyzed as is with no derived calculations. CGI-S scores were coded as follows: 0=normal, not at all ill, 1=borderline, etc. and 6=among the most extremely ill patients.||||<0.001
91765291|NCT00216671|183419564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in CGI-S from baseline to endpoint was analyzed as is with no derived calculations. CGI-S scores were coded as follows: 0=normal, not at all ill, 1=borderline, etc. and 6=among the most extremely ill patients.||||<0.001
91765292|NCT00216671|183419565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in GAF from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.798
91765293|NCT00216671|183419565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in GAF from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
91765294|NCT00216671|183419565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in GAF from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
91765295|NCT00216671|183419566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in SF-12 PCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.519
91765296|NCT00216671|183419566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 PCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
91765297|NCT00216671|183419566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 PCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
91765298|NCT00216671|183419566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in SF-12 MCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.721
91765299|NCT00216671|183419566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 MCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
91810338|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|0.247|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.247|-0.679|
91810339|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.998|-0.074|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||-0.074|-0.998|
91810340|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|0.416|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.416|-0.452|
91919827|NCT00488631|183737297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with mucosal healing at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.002
91919828|NCT00488631|183737298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and 54 among participants with clinical remission at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using CMH test stratified by the induction dose factor.||||0.365
91919829|NCT00488631|183737298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and 54 among participants with clinical remission at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using CMH test stratified by the induction dose factor.||||0.098
91765300|NCT00216671|183419566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 MCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
91765301|NCT02714569|183419568|NON_INFERIORITY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin|Least Square Means Percentage|204.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|161.9|259.0|||||Analysis was the estimate of the ratio fasted versus fed.|Geometric Mean Fed/Fasted Ratio of LY3202328 Cmax at 30 mg||259.0|161.9|
91765302|NCT02714569|183419570|NON_INFERIORITY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin|Least Squares Mean Percentage|193.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.7|258.2||||||Geometric Mean Fed/Fasted Ratio of LY3202328 AUC(0-inf) at 30 mg||258.2|144.7|
91765303|NCT02714569|183419582|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|141.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.9|293.0||||||Part B Placebo||293.0|67.9|
91765304|NCT02714569|183419582|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|70.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.9|157.1||||||Part B 5 mg LY||157.1|31.9|
91765305|NCT02714569|183419582|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|109.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.8|119.5||||||Part B 20 mg LY||119.5|99.8|
91765306|NCT02714569|183419582|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|107.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.1|170.4||||||Part B 100 mg LY||170.4|68.1|
91765307|NCT02714569|183419582|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|213.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|200.3|227.1||||||Part B 300 mg LY||227.1|200.3|
91765308|NCT02714569|183419582|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|115.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.2|146.2||||||Part B Overall||146.2|91.2|
91765309|NCT02714569|183419583|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|155.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.6|274.2||||||Part B Placebo||274.2|87.6|
91765310|NCT02714569|183419583|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|71.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.7|125.3||||||Part B 5 mg LY||125.3|40.7|
91765311|NCT02714569|183419583|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratios (%)|122.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|165.1||||||Part B 20 mg LY||165.1|90.7|
91810341|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.878|-0.095|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.095|-0.878|
91919830|NCT00488631|183737299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at Week 54 and not receiving concomitant corticosteroids among participants on corticosteroids at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.279
91765312|NCT02714569|183419583|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|136.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.8|207.7||||||Part B 100 mg LY||207.7|89.8|
91765313|NCT02714569|183419583|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|132.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|194.4||||||Part B 300 mg LY||194.4|90.5|
91765314|NCT02714569|183419583|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|112.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.2|135.1||||||Part B Overall||135.1|93.2|
91765315|NCT02714569|183419584|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.4|117.8||||||Part B Placebo||117.8|80.4|
91765316|NCT02714569|183419584|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|57.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.3|106.0||||||||106.0|31.3|
91765317|NCT02714569|183419584|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.8|138.7||||||Part B 20 mg LY||138.7|66.8|
91765318|NCT02714569|183419584|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.8|142.7||||||Part B 100 mg LY||142.7|45.8|
91765319|NCT02714569|183419584|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|108.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.2|291.2||||||Part B 300 mg LY||291.2|40.2|
91765320|NCT02714569|183419584|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|87.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.4|114.7||||||Part B Overall||114.7|67.4|
91765321|NCT02714569|183419585|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|102.1||||||Part B Placebo||102.1|90.2|
91810342|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.562|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.135|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.135|-0.990|
91810343|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.196|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.196|-0.575|
91810344|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.385|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.385|-0.235|
91810345|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.623|0.073|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.073|-0.623|
91810346|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.418|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.418|-0.213|
91810347|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.042|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.042|-0.640|
91810348|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.271|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|0.079|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.079|-0.621|
91810349|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.243|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.243|-0.432|
91810350|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.173|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.505|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.505|-0.158|
91810351|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.196|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.143|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.143|-0.535|
91810352|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.475|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.475|-0.198|
91810353|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.9|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.90|-1.18|
91919831|NCT00488631|183737299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at Week 54 and not receiving concomitant corticosteroids among participants on corticosteroids at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.423
91810354|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||1.30|-0.72|
91810355|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.8|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.80|-1.15|
91810356|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.44|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.44|-0.64|
91919832|NCT05300087|183737300|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence would be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax between the test and reference products were completely contained within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.085|||ANOVA|||||1.085|0.947|<0.0001
91810357|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.7|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.70|-0.32|
91810358|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.2|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.20|-0.74|
91810359|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.01|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.01|-1.11|
91810360|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.62|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.62|-0.57|
91919833|NCT05300087|183737301|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence would be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of geometric means for AUC(0-t) between the test and reference products were completely contained within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.022|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.051|||ANOVA|||||1.051|0.993|<0.0001
91919834|NCT05300087|183737302|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence would be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of geometric means for AUC(0-inf) between the test and reference products were completely contained within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.048|||ANOVA|||||1.048|0.994|<0.0001
91919835|NCT01444300|183737307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparing change in outcome between active and placebo||||0.51
91919836|NCT01444300|183737308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparing change in outcome between active and placebo after 12 weeks.||||0.7
91810361|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.15|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.15|-0.89|
91919837|NCT01444300|183737309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparing change in outcome between active and placebo||||0.8
91919838|NCT03248128|183737310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.083|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.129|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||0.129|0.037|<0.001
91919839|NCT03248128|183737311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.2||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||8.4|-2.0|0.228
91919840|NCT03248128|183737312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|10.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||10.9|1.4|0.011
91765322|NCT02714569|183419585|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.8|137.6||||||Part B 5 mg LY||137.6|59.8|
91765323|NCT02714569|183419585|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|131.5||||||Part B 20 mg LY||131.5|75.9|
91765324|NCT02714569|183419585|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.5|122.7||||||Part B 100 mg LY||122.7|67.5|
91765325|NCT02714569|183419585|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.0|180.5||||||Part B 300 mg LY||180.5|42.0|
91765326|NCT02714569|183419585|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|93.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.8|106.9||||||Part B Overall||106.9|81.8|
91765327|NCT00587678|183419596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.32
91765328|NCT00587678|183419596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||vs. baseline|Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.01
91765329|NCT00587678|183419597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.31
91765330|NCT00587678|183419597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||vs. baseline|Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.05
91765331|NCT00587678|183419598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.71
91765332|NCT00587678|183419599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.67
91919841|NCT03248128|183737313|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.073||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.118|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||0.118|0.028|0.002
91919842|NCT03248128|183737314|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||3.8|-4.5|0.870
91919843|NCT03248128|183737315|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||4.1|-4.2|0.988
91919844|NCT03248128|183737316|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.035||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.01|0.08|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.080|-0.010|0.124
91919845|NCT03248128|183737317|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.09|-0.10|0.910
91919846|NCT03248128|183737318|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||6.2|-3.6|0.614
91919847|NCT03248128|183737319|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||6.3|-3.6|0.594
91765333|NCT00587678|183419600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.37
91765334|NCT00587678|183419600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||vs. baseline|Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.05
91765335|NCT00587678|183419601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.78
91765336|NCT00587678|183419602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.68
91765337|NCT00587678|183419603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.05
91765338|NCT00587678|183419604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.67||95.0|||||linear repeated measures model|||||||=0.67
91765339|NCT00587678|183419605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.77
91765340|NCT00587678|183419606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.85
91765341|NCT00773513|183419630|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||Regression, Cox||The pre-specified upper non-inferiority limit was 95% CI \<1.20.|||1.15|0.93|0.0039
91919848|NCT03248128|183737320|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.028||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.073|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.073|-0.017|0.226
91919849|NCT03248128|183737321|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.09|-0.13|0.663
91919850|NCT00741819|183737340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.9|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test]||Change in 6MWD from Baseline was calculated for patients still remaining on study at Week 12.|Analysis of endpoints was descriptive in nature. Numeric endpoints for post-baseline assessments were compared to Baseline using Wilcoxon signed rank test, and p-values were calculated for descriptive purposes; no formal hypothesis testing was planned.||||<0.001
91919851|NCT00741819|183737341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Analysis based on Total CAMPHOR Score.|||||<0.001
91919852|NCT00741819|183737342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.3||0.895||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Side-Effects Score, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||0.895
91919853|NCT00741819|183737342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.9|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Convenience Score, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||<0.001
91919854|NCT00741819|183737342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.7|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Global Satisfaction, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||<0.001
91919855|NCT00741819|183737342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Effectiveness score, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||<0.001
91919856|NCT00741819|183737344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
91919857|NCT01126580|183737347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.08||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||The study was designed with 90% power to detect non-inferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 vs Metformin on HbA1c change from baseline at the 26-week primary endpoint with a margin of 0.4%, a standard deviation of 1.3%, and a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 assuming no true difference between treatments. This corresponds to 223 participants per arm, with an assumed drop-out rate of 11%.||-0.08|-0.36|<0.001
91919858|NCT01126580|183737347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.29|<0.001
91919859|NCT01126580|183737347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.08||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.08|-0.36|0.002
91919860|NCT01126580|183737347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.01|-0.29|0.020
91919861|NCT01126580|183737348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.35|<0.001
91919862|NCT01126580|183737348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.20|<0.001
91919863|NCT01126580|183737348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.02|-0.35|0.024
91919864|NCT01126580|183737348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||0.12|-0.20|0.299
91919865|NCT01126580|183737349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.023
91919866|NCT01126580|183737349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.021
91919867|NCT01126580|183737349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91919868|NCT01126580|183737349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.011
91919869|NCT01126580|183737349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
91919870|NCT01126580|183737349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.269
91919871|NCT01126580|183737349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91919872|NCT01126580|183737349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.134
91919873|NCT01126580|183737350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.079
91919874|NCT01126580|183737350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.451
91919875|NCT01126580|183737350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
91919876|NCT01126580|183737350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.402
91919877|NCT01126580|183737351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.061
91919878|NCT01126580|183737351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.647
91919879|NCT01126580|183737351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.022
91919880|NCT01126580|183737351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.469||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.469
91919881|NCT01126580|183737352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.811
91919882|NCT01126580|183737352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91919883|NCT01126580|183737352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.440
91919884|NCT01126580|183737352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91919885|NCT01126580|183737353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.750
91919886|NCT01126580|183737353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91919887|NCT01126580|183737353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.412
91919888|NCT01126580|183737353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91810362|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.5|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.50|-0.98|
91919889|NCT01126580|183737354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91919890|NCT01126580|183737354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91919891|NCT01126580|183737354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91919892|NCT01126580|183737354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91919893|NCT01126580|183737354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91919894|NCT01126580|183737354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
91919895|NCT01126580|183737354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
91919896|NCT01126580|183737354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91919897|NCT03040154|183737400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|5.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.35|1.33|0.006
91919898|NCT02382133|183737402|SUPERIORITY|comparing nasal and forehead oximetry sensor pressure ulcer incidence|||||=|0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.006
91919899|NCT01245647|183737435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91919900|NCT01245647|183737436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91919901|NCT01245647|183737437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.46
91919902|NCT01245647|183737438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||no significant difference by Fisher exact test|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91919903|NCT01245647|183737439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91919904|NCT04321343|183737453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.587||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1036|-6.5227|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-6.5227|-44.1036|0.0083
91919905|NCT04321343|183737453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.287||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2074|-2.7991|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-2.7991|-39.2074|0.0237
91919906|NCT04321343|183737453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.053||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4923|-6.0035|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-6.0035|-41.4923|0.0087
91919907|NCT04321343|183737454|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann midpoint estimate|-26.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.252||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3208|-6.1313|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric pairwaise Wilcoxon tests using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.||||-6.1313|-46.3208|0.0105
91919908|NCT04321343|183737454|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann midpoint estimate|-21.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.873||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8475|-2.1451|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric pairwaise Wilcoxon tests using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.||||-2.1451|-40.8475|0.0295
91919909|NCT04321343|183737454|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann midpoint estimate|-24.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.746||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.392|-5.1884|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric pairwaise Wilcoxon tests using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.||||-5.1884|-43.3920|0.0127
91919910|NCT04321343|183737455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.824||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2463|-1.0957|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-1.0957|-8.2463|0.0105
91919911|NCT04321343|183737455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.514|-0.6799|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-0.6799|-7.5140|0.0188
91919912|NCT04321343|183737455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.689||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6307|-1.0104|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-1.0104|-7.6307|0.0105
91919913|NCT04321343|183737456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|10.087|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH with multiple imputation||||10.087|0.677|0.1634
91919914|NCT04321343|183737456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|11.831|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH with multiple imputation||||11.831|0.899|0.0722
91919915|NCT04321343|183737456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|11.052|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH with multiple imputation||||11.052|0.909|0.0703
91919916|NCT04321343|183737457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.66|9.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||9.72|-22.66|0.4318
91919917|NCT04321343|183737457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||14.10|-17.37|0.8382
91919918|NCT04321343|183737457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.4982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|20.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||20.33|-9.92|0.4982
91919919|NCT04321343|183737458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|3.935|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.935|0.131|0.7137
91919920|NCT04321343|183737458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|14.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.580|0.937|0.0597
91919921|NCT04321343|183737458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|10.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.430|0.655|0.1749
91919922|NCT04321343|183737459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|14.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||14.43|-20.15|0.7449
91919923|NCT04321343|183737459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.7255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.93|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||13.90|-19.93|0.7255
91919924|NCT04321343|183737459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|18.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||18.59|-13.89|0.7755
91919925|NCT04321343|183737460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|13.806|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.806|0.703|0.1325
91919926|NCT04321343|183737460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|4.898|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.898|0.201|0.9918
91919927|NCT04321343|183737460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|21.714|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.714|1.053|0.0410
91919928|NCT04321343|183737461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.25|12.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||12.36|-28.25|0.4413
91919929|NCT04321343|183737461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.63|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.50|-37.63|0.0859
91919930|NCT04321343|183737461|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.31|16.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||16.97|-22.31|0.7887
91919931|NCT04321343|183737462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.47|-13.19|0.1166
91919932|NCT04321343|183737462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.26|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-3.80|-18.26|0.0030
91919933|NCT04321343|183737462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|-1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-1.87|-15.79|0.0131
91919934|NCT04321343|183737463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9701|1.9436|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||1.9436|-3.9701|0.4963
91919935|NCT04321343|183737463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.402||0.6131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5109|2.0866|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||2.0866|-3.5109|0.6131
91919936|NCT04321343|183737463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1593|1.2779|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||1.2779|-4.1593|0.2939
91919937|NCT04321343|183737464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4845|0.3589|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.3589|-0.4845|0.7672
91919938|NCT04321343|183737464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5216|0.2678|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.2678|-0.5216|0.5233
91919939|NCT04321343|183737464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6376|0.0805|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.0805|-0.6376|0.1263
91919940|NCT04321343|183737465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.8662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3559|0.3002|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.3002|-0.3559|0.8662
91810363|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.14|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||2.14|-0.42|
91810364|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.54|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.54|-0.90|
91810365|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||1.30|-1.20|
91810366|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.03|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||2.03|-0.53|
91919941|NCT04321343|183737465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4253|0.2369|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.2369|-0.4253|0.5726
91919942|NCT04321343|183737465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4907|0.1192|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.1192|-0.4907|0.2289
91919943|NCT04321343|183737466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.8595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5509|0.4607|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.4607|-0.5509|0.8595
91919944|NCT04321343|183737466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7194|0.2759|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.2759|-0.7194|0.3776
91810367|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.23|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||1.23|-1.23|
91919945|NCT04321343|183737466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9426|0.017|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.0170|-0.9426|0.0424
91919946|NCT04321343|183737467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.1084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|14.152|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.152|0.775|0.1084
91919947|NCT04321343|183737467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|17.594|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.594|0.959|0.0562
91919948|NCT04321343|183737467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|6.948|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.948|0.501|0.3333
91919949|NCT04321343|183737468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|4.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.230|0.345|0.7677
91810368|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.23|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.23|-0.78|
91810369|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.89|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.89|-0.21|
91810370|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.48|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.48|-0.50|
91919950|NCT04321343|183737468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|6.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.012|0.434|0.4828
91919951|NCT04321343|183737468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.2711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|6.486|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.486|0.598|0.2711
91919952|NCT04321343|183737469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|5.547|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.547|0.376|0.5981
91919953|NCT04321343|183737469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|5.572|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.572|0.363|0.6228
91919954|NCT04321343|183737469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|3.323|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.323|0.245|0.8799
91919955|NCT04321343|183737470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|17.208|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.208|0.625|0.1474
91919956|NCT04321343|183737470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|14.631|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.631|0.481|0.2620
91919957|NCT04321343|183737470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|4.133|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.133|0.117|0.6935
91919958|NCT04321343|183737471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.215|-0.350|0.6384
91919959|NCT04321343|183737471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.006|-0.547|0.0549
91919960|NCT04321343|183737471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|-0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.142|-0.683|0.0030
91919961|NCT04321343|183737472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.8961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8165|0.7149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.7149|-0.8165|0.8961
91919962|NCT04321343|183737472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5935|0.9204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.9204|-0.5935|0.6710
91919963|NCT04321343|183737472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7092|0.7233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.7233|-0.7092|0.9846
91919964|NCT04321343|183737473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.75||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.306|-12.558|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-12.558|-157.306|0.0216
91919965|NCT04321343|183737473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.72||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.957|23.738|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||23.738|-116.957|0.1931
91919966|NCT04321343|183737473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.31||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.002|2.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.194|-129.002|0.0581
91919967|NCT04321343|183737474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5577|0.0456|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0456|-0.5577|0.0958
91919968|NCT04321343|183737474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5648|0.0181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0181|-0.5648|0.0659
91919969|NCT04321343|183737474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5728|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.0300|-0.5728|0.0297
91919970|NCT04321343|183737475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.2606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5423|0.1476|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.1476|-0.5423|0.2606
91919971|NCT04321343|183737475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.1016|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.1016|-0.5690|0.1709
91919972|NCT04321343|183737475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6274|-0.0148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.0148|-0.6274|0.0400
91919973|NCT04321343|183737476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0139|0.0351|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0351|-0.0139|0.3955
91919974|NCT04321343|183737476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0115|0.0362|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0362|-0.0115|0.3081
91919975|NCT04321343|183737476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.1374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0053|0.0383|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0383|-0.0053|0.1374
91919976|NCT04321343|183737477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.86||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.073|-7.817|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-7.817|-90.073|0.0199
91919977|NCT04321343|183737477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.66||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.558|7.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||7.009|-66.558|0.1120
91765342|NCT00773513|183419631|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.94|0.0166
91919978|NCT04321343|183737477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.935|-19.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-19.340|-89.935|0.0026
91919979|NCT04321343|183737478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|3.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||3.4470|-0.0980|0.0639
91919980|NCT04321343|183737478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.867||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1149|4.5464|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||4.5464|1.1149|0.0014
91919981|NCT04321343|183737478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1982|6.5543|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||6.5543|3.1982|<0.0001
91919982|NCT04321343|183737479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|2.9748|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.9748|-0.6080|0.1944
91919983|NCT04321343|183737479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7268|4.1907|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||4.1907|0.7268|0.0056
91919984|NCT04321343|183737479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858||0.4288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0111|2.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.3720|-1.0111|0.4288
91765343|NCT00773513|183419632|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.76|0.0219
91919985|NCT04321343|183737480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.2564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4307|0.9295|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.9295|-3.4307|0.2564
91919986|NCT04321343|183737480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6348|0.4392|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.4392|-3.6348|0.1222
91919987|NCT04321343|183737480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.088|-0.351|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||-0.3510|-4.0880|0.0206
91919988|NCT04321343|183737481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|5.201|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.201|0.436|0.5221
91919989|NCT04321343|183737481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|6.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.012|0.434|0.4828
91919990|NCT04321343|183737481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|9.636|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.636|0.853|0.0914
91919991|NCT04321343|183737482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|11.679|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.679|0.628|0.1854
91919992|NCT04321343|183737482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|17.594|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.594|0.959|0.0562
91919993|NCT04321343|183737482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|5.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.880|0.398|0.5223
91919994|NCT04321343|183737483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4749|2.0356|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.0356|-1.4749|0.7532
91919995|NCT04321343|183737483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2946|3.6763|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||3.6763|0.2946|0.0216
91919996|NCT04321343|183737483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.838||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4283|1.8771|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.8771|-1.4283|0.7893
91919997|NCT03430310|183737484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91765344|NCT00773513|183419633|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.70|0.0459
91920001|NCT02770807|183737493|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.37||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.932|0.19|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Least squares means, and p-values are derived from a mixed model repeated measures analysis with baseline modified ICARS value as covariate and the fixed effects of treatment, age, sex, region and visit and the interaction term treatment-by-visit.||0.190|-2.932|0.0847
91920002|NCT02770807|183737493|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.957|0.152|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Least squares means, and p-values are derived from a mixed model repeated measures analysis with baseline modified ICARS value as covariate and the fixed effects of treatment, age, sex, region and visit and the interaction term treatment-by-visit.||0.152|-2.957|0.0765
91920003|NCT02770807|183737494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.946||||0.8919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|2.099|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression modeling (0/1), where 0 = No change or worsening and 1= improvement, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region as fixed effects.||2.099|0.426|0.8919
91920004|NCT02770807|183737494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.848||||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|4.053|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression modeling (0/1), where 0 = No change or worsening and 1= improvement, with age (at 2 levels:~\<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region as fixed effects."||4.053|0.842|0.1255
91920005|NCT02770807|183737495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|3.144|||Ordinal Logistic Regression Analysis|||Odds ratio, confidence limits, and p-value derived using a proportional odds ordinal logistic regression analysis, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region, visit, baseline CGI-S score, and treatment-by- visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.144|0.597|0.4583
91920006|NCT02770807|183737495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.371||||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|3.16|||Ordinal Logistic Regression Analysis|||Odds ratio, confidence limits, and p-value derived using a proportional odds ordinal logistic regression analysis, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region, visit, baseline CGI-S score, and treatment-by- visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.160|0.595|0.4585
91920007|NCT02770807|183737496|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-13.33||||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.261|55.601|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means difference, associated statistics, and p-values derived using ANCOVA, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, \>=10 years), sex, treatment, region, and baseline VABS score as fixed effects.||55.601|-82.261|0.7029
91920008|NCT02770807|183737496|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-77.31||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.201|-6.421|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means difference, associated statistics, and p-values derived using ANCOVA, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, \>=10 years), sex, treatment, region, and baseline VABS score as fixed effects.||-6.421|-148.201|0.0328
91920009|NCT01167712|183737499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.06||||||Estimated hazard of first progression or death for weekly paclitaxel treatment relative to standard 3 week paclitaxel.||1.06|.74|
91920010|NCT01167712|183737500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.23||||||||1.23|.72|
91920011|NCT04364854|183737568|OTHER|This study was not designed to perform a hypothesis test. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.87|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM, and age.|||1.87|-2.31|
91920012|NCT04364854|183737568|OTHER|This study was not designed to perform a hypothesis test. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|3.15|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM, and age.|||3.15|-2.94|
91765345|NCT00773513|183419634|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.74|0.0048
91920013|NCT04364854|183737568|OTHER|This study was not designed to perform a hypothesis test. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.33|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM, and age.|||1.33|-2.9|
91920014|NCT04364854|183737569|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.13|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline SAQOL-39, and age.|||0.13|-0.26|
91920015|NCT04364854|183737569|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline SAQOL-39, and age.|||0.28|-0.21|
91920016|NCT04364854|183737569|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.04|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline SAQOL-39, and age.|||-0.04|-0.42|
91920017|NCT04364854|183737570|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|2.9|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Narrative, and age.|||2.9|-2.59|
91920018|NCT04364854|183737570|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.8|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM-Narrative, and age.|||3.8|-2.23|
91920019|NCT04364854|183737570|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.82|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Narrative, and age.|||2.82|-2.32|
91920020|NCT04364854|183737571|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|3.45|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Procedural, and age.|||3.45|-3.59|
91920021|NCT04364854|183737571|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|4.8|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Procedural, and age.|||4.8|-4.27|
91920022|NCT04364854|183737571|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|1.56|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Procedural, and age.|||1.56|-5.77|
91920023|NCT01232946|183737607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
91765346|NCT04739436|183419656|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.79||Multiple comparisons were not conducted, so no adjustment of the p-value was necessary.|Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fit with outcome change in APHAB score between 3 months and baseline, predictor hearing aid fitting group (reference=bilateral), and covariate clinical site.||8.79|1.80|0.003
91765347|NCT04739436|183419657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: In this situation, what proportion of the time do you wear your hearing aid?||||0.584
91765348|NCT04739436|183419657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: In this situation, how much does your hearing aid help you?||||0.233
91920024|NCT01232946|183737608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.065
91920025|NCT01232946|183737609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.80
91920026|NCT01614457|183737611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.1114||||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1305|5.3532|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Analysis was based on mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, with treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of age and percent predicted FEV1, using compound symmetry covariance matrix.||5.3532|-1.1305|0.1979
91920027|NCT01614457|183737612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.2626||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5698|2.095||p-value for the treatment effect is from the slope of BMI (kg/m2) versus time (days).|Linear Mixed model|||Analysis was based on linear mixed model with dependent variable BMI and treatment as a fixed effect, adjustment for baseline percent predicted FEV1, age and visit by treatment interaction was included as covariates and intercept, visit were included as random effects.||2.0950|-1.5698|0.7780
91920028|NCT01614457|183737613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-23.9693|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0094|-19.9293|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Analysis was based on MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, with treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of age and percent predicted FEV1, and sweat chloride, using a compound symmetry covariance matrix.||-19.9293|-28.0094|<0.0001
91920029|NCT01614457|183737614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.3874||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1658|14.609|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Analysis was based on MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, with treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of age and percent predicted FEV1, and CFQ-R respiratory domain score, using compound symmetry covariance matrix.||14.6090|2.1658|0.0091
91920030|NCT01614457|183737615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.8556|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||||||0.8556
91920031|NCT00914628|183737638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8974|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8974
91920032|NCT00914628|183737638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Intention-To-Treat population- from baseline to day 21||||0.7612
91920033|NCT00914628|183737638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5995|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5995
91920034|NCT00914628|183737638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Intention-To-Treat population - day 21 after transplant||||0.4078
91920035|NCT00914628|183737638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3351|||||||Log Rank|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set||||0.3351
91920036|NCT00914628|183737638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1233|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set||||0.1233
91920037|NCT00914628|183737638|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.5995|||||||Log Rank|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set DFS-day 21 after transplant||||0.5995
91920038|NCT00914628|183737638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set DFS-day 21 after transplant||||0.4078
91765349|NCT04739436|183419657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: In this situation, with your hearing aid, how much difficulty do you now have?||||0.010
91920039|NCT00914628|183737639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||Log Rank|Statistical analysis was performed on Intention-To-Treat population.||||||0.7660
91920040|NCT00914628|183737639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6706|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis has been performed for Intention-To-Treat population.||||0.6706
91920041|NCT00914628|183737639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7332|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been performed for Per-Protocol Set)||||0.7332
91920042|NCT00914628|183737639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis has been performed for Per-Protocol Set)||||0.6439
91920043|NCT00914628|183737640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1735|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical analysis refers to Immune reconstitution and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for intention-To-Treat population||||0.1735
91920044|NCT00914628|183737640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5958|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical analysis refers to deaths without previous immune reconstitution, relapse or progression and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for intention-To-Treat population||||0.5958
91920045|NCT00914628|183737640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2889|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to patients with relapse or progression without previous immune reconstitution and was performed Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.2889
91920046|NCT00914628|183737640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical analysis refers to Immune reconstitution and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for Per-Protocol Set.||||0.1642
91920047|NCT00914628|183737640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8739|||||||Log Rank|||This Statistical analysis refers to deaths without previous immune reconstitution, relapse or progression and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for intention-To-Treat population||||0.8739
91920048|NCT00914628|183737640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2304|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to patients with relapse or progression without previous immune reconstitution and was performed Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.2304
91920049|NCT00914628|183737645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3526|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to ITT Patients with relapse or progression and was performed with Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.3526
91920050|NCT00914628|183737645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4035|||||||Chi-squared|||this Gray's Statistical Analysis refers to ITT Deaths patients without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.4035
91920051|NCT00914628|183737645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2607|||||||Chi-squared|||this Gray's Statistical Analysis refers to PPS patients with relapse or progression and was performed with Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.2607
91920052|NCT00914628|183737645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5929|||||||Chi-squared|||this Gray's Statistical Analysis refers to PPS Deaths patients without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Function||||0.5929
91920053|NCT00914628|183737649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4035|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to ITT Deaths without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.4035
91920054|NCT00914628|183737649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3526|||||||Chi-squared|||This statistical test refers to Patients with relapse or progression and was performed to Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions.||||0.3526
91920055|NCT00914628|183737649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5929|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to PPS Deaths without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.5929
91920056|NCT00914628|183737649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2607|||||||Chi-squared|||This statistical test refers to Patients with relapse or progression and was performed to Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions.||||0.2607
91920057|NCT01416181|183737653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on ≥ 1 of EDSS, T25FW, or 9HPT at 2 years||1.13|0.66|0.2866
91920058|NCT01416181|183737653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on EDSS||1.53|0.74|0.7530
91920059|NCT01416181|183737653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on T25FW||1.30|0.74|0.9137
91920060|NCT01416181|183737653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).||Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (either hand)||0.80|0.40|0.0012
91920061|NCT01416181|183737653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).||Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (dominant hand)||1.09|0.48|0.1251
91920062|NCT01416181|183737653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).||Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (non-dominant hand)||0.87|0.39|0.0091
91920063|NCT01416181|183737655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.4369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and T25FW.|active/placebo|||1.70|0.80|0.4369
91920064|NCT01416181|183737656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5409|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between the active and placebo groups at Week 96 is based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and BL MSWS-12.||||||0.5409
91920065|NCT01416181|183737657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2586|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo groups at Week 96 is based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and BL ABILHAND.||||||0.2586
91920066|NCT01416181|183737658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1529|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Wk 96 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL MSIS-29 physical score.||||||0.1529
91920067|NCT01416181|183737659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2424||||||natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment|ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo groups at Week 96 is based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and BL brain volume.||Only participants with BL brain volume are included in the p-value calculation.||||0.2424
91920068|NCT01416181|183737660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6).||||1.05|0.58|0.1052
91920069|NCT01416181|183737661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on ≥ 1 of EDSS, T25FW, or 9HPT at 156 weeks||0.94|0.47|0.0205
91920070|NCT01416181|183737661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on EDSS at 156 weeks||1.10|0.48|0.1305
91920071|NCT01416181|183737661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on T25FW at 156 weeks||1.12|0.57|0.1988
91920072|NCT01416181|183737661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.88|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (either hand) at 156 weeks||0.88|0.39|0.0093
91920073|NCT01416181|183737661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors onm 9HPT (dominant hand) at 156 weeks||1.01|0.39|0.0540
91920074|NCT01416181|183737661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (non-dominant hand) at 156 weeks||1.12|0.44|0.1410
91920075|NCT01416181|183737662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||Week 156||||0.0273
91920076|NCT01416181|183737662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1974|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||CP Group: Week 156||||0.1974
91920077|NCT01416181|183737662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2506|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2506
91920078|NCT01416181|183737663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||Overall: Week 156||||0.0960
91920079|NCT01416181|183737663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4957|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||CP Group: Week 156||||0.4957
91920080|NCT01416181|183737663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2916|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2916
91920081|NCT01416181|183737664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1119|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||Overall, Week 156||||0.1119
91920082|NCT01416181|183737664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1129|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.1129
91920083|NCT01416181|183737664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2351|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2351
91920084|NCT01416181|183737665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0261|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||Overall: Week 156||||0.0261
91920085|NCT01416181|183737665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0585|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.0585
91920086|NCT01416181|183737665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6095|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.6095
91920087|NCT01416181|183737666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||Overall: Week 156||||0.7230
91920088|NCT01416181|183737666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8781|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.8781
91920089|NCT01416181|183737666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2751|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2751
91920090|NCT01416181|183737667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5051|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||Overall: Week 156||||0.5051
91920091|NCT01416181|183737667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7283|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.7283
91920092|NCT01416181|183737667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1666|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.1666
91920093|NCT01416181|183737668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||Overall: Week 156||||0.4330
91920094|NCT01416181|183737668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7122|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.7122
91920095|NCT01416181|183737668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3861|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.3861
91765350|NCT04739436|183419657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: For this situation, how satisfied are you with your hearing aid?||||0.129
91920096|NCT01416181|183737669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7225|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||Overall: Week 156||||0.7225
91920097|NCT01416181|183737669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9121|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.9121
91920098|NCT01416181|183737669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2594|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2594
91920099|NCT01416181|183737670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8066|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 6MWT.||Week 156||||0.8066
91920100|NCT01416181|183737672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7084|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL MSIS-29 physical score.||||||0.7084
91920101|NCT01416181|183737674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3465|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL SDMT.||Week 156||||0.3465
91920102|NCT01416181|183737678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment|ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL normalized brain volume.||Percentage change from Week 24 to Week 156||||0.0070
91920103|NCT01416181|183737679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5034||||||natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment|ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL WGM brain volume||Percentage hange from Baseline to Week 156||||0.5034
91920104|NCT01416181|183737680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for comparison between the active and placebo groups at Week 156 compared to Week 108 is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and baseline volume of T2 lesions.|negative binomial regression model|natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment||Week 156||||< 0.0001
91920105|NCT01756157|183737682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.61||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.01|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.23|0.0523
91920106|NCT02799381|183737692|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-15.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.47|-8.63||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|||-8.63|-21.47|<0.0001
91810371|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.09|-0.47|
91765351|NCT04739436|183419658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change from baseline to 3 months in the co-located BKB SIN test scores between the groups.||||0.946
91765352|NCT04739436|183419659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypotheses are there are no differences in the change from baseline to 3 months in WARRM recognition scores between the groups.||||0.490
91920107|NCT02799381|183737693|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.83||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||4.83|1.71|<0.0001
91920108|NCT02799381|183737694|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-16.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.48|-8.85||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-8.85|-24.48|<0.0001
91920109|NCT02799381|183737695|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-2.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.44||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-1.44|-2.78|<0.0001
91920110|NCT02799381|183737696|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-5.54|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-2.49||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-2.49|-8.59|=0.0006
91920111|NCT02799381|183737697|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-2.35|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-1.19||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-1.19|-3.51|=0.0002
91920112|NCT02799381|183737698|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-4.05|||=|0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|0.44||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||0.44|-8.55|=0.0762
91920113|NCT02698410|183737703|OTHER|||||||0.2968||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 30%.|Binomial proportion test|||Comparison of DCR to 30% clinically relevant threshold.||||0.2968
91920114|NCT02698410|183737703|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 10%.|Binomial proportion test|||Comparison of DCR to 10% clinically relevant threshold.||||<0.0001
91920115|NCT02698410|183737703|OTHER|||||||0.0534||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 30%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-1: Comparison of DCR to 30% clinically relevant threshold.||||0.0534
91920116|NCT02698410|183737703|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 10%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-1: Comparison of DCR to 10% clinically relevant threshold.||||<0.0001
91920117|NCT02698410|183737703|OTHER|||||||0.032||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 30%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-2: Comparison of DCR to 30% clinically relevant threshold.||||0.032
91920118|NCT02698410|183737703|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 10%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-2: Comparison of DCR to 10% clinically relevant threshold.||||<0.0001
91920119|NCT03952130|183737719|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.11|
91920120|NCT03952130|183737720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||||-6.1|-29.4|0.003
91920121|NCT03952130|183737721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-10.0|||ANCOVA|||||-10.0|-41.1|0.001
91920122|NCT03952130|183737722|OTHER||Relative rate|0.85||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.77|||Empirical method|||||3.77|0.19|0.834
91920123|NCT03952130|183737723|OTHER||Relative rate|1.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.38|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=30 minutes post meal||1.38|0.72|0.983
91920124|NCT03952130|183737723|OTHER||Relative rate|1.61||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.74|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=1 hour post meal||2.74|0.95|0.076
91920125|NCT03952130|183737723|OTHER||Relative rate|1.19||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.79|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=2 hours post meal||1.79|0.79|0.409
91920126|NCT03952130|183737723|OTHER||Relative rate|1.22||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.68|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=4 hours post meal||1.68|0.89|0.217
91920127|NCT03952130|183737723|OTHER||Relative rate|1.09||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.65|||Negative binomial regression|||\>1 to \<=2 hours post meal||1.65|0.71|0.703
91920128|NCT03952130|183737723|OTHER||Relative rate|1.24||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.73|||Negative binomial regression|||\>2 to \<=4 hours post meal||1.73|0.89|0.206
91920129|NCT03952130|183737723|OTHER||Relative rate|0.75||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||\>4 hours post meal||1.04|0.55|0.082
91920130|NCT03952130|183737724|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.86|0.309
91765353|NCT04739436|183419659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypotheses are there are no differences in the change from baseline to 3 months in WARRM recall scores between the groups.||||0.323
91765354|NCT04739436|183419660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the SADL scores between the groups at 3 months.||||0.933
91765355|NCT04739436|183419660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the SADL scores between the groups at 6 months.||||0.929
91765356|NCT04739436|183419662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change from baseline to 3 months in SSQ scores between the groups.||||0.015
91765357|NCT04739436|183419662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change from baseline to 6 months in SSQ scores between the groups.||||0.886
91765358|NCT04739436|183419663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the number of hours of hearing aid use between the groups in the right ear.||||0.137
91765359|NCT04739436|183419663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the number of hours of hearing aid use between the groups in the left ear.||||0.612
91765360|NCT04739436|183419665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the IOI-HA total score between the groups at 3 months.||||0.108
91920131|NCT03952130|183737725|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning premeal-fasting||-7.7|-23.8|<.001
91920132|NCT03952130|183737725|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 1-hour post meal||-4.2|-23.8|0.005
91920133|NCT03952130|183737725|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour post meal||-4.8|-25.0|0.004
91920134|NCT03952130|183737725|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday premeal||6.8|-11.4|0.616
91920135|NCT03952130|183737725|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 1-hour post meal||0.1|-18.4|0.054
91920136|NCT03952130|183737725|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour post meal||6.0|-12.6|0.483
91920137|NCT03952130|183737725|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.5||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening premeal||21.7|-0.6|0.064
91920138|NCT03952130|183737725|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 1-hour post meal||4.2|-15.5|0.262
91920139|NCT03952130|183737725|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.8||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour post meal||2.0|-17.5|0.117
91920140|NCT03952130|183737725|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime||6.2|-15.1|0.414
91920141|NCT03952130|183737726|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Basal insulin dose||0.6|-0.7|0.947
91920142|NCT03952130|183737726|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bolus insulin dose||2.6|-1.3|0.500
91920143|NCT03952130|183737726|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total insulin dose||2.7|-1.4|0.543
91920144|NCT03952130|183737727|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c \< 7%||1.42|0.47|0.462
91920145|NCT03952130|183737727|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c ≤6.5%||1.10|0.26|0.089
91920146|NCT01713348|183737728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.19|-1.29|0.9345
91920147|NCT01713348|183737728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in time in range (70-180 mg/dL, 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L) intervention arm compared to control arm.||2.73|0.05|0.0427
91920148|NCT01713348|183737729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18||0.8367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.16|||ANCOVA|Performed for each type of Diabetes and adjusted for baseline Time in Range.||||2.16|-2.65|0.8367
91920149|NCT01713348|183737729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.4|||ANCOVA|Performed for each type of Diabetes and adjusted for baseline Time in Range.||||2.40|-1.86|0.7969
91920150|NCT01713348|183737730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.02|-0.51|0.0352
91920151|NCT01713348|183737730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-0.54|0.0506
91920152|NCT01713348|183737731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-6.4|0.0580
91920153|NCT01713348|183737731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.9|-13.6|0.0002
91920154|NCT01713348|183737732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-0.59|0.0580
91920155|NCT01713348|183737732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.45|-1.24|0.0002
91920156|NCT04425850|183737745|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-squared test on the percentage of subjects who contracted COVID-19 in each arm||||< 0.0001
91920157|NCT03199911|183737747|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
91920158|NCT03199911|183737749|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.03|||Fisher Exact|||||4.03|0.42|0.77
91920159|NCT03199911|183737750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|14.77|||Fisher Exact|||||14.77|0.06|1.00
91765361|NCT04739436|183419665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the IOI-HA total score between the groups at 6 months.||||0.988
91765362|NCT04739436|183419668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change in APHAB score from baseline to 6 months between the groups.||||0.264
91765363|NCT05919888|183419669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.275
91765364|NCT05919888|183419670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0056
91765365|NCT05919888|183419671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.286
91810372|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.04|-0.49|
91920160|NCT00486902|183737751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Sample size was determined assuming an incidence of breakthrough pain of 75% and an absolute difference between groups of -20 to +15%. This rate of request for analgesia in the first 24 h was based on data from a parallel study utilizing the same multimodal postoperative pain regimen for cesarean delivery. Group sample sizes of 90 achieve 80% power to detect this difference using the two-sided Z test with pooled variance. The significance level of the test was targeted at 0.05.||||0.86
91920161|NCT00486902|183737752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91920162|NCT00486902|183737753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91920163|NCT00486902|183737754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.87
91920164|NCT00486902|183737755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
91920165|NCT00486902|183737756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91920166|NCT00486902|183737757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91920167|NCT00486902|183737758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.09|-1.1|0.02
91920168|NCT04331899|183737764|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.19||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.19|0.56|0.29
91920169|NCT04331899|183737765|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.06||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.11||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear||Log change at Day 14. Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.11|-1.23|0.91
91920170|NCT04331899|183737766|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear||Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.16|0.85|0.95
91920171|NCT04331899|183737767|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.41||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.41|0.60|0.76
91920172|NCT00101361|183737769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|the required sample size of 400 participants provided 85% power to detect an increase in healing from 25% in the placebo group to 40% in the oxandrolone group, as assuming a 0.05 (2-sided) type I error, 13% rate of loss to follow up, and a test of proportions by using an arcsine transformation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For spinal cord injury patients with a Stage III or IV pressure ulcer of the pelvic region who receive 24 weeks or less of optimized clinical care (i.e., guideline-driven care with nutritional support) compared with optimized clinical care and an oral anabolic steroid agent (oxandrolone) there will be no difference in the percent of healed pressure ulcers.||6.8|-17.5|<0.05
91920173|NCT01062399|183737770|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A dose level for RAD001 will be considered acceptable if no patient of the first 3patients or no more than 2 patients of the first 6 patients experience a DLT. If the current level is considered acceptable, then dose escalation will occur and the protocol will be reopened. Otherwise, the preceding acceptable dose level will be declared the MTD.|||
91920174|NCT01062399|183737771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.6|||Log Rank||Reference arm = RT + TMZ|Assuming exponential distribution with median PFS (mPFS) time for control of 6.7 mos. for the control arm, tt was hypothesized that there would be a 43% improvement in mPFS time, corresponding to a mPFS time of 9.6. This is equivalent to a hazard ratio of 0.7 for the experimental arm vs. control arm. With a 1-sided significance level = 0.15 and 85% power, a total of 134 PFS events out of 180 eligible patients were required to detect the projected effect size.||1.60|0.82|0.79
91920175|NCT01062399|183737772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.45|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = RT + TMZ|||2.45|1.14|0.008
91920176|NCT02424539|183737775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.78|||ANCOVA||Least square (LS) mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.78|-1.68|<0.001
91920177|NCT02424539|183737775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.87|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.87|-1.77|<0.001
91920178|NCT02424539|183737776|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.39|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 55 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.39|0.14|<0.001
91920179|NCT02424539|183737776|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.33|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 110 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.33|0.12|<0.001
91920180|NCT02424539|183737777|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.46|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.46|-2.84|<0.001
91920181|NCT02424539|183737777|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.29|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.29|-2.66|<0.001
91920182|NCT02424539|183737778|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.18|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||0.18|-0.38|0.503
91920183|NCT02424539|183737778|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.03|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||0.03|-0.53|0.078
91920184|NCT02424539|183737779|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.02|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||1.02|0.01|0.048
91920185|NCT02424539|183737779|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.17|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||1.17|0.16|0.011
91920186|NCT02424539|183737780|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.90|-1.83|<0.001
91920187|NCT02424539|183737780|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.99|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.99|-1.92|<0.001
91920188|NCT02424539|183737781|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.34|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 55 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.34|0.12|<0.001
91920189|NCT02424539|183737781|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.29|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 110 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.29|0.10|<0.001
91810373|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.07|-0.46|
91810374|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.27|-0.47|
91920190|NCT02424539|183737782|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-1.73|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.73|-3.23|<0.001
91920191|NCT02424539|183737782|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.52|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.52|-3.03|<0.001
91920192|NCT02424539|183737783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||0.17|-0.38|0.442
91920193|NCT02424539|183737783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.02|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.02|-0.57|0.035
91920194|NCT02424539|183737784|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.16|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||3.16|0.60|0.004
91920195|NCT02424539|183737784|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.95|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||3.95|1.38|<0.001
91920196|NCT04178590|183737794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.429
91920197|NCT04178590|183737795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920198|NCT04178590|183737796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920199|NCT04178590|183737797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920200|NCT04178590|183737798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
91920201|NCT04178590|183737799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
91920202|NCT04178590|183737800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.249
91920203|NCT04178590|183737801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.871
91920204|NCT04178590|183737802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.773
91920205|NCT04178590|183737803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920206|NCT04178590|183737804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.05||||||0.000
91920207|NCT04178590|183737805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920208|NCT04178590|183737806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.063
91920209|NCT04178590|183737807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920210|NCT04178590|183737808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920211|NCT04178590|183737809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920212|NCT04178590|183737810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
91920213|NCT04178590|183737811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920214|NCT04178590|183737812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920215|NCT04178590|183737813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.895
91920216|NCT04178590|183737814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.999
91920217|NCT04178590|183737815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.000
91920218|NCT04178590|183737816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.008
91920219|NCT04178590|183737817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.500
91920220|NCT04178590|183737818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.999
91920221|NCT04178590|183737819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.000
91920222|NCT04178590|183737820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.40
91920223|NCT04178590|183737821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||||||0.999
91920224|NCT04178590|183737822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.999
91920225|NCT04178590|183737823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.001
91920226|NCT04178590|183737824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.453
91920227|NCT04178590|183737825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.625
91920228|NCT04178590|183737826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||||||0.999
91920229|NCT04178590|183737827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.000
91920230|NCT04178590|183737828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.001
91920231|NCT04178590|183737829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.065
91920232|NCT04178590|183737830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.821
91920233|NCT04178590|183737831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920234|NCT04178590|183737832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91920235|NCT04178590|183737833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920236|NCT04178590|183737834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920237|NCT04178590|183737835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920238|NCT04178590|183737836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920239|NCT04178590|183737837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920240|NCT04178590|183737838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.671
91920241|NCT04178590|183737839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920242|NCT04178590|183737840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920243|NCT04178590|183737841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920244|NCT04178590|183737842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.753
91920245|NCT04178590|183737843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920246|NCT04178590|183737844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920247|NCT04178590|183737845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91920248|NCT02513940|183737865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91920249|NCT02513940|183737866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||"Pairwise comparisons:~Testosterone vs placebo: p=0.008 Progesterone vs placebo: p=0.73 Testosterone vs progesterone: p=0.0008"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91920250|NCT02513940|183737867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.60
91920251|NCT02513940|183737868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||"Pairwise comparisons:~Testosterone vs placebo: p = 0.0001 Progesterone vs placebo: p = 0.25 Testosterone vs progesterone: p = 0.002"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.0003
91920252|NCT02513940|183737869|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue||||>0.99
91920253|NCT02513940|183737869|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Rash at gel application site||||>0.99
91920254|NCT00733902|183737870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.32|0.015
91920255|NCT00733902|183737870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.43|0.005
91920256|NCT00733902|183737870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-1.78|<0.001
91920257|NCT00733902|183737871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-1.32|0.009
91920258|NCT00733902|183737871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.54|<0.001
91920259|NCT00733902|183737871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.68|-1.80|<0.001
91920260|NCT00733902|183737872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.52|0.001
91920261|NCT00733902|183737872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.56|<0.001
91920262|NCT00733902|183737872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.31|-0.70|<0.001
91920263|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.27|-0.80|0.326
91920264|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.83|-0.24|0.275
91920265|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.56|-0.51|0.918
91920266|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.47|<0.001
91920267|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.22|0.013
91920268|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.57|<0.001
91920269|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.36|0.003
91920270|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.29|0.006
91920271|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.79|-1.87|<0.001
91920272|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.68|<0.001
91920273|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.48|0.002
91920274|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.72|-1.87|<0.001
91920275|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.28|0.027
91920276|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-1.15|0.071
91920277|NCT00733902|183737873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.78|<0.001
91920278|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.27|-0.80|0.326
91920279|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.83|-0.24|0.275
91920280|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.56|-0.51|0.918
91920281|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.39|0.002
91920282|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-1.06|0.052
91920283|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.50|<0.001
91920284|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.26|0.006
91920285|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.28|0.004
91920286|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.86|-1.91|<0.001
91920287|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.50|<0.001
91920288|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.30|0.005
91920289|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.69|-1.75|<0.001
91920290|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-1.07|0.061
91765366|NCT00413218|183419680|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was compared to the protocol prespecified noninferiority margin (NIM) value of -15%. If the lower bound were greater than -15%, isavuconazole would be declared as noninferior to caspofungin.|Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-1.8|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.8|-19.9|
91765367|NCT00413218|183419681|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|6.8|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||6.8|-12.2|
91765368|NCT00413218|183419682|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference %|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-1.9|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.9|-19.9|
91810375|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||-0.03|-0.73|
91920291|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.20|0.021
91920292|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.76|-1.85|<0.001
91920293|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.95|0.166
91920294|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.16|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.95|0.167
91920295|NCT00733902|183737874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.75|<0.001
91920296|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-1.07|0.044
91920297|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.48|-0.57|0.875
91920298|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.93|0.129
91920299|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.51|<0.001
91920300|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.38|0.002
91920301|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.70|-1.76|<0.001
91920302|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.35|0.002
91920303|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.39|0.001
91920304|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.90|-1.94|<0.001
91920305|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.70|<0.001
91920306|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.57|<0.001
91920307|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.79|-1.91|<0.001
91920308|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.26|0.021
91920309|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-1.22|0.029
91920310|NCT00733902|183737875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.78|<0.001
91920311|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-1.07|0.044
91920312|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.48|-0.57|0.875
91920313|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.93|0.129
91920314|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.46|<0.001
91920315|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.28|0.004
91920316|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.71|<0.001
91920317|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.33|0.002
91920318|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.46|<0.001
91920319|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.04|<0.001
91920320|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.56|<0.001
91920321|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.52|<0.001
91765369|NCT00413218|183419682|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference %|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|4.2|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU2 (6 weeks after end of treatment). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||4.2|-15.00|
91810376|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.34|-0.37|
91810377|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.12|-0.97|
91920322|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.85|-1.90|<0.001
91920323|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-1.12|0.030
91920324|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.39|0.002
91920325|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.90|-1.96|<0.001
91920326|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-1.03|0.085
91920327|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.18|0.026
91920328|NCT00733902|183737876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.84|-1.94|<0.001
91920329|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.49|<0.001
91920330|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.24|0.486
91920331|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.42|0.008
91920332|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.63|<0.001
91765370|NCT00413218|183419683|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-0.9|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOIV (Days 11-56).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-0.9|-15.4|
91810378|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.12|-0.98|
91920333|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.64|<0.001
91920334|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.76|<0.001
91920335|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.53|<0.001
91920336|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
91920337|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-0.85|<0.001
91920338|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.63|<0.001
91920339|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.57|<0.001
91920340|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-0.80|<0.001
91920341|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.42|0.035
91920342|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.36|0.125
91920343|NCT00733902|183737879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.58|<0.001
91810379|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.08|-0.76|
91920344|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.49|<0.001
91920345|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.24|0.486
91920346|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.42|0.008
91920347|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.64|<0.001
91920348|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.62|<0.001
91920349|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.75|<0.001
91920350|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.53|<0.001
91920351|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.58|<0.001
91920352|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.52|-0.89|<0.001
91810380|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.33|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.33|-0.26|
91920353|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.59|<0.001
91920354|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
91920355|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-0.83|<0.001
91920356|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.47|0.004
91920357|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.55|<0.001
91920358|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.77|<0.001
91920359|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.37|0.090
91920360|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.39|0.053
91920361|NCT00733902|183737880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.70|<0.001
91920362|NCT01882725|183737964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91920363|NCT01882725|183737965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91920364|NCT00500071|183737966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 1||||< 0.0001
91920365|NCT00500071|183737966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2||||< 0.0001
91920366|NCT00500071|183737966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 3||||< 0.0001
91920367|NCT00500071|183737966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4||||< 0.0001
91920368|NCT00500071|183737966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||< 0.0001
91920369|NCT00500071|183737966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6||||< 0.0001
91920370|NCT00500071|183737966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 7||||< 0.0001
91920371|NCT00500071|183737967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91920372|NCT00500071|183737970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91920373|NCT00500071|183737971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Global Executive Composite||||< 0.0001
91920374|NCT00500071|183737971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Recognition Index||||< 0.0001
91920375|NCT00500071|183737971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Metacognition Index||||< 0.0001
91920376|NCT04898166|183737978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square value 18.90 and its asymptotic significance .000||||||0.000
91920377|NCT04898166|183737979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square value 7.544 and its asymptotic significance .273||||||0.081
91765371|NCT00413218|183419683|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-1.5|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.5|-15.8|
91765372|NCT00413218|183419683|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|8.3|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU1 (2 weeks after end of treatment). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||8.3|-9.1|
91920381|NCT02698189|183738065|OTHER|80% Bayesian credible interval based on a prior distribution of Beta (1, 1).|||||||||||||||||80% 2-sided Bayesian credible interval: lower = 0.000; upper = 0.415|||
91920382|NCT02698189|183738065|OTHER|80% Bayesian credible interval based on a prior distribution of Beta (1, 1).|||||||||||||||||80% 2-sided Bayesian credible interval: lower = 0.040; upper = 0.391|||
91920383|NCT03664726|183738096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||Comparison of differences by group|ANOVA|||||||0.0034
91920384|NCT03664726|183738097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
91920385|NCT03664726|183738098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.77
91920386|NCT03119649|183738101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|5.0||P-value obtained from the Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 50 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||5.0|-11.6|0.4291
91920387|NCT03119649|183738101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|4.6||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 100 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||4.6|-12.8|0.3477
91920388|NCT03119649|183738101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-8.3||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 200 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||-8.3|-23.2|<0.0001
91920389|NCT03119649|183738101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.2||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 400 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||1.2|-13.9|0.0995
91920390|NCT03119649|183738102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.4||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 50 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||5.4|-3.1|0.5940
91920391|NCT03119649|183738102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.7553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.8||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 100 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||4.8|-3.5|0.7553
91920392|NCT03119649|183738102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 200 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||4.9|-2.9|0.5958
91920393|NCT03119649|183738102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.2||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 400 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||6.2|-1.6|0.2403
91920394|NCT03119649|183738103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81||0.5749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|12.4||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 50 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||12.4|-6.9|0.5749
91920395|NCT03119649|183738103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.7381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|11.3||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 100 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||11.3|-8.1|0.7381
91920396|NCT03119649|183738103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.7||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 200 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||15.7|-2.0|0.1282
91920397|NCT03119649|183738103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.7212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.5||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 400 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||10.5|-7.3|0.7212
91920398|NCT02333227|183738108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||We employed generalized linear mixed methods (GLMM) with binomial distribution to examine the association between study primary outcomes of baby's birth weight (\<2500) and gestational age at delivery (\<37 weeks including up to 36 and 6/7 weeks) and assignment to the study intervention group. To account for clustering of outcomes by cluster (sites), we used random slope/random intercept GLMM models with a cluster as a random effect (level 2) and treatment as a fixed effect (level 1), since random effect modeling is an individual-level analyses that accounts for within-cluster dependence by maximum likelihood estimation. A separate model was fit to each study outcome and corresponding relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated. Full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) allows for analyses to be performed with the full sample, under conditions of Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) and Missing at Random (MAR), and with missing data rates up to 50%.|||<0.05
91920399|NCT02333227|183738109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Co-primary outcomes|We employed generalized linear mixed methods (GLMM) with binomial distribution to examine the association between study primary outcomes of baby's birth weight (\<2500) and gestational age at delivery (\<37 weeks including up to 36 and 6/7 weeks) and assignment to the study intervention group. To account for clustering of outcomes by cluster (sites), we used random slope/random intercept GLMM models with a cluster as a random effect (level 2) and treatment as a fixed effect (level 1), since random effect modeling is an individual-level analyses that accounts for within-cluster dependence by maximum likelihood estimation. A separate model was fit to each study outcome and corresponding relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated. Full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) allows for analyses to be performed with the full sample, under conditions of Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) and Missing at Random (MAR), and with missing data rates up to 50%.|||<0.05
91920400|NCT02333227|183738110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91920401|NCT02333227|183738111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Specifically, the composite of periodontal disease was also created; this composite was positive if any of the following were detected: gingival bleeding, pockets of 4 mm or greater, or loss of attachment of 4 mm or greater. A scaled periodontal disease score was also created which was the sum of scores for gingival bleeding (+1 if bleeding was present, per tooth), gingival pockets (+1 for pockets of 4-5 mm and +2 for 6 mm or deeper, per tooth), and loss of attachment (+1 for 4-5 mm loss, +2 for 6-8 mm, +3 for 9-11 mm, and +4 for 12 mm or more, per tooth with values recorded for index teeth) divided by the number of teeth present.|||<0.05
91920402|NCT02333227|183738112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91920403|NCT05198713|183738141|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91920404|NCT03063385|183738154|OTHER|\[Not specified\]|Slope|0.0153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0067||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0022|0.0285||Statistical significance taken at the 0.05 level|GEE modeling|P-value \& estimate rely on group x time interaction effect on primary outcome when controlling for self-efficacy. Used modified Baron \& Kenny method|\[Not specified\]|The intervention effect of sexual risk communication (primary outcome in parents) controlling for self-efficacy as a mediator from baseline through 12 months was examined using longitudinal general estimating equations (GEE) modeling, with the Health promotion control condition as the reference category and adjusting for baseline sexual risk communication and average monthly income.||0.0285|0.0022|.0229
91920405|NCT03063385|183738154|OTHER|\[Not specified\]|Slope|0.0151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0067||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0019|0.0282||Statistical significance taken at the 0.05 level|GEE modeling|P-value and estimate rely on group x time interaction effect on primary outcome when controlling for sexual communication attitudes. Same method B\&K|\[Not specified\]|The intervention effect of sexual risk communication (primary outcome in parents) controlling for sexual communication attitudes as a mediator from baseline through 12 months was examined using longitudinal general estimating equations (GEE) modeling, with the Health promotion control condition as the reference category and adjusting for baseline sexual risk communication and average monthly income.||0.0282|0.0019|0.0249
91810381|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||-0.10|-0.70|
91765373|NCT00413218|183419683|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|3.6|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU2 (6 weeks after end of treatment).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||3.6|-15.3|
91765374|NCT00413218|183419684|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-7.0|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOIV (Days 11-56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-7.0|-22.7|
91920406|NCT03063385|183738154|OTHER|\[Not specified\]|Slope|0.0158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0068||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0025|0.0292||Statistical significance taken at the 0.05 level|GEE modeling|Reported P-value and estimate rely on the group x time interaction effect on primary outcome when controlling for subjective norms. Same method B\&K|\[Not specified\]|The intervention effect of sexual risk communication (primary outcome in parents) controlling for subjective norms as a mediator from baseline through 12 months was examined using longitudinal general estimating equations (GEE) modeling, with the Health promotion control condition as the reference category and adjusting for baseline sexual risk communication and average monthly income.||0.0292|0.0025|0.0204
91920407|NCT00469079|183738211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91920408|NCT00469079|183738212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Product use is by self-report and daily diaries.||||0.05
91920409|NCT00469079|183738213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Other|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear mixed model was used for outcomes that had been repeatedly measured from baseline through the end of the treatment period.||This study was not powered to detect differences in smoking cessation rates between groups; however, smoking status was collected to obtain preliminary data. Point prevalence (no smoking during the previous 7 days) cigarette abstinence rates were calculated at the week-4 visit and at each of the 2 follow-up visits. Continuous abstinence rates were calculated for the 4 week period between the week 1 and week 4 visits. Abstinence at all visits was assessed by self-report and confirmed by CO.||||<0.05
91920410|NCT00469079|183738214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference between 3 groups|0.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized linear mixed model was used for outcomes that had been repeatedly measured from baseline through the end of the treatment period. Each repeated-measures model included the treatment effect, a visit effect, the interaction between treatment and visit, the interaction between subject error and within-subject error terms.||||> 0.10
91920411|NCT03818815|183738245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The p-value was calculated using multiple imputation with number of imputations equal to percentage of missing data.|Regression, Logistic|||The summary statistics are based on subjects with non-missing data only.||||0.62
91920412|NCT03818815|183738246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The p-value was calculated using multiple imputation with number of imputations equal to percentage of missing data.|Regression, Logistic|||The summary statistics are based on subjects with non-missing data only.||||0.07
91810382|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.34|-0.26|
91920413|NCT04419506|183738247|OTHER||Posterior difference|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|154.2|||||Difference calculated as BI 1015550 - Placebo|Adjusted means in the placebo group were combined with the meta-analytic predictive priors derived based on the clinical trials in the nintedanib clinical development program in IPF. In order to evaluate the treatment effects, the posterior distribution for the treatment difference of BI 1015550 versus placebo with respect to the primary endpoint was used. The median of the posterior distribution for the treatment difference (and 95% credible intervals) was calculated.||154.2|29.5|
91920414|NCT04419506|183738247|OTHER||Posterior difference|62.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|125.5|||||Difference calculated as BI 1015550 - Placebo|Adjusted means in the placebo group were combined with the meta-analytic predictive priors derived based on the clinical trials in the nintedanib clinical development program in IPF. In order to evaluate the treatment effects, the posterior distribution for the treatment difference of BI 1015550 versus placebo with respect to the primary endpoint was used. The median of the posterior distribution for the treatment difference (and 95% credible intervals) was calculated.||125.5|6.3|
91920415|NCT00345605|183738275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Assuming r=0.5 between two measurements from the same subject, 12 subjects would provide a power of 0.8 to detect a 10% reduction in primary endpoints at an alpha value of 0.05.|For sample size calculation, we used the means and standard deviation for PT, PTT. Assuming r=0.5 between two measurements from the same subject, 12 subjects would provide a power of 0.8 to detect a 10% reduction in primary endpoints at an alpha value of 0.05.||||
91920416|NCT00644592|183738331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of mean effects|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated mean log difference (SE) between the period 2 and period 1 effects and SE was estimated. This estimates twice the effect size\[since (B-A)-(A-B)=2B-2A\] so the actual estimate was based upon the antilog of half of this difference.|This is a crossover analysis. To convert to a ratio effect, the mean difference must be divided by two and antilogs take. The outcome represents a relative effect.||1.52|1.06|0.015
91920417|NCT00811252|183738340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-1.34||Since p-value \<0.05, hierarchically testing continued|ANCOVA||A statistical testing strategy was defined a priori for a single dose of vortioxetine that was tested versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.05 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-1.34|-5.31|0.0011
91920418|NCT00811252|183738340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.46||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-3.46|-7.50|<0.0001
91920419|NCT00811252|183738341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.28||Since p-value \<0.05, hierarchically testing continued|ANCOVA||A statistical testing strategy was defined a priori for a single dose of vortioxetine that was tested versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.05 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.28|-3.98|0.0240
91920420|NCT00811252|183738341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-2.34||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-2.34|-6.10|<0.0001
91920421|NCT00811252|183738342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.61||Since p-value \>0.05, hierarchically testing stopped here.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-2.72|0.2134
91920422|NCT00811252|183738342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-1.6||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-4.99|0.0002
91920423|NCT00811252|183738343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.6879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.1||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-1.67|0.6879
91920424|NCT00811252|183738343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.16||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-2.65|0.0827
91920425|NCT00811252|183738344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.4482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.66||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.49|0.4482
91920426|NCT00811252|183738344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.24||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.24|-0.95|0.7971
91920427|NCT00811252|183738345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-2.26||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-2.26|-6.32|<0.0001
91920428|NCT00811252|183738346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.91||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-3.80|0.0015
91920429|NCT00811252|183738347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.32||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.88|<0.0001
91920430|NCT00811252|183738348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.31||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.82|<0.0001
91920431|NCT00811252|183738349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.01||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.88|0.0552
91920432|NCT00811252|183738350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.7||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.26|0.0008
91920433|NCT00811252|183738351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.83||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.83|0.27|0.0090
91920434|NCT01157117|183738353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Fisher Exact|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Number of participants who successfully consumed 10,000 mg of milk protein followed by an open feeding of milk was compared using Fisher's Exact test with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment groups.||37.3|-13.4|0.42
91920435|NCT00749606|183738379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear models analyzed within-subject variation in repeated measures over time. Intention to treat analysis used 5 imputations for missing data.||||||<0.01
91920436|NCT01121406|183738389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier DC rates|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|6.0|||||"95% CI using Greenwood´s variance estimate.~Volasertib (BI 6727) minus Cytotoxic."|Kaplan Meier estimates and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Greenwood's variance estimate within each treatment arm and the asymptotic CI for the difference in the rates found. The time was censored in those cases where there was no death or progression until the last trial visit||6.0|-31.1|
91920437|NCT01121406|183738390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.53|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727) /Cytotoxic"|||1.53|0.66|
91920438|NCT01121406|183738391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.42|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727) /Cytotoxic"|||1.42|0.63|
91920439|NCT01121406|183738394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.7|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.70|0.73|
91920440|NCT01121406|183738395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.61|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.61|0.40|
91920441|NCT01121406|183738396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.65|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.65|0.37|
91920442|NCT01121406|183738397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.93|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.93|0.39|
91920443|NCT01121406|183738398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.47|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.47|0.33|
91920444|NCT01121406|183738399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.77|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||0.77|0.09|
91920445|NCT00892437|183738416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; alternative hypothesis: the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group. ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF was noninferior if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-weighted difference (COBI group - RTV group) in the response rate at Week 24 was greater than -12%.|Difference in percentages|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|9.9|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|A total planned sample size of 75 subjects had 26% power to evaluate noninferiority with respect to the response rate of HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 if a response rate of 84% for both arms and a noninferiority margin of 0.12 were assumed.||9.9|-24.6|
91920446|NCT00892437|183738417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|9.4|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||9.4|-25.9|
91920447|NCT00892437|183738418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in least squares mean (LSM) and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||0.22|-0.25|0.87
91920448|NCT00892437|183738419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||0.23|-0.30|0.82
91920449|NCT00892437|183738420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|10.0||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|84.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||84|-63|0.78
91920450|NCT00892437|183738421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|47.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|134.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||134|-41|0.29
91920451|NCT02580058|183738485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.497|||Log Rank|1-sided||||1.497|0.867|0.8253
91920452|NCT02580058|183738485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.179|||Log Rank|1-sided||||1.179|0.672|0.2082
91920453|NCT02580058|183738486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.16|||Log Rank|1-sided||||2.160|1.310|>0.9999
91920454|NCT02580058|183738486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.011|||Log Rank|1-sided||||1.011|0.607|0.0301
91920455|NCT02580058|183738505|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|126.7||||||Avelumab was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment||126.7|95.4|
91920456|NCT02580058|183738506|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.5|101.5||||||Avelumab was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment||101.5|79.5|
91920457|NCT02580058|183738507|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|106.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||106|87|
91920458|NCT02580058|183738508|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|104.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||104|88|
91920459|NCT02580058|183738509|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.0|107.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||107|76|
91810383|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.12|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.12|-0.42|
91920460|NCT02580058|183738510|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.0|168.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||168|60|
91920461|NCT05490771|183738527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0341|||||||one-sided exact binomial test|||The ORR was compared against a null benchmark value of 5%. If the observed ORR were ≥5 of 31 (16%), it would then be concluded that the agent is promising and worthy of further investigation. When the number of analyzable cases (who were eligible and treated, and with outside assay results confirmed by the central MATCH assay) was \<31, the one-sided exact binomial test would be used for significance test with one-side type I error rate of 5%.||||0.0341
91920462|NCT02115308|183738574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||paired, t-test|non-adjusted||REST-TO-REGADENOSON STRESS||||0.001
91920463|NCT02115308|183738574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||non-adjusted|paired, t-test|||REST-TO-REGADENOSON STRESS||||0.017
91920464|NCT02115308|183738574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495||||||non-adjusted|paired, t-test|||REST-TO-REGADENOSON STRESS||||0.495
91920465|NCT02115308|183738574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST||||0.365
91920466|NCT02115308|183738574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.602
91920467|NCT02115308|183738574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.915
91920468|NCT02115308|183738574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.033
91920469|NCT02115308|183738574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.002
91920470|NCT02115308|183738574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.087
91920471|NCT02115308|183738574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS CHANGE||||0.399
91920472|NCT02115308|183738574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||0.030
91920473|NCT02115308|183738574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||0.048
91920474|NCT02115308|183738575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Non-adjusted.|paired, t-test|||Rest VS Regadenoson Stress||||0.011
91920475|NCT02115308|183738575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||non-adjusted|paired t-test|||Rest VS Regadenoson Stress||||0.003
91920476|NCT02115308|183738575|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted||||||0.39|||||||paired, t-test|||Rest VS Regadenoson Stress||||0.390
91920477|NCT02115308|183738575|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted|||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||REST||||<0.000
91920478|NCT02115308|183738575|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted|||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||REST||||<0.000
91920479|NCT02115308|183738575|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||REST||||0.022
91920480|NCT02115308|183738575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||non-adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.001
91920481|NCT02115308|183738575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0||||||non-adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Regadenoson STRESS||||<0.000
91920482|NCT02115308|183738575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||non-adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.006
91920483|NCT02115308|183738575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||<0.000
91920484|NCT02115308|183738575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Changes||||0.058
91920485|NCT02115308|183738575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||0.310
91920486|NCT02115308|183738576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.001
91920487|NCT02115308|183738576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.002
91920488|NCT02115308|183738576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.721
91920489|NCT02115308|183738576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.797
91920490|NCT02115308|183738576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.474
91920491|NCT02115308|183738576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||||||0.537
91920492|NCT02115308|183738576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.717
91920493|NCT02115308|183738576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.041
91920494|NCT02115308|183738576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.050
91920495|NCT02115308|183738576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908||||||non adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.908
91920496|NCT02115308|183738576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||||||0.233
91920497|NCT02115308|183738576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.187
91920498|NCT02115308|183738578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.008
91920499|NCT02115308|183738578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.006
91920500|NCT02115308|183738578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.428
91920501|NCT02115308|183738578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||<0.000
91920502|NCT02115308|183738578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||<0.000
91920503|NCT02115308|183738578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.006
91920504|NCT02115308|183738578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.002
91920505|NCT02115308|183738578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||<0.000
91920506|NCT02115308|183738578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.004
91920507|NCT02115308|183738578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||<0.000
91920508|NCT02115308|183738578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.172
91920509|NCT02115308|183738578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.957
91920510|NCT01309737|183738579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.33|17.68||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||17.68|5.33|<0.0001
91920511|NCT01309737|183738579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|30.59||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||30.59|8.99|<0.0001
91920512|NCT01309737|183738579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|20.17|||Normal approximation|||||20.17|5.99|0.0003
91920513|NCT01309737|183738580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-45.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.98|-38.49||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-38.49|-52.98|<0.0001
91920514|NCT01309737|183738580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.33|-50.86||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-50.86|-65.33|<0.0001
91920515|NCT01309737|183738580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.24|-6.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.48|-18.24|<0.0001
91920516|NCT01309737|183738581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.48|17.31||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||17.31|3.48|<0.0001
91920517|NCT01309737|183738581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.08|46.22||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||46.22|8.08|<0.0001
91920518|NCT01309737|183738581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.72|20.88|||Normal Approximation|||||20.88|7.72|<0.0001
91920519|NCT01309737|183738583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.8|-2.14||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-2.14|-3.80|<0.0001
91920520|NCT01309737|183738583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-3.47||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.47|-5.13|<0.0001
91920521|NCT01309737|183738583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.65|-2.01|0.0001
91920522|NCT01309737|183738583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-3.42||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.42|-5.51|<0.0001
91920523|NCT01309737|183738583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-5.05||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-5.05|-7.14|<0.0001
91810384|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.04|-0.51|
91920524|NCT01309737|183738583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.79|-2.48|0.0002
91920525|NCT01309737|183738584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|8.95||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||8.95|1.89|<.0001
91920526|NCT01309737|183738584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|19.95||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||19.95|4.08|<.0001
91920527|NCT01309737|183738584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|16.71|||Normal Approximation|||||16.71|4.87|0.0004
91920528|NCT01309737|183738585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||4.62|0.74|0.1786
91920529|NCT01309737|183738585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|10.25||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||10.25|1.77|0.0003
91920530|NCT01309737|183738585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|11.14|||Normal Approximation|||||11.14|2.30|0.0029
91920531|NCT01309737|183738586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|16.45||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||16.45|5.02|<0.0001
91920532|NCT01309737|183738586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|9.0|30.73||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||30.73|9.00|<0.0001
91920533|NCT01309737|183738586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.62||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|20.69|||Normal Approximation|||||20.69|6.54|0.0002
91810385|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.21|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.21|-0.34|
91810386|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.35|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.35|-0.25|
91810387|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||-0.05|-0.66|
91810388|NCT00372112|183495934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.34|-0.26|
91920534|NCT01309737|183738587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.62||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.19|-10.68||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-10.68|-64.19|0.0062
91920535|NCT01309737|183738587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.75||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-14.78||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-14.78|-68.80|0.0025
91920536|NCT01309737|183738587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.91|17.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.21|-25.91|0.6920
91920537|NCT01309737|183738591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91920538|NCT01309737|183738591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91920539|NCT01309737|183738591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91920540|NCT01309737|183738592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91920541|NCT01309737|183738592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91920542|NCT01309737|183738592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91920543|NCT01309737|183738593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91920544|NCT01309737|183738593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91920545|NCT01309737|183738593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91920546|NCT01442181|183738634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy and fatigue 3 month vs 6 month in minimally invasive group||||0.03
91920547|NCT01442181|183738634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the fatigue and energy was done in baseline-3 month, and 6 month in each group. Minimally Invasive: baseline vs 3 month||||0.01
91920548|NCT01442181|183738634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy and fatigue in medical therapy group; baseline vs 3 month||||0.49
91920549|NCT01442181|183738634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy and fatigue 3 month vs 6 month||||0.06
91920550|NCT01564784|183738717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate difference|51.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|38.4|64.3|||1-sided p-value based on Chi-square test|If any cell count was \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||||64.3|38.4|<0.0001
91920551|NCT01564784|183738718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.568|0.993|||1-sided stratified log-rank p-value||Stratified HR, i.e., based on analysis stratified by randomization stratification factors.|||0.993|0.568|0.0105
91920552|NCT01564784|183738719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|0.809|||1-sided stratified log-rank p-value||Stratified HR, i.e., based on analysis stratified by randomization stratification factors.|||0.809|0.297|0.0021
91920553|NCT01564784|183738720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.336|0.602|||1-sided stratified log-rank p-value||Stratified HR, i.e., based on analysis stratified by randomization stratification factors.|||0.602|0.336|<0.0001
91920554|NCT01564784|183738721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate difference|31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|40.6|||1-sided p-value based on Chi-square test|If any cell count was \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||||40.6|22.6|<0.0001
91920555|NCT01564784|183738722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sided p-value based on Chi-Square test|If any cell count is \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||||||<0.0001
91920556|NCT01564784|183738723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3168|||||||1-sided p-value based on Chi-Square test|If any cell count is \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||Abnormal at Screening||||0.3168
91920557|NCT01564784|183738723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216|||||||1-sided p-value based on Chi-Square test|If any cell count is \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||Abnormal after remission||||0.2160
91920558|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Physical Functioning||12.3|1.4|0.0139
91920559|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Role Functioning||19.5|3.2|0.0065
91920560|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.3307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Emotional Functioning||2.3|-6.9|0.3307
91920561|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.1904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Cognitive Functioning||7.0|-1.4|0.1904
91920562|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|16.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Social Functioning||16.1|0.7|0.0336
91920563|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Global Health Status||10.3|-1.7|0.1572
91920564|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Dyspnoea||1.4|-10.8|0.1281
91920565|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Insomnia||5.2|-8.7|0.6207
91920566|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Appetite Loss||-1.4|-16.0|0.0193
91920567|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.6249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Constipation||7.3|-4.4|0.6249
91920568|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Diarrhoea||1.1|-7.2|0.1534
91920569|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Financial Difficulties||4.7|-9.7|0.4915
91920570|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Fatigue||2.0|-10.8|0.1789
91920571|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.4578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Nausea and Vomiting||2.7|-6.0|0.4578
91920572|NCT01564784|183738725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Pain||6.0|-7.3|0.8428
91920573|NCT01564784|183738726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||||0.07|-0.01|0.1710
91920574|NCT01564784|183738727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||||10.4|-1.2|0.1172
91920575|NCT01982630|183738765|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|4.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||4.13|-4.59|
91810389|NCT04649060|183495947|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.184|||=|0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.65|||Log Rank|||||0.650|0.052|=0.0032
91920576|NCT01982630|183738765|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.48|-2.01|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-2.01|-10.48|
91920577|NCT01982630|183738765|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|10.22|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||10.22|1.81|
91920578|NCT01982630|183738765|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|5.64|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.64|-2.65|
91920579|NCT01982630|183738765|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-4.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.52|-0.52|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-0.52|-8.52|
91810390|NCT04649060|183495948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.03
91920580|NCT01982630|183738765|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|5.83|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.83|-2.38|
91920581|NCT01982630|183738766|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.55|0.32|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||0.32|-4.55|
91920582|NCT01982630|183738766|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|5.66|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.66|-0.61|
91920583|NCT01982630|183738766|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|7.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||7.93|1.35|
91920584|NCT01982630|183738767|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.01|3.71|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||3.71|-5.01|
91920585|NCT01982630|183738767|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.66|-2.19|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-2.19|-10.66|
91920586|NCT01982630|183738767|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|9.97|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||9.97|1.57|
91920587|NCT01982630|183738767|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.29|4.0|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||4.00|-4.29|
91810391|NCT04649060|183495949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|6.693|||Log Rank|||||6.693|0.026|0.525
91810392|NCT04649060|183495951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0997|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0997
91810393|NCT04649060|183495952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.111||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.960|0.013|0.016
91765375|NCT00413218|183419684|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-8.4|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-8.4|-23.5|
91765376|NCT00413218|183419684|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|9.6|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU1 (2 weeks after end of treatment).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||9.6|-8.1|
91765377|NCT00413218|183419684|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|4.3|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU2 (6 weeks after end of treatment).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||4.3|-14.7|
91765378|NCT00413218|183419685|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-2.5|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at Day 7. The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-2.5|-20.4|
91765379|NCT00413218|183419685|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-0.4|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-0.4|-16.5|
91765380|NCT00413218|183419686|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-1.9|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at Day 7. The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.9|-20.3|
91765381|NCT00413218|183419686|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|0.1|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||0.1|-16.3|
91920588|NCT01982630|183738767|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.91|-1.92|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-1.92|-9.91|
91920589|NCT01982630|183738767|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|4.62|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||4.62|-3.60|
91920590|NCT01982630|183738768|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.02|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||2.02|-3.80|
91920591|NCT01982630|183738768|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|9.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||9.15|1.34|
91765382|NCT00413218|183419687|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.9||||||Statistical analysis of all-cause mortality on Day 14. Adjusted treatment difference (Isavuconazole-Caspofungin) is calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical regions, and baseline neutropenic status.||8.9|-3.8|
91920592|NCT01982630|183738768|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.05|10.22|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||10.22|2.05|
91920593|NCT01982630|183738769|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.71|2.57|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||2.57|-3.71|
91920594|NCT01982630|183738769|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.5|12.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.03|3.50|
91765383|NCT00413218|183419687|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|10.0||||||Statistical analysis of all-cause mortality on Day 56. Adjusted treatment difference (Isavuconazole-Caspofungin) is calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical regions, and baseline neutropenic status.||10.0|-7.1|
91810394|NCT04649060|183495954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.231||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.846|||Log Rank|||||0.846|0.063|0.0187
91920595|NCT01982630|183738769|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.89|12.79|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.79|3.89|
91765384|NCT01618669|183419710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower confidence bound of the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 of the difference in the proportion of participants with majority reader self-agreement exceeded -0.075, non-inferiority would be demonstrated.|Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||||Difference equals Regadenoson After Peak Exercise minus Regadenoson Alone|||-0.00|-0.06|
91810395|NCT04649060|183495955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.224||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|1.056|||Log Rank|||||1.056|0.047|0.0384
91920596|NCT01982630|183738770|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|5.09|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.09|-2.40|
91765385|NCT01618669|183419712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower confidence bound of the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 of the difference in agreement rates must exceed -0.10 in order to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||||Difference equals Regadenoson After Peak Exercise minus Regadenoson Alone|||0.11|-0.14|
91765386|NCT01618669|183419713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower confidence bound of the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 of the difference in agreement rates must exceed -0.133 in order to demonstrate non-inferiority. Non-inferiority could not be assessed because of insufficient data in the Regadenoson Alone group.|Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.07|
91765387|NCT01618669|183419714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.03|
91920597|NCT01982630|183738770|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.29|13.3|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||13.30|3.29|
91920598|NCT01982630|183738770|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|12.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.20|1.69|
91920599|NCT01982630|183738771|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|6.34|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||6.34|-1.42|
91920600|NCT01982630|183738771|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|9.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.42|14.81|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||14.81|4.42|
91920601|NCT01982630|183738771|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|12.6|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.60|1.70|
91920602|NCT01982630|183738772|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-1.14|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||-1.14|-6.80|
91920603|NCT01982630|183738772|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.33|2.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||2.93|-4.33|
91920604|NCT01982630|183738772|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|7.06|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||7.06|-0.54|
91920605|NCT01982630|183738773|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.31|2.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||2.15|-5.31|
91920606|NCT01982630|183738773|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|7.35|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||7.35|-2.32|
91920607|NCT01982630|183738773|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|9.16|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||9.16|-0.96|
91765388|NCT01825187|183419726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.523
91765389|NCT01825187|183419727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Nasa Mental Demand||||0.371
91765390|NCT01825187|183419727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||NASA Physical Demand||||0.122
91920608|NCT01982630|183738774|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.31|0.34|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||0.34|-7.31|
91920609|NCT01982630|183738774|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|9.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||9.03|-1.11|
91765391|NCT01825187|183419727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||NASA Temporal Demand||||0.325
91765392|NCT01825187|183419727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0451|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||NASA Peformance||||0.0451
91765393|NCT02888106|183419774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Fisher Exact|||The proportions of negative HDV RNA response at week 72 in each of the MXB treatment groups were compared with the control group of PEG-IFNα by using Fisher's exact test and by presenting exact unconditional 95%-confidence intervals (CI) based on scores for the proportion differences.||||0.0022
91765394|NCT02888106|183419774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0996|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0996
91765395|NCT02888106|183419774|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91765396|NCT02888106|183419774|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91765397|NCT02888106|183419774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0421
91765398|NCT02888106|183419775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0052
91765399|NCT02888106|183419775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0052
91920610|NCT01982630|183738774|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|12.73|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||12.73|2.16|
91920611|NCT01982630|183738775|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|4.57|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||4.57|-4.51|
91920612|NCT01982630|183738775|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|10.73|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||10.73|-1.33|
91920613|NCT01982630|183738775|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|11.0|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||11.00|-1.67|
91920614|NCT01982630|183738776|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|7.39|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||7.39|-0.70|
91920615|NCT01982630|183738776|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.53|14.23|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||14.23|3.53|
91920616|NCT01982630|183738776|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|11.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||11.15|-0.08|
91920617|NCT01982630|183738777|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.98|-0.12|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||-0.12|-6.98|
91920618|NCT01982630|183738777|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|5.49|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||5.49|-3.38|
91920619|NCT01982630|183738777|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|9.23|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||9.23|-0.02|
91920620|NCT01982630|183738778|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|2.28|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||2.28|-4.59|
91765400|NCT02888106|183419775|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
91920621|NCT01982630|183738778|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.99|13.31|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||13.31|3.99|
91920622|NCT01982630|183738778|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.96|14.65|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||14.65|4.96|
91920623|NCT01982630|183738779|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.52|-0.56|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||-0.56|-7.52|
91920624|NCT01982630|183738779|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.57|14.89|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||14.89|5.57|
91920625|NCT01982630|183738779|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|14.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.38|19.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||19.15|9.38|
91920626|NCT01982630|183738780|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|1.47|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||1.47|-5.70|
91920627|NCT01982630|183738780|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|13.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.64|18.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||18.03|8.64|
91920628|NCT01982630|183738780|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|15.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.53|20.38|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||20.38|10.53|
91920629|NCT01982630|183738781|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|5.7|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||5.70|-1.47|
91920630|NCT01982630|183738781|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.73|15.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||15.13|5.73|
91920631|NCT01982630|183738781|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|13.24|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||13.24|3.40|
91920632|NCT01982630|183738797|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|29.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.34|54.77|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||54.77|4.34|
91920633|NCT01982630|183738797|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|50.19|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||50.19|2.02|
91920634|NCT01982630|183738797|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.23|27.14|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||27.14|-20.23|
91920635|NCT01982630|183738797|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-26.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.96|-2.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-2.93|-49.96|
91920636|NCT01982630|183738797|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-29.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.04|-7.77|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-7.77|-52.04|
91765401|NCT02888106|183419775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0017
91765402|NCT02888106|183419775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3295|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.3295
91765403|NCT02888106|183419775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0007
91765404|NCT02888106|183419775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0001
91920637|NCT01982630|183738797|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.53|-32.48|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-32.48|-79.53|
91920638|NCT01982630|183738798|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|14.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.25|40.18|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||40.18|-10.25|
91920639|NCT01982630|183738798|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.52|30.65|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||30.65|-17.52|
91920640|NCT01982630|183738798|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.29|32.08|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||32.08|-15.29|
91920641|NCT01982630|183738798|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-35.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.75|-11.72|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-11.72|-58.75|
91920642|NCT01982630|183738798|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-43.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.77|-21.5|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-21.50|-65.77|
91920643|NCT01982630|183738798|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-50.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-73.72|-26.68|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-26.68|-73.72|
91920644|NCT01982630|183738799|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.59|-5.81|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-5.81|-56.59|
91920645|NCT01982630|183738799|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-25.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.25|0.01|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||0.01|-50.25|
91765405|NCT02888106|183419775|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
91810396|NCT04649060|183495956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|2.569|||Log Rank|||||2.569|0.086|0.3721
91765406|NCT02888106|183419775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0007
91810397|NCT00143403|183495995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.67|1.2|||||HR: Irinotecan+5-FU/FA / 5-FU/FA|||1.20|0.67|
91810398|NCT00143403|183495995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.468
91920646|NCT01982630|183738799|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-6.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.31|5.14|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||5.14|-17.31|
91920647|NCT01982630|183738800|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-27.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.87|-2.09|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-2.09|-52.87|
91920648|NCT01982630|183738800|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-30.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.72|-5.46|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-5.46|-55.72|
91920649|NCT01982630|183738800|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.11|14.34|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||14.34|-8.11|
91920650|NCT01982630|183738801|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.88|30.06|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||30.06|-20.88|
91810399|NCT01860651|183496006|OTHER||mean difference over time|-0.002||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.001|||Mixed Effect Model|||"Statistical analysis of Medical adherence in study Medication adm. at home were analysed using a Mixed Effect Model (MEM). The MEM model included a random patient effect and a fixed effect interaction between group and time, to evaluate difference between the groups over time."||0.001|-0.005|0.22
91920651|NCT01982630|183738801|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.68|19.85|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||19.85|-30.68|
91920652|NCT01982630|183738801|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|21.78|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||21.78|-1.77|
91920653|NCT01982630|183738802|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-14.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.53|10.57|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||10.57|-40.53|
91920654|NCT01982630|183738802|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.77|10.76|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||10.76|-39.77|
91765407|NCT02888106|183419775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1086|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.1086
91765408|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
91765409|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.2241
91765410|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0002
91765411|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.2241
91765412|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0007
91765413|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
91810400|NCT03235154|183496065|OTHER|There was no comparator arm in this small single arm study||||||||||||No confidence intervals around point estimates provided given very small number of participants||||This was a single arm intervention study with a very small number of participants. Therefore, only descriptive statistics are provided.|No confidence intervals around point estimates provided given very small number of participants|||
91810401|NCT00536198|183496066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.21
91765414|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4497|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.4497
91765415|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0268
91765416|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
91810402|NCT00536198|183496066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
91810403|NCT00536198|183496066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison of rates of change||||0.06
91920655|NCT01982630|183738802|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.47|11.52|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||11.52|-12.47|
91920656|NCT01982630|183738803|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-43.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.81|-21.55|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-21.55|-65.81|
91920657|NCT01982630|183738803|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.35|-25.45|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-25.45|-69.35|
91920658|NCT01982630|183738803|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.76|13.19|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||13.19|-5.76|
91920659|NCT01982630|183738804|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-34.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.14|-11.88|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-11.88|-56.14|
91920660|NCT01982630|183738804|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.15|-17.26|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-17.26|-61.15|
91920661|NCT01982630|183738804|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|14.67|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||14.67|-4.28|
91920662|NCT01982630|183738805|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-23.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.89|-1.56|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-1.56|-45.89|
91920663|NCT01982630|183738805|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-33.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.93|-11.98|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-11.98|-55.93|
91920664|NCT01982630|183738805|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|19.89|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||19.89|0.56|
91920665|NCT01982630|183738806|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-23.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.65|-1.32|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-1.32|-45.65|
91920666|NCT01982630|183738806|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.74|-7.79|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-7.79|-51.74|
91920667|NCT01982630|183738806|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|15.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||15.93|-3.39|
91920668|NCT01273818|183738873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fscher exact test|||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||we did not need an estimation parameter such as odds or relative risk because of our experimental design and hypothesis of this study.|"Comparison Group Selection: our primary outcome is infection positive or negativeso, we compared the frequencies of being positive infections for these three groups. Our null hypothesis is  positive infection frequencies are same for three groups. We calculated post-hoc power for this design and found 0.99 for the percentages which shows positive infections respectively for Topical Gentamicin, cefazoline iv and topical gentamicin and iv cefazolin; 2.3%, 3.1% and 0%."||||0.198
91920669|NCT01073943|183738890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the treatment difference (PICOPREP minus HalfLytely) was \>-9% for the percentage of responders. Superiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference was \>0%.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.9||||||||||-2.9|
91920670|NCT01073943|183738891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-8.8||||||||||-8.8|
91920671|NCT01073943|183738892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91920672|NCT01073943|183738893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91765417|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.6999
91810404|NCT00536198|183496066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to endpoint between active vs. placebo||3.75|0.01|0.049
91765418|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0743|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.0743
91765419|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3449|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 72||||0.3449
91765420|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6036|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.6036
91765421|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.3408
91810405|NCT00536198|183496067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.54
91810406|NCT00536198|183496067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
91810407|NCT00536198|183496067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison of rates of change||||0.02
91920673|NCT01073943|183738894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91920674|NCT01073943|183738895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91920675|NCT01073943|183738896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91920676|NCT01073943|183738897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91920677|NCT01073943|183738899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|||||||Mid colon comparison|||-0.1|
91920678|NCT01073943|183738899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.5|||||||Recto-sigmoid colon comparison|||-1.5|
91920679|NCT01073943|183738899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.7|||||||Overall comparison: ascending colon, mid colon and recto-sigmoid colon|||-5.7|
91920680|NCT05662332|183738908|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin (NIM) was 0.4%|LS Mean Change difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.18|
91920681|NCT05662332|183738909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-0.03||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.18|0.684
91920682|NCT05662332|183738910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|4.16||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|9.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||9.90|-1.58|0.155
91920683|NCT05662332|183738911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-43.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-25.0|-62.4|<0.001
91920684|NCT05662332|183738912|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||Negative binomial model|||||0.84|0.39|0.005
91920685|NCT05662332|183738914|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|0.58||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.23|||Negative binomial model|||||1.23|0.28|0.155
91920686|NCT05662332|183738916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.047|0.033
91920687|NCT05662332|183738917|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.56||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||3.25|-0.13|0.071
91920688|NCT05662332|183738920|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||3.8|-0.2|0.072
91920689|NCT01446809|183738965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
91920690|NCT01446809|183738966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91920691|NCT02396147|183739021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|87.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.56|129.52|||||T4 Formulation B Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference)\*100|||129.52|58.56|
91920692|NCT02396147|183739021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|83.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.95|115.18|||||T4 Formulation C Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||115.18|59.95|
91920693|NCT02396147|183739021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|78.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.88|116.79|||||T4 Formulation B Fed (test)/T4 Formulation B Fasted (reference) \* 100|||116.79|52.88|
91920694|NCT02396147|183739021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.98|130.61|||||T4 Formulation C Fed (test)/T4 Formulation C Fasted (reference) \* 100|||130.61|67.98|
91920695|NCT02396147|183739022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.83|119.4|||||T4 Formulation B Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (Reference) \*100|||119.40|74.83|
91920696|NCT02396147|183739022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration|77.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.29|94.61|||||T4 Formulation C Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||94.61|64.29|
91920697|NCT02396147|183739022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|81.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.21|102.37|||||T4 Formulation B Fed (test)/T4 Formulation B Fasted (reference) \* 100|||102.37|64.21|
91920698|NCT02396147|183739022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.48|112.55|||||T4 Formulation C Fed (test)/T4 Formulation C Fasted (reference) \* 100|||112.55|76.48|
91920699|NCT02396147|183739023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.85|119.12|||||T4 Formulation B Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||119.12|74.85|
91920700|NCT02396147|183739023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|78.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.53|94.51|||||T4 Formulation C Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||94.51|64.53|
91920701|NCT02396147|183739023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|81.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.36|102.34|||||T4 Formulation B Fed (test)/T4 Formulation B Fasted (reference) \* 100|||102.34|64.36|
91920702|NCT02396147|183739023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.84|112.54|||||T4 Formulation C Fed (test)/T4 Formulation C Fasted (reference) \* 100|||112.54|76.84|
91920703|NCT02907944|183739039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.45|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.45|0.82|0.55
91920704|NCT02907944|183739039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.37|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.37|0.92|0.09
91920705|NCT02907944|183739039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.71|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.71|1.14|0.001
91920706|NCT02907944|183739040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.45|0.81|0.59
91920707|NCT02907944|183739040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.55|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.55|0.88|0.11
91920708|NCT02907944|183739040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.66|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.66|1.09|0.005
91920709|NCT02559505|183739053|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91920710|NCT02559505|183739053|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.024
91765422|NCT02888106|183419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.3408
91765423|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
91765424|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.2241
91920711|NCT02559505|183739054|OTHER|||||||0.408||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.408
91920712|NCT02559505|183739054|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91920713|NCT02559505|183739055|OTHER|||||||0.991||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.991
91920714|NCT02559505|183739055|OTHER|||||||0.334||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.334
91920715|NCT02559505|183739056|OTHER|||||||0.226||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.226
91920716|NCT02559505|183739056|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.036
91920717|NCT02559505|183739057|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.680
91920718|NCT02559505|183739057|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91920719|NCT03523585|183739061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3589|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.4535||Stratified Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|p value based on log-rank stratified by hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by IXRS|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|||0.4535|0.2840|<0.000001
91765425|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4828
91765426|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4828
91765427|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4828
91765428|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.5977
91765429|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1686|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.1686
91765430|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
91765431|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.5977
91765432|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
91765433|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.0063
91765434|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
91765435|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
91765436|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
91765437|NCT02888106|183419777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
91765438|NCT02888106|183419778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0801|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0801
91765439|NCT02888106|183419778|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
91765440|NCT02888106|183419778|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
91765441|NCT02888106|183419778|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
91765442|NCT02888106|183419778|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
91765443|NCT02888106|183419778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0063
91765444|NCT02888106|183419778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.2241
91765445|NCT02888106|183419778|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
91765446|NCT02888106|183419778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0169|||||||Regression, Cox|||Week 72||||0.0169
91765447|NCT02888106|183419778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
91765448|NCT02888106|183419778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
91920720|NCT03523585|183739062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6575||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5023|0.8605||Stratified Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|p value based on log-rank stratified by hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by IXRS|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|||0.8605|0.5023|0.0021
91920721|NCT03523585|183739063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis for BICR Assessment||||<0.0001
91920722|NCT03523585|183739063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis for Investigator Assessment||||<0.0001
91920723|NCT03523585|183739065|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2828|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.3524||Stratified Log-rank p-value.|Log Rank|p value based on log-rank stratified by hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by IXRS|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|||0.3524|0.2270|<0.000001
91920724|NCT02874794|183739086|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|13.2|||ANCOVA|||||13.2|-17.6|0.7827
91920725|NCT02874794|183739089|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.6667|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5858|0.7589|||ANCOVA|||||0.7589|0.5858|<.0001
91920726|NCT02874794|183739090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.58|0.5792
91920727|NCT02874794|183739091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-1.59|||ANCOVA|||||-1.59|-4.02|<.0001
91920728|NCT02874794|183739092|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.33|0.8617
91920729|NCT02874794|183739093|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||vs Enalapril||-0.75|-2.76|0.0007
91920730|NCT02874794|183739094|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.68|||ANCOVA|||||1.68|-0.41|0.2354
91765449|NCT02888106|183419779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.4828
91765450|NCT02888106|183419779|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
91920731|NCT02874794|183739095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.05|0.8215
91920732|NCT02874794|183739096|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-3.13|0.0452
91920733|NCT02874794|183739097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-3.68|0.0242
91920734|NCT00698516|183739103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Greenwood variance|65.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|76.9||Historical data in target population showed 3-month PFS rates of \<=50%. Oral topotecan with IV bevacizumab would provide clinically meaningful improvement in 3-month PFS if it could demonstrate a 40% improvement relative to the historical data.|Z statistic|Z statistic was used to reject the null hypothesis provided Z\>=1.65, where Z = (KM estimate at 3 months - null hypothesis value \[50%\])/Greenwood SE.||||76.9|49.3|0.017
91920735|NCT03090191|183739130|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of confidence interval greater than 20% demonstrate vaccine efficacy.|Vaccine efficacy|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.4|-38.7|66.6|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of first primary CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 96.4% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||66.6|-38.7|
91920736|NCT03090191|183739131|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of confidence interval greater than 20% demonstrate vaccine efficacy.|Vaccine efficacy|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|96.4|-28.4|61.0|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of first primary CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 96.4% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||61.0|-28.4|
91920737|NCT03090191|183739140|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-110.7|62.5|||||VE = 100\*(1 - Hazard Ratio). 98.2% CI was estimated using Proportional Means Model.|||62.5|-110.7|
91920738|NCT03090191|183739141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0172|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test (2-sided)|||||||0.0172
91920739|NCT03090191|183739142|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|0.0|0.81||||||||0.81|0.00|
91920740|NCT03090191|183739143|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-69.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-1533.1|75.6|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of recurrent CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 98.2% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||75.6|-1533.1|
91920741|NCT03090191|183739144|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-74.6|58.5|||||VE = 100\*(1 - Hazard Ratio). 98.2% CI was estimated using Proportional Means Model|||58.5|-74.6|
91920742|NCT03090191|183739145|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-102.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-1770.1|67.2|||||VE = 100\*(1 - IRR), where IRR= the calculated ratio of recurrent CDI incidence between the Clostridium difficile vaccine group and the placebo group. 98.2% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||67.2|-1770.1|
91765451|NCT02888106|183419779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2292|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.2292
91765452|NCT02888106|183419779|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
91765453|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4621|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4621
91765454|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||||1.0000
91765455|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
91765456|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4621|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4621
91765457|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0253
91765458|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0268
91765459|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.6999
91920743|NCT03090191|183739146|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-246.7|78.5|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of first primary CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 98.2% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||78.5|-246.7|
91920744|NCT01521845|183739182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91920745|NCT01521845|183739183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91920746|NCT01521845|183739184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||not comparable|||||||1
91920747|NCT03047005|183739185|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session. Model adjusted for stage 1 treatment condition.||||||.07
91920748|NCT03047005|183739186|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session. Model adjusted for stage 1 treatment condition.||||||.01
91920749|NCT02586805|183739193|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-75.609|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.65|-61.243||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-61.243|-84.650|<0.001
91920750|NCT02586805|183739193|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-73.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.379|-59.456||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-59.456|-82.379|<0.001
91920751|NCT02586805|183739193|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-86.921|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.828|-76.15||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-76.150|-92.828|<0.001
91920752|NCT02586805|183739194|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-80.842|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.169|-66.114||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-66.114|-89.169|<0.001
91920753|NCT02586805|183739194|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-74.169|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.733|-58.983||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-58.983|-83.733|<0.001
91920754|NCT02586805|183739194|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-87.299|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.494|-75.204||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-75.204|-93.494|<0.001
91920755|NCT02586805|183739195|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-70.497|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.696|-49.699||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-49.699|-82.696|<0.001
91920756|NCT02586805|183739195|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-73.285|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.316|-54.496||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-54.496|-84.316|<0.001
91920757|NCT02586805|183739195|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-83.394|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.618|-67.099||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-67.099|-91.618|<0.001
91920758|NCT02586805|183739196|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-77.622|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.253|-63.572||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-63.572|-86.253|<0.001
91920759|NCT02586805|183739196|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-75.377|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.115|-61.833||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-61.833|-84.115|<0.001
91920760|NCT02586805|183739196|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-89.008|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.325|-78.707||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-78.707|-94.325|<0.001
91765460|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
91765461|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0656|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0656
91765462|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0005
91765463|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1431|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.1431
91920761|NCT03577990|183739251|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
91920762|NCT03577990|183739252|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1250.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
91920763|NCT03577990|183739253|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|300.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
91920764|NCT03577990|183739255|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|500.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
91920765|NCT00803114|183739257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22||||0.05||95.0|0.12|0.41|||Fisher Exact||Relative risk describes the risk of requiring additional analgesics in the first 24 hours postpartum with the denominator being the arm which received placebo.|Relative risk ratio estimation with 95% CI using exact methods||0.41|0.12|0.05
91765464|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
91810408|NCT00536198|183496067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|8.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||8.31|1.97|0.0015
91765465|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
91765466|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
91765467|NCT02888106|183419780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7104|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.7104
91765468|NCT01425801|183419802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean DIfference|0.405|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|0.458|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.458|0.353|<0.0001
91810409|NCT00536198|183496068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.46
91765469|NCT01425801|183419802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.424|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.424|0.318|<0.0001
91810410|NCT00536198|183496068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.0001
91810411|NCT00536198|183496068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.69
91920766|NCT00803114|183739258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.05||95.0|-5.7|-2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom 226|The epidural morphine group represents the baseline of comparison for difference in means, with the placebo group requiring additional analgesics earlier.|||-2.3|-5.7|0.05
91920767|NCT00803114|183739259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.05||95.0|0.7|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom 212|Difference in VAS score when compared to the baseline group, subjects receiving epidural morphine|||1.8|0.7|0.05
91920768|NCT00803114|183739260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||Fisher's exact test result did not reveal statistically significant differences between expected and real frequencies in any of the categories.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.80
91920769|NCT01696461|183739262|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Percentage of donors mobilized with plerixafor. No comparison group was analyzed.|||
91920770|NCT01696461|183739263|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive analysis. Percentage of donor experiencing toxicities was assessed at 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes after administration of plerixafor on each day of collection and graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.3. Grade of maximum toxicity across all time points is reported.|||
91920771|NCT01696461|183739264|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive analysis. The number of donors experiencing toxicities was assessed at 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes after administration of plerixafor on each day of collection and one, six, and 12 months post-donation. Toxicities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.3.|||
91920772|NCT01696461|183739265|OTHER||||||||||||||||||At 100 days after HCT, all patients in both the MAC and the RIC cohorts had achieved neutrophil engraftment. All patients in the MAC arm and 97% of patients in the RIC arm had achieved platelet engraftment. The median time to neutrophil engraftment was 13 and 15 days for MAC and RIC, respectively. The median time to platelet engraftment was 19 and 18 days for MAC and RIC, respectively.|||
91920773|NCT01696461|183739266|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Full donor myeloid chimerism was achieved relatively quickly in both RIC and MAC groups (median 100% at day +28 in both RIC and MAC), but conversion to full donor T-cell chimerism appeared to be slower in the RIC patients.~T-cell chimerism for MAC patients: median donor cell % (range):~Day +28: 92(59-100)%, Day +100: 97(76-100)%, Day +180: 100(91-100)%, Day +365: 100(100-100)%~T-cell chimerism for RIC patients: median donor cell % (range):~Day +28: 80(50-100)%, Day +100: 84(64-100)%, Day +180: 95(74-100)%, Day +365: 100(87-100)%"|||
91920774|NCT01696461|183739267|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive outcome.There were no cases of primary graft failure.|||
91920775|NCT01696461|183739268|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The cumulative incidence of acute graft-vs-host disease was examined in the RIC and MAC groups but was not directly compared with a statistical test.|The incidence of acute GVHD was quantified by computing the cumulative incidence probability and an appropriate 95% confidence interval. Death was treated as a competing risk.|||
91920776|NCT01696461|183739269|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Immune reconstitution was measured by CD3+CD4+ and CD3+CD8+ T cells in the peripheral blood of patients at days 28, 100, 180, and 365 after HCT. Notably, median CD3+CD4+ cell counts were \>200/µL at all times analyzed, including day 28 in both MAC and RIC groups.|||
91920777|NCT01696461|183739270|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Groups were not directly compared using a statistical test.|Percentage of recipients at-risk for CMV reactivation who experienced a reactivation.|||
91920778|NCT01696461|183739271|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The probability of treatment-related mortality and disease relapse/progression were examined in the RIC and MAC cohorts but were not directly compared between the two groups using a statistical test.|The incidence of treatment-related mortality and relapse was quantified by computing the cumulative incidence probability and an appropriate 95% confidence interval. When computing the cumulative incidence probability of treatment-related mortality and relapse, relapse and treatment-related mortality, respectively, were considered as a competing risk.|||
91920779|NCT01696461|183739272|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The probability of progression free survival and overall survival were examined in the RIC and MAC cohorts but were not directly compared between the two groups using a statistical test.|Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the probability of progression-free survival and overall survival. Progression-free survival at 1 year was 53% (95% CI, 36% to 71%) after MAC and 64% (95% CI, 47% to 79%) after RIC. Overall survival at 1 year was 63% (95% CI, 46% to 79%) after MAC and 70% (95% CI, 53% to 84%) after RIC.|||
91920780|NCT01696461|183739273|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This outcome measure is descriptive.|This outcome measure is descriptive. The median cell dose and range are reported.|||
91920781|NCT01696461|183739274|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The cumulative incidence of chronic graft-vs-host disease was examined in the RIC and MAC groups but was not directly compared with a statistical test.|The incidence of chronic GVHD was quantified by computing the cumulative incidence probability and an appropriate 95% confidence interval. Death was treated as a competing event.|||
91920782|NCT01696461|183739275|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive analysis. There were no cases of secondary graft failure.|||
91920783|NCT01696461|183739276|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This outcome measure is descriptive. The median cell dose and range are reported.|||
91920784|NCT03414359|183739322|NON_INFERIORITY|As there is no existing data in the literature that clearly defines a clinically significant reduction in the onset time of anesthesia, the non-inferiority margin was defined a priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is, \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To exclude a clinically important difference between the LEBF group and the chloroprocaine group, given a standard deviation of 4 minutes, and a non-inferiority margin of 3 minutes difference between groups, 62 mother-infant dyads (31 mother-infant dyads in each arm) are required to have a significance level of 5% and a power of 90%. In total, 70 female patients were recruited to account for any withdrawals.||||0.10
91920785|NCT04068103|183739339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P value \<= 0.35 moves trial to phase III, \>0.35 stops trial for futility. Decision rule calls for early stopping due to futility.|Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's Exact Test of ctDNA clearance by treatment arm.||||0.98
91920786|NCT01672892|183739346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0476|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Since there is no prior data using this tool in this patient population, an effect size of 0.4 was chosen to calculate sample size. Based on a two-sample t-test with one interim look and a two-sided alpha=0.05, a sample size of 225 is needed to achieve 85% statistical power. Assuming an attrition rate of 10% and noncompliance of 10%, 281 patients were required in order to ensure 225 evaluable patients for the primary endpoint analysis.||||0.0476
91920787|NCT01672892|183739347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4338|||||||Binomial test of proportions|2-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.4338
91920788|NCT01672892|183739348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Week 3 of RT||||0.04
91920789|NCT01672892|183739348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Week 5 of RT||||0.03
91920790|NCT01672892|183739348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||4-6 weeks post-RT||||0.41
91920791|NCT01672892|183739349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||FACT-G total score - 5 weeks||||0.54
91920792|NCT01672892|183739349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|FACT-G total score - 4-6 weeks post RT||FACT-G total score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.72
91920793|NCT01672892|183739349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||FACT-Cx subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.01
91920794|NCT01672892|183739349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||FACT-Cx subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.45
91920795|NCT01672892|183739349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Physical subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.03
91920796|NCT01672892|183739349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Physical subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.9
91920797|NCT01672892|183739349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Functional subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.55
91920798|NCT01672892|183739349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Functional subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.35
91920799|NCT01672892|183739349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Emotional subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.66
91920800|NCT01672892|183739349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Emotional subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.09
91920801|NCT01672892|183739349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Social subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.66
91920802|NCT01672892|183739349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Social subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.35
91920803|NCT01672892|183739350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||5 weeks||||0.61
91920804|NCT01672892|183739350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||4-6 weeks post-RT||||0.67
91920805|NCT01672892|183739351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.81
91920806|NCT01672892|183739352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.35|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy|||2.35|0.82|0.21
91920807|NCT01672892|183739353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.79|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy|||1.79|0.32|0.53
91920808|NCT01672892|183739356|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||nonparametric one-sample t-test|||Baseline||||<0.0001
91920809|NCT01672892|183739356|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||nonparametric one-sample t-test|||Week 5||||<0.0001
91920810|NCT01672892|183739357|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Bowel domain at baseline||||<0.0001
91920811|NCT01672892|183739357|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Bowel domain at week 5||||<0.0001
91920812|NCT01672892|183739357|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Urinary domain at baseline||||<0.0001
91920813|NCT01672892|183739357|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Urinary domain at week 5||||<0.0001
91920814|NCT01672892|183739358|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Bowel domain||||<0.0001
91920815|NCT01672892|183739358|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Urinary domain||||<0.0001
91920816|NCT03815292|183739385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91920817|NCT03815292|183739386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 24 weeks total scores row.||||0.0445
91920818|NCT03815292|183739387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0345
91920819|NCT03815292|183739388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 24 weeks total scores row.||||0.04
91920820|NCT03815292|183739389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 24 weeks total scores row.||||0.0016
91920821|NCT03815292|183739390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Therapeutic effect row.||||0.0054
91920822|NCT03815292|183739390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Side effects row.||||0.78
91920823|NCT03815292|183739390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Efficiency index row.||||0.0042
91920824|NCT03815292|183739391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between 24 and 28 weeks total scores row.||||0.77
91920825|NCT03815292|183739392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between 24 and 28 weeks total scores row.||||0.0118
91920826|NCT03815292|183739393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between 24 and 28 weeks total scores row.||||0.058
91920827|NCT01584024|183739401|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||McNemar|||||||=0.003
91920828|NCT01584024|183739402|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.17|||||||McNemar|||||||=0.17
91920829|NCT04893265|183739465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1122||0.4471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1352|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3060|-0.1352|0.4471
91920830|NCT04893265|183739466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8378|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4284|1.6385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Demographics, COVID-19 Cases Per 100K , Test Access, Social Network, Knowledge, Test Value with random intercepts for participation mode|Adjusted odds ratio|||1.6385|0.4284|<0.05
91920831|NCT04893265|183739467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4306|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6166|3.3192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Demographics, COVID-19 Cases Per 100K , Test Access, Social Network, Knowledge, Test Value with random intercepts for participation mode|Adjusted odds ratio|||3.3192|0.6166|<0.05
91920832|NCT04893265|183739468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07311|0.2463|||||Adjusted for Demographics, COVID Cases Per 100,000 Population, Test Access, Social Network, Knowledge, and Test Value with random intercepts for Dyad and Individual|||0.2463|-0.07311|
91920833|NCT01142323|183739482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Matched pairs|||||||0.008
91920834|NCT01142323|183739483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91920835|NCT00893789|183739491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8336||95.0||||The analyses performed were not done in accordance to the study protocol as the study was terminated early and therefore the analyses done were underpowered, no adjustments for multiple comparisons (or step-down analysis rules) were applied.|ANCOVA|||"P-value for Change from Baseline at Endpoint."||||0.8336
91920836|NCT00893789|183739491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0514||95.0||||The analyses performed were not done in accordance to the study protocol as the study was terminated early and therefore the analyses done were underpowered, no adjustments for multiple comparisons (or step-down analysis rules) were applied.|ANCOVA|||"P-value for Change from Baseline at Endpoint."||||0.0514
91920837|NCT00893789|183739491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||The analyses performed were not done in accordance to the study protocol as the study was terminated early and therefore the analyses done were underpowered, no adjustments for multiple comparisons (or step-down analysis rules) were applied.|ANCOVA|||"P-value for Change from Baseline at Endpoint."||||0.0010
91920838|NCT00893789|183739492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7884||95.0|||||Pearson's chi-squared|||||||0.7884
91920839|NCT00893789|183739492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2359||95.0|||||Pearson's chi-squared|||||||0.2359
91920840|NCT00893789|183739492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4401||95.0|||||Pearson's chi-squared|||||||0.4401
91920841|NCT01575548|183739520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was used to compare DFS between the two arms.||||1.29|0.54|0.21
91920842|NCT02750410|183739579|SUPERIORITY||LS mean percent difference|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.28|-1.73|<0.001
91920843|NCT02750410|183739580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.117||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.479|||Regression, Logistic|||analysis was based on repeated measures logistic regression||0.479|0.028|0.003
91920844|NCT02750410|183739581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.37|-18.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.91|-41.37|<0.001
91920845|NCT02750410|183739582|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.39|-16.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Prebreakfast BG||-16.78|-36.39|<0.001
91920846|NCT02750410|183739582|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.77|-29.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Breakfast 2-hour PPBG||-29.00|-61.77|<0.001
91920847|NCT02750410|183739582|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|-24.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Prelunch BG||-24.45|-49.20|<0.001
91920848|NCT02750410|183739582|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.85|-32.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lunch 2-hour PPBG||-32.46|-67.85|<0.001
91920849|NCT02750410|183739582|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.05|-18.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Predinner BG||-18.48|-44.05|<0.001
91920850|NCT02750410|183739582|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.55|-17.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Dinner 2-hour PPBG||-17.38|-52.55|<0.001
91920851|NCT02750410|183739582|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.81|-24.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Bedtime BG||-24.09|-58.81|<0.001
91920852|NCT02750410|183739583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-0.59|0.776
91920853|NCT03215277|183739588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Posterior Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||Results were based on a complete case (ie, data as observed) Bayesian linear model with the change from Baseline in ASDAS as the independent variable. Treatment was included as a predictor in the model and Baseline ASDAS as a covariate. The mean posterior difference and 95% credible interval were presented for the BKZ vs CZP comparison.||0.60|-0.14|
91920854|NCT03215277|183739588|SUPERIORITY||PR[Diff > 0%](%)|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Results were based on a complete case (ie, data as observed) Bayesian linear model with the change from Baseline in ASDAS as the independent variable. Treatment was included as a predictor in the model and Baseline ASDAS as a covariate. Pr\[Diff\>0%\](%) refers to the probability that the mean change from Baseline in ASDAS in the BKZ group was greater than the mean change from Baseline in ASDAS in the CZP group.||||
91920855|NCT01244737|183739629|OTHER||Pearson correlation co-efficient|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||This is a diagnostic test of FLT uptake (SUV max) as a predictor of cellular proliferation (MIB) and is performed as an analysis of correlation using each evaluable participant enrolled in either Arm 1 (New Diagnosis) or Arm 2 (Possible recurrent tumor). The groups (Arm 1 and Arm 2) provide pathways for enrollment. Correlation between the two measures of outcome (SUV max and MIB) is evaluated.||||< 0.001
91920856|NCT01244737|183739632|OTHER|Paired T-test to assess change in FLT uptake (SUV max) with chemotherapy.||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91920857|NCT00736229|183739633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison for the difference in Median glucose values during steady state across all three groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Median Glucose Values (mg/dl) after steady state were evaluated across the three groups (Exenatide,Moderate and Intensive) with a Kruskal-Wallis test.||||<0.001
91920858|NCT00736229|183739633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison of Median Glucose Values between Exenatide and Intensive Groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median Glucose Values (mg/dl) after steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Intensive study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||<0.001
91920859|NCT00736229|183739633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||Comparison of Median Glucose Values between Exenatide and Moderate Groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median Glucose Values (mg/dl) after steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Moderate study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||0.15
91920860|NCT00736229|183739634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Median Time (Hrs) to steady state was evaluated across the three groups (exenatide, moderate and intensive) with a Kruskal-Wallis test.||||<0.001
91920861|NCT00736229|183739634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median time (hours) to steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Intensive study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||0.80
91920862|NCT00736229|183739634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median time (hours) to steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Moderate study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||<0.001
91920863|NCT00356915|183739644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This was stratified by analysis center.||P-Value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, . The superiority analysis was restricted to the itraconazole 200-mg tablets and placebo tablets dosing groups.||||<0.001
91920864|NCT00356915|183739645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the one-sided, 97.5% CI in the observed difference between the proportions of subjects by study drug with Complete Cure at week 52 (itraconazole 200-mg tablets minus itraconazole 100-mg capsules) was greater than -10%. No p-value was calculated for this endpoint.|Wald's CI|0.56|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.3||||Wald's CI|The statistical analysis used Wald's CI with Yates' continuity correction.||Comparison between the 2 itraconazole groups was based on lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval for the difference. The non-inferiority analysis was restricted to the active dosing groups.|||-4.3|
91920865|NCT00356915|183739646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumption was that the Complete Cure rate at week 52 was 35% for the active dosing groups, a sample size of 552 ITT subjects per active group would have had a 93% power for testing the proportion of subjects with Complete Cure. These computations assumed a non inferiority margin of 10% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025. Power computations were performed using nQuery Advisor, Version 5.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.1||||Wald's CI|The statistical analysis used Wald's CI with Yates' continuity correction.||The test for demonstrating non-inferiority was based on a margin of 10%. Thus, non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the one-sided, 97.5% CI in the observed difference between the proportions of subjects by study drug with Complete Cure at week 52 (itraconazole 200-mg tablets minus itraconazole 100-mg capsules) was greater than -10%. The non-inferiority analysis was restricted to the active dosing groups.|||-1.1|< 0.001
91920866|NCT00356915|183739647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This was stratified by analysis center.||The superiority analysis was restricted to the itraconazole 200-mg tablets and placebo tablets dosing groups.||||<0.001
91920867|NCT02371629|183739648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0169||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.066|||Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM)|||||0.066|0.000|0.051
91920868|NCT01193335|183739663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|2.88||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||2.88|-7.65|
91920869|NCT01193335|183739663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-3.21||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.21|-26.40|
91920870|NCT01193335|183739663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|6.05||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.05|-5.84|
91920871|NCT01193335|183739663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|7.25||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.25|-1.71|
91920872|NCT01193335|183739663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|8.89||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.89|-4.09|
91920873|NCT01193335|183739663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.68||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.68|-4.54|
91920874|NCT01193335|183739663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-6.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.19|1.89||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||1.89|-16.19|
91810412|NCT00536198|183496068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from Cycle 1 to end point between active vs. placebo||1.26|0.83|0.84
91920875|NCT01193335|183739663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|4.86||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.86|-9.07|
91920876|NCT01193335|183739663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-4.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|4.39||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.39|-14.40|
91920877|NCT01193335|183739663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-7.16||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-7.16|-30.10|
91920878|NCT01193335|183739663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-12.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.66|-3.26||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.26|-21.66|
91920879|NCT01193335|183739663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.68||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.68|-4.54|
91810413|NCT00536198|183496069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison||||0.01
91810414|NCT00536198|183496069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
91920880|NCT01193335|183739663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.68||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.68|-4.54|
91920881|NCT01193335|183739664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.02|0.62|
91920882|NCT01193335|183739664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.82||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.82|0.38|
91920883|NCT01193335|183739664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.93||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.93|0.59|
91920884|NCT01193335|183739664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.65||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.65|0.92|
91920885|NCT01193335|183739664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.25|0.80|
91920886|NCT01193335|183739664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.90|0.58|
91920887|NCT01193335|183739664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.86||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.86|0.47|
91920888|NCT01193335|183739664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.89|0.55|
91920889|NCT01193335|183739664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.19|0.77|
91920890|NCT01193335|183739664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.40|
91920891|NCT01193335|183739664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.82||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.82|0.45|
91920892|NCT01193335|183739664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.88||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.57|
91920893|NCT01193335|183739664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.07||||||Serotype 19: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.07|0.68|
91920894|NCT01193335|183739673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.668
91920895|NCT01193335|183739673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.051
91920896|NCT01193335|183739674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.704
91765470|NCT01425801|183419802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.375|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.375|0.269|<0.0001
91920897|NCT01193335|183739674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||>0.99
91920898|NCT01193335|183739675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.531
91920899|NCT01193335|183739675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||>0.99
91920900|NCT01193335|183739676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.183
91920901|NCT01193335|183739676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.357
91920902|NCT01193335|183739677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.794
91920903|NCT01193335|183739677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.782
91920904|NCT01193335|183739678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14||||||Serotype 4: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.14|0.63|
91810415|NCT00536198|183496069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.28
91920905|NCT01193335|183739678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.62||||||Serotype 6B: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.62|0.95|
91920906|NCT01193335|183739678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.47||||||Serotype 9V: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.47|0.96|
91920907|NCT01193335|183739678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.26||||||Serotype 14: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.26|0.74|
91920908|NCT01193335|183739678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02||||||Serotype 18C: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.02|0.63|
91920909|NCT01193335|183739678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19||||||Serotype 19F: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.19|0.65|
91920910|NCT01193335|183739678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||||||Serotype 23F: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.33|0.74|
91920911|NCT01193335|183739678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11||||||Serotype 1: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.11|0.64|
91920912|NCT01193335|183739678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05||||||Serotype 3: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||2.05|1.03|
91920913|NCT01193335|183739678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.24||||||Serotype 5: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.24|0.81|
91920914|NCT01193335|183739678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.82||||||Serotype 6A: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.82|1.02|
91920915|NCT01193335|183739678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18||||||Serotype 7F: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.18|0.78|
91920916|NCT01193335|183739678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.52||||||Serotype 19A: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.52|0.88|
91920917|NCT01193335|183739680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
91920918|NCT01193335|183739680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|1.96||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||1.96|-8.15|
91920919|NCT01193335|183739680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
91765471|NCT01425801|183419802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.327|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.327|0.221|<0.0001
91765472|NCT03066596|183419828|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with logit link function was used to compare the percentage of participants with corrected actions taken and GEE method was used to account for within-clinic correlation. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between groups in the the percentage of participants with corrected actions taken. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has greater than 80% power to detect a difference of 15 percentage points.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.08||The p-values reported above represented the calculated value rather than predetermined thresholds for significance. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.|GLM with GEE|||||6.08|1.98|<.001
91765473|NCT03066596|183419828|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to analysis 1, however, the model adjusting for sex, age, race/ethnicity, symptom free days (at baseline), nurse screening results, clinic characteristics, visit type, caregiver education, and smoking exposure (at baseline).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|6.82||The p-values reported above represented the calculated value rather than predetermined thresholds for significance. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.|GLM with GEE|||||6.82|1.97|<.001
91810416|NCT00536198|183496069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.19|0.30|0.056
91920920|NCT01193335|183739680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
91920921|NCT01193335|183739680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|6.24||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.24|-3.13|
91810417|NCT00536198|183496071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.30
91920922|NCT01193335|183739680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
91920923|NCT01193335|183739680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|3.1||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.10|-6.32|
91920924|NCT01193335|183739680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
91920925|NCT01193335|183739680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-8.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.93|4.42||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.42|-21.93|
91920926|NCT01193335|183739680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
91920927|NCT01193335|183739680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
91920928|NCT01193335|183739680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
91920929|NCT01193335|183739680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
91765474|NCT03066596|183419829|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.13||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34|||GLM with GEE|||3 month follow up||1.34|0.95|0.174
91810418|NCT00536198|183496071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.01
91810419|NCT00536198|183496071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.73
91810420|NCT00536198|183496071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.35|0.92|0.06
91920930|NCT01193335|183739682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.97|0.60|
91920931|NCT01193335|183739682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.66||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.66|0.39|
91920932|NCT01193335|183739682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.8||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.80|0.51|
91920933|NCT01193335|183739682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.12||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.12|0.66|
91920934|NCT01193335|183739682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.32|0.85|
91920935|NCT01193335|183739682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.92|0.58|
91920936|NCT01193335|183739682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.43|
91920937|NCT01193335|183739682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.2||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.20|0.77|
91920938|NCT01193335|183739682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.87||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.41|
91920939|NCT01193335|183739682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.88||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.56|
91920940|NCT01193335|183739682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.7||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.70|0.41|
91920941|NCT01193335|183739682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.71|
91920942|NCT01193335|183739682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.72||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.42|
91920943|NCT01193335|183739683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.82|0.51|
91920944|NCT01193335|183739683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.79||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.79|0.47|
91920945|NCT01193335|183739683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.93|0.61|
91920946|NCT01193335|183739683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.07|0.66|
91920947|NCT01193335|183739683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.08|0.66|
91920948|NCT01193335|183739683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.83||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.48|
91920949|NCT01193335|183739683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.79||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.79|0.46|
91920950|NCT01193335|183739683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.03||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.64|
91920951|NCT01193335|183739683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.73|
91920952|NCT01193335|183739683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.58|
91920953|NCT01193335|183739683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.9||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.90|0.57|
91920954|NCT01193335|183739683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.00|0.69|
91920955|NCT01193335|183739683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.81||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.81|0.49|
91920956|NCT01193335|183739684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.04|0.63|
91920957|NCT01193335|183739684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.83||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.48|
91920958|NCT01193335|183739684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.84|0.46|
91810421|NCT00536198|183496072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.80
91920959|NCT01193335|183739684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.12||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.12|0.61|
91920960|NCT01193335|183739684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.67||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.67|0.37|
91920961|NCT01193335|183739684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.40|
91920962|NCT01193335|183739684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.64||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.64|0.35|
91920963|NCT01193335|183739684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.94||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.94|0.61|
91920964|NCT01193335|183739684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.9||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.90|0.39|
91920965|NCT01193335|183739684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.52|
91920966|NCT01193335|183739684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.52|
91920967|NCT01193335|183739684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.02|0.67|
91920968|NCT01193335|183739684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.72||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.36|
91920969|NCT01193335|183739685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.61|
91920970|NCT01193335|183739685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.76|0.38|
91920971|NCT01193335|183739685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.54|
91920972|NCT01193335|183739685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.17|0.51|
91810422|NCT00536198|183496072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
91920973|NCT01193335|183739685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.78||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.78|0.40|
91920974|NCT01193335|183739685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.71||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.71|0.29|
91920975|NCT01193335|183739685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.83||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.38|
91920976|NCT01193335|183739685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.07||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.07|0.63|
91810423|NCT00536198|183496072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.43
91920977|NCT01193335|183739685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.11||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.11|0.39|
91920978|NCT01193335|183739685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.92||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.92|0.50|
91920979|NCT01193335|183739685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.95|0.47|
91920980|NCT01193335|183739685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.13|0.70|
91920981|NCT01193335|183739685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.78||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.78|0.37|
91920982|NCT01193335|183739691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.81||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.81|0.99|
91810424|NCT00536198|183496072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to endpoint between active vs. placebo||1.45|0.85|0.61
91810425|NCT00536198|183496073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.83
91810426|NCT00536198|183496073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
91920983|NCT01193335|183739691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.2||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.20|0.59|
91920984|NCT01193335|183739691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.93||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.93|0.26|
91920985|NCT01193335|183739691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.98||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.98|0.80|
91920986|NCT01193335|183739691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.00|1.01|
91920987|NCT01193335|183739691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.89||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.89|0.82|
91810427|NCT00536198|183496073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.02
91810428|NCT00536198|183496073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.25|0.96|0.169
91920988|NCT01193335|183739691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.99||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.99|0.80|
91920989|NCT01193335|183739691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.56|
91920990|NCT01193335|183739691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.41|0.83|
91810429|NCT00536198|183496074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.37
91810430|NCT00536198|183496074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
91810431|NCT00536198|183496074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.73
91810432|NCT00536198|183496074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.28|0.91|0.13
91810433|NCT00536198|183496075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.31
91810434|NCT00536198|183496075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
91810435|NCT00536198|183496075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.46
91920991|NCT01193335|183739691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.94||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.94|0.36|
91920992|NCT01193335|183739691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.68||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.68|0.88|
91920993|NCT01193335|183739691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.39||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.39|0.78|
91920994|NCT01193335|183739691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.51||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.51|0.89|
91920995|NCT01193335|183739692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.44||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.44|0.37|
91920996|NCT01193335|183739692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.71||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.71|0.37|
91920997|NCT01193335|183739692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.12||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||3.12|0.76|
91920998|NCT01193335|183739692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.17||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.17|0.33|
91920999|NCT01193335|183739692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.55||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.55|0.24|
91921000|NCT01193335|183739692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.77||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.77|0.97|
91921001|NCT01193335|183739692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.46||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.46|0.35|
91921002|NCT01193335|183739692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.60|1.00|
91765475|NCT03066596|183419829|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.04||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||GLM with GEE|||6 month follow up||1.27|0.85|0.741
91921003|NCT01193335|183739692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.33||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.33|0.68|
91921004|NCT01193335|183739692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.31|0.82|
91921005|NCT01193335|183739692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.04|0.24|
91921006|NCT01193335|183739692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.53||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.53|0.58|
91921007|NCT01193335|183739692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.37||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.37|0.52|
91765476|NCT03066596|183419829|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.03||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25|||GLM with GEE|||9 month follow up||1.25|0.85|0.724
91765477|NCT03066596|183419829|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.12||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.34|||GLM with GEE|||12 month follow up||1.34|0.93|0.229
91765478|NCT03066596|183419829|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 1, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.13||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34|||GLM with GEE|||3 month follow up||1.34|0.94|0.186
91765479|NCT03066596|183419829|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 2, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.04||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||GLM with GEE|||6 month follow up||1.27|0.84|0.744
91765480|NCT03066596|183419829|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 3, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.03||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25|||GLM with GEE|||9 month follow up||1.25|0.85|0.765
91765481|NCT03066596|183419829|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 4, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.11||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33|||GLM with GEE|||12 month follow up||1.33|0.93|0.241
91921008|NCT01193335|183739693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.97||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.97|0.45|
91765482|NCT00666406|183419868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.173|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.089|1.262||||||||1.262|1.089|
91765483|NCT00666406|183419869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.139|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.043|1.243||||||||1.243|1.043|
91765484|NCT00666406|183419870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|1.297||||||||1.297|0.866|
91765485|NCT00666406|183419871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.179||||||||1.179|0.972|
91765486|NCT00666406|183419872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.171|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.099|1.247||||||||1.247|1.099|
91921009|NCT01193335|183739693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.4||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.40|0.54|
91765487|NCT00666406|183419873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.135|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.092|1.18||||||||1.180|1.092|
91765488|NCT00666406|183419874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.857|1.253||||||||1.253|0.857|
91765489|NCT00666406|183419875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.007|1.186||||||||1.186|1.007|
91765490|NCT00666406|183419876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|0.913||||||||0.913|0.798|
91765491|NCT00666406|183419877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.847|0.916||||||||0.916|0.847|
91765492|NCT00666406|183419878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.799|1.164||||||||1.164|0.799|
91765493|NCT00666406|183419879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|0.995||||||||0.995|0.841|
91765494|NCT00666406|183419880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.177|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.104|1.256||||||||1.256|1.104|
91765495|NCT00666406|183419881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.152|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.039|1.277||||||||1.277|1.039|
91765496|NCT00666406|183419882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.182|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.029|1.359||||||||1.359|1.029|
91765497|NCT00666406|183419883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.27||||||||1.270|1.010|
91765498|NCT00666406|183419884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.05||||||||1.050|0.969|
91765499|NCT00666406|183419885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.843|1.102||||||||1.102|0.843|
91765500|NCT00666406|183419886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|1.163||||||||1.163|0.926|
91765501|NCT00666406|183419887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.144||||||||1.144|0.901|
91765502|NCT00666406|183419888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.178|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.106|1.254||||||||1.254|1.106|
91765503|NCT00666406|183419889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.152|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.038|1.279||||||||1.279|1.038|
91765504|NCT00666406|183419890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.183|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.027|1.362||||||||1.362|1.027|
91765505|NCT00666406|183419891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.27||||||||1.270|1.012|
91765506|NCT00666406|183419892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.056||||||||1.056|0.964|
91765507|NCT00666406|183419893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.112||||||||1.112|0.849|
91765508|NCT00666406|183419894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.109||||||||1.109|0.938|
91765509|NCT00666406|183419895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.111||||||||1.111|0.894|
91921010|NCT01193335|183739693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.31||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.31|0.41|
91921011|NCT01193335|183739693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.14|0.54|
91765510|NCT00666406|183419896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.0||||||||1.000|1.000|
91921012|NCT01193335|183739693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.87||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.34|
91921013|NCT01193335|183739693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.10|0.31|
91921014|NCT01193335|183739693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.01||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.01|0.40|
91921015|NCT01193335|183739693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.81||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.81|0.38|
91921016|NCT01193335|183739693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.17|0.76|
91921017|NCT01193335|183739693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.91||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.91|0.45|
91921018|NCT01193335|183739693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.85|0.47|
91921019|NCT01193335|183739693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.15||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.74|
91921020|NCT01193335|183739693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.52|
91921021|NCT01193335|183739694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.05||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.05|0.35|
91921022|NCT01193335|183739694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.63||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.63|0.41|
91921023|NCT01193335|183739694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.53||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.53|0.22|
91921024|NCT01193335|183739694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.44||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.44|0.38|
91921025|NCT01193335|183739694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.76||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.76|0.10|
91921026|NCT01193335|183739694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.3||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.30|0.25|
91765511|NCT00666406|183419897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.303|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|2.02||||||||2.020|0.841|
91765512|NCT00666406|183419898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.304|1.728||||||||1.728|0.304|
91921027|NCT01193335|183739694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.65||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.65|0.11|
91921028|NCT01193335|183739694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.32|0.81|
91921029|NCT01193335|183739694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.37||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.37|0.56|
91921030|NCT01193335|183739694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.23||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.23|0.51|
91921031|NCT01193335|183739694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.86||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.86|0.17|
91921032|NCT01193335|183739694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.97||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.97|0.64|
91921033|NCT01193335|183739694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.97||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.97|0.27|
91765513|NCT00666406|183419899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.442|2.539||||||||2.539|0.442|
91765514|NCT00666406|183419900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|0.92||||||||0.920|0.807|
91921034|NCT01193335|183739695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.37||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.37|0.33|
91921035|NCT01193335|183739695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.07||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||3.07|0.37|
91921036|NCT01193335|183739695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.36||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||5.36|0.57|
91921037|NCT01193335|183739695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.07||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.07|0.38|
91921038|NCT01193335|183739695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.21||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.21|0.18|
91921039|NCT01193335|183739695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.53||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.53|0.27|
91921040|NCT01193335|183739695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.15||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.17|
91921041|NCT01193335|183739695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.31||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.31|0.96|
91921042|NCT01193335|183739695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.14||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.14|0.41|
91765515|NCT00666406|183419901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.002||||||||1.002|0.730|
91765516|NCT00666406|183419902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.788|1.228||||||||1.228|0.788|
91765517|NCT00666406|183419903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.039||||||||1.039|0.800|
91765518|NCT01369784|183419961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.812
91765519|NCT01369784|183419962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.612
91921043|NCT01193335|183739695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.92||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.92|0.49|
91921044|NCT01193335|183739695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.03||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.16|
91921045|NCT01193335|183739695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.48||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.48|0.27|
91921046|NCT01193335|183739695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.91||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.91|0.22|
91921047|NCT01193335|183739696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|5.99||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.99|-6.33|
91921048|NCT01193335|183739696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.87|5.39||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.39|-16.87|
91921049|NCT01193335|183739696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-6.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.28|10.67||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.67|-24.28|
91921050|NCT01193335|183739696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|10.57||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.57|-3.68|
91921051|NCT01193335|183739696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|5.88||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.88|-6.57|
91921052|NCT01193335|183739696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|11.91||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.91|-3.32|
91765520|NCT01369784|183419963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.402
91765521|NCT01369784|183419964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.557
91810436|NCT00536198|183496075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.23|0.96|0.94
91921053|NCT01193335|183739696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|9.94||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||9.94|-6.73|
91921054|NCT01193335|183739696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Perecent Difference|-10.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|4.34||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.34|-25.51|
91921055|NCT01193335|183739696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|4.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|11.48||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.48|0.04|
91921056|NCT01193335|183739696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-16.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.15|-2.6||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-2.60|-29.15|
91921057|NCT01193335|183739696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|7.97||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.97|-1.96|
91921058|NCT01193335|183739696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|2.1||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||2.10|-7.55|
91921059|NCT01193335|183739696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|3.18||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.18|-5.96|
91921060|NCT01193335|183739697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.11|7.49||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.49|-25.11|
91921061|NCT01193335|183739697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.03|10.4||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.40|-21.03|
91921062|NCT01193335|183739697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|21.16||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||21.16|-7.16|
91765522|NCT01369784|183419965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.234
91765523|NCT01369784|183419966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.057
91765524|NCT01369784|183419967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.117
91765525|NCT01219985|183419969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||We performed a McNemar test to compare the sensitivities obtained for each PET image method||||<0.001
91765526|NCT01219985|183419970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was : lesions' SUVmax are equivalent with our without application of the CT-Based respiratory-gated PET method.||||<0.001
91765527|NCT02905266|183419981|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in incidence rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Fixed Ratio Combination over Sequential Combination|||0.0|0.0|
91810437|NCT00536198|183496076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||<0.001
91921063|NCT01193335|183739697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|3.35||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.35|-20.28|
91921064|NCT01193335|183739697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-10.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.01|8.11||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.11|-29.01|
91921065|NCT01193335|183739697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|17.65||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||17.65|-1.52|
91921066|NCT01193335|183739697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-13.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.57|3.31||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.31|-29.57|
91921067|NCT01193335|183739697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|8.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|17.81||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||17.81|-0.52|
91921068|NCT01193335|183739697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|8.29||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.29|-22.86|
91921069|NCT01193335|183739697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|10.08||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.08|-8.82|
91921070|NCT01193335|183739697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-20.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.45|-3.95||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.95|-35.45|
91921071|NCT01193335|183739697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|19.06||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||19.06|-8.50|
91921072|NCT01193335|183739697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|11.13||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.13|-17.51|
91921073|NCT01193335|183739698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|5.89||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.89|-5.59|
91765528|NCT02905266|183419989|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference of ORRs|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|11.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||11.0|-26.1|
91765529|NCT02905266|183419989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.58||||||||1.58|0.35|
91765530|NCT02905266|183419990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.37|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||2.37|0.78|
91921074|NCT01193335|183739698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|7.37||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.37|-6.81|
91921075|NCT01193335|183739698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|7.44||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.44|-10.87|
91921076|NCT01193335|183739698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|5.94||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.94|-5.94|
91921077|NCT01193335|183739698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|4.25||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.25|-8.66|
91810438|NCT00536198|183496076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
91921078|NCT01193335|183739698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-6.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.93|3.56||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.56|-17.93|
91921079|NCT01193335|183739698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|7.04||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.04|-6.74|
91921080|NCT01193335|183739698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.37|2.75||||||Serotype 1: CI Parameter was percent difference between the groups. Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||2.75|-16.37|
91921081|NCT01193335|183739698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|6.85||||||Serotype 3: CI Parameter was percent difference between the groups. Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.85|-3.37|
91921082|NCT01193335|183739698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|5.14||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.14|-8.36|
91765531|NCT02905266|183419991|SUPERIORITY||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.49|||||Fixed Ratio Combination over Sequential Combination|||2.49|0.30|
91765532|NCT02905266|183419991|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in incidence rates|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|12.2|||||Fixed Ratio Combination over Sequential Combination|||12.2|-16.0|
91810439|NCT00536198|183496076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||<0.01
91810440|NCT00536198|183496076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.41|1.05|0.027
91810441|NCT00536198|183496077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison||||0.01
91810442|NCT00536198|183496077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||<0.001
91921083|NCT01193335|183739698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|5.04||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.04|-4.73|
91921084|NCT01193335|183739698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.55||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.55|-4.48|
91921085|NCT01193335|183739698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.55||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.55|-4.48|
91921086|NCT01193335|183739699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|9.9||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||9.9|-24.5|
91921087|NCT01193335|183739699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|11.8||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.8|-23.6|
91921088|NCT01193335|183739699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|6.0||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.0|-27.6|
91921089|NCT01193335|183739699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|8.4||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.4|-17.0|
91921090|NCT01193335|183739699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-4.9||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-4.9|-40.0|
91921091|NCT01193335|183739699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|3.4||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.4|-27.4|
91921092|NCT01193335|183739699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-28.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-11.0||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-11.0|-43.9|
91921093|NCT01193335|183739699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.3||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.3|-10.9|
91921094|NCT01193335|183739699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|15.1||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||15.1|-17.5|
91921095|NCT01193335|183739699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|4.5||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.5|-25.3|
91921096|NCT01193335|183739699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-3.0||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.0|-33.3|
91921097|NCT01193335|183739699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|13.1||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||13.1|-7.1|
91921098|NCT01193335|183739699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-2.8||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-2.8|-33.7|
91921099|NCT01193335|183739700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|9.9||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||9.9|-25.2|
91921100|NCT01193335|183739700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|19.0||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||19.0|-18.5|
91921101|NCT01193335|183739700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|26.2||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||26.2|-12.0|
91921102|NCT01193335|183739700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|13.3||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||13.3|-19.1|
91921103|NCT01193335|183739700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-0.3||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-0.3|-34.6|
91921104|NCT01193335|183739700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|12.1||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||12.1|-20.6|
91921105|NCT01193335|183739700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-3.2||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.2|-37.8|
91921106|NCT01193335|183739700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.2||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||15.2|-2.7|
91921107|NCT01193335|183739700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|12.0||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||12.0|-22.0|
91921108|NCT01193335|183739700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-2.4||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-2.4|-26.7|
91921109|NCT01193335|183739700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|-3.0||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.0|-36.8|
91921110|NCT01193335|183739700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|4.1||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.1|-26.4|
91921111|NCT01193335|183739700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-4.6||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-4.6|-37.7|
91921112|NCT01364467|183739715|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
91921113|NCT01364467|183739716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
91921114|NCT01364467|183739716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91921115|NCT01624194|183739761|OTHER|||||||0.0275|||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||0.0275
91921116|NCT01624194|183739762|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Fisher's Exact Test was used to test for differences in adverse events between oxytocin-treated and placebo-treated individuals. A p-value of ≤0.05 would have been statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91921117|NCT01624194|183739763|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-models analysis was used to compare between groups, and between baseline and Week 4.||||||>0.05
91921118|NCT01624194|183739766|OTHER|||||||0.3395|||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||0.3395
91921119|NCT01624194|183739774|OTHER|||||||0.9757|||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||0.9757
91921120|NCT01624194|183739775|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-models analysis was used to compare between groups, and between baseline and Week 4.||||||>0.05
91921121|NCT01624194|183739776|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91810443|NCT00536198|183496077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference between active and placebo groups at end-point only||1.02|0.30|0.056
91921122|NCT01624194|183739777|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||For all blood pressure analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91921123|NCT04322708|183739778|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|81.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.5|89.0|||Fisher Exact|||||89.0|71.5|<0.0001
91921124|NCT04322708|183739778|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|77.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|85.4|||Fisher Exact|||||85.4|66.1|<0.0001
91921125|NCT04322708|183739779|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|2.7||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.3|||ANCOVA|||||7.3|-1.9|0.2470
91921126|NCT04322708|183739779|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-2.8||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-7.3|0.2372
91921127|NCT04322708|183739780|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-95.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.0|-82.4|||ANCOVA|||||-82.4|-109|<0.0001
91810444|NCT00965718|183496111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.123||||||Global health status scores at baseline and final observation point were compared via a 2-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
91921128|NCT04322708|183739780|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-96.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.0|-82.5|||ANCOVA|||||-82.5|-110|<0.0001
91921129|NCT04322708|183739781|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|83.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.4|90.8|||Fisher Exact|||||90.8|74.4|<0.0001
91921130|NCT04322708|183739781|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|80.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.8|87.9|||Fisher Exact|||||87.9|69.8|<0.0001
91921131|NCT04322708|183739782|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|77.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.4|85.5|||Fisher Exact|||||85.5|66.4|<0.0001
91921132|NCT04322708|183739782|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|72.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|81.9|||Fisher Exact|||||81.9|61.3|<0.0001
91921133|NCT04322708|183739783|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|36.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|49.5|||Fisher Exact|||||49.5|22.9|<0.0001
91921134|NCT04322708|183739783|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|61.0|||Fisher Exact|||||61.0|35.9|<0.0001
91810445|NCT01244425|183496127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||likelihood-ratio chi square test|||||||<0.001
91810446|NCT01244425|183496128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||<0.001
91810447|NCT01244425|183496129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.028
91810448|NCT01244425|183496130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.017
91921135|NCT04322708|183739784|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|-4.8||||0.5561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.0|||Fisher Exact|||||10.0|-19.2|0.5561
91921136|NCT04322708|183739784|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|4.9||||0.5554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|19.6|||Fisher Exact|||||19.6|-9.9|0.5554
91921137|NCT04322708|183739785|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-0.6||||0.9506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|17.0|||ANCOVA|||||17.0|-18.1|0.9506
91921138|NCT04322708|183739785|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-17.6||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-35.4|0.0511
91921139|NCT04322708|183739786|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|2.6||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 23-24 Change from Baseline||6.7|-1.4|0.2007
91921140|NCT04322708|183739786|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-2.7||||0.1889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 23-24 Change from Baseline||1.3|-6.8|0.1889
91921141|NCT04322708|183739787|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-0.3||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.3|0.4980
91921142|NCT04322708|183739787|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.2||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.7|0.6390
91921143|NCT03815175|183739799|NON_INFERIORITY|"H0: Death/(MI\[1m-DAPT\]) - Death/(MI \[XIENCE V USA\]) ≥ δ HA: Death/MI(\[1m-DAPT\]) - Death/(MI \[XIENCE V USA: NCT00676520\]) \< δ~Where δ is the non-inferiority margin. The test will be carried out with a one-sided significance level of 0.025 and a non-inferiority margin (δ) of 2.5%."||||||0.0005|||||||Farrington-Manning method|||||||0.0005
91921144|NCT03815175|183739802|SUPERIORITY|"H0: B (1m-DAPT) - B (XIENCE V USA) ≥ 0 HA: B (1m-DAPT) - B (XIENCE V USA: NCT00676520) \< 0~B 1m-DAPT and B XIENCE V USA are bleeding rates (BARC type 2-5) between 1-month and 6-month follow-up for the pooled 1-month DAPT arm and XIENCE V USA historical control, respectively."||||||0.1888|||||||Farrington and Manning method|||||||0.1888
91921145|NCT03542682|183739911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.63|13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for order of the clamps and accounting for within subject correlation.||||13.30|-124.63|
91921146|NCT03542682|183739913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for order of the clamps and accounting for within subject correlation.||||3.02|-1.10|
91921147|NCT03542682|183739914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|131.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-246.7|510.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for order of the clamps and accounting for within subject correlation.||||510.41|-246.70|
91921148|NCT01212445|183739920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.192||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.325|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was defined as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.325|0.096|0.1790
91921149|NCT01212445|183739920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.314||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.459|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.459|0.191|1.0000
91921150|NCT01212445|183739920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.196||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.331|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.331|0.098|0.2558
91921151|NCT01212445|183739920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|4.763|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 26.25 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence interval. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||4.763|0.774|
91921152|NCT01212445|183739920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 39.375 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence intervals. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||2.720|0.386|
91921153|NCT01212445|183739922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.077||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.185|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.185|0.021|0.2350
91810449|NCT01244425|183496131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.293
91921154|NCT01212445|183739922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.157||||0.5256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.286|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.286|0.070|0.5256
91921155|NCT01212445|183739922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.118||||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.239|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.239|0.044|0.7746
91810450|NCT01244425|183496132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.237
91810451|NCT01244425|183496133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.808
91810452|NCT02771990|183496166|OTHER|Pilot study|z-score|3.11||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
91810453|NCT02771990|183496167|OTHER|Pilot study||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.67
91921156|NCT01212445|183739922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|7.94|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 26.25 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence intervals. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||7.940|0.628|
91921157|NCT01212445|183739922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|6.043|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 39.375 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence intervals. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||6.043|0.424|
91921158|NCT01212445|183739923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.752||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.834|19.338|||ANCOVA|||||19.338|-3.834|0.1876
91921159|NCT01212445|183739923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.706||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.729|13.141|||ANCOVA|||||13.141|-9.729|0.7680
91921160|NCT01212445|183739923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.046||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.412|5.32|||ANCOVA|||||5.320|-17.412|0.2941
91921161|NCT01212445|183739924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.302||||0.8109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.059|9.454|||ANCOVA|||||9.454|-12.059|0.8109
91921162|NCT01212445|183739924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.075||||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.693|8.544|||ANCOVA|||||8.544|-12.693|0.6995
91921163|NCT01212445|183739924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.772||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.329|9.784|||ANCOVA|||||9.784|-11.329|0.8850
91921164|NCT01212445|183739925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.886||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|25.695|||ANCOVA|||||25.695|0.078|0.0486
91921165|NCT01212445|183739925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.245||||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.471|13.962|||ANCOVA|||||13.962|-11.471|0.8465
91921166|NCT01212445|183739925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.641||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.449|1.167|||ANCOVA|||||1.167|-24.449|0.0744
91921167|NCT01212445|183739926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.4591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.153|13.534|||ANCOVA|||||13.534|-6.153|0.4591
91921168|NCT01212445|183739926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.887||||0.5546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.765|12.539|||ANCOVA|||||12.539|-6.765|0.5546
91921169|NCT01212445|183739926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.803||||0.8685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.397|8.79|||ANCOVA|||||8.790|-10.397|0.8685
91921170|NCT01212445|183739927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.311||||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.774|0.152|||ANCOVA|||||0.152|-0.774|0.1865
91921171|NCT01212445|183739927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|0.323|||ANCOVA|||||0.323|-0.602|0.5530
91921172|NCT01212445|183739927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.637|||ANCOVA|||||0.637|-0.293|0.4670
91921173|NCT04090164|183739928|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.406||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.341|4.316|||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used for testing of association of Breast Cancer diagnosis with anti-HCV test status.||4.316|1.341|0.0027
91921174|NCT04090164|183739928|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.032||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.582|31.25|||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used to test the association of Breast Cancer diagnosis with anti-HCV test result in women younger than 45 years.||31.25|1.582|0.0034
91921175|NCT03439345|183739930|SUPERIORITY|For the time-to-event analyses, survival analytic methods will be used to evaluate the time to the first event during the entire study period. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation, will be used to estimate the hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.||||0.91|0.58|0.006
91921176|NCT03439345|183739931|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.91|0.57|0.005
91921177|NCT03439345|183739932|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.06|0.31|0.08
91921178|NCT03439345|183739933|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.90|0.61|0.003
91921179|NCT03439345|183739934|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.85|0.52|0.001
91921180|NCT03439345|183739935|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.84|0.30|0.008
91921181|NCT03439345|183739936|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for the baseline visual acuity.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from linear mixed model repeated measures.||0.01|-0.01|0.36
91921182|NCT03439345|183739937|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for baseline VFQ-25 composite score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from linear mixed model repeated measures.||1|-1|0.58
91921183|NCT03439345|183739938|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for baseline EQ-5D Index Score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from linear mixed model repeated measures.||0.02|-0.02|0.93
91921184|NCT03439345|183739939|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for baseline EQ-5D Visual Analogue Score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from a linear mixed model repeated measures||1|-2|0.43
91921185|NCT03439345|183739940|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-254.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1062.0|624.0||||||||624|-1062|
91921186|NCT03439345|183739941|OTHER||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|614.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||£614 cost per QALY gained based on probabilistic analysis|||||
91921187|NCT03439345|183739942|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.99|0.58|
91765533|NCT00596752|183419996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2587||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 is given by p1=0.00587.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H01: πhealingPGE1≤ πhealingPlacebo, with πhealing=proportion of subjects with complete ulcer healing. The planned information rate for stage 1 of the two-stage group sequential test design with an overall one-sided comparison-wise α=0.0125 for this co-primary endpoint is given by 0.83.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1."||||0.2587
91765534|NCT00596752|183419996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3463||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 and 2 combined is given by p2=0.01085.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H01: πhealingPGE1≤ πhealingPlacebo, with πhealing=proportion of subjects with complete ulcer healing.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1 and stage 2 combined."||||0.3463
91765535|NCT00596752|183419997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0173||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 is given by p1=0.00587.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H02: πampPGE1≥ πampPlacebo, with πamp=proportion of subjects with major amputations.~The planned information rate for stage 1 of the two-stage group sequential test design with an overall one-sided comparison-wise α=0.0125 for this co-primary endpoint is given by 0.83.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1."||||0.0173
91765536|NCT00596752|183419997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1154||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 and 2 combined is given by p2=0.01085.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H02: πampPGE1≥ πampPlacebo, with πamp=proportion of subjects with major amputations.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1 and stage 2 combined."||||0.1154
91765537|NCT02538042|183420014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.39
91765538|NCT04445662|183420020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
91921188|NCT03439345|183739943|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.00|0.40|
91921189|NCT03439345|183739944|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.97|0.52|
91921190|NCT03439345|183739945|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.07||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.07|0.55|
91765539|NCT04445662|183420021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91765540|NCT02915978|183420054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|0.0|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 1 hour||0.00|-3.61|0.0505
91765541|NCT02915978|183420054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.77|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 1 hour||0.77|-2.89|0.2493
91765542|NCT02915978|183420054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.94|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 16 hours||-0.94|-4.95|0.0052
91810454|NCT00720434|183496180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.36357||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19228|-0.53485|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95 percentage (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated.||-0.53485|-4.19228|0.0131
91921191|NCT03439345|183739946|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.21||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.21|0.51|
91921192|NCT03439345|183739947|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.93||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.93|0.54|
91921193|NCT03439345|183739948|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.93||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.93|0.28|
91921194|NCT03439345|183739949|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.99|0.60|
91765543|NCT02915978|183420054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|0.29|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 16 hours||0.29|-3.62|0.0926
91765544|NCT02915978|183420054|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.26|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 24 hours||0.26|-3.06|0.0951
91765545|NCT02915978|183420054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.63|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 24 hours||1.63|-1.60|0.9866
91921195|NCT03439345|183739950|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.95||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.95|0.49|
91921196|NCT03439345|183739951|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.06||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.06|0.53|
91921197|NCT03439345|183739952|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.57||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||3.57|0.55|
91921198|NCT03439345|183739953|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.03|0.48|
91921199|NCT03439345|183739954|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.99||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.99|0.56|
91921200|NCT03439345|183739955|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for the baseline UACR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|3.5|||||Estimates are in %.|Linear mixed model repeated measures analyses were conducted to estimate the trial-averaged percentage difference in geometric mean UACR between the randomised treatment groups. UACR data at baseline was available for 312 participants allocated fenofibrate and 310 participants allocated placebo.||3.5|-25.8|
91921201|NCT03439345|183739956|SUPERIORITY|"Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.~."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.6||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.60|0.69|
91921202|NCT03439345|183739957|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.12||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.12|0.11|
91921203|NCT05405166|183739958|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of relative risk 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater or equal to 0.839.|Relative risk|1.008||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.126|||Farrington-Manning||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using Farrington-Manning method.|||1.126|0.903|0.0006
91921204|NCT05405166|183739959|NON_INFERIORITY|Applied anti-log procedure to convert original scale. Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of ratio of geometric mean 90% CI was greater or equal to 0.80.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.532|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.316|1.784||||||||1.784|1.316|
91921205|NCT05405166|183739960|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of relative risk 95% CI was greater or equal to 0.6312.|Relative risk|1.011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.215|||Farrington-Manning||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using Farrington-Manning method.|A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.215|0.841|<0.0001
91921206|NCT05405166|183739961|NON_INFERIORITY|Applied anti-log procedure to convert original scale. Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of ratio of geometric mean 90% CI was greater or equal to 0.80.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.302|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.158|1.465||||||A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.465|1.158|
91921207|NCT05405166|183739962|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.061|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.164|||Fisher Exact||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using Wald method.|A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.164|0.022|<0.0001
91921208|NCT05405166|183739963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.036||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.425|2.908||Stratified on multiple myeloma (MM) isotype (immunoglobulin G \[IgG\] versus non-IgG), body weight (\<=65 kg, \>65 to \<=85 kg, and \>85 kg), and number of prior lines (1 to 2 versus \>=3) according to IRT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using the Wald method.|A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.908|1.425|0.0001
91921209|NCT01843374|183740019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12||P-value was estimated using the method of Klein et al. 2007 and Whitehead and Whitehead 1991, stratified by EORTC status and Line of therapy.|Log Rank|The stratification factors included EORTC status and line of therapy as recorded in IVRS/IWRS.|Tremelimumab represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator|H0: No difference between tremelimumab and placebo H1: Difference between tremelimumab and placebo||1.12|0.76|0.4081
91921210|NCT01843374|183740020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.289||Estimated using the methods of Klein et al. 2007 and Whitehead and Whitehead 1991, stratified by EORTC status and line of therapy.|Log Rank||Tremelimumab is the numerator and Placebo the denominator|||1.289|0.793|0.926
91921211|NCT01843374|183740021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98||Estimated using the methods of Klein et al. 2007 and Whitehead and Whitehead 1991, stratified by EORTC status and line of therapy.|Log Rank|Stratification factors were EORTC status and Line of therapy|Tremelimumab is the numerator and placebo, the denominator|||0.98|0.68|0.0325
91921212|NCT00955110|183740037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|-28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-16.0||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||-16.0|-41.6|<0.001
91921213|NCT00955110|183740037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.4|-37.5||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||-37.5|-63.4|<0.001
91921214|NCT00955110|183740037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|5.5||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|18.3||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||18.3|-7.3|0.395
91921215|NCT00955110|183740037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|38.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|50.8||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||50.8|25.2|<0.001
91921216|NCT00955110|183740037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.1|68.9||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||68.9|43.1|<0.001
91921217|NCT00955110|183740037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|66.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.9|79.7||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||79.7|53.9|<0.001
91921218|NCT02128490|183740038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|51.0|||Fisher Exact|||||51.0|20.8|<0.001
91921219|NCT02128490|183740038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|60.5|||Fisher Exact|||||60.5|28.9|<0.001
91765546|NCT00892775|183420074|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.76||||||||1.76|-2.29|
91810455|NCT00720434|183496180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4919||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44619|-0.5376|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||-0.53760|-4.44619|0.0142
91765547|NCT00892775|183420074|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|5.58||||||||5.58|-6.14|
91765548|NCT00892775|183420074|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.08||||||||2.08|-1.78|
91810456|NCT00720434|183496180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.46325||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41898|0.49248|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.49248|-3.41898|0.1368
91921220|NCT02128490|183740038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|22.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|41.0|||Fisher Exact|||||41.0|3.7|0.034
91921221|NCT02128490|183740038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|4.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|26.6|||Fisher Exact|||||26.6|-18.2|0.817
91921222|NCT02128490|183740039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|12.6||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|29.0|||Fisher Exact|||||29.0|-3.9|0.224
91921223|NCT02128490|183740039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|31.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|50.1|||Fisher Exact|||||50.1|13.1|0.004
91921224|NCT02128490|183740039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-17.5||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|3.2|||Fisher Exact|||||3.2|-38.1|0.139
91921225|NCT02128490|183740039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|4.3||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|26.4|||Fisher Exact|||||26.4|-17.9|0.815
91921226|NCT02128490|183740040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|53.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|69.5|||Fisher Exact|||||69.5|38.2|<0.001
91921227|NCT02128490|183740040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|55.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|71.1|||Fisher Exact|||||71.1|39.5|<0.001
91921228|NCT02128490|183740040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|21.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|43.1|||Fisher Exact|||||43.1|-0.3|0.069
91921229|NCT02128490|183740040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-4.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|18.2|||Fisher Exact|||||18.2|-26.6|0.817
91921230|NCT02243176|183740041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a total sample size of 480 patients randomized and an expected drop-out rate of 20%, the trial will be powered at 90% to establish non-inferiority for the primary endpoint, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025, with the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, assuming the true effects are the same between treatments. The calculation is also based on the assumption that the standard deviation for the change in HbA1c is 1.2%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.13||This p value is for the hypothesis of superiority|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|"H01: μS-μA≥ 0.4% vs Ha1: μS-μA\< 0.4%. Null hypothesis will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0.4%.If the null hypothesis above (H01) is rejected, the following hypothesis will be tested to further establish superiority:~H02: μS-μA≥ 0 vs Ha2: μS-μA\< 0. This null hypothesis (H02) will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0."||0.13|-0.22|0.6236
91921231|NCT02243176|183740042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a total sample size of 480 patients randomized and an expected drop-out rate of 20%, the trial will be powered at 90% to establish non-inferiority for the primary endpoint, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025, with the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, assuming the true effects are the same between treatments. The calculation is also based on the assumption that the standard deviation for the change in HbA1c is 1.2%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15||This p value is for the hypothesis of superiority|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|"H01: μS-μA≥ 0.4% vs Ha1: μS-μA\< 0.4%. Null hypothesis will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0.4%.If the null hypothesis above (H01) is rejected, the following hypothesis will be tested to further establish superiority:~H02: μS-μA≥ 0 vs Ha2: μS-μA\< 0. This null hypothesis (H02) will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0."||0.15|-0.21|0.7809
91921232|NCT02243176|183740043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratefied by the baseline disease severity (HbA1c \< 8.0% and ≥ 8.0%)|RR = Saxagliptin/Acarbose|||0.39|0.12|<0.0001
91921233|NCT02243176|183740044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratefied by baseline disease severity (HbA1c\<8%, \>=8%)||||1.15|0.74|0.5044
91921234|NCT02243176|183740045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratefied by the baseline disease severity (HbA1c \< 8.0% and ≥ 8.0%)|RR = Saxagliptin/Acarbose|||1.67|0.98|0.0518
91921235|NCT02243176|183740046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||0.38|-0.33|0.8915
91921236|NCT02243176|183740047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.791|||ANCOVA||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||0.791|-0.186|0.2248
91921237|NCT02243176|183740048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.407||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.039|24.005|||ANCOVA||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||24.005|-9.039|0.3739
91921238|NCT02243176|183740049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||1.19|0.18|0.0078
91921239|NCT01332435|183740055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91921240|NCT01332435|183740055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
91921241|NCT01332435|183740056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91765549|NCT00892775|183420074|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|4.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|10.34||||||||10.34|0.72|
91765550|NCT01973413|183420098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Significance level of 0.05, 90% power, required 48 nights of OCL and 48 control nights to detect a 20% improvement.|||||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.037
91765551|NCT01973413|183420099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.340
91810457|NCT00720434|183496180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.90032||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76711|0.96648|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.96648|-2.76711|0.3321
91921242|NCT01332435|183740056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0006
91921243|NCT01332435|183740057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91921244|NCT01332435|183740057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0699||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0699
91921245|NCT01332435|183740058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91921246|NCT01332435|183740058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8645||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8645
91921247|NCT01332435|183740059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91921248|NCT01332435|183740059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91921249|NCT03704051|183740061|EQUIVALENCE|A priori power analysis based on pilot testing with 12 dyads indicated that a sample size of at least 40 dyads would provide 80% power to detect significant within-subjects (condition, i.e., breastfeeding directly from the breast vs. bottle-feeding expressed breast milk) effects at an α = 0.05 Type I error level.||||||0.634|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for order of conditions, time since last feeding and infant age.||||||0.634
91921250|NCT03704051|183740062|EQUIVALENCE|A priori power analysis based on pilot testing with 12 dyads indicated that a sample size of at least 40 dyads would provide 80% power to detect significant within-subjects (condition, i.e., breastfeeding directly from the breast vs. bottle-feeding expressed breast milk) effects at an α = 0.05 Type I error level.||||||0.115|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for order of conditions, time since last feeding and infant age.||||||0.115
91921251|NCT02517515|183740094|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12) for the treatment-naïve participants in the Double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-naïve patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with SVR12 must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|99.9||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-naïve group, the sample size 180 treatment-naïve participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-naïve patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||99.9|97.0|
91921252|NCT02517515|183740094|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the treatment-experienced participants in the Double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-experienced group, the sample size 180 treatment-experienced participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||100.0|97.4|
91921253|NCT02517515|183740095|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 24 weeks after treatment (SVR24) for the treatment-naïve participants in the Double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-naïve patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with SVR24 must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|99.9||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-experienced group, the sample size 180 treatment-experienced participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||99.9|97.0|
91921254|NCT02517515|183740095|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 24 weeks after treatment (SVR24) for the treatment-experienced participants in the double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with SVR24 must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-experienced group, the sample size 180 treatment-experienced participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||100.0|97.4|
91921255|NCT04902885|183740114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||non-parametric ANCOVA|||70 subjects (35 per group) provided approximately 95% power at the test level of α = 0.05 (2-sided) .Assuming a dropout rate of approximately 12%, the sample size for Part II was 80 subjects (40 per group)||||0.0003
91921256|NCT00917384|183740137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.0473||95.0|0.603|0.998|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Log-Rank Test and HR stratified by randomization strata (weight loss over the prior 3 months, primary tumor site and geographical region).||||0.998|0.603|0.0473
91921257|NCT00917384|183740138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.483|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.62|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Log-Rank Test and HR stratified by randomization strata (weight loss over the prior 3 months, primary tumor site and geographical region).||||0.620|0.376|<0.0001
91921258|NCT00917384|183740139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference Between Arms|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|33.6|||Normal Approximation|||||33.6|14.9|<0.0001
91921259|NCT01458340|183740162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.6026|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||α=0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||3.2||0.6026
91765552|NCT03691571|183420116|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Esophageal thermal injury was detected in 13/44 (30%) patients.||||>.05
91765553|NCT03691571|183420118|OTHER|feasibility/pilot study||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91765554|NCT03691571|183420119|OTHER|feasibility/pilot study||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91765555|NCT03691571|183420120|OTHER|feasibility/pilot study||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
91810458|NCT00720434|183496180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.02865||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95573|0.89844|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.89844|-2.95573|0.2839
91921260|NCT01458340|183740162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.4844|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.7||α=0.05 significance level.|MMRM|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||2.7||0.4844
91921261|NCT01458340|183740163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.5269|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.7||α=0.05 significance level.|MMRM|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||3.7||0.5269
91921262|NCT01458340|183740163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.2092|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.8||α=0.05 significance level.|MMRM|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||1.8||0.2092
91921263|NCT01021007|183740177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method using treatment as the factor and the baseline score as a covariate||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.005
91921264|NCT01021007|183740178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method using treatment as the factor and the baseline score as a covariate||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91921265|NCT01021007|183740179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method using treatment as the factor and the baseline score as a covariate||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91810459|NCT00720434|183496180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12833||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73676|1.99342|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||1.99342|-1.73676|0.8891
91810460|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1565|0.8785||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.8785|0.1565|
91810461|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.969||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.9690|0.2330|
91810462|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0871|0.9191||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.9191|0.0871|
91810463|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4769|0.4336||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.4336|-0.4769|
91810464|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125||||||95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
91810465|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5729|0.3149||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.3149|-0.5729|
91810466|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1836|0.6931||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6931|-0.1836|
91810467|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1732|0.7797||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.7797|-0.1732|
91810468|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
91810469|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2934|0.5917||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5917|-0.2934|
91810470|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2913|0.696||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6960|-0.2913|
91810471|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5144|0.388||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.3880|-0.5144|
91810472|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3728|0.5414||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5414|-0.3728|
91810473|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2913|0.696||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6960|-0.2913|
91810474|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
91921266|NCT03293030|183740190|SUPERIORITY|Note: Our statistical test was run to identify the number of significant genes. The result is a number and there is no calculation of any comparative statistic such as an odds ratio.|||||<|0.05||||||P-value was adjusted for false discovery rate|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Single cell RNA-sequencing was used to calculate the number of differentially expressed genes in cutaneous CD4+ T cells between week 0 and week 12 in dupilumab-treated subjects. The calculation was performed in the software package Seurat (RRID:SCR\_016341) using the FindMarkers function, which utilizes a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Genes were considered significantly differentially expressed if the adjusted p-value \< 0.05 and the absolute value of log2(Fold Change) \> 1.0.||||<0.05
91921267|NCT04899271|183740191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.807
91810475|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.025||||||95.0|-0.4769|0.4336||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.4336|-0.4769|
91810476|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
91810477|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5729|0.3149||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.3149|-0.5729|
91921268|NCT04899271|183740192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 6||||0.746
91921269|NCT04899271|183740192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 18||||0.201
91921270|NCT04899271|183740193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 6||||0.867
91921271|NCT04899271|183740193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 12||||0.769
91921272|NCT04899271|183740193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 18||||0.776
91921273|NCT04899271|183740194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521||||||Assumption of normality was confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; the comparison between treatment arms was performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.521
91921274|NCT04899271|183740194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959||||||Assumption of normality was confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; the comparison between treatment arms was performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.959
91810478|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
91921275|NCT04899271|183740194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773||||||Assumption of normality was confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; the comparison between treatment arms was performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||0.773
91921276|NCT04899271|183740195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.691
91921277|NCT04899271|183740195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.685
91921278|NCT04899271|183740195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||0.640
91921279|NCT04899271|183740196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 6||||0.867
91921280|NCT04899271|183740196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared and Fisher's Exact test separated with a /.||Comparison at month 12||||0.769
91921281|NCT04899271|183740196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||Comparison at month 18||||0.577
91921282|NCT04899271|183740197|SUPERIORITY|The effect of treatment on the cumulative number of severe hypoglycemic events was evaluated by means of a Cox proportional hazards model. The Andersen-Gill intensity model with model-based variance was utilized.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.271||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|2.819|||Cox proportional hazards model|Analysis is based on Cox proportional hazards model.||||2.819|0.573|0.554
91810479|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
91921283|NCT04899271|183740199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.320
91921284|NCT04899271|183740199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.398
91921285|NCT04899271|183740199|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||1.000
91921286|NCT04899271|183740200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892||||||Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.892
91921287|NCT04899271|183740200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412||||||Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.412
91921288|NCT04899271|183740200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||0.371
91921289|NCT00095303|183740228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||slope of linear trajectory of drug use|0.05||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimated is the regression coefficient on the interaction of the BSFT treatment assignment and the linear time trend.|Null Hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in reducing adolescent drug abuse, defined as the percentage of drug use days in 28-day periods. The outcome variable is the percentage of days of drug use within a 28-day period. This variable constructed from the Timeline-Follow-back instrument and measured as the sum of the number of days with positive use in 28-day increments. Hypothesis tested using hierarchical linear models.||.14|-.04|.27
91921290|NCT00095303|183740230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimated is the regression coefficient on the interaction of BSFT treatment assignment and the linear time trend.|Null hypothesis: It is hypothesized that BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in decreasing adolescent externalizing problem behaviors||0.08|-0.28|.26
91921291|NCT00095303|183740246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09|||GEE|||Null Hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in the rates of drug use, defined as the percentage of drug use days in last 90 days. The primary hypothesis will be evaluated in terms of % of days of drug use in the last 90 days, assessed by the timeline follow-back. The general analytic approach will use generalized estimating equation (GEE) with negative binomial distribution comparing the BSFT and TAU participants||1.09|.82|.21
91921292|NCT00095303|183740248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.12|||GEE|||Null hypothesis: It is hypothesized that BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in the level of externalizing problem behaviors||-.12|-.71|<.006
91921293|NCT00095303|183740249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.12||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in improving family functioning.The four components of the 'Parenting Practices Inventory' will be used to create a composite for use in this analysis. The four component scales from the Parenting Practices Inventory are 'Positive Parenting', 'Discipline Effectiveness,' 'Avoidance of Discipline' and 'Monitoring' scales from the Pittsburgh Youth Survey. Hypothesis will be analyzed as using hierarchical linear models.||.22|.03|.015
91921294|NCT00095303|183740253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.54|||GEE|||||1.54|-.18|.12
91921295|NCT00095303|183740254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.33||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.76|||GEE||The parameter estimated is the regression coefficient on the interaction of BSFT treatment assignment and the linear time trend.|Null hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in decreasing sexually risky behaviors. The total score of the 'HIV/Sex Risk Behaviors' measure will be used as the outcome.Hypothesis analyzed using the hierarchical linear model.||.76|-.09|.12
91921296|NCT00095303|183740258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.37|||GEE|||||.37|-.09|.23
91921297|NCT03842137|183740278|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.15|||Regression, Linear|Utilizing a regression model, baseline craving scores, group condition, and their interaction are regressed on 2-week craving scores.||||-.15|-.91|.008
91921298|NCT03842137|183740279|SUPERIORITY|An ancova model was conducted comparing differences between tDCS and sham on post-stimulation theta burst rate, while controlling for pre-stimulation theta burst rate||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.005
91921299|NCT00613626|183740292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.718||0.1|ONE_SIDED|90.0|||||Log Rank|||A one-sided log rank test with an overall sample size of 68 subjects (of which 34 are in arm A and 34 are in arm B) achieves 80% power at a 0.10 significance level to detect a difference of 3 months in PFS between 4 month median PFS and 7 month median PFS.||||0.10
91921300|NCT00613626|183740292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9518|TWO_SIDED|||||P-Value (2-tailed) is calculated based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|Degrees of freedom=1||||||0.9518
91921301|NCT00613626|183740294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2533|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in Rates|P-value (two-tailed) is calculated based on an unadjusted, normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates.||||||0.2533
91921302|NCT00613626|183740295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in Rates|||||||0.8720
91921303|NCT00613626|183740296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4577|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4577
91921304|NCT00613626|183740297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Survival analysis of VEGF variants using cox proportional hazard analysis in arm A and arm B.|Data was not collected for safety lead-in participants and these participants were not included in the analysis.||||
91921305|NCT00613626|183740297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Logistic Regression Analysis|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Objective Response Analysis of VEGF variants using Logistic Regression Analysis in arm A and arm B|||||
91921306|NCT00004980|183740298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514||0.005||95.0|-4.65|-0.86||a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|degree of freedom = 48||||-.86|-4.65|.005
91921307|NCT00004980|183740299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.002||95.0|0.507|2.03||a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 48||null hypothesis is that the groups are the same||2.03|.507|.002
91921308|NCT00004980|183740300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.001||95.0|-1.45|-0.44||A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 46||||-.44|-1.45|.001
91921309|NCT00004980|183740301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05|Chi-squared|||||||.01
91921310|NCT01299025|183740302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91921311|NCT05480514|183740306|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.90 was used. Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% central posterior credible interval was above 0.90.|Mean Posterior Proportion|0.9741|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01244|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9445|0.9926|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|||||0.9926|0.9445|
91921312|NCT00457639|183740342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.8||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|61.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||61.1|-19.7|0.42
91921313|NCT00457639|183740343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|50.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||50.8|-17.7|0.45
91921314|NCT02625402|183740355|EQUIVALENCE|Knowledge scores within 10% points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|21.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||21.5|-8.8|<0.05
91921315|NCT01200433|183740358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"We tested a joint hypothesis that dexmedetomidine was noninferior to propofol both in terms of cerebral blood flow velocity and brain oxygenation during DBS surgery.~A total of 44 patients provided a 90% power at the 0.05 significance level to detect noninferiority of dexmedetomidine to propofol using a noninferiority ratio of geometric means of 0.80, assuming a coefficient of variation of 25% for each of the 2 primary outcomes. Both outcomes were expected to follow a log-normal distribution."|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.94||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.05|||t-test, 1 sided||Dexmedetomidine vs. propofol|||1.05|0.84|0.011
91921316|NCT01200433|183740359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"We tested a joint hypothesis that dexmedetomidine was noninferior to propofol both in terms of cerebral blood flow velocity and brain oxygenation during DBS surgery.~A total of 44 patients provided a 90% power at the 0.05 significance level to detect noninferiority of dexmedetomidine to propofol using a noninferiority ratio of geometric means of 0.80, assuming a coefficient of variation of 25% for each of the 2 primary outcomes. Both outcomes were expected to follow a log-normal distribution."|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.02|||t-test, 1 sided||Dexmedetomidine vs. propofol|||1.02|0.96|< 0.001
91921317|NCT01200433|183740361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|<0.001
91921318|NCT01200433|183740362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.86|1.18|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.18|0.86|0.91
91921319|NCT01200433|183740364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.1|0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.2|-4.1|0.02
91921320|NCT01200433|183740365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|>0.99
91921321|NCT00770861|183740376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Between-treatment comparison of efficacy was performed by ANCOVA, with treatment, baseline BMI, center as factors \& baseline value as a covariate.||H0 - There was no difference in BP reduction between Neb and Placebo. The efficacy analyses were based on the ITT population for the double-blind treatment phase. The LOCF was used to impute missing postbaseline values. Sensitivity analyses were based on observed cases for all efficacy parameters. All statistical tests were two-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance for main effects. All confidence intervals were two-sided 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91921322|NCT00770861|183740377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91921323|NCT01093612|183740462|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||<0.001
91921324|NCT01093612|183740463|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||<0.001
91921325|NCT03191786|183740464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.||0.97|0.63|0.025
91921326|NCT03191786|183740465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|16.3||||||OS Rate at 6 Months||16.3|-3.3|
91921327|NCT03191786|183740465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|15.0||||||OS Rate at 12 Months||15.0|-4.9|
91810480|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
91810481|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
91921328|NCT03191786|183740465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.5||||||OS Rate at 18 Months||16.5|-1.6|
91810482|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
91810483|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
91921329|NCT03191786|183740465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|19.5||||||OS Rate at 24 Months||19.5|4.4|
91921330|NCT03191786|183740467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.||1.07|0.70|0.182
91921331|NCT03191786|183740472|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.975||95.0|0.57|1.78|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Dyspnoea (single item QLQ-C30)||1.78|0.57|0.975
91921332|NCT03191786|183740472|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.42|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Fatigue (multi items QLQ-C30)||1.42|0.55|0.620
91921333|NCT03191786|183740473|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.26|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Cough (single item QLQ-LC13)||2.26|0.60|0.653
91921334|NCT03191786|183740473|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.97|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Chest pain (single item QLQ-LC13)||0.97|0.27|0.036
91921335|NCT03191786|183740473|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Dyspnoea (multiple items QLQ-LC13)||1.11|0.45|0.125
91921336|NCT03191786|183740473|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Arm and/or shoulder pain (single item QLQ-LC13)||1.39|0.41|0.362
91921337|NCT03191786|183740473|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99|||Log Rank|||Time to Confirmed Deterioration for the Composite of the 3 following symptoms: cough, dyspnoea (multi-items QLQ-LC13) and chest pain||0.99|0.46|0.041
91921338|NCT03191786|183740474|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||Log Rank|||SP263 TC\>=1%||1.15|0.61|0.272
91921339|NCT03191786|183740475|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18|||Log Rank|||SP263 TC\>=1%||1.18|0.64|0.366
91921340|NCT05110300|183740487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0283||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.0283
91921341|NCT05110300|183740488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3118||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.3118
91810484|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
91921342|NCT05110300|183740489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.213
91921343|NCT05110300|183740489|EQUIVALENCE|MDC of the inpatient stroke population for the BBS was used as the equivalence bounds. Equivalence bounds were set at +/- 6.9|||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91921344|NCT05110300|183740489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.320
91921345|NCT05110300|183740490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2612||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.2612
91921346|NCT05110300|183740491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.5410
91921347|NCT05110300|183740492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6282||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.6282
91921348|NCT05110300|183740492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5056||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.5056
91921349|NCT05110300|183740493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.5580
91921350|NCT05110300|183740494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0897||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.0897
91921351|NCT05110300|183740495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0549||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.0549
91921352|NCT05110300|183740495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05626||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.05626
91921353|NCT05110300|183740496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0706||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.0706
91921354|NCT05110300|183740497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1629||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.1629
91921355|NCT05110300|183740498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4271||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.4271
91921356|NCT05110300|183740498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.4190
91921357|NCT05110300|183740499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3444||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.3444
91921358|NCT05110300|183740500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3581||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.3581
91921359|NCT05110300|183740501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.9060
91921360|NCT05110300|183740501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0848||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.0848
91921361|NCT01709799|183740520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,90.577)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||< .001
91921362|NCT01709799|183740520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom are (4,90.564)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.995
91921363|NCT01709799|183740521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,97.137)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<.001
91921364|NCT01709799|183740521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,97.108)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.254
91921365|NCT01709799|183740522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,99.647)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<0.001
91921366|NCT01709799|183740522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,99.601)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.781
91921367|NCT01709799|183740523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,102.315)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<0.001
91921368|NCT01709799|183740523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,102.216)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.026
91921369|NCT01709799|183740524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,93.240)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<0.001
91810485|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
91810486|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
91921370|NCT01709799|183740524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,93.167)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.313
91921371|NCT01709799|183740525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,115.573)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||0.630
91921372|NCT01709799|183740525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,115.593)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.498
91921373|NCT03167619|183740530|SUPERIORITY||MLE assuming exponential distribution|0.18||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.27|||Chi-squared|Comparison to mean of historical control|Presence of patients with long PFS may have violated exponential assumption.|Assumed median PFS = 2.0 months as historical control, transformed to rate of 0.35/month||0.27|0.11|0.0023
91921374|NCT03167619|183740531|SUPERIORITY||MLE assuming exponential distribution|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.19|||Chi-squared|Comparison to mean of historical control|Presence of patients with long PFS may have violated exponential assumption.|Assumed median PFS = 2.0 months as historical control, transformed to rate of 0.35/month||0.19|0.07|<0.0001
91921375|NCT01009463|183740555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.06|0.72|0.181
91921376|NCT01009463|183740555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81||Nominal p-value|Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.81|0.54|<0.001
91921377|NCT01009463|183740555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.04|0.70|0.109
91921378|NCT01009463|183740556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.76|0.430
91921379|NCT01009463|183740556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.59|0.002
91921380|NCT01009463|183740556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.69|0.114
91921381|NCT01009463|183740557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.05|0.67|0.125
91921382|NCT01009463|183740557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78||Nominal p-value|Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||0.78|0.49|<0.001
91921383|NCT01009463|183740557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||1.01|0.64|0.064
91921384|NCT01009463|183740558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.041||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.072||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.072|0.009|0.011
91921385|NCT01009463|183740558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.058|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.09||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.090|0.027|<0.001
91921386|NCT01009463|183740558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.064|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.096||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.096|0.033|<0.001
91921387|NCT04871815|183740607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Body Aches||||0.200
91921388|NCT04871815|183740607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0326|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Headaches||||0.0326
91921389|NCT04871815|183740607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Coughing/Sneezing||||0.0043
91810487|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
91810488|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
91921390|NCT04871815|183740607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trouble Breathing||||0.0003
91921391|NCT04871815|183740607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Congestion||||0.3714
91921392|NCT04871815|183740607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fatigue||||0.300
91921393|NCT04871815|183740607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Loss of Smell/Taste||||0.2286
91921394|NCT04871815|183740607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Anxiety||||0.999
91921395|NCT04871815|183740608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91921396|NCT04871815|183740609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1963|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1963
91921397|NCT04871815|183740610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91921398|NCT04871815|183740610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day 1 baseline (day 1 of study) vs Day 1 treatment (day 7 of study).||||0.0008
91921399|NCT04871815|183740610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day 1 baseline (day 1 of study) vs Day 7 treatment (day 14 of study).||||<0.0001
91921400|NCT04871815|183740610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day 7 baseline (day 7 of study) vs Day 1 treatment (day 7 of study).||||0.0114
91921401|NCT04871815|183740610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day7 baseline (day 7 of study) vs Day 7 treatment (day 14 of study)||||<0.0001
91921402|NCT01733329|183740611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91921403|NCT01733329|183740612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
91921404|NCT01733329|183740613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.058
91921405|NCT01733329|183740614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
91921406|NCT01015443|183740627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.032||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.931|||Adjusted log rank|||||1.931|0.552|0.921
91921407|NCT00609128|183740636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with preplanned comparisons was used to generate two tailed P values. Paired t tests were used to make appropriate post-ANOVA comparisons.||"tears were collected in season from eyes of allergic patients with or without olopatadine treatment, that is one eye was treated and the patients other eye was not.~Tears from each patient's eyes were pooled to provide enough volume."||||<0.05
91921408|NCT00258154|183740651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (Rotateq+INFANRIX hexa group minus Placebo+INFANRIX hexa group) for subjects who achieve serum antibody levels of ≥ 10 mIU/mL greater than -10%|Percentage point difference|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.7|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing percentage difference with the non-inferiority margin of 10 percentage point with Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Percentage point difference (RotaTeq - Placebo)|||3.6|-3.7|<0.001
91921409|NCT00258154|183740653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (Rotateq+INFANRIX hexa group minus Placebo+INFANRIX hexa group) for subjects who achieve serum antibody levels of ≥ 0.15 μg/mL greater than -10%.|Percentage point difference|-3.7||||0.015||95.0|-9.3|1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing percentage difference with the non-inferiority margin of 10 percentage point with Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Percentage point difference (RotaTeq - Placebo)|||1.3|-9.3|0.015
91921410|NCT05139030|183740681|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL admix and bupivacaine HCI|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.97||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.7|-12.9|||ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||The superiority of EXPAREL admixed to bupivacaine HCI was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||-12.9|-118.7|0.0074
91921411|NCT05139030|183740682|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL admix and bupivacaine HCI|Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.92|||ANCOVA|Total opioid consumption was transformed to log scale. Main effect of treatment, covariates: pooled Investigator site (categorical); age (continuous)||The superiority of EXPAREL admixed to bupivacaine HCI was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||0.92|0.64|0.0018
91921412|NCT05139030|183740683|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazard model: treatment as main effect, pooled Investigator site as categorical, and age and height as continuous covariates||||0.96|0.51|0.0127
91921413|NCT05139030|183740684|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||Worst pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.4|-0.6|0.3674
91921414|NCT05139030|183740684|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||Worst pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.2|-0.9|0.1016
91921415|NCT05139030|183740684|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0||Worst pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-0.0|-1.4|0.0215
91921416|NCT05139030|183740684|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2||Worst pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.2|-1.2|0.0794
91921417|NCT05139030|183740684|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||Average pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.5|-0.7|0.3606
91765556|NCT00250276|183420146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the GMC ratio between lots was within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.34|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the logarithm (log)10 transformation of the concentrations. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.34|0.81|
91810489|NCT00720434|183496181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
91810490|NCT00720434|183496184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.36357||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19228|-0.53485|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||-0.53485|-4.19228|0.0131
91921418|NCT05139030|183740684|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||Average pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-0.0|-1.1|0.0184
91921419|NCT05139030|183740684|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||Average pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.1|-1.1|0.0476
91921420|NCT05139030|183740684|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||Average pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.1|-1.1|0.0529
91921421|NCT00843180|183740696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.2||unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided||this was a feasibility pilot study CI is descriptor of dispersion|comparison between groups by t-test||4.2|-5.4|0.80
91921422|NCT00843180|183740697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.1||unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided||CI serves as dispersion measure|||2.1|-6.9|0.29
91921423|NCT00843180|183740698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|24.3|||t-test, 2 sided||95% CI is dispersion parameter|||24.3|-31.9|0.78
91921424|NCT00843180|183740699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|13.2|||t-test, 2 sided|unadjusted|95%CI is dispersion measure|||13.2|-9.5|0.70
91921425|NCT03429075|183740710|EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
91921426|NCT00002850|183740750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Fisher Exact|Target accrual=70 patients per arm to provide 92% power to detect a difference of 0.31 vs. 0.08 in the proportion of patients with serious infection.||"H0: There is no significant difference in the incidence of severe bacterial infections among all three arms during the first 2 months of treatment at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.~Ha: There is a significant difference in the incidence of severe bacterial infections among all three arms during the first 2 months of treatment at the two-sided 0.05 significance level."||||0.218
91921427|NCT05175170|183740819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.902|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related knowledge. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test knowledge scores.||||<.001
91921428|NCT05175170|183740819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related knowledge. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test knowledge scores.||||<.001
91921429|NCT05175170|183740820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.202||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related decision self-efficacy. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test decision self-efficacy scores.||||0.002
91765557|NCT00250276|183420146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.49|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of theconcentrations. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.49|0.95|
91921430|NCT05175170|183740820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.081||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related decision self-efficacy. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test decision self-efficacy scores.||||0.051
91921431|NCT00630032|183740836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.59|0.175
91921432|NCT00630032|183740837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.53|0.1687
91921433|NCT00630032|183740838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.45|0.6502
91921434|NCT00630032|183740839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.49|0.0665
91921435|NCT00630032|183740840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.59|0.148
91921436|NCT00630032|183740841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.67|0.8968
91921437|NCT02332915|183740843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|dependent t-test||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in mean effect size values for 2-week follow-up values for treated items for SPT-Intense and SPT-Traditional. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||.0128
91921438|NCT02332915|183740844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||t-test, 2 sided|dependent t-test||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in mean effect size values for 2-week follow-up values for untreated (generalization) items for SPT-Intense and SPT-Traditional. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||.942
91921439|NCT02332915|183740845|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in pre-treatment and post-treatment intelligibility scores||||<.001
91921440|NCT03232073|183740851|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect (Rate Ratio)|0.779||||||95.0|0.629|0.965||||||||0.965|0.629|
91921441|NCT03440112|183740919|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Squared|3.0039||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A pair of random-intercept mixed linear models was fitted, a visit model and an interaction model. Visit model included fixed effect of visit and a random intercept by participant. Interaction model adds an interaction by treatment term on top of the visit model. Null hypothesis is that visit by treatment interaction does not explain significant additional variance in clinical outcome scores. Likelihood ratio test comparing the interaction model to the visit model was used to derive a p-value.||||0.391
91921442|NCT03440112|183740920|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Squared|9.4836||||0.02351|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A pair of random-intercept mixed linear models was fitted, a visit model and an interaction model. Visit model included fixed effect of visit and a random intercept by participant. Interaction model adds an interaction by treatment term on top of the visit model. Null hypothesis is that visit by treatment interaction does not explain significant additional variance in clinical outcome scores. Likelihood ratio test comparing the interaction model to the visit model was used to derive a p-value.||||0.02351
91921443|NCT02082184|183740921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.8222|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8222
91921444|NCT02082184|183740922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7925|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7925
91921445|NCT02082184|183740923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \<70 mg/dL||||<0.001
91921446|NCT02082184|183740923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \<55 mg/dL||||0.0014
91921447|NCT02082184|183740924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0164|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<70 mg/dL||||0.0164
91921448|NCT02082184|183740924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<55 mg/dL||||0.0017
91921449|NCT02082184|183740925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \>180 mg/dL||||0.5970
91810491|NCT00720434|183496184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4919||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44619|-0.5376|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||-0.53760|-4.44619|0.0142
91921450|NCT02082184|183740925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8729|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \>240 mg/dL||||0.8729
91921451|NCT02082184|183740928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia||||0.6075
91921452|NCT02082184|183740928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2295|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia||||0.2295
91921453|NCT02082184|183740928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Total treatment satisfaction score||||<0.001
91921454|NCT01362322|183740936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-diphtheria (anti-D) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted radio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to diphteria vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.09|0.85|
91921455|NCT01362322|183740936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-tetanus (anti-T) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to tetanus vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.1|0.86|
91765558|NCT00250276|183420146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.63|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concnetration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.63|0.98|
91765559|NCT00250276|183420146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.85|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concnetration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.85|1.18|
91765560|NCT00250276|183420146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMT ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.55|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.55|0.94|
91810492|NCT00720434|183496184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.46325||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41898|0.49248|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.49248|-3.41898|0.1368
91921456|NCT01362322|183740937|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-pertussis toxoid (anti-PT) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to pertussis toxoid vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.04|0.82|
91921457|NCT01362322|183740937|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-filamentous haemagglutinin (anti-FHA) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03||||||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to filamentous haemagglutinin vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.03|0.83|
91921458|NCT01362322|183740937|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-pertactin (anti-PRN) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13||||||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to pertactin vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.13|0.85|
91921459|NCT02413398|183740949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline (MMRM model)||-0.15|-0.53|<0.001
91921460|NCT02413398|183740950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean percent change from baseline (MMRM)||-0.69|-2.15|<0.001
91921461|NCT02413398|183740951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline versus placebo (MMRM)||-6.45|-26.73|0.001
91921462|NCT02413398|183740952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline vs. placebo (MMRM)||0.0|-6.3|<0.050
91921463|NCT02498652|183740978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects.||||117|90.7|
91921464|NCT02498652|183740978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.1|110.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects.||||110|78.1|
91921465|NCT02498652|183740978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.7|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||120|85.7|
91921466|NCT02498652|183740978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.4|101.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||101|78.4|
91921467|NCT02498652|183740978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.7|114.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale||||114|87.7|
91765561|NCT00250276|183420146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.55|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.55|1.00|
91921468|NCT02498652|183740978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|119.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||119|85.5|
91921469|NCT02498652|183740981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.3|107.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||107|94.3|
91921470|NCT02498652|183740981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.4|106.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||106|90.4|
91921471|NCT02498652|183740981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|114.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||114|94.5|
91921472|NCT02498652|183740981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.7|97.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||97.7|86.7|
91921473|NCT02498652|183740981|NON_INFERIORITY|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|98.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|107.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||107|91.0|
91765562|NCT00250276|183420146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference in seroconversion rates for anti-HPV-16 antibodies was below 5%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|1.02|||Proc StatXact 5.0|||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, one month after the third dose (Month 7).||1.02|-3.63|
91765563|NCT00250276|183420146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference in seroconversion rates for anti-HPV-18 antibodies was below 5%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.94|||Proc StatXact 5.0|||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, on month after the third dose (Month 7).||0.94|-3.18|
91921474|NCT02498652|183740981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.8|102.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||102|92.8|
91921475|NCT01078753|183740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.813||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|3.163||Desmopressin was considered to be superior to Placebo if the p-value for the comparison was \< 0.05 and the reduction from Baseline in number of wet nights was larger in the FE992026 group than in the Placebo group.|ANCOVA|Factors in the analysis were Gender (male, female), age (6≤x≤9, 10≤x≤15), number of wet nights at Baseline (10≤x≤13, x=14), and treatment group.||||3.163|0.462|0.009
91921476|NCT01078753|183740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean Difference|1.629||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|2.972|||ANCOVA|Factors in the analysis were Gender (male, female), age (6≤x≤9, 10≤x≤15), number of wet nights at Baseline (10≤x≤13, x=14), and treatment group.||||2.972|0.287|0.018
91921477|NCT01078753|183740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.183||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.968|1.335|||ANCOVA|Factors in the analysis included Gender (male, female), age (6≤x≤9, 10≤x≤15), number of wet nights at Baseline (10≤x≤13, x=14), and treatment group.||||1.335|-0.968|0.752
91921478|NCT01184989|183740991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability analysis|Ratio|102.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8||||90.0|97.64|106.893|||Geometric Mean||Dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|Estimated local measurements are compared to HPLC-MS/MS measurements. The comparison was done for the 136 quantifiable measurements.||106.893|97.640|
91921479|NCT01184989|183740992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability analysis|Ratio|92.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.5||||90.0|90.079|94.719|||Geometric Mean||The Dispersion Value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|Estimated central measurements are compared to HPLC-MS/MS measurements. The comparison was done for the 468 quantifiable measurements.||94.719|90.079|
91921480|NCT03826914|183741012|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.846|-0.015||The threshold of significance was P=0.05|Anaylsis of Covariance||Placebo - Cardioflex|The primary analysis was conducted using the post-treatment biomarker value, comparing the two groups, and controlling for their baseline values by using analysis of covariance. In this study, the dependent variable was the biomarkers being tested, the controlled independent variable was the treatment given and the uncontrolled variables were the baseline differences between participants.||-0.015|-0.846|0.042
91921481|NCT03826914|183741013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.772||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-2.24||The threshold of significance was P=0.05|Anaylsis of Covariance|||The primary analysis was conducted using the post-treatment biomarker value, comparing the two groups, and controlling for their baseline values by using analysis of covariance. In this study, the dependent variable was the biomarkers being tested, the controlled independent variable was the treatment given and the uncontrolled variables were the baseline differences between participants.||-2.24|-11.2|0.04
91921482|NCT04334148|183741016|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
91921483|NCT04334148|183741017|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.0
91921484|NCT04334148|183741018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.802
91921485|NCT05370157|183741019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.74|||Regression, Linear|Satterthwaite Approximation||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in knowledge from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||7.74|0.76|.03
91921486|NCT05370157|183741020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Satterthwaite Approximation||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in skill use from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||0.20|-0.40|.30
91921487|NCT05370157|183741024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.79|||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in psychological safety from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||0.79|-1.25|.45
91921488|NCT05370157|183741025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in learning behavior from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||0.40|-0.44|.89
91921489|NCT05370157|183741026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.36|||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in team performance from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||1.36|-1.51|.85
91921490|NCT01508676|183741027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
91921491|NCT06129487|183741039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.256
91921492|NCT03772327|183741040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.333||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.694|||t-test, 2 sided|A ratio of Week 12 to baseline TFV-DP levels was used rather than a raw difference as a ratio was normally distributed.|The mean difference is mean ratio (Week 12 TFV-DP level over the Week 0 TFV-DP level) in the Routine counseling + AdhereTech bottle arm less the mean ratio in the Routine counseling arm.|The power calculation was based on a null hypothesis of no difference in mean tenofovir-diphosphate (TFV-DP) concentrations between baseline versus week 12. Expected baseline mean (SD): 900 (404) fmol/punch. 12 week mean (SD): 1332 (597) fmol/punch in the AdhereTech bottle arm vs. 900 (404) fmol/punch in control arm. Type 1 error = 0.05, power = 80%, a sample size of 32 per arm (64 total) based on a two-sided t-test with equal variance.||0.694|-0.028|0.070
91765564|NCT00250276|183420146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the GMC rates for anti-HPV-16 was below 2%.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration, included the vaccine groups as fixed effect (pooled 600L lot versus 80L lot).||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, on month after the third dose (Month 7).||1.08|0.70|
91921493|NCT03772327|183741041|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined if a two-sided 2 sample proportion test accepts the null hypothesis with p \> 0.05.|Difference in proportions|0.045||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.27|||Chi-squared, Corrected|degrees of freedom = 1|This is the proportion of those completing a week 12 visit less those completing a week 0 visit.|The null hypothesis is that the proportion of randomized participants that complete a week 12 visit is not lower in the AdhereTech bottle arm.||0.270|-0.179|0.89
91921494|NCT03772327|183741042|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.328|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Log transformation of viral load|Difference of log viral load at Week 12 less the log viral load at baseline|Null hypothesis: Mean HIV viral load is not significantly different in the AdhereTech bottle group compared to the routine counseling only group.||||0.328
91921495|NCT03772327|183741043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.395||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|2.044|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio for change from HIV RNA ≥ 20 copies/mL at baseline to HIV RNA \< 20 copies/mL at week 12 due to the intervention (AdhereTech bottle).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportion of participants that go from HIV RNA ≥ 20 copies/mL to HIV RNA \< 20 copies/mL between baseline to Week 12 in the AdhereTech bottle group compared the routine counseling group.||2.044|0.058|0.294
91921496|NCT03772327|183741045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.019||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.276|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Null hypothesis: Adherence in the AdhereTech bottle arm is not better than the control arm at Week 12.||0.276|-0.237|1
91921497|NCT04689828|183741046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.56|||Log Rank|Stratified||||0.56|0.29|0.00000001
91921498|NCT04689828|183741047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||stratified Cox PH model|||||1.14|0.72|0.20
91765565|NCT00250276|183420146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the GMC rates anti-HPV-18 antibodies was below 2%.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration, included the vaccine groups as fixed effect (pooled 600L lot versus 80L lot).||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, on month after the third dose (Month 7).||0.97|0.66|
91765566|NCT00555217|183420162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||Log Rank||Combination ARB and ACEI vs. mono therapy ARB|||1.12|0.70|0.30
91765567|NCT00555217|183420163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||Log Rank||Combination ARB and ACEI vs. mono therapy ARB|||1.05|0.58|0.10
91765568|NCT02781610|183420169|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -3.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.||The ERR non-inferiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the per-protocol (PP) population for 93% power assuming 2-sided alpha=0.05 with 155 PP participants per arm. Difference between ERR treatment duration arms is ERR-10 - ERR-14.||2.0|-3.3|0.0164
91921499|NCT00195351|183741067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.009||95.0|-13.1|5.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.1|-13.1|0.009
91921500|NCT00195351|183741068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.02||95.0|-14.5|7.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.8|-14.5|0.020
91921501|NCT00195351|183741069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.015||95.0|-13.9|8.1|||Method of Mehrotra and Railkar|||||8.1|-13.9|0.015
91921502|NCT03959189|183741071|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects model|-0.0796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2768||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model will be used to compare SSS effects following ERX-963 versus placebo. In the primary analysis of SSS, the cohort 1 and cohort 2 data were combined for ERX-963 and placebo treatments.||0.5|-0.6|0.7746
91921503|NCT03959189|183741071|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects model|-0.2608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3589||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model will be used to compare SSS effects following 1 mg ERX-963 versus placebo. In this analysis of SSS, the effect of 1 mg ERX-963 treatment was compared to the effect of placebo treatment.||0.5|-1.0|0.4700
91765569|NCT02781610|183420170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.||The NERR superiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the Intent-to-Treat (ITT) population for 91% power to detect a 2.5% difference, assuming 2-sided alpha=0.05 with 285 ITT participants per arm. Difference between NERR treatment duration arms is NERR-21 - NERR-14.||1.1|-1.3|0.568
91765570|NCT02781610|183420171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between ERR treatment duration arms is ERR-10 - ERR-14.||4.6|-2.4|0.546
91765571|NCT02781610|183420172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between NERR treatment duration arms is NERR-21 - NERR-14.||0.5|-3.7|0.140
91765572|NCT02781610|183420173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between ERR treatment duration arms is ERR-10 - ERR-14.||0.77|-0.42|0.563
91765573|NCT02781610|183420174|SUPERIORITY|Difference between NERR treatment duration arms is NERR-21 - NERR-14.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|-0.04|0.083
91765574|NCT01657292|183420175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||1-sided, significance level = 0.025|Binomial test|||"All patients received both treatments and treatments were intra-individually compared.~Hypotheses tested: H0: s0 ≤0.5 and H1: s0 \>0.5 (with s0=rate of superiority of Oleogel-S10)."||||<0.0001
91921504|NCT03959189|183741071|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects model|0.1016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4272||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model will be used to compare SSS effects following 2 mg ERX-963 versus placebo. In this analysis of SSS, the effect of 2 mg ERX-963 treatment was compared to the effect of placebo treatment.||1.0|-0.8|0.8127
91921505|NCT01480180|183741101|OTHER||Poisson estimate|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|4.66||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||4.66|2.94|<0.001
91921506|NCT01480180|183741103|OTHER||Poisson estimate|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|4.11||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||4.11|2.59|<0.001
91921507|NCT01480180|183741105|OTHER||Poisson estimate|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.95||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||2.95|1.87|<0.001
91921508|NCT01480180|183741105|OTHER||Poisson estimate|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|6.24||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||6.24|3.09|<0.001
91921509|NCT02513446|183741178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean T/R ratio|176.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.5|193.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale; Fixed effects: sequence, period and treatment; Random effects: subjects within sequences|Ratio of the treatment adjusted geometric means (gMean) of (T) versus (R).|||193.2|160.5|
91921510|NCT02513446|183741179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean T/R ratio|136.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.9|169.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale; Fixed effects: sequence, period and treatment; Random effects: subjects within sequences|Ratio of the treatment adjusted geometric means (gMean) of (T) versus (R).|||169.4|109.9|
91921511|NCT02513446|183741180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean T/R ratio|174.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.1|192.0|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale; Fixed effects: sequence, period and treatment; Random effects: subjects within sequences|Ratio of the treatment adjusted geometric means (gMean) of (T) versus (R).|||192.0|159.1|
91921512|NCT04323488|183741192|OTHER|||||||0.925||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.925
91810493|NCT00720434|183496184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.90032||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76711|0.96648|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.96648|-2.76711|0.3321
91921513|NCT04323488|183741192|OTHER|||||||0.834||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.834
91921514|NCT04323488|183741192|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.180
91921515|NCT04323488|183741192|OTHER|||||||0.091||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.091
91921516|NCT04323488|183741193|OTHER|||||||0.524||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.524
91765575|NCT02663622|183420228|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.13||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.62|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by the matched sets||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean grade III-IV AGFS in days was 135.8 with an SD of 64.66.||0.62|0.01|0.0274
91810494|NCT00720434|183496184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.02865||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95573|0.89844|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.89844|-2.95573|0.2839
91810495|NCT00720434|183496184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12833||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73676|1.99342|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||1.99342|-1.73676|0.8891
91810496|NCT02425046|183496193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||||||0.67
91921517|NCT04323488|183741193|OTHER|||||||0.379||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.379
91921518|NCT04323488|183741193|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.010
91921519|NCT04323488|183741193|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.017
91921520|NCT04323488|183741194|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.60
91921521|NCT04323488|183741194|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.03
91921522|NCT04323488|183741194|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.60
91921523|NCT04323488|183741194|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.03
91921524|NCT04323488|183741195|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||< 0.001
91921525|NCT04323488|183741195|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.29
91921526|NCT04323488|183741195|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||< 0.001
91921527|NCT04323488|183741195|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.26
91921528|NCT05755438|183741209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.659|5.744|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||5.744|1.659|0.0003
91765576|NCT02663622|183420229|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.57||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.08|||Log Rank|||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean grade II-IV AGFS in days was 104.7 with an SD of 72.28.||1.08|0.30|0.0988
91921529|NCT05755438|183741209|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.372|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.42|36.39||||||||36.39|11.42|
91921530|NCT05755438|183741210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||6.033|1.400|0.0034
91921531|NCT05755438|183741210|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.587|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|27.72||||||||27.72|5.82|
91921532|NCT05755438|183741211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.206|16.485|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||16.485|1.206|0.0164
91921533|NCT05755438|183741211|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.591|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|15.79||||||||15.79|1.71|
91921534|NCT05755438|183741212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.486|14.647|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||14.647|1.486|0.0048
91921535|NCT05755438|183741212|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|11.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|19.62||||||||19.62|3.71|
91921536|NCT05755438|183741213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.422|8.608|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||8.608|1.422|0.0064
91921537|NCT05755438|183741213|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|24.17||||||||24.17|4.54|
91921538|NCT05755438|183741214|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||-0.44|-1.54|0.0005
91921539|NCT05755438|183741214|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.73|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||-0.73|-2.11|<0.0001
91765577|NCT02663622|183420235|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.88|||Log Rank|||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean OS in days was 319.3 with an SD of 93.83.||2.88|0.43|0.9088
91921540|NCT05755438|183741214|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.94|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||-0.94|-2.43|<0.0001
91921541|NCT05755438|183741214|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.91|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||-0.91|-2.43|<0.0001
91921542|NCT05755438|183741217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.925|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.406|2.636|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.636|1.406|<0.0001
91765578|NCT02663622|183420237|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27||||0.6131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.46|||Log Rank|||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean RFS in days was 296.0 with an SD of 115.32.||2.46|0.66|0.6131
91765579|NCT00857857|183420238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.449||||||||0.449|0.031|
91765580|NCT00857857|183420238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.477||||||||0.477|0.053|
91921543|NCT05755438|183741218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.111||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.419|3.139|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||3.139|1.419|0.0002
91921544|NCT05755438|183741221|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 2||-0.16|-1.20|0.0111
91921545|NCT05755438|183741221|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-0.47|-1.82|0.0010
91921546|NCT05755438|183741221|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-0.37|-1.84|0.0034
91921547|NCT05755438|183741221|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 12||-0.37|-1.90|0.0038
91921548|NCT05755438|183741227|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.826||0.8028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.42|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||1.42|-1.84|0.8028
91921549|NCT05755438|183741227|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.928||0.7151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||1.49|-2.17|0.7151
91921550|NCT05755438|183741227|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.79|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||0.79|-2.95|0.2569
91921551|NCT05755438|183741227|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.971||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.53|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||0.53|-3.30|0.1555
91921552|NCT05755438|183741229|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.722||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|10.27|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||10.27|-0.47|0.0736
91921553|NCT05755438|183741229|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.729||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|8.69|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||8.69|-2.07|0.2265
91921554|NCT05755438|183741229|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.061||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|13.35|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||13.35|1.27|0.0180
91765581|NCT00857857|183420238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0993|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.657||||||||0.657|0.255|
91921555|NCT05755438|183741229|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.119||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|12.06|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||12.06|-0.25|0.0600
91921556|NCT01476787|183741289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.128
91921557|NCT01476787|183741290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.120|0.756|0.406
91921558|NCT01476787|183741292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.261||||||||1.261|0.854|
91921559|NCT01476787|183741293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.395||||||||1.395|0.775|
91921560|NCT01476787|183741294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.006|||Regression, Cox|||||1.006|0.651|
91921561|NCT02234622|183741330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-8.2|0.002
91921562|NCT02234622|183741331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-10.3|0.005
91765582|NCT00857857|183420238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|0.733||||||||0.733|0.319|
91921563|NCT02234622|183741332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-11.9|0.042
91921564|NCT02234622|183741333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-4.2|0.482
91921565|NCT02234622|183741334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-4.7|0.635
91921566|NCT02234622|183741335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-6.0|0.367
91921567|NCT02234622|183741336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-0.5|0.668
91921568|NCT01650805|183741374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis by Sokal score||||||0.074
91765583|NCT00857857|183420239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0975|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.407||||||||0.407|0.013|
91765584|NCT00857857|183420239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0988|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.354||||||||0.354|-0.046|
91765585|NCT00857857|183420239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0937|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.492||||||||0.492|0.113|
91765586|NCT00857857|183420239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0966|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|0.599||||||||0.599|0.209|
91921569|NCT01650805|183741376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis by Sokal score||||||<0.001
91921570|NCT01650805|183741377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis by Sokal score||||||0.317
91921571|NCT00443560|183741440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.01||95.0|2.3|4.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.5|2.3|<0.01
91921572|NCT00443560|183741441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.2|||<|0.01||95.0|9.9|15.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||15.0|9.9|<0.01
91921573|NCT00443560|183741442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91921574|NCT01943539|183741446|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.62||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91921575|NCT01494038|183741452|NON_INFERIORITY|Calculate the difference between the immediate arm incidence rate and the deferred arm incidence rate; if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval is lower than a 5% difference in incidence rates, non-inferiority will be considered to be proven.|Incidence rate difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|4.98||||||||4.98|-4.77|
91921576|NCT01494038|183741453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.093
91921577|NCT01494038|183741455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.288
91921578|NCT01494038|183741456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.073
91921579|NCT01494038|183741457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.264
91921580|NCT01494038|183741458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|Mid-P adjustment||||||0.012
91921581|NCT01494038|183741461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.279
91921582|NCT01494038|183741462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||.893
91921583|NCT01494038|183741463|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.96||||||||0.96|-0.94|
91921584|NCT01494038|183741464|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.07||||||||1.07|-1.02|
91921585|NCT01494038|183741465|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|1.32||||||||1.32|-4.17|
91921586|NCT01494038|183741466|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.56||||||||0.56|-1.33|
91921587|NCT01494038|183741467|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.97||||||||0.97|-1.72|
91921588|NCT01494038|183741468|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|1.1||||||||1.1|-4.48|
91921589|NCT01494038|183741469|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|1.25||||||||1.25|-3.86|
91921590|NCT01494038|183741470|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|12.13||||||||12.13|-7.86|
91921591|NCT01494038|183741471|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|13.86||||||||13.86|-0.08|
91921592|NCT01494038|183741472|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|24.68||||||||24.68|-13.7|
91765587|NCT00857857|183420240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1372|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.253|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg.|||0.253|-0.302|
91921593|NCT01494038|183741473|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|15.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|29.65||||||||29.65|2.11|
91921594|NCT01494038|183741474|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
91921595|NCT01494038|183741475|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|8.07||||||||8.07|-1.31|
91921596|NCT01494038|183741476|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
91765588|NCT00857857|183420240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1391|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.387|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 1 mg.|||0.387|-0.176|
91921597|NCT01494038|183741477|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.25||||||||8.25|-1.46|
91921598|NCT01494038|183741478|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
91921599|NCT01494038|183741479|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|8.07||||||||8.07|-1.31|
91921600|NCT01494038|183741480|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
91765589|NCT00857857|183420240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1319|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.506|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 3 mg.|||0.506|-0.028|
91921601|NCT01494038|183741481|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.25||||||||8.25|-1.46|
91921602|NCT01494038|183741486|OTHER|Measuring agreement between the tests|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|McNemars test||||||< 0.0001
91921603|NCT01494038|183741486|OTHER|Agreement between tests|Kappa coefficient|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.5||||||||0.50|0.35|
91921604|NCT01494038|183741487|OTHER|Agreement between tests||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|McNemar's test||||||0.22
91921605|NCT01494038|183741487|OTHER|Agreement between tests|Kappa coefficient|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.21||||||||0.21|0.001|
91921606|NCT01494038|183741488|OTHER|Agreement between tests|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|McNemar's test||||||< 0.0001
91921607|NCT01494038|183741488|OTHER|Agreement between tests|Kappa coefficient|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.53||||||||0.53|0.39|
91921608|NCT00537940|183741491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.0|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to derive p-value with treatment as main effect and cluster as cofactor, percent change in 28-day seizure counts between Baseline and treatment periods as dependent variable. Median differences and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||7.0|-6.0|0.8708
91921609|NCT00537940|183741492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.335|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio and its 95% CI are calculated by exponentiating the log odds ratio and 95% CI that correspond to the treatment contrast in the logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline term and country as covariate. All statistical tests for secondary efficacy parameters were two sided and performed at significance level of α = 0.05. The above statistical analysis applies to All Partial Seizures - FAS Population.||1.335|0.635|0.662
91921610|NCT00537940|183741493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|||||All partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9232
91921611|NCT00537940|183741493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|||||Simple Partial: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6361
91921612|NCT00537940|183741493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9075|TWO_SIDED|||||Complex partial: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9075
91921613|NCT00537940|183741493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|||||SGTC seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4203
91921614|NCT00537940|183741494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|||||All partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5069
91921615|NCT00537940|183741494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|||||Simple partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4721
91921616|NCT00537940|183741494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|||||Complex partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6054
91921617|NCT00537940|183741494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6603|TWO_SIDED|||||SGTC seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6603
91921618|NCT00537940|183741496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is calculated using Fisher Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1881
91921619|NCT00537940|183741497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate least square (LS) mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and and country as covariates.||0.97|-0.53|0.5643
91921620|NCT00537940|183741497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.7712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 21 / ET , HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country as covariates.||0.54|-0.73|0.7712
91921621|NCT00537940|183741497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.4236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.97|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.97|-0.41|0.4236
91921622|NCT00537940|183741497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.4|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Change at Week 21/ET, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment1difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.40|-0.75|0.5492
91921623|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|7.31|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate least square (LS) mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||7.31|-0.81|0.1160
91921624|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.98|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.98|-3.62|0.8490
91921625|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.6728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|6.73|||ANCOVA|||Baseline snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.73|-4.34|0.6728
91921626|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|6.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.47|-2.56|0.3954
91921627|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|8.98|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Awaken Short of Breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||8.98|-0.92|0.1106
91921628|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|2.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Awaken Short of Breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.22|-6.09|0.3603
91921629|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Quantity of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||0.24|-0.30|0.8312
91921630|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Quantity of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||0.42|-0.38|0.9101
91921631|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.3346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|2.45|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Adequacy of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.45|-7.19|0.3346
91921632|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|3.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Adequacy of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||3.37|-4.69|0.7491
91765590|NCT00857857|183420240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1359|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.809|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID.|||0.809|0.260|
91765591|NCT00857857|183420240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.253|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg.|||0.253|-0.145|
91921633|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|6.71|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.71|-0.74|0.1162
91765592|NCT00857857|183420240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.228|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 1 mg.|||0.228|-0.176|
91765593|NCT00857857|183420240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0945|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.371|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 3 mg.|||0.371|-0.011|
91765594|NCT00857857|183420240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0978|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.548|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID.|||0.548|0.153|
91921634|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|5.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||5.32|-1.21|0.2163
91921635|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.61|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Sleep Problem Index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.61|0.30|0.0321
91921636|NCT00537940|183741498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Sleep Problem Index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.85|-2.17|0.7889
91921637|NCT00537940|183741499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.653||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.948|||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.948|0.449|0.0252
91921638|NCT00537940|183741499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.811||||0.3459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.254|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 21: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.254|0.524|0.3459
91921639|NCT03715465|183741509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.510
91921640|NCT03715465|183741510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.411
91921641|NCT03715465|183741510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.920
91921642|NCT03715465|183741511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.787
91921643|NCT03715465|183741511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.916
91921644|NCT03715465|183741512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.270
91921645|NCT03715465|183741512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.406
91921646|NCT03715465|183741513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.635
91765595|NCT00857857|183420241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.9||||||||0.90|0.56|
91921647|NCT03715465|183741513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.383
91921648|NCT03715465|183741514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.456
91765596|NCT00857857|183420241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82||||||||0.82|0.53|
91921649|NCT03715465|183741515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.402
91921650|NCT03715465|183741516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91921651|NCT03715465|183741517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.525
91765597|NCT00857857|183420241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.74||||||||0.74|0.47|
91765598|NCT00857857|183420241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.55||||||||0.55|0.36|
91765599|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1086|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.24|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 5 minutes|||0.240|-0.199|
91921652|NCT03715465|183741518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
91921653|NCT03715465|183741519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
91765600|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.424|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 10 minutes|||0.424|-0.096|
91765601|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1526|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.333|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 15 minutes|||0.333|-0.285|
91921654|NCT03715465|183741520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91921655|NCT03715465|183741521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.246
91921656|NCT03715465|183741522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.333
91921657|NCT00430781|183741548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.535||90.0|0.65|1.7||Stratified log-rank test with one-sided p-value. p\<=0.0037 required for significance, and p\>0.4956 indicated futility.|Log Rank||The estimated value is the hazard ratio comparing combination to lapatinib monotherapy|||1.7|0.65|0.535
91921658|NCT00430781|183741551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.237
91921659|NCT00430781|183741555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.66||||0.013||90.0|0.48|0.91||Stratified log-rank test with one-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.48|0.013
91921660|NCT02158533|183741559|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.4||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2. The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg compared to placebo.||0.4|-4.1|0.109
91921661|NCT02158533|183741559|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg S2 vs Placebo S2). The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 0.5/0.5 compared to placebo.||2.3|-2.3|0.975
91921662|NCT01475955|183741565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pearson chi-square||||0.0041
91921663|NCT01389128|183741638|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91921664|NCT01389128|183741641|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
91921665|NCT01532453|183741667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|||||Rank ANCOVA With treatment, center, gender, transplanted organ as factors and age of organ transplant as a covariable.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0278
91921666|NCT01532453|183741668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2703|1.2405|||ANCOVA|||||1.2405|0.2703|<0.05
91921667|NCT03230097|183741669|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.849||||0.7873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|2.795|||Regression, Cox|Stratified (by baseline use of antipsychotic medication) Cox proportional hazards model was used. Treatment effect and NAPLS risk score as covariates.|Ratio = BI 409306/placebo.|||2.795|0.258|0.7873
91921668|NCT03230097|183741671|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.77||||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.773|7.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 24. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||7.315|-3.773|0.5212
91921669|NCT03230097|183741671|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.18||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.071|9.425|||Mixed Models Analysis||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM), see endpoint description for details.|BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||9.425|-3.071|0.3127
91921670|NCT03230097|183741672|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.99||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.033|2.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.057|-12.033|0.1602
91921671|NCT03230097|183741673|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8||||0.5858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.749|2.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52, positive items score. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.153|-3.749|0.5858
91921672|NCT03230097|183741673|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.43||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.604|4.462|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52, negative items score. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||4.462|-1.604|0.3445
91921673|NCT03230097|183741673|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.71||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.772|11.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52, total score. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||11.196|-7.772|0.7154
91921674|NCT05740813|183741680|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.324||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. ABBV-CLS-7262 slowed progression) was 0.3117 for Dose 1. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter mode|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by ABBV-CLS-7262 relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model incorporates participant-level random effects in the baseline value of the ALSFRS-R (intercept) and in the rate of progression (slope); covariate effects to account for covariate-explainable differences in rates of progression based on participant-specific baseline covariates; regimen-specific differences in baseline values, rates of progression and measurement error. Covariates include time since onset of symptoms, pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, riluzole, edaravone, and Relyvrio use at the time of baseline as indicated in concomitant medication logs, and log-transformed baseline serum NfL.|1.324|0.850|
91765602|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1471|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.366|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 20 minutes|||0.366|-0.229|
91765603|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.254|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 30 minutes|||0.254|-0.277|
91921675|NCT05740813|183741680|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.22||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. ABBV-CLS-7262 slowed progression) was 0.6426. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by ABBV-CLS-7262 relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model incorporates participant-level random effects in the baseline value of the ALSFRS-R (intercept) and in the rate of progression (slope); covariate effects to account for covariate-explainable differences in rates of progression based on participant-specific baseline covariates; regimen-specific differences in baseline values, rates of progression and measurement error. Covariates include time since onset of symptoms, pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, riluzole, edaravone, and Relyvrio use at the time of baseline as indicated in concomitant medication logs, and log-transformed baseline serum NfL.|1.220|0.753|
91921676|NCT05740813|183741681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5639||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.657|0.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|0.562|-1.657|0.3325
91921677|NCT05740813|183741681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6732||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|1.420|-1.230|0.8878
91921678|NCT05740813|183741682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1066||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.563|2.723|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|2.723|-5.563|0.5008
91921679|NCT05740813|183741682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5292||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.714|7.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|7.236|-2.714|0.3721
91921680|NCT05740813|183741684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.222||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.506|10.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|10.099|-6.506|0.6707
91921681|NCT05740813|183741684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.011||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.463|22.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|22.172|2.463|0.0144
91921682|NCT05740813|183741685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.092||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|1.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|Least squares mean difference between ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline and placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|1.179|1.011|0.0253
91921683|NCT05740813|183741685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.073||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|Least squares mean difference between ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline and placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|1.175|0.978|0.1364
91921684|NCT05740813|183741686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1327||0.9782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.254|4.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|4.137|-4.254|0.9782
91765604|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.302|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 45 minutes|||0.302|-0.269|
91765605|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.301|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 1 hour|||0.301|-0.210|
91921685|NCT05740813|183741686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5101||0.5108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|3.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|3.286|-6.590|0.5108
91921686|NCT05740813|183741687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6481|||||||Log Rank|Dose 1. See Other Statistical Analysis for model adjustment details.|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age at baseline, time since ALS symptom onset, delta FRS, baseline log-transformed serum NfL level, use of riluzole at baseline, use of riluzole at baseline, and use of Relyvrio at baseline.|||0.6481
91921687|NCT05740813|183741687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6344|||||||Log Rank|Dose 2. See Other Statistical Analysis for model adjustment details.|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age at baseline, time since ALS symptom onset, delta FRS, baseline log-transformed serum NfL level, use of riluzole at baseline, use of riluzole at baseline, and use of Relyvrio at baseline.|||0.6344
91921688|NCT02439775|183741707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1194||||||p\<0.05 required for significance|ANCOVA|||||||0.1194
91921689|NCT02951273|183741733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0276|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.0276
91921690|NCT02951273|183741734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
91921691|NCT02951273|183741735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6025|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6025
91921692|NCT02951273|183741736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3213|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.3213
91921693|NCT02951273|183741737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||The reported p-value was calculated|repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.0005
91921694|NCT02951273|183741738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5404|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.5404
91921695|NCT02951273|183741739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8947|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.8947
91921696|NCT02951273|183741740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Linear mixed models|||||||0.0068
91921697|NCT02951273|183741741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
91921698|NCT02951273|183741742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91921699|NCT02951273|183741743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
91921700|NCT02951273|183741744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
91921701|NCT00315302|183741745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||0.21||95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as atropine plus plano group minus atropine group|"The primary analysis was a treatment group comparison of logMAR visual acuity scores in the amblyopic eye obtained 18 weeks after randomization, adjusted for baseline acuity scores in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The primary analysis included only patients with visual acuity of 20/40 to 20/100; sample size was based upon a two-sided alpha of 0.05, with 90% power to detect a difference if the true difference in change from baseline between groups was 0.075 logMAR at 18 weeks."||0.8|-0.2|0.21
91921702|NCT00315302|183741746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|proportion 20/25 as a function of treatment group controlling for baseline acuity||"Null hypothesis: proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine group = proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group~Alternative hypothesis: proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine group NOT equal to proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group"||||.03
91921703|NCT00315302|183741747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.8||||||95% confidence interval calculated within treatment group on the amount of change from baseline||5.8|3.2|
91921704|NCT00315302|183741747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.4||||||95% confidence interval calculated within treatment group on the amount of change from baseline||6.4|3.7|
91921705|NCT00315302|183741748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|proportion 20/25 as a function of treatment group controlling for baseline acuity||"Null hypothesis: proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine group = proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group~Alternative hypothesis: proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine group NOT equal to proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group"||||0.39
91921706|NCT00315302|183741749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test to evaluate difference in change from baseline in stereoacuity by treatment group||All patients without respect to cause of amblyopia.||||0.39
91921707|NCT00315302|183741750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test to evaluate difference in change from baseline in stereoacuity by treatment group||Among anisometropic patients only||||0.90
91765606|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1102|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.268|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 1.5 hours|||0.268|-0.178|
91765607|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.295|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 2 hours|||0.295|-0.103|
91921708|NCT00315302|183741752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis: proportion 1 or more lines worse and worse than 20/20 at 18wks same in both groups;~Alternate: proportion 1 or more lines worse and worse than 20/20 at 18wks same in both groups"||||0.003
91921709|NCT00440401|183741814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Normal approximation to the binominal distribution is used to construct the asymptotic confidence intervals||||||<0.0001
91921710|NCT00440401|183741815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0006||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Normal approximation to the binominal distribution is used to construct the asymptotic confidence intervals||||||<0.0006
91921711|NCT00091793|183741831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.2|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.8|6.2|<0.0001
91921712|NCT02424149|183741842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
91921713|NCT02424149|183741843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91921714|NCT02424149|183741844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91921715|NCT02424149|183741845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91921716|NCT02424149|183741846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
91921717|NCT01238120|183741851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9168|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9168
91921718|NCT01238120|183741852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6536|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6536
91921719|NCT00780403|183741905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical tests were performed at the significance level of 5%, without multiplicity adjustment.|Mainland-Gart Test|The p-value was derived from Mainland-Gart Test applied to a 2 (treatment sequence) by 2 (preferred period) contingency table.||The Mainland-Gart test was applied to the preference rates in the subjects who showed a preference, to assess the difference in preference rates between RediTab and Zyrtec.||||<0.0001
91921720|NCT01477450|183741950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
91921721|NCT01477450|183741950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91921722|NCT01477450|183741950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
91921723|NCT00144300|183741961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||||95.0|0.71|1.6||||||||1.60|0.71|
91921724|NCT05165394|183742000|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Treatment Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.8663|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|||Significance level = 0.1|ANCOVA||Confidence interval and p-value are one-sided for test of null hypothesis that the LS mean difference between NBI-1065846 and placebo in DARS total score at Day 57 is greater than or equal to zero.||||-8.4|0.8663
91921725|NCT05165394|183742001|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Treatment Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.8|||ANCOVA||NBI-1065846 - Placebo|||4.8|-7.1|0.7008
91921726|NCT05165394|183742002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9051|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test|||CGI-S scores at Day 57 for NBI-1065846 compared to placebo.||||0.9051
91765608|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0826|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.212|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 2.5 hours|||0.212|-0.121|
91765609|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0832|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.196|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 3 hours|||0.196|-0.141|
91765610|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0888|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.221|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 3.5 hours|||0.221|-0.138|
91765611|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0934|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.162|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 4 hour|||0.162|-0.215|
91765612|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1065|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.354|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 4.5 hours|||0.354|-0.076|
91765613|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0955|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.342|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 5 hours|||0.342|-0.044|
91921727|NCT02495077|183742008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated month 24 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence intervals result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||0.93|-10.73|0.099
91921728|NCT02495077|183742009|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91921729|NCT02495077|183742010|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91921730|NCT02495077|183742012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.746
91921731|NCT02495077|183742013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.242
91921732|NCT02495077|183742015|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91921733|NCT02495077|183742016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.497
91921734|NCT02495077|183742017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.622
91921735|NCT02495077|183742019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
91921736|NCT02495077|183742020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.135
91921737|NCT02495077|183742021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.157
91921738|NCT02495077|183742022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.071
91921739|NCT02495077|183742023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.543
91921740|NCT02495077|183742024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.617
91921741|NCT02495077|183742025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.275
91921742|NCT02495077|183742026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
91921743|NCT02495077|183742027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.152
91921744|NCT02495077|183742028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
91921745|NCT02495077|183742029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 7 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from day 7 and months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 7. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.30|-5.37|0.639
91921746|NCT02495077|183742030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 30. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 30 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 30. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.10|-6.22|0.510
91921747|NCT02495077|183742030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 90. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 90 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 90. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||2.76|-6.45|0.430
91921748|NCT02495077|183742030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 180. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 180 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 180. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||2.31|-6.86|0.328
91921749|NCT02495077|183742031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|3.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 7 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from day 7 and months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 7. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.89|-5.58|0.725
91921750|NCT02495077|183742032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 30. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 30 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 30. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.72|-6.41|0.601
91921751|NCT02495077|183742032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 90. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 90 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 90. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.37|-6.66|0.519
91921752|NCT02495077|183742032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 180. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 180 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 180. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||2.91|-7.08|0.411
91921753|NCT02495077|183742033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.569
91921754|NCT02495077|183742034|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91921755|NCT02495077|183742035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.451
91921756|NCT02495077|183742036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.614
91921757|NCT02495077|183742037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.710
91921758|NCT02495077|183742038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.622
91921759|NCT02495077|183742039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Hours/Day 1. Mean serum creatinine of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated 24 hour creatinine level within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available serum creatinine data from 24, 48, and 72 hours to compare the experimental group to the control group at 24 hours/day 1. A random effect for the intercept was utilized in the model.||1.35|-0.36|0.256
91921760|NCT02495077|183742039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Hours/Day 2. Mean serum creatinine of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated 48 hour creatinine level within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available serum creatinine data from 24, 48, and 72 hours to compare the experimental group to the control group at 48 hours/day 2. A random effect for the intercept was utilized in the model.||1.23|-0.48|0.391
91921761|NCT02495077|183742039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||72 Hours/Day 3. Mean serum creatinine of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated 72 hour creatinine level within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available serum creatinine data from 24, 48, and 72 hours to compare the experimental group to the control group at 72 hours/day 3. A random effect for the intercept was utilized in the model.||1.42|-0.30|0.199
91921762|NCT02495077|183742040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.812
91921763|NCT02495077|183742041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.576
91921764|NCT02495077|183742042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.311
91921765|NCT02495077|183742043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
91921766|NCT02495077|183742044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.030
91765614|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.288|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 5.5 hours|||0.288|-0.119|
91765615|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.438|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 6 hours|||0.438|-0.015|
91921767|NCT02495077|183742045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.153
91921768|NCT02495077|183742046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.171
91921769|NCT02495077|183742047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.163
91921770|NCT02495077|183742048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.572
91921771|NCT02495077|183742049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.973
91921772|NCT02495077|183742050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.152
91921773|NCT02495077|183742051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91921774|NCT02495077|183742052|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91921775|NCT02495077|183742053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.347
91921776|NCT02839746|183742062|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
91921777|NCT02839746|183742062|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
91765616|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.374|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 6.5 hours|||0.374|-0.051|
91765617|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.461|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 7 hour|||0.461|-0.017|
91765618|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1355|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.458|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 7.5 hours|||0.458|-0.089|
91921778|NCT02839746|183742063|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
91921779|NCT02839746|183742063|OTHER|Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 3.|||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank]|||||||<0.0001
91921780|NCT02839746|183742064|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of visit 2 convenience with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
91921781|NCT02839746|183742064|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of visit 2 satisfaction with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
91921782|NCT02333331|183742073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-0.64|0.274
91921783|NCT02333331|183742073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|-0.83|0.320
91921784|NCT02333331|183742073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-0.24|0.134
91921785|NCT02333331|183742074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|30.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.95|-37.6|0.576
91765619|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1187|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.487|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 8 hours|||0.487|0.007|
91765620|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.509|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 8.5 hours|||0.509|-0.021|
91765621|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.394|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 9 hours|||0.394|-0.086|
91810497|NCT02425046|183496194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||null hypothesis - there will be no difference between the groups.||||0.735
91765622|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.394|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 9.5 hours|||0.394|-0.044|
91765623|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.292|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 10 hours|||0.292|-0.122|
91765624|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.3|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 5 minutes|||0.300|-0.155|
91765625|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1303|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.314|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 10 minutes|||0.314|-0.213|
91765626|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1572|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.461|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 15 minutes|||0.461|-0.176|
91765627|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1494|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.396|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 20 minutes|||0.396|-0.208|
91765628|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1332|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.327|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 30 minutes|||0.327|-0.212|
91765629|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.354|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 45 minutes|||0.354|-0.224|
91921786|NCT02333331|183742074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.6||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|61.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||61.41|-22.2|0.178
91921787|NCT02333331|183742074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.31||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|30.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.98|-10.4|0.163
91921788|NCT02333331|183742075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.10|0.488
91921789|NCT02333331|183742075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.02|0.055
91921790|NCT02333331|183742075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.03|0.161
91921791|NCT02333331|183742076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.99|0.213
91921792|NCT02333331|183742076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|1.03|<0.001
91921793|NCT02333331|183742076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|1.05|<0.001
91921794|NCT02333331|183742077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.98|0.458
91921795|NCT02333331|183742077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|1.03|<0.001
91921796|NCT02333331|183742077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.07|1.04|<0.001
91921797|NCT03952546|183742081|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for non-inferiority was carried out by calculating the upper 95% confidence limit (one sided confidence interval) for the difference in estimated blood loss (δ = Unipolar electrocautery system - Saline-coupled bipolar sealer), with the margin of inferiority (δ), set at 200 cc.||||||0.1254|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1254
91921798|NCT03952546|183742082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91921799|NCT00756002|183742089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Least Squares (LS) means from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||One subject did not have postsleep questionnaire data on day 2; however, had polysomnography data recorded. Analysis was based on LOCF data.||||<0.001
91921800|NCT00756002|183742090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921801|NCT00756002|183742091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921802|NCT00756002|183742092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||One subject did not have postsleep questionnaire data on day 2; however, had polysomnography data recorded. Analysis was based on LOCF data.||||0.003
91921803|NCT00756002|183742093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921804|NCT00756002|183742094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921805|NCT00756002|183742095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921806|NCT00756002|183742096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921807|NCT00756002|183742097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921808|NCT00756002|183742098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921809|NCT00756002|183742099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91765630|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1283|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.243|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 1 hour|||0.243|-0.276|
91921810|NCT00756002|183742100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921811|NCT00756002|183742101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||LS means from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment \& pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate. P-values from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91921812|NCT00756002|183742102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||LS means from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment \& pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate. P-values from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||||0.043
91921813|NCT00756002|183742103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.005
91921814|NCT00756002|183742104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.010
91921815|NCT00756002|183742105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.002
91921816|NCT00756002|183742106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.006
91921817|NCT00756002|183742107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with the Baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921818|NCT00756002|183742108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with the Baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91765631|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.244|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 1.5 hours|||0.244|-0.209|
91921819|NCT00756002|183742109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with the Baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921820|NCT00756002|183742110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921821|NCT00756002|183742111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921822|NCT00756002|183742112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921823|NCT00756002|183742113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921824|NCT00756002|183742114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91921825|NCT00756002|183742115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91765632|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.053|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 2 hours|||0.053|-0.350|
91921826|NCT00756002|183742116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.785
91921827|NCT00756002|183742117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.422
91921828|NCT00756002|183742118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.665
91921829|NCT00756002|183742119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.228
91921830|NCT00756002|183742120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.099
91810498|NCT02425046|183496195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||Null hypothesis that there would be no difference in change in FNPA scores between the two groups over 12 months.||||0.599
91921831|NCT00756002|183742121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.005
91921832|NCT00756002|183742122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
91921833|NCT00756002|183742123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.001
91921834|NCT00756002|183742124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
91921835|NCT00756002|183742125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.040
91765633|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0829|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.082|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 2.5 hours|||0.082|-0.253|
91921836|NCT00756002|183742126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.814
91921837|NCT00756002|183742127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.929
91921838|NCT00756002|183742128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.591
91921839|NCT00756002|183742129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.015
91921840|NCT00756002|183742130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.097
91921841|NCT00756002|183742131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.028
91765634|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|0.13|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 3 hours|||0.130|-0.211|
91765635|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.202|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 3.5 hours|||0.202|-0.161|
91765636|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.186|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 4 hour|||0.186|-0.196|
91921842|NCT00756002|183742132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.003
91921843|NCT00756002|183742133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.111
91921844|NCT04329923|183742142|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.28
91921845|NCT01272180|183742147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|29.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup A of two doses of MenABCWY combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||29|5|
91921846|NCT01272180|183742147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between MenABCWY and MenACWY groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|44.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup C of two doses of ABCWY+OMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||44|21|
91921847|NCT01272180|183742147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|30.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup W-135 of two doses of ABCWY+OMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||30|0|
91765637|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.33|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 4.5 hours|||0.330|-0.105|
91765638|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0968|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.326|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 5 hours|||0.326|-0.065|
91765639|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.199|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 5.5 hours|||0.199|-0.213|
91765640|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.407|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 6 hours|||0.407|-0.052|
91765641|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1065|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.351|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 6.5 hours|||0.351|-0.080|
91765642|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1198|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.421|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 7 hour|||0.421|-0.062|
91765643|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1373|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.423|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 7.5 hours|||0.423|-0.131|
91765644|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1203|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.411|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 8 hours|||0.411|-0.075|
91921848|NCT01272180|183742147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|31.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup Y of two doses MenABCWY combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||31|5|
91921849|NCT01272180|183742147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|30.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup A of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||30|7|
91921850|NCT01272180|183742147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of MenACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|42.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup C of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||42|18|
91921851|NCT01272180|183742147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of MenACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|33.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup W-135 of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||33|4|
91921852|NCT01272180|183742147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of MenACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|29.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup Y of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||29|3|
91921853|NCT01702805|183742166|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1|||Robust Poisson Regression|The relative risk was adjusted for birth-weight and center stratum.||Null hypothesis: A higher hemoglobin threshold for red-cell transfusions, as compared with a lower threshold, will not reduce nor increase the incidence of death or neurodevelopmental impairment in infants at 22 to 26 months of age corrected for prematurity.||1.10|0.92|0.93
91921854|NCT05483127|183742201|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference=P1fA - MDT. Sign (negative or positive) is retained with the rounded value.|||-0.00||
91765645|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1331|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.49|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 8.5 hours|||0.490|-0.047|
91765646|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1206|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.387|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 9 hours|||0.387|-0.100|
91765647|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.41|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 9.5 hours|||0.410|-0.035|
91921855|NCT00121225|183742206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
91921856|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.46|0.32|
91921857|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.41|0.30|
91921858|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.61|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.61|0.44|
91921859|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.25|0.17|
91921860|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.24|0.18|
91921861|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.41|0.31|
91921862|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.32|0.19|
91921863|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.33|0.22|
91921864|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.3|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.30|0.17|
91921865|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.39|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.39|0.25|
91921866|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.38|0.27|
91921867|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.44|
91921868|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.20|0.10|
91921869|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.25|0.17|
91921870|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.16|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.16|0.09|
91921871|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.41|
91921872|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.43|
91921873|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.59|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.59|0.38|
91921874|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.00|0.60|
91921875|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.75|0.51|
91921876|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|0.86|
91921877|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.80|0.41|
91921878|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.73|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.73|0.39|
91921879|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.67|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.67|0.78|
91921880|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.08|0.71|
91921881|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.75|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.75|0.54|
91921882|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.06|0.78|
91921883|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.51|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.29|
91921884|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.56|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.56|0.39|
91921885|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.53|
91921886|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.49|
91921887|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.63|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.63|0.52|
91921888|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.66|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.66|0.53|
91921889|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.64|0.42|
91921890|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.44|
91765648|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.378|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 10 hours|||0.378|-0.042|
91921891|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.88|0.63|
91921892|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.26|0.15|
91921893|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.35|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.35|0.23|
91921894|NCT01025336|183742213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.43|0.28|
91921895|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.56|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.56|0.42|
91921896|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.72|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.72|0.56|
91921897|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.45|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.35|
91921898|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.57|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.57|0.44|
91921899|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.85|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.85|0.60|
91921900|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.97|0.63|
91921901|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.08|0.81|
91921902|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.99|0.74|
91921903|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.19|
91921904|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 6A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.19|
91765649|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.431|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 5 minutes|||0.431|0.011|
91765650|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.494|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 10 minutes|||0.494|-0.006|
91765651|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1445|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.548|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 15 minutes|||0.548|-0.038|
91921905|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.45|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.31|
91921906|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.59|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.59|0.40|
91921907|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 7F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.96|0.58|
91921908|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.13|0.67|
91921909|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.67|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.67|0.37|
91921910|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.12|0.57|
91921911|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.09|0.85|
91765652|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1436|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.524|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 20 minutes|||0.524|-0.057|
91765653|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1262|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.474|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 30 minutes|||0.474|-0.036|
91765654|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1355|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.568|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 45 minutes|||0.568|0.019|
91765655|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.473|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 1 hour|||0.473|-0.019|
91765656|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.418|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 1.5 hours|||0.418|-0.010|
91765657|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.308|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 2 hours|||0.308|-0.075|
91765658|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0805|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.19|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 2.5 hours|||0.190|-0.136|
91765659|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.208|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 3 hours|||0.208|-0.116|
91765660|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.247|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 3.5 hour|||0.247|-0.099|
91765661|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.313|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 4 hours|||0.313|-0.051|
91765662|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.411|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 4.5 hours|||0.411|-0.004|
91765663|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.367|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 5 hours|||0.367|-0.004|
91765664|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0967|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.373|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 5.5 hours|||0.373|-0.018|
91765665|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.506|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 6 hours|||0.506|0.070|
91765666|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1011|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.488|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 6.5 hours|||0.488|0.079|
91765667|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1137|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.616|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 7 hour|||0.616|0.157|
91765668|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.636|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 7.5 hours|||0.636|0.108|
91765669|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.688|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 8 hours|||0.688|0.227|
91765670|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1264|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|0.765|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 8.5 hours|||0.765|0.254|
91765671|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1144|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.723|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 9 hours|||0.723|0.261|
91765672|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1042|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.625|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 9.5 hours|||0.625|0.203|
91765673|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|0.639|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 10 hours|||0.639|0.241|
91765674|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.562|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 5 minutes|||0.562|0.135|
91765675|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1273|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.751|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 10 minutes|||0.751|0.237|
91765676|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1484|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|0.8|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 15 minutes|||0.800|0.199|
91765677|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.872|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 20 minutes|||0.872|0.274|
91765678|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1303|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|0.751|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 30 minutes|||0.751|0.225|
91765679|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1398|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.663|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 45 minutes|||0.663|0.098|
91765680|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.596|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 1 hour|||0.596|0.089|
91921912|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.43|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.43|1.04|
91921913|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.62|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.48|
91921914|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.83|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.83|0.59|
91921915|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.72|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.72|0.57|
91921916|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.79|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.65|
91921917|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.93|0.66|
91921918|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.05|0.75|
91921919|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.37|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 23F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.37|0.27|
91921920|NCT01025336|183742214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.48|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.48|0.34|
91921921|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.22|0.85|
91921922|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.02|0.79|
91765681|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1094|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.439|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 1.5 hours|||0.439|-0.003|
91921923|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.9|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.90|0.69|
91921924|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.10|0.82|
91765682|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0974||||95.0|-0.07|0.323|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 2 hours|||0.323|-0.070|
91765683|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0818|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.223|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 2.5 hours|||0.223|-0.107|
91765684|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0821|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.139|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 3 hours|||0.139|-0.192|
91921925|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.32|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.32|0.98|
91921926|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.81|0.62|
91921927|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.41|
91921928|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.82|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.60|
91921929|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.76|0.47|
91921930|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.87|0.67|
91921931|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.3|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.30|0.96|
91921932|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.02|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.02|0.75|
91921933|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.79|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.48|
91921934|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.46|0.32|
91921935|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.75|0.94|
91921936|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.19|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.19|1.32|
91921937|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.6|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.60|1.14|
91921938|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.01|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.01|1.20|
91921939|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.26|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.26|1.24|
91921940|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.3|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.30|2.26|
91921941|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.75|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.75|1.53|
91921942|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.95|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.95|1.48|
91765685|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.268|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 3.5 hours|||0.268|-0.085|
91810499|NCT02425046|183496196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.583|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||Null hypothesis: Change in MVPA from baseline to 12 months will not be different between target children in the two groups.||||0.583
91921943|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|3.7|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.70|1.97|
91921944|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|4.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.29|1.99|
91921945|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.05|1.23|
91921946|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.78|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.78|1.18|
91921947|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.42|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.42|1.04|
91921948|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.19|0.82|
91921949|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.29|0.96|
91921950|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.20|0.89|
91810500|NCT02425046|183496197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation including demographics and 6 month data used to complete dataset. 5 datasets created and t-score averaged.||Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference between the two arms in change in sugar sweetened beverage intake over 12 months.||||0.312
91921951|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.46|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|1.07|
91921952|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.61|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.61|1.24|
91810501|NCT02425046|183496198|SUPERIORITY||difference in change between two arms|75.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|165.0|||Linear quantile mixed model|Linear quantile mixed models (a non-parametric linear mixed model) was used because of non-normal distribution that could not be transformed.|Comparison of the intervention target adult change in reported physical activity compared to the control group.|Linear quantile mixed models (a non-parametric linear mixed model) was used because because of non-normal distribution that could not be remedied by transformation.||165|-15|0.10
91810502|NCT02425046|183496199|SUPERIORITY||difference in change between two arms|-2.54||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||The intervention arm in comparison to the control arm.|||0.07|-5.14|0.057
91810503|NCT02425046|183496200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation including demographics and 6 month data used to complete dataset. 5 datasets created and t-score averaged.||||||0.874
91921953|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.27|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.27|0.96|
91810504|NCT02425046|183496201|SUPERIORITY||% difference in change between arms|7.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|23.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Screen time was log transformed to normalized the distribution. Results have been back transformed from log 10 scale.|% change in screen time of the intervention arm compared to the control arm.|||23|-7|0.31
91810505|NCT02425046|183496202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation including demographics and 6 month data used to complete dataset. 5 datasets created and t-score averaged.||||||0.516
91921954|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rises|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.8|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.80|1.56|
91921955|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.88|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.88|1.82|
91921956|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.9|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.90|1.18|
91921957|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.48|0.89|
91921958|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.85|0.63|
91921959|NCT01025336|183742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.51|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.51|0.99|
91921960|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.31|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.31|1.03|
91921961|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.16|0.91|
91921962|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.37|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.37|1.07|
91921963|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.13|0.91|
91921964|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.68|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.68|1.60|
91921965|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.24|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.24|1.82|
91921966|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.03|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.03|1.55|
91921967|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.09|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.09|1.54|
91921968|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.07|0.79|
91921969|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.55|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.55|1.48|
91765686|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0921|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.269|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 4 hour|||0.269|-0.102|
91921970|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.53|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.53|1.05|
91921971|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.51|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.51|1.50|
91921972|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.5|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.50|1.98|
91921973|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.18|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.18|1.31|
91921974|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.61|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.61|1.37|
91921975|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.38|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.38|1.76|
91921976|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.86|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.86|1.33|
91921977|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.01|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.01|1.38|
91921978|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.42|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.42|1.10|
91921979|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.55|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.55|1.14|
91921980|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.43|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.43|1.14|
91921981|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.67|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.67|1.28|
91921982|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.6|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.60|1.80|
91921983|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.31|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.31|1.53|
91921984|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.06|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.06|1.44|
91765687|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.461|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 4.5 hours|||0.461|0.038|
91765688|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0945|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.429|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 5 hours|||0.429|0.047|
91765689|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0995|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.516|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 5.5 hours|||0.516|0.114|
91921985|NCT01025336|183742216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.84|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.84|1.24|
91765690|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.591|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 6 hours|||0.591|0.143|
91765691|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.571|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 6.5 hours|||0.571|0.151|
91765692|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.602|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 7 hour|||0.602|0.131|
91765693|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.694|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 7.5 hours|||0.694|0.155|
91765694|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|0.793|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 8 hours|||0.793|0.319|
91765695|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1297||||95.0|0.331|0.854|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 8.5 hours|||0.854|0.331|
91765696|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1177|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|0.797|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 9 hours|||0.797|0.322|
91765697|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1076||||95.0|0.304|0.739|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 9.5 hours|||0.739|0.304|
91765698|NCT00857857|183420247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1017||||95.0|0.308|0.719|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 10 hours|||0.719|0.308|
91765699|NCT00857857|183420249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1038||||95.0|0.086|0.503|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at Day 7|||0.503|0.086|
91765700|NCT00857857|183420249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0884|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.363|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at Day 13|||0.363|0.007|
91765701|NCT00857857|183420249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.351|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at Day 14|||0.351|-0.062|
91765702|NCT00857857|183420249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0979|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.527|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at Day 7|||0.527|0.133|
91765703|NCT00857857|183420249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.253|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at Day 13|||0.253|-0.092|
91765704|NCT00857857|183420249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.327|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at Day 14|||0.327|-0.076|
91765705|NCT00857857|183420249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0976|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.493|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at Day 7|||0.493|0.100|
91765706|NCT00857857|183420249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0859|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.429|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at Day 13|||0.429|0.083|
91765707|NCT00857857|183420249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0991|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|0.662|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at Day 14|||0.662|0.262|
91765708|NCT00857857|183420249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0982|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.52|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at Day 7|||0.520|0.125|
91765709|NCT00857857|183420249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0858|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.402|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at Day 13|||0.402|0.057|
91765710|NCT00857857|183420249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0991|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.572|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at Day 14|||0.572|0.172|
91765711|NCT00857857|183420259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.66|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||0.66|-1.30|
91765712|NCT00857857|183420259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.28|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||1.28|-0.73|
91765713|NCT00857857|183420259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.19|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||2.19|0.36|
91765714|NCT00857857|183420259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.75|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||2.75|0.84|
91810506|NCT01409564|183496203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Repeated ANOVA|Uncorrected, Repeated ANOVA||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Left Parietal Lobe in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||0.14
91810507|NCT01409564|183496203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Right Parietal Lobe in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||0.08
91921986|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.19|
91921987|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.25|0.17|
91921988|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.20|
91921989|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.3|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.30|0.20|
91921990|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.42|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.42|0.31|
91921991|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.26|0.18|
91921992|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.18|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.18|0.10|
91921993|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.20|0.12|
91921994|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.18|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.18|0.10|
91921995|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.22|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.22|0.13|
91921996|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.33|0.22|
91921997|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.38|0.25|
91921998|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.14|0.08|
91921999|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.1|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.10|0.06|
91922000|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.46|0.22|
91922001|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.40|
91922002|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.43|0.29|
91922003|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.59|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.59|0.29|
91922004|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.38|0.17|
91922005|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.36|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.36|0.21|
91922006|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.56|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.56|0.27|
91922007|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.28|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.28|0.13|
91922008|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.39|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.39|0.20|
91922009|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.67|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.67|0.28|
91922010|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.83|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.83|0.48|
91922011|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.74|0.49|
91922012|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.65|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.65|0.42|
91922013|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.32|0.20|
91922014|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.43|0.28|
91922015|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.29|
91922016|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.41|0.30|
91922017|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.35|
91922018|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.51|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.36|
91922019|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.58|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.58|0.35|
91922020|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.39|
91922021|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.54|0.34|
91922022|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.42|0.23|
91922023|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.24|0.15|
91922024|NCT01025336|183742217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.42|
91922025|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.50|0.36|
91922026|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.48|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.48|0.36|
91922027|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.44|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.44|0.33|
91922028|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.37|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.37|0.26|
91922029|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.68|0.42|
91922030|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.14|0.64|
91922031|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.82|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.60|
91922032|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.18|0.86|
91922033|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.33|0.22|
91922034|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|0.81|
91922035|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.51|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.34|
91922036|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.09|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.09|0.66|
91922037|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.68|0.37|
91922038|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.77|0.43|
91922039|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.30|
91922040|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.98|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.98|0.47|
91922041|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.01|0.72|
91922042|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.00|0.71|
91922043|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.66|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.66|0.50|
91922044|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.80|0.56|
91922045|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.54|
91922046|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.05|0.78|
91922047|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.80|0.59|
91922048|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.83|0.53|
91922049|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.74|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.74|0.51|
91922050|NCT01025336|183742218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.75|
91922051|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|10.67|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.67|6.05|
91922052|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|10.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.45|6.65|
91922053|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|6.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||6.14|3.71|
91922054|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|3.91|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.91|2.59|
91922055|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|5.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.26|3.67|
91922056|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.14|2.20|
91922057|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|21.34|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||21.34|7.80|
91922058|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.26|12.92|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||12.92|6.26|
91922059|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|8.07|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.07|3.71|
91922060|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|8.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.80|4.35|
91922061|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.71|16.3|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.30|9.71|
91922062|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|10.02|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.02|5.59|
91922063|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.56|23.81|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||23.81|9.56|
91922064|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|17.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||17.38|8.66|
91922065|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.29|9.89|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.89|4.29|
91922066|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.59|34.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||34.24|12.59|
91922067|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.56|31.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||31.46|14.56|
91922068|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.24|17.01|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||17.01|7.24|
91922069|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.75|52.57|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||52.57|19.75|
91922070|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|65.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||65.43|34.00|
91922071|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.95|29.17|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||29.17|12.95|
91922072|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|21.13|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||21.13|7.79|
91922073|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.56|18.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||18.68|8.56|
91810508|NCT01409564|183496203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||<0.01
91810509|NCT01409564|183496203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Right Inferior Frontal Gyrus in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||0.08
91922074|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|10.1|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.10|4.54|
91922075|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.16|20.02|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||20.02|8.16|
91922076|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|16.23|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.23|8.15|
91922077|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|11.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||11.25|5.75|
91922078|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.99|30.76|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||30.76|12.99|
91922079|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|30.06|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||30.06|16.50|
91922080|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.07|13.63|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||13.63|7.07|
91922081|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.82|16.34|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.34|8.82|
91922082|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|16.66|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.66|10.21|
91922083|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.94|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.94|5.86|
91922084|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|18.34|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||18.34|8.05|
91922085|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.77|23.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||23.24|12.77|
91922086|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.01|16.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.45|8.01|
91810510|NCT01409564|183496204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of ADAS-Cog scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.93
91810511|NCT01409564|183496205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of MMSE scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.15
91922087|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|18.19|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||18.19|7.89|
91922088|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|8.92|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.92|5.02|
91922089|NCT01025336|183742219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|6.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||6.29|3.52|
91922090|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.49|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.49|3.05|
91922091|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.81|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.81|1.92|
91922092|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.50|1.83|
91922093|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.74|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.74|1.32|
91922094|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|11.09|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||11.09|5.82|
91922095|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|8.21|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.21|4.25|
91922096|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|6.0|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||6.00|3.96|
91922097|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|3.79|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.79|2.58|
91922098|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.56|16.49|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.49|8.56|
91922099|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|4.76|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.76|2.59|
91922100|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|9.03|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.03|4.61|
91922101|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|4.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.24|2.32|
91922102|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|10.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.33|5.23|
91922103|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|7.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||7.69|4.07|
91922104|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.20|2.50|
91922105|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.04|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.04|2.10|
91922106|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.71|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.71|2.26|
91922107|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|3.63|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.63|2.23|
91922108|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|5.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.20|3.16|
91922109|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.14|2.06|
91922110|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|3.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.60|2.46|
91922111|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.15|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.15|2.24|
91922112|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|7.76|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||7.76|4.55|
91922113|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.17|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.17|3.13|
91922114|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|9.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.25|5.16|
91922115|NCT01025336|183742220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.4|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.40|2.24|
91922116|NCT01025336|183742221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.08|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.08|1.02|
91922117|NCT01025336|183742221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.99|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.99|1.14|
91922118|NCT01025336|183742221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.06|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.06|1.22|
91922119|NCT01025336|183742221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.56|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.56|1.15|
91922120|NCT01025336|183742221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.53|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.53|1.36|
91922121|NCT01025336|183742221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.91|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.91|1.15|
91922122|NCT01025336|183742221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||4.44|1.80|
91922123|NCT01025336|183742221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.96|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.96|0.99|
91922124|NCT01025336|183742221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.62|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.62|0.73|
91810512|NCT01409564|183496206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of ADCS-ADL scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.82
91922125|NCT01025336|183742221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.39|1.02|
91922126|NCT01025336|183742221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.45|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.45|1.38|
91922127|NCT01025336|183742221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.12|1.53|
91922128|NCT01025336|183742221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.82|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.82|1.18|
91922129|NCT01025336|183742222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.25|1.02|
91922130|NCT01025336|183742222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.44|0.78|
91922131|NCT01025336|183742222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.00|1.06|
91922132|NCT01025336|183742222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.04|0.41|
91922133|NCT01025336|183742222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|5.24|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||5.24|1.82|
91922134|NCT01025336|183742222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.11|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||4.11|1.43|
91922135|NCT01025336|183742222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.00|0.96|
91922136|NCT01025336|183742222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.04|0.88|
91922137|NCT01025336|183742222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.54|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.54|0.64|
91922138|NCT01025336|183742222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.93|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.93|0.71|
91922139|NCT01025336|183742222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.04|1.01|
91922140|NCT01025336|183742222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.06|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.06|0.84|
91810513|NCT01409564|183496207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of Summed CDR scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.79
91922141|NCT01025336|183742222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|5.2|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||5.20|1.89|
91922142|NCT01025336|183742223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.51|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.51|0.72|
91922143|NCT01025336|183742223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.94|0.52|
91922144|NCT01025336|183742223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.47|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.47|0.58|
91922145|NCT01025336|183742223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.59|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.59|0.25|
91922146|NCT01025336|183742223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.32|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.32|0.85|
91922147|NCT01025336|183742223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.13|0.82|
91922148|NCT01025336|183742223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.97|0.37|
91922149|NCT01025336|183742223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.7|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.70|0.54|
91922150|NCT01025336|183742223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.41|0.59|
91922151|NCT01025336|183742223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.17|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.17|0.48|
91922152|NCT01025336|183742223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.05|0.58|
91922153|NCT01025336|183742223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.88|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.88|0.41|
91922154|NCT01025336|183742223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.81|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.81|1.05|
91922155|NCT01025336|183742224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.40|1.27|
91922156|NCT01025336|183742224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.59|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.59|0.95|
91810514|NCT01409564|183496208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||Distribution of Fazekas scale in two groups according to Chi-square test results.||||0.87
91922157|NCT01025336|183742224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.29|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.29|1.03|
91922158|NCT01025336|183742224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.97|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.97|0.95|
91922159|NCT01025336|183742224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||3.31|1.42|
91922160|NCT01025336|183742224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.04|0.88|
91922161|NCT01025336|183742224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.40|0.95|
91922162|NCT01025336|183742224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.99|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.99|0.70|
91922163|NCT01025336|183742224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.25|0.57|
91922164|NCT01025336|183742224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.12|1.06|
91922165|NCT01025336|183742224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.69|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.69|0.97|
91922166|NCT01025336|183742224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.53|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.53|1.21|
91922167|NCT01025336|183742224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.42|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||3.42|1.54|
91922168|NCT01025336|183742225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.63|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.63|0.80|
91922169|NCT01025336|183742225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.39|0.77|
91922170|NCT01025336|183742225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.69|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.69|0.68|
91922171|NCT01025336|183742225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.31|1.03|
91922172|NCT01025336|183742225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||4.55|1.66|
91922173|NCT01025336|183742225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|5.94|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||5.94|2.25|
91922174|NCT01025336|183742225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|9.98|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||9.98|3.85|
91922175|NCT01025336|183742225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|7.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||7.40|2.43|
91922176|NCT01025336|183742225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.13|0.89|
91922177|NCT01025336|183742225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.57|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.57|1.06|
91922178|NCT01025336|183742225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.78|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.78|1.50|
91922179|NCT01025336|183742225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||5.04|2.30|
91922180|NCT01025336|183742225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.37|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||3.37|1.37|
91922181|NCT01025336|183742226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.9|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.90|0.48|
91922182|NCT01025336|183742226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.09|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.09|0.64|
91922183|NCT01025336|183742226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.44|0.20|
91922184|NCT01025336|183742226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.26|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.26|0.59|
91922185|NCT01025336|183742226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.26|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.26|0.11|
91922186|NCT01025336|183742226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.22|0.49|
91922187|NCT01025336|183742226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.76|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.76|0.68|
91922188|NCT01025336|183742226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.55|0.90|
91810515|NCT02782780|183496209|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.01||||||Test of treatment effect: t(91.6)=3.21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91810516|NCT02782780|183496209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTI group: t(92.3)=4.10|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTI group.||||||<0.001
91810517|NCT02782780|183496210|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.001||||||test of treatment effect: t(94.7)=6.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91810518|NCT02782780|183496210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTI group: t(94)=6.67|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTI group.||To compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBT-I group, planned contrasts following the mixed models were used.||||<0.001
91922189|NCT01025336|183742226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.3|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.30|1.02|
91922190|NCT01025336|183742226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.14|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.14|0.52|
91922191|NCT01025336|183742226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.08|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.08|0.62|
91922192|NCT01025336|183742226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.98|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.98|0.89|
91922193|NCT01025336|183742226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.59|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.59|0.26|
91922194|NCT01025336|183742227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.22|0.85|
91922195|NCT01025336|183742227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.10|0.82|
91765715|NCT03057496|183420377|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|0.734||Since the outcome (contacts) represented over-dispersed count data and there were repeated measurements per subject, a generalized mixed effects model with a negative binomial family was used with each subject treated as a random intercept.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factors were included in the model to account for factors other than device operating mode that might affect collision rates.|Silent mode is the denominator for the rate ratio.|A within-subject comparison was performed. Each subject included in the analysis used the device in both the active and the silent mode. Comparison was between the two device operating modes. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the rate of contacts between active and silent modes.||0.734|0.536|< 0.001
91765716|NCT00997035|183420415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the hazard of perforation or need for TPK.||The sample size was determined based on the primary end point: perforation or the need for TPK within 3 months. Simulation-based analyses estimated that a sample sizeof 240 study participants (120 per arm) would provide 80% power to detect a 15% difference in the 3-month perforation or need for TPK rate between topical antifungal plus oral voriconazole vs topical antifungal alone,with a 2-tailed α value of .05 and approximately 15%loss to follow-up.||1.18|0.57|0.29
91765717|NCT00997035|183420420|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.57|||Regression, Cox|||||1.57|.49|0.65
91810519|NCT02782780|183496211|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(104)=3.40||||||<0.001
91810520|NCT02782780|183496211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(91.6)=4.37|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
91810521|NCT02782780|183496212|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(99.9)=2.09||||||<0.05
91810522|NCT02782780|183496212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(92.1)=2.56||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||<0.01
91922196|NCT01025336|183742227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.41|
91922197|NCT01025336|183742227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.87|0.67|
91922198|NCT01025336|183742227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.79|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.48|
91922199|NCT01025336|183742227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.19|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.19|1.32|
91922200|NCT01025336|183742227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.26|1.24|
91922201|NCT01025336|183742227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.95|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.95|1.48|
91922202|NCT01025336|183742227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.05|1.23|
91765718|NCT00997035|183420422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistically significant after Holms-Šidák correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91765719|NCT03456076|183420440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.45|||Log Rank|||||0.45|0.13|.0001
91765720|NCT03456076|183420440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.43|||Log Rank|||||0.43|0.13|.0001
91765721|NCT00466440|183420446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.52|12.95|||Chi-squared||The objective response rates and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the qualified participants using unadjusted normal approximation for binomial proportions (z approximation).|||12.95|-12.52|1.0000
91765722|NCT00466440|183420447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6||||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.21|4.95|||Chi-squared|||||4.95|-28.21|0.3606
91922203|NCT01025336|183742227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.19|0.82|
91922204|NCT01025336|183742227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|1.07|
91922205|NCT01025336|183742227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.80|1.56|
91922206|NCT01025336|183742227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.48|0.89|
91922207|NCT01025336|183742228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.92|0.48|
91922208|NCT01025336|183742228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.28|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.28|0.76|
91922209|NCT01025336|183742228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.22|0.88|
91922210|NCT01025336|183742228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.95|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.95|0.93|
91922211|NCT01025336|183742228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.66|0.27|
91922212|NCT01025336|183742228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.56|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.56|0.64|
91922213|NCT01025336|183742228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||3.04|1.14|
91922214|NCT01025336|183742228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.85|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.85|1.01|
91922215|NCT01025336|183742228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.87|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.87|1.26|
91922216|NCT01025336|183742228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.19|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.19|0.57|
91922217|NCT01025336|183742228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.31|0.75|
91922218|NCT01025336|183742228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.04|0.93|
91922219|NCT01025336|183742228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.15|0.50|
91922220|NCT01025336|183742229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.31|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.31|1.03|
91922221|NCT01025336|183742229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.37|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.37|1.07|
91922222|NCT01025336|183742229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.68|1.60|
91765723|NCT00466440|183420448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.55|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.55|-0.02|0.0720
91922223|NCT01025336|183742229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.03|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.03|1.55|
91922224|NCT01025336|183742229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.07|0.79|
91922225|NCT01025336|183742229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.53|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.53|1.05|
91922226|NCT01025336|183742229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.50|1.98|
91922227|NCT01025336|183742229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.61|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.61|1.37|
91765724|NCT00466440|183420449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.37|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.37|-0.07|0.1697
91922228|NCT01025336|183742229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.86|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.86|1.33|
91922229|NCT01025336|183742229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.42|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.42|1.10|
91922230|NCT01025336|183742229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.43|1.14|
91922231|NCT01025336|183742229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.60|1.80|
91922232|NCT01025336|183742229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.06|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.06|1.44|
91922233|NCT01025336|183742230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.64|0.87|
91922234|NCT01025336|183742230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.08|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.08|0.63|
91922235|NCT01025336|183742230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||2.80|1.25|
91922236|NCT01025336|183742230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.53|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.53|0.71|
91922237|NCT01025336|183742230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|11.44|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||11.44|4.67|
91922238|NCT01025336|183742230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.17|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||4.17|1.61|
91922239|NCT01025336|183742230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||3.29|1.22|
91922240|NCT01025336|183742230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.77|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||2.77|0.96|
91922241|NCT01025336|183742230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.28|0.54|
91922242|NCT01025336|183742230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.07|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||2.07|0.92|
91765725|NCT00466440|183420450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Log Rank|||||1.4|0.5|0.5240
91765726|NCT00466440|183420451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.4407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.6|||Log Rank|||||1.6|0.3|0.4407
91765727|NCT00466440|183420452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Log Rank|||||1.4|0.4|0.3449
91765728|NCT03187132|183420462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate is for the Digital Pain Reduction Kit arm.|We used a repeated measures linear mixed model featuring fixed effects for time, study arm, and score at week 1, and random effects to account for within subject variation.||.43|-4.15|.111
91922243|NCT01025336|183742230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.83|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.83|1.01|
91922244|NCT01025336|183742230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.78|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.78|0.77|
91922245|NCT01025336|183742230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|4.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||4.64|1.97|
91922246|NCT01025336|183742231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.15|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.15|1.15|
91922247|NCT01025336|183742231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.32|0.76|
91922248|NCT01025336|183742231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.05|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||3.05|1.09|
91922249|NCT01025336|183742231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.96|0.95|
91922250|NCT01025336|183742231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|7.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||7.50|3.05|
91922251|NCT01025336|183742231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||3.64|1.40|
91922252|NCT01025336|183742231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.62|0.58|
91922253|NCT01025336|183742231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.32|0.83|
91922254|NCT01025336|183742231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.40|0.58|
91922255|NCT01025336|183742231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.41|1.09|
91922256|NCT01025336|183742231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.03|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.03|1.10|
91922257|NCT01025336|183742231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.02|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.02|0.89|
91922258|NCT01025336|183742231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.97|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.97|1.27|
91922259|NCT02723630|183742253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|100.52||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.84|106.53||P-value for the formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and mean treatment difference.|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||106.53|94.84|0.8826
91922260|NCT02723630|183742253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.03||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|100.12||P-value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and mean treatment difference.|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||100.12|92.11|0.1095
91922261|NCT02723630|183742254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|100.8||||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.31|106.61||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||106.61|95.31|0.8121
91922262|NCT02723630|183742254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.51||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.53|100.65||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||100.65|92.53|0.1630
91922263|NCT02723630|183742255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|99.68||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.45|107.47||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||107.47|92.45|0.9427
91922264|NCT02723630|183742255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|93.5||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.63|98.64||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||98.64|88.63|0.0403
91765729|NCT03187132|183420463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate is for the Digital Pain Reduction Kit arm.|We used a repeated measures linear mixed model featuring fixed effects for time, study arm, and score at week 1, and random effects to account for within subject variation.||3.12|-1.84|.612
91765730|NCT03187132|183420464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|4.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||4.66|-5.51|.87
91765731|NCT03187132|183420464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||.54|-.54|.787
91765732|NCT03187132|183420464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||.48|-.88|.569
91765733|NCT03187132|183420465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||.49|-.23|.467
91765734|NCT03187132|183420466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|9.07|||Regression, Logistic|||We used a multilevel logistic regression with random effects at the individual level and fixed effects for week and study-arm.||9.07|.07|.852
91765735|NCT02707146|183420468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||
91765736|NCT00123123|183420525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.675||95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed effect model was used to compare overall treatment effects between groups for repeated measures data. The group comparison for each time point was performed using ANOVA.||||0.6750
91765737|NCT02073682|183420527|NON_INFERIORITY|Edoxaban Group was considered non-inferior to the Dalteparin Group if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Hazard Ratio (\[LMW\] Edoxaban Group to Dalteparin Group) was less than 1.5.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.359|||Cox proportional hazard|||||1.359|0.696|0.0056
91765738|NCT02073682|183420527|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR), two-sided confidence interval (CI) and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the two stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||||||0.8712|||||||Cox proportional hazard|||||||0.8712
91765739|NCT02073682|183420528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|3.657|||Regression, Cox|||The HR, 2-sided CI and p-value are based on the Cox regression model with counting process approach for on-treatment including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||3.657|1.089|0.0254
91765740|NCT02073682|183420529|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.059|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||1.059|0.476|0.0931
91922265|NCT02723630|183742256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|100.29||||0.9373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.37|106.58||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||106.58|94.37|0.9373
91922266|NCT02723630|183742256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|95.17||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.03|99.5||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||99.50|91.03|0.0682
91922267|NCT02723630|183742257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|98.73||||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.57|110.06||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||110.06|88.57|0.8448
91922268|NCT02723630|183742257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|90.64||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.51|98.38||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||98.38|83.51|0.0498
91922269|NCT02255838|183742261|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.05
91922270|NCT04207710|183742265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Ethyl Chloride.||||0.317
91765741|NCT02073682|183420530|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.56||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.972|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||0.972|0.318|0.0394
91810523|NCT02782780|183496213|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||=|0.991|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(110)=-0.41||||||=0.991
91922271|NCT04207710|183742265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold was p\<0.05|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Ethyl Chloride.||||0.317
91922272|NCT04207710|183742265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold was p\<0.05|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Pain Ease.||||0.317
91922273|NCT04207710|183742265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold was p\<0.05|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Pain Ease.||||0.317
91922274|NCT01515072|183742266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21||This is an unadjusted comparison. P value \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Adjusted analyses for the RIPC effect are provided below.|0.08 less organs per donor in the RIPC group.|Sample Size and Power estimation: A sample size of at least 150 donors in each arm was estimated to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 0.44 of an organ recovered and 0.48 of an organ transplanted per donor. The difference criterion was chosen based on published results achieved with hormonal resuscitation in organ donors. 6 Pooled standard deviations (organs recovered: 1.35; organs transplanted: 1.5) from data of two OPOs were used.||0.21|-0.37|0.38
91922275|NCT01515072|183742267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.26||This is an unadjusted analysis. P \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Adjusted analyses are provided below.|0.03 less organs per donor in the RIPC group.|Sample Size A sample size of at least 150 donors in each arm was estimated to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 0.44 of an organ recovered and 0.48 of an organ transplanted per donor. The difference criterion was chosen based on published results achieved with hormonal resuscitation in organ donors. 6 Pooled standard deviations (organs recovered: 1.35; organs transplanted: 1.5) from data of two OPOs were used.||0.26|-0.33|0.70
91922276|NCT01515072|183742268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.63
91922277|NCT01515072|183742269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91922278|NCT01515072|183742270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.55
91922279|NCT01515072|183742271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.55
91922280|NCT01515072|183742272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.48
91922281|NCT01515072|183742273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.04
91765742|NCT02073682|183420531|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.624|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||1.624|0.502|0.7324
91765743|NCT02073682|183420532|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.56||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|5.505|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||5.505|0.444|0.4873
91922282|NCT01515072|183742274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|19.5||P\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Final flow was modeled on RIPC and adjusted for donor stratum and duration of perfusion|Data shown above is the the adjusted mean difference in final flow in RIPC group|||19.5|-10.1|0.53
91765744|NCT02073682|183420533|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.4199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.293|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||1.293|0.898|0.4199
91765745|NCT04435366|183420541|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.096||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol). Mixed Model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.||0.096|0.016|0.0064
91765746|NCT04435366|183420542|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.657||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol).||0.657|0.066|0.0165
91765747|NCT04435366|183420542|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.788||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol and sham versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol and sham).||0.788|0.189|0.0015
91765748|NCT04435366|183420543|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|2.12||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol).||2.12|-3.79|0.58
91765749|NCT04435366|183420544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|1.81||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol).||1.81|-4.79|0.38
91765750|NCT04435366|183420546|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.326|1.903|||MMRM|||||1.903|-3.326|0.5929
91765751|NCT04435366|183420548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.57|0.6424
91765752|NCT01687296|183420549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (5%, 2-sided significance level) for the treatment difference (FP minus prednisone) in the mean morning PEF on diary card over the treatment assessment period was greater than -12L/min.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|10.76|||ANCOVA|||250 par were to be enrolled to achieve 200 total evaluable par or 100 evaluable par per group. Sample size was based on the primary efficacy endpoint (AM PEF) and had 80% power to reject the null hypothesis: nebulized FP (1 mg BID) was inferior to oral prednisone with regard to AM PEF using one-side t test at significance level 2.5%, and assuming true treatment difference (FP minus predisone) was 3.6 L/min, noninferiority margin was -12L/min, and common standard deviation was 39 L/min.||10.76|-9.85|0.931
91765753|NCT01687296|183420550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (5%, 2-sided significance level) for the treatment difference (FP minus prednisone) in the mean morning PEF on diary card over the treatment assessment period was greater than -12L/min.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|10.65|||ANCOVA|||||10.65|-9.64|0.922
91765754|NCT01687296|183420551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|11.34|||ANCOVA|||||11.34|-9.02|0.822
91765755|NCT01687296|183420552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for day-time symptom score||||0.717
91765756|NCT01687296|183420552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for night-time symptom score||||0.683
91765757|NCT01687296|183420553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.996
91765758|NCT01687296|183420554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.048|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FEV1 on Day 5||0.048|-0.135|0.348
91765759|NCT01687296|183420554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.083|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FEV1 on Day 8||0.083|-0.074|0.914
91765760|NCT01687296|183420554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.067||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.054|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FVC on Day 5||0.054|-0.187|0.276
91765761|NCT01687296|183420554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.049|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FVC on Day 8||0.049|-0.126|0.384
91765762|NCT01687296|183420555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for clinical scoring index on Day 5||||0.507
91765763|NCT01687296|183420555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for clinical scoring index on Day 8||||0.700
91765764|NCT01687296|183420556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for participant/parent global evaluation||||0.633
91765765|NCT01687296|183420556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for investigator global evaluation||||0.323
91765766|NCT04152772|183420563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Significant Group (3 levels) by Stimulus (CS- vs CS+ extinguished) interaction. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of groups (3) on skin conductance reactivity to the previously extinguished stimulus versus never conditioned stimulus during extinction recall||||0.02
91765767|NCT05963022|183420564|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||||-1.07|-1.76|<0.001
91765768|NCT05963022|183420564|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-1.34|<0.001
91922283|NCT01515072|183742275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91922284|NCT01515072|183742276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.76||Adjusted analysis with recipient age as a continuous variable, sex, race as black versus not black, body mass index, diabetes, hypertension,antigen mismatches, donor age as a continuous variable and trial site.|Chi-squared|||||2.76|0.95|0.07
91922285|NCT01515072|183742276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Unadjusted analysis|Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91922286|NCT01515072|183742277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Regression, Linear|Final resistance was modeled on RIPC and adjusted for donor stratum and duration of perfusion.|Data shown above is the adjusted mean difference in final resistance in the RIPC group.|||0.17|0.03|0.006
91922287|NCT01515072|183742278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.50
91922288|NCT01515072|183742279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.03
91922289|NCT01515072|183742280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.9|||Log Rank|Results of adjusted Cox proportional hazard analyses for six month death-censored kidney graft survival are shown below|The proportional hazard ratio favors RIPC group|||0.90|0.04|0.01
91922290|NCT01515072|183742281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Log Rank|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.37
91922291|NCT00923091|183742282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0071
91922292|NCT00923091|183742282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0323||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0323
91765769|NCT05963022|183420564|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.92|||ANCOVA|||||-0.92|-1.61|<0.001
91765770|NCT05963022|183420565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|51.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.73|5.62|<0.001
91765771|NCT05963022|183420565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|20.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.37|2.77|<0.001
91922293|NCT00923091|183742282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0080
91922294|NCT00923091|183742282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0071
91922295|NCT00923091|183742282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0107
91922296|NCT00923091|183742283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
91765772|NCT05963022|183420565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|19.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.14|2.74|<0.001
91765773|NCT05963022|183420566|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-16.3|||ANCOVA|||||-16.3|-33.3|<0.001
91765774|NCT05963022|183420566|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-15.9|||ANCOVA|||||-15.9|-33.2|<0.001
91765775|NCT05963022|183420566|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-16.7|||ANCOVA|||||-16.7|-33.7|<0.001
91765776|NCT05963022|183420567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|75.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||75.36|8.70|<0.001
91765777|NCT05963022|183420567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|18.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.25|2.88|<0.001
91765778|NCT05963022|183420567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|28.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.34|4.23|<0.001
91765779|NCT05963022|183420568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-6.7|<0.001
91765780|NCT05963022|183420568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-6.2|<0.001
91765781|NCT05963022|183420568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||||-5.4|-9.3|<0.001
91922297|NCT00923091|183742283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
91922298|NCT00923091|183742283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91922299|NCT00923091|183742283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0034
91922300|NCT00923091|183742283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
91922301|NCT00923091|183742284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0295||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0295
91922302|NCT00923091|183742284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2529||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2529
91922303|NCT00923091|183742284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0037
91922304|NCT00923091|183742284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2033||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2033
91922305|NCT00923091|183742284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2529||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2529
91922306|NCT00923091|183742285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1135||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1135
91922307|NCT00923091|183742286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2765||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2765
91922308|NCT00923091|183742287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4964||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4964
91922309|NCT00923091|183742288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1301||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1301
91922310|NCT00923091|183742288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01301||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01301
91922311|NCT00923091|183742289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0503
91922312|NCT03291197|183742293|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Our study was not powered to perform statistical analysis though was still conduct to look for a trend in reduction of VAS.||||0.043
91922313|NCT04246047|183742335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|1e-05||95.0|0.31|0.53|||one-sided stratified log-rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy, prior bortezomib and revised international staging system (R-ISS) at screening, with a covariate of treatment.|||0.53|0.31|<0.00001
91922314|NCT00754390|183742360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way mixed model analysis of variance was used to test for main effect of dietary calcium and phytate and their interaction. Null Hypothesis: Dietary calcium does not affect zinc absorption||||0.17
91922315|NCT00754390|183742360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way mixed model analysis of variance was used to test for main effect of dietary calcium and phytate and their interaction. Null Hypothesis: Dietary Phytate does not affect zinc absorption||||0.0002
91922316|NCT00754390|183742360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way mixed model analysis of variance was used to test for main effect of dietary calcium and phytate and their interaction. Null Hypothesis: Dietary calcium and dietary phytate do not affect zinc absorption. Eight women were required to detect a difference in zinc absorption of 7 percentage points with a power of 90%, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.09
91922317|NCT00847613|183742361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|36.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.73|45.23||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||45.23|27.73|<0.0001
91922318|NCT00847613|183742361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|26.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.28|34.97||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||34.97|17.28|<0.0001
91922319|NCT00847613|183742362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 6: Linear mixed model with treatment effect and site location as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.02|-0.79|0.0376
91922320|NCT00847613|183742362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.04||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 6: Linear mixed model with treatment effect and site location as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||0.04|-0.73|0.0792
91922321|NCT00847613|183742363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.31||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in mTSS had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 3: Least squares mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.31|-0.49|<0.0001
91922322|NCT00847613|183742363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.16||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in mTSS had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 3: Least squares mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.16|-0.34|0.0002
91922323|NCT00847613|183742364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.44|19.36||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and two-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||19.36|9.44|<0.0001
91765782|NCT05963022|183420569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|76.62||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|1333.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1333.29|4.40|0.003
91765783|NCT05963022|183420569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|868.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||868.67|2.80|<0.001
91765784|NCT05963022|183420569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|118.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|2055.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2055.04|6.80|<0.001
91765785|NCT05963022|183420570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-31.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.5|-57.5|<0.001
91765786|NCT05963022|183420570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.6|-31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.1|-57.6|<0.001
91765787|NCT05963022|183420570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-33.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-33.7|-60.1|<0.001
91765788|NCT05963022|183420571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|62.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.73|5.27|<0.001
91765789|NCT05963022|183420571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.87|108.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||108.05|8.87|<0.001
91765790|NCT05963022|183420571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.36|278.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||278.40|19.36|<0.001
91765791|NCT05963022|183420572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.04||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|664.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||664.36|2.29|0.011
91765792|NCT05963022|183420572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.34||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|949.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||949.59|3.34|0.005
91765793|NCT05963022|183420572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|127.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.58|2145.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||2145.42|7.58|<0.001
91922324|NCT00847613|183742364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|5.61||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|9.38||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and two-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||9.38|1.85|0.0034
91922325|NCT00624338|183742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.82||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.74|0.518
91765794|NCT05963022|183420573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.86||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|254.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||254.78|0.75|0.077
91765795|NCT05963022|183420573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.65||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|281.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||281.74|0.87|0.062
91765796|NCT05963022|183420573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.69||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|1140.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1140.13|3.90|0.004
91765797|NCT02501590|183420574|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91765798|NCT00945282|183420600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.932||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.812|-0.053|||ANCOVA|||||-0.053|-1.812|0.042
91765799|NCT00945282|183420601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.413||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.173|0.347|||ANCOVA|||||0.347|-1.173|0.221
91810524|NCT02782780|183496213|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.41||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(91.8)=0.94|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||=0.41
91922326|NCT00624338|183742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.78||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|Atacicept 150 mg arm was discontinued prematurely. The analysis of 150 mg was considered post-hoc.||||0.78|0.31|0.003
91922327|NCT00624338|183742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.4||Cox proportional hazards model was performed to calculate hazard ratios and adjusted for race and disease severity at time of screening.|Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.69|0.929
91922328|NCT00624338|183742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.562||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.87||Cox proportional hazards model was performed to calculate hazard ratios and adjusted for race and disease severity at time of screening.|Regression, Cox|Atacicept 150 mg arm was discontinued prematurely. The analysis of 150 mg was considered post-hoc.||||0.87|0.36|0.009
91922329|NCT00624338|183742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.94||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model, adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.94|0.76|0.412
91922330|NCT00624338|183742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.722||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model, adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|Atacicept 150 mg arm was discontinued prematurely. The analysis of 150 mg was considered post-hoc.||||1.19|0.44|0.198
91922331|NCT03476850|183742444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.883|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||An a priori sample size calculation found 24 subjects per group (48 total) provided \>80% power to detect a 2 unit difference in patient reported pain based on a 2-sided test and significance level a = 0.05 assuming at least 3 measures per subject and a within subject covariance having a compound symmetric structure with a standard deviation in pain score of 3 units and within subject correlation of 0.5.||||.883
91765800|NCT00945282|183420602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is the value for GSK2248761 30 mg, at Day 1 to Day 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||||<0.0001
91765801|NCT00945282|183420602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6922||||||The p-value is the value for placebo, at Day 1 to Day 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo, Day 1 to Day 8||||0.6922
91765802|NCT01702558|183420754|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.2||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact||90% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson approach.|||20.9|-4.5|0.336
91810525|NCT02782780|183496214|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(83.7)=2.51||||||<0.05
91765803|NCT03259087|183420818|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.47|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.47|1.07|
91765804|NCT03259087|183420818|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|2.02|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||2.02|1.42|
91765805|NCT03259087|183420818|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|4.04|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||4.04|2.20|
91765806|NCT03259087|183420819|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.46|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.46|1.06|
91765807|NCT03259087|183420819|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|1.99|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.99|1.41|
91765808|NCT03259087|183420819|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.17|3.9|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||3.90|2.17|
91810526|NCT02782780|183496214|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.49||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(90.9)=0.27||||||=0.49
91922332|NCT03476850|183742445|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.977
91922333|NCT03476850|183742446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.009
91922334|NCT03476850|183742448|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|18.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.110
91922335|NCT03476850|183742449|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.719
91922336|NCT02912364|183742450|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22||||.34|.13|< .001
91922337|NCT02912364|183742451|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 22.||||.79|.30|< .001
91922338|NCT01933672|183742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.35|-26.12||||||Change from baseline||-26.12|-36.35|
91922339|NCT01933672|183742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-31.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-37.29|-25.37||||||Change from baseline||-25.37|-37.29|
91922340|NCT01933672|183742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.99|-13.5||||||Change from baseline||-13.50|-24.99|
91922341|NCT01933672|183742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.81|-4.17||||||There was no hypothesis to be tested. Difference in change from baseline in WMDG between the 2 treatment groups was calculated based on the mixed effects repeated measures model.||-4.17|-19.81|
91922342|NCT01933672|183742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.09|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.81|-4.17||||||There was no hypothesis to be tested. Difference in change from baseline in WMDG between the 2 treatment groups was calculated based on the mixed effects repeated measures model.||-4.17|-19.81|
91922343|NCT01933672|183742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.0|-16.85||||||Compared with Baseline||-16.85|-27.00|
91765809|NCT03259087|183420820|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.4|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.40|1.04|
91765810|NCT03259087|183420820|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|1.86|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.86|1.36|
91765811|NCT03259087|183420820|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.82|2.97|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||2.97|1.82|
91765812|NCT03259087|183420821|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.16|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.16|0.84|
91765813|NCT03259087|183420821|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.18|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.18|0.90|
91765814|NCT03259087|183420821|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.29|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.29|0.95|
91765815|NCT03259087|183420823|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.94|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.94|0.68|
91810527|NCT02782780|183496215|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(105)=4.55||||||<0.01
91765816|NCT03259087|183420823|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.7|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.70|0.49|
91765817|NCT03259087|183420823|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.45|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.45|0.25|
91765818|NCT03259087|183420827|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.26|4.82|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||4.82|3.26|
91765819|NCT03259087|183420827|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.92|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.92|1.30|
91765820|NCT03259087|183420828|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.03|4.36|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||4.36|3.03|
91765821|NCT03259087|183420828|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.75|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.75|1.22|
91765822|NCT03259087|183420829|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.23|3.06|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||3.06|2.23|
91765823|NCT03259087|183420829|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.25|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.25|0.95|
91765824|NCT03259087|183420830|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.14|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.14|0.84|
91765825|NCT03259087|183420830|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.2|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.20|0.75|
91765826|NCT03259087|183420831|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.16|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.16|0.85|
91765827|NCT03259087|183420831|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.2|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.20|0.75|
91765828|NCT03259087|183420832|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.31|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.31|0.21|
91765829|NCT03259087|183420832|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.77|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.77|0.52|
91765830|NCT03259087|183420836|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.11|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.11|0.74|
91765831|NCT03259087|183420836|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.88|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.88|0.47|
91765832|NCT03259087|183420836|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.43|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.43|0.21|
91765833|NCT03259087|183420837|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.98|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.98|0.57|
91765834|NCT03259087|183420837|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.53|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.53|0.31|
91765835|NCT03259087|183420837|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.22|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.22|0.08|
91765836|NCT03259087|183420838|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.11|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.11|0.74|
91765837|NCT03259087|183420838|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.88|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.88|0.47|
91765838|NCT03259087|183420838|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.43|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.43|0.21|
91922344|NCT01933672|183742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.3|-15.1||||||Compared with Baseline||-15.10|-26.30|
91922345|NCT01933672|183742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.51|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.24|-10.78||||||Compared with Baseline||-10.78|-22.24|
91922346|NCT01933672|183742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.74|0.92||||||Change from baseline in FPG was analyzed in a mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with regimen, period, sequence, treatment × period, and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modelled as random effects, with each subject's period-specific baseline response included, as fixed covariates.||0.92|-11.74|
91922347|NCT01933672|183742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.86|2.49||||||Change from baseline in FPG was analyzed in a mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with regimen, period, sequence, treatment × period, and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modelled as random effects, with each subject's period-specific baseline response included, as fixed covariates.||2.49|-10.86|
91922348|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.07||||||Compared with Baseline （Pre-breakfast）||0.07|-0.19|
91922349|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.21||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||0.21|-0.09|
91922350|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.16|0.45||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||0.45|0.16|
91922351|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|-0.36||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||-0.36|-0.56|
91810528|NCT02782780|183496215|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(91.3)=3.23||||||<0.01
91810529|NCT02782780|183496216|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(91.6)=3.37||||||<0.001
91810530|NCT02782780|183496216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: (92.1)=3.64|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
91922352|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.03||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||-0.03|-0.45|
91922353|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.48||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||0.48|-0.08|
91922354|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|1.03||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||1.03|0.38|
91922355|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|0.37||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||0.37|-0.26|
91810531|NCT02782780|183496217|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(99.2)=5.45||||||<0.001
91810532|NCT02782780|183496217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(93.4)=6.06|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
91810533|NCT02782780|183496218|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(76.9)=-4.20||||||<0.001
91810534|NCT02782780|183496218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(33.1)=6.52|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
91922356|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||||80.0|-0.28|0.57||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.57|-0.28|
91922357|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|1.11||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||1.11|0.19|
91922358|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.03|0.68||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||0.68|0.03|
91922359|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.67||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||0.67|-0.08|
91922360|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.68||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||0.68|-0.05|
91922361|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|0.53||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.53|-0.45|
91922362|NCT01933672|183742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|0.51||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.51|-0.55|
91922363|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.75|1.07||||||Compared with Baseline （Pre-breakfast）||1.07|-0.75|
91922364|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.58|1.51||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||1.51|-0.58|
91922365|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|2.63||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||2.63|0.58|
91922366|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.84|-0.05||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||-0.05|-2.84|
91922367|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.63|0.35||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.35|-2.63|
91922368|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|3.88||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||3.88|-0.50|
91922369|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.56|6.58||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||6.58|1.56|
91922370|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.42|2.4||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||2.40|-2.42|
91922371|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.62|5.01||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||5.01|-1.62|
91922372|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|7.62||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||7.62|0.54|
91922373|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.66|2.27||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||2.27|-3.66|
91922374|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.7|8.43||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||8.43|1.70|
91922375|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|6.94||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||6.94|-0.10|
91922376|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.42|0.18||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.18|-8.42|
91922377|NCT01933672|183742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.6|5.89||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||5.89|-2.60|
91922378|NCT01933672|183742474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21|1.39||||||Compared with baseline||1.39|0.21|
91922379|NCT01933672|183742474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.43|0.93||||||Compared with baseline||0.93|-0.43|
91765839|NCT01623115|183420875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-57.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-52.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-52.6|-63.3|<0.0001
91922380|NCT01933672|183742474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.4||||||Compared with baseline||0.40|-0.92|
91922381|NCT01933672|183742474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.17|1.95||||||||1.95|0.17|
91922382|NCT01933672|183742474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|1.47||||||||1.47|-0.45|
91922383|NCT00524303|183742483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|17.9|||||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the trastuzumab arm and the lapatinib arm was calculated.|||17.9|-38.1|
91922384|NCT00524303|183742483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|49.4|||||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the transtuzumab arm and the transtuzumab + lapatinib arm was calculated.|||49.4|-8.0|
91922385|NCT00524303|183742484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.0||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|32.5|||Fisher Exact||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the transtuzumab arm and the lapatinib arm was calculated.|||32.5|-17.8|0.627
91922386|NCT00524303|183742484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|25.1|||Fisher Exact||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the transtuzumab arm and the transtuzumab + lapatinib arm was calculated.|||25.1|-25.1|1.000
91922387|NCT01145391|183742491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence||||||0.5||95.0||||For systolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
91922388|NCT01877655|183742503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.85||P-value based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) and 95% CI was based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness \& donor CMV serostatus.|Analysis of all-cause mortality and adjudicated CMV EOD. Analysis was completed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test at the 1-sided 5% level stratified by use of antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and by receipt of a kidney from a living or deceased donor.||1.85|0.87|0.205
91922389|NCT01877655|183742504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22||P-value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model|Parameter estimate from cox proportional hazard model (ASP0113 v placebo) with treatment \& randomization strata adjusted for death as a competing risk||Analysis of CMV viremia through 1 year posttransplant. CMV viremia was defined by the protocol as CMV plasma viral load ≥ 1000 IU/mL as assessed by the central laboratory. The 95% CI was based on cumulative incidence function CMV viremia rate at 1 year.||1.22|0.76|0.748
91922390|NCT01877655|183742505|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.29||P-value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model|Parameter estimate from cox proportional hazard model (ASP0113 v placebo) with treatment \& randomization strata adjusted for death as a competing risk||Analysis of CMV-specific antiviral therapy (AVT) through 1 year. Time to first adjudicated CMV-specific therapy was defined as time to the start of AVT for CMV viremia. CMV-specific AVT was determined by the adjudication committee. Rate was based on cumulative incidence function estimate at 1 year.||1.29|0.80|0.888
91922391|NCT01877655|183742506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.51||P value based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) and 95% CI based on CMH general association test stratified by donor recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Analysis of composite of CMV viremia and adjudicated CMV-AVT. The CMV viremia was defined by the protocol as CMV plasma viral load ≥ 1000 IU/mL as assessed by the central laboratory. CMV-specific AVT was determined by the adjudication committee. Participants with no posttransplant viral load data were excluded from the analysis.||1.51|0.73|0.802
91922392|NCT01877655|183742507|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.28||P value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Parameter estimate from cox proportional hazard model (ASP0113 v placebo) with treatment \& randomization strata adjusted for death as a competing risk||Analysis of rate of adjudicated CMV AVT or CMV EOD. Time to first CMV-specific AVT was defined as time to the start of AVT for CMV viremia or CMV EOD. CMV-specific AVT and EOD and were determined by the adjudication committee. Rate based on cumulative incidence function estimate at 1 year.||1.28|0.80|0.928
91922393|NCT01877655|183742508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.73||P value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) and 95% CI based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Analysis of all-cause mortality at 1 year. Participants with unknown survival status at 1 year were considered dead for this analysis.||1.73|0.81|0.393
91922394|NCT00095121|183742509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||End of double-blind treatment|Fisher Exact|||After unblinding the results, due to the small number of responders in the placebo group, it was determined that a statistical exact test would be more appropriate in the evaluation of treatment group differences than the originally planned 95% confidence intervals of the difference between the groups. Therefore, the results were analyzed by study visit, and a Fisher exact test was used to evaluate treatment differences between the adefovir dipivoxil and placebo groups.||||<0.001
91922395|NCT00095121|183742525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Comparison of HBeAg Loss|Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
91922396|NCT00095121|183742525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Comparison of HBeAg Seroconversion|Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
91922397|NCT01225068|183742575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||effect size|0.22||||||||||no p value for effect size calculations ES is dimensionless; ES (Cohen's d) is a well described statistical construct and is calculated from the difference between the means (here at baseline and 6 weeks) divided by the pooled standard deviation.|effect size is endpoint and not comparis|no p value for effect size calculations||effect size is endpoint and not comparison||||
91765840|NCT01623115|183420876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-58.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|-52.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-52.7|-63.5|<0.0001
91922398|NCT05176847|183742576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was conducted; primary and secondary outcomes were addressed using repeated measure. Models: time, group, group x time.|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was conducted; primary and secondary outcomes were addressed using repeated measure. Models: time, group, group x time.|0.09|-3.71|0.09
91922399|NCT05248945|183742647|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|15.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.26|18.9||||||||18.90|13.26|
91922400|NCT05248945|183742648|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|17.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.59|21.33||||||||21.33|13.59|
91922401|NCT05248945|183742671|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|14.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.6|17.82||||||||17.82|12.60|
91922402|NCT05248945|183742674|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|49.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.93|54.9||||||||54.90|44.93|
91922403|NCT05248945|183742675|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|49.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.79|54.51||||||||54.51|44.79|
91922404|NCT05248945|183742676|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|69.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.34|80.4||||||||80.40|60.34|
91922405|NCT05090423|183742689|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
91922406|NCT05733286|183742702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||Given an SD of approximately 35 min for TST in healthy adults, a sample size of 58 subjects per group will provide 86% power to detect a 20 min difference in TST between treatment groups using a two-sample t-test with a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.853
91922407|NCT05733286|183742703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Unadjusted. P \< 0.05 is considered significant. A sample size of 58 patients per group will provide 80% power to detect a 0.95-point difference between treatment groups using a two-sided t-test with an alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.340
91922408|NCT00685178|183742713|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Condition|2.21||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|||||Using the proportion of negative urine samples obtained, the four groups were compared to determine whether there are any group differences in cocaine abstinence (as measured by negative urine samples).|Chi-squared||F-value for main effect of Drug Condition|||||0.531
91922409|NCT00685178|183742714|SUPERIORITY||Spearmann's rank correlation|0.969|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||CR subjects only|Analyses were performed to measure the correlation between CR groups (topiramate + CR and Placebo + CR) and abstinence.||||<0.001
91922410|NCT00685178|183742714|SUPERIORITY||Spearmann's rank correlation|0.494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||NonCR subjects only|Analyses were performed to measure the correlation between Non-CR groups (topiramate + NonCR and Placebo + NonCR) and abstinence.||||<0.001
91922411|NCT05098015|183742722|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.95
91765841|NCT01623115|183420877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-44.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.5|-53.9|<0.0001
91922412|NCT05098015|183742723|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
91922413|NCT05098015|183742724|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91922414|NCT05098015|183742725|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91922415|NCT05299892|183742749|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.46153||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.99|||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was conducted for the three SE conditions (off, moderate, strong) at 50 dBA .Post -hoc comparisons were done using Bonferroni's correction. Below result is the mean comparison between SE of and SE moderate. Analysis of age effects was not completed.||12.99|1.79|.005
91922416|NCT05299892|183742749|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.00961|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|15.11|||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was conducted for the three SE conditions (off, moderate, strong) at 50 dBA . Post -hoc comparisons were done using Bonferroni's correction. Below result is the mean comparison between SE of and SE strong. An analysis of age effects was not completed.||15.11|3.91|<.001
91922417|NCT05299892|183742749|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There will be no significant differences between the mean unaided CNC score at 50 dBA and the mean aided CNC score with SE off.||||<0.001
91922418|NCT00149214|183742751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|16.5||||||95.0|10.5|24.2||||||Confidence Interval for pathological complete response in the Pemetrexed treatment arm.||24.2|10.5|
91922419|NCT00149214|183742751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|20.2||||||95.0|13.4|28.5||||||Confidence Interval for pathological complete response in the Cyclophosphamide treatment group.||28.5|13.4|
91922420|NCT03334214|183742756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91922421|NCT03334214|183742757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
91922422|NCT03334214|183742760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
91922423|NCT03334214|183742761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0774|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is obtained using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the baseline liver fat stratum (\<20%, ≥20%) stratification factor.||||||0.0774
91922424|NCT03334214|183742762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.183
91922425|NCT03334214|183742763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||ANOVA|||Total Cholesterol||||0.682
91922426|NCT03334214|183742763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||ANOVA|||ApoB||||0.716
91922427|NCT03334214|183742763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||ANOVA|||HDL||||0.717
91922428|NCT03334214|183742763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||ANOVA|||LDL-C||||0.463
91922429|NCT03334214|183742763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||ANOVA|||Non-HDL||||0.555
91922430|NCT03334214|183742763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANOVA|||Triglycerides||||0.619
91922431|NCT03334214|183742763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||ANOVA|||VLDL-C||||0.698
91922432|NCT03334214|183742764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||ANOVA|||FPG||||0.902
91922433|NCT03334214|183742764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Van Elteren test|||HOMA-IR||||0.267
91922434|NCT03334214|183742764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Van Elteren test|||Insulin||||0.200
91922435|NCT03334214|183742765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.933
91922436|NCT04063215|183742781|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.048
91922437|NCT04063215|183742782|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.2
91922438|NCT04063215|183742783|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.6
91922439|NCT04063215|183742784|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.10
91922440|NCT04063215|183742785|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.4
91922441|NCT04063215|183742786|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.6
91922442|NCT04063215|183742787|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.5
91922443|NCT04063215|183742788|OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||>0.9
91922444|NCT04063215|183742789|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.8
91922445|NCT04063215|183742790|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.002
91922446|NCT04063215|183742791|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.8
91922447|NCT04063215|183742792|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.069
91922448|NCT04063215|183742793|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.6
91765842|NCT01623115|183420878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|-44.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant)||-44.8|-54.2|<0.0001
91765843|NCT01623115|183420879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-45.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-41.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.8|-49.8|<0.0001
91765844|NCT01623115|183420880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|-41.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.8|-49.9|<0.0001
91765845|NCT01623115|183420881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|-47.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.6|-57.2|<0.0001
91765846|NCT01623115|183420882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-47.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.8|-57.5|<0.0001
91765847|NCT01623115|183420883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-38.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-35.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-35|-42.4|<0.0001
91765848|NCT01623115|183420884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-33.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.9|-41.2|<0.0001
91922449|NCT04063215|183742794|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.19||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Logistic|||A proportional odds logistic regression model was used to analyze the data over time. This model is used to predict an ordered categorical outcome over time by assuming the odds ratio between any two outcome categories is constant throughout all time points. Null hypothesis is that time has no effect on the cumulative odds for a patient to be in a higher category after being evaluated on the GOS-E. Odds ratio \>1 indicates higher likelihood of being in higher categories compared to at baseline.|This statistical analysis applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|4.19|0.43|0.63
91922450|NCT04063215|183742794|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.45||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Logistic|||A proportional odds logistic regression model was used to analyze the data over time. This model is used to predict an ordered categorical outcome over time by assuming the odds ratio between any two outcome categories is constant throughout all time points. Null hypothesis is that time has no effect on the cumulative odds for a patient to be in a higher category after being evaluated on the GOS-E. Odds ratio \>1 indicates higher likelihood of being in higher categories compared to at baseline.|This statistical analysis applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|5.45|0.55|0.36
91765849|NCT01623115|183420885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-39.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.4|-48|<0.0001
91765850|NCT01623115|183420886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-29.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.2|-35.7|<0.0001
91765851|NCT01623115|183420887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-56.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-50.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-50|-62.4|<0.0001
91765852|NCT01623115|183420888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.9|498.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||498.1|48.9|<0.0001
91765853|NCT01623115|183420889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.7|493.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||493.7|49.7|<0.0001
91765854|NCT01623115|183420890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|244.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|1744.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1744.4|34.4|<0.0001
91765855|NCT01623115|183420891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|240.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|1700.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1700.7|33.9|<0.0001
91765856|NCT01623115|183420892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-12.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-12.9|-22.6|<0.0001
91765857|NCT01623115|183420893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||11|5|<0.0001
91765858|NCT01623115|183420894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-10.6||Threshold for significance was ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-10.6|-21.3|<0.0001
91765859|NCT01623115|183420895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.2|2.3|= 0.0002
91765860|NCT01623115|183420896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-13.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13|-21.5|<0.0001
91765861|NCT01623115|183420897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.3||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.2|1.5|0.0031
91765862|NCT01623115|183420898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-4.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.4|-15|0.0003
91765863|NCT01623115|183420899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.2|0.5|0.0187
91765864|NCT04950465|183420903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.12|0.2639
91765865|NCT04950465|183420904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6978|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 4||||0.6978
91810535|NCT02782780|183496219|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(75.6)=4.33||||||<0.001
91922451|NCT04063215|183742795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.01||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.19|Effect size: 0.19|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-0.01|-0.75|0.047
91922452|NCT04063215|183742795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.749||||0.00023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.379||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.19|Effect size: 0.19|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-0.379|-1.12|0.00023
91922453|NCT04063215|183742796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.86||||0.00027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|7.29||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.63|Effect size: 0.63|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||7.29|2.42|0.00027
91922454|NCT04063215|183742796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9||||0.00019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.506|7.294||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.63|Effect size: 0.63|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||7.294|2.506|0.00019
91922455|NCT04063215|183742797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.43||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-1.18||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.38|Effect size: 0.38|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-1.18|-6.07|0.19
91922456|NCT04063215|183742797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-0.14||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.38|Effect size: 0.38|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-0.14|-7.26|0.043
91922457|NCT04063215|183742798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.63||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|0.26||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.48|Effect size: 0.48|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||0.26|-7.55|0.069
91765866|NCT04950465|183420904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 8||||0.8130
91765867|NCT04950465|183420905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.7645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.26|0.7645
91810536|NCT02782780|183496219|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(34.4)=4.75||||||<0.001
91765868|NCT04950465|183420906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.22|-0.23|0.9728
91765869|NCT04950465|183420906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.42|-0.13|0.2968
91765870|NCT04950465|183420907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1682|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 4||||0.1682
91765871|NCT04950465|183420907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3937|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 8||||0.3937
91765872|NCT00940901|183420908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there would be no difference in the number of participants who experienced at least a 50% reduction in the frequency of priapic episodes between baseline and 8 weeks post intervention, between the sildenafil and placebo groups||||1
91765873|NCT00940901|183420909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
91922458|NCT04063215|183742798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.15||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.983|-2.317||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.48|Effect size: 0.48|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-2.317|-9.983|0.026
91922459|NCT04063215|183742799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.43||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-0.79||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.53|Effect size: 0.53|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-0.79|-8.12|0.020
91922460|NCT04063215|183742799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.297|-2.103||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.53|Effect size: 0.53|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-2.103|-9.297|0.0029
91922461|NCT04063215|183742800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.64||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|0.02||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.53|Effect size: 0.53|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||0.02|-7.33|0.054
91922462|NCT04063215|183742800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.85||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.456|-2.244||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.53|Effect size: 0.53|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-2.244|-9.456|0.0023
91922463|NCT04063215|183742801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.22||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.51|Effect size: 0.51|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||5.22|0.79|0.0097
91922464|NCT04063215|183742801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.51||||0.00017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.335|6.685||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.51|Effect size: 0.51|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.685|2.335|0.00017
91922465|NCT04063215|183742802|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.58||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.14||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.40|Effect size: 0.40|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||5.14|0.04|0.049
91765874|NCT00740207|183420917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare difference between the investigational product's mean change from predose to postdose||0.9|-1.3|0.7142
91765875|NCT00740207|183420918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0||||0.1698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.2|-0.8|||Fisher Exact|||Paired t-test to compare the difference in percentage between the portions of patients who had motion artifacts.||-0.8|-79.2|0.1698
91922466|NCT04063215|183742802|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.555||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|6.056||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.40|Effect size: 0.40|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.056|1.054|0.0069
91922467|NCT04063215|183742803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.03||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|6.82||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.57|Effect size: 0.57|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.82|1.21|0.0064
91922468|NCT04063215|183742803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.005||||0.00076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.251|7.759||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.57|Effect size: 0.57|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||7.759|2.251|0.00076
91922469|NCT04063215|183742804|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.38||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.23|Effect size: 0.23|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||5.38|0.86|0.0084
91922470|NCT04063215|183742804|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.72||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.94||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.23|Effect size: 0.23|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.94|0.5|0.018
91922471|NCT04063215|183742805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.22||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.13||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.36|Effect size: 0.36|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.13|0.33|0.024
91810537|NCT02782780|183496220|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(75.1)=3.91||||||<0.001
91810538|NCT02782780|183496220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month in CBTi group: t(34.5)=4.39||||||<0.001
91810539|NCT03654651|183496228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.7|
91810540|NCT03654651|183496228|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-2.7|
91810541|NCT03654651|183496228|OTHER|Change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-2.2|
91810542|NCT03654651|183496229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-4.8|
91810543|NCT03654651|183496229|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|-5.1|
91810544|NCT03654651|183496229|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|-5.1|
91810545|NCT03654651|183496230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-1.2|
91810546|NCT03654651|183496230|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.5|
91810547|NCT03654651|183496230|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-2.1|
91810548|NCT03654651|183496231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral systolic BP||4.6|-3.1|
91922472|NCT04063215|183742805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.31||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|4.175||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.36|Effect size: 0.36|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.175|0.445|0.017
91922473|NCT04063215|183742806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.48||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|3.31||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.24|Effect size: 0.24|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||3.31|-0.35|0.11
91922474|NCT04063215|183742806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.69||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|4.487||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.24|Effect size: 0.24|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.487|0.893|0.0046
91922475|NCT04063215|183742807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.69||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|9.77||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.60|Effect size: 0.60|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||9.77|1.58|0.0081
91922476|NCT04063215|183742807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.505||||0.00017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|12.606||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.60|Effect size: 0.60|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||12.606|4.42|0.00017
91922477|NCT04063215|183742808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.846||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.767|4.515||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.10|Effect size: 0.10|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.515|-2.767|0.64
91922478|NCT04063215|183742809|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|6.65||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.48|Effect size: 0.48|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.65|-1.52|0.21
91922479|NCT04063215|183742809|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.318||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|8.399||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.48|Effect size: 0.48|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||8.399|0.241|0.040
91922480|NCT04063215|183742810|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.78||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.07|Effect size: 0.07|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||0.78|-2.52|0.30
91810549|NCT03654651|183496231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral diastolic BP||2.9|-2.1|
91810550|NCT03654651|183496231|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral systolic BP change from baseline||3.3|-2.5|
91922481|NCT04063215|183742810|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.789||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|2.409||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.07|Effect size: 0.07|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||2.409|-0.83|0.33
91922482|NCT04063215|183742811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.66||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.31|Effect size: 0.31|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||3.66|-3.49|0.96
91810551|NCT03654651|183496231|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral systolic BP change from baseline||2.6|-3.1|
91765876|NCT00740207|183420919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|8.6|||Fisher Exact|||Paired t-test to compare difference in percentage between the number of participants requiring repeat injections||8.6|-28.6|1.000
91922483|NCT04063215|183742811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.985||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|6.562||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.31|Effect size: 0.31|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.562|-0.588|0.10
91922484|NCT04063215|183742812|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.53||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.21|Effect size: 0.21|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.53|0.13|0.043
91922485|NCT04063215|183742812|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.718||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.484|5.917||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.21|Effect size: 0.21|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||5.917|-0.484|0.10
91922486|NCT04063215|183742813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|6.44||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.20|Effect size: 0.20|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.44|-1.73|0.24
91922487|NCT04063215|183742813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.79||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|7.72||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.20|Effect size: 0.20|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||7.72|-0.152|0.061
91922488|NCT04063215|183742814|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.71||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.43|Effect size: 0.43|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.71|-2.28|0.49
91922489|NCT04063215|183742814|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.001||||0.00026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.506|10.494||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.43|Effect size: 0.43|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||10.494|3.506|0.00026
91922490|NCT04063215|183742815|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.98||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|8.46||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.61|Effect size: 0.61|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||8.46|-0.51|0.083
91765877|NCT04797780|183420921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CR Rate|5.06||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.2|-7.1|0.2084
91765878|NCT02940496|183420931|SUPERIORITY||Correlation Coefficient (2 sided test)|0.081||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91922491|NCT04063215|183742815|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.033||||0.00025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|13.52||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.61|Effect size: 0.61|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||13.52|4.55|0.00025
91922492|NCT04063215|183742816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.05||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.20|Effect size: 0.20|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||1.05|-0.55|0.53
91922493|NCT04063215|183742816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.043||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.805||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.20|Effect size: 0.20|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||1.805|0.284|0.10
91765879|NCT02940496|183420932|SUPERIORITY||Correlation Coefficient (2-sided test)|0.88||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91765880|NCT02940496|183420933|SUPERIORITY||Correlation Coefficient (2-sided test)|0.79||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91765881|NCT01895946|183421032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference (LSM)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|0.86|
91765882|NCT01895946|183421032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference (LSM)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|0.55|
91922494|NCT04063215|183742817|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.59||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.28|Effect size: 0.28|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||1.59|0.07|0.034
91810552|NCT03654651|183496231|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral diastolic BP change from baseline||2.5|-1.5|
91810553|NCT03654651|183496231|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral diastolic BP change from baseline||2|-2|
91922495|NCT04063215|183742817|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.043||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.805||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.28|Effect size: 0.28|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||1.805|0.284|0.0090
91922496|NCT04063215|183742818|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|6.41||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.25|Effect size: 0.25|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.41|-0.84|0.13
91922497|NCT04063215|183742818|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.486||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|8.026||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.25|Effect size: 0.25|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||8.026|0.938|0.016
91922498|NCT04063215|183742819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.97||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.33|Effect size: 0.33|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||0.97|-1.23|0.84
91922499|NCT04063215|183742819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.083||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|2.162||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.33|Effect size: 0.33|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||2.162|-0.028|0.053
91922500|NCT04063215|183742820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1050.25||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2958.69|858.19||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||858.19|-2958.69|0.27
91922501|NCT04063215|183742821|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-365.57||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1835.1|1103.97||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||1103.97|-1835.10|0.61
91922502|NCT04063215|183742822|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.17||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.32|6.98||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||6.98|-33.32|0.19
91810554|NCT03654651|183496232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central systolic BP||4.4|-2.4|
91922503|NCT04063215|183742823|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.35||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.61|-10.09||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||-10.09|-54.61|0.0072
91810555|NCT03654651|183496232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central diastolic BP||3.3|-1.7|
91810556|NCT03654651|183496232|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central systolic BP change from baseline||3.1|-1.9|
91922504|NCT04063215|183742824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.88||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.11|-2.65||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||-2.65|-41.11|0.03
91922505|NCT04063215|183742825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.03||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.66|1.61||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||1.61|-85.66|0.061
91922506|NCT04063215|183742826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.56||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.67|19.56||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||19.56|-98.67|0.18
91922507|NCT04063215|183742827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.25||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.01|42.51||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||42.51|-26.01|0.63
91922508|NCT04063215|183742828|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|17.79||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||17.79|-14.84|0.85
91922509|NCT04063215|183742829|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.42||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.21|24.36||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||24.36|-95.21|0.24
91922510|NCT04063215|183742830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.58||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|6.34||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||6.34|-19.50|0.31
91922511|NCT04063215|183742831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.77||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.25|-5.29||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||-5.29|-46.25|0.018
91922512|NCT04063215|183742832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|0.59||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||0.59|-19.79|0.067
91765883|NCT01895946|183421033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference (LSM)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.77|
91765884|NCT01895946|183421033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference (LSM)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.76|
91765885|NCT03543137|183421039|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC0-t fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.02|||||GMR= (Prototype mini Lozenge/ Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.02|0.88|
91810557|NCT03654651|183496232|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central systolic BP change from baseline||2.1|-2.9|
91922513|NCT04063215|183742833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.28||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|0.88||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||0.88|-25.45|0.069
91922514|NCT04063215|183742834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.47||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.12|-3.61||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||-3.61|-49.12|0.027
91922515|NCT04063215|183742835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.66||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.09|10.77||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||10.77|-42.09|0.24
91922516|NCT04063215|183742836|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.91||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.83|2.01||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||2.01|-37.83|0.079
91922517|NCT04063215|183742837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.65||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.91|19.61||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||19.61|-62.91|0.29
91922518|NCT04063215|183742838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.08||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|2.84||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||2.84|-11.01|0.24
91922519|NCT04063215|183742839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.33||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.69|44.36||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||44.36|-19.69|0.44
91765886|NCT03543137|183421040|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC0-inf fell completely within the range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.01|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.01|0.88|
91765887|NCT03543137|183421045|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for Cmax fell completely within the range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.04|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.04|0.90|
91765888|NCT03678311|183421094|OTHER|The correlation between the outcome and AHI was tested by Spearman's correlation.|Spearman's correlation|0.13||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.0|||Spearman's correlation|||Spearman's correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between the outcome and the apnea hypopnea index.||1.00|-0.75|0.73
91765889|NCT01389882|183421125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.015||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|1.978|||Paired t-test|||||1.978|0.036|0.043
91810558|NCT03654651|183496232|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central diastolic BP change from baseline||2.6|-1.5|
91810559|NCT03654651|183496232|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central diastolic BP change from baseline||1.6|-2.4|
91765890|NCT01389882|183421126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.232|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.841||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|0.174|||Paired t-test|||||0.174|-0.637|0.245
91765891|NCT01389882|183421127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.095||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.714|||Paired t-test|||||0.714|-0.020|0.257
91810560|NCT03654651|183496233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.1|
91810561|NCT03654651|183496233|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|0.1|
91922520|NCT04063215|183742840|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.25||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|2.17||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||2.17|-8.67|0.23
91922521|NCT04063215|183742841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.73||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|18.88||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||18.88|-9.43|0.5
91922522|NCT04063215|183742842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.23||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.62|33.16||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||33.16|-51.62|0.66
91922523|NCT04063215|183742843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.19||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.22|17.84||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||17.84|-70.22|0.24
91922524|NCT04516967|183742902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0077
91922525|NCT04516967|183742903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91922526|NCT04516967|183742904|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91765892|NCT01389882|183421128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.541||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.554|0.931|||Paired t-test|||||0.931|-0.554|0.601
91765893|NCT01389882|183421129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.355||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.023|||Paired t-test|||||0.023|-0.320|0.085
91765894|NCT01389882|183421130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.516|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.786||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.799|11.232|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||11.232|1.799|0.002
91810562|NCT03654651|183496233|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.1|
91765895|NCT01389882|183421131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.516||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|2.904|||Paired t-test, 2-sided|||||2.904|0.478|0.009
91810563|NCT03654651|183496234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-5.9|
91765896|NCT01389882|183421132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.692|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.192||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|1.749|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.749|-0.364|0.314
91922527|NCT04516967|183742905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91922528|NCT04516967|183742906|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91922529|NCT04516967|183742907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
91922530|NCT04516967|183742908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7175|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7175
91922531|NCT04576949|183742921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|16.25||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Abstinence from Week 3 to Week 6||16.25|3.94|< 0.0001
91765897|NCT01389882|183421133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.047||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.016|||Paired t-test|||||0.016|-0.030|0.515
91765898|NCT01389882|183421134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1105|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.501||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.505|3.726|||Paired t-test|||||3.726|-3.505|0.949
91765899|NCT01389882|183421135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.081||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|6.875|||Paired t-test|||||6.875|-4.770|0.709
91765900|NCT01389882|183421136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.274|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.233||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.802|||Paired t-test|||||0.802|-1.350|0.600
91810564|NCT03654651|183496234|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-3.7|
91810565|NCT03654651|183496234|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|-4.0|
91810566|NCT03654651|183496235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.8|-1.4|
91810567|NCT03654651|183496235|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.9|-2.1|
91922532|NCT04576949|183742921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|14.38||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||14.38|3.92|<0.0001
91922533|NCT04576949|183742921|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.25||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.25|0.16|<0.0001
91922534|NCT04576949|183742922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|11.57||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Abstinence from Week 9 to Week 12||11.57|3.69|< 0.0001
91765901|NCT01045967|183421141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|122.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||122|90.7|
91922535|NCT04576949|183742922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|11.12||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||11.12|3.81|<0.0001
91922536|NCT04576949|183742922|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.3||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.30|0.20|<0.0001
91922537|NCT04576949|183742923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.24||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations|||Abstinence from Week 6 to Week 24|Stratified by site|10.24|1.50|0.0016
91922538|NCT04576949|183742923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|9.36||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||9.36|1.61|0.0015
91922539|NCT04576949|183742923|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.06||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.09|0.03|0.0015
91765902|NCT01045967|183421142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.1|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|86.1|
91765903|NCT01045967|183421143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|86.3|
91765904|NCT01072188|183421174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91810568|NCT03654651|183496235|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-6.8|
91765905|NCT01072188|183421175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91765906|NCT00896298|183421177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2572|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2572
91765907|NCT00896298|183421178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
91765908|NCT00896298|183421179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
91810569|NCT03654651|183496236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-2.3|
91922540|NCT04576949|183742924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|11.09||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Abstinence from Week 12 to Week 24||11.09|2.81|< 0.0001
91765909|NCT00896298|183421180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0256
91765910|NCT00790192|183421184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91765911|NCT00790192|183421185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91765912|NCT01588561|183421207|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Increased signal: Insula, Putamen, Cingulate, Paracingulate, Calcarine cortex, Lingual gyrus, Frontal pole, Fusiform gyrus, Cerebellum. Decreased signal:Thalamus, Temporal gyri, Hippocampus (left), Caudate, Cerebellum|||
91810570|NCT03654651|183496236|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.6|
91810571|NCT03654651|183496236|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.6|
91922541|NCT04576949|183742924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|10.29||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||10.29|2.88|<0.0001
91922542|NCT04576949|183742924|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.20|0.11|<.0001
91922543|NCT04576949|183742925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.3484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.33||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Relapse free from Week 6 to Week 24||2.33|0.75|0.3484
91922544|NCT04576949|183742925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.26||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||2.26|0.78|0.3514
91922545|NCT04576949|183742925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0317||||||p-value for homogeneity across sites|Zelen's exact test (Pr ≤ P)|||||||0.0317
91922546|NCT05642442|183742952|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895|=|0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.7|||Mixed-effect model with repeat measures|Includes baseline TETRAS score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||0.70|-2.83|=0.2363
91922547|NCT05642442|183742953|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference (%)|14.6|||=|0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference of proportions is the weighted average of differences across strata with the CMH weights. Stratification is based on baseline TETRAS Composite Outcome Score.|||30.5|-1.3|=0.0715
91922548|NCT05642442|183742954|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.084|=|0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.46|||Mixed-effect model with repeat measures|Includes baseline TETRAS-ADL score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||0.46|-3.82|=0.1232
91922549|NCT05642442|183742955|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference (%)|10.5|||=|0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference of proportions is the weighted average of differences across strata with the CMH weights. Stratification is based on baseline TETRAS Composite Outcome Score.|||26.2|-5.2|=0.1906
91922550|NCT05642442|183742956|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference (%)|15.6|||=|0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference of proportions is the weighted average of differences across strata with the CMH weights. Stratification is based on baseline TETRAS Composite Outcome Score.|||26.6|4.7|=0.0052
91922551|NCT05642442|183742957|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference (%)|7.6|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference of proportions is the weighted average of differences across strata with the CMH weights. Stratification is based on baseline TETRAS Composite Outcome Score.|||17.7|-2.6|=0.1450
91922552|NCT05642442|183742958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.37|||=|0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|3.2|||Mixed-effect Model With Repeat Measure|Includes baseline TETRAS-PS score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||3.20|-0.47|=0.1429
91922553|NCT05642442|183742959|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.666|=|0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|3.24|||Mixed-effect model with repeat measures|Includes baseline TETRAS score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||3.24|-3.35|=0.9739
91922554|NCT05642442|183742960|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694|=|0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.65|||Mixed-effect model with repeat measures|Includes baseline MDS-UPDR score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||0.65|-2.09|=0.3029
91922555|NCT03246529|183743030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test (by response status and baseline platelet count),||||||<0.0001
91922556|NCT03246529|183743031|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91765913|NCT01588561|183421208|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Increased signal: Insula, Putamen, Pallidum, Cingulate, Thalamus, Operculum, OBF cortex, Lingual gyrus, Cerebellum. Decreased signal: Hippocampus (left), Parahippocampus (left), Caudate, Cerebellum|||
91765914|NCT01588561|183421209|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Increased signal: Insula (bilateral), Cingulate, Pretcentralgyrus, Thalamus (bilateral), Putamen (bilateral), Pallidum (bilateral), Amygdala (bilateral), Ventral tegmental area, Accumbens Nuclei. Decreased signal: Insula (left inferior), OBF cortex, Frontal\&Temporal poles, Hippocampus (bilateral), Parahippocampus (bilateral), Accumbens nuclei, Cerebellum|||
91765915|NCT01450761|183421211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.3775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|1.085|||Log Rank||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||1.085|0.807|0.3775
91810572|NCT03654651|183496237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.2|-3.8|
91810573|NCT03654651|183496237|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1|-4.9|
91922557|NCT03246529|183743032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91922558|NCT01582282|183743077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.64||||0.028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.028
91922559|NCT01582282|183743077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.72||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91922560|NCT01582282|183743078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.013
91922561|NCT01582282|183743078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91922562|NCT01582282|183743079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.808|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.808
91922563|NCT01582282|183743079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.328|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.328
91922564|NCT01582282|183743080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.508|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.508
91922565|NCT01582282|183743080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.962|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.962
91922566|NCT01582282|183743081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.84||||0.363|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.363
91922567|NCT01582282|183743081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.978|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.978
91922568|NCT01582282|183743082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.14||||0.785|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.785
91922569|NCT01582282|183743082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.45||||0.811|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.811
91922570|NCT00492622|183743083|EQUIVALENCE|Primary study objective was to compare the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole between IR and DR omeprazole in patients with GERD associated with gastroparesis.|||||<|0.01||||||\<0.01 is used for determining the level of significance.|paired t-tests|||||||< 0.01
91922571|NCT00492622|183743084|EQUIVALENCE|Primary study objective was to compare the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole between IR and DR omeprazole in patients with GERD associated with gastroparesis.|||||||||||||||||P\<0.05 was used as the level of significance with ANOVA for this endpoint.|||
91922572|NCT00492622|183743085|EQUIVALENCE|Primary study objective was to compare the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole between IR and DR omeprazole in patients with GERD associated with gastroparesis.||||||0.95||||||An analysis of variance model was used to compare AUC between IR and DR omeprazole using the natural logarithmic transformation. The model included the following factors: treatment, period, sequence and patient nested within the sequence.|ANOVA|||||||0.95
91922573|NCT04426630|183743086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Heart failure patients in Uganda were enrolled in an mHealth program at the Uganda Heart Institute. The program intended to promote self-care for heart failure and improve patient healthcare quality of life.||||<0.001
91922574|NCT04426630|183743087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
91922575|NCT04426630|183743088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
91922576|NCT04426630|183743089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|Wilcoxon sign-rank test used to compared baseline outcomes to 6 month outcomes.||Heart failure patients in Uganda were enrolled in an mHealth program at the Uganda Heart Institute. The program intended to promote self-care for heart failure and improve patient healthcare quality of life.||||0.028
91922577|NCT04426630|183743090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91922578|NCT04426630|183743091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91922579|NCT04426630|183743092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
91922580|NCT04426630|183743093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91765916|NCT01450761|183421212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961||||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|1.102|||Log Rank||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||1.102|0.838|0.5678
91765917|NCT01450761|183421213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.851||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|0.971|||Log Rank||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||0.971|0.747|0.0161
91765918|NCT01818596|183421217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|30 participants with evaluable aGFR (measured by iohexol clearance) in either cohort would provide at least 90% power to show that aGFR change is \< 20% after participants were administered E/C/F/TAF. In this sample size/power computation, it was assumed that the intra-participant variation for aGFR is 0.17 mL/min on natural logarithm scale and a clinical meaningful boundary in aGFR change is 80% to 125%.|Difference in GLSM Ratio|98.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.71|104.46|||||A parametric analysis of variance model using a mixed-effects model with repeated statement was fitted to the natural logarithm transferred aGFR obtained at postbaseline visits and baseline.|Comparison is made between the baseline value and the value from the Week 2, 4, or 8 visit and presented as a geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio with 90% confidence interval (CI). Postbaseline value and baseline value were used as test and reference, respectively.||104.46|93.71|
91810574|NCT03654651|183496237|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-7.8|
91922581|NCT04426630|183743094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
91765919|NCT01818596|183421217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|30 participants with evaluable aGFR (measured by iohexol clearance) in either cohort would provide at least 90% power to show that aGFR change is \< 20% after participants were administered E/C/F/TAF. In this sample size/power computation, it was assumed that the intra-participant variation for aGFR is 0.17 mL/min on natural logarithm scale and a clinical meaningful boundary in aGFR change is 80% to 125%.|Difference in GLSM Ratio|102.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|108.53|||||A parametric analysis of variance model using a mixed-effects model with repeated statement was fitted to the natural logarithm transferred aGFR obtained at postbaseline visits and baseline.|Comparison is made between the baseline value and the value from the Week 24 visit and presented as a GLSM ratio with 90% CI. Week 24 value and baseline value were used as test and reference, respectively.||108.53|97.11|
91810575|NCT03654651|183496238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-18.3|
91810576|NCT03654651|183496238|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.8|-29.1|
91922582|NCT04426630|183743095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
91922583|NCT04426630|183743096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.07
91922584|NCT04426630|183743097|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91922585|NCT02786537|183743102|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test derived by comparing whether the 95% CI includes zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.3|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|PROD vs. SOF/LDV based regimens as reported in PRO (ALL PATIENTS WHO STARTED TREATMENT BY ARM AS TREATED), population limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date - RBV FREE REGIMENS||0.3|-3.6|
91922586|NCT02786537|183743102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.1|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method. CI for median derived from PROC QUANTREG.|RBV free EBR/GZR regimen compared to PrOD in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization.||3.1|-0.4|
91922587|NCT02786537|183743103|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test completed by comparing whether the 95% CI includes zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|Analysis based on RBV free EBR/GZR regimen vs SOF/LDV (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated)||1.0|-0.6|
91922588|NCT02786537|183743105|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||||The comparisons between regimens can be viewed as superiority test, by comparing whether the 95% CI includes zero|Analysis of EBR/GZR vs. SOF/LDV irrespective of RBV usage in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization.||1.0|0.0|
91922589|NCT02786537|183743106|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.0|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method|Analysis based on RBV free SOF/LDV vs. PrOD in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization and limited RBV sample size.||7.0|-4.2|
91922590|NCT02786537|183743106|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.0|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free PrOD vs. SOF/LDV regimens (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date)||7.0|-4.2|
91922591|NCT02786537|183743107|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free EBR/GZR vs. SOF/LDV (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated)||1.3|-1.6|
91810577|NCT03654651|183496238|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-17.1|
91810578|NCT03654651|183496239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|
91922592|NCT02786537|183743110|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.5|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free EBR/GZR vs. PrOD regimens as reported in PRO (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date). Analysis limited to RBV free regimen in consideration RBV usage determined by provider and not study randomization.||5.5|-1.9|
91922593|NCT02786537|183743110|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.7|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free SOF/LDV vs. PrOD regimens as reported in PRO (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date)||2.7|-4.6|
91922594|NCT02786537|183743111|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on presence of zero in 95% CI.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method|Analysis limited to RBV free regimens in consideration that RBV usage determined by provider and not study randomization. All patients who started treatment by arm as treated.||1.6|-1.4|
91922595|NCT02786537|183743114|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test determined by comparing presence of zero in CI.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.3|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method|Analysis based on RBV free regimens -all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date.||1.3|-9.9|
91922596|NCT02786537|183743114|SUPERIORITY|Superiority comparison by viewing presence of zero in CI.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.4||||||RBV free regimens as reported in PRO (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date)||9.4|-3.4|
91922597|NCT02786537|183743116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|Analysis based on RBV free regimens in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization. Population includes patients who started treatment by arm as treated.||2.1|-3.6|
91922598|NCT02786537|183743125|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence range +/-5%|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|11.3||||||||11.3|-15.3|
91922599|NCT01466751|183743126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects|8.687||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||A-priori threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. No correction for multiple comparisons. The omnibus effect from the linear mixed model for the Treatment Arm x Time Interaction was utilized to establish significance of the effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Numerator degrees of freedom=1, Denominator degrees of freedom = 168||A linear mixed model was utilized to test the null hypothesis that the intervention groups would show equivalent performance change on the outcome measure from baseline to the 3 month time points.||||0.004
91922600|NCT01466751|183743127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects|2.032||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold was: p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Numerator degrees of freedom: 1, Denominator degrees of freedom: 168||A linear mixed model was used to test the null hypothesis that the two treatment groups would display no differential changes in amygdala BOLD signal from baseline to 3 months as a main effect or in interaction with facial affect type (fear or happy) or by brain hemisphere (left or right).||||0.156
91765920|NCT03801174|183421235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.0|.804
91922601|NCT02413255|183743136|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0195||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9752|1.0637|||Power Model|||||1.0637|0.9752|0.465
91922602|NCT02413255|183743137|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.1124||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9913|1.2336|||Power Model|||Day 1||1.2336|0.9913|0.126
91922603|NCT02413255|183743137|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.09||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9962|1.1838|||Power Model|||Day 9||1.1838|0.9962|0.114
91922604|NCT02413255|183743138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5402|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with dose level as a fixed effect.||||||0.5402
91922605|NCT02413255|183743139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7824|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect.||Day 1||||0.7824
91922606|NCT02413255|183743139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4056|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect.||Day 9||||0.4056
91922607|NCT02413255|183743140|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0606||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0187|1.1026|||Power Model|||||1.1026|1.0187|0.019
91922608|NCT02413255|183743141|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0789||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9628|1.195|||Power Model|||Day 1||1.1950|0.9628|0.258
91922609|NCT02413255|183743141|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0929||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9878|1.198|||Power Model|||Day 9||1.1980|0.9878|0.144
91765921|NCT03801174|183421236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|50.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.0|233.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||233|-132|.590
91765922|NCT03801174|183421237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|806.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|443.0||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|1675.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1675|-64|.069
91765923|NCT04170543|183421280|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-2.85||||0.8338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.61|21.94||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||21.94|-22.61|0.8338
91922610|NCT02413255|183743144|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0799||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0371|1.1227|||Power Model|||||1.1227|1.0371|0.003
91922611|NCT02413255|183743145|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0897||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9735|1.206|||Power Model|||||1.2060|0.9735|0.201
91922612|NCT02413255|183743146|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0188||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9734|1.0642|||Power Model|||||1.0642|0.9734|0.490
91922613|NCT02413255|183743147|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0846||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.2002|||Power Model|||||1.2002|0.9690|0.224
91922614|NCT02413255|183743154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect.||||||<.0001
91922615|NCT02413255|183743170|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.772|1.628||||||||1.628|0.772|
91922616|NCT02413255|183743170|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.796|1.678||||||||1.678|0.796|
91922617|NCT02413255|183743170|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.676|1.425||||||||1.425|0.676|
91922618|NCT02413255|183743170|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.701|1.587||||||||1.587|0.701|
91765924|NCT04170543|183421280|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-19.52||||0.1169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.92|1.07||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||1.07|-35.92|0.1169
91922619|NCT02413255|183743170|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|1.604||||||||1.604|0.761|
91922620|NCT02413255|183743170|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.225|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|1.778||||||||1.778|0.844|
91922621|NCT00077623|183743171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority were based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity.|Mean Difference between groups|0.141|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.098|0.38||The p-value for the non-inferiority test can be derived via the t-test.|ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups|||The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on ANCOVA analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL (Per Protocol Population)||0.380|-0.098|<0.0001
91922622|NCT00077623|183743171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority were based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity .|Mean Difference between groups|-0.022|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.262|0.217||The p-value for the non-inferiority test can be derived via the t-test.|ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups|||The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on ANCOVA analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL (Per Protocol Population)||0.217|-0.262|<0.0001
91922623|NCT01334125|183743180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|||||Individual two-way mixed ANOVA models were fitted for each of our outcomes of interest, with treatment type (metformin or placebo) as the fixed effect, and baseline values, age, gender, and BMI as covariates.|ANOVA|||Analyses were based on the intent-to-treat principle and were performed using SPSS v.22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY).||||0.903
91922624|NCT01334125|183743181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Individual two-way mixed ANOVA models were fitted for each of our outcomes of interest, with treatment type (metformin or placebo) as the fixed effect, and baseline values, age, gender, and BMI as covariates.|ANOVA|||Analyses were based on the intent-to-treat principle and were performed using SPSS v.22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY).||||0.578
91922625|NCT01334125|183743182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|||Two way ANOVA comparison of the means of the adiponectin/leptin ratios between the metformin and placebo groups||||0.057
91922626|NCT01334125|183743183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p value represents the analysis for minor hypoglycemia||||1.00
91922627|NCT01334125|183743183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p value represents the analysis of the nocturnal hypoglycemia||||1.00
91765925|NCT04170543|183421280|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-17.47||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.71|4.32||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||4.32|-34.71|0.1774
91765926|NCT04170543|183421280|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-7.22||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.05|13.35||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||13.35|-24.05|0.5379
91765927|NCT04170543|183421281|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-13.02||||0.1929|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.08|3.75||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||3.75|-27.08|0.1929
91922628|NCT00401973|183743208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||P-value for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Analysis||To detect a difference between treatment arms of 3.06 kg in mean weight change from baseline to endpoint, 150 patients must be enrolled in stepped intervention arm and 50 in control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 6.87 kg, there is 80% power to detect a difference between treatment arms on a 1-sided 2-sample t-test at the 5% significance level. Primary analysis was the comparison of mean weight change for 'olanzapine only' versus pooled 'olanzapine \& adjunctive treatment' arm at Week 22.||||0.065
91922629|NCT00401973|183743208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Analysis||Hypothesis=weight gain associated with olanzapine can be prevented or mitigated with an adjunctive pharmacological algorithm.||||0.113
91922630|NCT00401973|183743208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Analysis||||||0.036
91922631|NCT00401973|183743209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.498
91922632|NCT00401973|183743209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.637
91922633|NCT00401973|183743209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.125
91922634|NCT00401973|183743210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.173
91922635|NCT00401973|183743210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.016
91922636|NCT00401973|183743210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
91922637|NCT00401973|183743211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
91922638|NCT00401973|183743211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91922639|NCT00401973|183743211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.071
91922640|NCT00401973|183743212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.152
91922641|NCT00401973|183743212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.350
91765928|NCT04170543|183421281|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-25.71||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.83|-11.22||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||-11.22|-37.83|0.0062
91765929|NCT04170543|183421281|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-18.2||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.86|-1.81||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||-1.81|-31.86|0.0705
91922642|NCT00401973|183743212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.123
91922643|NCT00401973|183743213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.499
91922644|NCT00401973|183743213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.833
91922645|NCT00401973|183743213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.339
91922646|NCT00401973|183743214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.278
91922647|NCT00401973|183743214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.976||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.976
91922648|NCT00401973|183743214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.049
91922649|NCT00401973|183743215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.122
91765930|NCT04170543|183421281|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-15.56||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.82|-1.21||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||-1.21|-27.82|0.0764
91765931|NCT04170543|183421282|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|7.25||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.45|29.88||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||29.88|-11.45|0.5474
91922650|NCT00401973|183743215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.225
91922651|NCT00401973|183743215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.124
91922652|NCT00401973|183743216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.020
91922653|NCT00401973|183743216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|||||||0.037
91922654|NCT00401973|183743216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.038
91922655|NCT00401973|183743217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.474
91922656|NCT00401973|183743217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.404
91922657|NCT00401973|183743217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|||||||0.652
91922658|NCT04243369|183743251|OTHER|Only descriptive statistics was provided. The rate and the exact 95% CI of the rate using the Clopper-Pearson Exact method is calculated.|Rate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|100.0||||||||100|88.4|
91922659|NCT00320671|183743272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Analysis|Cumulative Response Rates|56.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|69.9|||Log Rank||Only the subjects taking risperidone were analysed in this section|||69.9|43.9|.61
91922660|NCT00320671|183743272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Analysis|Cumulative Response Rates|62.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.8|74.8|||Log Rank||Only subjects taking aripiprazole were analysed in this section|||74.8|50.8|.61
91922661|NCT02532543|183743351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.863
91922662|NCT02532543|183743352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 2 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.718
91922663|NCT02532543|183743352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 4 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.853
91922664|NCT02532543|183743353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid buccal bone height||||0.718
91922665|NCT02532543|183743353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid palatal bone height||||0.999
91922666|NCT02532543|183743353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mesial bone height||||0.440
91922667|NCT02532543|183743353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in distal bone height||||0.729
91922668|NCT02532543|183743354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.613
91922669|NCT02532543|183743355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 2 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.492
91922670|NCT02532543|183743355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.917|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 4 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.917
91922671|NCT02532543|183743356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid buccal soft tissue height||||0.353
91922672|NCT02532543|183743356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid palatal soft tissue height||||0.823
91922673|NCT02532543|183743356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mesial soft tissue height||||0.243
91922674|NCT02532543|183743356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in distal soft tissue height||||0.756
91922675|NCT01144637|183743391|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margins to show that the 3 vaccine lots are equivalent in terms of PRNT GMTs at Week 6 was predefined as \[0.5; 2\] for the GMT ratios (pairwise)|GMT ratio (Group 1 / Group 2)|1.1012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9992|1.2136||||||||1.2136|0.9992|
91922676|NCT01144637|183743391|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margins to show that the 3 vaccine lots are equivalent in terms of PRNT GMTs at Week 6 was predefined as \[0.5; 2\] for the GMT ratios (pairwise)|GMT ratio (Group 1 / Group 3)|0.9444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8554|1.0427||||||||1.0427|0.8554|
91922677|NCT01144637|183743391|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margins to show that the 3 vaccine lots are equivalent in terms of PRNT GMTs at Week 6 was predefined as \[0.5; 2\] for the GMT ratios (pairwise)|GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 3)|0.8577|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7753|0.9488||||||||0.9488|0.7753|
91922678|NCT03472534|183743403|OTHER|The p-value for the overall F-test was used to determine if the mean irritation scores were equal for all four products.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91922679|NCT00906789|183743423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given a continuous confidence score (0-100), the trapezoidal method was used to obtain the area under the LROC with bootstrapping at 10,000 iterations to obtain the 95% confidence interval (CI). Acceptance criteria for tests of non-inferiority and superiority were previously set at 95% CI upper bound of ΔAUCUA-SV less than δ=0.1 and δ=0, respectively. If the 95% CI upper bound difference of UA-SV is less than 0.1, then SV is non-inferior. If it is 0 or less than 0, then SV is superior.||||||0.05|||||||Bootstraping|||The sample size of 351 patients, in a 2:1 ratio of nodule absent to present patients was selected to provide 80% power to detect a difference in areas under the curve of 0.10 or greater. This sample size was calculated using PASS software (Hintze, 2008). Settings: • α = 0.025. • one-sided test • AUCA = 0.80 and AUCSV = 0.90.• 2:1 ratio of patients with nodules to those without • areas calculated for the entire curves • correlation 0.3\* • discrete data. • standard deviation ratios of 1\*.||||0.05
91922680|NCT02334267|183743434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91922681|NCT02334267|183743435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
91765932|NCT04170543|183421282|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|3.11||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.83|24.82||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||24.82|-14.83|0.7920
91765933|NCT04170543|183421282|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-3.4||||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.59|17.51||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||17.51|-20.59|0.7711
91810579|NCT03654651|183496239|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-0.1|
91922682|NCT02334267|183743436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91922683|NCT02334267|183743437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91922684|NCT01662999|183743466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.867|1.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.026|0.867|
91922685|NCT01662999|183743467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ration of adjusted geometric mean|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B versus C in AUC(INF). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.008|0.961|
91922686|NCT01662999|183743469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.966|1.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B versus C in AUC(0-T). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.014|0.966|
91922687|NCT01662999|183743471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.883|0.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||0.972|0.883|
91922688|NCT01662999|183743473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.004|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of 5-OH saxagliptin (metabolite of saxagliptin). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.109|1.004|
91922689|NCT01662999|183743474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.022|0.960|
91922690|NCT01662999|183743475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.022|0.961|
91765934|NCT04170543|183421282|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|5.27||||0.6163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.08|24.62||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||24.62|-11.08|0.6163
91765935|NCT04170543|183421284|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|2.43||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.35|26.95||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||26.95|-17.35|0.8537
91765936|NCT04170543|183421284|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-15.63||||0.1989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.14|4.89||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||4.89|-32.14|0.1989
91810580|NCT03654651|183496239|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.5|
91922691|NCT01662999|183743476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.058|1.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of 5-OH saxagliptin (metabolite). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.113|1.058|
91922692|NCT01662999|183743477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.058|1.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of 5-OH saxagliptin (metabolite). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.113|1.058|
91922693|NCT01662999|183743478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin total active moiety. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.030|0.960|
91922694|NCT01662999|183743479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.029|1.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin total active moiety. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.064|1.029|
91922695|NCT00196937|183743492|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Cervarix (15-25 years) Group minus Cervarix (26-45 years) Group\] was below 10%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.29||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of SCR: To evaluate if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of the Cervarix vaccine, one month after the third dose (Month 7), in young women 26 - 45 years of age is non-inferior to that in women 15 - 25 years of age.||2.29|-1.97|
91922696|NCT00196937|183743492|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Cervarix (15-25 years) Group minus Cervarix (26-45 years) Group\] was below 10%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.03||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of SCR: To evaluate if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of the Cervarix vaccine, one month after the third dose (Month 7), in young women 26 - 45 years of age is non-inferior to that in women 15 - 25 years of age.||2.03|-1.87|
91922697|NCT03368404|183743507|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 33 evaluable patients per treatment group was calculated to provide at least 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of CBL-102 to Vismed Multi. Assumptions included a non-inferiority margin of 2 grades and a standard deviation of 2.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.13|||||Treatment difference : CBL-102 - Vismed Multi|||0.13|-1.34|
91922698|NCT03368404|183743508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0592||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0592
91922699|NCT03368404|183743509|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
91922700|NCT03368404|183743510|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
91765937|NCT04170543|183421284|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-17.96||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.01|1.99||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||1.99|-34.01|0.1346
91922701|NCT03368404|183743511|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
91922702|NCT03368404|183743512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0176||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in Global Sum Score of Dry Eye Symptoms at Day 28 (Visit 4)||||0.0176
91922703|NCT03368404|183743512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment to baseline||Change from Baseline in Global Sum Score of Dry Eye Symptoms at Day 90 (Visit 5)||||0.0010
91922704|NCT03368404|183743513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality of Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Daily Activities"||||0.0251
91922705|NCT03368404|183743513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality of Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Difficulties with work and handicap"||||0.0015
91922706|NCT03368404|183743513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2024||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Giving up makeup"||||0.2024
91922707|NCT03368404|183743513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Acknowledgement of the Disease"||||0.0421
91922708|NCT03368404|183743513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3945||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Acceptance of the disease"||||0.3945
91922709|NCT03368404|183743513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Fear for the Future"||||0.0536
91922710|NCT03368404|183743513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1998||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Emotional well-being"||||0.1998
91922711|NCT03368404|183743513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality of Life (OSD-QoL®) questions:~Global Question"||||0.0306
91922712|NCT03368404|183743514|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
91922713|NCT03368404|183743515|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
91765938|NCT04170543|183421284|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-6.38||||0.5683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.59|13.23||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||13.23|-22.59|0.5683
91922714|NCT03368404|183743516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||Significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0017
91922715|NCT02973815|183743548|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.067|||Regression, Linear|||This was adjusted for the baseline BMI-Z score, child sex, baseline child age, and economic assistance||0.067|-0.194|0.342
91765939|NCT04170543|183421285|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-7.93||||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.3|9.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||9.10|-22.30|0.4226
91765940|NCT04170543|183421285|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-20.61||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.25|-5.58||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||-5.58|-33.25|0.0287
91765941|NCT04170543|183421285|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-18.73||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.7|-3.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||-3.30|-31.70|0.0498
91765942|NCT04170543|183421285|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-13.27||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.51|0.98||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||0.98|-25.51|0.1236
91765943|NCT04378270|183421309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3687|6.2287|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom (DF)- 28||This procedure calculates the difference between the observed means in two independent samples (two collected assessment timepoints, screening and 4 week follow up visits). A significance value (P-value) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference is reported. The P-value is the probability of obtaining the observed difference between the samples if the null hypothesis were true. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that the difference is 0.||6.2287|-0.3687|0.0796
91890155|NCT00316017|183673135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died in field or ED between the three groups among the patients who received zero units of PRBC.||||<0.01
91890156|NCT00316017|183673136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in percent of patients who died within 6 hours of admission to the hospital between the three groups among patients who received zero units of PRBC.||||<0.02
91890157|NCT00316017|183673137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 28 days from the time of the 911 call between the three groups among the patients who received zero units of PRBC.||||<0.01
91890158|NCT00316017|183673138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who received 1-9 units PRBC in the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.51
91890159|NCT00316017|183673139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died in Field or ED between the three groups among the patients who received 1-9 units of PRBC.||||0.73
91890160|NCT00316017|183673140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 6 hours of admission to the hospital between the three groups among the patients who received 1-9 units of PRBC.||||0.83
91890161|NCT00316017|183673141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 28 days from the time of the 911 call between the three groups among the patients who received 1-9 units of PRBC.||||0.31
91890162|NCT00316017|183673142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who received greater than 10 units of PRBC in first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.97
91890163|NCT00316017|183673144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 6 hours of admission to the hospital between the three groups among the patients who received greater than 10 units of PRBC.||||0.35
91890164|NCT00316017|183673145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 28 days from the time of the 911 call between the three groups among the patients who received greater than 10 units of PRBC.||||0.34
91890165|NCT00422812|183673146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Overall effect at 2 hr (by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) for TREATMENT|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
91890166|NCT00422812|183673147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.281
91890167|NCT00422812|183673147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0226|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0226
91890168|NCT00422812|183673147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0019
91890169|NCT00422812|183673148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Overall effect (0-4 hr) for TREATMENT by Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0007
91890170|NCT00422812|183673148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Log Rank|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons||||||0.0008
91890171|NCT00422812|183673148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||||||0.0008
91890172|NCT00422812|183673148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||||||0.0003
91890173|NCT02671500|183673156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided 1 sample exact binomial test|||A sample size of 260 participants in Region 1 would provide more than 80% power to detect an improvement of at least 6 percentage points in SVR12 rate from the performance goal of 85% by using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test at the significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91922716|NCT02973815|183743549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73104||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.71|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline HFI Fruit value, and economic assistance status||2.71|-0.20|0.09
91922717|NCT02973815|183743550|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.44|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline HFI Vegetable value, and economic assistance status||2.44|0.02|0.047
91922718|NCT02973815|183743551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline healthfulness score and economic assistance status||0.88|0.08|0.019
91922719|NCT02973815|183743552|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline vegetable intake, child age (baseline), parent education status (bachelors or higher vs lower)||0.09|-0.4|0.218
91922720|NCT02973815|183743553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.77|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline fruit intake, child age (baseline), parent education status (bachelors or higher vs lower)||0.77|-0.03|0.066
91922721|NCT02973815|183743554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|3.98|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline MVPA, child age (baseline), and child sex||3.98|-13.56|0.28
91922722|NCT02973815|183743555|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline screentime, child age (baseline), and child sex||0.34|-0.31|0.928
91922723|NCT03478683|183743556|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated, if the lower bound of the two-sided 95 percentage (%) confidence interval around the (FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO) treatment difference was above -50 milliliter.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.043|||||The primary treatment effect estimated (hypothetical effect) excluded data following intercurrent events: discontinuation of treatment, taking wrong treatment, taking prohibited medication, unblinding, noncompliance, COPD exacerbation or pneumonia.|||0.043|-0.013|
91922724|NCT03478683|183743557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.018||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 2 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 2|||0.018|-0.037|0.481
91765944|NCT04378270|183421310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5014|0.1014|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom (DF)- 28||This procedure calculates the difference between the observed means in two independent samples (two collected assessment timepoints, screening and 4 week follow up visits). A significance value (P-value) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference is reported. The P-value is the probability of obtaining the observed difference between the samples if the null hypothesis were true. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that the difference is 0.||0.1014|-3.5014|0.0634
91890174|NCT03852719|183673199|OTHER||Difference in percentages|46.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|30.5|61.4||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 10 mg versus Delayed Treatment using a significance level of 0.04 at Week 48.|Fisher Exact|||||61.4|30.5|<0.0001
91890175|NCT03852719|183673199|OTHER||Difference in percentages|42.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|27.0|58.5||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 2 mg versus Delayed Treatment using a significance level of 0.04 at Week 48.|Fisher Exact|||||58.5|27.0|<0.0001
91890176|NCT03852719|183673200|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.8||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-8.5|24.3||Fisher's exact test was used for the comparison of bulevirtide 10 mg versus bulevirtide 2 mg using a significance level of 0.04 at Week 48.|Fisher Exact|||||24.3|-8.5|0.4139
91890177|NCT03852719|183673201|OTHER||Difference in percentages|39.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|55.8||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 2 mg versus Delayed treatment using a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||55.8|20.0|<0.0001
91890178|NCT03852719|183673201|OTHER||Difference in percentage|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|59.9||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 10 mg versus Delayed treatment using a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||59.9|25.8|<0.0001
91922725|NCT03478683|183743557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0124|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.086||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 28 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 28|||0.086|0.037|<0.001
91890179|NCT03852719|183673202|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-6.39|0.0010
91890180|NCT03852719|183673202|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.93||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|-1.63|||ANCOVA|||||-1.63|-6.23|0.0009
91890181|NCT03852719|183673203|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|0.57||||0.5156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.3|||MMRM|||||2.30|-1.16|0.5156
91890182|NCT03852719|183673204|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-1.21||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.08|||MMRM|||||1.08|-3.50|0.2977
91890183|NCT03852719|183673205|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean of Diffrence|-0.04||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.15||P-value was based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model.|MMRM||Least squares (LS) means, standard errors (SE), 95% CIs and p-values were based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model for change from baseline.|||2.15|-2.23|0.9719
91890184|NCT03852719|183673206|SUPERIORITY|P-value was based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model.|LS-Mean of Difference|2.11||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.63|||MMRM||Least squares (LS) means, standard errors (SE), 95% CIs and p-values were based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model for change from baseline.|||5.63|-1.41|0.2369
91890185|NCT03852719|183673207|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.6||||0.4695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|24.4||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented.|||24.4|-9.6|0.4695
91890186|NCT03852719|183673207|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|15.5||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented|||15.5|-16.3|1.0000
91922726|NCT03478683|183743557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0133|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.084||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 84 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 84|||0.084|0.032|<0.001
91922727|NCT03478683|183743557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.066||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 85 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 85|||0.066|0.010|0.007
91922728|NCT03478683|183743558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.013||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on weighted mean change from Baseline in FEV1 over 0-24 hours on Day 1 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.013|-0.030|0.415
91922729|NCT03478683|183743559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0138||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.04||The analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measures analysis, which included covariates of Baseline FEV1, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline interaction.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.040|-0.014|0.335
91922730|NCT03037905|183743576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-17.1|0.20
91922731|NCT03037905|183743577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.3|-5.9|0.60
91922732|NCT03037905|183743578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1|-7.0|.76
91922733|NCT03037905|183743579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.83
91922734|NCT02273973|183743597|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.71||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|21.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.32|0.11|0.0490
91765945|NCT04378270|183421311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.492||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4498|29.9502|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom (DF)- 28||This procedure calculates the difference between the observed means in two independent samples (two collected assessment timepoints, screening and 4 week follow up visits). A significance value (P-value) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference is reported. The P value is the probability of obtaining the observed difference between the samples if the null hypothesis were true. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that the difference is 0.||29.9502|7.4498|0.0020
91765946|NCT04378270|183421312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.327||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8069|25.5331|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom (DF)- 28||||25.5331|7.8069|0.0006
91922735|NCT02273973|183743598|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.21||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.55|||Fisher Exact|||||3.55|-1.12|0.3698
91922736|NCT02273973|183743599|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.19||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|33.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.81|2.57|0.0332
91922737|NCT02273973|183743600|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.37||||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.04|||Fisher Exact|||||4.04|-1.30|0.4803
91922738|NCT02273973|183743601|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.2||||0.5017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|19.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.61|-9.20|0.5017
91922739|NCT02273973|183743602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|4.75|||Fisher Exact|||||4.75|-2.65|1.0000
91922740|NCT02273973|183743603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.14||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|36.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.68|5.59|0.0115
91922741|NCT02273973|183743604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.66||||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.20|-11.88|0.7928
91922742|NCT02273973|183743605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.45||||0.2659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|24.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.70|-5.80|0.2659
91922743|NCT02273973|183743606|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.63||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.60|-6.34|0.3299
91922744|NCT02273973|183743607|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.68||||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|25.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.32|-3.96|0.1554
91922745|NCT02273973|183743608|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.41||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|16.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.63|-11.82|0.7870
91922746|NCT02273973|183743609|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|0.83||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for changes in Ki67 levels from Baseline to Week 3.||1.05|0.65|0.117
91922747|NCT02273973|183743609|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|1.25||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.65|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for changes in Ki67 levels from Baseline to Surgery.||1.65|0.95|0.105
91922748|NCT02273973|183743611|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-13.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.67|-4.96|||Regression, Linear|||||-4.96|-21.67|0.002
91922749|NCT02104180|183743617|NON_INFERIORITY|An estimate of the difference between the pain felt by patient during the two dressings removals along with a 95% confidence interval (CI) has been derived. If the upper limit of the confidence interval was less than 13 mm, clinical non-inferiority of Tulle Gras versus Urgotul has been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.339|1.864|||||The pain intensity has been analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model for this cross-over study included sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|||1.864|-1.339|
91922750|NCT01676116|183743618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-1.11|<0.001
91922751|NCT01821677|183743636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.16
91922752|NCT01821677|183743636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
91922753|NCT01821677|183743636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91922754|NCT01821677|183743637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.42
91922755|NCT01821677|183743637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.28
91922756|NCT01821677|183743637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
91922757|NCT03461965|183743644|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing total responses that were correct across all participants in both arms||||0.007
91922758|NCT03461965|183743645|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||0.0001
91922759|NCT03461965|183743645|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.03
91922760|NCT03461965|183743645|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Comparing change in scores (post-stage minus baseline) between experimental and control groups||||0.352
91922761|NCT03461965|183743646|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.0001
91922762|NCT03461965|183743646|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||0.04
91922763|NCT03461965|183743646|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Comparing change in scores (post-stage minus baseline) between experimental and control groups||||0.052
91922764|NCT03461965|183743647|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.0001
91922765|NCT03461965|183743647|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.0001
91922766|NCT03461965|183743647|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Comparing change in scores (post-stage minus baseline) between experimental and control groups||||0.208
91765947|NCT04378270|183421315|OTHER||Mean pain scale|17.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5465|19.1935|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom (DF)- 14||This procedure calculates the difference of an observed mean (from the assessment collected at the 4 week visit) with a hypothesized mean value (10, a mid level scale score). A significance value (P-value) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the observed mean is reported. The P-value is the probability of obtaining the observed mean in the sample if the null hypothesis value were the true value.||19.1935|16.5465|0.0001
91765948|NCT01236521|183421321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.0385|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0385
91765949|NCT01236521|183421322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
91922767|NCT03461965|183743648|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.03
91765950|NCT01236521|183421323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0740
91765951|NCT03890588|183421333|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.51|.91|.21
91765952|NCT03890588|183421334|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|.76|.61
91922768|NCT02680301|183743649|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon sign- rank test values with ranks from change in cream efficacy ratings minus change in ointment efficacy ratings.||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91922769|NCT00538642|183743656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91922770|NCT05278104|183743690|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.7|||ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the BIS-11 score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||1.7|-2.6|
91922771|NCT05278104|183743691|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.3|||ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the BIS-11 score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||0.3|-4.6|
91922772|NCT05278104|183743692|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.4|||||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the S-UPPS-P score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||2.4|-2.1|
91922773|NCT05278104|183743693|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1|||ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the S-UPPS-P score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||3.1|-1.3|
91922774|NCT01269125|183743704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Chi-squared|||||0.3|-0.2|0.80
91922775|NCT01269125|183743708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.8||95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Chi-squared|||||0.3|-0.2|0.80
91922776|NCT01269125|183743708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.48||95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Chi-squared|||In order to handle the problem of small sample size combined with the inability to identify the theoretical statistical distribution of data, bootstrap techniques are used (10). Ader and co-workers recommend the bootstrap procedure when (a) the theoretical distribution is complicated or unknown, and/or (b) power calculations have to be performed and a small sample is available (11). Finally, the bootstrap distribution has been used in order to calculate all the confidence intervals.||0.2|-0.4|0.48
91922777|NCT01269125|183743708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.22||95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Chi-squared|||In order to handle the problem of small sample size combined with the inability to identify the theoretical statistical distribution of data, bootstrap techniques are used (10). Ader and co-workers recommend the bootstrap procedure when (a) the theoretical distribution is complicated or unknown, and/or (b) power calculations have to be performed and a small sample is available (11). Finally, the bootstrap distribution has been used in order to calculate all the confidence intervals.||0.1|-0.4|0.22
91922778|NCT00151411|183743709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|18.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.4|-9.9|0.54
91922779|NCT00151411|183743710|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|2.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.6|||Zero-altered negative binomial model||Placebo is the reference group, i.e. for the rate ratio, Metformin represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|This statistical analysis models the probability of ovulation.||6.6|0.9|0.07
91922780|NCT00151411|183743710|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.2||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Zero-altered negative binomial model||Placebo is the reference group, i.e. for the rate ratio, Metformin represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|This statistical analysis models the count of ovulations provided a woman actually ovulated.||1.9|0.7|0.51
91922781|NCT00151411|183743711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.0|0.1|0.05
91922782|NCT00417612|183743712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
91922783|NCT03351244|183743775|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|2.056|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||2.056|0.585|0.7735
91922784|NCT03351244|183743775|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|1.77|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.770|0.468|0.7809
91922785|NCT03351244|183743775|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.9862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.753|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.753|0.576|0.9862
91922786|NCT03351244|183743776|OTHER|A restricted maximum likelihood-based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements was applied.|Placebo-corrected adjusted mean|0.38||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.809|1.57|||Mixed model with repeated measurements|The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit.||||1.570|-0.809|0.5289
91765953|NCT03890588|183421335|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.15|0.84|.84
91765954|NCT03890588|183421336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|.8|.99
91765955|NCT03890588|183421337|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|.79|.86
91922787|NCT03351244|183743776|OTHER|A restricted maximum likelihood-based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements was applied.|Placebo-corrected adjusted mean|0.21||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.055|1.475|||Mixed model with repeated measurements|The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit.||||1.475|-1.055|0.7440
91922788|NCT03351244|183743776|OTHER|A restricted maximum likelihood-based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements was applied.|Placebo-corrected adjusted mean|0.31||||0.5659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.745|1.358|||Mixed model with repeated measurements|The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit.||||1.358|-0.745|0.5659
91922789|NCT03351244|183743779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.9938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|4.989|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||4.989|0.203|0.9938
91922790|NCT03351244|183743779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.116||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|5.531|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||5.531|0.225|0.8930
91922791|NCT03351244|183743779|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|4.233|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||4.233|0.265|0.9360
91922792|NCT03351244|183743781|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.6362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|2.118|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||2.118|0.293|0.6362
91922793|NCT03351244|183743781|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.612||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|1.826|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.826|0.205|0.3782
91922794|NCT03351244|183743781|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.703||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.671|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.671|0.296|0.4253
91922795|NCT01165229|183743785|OTHER|The efficacy of Herpes Zoster subunit (HZ/su) vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of VE was above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|90.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.54|94.32|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) disease between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79 YOA group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79 YOA group.||94.32|83.54|<0.0001
91922796|NCT01165229|183743785|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|89.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.65|96.16|||Poisson exact method|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) disease between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||96.16|74.65|<0.0001
91922797|NCT01165229|183743785|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|89.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.29|93.66|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) disease between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||93.66|84.29|<0.0001
91922798|NCT01165229|183743786|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|93.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.47|99.19|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Post-Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 70-79YOA Group||99.19|72.47|<0.0001
91765956|NCT02052752|183421338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA results for the primary endpoint with treatment group as a main effect and average baseline value as a covariate showed no statistically significant differences in the percentage change from baseline in swelling of the target lesions between the 3% BPO group and the vehicle control group at Day 4 for the ITT population||||0.283
91922799|NCT01165229|183743786|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|71.16||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.51|97.08|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=80YOA Group||97.08|-51.51|0.1844
91922800|NCT01165229|183743786|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|88.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|97.1|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=70YOA Group||97.10|68.70|<0.0001
91922801|NCT01165229|183743787|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|91.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.04|94.85|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of herpes zoster disease between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 70-79YOA Group||94.85|86.04|<0.0001
91922802|NCT01165229|183743787|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|91.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.22|96.94|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of herpes zoster disease between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=80YOA Group||96.94|80.22|<0.0001
91922803|NCT01165229|183743787|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|91.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.88|94.46|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of herpes zoster disease between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A \>=70 YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=70YOA Group||94.46|86.88|<0.0001
91922804|NCT01165229|183743788|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|90.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.57|98.95|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of of Vaccine Efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 placebo 70-79YOA Group||98.95|62.57|<0.0001
91922805|NCT01165229|183743788|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|65.76||||0.3072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.58|96.62|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||96.62|-91.58|0.3072
91922806|NCT01165229|183743788|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|85.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.52|96.3|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||96.30|58.52|<0.0001
91922807|NCT01165229|183743789|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against duration of severe worst HZ associated pain was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|21.7||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|54.39|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||54.39|-34.40|0.3749
91922808|NCT01165229|183743789|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against duration of severe worst HZ associated pain was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|51.76||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.55|85.95|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo\>=80YOA Group||85.95|-65.55|0.2466
91765957|NCT03201419|183421344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.07||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.07|-0.54|
91922809|NCT01165229|183743789|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against duration of severe worst HZ associated pain was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|28.4||||0.1877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.69|56.44|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo\>=70YOA Group||56.44|-17.69|0.1877
91922810|NCT01165229|183743792|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against overall and HZ related hospitalizations was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.2533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.13|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of overall and HZ related hospitalizations between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||100.00|-144.13|0.2533
91922811|NCT01165229|183743792|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against overall and HZ related hospitalizations was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-435.14|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of overall and HZ related hospitalizations between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||100.00|-435.14|0.5024
91922812|NCT01165229|183743792|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against overall and HZ related hospitalizations was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of overall and HZ related hospitalizations between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||100.00|-9.92|0.0636
91765958|NCT03201419|183421344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.02||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.02|-0.46|
91765959|NCT03201419|183421344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.36|
91765960|NCT03201419|183421344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.23|
91765961|NCT03201419|183421344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.14|
91922813|NCT01165229|183743793|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications was demonstrated if the LL of the VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|-65.69||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-827.06|73.62|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of HZ related complications between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||73.62|-827.06|0.4947
91922814|NCT01165229|183743793|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications was demonstrated if the LL of the VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-558.05|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of HZ related complications between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||100.00|-558.05|1.0000
91922815|NCT01165229|183743793|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications was demonstrated if the LL of the VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|0.97||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-433.32|83.16|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of HZ related complications between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||83.16|-433.32|1.0000
91922816|NCT01165229|183743794|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against use of pain medications was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|43.42||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|70.53|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in use of pain medication between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||70.53|10.77|0.0112
91922817|NCT01165229|183743794|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against use of pain medications was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of the VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|27.03||||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|73.2|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in use of pain medication between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||73.20|-26.43|0.3903
91922818|NCT01165229|183743794|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against use of pain medications was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|39.6||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.79|64.75|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in use of pain medication between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||64.75|10.79|0.0083
91922819|NCT01165229|183743795|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against duration of pain medication associated with HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|58.94||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|80.96|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in duration of pain medication associated with HZ between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||80.96|11.45|0.0232
91922820|NCT01165229|183743795|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against duration of pain medication associated with HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|-14.56||||0.8324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-303.3|67.46|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in duration of pain medication associated with HZ between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||67.46|-303.30|0.8324
91922821|NCT01165229|183743795|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against duration of pain medication associated with HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|49.25||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|73.47|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in duration of pain medication associated with HZ between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||73.47|2.92|0.0404
91922822|NCT01165229|183743804|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.88|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 50-59YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 50-59YOA Group.Comparison of vaccine efficacy for groups 70-79 and above 80 YOA are presented in outcome measure 2.||100.00|40.88|0.0081
91922823|NCT01165229|183743804|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.5097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-442.83|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 60-69YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 60-69YOA Group||100.00|-442.83|0.5097
91922824|NCT01165229|183743805|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-649.86|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 50-59 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 50-59 YOA Group||100.00|-649.86|1.0000
91922825|NCT01165229|183743805|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3938.7|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 60-69 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 60-69 YOA Group||100.00|-3938.70|1.0000
91922826|NCT01165229|183743805|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|21.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.41|78.91|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 70-79 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 70-79 YOA Group||78.91|-149.41|1.0000
91922827|NCT01165229|183743805|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|-223.81||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-883.05|18.84|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=80 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo\>=80 YOA Group||18.84|-883.05|0.1528
91765962|NCT03201419|183421344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.07|
91765963|NCT03201419|183421345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.139||||0.4214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.201||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.201|-0.480|0.4214
91765964|NCT03201419|183421345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.587||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.034|-0.141||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.141|-1.034|0.0101
91922828|NCT01165229|183743805|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|0.29||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.53|65.57|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=50 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=50 YOA Group||65.57|-161.53|0.5417
91922829|NCT01165229|183743806|OTHER|The VE of HZ/su against duration of severe worst pain in subjects with confirmed HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|23.75||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|53.78|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 pooled Placebo 70-79YOA Group||53.78|-25.80|0.2885
91922830|NCT01165229|183743806|OTHER|The VE of HZ/su against duration of severe worst pain in subjects with confirmed HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|54.93||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.03|86.46|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A \>=80 YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 pooled Placebo \>=80 YOA Group||86.46|-50.03|0.1940
91922831|NCT01165229|183743806|OTHER|The VE of HZ/su against duration of severe worst pain in subjects with confirmed HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|30.48||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|56.27|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A \>=70 YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 pooled Placebo\>=70 YOA Group||56.27|-10.52|0.1243
91922832|NCT01873950|183743862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the biomarker change from baseline between the treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the placebo-corrected change from baseline was computed using linear mixed effect model.||||||<0.05
91922833|NCT01873950|183743863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the biomarker change from baseline between the treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the placebo-corrected change from baseline was computed using linear mixed effect model.||||||<0.05
91922834|NCT01873950|183743864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the biomarker change from baseline between the treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the placebo-corrected change from baseline was computed using linear mixed effect model.||||||<0.05
91765965|NCT03201419|183421345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.148||||0.5203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|0.304||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.304|-0.599|0.5203
91765966|NCT03201419|183421345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.055||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.617||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.617|-0.508|0.8483
91890187|NCT03852719|183673208|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.7||||0.4539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|24.0||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented|||24.0|-8.8|0.4539
91922835|NCT01745055|183743897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.0|107.29||||||Natural log transformed, AUC (0-12) of CP-690,550 was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||107.29|99.00|
91922836|NCT01745055|183743898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.79|112.47||||||Natural log transformed, Cmax of CP-690,550 was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.47|93.79|
91890188|NCT03852719|183673208|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|15.5||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented.|||15.5|-15.6|1.0000
91922837|NCT01745055|183743899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|89.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.38|103.57||||||Natural log transformed, AUClast of MTX was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||103.57|77.38|
91922838|NCT01745055|183743900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|87.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.03|100.12||||||Natural log transformed, Cmax of MTX was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||100.12|76.03|
91765967|NCT03201419|183421345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.147||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.759|0.464||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.464|-0.759|0.6357
91765968|NCT03201419|183421345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.25||||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.652||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.652|-0.152|0.2222
91765969|NCT03201419|183421346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.166||||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.143||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.143|-0.474|0.2909
91765970|NCT03201419|183421346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.418||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|-0.011||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.011|-0.824|0.0440
91765971|NCT03201419|183421346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.128||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.545||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.545|-0.288|0.5438
91765972|NCT03201419|183421346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.441||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.962||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.962|-0.079|0.0960
91765973|NCT03201419|183421346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.488||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.488|-0.568|0.8826
91765974|NCT03201419|183421346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.394||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.759||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.759|0.029|0.0344
91765975|NCT03201419|183421347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.132||||0.4732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|0.231||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.231|-0.496|0.4732
91765976|NCT03201419|183421347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.224||||0.3394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.237||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.237|-0.685|0.3394
91765977|NCT03201419|183421347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.012||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.463||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.463|-0.488|0.9600
91765978|NCT03201419|183421347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.463||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|1.037||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.037|-0.111|0.1131
91765979|NCT03201419|183421347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.124||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|0.48||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.480|-0.729|0.6853
91765980|NCT03201419|183421347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.166||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.587||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.587|-0.254|0.4364
91765981|NCT03201419|183421348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.299||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.069||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.069|-0.667|0.1106
91765982|NCT03201419|183421348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.163||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.639|0.313||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.313|-0.639|0.5005
91765983|NCT03201419|183421348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.107||||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.586||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.586|-0.372|0.6604
91765984|NCT03201419|183421348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.283||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.842||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.842|-0.275|0.3178
91765985|NCT03201419|183421348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.701|0.51||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.510|-0.701|0.7561
91765986|NCT03201419|183421348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.037||||0.8614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.452||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.452|-0.378|0.8614
91765987|NCT03201419|183421349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.759||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|3.56||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.560|0.869|0.117
91765988|NCT03201419|183421349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.505||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.214||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.214|1.010|0.048
91765989|NCT03201419|183421349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.602||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.602|0.560|0.460
91765990|NCT03201419|183421349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.704||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|5.427||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.427|0.535|0.367
91890189|NCT04201262|183673222|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.103|||Log Rank||HR based on a Cox proportional hazards model, with Firth's adjustment. Confidence interval (CI)= Wald CI or Profile Likelihood CI Limits. HR for ravulizumab compared with placebo presented a 98.6% reduction in risk of relapse, 95% CI (89.7%, 100.0%).|||0.103|0.000|< 0.0001
91765991|NCT03201419|183421349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.689||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|5.825||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.825|0.489|0.407
91765992|NCT03201419|183421349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.069||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|2.473||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.473|0.462|0.876
91765993|NCT03201419|183421350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.971||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.005||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.005|0.470|0.937
91765994|NCT03201419|183421350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.738||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|18.968||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||18.968|1.183|0.028
91765995|NCT03201419|183421350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.513||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.318||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.318|0.200|0.166
91765996|NCT03201419|183421350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.433||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.447||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.447|0.129|0.174
91765997|NCT03201419|183421350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.425||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|5.512||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.512|0.369|0.608
91765998|NCT03201419|183421350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.553||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|1.292||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.292|0.237|0.171
91765999|NCT03201419|183421351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.928||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.003||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.003|0.430|0.850
91766000|NCT03201419|183421351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.261||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|6.862||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.862|0.745|0.150
91890190|NCT04201262|183673224|OTHER|||||||0.0122||||||Proportional Odds p-value|Univariate models|||The test of proportional odds was determined from a score test. The proportional odds was evaluated in univariate models.||||0.0122
91890191|NCT01647542|183673237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.78||Stepwise Comparison: 1) TAK-875 50 mg versus (vs.) placebo, 2) TAK-875 25 mg vs. placebo. Step 2 was performed only if p-value at step 1 was \<=0.050.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate.||Assuming a standard deviation of 0.9% in change from baseline in HbA1c to Week 24 and a dropout rate of 15%, 210 participants per group provided at least 95% power to detect a treatment difference of 0.5% between treatment arms at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||-0.78|-1.27|<0.001
91890192|NCT01647542|183673237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.57||Stepwise Comparison: 1) TAK-875 50 mg versus (vs.) placebo, 2) TAK-875 25 mg vs. placebo. Step 2 was performed only if p-value at step 1 was \<=0.050.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate.||Assuming a standard deviation of 0.9% in change from baseline in HbA1c to Week 24 and a dropout rate of 15%, 210 participants per group provided at least 95% power to detect a treatment difference of 0.5% between treatment arms at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||-0.57|-1.07|<0.001
91922839|NCT01512368|183743911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.144||All reported p values are based on two-sided tests considering ≤0.05 as significant.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, time of exercise, creatinine, waist to hip ratio, fat percentage, body mass index, mean rest heart rate, blood pressure.|Metabolic equivalents (METs) consumed were independently associated with the log of delta (final-basal) FGF21 levels.|"FGF21 was log transformed to approximate normality before analyses. Null hypothesis was Ho = Y1 (FGF21 level at baseline) = Y2 (FGF21 level after two weeks of exercising). Power calculation was 80% with 60 participants evaluated (one group). To evaluate the effect of exercise on clinical and biochemical parameters, we used the difference between final - basal levels (delta)."||0.144|0.034|<0.001
91922840|NCT01570491|183743924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"We hypothesized that real-time US guidance would result in a 20% lower number of attempts compared to the control group.~At the 0.05 level of significance with a power of 0.8, we will require a minimum of 20 patients per group, therefore we planned to recruit 40 patients in total."||||0.83
91922841|NCT01570491|183743925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91922842|NCT01570491|183743926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
91922843|NCT01570491|183743927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
91766001|NCT03201419|183421351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.283||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|3.566||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.566|0.462|0.632
91922844|NCT01720667|183743938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of 24 hour seizure termination rates using a Fisher's exact test.||||<0.001
91922845|NCT01720667|183743939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of seizure cessation at 48 hours using Fisher's exact test||||<0.001
91922846|NCT01499576|183743951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent agreement|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91922847|NCT01499576|183743952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa index of agreement|0.808|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kappa index of agreement|||||||<0.01
91922848|NCT01499576|183743953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||persent of adverse event|10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91922849|NCT03237845|183743998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.9|3.3|0.0006
91922850|NCT03237845|183743999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.9|6.9|< 0.0001
91922851|NCT03237845|183744000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.8|9.4|< 0.0001
91922852|NCT03237845|183744001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.6|3.2|0.0039
91922853|NCT03237845|183744002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.4|< 0.0001
91922854|NCT03237845|183744003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.2||P-Value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.2|-2.7|0.2084
91922855|NCT01221233|183744011|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91922856|NCT03865407|183744017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1839
91922857|NCT03865407|183744018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3036
91922858|NCT03865407|183744019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91922859|NCT03865407|183744020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1421
91922860|NCT03865407|183744021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0022
91922861|NCT03865407|183744022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3032
91922862|NCT01645280|183744029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.184
91922863|NCT01645280|183744029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.130
91922864|NCT01645280|183744029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.642
91922865|NCT01645280|183744029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.832
91922866|NCT01645280|183744030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.019
91922867|NCT01645280|183744030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.025
91922868|NCT01645280|183744030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.248
91766002|NCT03201419|183421351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.583||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.863||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.863|0.183|0.363
91766003|NCT03201419|183421351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.691||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|2.359||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.359|0.203|0.555
91766004|NCT03201419|183421351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.991||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|2.405||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.405|0.408|0.984
91922869|NCT01645280|183744030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.045
91922870|NCT01645280|183744031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.381
91922871|NCT01645280|183744031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.543
91922872|NCT01645280|183744031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.629
91922873|NCT01645280|183744031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.273
91922874|NCT01645280|183744032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.060
91922875|NCT01645280|183744032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.134
91922876|NCT01645280|183744032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.280
91922877|NCT01645280|183744032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.345
91922878|NCT00234104|183744036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.0074||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Dunnett's test was used||||||0.0074
91922879|NCT00234104|183744036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.0459||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Dunnett's test was used||||||0.0459
91922880|NCT00234104|183744036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Dunnett's test was used||||||0.0010
91922881|NCT02052960|183744042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.359|||Log Rank|||||1.359|0.736|0.86
91922882|NCT02052960|183744043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|10.7|||Chi-squared|||||10.7|-14.5|0.77
91922883|NCT02052960|183744044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|9.63|||Chi-squared|||||9.63|-12.05|0.83
91922884|NCT02052960|183744045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.372|||Log Rank|||||1.372|0.814|0.70
91922885|NCT02052960|183744046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.012||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.396|||Log Rank|||||1.396|0.734|0.96
91922886|NCT01254344|183744070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Assuming a 70% rate (i.e., proportion of participants with success of prophylaxis) for both groups and a significance level of 0.025, at least 200 evaluable participants per group were needed to have 90% probability that the lower limit of the 95% (two-sided) confidence interval for the difference in the response rates between the 2 groups was greater than -15 percentage points."|Difference in percentage of prophylaxis|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.5|-5.2|
91922887|NCT01254344|183744071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of prophylaxis|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.1|-2.2|
91922888|NCT00467649|183744072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0180
91922889|NCT03114969|183744223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.657||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.584|13.686||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||13.686|1.584|0.005
91922890|NCT03114969|183744223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.478||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|7.632||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.632|0.805|0.114
91766005|NCT03201419|183421352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.462||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|5.961||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.961|1.017|0.046
91922891|NCT03114969|183744223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.499||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|10.555||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||10.555|1.160|0.026
91922892|NCT03114969|183744223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.943||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.348|11.534||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||11.534|1.348|0.012
91922893|NCT03114969|183744223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.223||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|4.151||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.151|0.361|0.746
91922894|NCT03114969|183744223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.562||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.932|16.013||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||16.013|1.932|0.001
91922895|NCT03114969|183744223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.979||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|8.882||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||8.882|0.999|0.050
91922896|NCT03114969|183744223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.418||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.521|12.834||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||12.834|1.521|0.006
91766006|NCT03201419|183421352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|3.386||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.386|0.418|0.745
91766007|NCT03201419|183421352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.147||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|3.155||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.155|0.417|0.790
91766008|NCT03201419|183421352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.537||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|1.71||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.710|0.169|0.293
91766009|NCT03201419|183421352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.881||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|3.076||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.076|0.252|0.843
91766010|NCT03201419|183421352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.877||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.053||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.053|0.375|0.763
91766011|NCT03201419|183421353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|2.597||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.597|0.868|
91766012|NCT03201419|183421353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|2.45||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.450|0.905|
91766013|NCT03201419|183421353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|2.264||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.264|0.927|
91766014|NCT03201419|183421353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.896||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.896|0.957|
91766015|NCT03201419|183421353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.638||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.638|0.972|
91766016|NCT03201419|183421353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|1.313||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.313|0.991|
91766017|NCT03201419|183421354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.52||||0.8463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|5.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.78|-4.75|0.8463
91766018|NCT03201419|183421354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-13.85||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.89|-6.81||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-6.81|-20.89|0.0001
91766019|NCT03201419|183421354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.84||||0.4355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|4.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.32|-9.99|0.4355
91890193|NCT01647542|183673238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|10.72||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.||||10.72|2.99|<0.001
91890194|NCT01647542|183673238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|6.49||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.||||6.49|1.81|<0.001
91922897|NCT03114969|183744223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.165||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.425|12.178||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||12.178|1.425|0.009
91922898|NCT03114969|183744223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.209||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|4.095||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.095|0.357|0.761
91922899|NCT03114969|183744224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.292||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|6.163||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||6.163|0.853|0.100
91922900|NCT03114969|183744224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.642||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|7.022||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.022|0.994|0.051
91922901|NCT03114969|183744225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.995|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.808|8.829||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||8.829|1.808|<0.001
91922902|NCT03114969|183744225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.181||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.059||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.059|0.940|0.069
91922903|NCT03114969|183744225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.855|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.339|10.08||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||10.080|2.339|<0.001
91766020|NCT03201419|183421354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|8.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||8.06|-9.79|0.8483
91766021|NCT03201419|183421354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.61||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|7.69||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.69|-10.91|0.7336
91766022|NCT03201419|183421354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|5.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.78|-7.15|0.8347
91766023|NCT03201419|183421355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.59||||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.07||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.07|-3.90|0.5695
91766024|NCT03201419|183421355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-3.23||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|3.99||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||3.99|-10.46|0.3784
91766025|NCT03201419|183421355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|7.34||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.34|-7.67|0.9653
91766026|NCT03201419|183421355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.97||||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|12.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||12.29|-6.35|0.5304
91766027|NCT03201419|183421355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-8.02||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|1.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.46|-17.51|0.0968
91766028|NCT03201419|183421355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.91||||0.7885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|7.62||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.62|-5.79|0.7885
91766029|NCT03201419|183421356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|4.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.50|-6.89|0.6792
91766030|NCT03201419|183421356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-8.39||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|-0.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.93|-15.84|0.0276
91766031|NCT03201419|183421356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|7.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.42|-7.97|0.9445
91766032|NCT03201419|183421356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.79||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|12.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||12.28|-6.71|0.5637
91766033|NCT03201419|183421356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|5.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.60|-14.39|0.3870
91922904|NCT03114969|183744225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.274|5.764||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.764|1.274|0.010
91922905|NCT03114969|183744226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.503||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|7.659||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.659|0.818|0.108
91922906|NCT03114969|183744226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.409||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|7.331||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.331|0.792|0.122
91922907|NCT03114969|183744227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.887||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|12.903||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||12.903|1.851|0.001
91922908|NCT03114969|183744227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.484|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.106|14.284||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||14.284|2.106|<0.001
91922909|NCT03114969|183744228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.941|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.863|8.337||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||8.337|1.863|<0.001
91922910|NCT03114969|183744228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.391||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|5.256||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.256|1.088|0.030
91922911|NCT03114969|183744228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.728|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.388|9.364||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||9.364|2.388|<0.001
91922912|NCT03114969|183744228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.957||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|5.936||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.936|1.473|0.002
91922913|NCT03114969|183744229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.404||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.018|5.676||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||5.676|1.018|0.045
91922914|NCT03114969|183744229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.823||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.319||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.319|0.770|0.172
91922915|NCT03114969|183744229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.989||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.229|7.272||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||7.272|1.229|0.016
91922916|NCT03114969|183744229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.747||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|3.937||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||3.937|0.775|0.179
91922917|NCT03114969|183744229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.189||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|2.775||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||2.775|0.509|0.690
91922918|NCT03114969|183744229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.363||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|7.639||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.639|1.480|0.004
91922919|NCT03114969|183744229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.848||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.264|6.42||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||6.420|1.264|0.012
91922920|NCT03114969|183744229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.986|10.791||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||10.791|1.986|<0.001
91922921|NCT03114969|183744229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.037||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|4.528||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||4.528|0.916|0.081
91922922|NCT03114969|183744229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|2.283||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||2.283|0.438|1.000
91922923|NCT03114969|183744230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.935||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|3.921||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||3.921|0.955|0.067
91922924|NCT03114969|183744230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.523||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.283|4.961||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.961|1.283|0.007
91922925|NCT03114969|183744231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.399||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.252|4.596||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||4.596|1.252|0.008
91922926|NCT03114969|183744231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.812||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|3.544||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||3.544|0.926|0.082
91922927|NCT03114969|183744231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.135|6.905||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||6.905|2.135|<0.001
91922928|NCT03114969|183744231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.231|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.766||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.766|1.810|<0.001
91922929|NCT03114969|183744232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.931||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|4.428||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.428|0.842|0.120
91922930|NCT03114969|183744232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.636||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.664||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||3.664|0.730|0.232
91922931|NCT03114969|183744233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.019|8.807||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||8.807|2.019|<0.001
91922932|NCT03114969|183744233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|11.005||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||11.005|2.660|<0.001
91922933|NCT03114969|183744234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.477||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.274|4.815||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||4.815|1.274|0.007
91922934|NCT03114969|183744234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.748||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.328|5.683||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.683|1.328|0.006
91922935|NCT03114969|183744234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.896|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.133|7.118||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||7.118|2.133|<0.001
91766034|NCT03201419|183421356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.72||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|7.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.63|-6.19|0.8373
91766035|NCT03201419|183421357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.53||||0.8646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|6.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||6.59|-5.54|0.8646
91766036|NCT03201419|183421357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-6.99||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|1.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.02|-15.00|0.0870
91766037|NCT03201419|183421357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.77||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|11.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||11.04|-5.50|0.5100
91766038|NCT03201419|183421357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|7.32||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|17.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||17.39|-2.75|0.1535
91766039|NCT03201419|183421357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-5.14||||0.3369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|5.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.38|-15.66|0.3369
91922936|NCT03114969|183744234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.777|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.508|9.1||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||9.100|2.508|<0.001
91922937|NCT03114969|183744235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.347||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|132.143||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||132.143|0.408|0.176
91922938|NCT03114969|183744235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.3||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|164.465||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||164.465|0.526|0.128
91922939|NCT03114969|183744235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.454||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|351.613||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||351.613|1.190|0.038
91922940|NCT03114969|183744235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.776||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.131|311.669||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||311.669|1.131|0.041
91922941|NCT03114969|183744235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.873||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|162.775||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||162.775|0.484|0.141
91922942|NCT03114969|183744235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.215||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|200.904||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||200.904|0.519|0.126
91766040|NCT03201419|183421357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.27||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|7.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.59|-7.05|0.9417
91766041|NCT03201419|183421358|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.47||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||5.47|-1.41|
91922943|NCT03114969|183744235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.717||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|263.125||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||263.125|0.715|0.082
91922944|NCT03114969|183744235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.283||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.561|512.532||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||512.532|1.561|0.024
91922945|NCT03114969|183744235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.736||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|399.541||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||399.541|1.183|0.038
91922946|NCT03114969|183744235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.603||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|155.763||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||155.763|0.371|0.188
91766042|NCT03201419|183421358|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.19||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.19|-0.43|
91766043|NCT03201419|183421358|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.5||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.50|-0.16|
91766044|NCT03201419|183421358|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.15|-0.03|
91766045|NCT03201419|183421358|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.05|-0.01|
91766046|NCT03201419|183421358|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.01|-0.00|
91922947|NCT03114969|183744236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.781||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|124.117||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||124.117|0.488|0.147
91922948|NCT03114969|183744236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.786||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|173.301||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||173.301|0.553|0.120
91922949|NCT03114969|183744237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.089||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|11.389||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||11.389|0.383|0.395
91922950|NCT03114969|183744237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|17.244||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||17.244|0.612|0.166
91922951|NCT03114969|183744237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.196||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|17.14||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||17.140|0.596|0.175
91766047|NCT03201419|183421359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|5.2||||0.3328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|15.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||15.7|-5.3|0.3328
91766048|NCT03201419|183421359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|15.5||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|29.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||29.2|1.9|0.0255
91766049|NCT03201419|183421359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.5||||0.7296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|16.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||16.7|-11.7|0.7296
91766050|NCT03201419|183421359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|11.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||11.1|-24.5|0.4586
91766051|NCT03201419|183421359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|11.2||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|29.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||29.5|-7.2|0.2327
91922952|NCT03114969|183744237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.408||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|27.61||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||27.610|1.059|0.042
91922953|NCT03114969|183744238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.145||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|216.818||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||216.818|0.680|0.090
91766052|NCT03201419|183421359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|12.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||12.1|-13.3|0.9240
91766053|NCT03201419|183421360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.9499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||8.5|-7.9|0.9499
91766054|NCT03201419|183421360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|5.8||||0.2842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|16.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||16.4|-4.8|0.2842
91766055|NCT03201419|183421360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-5.7||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|5.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||5.4|-16.8|0.3100
91766056|NCT03201419|183421360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-10.1||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|3.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.7|-23.9|0.1499
91766057|NCT03201419|183421360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.2571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|6.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||6.0|-22.5|0.2571
91766058|NCT03201419|183421360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|8.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||8.3|-11.4|0.7629
91766059|NCT03201419|183421361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.48||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||9.46|-4.50|0.4846
91766060|NCT03201419|183421361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-16.93||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.26|-7.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-7.60|-26.26|0.0004
91766061|NCT03201419|183421361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.05||||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|7.37||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.37|-11.47|0.6685
91766062|NCT03201419|183421361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.69||||0.7772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|13.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||13.46|-10.07|0.7772
91766063|NCT03201419|183421361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|10.67||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|23.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||23.00|-1.66|0.0895
91766064|NCT03201419|183421361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.2||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|9.74|||MMRM|||||9.74|-7.34|0.7820
91922954|NCT03114969|183744238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.991||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|196.435||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||196.435|0.508|0.130
91922955|NCT03114969|183744239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.907||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|188.208||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||188.208|0.753|0.079
91922956|NCT03114969|183744239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.06||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|262.042||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||262.042|0.866|0.063
91922957|NCT03114969|183744240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|13.69||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||13.690|0.521|0.239
91922958|NCT03114969|183744240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.929||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|15.125||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||15.125|0.567|0.200
91922959|NCT03114969|183744240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.269||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|21.489||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||21.489|0.848|0.078
91766065|NCT03201419|183421362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.9175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|7.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.42|-8.25|0.9175
91766066|NCT03201419|183421362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-4.32||||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|5.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.98|-14.62|0.4098
91922960|NCT03114969|183744240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.132||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|25.55||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||25.550|1.031|0.046
91922961|NCT03114969|183744241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.483||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.218|9.961||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||9.961|1.218|0.020
91922962|NCT03114969|183744241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.284||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|6.895||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.895|0.757|0.143
91922963|NCT03114969|183744241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.268||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.615|17.187||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||17.187|1.615|0.006
91766067|NCT03201419|183421362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.41||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|13.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||13.06|-8.25|0.6566
91766068|NCT03201419|183421362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.39||||0.6144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|16.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||16.63|-9.85|0.6144
91766069|NCT03201419|183421362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.8||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|17.31||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||17.31|-9.71|0.5798
91766070|NCT03201419|183421362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.35||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|9.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||9.88|-9.17|0.9417
91766071|NCT03201419|183421363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.81||||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|5.68||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.68|-11.31|0.5148
91766072|NCT03201419|183421363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-9.65||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.75|1.44||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.44|-20.75|0.0879
91922964|NCT03114969|183744241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.655||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.478|14.666||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||14.666|1.478|0.009
91922965|NCT03114969|183744241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.274||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|4.005||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.005|0.405|0.679
91922966|NCT03114969|183744241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.804||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.372|10.544||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||10.544|1.372|0.010
91922967|NCT03114969|183744241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.555||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|7.369||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||7.369|0.886|0.083
91922968|NCT03114969|183744241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.93||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|18.611||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||18.611|1.890|0.002
91766073|NCT03201419|183421363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.61||||0.5335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|15.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||15.00|-7.79|0.5335
91766074|NCT03201419|183421363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|6.29||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|20.34||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||20.34|-7.76|0.3787
91766075|NCT03201419|183421363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.48||||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.41|16.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||16.38|-13.41|0.8448
91766076|NCT03201419|183421363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|4.62||||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|14.87||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||14.87|-5.63|0.3751
91766077|NCT03201419|183421364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.9245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|8.57||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||8.57|-9.43|0.9245
91766078|NCT03201419|183421364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-6.72||||0.2657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|5.15||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.15|-18.59|0.2657
91922969|NCT03114969|183744241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.929||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.556|15.612||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||15.612|1.556|0.007
91922970|NCT03114969|183744241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.208||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|3.788||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||3.788|0.385|0.746
91922971|NCT03114969|183744242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.502||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|3.905||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||3.905|0.578|0.404
91766079|NCT03201419|183421364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|9.2||||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|21.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||21.38|-2.99|0.1383
91766080|NCT03201419|183421364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|14.72||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|29.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||29.59|-0.15|0.0523
91766081|NCT03201419|183421364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.14||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.47|16.75||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||16.75|-14.47|0.8855
91766082|NCT03201419|183421364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.91||||0.5972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|13.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||13.72|-7.91|0.5972
91766083|NCT03201419|183421365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|2.28||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.28|-6.09|
91766084|NCT03201419|183421365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.75||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.75|-4.30|
91766085|NCT03201419|183421365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.33||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.33|-2.44|
91766086|NCT03201419|183421365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.07||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.07|-0.92|
91922972|NCT03114969|183744242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|4.05||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.050|0.625|0.330
91922973|NCT03114969|183744243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.738||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|3.968||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||3.968|0.761|0.189
91922974|NCT03114969|183744243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.079||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|4.799||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.799|0.901|0.086
91922975|NCT03114969|183744243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|4.142||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.142|0.918|0.082
91922976|NCT03114969|183744243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.415||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.161|5.024||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.024|1.161|0.018
91766087|NCT03201419|183421365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.02||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.02|-0.48|
91766088|NCT03201419|183421365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.00|-0.15|
91766089|NCT03201419|183421366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.545|0.006||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.006|-0.545|0.0550
91766090|NCT03201419|183421366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.066|-0.335||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.335|-1.066|0.0002
91922977|NCT03114969|183744244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|4.633||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.633|0.492|0.472
91922978|NCT03114969|183744244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.402||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|4.283||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.283|0.459|0.553
91922979|NCT03114969|183744245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.523||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|6.407||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.407|0.993|0.052
91922980|NCT03114969|183744245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.757||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|6.862||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.862|1.107|0.029
91766091|NCT03201419|183421366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.037||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.33||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.330|-0.404|0.8440
91766092|NCT03201419|183421366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.041||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.498||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.498|-0.417|0.8610
91766093|NCT03201419|183421366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.036||||0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.532||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.532|-0.460|0.8871
91766094|NCT03201419|183421366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.013||||0.9396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.338||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.338|-0.313|0.9396
91766095|NCT03201419|183421367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.475||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.806|-0.145||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.145|-0.806|0.0050
91766096|NCT03201419|183421367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.405||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.837|0.028||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.028|-0.837|0.0665
91766097|NCT03201419|183421367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.149||||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|0.31||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.310|-0.608|0.5245
91766098|NCT03201419|183421367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.075||||0.7947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.642|0.492||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.492|-0.642|0.7947
91766099|NCT03201419|183421367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.211||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.777|0.355||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.355|-0.777|0.4625
91766100|NCT03201419|183421367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.014||||0.9465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.385||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.385|-0.412|0.9465
91890195|NCT01647542|183673239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-26.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value covariate.||||-26.9|-44.2|<0.001
91766101|NCT03201419|183421368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.078|-0.383||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.383|-1.078|<0.0001
91766102|NCT03201419|183421368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.686||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.137|-0.236||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.236|-1.137|0.0030
91766103|NCT03201419|183421368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.045||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.427||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.427|-0.517|0.8520
91766104|NCT03201419|183421368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.287||||0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.856|0.281||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.281|-0.856|0.3205
91766105|NCT03201419|183421368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.418||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.026|0.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.190|-1.026|0.1769
91890196|NCT01647542|183673239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean Difference|-35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-27.1||No multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate.||||-27.1|-44.3|<0.001
91890197|NCT01647542|183673240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.72||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|69.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.||||69.6|-57.9|0.846
91890198|NCT01647542|183673240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.4||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.1|40.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.||||40.3|-90.1|0.427
91890199|NCT03843554|183673301|SUPERIORITY|Primary hypothesis. Null hypothesis is that the proportion of patients with a successful outcome of WHO OM severity grades 0-2 at the post study evaluation will not differ between the two randomized intervention groups. The estimated proportion of successes from our pilot trial is 0.30 with SOC. The alternative hypothesis is that the proportion of patients with a successful outcome differs between the two groups from the SOC proportion of 0.30 by +/-0.265 or more.||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|OM WHO grading scale (less or equal to 2) severity employed a two-sided Fisher's exact test to compare the two arms at Visit 9.||||||0.999
91890200|NCT03843554|183673302|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|174.6||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The above t-test p-value is for IL1a.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t-test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.6336
91890201|NCT03843554|183673302|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.1||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||IL1b|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.3510
91890202|NCT03843554|183673302|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-102.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.8||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||IL2|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.3510
91890203|NCT03843554|183673302|SUPERIORITY|IL4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.0||0.8371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.8371
91890204|NCT03843554|183673302|SUPERIORITY|IL5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.2991
91890205|NCT03843554|183673303|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8555||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.906|1.4475|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4475|-1.9060|0.2373
91890206|NCT03843554|183673304|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1755|0.2893||A Week 8 general linear mixed effects model (GLM) was used to compare the change in saliva flow rate from Baseline (day 0) to week 8 (day 56) between the two groups. The change was calculated by subtracting week 8 saliva flow rate from the Baseline.|ANCOVA||Estimation of the difference in least-square means for the change from Baseline to FIV in saliva flow rate.|||0.2893|-0.1755|0.6263
91890207|NCT03843554|183673305|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|A Week 8 (Day 56) GLM analyzing the pain change Week 8 relative to Baseline (Day 0) was used with treatment and Baseline pain as covariates.|Difference in least-square mean change from baseline to Visit 9 in pain score.|||||0.6956
91890208|NCT03843554|183673306|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4095|0.0334|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA via generalized linear mixed repeated measures model (GLMER)||The statistical analysis comprised an ANCOVA for a longitudinal response based on a generalized linear mixed effects repeated measures model (GLMER). The response variable is the mean change from Baseline to Visit 9 in EORTC QLQ-C30 Questions 31-48 (total).||0.0334|-0.4095|0.1153
91890209|NCT02187159|183673370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.25|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-0.25|-0.97|0.0008
91922981|NCT03114969|183744246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.434||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|5.276||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.276|1.123|0.024
91922982|NCT03114969|183744246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.389||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|5.376||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.376|1.061|0.035
91922983|NCT03114969|183744246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.889||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|5.819||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.819|1.434|0.003
91922984|NCT03114969|183744246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.974||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|6.055||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.055|1.461|0.003
91922985|NCT01852344|183744295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.159
91922986|NCT01852344|183744295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.159
91922987|NCT01852344|183744296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.236
91766106|NCT03201419|183421368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.717|0.118||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.118|-0.717|0.1584
91766107|NCT03201419|183421369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.822|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.424||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.424|-1.220|<0.0001
91922988|NCT01852344|183744297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
91922989|NCT03443024|183744325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0165
91922990|NCT03443024|183744325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0022
91922991|NCT03443024|183744325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0005
91922992|NCT03443024|183744326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0610
91922993|NCT03443024|183744326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0021
91922994|NCT03443024|183744326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
91922995|NCT03443024|183744327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1917|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1917
91922996|NCT03443024|183744327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0392|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0392
91922997|NCT03443024|183744327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
91922998|NCT03443024|183744328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2043|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2043
91922999|NCT03443024|183744328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0021
91923000|NCT03443024|183744328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0018
91923001|NCT03443024|183744329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0554|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0554
91923002|NCT03443024|183744329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0037
91923003|NCT03443024|183744329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0008
91923004|NCT03443024|183744330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0800
91766108|NCT03201419|183421369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.818||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.331|-0.306||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.306|-1.331|0.0019
91766109|NCT03201419|183421369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.167||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.716||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.716|-0.383|0.5510
91766110|NCT03201419|183421369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.038||||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.610|-0.685|0.9086
91766111|NCT03201419|183421369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.812||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.486|-0.138||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.138|-1.486|0.0185
91923005|NCT03443024|183744330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0062
91923006|NCT03443024|183744330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0006
91923007|NCT03443024|183744331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0773|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0773
91923008|NCT03443024|183744331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0459|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0459
91923009|NCT03443024|183744331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0062
91923010|NCT03443024|183744332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0047
91923011|NCT03443024|183744332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91923012|NCT03443024|183744332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91923013|NCT03443024|183744333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6674|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6674
91923014|NCT03443024|183744333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1166|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1166
91923015|NCT03443024|183744333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0119|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0119
91923016|NCT03443024|183744334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2371|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2371
91923017|NCT03443024|183744334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1067
91923018|NCT03443024|183744334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0008
91923019|NCT03443024|183744335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4631|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4631
91923020|NCT03443024|183744335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0368|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0368
91923021|NCT03443024|183744335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0232|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0232
91923022|NCT03443024|183744336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4729|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4729
91923023|NCT03443024|183744336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0282|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0282
91923024|NCT03443024|183744336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0506|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0506
91923025|NCT01065428|183744352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91923026|NCT01065428|183744353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91923027|NCT01751646|183744367|OTHER|||||||0.1166||||||P-value from Wilcoxon rank sum test for change between baseline and Week 48 Vitamin D vs. Placebo|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1166
91923028|NCT01751646|183744369|OTHER|||||||0.8383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.8383
91923029|NCT01751646|183744372|OTHER|||||||0.1378|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1378
91766112|NCT03201419|183421369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.106||||0.6537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.357||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.357|-0.569|0.6537
91766113|NCT03201419|183421370|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.146||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.096||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.096|-0.388|0.2350
91810581|NCT04615923|183496263|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.207||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. Pridopidine slowed progression) was (0.5475). NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by verdiperstat relative to placebo.Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.207|0.801|
91810582|NCT04615923|183496265|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||0.57|-0.75|0.78
91923030|NCT01751646|183744374|OTHER|||||||0.4686|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4686
91923031|NCT01751646|183744376|OTHER|||||||0.7601|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.7601
91923032|NCT01751646|183744378|OTHER|||||||0.3978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.3978
91923033|NCT01751646|183744380|OTHER|||||||0.1187|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1187
91923034|NCT01751646|183744383|OTHER|||||||0.5098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.5098
91923035|NCT01751646|183744384|OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.2550
91923036|NCT01751646|183744385|OTHER|||||||0.6499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.6499
91766114|NCT03201419|183421370|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.377||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|-0.056||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.056|-0.699|0.0215
91766115|NCT03201419|183421370|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.218||||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.103||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.103|-0.540|0.1818
91766116|NCT03201419|183421370|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.350|-0.450|0.8063
91766117|NCT03201419|183421370|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.176||||0.4414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.627||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.627|-0.274|0.4414
91766118|NCT03201419|183421370|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.126||||0.4179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.180|-0.432|0.4179
91766119|NCT03201419|183421371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.061||||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.292||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.292|-0.170|0.6042
91923037|NCT01751646|183744386|OTHER|||||||0.2348|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.2348
91923038|NCT01751646|183744389|OTHER|||||||0.2648|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.2648
91923039|NCT01751646|183744392|OTHER|||||||0.3728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.3728
91923040|NCT01751646|183744395|OTHER|||||||0.7825|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.7825
91923041|NCT01751646|183744398|OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1950
91923042|NCT01751646|183744401|OTHER|||||||0.7127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.7127
91923043|NCT01751646|183744404|OTHER|||||||0.4676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4676
91923044|NCT01751646|183744407|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.0210
91923045|NCT01751646|183744410|OTHER|||||||0.0144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.0144
91923046|NCT01751646|183744413|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||< 0.0001
91923047|NCT01751646|183744416|OTHER|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.0814
91923048|NCT01751646|183744419|OTHER|||||||0.4808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4808
91923049|NCT01751646|183744422|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.3870
91923050|NCT01751646|183744425|OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4290
91923051|NCT01751646|183744426|OTHER|||||||0.9186|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.9186
91923052|NCT01751646|183744427|OTHER|||||||0.4016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4016
91923053|NCT01751646|183744428|OTHER|||||||0.581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.5810
91923054|NCT01751646|183744429|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1570
91923055|NCT01751646|183744435|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of change from baseline to week 48||||<0.0001
91766120|NCT03201419|183421371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.4114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.177||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.177|-0.432|0.4114
91766121|NCT03201419|183421371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.099||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.418||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.418|-0.219|0.5394
91923056|NCT01751646|183744435|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of change from baseline to Week 48||||<0.0001
91923057|NCT01751646|183744438|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of Week 48 difference from baseline||||< 0.0001
91766122|NCT03201419|183421371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.149||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.544||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.544|-0.246|0.4590
91766123|NCT03201419|183421371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.242||||0.2397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.647||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.647|-0.163|0.2397
91766124|NCT03201419|183421371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.039||||0.7954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.254||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.254|-0.332|0.7954
91923058|NCT01751646|183744438|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of Week 48 difference from baseline||||< 0.0001
91923059|NCT01151137|183744443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.294||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.337|3.936||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Log Rank|2-sided Log-rank's asymptotic test|"Hazard ratio (HR) of Dronedarone versus placebo for stroke, systemic arterial embolism, myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death~HR and confidence interval were estimated using Cox regression model with treatment group as the only factor."|As a consequence of the early termination of the study, the analysis was performed for information only without any adjustment.||3.936|1.337|0.0019
91923060|NCT01151137|183744444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.947|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.448|2.617||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Log Rank|2-sided Log-rank's asymptotic test|"Hazard ratio (HR) of Dronedarone versus placebo for unscheduled cardiovascular hospitalization or death from any cause~HR and confidence interval were estimated using Cox regression model with treatment group as the only factor."|As a consequence of the early termination of the study, the analysis was performed for information only without any adjustment.||2.617|1.448|<0.0001
91923061|NCT01151137|183744446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.115||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|4.49||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Log Rank|2-sided Log-rank's asymptotic test|"Hazard ratio (HR) of Dronedarone versus placebo for cardiovascular death~HR and confidence interval were estimated using Cox regression model with treatment group as the only factor."|As a consequence of the early termination of the study, the analysis was performed for information only without any adjustment.||4.490|0.996|0.0460
91923062|NCT02858193|183744455|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) of the T/R ratios of the geometric means of the analysed PK parameters were within the 80.00-125.00% range according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|Geometric means ratio|111.63||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|94.12|100.51|123.99||"treatment p-value reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||123.99|100.51|0.0482
91923063|NCT02858193|183744457|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) of the T/R ratios of the geometric means of the analysed PK parameters were within the 80.00-125.00% range according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies|geometric means ratio|109.41||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|94.12|104.93|114.07||"treatment p-value is reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in%|||114.07|104.93|0.0002
91923064|NCT02858193|183744458|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) of the T/R ratios of the geometric means of the analysed PK parameters were within the 80.00-125.00% range according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.||||||0.593|||||||Friedman|||||||0.5930
91923065|NCT02031146|183744462|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Two sample test of proportion in Stata|||||||0.29
91923066|NCT02031146|183744463|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.69
91923067|NCT02031146|183744464|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
91923068|NCT00112151|183744468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||A one-sided P-value of \<0.025 was used to define statistical significance|Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (any T). The primary analysis was conducted in the PRT groups and compared CS-PFP at 12 months with any T to placebo, adjusted for baseline CS-PFP score.||||<0.025
91923069|NCT00112151|183744468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||A one-sided P-value of \<0.025 was used to define statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (any T). To address whether the effects of any T on physical function are the same without PRT, the analysis was also conducted in the No PRT groups, comparing CS-PFP at 12 months with any T to placebo, adjusted for baseline CS-PFP score.||||<0.025
91923070|NCT00112151|183744469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average upper body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
91923071|NCT00112151|183744469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average upper body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
91766125|NCT03201419|183421372|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.332||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.576|-0.089||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.089|-0.576|0.0077
91766126|NCT03201419|183421372|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.927|-0.293||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.293|-0.927|0.0002
91766127|NCT03201419|183421372|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.026||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.301||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.301|-0.352|0.8778
91766128|NCT03201419|183421372|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.157||||0.4309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.549||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.549|-0.235|0.4309
91810583|NCT04615923|183496266|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||0.52|-0.33|0.6594
91810584|NCT04615923|183496267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.745||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.96|-3.89|0.7918
91766129|NCT03201419|183421372|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.411||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.411|-0.444|0.9392
91766130|NCT03201419|183421372|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.213||||0.1734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|0.094||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.094|-0.521|0.1734
91766131|NCT03201419|183421373|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.328||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|-0.069||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.069|-0.587|0.0133
91766132|NCT03201419|183421373|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.484||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.819|-0.15||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.150|-0.819|0.0048
91766133|NCT03201419|183421373|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.314||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.314|-0.395|0.8223
91766134|NCT03201419|183421373|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.215||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.630|-0.200|0.3083
91890210|NCT02187159|183673370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.02|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-0.02|-0.74|0.0392
91766135|NCT03201419|183421373|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.315||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.121||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.121|-0.750|0.1556
91766136|NCT03201419|183421373|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.188||||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.128||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.128|-0.504|0.2423
91766137|NCT03201419|183421374|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.079||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.251||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.251|-0.409|0.6381
91766138|NCT03201419|183421374|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.502||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|-0.073||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.073|-0.931|0.0221
91766139|NCT03201419|183421374|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.177||||0.4112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|0.247||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.247|-0.602|0.4112
91890211|NCT02187159|183673370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.2192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.13|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.13|-0.58|0.2192
91890212|NCT02187159|183673370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.59|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.59|-0.13|0.2095
91890213|NCT02187159|183673370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.75|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.75|0.02|0.0381
91890214|NCT02187159|183673372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-4.44|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-4.44|-10.71|<0.0001
91890215|NCT02187159|183673372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.613||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-0.36|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-0.36|-6.68|0.0289
91890216|NCT02187159|183673372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.625||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|0.62|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.62|-5.75|0.1148
91890217|NCT02187159|183673372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|7.23|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||7.23|0.87|0.0125
91890218|NCT02187159|183673372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.647||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|8.24|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||8.24|1.78|0.0023
91890219|NCT02187159|183673374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.8|<0.0001
91890220|NCT02187159|183673374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.2|0.0247
91890221|NCT02187159|183673374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.1|0.0411
91890222|NCT02187159|183673374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.0|0.0352
91890223|NCT02187159|183673374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.1|0.0214
91890224|NCT02187159|183673375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.5|0.0003
91923072|NCT00112151|183744470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average lower body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
91923073|NCT00112151|183744470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average lower body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
91923074|NCT00112151|183744471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in leg extensor power with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
91923075|NCT00112151|183744471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in leg extensor power with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
91923076|NCT00112151|183744472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
91766140|NCT03201419|183421374|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.112||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|0.64||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.640|-0.416|0.6761
91766141|NCT03201419|183421374|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.224||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.861||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.861|-0.414|0.4898
91810585|NCT04615923|183496268|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||0.84|-0.83|0.9903
91810586|NCT04615923|183496269|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using interval-censored survival analysis. This type of model accommodates interval censoring between ALSFRS-R assessments|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.27|||Regression, Cox|Interval censored cox model adjusted for time since symptom onset, pre-baseline change in ALSFRS-R, baseline use of edaravone, riluzole, and neudexta||||1.27|0.69|
91810587|NCT04615923|183496270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.285||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||4.67|-8.23|0.5888
91923077|NCT00112151|183744472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
91766142|NCT03201419|183421374|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.194||||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.585||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.585|-0.198|0.3311
91810588|NCT04615923|183496271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9690
91810589|NCT03395886|183496272|OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Chi-squared|||Summary statistics are expressed as numbers and percentages and compared between groups by Chi-square test.||||0.831
91766143|NCT03201419|183421375|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|0.09||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.090|-0.551|0.1583
91766144|NCT03201419|183421375|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.275||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.136||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.136|-0.685|0.1884
91766145|NCT03201419|183421375|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.8256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.369||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.369|-0.463|0.8256
91766146|NCT03201419|183421375|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.059||||0.8198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|0.574||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.574|-0.455|0.8198
91810590|NCT03395886|183496273|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||||||0.800
91923078|NCT00112151|183744473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat free mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
91923079|NCT00112151|183744473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat free mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
91923080|NCT02531035|183744488|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.97|17.81||P-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by different levels of stratification factors of BMI at Screening(\<25 kg/m\^2,\>=25 kg/m\^2),Week -2 A1C(\<=9.0%, \>9.0%),and using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion(CSII) at Screening(yes,no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.81|8.97|< 0.001
91923081|NCT02531035|183744489|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.38|||MMRM|||Testing according to hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m\^2, \>=25 kg/m\^2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9.0%, \>9.0%), randomization stratum of use of CSII at Screening (yes, no), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.38|-0.54|< 0.001
91923082|NCT02531035|183744490|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-2.66|||MMRM|||Testing according to hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m\^2, \>=25 kg/m\^2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9%, \>9%), randomization stratum of Use of CSII at Screening (Yes, No), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline weight-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-2.66|-3.31|< 0.001
91766147|NCT03201419|183421375|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.431||||0.1793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|0.199||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.199|-1.061|0.1793
91766148|NCT03201419|183421375|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.196||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|0.189||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.189|-0.581|0.3155
91766149|NCT03201419|183421376|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.241||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|0.114||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.114|-0.596|0.1830
91766150|NCT03201419|183421376|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.313||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.126||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.126|-0.751|0.1618
91766151|NCT03201419|183421376|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|0.186||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.186|-0.706|0.2519
91766152|NCT03201419|183421376|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.232||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.781||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.781|-0.316|0.4044
91766153|NCT03201419|183421376|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.4348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.986|0.426||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.426|-0.986|0.4348
91810591|NCT00589914|183496274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 5 points in the change in PANSS total score i.e., lower limit of the 95% CI for difference between groups (RISPERDAL CONSTA minus paliperidone palmitate) had to be greater than -5 to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.38||No p-value to report.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with factors treatment, country and baseline score. Weighted approach used to account for interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.||Null hypothesis: Difference between groups (RISPERDAL CONSTA minus paliperidone palmitate) for the mean change from baseline to endpoint in PANSS total score (LOCF) was less than or equal to -5 (prespecified non-inferiority margin). Sample size: SD of 20 for the change in PANSS total score, a true difference between treatment groups of 0.1 in favor of RISPERDAL CONSTA, 2-sided significance level of 5%, and 80% power. A sample size reestimation was performed when 60% of the data was available.||2.38|-1.62|
91810592|NCT00589914|183496275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17||No P-values reported.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and baseline score as a covariate.||0.17|-0.07|
91810593|NCT00589914|183496276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.69||No P-values reported.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and baseline score as a covariate.||1.69|-1.22|
91766154|NCT03201419|183421376|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.4786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565|0.266||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.266|-0.565|0.4786
91766155|NCT03201419|183421377|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.223||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|0.151||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.151|-0.598|0.2412
91766156|NCT03201419|183421377|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.959|0.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.000|-0.959|0.0501
91766157|NCT03201419|183421377|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.069||||0.7788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.556||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.556|-0.417|0.7788
91810594|NCT02618434|183496279|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.9383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|7.84|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||7.84|-8.96|0.9383
91766158|NCT03201419|183421377|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.111||||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.698|0.477||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.477|-0.698|0.7111
91766159|NCT03201419|183421377|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.205||||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.937|0.527||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.527|-0.937|0.5816
91766160|NCT03201419|183421377|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.152||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.595|0.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.290|-0.595|0.4981
91766161|NCT03201419|183421378|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.313||||0.1733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.207|0.582||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.582|-3.207|0.1733
91766162|NCT03201419|183421378|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.375||||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.745|0.994||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.994|-3.745|0.2538
91766163|NCT03201419|183421378|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.353||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.818|2.113||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.113|-2.818|0.7782
91766164|NCT03201419|183421378|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.151||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.182|2.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.880|-3.182|0.9218
91766165|NCT03201419|183421378|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.767||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.923|4.457||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.457|-2.923|0.6823
91766166|NCT03201419|183421378|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.095||||0.3436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.369|1.179||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.179|-3.369|0.3436
91766167|NCT03201419|183421379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.235||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.146|0.676||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.676|-3.146|0.2042
91766168|NCT03201419|183421379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.683||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.031|0.665||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.665|-4.031|0.1591
91766169|NCT03201419|183421379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.285||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.708|2.138||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.138|-2.708|0.8168
91766170|NCT03201419|183421379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.551||||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.517|2.416||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.416|-3.517|0.7148
91766171|NCT03201419|183421379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.701||||0.7141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.066|4.468||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.468|-3.066|0.7141
91766172|NCT03201419|183421379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.759||||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.995|1.477||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.477|-2.995|0.5041
91766173|NCT03201419|183421380|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.129||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.226|0.967||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.967|-3.226|0.2896
91766174|NCT03201419|183421380|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.652||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.301|-0.003||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.003|-5.301|0.0498
91766175|NCT03201419|183421380|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.323||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.409|3.055||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||3.055|-2.409|0.8159
91923083|NCT02531035|183744491|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.3|||MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m2, \>=25 kg/m2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9.0%, \>9.0%), randomization stratum of use of CSII at Screening (yes, no), time (study week), and a treatment-by- time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline SBP-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-1.3|-5.7|= 0.002
91923084|NCT02531035|183744492|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-12.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|-6.48|||MMRM|||Testing according to hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m2, \>=25 kg/m2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9.0%, \>9.0%), randomization stratum of use of CSII at Screening (yes, no), time (study week), a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline mean daily bolus insulin dose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-6.48|-18.17|< 0.001
91923085|NCT01543490|183744496|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the primary efficacy endpoint was 2-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|16.6||The p-value was from a 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The point estimate of treatment effect (ISV-305 compared with Vehicle) was reported using Fisher's exact test.|The risk difference was obtained by taking the difference in proportions (ISV-305 minus Vehicle). A 2-sided exact unconditional 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.|||16.6|0.2|0.0354
91923086|NCT01543490|183744497|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoint was 2-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05, and missing data imputed using the LOCF approach.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|15.0||The p-value was from a 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The point estimate of treatment effect (ISV-305 compared with Vehicle) was reported using Fisher's exact test.|The risk difference was obtained by taking the difference in proportions (ISV-305 minus Vehicle). A 2-sided exact unconditional 95% CI was calculated.|||15.0|-1.3|0.1036
91923087|NCT02340104|183744502|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Least Square (LS) Means values were calculated using Log pharmacokinetic (PK) model with treatment, participant, random error as model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant and error as random effects.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.769|0.81|||||Geometric Least Square (LS) Means values were calculated using Log pharmacokinetic (PK) model with treatment, participant, random error as independent variables, where participant was fitted as a random effect.|||0.810|0.769|
91766176|NCT03201419|183421380|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.485||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.809|3.779||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||3.779|-2.809|0.7719
91766177|NCT03201419|183421380|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.676||||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.407|5.76||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.760|-2.407|0.4193
91923088|NCT01040832|183744503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Stratified log rank|||||1.6|0.7|0.793
91766178|NCT03201419|183421380|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.23||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|1.27||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.270|-3.730|0.3333
91766179|NCT03201419|183421381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|41.8||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|89.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||89.6|-5.9|0.0853
91766180|NCT03201419|183421381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|105.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|168.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||168.4|43.4|0.0010
91766181|NCT03201419|183421381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|24.9||||0.4418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|88.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||88.6|-38.8|0.4418
91766182|NCT03201419|183421381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|10.7||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|89.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||89.6|-68.2|0.7902
91766183|NCT03201419|183421381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.8||||0.9664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.2|87.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||87.9|-84.2|0.9664
91766184|NCT03201419|183421381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-29.8||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.9|26.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||26.4|-85.9|0.2977
91766185|NCT03201419|183421382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|14.3||||0.5523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|61.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||61.5|-33.0|0.5523
91766186|NCT03201419|183421382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|60.8||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|123.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||123.0|-1.5|0.0556
91766187|NCT03201419|183421382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-17.9||||0.5837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|46.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||46.3|-82.0|0.5837
91766188|NCT03201419|183421382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-60.7||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.7|19.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||19.3|-140.7|0.1363
91766189|NCT03201419|183421382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-28.2||||0.4938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.1|52.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||52.8|-109.1|0.4938
91766190|NCT03201419|183421382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-54.7||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.2|0.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.8|-110.2|0.0535
91766191|NCT03201419|183421383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|60.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||60.9|-62.2|0.9829
91923089|NCT01040832|183744504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.999
91923090|NCT01040832|183744505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.557
91923091|NCT01335971|183744513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of NAD(P)H Quinone Dehydrogenase 1 (NQ01) in alveolar macrophages||||0.45
91923092|NCT01335971|183744513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Heme Oxygenase 1 (HO1) in alveolar macrophages||||0.40
91923093|NCT01335971|183744513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C1 (AKR1C1) in alveolar macrophages||||0.75
91923094|NCT01335971|183744513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C3 (AKR1C3) in alveolar macrophages||||0.49
91923095|NCT01335971|183744513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of nuclear factor erythroid 2 like 2 (Nrf2) in alveolar macrophages||||0.88
91923096|NCT01335971|183744513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Kelch Like ECH Associated Protein 1 (Keap1) in alveolar macrophages||||0.71
91923097|NCT01335971|183744514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Nrf2 in bronchial epithelial cells||||0.68
91923098|NCT01335971|183744515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of NAD(P)H Quinone Dehydrogenase 1 (NQ01) in bronchial epithelial cells||||0.69
91923099|NCT01335971|183744515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Kelch Like ECH Associated Protein 1 (Keap1) in bronchial epithelial cells||||<0.01
91923100|NCT01335971|183744516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Heme Oxygenase 1 (HO1) in bronchial epithelial cells||||0.53
91923101|NCT01335971|183744517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C1 (AKR1C1) in bronchial epithelial cells.||||<0.01
91923102|NCT01335971|183744518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C3 (AKR1C3) in bronchial epithelial cells.||||0.06
91923103|NCT01335971|183744519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.20
91766192|NCT03201419|183421383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|64.4||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|142.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||142.1|-13.3|0.1038
91766193|NCT03201419|183421383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|29.2||||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|109.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||109.8|-51.4|0.4764
91766194|NCT03201419|183421383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-24.2||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.5|72.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||72.0|-120.5|0.6204
91923104|NCT01335971|183744520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to C-reactive protein concentration||||0.41
91923105|NCT01335971|183744520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to Interleukin-6 concentration||||0.07
91923106|NCT01335971|183744520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to Interleukin-8 concentration||||0.65
91923107|NCT01335971|183744521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to interleukin-8 results||||0.71
91923108|NCT01335971|183744521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to secretory leukoprotease inhibitor results||||0.33
91923109|NCT01335971|183744522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to isoprostane results.||||0.80
91766195|NCT03201419|183421383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.2||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.1|104.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||104.6|-100.1|0.9660
91766196|NCT03201419|183421383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.3||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|73.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||73.9|-67.4|0.9275
91766197|NCT03201419|183421384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|15.7||||0.5964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.7|74.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||74.2|-42.7|0.5964
91766198|NCT03201419|183421384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.5|72.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||72.9|-78.5|0.9418
91766199|NCT03201419|183421384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|18.0||||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|94.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||94.7|-58.8|0.6452
91766200|NCT03201419|183421384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-51.3||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.2|37.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||37.6|-140.2|0.2565
91923110|NCT01335971|183744522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to thiobarbituric acid reactive substances results.||||0.35
91923111|NCT01335971|183744522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to total antioxidants results.||||0.53
91923112|NCT03849560|183744523|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for antigen H1N1 in group Grippol® Quadri and groups Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.82||||||||1.82|0.82|
91923113|NCT03849560|183744523|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for antigen H3N2 in group Grippol® Quadri and groups Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.3||||||||2.30|1.08|
91923114|NCT03849560|183744523|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for YAMA antigen in group Grippol® Quadri and group Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.15||||||||2.15|0.90|
91923115|NCT03849560|183744523|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for VICT antigen in group Grippol® Quadri and group Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.63||||||||1.63|0.68|
91923116|NCT03849560|183744524|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) vaccines for the strain A/H1N1 if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for H1N1 was ≤1.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7762|1.03||||||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) for the strain A/H1N1||1.030|0.7762|
91923117|NCT03849560|183744524|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) vaccines for the strain A/H3N2 if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for H3N2 was ≤1.5|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7516|1.0593||||||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) for the strain A/H3N2||1.0593|0.7516|
91923118|NCT03849560|183744524|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) vaccine for the strain B/Yamagata if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for Yamagata antigen was ≤1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8185|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6918|0.9683||||||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) for the strain B/Yamagata||0.9683|0.6918|
91923119|NCT03849560|183744524|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) vaccine for the strain B/Victoria if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for Victoria antigen was ≤1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0328||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.2445|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) for the strain B/Victoria||1.2445|0.8570|0.05
91923120|NCT03849560|183744525|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain A/H1N1 in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) groups||||||0.758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
91923121|NCT03849560|183744525|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain A/H3N2 in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) groups||||||0.282|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.282
91923122|NCT03849560|183744525|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain B/Yamagata in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||||||0.352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
91923123|NCT03849560|183744525|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain B/Victoria in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||||||0.815|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.815
91923124|NCT03849560|183744526|OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.452
91923125|NCT03849560|183744526|OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.639
91923126|NCT03849560|183744528|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of mean geometri|4.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|5.6||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 in Grippol® Quadri group||5.60|4.22|
91923127|NCT03849560|183744528|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|6.24||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 in Grippol® Quadri group||6.24|4.53|
91923128|NCT03849560|183744528|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|6.25||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata in Grippol® Quadri group||6.25|4.78|
91923129|NCT03849560|183744528|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|5.49||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria in Grippol® Quadri group||5.49|4.14|
91766201|NCT03201419|183421384|OTHER||Mean Difference|-21.6||||0.6605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.6|75.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||75.4|-118.6|0.6605
91766202|NCT03201419|183421384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.4||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|69.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||69.4|-62.6|0.9191
91923130|NCT03849560|183744528|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|4.94||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||4.94|3.59|
91923131|NCT03849560|183744528|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|6.12||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||6.12|4.45|
91923132|NCT03849560|183744528|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|4.69||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||4.69|3.48|
91923133|NCT03849560|183744528|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|5.34||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||5.34|3.97|
91766203|NCT03201419|183421385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|17.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|62.09||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||62.09|-6.19|
91766204|NCT03201419|183421385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|12.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|55.89||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||55.89|-0.73|
91766205|NCT03201419|183421385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|47.28||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||47.28|-0.14|
91766206|NCT03201419|183421385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|28.07||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||28.07|-0.01|
91766207|NCT03201419|183421385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.9||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||17.90|-0.00|
91923134|NCT03849560|183744528|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|6.12||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||6.12|4.38|
91923135|NCT03849560|183744528|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.56||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||5.56|4.00|
91923136|NCT01633060|183744536|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.53||||Log Rank||||||0.53|<0.001
91923137|NCT01088412|183744597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.96||||||Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.||5.96|2.24|
91923138|NCT01088412|183744598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.2||||||Epidemiological comparison between incidence of primary malignancies in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and gender.||1.20|0.39|
91923139|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.15||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for All DM (T1, T2 and DM Not Otherwise Specified \[NOS\] Combined)"||4.15|2.14|
91923140|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.15||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for GHD DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||4.15|1.72|
91923141|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|4.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.69||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for TS DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||10.69|1.80|
91923142|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.93||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for ISS DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||7.93|0.84|
91923143|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.83||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SHOX-D DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||11.83|0.00|
91923144|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|10.83||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SGA DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||10.83|0.36|
91923145|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|11.66||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Other DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||11.66|1.24|
91766208|NCT03201419|183421385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.55||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||7.55|-0.00|
91766209|NCT03201419|183421386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.173||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.028||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.028|-0.318|0.0196
91766210|NCT03201419|183421386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.233||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|-0.043||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.043|-0.423|0.0167
91766211|NCT03201419|183421386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.208||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.401|-0.015||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.015|-0.401|0.0352
91766212|NCT03201419|183421386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.057||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.182||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.182|-0.295|0.6402
91810595|NCT02618434|183496280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 4||0.03|-0.33|0.0979
91766213|NCT03201419|183421386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.121||||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|0.139||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.139|-0.381|0.3602
91766214|NCT03201419|183421386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.074||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.247||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.247|-0.099|0.4018
91766215|NCT03201419|183421387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.133||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.042||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.042|-0.308|0.1354
91766216|NCT03201419|183421387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.091||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.315|0.133||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.133|-0.315|0.4238
91766217|NCT03201419|183421387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|0.007||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.007|-0.446|0.0574
91766218|NCT03201419|183421387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.058||||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.315||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.315|-0.199|0.6579
91766219|NCT03201419|183421387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.11||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.110|-0.450|0.2337
91766220|NCT03201419|183421387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.136||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.056||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.056|-0.328|0.1639
91766221|NCT03201419|183421388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-87.2||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.2|-1.2|||MMRM|||||-1.2|-173.2|0.0470
91766222|NCT03201419|183421388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-130.2||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.9|-17.6|||MMRM|||||-17.6|-242.9|0.0237
91766223|NCT03201419|183421388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-110.8||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.9|3.3|||MMRM|||||3.3|-224.9|0.0569
91766224|NCT03201419|183421388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-23.9||||0.7383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.8|117.0|||MMRM|||||117.0|-164.8|0.7383
91766225|NCT03201419|183421388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-71.0||||0.3626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.3|82.3|||MMRM|||||82.3|-224.3|0.3626
91923146|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.3||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Unknown DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||24.30|0.00|
91923147|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.44||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for All T1 DM."||1.44|0.56|
91923148|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.4||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for GHD T1DM."||1.40|0.36|
91923149|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.38||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for TS T1DM."||4.38|0.31|
91923150|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.14||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for ISS T1DM."||4.14|0.29|
91923151|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.23||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SHOX-D T1DM."||7.23|0.00|
91923152|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.38||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SGA T1DM."||3.38|0.00|
91923153|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio]|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.1||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Other T1DM."||6.10|0.43|
91923154|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio]|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.84||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Unknown T1DM."||14.84|0.00|
91923155|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.96||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for All T2 DM."||5.96|2.24|
91923156|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|6.87||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for GHD T2DM."||6.87|2.03|
91923157|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|6.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|18.89||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for TS T2DM."||18.89|1.33|
91766226|NCT03201419|183421388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|23.4||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.9|125.7|||MMRM|||||125.7|-78.9|0.6524
91766227|NCT03201419|183421389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-49.5||||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.9|49.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||49.9|-148.9|0.3273
91810596|NCT02618434|183496280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.00|-0.50|0.0502
91766228|NCT03201419|183421389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-74.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.0|52.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||52.9|-202.0|0.2500
91766229|NCT03201419|183421389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-93.5||||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.3|35.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||35.2|-222.3|0.1537
91810597|NCT02618434|183496280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.18|-0.38|0.4769
91923158|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.52||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for ISS T2DM."||7.52|0.00|
91766230|NCT03201419|183421389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|33.6||||0.6515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.1|180.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||180.3|-113.1|0.6515
91766231|NCT03201419|183421389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-75.7||||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235.3|83.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||83.9|-235.3|0.3506
91766232|NCT03201419|183421389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-85.4||||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.8|24.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||24.1|-194.8|0.1255
91766233|NCT02784171|183421396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0372|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0372
91766234|NCT02701283|183421423|NON_INFERIORITY|Absolute non-inferiority margin was 0.06|Posterior Median of the Difference|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The posterior probability of non-inferiority is \> 0.999. The posterior probability is the probability of the event rate by updating the prior probability distribution with observed data at the interim analysis using Bayes' Theorem.|Bayesian||95% Bayesian credible interval for the difference (TAVR-SAVR) was (-4.4%, 0.4%). The 95% credible interval is the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the posterior distribution.|Primary Hypothesis: TAVR with the Medtronic TAVR system is non-inferior to SAVR for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke rate during a fixed follow-up of 24 months for the Randomized Controlled Trial||||
91810598|NCT02618434|183496281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 4||0.03|-0.41|0.0881
91923159|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.16||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SHOX-D T2DM."||31.16|0.00|
91923160|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|28.52||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SGA T2DM."||28.52|0.96|
91923161|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|16.7||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Other T2DM."||16.70|0.08|
91923162|NCT01088412|183744605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|63.97||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Unknown T2DM."||63.97|0.00|
91923163|NCT03494725|183744612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757||||||Outcome was subjected to transformation to meet model assumptions. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model||The sample size was computed for a repeated measurement ANOVA with two groups and seven repeated measurements (power=0.85, α=0.05, f=0.1). The calculation resulted in a group size of 56 participants each, which was rounded up to 60 participants per treatment group to account for attrition.||||0.757
91923164|NCT05593432|183744653|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.17||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|51.33||stratified by Baseline Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score (3 or 4)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||51.33|7.55|0.0129
91923165|NCT05593432|183744653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|12.38|||||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||12.38|1.32|
91766235|NCT04266795|183421456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||=|0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.6|||Log Rank|P-value was comparison of EFS between treatment groups and was based on the 1-sided stratified log-rank test statistic.|Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (randomization strata of age and AML subtype) and treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.60|0.61|=0.477
91766236|NCT00699660|183421473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison of CAPS/WHODAS vs Nonstructured Interview study arms: linear and logistic mixed effects regression with clinical examiner stratified by study group as a random effect and study group as a fixed effect.|Regression, Linear|Covariates included experience, use of template,tests,reviewing records,age,education, study site,reviewer, and expert reviewer by group interaction.||Our sample size calculation yielded 466 for a power of 0.80 to detect a 10% absolute difference in sensitivity and adjusted for intraclass correlation. The number of covariates in regression models was limited to ensure the effective sample size remained ten times greater than the degrees of freedom in the model.||||<.001
91766237|NCT00699660|183421474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<.01
91766238|NCT00699660|183421475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive statistics on mean and standard deviation.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91810599|NCT02618434|183496281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.00|-0.53|0.0522
91810600|NCT02618434|183496281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.1766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.10|-0.52|0.1766
91923166|NCT05593432|183744654|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Response Rate Difference|30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.68||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.71|53.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)||||53.51|7.71|0.0141
91923167|NCT05593432|183744654|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|13.17|||||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||13.17|1.31|
91923168|NCT05593432|183744656|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Response Rate Difference|40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.61|64.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)||||64.00|16.61|0.0027
91923169|NCT05593432|183744656|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|24.02|||||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||24.02|1.85|
91923170|NCT05593432|183744658|EQUIVALENCE|A log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor, Baseline IGA score (3 or 4), was used for between-treatment group comparisons. The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval was estimated based on the stratified Cox regression model. using Efron's method accounting for ties.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.85||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.381|||Log Rank|stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream and vehicle cream|Cox regression model stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream and vehicle cream|||5.381|1.510|0.0008
91923171|NCT01450137|183744667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.45||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.79|||Fisher Exact|||||0.79|0.11|0.0301
91923172|NCT01450137|183744668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.94|||Fisher Exact|||||0.94|0.36|0.0010
91923173|NCT01450137|183744669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91923174|NCT01450137|183744670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|39.0|||z-test||Difference between restricted mean survival time at 12 months|||39|11|0.0005
91923175|NCT00069121|183744682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.93||This test used a two-sided significance level of 5%.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as XELOX versus 5-FU/LV arms.|||0.93|0.69|0.0038
91923176|NCT00069121|183744683|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.91|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as XELOX versus 5-FU/LV arms.|||0.91|0.67|0.0015
91923177|NCT00069121|183744685|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as XELOX versus 5-FU/LV arms.|||0.99|0.70|0.0367
91923178|NCT04800315|183744719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|-7.7|||ANCOVA|||||-7.70|-35.81|0.003
91923179|NCT04800315|183744719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.38||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.19|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-27.19|0.057
91923180|NCT04800315|183744719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.28||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.88|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-30.88|0.029
91923181|NCT04800315|183744720|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference VS Placebo|24.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|39.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.2|8.8|0.004
91766239|NCT00699660|183421476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.86||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 level based on a two tailed test.|Regression, Linear|Covariates included years of experience, use of template, use of tests, age, education, study site.||Estimates of the influence on total time and tests of statistical significance were derived from multilevel mixed-effects linear regression (xtmixed in Stata)||||.012
91810601|NCT02618434|183496282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.613||0.3409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|4.72|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Physical Functioning Summary Score at Visit 6.||4.72|-1.64|0.3409
91810602|NCT02618434|183496282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Psychosocial Health Summary Score at Visit 6.||-0.33|-4.08|0.0215
91923182|NCT04800315|183744720|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference VS Placebo|15.3||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|0.8|0.061
91923183|NCT04800315|183744720|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference VS Placebo|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.2|13.6|<0.001
91923184|NCT04800315|183744721|OTHER|Risk Difference|Difference VS Placebo|23.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|41.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.2|6.2|0.018
91923185|NCT04800315|183744721|OTHER|Risk Difference|Difference VS Placebo|21.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.3|4.3|0.033
91766240|NCT03160898|183421485|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean treatment difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by an MMRM with contrast (-5, -1, 3, 3) to reflect the assumed relationship for the 4 groups: placebo, 150, 300, and 450 mg twice daily.||"The statistical null hypothesis was as follows: there was no assumed dose-response relationship in percent predicted SVC change from baseline to Week 12 among all three active doses and placebo, expressed as:~H0: -5 x µ placebo - 1 x µ 150 mg twice daily + 3 x µ 300 mg twice daily + 3 x µ 450 mg twice daily = 0 where µ was the mean of the efficacy endpoint for the designated group."||3.58|-0.36|0.1095
91766241|NCT03160898|183421485|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.291||0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|4.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.03|-1.05|0.2501
91766242|NCT03160898|183421485|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.1549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.38|-0.7|0.1549
91766243|NCT03160898|183421485|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.274||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.38|-0.63|0.1417
91766244|NCT03160898|183421485|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.115||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.05|-0.33|0.0964
91766245|NCT03160898|183421486|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by an MMRM with contrast (-5, -1, 3, 3) to reflect the assumed relationship for the 4 groups: placebo, 150, 300, and 450 mg twice daily.||||1.22|-0.09|0.0930
91766246|NCT03160898|183421486|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|0.29|0.0087
91766247|NCT03160898|183421486|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.75|0.06|0.0351
91766248|NCT03160898|183421486|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-0.24|0.1642
91766249|NCT03160898|183421486|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|0.02|0.0435
91810603|NCT02618434|183496283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.5977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.89|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Total Score at Visit 6.||2.89|-5.00|0.5977
91810604|NCT02618434|183496283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.807||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.79|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parental Distress Domain score at Visit 6.||1.79|-1.39|0.8049
91810605|NCT02618434|183496283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.801||0.8911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.69|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction score at Visit 6.||1.69|-1.47|0.8911
91923186|NCT04800315|183744721|OTHER|Risk Difference|Difference VS Placebo|26.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|44.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.0|9.3|0.006
91923187|NCT04800315|183744722|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.9|2.3|
91766250|NCT03160898|183421487|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|0.0276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02734||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0261|0.0813|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by an MMRM with contrast (-5, -1, 3, 3) to reflect the assumed relationship for the 4 groups: placebo, 150, 300, and 450 mg twice daily.||||0.0813|-0.0261|0.3134
91766251|NCT03160898|183421487|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0246||||0.4824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0442|0.0935|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0935|-0.0442|0.4824
91766252|NCT03160898|183421487|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0146||||0.6787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0544|0.0835|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0835|-0.0544|0.6787
91766253|NCT03160898|183421487|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0488||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0194|0.1171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1171|-0.0194|0.1604
91766254|NCT03160898|183421487|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0317||||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0279|0.0913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0913|-0.0279|0.2966
91766255|NCT04186871|183421554|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|21.9||||||||21.9|-77.5|
91766256|NCT04186871|183421554|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.73|0.04|0.3117
91766257|NCT04186871|183421555|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.9||||||||4.9|-2.8|
91766258|NCT04186871|183421555|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 24|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-5.0||||||||-5.0|-11.5|
91766259|NCT04186871|183421555|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 24|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-5.2||||||||-5.2|-9.3|
91766260|NCT04186871|183421556|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|65.2||||||||65.2|-31.8|
91766261|NCT04186871|183421556|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|18.04||||||||18.04|0.22|
91766262|NCT04186871|183421557|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|33.3||||||||33.3|-57.1|
91810606|NCT02618434|183496283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.42|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Difficult Child Domain score Visit 6.||0.42|-2.93|0.1426
91923188|NCT04800315|183744722|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.7|-4.6|
91923189|NCT04800315|183744722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.4|0.4|
91923190|NCT04800315|183744723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.89|-14.44|||ANCOVA|||||-14.44|-41.89|
91923191|NCT04800315|183744723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.26|-1.46|||ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-27.26|
91923192|NCT04800315|183744723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.53|-4.62|||ANCOVA|||||-4.62|-33.53|
91923193|NCT04800315|183744724|OTHER|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|-22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.46|-3.54|||ANCOVA|||||-3.54|-41.46|
91923194|NCT04800315|183744724|OTHER|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|-13.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.67|4.33|||ANCOVA|||||4.33|-30.67|
91923195|NCT04800315|183744724|OTHER|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|-16.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|3.75|||ANCOVA|||||3.75|-36.40|
91766263|NCT04186871|183421557|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|10.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.02|0.02|0.5930
91923196|NCT04800315|183744725|OTHER|Risk Difference VS Placebo|Risk Difference VS Placebo|18.5||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|34.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|2.7|0.042
91923197|NCT04800315|183744725|OTHER|Risk Difference VS Placebo|Risk Difference VS Placebo|19.9||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.7|4.1|0.029
91766264|NCT04186871|183421558|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|7.7||||||||7.7|-36.9|
91766265|NCT04186871|183421558|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.15|0.1639
91766266|NCT04186871|183421559|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.11||||||||-1.110|-2.110|
91766267|NCT04186871|183421559|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.567|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.855|-1.28||||||||-1.280|-1.855|
91810607|NCT02618434|183496284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 4||0.20|-0.33|0.6171
91923198|NCT04800315|183744725|OTHER|Risk Difference VS Placebo|Risk Difference VS Placebo|18.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.6|2.3|0.052
91923199|NCT04800315|183744727|OTHER|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|-23.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.48|-4.76|||ANCOVA|||||-4.76|-41.48|
91923200|NCT04800315|183744727|OTHER|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|-8.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|8.59|||ANCOVA|||||8.59|-25.16|
91923201|NCT04800315|183744727|OTHER|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|-10.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.39|7.66|||ANCOVA|||||7.66|-29.39|
91923202|NCT03851510|183744764|OTHER|95% confidence of prevalence measure.|prevalence|46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|60.4||||||All participants that were consented, eligible, and completed the Vector EFL screening (supine).||60.4|32.6|
91923203|NCT01287117|183744800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.21||A multiplicity type I error control plan was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-1.21|-4.71|0.0010
91766268|NCT04186871|183421559|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.62||||||||0.620|-0.534|
91766269|NCT04186871|183421560|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.256|-1.226||||||||-1.226|-2.256|
91766270|NCT04186871|183421560|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.698|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.998|-1.399||||||||-1.399|-1.998|
91766271|NCT04186871|183421560|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|0.639||||||||0.639|-0.553|
91766272|NCT04186871|183421561|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.861|-14.128||||||||-14.128|-24.861|
91766273|NCT04186871|183421561|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.848|-15.686||||||||-15.686|-21.848|
91766274|NCT04186871|183421561|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.463|6.919||||||||6.919|-5.463|
91766275|NCT04186871|183421562|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN AT DIFFERENCE WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-14.1||||||||-14.1|-24.3|
91766276|NCT04186871|183421562|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN AT DIFFERENCE WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-15.5||||||||-15.5|-21.4|
91766277|NCT04186871|183421562|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.6||||||||6.6|-5.2|
91766278|NCT04186871|183421563|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|19.9||||||||19.9|-28.1|
91923204|NCT01287117|183744800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.95||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-1.18||A multiplicity type I error control plan was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.18|-4.72|0.0012
91923205|NCT01287117|183744800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|-4.1||A multiplicity type I error control plan was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.10|-7.49|<0.0001
91923206|NCT01287117|183744801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.75||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|-1.92||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-1.92|-9.59|0.0035
91766279|NCT04186871|183421563|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.32||||||||2.32|0.31|
91923207|NCT01287117|183744801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-6.54||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|-2.75||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-2.75|-10.33|0.0008
91923208|NCT01287117|183744801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-9.16||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-9.16|-16.44|<0.0001
91923209|NCT01287117|183744802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.75||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.54||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-0.54|-4.95|0.0149
91923210|NCT01287117|183744802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.44||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.32||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.32|-5.57|0.0017
91923211|NCT01287117|183744802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-6.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-4.76||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.76|-9.10|<0.0001
91923212|NCT01287117|183744803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.03||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||2.03|0.95|0.0879
91923213|NCT01287117|183744803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.14||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||2.14|1.04|0.0301
91923214|NCT01287117|183744803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.36||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||3.36|1.63|<0.0001
91766280|NCT04186871|183421564|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|9.9||||||||9.9|-22.8|
91766281|NCT04186871|183421564|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.34||||||||2.34|0.11|
91766282|NCT00549445|183421574|OTHER|Student t test||||||0.045||||||Threshold for significance is P-Value \< 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.045
91810608|NCT02618434|183496284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.01|-0.55|0.0617
91810609|NCT02618434|183496284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.21|-0.47|0.4419
91810610|NCT02618434|183496285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale at Visit 6.||-0.01|-0.32|0.0416
91810611|NCT02618434|183496285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale at Visit 6||0.02|-0.33|0.0921
91810612|NCT02618434|183496285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Oppositional Defiant Disorder subscale at Visit 6||0.11|-0.26|0.4480
91810613|NCT02618434|183496285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Combined Scale score at Visit 6||-0.00|-0.31|0.0457
91810614|NCT02618434|183496286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis pertains to ≥ 30% Responders.||1.93|0.58|0.8525
91810615|NCT02618434|183496286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis pertains to ≥ 50% Responders.||1.51|0.52|0.6635
91923215|NCT01287117|183744804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.0148
91923216|NCT01287117|183744804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||<0.0001
91923217|NCT01287117|183744804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
91923218|NCT01287117|183744805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.0118
91923219|NCT01287117|183744805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0226||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0226
91923220|NCT01287117|183744805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
91923221|NCT01287117|183744806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.34||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.51||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||-0.51|-4.17|0.0124
91923222|NCT01287117|183744806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.16||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-1.27||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.27|-5.05|0.0012
91766283|NCT03932760|183421575|OTHER|Mean differences at the tested timepoints between VCI and AC. Models were also examined with the covariates of medication use and pregnant/post-partum status.|Mean estimates by time|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.085||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.228|3.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Time was treated as a categorical variable to allow for non-linear change over time. We present group, time, and group\*time estimates and their associated SE and CIs below. AC group and baseline timepoint are the reference categories.|We used multilevel generalized mixed modeling under an intent-to-treat approach to compare the outcome measures of EPDS between group 1 (VCI) and Group 2 (AC) at 6 time points during pregnancy and postpartum controlling for screening EPDS score. We powered for the fixed effect of Intervention X Time using RMANOVA with alpha = 0.5, 6 time points, 0.3 for correlation between repeated measures, and a sample size of 192 total participants gives greater than 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.1.|"Overall test of significance for Fixed Effects. Higher EPDS scores signify worsened symptoms of depression. Time uses start of study as reference controlling for screen EPDS.~Group VCI (AC reference): F=0.260, p=0.612~Time (Baseline as reference): F=9.021, p\<0.001~Group\*Time: F=0.537, p=0.748~Estimates for group, time, and group\*time interactions~Group:~Estimate=0.913 (SE=1.085) \[CI LB=-1.228, UB=3.055\]~Time:~Post: estimate=-2.766 (0.853) \[-4.445, -1.087\]~2 months: estimate=-1.517 (0.862) \[-3.214, 0.180\]~4 months: estimate=-3.186 (0.862) \[-4.883, -1.489\]~6 months: estimate=-2.781 (0.872) \[-4.498, -1.065\]~8 months: estimate=-3.103 (0.872) \[-4.819, -1.386\]~Group\*Time:~Post: estimate=-1.157 (1.214) \[-3.547, 1.232\]~2 months: estimate=-1.361 (1.210) \[-3.742, 1.019\]~4 months: estimate= 0.183 (1.209) \[-2.196, 2.562\]~6 months: estimate=-0.508 (1.223) \[-2.914, 1.898\]~8 months: estimate=-0.127 (1.220) \[-2.529, 2.275\]"|3.055|-1.228|0.612
91810616|NCT02289898|183496291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.7158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.375|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy (investigator-assessed Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival) of placebo/placebo arm to the pooled demcizumab arm (i.e., placebo/placebo arm to demcizumab/placebo and demcizumab/demcizumab arms) in subjects with first-line metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.||1.375|0.630|=0.7158
91810617|NCT04626297|183496292|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|11.2||||||||11.2|-10.2|
91810618|NCT04626297|183496293|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|22.0||||||||22.0|2.5|
91810619|NCT04626297|183496294|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|33.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.2|10.3|<0.001
91766284|NCT03932760|183421576|OTHER|Mean differences at the tested timepoints between VCI and AC. Models were also examined with the covariates of medication use and pregnant/post-partum status.|Mean estimates by time|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.709|1.677|||Mixed Models Analysis||Time was treated as a categorical variable to allow for non-linear change over time. We present group, time, and group\*time estimates and their associated SE and CIs below. AC group and baseline timepoint are the reference categories.|We used multilevel generalized mixed modeling under an intent-to-treat approach to compare the outcome measures of GAD-7 between group 1 (VCI) and Group 2 (AC) at 6 time points during pregnancy and postpartum. We powered for the fixed effect of Intervention X Time using RMANOVA with alpha = 0.5, 6 time points, 0.3 for correlation between repeated measures, and a sample size of 192 total participants gives greater than 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.1.|"Overall test of significance for Fixed Effects. Higher GAD-7 scores signify worsened symptoms of depression.~Group VCI (AC reference): F=0.347, p=0.558~Time (Baseline as reference): F=4.973, p\<0.001~Group\*Time: F=0.417, p=0.837~Estimates for group, time, and group\*time interactions~Group:~Estimate=-0.0160 (SE=0.859) \[CI LB=-1.709, UB=1.677\]~Time:~Post: estimate=-1.780 (0.708) \[-3.173, -0.387\]~2 months: estimate=-0.615 (0.715) \[-2.023, 0.792\]~4 months: estimate=-1.416 (0.715) \[-2.824, -0.008\]~6 months: estimate=-1.625 (0.723) \[-3.049, -0.201\]~8 months: estimate=-1.542 (0.723) \[-2.966, -0.118\]~Group\*Time:~Post: estimate=-1.157 (1.214) \[-3.547, 1.232\]~2 months: estimate=-1.361 (1.210) \[-3.742, 1.019\]~4 months: estimate= 0.183 (1.209) \[-2.196, 2.562\]~6 months: estimate=-0.508 (1.223) \[-2.914, 1.898\]~8 months: estimate=-0.127 (1.220) \[-2.529, 2.275\]"|1.677|-1.709|0.558
91923223|NCT01287117|183744806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-3.87||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.87|-7.59|<0.0001
91923224|NCT01287117|183744807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.26||||0.7956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.28||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||2.28|-1.76|0.7956
91923225|NCT01287117|183744807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.31||||0.2286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.84||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||0.84|-3.46|0.2286
91923226|NCT01287117|183744807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-2.2||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-2.20|-5.96|<0.0001
91766285|NCT01875159|183421604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||GEE gamma regression models|||\>80% probability of detecting at least a 36% reduction in intermittent hypoxia events/hour of recording and in sec/hour \<90% oxygen saturation/hour of recording||||<0.05
91810620|NCT04626297|183496295|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38|12.6|<0.001
91810621|NCT04626297|183496296|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.6|9.0|<0.001
91810622|NCT04626297|183496297|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-3.8|0.138
91810623|NCT04626297|183496298|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|-3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) included treatment, baseline value, visit, the interaction of the baseline value-by-visit, the interaction of treatment by-visit, geographic region, age group, baseline IGA score as fixed factors.|||-3.39|-13.04|<0.001
91810624|NCT04626297|183496299|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.001658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.8|0.001658
91810625|NCT02598076|183496309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91810626|NCT02598076|183496310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
91810627|NCT02598076|183496311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91810628|NCT02598076|183496312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.095
91923227|NCT01287117|183744808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4867||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.4867
91923228|NCT01287117|183744808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1747||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.1747
91923229|NCT01287117|183744808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
91923230|NCT01287117|183744809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.4580
91923231|NCT01287117|183744809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.2087
91923232|NCT01287117|183744809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
91923233|NCT01274897|183744810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|81.0||The immune response considered sufficient if for serogroup A the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse is ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For serogroup A.|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||81|71|
91766286|NCT05736874|183421608|SUPERIORITY|Decision rule based on Bayesian posterior probability of efficacy. The decision threshold was a posterior probability of 0.95. A prespecified skeptical prior for the treatment effect was used to preserve type I error below 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.12|0.91|
91766287|NCT05736874|183421609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.68|||||Descriptive analysis is a maximum partial likelihood proportional hazards regression model. Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||4.68|0.19|
91766288|NCT05736874|183421612|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian proportional hazards regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.5|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||3.5|0.8|
91766289|NCT05736874|183421613|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.63|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||1.63|0.62|
91810629|NCT02598076|183496313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91766290|NCT05736874|183421614|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||1.50|0.42|
91766291|NCT05736874|183421615|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.94|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||5.94|0.50|
91766292|NCT05736874|183421616|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.11|0.69|
91810630|NCT00010374|183496315|OTHER|Performance goal of 35%|Exact two-sided binomial test|96.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|99.5|||Exact two-sided binomial test|||||99.5|87.0|<0.001
91923234|NCT01274897|183744810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|90.0||The immune response was considered sufficient if for serogroup C, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse was ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For the serogroup C|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||90|82|
91923235|NCT01274897|183744810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|33.0||The immune response was considered sufficient if for serogroup W, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse was ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For the serogroup W|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||33|23|
91923236|NCT01274897|183744810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|74.0||The immune response was considered sufficient if for serogroup Y, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse was ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For serogroup Y|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||74|63|
91923237|NCT02042131|183744814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Log Rank|||Omnibus test of all three groups||||.082
91810631|NCT01669915|183496318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included terms for the variables time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.02|-0.01|0.31
91766293|NCT05736874|183421616|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.34|0.78|
91810632|NCT01669915|183496318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 fatty acids active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.003|-0.02|0.14
91890225|NCT02187159|183673375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.7|0.5066
91890226|NCT02187159|183673375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.1|-0.9|0.1462
91890227|NCT02187159|183673375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.3|0.3|0.0035
91890228|NCT02187159|183673375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.1|0.0|0.0338
91890229|NCT02187159|183673375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.2|-1.3|0.0116
91890230|NCT02187159|183673375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.7|0.7085
91890231|NCT02187159|183673375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.5|0.9392
91890232|NCT02187159|183673375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.2|0.1|0.0311
91890233|NCT02187159|183673375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.3|0.2|0.0094
91890234|NCT02187159|183673376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6027||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|2.439|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin||2.439|0.074|0.0373
91890235|NCT02187159|183673376|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|1.545|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.545|-0.817|0.5458
91890236|NCT02187159|183673376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6038||0.6968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.949|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.420|-0.949|0.6968
91890237|NCT02187159|183673376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6014||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.073|0.287|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.287|-2.073|0.1379
91890238|NCT02187159|183673376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6033||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.205|0.163|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.163|-2.205|0.0908
91890239|NCT02187159|183673376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6965||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|3.256|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin||3.256|0.523|0.0068
91890240|NCT02187159|183673376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6956||0.5594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.959|1.771|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.771|-0.959|0.5594
91890241|NCT02187159|183673376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6979||0.9736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.346|1.392|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.392|-1.346|0.9736
91890242|NCT02187159|183673376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6953||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.848|-0.119|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.119|-2.848|0.0331
91923238|NCT02042131|183744814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Log Rank|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||||.028
91923239|NCT02042131|183744814|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.24||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||0.96|0.06|.040
91923240|NCT02042131|183744815|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus test comparing all three groups.||||<0.001
91923241|NCT02042131|183744815|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||||<0.001
91923242|NCT02042131|183744816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||||<0.001
91923243|NCT02042131|183744817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Omnibus test of all groups||||0.040
91923244|NCT02042131|183744817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.9|||Chi-squared|||Planned contrast #2: E-CRP vs. TAU/S-CRP||0.9|0.002|0.045
91766294|NCT05736874|183421616|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.45|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.45|0.78|
91923245|NCT00035815|183744821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.529||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of MMT was calculated as a ratio of change from baseline to last follow-up to time to duration until last follow-up. For the patients that died during the study period, the last follow-up time was considered as the time of death with a zero score for MMT measurement. Analysis was performed using intention to treat approach. Comparison of rate of change in MMT scores between the placebo and IGF-1 group was made using two sample t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate.||||0.529
91923246|NCT00035815|183744822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||Patients who elected to proceed to tracheostomy were assessed on the day of their procedure. Subjects who continuously utilized NIPPV for greater than 10 days were assessed as being ventilator-dependent on the first day they began continuous NIPPV. Survival between groups was compared using the Cox-proportional Hazards model.||1.4|0.77|0.415
91923247|NCT00035815|183744823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The final secondary outcome measure was the rate of change in the ALSFRS-r score. The ALSFRS-r was completed at each visit (randomization and then at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months post-randomization). As with the MMT scores a score of 0 was imputed on the day of death. Analysis of the ALSFRS-r scores as a secondary outcome was performed in similar manner as MMT score.||||0.321
91923248|NCT02606877|183744850|OTHER||T1/R1 Ratio (%)|88.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.4|119.97|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T1 and R1 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||119.97|65.40|
91766295|NCT05736874|183421616|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.53|0.79|
91766296|NCT05736874|183421617|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.09|0.72|
91766297|NCT05736874|183421617|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.27|0.84|
91923249|NCT02606877|183744851|OTHER||T1/R1 Ratio (%)|80.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.27|126.79|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T1 and R1 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||126.79|51.27|
91923250|NCT02606877|183744852|OTHER||T2/R2 Ratio (%)|97.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.84|107.48|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T2 and R2 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||107.48|87.84|
91923251|NCT02606877|183744853|OTHER||T2/R2 Ratio (%)|99.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.94|112.56|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T2 and R2 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||112.56|87.94|
91923252|NCT02606877|183744854|OTHER||T1/R1 Ratio (%)|89.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.33|120.73|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T1 and R1 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||120.73|66.33|
91923253|NCT03165981|183744862|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.1|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||2.10|0.36|0.7588
91923254|NCT03165981|183744863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.9412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||2.40|0.39|.9412
91923255|NCT03165981|183744864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.||||||0.3408
91923256|NCT03165981|183744865|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.8325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.13|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||3.13|0.24|0.8325
91923257|NCT03165981|183744866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.||||||0.3408
91923258|NCT03165981|183744867|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.48|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||2.48|0.21|0.6101
91923259|NCT03165981|183744868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.848
91923260|NCT03165981|183744870|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91923261|NCT05635838|183744880|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-2.21|0.0215
91923262|NCT05635838|183744882|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-1.65|0.1671
91766298|NCT05736874|183421617|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.20|0.76|
91923263|NCT05635838|183744883|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.728||0.7982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|-1.27|0.7982
91923264|NCT05635838|183744884|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.40|-0.52|0.2031
91923265|NCT05635838|183744886|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.56|||ANCOVA|||||0.56|-2.20|0.2387
91766299|NCT05736874|183421617|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.32|0.84|
91766300|NCT05736874|183421618|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.93|0.58|
91766301|NCT05736874|183421618|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.32|0.76|
91890243|NCT02187159|183673376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6976||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.235|-0.498|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.498|-3.235|0.0076
91890244|NCT02187159|183673377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01328||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0048|0.057|||ANCOVA|||||0.0570|0.0048|0.0201
91890245|NCT02187159|183673377|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01324||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0082|0.0438|||ANCOVA|||||0.0438|-0.0082|0.1798
91890246|NCT02187159|183673377|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01329||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0189|0.0332|||ANCOVA|||||0.0332|-0.0189|0.5922
91890247|NCT02187159|183673377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01326||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0392|0.0129|||ANCOVA|||||0.0129|-0.0392|0.3221
91890248|NCT02187159|183673377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0133||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0499|0.0023|||ANCOVA|||||0.0023|-0.0499|0.0739
91890249|NCT02187159|183673378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.79|0.0015
91890250|NCT02187159|183673378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.86|0.0003
91890251|NCT02187159|183673378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.81|0.0008
91890252|NCT02187159|183673378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.37|0.6464
91890253|NCT02187159|183673378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.33|0.8543
91890254|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-1.0|0.0014
91890255|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.7|0.1285
91890256|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.6595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.6595
91890257|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.0938
91766302|NCT05736874|183421618|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.25|0.71|
91890258|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.1|0.0061
91890259|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-0.8|0.0235
91890260|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.5|0.3652
91890261|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.6885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.4|0.6885
91890262|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.1|0.1726
91890263|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.0|0.0627
91890264|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.2|-0.8|0.0026
91890265|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.6|0.1362
91890266|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.4|0.4344
91890267|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.1|0.1264
91890268|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|0.0|0.0260
91890269|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.1|0.0002
91890270|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.8|0.0597
91890271|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.1|-0.7|0.1198
91890272|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1644||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.885|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.240|-0.885|0.0006
91890273|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|0.061|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.061|-0.583|0.1118
91890274|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1646||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.180|-0.465|0.3870
91890275|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1642||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.624|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.624|-0.020|0.0633
91890276|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1647||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.744|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.744|0.097|0.0108
91890277|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||12.2|2.7|0.0020
91890278|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||7.7|-1.8|0.2188
91890279|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.7|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||8.7|-0.8|0.0991
91890280|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-9.2|0.0611
91890281|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.2|-8.2|0.1489
91890282|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-6.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.751||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-2.60|-9.47|0.0006
91890283|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.747||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.67|-7.52|0.0193
91890284|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.752||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.80|-5.07|0.3506
91890285|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.748||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|5.37|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||5.37|-1.48|0.2660
91890286|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.754||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.84|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||7.84|0.96|0.0122
91923266|NCT01438710|183744922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change (i.e., absolute change) from baseline (Day 7, pre-conversion) on FTM overall score to Day 14 (post-conversion) was evaluated using paired t-test (at 0.05 significance level, two sided). An estimation of mean change from baseline and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were provided.||||0.0048
91923267|NCT00945750|183744927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the AUC geometric mean ratio (famotidine CT without water/famotidine FCT with water) is within the hypothesized interval (0.80 and 1.25), then the primary hypothesis of bioequivalence between CT without water and FCT with water is accepted.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01||||||90.0|0.94|1.09||||||||1.09|0.94|
91923268|NCT00945750|183744928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the Cmax geometric mean ratio (famotidine CT without water/famotidine FCT with water) is within the hypothesized interval (0.80 and 1.25), then the primary hypothesis of bioequivalence between CT without water and FCT with water is accepted.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.93|1.14||||||||1.14|0.93|
91923269|NCT00945750|183744929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11||||||90.0|1.04|1.2||||||||1.20|1.04|
91766303|NCT05736874|183421618|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.64|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.64|0.89|
91766304|NCT05736874|183421619|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.15|0.70|
91766305|NCT05736874|183421619|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.29|0.75|
91766306|NCT05736874|183421619|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.26|0.72|
91766307|NCT05736874|183421619|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.61|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.61|0.92|
91810633|NCT01669915|183496319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.03|-0.01|0.49
91923270|NCT00945750|183744930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12||||||90.0|1.02|1.24||||||||1.24|1.02|
91923271|NCT02767570|183744953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|For the primary hypothesis that there would be a greater reduction in pain for the altered compared to the consistent FPA group, an effect size of 0.57 was assumed. To achieve 80% power with an alpha of 0.05, 39 participants per group were needed, so our recruitment goal was 40 subjects per group.||-0.5|-1.9|0.001
91923272|NCT02767570|183744954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||-0.13|-0.39|<0.001
91923273|NCT02767570|183744955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.74||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|-1.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||-1.05|-6.42|0.006
91923274|NCT02767570|183744956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||1.30|-1.42|0.93
91923275|NCT02767570|183744957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|2.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||2.80|-3.38|0.85
91923276|NCT02767570|183744958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.9||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||0.90|-0.89|0.99
91923277|NCT01981122|183744971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures||||||.095
91923278|NCT00089843|183744972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.6||This p value was for the effect of Actonel (risedronate) on bone mineral density of the spine.|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||4.6|1.8|<0.0001
91923279|NCT00089843|183744972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|-0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8||This p value was for the effect of testosterone on bone mineral density of the spine.|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||0.8|-2.0|0.41
91923280|NCT00089843|183744973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|-41.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p value was for the effect of Actonel (risedronate).|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||||0.002
91923281|NCT00089843|183744973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|-11.0||||0.39||95.0||||This p value was for the effect of testosterone.|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||||0.39
91923282|NCT01330381|183744974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9002
91810634|NCT01669915|183496319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.002||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||-0.002|-0.04|0.03
91810635|NCT01669915|183496320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included terms for the variables time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.02|-0.01|0.23
91890287|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-0.9|0.0119
91890288|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.8|0.0659
91890289|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.5104
91890290|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.4934
91890291|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.8|-0.0|0.0634
91890292|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.3|-1.1|0.0007
91890293|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.8|0.0837
91890294|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.7|0.2379
91890295|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.1|0.0980
91890296|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.0|0.0283
91890297|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-0.7|0.2179
91890298|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.5|0.6683
91890299|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.2|0.2247
91890300|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.2|0.4198
91890301|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.1|0.0146
91890302|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.0|-0.8|0.0662
91890303|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.7|0.2282
91890304|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.7336
91890305|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.5240
91890306|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1349
91890307|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.0|-0.8|0.0464
91890308|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.7|0.0975
91890309|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.3|0.6088
91890310|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.7341
91890311|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.1|0.0125
91890312|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.5|-1.4|<0.0001
91923283|NCT01330381|183744975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.352|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3520
91923284|NCT01330381|183744976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5228|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5228
91923285|NCT01330381|183744985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.377
91923286|NCT01330381|183744988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1599|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.1599
91923287|NCT01330381|183744989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.0003
91923288|NCT01330381|183744990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4647|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.4647
91923289|NCT01330381|183744991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
91923290|NCT01330381|183744992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3044|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.3044
91923291|NCT03216265|183745009|OTHER||Least Square Mean difference|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis model (ANCOVA) included participant as random effect, treatment arm and side of body as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment adjusted (LS) mean change from baseline (Visit 2) minus the second named treatment adjusted mean change from baseline (Visit 2).|||-0.78|-2.10|<0.0001
91923292|NCT01306058|183745043|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T-test. Two tailed.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.05
91923293|NCT01306058|183745044|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T-test. Two tailed.|||||<|0.0001||||||Cycle 1 day 15 vs. cycle 1 day 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91923294|NCT01306058|183745044|NON_INFERIORITY|Cycle 2 day 1 vs. cycle 1 day 1. Paired T-test. Two tailed.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91923295|NCT01306058|183745044|NON_INFERIORITY|eos (end of study) vs. cycle 1 day 1. Paired T-test. Two tailed.||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0009
91923296|NCT01539837|183745047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||calculated|Pairwise comparisons,post-hoc Bonferoni|||||||<0.01
91923297|NCT00849693|183745048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.193
91923298|NCT01183858|183745105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33||Unstratified analysis.|Log Rank|||||1.33|0.83|0.671
91923299|NCT01183858|183745111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.84|0.625
91923300|NCT03069690|183745132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3996|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.665||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.649|4.85||The value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||4.850|-5.649|.80
91923301|NCT03069690|183745132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.755||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.813|2.039||The value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||2.039|-8.813|.80
91923302|NCT03069690|183745132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|4.184||The value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||4.184|-6.530|.80
91923303|NCT00641147|183745148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91923304|NCT00641147|183745148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.57
91923305|NCT00641147|183745149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91923306|NCT00641147|183745150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
91923307|NCT00641147|183745151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91923308|NCT00641147|183745152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91923309|NCT00641147|183745153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
91923310|NCT00641147|183745154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91923311|NCT00641147|183745155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
91923312|NCT00641147|183745156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91923313|NCT00641147|183745157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91923314|NCT00641147|183745158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91923315|NCT00641147|183745159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91923316|NCT00641147|183745163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
91923317|NCT01629667|183745169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.77||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-4.13|0.140
91923318|NCT01629667|183745169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.41||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|0.91|||ANCOVA|||||0.91|-3.73|0.234
91923319|NCT00984659|183745203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.05|-0.03|0.713
91923320|NCT00984659|183745207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for age, gender, and percent predicted Forced Expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at Screening.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91923321|NCT00984659|183745208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and percent predicted FEV1 at Screening.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91923322|NCT00984659|183745209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and percent predicted FEV1 at Screening|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
91923323|NCT00984659|183745211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.31||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 8|ANCOVA|||||0.31|0.18|<0.001
91923324|NCT00984659|183745211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.001||95.0|0.06|0.19||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 15|ANCOVA|||||0.19|0.06|<0.001
91923325|NCT00984659|183745211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|0.06|0.16||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 22|ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.06|<0.001
91923326|NCT00984659|183745211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|0.06|0.17||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 29|ANCOVA|||||0.17|0.06|<0.001
91923327|NCT00984659|183745211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.001||95.0|0.08|0.18||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 36|ANCOVA|||||0.18|0.08|<0.001
91923328|NCT00984659|183745211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.18||95.0|-0.03|0.15||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 43|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.03|0.180
91766308|NCT05736874|183421620|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.28|0.81|
91766309|NCT05736874|183421620|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||0.99|0.60|
91890313|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.4|-1.3|0.0003
91890314|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.2|-1.1|0.0040
91890315|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.3|0.5801
91890316|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1869
91890317|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.3|0.0002
91890318|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.1|-0.9|0.0271
91890319|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.1|-0.8|0.1123
91890320|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.1|0.1183
91890321|NCT02187159|183673380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.0|0.0299
91890322|NCT02187159|183673381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.5578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.063|0.5578
91890323|NCT02187159|183673381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0248||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.039|||ANCOVA|||||0.039|-0.058|0.7034
91890324|NCT02187159|183673381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.028|||ANCOVA|||||0.028|-0.069|0.4143
91890325|NCT02187159|183673381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.054|||ANCOVA|||||0.054|-0.044|0.8365
91890326|NCT02187159|183673381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.8189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.043|||ANCOVA|||||0.043|-0.055|0.8189
91890327|NCT00567567|183673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|6.9883||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - Single HST (CEM) and randomized to Regimen B - Tandem HST (CEM) were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.0082
91890328|NCT00567567|183673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chi-squared test statistic|8.5751||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test of proportions in all patients to compare the proportion of responders (complete response \[CR\]+ very good partial response \[VGPR\]) at the end of induction therapy in this study to an analogous cohort of responders in A3973.||||0.0034
91890329|NCT00567567|183673387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Gray's test statistic|0.33709||||0.5615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Gray's test for competing risks|||The cumulative incidence rates of local recurrence between patients from ANBL0532 randomized or assigned to receive single CEM transplant and boost radiation and A3973 patients who were transplanted and received boost radiation were compared using Gray's test.||||0.5615
91890330|NCT00567567|183673388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.0557||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0939
91890331|NCT00567567|183673389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.0543||||0.3277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3277
91890332|NCT00567567|183673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4328||||0.7598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4105|5.001|||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used instead of chi-square test due to small expected cell counts.||Null Hypothesis: The response rate after two cycles of induction therapy and the presence of a polymorphism are independent in the study population||5.001|0.4105|0.7598
91890333|NCT00567567|183673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||The relationship between the peak serum isotretinoin concentration level with event-free survival was explored with a Cox proportional hazards model. Eligible patients treated with isotretinoin on A3973, ANBL0032, ANBL0532, or ANBL0931 with peak serum concentration level data were included in the analysis.||||0.6853
91890334|NCT03433677|183673402|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.00|0.00|0.375
91890335|NCT03433677|183673403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Prescott's Exact test|||||||0.468
91890336|NCT03433677|183673404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
91890337|NCT03433677|183673405|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.8||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-5.3|0.304
91890338|NCT03433677|183673406|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.4||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.8|0.057
91890339|NCT03433677|183673407|SUPERIORITY||LSMeans|0.11||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean Difference|||0.27|-0.05|0.177
91890340|NCT04833127|183673446|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.8||generalized linear models (GLM) and generalized estimating equations (GEE) for clustering within recruitment chain|GLM (logit link) with GEE|||||1.80|0.56|1.0
91923329|NCT00984659|183745211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.307||95.0|-0.07|0.23||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Visit 3/PD|ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.07|0.307
91923330|NCT00984659|183745215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.34||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparision of mean SOBDA score for CGI-C responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.34|0.14|<0.001
91923331|NCT00984659|183745216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.4||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparision of mean SOBDA score for CRQ-SAS Dyspnea Domain responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.40|0.21|<0.001
91923332|NCT00984659|183745217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.535||95.0|-0.08|0.15||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparision of mean SOBDA score for Physician-Completed mMRC responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.08|0.535
91923333|NCT00984659|183745217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.08||95.0|-0.02|0.19||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparison of mean SOBDA score for Participant-Completed mMRC responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.02|0.08
91923334|NCT00201201|183745229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic (1,161)=4.44,p=0.035).||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use. Non-parametric tests (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic), based on rank scores, controlling for participant code were used for the transformed behavior risk scores within groups.||||0.035
91923335|NCT00201201|183745230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0204||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use.||||.0204
91766310|NCT05736874|183421620|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.23|0.74|
91766311|NCT05736874|183421620|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.50|0.89|
91766312|NCT05736874|183421621|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.06|0.69|
91810636|NCT01669915|183496320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included terms for the variables time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization)||0.02|-0.01|0.68
91923336|NCT00201201|183745231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use.||||.0001
91923337|NCT00201201|183745232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use.||||0.0001
91923338|NCT00201201|183745233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0431
91923339|NCT00201201|183745234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzed at 0 and 12 weeks.||||<.10
91923340|NCT00909090|183745299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91923341|NCT00909090|183745300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis compared mean differences between placebo and intervention at the 12-month time point.||||0.21
91923342|NCT00909090|183745301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis compared mean change from baseline to 12-month time points.||||0.01
91923343|NCT00909090|183745302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis conducted on mean change over one year, between groups||||0.02
91923344|NCT02926573|183745305|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.27|
91923345|NCT02926573|183745306|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|21.0||||||||21|-3.0|
91923346|NCT02926573|183745308|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|11.0|||||"The estimation parameter is based on those participants who answered they were very satisfied with overall pain control."|||11|-15|
91923347|NCT02926573|183745309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7AM.|||18.3|-3.4|
91923348|NCT02926573|183745309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|20.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 10AM.|||20.3|-2.9|
91923349|NCT02926573|183745309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|18.9|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7PM.|||18.9|-4.6|
91810637|NCT01669915|183496321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.09|-0.04|0.46
91890341|NCT04833127|183673446|EQUIVALENCE|Null H: No difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.07||GLM with GEE to account for clustering by recruitment chain.|GLM (logit link) with GEE|Adjusted for age, education, if has a main male partner, which differed between the two groups at baseline.||||2.07|0.62|0.69
91890342|NCT04833127|183673447|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.85|||GLM with GEE|GLM with GEE accounting for clustering by recruitment chain||||2.85|0.35|1.00
91890343|NCT04833127|183673447|EQUIVALENCE|Null H: No difference between the 2 groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.9||GLM (logit link) with GEE to account for clustering by recruitment chain|GLM (logit link) with GEE|adjusted for baseline differences in age, educational status, and whether has a primary male partner.||||2.90|0.31|0.927
91890344|NCT04833127|183673448|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: No difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.04|||GLM (logit link) with GEE|Used GEE to account for clustering by recruitment chain.||||4.04|0.73|0.215
91890345|NCT04833127|183673448|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.13|||GLM (logit link) with GEE|GEE used to account for clustering by recruitment chain|adjusted for baseline differences in age, education, and whether has a main male partner.|||4.13|0.65|0.295
91890346|NCT02383940|183673461|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.06||Threshold for significance = 0.05|MMRM||Difference is sotagliflozin - placebo|Between-group comparison was based on MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week-4 A1C (\<=10%, \>10%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||0.06|-0.76|0.10
91890347|NCT02406677|183673692|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.3503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.246|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model accounting for within hospital clustering using robust standard errors|Usual Care arm is the reference group|||1.246|0.925|0.3503
91890348|NCT02406677|183673693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.838||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|0.979|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with parameters estimated using GEE to account for within hospital clustering for selected patient characteristics||||0.979|0.717|0.0260
91890349|NCT02406677|183673694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.564|2.649|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with GEE to account for within hospital clustering||||2.649|1.564|<0.0001
91890350|NCT03746392|183673726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
91890351|NCT00095498|183673727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.264|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||0.264
91890352|NCT00095498|183673727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||0.018
91890353|NCT00095498|183673728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.032
91890354|NCT00095498|183673728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.180
91890355|NCT00095498|183673729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.602|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.602
91890356|NCT00095498|183673729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.181
91890357|NCT00095498|183673730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.012
91890358|NCT00095498|183673730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.007
91890359|NCT00095498|183673731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.277
91890360|NCT00095498|183673731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.019
91890361|NCT00095498|183673732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.382|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.382
91890362|NCT00095498|183673732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.488|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.488
91890363|NCT00095498|183673733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.236|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.236
91890364|NCT00095498|183673733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.712|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.712
91890365|NCT00095498|183673734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.026||95.0|0.11|1.74|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.74|0.11|0.026
91890366|NCT00095498|183673734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.155||95.0|-0.23|1.41|||Repeated measures model|||||1.41|-0.23|0.155
91890367|NCT00095498|183673735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.002||95.0|0.62|2.72|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.72|0.62|0.002
91890368|NCT00095498|183673735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89|||<|0.001||95.0|0.84|2.94|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.94|0.84|<0.001
91890369|NCT00095498|183673736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.001||95.0|1.1|3.29|||Repeated Measures Model|||||3.29|1.1|<0.001
91890370|NCT00095498|183673736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29|||<|0.001||95.0|2.18|4.39|||Repeated Measures Model|||||4.39|2.18|<0.001
91890371|NCT00095498|183673737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.986||95.0|-1.06|1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.08|-1.06|0.986
91890372|NCT00095498|183673737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.141||95.0|-0.27|1.86|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.86|-0.27|0.141
91890373|NCT00095498|183673738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.073||95.0|-0.09|1.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.99|-0.09|0.073
91890374|NCT00095498|183673738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.09||95.0|-0.14|1.93|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.93|-0.14|0.09
91890375|NCT00095498|183673739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.007||95.0|0.51|3.12|||Repeated Measures Model|||||3.12|0.51|0.007
91890376|NCT00095498|183673739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98||||0.003||95.0|0.67|3.29|||Repeated Measures Model|||||3.29|0.67|0.003
91890377|NCT00095498|183673740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.938||95.0|-0.58|0.63|||Repeated Measures Model|||||0.63|-0.58|0.938
91890378|NCT00095498|183673740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.787||95.0|-0.53|0.69|||Repeated Measures Model|||||0.69|-0.53|0.787
91890379|NCT00095498|183673741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.004||95.0|0.33|1.67|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.67|0.33|0.004
91890380|NCT00095498|183673741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.001||95.0|0.51|1.85|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.85|0.51|<0.001
91890381|NCT00095498|183673742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|||<|0.001||95.0|1.02|2.85|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.85|1.02|<0.001
91890382|NCT00095498|183673742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|||<|0.001||95.0|1.13|2.96|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.96|1.13|<0.001
91890383|NCT00095498|183673743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91890384|NCT00095498|183673743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91890385|NCT00095498|183673744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91890386|NCT00095498|183673744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91890387|NCT00095498|183673745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91890388|NCT00095498|183673745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91890389|NCT00095498|183673746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91890390|NCT00095498|183673746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91890391|NCT00095498|183673747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91890392|NCT00095498|183673747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91890393|NCT00095498|183673748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.016
91890394|NCT00095498|183673748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91890395|NCT00095498|183673749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91890396|NCT00095498|183673749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91890397|NCT00095498|183673750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.673
91890398|NCT00095498|183673750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.589|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.589
91890399|NCT00095498|183673751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.175
91890400|NCT00095498|183673751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.133|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.133
91890401|NCT00926497|183673895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The trial was designed to obtain a power of 90% to detect a 30% difference between the two groups in the duration of antibiotic therapy with an estimated standard deviation of 50%.||||0.002
91890402|NCT00926497|183673896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91890403|NCT00926497|183673896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91890404|NCT03439254|183673897|OTHER||Response ratio(Mantel-Haenszel estimate)|1.13||||0.6172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment / Placebo Response Ratio = Percentage of Responders in Active Treatment Arm / Percentage of Responders in Placebo, stratified by Baseline diabetes status (yes/no).|||1.79|0.71|0.6172
91890405|NCT03439254|183673897|OTHER||Response ratio(Mantel-Haenszel estimate)|1.2||||0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment / Placebo Response Ratio = Percentage of Responders in Active Treatment Arm / Percentage of Responders in Placebo, stratified by Baseline diabetes status (yes/no).|||1.89|0.77|0.4184
91890406|NCT00128102|183673913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.83|0.858
91890407|NCT00128102|183673917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Likelihood Based Score Test|||||0.88|0.63|<0.001
91890408|NCT00128102|183673918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.3||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||1.97|-1.18|0.621
91890409|NCT00128102|183673919|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent Change|-52.4||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.5|38.6|||Longitudinal Model|||||38.6|-143.5|0.259
91890410|NCT00128102|183673920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.53|||Fisher Exact|||||4.53|-7.20|0.736
91890411|NCT00128102|183673921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent Change|-0.06||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|4.49|||Longitudinal Model|||||4.49|-4.61|0.979
91890412|NCT00128102|183673922|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|11.17|||Fisher Exact|||||11.17|-4.97|0.488
91890413|NCT02385240|183673923|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.52|10.72|||Wald's method|||||10.72|-7.52|
91890414|NCT02385240|183673924|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.94|11.33|||Wald's method|||||11.33|-6.94|
91890415|NCT02385240|183673925|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|15.46|||Wald's method|||||15.46|-1.77|
91890416|NCT01008410|183673942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0324||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression test was used to test for a difference in the percentages between the 2 treatment arms after adjusting for analysis center (country).||||0.0324
91890417|NCT00297427|183673953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91890418|NCT00297427|183673954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
91890419|NCT00297427|183673955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91890420|NCT00297427|183673956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91890421|NCT00297427|183673958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91890422|NCT00297427|183673959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91766313|NCT05736874|183421621|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.30|0.82|
91923350|NCT02926573|183745309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|16.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7AM.|||16.8|-6.6|
91766314|NCT05736874|183421621|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.32|0.80|
91890423|NCT00297427|183673960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91890424|NCT00297427|183673962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Repeated measures using GEE|||||||0.04
91890425|NCT00297427|183673963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Repeated measures using GEE|||||||0.01
91890426|NCT00297427|183673964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Repeated measures using GEE|||||||0.41
91890427|NCT00297427|183673965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Bivariate (unadjusted) analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91890428|NCT00297427|183673965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.208||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.405|||Regression, Logistic||These are the adjusted results of a multivariate logistic regression.|||1.405|1.039|0.014
91890429|NCT00297427|183673966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||This is the result from the bivariate (unadjusted) analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
91890430|NCT00297427|183673966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.936||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|0.994|||Regression, Logistic||These are the adjusted results from a multivariate logistic regression analysis.|||0.994|0.881|0.030
91890431|NCT00297427|183673967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91890432|NCT00297427|183673968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91890433|NCT00297427|183673970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
91890434|NCT00297427|183673971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91890435|NCT00297427|183673972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
91890436|NCT01262677|183673995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|17.11||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). 88 participants in each group (264 total) should have provided approximately 90% power.||17.11|-16.28|0.9076
91890437|NCT01262677|183673995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-13.05||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.07|2.25||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). 88 participants in each group (264 total) should have provided approximately 90% power.||2.25|-26.07|0.0907
91890438|NCT01262677|183673996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) was used to calculate the p-value. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||||0.752
91890439|NCT01262677|183673996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) was used to calculate the p-value. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||||0.125
91890440|NCT01262677|183673997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.3||||0.5404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.16|20.56||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model was used to calculate the p-value.||20.56|-39.16|0.5404
91890441|NCT01262677|183673997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.84||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.64|2.97||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model was used to calculate the p-value.||2.97|-54.64|0.0786
91890442|NCT01262677|183673998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.6073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.31||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Generalized linear model (GLM)|||A generalized linear model accounting for treatment and geographical region as fixed effects and baseline seizure frequency as a covariate was used to calculate the p-value. This generalized linear model assumed that the SGTC seizure frequency was from a Poisson distribution with a canonical log link function.||0.31|-0.53|0.6073
91890443|NCT01262677|183673998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.4109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.22||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|GLM|||A generalized linear model accounting for treatment and geographical region as fixed effects and baseline seizure frequency as a covariate was used to calculate the p-value. This generalized linear model assumed that the SGTC seizure frequency was from a Poisson distribution with a canonical log link function.||0.22|-0.53|0.4109
91890444|NCT01262677|183673999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38||||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|11.75||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||11.75|-12.97|0.8268
91923351|NCT02926573|183745309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|18.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 10AM.|||18.3|-3.6|
91923352|NCT02926573|183745309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|21.6|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7PM.|||21.6|-5.6|
91923353|NCT02926573|183745309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|23.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 3 7AM.|||23.8|-3.5|
91923354|NCT02926573|183745310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|22.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7AM.|||22.3|-0.9|
91923355|NCT02926573|183745310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|21.6|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 10AM.|||21.6|-3.4|
91923356|NCT02926573|183745310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|18.6|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7PM.|||18.6|-6.1|
91923357|NCT02926573|183745310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|17.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7AM.|||17.8|-7.3|
91923358|NCT02926573|183745310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 10AM.|||23.8|-1.4|
91923359|NCT02926573|183745310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|29.9|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7PM.|||29.9|-0.1|
91923360|NCT02926573|183745310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|26.0|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 3 7AM.|||26.0|-2.8|
91923361|NCT02926573|183745311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|11.9|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7AM.|||11.9|-14.7|
91923362|NCT02926573|183745311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|19.2|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 10AM.|||19.2|-8.6|
91923363|NCT02926573|183745311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|24.2|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7PM.|||24.2|-2.4|
91923364|NCT02926573|183745311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|20.7|||||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7AM.|20.7|-6.6|
91923365|NCT02926573|183745311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 10AM.|||22.3|-6.4|
91923366|NCT02926573|183745311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.7|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7PM.|||31.7|-0.4|
91923367|NCT02926573|183745311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|33.4|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 3 7AM.|||33.4|0.0|
91923368|NCT03240081|183745363|NON_INFERIORITY|We set 2 points (20%) as the margin of difference when defining and evaluating non-inferiority in comparing the 2 arms at 4 weeks.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91923369|NCT03240081|183745364|NON_INFERIORITY|We set 2 points (20%) as the margin of difference when evaluating non-inferiority in comparing the 2 arms at 4 weeks.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.95|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91923370|NCT00949650|183745365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.0002
91923371|NCT00949650|183745365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576||||0.0002||95.0|0.426|0.778|||Regression, Cox|Cox Proportional Hazard (PH) regression stratified by epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg versus Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||0.778|0.426|0.0002
91923372|NCT00949650|183745366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.802|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.855|8.075|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified for EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||8.075|2.855|<0.0001
91923373|NCT00949650|183745367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.288||||0.0118||95.0|1.202|4.356|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified for EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||4.356|1.202|0.0118
91923374|NCT00949650|183745368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7916||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.7916
91923375|NCT00949650|183745368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.385||95.0|0.66|1.174|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||1.174|0.660|0.3850
91923376|NCT00949650|183745369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|-13.64|-5.99|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SoD, EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||-5.99|-13.64|<0.0001
91923377|NCT00949650|183745372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.0062
91923378|NCT00949650|183745372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.589||||0.2133||95.0|0.401|0.866|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg vs. Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy, if HR\<1 then favours Afatinib 40 mg.|||0.866|0.401|0.2133
91923379|NCT00949650|183745373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.0129
91923380|NCT00949650|183745373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0078||95.0|0.499|0.927|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg vs. Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy, if HR\<1 then favours Afatinib 40 mg.|||0.927|0.499|0.0078
91923381|NCT00949650|183745374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1882||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.1882
91766315|NCT05736874|183421621|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.29|0.75|
91766316|NCT05736874|183421622|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.93|0.62|
91923382|NCT00949650|183745374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826||||0.0427||95.0|0.618|1.104|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg vs. Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy, if HR\<1 then favours Afatinib 40 mg.|||1.104|0.618|0.0427
91923383|NCT01678846|183745378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio of less than 1 would demonstrate a protective effect of the intervention. Unadjusted odds ratio presented, accounting for correlation between students within schools.|Does the Toolkit intervention reduce physical violence from school staff to Ugandan primary school students.||0.64|0.26|<0.0001
91810638|NCT01669915|183496321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.04||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||-0.04|-0.17|0.003
91923384|NCT03322657|183745389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.5|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||6.5|2.2|<0.001
91923385|NCT03322657|183745390|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14|-2.0|0.13
91923386|NCT03322657|183745391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.34|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.34|0.43|0.30
91923387|NCT03322657|183745392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.35|0.21
91923388|NCT03322657|183745393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.81|-0.18|0.04
91923389|NCT03249350|183745397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.49
91923390|NCT03249350|183745398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.92
91810639|NCT03530098|183496322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.59||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.04|-1.14|0.04
91810640|NCT03530098|183496323|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.001
91923391|NCT03249350|183745399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of group, F=13.58.||Cognitive Behavioral Components||||<0.001
91923392|NCT03249350|183745399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of group, F=3.02.||Behavioral Modification Components||||0.08
91923393|NCT03249350|183745400|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.09
91923394|NCT03249350|183745401|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.95
91923395|NCT03249350|183745402|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||APQ - Poor Monitoring - Parent Report Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.88
91923396|NCT03249350|183745403|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.06
91923397|NCT03249350|183745404|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.50
91923398|NCT03249350|183745405|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.03
91923399|NCT03249350|183745406|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GAIN - Substance Frequency Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.54
91923400|NCT03249350|183745407|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.89
91810641|NCT00533845|183496324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0022
91923401|NCT03249350|183745408|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||BISBAS Drive - Youth Report. Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.31
91923402|NCT03249350|183745409|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.35
91923403|NCT03249350|183745410|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.13
91923404|NCT03249350|183745411|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.30
91923405|NCT03249350|183745412|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.70
91923406|NCT03249350|183745413|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.89
91923407|NCT03249350|183745414|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.06
91923408|NCT03249350|183745415|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||EATQ Effortful Control - Youth Report Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.11
91923409|NCT03249350|183745416|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.99
91923410|NCT03249350|183745417|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.82
91923411|NCT03249350|183745418|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Peer Delinquency||||0.23
91923412|NCT03249350|183745419|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.73
91923413|NCT03249350|183745420|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.31
91766317|NCT05736874|183421622|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.18|0.78|
91766318|NCT05736874|183421622|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.12|0.74|
91923414|NCT02773758|183745523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.509|-1.071|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariates.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-1.071|-1.509|<0.0001
91923415|NCT00611455|183745554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.91|1.67|<0.001
91923416|NCT04382651|183745610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.225||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|4.7||1-Sided|ANCOVA|||||4.7|-2.7|0.33
91923417|NCT01507545|183745626|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67|||One-sided log-rank test|||||1.67|0.76|0.7335
91923418|NCT01507545|183745627|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.9498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.19|||One-sided log-rank test|||||2.19|0.93|0.9498
91766319|NCT05736874|183421622|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.56|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.56|1.02|
91766320|NCT05736874|183421623|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.26|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||0.26|-0.45|
91923419|NCT01507545|183745628|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|-2.4||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.992|2.23|||Fisher Exact|||||2.230|-6.992|0.333
91923420|NCT01753518|183745645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
91923421|NCT01753518|183745646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
91923422|NCT01753518|183745647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for staple expulsion or suture trimming||||0.25
91923423|NCT01753518|183745647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Surgical Site Infection||||0.06
91923424|NCT01753518|183745647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Superficial Wound Separation||||0.21
91923425|NCT01753518|183745647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Seroma||||0.49
91923426|NCT01753518|183745647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Hematoma||||0.50
91923427|NCT01753518|183745648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Tylenol use.||||0.48
91923428|NCT01753518|183745648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Ibuprofen use.||||0.30
91923429|NCT01753518|183745648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Toradol use.||||0.85
91923430|NCT01753518|183745648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Oxycodone use.||||0.78
91923431|NCT01753518|183745650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison for negative responses to Appearance of incision question."||||0.51
91923432|NCT01753518|183745650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison for negative responses to Would recommend treatment to friends question."||||0.098
91923433|NCT01753518|183745650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison of negative responses to Willingness to use treatment again question."||||0.57
91923434|NCT01753518|183745650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison of negative responses to Overall satisfaction question."||||0.41
91923435|NCT01753518|183745651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison between arms for appearance of incision."||||0.85
91923436|NCT01753518|183745651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison between arms for recommend treatment."||||0.004
91923437|NCT01753518|183745651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison between arms for willingness to use treatment again."||||<0.001
91923438|NCT01753518|183745652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91923439|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar painful.||||0.35
91923440|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar itching.||||0.48
91923441|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar color is different.||||0.034
91923442|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar stiffness is different.||||0.041
91923443|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar thickness is different.||||0.23
91923444|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar more irregular.||||0.13
91923445|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: overall opinion.||||0.11
91766321|NCT05736874|183421624|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimated means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.58|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||0.58|-0.28|
91766322|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1097|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1097
91766323|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1087
91923446|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: vascularity.||||0.68
91923447|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: pigmentation.||||0.18
91923448|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: thickness||||0.75
91923449|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: relief.||||0.36
91923450|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: pliability.||||0.78
91923451|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: surface area.||||0.76
91923452|NCT01753518|183745653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: overall opinion.||||0.97
91923453|NCT00553787|183745672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.328|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|9.25||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||9.25|7.96|<0.0001
91923454|NCT00553787|183745672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|7.37||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||7.37|5.79|<0.0001
91923455|NCT00553787|183745672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.82||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||2.82|1.24|<0.0001
91923456|NCT00553787|183745673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.955|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.34|11.11||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||11.11|7.34|<0.0001
91766324|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1949|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1949
91810642|NCT00667368|183496410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|10.1|||Two-sample test, Poisson||The risk difference reflects the treatment arm minus the control arm. The units are the number of positive tests for chlamydia and gonorrhea per 100 person-years.|||10.1|-12.0|0.754
91766325|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1315
91766326|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1977
91766327|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2149|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.2149
91766328|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2582|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.2582
91766329|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.0009
91766330|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3588|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.3588
91766331|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8791|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.8791
91766332|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.9457
91923457|NCT00553787|183745673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|7.97||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||7.97|4.93|<0.0001
91923458|NCT00553787|183745673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.81||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||1.81|1.15|0.0018
91923459|NCT00514449|183745685|OTHER||number of voxels in a cluster|2037.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||Time by treatment group interaction term|||||0.004
91923460|NCT04083144|183745687|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
91923461|NCT04083144|183745688|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.16||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
91923462|NCT04083144|183745689|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
91923463|NCT04083144|183745690|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.07||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
91923464|NCT04083144|183745691|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.17||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
91923465|NCT02708212|183745706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The two-sample t test will be used to compare the total doses of fentanyl and midazolam between the two study groups.||||<0.0001
91923466|NCT02708212|183745707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The two-sample t test will be used to compare the total doses of midazolam between the two study groups.||||0.0012
91923467|NCT02708212|183745708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6967
91923468|NCT00149825|183745723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Chi-squared|This is a one-tailed test||We hypothesized that compared with MED+CTRL, a greater percent of participants randomized to MED+CBTI will experience remission of depression||||.13
91923469|NCT00149825|183745724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We hypothesized that compared with MED+CTRL, a greater percent of participants in MED+CBTI will experience remission of insomnia.||||.05
91923470|NCT04458857|183745739|OTHER||LS mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.90|0.0210
91923471|NCT01748695|183745764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||||||Based on a linear mixed measures model with treatment and period included as fixed effects, subject included as a random effect and between- and within- subject baseline covariates included.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.834
91923472|NCT01333189|183745767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.329|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.329
91923473|NCT01333189|183745768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.891
91923474|NCT01333189|183745769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.021
91923475|NCT01333189|183745770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.509|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.509
91923476|NCT01333189|183745770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.500
91923477|NCT01333189|183745770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.607
91923478|NCT01333189|183745771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.068
91923479|NCT01333189|183745772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.480
91923480|NCT01333189|183745772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.120
91923481|NCT01333189|183745772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.668
91923482|NCT01333189|183745773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.511
91923483|NCT01333189|183745774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.402
91923484|NCT01333189|183745775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.021
91923485|NCT01333189|183745776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.686|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.686
91923486|NCT01333189|183745776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.434
91923487|NCT01333189|183745776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.227
91923488|NCT01333189|183745777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.068
91923489|NCT01333189|183745778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.160
91923490|NCT01333189|183745778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.008
91923491|NCT01333189|183745778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.877
91923492|NCT00969618|183745877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for total ADHD symptoms score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91923493|NCT00969618|183745877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for inattention subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91923494|NCT00969618|183745877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91923495|NCT00969618|183745877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ADHD index subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91923496|NCT00969618|183745878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91923497|NCT00969618|183745879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is GEC subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91923498|NCT00969618|183745879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for behavioral regulation subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91923499|NCT00969618|183745879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for metacognition subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91923500|NCT00969618|183745880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.200
91923501|NCT00969618|183745881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91923502|NCT00969618|183745882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GEC subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91923503|NCT00969618|183745882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for behavioral regulation subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91923504|NCT00969618|183745882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for metacognition subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91923505|NCT00969618|183745883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.384
91923506|NCT01894516|183745916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|52.6||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||52.6|22.4|< 0.0001
91766333|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2705|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.2705
91766334|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||<0.0001
91766335|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||<0.0001
91810643|NCT00667368|183496411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91810644|NCT01683383|183496419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted Wald estimation|||||||<0.001
91810645|NCT01683383|183496420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91766336|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||<0.0001
91766337|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5933|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||0.5933
91766338|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7094|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||0.7094
91766339|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5424|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||0.5424
91766340|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||<0.0001
91766341|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||<0.0001
91766342|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||<0.0001
91766343|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||0.0038
91766344|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0647|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||0.0647
91810646|NCT01683383|183496422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91890445|NCT01262677|183673999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.75||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|13.66||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||13.66|-10.69|0.9024
91890446|NCT01262677|183674000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) wtih percentage of responders summarized by treatment group was used to calculate the p-value.||||0.670
91890447|NCT01262677|183674000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) wtih percentage of responders summarized by treatment group was used to calculate the p-value.||||0.927
91890448|NCT01262677|183674001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.28||||0.8034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|22.15||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||22.15|-14.37|0.8034
91890449|NCT01262677|183674001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.78||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|5.87||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||5.87|-24.81|0.1905
91890450|NCT01262677|183674002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-A baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.5|-1.1|0.4650
91890451|NCT01262677|183674002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-A baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.8|-0.8|0.9692
91890452|NCT01262677|183674003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-D baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.4|-1.3|0.2693
91890453|NCT01262677|183674003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-D baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.3|-1.4|0.1893
91890454|NCT01262677|183674004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep disturbance score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||3.6|-5.2|0.7347
91923507|NCT01894516|183745916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|36.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|51.8||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||51.8|21.3|< 0.0001
91923508|NCT01894516|183745916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|43.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|58.2||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||58.2|28.4|< 0.0001
91923509|NCT05652660|183745927|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.77|138.59|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Rosuvastatin administered alone as the Reference and ARV-471 coadministered with rosuvastatin as the Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||138.59|104.77|
91923510|NCT05652660|183745928|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|110.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.53|118.06|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Rosuvastatin administered alone as the Reference and ARV-471 coadministered with rosuvastatin as the Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.06|103.53|
91923511|NCT03191396|183745954|NON_INFERIORITY|HbA1c non-inferiority was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.56||The non-inferiority p-value is calculated as two times the one-sided p-value from a t-distributed test statistic comparing the treatment contrast with 0.3.|ANCOVA||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg|The responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment and stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from subjects within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including stratification factor as categorical effect and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-0.56|-0.82|<0.0001
91923512|NCT03191396|183745954|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.56|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg|||-0.56|-0.82|<0.0001
91923513|NCT03191396|183745955|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-3.09|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg|||-3.09|-4.57|<0.0001
91923514|NCT01240811|183746000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
91923515|NCT01240811|183746000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
91923516|NCT01240811|183746001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Difference in paired change in Nugent score from baseline to 2 months||||0.08
91923517|NCT01240811|183746002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Change in quantity of H2O2 producing Lactobacilli species by qPCR||||0.46
91923518|NCT01240811|183746002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Change in quantity of Garnerella vaginalis species by qPCR||||0.62
91923519|NCT03990766|183746009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|42.3||||||||42.3|-35.6|
91923520|NCT03990766|183746010|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0||||||||5|-3|
91923521|NCT03990766|183746011|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-4.0||||||The within-subject change in QOD-NS scores from baseline and 6 weeks was calculated for each individual patient. Then the median of all the patients' change in score for each cohort was calculated. Because these were within-subject changes in scores, the median difference values for each cohort do not necessarily correspond with simply subtracting the median change in score in the theophylline cohort from the median change in score in the placebo cohort.||-4|-15|
91923522|NCT03990766|183746012|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|17.0||||||The within-subject change in ODOR scores from baseline and 6 weeks was calculated for each individual patient. Then the median of all the patients' change in score for each cohort was calculated. Because these were within-subject changes in scores, the median difference values for each cohort do not necessarily correspond with simply subtracting the median change in score in the theophylline cohort from the median change in score in the placebo cohort. We confirmed the reported results.||17|-2|
91923523|NCT03726671|183746013|OTHER|||||||0.0247|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Betaine IER||||0.0247
91923524|NCT03726671|183746013|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Choline IER||||<0.0001
91923525|NCT03726671|183746013|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.0002
91923526|NCT03726671|183746014|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|14.7|||Fisher Exact|||||14.7|3.48|<0.001
91923527|NCT03726671|183746014|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|8.11|||Fisher Exact|||||8.11|2.06|0.01
91923528|NCT03726671|183746014|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.58|||Fisher Exact|||||3.58|0.86|0.086
91923529|NCT03726671|183746015|OTHER|||||||0.6985|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Betaine IER||||0.6985
91923530|NCT03726671|183746015|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Choline IER||||0.0350
91923531|NCT03726671|183746015|OTHER|||||||0.6864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.6864
91766345|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||0.0021
91766346|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||<0.0001
91766347|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||<0.0001
91766348|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||<0.0001
91766349|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0815|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||0.0815
91766350|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||0.7507
91766351|NCT02981368|183421642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||0.5620
91923532|NCT03726671|183746016|EQUIVALENCE|There are linear combinations of metabolites that differentiate (non-equivalent) the 25% choline diet from the 100% choline diet.|||||<|0.049|||||||Paired 2-sided t-test||||Supervised OPLSDA was used to determine the variable importance to projections of metabolites/signals that differentiated the 25% and 100% choline diet arms.|||<0.049
91923533|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.9567|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Betaine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.9567
91923534|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.0899|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Betaine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0899
91923535|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.9003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Betaine IER in Males||||0.9003
91923536|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.9932|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Choline IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.9932
91923537|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.3984|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Choline IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.3984
91923538|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Choline IER in Males||||0.3080
91923539|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.7603|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.7603
91923540|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.2995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.2995
91923541|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Males||||0.0003
91923542|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.1303|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Betaine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.1303
91766352|NCT05104450|183421678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||1.04|0.25|0.001
91766353|NCT05104450|183421679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-0.06|-2.05|0.037
91923543|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Betaine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0015
91923544|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.4185|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Betaine IER in Males||||0.4185
91923545|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.3464|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Choline IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.3464
91923546|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Choline IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0019
91923547|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.2091|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Choline IER in Males||||0.2091
91923548|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.8141|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.8141
91923549|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.0187|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0187
91923550|NCT03726671|183746017|OTHER|||||||0.0107|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Males||||0.0107
91923551|NCT03726671|183746018|OTHER|||||||0.0842|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0842
91923552|NCT03726671|183746018|OTHER|||||||0.0819|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric method was used due to data deviation from normality.||||||0.0819
91923553|NCT03726671|183746018|OTHER|||||||0.9015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9015
91923554|NCT03726671|183746018|OTHER|||||||0.1191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric method was used due to data deviation from normality.||||||0.1191
91923555|NCT03726671|183746019|OTHER|||||||0.2351|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. betaine IER||||0.2351
91923556|NCT03726671|183746019|OTHER|||||||0.4501|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.4501
91923557|NCT03726671|183746019|OTHER|||||||0.4136|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Choline IER||||0.4136
91923558|NCT03726671|183746019|OTHER|||||||0.9463|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Betaine IER||||0.9463
91923559|NCT03726671|183746019|OTHER|||||||0.0675|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.0675
91923560|NCT03726671|183746019|OTHER|||||||0.2863|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Choline IER||||0.2863
91923561|NCT03726671|183746019|OTHER|||||||0.5552|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Betaine IER||||0.5552
91923562|NCT03726671|183746019|OTHER|||||||0.4209|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.4209
91923563|NCT03726671|183746019|OTHER|||||||0.6647|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Choline IER||||0.6647
91923564|NCT04192448|183746021|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.82|26.19|||t-test, 1 sided|This t-test examined the difference in sexual aggression intentions between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A positive value indicates greater likelihood of sexual aggression among those in the Alcohol condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||26.19|-29.82|.28
91923565|NCT04192448|183746021|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.01|35.01|||t-test, 1 sided|This t-test examined the difference in sexual aggression intentions between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition. A negative value indicates greater likelihood of sexual aggression among those in the Control condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||35.01|-33.01|.39
91923566|NCT04192448|183746022|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|2.63|||t-test, 1 sided|This t-test examined the difference in physical aggression intentions between those in the Alcohol Condition and those in the Sober condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A positive value indicates greater likelihood of physical aggression among those in the Alcohol condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||2.63|-2.88|.33
91923567|NCT04192448|183746022|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.88|||t-test, 1 sided|The t-test examined the difference in physical aggression intentions between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition. A negative value indicates greater likelihood of physical aggression among those in the Control condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||2.88|-2.53|.33
91923568|NCT04192448|183746023|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.67|||t-test, 1 sided|The t-test examined differences in psychological aggression intentions between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A positive value indicates greater likelihood of psych aggression among those in the Alcohol condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||6.67|-8.00|.23
91923569|NCT04192448|183746023|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|11.17|||t-test, 1 sided|The t-test examined the difference in psychological aggression intentions between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A negative value indicates greater likelihood of psych aggression among those in the Control condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||11.17|-10.84|.44
91923570|NCT00435539|183746024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4783|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4783
91923571|NCT00435539|183746024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0932|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0932
91923572|NCT00435539|183746024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0721
91923573|NCT00435539|183746025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4762|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4762
91923574|NCT00435539|183746025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4762|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4762
91810647|NCT02850965|183496425|EQUIVALENCE|Protocol defined margins are: \[-18.0%, +18.0%\] for Week 16, 95% confidence interval. Between-imputation variance is zero. Confidence interval is based on one imputed set.|Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|8.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %).|The week 16 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 16)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI. The random error was assumed to be binomially distributed.|8.7|-14.4|
91923575|NCT00435539|183746025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5343|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5343
91923576|NCT00500149|183746037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 1.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91923577|NCT00500149|183746037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 2.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91923578|NCT00500149|183746037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 5.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91810648|NCT02850965|183496426|OTHER|Missing PASI 75 at Week 24 data were imputed using a combination of non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observed carried forward (LOCF).|Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.6|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %).|The week 24 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 24)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI. The random error was assumed to be binomially distributed.|12.6|-8.5|
91923579|NCT00500149|183746037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 7.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91923580|NCT00500149|183746037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91923581|NCT00500149|183746037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91923582|NCT00500149|183746037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 13.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91923583|NCT00500149|183746038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 1.5 hours post-dose||||< 0.0001
91923584|NCT00500149|183746038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 2.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91923585|NCT00500149|183746038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 5.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91923586|NCT00500149|183746038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 7.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91923587|NCT00500149|183746038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91923588|NCT00500149|183746038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.001
91923589|NCT00500149|183746038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 13.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91923590|NCT01157169|183746039|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|110.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.67|120.07|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120.07|101.67|
91923591|NCT01157169|183746040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.74|112.45|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.45|99.74|
91810649|NCT02850965|183496427|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|Difference of Least Squares Means (LSM)= LSM of (BI 695501 - Humira)|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed based on the following model: PASI percentage improvement from baseline at Week 16= Treatment + Baseline PASI +Prior exposure to a biologic agent + random error.||6.0|-2.7|
91923592|NCT01157169|183746041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.18|111.24|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.24|97.18|
91923593|NCT01157169|183746042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|93.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.37|101.93|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.93|85.37|
91923594|NCT01157169|183746043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.44|101.46|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.46|87.44|
91766354|NCT05104450|183421680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.86|-0.12|0.135
91766355|NCT05104450|183421681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.07|-2.01|0.068
91923595|NCT01157169|183746044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.56|104.39|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.39|86.56|
91766356|NCT05104450|183421682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-1.60|-3.83|<0.001
91766357|NCT05104450|183421683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, Charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.89|-1.16|0.401
91923596|NCT02940886|183746045|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority could be claimed if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was above -0.5 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement was used for testing and included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, strata, and the continuous covariates of baseline Hb and baseline Hb-by-week interaction.|"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose treatment group and with N=500 subjects in the iron sucrose treatment group, assuming no difference between the treatment groups and assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 1.5 g/dL, the power was 100% for demonstrating non-inferiority of the change in Hb from baseline to week 8, using a non-inferiority margin of -0.5 g/dL.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.13|-0.13|
91923597|NCT02940886|183746046|OTHER||95% two-sided CI (iron isomaltoside)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.88||||||"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose, the power was 88% to demonstrate that the upper bound of the 95% CI of the incidence of treatment-emergent serious and/or severe non-serious hypersensitivity AEs was less than 3%.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.88|0.06|
91766358|NCT05104450|183421684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-0.04|-0.98|0.034
91810650|NCT02850965|183496428|OTHER|Missing sPGA at Week 16 data were imputed using a combination of non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observed carried forward (LOCF).|Difference in sPGA <= 1 Response Rate|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|19.1|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in sPGA \<= 1 Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %)|The week 16 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 16)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI.|19.1|-4.8|
91810651|NCT02850965|183496429|OTHER|Missing DLQI at Week 16 data were imputed using a combination of non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observed carried forward (LOCF).|Difference in DLQI Response Rate|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.3|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in DLQI (0, 1) Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %)|The week 16 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 16)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI.|11.3|-11.7|
91923598|NCT02940886|183746046|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.71||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the individual trial with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.71|-0.91|
91923599|NCT02940886|183746046|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be claimed if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.5 % point.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the pooled FERWON-IDA and FERWON-NEPHRO trials (2008 subjects treated with iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 1000 subjects treated with iron sucrose) with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.48|-0.57|
91923600|NCT02940886|183746047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5695|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated and confirmed treatment-emergent composite cardiovascular AEs. Any treatment emergent composite cardiovascular AEs were included in the statistical evaluation. The overall incidence of adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was tabulated and compared between the treatment groups by a Fisher's exact test.||||0.5695
91923601|NCT02940886|183746048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3913|||||||Log Rank|||The time to first adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a log-rank test.||||0.3913
91923602|NCT02940886|183746050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.72|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 1~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 1.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||4.72|1.27|0.0077
91766359|NCT05104450|183421685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||0.15|-6.37|0.061
91766360|NCT05104450|183421686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.78|-1.69|0.469
91766361|NCT05104450|183421687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction||Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|1.13|0.42|<0.001
91810652|NCT03178903|183496444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.678||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<.05 was the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Covarying for baseline depressive symptoms and MVPA.||||||.87
91923603|NCT02940886|183746050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.26|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 2~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 2.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||3.26|1.80|<0.0001
91923604|NCT02940886|183746050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.58|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 4~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 4.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.58|0.96|0.1049
91923605|NCT02940886|183746050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.38|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 8~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 8.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.38|0.80|0.7032
91923606|NCT02940886|183746051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Hb response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a 2-sided log-rank test.||||0.0880
91923607|NCT02940886|183746052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of subjects who achieved a Hb level of \>12 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects. The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value.||1.41|0.92|0.2420
91810653|NCT01897402|183496477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.1|||||Serogroup A|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||9.1|-7.9|
91923608|NCT02940886|183746053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||"The proportion of subjects who achieved an increase in Hb concentration ≥2 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose was presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||1.28|0.81|0.8746
91923609|NCT02940886|183746054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|5.71|||Regression, Logistic|||"Proportion of subject who achieved a s-ferritin level of ≥100 ng/mL AND a TSAT of 20-50% at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||5.71|3.58|<0.0001
91923610|NCT02940886|183746055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.34|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.34|0.19|<0.0001
91923611|NCT02940886|183746055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.38|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.38|0.19|<0.0001
91923612|NCT02940886|183746055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.20|-0.02|0.1091
91923613|NCT02940886|183746056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|267.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|246.3|289.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||289.0|246.3|<0.0001
91923614|NCT02940886|183746056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|57.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||57.8|25.6|<0.0001
91766362|NCT05104450|183421688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.89|0.04|0.031
91766363|NCT05104450|183421689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||0.02|-0.21|0.118
91766364|NCT05104450|183421690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.93||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||6.95|0.91|0.011
91766365|NCT05104450|183421691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.93|-0.04|0.074
91810654|NCT01897402|183496477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|2.6|||||Serogroup C|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||2.6|-14.6|
91923615|NCT02940886|183746056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|2.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.2|-20.3|0.1150
91923616|NCT02940886|183746056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.0|-17.7|0.0812
91923617|NCT02940886|183746057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|12.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||12.7|10.1|<0.0001
91923618|NCT02940886|183746057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||3.6|1.2|0.0001
91766366|NCT05104450|183421692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-0.59|-2.82|0.003
91766367|NCT05104450|183421693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.44|-1.84|0.229
91766368|NCT05104450|183421694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-1.29|-3.72|<0.001
91766369|NCT05104450|183421695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.25|-2.30|0.116
91766370|NCT05104450|183421696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.45|-2.35|0.968
91923619|NCT02940886|183746057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.1|0.2|0.0162
91923620|NCT02940886|183746057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.8|0.0|0.0569
91923621|NCT02940886|183746058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.1|49.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||49.3|38.1|<0.0001
91923622|NCT02940886|183746058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||9.8|0.3|0.0375
91923623|NCT02940886|183746058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.3|-4.0|0.6027
91923624|NCT02940886|183746058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.8207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 8 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||3.4|-2.7|0.8207
91923625|NCT02940886|183746059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.01|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||2.01|0.04|0.0422
91923626|NCT02940886|183746059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.66|-1.44|0.4646
91923627|NCT02940886|183746059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.76|-1.39|0.5703
91923628|NCT00474630|183746073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.28|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.34|-2.22|||ANCOVA|||||-2.22|-4.34|<0.001
91923629|NCT00474630|183746074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.71|<0.001
91923630|NCT00474630|183746075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|5.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.50|2.15|<0.001
91923631|NCT00474630|183746076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91766371|NCT05104450|183421697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.17|-0.49|0.218
91923632|NCT00474630|183746077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.84|||ANCOVA|||||4.84|1.80|<0.001
91923633|NCT00474630|183746078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.85||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.21|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-16.21|0.065
91923634|NCT00474630|183746079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.59||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-0.59|-3.57|
91923635|NCT00474630|183746080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.88||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||7.88|1.79|
91923636|NCT00474630|183746081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.04||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||4.04|1.50|
91923637|NCT00474630|183746082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.86||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.86|0.35|
91923638|NCT00474630|183746083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.57||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||7.57|0.27|
91923639|NCT00474630|183746084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|12.67||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||12.67|0.55|
91923640|NCT00474630|183746085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
91923641|NCT00474630|183746086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
91923642|NCT00474630|183746087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.14||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||5.14|1.36|
91923643|NCT00474630|183746088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.51||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||3.51|-0.77|
91923644|NCT00474630|183746089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.62|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
91923645|NCT00474630|183746091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|-0.74||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-0.74|-9.22|
91766372|NCT05104450|183421698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.62|-0.58|0.212
91766373|NCT05104450|183421699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.57|-0.44|0.800
91766374|NCT05104450|183421700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.79|-0.26|0.317
91766375|NCT05104450|183421701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||-0.17|-0.44|<0.001
91766376|NCT05104450|183421702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||0.03|-0.27|0.107
91923646|NCT00474630|183746092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|4.62||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||4.62|-7.48|
91923647|NCT00474630|183746093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.33||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||3.33|-1.02|
91923648|NCT00474630|183746094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.86||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.86|-1.04|
91923649|NCT00474630|183746095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.65||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.65|0.59|
91923650|NCT00474630|183746096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.27||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.27|-0.42|
91923651|NCT00474630|183746097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-0.76|0.85||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.85|-0.76|
91923652|NCT00591227|183746114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.58
91923653|NCT01873742|183746132|OTHER|The BDI's Cronbach's alpha was .93 at start of therapy, and .95 at the end of therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91923654|NCT00942708|183746153|OTHER|Single group evaluation of change in PVR between 12 weeks and baseline (T-test for one group, 2-sided, p\<0.05 considered significant)||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.09
91923655|NCT00995371|183746240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||3.96|1.09|<0.05
91923656|NCT00995371|183746240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||1.55|-1.43|>0.05
91923657|NCT00995371|183746241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|19.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||19.31|3.35|<0.05
91923658|NCT00995371|183746241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.65|||>|0.05||95.0|-4.12|15.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||15.41|-4.12|>0.05
91923659|NCT00995371|183746242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.05||95.0|0.61|3.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||3.77|0.61|<0.05
91923660|NCT00995371|183746242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||>|0.05||95.0|-0.66|2.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||2.66|-0.66|>0.05
91766377|NCT05104450|183421703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.07||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||7.27|0.86|0.013
91923661|NCT00995371|183746243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.13|||<|0.05||95.0|7.43|24.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||24.83|7.43|<0.05
91923662|NCT00995371|183746243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|||>|0.05||95.0|-1.24|13.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||13.58|-1.24|>0.05
91766378|NCT05104450|183421704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.11||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||6.42|-0.20|0.065
91923663|NCT01462292|183746257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.946||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.122|21.229||Due to the two comparisons for the two different doses, the type 1 error rate (5% overall) was preserved by utilizing a hierarchical approach, testing the 6mg/kg GSK2402968 dose first|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, centre grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||21.229|-39.122|0.554
91923664|NCT01462292|183746257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.099||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|56.408||Due to the two comparisons for the two different doses, the type 1 error rate (5% overall) was preserved by utilising a hierarchical approach, testing the 6mg/kg GSK2402968 dose first|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, centre grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||56.408|-2.210|0.069
91923665|NCT01462292|183746258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.387||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|2.392||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||2.392|-1.618|0.699
91923666|NCT01462292|183746258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.831||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.072|2.735||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||2.735|-1.072|0.384
91923667|NCT01462292|183746259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.883|0.886||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment,centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 3 mg/kg/week, Ascent Week 24||0.886|-0.883|0.997
91923668|NCT01462292|183746259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.803||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.655|0.048||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 6 mg/kg/week, Ascent, Week 24||0.048|-1.655|0.064
91923669|NCT01462292|183746259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.685||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.033|0.662||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 3 mg/kg/week, Descent Week 24||0.662|-2.033|0.311
91923670|NCT01462292|183746259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.412||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.702|0.878||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 6 mg/kg/week, Descent Week 24||0.878|-1.702|0.523
91923671|NCT01462292|183746260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.564||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.127||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||1.127|0.000|0.050
91923672|NCT01462292|183746260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.571||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, center grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||0.571|-0.498|0.890
91923673|NCT01462292|183746261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.356||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.936|15.648||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model includes terms for Treatment, Centre Grouping and Baseline Muscle Strength Total Score||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||15.648|-10.936|0.723
91923674|NCT01462292|183746261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.821||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.034|13.676||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model includes terms for Treatment, Centre Grouping and Baseline Muscle Strength Total Score||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6mg||13.676|-12.034|0.898
91923675|NCT01462292|183746263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.92||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, center grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||1.92|-2.90|0.684
91923676|NCT01462292|183746263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|2.12||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, center grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||2.12|-2.49|0.873
91923677|NCT01462292|183746265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-892.88||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4391.1|2605.35||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg, Week 24||2605.35|-4391.10|0.610
91923678|NCT01462292|183746265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2054.86||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5587.33|1477.6||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg, Week 48||1477.60|-5587.33|0.248
91766379|NCT05104450|183421705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.63||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||-0.14|-7.11|0.041
91923679|NCT01462292|183746265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1305.46||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4668.41|2057.48||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg, Week 24||2057.48|-4668.41|0.439
91923680|NCT01462292|183746265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|167.39||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3208.98|3543.77||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg, Week 48||3543.77|-3208.98|0.921
91923681|NCT01462292|183746272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|7.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Regression, Logistic|Model includes terms for Treatment and Centre Grouping||Placebo (combined), GSK2402968 3 mg/kg/week||7.01|0.02|0.541
91923682|NCT01462292|183746272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|4.27||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Regression, Logistic|Model includes terms for Treatment and Centre Grouping||Placebo (combined), GSK2402968 6 mg/kg/week||4.27|0.03|0.417
91923683|NCT01282814|183746311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|115.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.45|123.72|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.72|108.45|
91923684|NCT01282814|183746312|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|109.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.68|116.63|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||116.63|103.68|
91923685|NCT01282814|183746313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.45|111.71|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.71|101.45|
91923686|NCT02519231|183746316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05|t-test, 2 sided|For days with bleeding/spotting outcomes, we used independent t-tests to compare the unadjusted mean difference between groups.|Treatment Difference = Naproxen - Placebo|We originally planned to enroll 60 subjects based on other similar studies that evaluated treatment for bleeding among women using contraception; as reported by Cohen et al., a sample size of 42 provided 80% power to detect a difference of 7 bleeding/spotting days in 30 days by two-sample t-test, allowing for an expected 20% drop-out.|We designed the study to include another site, in addition to the UW site enrolled participants. After 6 months of failed active recruitment at the other site, we discontinued that site from the study. Resources did not permit us to contract with an alternative recruitment site, and thus the protocol was revised to enroll 32 participants at the Seattle site only.|||.11
91923687|NCT02519231|183746317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91766380|NCT01584232|183421706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was \<0.4%, then LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to insulin glargine. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0.0%, then LY2189265 was declared superior to insulin glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.41||P-value is from the pairwise comparison of LS means using a mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 360 participants were to be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to LY2189265 or insulin glargine (IG). Assuming no difference in HbA1c change from baseline at Week 26 between LY2189265 and IG, this sample size would provide approximately 90% power to confirm non-inferiority of LY2189265 to IG. This computation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 0.4% with a standard deviation of 1.1%, a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, and an 11% dropout rate between randomization and Week 26.||-0.41|-0.67|<0.001
91766381|NCT01584232|183421707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91766382|NCT01584232|183421707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7%.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91766383|NCT01584232|183421708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.7|-1.7|0.183
91766384|NCT01584232|183421709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.56||Treatment comparison for pre-morning meal.|ANCOVA|||||9.56|0.76|0.022
91766385|NCT01584232|183421709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.28|-4.52||Treatment comparison for 2 hours post-morning meal.|ANCOVA|||||-4.52|-22.28|0.003
91766386|NCT01584232|183421709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.22||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-1.06||Treatment comparison for pre-midday meal.|ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-15.37|0.025
91766387|NCT01584232|183421709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.92|-14.51||Treatment comparison for 2 hours post-midday meal.|ANCOVA|||||-14.51|-31.92|<0.001
91766388|NCT01584232|183421709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.03|-6.24||Treatment comparison for pre-evening meal.|ANCOVA|||||-6.24|-21.03|<0.001
91766389|NCT01584232|183421709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.26|-23.0||Treatment comparison for 2 hours post-evening meal.|ANCOVA|||||-23.00|-39.26|<0.001
91766390|NCT01584232|183421709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-15.79||Treatment comparison for bedtime.|ANCOVA|||||-15.79|-31.68|<0.001
91766391|NCT01584232|183421709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.21||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|10.5||Treatment comparison for second pre-morning meal.|ANCOVA|||||10.50|1.92|0.005
91766392|NCT01584232|183421710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.89|<0.001
91766393|NCT01584232|183421711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91766394|NCT01307319|183421712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
91766395|NCT01307319|183421712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91766396|NCT01307319|183421713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||The power calculation assumed the standard deviation (SD) for the change from baseline over two weeks in the average of AM and PM reflective TNSS is assumed to be 2.0. Using this standard deviation, 235 subjects per arm provides 90% power to detect a difference of 0.60 in TNSS change from baseline between treatment groups with a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
91923688|NCT01707147|183746355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.71|||Paired t-test||p-value of paired t-test for change from baseline is presented. 95% confidence interval for the mean was calculated using t-distribution.|||-0.71|-0.83|<0.0001
91923689|NCT01707147|183746358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|-15.12|||Paired t-test||p-value of paired t-test for change from baseline is presented. 95% confidence interval for the mean was calculated using t-distribution.|||-15.12|-20.98|<0.0001
91923690|NCT00663858|183746427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.592|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.894|0.709|||ANOVA|||||0.709|-1.894|0.371
91923691|NCT00663858|183746427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-709.0|2.132|||ANCOVA|||||2.132|-0709|0.3253
91923692|NCT00663858|183746427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.542|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||||-0.106|-2.542|0.0333
91923693|NCT05099991|183746537|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated with a mean increase in procedure of 5 minutes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.2||||||||8.2|-7.8|
91923694|NCT05099991|183746538|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
91923695|NCT01954628|183746539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|23.7||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.3|175.7||AAC were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance model adjusting for treatment and region as factors and including the baseline score as a covariate.|ANOVA|||Sample size based on area above the daily EXACT score curve (AAC) from Day 1 to Day 29 from subjects with an acute COPD exacerbation, collected over 28 days. Assuming a residual SD of 500 points, a sample size of 200 subjects per arm would be expected to have an 80% power to detect a true treatment difference in the AAC of 140 points over 12-weeks treatment, using a 2-sided test; alpha-level of 0.05.This difference corresponds to a mean daily improvement of 1.67 points on the EXACT symptom score||175.7|-128.3|0.759
91923696|NCT01954628|183746540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-0.34||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.89|||ANOVA|||ANOVA model with fixed factors treatment, region and baseline total CAT score as covariate were used. Missing post-treatment data were imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward principle.||0.89|-1.57|0.588
91923697|NCT01954628|183746541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|1.083||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.52|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with fixed factors treatment, region and time in study as offset.||The number of subjects with at least one COPD exacerbation were summarised by treatment group.||1.520|0.771|0.646
91766397|NCT01307319|183421713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91766398|NCT02152631|183421732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.219|||Stratified Log-Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated based on Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|The stratification factors used in the analysis were: number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus 2), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Score (PS) (0 versus 1), gender (male versus female), and kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) mutation (GLY12CYS \[G12C\] vs. all others)||1.219|0.768|0.771
91923698|NCT01954628|183746544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||Missing post-treatment data was imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward principle.||||0.226
91923699|NCT00958568|183746546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Power estimate assumes approximately 1230 participants enter SPII. With a 60% drop-out/disqualification rate in SPII, then 492 participants enter SPIII. If 26% of participants drop out during SPIII, then 364 participants enter SPIV. Assuming 20% drop-out rate, 25% relapse rate on OFC and 40% relapse rate for fluoxetine (hazard ratio = 0.56), the log-rank test is 80% powered to detect a difference at a 2-sided 0.05 level. A total of 95 relapse events during SPIV should satisfy these assumptions.||||<0.001
91923700|NCT00958568|183746547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||<0.001
91923701|NCT00958568|183746548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||<0.001
91923702|NCT00958568|183746549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||0.713
91923703|NCT00958568|183746550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||<0.001
91923704|NCT00958568|183746551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91923705|NCT00958568|183746552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.831
91923706|NCT00958568|183746553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91923707|NCT00958568|183746557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Remission rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||0.047
91923708|NCT00958568|183746558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|-1.36||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||-1.36|-4.46|<0.001
91923709|NCT00958568|183746559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-2.24||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment and country.||||-2.24|-5.39|<0.001
91923710|NCT00958568|183746560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.12||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||-0.12|-0.55|0.002
91923711|NCT00958568|183746563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.53||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment and country.||||-0.53|-3.36|0.007
91923712|NCT00958568|183746564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91923713|NCT00958568|183746565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.248
91923714|NCT00958568|183746566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91923715|NCT00958568|183746567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|7.89||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||7.89|-9.71|0.839
91923716|NCT00958568|183746568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||P-value is for Borderline to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
91923717|NCT00958568|183746568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Borderline. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91766399|NCT02152631|183421733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus 2), ECOG PS (0 versus 1), gender (male versus female), and KRAS mutation (GLY12CYS \[G12C\] vs. all others)||||0.010
91766400|NCT02152631|183421734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.723|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.723|0.470|<0.000001
91923718|NCT00958568|183746568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91923719|NCT00958568|183746569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|6.54||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||6.54|-9.69|0.703
91923720|NCT00958568|183746570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||P-value is for Borderline to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.139
91923721|NCT00958568|183746570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Borderline. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.746
91923722|NCT00958568|183746570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.458
91923723|NCT00958568|183746571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|-1.47||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||-1.47|-5.99|0.001
91923724|NCT00958568|183746572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91923725|NCT00958568|183746573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91923726|NCT00958568|183746574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|28.26||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||28.26|-1.72|0.083
91923727|NCT00958568|183746575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value is for Borderline to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
91923728|NCT00958568|183746575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Borderline. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
91923729|NCT00958568|183746575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.054
91923730|NCT00958568|183746576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|9.56||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||9.56|2.22|0.002
91923731|NCT00958568|183746577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value is for Impaired to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
91923732|NCT00958568|183746577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91923733|NCT00958568|183746577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Impaired. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.344
91923734|NCT00958568|183746577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||P-value is for Normal/Impaired to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.072
91923735|NCT00958568|183746578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|4.88||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||4.88|2.96|<0.001
91923736|NCT00958568|183746579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91923737|NCT00958568|183746580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0||||P-value is for suicidal ideation. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.392
91923738|NCT00958568|183746581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|2.27||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||2.27|-5.42|0.421
91766401|NCT02152631|183421735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Headache||0.29|-0.44|0.698
91766402|NCT02152631|183421735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Diarrhea||1.15|0.03|0.038
91923739|NCT00117338|183746607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.775||95.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.08|-0.06|0.775
91923740|NCT00117338|183746608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.931||95.0|-0.41|0.45|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.45|-0.41|0.931
91923741|NCT00117338|183746609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.975||95.0|0.61|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||1.61|0.61|0.975
91766403|NCT02152631|183421735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Rash||-1.86|-2.94|<.001
91923742|NCT00117338|183746610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.612||95.0|-0.05|0.09|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.09|-0.05|0.612
91923743|NCT00117338|183746611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.774||95.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.08|-0.06|0.774
91923744|NCT00117338|183746612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.173||95.0|-0.02|0.11|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.11|-0.02|0.173
91923745|NCT00117338|183746613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model (Nonparametric) based on Tukey's normalized ranks with terms treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||||0.580
91923746|NCT01380093|183746614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-18.1||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least square (LS) mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-18.1|-31.7|<0.0001
91923747|NCT01380093|183746614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|18.6||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||18.6|5.1|0.0009
91923748|NCT01380093|183746614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|43.6||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||43.6|30.0|<0.0001
91923749|NCT01380093|183746615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-11.1||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence. Planned power of at least 89% assumed a mean difference of 15 to 30 points and a standard deviation of paired differences of 15 to 20 points, with conservative multiple comparison adjustment for alpha of 0.025.||-11.1|-20.2|<0.0001
91923750|NCT01380093|183746615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|18.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||18.0|8.9|<0.0001
91923751|NCT01380093|183746615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|33.7||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.7|24.6|<0.0001
91923752|NCT01380093|183746616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-41.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-41.0|-61.2|<0.0001
91923753|NCT01380093|183746616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|34.6||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||34.6|14.5|<0.0001
91923754|NCT01380093|183746616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|75.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.6|85.8||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||85.8|65.6|<0.0001
91923755|NCT01380093|183746617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-6.0|-11.8|<0.0001
91923756|NCT01380093|183746617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||8.1|2.3|0.0006
91923757|NCT01380093|183746617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||17.0|11.2|<0.0001
91923758|NCT01380093|183746618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-35.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.5|-62.0|<0.0001
91923759|NCT01380093|183746618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|42.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||42.3|15.8|<0.0001
91766404|NCT02152631|183421735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Core Symptom Severity||0.08|-0.56|0.142
91923760|NCT01380093|183746618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|77.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.5|91.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||91.0|64.5|<0.0001
91923761|NCT01380093|183746619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-68.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|-42.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-42.2|-95.0|<0.0001
91923762|NCT01380093|183746619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|82.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||82.8|30.1|<0.0001
91923763|NCT01380093|183746619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|125.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.7|151.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||151.5|98.7|<0.0001
91923764|NCT01380093|183746620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-76.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.8|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-39.2|-112.8|0.0001
91766405|NCT02152631|183421735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of square, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Interference||0.30|-0.59|0.514
91923765|NCT01380093|183746620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|66.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|103.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||103.2|29.8|0.0006
91923766|NCT01380093|183746620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|142.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.7|179.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||179.3|105.7|<0.0001
91766406|NCT02152631|183421735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Lung Cancer||0.23|-0.37|0.646
91923767|NCT01380093|183746621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-86.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.9|-136.5|0.0011
91923768|NCT01380093|183746621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.8||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||120.0|19.7|0.0071
91923769|NCT01380093|183746621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|156.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.7|206.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||206.3|105.7|<0.0001
91923770|NCT01380093|183746622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.7|-0.6|0.1254
91766407|NCT02152631|183421735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Core Plus Lung Cancer||0.10|-0.51|0.188
91923771|NCT01380093|183746622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.4592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.6|-3.6|0.4592
91923772|NCT01380093|183746622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.4|-5.6|0.0251
91923773|NCT01380093|183746623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-11.0|-19.9|<0.0001
91923774|NCT01380093|183746623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||13.7|4.8|<0.0001
91923775|NCT01380093|183746623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|29.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||29.1|20.3|<0.0001
91923776|NCT01380093|183746624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-116.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.5|-95.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-95.7|-136.5|<0.0001
91923777|NCT01380093|183746624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|59.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.3|80.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||80.1|39.3|<0.0001
91923778|NCT01380093|183746624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|175.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|155.4|196.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||196.2|155.4|<0.0001
91923779|NCT01380093|183746625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-202.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.0|-165.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-165.3|-239.0|<0.0001
91923780|NCT01380093|183746625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|122.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|159.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||159.2|85.7|<0.0001
91923781|NCT01380093|183746625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|324.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|287.7|361.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||361.5|287.7|<0.0001
91923782|NCT01380093|183746626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-253.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-301.5|-204.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-204.5|-301.5|<0.0001
91923783|NCT01380093|183746626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|151.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.5|200.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||200.2|103.5|<0.0001
91923784|NCT01380093|183746626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|404.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|356.4|453.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||453.3|356.4|<0.0001
91923785|NCT01380093|183746627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-306.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-370.9|-242.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-242.6|-370.9|<0.0001
91923786|NCT01380093|183746627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|168.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.7|232.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||232.6|104.7|<0.0001
91923787|NCT01380093|183746627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|475.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|411.3|539.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||539.6|411.3|<0.0001
91923788|NCT01380093|183746628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.0|-0.6|0.5607
91923789|NCT01380093|183746628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.8|1.2|<0.0001
91923790|NCT01380093|183746628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.6|1.0|<0.0001
91923791|NCT01380093|183746629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-10.3|-20.3|<0.0001
91766408|NCT02152631|183421737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed By Type 3 sums of squares, Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||||0.05|-0.05|0.951
91766409|NCT03776747|183421742|OTHER|Analysis of variance between lung inflation levels|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized that the anisotropic deformation index (ADC) is dependent upon lung inflation level. (Thus, it is important to standardize lung inflation when using this method)||||<0.001
91766410|NCT00527735|183421746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.174|||1-sided log rank|||||1.174|0.553|0.1302
91923792|NCT01380093|183746629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||16.2|6.3|<0.0001
91766411|NCT00527735|183421746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.724||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.059|||1-sided log rank|||||1.059|0.495|0.0473
91923793|NCT01380093|183746629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|31.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||31.5|21.5|<0.0001
91923794|NCT01380093|183746630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.9|-59.5|<0.0001
91923795|NCT01380093|183746630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||40.1|16.5|<0.0001
91923796|NCT01380093|183746630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|76.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|87.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||87.8|64.2|<0.0001
91923797|NCT01380093|183746631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-109.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.9|-85.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-85.6|-132.9|<0.0001
91923798|NCT01380093|183746631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|67.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|90.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||90.6|43.5|<0.0001
91923799|NCT01380093|183746631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|176.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|152.6|199.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||199.9|152.6|<0.0001
91923800|NCT01380093|183746632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-190.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-234.2|-147.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-147.3|-234.2|<0.0001
91766412|NCT00527735|183421747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.2502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.271|||One-sided log rank|||||1.271|0.612|0.2502
91766413|NCT00527735|183421747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|0.999|||One-sided log rank|||||0.999|0.478|0.0240
91766414|NCT00527735|183421748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.46|||1-sided log rank|||||1.460|0.669|0.4759
91766415|NCT00527735|183421748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.278|||1-sided log rank|||||1.278|0.587|0.2340
91766416|NCT00527735|183421755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|1.188|||1-sided log rank|||||1.188|0.475|0.1098
91766417|NCT00527735|183421755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|1.1016|||1-sided log rank|||||1.1016|0.403|0.0282
91766418|NCT00527735|183421764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.481|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.481|0.588|0.3846
91766419|NCT00527735|183421764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.453|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.453|0.591|0.3700
91923801|NCT01380093|183746632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|134.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|178.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||178.0|91.5|<0.0001
91923802|NCT01380093|183746632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|325.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.1|368.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||368.9|282.1|<0.0001
91923803|NCT01380093|183746633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-244.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-302.0|-187.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-187.7|-302.0|<0.0001
91923804|NCT01380093|183746633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|166.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.5|223.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||223.5|109.5|<0.0001
91923805|NCT01380093|183746633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|411.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|354.3|468.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||468.6|354.3|<0.0001
91923806|NCT01380093|183746634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-310.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-384.5|-235.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-235.5|-384.5|<0.0001
91923807|NCT01380093|183746634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.8|259.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||259.5|110.8|<0.0001
91923808|NCT01380093|183746634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|495.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|420.6|569.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||569.7|420.6|<0.0001
91923809|NCT01380093|183746635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|-22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-22.3|-38.7|<0.0001
91923810|NCT01380093|183746635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|39.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||39.0|22.6|<0.0001
91923811|NCT01380093|183746635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|69.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||69.5|53.1|<0.0001
91923812|NCT01380093|183746636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.8|-1.0|0.8671
91923813|NCT01380093|183746636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.7|0.9|0.0001
91923814|NCT01380093|183746636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.8|1.0|<0.0001
91923815|NCT01380093|183746637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.0|-17.0|<0.0001
91923816|NCT01380093|183746637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||12.8|4.8|<0.0001
91923817|NCT01380093|183746637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||25.8|17.8|<0.0001
91923818|NCT01380093|183746638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-35.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.3|-55.3|<0.0001
91923819|NCT01380093|183746638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|34.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||34.5|14.6|<0.0001
91923820|NCT01380093|183746638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|79.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||79.8|59.9|<0.0001
91766420|NCT00527735|183421767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|1.536|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.536|0.585|0.4132
91766421|NCT00527735|183421767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753||||0.1287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.232|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.232|0.461|0.1287
91766422|NCT02271698|183421804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||||||6 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
91923821|NCT01380093|183746639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-109.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.3|-88.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-88.8|-129.3|<0.0001
91766423|NCT02271698|183421804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||||||6 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.064
91766424|NCT02271698|183421804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|12 hour pain at rest||||||0.139
91766425|NCT02271698|183421804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||12 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350
91766426|NCT02271698|183421804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||18 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
91766427|NCT02271698|183421804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||||||18 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.198
91766428|NCT02271698|183421804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.806|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour pain at rest||||||0.806
91766429|NCT02271698|183421804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||||||24 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.228
91766430|NCT02271698|183421804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||||||36 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.457
91766431|NCT02271698|183421804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||||||36 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.394
91766432|NCT02271698|183421805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||||||6 hours|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
91766433|NCT02271698|183421805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||||||12 hours|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.364
91766434|NCT02271698|183421805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|18 hours||||||0.605
91766435|NCT02271698|183421805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hours||||||0.733
91766436|NCT02271698|183421805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||36 hours|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.600
91766437|NCT01507688|183421841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models adjusted for: VA vs Non Va, admission diagnosis (transient ischemic attack vs stroke), sex (male vs female), white vs nonwhite, and baseline total Stroke Specific Quality of life score.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measurements of change GEE analyses of Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life score change at 6 months from baseline.|The adjusted positive mean (standard error) change at 6 months from baseline was higher in the intervention arm compared to in the control arm. Intervention group had 0.14 (SE 0.17) higher improvement compared to the control group.|"All the sample size calculations were powered at 80% with a 5% Type I error. We estimated based on our pilot study a change difference of 0.25 on Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life in the intervention group compared to no change in the control group at 6 months. Our power calculations estimated a sample of 226 (113) per group was needed to detect this effect. We used primary outcome row Mean Change from 0 to 6 months for this analysis."||||0.0500
91766438|NCT01507688|183421841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted least square means (standard errors) adjusted for treatment (Intervention vs control), time of outcome from baseline (3, 6, 12 months), baseline SSQoL, Site (VA vs NonVA), Stroke/TIA diagnosis, sex (m vs f) and race (white vs nonwhite).|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted intervention arm's positive change (regression coefficient with standard error) in Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life was not significantly different at 12 months compared to the control group.|"We evaluated the mean difference on Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life compared to baseline between the intervention and control groups at 12 months using repeated measures ANCOVA models. We used primary outcome row Mean change from 0 to 12 months for this analysis."||||0.26
91766439|NCT02107703|183421842|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.681||This is two sided P value and it is statistically significant.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by endocrine sensitivity and natural of disease by interactive web response system (IWRS).||The final analysis was planned at 378 PFS events, which would provide approximately 90% power assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.703 at a one-sided α of 0.025.||0.681|0.449|<0.0000001
91766440|NCT00964496|183421863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in proportions|0.677||||1.3e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|0.807||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants whose rebleeds decreased from baseline by ≥ 50% at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants whose rebleeds decreased from baseline by ≥ 50% at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test."||0.807|0.547|0.00000013
91890455|NCT01262677|183674004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep disturbance score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||4.6|-4.0|0.8971
91890456|NCT01262677|183674005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: snoring score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||3.6|-9.1|0.3972
91890457|NCT01262677|183674005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.7||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: snoring score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||12.9|0.6|0.0319
91890458|NCT01262677|183674006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: awaken short of breath or with headache score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||5.9|-4.4|0.7708
91923822|NCT01380093|183746639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|80.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||80.4|39.9|<0.0001
91923823|NCT01380093|183746639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|169.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|148.9|189.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||189.5|148.9|<0.0001
91923824|NCT01380093|183746640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-207.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.0|-172.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-172.1|-242.0|<0.0001
91923825|NCT01380093|183746640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|118.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.9|153.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||153.5|83.9|<0.0001
91923826|NCT01380093|183746640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|325.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|290.8|360.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||360.7|290.8|<0.0001
91923827|NCT01380093|183746641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-268.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-313.2|-223.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-223.2|-313.2|<0.0001
91923828|NCT01380093|183746641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|147.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.1|191.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||191.9|102.1|<0.0001
91923829|NCT01380093|183746641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|415.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|370.2|460.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||460.2|370.2|<0.0001
91766441|NCT00964496|183421864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-2.13||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in hemoglobin level at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in hemoglobin level at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||-2.13|-4.02|<0.001
91766442|NCT00964496|183421865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.95|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|9.9||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding episodes at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding episodes at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||9.90|6.00|<0.01
91923830|NCT01380093|183746642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-336.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.4|-276.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-276.6|-395.4|<0.0001
91923831|NCT01380093|183746642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|165.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.4|224.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||224.8|106.4|<0.0001
91923832|NCT01380093|183746642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|501.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|442.2|561.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||561.0|442.2|<0.0001
91923833|NCT01380093|183746643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-26.8|-40.7|<0.0001
91923834|NCT01380093|183746643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|33.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.6|19.7|<0.0001
91923835|NCT01380093|183746643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.4|67.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||67.4|53.4|<0.0001
91923836|NCT01380093|183746644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.3|-0.4|0.3345
91923837|NCT01380093|183746644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.3|1.5|<0.0001
91923838|NCT01380093|183746644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.8|1.1|<0.0001
91766443|NCT00964496|183421866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.0002474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|6.64||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding duration at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding duration at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||6.64|2.15|0.00024740
91766444|NCT00964496|183421867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in proportions|-0.374||||0.00298881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|-0.185||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants dependent on blood transfusions.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants dependent on blood transfusions.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test."||-0.185|-0.563|0.00298881
91890459|NCT01262677|183674006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.4||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: awaken short of breath or with headache score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||7.4|-2.7|0.3560
91890460|NCT01262677|183674007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: quantity of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||0.5|-0.1|0.1129
91890461|NCT01262677|183674007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: quantity of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||0.3|-0.3|0.9388
91890462|NCT01262677|183674008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep adequacy score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||6.6|-7.5|0.9053
91890463|NCT01262677|183674008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.6371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.2||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep adequacy score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||5.2|-8.5|0.6371
91890464|NCT01262677|183674009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-1.4||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep somnolence score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||-1.4|-11.4|0.0119
91890465|NCT01262677|183674009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep somnolence score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||4.8|-4.9|0.9909
91890466|NCT01262677|183674010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index I score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||2.8|-5.0|0.5903
91890467|NCT01262677|183674010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.7126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index I score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||4.5|-3.1|0.7126
91890468|NCT01262677|183674011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index II score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||1.5|-5.8|0.2431
91890469|NCT01262677|183674011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index II score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||3.8|-3.2|0.8654
91890470|NCT01262677|183674012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used to calculate the p-value, with the fixed effects for sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR), average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, and optimal sleep at Week 14 as dependent variable. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||2.50|0.74|0.3241
91923839|NCT01380093|183746645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.0|-2.0|0.0453
91923840|NCT01380093|183746645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.3|-0.7|0.5637
91923841|NCT01380093|183746645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.3|0.3|0.0110
91923842|NCT01380093|183746646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.9||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.6|-8.2|0.0041
91923843|NCT01380093|183746646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.3|-1.2|0.2178
91923844|NCT01380093|183746646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||10.3|3.7|<0.0001
91923845|NCT01380093|183746647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.9|-28.8|0.0001
91923846|NCT01380093|183746647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||16.3|-2.6|0.1510
91923847|NCT01380093|183746647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|35.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||35.7|16.8|<0.0001
91923848|NCT01380093|183746648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-34.4|-75.9|<0.0001
91923849|NCT01380093|183746648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.5||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||39.2|-2.2|0.0796
91923850|NCT01380093|183746648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|73.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|94.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||94.4|52.9|<0.0001
91923851|NCT01380093|183746649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.9|-52.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-52.7|-112.9|<0.0001
91923852|NCT01380093|183746649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.9||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||56.9|-3.1|0.0780
91923853|NCT01380093|183746649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|109.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.6|139.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||139.8|79.6|<0.0001
91923854|NCT01380093|183746650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-111.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.7|-70.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-70.2|-153.7|<0.0001
91923855|NCT01380093|183746650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.9||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|75.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||75.5|-7.8|0.1089
91923856|NCT01380093|183746650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|145.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.1|187.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||187.5|104.1|<0.0001
91923857|NCT01380093|183746651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-8.6|-18.8|<0.0001
91923858|NCT01380093|183746651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.0||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||11.1|0.9|0.0215
91923859|NCT01380093|183746651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|24.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||24.8|14.6|<0.0001
91923860|NCT01380093|183746652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.0|-3.6|0.0007
91923861|NCT01380093|183746652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.6|0.0|0.0455
91923862|NCT01380093|183746652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.9|2.3|<0.0001
91923863|NCT01380093|183746653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.3|-0.9|0.3749
91923864|NCT01380093|183746653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.7939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.7|-0.5|0.7939
91923865|NCT01380093|183746653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.0|-0.3|0.2524
91923866|NCT01380093|183746654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.5|-3.8|0.1211
91923867|NCT01380093|183746654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.5|-0.7|0.1997
91923868|NCT01380093|183746654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.2|0.9|0.0057
91923869|NCT01380093|183746655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.8||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.0|-16.7|0.0057
91923870|NCT01380093|183746655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.5||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||11.4|-2.3|0.1918
91923871|NCT01380093|183746655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||21.2|7.5|<0.0001
91923872|NCT01380093|183746656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|-12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-12.9|-50.2|0.0013
91810655|NCT01897402|183496477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|7.9|||||Serogroup Y|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||7.9|-9.9|
91766445|NCT00964496|183421868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1557.14|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1294.53|1819.76||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in total transfused red cell requirements at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in total transfused red cell requirements at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||1819.76|1294.53|<0.01
91923873|NCT01380093|183746656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.9||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|33.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.5|-3.7|0.1136
91923874|NCT01380093|183746656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|65.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||65.1|27.8|<0.0001
91923875|NCT01380093|183746657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.2|-24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-24.0|-83.2|0.0006
91923876|NCT01380093|183746657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.2||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|52.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||52.7|-6.3|0.1207
91923877|NCT01380093|183746657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|76.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|106.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||106.4|47.3|<0.0001
91923878|NCT01380093|183746658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-75.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.6|-33.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-33.0|-118.6|0.0008
91923879|NCT01380093|183746658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.8||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|74.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||74.5|-10.8|0.1410
91923880|NCT01380093|183746658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|107.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.9|150.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||150.5|64.9|<0.0001
91923881|NCT01380093|183746659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-5.6|-14.4|<0.0001
91923882|NCT01380093|183746659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||8.7|-0.1|0.0529
91923883|NCT01380093|183746659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||18.7|9.9|<0.0001
91766446|NCT00964496|183421869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in proportions|0.464||||3.962e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.649|||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the cessation of bleeding.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the cessation of bleeding.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test."||0.649|0.28|0.00003962
91766447|NCT04308941|183421881|OTHER|The mean and standard deviation was analyzed.||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91923884|NCT01380093|183746660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.2|-3.8|0.0806
91923885|NCT01380093|183746660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.2769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.1|-0.9|0.2769
91766448|NCT02230566|183421882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-64.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.66|-59.98||P-values are from GEE model including baseline value, and the post UX003 Treatment Week as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within participants was assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE|||||-59.98|-69.66|< 0.0001
91766449|NCT02230566|183421883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0527|||||||t-test|"P value from t-test of no change (0 change) from baseline"||||||0.0527
91766450|NCT02230566|183421884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|20.8||||0.2137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|53.7||P-values are from GEE model including baseline value, and the post UX003 Treatment Week as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within participants was assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE|||||53.7|-12.0|0.2137
91766451|NCT02230566|183421887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.5||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|3.0|||GEE|||Shoulder Flexion - Left||3.0|-16.1|0.1778
91923886|NCT01380093|183746660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.0|0.9|0.0056
91923887|NCT01380093|183746661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.2|-1.7|0.1100
91923888|NCT01380093|183746661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.9|-1.0|0.9421
91923889|NCT01380093|183746661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.7|-0.2|0.1266
91766452|NCT02230566|183421887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.5||||0.7632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.0|||GEE|||Shoulder Extension - Left||8.0|-10.9|0.7632
91766453|NCT02230566|183421887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.8||||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|5.1|||GEE|||Shoulder Flexion - Right||5.1|-8.8|0.6034
91766454|NCT02230566|183421887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.4||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.4|||GEE|||Shoulder Extension - Right||3.4|-10.2|0.3332
91923890|NCT01380093|183746662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.2|-5.3|0.0723
91923891|NCT01380093|183746662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.8|-1.7|0.4515
91923892|NCT01380093|183746662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||6.4|0.8|0.0121
91923893|NCT01380093|183746663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.3|-18.7|0.0059
91923894|NCT01380093|183746663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||11.8|-3.5|0.2800
91923895|NCT01380093|183746663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||22.8|7.5|0.0002
91923896|NCT01380093|183746664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-18.6|-54.8|0.0001
91923897|NCT01380093|183746664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.2||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||31.2|-4.8|0.1488
91923898|NCT01380093|183746664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|67.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||67.9|31.8|<0.0001
91923899|NCT01380093|183746665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.5|-31.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-31.6|-88.5|<0.0001
91923900|NCT01380093|183746665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.4||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|48.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||48.7|-8.0|0.1556
91923901|NCT01380093|183746665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|80.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|108.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||108.9|52.0|<0.0001
91923902|NCT01380093|183746666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-84.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.8|-43.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-43.2|-124.8|0.0001
91923903|NCT01380093|183746666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.4||||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|68.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||68.1|-13.3|0.1826
91923904|NCT01380093|183746666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|111.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.6|152.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||152.2|70.6|<0.0001
91923905|NCT01380093|183746667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-7.0|-16.4|<0.0001
91923906|NCT01380093|183746667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||8.9|-0.5|0.0811
91923907|NCT01380093|183746667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||20.6|11.1|<0.0001
91923908|NCT01380093|183746668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.1|-3.8|0.0007
91923909|NCT01380093|183746668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.3|-0.4|0.1631
91923910|NCT01380093|183746668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.8|2.1|<0.0001
91923911|NCT01380093|183746669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.7|-3.1|0.2117
91766455|NCT02230566|183421887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.4||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-0.4|||GEE|||Tighter Shoulder Flexion||-0.4|-18.4|0.0415
91923912|NCT01380093|183746669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.0|0.2|0.0345
91923913|NCT01380093|183746669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.2|1.4|0.0011
91923914|NCT01380093|183746670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-6.0|-18.4|0.0002
91923915|NCT01380093|183746670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.4||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||14.6|2.3|0.0081
91923916|NCT01380093|183746670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||26.8|14.4|<0.0001
91923917|NCT01380093|183746671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|-20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-20.8|-55.6|<0.0001
91766456|NCT02230566|183421887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.7||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|0.2|||GEE|||Tighter Shoulder Extension||0.2|-13.6|0.0563
91766457|NCT02230566|183421888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.0||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.2|||GEE|||for the left eye||2.2|-0.2|0.1140
91766458|NCT02230566|183421888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.9||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8|||GEE|||for the right eye||1.8|-0.1|0.0906
91766459|NCT02230566|183421889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.8||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.7|||GEE|||Scale-BALANCE||1.7|-0.1|0.0883
91766460|NCT02230566|183421889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.2||||0.3528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||GEE|||Scale: FINE MOTOR PRECISION||0.2|-0.7|0.3528
91766461|NCT02230566|183421889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2||||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||GEE|||Scale-MANUAL DEXTERITY||0.6|-0.2|0.4094
91766462|NCT02230566|183421889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||GEE|||Scale-RUNNING SPEED AND AGILITY||0.4|0.0|0.1020
91766463|NCT02230566|183421890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|8.6|||GEE|||||8.6|-1.8|0.1953
91766464|NCT02230566|183421892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.2||||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.6|||GEE|||||0.6|-3.0|0.2022
91766465|NCT03507036|183421907|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A paired t-test was performed for skin lab measurement and biopsies.|||
91766466|NCT03901144|183421924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.026|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.562|-5.489|||ANCOVA|||Summary of TEWL (g/m2h) change from day 29 to day 31||-5.489|-12.562|<0.001
91923918|NCT01380093|183746671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|51.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||51.7|17.0|0.0002
91923919|NCT01380093|183746671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|72.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|90.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||90.0|55.2|<0.0001
91923920|NCT01380093|183746672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-100.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.2|-58.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-58.4|-142.2|<0.0001
91766467|NCT03901144|183421924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.194||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-0.629|||ANCOVA|||Summary of TEWL (g/m2h) change from day 29 to day 31||-0.629|-7.760|0.021
91766468|NCT03901144|183421924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.021|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.602|-5.44|||ANCOVA|||Summary of TEWL (g/m2h) change from day 29 to day 31||-5.440|-12.602|<0.001
91766469|NCT03901144|183421925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.538|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.114|-1.962|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Objective Erythema (2D Skin Imaging) change from day 29 to day 31||-1.962|-5.114|<0.001
91766470|NCT03901144|183421925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.748||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.332|-0.164|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Objective Erythema (2D Skin Imaging) change from day 29 to day 31||-0.164|-3.332|0.031
91766471|NCT03901144|183421925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.744|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.332|-3.156|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Objective Erythema (2D Skin Imaging) change from day 29 to day 31||-3.156|-6.332|<0.001
91766472|NCT03901144|183421926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.077||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.325|-6.829|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Redness-Mexameter change from day 29 to day 31||-6.829|-31.325|0.002
91766473|NCT03901144|183421926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.493||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.787|7.801|||ANCOVA|||||7.801|-16.787|0.471
91766474|NCT03901144|183421926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.035|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.372|-14.698|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Redness - Mexameter change from day 29 to day 31||-14.698|-39.372|<0.001
91766475|NCT03901144|183421928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.354|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Visual Redness at day 31||-0.150|-0.558|<0.001
91766476|NCT03901144|183421928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.292|0.115|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Visual Redness at day 31||0.115|-0.292|0.392
91766477|NCT03901144|183421928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.447|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|-0.242|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Visual Redness at day 31||-0.242|-0.652|<0.001
91923921|NCT01380093|183746672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|93.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|135.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||135.7|52.1|<0.0001
91923922|NCT01380093|183746672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|194.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|152.3|236.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||236.1|152.3|<0.0001
91766478|NCT02021565|183421935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||alpha = 0.025|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Analysis 1 is for the caregiver reported confidence that Veteran care recipient can perform 10 transfer tasks with assistance from the informal caregiver.||||0.973
91923923|NCT01380093|183746673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-147.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.1|-89.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-89.6|-205.1|<0.0001
91923924|NCT01380093|183746673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|134.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.5|191.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||191.7|76.5|<0.0001
91923925|NCT01380093|183746673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|281.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|223.7|339.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||339.2|223.7|<0.0001
91923926|NCT01380093|183746674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-201.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-279.3|-123.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-123.6|-279.3|<0.0001
91923927|NCT01380093|183746674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|169.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|246.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||246.7|91.5|<0.0001
91923928|NCT01380093|183746674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|370.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|292.7|448.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||448.4|292.7|<0.0001
91923929|NCT01380093|183746675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.0|-23.8|<0.0001
91923930|NCT01380093|183746675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.1|18.3|<0.0001
91923931|NCT01380093|183746675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|42.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|49.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||49.5|34.7|<0.0001
91923932|NCT01380093|183746676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.2|-2.6|0.0253
91923933|NCT01380093|183746676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.0|1.6|<0.0001
91923934|NCT01380093|183746676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.4|3.0|<0.0001
91766479|NCT02021565|183421935|SUPERIORITY|Alpha = .025||||||0.223|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis 2 is for the caregiver reported confidence that Veteran care recipient can perform 10 transfer tasks independently.||||0.223
91923935|NCT01380093|183746677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.6|-3.7|0.0062
91923936|NCT01380093|183746677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.0|-1.0|0.4998
91923937|NCT01380093|183746677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.2|1.1|0.0008
91766480|NCT02021565|183421936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis 1 is for the Veteran care recipient reported task efficacy||||0.547
91766481|NCT02021565|183421936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis 2 is for the Veteran reported confidence that he/she can perform 10 transfer tasks independently.||||0.891
91766482|NCT02021565|183421937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.729
91766483|NCT01332994|183421952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|||||Exact one-sided binomial test on single proportions with a significance level of alpha equals (=) 0.025. Null hypothesis: Proportion of participants reaching DAS28 remission (\<2.6) at Week 16 is ≤45 percent (%).|Exact one-sided binomial test|||||||0.1648
91923938|NCT01380093|183746678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.0|-11.1|0.0009
91923939|NCT01380093|183746678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||6.3|-1.8|0.2693
91923940|NCT01380093|183746678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||13.3|5.3|<0.0001
91923941|NCT01380093|183746679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.2||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-5.3|-27.2|0.0042
91923942|NCT01380093|183746679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||19.6|-2.2|0.1139
91923943|NCT01380093|183746679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||35.9|14.1|<0.0001
91923944|NCT01380093|183746680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-27.7||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-27.7|-42.1|<0.0001
91923945|NCT01380093|183746680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|34.4||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||34.4|20.1|<0.0001
91923946|NCT01380093|183746680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|62.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|69.4||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||69.4|54.9|<0.0001
91923947|NCT01380093|183746681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.1||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-11.7|-58.5|0.0039
91923948|NCT01380093|183746681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|42.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||42.7|-4.0|0.1026
91923949|NCT01380093|183746681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|77.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||77.8|31.0|<0.0001
91923950|NCT01380093|183746682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.3||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.1|-13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-13.5|-73.1|0.0051
91923951|NCT01380093|183746682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.3||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|55.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||55.0|-4.4|0.0941
91923952|NCT01380093|183746682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|98.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||98.4|38.8|<0.0001
91923953|NCT01380093|183746683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.0||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.0|-13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-13.1|-85.0|0.0083
91766484|NCT01332994|183421988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Naive B-cell compartment||||0.7559
91766485|NCT01332994|183421988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Transitional B-cells||||0.8961
91766486|NCT01332994|183421988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7915|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Naive B-cells||||0.7915
91766487|NCT01332994|183421988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8081|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Memory B-cells||||0.8081
91766488|NCT01332994|183421988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.6574
91766489|NCT01332994|183421988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4553|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.4553
91923954|NCT01380093|183746683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.3||||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|68.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||68.1|-3.5|0.0766
91923955|NCT01380093|183746683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.4|117.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||117.3|45.4|<0.0001
91923956|NCT01380093|183746684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.0||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.1|-12.9|0.0018
91923957|NCT01380093|183746684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.8||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||9.7|-0.1|0.0527
91923958|NCT01380093|183746684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|17.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||17.7|7.9|<0.0001
91923959|NCT01380093|183746685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.6|-1.4|0.3986
91923960|NCT01380093|183746685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.5|0.6|0.0023
91923961|NCT01380093|183746685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.9|1.0|0.0002
91923962|NCT01380093|183746686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-4|-18|0.0029
91923963|NCT01380093|183746686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||15|1|0.0286
91766490|NCT01332994|183421988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.2215
91766491|NCT01332994|183421988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.8860
91923964|NCT01380093|183746686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||27|12|<0.0001
91923965|NCT01380093|183746687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-4|-22|0.0050
91766492|NCT01332994|183421988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8693|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Double-negative B-cells||||0.8693
91766493|NCT01332994|183421988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9564|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Plasmablasts||||0.9564
91766494|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.9993
91766495|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Transitional B-cells||||0.3596
91923966|NCT01380093|183746687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.2||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||17|-1|0.0700
91923967|NCT01380093|183746687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|30.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||30|12|<0.0001
91923968|NCT01380093|183746688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.9|0.5|<0.0001
91766496|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7435|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cells||||0.7435
91766497|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7671|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Memory B-cells||||0.7671
91923969|NCT01380093|183746688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.3|-0.8|<0.0001
91923970|NCT01380093|183746688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
91923971|NCT01380093|183746689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.9|1.9|<0.0001
91923972|NCT01380093|183746689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.3|-2.2|<0.0001
91923973|NCT01380093|183746689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.6|-4.6|<0.0001
91923974|NCT01380093|183746690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.8|3.9|<0.0001
91923975|NCT01380093|183746690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-4.3|-6.3|<0.0001
91923976|NCT01380093|183746690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.2|-11.1|<0.0001
91923977|NCT01380093|183746691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||10.7|6.6|<0.0001
91766498|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.7912
91766499|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.5595
91766500|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3817|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3817
91766501|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3623
91766502|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Double-negative B-cells||||0.7108
91766503|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Plasmablasts||||0.0639
91923978|NCT01380093|183746691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-11.8|-15.9|<0.0001
91923979|NCT01380093|183746691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-20.4|-24.5|<0.0001
91923980|NCT01380093|183746692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||14.7|8.7|<0.0001
91923981|NCT01380093|183746692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-18.6|-24.5|<0.0001
91923982|NCT01380093|183746692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-30.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-30.2|-36.2|<0.0001
91923983|NCT01380093|183746693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||23.3|11.6|<0.0001
91766504|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.0186
91923984|NCT01380093|183746693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|-31.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-31.9|-43.6|<0.0001
91923985|NCT01380093|183746693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-49.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-49.3|-61.1|<0.0001
91923986|NCT01380093|183746694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.4|0.8|<0.0001
91923987|NCT01380093|183746694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.5|-2.1|<0.0001
91766505|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Transitional B-cells||||0.0050
91766506|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Naive B-cells||||0.0463
91766507|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1919|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Memory B-cells||||0.1919
91766508|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3071|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.3071
91766509|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1714|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.1714
91766510|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.1746
91766511|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.1626
91766512|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Double-negative B-cells||||0.6304
91766513|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3449|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Plasmablasts||||0.3449
91766514|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.0919
91766515|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Transitional B-cells||||0.2189
91766516|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Naive B-cells||||0.1386
91766517|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6199|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Memory B-cells||||0.6199
91766518|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.1019
91766519|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.4353
91923988|NCT01380093|183746694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-2.6|-3.2|<0.0001
91923989|NCT01380093|183746695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.6|0.3|0.0262
91923990|NCT01380093|183746695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.0|-1.3|0.4180
91923991|NCT01380093|183746695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.6|-3.7|0.1479
91923992|NCT01380093|183746696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Tmax was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.35|0.07|0.0181
91923993|NCT01380093|183746697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.83|0.68|<0.0001
91923994|NCT01380093|183746698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-1) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.86|0.69|0.0004
91923995|NCT01380093|183746699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-2) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.94|0.79|0.0065
91923996|NCT01380093|183746700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.6399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-4) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.06|0.91|0.6399
91923997|NCT01380093|183746701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||0.9057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-8) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.08|0.94|0.9057
91923998|NCT01380093|183746702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.03||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-12) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.10|0.97|0.4250
91923999|NCT01380093|183746703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.1||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-24) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.18|1.03|0.0204
91924000|NCT01380093|183746704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.32||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.49|1.17|0.0005
91924001|NCT01342640|183746726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline in mean Hb levels at Week 20 was analyzed using paired t-test.||||<0.0001
91924002|NCT01342640|183746727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline in mean Hb levels at Week 24 was analyzed using paired t-test.||||<.0001
91924003|NCT01342640|183746728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline in mean Hb levels at Week 28 was analyzed using paired t-test.||||<.0001
91924004|NCT01849250|183746761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.50
91924005|NCT01849250|183746764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.19
91924006|NCT01849250|183746765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|||||||.52
91924007|NCT01849250|183746766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.12
91766520|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3934
91924008|NCT03503773|183746820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.7|||ANCOVA||There was no formal hypothesis testing conducted in the study. 95% CIs are intended to be descriptive in nature only|The null hypothesis to be tested is that there is no difference in the change in 24 hour mean SBP between treatment and sham control. The Type I error rate for rejecting the null hypothesis will be set at an alpha level of 0.05.||1.7|-4.8|0.2682
91924009|NCT03503773|183746821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6964|||||||ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment arms||||0.6964
91924010|NCT03503773|183746822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0775|||||||ANCOVA|||Between group difference||||0.0775
91924011|NCT03503773|183746824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4734|||||||ANCOVA|||Between group difference||||0.4734
91924012|NCT03503773|183746826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0341|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0341
91924013|NCT03503773|183746828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.073|||Fisher Exact|||||0.073|-0.132|0.573
91924014|NCT05341466|183746848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0098
91924015|NCT05341466|183746848|OTHER||Adjusted R-squared|0.418||||0.014|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression analyses performed with the change in the MEP amplitude versus step length asymmetry.||||0.014
91924016|NCT05341466|183746848|OTHER||Adjusted R-squared|0.496||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression analyses performed with the change in the MEP amplitude versus step time asymmetry.||||0.006
91924017|NCT05341466|183746848|OTHER||Adjusted R-squared|0.666||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression analyses performed with the change in the MEP amplitude versus changes in net metabolic power.||||0.001
91924018|NCT05341466|183746849|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.0042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0232||0.744|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.744
91924019|NCT05341466|183746850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0231||0.269|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.269
91924020|NCT05341466|183746851|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.681||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.020
91924021|NCT01208181|183746897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.09|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heysetrend test|||||-0.09|-0.49|0.004
91924022|NCT01208181|183746897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.27||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heysetrend test|||||-0.06|-0.48|0.034
91924023|NCT01208181|183746898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|-4.13|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heyse trend test|||||-4.13|-11.85|<0.001
91924024|NCT01208181|183746898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|-6.66|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heyse trend test|||||-6.66|-14.74|<0.001
91924025|NCT01208181|183746899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|0.02||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heysetrend test|||||0.14|-0.10|0.730
91924026|NCT01208181|183746900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-2.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.45|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heyse trend test|||||-0.45|-4.98|0.019
91924027|NCT01208181|183746901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares mean|1.61||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|3.71|||covariance model|||||3.71|-0.49|0.327
91924028|NCT00477451|183746904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
91924029|NCT00477451|183746905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.368
91924030|NCT00477451|183746906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.207
91766521|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4196|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.4196
91924031|NCT03245814|183746929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.42|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline score \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.42|0.12|<.001
91924032|NCT03245814|183746930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.4|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.40|0.11|<.001
91924033|NCT03245814|183746931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.86|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.86|0.23|.02
91924034|NCT03245814|183746932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.5|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.50|0.13|<.001
91924035|NCT03245814|183746933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.64|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.64|0.18|.001
91924036|NCT03245814|183746934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.45|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||5.45|1.47|.003
91924037|NCT03245814|183746935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.48|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.48|0.12|<.001
91924038|NCT03245814|183746936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.38|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||7.38|2.00|<.001
91924039|NCT03245814|183746937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|8.83|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||8.83|2.28|<.001
91924040|NCT03245814|183746938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|7.4|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||7.40|1.88|<.001
91924041|NCT03245814|183746939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.47|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||4.47|1.22|.02
91924042|NCT03245814|183746940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.75|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.75|0.20|.009
91766522|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5546|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Double-negative B-cells||||0.5546
91766523|NCT01332994|183421989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Plasmablasts||||0.7695
91924043|NCT03245814|183746941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects regression models to account for repeated measures (multiple assessments per day) within individuals.||||||0.002
91924044|NCT01096667|183746951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.97||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.05|-0.89||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.89|-5.05|0.034
91924045|NCT01096667|183746951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.17|-1.82||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.82|-6.17|0.010
91924046|NCT01096667|183746951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.69||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.78|-1.6||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.60|-5.78|0.012
91924047|NCT01096667|183746951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.21||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.3|-1.13||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.13|-5.30|0.024
91924048|NCT01096667|183746953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.94|-1.46||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.46|-5.94|0.018
91924049|NCT01096667|183746953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.43||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.78|-2.09||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-2.09|-6.78|0.008
91924050|NCT01096667|183746953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.99||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.24|-2.74||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-2.74|-7.24|0.002
91924051|NCT01096667|183746953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.92||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.16|-1.67||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.67|-6.16|0.013
91766524|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.6551
91766525|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Transitional B-cells||||0.6905
91766526|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9678|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cells||||0.9678
91924052|NCT01096667|183746954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.19||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.93|0.54||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.54|-4.93|0.152
91810656|NCT01897402|183496477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|9.1|||||Serogroup W-135|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||9.1|-8.5|
91810657|NCT00580606|183496490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|77.6||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's Statistic|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Number of participants who successfully consumed 5,000 mg of peanut powder or at least a 10-fold increase in the amount of peanut powder compared to their baseline OFC was compared using Barnard's Statistic with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment groups.||77.6|22.2|<0.001
91924053|NCT01096667|183746954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.18||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.06|-0.3||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.30|-6.06|0.078
91766527|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Memory B-cells||||0.2080
91810658|NCT01482884|183496515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.4062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|22.5||Glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as stratification factor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants responding on tralokinumab is less than or equal to the proportion of participants responding on placebo.||22.5|-13.0|0.4062
91766528|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.4778
91924054|NCT01096667|183746954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.02||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.79|0.74||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.74|-4.79|0.174
91924055|NCT01096667|183746954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.01||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.77|0.74||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.74|-4.77|0.174
91924056|NCT01096667|183746956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.01||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.09|-0.94||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-0.94|-7.09|0.047
91766529|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8526|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.8526
91766530|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7266|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.7266
91766531|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.2011
91766532|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7872|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Double-negative B-cells||||0.7872
91766533|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Plasmablasts||||0.5377
91924057|NCT01096667|183746956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.25|-4.07||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-4.07|-10.25|0.002
91924058|NCT01096667|183746956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-6.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.28|-3.11||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-3.11|-9.28|0.005
91924059|NCT01096667|183746956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.37||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.41|-1.33||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.33|-7.41|0.033
91924060|NCT01096667|183746958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.66||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.03|-1.29||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.29|-4.03|0.007
91924061|NCT01096667|183746958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.11||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.55|-1.67||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.67|-4.55|0.003
91924062|NCT01096667|183746958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.27||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.65|-0.88||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-0.88|-3.65|0.018
91924063|NCT01096667|183746958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.56|-0.82||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-0.82|-3.56|0.021
91924064|NCT01096667|183746959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.99||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.43|-1.55||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.55|-4.43|0.004
91924065|NCT01096667|183746959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.26|-1.24||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.24|-4.26|0.010
91924066|NCT01096667|183746959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.09|-1.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.19|-4.09|0.010
91924067|NCT01096667|183746959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.57||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|-1.13||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.13|-4.00|0.011
91924068|NCT01096667|183746960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.43|-0.57||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.57|-4.43|0.048
91924069|NCT01096667|183746960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.54||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.58|-1.51||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.51|-5.58|0.013
91924070|NCT01096667|183746960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.88||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.82|0.09||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.09|-3.82|0.111
91924071|NCT01096667|183746960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.58||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.51|0.36||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.36|-3.51|0.148
91924072|NCT01096667|183746962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.2||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.01|0.6||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||0.60|-3.01|0.196
91924073|NCT01096667|183746962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.05||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.86|0.77||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||0.77|-2.86|0.229
91924074|NCT01096667|183746962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.02||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.83|-1.2||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.20|-4.83|0.017
91924075|NCT01096667|183746962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.84||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.63|-1.06||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.06|-4.63|0.021
91924076|NCT01096667|183746964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.22||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.83|-0.61||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.61|-3.83|0.039
91924077|NCT01096667|183746964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.07||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.63|1.77||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||1.77|-1.63|0.521
91924078|NCT01096667|183746964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.39||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.02|-0.75||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.75|-4.02|0.031
91924079|NCT01096667|183746964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.56||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.19|0.07||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.07|-3.19|0.110
91924080|NCT01096667|183746965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.38||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.13|-1.63||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.63|-5.13|0.007
91924081|NCT01096667|183746965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.48||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.33|1.38||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||1.38|-2.33|0.370
91924082|NCT01096667|183746965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.65||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.43|-0.87||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.87|-4.43|0.029
91924083|NCT01096667|183746965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.64||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.42|0.13||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.13|-3.42|0.118
91924084|NCT01096667|183746966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.02||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.96|2.0||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||2.00|-1.96|0.506
91924085|NCT01096667|183746966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.61||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|3.71||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||3.71|-0.49|0.838
91924086|NCT01096667|183746966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.82||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.82|0.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.19|-3.82|0.123
91924087|NCT01096667|183746966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.07||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.06|0.93||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.93|-3.06|0.246
91924088|NCT01096667|183746968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.3|-2.1||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-2.10|-6.30|0.005
91924089|NCT01096667|183746968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.12||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.23|0.99||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||0.99|-3.23|0.248
91924090|NCT01096667|183746968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.95|-1.73||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.73|-5.95|0.010
91924091|NCT01096667|183746968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.4|-1.25||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.25|-5.40|0.020
91924092|NCT01096667|183746970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|42.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|31.42|52.94||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||52.94|31.42|0.000
91924093|NCT01096667|183746970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|60.39||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|49.47|71.31||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||71.31|49.47|0.000
91924094|NCT01096667|183746970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|70.34||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|59.58|81.1||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||81.10|59.58|0.000
91766534|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.6238
91810659|NCT01482884|183496516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.3937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.65|||ANCOVA|Mayo score at baseline as a covariate, and treatment and glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as factors in the model.||||0.65|-1.63|0.3937
91924095|NCT01096667|183746970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.63||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.22|5.96||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||5.96|-15.22|0.713
91924096|NCT01096667|183746972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-18.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.45|-8.75||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-8.75|-27.45|0.007
91810660|NCT01482884|183496517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|28.3||Glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as stratification factor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.3|-4.0|0.1043
91924097|NCT01096667|183746972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.19|-25.43||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-25.43|-44.19|0.000
91766535|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Transitional B-cells||||0.2848
91766536|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Naive B-cells||||0.6238
91810661|NCT01482884|183496518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|24.1||Glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as stratification factor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.1|0.7|0.0326
91924098|NCT01096667|183746972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-35.42||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.78|-26.07||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-26.07|-44.78|0.000
91924099|NCT01096667|183746972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.61||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.86|8.65||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||8.65|-9.86|0.467
91924100|NCT01096667|183746973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-5.54||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.89|3.82||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||3.82|-14.89|0.224
91924101|NCT01096667|183746973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-17.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.39|-7.61||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-7.61|-26.39|0.011
91924102|NCT01096667|183746973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-26.59||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.84|-17.33||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-17.33|-35.84|0.000
91924103|NCT01096667|183746973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|8.65||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|17.87||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||17.87|-0.56|0.886
91924104|NCT01845077|183746987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|103.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.5|95.3|
91924105|NCT01845077|183746987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|101.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.4|104.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||One patient was excluded from this analysis due to the lack of the 72h sample for the L+M1000 fed treatment.||104.7|98.4|
91924106|NCT01845077|183746987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|103.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.7|98.2|
91924107|NCT01845077|183746988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|103.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.6|86.8|
91924108|NCT01845077|183746988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|103.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.8|90.2|
91924109|NCT01845077|183746988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|108.6||||||90.0|99.5|118.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||118.5|99.5|
91924110|NCT01845077|183746989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|103.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|110.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||110.8|97.1|
91924111|NCT01845077|183746989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|105.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.9|111.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||111.0|99.9|
91766537|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.2848
91924112|NCT01845077|183746989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|104.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||104.1|90.2|
91924113|NCT01845077|183746990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|108.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||108.2|86.8|
91924114|NCT01845077|183746990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|103.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.5|96.1|
91766538|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7471|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.7471
91924115|NCT01845077|183746990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.7|106.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||106.0|86.7|
91924116|NCT01845077|183746991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.6|108.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||108.2|86.6|
91924117|NCT01845077|183746991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|103.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.4|95.6|
91924118|NCT01845077|183746991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|109.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||109.5|90.1|
91924119|NCT01845077|183746992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.8|109.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||109.8|84.8|
91924120|NCT01845077|183746992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|103.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.9|107.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||107.7|98.9|
91924121|NCT01845077|183746992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|107.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|125.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||125.4|92.5|
91924122|NCT01004107|183746993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
91924123|NCT01004107|183746994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91924124|NCT01004107|183746995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91924125|NCT01004107|183746996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91924126|NCT01004107|183746999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91924127|NCT01004107|183747000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91924128|NCT02613572|183747010|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91924129|NCT02613572|183747011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
91924130|NCT02613572|183747012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91924131|NCT02613572|183747013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
91924132|NCT02613572|183747014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
91924133|NCT02613572|183747015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
91924134|NCT02342561|183747021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At end of surgery||||0.601
91924135|NCT02342561|183747021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||After skin disinfection||||0.823
91924136|NCT02342561|183747022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in prevalence of CoNs between the 2 groups was analysed. The null-hypothesis was no difference.||||0.731
91924137|NCT01524289|183747042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-33.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Between group comparison of percent change from baseline performed using Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model.||||-33.7|-45.7|<0.001
91924138|NCT01524289|183747043|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.4|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|8.4|-11.5|
91924139|NCT01524289|183747044|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.6|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.6|-4.8|
91766539|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7471|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.7471
91766540|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3910
91924140|NCT01524289|183747045|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.6|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|5.6|-8.9|
91924141|NCT01524289|183747046|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.1|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|6.1|-5.5|
91924142|NCT01524289|183747047|OTHER|Pre-Specified|Difference in Percentages|-8.4||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.5|-20.1|0.168
91924143|NCT01524289|183747048|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-7.4||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|3.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.3|-18.7|0.179
91924144|NCT01524289|183747049|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-13.9||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-3.1|-25.0|0.011
91924145|NCT01524289|183747050|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|1.5||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||8.4|-6.8|0.696
91924146|NCT01524289|183747051|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.8|-3.2|0.480
91924147|NCT01524289|183747052|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.5|-4.0|0.722
91924148|NCT01524289|183747053|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.9|-3.7|>0.999
91924149|NCT01524289|183747054|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.5|-4.0|0.722
91924150|NCT01524289|183747055|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-1.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-5.4|0.157
91924151|NCT01524289|183747056|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-1.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-5.4|0.157
91924152|NCT01524289|183747057|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|1.5||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||4.3|-2.2|0.218
91924153|NCT01524289|183747058|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.9|-3.6|>0.999
91924154|NCT01524289|183747059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|102.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.2|110.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||110.1|94.2|<0.001
91924155|NCT01524289|183747060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-31.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-31.1|-41.7|<0.001
91924156|NCT01524289|183747061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-20.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-20.1|-29.5|<0.001
91924157|NCT01524289|183747062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.2|37.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||37.6|28.2|<0.001
91924158|NCT01524289|183747063|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|-21.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the median difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free confidence interval (CI) based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test.|||-21.2|-34.7|<0.001
91924159|NCT03425656|183747075|NON_INFERIORITY|We used a non-inferiority margin of 0.25 for the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||Chi-squared|||||0.16|-0.23|0.73
91924160|NCT03425656|183747076|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
91766541|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8729|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Plasmablasts||||0.8729
91924161|NCT03425656|183747077|OTHER||Chi-squared|0.42||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
91924162|NCT03425656|183747078|NON_INFERIORITY|We used a non-inferiority margin of 0.25 for the primary endpoint.||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
91924163|NCT02209597|183747095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91924164|NCT04799782|183747099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91924165|NCT04799782|183747100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91924166|NCT02316470|183747119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91924167|NCT02316470|183747119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0261|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0261
91924168|NCT02316470|183747119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0364|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0364
91924169|NCT02316470|183747119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91924170|NCT02316470|183747119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91924171|NCT02316470|183747119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91924172|NCT02316470|183747119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91924173|NCT02316470|183747120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was \<0.0001 at each time point (Day 14, 28, 35, 120, 210)|Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||statistical test was applied across all treatment groups at each of the listed time points.||||<0.0001
91924174|NCT02316470|183747121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was \<0.0001 at each time point (Day 14, 28, 35, 56, 120, 210)|Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||statistical test was applied across all treatment groups at each of the listed time points.||||<0.0001
91924175|NCT02316470|183747122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the p-value was \<0.0001 at each time point (Day 14, 28, 35, 56, 120, 210)|Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||statistical test was applied across all treatment groups at each of the listed time points.||||<0.0001
91924176|NCT01592851|183747141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.63||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.63|-1.03|<0.0001
91924177|NCT01592851|183747142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.12||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.12|-0.41|0.0006
91924178|NCT01592851|183747143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.28||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.28|-0.63|<0.0001
91924179|NCT01592851|183747144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|19.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|25.15||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||25.15|13.70|<0.0001
91924180|NCT01592851|183747145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.84||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|11.13||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||11.13|2.54|0.0021
91924181|NCT01592851|183747146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|3.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.65||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||6.65|1.08|0.0070
91924182|NCT01666444|183747178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.923|ONE_SIDED|92.0||1.48||P-value is for a one-sided hypothesis test.|Log Rank|The logrank test is stratified for platinum-free interval (\<= 6 months vs \> 6 months), and performance status (0 vs 1).|Treatment Hazard ratio for overall survival (PLD+VTX relative to PLD+placebo). Survival is measured from date of enrollment and randomization on the study until death from any cause, or date of last contact.|The null hypothesis is that the hazards of death are equal for both treatment groups. The primary assessment of this hypothesis was done with a stratified logrank test and the study was to be considered sufficiently mature to assess this hypothesis when at least 211 deaths had occurred among all individuals enrolled. Type I error was to be set to 0.08 for a one-sided test and the power for detecting a 30% reduction in the hazard (hazard ratio=0.70) due to VTX-2337 was 88.2%.||1.48||0.923
91924183|NCT01666444|183747179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.943|ONE_SIDED|98.0||1.56||P-value is for a one-sided hypothesis test.|Log Rank|The logrank test is stratified for platinum-free interval (\<= 6 months vs \> 6 months), and performance status (0 vs 1).||The null hypothesis is that the hazards of first progression or death are equal for both treatment groups. The primary assessment was to use a stratified logrank test and the study was to be considered sufficiently mature when survival is mature for analysis. Type I error was to be set to 0.02 for a one-sided test and the power for detecting a 31% reduction in the hazard (hazard ratio=0.69) due to VTX-2337 was expected to be approximately 83%.||1.56||0.943
91924184|NCT02988986|183747187|SUPERIORITY|Based on prior data for Ki67 changes in the tamoxifen arm alone, we will assume null hypothesis and alternative hypotheses of 60% and 80% reduction in Ki67, respectively. A sample of 25 patients will provide 86% power to detect the hypothesized reduction in Ki67 with 5% alpha based on a two-sided, one sample t-test of mean percent change in Ki67 level.|||||=|0.0023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint was the change in Ki67 after 6 weeks of treatment.||||=0.0023
91924185|NCT00634543|183747196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if lower confidence limit of 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.39.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was calculated for change from baseline in pain intensity score at Day 43.||||1.01|-0.23|0.2143
91924186|NCT00634543|183747197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7539|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for pain relief in tramadol hydrochloride/ acetaminophen versus gabapentin groups at Day 15.||||||0.7539
91924187|NCT00634543|183747197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5905|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for pain relief in tramadol hydrochloride/ acetaminophen versus gabapentin groups at Day 29.||||||0.5905
91924188|NCT00634543|183747197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7407|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for pain relief in tramadol hydrochloride/ acetaminophen versus gabapentin groups at Day 43.||||||0.7407
91924189|NCT00634543|183747198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3504|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for all categories (bad, no change, good and very good).||||||0.3504
91924190|NCT00634543|183747199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for all categories (bad, no change, good and very good).||||||0.5690
91924191|NCT01650779|183747204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 2: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.0002
91810662|NCT01482884|183496520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.91|||ANCOVA|Modified Riley score at baseline as a covariate, and treatment as factors in the model.||||0.91|-0.41|0.4490
91810663|NCT04853225|183496594|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-59.46|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810664|NCT04853225|183496594|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-62.73|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810665|NCT04853225|183496594|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-48.54|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91924192|NCT01650779|183747204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 4: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||<0.0001
91924193|NCT01650779|183747204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 6: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||<0.0001
91924194|NCT01650779|183747205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1178|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 2: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.1178
91924195|NCT01650779|183747205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1176|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 4: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.1176
91924196|NCT01650779|183747205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0322|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 6: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.0322
91924197|NCT01650779|183747206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5811|||||||One sample test of median (sign test)|||Baseline versus Month 2: Analysis was performed using one sample test of median (sign test). The percent change and absolute change from baseline in urine GL-3 levels were not normally distributed and thus medians were evaluated.||||0.5811
91924198|NCT01650779|183747206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7744|||||||One sample test of median (sign test)|||Baseline versus Month 4: Analysis was performed using one sample test of median (sign test). The percent change and absolute change from baseline in urine GL-3 levels were not normally distributed and thus medians were evaluated.||||0.7744
91924199|NCT01650779|183747206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3877|||||||One sample test of median (sign test)|||Baseline versus Month 6: Analysis was performed using one sample test of median (sign test). The percent change and absolute change from baseline in urine GL-3 levels were not normally distributed and thus medians were evaluated.||||0.3877
91924200|NCT03567291|183747222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-3.4|0.78
91924201|NCT01103349|183747223|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.494||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|6.809||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||H0: Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (BI671800 ED 400 mg bid) ≤ Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (placebo)||6.809|0.931|0.0050
91924202|NCT01103349|183747223|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|2.369|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.567||0.0657||95.0|-0.713|5.452||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||H0: Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (Montelukast 10 mg qd) ≤ Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (placebo)||5.452|-0.713|0.0657
91924203|NCT01103349|183747223|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|1.501|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.602||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.652|4.653||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||H0: Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (BI671800 ED 400 mg bid) ≤ Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (Montelukast 10 mg qd)||4.653|-1.652|0.1748
91924204|NCT01103349|183747224|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.118||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|-0.048||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||-0.048|-0.512|0.0092
91924205|NCT01103349|183747224|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.124||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.063||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.063|-0.423|0.0732
91924206|NCT01103349|183747224|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.126||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.347|0.147||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.147|-0.347|0.2139
91924207|NCT00283712|183747250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.22|||Fisher Exact|||The study goals were to gather evidence of safety and possible efficacy of infliximab for treatment of pemphigus vulgaris (PV). The analyses focused on estimation rather than hypothesis testing; therefore, there was not sufficient power to detect plausible treatment differences unless they were very large. The sample size reflects a balance between the desire to meet study goals and to expose as few participants as possible until the safety of infliximab for treatment of PV has been clarified.||0.22|-0.22|1.00
91924208|NCT00283712|183747250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|42.67|||Fisher Exact|||||42.67|0.02|1.00
91924209|NCT00283712|183747251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.26|
91924210|NCT00283712|183747252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.36||All secondary analyses are considered supplemental supportive analyses|Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint analysis was replicated using the per-protocol population.||0.36|-0.31|1.00
91924211|NCT00283712|183747252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|38.35||All secondary analyses are considered supplemental supportive analyses|Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint analysis was replicated using the per-protocol population.||38.35|0.02|1.00
91924212|NCT00283712|183747253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.55|||Fisher Exact|||||0.55|-0.15|0.65
91924213|NCT00283712|183747253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|2.79|||Fisher Exact|||||2.79|0.06|0.650
91924214|NCT00283712|183747263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3|||Fisher Exact|||||0.3|-0.3|1.00
91924215|NCT00090285|183747267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|90.6||||||95.0|70.1|98.2|||||Confidence Interval (CI) based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||98.2|70.1|
91924216|NCT00090285|183747275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|77.5||||||95.0|39.6|93.3||||||||93.3|39.6|
91924217|NCT00090285|183747276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|85.5||||||95.0|77.0|91.3|||||CI based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter. Hochberg multiplicity adjustment applied to the CI.|||91.3|77.0|
91924218|NCT00090285|183747277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|51.0||||||95.0|40.3|59.9|||||CI based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter. Hochberg multiplicity adjustment applied to the CI.|||59.9|40.3|
91924219|NCT02747043|183747297|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence of the primary endpoint will first be demonstrated by comparing the 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit of the RD of ORR by week 28 between ABP 798 and rituximab with a noninferiority margin of -15%. If this is successful, the 1-sided upper 95% confidence limit of the RD of ORR by week 28 will be compared with a nonsuperiority margin of +35.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|16.8|||||The 2-sided 90% confidence limits of the risk difference (RD) of ORR by week 28 used a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (geographic region and age group).|||16.8|-1.4|
91924220|NCT02747043|183747297|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|18.6||||||||18.6|-3.2|
91924221|NCT02747043|183747298|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|11.2||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence limits of the risk difference (RD) of ORR at week 12 used a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (geographic region and age group).||11.2|-9.3|
91924222|NCT02747043|183747298|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|13.2||||||The 2-sided 95% confidence limits of the risk difference (RD) of ORR at week 12 used a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (geographic region and age group).||13.2|-11.3|
91924223|NCT02747043|183747304|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.3||||||Percentage risk difference for 'Any adverse event of interest'||16.3|-8.3|
91924224|NCT02747043|183747304|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|12.3||||||Percentage risk difference for 'Infusion reactions including hypersensitivity'||12.3|-12.1|
91924225|NCT02747043|183747304|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|13.0||||||Percentage risk difference for 'Hematological reactions'||13.0|-11.8|
91924226|NCT02747043|183747304|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|13.2||||||Percentage risk difference in 'Cardiac disorders'||13.2|-11.8|
91924227|NCT02747043|183747304|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|14.0||||||Percentage risk difference in 'Serious infections'||14.0|-10.9|
91924228|NCT02747043|183747304|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|13.2||||||Percentage risk difference in 'Severe mucocutaneous reactions'||13.2|-11.7|
91924229|NCT01591018|183747324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||Pre-study calculations using chi-square test with a continuity correction showed that ≥60 patients in each group were needed to reach a significant difference with an alpha value of 0.05 (two-tailed) and a beta value of 0.8.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Sample size was based on an expected 20% reduction of new ischemic lesions on DW-MRI in the sonolysis group (estimated prevalence, 10%) compared with the control group (estimated prevalence, 30%).||||<0.05
91924230|NCT02238028|183747332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test,2 sided|||Paired Student's t tests were used in the absence and presence of wearing respirators. HRV was log-transformed before regression analyses. Linear mixed-effect models were applied to investigate the effects of wearing respirators. Age, sex, body mass index, PM2.5 concentration, 48-h mean temperature and 48-h mean humidity were introduced into the model as fixed-effect terms. At last, we incorporated random-effect intercepts for subjects to account for correlations between repeated measurements.||||<0.05
91924231|NCT02238028|183747333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test,2 sided|||||||<0.05
91924232|NCT00631488|183747343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 24-hour WMG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour WMG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between group difference.||22.7|5.2|0.002
91924233|NCT00631488|183747343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-9.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 24-hour WMG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour WMG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||-9.2|-26.5|<0.001
91924234|NCT00631488|183747344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 24-hour FPG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour FPG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||18.2|0.0|0.050
91924235|NCT00631488|183747344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-10.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 24-hour FPG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour FPG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||-10.1|-28.0|<0.001
91924236|NCT00631488|183747345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|45.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 2-hr Glucose AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Glucose Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||45.8|-0.6|0.056
91810666|NCT04853225|183496594|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-50.32|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810667|NCT04853225|183496594|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-22.67|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810668|NCT04853225|183496594|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-33.32|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91924237|NCT00631488|183747345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.3|-21.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 2-hr Glucose AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Glucose Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||-21.8|-67.3|<0.001
91924238|NCT00631488|183747346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference.||6.7|1.7|0.001
91924239|NCT00631488|183747346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|15.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference.||15.7|10.7|<0.001
91924240|NCT00631488|183747347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-3.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference||-3.8|-9.5|<0.001
91924241|NCT00631488|183747347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-8.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference.||-8.5|-14.1|<0.001
91924242|NCT00103194|183747348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PSA response rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.2||||||||8.2|0|
91924243|NCT00103194|183747349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis is testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the pre-treatment and post-treatment PSA slopes.||||||0.006
91924244|NCT03136705|183747352|SUPERIORITY||trend analysis|1.009||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|1.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed model for repeated measures data||1.031|0.989|0.3738
91924245|NCT03136705|183747353|SUPERIORITY||trend analysis|0.0043||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0414|0.0499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed model for repeated measures data||0.0499|-0.0414|0.854
91924246|NCT03136705|183747354|SUPERIORITY||trend analysis|20.38||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|42.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed model for repeated measures data||42.03|-1.26|0.0648
91924247|NCT02927171|183747400|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
91924248|NCT01703819|183747448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7726||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOVAs.||||0.7726
91924249|NCT01703819|183747449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5702||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOV As.||||0.5702
91924250|NCT02285010|183747633|NON_INFERIORITY|Definition: 50% reduction of morphine consumption Type I error (alpha) 0.05, Type II error (beta) 80%||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91924251|NCT02285010|183747634|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, Beta 80%||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
91924252|NCT02285010|183747635|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||for NRS at rest||||0.33
91924253|NCT02285010|183747635|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||for NRS at movement||||0.75
91924254|NCT02285010|183747636|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||For pruritus||||0.16
91924255|NCT02285010|183747636|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||For Nausea||||0.66
91924256|NCT02285010|183747636|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||For Vomiting||||0.46
91924257|NCT02285010|183747636|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||For Dizziness||||0.54
91924258|NCT02285010|183747636|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||For visual disturbance||||0.05
91924259|NCT02285010|183747637|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.05||||||P-Value 0.05 was calculated.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91924260|NCT01832961|183747638|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's Test|Friedman's test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison||The statistical analysis compared the results: immediately after to baseline values, after 20 minutes of rest to baseline values and after 20 minutes of rest to values immediately after using Friedman's Test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test|The effect of size used to calculate responsiveness and classified as small (0.2), moderate (0.5) and large (0.8).|||<0.05
91924261|NCT01832961|183747639|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's Test|||The statistical analysis compared the results: immediately after to baseline values, after 20 minutes of rest to baseline values and after 20 minutes of rest to values immediately after using Friedman's Test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test|The effect size was used to calculate responsiveness and classifed as small (0.2), moderate (0.5) and large (0.8)|||<0.05
91924262|NCT01832961|183747640|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's Test|||The statistical analysis compared the results: immediately after to baseline values, after 20 minutes of rest to baseline values and after 20 minutes of rest to values immediately after using Friedman's Test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test|The effect size was used to calculate responsiveness and classifed as small (0.2), moderate (0.5) and large (0.8)|||<0.05
91924263|NCT01832961|183747641|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||T-test|T-test was used to comparisons before and after FeNO results||||||<0.05
91924264|NCT01832961|183747642|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||T-test|||||||<0.05
91924265|NCT01164501|183747664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.39||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 25 mg versus placebo in mild or moderate renal impaired patients was the first step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal impairment and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.39|-0.62|<0.0001
91924266|NCT01164501|183747665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.32||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 25 mg versus placebo in mild renal impaired patients was the second step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.32|-0.72|<0.0001
91924267|NCT01164501|183747665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.49||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 10 mg versus placebo in mild renal impaired patients was the third step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.49|-0.88|<0.0001
91924268|NCT01164501|183747666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.28||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 10 mg versus placebo in moderate renal impaired patients was the fourth step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.28|-0.56|<0.0001
91924269|NCT02179398|183747691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91924270|NCT02179398|183747692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91924271|NCT02179398|183747693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Power calculation suggested 97 patients should be enrolled in each group to give 80% power at the 5% level of significance to detect a 20% difference in antibiotic prescription rate||||0.810
91924272|NCT00377299|183747777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91924273|NCT00377299|183747778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91924274|NCT00377299|183747779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91924275|NCT00377299|183747780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91924276|NCT00377299|183747781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91924277|NCT02026908|183747850|OTHER|Paired T- test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||A p-value was calculated. Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|||||0.0001
91924278|NCT02026908|183747851|OTHER|Paired t test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|||||0.0001
91924279|NCT02026908|183747852|OTHER|Paired T test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|||||0.0001
91924280|NCT02026908|183747853|OTHER|Paired T Test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91924281|NCT02026908|183747854|OTHER|Paired T test|p value|0.05||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|||||0.008
91924282|NCT03270085|183747856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91924283|NCT03270085|183747857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
91924284|NCT03270085|183747858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
91924285|NCT03825042|183747859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-15.2|||ANCOVA|||||-15.20|-26.80|0.0000
91810669|NCT04853225|183496594|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-20.4|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810670|NCT04853225|183496594|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-31.08|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91924286|NCT03825042|183747860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-3.61|||ANCOVA|||||-3.61|-8.45|0.0000
91810671|NCT04853225|183496594|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-64.74|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91924287|NCT03825042|183747861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.56||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.02|-9.11|||ANCOVA|||||-9.11|-20.02|0.0000
91924288|NCT00521339|183747895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91924289|NCT00521339|183747896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
91924290|NCT00521339|183747897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
91924291|NCT00521339|183747898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91924292|NCT00521339|183747899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.632|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.632
91924293|NCT00521339|183747900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.242
91924294|NCT00521339|183747901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.329
91766542|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.7261
91924295|NCT00521339|183747902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.130
91766543|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Transitional B-cells||||0.9338
91924296|NCT00521339|183747904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91924297|NCT00521339|183747905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
91924298|NCT00521339|183747906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91924299|NCT00521339|183747908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91924300|NCT00521339|183747909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
91924301|NCT00521339|183747910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
91924302|NCT00521339|183747911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
91924303|NCT00521339|183747912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91924304|NCT00521339|183747913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
91924305|NCT00521339|183747914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
91810672|NCT04853225|183496594|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-60.26|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91924306|NCT00521339|183747915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.539
91924307|NCT00521339|183747916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.169
91924308|NCT00521339|183747917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.339
91924309|NCT00521339|183747918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.898|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.898
91924310|NCT00521339|183747919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.622
91924311|NCT01819935|183747933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.20|0.72|
91924312|NCT01819935|183747934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.05||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.05|0.53|
91924313|NCT01819935|183747935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.15|0.90|
91924314|NCT01819935|183747936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.09|0.39|
91924315|NCT01819935|183747937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.37|0.68|
91924316|NCT01819935|183747938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.13|0.68|
91924317|NCT01819935|183747939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.48|0.54|
91924318|NCT01819935|183747940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.45||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.45|1.06|
91766544|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Naive B-cells||||0.9074
91766545|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Memory B-cells||||<0.0001
91810673|NCT04853225|183496594|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-27.85|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91924319|NCT04003155|183747941|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001||95.0|-2.69|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Least squares Mean (LSM), Standard error (SE), Confidence interval (CI), Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM), Change from Baseline (CFB), Dependent variable (dv), Treatment (tr), Week (wk), Baseline (bl), Weight (wt)||-1.05|-2.69|<0.001
91924320|NCT04003155|183747941|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001||95.0|-2.89|-1.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.25|-2.89|<0.001
91924321|NCT04003155|183747941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
91924322|NCT04003155|183747941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
91924323|NCT04003155|183747942|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001||95.0|-3.25|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.52|-3.25|<0.001
91924324|NCT04003155|183747942|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001||95.0|-3.4|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.70|-3.40|<0.001
91924325|NCT04003155|183747942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
91924326|NCT04003155|183747942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
91924327|NCT04003155|183747943|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.012||95.0|-0.27|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.03|-0.27|0.012
91924328|NCT04003155|183747943|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.002||95.0|-0.3|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.07|-0.30|0.002
91924329|NCT04003155|183747943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
91924330|NCT04003155|183747943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
91924331|NCT04003155|183747944|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002||95.0|-0.39|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.09|-0.39|0.002
91924332|NCT04003155|183747944|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.007||95.0|-0.35|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.06|-0.35|0.007
91924333|NCT04003155|183747944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
91924334|NCT04003155|183747944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
91924335|NCT04003155|183747945|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.489||95.0|-2.0|1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||1.0|-2.0|0.489
91810674|NCT04853225|183496594|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-28.65|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91924336|NCT04003155|183747945|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.155||95.0|-2.5|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||0.4|-2.5|0.155
91924337|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.09|-2.53|<0.001
91924338|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.53|-1.97|<0.001
91924339|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.19|-2.75|<0.001
91924340|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.05|-2.60|<0.001
91924341|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.19|-2.79|<0.001
91924342|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.31|-2.90|<0.001
91924343|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.27|-2.87|<0.001
91924344|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.39|-2.98|<0.001
91924345|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-1.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.30|-2.92|<0.001
91924346|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.59|-3.19|<0.001
91924347|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.25|-2.95|<0.001
91924348|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.42|-3.11|<0.001
91924349|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-1.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.54|-3.25|<0.001
91924350|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-1.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.55|-3.23|<0.001
91924351|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-1.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.22|-2.93|<0.001
91924352|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.31|-3.00|<0.001
91924353|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.37|-3.05|<0.001
91924354|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.33|-2.98|<0.001
91924355|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-1.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.62|-3.34|<0.001
91924356|NCT04003155|183747946|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.60|-3.30|<0.001
91924357|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.03|-0.17|0.006
91766546|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.9338
91924358|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.03|-0.17|0.006
91924359|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.05|-0.24|0.003
91924360|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.06|-0.25|0.002
91766547|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6515|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.6515
91924361|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.05|-0.27|0.004
91924362|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.06|-0.28|0.003
91924363|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
91924364|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.06|-0.29|0.004
91924365|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.07|-0.33|0.003
91924366|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
91766548|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8413|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.8413
91766549|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7244|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.7244
91924367|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.11|-0.37|<0.001
91924368|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.13|-0.39|<0.001
91924369|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.15|-0.41|<0.001
91766550|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Double-negative B-cells||||<0.0001
91924370|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.11|-0.37|<0.001
91924371|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||MMRM|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.12|-0.41|<0.001
91924372|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.06|-0.35|0.004
91924373|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.13|-0.43|<0.001
91766551|NCT01332994|183421990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3848|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Plasmablasts||||0.3848
91766552|NCT00731679|183422014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.01
91766553|NCT00731679|183422015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.005
91766554|NCT02412098|183422019|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean (GLSM) Ratio|73.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.92|129.01|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine AUCinf.||129.01|41.92|
91924374|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.08|-0.37|0.002
91924375|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
91924376|NCT04003155|183747947|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.09|-0.40|0.002
91924377|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.99|-9.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-9.06|-21.99|<0.001
91924378|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|-5.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.74|-18.69|<0.001
91924379|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.32|-10.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-10.27|-24.32|<0.001
91924380|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-11.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-11.29|-25.30|<0.001
91766555|NCT02412098|183422019|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|127.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.57|222.01|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine AUCinf.||222.01|73.57|
91924381|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.25|-11.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-11.00|-25.25|<0.001
91924382|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.29|-14.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-14.09|-28.29|<0.001
91924383|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-9.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-9.26|-24.24|<0.001
91924384|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-13.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-13.61|-28.50|<0.001
91810675|NCT04853225|183496595|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-87.47|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810676|NCT04853225|183496595|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-83.25|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810677|NCT04853225|183496595|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-77.54|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91924385|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.02|-10.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-10.12|-25.02|<0.001
91924386|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.18|-14.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-14.39|-29.18|<0.001
91766556|NCT02412098|183422020|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|80.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.11|144.79|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 AUCinf.||144.79|45.11|
91810678|NCT04853225|183496595|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-77.41|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91924387|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.03|-10.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-10.75|-26.03|<0.001
91924388|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-23.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.39|-16.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-16.27|-31.39|<0.001
91924389|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.33|-10.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-10.25|-26.33|<0.001
91924390|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.35|-13.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-13.48|-29.35|<0.001
91924391|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-20.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.14|-12.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-12.19|-28.14|<0.001
91924392|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.04|-13.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-13.30|-29.04|<0.001
91924393|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.73|-8.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-8.61|-24.73|<0.001
91924394|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.84|-10.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-10.94|-26.84|<0.001
91924395|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.77|-9.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-9.99|-25.77|<0.001
91924396|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.28|-11.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-11.72|-27.28|<0.001
91766557|NCT02412098|183422020|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|73.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.83|113.02||ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 AUCinf.|||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|||113.02|47.83|
91924397|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-20.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-12.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-12.35|-28.30|<0.001
91924398|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-22.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-14.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-14.28|-30.00|<0.001
91924399|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-20.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.19|-11.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-11.96|-28.19|<0.001
91924400|NCT04003155|183747948|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-24.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.16|-16.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-16.20|-32.16|<0.001
91924401|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.245|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.823|5.999||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.999|1.823|<0.001
91924402|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.964|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.658|5.497||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.497|1.658|<0.001
91766558|NCT02412098|183422021|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|66.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.33|83.04|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine Cmax.||83.04|53.33|
91924403|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.187||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.363|3.549||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||3.549|1.363|0.001
91924404|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.847|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.786|4.601||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.601|1.786|<0.001
91924405|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.096||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.326|3.345||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||3.345|1.326|0.002
91924406|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.333|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.121|5.302||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.302|2.121|<0.001
91924407|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.061||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.323|3.233||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.233|1.323|0.001
91924408|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.947|4.746||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.746|1.947|<0.001
91924409|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.363|3.357||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.357|1.363|<0.001
91924410|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.223|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.067|5.08||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.080|2.067|<0.001
91924411|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.049||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.317|3.21||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.210|1.317|0.002
91924412|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.994|4.858||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.858|1.994|<0.001
91766559|NCT02412098|183422021|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|102.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.03|125.45|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine Cmax.||125.45|83.03|
91924413|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.984||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.097||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.097|1.280|0.002
91924414|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.062|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.977|4.788||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.788|1.977|<0.001
91924415|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.748|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.774|4.294||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.294|1.774|<0.001
91924416|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.379|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.536|3.712||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.712|1.536|<0.001
91924417|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.051||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.329|3.186||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.186|1.329|0.001
91924418|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.701|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.204||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.204|1.750|<0.001
91924419|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.725|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.742|4.306||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.306|1.742|<0.001
91924420|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.921|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.505|6.214||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.214|2.505|<0.001
91924421|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.104|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.363|3.27||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.270|1.363|<0.001
91924422|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.953|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.912|4.602||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.602|1.912|<0.001
91766560|NCT02412098|183422022|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|76.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.65|114.77|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 Cmax.||114.77|50.65|
91924423|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.894||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.961||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.961|1.220|0.005
91924424|NCT04003155|183747949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.156|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.035|4.944||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.944|2.035|<0.001
91924425|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.158||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|64.304||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||64.304|0.398|0.322
91924426|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.925||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|77.353||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||77.353|0.569|0.225
91924427|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.334||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|120.422||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||120.422|1.064|0.089
91924428|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.026||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|96.916||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||96.916|0.797|0.143
91924429|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.468||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.468|0.370|0.711
91924430|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|5.328||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.328|0.508|0.441
91924431|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.351||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.383|35.172||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||35.172|1.383|0.032
91924432|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.059||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|21.086||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.086|0.693|0.175
91924433|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.225||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|28.29||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||28.290|1.039|0.071
91766561|NCT02412098|183422022|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|71.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.59|113.25|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 Cmax.||113.25|44.59|
91766562|NCT03089580|183422025|SUPERIORITY|Paired, Student's t-test was used to contrast the outcome variable of TBUT in the treated eye versus the sham eye from visit 1 to visit 5. The null hypothesis to be tested is one of no change from pre- to post treatment, with a Type I error probability of 0.05 for the primary outcome assessment. The pattern of change over the 4 treatment visits in these continuous variables will be assessed using mixed, linear regression. SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) was used.||||||0.3|||||||paired t test|||The primary study outcome of pre to post change in TBUT within the treated eye and also the untreated, control eye dictated the use of a paired statistical approach to sample size estimation. Clinically relevant pre to post TBUT increase of 3 seconds with a standard deviation of 4.5 seconds was used. Type I and II error estimates used were standard for a non-pivotal study, 0.05 \& 0.20. The estimated the sample size needed detect this difference in TBUT is 27 subjects.||||0.3
91924434|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.348|34.323||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||34.323|1.348|0.035
91924435|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.064||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.912|45.64||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||45.640|1.912|0.011
91924436|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.949||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.881|44.892||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||44.892|1.881|0.012
91924437|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.344||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.381|35.134||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||35.134|1.381|0.032
91924438|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.514||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.055|48.354||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||48.354|2.055|0.008
91924439|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.238||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.222|10.148||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.148|1.222|0.026
91924440|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.438||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.311|10.714||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.714|1.311|0.019
91924441|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.626||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.101|6.951||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.951|1.101|0.037
91766563|NCT03089580|183422026|SUPERIORITY|The p-value results from a test of the hypothesis that the change in OSDI from visit 1 does not differ from zero. Change distributions that met normal distribution test criteria (Shapiro-Wilk p-value \>0.05) were tested with the paired Student's t-test; non-normal change distributions (at visits 2 \& 4) were tested with the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.2026|||||||paired t test|||||||0.2026
91766564|NCT03087513|183422027|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||In all cases of motor evoked potential changes, a P-value of 0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|As the amplitude values were non-normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare the two groups.||In total, 40 patients were randomised for the study. Data from 2 patients were excluded as the crossover arm could not be completed due to intraoperative MEP change (n=1) and the equipment malfunction (n=1). The data distributions were tested for normality with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.||||<0.01
91766565|NCT03884790|183422052|OTHER|Descriptive statistical analysis|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistical analysis|||
91766566|NCT04661150|183422084|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|23.8||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|44.7|||Chi-squared|||||44.7|1.3|0.079
91766567|NCT04661150|183422089|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-4.8||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.9|18.9|||Chi-squared|||||18.9|-27.9|0.739
91766568|NCT04661150|183422090|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|4.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-10.9|>0.999
91766569|NCT00369577|183422096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||0.0880
91766570|NCT00369577|183422096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91924442|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.758||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.167|7.263||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.263|1.167|0.027
91924443|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|3.968||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.968|0.753|0.210
91924444|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|4.634||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.634|0.923|0.087
91766571|NCT00369577|183422097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0583|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0583
91766572|NCT00369577|183422097|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
91766573|NCT00369577|183422098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0067
91766574|NCT00369577|183422098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
91766575|NCT00369577|183422099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0076
91766576|NCT00369577|183422099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
91766577|NCT04437485|183422121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models were run on post-treatment outcome level adjusting for baseline somatic depressive symptoms group (a stratification variable).||||||0.64
91924445|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|6.157||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.157|0.795|0.148
91766578|NCT04437485|183422122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models were run on post-treatment outcome level adjusting for baseline somatic depressive symptoms group (a stratification variable).||||||0.046
91766579|NCT04437485|183422123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models were run on post-treatment outcome level adjusting for baseline somatic depressive symptoms group (a stratification variable).||||||0.09
91766580|NCT00181363|183422159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91766581|NCT00181363|183422160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91766582|NCT00181363|183422161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91766583|NCT00181363|183422162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91766584|NCT00181363|183422163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91766585|NCT01276639|183422169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.03||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||15.03|4.40|<0.0001
91766586|NCT01276639|183422169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.01|31.88||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||31.88|9.01|<0.0001
91766587|NCT01276639|183422169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|17.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.11|24.47|||Normal approximation|||||24.47|10.11|<0.0001
91810679|NCT04853225|183496595|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-60.1|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91924446|NCT04003155|183747950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.262||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.329|9.194||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.194|1.329|0.015
91924447|NCT04760314|183747978|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.6|11.6|<0.001
91924448|NCT04760314|183747978|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|37.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.0|17.5|<0.001
91924449|NCT04760314|183747979|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|45.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.8|20.6|<0.001
91924450|NCT04760314|183747979|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|49.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.0|26.2|<0.001
91924451|NCT04760314|183747980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-24.9|||ANCOVA|||||-24.9|-44.1|<0.001
91924452|NCT04760314|183747980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7|-30.3|||ANCOVA|||||-30.3|-47.7|<0.001
91924453|NCT04760314|183747981|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|6.8|0.003
91924454|NCT04760314|183747981|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|34.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.5|13.9|<0.001
91924455|NCT04760314|183747982|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.6|-1.2|0.404
91924456|NCT04760314|183747983|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.1|-1.6|0.294
91924457|NCT04760314|183747983|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.8|-0.5|0.138
91924458|NCT04760314|183747984|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|1.8|0.013
91924459|NCT04760314|183747984|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|8.1|0.001
91924460|NCT04760314|183747985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.4|8.7|0.001
91924461|NCT04760314|183747985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.4|17.9|<0.001
91924462|NCT01371838|183747992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (clinical cure rate) between the ceftaroline group and the ceftriaxone group was calculated in CE Population at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% in CE Population. If non-inferioirity was achieved then a test of superioirty was conducted whereby if lower limit of 95% CI for the difference was \>0% superioirty was concluded.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.1||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared to that for ceftriaxone at TOC in the CE in adult subjects with CABP.||17.1|2.8|
91924463|NCT01371838|183747993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|16.4||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||16.4|4.9|
91924464|NCT01371838|183747994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|15.4||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||15.4|1.8|
91924465|NCT01371838|183747995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|19.2||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments. If lower limit of 95% CI for the risk difference was \>0% superioirty was concluded in this population.|||19.2|6.8|
91924466|NCT01371838|183747996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|27.1||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||27.1|2.7|
91924467|NCT01371838|183747997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|25.8||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||25.8|-2.2|
91924468|NCT01371838|183748000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|27.1||||RD is (Ceftaroline-Ceftriaxone) microbiologically favourable outcome rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||27.1|2.7|
91924469|NCT01371838|183748001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|25.8||||RD is (Ceftaroline-Ceftriaxone) microbiologically favourable outcome rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||25.8|-2.2|
91924470|NCT01371838|183748002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|19.2||||RD is Ceftaroline minus Ceftriaxone overall success rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||19.2|6.8|
91924471|NCT01371838|183748003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.1||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||17.1|2.8|
91924472|NCT01371838|183748004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.0||||RD is Ceftaroline minus Ceftriaxone No-relapse rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||3.0|-2.5|
91924473|NCT01371838|183748005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.5||||RD is Ceftaroline minus Ceftriaxone No-relapse rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||4.5|-2.4|
91924474|NCT04315363|183748008|EQUIVALENCE|Two by two Mixed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) models (i.e., within-subject effect: pre- and post- intervention \* between-subject effect: intervention and control group) were estimated to investigate the primary outcome changes (i.e., sedentary time) before and after the intervention.||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
91924475|NCT04315363|183748009|EQUIVALENCE|Two by two Mixed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) models (i.e., within-subject effect: pre- and post- intervention \* between-subject effect: intervention and control group) were estimated to investigate the secondary outcome changes (i.e., moderate-to-vigorous physical activity) before and after the intervention.||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
91766588|NCT01276639|183422170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|21.84||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||21.84|5.25|<0.0001
91766589|NCT01276639|183422170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|49.86||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||49.86|11.90|<0.0001
91766590|NCT01276639|183422170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|26.37|||Normal approximation|||||26.37|12.07|<0.0001
91766591|NCT01276639|183422171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-53.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.08|-45.04||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-45.04|-62.08|<0.0001
91766592|NCT01276639|183422171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-68.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.33|-60.31||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-60.31|-77.33|<0.0001
91766593|NCT01276639|183422171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|-8.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.48|-22.04|<0.0001
91766594|NCT01276639|183422172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.46|1786.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||1786.9|7.46|<0.0001
91766595|NCT01276639|183422172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|98.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.49|5689.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||5689.8|23.49|<0.0001
91766596|NCT01276639|183422172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|19.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|26.11|||Normal approximation|||||26.11|13.10|<0.0001
91924476|NCT00641043|183748016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.30|-0.71|<0.0001
91810680|NCT04853225|183496595|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-73.65|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810681|NCT04853225|183496595|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-45.44|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810682|NCT04853225|183496595|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-79.49|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810683|NCT04853225|183496595|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-74.39|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810684|NCT04853225|183496595|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-63.04|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810685|NCT04853225|183496595|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-25.59|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810686|NCT04853225|183496595|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-38.69|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
91810687|NCT03789318|183496596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2912|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2912
91810688|NCT03789318|183496597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4980
91810689|NCT03789318|183496598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1958|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1958
91810690|NCT03789318|183496599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9546|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9546
91924477|NCT00641043|183748017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.52|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.24|-0.52|<0.0001
91924478|NCT00641043|183748018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.67|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.32|-0.67|<0.0001
91810691|NCT03789318|183496600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4434
91810692|NCT01134783|183496608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis used hierarchical linear models having repeated measures of the outcome regressed on experimental condition, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race, and household education level as well as wave and college.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.707
91810693|NCT01134783|183496609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis used hierarchical linear models having repeated measures of the outcome regressed on experimental condition, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race, and household education level as well as wave and college.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.049
91810694|NCT04346537|183496616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
91810695|NCT04346537|183496617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
91810696|NCT04346537|183496618|OTHER|Two-one sided t-tests (TOST) -- the 90% confidence interval was required to be contained with 300 and 1300 ohms.|||||<|0.001|||||||Two one-sided t-tests|||||||< 0.001
91810697|NCT01991067|183496649|OTHER|Furthermore, a multivariable logistic regression model was applied accounting for group as well as age, body mass index, and gender as possible influence factors.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value of \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The calculation of the sample size was performed using nQuery 6.1. The primary endpoint was the outcome of the NT 4 weeks after the second vaccination. A Fisher exact tes was calculated to analyze the primary hypothesis on the difference in NT-titer response between patients and controls||||<0.001
91810698|NCT01991067|183496650|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher exact test was calculated to analyze antibody response by ELISA between patients and controls. To measure the Agreement between the NT and ELISA response, Cohens Kappa and the corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated||||0.02
91924479|NCT00641043|183748019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.32|-0.70|<0.0001
91810699|NCT01991067|183496651|OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For titer values the geometric mean was calculated and the corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals were constructed by back-transfomration of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed results.~To investigate the difference in absolute titer values and geometric mean fold changes between time point and Groups, Wilcoxon tests were performed."||||<0.01
91810700|NCT00127712|183496663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91810701|NCT00127712|183496664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91810702|NCT00127712|183496665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91810703|NCT00127712|183496666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91810704|NCT00799487|183496677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-20.2||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-20.2|-34.4|<0.0001
91810705|NCT00799487|183496678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-20.8||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-20.8|-35.1|<0.0001
91810706|NCT00799487|183496679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|6.6||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||6.6|3.4|<0.0001
91924480|NCT00641043|183748020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-21.1|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.3|-21.1|<0.0001
91924481|NCT00641043|183748021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.3|-10.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-10.5|-22.3|<0.0001
91924482|NCT00641043|183748022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-19.5|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.0|-19.5|<0.0001
91924483|NCT00641043|183748023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-20.5|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.3|-20.5|<0.0001
91924484|NCT00641043|183748024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.103||||0.0051||95.0|1.25|3.539|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||3.539|1.25|0.0051
91924485|NCT00641043|183748026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.348||||0.3547||95.0|0.716|2.537|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||2.537|0.716|0.3547
91924486|NCT00641043|183748028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.823|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.286|6.394|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||6.394|2.286|<0.0001
91924487|NCT00972244|183748035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0987|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.28|-0.67|<0.0001
91924488|NCT00972244|183748035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.26||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.26|-0.65|<0.0001
91924489|NCT00972244|183748035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.53||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.53|-0.92|<0.0001
91924490|NCT00972244|183748035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.59||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.59|-0.99|<0.0001
91810707|NCT00799487|183496680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.8||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||5.8|3.2|<0.0001
91924491|NCT00972244|183748036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7589|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.45|-16.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-16.70|-35.45|<0.0001
91924492|NCT00972244|183748036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|-20.14||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-20.14|-38.70|<0.0001
91924493|NCT00972244|183748036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7402|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.28|-23.6||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-23.60|-42.28|<0.0001
91924494|NCT00972244|183748036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8358|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|-31.85||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-31.85|-50.90|<0.0001
91924495|NCT00972244|183748037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|7.6||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||7.6|-9.1|1.0000
91924496|NCT00972244|183748037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|18.8||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||18.8|-2.3|0.2057
91924497|NCT00972244|183748037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|13.2||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||13.2|-6.2|0.6203
91924498|NCT00972244|183748037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.5||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||19.5|-2.0|0.2050
91766597|NCT01276639|183422174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|-3.05||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.05|-4.75|<0.0001
91924499|NCT00907881|183748047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Regression, Linear|Pearson correlation coefficient||||||0.0002
91924500|NCT01097616|183748051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.6|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|27.1||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 97.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||27.1|12.0|<0.00001
91924501|NCT01097616|183748052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|27.6||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 95.7%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||27.6|11.9|<0.00001
91924502|NCT01097616|183748053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.3|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-19.2||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 99.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-19.2|-33.5|<0.00001
91924503|NCT01097616|183748054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-22.9|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-15.4||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 WASO, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-15.4|-30.3|<0.00001
91924504|NCT01097616|183748055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.4||||0.00298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.5||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.9%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-2.5|-12.3|0.00298
91924505|NCT01097616|183748056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.4||||0.00019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-4.0||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.0|-12.8|0.00019
91810708|NCT00799487|183496681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|12.0||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||12.0|6.9|<0.0001
91924506|NCT01097616|183748057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-11.2||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-6.1||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 81.4%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-6.1|-16.3|0.00002
91924507|NCT01097616|183748058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-9.4||||0.00037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-4.3||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 LPS, had planned marginal power of 76.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.3|-14.6|0.00037
91924508|NCT01097616|183748059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|13.6||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|20.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||20.3|6.9|0.00007
91924509|NCT01097616|183748059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|21.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|27.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||27.4|15.5|<0.00001
91924510|NCT01097616|183748060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|16.3||||0.00016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|24.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||24.8|7.9|0.00016
91924511|NCT01097616|183748061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.7||||0.01711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||19.5|1.9|0.01711
91924512|NCT01097616|183748062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-32.5|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|-25.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-25.7|-39.3|<0.00001
91924513|NCT01097616|183748062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-38.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-32.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-32.3|-44.5|<0.00001
91924514|NCT01097616|183748063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-18.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-18.4|-34.3|<0.00001
91810709|NCT00799487|183496682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-2.74||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-2.74|-4.27|<0.0001
91810710|NCT00799487|183496683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-17.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.72|-11.45||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-11.45|-23.72|<0.0001
91810711|NCT00799487|183496684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-30.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.29|-21.37||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-21.37|-39.29|<0.0001
91924515|NCT01097616|183748064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.6||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-8.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-8.3|-24.8|0.00009
91924516|NCT01097616|183748065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.6||||0.01564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-1.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-1.1|-10.2|0.01564
91924517|NCT01097616|183748065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.7||||0.00609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-1.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-1.6|-9.7|0.00609
91924518|NCT01097616|183748066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.4||||0.05191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.0|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||0.0|-10.9|0.05191
91924519|NCT01097616|183748067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.2||||0.03771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-0.3|-10.2|0.03771
91924520|NCT01097616|183748070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-9.6||||0.00041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-4.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.3|-14.9|0.00041
91924521|NCT01097616|183748070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.3||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-5.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-5.5|-15.0|0.00002
91924522|NCT01097616|183748071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.6|-16.0|0.00040
91924523|NCT01097616|183748072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.1||||0.00606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-2.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-2.3|-13.8|0.00606
91766598|NCT01276639|183422174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-3.86||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.86|-5.56|<0.0001
91924524|NCT02677701|183748073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.44||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|7.35|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).||||7.35|-0.48|0.0846
91924525|NCT02677701|183748074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|5.26|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).||||5.26|-2.64|0.51
91924526|NCT02677701|183748075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|1.22|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).||||1.22|-7.01|0.17
91924527|NCT02677701|183748076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.77||Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).|Regression, Linear|||||6.77|-3.70|0.56
91924528|NCT02677701|183748077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.47||Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).|Regression, Linear|||||1.47|0.03|0.043
91924529|NCT02487745|183748088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.05
91924530|NCT02487745|183748089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.05
91924531|NCT01214434|183748103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91924532|NCT01214434|183748105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.03
91924533|NCT01214434|183748106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.6
91810712|NCT00799487|183496685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.12||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-0.12|-2.15|0.0297
91766599|NCT01276639|183422174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.12|-1.50|0.0212
91924534|NCT01214434|183748107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.24||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.24
91924535|NCT01214434|183748108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.8
91924536|NCT02075255|183748110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|50.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimate is used.|||50.00|16.70|<0.001
91924537|NCT02075255|183748110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|50.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges Lehmann estimate is used.|||50.00|20.80|<0.001
91924538|NCT02075255|183748111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|7.57|||proportional odds model|Controlling for treatment group, region, and baseline OCS dose.||||7.57|2.22|<0.001
91924539|NCT02075255|183748111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|7.63|||proportional odds model|Controlling for treatment group, region, and baseline OCS dose.||||7.63|2.22|<0.001
91924540|NCT02075255|183748112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|66.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges Lehmann estimate is used.|||66.70|25.00|<0.001
91924541|NCT02075255|183748112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|66.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges Lehmann estimate is used.|||66.70|25.00|<0.001
91924542|NCT02075255|183748113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||7.22|1.79|<0.001
91924543|NCT02075255|183748113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||5.86|1.57|<0.001
91924544|NCT02075255|183748114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|14.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||14.21|1.92|<0.001
91924545|NCT02075255|183748114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|11.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||11.12|1.58|0.002
91924546|NCT02075255|183748115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||0.83|0.21|0.012
91924547|NCT02075255|183748115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||1.01|0.27|0.053
91924548|NCT02075255|183748116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||6.23|1.60|<0.001
91924549|NCT02075255|183748116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||5.31|1.41|0.002
91924550|NCT02075255|183748117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||0.65|0.16|0.001
91924551|NCT02075255|183748117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||0.56|0.14|<0.001
91924552|NCT02075255|183748118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.66|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||0.66|0.22|<0.001
91924553|NCT02075255|183748118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.57|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||0.57|0.17|<0.001
91924554|NCT02075255|183748119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.64|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization or ER visit.||||1.64|0.14|0.291
91924555|NCT02075255|183748119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.63|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization or ER visit.||||0.63|0.01|0.042
91924556|NCT02075255|183748120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.45||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.76|||negative binomial model|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year. The log of follow-up time is used as offset variable.||||0.76|0.27|0.003
91924557|NCT02075255|183748120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.53|||negative binomial model|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year. The log of follow-up time is used as offset variable.||||0.53|0.17|<0.001
91924558|NCT02075255|183748121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.44||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.49|||negative binomial model|Covariates include treatment, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization/ER. Log of follow-up time is the offset.||||1.49|0.13|0.187
91924559|NCT02075255|183748121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.07||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.63|||negative binomial model|Covariates include treatment, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization/ER. Log of follow-up time is the offset.||||0.63|0.01|0.018
91924560|NCT02075255|183748123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline pre-BD FEV1 value, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.||||0.251|-0.040|0.153
91924561|NCT02075255|183748123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline pre-BD FEV1 value, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.||||0.258|-0.033|0.129
91924562|NCT02075255|183748124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.32|-0.35|0.947
91924563|NCT02075255|183748124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.16|-0.51|0.291
91924564|NCT02075255|183748125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.18|-0.18|0.998
91924565|NCT02075255|183748125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.05|-0.30|0.177
91924566|NCT02075255|183748126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.17|-0.17|0.973
91924567|NCT02075255|183748126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.11|-0.23|0.480
91924568|NCT02075255|183748127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline total asthma rescue medication use, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.57|-1.44|0.397
91924569|NCT02075255|183748127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline total asthma rescue medication use, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.41|-2.42|0.006
91924570|NCT02075255|183748128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.25||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|45.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline morning PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||45.07|-6.58|0.143
91924571|NCT02075255|183748128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.01||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|55.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline morning PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||55.76|4.26|0.023
91924572|NCT02075255|183748129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.19||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|40.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline evening PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||40.46|-10.08|0.237
91924573|NCT02075255|183748129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.52||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.32|56.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline evening PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||56.71|6.32|0.014
91924574|NCT02075255|183748130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline proportion of nights with noctural awakenings, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.11|-0.08|0.742
91924575|NCT02075255|183748130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline proportion of nights with noctural awakenings, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.07|-0.11|0.693
91924576|NCT02075255|183748131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.08|-0.55|0.139
91924577|NCT02075255|183748131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.23|-0.86|0.001
91924578|NCT02075255|183748132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.165||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|2.295|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||2.295|0.592|0.658
91924579|NCT02075255|183748132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.661||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||3.340|0.826|0.155
91924580|NCT02075255|183748133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.53|-0.08|0.151
91924581|NCT02075255|183748133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.76|0.14|0.004
91924582|NCT02075255|183748134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.538||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||3.060|0.773|0.220
91924583|NCT02075255|183748134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.783||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|3.605|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||3.605|0.882|0.108
91924584|NCT02075255|183748138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-162.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.1|-104.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline eosinophil count, region, visit, treatment by visit|Percent change|||-104.3|-220.1|<0.001
91924585|NCT02075255|183748138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-159.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-217.9|-100.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline eosinophil count, region, visit, treatment by visit.|Percent change|||-100.9|-217.9|<0.001
91924586|NCT00394914|183748196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.973
91924587|NCT00394914|183748197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.425
91924588|NCT00044044|183748210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91766600|NCT01276639|183422174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|-3.95||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.95|-6.02|<0.0001
91810713|NCT00799487|183496686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.15||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model. Finger Windows Forwards was the first non-significant p-value in the gatekeeper sequence.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing of additional endpoints in the sequence was still performed without any unqualified statements about the individual statistical significance.|Placebo minus Concerta|||0.15|-1.84|0.0955
91766601|NCT01276639|183422174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-5.94||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-5.94|-8.00|<0.0001
91924589|NCT00044044|183748211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91924590|NCT00044044|183748212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91924591|NCT00044044|183748213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91924592|NCT02099799|183748214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.189
91924593|NCT02099799|183748215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.572|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.572
91924594|NCT02099799|183748216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.799
91924595|NCT02099799|183748217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1312.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91924596|NCT02099799|183748218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2265
91924597|NCT02099799|183748219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8897
91924598|NCT00465738|183748220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Newcombe-Wilson confidence interval for the difference between the response rates of the groups was calculated. The lower bound of the Newcombe-Wilson CI for the difference of proportions was compared to the non-inferiority margin of -25%.|difference in response rates|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|24.9|||||difference in response rates = response rate for high volume dilution group (20 U/ml) - response rate for low volume dilution group (50 U/ml)|Null hypothesis: The response rate for the low volume dilution group (50 U/ml) is greater than the response rate for the high volume dilution group (20 U/ml).||24.9|-4.4|
91924599|NCT01863758|183748275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized number of bleeding episodes|3.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|3.8|||2-sided, 1-sample Poisson test||The annualized number of bleeding episodes in study GENA-01 was 49.36.|This study was considered as showing efficacy if the annualized number of bleeding episodes (BE) was reduced by 50% compared to the number of BEs observed in study GENA-01 (NCT00989196).||3.80|2.56|<0.05
91924600|NCT01863758|183748276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized number of spontaneous BEs|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.43|||2-sided, 1-sample Poisson test||The annualized number of spontaneous bleeding episodes in study GENA-01 was 32.23|This study was considered as showing efficacy if the annualized number of spontaneous bleeding episodes (BE) was reduced by 50% compared to the number of spontaneous BEs observed in study GENA-01 (NCT00989196).||2.43|1.46|<0.05
91924601|NCT02961764|183748280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.289|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.532|||Fisher Exact|||||0.532|0.156|<0.001
91924602|NCT02961764|183748281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.005
91924603|NCT02961764|183748282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.050
91924604|NCT02961764|183748284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
91924605|NCT02160977|183748341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91924606|NCT02160977|183748342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91924607|NCT02160977|183748343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91924608|NCT02975349|183748344|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|1.45||||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.91|||Negative Binomial model|||||2.91|0.72|0.2947
91924609|NCT02975349|183748344|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.3||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.63|||Negative Binomial model|||||0.63|0.14|0.0015
91924610|NCT02975349|183748344|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.44||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.93|||Negative Binomial model|||||0.93|0.21|0.0313
91924611|NCT02975349|183748345|SUPERIORITY||Qualified relapse rate ratio|1.66||||0.2692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|4.09|||Negative Binomial model|||||4.09|0.67|0.2692
91924612|NCT02975349|183748345|SUPERIORITY||Qualified relapse rate ratio|0.31||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2|||Negative Binomial model|||||1.20|0.08|0.0896
91924613|NCT02975349|183748345|SUPERIORITY||Qualified relapse rate ratio|0.23||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.09|||Negative Binomial model|||||1.09|0.05|0.0633
91924614|NCT02975349|183748346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.95|||Logistic model|||||1.95|0.29|0.5609
91924615|NCT02975349|183748346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|8.41|||Logistic model|||||8.41|0.92|0.0689
91766602|NCT01276639|183422174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.17|-2.80|<0.0001
91766603|NCT01276639|183422175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|35.12||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||35.12|3.23|<0.0001
91766604|NCT01276639|183422175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.06|54.42||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||54.42|5.06|<0.0001
91766605|NCT01276639|183422175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|11.8|||Normal approximation|||||11.80|0.15|0.0443
91766606|NCT01276639|183422176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|35.77||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||35.77|2.11|0.0003
91766607|NCT01276639|183422176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|59.98||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||59.98|3.64|<0.0001
91766608|NCT01276639|183422176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|9.98|||Normal approximation|||||9.98|0.19|0.0415
91810714|NCT00799487|183496687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.37||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.52|-7.23||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-7.23|-21.52|0.0002
91810715|NCT00799487|183496688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.17||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.17|-0.70|0.2335
91924616|NCT02975349|183748346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.99|||Logistic model|||||5.99|0.72|0.1767
91924617|NCT02975349|183748347|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|0.00|0.4070
91924618|NCT02975349|183748347|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.5829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|0.00|0.5829
91924619|NCT02975349|183748347|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.2732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|0.00|0.2732
91924620|NCT02975349|183748359|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|1.36||||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.65|||Negative Binomial|||||2.65|0.70|0.3676
91924621|NCT02975349|183748359|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.27||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.57|||Negative Binomial|||||0.57|0.13|0.0005
91924622|NCT02975349|183748359|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.41||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.85|||Negative Binomial|||||0.85|0.20|0.0157
91924623|NCT02975349|183748360|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.9731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.25|-0.25|0.9731
91924624|NCT02975349|183748360|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.25||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|-0.50|0.0017
91924625|NCT02975349|183748360|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.25|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||-0.25|-0.75|< 0.0001
91924626|NCT02975349|183748361|SUPERIORITY||Lesion Rate ratio|1.29||||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.65|||Negative Binomial|||||2.65|0.63|0.4807
91924627|NCT02975349|183748361|SUPERIORITY||Lesion Rate ratio|0.5||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04|||Negative Binomial|||||1.04|0.24|0.0620
91924628|NCT02975349|183748361|SUPERIORITY||Lesion Rate ratio|0.42||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.87|||Negative Binomial|||||0.87|0.20|0.0189
91924629|NCT02975349|183748362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.02||||0.8776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.28|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeat Measures||Difference in least squares means of change from baseline in cube root of volume measured in centimeter.|||0.28|-0.24|0.8776
91924630|NCT02975349|183748362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.41||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.15|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeat Measures||Difference in least squares means of change from baseline in cube root of volume measured in centimeter.|||-0.15|-0.66|0.0019
91924631|NCT02975349|183748362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.36||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeat Measures||Difference in least squares means of change from baseline in cube root of volume measured in centimeter.|||-0.10|-0.62|0.0063
91924632|NCT02975349|183748363|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.9315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.009|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.009|-0.004|0.9315
91924633|NCT02975349|183748363|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.014||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.000|-0.050|0.0008
91924634|NCT02975349|183748363|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.018||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.000|-0.042|0.0014
91766609|NCT01276639|183422177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-69.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.27|-35.13||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-35.13|-104.27|<0.0001
91924635|NCT01663740|183748382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-40.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.1387||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.869|-11.463|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm density,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm density from Baseline to EOT|||-11.463|-68.869|0.0075
91924636|NCT01663740|183748383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|1.758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.5109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.619|7.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline TUNEL score,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in TUNEL score from Baseline to EOT|||7.135|-3.619|0.5109
91766610|NCT01276639|183422177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-97.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.35|-62.72||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-62.72|-131.35|<0.0001
91766611|NCT01276639|183422177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.22||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.29|-1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.37|-53.29|0.0391
91766612|NCT01276639|183422181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91766613|NCT01276639|183422181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91810716|NCT00799487|183496689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|1.65||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||1.65|-6.67|0.2321
91766614|NCT01276639|183422181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91766615|NCT01276639|183422182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91766616|NCT01276639|183422182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91766617|NCT01276639|183422182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91766618|NCT01276639|183422183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91766619|NCT01276639|183422183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91810717|NCT00799487|183496690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.52||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|-1.4||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-1.40|-5.64|0.0015
91810718|NCT00799487|183496691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.38||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|-1.33||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-1.33|-9.43|0.0101
91924637|NCT01663740|183748383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2058||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.566|5.464|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline TUNEL score,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in TUNEL score from Baseline to end of FU|||5.464|-7.566|0.7449
91924638|NCT01663740|183748384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|2.869|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2934||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.001|9.739|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline TUNEL score,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in TUNEL score from EOT to end of FU|||9.739|-4.001|0.3940
91924639|NCT01663740|183748385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3687||0.6773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.903|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline semen volume,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in seminal volume from Basline to EOT|||0.903|-0.594|0.6773
91924640|NCT01663740|183748385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3343||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.806|0.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline semen volume,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in seminal volume from Baseline to end of FU|||0.551|-0.806|0.7046
91924641|NCT01663740|183748386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3684||0.7323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.888|0.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline semen volume,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in seminal volume from EOT to end of FU|||0.633|-0.888|0.7323
91924642|NCT01663740|183748387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|51.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.6869||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.626|127.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm density,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm density from EOT to end of FU|||127.159|-24.626|0.1756
91924643|NCT01663740|183748388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-10.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.5745||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.934|29.543|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm density,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm density from Baseline to end of FU|||29.543|-49.934|0.6058
91924644|NCT01663740|183748389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-21.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1214||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.346|-3.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm motility,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total motility of sperm from Baseline to EOT|||-3.311|-40.346|0.0222
91924645|NCT01663740|183748389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-9.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3702||0.2495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.795|7.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm motility,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total motility of sperm from Baseline to end of FU|||7.190|-26.795|0.2495
91924646|NCT01663740|183748390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-11.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.2576||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.039|13.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm motility,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total motility of sperm from EOT to end of FU|||13.674|-37.039|0.3505
91924647|NCT01663740|183748391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-5.741|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7578||0.4021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.524|8.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm morphology,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm morphology from Baseline to EOT|||8.042|-19.524|0.4021
91924648|NCT01663740|183748391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1817||0.7229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.423|8.714|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm morphology,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm morphology from Baseline to end of FU|||8.714|-12.423|0.7229
91924649|NCT01663740|183748392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7598||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.192|13.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm morphology,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm morphology from EOT to end of FU|||13.291|-19.192|0.7080
91924650|NCT01663740|183748393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.861|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6512||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.213|1.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline testosterone,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total testosterone level from Baseline to EOT|||1.491|-5.213|0.2673
91924651|NCT01663740|183748393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6147||0.4949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.392|2.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline testosterone,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total testosterone level from Baseline to end of FU|||2.164|-4.392|0.4949
91924652|NCT01663740|183748394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.9753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.063|3.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline testosterone,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total testosterone level from EOT to end of FU|||3.157|-3.063|0.9753
91924653|NCT01663740|183748395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6347||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|1.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline LH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in LH level from Baseline to EOT|||1.366|-1.214|0.9053
91924654|NCT01663740|183748395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4477||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.125|-0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline LH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in LH level from Baseline to end of FU|||-0.305|-2.125|0.0104
91766620|NCT01276639|183422183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91766621|NCT03170661|183422248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||GEEGLM|Effects of GEEGLM covariates: surgeon, p = 0.24; surgery length, p= 0.73 and body mass index, p= 0.22).||||||0.94
91766622|NCT01217463|183422295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.43|0.60|0.4109
91924655|NCT01663740|183748396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4057||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.899|-0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline LH concentration,age,\& pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in LH level from EOT to end of FU|||-0.231|-1.899|0.0143
91924656|NCT01663740|183748397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|2.541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7274||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|6.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline FSH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in FSH level from Baseline to EOT|||6.052|-0.969|0.1505
91924657|NCT01663740|183748397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6739||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.352|0.387|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline FSH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in FSH level from Baseline to end of FU|||0.387|-2.352|0.1539
91924658|NCT01663740|183748398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8084||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.136|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline FSH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in FSH level from EOT to end of FU|||0.188|-3.136|0.0798
91924659|NCT01663740|183748399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.466||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.792|47.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline prolactin level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in prolactin level from Baseline to EOT|||47.585|-47.792|0.9965
91924660|NCT01663740|183748399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|15.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.6031||0.4636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.599|57.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline prolactin level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in prolactin level from Baseline to end of FU|||57.142|-26.599|0.4636
91924661|NCT01663740|183748400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.0805||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.438|43.917|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline prolactin level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in prolactin level from EOT to end of FU|||43.917|-26.438|0.6134
91924662|NCT01663740|183748401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|8.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.9301||0.5002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.223|32.506|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline inhibin B level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in inhibin B level from Baseline to EOT|||32.506|-16.223|0.5002
91766623|NCT01217463|183422296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|0.78|
91766624|NCT03609177|183422303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.8|||binomial regression with identity link|||||10.8|2.8|<0.05
91766625|NCT03609177|183422304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||binomial regression with identity link|||||0.6|-0.7|<0.05
91766626|NCT03609177|183422305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||binomial regression with identity link|||||1.90|-0.5|<0.05
91766627|NCT03609177|183422306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||binomial regression with identity link|||||1.0|-0.4|<0.05
91766628|NCT01126723|183422314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
91766629|NCT00279916|183422335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
91766630|NCT00279916|183422336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
91766631|NCT04532034|183422343|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.95
91924663|NCT01663740|183748401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|40.682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.6084||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|76.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline inhibin B level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in inhibin B level from Baseline to end of FU|||76.643|4.720|0.0279
91924664|NCT01663740|183748402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|25.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.1348||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.024|71.786|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline inhibin B level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables|Change in inhibin B level from EOT to end of FU|||71.786|-20.024|0.2548
91924665|NCT01663740|183748403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|45.3|||||Change in abnormal to abnormal sperm density from Baseline to EOT|||45.3|-19.3|
91924666|NCT01663740|183748403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|43.3|||||Change in abnormal to abnormal sperm density from Baseline to end of FU|||43.3|-34.3|
91766632|NCT01598922|183422346|OTHER|Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses following multiple imputation. Generalized Linear Models (GENLIN) predicting post-treatment HRSD scores in the imputed dataset. Covarying for pre-treatment HRSD scores, age and sex.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.814|9.403|||GENLIN|||||9.403|2.814|<0.0001
91766633|NCT01598922|183422347|OTHER||Cohen's d measure of effect size|-0.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.32||Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was applied to PHQ-9 data, adjusting for baseline PHQ-9 score. Group x Time interactions tested for between-group differences in slope of improvement of PHQ-9 scores.|hierarchical linear modeling|Age and sex were covariates. Cohen's d effect sizes are reported.||||-0.32|-1.25|.024
91766634|NCT01598922|183422348|OTHER|Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was applied to K-10 data, adjusting for baseline K-10 score. Group x Time interactions tested for between-group differences in slope of improvement of K-10 scores.|Cohen's d measure of effect size|-0.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.48|||HLM|||The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-10) is a 10-item scale with total scores that can range from 0 to 50. Higher scores represent worse (more severe) psychological distress.||-0.48|-1.42|.003
91766635|NCT04184297|183422517|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||Regression, Cox|The method was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard ratio of Tiotropium+Olodaterol versus LABA/LAMA/ICS.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/LAMA/ICS) therapy combination on the risk of first COPD exacerbation for overall population.||0.96|0.76|
91766636|NCT04184297|183422518|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.07|||Regression, Cox|This method was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard ratio of Tiotropium+Olodaterol versus LABA/LAMA/ICS.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/LAMA/ICS) therapy combination on the risk of a hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia for overall population.||1.07|0.64|
91810719|NCT00799487|183496692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.34||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.34|-0.53|0.6642
91810720|NCT00799487|183496693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.89|-11.71||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-11.71|-58.89|0.0040
91924667|NCT01663740|183748403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|48.8|||||Change in normal to abnormal sperm density from Baseline to EOT|||48.8|-15.3|
91810721|NCT00799487|183496694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.03||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-0.03|-0.14|0.0012
91810722|NCT00799487|183496695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.02||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-0.02|-0.12|0.0051
91810723|NCT00799487|183496696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.02|-0.13|0.1768
91810724|NCT00799487|183496697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.4245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.04|-0.09|0.4245
91810725|NCT00799487|183496698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|0.0||||0.9729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.09|-0.09|0.9729
91810726|NCT00799487|183496699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.04||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.04|-0.12|0.3486
91810727|NCT00799487|183496700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.01|-0.07|0.1466
91924668|NCT01663740|183748404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|42.5|||||Change in abnormal to abnormal sperm density from EOT to end of FU|||42.5|-34.5|
91766637|NCT04184297|183422519|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||Regression, Cox|The method was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard ratio of Tiotropium+Olodaterol versus LABA/LAMA/ICS.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/LAMA/ICS) therapy combination on the risk of first COPD exacerbation for overall population.||1.19|0.91|
91766638|NCT03775486|183422574|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.57|0.074
91766639|NCT03775486|183422574|OTHER||Median|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|7.9||||||Median progression-free survival (months)||7.9|5.3|
91766640|NCT03775486|183422574|OTHER||Median|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|5.8||||||Median progression-free survival (months)||5.8|3.7|
91810728|NCT00799487|183496701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.08|-0.01|0.1368
91810729|NCT00356369|183496782|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than (\>) -15%.|Difference in % for rSBA-MenA antibodies|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|23.5||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||23.5|3.52|
91810730|NCT00356369|183496782|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was ≥ -12%.|Difference in % for rSBA-MenC antibodies|4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|11.36||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||11.36|-1.03|
91924669|NCT01663740|183748405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|33.7|||||Improvement from Baseline to EOT|||33.7|-31.3|
91924670|NCT01663740|183748405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|44.4|||||Improvement from Baseline to end of FU|||44.4|-31.1|
91924671|NCT01663740|183748406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|29.3|||||Improvement from EOT to end of FU|||29.3|-50.0|
91924672|NCT01663740|183748407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|2.7|||||Improvement from Baseline to EOT|||2.7|-59.7|
91924673|NCT01663740|183748407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|47.7|||||Improvement from Baseline to end of FU|||47.7|-29.7|
91766641|NCT03775486|183422575|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.59|0.604
91766642|NCT03775486|183422575|OTHER||Median|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1||NA = insufficient number of participants with events|||||Median overall survival (months)|||14.1|
91766643|NCT03775486|183422575|OTHER||Median overall survival (months)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8||NA = insufficient number of participants with events||||The CI lower limit is included as the estimated value as there was an insufficient number of participants with events to calculate a median value|Median overall survival (months)|||11.8|
91766644|NCT03775486|183422577|OTHER|Median duration of response (months)|Median duration of response|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5||NA = insufficient number of participants with events||||The CI lower limit is included as the estimated value as there was an insufficient number of participants with events to calculate a median value||||6.5|
91766645|NCT03775486|183422577|OTHER|Median duration of response (months)|Median duration of response|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8||NA = insufficient number of participants with events||||The CI lower limit is included as the estimated value as there was an insufficient number of participants with events to calculate a median value||||3.8|
91766646|NCT03775486|183422578|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.0||||||||2.00|0.07|
91766647|NCT03775486|183422578|OTHER||Median (months)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7||NA = insufficient number of participants with events|||||Median progression-free survival (months)|||1.7|
91766648|NCT03775486|183422578|OTHER||Median (months)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|16.6||||||Median progression-free survival (months)||16.6|1.2|
91924674|NCT01663740|183748408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|27.9|||||Improvement from EOT to end of FU|||27.9|-47.2|
91924675|NCT03551522|183748409|OTHER|The LS Means, confidence intervals, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with relative (percent) change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment and stratification groups (diabetic status and fibrosis stage) as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LS Mean of Difference|11.02||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|23.67|||ANCOVA|||||23.67|-1.63|0.0874
91924676|NCT03551522|183748409|OTHER|The LS Means, confidence intervals, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with relative (percent) change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment and stratification groups (diabetic status and fibrosis stage) as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LS Mean of Difference|6.54||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|19.37|||ANCOVA|||||19.37|-6.28|0.3151
91924677|NCT03551522|183748409|OTHER|The LS Means, confidence intervals, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with relative (percent) change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment and stratification groups (diabetic status and fibrosis stage) as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LS Mean of Difference|7.78||||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|20.58|||ANCOVA|||||20.58|-5.01|0.2313
91766649|NCT03775486|183422580|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|3.46||||||EORTC QLQ-LC13: Dyspnoea Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||3.46|-4.47|
91766650|NCT03775486|183422580|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|6.71||||||EORTC QLQ-LC13: Coughing Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||6.71|-4.81|
91766651|NCT03775486|183422580|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|-2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.88||||||EORTC QLQ-LC13: Pain in chest Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||1.88|-6.39|
91766652|NCT03775486|183422582|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.47||||||EORTC QLQ-C30: Fatigue Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||5.47|-2.20|
91766653|NCT03775486|183422582|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|7.9||||||EORTC QLQ-C30: Appetite loss Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||7.90|-1.46|
91766654|NCT05214768|183422600|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-223.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.98||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-370.2|-76.3|||ANCOVA|||||-76.3|-370.2|0.003
91766655|NCT03043872|183422633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.909||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. The global cohort interim analysis of OS was based on a Lan-DeMets alpha spending function with O'Brien Fleming type boundary, using the actual number of events observed as a proportion of the planned total. Boundary for declaring statistical significance was 0.0178 for a 4% overall alpha. Hazard Ratio (HR) \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP.||0.909|0.591|0.0047
91766656|NCT03043872|183422634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|0.91||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP.||0.910|0.625|0.0032
91766657|NCT03043872|183422634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|0.995||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|"D + T + EP vs EP. The alpha level applied at the global cohort final analysis was adjusted (using a generalized Haybittle-Peto method) to account for actual alpha spent at the interim analysis based on the actual final total number of events, and thus maintain control of overall Type I error. Boundary for declaring statistical significance was 0.0418 for a 5% overall alpha.~HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP."||0.995|0.682|0.0451
91766658|NCT03043872|183422635|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.029||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.029|0.414|0.0664
91766659|NCT03043872|183422636|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.106||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.106|0.504|0.1455
91810731|NCT00356369|183496782|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was ≥ -12%.|Difference in%for rSBA-MenW-135 antibody|4.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|11.49||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||11.49|-0.07|
91810732|NCT00356369|183496782|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was ≥ -12%.|Difference in % for rSBA-MenY antibodies|8.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|16.17||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||16.17|1.72|
91810733|NCT00356369|183496783|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the difference between MenACWY- TT and (minus) MenACWY in the incidence of Grade 3 systemic symptoms was below 5%.|Difference in % Grade 3 general symptoms|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|3.09||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the MenACWY-TT conjugate vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine in terms of the incidence of any Grade 3 systemic symptom within 4 days after vaccination.||3.09|-1.64|
91766660|NCT03043872|183422636|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|0.964||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||0.964|0.439|0.0314
91766661|NCT03043872|183422637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.309||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than D + EP.||1.309|0.890|0.4352
91766662|NCT03043872|183422638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|0.959||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP.||0.959|0.665|0.0157
91766663|NCT03043872|183422638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.005||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP.||1.005|0.696|0.0568
91766664|NCT03043872|183422638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.235||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than D + EP.||1.235|0.857|0.7540
91766665|NCT03043872|183422639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.401||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + EP.||2.401|1.086|0.0177
91766666|NCT03043872|183422639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.746||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + T + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + T + EP.||1.746|0.817|0.3611
91766667|NCT03043872|183422651|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.277||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than D + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.277|0.574|0.4470
91810734|NCT00673465|183496814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-4.4||||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|9.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||9.7|-18.5|0.5269
91810735|NCT00673465|183496814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-53.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|-39.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||-39.8|-68.1|<0.0001
91810736|NCT00673465|183496818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-2.81||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|14.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||14.5|-20.1|0.7410
91810737|NCT00673465|183496818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-63.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|-46.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||-46.2|-80.9|<0.0001
91810738|NCT00673465|183496820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-3.59||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||3.6|-10.8|0.3146
91810739|NCT00673465|183496820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-19.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||-19.4|-33.8|<0.0001
91810740|NCT04294472|183496903|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 1 vs Placebo||||||0.1866|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1866
91924678|NCT05136885|183748418|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.102||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. (Trehalose) slowed progression) was (0.8772). NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by Trehalose relative to placebo.Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, baseline use of Relyvrio, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, serum NfL concentration and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.102|0.665|
91924679|NCT05136885|183748420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|2.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope, and baseline log-transformed NfL.|Trehalose 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.97|-4.06|0.7607
91924680|NCT05136885|183748421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.204||0.7737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope, and baseline log-transformed NfL.|Trehalose 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||7.21|-5.37|0.7737
91924681|NCT05136885|183748422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2137|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2137
91766668|NCT03043872|183422652|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.437||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.437|0.661|0.8934
91766669|NCT03043872|183422652|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.068||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.068|0.487|0.1035
91766670|NCT03043872|183422652|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.116||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than D + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.116|0.522|0.1673
91766671|NCT03043872|183422653|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.244||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||3.244|0.610|0.4320
91766672|NCT03043872|183422653|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|5.118||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + T + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + T + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||5.118|0.874|0.0986
91766673|NCT02777827|183422683|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean|0.2221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0453|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1324|0.3118|||ANCOVA|||||0.3118|0.1324|<0.0001
91766674|NCT02777827|183422683|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.4042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0453|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3146|0.4938|||ANCOVA|||||0.4938|0.3146|<0.0001
91766675|NCT02777827|183422683|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.1056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0451||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0164|0.1949|||ANCOVA|||||0.1949|0.0164|0.0207
91766676|NCT02777827|183422683|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.1701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.2592|||ANCOVA|||||0.2592|0.0810|0.0002
91766677|NCT02777827|183422683|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.4062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|0.4955|||ANCOVA|||||0.4955|0.3170|<0.0001
91766678|NCT04551066|183422707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.26||calculated from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 x 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 x 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.26|0.71|0.4224
91924682|NCT02658656|183748432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.85|||Chi-squared|||||1.85|.45|0.798
91924683|NCT02658656|183748433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.15|||Chi-squared|||||2.15|0.44|0.935
91924684|NCT02658656|183748434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.79|||Chi-squared|||||1.79|0.49|0.829
91924685|NCT02658656|183748435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.11|||Chi-squared|||||2.11|0.56|0.809
91924686|NCT02658656|183748436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.47|||Chi-squared|||||2.47|0.54|0.717
91924687|NCT02658656|183748437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02|||Chi-squared|||||2.02|0.61|0.738
91924688|NCT00128206|183748468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.51|||>|0.05||95.0|0.13|2.01|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in toxicity by study group, and a sample of 360 participants (180 in each group)was estimated to have sufficient power to detect a difference.||2.01|.13|>.05
91924689|NCT00408421|183748513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for treatment effect at last visit. Effects evaluated based on 2-sided significance level=0.05. Model: treatment, NSAID use, investigator, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-week interaction.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.||Null hypothesis: the difference in 24-hour average pain score between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups at last visit of treatment phase is zero. This study will have at least 80% power to detect a treatment group difference of 1.0 point in the baseline-to-endpoint mean change on the weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups based on Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF).||||<0.001
91924690|NCT00408421|183748514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.001||95.0|-0.84|-0.21||Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), PGI severity at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean outcome measure at endpoint.||-0.21|-0.84|0.001
91924691|NCT00408421|183748515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41||||0.003||95.0|-2.33|-0.48||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.48|-2.33|0.003
91924692|NCT00408421|183748516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.004||95.0|-1.09|-0.22||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.22|-1.09|0.004
91924693|NCT00408421|183748517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.18||||0.001||95.0|-8.33|-2.03||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-2.03|-8.33|0.001
91766679|NCT04551066|183422708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.53||calculated from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 x 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 x 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.53|0.46|0.5728
91766680|NCT04551066|183422710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 × 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Log Rank|||||||0.9490
91766681|NCT04551066|183422714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1085||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 × 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Log Rank|||||||0.1085
91766682|NCT04551066|183422715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6127||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 × 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Log Rank|||||||0.6127
91810741|NCT04294472|183496903|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 2 vs Placebo||||||0.2627|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2627
91924694|NCT00408421|183748518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.42||||0.004||95.0|-10.72|-2.11||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-2.11|-10.72|0.004
91924695|NCT00408421|183748519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83||||0.005||95.0|-1.4|-0.25||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.25|-1.40|0.005
91766683|NCT04491136|183422716|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||McNemar|||At least one SVT occurred||||>0.9999
91766684|NCT04491136|183422716|OTHER|||||||0.7905|||||||McNemar|||At least one NSVT occurred||||0.7905
91766685|NCT04491136|183422716|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||McNemar|||At least one PVC occurred||||0.6250
91766686|NCT04491136|183422718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.653||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.7|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||3.70|1.11|0.0008
91810742|NCT04294472|183496904|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 1 vs Placebo||||||0.0639|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0639
91810743|NCT04294472|183496904|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 2 vs Placebo||||||0.0508|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0508
91924696|NCT00408421|183748520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for treatment effect at last visit. Effects evaluated based on 2-sided significance level=0.05. Model: treatment, NSAID use, investigator, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-week interaction.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.||||||<0.001
91924697|NCT00408421|183748521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.039||95.0|-1.69|-0.05||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.05|-1.69|0.039
91924698|NCT00408421|183748522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.001||95.0|-0.56|-0.14||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.14|-0.56|0.001
91924699|NCT00408421|183748523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.66|-0.46||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.46|-1.66|<0.001
91924700|NCT00408421|183748524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.004||95.0|-1.28|-0.24||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.24|-1.28|0.004
91924701|NCT00408421|183748525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.52|-0.42||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.42|-1.52|<0.001
91924702|NCT00408421|183748526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.003||95.0|-1.5|-0.32||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.32|-1.50|0.003
91924703|NCT00408421|183748527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.019||95.0|-1.3|-0.12||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.12|-1.30|0.019
91924704|NCT00408421|183748528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.164||95.0|-0.97|0.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.17|-0.97|0.164
91924705|NCT00408421|183748529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.049||95.0|-1.25|0.0||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.00|-1.25|0.049
91924706|NCT00408421|183748530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.093||95.0|-1.1|0.08||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.08|-1.10|0.093
91924707|NCT00408421|183748531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.287||95.0|-0.82|0.24||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.24|-0.82|0.287
91924708|NCT00408421|183748532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.033||95.0|-1.23|-0.05||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.05|-1.23|0.033
91924709|NCT00408421|183748533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.015||95.0|-1.4|-0.15||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.15|-1.40|0.015
91924710|NCT00408421|183748534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.029||95.0|-1.06|-0.06||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.06|-1.06|0.029
91924711|NCT00408421|183748535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||This study will also have at least 85% power to detect a treatment group difference of 25% in the response rates (≥30% reduction from baseline) based on the weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups.||||0.033
91924712|NCT00408421|183748536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||This study will also have at least 85% power to detect a treatment group difference of 25% in the response rates (≥30% reduction from baseline) based on the weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups.||||0.075
91924713|NCT00408421|183748537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83||||0.088||95.0|-0.28|3.94||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||3.94|-0.28|0.088
91924714|NCT00408421|183748538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.87||||0.08||95.0|-0.22|3.96||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||3.96|-0.22|0.080
91924715|NCT00408421|183748539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||<|0.001||95.0|0.03|0.1||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.10|0.03|<0.001
91766687|NCT04491136|183422719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Ridit analysis|||||0.04|-0.07|0.5733
91766688|NCT04491136|183422720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-231.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.03||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-415.9|-47.02|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||-47.02|-415.90|0.0006
91924716|NCT00408421|183748540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.641||95.0|-1.19|0.74||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.74|-1.19|0.641
91924717|NCT00408421|183748541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.193||95.0|-1.17|0.24||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.24|-1.17|0.193
91924718|NCT00408421|183748542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA on ranked data.||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Rank-transformed data will be used in the analysis given the view that the change scores for most of the laboratory analytes are not normally distributed. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||||0.003
91924719|NCT00408421|183748543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA on ranked data.||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Rank-transformed data will be used in the analysis given the view that the change scores for most of the laboratory analytes are not normally distributed. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||||0.026
91924720|NCT00408421|183748544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.459||95.0|-1.32|2.92||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||2.92|-1.32|0.459
91924721|NCT00408421|183748545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.326||95.0|-1.1|3.28||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||3.28|-1.10|0.326
91924722|NCT00408421|183748546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.16||||0.069||95.0|-0.25|6.56||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||6.56|-0.25|0.069
91924723|NCT00408421|183748547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.107||95.0|-1.2|0.12||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.12|-1.20|0.107
91766689|NCT04491136|183422722|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||McNemar|||Occurrence of at least one shock||||>0.9999
91766690|NCT04491136|183422722|OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||McNemar|||Occurrence of at least one ATP event||||0.0654
91766691|NCT01712204|183422744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||Possion regression|||||1.07|0.62|0.1356
91810744|NCT00563381|183496905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.77|0.9|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.90|0.77|<0.0001
91810745|NCT00563381|183496906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.66|0.82|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium vs. Salmeterol||0.82|0.66|<0.0001
91924724|NCT02772965|183748548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.45|0.08
91924725|NCT02772965|183748549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
91924726|NCT02772965|183748550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
91924727|NCT02772965|183748551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
91924728|NCT02772965|183748552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
91924729|NCT02772965|183748553|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04|||Chi-squared|||||1.04|0.49|0.08
91924730|NCT00494871|183748559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.0|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.87|0.025
91924731|NCT00494871|183748560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.0||||||||1.00|0.24|
91924732|NCT00494871|183748561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.22||||||||1.22|0.34|
91924733|NCT00494871|183748562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.34||||||||1.34|0.41|
91924734|NCT00494871|183748563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.98||||||||0.98|0.22|
91924735|NCT00494871|183748564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.85||||||||15.85|0.06|
91924736|NCT00494871|183748565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|28.16||||||||28.16|0.30|
91924737|NCT00494871|183748566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.7||||||||14.70|0.60|
91924738|NCT00494871|183748567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.4||||||||1.40|0.16|
91924739|NCT00494871|183748568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.31||||||||4.31|0.43|
91924740|NCT00494871|183748569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.43||||||||1.43|0.50|
91924741|NCT00494871|183748570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.56||||||||1.56|0.92|
91924742|NCT02435173|183748574|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and log10 transformed baseline SPD as a covariate.||||-0.11|-0.37|0.0012
91924743|NCT02435173|183748575|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|40.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.51|51.75|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||51.75|28.51|<0.0001
91924744|NCT03088605|183748626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline scores as a covariate||0|-0.7|0.02
91924745|NCT03088605|183748627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change form baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||0.5|-1.4|0.0001
91924746|NCT03088605|183748628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||-0.47|-2.36|0.03
91924747|NCT03088605|183748629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.199||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.177|0.575|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline; ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||0.575|-0.177|0.39
91924748|NCT03088605|183748630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.0|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||2.0|-1.7|0.97
91924749|NCT03088605|183748631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||0.03|-0.48|0.06
91924750|NCT02345161|183748632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.194|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.194|0.148|<0.001
91924751|NCT02345161|183748633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.226|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.226|0.131|<0.001
91924752|NCT02345161|183748634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.0|-3.5|<0.001
91924753|NCT02345161|183748635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.2|-5.5|0.065
91924754|NCT02345161|183748636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.84|||Mixed effect repeated measures model|||||0.84|0.30|<0.001
91924755|NCT02345161|183748637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.97|||Mixed effect repeated measures model|||||0.97|-0.28|0.279
91924756|NCT02345161|183748638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.9|0.817
91924757|NCT02345161|183748639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.1|0.767
91924758|NCT02345161|183748640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86|||Generalized linear modeL|Generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution||||0.86|0.49|0.002
91924759|NCT02345161|183748641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.85|||Generalized Linear model|Generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution||||0.85|0.37|0.006
91924760|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.66|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 1-4|||-0.66|-1.25|<0.001
91924761|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.87|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 5-8|||-0.87|-1.59|<0.001
91924762|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 9-12|||-0.78|-1.57|<0.001
91924763|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 13-16|||-0.91|-1.75|<0.001
91924764|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.97|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 17-20|||-0.97|-1.85|<0.001
91924765|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 21-24|||-0.91|-1.79|<0.001
91924766|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.36|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 1-4|||-0.36|-0.67|<0.001
91924767|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 5-8|||-0.50|-0.88|<0.001
91766692|NCT01059318|183422749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|196.0|||Bayesian analysis|A Bayesian posterior distribution of the treatment effect at 26 weeks was evaluated using a non-informative prior.|MILES study and current study had different study designs, so change from baseline to 26 weeks in MILES study was estimated from the publicly reported rate of change per month in order to provide a meaningful comparison based on Bayesian analysis.|"Proof of Concept was proposed as follows:~* 90% level of proof that difference in FVC change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \> 0 mL~* 50% level of proof that difference in FVC change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \>= 100 mL~Historical data from 43 patients treated with placebo from the MILES study were down weighted to an effective sample size of 18 for comparison."||196|-45|
91766693|NCT01059318|183422750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|186.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|279.0|||Bayesian analysis|A Bayesian posterior distribution of the treatment effect at 26 weeks was evaluated using a non-informative prior.|MILES study and current study had different study designs, so change from baseline to 26 weeks in MILES study was estimated from the publicly reported rate of change per month in order to provide a meaningful comparison based on Bayesian analysis.|"Proof of Concept was proposed as follows:~* 90% level of proof that difference in FEV1 change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \> 0 mL~* 50% level of proof that difference in FEV1 change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \>= 100 mL~Historical data from 43 patients treated with placebo from the MILES study were down weighted to an effective sample size of 18 for comparison."||279|93|
91766694|NCT02267538|183422762|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|0.23|0.341
91766695|NCT02267538|183422763|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||MMSE|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.830
91766696|NCT02267538|183422763|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|||||m-TICS|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.405
91766697|NCT02267538|183422764|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Incidence of total non-delirium complications within 30 days after surgery||1.19|0.47|0.214
91766698|NCT02267538|183422764|OTHER|stroke|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Incidence of stroke within 30 days after surgery||5.08|0.20|0.993
91766699|NCT02267538|183422764|OTHER|New onset arrythmia|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|0.46|0.274
91766700|NCT02267538|183422764|OTHER|Pulmonary complications|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.00|0.26|0.050
91766701|NCT02267538|183422764|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.75||Upper gastrointestinal bleeding|Regression, Logistic|||||2.75|0.09|0.423
91766702|NCT02267538|183422764|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.08||Surgical bleeding|Regression, Logistic|||||5.08|0.20|0.993
91766703|NCT02267538|183422764|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.34||Wound dehiscence or infection|Regression, Logistic|||||4.34|0.61|0.326
91766704|NCT02267538|183422764|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.33||Acute kidney injur|Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.47|0.378
91766705|NCT02267538|183422764|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.32||IABP assistance|Regression, Logistic|||||1.32|0.18|0.156
91766706|NCT02267538|183422765|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the first row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 1 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.596
91766707|NCT02267538|183422765|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the second row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 2 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.743
91766708|NCT02267538|183422765|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the third row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 3 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.282
91766709|NCT02267538|183422765|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fourth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 4 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.368
91766710|NCT02267538|183422765|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fifth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 5 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.397
91766711|NCT02267538|183422765|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the sixth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 1 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.486
91766712|NCT02267538|183422765|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the seventh row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 2 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.414
91766713|NCT02267538|183422765|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the eighth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 3 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.187
91766714|NCT02267538|183422765|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the ninth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 4 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.127
91766715|NCT02267538|183422765|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the tenth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 5 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.378
91766716|NCT02267538|183422766|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the first row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 1 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.777
91766717|NCT02267538|183422766|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the second row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 2 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||1|-1|0.919
91924768|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 9-12|||-0.48|-0.90|<0.001
91924769|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.52|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 13-16|||-0.52|-0.97|<0.001
91810746|NCT00563381|183496907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.0002||95.0|0.85|0.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.95|0.85|0.0002
91924770|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 17-20|||-0.56|-1.03|<0.001
91924771|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.54|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 21-24|||-0.54|-1.01|<0.001
91924772|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 1-4|||-0.09|-0.26|<0.001
91924773|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 5-8|||-0.10|-0.31|<0.001
91924774|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 9-12|||-0.05|-0.28|0.004
91924775|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 13-16|||-0.10|-0.34|<0.001
91924776|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 17-20|||-0.11|-0.36|<0.001
91924777|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 21-24|||-0.10|-0.35|<0.001
91924778|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 1-4|||-0.18|-0.37|<0.001
91924779|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 5-8|||-0.23|-0.46|<0.001
91924780|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 9-12|||-0.21|-0.47|<0.001
91924781|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 13-16|||-0.25|-0.51|<0.001
91924782|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 17-20|||-0.26|-0.53|<0.001
91924783|NCT02345161|183748642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 21-24|||-0.22|-0.50|<0.001
91924784|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 1-4|||0.09|-1.13|0.094
91924785|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.34|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 5-8|||-0.34|-1.80|0.004
91924786|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.419||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 9-12|||-0.14|-1.79|0.022
91924787|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.445||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 13-16|||-0.13|-1.88|0.024
91924788|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 17-20|||-0.17|-2.06|0.021
91924789|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Score, Week 21-24|||-0.16|-2.05|0.022
91924790|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 25-28|||-0.35|-2.29|0.008
91924791|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.46|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 29-32|||-0.46|-2.40|0.004
91924792|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.519||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 33-36|||-0.48|-2.52|0.004
91924793|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 37-40|||-0.23|-2.22|0.016
91924794|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 41-44|||-0.48|-2.50|0.04
91924795|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 45-49|||-0.50|-2.56|0.007
91924796|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 49-52|||-0.39|-2.45|0.007
91924797|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 1-4|||0.00|-0.66|0.051
91924798|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 5-8|||-0.20|-1.02|0.003
91924799|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 9-12|||-0.15|-1.07|0.010
91924800|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 13-16|||-0.13|-1.10|0.013
91924801|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 17-20|||-0.15|-1.19|0.012
91924802|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 21-24|||-0.11|-1.16|0.018
91924803|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 25-28|||-0.21|-1.30|0.006
91924804|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.31|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 29-32|||-0.31|-1.40|0.002
91924805|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 33-36|||-0.38|-1.51|0.001
91924806|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 37-40|||-0.20|-1.32|0.008
91924807|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 41-44|||-0.24|-1.40|0.006
91924808|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.27|||Breathlessness score, Week 41-44||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 45-48|||-0.27|-1.44|0.004
91924809|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 49-52EXA|||-0.30|-1.45|0.003
91924810|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 1-4|||0.16|-0.20|0.840
91924811|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 5-8|||-0.06|-0.36|0.167
91924812|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 9-12|||0.12|-0.34|0.359
91924813|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 13-16|||0.13|-0.36|0.360
91924814|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 17-20|||0.17|-0.36|0.490
91924815|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 21-24|||0.15|-0.39|0.388
91924816|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 25-28|||0.10|-0.44|0.218
91924817|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 29-32|||0.07|-0.47|0.138
91924818|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 33-36|||0.11|-0.44|0.239
91924819|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 37-40|||0.16|-0.38|0.417
91924820|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 41-44|||0.03|-0.54|0.078
91924821|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 45-48|||0.01|-0.54|0.058
91924822|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 49-52|||0.11|-0.45|0.231
91924823|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 1-4|||0.01|-0.37|0.068
91924824|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 5-8|||-0.09|-0.56|0.006
91924825|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 9-12|||-0.01|-0.53|0.042
91924826|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 13-16|||-0.03|-0.57|0.027
91924827|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 17-20|||-0.09|-0.67|0.010
91924828|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 21-24|||-0.09|-0.66|0.010
91924829|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 25-28|||-0.12|-0.70|
91924830|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 29-32|||-0.09|-0.68|0.011
91924831|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 33-36|||-0.09|-0.71|0.011
91924832|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 37-40|||-0.07|-0.67|0.014
91924833|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 41-44|||-0.12|-0.72|0.007
91924834|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 45-48|||-0.13|-0.76|0.006
91924835|NCT02345161|183748643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 49-52|||-0.09|-0.73|0.013
91924836|NCT02345161|183748652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For QTcF|||3.4|0.3|0.023
91924837|NCT02345161|183748652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For PR interval|||1.0|-2.1|0.471
91924838|NCT02345161|183748653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For QTcF|||2.5|-4.7|0.564
91924839|NCT02345161|183748653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For PR interval|||3.3|-2.9|0.908
91924840|NCT02345161|183748656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24, SBP|||1.2|-1.0|0.849
91924841|NCT02345161|183748656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24, DBP|||0.9|-0.6|0.613
91924842|NCT02345161|183748657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||: LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 52, SBP|||0.8|-3.9|0.183
91766718|NCT02267538|183422766|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the third row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 3 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.835
91766719|NCT02267538|183422766|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fourth row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 4 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.321
91924843|NCT02345161|183748657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 52, DBP|||0.6|-2.3|0.253
91924844|NCT02345161|183748659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.2|-0.6|0.526
91924845|NCT02345161|183748660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.5|0.7|0.007
91924846|NCT02639182|183748713|SUPERIORITY|The difference between treatment groups was tested using a stratified log rank test at a one-sided 0.1 significance level.||||||0.983||||||The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and the number of prior systemic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) regimens, without any other covariate(s). The model contained terms for treatment group and stratum.|Log Rank|||||||0.983
91924847|NCT02639182|183748714|SUPERIORITY|The difference between treatment groups was tested using a stratified log rank test at a one-sided 0.1 significance level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.423||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|2.192||The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and the number of prior systemic RCC regimens, without any other covariate(s). The model contained terms for treatment group and stratum.|Log Rank|||||2.192|0.924|0.110
91924848|NCT02639182|183748715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis of the ORR, stratified for baseline ECOG-PS and number of prior systemic therapies for RCC, was conducted at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the odds ratio for experiencing objective response, with the axitinib arm as the reference level, was reported.||||1.1|0.1|0.062
91924849|NCT02639182|183748716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376||||0.439||95.0|0.031|4.482||The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and the number of prior systemic RCC regimens, without any other covariate(s). The model contained terms for treatment group and stratum.|Log Rank|The difference between treatment groups was tested using a stratified log rank test at a one-sided 0.1 significance level.||||4.482|0.031|0.439
91924850|NCT02639182|183748717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746||||||Test conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and number of prior systemic RCC regimens.|Log Rank|||||||0.746
91924851|NCT02639182|183748718|SUPERIORITY|A CMH analysis of the DCR, stratified for baseline ECOG-PS and number of prior systemic therapies for RCC, was conducted at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||The stratified Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the odds ratio for experiencing objective response, with the axitinib arm as the reference level, was reported as a measure of relative treatment effect, along with its two-sided 95% CI.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|0.2|0.152
91924852|NCT02546856|183748735|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis that the relative dose of BBs would reach 52% by the end of the study and using an equivalence margin of 7%, we would need 157 patients per group for an alpha level of significance of 0.05 and a statistical power of 80% (beta of 0.80).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||22.1|7.5|<0.001
91924853|NCT02546856|183748736|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|1.4||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|6.32|||Chi-squared|||||6.32|-3.33|0.52
91924854|NCT02546856|183748737|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|2.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.1|||Chi-squared|||||6.1|-1.9|0.31
91924855|NCT02546856|183748738|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|-0.63||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.85|||Chi-squared|||||5.85|-7.1|0.85
91924856|NCT02546856|183748739|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|2.12||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.54|||Chi-squared|||||7.54|-3.3|0.44
91924857|NCT02546856|183748741|NON_INFERIORITY|equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|0.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.04|||Chi-squared|||||3.04|-1.6|0.56
91924858|NCT02546856|183748745|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.83|-2.69|0.96
91924859|NCT02546856|183748746|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.47||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-781.0|748.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||748|-781|0.97
91766720|NCT02267538|183422766|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fifth row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 5 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.174
91766721|NCT02267538|183422767|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.82|0.788
91924860|NCT02546856|183748747|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.28||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|25.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.83|-11.27|0.44
91924861|NCT02546856|183748749|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|4.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.81|-6.63|0.75
91924862|NCT02546856|183748750|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|-0.2|0.20
91924863|NCT02546856|183748751|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|-5.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-1.4|||Chi-squared|||||-1.4|-9.7|0.01
91924864|NCT02546856|183748752|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|-0.68||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.87|||Chi-squared|Equivalence margin of 7%||||2.87|-4.2|0.71
91924865|NCT02546856|183748753|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 7%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|24.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.3|8.7|<0.001
91924866|NCT02546856|183748754|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 7%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|17.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.1|-15.1|0.93
91924867|NCT02546856|183748755|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 7%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.2|-7.1|0.86
91924868|NCT04655586|183748775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4715||||||All rNAPc2 vs. Heparin|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.4715
91924869|NCT04655586|183748776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1883|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.1883
91924870|NCT04655586|183748779|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||1.0
91924871|NCT04655586|183748780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.0254
91924872|NCT04655586|183748781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0535|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.0535
91924873|NCT04655586|183748782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.8300
91924874|NCT05057988|183748790|OTHER|paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.55|0.53|<.001
91924875|NCT05057988|183748791|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.17||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|3.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.37|-1.42|.208
91924876|NCT05057988|183748792|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.20|0.52|<.001
91924877|NCT05057988|183748793|OTHER|Paired t test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.65||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.47|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.47|-.84|.328
91924878|NCT05057988|183748794|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||||4.16|1.26|<.001
91924879|NCT05057988|183748795|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.38||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.53|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.53|-1.22|.486
91924880|NCT05057988|183748796|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.57||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.99|-2.46|.832
91924881|NCT05057988|183748797|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.47|-1.33|.340
91924882|NCT05057988|183748799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample t test||paired sample t test||0.89|-0.34|0.370
91924883|NCT05057988|183748799|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.89|-.34|.370
91766722|NCT02267538|183422768|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.77|0.826
91766723|NCT01223183|183422776|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing DTPA absorption after hypertonic saline inhalation to DTPA absorption after isotonic saline inhalation||||<0.001
91766724|NCT01223183|183422778|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing mucociliary clearance after isotonic saline inhalation to mucociliary clearance after hypertonic saline inhalation||||0.003
91766725|NCT01454791|183422780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91766726|NCT01454791|183422781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||not significant|||||0.6059
91766727|NCT01454791|183422782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||not significant|||||0.705
91924884|NCT00479466|183748826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-17.3|||ANCOVA|||||-17.3|-44.0|<0.001
91924885|NCT00479466|183748826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-33.4|||ANCOVA|||||-33.4|-59.7|<0.001
91924886|NCT00479466|183748826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-38.0|||ANCOVA|||||-38.0|-64.3|<0.001
91924887|NCT00479466|183748826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.6|-47.8|||ANCOVA|||||-47.8|-74.6|<0.001
91924888|NCT00479466|183748826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-22.4|||ANCOVA|||||-22.4|-48.6|<0.001
91924889|NCT00479466|183748827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-1.53|<0.001
91924890|NCT00479466|183748827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||||-1.15|-1.91|<0.001
91924891|NCT00479466|183748827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.31|||ANCOVA|||||-1.31|-2.07|<0.001
91924892|NCT00479466|183748827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-2.45|<0.001
91924893|NCT00479466|183748827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-1.70|<0.001
91924894|NCT00479466|183748828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.4|-34.3|||ANCOVA|||||-34.3|-79.4|<0.001
91924895|NCT00479466|183748828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|-48.2|||ANCOVA|||||-48.2|-91.8|<0.001
91766728|NCT02719171|183422783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.3|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) use and concurrent methotrexate use.||38.7|9.3|0.007
91924896|NCT00479466|183748828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-87.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.4|-65.3|||ANCOVA|||||-65.3|-109.4|<0.001
91924897|NCT00479466|183748828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.2|-79.1|||ANCOVA|||||-79.1|-124.2|<0.001
91924898|NCT00479466|183748828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.7|-38.8|||ANCOVA|||||-38.8|-82.7|<0.001
91924899|NCT03626415|183748831|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Mean|94.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.96|141.55|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||141.55|62.96|
91924900|NCT03626415|183748831|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adusted Geometric Means|105.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.38|158.24|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||158.24|70.38|
91766729|NCT02719171|183422784|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||23.0|1.0|0.074
91924901|NCT03626415|183748832|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|133.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.17|206.28|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||206.28|86.17|
91924902|NCT03626415|183748832|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Mean|153.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.52|238.25|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||238.25|99.52|
91924903|NCT03626415|183748833|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|75.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.39|100.47|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||100.47|57.39|
91924904|NCT03626415|183748833|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.59|111.33|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||111.33|63.59|
91766730|NCT02719171|183422784|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.4|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||30.6|7.4|0.007
91924905|NCT03626415|183748834|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|95.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.71|126.08|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||126.08|72.71|
91924906|NCT03626415|183748834|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|114.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.19|151.2|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||151.20|87.19|
91924907|NCT02544984|183748842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||The numbers of unscheduled clinic visits due to respiratory symptoms are compared.||||0.473
91924908|NCT02544984|183748842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||Unscheduled clinic visits due to symptoms other than respiratory symptoms are compared||||0.505
91924909|NCT02544984|183748842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||Numbers of emergency room visits are compared||||0.047
91924910|NCT02544984|183748842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.675|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||Numbers of hospital admissions are compared||||0.675
91924911|NCT02544984|183748843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||||||0.435
91924912|NCT00532883|183748874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||This is a global test comparing all four treatment arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||F-test from a longitudinal mixed model (controlling for baseline measurement)testing the hypothesis of no difference in mean percent dense cells between the four treatment groups at Visit 6. The study was originally powered to detect a difference of 20%, but it was stopped early.||||0.93
91766731|NCT02719171|183422785|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.1|16.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||16.4|4.1|0.006
91924913|NCT01469013|183748875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91924914|NCT01469013|183748877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.009
91924915|NCT05232097|183748895|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: the median of differences of the rumination score before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.005
91924916|NCT05232097|183748896|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that the same number of patients has intragastric pressure peaks indicating rumination before and after therapy.||||0.11
91924917|NCT05232097|183748897|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The differences of means of 15D before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.060
91924918|NCT05232097|183748898|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The median of differences of WHODAS 2.0 before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.865
91924919|NCT05232097|183748899|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis : the differences of median BDI before and after behavioral therapy equals 0.||||0.149
91924920|NCT05232097|183748900|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The differences of median of BAI before and after behavioral therapy equals 0.||||1.000
91924921|NCT05232097|183748901|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The differences of median weight before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.102
91924922|NCT01327339|183748921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|7.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with an adverse event.|||7.8|4.3|
91924923|NCT01847547|183748949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||||95.0|0.64|1.7|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.70|0.64|
91924924|NCT01847547|183748950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||||95.0|0.69|1.36|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.36|0.69|
91924925|NCT01847547|183748951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||||95.0|0.62|2.45|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.45|0.62|
91924926|NCT01847547|183748952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||||95.0|0.15|0.59|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||0.59|0.15|
91924927|NCT01847547|183748953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||||95.0|0.15|0.67|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible.||0.67|0.15|
91924928|NCT01847547|183748954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||||95.0|0.09|0.84|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||0.84|0.09|
91924929|NCT01847547|183748955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||||95.0|0.78|2.01|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.01|0.78|
91924930|NCT01847547|183748957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||||95.0|0.48|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.14|0.48|
91924931|NCT01847547|183748958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||||95.0|0.47|2.2|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.20|0.47|
91924932|NCT01847547|183748959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||||95.0|0.21|1.98|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and very few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.98|0.21|
91924933|NCT01847547|183748960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||||95.0|0.5|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.08|0.50|
91924934|NCT01847547|183748961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||||95.0|0.21|0.76|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||0.76|0.21|
91924935|NCT01847547|183748962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||||95.0|0.58|1.55|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.55|0.58|
91924936|NCT01847547|183748963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||||95.0|0.32|5.72|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and very few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||5.72|0.32|
91924937|NCT01847547|183748964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||||95.0|0.83|3.08|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||3.08|0.83|
91924938|NCT01847547|183748965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||||95.0|0.57|3.7|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||3.70|0.57|
91924939|NCT01847547|183748966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||||95.0|0.67|1.35|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible.||1.35|0.67|
91924940|NCT01847547|183748967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||||95.0|0.79|2.01|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.01|0.79|
91924941|NCT04392011|183748968|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|1.57||||||||1.57|1.23|
91924942|NCT04392011|183748969|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.19||||||||1.19|0.83|
91924943|NCT04392011|183748971|OTHER||Cmax ratio (midazolam)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|1.7||||||||1.70|1.32|
91924944|NCT04392011|183748971|OTHER||Cmax ratio (dextromethorphan)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.19||||||||1.19|0.78|
91810747|NCT00563381|183496908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0017||95.0|0.83|0.96|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.96|0.83|0.0017
91924945|NCT04392011|183748973|OTHER||half-life ratio (dextromethorphan)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.08||||||||1.08|0.92|
91924946|NCT04392011|183748973|OTHER||half-life ratio (midazolam)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.17||||||||1.17|0.98|
91924947|NCT02795767|183749015|OTHER||ABR Ratio|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.023|||||Emicizumab QW is the numerator and Prophylactic/Episodic Bypassing Agent is the denominator.|||0.023|0.006|
91924948|NCT02795767|183749016|OTHER||ABR Ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.21|||||Emicizumab QW is the numerator and Prophylactic/Episodic Bypassing Agent is the denominator.|||0.210|0.051|
91924949|NCT01748760|183749051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.87
91924950|NCT01855789|183749084|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of TCZ + PBO was claimed if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference was below 0.6.|Estimated Mean Difference|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.592||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included Week 24 DAS28 as a covariate, treatment group, and the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>/=2.6 to \</=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>/=100 kg qw), participant anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) exposure (Yes/No).||0.592|0.045|
91924951|NCT01855789|183749085|SUPERIORITY||ACR 20 Response Rate Difference|-10.2||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-0.2|-20.2|0.0746
91924952|NCT01855789|183749085|SUPERIORITY||ACR 20 Response Rate Difference|-8.8||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||1.6|-19.3|0.1159
91924953|NCT01855789|183749085|SUPERIORITY||ACR 20 Response Rate Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-0.6|||||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 24||-0.6|-15.8|
91924954|NCT01855789|183749086|SUPERIORITY||ACR 50 Response Rate Difference|-13.6||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-2.4|-24.8|0.0377
91924955|NCT01855789|183749086|SUPERIORITY||ACR 50 Response Rate Difference|-15.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-3.7|-26.2|0.0130
91924956|NCT01855789|183749086|SUPERIORITY||ACR 50 Response Rate Difference|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-0.4|||||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 24||-0.4|-21.4|
91924957|NCT01855789|183749087|SUPERIORITY||ACR 70 Response Rate Difference|-8.2||||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||2.9|-19.2|0.3599
91924958|NCT01855789|183749087|SUPERIORITY||ACR 70 Response Rate Difference|-11.6||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-0.3|-22.8|0.0663
91924959|NCT01855789|183749087|SUPERIORITY||ACR 70 Response Rate Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|3.1|||||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 24||3.1|-19.4|
91924960|NCT01855789|183749088|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Worsening Rate Difference|7.5||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and worsening in DAS28, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||17.3|-2.4|0.2371
91924961|NCT01855789|183749088|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Worsening Rate Difference|3.4||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and worsening in DAS28, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||13.7|-6.9|0.4811
91924962|NCT01855789|183749089|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Remission Rate Difference|-9.5||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||1.8|-20.9|0.1062
91924963|NCT01855789|183749089|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Remission Rate Difference|-6.8||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||4.6|-18.2|0.3611
91924964|NCT01855789|183749090|SUPERIORITY||Low DAS28 Rate Difference|-13.6||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-3.3|-24.0|0.0228
91924965|NCT01855789|183749090|SUPERIORITY||Low DAS28 Rate Difference|-5.4||||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||5.4|-16.3|0.3665
91924966|NCT01855789|183749091|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.68|||||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|ANCOVA model included Week 24 bone erosion as a covariate, treatment group, and the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>/=2.6 to \</=3.2), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw).||0.68|-0.21|
91924967|NCT03625986|183749103|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-186.68||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0039
91924968|NCT03625986|183749104|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8103|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8103
91924969|NCT03625986|183749105|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0105
91766732|NCT02719171|183422785|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||22.9|8.5|<0.001
91924970|NCT03625986|183749106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2415.93||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0182
91924971|NCT03625986|183749107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.8429|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8429
91924972|NCT03625986|183749108|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.4881|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4881
91924973|NCT03625986|183749109|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0835
91924974|NCT03625986|183749110|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
91924975|NCT03625986|183749111|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0052
91924976|NCT03625986|183749112|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0797
91924977|NCT03625986|183749113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.1084|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1084
91924978|NCT03625986|183749114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81||||0.3469|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3469
91924979|NCT03625986|183749115|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3632||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0272
91924980|NCT03625986|183749116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.589|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.589
91924981|NCT03625986|183749117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5448|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5448
91924982|NCT03625986|183749118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
91924983|NCT03625986|183749119|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1567
91924984|NCT01850563|183749124|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.76
91924985|NCT01850563|183749126|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.76
91766733|NCT02719171|183422786|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|2.5|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||2.5|-4.0|0.690
91766734|NCT02719171|183422786|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|1.0|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.0|-5.3|0.260
91766735|NCT02719171|183422787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.5|-2.1|0.791
91766736|NCT02719171|183422787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|0.7|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.7|-2.8|0.320
91924986|NCT03151148|183749151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.06|||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial generalized linear model, adjusting for site, offset by follow-up days within the outcome measure time frame|TMT represents the numerator, placebo represents the denominator|||1.06|0.29|0.075
91924987|NCT03151148|183749152|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.04|||Chi-squared||95% exact unconditional confidence interval is based on the Santner and Snell method|||-0.04|-0.51|0.044
91924988|NCT03151148|183749153|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.13|||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial generalized linear model, adjusting for site, offset by follow-up days within the outcome measure time frame|TMT represents the numerator, placebo represents the denominator|||1.13|0.36|0.121
91924989|NCT03151148|183749154|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.04|||Chi-squared||95% exact unconditional confidence interval is based on the Santner and Snell method|||-0.04|-0.46|0.053
91924990|NCT03151148|183749159|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.76||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|16.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||16.226|0.469|0.261
91924991|NCT03151148|183749159|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.41||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|2.393|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.393|0.069|0.319
91924992|NCT03151148|183749159|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.02||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.174|6.027|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||6.027|0.174|0.978
91924993|NCT03151148|183749159|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.44||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|20.749|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||20.749|0.570|0.177
91924994|NCT03151148|183749159|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.7||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|9.973|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||9.973|0.288|0.558
91924995|NCT03151148|183749159|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.04||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|13.151|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||13.151|0.082|0.977
91924996|NCT03151148|183749159|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|33.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.672|429.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||429.219|2.672|0.007
91924997|NCT03151148|183749159|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.97||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|151.752|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||151.752|0.945|0.055
91924998|NCT03151148|183749159|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.93||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|13.875|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||13.875|0.062|0.957
91924999|NCT03151148|183749159|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.78||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|22.607|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||22.607|0.141|0.654
91766737|NCT02719171|183422788|OTHER||mixed model repeated measures model|-0.082||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.225|0.06|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.060|-0.225|0.341
91766738|NCT02719171|183422788|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.254|0.027|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.027|-0.254|0.181
91810748|NCT00563381|183496909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.61|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.85|0.61|<0.0001
91810749|NCT00563381|183496910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.0005||95.0|0.66|0.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.89|0.66|0.0005
91925000|NCT03151148|183749161|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.722||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2227|33.2594|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||33.2594|0.2227|0.432
91925001|NCT03151148|183749161|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.147||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0121|1.8018|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.8018|0.0121|0.133
91925002|NCT03151148|183749161|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.371||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0304|4.5392|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.5392|0.0304|0.437
91925003|NCT03151148|183749161|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.247||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1002|15.5231|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.5231|0.1002|0.863
91925004|NCT03151148|183749161|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.615||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0503|7.5106|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.5106|0.0503|0.702
91925005|NCT03151148|183749161|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.465||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0128|16.8576|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||16.8576|0.0128|0.675
91925006|NCT03151148|183749161|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|32.638||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8994|1184.4298|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1184.4298|0.8994|0.057
91810750|NCT00563381|183496911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0242||95.0|0.78|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.98|0.78|0.0242
91925007|NCT03151148|183749161|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.539||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|418.7586|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||418.7586|0.3180|0.181
91925008|NCT03151148|183749161|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.895||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0219|36.5559|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||36.5559|0.0219|0.953
91925009|NCT03151148|183749161|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.719||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0474|62.3828|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||62.3828|0.0474|0.767
91925010|NCT03151148|183749163|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.395||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5429|3.5835|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.5835|0.5429|0.488
91925011|NCT03151148|183749163|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.823||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1038|7.221|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.2210|1.1038|0.030
91925012|NCT03151148|183749163|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.077||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8122|5.3135|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.3135|0.8122|0.127
91925013|NCT03151148|183749163|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.789||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3065|2.0331|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.0331|0.3065|0.623
91766739|NCT02719171|183422789|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|3.77|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||3.77|-0.36|0.174
91766740|NCT02719171|183422789|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|3.44|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||3.44|-0.73|0.284
91766741|NCT02719171|183422790|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.12|3.3|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||3.30|-2.12|0.718
91810751|NCT00563381|183496912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.0406||95.0|0.82|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.00|0.82|0.0406
91925014|NCT03151148|183749163|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.627||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.6028|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.6028|0.2450|0.328
91925015|NCT03151148|183749163|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.231||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5799|8.5866|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.5866|0.5799|0.242
91925016|NCT03151148|183749163|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.977||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5137|7.6055|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.6055|0.5137|0.321
91925017|NCT03151148|183749163|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.86||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4833|7.1564|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.1564|0.4833|0.366
91925018|NCT03151148|183749163|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.713||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|15.1856|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.1856|0.9080|0.068
91925019|NCT03151148|183749163|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.858||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7328|11.1434|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||11.1434|0.7328|0.130
91766742|NCT02719171|183422790|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|4.74|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||4.74|-0.61|0.204
91766743|NCT02719171|183422791|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.8|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||2.8|-0.5|0.243
91766744|NCT02719171|183422791|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.1|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.1|-1.0|0.906
91766745|NCT02719171|183422792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.5|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.5|-1.8|0.325
91766746|NCT02719171|183422792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.2|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.2|-2.1|0.160
91766747|NCT02719171|183422793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|1.5|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.5|-4.0|0.453
91925020|NCT03151148|183749164|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.16||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|20.952|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||20.952|0.476|0.233
91925021|NCT03151148|183749164|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.08||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.514|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.514|0.012|0.008
91925022|NCT03151148|183749164|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.298|0.007|0.001
91925023|NCT03151148|183749164|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.09||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.651|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.651|0.013|0.017
91925024|NCT03151148|183749164|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.292|0.007|0.001
91925025|NCT03151148|183749164|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.42||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|15.967|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.967|0.366|0.358
91925026|NCT03151148|183749164|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.683|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.683|0.016|0.019
91766748|NCT02719171|183422793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|0.1|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.1|-5.7|0.111
91766749|NCT02719171|183422794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.9|71.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||71.1|35.9|<0.001
91766750|NCT02719171|183422794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.1|64.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||64.5|33.1|<0.001
91766751|NCT05298202|183422804|SUPERIORITY|time x treatment ANOVA||||||0.284||||||difference between treatment and control|ANOVA|||||||0.284
91766752|NCT05298202|183422805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.177
91766753|NCT05298202|183422806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.122
91766754|NCT05298202|183422807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|time x treatment anova||||||.038
91766755|NCT05298202|183422808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.976|||||||ANOVA|||||||.976
91766756|NCT05298202|183422809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||ANOVA|||||||.747
91766757|NCT02796677|183422825|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.084|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.117|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.117|0.051|<0.0001
91766758|NCT02796677|183422826|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.055||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.088|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.088|0.023|0.0009
91925027|NCT03151148|183749164|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.11||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.739|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.739|0.017|0.023
91925028|NCT03151148|183749164|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.09||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.647|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.647|0.013|0.017
91925029|NCT03151148|183749164|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.37||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|2.436|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.436|0.056|0.299
91925030|NCT03151148|183749165|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.49||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."|All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|5.380|0.415|0.538
91925031|NCT03151148|183749165|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.88||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.180|0.245|0.849
91925032|NCT03151148|183749165|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.424|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.424|0.110|0.155
91766759|NCT02796677|183422827|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established by showing that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for change from baseline in morning pre-dose (trough) FEV1 at week 24 when compared AB 400 μg versus TIO 18 μg was higher than -50 mL (non-inferiority limit).|LS mean difference|0.007||||0.6377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.035|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.035|-0.021|0.6377
91766760|NCT02796677|183422828|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.107|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.107|0.043|<0.0001
91766761|NCT02796677|183422828|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.087|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.122|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.122|0.052|<0.0001
91925033|NCT03151148|183749165|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.45||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|1.722|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.722|0.117|0.242
91766762|NCT02796677|183422829|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.96||||0.8714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51|||Logistic random-effect model|||||1.51|0.61|0.8714
91766763|NCT02796677|183422829|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.97||||0.8873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.58|||Logistic random-effect model|||||1.58|0.59|0.8873
91766764|NCT03270943|183422871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
91766765|NCT03270943|183422872|OTHER|within group|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|3.84|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||3.84|-6.06|
91766766|NCT03270943|183422872|OTHER|within group|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-0.22|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||-0.22|-8.70|
91766767|NCT03270943|183422873|OTHER|within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.2|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.2|-2.72|
91766768|NCT03270943|183422873|OTHER|within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.16|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.16|-3.60|
91766769|NCT03270943|183422874|OTHER|Within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.61|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.61|-0.15|
91766770|NCT03270943|183422874|OTHER|within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.63|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.63|0.07|
91766771|NCT01116401|183422886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
91925034|NCT03151148|183749165|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.47||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.735|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.735|0.129|0.258
91925035|NCT03151148|183749165|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.26||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|4.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.520|0.349|0.726
91810752|NCT00563381|183496913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.78|0.91|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.91|0.78|<0.0001
91810753|NCT00563381|183496914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.69|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.85|0.69|<0.0001
91810754|NCT00563381|183496915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.78|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.92|0.78|<0.0001
91810755|NCT00563381|183496916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.68|0.86|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.86|0.68|<0.0001
91810756|NCT00563381|183496917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.76|0.9|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdispersion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.90|0.76|<0.0001
91810757|NCT00563381|183496918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0036||95.0|0.84|0.97|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.97|0.84|0.0036
91925036|NCT03151148|183749165|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.32||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|1.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.145|0.088|0.080
91766772|NCT01116401|183422887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
91766773|NCT00754377|183422891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91766774|NCT00754377|183422892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91766775|NCT04057807|183422907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||unpaired t-tests (continuous variables)|||||||0.14
91766776|NCT04057807|183422908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||univariate linear regression analysis|two-tailed P value was obtained from a univariate linear regression analysis||||||0.82
91766777|NCT03985761|183422914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||ANOVA|||||||.182
91766778|NCT03985761|183422915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||||||.296
91766779|NCT03985761|183422916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||||||.483
91766780|NCT03985761|183422917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||ANOVA|||||||.995
91766781|NCT03985761|183422918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||.220
91766782|NCT03985761|183422919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||ANOVA|||||||.538
91810758|NCT00563381|183496919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.73|0.88|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.88|0.73|<0.0001
91810759|NCT00563381|183496920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.6||||0.1035||95.0|-3.53|0.33|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|Mixed effects repeated measures model (MMRM) (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.33|-3.53|0.1035
91810760|NCT00563381|183496921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-2.06||||0.0369||95.0|-3.99|-0.12|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|Mixed effects repeated measures model (MRMM)(fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week).||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||-0.12|-3.99|0.0369
91810761|NCT00563381|183496922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-2.07||||0.0362||95.0|-4.0|-0.13|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||-0.13|-4.00|0.0362
91925037|NCT03151148|183749165|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.81||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|2.917|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.917|0.225|0.748
91766783|NCT03985761|183422922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121|||||||ANOVA|||||||.121
91925038|NCT03151148|183749165|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.23||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|4.617|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.617|0.327|0.760
91925039|NCT03151148|183749165|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.79||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|2.832|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.832|0.219|0.713
91766784|NCT00721396|183422982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R246 was considered non-inferior to response of Group B246\_R357, if at one month after the third rMenB+OMV NZ injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence interval of the difference in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 was greater than -10% for each of the 3 strains.|Difference % (B+R246 minus B246_R357)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against 44/76-SL strain when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine was administered concomitantly with routine infant vaccines as compared to when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine and routine vaccines were given separately.||1|-1|
91766785|NCT00721396|183422982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R246 was considered non-inferior to response of Group B246\_R357, if at one month after the third rMenB+OMV NZ injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of the difference in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥5 was greater than -10% for each of the 3 strains.|Difference %(B+R246 minus B246_R357)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against 5/99 strain when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine was administered concomitantly with routine infant vaccines as compared to when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine and routine vaccines were given separately.||1|-1|
91766786|NCT00721396|183422982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R246 was considered non-inferior to response of Group B246\_R357, if at one month after the third rMenB+OMV NZ injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of the difference in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥5 was greater than -10% for each of the 3 strains.|Difference % (B+R246 minus B246_R357)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against NZ98/254 strain when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine was administered concomitantly with routine infant vaccines as compared to when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine and routine vaccines were given separately.||-4|-12|
91766787|NCT00721396|183422983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R234 was considered non-inferior to response of Group R234, if at one month after the third injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the pre-specified cut off of for diphtheria (≥0.1 IU/mL) was \>-10%.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Diphtheria antigen when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||2|-1|
91925040|NCT03151148|183749166|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|12.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.524|41.435|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||41.435|3.524|<0.001
91810762|NCT00563381|183496923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.88||||0.0573||95.0|-3.82|0.06|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.06|-3.82|0.0573
91810763|NCT00563381|183496924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.1||||0.2641||95.0|-3.04|0.83|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.83|-3.04|0.2641
91810764|NCT00563381|183496925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.01||||0.3068||95.0|-2.95|0.93|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.93|-2.95|0.3068
91810765|NCT00563381|183496926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.78||||0.4299||95.0|-2.72|1.16|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.16|-2.72|0.4299
91810766|NCT00563381|183496927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.48||||0.6277||95.0|-2.42|1.46|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.46|-2.42|0.6277
91925041|NCT03151148|183749166|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.58||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|8.853|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.853|0.753|0.131
91925042|NCT03151148|183749166|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.527|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.527|0.640|0.210
91766788|NCT00721396|183422983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R234 was considered non-inferior to response of Group R234, if at one month after the third injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the pre-specified cut off of for tetanus toxoid (≥0.1 IU/mL) was \>-10%.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of immune response to Tetanus antigens when routine vaccines are administered concomitantly with rMen+OMV NZ vaccine.||2|-1|
91925043|NCT03151148|183749166|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.98||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.138|13.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||13.290|1.138|0.031
91925044|NCT03151148|183749166|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.64||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.479|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.630|0.479|0.429
91766789|NCT00721396|183422988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Group B+R234 was to be considered non-inferior to Group R234 if the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of this difference at 30 days after the last injection was greater than -10% for each of the antigens of the routine vaccinations.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Pertussis antigen FHA when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||4|-5|
91766790|NCT00721396|183422988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Group B+R234 was to be considered non-inferior to Group R234 if the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of this difference at 30 days after the last injection was greater than -10% for each of the antigens of the routine vaccinations.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Pertussis antigen pertactin antigen when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||2|-7|
91810767|NCT00563381|183496928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.85||||0.3931||95.0|-2.8|1.1|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.10|-2.80|0.3931
91810768|NCT00563381|183496929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.97||||0.3297||95.0|-2.92|0.98|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.98|-2.92|0.3297
91766791|NCT00721396|183422988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Group B+R234 was to be considered non-inferior to Group R234 if the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of this difference at 30 days after the last injection was greater than -10% for each of the antigens of the routine vaccinations.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Pertussis antigen PT when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||2|-4|
91810769|NCT00563381|183496930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.3||||0.1904||95.0|-3.25|0.65|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.65|-3.25|0.1904
91810770|NCT00563381|183496931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.99||||0.3172||95.0|-2.94|0.95|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.95|-2.94|0.3172
91810771|NCT00563381|183496932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.67||||0.5017||95.0|-2.62|1.28|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.28|-2.62|0.5017
91925045|NCT03151148|183749166|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|9.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.712|50.043|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||50.043|1.712|0.010
91925046|NCT03151148|183749166|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.45||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|18.627|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||18.627|0.637|0.150
91925047|NCT03151148|183749166|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|5.47||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|29.578|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||29.578|1.012|0.048
91925048|NCT03151148|183749166|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.98||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|23.821|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||23.821|0.665|0.130
91925049|NCT03151148|183749166|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|13.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.542|74.304|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||74.304|2.542|0.002
91925050|NCT03151148|183749167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.689|8.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.028|1.689|0.001
91766792|NCT00430716|183423001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.15||||0.011|ONE_SIDED|97.5|3.37||||ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model followed by the Williams trend test (one-sided, at the 2.5% level of significance) was used. The Williams trend test firstly determined if there was a significant downward trend in response for the descending doses, and then subsequently determined the highest dose that was statistically inferior to 20 mg (known to be an effective dose of sildenafil). A corresponding 97.5% lower confidence limit for the difference was presented.|||3.37|0.011
91766793|NCT00430716|183423001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||0.545|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-21.48||||ANOVA|||ANOVA model followed by the Williams trend test (one-sided, at the 2.5% level of significance) was used. The Williams trend test firstly determined if there was a significant downward trend in response for the descending doses, and then subsequently determined the highest dose that was statistically inferior to 20 mg (known to be an effective dose of sildenafil). A corresponding 97.5% lower confidence limit for the difference was presented.|||-21.48|0.545
91810772|NCT00563381|183496933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.23||||0.2174||95.0|-3.18|0.72|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.72|-3.18|0.2174
91925051|NCT03151148|183749167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.42||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.109|5.267|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.267|1.109|0.027
91925052|NCT03151148|183749167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.76||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.847|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.847|0.810|0.153
91925053|NCT03151148|183749167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.76||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|3.884|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.884|0.799|0.160
91925054|NCT03151148|183749167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.32||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|2.868|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.868|0.603|0.489
91925055|NCT03151148|183749167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|9.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||9.295|1.032|0.044
91925056|NCT03151148|183749167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.87||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.614|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.614|0.290|0.805
91925057|NCT03151148|183749167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.62||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.205|10.859|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||10.859|1.205|0.022
91766794|NCT00430716|183423002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.51||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|2.05|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of change from baseline in week 12 mean PAP used Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with etiology and baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||2.05|-7.07|0.278
91766795|NCT00430716|183423002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|4.09|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of change from baseline in week 12 mean PAP used ANCOVA, with etiology and baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||4.09|-4.98|0.846
91810773|NCT00563381|183496934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.1||||0.2682||95.0|-3.05|0.85|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.85|-3.05|0.2682
91925058|NCT03151148|183749167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|4.83||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.458|15.978|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.978|1.458|0.010
91925059|NCT03151148|183749167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.19||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|6.692|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||6.692|0.716|0.169
91925060|NCT03151148|183749168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.176||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0351|0.8807|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.8807|0.0351|0.035
91925061|NCT03151148|183749168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.214||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0427|1.0702|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.0702|0.0427|0.060
91925062|NCT03151148|183749168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.182||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0363|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.9100|0.0363|0.038
91925063|NCT03151148|183749168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.329||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|1.6691|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.6691|0.0650|0.179
91925064|NCT03151148|183749168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.136||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0271|0.6805|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.6805|0.0271|0.015
91925065|NCT03151148|183749168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.302||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0299|3.0493|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.0493|0.0299|0.309
91810774|NCT00563381|183496935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.59||||0.552||95.0|-2.55|1.36|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.36|-2.55|0.5520
91810775|NCT04044716|183496939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANCOVA|age, joint involved in surgery, sex, baseline pain||||||.048
91810776|NCT04044716|183496940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, type of surgery (joint), baseline pain||||||0.29
91810777|NCT04044716|183496941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, type of surgery (joint), baseline morphine milligram equivalents (MME)||||||0.64
91810778|NCT04044716|183496942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, type of surgery (joint), baseline MME, and time in hospital||||||0.86
91810779|NCT04044716|183496943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||adjusted for age, type of surgery (joint), and sex|ANCOVA|||||||0.661
91925066|NCT03151148|183749168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.372||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0369|3.7569|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.7569|0.0369|0.401
91925067|NCT03151148|183749168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.591||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0586|5.9658|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.9658|0.0586|0.655
91925068|NCT03151148|183749168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.43||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0395|4.6836|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.6836|0.0395|0.488
91925069|NCT03151148|183749168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.485||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1471|14.9869|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||14.9869|0.1471|0.737
91925070|NCT03151148|183749169|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.248||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0844|0.7281|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.7281|0.0844|0.011
91925071|NCT03151148|183749169|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.656||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2245|1.9178|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.9178|0.2245|0.440
91925072|NCT03151148|183749169|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.479||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|1.4007|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.4007|0.1640|0.178
91925073|NCT03151148|183749169|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.478||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1624|1.4091|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.4091|0.1624|0.180
91766796|NCT00430716|183423004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.78|||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis of the week 12 PAH functional class was done with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates.The odds ratio and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the odds ratio for the treatment comparisons was presented along with the p-value for the tests.||4.78|0.50|0.448
91766797|NCT00430716|183423004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis of the week 12 PAH functional class was done with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates.The odds ratio and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the odds ratio for the treatment comparisons was presented along with the p-value for the tests.||3.32|0.35|0.897
91810780|NCT00996307|183496969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.46|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||6.46|2.55|
91925074|NCT03151148|183749169|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.357||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1222|1.0441|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.0441|0.1222|0.060
91925075|NCT03151148|183749169|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.498||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1068|2.3188|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.3188|0.1068|0.373
91925076|NCT03151148|183749169|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.281||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0604|1.3106|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.3106|0.0604|0.106
91925077|NCT03151148|183749169|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.168||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2507|5.4434|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.4434|0.2507|0.843
91925078|NCT03151148|183749169|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.559||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3122|7.7818|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.7818|0.3122|0.587
91766798|NCT00430716|183423005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-104.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.44|-32.16|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||-32.16|-177.44|0.005
91766799|NCT00430716|183423005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|47.5|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||47.50|-97.50|0.496
91766800|NCT00430716|183423006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-462.12||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-807.53|-116.71|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||-116.71|-807.53|0.009
91766801|NCT00430716|183423006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-141.45||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-483.48|200.58|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||200.58|-483.48|0.414
91810781|NCT00996307|183496969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.56|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||3.56|1.42|
91810782|NCT00996307|183496969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.19|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||7.19|2.8|
91925079|NCT03151148|183749169|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.707||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1495|3.3426|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.3426|0.1495|0.661
91925080|NCT03151148|183749170|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1197.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|525.563|2726.953|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2726.953|525.563|<0.001
91925081|NCT03151148|183749170|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|779.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|342.093|1774.996|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1774.996|342.093|<0.001
91766802|NCT00430716|183423007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||0.15|-0.17|0.890
91766803|NCT00430716|183423007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.04|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||0.04|-0.29|0.124
91766804|NCT00430716|183423008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Van-Elteren)|||A stratified Wilcoxon test (Van-Elteren) was used. The stratified median difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI (calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||0.00|-1.00|0.382
91766805|NCT00430716|183423008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Van-Elteren)|||A stratified Wilcoxon test (Van-Elteren) was used. The stratified median difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI (calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||1.00|0.00|0.141
91766806|NCT02927392|183423015|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91766807|NCT00064792|183423043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary outcome variable will be the serum cholesterol/total sterol ratio.||||0.002
91766808|NCT00064792|183423044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91766809|NCT00291486|183423059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of CL between initial infusion and therapy infusion||||0.144
91766810|NCT00291486|183423060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.361
91766811|NCT01025830|183423109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratio between 0.8 and 1.25. Differences between treatments with respect to the outcome and intra- and inter-subject variances were assessed using the mixed effects model. Bootstrapped random errors were used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||||90.0|0.87|1.38||p value not required for this analysis. What counts is the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio between the two formulation parameters.|Non-compartmental model|Mixed random effects model was used to assess difference between treatments and intra- and inter-subject variances.|the generic is the numerator while the brand is the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there is a difference in the relative bioavailability of Triomune and brand-name stavudine/lamivudine/nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans. 18 participants were required to provide 80% power to detect approximately a 20% difference on a log scale in AUC0-12h between the brand formulation and the generic formulation. Alpha level of 0.05.||1.38|0.87|
91810783|NCT00996307|183496969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.96|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||3.96|1.56|
91925082|NCT03151148|183749170|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|673.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|295.697|1534.265|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1534.265|295.697|<0.001
91925083|NCT03151148|183749170|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|60.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.92|145.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."|All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|145.027|24.920|<0.001
91925084|NCT03151148|183749170|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.79||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.636|8.767|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.767|1.636|0.002
91925085|NCT03151148|183749170|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|757.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|331.143|1732.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1732.242|331.143|<0.001
91925086|NCT03151148|183749170|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|199.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.636|455.127|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||455.127|87.636|<0.001
91925087|NCT03151148|183749170|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|508.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|223.113|1158.715|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."|All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|1158.715|223.113|<0.001
91810784|NCT00996307|183496969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|8.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|12.0|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||12|5.52|
91810785|NCT00996307|183496969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|6.15|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||6.15|2.94|
91810786|NCT00996307|183496969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|11.0|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||11|5.36|
91810787|NCT00996307|183496969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratios of GMTs|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|6.02|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||6.02|2.86|
91925088|NCT03151148|183749170|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|107.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.568|255.313|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||255.313|45.568|<0.001
91925089|NCT03151148|183749170|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|16.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.058|36.657|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||36.657|7.058|<0.001
91925090|NCT03151148|183749171|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|142.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.484|349.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||349.119|58.484|<0.001
91925091|NCT03151148|183749171|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|35.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.402|85.972|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||85.972|14.402|<0.001
91925092|NCT03151148|183749171|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|41.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.043|101.739|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||101.739|17.043|<0.001
91925093|NCT03151148|183749171|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.61||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.395|9.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||9.330|1.395|0.008
91925094|NCT03151148|183749171|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.39||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|3.458|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.458|0.561|0.474
91810788|NCT00996307|183496969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.65||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22||5.65|2.37|
91810789|NCT00996307|183496969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.4||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22.||3.4|1.43|
91810790|NCT00996307|183496969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.86||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22.||6.86|2.85|
91810791|NCT00996307|183496969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.13||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22.||4.13|1.72|
91810792|NCT00996307|183496969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|11.0||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 43.||11|5.54|
91810793|NCT00996307|183496969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|6.42||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines||6.42|3.23|
91925095|NCT03151148|183749171|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|266.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.86|654.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||654.231|108.860|<0.001
91925096|NCT03151148|183749171|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|51.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.907|124.768|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||124.768|20.907|<0.001
91925097|NCT03151148|183749171|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|74.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.686|183.125|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||183.125|30.686|<0.001
91925098|NCT03151148|183749171|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|26.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.262|66.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||66.169|10.262|<0.001
91925099|NCT03151148|183749171|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.397|8.338|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.338|1.397|0.007
91766812|NCT01025830|183423109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratio between 0.8 and 1.25. Differences between treatments with respect to the outcome and intra- and inter-subject variances were assessed using the mixed effects model. Bootstrapped random errors were used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||||90.0|0.95|1.31||p value not required for this analysis. What counts is the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio between the two formulation parameters.|Non-compartmental model|Mixed random effects model was used to assess difference between treatments and intra- and inter-subject variances.|the generic is the numerator while the brand is the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there is a difference in the relative bioavailability of Triomune and brand-name stavudine/lamivudine/nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans. 18 participants were required to provide 80% power to detect approximately a 20% difference on a log scale in AUC0-12h between the brand formulation and the generic formulation. Alpha level of 0.05.||1.31|0.95|
91766813|NCT01025830|183423109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratio between 0.8 and 1.25. Differences between treatments with respect to the outcome and intra- and inter-subject variances were assessed using the mixed effects model. Bootstrapped random errors were used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||||90.0|0.65|0.99||p value not required for this analysis. What counts is the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio between the two formulation parameters.|Non-compartmental model|Mixed random effects model was used to assess difference between treatments and intra- and inter-subject variances.|the generic is the numerator while the brand is the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there is a difference in the relative bioavailability of Triomune and brand-name stavudine/lamivudine/nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans. 18 participants were required to provide 80% power to detect approximately a 20% difference on a log scale in AUC0-12h between the brand formulation and the generic formulation. Alpha level of 0.05.||0.99|0.65|
91766814|NCT01025830|183423110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|same as for AUC|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.3||||||90.0|0.99|1.71||same as for AUC|Non-compartmental model|same as for AUC|same as AUC|Same as for AUC||1.71|0.99|
91766815|NCT01025830|183423110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|same for all three drugs.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||||90.0|0.95|1.23||Same for all three drugs.|Non-compartmental model|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.||1.23|0.95|
91810794|NCT00996307|183496969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|7.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.0||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 43.||11|5.3|
91810795|NCT00996307|183496969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|6.19||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 43.||6.19|3.09|
91810796|NCT01209260|183497041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and considered significant if they yielded a p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size of 72 was targeted to achieve 80% power to detect a 5-minute reduction in transseptal access procedure time (assuming a standard deviation of 7.5 minutes), using a 2-sided alpha of 0.05, with the primary analysis done on an intention-to-treat basis.||||0.005
91810797|NCT01209260|183497043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and considered significant if they yielded a p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91810798|NCT01209260|183497044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and considered significant if they yielded a p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91925100|NCT03151148|183749172|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.692|120.379|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||120.379|21.692|<0.001
91925101|NCT03151148|183749172|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|12.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.463|30.317|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||30.317|5.463|<0.001
91925102|NCT03151148|183749172|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.863|26.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||26.986|4.863|<0.001
91925103|NCT03151148|183749172|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.42||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|6.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||6.024|0.971|0.058
91766816|NCT01025830|183423110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same for all three drugs.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||||90.0|0.63|0.98||Same for all three drugs.|Non-compartmental model|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.||0.98|0.63|
91766817|NCT04177212|183423118|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing null-hypothesis that response of Pooled Group was less or equal to 50 percent (%).|One-sided binomial test|||Between Groups calculation were not done because comparing Groups A and B was not part of the objective of this investigation.||||< 0.0001
91766818|NCT04177212|183423119|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||P-value for testing null-hypothesis that response of Pooled Group was less or equal to 50%.|One-sided binomial test|||Between Groups calculation were not done because comparing Groups A and B was not part of the objective of this investigation.||||0.0003
91766819|NCT01279681|183423133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.17|||Regression, Cox|||||2.17|0.49|0.93
91766820|NCT02831764|183423153|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment with DTG+ 3TC was to be declared non-inferior to treatment with DTG+TDF/FTC if the lower end of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups in response rates at Week 48 was greater than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.9|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 copies per milliliter) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells per cubic millimeter \[cells/mm\^3\]).|||2.9|-4.3|
91766821|NCT02831764|183423154|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment with DTG+ 3TC was to be declared non-inferior to treatment with DTG+TDF/FTC if the lower end of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups in response rates at Week 24 was greater than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||3.6|-3.4|
91766822|NCT02831764|183423155|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.7|||||Week 96. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||2.7|-6.4|
91810799|NCT01648205|183497056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.8||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|11.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used||||11.0|-14.1|0.7958
91766823|NCT02831764|183423156|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||Week 144. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||5.3|-5.3|
91766824|NCT02831764|183423157|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.19||The generalised Wilcoxon procedure was used to estimate a p-value for detecting a difference in cumulative incidence curves between treatment groups.|Generalised Wilcoxon procedure||Hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.|||1.19|0.88|0.797
91766825|NCT02831764|183423161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|50.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 24. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||50.4|0.8|0.043
91810800|NCT01648205|183497057|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.9||0.3369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|26.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used||||26.2|-9.5|0.3369
91810801|NCT02260921|183497064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-7.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-3.58||P-values are obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and WOMAC baseline pain score as a covariate.|ANCOVA||LS estimates are obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and WOMAC baseline pain score as a covariate.|||-3.58|-11.48|0.0002
91810802|NCT00850564|183497149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 2 week mean overnight growth hormone||||<0.005
91925104|NCT03151148|183749172|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.75||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|1.805|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.805|0.315|0.526
91766826|NCT02831764|183423161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|34.8|||MMRM||Week 48. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||34.8|-17.7|0.523
91766827|NCT02831764|183423162|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|38.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 96. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||38.0|-23.2|0.635
91766828|NCT02831764|183423163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.1||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|40.0|||MMRM||Week 144.Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||40.0|-29.9|0.777
91766829|NCT02831764|183423174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.02|-0.05|<0.001
91766830|NCT02831764|183423174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum Cystatin C.|||0.00|-0.03|0.022
91766831|NCT02831764|183423174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum RBP|||1.1|-1.4|0.797
91766832|NCT02831764|183423174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum RBP|||1.9|-0.5|0.258
91766833|NCT02831764|183423175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||MMRM||Week 96. Serum Cystatin C.|||0.00|-0.03|0.034
91766834|NCT02831764|183423176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||MMRM||Week 144. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.01|-0.04|0.006
91766835|NCT02831764|183423179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.4|||MMRM||Week 24. GFR Cystatin C adjusted.|||5.4|1.8|<0.001
91766836|NCT02831764|183423179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.5|||MMRM||Week 48. GFR Cystatin C adjusted.|||3.5|0.0|0.056
91810803|NCT00850564|183497150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-test comparing insulin stimulated glucose uptake (M) between baseline and 2 week visits.||||0.61
91766837|NCT02831764|183423179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.2|||MMRM||Week 24. GFR creatinine adjusted.|||5.2|1.7|<0.001
91766838|NCT02831764|183423179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.0|||MMRM||Week 48. GFR creatinine adjusted.|||5.0|1.6|<0.001
91810804|NCT01804075|183497183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
91810805|NCT04847557|183497188|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.6|||Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratified Wilcoxon test used to control for stratification factors of HF decompensation within 12 months of screening,diagnosed T2DM \& baseline BMI|The Hodges-Lehmann estimate for the median difference and 95% CIs was reported.|||10.6|3.3|<0.001
91766839|NCT02831764|183423182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.55|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum or Plasma Creatinine|||-1.55|-4.49|<0.001
91766840|NCT02831764|183423182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.65|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.65|-4.59|<0.001
91766841|NCT02831764|183423183|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-1.53|||MMRM||Week 96. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.53|-4.56|<0.001
91766842|NCT02831764|183423184|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-1.19|||MMRM||Week 144. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.19|-4.52|<0.001
91766843|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.917|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|0.941|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum B2M.|||0.941|0.893|<0.001
91766844|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.914|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.939|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum B2M.|||0.939|0.890|<0.001
91766845|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.748||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|0.901|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine B2M.|||0.901|0.621|0.002
91766846|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.693||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.892|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine B2M.|||0.892|0.538|0.005
91766847|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.889||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.992|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||0.992|0.796|0.036
91766848|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.938||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.061|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.061|0.830|0.308
91766849|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.781||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|0.934|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.934|0.654|0.007
91766850|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.742||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|0.935|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.935|0.588|0.012
91766851|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.979||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.104|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine Phosphate.|||1.104|0.868|0.728
91766852|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.062||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.194|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine Phosphate.|||1.194|0.945|0.311
91766853|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.826|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|0.887|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.887|0.769|<0.001
91766854|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|0.93|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.930|0.795|<0.001
91766855|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.796||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.927|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine RBP 4|||0.927|0.683|0.003
91925105|NCT03151148|183749172|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|55.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.49|131.279|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||131.279|23.490|<0.001
91925106|NCT03151148|183749172|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|27.755|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||27.755|5.000|<0.001
91925107|NCT03151148|183749172|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|23.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.833|54.579|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||54.579|9.833|<0.001
91925108|NCT03151148|183749172|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.516|27.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||27.052|4.516|<0.001
91925109|NCT03151148|183749172|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.43||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|5.724|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.724|1.031|0.042
91925110|NCT03918642|183749179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.83|-2.35|<0.001
91766856|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.903||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.056|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine RBP 4|||1.056|0.773|0.200
91766857|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.826||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|0.936|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.936|0.728|0.003
91766858|NCT02831764|183423185|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.888||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.001|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||1.001|0.787|0.052
91766859|NCT02831764|183423186|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.942||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.065|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.065|0.833|0.338
91766860|NCT02831764|183423186|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.671|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|0.826|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.826|0.545|<0.001
91766861|NCT02831764|183423186|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.082||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.213|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine Phosphate.|||1.213|0.966|0.174
91766862|NCT02831764|183423186|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.873|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|0.946|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.946|0.806|<0.001
91810806|NCT04847557|183497189|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Heart Failure Outcomes||0.95|0.41|0.026
91810807|NCT04847557|183497190|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|26.7|||Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratified Wilcoxon test used to control for stratification factors of HF decompensation within 12 months of screening,diagnosed T2DM \& baseline BMI|The Hodges-Lehmann estimate for the median difference and 95% CIs was reported.|||26.7|9.9|<0.001
91925111|NCT03918642|183749180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-1.78|0.01
91925112|NCT03918642|183749181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|0.12|<0.001
91925113|NCT03918642|183749182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-3.30|0.14
91925114|NCT03918642|183749183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.42|-1.99|0.85
91925115|NCT03918642|183749184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-5.88|0.03
91925116|NCT03918642|183749185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-4.33|0.02
91925117|NCT03918642|183749186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-4.30|0.006
91925118|NCT03918642|183749187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-4.34|0.11
91925119|NCT03918642|183749188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.39||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-8.44|0.03
91925120|NCT03918642|183749189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.76||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-7.83|0.07
91925121|NCT03918642|183749190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.10|0.36|0.005
91925122|NCT03918642|183749191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.29|-0.40|0.17
91766863|NCT02831764|183423186|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.894|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.894|0.716|<0.001
91766864|NCT02831764|183423187|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.971||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.852|1.107|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.107|0.852|0.658
91766865|NCT02831764|183423187|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.584|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|0.706|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.706|0.483|<0.001
91766866|NCT02831764|183423187|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.12|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine Phosphate.|||1.120|0.892|0.993
91766867|NCT02831764|183423187|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.847|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|0.913|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.913|0.785|<0.001
91766868|NCT02831764|183423187|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.819|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.819|0.667|<0.001
91810808|NCT04847557|183497191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-10.38|||ANCOVA|||||-10.38|-12.85|<0.001
91810809|NCT04847557|183497192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-22.17|||ANCOVA|||||-22.17|-45.60|<0.001
91766869|NCT02831764|183423188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-2.08|||MMRM||Week 24, Bone ALP|||-2.08|-3.25|<0.001
91810810|NCT04847557|183497193|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.28|||||The win ratio was reported as the measure of treatment effect based on the principle that each participant is compared with every other participant within each stratum in a pair-wise manner that proceeds in a hierarchical fashion.|||2.28|1.17|
91810811|NCT04847557|183497194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.4||||||||3.40|1.53|
91766870|NCT02831764|183423188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-2.44|||MMRM||Week 48, Bone ALP|||-2.44|-3.75|<0.001
91810812|NCT04847557|183497195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.452||||||||2.452|0.633|
91810813|NCT04847557|183497196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|0.85||||||||0.850|0.342|
91766871|NCT02831764|183423188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-3.71|||MMRM||Week 28, Serum Osteocalcin|||-3.71|-5.63|<0.001
91766872|NCT02831764|183423188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|-4.91|||MMRM||Week 48, Serum Osteocalcin|||-4.91|-6.89|<0.001
91766873|NCT02831764|183423188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-10.6|||MMRM||Week 24, Serum PINP|||-10.6|-16.4|<0.001
91766874|NCT02831764|183423188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-10.2|||MMRM||Week 48, Serum PINP|||-10.2|-15.4|<0.001
91766875|NCT02831764|183423188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|-0.09|||MMRM||Week 24, CTX-1|||-0.0900|-0.1640|<0.001
91810814|NCT04847557|183497197|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.14||||||||1.14|0.46|
91810815|NCT04847557|183497198|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.05||||||||1.05|0.37|
91810816|NCT01325584|183497200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.07
91766876|NCT02831764|183423188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2043|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2532|-0.1554|||MMRM||Week 48, CTX-1|||-0.1554|-0.2532|<0.001
91766877|NCT02831764|183423189|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-1.54|||MMRM||Week 96, Bone ALP|||-1.54|-2.72|<0.001
91810817|NCT01325584|183497202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.53
91810818|NCT01325584|183497203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.48
91925123|NCT03918642|183749192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|-4.14|0.11
91925124|NCT03918642|183749193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.57||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-5.73|0.11
91925125|NCT03918642|183749194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-2.33|0.33
91925126|NCT03918642|183749195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|-1.74|0.69
91925127|NCT03918642|183749196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.15|0.77|<0.001
91925128|NCT03918642|183749197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|0.62|<0.001
91925129|NCT03918642|183749198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|99.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||99.56|4.66|<0.001
91925130|NCT03918642|183749199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|30.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.06|1.74|0.006
91925131|NCT03918642|183749200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|58.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||58.25|2.38|0.002
91925132|NCT03918642|183749201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|43.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||43.67|0.99|0.05
91925133|NCT03918642|183749202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.93||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|225.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||225.44|0.86|0.06
91925134|NCT03918642|183749203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|89.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||89.30|0.35|0.22
91925135|NCT03046472|183749204|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91925136|NCT03046472|183749205|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91925137|NCT03046472|183749206|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91925138|NCT04985799|183749219|NON_INFERIORITY|For the sample size, a total of 143 participants, or 72 participants per group was needed, based on a 90% effectiveness for both slings 14% non-inferiority margin, 80% power, alpha of 0.05 and a 20% dropout rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|28.5|||Chi-squared|||||28.5|1.1|0.04
91925139|NCT04985799|183749220|NON_INFERIORITY|For the sample size, a total of 143 participants, or 72 participants per group was needed, based on a 90% effectiveness for both slings 14% non-inferiority margin, 80% power, alpha of 0.05 and a 20% dropout rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.4||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|21.1|||Chi-squared|||||21.1|-6.2|0.29
91925140|NCT04985799|183749222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
91925141|NCT03065530|183749300|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The sample size was calculated on the basis of an our initial pilot study, and the SD was 1.4 between the four groups. We hypothesized that the differences in VAS between the four groups and the SDs would be 15%. A power analysis suggested that there will be 80% power to detect differences at an α=0.05 significance level (two-tailed), including 24 individuals per treatment group. Considering the exclusion of 25% of patients, 30 parturients were eventually recruited in each group.||||<0.05
91766878|NCT02831764|183423189|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-2.85|||MMRM||Week 96, Serum Osteocalcin|||-2.85|-4.69|<0.001
91766879|NCT02831764|183423189|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-8.3|||MMRM||Week 96, Serum PINP|||-8.3|-16.8|<0.001
91766880|NCT02831764|183423189|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1529|-0.0838|||MMRM||Week 96, CTX-1|||-0.0838|-0.1529|<0.001
91766881|NCT02831764|183423190|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-1.53|||MMRM||Week 144, Bone ALP|||-1.53|-2.74|<0.001
91766882|NCT02831764|183423190|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-2.91|||MMRM||Week 144, Serum Osteocalcin|||-2.91|-4.87|<0.001
91766883|NCT02831764|183423190|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-6.2|||MMRM||Week 144, Serum PINP|||-6.2|-12.8|<0.001
91766884|NCT02831764|183423190|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1364|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1739|-0.0988|||MMRM||Week 144, CTX-1|||-0.0988|-0.1739|<0.001
91766885|NCT02831764|183423191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.8|||MMRM||Week 24|||-0.8|-7.5|0.015
91766886|NCT02831764|183423191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.6|||MMRM||Week 48|||2.6|-2.8|0.960
91766887|NCT02831764|183423192|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.0|||MMRM||Week 96, Serum Vitamin D|||0.0|-5.9|0.048
91810819|NCT02345850|183497225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.805||||0.2368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.154||The primary pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Tac/MTX Control. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates at specific time points (1 year and 2 years post randomization). The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||1.154|0.562|0.2368
91766888|NCT02831764|183423193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.1|||MMRM||Week 144, Serum Vitamin D|||3.1|-3.6|0.887
91766889|NCT02831764|183423200|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.6|||Fisher Exact||Week 24|||5.6|1.5|<0.001
91766890|NCT02831764|183423200|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.4|||Fisher Exact||Week 48|||5.4|0.2|0.037
91766891|NCT02831764|183423201|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.1|||Fisher Exact||Week 96|||6.1|0.2|0.045
91766892|NCT02831764|183423202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.0|||Fisher Exact||Week 144|||6.0|-0.8|0.160
91766893|NCT02831764|183423207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.98|65.62|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||65.62|9.98|
91766894|NCT02831764|183423207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.72|29.1|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||29.10|-82.72|
91925142|NCT01035606|183749320|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
91766895|NCT02831764|183423207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|61.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.94|150.39|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||150.39|-26.94|
91925143|NCT01035606|183749321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
91925144|NCT01809262|183749347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0005||95.0|0.031|0.109|||ANCOVA|||||0.109|0.031|0.0005
91925145|NCT01809262|183749347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.06|0.138|||ANCOVA|||||0.138|0.060|<0.0001
91925146|NCT01809262|183749347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.152|||ANCOVA|||||0.152|0.074|<0.0001
91925147|NCT01809262|183749347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.158|||ANCOVA|||||0.158|0.080|<0.0001
91925148|NCT01809262|183749348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.139|||ANCOVA|||||0.139|0.077|<0.0001
91925149|NCT01809262|183749348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.186|||ANCOVA|||||0.186|0.124|<0.0001
91925150|NCT01809262|183749348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.192|||ANCOVA|||||0.192|0.130|<0.0001
91925151|NCT01809262|183749348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.223|||ANCOVA|||||0.223|0.161|<0.0001
91925152|NCT01809262|183749349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.131|||ANCOVA|||||0.131|0.068|<0.0001
91925153|NCT01809262|183749349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|0.107|<0.0001
91925154|NCT01809262|183749349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.185|||ANCOVA|||||0.185|0.122|<0.0001
91925155|NCT01809262|183749349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.215|||ANCOVA|||||0.215|0.152|<0.0001
91925156|NCT01809262|183749350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.117|||ANCOVA|||||0.117|0.056|<0.0001
91925157|NCT01809262|183749350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.148|||ANCOVA|||||0.148|0.087|<0.0001
91766896|NCT02831764|183423207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|48.55|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||48.55|-3.42|
91766897|NCT02831764|183423207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|72.09|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||72.09|5.88|
91766898|NCT02831764|183423207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|33.3|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||33.30|-53.10|
91766899|NCT02831764|183423207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|65.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|145.5|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||145.50|-14.43|
91810820|NCT02345850|183497225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.228||The primary pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide vs. Tac/MTX Control. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates. The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||1.228|0.609|0.4134
91810821|NCT02345850|183497225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.355||The primary pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates. The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||1.355|0.643|0.7166
91810822|NCT02345850|183497225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates. The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||||0.386
91766900|NCT02831764|183423207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|127.94|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||127.94|-8.62|
91766901|NCT02831764|183423207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|46.1|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||46.10|-7.65|
91925158|NCT01809262|183749350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.168|||ANCOVA|||||0.168|0.107|<0.0001
91766902|NCT02831764|183423207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|49.13|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||49.13|-11.06|
91925159|NCT01809262|183749350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.193|||ANCOVA|||||0.193|0.132|<0.0001
91925160|NCT01809262|183749351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.041|0.108|||ANCOVA|||||0.108|0.041|<0.0001
91925161|NCT01809262|183749351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.062|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.130|0.062|<0.0001
91925162|NCT01809262|183749351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.089|0.156|||ANCOVA|||||0.156|0.089|<0.0001
91925163|NCT01809262|183749351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.174|||ANCOVA|||||0.174|0.107|<0.0001
91925164|NCT01809262|183749352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.158|||ANCOVA|||||0.158|0.084|<0.0001
91925165|NCT01809262|183749352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.203|||ANCOVA|||||0.203|0.129|<0.0001
91925166|NCT01809262|183749352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.214|||ANCOVA|||||0.214|0.139|<0.0001
91925167|NCT01809262|183749352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.25|||ANCOVA|||||0.250|0.176|<0.0001
91925168|NCT01809262|183749353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.21|0.402|||ANCOVA|||||0.402|0.210|<0.0001
91925169|NCT01809262|183749353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.258|0.452|||ANCOVA|||||0.452|0.258|<0.0001
91925170|NCT01809262|183749353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.253|0.447|||ANCOVA|||||0.447|0.253|<0.0001
91925171|NCT01809262|183749353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.359|0.551|||ANCOVA|||||0.551|0.359|<0.0001
91925172|NCT00859898|183749377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant. Two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||||-0.32|-0.74|<0.0001
91766903|NCT02831764|183423207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.59|117.09|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||117.09|-30.59|
91925173|NCT00859898|183749377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.33||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant. Two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||||-0.33|-0.75|<0.0001
91925174|NCT00859898|183749377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority of dapagliflozin 10 mg versus metformin XR was demonstrated when the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 (LOCF) between dapagliflozin 10 mg and metformin XR was less than 0.35%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2|||ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate||||0.20|-0.22|
91925175|NCT00859898|183749377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1054||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||When testing for superiority, significance is claimed only if dapagliflozin 10 mg is superior to metformin XR||0.20|-0.22|0.9144
91925176|NCT00859898|183749378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.558|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-7.0||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-7.0|-20.9|<0.0001
91766904|NCT02831764|183423207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.14|97.73|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||97.73|-72.14|
91766905|NCT02831764|183423207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|62.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.09|140.12|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||140.12|-16.09|
91766906|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|36.6|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||36.6|-22.7|
91766907|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|73.2|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||73.2|-46.8|
91766908|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|152.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||152.5|-37.2|
91766909|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|31.7|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||31.7|-23.5|
91766910|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|67.7|||||Age Group-1,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||67.7|-2.7|
91766911|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.1|14.2|||||Age Group-1,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||14.2|-77.1|
91925177|NCT00859898|183749378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-18.5||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-18.5|-32.6|<0.0001
91925178|NCT00859898|183749378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority of dapagliflozin 10 mg versus metformin XR was demonstrated when the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in change FPG from baseline to Week 24 (LOCF) between dapagliflozin 10 mg and metformin XR was less than 15 mg/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.6|||ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate||||-4.6|-18.6|
91925179|NCT00859898|183749378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.6||two-sided significance level at α=0.05.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||When testing for superiority, significance is claimed only if dapagliflozin 10 mg is superior to metformin XR||-4.6|-18.6|0.0012
91925180|NCT00859898|183749379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.598||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.9||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c.||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||23.9|5.9|0.0012
91925181|NCT00859898|183749379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|20.6||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c.||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||20.6|2.1|0.0165
91925182|NCT00859898|183749380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1807||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|: treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing was only performed if the dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR group was statistically significantly superior to both control groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. Tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-0.09|-0.81|0.0133
91766912|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.4|91.8|||||Age Group-1,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||91.8|-81.4|
91766913|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|36.5|||||Age Group-2, \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||36.5|-19.4|
91766914|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.3|91.3|||||Age Group-2, \>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||91.3|-82.3|
91766915|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.8|46.1|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||46.1|-100.8|
91766916|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|41.2|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||41.2|-15.7|
91766917|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|43.1|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||43.1|-20.4|
91810823|NCT02345850|183497225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||A Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3=0.0167 is used for each of three interaction tests to account for multiple testing.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||Subgroup analyses are conducted for CRFS according to disease, disease risk and age. Interaction tests between treatment group and subgroup are conducted within a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment, subgroup, and a treatment\*subgroup interaction term. The null hypothesis is that there is no Interaction between treatment group and disease risk (Low/Intermediate vs. High) for CRFS.||||0.461
91810824|NCT02345850|183497225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||Cox proportional hazards regression|Cox proportional hazards regression|||Subgroup analyses are conducted for CRFS according to disease, disease risk and age. Interaction tests between treatment group and subgroup are conducted within a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment, subgroup, and a treatment\*subgroup interaction term. The null hypothesis is that there is no Interaction between treatment group and Age (\<=50 vs. \>50) for CRFS.||||0.115
91766918|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.6|44.0|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||44.0|-119.6|
91766919|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|105.7|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||105.7|-74.4|
91766920|NCT02831764|183423208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|120.5|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||120.5|-45.4|
91810825|NCT02345850|183497225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227||||||A Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3=0.0167 is used for each of three interaction tests to account for multiple testing.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||Subgroup analyses are conducted for CRFS according to disease, disease risk and age. Interaction tests between treatment group and subgroup are conducted within a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment, subgroup, and a treatment\*subgroup interaction term. The null hypothesis is that there is no Interaction between treatment group and Disease (AML vs. ALL vs. MDS) for CRFS.||||0.227
91766921|NCT02831764|183423209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|35.0|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||35.0|-34.1|
91766922|NCT02831764|183423209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|84.9|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||84.9|-55.6|
91925183|NCT00859898|183749380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1817||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.18||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing was only performed if the dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR group was statistically significantly superior to both control groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. Tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-0.18|-0.89|0.0036
91925184|NCT00859898|183749381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3401|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-1.3||two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing was only performed if the dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR group was statistically significantly superior to both control groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. Tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-1.30|-2.64|<0.0001
91925185|NCT00859898|183749381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3362|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.71||two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate||Statistical tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-0.71|-2.03|<0.0001
91925186|NCT02145156|183749392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.36
91925187|NCT02145156|183749392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.18
91766923|NCT02831764|183423209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.3|140.3|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||140.3|-87.3|
91766924|NCT02831764|183423209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|35.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||35.1|-29.4|
91766925|NCT02831764|183423209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|49.1|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||49.1|-32.5|
91766926|NCT02831764|183423209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|41.1|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||41.1|-67.6|
91766927|NCT02831764|183423209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|133.9|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||133.9|-68.5|
91925188|NCT02145156|183749392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.22
91925189|NCT02145156|183749392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.88
91925190|NCT02145156|183749393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
91925191|NCT02145156|183749393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91925192|NCT02145156|183749393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
91925193|NCT02145156|183749393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
91925194|NCT02145156|183749394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
91925195|NCT02145156|183749394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
91925196|NCT02145156|183749394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
91925197|NCT02145156|183749394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
91925198|NCT02145156|183749395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
91925199|NCT02145156|183749395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.52
91925200|NCT02145156|183749395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.71
91925201|NCT02145156|183749395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.34
91925202|NCT02145156|183749396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
91925203|NCT02145156|183749396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.15
91925204|NCT02145156|183749396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.98
91925205|NCT02145156|183749396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.34
91925206|NCT02145156|183749397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
91925207|NCT02145156|183749397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
91925208|NCT02145156|183749397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
91925209|NCT02145156|183749397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
91925210|NCT02145156|183749398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
91925211|NCT02145156|183749398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91925212|NCT02145156|183749398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.81
91925213|NCT02145156|183749398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
91925214|NCT02145156|183749399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.70
91925215|NCT02145156|183749399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
91925216|NCT02145156|183749399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
91925217|NCT02145156|183749399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.74
91925218|NCT02145156|183749400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
91925219|NCT02145156|183749400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
91925220|NCT02145156|183749400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
91925221|NCT02145156|183749400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91925222|NCT02145156|183749401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
91925223|NCT02145156|183749401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
91766928|NCT02831764|183423209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.7|90.8|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||90.8|-80.7|
91766929|NCT02831764|183423209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|35.3|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||35.3|-31.1|
91766930|NCT02831764|183423209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|50.6|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||50.6|-23.2|
91766931|NCT02831764|183423209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.3|40.4|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||40.4|-155.3|
91766932|NCT02831764|183423209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.2|64.0|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||64.0|-144.2|
91766933|NCT02831764|183423209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|129.6|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||129.6|-63.3|
91766934|NCT02831764|183423210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|49.2|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||49.2|-31.1|
91766935|NCT02831764|183423210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.9|65.8|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||65.8|-98.9|
91766936|NCT02831764|183423210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|189.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||189.1|-77.2|
91766937|NCT02831764|183423210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|39.9|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||39.9|-35.2|
91925224|NCT02145156|183749401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
91766938|NCT02831764|183423210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|74.0|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||74.0|-22.3|
91766939|NCT02831764|183423210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.6|25.8|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||25.8|-98.6|
91766940|NCT02831764|183423210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.0|137.2|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||137.2|-89.0|
91766941|NCT02831764|183423210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.9|72.2|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||72.2|-125.9|
91766942|NCT02831764|183423210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|46.5|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||46.5|-30.3|
91766943|NCT02831764|183423210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|46.3|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||46.3|-39.4|
91766944|NCT02831764|183423210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-121.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.2|-5.1|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||-5.1|-237.2|
91766945|NCT02831764|183423210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.4|132.6|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||132.6|-106.4|
91766946|NCT02831764|183423210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|114.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|224.0|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||224.0|4.6|
91766947|NCT02831764|183423211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0019||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0137|0.01|||MMRM||Week 4. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA , Baseline CD4+ cell count , and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0100|-0.0137|0.759
91925225|NCT02145156|183749401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91925226|NCT02145156|183749402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
91925227|NCT02145156|183749402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
91925228|NCT02145156|183749402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91925229|NCT02145156|183749402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91925230|NCT02145156|183749403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
91925231|NCT02145156|183749403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
91925232|NCT02145156|183749403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
91925233|NCT02145156|183749403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91925234|NCT02064439|183749406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.59||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.59|0.20|0.0001
91925235|NCT02064439|183749406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.14|0.47||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.47|0.14|<0.0001
91925236|NCT02064439|183749406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.75||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||2.75|0.65|0.4328
91925237|NCT02064439|183749407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.04||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||8.04|0.50|0.3235
91925238|NCT02064439|183749407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.84||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||6.84|0.39|0.5005
91766948|NCT02831764|183423211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0003||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0088|0.0095|||MMRM||Week 24. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA , Baseline CD4+ cell count , and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0095|-0.0088|0.943
91766949|NCT02831764|183423211|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0019||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0117|0.0079|||MMRM||Week 48. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA , Baseline CD4+ cell count , and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0079|-0.0117|0.703
91766950|NCT02831764|183423212|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0003||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.0104|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0104|-0.0110|0.957
91766951|NCT02831764|183423213|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0079||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0032|0.0189|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0189|-0.0032|0.162
91810826|NCT02345850|183497226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.744||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.8||The OS pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Tac/MTX Control.||2.800|1.086|0.0197
91810827|NCT02345850|183497226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.016||||0.9525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.724||The OS pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide vs. Tac/MTX Control.||1.724|0.599|0.9525
91925239|NCT02064439|183749407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.03||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||4.03|0.37|0.7337
91925240|NCT02064439|183749408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.57||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.57|0.20|<0.0001
91925241|NCT02064439|183749408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.54||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.54|0.19|<0.0001
91925242|NCT02064439|183749408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.8172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.06||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||2.06|0.57|0.8172
91925243|NCT02064439|183749409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.02||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||||3.02|0.69|0.3318
91925244|NCT02064439|183749409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.2||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||||2.20|0.44|0.9726
91925245|NCT02064439|183749409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.06||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||||3.06|0.70|0.3137
91925246|NCT02433288|183749410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0019
91925247|NCT02433288|183749411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0017
91925248|NCT02433288|183749412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.91|-13.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-13.57|-26.91|<0.0001
91925249|NCT02433288|183749413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.80|-4.56|0.3939
91925250|NCT02433288|183749414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|4.53|||ANCOVA|linear model including terms for randomized group and baseline LDL-C||||4.53|-3.27|0.7514
91925251|NCT00858702|183749423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0158||95.0||||No consideration for multiplicity|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0158
91925252|NCT00858702|183749424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0566||95.0||||No consideration for multiplicity|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0566
91925253|NCT00858702|183749425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No consideration for multiplicity|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91925254|NCT00367640|183749439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA of the average RTSS, with treatment and pooled sites as factors, and retrospective RTSS, asthma and sensitised status as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A step-down approach is performed to address the multiplicity issue.||||0.0006
91925255|NCT00367640|183749439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA of the average RTSS, with treatment and pooled sites as factors, and retrospective RTSS, asthma and sensitised status as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A step-down approach is performed to address the multiplicity issue.||||0.0001
91766952|NCT02831764|183423214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.0|||MMRM||Week 4. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0|-2.6|0.045
91766953|NCT02831764|183423214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||MMRM||Week 24. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.7|-1.9|0.358
91766954|NCT02831764|183423214|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||MMRM||Week 48. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-1.9|0.328
91766955|NCT02831764|183423215|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.7|-2.1|0.318
91810828|NCT02345850|183497226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.774||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|2.877||The OS pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide.||2.877|1.093|0.0185
91810829|NCT02345850|183497226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.026
91925256|NCT00367640|183749439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA of the average RTSS, with treatment and pooled sites as factors, and retrospective RTSS, asthma and sensitised status as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A step-down approach is performed to address the multiplicity issue.||||0.4606
91925257|NCT02417233|183749440|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.958||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.62|0.848
91925258|NCT02417233|183749440|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.492||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.90|0.125
91925259|NCT02417233|183749441|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.866||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.48|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|0.48|0.636
91925260|NCT02417233|183749441|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.401||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.26|0.87|0.165
91925261|NCT02417233|183749442|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|0.86|0.16
91925262|NCT02417233|183749442|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.06|0.03
91925263|NCT02417233|183749443|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.45|0.03|0.24
91925264|NCT02417233|183749443|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.16|0.59|0.20
91925265|NCT02417233|183749444|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.943||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.21|0.90|0.093
91925266|NCT02417233|183749444|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.764||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.83|0.81|0.152
91925267|NCT03408873|183749471|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 29 participants with screen data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
91925268|NCT03408873|183749471|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 28 participants with baseline data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.12
91925269|NCT03408873|183749472|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 29 participants with screen data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.0599
91925270|NCT03408873|183749472|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 28 participants with baseline data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.63
91925271|NCT03408873|183749474|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with baseline data only 19 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 19 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
91925272|NCT03408873|183749475|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 19 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 19 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
91925273|NCT03408873|183749475|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two sets of time-points: 1) difference between screen and week 24, and 2) between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||<0.001
91925274|NCT03408873|183749476|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
91925275|NCT03408873|183749476|OTHER|We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24) to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with baseline data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two sets of time-points: 1) difference between screen and week 24, and 2) between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||0.003
91925276|NCT03408873|183749477|OTHER|We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91810830|NCT02345850|183497227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Relapse-Free Survival between the treatment groups.||||0.029
91925277|NCT03408873|183749477|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two time-points: difference between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant with complete data) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||<0.001
91925278|NCT03408873|183749478|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two sets of time-points: 1) difference between screen and week 24, and 2) between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||0.0566
91925279|NCT03408873|183749479|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two time-points: difference between screen and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant with complete data) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||<0.001
91925280|NCT03408873|183749480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
91925281|NCT03408873|183749481|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with baseline data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
91925282|NCT03408873|183749482|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 29 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
91925283|NCT03408873|183749483|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
91925284|NCT03408873|183749484|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.73
91925285|NCT03408873|183749485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.02
91925286|NCT00062738|183749487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||Fisher Exact|||For the responder analysis, an LOCF approach was used in which a clinical response was operationally defined as at least a 50% reduction in the HAM-D score from baseline to 8 weeks. Clinical response was cross-tabulated with treatment and Fisher exact test was used to distinguish differences among these groups.||15.9|0.8|<.05
91766956|NCT02831764|183423216|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||1.6|-1.0|0.674
91766957|NCT01790594|183423220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.088||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.067|15.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The p-value compares Investigational arm and control arm.||15.242|-11.067|0.750
91766958|NCT00669214|183423259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.163||||0.1054||95.0|-0.063|0.393|||Fisher Exact|The p-value was based on the Fisher exact test for a 2x2 contingency table.||||0.393|-0.063|0.1054
91766959|NCT00669214|183423261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.155||||0.2404||95.0|-0.072|0.388|||Fisher Exact|The p-value was based on the Fisher exact test for a 2x2 contingency table.||||0.388|-0.072|0.2404
91766960|NCT00669214|183423263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.228||||0.0366||95.0|0.003|0.452|||Fisher Exact|The p-value was based on the Fisher exact test for a 2x2 contingency table.||||0.452|0.003|0.0366
91766961|NCT00669214|183423265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from Day 0|3.33||||0.1816||95.0|-2.811|9.471|||Student T-test|||||9.471|-2.811|0.1816
91766962|NCT00669214|183423267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from Day 0|1.19||||0.0435||95.0|-0.161|2.532|||Student T-test|||||2.532|-0.161|0.0435
91766963|NCT00669214|183423269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||0.0224
91766964|NCT00346216|183423277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority required a hazard ratio of 1.12 or lower, as well as an upper 95% confidence limit of 1.33 or lower in the ITT population and of 1.40 or lower in the MITT population.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13||Non inferiority P value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.13|0.76|0.0002
91925287|NCT01600131|183749488|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.693|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.693
91925288|NCT01600131|183749489|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.693|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group x time interaction|||||0.693
91925289|NCT01600131|183749490|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.055
91925290|NCT01600131|183749491|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.346|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.346
91925291|NCT01600131|183749493|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.688|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.688
91925292|NCT01600131|183749494|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.418|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.418
91925293|NCT01600131|183749495|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.180
91925294|NCT01600131|183749496|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.332|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.332
91925295|NCT01600131|183749497|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.318|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.318
91925296|NCT01600131|183749498|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.077
91925297|NCT01600131|183749499|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.305
91925298|NCT01600131|183749502|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.514|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.514
91925299|NCT01600131|183749503|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.090
91925300|NCT01600131|183749504|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.009
91925301|NCT01600131|183749505|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.225
91925302|NCT01600131|183749506|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.443|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.443
91925303|NCT01600131|183749507|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group x time interaction|||||0.158
91925304|NCT01600131|183749508|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.046
91925305|NCT01600131|183749509|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.149|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.149
91925306|NCT01600131|183749510|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.034
91925307|NCT01600131|183749511|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.846|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.846
91766965|NCT00346216|183423277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio estimate does not exceed 1.40|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14||Non inferiority P value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.14|0.72|0.0001
91766966|NCT00346216|183423277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio estimate does not exceed 1.33|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04||Non inferiority P value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.04|0.70|<0.0001
91810831|NCT02345850|183497227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the RFS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.145
91925308|NCT01600131|183749512|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||.0442
91925309|NCT01600131|183749513|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.293|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.293
91925310|NCT00700752|183749531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1887|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.1636|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus balafilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A is superior to balafilcon A for comfort.||1.1636|0.7890|
91925311|NCT03303339|183749553|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91925312|NCT00510692|183749568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-1.78|0.005
91925313|NCT02116972|183749573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.07|||Logitudinal mixed effects model|||The step-down testing procedure to control for multiplicity would be voided if the primary endpoint is not met and analyses proceeded for exploratory purposes.||0.07|-1.22|0.0821
91925314|NCT00784784|183749587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||That in a year with mismatch between influenza vaccine antigen and infecting H3N2 strain, seasonal (10-13 weeks) antiviral prophylaxis in adults will provide better protection from symptomatic influenza infection than trivalent inactivated split virus influenza vaccine.||4.8|0.01|0.25
91925315|NCT00872898|183749589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.2||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.6|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.6|-4.9|0.1197
91925316|NCT00872898|183749590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|7.0|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||7.0|-7.2|0.9781
91925317|NCT00872898|183749591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.4||||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.5|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.5|-3.2|0.1459
91925318|NCT00872898|183749592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.8||||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.3|-1.9|0.1344
91925319|NCT00872898|183749593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.0|-1.5|0.7000
91925320|NCT00872898|183749594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.1|-1.3|0.9069
91925321|NCT00872898|183749595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.3||||0.4679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.6|-1.2|0.4679
91925322|NCT00872898|183749596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.3|-1.3|0.9598
91925323|NCT00872898|183749597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.9898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.3|-1.3|0.9898
91925324|NCT00872898|183749598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.5||||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.6|-0.7|0.4228
91925325|NCT00872898|183749599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.4||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.5|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||2.5|0.2|0.0201
91925326|NCT00872898|183749600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2||||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.9|-1.3|0.6889
91925327|NCT00872898|183749601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||0.7481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.2|-0.9|0.7481
91925328|NCT00872898|183749602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.1|-1.2|0.9500
91925329|NCT02428140|183749603|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|7.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.42|1.45|0.003
91925330|NCT02428140|183749604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|17.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.9|3.4|.005
91925331|NCT02428140|183749605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.3|-1.0|0.28
91925332|NCT02428140|183749607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8||||||||1.8|-1.8|
91925333|NCT02428140|183749608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||||3.2|-3.2|
91925334|NCT02989727|183749617|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA estimate|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Weighted ANOVA models were used to compare change scores between lamotrigine and placebo groups while testing for interactions by melancholic status. The estimate and test reported is for the the interaction between treatment condition and melancholic status.||||.59
91925335|NCT02989727|183749618|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA estimate|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Weighted ANOVA models were used to compare change scores between lamotrigine and placebo groups while testing for interactions by melancholic status. The estimate and test reported is for the the interaction between treatment condition and melancholic status.||||.84
91925336|NCT02989727|183749619|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at anytime point and 0 indicating no response."||||.08
91925337|NCT02989727|183749619|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at anytime point and 0 indicating no response."||||.53
91925338|NCT02989727|183749627|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at any time point and 0 indicating no response."||||.02
91766967|NCT00346216|183423277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) estimate does not exceed 1.40|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||Non-inferiority P-value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.02|0.64|<0.0001
91766968|NCT00346216|183423277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) estimate does not exceed 1.33|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31||Non-inferiority P-value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.31|0.89|0.0182
91766969|NCT00346216|183423277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) estimate does not exceed 1.40|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.4||Non-inferiority P-value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.40|0.89|0.0250
91766970|NCT00346216|183423278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.12|0.83|0.6427
91766971|NCT00346216|183423278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.01|0.75|0.0597
91766972|NCT00346216|183423278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.29|0.96|0.1481
91766973|NCT00346216|183423278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.13|0.80|0.5758
91766974|NCT00346216|183423278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||0.97|0.69|0.0204
91766975|NCT00346216|183423278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.38|0.98|0.0751
91766976|NCT00346216|183423279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.40|0.67|0.8576
91925339|NCT02989727|183749627|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at any time point and 0 indicating no response."||||.73
91925340|NCT01614769|183749668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.98|51.8||||||||51.80|-22.98|
91925341|NCT01614769|183749668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|72.74||||||||72.74|-2.08|
91925342|NCT01614769|183749669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.0||||||||0.00|-0.21|
91925343|NCT01614769|183749669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-0.24|
91925344|NCT01614769|183749670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.12|1.05||||||||1.05|-11.12|
91925345|NCT01614769|183749670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|-1.24||||||||-1.24|-13.30|
91925346|NCT04011436|183749671|SUPERIORITY|In the bivariate analysis, a comparison was initially made of each of the domains of the Kujala test, for the assessment of pain at baseline, assessing the differences between the intervention groups using the chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationship between two continuous variables, such as Q angle and anterior knee pain, assessing the correlation marginally and conditionally on each of the treatment groups.|difference in frequency distribution|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.05|||Fisher Exact|we also used Chi-squared for the domains of pain and limp.||||0.05|0.025|<0.05
91925347|NCT04011436|183749672|SUPERIORITY|For the analysis of the differences in medians between the groups, taking into account that the outcomes did not present a normal distribution, and assuming the assumption of independence of the variables, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.058|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated Value was done for the assessment of change in pain with Visual Analogue Scale.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
91925348|NCT04011436|183749673|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated value was calculated for Change in Patellofemoral Misalignment With Q Angle´s Exam.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
91925349|NCT04011436|183749674|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated Value was calculated for the change in core strength with McGill´s Exam.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
91925350|NCT04011436|183749675|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated value was calculated for the change in Quadriceps and Gluteus Strength With Squat´s Test.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
91925351|NCT04011436|183749676|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||"Estimated value was calculated for the change in Static Balance with Single Leg Stance.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||<0.05
91925352|NCT04011436|183749677|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.492|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||"Estimated value was calculated for the change in the total amount of Physical Activity reported in minutes.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||<0.05
91925353|NCT00960440|183749678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|23.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.45|34.92||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||34.92|12.45|<0.0001
91925354|NCT00960440|183749678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|28.41||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||28.41|6.06|0.0024
91925355|NCT00960440|183749679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.17||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares mean difference (LS Mean Difference) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and geographic region as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.38|<0.0001
91766977|NCT00346216|183423279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.08|0.53|0.1202
91766978|NCT00346216|183423279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.1734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.81|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.81|0.90|0.1734
91766979|NCT00346216|183423279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.81|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||0.81|0.32|0.0041
91766980|NCT00346216|183423279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.68|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||0.68|0.27|0.0003
91925356|NCT00960440|183749679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.15||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as the comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and geographic region as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.36|<0.0001
91925357|NCT00960440|183749680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|9.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|15.51||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||15.51|3.54|0.0017
91925358|NCT00960440|183749680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.1||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||10.10|0.00|0.0496
91925359|NCT03504774|183749725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis of the change from baseline in CD28 expression||||0.30
91925360|NCT03504774|183749726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from baseline to week 52||||0.82
91925361|NCT03504774|183749726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis on the change from baseline to week 58||||0.053
91925362|NCT03504774|183749726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from week 52 to week 58||||0.062
91925363|NCT03504774|183749726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from baseline to week 52||||0.30
91925364|NCT03504774|183749726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from baseline to week 58||||0.54
91925365|NCT03504774|183749726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from week 52 to week 58||||0.82
91925366|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 52||||0.25
91925367|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 58||||0.24
91925368|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from week 52 to week 58||||0.61
91925369|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 52||||0.034
91925370|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 58||||0.45
91925371|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from week 52 to week 58||||0.12
91925372|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 52||||0.83
91925373|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 58||||0.67
91925374|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from week 52 to week 58||||0.80
91925375|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 52||||0.46
91925376|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 58||||0.48
91925377|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from week 52 to week 58||||0.25
91925378|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 52||||0.14
91925379|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 58||||0.73
91925380|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from week 52 to week 58||||0.16
91925381|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 52||||0.47
91925382|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 58||||0.84
91925383|NCT03504774|183749727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from week 52 to week 58||||0.55
91925384|NCT03504774|183749728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2269.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 52||||0.23
91925385|NCT03504774|183749728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1311.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 58||||0.12
91925386|NCT03504774|183749728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|958.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from week 52 to week 58||||0.79
91925387|NCT03504774|183749728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|347.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 52||||0.29
91925388|NCT03504774|183749728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4364.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 58||||0.29
91925389|NCT03504774|183749728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4017.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from week 52 to week 58||||0.42
91925390|NCT03864237|183749743|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.37|||Regression, Linear|Regression controls for baseline value of outcome and sex to determine pre-post change in the outcome as a function of condition.||||2.37|-1.31|0.568
91925391|NCT03864237|183749744|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|2.59|||Regression, Linear|||||2.59|-0.13|0.077
91925392|NCT03864237|183749745|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||||1.11|-3.52|0.30
91925393|NCT03864237|183749746|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.0|||Regression, Linear|||||3.0|-1.31|0.44
91925394|NCT03864237|183749747|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient for condition|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|2.3|||Regression, Linear|||||2.30|-2.81|0.845
91925395|NCT03864237|183749748|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient for condition|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.31|||Regression, Linear|||||2.31|-1.72|0.77
91925396|NCT03864237|183749749|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient for condition|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.54|||Regression, Linear|||||4.54|-1.0|0.21
91925397|NCT02385123|183749751|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925398|NCT02385123|183749752|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925399|NCT02385123|183749753|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925400|NCT02385123|183749754|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people|||
91766981|NCT00346216|183423279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.69|0.80|0.4243
91925401|NCT02385123|183749755|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925402|NCT02385123|183749756|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925403|NCT02385123|183749757|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925404|NCT02385123|183749758|OTHER|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925405|NCT02385123|183749759|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91766982|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 1 (ITT)||2.53|1.01|<0.0001
91766983|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 1 (ITT)||1.56|0.05|0.0373
91766984|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 1 (ITT)||1.72|0.20|0.0129
91766985|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (ITT)||1.29|-0.25|0.1830
91766986|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (ITT)||0.66|-0.88|0.7777
91925406|NCT02385123|183749760|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925407|NCT02385123|183749761|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925408|NCT02385123|183749762|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925409|NCT02385123|183749763|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925410|NCT02385123|183749764|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925411|NCT02385123|183749766|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925412|NCT02385123|183749767|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925413|NCT02385123|183749768|OTHER|Single group analysis.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925414|NCT02385123|183749769|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925415|NCT02385123|183749770|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925416|NCT02385123|183749771|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925417|NCT02385123|183749772|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91925418|NCT04498910|183749773|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Estimated change|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.2|-3.6|
91925419|NCT04498910|183749774|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Estimated change|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.0|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.0|-4.2|
91925420|NCT02345434|183749782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|13.4||||||||13.4|-6.35|
91925421|NCT02345434|183749783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|2.1||||||||2.1|-3.68|
91925422|NCT02553915|183749814|OTHER|Comparisons were made for each biomarker within each arm pre and post 12 weeks of treatment.|||||<|0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||To evaluate whether a dose-response relationship exists between dose of EPA and decrease either in plasma IL-6 levels or in mitogen-stimulated PBMC TNF-α expression and secretion, when compared with placebo. \[Time Frame: 12 weeks\]. Comparisons were made within each arm pre and post 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.10
91925423|NCT02553915|183749815|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||"To evaluate:~1. whether EPA treatment produces a decrease in ratings of depression severity, when compared with placebo-treated subjects; and~2. whether the changes in IL-6 or mitogen- stimulated PBMC TNF-α expression mediate changes observed in ratings of depression.~\[Time Frame: 12 weeks\]"||||<0.1
91925424|NCT02553915|183749816|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Change in IDS-C30 scores were compared pre and post 12 weeks of treatment with each intervention, within each arm.||||<0.01
91925425|NCT02553915|183749817|OTHER|Exploratory.|||||<|0.1|||||||Spearman Rank Order Correlation|||To evaluate whether EPA treatment produces decreases in mitogen-stimulated PBMC IL-6. \[Time Frame: 12 weeks\] Comparisons were made between pre and post treatment levels in each of the 4 treatment arms.||||<0.1
91925426|NCT02553915|183749818|OTHER|Exploratory|||||<|0.1|||||||Spearman Rank Order Correlation|||To evaluate whether EPA treatment produces decreases in the expression of inflammation pathway-related genes. \[Time Frame: 12 weeks\] (We evaluated gene expression of IL-6 and TNF-α.)||||<0.1
91925427|NCT03078608|183749906|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||1.00
91925428|NCT03078608|183749907|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|2.58||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.11
91925429|NCT03078608|183749908|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.79
91925430|NCT03078608|183749909|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.17||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.29
91925431|NCT03078608|183749910|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.67
91925432|NCT03078608|183749911|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.41||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.24
91925433|NCT03078608|183749912|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.36||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.25
91925434|NCT03078608|183749913|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.53||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.47
91925435|NCT03078608|183749914|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.54||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.23
91925436|NCT03078608|183749915|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.39
91925437|NCT02760407|183749939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.183|0.352|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rate for the 64 mg q4w treatment group at Week 12 was expected to be at least 50% resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 25 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.352|0.183|<0.0001
91766987|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (ITT)||1.40|-0.14|0.1072
91925438|NCT02760407|183749939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.258|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.171|0.341|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rate for the 64 mg q2w treatment group at Week 12 was expected to be at least 55%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rate of 30 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.341|0.171|<0.0001
91925439|NCT02760407|183749940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.224|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.298|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The ACR20 response rate for adalimumab was expected to be at least 52.5% at Week 12.||0.298|0.148|<0.0001
91925440|NCT02760407|183749940|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined non-inferiority margin of -12%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.022|0.112||||||A noninferiority margin of 12% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.112|-0.022|
91925441|NCT02760407|183749940|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined non-inferiority margin of -12%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.035|0.102||||||A noninferiority margin of 12% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.102|-0.035|
91766988|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (ITT)||1.46|-0.12|0.8237
91766989|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (ITT)||0.70|-0.88|0.8237
91810832|NCT02345850|183497228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Transplant-Related Mortality between the treatment groups.||||0.020
91766990|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (ITT)||1.55|-0.03|0.0587
91766991|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (ITT)||1.23|-0.39|0.3129
91766992|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.6526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (ITT)||1.00|-0.63|0.6526
91766993|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (ITT)||1.05|-0.58|0.5774
91810833|NCT02345850|183497228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the TRM hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.040
91925442|NCT02760407|183749941|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.332|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.257|0.397|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 is estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 22% in the 64 mg q4w OKZ group, resulting in an expected difference of 12 percentage points between respective OKZ group and placebo.||0.397|0.257|<0.0001
91925443|NCT02760407|183749941|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.25|0.391|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 is estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 30% in the 64 mg q2w OKZ group, resulting in an expected difference of 20 percentage points between respective OKZ group and placebo.||0.391|0.250|<0.0001
91925444|NCT02760407|183749942|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.256|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.313|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity response rate for adalimumab was expected to be at least 27% at Week 12.||0.313|0.191|<0.0001
91925445|NCT02760407|183749942|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined noninferiority margin of -7.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.004|0.147||||||A noninferiority margin of 7.5% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.147|0.004|
91925446|NCT02760407|183749942|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined noninferiority margin of -7.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.003|0.141||||||A noninferiority margin of 7.5% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.141|-0.003|
91925447|NCT02760407|183749943|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.29|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-0.29|<0.0001
91925448|NCT02760407|183749943|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.33|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-0.33|<0.0001
91925449|NCT02760407|183749943|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.1||||||||-0.10|-0.28|
91925450|NCT02760407|183749944|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.275|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.192|0.349|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.349|0.192|<0.0001
91925451|NCT02760407|183749944|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.195|0.353|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.353|0.195|<0.0001
91925452|NCT02760407|183749944|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.303||||||||0.303|0.165|
91925453|NCT02760407|183749945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.031|0.123|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.123|0.031|0.0003
91925454|NCT02760407|183749945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|0.111|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.111|0.020|0.001
91925455|NCT02760407|183749945|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.127||||||||0.127|0.046|
91925456|NCT02522377|183749946|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.987.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.72
91925457|NCT02522377|183749947|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions in mixed effect model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=7.836.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.77
91925458|NCT02522377|183749948|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.987.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.40
91925459|NCT02522377|183749949|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.3634.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.009
91925460|NCT02522377|183749950|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.987.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.34
91766994|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (ITT)||1.62|-0.04|0.0632
91766995|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (ITT)||1.15|-0.52|0.4540
91766996|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.2705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (ITT)||1.30|-0.37|0.2705
91766997|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (ITT)||1.14|-0.58|0.5225
91925461|NCT02522377|183749951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|7.2|||Fisher Exact||Odds Ratio of Midazolam (numerator) to Ketamine Infusions (denominator)|||7.20|0.01|0.58
91925462|NCT01158950|183749952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|Fisher transformation|||The comparison group represents the difference in ICR and the baseline impulsiveness scale.||||0.032
91925463|NCT01158950|183749953|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold is set to p \< 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons.|Fisher transformation|Statistical tests are computed across multiple subregions (voxels) within each area. Thus, the correlation coefficient above is a summary score.||||||< 0.05
91925464|NCT01765712|183749974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.03|-1.99|0.55
91925465|NCT02137772|183750000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-14.6||A 1-sided p-value ≤0.0249 for the risk difference was used for declaring statistical significance|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-14.6|-32.5|<0.0001
91925466|NCT02137772|183750001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal 2-sided p-value|Log Rank|The log rank test was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||||<0.0001
91925467|NCT02137772|183750002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-22.6||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-22.6|-39.9|<0.0001
91925468|NCT02137772|183750003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.2||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||3.2|-4.0|0.4056
91925469|NCT02137772|183750004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.5||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||1.5|-3.5|0.2258
91925470|NCT02137772|183750005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|-22.4||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-22.4|-39.6|<0.0001
91925471|NCT02137772|183750006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-14.3||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-14.3|-32.3|<0.0001
91925472|NCT02137772|183750007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal 2-sided p-value|Log Rank|The log rank test analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||||<0.0001
91925473|NCT03290300|183750015|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with multiple comparisons to baseline||||||<0.0001
91925474|NCT03320512|183750044|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.15||||0.04965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) Average Treatment Effect (ATE)||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.29|0.00|0.04965
91925475|NCT03320512|183750044|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.04||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.13|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.13|-0.21|0.62
91925476|NCT03320512|183750045|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.12||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.26|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.26|-0.03|0.11
91925477|NCT03320512|183750045|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.21|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.21|-0.08|0.38
91925478|NCT03320512|183750046|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.04||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.16|-0.09|0.68
91925479|NCT03320512|183750046|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.25|-0.03|0.53
91925480|NCT03320512|183750047|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.15|-0.02|0.53
91925481|NCT03320512|183750047|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.12|-0.12|0.96
91925482|NCT03320512|183750048|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.08||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.0||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||1.00|-0.84|0.93
91925483|NCT03320512|183750048|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-1.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.91||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||1.91|-4.16|0.60
91925484|NCT03320512|183750049|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.73||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.48||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||2.48|-1.03|0.60
91766998|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (ITT)||0.63|-1.10|0.5996
91766999|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (ITT)||1.38|-0.35|0.2461
91767000|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (ITT)||1.00|-0.79|0.8127
91925485|NCT03320512|183750049|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.91||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.04||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||1.04|-2.86|0.60
91925486|NCT03320512|183750050|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.06||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 Gonorrhea The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.08|-0.20|0.60
91925487|NCT03320512|183750050|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.06||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.09||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 Gonorrhea The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.09|-0.21|0.60
91925488|NCT03320512|183750050|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.13||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 Chlamydia The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.03|-0.30|0.53
91925489|NCT03320512|183750050|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 Chlamydia The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.08|-0.24|0.60
91925490|NCT03320512|183750050|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.04||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 Syphillis The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.04|-0.25|0.53
91925491|NCT03320512|183750050|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 Syphillis The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.07|-0.20|0.60
91925492|NCT03320512|183750051|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.29|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.29|-0.07|
91925493|NCT03320512|183750051|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.34|0.03|
91925494|NCT03320512|183750051|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.15|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.15|-0.27|
91925495|NCT03320512|183750051|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.16|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.16|-0.21|
91925496|NCT03320512|183750052|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.26|-0.05|
91925497|NCT03320512|183750052|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.29|-0.04|
91925498|NCT03320512|183750052|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.26|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.26|-0.08|
91925499|NCT03320512|183750052|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.19|-0.13|
91925500|NCT03320512|183750053|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.09||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.19|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.19|-0.02|0.11
91767001|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (ITT)||0.87|-0.92|0.9641
91767002|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.7784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (ITT)||1.03|-0.77|0.7784
91767003|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (ITT)||1.56|-0.34|0.2105
91925501|NCT03320512|183750053|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.01||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.11|-0.14|0.82
91925502|NCT03320512|183750054|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|8.95||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|17.83||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||17.83|0.07|0.05
91767004|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (ITT)||1.46|-0.44|0.2909
91767005|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (ITT)||1.05|-0.86|0.8459
91767006|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (ITT)||1.80|-0.19|0.1116
91767007|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (ITT)||1.01|-0.98|0.9751
91810834|NCT02345850|183497229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2389||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of immunosuppression-free survival at 1-year post-transplant between the treatment groups.||||0.2389
91767008|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (ITT)||1.79|-0.21|0.1202
91767009|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (ITT)||1.48|-0.56|0.3767
91767010|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (ITT)||0.19|-1.85|0.1123
91810835|NCT02345850|183497229|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cohen's Kappa|||The null hypothesis is that there is no agreement between CRFS and immunosuppression-free survival at 1-year post-transplant.||||<0.0001
91810836|NCT02345850|183497230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease Relapse between the treatment groups.||||0.076
91767011|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (ITT)||2.31|0.26|0.0137
91767012|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline to Month 1 (MITT)||2.47|1.07|<0.0001
91767013|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline to Month 1 (MITT)||1.54|0.13|0.0197
91767014|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline to Month 1 (MITT)||1.64|0.23|0.0094
91925503|NCT03320512|183750054|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-3.69||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|5.95|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||5.95|-13.33|0.45
91925504|NCT03320512|183750055|SUPERIORITY||Incremental cost effectiveness ratio|25.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.05|236.81|||||The confidence interval was created using percentile bootstrap.|Participants were included if they were at an active site with cost data and had a 3-month binary TFV measure.||236.81|-194.05|
91925505|NCT02746679|183750069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
91925506|NCT02746679|183750070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91925507|NCT02746679|183750071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91925508|NCT02746679|183750072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
91925509|NCT02746679|183750073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
91925510|NCT02746679|183750074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.001
91925511|NCT02746679|183750075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.003
91925512|NCT02746679|183750076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.024
91925513|NCT02746679|183750077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.004
91925514|NCT02746679|183750078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
91810837|NCT02345850|183497230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the Disease Relapse hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.106
91925515|NCT02746679|183750079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
91925516|NCT02746679|183750080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.277
91925517|NCT02746679|183750081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.001
91925518|NCT01520922|183750146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.53|99.44|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR (CR+CRi+nPR+PR) while receiving ofatumumab + bendamustine 90 mg/m\^2.|||99.44|84.53|
91925519|NCT01520922|183750146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.67|84.74|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR (CR+CRi+nPR+PR) while receiving ofatumumab + bendamustine 70 mg/m\^2.|||84.74|59.67|
91925520|NCT01422304|183750176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk is Sugammadex versus Usual Care|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method was stratified for renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min) and prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including low molecular weight heparin \[LMWH\], including unfractionated heparin \[UFH\], or not including either LMWH or UFH)||1.29|0.38|
91810838|NCT02345850|183497231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Neutrophil Engraftment post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0764
91810839|NCT02345850|183497232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Platelet recovery post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0001
91925521|NCT01422304|183750177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|7.3|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline aPTT value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 10 minutes post dose calculated with log of aPTT values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||7.3|3.7|
91925522|NCT01422304|183750177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR (%)|0.9||||||95.0|-0.9|2.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline aPTT value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 60 minutes post dose calculated with log of aPTT values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||2.8|-0.9|
91925523|NCT01422304|183750178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR (%)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline PT(INR) value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 10 minutes post dose calculated with log of PT(INR) values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||4.7|1.3|
91925524|NCT01422304|183750178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR (%)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline PT(INR) value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 60 minutes post dose calculated with log of PT(INR) values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||2.9|-1.0|
91925525|NCT01422304|183750179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||1.8|-3.0|
91925526|NCT01422304|183750180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||0.5|-3.4|
91925527|NCT01422304|183750181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||1.2|-3.1|
91925528|NCT01422304|183750182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||1.5|-0.7|
91767015|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (MITT)||1.31|-0.16|0.1247
91925529|NCT01422304|183750184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|30.5|||Generalized Linear Model||Difference is Sugammadex versus Usual Care. A negative value indicates that the average adjusted drainage volume was lower in the sugammadex treatment group.|Generalized Linear Model was adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy) and investigational site.||30.5|-45.0|
91925530|NCT01422304|183750185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence, adjusted for strata and investigational site|Miettinen and Nurminen Method was adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy) and investigational site||2.0|-7.4|
91925531|NCT01422304|183750186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24|||Generalized Linear Model||GMR is Sugammadex versus Usual Care|Generalized Linear Model was applied to transfusion volume transformed to the log-scale, adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy) and investigational site. Result and 95% Confidence Interval was transformed back to the original scale.||1.24|0.98|
91925532|NCT01422304|183750187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.1|||Generalized Linear Model||Difference is Sugammadex versus Usual Care. A positive value indicates that the average adjusted reduction in Hgb at Visit 3 (bleeding index) was lower in the sugammadex treatment group.|Generalized Linear Model was adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy), investigational site and baseline hemoglobin value.||3.1|-0.4|
91925533|NCT01422304|183750188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||3.1|-6.3|
91767016|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.8278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (MITT)||0.65|-0.81|0.8278
91767017|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (MITT)||1.39|-0.08|0.0802
91767018|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (MITT)||1.46|-0.09|0.0822
91767019|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.8314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (MITT)||0.69|-0.86|0.8314
91767020|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (MITT)||1.54|-0.01|0.0516
91925534|NCT03461289|183750200|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.87|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 6 out of 23 (26.1%) babies were alive and did not need mechanical ventilation at 14 months of age.|0.87|0.48|<0.0001
91925535|NCT00515463|183750233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Risk difference \> 0 indicates that incidence of binding anti-denosumab antibodies in denosumab PFS is greater than denosumab vial. 95% CI based on a normal approximation with continuity correction.|||0.7|-0.7|
91925536|NCT00515463|183750234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-0.7|0.7||||||||0.7|-0.7|
91925537|NCT02273323|183750315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|0.23|-0.37|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated effect of tea vs placebo||0.83|-0.37|0.43
91925538|NCT02273323|183750316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject=random factor; treatment, on/off medication, period = fixed effects||Estimated effect of tea vs. placebo||1.82|-0.40|0.20
91925539|NCT02273323|183750317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-5.26|
91925540|NCT02273323|183750318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|-2.16|
91925541|NCT02273323|183750319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-4.65|
91925542|NCT02273323|183750320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|4.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.09|-0.73|
91925543|NCT03478878|183750325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|13.11||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 2 for Cohort 1)."||13.11|-9.43|0.705
91925544|NCT03478878|183750325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|31.02||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 1 for Cohort 2)."||31.02|-27.43|0.577
91925545|NCT03478878|183750326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|11.35||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 3 for Cohort 1)."||11.35|-7.60|0.646
91810840|NCT02345850|183497234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1478|||||||Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Secondary graft failure post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.1478
91925546|NCT03478878|183750326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|23.9||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 2 for Cohort 2)."||23.90|-19.30|0.405
91925547|NCT04688346|183750359|NON_INFERIORITY|t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91925548|NCT00059215|183750361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.933
91925549|NCT00059215|183750361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.590
91925550|NCT00059215|183750362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.945
91810841|NCT02345850|183497235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0026
91767021|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (MITT)||1.24|-0.40|0.3202
91767022|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (MITT)||1.05|-0.60|0.5893
91767023|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (MITT)||1.01|-0.63|0.6510
91767024|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (MITT)||1.62|-0.09|0.0796
91925551|NCT00059215|183750362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.260
91925552|NCT00059215|183750363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91925553|NCT00059215|183750363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.544
91925554|NCT00059215|183750364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.370
91925555|NCT04494633|183750365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The change for each group was analyzed using a 2-tailed, unpaired, independent means, t-test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||0.482314
91925556|NCT04494633|183750366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The change for each group was analyzed using a 2-tailed, unpaired, independent means, t test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.876964
91925557|NCT04494633|183750367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The change for each group was analyzed using a 2-tailed, unpaired, independent means, with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.66602
91925558|NCT04494633|183750368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed unpaired t test comparing change for control (Pre to 2 weeks later) to case (Pre- to 2 weeks post) with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.726421
91925559|NCT04494633|183750369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The statistical test used was a 2 tailed, unpaired t test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||0.908468
91925560|NCT04494633|183750370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The groups were compared using a two tailed unpaired t test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.468104
91925561|NCT01254604|183750376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was planned to enroll 248 subjects (124 per treatment group) to yield approximately 230 evaluable subjects (115 per treatment group). The study had power of 90% to test the primary hypothesis. The power and sample size were based on the following assumptions for treatment difference in change from baseline in IOP at Week 4: α = 0.025 (1-sided), Non-inferiority margin = 1.5 mmHg, True treatment difference = 0 mmHg, Standard deviation = 3.5 mmHg.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis model includes terms for treatment, baseline IOP and ocular diagnosis (open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension)|Difference is tafluprost - timolol|The study hypothesis was that tafluprost is non-inferior to timolol with respect to change from baseline in diurnal IOP at Week 4 in participants with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The study hypothesis would be met if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment difference in mean diurnal IOP change from baseline at Week4 (tafluprost - timolol) was ≤1.5 mmHg.||-0.7|-2.6|
91925562|NCT01254604|183750377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|33.4|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|Participants were stratified by baseline IOP (\<26 mmHg or ≥26 mmHg at 0800 hours) and ocular diagnosis (open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension)|Between-group difference in percentage of participants with ≥25% reduction in IOP at Week 4 = percentage (tafluprost) - percentage (timolol)|||33.4|5.7|
91925563|NCT01254604|183750378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|9.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Between-group difference in percentage of participants with an AE = percentage (tafluprost) - percentage (timolol)|||9.4|-17.3|
91925564|NCT01254604|183750379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Between-group difference in percentage of participants discontinued study drug due to an AE = percentage (tafluprost) - percentage (timolol)|||5.7|-3.5|
91925565|NCT03074162|183750380|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with R.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|45.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.11|51.7|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/R) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation.|||51.70|40.11|
91925566|NCT03074162|183750380|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with A.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|85.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.11|98.77|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/A) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|||98.77|74.11|
91767025|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (MITT)||1.15|-0.57|0.5061
91767026|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (MITT)||1.33|-0.38|0.2796
91925567|NCT03074162|183750381|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with R.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|49.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.39|56.71|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/R) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation.|||56.71|43.39|
91925568|NCT03074162|183750381|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with A.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|83.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.33|105.31|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/A) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|||105.31|66.33|
91925569|NCT01958671|183750385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.76|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.76|-1.22|<0.001
91767027|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (MITT)||1.08|-0.69|0.6725
91767028|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (MITT)||0.67|-1.10|0.6381
91767029|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (MITT)||1.29|-0.49|0.3737
91767030|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (MITT)||0.97|-0.87|0.9139
91767031|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (MITT)||0.92|-0.92|0.9998
91767032|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (MITT)||0.98|-0.88|0.9144
91810842|NCT02345850|183497235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade III-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0369
91767033|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (MITT)||1.61|-0.38|0.2250
91925570|NCT01958671|183750385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.93|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.93|-1.39|<0.001
91925571|NCT01958671|183750386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|8.1|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||8.1|-13.1|
91925572|NCT01958671|183750386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.6|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.6|-14.8|
91925573|NCT01958671|183750387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.3|-7.7|
91925574|NCT01958671|183750387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|2.7|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||2.7|-8.2|
91925575|NCT01958671|183750388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.76|-26.29|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-26.29|-42.76|<0.001
91925576|NCT01958671|183750388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-44.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.28|-35.74|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-35.74|-52.28|<0.001
91925577|NCT01958671|183750389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.95|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.95|-2.57|<0.001
91925578|NCT01958671|183750389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.34|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.34|-2.98|<0.001
91925579|NCT01958671|183750390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|6.95|||Regression, Logistic|Fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.||||6.95|1.85|<0.001
91925580|NCT01958671|183750390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|13.24|||Regression, Logistic|Fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline||||13.24|3.46|<0.001
91925581|NCT01958671|183750392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-69.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.24|-54.83|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-54.83|-83.24|<0.001
91925582|NCT01958671|183750392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-67.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.73|-52.93|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-52.93|-81.73|<0.001
91925583|NCT01958671|183750394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.31||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|-0.65||Nominal p-value|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.65|-5.98|0.015
91925584|NCT01958671|183750394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.71||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.98|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.98|-4.40|0.213
91925585|NCT01958671|183750396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-0.09||Nominal p-value|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.09|-3.51|0.039
91925586|NCT01958671|183750396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.37||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.35||Nominal p-value|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.35|-2.09|0.669
91767034|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (MITT)||1.55|-0.44|0.2758
91767035|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (MITT)||1.06|-0.94|0.9030
91767036|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (MITT)||1.94|-0.14|0.0910
91810843|NCT02345850|183497235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the grade II-IV acute GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.002
91925587|NCT02778867|183750397|OTHER|||||||0.58||||||α \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.58
91925588|NCT02778867|183750398|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||α \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|Two sided||||||0.06
91925589|NCT02778867|183750401|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||α \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91925590|NCT02778867|183750402|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||α \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two sample t-test||||||0.22
91925591|NCT02778867|183750403|OTHER|||||||0.71||||||α \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
91925592|NCT02948777|183750404|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91925593|NCT02948777|183750405|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91925594|NCT02948777|183750406|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91925595|NCT02948777|183750407|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91925596|NCT02948777|183750408|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91925597|NCT02948777|183750409|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91925598|NCT02948777|183750410|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91925599|NCT02948777|183750411|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91925600|NCT02948777|183750412|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.31
91925601|NCT02948777|183750413|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
91925602|NCT02948777|183750414|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91925603|NCT02948777|183750415|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91925604|NCT02948777|183750416|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
91925605|NCT02948777|183750417|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91925606|NCT02948777|183750418|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91925607|NCT02948777|183750419|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
91925608|NCT02948777|183750420|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
91925609|NCT02948777|183750421|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91925610|NCT02948777|183750422|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91925611|NCT02948777|183750423|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91925612|NCT02948777|183750424|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
91925613|NCT02948777|183750425|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91925614|NCT02948777|183750427|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91925615|NCT02948777|183750428|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91925616|NCT01290484|183750429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean percentage volume change|-3.47||||||||||||||||||
91925617|NCT02311478|183750430|OTHER|Given that this is a observational cohort design we do not use either non-inferiority or equivalence analysis. Using ANOVA we test for differences in the number of days per month of bleeding between the 90 days pre-insertion, the 90 days following insertion, and 91-180 days following insertion.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.3||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|df=2||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the number of days of bleeding per month at baseline and the days of bleeding per month during 90 days after insertion, and months or 91-180 days following insertion.||2.3|1.2|<0.05
91925618|NCT02311478|183750430|EQUIVALENCE|α of 0.05 or lower.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The estimation parameter compares the 90 days following to the 90 days prior.||1.5|0.36|<0.05
91925619|NCT03242928|183750433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||||-0.013|-0.161|= 0.021
91925620|NCT03242928|183750434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|-0.023|||ANOVA|||||-0.023|-0.331|= 0.025
91767037|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.7668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (MITT)||1.20|-0.88|0.7668
91767038|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (MITT)||1.78|-0.31|0.1653
91925621|NCT03242928|183750435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.146|0.006|||ANCOVA|||||0.006|-0.146|= 0.072
91925622|NCT00943319|183750445|OTHER||Median Survival time|161.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|121.0|305.0|||Product limit survival estimate|||||305|121|
91925623|NCT00943319|183750446|OTHER||Median Disease Free Survival Time|172.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|436.0||||||Estimated median survival time||436|85|
91767039|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.4323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (MITT)||1.52|-0.65|0.4323
91767040|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (MITT)||0.28|-1.89|0.1439
91810844|NCT02345850|183497235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the grade III-IV acute GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.046
91767041|NCT00346216|183423280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (MITT)||2.33|0.16|0.0251
91767042|NCT02163824|183423291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|16.1||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|26.4|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||26.4|5.9|.0024
91767043|NCT02163824|183423291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|32.6|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||32.6|11.7|<.0001
91767044|NCT02163824|183423292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|19.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|31.5|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||31.5|7.4|.0019
91810845|NCT02345850|183497237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of chronic GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0024
91810846|NCT02345850|183497237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the chronic GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.005
91810847|NCT02345850|183497238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Chronic GVHD-free Survival post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.229
91810848|NCT02345850|183497240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||Superiority - Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Grades II-III infection post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0006
91925624|NCT02043301|183750447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|120.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.99|143.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Thigh (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||143.45|101.99|
91925625|NCT02043301|183750447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|94.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.2|112.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Upper Arm (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||112.38|80.20|
91925626|NCT02043301|183750448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|127.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.19|152.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Thigh (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||152.02|107.19|
91925627|NCT02043301|183750448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|86.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.49|102.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Upper Arm (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||102.40|72.49|
91925628|NCT02043301|183750449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|129.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.76|158.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Thigh (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||158.27|106.76|
91925629|NCT02043301|183750449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|100.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.54|121.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Upper Arm (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||121.82|82.54|
91925630|NCT02043301|183750454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|97.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.659|111.943|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||111.943|84.659|
91925631|NCT02043301|183750454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|103.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.405|119.557|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||119.557|90.405|
91925632|NCT02043301|183750455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.558|108.926|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||108.926|86.558|
91767045|NCT02163824|183423292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|22.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|34.4|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||34.4|10.6|.0003
91767046|NCT02163824|183423293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean AC grade at Day 8.|||||0.0007
91767047|NCT02163824|183423293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean grade AC at Day 8.|||||0.0440
91767048|NCT02163824|183423294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean AC grade at Day 15.|||||0.0391
91925633|NCT02043301|183750455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|93.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.359|104.912|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||104.912|83.359|
91925634|NCT02043301|183750456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.558|108.926|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||108.926|86.558|
91767049|NCT02163824|183423294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean AC grade at Day 15.|||||0.1811
91767050|NCT02163824|183423295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean ocular pain grade at Day 8.|||||0.1953
91767051|NCT02163824|183423295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between group difference of mean ocular pain grade at Day 8.|||||0.0307
91767052|NCT02163824|183423296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference on mean ocular pain score at Day 15.|||||0.2589
91767053|NCT02163824|183423296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean ocular pain score at Day 15.|||||0.2132
91767054|NCT01794000|183423312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Andersen-Gill model||The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|The time to a recurrent episode of VOC was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model. A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.||1.05|0.66|.117
91767055|NCT01794000|183423313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.242||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.564|4.079||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects of treatment, baseline value of the pain-diary outcome measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Square (LS) Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||4.079|-4.564|.912
91767056|NCT01794000|183423314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0968||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1132|0.3068||MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline value of the pain-diary outcome measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The LS Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||0.3068|-0.1132|.365
91767057|NCT01794000|183423315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04||The time to a recurrent episode of painful crisis was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill Model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.04|0.65|.109
91767058|NCT01794000|183423316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||The time to a recurrent episode of hospitalization was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.37|0.65|.759
91925635|NCT02043301|183750456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|93.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.359|104.912|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||104.912|83.359|
91925636|NCT02043301|183750458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|102.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.555|107.717|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||107.717|97.555|
91925637|NCT02043301|183750458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|102.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.131|107.151|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||107.151|97.131|
91925638|NCT02043301|183750459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|79.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.883|102.735|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||102.735|60.883|
91925639|NCT02043301|183750459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|91.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.269|118.248|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||118.248|70.269|
91925640|NCT02043301|183750460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|79.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.883|102.735|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||102.735|60.883|
91925641|NCT02043301|183750460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|91.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.269|118.248|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||118.248|70.269|
91925642|NCT03703375|183750466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Stratified Cox|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||||1.09|0.41|0.0541
91925643|NCT03703375|183750467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.96|||Efron|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||||0.96|0.32|0.0166
91925644|NCT03703375|183750468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Stratified Cox|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||||1.33|0.51|0.2139
91925645|NCT01703286|183750480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|0.884||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|1.235|||ANOVA|||||1.235|0.633|0.5403
91925646|NCT01703286|183750480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|0.884||||0.5402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.632|1.235|||ANOVA|||||1.235|0.632|0.5402
91925647|NCT01703286|183750480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.0||||0.9989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.397|||ANOVA|||||1.397|0.715|0.9989
91767059|NCT01794000|183423317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.96||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.93||The time to a recurrent episode of acute chest syndrome was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.93|0.48|.916
91810849|NCT02345850|183497240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Grades III infection post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0145
91925648|NCT01703286|183750481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.208||||0.3885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.738|||ANOVA|||||1.738|0.840|0.3885
91925649|NCT01703286|183750481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.251||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.801|||ANOVA|||||1.801|0.868|0.3105
91925650|NCT01703286|183750481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.035||||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.721|1.485|||ANOVA|||||1.485|0.721|0.8749
91925651|NCT01703286|183750482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.03|||ANOVA|||||0.030|-0.130|0.2982
91925652|NCT01703286|183750482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.6601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.059|0.101|||ANOVA|||||0.101|-0.059|0.6601
91925653|NCT01703286|183750482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.152|||ANOVA|||||0.152|-0.009|0.1412
91925654|NCT00931892|183750484|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.670
91925655|NCT00931892|183750485|OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.409
91925656|NCT00931892|183750486|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.387
91925657|NCT00931892|183750486|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
91925658|NCT00931892|183750487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA anti-tTG||||0.010
91925659|NCT00931892|183750487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA/IgG anti-DGP||||0.036
91925660|NCT00931892|183750487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA anti-tTG||||0.013
91925661|NCT00931892|183750487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA/IgG anti-DGP||||0.006
91925662|NCT00931892|183750489|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for Celiac Symptom Index (CSI) score for Day 3 of Gluten Challenge||||0.05
91925663|NCT00931892|183750489|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for Celiac Symptom Index (CSI) Score from baseline to Day 14||||0.020
91925664|NCT00931892|183750489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for Celiac Symptom Index (CSI)score between high gluten group and low gluten group across study||||0.060
91925665|NCT00931892|183750491|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) on Day 3 of the Gluten Challenge||||0.01
91925666|NCT00931892|183750491|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) from baseline to Day 14 of Gluten Challenge||||0.012
91925667|NCT00931892|183750491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) between high gluten group and low gluten group across study||||0.090
91925668|NCT00719576|183750513|SUPERIORITY|The Wilks lambda test statistic and associated single P value from the MANOVA model were used to test the statistical significance of the difference in the co-primary endpoint between MACI and microfracture.||||||0.001|||||||MANOVA|||The changes from Baseline to Week 104 in KOOS Pain and Function (SRA) scores (co-primary efficacy parameter) were analyzed with a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) model, with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method for handling missing data. Terms included in the model are treatment and center as class variables and baseline KOOS pain and Function (SRA) as continuous covariates.||||0.001
91925669|NCT00719576|183750514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.717||||||Differences between groups were tested using analysis of variance|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and center||||||.717
91925670|NCT00719576|183750515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Row Mean Score Chi-Square||Differences between groups were tested by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score chi-squared test for defect fill.||||.920
91925671|NCT00719576|183750516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||KOOS Response Rate: a participant is regarded as a responder for KOOS if a 10-point improvement in both KOOS Pain and Function (SRA) scores was achieved with respect to Baseline. Otherwise, the patient is regarded as a nonresponder.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated for response categories 'Responded' and 'Not responded' using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ2 Test stratified by Center||Differences between groups were tested by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test stratified by center for responders.||||0.016
91925672|NCT00719576|183750518|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||KOOS activities of daily living p-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was conducted with treatment and center as fixed effects and Baseline subscale as covariate, conducted at α = 0.05 level of significance. Last observation carried forward was used for missing data imputation.||||<0.001
91925673|NCT00719576|183750518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||KOOS knee-related quality of life p-value 0.029|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was conducted with treatment and center as fixed effects and Baseline subscale as covariate, conducted at α = 0.05 level of significance. Last observation carried forward was used for missing data imputation.||||0.029
91925674|NCT00719576|183750518|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||KOOS other symptoms p-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was conducted with treatment and center as fixed effects and Baseline subscale as covariate, conducted at α = 0.05 level of significance. Last observation carried forward was used for missing data imputation.||||<0.001
91925675|NCT04964063|183750548|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-1.19|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-1.19|-1.47|<.0001
91925676|NCT04964063|183750548|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-1.45|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-1.45|-1.77|<.0001
91925677|NCT04964063|183750548|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-1.0|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.00|-1.33|<.0001
91925678|NCT04964063|183750549|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.7|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-1.70|-1.98|<.0001
91925679|NCT04964063|183750549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-2.02|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.02|-2.33|<.0001
91767060|NCT01794000|183423318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|1.17||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.91||The time to a recurrent episode of RBC transfusion was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.91|0.71|.544
91925680|NCT04964063|183750549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.29|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.29|-1.61|<.0001
91925681|NCT04964063|183750550|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-2.15|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.15|-2.43|<.0001
91925682|NCT04964063|183750550|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-2.47|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.47|-2.79|<.0001
91925683|NCT04964063|183750550|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.7|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.70|-2.02|<.0001
91925684|NCT04964063|183750551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-2.4|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.40|-2.68|<.0001
91925685|NCT04964063|183750551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-2.73|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.73|-3.05|<.0001
91925686|NCT04964063|183750551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.87|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.87|-2.20|<.0001
91925687|NCT04964063|183750552|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-2.55|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.55|-2.84|<.0001
91925688|NCT04964063|183750552|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-2.83|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.83|-3.15|<.0001
91925689|NCT04964063|183750552|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-2.02|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-2.02|-2.35|<.0001
91925690|NCT04964063|183750553|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-2.79|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.79|-3.08|<.0001
91925691|NCT04964063|183750553|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-3.08|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-3.08|-3.40|<.0001
91925692|NCT04964063|183750553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-2.21|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-2.21|-2.53|<.0001
91925693|NCT04964063|183750555|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.81|-15.05|||ANOVA|||||-15.05|-20.81|<.0001
91925694|NCT04964063|183750556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.04|-28.36|||ANOVA|||||-28.36|-34.04|<.0001
91925695|NCT04964063|183750557|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-36.59|||ANOVA|||||-36.59|-42.30|<.0001
91925696|NCT04964063|183750558|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.24|-41.49|||ANOVA|||||-41.49|-47.24|<.0001
91925697|NCT04964063|183750559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|-45.12|||ANOVA|||||-45.12|-50.96|<.0001
91925698|NCT04964063|183750560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.33|-49.62|||ANOVA|||||-49.62|-55.33|<.0001
91925699|NCT04964063|183750562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-2.02|||ANOVA|||||-2.02|-2.88|<.0001
91925700|NCT04964063|183750563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-3.85|||ANOVA|||||-3.85|-4.69|<.0001
91925701|NCT04964063|183750564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|-5.28|||ANOVA|||||-5.28|-6.13|<.0001
91925702|NCT04964063|183750565|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|-6.02|||ANOVA|||||-6.02|-6.88|<.0001
91925703|NCT04964063|183750566|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-6.58|||ANOVA|||||-6.58|-7.45|<.0001
91925704|NCT04964063|183750567|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-7.01|||ANOVA|||||-7.01|-7.87|<.0001
91925705|NCT04964063|183750569|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-5.2|||ANOVA|||||-5.20|-7.46|<.0001
91925706|NCT04964063|183750570|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|-10.41|||ANOVA|||||-10.41|-12.64|<.0001
91925707|NCT04964063|183750571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|-13.42|||ANOVA|||||-13.42|-15.66|<.0001
91925708|NCT04964063|183750572|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|-15.41|||ANOVA|||||-15.41|-17.67|<.0001
91925709|NCT04964063|183750573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.87|-16.58|||ANOVA|||||-16.58|-18.87|<.0001
91767061|NCT01794000|183423319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.513||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.186|7.213||The MMRM model included the fixed effects of treatment, the baseline value of the pain-diary measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Square Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||7.213|-4.186|.602
91767062|NCT01794000|183423320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.272||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.109|4.652||The MMRM model included the fixed effects of treatment, the baseline value of the pain-diary measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The LS Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||4.652|-2.109|.459
91767063|NCT01794000|183423322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.94||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|5.19||The ANCOVA model included the factors of treatment, hydroxyurea use, age group, and length of follow-up.|ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the ANCOVA model.|||5.19|-3.31|.662
91767064|NCT01794000|183423323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.317|||||||Log Rank|A stratified log-rank test were performed with hydroxyurea use and age group as the stratification factors.||Time from Randomization to the First VOC||||.317
91767065|NCT01794000|183423323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.133|||||||Log Rank|A stratified log-rank test were performed with hydroxyurea use and age group as the stratification factors.||Time from Randomization to the Second VOC||||.133
91767066|NCT01794000|183423324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.638|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.638
91767067|NCT00796666|183423325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8616||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.233|||Log Rank|||||1.233|0.602|0.5416
91767068|NCT00796666|183423326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on the analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO Functional Class (FC) as fixed effects and baseline 6 Minute Walk Distance (6MWD) as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0049
91767069|NCT00796666|183423327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|||||Missing values at Week 12 and Week 24 were imputed with the last non-missing WHO FC based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test used modified ridit scores and the p-value corresponding to the ANCOVA (row mean scores) statistic was reported.||Baseline to Week 12||||0.8223
91925710|NCT04964063|183750574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|-17.72|||ANOVA|||||-17.72|-19.96|<.0001
91925711|NCT04964063|183750576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.56|||ANOVA|||||-1.56|-2.52|<.0001
91925712|NCT04964063|183750577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-3.22|||ANOVA|||||-3.22|-4.17|<.0001
91925713|NCT04964063|183750578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-4.2|||ANOVA|||||-4.20|-5.15|<.0001
91925714|NCT04964063|183750579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-4.76|||ANOVA|||||-4.76|-5.72|<.0001
91925715|NCT04964063|183750580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-5.14|||ANOVA|||||-5.14|-6.12|<.0001
91925716|NCT04964063|183750581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-5.77|||ANOVA|||||-5.77|-6.72|<.0001
91925717|NCT04964063|183750583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-4.44|||ANOVA|||||-4.44|-6.06|<.0001
91925718|NCT04964063|183750584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|-7.72|||ANOVA|||||-7.72|-9.32|<.0001
91925719|NCT04964063|183750585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|-9.75|||ANOVA|||||-9.75|-11.35|<.0001
91925720|NCT04964063|183750586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|-10.79|||ANOVA|||||-10.79|-12.41|<.0001
91925721|NCT04964063|183750587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|-11.81|||ANOVA|||||-11.81|-13.45|<.0001
91925722|NCT04964063|183750588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.69|-13.08|||ANOVA|||||-13.08|-14.69|<.0001
91925723|NCT04964063|183750590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.33|||ANOVA|||||-1.33|-2.43|<.0001
91925724|NCT04964063|183750591|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-2.65|||ANOVA|||||-2.65|-3.74|<.0001
91925725|NCT04964063|183750592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|-3.44|||ANOVA|||||-3.44|-4.53|<.0001
91925726|NCT04964063|183750593|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-4.0|||ANOVA|||||-4.00|-5.10|<.0001
91925727|NCT04964063|183750594|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-4.48|||ANOVA|||||-4.48|-5.60|<.0001
91925728|NCT04964063|183750595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-5.53|||ANOVA|||||-5.53|-6.62|<.0001
91925729|NCT04964063|183750597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANOVA|||||0.01|-0.12|0.1091
91925730|NCT04964063|183750598|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.06|||ANOVA|||||-0.06|-0.19|<.0001
91925731|NCT04964063|183750599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.10|-0.23|<.0001
91925732|NCT04964063|183750600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.11|||ANOVA|||||-0.11|-0.24|<.0001
91925733|NCT04964063|183750601|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.13|||ANOVA|||||-0.13|-0.26|<.0001
91925734|NCT04964063|183750602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.18|||ANOVA|||||-0.18|-0.31|<.0001
91925735|NCT04964063|183750604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.45|||ANOVA|||||-1.45|-1.95|<.0001
91767070|NCT00796666|183423328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|1.2|||||Least squared (LS) mean and p-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Physical Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||1.20|-3.13|
91767071|NCT00796666|183423328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.36|||||Least squared (LS) mean and p-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Physical Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.36|0.31|
91767072|NCT00796666|183423328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Physical Functioning Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0094
91767073|NCT00796666|183423329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|1.2|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitations Due to Physical Health Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||1.20|-3.92|
91925736|NCT04964063|183750605|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-2.44|||ANOVA|||||-2.44|-2.94|<.0001
91925737|NCT04964063|183750606|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-2.84|||ANOVA|||||-2.84|-3.35|<.0001
91925738|NCT04964063|183750607|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-3.19|||ANOVA|||||-3.19|-3.69|<.0001
91925739|NCT04964063|183750608|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-3.55|||ANOVA|||||-3.55|-4.06|<.0001
91925740|NCT04964063|183750609|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-4.0|||ANOVA|||||-4.00|-4.51|<.0001
91925741|NCT01397071|183750610|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in PAT measurements was made to beef alone vs. beef with avocado 2 hours post-ingestion||||0.052
91925742|NCT01397071|183750611|OTHER||% of baseline|0.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance is defined as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to beef patty alone vs. beef patty with avocado added 3 hours post-ingestion.||||0.03
91925743|NCT03350750|183750612|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Model Effect (Open vs. Closed)|0.22||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.46|||ANCOVA||This is the coefficient for an indicator variable comparing the Open versus Closed shunt group, in a linear regression model with Month 4 gait velocity as the outcome and Baseline gait velocity included as a predictor along with treatment.|||0.46|-0.02|0.071
91925744|NCT03350750|183750613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.337
91925745|NCT03350750|183750614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91925746|NCT03350750|183750615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.201
91925747|NCT03350750|183750616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.172
91925748|NCT03350750|183750617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.780
91925749|NCT03350750|183750618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91925750|NCT03350750|183750619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.240
91925751|NCT03350750|183750620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
91925752|NCT03350750|183750621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
91925753|NCT03350750|183750622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
91925754|NCT03350750|183750623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
91925755|NCT03350750|183750624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test with a mid-p-value correction||||||0.235
91925756|NCT00406315|183750629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||One-sided upper confidence limit|-0.53|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||||A one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the mean weight change from baseline to infer whether there was a significant decrease in weight.|Week 16.||||
91925757|NCT00406315|183750629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||One-sided upper confidence limit|-0.33|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||||A one-sided 95% CI was constructed for the mean weight change from baseline to infer whether there was a significant decrease in weight.|Week 16 LOCF. Based on past information, the standard deviation of the mean weight difference was expected to be 2.2. The sample size of the study was estimated so that the one-sided CI of the mean weight decrease has a certain width. To obtain a one-sided CI with a width of 0.27 kg, a sample size of 180 subjects was needed. In other words, we were 95% certain that the true mean weight decrease was in an interval starting from the observed weight decrease and extending 0.27 kg unit above it.||||
91925758|NCT00406315|183750630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|2.41||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||2.41|-8.48|
91925759|NCT00406315|183750631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.44||||||HDL. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||1.44|-1.82|
91925760|NCT00406315|183750631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|2.09||||||LDL. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||2.09|-7.07|
91925761|NCT00406315|183750631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|13.15||||||Triglycerides. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||13.15|-16.44|
91925762|NCT00406315|183750632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.14||||||The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.14|-0.02|
91925763|NCT00406315|183750633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|6.15||||||The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||6.15|-0.09|
91925764|NCT00406315|183750634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|134.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.43|289.98||||||The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||289.98|-20.43|
91767074|NCT00796666|183423329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|4.35|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitations Due to Physical Health Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.35|-0.38|
91767075|NCT00796666|183423329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitations Due to Physical Health Problems Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0244
91767076|NCT00796666|183423330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|2.04|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Bodily Pain Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||2.04|-3.78|
91767077|NCT00796666|183423330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|4.9|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Bodily Pain Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.90|-0.41|
91767078|NCT00796666|183423330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Bodily Pain Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0624
91767079|NCT00796666|183423331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|2.06|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FCvas fixed effects and baseline General Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||2.06|-2.57|
91767080|NCT00796666|183423331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.82|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline General Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.82|0.48|
91767081|NCT00796666|183423331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline General Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0324
91767082|NCT00796666|183423332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.97|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Vitality Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||2.97|-2.10|
91767083|NCT00796666|183423332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.45|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Vitality Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||6.45|1.74|
91925765|NCT00406315|183750635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|0.11||||||Waist. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.11|-5.93|
91925766|NCT00406315|183750635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.1||||||Hip. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.10|-6.20|
91925767|NCT00406315|183750636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.42||||||Total Score. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.42|-0.32|
91925768|NCT00406315|183750636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.11||||||Global Severity Score. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.11|-0.05|
91925769|NCT00406315|183750636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||||||Global Incapacitation Score. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.07|-0.06|
91925770|NCT00406315|183750637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-10.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-7.75||||||Total Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-7.75|-12.70|
91925771|NCT00406315|183750637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-4.63||||||Total Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-4.63|-8.59|
91925772|NCT00406315|183750637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-2.53||||||Positive Subscale Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-2.53|-4.07|
91925773|NCT00406315|183750637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.83||||||Positive Subscale Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-1.83|-3.03|
91925774|NCT00406315|183750637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.99||||||Negative Subscale Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.99|-2.36|
91925775|NCT00406315|183750637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.35||||||Negative Subscale Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.35|-1.48|
91925776|NCT00406315|183750638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.61||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.61|-0.90|
91925777|NCT00406315|183750638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.36||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.36|-0.58|
91925778|NCT00406315|183750639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|2.88||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||2.88|2.52|
91767084|NCT00796666|183423332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Vitality Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0136
91767085|NCT00796666|183423333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|3.23|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Social Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.23|-2.33|
91767086|NCT00796666|183423333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.32|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Social Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||5.32|0.14|
91767087|NCT00796666|183423333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Social Functioning Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.1582
91810850|NCT02392247|183497246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.44||This study was not designed to determine which method is 'superior'.Statistical significance refers to deviation of slope for perfect agreement (=1) between paired measurements to quantify strength of association .|Deming Regression||Slope measured deviation from 1:1 concordance between SEER and TEG with TEG measurement as denominator. Confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping 1000 times on the parameters estimates for the slopes, intervals and correlation coefficients|A cohort of 50 patients was estimated to capture at least 7 'bleeding' patients with a likelihood of 95%, assuming a 25% incidence of bleeding, and standard deviation of 20%, to determine maximum clot stiffness within +/- 10% of the mean. This was a descriptive and method-comparison study. Method comparisons were performed according to Clinical Laboratory Science Institute (CLSI) guidelines (Deming regression on paired measurements)||0.44|0.26|<0.001
91767088|NCT00796666|183423334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.18|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.18|-3.09|
91767089|NCT00796666|183423334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|5.16|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||5.16|-0.62|
91925779|NCT00406315|183750639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|3.34||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||3.34|3.02|
91925780|NCT00406315|183750640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-1.83||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-1.83|-3.27|
91925781|NCT00406315|183750640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.99||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.99|-2.16|
91925782|NCT00406315|183750641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-3.26||||||Total Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-3.26|-5.95|
91925783|NCT00406315|183750641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.85||||||Total Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-2.85|-5.57|
91925784|NCT00406315|183750641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.73||||||Global Rating, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.73|-1.31|
91925785|NCT00406315|183750641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.63||||||Global Rating, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.63|-1.13|
91925786|NCT00406315|183750642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|7.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|9.69||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||9.69|6.07|
91925787|NCT00406315|183750642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|6.65||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||6.65|3.89|
91925788|NCT00406315|183750643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|15.02||||||Effectiveness, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||15.02|5.95|
91925789|NCT00406315|183750643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|15.02||||||Effectiveness, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||15.02|5.95|
91925790|NCT00406315|183750643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|18.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.94|25.04||||||Side Effect, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||25.04|11.94|
91925791|NCT00406315|183750643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|18.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.94|25.04||||||Side Effect, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||25.04|11.94|
91925792|NCT00406315|183750643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|9.93||||||Convenience, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||9.93|2.98|
91925793|NCT00406315|183750643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|9.93||||||Convenience, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||9.93|2.98|
91925794|NCT00406315|183750643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|15.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.97|20.68||||||Global Satisfaction, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||20.68|9.97|
91925795|NCT00406315|183750643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|15.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.97|20.68||||||Global Satisfaction, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||20.68|9.97|
91925796|NCT02202031|183750644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.6222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.21|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||1.21|-0.73|0.6222
91925797|NCT02202031|183750645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.47|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.47|-0.64|0.7695
91767090|NCT00796666|183423334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.2161
91767091|NCT00796666|183423335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|4.5|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.50|-1.61|
91925798|NCT02202031|183750646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.6456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39|||ANCOVA|change from baseline value, adjusted for baseline value||||0.39|-0.24|0.6456
91925799|NCT02202031|183750647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.6|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.60|-0.66|0.9190
91925800|NCT02202031|183750648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|4.84|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value.||||4.84|-2.51|0.5358
91925801|NCT02202031|183750649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.34|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||6.34|-2.90|0.4663
91925802|NCT02202031|183750650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|6.38|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||6.38|-2.05|0.3134
91925803|NCT02202031|183750651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|3.53|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||3.53|-7.05|0.5146
91925804|NCT02202031|183750652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.16|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.16|-0.44|0.3611
91925805|NCT02202031|183750653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.6722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|1.57|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||1.57|-2.43|0.6722
91925806|NCT02202031|183750654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.07|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.07|-1.4|0.0786
91925807|NCT02202031|183750655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.79|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.79|-2.87|0.2284
91925808|NCT02202031|183750656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-0.13|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||-0.13|-3.28|0.0335
91925809|NCT02202031|183750657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.81|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.81|-0.66|0.8408
91925810|NCT02202031|183750658|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.5578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.32|0.5578
91925811|NCT02202031|183750659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5578|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||||0.5578
91925812|NCT02202031|183750660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.7301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.31|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||0.31|-0.79|0.7301
91925813|NCT02202031|183750661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.04|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic||||0.04|-0.89|0.6646
91925814|NCT02202031|183750662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4993|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||||0.4993
91925815|NCT02202031|183750663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.7506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|4.23|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||4.23|-3.05|0.7506
91925816|NCT02202031|183750664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.6268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|3.87|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||3.87|-6.98|0.6268
91925817|NCT00321984|183750669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
91925818|NCT00321984|183750669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
91925819|NCT00321984|183750669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72941||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.72941
91925820|NCT00321984|183750671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
91925821|NCT00321984|183750671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
91925822|NCT00321984|183750671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3146||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.31460
91925823|NCT02214186|183750673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
91767092|NCT00796666|183423335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.5|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||6.50|0.82|
91767093|NCT00796666|183423335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Mental Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.2087
91767094|NCT00796666|183423336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.58|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.58|-1.21|
91767095|NCT00796666|183423336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.05|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||5.05|0.37|
91890471|NCT01262677|183674012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.71||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used to calculate the p-value, with the fixed effects for sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR), average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, and optimal sleep at Week 14 as dependent variable. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||1.71|0.54|0.8932
91890472|NCT00574873|183674023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||||||p-value was based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel test for general association between treatment and responder stratification by Sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1 to 3) as determined at time of randomization.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.667
91925824|NCT02214186|183750674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
91925825|NCT02214186|183750675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measures||||||<0.05
91925826|NCT02214186|183750676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
91925827|NCT02214186|183750677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measures.||||||>0.05
91925828|NCT02214186|183750678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
91925829|NCT02214186|183750679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91925830|NCT02214186|183750680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measures.||||||<0.05
91925831|NCT02214186|183750681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91925832|NCT01426386|183750719|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|10.18||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Number of oocytes retrieved as dependent variable, centre and AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factors and log(dose) as covariate||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||10.18|5.69|<0.001
91925833|NCT01426386|183750720|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|15.48||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|Follicular volume as dependent variable, centre and AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factors and log(dose) as covariate||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||15.48|6.78|<0.001
91925834|NCT01426386|183750721|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.11||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|Log(estradiol) as dependent variable, AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factor, log(dose) and log(baseline estradiol) as covariates||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||1.11|0.56|<0.001
91925835|NCT01426386|183750723|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.78||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|Fertilised oocytes as dependent variable, AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factor and log(dose) as covariate||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||4.78|1.71|<0.001
91925836|NCT01426386|183750725|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using the chi-squared test.||||||0.248||||||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|Chi-squared|||||||0.248
91925837|NCT03694522|183750732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.04|||Stratified log-rank test|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors of geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|||1.04|0.44|0.0727
91925838|NCT03694522|183750733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.95|||Stratified log-rank test|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|||0.95|0.35|0.0268
91925839|NCT03694522|183750734|SUPERIORITY||Difference|13.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) proportions||||29.0|-2.8|0.1060
91925840|NCT03694522|183750736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.94|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|||0.94|0.38|
91925841|NCT00257192|183750746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.67||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|P-value for final analysis is to be adjusted due to planned interim analysis (0.0462).||Sample size for 85% power 2-tailed 0.05 significance level based on expected difference of -5 with average within-group standard deviation=13 was 276 subjects (2 to 1 ratio of enrollment: 184 ziprasidone, 92 placebo). Interim analysis at 60 percent (%) enrollment (ITT population): may stop trial early for efficacy (2-sided p-value less than (\<) 0.0124) or for futility (2-sided p-value greater than (\>) 0.4772; The final analysis is to employ a 2-sided p-value \<0.0462.||0.67|-4.28|0.1530
91925842|NCT00257192|183750747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.06||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Hochberg procedure was applied to p-value to preserve type I error in the analysis of key secondary endpoints (PANSS total score and CGI-S).||Difference from placebo||0.06|-0.48|0.1289
91925843|NCT00257192|183750748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.1987||95.0|-6.5|1.36||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Hochberg procedure was applied to p-value to preserve type I error in the analysis of key secondary endpoints (PANSS total score and CGI-S).||Total score: difference from placebo||1.36|-6.50|0.1987
91925844|NCT00257192|183750749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.05||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Positive score: difference from placebo||-0.05|-2.61|0.0412
91810851|NCT02392247|183497247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|3.4||This study was not designed to determine which method is 'superior'. Statistical significance refers to deviation of slope for perfect agreement (=1) between paired measurements to quantify strength of association .|Deming regression|Confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping 1000 times on the parameters estimates for the slopes, intervals and correlation coefficients|Slope measured deviation from 1:1 concordance between SEER and TEG with TEG as denominator. Confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping 1000 times on the parameters estimates for the slopes, intervals and correlation coefficients|A cohort of 50 patients was estimated to capture at least 7 'bleeding' patients with a likelihood of 95%, assuming a 25% incidence of bleeding, and standard deviation of 20%, to determine maximum clot stiffness within +/- 10% of the mean. This was a descriptive and method-comparison study. Method comparisons were performed according to Clinical Laboratory Science Institute (CLSI) guidelines (Deming regression on paired measurements )||3.4|2.9|<0.001
91810852|NCT02801942|183497270|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.307|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|9.21|||||The mean difference in circulating B lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||9.21|-4.59|
91810853|NCT02801942|183497270|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.398|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.54|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||8.54|-1.46|
91810854|NCT02801942|183497270|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.854|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|0.86|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.86|-6.87|
91810855|NCT02801942|183497270|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.482||||95.0|-11.86|6.84|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||6.84|-11.86|
91925845|NCT00257192|183750749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.72||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Negative score: difference from placebo||0.72|-1.57|0.4661
91925846|NCT00257192|183750750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09||Mixed effects MMRM with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|ANOVA|||Difference from placebo||0.09|-0.47|0.1820
91925847|NCT00257192|183750758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|3.69||SAS PROC MIXED to fit a mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment and region as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|Observed cases at Week 6.||Neurocognitive Index score at Week 6: difference from placebo||3.69|-1.01|0.2613
91925848|NCT01905397|183750771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.05||||0.27|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.27
91925849|NCT00638846|183750774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.739|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|1.136|1.739|||Generalized Linear Model||Odds ratio was senofilcon A toric / balafilcon A toric|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A toric is superior to balfilcon A toric by having less degrees of rotation||1.739|1.136|
91925850|NCT00638846|183750775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.138|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.624|1.138|||Generalized Linear Model||Odds ratio was senofilcon A toric/balafilcon A toric|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric by having less degrees of instability.||1.138|0.624|
91925851|NCT00638846|183750776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2856|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1307|-0.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon At toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric by having less time required to fit.||-0.5680|-1.1307|
91925852|NCT00638846|183750777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1331|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.07001|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A is superior to balafilcon A.||0.3680|0.07001|
91925853|NCT00638846|183750778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is -0.4.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1648|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.0688|-0.0197|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric by having a lower grade fo corneal staining.||-0.0197|-0.0688|
91925854|NCT00638846|183750779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1331|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.07001|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric.||0.3680|0.07001|
91925855|NCT04172831|183750782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-0.1|-0.7|0.010
91925856|NCT04172831|183750783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.10|0.99|0.058
91925857|NCT04172831|183750784|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-1.2|-7.5|0.007
91767096|NCT00796666|183423336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Mental Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.2897
91767097|NCT00796666|183423337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.38|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Physical Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||1.38|-2.05|
91925858|NCT04172831|183750785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-1.1|-7.7|0.009
91767098|NCT00796666|183423337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.82|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Physical Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.82|0.46|
91925859|NCT04172831|183750786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-1.3|-4.5|<0.001
91925860|NCT04172831|183750787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-0.3|-3.3|0.018
91925861|NCT04172831|183750788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
91925862|NCT04036136|183750793|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Model covariates are Baseline SHAPS, age, and sex.||1.68|-2.41|0.724
91925863|NCT04036136|183750794|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.038|||Regression, Linear|||Model covariates are Baseline fMRI, age, and sex.||0.038|-0.124|0.292
91925864|NCT04036136|183750795|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.148||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.02||The equivalence margin is 0.|Regression, Linear|||Model covariates are Baseline fMRI, age, and sex.||0.020|-0.316|0.084
91925865|NCT02222129|183750805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed using SAS, version 9.2 (Statistical Analysis Software, Cary, NC). All power calculations were at the 80% level with an alpha of 0.05. Based upon opioid consumption data previously reported for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, a sample size of 74 would be necessary to detect a 10 mg difference in morphine equivalents totaled over the entire hospital stay. (Webster TM, Herrell SD, Chang SS, et al. The Journal of Urology 2005;174(3):912-914.||||0.39
91925866|NCT00916721|183750810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Multiple significance testing:we adjusted p-value by controlling the expected proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses:false discovery rate,Benjamini||||||0.05
91767099|NCT00796666|183423337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Physical Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0179
91767100|NCT03367858|183423380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173||||||At 12 month follow up.|ANCOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANCOVA of Time (Post-Treatment: 3, 6, 12 months) × Treatment (MI, BAM) with the covariate of pre-treatment problem drinking.||||.0173
91767101|NCT02485561|183423408|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.019||||0.362|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.362
91767102|NCT02485561|183423409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.024
91925867|NCT00121810|183750819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|18.7||||0.012||95.0|4.2|33.2||P value comparing the treatment groups calculated using ANCOVA model treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that mean percent change from baseline to 12 months for Group 1 (mycophenolate mofetil + sirolimus) was equal to that for Group 2 (mycophenolate mofetil + cyclosporine or tacrolimus) based on the intent-to-treat population.||33.2|4.2|0.012
91925868|NCT00121810|183750820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.543||95.0|-9.6|18.2||P value comparing the treatment groups calculated using ANCOVA model treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) type as factors and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||18.2|-9.6|0.543
91925869|NCT00121810|183750821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.8||||0.003||95.0|-17.9|-3.7||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||6 months||-3.7|-17.9|0.003
91925870|NCT00121810|183750821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0||||0.108||95.0|-35.4|3.5||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||12 months||3.5|-35.4|0.108
91925871|NCT00121810|183750821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.4||||0.039||95.0|-47.7|-1.2||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||24 months||-1.2|-47.7|0.039
91925872|NCT00121810|183750822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7|||<|0.001||95.0|4.1|13.3||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||6 months||13.3|4.1|<0.001
91925873|NCT00121810|183750822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9||||0.029||95.0|0.7|13.1||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||12 months||13.1|0.7|0.029
91925874|NCT00121810|183750822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.8||||0.015||95.0|1.7|15.9||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||24 months||15.9|1.7|0.015
91925875|NCT00121810|183750823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5|||<|0.001||95.0|4.2|12.9||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||6 months||12.9|4.2|<0.001
91925876|NCT00121810|183750823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8||||0.059||95.0|-0.2|11.9||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||12 months||11.9|-0.2|0.059
91925877|NCT00121810|183750823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5||||0.036||95.0|0.5|14.5||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||24 months||14.5|0.5|0.036
91810856|NCT02801942|183497271|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|8.98|||||The mean difference in Circulating B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||8.98|-2.22|
91925878|NCT00798967|183750824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the randomization stratification variable (\<= 6 or \> 6 L/week of PN at baseline)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
91925879|NCT00798967|183750825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Last Dosing Visit||||< 0.001
91925880|NCT01354691|183750826|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.67|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.67
91925881|NCT01354691|183750827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.21
91925882|NCT01354691|183750828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.78
91810857|NCT02801942|183497271|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.833|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|20.91|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||20.91|-3.72|
91810858|NCT02801942|183497271|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|3.38|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.38|-6.53|
91925883|NCT01354691|183750829|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.83
91925884|NCT01354691|183750830|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.77|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=.77
91925885|NCT00633139|183750831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4013
91925886|NCT00633139|183750832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2750
91925887|NCT00633139|183750833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1363
91925888|NCT01507246|183750836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|2.62||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|6.03|||least-squares mean ratio||Group 1 represents the numerator.|Null hypothesis: Mean ratio of geometric least-squares mean for each group is identical.||6.03|1.14|0.0251
91925889|NCT01507246|183750837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.24||||0.02767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.49|||least-squares mean ratio||Group 1 represents the numerator.|Null hypothesis = distribution of costs is identical between the two groups.||1.49|1.03|0.02767
91925890|NCT04083222|183750840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with treatment and screening angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/ angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91925891|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.399
91925892|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||0.338
91925893|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||0.207
91925894|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||0.927
91925895|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||0.146
91767103|NCT02485561|183423409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
91767104|NCT02485561|183423410|SUPERIORITY||F-value|6.482||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.002
91767105|NCT02485561|183423410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.91
91767106|NCT02485561|183423410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91810859|NCT02801942|183497271|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.32|2.71|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.71|-19.32|
91810860|NCT02801942|183497272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.75|||||The mean difference in B-cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.75|-0.90|
91810861|NCT02801942|183497272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.19|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.19|-0.07|
91810862|NCT02801942|183497272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.84|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.84|-3.41|
91767107|NCT02485561|183423411|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.608||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
91767108|NCT02485561|183423412|SUPERIORITY||F-value|16.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91810863|NCT02801942|183497272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.13|-0.10|
91810864|NCT02801942|183497272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.31|-0.19|
91767109|NCT02485561|183423412|SUPERIORITY||F-value|2.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
91767110|NCT02485561|183423413|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.68||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.19
91767111|NCT02485561|183423413|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.021||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.98
91767112|NCT02485561|183423413|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.312||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.73
91767113|NCT02485561|183423413|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.702||||0.496|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.496
91767114|NCT02485561|183423413|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.88||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.154
91767115|NCT02485561|183423413|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.667||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.514
91767116|NCT02485561|183423413|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.666||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.514
91767117|NCT02485561|183423414|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.59||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.56
91767118|NCT02485561|183423415|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.84
91810865|NCT02801942|183497272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.482|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.96|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.96|-3.23|
91810866|NCT02801942|183497273|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|6.23|||||The mean difference in B-cells in (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) iLN has been presented.|||6.23|-3.14|
91810867|NCT02801942|183497273|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||||The mean difference in CD56bright sNK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.34|-0.25|
91925896|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||0.055
91925897|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 43||||0.095
91767119|NCT02485561|183423416|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.16||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.31
91925898|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 50||||0.046
91925899|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 57||||0.246
91925900|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 64||||0.170
91925901|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 78||||0.527
91925902|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 92||||0.167
91925903|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 120||||0.266
91925904|NCT04083222|183750841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 141||||0.078
91925905|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.661
91925906|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||<0.001
91925907|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||<0.001
91925908|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||<0.001
91925909|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||<0.001
91925910|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||<0.001
91925911|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 43||||<0.001
91925912|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 50||||<0.001
91925913|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 57||||<0.001
91925914|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 64||||<0.001
91925915|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 78||||<0.001
91925916|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 92||||<0.001
91925917|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 120||||0.106
91810868|NCT02801942|183497273|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.52|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.52|-0.54|
91810869|NCT02801942|183497273|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.10|-0.15|
91810870|NCT02801942|183497273|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.34|-0.21|
91925918|NCT04083222|183750842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 141||||0.318
91925919|NCT04083222|183750843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.609
91925920|NCT04083222|183750843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||<0.001
91925921|NCT04083222|183750843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||<0.001
91925922|NCT04083222|183750843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||<0.001
91925923|NCT04083222|183750843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||<0.001
91925924|NCT04083222|183750843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||<0.001
91925925|NCT04083222|183750843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 43||||<0.001
91925926|NCT04083222|183750843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 50||||<0.001
91925927|NCT04083222|183750843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 64||||<0.001
91925928|NCT04083222|183750843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 78||||<0.001
91925929|NCT04083222|183750843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 92||||<0.001
91925930|NCT04083222|183750843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 120||||0.112
91925931|NCT04083222|183750843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 141||||0.371
91925932|NCT01522651|183750862|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|-19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.7||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|51.5||An equal-slopes analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||51.5|-57.5|0.493
91925933|NCT01522651|183750862|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|98.2||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||98.2|-40.2|0.780
91925934|NCT01522651|183750862|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|-57.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.8|-20.1||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||-20.1|-76.8|0.008
91925935|NCT01522651|183750862|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.5||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7|5.2||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||5.2|-68.7|0.072
91925936|NCT01522651|183750862|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.315||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.315
91810871|NCT02801942|183497273|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.96|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.96|-1.10|
91925937|NCT01522651|183750862|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.049||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.049
91925938|NCT01522651|183750862|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.275||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.275
91925939|NCT01522651|183750862|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.002||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91925940|NCT01522651|183750862|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.028||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
91925941|NCT01522651|183750862|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.334||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.334
91925942|NCT04400318|183750865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|30.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI) of the odds ratio and p-value between the dupilumab and placebo group based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by ICS dose level (medium/high) and region (Eastern Europe/ROW).||30.82|3.13|<0.001
91925943|NCT04400318|183750866|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.022||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|51.25|||MMRM|||The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) included study intervention, baseline value, region, ICS dose level, visits, study intervention by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction terms all as fixed effects. Region, ICS, study intervention and visits were considered as categorical parameters.||51.25|-7.73|0.138
91925944|NCT04400318|183750867|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure is reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only 2 secondary outcome measures (#4 and #5) were included in this procedure.|Least square mean difference|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.34|||MMRM|||MMRM model included study intervention (dupilumab, placebo), baseline value of global lung UCSF mucus scoring, region (Eastern Europe/ROW), ICS dose level (medium/high), visit (up to Week 24), study intervention-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-3.34|-6.50|<0.001
91925945|NCT04400318|183750868|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure is reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only 2 secondary outcome measures (#4 and #5) were included in this procedure.|Least square mean difference|-53.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.562||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.09|25.19|||MMRM|||MMRM model included study intervention (dupilumab, placebo), baseline value of trimmed distal \[s\]iRaw at TLC, region (Eastern Europe/ROW), ICS dose level (medium/high), visit (up to Week 24), study intervention-by-visit interaction, and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||25.19|-132.09|0.180
91925946|NCT02078713|183750878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.22||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||1.22|0.65|0.46
91810872|NCT02801942|183497274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.8|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.80|-1.73|
91925947|NCT02078713|183750878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||1.10|0.57|0.16
91925948|NCT02078713|183750879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||2.05|1.03|0.03
91925949|NCT02078713|183750880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.33||P-value calculated in imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||2.33|1.11|0.01
91925950|NCT02078713|183750881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.67||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.67|0.74|0.62
91810873|NCT02801942|183497274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.324|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|2.16|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.16|-7.54|
91925951|NCT02078713|183750882|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.04||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who wished provider had been less involved to right amount (ref)||3.04|0.40|0.85
91925952|NCT02078713|183750882|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.6||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.5||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who reported they wished their providers had been more involved, compared to right amount (ref)||3.50|0.73|0.24
91925953|NCT02078713|183750883|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.25||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who wished provider had expressed preference less strongly to right amount (ref).||2.25|0.45|0.997
91925954|NCT02078713|183750883|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|0.69||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.16||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who reported they wished provider had expressed preference more strongly, compared to right amount (ref).||1.16|0.41|0.16
91925955|NCT02078713|183750884|SUPERIORITY|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.82||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.82|0.93|0.13
91925956|NCT02078713|183750885|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.61||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patient decision to both (ref)||1.61|0.79|0.50
91767120|NCT02485561|183423417|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.17||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.31
91767121|NCT02485561|183423417|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.056||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.95
91767122|NCT03246789|183423489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|6.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||6.39|-2.09|0.31
91810874|NCT02801942|183497274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.95|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.95|-1.12|
91810875|NCT02801942|183497275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|18.6|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||18.60|-4.92|
91810876|NCT02801942|183497275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.77|9.0|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||9.00|-24.77|
91810877|NCT02801942|183497275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.379|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|3.73|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.73|-6.66|
91810878|NCT02801942|183497276|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.558|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|10.84|||||The mean difference in myeloid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||10.84|-8.17|
91767123|NCT03246789|183423490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||1.28|-4.22|0.28
91767124|NCT03246789|183423490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||1.74|-3.48|0.50
91767125|NCT03246789|183423490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #3, Week 12||-0.28|-2.88|0.02
91767126|NCT03246789|183423490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|3.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain 4, Week 12||3.53|-3.63|0.98
91767127|NCT03246789|183423491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||0.58|-0.64|0.92
91767128|NCT03246789|183423491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||0.33|-0.69|0.48
91767129|NCT03246789|183423491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.69|-0.33|0.48
91810879|NCT02801942|183497276|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|7.86|||||The mean difference in plasmacytoid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.86|-11.57|
91810880|NCT02801942|183497277|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|24.09|||||The mean difference in myeloid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||24.09|0.38|
91767130|NCT00101686|183423502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.433||||0.0152||95.0|1.09|1.89||p-value corresponds to the log-rank test for comparing Kaplan-Meier survival curves.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio \[mIRI:FOLFIRI\] is from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model using treatment (FOLFIRI, mIRI, CapeIRI), age (\<=70 vs \>70), performance status (0 vs 1), aspirin (Yes vs No), celecoxib (Yes or No) as the covariates.|||1.89|1.09|0.0152
91925957|NCT02078713|183750885|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|2.14||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.15||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of provider decision to both (ref)||5.15|0.89|0.09
91925958|NCT02078713|183750886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.71||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.71|0.94|0.12
91925959|NCT02078713|183750887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.74||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of overall score||1.74|0.80|0.41
91925960|NCT02078713|183750887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of informed decision subscale||1.80|1.00|0.0496
91925961|NCT02078713|183750887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of uncertainty subscale of DCS||2.05|1.03|0.03
91925962|NCT02078713|183750887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.59||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of effective decision subscale||1.59|0.80|0.5
91767131|NCT00101686|183423503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.512||||0.0042||95.0|1.16|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|1.16|0.0042
91767132|NCT00101686|183423503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.368||||0.0156||95.0|1.04|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|1.04|0.0156
91810881|NCT02801942|183497277|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.961|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|3.78|||||The mean difference in plasmacytoid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.78|-25.52|
91810882|NCT02801942|183497280|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.329|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|14.99|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||14.99|-11.41|
91925963|NCT02078713|183750887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.59||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of values clarity subscale||1.59|0.86|0.31
91925964|NCT02078713|183750887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.49||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of support subscale||1.49|0.76|0.73
91925965|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.72||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - pills are more effective than condoms||1.72|0.94|0.12
91925966|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|3.62||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - IUDs are more effective than pills||3.62|1.94|<0.0001
91767133|NCT00101686|183423503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.4659||95.0|0.81|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.81|0.4659
91767134|NCT00101686|183423504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|47.2||||||95.0|38.85|55.71|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||55.71|38.85|
91767135|NCT00101686|183423504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|43.3||||||95.0|34.95|51.86|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||51.86|34.95|
91767136|NCT00101686|183423504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|38.6||||||95.0|30.66|47.06|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||47.06|30.66|
91767137|NCT00101686|183423504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4751|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4751
91767138|NCT00101686|183423504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1591|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1591
91767139|NCT00101686|183423504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4395|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4395
91767140|NCT00101686|183423505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.268||||0.0879||95.0|0.96|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.96|0.0879
91767141|NCT00101686|183423505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.2765||95.0|0.9|1.58|||Log Rank|||||1.58|0.90|0.2765
91925967|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.44||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - depo is more effective than condoms||2.44|1.29|0.0004
91925968|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.71||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - IUDs are an option for nulliparous young women||2.71|1.36|0.0002
91925969|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.71||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Methods causing periods to stop are safe.||2.71|1.28|0.001
91925970|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.57||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - LARC can be removed early||1.57|0.85|0.36
91925971|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.41||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of knowledge - Copper IUD can act as EC||4.41|1.72|<0.0001
91767142|NCT00101686|183423505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.9364||95.0|0.8|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.80|0.9364
91767143|NCT00101686|183423507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.7163||95.0|0.86|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.86|0.7163
91767144|NCT00101686|183423508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|39.4||||||95.0|32.83|46.34|||||confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||46.34|32.83|
91925972|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.63||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a regression model in a multiply imputed dataset. This outcome was not adjusted for site due to model being unable to run with imputed data.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of knowledge - After sex, there is something you can do to prevent pregnancy||1.63|0.36|0.49
91767145|NCT00101686|183423508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|46.5||||||95.0|39.76|53.42|||||confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||53.42|39.76|
91767146|NCT00101686|183423508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1559|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1559
91810883|NCT02801942|183497280|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.91|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||4.91|-4.60|
91810884|NCT02801942|183497280|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.26|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||11.26|-2.50|
91925973|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.34||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a regression model in a multiply imputed dataset. This outcome was not adjusted for site due to model being unable to run with imputed data.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of knowledge - EC can prevent pregnancy after sex||1.34|0.39|0.31
91767147|NCT00101686|183423509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5316||95.0|0.86|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.86|0.5316
91767148|NCT00101686|183423510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.269||||0.2835||95.0|0.75|2.15|||Log Rank|||||2.15|0.75|0.2835
91767149|NCT00101686|183423511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|57.9||||||95.0|44.08|70.86|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||70.86|44.08|
91767150|NCT00101686|183423511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|53.3||||||95.0|40.0|66.33|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||66.33|40.00|
91767151|NCT00101686|183423511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7388|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7388
91767152|NCT00101686|183423513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.794||||0.037||95.0|1.12|2.88|||Log Rank|||||2.88|1.12|0.0370
91767153|NCT03101566|183423537|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PFS at 6 months was estimated for this trial using the product-limit method of Kaplan and Meier with 95% confidence intervals calculated using Greenwood's formula. All statistical analyses were completed using the SAS System, v9.4 \[Cary, NC, USA\].|||
91767154|NCT01292187|183423563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0265|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0265
91767155|NCT01292187|183423564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0340
91810885|NCT02801942|183497280|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.729|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|5.89|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||5.89|-18.01|
91925974|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.84||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - pill does not affect fertility||1.84|0.96|0.08
91925975|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.26||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.||Comparison of correct knowledge - patch does not affect fertility|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|2.26|1.2|0.002
91925976|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.35||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - ring does not affect fertility||2.35|1.23|0.002
91925977|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Depo does affect fertility||1.43|0.62|0.77
91925978|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.17||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Hormonal IUD does not affect fertility||2.17|1.19|0.002
91925979|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.1||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Non-hormonal IUD does not affect fertility||2.1|1.15|0.004
91925980|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.07||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Implant does not affect fertility||2.07|1.14|0.005
91925981|NCT02078713|183750888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.49||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic||OR calculated in multiply imputed dataset. Intervention patients had 2.47 times the odds of control patients to give correct answer.|Comparison of correct knowledge - composite IUD knowledge item (all correct responses on items related to IUD knowledge, versus any incorrect)||3.49|1.75|<0.0001
91925982|NCT02078713|183750889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.61||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of percentage of patients giving top score at baseline||1.61|0.88|0.25
91767156|NCT00113841|183423568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91810886|NCT02801942|183497280|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.6|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.60|-0.67|
91810887|NCT02801942|183497281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.73|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.73|-5.33|
91810888|NCT02801942|183497281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.466|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|2.41|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.41|-3.73|
91810889|NCT02801942|183497281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|3.96|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.96|-7.67|
91925983|NCT02078713|183750889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention groups in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of percentage of patients giving top score at 4 months post-enrollment||1.22|0.66|0.5
91925984|NCT02078713|183750889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of percentage of patients giving a top score on the 5-point Likert scale at 7 months post-enrollment.||1.13|0.60|0.23
91767157|NCT00141102|183423604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||<0.0001
91767158|NCT00141102|183423605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||<0.0001
91767159|NCT00141102|183423606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.4146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||0.03|-0.06|0.4146
91925985|NCT02078713|183750890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.25|0.66|0.55
91925986|NCT02078713|183750891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.6||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating for hormonal IUD. Patients excluded from analysis if they had not heard of hormonal IUD.||1.6|0.92|0.13
91925987|NCT02078713|183750891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.3||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on non-hormonal IUD. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the non-hormonal IUD in the post-visit survey.||1.3|0.75|0.92
91925988|NCT02078713|183750891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating of implant||1.07|0.67|0.17
91925989|NCT02078713|183750891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on condoms. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of condoms in the post-visit survey.||0.92|0.54|0.009
91925990|NCT02078713|183750891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.12||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the shot (Depo Provera). Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the the shot (Depo Provera) in the post-visit survey.||1.12|0.65|0.26
91925991|NCT02078713|183750891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the pill. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the pill in the post-visit survey.||1.11|0.64|0.23
91925992|NCT02078713|183750891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the patch. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the patch in the post-visit survey.||1.22|0.69|0.55
91767160|NCT00141102|183423607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||0.1132
91767161|NCT00141102|183423609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||0.0495
91810890|NCT02801942|183497281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.342|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.54|13.87|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||13.87|-12.54|
91810891|NCT02801942|183497281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.36|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.36|-1.71|
91810892|NCT02801942|183497284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.16|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.16|-0.84|
91810893|NCT02801942|183497285|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|2.96|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.96|-15.37|
91810894|NCT02801942|183497286|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.269|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.68|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.68|-1.61|
91767162|NCT00141102|183423610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||0.0006
91767163|NCT00141102|183423611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.45|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||0.45|0.36|<0.0001
91767164|NCT00141102|183423612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.25|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||1.25|0.98|<0.0001
91767165|NCT00141102|183423613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.748|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||3.84|1.96|<0.0001
91767166|NCT00141102|183423614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|3.329|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.156|5.141|||Fisher Exact|||GGT||5.141|2.156|<0.0001
91925993|NCT02078713|183750891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.25||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the pull-out method. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the pull-out method in the post-visit survey.||1.25|0.76|0.84
91925994|NCT02078713|183750891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the ring. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the ring in the post-visit survey.||1.02|0.64|0.07
91925995|NCT02078713|183750891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.82||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on female sterilization/tubal ligation. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of female sterilization/tubal ligation in the post-visit survey.||0.82|0.42|0.002
91925996|NCT02078713|183750891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.85||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on male sterilization/vasectomy. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of male sterilization/vasectomy in the post-visit survey.||0.85|0.4|0.005
91925997|NCT02078713|183750892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.42||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of hormonal IUD||3.42|0.71|0.27
91925998|NCT02078713|183750892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.4||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of non-hormonal IUD||3.40|0.80|0.18
91925999|NCT02078713|183750892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.69||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of implant||2.69|0.62|0.5
91926000|NCT02078713|183750892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.89||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of the patch||4.89|0.59|0.32
91926001|NCT02078713|183750892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of ring||2.81|0.68|0.37
91926002|NCT02078713|183750892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.73||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of male sterilization (vasectomy)||3.73|0.60|0.39
91767167|NCT00141102|183423614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|1.509||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|3.684|||Fisher Exact|||AST||3.684|0.618|0.3809
91767168|NCT00141102|183423614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.089||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.081|4.038|||Fisher Exact|||ALT||4.038|1.081|0.0264
91767169|NCT00141102|183423615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-8.78|||ANCOVA|||GGT||-8.78|-11.51|<0.0001
91767170|NCT00141102|183423615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.84|||ANCOVA|||AST||-1.84|-2.94|<0.0001
91767171|NCT00141102|183423615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-5.52|||ANCOVA|||ALT||-5.52|-7.20|<0.0001
91767172|NCT00141102|183423616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.366||0.6795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|3.24|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||3.24|-2.11|0.6795
91767173|NCT00141102|183423617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.624||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|3.74|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||3.74|-6.55|0.5920
91926003|NCT02078713|183750892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.73||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of female sterilization||3.73|0.6|0.39
91926004|NCT02078713|183750893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.81||P-value calculated from multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|"The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group rating their appointment as much better, in the numerator, over the odds of the control group giving this rating in the denominator."|Patients excluded from test if they reported not having had a previous contraceptive counseling appointment.||1.81|0.90|0.18
91926005|NCT02078713|183750894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.54|18.66||P-value calculated in multiple imputed dataset|Regression, Linear|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation parameter is a beta coefficient from a linear regression model, calculated in an imputed dataset. It represents additional minutes in an intervention visit versus a control visit.|||18.66|8.54|<0.001
91926006|NCT02078713|183750895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.29||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Linear|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation parameter is a beta coefficient from a linear regression model, calculated in an imputed dataset. It represents additional minutes in an intervention visit versus a control visit.|||5.29|-3.19|0.63
91767174|NCT00141102|183423618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.6819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||0.06|-0.09|0.6819
91767175|NCT02756572|183423701|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91767176|NCT02756572|183423702|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91767177|NCT02756572|183423703|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
91767178|NCT02756572|183423704|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91767179|NCT03956550|183423718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2978|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2978
91767180|NCT03956550|183423718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.689|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6890
91810895|NCT02801942|183497286|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|5.03|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||5.03|-8.12|
91767181|NCT03956550|183423719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1973|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1973
91767182|NCT03956550|183423719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9420
91767183|NCT03956550|183423720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1597|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1597
91767184|NCT03956550|183423720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9719
91767185|NCT03956550|183423721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1365|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1365
91767186|NCT03956550|183423721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0604|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0604
91810896|NCT02801942|183497286|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|4.13|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||4.13|-4.59|
91767187|NCT03956550|183423722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0989|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0989
91767188|NCT03956550|183423722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5487|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5487
91767189|NCT03956550|183423723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3572|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3572
91767190|NCT03956550|183423723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5747|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5747
91767191|NCT02341235|183423758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.35
91767192|NCT02341235|183423759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||0.22
91767193|NCT02341235|183423760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.97
91767194|NCT02341235|183423761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.98
91767195|NCT02341235|183423762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.83
91767196|NCT02341235|183423763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.055
91767197|NCT02341235|183423764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.71
91767198|NCT02341235|183423765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.33
91767199|NCT02341235|183423766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.94
91767200|NCT02341235|183423767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.57
91767201|NCT02341235|183423768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.30
91767202|NCT02341235|183423769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.44
91767203|NCT02341235|183423770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.62
91767204|NCT02341235|183423771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.70
91767205|NCT02341235|183423772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.41
91767206|NCT02341235|183423773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.72
91767207|NCT02341235|183423780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.084
91926007|NCT02078713|183750896|SUPERIORITY||Observed coefficient|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|2.68|||Regression, Linear||Tool group is compared to control group (ref). Bootstrapping used for standard error.|Test of follow-up score of emotional exhaustion subscale of Maslach Burnout Inventory, controlling for baseline score and site||2.68|-10.62|0.24
91926008|NCT02078713|183750896|SUPERIORITY||Observed coefficient|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|1.72|||Regression, Linear||Tool group is compared to control group (ref). Bootstrapping used for standard error|Linear regression of follow-up score for depersonalization subscale of Maslach Burnout Inventory, controlling for baseline score and site.||1.72|-4.76|0.36
91926009|NCT02078713|183750896|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|1.34|||Regression, Linear||Tool group compared to control group (ref). Bootstrapping used for standard error.|Linear regression of follow-up score for personal accomplishment subscale of Maslach Burnout Inventory, controlling for site and baseline score.||1.34|-4.61|0.28
91926010|NCT02078713|183750897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.65||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.65|0.69|0.78
91926011|NCT02078713|183750898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.35||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||1.35|0.66|0.75
91767208|NCT02341235|183423782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.580
91767209|NCT02341235|183423790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.461
91926012|NCT02078713|183750898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.53||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||1.53|0.75|0.71
91767210|NCT02341235|183423792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.934
91926013|NCT02078713|183750899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.34||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||1.34|0.66|0.75
91767211|NCT04244253|183423802|SUPERIORITY||Difference of score|-1.1||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||Mixed-model repeated measures|MMRM included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction using an unstructured covariance matrix.||The statistical analysis was performed at Week 6 to compare the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group.||1.0|-3.3|0.288
91767212|NCT04244253|183423803|OTHER||Difference in response rate|5.6||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|16.8|||χ2 test|The MADRS response rate in the OPC-64005 20-mg group and the placebo group were compared using the χ2 test in the LOCF dataset.||The statistical analysis was performed at Week 6 to compare the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group.||16.8|-5.6|0.329
91926014|NCT02078713|183750899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.64||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||1.64|0.83|0.37
91926015|NCT02078713|183750900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.37||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||3.37|0.48|0.63
91767213|NCT04244253|183423804|OTHER||Difference of Proportion|1.5||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.3|||χ2 test|The MADRS remission rate in the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group were compared using the χ2 test in the LOCF dataset.||The statistical analysis was performed at Week 6 to compare the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group.||10.3|-7.2|0.731
91767214|NCT01544920|183423805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference in SVR24 % exceeded -10%.|Difference in SVR24% in Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.5||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving SVR24||6.5|-3.2|
91767215|NCT01544920|183423806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The observed lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference was 2.5% (which exceeds 0) for BOC added to peg-IFN + RBV in contrast to peg-IFN + RBV alone.|Difference in SVR24%|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.1||||||||18.1|2.5|
91767216|NCT00411749|183423807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91767217|NCT00411749|183423808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91767218|NCT00411749|183423809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91767219|NCT00411749|183423810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91767220|NCT00411749|183423811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|155.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.2|190.9||||||||190.9|126.2|
91926016|NCT02078713|183750900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.8||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||3.80|0.88|0.11
91926017|NCT00372190|183750948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91926018|NCT00623467|183750952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926019|NCT00623467|183750952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926020|NCT00623467|183750952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926021|NCT00623467|183750953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926022|NCT00623467|183750953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926023|NCT00623467|183750953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926024|NCT00623467|183750954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91926025|NCT00623467|183750954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926026|NCT00623467|183750954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91767221|NCT00411749|183423811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|198.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|160.9|244.2||||||||244.2|160.9|
91767222|NCT00411749|183423811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|617.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|491.7|774.5||||||||774.5|491.7|
91767223|NCT00411749|183423811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.8|117.8||||||||117.8|68.8|
91926027|NCT00623467|183750955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926028|NCT00623467|183750955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926029|NCT00623467|183750955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926030|NCT00623467|183750956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.31|||||||||||for BR1|||||
91926031|NCT00623467|183750956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.77|||||||||||for BR2|||||
91926032|NCT00623467|183750956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2|||||||||||for BR3|||||
91926033|NCT00623467|183750956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.704|||95% confidence interval for paired means||confidence interval provided for average reader, lower limit is compared to noninferiority margin|||0.704|-0.070|
91926034|NCT00623467|183750957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926035|NCT00623467|183750957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926036|NCT00623467|183750958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6||||95.0|0.03|0.381|||||lower limit of the confidence interval is compared to the noninferiority margin|||0.381|0.030|
91926037|NCT00623467|183750959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926038|NCT00623467|183750959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926039|NCT00623467|183750959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926040|NCT00623467|183750960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926041|NCT00623467|183750960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926042|NCT00623467|183750960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.25|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926043|NCT00623467|183750961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.39|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926044|NCT00623467|183750961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926045|NCT00623467|183750961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926046|NCT00623467|183750962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926047|NCT00623467|183750962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926048|NCT00623467|183750962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.99|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91767224|NCT03001557|183423820|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) difference|3.177||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|7.096||Based on a mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM) analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||7.096|-0.741|0.1099
91767225|NCT03001557|183423820|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.802||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.119|6.723||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||6.723|-1.119|0.1576
91926049|NCT00623467|183750963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926050|NCT00623467|183750963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||<0.0001
91926051|NCT00623467|183750963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926052|NCT00623467|183750964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91767226|NCT03001557|183423820|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.96||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.777|2.857||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.857|-4.777|0.6160
91767227|NCT03001557|183423820|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.713||||0.7135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|4.585||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||4.585|-3.160|0.7135
91767228|NCT03001557|183423824|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.098||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|2.045||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.045|-12.240|0.1582
91767229|NCT03001557|183423824|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.105||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.332|1.122||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.122|-13.332|0.0961
91767230|NCT03001557|183423824|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.68||||0.8449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.262|7.623||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||7.623|-6.262|0.8449
91767231|NCT03001557|183423824|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.14||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.178|3.897||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||3.897|-10.178|0.3747
91767232|NCT03001557|183423828|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.932||||0.3966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.601|6.465||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||6.465|-2.601|0.3966
91810897|NCT02801942|183497286|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.835|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|8.92|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||8.92|-7.08|
91810898|NCT02801942|183497286|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.21|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.21|-0.40|
91810899|NCT02801942|183497287|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||||95.0|-0.23|0.75|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.75|-0.23|
91767233|NCT03001557|183423828|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.386||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|7.897||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||7.897|-1.125|0.1381
91810900|NCT02801942|183497287|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.943|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.29|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.29|-10.20|
91926053|NCT00623467|183750964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926054|NCT00623467|183750964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91767234|NCT03001557|183423828|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.337||||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.104|5.778||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||5.778|-3.104|0.5487
91767235|NCT03001557|183423828|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.32||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|8.793||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||8.793|-0.153|0.0581
91767236|NCT03001557|183423832|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.437||||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.481|1.608||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.608|-8.481|0.1777
91810901|NCT02801942|183497287|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.621|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|9.69|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells(Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||9.69|-5.38|
91810902|NCT02801942|183497287|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.629|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|8.86|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||8.86|-10.47|
91926055|NCT00623467|183750965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926056|NCT00623467|183750965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926057|NCT00623467|183750965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||<0.0001
91926058|NCT00623467|183750966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926059|NCT00623467|183750966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926060|NCT00623467|183750966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926061|NCT00623467|183750968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926062|NCT00623467|183750968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91767237|NCT03001557|183423832|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.458||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.564|6.479||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||6.479|-3.564|0.5630
91767238|NCT03001557|183423832|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-4.994||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.946|-0.041||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-0.041|-9.946|0.0482
91767239|NCT03001557|183423832|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.593||||0.3036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.599|2.413||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.413|-7.599|0.3036
91767240|NCT03001557|183423836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.845||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.624|12.313||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||12.313|-2.624|0.1991
91767241|NCT03001557|183423836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.872||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.263|3.518||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||3.518|-11.263|0.2982
91767242|NCT03001557|183423836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.776||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|14.025||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||14.025|-0.474|0.0664
91767243|NCT03001557|183423836|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.017||||0.4148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.344|10.379||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||10.379|-4.344|0.4148
91767244|NCT03001557|183423840|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.063||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.452|2.579||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.579|-2.452|0.9599
91767245|NCT03001557|183423840|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.238||||0.8541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.817|2.342||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, Visit and treatment by Visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.342|-2.817|0.8541
91767246|NCT03001557|183423840|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.293||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.745|2.16||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.160|-2.745|0.8117
91767247|NCT03001557|183423840|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.557||||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.113|1.0||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.000|-4.113|0.2274
91767248|NCT03001557|183423844|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.086||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.232||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.232|-0.060|0.2421
91767249|NCT03001557|183423844|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.012||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.131||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.131|-0.155|0.8661
91767250|NCT03001557|183423844|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.057||||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.199||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.199|-0.085|0.4251
91810903|NCT02801942|183497287|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.34|||||The mean difference in Stem cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.34|-0.77|
91810904|NCT02801942|183497288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.556|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|0.25|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.25|-10.42|
91767251|NCT03001557|183423844|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.025||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.166||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.166|-0.116|0.7248
91767252|NCT03001557|183423848|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.032||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.029||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.029|-0.094|0.2991
91767253|NCT03001557|183423848|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.033||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.095||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.095|-0.028|0.2861
91810905|NCT02801942|183497288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.07|-0.15|
91810906|NCT02801942|183497288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.428|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.88|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.88|-3.08|
91767254|NCT03001557|183423848|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.052||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.009||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.009|-0.113|0.0938
91767255|NCT03001557|183423848|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.005||||0.8618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.066||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.066|-0.055|0.8618
91767256|NCT03001557|183423852|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-389.873||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-739.177|-40.569||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-40.569|-739.177|0.0294
91767257|NCT03001557|183423852|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-402.994||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-751.67|-54.319||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-54.319|-751.670|0.0243
91767258|NCT03001557|183423852|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-141.026||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.805|207.752||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||207.752|-489.805|0.4209
91767259|NCT03001557|183423852|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-367.845||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-717.87|-17.82||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-17.820|-717.870|0.0398
91767260|NCT03001557|183423856|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1276.18||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2878.587|326.226||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||326.226|-2878.587|0.1162
91767261|NCT03001557|183423856|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|227.464||||0.7781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1382.85|1837.777||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1837.777|-1382.850|0.7781
91767262|NCT03001557|183423856|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-620.581||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2170.342|929.179||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||929.179|-2170.342|0.4255
91810907|NCT02801942|183497288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.294|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|11.05|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||11.05|-6.87|
91810908|NCT02801942|183497288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|5.0|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||5.00|-4.94|
91926063|NCT00623467|183750969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926064|NCT00623467|183750969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91926065|NCT00623467|183750970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.0002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0002
91926066|NCT00623467|183750971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0001
91926067|NCT00623467|183750972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.0285|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0285
91926068|NCT00623467|183750973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.0004|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0004
91926069|NCT00623467|183750974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.0588|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0588
91926070|NCT00623467|183750975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.0093|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0093
91926071|NCT00623467|183750976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.0003|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0003
91926072|NCT00623467|183750977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91767263|NCT03001557|183423856|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-577.82||||0.4672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2160.337|1004.697||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1004.697|-2160.337|0.4672
91810909|NCT02801942|183497288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|2.32|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.32|-2.31|
91767264|NCT03001557|183423860|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-839.088||||0.2984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2440.854|762.678||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||762.678|-2440.854|0.2984
91926073|NCT00623467|183750978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.0016|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0016
91926074|NCT00623467|183750979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.0253|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0253
91926075|NCT00623467|183750980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.0253|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0253
91767265|NCT03001557|183423860|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|651.922||||0.4218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-962.835|2266.678||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2266.678|-962.835|0.4218
91810910|NCT02801942|183497288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.55|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.55|-2.73|
91810911|NCT02801942|183497288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.64|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||4.64|-1.51|
91926076|NCT00623467|183750981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926077|NCT00623467|183750982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91926078|NCT03691623|183750994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-588.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-719.8|-456.35|||ANCOVA|||||-456.35|-719.8|< 0.001
91926079|NCT03691623|183750994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-564.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-689.23|-440.02|||ANCOVA|||||-440.02|-689.23|< 0.001
91926080|NCT03691623|183750994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-716.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-879.92|-552.24|||ANCOVA|||||-552.24|-879.92|< 0.001
91926081|NCT03691623|183750994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-736.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-916.36|-556.11|||ANCOVA|||||-556.11|-916.36|< 0.001
91926082|NCT03691623|183750995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-355.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-506.12|-205.69|||ANCOVA|||||-205.69|-506.12|< 0.001
91926083|NCT03691623|183750995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-326.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-469.68|-183.6|||ANCOVA|||||-183.6|-469.68|< 0.001
91926084|NCT03691623|183750995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-313.98|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-494.27|-133.69|||ANCOVA|||||-133.69|-494.27|= 0.001
91926085|NCT03691623|183750995|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-312.73|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-508.05|-117.4|||ANCOVA|||||-117.4|-508.05|= 0.003
91926086|NCT03691623|183750996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2|-5.3|< 0.001
91926087|NCT03691623|183750996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-5.5|< 0.001
91926088|NCT03691623|183750996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-4.9|= 0.002
91926089|NCT03691623|183750996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-4.9|= 0.006
91767266|NCT03001557|183423860|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-447.245||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1998.44|1103.95||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1103.950|-1998.440|0.5655
91767267|NCT03001557|183423860|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-130.603||||0.8686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1706.478|1445.272||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1445.272|-1706.478|0.8686
91926090|NCT03691623|183750998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|||=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-2.09|= 0.199
91926091|NCT03691623|183750998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.43|||ANCOVA|||||1.43|-0.98|= 0.714
91926092|NCT03691623|183750998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|||=|0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.77|||ANCOVA|||||1.77|-2.15|= 0.844
91926093|NCT03691623|183750998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-3.46|= 0.21
91926094|NCT03691623|183750999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-2.37|= 0.145
91926095|NCT03691623|183750999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|||=|0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.73|||ANCOVA|||||0.73|-2.03|= 0.352
91926096|NCT03691623|183750999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.85|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||||-1.15|-4.55|= 0.002
91926097|NCT03691623|183750999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|-1.61|||ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-5.19|< 0.001
91926098|NCT03691623|183751000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.081|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.554|-11.607|||ANCOVA|||||-11.607|-36.554|< 0.001
91926099|NCT03691623|183751000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.954|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.695|-14.213|||ANCOVA|||||-14.213|-37.695|< 0.001
91926100|NCT03691623|183751000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.176|-9.083|||ANCOVA|||||-9.083|-27.176|< 0.001
91926101|NCT03691623|183751000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.329|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.106|-9.552|||ANCOVA|||||-9.552|-29.106|< 0.001
91926102|NCT03691623|183751001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1292|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8491|-1.4093|||ANCOVA|||||-1.4093|-2.8491|< 0.001
91926103|NCT03691623|183751001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7938|-1.4319|||ANCOVA|||||-1.4319|-2.7938|< 0.001
91926104|NCT03691623|183751001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1915|-2.2467|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2467|-4.1915|< 0.001
91926105|NCT03691623|183751001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7831|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8522|-1.714|||ANCOVA|||||-1.714|-3.8522|< 0.001
91767268|NCT03001557|183423864|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.02||||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.074||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.074|-0.034|0.4638
91767269|NCT03001557|183423864|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.115||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.115|0.005|0.0322
91767270|NCT03001557|183423864|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.003||||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.056||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.056|-0.051|0.9144
91810912|NCT02801942|183497288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.05|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.05|-1.05|
91810913|NCT02801942|183497289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.607|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|9.07|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||9.07|-5.99|
91810914|NCT02801942|183497289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|1.18|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.18|-2.43|
91810915|NCT02801942|183497289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.391|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|3.31|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.31|-2.49|
91926106|NCT03691623|183751002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-1.35|||ANCOVA|||||-1.35|-2.67|< 0.001
91926107|NCT03691623|183751002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.16|||ANCOVA|||||-1.16|-2.4|< 0.001
91926108|NCT03691623|183751002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.98|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-3.43|= 0.009
91926109|NCT03691623|183751002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.41|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-4|= 0.004
91926110|NCT03691623|183751003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-1.17|||ANCOVA|||||-1.17|-3.04|< 0.001
91926111|NCT03691623|183751003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.11|||ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-2.89|< 0.001
91926112|NCT03691623|183751003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.89|||ANCOVA|||||-0.89|-3.06|< 0.001
91926113|NCT03691623|183751003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.29|||ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-3.64|< 0.001
91767271|NCT03001557|183423864|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.057||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.11||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction|MMRM|||||0.110|0.004|0.0364
91767272|NCT01272232|183423870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-3.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.84|-3.11||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-3.11|-4.84|<0.0001
91810916|NCT02801942|183497289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.824|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|2.39|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.39|-9.39|
91810917|NCT02801942|183497289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.78|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.78|-1.29|
91810918|NCT02801942|183497289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.54|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.54|-0.73|
91926114|NCT03691623|183751004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
91926115|NCT03691623|183751004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
91926116|NCT03691623|183751004|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.001
91926117|NCT03691623|183751004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
91926118|NCT01505491|183751074|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|113.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.752|129.812|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||129.812|98.752|0.1163
91926119|NCT01505491|183751074|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|132.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094||0.7345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.984|153.412|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira EU was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||153.412|113.984|0.7345
91926120|NCT01505491|183751074|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|86.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.974|99.83|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of Humira EU vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||99.830|74.974|0.1833
91926121|NCT01505491|183751075|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|109.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.384|122.935|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||122.935|97.384|0.0303
91926122|NCT01505491|183751075|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|128.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.492|146.365|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira EU was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||146.365|113.492|0.6547
91926123|NCT01505491|183751075|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|86.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.077||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.238|97.564|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of Humira EU vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||97.564|76.238|0.1572
91926124|NCT01505491|183751076|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|110.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.687|122.035|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||122.035|99.687|0.0212
91926125|NCT01505491|183751076|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|117.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.638|130.757|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira EU was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||130.757|105.638|0.1700
91926126|NCT01505491|183751076|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|96.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.064|107.017|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of Humira EU vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||107.017|87.064|0.0016
91926127|NCT02759146|183751079|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.09||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.52||Adjusted for baseline and balancing factors used in the randomization|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and meditative practice for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||.52|-.36|.72
91926128|NCT02759146|183751079|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.15||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||.41|-.72|.58
91926129|NCT02759146|183751079|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.24||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between meditative practice and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 1-4||.34|-.81|.42
91926130|NCT02759146|183751080|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and meditative practice for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||0.42|-0.44|0.96
91926131|NCT02759146|183751080|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||0.35|-0.75|0.48
91926132|NCT02759146|183751080|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.19||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between meditative practice and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 1-4||0.38|-0.75|0.52
91926133|NCT02759146|183751081|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.67||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology to meditative practices for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||3.86|-2.52|.68
91926134|NCT02759146|183751081|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-2.53||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology to control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||1.58|-6.64|.23
91926135|NCT02759146|183751081|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-3.2||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice to control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 1-4||1.01|-7.41|0.14
91926136|NCT02759146|183751082|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and meditative practice for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||0.39|-0.38|0.98
91926137|NCT02759146|183751082|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.24||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology to control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||0.25|-0.74|0.34
91926138|NCT02759146|183751082|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.25||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 1-4||0.26|-0.76|0.34
91810919|NCT02801942|183497289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.246|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.07|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.07|-2.12|
91810920|NCT02801942|183497289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|8.55|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||8.55|-2.45|
91810921|NCT02801942|183497289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.96|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.96|-0.92|
91926139|NCT02759146|183751083|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.25||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||After the initial 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology to added meditative practice|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continuing reflexology vs adding meditative practice||1.14|-.63|0.57
91926140|NCT02759146|183751083|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.49||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||After the initial 4 weeks of meditative practices, comparing continuing meditative practice to adding reflexology|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continuing with meditative practice vs. adding reflexology for weeks 5-12||1.63|-0.64|0.39
91926141|NCT02759146|183751084|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|1.94||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|7.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs adding meditative practice|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12||7.04|-10.93|0.67
91926142|NCT02759146|183751084|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-1.85||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|10.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practices, comparing continued meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12||10.29|-6.59|0.66
91767273|NCT01272232|183423870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.63|-1.62||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-1.62|-3.63|<0.0001
91767274|NCT01272232|183423870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.35||||0.0024||95.0|-2.23|-0.48||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.48|-2.23|0.0024
91767275|NCT01272232|183423871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.34|10.68||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||10.68|4.34|<0.0001
91767276|NCT01272232|183423871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.24|6.09||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||6.09|2.24|<0.0001
91767277|NCT01272232|183423871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0008||95.0|1.29|2.64||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||2.64|1.29|0.0008
91810922|NCT02801942|183497290|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|1.05|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.05|-10.71|
91810923|NCT02801942|183497290|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.953|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.16|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.16|-2.82|
91810924|NCT02801942|183497290|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||||95.0|-6.08|0.33|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.33|-6.08|
91810925|NCT02801942|183497290|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.963|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.81|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.81|-0.20|
91810926|NCT02801942|183497290|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|2.39|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.39|-2.99|
91767278|NCT01272232|183423872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.48|14.48||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||14.48|3.48|<0.0001
91810927|NCT02801942|183497290|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|7.36|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.36|-0.59|
91810928|NCT02801942|183497290|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.413|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|1.78|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.78|-4.11|
91810929|NCT02801942|183497291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.63|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.63|-5.60|
91926143|NCT02759146|183751085|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.19||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12||0.57|-0.95|0.62
91926144|NCT02759146|183751085|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continuing meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12||1.22|-1.15|0.95
91926145|NCT02759146|183751086|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.14||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs adding meditative practice for weeks 5-12||0.77|-1.04|0.77
91926146|NCT02759146|183751086|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.22||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs added reflexology for weeks 5-12|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs added reflexology for weeks 5-12||0.80|-1.23|0.67
91926147|NCT02759146|183751087|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.09||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||0.37|-0.88|0.42
91926148|NCT02759146|183751087|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.34||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 5-12||0.29|-0.98|0.29
91926149|NCT02759146|183751088|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.42||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||0.15|-1.00|0.15
91926150|NCT02759146|183751088|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12||0.39|-0.80|0.50
91810930|NCT02801942|183497291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.842|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-0.26|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||-0.26|-7.93|
91926151|NCT02759146|183751089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.27||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for week 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||0.28|-0.83|0.33
91810931|NCT02801942|183497291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|1.24|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.24|-4.34|
91926152|NCT02759146|183751089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.36||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aim 4: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12||0.21|-0.93|0.22
91926153|NCT02759146|183751090|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.92||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||1.52|-8.62|0.17
91926154|NCT02759146|183751090|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-4.48||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12||0.70|-9.66|0.09
91810932|NCT02801942|183497291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.725|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|2.77|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.77|-4.51|
91810933|NCT02801942|183497291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|4.09|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||4.09|-5.02|
91926155|NCT00385268|183751100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.14|||GEE model of repeated measures|GEE on repeated binary indicators of BE positive / negative test||||5.14|0.55|0.44
91926156|NCT01525849|183751150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Significance level=0.025 (1-sided alpha), power=90%, delta=0.8, true difference=0, SD for both arms=1.0. A total sample size of 72 participants (36 per arm) was required to test the hypothesis.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Non-inferiority test to demonstrate that the long-term (1-year) change in sinus symptoms (overall SNOT-20 score) after balloon dilation is not worse than after FESS.||||<0.001
91926157|NCT01525849|183751151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Test for superiority of balloon dilation over FESS. Significance level=0.025 (1-sided alpha), power=90%, BD estimate=0.5, FESS estimate=1.5, SD for both arms=1.0. A total sample size of 46 participants (23 per arm) was required to test the hypothesis.||||<0.0001
91926158|NCT01525849|183751152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.628
91926159|NCT01525849|183751154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91926160|NCT00431847|183751163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00619|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0448|-0.02013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.02013|-0.0448|<0.0001
91926161|NCT00431847|183751163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi Squared|2.65||||0.4492|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4492
91926162|NCT00431847|183751163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2308||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5621|0.3461|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.|Estimated intercept group difference|A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3461|-0.5621|0.640
91926163|NCT00431847|183751163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3372||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3334|0.9932|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.9932|-0.3334|0.3286
91926164|NCT00431847|183751163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4716||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06841|1.7866|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.7866|-0.06841|0.0694
91926165|NCT00431847|183751164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.02332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003777|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03076|-0.01589|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.01589|-0.03076|<0.0001
91926166|NCT00431847|183751164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.49||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4772
91926167|NCT00431847|183751164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1503||0.6077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2184|0.3729|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3729|-0.2184|0.6077
91926168|NCT00431847|183751164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2194||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2311|0.6319|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.6319|-0.2311|0.3616
91810934|NCT02801942|183497291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.405|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|7.68|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.68|-6.52|
91810935|NCT02801942|183497291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.4|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.40|-2.21|
91810936|NCT02801942|183497292|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.65|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.65|-0.86|
91810937|NCT02801942|183497293|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.929|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.7|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.70|-2.18|
91810938|NCT02801942|183497294|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.87|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.87|0.02|
91926169|NCT00431847|183751164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3066||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2948|0.9112|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.9112|-0.2948|0.3155
91810939|NCT02801942|183497294|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.38|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.38|-2.04|
91810940|NCT02801942|183497295|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.299|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.81|6.27|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.27|-11.81|
91810941|NCT02801942|183497295|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|4.44|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||4.44|-0.04|
91810942|NCT02801942|183497296|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|3.32|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.32|-5.91|
91926170|NCT00431847|183751165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.02746|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03573|-0.01919|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.01919|-0.03573|<0.0001
91926171|NCT00431847|183751165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.4||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3345
91926172|NCT00431847|183751165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1718||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2993|0.3765|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3765|-0.2993|0.8223
91926173|NCT00431847|183751165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2919|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2506||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2009|0.7848|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.7848|-0.2009|0.2448
91926174|NCT00431847|183751165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3502||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2405|1.1369|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.1369|-0.2405|0.2014
91926175|NCT00431847|183751166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007196|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5446|-0.02613|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||-0.02613|-0.5446|<0.0001
91926176|NCT00431847|183751166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.19||||0.3631|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3631
91926177|NCT00431847|183751166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2746||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6404|0.4396|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.4396|-0.6404|0.7148
91926178|NCT00431847|183751166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4009||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4318|1.1453|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.1453|-0.4318|0.3741
91767279|NCT01272232|183423872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0008||95.0|1.75|8.41||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||8.41|1.75|0.0008
91767280|NCT01272232|183423872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0099||95.0|1.16|2.95||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||2.95|1.16|0.0099
91767281|NCT01272232|183423873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.93|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.08|-0.78||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.78|-1.08|<0.0001
91767282|NCT01272232|183423873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.74|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.91|-0.57||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.57|-0.91|<0.0001
91810943|NCT02801942|183497296|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.57|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.57|0.28|
91926179|NCT00431847|183751166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5609||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1938|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||2.4000|0.1938|0.0213
91926180|NCT00431847|183751167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.02776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03702|-0.0185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.01850|-0.03702|<0.0001
91926181|NCT00431847|183751167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.88||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.2752
91926182|NCT00431847|183751167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1918||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6851|0.06941|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.06941|-0.6851|0.1094
91926183|NCT00431847|183751167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5079|0.5935|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.5935|-0.5079|0.8786
91926184|NCT00431847|183751167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09297|1.4448|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.4448|-0.09297|0.0847
91926185|NCT00431847|183751168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.03645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005913|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04808|-0.02481|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.02481|-0.04808|<0.0001
91926186|NCT00431847|183751168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.16||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3677
91926187|NCT00431847|183751168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.7926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4929|0.3766|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3766|-0.4929|0.7926
91926188|NCT00431847|183751168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3212||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.8026|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.8026|-0.4610|0.5953
91767283|NCT01272232|183423873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.19||||0.0125||95.0|-0.34|-0.04||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.04|-0.34|0.0125
91767284|NCT01272232|183423874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.79|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.74|13.4||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||13.4|5.74|<0.0001
91767285|NCT01272232|183423874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.76|12.51||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||12.51|4.76|<0.0001
91767286|NCT01272232|183423874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5319||95.0|0.76|1.71||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||1.71|0.76|0.5319
91810944|NCT02801942|183497296|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.017|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|10.51|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||10.51|-2.08|
91926189|NCT00431847|183751168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6873|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4482||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1943|1.5689|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.5689|-0.1943|0.1261
91926190|NCT00431847|183751169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.4831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1243||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7286|-0.2377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.2377|-0.7286|0.0002
91926191|NCT00431847|183751169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.2||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3617
91926192|NCT00431847|183751169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7573||0.2532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2715|8.5863|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||8.5863|-2.2715|0.2532
91926193|NCT00431847|183751169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9633||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5833|9.0286|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||9.0286|-6.5833|0.7580
91926194|NCT00431847|183751169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3759||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7484|3.4187|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.4187|-17.7484|0.1837
91926195|NCT00431847|183751170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.4741|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03909|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3971|0.5511|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.5511|0.3971|<0.0001
91926196|NCT00431847|183751170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|1.83||||0.6075|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.6075
91926197|NCT00431847|183751170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2763||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4675|1.5607|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.5607|-3.4675|0.4558
91926198|NCT00431847|183751170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.977||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2442|0.5432|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.5432|-7.2442|0.0914
91926199|NCT00431847|183751170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0921||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4589|-2.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||-2.2810|-14.4589|0.007
91767287|NCT01272232|183423875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.05|15.26||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||15.26|6.05|<0.0001
91767288|NCT01272232|183423875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.59|9.97||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||9.97|3.59|<0.0001
91926200|NCT00431847|183751171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04148|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2987|-0.1352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.1352|-0.2987|<0.0001
91926201|NCT00431847|183751171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|6.37||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.0950
91926202|NCT00431847|183751171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3351||0.5878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9056|3.3547|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.3547|-1.9056|0.5878
91926203|NCT00431847|183751171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0697||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3231|3.8299|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.8299|-4.3231|0.9053
91926204|NCT00431847|183751171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3457|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2285||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7034|4.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.0120|-8.7034|0.4682
91926205|NCT00431847|183751172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.04639|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03562||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02369|0.1165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.1165|-0.02369|0.1938
91926206|NCT00431847|183751172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.43||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4884
91810945|NCT02801942|183497296|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|1.08|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.08|-3.03|
91810946|NCT02801942|183497296|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.802|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|3.07|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.07|-12.80|
91810947|NCT02801942|183497296|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.733|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|18.47|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||18.47|-1.27|
91810948|NCT02801942|183497297|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.905||||95.0|-3.78|16.85|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||16.85|-3.78|
91810949|NCT02801942|183497297|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|1.1|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.10|-18.17|
91810950|NCT02801942|183497297|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.519|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|7.45|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.45|-3.23|
91926207|NCT00431847|183751172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3991||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1348|3.3696|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.3696|-2.1348|0.6593
91926208|NCT00431847|183751172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0263||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|7.4431|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.4431|-0.5280|0.0889
91810951|NCT02801942|183497297|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|7.59|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.59|-0.98|
91810952|NCT02801942|183497297|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|8.67|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||8.67|-8.23|
91810953|NCT02801942|183497297|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|17.95|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||17.95|-1.32|
91926209|NCT00431847|183751172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8061||0.8727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9692|5.0694|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||5.0694|-5.9692|0.8727
91926210|NCT00431847|183751173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08855|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6973|-0.3486|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.3486|-0.6973|<.0001
91926211|NCT00431847|183751173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|4.89||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.1800
91926212|NCT00431847|183751173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8198||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.253|7.857|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.8570|-3.2530|0.4151
91926213|NCT00431847|183751173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.314||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1592|12.8344|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||12.8344|-4.1592|0.3157
91926214|NCT00431847|183751173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9715||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.904|25.5541|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||25.5541|-1.9040|0.0911
91926215|NCT00431847|183751174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09078||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4675|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.1100|-0.4675|0.0016
91926216|NCT00431847|183751174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|6.33||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.0966
91926217|NCT00431847|183751174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4264||0.2195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7938|7.7697|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.7697|-1.7938|0.2195
91926218|NCT00431847|183751174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7381||0.5105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8289|4.9018|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.9018|-9.8289|0.5105
91926219|NCT00431847|183751174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1087||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4174|1.6433|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.6433|-22.4174|0.0903
91767289|NCT01272232|183423875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0142||95.0|1.1|2.34||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||2.34|1.10|0.0142
91767290|NCT01272232|183423876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-3.22|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.2|-2.23||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-2.23|-4.20|<0.0001
91810954|NCT02801942|183497298|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.57|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.57|-0.94|
91926220|NCT00431847|183751175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.04113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.04113||0.6602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2252|0.1429|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.1429|-0.2252|0.6602
91926221|NCT00431847|183751175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|1.53||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.6764
91926222|NCT00431847|183751175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6357||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7036|7.684|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.6840|-2.7036|0.3458
91926223|NCT00431847|183751175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0583||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2466|2.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||2.7430|-13.2466|0.1969
91926224|NCT00431847|183751175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.9796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5287||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8429|-0.1162|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||-0.1162|-25.8429|0.0480
91926225|NCT00431847|183751176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1003||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4323|-0.03745|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.03745|-0.4323|0.0199
91926226|NCT00431847|183751176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.6||||0.4577|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4577
91810955|NCT02801942|183497298|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.28|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.28|0.00|
91926227|NCT00431847|183751176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8797||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.624|4.7236|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.7236|-6.6240|0.7417
91926228|NCT00431847|183751176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4523||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5129|10.0289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||10.0289|-7.5129|0.7778
91926229|NCT00431847|183751176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2532||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7608|22.8073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||22.8073|-5.7608|0.2411
91926230|NCT00431847|183751177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08284||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00029|0.3261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.3261|-0.00029|0.0504
91810956|NCT02801942|183497298|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.11|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.11|-0.33|
91810957|NCT02801942|183497298|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.47|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.47|-0.78|
91926231|NCT00431847|183751177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|1.45||||0.6942|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.6942
91926232|NCT00431847|183751177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4216||0.5297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2469|6.2951|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||6.2951|-3.2469|0.5297
91926233|NCT00431847|183751177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7464||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1478|3.612|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.6120|-11.1478|0.3155
91926234|NCT00431847|183751177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.092||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7515|2.2399|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||2.2399|-21.7515|0.1105
91926235|NCT00431847|183751178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07538||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4465|-0.1493|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.1493|-0.4465|0.001
91926236|NCT00431847|183751178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.72||||0.4361|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4361
91926237|NCT00431847|183751178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6015||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0247|4.2246|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.2246|-6.0247|0.7297
91767291|NCT01272232|183423876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.06||||0.0004||95.0|-3.2|-0.92||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.92|-3.20|0.0004
91767292|NCT01272232|183423876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.16||||0.0224||95.0|-2.16|-0.16||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.16|-2.16|0.0224
91767293|NCT01272232|183423877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.17||||0.0002||95.0|-3.32|-1.02||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-1.02|-3.32|0.0002
91767294|NCT01272232|183423877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.2||||0.0725||95.0|-2.51|0.11||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||0.11|-2.51|0.0725
91810958|NCT02801942|183497299|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.86|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.86|-0.30|
91926238|NCT00431847|183751178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0186||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.625|12.2043|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||12.2043|-3.6250|0.2868
91767295|NCT01272232|183423877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.97||||0.0717||95.0|-2.02|0.09||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||0.09|-2.02|0.0717
91767296|NCT01272232|183423879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.75|-1.24||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-1.24|-3.75|<0.0001
91926239|NCT00431847|183751178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2663||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.327|21.3505|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||21.3505|-3.3270|0.1516
91926240|NCT00431847|183751179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.9776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1426|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2584|-0.6967|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury. T||-0.6967|-1.2584|<0.0001
91926241|NCT00431847|183751179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|0.78||||0.8548|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.8548
91926242|NCT00431847|183751179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8899||0.3882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3026|11.0296|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||11.0296|-4.3026|0.3882
91926243|NCT00431847|183751179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9044||0.9322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1376|11.1317|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||11.1317|-12.1376|0.9322
91926244|NCT00431847|183751179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.1166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2462||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8992|39.3341|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||39.3341|2.8992|0.0233
91926245|NCT00339183|183751180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-2.91||||0.0036|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure, and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|An overall 5% significance level was used to compare treatments with respect to both overall survival (OS) and PFS. A 4% and 1% level (2-sided) was used to independently test OS and PFS, respectively.||||0.0036
91926246|NCT00339183|183751180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-1.46||||0.1448|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|PFS in the Mutant Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a 1% level conditional upon first demonstrating a significant difference in PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.1448
91810959|NCT02801942|183497299|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.716|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|7.35|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.35|-12.45|
91810960|NCT02801942|183497299|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.14|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.14|-1.86|
91926247|NCT00339183|183751181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-1.57||||0.1154|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure, and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|An overall 5% significance level was used to compare treatments with respect to both overall survival (OS) and PFS. A 4% and 1% level (2-sided) was used to independently test OS and PFS, respectively.||||0.1154
91926248|NCT00339183|183751181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-0.6||||0.5503|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure, and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|The treatment effect on OS in the Mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at the 4% level conditional on first demonstrating a significant OS treatment effect in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.5503
91926249|NCT00339183|183751182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|8.6|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for ECOG score, prior bevacizumab exposure, prior oxaliplatin exposure.|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFIRI alone arm.|||8.60|3.21|<0.0001
91810961|NCT02801942|183497299|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.872|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.58|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||4.58|0.90|
91810962|NCT02801942|183497300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.38|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.38|-2.23|
91926250|NCT00339183|183751182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.76|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for ECOG score, prior bevacizumab exposure, prior oxaliplatin exposure.|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFIRI alone arm.|||1.76|0.56|1.0000
91926251|NCT00076219|183751194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.86|0.47
91926252|NCT02142894|183751203|EQUIVALENCE|The results are analyzed in a 2x2 contingency table with 95%CI.|2 x 2 contingency table|87.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|95.2||||||||95.2|72.7|
91926253|NCT01455428|183751225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.34||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.34|-1.08|0.0002
91926254|NCT01455428|183751226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.2||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.20|-0.79|0.0010
91926255|NCT01455428|183751226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.35||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.35|-0.94|<0.0001
91926256|NCT01455428|183751226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.29||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.29|-0.88|0.0001
91926257|NCT01455428|183751226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.21|-0.81|0.0009
91810963|NCT02801942|183497300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.57|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.57|0.10|
91810964|NCT02801942|183497300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.594|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.07|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.07|-0.41|
91926258|NCT01455428|183751226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.21|-0.81|0.0009
91926259|NCT01455428|183751226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.29||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.29|-0.89|0.0001
91926260|NCT01455428|183751226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.41||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.41|-1.01|<0.0001
91926261|NCT01455428|183751226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.40|-1.00|<0.0001
91810965|NCT02801942|183497300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.92|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.92|-1.54|
91926262|NCT01455428|183751228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.14||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.93|0.0079
91926263|NCT01455428|183751229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.19||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.19|-0.86|0.0024
91926264|NCT01455428|183751229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.31||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.31|-0.99|0.0002
91926265|NCT01455428|183751229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.22|-0.91|0.0012
91926266|NCT01455428|183751229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.11|-0.79|0.0101
91926267|NCT01455428|183751229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.05|-0.73|0.0258
91926268|NCT01455428|183751229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.05|-0.74|0.0260
91926269|NCT01455428|183751229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.14||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.14|-0.83|0.0062
91926270|NCT01455428|183751229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.12||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.12|-0.81|0.0081
91767297|NCT01272232|183423879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.47||||0.0457||95.0|-2.92|-0.03||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.03|-2.92|0.0457
91767298|NCT01272232|183423879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.02||||0.0961||95.0|-2.22|0.18||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||0.18|-2.22|0.0961
91767299|NCT00255190|183423931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
91810966|NCT02801942|183497301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.728|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|6.63|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.63|-0.62|
91810967|NCT02801942|183497301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|7.21|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.21|-11.33|
91810968|NCT02801942|183497301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.042|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|17.13|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||17.13|-14.56|
91926271|NCT01455428|183751230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||||||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for center.||||0.0007
91767300|NCT00255190|183423932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.006
91767301|NCT00255190|183423933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.204
91810969|NCT02801942|183497301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.92|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.92|0.36|
91926272|NCT01455428|183751233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.932|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|-4.37||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.37|-11.99|<0.0001
91926273|NCT01455428|183751234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.16||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.58|0.0007
91926274|NCT01455428|183751236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.464||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.08|-2.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.35|-12.08|0.0039
91926275|NCT01455428|183751237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.783||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|7.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||7.22|-3.76|0.5351
91926276|NCT01455428|183751238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.579||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|4.73||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||4.73|-5.45|0.8892
91926277|NCT01455428|183751239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||0.72|0.14|0.0035
91926278|NCT01455428|183751240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis performed using a logistic regression model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||3.60|0.90|0.0972
91926279|NCT01455428|183751241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.161||0.5702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|8.03||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||8.03|-4.44|0.5702
91926280|NCT01455428|183751242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.194||0.6929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|5.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.20|-3.46|0.6929
91926281|NCT01455428|183751243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.1403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|0.94||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||0.94|-6.63|0.1403
91926282|NCT01455428|183751244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.39||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||-0.39|-0.86|<0.0001
91767302|NCT00255190|183423934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.109
91810970|NCT02801942|183497302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.097|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|8.83|||||The mean difference in Circulating B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.83|-4.24|
91767303|NCT00255190|183423935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91810971|NCT02801942|183497302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|9.39|||||The mean difference in Circulating B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||9.39|-0.47|
91926283|NCT01455428|183751245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.27||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||-0.27|-0.72|<0.0001
91926284|NCT01455428|183751247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.41|-0.83|0.5060
91926285|NCT01455428|183751248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.46||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.46|-0.66|0.7247
91926286|NCT01276847|183751270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 1||||0.016
91926287|NCT01276847|183751270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 2||||0.007
91926288|NCT01276847|183751270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00015||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 4||||0.00015
91767304|NCT00255190|183423936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.494
91926289|NCT01276847|183751270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.000184||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 16||||0.000184
91926290|NCT01276847|183751271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 1||||0.397
91926291|NCT01276847|183751271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 2||||0.010
91926292|NCT01276847|183751271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 4||||0.002
91926293|NCT01276847|183751271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.000215||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 16||||0.000215
91926294|NCT01276847|183751272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 1||||0.787
91926295|NCT01276847|183751272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 2||||0.577
91926296|NCT01276847|183751272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 4||||0.053
91926297|NCT01276847|183751272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 16||||0.098
91926298|NCT01899144|183751273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.2|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||32.20|13.00|<0.0001
91926299|NCT01899144|183751273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|30.81|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||30.81|11.6|<0.0001
91926300|NCT01899144|183751273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|33.23|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||33.23|14.13|<0.0001
91926301|NCT01899144|183751273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|22.05|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||22.05|2.93|0.0107
91926302|NCT01899144|183751273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.7772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|8.23||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||8.23|-11.00|0.7772
91926303|NCT01899144|183751273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-1.59||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||-1.59|-20.80|0.0226
91926304|NCT01899144|183751274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.64|0.26|<0.0001
91810972|NCT02801942|183497302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.693|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|28.32|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||28.32|-5.24|
91810973|NCT02801942|183497302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|19.01|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||19.01|-7.73|
91810974|NCT02801942|183497302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|5.71|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.71|-8.46|
91926305|NCT01899144|183751274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.59|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.59|0.21|<0.0001
91926306|NCT01899144|183751274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.64|0.26|<0.0001
91926307|NCT01899144|183751274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.45|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.45|0.08|0.0062
91926308|NCT01899144|183751274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||0.14|-0.23|0.6342
91926309|NCT01899144|183751274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.0||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||0.00|-0.38|0.0488
91926310|NCT00751881|183751276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction (%)|36.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo|"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* H2: No difference between teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was sized to have 94% power to detect a 25% relative risk reduction in ARR with teriflunomide compared to placebo at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level."||||0.0001
91926311|NCT00751881|183751276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|22.3||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo|||||0.0183
91926312|NCT00751881|183751277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|31.5||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach:~* S1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* S2 tested only if the comparison S1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative reduction in the hazard rate with teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|"Null hypothesis:~* S1: No difference between teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* S2: No difference between teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was also sized to have 75% power to detect a 37% hazard ratio reduction in time to disability progression with teriflunomide compared to placebo."||||0.0442
91926313|NCT00751881|183751277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|4.5||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach:~* S1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* S2 tested only if the comparison S1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative reduction in the hazard rate with teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|||||0.7620
91926314|NCT01797029|183751330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91926315|NCT02101411|183751369|OTHER|The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Chi-squared|The differences among the three PRU groups (\<85, 85-208,\>208) and ADEs were compared using the Chi-squared test.||The differences among the three PRU groups (\<85, 85-208,\>208) and MACE rate at 24 months were compared using the Chi-squared test. was recorded.||||0.002
91926316|NCT02101411|183751369|OTHER|The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Chi-squared|||The differences among the three PRU groups (\<85, 85-208,\>208) and ADEs were compared using the Chi-squared test.||||0.002
91926317|NCT03415464|183751373|OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.134
91926318|NCT03596177|183751431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-4.15|0.011
91926319|NCT03596177|183751432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.481||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.777|-23.186|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 32||-23.186|-67.777|0.002
91926320|NCT03596177|183751432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.323||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.74|-15.907|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 59||-15.907|-66.740|0.011
91926321|NCT03596177|183751433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1551.194|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2190.515|-911.873|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 32||-911.873|-2190.515|<0.001
91767305|NCT00255190|183423937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.026
91767306|NCT00255190|183423938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.220
91767307|NCT00255190|183423939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.843
91926322|NCT03596177|183751433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1332.515||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2187.711|-477.318|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 59||-477.318|-2187.711|0.015
91926323|NCT03596177|183751434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.173||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.368|3.022|||ANCOVA|||||3.022|-9.368|0.384
91926324|NCT03596177|183751435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.039||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.287|8.209|||ANCOVA|||||8.209|-28.287|0.351
91926325|NCT03596177|183751436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.186||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.858|8.229|||ANCOVA|||||8.229|-7.858|0.968
91926326|NCT03596177|183751437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.867||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|3.545|||ANCOVA|||||3.545|-1.810|0.580
91926327|NCT03596177|183751438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.645||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.894|2.603|||ANCOVA|||||2.603|-9.894|0.324
91926328|NCT03596177|183751439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.672||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.415|6.072|||ANCOVA|||||6.072|-17.415|0.412
91926329|NCT03596177|183751440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.357||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.742|16.456|||ANCOVA|||||16.456|-1.742|0.177
91926330|NCT03596177|183751441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.186||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.151|33.523|||ANCOVA|||||33.523|-3.151|0.168
91926331|NCT03596177|183751442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.54||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|-1.03|||ANCOVA|||||-1.03|-4.05|0.009
91926332|NCT03596177|183751443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.122||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.364|0.119|||ANCOVA|||||0.119|-10.364|0.107
91926333|NCT03596177|183751444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.848||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.605|-0.091|||ANCOVA|||||-0.091|-3.605|0.085
91926334|NCT03596177|183751445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.159||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.326|1.007|||ANCOVA|||||1.007|-7.326|0.204
91926335|NCT03596177|183751446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.019||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.041|0.003|||ANCOVA|||||0.003|-0.041|0.145
91926336|NCT03596177|183751447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.801|-14.201|||ANCOVA|||||-14.201|-37.801|0.001
91926337|NCT03596177|183751448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.332||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.726|-4.938|||ANCOVA|||||-4.938|-19.726|0.010
91926338|NCT01301742|183751454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and gemfibrozil divided by empa alone|Geometric Mean Ratio|158.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.77|165.53|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||165.53|151.77|
91926339|NCT01301742|183751455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and gemfibrozil divided by empa alone|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.15|124.59|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|||124.59|106.15|
91926340|NCT01301742|183751456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and gemfibrozil divided by empa alone|Geometric Mean Ratio|158.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.41|165.49|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|||165.49|151.41|
91926341|NCT03103750|183751458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary hypothesis of calcitriol-related differences in amphetamine-induced dopamine release was determined by significance of the main effect of medication (calcitriol vs. placebo) on %change in BPND (i.e., post-Amp relative to pre-Amp scans) at a threshold of p\<0.05.||||0.016
91926342|NCT03103750|183751460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91926343|NCT03059810|183751543|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.9|||Linear mixed model (LMM)|A 95% Confidence Interval for the least squares mean difference between the follow up and baseline was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test (at 12-16 days follow up) - Habitual (at baseline)|It was a single arm study and the subjects' overall vision was compared against the baseline with the habitual lens. Sample size was determined using Power procedure in SAS 9.4 using the input from historical data (alpha=0.05).||5.9|-4.6|
91767308|NCT00255190|183423940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.923||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.923
91767309|NCT00255190|183423941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91767310|NCT00255190|183423942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.758
91926344|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.903||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|0.978|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.978|0.833|0.0126
91926345|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.966||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Body Mass Index (BMI) in kilogram per square meter (kg/m\^2). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.989|0.944|0.0042
91926346|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|0.816|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at Baseline (BL) in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.816|0.656|<0.0001
91926347|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.686|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.347|2.109|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.109|1.347|<0.0001
91926348|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.442|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.442|0.843|0.4759
91926349|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.656||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Alanine transaminase (ALT) ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.930|0.462|0.0180
91926350|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.742||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.965|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.965|0.570|0.0262
91926351|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.717||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.913|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for aspartate aminotransferase (AST) ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.913|0.563|0.0069
91926352|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.062|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.056|1.067|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.067|1.056|<0.0001
91926353|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.107||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.191|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.191|1.029|0.0062
91926354|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.739||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.563|0.0295
91926355|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.166|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.329|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.329|0.083|<0.0001
91926356|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|1.084|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.084|1.015|0.0048
91926357|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.797||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.136|28.458|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||28.458|2.136|0.0019
91767311|NCT00255190|183423943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.737
91767312|NCT00255190|183423944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.673
91767313|NCT00255190|183423945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.817
91767314|NCT00255190|183423946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.601
91767315|NCT00255190|183423947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.065
91767316|NCT00255190|183423948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.319
91767317|NCT00255190|183423949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.011
91767318|NCT00255190|183423950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.207
91810975|NCT02801942|183497302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.755|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|1.98|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.98|-5.54|
91926358|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.638||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.946|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.946|0.431|0.0255
91926359|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.755||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.922|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.922|0.618|0.0059
91926360|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.521||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.501|4.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.236|1.501|0.0005
91926361|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.602||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.463|4.627|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.627|1.463|0.0011
91926362|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.727||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.198|2.491|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.491|1.198|0.0034
91926363|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.545||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.792|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.792|0.376|0.0014
91926364|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.047|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.065|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.065|1.029|<0.0001
91926365|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.896||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.971|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.971|0.827|0.0074
91926366|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.971||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.993|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.993|0.950|0.0088
91926367|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.719|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.803|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.803|0.643|<0.0001
91767319|NCT00255190|183423951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.286
91926368|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.683|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.346|2.106|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.106|1.346|<0.0001
91767320|NCT00255190|183423952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.102
91810976|NCT02801942|183497302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.58|4.98|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.98|-21.58|
91926369|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.453|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.453|0.848|0.4479
91926370|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.908|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.908|0.451|0.0123
91926371|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.937|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.937|0.553|0.0147
91926372|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.718||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.914|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.914|0.564|0.0071
91926373|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.058|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.052|1.064|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.064|1.052|<0.0001
91926374|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.005|1.023|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.023|1.005|0.0019
91926375|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.701||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.913|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.913|0.539|0.0083
91926376|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.338|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.338|0.090|<0.0001
91926377|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.057||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.023|1.091|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.091|1.023|0.0008
91926378|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.638||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.946|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.946|0.431|0.0255
91926379|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.755||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.922|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.922|0.618|0.0059
91926380|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.521||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.501|4.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.236|1.501|0.0005
91926381|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.602||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.463|4.627|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.627|1.463|0.0011
91926382|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.727||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.198|2.491|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.491|1.198|0.0034
91926383|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.545||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.792|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.792|0.376|0.0014
91926384|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|0.964|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.964|0.822|0.0042
91926385|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.824||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.687|0.0363
91926386|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.842||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.944|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.944|0.751|0.0033
91926387|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.477||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.844|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.844|1.183|0.0006
91926388|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.477|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.477|0.862|0.3810
91926389|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.812||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|0.978|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.978|0.674|0.0279
91926390|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.894|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.972|75.299|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||75.299|27.972|<0.0001
91926391|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.129|51.434|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||51.434|20.129|<0.0001
91926392|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.928|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.291|11.188|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||11.188|4.291|<0.0001
91926393|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.733||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.953|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.953|0.564|0.0204
91926394|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.331|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.331|0.087|<0.0001
91926395|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.806||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.514|5.201|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response, combined (RVR vs no RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.201|1.514|0.0010
91926396|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.663||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|0.993|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.993|0.443|0.0459
91767321|NCT00255190|183423953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.656
91767322|NCT00255190|183423954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.176
91926397|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.758||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|0.932|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.932|0.616|0.0087
91926398|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.054||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.224|3.447|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.447|1.224|0.0064
91926399|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.931||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|3.461|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.461|1.077|0.0271
91926400|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.738||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|2.528|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.528|1.194|0.0039
91926401|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.565||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.829|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.829|0.386|0.0035
91926402|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.533||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.593|19.219|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||19.219|1.593|0.0071
91926403|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.964||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|7.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||7.114|0.542|0.3042
91926404|NCT01070550|183751553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.726||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|6.318|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.318|0.471|0.4100
91926405|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.379|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.236|1.538|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.538|1.236|<0.0001
91926406|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.033||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.063|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.063|1.004|0.0251
91926407|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.585|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.358|1.849|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.849|1.358|<0.0001
91926408|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.501||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|2.174|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.174|1.036|0.0317
91767323|NCT00255190|183423955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.030
91767324|NCT00255190|183423956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.243
91810977|NCT02801942|183497302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.49|4.87|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes by (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.87|-21.49|
91926409|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.493||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|2.048|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.048|1.089|0.0129
91926410|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.616||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|2.357|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\^9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.357|1.107|0.0128
91926411|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.046||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.432|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\^9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.432|0.763|0.7809
91926412|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|0.976|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.976|0.962|<0.0001
91926413|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.298||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.273|14.512|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||14.512|1.273|0.0189
91926414|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.567||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.359|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.359|1.040|0.0316
91926415|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.495||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.701|11.879|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||11.879|1.701|0.0024
91926416|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.219|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.219|1.014|0.0247
91926417|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.158|1.077|0.0258
91926418|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.677||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|2.263|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.263|1.243|0.0007
91926419|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.384||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|1.641|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.641|1.166|0.0002
91767325|NCT00255190|183423957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.005
91767326|NCT00255190|183423958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.469||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.469
91767327|NCT00628030|183423961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.008
91767328|NCT00628030|183423962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.041
91767329|NCT00628030|183423963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.61
91767330|NCT00628030|183423964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
91926420|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.421|3.074|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.074|1.421|0.0002
91926421|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.288||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.588|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.588|0.141|0.0006
91926422|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.247||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.579|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.579|0.106|0.0013
91926423|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.959||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.931|0.0062
91926424|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.708||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.881|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.881|0.568|0.0020
91926425|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.434|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.288|1.596|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.596|1.288|<0.0001
91767331|NCT00628030|183423965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.024
91767332|NCT02366195|183423980|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.387
91810978|NCT02801942|183497303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.538|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|10.48|||||The mean difference in B-cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||10.48|-0.54|
91810979|NCT02801942|183497303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|4.61|||||The mean difference in B-cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.61|-8.37|
91810980|NCT02801942|183497303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.54|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.54|-0.26|
91926426|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.475|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.726|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.726|1.260|<0.0001
91926427|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.963|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.956|<0.0001
91926428|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.195|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.275|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.275|1.120|<0.0001
91926429|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.567||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.359|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.359|1.040|0.0316
91767333|NCT02366195|183423981|OTHER|Primary completion data.||||||0.056|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.056
91767334|NCT02366195|183423981|OTHER|Final analysis data.||||||0.222|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.222
91767335|NCT02366195|183423982|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.335|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.335
91767336|NCT02366195|183423982|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.597|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.597
91767337|NCT02366195|183423983|OTHER|Primary completion||||||0.82|||||||Fisher's Z transformation|||||||0.82
91767338|NCT02366195|183423983|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.9|||||||Fisher's Z transformation|||||||0.90
91767339|NCT02366195|183423984|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.660
91926430|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.495||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.701|11.879|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||11.879|1.701|0.0024
91926431|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.219|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.219|1.014|0.0247
91926432|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.158|1.077|0.0258
91926433|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232|2.235|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.235|1.232|0.0009
91926434|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.255||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.073|1.467|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.467|1.073|0.0045
91926435|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.086||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|3.034|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.034|1.434|0.0001
91926436|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.318||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.630|0.160|0.0010
91767340|NCT02366195|183423984|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.881|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.881
91767341|NCT02366195|183423985|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.974|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.974
91810981|NCT02801942|183497303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.27|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.27|-0.37|
91926437|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.275||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.626|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.626|0.121|0.0021
91926438|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.962||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.989|0.935|0.0064
91926439|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.245|1.553|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.553|1.245|<0.0001
91767342|NCT02366195|183423985|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.612|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.612
91767343|NCT02366195|183423986|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.626|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.626
91767344|NCT02366195|183423986|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.579|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.579
91767345|NCT02366195|183423987|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.18|||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.18
91767346|NCT02366195|183423987|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.14|||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.14
91767347|NCT02119871|183423995|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91767348|NCT02119871|183423996|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.656|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
91767349|NCT02119871|183423997|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91767350|NCT03324802|183424013|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
91767351|NCT03324802|183424014|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
91767352|NCT03324802|183424016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.320
91926440|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.295||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|1.535|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.535|1.092|0.0029
91926441|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.109|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.236|0.050|<0.0001
91926442|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.645|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.645|0.159|0.0014
91926443|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.248||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|2.528|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.528|0.616|0.5390
91926444|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.604||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.069|2.405|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.405|1.069|0.0223
91926445|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.444||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.547|12.766|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||12.766|1.547|0.0056
91926446|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.403||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.892|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.892|1.040|0.0267
91926447|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.226||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.575|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response, combined (RVR vs no RVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.575|0.089|0.0018
91810982|NCT02801942|183497303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.49|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.49|-1.27|
91926448|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.529||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.116|2.097|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.097|1.116|0.0083
91926449|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.285||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.515|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.515|1.090|0.0028
91926450|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.061||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.401|3.032|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.032|1.401|0.0002
91926451|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.327||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.662|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.662|0.162|0.0019
91767353|NCT03324802|183424017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.163
91767354|NCT03324802|183424018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.97
91767355|NCT03324802|183424019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Gray Test P-value|||||||0.5
91767356|NCT03324802|183424020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
91767357|NCT02673918|183424039|EQUIVALENCE|Differences (the number of participants in each of the three categories) between baseline and follow-up was calculated using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. This was a feasibility test and no power calculation was performed.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91767358|NCT02673918|183424040|EQUIVALENCE|Differences (the number of participants in each of the three categories) between baseline and follow-up was calculated using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. This was a feasibility test and no power calculation was performed.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91767359|NCT01708317|183424052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001||||||We used a cutoff of P\<0.05 as statistically significant.|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom to compare 4 time periods.||We compared testing in the 4 time frames described, including the time frame in which we enrolled patients in the ACASI.||||<.001
91767360|NCT01787461|183424058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.14||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.44|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24: Analysis was performed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.44|-0.16|0.358
91926452|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.749|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.749|0.137|0.0086
91926453|NCT01070550|183751569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.247|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.441|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.441|0.138|<0.0001
91926454|NCT00365716|183751578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|89.5||||||95.0|70.7|97.3|||||"Vaccine Efficacy (% relative risk reduction)~Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter."|||97.3|70.7|
91926455|NCT00455858|183751609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-1.356|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.368|-1.344|||t-test|||||-1.344|-1.368|<.0001
91926456|NCT00455858|183751610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-1.338|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.35|-1.327|||t-test|||||-1.327|-1.350|<.0001
91926457|NCT00455858|183751611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-69.553|||<|0.0001||95.0|-70.047|-69.06|||Paired t-test|||Estimated mean decrease in FPG at week 12||-69.060|-70.047|<.0001
91926458|NCT00455858|183751611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-72.159|||<|0.0001||95.0|-72.647|-71.671|||Paired t-test|||Estimated mean decrease in FPG at week 20||-71.671|-72.647|<.0001
91926459|NCT00866294|183751636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.1||The hypothesis test was conducted with a two-sided significance level of 5% to show the superiority of paroxetine CR relative to placebo.|ANCOVA|The primary analysis was based on an ANCOVA with a model adjusting for baseline HAM-D total score and region (Japan and South Korea).|Mean difference = paroxetine CR minus placebo|||-1.1|-3.8|<0.001
91926460|NCT00492401|183751644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Expression levels of miR-29b in pre treatment marrow samples from responding or non responding patients were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests||||.02
91810983|NCT02801942|183497303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.07|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.07|-0.33|
91926461|NCT00492401|183751644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Expression levels of DNMT3a in pre treatment marrow samples from responding or non responding patients were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests||||.06
91926462|NCT01651260|183751650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||upper probability of failure|0.05||||||||||Minimum sample size of 60 subjects was required based on the ability of the device to perform at an observed level of non-failure equivalent to an expected upper probability of failure not to exceed 5%.|||Minimum sample size of 60 subjects was required based on the ability of the device to perform at an observed level of non-failure equivalent to an expected upper probability of failure not to exceed 5%.|||||
91926463|NCT03242759|183751725|OTHER|||||||0.505|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.505
91926464|NCT03242759|183751725|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.181
91926465|NCT03242759|183751726|OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.571
91926466|NCT03242759|183751726|OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.232
91926467|NCT03242759|183751727|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
91767361|NCT01787461|183424059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.037||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau classification of photoaging and site.||0.27|-0.19|0.568
91926468|NCT03242759|183751727|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.375
91926469|NCT03242759|183751728|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.027
91926470|NCT03242759|183751728|OTHER|||||||0.938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.938
91926471|NCT03242759|183751729|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.001
91926472|NCT03242759|183751729|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.048
91926473|NCT03242759|183751730|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.018
91926474|NCT03242759|183751730|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.125
91767362|NCT01787461|183424060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.33|-0.25|0.797
91810984|NCT02801942|183497303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.13|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- by (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) FNA method has been presented.|||0.13|-0.16|
91926475|NCT03242759|183751731|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.073
91926476|NCT03242759|183751731|OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.755
91926477|NCT03242759|183751732|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
91926478|NCT03242759|183751732|OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.281
91926479|NCT03242759|183751733|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
91926480|NCT03242759|183751733|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.008
91926481|NCT03242759|183751734|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
91926482|NCT03242759|183751734|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.031
91926483|NCT03242759|183751736|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
91926484|NCT03242759|183751736|OTHER|||||||0.939|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.939
91926485|NCT03242759|183751737|OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.169
91926486|NCT03242759|183751737|OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.545
91926487|NCT03242759|183751738|OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.333
91810985|NCT02801942|183497303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.12|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.12|-0.17|
91810986|NCT02801942|183497303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.47|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.47|-0.03|
91810987|NCT02801942|183497303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.4|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.40|-0.59|
91926488|NCT03242759|183751738|OTHER|||||||0.786|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.786
91810988|NCT02801942|183497303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.6|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.60|-1.72|
91810989|NCT02801942|183497303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.82|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.82|-0.99|
91926489|NCT03242759|183751739|OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.245
91926490|NCT03242759|183751739|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.454
91926491|NCT03242759|183751740|OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.543
91926492|NCT03242759|183751740|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.733
91926493|NCT03242759|183751741|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.046
91810990|NCT02801942|183497304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.475|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|30.15|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||30.15|-2.72|
91810991|NCT02801942|183497304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|16.78|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||16.78|-16.85|
91926494|NCT03242759|183751741|OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.898
91926495|NCT03117049|183751746|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.37|0.43|0.71|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.71|0.43|<0.0001
91810992|NCT02801942|183497304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.586|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.98|-1.08|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||-1.08|-38.98|
91926496|NCT03117049|183751747|SUPERIORITY||Stratified hazard ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14||||||||1.14|0.63|
91926497|NCT03117049|183751748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.17||||||||2.17|1.11|
91926498|NCT03117049|183751749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31||||||||1.31|0.46|
91926499|NCT00872833|183751755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
91926500|NCT00872833|183751756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
91926501|NCT00839098|183751757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91926502|NCT00839098|183751758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91926503|NCT00839098|183751759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91926504|NCT00839098|183751760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91926505|NCT00839098|183751761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91926506|NCT00839098|183751762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant in this study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91926507|NCT00839098|183751763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91926508|NCT01345786|183751764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|137.5||||||90.0|131.0|144.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||144.4|131|
91926509|NCT01345786|183751764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|111.8||||||90.0|107.5|116.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||116.4|107.5|
91926510|NCT01345786|183751765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|107.3||||||90.0|99.0|116.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||116.4|99|
91767363|NCT01787461|183424061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.3|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Fine lines/wrinkles (Periocular area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.30|-0.29|0.965
91767364|NCT01787461|183424061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Fine lines/wrinkles (Perioral area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.30|-0.20|0.674
91767365|NCT01787461|183424061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.32|-0.35|0.916
91767366|NCT01787461|183424061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.35|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Mottled hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.35|-0.39|0.915
91767367|NCT01787461|183424061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Sallowness/yellowing: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.26|-0.40|0.672
91767368|NCT01787461|183424061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Roughness/texture: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.43|-0.27|0.655
91810993|NCT02801942|183497304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.739|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|32.65|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ by (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) core biopsy method has been presented.|||32.65|-24.14|
91810994|NCT02801942|183497304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|5.26|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.26|-5.54|
91810995|NCT02801942|183497304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|6.73|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.73|-12.31|
91767369|NCT01787461|183424061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Fine lines/wrinkles(Periocular area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.43|-0.23|0.561
91810996|NCT02801942|183497305|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.673|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|25.08|||||The mean difference in Myeloid Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||25.08|-8.58|
91810997|NCT02801942|183497305|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|29.26|||||The mean difference in Myeloid Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||29.26|3.17|
91810998|NCT02801942|183497305|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.509|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|15.25|||||The mean difference in Plasmacytoid Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||15.25|-31.03|
91810999|NCT02801942|183497305|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.781|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.04|-1.66|||||The mean difference in (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||-1.66|-26.04|
91811000|NCT02801942|183497307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.561|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|5.82|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.82|-9.05|
91811001|NCT02801942|183497307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|11.16|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||11.16|-3.13|
91767370|NCT01787461|183424061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.4|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Fine lines/wrinkles(Perioral area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.40|-0.14|0.356
91811002|NCT02801942|183497307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.428|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|2.82|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.82|-3.14|
91811003|NCT02801942|183497307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.851|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.71|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.71|-5.03|
91811004|NCT02801942|183497307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|4.43|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.43|-8.65|
91767371|NCT01787461|183424061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.43|-0.28|0.669
91767372|NCT01787461|183424061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.34|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Mottled hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.34|-0.32|0.954
91811005|NCT02801942|183497307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.071|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.81|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.81|-8.00|
91926511|NCT01345786|183751765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|103.6||||||90.0|99.2|108.2|||||"Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.~In addition to the participants/profiles excluded, 1 participant from the Phase 3 Batch Reference group did not contribute to this comparison."|||108.2|99.2|
91926512|NCT01345786|183751766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|110.0||||||90.0|106.4|113.7|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|Analysis for AUClast||113.7|106.4|
91926513|NCT01345786|183751766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|103.3||||||90.0|100.9|105.7|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference|Analysis for AUC last||105.7|100.9|
91926514|NCT01345786|183751766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|108.1||||||90.0|104.7|111.6|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|Analysis for AUC infinity||111.6|104.7|
91926515|NCT01345786|183751766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|103.1||||||90.0|100.5|105.8|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference|Analysis for AUC infinity||105.8|100.5|
91926516|NCT01345786|183751767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|101.5||||||90.0|96.7|106.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||106.4|96.7|
91926517|NCT01345786|183751767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|101.3||||||90.0|98.1|104.7|||||"Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.~In addition to the participants/profiles excluded, 1 participant from the Phase 3 Batch Reference group did not contribute to this comparison."|||104.7|98.1|
91926518|NCT02986958|183751779|OTHER|We used generalized estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure to assess the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of between-group differences. Regression models included treatment assignment and patient-level covariates (patient age, gender, and MMSE score) that were postulated as affecting communication outcomes. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05. Analyses were performed in SAS statistical software, version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91767373|NCT01787461|183424061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.22|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Sallowness/yellowing: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.22|-0.34|0.684
91811006|NCT02801942|183497307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.594|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|17.24|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||17.24|-10.21|
91926519|NCT02260193|183751791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.25|
91767374|NCT01787461|183424061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Roughness/texture: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.30|-0.35|0.886
91767375|NCT01787461|183424062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.37|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Decolletage-Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.37|-0.33|0.901
91811007|NCT02801942|183497307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|12.74|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||12.74|-17.10|
91926520|NCT02260193|183751791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.19|
91926521|NCT02260193|183751791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.61||||||||0.61|-0.48|
91926522|NCT02260193|183751792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.61||||||||0.61|-0.54|
91926523|NCT02260193|183751792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.49|
91926524|NCT02260193|183751792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.66||||||||0.66|-0.53|
91767376|NCT01787461|183424062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.47|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Decolletage-Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.47|-0.19|0.399
91926525|NCT02260193|183751793|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.71|
91926526|NCT02260193|183751793|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.29||||||||0.29|-0.50|
91767377|NCT01787461|183424062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.32|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Back of Hands-Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.32|-0.38|0.875
91811008|NCT02801942|183497307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.58|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.58|-2.42|
91926527|NCT02260193|183751793|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.62||||||||0.62|-0.16|
91926528|NCT01000064|183751886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
91926529|NCT01000064|183751887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
91926530|NCT01000064|183751888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91926531|NCT01000064|183751889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91926532|NCT01000064|183751890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91926533|NCT01000064|183751891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
91926534|NCT01000064|183751892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91926535|NCT01377467|183751913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.137|6.98|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|We calculated that a sample size of 43 patients per group would provide a statistical power of 86% to detect a 4% difference in the percentage change of areal BMD at the total lumbar spine at 12 months, using a two-sided t-test with an α-level of 0.05 and assuming a mean ± SD change of 4 ± 6% in the denosumab group and 0 ± 6% in the control group. To account for a dropout rate of 5%, it was planned to randomize a total of 90 patients.||6.980|3.137|<0.001
91767378|NCT01787461|183424062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.73|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Back of Hands-Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.73|0.13|0.005
91811009|NCT02801942|183497307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.35|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.35|-1.19|
91926536|NCT01377467|183751914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|3.659|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||3.659|0.132|0.035
91767379|NCT01787461|183424062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.38|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Decolletage-Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.38|-0.33|0.876
91811010|NCT02801942|183497309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.545|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|0.78|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.78|-11.56|
91811011|NCT02801942|183497309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.22|8.16|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy FNA method has been presented.|||8.16|-22.22|
91811012|NCT02801942|183497310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.14|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.14|-0.36|
91926537|NCT01377467|183751915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.329|3.447|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||3.447|-1.329|0.380
91926538|NCT01377467|183751916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.975|6.178|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||6.178|2.975|<0.001
91926539|NCT01377467|183751917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.072|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||3.072|0.440|0.009
91926540|NCT01377467|183751918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.085||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|4.193|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||4.193|-0.122|0.064
91926541|NCT01377467|183751919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|10.466|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p=0.007. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.002. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||<0.001
91926542|NCT01377467|183751920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|275622.016|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.012. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||<0.001
91811013|NCT02801942|183497310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.52|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.52|-0.25|
91926543|NCT01377467|183751921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|0.717||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p\<0.001. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.014
91926544|NCT01377467|183751922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|0.707||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.047. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.068
91926545|NCT01377467|183751923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|99952.126||||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.047. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.114
91926546|NCT01377467|183751924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|84.83||||0.578|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.593. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.578
91767380|NCT01787461|183424062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Decolletage-Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.38|-0.29|0.789
91811014|NCT02801942|183497310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|8.64|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.64|-9.02|
91926547|NCT01377467|183751925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|248.686||||0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.296. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.607
91926548|NCT01377467|183751926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.342||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
91926549|NCT01377467|183751927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.049||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
91926550|NCT01377467|183751928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-0.937||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.371
91926551|NCT01377467|183751929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.752||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91767381|NCT01787461|183424062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.38|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Back of Hands- Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.38|-0.31|0.901
91767382|NCT01787461|183424062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.72|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Back of Hands - Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.72|0.04|0.027
91767383|NCT01787461|183424063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.083||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Overall appearance of facial skin: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.27|-0.10|0.688
91767384|NCT01787461|183424063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.121||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.33|-0.08|0.445
91767385|NCT01787461|183424063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.205||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.40|0.01|0.318
91767386|NCT01787461|183424063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.012||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.15|0.633
91811015|NCT02801942|183497310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.223|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|5.13|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||5.13|-12.57|
91926552|NCT01377467|183751930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.166||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
91767387|NCT01787461|183424063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.018||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Complexion/Glow: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.19|-0.23|0.996
91926553|NCT01377467|183751931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-1.288||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.212
91926554|NCT01377467|183751932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-1.64||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
91926555|NCT01377467|183751933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-1.991||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
91767388|NCT01787461|183424063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.059||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Smoothness: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.25|-0.13|0.432
91767389|NCT01787461|183424063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.03||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Overall appearance of facial skin: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.19|-0.13|0.833
91767390|NCT01787461|183424063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.226||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.39|0.06|0.171
91767391|NCT01787461|183424063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.02||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.16|0.796
91926556|NCT01355068|183751957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.85|104.94||||||Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||104.94|97.85|
91926557|NCT01355068|183751958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|102.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.18|107.47||||||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||107.47|97.18|
91926558|NCT01355068|183751959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.56|105.47||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||105.47|97.56|
91926559|NCT00336492|183751964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.146
91926560|NCT03141307|183751978|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91926561|NCT03141307|183751979|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91926562|NCT03141307|183751980|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||=|0.502||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.502
91926563|NCT03141307|183751981|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||=|0.071||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.071
91926564|NCT03141307|183751982|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||=|0.124||||||a prior threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.124
91926565|NCT03141307|183751983|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91926566|NCT00227877|183751984|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|||1.80|1.08|< 0.05
91926567|NCT00227877|183751985|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|||1.42|0.34|.32
91926568|NCT00227877|183751986|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|||Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|3.27|.99|0.05
91926569|NCT00227877|183751987|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|||1.16|.53|0.23
91926570|NCT00227877|183751988|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age and gender.|||2.36|.97|.07
91811016|NCT02801942|183497310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|10.66|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||10.66|-6.16|
91926571|NCT00227877|183751989|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.21|||Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age and gender.|||2.21|.42|.93
91926572|NCT00227877|183751990|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age and gender.|||2.70|.27|.78
91926573|NCT00227877|183751991|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age and gender.|||1.09|.51|.13
91926574|NCT00227877|183751992|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; provider gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||.91|.48|.66
91811017|NCT02801942|183497310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.994|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|10.39|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.39|-6.27|
91926575|NCT00227877|183751993|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.17||Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; provider gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||1.17|.64|.35
91926576|NCT00227877|183751994|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.87|||Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||.87|.46|<.01
91926577|NCT00227877|183751995|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||.98|.54|< 0.05
91926578|NCT02522481|183752008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0896|||||||McNemar|||Sensitivity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||0.0896
91926579|NCT02522481|183752008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Specificity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||<0.0001
91926580|NCT01109004|183752019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.87
91926581|NCT01109004|183752019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.37
91926582|NCT01109004|183752019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.27
91926583|NCT01109004|183752020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with disease progression at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.92
91926584|NCT01109004|183752020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with disease progression at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.21
91926585|NCT01109004|183752020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with disease progression at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.22
91926586|NCT01109004|183752021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.26
91926587|NCT01109004|183752021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.53
91926588|NCT01109004|183752021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.57
91926589|NCT01109004|183752022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with TRM at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.63
91811018|NCT02801942|183497310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|9.92|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.92|-14.09|
91811019|NCT02801942|183497310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.976|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|10.87|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.87|-9.91|
91811020|NCT02801942|183497310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.65|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.65|-0.67|
91926590|NCT01109004|183752022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with TRM at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.15
91926591|NCT01109004|183752022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with TRM at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.33
91926592|NCT00747617|183752047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91926593|NCT00137436|183752067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.942
91926594|NCT00137436|183752067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.323
91926595|NCT00137436|183752067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.865
91926596|NCT00137436|183752067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.873
91926597|NCT00137436|183752068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.736
91926598|NCT00137436|183752068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.962
91926599|NCT00137436|183752068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.185
91926600|NCT00137436|183752068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||1.000
91926601|NCT00137436|183752069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.386
91926602|NCT00137436|183752069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.904
91926603|NCT00137436|183752069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.812
91926604|NCT00137436|183752069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.490
91926605|NCT00137436|183752070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.839||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.839
91926606|NCT00137436|183752070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.219
91926607|NCT00137436|183752070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.788
91767392|NCT01787461|183424063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.033||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.16|-0.23|0.942
91926608|NCT00137436|183752070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.164
91926609|NCT00137436|183752071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.656
91926610|NCT00137436|183752071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.628
91926611|NCT00137436|183752071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.420
91926612|NCT00137436|183752071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.296
91767393|NCT01787461|183424063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.118||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Complexion/Glow: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.28|-0.05|0.405
91767394|NCT01787461|183424063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.061||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Smoothness: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.26|-0.14|0.687
91767395|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.384||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Decolletage-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.54|0.23|0.017
91767396|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.248||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Decolletage-Wrinkling/crinkling: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.40|0.09|0.073
91811021|NCT02801942|183497310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.26|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.26|-1.10|
91811022|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.671|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|16.81|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||16.81|-2.80|
91811023|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.828|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|6.17|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.17|-14.02|
91926613|NCT00137436|183752072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.903
91926614|NCT00137436|183752072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.434
91926615|NCT00137436|183752072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.687
91767397|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.057||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Decolletage-Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.22|-0.11|0.117
91767398|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.096||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Back of Hands-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.31|0.662
91811024|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.651|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.16|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.16|-2.69|
91811025|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.24|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.24|-3.21|
91926616|NCT00137436|183752072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.296
91926617|NCT04657016|183752084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.8|-26.1|<0.001
91926618|NCT04657016|183752085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|130.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.98|242.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||242.84|69.98|<0.001
91926619|NCT04657016|183752086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|101.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.17|263.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||263.55|39.17|<0.001
91926620|NCT04657016|183752087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|153.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.9|300.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||300.37|78.90|<0.001
91926621|NCT04657016|183752088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|144.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.65|333.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||333.21|62.65|<0.001
91926622|NCT04657016|183752089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|118.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.08|347.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||347.74|40.08|<0.001
91926623|NCT04657016|183752090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.3|-19.5|<0.001
91926624|NCT04657016|183752091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-23.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.2|-26.9|<0.001
91926625|NCT04657016|183752092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-9.6|<0.001
91926626|NCT04657016|183752093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.1|-12.2|<0.001
91926627|NCT04657016|183752094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-7.2|<0.001
91926628|NCT04657016|183752095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.348|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.10|-10.40|<0.001
91926629|NCT04657016|183752096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7|8.2|<0.001
91926630|NCT04657016|183752097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-7.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.53|-15.30|<0.001
91926631|NCT04657016|183752098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-23.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.2|-32.1|<0.001
91926632|NCT04657016|183752099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.4|-32.3|<0.001
91926633|NCT04657016|183752100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.6|-28.4|<0.001
91926634|NCT04657016|183752101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-13.5|<0.001
91926635|NCT04657016|183752102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-0.53|<0.001
91926636|NCT04657016|183752103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-41.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.7|-53.7|<0.001
91926637|NCT04657016|183752104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.9|||ANCOVA|||||4.9|2.8|<0.001
91926638|NCT04657016|183752105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|16.0|||ANCOVA|||||16.0|9.7|<0.001
91926639|NCT00701727|183752106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
91926640|NCT00701727|183752107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91926641|NCT00701727|183752108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91926642|NCT00701727|183752109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91926643|NCT00701727|183752110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91926644|NCT00701727|183752111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91926645|NCT00701727|183752112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91926646|NCT00696657|183752161|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-1.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.8|||ANOVA|Confidence interval (CIs) for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 1.6 mg (with titration) - Placebo. The estimates are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.80|-1.58|<0.0001
91811026|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|4.33|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.33|-2.78|
91926647|NCT00696657|183752161|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.57|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg (with titration) - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.57|-1.33|<0.0001
91926648|NCT00696657|183752161|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.59|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.59|-1.35|<0.0001
91811027|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.85|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.85|-2.75|
91811028|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.631|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|6.63|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.63|-8.56|
91926649|NCT00696657|183752161|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.23|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.4 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.23|-0.98|0.0002
91926650|NCT00696657|183752161|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.41||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.2 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.02|-0.79|0.0324
91926651|NCT00696657|183752161|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.09||||0.9772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.28|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.1 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.28|-0.46|0.9772
91926652|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.06|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 1.6 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.06|-0.64|
91926653|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.18|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.18|-0.39|
91926654|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.16|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.16|-0.42|
91926655|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.4 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.52|-0.05|
91926656|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.73|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.2 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.73|0.15|
91767399|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.1||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Back of Hands - Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.25|-0.05|0.373
91811029|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|-0.38|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||-0.38|-11.69|
91926657|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.1 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||1.03|0.48|
91926658|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.56|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Liraglutide 1.8 mg - Placebo . The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.56|-1.12|
91926659|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.22|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 1.6 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.22|-0.80|
91926660|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.02|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.02|-0.56|
91926661|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.01|-0.58|
91926662|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.4 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.37|-0.22|
91926663|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.57|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.2 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.57|-0.02|
91926664|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.88|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.1 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.88|0.31|
91926665|NCT00696657|183752161|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.4|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Liraglutide 1.2 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.40|-0.97|
91926666|NCT00738543|183752196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A minimal sample of 20 volunteers was calculated to to find a difference of 200 CFU/mL, with a power of 80% and bilateral error of 5%.|||||<|0.05||||||Post-hoc test of Kruskal-Wallis for multiple comparisons of Z values was used to determine which arm was different.|Kruskal-Wallis|2 degrees of freedom corrected for ties||The null hypothesis established that the three medians were equal. To test significant differences for non-normally distributed data, a range test (Kruskal-Wallis) was used.||||<0.05
91926667|NCT00738543|183752198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The minimal sample of 20 volunteers was calculated to find a difference of 200 CFU/mL.|||||<|0.05||95.0||||Post-hoc test of Kruskal-Wallis for multiple comparisons of Z values was used to determine which arm was different.|Kruskal-Wallis|2 degrees of freedom corrected for ties||The null hypothesis established that the 3 medians were equal. To test significant differences for non-normally distributed data, a range test (Kruskal-Wallis) was used. The alpha level for significance was established at 5%. A minimal sample of 20 volunteers was calculated for a power of 80%, and bilateral error of 5%.||||<0.05
91767400|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.031||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Back of Hands - Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.19|0.294
91811030|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.78|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.78|-1.98|
91926668|NCT05070429|183752351|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|-0.035||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.657||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|generalized linear model (GLM)|generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link|Confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare average daily hours of hearing aid use at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the primary outcome.||0.657|-0.727|0.92
91767401|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.035||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Body - Dryness Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.13|-0.20|0.857
91767402|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.206||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Decolletage-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.39|0.02|0.088
91767403|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.193||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Decolletage-Wrinkling/crinkling: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.41|-0.02|0.110
91811031|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.787|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|2.24|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.24|-1.07|
91811032|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.72|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.72|-0.85|
91811033|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.56|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.56|-0.80|
91811034|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.546|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|3.76|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||3.76|-2.71|
91811035|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|3.79|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.79|-2.95|
91811036|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.356|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|9.14|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.14|-4.84|
91811037|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|9.15|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||9.15|-1.25|
91811038|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.627|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.38|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.38|-1.28|
91811039|NCT02801942|183497311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.91|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.91|-0.93|
91811040|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.0|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.00|-7.40|
91811041|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.694|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.35|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.35|-4.90|
91811042|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.377|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|0.08|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.08|-9.89|
91811043|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.682|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|0.24|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.24|-6.82|
91767404|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.205||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Decolletage-Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.34|0.07|0.112
91811044|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|2.1|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.10|-2.67|
91811045|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.929|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.59|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.59|-7.20|
91811046|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|3.11|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||3.11|-5.98|
91811047|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|3.99|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.99|-4.59|
91811048|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.645|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|4.06|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.06|-6.99|
91926669|NCT05070429|183752352|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|-0.011||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.125|||generalized linear model (GLM)||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare treatment satisfaction at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the secondary outcome.||0.125|-0.147|0.87
91767405|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.003||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Back of Hands-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.13|-0.13|0.614
91767406|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.011||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Back of Hands - Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.16|-0.18|0.693
91926670|NCT05070429|183752353|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|0.059||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.32|||generalized linear model (GLM)||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare primary COSI goal achievement at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the secondary outcome.||0.320|-0.201|0.66
91926671|NCT05070429|183752354|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|-1.96||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.349|2.435|||generalized linear model (GLM)||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare hearing-specific quality of life at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the secondary outcome.||2.435|-6.349|0.38
91926672|NCT01345123|183752356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0019994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0400918||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0765899|0.080588716|||ANCOVA|Covariates: age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index, prior year total medical costs pmpm||||.080588716|-.07658990|0.9602
91926673|NCT01345123|183752356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04018791||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0924947|0.06506063|||ANCOVA|||||0.06506063|-0.0924947|0.7329
91926674|NCT01345123|183752357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.0511||95.0|0.647|1.001|||Regression, Logistic|Covariates: Age, Gender, Charlson Comorbidity index, calculated risk of knee replacement, hip replacement, herniated disc surgery (score 1-99)||||1.001|0.647|0.0511
91926675|NCT01345123|183752360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31257||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06895|0.55618|||ANOVA|||||0.55618|0.06895|0.0106
91926676|NCT01345123|183752360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15982||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06477|0.38441|||ANOVA|||||0.38441|-0.06477|0.0106
91926677|NCT01345123|183752363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0467091||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1008434|0.08259938|||ANCOVA|||||0.08259938|-0.1008434|0.8454
91926678|NCT01345123|183752363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0183548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04690321||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1102961|0.07358642|||ANCOVA|||||0.07358642|-0.1102961|0.6956
91926679|NCT02436577|183752369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|93.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|101.15|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||101.15|85.80|
91926680|NCT02436577|183752369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|93.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.88|99.84|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||99.84|87.88|
91926681|NCT02436577|183752369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.27|106.14|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for metabolite AR-C124910XX Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||106.14|88.27|
91926682|NCT02436577|183752369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.04|100.23|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for metabolite AR-C124910XX Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||100.23|85.04|
91926683|NCT02436577|183752370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|97.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.46|101.18|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||101.18|94.46|
91926684|NCT02436577|183752370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|96.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.24|99.63|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||99.63|93.24|
91926685|NCT02436577|183752370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|98.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.75|102.25|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||102.25|94.75|
91811049|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.185|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|5.11|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||5.11|-4.05|
91926686|NCT02436577|183752370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.59|98.85|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.85|91.59|
91926687|NCT02436577|183752371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|97.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|101.21|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||101.21|94.40|
91926688|NCT02436577|183752371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.31|99.8|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||99.80|93.31|
91767407|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.079||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Back of Hands - Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.22|-0.06|0.762
91926689|NCT02436577|183752371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|98.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.85|102.2|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||102.20|94.85|
91926690|NCT02436577|183752371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.99|99.08|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.08|91.99|
91926691|NCT00366548|183752394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-5.4|3.7||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.7|-5.4|
91926692|NCT00366548|183752394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-5.5||||||95.0|-14.2|3.3||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.3|-14.2|
91926693|NCT00366548|183752394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-3.7|2.8||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.8|-3.7|
91926694|NCT00366548|183752394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-2.9||||||95.0|-6.9|0.7||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||0.7|-6.9|
91767408|NCT01787461|183424064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.013||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Body - Dryness Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.13|-0.16|0.662
91767409|NCT01787461|183424065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.93||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|18.18|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||18.18|-10.32|0.587
91926695|NCT00366548|183752394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.0|-3.0|
91926696|NCT00366548|183752394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-2.5||||||95.0|-6.1|0.6||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||0.6|-6.1|
91926697|NCT00366548|183752394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-6.3||||||95.0|-12.1|-0.7||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-0.7|-12.1|
91811050|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.299|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|6.73|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.73|-11.23|
91811051|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.472|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|10.67|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.67|-3.84|
91926698|NCT00366548|183752394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|3.4||||||95.0|-0.9|7.9||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||7.9|-0.9|
91926699|NCT00366548|183752394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-4.1|1.1||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-4.1|
91926700|NCT00366548|183752394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|1.7||||||95.0|-3.0|6.4||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.4|-3.0|
91926701|NCT00366548|183752394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-5.8|6.7||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.7|-5.8|
91926702|NCT00366548|183752394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-3.2|1.2||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-3.2|
91926703|NCT00366548|183752394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-3.6|0.3||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||0.3|-3.6|
91767410|NCT01787461|183424065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.08||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|12.32|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||12.32|-14.49|0.814
91811052|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.153|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.00|-3.30|
91811053|NCT02801942|183497312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.869|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.72|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.72|-2.06|
91926704|NCT00366548|183752395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated.||1.9|-2.1|
91926705|NCT00366548|183752395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.7|2.6||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated.||2.6|-1.7|
91926706|NCT00366548|183752395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|1.1||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-2.4|
91926707|NCT00366548|183752395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.9|-2.1|
91926708|NCT00366548|183752395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.2|2.3||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.3|-1.2|
91926709|NCT00366548|183752395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-2.0|2.9||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.9|-2.0|
91926710|NCT00366548|183752395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-3.4|1.1||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-3.4|
91926711|NCT00366548|183752395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-0.8|3.0||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.0|-0.8|
91926712|NCT00366548|183752395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-3.7|4.9||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.9|-3.7|
91926713|NCT00366548|183752395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|1.1||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-2.4|
91926714|NCT00366548|183752395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|1.2||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-2.4|
91926715|NCT00366548|183752395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|1.6||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.6|-1.7|
91926716|NCT00366548|183752395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|1.6||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.6|-1.7|
91926717|NCT00366548|183752398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.96||||||95.0|0.81|1.13||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.81|
91926718|NCT00366548|183752398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.9||||||95.0|0.72|1.14||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.14|0.72|
91926719|NCT00366548|183752398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.97||||||95.0|0.85|1.1||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.85|
91926720|NCT00366548|183752398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.96||||||95.0|0.79|1.15||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.15|0.79|
91767411|NCT01787461|183424065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.57||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|8.99|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||8.99|-16.14|0.453
91767412|NCT01787461|183424065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.16||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.92|4.61|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||4.61|-22.92|0.191
91767413|NCT01787461|183424065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|15.28|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||15.28|-10.07|0.685
91926721|NCT00366548|183752398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.98||||||95.0|0.86|1.13||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.86|
91926722|NCT00366548|183752398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.84||||||95.0|0.72|0.97||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.97|0.72|
91926723|NCT00366548|183752398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.84||||||95.0|0.71|0.98||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.98|0.71|
91926724|NCT00366548|183752398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.94||||||95.0|0.81|1.1||||||For serotype 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.81|
91926725|NCT00366548|183752398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.93||||||95.0|0.83|1.04||||||For serotype 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.04|0.83|
91926726|NCT00366548|183752398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.97||||||95.0|0.83|1.13||||||For serotype 5 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.83|
91926727|NCT00366548|183752398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.96||||||95.0|0.81|1.13||||||For serotype 6A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.81|
91926728|NCT00366548|183752398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|1.05||||||95.0|0.93|1.18||||||For serotype 7F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.18|0.93|
91926729|NCT00366548|183752398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.91||||||95.0|0.8|1.04||||||For serotype 19A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.04|0.80|
91926730|NCT03650452|183752413|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-30.48||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.99|-13.19||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for baseline seizure frequency and indication.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||-13.19|-46.99|0.0007
91767414|NCT01787461|183424065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.74||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|23.15|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||23.15|-11.67|0.480
91926731|NCT03650452|183752414|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-25.93||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.96|-10.69||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed ANCOVA adjusting for baseline seizure frequency and indication.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||-10.69|-43.96|0.0024
91926732|NCT03650452|183752415|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-50.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.03|-25.09||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed ANCOVA adjusting for baseline seizure frequency.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||-25.09|-75.03|0.0001
91926733|NCT03650452|183752416|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-16.22||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|4.49||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed ANCOVA adjusting for baseline seizure frequency.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||4.49|-39.50|0.1470
91926734|NCT03650452|183752419|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.6829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.49||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference (TAK-935 - Placebo) of change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo was computed using MMRM.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)||The MMRM model included treatment and visit as factors along with treatment\*visit interaction and baseline score as a covariate; and visit as repeated measure.|||0.49|-0.32|0.6829
91767415|NCT01787461|183424065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.98||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|5.34|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||5.34|-17.29|0.299
91767416|NCT01787461|183424065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.07||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.04|1.9|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.90|-20.04|0.107
91767417|NCT01787461|183424065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.82||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|10.76|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||10.76|-14.39|0.776
91767418|NCT01787461|183424065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.33||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.96|9.29|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||9.29|-15.96|0.603
91767419|NCT01787461|183424065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.82||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.23|7.6|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||7.60|-15.23|0.510
91926735|NCT02531373|183752459|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.1||||||||3.1|-13.5|
91926736|NCT02531373|183752459|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|1.2||||||||1.2|-16.3|
91926737|NCT02531373|183752459|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|3.2||||||||3.2|-13.3|
91926738|NCT02531373|183752459|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|5.1||||||||5.1|-10.2|
91926739|NCT02531373|183752460|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.2||||||||7.2|-6.9|
91767420|NCT01787461|183424065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.75||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|4.2|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||4.20|-17.70|0.225
91767421|NCT01787461|183424066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.02|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.02|-0.46|0.214
91767422|NCT01787461|183424066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.09|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.09|0.12|0.027
91811054|NCT02801942|183497313|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.304|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|3.19|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||3.19|-2.27|
91926740|NCT02531373|183752460|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.2||||||||7.2|-6.9|
91926741|NCT02531373|183752460|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.1||||||||7.1|-6.9|
91767423|NCT01787461|183424066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.96|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.96|0.01|0.049
91926742|NCT02531373|183752460|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.9||||||||6.9|-6.9|
91926743|NCT02531373|183752461|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|37.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||37.3|2.1|0.029
91811055|NCT02801942|183497313|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.36|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.36|-3.24|
91811056|NCT02801942|183497314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|9.58|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.58|-11.91|
91926744|NCT02531373|183752461|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|22.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|39.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||39.1|4.3|0.016
91926745|NCT02531373|183752461|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|19.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||19.9|-17.7|0.908
91767424|NCT01787461|183424066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.14|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.14|0.20|0.019
91767425|NCT01787461|183424066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.8|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.80|-0.36|0.449
91811057|NCT02801942|183497314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.301|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|7.1|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||7.10|-15.85|
91926746|NCT02531373|183752461|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|23.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|39.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||39.6|5.4|0.011
91926747|NCT02531373|183752462|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|12.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||12.9|-14.0|0.943
91926748|NCT02531373|183752462|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|11.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||11.2|-16.4|0.711
91926749|NCT02531373|183752462|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|16.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||16.4|-8.7|0.529
91926750|NCT02531373|183752462|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|18.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||18.2|-5.8|0.298
91926751|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||||||Serotype 1||1.10|0.61|
91926752|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.35||||||Serotype 3||2.35|1.33|
91926753|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.81||||||Serotype 4||1.81|0.91|
91926754|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.51||||||Serotype 5||1.51|0.59|
91926755|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||||95.0|0.29|0.86||||||Serotype 6A||0.86|0.29|
91926756|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.1||||||Serotype 6B||2.10|0.58|
91926757|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03||||||Serotype 7F||1.03|0.55|
91926758|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.75||||||Serotype 9V||1.75|0.74|
91926759|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.27||||||Serotype 14||1.27|0.58|
91926760|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||||95.0|0.43|0.92||||||Serotype 18C||0.92|0.43|
91926761|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26||||||Serotype 19A||1.26|0.64|
91926762|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||||||Serotype 19F||1.11|0.62|
91926763|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|81.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.51|109.68||||||Serotype 22F (non-Prevnar serotype)||109.68|60.51|
91926764|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.47||||||Serotype 23F||1.47|0.56|
91926765|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|22.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.77|41.97||||||Serotype 33F (non-Prevnar serotype)||41.97|11.77|
91767426|NCT01787461|183424066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.8|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.80|-0.07|0.105
91811058|NCT02801942|183497314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.374|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|4.59|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.59|-1.62|
91811059|NCT02801942|183497314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|5.88|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||5.88|-0.05|
91811060|NCT02801942|183497315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.31|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||11.31|-1.60|
91811061|NCT02801942|183497315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|22.57|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||22.57|-6.15|
91811062|NCT02801942|183497315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.812|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.48|1.11|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.11|-23.48|
91811063|NCT02801942|183497315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.14|2.37|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.37|-14.14|
91767427|NCT01787461|183424066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.68|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.68|-0.14|0.205
91811064|NCT02801942|183497315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|6.84|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.84|-3.54|
91811065|NCT02801942|183497315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.937|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|8.98|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||8.98|-3.84|
91811066|NCT02801942|183497315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|9.12|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.12|-2.67|
91811067|NCT02801942|183497315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.337|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|6.21|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.21|0.55|
91926766|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.23||||||Serotype 1||1.23|0.68|
91767428|NCT01787461|183424066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.77|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.77|-0.06|0.100
91811068|NCT02801942|183497315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.736|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|8.58|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.58|-11.49|
91811069|NCT02801942|183497315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|10.58|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.58|-6.81|
91811070|NCT02801942|183497315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|22.92|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||22.92|-2.01|
91926767|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.8||||||Serotype 3||2.80|1.60|
91926768|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.62||||||Serotype 4||1.62|0.82|
91926769|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.31||||||Serotype 5||1.31|0.53|
91926770|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.92||||||Serotype 6A||0.92|0.31|
91926771|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5||||||Serotype 6B||1.50|0.42|
91926772|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||||||Serotype 7F||1.31|0.71|
91926773|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.49||||||Serotype 9V||1.49|0.64|
91926774|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.37||||||Serotype 14||1.37|0.63|
91926775|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.16||||||Serotype 18C||1.16|0.55|
91926776|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.22||||||Serotype 19A||1.22|0.63|
91926777|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.44||||||Serotype 19F||1.44|0.81|
91926778|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|89.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.02|120.51||||||Serotype 22F (non-Prevnar serotype)||120.51|67.02|
91926779|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.57||||||Serotype 23F||1.57|0.61|
91926780|NCT02531373|183752463|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|18.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.82|34.41||||||Serotype 33F (non-Prevnar serotype)||34.41|9.82|
91926781|NCT01623531|183752471|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|386.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.5||0.908|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The distributions of cumulative transfusion units did not differ significantly between patients receiving either RiaSTAP (median = 0, IQR = 0-1) or Placebo (median = 0, IQR = 0.1), U = 386, SE = 47.60, p = .908.|Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that the data were not normally distributed, and primary outcomes were zero inflated. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.908
91926782|NCT01623531|183752472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug. Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals. For normally distributed data unequal variance t tests were used.||||.047
91926783|NCT01623531|183752473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116||0.729|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug. Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals. For normally distributed data unequal variance t tests were used.||||.729
91926784|NCT01623531|183752474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.699||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug. Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals. For normally distributed data unequal variance t tests were used.||||.93
91926785|NCT01623531|183752475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.471||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|||||.169
91926786|NCT01623531|183752476|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|450.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.163||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.035
91926787|NCT01623531|183752477|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|337.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.591||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.794
91926788|NCT01623531|183752478|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|335.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.957||0.828|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.828
91926789|NCT01623531|183752479|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|396.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.944||0.941|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.941
91926790|NCT01623531|183752480|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|494.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.783||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.09
91926791|NCT01623531|183752481|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|418.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.93||0.658|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.658
91926792|NCT01623531|183752482|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|472.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.727||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.182
91767429|NCT01787461|183424066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.66|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.66|-0.17|0.244
91926793|NCT01623531|183752483|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|428.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.919||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.549
91926794|NCT01623531|183752484|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|530.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.816||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The distribution of FIBTEM MCF (maximum clot firmness) was significantly different between RiaSTAP (median = 27 mm, IQR = 24, 30), and placebo (median = 23 mm, IQR = 22, 27) groups, U-test = 530.5, SE = 60.816, p = .022).|Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that the FIBTEM MCF data was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.022
91926795|NCT01623531|183752485|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|437.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.93||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.455
91926796|NCT01623531|183752486|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|432.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.819||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.5
91926797|NCT01623531|183752487|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Significance (2-sided) using Fisher's Exact Test.||||||1.0
91926798|NCT04705597|183752499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.366||||0.3312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|2.562|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.562|0.728|0.3312
91926799|NCT04705597|183752501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.574||||0.4561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|2.475|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 14||2.475|0.133|0.4561
91926800|NCT04705597|183752501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.521||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|1.282|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 28||1.282|0.212|0.1559
91767430|NCT01787461|183424066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.56|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.56|-0.32|0.594
91767431|NCT01787461|183424066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.63|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.63|-0.20|0.317
91767432|NCT01787461|183424066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.64|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.64|-0.17|0.264
91767433|NCT01787461|183424067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.16||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.63|19.31|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||19.31|-69.63|0.266
91811071|NCT02801942|183497315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.913|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|16.59|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||16.59|-4.24|
91926801|NCT04705597|183752501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.498||||0.1293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.226|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.226|0.203|0.1293
91926802|NCT04705597|183752502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2687|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis was only performed for Day 28. This is timeframe used for the primary endpoint||||0.2687
91767434|NCT01787461|183424067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.79||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.99|16.41|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||16.41|-73.99|0.210
91811072|NCT02801942|183497316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.83|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.83|-0.08|
91926803|NCT04705597|183752503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3977|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3977
91767435|NCT01787461|183424067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.78||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.55|40.99|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||40.99|-56.55|0.753
91767436|NCT01787461|183424067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.9||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.32|46.51|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||46.51|-76.32|0.632
91767437|NCT01787461|183424067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.54||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|29.01|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||29.01|-19.94|0.715
91767438|NCT01787461|183424067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.35||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.04|33.75|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||33.75|-21.04|0.648
91926804|NCT04705597|183752504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2229|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2229
91926805|NCT04705597|183752505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.388||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|2.561|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.561|0.752|0.2941
91926806|NCT04705597|183752506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3325|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3325
91926807|NCT04705597|183752507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2||Change at Day 14|ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.08|0.0254
91926808|NCT04705597|183752507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28||1.18|-0.12|0.1109
91926809|NCT04705597|183752507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 57||0.12|-0.10|0.8640
91926810|NCT04705597|183752508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.046||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.706|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.706|0.89|0.0919
91926811|NCT04705597|183752509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.83||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|8.08|||ANCOVA|||||8.08|-0.42|0.749
91926812|NCT04705597|183752510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|9.13|||ANCOVA|||||9.13|-1.75|0.1769
91926813|NCT04705597|183752511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|1.586|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.586|0.184|0.2621
91926814|NCT04705597|183752512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|7.37|||ANCOVA|||||7.37|-1.76|0.2265
91926815|NCT04705597|183752513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.223||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.364|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.364|0.633|0.5497
91926816|NCT04705597|183752514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.89||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|11.05|||ANCOVA|||||11.05|-1.27|0.1172
91926817|NCT04705597|183752515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.914||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|2.368|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.368|0.353|0.853
91767439|NCT01787461|183424067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.49||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.81|15.83|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||15.83|-48.81|0.315
91767440|NCT01787461|183424067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.42||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|48.34|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||48.34|-19.50|0.402
91811073|NCT02801942|183497316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.324|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.98|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.98|-0.61|
91811074|NCT02801942|183497316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.389|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|12.85|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||12.85|-14.66|
91926818|NCT04705597|183752516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|8.18|||ANCOVA|||||8.18|-1.86|0.1991
91926819|NCT04705597|183752517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.103||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.293|13.027|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.027|1.293|0.0166
91926820|NCT04705597|183752518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.56||||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|10.64|||ANCOVA|||||10.64|-1.51|0.1297
91926821|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.07|-0.35|0.1916
91926822|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 2||0.05|-0.44|0.1097
91926823|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 3||-0.04|-0.63|0.0276
91926824|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 4||-0.01|-0.71|0.0463
91767441|NCT01787461|183424067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.43||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|40.35|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||40.35|-15.49|0.381
91926825|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 5||0.06|-0.71|0.0969
91926826|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.4367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 6||0.25|-0.57|0.4367
91926827|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 7||0.35|-0.54|0.6685
91926828|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 8||0.18|-0.73|0.2287
91926829|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 9||0.09|-0.96|0.1061
91926830|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 10||-0.02|-1.06|0.0415
91926831|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 11||0.12|-1.00|0.1236
91926832|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 12||-0.18|-1.23|0.0097
91926833|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 13||-0.11|-1.02|0.0157
91926834|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 14||-0.36|-1.32|0.0010
91926835|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Time of Discharge Visit||0.25|-0.40|0.6440
91926836|NCT04705597|183752519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Follow up Day 28||0.59|-0.60|0.9869
91926837|NCT04705597|183752520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69||||0.2399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|4.52|||ANCOVA|||||4.52|-1.14|0.2399
91926838|NCT04705597|183752521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.869||||0.8081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.695|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.695|0.28|0.8081
91926839|NCT04705597|183752522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.436||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|2.929|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.929|0.704|0.3193
91926840|NCT00390780|183752523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Expected cure rate: 70% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|comparison of proportion clinical cure|0.15|||>|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025|one-sided test|||"Analyses for ITT and PP populations:~H0: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|>0.025
91926841|NCT00390780|183752524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Expected cure rate: 70% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|comparison of proportion clinical cure|0.15|||>|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|one-sided noninferiority test|||"Analysis for ITT and PP populations:~H0: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|>0.025
91926842|NCT00390780|183752525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.0974|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for ITT population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.0974
91926843|NCT00390780|183752525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|Compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.1115|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for PP population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.1115
91926844|NCT00390780|183752526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.8787|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for ITT population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.8787
91926845|NCT00390780|183752526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.7969|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for PP population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.7969
91926846|NCT00390780|183752527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of partial response|0.15||||0.882|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for ITT population:~H0: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.8820
91926847|NCT00390780|183752527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of partial response|0.15||||0.9033|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for PP population:~H0: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.9033
91926848|NCT00390780|183752528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for ITT population.|difference in proportion mycologic cure|0.15||||0.5816|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.5816
91926849|NCT00390780|183752528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for PP population|difference in proportion mycologic cure|0.15||||0.4439|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.4439
91767442|NCT01787461|183424067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.49||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.44|29.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||29.43|-26.44|0.916
91926850|NCT00390780|183752529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for ITT population.|difference in proportion relapsed|0.15||||0.833|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level is \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.8330
91767443|NCT01787461|183424067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.88||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.81|24.05|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||24.05|-43.81|0.566
91767444|NCT01787461|183424067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.58||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.78|47.94|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||47.94|-30.78|0.667
91767445|NCT01787461|183424068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.0|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.00|-2.21|0.458
91926851|NCT00390780|183752529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for PP population.|difference in proportion relapsed|0.15||||0.9738|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level is \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.9738
91926852|NCT00390780|183752534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Clotrimazole minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) between treatment groups||||0.1860
91767446|NCT01787461|183424068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.01|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.01|-2.07|0.497
91767447|NCT01787461|183424068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.33|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.33|-3.05|0.113
91926853|NCT00390780|183752534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9564||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Miconazole minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) between treatment groups||||0.9564
91926854|NCT00305006|183752536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||ANOVA||||<0.01
91926855|NCT02606045|183752538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|90.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||90|2|0.039
91926856|NCT02606045|183752539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.7|0.998
91926857|NCT02606045|183752540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8|-1.0|0.168
91926858|NCT02606045|183752541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.9|0.055
91926859|NCT02606045|183752542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-4.8|0.681
91926860|NCT02606045|183752542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role limitations of physical health||7.6|-12.4|0.633
91926861|NCT02606045|183752542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role limitations of emotional health||15.3|-5.7|0.362
91926862|NCT02606045|183752542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Energy/fatigue||2.8|-7.4|0.375
91926863|NCT02606045|183752542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional well-being||7.4|-0.3|0.068
91926864|NCT02606045|183752542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social functioning||11.3|-2.3|0.189
91926865|NCT02606045|183752542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain||4.5|-9.2|0.489
91767448|NCT01787461|183424068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.44|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.44|-2.11|0.708
91926866|NCT02606045|183752542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||General Health||4.3|-3.2|0.786
91926867|NCT02606045|183752543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physically Unhealthy Days||0.2|-2.3|0.098
91926868|NCT02606045|183752543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mentally Unhealthy Days||3.0|-1.6|0.557
91926869|NCT02606045|183752544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle Severity Rating||2.7|0.8|0.266
91767449|NCT01787461|183424068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.82|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||4.82|-2.34|0.495
91926870|NCT01996319|183752545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||null hypoth|0.2021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1583|0.246|||ANCOVA|||||0.2460|0.1583|<0.0001
91926871|NCT01996319|183752546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Null hypoth|36.7126||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7241|71.7011|||ANCOVA|||||71.7011|1.7241|0.0399
91926872|NCT01671085|183752563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.27|-29.7||P-value is for Day 43.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis|||||-29.70|-71.27|<0.001
91926873|NCT01671085|183752563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.91|-24.31||P-value is for Day 57.|Mixed Effects Models Analysis|||||-24.31|-65.91|<0.001
91926874|NCT00637273|183752564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.89||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors.||Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Alternative hypothesis: a difference exists between exenatide once weekly and at least one comparator group (sitagliptin or pioglitazone). Power: Assuming 10% dropout, delta=0.5%, and common SD=1.2%, 450 subjects would provide \>90% power to detect a treatment difference (alpha=0.05, two-sided) in the change in HbA1c between exenatide once weekly and sitagliptin or pioglitazone, with Hochberg's multiplicity adjustment method.||0.89|0.37|<.0001
91926875|NCT00637273|183752564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.57||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors.||Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Alternative hypothesis: a difference exists between exenatide once weekly and at least one comparator group (sitagliptin or pioglitazone). Power: Assuming 10% dropout, delta=0.5%, and common SD=1.2%, 450 subjects would provide \>90% power to detect a treatment difference (alpha=0.05, two-sided) in the change in HbA1c between exenatide once weekly and sitagliptin or pioglitazone, with Hochberg's multiplicity adjustment method.||0.57|0.06|0.0165
91926876|NCT00637273|183752565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<7% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
91926877|NCT00637273|183752565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<7% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0015
91926878|NCT00637273|183752566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
91926879|NCT00637273|183752566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0120
91926880|NCT00637273|183752567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.1700
91926881|NCT00637273|183752567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0091
91926882|NCT00637273|183752568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.35||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||2.35|0.72|0.0002
91926883|NCT00637273|183752568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|5.91||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||5.91|4.28|<.0001
91926884|NCT00637273|183752569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||25.2|5.7|0.0038
91926885|NCT00637273|183752569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.3729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|14.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||14.2|-5.3|0.3729
91926886|NCT00637273|183752570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.3||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of systolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||6.3|1.3|0.0055
91926887|NCT00637273|183752570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.5||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of systolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||4.5|-0.5|0.1117
91926888|NCT00637273|183752571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||2.5|-0.4|0.1685
91926889|NCT00637273|183752571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.4||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.4|-2.6|0.1685
91926890|NCT00637273|183752572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.2686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting total cholesterol from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||10.2|-2.8|0.2686
91926891|NCT00637273|183752572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting total cholesterol from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||13.2|0.3|0.0814
91926892|NCT00637273|183752573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting HDL from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.5|-1.6|0.9546
91926893|NCT00637273|183752573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|5.7||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting HDL from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||5.7|2.6|<.0001
91926894|NCT00637273|183752574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.9718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline (Day 1), expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.08|0.93|0.9718
91926895|NCT00637273|183752574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline (Day 1), expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.96|0.82|0.0062
91926896|NCT02853331|183752576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.00012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.84|||Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||0.84|0.56|0.00012
91926897|NCT02853331|183752577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.74|||Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||0.74|0.38|0.00005
91926898|NCT02853331|183752578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|29.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in % \>0|Difference in percentages based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||29.9|17.2|<0.0001
91926899|NCT02853331|183752579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|17.0|||||Difference in percentages based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||17.0|4.8|
91926900|NCT00844428|183752593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|94.0||||||"With a total of 20 patients enrolled between both protocols and, assuming that the true expected probability of TMA Event-Free for eculizumab-treated patients is 40%, then the study had 93.5% power to detect a statistically significant difference. Up to approximately 30 patients were to be enrolled.~All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS."||94|56|
91926901|NCT00844428|183752594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
91926902|NCT00844428|183752595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|49.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||49|9|
91926903|NCT00844428|183752596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
91926904|NCT00844428|183752597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|6.75||||0.5423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|29.23|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||29.23|-15.73|0.5423
91926905|NCT00844428|183752598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
91767450|NCT01787461|183424068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|1.27|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.27|-4.96|0.243
91767451|NCT01787461|183424068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.23|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.23|-4.96|0.453
91926906|NCT00844428|183752599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|100.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||100|75|
91926907|NCT00844428|183752600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
91926908|NCT00844428|183752601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|77.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||77|32|
91926909|NCT00844428|183752602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
91926910|NCT00844428|183752603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|-3.68||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|17.79|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||17.79|-25.15|0.7307
91926911|NCT00844428|183752604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
91767452|NCT01787461|183424068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|3.89|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||3.89|-2.79|0.745
91926912|NCT00064662|183752671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to event analysis of 24 month success rates. Null hypothesis is that the distributions in the two groups are equal.||||0.01
91926913|NCT00064662|183752672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square|16.2|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to event analysis of cumulative success rates in the two groups. Null hypothesis is that the distributions are equal in the two groups.||||<0.001
91926914|NCT00064662|183752672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Kalpan Meier (Wald statistic)|||Kaplan Meier time-to-event analysis of cumulative success rates. Used Wald test of equality of survival distributions.||||<0.0001
91926915|NCT03008590|183752673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.90
91926916|NCT03008590|183752674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.22
91767453|NCT01787461|183424068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.48|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.48|-2.44|0.987
91811075|NCT02801942|183497316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.862|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|6.33|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.33|-14.71|
91926917|NCT03008590|183752675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Although significance was pre-specified at P\<0.05, it is suspected that this result is spurious due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.02
91926918|NCT03008590|183752676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.3
91767454|NCT01787461|183424068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|0.85|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.85|-3.69|0.218
91926919|NCT03008590|183752677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Although significance was pre-specified at P\<0.05, it is suspected that this result is spurious due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.04
91926920|NCT03008590|183752678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.78
91926921|NCT03008590|183752679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.92
91926922|NCT01555463|183752684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|center-adjusted||||||<.001
91926923|NCT01555463|183752685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|F-test for treatment effect of the ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as the factors and baseline lesion count as the covariate.||||||<.001
91926924|NCT04436510|183752702|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.237||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. verdiperstat slowed progression) was 0.57467. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by verdiperstat relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.237|0.769|
91926925|NCT04436510|183752704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Verdiperstat 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||4.32|-3.74|0.8875
91926926|NCT04436510|183752705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.848||0.3538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|11.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Verdiperstat 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||11.13|-3.99|0.3538
91926927|NCT04436510|183752706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.318
91926928|NCT00410280|183752743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|1.15|||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI) and p-value were derived from the model.||1.15|-14.04|0.0947
91926929|NCT00410280|183752744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.24||||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|3.35|||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||3.35|-11.84|0.2673
91767455|NCT01787461|183424068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.08|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.08|-3.41|0.630
91926930|NCT00410280|183752745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.8||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.35|-1.24|||ANOVA|||Day 14: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||-1.24|-46.35|0.0391
91926931|NCT00410280|183752745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.17||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.72|5.39|||ANOVA|||Day 35: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||5.39|-39.72|0.1326
91926932|NCT00410280|183752746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.76||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.16|-0.35|||ANOVA|||Day 14: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||-0.35|-19.16|0.0423
91926933|NCT00410280|183752746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.06||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|5.35|||ANOVA|||Day 35: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||5.35|-13.46|0.3902
91767456|NCT01787461|183424068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|3.68|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||3.68|-2.06|0.576
91767457|NCT03259555|183424069|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.14|||=|0.8797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|2.03|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure|"An unstructured covariance was used."|"Comparison between treatment groups was carried out using MMRM, with study center, treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factor and baseline-by-visit interaction as a covariate. An unstructured covariance was used."|||2.03|-1.74|=0.8797
91926934|NCT00410280|183752747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.05||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-1.9|||ANOVA|||Day 14: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||-1.90|-36.21|0.0302
91926935|NCT00410280|183752747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.19||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.34|3.97|||ANOVA|||Day 35: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||3.97|-30.34|0.1289
91926936|NCT00410280|183752748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.8469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Screening: Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participants was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-values were derived from the model.||0.96|-0.79|0.8469
91926937|NCT00410280|183752748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participants was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-values were derived from the model.||0.86|-0.86|0.9995
91811076|NCT02801942|183497316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.234|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|2.47|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.47|-2.73|
91926938|NCT00410280|183752748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 35: Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participants was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-values were derived from the model.||0.59|-1.14|0.5280
91767458|NCT00607087|183424080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.039
91811077|NCT02801942|183497316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|2.28|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.28|-1.45|
91811078|NCT02801942|183497316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.78|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.78|0.64|
91811079|NCT02801942|183497316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.712|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.79|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.79|0.75|
91767459|NCT00607087|183424080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025.|McNemar|||||||0.031
91767460|NCT00607087|183424081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91811080|NCT02801942|183497317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.15|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.15|0.40|
91811081|NCT02801942|183497317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|7.17|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||7.17|-1.68|
91767461|NCT00607087|183424081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91811082|NCT02801942|183497317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.712|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|14.48|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||14.48|-14.49|
91811083|NCT02801942|183497317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|4.43|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.43|-12.67|
91926939|NCT00051558|183752813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
91926940|NCT00051558|183752814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
91926941|NCT00051558|183752815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0||||P-value for Month 3|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.058
91767462|NCT00607087|183424082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.080
91767463|NCT00607087|183424082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.107
91767464|NCT00607087|183424083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91767465|NCT00607087|183424083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||<0.001
91767466|NCT00607087|183424084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.079
91767467|NCT00607087|183424084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.063
91767468|NCT00607087|183424085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
91811084|NCT02801942|183497317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.967|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|8.13|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.13|-5.48|
91926942|NCT00051558|183752815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91811085|NCT02801942|183497317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.287|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|6.84|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.84|-4.36|
91926943|NCT00051558|183752815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91926944|NCT00051558|183752815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91926945|NCT00051558|183752815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91767469|NCT00607087|183424085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.073
91767470|NCT00607087|183424086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.017
91767471|NCT00607087|183424086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.032
91767472|NCT00607087|183424087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
91926946|NCT00051558|183752815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91926947|NCT00051558|183752816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||P-value for 3 Months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.120
91926948|NCT00051558|183752816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91926949|NCT00051558|183752816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91926950|NCT00051558|183752816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91767473|NCT00607087|183424087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
91926951|NCT00051558|183752817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for 36 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
91926952|NCT00051558|183752817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91811086|NCT02801942|183497317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.84|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.84|0.54|
91926953|NCT00051558|183752817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91811087|NCT02801942|183497317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.13|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.13|0.03|
91926954|NCT00051558|183752818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36-month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
91926955|NCT00051558|183752818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91926956|NCT00051558|183752818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.002
91926957|NCT00051558|183752818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for 18 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||0.011
91926958|NCT00051558|183752818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.015
91926959|NCT00051558|183752819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline total hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
91926960|NCT00051558|183752819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91767474|NCT00607087|183424088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91811088|NCT00254540|183497336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate(percentage)|48.0||||||95.0|27.8|68.7||||||||68.7|27.8|
91926961|NCT00051558|183752819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91926962|NCT00051558|183752819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for 18 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline total hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||0.006
91926963|NCT00051558|183752819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.009
91926964|NCT00051558|183752820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91926965|NCT00051558|183752820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.015
91926966|NCT00051558|183752820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.002
91926967|NCT00051558|183752820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91926968|NCT00051558|183752821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.011
91926969|NCT00051558|183752821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.009
91926970|NCT00051558|183752821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91926971|NCT00051558|183752821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
91767475|NCT00607087|183424088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91767476|NCT00607087|183424089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.563
91926972|NCT00051558|183752822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926973|NCT00051558|183752822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926974|NCT00051558|183752822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926975|NCT00051558|183752822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926976|NCT00051558|183752823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91767477|NCT00607087|183424089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.186
91767478|NCT00607087|183424090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91811089|NCT00254540|183497336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate(percentage)|46.2||||||95.0|26.6|66.6||||||||66.6|26.6|
91926977|NCT00051558|183752823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926978|NCT00051558|183752823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||0.004
91926979|NCT00051558|183752823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||0.013
91926980|NCT00051558|183752824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926981|NCT00051558|183752824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926982|NCT00051558|183752824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926983|NCT00051558|183752824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926984|NCT00051558|183752825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926985|NCT00051558|183752825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926986|NCT00051558|183752825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926987|NCT00051558|183752825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91811090|NCT01313767|183497352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% of the power, 0.45 of non-inferiority margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference between the two groups was provided with 95% CI. If the upper limit of CI is no greater than 0.45 (non-inferiority margin), the study group was determined not inferior to the control group. Additionally, difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in wrist flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||0.40|-0.05|0.1347
91811091|NCT01313767|183497353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.2591|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in wrist flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.2591
91926988|NCT00051558|183752826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926989|NCT00051558|183752826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value at Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926990|NCT00051558|183752826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value at Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91811092|NCT01313767|183497353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.3395|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in wrist flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.3395
91926991|NCT00051558|183752826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value at Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
91926992|NCT00051558|183752827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0||||p-value for Any Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.212
91926993|NCT00051558|183752827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0||||p-value for Nonvertebral Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.843
91926994|NCT00051558|183752827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||p-value for Vertebral Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
91811093|NCT01313767|183497354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0675|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in elbow flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.0675
91926995|NCT00051558|183752827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||p-value for Clinical Vertebral Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.037
91926996|NCT00051558|183752827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0||||p-value for Nonvertebral Fragility Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.256
91926997|NCT02163993|183752833|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.24|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||0.24|-1.40|
91926998|NCT02163993|183752833|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.56|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||0.56|-1.06|
91811094|NCT01313767|183497354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in elbow flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.0605
91926999|NCT02163993|183752833|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.29|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||-0.29|-2.02|
91927000|NCT02163993|183752833|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.27|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||0.27|-1.50|
91927001|NCT01808118|183752846|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91927002|NCT01808118|183752865|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Time to flare analysis showed statistically significant lower risk of flare in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group.||||<0.001
91927003|NCT02369835|183752880|OTHER|||||||0.8872|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.8872
91927004|NCT03041116|183752892|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|=|0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.51||p-value was derived from test of contrast between treatment effects using LSM estimate, adjusted for baseline score and age group from Type III analysis. The test of contrast at Week 24 was considered the primary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.51|-1.69|=0.9115
91927005|NCT03041116|183752894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|=|0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.78||p-value was derived from the test of contrast between treatment effects using the LSM estimate, adjusted for baseline score and age group from the Type III analysis. The test of contrast at week 24 was considered the primary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.78|-0.7|=0.1421
91927006|NCT01984346|183752920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|33.2||A prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Chi-square test|||||33.2|0.1|0.0472
91927007|NCT02042404|183752931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91927008|NCT02042404|183752932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91927009|NCT02042404|183752933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91927010|NCT02042404|183752934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.0281
91927011|NCT03100942|183752936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.6||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|37.6||P-values were obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For the analysis of the difference in response rates, the data with missing response values were imputed by multiple imputation method with logistic regression.|||37.6|-6.3|0.1597
91927012|NCT03100942|183752936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.6||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|38.3||P-values were obtained from CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For the analysis of the difference in response rates, the data with missing response values were imputed by multiple imputation method with logistic regression.|||38.3|-5.1|0.1694
91927013|NCT03100942|183752936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|29.4||P-values were obtained from CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For the analysis of the difference in response rates, the data with missing response values were imputed by multiple imputation method with logistic regression.|||29.4|-13.2|0.3309
91927014|NCT03100942|183752937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.4|||MMRM|||Least Squares (LS) Means, 95% confidence interval (CI), and P-values were obtained from Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||3.4|-0.7|0.2066
91927015|NCT03100942|183752937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.3998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.2|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.2|-2.9|0.3998
91927016|NCT03100942|183752937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.5113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||2.7|-1.4|0.5113
91927017|NCT03100942|183752938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.0|-0.9|0.9446
91927018|NCT03100942|183752938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.3977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.5|-1.3|0.3977
91927019|NCT03100942|183752938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.6|-1.2|0.4966
91927020|NCT03100942|183752939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||2.1|-2.2|0.9564
91927021|NCT03100942|183752939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.2788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.9|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.9|-3.3|0.2788
91927022|NCT03100942|183752939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.3|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||2.3|-1.8|0.8047
91927023|NCT03100942|183752940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.7|-1.1|0.6782
91927024|NCT03100942|183752940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.9|-0.8|0.9171
91927025|NCT03100942|183752940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.4641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.5|-1.2|0.4641
91927026|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||"P- value for social function"|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.047
91927027|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||||||"P- value of  symptom/problem list "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.688
91927028|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||||||"P- value of  effects of kidney disease "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.772
91927029|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||||||"P-value of  burden of kidney disease "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.301
91927030|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||"P-value of  work status "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.250
91927031|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||||||"P-value of  cognitive function "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.895
91927032|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||||||"P-value of  quality of social interaction "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.281
91927033|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value of  sleep "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||1.00
91927034|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value of  social support "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||1.00
91927035|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.943||||||"P-value of  dialysis staff encouragement "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.943
91927036|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value of  overall health "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||1.00
91927037|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||"P-value of  patient satisfaction "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.090
91927038|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||||||"P-value of  physical functioning "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.391
91927039|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||||||"P-value of  role-physical "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.438
91927040|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.424||||||"P-value of  pain "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.424
91927041|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||||||"P-value of  general health "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.169
91927042|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858||||||"P-value of  emotional well-being "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.858
91927043|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||"P-value of  role-emotional "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.156
91767479|NCT00607087|183424090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91767480|NCT00607087|183424091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||1.000
91927044|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||||||"P-value of  energy/fatigue "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.084
91767481|NCT00607087|183424091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.701
91767482|NCT00607087|183424094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted on HbA1c value at the start of the first period||||||0.078
91767483|NCT00607087|183424094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted on HbA1c level at the start of the first period||||||0.938
91767484|NCT02717494|183424099|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 1|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||5|0|
91767485|NCT02717494|183424099|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 1|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|7.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||7|1|
91767486|NCT02717494|183424099|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs up to week 4, Step 1|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|8.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||8|1|
91767487|NCT02717494|183424099|OTHER||% with grade 4+ AEs after week 4, Step 1|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
91767488|NCT02717494|183424099|OTHER||% with grade 4+ AEs after week 4, Step 1|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|5|0|
91927045|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||||||"P-value of  SF-12 physical composite "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.583
91767489|NCT02717494|183424099|OTHER||% with grade 4+ AEs, after week 4 Step 1|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|8.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||8|1|
91767490|NCT02717494|183424099|OTHER||% with Grade 3+ related to treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
91927046|NCT01876732|183752951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||||||"p-value of  SF-12 mental composite "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.358
91927047|NCT04184622|183752974|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference (Net)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.5|-14.6|<0.001
91927048|NCT04184622|183752974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-17.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.8|-20.0|<0.001
91767491|NCT02717494|183424099|OTHER||% with Grade 3+ related to treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
91767492|NCT02717494|183424099|OTHER||% with Grade 3+ related to treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
91767493|NCT02717494|183424100|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 2|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||5|0|
91767494|NCT02717494|183424100|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 2|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||5|0|
91767495|NCT02717494|183424101|OTHER||% infants with grade 3+ AEs|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|28.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||28|14|
91767496|NCT02717494|183424101|OTHER||% infants with grade 3+ AEs|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|27.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|27|14|
91767497|NCT02717494|183424101|OTHER||% infants with grade 3+ AEs|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|27.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||27|14|
91767498|NCT02717494|183424101|OTHER||% infants with congenital anomalies|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|24.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|24|11|
91767499|NCT02717494|183424101|OTHER||% infants with congenital anomalies|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.0|29.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|29|15|
91767500|NCT02717494|183424101|OTHER||% infants with congenital anomalies|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.0|19.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||19|8|
91767501|NCT02717494|183424101|OTHER||% infants with HIV infection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|3|0|
91767502|NCT02717494|183424101|OTHER||% infants with HIV infection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||3|0|
91767503|NCT02717494|183424101|OTHER||% infants with HIV infection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||2|0|
91767504|NCT02717494|183424101|OTHER||% with pneumonia, meningitis or IPD|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|9.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||9|2|
91767505|NCT02717494|183424101|OTHER||% with pneumonia, meningitis or IPD|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|12.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||12|3|
91767506|NCT02717494|183424101|OTHER||% with pneumonia, meningitis or IPD|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|12.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||12|3|
91767507|NCT02717494|183424102|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with \>=2 fold increase at day 28.||||||0.44||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used because 50% of the cells had expected counts less than 5.||||||0.44
91767508|NCT02717494|183424102|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with values \>=0.35ug/mL at day 28.||||||0.49||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used because 50% of the cells had expected counts less than 5.||||||0.49
91927049|NCT04184622|183752974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.0|-21.2|<0.001
91927050|NCT04184622|183752975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.43|33.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.02|17.43|<0.001
91927051|NCT04184622|183752975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.98|115.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||115.39|46.98|<0.001
91927052|NCT04184622|183752975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|75.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.86|119.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||119.03|47.86|<0.001
91927053|NCT04184622|183752976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.1|-11.2|<0.001
91927054|NCT04184622|183752977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.15|25.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.60|14.15|<0.001
91927055|NCT04184622|183752977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.75|61.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||61.45|31.75|<.001
91927056|NCT04184622|183752977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|65.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.94|93.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.77|45.94|<.001
91927057|NCT04184622|183752978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.83|24.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.66|11.83|<0.001
91927058|NCT04184622|183752978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.42|75.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||75.88|35.42|<0.001
91927059|NCT04184622|183752978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.23|98.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.16|45.23|<0.001
91927060|NCT04184622|183752979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.37|74.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||74.22|18.37|<0.001
91927061|NCT04184622|183752979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|109.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|219.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||219.81|54.50|<0.001
91927062|NCT04184622|183752979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|150.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.85|302.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||302.97|74.85|<0.001
91927063|NCT04184622|183752980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.0|-12.3|<0.001
91767509|NCT02717494|183424102|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||99|91|
91927064|NCT04184622|183752980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.9|-17.2|<0.001
91927065|NCT04184622|183752980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.4|-17.7|<0.001
91927066|NCT04184622|183752981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|1.6|<0.001
91927067|NCT04184622|183752982|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-19.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.8|-25.6|<0.001
91927068|NCT04184622|183752983|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.41|-6.40|<0.001
91927069|NCT04184622|183752984|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|7.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.85|9.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.49|5.85|<0.001
91927070|NCT04184622|183752985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-7.9|<0.001
91927071|NCT04184622|183752986|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-41.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-37.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-37.3|-44.9|<0.001
91927072|NCT04184622|183752987|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.1|-15.3|<.0001
91927073|NCT04184622|183752987|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.7|-19.8|<.0001
91927074|NCT04184622|183752987|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.6|-22.8|<.0001
91927075|NCT04184622|183752988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.13|||Regression, Cox|||||0.13|0.03|<0.0001
91927076|NCT04184622|183752989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.21|||Regression, Cox|||||0.21|0.07|<0.0001
91927077|NCT04184622|183752990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.6|-5.5|<0.001
91927078|NCT04184622|183752990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.8|-7.7|<0.001
91927079|NCT04184622|183752990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.3|-8.2|<0.001
91927080|NCT04184622|183752991|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-0.36|<0.001
91927081|NCT04184622|183752991|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-0.45|<0.001
91767510|NCT02717494|183424102|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|94|
91767511|NCT02717494|183424102|OTHER||% with >=2 fold increase|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||12|3|
91767512|NCT02717494|183424102|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=0.35ug/mL at day 28|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|95|
91927082|NCT04184622|183752991|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-0.48|<0.001
91927083|NCT04184622|183752992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-8.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|-7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.20|-9.97|<0.001
91927084|NCT04184622|183752992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-10.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.98|-9.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.21|-11.98|<0.001
91927085|NCT04184622|183752992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-11.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.30|-12.80|<0.001
91927086|NCT04184622|183752993|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-6.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.75|-8.32|<0.001
91927087|NCT04184622|183752994|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.4|-26.1|<0.001
91927088|NCT04184622|183752995|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.2|-16.1|<0.001
91927089|NCT04184622|183752996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.5|-5.0|<0.001
91927090|NCT04184622|183752997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.73|50.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.05|17.73|<.0001
91927091|NCT04184622|183752997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.63|59.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||59.53|20.63|<.0001
91927092|NCT04184622|183752997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.61|102.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||102.34|29.61|<.0001
91927093|NCT04184622|183752998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|9.8|||ANCOVA|||||9.8|5.6|<0.001
91927094|NCT04184622|183752998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|12.8|||ANCOVA|||||12.8|8.6|<0.001
91927095|NCT04184622|183752998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|13.8|||ANCOVA|||||13.8|9.6|<0.001
91927096|NCT02795988|183753002|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard regression model|0.603||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|0.957||1-sided p-value was calculated from Log-rank test stratified by factor tumor stage which used for randomization at screening.|Log Rank|||||0.957|0.380|0.078
91927097|NCT01617681|183753044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|-2.01|||ANCOVA|||||-2.01|-13.86|0.0096
91927098|NCT01617681|183753044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.6531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.20|-5.07|0.6531
91927099|NCT01617681|183753045|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-12.94|0.0030
91927100|NCT01617681|183753045|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-1.77|||ANCOVA|||||-1.77|-8.98|0.0042
91927101|NCT01617681|183753046|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.8|||ANCOVA|||||5.8|0.49|0.411
91927102|NCT01617681|183753046|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.5443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.79|||ANCOVA|||||4.79|0.44|0.5443
91927103|NCT01617681|183753047|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.517||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|0.16|0.2624
91927104|NCT01883440|183753048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model||||||<0.037
91927105|NCT01883440|183753049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the material when all were included, there were a lot of persons with few symptoms in both Groups, which means that a larger study would be needed in order to detect significant differences.||||0.381
91927106|NCT03480282|183753050|OTHER|Because the observations were matched by the patient, we used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, a nonparametric paired test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This was a descriptive feasibility study.|This was an exploratory and descriptive study to learn if it was feasible to provide PCPs with their patients (aged 76-89) with information about their 10-year prognosis and engage in shared decision making around stopping screening. We measured among the 90 patients that the 45 PCPs saw whether their intentions to be screened declined after seeing their PCP.|This was a descriptive feasibility study.|||<0.001
91927107|NCT03480282|183753050|OTHER|This was a descriptive feasibility study.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This was a descriptive feasibility study.|Because the observations were matched by the patient, we used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, a nonparametric paired test|||<0.001
91927108|NCT01405313|183753051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.022
91927109|NCT01405313|183753052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.016
91927110|NCT03848221|183753053|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
91927111|NCT03848221|183753054|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91927112|NCT00109733|183753060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.177
91927113|NCT00109733|183753060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.004
91927114|NCT00109733|183753061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.004
91927115|NCT00109733|183753061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||<0.001
91927116|NCT00109733|183753062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.653
91927117|NCT00109733|183753062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.002
91927118|NCT00109733|183753063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.755
91927119|NCT00109733|183753063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||<0.001
91927120|NCT00109733|183753064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.041
91927121|NCT00109733|183753064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.044
91927122|NCT01234402|183753073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|1.114|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methodology estimated median PFS||1.114|0.429|0.1315
91927123|NCT01234402|183753073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|2.335|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methodology estimated median PFS||2.335|0.938|0.0851
91927124|NCT01234402|183753074|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.833||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.169|||Log Rank|||||3.169|1.060|0.0283
91927125|NCT01234402|183753074|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.468||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|2.501|||Log Rank|||||2.501|0.862|0.1550
91927126|NCT01234402|183753075|OTHER|||||||0.6691|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6691
91927127|NCT01234402|183753075|OTHER|||||||0.1743|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1743
91927128|NCT00506077|183753104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained longitudinal data analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.939
91927129|NCT00506077|183753105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-Value Comments (limit 250 characters): The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.736
91927130|NCT00506077|183753106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.736
91927131|NCT00506077|183753107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.736
91927132|NCT00316303|183753112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91927133|NCT00316303|183753113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91767513|NCT02717494|183424102|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=0.35ug/mL at day 28|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|97|
91927134|NCT00316303|183753114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91927135|NCT00316303|183753115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||0.011
91927136|NCT00316303|183753116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
91927137|NCT04174638|183753130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p value was the value of the total score of the Fluid Control in Hemodialysis Patients Scale.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91927138|NCT04174638|183753131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91927139|NCT04174638|183753132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the knowledge sub-dimension score of Modified Morisky Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||<0.001
91927140|NCT04174638|183753132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the motivation sub-dimension score of Modified Morisky Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||<0.001
91927141|NCT04174638|183753136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the physical functions sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.297
91927142|NCT04174638|183753136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the mental functions sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.742
91927143|NCT04174638|183753136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the burden of kidney disease sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.719
91927144|NCT04174638|183753136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the symptoms/problems sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.063
91927145|NCT04174638|183753136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the effects of kidney disease on daily life sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||<0.001
91927146|NCT00570739|183753139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03||P-Value is for the LS mean difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 4 weeks||-0.03|-0.27|0.0123
91927147|NCT00570739|183753139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-0.03|-0.33|0.0201
91927148|NCT00570739|183753139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 12 weeks||-0.03|-0.36|0.0239
91927149|NCT00570739|183753139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||-0.08|-0.42|0.0046
91927150|NCT00570739|183753140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|1.2|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 4 Weeks||1.2|-11.3|0.1112
91927151|NCT00570739|183753140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.0|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||2.0|-8.6|0.2167
91927152|NCT00570739|183753140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.7269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.9|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 12 weeks||4.9|-7.0|0.7269
91927153|NCT00570739|183753140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||3.4|-8.4|0.4063
91927154|NCT00570739|183753140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks (LOCF)||3.9|-8.0|0.4909
91927155|NCT00570739|183753141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.303||||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.259|1.653||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 4 weeks||1.653|-2.259|0.7606
91927156|NCT00570739|183753141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.015||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.477|0.447||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 weeks||0.447|-2.477|0.1782
91927157|NCT00570739|183753141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.504||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.887|-0.121||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 12 weeks||-0.121|-2.887|0.0332
91927158|NCT00570739|183753141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|2.158||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||2.158|-1.805|0.8610
91927159|NCT00570739|183753141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.599|2.019||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks (LOCF)||2.019|-1.599|0.8196
91927160|NCT00570739|183753142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.034||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 weeks||0.034|-0.340|0.1078
91927161|NCT00570739|183753142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|0.035||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks (LOCF)||0.035|-0.317|0.1146
91927162|NCT00570739|183753143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 weeks||9.4|-9.3|0.9933
91927163|NCT00570739|183753143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|8.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 weeks LOCF||8.3|-10.5|0.8203
91927164|NCT00570739|183753144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|3.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||3.6|-17.5|0.1950
91767514|NCT02717494|183424102|OTHER||% with >=0.35ug/mL at day 28|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.0|97.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||97|88|
91767515|NCT02717494|183424103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.29
91767516|NCT02717494|183424104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91927165|NCT00570739|183753144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|3.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.0|-18.3|0.1583
91927166|NCT00570739|183753145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.0|-16.1|0.3663
91927167|NCT00570739|183753145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|4.7||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.7|-17.9|0.2524
91927168|NCT00570739|183753146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.051||||0.8158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.828|9.929||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||9.929|-7.828|0.8158
91927169|NCT00570739|183753146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.565||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.966|7.836||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||7.836|-10.966|0.7433
91927170|NCT00570739|183753147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215||||0.5161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.867||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.867|-0.437|0.5161
91927171|NCT00570739|183753147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|0.722||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.722|-0.581|0.8319
91927172|NCT00570739|183753148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.61|-13.76|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-13.76|-22.61|<0.0001
91927173|NCT00570739|183753148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|-12.08|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-12.08|-22.09|<0.0001
91927174|NCT00570739|183753148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.96|-11.69|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-11.69|-20.96|<0.0001
91927175|NCT00570739|183753149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-8.81|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-8.81|-15.99|<0.0001
91767517|NCT02717494|183424105|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with \>=2 fold increase at labor and delivery.||||||0.37||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
91927176|NCT00570739|183753149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-5.34|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-5.34|-13.23|<0.0001
91927177|NCT00570739|183753149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.98|-4.67|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Week LOCF||-4.67|-11.98|<0.0001
91927178|NCT00570739|183753150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.63||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|6.7|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||6.70|-1.43|0.2026
91927179|NCT00570739|183753150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|4.75|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.75|-2.12|0.4506
91927180|NCT00570739|183753150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.2609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.97|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.97|-1.35|0.2609
91927181|NCT00570739|183753151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|-6.08|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-6.08|-11.53|<0.0001
91767518|NCT02717494|183424105|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with \>=2 fold increase at 24 weeks post partum.||||||0.21|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used because 50% of the cells had expected counts less than 5.||||||0.21
91767519|NCT02717494|183424106|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||99|91|
91767520|NCT02717494|183424106|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|89|
91767521|NCT02717494|183424107|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|100|94|
91767522|NCT02717494|183424107|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|93|
91927182|NCT00570739|183753151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-3.66|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-3.66|-10.23|<0.0001
91927183|NCT00570739|183753151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.09||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|-3.05|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-3.05|-9.14|0.0001
91927184|NCT00570739|183753152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|13.99||The P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country.|ANCOVA|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimate and corresponding 95% CI was constructed using the method of Moses.||Baseline to 8 weeks||13.99|-0.33|0.0171
91927185|NCT00570739|183753152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.66|25.54||The P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country.|ANCOVA|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimate and corresponding 95% CI was constructed using the method of Moses.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||25.54|9.66|<0.0001
91927186|NCT00570739|183753152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.18|25.74||The P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country.|ANCOVA|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimate and corresponding 95% CI was constructed using the method of Moses.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||25.74|11.18|<0.0001
91927187|NCT00570739|183753153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.62|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 weeks||5.62|0.0|0.0496
91927188|NCT00570739|183753153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.47|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.47|0.82|0.0117
91927189|NCT00570739|183753153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|7.03|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||7.03|1.83|0.0009
91927190|NCT00570739|183753154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|-8.38|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-8.38|-14.74|<0.0001
91927191|NCT00570739|183753154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-5.92|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-5.92|-13.14|0.0001
91927192|NCT00570739|183753154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|-4.59|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-4.59|-11.35|<0.0001
91927193|NCT00570739|183753155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.57||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|19.38|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||19.38|5.76|0.0003
91927194|NCT00570739|183753155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|22.4|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||22.40|6.64|0.0003
91927195|NCT00570739|183753155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.95|22.2|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||22.20|7.95|<0.0001
91927196|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.84||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|13.24||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Very Low Density Lipoprotein (VLDL) Particles||13.24|0.44|0.0363
91927197|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.39||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|12.31||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Very Low Density Lipoprotein (VLDL) Particles||12.31|0.46|0.0347
91927198|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.81||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.81|0.80|0.0028
91927199|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.73||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.73|0.96|0.0010
91927200|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.13||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|11.21||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Particles||11.21|3.10|0.0006
91927201|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|10.91||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Particles||10.91|3.35|0.0003
91927202|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|1.29||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||1.29|-7.04|0.1750
91927203|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||0.63|-7.10|0.1007
91767523|NCT02717494|183424108|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 16|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|96|
91767524|NCT02717494|183424108|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 16|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|93|
91767525|NCT02717494|183424108|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 16|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|99|91|
91767526|NCT02717494|183424108|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 24|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|96|
91927204|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-199.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.9|-125.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-125.8|-272.9|<0.0001
91927205|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-186.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-255.9|-116.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-116.3|-255.9|0.0001
91927206|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-0.2||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein Particles||-0.2|-23.3|0.0466
91927207|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|0.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.3|-21.8|0.0570
91927208|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-77.7||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.3|-35.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||-35.0|-120.3|0.0004
91767527|NCT02717494|183424108|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 24|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|95|
91927209|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.2|-29.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||-29.3|-109.2|0.0007
91927210|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-109.9||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.8|-23.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||-23.9|-195.8|0.0124
91927211|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-106.8||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.6|-26.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||-26.0|-187.6|0.0098
91927212|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|3.2||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||3.2|-35.6|0.1020
91767528|NCT02717494|183424108|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 24|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|93|
91767529|NCT01774799|183424115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.69||||||||1.69|0.69|
91767530|NCT01774799|183424116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.2||||||||2.20|0.66|
91927213|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4||||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|3.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||3.0|-33.8|0.0997
91927214|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93.7||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.6|-25.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||-25.9|-161.6|0.0069
91927215|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.4||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.2|-27.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||-27.5|-155.2|0.0052
91927216|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.90|-0.01|0.0524
91927217|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.91||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.91|0.10|0.0301
91927218|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.89||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||0.89|0.02|0.0416
91767531|NCT01774799|183424117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.58||||||||1.58|0.58|
91767532|NCT01774799|183424118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.82||||||||2.82|1.13|
91767533|NCT01774799|183424119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
91767534|NCT05051579|183424135|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.2|-8.9|<0.001
91767535|NCT05051579|183424135|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.9|-11.5|<0.001
91767536|NCT05051579|183424135|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.0|-12.4|<0.001
91767537|NCT05051579|183424135|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.4|-12.7|<0.001
91767538|NCT05051579|183424136|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.2|-9.9|<0.001
91767539|NCT05051579|183424136|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.3|-12.9|<0.001
91927219|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.88||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||0.88|0.04|0.0333
91927220|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.44||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.44|-0.05|0.0693
91927221|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.56||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.56|0.14|0.0187
91927222|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.75||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.75|-1.34|0.5765
91927223|NCT00570739|183753156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment group|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.63|-1.35|0.4762
91927224|NCT00570739|183753157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21||||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|4.57||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||4.57|-0.14|0.0652
91927225|NCT00570739|183753157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.92||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||4.92|0.57|0.0137
91927226|NCT00570739|183753157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Low Density Lipoprotien Particles||0.09|-0.20|0.4726
91927227|NCT00570739|183753157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.5715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.10|-0.17|0.5715
91927228|NCT00570739|183753157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.15||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.15|0.02|0.0083
91927229|NCT00570739|183753157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.15|0.03|0.0022
91927230|NCT00570739|183753158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|43.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||43.5|8.6|0.0036
91927231|NCT00570739|183753158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|43.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||43.3|11.2|0.0010
91927232|NCT00570739|183753159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|47.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||47.0|12.5|0.0008
91927233|NCT00570739|183753159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|46.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||46.6|14.9|0.0002
91927234|NCT00570739|183753160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.3|0.9|0.0033
91927235|NCT00570739|183753160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.4|1.2|0.0008
91927236|NCT00570739|183753161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.09||P-Value is for the LS mean difference between the treatment groups|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||||-0.09|-0.44|0.0035
91927237|NCT00570739|183753162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5848||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country.||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||0.5848
91767540|NCT05051579|183424136|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.4|-13.8|<0.001
91767541|NCT05051579|183424136|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.6|-15.0|<0.001
91767542|NCT05051579|183424137|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.4|-9.3|<0.001
91767543|NCT05051579|183424137|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.8|-12.5|<0.001
91767544|NCT05051579|183424137|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.5|-13.1|<0.001
91767545|NCT05051579|183424137|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.9|-13.5|<0.001
91927238|NCT00570739|183753162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8147||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.8147
91927239|NCT00570739|183753162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4957||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.4957
91927240|NCT00570739|183753162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0467||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0467
91927241|NCT00570739|183753162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0589
91927242|NCT00570739|183753162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.10|1.38|0.0049
91927243|NCT00570739|183753162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.76|1.25|0.0092
91927244|NCT00570739|183753163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Startified by country||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||0.0008
91927245|NCT00570739|183753163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.0280
91927246|NCT00570739|183753163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0414||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.0414
91927247|NCT00570739|183753163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0840
91927248|NCT00570739|183753163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0589
91927249|NCT00570739|183753163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||3.96|1.21|0.0095
91927250|NCT00570739|183753163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.60|1.20|0.0088
91927251|NCT00570739|183753164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||<0.0001
91927252|NCT00570739|183753164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||<0.0001
91927253|NCT00570739|183753164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||<0.0001
91927254|NCT00570739|183753164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|11.23|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||11.23|2.78|<0.0001
91927255|NCT00570739|183753164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|9.1|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||9.10|2.53|<0.0001
91927256|NCT00570739|183753165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.0004
91927257|NCT00570739|183753165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0326||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0326
91927258|NCT00570739|183753165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0157
91927259|NCT00570739|183753165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|7.07|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||7.07|0.88|0.0870
91927260|NCT00570739|183753165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.00439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|7.94|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||7.94|1.03|0.00439
91927261|NCT00570739|183753166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.72||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.72|-1.32|0.7959
91927262|NCT00570739|183753166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.8371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.57||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.57|-1.28|0.8371
91927263|NCT00570739|183753167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0033||||0.4584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0122|0.0055||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.0055|-0.0122|0.4584
91927264|NCT00570739|183753167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0035||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0118|0.0048||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.0048|-0.0118|0.4039
91927265|NCT00570739|183753168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.07|-10.11||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||||-10.11|-21.07|<0.0001
91927266|NCT00570739|183753169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.46||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.53|6.62||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.62|-27.53|0.2289
91927267|NCT00570739|183753169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.22|6.14||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||6.14|-29.22|0.1997
91927268|NCT00570739|183753170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.81||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|23.05||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Triglycerides||23.05|2.57|0.0144
91927269|NCT00570739|183753170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.12||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.63|23.61||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Triglycerides||23.61|4.63|0.0037
91927270|NCT00570739|183753170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|39.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Very Low Density Lipoprotein Triglycerides||39.00|6.59|0.0060
91927271|NCT00570739|183753170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.72||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.71|39.73||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Very Low Density Lipoprotein Triglycerides||39.73|9.71|0.0013
91927272|NCT00570739|183753170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|13.0|||ANCOVA|||Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||13.00|3.71|0.0005
91927273|NCT00570739|183753170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|13.11||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||13.11|4.27|0.0001
91927274|NCT00570739|183753171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.34||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.34|0.63|0.8804
91927275|NCT00570739|183753171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.6||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||2.60|0.73|0.5525
91767546|NCT05051579|183424138|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-10.4|<0.001
91767547|NCT05051579|183424138|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-14.2|<0.001
91767548|NCT05051579|183424138|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.0|-14.7|<0.001
91927276|NCT00570739|183753171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5648||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.5648
91927277|NCT00570739|183753171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.3170
91927278|NCT00570739|183753172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.06||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.06|0.66|0.9008
91927279|NCT00570739|183753172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.9035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.37||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.37|0.60|0.9035
91927280|NCT00570739|183753172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2874||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2874
91927281|NCT00570739|183753172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4344||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.4344
91927282|NCT00570739|183753173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.61|-14.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-14.63|-24.61|<0.0001
91927283|NCT00570739|183753173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.24|-11.69||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-11.69|-23.24|<0.0001
91927284|NCT00570739|183753174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|-8.69||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-8.69|-16.26|<0.0001
91927285|NCT00570739|183753174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.15|-5.41||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-5.41|-15.15|<0.0001
91927286|NCT00570739|183753174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|-4.42||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-4.42|-13.69|0.0002
91927287|NCT00570739|183753175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.96||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.66||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||7.66|0.27|0.0357
91927288|NCT00570739|183753175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|3.31||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||3.31|-5.01|0.6878
91927289|NCT00570739|183753175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|3.36||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.36|-4.37|0.7972
91927290|NCT00570739|183753176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|-5.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-5.80|-12.02|<0.0001
91927291|NCT00570739|183753176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-4.26||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-4.26|-12.25|<0.0001
91927292|NCT00570739|183753176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.23||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.03|-3.44||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-3.44|-11.03|0.0002
91927293|NCT00570739|183753177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.57||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||6.57|0.43|0.0257
91927294|NCT00570739|183753177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13||||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|5.58||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||5.58|-1.32|0.2238
91767549|NCT05051579|183424138|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.2|-15.8|<0.001
91767550|NCT05051579|183424139|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-7.2|0.002
91767551|NCT05051579|183424139|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.4|-8.0|<0.001
91767552|NCT05051579|183424139|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.8|-9.2|<0.001
91767553|NCT05051579|183424139|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-11.3|<0.001
91767554|NCT05051579|183424140|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.4|-8.8|<0.001
91767555|NCT05051579|183424140|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.0|-10.3|<0.001
91767556|NCT05051579|183424140|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-9.7|<0.001
91767557|NCT05051579|183424140|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.6|-12.7|<0.001
91767558|NCT05051579|183424141|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-3.2|<0.001
91767559|NCT05051579|183424141|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.6|-4.3|<0.001
91767560|NCT05051579|183424141|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-4.6|<0.001
91767561|NCT05051579|183424141|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.1|-4.7|<0.001
91767562|NCT05051579|183424142|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-3.6|<0.001
91767563|NCT05051579|183424142|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.8|-4.8|<0.001
91767564|NCT05051579|183424142|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.2|-5.2|<0.001
91767565|NCT05051579|183424142|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-5.6|<0.001
91767566|NCT05051579|183424143|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|27.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.44|3.61|<0.001
91767567|NCT05051579|183424143|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|96.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||96.01|8.15|<0.001
91767568|NCT05051579|183424143|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.71|85.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||85.91|8.71|<0.001
91927295|NCT00570739|183753177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.2763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|4.99||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.99|-1.44|0.2763
91927296|NCT00570739|183753178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|-5.98||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-5.98|-13.68|<0.0001
91927297|NCT00570739|183753178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.67||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-3.94||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-3.94|-13.40|0.0004
91927298|NCT00570739|183753178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.68||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-3.68|-12.50|0.0004
91927299|NCT00570739|183753179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.87|21.74||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||21.74|5.87|0.0007
91927300|NCT00570739|183753179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.58||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|24.99||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||24.99|-1.83|0.0901
91927301|NCT00570739|183753179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|22.62||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||22.62|-1.71|0.0918
91927302|NCT00570739|183753180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|15.78||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.27|25.83||P-Value is from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 8 Weeks||25.83|6.27|0.0005
91927303|NCT00570739|183753180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.07||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|26.02||P-Value is from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks||26.02|6.33|0.0011
91927304|NCT00570739|183753180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.33||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|23.84||P-Value is from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||23.84|5.11|0.0009
91927305|NCT00570739|183753181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.29||||0.6523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|10.32||P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks||10.32|-17.50|0.6523
91927306|NCT00570739|183753181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.38||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|8.77||P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||8.77|-17.51|0.3934
91767569|NCT05051579|183424143|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|72.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.77|7.65|<0.001
91811095|NCT01313767|183497354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in elbow flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.0429
91811096|NCT01313767|183497355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in finger flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.6954
91811097|NCT01313767|183497355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.6024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in finger flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.6024
91811098|NCT01313767|183497355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9316|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in finger flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.9316
91767570|NCT05051579|183424144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|114.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||114.40|3.47|<0.001
91767571|NCT05051579|183424144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.95|224.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||224.83|6.95|<0.001
91767572|NCT05051579|183424144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|74.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.16|427.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||427.18|13.16|<0.001
91767573|NCT05051579|183424144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.62|413.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||413.21|12.62|<0.001
91811099|NCT01313767|183497356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in thumb flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.2284
91811100|NCT01313767|183497356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in thumb flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.3221
91927307|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|8.84||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total VLDL Particles||8.84|-8.66|0.9838
91927308|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.7157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|9.79||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total VLDL Particles||9.79|-6.73|0.7157
91927309|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.63|1.25|<0.0001
91927310|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.51||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.51|1.27|<0.0001
91927311|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.04||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|10.24||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Chylomicron Particles||10.24|-0.17|0.0577
91927312|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.24||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|10.22||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Chylomicron Particles||10.22|0.27|0.0390
91927313|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.49||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-2.37||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||-2.37|-12.61|0.0044
91927314|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|-1.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||-1.40|-11.09|0.0118
91927315|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.6||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-209.9|-11.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-11.3|-209.9|0.0293
91927316|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-112.7||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-207.6|-17.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-17.8|-207.6|0.0202
91927317|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.9629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|14.5|||ANCOVA|||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||14.5|-15.2|0.9629
91927318|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|11.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||11.9|-16.5|0.7485
91767574|NCT05051579|183424145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|20.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.92|2.90|<0.001
91767575|NCT05051579|183424145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.49|83.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.91|7.49|<0.001
91767576|NCT05051579|183424145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.17|147.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||147.86|8.17|<0.001
91767577|NCT05051579|183424145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|96.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||96.29|8.15|<0.001
91767578|NCT05051579|183424146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|26.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.45|2.59|<0.001
91767579|NCT05051579|183424146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|50.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.68|4.83|<0.001
91767580|NCT05051579|183424146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.39|88.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||88.38|8.39|<0.001
91767581|NCT05051579|183424146|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|66.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||66.17|6.59|<0.001
91767582|NCT00479713|183424154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<=|0.001||95.0|-14.1|-7.33|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center||||-7.33|-14.10|<=0.001
91767583|NCT00479713|183424155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<=|0.001||95.0|1.5|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, stratum and baseline LDL-C (continuous)||Percentage of Participants who Attained Target LDL-C Goal of \< 100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L)||3.0|1.5|<=0.001
91767584|NCT00479713|183424155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<=|0.001||95.0|1.8|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, stratum and baseline LDL-C (continuous)||Percentage of Participants who Attained Target LDL-C Goal of \< 70 mg/dL (1.81 mmol/L)||4.4|1.8|<=0.001
91767585|NCT00479713|183424156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<=|0.001||95.0|-9.56|-4.84|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center||||-4.84|-9.56|<=0.001
91767586|NCT00479713|183424157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.06||||0.056||95.0|-9.56|-0.3|||Nonparametric ANOVA|ANOVA model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.|The median difference between treatments is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift with a corresponding distribution-free Confidence Interval (CI) based on Wilcoxon's rank.|||-0.30|-9.56|0.056
91767587|NCT00479713|183424158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.433||95.0|-3.21|1.38|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||1.38|-3.21|0.433
91767588|NCT00479713|183424159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<=|0.001||95.0|-12.5|-6.31|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||-6.31|-12.50|<=0.001
91927319|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.6||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.7|12.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||12.5|-139.7|0.1007
91927320|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.8||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.6|6.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||6.9|-134.6|0.0768
91927321|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.7||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.7|67.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||67.3|-162.7|0.4143
91927322|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.9||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.1|63.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||63.3|-157.1|0.4020
91927323|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.6378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|17.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||17.9|-29.1|0.6378
91927324|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|15.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||15.6|-29.1|0.5528
91927325|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.0||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.8|50.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||50.8|-134.8|0.3730
91927326|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.0|49.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||49.0|-129.0|0.3764
91927327|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.17||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.17|-1.20|0.9807
91927328|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.03|-1.23|0.8615
91927329|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.14||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||1.14|0.04|0.0364
91927330|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.08||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||1.08|0.04|0.0340
91927331|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.07||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.07|-0.68|0.6587
91927332|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.00|-0.63|0.6554
91927333|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.42||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.42|-2.06|0.1957
91811101|NCT01313767|183497356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.593|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in thumb flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.5930
91927334|NCT00570739|183753182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.34||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.34|-2.03|0.1622
91927335|NCT00570739|183753183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|8.48||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||8.48|3.51|<0.0001
91927336|NCT00570739|183753183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||7.63|3.00|<0.0001
91927337|NCT00570739|183753183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.05|-0.30|0.1742
91927338|NCT00570739|183753183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.06|-0.28|0.1870
91927339|NCT00570739|183753183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.16||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.16|0.03|0.0063
91927340|NCT00570739|183753183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.16||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.16|0.04|0.0020
91927341|NCT00570739|183753184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|39.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated Total Triglycerides||39.9|8.9|0.0022
91927342|NCT00570739|183753184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.3||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|39.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated Total Triglycerides||39.1|9.6|0.0013
91927343|NCT00570739|183753184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|41.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes: Calculated Very Low Density Triglycerides||41.0|11.5|0.0006
91927344|NCT00570739|183753184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|40.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes: Calculated Very Low Density Triglycerides||40.6|12.5|0.0003
91927345|NCT00570739|183753184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||3.5|-0.4|0.1257
91927346|NCT00570739|183753184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||3.3|-0.3|0.1054
91927347|NCT00570739|183753185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 4 Weeks||0.03|-0.11|0.2971
91927348|NCT00570739|183753185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||0.03|-0.11|0.2567
91927349|NCT00570739|183753185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 12 Weeks||0.01|-0.13|0.1081
91927350|NCT00570739|183753185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.01|-0.17|0.0790
91927351|NCT00570739|183753185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-0.01|-0.18|0.0206
91767589|NCT00479713|183424160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<=|0.001||95.0|-13.49|-5.69|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||-5.69|-13.49|<=0.001
91767590|NCT00479713|183424161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<=|0.001||95.0|-9.07|-3.43|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||-3.43|-9.07|<=0.001
91767591|NCT00479713|183424162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<=|0.001||95.0|-10.91|-5.3|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center||||-5.30|-10.91|<=0.001
91767592|NCT00479713|183424163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67||||0.172||95.0|-16.67|2.87|||Nonparametric ANOVA|ANOVA model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center|The median difference between treatments is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank|||2.87|-16.67|0.172
91767593|NCT05274958|183424178|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient measures for both groups were first summarized descriptively with means and standard deviations. To compare the two groups, a t-test was used.||||<0.05
91767594|NCT02679287|183424225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in percentage of time \<70 mg/dL in SAP vs. evening-overnight CLC session. Change in HbA1c during study sessions was used as a covariate of the model.||2.4|1.2|<0.0001
91767595|NCT03628976|183424251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0096|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0096
91767596|NCT03628976|183424252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.764
91767597|NCT03628976|183424253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.446
91767598|NCT00851786|183424255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.69||The p-value was adjusted for baseline gpELISA titer, measurement time (week 6 vs. week 12), CD4 stratum and age.|Linear mixed effect model|Natural log transformed gpELISA titers after one or two doses of vaccine was modeled.||Null hypothesis: VZV antibody titer measured by gpELISA, after 1 or 2 doses of ZOSTAVAX/placebo is the same between ZOSTAVAX arm and the placebo arm||0.69|0.45|<.001
91767599|NCT01405768|183424282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.13
91767600|NCT01405768|183424284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.13
91767601|NCT00599872|183424292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.418|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.48|-1.15|<0.05
91767602|NCT00599872|183424293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-1.72|<0.05
91927352|NCT00570739|183753186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 4 Weeks||-1.8|-6.8|0.0009
91927353|NCT00570739|183753186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||0.5|-4.5|0.1184
91927354|NCT00570739|183753186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 12 Weeks||0.1|-5.8|0.0615
91927355|NCT00570739|183753186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.6|-7.2|0.3617
91927356|NCT00570739|183753186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.7||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.7|-7.0|0.2372
91927357|NCT00570739|183753187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.921||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|2.663||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 4 Weeks||2.663|-0.821|0.2982
91927358|NCT00570739|183753187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.695||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|1.848||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||1.848|-0.458|0.2361
91927359|NCT00570739|183753187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.218||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.388|-0.049|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 12 Weeks||-0.049|-2.388|0.0413
91927360|NCT00570739|183753187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.434||||0.7858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.583|2.715|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.715|-3.583|0.7858
91927361|NCT00570739|183753187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.493||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.321|2.335|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||2.335|-3.321|0.7314
91927362|NCT00570739|183753188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.207||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.207|-0.385|0.5530
91927363|NCT00570739|183753188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.105||||0.4554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.172||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.172|-0.383|0.4554
91927364|NCT00570739|183753189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||8.9|-10.7|0.8583
91927365|NCT00570739|183753189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.7975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|8.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||8.1|-10.5|0.7975
91767603|NCT00387881|183424303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.0|||<|0.001||95.0|10.0|25.0||Endpoints were co-primary and both needed to have p-value of \<0.05 to be considered indicative of efficacy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis for Migraine Pain-Free at 2 hours Post-Dose|Pain-Free (2 hours)||25|10|<0.001
91767604|NCT00387881|183424303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|15.0|||<|0.001||95.0|8.0|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis for Sustained Pain Free from 2-24 hours Post-dose|Sustained Pain-Free (2-24 hours)||22|8|<0.001
91767605|NCT00453154|183424313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using a 1-sided significance level of 0.15, the study has approximately 89% power to reject the null hypothesis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|70.0|1.27|2.08||All randomization was done using a permuted-block scheme with a block size of 6, stratified by combination chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin) and number of combination chemotherapy cycles (\< 6 vs 6 cycles)|Log Rank|||||2.08|1.27|0.02
91767606|NCT03629886|183424326|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100 Person-years|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.23||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=1963). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.23|0.09|
91811102|NCT01313767|183497357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.1585|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in wrist flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1585
91811103|NCT01313767|183497357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0028||||0.9596|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in wrist flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.9596
91811104|NCT01313767|183497357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0304||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in wrist flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.6164
91811105|NCT01313767|183497358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.098||||0.1802|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in elbow flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1802
91811106|NCT01313767|183497358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1164||||0.1176|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in elbow flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1176
91927366|NCT00570739|183753190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.233||95.0|-18.5|4.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.5|-18.5|0.2330
91927367|NCT00570739|183753190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|2.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||2.8|-19.2|0.1412
91927368|NCT00570739|183753191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|10.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||10.8|-13.7|0.8192
91927369|NCT00570739|183753191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.7513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.7||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||9.7|-13.5|0.7513
91927370|NCT00570739|183753192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.91||||0.4301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.156|10.336||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||10.336|-24.156|0.4301
91927371|NCT00570739|183753192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17||||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.661|11.321||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||11.321|-21.661|0.5369
91927372|NCT00570739|183753193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.151||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|0.765||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.765|-1.068|0.7447
91927373|NCT00570739|183753193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.853|0.911||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.911|-0.853|0.9476
91927374|NCT00570739|183753194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||<0.0001
91927375|NCT00570739|183753194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.58||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||13.58|2.06|0.0018
91927376|NCT00570739|183753194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|10.54||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||10.54|1.89|0.0019
91927377|NCT00570739|183753194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0005
91927378|NCT00570739|183753194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0007
91927379|NCT00570739|183753195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.0104
91767607|NCT03629886|183424326|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=1917). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.05|0.73|
91811107|NCT01313767|183497358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1138||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in elbow flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1252
91811108|NCT01313767|183497359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.098||||0.3431|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in finger flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.3431
91927380|NCT00570739|183753195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|9.39||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||9.39|0.53|0.2224
91927381|NCT00570739|183753195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|9.33||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||9.33|0.53|0.1990
91927382|NCT00570739|183753195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2778||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2778
91927383|NCT00570739|183753195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2785||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.2785
91927384|NCT00570739|183753196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.5353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.48||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.48|-2.84|0.5353
91927385|NCT00570739|183753196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.5475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.40|-2.64|0.5475
91927386|NCT00570739|183753197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0116||||0.0678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0241|0.0009||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.0009|-0.0241|0.0678
91927387|NCT00570739|183753197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0112||||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0228|0.0004||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.0004|-0.0228|0.0585
91927388|NCT00570739|183753198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.64|12.64||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||12.64|-18.64|0.7051
91927389|NCT00570739|183753198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.72|10.13||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||10.13|-19.72|0.5267
91927390|NCT00570739|183753199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.83||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.83|0.40|0.5882
91927391|NCT00570739|183753199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.96||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.96|0.44|0.7098
91927392|NCT00570739|183753199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6835||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.6835
91927393|NCT00570739|183753199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8461||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.8461
91927394|NCT00570739|183753200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2079||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||0.2079
91927395|NCT00570739|183753200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4053||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.4053
91927396|NCT00570739|183753200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5752||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.5752
91927397|NCT00570739|183753200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.29||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.29|0.25|0.7994
91927398|NCT00570739|183753200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.03||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.03|0.32|0.9960
91927399|NCT00570739|183753200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7783||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.7783
91927400|NCT00570739|183753200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9774||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.9774
91927401|NCT00570739|183753201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||<0.0001
91767608|NCT03629886|183424326|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.15||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2356). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.15|0.05|
91811109|NCT01313767|183497359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1097||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in finger flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test||||0.1329
91927402|NCT00570739|183753201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4058||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.4058
91927403|NCT00570739|183753201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.0254
91927404|NCT00570739|183753201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.55||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||3.55|0.74|0.1499
91927405|NCT00570739|183753201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.45||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.45|0.97|0.0420
91927406|NCT00570739|183753201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2240
91927407|NCT00570739|183753201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0593||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0593
91927408|NCT00570739|183753202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.4||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.40|0.31|0.4794
91927409|NCT00570739|183753202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.55||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.55|0.37|0.6667
91927410|NCT00570739|183753202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2768||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2768
91927411|NCT00570739|183753202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4395||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.4395
91927412|NCT00570739|183753203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.64||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.64|0.89|0.1375
91927413|NCT00570739|183753203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||5.82|0.85|0.1996
91927414|NCT00570739|183753203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0829||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0829
91927415|NCT00570739|183753203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1037||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.1037
91927416|NCT00739297|183753207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.04||||||95.0|-0.01|0.08|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.08|-0.01|
91927417|NCT00739297|183753207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.1||||||95.0|0.04|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|0.04|
91927418|NCT00739297|183753207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.06||||||95.0|0.02|0.11|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.11|0.02|
91927419|NCT00739297|183753207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||||95.0|-0.01|0.11|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.11|-0.01|
91927420|NCT00739297|183753207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||||95.0|0.04|0.13|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.13|0.04|
91927421|NCT00739297|183753208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.19||||||95.0|0.04|0.34|||||Repeated measures model with terms for treatment (Albuterol/Placebo), dose, treatment-by-dose interaction and baseline FEV1|||0.34|0.04|
91927422|NCT00739297|183753209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.06||||||95.0|-0.01|0.12|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.12|-0.01|
91927423|NCT00739297|183753209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.07||||||95.0|0.0|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|-0.00|
91927424|NCT00739297|183753209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||||95.0|-0.01|0.11|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.11|-0.01|
91927425|NCT00739297|183753209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.06||||||95.0|-0.03|0.14|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.14|-0.03|
91927426|NCT00739297|183753209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||||95.0|0.01|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|0.01|
91927427|NCT00739297|183753210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.04||||||95.0|-0.03|0.1|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.10|-0.03|
91927428|NCT00739297|183753210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.09||||||95.0|0.01|0.17|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.17|0.01|
91927429|NCT00739297|183753210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||||95.0|-0.01|0.1|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.10|-0.01|
91927430|NCT00739297|183753210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.07||||||95.0|-0.02|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|-0.02|
91927431|NCT00739297|183753210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||||95.0|0.01|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|0.01|
91927432|NCT01400971|183753211|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92||||||Public insurance||0.92|0.54|
91811110|NCT01313767|183497359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0853||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in finger flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test||||0.2611
91811111|NCT01313767|183497360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0654||||0.4623|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in thumb flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.4623
91927433|NCT01400971|183753211|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.46||||||Diabetes support service available||2.46|1.50|
91927434|NCT01400971|183753211|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.49||||||Baseline HbA1c \> 7.80 (reference:HbA1c≤7.80 median)||2.49|1.38|
91927435|NCT01400971|183753211|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.07||||||Baseline HbA1c missing (reference:HbA1c≤7.80 median)||2.07|1.15|
91927436|NCT01400971|183753211|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.88||||||Diabetes duration \> 11 years||1.88|1.13|
91927437|NCT01400971|183753211|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||Age (per year increase)||1.00|0.97|
91927438|NCT01400971|183753211|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|33.41||||||Baseline insulin therapy: combination||33.41|3.30|
91927439|NCT01400971|183753211|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|18.37||||||Baseline insulin therapy: prandial only||18.37|1.77|
91927440|NCT01400971|183753211|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|5.73||||||Baseline insulin therapy: pre-mixed only||5.73|3.02|
91927441|NCT01400971|183753211|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy. IPC ranges from 1-5 with higher scores indicating more discrimination.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65||||||Discrimination domain of the IPC||0.65|0.39|
91927442|NCT01400971|183753211|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy. Diabetes Distress Scale ranges from 1-6 with higher scores indicating more distress.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95||||||Diabetes Distress Scale total score \> 2||0.95|0.57|
91927443|NCT01729598|183753216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91927444|NCT01729598|183753217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91927445|NCT01729598|183753218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91927446|NCT01729598|183753219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91927447|NCT01041573|183753220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.641
91927448|NCT01041573|183753220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91927449|NCT01323673|183753236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center was used for analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.151
91927450|NCT05137041|183753251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91927451|NCT05137041|183753253|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|-0.137|||ANCOVA|The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).||||-0.137|-0.817|0.015
91927452|NCT05137041|183753254|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.661|0.828||The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|ANCOVA|||||0.828|-32.661|0.103
91927453|NCT05137041|183753255|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.581||The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|ANCOVA|||||1.581|0.511|<0.001
91927454|NCT05137041|183753256|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.976|0.25||The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|ANCOVA|||||0.250|-2.976|0.121
91927455|NCT05137041|183753257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564||||||The p-value is adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|Log Rank|||||||0.564
91927456|NCT05137041|183753258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.289
91927457|NCT05137041|183753259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1 Evening||||0.001
91927458|NCT05137041|183753259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2 Morning||||0.035
91927459|NCT05137041|183753259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2 Evening||||0.004
91927460|NCT05137041|183753259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3 Morning||||0.007
91927461|NCT05137041|183753259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3 Evening||||0.005
91927462|NCT05137041|183753259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4 Morning||||0.001
91927463|NCT05137041|183753259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4 Evening||||0.007
91811112|NCT01313767|183497360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1194||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in thumb flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.2007
91927464|NCT05137041|183753259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5 Morning||||0.096
91927465|NCT05137041|183753259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||||0.015
91927466|NCT05137041|183753260|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 1 Evening||||<0.001
91927467|NCT05137041|183753260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 2 Morning||||0.001
91927468|NCT05137041|183753260|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 2 Evening||||<0.001
91927469|NCT05137041|183753260|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 3 Morning||||<0.001
91927470|NCT05137041|183753260|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 3 Evening||||<0.001
91927471|NCT05137041|183753260|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 4 Morning||||<0.001
91927472|NCT05137041|183753260|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 4 Evening||||<0.001
91927473|NCT05137041|183753260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 5 Morning||||0.024
91927474|NCT05137041|183753260|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 5||||<0.001
91927475|NCT05137041|183753261|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|0.903|||ANCOVA|||||0.903|0.415|<0.001
91927476|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 clearance beta 2 microglobilin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||<0.001
91927477|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p\<0.05 is considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||<0.001
91927478|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.178||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 clearance beta 2 microglobulin Revaclear vs ELISIO..||||=0.178
91927479|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.016
91927480|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.033||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.033
91927481|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance of myoglobin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.935
91927482|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs Revaclaer.||||=0.463
91927483|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.392
91927484|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.597|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance urea nitrogen Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.597
91927485|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.162
91927486|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||0.186
91927487|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY|No Significant difference.||||||0.624|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Urea nitrogen clearance Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||0.624
91927488|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Urea nitrogen clearance Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||0.732
91927489|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Urea Nitrogen clearance Revaclear vs Optiflux.||||0.427
91767609|NCT03629886|183424326|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.56||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2357). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.56|0.35|
91927490|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Creatinine clearance Optiflux vs Revaclear..||||0.379
91927491|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Creatinine clearance Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||0.318
91927492|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Creatinine clearance Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.914
91927493|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.623|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Phosphate clearance Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.623
91927494|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.403|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Phosphate clearance Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.403
91927495|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Phosphate clearance Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.850
91927496|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of creatinine Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.815
91927497|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of Phosphate Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.367
91927498|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of phosphate Optiflux vs Elisio.||||=0.821
91927499|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.364|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance phosphate Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.364
91927500|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||<0.001
91927501|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||<0.001
91927502|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.254|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Session 2 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.254
91927503|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.079
91927504|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.086
91927505|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.888|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance myoglobin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.888
91927506|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.663||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.663
91927507|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.391
91927508|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of urea nitrogen Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.214
91927509|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.918
91927510|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.394
91927511|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of creatinine Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.211
91927512|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of phosphate Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.222
91811113|NCT01313767|183497360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0172||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in thumb flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.8553
91811114|NCT01313767|183497361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.604|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of hygiene was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.6040
91927513|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearances of phosphate Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.162
91927514|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||<0.001
91927515|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.025||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearances of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.025
91927516|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.903|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.903
91927517|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearances of myoglobin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.003
91927518|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||<0.001
91811115|NCT01313767|183497361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of hygiene was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.3233
91927519|NCT02433210|183753262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of myoglobin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.472
91927520|NCT02433210|183753263|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.216||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.216
91927521|NCT02433210|183753263|SUPERIORITY|No significant difference|||||=|0.216||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.216
91927522|NCT02433210|183753263|SUPERIORITY|No significant difference|||||=|0.952||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.952
91927523|NCT02433210|183753263|SUPERIORITY|No Significant difference|||||=|0.714||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.714
91927524|NCT02433210|183753263|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.156||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.156
91927525|NCT02433210|183753263|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.427||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.427
91927526|NCT02433210|183753263|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.487||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.487
91927527|NCT02433210|183753263|SUPERIORITY|Failed normality test|||||=|0.111||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The difference in the median values between the two groups is not \> enough to exclude that the difference is due to random sampling variability||No significant difference||||=0.111
91927528|NCT02433210|183753263|SUPERIORITY|Failed normality test|||||=|0.198||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.198
91767610|NCT03629886|183424326|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100 Person-years|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.27||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2534). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.27|0.14|
91767611|NCT03629886|183424326|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100 Person-years|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2547). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.18|0.88|
91811116|NCT01313767|183497361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of hygiene was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.4469
91811117|NCT01313767|183497362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of dressing was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.1220
91811118|NCT01313767|183497362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of dressing was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.1016
91811119|NCT01313767|183497362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of dressing was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.2235
91927529|NCT02433210|183753263|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Showed a significant difference||||=0.007
91927530|NCT02433210|183753263|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.202||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.202
91927531|NCT02433210|183753263|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.54||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.540
91927532|NCT02433210|183753264|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.204
91811120|NCT01313767|183497363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of limb position was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.5030
91927533|NCT02433210|183753264|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.234
91927534|NCT02433210|183753264|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.015||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the \<0.050 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either then the non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test was used.||||||=0.015
91811121|NCT01313767|183497363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6934|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of limb position was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.6934
91927535|NCT02433210|183753264|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.413||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.413
91927536|NCT02433210|183753264|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.314||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.314
91927537|NCT02433210|183753264|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.769||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.769
91927538|NCT02433210|183753265|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.376
91927539|NCT02433210|183753265|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||1.000
91927540|NCT02433210|183753265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||0.713
91927541|NCT02433210|183753265|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.424
91927542|NCT02433210|183753265|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.230
91927543|NCT02433210|183753265|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.678
91927544|NCT02433210|183753265|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.643|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.643
91767612|NCT03629886|183424327|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.33||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2818). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.33|0.19|
91811122|NCT01313767|183497363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of limb position was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.9574
91927545|NCT02433210|183753265|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.430
91927546|NCT02433210|183753265|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.295|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.295
91927547|NCT02433210|183753265|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.723|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.723
91927548|NCT02433210|183753265|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.749|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.749
91927549|NCT02433210|183753265|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.967
91927550|NCT02433210|183753266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.670
91927551|NCT02433210|183753266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.993
91927552|NCT02433210|183753266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.650
91927553|NCT02433210|183753266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.299|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.299
91927554|NCT02433210|183753266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.659|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.659
91927555|NCT02433210|183753266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.176
91927556|NCT02433210|183753266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.853|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.853
91927557|NCT02433210|183753266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.494
91927558|NCT02433210|183753266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.631|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.631
91927559|NCT02433210|183753266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.370
91927560|NCT02433210|183753266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.950
91927561|NCT02433210|183753266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.377|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.377
91927562|NCT02433210|183753267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.534
91927563|NCT02433210|183753267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.578|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.578
91927564|NCT02433210|183753267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.225
91927565|NCT02433210|183753267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.125
91927566|NCT02433210|183753267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.466
91927567|NCT02433210|183753267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.534
91927568|NCT02433210|183753267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.584
91927569|NCT02433210|183753267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.981|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.981
91927570|NCT02433210|183753267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.568
91927571|NCT02433210|183753267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.240
91927572|NCT02433210|183753267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.724|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.724
91927573|NCT02433210|183753267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.445|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.445
91927574|NCT02433210|183753268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.114
91927575|NCT02433210|183753268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.292|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.292
91927576|NCT02433210|183753268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.714|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.714
91927577|NCT02433210|183753268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.176
91927578|NCT02433210|183753268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.190
91927579|NCT02433210|183753268|SUPERIORITY|||||||-0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||-0.009
91927580|NCT02433210|183753268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.911
91927581|NCT02433210|183753268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.388
91927582|NCT02433210|183753268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.337|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.337
91927583|NCT02433210|183753268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.575|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.575
91927584|NCT02433210|183753268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.880
91927585|NCT02433210|183753268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.731|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.731
91927586|NCT00883558|183753269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of INSULIN-PH20 NP to insulin lispro was supported if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in blood glucose between the treatments did not exceed 21.6 mg/dL.|LS Mean Difference|3.06||||0.3217|ONE_SIDED|95.0||14.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments included treatment, phase, and treatment sequence as fixed effects and participant within treatment sequence as a random effect.||A total of at least 40 participants were to be enrolled in the study, and 30 participants were expected to complete both treatment cycles. Assuming a standard deviation for blood glucose of 45 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) and a true difference between the treatments of 0 mg/dL, the study had approximately 80% power to show that INSULIN-PH20 NP was non-inferior to insulin lispro with respect to the overall two-hour postprandial blood glucose excursion.||14.11||0.3217
91927587|NCT01005719|183753324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242||95.0||||p-value for 10-15 mins Post-dose on Day 7. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0242
91927588|NCT01005719|183753324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||p-value for 15-20 mins Post-dose on Day 7. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0270
91927589|NCT01005719|183753324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067||95.0||||p-value for 20-25 mins Post-dose on Day 7. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0067
91927590|NCT01005719|183753325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0465||95.0||||p-value for 10-15 mins Post-dose on Day 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0465
91927591|NCT01005719|183753325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||p-value for 15-20 mins Post-dose on Day 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0012
91927592|NCT01005719|183753325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value for 20-25 mins Post-dose on Day 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91927593|NCT01005719|183753326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 1 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91927594|NCT01005719|183753326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 1 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91927595|NCT01005719|183753326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 7 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91927596|NCT01005719|183753326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 7 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91927597|NCT01753076|183753342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.9|7.9|||ANCOVA||A negative mean difference means that the direction of effect is in favor of placebo.|||7.9|-67.9|0.120
91927598|NCT01753076|183753343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-3.1|0.139
91927599|NCT01753076|183753344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||Random coefficients analysis|||||0.05|-0.30|0.173
91811123|NCT01313767|183497364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.7237|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of pain was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7237
91811124|NCT01313767|183497364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.7237|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of pain was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7237
91927600|NCT01753076|183753345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.127||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.097|-0.351|0.265
91927601|NCT01753076|183753346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-18.7|0.125
91927602|NCT01753076|183753347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.36|0.393
91811125|NCT01313767|183497364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of pain was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.4017
91811126|NCT01313767|183497365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2346|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference between groups in frequency distribution of responders on the Global Assessment at week 12 was compared using Fisher's exact test.||||0.2346
91927603|NCT01753076|183753348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.89|||Regression, Cox||Week 48|||2.89|0.34|0.986
91927604|NCT01753076|183753348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.01|||Chi-squared||Week 60|||2.01|0.53|0.923
91927605|NCT01753076|183753349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.81|0.642
91927606|NCT01753076|183753350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.053||||||||0.053|-0.062|
91927607|NCT01753076|183753351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.5||||||||5.5|-2.8|
91927608|NCT02985450|183753370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|513.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.6||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Anti-HBs levels difference: high risk obesity group - low risk obesity group NAFLD patients|||||0.02
91927609|NCT00069576|183753372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.72|1.07|||Chi-squared|||For Total Composite End Point||1.07|0.72|0.14
91927610|NCT00069576|183753372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.73|1.53|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Hypoglycemia||1.53|0.73|0.75
91927611|NCT00069576|183753372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.49|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for hyperbilirubinemia||1.12|0.49|0.12
91927612|NCT00069576|183753372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.57|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for elevated cord-blood C-peptide level||1.05|0.57|0.07
91927613|NCT00069576|183753372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.1|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for birth trauma||2.20|0.10|0.33
91927614|NCT00069576|183753373|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||||||||1.28|0.68|
91927615|NCT00069576|183753374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.32|0.76|||Chi-squared|||||0.76|0.32|<0.001
91927616|NCT00069576|183753375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.26|0.66|||Chi-squared|||||0.66|0.26|<0.001
91927617|NCT00069576|183753376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.53|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.53|0.27
91927618|NCT00069576|183753377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91927619|NCT00069576|183753378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.7|1.99|||Chi-squared|||||1.99|0.70|0.49
91927620|NCT00069576|183753379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91927621|NCT00069576|183753380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.51|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.51|0.19
91927622|NCT00069576|183753381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.44|1.36|||Chi-squared|||||1.36|0.44|0.32
91927623|NCT00069576|183753382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.26|1.67|||Chi-squared|||||1.67|0.26|0.33
91927624|NCT00069576|183753383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.81|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.81|0.86
91927625|NCT00069576|183753384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.64|0.99|||Chi-squared|||||0.99|0.64|0.02
91927626|NCT00069576|183753385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.14|0.97|||Chi-squared|||||0.97|0.14|0.02
91927627|NCT00069576|183753386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.22|0.97|||Chi-squared|||||0.97|0.22|0.02
91927628|NCT00069576|183753387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.42|0.96|||Chi-squared|||||0.96|0.42|0.01
91927629|NCT00069576|183753388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91927630|NCT00069576|183753389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91927631|NCT00069576|183753390|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.1||||||||1.10|0.71|
91811127|NCT01313767|183497366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9513|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference between groups in frequency distribution of responders on the Global Assessment at week 12 was compared using Fisher's exact test.||||0.9513
91927632|NCT00069576|183753391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.69||||||||1.69|0.65|
91927633|NCT00069576|183753392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.05||||||||2.05|0.74|
91927634|NCT00069576|183753393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.62||||||||1.62|0.36|
91927635|NCT00069576|183753394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91927636|NCT00905307|183753395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.7||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.82||The Hochberg procedure using two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level (two-sided) due to multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.82|-10.2|0.2846
91927637|NCT00905307|183753395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.44||||0.6066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|4.07||The Hochberg procedure using two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level (two-sided) due to multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||4.07|-6.96|0.6066
91927638|NCT00905307|183753395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.86||||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|1.59||The Hochberg procedure using two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level (two-sided) due to multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.59|-9.32|0.3293
91927639|NCT00905307|183753395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|4.62||||0.2263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|12.12|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||12.12|-2.89|0.2263
91811128|NCT01313767|183497367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8088|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of cleaning the palm was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.8088
91927640|NCT00905307|183753395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.64||||0.3074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.38|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||||3.38|-10.7|0.3074
91927641|NCT00905307|183753396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.61||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|3.97|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||3.97|-0.75|0.1807
91927642|NCT00905307|183753396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.41||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.42|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.42|-3.24|0.1313
91927643|NCT00905307|183753396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.13||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.69|-1.96|0.8879
91927644|NCT00905307|183753396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.24||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.56|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.56|-3.05|0.1764
91927645|NCT00905307|183753396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.79||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.42|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.42|-4.00|0.1111
91811129|NCT01313767|183497367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.3702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of cleaning the palm was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.3702
91927646|NCT00905307|183753397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.0||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.86|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||2.86|-0.86|0.2896
91927647|NCT00905307|183753397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.61||||0.3701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.72|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.72|-1.94|0.3701
91927648|NCT00905307|183753397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.35||||0.6074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.99|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.99|-1.69|0.6074
91927649|NCT00905307|183753397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.73||||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.59|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.59|-2.05|0.2777
91927650|NCT00905307|183753397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15||||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.59|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.59|-1.90|0.8611
91927651|NCT00905307|183753398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.36||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|2.85|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PSP score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||2.85|-7.57|0.3726
91927652|NCT00905307|183753398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.8||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|7.85|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PSP score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||7.85|-0.26|0.0664
91927653|NCT00905307|183753398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.2||||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|6.32|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||6.32|-1.92|0.2944
91927654|NCT00905307|183753398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.86||||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|7.89|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||7.89|-0.16|0.0596
91811130|NCT01313767|183497367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.1497|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of cleaning the palm was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.1497
91811131|NCT01313767|183497368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.9634|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of cutting the finger-nails was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.9634
91927655|NCT00905307|183753398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.25||||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|8.03|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||8.03|-1.53|0.1819
91927656|NCT00905307|183753399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.38||||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.79|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in CGI-S score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.79|-0.03|0.0685
91927657|NCT00905307|183753399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.28||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.05|-0.60|0.0989
91927658|NCT00905307|183753399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.8006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.28|-0.37|0.8006
91927659|NCT00905307|183753399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.28||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.04|-0.60|0.0898
91927660|NCT00905307|183753399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.21||||0.2851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.18|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.18|-0.59|0.2851
91927661|NCT00905307|183753400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||||0.4008
91927662|NCT00905307|183753400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1117|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||||0.1117
91927663|NCT00905307|183753400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2739|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||||0.2739
91927664|NCT00905307|183753400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||||0.1045
91927665|NCT00905307|183753400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1149|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||||0.1149
91927666|NCT00905307|183753401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.89||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.40|0.57|0.6200
91811132|NCT01313767|183497368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.7302|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of cutting the finger-nails was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7302
91811133|NCT01313767|183497368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.7715|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of cutting the finger-nails was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7715
91927667|NCT00905307|183753401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.19||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.48|0.95|0.1501
91927668|NCT00905307|183753401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.91||||0.5271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.25|0.66|0.5271
91927669|NCT00905307|183753401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.02||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.34|0.78|0.8670
91927670|NCT00905307|183753401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.15||||0.3892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.56|0.85|0.3892
91927671|NCT00905307|183753402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.06||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.88||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.88|0.59|0.8540
91927672|NCT00905307|183753402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.82||||0.4492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.38||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.38|0.49|0.4492
91927673|NCT00905307|183753402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.67||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.23||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.23|0.36|0.1854
91927674|NCT00905307|183753402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.61||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.1||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.10|0.33|0.0946
91927675|NCT00905307|183753402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.63||||0.2133||95.0|0.3|1.34||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.34|0.30|0.2133
91927676|NCT03015610|183753417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8716|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8716
91927677|NCT03015610|183753418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2471|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2471
91927678|NCT03015610|183753419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91927679|NCT03015610|183753420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2765|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2765
91927680|NCT03015610|183753421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.32||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.2|||Negative binomial regression|||||8.20|0.66|0.191
91927681|NCT03015610|183753422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.98|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.98|0.29|0.0435
91927682|NCT03015610|183753423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3808
91927683|NCT00358917|183753438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (once daily \[QD\] minus twice daily \[BID\], based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution) was used to assess noninferiority. The QD regimen was considered noninferior to the BID regimen if the lower limit of the confidence interval remained above -12%.|Diff. in Percentage of Subj. Responding|3.5||||0.413||95.0|-4.5|11.5|||normal approx. to binomial distribution|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the once daily (QD) regimen was more than 12% lower than the response rate for the twice daily (BID) regimen. The planned sample size of 600 participants (300 participants in each of the QD and BID treatment regimens) provided 83% power (with a type I error rate of 0.05) to reject the null hypothesis, i.e., to determine noninferiority based on the 12% margin.||11.5|-4.5|0.413
91927684|NCT00358917|183753439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff. in Percentage of Subj. Responding|3.8||||0.389||95.0|-4.3|11.9|||normal approx. to binomial distribution|||||11.9|-4.3|0.389
91927685|NCT00358917|183753440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.281
91927686|NCT00358917|183753442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.222
91927687|NCT01417780|183753471|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
91927688|NCT01417780|183753472|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that the frequency of Day 14 SOFA score less than or equal to 1 was not different among treatment groups.||||0.019
91927689|NCT01417780|183753473|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Wilcoxon p value represents comparison of active dose groups versus placebo group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91927690|NCT01417780|183753474|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Wilcoxon p value represents comparison of active dose groups versus placebo group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91927691|NCT01417780|183753475|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Wilcoxon p value represents comparison of active dose groups versus placebo group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91927692|NCT02086565|183753476|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.56|
91927693|NCT02086565|183753477|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.68|||||Estimation parameter: Other. Group differences in expected 12 month change from baseline|||0.68|-0.27|
91811134|NCT01313767|183497369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9362|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of putting shirts on was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.9362
91927694|NCT02086565|183753478|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.97||||||||0.97|-2.21|
91927695|NCT02086565|183753479|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24||||||||-0.24|-1.08|
91927696|NCT02086565|183753480|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.24|
91927697|NCT01757704|183753483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|56.0|||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91927698|NCT00325442|183753488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|11.0||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|22.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||22|0|0.072
91927699|NCT00325442|183753489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change in Borg dyspnea score from Baseline to Week 16||0.0|-1.0|0.062
91927700|NCT00325442|183753490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.491
91927701|NCT00325442|183753491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon sum-rank test|||Change in dyspnea-fatigue index from Baseline to Week 16||1.0|0.0|0.011
91927702|NCT00325442|183753493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|13.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|23.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 12||23.0|3.0|0.015
91927703|NCT00325442|183753494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|9.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 8||18.0|0.0|0.051
91927704|NCT00325442|183753495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann ( H-L)|4.0||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 4||12.0|-2.4|0.238
91927705|NCT00325442|183753496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|24.0||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|45.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||45|0|0.121
91927706|NCT00325442|183753497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|15.0||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|41.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||41|-7|0.069
91767613|NCT03629886|183424327|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.37||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2815). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.37|1.06|
91767614|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.24||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2718). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.24|0.11|
91767615|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2722). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.99|0.72|
91811135|NCT01313767|183497369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.7998|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of putting shirts on was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7998
91811136|NCT01313767|183497369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of putting shirts on was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.5436
91927707|NCT00325442|183753498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|4.0||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||24|-15|0.889
91927708|NCT00325442|183753499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||24|-23|0.966
91927709|NCT00325442|183753501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|5.0||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||28|-16|0.853
91927710|NCT00325442|183753502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|7.0||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|21.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||21|-7|0.327
91927711|NCT00325442|183753503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|29.5||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|73.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||73|1|0.085
91927712|NCT00325442|183753504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|5.0||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||24|-12|0.615
91927713|NCT00325442|183753505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|17.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|40.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||40|-6|0.230
91927714|NCT00325442|183753506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|10.0||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||28|-6|0.209
91927715|NCT02650284|183753651|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.46||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at pre-operation timepoint.||||0.46
91927716|NCT02650284|183753651|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.23||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 6-week timepoint.||||0.23
91927717|NCT02650284|183753651|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.1||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 3-month timepoint.||||0.10
91927718|NCT02650284|183753651|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.98||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 12-month timepoint.||||0.98
91927719|NCT02650284|183753651|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.5||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 24-month timepoint.||||0.50
91927720|NCT02650284|183753652|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.59||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D Index preoperatively between both groups.||||0.59
91927721|NCT02650284|183753652|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.9||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 3-months between both groups.||||0.90
91927722|NCT02650284|183753652|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.57||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 12-months between both groups.||||0.57
91927723|NCT02650284|183753652|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.49||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 24-months between both groups.||||0.49
91927724|NCT02650284|183753652|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means||||||0.65||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS preoperatively between both groups.||||0.65
91811137|NCT01313767|183497370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of cleaning the armpit was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7014
91927725|NCT02650284|183753652|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.3||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 3-months between both groups.||||0.30
91927726|NCT02650284|183753652|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.06||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 12-months between both groups.||||0.06
91811138|NCT01313767|183497370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8884|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of cleaning the armpit was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.8884
91927727|NCT02650284|183753652|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.44||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 24-months between both groups.||||0.44
91927728|NCT02650284|183753653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.97||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest preoperatively between both groups.||||0.97
91811139|NCT01313767|183497370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of cleaning the armpit was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.2840
91927729|NCT02650284|183753653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.45||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest at 3-months between both groups.||||0.45
91927730|NCT02650284|183753653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.64||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest at 12-months between both groups.||||0.64
91927731|NCT02650284|183753653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.19||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest at 24-months between both groups.||||0.19
91927732|NCT02650284|183753653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.57||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation preoperatively between both groups.||||0.57
91927733|NCT02650284|183753653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.98||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation at 3-months between both groups.||||0.98
91927734|NCT02650284|183753653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.58||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation at 12-months between both groups.||||0.58
91927735|NCT02650284|183753653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.16||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation at 24-months between both groups.||||0.16
91927736|NCT02650284|183753654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.62||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare New Knee Society Function Score preoperatively between both groups.||||0.62
91927737|NCT02650284|183753654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.06||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare New Knee Society Function Score at 3-months between both groups.||||0.06
91927738|NCT02650284|183753654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.93||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare New Knee Society Function Score at 24-months between both groups.||||0.93
91767616|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.15||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2781). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.15|0.06|
91767617|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.47||||||95.0|0.38|0.58||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2781). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.58|0.38|
91767618|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.28||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2786). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.28|0.15|
91811140|NCT01084174|183497377|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|Analyzed by linear regression models using generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures over time with robust standard errors||||||.003
91927739|NCT02650284|183753655|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.57||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at pre-operation timepoint.||||0.57
91811141|NCT01084174|183497378|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91811142|NCT01084174|183497379|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91811143|NCT01084174|183497380|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
91811144|NCT01084174|183497381|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.07
91927740|NCT02650284|183753655|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.17||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 3-months between both groups.||||0.17
91811145|NCT01084174|183497382|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.007
91927741|NCT02650284|183753655|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.8||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 12-months between both groups.||||0.80
91927742|NCT02650284|183753655|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.9||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 24-months between both groups.||||0.90
91927743|NCT02650284|183753657|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.81||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare length of hospital stay (number of nights) between both groups.||||0.81
91927744|NCT04525222|183753658|OTHER||Slope|0.42||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.74|||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||"Treatment satisfaction items are reported on a Likert-type scale, with response choices ranging from not at all to very much. We used a linear regression adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), and Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5) to test for differences between arms."||0.74|0.10|0.0088
91927745|NCT04525222|183753659|OTHER||Slope|2.92||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|21.07|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||21.07|-15.22|0.75
91927746|NCT04525222|183753660|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.48|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.48|0.5|0.55
91927747|NCT04525222|183753661|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking \<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs, Baseline Depression Severity PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5||||3.32|0.80|0.17
91927748|NCT04525222|183753662|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.81|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.81|0.70|0.25
91927749|NCT04525222|183753663|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.72||Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)|Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.72|0.94|0.07
91927750|NCT04525222|183753664|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.85|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||5.85|1.00|0.04
91927751|NCT04525222|183753665|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||2.89|0.75|0.25
91927752|NCT04525222|183753666|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.12|0.77|0.17
91927753|NCT04525222|183753667|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.73|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.73|0.77|0.15
91927754|NCT04525222|183753668|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.86|0.41|0.68
91811146|NCT03103919|183497414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31|||=|0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|1.41|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||1.41|-10.04|=0.134
91927755|NCT04525222|183753669|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.46|0.75|0.21
91927756|NCT04525222|183753670|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.19|0.63|0.30
91927757|NCT04525222|183753671|OTHER||Slope|-1.68||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.46|||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||-0.46|-2.90|.0072
91927758|NCT04525222|183753672|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.829||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.344|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.344|0.770|0.1770
91927759|NCT04525222|183753673|OTHER||Slope|3.62||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.95|||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression, Baseline Activation Score||||5.95|1.28|0.0025
91927760|NCT00374907|183753679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Percent Difference|18.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|38.7||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted percent difference for saxagliptin 5 mg vs placebo in Week 12 (LOCF) to baseline ratio. Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: logarithm(post/pre) = logarithm(pre) treatment|||38.7|1.3|0.0350
91927761|NCT00374907|183753680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Percent Difference|27.9||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|57.1||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted percent difference for saxagliptin 5 mg vs placebo in Week 12 (LOCF) to baseline ratio. Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: logarithm(post/pre) = logarithm(pre) treatment|||57.1|4.2|0.0204
91927762|NCT04598165|183753697|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.92||The primary intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and taking into account a 10% attrition. Multiple imputation with chain equations (MICE) was used to impute missing values for any outcome with greater than 10% missingness. Any variables associated with the outcome or outcome missingness were included in the imputation model.||1.92|0.81|0.314
91927763|NCT04598165|183753698|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.21||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and taking into account a 10% attrition. Multiple imputation with chain equations (MICE) was used to impute missing values for any outcome with greater than 10% missingness. Any variables associated with the outcome or outcome missingness were included in the imputation model.||2.21|0.84|0.217
91767619|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.59||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2782). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.59|0.39|
91767620|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.33||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-33 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2779). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.33|0.18|
91767621|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.51||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-33 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2784). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.51|0.33|
91767622|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.39||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-35 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2806). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.39|0.23|
91811147|NCT03103919|183497415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||=|0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.45|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.45|-0.44|=0.982
91811148|NCT03103919|183497416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||=|0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.45|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.45|-0.81|=0.566
91811149|NCT03103919|183497417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||=|0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.35|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.35|-0.50|=0.720
91811150|NCT03103919|183497418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||=|0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.53|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.53|-0.24|=0.443
91767623|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.46||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-35 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2803). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.46|0.28|
91811151|NCT03103919|183497419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||=|0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.57|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.57|-0.75|=0.777
91811152|NCT03103919|183497420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||=|0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.31|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.31|-0.33|=0.947
91767624|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.88||||||95.0|0.75|1.02||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-39 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2759). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.02|0.75|
91927764|NCT04598165|183753699|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.08||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.05 in early initiation of breast feeding assuming 80% uptake in controls.||1.08|1.00|0.064
91927765|NCT04598165|183753700|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.05 in exclusive breast feeding assuming 80% uptake in controls.||1.01|0.98|0.363
91927766|NCT04598165|183753701|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.11 in application of substances to the cord or delaying first bath assuming 50% in controls.||1.02|1.00|0.093
91927767|NCT04598165|183753702|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.09||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.11 in application of substances to the cord or delaying first bath assuming 50% in controls.||1.09|0.97|0.353
91927768|NCT04598165|183753703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.61||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.53 in provision of Kangaroo Mother Care assuming 25% in controls.||2.61|0.50|0.751
91927769|NCT04598165|183753704|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator.|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.04 in number of danger signs correctly named assuming median of 3 in controls.||1.01|1.00|0.431
91767625|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-39 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2773). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.93|0.67|
91811153|NCT03103919|183497421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||=|0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.26|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.26|-0.79|=0.306
91927770|NCT04598165|183753705|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.08||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator.|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.11 in appropriate care seeking assuming 1 clinic visit in the 6-weeks postpartum for controls.||1.08|0.98|0.321
91927771|NCT04598165|183753706|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator.|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 0.76 in elevated depression symptoms assuming 19% in controls.||1.04|0.98|0.650
91927772|NCT04598165|183753707|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.09||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.18||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Linear generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator. Coefficient (95% CI) for linear GEE using enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits.|||0.18|-0.007|0.071
91927773|NCT04598165|183753708|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.02||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Linear generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator. Coefficient (95% CI) for linear GEE using enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits.|||0.04|-0.01|0.190
91927774|NCT00426751|183753709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the assessment of differences between both treatment groups, a generalized model (under binomial probability distribution), adjusted for center, was applied.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||||90.0|-8.5|12.8||||||||12.8|-8.5|
91927775|NCT00426751|183753710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the assessment of differences between both treatment groups a generalised model (under binomial probability distribution), adjusted for centre, was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||||95.0|-3.0|16.6|||||Analysis based on the ITT population confirmed the results observed in the PP population.|||16.6|-3.0|
91927776|NCT01721408|183753729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the 2 treatments were equally effective, with cure rates of 75 % at the TOC assessment, the study was powered to ensure with 90% probability that the lower limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the true difference (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) in cure rates was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-6.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.4|||See method of CI||Used the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation. Non-inferiority test was conducted on the CE population. If non-inferiority was concluded, superiority test was conducted on both the CE and mITT populations.|||-1.4|-12.0|0.0008
91767626|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.16||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2794). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.16|0.07|
91767627|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.28||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2802). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.28|0.15|
91811154|NCT03103919|183497422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||=|0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.31|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.31|-0.25|=0.819
91811155|NCT03103919|183497423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||=|0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.41|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.||||0.41|-0.26|=0.663
91927777|NCT01721408|183753730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI for the difference in cure rates between treatment groups (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-7.3||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|0.5|||See method of CI||CIs and p-values for between-group treatment difference in cure rate were calculated by the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation.|||0.5|-15.2|0.0277
91927778|NCT01721408|183753731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI for the difference in eradication rates between treatment groups (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-7.3||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|0.5|||See method of CI||CIs and p-values for between-group treatment difference in eradication rates were calculated by the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation.|||0.5|-15.2|0.0277
91927779|NCT01721408|183753733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI for the difference in cure rates between treatment groups (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-6.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.8|||See method of CI||Used the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation. Non-inferiority test was conducted on the CE population. If non-inferiority was concluded, superiority test was conducted on both the CE and mITT populations.|||0.8|-12.8|0.0040
91927780|NCT04160468|183753734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.6||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|12.4|||Fisher Exact|||||12.4|-33.6|0.392
91927781|NCT06018350|183753799|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.002
91927782|NCT01096446|183753803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Chi Square satistical calculation was used for analysis.||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Four infants(44%)in the control group developed hypertriglyceridemia (\>200 mg/dl) while 100% of the infants in the experimental group developed hypertriglyceridemia (\>200 mg/dl) during the first week of life.||||0.011
91927783|NCT02279524|183753812|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-3.09||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|1.6|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Post-Hoc Responder Analysis - was also carried out. See Post-Hoc analysis|||0.0655
91927784|NCT02279524|183753812|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-3.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|1.6|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Post-Hoc Responder Analysis - was also carried out. See Post-Hoc analysis|||0.0450
91927785|NCT02279524|183753813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|22.66|||Regression, Logistic|The method used was a Baseline Adjusted Logistic Regression||||22.66|0.99|0.0514
91811156|NCT03103919|183497424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||=|0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.||||0.11|-0.51|=0.197
91811157|NCT03103919|183497427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||=|0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.66||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment and center.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated as Control Group/Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care SS / Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device SS) calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment and center.|||5.66|0.23|=0.876
91927786|NCT02279524|183753813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|9.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.61|0.33|0.4955
91927787|NCT02279524|183753814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.04|0.70|0.2110
91927788|NCT02279524|183753814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.05|0.40|0.8425
91927789|NCT02279524|183753815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91927790|NCT02279524|183753815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
91927791|NCT02279524|183753816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.447||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7063|-0.1877|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1877|-0.7063|0.0008
91927792|NCT02279524|183753816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.362||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6196|-0.1043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1043|-0.6196|0.0061
91927793|NCT02279524|183753817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91927794|NCT02279524|183753817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0011
91811158|NCT01124422|183497432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.58||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|13.0||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, Oxycon stratum, and baseline value|ANCOVA|||||13.0|-68.2|0.181
91811159|NCT02959944|183497451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.043||||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.181||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.181|-0.094|0.5384
91927795|NCT02279524|183753818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.88|1.11|0.0279
91927796|NCT02279524|183753818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.46|0.89|0.0878
91927797|NCT02279524|183753819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.14||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||This analysis is limited by low number of events, and the duration of the study.|||1.46|0.01|0.1008
91927798|NCT02279524|183753819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.05|||Regression, Logistic||This analysis is limited by low number of events, and the duration of the study.|||3.05|0.13|0.5693
91927799|NCT01441440|183753906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.87||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||2.87|0.14|0.031
91927800|NCT01441440|183753906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|2.48||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||2.48|-0.24|0.106
91927801|NCT01441440|183753907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.0||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||5.00|0.77|0.008
91927802|NCT01441440|183753907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.74||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||4.74|0.54|0.014
91927803|NCT01441440|183753908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.49||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||0.49|0.03|0.025
91927804|NCT01441440|183753908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.48||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||0.48|0.02|0.032
91927805|NCT01441440|183753909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.97||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||1.97|0.39|0.004
91927806|NCT01441440|183753909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.85||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||1.85|0.28|0.008
91811160|NCT02959944|183497452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.043||||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.181||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.181|-0.094|0.5384
91927807|NCT01441440|183753910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.53||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||2.53|0.48|0.004
91927808|NCT01441440|183753910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.79||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||1.79|-0.25|0.137
91927809|NCT01441440|183753911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.45||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline score of CGI-S as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||0.45|-0.02|0.073
91927810|NCT01441440|183753911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.48||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline score of CGI-S as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||0.48|0.02|0.034
91811161|NCT02959944|183497453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.324
91927811|NCT01993329|183753912|SUPERIORITY||Geometric means ratio|1.108||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.673|||ANOVA||Analysis was based on an ANOVA model with log (base 2) PC20 methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||1.673|0.734|0.616
91927812|NCT01993329|183753912|SUPERIORITY||Geometric means ratio|1.016||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.534|||ANOVA||Analysis was based on an ANOVA model with log (base 2) PC20 methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||1.534|0.673|0.939
91927813|NCT01993329|183753912|SUPERIORITY||Geometric means ratio|0.917||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.384|||ANOVA||Analysis was based on an ANOVA model with log (base 2) PC20 methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||1.384|0.607|0.671
91927814|NCT01993329|183753913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.111||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.008|||ANOVA||Analysis is based on an ANOVA model with minimum highest FEV1 after methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||0.008|-0.230|0.066
91927815|NCT01993329|183753913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.107|||ANOVA||Analysis is based on an ANOVA model with minimum highest FEV1 after methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect|||0.107|-0.131|0.843
91927816|NCT01993329|183753913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.02|||ANOVA||Analysis is based on an ANOVA model with minimum highest FEV1 after methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect|||0.020|-0.218|0.098
91927817|NCT04742907|183753953|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.12||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: hazard ratio (HR) = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|||1.12|0.74|0.767
91927818|NCT04742907|183753953|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.17||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.44||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|||1.44|0.95|0.107
91927819|NCT04742907|183753954|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.13||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to GI-2||1.13|0.71|0.780
91811162|NCT02959944|183497454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.281
91811163|NCT02959944|183497455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.275
91927820|NCT04742907|183753954|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.34||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to GI-2||1.34|0.84|0.330
91927821|NCT04742907|183753954|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.11||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to first toleration of clear liquids||1.11|0.73|0.788
91927822|NCT04742907|183753954|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.51||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to first toleration of clear liquids||1.51|0.99|0.055
91927823|NCT04742907|183753954|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.32||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to absence of distension and presence of bowel sounds and flatus||1.32|0.86|0.306
91927824|NCT04742907|183753954|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.35||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to absence of distension and presence of bowel sounds and flatus||1.35|0.88|0.243
91927825|NCT04742907|183753955|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.24||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to ready for discharge||1.24|0.81|0.489
91927826|NCT04742907|183753955|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.15||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.42||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to ready for discharge||1.42|0.93|0.138
91927827|NCT04742907|183753955|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.24||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to discharge order written||1.24|0.82|0.473
91767628|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-51 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2753). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.18|0.88|
91811164|NCT02959944|183497456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.216
91927828|NCT04742907|183753955|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.53||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to discharge order written||1.53|1.01|0.045
91927829|NCT04742907|183753956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923||||||P-value is from two-sample t-test comparing TU-100 15 g/day treatment group versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.923
91927830|NCT04742907|183753956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||P-value is from two-sample t-test comparing TU-100 7.5 g/day treatment group versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91927831|NCT04742907|183753958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.42||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.42|0.44|0.434
91927832|NCT04742907|183753958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.59||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.59|0.51|0.710
91927833|NCT04742907|183753958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.02||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Chi-squared||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||2.02|0.75|0.410
91927834|NCT04742907|183753958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.81||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||2.81|1.03|0.037
91927835|NCT04742907|183753958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.55||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||1.55|0.46|0.579
91927836|NCT04742907|183753958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.21||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic|||For Day 3||1.21|0.33|0.167
91927837|NCT04742907|183753958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.86||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||1.86|0.21|0.400
91927838|NCT04742907|183753958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||1.18|0.07|0.083
91927839|NCT04742907|183753959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.14||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||POI-related Morbidity status is analyzed using logistic regression with POI-related morbidity as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|||4.14|0.43|0.621
91767629|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.34||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-51 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2756). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.34|1.03|
91767630|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|1.87||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-52 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2666). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.87|1.48|
91811165|NCT02959944|183497457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.067||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.074||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.074|-0.208|0.3510
91927840|NCT04742907|183753959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.46||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||POI-related Morbidity status is analyzed using logistic regression with POI-related morbidity as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|||3.46|0.31|0.962
91811166|NCT02959944|183497458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.067||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.074||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.074|-0.208|0.3510
91927841|NCT04742907|183753961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.05||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||2.05|0.66|0.604
91927842|NCT04742907|183753961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.99||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.99|0.63|0.693
91927843|NCT04742907|183753961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.78||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||3.78|0.85|0.122
91927844|NCT04742907|183753961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.67||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||1.67|0.36|0.518
91927845|NCT04742907|183753961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.53||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||4.53|0.46|0.528
91927846|NCT04742907|183753961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.07||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||4.07|0.40|0.689
91927847|NCT04742907|183753961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.7||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||3.70|0.12|0.653
91927848|NCT04742907|183753961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|9.25||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||9.25|0.37|0.452
91927849|NCT04742907|183753962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, least square (LS) mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.6|-1.8|0.359
91927850|NCT04742907|183753962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||1.2|-1.3|0.907
91927851|NCT04742907|183753962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||1.6|-1.3|0.856
91767631|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.0||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-52 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2663). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||2.00|1.61|
91767632|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.73||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-56 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2783). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.73|0.50|
91927852|NCT04742907|183753962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.5|-2.7|0.180
91927853|NCT04742907|183753962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||2.4|-1.9|0.814
91927854|NCT04742907|183753962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||1.3|-3.2|0.409
91927855|NCT04742907|183753963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.4||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.40|0.46|0.430
91767633|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-56 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2779). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.76|0.53|
91811167|NCT02959944|183497459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.124||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.256||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.256|-0.007|0.0659
91811168|NCT02959944|183497460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.125||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.261||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared|||||0.261|-0.010|0.0708
91927856|NCT04742907|183753963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.96||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.96|0.62|0.739
91927857|NCT04742907|183753963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.2||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||1.20|0.25|0.130
91927858|NCT04742907|183753963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.13||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||1.13|0.24|0.099
91927859|NCT04742907|183753963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.63||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||2.63|0.23|0.686
91927860|NCT04742907|183753963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.56||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||2.56|0.22|0.644
91927861|NCT04742907|183753963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.18||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||3.18|0.09|0.498
91767634|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.62||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-58 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2772). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.62|0.42|
91811169|NCT02959944|183497461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.059||||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.08||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval was computed using normal approximation.|||0.080|-0.199|0.4064
91927862|NCT04742907|183753963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.05||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||4.05|0.12|0.700
91927863|NCT04742907|183753964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.8|-0.9|0.919
91811170|NCT02959944|183497462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.049||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.091||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval was computed using normal approximation.|||0.091|-0.188|0.4955
91811171|NCT02959944|183497463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|1.949|||||Hazard ratio is estimated using unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.949|0.507|
91811172|NCT02959944|183497464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.904|||||Hazard ratio is estimated using unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.904|0.591|
91927864|NCT04742907|183753964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||-0.2|-1.8|0.016
91927865|NCT04742907|183753964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||2.0|-0.1|0.064
91811173|NCT02959944|183497465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.697||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.076|||Regression, Cox|||||1.076|0.451|0.1010
91811174|NCT02959944|183497466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|1.068|||Regression, Cox|||||1.068|0.482|0.1004
91811175|NCT03070782|183497503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-31.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-12.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-12|-46|0.0032
91927866|NCT04742907|183753964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.8|-1.3|0.683
91927867|NCT04742907|183753964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||2.1|-1.0|0.462
91927868|NCT04742907|183753964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.8|-2.3|0.343
91927869|NCT00436969|183753985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.472||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.888|5.943||The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||Anticipated VAS difference of 10 mm and SD of 25 mm indicated a sample size of 225 subjects in a 2:1 randomization would provide 80% power to detect a significant difference with a two-sided significance level of 5%. To account for a 15% dropout rate the sample size was increased to 270 subjects (180 Orthovisc, 90 control). The primary null hypothesis (Ho) no difference in VAS means at 6 months and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Orthovisc (mean VAS) is superior to the control.||5.943|-8.888|0.696
91767635|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.65||||||95.0|0.55|0.77||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-58 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2768). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.77|0.55|
91767636|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.4||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-59 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2814). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.40|0.24|
91767637|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.45||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-59 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2797). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.45|0.28|
91767638|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.74||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-66 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2779). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.74|0.51|
91811176|NCT03070782|183497503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-54.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-41.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-41|-64|<.0001
91811177|NCT03070782|183497503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|-62.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-62|-77|<.0001
91811178|NCT03070782|183497503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-43.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-43|-65|<.0001
91927870|NCT00436969|183753986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|15.1||||||Asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference (Orthovisc - Control) in proportions of responders was calculated. The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||15.1|-15.6|
91927871|NCT00436969|183753987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|9.1||||||Asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference (Orthovisc - Control) in proportions of responders was calculated. The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||9.1|-19.7|
91927872|NCT00436969|183753988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.698|6.957||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||6.957|-8.698|0.827
91927873|NCT00436969|183753989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.875||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.472|3.723||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||3.723|-9.472|0.392
91927874|NCT00436969|183753990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.932||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|5.396||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||5.396|-7.260|0.772
91927875|NCT00436969|183753991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.028||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.338|6.393||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||6.393|-4.338|0.707
91927876|NCT00436969|183753992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.82||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.866|5.227||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||5.227|-6.866|0.790
91927877|NCT00436969|183753993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.13||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.341|6.001||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||6.001|-4.341|0.685
91927878|NCT00436969|183753994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.317||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.249|13.386||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||13.386|1.249|0.018
91927879|NCT00436969|183753995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.361||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.801|7.522||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||7.522|-2.801|0.369
91927880|NCT00436969|183753996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.79||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.441|3.861||The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||Anticipated VAS difference of 10 mm and SD of 25 mm indicated a sample size of 225 subjects in a 2:1 randomization would provide 80% power to detect a significant difference with a two-sided significance level of 5%. To account for a 15% dropout rate the sample size was increased to 270 subjects (180 Orthovisc, 90 control). The primary null hypothesis (Ho) no difference in VAS means at 6 months and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Orthovisc (mean VAS) is superior to the control.||3.861|-9.441|0.410
91927881|NCT00436969|183753997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.617||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.226|8.46||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||8.460|-3.226|0.379
91811179|NCT03070782|183497503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-78.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-72.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-72|-83|<.0001
91927882|NCT00436969|183753998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.208||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.455|3.039||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||3.039|-7.455|0.409
91927883|NCT00436969|183753999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.558||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.119|1.003||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||1.003|-4.119|0.232
91927884|NCT00436969|183754000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.228||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.343|1.887||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||1.887|-2.343|0.832
91927885|NCT00436969|183754001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.068||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.396|2.532||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||2.532|-2.396|0.957
91927886|NCT00436969|183754002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.22||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.937|3.378||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||3.378|-0.937|0.267
91927887|NCT00436969|183754003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.19||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|3.604||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||3.604|-1.225|0.333
91927888|NCT00436969|183754004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.771||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.339|2.881||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||2.881|-1.339|0.473
91927889|NCT00436969|183754005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.018||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.314|2.278||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||2.278|-2.314|0.988
91927890|NCT00436969|183754006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.467||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.692|2.627||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||2.627|-1.692|0.671
91767639|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.77||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-66 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2763). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.77|0.54|
91767640|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.56||||||95.0|0.46|0.68||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-68 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2775). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.68|0.46|
91811180|NCT03070782|183497507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-6.0||||0.4407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||9|-19|0.4407
91927891|NCT00772967|183754039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.611||||0.089||90.0|-1.36|0.14||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||0.14|-1.36|0.089
91927892|NCT00772967|183754039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.804||||0.043||90.0|-1.57|-0.04||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.04|-1.57|0.043
91927893|NCT00772967|183754040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.518||||0.048||90.0|-1.03|-0.01||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.01|-1.03|0.048
91927894|NCT00772967|183754040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.001||90.0|-1.54|-0.53||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.53|-1.54|0.001
91927895|NCT00772967|183754041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.658||||0.052||90.0|-1.32|0.01||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||0.01|-1.32|0.052
91927896|NCT00772967|183754041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.003||90.0|-1.81|-0.49||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.49|-1.81|0.003
91927897|NCT00772967|183754042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.875||||0.019||90.0|-1.56|-0.19||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.19|-1.56|0.019
91927898|NCT00772967|183754042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.007||90.0|-1.77|-0.37||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.37|-1.77|0.007
91811181|NCT03070782|183497507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-13.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-13|-35|<.0001
91927899|NCT00803244|183754052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.49||||0.2344||95.0|-1.3|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.30|0.2344
91927900|NCT00803244|183754053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference vs. Placebo|-0.09||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||ANCOVA||Relative LS Means difference (%) = -19.7|||0.00|-0.18|0.0401
91927901|NCT00053846|183754069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.0576|||ANCOVA||Multiple Imputation (MI) used for estimates. MICE software in R was used to generate 100 imputed datasets. ANCOVA was run on each, and results were pooled.|H0: The true difference in means is equal to zero. Ha: The true difference in means is not equal to zero.||0.0576|-1.020|0.080
91927902|NCT02389946|183754078|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the 12-month TLF rate for the Orsiro stent vs. the Xience stent was assessed as the primary endpoint. The null hypothesis H0 was that the Orsiro stent would have a primary endpoint (12-month TLF) rate equal to or exceeding that of the Xience group by the non-inferiority margin or more. The alternative hypothesis HA was that the Orsiro stent would have a 12-month TLF rate less than the Xience group rate plus the non-inferiority margin of 3.85%.|Posterior Probability of non-inferioriry|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Bayesian calculation using a hierarchical model to incorporate data from previous BIOFLOW-II and BIOFLOW-IV trials.||||
91927903|NCT02389946|183754079|OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.415
91811182|NCT03070782|183497507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-14.0||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-1|-26|0.0368
91811183|NCT03070782|183497507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-16.0||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-3.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-3|-28|0.0216
91927904|NCT01605396|183754091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.81|1.72|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio (HR) and p-value for treatment difference based on Cox regression model with Efron tie handling for treatment comparison (Ridaforolimus + Dalotuzumab + Exemestane arm versus Ridaforolimus + Exemestane arm).||1.72|0.81|0.565
91927905|NCT01605396|183754093|OTHER||Difference of Percentages|-10.0||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|8.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen's Method|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to compare ORR between the two treatment arms (Ridaforolimus + Dalotuzumab + Exemestane arm versus Ridaforolimus + Exemestane arm), and to calculate a p-value and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates.||8.0|-27.8|0.267
91927906|NCT01605396|183754094|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.13|||Regression, Cox|||HR and p-value for treatment difference based on Cox regression model with Efron tie handling for treatment comparison (Ridaforolimus + Dalotuzumab + Exemestane arm versus Ridaforolimus + Exemestane arm).||4.13|0.46|0.562
91927907|NCT03382899|183754127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on interactive web response system (IWRS). 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.5|0.5|0.7626
91927908|NCT03382899|183754128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|3.243|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the methods of Brookmeyer and Crowley, and Greenwood, respectively.|||3.243|0.722|0.263
91927909|NCT03382899|183754129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.663|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.|||1.663|0.571|0.20
91927910|NCT03382899|183754130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.3|0.5|0.9418
91927911|NCT03382899|183754131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|3.289|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the methods of Brookmeyer and Crowley, and Greenwood, respectively.|||3.289|0.384|0.8312
91927912|NCT00576693|183754150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Log Rank|||The statistical analysis was based on a comparison of the of the two treatment groups with respect to the time to a primary outcome using the logrank test.||||0.0252
91927913|NCT00540449|183754151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-0.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.9|5.2||Significance level was set at 2.5% (one-sided). No adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons, since there was only single comparison for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 75% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 340 subjects were needed per treatment (TMC278 or EFV) to establish non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV with a maximum allowable difference of 12% and a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%, to yield 95% power.||5.2|-5.9|<0.0001
91927914|NCT00540449|183754152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.4|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||5.9|-5.4|<0.0001
91927915|NCT00540449|183754153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-3.2||||0.0055||95.0|-9.4|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||3.1|-9.4|0.0055
91927916|NCT00540449|183754154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-1.7||||0.0013||95.0|-8.0|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.||||4.5|-8.0|0.0013
91767641|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.71||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-68 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2785). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.71|0.49|
91767642|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.61||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31/33/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.61|0.41|
91767643|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31/33/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2824). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.12|0.84|
91767644|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16/18/33/31/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.88|0.63|
91811184|NCT03070782|183497507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-22.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-9|-33|0.0012
91927917|NCT03283163|183754165|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-test to compare PTSD severity from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.040
91927918|NCT03283163|183754166|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-test to compare degree of pain-related interference from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.69
91927919|NCT03283163|183754167|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-test to compare severity of pain catastrophizing from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.098
91927920|NCT03283163|183754168|OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-tests were conducted for comparison of resting ALLO+PA levels from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.194
91927921|NCT03283163|183754169|OTHER|paired samples t-test||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-tests were conducted for comparison of peak ALLO+PA levels (30 minutes post MAXEX) from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.343
91927922|NCT04238663|183754177|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.976|1.16|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.16|0.976|
91927923|NCT04238663|183754177|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.08||||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.||1.08|0.897|
91927924|NCT04238663|183754177|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.851|1.01|||||For Ratio of geometric least square mean (GLSM): EU is the numerator and US Avastin acts as the denominator|||1.01|0.851|
91927925|NCT04238663|183754178|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.14|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator|||1.14|1.00|
91927926|NCT04238663|183754178|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.05|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.05|0.944|
91927927|NCT04238663|183754178|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.884|0.988|||||EU Avastin corresponds to the numerator and US Avastin corresponds to the denominator|||0.988|0.884|
91927928|NCT04430582|183754198|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91927929|NCT04430582|183754199|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91927930|NCT04430582|183754200|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91927931|NCT04430582|183754201|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91927932|NCT04430582|183754202|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
91927933|NCT04430582|183754203|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.95
91927934|NCT04430582|183754204|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91927935|NCT04430582|183754205|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
91811185|NCT03070782|183497508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|21.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.0|1.2|0.0286
91927936|NCT04430582|183754206|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91927937|NCT04430582|183754207|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91927938|NCT04430582|183754208|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91927939|NCT04430582|183754209|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91927940|NCT04430582|183754210|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
91927941|NCT04430582|183754211|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.045
91927942|NCT04430582|183754212|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91927943|NCT02410902|183754214|OTHER|ANCOVA using MMRM analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-4.98|0.038
91927944|NCT02410902|183754215|OTHER|ANCOVA using MMRM analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|-3.21|0.325
91927945|NCT00074412|183754216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||6 month Rate of Cum. HIV Infection (%)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||1.8|0.3|
91927946|NCT00074412|183754216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||6 month Rate of Cum. HIV Infection (%)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.6|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||3.6|1.3|
91927947|NCT00074412|183754216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|1.973||||0.049||95.0||||P-value has not been adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Z-test|||Assuming the cumulative HIV infection rate in placebo group would be 4.2% (2.6 at 6 wk. \& 6.7 at 6 mon.), we estimated 1500 mother/infant pairs would provide 90% power to detect a reduction in HIV infection from 4.2% to 1.4% at 6 mon. with a Pearson χ² test statistic and a one-sided false positive error rate of 0.025. Rate of cumulative infection was calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and rates between extended NVP group and placebo were done with the Z statistic.||||0.049
91811186|NCT03070782|183497508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|131.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||131.4|7.3|<.0001
91927948|NCT00074412|183754218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 6mon (%)|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.6|98.8|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 6 months in the extended NVP arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% CI was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||98.8|96.6|
91927949|NCT00074412|183754218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 6mon (%)|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|98.0|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 6 months in the placebo arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% CI was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||98.0|95.5|
91927950|NCT00074412|183754218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|1.095||||0.274||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of HIV-free survival at 6 months were compared between the two groups using a Z-statistic.||||0.274
91927951|NCT00074412|183754218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 18mon (%)|94.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.9|96.2|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 18 months in the extended NVP arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Greenwood's formula.||96.2|92.9|
91927952|NCT00074412|183754218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 18mon (%)|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|95.1|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 18 months in the placebo arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||95.1|91.5|
91927953|NCT00074412|183754218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|0.988||||0.323||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of HIV-free survival at 18 months were compared between the two groups using a Z statistic.||||0.323
91927954|NCT00074412|183754219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||18 mon. Rate of Cum HIV Infection (%)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.3|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV infection at 18 months in the extended NVP arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||3.3|1.1|
91927955|NCT00074412|183754219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||18 mon. Rate of Cum. HIV Infection (%)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.4|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV infection at 18 months in the placebo arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||4.4|1.9|
91927956|NCT00074412|183754219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|1.081||||0.28||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of HIV infection at 18 months were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared between arms using a Z statistic.||||0.280
91767645|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.33||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16/18/33/31/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2825). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||2.33|1.91|
91767646|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|5.49||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HRW-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||5.49|4.79|
91811187|NCT03070782|183497508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|122.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|627.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||627.4|24.0|<.0001
91811188|NCT03070782|183497508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|195.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||195.0|9.8|<.0001
91927957|NCT00074412|183754220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 18mon (%)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.4|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||7.4|2.0|
91927958|NCT00074412|183754220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 18mon (%)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|5.6|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||5.6|2.7|
91927959|NCT00074412|183754220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|-0.247||||0.805||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of mortality at 6 months, as calculated by Kaplan-Meier, were compared between the two groups using a Z-statistic.||||0.805
91811189|NCT03070782|183497508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1124.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.3|11571.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||11571|109.3|<.0001
91927960|NCT00074412|183754220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 6mon (%)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||2.0|0.4|
91927961|NCT00074412|183754220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 6mon (%)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||1.8|0.3|
91927962|NCT00074412|183754220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|-0.36||||0.719||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative mortality rates at 18 months, as calculated by Kaplan-Meier, were compared between the two groups using a Z statistic.||||0.719
91927963|NCT00074412|183754220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.611||95.0|||||Log Rank|||We compared the cumulative mortality rates, as calculated using Kaplan-Meier, between the two study groups over all 18 months of the study follow-up using a log-rank test.||||0.611
91927964|NCT03656926|183754243|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are from a Linear Mixed Model on the response variable change from baseline in FEV1 with factors for time splines, treatment, the interactions of time splines by treatment, baseline FEV1, the interactions of time splines with baseline FEV1, region (North America vs all other countries together), age (\<55 versus \>=55 years), use of azithromycin at randomization, and time as random effect.|least square mean difference|-0.028||||0.6639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.104||This is a 1-side p value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||V9 - week 48||0.104|-0.160|0.6639
91927965|NCT02902172|183754246|NON_INFERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91927966|NCT00850759|183754248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91927967|NCT01773135|183754251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||U statistic|||||||<0.001
91811190|NCT03070782|183497509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|155.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||155.3|0.3|0.2007
91927968|NCT01212172|183754278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|21.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||21.1|-6.7|0.2879
91927969|NCT00578864|183754280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.367||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.367
91927970|NCT00578864|183754283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.592
91927971|NCT01253044|183754325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||||||.912
91927972|NCT01253044|183754326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||||||.273
91927973|NCT02262039|183754327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91927974|NCT02262039|183754328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91927975|NCT02262039|183754329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91927976|NCT02262039|183754330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91767647|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|5.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|6.1||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HRW-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2825). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||6.10|5.36|
91811191|NCT03070782|183497509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.92||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|521.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||521.5|1.5|0.0258
91811192|NCT03070782|183497509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|113.92||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|2098.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2098.5|6.2|0.0014
91811193|NCT03070782|183497509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|59.85||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|1128.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1128.0|3.2|0.0063
91811194|NCT03070782|183497509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|347.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|6597.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||6597.9|18.3|<.0001
91927977|NCT02262039|183754331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91927978|NCT02262039|183754332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91927979|NCT02262039|183754333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91927980|NCT00962000|183754344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size required for the study was estimated using a web-based power calculation tool. Analysis of data from some 50,000 hemodialysis patients showed a within-patient between-treatment standard deviation of 0.21 for Kt/Vurea. Using this estimate of standard deviation, 38 subjects would be needed to detect a difference in Kt/Vurea of 0.1 with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 90% with two determinations per subject at each level of dialysate flow rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02217|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.024||There is no p values because the power calculation is based on the primary outcome variable|ANOVA|The three centers and the two flow rates were treated as fixed effects and the subjects within centers modeled as a random effect.||Increasing the dialysate flow rates from 600 mL/min to 800 mL/min will not significantly increase Kt/Vurea.||0.024|-0.064|
91927981|NCT00962000|183754345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size required for the study was estimated using a web-based power calculation tool. Analysis of data from some 50,000 hemodialysis patients showed a within-patient between-treatment standard deviation of 0.21 for Kt/Vurea. Using this estimate of standard deviation, 38 subjects would be needed to detect a difference in Kt/Vurea of 0.1 with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 90% with two determinations per subject at each level of dialysate flow rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.023||There is no p value for eKt/V because the power calculation is based on the primary outcome variable (Kt/Vsp) alone.|ANOVA|The three centers and the two flow rates were treated as fixed effects and the subjects within centers modeled as a random effect.||Increasing the dialysate flow rates from 600 mL/min to 800 mL/min will not significantly increase Kt/Vurea.||0.023|-0.051|
91927982|NCT00962000|183754346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size required for the study was estimated using a web-based power calculation tool. Analysis of data from some 50,000 hemodialysis patients showed a within-patient between-treatment standard deviation of 0.21 for Kt/Vurea. Using this estimate of standard deviation, 38 subjects would be needed to detect a difference in Kt/Vurea of 0.1 with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 90% with two determinations per subject at each level of dialysate flow rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03103||||95.0|-0.029|0.099||There is no p value for Kt/VID because the power calculation is based on the primary outcome variable (Kt/Vsp) alone.|ANOVA|||Increasing the dialysate flow rates from 600 mL/min to 800 mL/min will not significantly increase Kt/Vurea.||0.099|-0.029|
91927983|NCT02749721|183754379|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91927984|NCT02749721|183754380|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.012
91927985|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.125||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P200 (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.610
91927986|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.294||||0.288|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3a (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.288
91927987|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.405||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3b (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.134
91927988|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.397||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P200 (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.083
91927989|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.476||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P3a (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.034
91927990|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.509||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P200 baseline scores||||0.031
91927991|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3a (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.500
91927992|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.376||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b baseline scores||||0.185
91927993|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.108||||0.659|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P200 baseline scores||||0.659
91927994|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.125||||0.611|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P3a baseline scores||||0.611
91927995|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.111||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.671
91927996|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.026||||0.931|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.931
91927997|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.516||||0.155|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.155
91767648|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.94|5.65||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HR-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||5.65|4.94|
91767649|NCT03629886|183424328|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|6.69||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HR-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2825). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||6.69|5.91|
91811195|NCT03070782|183497510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-4.0||||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||5|-12|0.4022
91927998|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.268||||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.297
91927999|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.184||||0.494|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.494
91928000|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.065||||0.811|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.811
91928001|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.048||||0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.877
91928002|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.246||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.557
91928003|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.182||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.500
91928004|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.288||||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.297
91928005|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER|Differences in BNA scores between MDD and healthy subjects were analyzed for baseline visits using an ANCOVA model with group as a factor, and age as a covariate.|F statistic|0.318||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.575
91928006|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||F statistic|0.378||||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.541
91928007|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||F|0.012||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.912
91928008|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||F statistic|1.586||||0.214|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.214
91928009|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||F statistic|0.453||||0.504|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.504
91928010|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||F statistic|0.37||||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.546
91928011|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||F statistic|0.017||||0.895|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.895
91928012|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||F statistic|0.179||||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.673
91928013|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||F statistic|1.241||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.27
91928014|NCT02749721|183754381|OTHER||F statistic|0.042||||0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.837
91928015|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.359||||0.143|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline scores||||0.143
91928016|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b (latency) baseline scores||||0.500
91928017|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.277||||0.337|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b (latency) baseline scores||||0.337
91928018|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.052||||0.832|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P200 (latency) baseline scores||||0.832
91928019|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.103||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P3a (latency) baseline scores||||0.68
91928020|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.074||||0.777|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.777
91928021|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.061||||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.834
91928022|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.006||||0.988|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.988
91928023|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.073||||0.788|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.788
91928024|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.375||||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.168
91928025|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.392||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline scores||||0.108
91928026|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.415||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3a (Latency) baseline scores||||0.124
91928027|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.362||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3b (Latency) baseline scores||||0.185
91928028|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.023||||0.923|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P200 (Latency) baseline scores||||0.923
91928029|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.071||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P3a (Latency) baseline scores||||0.77
91928030|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.097||||0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.712
91928031|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.058||||0.845|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.845
91928032|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.194||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3b (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.616
91928033|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.255||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.323
91928034|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.193||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.473
91928035|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||F statistic|4.909||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.031
91928036|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||F statistic|1.189||||0.281|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.281
91928037|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||F statistic|0.001||||0.966|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.966
91928038|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||F statistic|4.121||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.048
91928039|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||F statistic|8.573||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.005
91928040|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||F statistic|2.823||||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.101
91928041|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||F statistic|0.806||||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.373
91928042|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||F statistic|1.822||||0.183|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.183
91928043|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||F statistic|0.516||||0.475|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.475
91928044|NCT02749721|183754382|OTHER||F statistic|0.214||||0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.645
91928045|NCT02749721|183754383|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91928046|NCT02749721|183754384|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91928047|NCT02749721|183754385|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91928048|NCT02749721|183754386|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91928049|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.044||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.859
91928050|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.211||||0.451|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||AOB P3a (amplitude)||||0.451
91928051|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.015||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||AOB P3b (amplitude)||||0.957
91928052|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.322||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||VGNG P200 (amplitude)||||0.166
91928053|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.374||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||VGNG P3a (amplitude)||||0.105
91928054|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.137||||0.601|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.601
91928055|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.234||||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.421
91928056|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.378||||0.316|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.316
91928057|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.185||||0.478|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.478
91928058|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.011||||0.969|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.969
91928059|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.018||||0.943|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.943
91928060|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.074||||0.795|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.795
91928061|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.011||||0.969|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.969
91928062|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.406|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.406
91928063|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.309||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.185
91928064|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.195||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.454
91928065|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.162||||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.579
91928066|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.232||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.549
91767650|NCT00496015|183424397|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criteria: The lower limit (LL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups (Synflorix PRE Group minus Synflorix I Group) was above 0%.|Difference in percentages|22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.78|32.11||||||||32.11|11.78|
91928067|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.169||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.518
91928068|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.027||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.922
91928069|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.064||||0.796|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.796
91928070|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.506||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.054
91928071|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.002||||0.995|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.995
91928072|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.102||||0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.668
91928073|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.037||||0.875|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.875
91928074|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.049||||0.852|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.852
91928075|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.34||||0.234|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.234
91928076|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.655||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.056
91928077|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.297||||0.248|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.248
91928078|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.179||||0.507|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.507
91928079|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.049||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.841
91928080|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.185||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.508
91767651|NCT05552027|183424454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||At the completion of scenario A (a full child safety seat installation), the participants using the CCS app had significantly fewer errors present compared to the control group.|Chi-squared|||||||<.001
91767652|NCT05552027|183424454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||At the end of scenario B (loose harness straps), participants using the CCS app had significantly fewer errors present compared to the control group.|Chi-squared|||||||<.01
91767653|NCT05552027|183424454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||At the end of scenario C (loose attachment at the base), like the other two scenarios, participants using the CCS app had significantly fewer errors present compared to the control group.|Chi-squared|||||||<.01
91928081|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.03||||0.916|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.916
91928082|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.345||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.147
91928083|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.284||||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.225
91928084|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.044||||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.868
91928085|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.18||||0.537|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.537
91928086|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.476||||0.195|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.195
91928087|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.594||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.015
91928088|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.009||||0.972|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.972
91928089|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.067||||0.785|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.785
91928090|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.129||||0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.646
91928091|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.364||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.182
91928092|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.414||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.069
91928093|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.416||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.068
91928094|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.023||||0.929|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.929
91928095|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.074||||0.802|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.802
91928096|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.518||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.153
91928097|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.268||||0.298|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.298
91928098|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.001||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.996
91928099|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.242||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.531
91928100|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.598||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.210
91928101|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.054||||0.899|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.899
91928102|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.568||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.087
91928103|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.568||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.087
91928104|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.231||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.550
91928105|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.158||||0.766|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.766
91928106|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.406||||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.498
91928107|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.221||||0.599|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.599
91928108|NCT02749721|183754387|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.679||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.064
91928109|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.038||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.881
91928110|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.299||||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.279
91928111|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.538||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.039
91767654|NCT01147666|183424474|OTHER|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91767655|NCT01147666|183424474|OTHER|||||||0.0698||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0698
91928112|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.018||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.940
91928113|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.107||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.65
91928114|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.247||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.340
91767656|NCT01147666|183424474|OTHER|||||||0.1534||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1534
91767657|NCT01147666|183424474|OTHER|||||||0.2657||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2657
91767658|NCT01147666|183424475|OTHER|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91767659|NCT02748863|183424493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|717.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|7569.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||7569.56|68.00|< 0.0001
91767660|NCT02748863|183424494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|168.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|1337.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||1337.22|21.20|< 0.0001
91767661|NCT02748863|183424495|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.41|50.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||50.09|27.41|< 0.0001
91767662|NCT02748863|183424495|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.19|47.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||||47.76|25.19|< 0.0001
91767663|NCT02748863|183424497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|400.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.48|3379.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||3379.99|47.48|< 0.0001
91767664|NCT01135134|183424510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91767665|NCT01135134|183424511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91767666|NCT03865446|183424540|OTHER||Geometric Means Ratio|130.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.03|199.22|||||The model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with unequal variance assumption and hepatic impairment group as fixed effect. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|||199.22|86.03|
91928115|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.067||||0.819|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.819
91928116|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.321||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.400
91928117|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.279||||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.278
91928118|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.136||||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.614
91928119|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.999
91928120|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.193||||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.491
91928121|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.567||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.028
91928122|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.900
91928123|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.141||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.55
91928124|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.231||||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.373
91928125|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.019||||0.949|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.949
91928126|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.122||||0.754|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.754
91928127|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.176||||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||0.176|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.499
91928128|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.162||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.549
91928129|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.126||||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.617
91928130|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.1||||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.722
91928131|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.249||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.371
91928132|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.072||||0.764|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.764
91928133|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.225||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.34
91928134|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.148||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.570
91928135|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.228||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.434
91928136|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.22||||0.569|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.569
91928137|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.645||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.005
91928138|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.105||||0.698|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.698
91928139|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.073||||0.774|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.774
91928140|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.577||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline score||||0.024
91767667|NCT03865446|183424541|OTHER||Geometric Means Ratio|104.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.12|151.16|||||The model was an ANOVA model with unequal variance assumption and hepatic impairment group as fixed effect. Values are back-transformed from the log scale.|||151.16|72.12|
91928141|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.146||||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.603
91928142|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.232||||0.326|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.326
91811196|NCT03070782|183497510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-9|-23|<.0001
91811197|NCT03070782|183497510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-1|-17|0.0323
91767668|NCT01329978|183424548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|9.4||The p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions.|The analyses was stratified by IL28B (CC versus any T allele) and plasma HCV RNA (\< 800,000 IU/mL versus ≥ 800,000 IU/mL). Only participants with genotype 1 were included in the comparison due to the fact that participants with genotype 4 and 6 were only enrolled in the SOF+PEG+RBV 24 weeks group.||9.4|-12.2|0.77
91811198|NCT03070782|183497510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-2|-18|0.0157
91811199|NCT03070782|183497510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-9|-24|<.0001
91928143|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.098||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.68
91928144|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.073||||0.774|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.774
91928145|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.577||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.024
91928146|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.146||||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.603
91928147|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.232||||0.326|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.326
91928148|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.098||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.68
91928149|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.1||||0.692|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.692
91928150|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.498||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.059
91928151|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.332||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.227
91928152|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.125||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.600
91928153|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.096||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.69
91928154|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.259||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.315
91928155|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.002||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.996
91928156|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.234||||0.544|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.544
91928157|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.455||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.066
91928158|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.28||||0.293|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.293
91928159|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.783||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.013
91928160|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.135||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.799
91928161|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.506||||0.201|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.201
91928162|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.586|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.586
91928163|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.024||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.95
91928164|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.039||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.920
91928165|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.113||||0.831|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.831
91928166|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.655||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.230
91928167|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.602||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.115
91928168|NCT02749721|183754388|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.313||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.450
91928169|NCT01519245|183754393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to Treat principles of data analysis were applied. The two-sided T-test (95% confidence interval) was used for statistical calculation of primary outcomes. The null hypothesis was that no difference in chest tube losses would be found between the topical tranexamic acid and placebo groups in low-risk cardiac patients undergoing CABG.||||0.0493
91928170|NCT01519245|183754395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1876||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to Treat principles of data analysis were applied. The two-sided T-test (95% confidence interval) was used for statistical calculation of secondary outcomes. The null hypothesis was that no difference in chest tube losses would be found between the topical tranexamic acid and placebo groups in low-risk cardiac patients undergoing CABG.||||0.1876
91928171|NCT01519245|183754396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to Treat principles of data analysis were applied. The two-sided T-test (95% confidence interval) was used for statistical calculation of secondary outcomes. The null hypothesis was that no difference in chest tube losses would be found between the topical tranexamic acid and placebo groups in low-risk cardiac patients undergoing CABG.||||0.0930
91928172|NCT02873715|183754397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-2.29|||ANCOVA||Results are pooled across 10 multiple imputations and reported as mean (standard error)|||-2.29|-10.14|<0.05
91928173|NCT02873715|183754398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.97||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-2.26|||ANCOVA||Results are pooled across 10 multiple imputations and reported as mean (standard error)|||-2.26|-5.68|0.001
91928174|NCT02873715|183754400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5384||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|time x group analysis.||repeated measures analysis of variance for parent delay discounting changes from 0 to 24-month. This includes only parents with complete data for both time points and does not exclude based on johnson-bickel rules. Reporting time x group analysis.||||0.65
91928175|NCT02873715|183754400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3913||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||time x group analysis|ANOVA|||repeated measures analysis of variance for child delay discounting changes from 0 to 24-month. This includes only parents with complete data for both time points and does not exclude based on johnson-bickel rules. Reporting time x group analysis.||||0.87
91928176|NCT02144220|183754404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91928177|NCT01254396|183754408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|41.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.4|52.76||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of sildenafil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios.||52.76|32.40|
91928178|NCT01254396|183754410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|93.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.23|108.78||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of sildenafil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios.||108.78|80.23|
91928179|NCT01254396|183754411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|87.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.62|98.99||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of sildenafil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios.||98.99|77.62|
91928180|NCT04590937|183754423|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|98.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.89|101.67|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Metformin + BI 730357 / Metformin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||101.67|94.89|
91928181|NCT04590937|183754424|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|123.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.22|134.98|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Rosuvastatin + BI 730357 / Rosuvastatin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||134.98|112.22|
91928182|NCT04590937|183754425|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|117.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.57|125.34|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Furosemide + BI 730357 / Furosemide. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||125.34|110.57|
91928183|NCT04590937|183754426|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|170.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.73|201.76|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Digoxin + BI 730357 / Digoxin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||201.76|143.73|
91928184|NCT04590937|183754427|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|91.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.04|94.93|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Metformin + BI 730357 / Metformin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||94.93|88.04|
91928185|NCT04590937|183754428|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|139.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.29|155.51|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Rosuvastatin + BI 730357 / Rosuvastatin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||155.51|124.29|
91928186|NCT04590937|183754429|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|112.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.26|124.11|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Furosemide + BI 730357 / Furosemide. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||124.11|101.26|
91767669|NCT01329978|183424548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.9||The p-value is based on the CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The difference in proportions and its 95% CI were calculated based on stratum-adjusted MH proportions.||The analyses was stratified by IL28B (CC versus any T allele) and plasma HCV RNA (\< 800,000 IU/mL versus ≥ 800,000 IU/mL).||9.9|-10.8|0.93
91767670|NCT00287716|183424584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.95|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no treatment difference between the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day treatment group and the placebo treatment group.||0.95|0.44|0.023
91767671|NCT00287716|183424590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.42|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no treatment difference between the pirfenidone 2403-mg/d treatment group and the placebo treatment group.||1.42|0.50|0.515
91767672|NCT02294058|183424593|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.518|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.663||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age, number of gadolinium enhancing (GdE) lesions and included the natural log transformation of time as an offset term.||||0.663|0.405|<0.0001
91767673|NCT02294058|183424593|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.688||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|0.864||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson Regression Model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and the number of GdE lesions, and included the natural log transformation of time on study as an offset term.||||0.864|0.547|0.0013
91767674|NCT02294058|183424594|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.517|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|0.625||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans over 12 months as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.625|0.427|<0.0001
91767675|NCT02294058|183424594|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.754||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|0.91||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans over 12 months as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.910|0.625|0.0032
91767676|NCT02294058|183424595|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.536||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans as an offset term.||||0.536|0.256|<0.0001
91767677|NCT02294058|183424595|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.662||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.932||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans as an offset term.||||0.932|0.471|0.0182
91767678|NCT02294058|183424596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.3055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.402|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||1.402|0.340|0.3055
91767679|NCT02294058|183424596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.886||||0.7163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.705|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||1.705|0.460|0.7163
91767680|NCT02294058|183424597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.238||||0.6725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.337|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||3.337|0.460|0.6725
91767681|NCT02294058|183424597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.535||||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|3.963|||Cox proportional hazard model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||3.963|0.595|0.3755
91767682|NCT02294058|183424598|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|10.88||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.84|16.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS category per Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||16.92|4.84|0.0006
91767683|NCT02294058|183424598|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.12||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|11.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS category per IVRS.||||11.32|-1.07|0.1130
91767684|NCT02294058|183424599|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.53||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|10.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS Scale category per IVRS.||||10.24|-1.19|0.1180
91767685|NCT02294058|183424599|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.95||||0.3023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS Scale category per IVRS.||||8.60|-2.70|0.3023
91928187|NCT04590937|183754430|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|161.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.17|201.39|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Digoxin + BI 730357 / Digoxin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||201.39|129.17|
91928188|NCT04590937|183754431|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|98.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.86|101.73|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Metformin + BI 730357 / Metformin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||101.73|94.86|
91928189|NCT04590937|183754432|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|118.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.83|129.4|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Rosuvastatin + BI 730357 / Rosuvastatin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||129.40|108.83|
91928190|NCT04590937|183754433|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|114.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.93|120.56|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Furosemide + BI 730357 / Furosemide. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||120.56|107.93|
91928191|NCT04590937|183754434|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|173.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.9|212.8|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Digoxin + BI 730357 / Digoxin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||212.80|141.90|
91928192|NCT01544595|183754438|SUPERIORITY|"H1: Secukinumab 150 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68~• H2: Secukinumab 300 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.42|||Log Rank|||"The following hypotheses were tested for 52 weeks≤ t ≤68 weeks~* H1: p1(t) - p0,1(t) = 0 versus HA1: p1(t)- p0,1(t) ≥ 0,~* H2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) = 0 versus HA2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) ≥ 0,"||0.42|0.22|<0.0001
91928193|NCT01544595|183754438|SUPERIORITY|"H1: Secukinumab 150 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68~• H2: Secukinumab 300 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.29|||Log Rank|||"The following hypotheses were tested for 52 weeks≤ t ≤68 weeks~* H1: p1(t) - p0,1(t) = 0 versus HA1: p1(t)- p0,1(t) ≥ 0,~* H2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) = 0 versus HA2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) ≥ 0,"||0.29|0.14|<0.0001
91928194|NCT01929044|183754460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One-sided test relative to the non-inferiority margin of 1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) -repeated measures approach||0.04|-0.88|<0.0001
91928195|NCT01929044|183754460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||0.04|-0.88|0.0743
91928196|NCT01929044|183754461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||0.08|-0.70|0.1210
91928197|NCT01929044|183754462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||0.03|-0.82|0.0658
91767686|NCT02294058|183424600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and EDSS category per IVRS||Due to the non-normal distribution of the data for brain volume loss, the analyses for percent change from baseline in normalized brain volume were compared using rank-ANCOVA, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), and EDSS category per IVRS, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline regressed on rank of percent change.||||<0.0001
91767687|NCT02294058|183424600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0615|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and EDSS Scale per IVRS||Due to the non-normal distribution of the data for brain volume loss, the analyses for percent change from baseline in normalized brain volume were compared using rank-ANCOVA, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), and EDSS category per IVRS, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline regressed on rank of percent change.||||0.0615
91767688|NCT02294058|183424601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.034||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.077|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS and the Baseline MSFC score.||||0.077|-0.010|0.1290
91767689|NCT02294058|183424601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.015||||0.4942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.059|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS and the Baseline MSFC score||||0.059|-0.028|0.4942
91767690|NCT02294058|183424602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.642||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|3.18|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary||3.180|0.104|0.0364
91767691|NCT02294058|183424602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.024||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.559|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary||2.559|-0.510|0.1905
91928198|NCT01929044|183754463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||-0.07|-0.85|0.0220
91928199|NCT01929044|183754464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||-0.09|-0.81|0.0149
91928200|NCT01929044|183754465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0113|||||||van Elteren test|The van Elteren test stratifying for centre (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using modified ridit scores) was performed.||||||0.0113
91928201|NCT01929044|183754466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model was used to evaluate the response with treatment as fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate.|Exact 95% confidence interval obtained by Clopper and Pearson approach.|||1.09|0.37|0.0992
91928202|NCT00554294|183754467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||<|0.05||95.0|0.48|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|The Odds Ratio (OR) describes the probability ob beeing overweight of the intervention group compared to the control group (reference, denominator).||adjusted for overweight at baseline, age at baseline,sex and clustering by school||0.98|0.48|<0.05
91928203|NCT05022004|183754472|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.91|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Left Eye at Week 2, 08:00am|||0.91|-0.28|
91928204|NCT05022004|183754472|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Right Eye at Week 2, 08:00am|||0.76|-0.39|
91928205|NCT05022004|183754472|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.5|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Left Eye at Week 6, 08:00am|||0.50|-0.59|
91928206|NCT05022004|183754472|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.4|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Right Eye at Week 6, 08:00am|||0.40|-0.64|
91928207|NCT05022004|183754473|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed||||||0.0015||||||P value reported for Left Eye at Week 2; 08:00 am|two-sample t-test|||||||0.0015
91928208|NCT05022004|183754473|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed||||||0.0008|||||||two-sample t-test|P value reported for Right Eye at Week 2; 08:00am||||||0.0008
91928209|NCT05022004|183754473|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|||||<|0.0001|||||||two-sample t-test|P value reported for left eye at week 6, 08:00 am||||||<.0001
91928210|NCT05022004|183754473|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|||||<|0.0001|||||||two-sample t-test|P value reported for Right eye at Week 6; 08:00 am||||||<.0001
91928211|NCT00337467|183754496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|33.7|||exact binomial methods|Given the small sample size, the 95% confidence interval is made with exact binomial methods.||||33.7|11.9|
91928212|NCT00337467|183754497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|47.7|||exact binomial methods|Given the small sample size, the 95% confidence interval is made with exact binomial methods.||||47.7|22.7|
91928213|NCT00337467|183754502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change (Final Values)|61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|109.8|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||||109.8|12.3|
91928214|NCT00337467|183754503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change (Final Values)|53.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|113.7|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||||113.7|-7.1|
91928215|NCT00337467|183754504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change (Final Values)|63.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|129.1|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||||129.1|-4.0|
91928216|NCT00337467|183754506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|14.6|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Total Cholesterol at Week 48||14.6|2.5|
91928217|NCT00337467|183754506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.8|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting HDL Cholesterol at Week 48||8.8|-3.9|
91928218|NCT00337467|183754506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|20.8|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol at Week 48||20.8|4.0|
91928219|NCT00337467|183754506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.7|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting LDL Cholesterol at Week 48||31.7|8.0|
91928220|NCT00337467|183754506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|34.4|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Triglycerides at Week 48||34.4|-0.4|
91928221|NCT00337467|183754507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||||95.0|6.9|20.1|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Total Cholesterol at Week 96||20.1|6.9|
91928222|NCT00337467|183754507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|10.2|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting HDL Cholesterol at Week 96||10.2|-6.0|
91928223|NCT00337467|183754507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|28.4|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol at Week 96||28.4|10.3|
91928224|NCT00337467|183754507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|42.0|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting LDL Cholesterol at Week 96||42.0|15.3|
91928225|NCT00337467|183754507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|41.6|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Triglycerides at Week 96||41.6|-9.5|
91928226|NCT01187901|183754512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91928227|NCT01187901|183754513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91928228|NCT01187901|183754514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91928229|NCT01187901|183754515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91767692|NCT02294058|183424602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.356||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.523|2.234|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary||2.234|-1.523|0.7104
91767693|NCT02294058|183424602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.8587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.045|1.705|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary||1.705|-2.045|0.8587
91767694|NCT02586623|183424646|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.62|||Log Rank||Droxidopa / Placebo|||1.62|0.67|0.803
91767695|NCT00965250|183424713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||<0.0001
91928230|NCT01187901|183754516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91928231|NCT01187901|183754517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91928232|NCT03141086|183754518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.711||||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|4.762|||ANOVA|||||4.762|-1.340|0.1272
91928233|NCT03141086|183754519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.866||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|6.553|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours post dose||6.553|-0.821|0.0607
91928234|NCT03141086|183754519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.975||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.024|4.973|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5.5 hours post dose||4.973|-1.024|0.0919
91767696|NCT00965250|183424714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||<0.0001
91767697|NCT06172348|183424732|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|21.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.31|24.8|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||24.80|19.31|
91811200|NCT03070782|183497511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||21|-32|0.4956
91928235|NCT03141086|183754519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.576||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|3.848|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7.5 hours post dose||3.848|-0.697|0.0811
91928236|NCT03141086|183754519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.879||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.268|3.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9.5 hours post dose||3.026|-1.268|0.2026
91928237|NCT01128972|183754542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.09|16.24||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||16.24|7.09|<0.0001
91928238|NCT01128972|183754542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.02|31.18||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and reference dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||31.18|22.02|<0.0001
91928239|NCT01128972|183754542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.59|41.74||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and placebo dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||41.74|32.59|<0.0001
91928240|NCT01128972|183754543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.11||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.15||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.15|1.07|0.0083
91928241|NCT01128972|183754543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|11.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.22|14.29||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect)|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and reference dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.29|8.22|<0.0001
91767698|NCT06172348|183424732|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.21|14.27|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||14.27|11.21|
91928242|NCT01128972|183754543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.53|14.6||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect)|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and placebo dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.60|8.53|<0.0001
91928243|NCT01128972|183754544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.88||||0.7041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|3.69||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR and Test dentifrice+ Test MR treatment regimen treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||3.69|-5.46|0.7041
91928244|NCT01128972|183754544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|15.36||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.36|6.21|<0.0001
91928245|NCT01128972|183754544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|25.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|30.29||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ Test MR treatment regimen and Reference dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||30.29|21.14|<0.0001
91928246|NCT01128972|183754544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|36.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.71|40.86||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and Placebo dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||40.86|31.71|<0.0001
91928247|NCT01128972|183754545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.39||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-1.35||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ Test MR treatment regimen and Test dentifrice + Test MR to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-1.35|-7.43|0.0049
91928248|NCT01128972|183754545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.8571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|2.76||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||2.76|-3.31|0.8571
91767699|NCT06172348|183424733|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|86.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.11|94.54|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||94.54|79.11|
91767700|NCT06172348|183424733|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|83.9|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||83.90|70.65|
91811201|NCT03070782|183497511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-36.0||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-14|-52|0.0027
91928249|NCT01128972|183754545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|9.9||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR treatment regimen and Reference Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.90|3.83|<0.0001
91928250|NCT01128972|183754545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|10.21||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR treatment regimen and Placebo dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.21|4.14|<0.0001
91928251|NCT01128972|183754546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|19.51||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Test Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen andReference Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||19.51|10.36|
91928252|NCT01128972|183754547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|10.18||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Test Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen and Reference Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.18|4.11|<0.0001
91928253|NCT02574312|183754557|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Analysis of absolute value of mechanical axis alignment with NI margin of 1.5 degrees, using a 1-sided T-test with alpha of 0.05. Anticipated power was 95%.||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.028
91928254|NCT04467164|183754570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in change of brain activity in the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (fMRI BOLD signal) between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. An ANCOVA model was used with average beta weights in response to stress task at baseline as a covariate. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.03
91928255|NCT04467164|183754570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in change of brain activity in the orbitofrontal cortex (fMRI BOLD signal) between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. An ANCOVA model was used with average beta weights in response to stress task at baseline as a covariate. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.022
91928256|NCT04467164|183754570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in change of brain activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (fMRI BOLD signal) between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. An ANCOVA model was used with average beta weights in response to stress task at baseline as a covariate. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.027
91928257|NCT04467164|183754571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the change in BDI scale score between exhalatory-gated tVNS and inhalatory-gated tVNS. A repeated measures ANOVA controlled by baseline values was used to test this difference. A p\<0.05 was designated for statistical significance. A positive difference indicates an increase in depressive symptomatology, whereas a negative difference indicates a reduction in depressive symptoms.||||0.03
91767701|NCT06172348|183424734|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|123.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.16|146.02|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule (fed); Reference = MR1 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||146.02|105.16|
91928258|NCT04467164|183754572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in percent HFn changes post-pre stimulation between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. A General Linear Model (GLM) analysis adjusted by baseline values was used for evaluating differences in this measure between treatment groups. A p\<0.05 was designated for statistical significance. A positive percent change value indicates an increase in cardiovagal activity, whereas a negative change indicates a reduction in cardiovagal activity.||||0.01
91928259|NCT03463941|183754578|OTHER||||||||||||||||||descriptive|||
91811202|NCT03070782|183497511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-54.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-38.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-38|-65|<.0001
91928260|NCT03463941|183754579|OTHER||||||||||||||||||descriptive|||
91767702|NCT06172348|183424734|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|129.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.51|151.06|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule (fed); Reference = MR2 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||151.06|111.51|
91811203|NCT03070782|183497511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-31.0||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-8.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-8|-48|0.0114
91928261|NCT03463941|183754581|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91767703|NCT06172348|183424735|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|119.76|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule (fed); Reference = MR1 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||119.76|96.46|
91928262|NCT03463941|183754582|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91928263|NCT03463941|183754583|OTHER||||||||||||||||||descriptive|||
91928264|NCT03463941|183754584|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91928265|NCT02273050|183754585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0994|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.689|||ANCOVA|||||-0.689|-1.080|<0.001
91928266|NCT02273050|183754585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||||-0.016|-0.410|0.034
91928267|NCT02273050|183754586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|46.0|||Fisher Exact|||||46.0|29.0|<0.001
91928268|NCT02273050|183754586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|18.9|||Fisher Exact|||||18.9|2.6|0.011
91928269|NCT02273050|183754587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-1.70|<0.001
91928270|NCT02273050|183754587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.63|0.046
91928271|NCT02273050|183754588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-416.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-517.3|-314.6|||ANCOVA|||||-314.6|-517.3|<0.001
91767704|NCT06172348|183424735|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.19|121.17|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule (fed); Reference = MR2 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||121.17|99.19|
91928272|NCT02273050|183754588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-169.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.7|-66.9|||ANCOVA|||||-66.9|-271.7|0.001
91928273|NCT02273050|183754589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|43.9|||Fisher Exact|||||43.9|26.0|<0.001
91928274|NCT02273050|183754589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||||20.9|2.3|0.020
91928275|NCT02273050|183754590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-2.25|||ANCOVA|||||-2.25|-3.70|<0.001
91928276|NCT02273050|183754590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.88|0.002
91767705|NCT04037891|183424754|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage of participants|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.57|72.99||||||||72.99|-53.57|
91767706|NCT04037891|183424754|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage of participants|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|78.39||||||Comparison of incidence of ocular TEAE in all patients receiving rVA576 (part 1 and 2) vs placebo||78.39|-25.45|
91767707|NCT04194944|183424763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.465||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.699|||Log Rank|||||0.699|0.309|0.0002
91811204|NCT03070782|183497511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-49.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-49|-72|<.0001
91928277|NCT02273050|183754591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-4.5|||Fisher Exact|||||-4.5|-13.3|<0.001
91928278|NCT02273050|183754591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Fisher Exact|||||2.3|-2.3|>0.999
91928279|NCT00903032|183754600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Unpaired t tests were used to compare continuous variables, and χ2 testswere used to compare categorical variables across the intervention and usual care. We used a log-rank test to compare the hazardof first hospitalization for MI, revascularization, or death.We used a Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare PDCs between study arms. For all other outcomes, χ2 tests and t testswere used for comparisons, as appropriate.||||0.003
91928280|NCT01763905|183754643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.73|-32.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-32.99|-43.73|<0.001
91928281|NCT01763905|183754643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.16|-32.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-32.94|-42.16|<0.001
91928282|NCT01763905|183754644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.9|-54.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.7|-77.9|<0.001
91928283|NCT01763905|183754644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.5|-60.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-60.7|-80.5|<0.001
91928284|NCT01763905|183754645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|-57.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.5|-82.0|<0.001
91928285|NCT01763905|183754645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.2|-58.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-58.4|-79.2|<0.001
91928286|NCT01763905|183754646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|43.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|53.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||53.4|30.9|<0.001
91928287|NCT01763905|183754646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|51.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||51.8|30.3|<0.001
91928288|NCT01763905|183754647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|48.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|57.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||57.8|35.0|<0.001
91928289|NCT01763905|183754647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|47.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||47.5|25.5|<0.001
91928290|NCT01763905|183754648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.34|-26.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.73|-36.34|<0.001
91928291|NCT01763905|183754648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.63|-30.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.54|-38.63|<0.001
91928292|NCT01763905|183754649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.28|-26.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.90|-37.28|<0.001
91928293|NCT01763905|183754649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.19|-28.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.79|-37.19|<0.001
91767708|NCT04194944|183424764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.482||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.700|0.331|0.0001
91928294|NCT01763905|183754650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.92|-27.49||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.49|-36.92|<0.001
91928295|NCT01763905|183754650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.59|-30.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.39|-39.59|<0.001
91928296|NCT01763905|183754651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.04|-27.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.68|-38.04|<0.001
91928297|NCT01763905|183754651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.04|-28.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.17|-38.04|<0.001
91767709|NCT04194944|183424765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.4|0.7|0.3996
91767710|NCT04194944|183424766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.6|0.9|0.1390
91767711|NCT04194944|183424769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.1|1.4|0.0028
91767712|NCT04194944|183424770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.2|1.6|0.0003
91767713|NCT04194944|183424771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.377||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.633|||Log Rank|||||0.633|0.224|0.0001
91767714|NCT04194944|183424772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.684|||Log Rank|||||0.684|0.256|0.0004
91767715|NCT04194944|183424775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.8|0.8|0.1809
91928298|NCT01763905|183754652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.11|-22.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.67|-32.11|<0.001
91928299|NCT01763905|183754652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-25.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.17|-34.72|<0.001
91928300|NCT01763905|183754653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.42|-21.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.15|-31.42|<0.001
91928301|NCT01763905|183754653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.88|-23.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.43|-33.88|<0.001
91928302|NCT01763905|183754654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.84|-29.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.88|-39.84|<0.001
91928303|NCT01763905|183754654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.73|-31.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.01|-41.73|<0.001
91767716|NCT04194944|183424776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|19.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.6|1.4|0.0167
91767717|NCT03400475|183424788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.088||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91767718|NCT03400475|183424789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91767719|NCT03400475|183424790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.596||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91928304|NCT01763905|183754655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.05|-29.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.00|-40.05|<0.001
91928305|NCT01763905|183754655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.87|-28.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.39|-39.87|<0.001
91767720|NCT03400475|183424791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91767721|NCT03400475|183424792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.581||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91767722|NCT03400475|183424793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91767723|NCT03400475|183424794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.696||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91767724|NCT03400475|183424795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|111.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91767725|NCT03400475|183424796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|213.314||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91811205|NCT03070782|183497512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-45.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-19.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-19|-62|0.0020
91928306|NCT01763905|183754656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.27|-16.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.54|-31.27|<0.001
91928307|NCT01763905|183754656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.75|-16.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.77|-33.75|<0.001
91928308|NCT01763905|183754657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.26|-17.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-17.33|-33.26|<0.001
91767726|NCT03400475|183424797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.356||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91767727|NCT03400475|183424798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6537||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91767728|NCT03400475|183424799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.552||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91767729|NCT03400475|183424800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.071
91767730|NCT03400475|183424801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.071
91928309|NCT01763905|183754657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.21|-16.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.56|-39.21|<0.001
91928310|NCT01763905|183754658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|6.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||6.20|-11.38|0.97
91928311|NCT01763905|183754658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|3.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||3.71|-16.55|0.33
91928312|NCT01763905|183754659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|11.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.31|-8.14|0.97
91928313|NCT01763905|183754659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|7.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.67|-17.04|0.33
91767731|NCT03400475|183424802|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91767732|NCT03400475|183424803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.062
91767733|NCT03400475|183424804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
91767734|NCT03400475|183424805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91928314|NCT01763905|183754660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.56|0.74|0.068
91928315|NCT01763905|183754660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|10.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.24|1.23|0.13
91767735|NCT04290039|183424829|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.579|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5265|0.636|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6360|0.5265|
91767736|NCT04290039|183424829|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.349|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3171|0.3839|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.3839|0.3171|
91811206|NCT03070782|183497512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|-46.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-46|-74|<.0001
91811207|NCT03070782|183497512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-82.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-73.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-73|-87|<.0001
91811208|NCT03070782|183497512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-54.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-54|-78|<.0001
91928316|NCT01763905|183754661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|8.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.63|-1.49|0.068
91928317|NCT01763905|183754661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|9.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.81|-0.16|0.13
91928318|NCT01763905|183754662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|6.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||6.75|-10.43|0.97
91928319|NCT01763905|183754662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|6.06||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||6.06|-13.12|0.33
91767737|NCT04290039|183424829|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5524|0.6582|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6582|0.5524|
91928320|NCT01763905|183754663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|8.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.61|-9.96|0.97
91928321|NCT01763905|183754663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|11.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.39|-11.24|0.33
91928322|NCT01763905|183754664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.26|-31.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-31.55|-42.26|<0.001
91928323|NCT01763905|183754664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.06|-34.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-34.22|-43.06|<0.001
91928324|NCT04346628|183754665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.2||The final test was performed at the alpha = 0.04999 level of significance, adjusted for age group and sex.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio adjusted for age and sex|||1.20|0.48|0.24
91928325|NCT04346628|183754667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in hospitalizations||||0.06
91928326|NCT04346628|183754667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in ED visits||||0.56
91767738|NCT04290039|183424830|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.546|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4971|0.6004|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6004|0.4971|
91811209|NCT03070782|183497512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-89.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.0|-84.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-84|-93|<.0001
91811210|NCT01830699|183497516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For details of power calculation, see above. Using a minimal clinical importance of -9.1, the null hypothesis was a mean difference less than -9.1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Setting α=0.05 and β=0.8, with effect size of 0.17 anticipated total n = 138 to be recruited (requested recruitment of 150 to account for possible drop-outs)~1st data analysis (n = 33), effect size calculated at 1.1 with new n = 29 with α=0.05 and β=1.0."||||0.004
91811211|NCT01830699|183497517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See details above regarding effect size, power, etc.||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Setting α=0.05 and β=0.8, with effect size of 0.17 anticipated total n = 138 to be recruited (requested recruitment of 150 to account for possible drop-outs)~1st data analysis (n = 33), effect size calculated at 1.1 with new n = 29 with α=0.05 and β=1.0."||||0.044
91811212|NCT02288559|183497524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.435||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.162|0.707|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|MMRM analysis variables: treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, and BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category.||||0.707|0.162|0.0428
91928327|NCT04346628|183754669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio adjusted for age and sex|Difference in days until initial resolution of symptoms||1.29|0.54|0.43
91928328|NCT04346628|183754669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio adjusted for age and sex|Difference in days until sustained resolution of symptoms||1.45|0.52|0.59
91767739|NCT04290039|183424830|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2788|0.3367|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.3367|0.2788|
91767740|NCT04290039|183424830|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5104|0.6164|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6164|0.5104|
91767741|NCT04290039|183424831|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.549|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4273|0.7118|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.7118|0.4273|
91811213|NCT02288559|183497524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.21||||0.3361|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.491|0.071|||MMRM|MMRM analysis variables: treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, and BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category.||||0.071|-0.491|0.3361
91811214|NCT02135146|183497539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91811215|NCT02135146|183497539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91811216|NCT00810407|183497550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was diagnosis. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between diagnosis and the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
91928329|NCT04149899|183754673|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from Baseline, Hour 2 = 0 at Day 14, Hour 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-4.14||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||A within-group comparison was performed between Baseline, Hour 2 and Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%.||-4.14|-5.73|<0.001
91928330|NCT04149899|183754673|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from Baseline, Hour 2 = 0 at Day 14, Hour 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-4.02||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||A within-group comparison was performed between Baseline, Hour 2 and Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%.||-4.02|-6.14|<0.001
91928331|NCT04149899|183754673|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from Baseline, Hour 2 = 0 at Day 14, Hour 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-4.07||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||A within-group comparison was performed between Baseline, Hour 2 and Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%.||-4.07|-7.93|<0.001
91928332|NCT04149899|183754673|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.43||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used the Baseline IOP values at Hour 2 as the covariate.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP change from Baseline, Hour 2 to Day 14, Hour 2 (the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%) was compared between WB007 0.15% and Timolol 0.5%.||1.43|-1.16|0.828
91928333|NCT04149899|183754673|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.89||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used the Baseline IOP values at Hour 2 as the covariate.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP change from Baseline, Hour 2 to Day 14, Hour 2 (the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%) was compared between WB007 0.4% and Timolol 0.5%.||0.89|-1.73|0.520
91928334|NCT04149899|183754674|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.43||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.15% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||1.43|-1.16|0.828
91928335|NCT04149899|183754674|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.89||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.4% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||0.89|-1.73|0.520
91928336|NCT04149899|183754674|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.71||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has the treatment group as the main effect.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.15% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||0.71|-2.39|0.283
91928337|NCT04149899|183754674|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.52||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has the treatment group as the main effect.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.4% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||0.52|-2.56|0.189
91928338|NCT00630812|183754726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|54.14||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|110.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.26|-1.97|0.059
91928339|NCT00630812|183754726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.8||Response defined as change of \>=100mL at week 26|Regression, Logistic|45.7% response on Mannitol 400mg, 35.5% on Control||||2.80|1.02|0.041
91928340|NCT00630812|183754727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|43.49||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|106.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||106.78|-19.8|0.177
91928341|NCT00630812|183754728|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.41|||Poisson regression|Offset of the natural logarithm of follow-up time||||1.41|0.51|0.520
91928342|NCT00630812|183754729|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.75||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.33|||Poisson regression|Offset of the natural logarithm of follow-up time||||1.33|0.42|0.328
91928343|NCT00630812|183754730|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||Poisson regression|||||1.15|0.69|0.368
91928344|NCT00630812|183754731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.51|||ANCOVA|||||4.51|0.33|0.024
91928345|NCT00630812|183754732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.35||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.57|132.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||132.13|10.57|0.022
91928346|NCT00630812|183754733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.34||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.47|132.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||132.14|-63.47|0.49
91928347|NCT00630812|183754734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
91928348|NCT00069095|183754741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin). A stratified Cox model was used. In order to retain an experiment-wise two-sided type I error of 5%, the non-inferiority analysis for PFS used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.18||||||Equivalence of treatment arm A ('XELOX') to treatment arm B ('FOLFOX-4') was tested via the following hypotheses - H0: HRA/B \>/= 1.23 versus H1: HRA/B \< 1.23. HRA/B denotes the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment A ('XELOX') divided by the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment B ('FOLFOX-4').||1.18|0.94|
91928349|NCT00069095|183754742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin). A stratified Cox model was used. In order to retain an experiment-wise two-sided type I error of 5%, the non-inferiority analysis for PFS used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.05|1.42||||||Equivalence of treatment arm A ('XELOX') to treatment arm B ('FOLFOX-4') was tested via the following hypotheses - H0: HRA/B \>/= 1.23 versus H1: HRA/B \< 1.23. HRA/B denotes the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment A ('XELOX') divided by the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment B ('FOLFOX-4').||1.42|1.05|
91928350|NCT00069095|183754743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.58|0.83|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.83|0.58|<0.0001
91928351|NCT00069095|183754744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Fewer events were expected in the 'on-treatment analysis', thus leading to reduced power. No formal statistical testing was therefore applied.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.07|1.44||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.44|1.07|
91928352|NCT00069095|183754745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.52|0.75|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.75|0.52|<0.0001
91767742|NCT04290039|183424831|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0381|0.0641|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.0641|0.0381|
91811217|NCT00810407|183497551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was gender. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between gender and the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
91928353|NCT00069095|183754746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin). A stratified Cox model was used. In order to retain an experiment-wise two-sided type I error of 5%, the non-inferiority analysis for PFS used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|1.15||||||Equivalence of treatment arm A ('XELOX') to treatment arm B ('FOLFOX-4') was tested via the following hypotheses - H0: HRA/B \>/= 1.23 versus H1: HRA/B \< 1.23. HRA/B denotes the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment A ('XELOX') divided by the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment B ('FOLFOX-4').||1.15|0.92|
91928354|NCT00069095|183754747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|0.95|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.95|0.72|0.0015
91928355|NCT00069095|183754748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was not powered for testing non-inferiority of XELOX vs FOLFOX-4 with respect to overall survival and no margin could be derived following the effect retention concept. The same margins used for the PFS analysis \[Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin)\] were therefore applied to OS as well.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.14||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.14|0.84|
91811218|NCT00810407|183497552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between age of participants and the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events."||||0.587
91767743|NCT04290039|183424831|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0695|0.1167|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.1167|0.0695|
91767744|NCT03096834|183424866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|5.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factor (4-7 vs. 8-14) migraine days at Baseline after missing data are imputed as non-response (NRI).||||5.19|1.43|0.002
91811219|NCT00810407|183497552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|||||||Cochran-Armitage (EXACT)|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no ordinal trend in the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events across the age at baseline."||||0.428
91928356|NCT00069095|183754749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|1.09|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented together with the 97.5% confidence interval.||1.09|0.72|0.1921
91928357|NCT00069095|183754750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|0.95|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.95|0.72|0.0023
91767745|NCT03096834|183424867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3||-0.51|-2.67|0.004
91767746|NCT03096834|183424868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical impairment domain||-1.23|-5.70|0.003
91767747|NCT03096834|183424868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Everyday activities domain||-1.70|-6.12|<0.001
91767748|NCT03096834|183424869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.99|-2.43|<0.001
91767749|NCT03096834|183424870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|9.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factor (4-7 vs. 8-14) migraine days at Baseline after missing data are imputed as non-response||||9.01|1.11|0.025
91767750|NCT01600326|183424875|OTHER|Pair-wise comparison at Time point 1 compared to baseline|||||<|0.0001||||||One way repeated measure analysis of variance for outcome of total pain score over time adjusted for treatment with post hoc Tukey correction to adjust for multiple comparison|Tukey|See comments on P value||||||<0.0001
91767751|NCT01600326|183424875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One way repeated measure analysis of variance for outcome of total pain score over time adjusted for treatment with post hoc Tukey correction to adjust for multiple comparison|Tukey|||One way repeated measure analysis of variance for outcome of total pain score over time adjusted for treatment with post hoc Tukey correction to adjust for multiple comparison||||<0.0001
91767752|NCT01600326|183424876|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
91767753|NCT02849418|183424880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|-0.19|||||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.19|-5.85|
91767754|NCT01169103|183424967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We assumed that mean decrease in visceral fat in our population would be 0.85\*standard deviation score (SDS). Therefore, 18 subjects in each group would be required in order for us to have an 81.7% chance of detecting a significant difference in the mean 6-month changes in visceral adiposity between the groups at a 5% significance level by rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference in change in visceral fat following administration of rhGH or placebo in obese adolescent girls.||||0.70
91928358|NCT00069095|183754751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV). Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab was concluded if the lower limit of this confidence interval is above 0.66.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|1.09||||||Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab was tested by the pair of hypotheses - H0: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \</= 0.66 versus H1: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \> 0.66, where OR denotes Odds ratio.||1.09|0.72|
91767755|NCT01169103|183424967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SAT p-value||||0.30
91767756|NCT01169103|183424968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
91767757|NCT01169103|183424969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Total Cholesterol p-value||||0.03
91767758|NCT01169103|183424969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Triglyceride p-value||||0.57
91767759|NCT01169103|183424969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Low-density lipoprotein p-value||||0.062
91767760|NCT01169103|183424969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in High-density lipoprotein p-value||||0.0396
91767761|NCT01169103|183424970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91767762|NCT01169103|183424971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91767763|NCT00657046|183424992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.693
91767764|NCT00657046|183424992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.807
91767765|NCT00657046|183424993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.212
91767766|NCT00657046|183424993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.230
91767767|NCT00657046|183424994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.712
91767768|NCT00657046|183424994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.607
91767769|NCT00657046|183424995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4602|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.4602
91767770|NCT00657046|183424995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.940
91767771|NCT00657046|183424996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.376
91767772|NCT00657046|183424996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.903
91767773|NCT00657046|183424997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.319
91767774|NCT00657046|183424997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.408
91767775|NCT00657046|183424998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.004
91767776|NCT00657046|183424998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.030
91928359|NCT00069095|183754752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.71|1.14|||Chi-squared|||Superiority of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy was tested as follows - H0: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P) \</= 1.0 versus H1: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P) \> 1.0. The test used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.||1.14|0.71|0.3091
91928360|NCT00069095|183754753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV). Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab shall be concluded if the lower limit of this confidence interval is above 0.66.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.76|1.16||||||Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab was tested by the pair of hypotheses - H0: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \</= 0.66 versus H1: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \> 0.66||1.16|0.76|
91928361|NCT00069095|183754754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.78|1.28|||Chi-squared|||Superiority of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy was tested as follows - H0: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX 4+P/XELOX+P) \</= 1.0 versus H1: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P) \> 1.0. The test used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%||1.28|0.78|0.9887
91928362|NCT00069095|183754755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal statistical testing was done.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.2||||||General approach: HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV)||1.20|0.97|
91928363|NCT00069095|183754755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Fewer events were expected in analyses using the on-treatment approach than in the analyses using the general approach, thus leading to reduced power.Therefore, no formal statistical testing was performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.98|1.23||||||On-treatment Approach: HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.23|0.98|
91928364|NCT00069095|183754756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.74|0.96|||Log Rank|||General approach: Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.96|0.74|0.0030
91928365|NCT00069095|183754756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7|0.92|||Log Rank|||On treatment approach: Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.92|0.70|0.0004
91928366|NCT00069095|183754759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal statistical testing was performed for duration of overall response.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.22||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV)||1.22|0.86|
91767777|NCT00657046|183424999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.025
91767778|NCT00657046|183424999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.022
91767779|NCT00657046|183425000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.082
91928367|NCT00069095|183754760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.66|1.01|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||1.01|0.66|0.0307
91928368|NCT00069095|183754761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal statistical testing was done.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.09|1.39||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.39|0.09|
91928369|NCT00069095|183754762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.8207|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.2|7.05|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||7.05|0.20|0.8207
91928370|NCT05761444|183754763|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-21.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.26|-13.19||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (ezetimibe/atorvastatin, atorvastatin) and history of statin administration (yes, no) as fixed effects and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-13.19|-29.26|<0.0001
91928371|NCT05761444|183754766|OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.56|-8.36||The ANCOVA model with treatment group (ezetimibe/atorvastatin, atorvastatin) and history of statin administration (yes, no) as fixed effects and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-8.36|-23.56|<0.0001
91928372|NCT02868216|183754797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.98|||ANOVA|||||3.98|0.63|0.05
91767780|NCT00657046|183425000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
91767781|NCT03827655|183425001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||=|0.649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.33||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% confidence intervals (CIs) and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo were obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.33|0.63|=0.649
91767782|NCT03827655|183425001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.43||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.43|0.69|=0.505
91767783|NCT03827655|183425002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.49||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.49|0.71|=0.449
91928373|NCT03161678|183754798|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 G143E mutation. The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||<0.001
91928374|NCT03161678|183754798|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 functional mutation (rs7498748). The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||0.24
91928375|NCT03161678|183754799|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.||||||0.75|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 G143E mutation. The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||0.75
91928376|NCT03161678|183754799|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 functional mutation (rs7498748). The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||0.011
91928377|NCT00752609|183754800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||||A two-sided 95% CI of the estimated mean change from Baseline in hemoglobin was derived from the t-distribution.|||-0.19|-0.65|
91928378|NCT00752609|183754800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.71|||||A two-sided 95% CI of the estimated mean change from Baseline in hemoglobin was derived from the t-distribution.|||0.71|0.26|
91928379|NCT00904826|183754815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between before treatment and one year after treatment.||||<0.0001
91928380|NCT00904826|183754817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was made between baseline and after 12 months of treatment.||||0.0078
91928381|NCT00904826|183754821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 6 weeks and baseline.||||<0.0001
91928382|NCT00904826|183754821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 3 months and baseline.||||<0.0001
91928383|NCT00904826|183754821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 6 months and baseline||||0.0001
91928384|NCT00904826|183754821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 9 months and baseline.||||0.0001
91811220|NCT02320149|183497577|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-3.6||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|||-3.6|-6.7|< 0.0001
91928385|NCT00904826|183754821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 12 months and baseline.||||<0.0001
91928386|NCT00904826|183754823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was between 3 months and baseline.||||0.0019
91928387|NCT02026271|183754855|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"MTD was not determined in this study. Dose escalation decision rules were based on a standard 3+3 design modified to independently evaluate the two stratified subject groups that may exhibit different safety and tolerability profiles.~The study was planned to explore 4 veledimex (V) dose cohorts of 20, 40, 80 and 120 mg once daily, and two doses of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 (2x10\^11vp and 1x10\^12vp). Dose cohorts were treated at 10, 20, 30 and 40 mg of V. Only one dose of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 was explored (2x10\^11vp).~If ≥ 33% of subjects in the expansion cohort experience DLTs, additional subjects may be enrolled at the next lower dose, or at an intermediate dose, as recommended by the SRC.~Grp 1: After 20mg cohort, SRC approved 40mg, which was deemed the MAD due to DLTs. SRC approved 30mg cohort to determine MTD, but due to poor compliance, SRC opened a 20mg exp cohort and then an intermediate 10mg cohort. Based on V compliance and efficacy, 20mg was determined to be the optimal dose."|||
91928388|NCT00783705|183754936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.0|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Generalized estimating equation model on lesions (progressive disease vs. complete response/stable disease) was used to account for intra-patient correlation in the lesion-specific analysis.||3.0|0.7|0.39
91928389|NCT00783705|183754940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC-16 level between arms.||||0.10
91928390|NCT00783705|183754941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker IL-6 level between arms.||||0.03
91928391|NCT00783705|183754942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CCL-2 level between arms.||||0.58
91928392|NCT00783705|183754943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker MPO level between arms.||||0.06
91928393|NCT00783705|183754944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC18 level between arms.||||0.63
91928394|NCT00783705|183754945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker SFTPD level between arms.||||0.22
91928395|NCT00783705|183754946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker Total Glutathione level between arms.||||0.06
91928396|NCT00783705|183754947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC-16 level between arms.||||0.35
91928397|NCT00783705|183754948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CRP level between arms.||||0.80
91928398|NCT00783705|183754949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker IL-6 level between arms.||||0.22
91928399|NCT00783705|183754950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CCL-2 level between arms.||||0.74
91928400|NCT00783705|183754951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker MPO level between arms.||||0.55
91928401|NCT00783705|183754952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker Nitrotyrosine level between arms.||||0.91
91767784|NCT03827655|183425002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.44||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.44|0.69|=0.507
91928402|NCT00783705|183754953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC18 level between arms.||||0.46
91928403|NCT00783705|183754954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker SFTPD level between arms.||||0.52
91928404|NCT04743635|183754959|OTHER|"Performance goal.~Hypothesis:~Ho: D \< 1 Ha: D ≥ 1, where D = reduction in the CSS score from baseline to 3 months, and 1 is the performance goal. If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is greater than or equal to 1 then we will reject the null hypothesis and conclude the device performs effectively."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.71|||t-test, 2 sided|The 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean reduction in CSS was calculated along with the corresponding p-value (Student's t-test).||The endpoint tested the mean of the changes for each treated participant, not a 1-point change between mean score of the group at baseline versus 3 months. Success is achieved when the mean change across all treated participants is at least one point.||1.71|1.28|.0001
91928405|NCT04743635|183754960|OTHER|Performance goal. The hierarchal endpoint is met if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval is greater than or equal to 0.6.|Percentage improved|95.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.6|99.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The GAIS scale counted if at least two of the three evaluators selected it, otherwise the median between the three was counted (e.g., if improved, worse and much worse, worse was counted). A participant is considered improved if the GAIS assessment is improved (1), much improved (2) or very much improved (3)."||99.1|87.6|.0001
91928406|NCT04743635|183754963|OTHER|Performance goal. In order to meet the endpoint, the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval had to be greater than or equal to 0.6.|Percentage improved|72.1||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|82.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||82.3|59.9|.0264
91928407|NCT00804193|183754965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CI was constructed for the difference in the Therapeutic Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Therapeutic equivalence (bioequivalence) was established if this 90% CI was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|Difference in Percentage of Participants|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|18.85|||Wald's method, Yates|CI calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction.|The sample size for this study was calculated assuming that both active treatments would have equivalent success proportions of at least 55% and the Vehicle would have a success proportion no greater than 25%.|||18.85|-0.69|
91928408|NCT00804193|183754966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CI was constructed for the difference in the Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Bioequivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20).|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.08|9.24|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity cor||The sample size for this study was calculated assuming that both active treatments would have equivalent success proportions of at least 55% and the Vehicle would have a success proportion no greater than 25%.|||9.24|-7.08|0.001
91767785|NCT03827655|183425003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||=|0.406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.52||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.52|0.73|=0.406
91811221|NCT02320149|183497578|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Rate Difference|11.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|15.72||P-values were based on the test of general association between the response and treatment group using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with pooled site as stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||sarecycline - placebo|||15.72|6.39|< 0.0001
91928409|NCT00804193|183754967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CI was constructed for the difference in the Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Bioequivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20).|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|14.24|||Wald's method Yates' continuity cor||The sample size for this study was calculated assuming that both active treatments would have equivalent success proportions of at least 55% and the Vehicle would have a success proportion no greater than 25%.|||14.24|-4.60|0.001
91928410|NCT01193348|183754968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete TMA Response|63.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|82.8||||||||82.8|40.7|
91928411|NCT01193348|183754969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete Hematologic Response|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.7|94.8||||||||94.8|59.7|
91928412|NCT01193348|183754970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Platelet Count Normalization|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|99.9||||||||99.9|77.2|
91928413|NCT01193348|183754971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of eGFR Improvement|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|97.1||||||||97.1|65.1|
91928414|NCT01193348|183754972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|204.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.44|245.49|||ANOVA|||||245.49|164.44|<0.0001
91928415|NCT01193348|183754973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete TMA Response|68.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|86.1||||||||86.1|45.1|
91928416|NCT01193348|183754974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete Hematologic Response|90.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.8|98.9||||||||98.9|70.8|
91928417|NCT01193348|183754975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Platelet Count Normalization|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|99.9||||||||99.9|77.2|
91928418|NCT01193348|183754976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of eGFR Improvement|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|97.1||||||||97.1|65.1|
91928419|NCT01193348|183754977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|165.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.43|232.43|||ANOVA|||||232.43|98.43|<0.0001
91928420|NCT00968253|183754983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum tolerated dose|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of Everolimus measured in mg/day in combination with HyperCVAD|||||
91928421|NCT01678807|183755005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|30.3|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||30.3|-3.4|
91928422|NCT01678807|183755005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|27.4|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||27.4|-6.4|
91928423|NCT01678807|183755006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|14.8|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||14.8|0.4|
91928424|NCT01678807|183755006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|14.8|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||14.8|0.4|
91928425|NCT05281523|183755007|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.2|-1.0|0.004
91928426|NCT05281523|183755008|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, subgroup, visit by baseline, visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.03|-0.46|0.025
91928427|NCT05281523|183755009|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, subgroup, visit by baseline, visit by treatment group, subgroup by treatment group and subgroup by visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.18||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.05|-0.40|0.125
91928428|NCT05281523|183755010|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, subgroup, visit by baseline, visit by treatment group, subgroup by treatment group and subgroup by visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.07|-0.45|0.007
91928429|NCT05281523|183755011|OTHER|Analysis performed using an analysis of covariance model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region and previous surgery for nasal polyps. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-2.0|-4.4|<0.001
91928430|NCT05281523|183755012|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-9.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-2.0|-17.9|0.015
91767786|NCT03827655|183425003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.11||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.11|0.54|=0.880
91928431|NCT05281523|183755013|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.24||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 21 to Week 24 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.04|-0.43|0.016
91928432|NCT05281523|183755014|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.3||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 26 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.0|-0.7|0.066
91928433|NCT05281523|183755015|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.092|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.092|0.495|0.128
91928434|NCT05281523|183755016|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|1.124|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.124|0.453|0.146
91928435|NCT05281523|183755017|OTHER|Logistic regression with covariates of treatment, number of courses of systemic CS in 12 months prior to screening for NP (0, 1,\>1), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, baseline total endoscopic NP score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), region, study and previous surgery for NPs. The study covariate is removed for individual study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||0.86|0.40|0.006
91928436|NCT05281523|183755018|OTHER|The pooled statistical analyses was performed using a Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, study, visit and interaction terms for visit by baseline score and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis).||-0.25|-1.26|0.004
91928437|NCT05299983|183755071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
91928438|NCT05299983|183755072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91928439|NCT05299983|183755073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
91928440|NCT05299983|183755074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
91811222|NCT02320149|183497579|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-11.6||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 12||-11.6|-21.9|< 0.0001
91928441|NCT01953328|183755091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-73.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.54|-69.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-69.41|-78.54|<0.001
91928442|NCT01953328|183755091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-72.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.22|-68.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-68.57|-77.22|<0.001
91928443|NCT01953328|183755091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.21|-67.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-67.61|-81.21|<0.001
91928444|NCT01953328|183755091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.93|-69.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-69.60|-78.93|<0.001
91928445|NCT01953328|183755092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.22|-69.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-69.47|-80.22|<0.001
91928446|NCT01953328|183755092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.6|-65.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.23|-74.60|<0.001
91928447|NCT01953328|183755092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-78.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.55|-68.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-68.15|-83.55|<0.001
91928448|NCT01953328|183755092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.88|-60.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.87|-72.88|<0.001
91928449|NCT01953328|183755093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-89.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.4|-80.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-80.2|-98.4|<0.001
91928450|NCT01953328|183755093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-86.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.1|-77.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-77.5|-95.1|<0.001
91928451|NCT01953328|183755093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.3|-62.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.1|-75.3|<0.001
91928452|NCT01953328|183755093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-72.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.5|-64.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-64.6|-79.5|<0.001
91928453|NCT01953328|183755094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-90.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.9|-80.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-80.7|-100.9|<0.001
91928454|NCT01953328|183755094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.5|-74.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-74.8|-92.5|<0.001
91928455|NCT01953328|183755094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.5|-62.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.6|-76.5|<0.001
91928456|NCT01953328|183755094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.8|-57.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-57.1|-73.8|<0.001
91928457|NCT01953328|183755095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.06|-64.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-64.27|-73.06|<0.001
91928458|NCT01953328|183755095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.74|-62.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.16|-69.74|<0.001
91928459|NCT01953328|183755095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.3|-62.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.99|-73.30|<0.001
91928460|NCT01953328|183755095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-67.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.14|-63.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.42|-71.14|<0.001
91928461|NCT01953328|183755096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.96|-63.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.89|-73.96|<0.001
91928462|NCT01953328|183755096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.96|-59.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.21|-67.96|<0.001
91928463|NCT01953328|183755096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.79|-62.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.86|-74.79|<0.001
91928464|NCT01953328|183755096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.78|-55.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.99|-65.78|<0.001
91928465|NCT01953328|183755097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.49|-60.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-60.39|-68.49|<0.001
91928466|NCT01953328|183755097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-55.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.17|-63.30|<0.001
91928467|NCT01953328|183755097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.87|-55.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.25|-64.87|<0.001
91767787|NCT03827655|183425004|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.48||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.48|0.72|=0.446
91767788|NCT03827655|183425004|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.09||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.09|0.53|=0.892
91767789|NCT03827655|183425005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.23||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.23|0.60|=0.760
91767790|NCT03827655|183425005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.18||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-squared test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.18|0.58|=0.810
91811223|NCT02320149|183497580|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-16.9|-8.0||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 9||-8.0|-16.9|< 0.0001
91928468|NCT01953328|183755097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.15|-59.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.62|-67.15|<0.001
91928469|NCT01953328|183755098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.34|-60.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-60.79|-70.34|<0.001
91928470|NCT01953328|183755098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.05|-52.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-52.40|-62.05|<0.001
91928471|NCT01953328|183755098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.91|-54.83||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-54.83|-65.91|<0.001
91928472|NCT01953328|183755098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.92|-51.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.39|-60.92|<0.001
91928473|NCT01953328|183755099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.35|-41.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.73|-49.35|<0.001
91928474|NCT01953328|183755099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.78|-40.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.08|-46.78|<0.001
91928475|NCT01953328|183755099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.88|-37.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.08|-44.88|<0.001
91767791|NCT03827655|183425006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.64||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.64|0.78|=0.288
91767792|NCT03827655|183425006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.47||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.47|0.72|=0.453
91767793|NCT03827655|183425007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.0||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.00|-0.17|=0.046
91928476|NCT01953328|183755099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.48|-39.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.80|-46.48|<0.001
91928477|NCT01953328|183755100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.83|-41.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.05|-49.83|<0.001
91928478|NCT01953328|183755100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.84|-37.85||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.85|-44.84|<0.001
91928479|NCT01953328|183755100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.35|-36.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.57|-45.35|<0.001
91767794|NCT03827655|183425007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||=|0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.11||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.11|-0.11|=0.516
91928480|NCT01953328|183755100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.26|-34.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.62|-42.26|<0.001
91928481|NCT01953328|183755101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.37|-50.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.17|-59.37|<0.001
91928482|NCT01953328|183755101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.95|-48.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-48.36|-56.95|<0.001
91767795|NCT03827655|183425008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||=|0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.06||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.06|-0.12|=0.296
91767796|NCT03827655|183425008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||=|0.677|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.13||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.13|-0.07|=0.677
91767797|NCT03827655|183425009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||=|0.338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.57||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.57|0.76|=0.338
91767798|NCT03827655|183425009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.49||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.49|0.73|=0.422
91767799|NCT03318549|183425101|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91767800|NCT03318549|183425101|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
91767801|NCT03318549|183425102|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.303
91767802|NCT03318549|183425105|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
91767803|NCT03318549|183425105|OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647
91767804|NCT00104650|183425109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.28|||<|0.001||95.0|3.35|45.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor||||45.03|3.35|<0.001
91767805|NCT00104650|183425109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.002||95.0|1.74|16.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor||||16.36|1.74|0.002
91767806|NCT00104650|183425109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|77.8||||||95.0|60.8|89.9||||||||89.9|60.8|
91767807|NCT00104650|183425109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.6||||||95.0|45.1|79.6||||||||79.6|45.1|
91928483|NCT01953328|183755101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.72|-46.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.93|-54.72|<0.001
91928484|NCT01953328|183755101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.74|-45.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.64|-53.74|<0.001
91928485|NCT01953328|183755102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.93|-49.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-49.98|-60.93|<0.001
91928486|NCT01953328|183755102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.91|-46.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.00|-55.91|<0.001
91767808|NCT00104650|183425109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.6||||||95.0|14.6|46.3||||||||46.3|14.6|
91767809|NCT00104650|183425110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.9||||||95.0|46.2|79.2||||||||79.2|46.2|
91767810|NCT00104650|183425110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.6||||||95.0|45.1|79.6||||||||79.6|45.1|
91767811|NCT00104650|183425110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|37.1||||||95.0|21.5|55.1||||||||55.1|21.5|
91767812|NCT00104650|183425111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which participants were originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.388
91767813|NCT00104650|183425112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.79|||<|0.001||95.0|2.01|7.15|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by cancer type and screening uNTx level||||7.15|2.01|<0.001
91767814|NCT00104650|183425112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.32|||<|0.001||95.0|2.23|8.36|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by cancer type and screening uNTx level||||8.36|2.23|<0.001
91767815|NCT00104650|183425113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.274||||0.006||95.0|0.11|0.687|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor and screening uNTx level||||0.687|0.110|0.006
91928487|NCT01953328|183755102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.93|-46.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.80|-55.93|<0.001
91928488|NCT01953328|183755102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.08|-40.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.81|-50.08|<0.001
91928489|NCT01953328|183755103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.58|-62.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.36|-70.58|<0.001
91928490|NCT01953328|183755103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.01|-59.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.66|-69.01|<0.001
91928491|NCT01953328|183755103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-59.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.20|-68.90|<0.001
91767816|NCT00104650|183425113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.199||||0.001||95.0|0.076|0.523|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor and screening uNTx level||||0.523|0.076|0.001
91767817|NCT00104650|183425114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which participants were originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.056
91767818|NCT00104650|183425115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.162||||0.105||95.0|0.018|1.465|||Regression, Cox|||||1.465|0.018|0.105
91928492|NCT01953328|183755103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-67.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.36|-63.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.15|-71.36|<0.001
91928493|NCT01953328|183755104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.75|-63.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.84|-72.75|<0.001
91928494|NCT01953328|183755104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.11|-56.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-56.94|-68.11|<0.001
91767819|NCT00104650|183425115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.43||95.0|0.143|2.289|||Regression, Cox|||||2.289|0.143|0.430
91767820|NCT00104650|183425116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||||95.0|0.05|1.44||||||||1.44|0.05|
91767821|NCT00104650|183425116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||||95.0|0.08|1.76||||||||1.76|0.08|
91767822|NCT03515824|183425124|OTHER|Bayesian posterior credible interval|Pooled-adjacent-violator algorithm|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|33.1||||||||33.1|0.0|
91767823|NCT03515824|183425124|OTHER|Bayesian posterior credible interval|Pooled-adjacent-violator algorithm|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|33.1||||||||33.1|0.0|
91928495|NCT01953328|183755104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.44|-58.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-58.50|-69.44|<0.001
91928496|NCT01953328|183755104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.51|-55.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.72|-65.51|<0.001
91767824|NCT03515824|183425124|OTHER|Bayesian posterior credible interval|Pooled-adjacent-violator algorithm|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.8|30.2||||||||30.2|5.8|
91767825|NCT03515824|183425127|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.8||||||||70.8|0.0|
91767826|NCT03515824|183425127|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.2||||||||60.2|0.0|
91767827|NCT03515824|183425127|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|21.8||||||||21.8|0.0|
91767828|NCT03515824|183425128|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|84.2||||||||84.2|0.0|
91767829|NCT03515824|183425128|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.8||||||||70.8|0.0|
91767830|NCT03515824|183425128|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate )ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.5||||||||28.5|0.0|
91928497|NCT01953328|183755105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|98.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|99.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||99.6|86.8|<0.001
91928498|NCT01953328|183755105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|96.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.1|98.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||98.9|84.1|<0.001
91928499|NCT01953328|183755105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|83.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||83.4|57.1|<0.001
91928500|NCT01953328|183755105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|82.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.5|90.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||90.0|67.5|<0.001
91928501|NCT01953328|183755106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|98.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.7|99.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||99.6|86.7|<0.001
91928502|NCT01953328|183755106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|91.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|96.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||96.0|78.2|<0.001
91928503|NCT01953328|183755106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|75.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|85.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||85.0|59.3|<0.001
91928504|NCT01953328|183755106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|78.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.6|86.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||86.9|62.6|<0.001
91767831|NCT03084796|183425139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.132|0.003|0.037
91767832|NCT03084796|183425139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis for was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.181|0.051|<0.001
91811224|NCT02320149|183497581|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-9.1||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 6||-9.1|-17.5|< 0.0001
91928505|NCT01953328|183755107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.88|-38.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.52|-63.88|<0.001
91928506|NCT01953328|183755107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.89|-39.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.27|-58.89|<0.001
91928507|NCT01953328|183755107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.74|-39.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.35|-59.74|<0.001
91928508|NCT01953328|183755107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.75|-34.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.12|-53.75|<0.001
91928509|NCT01953328|183755108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.25|-34.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.90|-65.25|<0.001
91928510|NCT01953328|183755108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.49|-37.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.05|-60.49|<0.001
91928511|NCT01953328|183755108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.06|-41.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.30|-64.06|<0.001
91928512|NCT01953328|183755108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.46|-29.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.48|-50.46|<0.001
91928513|NCT01953328|183755109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.27|-14.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-14.59|-41.27|<0.001
91928514|NCT01953328|183755109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.54|-11.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.35|-32.54|<0.001
91928515|NCT01953328|183755109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.59|-10.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-10.43|-29.59|<0.001
91928516|NCT01953328|183755109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.18|-7.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-7.26|-34.18|0.010
91928517|NCT01953328|183755110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.33|-8.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-8.81|-46.33|<0.001
91767833|NCT03084796|183425139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis for was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.216|0.086|<0.001
91767834|NCT03084796|183425139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis for was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.209|0.081|<0.001
91811225|NCT02320149|183497582|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.3||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 3||-3.3|-11.1|0.0003
91928518|NCT01953328|183755110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-8.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-8.25|-31.68|<0.001
91928519|NCT01953328|183755110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-17.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|-6.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-6.19|-28.15|<0.001
91928520|NCT01953328|183755110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.29|-2.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-2.56|-31.29|0.010
91928521|NCT01953328|183755111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|12.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|17.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||17.27|7.39|<0.001
91928522|NCT01953328|183755111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|19.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||19.30|9.93|<0.001
91928523|NCT01953328|183755111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|15.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.12|20.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||20.60|10.12|<0.001
91928524|NCT01953328|183755111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|13.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||13.62|4.67|0.001
91928525|NCT01953328|183755112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|13.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|19.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||19.53|7.40|<0.001
91928526|NCT01953328|183755112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.87|20.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||20.52|9.87|<0.001
91928527|NCT01953328|183755112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|16.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|22.95||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||22.95|10.74|<0.001
91928528|NCT01953328|183755112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|15.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||15.55|4.85|0.001
91928529|NCT01953328|183755113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.37|-16.34||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-16.34|-39.37|<0.001
91928530|NCT01953328|183755113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.91|-12.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-12.39|-32.91|<0.001
91928531|NCT01953328|183755113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-8.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-8.77|-27.40|0.001
91928532|NCT01953328|183755113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.31|-15.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-15.01|-39.31|<0.001
91928533|NCT01953328|183755114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.48|-14.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-14.36|-42.48|<0.001
91928534|NCT01953328|183755114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.29|-9.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-9.33|-32.29|<0.001
91928535|NCT01953328|183755114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|-4.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-4.39|-25.72|0.001
91928536|NCT01953328|183755114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-11.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.99|-36.70|<0.001
91928537|NCT05113953|183755125|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.42||||0.1893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.21||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline in binge eating days per week at scheduled visit as dependent variable and included fixed effect terms for treatment, trial center, visit week, interaction term of treatment by visit week.|MMRM|||||0.21|-1.06|0.1893
91928538|NCT05113953|183755125|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.06||||0.8502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.57||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline in binge eating days per week at scheduled visit as dependent variable and included fixed effect terms for treatment, trial center, visit week, interaction term of treatment by visit week.|MMRM|||||0.57|-0.69|0.8502
91928539|NCT05113953|183755126|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.54||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.05||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline value as dependent variable and included treatment, trial center, visit week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline-by-week interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||Change from baseline at Week 8||-0.05|-1.02|0.0313
91928540|NCT05113953|183755126|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.19||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.67||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline value as dependent variable and included treatment, trial center, visit week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline-by-week interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||Change from baseline at Week 8||0.67|-0.30|0.4471
91928541|NCT01328249|183755181|OTHER|Fisher's Exact test||||||0.4422||||||Null hypothesis: The feasibility rates of Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 are same.|Fisher Exact|Exploratory analysis comparing primary feasibilities between 2 cohorts, based on Fisher's Exact test.||||||0.4422
91928542|NCT02330549|183755183|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.2483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.17||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment and presence or absence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) as factors, and the baseline value of Matsuda index as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.17|-0.62|0.2483
91928543|NCT02330549|183755183|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.01||An ANCOVA model that included treatment and presence or absence of NASH as factors, and the baseline value of Matsuda index as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change form Baseline to Week 24||0.01|-0.83|0.053
91767835|NCT03084796|183425139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.263|0.159|<0.001
91767836|NCT03084796|183425139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.100|-0.003|0.066
91767837|NCT03084796|183425139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.135|0.031|0.002
91767838|NCT03084796|183425139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.128|0.026|0.003
91811226|NCT02320149|183497583|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 9||-2.5|-5.3|< 0.0001
91811227|NCT02320149|183497584|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-2.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 6||-2.9|-5.4|< 0.0001
91928544|NCT02330549|183755184|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|-1.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.369||0.5297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|3.32||An ANCOVA model that included treatment and presence or absence of NASH as factors, and the baseline value of ADIPO-IR as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||3.32|-6.33|0.5297
91928545|NCT02330549|183755184|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|3.2146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|8.83||An ANCOVA model that included treatment and presence or absence of NASH as factors, and the baseline value of ADIPO-IR as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||8.83|-2.4|0.2522
91928546|NCT02713230|183755299|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-117.688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.896|-84.48|||ANOVA|||||-84.480|-150.896|<0.0001
91928547|NCT02713230|183755300|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.371|||ANOVA|||||0.371|0.131|<0.0001
91928548|NCT02713230|183755301|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.116||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.200|0.032|0.008
91928549|NCT02713230|183755302|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91928550|NCT00769704|183755306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|19.0|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the durable response rate between the talimogene laherparepvec and control arms. Study success was defined as the rejection of this hypothesis such that talimogene laherparepvec was found to be superior to GM-CSF using the 2-sided Fisher's exact test, with a p-value of ≤ 0.0488.||19.0|9.3|<0.0001
91928551|NCT00769704|183755307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average death rate and a longer overall survival for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|The primary method for analysis of overall survival was an unadjusted log-rank test. Testing of overall survival was conditional on a statistically significance difference in the primary endpoint of durable response. Success was defined as a p-value ≤ 0.05.||1.00|0.62|0.0511
91928552|NCT00769704|183755308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|27.1||Descriptive|Fisher Exact|||||27.1|14.4|<0.0001
91928553|NCT00769704|183755309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.18||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a longer average duration of response for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||1.18|0.14|0.0868
91928554|NCT00769704|183755310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a a higher average response onset rate for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||1.30|0.30|0.2020
91928555|NCT00769704|183755311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.54||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a longer average time to treatment failure for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||0.54|0.32|<0.0001
91928556|NCT00769704|183755312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.73||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a longer response interval for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||0.73|0.13|0.0050
91928557|NCT00520676|183755313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6||The comparison was conducted at a 1-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Note that the 2-sided p-value for log rank is reported, which is \<0.001, hence 1-sided p-value is \<0.001.|Cox regression model is used for HR estimate.|||0.60|0.34|<0.001
91928558|NCT00520676|183755314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||1.42|0.72|0.934
91928559|NCT00520676|183755315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.29||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio (HR) estimate.||||1.29|0.72|0.800
91928560|NCT00520676|183755316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.15||The comparison of tumor response rates was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Tumor response rate= # participants with a confirmed best response of CR or PR / # of participants who qualify for the analysis population.|Logistic regression model is used for odds ratio (OR) estimate.|||3.15|0.93|0.081
91928561|NCT00520676|183755317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.55||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||1.55|0.49|0.641
91928562|NCT00520676|183755318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.71||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||0.71|0.40|<0.001
91928563|NCT00520676|183755319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.66||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||0.66|0.35|<0.001
91928564|NCT03456713|183755350|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.94||||||||1.94|1.12|
91928565|NCT03456713|183755351|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.81||||||||1.81|1.15|
91928566|NCT03456713|183755352|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|2.11||||||||2.11|1.31|
91928567|NCT03456713|183755353|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.23||||||||1.23|0.43|
91928568|NCT03456713|183755354|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.67||||||||1.67|0.58|
91928569|NCT03456713|183755355|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.2||||||||1.20|0.41|
91928570|NCT01533935|183755383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.315|0.215|<0.0001
91928571|NCT01533935|183755383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.129|0.031|0.0015
91928572|NCT01533935|183755383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.137|0.039|0.0005
91928573|NCT01533935|183755383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.324|0.224|<0.0001
91928574|NCT01533935|183755383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.138|0.039|0.0004
91928575|NCT01533935|183755383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.147|0.047|0.0001
91928576|NCT01533935|183755384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.065|1.206|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.206|1.065|<0.0001
91928577|NCT01533935|183755384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|1.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD as divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.182|1.045|0.0009
91928578|NCT01533935|183755384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.109|0.981|0.1807
91928579|NCT01533935|183755384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.193|1.054|0.0003
91928580|NCT01533935|183755384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.170|1.033|0.0029
91928581|NCT01533935|183755384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.098|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.098|0.970|0.3240
91928582|NCT01533935|183755385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.002|-0.004|<0.0001
91928583|NCT01533935|183755385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||-0.001|-0.003|0.0033
91928584|NCT01533935|183755385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.2306
91928585|NCT01533935|183755385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.002|-0.005|<0.0001
91928586|NCT01533935|183755385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||-0.001|-0.004|0.0010
91928587|NCT01533935|183755385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.000|-0.002|0.1206
91928588|NCT01533935|183755386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.364|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.364|0.294|<0.0001
91767839|NCT03084796|183425139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD.~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.087|-0.017|0.189
91928589|NCT01533935|183755386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.169|0.099|<0.0001
91767840|NCT03084796|183425139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.080|-0.023|0.273
91928590|NCT01533935|183755386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.170|0.100|<0.0001
91928591|NCT01533935|183755386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.340|0.269|<0.0001
91928592|NCT01533935|183755386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.145|0.075|<0.0001
91928593|NCT01533935|183755386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.146|0.076|<0.0001
91928594|NCT00681538|183755402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-1.29|0.0002
91928595|NCT00681538|183755403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.731||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.589|4.694|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio\>1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex|30% responders||4.694|1.589|0.0003
91928596|NCT00681538|183755403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.647||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|2.777|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio\>1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex|50% Responders||2.777|0.977|0.0612
91928597|NCT00681538|183755404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-2.53||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.79|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in spasm frequency in favour of Sativex.|||-0.79|-4.27|0.0046
91928598|NCT00681538|183755405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.51|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in sleep disruption in favour of Sativex.|||-0.51|-1.25|<0.0001
91928599|NCT00681538|183755406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-1.75||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.3|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in spasticity in favour of Sativex.|||0.30|-3.80|0.0939
91928600|NCT00681538|183755407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-2.85||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.75|7.04|||ANCOVA||A positive treatment difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|For Arm||7.04|-12.75|0.56
91928601|NCT00681538|183755407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.64|||ANCOVA||A positive treatment difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|For leg||2.64|-2.56|0.98
91928602|NCT00681538|183755408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-3.34||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|0.26|||ANCOVA||A negative treatment difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||0.26|-6.95|0.0687
91928603|NCT00681538|183755409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.703||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.075|2.698|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||2.698|1.075|0.0234
91767841|NCT03084796|183425139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.045|-0.058|0.813
91928604|NCT00681538|183755410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.297|4.443|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||4.443|1.297|0.0053
91928605|NCT00681538|183755411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.792||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|3.301|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||3.301|0.973|0.0613
91928606|NCT00681538|183755412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.958||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232|3.112|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||3.112|1.232|0.0045
91928607|NCT00681538|183755413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.02||||0.2836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07|||ANCOVA||A positive difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|For Health State Index||0.07|-0.02|0.2836
91928608|NCT00681538|183755413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.24||||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|5.5|||ANCOVA||A positive difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|Health Status VAS||5.50|-3.01|0.5644
91928609|NCT00681538|183755414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.06||||0.9369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.49|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in depression in favour of Sativex.|||1.49|-1.62|0.9369
91928610|NCT00818324|183755415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91928611|NCT00818324|183755415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91767842|NCT03084796|183425140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.095|0.022|0.002
91928612|NCT00818324|183755415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 28.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91767843|NCT03084796|183425140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.113|0.040|<0.001
91767844|NCT03084796|183425140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.163|0.089|<0.001
91928613|NCT00818324|183755415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 52.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91767845|NCT03084796|183425140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.177|0.104|<0.001
91928614|NCT00818324|183755416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91928615|NCT00818324|183755416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91928616|NCT00818324|183755416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 28.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91928617|NCT00818324|183755416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 52.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91928618|NCT02389816|183755440|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||||-0.70|-4.63|0.0080
91928619|NCT02389816|183755440|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||||-1.10|-5.05|0.0023
91928620|NCT02389816|183755441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.621||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|2.533|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.533|1.037|0.0341
91928621|NCT02389816|183755441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.788||||0.011||95.0|1.143|2.799|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.799|1.143|0.0110
91928622|NCT02389816|183755442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.839||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|3.054|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.054|1.107|0.0186
91928623|NCT02389816|183755442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.834|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.834|1.020|0.0418
91928624|NCT02389816|183755443|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-0.332|||ANCOVA|||||-0.332|-3.290|0.0165
91928625|NCT02389816|183755443|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.759||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.278|-0.295|||ANCOVA|||||-0.295|-3.278|0.0190
91928626|NCT02389816|183755444|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.121|||ANCOVA|||||-0.121|-0.590|0.0031
91928627|NCT02389816|183755444|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.629|-0.158|||ANCOVA|||||-0.158|-0.629|0.0011
91928628|NCT02389816|183755445|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.011|||ANCOVA|||||0.011|-0.474|0.0609
91928629|NCT02389816|183755445|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|-0.051|||ANCOVA|||||-0.051|-0.537|0.0179
91928630|NCT02389816|183755446|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.564|-0.122|||ANCOVA|||||-0.122|-2.564|0.0311
91928631|NCT02389816|183755446|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|-0.339|||ANCOVA|||||-0.339|-2.807|0.0126
91928632|NCT02389816|183755447|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.539|0.968|||ANCOVA|||||0.968|-2.539|0.3793
91928633|NCT02389816|183755447|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||0.9011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.862|1.641|||ANCOVA|||||1.641|-1.862|0.9011
91928634|NCT02389816|183755448|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|-0.218|||ANCOVA|||||-0.218|-1.512|0.0089
91928635|NCT02389816|183755448|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.922|-0.619|||ANCOVA|||||-0.619|-1.922|0.0001
91928636|NCT00300469|183755449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 20% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
91767846|NCT03084796|183425140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.220|0.147|<0.001
91767847|NCT03084796|183425140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.055|-0.018|0.322
91767848|NCT03084796|183425140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.104|0.031|<0.001
91767849|NCT03084796|183425140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.118|0.045|<0.001
91767850|NCT03084796|183425140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD.~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.086|0.013|0.008
91811228|NCT02320149|183497585|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 3||-0.9|-3.3|0.0005
91811229|NCT02320149|183497586|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.3||||0.5786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|10.8||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 12||10.8|-19.4|0.5786
91928637|NCT00300469|183755449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 20% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
91928638|NCT00300469|183755450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 13% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||0.005
91928639|NCT00300469|183755450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 13% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||0.010
91928640|NCT00300469|183755451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 31% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
91928641|NCT00300469|183755451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 31% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
91928642|NCT01943864|183755524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||non PD rate at Week 12|10.0||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|31.7|||Exact Binomial Test|||||31.7|1.2|0.976
91928643|NCT01943864|183755525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||non PD rate at Week 12|15.0||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|37.9|||Exact Binomial Test|||||37.9|3.2|0.909
91928644|NCT01943864|183755540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|12.1|||||Lower and upper limits and estimation value are in terms of weeks|||12.1|4.6|
91928645|NCT01943864|183755541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|12.7|||||Lower and upper limits and estimation value are in terms of weeks|||12.7|4.6|
91928646|NCT01943864|183755542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Survival|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|39.3||||||||39.3|6.2|
91928647|NCT01943864|183755543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.8||||||||16.8|0|
91928648|NCT01943864|183755544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|24.9||||||||24.9|0.1|
91928649|NCT00872170|183755549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||This study had 80% power at level alpha=0.05 to detect a 60 m change in 6MWT among N=10 participants, assuming a 60 m standard deviation for 12-week change.||||0.97
91928650|NCT00872170|183755550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.04
91928651|NCT00872170|183755551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.005
91928652|NCT00872170|183755552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.02
91928653|NCT00872170|183755553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.05
91928654|NCT00872170|183755554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.02
91928655|NCT00872170|183755555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.04
91928656|NCT00872170|183755556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.33
91928657|NCT00872170|183755557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.18
91767851|NCT03084796|183425140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.100|0.027|<0.001
91928658|NCT00872170|183755558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.97
91928659|NCT00872170|183755559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.96
91928660|NCT04415489|183755560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
91767852|NCT03084796|183425140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.022|0.443
91767853|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.105|0.038|<0.001
91928661|NCT04415489|183755561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91928662|NCT04415489|183755562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
91928663|NCT04415489|183755563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91928664|NCT04415489|183755564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.01
91928665|NCT04415489|183755568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91928666|NCT03302416|183755577|SUPERIORITY|Baseline scan VT vs. Post-hydrocortisone scan VT||||||0.005|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.005
91928667|NCT05319535|183755582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.1|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||6.1|-1.8|0.26
91928668|NCT05319535|183755583|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.4|||negative binomial regression|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||3.4|0.9|0.11
91928669|NCT05319535|183755584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|93.3|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||93.3|-18.1|0.17
91928670|NCT05319535|183755585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||1.4|-0.1|0.10
91928671|NCT05319535|183755586|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.3||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||negative binomial regression|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||2.3|0.7|0.36
91928672|NCT05319535|183755587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|18.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Model included the arm indicator variable.||18.5|0.6|0.17
91928673|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first vascular AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/ Placebo\].|Time to first vascular AE (SAF-M1)||1.20|0.83|0.9946
91928674|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.27|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first vascular AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo. \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first vascular AE (SAF-M2)||1.27|0.72|0.7474
91928675|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first vascular AE on-treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment / Placebo\]|Time to first vascular AE (Trial NCT01131676, all empagliflozin (10 and 25 mg vs. Placebo))||1.31|0.81|0.7943
91928676|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.36|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first vascular AE on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment / Placebo\].|Time to first vascular AE (Trial NCT03057951)||1.36|0.69|0.8518
91928677|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.53|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first vascular AE on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first vascular AE (Trial NCT03057977)||1.53|0.56|0.7660
91928678|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.55|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (SAF-M1)||1.55|0.85|0.3612
91928679|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.4|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (SAF-M2)||2.40|0.86|0.1610
91928680|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first diabetic foot related AE on treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (Trial NCT01131676, all empagliflozin (10 and 25 mg) vs. Placebo)||1.47|0.71|0.9128
91928681|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.5276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.54|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (Trial NCT03057951)||1.54|0.43|0.5276
91928682|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.72||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment / Placebo\]|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (Trial NCT03057977)||13.87|1.60|0.0048
91928683|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first infections potentially related to LLA's. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA's (SAF-M1)||1.04|0.77|0.1526
91928684|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first infection potentially related to LLA's. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first infection potentially related to LLA's (SAF-M2)||1.21|0.76|0.7430
91928685|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for infections potentially related to LLA-on treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs. Placebo)||1.04|0.69|0.1049
91928686|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.17|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for infections potentially related to LLA on treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA (Trial NCT03057951)||1.17|0.67|0.3950
91928687|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.4429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for infections potentially related to LLA on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA (Trial NCT03057977)||1.87|0.76|0.4429
91928688|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first wound infections. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first wound/infection (SAF-M1)||1.13|0.70|0.3396
91928689|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first wound infections. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first wound/infection (SAF-M2)||1.08|0.46|0.1050
91928690|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first wound/infection on-treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first wound/infection (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs Placebo)||1.35|0.74|0.9919
91928691|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.3634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first wound/infection on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first wound/infection (Trial NCT03057951)||1.31|0.48|0.3634
91928692|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first wound/infection on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first wound/infection (Trial NCT03057977)||1.18|0.23|0.1177
91928693|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first nervous system disorder. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first nervous system disorder (SAF-M1)||1.19|0.84|0.9992
91928694|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first nervous system disorder. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first nervous system disorder (SAF-M2)||1.52|0.78|0.6274
91928695|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first nervous system disorder on-treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first nervous system disorder (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs Placebo)||1.19|0.79|0.7597
91928696|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first nervous system disorder on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first nervous system disorder (Trial NCT03057951)||1.57|0.74|0.7067
91928697|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.7404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.25|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first nervous system disorder on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|time to first nervous system disorder (Trial NCT03057977)||2.25|0.56|0.7404
91928698|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.58|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first volume depletion AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first volume depletion AE (SAF-M1)||1.58|0.92|0.1765
91928699|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.66|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first volume depletion AE. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first volume depletion AE (SAF-M2)||1.66|0.90|0.1978
91928700|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.6561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.05|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first volume depletion on-treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first volume depletion (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs Placebo)||2.05|0.64|0.6561
91928701|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first volume depletion on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first volume depletion (Trial NCT03057951)||1.87|0.90|0.1699
91928702|NCT04937816|183755604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first volume depletion on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first volume depletion (Trial NCT03057977)||1.87|0.62|0.7944
91928703|NCT04937816|183755605|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|||1.42|0.73|0.9276
91928704|NCT04937816|183755605|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.6|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|||1.60|0.45|0.6205
91928705|NCT04937816|183755605|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.63|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Empagliflozin (10 mg + 25 mg) versus Placebo.||1.63|0.73|0.6768
91928706|NCT04937816|183755605|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.4294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.59|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment /Placebo\]|||1.59|0.34|0.4294
91928707|NCT04937816|183755605|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.7826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.47|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment /Placebo\]|||3.47|0.39|0.7826
91928708|NCT05513053|183755609|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.27||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||2.27|1.73|
91928709|NCT05513053|183755609|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|3.87||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||3.87|2.76|
91928710|NCT05513053|183755609|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.82||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||1.82|1.35|
91928711|NCT05513053|183755609|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.37||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||1.37|1.09|
91928712|NCT05513053|183755610|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|6.62||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||6.62|-2.78|
91928713|NCT05513053|183755610|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|3.23||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||3.23|-4.41|
91928714|NCT05513053|183755610|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|8.14||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||8.14|-1.57|
91928715|NCT05513053|183755610|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|19.3||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||19.3|9.17|
91928716|NCT02614287|183755632|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91928717|NCT02614287|183755636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive (TE ADA+)||||.215
91928718|NCT02614287|183755637|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-1.76|0.60
91928719|NCT02614287|183755638|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|-0.72|.835
91928720|NCT02614287|183755639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.467||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|2.197|||CPLRM|CPLRM: Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model||||2.197|0.979|.063
91928721|NCT02614287|183755640|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|-0.96|.937
91928722|NCT02614287|183755641|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.40|0.073
91928723|NCT02614287|183755642|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|6.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.47|-4.65|.747
91928724|NCT02614287|183755643|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||5.03|-1.07|0.203
91928725|NCT02614287|183755643|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Function-Restrictive Domain Score||4.98|-1.29|.247
91928726|NCT02614287|183755643|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Function-Preventive Domain Score||4.19|-1.67|0.399
91928727|NCT02614287|183755643|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional Function Domain Score||6.64|-0.46|0.88
91928728|NCT00418834|183755646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|-16.0|-11.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-11.7|-16.0|<0.001
91928729|NCT00418834|183755647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-7.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-1.8|-7.4|<0.001
91928730|NCT00418834|183755648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32|||<|0.001||95.0|4.52|8.84|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg|||8.84|4.52|<0.001
91928731|NCT00418834|183755649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.001||95.0|1.4|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg|||2.50|1.40|<0.001
91928732|NCT00418834|183755650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.48|||<|0.001||95.0|3.98|7.55|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg|||7.55|3.98|<0.001
91928733|NCT00418834|183755651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.001||95.0|1.32|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg|||2.31|1.32|<0.001
91928734|NCT00418834|183755652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||3.5|0.3|<0.001
91928735|NCT00418834|183755653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|1.5|4.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||4.8|1.5|<0.001
91928736|NCT00418834|183755654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001||95.0|-14.2|-10.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-10.3|-14.2|<0.001
91928737|NCT00418834|183755655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-1.7|-6.8|<0.001
91928738|NCT00418834|183755656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001||95.0|-9.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total Cholesterol, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-6.5|-9.4|<0.001
91928739|NCT00418834|183755657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-3.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total Cholesterol, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-0.2|-3.8|<0.001
91928740|NCT00418834|183755658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.0|-3.4|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline TG value (normalized scores), and AVD status|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic"|||-3.4|-9.0|<0.001
91928741|NCT00418834|183755659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.2|1.0|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline TG value (normalized scores), and AVD status|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates~of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic"|||1.0|-5.2|<0.001
91928742|NCT00418834|183755660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-11.0|-7.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-7.3|-11.0|<0.001
91928743|NCT00418834|183755661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-5.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-0.9|-5.5|<0.001
91928744|NCT00418834|183755662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.401||95.0|-0.9|2.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||2.1|-0.9|0.401
91928745|NCT00418834|183755663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|1.1|4.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||4.2|1.1|<0.001
91928746|NCT00418834|183755664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-10.7|-7.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-7.3|-10.7|<0.001
91928747|NCT00418834|183755665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-2.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-2.4|-6.8|<0.001
91928748|NCT00418834|183755666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-17.0|-12.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-12.2|-17.0|<0.001
91928749|NCT00418834|183755667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-10.1|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-3.7|-10.1|<0.001
91928750|NCT00418834|183755668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001||95.0|-11.6|-7.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B:Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-7.5|-11.6|<0.001
91928751|NCT00418834|183755669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-7.7|-2.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B:Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-2.9|-7.7|<0.001
91928752|NCT00418834|183755670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-15.3|-10.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-10.5|-15.3|<0.001
91767854|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|0.052|<0.001
91767855|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.177|0.109|<0.001
91928753|NCT00418834|183755671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-9.8|-3.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-3.6|-9.8|<0.001
91767856|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.194|0.127|<0.001
91767857|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.198|0.131|<0.001
91928754|NCT00418834|183755672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.534||95.0|-11.9|6.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, AVD status, and the interaction of time by treatment|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)~Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means."|||6.4|-11.9|0.534
91928755|NCT00418834|183755673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.09||95.0|-15.6|1.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, AVD status, and the interaction of time by treatment|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)~Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means."|||1.6|-15.6|0.090
91928756|NCT02429258|183755674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|<|0.001||95.0|-36.1|-12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.0|-36.1|<0.001
91928757|NCT02429258|183755675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.01||95.0|-26.8|-3.8|||ANCOVA|||||-3.8|-26.8|0.010
91928758|NCT02429258|183755676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.023||95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|0.1|0.023
91928759|NCT02429258|183755677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.001||95.0|7.7|22.2|||ANCOVA|||||22.2|7.7|<0.001
91928760|NCT02429258|183755678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.001||95.0|-23.5|-8.7|||ANCOVA|||||-8.7|-23.5|<0.001
91928761|NCT02429258|183755679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|<|0.001||95.0|-46.6|-12.9|||ANCOVA|||||-12.9|-46.6|<0.001
91928762|NCT02429258|183755680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14|<|0.001||95.0|-59.0|-22.7|||ANCOVA|||||-22.7|-59.0|<0.001
91928763|NCT02429258|183755681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.024||95.0|-0.43|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.43|0.024
91928764|NCT02429258|183755682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.019||95.0|-19.9|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-19.9|0.019
91928765|NCT02429258|183755683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.25|<|0.001||95.0|-54.7|-17.9|||ANCOVA|||||-17.9|-54.7|<0.001
91928766|NCT02429258|183755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.017||95.0|1.3|12.7|||ANCOVA|||||12.7|1.3|0.017
91928767|NCT03987919|183755687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-0.64|<0.001
91928768|NCT03987919|183755687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.47|-0.73|<0.001
91928769|NCT03987919|183755688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.36|<0.001
91928770|NCT03987919|183755689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-2.6|<0.001
91928771|NCT03987919|183755689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.2|-5.0|<0.001
91928772|NCT03987919|183755689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-7.1|<0.001
91928773|NCT03987919|183755690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|1.06|0.023
91928774|NCT03987919|183755690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.17|1.44|<0.001
91928775|NCT03987919|183755690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.66|1.97|<0.001
91928776|NCT03987919|183755691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.0|-11.7|0.001
91928777|NCT03987919|183755691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.6|-17.4|<0.001
91928778|NCT03987919|183755691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.3|-19.1|<0.001
91928779|NCT03987919|183755693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|1.20|0.001
91928780|NCT03987919|183755693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.75|2.57|<0.001
91928781|NCT03987919|183755693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|6.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.38|3.32|<0.001
91928782|NCT03987919|183755694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.03|-0.50|0.084
91928783|NCT03987919|183755694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.00|-0.54|0.050
91928784|NCT03987919|183755694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.12|-0.66|0.005
91928785|NCT03987919|183755694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.22|-0.33|0.688
91928786|NCT03987919|183755694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.26|-0.29|0.909
91928787|NCT03987919|183755694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.15|-0.40|0.358
91928788|NCT03987919|183755694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||0.41|-0.62|0.701
91928789|NCT03987919|183755694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||0.27|-0.78|0.341
91928790|NCT03987919|183755694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||0.79|-0.26|0.321
91928791|NCT03987919|183755696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|1.35|<0.001
91928792|NCT03987919|183755696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|5.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.39|2.88|<0.001
91928793|NCT03987919|183755696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|6.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.97|3.73|<0.001
91928794|NCT01520324|183755698|OTHER|The data documented in this trial and the parameters measured were described using classic statistics, i.e. mean, SD, CV(%), median, minimum and maximum values for quantitative variables and frequencies for qualitative variables.||||||||||||||||The number of detected neoplasiae for each patient was listed and summarised by descriptive statistics. Number and percentage of patients with intraepithelial neoplasiae was presented|The data documented in this trial and the parameters measured were described using classic statistics, i.e. mean, SD, CV(%), median, minimum and maximum values for quantitative variables and frequencies for qualitative variables.|||
91928795|NCT03470922|183755706|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by LAG-3 (≥ 1% vs \< 1%), BRAF (mutation positive vs mutation wild-type), AJCC M-stage (M0/M1any\[0\] vs M1any\[1\])||||0.92|0.62|0.0055
91928796|NCT02626819|183755715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Weight change was analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test along with multiple imputation to adjust for missing data||||||<0.05
91928797|NCT02626819|183755716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Weight change was analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test along with multiple imputation to adjust for missing data.||||||<0.05
91928798|NCT02626819|183755717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Weight change was analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test along with multiple imputation to adjust for missing data||||||<0.05
91928799|NCT02626819|183755718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91928800|NCT02626819|183755719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91928801|NCT02626819|183755720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91928802|NCT02626819|183755721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91928803|NCT02626819|183755722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91928804|NCT02361762|183755723|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.36
91928805|NCT02361762|183755724|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.79
91928806|NCT02361762|183755725|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA compared group (Training/Waitlist) by time (Pre/Post) by condition (Congruent/Incongruent)||||||0.009
91928807|NCT02361762|183755726|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)|ANCOVA|Compared scores at post testing with baseline scores covaried.||||||.79
91928808|NCT02361762|183755727|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.61
91928809|NCT02361762|183755728|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)0.||||||0.68
91928810|NCT02361762|183755729|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.54
91928811|NCT02361762|183755730|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.08
91928812|NCT02361762|183755731|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.37
91928813|NCT02361762|183755733|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.62
91767858|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.048|-0.020|0.418
91767859|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.105|0.038|<0.001
91811230|NCT02320149|183497587|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.6969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|11.4||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 9||11.4|-17.1|0.6969
91811231|NCT02320149|183497588|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.7377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|20.7||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 6||20.7|-14.7|0.7377
91811232|NCT02320149|183497589|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.4||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|18.1||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 3||18.1|-5.3|0.2861
91928814|NCT02361762|183755734|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA compared group (Training/Waitlist) by time (Pre/Post) by condition (Go/Nogo)||||||0.10
91767860|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.122|0.055|<0.001
91767861|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|0.024|<0.001
91767862|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.108|0.041|<0.001
91811233|NCT02320149|183497590|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 12||-1.5|-6.3|0.0014
91811234|NCT02320149|183497591|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.4||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 9||-1.4|-5.5|0.0010
91811235|NCT02320149|183497592|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.1||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 6||-0.1|-4.0|0.0371
91811236|NCT02320149|183497593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.3806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.0||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 3||1.0|-2.5|0.3806
91928815|NCT02361762|183755735|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.02
91928816|NCT00502307|183755740|OTHER||Exact binomial distribution|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|30.2||||||||30.2|19.6|
91928817|NCT00502307|183755740|OTHER||Exact binomial distribution|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|23.1||||||||23.1|13.6|
91928818|NCT00502307|183755741|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91928819|NCT00502307|183755741|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91928820|NCT00502307|183755742|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
91928821|NCT00502307|183755742|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.129
91928822|NCT00502307|183755743|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
91928823|NCT00502307|183755743|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.089
91928824|NCT00495495|183755756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.1126|ONE_SIDED||||||McNemar|||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the HealOzone and Placebo devices in the proportion of teeth with lesion progression after 1 year.~Power calculation: the study was sized to have 90% power to detect a 15% difference between treatments in the percentage of teeth with lesion progression at one year (i.e., assuming 45% for the lesions treated with the Placebo device and 30% for the lesions treated with the HealOzone device) with a sample size of 258 subjects completing the study."||||0.1126
91928825|NCT00495495|183755757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.9777|ONE_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||.9777
91928826|NCT00495495|183755758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0416|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||.0416
91928827|NCT00495495|183755759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.6585|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.6585
91928828|NCT00495495|183755760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.7666|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||.7666
91928829|NCT04009096|183755769|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Two tailed p value reported for Mann-Whitney test comparing controls with each vaccinees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of pooled data from Groups 1, 2 and 3 volunteers who completed CHMI with pooled data of infectivity controls (unvaccinated) from CHMI study running in parallel (VAC069 study)||||0.14
91928830|NCT03439748|183755785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference between PAT and NAT as small as d=.35.||||.002
91928831|NCT03439748|183755786|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference between PAT and NAT as small as d=.35.||||>.05
91767863|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.016|0.308
91767864|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.147|0.038|<0.001
91767865|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed, using linear mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.188|0.079|<0.001
91767866|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.229|0.120|<0.001
91767867|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.235|0.127|<0.001
91767868|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.284|0.175|<0.001
91928832|NCT03439748|183755787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference between PAT and NAT as small as d=.35.||||.024
91928833|NCT03439748|183755791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.922
91928834|NCT03439748|183755792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.049
91928835|NCT03439748|183755793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.591
91928836|NCT03439748|183755794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.004
91928837|NCT03439748|183755795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.030
91928838|NCT03439748|183755796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.029
91928839|NCT03439748|183755798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.494
91767869|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.013|0.141
91767870|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.137|0.028|0.003
91767871|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.142|0.035|0.001
91767872|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.013|0.137
91767873|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.101|-0.006|0.082
91767874|NCT03084796|183425141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.060|-0.048|0.823
91767875|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.100|0.022|0.002
91767876|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.113|0.036|<0.001
91767877|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.163|0.085|<0.001
91767878|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.190|0.113|<0.001
91767879|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.202|||MMRM|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.202|0.124|<0.001
91767880|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.052|-0.025|0.485
91928840|NCT03439748|183755799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.231
91928841|NCT03439748|183755800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.344
91928842|NCT03439748|183755801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.267
91928843|NCT03439748|183755802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.051
91928844|NCT00335504|183755807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||Adjusting for multiple comparisons yields 84% power to detect a difference of at least 25% in % change of ACF at the 0.016 level of significance and using a two-sample, 2-sided t-test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed to test the hypotheses of observing a 25% difference in % change ACF over baseline, between patients treated with atorvastatin compared to placebo. N=25 subjects per group yielded 93% power to detect this difference using a 2 sided t-test at significance level of 0.05. Non-parametric tests (eg, Wilcoxon Rank Sum) could be used if the statistical assumptions of the t-test were violated.||||0.30
91928845|NCT00335504|183755807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||Adjusting for multiple comparisons yields 84% power to detect a difference of at least 25% in % change of ACF at the 0.016 level of significance and using a two-sample, 2-sided t-test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed to test the hypotheses of observing a 25% difference in % change ACF over baseline, between patients treated with sulindac compared to placebo. N=25 subjects per group yielded 93% power to detect this difference using a 2 sided t-test at significance level of 0.05. Non-parametric tests (eg, Wilcoxon Rank Sum) could be used if the statistical assumptions of the t-test were violated.||||0.60
91928846|NCT00335504|183755807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||Adjusting for multiple comparisons yields 84% power to detect a difference of at least 25% in % change of ACF at the 0.016 level of significance and using a two-sample, 2-sided t-test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed to test the hypotheses of observing a 25% difference in % change ACF over baseline, between patients treated with oligofructose-enriched inulin compared to placebo. N=25 subjects per group yielded 93% power to detect this difference using a 2 sided t-test at significance level of 0.05. Non-parametric tests (eg, Wilcoxon Rank Sum) could be used if the statistical assumptions of the t-test were violated.||||0.92
91928847|NCT00335504|183755807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.59
91928848|NCT00335504|183755807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.12
91928849|NCT00335504|183755807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.54
91928850|NCT00335504|183755807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.41
91928851|NCT00335504|183755808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in Ki67 between atorvastatin and placebo.||||0.37
91928852|NCT00335504|183755808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in Ki67 between sulindac and placebo.||||1.00
91928853|NCT00335504|183755808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in Ki67 between oligofructose-enriched inulin and placebo.||||0.58
91928854|NCT00335504|183755809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in apoptosis between atorvastatin calcium and placebo.||||0.26
91928855|NCT00335504|183755809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in apoptosis between sulindac and placebo.||||0.88
91928856|NCT00335504|183755809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in apoptosis between oligofructose-enriched inulin and placebo.||||0.38
91928857|NCT01856595|183755845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.532||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.93|11.38||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||11.38|-16.93|0.7457
91928858|NCT01856595|183755845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-21.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.334||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.47|-7.81||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-7.81|-35.47|0.0108
91928859|NCT01856595|183755845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-26.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.309||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.38|-12.8||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-12.80|-40.38|0.0018
91928860|NCT01856595|183755845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-32.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.038||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.66|-18.99||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-18.99|-45.66|0.0001
91928861|NCT01856595|183755845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-42.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.23|-28.55||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-28.55|-56.23|<0.0001
91928862|NCT01856595|183755846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|10.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.621||0.279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|26.43||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||26.43|-5.50|0.2790
91928863|NCT01856595|183755846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-19.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.777||0.0299||90.0|-33.89|-4.76||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-4.76|-33.89|0.0299
91928864|NCT01856595|183755847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-29.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.609||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.28|-16.57||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-16.57|-42.28|0.0005
91928865|NCT01856595|183755847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-11.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.321||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.26|0.48||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.48|-24.26|0.1133
91928866|NCT01856595|183755848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.853|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.1||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.10|0.89|0.8530
91928867|NCT01856595|183755848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.95||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.95|0.77|0.0172
91928868|NCT01856595|183755848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.94||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.94|0.77|0.0106
91928869|NCT01856595|183755848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.9||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.90|0.74|0.0012
91928870|NCT01856595|183755848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.85||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.85|0.69|<0.0001
91928871|NCT01856595|183755849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.075||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.1||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.10|0.87|0.7804
91928872|NCT01856595|183755849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.068||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.0||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.00|0.77|0.0908
91928873|NCT01856595|183755850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.88||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.88|0.68|0.0027
91928874|NCT01856595|183755850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.0||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.00|0.77|0.0908
91928875|NCT01856595|183755854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.19||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.19|0.81|0.8723
91928876|NCT01856595|183755854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124||0.5158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.13||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.13|0.76|0.5158
91811237|NCT00333866|183497607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-0.23||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||ANCOVA|Hochberg's approach was used to protect the Type I error rate at 0.05 level, Hochberg adjusted p-values were presented.||P value was calculated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean pain score as covariate.||0.15|-0.61|0.2361
91811238|NCT00333866|183497607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Hochberg's approach was used to protect the Type I error rate at 0.05 level, Hochberg adjusted p-values were presented.||P value was calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean pain score as covariate.||-0.17|-0.94|0.0132
91928877|NCT01856595|183755854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.126||0.1258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.01||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.01|0.68|0.1258
91928878|NCT01856595|183755854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.115||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.07||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.07|0.74|0.2883
91928879|NCT01856595|183755854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.8437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.18||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.18|0.81|0.8437
91928880|NCT01856595|183755855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.154||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.42||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.42|0.88|0.4405
91928881|NCT01856595|183755855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.146||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.37||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.37|0.87|0.5178
91928882|NCT01856595|183755856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.92||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.92|0.52|0.0340
91928883|NCT01856595|183755856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.173||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.58||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.58|0.92|0.2519
91928884|NCT01856595|183755857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.2||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.20|0.93|0.4579
91928885|NCT01856595|183755857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.8144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.11||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.11|0.87|0.8144
91928886|NCT01856595|183755857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.082||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.06||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.06|0.81|0.3425
91928887|NCT01856595|183755857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076||0.967|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.13||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.13|0.88|0.9670
91928888|NCT01856595|183755857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.23||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.23|0.95|0.3190
91928889|NCT01856595|183755858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.32||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.32|0.98|0.1617
91928890|NCT01856595|183755858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.084||0.3703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.23||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.23|0.94|0.3703
91928891|NCT01856595|183755859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.6833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.15||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.15|0.79|0.6833
91928892|NCT01856595|183755859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.41||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.41|0.98|0.1318
91928893|NCT00458406|183755901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~Description of power calculation: The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 standard deviation (SD)."||||0.512
91928894|NCT00458406|183755902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Two-sided t-test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar effi cacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
91928895|NCT00458406|183755903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Two-sided t-test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar effi cacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
91928896|NCT00458406|183755904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-Square test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
91928897|NCT00458406|183755905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP. The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD.||||>0.05
91928898|NCT00458406|183755905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Two-sided t-test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||<0.05
91928899|NCT00458406|183755907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Mann-Whitney test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
91928900|NCT00458406|183755908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Mann-Whitney test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
91928901|NCT03161938|183755910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.508||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|1.62|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Null hypothesis: Patients receiving 48 mg of preoperative dexamethasone have less postoperative pain. Power calculation: Acute pain is reduced from 70% to 35% for patients receiving 48 mg of dexamathesone, 80% power, 0.05 statistical significance level.||1.620|0.159|0.248
91811239|NCT00333866|183497607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-0.33||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.05|||ANCOVA|Hochberg's approach was used to protect the Type I error rate at 0.05 level, Hochberg adjusted p-values were presented.||P value was calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean pain score as covariate.||0.05|-0.72|0.1694
91928902|NCT03161938|183755911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.519
91928903|NCT03161938|183755912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.468
91928904|NCT03161938|183755913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Maximal pain||||0.913
91928905|NCT03161938|183755913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average pain||||0.722
91928906|NCT03161938|183755914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|3.793|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.793|0.374|0.768
91928907|NCT03161938|183755915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.133
91928908|NCT03161938|183755916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, statistical level of significance 0.01 (bonferroni correction)|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 0||||0.768
91928909|NCT03161938|183755916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1||||0.376
91928910|NCT03161938|183755916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 2||||0.590
91928911|NCT03161938|183755916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3||||0.320
91928912|NCT03161938|183755916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 4||||0.666
91928913|NCT03161938|183755917|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 0||||>0.999
91928914|NCT03161938|183755917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 1||||0.154
91928915|NCT03161938|183755917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 2||||0.447
91928916|NCT03161938|183755917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 3||||0.678
91928917|NCT03161938|183755917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 4||||0.604
91928918|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 0, sadness||||0.075
91928919|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 0, restlessness||||0.447
91928920|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 0, fatigue||||0.703
91928921|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1, sadness||||0.731
91928922|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1, restlessness||||0.052
91928923|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1, fatigue||||0.807
91928924|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 2, sadness||||0.371
91928925|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 2, restlessness||||0.064
91928926|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 2, fatigue||||0.110
91928927|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3, sadness||||0.531
91928928|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3, restlessness||||0.954
91928929|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3, fatigue||||0.526
91928930|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 4, sadness||||0.491
91928931|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 4, restlessness||||0.042
91928932|NCT03161938|183755918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 4, fatigue||||0.097
91928933|NCT03161938|183755919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.613
91928934|NCT01125176|183755933|OTHER|Exact Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence interval for overall response rate.|Proportion (percent)|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.5|100.0||||||||100.0|73.5|
91767881|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.102|0.025|0.001
91767882|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.130|0.053|<0.001
91928935|NCT00829166|183755941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.771|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or greater than \[\>\] 1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.771|0.549|<0.0001
91928936|NCT00829166|183755943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.682||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|0.849|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.849|0.548|0.0006
91928937|NCT00829166|183755945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|0.877|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.877|0.639|0.0003
91928938|NCT00829166|183755949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.658|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.774|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.774|0.560|<0.0001
91928939|NCT00829166|183755950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|12.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|19.4|||Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test||The 95% CI for the difference in objective response rate (Trastuzumab emtansine minus Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was computed by using the approximate normal method.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||19.4|6.0|0.0002
91928940|NCT00829166|183755952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.9|||||The 95% CI for the difference in clinical benefit rate (Trastuzumab emtansine minus Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was computed by using the normal approximation method.|||20.9|7.0|
91928941|NCT00829166|183755954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.82|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.820|0.602|<0.0001
91928942|NCT00829166|183755956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.951|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.951|0.667|0.0121
91928943|NCT02538666|183755957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by response to ECOG PS (0vs1), gender (MvF), irradiation following chemotherapy (YorN) as entered in IVRS|based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model|nivolumab + ipilimumab over placebo||1.12|0.75|0.3693
91928944|NCT02538666|183755958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.97|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab over global placebo||0.97|0.68|
91928945|NCT02538666|183755958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.66|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China nivolumab over China Placebo||1.66|0.53|
91767883|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.088|0.011|0.012
91767884|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|0.039|<0.001
91811240|NCT00333866|183497608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P-values were calculated using a modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure, adjusting for center.||||0.0227
91928946|NCT02538666|183755959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.36|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab + ipilimumab over global nivolumab||1.36|0.94|
91928947|NCT02538666|183755959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.79|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China nivolumab + ipilimumab over China nivolumab||1.79|0.56|
91928948|NCT02538666|183755960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.88|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab + ipilimumab over global placebo||0.88|0.62|
91928949|NCT02538666|183755960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.79|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab over global placebo||0.79|0.55|
91928950|NCT02538666|183755960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.35|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab+ ipilimumab over nivolumab||1.35|0.94|
91928951|NCT02538666|183755960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.12|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over China placebo||1.12|0.33|
91928952|NCT02538666|183755960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China Nivolumab over China placebo||0.85|0.24|
91767885|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.066|-0.011|0.157
91767886|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|0.011|0.021
91767887|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.170|0.053|<0.001
91767888|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.220|0.103|<0.001
91767889|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.215|0.099|<0.001
91767890|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.271|0.154|<0.001
91767891|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.101|-0.015|0.149
91767892|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.151|0.034|0.002
91767893|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.146|0.031|0.003
91767894|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.108|-0.009|0.096
91767895|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.012|0.122
91767896|NCT03084796|183425142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.054|-0.062|0.886
91928953|NCT02538666|183755960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.49|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over China Nivolumab||2.49|0.72|
91928954|NCT02538666|183755961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.15|0.61|
91928955|NCT02538666|183755961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||1.04|0.55|
91928956|NCT02538666|183755961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||0.92|0.42|
91928957|NCT02538666|183755961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.93|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.93|0.44|
91928958|NCT02538666|183755961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.21|0.68|
91928959|NCT02538666|183755961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||1.18|0.66|
91928960|NCT02538666|183755961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.35|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.35|0.81|
91928961|NCT02538666|183755961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||1.20|0.72|
91928962|NCT02538666|183755962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.09|0.58|
91928963|NCT02538666|183755962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.92|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.92|0.50|
91928964|NCT02538666|183755962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.07|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.07|0.50|
91767897|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.141|0.008|0.029
91928965|NCT02538666|183755962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.95|0.46|
91928966|NCT02538666|183755962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.96|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||0.96|0.54|
91928967|NCT02538666|183755962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.89|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.89|0.49|
91928968|NCT02538666|183755962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.01|0.60|
91928969|NCT02538666|183755962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.89|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.89|0.53|
91928970|NCT02538666|183755963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab + ipilimumab over Global placebo||1.09|0.76|
91928971|NCT02538666|183755963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.67|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China nivolumab + ipilimumab over China placebo||1.67|0.52|
91928972|NCT00320385|183755964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93|||Log Rank||The Pike estimator of the treatment hazard ratio based on the log-rank test was provided, together with a 95% confidence interval.|||0.93|0.57|0.008
91928973|NCT00320385|183755965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.07|||Log Rank||The Pike estimator of the treatment hazard ratio based on the log-rank test was provided, together with a 95% confidence interval.|||1.07|0.53|0.106
91928974|NCT00320385|183755966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.9|||Fisher Exact||Responses were compared between treatment arms using stratified Fisher's exact tests.|||3.9|0.6|0.460
91928975|NCT00320385|183755967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.5|||Fisher Exact||Clinical Benefit was compared between treatment arms using stratified Fisher's exact tests.|||4.5|1.2|0.010
91928976|NCT02492750|183755972|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) Level|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD is defined as the dose level below the lowest dose that induces DLT in at least one-third of patients. A total of 6 patients treated at the MTD will be sufficient to identify common toxicities at the MTD.|||||
91928977|NCT01954121|183756027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for the adjusted difference in seizure free proportion in the LEV minus the seizure free proportion in the CBZ-IR group was set to absolute -20% points.|adjusted difference in proportions|-22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-12.6||||||The adjusted absolute difference in treatment group seizure-free proportions (referenced as 'Adjusted difference in proportions' in 'Method of Estimation' below) was derived from the adjusted treatment group proportions of seizure-free subjects. The adjusted proportions were derived from a logistic regression model of seizure freedom using treatment and the categories for the number of seizures in the 3-month period prior to Visit 1 (≤2 seizures and \>2 seizures) as covariates.||-12.6|-33.1|
91928978|NCT03342469|183756054|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Delta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
91928979|NCT03342469|183756054|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Theta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
91928980|NCT03342469|183756054|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Alpha Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
91928981|NCT03342469|183756054|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Beta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||0.08
91928982|NCT03342469|183756054|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|F(1,14)= 4.55||Difference in Gamma Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||0.05
91928983|NCT03342469|183756054|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Delta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
91767898|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.188|0.055|<0.001
91767899|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.250|0.117|<0.001
91811241|NCT00333866|183497608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P-values were calculated using a modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure, adjusting for center.||||0.0017
91811242|NCT00333866|183497608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0768||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P-values were calculated using a modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure, adjusting for center.||||0.0768
91928984|NCT03342469|183756054|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Theta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
91928985|NCT03342469|183756054|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Alpha Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
91767900|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.275|0.142|<0.001
91767901|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.360|0.227|<0.001
91767902|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.113|-0.019|0.161
91928986|NCT03342469|183756054|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Beta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)||||>0.05
91928987|NCT03342469|183756054|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Gamma Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91928988|NCT03342469|183756055|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Delta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91767903|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.176|0.043|0.001
91767904|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.201|0.068|<0.001
91767905|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|-0.004|0.066
91767906|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|0.021|0.010
91811243|NCT00333866|183497609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean sleep score as covariate.||-0.60|-1.42|<.0001
91811244|NCT00333866|183497609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.78||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean sleep score as covariate.||-0.37|-1.20|0.0002
91928989|NCT03342469|183756055|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Theta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91767907|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|-0.042|0.465
91767908|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.195|0.030|0.008
91767909|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.256|0.091|<0.001
91767910|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.302|0.136|<0.001
91767911|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.295|0.131|<0.001
91767912|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|0.409|||McNemar|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.409|0.244|<0.001
91767913|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.143|-0.021|0.144
91767914|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.024|0.011
91767915|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.182|0.019|0.016
91767916|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|-0.037|0.280
91811245|NCT00333866|183497609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean sleep score as covariate.||-0.07|-0.89|0.0222
91890473|NCT00574873|183674024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||p-value was based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel test for general association between treatment and responder stratification by Sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1 to 3) as determined at time of randomization.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
91767917|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.121|-0.042|0.342
91767918|NCT03084796|183425143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.076|-0.088|0.886
91767919|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.163|0.032|0.003
91767920|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.221|0.091|<0.001
91767921|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.273|0.143|<0.001
91767922|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.302|0.172|<0.001
91767923|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.341|0.211|<0.001
91890474|NCT00574873|183674025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||||Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) based on the treatment effect (bosutinib compared with imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group and region at randomization) Cox model for the hazard of the respective event.|||1.31|0.31|
91890475|NCT00574873|183674026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.08|||||Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) based on the treatment effect (bosutinib compared with imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group and region at randomization) Cox model for the hazard of the respective event.|||1.08|0.32|
91890476|NCT00574873|183674027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.72|||||Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) based on the treatment effect (bosutinib compared with imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group and region at randomization) Cox model for the hazard of the respective event.|||11.72|0.90|
91890477|NCT00574873|183674028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.29|||||The hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) is obtained from a Cox model for cause-specific hazard as a function of the covariate treatment (bosutinib compared with imatinib) with stratification by region and Sokal risk group at randomization.|||1.29|0.13|
91890478|NCT04552899|183674041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Change from Baseline|-20.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.11||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.94|46.29|||RCRM|Random Coefficient Regression Model (RCRM)||||46.29|-87.94|0.54
91890479|NCT04552899|183674044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.91|0.2512
91767924|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.124|-0.006|0.076
91767925|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.176|0.046|<0.001
91767926|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.205|0.075|<0.001
91767927|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.117|-0.013|0.116
91767928|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.146|0.016|0.014
91767929|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.094|-0.036|0.384
91767930|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.236|0.064|<0.001
91767931|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.290|0.118|<0.001
91767932|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.335|0.162|<0.001
91767933|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.339|0.168|<0.001
91767934|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.439|0.268|<0.001
91767935|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.140|-0.031|0.214
91767936|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.184|0.012|0.025
91767937|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.019|0.016
91767938|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.130|-0.042|0.313
91767939|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure.~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.135|-0.035|0.250
91767940|NCT03084796|183425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|-0.080|0.898
91811246|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 1: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
91767941|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed, using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.153|0.006|0.035
91767942|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.232|0.085|<0.001
91767943|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.275|0.127|<0.001
91811247|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 1: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.1|0.0003
91890480|NCT04552899|183674045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.51|0.9833
91890481|NCT04552899|183674048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.7005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.86|||Log Rank|||||1.86|0.40|0.7005
91890482|NCT00461981|183674063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-60.6||||||95.0|-79.7|-31.7||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-31.7|-79.7|
91890483|NCT00461981|183674064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-60.9||||||95.0|-83.8|-26.0||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-26.0|-83.8|
91890484|NCT00461981|183674065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|44.2||||||95.0|12.0|67.8||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||67.8|12.0|
91890485|NCT00461981|183674066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|16.2||||||95.0|-17.6|45.4||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||45.4|-17.6|
91890486|NCT00461981|183674067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-18.2||||||95.0|-40.0|4.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||4.9|-40.0|
91890487|NCT00461981|183674068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-5.6||||||95.0|-27.4|13.3||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||13.3|-27.4|
91890488|NCT00461981|183674069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|35.7||||||95.0|9.5|57.1||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||57.1|9.5|
91890489|NCT00461981|183674070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-5.0||||||95.0|-27.7|16.0||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||16.0|-27.7|
91890490|NCT00461981|183674071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|14.7||||||95.0|-6.5|38.4||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||38.4|-6.5|
91890491|NCT00461981|183674072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|38.1||||||95.0|0.9|65.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||65.9|0.9|
91767944|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.315|0.168|<0.001
91767945|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.351|0.204|<0.001
91767946|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.152|0.005|0.035
91767947|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.195|0.048|0.001
91767948|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.235|0.088|<0.001
91767949|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|-0.031|0.256
91767950|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.156|0.010|0.027
91767951|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.114|-0.033|0.281
91767952|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.232|0.050|0.003
91767953|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.197|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.288|0.106|<0.001
91767954|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.340|0.157|<0.001
91767955|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.336|0.155|<0.001
91767956|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.439|0.258|<0.001
91767957|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.147|-0.034|0.222
91767958|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.108||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.199|0.017|0.020
91767959|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.195|0.015|0.022
91767960|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.143|-0.039|0.262
91767961|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.138|-0.041|0.290
91928990|NCT03342469|183756055|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|F(1.14)= 4.88, p=0.04||"Difference in Alpha Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||0.04
91928991|NCT03342469|183756055|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Beta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91928992|NCT03342469|183756055|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Gamma Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91928993|NCT03342469|183756055|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Delta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91928994|NCT03342469|183756055|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Theta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons"||||>0.05
91767962|NCT03084796|183425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.087|-0.094|0.938
91767963|NCT03084796|183425146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.24|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using Cox proportional hazards model, including treatment, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 value as covariate."||2.24|1.21|0.002
91767964|NCT03084796|183425146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.94|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.94|1.61|<0.001
91767965|NCT03084796|183425146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.78|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||3.78|2.07|<0.001
91767966|NCT03084796|183425146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|4.15|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.15|2.27|<0.001
91767967|NCT03084796|183425146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.17|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.17|2.30|<0.001
91928995|NCT03342469|183756055|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Alpha Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91767968|NCT03084796|183425146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.76|1.00|0.052
91767969|NCT03084796|183425146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.26|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.26|1.28|<0.001
91928996|NCT03342469|183756055|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Beta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91928997|NCT03342469|183756055|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Gamma Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91928998|NCT03342469|183756056|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|F(1,15) = 3.65, p = 0.08||"Difference in inattentive ASRS in ADHD group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (inattentive ASRS score during AFC, inattentive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91928999|NCT03342469|183756056|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in hyperactive ASRS in ADHD group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (hyperactive ASRS score during AFC, hyperactive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91767970|NCT03084796|183425146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.48|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.48|1.41|<0.001
91767971|NCT03084796|183425146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.69|0.98|0.074
91767972|NCT03084796|183425146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.85|1.08|0.013
91767973|NCT03084796|183425146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.44|0.84|0.494
91767974|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.107|0.011|0.017
91767975|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|0.032|0.001
91767976|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.170|0.074|<0.001
91767977|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.159|0.063|<0.001
91767978|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.170|0.074|<0.001
91929000|NCT03342469|183756056|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in total ASRS in ADHD group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (total ASRS score during AFC, total ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91929001|NCT03342469|183756056|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"inattentive ASRS in control group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (inattentive ASRS score during AFC, inattentive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91929002|NCT03342469|183756056|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Hyperactive ASRS in control group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (hyperactive ASRS score during AFC, hyperactive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91929003|NCT03342469|183756056|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in total ASRS in control group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (total ASRS score during AFC, total ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91929004|NCT05515601|183756059|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.05||||||||1.05|0.929|
91929005|NCT05515601|183756060|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.08||||||||1.08|0.948|
91929006|NCT05515601|183756061|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09||||||||1.09|0.960|
91929007|NCT00540436|183756062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|33.49||||||95.0|15.231|51.744||||||||51.744|15.231|
91929008|NCT00540436|183756063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|46.82||||||95.0|24.566|69.076||||||||69.076|24.566|
91929009|NCT01515306|183756085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geo LS means|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.||||1.29|0.93|
91929010|NCT01515306|183756087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.||||1.13|0.83|
91929011|NCT01064648|183756102|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.95||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test by performance status and histology type.||||0.95|0.54|0.06
91929012|NCT01064648|183756103|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|1.17||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test by performance status and histology.||||1.17|0.65|0.28
91929013|NCT01064648|183756104|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.83||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-square by performance status and histology.||||5.83|0.59|0.15
91929014|NCT01064648|183756105|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.49||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-Square by performance status and histology||||1.49|0.14|0.09
91929015|NCT01064648|183756106|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.3||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-Square by performance status and histology.||||13.3|1.4|0.006
91929016|NCT01064648|183756107|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.94||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-Square by performance status and histology||||1.94|0.18|0.19
91929017|NCT05513391|183756110|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was greater than (\>) 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.73||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||1.73|0.948|
91929018|NCT05513391|183756110|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was \> 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|3.3||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||3.30|1.93|
91929019|NCT05513391|183756110|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was \> 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|0.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.668||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||0.668|0.397|
91929020|NCT05513391|183756110|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was \> 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.3||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||1.30|0.799|
91929021|NCT05513391|183756111|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|15.7||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||15.7|-1.55|
91929022|NCT05513391|183756111|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|24.7||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||24.7|5.80|
91929023|NCT05513391|183756111|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|-6.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|0.1||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||0.10|-14.02|
91929024|NCT05513391|183756111|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|5.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|13.6||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||13.6|-1.99|
91929025|NCT02429427|183756120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.17|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by oestrogen receptor status and country.|Analysis stratified by oestrogen receptor status and country.|||1.17|0.80|0.751
91929026|NCT02429427|183756121|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||Log Rank|Analysis is stratified for oestrogen receptor status and country.|Analysis is stratified for oestrogen receptor status and country.|||1.22|0.76|0.781
91929027|NCT05138783|183756172|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, period, and sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = PRECISION1 minus BIOTRUE. Sign (either negative or positive) is retained with the rounded value.|||0.00||
91929028|NCT03364335|183756173|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5461|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5461
91929029|NCT03364335|183756173|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0364|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0364
91929030|NCT03364335|183756173|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0156|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0156
91929031|NCT03364335|183756173|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0349|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0349
91767979|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.069|-0.026|0.377
91929032|NCT03364335|183756174|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5348|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5348
91929033|NCT03364335|183756174|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0379|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0379
91929034|NCT03364335|183756174|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0215|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0215
91929035|NCT03364335|183756174|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0464|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0464
91929036|NCT03364335|183756175|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
91929037|NCT03364335|183756175|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.2646|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2646
91929038|NCT03364335|183756175|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0749|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0749
91929039|NCT03364335|183756175|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6758|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6758
91929040|NCT03364335|183756176|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.9656|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9656
91929041|NCT03364335|183756176|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4254|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4254
91929042|NCT03364335|183756176|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1276|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1276
91929043|NCT03364335|183756176|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5937|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5937
91929044|NCT03364335|183756177|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.601|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6010
91929045|NCT03364335|183756177|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6513|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6513
91929046|NCT03364335|183756177|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4354|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4354
91929047|NCT03364335|183756177|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.031|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0310
91929048|NCT03364335|183756178|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4644|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4644
91929049|NCT03364335|183756178|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.8573|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8573
91929050|NCT03364335|183756178|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.8167|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8167
91929051|NCT03364335|183756178|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.9223|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9223
91929052|NCT03364335|183756179|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6574|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6574
91929053|NCT03364335|183756179|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.8971|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8971
91929054|NCT03364335|183756179|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6317|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6317
91767980|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.111|0.015|0.010
91767981|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.100|0.005|0.031
91767982|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.089|-0.006|0.085
91767983|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.079|-0.016|0.199
91767984|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.037|-0.058|0.657
91767985|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.022|0.246
91767986|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.154|0.046|<0.001
91811248|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 1: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
91929055|NCT03364335|183756179|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0341|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0341
91929056|NCT03364335|183756180|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.372|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3720
91929057|NCT03364335|183756180|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.2302|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2302
91929058|NCT03364335|183756180|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1377|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1377
91929059|NCT03364335|183756180|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4295|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4295
91929060|NCT03364335|183756181|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6726|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6726
91929061|NCT03364335|183756181|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.7934|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7934
91929062|NCT03364335|183756181|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5485|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5485
91929063|NCT03364335|183756181|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3676|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3676
91929064|NCT03364335|183756182|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1653|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1653
91929065|NCT03364335|183756182|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.197|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1970
91929066|NCT03364335|183756182|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0608|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0608
91929067|NCT03364335|183756182|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1583|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1583
91929068|NCT03364335|183756183|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0524|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0524
91929069|NCT03364335|183756183|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5221|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5221
91929070|NCT03364335|183756183|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3702|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3702
91929071|NCT03364335|183756183|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5426|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5426
91929072|NCT03364335|183756184|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1843|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1843
91767987|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.173|0.064|<0.001
91811249|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 2: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.3|<.0001
91811250|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 2: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
91929073|NCT03364335|183756184|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4411|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4411
91929074|NCT03364335|183756184|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6991|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6991
91929075|NCT03364335|183756184|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3721|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3721
91929076|NCT03364335|183756185|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0318|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0318
91929077|NCT03364335|183756185|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3827|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3827
91929078|NCT03364335|183756185|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0050
91929079|NCT03364335|183756185|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1045|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1045
91767988|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.196|0.088|<0.001
91811251|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 2: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
91929080|NCT04710862|183756186|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0005
91929081|NCT04710862|183756187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0005
91929082|NCT04710862|183756188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
91929083|NCT04710862|183756189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91929084|NCT04710862|183756190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91929085|NCT04710862|183756191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91929086|NCT04710862|183756192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.328
91929087|NCT03725202|183756193|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|17.1|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||27.8|6.3|=0.0019
91929088|NCT03725202|183756193|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|12.1|||=|0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||24.6|-0.4|=0.0579
91929089|NCT03725202|183756194|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||30.2|11.3|<0.0001
91929090|NCT03725202|183756194|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.9|||=|0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||20.6|-0.8|=0.0699
91929091|NCT03725202|183756195|SUPERIORITY|P-value is based on the van Elteren test, adjusting for the strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)).|||||<|0.0001|||||||van Elteren test|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||||<0.0001
91929092|NCT03725202|183756195|SUPERIORITY|P-value is based on the van Elteren test, adjusting for the strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)).|||||<|0.0001|||||||van Elteren test|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||||<0.0001
91929093|NCT03725202|183756196|SUPERIORITY|Treatment comparisons in the distribution of time-to-event between each upadacitinib group and the placebo are conducted using stratified log-rank test stratified by stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease). Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors as covariates|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.57|||=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|0.826|||Log-rank test|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||0.826|0.399|=0.0025
91929094|NCT03725202|183756196|SUPERIORITY|Treatment comparisons in the distribution of time-to-event between each upadacitinib group and the placebo are conducted using stratified log-rank test stratified by stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease). Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors as covariates|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75|||=|0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|1.136|||Log-rank test|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.136|0.499|=0.1778
91929095|NCT03725202|183756197|SUPERIORITY|The point estimate of flare rate at Week 52 from the Kaplan-Meier estimate for each stratum is used to derive the stratified disease flare rate. P-value, and 95% CI for the odds ratio between each upadacitinib group and placebo is also provided. Stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease) were used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||=|0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.74|||Stratified Test for Odds Ratio|This method is described in J Immunother Cancer. 2021 Nov;9(11):e003323. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003323.||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||0.74|0.29|=0.0014
91929096|NCT03725202|183756197|SUPERIORITY|The point estimate of flare rate at Week 52 from the Kaplan-Meier estimate for each stratum is used to derive the stratified disease flare rate. P-value, and 95% CI for the odds ratio between each upadacitinib group and placebo is also provided. Stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease) were used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||=|0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.03|||Stratified Test for Odds Ratio|This method is described in J Immunother Cancer. 2021 Nov;9(11):e003323. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003323.||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.03|0.35|=0.0633
91929097|NCT03725202|183756198|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|40.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||40.2|20.4|<0.0001
91767989|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.178|0.070|<0.001
91767990|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.121|0.014|0.014
91767991|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.141|0.032|0.002
91767992|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.163|0.057|<0.001
91929098|NCT03725202|183756198|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||35.3|11.7|<0.0001
91929099|NCT03725202|183756199|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.8|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||31.9|9.7|=0.0002
91929100|NCT03725202|183756199|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|3.2|||=|0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||16.0|-9.6|=0.6276
91929101|NCT03725202|183756200|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|3.7526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1981|=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3932|6.1119|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||6.1119|1.3932|=0.0019
91929102|NCT03725202|183756200|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|2.6094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4185|=|0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1841|5.4028|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||5.4028|-0.1841|=0.0670
91929103|NCT03725202|183756201|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||Poisson regression model|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||0.8|0.4|0.0010
91929104|NCT03725202|183756201|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|0.8|||=|0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Poisson regression model|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.2|0.6|=0.2722
91767993|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.073|-0.035|0.493
91767994|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.011|0.119
91767995|NCT03084796|183425148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.030|0.392
91767996|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.203|0.015|0.023
91767997|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.184|-0.003|0.058
91767998|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|-0.035|0.215
91929105|NCT03725202|183756202|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|=|0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|6.76|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||6.76|1.33|=0.0036
91929106|NCT03725202|183756202|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|=|0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.7|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||6.70|0.27|=0.0338
91929107|NCT03725202|183756203|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|2.7325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9635|=|0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.102|8.567|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||8.5670|-3.1020|=0.3573
91929108|NCT03725202|183756203|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|5.4216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4785|=|0.1203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4269|12.2701|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||12.2701|-1.4269|=0.1203
91929109|NCT03725202|183756204|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|1.1|||=|0.4371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Poisson regression model|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.6|0.8|=0.4371
91929110|NCT03725202|183756204|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|0.9|||=|0.7749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Poisson regression model|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.4|0.6|=0.7749
91929111|NCT00948818|183756205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.47||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week APC 3 + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||4.47|1.51|0.0004
91929112|NCT00948818|183756207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.88||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week CSBM 3 + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||5.88|2.26|<0.0001
91929113|NCT00948818|183756208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.91||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week Abdominal Pain Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||1.91|1.04|0.0262
91929114|NCT00948818|183756209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.66||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 6/12 Week APC + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 86% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||2.66|1.40|<0.0001
91929115|NCT01156597|183756219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|The percent change of HDL and triglycerides from baseline between groups was evaluated by ANOVA using baseline, 12 week and 24 week values||||||0.05
91929116|NCT02364947|183756222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-2.62||Efficacy of the doses (change from baseline in the number of HDDs vs placebo) was assessed using a closed testing procedure. The 20 mg dose was tested at a 5% level of significance and only if significant, the testing would proceed to the 10 mg dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.62|-6.05|0.0001
91767999|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.187|-0.001|0.051
91929117|NCT02364947|183756222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-2.32||Efficacy of the doses (change from baseline in the number of HDDs vs placebo) was assessed using a closed testing procedure. The 20 mg dose was tested at a 5% level of significance and only if significant, the testing would proceed to the 10 mg dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.32|-6.05|0.0001
91929118|NCT02364947|183756223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.16|-5.69|<0.0001
91929119|NCT02364947|183756223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.63|-6.46|<0.0001
91929120|NCT02364947|183756224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|-7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in total alcohol consumption (TAC) from baseline at Week 12||-7.13|-17.81|<0.0001
91929121|NCT02364947|183756224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|-7.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.15|-18.72|<0.0001
91929122|NCT02364947|183756225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.77|-5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.53|-16.77|0.0001
91768000|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.138|-0.051|0.364
91768001|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.112|0.694
91929123|NCT02364947|183756225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|-5.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.17|-17.37|0.0003
91929124|NCT02364947|183756226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|13.6|<0.0001
91929125|NCT02364947|183756226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|15.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|6.5|0.0007
91929126|NCT02364947|183756227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.2|8.8|0.0002
91929127|NCT02364947|183756227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|30.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.8|10.4|0.0001
91929128|NCT02364947|183756228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1|10.5|<0.0001
91929129|NCT02364947|183756228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|6.4|0.0002
91929130|NCT02364947|183756229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.1|2.9|0.0079
91929131|NCT02364947|183756229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|23.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.9|5.8|0.0010
91929132|NCT02364947|183756230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.3|3.5|0.0022
91929133|NCT02364947|183756230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.3|3.8|0.0016
91929134|NCT02364947|183756231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|20.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.9|6.2|0.0003
91768002|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.044|-0.143|0.297
91929135|NCT02364947|183756231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.0|4.6|0.0013
91929136|NCT02364947|183756232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.3|7.1|0.0002
91929137|NCT02364947|183756232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.9|8.9|0.0001
91929138|NCT02364947|183756233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.7|-0.7|0.0724
91929139|NCT02364947|183756233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|19.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|29.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.2|9.9|0.0001
91929140|NCT02364947|183756234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.40|0.0002
91768003|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.109|0.734
91768004|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.062|-0.124|0.514
91929141|NCT02364947|183756234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.45|0.0001
91929142|NCT02364947|183756235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-0.48|<0.0001
91929143|NCT02364947|183756235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.51|<0.0001
91929144|NCT02364947|183756236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.69|<0.0001
91929145|NCT02364947|183756236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.67|<0.0001
91929146|NCT02364947|183756237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.70|<0.0001
91929147|NCT02364947|183756237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.77|<0.0001
91929148|NCT02364947|183756238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|-0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.121|-0.262|<0.0001
91929149|NCT02364947|183756238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.080|-0.232|0.0001
91929150|NCT02364947|183756239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|-0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.088|-0.248|<0.0001
91929151|NCT02364947|183756239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|-0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.052|-0.226|0.0017
91929152|NCT02364947|183756240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.009|-0.130|0.0234
91929153|NCT02364947|183756240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.||0.016|-0.115|0.1374
91929154|NCT02364947|183756241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.005|-0.127|0.0348
91929155|NCT02364947|183756241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.017|-0.116|0.1444
91929156|NCT02702518|183756259|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables with missing data.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure corneal staining, data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine if a change was significant (threshold p \< 0.05).||||<0.001
91768005|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.090|0.957
91768006|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.127|-0.060|0.479
91768007|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.120|-0.079|0.687
91929157|NCT02702518|183756259|OTHER|||||||0.2324||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables with missing data.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure corneal staining data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine significant change.||||0.2324
91929158|NCT02702518|183756260|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure OSDI, data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine if a change was significant (threshold p \< 0.05).||||0.001
91929159|NCT02702518|183756260|OTHER|||||||0.2257||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure OSDI data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine significant change.||||0.2257
91929160|NCT02658994|183756280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.33|
91929161|NCT02658994|183756281|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.19||||||||1.19|-1.39|
91929162|NCT02658994|183756282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.33|
91929163|NCT02658994|183756283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.96||||||Child Bayley scaled receptive score||0.96|-0.19|
91929164|NCT02658994|183756283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.9||||||Child Bayley scaled fine motor score||0.90|-0.83|
91929165|NCT02658994|183756284|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.05||||||||1.05|0.43|
91929166|NCT02658994|183756285|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.15||||||Length-for-age z-scores||0.15|-0.32|
91929167|NCT02658994|183756285|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.1||||||Weight-for-age z-scores||0.10|-0.33|
91929168|NCT01725152|183756297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4475|||||||Linear mixed-effect|||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference in CGI-I will be assessed using a linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures, accounting for treatment (ganaxolone versus placebo) and period at a significant level of 0.05. A sample size of 30 participants in each arm/group was planned in the study will have 90% power to detect a modest effect size of 0.6 at level 0.05 in CGI-I. With a possible dropout rate of 15%, the power for testing the effect size becomes 84%.||||0.4475
91929169|NCT01111539|183756307|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.0|||=|0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|||The statistical analyses was performed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model to the change from baseline data (Week 8 Visit) for the MADRS Total Score at the Week 14 visit (LOCF). The model included baseline MADRS Total Score as a covariate and treatment as the main effect.||3.3|-5.2|=0.644
91768008|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.165|-0.034|0.195
91929170|NCT01111539|183756307|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.7|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||The statistical analyses will be performed by fitting an ANCOVA model to the change from baseline data (Week 8 Visit) for the MADRS Total Score at the Week 14 visit (LOCF). The model will include baseline MADRS Total Score as a covariate and treatment as the main effect.||0.4|-7.8|=0.080
91929171|NCT01111539|183756308|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|||=|0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.3|-0.8|=0.366
91929172|NCT01111539|183756308|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.4|||=|0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.1|-0.9|=0.138
91929173|NCT01111539|183756309|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||=|0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.2|=0.995
91929174|NCT01111539|183756309|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.9|||=|0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-2.1|=0.118
91929175|NCT01848054|183756310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy analysis of retention in treatment at Day 3 was assessed in the per protocol population. In addition, a sensitivity analysis assessed retention in treatment in the full analysis population. For these assessments, the margin to determine non-inferiority (i.e., lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between BNX and generic buprenorphine of ≥-10%) was selected based on clinical experience to justify comparison between the 2 treatments.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between treatment groups were reported with 2-sided p values using 95% CIs for the difference.||||||<0.05
91768009|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.212|0.011|0.030
91768010|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.179|-0.019|0.112
91929176|NCT01848054|183756317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy analysis of retention in treatment at Day 3 was assessed in the per protocol population. In addition, a sensitivity analysis assessed retention in treatment in the full analysis population. For these assessments, the margin to determine non-inferiority (i.e., lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between BNX and generic buprenorphine of ≥-10%) was selected based on clinical experience to justify comparison between the 2 treatments.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between treatment groups were reported with 2-sided p values using 95% CIs for the difference.||||||<0.05
91929177|NCT02808312|183756320|OTHER|Two-sided 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were calculated for the ratios of geometric least-squares means (GLSMs) of PK parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.7869|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2885|2.4781||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUClast) for each cohort.||2.4781|1.2885|
91929178|NCT02808312|183756320|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|2.4868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6735|3.6954||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUClast) for each cohort.||3.6954|1.6735|
91929179|NCT02808312|183756320|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|6.324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3675|9.1569||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUClast) for each cohort.||9.1569|4.3675|
91929180|NCT02808312|183756321|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.7628|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.275|2.4374||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUCinf) for each cohort.||2.4374|1.2750|
91768011|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.174|-0.026|0.147
91929181|NCT02808312|183756321|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|2.4559|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6531|3.6486||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUCinf) for each cohort.||3.6486|1.6531|
91929182|NCT02808312|183756321|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|6.2497|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2965|9.091||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUCinf) for each cohort.||9.0910|4.2965|
91929183|NCT02808312|183756322|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.5703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0723|2.2995||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (Cmax) for each cohort.||2.2995|1.0723|
91929184|NCT02808312|183756322|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.7343|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2193|2.4667||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (Cmax) for each cohort.||2.4667|1.2193|
91929185|NCT02808312|183756322|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|2.5369|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7562|3.6648||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (Cmax) for each cohort.||3.6648|1.7562|
91929186|NCT02808312|183756333|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.8722|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6827|1.1144||||||||1.1144|0.6827|
91929187|NCT02808312|183756333|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.0731|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8295|1.3883||||||||1.3883|0.8295|
91929188|NCT02808312|183756333|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.1475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8783|1.4992||||||||1.4992|0.8783|
91929189|NCT02808312|183756334|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.8188|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5837|1.1486||||||||1.1486|0.5837|
91929190|NCT02808312|183756334|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.1323|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8772|1.4615||||||||1.4615|0.8772|
91929191|NCT02808312|183756334|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.3563|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0468|1.7574||||||||1.7574|1.0468|
91929192|NCT02808312|183756335|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.0658|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8275|1.3726||||||||1.3726|0.8275|
91929193|NCT02808312|183756335|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.2942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9663|1.7334||||||||1.7334|0.9663|
91768012|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.144|-0.054|0.370
91768013|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.190|-0.009|0.074
91811252|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 3: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.5|<.0001
91929194|NCT02808312|183756335|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.8225|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5479|1.2347||||||||1.2347|0.5479|
91929195|NCT02808312|183756336|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.0806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.791|1.4762||||||||1.4762|0.7910|
91929196|NCT02808312|183756336|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.3729|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9663|1.9506||||||||1.9506|0.9663|
91929197|NCT02808312|183756336|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6142|1.3275||||||||1.3275|0.6142|
91929198|NCT03628417|183756337|NON_INFERIORITY|Examined the objective response rate (ORR) that there was 20% difference between the 2 treatment arms at day 180. With a significance level of 0,05 and a power of 80% the study required 28 evaluable metastases.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4489629||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|53.3|||Fisher Exact|||After reviewing existing data from electrochemotherapy with intratumoral bleomycin on small cutaneous metastases ≤3cm , we estimated the expected response rate for electrochemotherapy to 85%. We have no clinical results for the treatment of calcium electroporation, but on the basis of preclinical studies, we decided to accept a difference in response of 20%. All statistical analysis were done using IBM SPSS v24.||53.30|-13.30|0.30
91929199|NCT02420223|183756340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.017
91929200|NCT02420223|183756340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.337
91929201|NCT02420223|183756343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91929202|NCT02420223|183756344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91929203|NCT02420223|183756345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Likelihood ration Chi-Square test|||||||0.06
91929204|NCT01826422|183756351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91929205|NCT01826422|183756352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91929206|NCT01826422|183756353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91929207|NCT01826422|183756354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91929208|NCT01826422|183756355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91929209|NCT01826422|183756356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
91929210|NCT01826422|183756357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91929211|NCT01826422|183756358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91929212|NCT01826422|183756359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91929213|NCT01826422|183756360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91929214|NCT01826422|183756361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91929215|NCT01826422|183756362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91929216|NCT01826422|183756363|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
91929217|NCT01826422|183756364|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
91929218|NCT01826422|183756365|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
91929219|NCT01826422|183756366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
91768014|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.158|-0.039|0.233
91929220|NCT01826422|183756367|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
91929221|NCT01826422|183756368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
91929222|NCT01826422|183756369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91929223|NCT01826422|183756370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91929224|NCT04263142|183756371|OTHER||Ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9263|1.0757|||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablets/capsules.|||1.0757|0.9263|
91929225|NCT04263142|183756372|OTHER||Ratio|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9321|1.0781|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablets/capsules.|||1.0781|0.9321|
91929226|NCT04263142|183756373|OTHER||Ratio|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9885|1.208|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter Cmax. Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablets/capsules.|||1.2080|0.9885|
91929227|NCT04263142|183756375|OTHER||Ratio|2.926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3703|3.6107|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (moderate fat)/(fasted)|||3.6107|2.3703|
91929228|NCT04263142|183756375|OTHER||Ratio|2.594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1003|3.2038|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (high fat)/(fasted)|||3.2038|2.1003|
91929229|NCT04263142|183756376|OTHER||Ratio|3.146|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5925|3.8178|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (moderate fat)/(fasted)|||3.8178|2.5925|
91929230|NCT04263142|183756376|OTHER||Ratio|2.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2943|3.3807|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (high fat)/(fasted)|||3.3807|2.2943|
91929231|NCT04263142|183756377|OTHER||Ratio|4.101|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2442|5.183|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter Cmax. Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (moderate fat)/(fasted)|||5.1830|3.2442|
91929232|NCT04263142|183756377|OTHER||Ratio|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4359|3.8935|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter Cmax. Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (high fat)/(fasted)|||3.8935|2.4359|
91929233|NCT04716933|183756520|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.97||||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||0.97|0.48|
91929234|NCT04716933|183756521|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.12||||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||1.12|0.54|
91929235|NCT04716933|183756522|OTHER||Percent Difference|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|24.2||||||Comparision based on unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method||24.2|-2.0|
91929236|NCT01071044|183756545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA|These data were initially analyzed with a one-way ANOVA.||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||.005
91929237|NCT01071044|183756546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.008
91768015|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.145|-0.054|0.369
91768016|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.112|-0.084|0.773
91929238|NCT01071044|183756547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.183||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.183
91929239|NCT01071044|183756548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.046
91929240|NCT01071044|183756549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.219||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.219
91929241|NCT01071044|183756550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.038
91929242|NCT01071044|183756551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.022
91768017|NCT03084796|183425149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.068|-0.130|0.536
91768018|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis based on logistic regression model - multiple logistic regression model, with treatment, US regions, smoking status at screening, and BDI as covariates."||1.77|0.62|0.848
91929243|NCT02913222|183756575|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||A priori criteria for success was that we would achieve 90% adherence to attending treatment sessions. Fisher's exact test compared patient adherence to treatment session rates by site and by group.||||1.0
91929244|NCT02913222|183756576|OTHER|The purpose of this study was to determine preliminary estimates of the effect of movement pattern training and standard rehabilitation on patient-reported function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|2.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||We hypothesized MPT would demonstrate greater improvement in HOOS compared to Standard. Data collected at pretest and posttest were analyzed with ANCOVA where posttest was the dependent variable, pretest was the covariate, and treatment group was the independent variable which tests the null hypothesis that after adjusting for pretest, posttest is not significantly different across treatment groups.||2.11|-6.51|0.32
91929245|NCT02913222|183756577|OTHER|The purpose of this study was to determine preliminary estimates of the effect of movement pattern training and standard rehabilitation on patient-reported function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||We hypothesized MPT would demonstrate greater improvement in HOOS compared to Standard. Data collected at pretest and posttest were analyzed with ANCOVA where posttest was the dependent variable, pretest was the covariate, and treatment group was the independent variable which tests the null hypothesis that after adjusting for pretest, posttest is not significantly different across treatment groups.||1.99|-13.10|0.14
91929246|NCT01201798|183756613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was 0.5 units, meaning that the upper limit of the two-tailed 95% confidence interval must have been less than 0.5 to establish noninferiority.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.09|||ANCOVA|||A two-tailed 95% confidence interval was calculated for the difference in change from baseline in anterior chamber cell grade at Day 14 (difluprednate minus prednisolone). The confidence interval was derived from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with investigative site included as a fixed effect to match the stratification used in the randomization process. Treatment and baseline anterior chamber cell grade were also included as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.53|
91929247|NCT04891770|183756645|OTHER||percentage difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||||For Cohort 2A versus Cohort 2B, the percentage difference and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was calculated using the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by HBsAg group (\> 3 and ≤ 3 log10 IU/mL).|||7.3|-2.3|
91768019|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.28|0.80|0.264
91768020|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.18|0.76|0.343
91929248|NCT05692154|183756655|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.015||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance model, with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline TNSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-0.23|-8.24|0.038
91929249|NCT05692154|183756656|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.088||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TOSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-0.60|-8.90|0.025
91929250|NCT05692154|183756657|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.247||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|-0.05|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance model, with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline TNSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-0.05|-12.95|0.048
91929251|NCT05692154|183756658|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|-1.73|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TOSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-1.73|-13.21|0.011
91929252|NCT05692154|183756659|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.211||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.74|1.83|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TNSS (Day 1) as covariate.|||1.83|-38.74|0.074
91929253|NCT05692154|183756660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.672||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|19.12|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TOSS (H0 at Day 1) as covariate.|||19.12|-27.24|0.729
91929254|NCT01052012|183756692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.597||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.33|||ANCOVA|With pooled site and treatment group as factors and incision length as a covariate.||||0.33|-2.11|0.1473
91929255|NCT01052012|183756692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|with pooled site and treatment group as factors and incision length as a covariate.||||0.05|-2.16|0.0601
91768021|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.98|1.02|0.042
91929256|NCT01052012|183756692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.12|||ANCOVA|with pooled site and treatment group as factors and incision length as a covariate.||||0.12|-0.80|0.1483
91929257|NCT01052012|183756693|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Hodge-Lehmann)|-1.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|52.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||52.0|-54.5|0.9901
91929258|NCT01052012|183756693|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Hodge-Lehmann)|-5.0||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|3.4|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||3.4|-14.0|0.2010
91929259|NCT01052012|183756693|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Hodge-Lehmann)|-3.0||||0.5897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||8.0|-15.0|0.5897
91929260|NCT00418262|183756708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.3|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.30|-0.21|
91929261|NCT00418262|183756708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.6|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.60|-0.42|
91929262|NCT00418262|183756709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.39|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.39|-0.11|
91929263|NCT00418262|183756709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.77|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.77|-0.23|
91929264|NCT00418262|183756710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.36|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.36|-0.17|
91768022|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.02|0.71|0.503
91768023|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.16|0.76|0.354
91929265|NCT00418262|183756710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.36|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.36|-0.17|
91929266|NCT00418262|183756711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.4|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.40|-0.16|
91929267|NCT00418262|183756711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.4|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.40|-0.16|
91768024|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.07|0.73|0.447
91929268|NCT00418262|183756712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.18|-0.36|
91929269|NCT00418262|183756712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.18|-0.36|
91768025|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.83|0.97|0.064
91768026|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.62|0.57|0.867
91768027|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.22|0.76|0.347
91768028|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.32|0.79|0.269
91929270|NCT00418262|183756713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.20|
91768029|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure.~Analysis based on logistic regression model - multiple logistic regression model, with treatment, US regions, smoking status at screening, and BDI as covariates."||3.30|1.12|0.018
91929271|NCT00418262|183756713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.20|
91929272|NCT00418262|183756714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.24|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.24|-0.24|
91929273|NCT00418262|183756714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.49|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.49|-0.49|
91929274|NCT00418262|183756715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.26|-0.28|
91929275|NCT00418262|183756715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.52|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.52|-0.56|
91929276|NCT00418262|183756716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.20|-0.32|
91929277|NCT00418262|183756716|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.39|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.39|-0.64|
91768030|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.49|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.49|1.50|<0.001
91768031|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|5.44|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.44|1.75|<0.001
91768032|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|6.02|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.02|1.94|<0.001
91929278|NCT00418262|183756717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.24|-0.28|
91768033|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.26|1.41|0.001
91929279|NCT00418262|183756717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.47|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.47|-0.57|
91929280|NCT00418262|183756718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.32|-0.21|
91929281|NCT00418262|183756718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.32|-0.21|
91929282|NCT00418262|183756719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.13|-0.36|
91768034|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.35|0.78|0.284
91768035|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.84|0.91|0.103
91768036|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||3.14|1.01|0.045
91768037|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.12|0.67|0.557
91768038|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.34|0.74|0.345
91768039|NCT03084796|183425150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.00|0.61|0.732
91768040|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the BDI, BDI by visit interaction as covariates."||0.81|-0.52|0.666
91768041|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.07|-0.25|0.224
91768042|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.06|-0.27|0.239
91768043|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.46|0.13|0.019
91768044|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.19|-0.14|0.124
91929283|NCT00418262|183756719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.27|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.27|-0.72|
91929284|NCT00418262|183756720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.19|
91929285|NCT00418262|183756720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.19|
91929286|NCT00418262|183756721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-7.04|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||-7.04|-7.76|
91929287|NCT00418262|183756721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.9|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||-1.90|-3.03|
91929288|NCT00418262|183756722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.38|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||1.38|-0.69|
91768045|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.92|-0.39|0.432
91929289|NCT00418262|183756722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.38|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||1.38|-0.69|
91929290|NCT04370028|183756733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|4.72|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired test was performed||||4.72|4.42|<0.00001
91929291|NCT04370028|183756734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.01|8.67|||Fisher Exact||OR estimated (week 1 to week 12) the higher the better|Odds ratio of occuring MoCA score \<26 was assessed||8.67|6.01|<0.00001
91929292|NCT04370028|183756735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|6.64|||Fisher Exact||OR estimated (week 1 to week 12) the higher the better|Odds ratio of occuring MoCA score \<17 was assessed||6.64|4.28|<0.00001
91929293|NCT04370028|183756736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.375|||<|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|4.96|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||4.96|-0.21|<0.07
91929294|NCT04370028|183756736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.74|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|5.31|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||5.31|4.17|<0.01
91929295|NCT04370028|183756736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.55|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|4.94|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||4.94|4.16|<0.01
91929296|NCT04370028|183756736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|5.27|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||5.27|3.7|<0.01
91929297|NCT04370028|183756738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.28|||ANOVA|||||1.28|0.321|0.0011
91929298|NCT02993224|183756741|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.89|||McNemar|||Preference for deferasirox DT vs deferasirox FCT||0.89|0.75|<.0001
91929299|NCT02993224|183756742|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88|||McNemar|||Preference of deferasirox FCT vs deferasirox DT||0.88|0.65|<0.0001
91929300|NCT02993224|183756742|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91|||McNemar|||Preference for deferasirox FCT vs previous iron chelation therapy||0.91|0.71|<0.0001
91929301|NCT02993224|183756743|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.77|||McNemar|||Deferasirox DT vs previous iron chelation therapy at Week 4||0.77|0.51|< 0.0001
91929302|NCT02993224|183756743|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||McNemar|||Deferasirox DT vs previous iron chelation therapy at Week 24||0.72|0.44|< 0.0001
91929303|NCT02993224|183756745|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.1191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Compliance of deferasirox DT vs deferasirox FCT||0.9|-8.1|0.1191
91929304|NCT02426658|183756762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7044
91768046|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.91|-0.41|0.454
91768047|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.31|-0.01|0.053
91768048|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.65|-0.67|0.973
91768049|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.04|-0.27|0.247
91768050|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.06|-0.26|0.235
91929305|NCT00088634|183756767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline BPRS score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
91929306|NCT00088634|183756768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline PANSS score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
91929307|NCT00088634|183756769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline CGI-S score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
91929308|NCT00088634|183756770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline MADRS score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
91929309|NCT03050359|183756771|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-6%, the DU healing rate for TAK-438 was considered to be noninferior to that seen with lansoprazole.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.998|3.791||||||||3.791|-2.998|
91929310|NCT03050359|183756772|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-10%, the HP eradication rate for TAK-438 was considered to be noninferior to that seen with lansoprazole.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.281|10.69||||||||10.690|-1.281|
91929311|NCT03050359|183756773|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-6%, the DU healing rate for TAK-438 was considered to be noninferior to that seen with lansoprazole.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.901|6.319||||||||6.319|-4.901|
91929312|NCT03050359|183756774|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.579|7.344||||||Epigastric Pain (Postprandial)||7.344|-15.579|
91929313|NCT03050359|183756774|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|8.422||||||Epigastric Pain (Fasting/Nocturnal)||8.422|-5.230|
91929314|NCT03050359|183756774|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.338|9.401||||||Abdominal Bloating||9.401|-17.338|
91929315|NCT03050359|183756774|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.334|7.815||||||Nausea/Vomiting||7.815|-26.334|
91768051|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.28|-0.05|0.071
91929316|NCT03050359|183756774|OTHER||Difference in percentages|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.159|13.25||||||Heartburn||13.250|-4.159|
91929317|NCT03050359|183756774|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.104|2.922||||||Lack of Appetite||2.922|-21.104|
91929318|NCT02020031|183756775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 3 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
91929319|NCT02020031|183756775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 30 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
91929320|NCT02020031|183756775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 50 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
91929321|NCT02020031|183756775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 115 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
91929322|NCT02020031|183756775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 150 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
91929323|NCT02020031|183756775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 180 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
91929324|NCT00755846|183756778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and body mass index (BMI), diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance has at least 98% power to detect a treatment difference (all active versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.001
91929325|NCT00755846|183756778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.004||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.004
91929326|NCT00755846|183756778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.017||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.017
91929327|NCT00755846|183756778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.001||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.001
91768052|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.64|0.32|0.004
91768053|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.68|0.35|0.003
91929328|NCT00755846|183756778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.003||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.003
91929329|NCT00755846|183756778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.307||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.307
91811253|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 3: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
91929330|NCT00755846|183756779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.004||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has at least 98% power to detect a treatment difference (all active versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.004
91929331|NCT00755846|183756779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.017||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.017
91929332|NCT00755846|183756779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.016||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.016
91929333|NCT00755846|183756779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.005||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.005
91929334|NCT00755846|183756779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.008||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.008
91768054|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.18|0.86|<0.001
91768055|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.75|0.41|0.002
91768056|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.03|-0.29|0.271
91929335|NCT00755846|183756779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.321||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.321
91929336|NCT00755846|183756780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and body mass index (BMI), diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91929337|NCT00755846|183756780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91929338|NCT00755846|183756780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68||0.009||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.009
91929339|NCT00755846|183756780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91929340|NCT00755846|183756780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.57||0.057||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.057
91929341|NCT00755846|183756780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.156||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.156
91929342|NCT00755846|183756781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between all doses of alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91929343|NCT00755846|183756781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.001
91929344|NCT00755846|183756781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.008||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.008
91929345|NCT00755846|183756781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.88|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and body mass index, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91929346|NCT00755846|183756781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.136||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.136
91929347|NCT00755846|183756781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.073||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.073
91929348|NCT00755846|183756782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91929349|NCT00755846|183756782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.01||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.010
91929350|NCT00755846|183756782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.002||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.002
91929351|NCT00755846|183756782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.003||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.003
91929352|NCT00755846|183756782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.44||0.006||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.006
91929353|NCT00755846|183756782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.117||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.117
91929354|NCT00755846|183756783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.014||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.014
91929355|NCT00755846|183756783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.136||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.136
91768057|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.06|-0.26|0.235
91768058|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.56|0.25|0.007
91768059|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.69|-0.63|0.923
91768060|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.19|-0.12|0.108
91768061|NCT03084796|183425151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.16|-0.16|0.134
91768062|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|14.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including inter-visit period, treatment by inter-visit period interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by inter-visit period interaction as covariates."||14.63|1.13|0.022
91929356|NCT00755846|183756783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73||0.022||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.022
91929357|NCT00755846|183756783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.004||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.004
91768063|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.78||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|13.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.48|0.07|0.048
91768064|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.65||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.40|-0.09|0.053
91768065|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.29||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|16.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||16.04|2.55|0.007
91768066|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.61||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|11.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.53|-2.31|0.191
91768067|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.60|-7.80|0.747
91768068|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.50|-7.96|0.720
91929358|NCT00755846|183756783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.48||0.04||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.040
91929359|NCT00755846|183756783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.378||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.378
91929360|NCT00755846|183756784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.718||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.718
91929361|NCT00755846|183756784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.346||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.346
91929362|NCT00755846|183756784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.901||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.901
91929363|NCT00755846|183756784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.851||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.851
91929364|NCT00755846|183756784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.825||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.825
91929365|NCT00755846|183756784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.843||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.843
91929366|NCT00755846|183756785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.069||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.069
91929367|NCT00755846|183756785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.018||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.018
91929368|NCT00755846|183756785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.258||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.258
91929369|NCT00755846|183756785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.299||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.299
91929370|NCT00755846|183756785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.103||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.103
91929371|NCT00755846|183756785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.34||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.340
91929372|NCT00755846|183756786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.689||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.689
91929373|NCT00755846|183756786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.742||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.742
91929374|NCT00755846|183756786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.22||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.220
91929375|NCT00755846|183756786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.348||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.348
91768069|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||8.14|-5.31|0.680
91768070|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.57|-6.82|0.971
91929376|NCT00755846|183756786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.627||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.627
91929377|NCT00755846|183756786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.418||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.418
91929378|NCT00755846|183756787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.617||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.617
91929379|NCT00755846|183756787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.052||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.052
91929380|NCT00755846|183756787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.906||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.906
91929381|NCT00755846|183756787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.628||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.628
91929382|NCT00755846|183756787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.749||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.749
91929383|NCT00755846|183756787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.34||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.340
91768071|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|9.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.21|-4.17|0.460
91768072|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|9.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.37|-4.09|0.441
91929384|NCT00755846|183756788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.269||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.269
91929385|NCT00755846|183756788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.46||0.076||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.076
91929386|NCT00755846|183756788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66||0.867||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.867
91768073|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.76||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|14.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||14.08|-0.55|0.070
91768074|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.44||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|15.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||15.72|1.16|0.023
91768075|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.96||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||14.31|-0.40|0.064
91768076|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|18.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||18.38|3.79|0.003
91929387|NCT00755846|183756788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.169||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.169
91768077|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|11.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.72|-3.32|0.274
91768078|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|8.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||8.93|-5.57|0.649
91768079|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||7.51|-7.12|0.958
91768080|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|11.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.58|-2.93|0.242
91768081|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|5.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.81|-8.77|0.690
91929388|NCT00755846|183756788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.645||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.645
91929389|NCT00755846|183756788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.351||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.351
91929390|NCT00755846|183756789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.003||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.003
91929391|NCT00755846|183756789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91929392|NCT00755846|183756789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.103||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.103
91929393|NCT00755846|183756789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.009||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.009
91929394|NCT00755846|183756789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.034||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.034
91929395|NCT00755846|183756789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.033||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.033
91768082|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|9.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.87|-4.58|0.473
91768083|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|11.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.43|-3.17|0.267
91768084|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.32||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|13.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.99|0.65|0.032
91929396|NCT00755846|183756790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.17||0.897||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.897
91929397|NCT00755846|183756790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.85||0.557||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.557
91929398|NCT00755846|183756790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.85||0.616||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.616
91929399|NCT00755846|183756790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.73||0.679||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.679
91929400|NCT00755846|183756790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.94||0.697||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.697
91929401|NCT00755846|183756790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.03||0.672||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.672
91929402|NCT00755846|183756791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.37||0.809||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.809
91929403|NCT00755846|183756791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.74||0.597||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.597
91929404|NCT00755846|183756791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.77||0.982||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.982
91929405|NCT00755846|183756791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.62||0.358||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.358
91768085|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.61||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|14.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||14.24|0.97|0.025
91929406|NCT00755846|183756791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.06||0.274||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.274
91929407|NCT00755846|183756791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.06||0.554||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.554
91929408|NCT04047121|183756793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2531|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2531
91929409|NCT04047121|183756793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0295|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0295
91929410|NCT04047121|183756793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1857|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1857
91929411|NCT04047121|183756793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8401||||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5919|1.1925|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1925|0.5919|0.3297
91929412|NCT04047121|183756793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5066||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8046|2.8209|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.8209|0.8046|0.2003
91811254|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 3: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.0|0.0005
91929413|NCT04047121|183756793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4052||||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8086|2.442|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.4420|0.8086|0.2276
91929414|NCT04047121|183756794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8786|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8786
91929415|NCT04047121|183756794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1178|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1178
91929416|NCT04047121|183756794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5337|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5337
91929417|NCT04047121|183756794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0283||||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5911|1.789|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7890|0.5911|0.9212
91929418|NCT04047121|183756794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7464||||0.4693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|1.6482|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6482|0.3380|0.4693
91929419|NCT04047121|183756794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8212||||0.5593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4239|1.591|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5910|0.4239|0.5593
91929420|NCT04047121|183756795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6205|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6205
91929421|NCT04047121|183756795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4924|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4924
91811255|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 4: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
91929422|NCT04047121|183756795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4982|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4982
91929423|NCT04047121|183756795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3182||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5335|3.257|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.2570|0.5335|0.5494
91929424|NCT04047121|183756795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1664||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.4883|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.4883|0.3900|0.7830
91929425|NCT04047121|183756796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3817|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3817
91929426|NCT04047121|183756796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7397|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7397
91929427|NCT04047121|183756796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7942|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7942
91929428|NCT04047121|183756796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0682||||0.7924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6537|1.7455|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7455|0.6537|0.7924
91929429|NCT04047121|183756796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0414||||0.9339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3997|2.7134|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7134|0.3997|0.9339
91929430|NCT04047121|183756796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8195||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.935|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.9350|0.3470|0.6497
91929431|NCT04047121|183756797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7936|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7936
91929432|NCT04047121|183756797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5621|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5621
91929433|NCT04047121|183756797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6800
91929434|NCT04047121|183756797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1438||||0.5051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7705|1.6978|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6978|0.7705|0.5051
91768086|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|13.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.49|0.12|0.046
91768087|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|16.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||16.85|3.52|0.003
91811256|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 4: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.3|<.0001
91929435|NCT04047121|183756797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8576||||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3781|1.9452|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.9452|0.3781|0.7131
91929436|NCT04047121|183756797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8415||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4003|1.769|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7690|0.4003|0.6490
91929437|NCT04047121|183756798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5217|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5217
91929438|NCT04047121|183756798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0432
91929439|NCT04047121|183756798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2573|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2573
91929440|NCT04047121|183756798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1637||||0.5368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7193|1.8827|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.8827|0.7193|0.5368
91929441|NCT04047121|183756798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7757||||0.4685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3904|1.5413|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5413|0.3904|0.4685
91929442|NCT04047121|183756798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7354||||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4057|1.333|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.3330|0.4057|0.3112
91811257|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 4: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
91811258|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 5: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
91929443|NCT04047121|183756799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8122|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8122
91929444|NCT04047121|183756799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7766|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7766
91929445|NCT04047121|183756799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8305|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8305
91929446|NCT04047121|183756799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5814||||0.1845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.2952|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2952|0.2610|0.1845
91929447|NCT04047121|183756799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5908||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6671|3.7936|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.7936|0.6671|0.2951
91929448|NCT04047121|183756799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3546||||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6584|2.787|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7870|0.6584|0.4907
91929449|NCT04047121|183756800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6006|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6006
91929450|NCT04047121|183756800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2941|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2941
91929451|NCT04047121|183756800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9610
91929452|NCT04047121|183756800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5571||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.9884|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.9884|0.3140|0.0455
91929453|NCT04047121|183756800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.1781||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0904|4.3506|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.3506|1.0904|0.0274
91929454|NCT04047121|183756800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8896||||0.6787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5114|1.5475|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5475|0.5114|0.6787
91929455|NCT04047121|183756801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9084|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9084
91929456|NCT04047121|183756801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8325|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8325
91929457|NCT04047121|183756801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9630
91929458|NCT04047121|183756801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0508||||0.7909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7284|1.516|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5160|0.7284|0.7909
91768088|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.25|-2.45|0.207
91768089|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|6.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.91|-6.33|0.932
91929459|NCT04047121|183756801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8117||||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.7808|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7808|0.3700|0.6027
91929460|NCT04047121|183756801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1742||||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5222|2.6404|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.6404|0.5222|0.6978
91929461|NCT04047121|183756802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1736|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1736
91929462|NCT04047121|183756802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0195
91929463|NCT04047121|183756802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2104|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2104
91929464|NCT04047121|183756802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1723||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9357|1.4687|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4687|0.9357|0.1670
91929465|NCT04047121|183756802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7228||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4861|1.0747|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0747|0.4861|0.1087
91929466|NCT04047121|183756802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8402||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5957|1.1852|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1852|0.5957|0.3212
91768090|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|6.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.14|-7.17|0.879
91768091|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.50|-3.77|0.396
91929467|NCT04047121|183756803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9361
91929468|NCT04047121|183756803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3851|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3851
91929469|NCT04047121|183756803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5990
91929470|NCT04047121|183756803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9954||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5962|1.662|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6620|0.5962|0.9860
91929471|NCT04047121|183756803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2959||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5158|3.2558|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.2558|0.5158|0.5813
91929472|NCT04047121|183756803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8182||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7604|4.3473|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.3473|0.7604|0.1789
91929473|NCT04047121|183756804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4009
91929474|NCT04047121|183756804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9765|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9765
91929475|NCT04047121|183756804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2849|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2849
91929476|NCT04047121|183756804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8252||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4538|1.5007|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5007|0.4538|0.5289
91929477|NCT04047121|183756804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9408||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2553|3.4678|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.4678|0.2553|0.9270
91929478|NCT04047121|183756804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3968||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1456|1.0812|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0812|0.1456|0.0707
91929479|NCT04047121|183756805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2061|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2061
91929480|NCT04047121|183756805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1908|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1908
91768092|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|5.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.83|-7.44|0.812
91768093|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.19|-4.03|0.444
91768094|NCT03084796|183425152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|10.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||10.04|-3.27|0.319
91768095|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed, using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, inter-visit period, treatment by inter-visit period interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by inter-visit period interaction as covariates."||-0.18|-0.67|<0.001
91768096|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.04|-0.53|0.023
91768097|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.02|-0.47|0.067
91929481|NCT04047121|183756806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8033
91929482|NCT04047121|183756806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6669|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6669
91929483|NCT04047121|183756806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6477|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6477
91929484|NCT04047121|183756806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7948||||0.5509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3736|1.6907|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6907|0.3736|0.5509
91929485|NCT04047121|183756806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6814||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1486|3.125|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.1250|0.1486|0.6216
91929486|NCT04047121|183756806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6974||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2135|2.2781|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.2781|0.2135|0.5506
91929487|NCT04047121|183756807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1030
91929488|NCT04047121|183756807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9317|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9317
91929489|NCT04047121|183756807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2420
91929490|NCT04047121|183756807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7474||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9222|3.3107|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.3107|0.9222|0.0869
91929491|NCT04047121|183756807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1346||||0.8228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3757|3.4266|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.4266|0.3757|0.8228
91929492|NCT04047121|183756807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.565||||0.4855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4446|5.5086|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.5086|0.4446|0.4855
91929493|NCT04047121|183756809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5092|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5092
91929494|NCT04047121|183756809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0201
91929495|NCT04047121|183756809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2799|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2799
91929496|NCT04047121|183756809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9021||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6281|1.2958|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2958|0.6281|0.5772
91929497|NCT04047121|183756809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3953||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7166|2.7169|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7169|0.7166|0.3272
91929498|NCT04047121|183756809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3527||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|2.3983|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.3983|0.7630|0.3011
91929499|NCT04047121|183756810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2931|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2931
91929500|NCT04047121|183756810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3135|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3135
91929501|NCT04047121|183756810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91929502|NCT04047121|183756810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8369||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3618|1.9356|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.9356|0.3618|0.6772
91929503|NCT04047121|183756810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.253||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9061|14.477|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||14.4770|1.9061|0.0013
91929504|NCT04047121|183756811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5217|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5217
91929505|NCT04047121|183756811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0432
91929506|NCT04047121|183756811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2573|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2573
91929507|NCT04047121|183756811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8593||||0.5368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5311|1.3902|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.3902|0.5311|0.5368
91929508|NCT04047121|183756811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2892||||0.4685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6488|2.5616|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.5616|0.6488|0.4685
91929509|NCT04047121|183756811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3598||||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7502|2.4648|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.4648|0.7502|0.3112
91929510|NCT04047121|183756812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4090
91929511|NCT04047121|183756812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0249
91929512|NCT04047121|183756812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0103|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0103
91929513|NCT04047121|183756812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1302||||0.5415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.6741|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6741|0.7630|0.5415
91929514|NCT04047121|183756812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0118||||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9722|4.1632|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.1632|0.9722|0.0596
91929515|NCT04047121|183756812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4823||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.793|6.7633|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||6.7633|1.7930|0.0002
91929516|NCT04047121|183756813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2361
91929517|NCT04047121|183756813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7474|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7474
91929518|NCT04047121|183756813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2118|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2118
91929519|NCT04047121|183756813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3811||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8449|2.2576|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.2576|0.8449|0.1978
91929520|NCT04047121|183756813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0614||||0.8893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4587|2.4559|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.4559|0.4587|0.8893
91929521|NCT04047121|183756813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5811||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2748|1.2286|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2286|0.2748|0.1553
91929522|NCT04047121|183756814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6767|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6767
91929523|NCT04047121|183756814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1141|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1141
91929524|NCT04047121|183756814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1497|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1497
91929525|NCT04047121|183756814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8556||||0.5228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5303|1.3804|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.3804|0.5303|0.5228
91929526|NCT04047121|183756814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5125||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1062|5.7063|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.7063|1.1062|0.0277
91929527|NCT04047121|183756814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6993||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3435|1.4236|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4236|0.3435|0.3240
91929528|NCT04047121|183756815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6318
91929529|NCT04047121|183756815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3802
91929530|NCT04047121|183756815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2424
91929531|NCT04047121|183756815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0347||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0155|0.0848|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0848|-0.0155|0.1753
91929532|NCT04047121|183756815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0194||||0.6114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0553|0.0941|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0941|-0.0553|0.6114
91768098|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.17|-0.66|<0.001
91929533|NCT04047121|183756815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0345||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0304|0.0993|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0993|-0.0304|0.2977
91768099|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.03|-0.47|0.084
91929534|NCT04047121|183756816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1473
91811259|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 5: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
91929535|NCT04047121|183756816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8747
91929536|NCT04047121|183756816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5265
91929537|NCT04047121|183756816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0457||||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1239|0.0325|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0325|-0.1239|0.2522
91929538|NCT04047121|183756816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0278||||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1003|0.1559|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1559|-0.1003|0.6701
91929539|NCT04047121|183756816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1693||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0334|0.372|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.3720|-0.0334|0.1017
91929540|NCT04047121|183756817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2246
91768100|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.39|-0.10|0.243
91929541|NCT04047121|183756817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2101|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2101
91929542|NCT04047121|183756817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0030
91929543|NCT04047121|183756817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.414||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4231|1.2511|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2511|-0.4231|0.3324
91929544|NCT04047121|183756817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1712||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3713|2.7138|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7138|-0.3713|0.1367
91929545|NCT04047121|183756817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8099||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6219|2.9978|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.9978|0.6219|0.0028
91929546|NCT04047121|183756818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2667
91929547|NCT04047121|183756818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.657|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6570
91929548|NCT04047121|183756818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5403|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5403
91929549|NCT04047121|183756818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9159||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2283|2.06|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.0600|-0.2283|0.1167
91929550|NCT04047121|183756818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0336||||0.9722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9238|1.8567|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.8567|-1.9238|0.9722
91929551|NCT04047121|183756818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2064||||0.8455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8689|2.2817|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.2817|-1.8689|0.8455
91929552|NCT04047121|183756819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3142
91929553|NCT04047121|183756819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2465|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2465
91929554|NCT04047121|183756819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5933
91929555|NCT04047121|183756819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0089||||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0716|0.0538|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0538|-0.0716|0.7815
91929556|NCT04047121|183756819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0337||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0528|0.1202|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1202|-0.0528|0.4446
91929557|NCT04047121|183756819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0333||||0.4733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1243|0.0577|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0577|-0.1243|0.4733
91929558|NCT04047121|183756820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0658|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0658
91929559|NCT04047121|183756820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3785
91811260|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 5: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
91929560|NCT04047121|183756820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6202
91929561|NCT04047121|183756820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0425||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1154|0.0303|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0303|-0.1154|0.2523
91929562|NCT04047121|183756820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0388||||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1305|0.0529|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0529|-0.1305|0.4068
91929563|NCT04047121|183756820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0706||||0.5858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1833|0.3244|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.3244|-0.1833|0.5858
91929564|NCT04047121|183756821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3832
91929565|NCT04047121|183756821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4631|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4631
91929566|NCT04047121|183756821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6202
91929567|NCT04047121|183756821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.5353||||0.3158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5812|0.5107|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.5107|-1.5812|0.3158
91929568|NCT04047121|183756821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3543||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2669|2.9755|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.9755|-0.2669|0.1016
91929569|NCT04047121|183756821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8677||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6347|2.37|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.3700|-0.6347|0.2576
91929570|NCT04047121|183756822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3107|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3107
91929571|NCT04047121|183756822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3735|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3735
91929572|NCT04047121|183756822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3863|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3863
91929573|NCT04047121|183756822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.0337||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5858|0.5184|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.5184|-2.5858|0.1918
91929574|NCT04047121|183756822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.9749||||0.4281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3864|1.4366|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4366|-3.3864|0.4281
91929575|NCT04047121|183756822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.8599||||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0854|0.3657|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.3657|-4.0854|0.1014
91929576|NCT04047121|183756823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4555
91929577|NCT04047121|183756823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7164
91929578|NCT04047121|183756823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2456
91929579|NCT04047121|183756823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0568||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0101|0.1238|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1238|-0.0101|0.0962
91929580|NCT04047121|183756823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0432||||0.3844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1405|0.0541|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0541|-0.1405|0.3844
91929581|NCT04047121|183756823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0233||||0.5899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0615|0.1082|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1082|-0.0615|0.5899
91929582|NCT04047121|183756824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4133
91929583|NCT04047121|183756824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7171
91929584|NCT04047121|183756824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8609
91929585|NCT04047121|183756824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0445||||0.6224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2218|0.1327|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1327|-0.2218|0.6224
91768101|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.44|-0.05|0.112
91811261|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 6: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
91929586|NCT04047121|183756824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0884||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.2132|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.2132|-0.3900|0.5655
91929587|NCT04047121|183756824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1809||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2444|0.6062|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.6062|-0.2444|0.4044
91929588|NCT04047121|183756825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0104
91929589|NCT04047121|183756825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5949|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5949
91929590|NCT04047121|183756825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0801|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0801
91929591|NCT04047121|183756825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.7075||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.411|-1.004|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||-1.0040|-6.4110|0.0072
91929592|NCT04047121|183756825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.4296||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.008|3.1489|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.1489|-6.0080|0.5406
91929593|NCT04047121|183756825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.3527||||0.8603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.279|3.5737|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.5737|-4.2790|0.8603
91929594|NCT04047121|183756826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6344
91768102|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.26|-0.23|0.929
91929595|NCT04047121|183756826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3037
91929596|NCT04047121|183756826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1344
91929597|NCT04047121|183756826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2586||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4787|4.9958|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.9958|-2.4787|0.5092
91929598|NCT04047121|183756826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.7696||||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8683|5.3292|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.3292|-6.8683|0.8047
91929599|NCT04047121|183756826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.094||||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9628|6.1507|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||6.1507|-5.9628|0.9757
91929600|NCT04047121|183756827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0839
91929601|NCT04047121|183756827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9577|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9577
91929602|NCT04047121|183756827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9497
91929603|NCT04047121|183756827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.031||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1185|0.0565|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0565|-0.1185|0.4873
91929604|NCT04047121|183756827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0312||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1783|0.1159|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1159|-0.1783|0.6780
91929605|NCT04047121|183756827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0099||||0.9327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2207|0.2406|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.2406|-0.2207|0.9327
91929606|NCT04047121|183756828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
91929607|NCT04047121|183756828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5396
91929608|NCT04047121|183756828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6121
91929609|NCT04047121|183756828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1895||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.0181|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||-0.0181|-0.3610|0.0303
91768103|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.30|-0.19|0.668
91768104|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.11|-0.38|0.281
91768105|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.06|-0.43|0.134
91768106|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.14|-0.70|0.003
91929610|NCT04047121|183756828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1901||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4685|0.0883|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0883|-0.4685|0.1807
91929611|NCT04047121|183756828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1594||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7991|1.1178|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1178|-0.7991|0.7445
91768107|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.05|-0.61|0.020
91768108|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.06|-0.62|0.017
91811262|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 6: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
91929612|NCT04047121|183756829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
91929613|NCT04047121|183756829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5040
91929614|NCT04047121|183756829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1366
91768109|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.24|-0.80|<0.001
91929615|NCT04047121|183756829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.4084||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2497|0.433|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.4330|-7.2497|0.0820
91929616|NCT04047121|183756829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.5342||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0336|3.9652|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.9652|-7.0336|0.5845
91929617|NCT04047121|183756829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.987||||0.7284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.583|6.557|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||6.5570|-4.5830|0.7284
91929618|NCT04047121|183756830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1125
91929619|NCT04047121|183756830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7156
91929620|NCT04047121|183756830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2056
91929621|NCT04047121|183756830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.8061||||0.4288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2797|2.6675|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.6675|-6.2797|0.4288
91929622|NCT04047121|183756830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.6946||||0.6303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5962|5.2069|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.2069|-8.5962|0.6303
91929623|NCT04047121|183756830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.9873||||0.7477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0028|5.0281|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.0281|-7.0028|0.7477
91929624|NCT04047121|183756831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3919|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3919
91929625|NCT04047121|183756831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91768110|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.06|-0.52|0.115
91768111|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.36|-0.19|0.532
91768112|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.35|-0.21|0.603
91811263|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.72||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 6: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.1|0.0003
91811264|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 7: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
91811265|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 7: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
91929626|NCT04047121|183756831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0193
91929627|NCT04047121|183756831|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.2232||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.5053|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a generalized linear model (GLM). Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5053|0.9940|0.0570
91929628|NCT04047121|183756831|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.8479|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4378|2.3749|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.3749|1.4378|<0.0001
91929629|NCT04047121|183756831|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.1868||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9722|1.4487|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4487|0.9722|0.0924
91929630|NCT04047121|183756832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6184
91929631|NCT04047121|183756832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1952|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1952
91768113|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.17|-0.38|0.460
91811266|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 7: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0037
91929632|NCT04047121|183756832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1638
91929633|NCT04047121|183756832|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9773||||0.6732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8782|1.0875|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0875|0.8782|0.6732
91929634|NCT04047121|183756832|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9629||||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.1253|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1253|0.8240|0.6345
91929635|NCT04047121|183756832|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.8327||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|0.9395|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.9395|0.7380|0.0029
91929636|NCT04047121|183756833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3087
91929637|NCT04047121|183756833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
91929638|NCT04047121|183756833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0647
91929639|NCT04047121|183756833|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9762||||0.7684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8316|1.146|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1460|0.8316|0.7684
91768114|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD.~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.26|-0.29|0.921
91768115|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.08|-0.47|0.172
91811267|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 8: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
91811268|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 8: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.4|<.0001
91929640|NCT04047121|183756833|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.3862||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1379|1.6886|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6886|1.1379|0.0012
91929641|NCT04047121|183756833|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.0065||||0.9422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8452|1.1985|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1985|0.8452|0.9422
91929642|NCT04047121|183756834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0421
91929643|NCT04047121|183756834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8137
91929644|NCT04047121|183756834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9416|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9416
91929645|NCT04047121|183756834|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9515||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8628|1.0493|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0493|0.8628|0.3190
91929646|NCT04047121|183756834|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.8991||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7815|1.0343|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0343|0.7815|0.1368
91929647|NCT04047121|183756834|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.8514||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7411|0.9782|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.9782|0.7411|0.0231
91811269|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 8: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0031
91929648|NCT02604810|183756840|NON_INFERIORITY|Method of estimation = least-squares means based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a mixed-effect model. The lower bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LSM ratio (SC/IV) of the primary PK endpoint of steady state AUC0-7 days for the PK population should be above 0.80.|Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07||||||||1.07|1.00|
91929649|NCT00262080|183756848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037||95.0||||no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||The primary efficacy analysis compared the TOS at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.037
91929650|NCT00262080|183756849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|||The analysis compared the change from baseline in MSCS score at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.044
91929651|NCT00262080|183756853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Log Rank|||The Log-Rank test was used to compare the time distribution between the two treatment groups.||||0.055
91929652|NCT03007485|183756863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Reported p-value was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size and power calculation was a composite of COPD-related hospital readmissions or death within 6 months of discharge. First level of analysis was the ITT, which included all the patients randomly assigned to an arm at the beginning of the study (excluding those who were found to not meet inclusion criteria for referral). The second included all the patients medically cleared and third included all the patients who were medically cleared and who had participated in at least 1 PR session.|"The primary outcome was a composite of COPD-related hospital readmissions or death within 6 months of discharge (binary: yes/no). Logistic regression was used to compare the primary outcome in terms of the OR of event rates between the 2 arms, in 3 sets of models (per each of the 3 aforementioned level of analyses):~* Model 1: Treatment arm only with no other covariates added to the model~* Model 2: Treatment arm, adjusted for race and clinical site (stratification variables)~* Model 3: Treatment arm, adjusted for race, clinical site, and risk factors reported in the literature to be associated with the primary outcome, for explanatory purposes To examine the role of adherence on the primary outcome, we included adherence as a binary variable and as a continuous variable (percentage of sessions attended) in the 3 models."|||<.05
91768116|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.10|-0.46|0.210
91768117|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.17|-0.67|<0.001
91768118|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.06|-0.55|0.016
91768119|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.04|-0.54|0.025
91768120|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.22|-0.72|<0.001
91768121|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.03|-0.48|0.083
91768122|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.36|-0.13|0.355
91929653|NCT03696758|183756872|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.004||||||p value is 0.004 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
91929654|NCT03696758|183756873|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.13||||||P-Value is 0.13 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.13
91929655|NCT03696758|183756874|OTHER|descriptive statistics||||||0.004||||||p value is 0.004 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
91929656|NCT03696758|183756875|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.1||||||p value is 0.10 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.1
91929657|NCT03696758|183756876|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.09||||||p value is 0.09 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.09
91929658|NCT03696758|183756877|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.1||||||p value is 0.10 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.10
91768123|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.38|-0.11|0.283
91768124|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.20|-0.29|0.712
91929659|NCT03696758|183756878|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.82||||||p value is 0.82 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.82
91929660|NCT03696758|183756879|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.3||||||p value is 0.30 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.30
91929661|NCT03696758|183756880|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.36||||||p value is 0.36 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.36
91929662|NCT03696758|183756881|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.36||||||p value is 0.36 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.36
91929663|NCT03696758|183756882|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.65||||||P-Value is 0.65 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.65
91929664|NCT03696758|183756883|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.25||||||P-Value is 0.25 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.25
91768125|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.27|-0.23|0.877
91929665|NCT03696758|183756884|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.43||||||P-Value is 0.43 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.43
91929666|NCT03696758|183756885|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.66||||||P-Value is 0.66 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.66
91929667|NCT03696758|183756886|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.13||||||P-Value is 0.13 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.13
91768126|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.08|-0.41|0.195
91929668|NCT03696758|183756887|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.57||||||P-Value is 0.57 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.57
91929669|NCT03696758|183756888|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.25||||||P-Value is 0.25 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.25
91929670|NCT03696758|183756889|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.07||||||P-Value is 0.07 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.07
91929671|NCT03696758|183756890|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.36||||||P-Value is 0.36 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.36
91929672|NCT03696758|183756891|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.91||||||P-Value is 0.91 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.91
91929673|NCT03207022|183756907|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91929674|NCT03207022|183756908|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91768127|NCT03084796|183425153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.07|-0.43|0.150
91929675|NCT03207022|183756909|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91929676|NCT06150573|183756910|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.93|||ANOVA|||||0.93|-1.04|0.9141
91929677|NCT06150573|183756911|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.34|||ANOVA|||||1.34|-0.61|0.4583
91929678|NCT06150573|183756912|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.06|||ANOVA|||Week 12||-0.06|-0.30|0.0042
91929679|NCT06150573|183756912|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.17|-0.46|<0.0001
91929680|NCT06150573|183756913|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||ANOVA|||Mean Gingival MLSI, Week 12||0.01|-0.05|0.2478
91929681|NCT06150573|183756913|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||ANOVA|||Mean Gingival MLSI, Week 24||0.01|-0.07|0.0957
91929682|NCT06150573|183756913|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Mean Interproximal MLSI, Week 12||-0.10|-0.58|0.0063
91929683|NCT06150573|183756913|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.31|||ANOVA|||Mean Interproximal MLSI, Week 24||-0.31|-0.89|<0.0001
91929684|NCT06150573|183756913|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||ANOVA|||Mean Body MLSI, Week 12||0.01|-0.03|0.1536
91929685|NCT06150573|183756913|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||ANOVA|||Mean Body MLSI, Week 24||0.00|-0.02|0.1166
91929686|NCT06150573|183756914|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.07|||ANOVA|||Week 12||-0.07|-0.21|<0.0001
91929687|NCT06150573|183756914|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.10|-0.25|<0.0001
91929688|NCT06150573|183756915|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0|||ANOVA|||Week 12||-0.00|-0.13|0.0400
91929689|NCT06150573|183756915|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.05|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.05|-0.20|0.0010
91929690|NCT00210158|183756916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|42.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test for a difference of means, assuming independant samples and unequal variances||42.8|-23.4|0.5
91929691|NCT04096326|183756945|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|40.6||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|57.6||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.6|23.6|0.0096
91929692|NCT04096326|183756945|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|46.4||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|64.9||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||64.9|28.0|0.0094
91929693|NCT04096326|183756945|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|52.2||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|80.8||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.8|23.6|0.0044
91929694|NCT04096326|183756945|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|63.3||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|91.5||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||91.5|35.2|0.0026
91929695|NCT04096326|183756945|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|85.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|100.0||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||100.0|64.2|0.0000
91929696|NCT04804033|183756951|OTHER||Difference in least square mean (LSM)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.72|-0.12|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||-0.12|-2.72|
91929697|NCT04804033|183756951|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.07|0.69|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.69|-2.07|
91929698|NCT04804033|183756952|OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.4|28.8|||||Stratified by randomization stratum using Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.|||28.8|4.4|
91768128|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.967||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.753|-0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, inter-visit period, treatment by inter-visit period interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by inter-visit period interaction as covariates."||-0.181|-1.753|0.016
91768129|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.824||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.606|-0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.043|-1.606|0.039
91768130|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.227||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.012|-0.441|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.441|-2.012|0.002
91768131|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.949||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.733|-0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.164|-1.733|0.018
91929699|NCT04804033|183756952|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.6|18.9|||||Stratified by randomization stratum using Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.|||18.9|-5.6|
91929700|NCT04804033|183756953|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.68|0.58|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.58|-2.68|
91768132|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.566||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.242|-1.374|0.169
91929701|NCT04804033|183756953|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|1.31|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||1.31|-2.10|
91929702|NCT04804033|183756954|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.16|-0.42|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||-0.42|-3.16|
91929703|NCT04804033|183756954|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.53|0.22|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.22|-2.53|
91929704|NCT04804033|183756955|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.59|0.05|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.05|-1.59|
91929705|NCT04804033|183756955|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.06|0.74|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.74|-1.06|
91929706|NCT04804033|183756956|OTHER||Difference in LSM|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.5|9.39|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||9.39|-1.50|
91929707|NCT04804033|183756956|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.66|5.86|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||5.86|-5.66|
91929708|NCT04804033|183756957|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.1|0.19|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||0.19|-18.10|
91929709|NCT04804033|183756957|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.95|0.41|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||0.41|-18.95|
91929710|NCT04490265|183756982|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91929711|NCT04490265|183756983|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91929712|NCT04490265|183756988|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Belonging Subscale change from baseline to 12-weeks||||
91929713|NCT04490265|183756988|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Belonging subscale Baseline to 6-months||||
91929714|NCT04490265|183756988|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change in Burdensome subscale Baseline to 12-weeks||||
91929715|NCT04490265|183756988|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change in Burdensome subscale Baseline to 6 months||||
91929716|NCT04490265|183756989|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Baseline to 12-weeks||||
91768133|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.923|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.923|-0.638|0.720
91929717|NCT04490265|183756989|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Baseline to 6-months||||
91929718|NCT04490265|183756990|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91929719|NCT04490265|183756991|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91929720|NCT04490265|183756992|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91929721|NCT04490265|183756993|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91929722|NCT04490265|183756994|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91929723|NCT04490265|183756995|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91929724|NCT04490265|183756996|SUPERIORITY||Cohens d|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Severity||||
91768134|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.043|0.523|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.523|-1.043|0.515
91929725|NCT04490265|183756996|SUPERIORITY||Cohens d|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||interference||||
91929726|NCT04490265|183756997|SUPERIORITY||Cohens d|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Severity Subscale||||
91929727|NCT04490265|183756997|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Interference subscale||||
91929728|NCT03280550|183757034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.69||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NPS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.69|-1.59|<0.0001
91929729|NCT03280550|183757035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.25||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NCS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.25|-0.84|0.0004
91929730|NCT03280550|183757036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.06||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline SSS, treatment and baseline SSS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Sense of Smell Score (SSS) at Week 24.||-0.06|-0.60|0.0161
91929731|NCT03280550|183757037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.28||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline PRS, treatment and baseline PRS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Posterior Rhinorrhea Score (PRS) at Week 24.||-0.28|-0.84|0.0001
91929732|NCT03280550|183757038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.6||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the NPS at Week 16.||-0.60|-1.43|<0.0001
91929733|NCT03280550|183757039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.31||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily NCS at Week 16.||-0.31|-0.83|<0.0001
91929734|NCT03280550|183757040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|-10.38||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the SNOT-22 score at Week 24.||-10.38|-21.86|<0.0001
91929735|NCT03280550|183757041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.16||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline ARS, treatment and baseline ARS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Anterior Rhinorrhea Score (ARS) at Week 24.||-0.16|-0.70|0.0023
91929736|NCT03280550|183757042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.51||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue medication through Week 24.||5.51|0.05|0.6716
91929737|NCT03280550|183757043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.64||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for having had surgery for nasal polyps through Week 24.||17.64|0.00|0.4815
91929738|NCT03280550|183757044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.71|||Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for Baseline AQLQ, geographic region, and aspirin sensitivity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for number of participants with a change from baseline in AQLQ score of ≥0.5 at Week 24.||13.71|1.00|0.0492
91929739|NCT03280550|183757045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.51||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue treatment through Week 24.||5.51|0.05|0.6716
91929740|NCT03280550|183757046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|29.6||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for geographic region and asthma/aspirin sensitivity comorbidity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in reduction in the need for surgery for nasal polyps by Week 24.||29.60|1.32|0.0209
91768135|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.764|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.800|-0.764|0.963
91768136|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|0.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.377|-1.182|0.311
91929741|NCT03280550|183757047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.96||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline TNSS, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) at Week 24.||-0.96|-2.85|0.0001
91929742|NCT03280550|183757048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.24||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline UPSIT, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the UPSIT score at Week 24.||6.24|1.38|0.0024
91929743|NCT05896761|183757057|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|1.03||||||||1.03|0.831|
91929744|NCT05896761|183757057|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.816|1.06||||||||1.06|0.816|
91929745|NCT05896761|183757058|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.966|1.17||||||||1.17|0.966|
91929746|NCT05896761|183757058|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.29||||||||1.29|1.07|
91929747|NCT05896761|183757059|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.49||||||||1.49|1.22|
91768137|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.903|0.654|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.654|-0.903|0.754
91929748|NCT05896761|183757059|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.24||||||||1.24|0.975|
91929749|NCT05896761|183757060|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.4||||||||1.40|1.12|
91929750|NCT05896761|183757060|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.28||||||||1.28|1.09|
91929751|NCT05896761|183757061|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.3||||||||1.30|1.13|
91929752|NCT05896761|183757061|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.2||||||||1.20|1.00|
91929753|NCT05896761|183757062|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.23||||||||1.23|1.07|
91929754|NCT05896761|183757062|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.38||||||||1.38|1.20|
91929755|NCT05896761|183757063|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.25||||||||1.25|1.08|
91929756|NCT05896761|183757063|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.09||||||||1.09|0.890|
91929757|NCT05896761|183757064|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.13||||||||1.13|0.991|
91929758|NCT05896761|183757064|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.12||||||||1.12|0.974|
91929759|NCT05896761|183757065|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.25||||||||1.25|1.11|
91929760|NCT05896761|183757065|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.14||||||||1.14|0.989|
91929761|NCT05896761|183757066|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.12||||||||1.12|1.03|
91929762|NCT05896761|183757066|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.08||||||||1.08|0.997|
91929763|NCT05896761|183757067|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.19||||||||1.19|1.08|
91929764|NCT05896761|183757067|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.11||||||||1.11|0.97|
91929765|NCT05896761|183757068|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.11||||||||1.11|1.02|
91929766|NCT05896761|183757068|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.11||||||||1.11|1.01|
91929767|NCT01318083|183757091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.097|-0.775||||||||-0.775|-1.097|
91929768|NCT01318083|183757091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.837||||||||-0.837|-1.160|
91929769|NCT01318083|183757092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.196|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.131||||||||-0.131|-0.261|
91929770|NCT01318083|183757092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.154||||||||-0.154|-0.273|
91929771|NCT01318083|183757093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|-0.312||||||||-0.312|-0.507|
91929772|NCT01318083|183757093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.453|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|-0.358||||||||-0.358|-0.547|
91929773|NCT01318083|183757094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|-0.556||||||||-0.556|-0.834|
91929774|NCT01318083|183757094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.911|-0.629||||||||-0.629|-0.911|
91929775|NCT01318083|183757095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-10.83||||||||-10.83|-24.60|
91929776|NCT01318083|183757095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.93|-10.25||||||||-10.25|-24.93|
91929777|NCT01318083|183757096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-16.02||||||||-16.02|-30.33|
91929778|NCT01318083|183757096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.33|-17.43||||||||-17.43|-32.33|
91929779|NCT01318083|183757097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|-19.91||||||||-19.91|-35.32|
91929780|NCT01318083|183757097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.76|-14.69||||||||-14.69|-30.76|
91929781|NCT01318083|183757098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.14|-19.59||||||||-19.59|-37.14|
91929782|NCT01318083|183757098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-13.54||||||||-13.54|-30.33|
91929783|NCT01318083|183757099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.58|-10.23||||||||-10.23|-36.58|
91929784|NCT01318083|183757099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-4.95||||||||-4.95|-33.40|
91929785|NCT03552549|183757116|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.77|||||Hazard ratio presented as PEG-Intron/INTRON A; HR \<1 indicates treatment effect in favor of PEG-Intron.|||1.77|0.28|
91929786|NCT02094586|183757125|EQUIVALENCE|The GMT of each lot was required to be within ±50% of each other lot with 95% confidence. Specifically, the 95% CI around each pairwise ratio of GMTs was required to be within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08||||||Lot A vs. Lot B||1.08|0.78|
91929787|NCT02094586|183757130|EQUIVALENCE|The GMT of each lot was required to be within ±50% of each other lot with 95% confidence. Specifically, the 95% CI around each pairwise ratio of GMTs was required to be within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||||||Lot B vs Lot C||1.20|0.87|
91929788|NCT02094586|183757131|EQUIVALENCE|The GMT of each lot was required to be within ±50% of each other lot with 95% confidence. Specifically, the 95% CI around each pairwise ratio of GMTs was required to be within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||Lot A vs. Lot C||1.10|0.80|
91929789|NCT02761993|183757138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.341
91929790|NCT02761993|183757138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.774
91929791|NCT02761993|183757139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.501
91929792|NCT02761993|183757139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.486
91929793|NCT02761993|183757140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.816
91929794|NCT02761993|183757140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.706
91929795|NCT00256867|183757141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Expressed as percent difference|-37.186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.219|-32.879|||ANCOVA||Estimation parameter was Ratio to RSG Group expressed as percent difference from RSG group. Based on ANCOVA : Log(value) - log(baseline)= log(baseline) + sex + country + Treatment + Prior Sulfonylurea use|||-32.879|-41.219|<0.0001
91929796|NCT00256867|183757142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.55|||ANCOVA||Change = Baseline + sex + country + Treatment + Prior Sulfonylurea use|||-0.55|-1.09|<0.0001
91929797|NCT00256867|183757146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.32|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.52|79.85|||ANCOVA||Odds (logistic regression:log odds=Baseline + sex + Treatment + Prior Sulfonylurea use) of having an LDL-c \< 100 mg/dL at Week 6 on All FDC RSG/SIMV groups compared to All RSG monotherapy groups|||79.85|16.52|<.0001
91929798|NCT00256867|183757147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.07|||ANCOVA||Odds (logistic regression: log odds=Baseline + sex + Treatment + Prior SU use) of having an HbA1c \< 7% or reduction of HbA1c \>= 0.7% at Week 16 on All FDC group compared to Simv group.|||7.07|2.32|<0.0001
91929799|NCT00256867|183757148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|7.0|||ANCOVA||Odds (logistic regression:log odds=Baseline + sex + Treatment + Prior SU use) of having an FPG \< 7.0 mmol/L or reduction of FPG \>= 1.67 mmol/L at Week 16 on All FDC group compared to Simv group.|||7|2.21|<0.0001
91929800|NCT01617434|183757171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment arms with regard to changes from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 26 weeks of randomised treatment was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.99|-1.39|<0.0001
91929801|NCT01617434|183757172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.7|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.86|-1.70|<0.0001
91929802|NCT01617434|183757173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.01|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.18|-2.01|<0.0001
91768138|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.060|-0.503|0.485
91768139|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.349||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.294|-0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.403|-2.294|0.005
91929803|NCT01617434|183757174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.85|-2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-2.37|-3.85|<0.0001
91929804|NCT01617434|183757175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.91|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.45|14.59|||Regression, Logistic|||This endpoint was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and stratification factors as fixed factors and the HbA1c value at baseline as a covariate. Subjects previously treated with insulin detemir without the use of metformin were not included in the analysis due to the small size of the stratum.||14.59|5.45|<0.0001
91929805|NCT01617434|183757176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.12|||<|0.0001||95.0|9.92|40.84|||Regression, Logistic|||This endpoint was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and stratification factors as fixed factors and the HbA1c value at baseline as a covariate. Subjects previously treated with insulin detemir without the use of metformin were not included in the analysis due to the small size of the stratum.||40.84|9.92|<0.0001
91929806|NCT02915367|183757194|OTHER|Pearson chi-square||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.93
91768140|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.159||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.218|-2.100|0.016
91929807|NCT02915367|183757196|OTHER|Pearson chi-square||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
91929808|NCT00875017|183757205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-65.75|||<|0.001||95.0|-96.01|-35.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net phosphorus absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-35.49|-96.01|<0.001
91929809|NCT00875017|183757205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-125.65|||<|0.001||95.0|-155.91|-95.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net phosphorus absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-95.39|-155.91|<0.001
91929810|NCT00875017|183757205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-59.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-89.87|-29.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net phosphorus absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-29.93|-89.87|<0.001
91929811|NCT00875017|183757206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|71.9|||<|0.001||95.0|40.03|103.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Phosphorus binding was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||103.77|40.03|<0.001
91929812|NCT00875017|183757207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.67||||0.049||95.0|-41.22|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net calcium absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-0.13|-41.22|0.049
91929813|NCT00875017|183757207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-15.56||||0.133||95.0|-36.11|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net calcium absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||4.99|-36.11|0.133
91929814|NCT00875017|183757207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.11||||0.612||95.0|-15.24|25.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net calcium absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||25.47|-15.24|0.612
91929815|NCT02932475|183757221|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.19|||||The odds ratio was calculated and adjusted for study site, timing of diabetes diagnosis, gestational age at randomization stratified at 18 weeks, and baseline maternal BMI.|The sample size gave adequate power over a range of expected primary outcome event rates, with type I error set at 0.044 (reduced from 0.05 for interim analysis), with reasonable power under a conservative scenario assuming that 20% of subjects immediately stopped taking study agent.||1.19|0.63|
91929816|NCT02932475|183757222|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4
91929817|NCT02932475|183757223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||comparison of mean (sd) between groups|||||0.4
91929818|NCT02932475|183757224|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6
91929819|NCT02932475|183757225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.08
91929820|NCT00364845|183757228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion achieving target|0.389||||||95.0|0.173|0.643||||||||0.643|0.173|
91929821|NCT00364845|183757228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion achieving target|0.95||||||95.0|0.751|0.999||||||||0.999|0.751|
91929822|NCT03255291|183757244|SUPERIORITY|A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons||||||0.0288|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates: sex, race, age, education, health literacy, season, risk display problem, acceptability, self-reported health, and baseline exercise.||The investigators tested whether weekly minutes of exercise at 90 day follow-up was higher in the exercise mental imagery condition than in the sleep mental imagery condition||||0.0288
91929823|NCT03255291|183757244|SUPERIORITY|-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons||||||0.3329|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates: sex, race, age, education, health literacy, season, risk display problem, acceptability, self-reported health, and baseline exercise.||-The investigators tested whether weekly minutes of exercise differed among the three risk display formats: risk ladder, table, and alphanumeric text.||||0.3329
91929824|NCT03255291|183757244|SUPERIORITY|-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons||||||0.0215|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates: sex, race, age, education, health literacy, season, risk display problem, acceptability, self-reported health, and baseline exercise.||-The investigators tested whether weekly minutes of exercise was influenced by an interaction between risk display format and mental imagery behavior||||0.0215
91768141|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.466||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|-0.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.516|-2.416|0.003
91929825|NCT03255291|183757245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333||||||-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Covariates were sex, race, age, education, numeracy, and graph literacy.||-This study was designed as a 3X2 factorial design and only the risk display format intervention (risk ladder, table, or text) was looked at for this outcome, as participants had not yet received the mental imagery intervention, thus it could not affect this outcome. A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.0333
91929826|NCT03255291|183757246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4946||||||-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Covariates were sex, race, age, education, numeracy, and graph literacy.||This study was designed as a 3X2 factorial design \& only the risk display format intervention (risk ladder, table, or text) was looked at for this outcome, as participants had not yet received the mental imagery intervention, thus it could not affect this outcome.||||0.4946
91929827|NCT03255291|183757247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1397|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates were sex, race, age, education, numeracy, and graph literacy.||This study was designed as a 3X2 factorial design \& only the risk display format intervention (risk ladder, table, or text) was looked at for this outcome, as participants had not yet received the mental imagery intervention, thus it could not affect this outcome.||||0.1397
91929828|NCT03255291|183757248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise maintenance self-efficacy). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichtomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.0070
91929829|NCT03255291|183757249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8793||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise recovery self-efficacy). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichtomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.8793
91929830|NCT03255291|183757250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4673||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise affective attitudes). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.4673
91929831|NCT03255291|183757251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1916||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise unpleasant feelings). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.1916
91929832|NCT03255291|183757252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8661||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise imagery vividness). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.8661
91929833|NCT03255291|183757253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0711||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise action planning). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.0711
91929834|NCT03255291|183757254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0365||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise coping planning). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.0365
91768142|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.396||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.337|-0.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.454|-2.337|0.004
91929835|NCT03255291|183757255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1511||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise action self-efficacy). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.1511
91929836|NCT01204658|183757261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 1 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 1 vaccination in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.61|0.003
91929837|NCT01204658|183757261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 2 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 2 vaccination in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.61|0.003
91929838|NCT01204658|183757261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 3 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 3 vaccination in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.62|0.003
91929839|NCT01204658|183757261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine across doses was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to vaccination, across doses, in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.61|0.003
91929840|NCT01204658|183757262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.64||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 1 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 1 vaccination in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.64|-2.61|0.003
91929841|NCT01204658|183757262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.64||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 2 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 2 vaccination in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.64|-2.61|0.003
91929842|NCT01204658|183757262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.66||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 3 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 3 vaccination in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.66|-2.63|0.003
91929843|NCT01204658|183757262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.64||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine across doses was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to vaccination, across doses, in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.64|-2.61|0.003
91929844|NCT02891798|183757307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SF-MPQ2 Total Score Difference From Baseline between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.003
91929845|NCT02891798|183757308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SF-MPQ2 Continuous Pain Subscore Difference From Baseline between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.001
91929846|NCT02891798|183757309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SF-MPQ2 Intermittent Pain Subscore Difference From Baseline between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.038
91929847|NCT02891798|183757310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of QoR-15 Total Score at post-operative day 1 between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.009
91929848|NCT02891798|183757311|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly lower score for the QoR-15 Total Score.||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of QoR-15 Total Score at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.861
91929849|NCT02891798|183757312|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly lower score for the Standing Balance test.||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Standing Balance Test score at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.512
91929850|NCT02891798|183757313|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly slower rate for the Self-Selected Gait Speed test.||||||0.339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Self-Selected Gait Speed rate at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group.||||0.339
91929851|NCT02891798|183757314|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly slower time for the Repeated Chair Stand test.||||||0.711|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Repeated Chair Stand time at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group.||||0.711
91929852|NCT00833248|183757357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|4.14|||ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||FAS. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||4.14|-4.74|0.8942
91929853|NCT00833248|183757358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.268||||0.9123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|4.52|||ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||PP analysis set. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||4.52|-5.05|0.9123
91929854|NCT04131517|183757377|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the least squares (LS) means for the log-transformed Cmax was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|1.0404|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94156|1.1497||||||The analysis of variance model (ANOVA) included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.1497|0.94156|
91929855|NCT04131517|183757378|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed Cmax was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.89272|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76892|1.0364||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.0364|0.76892|
91768143|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.824||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.797|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.150|-1.797|0.097
91768144|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|1.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.126|-0.746|0.690
91768145|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|0.827|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.827|-1.061|0.808
91811270|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 9: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.7|-1.5|<.0001
91811271|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 9: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
91811272|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 9: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.1|-0.9|0.0117
91811273|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 10: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
91929856|NCT04131517|183757381|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed AUC0-inf was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|1.0276|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95544|1.1052||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.1052|0.95544|
91929857|NCT04131517|183757382|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL+ OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed AUC0-inf was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.88808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52185|1.5113||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.5113|0.52185|
91929858|NCT04131517|183757389|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed Cmax was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.96378|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85043|1.0922||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.0922|0.85043|
91929859|NCT04131517|183757391|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed AUC was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.96842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91888|1.0206||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.0206|0.91888|
91929860|NCT00115349|183757401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||0.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with treatment, time, and treatment x time interaction were used, allowing for random participant-specific intercepts and slopes.||The intended sample size of 86 patients (N=43 per arm) had 80% power to detect a 5% difference in LVEF between the two arms after 1 year of treatment, assuming a standard deviation of change in LVEF of 7.46%, and 20% loss to follow-up. The study was stopped early by NHLBI when analysis of the interim data confirmed a required sample size of 86 that was not achievable within the required time frame within the participating or planned centres.||||0.89
91929861|NCT01728584|183757431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|1.09||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and body mass index (BMI)|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|Primary hypothesis - deep NMB improves surgeon's overall satisfaction with the surgical conditions compared to standard NMB||2.04|0.13|0.026
91929862|NCT01728584|183757431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is low versus standard pressure|||-2.05|-3.99|<0.001
91929863|NCT01728584|183757432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.02|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus standard NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||5.02|2.30|
91768146|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.983|0.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.889|-0.983|0.922
91768147|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.307||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|0.634|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.634|-1.248|0.522
91768148|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.237||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.696|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.696|-1.170|0.618
91929864|NCT01728584|183757432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.91|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||0.91|-1.80|
91929865|NCT01728584|183757432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.36|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||3.36|0.57|
91768149|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.871|1.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.012|-0.871|0.884
91811274|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 10: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
91929866|NCT01728584|183757432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-2.78|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||-2.78|-5.42|
91929867|NCT01728584|183757432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.38|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||-0.38|-3.01|
91929868|NCT01728584|183757432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.74|||||Difference is deep NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||3.74|1.08|
91929869|NCT01728584|183757433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.35||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.84|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, gender and surgeon|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||0.84|-0.13|0.148
91811275|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 10: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0040
91929870|NCT01728584|183757433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.17||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.33||To control for multiple testing, this difference was formally tested only if comparison of surgeon's overall satisfaction with surgical conditions for deep versus standard NMB was significant at the 5% level, with greater satisfaction for deep NMB.|ANOVA|ANOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, gender and surgeon|Difference is low versus standard pressure|Key secondary hypothesis - low insufflation pressure improves overall average pain score in first 24 hours compared to standard insufflation pressure||0.33|-0.67|0.494
91768150|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.158||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.978|-0.337|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.337|-1.978|0.006
91929871|NCT01728584|183757434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.52|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus standard NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.52|-0.92|
91929872|NCT01728584|183757434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.02|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||-0.02|-1.27|
91929873|NCT01728584|183757434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.53|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.53|-0.84|
91929874|NCT01728584|183757434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.26|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.26|-1.15|
91929875|NCT01728584|183757434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.78|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.78|-0.69|
91929876|NCT01728584|183757434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.16|||||Difference is deep NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||1.16|-0.17|
91929877|NCT01728584|183757435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.91||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.87||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.87|-0.05|0.063
91929878|NCT01728584|183757436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.82||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.37||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.37|0.27|0.004
91811276|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 11: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.7|-1.6|<.0001
91929879|NCT01728584|183757437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.12||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.92||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.92|0.32|0.006
91929880|NCT01728584|183757438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.61||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.06||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||0.06|-1.27|0.073
91929881|NCT01728584|183757439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.74||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.28||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.28|0.19|0.009
91929882|NCT02190747|183757502|OTHER|||||||0.1664|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.1664
91929883|NCT02190747|183757503|OTHER|||||||0.2335|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Week 6: Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.2335
91929884|NCT02190747|183757503|OTHER|||||||0.0837|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Week 12: Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.0837
91929885|NCT02190747|183757504|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean|-86.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|220.57||0.6984|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 6: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.6984
91929886|NCT02190747|183757504|OTHER||LS mean|-38.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.192||0.8811|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 6: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.8811
91929887|NCT02190747|183757504|OTHER||LS mean|-764.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|220.57||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 12: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.0017
91929888|NCT02190747|183757504|OTHER||LS mean|-703.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.192||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 12: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.0094
91929889|NCT02190747|183757505|OTHER|||||||0.1503|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.1503
91929890|NCT04322994|183757529|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with any desaturation event.||||0.18
91929891|NCT04322994|183757529|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 desaturation event versus 2 or more events.||||0.26
91929892|NCT04322994|183757530|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with at any qualifying desaturation event.||||0.26
91929893|NCT04322994|183757530|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 qualifying desaturation event versus 2 or more qualifying events.||||0.08
91929894|NCT04322994|183757531|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with any qualifying event.||||0.28
91929895|NCT04322994|183757531|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 qualifying event versus 2 or more events.||||0.38
91929896|NCT04322994|183757532|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with at any qualifying desaturation event.||||0.88
91929897|NCT04322994|183757533|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared, Corrected|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with any surgical interruption.||||0.14
91929898|NCT04322994|183757533|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 surgical interruption versus 2 or more interruptions.||||0.21
91929899|NCT02345252|183757542|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 275 HIV-1 infected participants per treatment group would provide 85% power to detect a noninferiority margin of 8% in the Week 48 response rate difference between the FTC/RPV/TAF group and FTC/RPV/TDF group. For sample size and power computation, it is assumed that both treatment groups will have a response rate of 89% (based on Gilead Study GS-US-292-0109), that a noninferiority margin is 8%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-4.2|3.7|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.001% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was at least 8% lower than the rate in the FTC/RPV/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was less than 8% lower than that in the FTC/RPV/TDF group.||3.7|-4.2|
91929900|NCT02345252|183757542|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91929901|NCT02336594|183757555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the Pharmacokinetics (PK), Pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||120|95.2|
91929902|NCT02336594|183757557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.6|111.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||111|85.6|
91929903|NCT02336594|183757558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.3|115.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||115|87.3|
91929904|NCT02336594|183757560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|182.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.0|230.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||230|144|
91929905|NCT02336594|183757561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|140.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.0|163.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||163|121|
91929906|NCT02336594|183757562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|134.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|156.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||156|114|
91929907|NCT02336594|183757563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|79.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.4|94.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||94.2|66.4|
91811277|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 11: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
91929908|NCT02336594|183757564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.9|98.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||98.8|73.9|
91929909|NCT02336594|183757565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|83.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.5|94.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||94.7|73.5|
91929910|NCT02403830|183757574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25|-90|0.261
91929911|NCT01954251|183757596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison at one month after the last dose of HZ/su was performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non-inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMs between the Control and the Co-Ad group (Control over GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) was below 1.5.|Adjusted Geometric mean concentration ra|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2||||||Adjusted ratios of Control group over GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group in anti-gE antibody ELISA concentrations GMCs at one month after last vaccine dose. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse post-vaccination log-transformed concentrations of anti-gE. The fixed-effect model included the minimisation variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate.||1.20|0.97|
91929912|NCT01954251|183757597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||||||For the Flu A/California/7/2009 H1N1 strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.22|0.88|
91929913|NCT01954251|183757597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.17||||||For the Flu A/Texas/50/2012 H3N2 strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.17|0.91|
91929914|NCT01954251|183757597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2||||||For the Flu B/Brisbane/60/2008 Victoria strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.20|0.95|
91929915|NCT01954251|183757597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09||||||For the Flu B/Massachusetts/2/2012 Yamagata strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.09|0.88|
91929916|NCT02702193|183757623|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|GEE allowed the examination of trajectories from baseline through the 12 month follow-up.||To determine sample size for the grant proposal we conducted simulation studies in Mplus (Muthén \& Muthén, 2010) following the procedure described by Muthén and Muthén (2002). Each simulation created 10,000 datasets, assuming a medium-size (d = .5) intervention effect, and attrition of 10% at each assessment. For α= .05, the power estimate was at or above 80% with a sample of 172 mothers.||||<.05
91929917|NCT02439281|183757644|OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4510
91929918|NCT02439281|183757645|OTHER|||||||0.8914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8914
91929919|NCT02439281|183757648|OTHER|||||||0.9531|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9531
91929920|NCT02439281|183757649|OTHER|||||||0.778|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7780
91929921|NCT02439281|183757650|OTHER|||||||0.5692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5692
91929922|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|4.1||||||1 hour postdose||4.1|-0.4|
91768151|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.992||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.808|-0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.175|-1.808|0.017
91929923|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|4.9||||||1.5 hours postdose||4.9|0.4|
91768152|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.346||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.168|-0.524|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.524|-2.168|0.001
91929924|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|4.4||||||2 hours postdose||4.4|-0.1|
91929925|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|1.7||||||3 hours postdose||1.7|-2.8|
91929926|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|-1.8||||||4 hours postdose||-1.8|-6.3|
91929927|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|-1.2||||||6 hours postdose||-1.2|-5.7|
91929928|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|-2.6||||||12 hours postdose||-2.6|-7.1|
91929929|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|1.4||||||24 hours postdose||1.4|-3.1|
91929930|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.1||||||1 hour postdose||3.1|-1.4|
91929931|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|4.2||||||1.5 hours postdose||4.2|-0.2|
91929932|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.1||||||2 hours postdose||3.1|-1.4|
91929933|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|0.7||||||3 hours postdose||0.7|-3.8|
91929934|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|-1.5||||||4 hours postdose||-1.5|-5.9|
91929935|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|-0.1||||||6 hours postdose||-0.1|-4.6|
91929936|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|-2.8||||||12 hours postdose||-2.8|-7.3|
91929937|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|2.1||||||24 hours postdose||2.1|-2.4|
91929938|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|7.6|14.0||||||1 hour postdose||14.0|7.6|
91929939|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|7.0|13.4||||||1.5 hours postdose||13.4|7.0|
91929940|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|8.0|14.4||||||2 hours postdose||14.4|8.0|
91929941|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|8.3|14.7||||||3 hours postdose||14.7|8.3|
91929942|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|6.5|12.8||||||4 hours postdose||12.8|6.5|
91929943|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|7.2|13.5||||||6 hours postdose||13.5|7.2|
91929944|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|4.1|10.4||||||12 hours postdose||10.4|4.1|
91929945|NCT03510663|183757651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|3.8|10.2||||||24 hours postdose||10.2|3.8|
91929946|NCT01798706|183757669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.464||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||-0.464|-0.81|< 0.0001
91929947|NCT01798706|183757670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.464|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-4.132||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level. Testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour PPG value as a covariate. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at 0.05. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported.||-4.132|-5.96|< 0.0001
91929948|NCT01798706|183757671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.527||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline 7-point SMPG value as a covariate.||-0.527|-1.39|< 0.0001
91929949|NCT01798706|183757672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.862|-0.769||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value as a covariate.||-0.769|-1.862|< 0.0001
91929950|NCT01798706|183757673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.828|0.204||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline FPG value as a covariate.||0.204|-0.828|0.2347
91929951|NCT00962039|183757732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.1||Analyses were conducted over 8 week follow-up.|Chi-squared|||||0.10|-0.12|0.92
91929952|NCT00962039|183757733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.01|||Chi-squared|||||-0.01|-0.15|0.034
91929953|NCT00962039|183757734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.07|0.261
91929954|NCT00962039|183757735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.18|-0.36|0.519
91929955|NCT00962039|183757736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-0.77|0.704
91929956|NCT00962039|183757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|0.01|0.046
91929957|NCT03453151|183757738|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.053
91929958|NCT03453151|183757739|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91929959|NCT03453151|183757740|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91929960|NCT03453151|183757741|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to the resting cardiac index.||||||0.077
91929961|NCT03453151|183757741|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to the peak exercise cardiac index.||||||0.069
91929962|NCT03453151|183757743|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to creatinine level.||||||0.250
91929963|NCT03453151|183757743|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to BUN level.||||||0.014
91929964|NCT02592629|183757752|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91929965|NCT04594239|183757755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.3|85.6||||||||85.6|66.3|
91929966|NCT04594239|183757755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|85.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.5|92.3||||||||92.3|70.5|
91929967|NCT04594239|183757755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|71.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|82.5||||||||82.5|55.2|
91929968|NCT03229759|183757761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.08||||||Test on abdomen Average treatment effect was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.08|0.88|
91929969|NCT03229759|183757761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.96||||||Tested on the abdomen Analysis was performed based on deferral letters from the FDA. Average treatment effect was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||1.96|0.72|
91929970|NCT03229759|183757761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.47||||||Groin||2.47|1.38|
91768153|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.172||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.991|-0.353|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.353|-1.991|0.005
91768154|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.539|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.149|-1.539|0.107
91811278|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 11: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.1|-1.0|0.0100
91811279|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 12: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.5|<.0001
91811280|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 12: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.2|0.0006
91811281|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 12: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||0.0|-0.8|0.0690
91929971|NCT03229759|183757761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.79||||||Groin||1.79|0.73|
91929972|NCT00762372|183757768|NON_INFERIORITY|Time to extubation = treatment group + surgical site +surgery time|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.7||||||||-2.7|-6.6|
91929973|NCT00762372|183757769|NON_INFERIORITY|"Adjusted means of time from the end of study drug inhalation to extubation in the BLM-240 N2O group and sevoflurane group, which were obtained by analysis of covariance with surgical site and surgery time as covariates, were used to verify the non-inferiority of BLM-240 to the comparator sevoflurane, with a delta = 1.0 (minute) and significance level alpha = 2.5% (one-sided)."||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1500
91929974|NCT00762372|183757770|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sample t-test||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91811282|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 13: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
91929975|NCT00762372|183757774|NON_INFERIORITY|Fisher's exact test||||||0.3113|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3113
91929976|NCT00762372|183757776|NON_INFERIORITY|Fisher's exact test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91929977|NCT01194804|183757780|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.001
91929978|NCT02670915|183757785|NON_INFERIORITY|Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied: Step 1-Primary analysis: HbA1c non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog® both in combination with insulin degludec. Non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was below or equal to 0.4%.|Treatment difference|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03||p-values are from the 1-sided test for non-inferiority evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Multiple imputation|Analyses were adjusted for region, strata (age), as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The primary analysis was implemented as a statistical model using multiple imputation where the participants without any available HbA1c measurements at scheduled visits had their change from baseline HbA1c value (s) imputed from the available information from the treatment the participant had been randomised to.||-0.03|-0.30|<0.001
91929979|NCT02670915|183757785|NON_INFERIORITY|Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied: Step 2-Confirmatory secondary analysis: HbA1c non-inferiority of postmeal faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog® both in combination with insulin degludec. Non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%.|Treatment difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.26||p-values are from the 1-sided test for non-inferiority evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Multiple imputation|Analyses were adjusted for region, strata (age), as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The analysis was implemented as a statistical model using multiple imputation where the participants without any available HbA1c measurements at scheduled visits had their change from baseline HbA1c value(s) imputed from the available information from the treatment the participant had been randomised to.||0.26|-0.01|<0.001
91929980|NCT02670915|183757785|SUPERIORITY|Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied: Step 3-Confirmatory secondary analysis: HbA1c superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog® both in combination with insulin degludec. Superiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below 0.|Treatment difference|-0.17|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03||p-values are from the 1-sided test for superiority evaluated at the 2.5% level.|multiple imputation|Analyses were adjusted for region, strata (age), as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The analysis was implemented as a statistical model using multiple imputation where the participants without any available HbA1c measurements at scheduled visits had their change from baseline HbA1c value(s) imputed from the available information from the treatment the participant had been randomised to.||-0.03|-0.30|=0.007
91929981|NCT00818207|183757865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||2.18|1.23|0.0007
91929982|NCT00818207|183757866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||2.33|1.21|0.0018
91929983|NCT00818207|183757867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.2979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.9||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 39 odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||1.90|0.82|0.2979
91929984|NCT00818207|183757867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.87||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 52 odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||1.87|0.76|0.4388
91929985|NCT00818207|183757868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.2||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||2.20|1.35|<0.0001
91929986|NCT00818207|183757869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.4551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.62||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 52 odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||1.62|0.81|0.4551
91929987|NCT00967226|183757934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||intention to treat analysis||||0.77
91768155|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.648|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.980|-0.648|0.689
91929988|NCT01670656|183757947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||cLDA|||||-0.2|-1.0|< 0.001
91929989|NCT01670656|183757947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||cLDA|||||-0.2|-0.9|< 0.001
91929990|NCT01670656|183757947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||cLDA|||||-0.4|-1.1|< 0.001
91929991|NCT01670656|183757947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||cLDA|||||-0.2|-0.9|< 0.001
91929992|NCT01670656|183757948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.7|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||cLDA|||||-0.4|-3.0|= 0.002
91768156|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.188||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.007|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.630|-1.007|0.651
91768157|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.801|-0.830|0.973
91929993|NCT01670656|183757948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.6|||cLDA|||||-0.6|-3.1|< 0.001
91929994|NCT01670656|183757948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3|||cLDA|||||-0.3|-2.9|= 0.003
91929995|NCT01670656|183757948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.2|||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1|||cLDA|||||0.1|-2.5|= 0.024
91929996|NCT01670656|183757949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.2|-3.4|= 0.026
91929997|NCT01670656|183757949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.5|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.2|-3.3|= 0.036
91929998|NCT01670656|183757949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.3|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.5|||cLDA|||||-0.5|-4.1|= 0.002
91929999|NCT01670656|183757949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Diffference in Least Squares Means|-1.2|||=|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.6|||cLDA|||||0.6|-3.0|= 0.1
91930000|NCT01670656|183757950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1|||=|0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||cLDA|||||0.3|-0.6|= 0.447
91930001|NCT01670656|183757950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||cLDA|||||-0.1|-1.0|= 0.003
91930002|NCT01670656|183757950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||cLDA|||||-0.1|-1.0|= 0.003
91930003|NCT01670656|183757950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.3|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.2|-0.7|= 0.156
91930004|NCT00165841|183757951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The primary analysis was on the ITT population using all observed data collected from Day 1 of the maintenance phase until the endpoint.||Efficacy analyses were based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, which was comprised of all patients in the safety-evaluable population who had a baseline and ≥1 post-randomization primary efficacy endpoint evaluation and who had received ≥1 dose of study medication during the maintenance phase.||||<0.0001
91930005|NCT00487084|183757961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Log Rank|||A sample of 56 was estimated to have an 80% power to detect a 30% difference in the proportion of subjects with continuing analgesia in the MCS versus the SCM groups when 50% of the subjects in the SCM had requested supplemental analgesia. 28 subjects was added to compare the influence of time of morphine and 2-chloroprocaine administration to lidocaine-morphine analgesia. The primary outcome was compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the log-rank test.||||0.006
91930006|NCT00487084|183757961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
91930007|NCT00487084|183757961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.009
91930008|NCT00487084|183757962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91930009|NCT00487084|183757962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91930010|NCT00487084|183757963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.01
91930011|NCT00487084|183757963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.01
91930012|NCT00487084|183757964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.20
91930013|NCT01830543|183757993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<0.001
91930014|NCT01830543|183757993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.8|0.5|<0.001
91768158|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.355||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.461|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.461|-1.170|0.393
91930015|NCT01830543|183757994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.33|0.234
91768159|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.181||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.993|0.632|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.632|-0.993|0.663
91930016|NCT01830543|183757994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.28|0.114
91930017|NCT01830543|183757995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.2|0.144
91930018|NCT01830543|183757995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.2|0.134
91930019|NCT01830543|183757996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.8|0.47|<0.001
91930020|NCT01830543|183757996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.52|0.002
91930021|NCT01830543|183757997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.69|0.75
91930022|NCT01830543|183757997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|0.59|0.765
91930023|NCT01830543|183757998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.8|||Log Rank|||||2.8|0.59|0.523
91930024|NCT01830543|183757998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.62|||Log Rank|||||2.62|0.54|0.664
91930025|NCT01830543|183757999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.46|0.625
91930026|NCT01830543|183757999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.4|0.374
91930027|NCT01830543|183758000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.96|||Log Rank|||||2.96|0.39|0.891
91930028|NCT01830543|183758000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.58|||Log Rank|||||3.58|0.52|0.53
91930029|NCT01830543|183758001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.45|||Log Rank|||||4.45|0.32|0.79
91930030|NCT01830543|183758001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.09|||Log Rank|||||5.09|0.4|0.574
91930031|NCT01151046|183758006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.11|0.003
91930032|NCT01151046|183758006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.88|||Log Rank|||||2.88|0.69|0.349
91930033|NCT00839423|183758043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-2.91||"A hierarchical hypothesis testing procedure was used. The comparison of 10 mg to placebo was primary.~Since p-value was \<0.05, hierarchically testing continued."|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 10 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 6.~With 96 patients in each treatment arm and a standard deviation of 9 points, the power to detect a true effect of 3.7 points on the MADRS total score at Week 6 will be 80%."||-2.91|-8.49|<0.0001
91930034|NCT00839423|183758043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|-3.17||"The hierarchical hypothesis testing meant that comparison of 5 mg to placebo was performed at a 5% significance level since significance was achieved for the primary comparison of 10 mg to placebo.~Since p-value \<0.05, hierarchically testing contd."|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was ANCOVA of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 5 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 6."||-3.17|-8.64|<0.0001
91930035|NCT00839423|183758043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|-3.72||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-3.72|-9.13|<0.0001
91930036|NCT00839423|183758044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.54||"The hierarchical procedure meant that the above hypothesis was tested at a 5% significance level since significance was achieved for both 10 and 5 mg at Week 6.~Since p-value was \>0.05, hierarchically testing stopped here."|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was ANCOVA of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 10 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 1."||0.54|-2.17|0.2377
91930037|NCT00839423|183758044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.7489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.11||The hierarchical procedure meant that the above hypothesis was not tested since significance was not achieved for 10 mg at Week 1. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was ANCOVA of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 5 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 1."||1.11|-1.54|0.7489
91930038|NCT00839423|183758044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.85||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.85|-0.77|0.4142
91930039|NCT00839423|183758045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|-2.88||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-2.88|-7.69|<0.0001
91930040|NCT00839423|183758045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|-2.88||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-2.88|-7.79|<0.0001
91930041|NCT00839423|183758046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|-1.33||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-1.33|-5.27|0.0011
91930042|NCT00839423|183758046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-1.0||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-5.01|0.0034
91768160|NCT03084796|183425154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.643|0.991|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.991|-0.643|0.676
91930043|NCT00839423|183758047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.52||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-1.28|<0.0001
91930044|NCT00839423|183758047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.56||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-1.34|<0.0001
91930045|NCT00839423|183758048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.27||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.90|0.0003
91930046|NCT00839423|183758048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.27||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.92|0.0003
91930047|NCT00839423|183758049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|21.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.89|34.92||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||34.92|8.89|0.002
91930048|NCT00839423|183758049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|23.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.05|36.43||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||36.43|10.05|0.001
91768161|NCT02741245|183425213|OTHER||Difference in M-estimates|-35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-32.0|||Shapiro-Wilk test|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach||||-32.0|-39.9|<0.001
91768162|NCT02741245|183425213|OTHER|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach|Difference in M-estimates|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-11.6|||Shapiro-Wilk test|||||-11.6|-18.0|<0.001
91930049|NCT00839423|183758050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|22.41||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.74|35.07||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||35.07|9.74|0.001
91930050|NCT00839423|183758050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|22.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|35.28||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||35.28|9.39|0.001
91930051|NCT03377244|183758059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of percent change in weight from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.1013
91930052|NCT03377244|183758060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean HbA1c from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment.||||||0.4950
91930053|NCT03377244|183758061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7416||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.7416
91930054|NCT03377244|183758062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0702||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0702
91930055|NCT03377244|183758063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in eating habits self-efficacy scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0070
91930056|NCT03377244|183758064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in physical activity self-efficacy scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0009
91930057|NCT03377244|183758065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis for the probability of participants to engage in sufficient physical activity at 6 months post-intervention.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, employment status, and baseline physical activity.||||||0.3740
91930058|NCT03377244|183758066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9556||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in participants' sugar-sweetened beverage consumption per day from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.9556
91930059|NCT03377244|183758067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1726||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in participants' fruit and vegetable consumption scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.1726
91930060|NCT03377244|183758068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0478||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in participants' family support scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0478
91930061|NCT04348656|183758076|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.43|||wald test|||||1.43|0.94|0.18
91930062|NCT04348656|183758077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.89|0.30
91930063|NCT04348656|183758078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|||0.7|-2.1|0.41
91930064|NCT04348656|183758079|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||wald test|||||1.46|0.86|0.40
91930065|NCT04348656|183758080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-0.3|0.22
91930066|NCT04348656|183758081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|||2.27|0.31|0.72
91930067|NCT04348656|183758084|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.45|||wald test|||||1.45|0.88|0.33
91930068|NCT04348656|183758085|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35|||Regression, Cox|competing risk analysis|competing risk analysis|||1.35|0.76|0.91
91930069|NCT04348656|183758086|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.80|0.18
91930070|NCT04348656|183758087|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.26|||wald test|||||2.26|1.04|0.03
91768163|NCT02741245|183425213|OTHER|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach|Difference in M-estimates|-41.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-37.9|||Shapiro-Wilk test|||||-37.9|-45.8|<0.001
91768164|NCT02741245|183425213|OTHER|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach|Differecne in M-estimates|-13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-10.1|||Shapiro-Wilk test|||||-10.1|-16.6|<0.001
91768165|NCT03799341|183425235|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.177
91930071|NCT04348656|183758087|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.69|||Regression, Cox|competing risk analysis|competing risk analysis|The cumulative incidence of Grade 3 and 4 serious AEs is described as a hazard ratio.||2.69|1.08|0.02
91930072|NCT04348656|183758089|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.57|||wald test|||||1.57|1.02|0.03
91930073|NCT04348656|183758092|OTHER|Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life day gained (ICER)- this is a summary measure of the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, compared to the control group. This is calculated using the cost (derived from cost of the intervention and cost of hospital stay based on the payer's perspective) per patient and the quality-adjusted life days calculated using the EQ-5D-5L results.|ICER (CAD)|-44623.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-525369.24|436123.22|||||ICER is reported in Canadian dollars. 95% CI is calculated by 1000 bootstrap sampling using bias-corrected accelerated method.|||436123.22|-525369.24|
91930074|NCT00922194|183758100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3|<|0.05||95.0|-9.03|-7.72|||Paired t test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months or more and baseline values||-7.72|-9.03|<0.05
91930075|NCT00922194|183758101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||<|0.05||95.0|-3.5|-3.0|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months or more and baseline values||-3.0|-3.5|<0.05
91930076|NCT00922194|183758102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|||<|0.05||95.0|-8.37|-6.47|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-6.47|-8.37|<0.05
91930077|NCT00922194|183758103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|||<|0.05||95.0|-0.02|0.001|||Wilcoxon paired sign rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months or more and baseline values||0.001|-0.02|<0.05
91930078|NCT00922194|183758104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|||<|0.05||95.0|-5.2|-3.8|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-3.8|-5.2|<0.05
91930079|NCT00922194|183758105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|||<|0.05||95.0|-3.57|-2.38|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-2.38|-3.57|<0.05
91930080|NCT00922194|183758106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.37|||<|0.05||95.0|-2.65|-2.08|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-2.08|-2.65|<0.05
91930081|NCT05142332|183758107|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted absolute difference|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|19.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.3|4.5|<0.001
91930082|NCT05142332|183758108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted absolute difference|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.1|1.7|<0.001
91930083|NCT02232087|183758161|EQUIVALENCE|The potency of the test and reference product was considered equivalent if the 90% CI for the estimate of relative potency was completely contained within the limits of 0.67 to 1.50|Odds Ratio, log|1.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.5||test for parallelism of dose response lines|ANOVA||Test is the numerator|The measurement of relative potency was conducted for the pair of doses which met the above criteria and lay on the steepest linear portion of the dose response curve. The log estimate of relative potency was obtained as the ratio of the estimated treatment effect as measured by the difference in the intercepts of the parallel lines divided by the estimate of the common slope for log dose.||1.50|0.67|>0.10
91930084|NCT02232087|183758162|EQUIVALENCE|The potency of the test and reference product was considered equivalent if the 90% CI for the estimate of relative potency was completely contained within the limits of 0.67 to 1.50|Odds Ratio, log|1.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.5||test for parallelism of dose response lines|ANOVA||Test is the numerator|The measurement of relative potency was conducted for the pair of doses which met the above criteria and lay on the steepest linear portion of the dose response curve. The log estimate of relative potency was obtained as the ratio of the estimated treatment effect as measured by the difference in the intercepts of the parallel lines divided by the estimate of the common slope for log dose.||1.50|0.67|>0.10
91930085|NCT02232087|183758163|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||1.4|-2.5|0.55
91930086|NCT02232087|183758163|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||1.3|-2.5|0.53
91930087|NCT02232087|183758163|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||1.3|-2.5|0.011
91930088|NCT02232087|183758164|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.10|-0.03|0.26
91930089|NCT02232087|183758164|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.06|-0.06|0.93
91768166|NCT03799341|183425236|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
91768167|NCT03799341|183425237|OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
91768168|NCT03799341|183425238|OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.384
91768169|NCT03799341|183425239|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.308
91768170|NCT03799341|183425240|OTHER|||||||0.976|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.976
91930090|NCT02232087|183758164|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.08|-0.04|0.48
91930091|NCT02232087|183758165|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||||0.93
91768171|NCT03799341|183425241|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.920
91768172|NCT03799341|183425242|OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.873
91768173|NCT03799341|183425243|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), stimulus condition (3 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||<0.001
91768174|NCT03799341|183425243|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during treatment. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), stimulus condition (3 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||<0.001
91768175|NCT03799341|183425243|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), response accuracy (2 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.022
91768176|NCT03799341|183425243|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during treatment. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), response accuracy (2 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.024
91930092|NCT02232087|183758165|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.093||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.093|-0.224|0.42
91930093|NCT02232087|183758165|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.016||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.016|-0.302|0.078
91930094|NCT02232087|183758166|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||5.7|-3.9|0.71
91930095|NCT02232087|183758166|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.7||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||4.7|-4.7|1.00
91930096|NCT02232087|183758166|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-1.1||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||-1.1|-10.6|0.016
91930097|NCT01106625|183758177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.904|-0.524|||ANCOVA|||||-0.524|-0.904|<0.001
91930098|NCT01106625|183758177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.114|-0.732|||ANCOVA|||||-0.732|-1.114|<0.001
91930099|NCT01106625|183758178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|7.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.87|2.48|<0.001
91930100|NCT01106625|183758178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|15.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.95|4.86|<0.001
91930101|NCT01106625|183758179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.627|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.53|-13.16|||ANCOVA|||||-13.16|-31.53|<0.001
91930102|NCT01106625|183758179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.86|-25.42|||ANCOVA|||||-25.42|-43.86|<0.001
91930103|NCT01106625|183758180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-2.1|<0.001
91930104|NCT01106625|183758180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-2.7|<0.001
91930105|NCT01106625|183758181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.262||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.719|0.241|||ANCOVA|||||0.241|-4.719|0.077
91930106|NCT01106625|183758181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.266||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.111|0.866|||ANCOVA|||||0.866|-4.111|0.201
91930107|NCT01106625|183758182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-16.9|0.256
91930108|NCT01106625|183758182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|7.6|||ANCOVA|||||7.6|-13.8|0.571
91930109|NCT01106625|183758183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|-0.9|0.153
91930110|NCT01106625|183758183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.8|||ANCOVA|||||6.8|-0.1|0.056
91930111|NCT02512068|183758212|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|-0.473|||ANCOVA|||||-0.473|-0.966|<0.0001
91930112|NCT02512068|183758215|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|-0.18||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 2 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.180|-0.385|
91930113|NCT02512068|183758215|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|-0.338||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 4 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.338|-0.621|
91930114|NCT02512068|183758215|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.797|-0.367||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 8 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.367|-0.797|
91930115|NCT02512068|183758215|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|-0.441||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 12 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.441|-0.975|
91930116|NCT02512068|183758215|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.948|-0.452||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at End of Treatment Period I was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.452|-0.948|
91930117|NCT02512068|183758216|OTHER||Point estimate|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.598|9.919||||||The data of participants achieving \<6.0% at the end of Treatment Period I were compared between the treatment groups.||9.919|-6.598|
91930118|NCT02512068|183758216|OTHER||Point estimate|32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.194|51.66||||||The data of participants achieving \<7.0% at the end of Treatment Period I were compared between the treatment groups.||51.660|14.194|
91930119|NCT02512068|183758216|OTHER||Point estimate|45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.528|75.7||||||The data of participants achieving \<8.0% at the end of Treatment Period I were compared between the treatment groups.||75.700|15.528|
91930120|NCT02512068|183758217|OTHER||Point estimate|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.59|-6.88||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 2 was compared between the treatment groups.||-6.88|-23.59|
91930121|NCT02512068|183758217|OTHER||Point estimate|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|3.58||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 4 was compared between the treatment groups.||3.58|-20.98|
91930122|NCT02512068|183758217|OTHER||Point estimate|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.76|2.11||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 8 was compared between the treatment groups.||2.11|-18.76|
91930123|NCT02512068|183758217|OTHER||Point estimate|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.14|-4.03||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 12 was compared between the treatment groups.||-4.03|-27.14|
91930124|NCT02512068|183758217|OTHER||Point estimate|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|-4.62||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at End of Treatment Period I was compared between the treatment groups.||-4.62|-26.67|
91930125|NCT02512068|183758218|OTHER||Point estimate|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.184|-1.34||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 2 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.340|-2.184|
91930126|NCT02512068|183758218|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.45||||||95.0|-3.03|-1.87||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 4 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.870|-3.030|
91930127|NCT02512068|183758218|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.289|-1.679||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 8 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.679|-3.289|
91930128|NCT02512068|183758218|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.608|-1.715||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 12 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.715|-3.608|
91930129|NCT02512068|183758218|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.608|-1.715||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at End of Treatment Period I was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.715|-3.608|
91930130|NCT02458690|183758225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.60
91930131|NCT02458690|183758226|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||<0.01
91930132|NCT02458690|183758227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.81
91930133|NCT02458690|183758228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.20
91930134|NCT02458690|183758229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.09
91930135|NCT02458690|183758230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.23
91930136|NCT02458690|183758231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.09
91930137|NCT04026412|183758232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.77|1.19|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.19|0.77|0.6460
91930138|NCT04026412|183758233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.41||||||||1.41|0.87|
91930139|NCT04026412|183758233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||||||||1.22|0.75|
91768177|NCT03799341|183425244|OTHER|||||||0.973|||||||ANOVA|||No violations of normality assumptions were identified. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. To maintain consistency with other outcome measures, a median split approach was used to examine the potential influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included two factors: time (2 levels) and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.973
91930140|NCT04026412|183758233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.48||||||||1.48|0.91|
91930141|NCT04026412|183758234|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05||||||||1.05|0.69|
91930142|NCT04026412|183758234|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.42||||||||1.42|0.93|
91930143|NCT04026412|183758235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|10.6||||||||10.6|-4.1|
91930144|NCT04026412|183758235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.8||||||||14.8|0.7|
91930145|NCT04026412|183758235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|2.5||||||||2.5|-11.8|
91930146|NCT04026412|183758238|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23||||||||1.23|0.82|
91930147|NCT04026412|183758238|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||||||||1.05|0.70|
91930148|NCT04026412|183758238|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.44||||||||1.44|0.95|
91930149|NCT04026412|183758239|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.1||||||||11.1|-4.1|
91930150|NCT04026412|183758239|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.9||||||||12.9|-2.0|
91930151|NCT04026412|183758239|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.6||||||||5.6|-9.5|
91930152|NCT04026412|183758242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.23||||||||1.23|0.76|
91930153|NCT04026412|183758242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.06||||||||1.06|0.65|
91930154|NCT04026412|183758242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.49||||||||1.49|0.91|
91930155|NCT00830037|183758245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3||a = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Wald test||The analysis of the primary outcome was intention to treat, if the patient received at least one dose of the randomized drug (which was the case for each subject). A linear mixed model was used with GFR as the outcome variable. Fixed effects were indicator variables for time (treated as a continuous variable), treatment, and their interaction. Random effects were subject and time with unstructured covariance; statistical inference was made using the maximum likelihood estimator.||2.3|-2.9|0.79
91930156|NCT00830037|183758246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.365||a = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Wald test||The secondary analysis examined the mean change from baseline proteinuria (log protein to creatinine ratio) at 2 years. The between-groups difference in mean change from baseline is reported with a 95% confidence interval and the p-value from the Wald test.||0.365|-0.294|0.83
91930157|NCT04360187|183758253|SUPERIORITY||LS mean of difference|-17.13||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.98|-8.27|||Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||-8.27|-25.98|0.0002
91930158|NCT04360187|183758257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|23.1|||normal approximation to response rates||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||23.1|2.8|0.0124
91930159|NCT04360187|183758258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|20.3|||normal approximation to response rates||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||20.3|3.1|0.0078
91930160|NCT04360187|183758259|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.79||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.33|||Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||-0.33|-1.26|0.0009
91930161|NCT05372575|183758282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% confidential interval (CI) on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|13.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|19.28|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||19.28|8.99|
91930162|NCT05372575|183758282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|8.01|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||8.01|4.32|
91930163|NCT05372575|183758282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|26.78|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||26.78|12.07|
91930164|NCT05372575|183758282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.08|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||3.08|1.90|
91930165|NCT05372575|183758282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.68|8.61|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||8.61|4.68|
91930166|NCT05372575|183758282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|6.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|8.97|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||8.97|4.92|
91930167|NCT05372575|183758282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|12.83|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||12.83|6.91|
91930168|NCT05372575|183758282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|5.1|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||5.10|2.96|
91930169|NCT05372575|183758282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|62.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.16|96.12|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||96.12|40.16|
91930170|NCT05372575|183758282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|16.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.22|23.89|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||23.89|11.22|
91768178|NCT03799341|183425244|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||ANOVA|||No violations of normality assumptions were identified. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. To maintain consistency with other outcome measures, a median split approach was used to examine the potential influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during the 12-week treatment interval. The design included two factors: time (2 levels) and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.662
91930171|NCT05372575|183758282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|5.62|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||5.62|3.22|
91930172|NCT05372575|183758282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|8.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|12.21|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||12.21|6.24|
91930173|NCT05372575|183758282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.15|11.29|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||11.29|6.15|
91930174|NCT05372575|183758283|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMR (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|9.86|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||9.86|2.32|
91930175|NCT05372575|183758283|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|17.39|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||17.39|4.72|
91930176|NCT05372575|183758283|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|14.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|33.05|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||33.05|6.25|
91930177|NCT05372575|183758283|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|18.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.84|36.8|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||36.80|8.84|
91930178|NCT05372575|183758283|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|33.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.33|80.13|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||80.13|14.33|
91930179|NCT05372575|183758283|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|14.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|32.52|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||32.52|6.07|
91930180|NCT05372575|183758283|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|16.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.85|36.76|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||36.76|7.85|
91930181|NCT05372575|183758283|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|19.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|40.84|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||40.84|9.13|
91930182|NCT05372575|183758283|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.74|23.1|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||23.10|4.74|
91930183|NCT05372575|183758283|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|12.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.51|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||24.51|6.00|
91768179|NCT03799341|183425245|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the potential influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included 3 factors: time (2 levels), condition (2 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time, condition, and median split group.||||0.878
91768180|NCT03799341|183425245|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the potential influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during treatment. The design included 3 factors: time (2 levels), condition (2 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time, condition, and median split group.||||0.645
91930184|NCT05372575|183758283|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|23.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.94|51.1|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||51.10|10.94|
91930185|NCT05372575|183758283|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.65|35.93|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||35.93|8.65|
91768181|NCT01116648|183425246|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cediranib|||||
91930186|NCT05372575|183758283|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|44.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.11|103.43|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||103.43|19.11|
91930187|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.42|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||1.42|0.16|
91930188|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.98|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||1.98|0.27|
91930189|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.19|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||2.19|0.21|
91930190|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.86|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||1.86|0.36|
91930191|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.89|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||1.89|0.25|
91768182|NCT01116648|183425246|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg BID)|200.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Olaparib|||||
91930192|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.07|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||2.07|0.27|
91930193|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.09|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||1.09|0.16|
91930194|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.81|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||1.81|0.35|
91930195|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.24|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||2.24|0.20|
91930196|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.65|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||1.65|0.22|
91930197|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.93|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||3.93|0.61|
91768183|NCT01116648|183425248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.83|||Kaplan-Meier Plot|||||0.83|0.30|0.006
91768184|NCT05579977|183425301|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-1.20|<.0001
91768185|NCT05579977|183425301|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.04|-1.55|<.0001
91768186|NCT05579977|183425301|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|||<|0.0001||90.0|-1.62|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.11|-1.62|<.0001
91768187|NCT05579977|183425301|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.01|-1.52|<.0001
91768188|NCT05579977|183425301|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001||90.0|-1.55|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.03|-1.55|<.0001
91930198|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.99|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||4.99|0.65|
91930199|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.31|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||1.31|0.17|
91930200|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.38|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||1.38|0.31|
91930201|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.24|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||1.24|0.40|
91930202|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.59|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||1.59|0.33|
91930203|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||1.25|0.52|
91930204|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||1.52|0.57|
91930205|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.47|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||2.47|0.95|
91768189|NCT05579977|183425301|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.12|<.0001
91768190|NCT05579977|183425302|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.44||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.88|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-3.88|0.0055
91768191|NCT05579977|183425302|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.84|-2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.89|-5.84|<.0001
91930206|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.34|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||1.34|0.41|
91930207|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.57|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||1.57|0.34|
91930208|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.18|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||1.18|0.16|
91768192|NCT05579977|183425302|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|-4.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.18|-7.07|<.0001
91768193|NCT05579977|183425302|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.58|-6.50|<.0001
91768194|NCT05579977|183425302|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.91|-3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.93|-6.91|<.0001
91768195|NCT05579977|183425305|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.12|<.0001
91768196|NCT01420926|183425330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Stratified 1-sided log-rank|||||||0.30
91768197|NCT00932321|183425336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary hypothesis tested was the independence (lack of association) of mean number of IB days in Cycles 2-6 across treatment groups.||||||0.311|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by investigational site.||||||0.311
91768198|NCT04564846|183425337|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.974||||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.011|||Analysis of Covariance||Estimated Difference from Placebo Across All Time Points. Log transformed values analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment and time point as effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Comparison to Placebo Across All Time Points||1.011|0.938|0.1628
91930209|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.4|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||1.40|0.25|
91930210|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.23|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||1.23|0.50|
91930211|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.18|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||2.18|0.60|
91930212|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.72|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||1.72|0.68|
91930213|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|43.49|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 1||43.49|2.44|
91930214|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|18.42|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 3||18.42|2.07|
91930215|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|80.37|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 4||80.37|4.35|
91930216|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|5.52|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 5||5.52|1.14|
91930217|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|11.8|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||11.80|2.33|
91930218|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|9.65|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||9.65|1.47|
91930219|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|21.36|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||21.36|1.65|
91930220|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|16.87|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||16.87|1.17|
91768199|NCT04564846|183425339|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.784||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.017|||Analysis of Covariance|||Estimated Difference from Placebo Across All Time Points|Log transformed values analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment and time point as effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|1.017|0.605|0.0674
91930221|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.67|494.56|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 14||494.56|16.67|
91930222|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|83.78|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||83.78|3.79|
91930223|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|8.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|18.3|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||18.30|3.60|
91930224|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|15.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.64|50.35|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||50.35|4.64|
91930225|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|10.25|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||10.25|1.72|
91768200|NCT04564846|183425340|OTHER|Log transformed values analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment and time point as effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Risk Ratio, log|1.067||||0.8182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.167|||Analysis of Covariance|||Estimated Difference from Placebo Across All Time Points.||1.167|0.976|0.8182
91768201|NCT04564846|183425341|OTHER|AUC Parameters analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment as the main effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Risk Ratio, log|1.007||||0.8182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.066|||Analysis of Covariance|||||1.066|0.951|0.8182
91768202|NCT04564846|183425342|OTHER||Analysis of Variance|0.4628|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Parameter analyzed using an Analysis of Variance model with treatment as the main effect.||||||||
91811283|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 13: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
91930226|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|13.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.14|21.23|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 1||21.23|9.14|
91930227|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|8.24|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 3||8.24|4.17|
91930228|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|19.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|31.15|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 4||31.15|12.80|
91768203|NCT00762359|183425361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0989|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0425|0.23|||Log Rank|||||0.2300|0.0425|<0.0001
91811284|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 13: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0054
91768204|NCT00762359|183425362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91768205|NCT00762359|183425363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91768206|NCT00762359|183425364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
91768207|NCT00762359|183425365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0433
91768208|NCT00762359|183425367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91768209|NCT00762359|183425368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
91768210|NCT00762359|183425369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0025
91768211|NCT00762359|183425370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
91768212|NCT00762359|183425372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91768213|NCT00762359|183425373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6148||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6148
91768214|NCT00762359|183425374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8050
91930229|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.24|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 5||3.24|1.87|
91930230|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|7.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|10.03|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||10.03|5.05|
91930231|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|10.92|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||10.92|5.54|
91930232|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.61|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||14.61|7.40|
91930233|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|5.47|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||5.47|3.04|
91930234|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|60.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.25|97.67|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 14||97.67|37.25|
91930235|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.37|26.47|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||26.47|11.37|
91930236|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.62|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||5.62|3.00|
91930237|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|14.08|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||14.08|6.65|
91930238|NCT05372575|183758284|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|13.64|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||13.64|6.90|
91930239|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.91|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||3.91|0.06|
91768215|NCT00762359|183425375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8678||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8678
91768216|NCT00762359|183425376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2688||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2688
91768217|NCT00762359|183425378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7054||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7054
91768218|NCT00762359|183425379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3400
91768219|NCT00762359|183425380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8813||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8813
91768220|NCT00762359|183425381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1862||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1862
91768221|NCT00762359|183425383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8604||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8604
91768222|NCT00762359|183425384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5485||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5485
91768223|NCT00762359|183425385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7382||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7382
91811285|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 14: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
91930240|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.92|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||2.92|0.10|
91930241|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.07|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||2.07|0.10|
91930242|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|11.75|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||11.75|0.27|
91930243|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.65|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||1.65|0.03|
91930244|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.44|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||0.44|0.01|
91930245|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.65|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||2.65|0.56|
91768224|NCT00762359|183425386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7619||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7619
91768225|NCT00762359|183425388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0204||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0204
91768226|NCT00762359|183425389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0046
91768227|NCT00762359|183425390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0059
91768228|NCT00762359|183425391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1229||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1229
91768229|NCT00762359|183425393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2694||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2694
91768230|NCT00762359|183425394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0141
91768231|NCT00762359|183425395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3128||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3128
91768232|NCT00762359|183425396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1450
91768233|NCT00762359|183425398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6175||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6175
91768234|NCT00762359|183425399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4496||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4496
91768235|NCT00762359|183425400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4718||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4718
91768236|NCT00762359|183425401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4484||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4484
91768237|NCT00762359|183425403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2604||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2604
91768238|NCT00762359|183425404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6818||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6818
91768239|NCT00762359|183425405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9015||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9015
91768240|NCT00762359|183425406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4497||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4497
91768241|NCT04233008|183425433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91768242|NCT04233008|183425434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91768243|NCT04233008|183425435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91768244|NCT04233008|183425436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
91768245|NCT04233008|183425437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91768246|NCT04233008|183425439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
91768247|NCT00416624|183425445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the hematopoietic response rate in the standard therapy group is far from 50% (\<25% or \>75%), the\> above sample size will provide an 80% power to detect a difference as small as\> 25%.|||||>|0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 80 patients per treatment arm, there will be\> about 80% power to detect a difference through Fisher's exact test across two\> treatment arms of 25% in the true percentage of patients that experience a\> hematopoietic response as defined previously, if that percentage is at least 30% in\> the superior group, again with a 1.7% type I error rate.||||>0.41
91768248|NCT00416624|183425447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 80 patients per arm will provide\> 80% power to detect differences between average hemoglobin levels in the\> reference arm and another treatment of 50% of the standard deviation. Note that\> typically one would expect the estimates for the standard deviation at a single time\> point to differ from the standard deviation for the difference from baseline.|||||>|0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.13
91930246|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.26|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||1.26|0.03|
91930247|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.55|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||1.55|0.08|
91930248|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.47|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||4.47|0.15|
91930249|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|9.44|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||9.44|0.19|
91768249|NCT00416624|183425449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the hematopoietic response rate in the standard therapy group is far from 50% (\<25% or \>75%), the\> above sample size will provide an 80% power to detect a difference as small as\> 25%.|||||>|0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 80 patients per treatment arm, there will be\> about 80% power to detect a difference through Fisher's exact test across two\> treatment arms of 25% in the true percentage of patients that experience a\> hematopoietic response as defined previously, if that percentage is at least 30% in\> the superior group, again with a 1.7% type I error rate.||||>0.49
91768250|NCT00416624|183425452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the hematopoietic response rate in the standard therapy group is far from 50% (\<25% or \>75%), the above sample size will provide an 80% power to detect a difference as small as 25%.|||||>|0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 80 patients per treatment arm, there will be about 80% power to detect a difference through Fisher's exact test across two treatment arms of 25% in the true percentage of patients that experience a hematopoietic response as defined previously, if that percentage is at least 30% in the superior group, again with a 1.7% type I error rate.||||>0.56
91768251|NCT01173016|183425476|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Impact of anti-laronidase antibody status on the change in 6MWT outcome was tested||||0.038
91768252|NCT04245111|183425484|OTHER|No other statistical analysis completed other than percentage of patients completed as reported in the data table section||||||||||||||||No other statistical analysis completed other than percentage of patients completed as reported in the data table section|No other statistical analysis completed other than percentage of patients completed as reported in the data table section|||
91930250|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|22.42|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||22.42|0.67|
91768253|NCT02792231|183425508|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.56|||negative binomial regression model|||Obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression model with log-link to the number of relapses, adjusted for treatment and region as factors, number of relapses in previous year, baseline EDSS, baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions and the patient's age at baseline as covariates. The natural log of the time-in-study was used as offset to annualize the relapse rate.||0.560|0.309|<0.001
91768254|NCT02792231|183425509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.863|||Regression, Cox|||Pooled data - this study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.863|0.500|0.003
91768255|NCT02792231|183425510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.662||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.977|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.977|0.449|0.038
91768256|NCT02792231|183425511|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.676||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.917|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.917|0.498|0.012
91768257|NCT02792231|183425512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.174|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||1.174|0.490|0.215
91768258|NCT02792231|183425513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.928|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||1.928|0.952|0.092
91930251|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.52|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||1.52|0.05|
91930252|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.07|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||3.07|0.19|
91930253|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.46|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||2.46|0.42|
91930254|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.73|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||3.73|0.05|
91930255|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.73|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||2.73|0.15|
91930256|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.99|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||6.99|0.11|
91930257|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|12.51|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||12.51|0.29|
91930258|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|17.43|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||17.43|0.34|
91930259|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.7|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||7.70|0.27|
91930260|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.41|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||17.41|0.30|
91930261|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.97|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||2.97|0.14|
91930262|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|8.21|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||8.21|0.28|
91930263|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.97|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||2.97|0.13|
91768259|NCT02792231|183425514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.523||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|2.477|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||2.477|0.936|0.090
91768260|NCT02792231|183425515|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.061|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.101|||negative binomial regression model|||||0.101|0.037|<.001
91768261|NCT02792231|183425516|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.27|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 12||0.27|0.17|<.001
91768262|NCT02792231|183425516|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.31|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 24||0.31|0.12|<.001
91768263|NCT02792231|183425516|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.19|||negative binomial regression model|||End of Study||0.19|0.13|<.001
91930264|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|10.24|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||10.24|0.15|
91930265|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|23.91|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 1||23.91|0.41|
91930266|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|17.39|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 3||17.39|1.45|
91930267|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|141.81|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 4||141.81|1.32|
91930268|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|48.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.16|380.54|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 5||380.54|6.16|
91930269|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|229.1|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||229.10|0.48|
91930270|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|19.83|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||19.83|0.02|
91930271|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|55.96|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||55.96|1.98|
91930272|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|56.82|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||56.82|0.19|
91930273|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|63.12|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 14||63.12|0.06|
91768264|NCT02792231|183425517|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 3||0.93|0.85|<.001
91768265|NCT02792231|183425517|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 12||0.79|0.70|<.001
91768266|NCT02792231|183425517|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 24||0.81|0.71|<.001
91768267|NCT02792231|183425518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15|||random coefficient model|||||0.15|-0.02|0.128
91768268|NCT02792231|183425521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|0.847|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.847|0.486|0.002
91768269|NCT02792231|183425522|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.898|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.898|0.481|0.008
91768270|NCT00558246|183425549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (when subtracting the percentage of DERMABOND PROTAPE successful subjects from the percentage of INTRADERMAL SUTURE successful subjects) does not exceed 12%.|Differences in proportion of successes|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.9|||McNemar||The level of significance for statistical testing was 0.05 for this study.|||5.9|-5.9|1.0000
91768271|NCT00558246|183425550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91768272|NCT00558246|183425551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91930274|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|16.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|123.48|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||123.48|2.15|
91930275|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|24.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|367.81|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||367.81|1.59|
91930276|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|95.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.08|691.01|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||691.01|13.08|
91930277|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|171.84|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||171.84|0.64|
91930278|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|10.96|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 1||10.96|2.15|
91930279|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|20.36|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 3||20.36|4.50|
91930280|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|34.51|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 4||34.51|5.20|
91930281|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.76|37.91|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 5||37.91|7.76|
91930282|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.16|106.65|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||106.65|15.16|
91768273|NCT00558246|183425552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2266|||||||McNemar|||||||0.2266
91768274|NCT00558246|183425553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5078||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.5078
91768275|NCT00861705|183425566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||The study was designed to detect an increase in the incidence of pCR from 35% in the control arm to 55% in the experimental arm using a 1-sided chi square test of proportions. With a target sample of 362 patients and assuming a 10% dropout rate, an overall assessable sample size of 326 patients resulted in \> 95% power.||||0.0018
91768276|NCT00861705|183425567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0089|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||The study was designed to detect an increase in the incidence of pCR from 35% in the control arm to 55% in the experimental arm using a 1-sided chi square test of proportions. With a target sample of 362 patients and assuming a 10% dropout rate, an overall assessable sample size of 326 patients resulted in \> 95% power.||||0.0089
91768277|NCT00861705|183425568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0029|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||||||0.0029
91768278|NCT00861705|183425569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||||||0.057
91768279|NCT00861705|183425573|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.1||||||||2.10|0.67|
91768280|NCT00861705|183425573|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.47||||||||2.47|0.82|
91768281|NCT00861705|183425573|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.37||||||||1.37|0.49|
91768282|NCT00861705|183425574|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.75||||||||1.75|0.66|
91768283|NCT00861705|183425574|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.92||||||||1.92|0.74|
91768284|NCT00861705|183425574|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.37||||||||1.37|0.49|
91768285|NCT00861705|183425575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.03||||||||2.03|0.66|
91768286|NCT00861705|183425575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.16||||||||2.16|0.72|
91768287|NCT00861705|183425575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.7||||||||1.70|0.53|
91930283|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|20.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.39|49.51|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||49.51|8.39|
91930284|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|21.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.65|52.07|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||52.07|8.65|
91930285|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|23.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.39|54.19|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||54.19|10.39|
91930286|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|12.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.46|30.22|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 14||30.22|5.46|
91930287|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|12.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|27.88|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||27.88|5.95|
91930288|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.46|63.58|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||63.58|11.46|
91930289|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|15.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.02|34.38|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||34.38|7.02|
91930290|NCT05372575|183758285|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|48.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.67|127.16|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||127.16|18.67|
91930291|NCT03345836|183758297|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|25.8||P-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH risk difference estimate.|||25.8|10.0|<0.0001
91930292|NCT03345836|183758298|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|37.0||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH risk difference estimate.|||37.0|25.5|<0.0001
91930293|NCT03345836|183758300|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|33.1||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||33.1|18.7|<0.0001
91768288|NCT04864249|183425593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91930294|NCT03345836|183758301|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.6||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||21.6|12.0|<0.0001
91768289|NCT04864249|183425594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91768290|NCT04864249|183425595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
91768291|NCT04864249|183425596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91768292|NCT04864249|183425597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91768293|NCT04864249|183425598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
91768294|NCT04864249|183425599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91768295|NCT04864249|183425600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91768296|NCT04864249|183425601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91768297|NCT04864249|183425602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
91768298|NCT04864249|183425603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
91768299|NCT04864249|183425604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
91930295|NCT03345836|183758302|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|22.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|34.0||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||34.0|11.1|0.0001
91930296|NCT03345836|183758303|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.8||P-value was calculated using mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors in the model.|MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using MMRM.|||9.8|5.2|< 0.0001
91930297|NCT03345836|183758304|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|31.5||P-value was calculated using MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors in the model.|MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using MMRM.|||31.5|17.2|< 0.0001
91930298|NCT03345836|183758305|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|27.8||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||27.8|13.7|<0.0001
91930299|NCT03345836|183758306|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|31.2||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||31.2|14.4|<0.0001
91930300|NCT03345836|183758307|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|12.1||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|19.5||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||19.5|4.7|0.0013
91930301|NCT03345836|183758308|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.6||||0.2834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.4||P-value was calculated using Chi-squared test.|Chi-squared||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using Chi-squared test.|||2.4|-7.6|0.2834
91930302|NCT03345836|183758309|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|11.5||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|24.4||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||24.4|-1.5|0.0833
91930303|NCT00952289|183758336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint analyzed with a 2-sided alpha of 0.05.||||<0.0001
91768300|NCT04864249|183425605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91811286|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 14: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.3|<.0001
91930304|NCT03259334|183758347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.617
91930305|NCT03259334|183758347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.018
91930306|NCT03259334|183758348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.253
91768301|NCT04864249|183425606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91930307|NCT03259334|183758348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.002
91811287|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.65||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 14: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.1|0.0036
91930308|NCT03259334|183758349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline||||||0.764
91930309|NCT03259334|183758349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.080
91930310|NCT03259334|183758350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.440
91930311|NCT03259334|183758350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline||||||0.002
91930312|NCT03259334|183758351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline||||||0.286
91930313|NCT03259334|183758351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.005
91768302|NCT04864249|183425607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
91768303|NCT04864249|183425608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
91768304|NCT04864249|183425609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91768305|NCT04864249|183425610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91768306|NCT04864249|183425611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
91768307|NCT04864249|183425612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91768308|NCT04864249|183425613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91768309|NCT04864249|183425614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
91768310|NCT04864249|183425615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91930314|NCT00777491|183758382|OTHER|There was no formal comparison of the two treatment arms.||||||||||||||||The confidence interval of the rate was calculated by Clopper-Pearson's exact binomial confidence intervals methods with one-sided type I error of 0.1. The study required 32 analyzable patients in each arm, which would warrant a 10% chance of observing a percentage of patients without distant metastasis by 3 years of less than 75% if the true rate was 86%. With the actual number of evaluable patients, the study instead warrants a 13-14% chance.|If the percentage of patients without distant metastasis by 3 years for either arm was greater than or equal to 75%, then it would be strongly considered as a potential arm in a subsequent phase III study, assuming treatment delivery and adverse events (AEs) were acceptable. If both arms met the criteria, then the treatment arm with less toxicity would be chosen.|||
91930315|NCT00777491|183758385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.493||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.881||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Univariate analysis|Reference arm = 5-FU and Cisplatin + BID Irradiation|||1.881|0.129|0.30
91930316|NCT00777491|183758386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|5.277||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Univariable analysis|Reference arm = 5-FU and Cisplatin + BID irradiation|||5.277|0.426|0.75
91930317|NCT02227329|183758391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91930318|NCT02669862|183758432|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline values were the covariate||"In this table Study Day 01 / Visit 2 has been considered as Baseline visit for calculating mean and mean change.~PVal\*- ANCOVA used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group using baseline values as the covariate."||||0.555
91930319|NCT02669862|183758432|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||PVal\*- ANCOVA used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group using baseline values as the covariate. No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||"In this table Study Day 01 / Visit 2 has been considered as Baseline visit for calculating mean and mean change.~PVal\*- ANCOVA used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group using baseline values as the covariate."||||0.009
91930320|NCT02669862|183758434|OTHER|||||||0.9313||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||PVal\*- Chi-Square test used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group||||0.9313
91930321|NCT02669862|183758434|OTHER|||||||0.0236||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||0.0236
91930322|NCT00078559|183758471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with acute rejection|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.34|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.34|0.01|
91930323|NCT00078559|183758472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with acute rejection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.3|0.0|
91930324|NCT00078559|183758473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with acute rejection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.7|0.0|
91768311|NCT04864249|183425616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
91768312|NCT04864249|183425617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91930325|NCT00078559|183758476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.3|0.0|
91930326|NCT00078559|183758477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for all participants (n=10)||||0.3|0.0|
91930327|NCT00078559|183758478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Not Withdrawn Group||||0.4|0.0|
91930328|NCT00078559|183758478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Withdrawn Group||||0.8|0.0|
91930329|NCT00078559|183758479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Not Withdrawn Group||||0.4|0.0|
91930330|NCT00078559|183758479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Withdrawn Group||||0.8|0.0|
91930331|NCT01694420|183758488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Study data compared to data as cited in PubMed ID: 21487250|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91930332|NCT03621943|183758500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|5.37|||hierarchical generalized linear mixed mo|hierarchical generalized linear mixed models||Total score on the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd ed.||5.37|-6.36|0.87
91930333|NCT01716533|183758526|SUPERIORITY||GMC ratio|1.53||||0.5746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|7.14||P-value = two-sided p-value for HO: GMC ratio = 1 (ANOVA model, T-test), groups considered as statistically significant different if the two-sided p-value is below 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA model -pooled variance.|GMC ratio = GMC Sustained response Group /GMC Recurrence Group.|ELISA anti-toxin B antibody concentrations at Day 14 were compared between the Sustained response Group and Recurrence Group by using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log-transformed concentration.||7.14|0.33|0.5746
91930334|NCT01716533|183758527|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA model -pooled variance.|GMC ratio|1.65||||0.7124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|26.41||P-value = two-sided p-value for HO: GMC ratio = 1, groups considered as statistically significant different if the two-sided p-value is below 0.05.|ANOVA||GMC ratio = GMC Sustained response Group /GMC Recurrence Group.|Serum F2 C-terminal anti-toxin B antibody concentrations at Day 14 were compared between the Sustained response Group and Recurrence Group by using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log-transformed concentration.||26.41|0.10|0.7124
91930335|NCT01575197|183758538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
91930336|NCT01575197|183758539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
91930337|NCT01575197|183758540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
91768313|NCT04864249|183425618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
91768314|NCT04864249|183425619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91768315|NCT04864249|183425620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91768316|NCT04864249|183425621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
91768317|NCT04864249|183425622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91768318|NCT04864249|183425623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91768319|NCT04864249|183425624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
91768320|NCT04864249|183425625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91768321|NCT04864249|183425626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91768322|NCT04864249|183425627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91930338|NCT01575197|183758541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
91930339|NCT01000727|183758545|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.91|1.09||Statistical significance of this p-value is based on the alpha-spending function of this study.|Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.09|0.91|0.929
91930340|NCT01000727|183758546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.9|1.09||Statistical significance of this p-value is based on the alpha-spending function of this study.|Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.09|0.90|0.777
91930341|NCT01000727|183758547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.08||Statistical significance of this p-value is based on the alpha-spending function of this study.|Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.08|0.76|0.274
91930342|NCT01000727|183758548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.09|0.86|0.631
91768323|NCT04864249|183425628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91768324|NCT04678115|183425643|OTHER|Power Calculation: Sample size was estimated based on the treatment condition (three-level factor) effect size on the spontaneous blink IPF measurements (0.55) after eight participants had completed the crossover using one-way analysis of variance power calculation. This led to a sample size of 12 participants with power of 0.80 and type II error of alpha 0.05. To account for possible attrition, 16 were enrolled, with 15 completing the crossover.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects regression was used to determine the effect of treatment condition on the spontaneous blink and resting state open IPF, with participant as random intercept. Covariates of age, gender, blink sequence, and crossover order were investigated alone, and significant (P \< 0.05) covariates were included in the final model, from which the estimated marginal means and their 95% confidence interval were reported. Hypothesis: MLP allows a more complete spontaneous blink.||||<0.001
91768325|NCT04678115|183425644|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis was that both devices (MLP and KFTS) would open the eye equally well, and that both would be better than sham treatment.||||0.001
91811288|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Overall: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.5|<.0001
91811289|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Overall: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.1|<.0001
91930343|NCT01000727|183758549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.42|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.42|0.88|0.354
91930344|NCT01000727|183758550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.05|0.73|0.161
91930345|NCT01000727|183758551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.31|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.31|0.91|0.360
91930346|NCT01000727|183758552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.03|0.88|0.202
91930347|NCT01000727|183758553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.05|0.87|0.329
91930348|NCT01000727|183758554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.08|0.90|0.797
91930349|NCT01000727|183758555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.07|0.87|0.546
91930350|NCT01000727|183758556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.08|0.81|0.362
91930351|NCT02059213|183758584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Fisher Exact|Mid P-value||With 20 patients treated with ADT and 40 treated with ADT + palbociclib there is a 64.2% power to detect a 20% difference in proportions with a one-sided type I error of 0.10 using the mid p-value method of the Fisher's exact test.||||0.87
91930352|NCT02059213|183758586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91930353|NCT02059213|183758587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|Mid p-value||||||0.50
91930354|NCT02059213|183758588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.72
91930355|NCT02059213|183758589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.76
91930356|NCT02338492|183758592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.615||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons as the second co-primary endpoint will only be tested if the p-value for VAS improvement is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model employed, including the baseline VAS score. Missing values will be imputed.||Null hypothesis: Mean improvement in VAS over 90 days \<= 53.8 (i.e. 80% of reference based on historical control data). The study was powered to 80% with 68 evaluable subjects, a standard deviation of 13.3 at each visit, a true mean improvement from baseline VAS across post-baseline visits of 57 and a within-patient correlation of VAS of 0.4. The historical control data comes from 4 selected articles (Gregory et al. 2011, Kim et al. 2011, Deschamps et al. 2012, and Pretell et al. 2010).||||0.615
91768326|NCT04678115|183425645|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||test of proportionality|||A test of proportionality was performed to determine the effect of the three treatments on the probability of the eyelid not fully closing.||||0.001
91768327|NCT02552966|183425659|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This t-test was applied to determine if the mean salivary pepsin concentration changed between baseline and 2 week post UESAD measurements.||||||0.61
91930357|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||100|96|
91768328|NCT02552966|183425660|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91768329|NCT02552966|183425661|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91768330|NCT02552966|183425662|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91811290|NCT00333866|183497610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Overall: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.0|<.0001
91811291|NCT00333866|183497611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. Logistic regression method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.95|0.71|0.5370
91811292|NCT00333866|183497611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. Logistic regression method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||3.18|1.16|0.0109
91811293|NCT00333866|183497611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. Logistic regression method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.68|0.61|0.9613
91768331|NCT03483896|183425685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91811294|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-12.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|-7.86|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Disturbance: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-7.86|-17.56|<.0001
91811295|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.18|-8.38|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Disturbance: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-8.38|-18.18|<.0001
91811296|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.2||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-2.33|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Disturbance: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-2.33|-12.06|0.0038
91811297|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.9||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.61|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||10.61|1.19|0.0142
91930358|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||100|96|
91811298|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.92||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|9.66|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.66|0.19|0.0414
91811299|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.21||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|5.95|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.95|-3.53|0.6165
91811300|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.24||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|-4.05|||ANCOVA|||Shortness of Breath, Headache: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-4.05|-14.44|0.0005
91811301|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.92|||<|0.0001||95.0|-17.17|-6.68|||ANCOVA|||Shortness of Breath, Headache: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-6.68|-17.17|<.0001
91811302|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.95||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.16|-3.74|||ANCOVA|||Shortness of Breath, Headache: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-3.74|-14.16|0.0008
91811303|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.36||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Quantity of Sleep: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.64|0.08|0.0127
91768332|NCT03483896|183425686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
91768333|NCT02365649|183425687|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|9.9||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|20.1||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.1|-0.3|0.056
91768334|NCT02365649|183425687|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.4||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.4|-1.6|0.108
91768335|NCT02365649|183425687|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.7||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.8||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|-1.5|0.099
91768336|NCT02365649|183425687|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|21.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|35.2||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.2|6.8|0.004
91768337|NCT02365649|183425687|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|25.5||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.5|1.8|0.025
91930359|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||100|93|
91930360|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Safety Success||100|93|
91930361|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||100|93|
91930362|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 30: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||100|93|
91930363|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 30: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||99|90|
91768338|NCT02365649|183425688|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.5||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|17.3||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.3|-12.3|0.74
91768339|NCT02365649|183425688|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|16.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|34.3||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|-2.0|0.082
91811304|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Quantity of Sleep: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.79|0.22|0.0005
91930364|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 30: Safety Success||99|90|
91930365|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||99|90|
91768340|NCT02365649|183425688|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|0.5||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|15.0||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.0|-14.1|0.952
91811305|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Quality of Sleep: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.49|-0.07|0.1453
91811306|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.34||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|9.57|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Adequacy: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.57|-0.88|0.1033
91930366|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||100|93|
91930367|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|98.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||98|86|
91930368|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|97.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: Safety Success||97|85|
91930369|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|98.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||98|86|
91930370|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||99|88|
91930371|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.0|93.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||93|77|
91930372|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.0|93.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: Safety Success||93|77|
91768341|NCT02365649|183425688|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|11.2||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|28.5||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|-6.1|0.205
91768342|NCT02365649|183425688|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|4.1||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|19.6||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.6|-11.5|0.607
91930373|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|91.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|96.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||96|83|
91930374|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|91.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|96.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||96|83|
91930375|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|90.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||90|73|
91930376|NCT02338492|183758594|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|90.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: Safety Success||90|73|
91930377|NCT00980785|183758603|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.7||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.836
91930378|NCT00980785|183758603|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|90.6||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.836
91930379|NCT00980785|183758604|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91930380|NCT00980785|183758604|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91930381|NCT00980785|183758605|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.755
91930382|NCT00980785|183758605|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.755
91811307|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.14||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|14.41|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Adequacy: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||14.41|3.88|0.0007
91930383|NCT00980785|183758606|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.491
91930384|NCT00980785|183758606|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.491
91930385|NCT05209932|183758656|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91930386|NCT05209932|183758657|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91930387|NCT05209932|183758658|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
91930388|NCT05209932|183758659|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
91930389|NCT05209932|183758660|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91930390|NCT05209932|183758661|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91930391|NCT05209932|183758662|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
91930392|NCT05209932|183758663|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
91930393|NCT05209932|183758664|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91930394|NCT05209932|183758665|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91930395|NCT05209932|183758666|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.43
91930396|NCT05209932|183758667|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
91930397|NCT05209932|183758668|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91930398|NCT05209932|183758669|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
91930399|NCT05209932|183758670|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
91930400|NCT05209932|183758671|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
91930401|NCT05209932|183758672|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91930402|NCT05209932|183758673|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.42
91930403|NCT05209932|183758674|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.97
91930404|NCT01757405|183758693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence of treatment success proportions in all bleeding episodes for the two treatment groups was determined by comparing the 90% two-sided CI of the ratio of success proportions to the equivalence region defined as \[0.83, 1.20\].|Ratio of success proportion|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.28|||Ratio of success proportion|||Equivalence test of successfully treated bleeding episodes (BEs) between or within treatment arms. Denoting the success rates in the two treatment groups by p1 and p2 , the null hypotheses of H01 : p1/p2 \< 0.83 and H02 : p1/p2 \> 1.20 was implicitly tested against the one-sided alternatives Ha1: 0.83 ≤ p1/p2 and Ha2 : p1/p2 ≤ 1.20, by comparing the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of success proportions to the equivalence region defined as \[0.83, 1.20\].||1.28|1.15|
91930405|NCT01219959|183758705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Month 3||0.9|0.2|<0.001
91930406|NCT01219959|183758705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Month 6||0.8|0.1|0.006
91930407|NCT01219959|183758706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|14.7|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 3||14.7|-4.7|0.312
91930408|NCT01219959|183758706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.4|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 6||14.4|-5.0|0.342
91768343|NCT02365649|183425689|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.2||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|22.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.9|-12.5|0.564
91768344|NCT02365649|183425689|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|31.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.2|-7.2|0.221
91768345|NCT02365649|183425689|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|22.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|43.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43|1.4|0.036
91768346|NCT02365649|183425689|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.4||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|33.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.1|-6.2|0.179
91768347|NCT02365649|183425689|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.9||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|22.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22|-14.3|0.677
91811308|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.56||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|7.81|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Adequacy: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||7.81|-2.68|0.3370
91811309|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.01||||0.3308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.07|-2.05|0.3308
91930409|NCT01219959|183758708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 3||0.9|0.1|0.010
91930410|NCT01219959|183758708|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 6||0.7|0|0.073
91930411|NCT01219959|183758708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 3||0.5|-0.1|0.181
91930412|NCT01219959|183758708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 6||0.4|-0.2|0.593
91930413|NCT01219959|183758708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 3||0|-0.2|0.198
91930414|NCT01219959|183758708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 6||0|-0.1|0.298
91930415|NCT01219959|183758708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 3||0.6|0.2|<0.001
91930416|NCT01219959|183758708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 6||0.5|0.1|0.003
91930417|NCT01219959|183758708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 3||1.3|0.4|<0.001
91930418|NCT01219959|183758708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 6||1.1|0.3|0.002
91930419|NCT01219959|183758709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 3||4.1|-8.6|0.485
91768348|NCT02365649|183425690|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.4||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|32.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.9|-12|0.363
91768349|NCT02365649|183425690|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|17.3||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|40.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40|-5.5|0.137
91768350|NCT02365649|183425690|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.5||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|29.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|-14.9|0.512
91768351|NCT02365649|183425690|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|25.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|48.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.2|-1.8|0.035
91811310|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.7||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|4.8|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.80|-3.39|0.7364
91930420|NCT01219959|183758709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 6||4.4|-8.2|0.556
91930421|NCT01219959|183758709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|12.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 3||12.2|-1.1|0.101
91930422|NCT01219959|183758709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 6||11.5|-1.5|0.134
91930423|NCT01219959|183758709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|19.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 3||19.2|3.6|0.004
91930424|NCT01219959|183758709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 6||15.9|0.8|0.030
91930425|NCT01219959|183758710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-304.6|191.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 3||191.7|-304.6|0.655
91930426|NCT01219959|183758710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.9|210.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 6||210.5|-268.9|0.811
91930427|NCT01219959|183758710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|441.3||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-630.4|1513.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 3||1513.1|-630.4|0.419
91930428|NCT01219959|183758710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|121.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.9|1171.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 6||1171.5|-927.9|0.820
91930429|NCT01219959|183758711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|19.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 3||19|-27.5|0.721
91930430|NCT01219959|183758711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|36.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 6||36.4|-9.4|0.247
91930431|NCT01219959|183758712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||ANOVA|||Estimates of Ratio-Month 6||1.43|0.55|0.624
91930432|NCT01219959|183758713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 3||1.8|-0.6|0.338
91930433|NCT01219959|183758713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 6||2.5|0.1|0.029
91930434|NCT01219959|183758713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 3||1.5|-1.9|0.817
91930435|NCT01219959|183758713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 6||2.9|-0.2|0.091
91930436|NCT01219959|183758714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 3||2.9|-23.3|0.127
91930437|NCT01219959|183758714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 6||-4.3|-16.4|<0.001
91930438|NCT01219959|183758714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.012
91930439|NCT01219959|183758714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 6||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
91930440|NCT01219959|183758715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 3||5.8|0.5|0.019
91930441|NCT01219959|183758715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 6||5.6|0.5|0.019
91930442|NCT01219959|183758716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 3||3.4|-3.9|0.884
91768352|NCT02365649|183425690|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.5||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|35.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.6|-10.7|0.29
91768353|NCT02365649|183425691|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|-0.9||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|13.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|-15.0|0.896
91768354|NCT02365649|183425691|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|18.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|37.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.3|0.0|0.05
91930443|NCT01219959|183758716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 6||4.3|-3|0.716
91930444|NCT01219959|183758717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 3||1.1|-1.2|0.961
91930445|NCT01219959|183758717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 6||1.5|-0.8|0.581
91930446|NCT01219959|183758718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Waist Circumference-Month 6||3.1|-3.7|0.871
91930447|NCT01219959|183758719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|25.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 3||25|-14.7|0.608
91930448|NCT01219959|183758719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 6||8.1|-11.5|0.731
91930449|NCT01219959|183758719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.5|598.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 3||598.1|-227.5|0.377
91930450|NCT01219959|183758719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.4|177.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 6||177.8|-214.4|0.854
91930451|NCT01219959|183758720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 3||0.07|-0.03|0.412
91930452|NCT01219959|183758720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 6||0.03|-0.07|0.485
91930453|NCT01219959|183758721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|8.93|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 3||8.93|-4.56|0.525
91930454|NCT01219959|183758721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|6.83|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 6||6.83|-6.79|0.995
91930455|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.91|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 3||3.91|-7.64|0.526
91768355|NCT02365649|183425691|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|18.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|-12.4|0.702
91930456|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 6||6.68|-5.01|0.779
91930457|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 3||2.04|-7.95|0.246
91930458|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|4.34|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 6||4.34|-5.78|0.780
91930459|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|6.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 3||6.04|-5.22|0.885
91768356|NCT02365649|183425691|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|14.3||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|32.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.2|-3.6|0.117
91768357|NCT02365649|183425691|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|-2.4||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|11.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.6|-16.4|0.736
91768358|NCT02365649|183425692|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.9||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|8.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.1|-2.3|0.276
91811311|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.76||||0.7132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|4.84|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.84|-3.31|0.7132
91768359|NCT02365649|183425692|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|4.9||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|-2.5|0.195
91811312|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-3.25|||ANCOVA|||Overall sleep Problem Index: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-3.25|-10.54|0.0002
91811313|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.94|-4.55|||ANCOVA|||Overall Sleep Problem Index: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-4.55|-11.94|<.0001
91930460|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|10.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 6||10.10|-1.28|0.128
91930461|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.54|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 3||6.54|-4.40|0.701
91930462|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.73|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 6||12.73|1.70|0.010
91930463|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|5.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 3||5.03|-4.63|0.934
91930464|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|8.01|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 6||8.01|-1.75|0.209
91930465|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 3||8.68|-4.90|0.585
91930466|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|8.47|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 6||8.47|-5.22|0.641
91930467|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|3.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 3||3.90|-6.89|0.586
91930468|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|5.14|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 6||5.14|-5.79|0.906
91930469|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|4.75|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 3||4.75|-4.93|0.970
91930470|NCT01219959|183758722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|7.28|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 6||7.28|-2.52|0.340
91930471|NCT01219959|183758723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|96.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Subcutaneous Fat Volume-Month 6||96|-46.9|0.495
91930472|NCT01219959|183758723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|117.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Visceral Fat Volume-Month 6||117.8|-7|0.081
91930473|NCT01219959|183758724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Diastolic Volume-Month 6||31.9|-19.3|0.626
91930474|NCT01219959|183758724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|30.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Systolic Volume-Month 6||30.1|-14.5|0.486
91768360|NCT02365649|183425692|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.6||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.0|-2.9|0.355
91768361|NCT02365649|183425692|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.7||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|-1.5|0.099
91811314|NCT00333866|183497612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.36||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Overall Sleep Problem Index: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.70|-8.02|0.0197
91811315|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Physical Impairment: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.20|-0.54|0.3627
91811316|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Physical Impairment: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.11|-0.63|0.1686
91930475|NCT01219959|183758725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|23.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass with Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.4|-18.9|0.832
91768362|NCT02365649|183425692|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.9|-2.5|0.185
91768363|NCT02365649|183425693|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|26.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.5|0.0|0.05
91768364|NCT02365649|183425693|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|29.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|47.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.1|11.9|0.001
91811317|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.3468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.19|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Physical Impairment: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.19|-0.55|0.3468
91811318|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.49|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Feel Good: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.49|-0.71|0.7147
91930476|NCT01219959|183758725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass without Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.1|-18.3|0.820
91930477|NCT01219959|183758726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Ejection Fraction-Month 6||6.5|-6.9|0.955
91930478|NCT05906732|183758727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0030
91930479|NCT05906732|183758728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.5||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0266
91930480|NCT05906732|183758729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.8||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
91930481|NCT05906732|183758730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.9||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1106
91930482|NCT05906732|183758731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.2||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0908
91930483|NCT05906732|183758732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.2||||0.4038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4038
91930484|NCT05906732|183758733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.5||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6255
91930485|NCT05906732|183758734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5140
91930486|NCT05906732|183758735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.8||||0.5675|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5675
91930487|NCT05906732|183758736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4||||0.764|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7640
91930488|NCT05906732|183758737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.8||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.2437
91930489|NCT05906732|183758738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.8||||0.4229|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4229
91930490|NCT05906732|183758739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4887
91930491|NCT05906732|183758740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.1||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2042
91930492|NCT05906732|183758741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2644
91930493|NCT05906732|183758759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.28||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3169
91930494|NCT05906732|183758760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.78||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1066
91930495|NCT05906732|183758761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.06||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0443
91930496|NCT05906732|183758762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.06||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0815
91930497|NCT05906732|183758763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.67||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
91930498|NCT05906732|183758764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.3539|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3539
91930499|NCT05906732|183758765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.78||||0.1377|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1377
91930500|NCT05906732|183758766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6184
91930501|NCT05906732|183758767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17||||0.6627|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6627
91930502|NCT05906732|183758768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.78||||0.5276|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5276
91930503|NCT05906732|183758769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.17||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0399
91930504|NCT05906732|183758770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0747
91768365|NCT02365649|183425693|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|25.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|42.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.0|8.5|0.003
91811319|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.63||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Feel Good: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.03|-1.23|0.0409
91768366|NCT02365649|183425693|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|55.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.4|17.6|< 0.001
91768367|NCT02365649|183425693|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|32.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|50.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.2|13.9|< 0.001
91768368|NCT02365649|183425694|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.5||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|28.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.2|-7.2|0.243
91768369|NCT02365649|183425694|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|29.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|49.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.9|8.3|0.006
91811320|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.9077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.63|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Feel Good: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.63|-0.56|0.9077
91811321|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.5923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.37|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Work Missed: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.37|-0.64|0.5923
91930505|NCT05906732|183758771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9584
91930506|NCT05906732|183758772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.72||||0.6531|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6531
91930507|NCT05906732|183758773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.61||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0482
91930508|NCT05906732|183758774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.22||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0667
91930509|NCT05906732|183758775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0131
91930510|NCT05906732|183758776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.36||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0141
91930511|NCT05906732|183758777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.55||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0019
91930512|NCT05906732|183758778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.69||||0.1108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1108
91930513|NCT05906732|183758779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.81||||0.184|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1840
91930514|NCT05906732|183758780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.33||||0.2019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2019
91930515|NCT05906732|183758781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2808
91930516|NCT05906732|183758782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|110.39||||0.1644|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1644
91930517|NCT05906732|183758783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.29||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
91930518|NCT05906732|183758784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.87||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0306
91930519|NCT05906732|183758785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.42||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0016
91930520|NCT05906732|183758786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.25||||0.1378|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1378
91930521|NCT01980706|183758846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.16||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.018
91930522|NCT01980706|183758847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.028
91930523|NCT01980706|183758848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.52
91930524|NCT01980706|183758849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.43
91930525|NCT01980706|183758850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline|Estimated parameter is the overall treatment main effect F statistic from the fitted ANCOVA model assessing the null hypothesis of equal values across the three groups|||||0.60
91930526|NCT01980706|183758851|SUPERIORITY||Table probability for Fisher's Exact|0.002||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
91930527|NCT02841787|183758895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< .001
91930528|NCT02841787|183758895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91930529|NCT02841787|183758895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91930530|NCT02841787|183758895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.03
91930531|NCT02841787|183758895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
91930532|NCT02841787|183758895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91930533|NCT02841787|183758895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91930534|NCT02841787|183758898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91930535|NCT00091390|183758973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||hazard rate|0.0014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.003|||Z-test|One-sided.||The study is designed to test whether the 18-month late GU/GI toxicity following the protocol treatment is above 10% (hazard rate of 0.012/month). The sample size is determined so that the probability of rejecting the treatment because of excessive late toxicity is 90% if the true late toxicity rate is 20% (hazard rate of 0.025/month). Ninety-eight patients are required to with an additional 18 months of follow-up to have a statistical power of 90% with one-sided significance level of 0.05.||0.003|0|<0.0001
91930536|NCT02320695|183759012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||0.05|-0.33|0.187
91930537|NCT02320695|183759012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||0.04|-0.42|0.101
91930538|NCT02320695|183759012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.10|-0.49|0.002
91930539|NCT02320695|183759012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.12|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.12|-0.53|<0.001
91768370|NCT02365649|183425694|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|24.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|44.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.1|4.4|0.017
91930540|NCT02320695|183759013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.05|-0.54|0.023
91930541|NCT02320695|183759013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||0.20|-0.32|0.522
91930542|NCT02320695|183759013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.16|-0.67|<0.001
91930543|NCT02320695|183759013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.07|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.07|-0.63|0.013
91930544|NCT02622724|183759033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8219|||||||Van Elteren hypothesis test|||A non-parametric analysis has been used as the data distribution was skewed. This involved a generalised Wilcoxon rank sum-based stratification test which assigns ranks within strata and compares two treatments within strata (Van Elteren hypothesis test).||||0.8219
91930545|NCT02622724|183759040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4678|||||||Van Elteren p-values|||Van Elteren hypothesis test was used as the distribution was non-normal and negatively skewed by patients who are assigned scores of zero in the event of death.||||0.4678
91930546|NCT02622724|183759045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using Type III sums of squares with Treatment, Severity, and Country fixed effect factors, Baseline as covariate||||||<0.05
91930547|NCT02622724|183759048|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|31.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|99.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment effect was analysed using ANOVA parameter estimates (Least Squares Means and 95% Confidence Intervals) for the overall treatment difference for maximum distance walked on Day 180.||99.9|-37.7|>0.05
91930548|NCT02622724|183759062|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||IL -1ra - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||>0.05
91930549|NCT02622724|183759062|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||IL- 6 - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||>0.05
91930550|NCT02622724|183759062|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95% CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||FGF basic - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||<0.05
91930551|NCT02622724|183759062|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||IP-10 - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14.||||<0.05
91930552|NCT02622724|183759062|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||TNF-α - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||>0.05
91930553|NCT02622724|183759063|OTHER||||||<|0.007||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.007
91768371|NCT02365649|183425694|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|58.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.1|14.8|< 0.001
91930554|NCT02622724|183759066|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|28.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|110.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment effect was analysed using ANOVA parameter estimates (Least Squares Means and 95 % Confidence Intervals) for the overall treatment difference for maximun distance walked on Day 360.||110.1|-54|>0.05
91930555|NCT01290445|183759085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.47||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.47|0.46|
91930556|NCT01290445|183759085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.42||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.42|0.45|
91930557|NCT01290445|183759086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.34||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||4.34|0.09|
91930558|NCT01290445|183759086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.67||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||4.67|0.09|
91930559|NCT01290445|183759087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||0.96|0.50|
91930560|NCT01290445|183759087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.97||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||0.97|0.51|
91768372|NCT02365649|183425694|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|58.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.3|15.2|< 0.001
91768373|NCT02365649|183425695|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.5||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|32.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.7|-11.7|0.353
91930561|NCT01290445|183759088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.42||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.42|0.63|
91930562|NCT01290445|183759088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.37||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.37|0.61|
91930563|NCT01290445|183759089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.16||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.16|0.37|
91930564|NCT01290445|183759089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.16||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.16|0.37|
91930565|NCT03583372|183759097|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.0||||||||-2.0|-2.9|
91930566|NCT03583372|183759097|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.5|
91930567|NCT03583372|183759098|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.9||||||||-1.9|-2.5|
91930568|NCT03583372|183759098|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||||||||-1.3|-2.0|
91930569|NCT03583372|183759099|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.7||||||||-2.7|-4.0|
91930570|NCT03583372|183759099|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.5||||||||-2.5|-4.0|
91930571|NCT03583372|183759100|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-2.2||||||||-2.2|-2.8|
91930572|NCT03583372|183759100|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.6||||||||-1.6|-2.3|
91930573|NCT05439460|183759121|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in phenylephrine group||||0.9
91930574|NCT05439460|183759121|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in arginine vasopressin group||||0.3
91930575|NCT05439460|183759121|OTHER|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in epinephrine group||||1
91930576|NCT03446651|183759122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
91930577|NCT03446651|183759124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91930578|NCT03446651|183759126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91930579|NCT03446651|183759127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91930580|NCT00960934|183759152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.56||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.16||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.16|-1.04|0.749
91768374|NCT02365649|183425695|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|22.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|45.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.5|0.0|0.05
91768375|NCT02365649|183425695|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.5||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|34.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.6|-9.6|0.268
91768376|NCT02365649|183425695|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|28.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|51.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.2|4.8|0.018
91930581|NCT00960934|183759152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|1.12||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.83||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.83|-0.60|0.333
91768377|NCT02365649|183425695|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|14.9||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|37.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.8|-8.1|0.204
91930582|NCT00960934|183759152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.35||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.84||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.84|-1.14|0.823
91930583|NCT00960934|183759152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.93||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.61||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.61|-0.75|0.457
91930584|NCT00960934|183759152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.16||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.5||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.50|-1.17|0.823
91930585|NCT00960934|183759153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.8|||<|0.001||95.0|56.5|80.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||80.0|56.5|<0.001
91930586|NCT00960934|183759153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.6|65.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||65.2|39.6|<0.001
91930587|NCT00960934|183759153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|42.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||42.4|17.6|<0.001
91930588|NCT00960934|183759153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|42.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||42.0|17.0|<0.001
91930589|NCT00960934|183759153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|14.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||14.4|-4.1|0.254
91768378|NCT02365649|183425696|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.0||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|34.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.4|-14.4|0.421
91768379|NCT02365649|183425696|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|11.5||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|36.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.8|-13.8|0.371
91768380|NCT02365649|183425696|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|9.2||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|32.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.8|-14.4|0.445
91768381|NCT02365649|183425696|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|19.5||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|49.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.3|-10.2|0.198
91930590|NCT00960934|183759154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|60.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||60.0|34.9|<0.001
91930591|NCT00960934|183759154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|48.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||48.5|24.1|<0.001
91930592|NCT00960934|183759154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|28.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||28.7|7.7|0.001
91930593|NCT00960934|183759154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||18.2|-0.0|0.050
91930594|NCT00960934|183759154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||4.2|-8.5|0.313
91930595|NCT00960934|183759155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||5.8|-5.8|>0.999
91768382|NCT02365649|183425696|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.0||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|27.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.0|-17.0|0.654
91811322|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Work Missed: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.11|-1.12|0.0174
91930596|NCT00960934|183759155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||5.7|-5.8|>0.999
91768383|NCT02365649|183425697|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|18.7||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|40.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.5|-3.1|0.093
91811323|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Work Missed: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.35|-0.66|0.5408
91811324|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.4|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Do Work: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.40|-0.57|0.7236
91930597|NCT00960934|183759155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||5.7|-5.8|>0.999
91930598|NCT00960934|183759155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||8.6|-4.2|0.313
91811325|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.71||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Do Work: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.22|-1.19|0.0045
91930599|NCT00960934|183759155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||8.4|-4.3|0.321
91768384|NCT02365649|183425697|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.5||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|33.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.1|-6.1|0.176
91930600|NCT00960934|183759157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.24||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.51||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.51|-1.03|0.959
91930601|NCT00960934|183759157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.02||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.04|-1.08|0.971
91930602|NCT00960934|183759157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.24||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.42||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.42|-0.95|0.959
91930603|NCT00960934|183759157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.41||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.97||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.97|-1.78|0.915
91930604|NCT00960934|183759157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.28||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.04|-1.60|0.959
91811326|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.5613||95.0|-0.63|0.34|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Do Work: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.34|-0.63|0.5613
91768385|NCT02365649|183425697|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|35.9||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|65.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.5|6.3|0.017
91768386|NCT02365649|183425697|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|26.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.5|0.7|0.044
91768387|NCT02365649|183425697|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.1||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|29.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|-3.5|0.121
91768388|NCT02365649|183425698|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.4||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|14.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|-8.1|0.564
91768389|NCT02365649|183425698|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.4||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|15.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.7|-8.8|0.584
91930605|NCT00960934|183759158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.58||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.37||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.37|-1.22|0.849
91930606|NCT00960934|183759158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.16||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.47||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.47|-1.79|0.964
91930607|NCT00960934|183759158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.16||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.59||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.59|-1.27|0.964
91930608|NCT00960934|183759158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.48||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.27||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.27|-2.23|0.855
91930609|NCT00960934|183759158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|1.27||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|3.12||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||3.12|-0.58|0.287
91930610|NCT00960934|183759159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.6||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.77||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.77|-1.56|0.933
91930611|NCT00960934|183759159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.01||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.68||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.68|-1.69|0.999
91930612|NCT00960934|183759159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.05||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.93||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.93|-1.84|0.999
91768390|NCT02365649|183425698|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|8.7||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|26.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|-8.7|0.326
91768391|NCT02365649|183425699|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.2||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|30.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.7|-6.2|0.195
91768392|NCT02365649|183425699|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|17.9||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|40.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|-4.4|0.116
91768393|NCT02365649|183425699|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.8||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|31.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.5|-5.8|0.178
91930613|NCT00960934|183759159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.45||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.57||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.57|-1.67|0.959
91930614|NCT00960934|183759159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.08||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.94|-2.10|0.999
91930615|NCT00960934|183759160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.17||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.77||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.77|-1.12|0.976
91930616|NCT00960934|183759160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.06||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.8||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.80|-0.93|0.982
91930617|NCT00960934|183759160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.53||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.49||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.49|-0.43|0.489
91930618|NCT00960934|183759160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.02||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.78||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.78|-0.75|0.982
91930619|NCT00960934|183759160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.16||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.08||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.08|-0.76|0.976
91811327|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.33|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.33|-0.60|0.5609
91930620|NCT00960934|183759161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.35||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.31||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.31|-2.00|0.961
91768394|NCT02365649|183425699|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|30.4||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|58.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.0|2.8|0.031
91768395|NCT02365649|183425699|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.1||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|29.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|-3.5|0.121
91768396|NCT02365649|183425700|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|6.8||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|22.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|-8.7|0.392
91930621|NCT00960934|183759161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.28||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.34||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.34|-1.90|0.961
91930622|NCT00960934|183759161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.66||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.33||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.33|-1.01|0.778
91930623|NCT00960934|183759161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.11||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.24||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.24|-1.45|0.961
91930624|NCT00960934|183759161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.25||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.26||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.26|-1.77|0.961
91930625|NCT00960934|183759162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.43||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.17||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.17|-2.03|0.901
91930626|NCT00960934|183759162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.51||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.17||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.17|-2.18|0.901
91930627|NCT00960934|183759162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.52||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.13||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.13|-2.17|0.901
91768397|NCT02365649|183425700|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.4||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|15.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.7|-8.8|0.584
91768398|NCT02365649|183425700|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.0||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|32.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.9|-6.8|0.199
91768399|NCT02365649|183425700|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|6.9||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|24.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|-10.6|0.439
91930628|NCT00960934|183759162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.03||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.35||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.35|-1.29|0.997
91930629|NCT00960934|183759162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.04||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.43||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.43|-1.51|0.997
91930630|NCT00960934|183759163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.37||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.99||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.99|-2.73|0.979
91930631|NCT00960934|183759163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|1.92||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.95||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||4.95|-1.10|0.363
91930632|NCT00960934|183759163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.4||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.98||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.98|-2.18|0.979
91930633|NCT00960934|183759163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.49||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.3||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.30|-3.27|0.979
91768400|NCT02365649|183425701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-103.9||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-865.69|657.87||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||657.87|-865.69|0.788
91768401|NCT02365649|183425701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-364.3||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1092.83|364.29||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||364.29|-1092.83|0.325
91811328|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.75||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.28|-1.22|0.0016
91930634|NCT00960934|183759163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.51||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|3.37||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||3.37|-2.34|0.979
91930635|NCT00960934|183759164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|19.77||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|37.46||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||37.46|2.26|0.020
91930636|NCT00960934|183759164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|10.08||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|26.41||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||26.41|-6.16|0.357
91768402|NCT02365649|183425701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-926.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1672.78|-179.63||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-179.63|-1672.78|0.015
91768403|NCT02365649|183425701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-763.1||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1534.52|8.39||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||8.39|-1534.52|0.053
91768404|NCT02365649|183425701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-359.5||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1119.52|400.56||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||400.56|-1119.52|0.352
91930637|NCT00960934|183759164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-2.83||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|9.14||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||9.14|-14.81|0.642
91930638|NCT00960934|183759164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|8.44||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|24.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||24.04|-7.09|0.434
91930639|NCT00960934|183759164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|5.72||||0.579||95.0|-8.62|20.1||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||20.10|-8.62|0.579
91930640|NCT00960934|183759165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|34.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.27|53.56||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||53.56|15.27|<0.001
91768405|NCT02365649|183425701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-396.2||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1565.39|772.9||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||772.90|-1565.39|0.503
91930641|NCT00960934|183759165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|20.57||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|38.02||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||38.02|3.28|0.014
91930642|NCT00960934|183759165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|9.97||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|25.7||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||25.70|-5.69|0.307
91930643|NCT00960934|183759165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|9.02||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|23.95||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||23.95|-5.85|0.307
91930644|NCT00960934|183759165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.5||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|11.92||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||11.92|-12.92|0.937
91930645|NCT00960934|183759166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|19.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.42|31.02||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||31.02|7.42|<0.001
91930646|NCT00960934|183759166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|23.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|35.82||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||35.82|11.02|<0.001
91930647|NCT00960934|183759166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|10.45||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|21.3||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||21.30|-0.37|0.061
91930648|NCT00960934|183759166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|6.31||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|16.45||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||16.45|-3.81|0.283
91930649|NCT00960934|183759166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|5.46||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|14.31||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||14.31|-3.39|0.283
91930650|NCT00960934|183759167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|56.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.62|76.35||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||76.35|37.62|<.001
91930651|NCT00960934|183759167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|39.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.44|57.17||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||57.17|22.44|<.001
91930652|NCT00960934|183759167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|20.68||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|35.78||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||35.78|5.72|0.003
91930653|NCT00960934|183759167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|8.59||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|22.05||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||22.05|-4.81|0.265
91930654|NCT00960934|183759167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|8.39||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|20.21||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||20.21|-3.40|0.265
91930655|NCT00960934|183759168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|53.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.83|68.53||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||68.53|37.83|<0.001
91930656|NCT00960934|183759168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|41.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.36|55.65||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||55.65|27.36|<0.001
91930657|NCT00960934|183759168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|24.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|37.33||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||37.33|12.39|<0.001
91930658|NCT00960934|183759168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|12.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|24.06||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||24.06|1.73|0.020
91930659|NCT00960934|183759168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|4.02||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|13.36||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||13.36|-5.31|0.397
91768406|NCT02365649|183425701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-364.3||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1531.04|802.44||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||802.44|-1531.04|0.537
91930660|NCT01332019|183759181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|0.755||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|0.957||q2w/q4w|negative binomial regression|||Based on negative binomial regression for each treatment group, with adjustment for EDSS (\<4 vs. \>=4), relapse rate (based on 1 year before 105MS301 and 105MS301), and age (\<40 vs. \>=40) at 105MS302 baseline.||0.957|0.595|0.0203
91930661|NCT01332019|183759182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96||Based on Cox proportion hazards model, adjusted for EDSS (\<4 vs \>= 4), age (\<40 vs \>=40), relapse rate (based on one year before 105MS301 and 105MS301), and gadolinium (Gd) enhancing lesions (presence vs. absence) at 105MS302 baseline.|Cox proportion hazards model|||q2w/q4w||0.96|0.59|0.0201
91930662|NCT01332019|183759183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.63||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline number of T2 lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 48||0.63|0.41|<0.0001
91930663|NCT01332019|183759183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of T2 lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 96||0.62|0.39|<0.0001
91930664|NCT01332019|183759184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline number of Gd lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 48||0.68|0.43|<0.0001
91930665|NCT01332019|183759184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.71||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline number of Gd lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 96||0.71|0.43|<0.0001
91930666|NCT01332019|183759185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of T1 lesions.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91930667|NCT01332019|183759185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of T1 lesions.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 96||||<0.0001
91930668|NCT01332019|183759186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesion.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 48||||0.0012
91930669|NCT01332019|183759186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesion.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 96||||0.0026
91930670|NCT01332019|183759192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.85||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline EDSS and age (\<40 vs \>=40).|Cox Proportional Hazards model||q2w/q4w|||0.85|0.38|0.0060
91930671|NCT00174785|183759215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.69|0.84||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of first hospitalization for cardiovascular reason or death for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.84|0.69|<0.0001
91930672|NCT00174785|183759216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.18||95.0|0.66|1.08||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. Hierarchical procedure applied to secondary efficacy endpoints testing to protect the global type I error.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of death from any cause for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||1.08|0.66|0.18
91930673|NCT00174785|183759217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.67|0.82||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. Hierarchical procedure applied to secondary efficacy endpoints testing to protect the global type I error.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of first hospitalization for cardiovascular reason for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.82|0.67|<0.0001
91930674|NCT00174785|183759218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.025||95.0|0.51|0.96||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. Hierarchical procedure applied to secondary efficacy endpoints testing to protect the global type I error.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of cardiovascular death for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.96|0.51|0.025
91930675|NCT00174785|183759219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.03||95.0|0.51|0.98||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of adjudicated cardiovascular death for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.98|0.51|0.03
91930676|NCT00120289|183759220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21|||Regression, Cox|Adjusting for gender and history of diabetes (randomization stratification factors).||||1.21|0.87|0.80
91930677|NCT00120289|183759221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.87|.49
91930678|NCT00120289|183759222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.90|.30
91930679|NCT00120289|183759223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.80|0.76|0.47
91930680|NCT00401622|183759225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|22.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||22.36|-7.24|0.31
91930681|NCT00401622|183759226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04|||ANCOVA|Visit 1 A1c measurement used as the covariate||Change in A1C from baseline to week 52 between the OneTouch® Ultra®2 and control BGMS||0.04|-0.38|0.45
91930682|NCT00782418|183759227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.6|||<|0.001||90.0|1.29|1.92||1-sided, alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||||1.92|1.29|<0.001
91811329|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.25|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.25|-0.68|0.3692
91811330|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.25|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Fatigue: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.25|-0.73|0.3294
91811331|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Fatigue: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.06|-1.05|0.0270
91930683|NCT00782418|183759227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.95|||<|0.001||90.0|0.66|1.24|||ANOVA|1-sided, alpha=0.05||||1.24|0.66|<0.001
91930684|NCT00782418|183759227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.32|||<|0.001||90.0|1.57|3.06|||ANOVA|1-sided, alpha=0.05||||3.06|1.57|<0.001
91930685|NCT00782418|183759227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.38|||<|0.001||90.0|0.64|2.12|||ANOVA|1-sided, alpha = 0.05||||2.12|0.64|<0.001
91930686|NCT00782418|183759228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|23.1|||<|0.001||90.0|19.2|27.0|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||27.0|19.2|<0.001
91930687|NCT00782418|183759228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|16.4|||<|0.001||90.0|12.6|20.1|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||20.1|12.6|<0.001
91930688|NCT00782418|183759229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|545.0|||<|0.001||90.0|451.4|638.7|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||638.7|451.4|<0.001
91930689|NCT00782418|183759229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|246.6|||<|0.001||90.0|160.9|323.3|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||323.3|160.9|<0.001
91930690|NCT01718509|183759230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.28|-2.04|<0.001
91930691|NCT01718509|183759231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91930692|NCT01718509|183759232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91930693|NCT01718509|183759233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-4.44|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-4.44|-6.39|<0.001
91930694|NCT01718509|183759234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-6.36|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-6.36|-9.51|<0.001
91930695|NCT01718509|183759235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.196||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.070|-0.321|0.002
91930696|NCT01718509|183759236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.077||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.050|-0.205|0.234
91930697|NCT01718509|183759237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.02|0.185
91930698|NCT01718509|183759238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91930699|NCT01718509|183759239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.69||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.69|-2.77|<0.001
91930700|NCT01718509|183759240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.27||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.24||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||2.24|0.29|0.011
91930701|NCT01718509|183759240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-2.76||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Disinhibition of Eating||-2.76|-4.44|<0.001
91930702|NCT01718509|183759240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-3.33||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Perceived Hunger||-3.33|-5.09|<0.001
91930703|NCT01718509|183759241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|-7.12||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-7.12|-11.44|<0.001
91930704|NCT01718509|183759242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.85||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|ANCOVA|||||0.85|-2.77|0.298
91930705|NCT00779324|183759287|OTHER||Difference in percents|-0.4||||0.9554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|13.9|||Chi-squared|||||13.9|-14.7|0.9554
91930706|NCT00779324|183759288|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91930707|NCT00779324|183759289|OTHER||Difference in percents|10.8||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|25.8|||Chi-squared|||||25.8|-4.2|0.1662
91811332|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.8432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.44|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Fatigue: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.44|-0.54|0.8432
91930708|NCT00779324|183759290|OTHER|||||||0.3488|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3488
91930709|NCT00779324|183759292|OTHER||Difference in percents|6.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|20.0|||Chi-squared|||||20|-7.2|0.38
91930710|NCT00779324|183759293|OTHER||Difference in percents|11.7||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|26.7|||Chi-squared|||||26.7|-3.3|0.1373
91930711|NCT00779324|183759294|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91930712|NCT00779324|183759295|OTHER|||||||0.0353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0353
91930713|NCT00194025|183759308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||<0.001
91930714|NCT00194025|183759309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.585
91930715|NCT00194025|183759310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||<0.001
91930716|NCT00194025|183759311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.017
91930717|NCT00194025|183759312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.027
91930718|NCT00194025|183759313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.569
91768407|NCT02365649|183425701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-483.2||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1677.87|711.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||711.52|-1677.87|0.425
91768408|NCT02365649|183425701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1025.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2373.24|322.08||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||322.08|-2373.24|0.134
91768409|NCT02365649|183425701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-637.9||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1833.82|557.96||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||557.96|-1833.82|0.293
91768410|NCT02365649|183425702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|9.97||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||9.97|-9.02|0.921
91768411|NCT02365649|183425702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|8.08||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||8.08|-11.19|0.75
91768412|NCT02365649|183425702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|7.87||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||7.87|-11.7|0.7
91768413|NCT02365649|183425702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.38|-1.51||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-1.51|-21.38|0.024
91768414|NCT02365649|183425702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|8.79||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||8.79|-10.72|0.845
91768415|NCT02365649|183425703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|16.92||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||16.92|-13.60|0.830
91768416|NCT02365649|183425703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.5||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|33.0||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||33.00|2.03|0.027
91768417|NCT02365649|183425703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.9||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|24.47||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||24.47|-6.72|0.263
91768418|NCT02365649|183425703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|37.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||37.52|5.68|0.008
91768419|NCT02365649|183425703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.8||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|24.53||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||24.53|-6.88|0.269
91768420|NCT02365649|183425703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.3||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|27.25||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||27.25|-6.63|0.231
91768421|NCT02365649|183425703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|45.15||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||45.15|10.68|0.002
91768422|NCT02365649|183425703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|34.72||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||34.72|-0.51|0.057
91768423|NCT02365649|183425703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|28.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.12|46.56||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||46.56|11.12|0.002
91811333|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.06|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Rested: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.98|0.0806
91811334|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Rested: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.01|-1.06|0.0470
91811335|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.3845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.29|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Rested: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.29|-0.75|0.3845
91811336|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12||||0.6326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.6|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Stiffness: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.60|-0.37|0.6326
91811337|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.27|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Stiffness: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.27|-0.71|0.3740
91811338|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.52|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Stiffness: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.52|-0.45|0.8936
91811339|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.4743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.34|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Anxiety: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.34|-0.73|0.4743
91811340|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Anxiety: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.10|-1.18|0.0192
91811341|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.35|||ANCOVA|||FIQ anxiety: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.35|-0.71|0.5101
91811342|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.34|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Depression: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.34|-0.75|0.4617
91811343|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Depression: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.42|-1.51|0.0006
91768424|NCT02365649|183425703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|29.72||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||29.72|-5.12|0.165
91768425|NCT02365649|183425704|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|20.0||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|48.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.4|-8.4|0.167
91768426|NCT02365649|183425704|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|16.7||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|43.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.3|-10.0|0.221
91768427|NCT02365649|183425704|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|20.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|49.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.2|-9.2|0.18
91811344|NCT00333866|183497613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.21|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Depression: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.21|-0.88|0.2290
91811345|NCT00333866|183497614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.44||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|2.06|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||2.06|-4.95|0.4200
91811346|NCT00333866|183497614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.85||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|-2.31|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-2.31|-9.38|0.0012
91811347|NCT00333866|183497614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.17||||0.5126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|2.34|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||2.34|-4.68|0.5126
91811348|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51||||0.7781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|3.05|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||3.05|-4.07|0.7781
91811349|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.99||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|5.59|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.59|-1.62|0.2792
91811350|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.15|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.15|-3.00|0.7512
91930719|NCT00194025|183759314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.038
91811351|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.02||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|5.43|||ANCOVA|||Physical role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.43|-3.39|0.6490
91930720|NCT00194025|183759315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.199
91930721|NCT00194025|183759316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The t-test was applied to the values at baseline vs. the values at 12 weeks.||||0.21
91930722|NCT00511342|183759337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.078||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.041||No corrections for multiple comparisons were made for these safety parameters. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included the Z-score values at baseline as adjusted factor.|NOMAC-E2 minus LNG-EE for lumbar spine (L2-L4)|||0.041|-0.198|0.19
91930723|NCT00511342|183759337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.03||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.075||No corrections for multiple comparisons were made for these safety parameters. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included the Z-score values at baseline as adjusted factor.|NOMAC-E2 minus LNG-EE for femoral neck|||0.075|-0.136|0.57
91930724|NCT02196038|183759389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||joint model|Joint model of ANCOVA plus survival||||2.0|0.9|<0.0001
91768428|NCT02365649|183425704|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.0||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|48.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.4|-8.4|0.167
91768429|NCT02365649|183425705|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.5||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|26.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.5|-15.5|0.607
91768430|NCT02365649|183425705|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.2||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|33.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.9|-9.6|0.272
91768431|NCT02365649|183425705|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|15.9||||-0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|37.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.9|-6.1|-0.157
91768432|NCT02365649|183425705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|50.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.6|4.9|0.017
91768433|NCT02365649|183425705|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.8||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|23.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.9|-18.4|0.798
91768434|NCT02365649|183425706|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|9.8||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|22.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.1|-2.5|0.119
91768435|NCT02365649|183425706|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|15.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|29.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.7|1.1|0.034
91768436|NCT02365649|183425706|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|23.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|39.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.2|7.3|0.004
91768437|NCT02365649|183425706|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|32.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|50.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.5|14.2|< 0.001
91768438|NCT02365649|183425706|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|22.9|||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|39.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.2|6.6|< 0.006
91768439|NCT02365649|183425707|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.9||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|20.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-12.7|0.647
91768440|NCT02365649|183425707|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|17.1||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|37.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.1|-2.9|0.093
91768441|NCT02365649|183425707|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.6||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|32.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.8|-5.6|0.165
91768442|NCT02365649|183425707|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|24.9||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|46.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.3|3.4|0.023
91930725|NCT02196038|183759390|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.19|||Joint Model|Joint model of Poisson regression and survival||||1.19|0.66|0.59
91768443|NCT02365649|183425707|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.0||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|25.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|-11.0|0.448
91930726|NCT01580592|183759415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||for omalizumab 150mg|||||0.001
91930727|NCT01580592|183759415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91930728|NCT01580592|183759415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91930729|NCT01580592|183759416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.988
91930730|NCT02402218|183759465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||For the primary and secondary outcomes, the proportion of participants with the outcome in each group was compared using a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Sample size was based on an estimated HCV treatment initiation rate of 50% in the UC group (based on a 33% rate observed during the interferon era) and 80% in the intervention groups, a significance level of 0.05, a desired ratio of participants in the intervention group compared to UC group of 3 to 2, and power of 80% to detect this difference between groups. The study was not powered to detect differences between the peer and cash groups.||||.11
91930731|NCT02402218|183759466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.22
91811352|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.5||||0.5105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|5.96|||ANCOVA|||Physical Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.96|-2.96|0.5105
91811353|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.8625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Physical Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.82|-4.04|0.8625
91811354|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.87||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|9.12|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.12|-1.39|0.1489
91811355|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.24||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|11.54|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||11.54|0.93|0.0213
91811356|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.75||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|9.02|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.02|-1.51|0.1620
91930732|NCT02402218|183759468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||changes in the frequency of drug and alcohol use before and during treatment were compared using chi-square tests to evaluate the safety of cash incentives.||||0.33
91930733|NCT02402218|183759469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||changes in the frequency of drug and alcohol use before and during treatment were compared using chi-square tests to evaluate the safety of cash incentives.|Chi-squared|||||||0.30
91930734|NCT04436822|183759476|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|88.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.1|90.7|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).||||90.7|87.1|<0.05
91930735|NCT04436822|183759476|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|87.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|89.7|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).||||89.7|85.4|<0.05
91930736|NCT04436822|183759476|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|87.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|89.9|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).||||89.9|85.8|<0.05
91930737|NCT03807739|183759477|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.2471|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1149|1.3951||||||||1.3951|1.1149|
91930738|NCT03807739|183759477|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9864|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8531|1.1405||||||||1.1405|0.8531|
91930739|NCT03807739|183759479|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.2203|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1175|1.3327||||||||1.3327|1.1175|
91811357|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.85||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|7.65|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||7.65|-1.95|0.2446
91930740|NCT03807739|183759479|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8266|1.1968||||||||1.1968|0.8266|
91811358|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.01||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.85|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.85|0.16|0.0429
91811359|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.35||||0.1721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.16|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||8.16|-1.46|0.1721
91930741|NCT00430625|183759480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.717|3.141|||paired t-test|||Primary endpoint was based solely on the 60 U/kg treatment arm||3.141|1.717|<0.0001
91930742|NCT00125658|183759491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary Comparison (i.e., FTP vs. POWER) Data are reported as change scores, between the end of treatment block 1(10 weeks) and baseline; thus, this analysis directly compares FTP vs. Power. A negative value represents improvement (i.e., reduced trunk displacement) while a positive value represents an increase in compensatory trunk movement.||||<.001
91930743|NCT00125658|183759491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Order effect, testing OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP). Change scores for trunk displacement at the end of both treatment blocks (20 weeks) relative to baseline (e.g., 20 weeks - baseline) were compared between OrderA and OrderB.||||.002
91930744|NCT00125658|183759492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests effect of FTP vs. Power. The change in shoulder flexion range of motion was compared between baseline and the end of treatment Block 1 (i.e., 10 weeks).||||0.13
91930745|NCT00125658|183759492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test the effect of treatment order OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP). The change in shoulder flexion range of motion was compared between the end of treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.048
91930746|NCT00125658|183759493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compares FTP vs POWER by comparing the change in elbow extension range of motion between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||.004
91930747|NCT00125658|183759493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for the effect of treatment order OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP) by comparing the change in elbow extension range of motion between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.034
91930748|NCT00125658|183759494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for differences between FTP vs. POWER by comparing the change in movement speed between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.056
91930749|NCT00125658|183759494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for effect of treatment order (OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP))by comparing the change in movement speed between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||.168
91930750|NCT00125658|183759495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tests the effects of FTP vs. POWER on motor impairment (UE FMA) by comparing the change in FMA between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.564
91930751|NCT00125658|183759495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tests for an effect of treatment order (OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP)) by comparing the change in UE FMA between the end of treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.948
91930752|NCT00125658|183759496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for differences in FTP vs. POWER by comparing the change in RPR between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.078
91930753|NCT00125658|183759496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests the effect of treatment order (Order A (FTP \> POWER) vs. Order B (POWER \> FTP)) by comparing the change in RPR between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.4
91930754|NCT00125658|183759497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for the effect of treatment (FTP vs. POWER) by comparing the change in movement smoothness between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.085
91930755|NCT00125658|183759497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for the effect of treatment order (OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP)) by comparing the change in movement smoothness between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.635
91930756|NCT00369668|183759520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|37.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Greenhouse-Geisser degrees of freedom adjustment was not necessary.||Group by Test Session ANOVA with repeated measures on second factor.||37.4|22.5|<0.05
91930757|NCT03855137|183759531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-1.33||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.33|-3.48|0.0001
91930758|NCT03855137|183759531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.75||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.75|-2.89|0.0009
91930759|NCT03855137|183759532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.16||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.16|-3.31|0.0001
91930760|NCT03855137|183759532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.59|||MMRM|Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.59|-2.72|0.0024
91768444|NCT02365649|183425708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.5||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||1.5|-0.62|0.412
91768445|NCT02365649|183425708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-0.34||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.34|-2.47|0.01
91930761|NCT03855137|183759533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-1.26||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.26|-3.38|0.0001
91930762|NCT03855137|183759533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.81||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.81|-2.93|0.0009
91930763|NCT03855137|183759534|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.09||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.09|-3.20|0.0002
91930764|NCT03855137|183759534|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.67||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.67|-2.78|0.0024
91768446|NCT02365649|183425708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.13||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.13|-2.13|0.082
91930765|NCT03855137|183759535|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.63||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.63|-3.63|0.0001
91930766|NCT03855137|183759535|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.508||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.13||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.13|-3.13|0.0009
91930767|NCT03855137|183759536|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.53||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.53|-3.52|0.0002
91930768|NCT03855137|183759536|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.1|||MMRM|||||-1.10|-3.09|0.0024
91930769|NCT03855137|183759537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.14||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||3.14|1.45|0.0003
91930770|NCT03855137|183759537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.0||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||3.00|1.38|0.0009
91930771|NCT03855137|183759538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.98||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||2.98|1.38|0.0006
91930772|NCT03855137|183759538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.79||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||2.79|1.29|0.0009
91930773|NCT03855137|183759539|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.864||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|11.09||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||11.09|3.77|0.0006
91930774|NCT03855137|183759539|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.848||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|9.41||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||9.41|2.15|0.0024
91930775|NCT03855137|183759540|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.968||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-2.95||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-2.95|-6.75|0.0003
91930776|NCT03855137|183759540|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.963||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|-1.49||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.49|-5.27|0.0009
91930777|NCT03855137|183759541|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.897||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-2.43||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-2.43|-5.95|0.0003
91930778|NCT03855137|183759541|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.96||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.96|-4.47|0.0025
91930779|NCT03855137|183759542|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-1.93|||MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.93|-4.67|0.0006
91930780|NCT03855137|183759542|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-1.3|||MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.30|-4.02|0.0024
91930781|NCT02435277|183759545|OTHER|||||||0.0475||||||Total daily dose is twice the respective dose, Pairwise Comparison using Control as the Reference Group|ANCOVA|||Mixed Model Inferential Statistical Analysis of HbA1c change from day 1-day 84 Evaluable Population (n=43)||||0.0475
91930782|NCT02435277|183759545|OTHER|||||||0.0912|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0912
91930783|NCT02435277|183759545|OTHER|||||||0.0458|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0458
91930784|NCT02435277|183759546|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise Comparison using Treatment D as the Reference Group|ANCOVA|||Mixed Model Inferential Statistical Analysis of Fssting Plasma Glucose change from day 1-day 84 in Evaluable Population (n=43)||||0.26
91930785|NCT02435277|183759546|OTHER|||||||0.0083|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0083
91930786|NCT02435277|183759546|OTHER|||||||0.0317|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0317
91930787|NCT03492463|183759580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Due to time and budget constraints a blinded decision was made and approved by the funding agency to limit further enrollment to the two conditions that provided nicotine patches. The primary (one-tailed) test compared Nicotine e-cigs + Nicotine patches to Non-nicotine e-cigs + Nicotine patches.||||0.01
91930788|NCT03492463|183759581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
91930789|NCT03492463|183759582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
91930790|NCT00406640|183759584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.243||95.0|-0.46|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) with baseline score as a covariant and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus ESC adjusted mean change.|DVS SR compared with ESC||1.81|-0.46|0.243
91930791|NCT00406640|183759585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.608||||0.077||95.0|0.4|0.92|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariant.|Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||0.92|0.40|0.077
91930792|NCT00406640|183759586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.571||||0.0054||95.0|0.39|0.85|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariant.|Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odds ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||0.85|0.39|0.0054
91930793|NCT00406640|183759587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.26||95.0|-0.09|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) with baseline score as a covariant and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR minus ESC adjusted mean|DVS SR compared with ESC||0.33|-0.09|0.260
91930794|NCT00406640|183759588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.239||95.0|-0.09|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) with baseline score as a covariant and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR minus ESC adjusted mean|||0.37|-0.09|0.239
91930795|NCT00406640|183759589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.516||95.0|-0.75|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted mean score for baseline score, time and center.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus ESC adjusted mean change.|DVS SR compared to ESC||1.49|-0.75|0.516
91930796|NCT00406640|183759590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.635||95.0|-0.03|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, time and site as factors and baseline as covariant.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus ESC adjusted mean change|DVS SR compared to ESC||0.06|-0.03|0.635
91930797|NCT00406640|183759591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.702||95.0|0.63|2.0|||Chi-squared||Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||2.00|0.63|0.702
91930798|NCT00406640|183759592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.234||95.0|0.83|2.16|||Chi-squared||Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||2.16|0.83|0.234
91930799|NCT00406640|183759596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.927||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: end of therapy||||0.927
91930800|NCT00406640|183759596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: after 1 week of taper||||0.055
91930801|NCT00406640|183759596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: after 2 weeks of taper||||0.025
91930802|NCT00406640|183759596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.653||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: after \> 2 weeks of taper||||0.653
91930803|NCT02198651|183759597|OTHER|||||||0.943|||||||Wald Chi|||||||0.943
91930804|NCT02198651|183759598|OTHER|||||||0.592|||||||Wald Chi|||||||0.592
91930805|NCT02198651|183759599|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||Wald Chi|||||||0.688
91930806|NCT02922634|183759649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.508
91930807|NCT02922634|183759650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The chi-squared test for both males and females with and without delirium.|Chi-squared|||||||0.720
91930808|NCT02922634|183759651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
91930809|NCT02922634|183759652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.480
91930810|NCT02922634|183759653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
91930811|NCT02922634|183759654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
91930812|NCT02922634|183759655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91930813|NCT02922634|183759656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91930814|NCT02922634|183759657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.101
91930815|NCT02922634|183759658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.192
91930816|NCT02922634|183759659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.200
91930817|NCT02922634|183759660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.333
91768447|NCT02365649|183425708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.52|-2.73|0.004
91930818|NCT02922634|183759661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This is a chi-squared test between the FRAIL categories for participants with or without delirium.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91930819|NCT02922634|183759662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||This is a chi-squared test of the categories for levels of invasiveness for participants with or without delirium.|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91930820|NCT02625324|183759665|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|0.023|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.081|||Exact binomial test|||"The primary study endpoint, major device effect at 30 days, is a dichotomous study outcome; hence, an exact method based on the binomial distribution was used for the hypothesis testing. The primary study endpoint was tested against a performance goal of 16%:~H0: p ≥ 16% vs. Ha: p \<16%, where p denotes the true event rate of primary study endpoint in the target population."||0.081||<0.0001
91930821|NCT03534063|183759688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparisons for opioid consumption and composite pain intensity were performed by analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline differences in groups||||||.047
91930822|NCT03534063|183759689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.638
91930823|NCT02397694|183759690|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of treatment with BIC + F/TAF relative to treatment with DTG + F/TAF. Noninferiority assessed using a conventional 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 12%|Difference in percentages|2.9||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 copies/mL vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).||||14.2|-8.5|0.5
91930824|NCT00424528|183759706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as covariate and treatment group as fixed effect.||||||<0.001
91930825|NCT00424528|183759706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study Baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
91930826|NCT00424528|183759706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary analysis:Group 2 vs 3. Key secondary analysis: Group 1 vs 3. Multiple comparisons for the analysis of the primary endpoint were controlled at the 5% level.|ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as fixed effect.||||||<0.001
91930827|NCT00424528|183759707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
91768448|NCT02365649|183425708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.26||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||1.26|-0.93|0.766
91930828|NCT00424528|183759707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.001
91930829|NCT00424528|183759708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.001
91930830|NCT00424528|183759708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
91930831|NCT00424528|183759709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.073
91930832|NCT00424528|183759709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.050
91768449|NCT02365649|183425709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.56||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.56|-1.75|0.314
91930833|NCT00424528|183759712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Week 0 comparisons: Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 0 comparisons||||0.060
91930834|NCT00424528|183759712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 0||||<0.001
91930835|NCT00424528|183759712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Week 2 comparisons: Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 2 comparisons||||0.004
91930836|NCT00424528|183759712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Week 2 comparisons: Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 2 comparisons||||0.002
91930837|NCT00424528|183759715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline Inspiratory Capacity as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.206
91930838|NCT00424528|183759715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline Inspiratory Capacity as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.025
91930839|NCT02115113|183759722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.01||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|15.34|||ANOVA|||||15.34|-4.86|0.3013
91930840|NCT01313520|183759729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
91930841|NCT01313520|183759730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
91930842|NCT01313520|183759731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91930843|NCT01313520|183759732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||||<0.0001
91930844|NCT01313520|183759733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||||||0.001
91930845|NCT01313520|183759734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||||||0.0005
91930846|NCT01313520|183759735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.87||||||||1.87|0.92|
91930847|NCT01313520|183759736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.55||||||||1.55|0.64|
91930848|NCT00789191|183759737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.001||95.0|-0.77|-0.33||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline HbA1c was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors||Null hypothesis: Difference between mean HbA1c in the two treatment arms is equal to zero. Power calculation: Assuming a standard deviation of 1.0 for HbA1c, 100 subjects in each treatment arm would be required to obtain a power of 80% for detecting a HbA1c difference of 0.4%||-0.33|-0.77|0.0010
91930849|NCT00789191|183759738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.001||95.0|1.65|6.19||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate||Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||6.19|1.65|0.0010
91930850|NCT00789191|183759739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.008||95.0|1.26|4.81||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate||Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||4.81|1.26|0.0080
91930851|NCT00789191|183759740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.063||95.0|0.96|5.2||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate||Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||5.20|0.96|0.063
91930852|NCT00789191|183759741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.135||95.0|0.8|5.37||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate|Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||5.37|0.8|0.135
91930853|NCT00789191|183759742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.121||95.0|-0.07|0.63||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors.||||0.63|-0.07|0.121
91930854|NCT00789191|183759743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84||||0.109||95.0|-0.19|1.88||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors.||||1.88|-0.19|0.109
91930855|NCT00789191|183759744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45||||0.001||95.0|-3.01|-1.88||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors.||||-1.88|-3.01|0.0010
91930856|NCT00789191|183759748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01||||||95.0|-2.5|-1.51|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before breakfast|||-1.51|-2.50|
91930857|NCT00789191|183759748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||||95.0|-2.4|-0.89|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. 120 minutes after start of breakfast|||-0.89|-2.40|
91930858|NCT00789191|183759748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||||95.0|-1.69|-0.35|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before lunch|||-0.35|-1.69|
91930859|NCT00789191|183759748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||||95.0|-2.05|-0.56|||Linear mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. 120 minutes after start of lunch|||-0.56|-2.05|
91768450|NCT02365649|183425709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.68||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.68|-3.01|0.002
91930860|NCT00789191|183759748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||||95.0|-1.58|0.05|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before dinner|||0.05|-1.58|
91930861|NCT00789191|183759748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||||95.0|-1.75|-0.02|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. 120 minutes after start of dinner|||-0.02|-1.75|
91930862|NCT00789191|183759748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||||95.0|-1.88|-0.2|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Bedtime|||-0.20|-1.88|
91930863|NCT00789191|183759748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||||95.0|-1.84|-0.49|||Linear Mixed Model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. At 03:00 a.m.|||-0.49|-1.84|
91930864|NCT00789191|183759748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||||95.0|-2.26|-1.34|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before breakfast the following day|||-1.34|-2.26|
91930865|NCT03736629|183759753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|4.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Study did not reach its accrual goal. Sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.||4.81|-6.14|0.72
91930866|NCT03736629|183759754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.67||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.98|24.65|||t-test, 2 sided||Study did not reach its accrual goal. Sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.|||24.65|-35.98|0.59
91930867|NCT03736629|183759757|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Study did not reach its accrual goal. Sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.||||1.0
91768451|NCT02365649|183425709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.52|-1.94|0.255
91930868|NCT01774344|183759858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.624|||=|1.7e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.782|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio for OS and 95% confidence interval was calculated for stratified IVRS by using Cox model, stratified by the geographic region: Asia or Rest of the World (ROW), ECOG-PS: 0 versus 1, AFP level, presence versus absence of extrahepatic disease and presence versus absence of macrovascular invasion. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated for OS and KM survival curves were presented for each treatment arm.||0.782|0.498|= 0.000017
91930869|NCT01774344|183759858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.000149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|0.828|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio for OS and 95% confidence interval was calculated for stratified RAVE (Sensitivity) by using Cox model, stratified by the geographic region: Asia or Rest of the World (ROW), ECOG-PS: 0 versus 1, AFP level, presence versus absence of extrahepatic disease and presence versus absence of macrovascular invasion. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated for OS and KM survival curves were presented for each treatment arm.||0.828|0.527|= 0.000149
91930870|NCT01774344|183759858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674|||=|0.000107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.831|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio for OS and 95% confidence interval was calculated for unstratified (sensitivity) by using Cox model, stratified by the geographic region: Asia or Rest of the World (ROW), ECOG-PS: 0 versus 1, AFP level, presence versus absence of extrahepatic disease and presence versus absence of macrovascular invasion. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated for OS and KM survival curves were presented for each treatment arm.||0.831|0.546|= 0.000107
91930871|NCT01774344|183759859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.439|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|0.542|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.542|0.355|< 0.000001
91930872|NCT01774344|183759859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.572|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.572|0.388|< 0.000001
91930873|NCT01774344|183759859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.412|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|0.509|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.509|0.334|< 0.000001
91930874|NCT01774344|183759859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.444|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.539|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.539|0.365|< 0.000001
91930875|NCT01774344|183759860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.453|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|0.555|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.555|0.369|< 0.000001
91930876|NCT01774344|183759860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.58|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.580|0.397|< 0.000001
91930877|NCT01774344|183759860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|0.522|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.522|0.347|< 0.000001
91930878|NCT01774344|183759860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.454|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.548|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.548|0.376|< 0.000001
91930879|NCT01774344|183759861|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.88|||=|0.00365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|-2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-2.63|-11.13|= 0.003650
91930880|NCT01774344|183759861|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.15|||=|0.019991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|-0.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-0.75|-7.55|= 0.019991
91930881|NCT01774344|183759862|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-29.31|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.52|-21.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-21.11|-37.52|< 0.000001
91930882|NCT01774344|183759862|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-31.39|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.57|-23.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-23.22|-39.57|< 0.000001
91930883|NCT03664193|183759864|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 37.5 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|49.3||||||||49.3|14.7|
91930884|NCT03664193|183759864|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 40.0 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|46.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|65.7||||||||65.7|28.3|
91930885|NCT03664193|183759864|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 42.5 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.1||||||||22.1|0.8|
91930886|NCT03664193|183759864|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 45.0 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|34.7||||||||34.7|5.6|
91930887|NCT03664193|183759865|OTHER|Simple proportion and exact 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|100.0||||||||100.0|88.4|
91930888|NCT04866303|183759869|OTHER|unadjusted logistic regression model|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Minimum testing kit completion rate of 70% in the passive study arm, and calculated that 400 total subjects would provide us with 90% power to detect an effect size associated with a rate ratio of 1.20, or an absolute difference of 14% (70% in passive, 84% in active). A futility boundary of 60% was identified by Community Advisory Board members as justification to prematurely halt trial enrollment if, after completing 25% of expected enrollment, successful test completion fell below that rate.||2.80|1.03|0.04
91930889|NCT04866303|183759870|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Minimum testing kit completion rate of 70% in the passive study arm, and calculated that 400 total subjects would provide us with 90% power to detect an effect size associated with a rate ratio of 1.20, or an absolute difference of 14% (70% in passive, 84% in active). A futility boundary of 60% was identified by Community Advisory Board members as justification to prematurely halt trial enrollment if, after completing 25% of expected enrollment, successful test completion fell below that rate||2.26|0.86|0.18
91930890|NCT04507867|183759872|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method for overall survival.||||||0.027|||||||Log Rank|||The total number of patients who did or did not survive to day 40 of follow-up.||||0.027
91930891|NCT04507867|183759874|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method||||||0.495|||||||Log Rank|||the total number of patients who were intubated and survived at the end of day 40 follow-up.||||0.495
91930892|NCT04507867|183759876|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method||||||0.186|||||||Log Rank|||total number of patients included in the study who progressed to mechanical ventilation during the first 10 days of hospital stay.||||0.186
91930893|NCT04507867|183759877|SUPERIORITY|Fisher exact test||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group, measured at day 3 of hospital stay. It was categorized as follows: 1. normal bristol scale at day 3; 2. abnormal bristol scale at day 3.||||0.35
91930894|NCT04507867|183759878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group, measured at day 3 of hospital stay . Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.043
91930895|NCT04507867|183759879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at day 3 of hospital stay . Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.241
91930896|NCT04507867|183759880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis at the control group, the measurement was performed at baseline and at hospital discharge.||||0.187
91930897|NCT04507867|183759880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis at the intervention group, the measurement was performed at baseline and at hospital discharge.||||0.003
91930898|NCT04507867|183759881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis of the control group in oxygen delivery, the difference between the baseline period and day 3 of hospital stay.||||0.919
91930899|NCT04507867|183759881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis of the control group in oxygen delivery, the difference between the baseline period and day 3 of hospital stay.||||0.014
91930900|NCT04507867|183759882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intragroup analysis of the control group, the difference in the qSOFA measurement at baseline and at day 3 will be analyzed.||||0.608
91930901|NCT04507867|183759882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis of the intervention group, the difference in the qSOFA measurement at baseline and at day 3 will be analyzed.||||0.04
91811360|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.08||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.74|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||7.74|0.42|0.0291
91811361|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.93||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|9.62|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.62|2.23|0.0017
91930902|NCT04507867|183759883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intergroup analysis between both groups to evaluate the number of defecations measured at day 3.||||0.014
91930903|NCT04507867|183759884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|the shapiro wilk test was used to analyze the distribution of the data.||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at day 3 of hospital stay. Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.008
91930904|NCT04507867|183759886|SUPERIORITY|Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded.||||||0.078|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.078
91930905|NCT04507867|183759887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded||||0.098
91811362|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.32||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|6.99|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.99|-0.35|0.0763
91930906|NCT04507867|183759888|OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group to analyze the presentation of post covid syndrome at the end of follow-up at day 40.||||0.195
91930907|NCT04507867|183759889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.135
91930908|NCT04507867|183759890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.266
91930909|NCT04507867|183759891|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91930910|NCT04507867|183759892|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91930911|NCT04507867|183759893|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91930912|NCT04507867|183759894|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91930913|NCT04507867|183759895|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.031|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
91930914|NCT04507867|183759896|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.040
91930915|NCT04507867|183759897|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.047|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
91930916|NCT00543569|183759909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of each experimental arm (Arms 2-4) to a comparator regimen (Arm 1) over a non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval was less than the margin, i.e., 10%, then the test treatment was considered to be non-inferior to the comparator regimen.|Difference|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|23.9|||||A positive difference indicates a higher failure rate in the experimental arm as compared to the comparator arm (Arm 1).|||23.9|3.2|
91930917|NCT00543569|183759909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of each experimental arm (Arms 2-4) to a comparator regimen (Arm 1) over a non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval was less than the margin, i.e., 10%, then the test treatment was considered to be non-inferior to the comparator regimen.|Difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|15.8|||||A positive difference indicates a higher failure rate in the experimental arm as compared to the comparator arm (Arm 1).|||15.8|-3.6|
91930918|NCT00543569|183759909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of each experimental arm (Arms 2-4) to a comparator regimen (Arm 1) over a non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval was less than the margin, i.e., 10%, then the test treatment was considered to be non-inferior to the comparator regimen.|Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|13.3|||||A positive difference indicated a higher failure rate in the experimental arm as compared to the comparator arm (Arm 1).|||13.3|-5.3|
91930919|NCT00543569|183759910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|4.1||||||Patient survival at 6 months||4.1|-6.9|
91930920|NCT00543569|183759910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|5.8||||||Patient survival at 6 months||5.8|-3.5|
91930921|NCT00543569|183759910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|3.2||||||Patient survival at 6 months||3.2|-8.4|
91930922|NCT00543569|183759910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|12.8||||||Patient survival at 12 months||12.8|-3.1|
91930923|NCT00543569|183759910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|9.2||||||Patient survival at 12 months||9.2|-8.3|
91930924|NCT00543569|183759910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|10.8||||||Patient survival at 12 months||10.8|-6.0|
91930925|NCT00543569|183759911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|3.1||||||Graft survival at 6 months||3.1|-8.5|
91930926|NCT00543569|183759911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|4.9||||||Graft survival at 6 months||4.9|-5.3|
91930927|NCT00543569|183759911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|2.2||||||Graft survival at 6 months||2.2|-10.0|
91768452|NCT02365649|183425709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.2||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.2|-2.61|0.022
91768453|NCT02365649|183425709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.48||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.48|-1.92|0.239
91930928|NCT00543569|183759911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|11.7||||||Graft survival at 12 months||11.7|-4.6|
91930929|NCT00543569|183759911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|8.1||||||Graft survival at 12 months||8.1|-9.9|
91930930|NCT00543569|183759911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|7.4||||||Graft survival at 12 months||7.4|-10.6|
91930931|NCT00543569|183759912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|24.6||||||||24.6|2.8|
91930932|NCT00543569|183759912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|15.0||||||||15.0|-5.4|
91930933|NCT00543569|183759912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|12.6||||||||12.6|-7.1|
91930934|NCT00543569|183759913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|19.5||||||BCAR at Month 6||19.5|1.8|
91930935|NCT00543569|183759913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||BCAR at Month 6||12.3|-3.6|
91930936|NCT00543569|183759913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|14.6||||||BCAR at Month 6||14.6|-1.7|
91930937|NCT00543569|183759913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|21.0||||||BCAR at Month 12||21.0|3.0|
91930938|NCT00543569|183759913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||BCAR at Month 12||12.3|-3.6|
91930939|NCT00543569|183759913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|16.2||||||BCAR at Month 12||16.2|-0.6|
91930940|NCT00543569|183759914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|22.5||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||22.5|2.0|
91930941|NCT00543569|183759914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|15.8||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||15.8|-3.6|
91930942|NCT00543569|183759914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|13.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||13.3|-5.3|
91930943|NCT00543569|183759914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|24.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||24.3|3.0|
91930944|NCT00543569|183759914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|14.6||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||14.6|-5.1|
91930945|NCT00543569|183759914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|13.8||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||13.8|-5.6|
91930946|NCT00543569|183759915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|18.0||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||18.0|0.7|
91930947|NCT00543569|183759915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||12.3|-3.6|
91930948|NCT00543569|183759915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|14.6||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||14.6|-1.7|
91930949|NCT00543569|183759915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|19.5||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||19.5|1.8|
91930950|NCT00543569|183759915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||12.3|-3.6|
91930951|NCT00543569|183759915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|16.2||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||16.2|-0.6|
91930952|NCT00543569|183759919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|25.5||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||25.5|3.8|
91930953|NCT00543569|183759919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|17.8||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||17.8|-2.9|
91930954|NCT00543569|183759919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|18.2||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||18.2|-2.4|
91930955|NCT00543569|183759919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|20.4||||||Efficacy Failure at Month12||20.4|-3.5|
91930956|NCT00543569|183759919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|15.8||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||15.8|-7.8|
91930957|NCT00543569|183759919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|15.9||||||Efficacy Failure at Month12||15.9|-7.5|
91930958|NCT00543569|183759920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|20.4||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||20.4|0.9|
91930959|NCT00543569|183759920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|13.7||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||13.7|-4.5|
91930960|NCT00543569|183759920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|18.7||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||18.7|-0.4|
91768454|NCT02365649|183425710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|21.4||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||21.4|-36.4|1.000
91930961|NCT00543569|183759920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|18.0||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||18.0|-4.0|
91930962|NCT00543569|183759920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|13.0||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||13.0|-8.3|
91930963|NCT00543569|183759920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|17.6||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||17.6|-4.2|
91930964|NCT00543569|183759930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3||||||Treatment Failure at Month 6||23.3|-1.1|
91930965|NCT00543569|183759930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|24.2||||||Treatment Failure at Month 6||24.2|-0.7|
91768455|NCT02365649|183425710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|32.5||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||32.5|-22.5|1.000
91768456|NCT02365649|183425710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.5||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||-2.5|-37.5|0.272
91930966|NCT00543569|183759930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.9|14.7||||||Treatment Failure at Month 6||14.7|-8.9|
91930967|NCT00543569|183759930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|22.8||||||Treatment Failure at Month 12||22.8|-2.9|
91930968|NCT00543569|183759930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|22.8||||||Treatment Failure at Month 12||22.8|-3.3|
91930969|NCT00543569|183759930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|11.7||||||Treatment Failure at Month 12||11.7|-13.3|
91930970|NCT00862849|183759937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.22|34.71||Treatment comparison for %AUC(0-30). Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||34.71|18.22|<0.0001
91930971|NCT00862849|183759937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.45|24.94||Treatment comparison for %AUC(0-30). Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed||||24.94|8.45|0.0015
91930972|NCT02344407|183759945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|Bernards Exact Test Chi-square||Each active vaccine is compared to the placebo group||||0.68
91930973|NCT02344407|183759945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|Barnard Exact Test Chi-square||||||0.68
91930974|NCT02344407|183759946|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Linear regression (analysis of covariance) adjusted for baseline antibody level||||||<0.001
91930975|NCT02344407|183759946|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline antibody level||||||<0.001
91930976|NCT04124536|183759947|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-7.9|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||-7.9|-35.9|
91930977|NCT04124536|183759947|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-20.8|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||-20.8|-40.6|
91930978|NCT04124536|183759948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|2.8|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||2.8|-13.6|
91930979|NCT04124536|183759948|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||The calculation of risk differences between study arms was originally planned. However, the linear-binomial model did not converge because of zero events in the intervention arm.|||
91930980|NCT04124536|183759952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|58.4|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||58.4|23.0|
91930981|NCT04124536|183759952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|36.0|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||36.0|10.7|
91768457|NCT02365649|183425710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||8.6|-2.7|1.000
91930982|NCT00677690|183759958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||"All data were expressed as the mean ± SD. The level of significance for all tests was set at p \< 0.05.~Inter- and intra-group comparisons were performed using both paired and unpaired t tests for continuous variables and Chi squared for categorical variables."||||< 0.05
91930983|NCT00677690|183759959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91930984|NCT00677690|183759960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91930985|NCT00677690|183759961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91930986|NCT00677690|183759962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91930987|NCT01842620|183759986|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric means ratio for AUC (0-t) of test drug (Oxemet) to be entirely fallen within range of 0.80 to 1.25 of that of reference drug (Glafornil).|(Ratio of AUC0-36)*100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.62|107.98|||||Ratio of AUC0-36= (AUC0-36 of Test)/ AUC 0-36 Reference)|Overall period||107.98|92.62|
91768458|NCT02365649|183425710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|26.8||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||26.8|-0.7|0.068
91768459|NCT02365649|183425710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|12.3||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||12.3|-23.1|1.0000
91768460|NCT02365649|183425710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|18.3||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||18.3|-15.7|1.000
91811363|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.58||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|6.11|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.11|-0.95|0.1524
91811364|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.36||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.93|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||8.93|1.80|0.0032
91930988|NCT01842620|183759987|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric means ratio for AUC(0-inf) of test drug (Oxemet) to be entirely fallen within range of 0.80 to 1.25 of that of reference drug (Glafornil).|(Ratio of AUC0-inf)*100|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.26|106.27|||||Ratio of AUC0-inf= (AUC0-inf of Test) / (AUC 0-inf of Reference)|For overall period||106.27|92.26|
91930989|NCT01842620|183759988|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric means ratio for Cmax of test drug (Oxemet) to be entirely fallen within range of 0.80 to 1.25 of that of reference drug (Glafornil).|(Ratio of Cmax)*100|98.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.54|109.22|||||Ratio of Cmax= (Cmax of Test) / (Cmax of Reference)|Overall period||109.22|88.54|
91930990|NCT02371759|183759992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to detect 20% difference in intraoral anesthesia duration between healthy and diabetic participants, with 80 % statistical power at a two-tailed significance level of 0.05 using Mann Whitney U test, it was calculated that at least 24 participants must be included in each group|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||In order to detect 20% difference in intraoral anesthesia duration between healthy and diabetic participants, with 80 % statistical power at a two-tailed significance level of 0.05 using Mann Whitney U test, it was calculated that at least 24 participants must be included in each group||||<0.05
91930991|NCT02371759|183759993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91930992|NCT02371759|183760009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91930993|NCT02371759|183760010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91930994|NCT02371759|183760011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91930995|NCT02371759|183760012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91930996|NCT02371759|183760013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91930997|NCT02371759|183760014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91930998|NCT02371759|183760015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91930999|NCT02371759|183760016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91931000|NCT02322320|183760017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.60
91931001|NCT02322320|183760017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.35
91931002|NCT02322320|183760017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.68
91931003|NCT02322320|183760018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of OS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.57
91931004|NCT02322320|183760018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of OS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.38
91931005|NCT02322320|183760018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of OS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.77
91931006|NCT02322320|183760019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of EFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with EFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.67
91931007|NCT02322320|183760019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of EFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with EFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.20
91931008|NCT02322320|183760019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of EFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with EFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.40
91931009|NCT02322320|183760020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of SPM between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Gray's test|Gray's test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with SPM at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.43
91931010|NCT02322320|183760020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of SPM between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Gray's test|Gray's test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with SPM at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.70
91768461|NCT02365649|183425710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|23.3||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||23.3|-16.7|1.000
91768462|NCT02365649|183425710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|13.9||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders||13.9|-4.3|1.000
91768463|NCT02365649|183425711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|35.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||35.5|-35.5|1.000
91931011|NCT02322320|183760020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of SPM between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Gray's test|Gray's test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with SPM at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.70
91931012|NCT02876055|183760032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.542|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.542
91931013|NCT02876055|183760032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91931014|NCT02876055|183760032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91931015|NCT04019093|183760054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,46) = .001||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) mixed general linear model on pressure threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X group interaction.||||.99
91931016|NCT04019093|183760054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,46)=12.55||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) mixed general linear model on pressure threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of beverage condition.||||<.0001
91931017|NCT04019093|183760054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|F(1,46)=6.32||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) mixed general linear model on pressure threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of group.||||.015
91931018|NCT04019093|183760055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=.20||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the pressure level X group interaction.||||.76
91931019|NCT04019093|183760055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,82)=.66||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the pressure level X beverage condition interaction.||||.52
91931020|NCT04019093|183760055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=4.53, p=.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of beverage condition.||||.04
91931021|NCT04019093|183760055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=6.24||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of group.||||.017
91931022|NCT04019093|183760055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=48.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of pressure level.||||<.0001
91931023|NCT04019093|183760056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|F (2, 82) = 0.69||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X pressure level X group interaction.||||.50
91931024|NCT04019093|183760056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=1.58||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X pressure level interaction.||||.21
91931025|NCT04019093|183760056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=3.06||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the pressure level X group interaction.||||.053
91931026|NCT04019093|183760056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=.001||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X group interaction.||||.98
91931027|NCT04019093|183760056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=.34||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of pressure level.||||.71
91931028|NCT04019093|183760056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=.14||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of group.||||.71
91931029|NCT04019093|183760056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=55.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of beverage condition.||||<.0001
91931030|NCT01067508|183760058|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to 12 weeks minus baseline change in Fiji water group||||0.003
91931031|NCT01067508|183760058|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to the 12 week minus baseline change in Aquafina (control) group||||0.68
91931032|NCT00958308|183760059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculation was based on the incidence of AAD. A total of 255 patients was enrolled in order to obtain at least the required 225 evaluable patients.With expected AAD rates of at most 15% - 25% in the treatment groups; and 25% - 35% in the placebo group, these numbers were sufficient to detect the difference in the incidence of AAD between either of the treatment groups vs. placebo with a minimum of 86% statistical power.||||=0.02
91931033|NCT01552928|183760072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91931034|NCT01552928|183760072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931035|NCT01552928|183760072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931036|NCT01552928|183760073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931037|NCT01552928|183760073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931038|NCT01552928|183760073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91931039|NCT01552928|183760074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
91931040|NCT01552928|183760074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
91931041|NCT01552928|183760074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931042|NCT01552928|183760075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931043|NCT01552928|183760075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931044|NCT01552928|183760075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931045|NCT01552928|183760076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91931046|NCT01552928|183760076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931047|NCT01552928|183760076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
91931048|NCT01552928|183760081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931049|NCT01552928|183760081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931050|NCT01552928|183760081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931051|NCT01552928|183760082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931052|NCT01552928|183760082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931053|NCT01552928|183760082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91931054|NCT01552928|183760083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91931055|NCT01552928|183760083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931056|NCT01552928|183760083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931057|NCT01552928|183760084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.078
91931058|NCT01552928|183760084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931059|NCT01552928|183760084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.156|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.156
91931060|NCT01552928|183760085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.439|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.439
91931061|NCT01552928|183760085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.274
91931062|NCT01552928|183760085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91931063|NCT04030104|183760086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268||||||Threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Random Reader, Random Mass|Curve Fitting Method: Empirical||||||0.0268
91931064|NCT02065622|183760093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.5||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||7.0|-2.0|0.269
91931065|NCT02065622|183760093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.447
91931066|NCT02065622|183760093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.3||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||6.6|-2.0|0.301
91931067|NCT02065622|183760093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.502
91931068|NCT02065622|183760094|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.9||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.6|-0.8|0.069
91931069|NCT02065622|183760094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.085
91931070|NCT02065622|183760094|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|10.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|20.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.4|0.2|0.045
91931071|NCT02065622|183760094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.106
91931072|NCT02065622|183760095|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||10.5|-2.0|0.181
91931073|NCT02065622|183760095|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||9.7|-2.0|0.200
91931074|NCT02065622|183760096|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||8.6|-2.6|0.300
91931075|NCT02065622|183760096|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.1||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||8.4|-2.2|0.254
91931076|NCT02065622|183760097|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|6.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||13.1|-0.0|0.050
91931077|NCT02065622|183760097|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.8||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||11.0|-1.4|0.131
91931078|NCT02065622|183760098|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.3||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|14.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||14.1|0.5|0.035
91811365|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.82||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|6.36|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.36|-0.72|0.1180
91811366|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.15||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|6.99|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.99|-0.69|0.1081
91811367|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.1||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.99|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||8.99|1.22|0.0101
91811368|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.75||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.60|-3.10|0.7031
91931079|NCT02065622|183760098|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||15.1|2.3|0.008
91931080|NCT02065622|183760099|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.2||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||7.6|-1.3|0.160
91931081|NCT02065622|183760099|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.9||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||7.1|-1.2|0.166
91811369|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.27||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|4.39|||ANCOVA|||General Health Perception: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.39|-1.86|0.4253
91811370|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.73||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|5.89|||ANCOVA|||General Health Perception: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.89|-0.44|0.0910
91931082|NCT02065622|183760100|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||14.7|1.9|0.011
91811371|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.82||||0.2526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.95|||ANCOVA|||General Health Perception: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.95|-1.30|0.2526
91811372|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.62||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.82|0.42|0.0195
91811373|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.66||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.88|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.88|1.44|0.0013
91931083|NCT02065622|183760100|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||13.0|0.9|0.025
91931084|NCT02065622|183760101|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||10.9|-2.5|0.218
91811374|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.14||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|4.34|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.34|-0.06|0.0568
91931085|NCT02065622|183760101|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.4||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||8.8|-4.0|0.456
91931086|NCT02065622|183760102|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.5||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.8|-1.7|0.098
91931087|NCT02065622|183760102|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.9||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.5|-0.7|0.066
91931088|NCT02065622|183760103|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|21.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.||Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||35.4|7.6|0.002
91931089|NCT02065622|183760103|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|19.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||32.7|6.6|0.003
91931090|NCT02065622|183760104|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|11.5||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||25.0|-1.9|0.093
91931091|NCT02065622|183760104|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|11.1||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||23.8|-1.7|0.088
91931092|NCT02065622|183760105|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|15.9||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|38.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||38.2|-6.3|0.161
91931093|NCT02065622|183760105|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|10.4||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||30.6|-9.8|0.312
91931094|NCT02065622|183760106|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|12.3||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||34.4|-9.7|0.272
91768464|NCT02365649|183425711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|42.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||42.9|-17.9|0.483
91768465|NCT02365649|183425711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|11.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||11.6|-41.6|0.633
91768466|NCT02365649|183425711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|26.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||26.4|-12.7|0.424
91768467|NCT02365649|183425711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||17.0|-5.6|0.614
91811375|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.8529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.27|-1.54|0.8529
91768468|NCT02365649|183425711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|30.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||30.9|-2.4|0.149
91931095|NCT02065622|183760106|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|5.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||25.2|-14.6|0.600
91931096|NCT02065622|183760107|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|23.8||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|49.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||49.9|-2.3|0.074
91931097|NCT02065622|183760107|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|15.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||38.4|-8.5|0.210
91931098|NCT02065622|183760108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|20.0||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|47.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||47.3|-7.3|0.151
91931099|NCT02065622|183760108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|12.8||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||36.8|-11.3|0.299
91931100|NCT02065622|183760109|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.5||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||15.3|-6.4|0.422
91931101|NCT02065622|183760109|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.4||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||13.6|-6.8|0.513
91931102|NCT02065622|183760110|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.7||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||11.4|-4.1|0.351
91931103|NCT02065622|183760110|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.9||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||11.1|-3.3|0.292
91931104|NCT02065622|183760111|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|5.4||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||12.1|-1.4|0.121
91931105|NCT02065622|183760111|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|6.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||12.8|0.1|0.046
91931106|NCT02065622|183760112|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.5||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||17.9|-2.9|0.159
91931107|NCT02065622|183760112|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||17.9|-1.8|0.109
91931108|NCT02065622|183760113|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.4||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||23.8|-21.0|0.903
91768469|NCT02365649|183425711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|30.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||30.7|-19.1|0.684
91931109|NCT02065622|183760113|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.3||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|21.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||21.3|-18.8|0.901
91931110|NCT02065622|183760114|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.7||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||18.4|-3.0|0.160
91931111|NCT02065622|183760114|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.1||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||19.1|-0.9|0.076
91931112|NCT02065622|183760115|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.3||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||18.6|-4.0|0.207
91931113|NCT02065622|183760115|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||14.8|-6.4|0.440
91931114|NCT04973228|183760133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|IGA Success at Week 8||4.45|1.75|<0.0001
91931115|NCT04973228|183760134|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|WI-NRS Success at Week 8||5.19|1.68|0.0001
91931116|NCT04973228|183760135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|WI-NRS Success at Week 4||4.67|1.47|0.0007
91811376|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.4564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.96|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.96|-0.88|0.4564
91811377|NCT00333866|183497615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.8576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.54|-1.28|0.8576
91931117|NCT04973228|183760136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|WI-NRS Success at Week 2||5.34|1.41|0.0016
91931118|NCT04973228|183760137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|IGA Success at Week 2||3.84|1.54|0.0002
91931119|NCT04973228|183760138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|5.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|IGA Success at Week 4||5.03|2.06|<0.0001
91931120|NCT04973228|183760139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Scaling Score of 0 at Week 8||3.73|1.56|<0.0001
91931121|NCT04973228|183760140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Erythema Score of 0 at Week 8||5.06|2.05|<0.0001
91931122|NCT00488618|183760141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-3.3|||ANCOVA||cariprazine - placebo|||-3.3|-8.9|<0.0001
91931123|NCT00488618|183760142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.32|||ANCOVA||cariprazine - placebo|||-0.32|-0.97|0.0001
91931124|NCT00797797|183760182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The responder rates between 'No Treatment Added' and 'Milnacipran Added' groups were compared using a logistic regression model.||||<0.001
91931125|NCT00797797|183760183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-9.71|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-9.71|-18.99|
91931126|NCT02207478|183760184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.019
91931127|NCT02207478|183760185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total procedure time||||0.843
91931128|NCT02207478|183760185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total X-ray time||||0.233
91811378|NCT00333866|183497616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.4|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.40|-1.98|0.7384
91931129|NCT02207478|183760185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration time for finding lesions||||<0.001
91931130|NCT02207478|183760185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||X-ray time for finding lesions||||<0.001
91931131|NCT00333619|183760191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
91931132|NCT00333619|183760192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
91768470|NCT02365649|183425711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||28.5|-11.5|0.404
91768471|NCT02365649|183425711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|34.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||34.1|-12.8|0.470
91931133|NCT03006471|183760227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.755
91931134|NCT03006471|183760227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.046
91931135|NCT03006471|183760228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.752
91931136|NCT03006471|183760228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.582
91931137|NCT03006471|183760229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.814
91931138|NCT03006471|183760229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.220
91768472|NCT02365649|183425711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91768473|NCT02365649|183425711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||20.3|-11.3|1.000
91768474|NCT02365649|183425711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91768475|NCT02365649|183425712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.9||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||14.6|-48.4|0.624
91931139|NCT03006471|183760230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.624
91931140|NCT03006471|183760230|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||1.000
91931141|NCT03006471|183760231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.906
91931142|NCT03006471|183760231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.017
91931143|NCT03006471|183760232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.454
91931144|NCT03006471|183760232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.115
91768476|NCT02365649|183425712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|36.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||36.1|-28.3|1.000
91931145|NCT03006471|183760233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.422
91931146|NCT03006471|183760233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.917||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.917
91931147|NCT03006471|183760234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.650
91931148|NCT03006471|183760234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.108
91931149|NCT03006471|183760235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.875
91931150|NCT03006471|183760235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of waist circumference in dapagliflozin group||||0.196
91931151|NCT03006471|183760236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.552
91931152|NCT03006471|183760236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.087
91931153|NCT03006471|183760237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.814
91931154|NCT03006471|183760237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.463
91931155|NCT03006471|183760238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.530
91931156|NCT03006471|183760238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.507
91931157|NCT03006471|183760239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.152
91931158|NCT03006471|183760239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.972
91931159|NCT03006471|183760240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.152
91931160|NCT03006471|183760240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.158
91931161|NCT03006471|183760241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.944
91931162|NCT03006471|183760241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.650
91931163|NCT03006471|183760242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.087
91931164|NCT03006471|183760242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.345
91931165|NCT03006471|183760243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between change of intervention group||||0.115
91931166|NCT03006471|183760244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between change of intervention groups||||0.047
91931167|NCT03006471|183760245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between change of intervention groups||||0.539
91931168|NCT03006471|183760246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.844
91931169|NCT03006471|183760246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.010
91768477|NCT02365649|183425712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.4||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|9.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||9.1|-48.0|0.363
91811379|NCT00333866|183497616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.41||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.29|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.29|-3.12|0.1044
91931170|NCT03006471|183760247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.814
91931171|NCT03006471|183760247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.011
91931172|NCT03006471|183760248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.221
91931173|NCT03006471|183760248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.001
91931174|NCT03006471|183760249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.461
91931175|NCT03006471|183760249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.011
91931176|NCT03006471|183760250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.285
91931177|NCT03006471|183760250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.002
91931178|NCT03006471|183760251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.701
91768478|NCT02365649|183425712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|14.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||14.2|-2.1|0.495
91811380|NCT00333866|183497616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.83|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.83|-2.58|0.3137
91931179|NCT03006471|183760251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.081
91931180|NCT03006471|183760252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.581
91931181|NCT03006471|183760252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-cholesterol on dapagliflozin group||||0.004
91931182|NCT03006471|183760253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.727
91931183|NCT03006471|183760253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.451
91931184|NCT03006471|183760254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.463
91931185|NCT03006471|183760254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.043
91931186|NCT03006471|183760255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.807
91931187|NCT03006471|183760255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.754
91768479|NCT02365649|183425712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||30.6|-0.6|0.066
91768480|NCT02365649|183425712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|8.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||8.9|-30.3|0.645
91768481|NCT02365649|183425712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|25.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||25.5|-16.8|0.686
91811381|NCT00333866|183497617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.09|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Anxiety Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.09|-1.28|0.0900
91931188|NCT03006471|183760256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.507
91931189|NCT03006471|183760256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.015
91931190|NCT03006471|183760257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between intervention groups||||0.039
91931191|NCT03006471|183760258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between intervention groups||||0.011
91931192|NCT03006471|183760259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between intervention groups||||0.096
91931193|NCT00442013|183760260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed effects model is robust to data that are missing at random that has characteristics similar to multiple imputation techniques.||All participants included in the analysis. The model includes the data (ACQ scores) from all time points including baseline. The treatment effect (delta-delta) comparing the difference from baseline at 6 months is estimated from the model. Longitudinal models estimated the change from baseline to 6 months in a measurement using generalized estimating equations with an unstructured or exchangeable covariance matrix to adjust for repeated measures.||0.3|0.0|0.12
91931194|NCT00442013|183760261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2593||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.3|0.65
91931195|NCT00442013|183760262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0906||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||0.1|-0.1|0.99
91931196|NCT00442013|183760263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||negative binomial|||||1.7|0.9|0.30
91931197|NCT00442013|183760264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||Regression, Linear|Model includes the data from all time points. Treatment effect (delta-delta) comparing the difference from baseline at 24 weeks is from the model.||||0.01|-0.07|0.14
91931198|NCT00442013|183760265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.4|-2.1|0.20
91931199|NCT02370498|183760308|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.98358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.57||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (Hazard Ratio \[HR\]) between the treatment arms.||1.57|1.03|0.98358
91931200|NCT02370498|183760309|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.04205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in OS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.03|0.66|0.04205
91768482|NCT02365649|183425712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|28.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||28.2|-19.5|0.721
91768483|NCT02365649|183425712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|13.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||13.9|-4.3|1.000
91768484|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|32.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||32.5|-47.5|1.000
91931201|NCT02370498|183760310|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.77||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (Hazard Ratio \[HR\]) between the treatment arms.||1.77|1.25|0.99999
91931202|NCT02370498|183760311|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.24463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in OS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (Hazard Ratio \[HR\]) between the treatment arms.||1.12|0.79|0.24463
91931203|NCT02370498|183760312|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.41331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.21|0.79|0.41331
91768485|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|37.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||37.8|-27.8|0.765
91768486|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|32.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||32.4|-42.4|1.000
91931204|NCT02370498|183760313|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.97481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.42||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.42|1.00|0.97481
91931205|NCT02370498|183760314|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.80696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.38||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.38|0.89|0.80696
91768487|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|32.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||32.5|-47.5|1.000
91768488|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|43.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||43.9|-21.4|0.502
91768489|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|42.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||42.9|-32.9|1.000
91768490|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|37.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||37.3|-42.3|1.000
91811382|NCT00333866|183497617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.19|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Anxiety Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.19|-1.20|0.1564
91811383|NCT00333866|183497617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.58|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Anxiety Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.58|-0.80|0.7519
91811384|NCT00333866|183497617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15||||0.6416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Depression Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.80|-0.50|0.6416
91811385|NCT00333866|183497617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.07|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Depression Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.07|-1.25|0.0778
91811386|NCT00333866|183497617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.44|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Depression Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.44|-0.87|0.5191
91811387|NCT00333866|183497618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.44||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|3.09|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||3.09|-5.97|0.5340
91811388|NCT00333866|183497618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.44||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.88|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-2.88|-12.00|0.0014
91811389|NCT00333866|183497618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.56||||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|1.98|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.98|-7.09|0.2694
91768491|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|54.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||54.5|-9.5|0.180
91768492|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|25.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||25.6|-45.6|0.702
91811390|NCT00333866|183497619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|263.77||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.78|603.33|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P value was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatment and center in the model.||603.33|-75.78|0.1277
91931206|NCT02370498|183760315|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.99932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.6||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.60|1.12|0.99932
91931207|NCT02370498|183760316|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.99661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.89||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.89|1.11|0.99661
91931208|NCT02370498|183760317|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.2||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||2.20|1.42|1.00000
91931209|NCT02370498|183760318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.23|0.77|0.39280
91931210|NCT02370498|183760319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.97033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.47||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.47|1.00|0.97033
91931211|NCT02370498|183760320|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.28967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.1||Stratification factors for MN method included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months) weighting by sample size.|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen's (MN) method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm was provided.||9.1|-5.0|0.28967
91931212|NCT02370498|183760321|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.0||Stratification factors for MN method included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) weighting by sample size|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified MN method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm was provided.||4.0|-6.5|0.69010
91931213|NCT02370498|183760322|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6||||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|9.1||Stratification factors for MN method included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), weighting by sample size.|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified MN method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm was provided.||9.1|-5.8|0.33220
91931214|NCT02370498|183760323|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.0||||0.85922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.6||Stratification factors included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) weighting by sample size.|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm is provided.||2.6|-8.5|0.85922
91811391|NCT00333866|183497619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|47.89||||0.7829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.2|389.02|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P value was calculated using ANOVA, with treatment and center in the model.||389.02|-293.2|0.7829
91931215|NCT02370498|183760329|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.2||||||Between-treatment differences (Pembrolizumab vs. Paclitaxel) in the percentage of participants with events and accompanying 95% confidence intervals were based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Negative values correspond to a greater percentage of events for Paclitaxel.||0.2|-6.9|
91931216|NCT02387372|183760336|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|1.56|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.56|1.21|
91931217|NCT02387372|183760336|OTHER||GMR|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.29|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.29|1.03|
91931218|NCT02387372|183760339|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|1.96|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.96|1.50|
91931219|NCT02387372|183760339|OTHER||GMR|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.55|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.55|1.14|
91811392|NCT00333866|183497619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.51||||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-351.9|328.86|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P value was calculated using ANOVA, with treatment and center in the model.||328.86|-351.9|0.9471
91931220|NCT02387372|183760341|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|1.81|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.81|1.44|
91931221|NCT02387372|183760341|OTHER||GMR|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.39|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.39|1.11|
91931222|NCT02387372|183760342|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|1.95|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.95|1.51|
91931223|NCT02387372|183760342|OTHER||GMR|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.33|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.33|1.09|
91931224|NCT03546413|183760368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is the calculated p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Test for equivalence between the groups||||<0.001
91931225|NCT03546413|183760369|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.055|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Test for equivalence between the groups||||0.055
91931226|NCT03546413|183760370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is the calculated p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91931227|NCT03546413|183760370|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of the peanut consumption with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.|||||<|0.001||||||This is the calculated p-value|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91768493|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.5||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||3.9|-58.9|0.214
91811393|NCT06073119|183497620|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference (RRD), %|23.43||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|45.98||A hierarchical testing was used to control the overall type I error of 0.05 (two-sided). Testing was performed in the order of 200 mg BID, 100 mg BID, 200 mg QD versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 200 mg BID - placebo.|||45.98|-2.74|0.0874
91931228|NCT03546413|183760370|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of the peanut consumption with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.939|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.939
91931229|NCT03546413|183760370|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of the peanut consumption with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
91931230|NCT03546413|183760371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
91931231|NCT03546413|183760371|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut skin prick test with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.208|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.208
91931232|NCT03546413|183760371|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut skin prick with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.587|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.587
91931233|NCT03546413|183760371|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut skin prick with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.268|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.268
91931234|NCT03546413|183760372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.985
91931235|NCT03546413|183760372|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut specific IgE with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.371|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.371
91931236|NCT03546413|183760372|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut specific IgE with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.483|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.483
91931237|NCT03546413|183760372|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut specific IgE with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.643|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.643
91931238|NCT03546413|183760373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.225
91931239|NCT03546413|183760373|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of SCORAD with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.857|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.857
91931240|NCT03546413|183760373|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of SCORAD with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.870
91931241|NCT03546413|183760374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.658
91931242|NCT03546413|183760374|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.100
91931243|NCT03546413|183760374|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.502|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.502
91931244|NCT03546413|183760374|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.397|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.397
91931245|NCT03546413|183760375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.659
91931246|NCT03546413|183760375|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.260
91931247|NCT03546413|183760375|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.075
91931248|NCT03546413|183760375|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.192|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.192
91931249|NCT03546413|183760376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.729
91931250|NCT03546413|183760376|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.75|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.750
91931251|NCT03546413|183760376|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.155|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.155
91931252|NCT03546413|183760376|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.458|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.458
91931253|NCT03546413|183760377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.330
91931254|NCT03546413|183760377|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.351|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.351
91931255|NCT03546413|183760377|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.502|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.502
91931256|NCT03546413|183760377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732||||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.732
91931257|NCT03546413|183760378|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.202|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.202
91931258|NCT03546413|183760378|OTHER||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit. However, the logistic regression model was unable to converge due to the low percentage of allergic participants in older siblings.|||
91931259|NCT03546413|183760378|OTHER||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit. However, the logistic regression model was unable to converge due to the low percentage of allergic participants in parents.|||
91931260|NCT03546413|183760379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.029
91931261|NCT03546413|183760379|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.489|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.489
91931262|NCT03546413|183760379|OTHER||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit. However, the model was unable to converge due to the low percentage of peanut-related adverse events in older siblings.|||
91931263|NCT02175771|183760384|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.72|||||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|Mid-strength comparison||1.72|1.02|
91931264|NCT02175771|183760384|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.04|||||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|High-strength comparison||1.04|0.63|
91931265|NCT02175771|183760384|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.24|||||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|Mid-strength comparison||1.24|0.75|
91931266|NCT02175771|183760384|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.06|||||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|High-strength comparison||1.06|0.67|
91931267|NCT02175771|183760385|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0476||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.103|||mixed model for repeated measures||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|Mid-strength comparison||0.103|-0.084|0.8451
91931268|NCT02175771|183760385|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0479||0.7877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.081|||mixed model for repeated measures||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|High-strength comparison||0.081|-0.107|0.7877
91931269|NCT02175771|183760385|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0485||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.095|||mixed model for repeated measures||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|Mid-strength comparison||0.095|-0.095|0.9966
91931270|NCT02175771|183760385|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0464||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.15|||mixed model for repeated measures||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|High-strength comparison||0.150|-0.032|0.2056
91931271|NCT02504268|183760386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2359|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2359
91931272|NCT02504268|183760387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0112
91931273|NCT02504268|183760388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0021
91931274|NCT02504268|183760389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||rank-based ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
91931275|NCT02504268|183760390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0006
91931276|NCT00424294|183760438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.733
91931277|NCT00424294|183760439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 1: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.463
91931278|NCT00424294|183760439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 2: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.549
91931279|NCT00424294|183760439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.272
91931280|NCT00424294|183760439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.265
91931281|NCT00424294|183760440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.939
91931282|NCT00424294|183760440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.323
91931283|NCT00424294|183760440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.338
91931284|NCT00424294|183760441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.746
91768494|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||60.0|-2.5|0.086
91931285|NCT00424294|183760442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.635
91931286|NCT00424294|183760442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.044
91931287|NCT00424294|183760442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.957
91931288|NCT00424294|183760442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.597
91931289|NCT00424294|183760442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.960
91931290|NCT00424294|183760443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.252
91931291|NCT00424294|183760443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.032
91931292|NCT00424294|183760443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.031
91931293|NCT00424294|183760443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.018
91931294|NCT00424294|183760443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.170
91931295|NCT00424294|183760444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.507
91931296|NCT00424294|183760444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.743
91931297|NCT00424294|183760444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.914
91931298|NCT00424294|183760444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.715
91931299|NCT00424294|183760444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.558|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.558
91931300|NCT00424294|183760445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.172
91931301|NCT00424294|183760445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.738
91931302|NCT00424294|183760445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.948
91931303|NCT00424294|183760445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.428
91931304|NCT00424294|183760445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.861
91931305|NCT00424294|183760446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.325
91931306|NCT00424294|183760446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.386
91931307|NCT00424294|183760446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.532
91931308|NCT00424294|183760446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.909
91931309|NCT00424294|183760446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.994
91931310|NCT00424294|183760447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.369
91931311|NCT00424294|183760447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.666
91931312|NCT00424294|183760447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.530
91931313|NCT00424294|183760447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.632
91931314|NCT00424294|183760447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.801
91931315|NCT00424294|183760448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.052
91811394|NCT06073119|183497620|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|33.08||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|54.83||A hierarchical testing was used to control the overall type I error of 0.05 (two-sided). Testing was performed in the order of 200 mg BID, 100 mg BID, 200 mg QD versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 100 mg BID - placebo.|||54.83|5.71|0.0185
91931316|NCT00424294|183760448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.108
91931317|NCT00424294|183760448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.573
91931318|NCT00424294|183760448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.342
91931319|NCT00424294|183760448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.501
91931320|NCT00424294|183760449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.701
91931321|NCT00424294|183760449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.167
91931322|NCT00424294|183760449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.948
91931323|NCT00424294|183760449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.834
91931324|NCT00424294|183760449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.977
91931325|NCT00424294|183760450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.291
91931326|NCT00424294|183760450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.080
91931327|NCT00424294|183760450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.466
91931328|NCT00424294|183760450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.267
91931329|NCT00424294|183760450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.100
91931330|NCT01100307|183760460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|12.28||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories)||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||12.28|1.92|0.0003
91931331|NCT01100307|183760461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.94||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 6: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||3.94|1.10|0.0006
91931332|NCT01100307|183760461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.58||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 12: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||5.58|1.81|0.0001
91931333|NCT01100307|183760461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.65||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 18: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||4.65|0.65|0.0096
91931334|NCT01100307|183760461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|6.32||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 24: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||6.32|2.19|<0.0001
91931335|NCT01496430|183760478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91931336|NCT01496430|183760478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.067
91931337|NCT01496430|183760479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.860
91931338|NCT01496430|183760479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.210
91931339|NCT01962714|183760529|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of non-inferiority of LKM relative to CPT-C was assessed using a non-inferiority margin of 5 points on the CAPS-5, which represents 0.5 SD of baseline PTSD symptoms based on data indicating the SD of baseline CAPS-5 scores is approximately 10 in a large sample (N=198) of treatment-seeking veterans.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|6.78|||||Non-inferiority of LKM to CPT-C was analyzed as the change rate from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups (CPT-C minus LKM), with a positive value indicating a greater reduction in scores for LKM compared to CPT-C.|The non-inferiority of LKM with respect to CPT-C was analyzed using the 95% confidence interval for the group x time interaction term, with non-inferiority of LKM to CPT-C claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than (i.e., did not extend beyond) negative delta.||6.78|-2.59|
91931340|NCT01962714|183760530|NON_INFERIORITY|For depression, the non-inferiority margin was 4 points on the PROMIS depression measure, which has been defined as the minimally important difference and corresponds to a Cohen's d effect size of approximately 0.50.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|5.2|||||Non-inferiority of LKM with respect to CPT-C was analyzed as the change rate from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups (CPT-C minus LKM), with a positive value indicating a greater reduction in scores from baseline for LKM compared to CPT-C.|The non-inferiority of LKM with respect to CPT-C was analyzed using the 95% confidence interval for the group x time interaction term, with non-inferiority of LKM to CPT-C claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than (i.e., did not extend beyond) negative delta.||5.20|-0.52|
91811395|NCT06073119|183497620|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|38.02||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.62|58.84||A hierarchical testing was used to control the overall type I error of 0.05 (two-sided). Testing was performed in the order of 200 mg BID, 100 mg BID, 200 mg QD versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 200 mg QD - placebo.|||58.84|10.62|0.0077
91931341|NCT01151579|183760531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total of at least 400 treatemnts or 65 patients was required to achieve 94% power to determine a 1% change by treatment or a 5% change between groups to be significant at p-value of 0.01 and o.05, respectively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference between groups in heart rate changes from baseline following treatment. Sample size calculation determined a need for at least 400 breathing treatments among 65 patients.||||0.01
91931342|NCT01151579|183760532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Analysis adjusted with Fischer exact chi-square for rare occurrences.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: no difference in incidence of arrhythmias between groups within the total number of breathing treatments.||||0.05
91931343|NCT01151579|183760533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||descriptive|Descriptive statistics (frequency) used to report the number of participants experiencing an event.||To report on the number of events.||||0
91931344|NCT00608530|183760534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance compared differences between and within groups (CBT and Supportive Care) from baseline to end of treatment. Statistical testing was performed using 2-tailed tests and alpha level of .05 for declaring statistical significance. The trial was powered at the \>.80 level to detect differences between condition based on projected sample N = 130; given the N = 66 actually achieved our a priori power for detecting differences between groups was .63.||||.05
91931345|NCT00608530|183760535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Primary analyses consisted of modified intent-to-treat analysis of all randomized participants who attended at least 1 treatment session, with multiple imputation to address missing data. The study was powered at 80% to detect large effect sizes (\>.50SD) and alpha of .05 with a recruitment goal N = 140; with the N = 61 actually obtained, our a priori power was .55 to detect between group differences.||||.05
91931346|NCT00608530|183760536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance comparing groups at baseline and end of treatment.||||>0.05
91931347|NCT00608530|183760538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.05
91931348|NCT00077610|183760540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority was based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity.|Mean Difference between groups|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0973|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.215|0.223|||ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups||Difference between groups based on the adjusted means derived from the ANCOVA model|The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL.||0.223|-0.215|<0.0001
91931349|NCT00077610|183760540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority was based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.3 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity.|Mean Difference between groups|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0997|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.173|0.275|||ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups||Difference between groups based on the adjusted means derived from the ANCOVA model|The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on ANCOVA analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL.||0.275|-0.173|<0.0001
91931350|NCT00305253|183760563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Independent variables were selected on the basis of their significant association with EAO in bivariate analyses (t-tests and logistic regression).|Pre-Intervention group was compared to the Post-Intervention group. Each group contained different study participants.|"Relative risks and confidence intervals were computed for the primary outcome, Extreme Adverse Outcomes (EAO) - a combined measure of maternal mortality or severe mobidity.~To estimate the independent effect of the intervention net of the effects of other baseline characteristics, a multiple logistic regression model was used."||0.85|0.17|0.019
91931351|NCT00305253|183760564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Pre-Intervention group was compared to the Post-Intervention group. Each group contained different study participants.|Mean measured volume of blood loss in the drape was compared across phases with t-tests.||||<0.0001
91931352|NCT00305253|183760565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Pre-Intervention group was compared to the Post-Intervention group. Each group contained different study participants.|Relative risks and confidence intervals were computed for emergency hysterectomy.||0.80|0.21|<0.05
91931353|NCT01098461|183760566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means. Dunnett's method is used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.57|-1.22|<0.0001
91931354|NCT01098461|183760566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means. Dunnett's method is used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.23|-1.88|<0.0001
91931355|NCT01098461|183760566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means. Dunnett's method is used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.78|-1.43|<0.0001
91931356|NCT02662985|183760575|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||GLOESS scores||-0.85|-5.52|0.0040
91931357|NCT02662985|183760576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|8.89|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression using non-responder imputation||Proportion of patients with ACR 20 response at Week 12 (FAS)||8.89|2.38|<0.0001
91931358|NCT02662985|183760577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|23.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of patients with ACR 50 response at Week 12 (FAS)||23.75|3.92|<0.0001
91931359|NCT02662985|183760578|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean of treatment difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|0.043|||Regression, Logistic|||SPARCC||0.043|-1.374|0.0327
91931360|NCT01153763|183760579|OTHER||percentage of participants|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|70.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CR or a confirmed PR.|||70.3|48.2|
91931361|NCT01153763|183760580|OTHER||percentage of participants|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.7|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a investigator assessed CR or PR.|||28.7|0.0|
91931362|NCT01153763|183760585|OTHER||percentage of participants|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|29.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with overall survival.|||29.8|11.6|
91931363|NCT01153763|183760586|OTHER||percentage of participants|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|34.6|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with overall survival.|||34.6|2.2|
91931364|NCT01486784|183760593|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Based on the dose limiting toxicities occurring in each dosing cohort, a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) may be determined by assessing the highest dosing level presenting no dose limiting toxicities. An MTD of 17mg/m2 twice weekly was established.|||
91931365|NCT03491553|183760594|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931366|NCT03491553|183760594|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931367|NCT03491553|183760594|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931368|NCT03491553|183760594|OTHER||Percentage Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|47.1|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage difference by HBeAg status was constructed based on the standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests.|||47.1|-47.2|
91931369|NCT03491553|183760595|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931370|NCT03491553|183760595|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931371|NCT03491553|183760595|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931372|NCT03491553|183760595|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931373|NCT03491553|183760596|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931374|NCT03491553|183760596|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931375|NCT03491553|183760596|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931376|NCT03491553|183760596|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931377|NCT03491553|183760597|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931378|NCT03491553|183760597|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931379|NCT03491553|183760597|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931380|NCT03491553|183760597|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931381|NCT03491553|183760598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931382|NCT03491553|183760598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931383|NCT03491553|183760598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91931384|NCT03491553|183760598|OTHER||Percentage Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|47.1|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage difference by HBeAg status was constructed based on the standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests.|||47.1|-47.2|
91931385|NCT01606761|183760806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|23.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.2|8.5|< 0.001
91931386|NCT01606761|183760806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|28.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|13.6|< 0.001
91931387|NCT01606761|183760807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|-0.088|||ANCOVA|||||-0.088|-0.251|< 0.001
91768495|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|37.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||37.2|-37.2|1.000
91768496|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|46.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||46.6|-31.6|1.000
91931388|NCT01606761|183760807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.194|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|-0.112|||ANCOVA|||||-0.112|-0.275|< 0.001
91768497|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|63.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||63.6|1.4|0.051
91811396|NCT06073119|183497620|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|9.35||||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|32.4||No multiplicity adjustment, hence p-value is nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 100 mg QD - placebo.|||32.40|-14.72|0.4576
91931389|NCT01606761|183760808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|6.4|< 0.001
91931390|NCT01606761|183760808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|7.0|< 0.001
91931391|NCT01606761|183760809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|5.5|< 0.001
91931392|NCT01606761|183760809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.1|7.8|< 0.001
91768498|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|34.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||34.8|-34.8|1.000
91811397|NCT06073119|183497620|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|13.44||||0.3051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|36.72||No multiplicity adjustment, hence p-value is nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 50 mg QD - placebo.|||36.72|-11.38|0.3051
91811398|NCT00456547|183497626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjusted for 12 comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91931393|NCT04237207|183760810|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy objective is to demonstrate non-inferiority of AutoSense on the M90 processor compared to AutoSound on the Q90 processor for the AzBio sentence test in quiet mode based on a paired t-test. The primary efficacy analyses will test the null hypothesis (inferiority) that the mean of the paired differences in AzBio sentence scores in quiet mode (AutoSense on M90 - AutoSound on Q90) are less than or equal to -10 percentage points.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0010
91931394|NCT04237207|183760811|NON_INFERIORITY|The 1st secondary endpoint was to demonstrate that speech recognition in noise with AutoSense on a 301-M062 processor was no worse than speech recognition in noise with currently approved software on a Q90 processor.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0010
91931395|NCT04237207|183760812|NON_INFERIORITY|"The 2nd secondary endpoint was to demonstrate increased speech recognition in noise with the 301-M062 sound processor when comparing Omnidirectional program to AutoSense."|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91931396|NCT00961662|183760822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The HbA1c percent change at each study visit was calculated and then categorized as a binary response (i.e., responders and non-responders) for each subject based on the breakpoint to be used in the endpoint. Inferential statistics were prepared to compare the differences across the three treatments a using logistic regression model with the dose group and the HbA1c stratum included in the mode||||<0.05
91931397|NCT01042613|183760828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of the Binomial Proportions|0.02||||0.851||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.851
91931398|NCT01042613|183760829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.105||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.105
91931399|NCT01042613|183760830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8
91931400|NCT02568345|183760831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||isotonic regression functions through PA|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||The isotonic regression functions through PAVA algorithm were used (pooled adjacent violators algorithm), to determine the ED90, and bootstrapping to calculate the respective 95% confidence interval with the statistical program R||||||||
91931401|NCT03209440|183760832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
91931402|NCT03209440|183760832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
91931403|NCT03209440|183760833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
91931404|NCT03209440|183760833|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
91931405|NCT03209440|183760834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
91931406|NCT03209440|183760834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
91931407|NCT03209440|183760835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.11
91931408|NCT03209440|183760835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.14
91931409|NCT03209440|183760836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|"The outcome variable was scored as 1= prolong life; treat everything to 4 = provide comfort care only."||||||0.05
91931410|NCT03209440|183760836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|"The outcome variable was scored as 1= prolong life; treat everything to 4 = provide comfort care only."||||||0.46
91931411|NCT03162055|183760886|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -50 mL.|Least Square Mean Difference|-87.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.3||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-117.0|-57.4|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline FEV1 + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||-57.4|-117.0|0.9974
91931412|NCT03162055|183760887|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -50 mL.|Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.8|25.9|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline FEV1 + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean peak change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||25.9|-32.8|0.0002
91931413|NCT03162055|183760888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|ln (1/(1-p))=Treatment+baseline FEV1+BR a/s MDI+stratification factor (prior treatment)+region.p=percentage of participants with increase of \>=100 mL.|Estimate of the log odds of being a responder in the GFF treatment group compared to the UV treatment group using a logistic regression.|||2.95|1.79|<0.0001
91931414|NCT03162055|183760889|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -50 mL.|Least Square Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.4||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|22.9|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline IC + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean peak change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||22.9|-53.4|0.0371
91931415|NCT03162055|183760890|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -1.0 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.14|||Repeated measures analysis|TDI focal score = Treatment + Baseline Dyspnea Index + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean TDI focal score over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||-0.14|-0.59|<0.0001
91931416|NCT03162055|183760891|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin 0.1 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.078|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline EMSCI score + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + TI + treatment by TI.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||0.078|-0.011|0.0017
91931417|NCT03162055|183760892|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin 0.1 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.09|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline NiSCI score + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + TI + treatment by TI.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||0.090|-0.005|0.0088
91931418|NCT03162055|183760893|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.04|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline =Treatment + baseline rescue a/s MDI use + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + TI + treatment by TI.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||1.04|0.26|0.9995
91931419|NCT03162055|183760894|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin 2.0 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.11|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline CAT score + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||1.11|0.07|<0.0001
91931420|NCT03162055|183760895|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8||0.5516|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-30.3|27.0|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline FEV1 + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean peak change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||27.0|-30.3|0.5516
91931421|NCT02581865|183760901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-4.9|0.4326
91931422|NCT02581865|183760901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-6.2|0.1835
91931423|NCT02581865|183760902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.3812
91931424|NCT02581865|183760902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-1.2|0.0146
91931425|NCT02581865|183760903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.6|0.3065
91931426|NCT02581865|183760903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.7|0.2052
91931427|NCT02581865|183760904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-2.7|0.2215
91931428|NCT02581865|183760904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.3|0.0566
91931429|NCT02581865|183760905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|-9.8|0.5689
91931430|NCT02581865|183760905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-12.8|0.2320
91931431|NCT02581865|183760906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-3.0|0.4515
91931432|NCT02581865|183760906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.6289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.8|0.6289
91931433|NCT02064205|183760915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1000.0||0.2918|ONE_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model was applied to analyze the Energy Intakes (ad libitum lunch and daily) were done one-sided to evaluate the appetite suppressive effect after the pre-load snack (condition C versus D)||||0.2918
91931434|NCT02064205|183760916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0109|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC of hunger scores before preload intake for condition C versus D.||||0.0109
91931435|NCT02064205|183760917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0216||||||GLP-1|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model was applied to statistically analyze satiety hormones having Conditions and Time as a fixed factor and having Subject, Cohort, and Treatment Day as random factors.||||0.0216
91931436|NCT01640925|183760939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The number of patients needed to achieve 80% power was estimated at 171 using Cox proportional hazards regression (hazard ratio reduction of 0.66; 0.15 probability of infection with control) using a two-sided 5% significance.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.555||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.998|||Regression, Cox||Hypothesis: Compared to soap and water daily bathing, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate bathing on ICU admission and every 48 hours during surgical ICU care will decrease the risk of acquiring four hospital-acquired infections in surgical ICU patients.|||0.998|0.309|0.049
91931437|NCT00848250|183760959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
91931438|NCT00848250|183760960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.13
91931439|NCT00848250|183760961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.02
91768499|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||60.0|-5.0|0.075
91811399|NCT00456547|183497627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Corrected for 12 comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91811400|NCT00456547|183497628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Corrected for 12 comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91811401|NCT00456547|183497629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Corrected for 12 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91931440|NCT00848250|183760962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.67
91931441|NCT00848250|183760964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is for comparison of chest tube output at 24 hours||||0.47
91931442|NCT00848250|183760965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
91931443|NCT02883049|183760966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.413|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = hazard rate for Arm B/hazard rate for Arm A|To compare the DFS of the randomized patients on HR B-ALL Arm A vs Arm B. With a total of 1800 patients accrued over 5 years with minimum follow up of 2 years, randomized 1:1 to the 2 arms, we will be able to detect an improvement in 5-year DFS from 90% to 94 (HR=0.5873) between IT MTX and ITT based regimens (2-sided log rank test, alpha=5%), with 84.2% power.||1.413|0.74|0.893
91931444|NCT02883049|183760967|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.019||||0.556|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.335|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = hazard rate for Experimental Arm 1 /hazard rate for Control Arm|To compare the DFS of the randomized patients on Control Arm vs. Experimental Arm 1. This study design will have 86.8% power (1-sided log rank test, adjusted alpha=0.025 for multiple comparisons) to detect an improvement in 4-year DFS from 70% to 79% (HR=0.661) between the control arm and the experimental arm.||1.335||0.556
91931445|NCT05373706|183760996|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.20|0.76|0.68
91931446|NCT05373706|183760996|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.49|0.81|0.56
91931447|NCT05373706|183760997|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.33|0.64|0.68
91931448|NCT05373706|183760997|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.24||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.88|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.88|0.82|0.30
91931449|NCT05373706|183760998|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.15|0.69|0.36
91931450|NCT05373706|183760998|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.05||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.38|0.80|0.73
91931451|NCT05373706|183760999|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.04|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.04|0.66|0.11
91931452|NCT05373706|183760999|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.17|0.66|0.38
91931453|NCT05086289|183761000|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.13|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.13|-0.89|
91931454|NCT05086289|183761001|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.3|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.30|-0.85|
91811402|NCT02408315|183497647|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimates obtained from Kaplan-Meier method and results of Log-rank test. P-value for non-inferiority hypothesis based on Cox proportional hazards model (H0: HR ≤ 0.74 vs. HA: HR \> .74), p-value \< .05 provides evidence to reject inferiority and conclude BM is non-inferior to VM.||||||0.663|||||||Cox proportional|||||||0.663
91931455|NCT05086289|183761002|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.68|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.68|-1.91|
91931456|NCT05086289|183761003|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.18|-2.54|
91931457|NCT05086289|183761004|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.19|-0.44|
91931458|NCT05086289|183761005|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.14|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.14|-0.67|
91931459|NCT05086289|183761006|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.09|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.09|-1.05|
91931460|NCT05086289|183761007|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.16|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.16|-1.17|
91931461|NCT05086289|183761008|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-4.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|1.27|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.27|-11.07|
91931462|NCT05086289|183761009|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|2.15|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.15|-11.73|
91931463|NCT05086289|183761010|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.21|-0.46|
91931464|NCT05086289|183761011|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|9.2|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||9.20|-6.20|
91931465|NCT05086289|183761012|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.07|-0.06|
91931466|NCT05086289|183761013|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.10|-0.05|
91931467|NCT05086289|183761014|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|41.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.92|179.76|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||179.76|-95.92|
91931468|NCT05086289|183761015|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|9.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.11|170.52|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||170.52|-151.11|
91931469|NCT03150108|183761016|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed Cmax values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% confidence interval (CI).|Geometric mean ratio|1.119|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.875|1.43||||||||1.430|0.875|
91931470|NCT03150108|183761016|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in Cmax per Dose Doubling|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|2.03|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted Cmax using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.03|1.52|
91931471|NCT03150108|183761018|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed AUClast values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.23||||||||1.23|0.80|
91931472|NCT03150108|183761018|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in AUClast per Dose Doubling|2.35||||||90.0|2.06|2.7|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted AUClast using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.70|2.06|
91931473|NCT03150108|183761019|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed AUC0-8 values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.35||||||||1.35|0.87|
91931474|NCT03150108|183761019|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in AUC0-8 per Dose Doubling|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.98|2.51|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted AUC0-8 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.51|1.98|
91931475|NCT03150108|183761020|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed AUC0-inf values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.33||||||||1.33|0.77|
91931476|NCT03150108|183761020|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in AUC0-inf per Dose Doubling|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.96|2.71|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted AUC0-inf using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.71|1.96|
91931477|NCT03150108|183761026|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed Cmax values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4||||||||1.40|0.90|
91811403|NCT01285310|183497676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.4||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|7.0|||Chi-squared||2-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution|Significance testing was done using the following closed procedure; if the overall test among treatments is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, pair-wise comparisons (30 mg versus PBO, and 20 mg versus PBO, using a 0.05 two-sided significance level) will be performed||7.0|-27.1|0.3134
91811404|NCT01285310|183497676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.8|||Chi-squared||2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||13.8|-16.2|0.8721
91811405|NCT01285310|183497677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.004|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91931478|NCT03150108|183761028|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed Cmax values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.25||||||||1.25|0.93|
91931479|NCT03238235|183761057|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of the least square means|0.04||||0.8282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38||ANCOVA model was performed considering the difference between log of total fibrosis and log baseline values as dependent variable; log baseline value was included as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||total fibrosis at visit 11||0.38|-0.30|0.8282
91931480|NCT03238235|183761057|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model was performed considering the difference between log Visit 11 and log baseline values as dependent variable; log baseline as covariate, treatment was included as independent class variable and treatment by sequence interaction. The sequence of biopsy site (R-L, L-R) was included as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. If the treatment by sequence interaction was p\>0.10, then the model without the interaction term is presented.|Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.11||||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model was fitted to the data in order to evaluate the difference in total fibrosis between biopsy sites||0.37|-0.59|0.6465
91931481|NCT03238235|183761058|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.05||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline fat fraction of vastus lateralis or fat fraction in the soleus value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Vastus lateralis||0.03|-0.12|0.1991
91931482|NCT03238235|183761058|SUPERIORITY||difference of the least square means|-0.27||||0.7849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.69||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline fat fraction of vastus lateralis or fat fraction in the soleus value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Soleus||1.69|-2.22|0.7849
91931483|NCT03238235|183761059|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.35||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.28||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Whole thigh at visit 11||-0.28|-2.43|0.0149
91931484|NCT03238235|183761059|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.96||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.75||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Quadriceps at visit 11||-0.75|-3.18|0.0022
91931485|NCT03238235|183761059|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.58||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.08||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Hamstrings at visit 11||1.08|-2.24|0.4869
91931486|NCT03238235|183761059|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.59||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.29||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Triceps Surae at Visit 11||0.29|-3.47|0.0939
91931487|NCT03238235|183761059|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.89||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.36||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Pelvis girdle at visit 11||0.36|-2.13|0.1579
91931488|NCT03238235|183761060|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.4||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|3.26||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Whole Thigh at visit 11||3.26|-2.45|0.7770
91931489|NCT03238235|183761060|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.09||||0.8926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.18||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Quadriceps at Visit 11||1.18|-1.35|0.8926
91768500|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||11.2|-18.6|0.705
91811406|NCT01285310|183497677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.091|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811407|NCT01285310|183497678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||||||||||||||||
91931490|NCT03238235|183761060|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.35||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.58||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Medial Thigh at Visit 11||1.58|-0.88|0.5720
91931491|NCT03238235|183761060|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.11||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.18||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Hamstrings at Visit 11||1.18|-0.97|0.8386
91931492|NCT03238235|183761060|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.22||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.25||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Triceps Surae at Visit 11||2.25|-2.68|0.8591
91768501|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|12.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||12.4|-20.0|1.000
91811408|NCT01285310|183497678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||||||||||||||||
91811409|NCT01285310|183497679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.007||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
91931493|NCT03238235|183761060|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.32||||0.7392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Pelvis Girdle at Visit 11||2.24|-1.60|0.7392
91931494|NCT03238235|183761061|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|1.37||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.65||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Whole Thigh at Visit 11||2.65|0.08|0.0375
91931495|NCT03238235|183761061|SUPERIORITY||difference of least square means|0.63||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.27||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Quadriceps at Visit 11||1.27|-0.01|0.0528
91931496|NCT03238235|183761061|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.36||||0.2012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.91||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Medial Thigh at Visit 11||0.91|-0.20|0.2012
91931497|NCT03238235|183761061|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.75||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|2.83||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Triceps Surae at Visit 11||2.83|-1.33|0.4676
91931498|NCT03238235|183761061|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.54||||0.1549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.3||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Pelvis Girdle at Visit 11||1.30|-0.21|0.1549
91931499|NCT03238235|183761062|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-619.2||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1872.37|633.98||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||CSA Type II at Visit 11||633.98|-1872.37|0.3240
91931500|NCT03238235|183761062|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-572.54||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1690.73|545.64||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Total CSA at Visit 11||545.64|-1690.73|0.3070
91931501|NCT03238235|183761063|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.27||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.06||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Biopsy histological parameters (Slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Fibers with nuclear centralizations (%) at Visit 11||0.06|-0.59|0.1055
91931502|NCT03238235|183761063|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-2.23||||0.8846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.05|28.59||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide II) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Total number of fibers at Visit 11 (slide II)||28.59|-33.05|0.8846
91931503|NCT03238235|183761063|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|4.72||||0.4054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|16.06||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Total number of fibers (Slide III)||16.06|-6.62|0.4054
91931504|NCT03238235|183761064|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|2.45||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|12.77||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Biopsy histological parameters (Slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||||12.77|-7.87|0.6340
91931505|NCT03238235|183761065|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.14||||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.54|0.4893
91931506|NCT03238235|183761066|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.34||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.13||This model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.81|0.1498
91931507|NCT03238235|183761067|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.06||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.13||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Standing and transfers (D1) at Visit 11||0.13|-0.00|0.0602
91931508|NCT03238235|183761067|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.0||||0.5906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Axial and proximal motor function (D2) at Visit 11||0.01|-0.01|0.5906
91931509|NCT03238235|183761067|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.0||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Distal motor function (D3) at Visit 11||0.01|-0.01|0.7799
91768502|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||60.0|-5.0|0.075
91768503|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||11.2|-18.6|0.705
91931510|NCT03238235|183761067|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.01||||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score at Visit 11||0.03|-0.00|0.1116
91931511|NCT03238235|183761068|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.07||||0.4346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.1||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time to Walk/Run 10 meters at Visit 11||0.10|-0.23|0.4346
91931512|NCT03238235|183761069|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.02||||0.8914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time to climb 4 standard steps (sec) at visit 11||0.28|-0.32|0.8914
91931513|NCT03238235|183761070|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.62||||0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|4.75||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time to rise from floor at Visit 11||4.75|-3.51|0.7629
91931514|NCT03238235|183761071|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.01||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum distance walked after 6 minutes at Visit 11||0.08|-0.11|0.8106
91931515|NCT03238235|183761072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1626||||||P-value is obtained from the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test, stratified for concomitant steroid use at baseline|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\<10% worsening at visit 11||||0.1626
91931516|NCT03238235|183761075|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|3.57||||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|14.41||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Left Knee Extension (N) at Visit 11||14.41|-7.27|0.5099
91931517|NCT03238235|183761075|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|1.16||||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|8.06||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Right Knee Extension (N) at Visit 11||8.06|-5.73|0.7355
91931518|NCT03238235|183761075|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|3.92||||0.6037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|19.06||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Left Elbow Flexion (N) at Visit 11||19.06|-11.22|0.6037
91931519|NCT03238235|183761075|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|4.1||||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|20.55||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Right Elbow Flexion (N) at Visit 11||20.55|-12.35|0.6178
91931520|NCT03238235|183761078|SUPERIORITY||log difference of Least Square Means|-0.03||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline fat fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Medial Thigh at visit 11||0.01|-0.06|0.1165
91931521|NCT03238235|183761079|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|0.05||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Hamstrings at Visit 11||0.12|-0.02|0.1939
91931522|NCT03238235|183761080|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|0.01||||0.9493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.3||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||CSA Type I||0.30|-0.29|0.9493
91931523|NCT03238235|183761081|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|0.05||||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Total number of Fibers at Visit 11 (slide I)||0.26|-0.16|0.6265
91931524|NCT03238235|183761081|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|-0.44||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.17||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (slide II) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Regenerative Fibers (%) at Visit 11||0.17|-1.05|0.1562
91931525|NCT01975935|183761085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||This is the calculated p value and not the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91931526|NCT01975935|183761086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91811410|NCT01285310|183497679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91931527|NCT01975935|183761087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
91931528|NCT00243230|183761088|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg vs. Placebo|-0.98||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.37|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.37|-1.58|0.0017
91931529|NCT00243230|183761088|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg vs. Placebo|-0.93||||0.0026||95.0|-1.54|-0.33|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.33|-1.54|0.0026
91931530|NCT00243230|183761089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0052
91931531|NCT00243230|183761089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0190
91931532|NCT00243230|183761090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0007
91931533|NCT00243230|183761090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0028
91811411|NCT01285310|183497680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
91931534|NCT00243230|183761092|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 30mg - Placebo|-1.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.48|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.48|-1.53|0.0002
91931535|NCT00243230|183761092|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 20 mg - Placebo|-0.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.31|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.31|-1.36|0.0020
91811412|NCT01285310|183497680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.77|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811413|NCT01285310|183497681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.21||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
91931536|NCT00243230|183761093|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 30 mg - Placebo|-1.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.51|-1.69|0.0003
91931537|NCT00243230|183761093|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 20 mg - Placebo|-1.07||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.49|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.49|-1.66|0.0004
91931538|NCT00243230|183761094|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg - Placebo|57.76||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|108.61|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||108.61|6.90|0.0264
91931539|NCT00243230|183761094|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg - Placebo|42.36||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|93.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||93.28|-8.55|0.1020
91931540|NCT00243230|183761095|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg - Placebo|38.12||||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|90.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||90.56|-14.32|0.1525
91768504|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|18.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||18.5|-17.4|1.000
91768505|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||21.8|-20.5|1.000
91768506|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|5.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||5.2|-18.0|0.348
91768507|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|20.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||20.7|-13.4|0.686
91768508|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|34.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||34.8|-19.8|0.616
91768509|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.6||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|7.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||7.3|-20.5|0.420
91811414|NCT01285310|183497681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
91931541|NCT00243230|183761095|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg - Placebo|44.12||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|96.61|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||96.61|-8.38|0.0987
91768510|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|12.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||12.4|-20.0|1.000
91768511|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||21.8|-20.5|1.000
91768512|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||13.3|-14.4|1.000
91811415|NCT01285310|183497682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||||||||||||||||
91811416|NCT01285310|183497682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.2||||||||||||||||||
91768513|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|20.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||20.7|-13.4|0.686
91768514|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|40.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||40.6|-21.9|0.555
91768515|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||21.8|-27.2|0.830
91811417|NCT01285310|183497683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
91811418|NCT01285310|183497683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
91811419|NCT01285310|183497684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.15|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
91811420|NCT01285310|183497684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
91931542|NCT00243230|183761096|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg - Placebo|37.32||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.05|102.68|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||102.68|-28.05|0.2603
91931543|NCT00243230|183761096|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg - Placebo|69.08||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|134.52|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||134.52|3.64|0.0387
91931544|NCT00243230|183761098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0031
91931545|NCT00243230|183761098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0480
91931546|NCT00243230|183761099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0009
91931547|NCT00243230|183761099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0009
91768516|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||17.9|-36.0|0.518
91811421|NCT01285310|183497685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811422|NCT01285310|183497685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.26||||||||||||||||||
91811423|NCT01285310|183497686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-35.54|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91931548|NCT00243230|183761101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0225
91931549|NCT00243230|183761101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0582|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0582
91931550|NCT00243230|183761102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0009
91811424|NCT01285310|183497686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-38.37|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91931551|NCT00243230|183761102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0038
91931552|NCT00243230|183761103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0002
91768517|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|43.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||43.6|-18.6|0.428
91811425|NCT01285310|183497687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-14.35|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811426|NCT01285310|183497687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.34|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811427|NCT01285310|183497688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91931553|NCT00243230|183761103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0004
91931554|NCT00471445|183761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|0.201|||ANCOVA|||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.||0.201|-0.548|0.363
91931555|NCT06704178|183761197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488445|||||||Multiple t-tests|||||||0.488445
91931556|NCT06704178|183761198|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison.||||||0.98317||||||Between-group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98317
91931557|NCT06704178|183761199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98317|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98317
91931558|NCT06704178|183761200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.919209
91931559|NCT06704178|183761201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.919209
91931560|NCT06704178|183761202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954882||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954882
91931561|NCT06704178|183761202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246176||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.246176
91931562|NCT06704178|183761202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954882||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954882
91931563|NCT06704178|183761203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483382||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.483382
91931564|NCT06704178|183761203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483382||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.483382
91931565|NCT06704178|183761203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726742||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.726742
91931566|NCT06704178|183761204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999216||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999216
91931567|NCT06704178|183761204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
91931568|NCT06704178|183761204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559556||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.559556
91931569|NCT06704178|183761204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
91931570|NCT06704178|183761204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952545||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.952545
91931571|NCT06704178|183761204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998367||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998367
91931572|NCT06704178|183761205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
91931573|NCT06704178|183761205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
91931574|NCT06704178|183761205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
91931575|NCT06704178|183761205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
91931576|NCT06704178|183761205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993223||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.993223
91931577|NCT06704178|183761205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
91931578|NCT06704178|183761206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
91931579|NCT06704178|183761206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999838||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999838
91931580|NCT06704178|183761206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991697||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.991697
91768518|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|28.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||28.4|-20.7|0.757
91931581|NCT06704178|183761206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
91811428|NCT01285310|183497688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-3.84|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811429|NCT01285310|183497689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|5.93|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91931582|NCT06704178|183761206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581904||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.581904
91931583|NCT06704178|183761206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999866||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999866
91931584|NCT06704178|183761207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999835||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999835
91931585|NCT06704178|183761207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962016||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.962016
91768519|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|32.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||32.4|-23.2|0.745
91811430|NCT01285310|183497689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.77|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
91931586|NCT06704178|183761207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995044||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995044
91931587|NCT06704178|183761207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
91931588|NCT06704178|183761207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
91931589|NCT06704178|183761207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
91931590|NCT06704178|183761208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
91931591|NCT06704178|183761208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999524||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999524
91931592|NCT06704178|183761208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576782||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576782
91931593|NCT06704178|183761208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772865||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.772865
91931594|NCT06704178|183761208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91384||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91384
91931595|NCT06704178|183761208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992841||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.992841
91931596|NCT06704178|183761209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999732||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999732
91931597|NCT06704178|183761209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
91931598|NCT06704178|183761209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
91931599|NCT06704178|183761209|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
91931600|NCT06704178|183761209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
91931601|NCT06704178|183761209|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
91931602|NCT06704178|183761210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
91931603|NCT06704178|183761210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
91931604|NCT06704178|183761210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998326||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998326
91931605|NCT06704178|183761210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
91931606|NCT06704178|183761210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
91931607|NCT06704178|183761210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998846||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998846
91931608|NCT06704178|183761211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999387||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999387
91931609|NCT06704178|183761211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
91931610|NCT06704178|183761211|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
91931611|NCT06704178|183761211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
91931612|NCT06704178|183761211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
91931613|NCT06704178|183761211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998367||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998367
91931614|NCT06704178|183761212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999975||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999975
91931615|NCT06704178|183761212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
91931616|NCT06704178|183761212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
91931617|NCT06704178|183761212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
91931618|NCT06704178|183761212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.960874||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.960874
91931619|NCT06704178|183761212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
91931620|NCT06704178|183761213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981906||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.981906
91931621|NCT06704178|183761213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945027||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.945027
91931622|NCT06704178|183761213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767795||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.767795
91931623|NCT06704178|183761213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996139||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.996139
91931624|NCT06704178|183761213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952378||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.952378
91931625|NCT06704178|183761213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998846||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998846
91931626|NCT06704178|183761214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55783||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55783
91931627|NCT06704178|183761214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987949||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987949
91931628|NCT06704178|183761214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576782||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576782
91931629|NCT06704178|183761214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
91931630|NCT06704178|183761214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989226||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.989226
91931631|NCT06704178|183761214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
91811431|NCT01285310|183497690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|4.7|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91931632|NCT06704178|183761215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795476||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795476
91931633|NCT06704178|183761215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977286||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977286
91931634|NCT06704178|183761215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559556||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.559556
91931635|NCT06704178|183761215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997753||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997753
91811432|NCT01285310|183497690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|58.05||||||||||||||||||
91811433|NCT01285310|183497691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|7.18|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91931636|NCT06704178|183761215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952378||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.952378
91931637|NCT06704178|183761215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988108||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988108
91931638|NCT06704178|183761216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995367||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995367
91931639|NCT06704178|183761216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
91931640|NCT06704178|183761216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974102||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974102
91931641|NCT06704178|183761216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
91931642|NCT06704178|183761216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
91931643|NCT06704178|183761216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
91931644|NCT06704178|183761217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882016||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882016
91931645|NCT06704178|183761217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.860406||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.860406
91931646|NCT06704178|183761217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958944||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.958944
91931647|NCT06704178|183761217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998816||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998816
91931648|NCT06704178|183761217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989226||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.989226
91931649|NCT06704178|183761217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999296||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999296
91931650|NCT06704178|183761218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999975||||||Comparison at Month 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999975
91931651|NCT06704178|183761218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977286||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977286
91931652|NCT06704178|183761218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Comparison at Month 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999
91931653|NCT06704178|183761218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
91931654|NCT06704178|183761218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986557||||||Comparison at Month 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.986557
91931655|NCT06704178|183761218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998367||||||Comparison at Month 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998367
91931656|NCT06704178|183761219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
91931657|NCT06704178|183761219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
91931658|NCT06704178|183761219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
91931659|NCT06704178|183761219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998467||||||Comparison at Month 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998467
91931660|NCT06704178|183761219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
91931661|NCT06704178|183761219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998846||||||Comparison at Month 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998846
91931662|NCT06704178|183761220|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
91931663|NCT06704178|183761220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
91931664|NCT06704178|183761220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
91931665|NCT06704178|183761220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963236||||||Comparison at Month 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.963236
91931666|NCT06704178|183761220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
91931667|NCT06704178|183761220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737995||||||Comparison at Month 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.737995
91931668|NCT06704178|183761221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
91931669|NCT06704178|183761222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2698||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2698
91931670|NCT06704178|183761223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2698||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2698
91931671|NCT06704178|183761224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2137||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2137
91931672|NCT06704178|183761225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8639||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8639
91931673|NCT06704178|183761226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.239
91931674|NCT06704178|183761227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6088||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6088
91931675|NCT06704178|183761228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5738||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5738
91931676|NCT06704178|183761229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6088||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6088
91931677|NCT06704178|183761230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4942||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4942
91931678|NCT06704178|183761231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7419||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.7419
91931679|NCT06704178|183761231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0033
91931680|NCT06704178|183761231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0219
91931681|NCT06704178|183761232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7708||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.7708
91931682|NCT06704178|183761232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.239
91931683|NCT06704178|183761232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.006
91931684|NCT06704178|183761233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0219
91931685|NCT06704178|183761233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0001
91931686|NCT06704178|183761233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||<0.0001
91768520|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|23.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.0|-34.6|1.000
91931687|NCT06704178|183761234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0695||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0695
91931688|NCT06704178|183761234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0124
91931689|NCT06704178|183761234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0016
91931690|NCT06704178|183761235|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91811434|NCT01285310|183497691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-16.19|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91931691|NCT06704178|183761235|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931692|NCT06704178|183761235|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931693|NCT06704178|183761235|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931694|NCT06704178|183761235|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931695|NCT06704178|183761235|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931696|NCT06704178|183761236|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931697|NCT06704178|183761236|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931698|NCT06704178|183761236|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931699|NCT06704178|183761236|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931700|NCT06704178|183761236|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931701|NCT06704178|183761236|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931702|NCT06704178|183761237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4598||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4598
91931703|NCT06704178|183761237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.23
91931704|NCT06704178|183761237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0806
91931705|NCT06704178|183761237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0969||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0969
91931706|NCT06704178|183761237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6098
91931707|NCT06704178|183761237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0369
91931708|NCT06704178|183761238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0384||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0384
91931709|NCT06704178|183761238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6328||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6328
91931710|NCT06704178|183761238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0026
91931711|NCT06704178|183761238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0012
91931712|NCT06704178|183761238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0118
91931713|NCT06704178|183761238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0221||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0221
91931714|NCT06704178|183761239|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931715|NCT06704178|183761239|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931716|NCT06704178|183761239|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931717|NCT06704178|183761239|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931718|NCT06704178|183761239|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931719|NCT06704178|183761239|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931720|NCT06704178|183761240|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931721|NCT06704178|183761240|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931722|NCT06704178|183761240|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931723|NCT06704178|183761240|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931724|NCT06704178|183761240|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931725|NCT06704178|183761240|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931726|NCT06704178|183761241|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91768521|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|27.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||27.7|-20.6|0.773
91768522|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.8|-29.4|0.838
91931727|NCT06704178|183761241|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931728|NCT06704178|183761241|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91768523|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|14.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||14.1|-40.0|0.497
91931729|NCT06704178|183761241|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91768524|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|34.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||34.9|-14.0|0.404
91768525|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||23.8|-29.4|0.838
91931730|NCT06704178|183761241|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931731|NCT06704178|183761241|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931732|NCT06704178|183761242|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931733|NCT06704178|183761242|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931734|NCT06704178|183761242|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931735|NCT06704178|183761242|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931736|NCT06704178|183761242|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931737|NCT06704178|183761242|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931738|NCT06704178|183761243|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931739|NCT06704178|183761243|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931740|NCT06704178|183761243|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931741|NCT06704178|183761243|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931742|NCT06704178|183761243|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931743|NCT06704178|183761243|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931744|NCT06704178|183761244|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931745|NCT06704178|183761244|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931746|NCT06704178|183761244|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931747|NCT06704178|183761244|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931748|NCT06704178|183761244|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931749|NCT06704178|183761244|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931750|NCT06704178|183761245|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931751|NCT06704178|183761245|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931752|NCT06704178|183761245|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931753|NCT06704178|183761245|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91811435|NCT01285310|183497692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91931754|NCT06704178|183761245|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931755|NCT06704178|183761245|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931756|NCT06704178|183761246|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931757|NCT06704178|183761246|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931758|NCT06704178|183761246|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931759|NCT06704178|183761246|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931760|NCT06704178|183761246|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931761|NCT06704178|183761246|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931762|NCT06704178|183761247|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931763|NCT06704178|183761247|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931764|NCT06704178|183761247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3682||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.3682
91931765|NCT06704178|183761247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6098
91931766|NCT06704178|183761247|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91811436|NCT01285310|183497692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
91931767|NCT06704178|183761247|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931768|NCT06704178|183761248|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931769|NCT06704178|183761248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5691||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.5691
91811437|NCT01285310|183497693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||||||||||||||||
91811438|NCT01285310|183497693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||||||||||||||||
91811439|NCT01285310|183497694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||||||||||||||||
91931770|NCT06704178|183761248|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931771|NCT06704178|183761248|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931772|NCT06704178|183761248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6983||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6983
91931773|NCT06704178|183761248|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931774|NCT06704178|183761249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.819
91931775|NCT06704178|183761249|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931776|NCT06704178|183761249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5749||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.5749
91931777|NCT06704178|183761249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4873||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4873
91931778|NCT06704178|183761249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9998||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9998
91931779|NCT06704178|183761249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.819
91931780|NCT06704178|183761250|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931781|NCT06704178|183761250|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931782|NCT06704178|183761250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8495||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.8495
91931783|NCT06704178|183761250|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis.||||||>0.9999
91931784|NCT06704178|183761250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1951||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1951
91931785|NCT06704178|183761250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis.||||||0.0806
91931786|NCT06704178|183761251|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931787|NCT06704178|183761251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6983||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6983
91931788|NCT06704178|183761251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1062||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1062
91931789|NCT06704178|183761251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0333
91931790|NCT06704178|183761251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0734||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0734
91931791|NCT06704178|183761251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0219
91931792|NCT06704178|183761252|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931793|NCT06704178|183761252|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931794|NCT06704178|183761252|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931795|NCT06704178|183761252|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931796|NCT06704178|183761252|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931797|NCT06704178|183761252|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931798|NCT06704178|183761253|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931799|NCT06704178|183761253|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931800|NCT06704178|183761253|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931801|NCT06704178|183761253|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931802|NCT06704178|183761253|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931803|NCT06704178|183761253|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931804|NCT06704178|183761254|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931805|NCT06704178|183761254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.982
91931806|NCT06704178|183761254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.091
91768526|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|31.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||31.6|-24.4|1.000
91811440|NCT01285310|183497694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||||||||||||||||
91931807|NCT06704178|183761254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4449||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4449
91931808|NCT06704178|183761254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0204||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0204
91811441|NCT01285310|183497695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4||||||||||||||||||
91931809|NCT06704178|183761254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0256
91931810|NCT06704178|183761255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9821||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9821
91931811|NCT06704178|183761255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0403
91768527|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|39.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||39.8|-7.0|0.174
91811442|NCT01285310|183497695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||||||||||||||||
91811443|NCT01285310|183497696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||||||||||||||||
91811444|NCT01285310|183497696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||||||||||||||||
91811445|NCT01285310|183497697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||||||||||||||||
91811446|NCT01285310|183497697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||||||||||||||||
91931812|NCT06704178|183761255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0638||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0638
91931813|NCT06704178|183761255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7195||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.7195
91931814|NCT06704178|183761255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1856||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1856
91931815|NCT06704178|183761255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1222||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1222
91931816|NCT06704178|183761256|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931817|NCT06704178|183761256|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931818|NCT06704178|183761256|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931819|NCT06704178|183761256|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931820|NCT06704178|183761256|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931821|NCT06704178|183761256|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931822|NCT06704178|183761257|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931823|NCT06704178|183761257|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931824|NCT06704178|183761257|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931825|NCT06704178|183761257|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931826|NCT06704178|183761257|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931827|NCT06704178|183761257|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931828|NCT06704178|183761258|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931829|NCT06704178|183761258|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931830|NCT06704178|183761258|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931831|NCT06704178|183761258|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931832|NCT06704178|183761258|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931833|NCT06704178|183761258|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931834|NCT06704178|183761259|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931835|NCT06704178|183761259|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931836|NCT06704178|183761259|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931837|NCT06704178|183761259|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931838|NCT06704178|183761259|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931839|NCT06704178|183761259|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931840|NCT06704178|183761260|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931841|NCT06704178|183761260|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931842|NCT06704178|183761260|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91811447|NCT01285310|183497698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||||||||||||||||
91811448|NCT01285310|183497698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||||||||||||||||
91811449|NCT01285310|183497699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91931843|NCT06704178|183761260|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931844|NCT06704178|183761260|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931845|NCT06704178|183761260|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931846|NCT06704178|183761261|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931847|NCT06704178|183761261|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931848|NCT06704178|183761261|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931849|NCT06704178|183761261|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931850|NCT06704178|183761261|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91811450|NCT01285310|183497699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91811451|NCT01285310|183497700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811452|NCT01285310|183497700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.98|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811453|NCT01285310|183497701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.94||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
91931851|NCT06704178|183761261|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931852|NCT06704178|183761262|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931853|NCT06704178|183761262|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931854|NCT06704178|183761262|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931855|NCT06704178|183761262|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931856|NCT06704178|183761262|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931857|NCT06704178|183761262|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931858|NCT06704178|183761263|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931859|NCT06704178|183761263|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931860|NCT06704178|183761263|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931861|NCT06704178|183761263|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931862|NCT06704178|183761263|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931863|NCT06704178|183761263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.982
91931864|NCT06704178|183761264|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931865|NCT06704178|183761264|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931866|NCT06704178|183761264|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 vs Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931867|NCT06704178|183761264|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 vs Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931868|NCT06704178|183761264|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931869|NCT06704178|183761264|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 vs Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931870|NCT06704178|183761265|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931871|NCT06704178|183761265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9951||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9951
91931872|NCT06704178|183761265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.999
91931873|NCT06704178|183761265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9913||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9913
91931874|NCT06704178|183761265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4517||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4517
91931875|NCT06704178|183761265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8187||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.8187
91931876|NCT06704178|183761266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.998
91931877|NCT06704178|183761266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9591||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9591
91931878|NCT06704178|183761266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9994||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9994
91931879|NCT06704178|183761266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9936||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9936
91931880|NCT06704178|183761266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8526||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.8526
91931881|NCT06704178|183761266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4375
91931882|NCT06704178|183761267|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931883|NCT06704178|183761267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7477||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis.||||||0.7477
91931884|NCT06704178|183761267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.297
91931885|NCT06704178|183761267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3503||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.3503
91931886|NCT06704178|183761267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.297
91931887|NCT06704178|183761267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4449||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4449
91931888|NCT06704178|183761268|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931889|NCT06704178|183761268|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931890|NCT06704178|183761268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9188||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9188
91931891|NCT06704178|183761268|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931892|NCT06704178|183761268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3503||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.3503
91931893|NCT06704178|183761268|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91931894|NCT00485589|183761321|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis||||||0.001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||||||0.001
91931895|NCT00485589|183761321|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis||||||0.0033|||||||Van Elteren's test|||||||0.0033
91931896|NCT01122030|183761342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0767||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0767
91931897|NCT01122030|183761342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8727||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8727
91931898|NCT01122030|183761342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6373||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6373
91931899|NCT01122030|183761342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91931900|NCT01122030|183761342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91931901|NCT01122030|183761342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91931902|NCT01122030|183761343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8982||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8982
91931903|NCT01122030|183761343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4946||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.4946
91931904|NCT01122030|183761343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9301||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9301
91931905|NCT01122030|183761343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0047
91931906|NCT01122030|183761343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91931907|NCT01122030|183761343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91931908|NCT01122030|183761344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1334||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.1334
91931909|NCT01122030|183761344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.3320
91931910|NCT01122030|183761344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9371||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.9371
91931911|NCT01122030|183761344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.0002
91931912|NCT01122030|183761344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91931913|NCT01122030|183761344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91931914|NCT01122030|183761345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7978||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.7978
91931915|NCT01122030|183761345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7143||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.7143
91931916|NCT01122030|183761345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7531||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.7531
91931917|NCT01122030|183761345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0283||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.0283
91931918|NCT01122030|183761345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91931919|NCT01122030|183761345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91931920|NCT01122030|183761346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6269||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6269
91931921|NCT01122030|183761346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7456||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7456
91931922|NCT01122030|183761346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1968||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.1968
91931923|NCT01122030|183761346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8708||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8708
91931924|NCT01122030|183761346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91931925|NCT01122030|183761346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0002
91931926|NCT01122030|183761347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6131||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6131
91931927|NCT01122030|183761347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9293||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9293
91768528|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|32.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||32.3|-19.1|0.611
91811454|NCT01285310|183497701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.24||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
91931928|NCT01122030|183761347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7990
91931929|NCT01122030|183761347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7674
91931930|NCT01122030|183761347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91768529|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91811455|NCT01285310|183497702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-4.3||||||||||||||||||
91931931|NCT01122030|183761347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0018
91931932|NCT01122030|183761348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.92|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||3.92|0.42|0.7434
91931933|NCT01122030|183761348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.4449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.42|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||4.42|0.54|0.4449
91931934|NCT01122030|183761348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.72|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||2.72|0.27|0.8129
91931935|NCT01122030|183761348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.52||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|24.72|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||24.72|2.29|0.0005
91931936|NCT01122030|183761348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|31.89|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||31.89|3.09|<0.0001
91931937|NCT01122030|183761348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|202272814.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.|Hazard Ratio is infinite due to small range of observed times in 3 mg group that has no overlap with the Placebo group.|||||<0.0001
91931938|NCT01122030|183761349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.28|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||4.28|0.53|0.4923
91931939|NCT01122030|183761349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.5479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.06|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||4.06|0.52|0.5479
91931940|NCT01122030|183761349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.67|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||3.67|0.56|0.5060
91931941|NCT01122030|183761349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.36||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|23.9|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||23.90|2.27|0.0005
91931942|NCT01122030|183761349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|30.35|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||30.35|3.00|<0.0001
91931943|NCT01122030|183761349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|192233779.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.|Hazard Ratio is infinite due to small range of observed times in 3 mg group that has no overlap with the Placebo group.|||||<0.0001
91931944|NCT01122030|183761350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.45||||0.1523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|19.35|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||19.35|0.62|0.1523
91931945|NCT01122030|183761350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.55||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|27.07|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||27.07|0.76|0.0856
91931946|NCT01122030|183761350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.98|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||10.98|0.30|0.5284
91931947|NCT01122030|183761350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.8594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|8.66|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||8.66|0.09|0.8594
91931948|NCT01122030|183761350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|59.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|537.38|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||537.38|6.55|<0.0001
91931949|NCT01122030|183761350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.99||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|52.57|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||52.57|2.30|0.0007
91931950|NCT01122030|183761352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5054||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.5054
91931951|NCT01122030|183761352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9688||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9688
91931952|NCT01122030|183761352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6963||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6963
91931953|NCT01122030|183761352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9599||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9599
91931954|NCT01122030|183761352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0001
91931955|NCT01122030|183761352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0006
91931956|NCT01122030|183761353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3441||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.3441
91931957|NCT01122030|183761353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7159||95.0||||P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7159
91931958|NCT01122030|183761353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7342||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7342
91811456|NCT01285310|183497702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|4.6||||||||||||||||||
91931959|NCT01122030|183761353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8714||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8714
91931960|NCT01122030|183761353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91931961|NCT01122030|183761353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0006
91931962|NCT01205451|183761367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-1.04||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 6 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-1.04|-1.38|<0.0001
91931963|NCT01205451|183761367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-1.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-1.12||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 6 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-1.12|-1.54|<0.0001
91931964|NCT01205451|183761367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.72||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 12 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-0.72|-1.04|<0.0001
91931965|NCT01205451|183761367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.91||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 12 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-0.91|-1.33|<0.0001
91931966|NCT03575884|183761401|SUPERIORITY||Study_arm timepoint interactions|-27.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.49|-2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.14|-52.49|<0.05
91931967|NCT03607838|183761472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.9|-14.1|0.0263
91931968|NCT03607838|183761473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.2||To control family-wise error rate for multiple tests of the primary and key secondary endpoints, serial gatekeeping testing algorithm was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-13.2|0.0558
91931969|NCT03607838|183761474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.24||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|4.2||To control family-wise error rate for multiple tests of the primary and key secondary endpoints, serial gatekeeping testing algorithm was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|-55.7|0.0920
91931970|NCT03607838|183761475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.3||To control family-wise error rate for multiple tests of the primary and key secondary endpoints, serial gatekeeping testing algorithm was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-8.0|0.0336
91811457|NCT01285310|183497703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811458|NCT01285310|183497703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811459|NCT01285310|183497704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91931971|NCT00798694|183761486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in tear break-up time between the group New to Meds and the group Currently on Xalatan at two months."||||0.005
91931972|NCT03709810|183761492|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.3|||ANOVA|Log10 peanuts mass as response variable, study product and period as fixed explanatory effects, and participant as a random effect.|GMR=(Experimental denture adhesive/ No Adhesive)|||0.30|0.12|<0.0001
91931973|NCT02665364|183761587|SUPERIORITY||arithmetic mean|-30.2802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2588|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6653|-19.8951|||ANCOVA|||The percent of change from baseline to last available value between W24 and W36 of treatment in the expression of IFN-induced genes was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||-19.8951|-40.6653|< 0.0001
91931974|NCT02665364|183761588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|2.657|||Regression, Logistic|||Descriptive statistics for the response to treatment according to BICLA at week 36 were presented by treatment group. The response to treatment according to BICLA was analyzed using a logistic regression with the response rate as dependent variable and treatment as independent variable, while adjusting for the minimization factors used for randomization.||2.657|0.716|0.34
91931975|NCT02665364|183761589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|2.329|||Regression, Logistic|||The SRI-4 response was analyzed using a logistic regression using the response rate as dependent variable and treatment as independent variable, while adjusting for the minimization factors used for randomization.||2.329|0.602|0.6243
91931976|NCT02665364|183761590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared|||||||0.0022
91931977|NCT02665364|183761591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to last available value between W24 and W36||||0.7946
91931978|NCT02665364|183761592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9224|||||||student - pooled|||||||0.9224
91931979|NCT02665364|183761593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3258|||||||student - pooled|||||||0.3258
91931980|NCT02665364|183761594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6169|||||||Student - Satterthwaite|||||||0.6169
91811460|NCT01285310|183497704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811461|NCT01285310|183497705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.86|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
91931981|NCT02665364|183761595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|3.524|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.524|0.932|0.0796
91931982|NCT02665364|183761596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|3.574|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.574|0.938|0.0762
91931983|NCT02665364|183761599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||Student - Satterthwaite|||||||0.0097
91811462|NCT01285310|183497705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-7.02|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
91931984|NCT02665364|183761600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0425|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared|||||||0.0425
91931985|NCT02665364|183761601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0396|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared|||||||0.0396
91931986|NCT03888391|183761602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.72, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.20
91931987|NCT03888391|183761604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 44.47, df = 1/33||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||<.0001
91931988|NCT03888391|183761605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 15.74, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.0004
91931989|NCT03888391|183761606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .28, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.60
91931990|NCT03888391|183761607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.04, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.32
91931991|NCT03888391|183761608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.27, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.27
91931992|NCT03025217|183761624|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.33||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.095
91931993|NCT03025217|183761625|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91931994|NCT01088438|183761656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||Null hypothesis: proportion of encounters with contextual red flag in which appropriate treatment is planned is the same in the two groups.||||<0.001
91931995|NCT01088438|183761657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||Null hypothesis is equal proportion of contextual red flags probed in control and intervention groups.||||<.001
91931996|NCT01088438|183761658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Chi-squared|1 df||Null hypothesis is equal proportion of encounters probed in control and intervention groups.||||0.85
91931997|NCT03615469|183761672|OTHER|t-test||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91931998|NCT02724774|183761683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||All analyses were conducted as intention-to-treat, analyzing all 252 cases as randomly assigned to the PFR and control group (CG). Multiple linear regression was used to examine the treatment effect of PFR (0 = CG, 1 = PFR). Covariates included preferred language (0 = English, 1 = Spanish) and the baseline measure.||||.026
91768530|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||4.6|-14.6|0.488
91931999|NCT02724774|183761684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.154
91932000|NCT02724774|183761685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.516
91932001|NCT02724774|183761686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91932002|NCT02724774|183761687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.094
91932003|NCT02724774|183761688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.029
91932004|NCT02724774|183761689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.389
91811463|NCT01285310|183497706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-34.82|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
91932005|NCT02724774|183761690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.747
91932006|NCT00441103|183761705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Non-parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) with effects for treatment and the absence/presence of Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline as factors|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91932007|NCT00441103|183761706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.33|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Mean difference was calculated by subtracting 'Day 1 up to Week 16' from 'Week 17 up to Week 40' and analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
91932008|NCT05836818|183761709|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|33.2|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed effects logistic regression with a random center effect for within-center characteristics, and terms for calendar time and intervention||Adjusted difference 25.1 percentage points||33.2|17|<0.0001
91932009|NCT01627067|183761736|NON_INFERIORITY|The study terminated early due to lack of efficacy and funds only 22 patients were enrolled in the study. With 40 patients accrued at a rate of 2 patients per month, a one-sided alpha of 5%, and a post- accrual follow up of 3 months, we would have 80% power to detect a median PFS of 12 months as being statistically significantly higher than a historical control median PFS of 7 months.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||Data for PFS were censored at the time of a patient's removal from study. With 40 patients accrued at a rate of 2 patients per month, a one-sided alpha of 5%, and a post- accrual follow up of 3 months, we would have 80% power to detect a median PFS of 12 months as being statistically significantly higher than a historical control median PFS of 7 months. The study terminated early due to lack of efficacy and funds only 22 patients were enrolled in the study.||0.76|0.08|0.015
91932010|NCT01627067|183761739|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|0.22|0.31
91932011|NCT00926796|183761740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of cured participants|100.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.53||||Exact binomial confidence limit|If the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit is greater than 95%, the null hypothesis of the microbiological efficacy estimate is \<95% is rejected.|When the lower 95% confidence limit is \>=95%, the alternative hypothesis is accepted (i.e., the microbiological cure estimate is significantly \>=95%).|The null hypothesis is that the microbiological efficacy estimate (proportion of participants who are cured) is \<95%.|||98.53|<0.05
91932012|NCT00926796|183761747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of cured participants|99.5|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.64||||Exact bionomial confidence limit|If the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit is greater than 95%, the null hypothesis of the microbiological efficacy estimate is \<95% is rejected.|When the lower 95% confidence interval is above 95%, the alternative hypothesis is accepted (i.e., the microbiological cure estimate is significantly \>=95%).|The null hypothesis is that the microbiological efficacy estimate (proportion of participants who are cured) is \<95%.|||97.64|<0.05
91932013|NCT00621855|183761787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend|||"The proportion of patients who reach this endpoint were analysed by a logistic model for linear trend (dose response).~The null hypothesis is that the relationship between dose level (0mg, 50mg, 75mg, 110mg and 150mg) and the proportions of patients with major and clinically relevant minor bleeding is not linear (slope parameter = 0)"||||<0.001
91932014|NCT00621855|183761790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend|||"The proportion of patients who reach this endpoint were analysed by a logistic model for linear trend (dose response).~The null hypothesis is that the relationship between dose level (0mg, 50mg, 75mg, 110mg and 150mg) and the proportions of patients with major and clinically relevant minor bleeding is not linear (slope parameter = 0)"||||<0.001
91768531|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91768532|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91932015|NCT01274338|183761826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||This design provides at least 80% power at a one sided type I error rate of 0.003.|Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||This study has a two-step hierarchical approach. In the first step, the low-dose Ipi (LIP) will be compared with HDI. If the low-dose Ipi is significantly better than HDI, then the high-dose Ipi will be compared with HDI as a second step. When comparing the two investigational treatment groups, the primary comparison will be an intent to treat analysis of recurrence free survival (RFS; First Co-primary Endpoint) and overall survival (OS; Second Co-primary Endpoint).||||0.065
91932016|NCT01274338|183761827|SUPERIORITY|This design will provide 80% power to detect the difference between the two arms at a one-sided type I error rate of 0.022.||||||0.044|||||||Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||This study has a two-step hierarchical approach. In the first step, the low-dose Ipi (LIP) will be compared with HDI. If the low-dose Ipi is significantly better than HDI, then the high-dose Ipi will be compared with HDI as a second step. When comparing the two investigational treatment groups, the primary comparison will be an intent to treat analysis of recurrence free survival (RFS; First Co-primary Endpoint) and overall survival (OS; Second Co-primary Endpoint).||||0.044
91932017|NCT01274338|183761829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289||||||If low dose Ipi (LIP) vs. HDI is significant for OS at the 2.2% level, then we will compare high dose Ipi (HIP) vs. HDI at the 2.2% level.|Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||This study has a two-step hierarchical approach. In the first step, the low-dose Ipi (LIP) will be compared with HDI. If the low-dose Ipi is significantly better than HDI, then the high-dose Ipi will be compared with HDI as a second step. When comparing the two investigational treatment groups, the primary comparison will be an intent to treat analysis of recurrence free survival (RFS; First Co-primary Endpoint) and overall survival (OS; Second Co-primary Endpoint).||||0.289
91932018|NCT00831441|183761833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11|||Cox proportional hazard models|||A test of superiority at the one-sided α = 0.025 significance level for the primary efficacy outcome was performed.||1.11|0.80|0.5094
91932019|NCT00831441|183761834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.26|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.26|0.70|0.6702
91932020|NCT00831441|183761835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.4|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.40|0.57|0.6311
91932021|NCT00831441|183761836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.14|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.14|0.76|0.5086
91932022|NCT00831441|183761837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.12|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.12|0.47|0.1502
91932023|NCT00831441|183761838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.09|0.82|0.4317
91932024|NCT00831441|183761839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.15|0.83|0.8015
91932025|NCT00831441|183761840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.15|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.15|0.85|0.8948
91932026|NCT00831441|183761841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.46|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||A point estimate and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for relative risk, as measured by the hazard ratio and a p-value for the test of equality of rates (HR = 1) was calculated.||4.46|1.50|0.0006
91932027|NCT00831441|183761842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.58|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||||3.58|1.72|<0.0001
91768533|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|0.488
91811464|NCT01285310|183497706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-37.82|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
91811465|NCT01285310|183497707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-14.34|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91932028|NCT00831441|183761843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.72|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||||3.72|1.87|<0.0001
91932029|NCT00831441|183761844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|2.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||||2.70|2.06|<0.0001
91932030|NCT02924688|183761858|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.139||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.139|0.052|<0.001
91811466|NCT01285310|183497707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-12.5|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91932031|NCT02924688|183761858|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.153||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.153|0.066|<0.001
91932032|NCT02924688|183761858|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.125||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.125|0.039|<0.001
91932033|NCT02924688|183761858|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.135||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.135|0.049|<0.001
91932034|NCT02924688|183761859|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||p-value was calculated using Generalized linear model with covariates for age, sex, region, treatment group, stratification by pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and severe asthma exacerbations in the previous year (0, 1, \>=2).|Negative Binomial Model||Treatment policy estimand was assessed, including all on- and post-treatment data.|||1.17|0.81|0.778
91932035|NCT02924688|183761859|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05||p-value was calculated using Generalized linear model with covariates for age, sex, region, treatment group, stratification by pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and severe asthma exacerbations in the previous year (0, 1, \>=2).|Negative Binomial Model||Treatment policy estimand was assessed, including all on- and post-treatment data.|||1.05|0.72|0.151
91932036|NCT02924688|183761860|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.132||p-value was calculated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.132|0.044|<0.001
91932037|NCT02924688|183761860|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.155||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.155|0.067|<0.001
91932038|NCT02924688|183761860|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.132||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.132|0.044|<0.001
91932039|NCT02924688|183761860|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.162||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.162|0.074|<0.001
91768534|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91768535|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91768536|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||13.0|-13.4|1.000
91768537|NCT02365649|183425713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91811467|NCT01285310|183497708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|5.85|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91932040|NCT02924688|183761861|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.01||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.010|-0.124|0.094
91932041|NCT02924688|183761861|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0338||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|-0.023||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.023|-0.156|0.008
91932042|NCT02924688|183761862|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.47||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.47|-0.27|0.115
91932043|NCT02924688|183761862|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.05||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.05|-1.66|0.662
91811468|NCT01285310|183497708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.8|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811469|NCT01285310|183497709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.57|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91932044|NCT02924688|183761863|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and 4-weekly period, interaction terms for Baseline value by 4-weekly period and treatment by 4-weekly period.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.23|-0.49|0.479
91932045|NCT02924688|183761863|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.06||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and 4-weekly period, interaction terms for Baseline value by 4-weekly period and treatment by 4-weekly period.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.06|-0.78|0.023
91932046|NCT02924688|183761866|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.4||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||0.4|-2.5|0.172
91932047|NCT02924688|183761866|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||0.9|-2.0|0.436
91932048|NCT02924688|183761866|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.1||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||2.1|-0.9|0.426
91932049|NCT02924688|183761866|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.2||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||2.2|-0.8|0.349
91932050|NCT02924688|183761866|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||0.7|-1.5|0.482
91932051|NCT02924688|183761866|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||1.9|-0.3|0.142
91932052|NCT02924688|183761866|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||1.0|-1.2|0.806
91932053|NCT02924688|183761866|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||1.5|-0.7|0.447
91932054|NCT02924688|183761867|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.5|0.1|0.034
91932055|NCT02924688|183761867|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.3|-1.1|0.839
91932056|NCT02924688|183761867|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.6|-1.8|0.349
91932057|NCT02924688|183761867|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.4||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.4|-1.0|0.768
91932058|NCT03072719|183761870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.19||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.09||From ANCOVA model: Treatment as fixed factor, baseline Schiff Sensitivity score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is 0.454% stannous fluoride minus 0.76% sodium monofluorophosphate such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|"H0 : The difference in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Day 14 between the experimental dentifrice and reference dentifrice is zero.~H1 : The difference in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Day 14 between the experimental dentifrice and reference dentifrice is not zero."||0.09|-0.46|0.1774
91932059|NCT03004469|183761884|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.3|||Mixed linear model|||||21.3|5.8|<.001
91932060|NCT03004469|183761885|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|19.1|||Mixed linear model|||||19.1|6.5|<.001
91932061|NCT03004469|183761886|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4057||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.202|0.3971|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.3971|-1.2020|0.322
91932062|NCT03004469|183761886|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47799||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2184|1.6657|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||1.6657|-0.2184|0.131
91932063|NCT03004469|183761887|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.2|-0.3|0.569
91932064|NCT03004469|183761887|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||0.1|-0.4|0.129
91811470|NCT01285310|183497709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-5.72|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91932065|NCT03004469|183761888|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.3|-0.2|0.708
91932066|NCT03004469|183761888|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||0.7|0.2|<.001
91932067|NCT03004469|183761889|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.1|-0.3|0.179
91932068|NCT03004469|183761889|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||0.4|-0.1|0.262
91932069|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.3|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 4||0.3|-3.7|0.103
91932070|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 8||1.5|-2.8|0.545
91932071|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.8|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 12||1.8|-2.2|0.842
91932072|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.2|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 24||1.2|-2.8|0.449
91932073|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 4||0.9|-0.2|0.272
91811471|NCT01285310|183497710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|8.29|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811472|NCT01285310|183497710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|67.09|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91932074|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 8||0.8|-0.7|0.918
91932075|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 12||1.1|-0.1|0.078
91932076|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 24||0.5|-0.9|0.593
91932077|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 4||0.2|-0.7|0.295
91932078|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 8||0.4|-0.5|0.926
91811473|NCT01285310|183497711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|12.05|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811474|NCT01285310|183497711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-6.54|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
91811475|NCT01285310|183497712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
91932079|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 12||0.1|-0.7|0.183
91932080|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 24||0.5|-0.4|0.981
91811476|NCT01285310|183497712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
91811477|NCT01285310|183497713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||||||||||||||||
91811478|NCT01285310|183497713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||||||||||||||||
91811479|NCT01285310|183497714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||||||||||||||||
91811480|NCT01285310|183497714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||||||||||||||||
91811481|NCT01285310|183497715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||||||||||||||||
91932081|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 4||-0.1|-2.7|0.041
91932082|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 8||0.9|-1.7|0.562
91932083|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 12||1.0|-1.6|0.642
91932084|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 24||0.4|-2.2|0.156
91932085|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 4||0.5|-0.6|0.824
91932086|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 8||0.7|-0.5|0.713
91932087|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 12||0.6|-0.6|0.993
91932088|NCT03004469|183761890|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 24||0.4|-0.8|0.550
91932089|NCT00423735|183761899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided test||||||0.99
91932090|NCT01722487|183761901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.28|||Log Rank|||||0.28|0.09|<0.0001
91932091|NCT01722487|183761902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.05|0.0010
91932092|NCT01722487|183761903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91932093|NCT01722487|183761904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91932094|NCT01722487|183761905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91932095|NCT01722487|183761906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0009
91932096|NCT01722487|183761907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0054
91932097|NCT01735617|183761917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric means|563.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|162.51|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The pharmacokinetic profile was characterised by an overnight rise in cortisol levels reaching a maximal concentration approximately 8 hours post dosing.||||
91932098|NCT04570332|183761951|SUPERIORITY||rate %|25.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.69|41.2|||one-sided test for binomial endpoint|||The null hypothesis was H0: ORR=10% (p0) and was tested against H1: ORR\>10% at one-sided 5% significance level. Assuming an effect size of ORR=25% (pA), 40 participants provided a power of at least 80%. The minimal statistically significant ORR was 20%.||41.20|12.69|<0.01
91932099|NCT01102218|183761972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91932100|NCT00678587|183762007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute difference in proportions|52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|62.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.4|43.2|<0.0001
91932101|NCT00678587|183762008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|3.3||||||||3.3|-15.1|
91768538|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|45.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||45.5|-72.2|1.000
91932102|NCT00678587|183762009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91932103|NCT01019486|183762026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Student t test between arms with two tailed analysis||||<0.05
91932104|NCT01019486|183762026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Student t test between arms with two tailed analysis.||||<0.05
91768539|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|33.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||33.1|-50.2|1.000
91811482|NCT01285310|183497715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||||||||||||||||
91932105|NCT01019486|183762026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Student t test between groups with two-tailed analysis||||<0.05
91932106|NCT01019486|183762027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If sufficient subjects were enrolled then it would be expected that the MRI measurement of myocardial blood flow MBF would similar or equivalent to the invasively measured CFR in response to intravenous regadenoson administration.|None insufficient data|2.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No analysis was performed due to limited data.||||0.05
91932107|NCT01019486|183762028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups using a two-tailed Student t test||||<.05
91932108|NCT02951988|183762057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5305|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5305
91932109|NCT02951988|183762057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4628|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4628
91932110|NCT02951988|183762058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6153|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6153
91932111|NCT02951988|183762058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4123|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4123
91932112|NCT00516269|183762060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean difference in treat versus control|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.54||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||As a crossover study, the potential carryover effect was examined first. The pooled data (the 2-week treatment for each intervention i.e. period 1 \& period 2) was used to assess the treatment effect (A versus B).||||0.54
91932113|NCT04570657|183762065|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.036||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.038|0.111||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.111|-0.038|0.267
91932114|NCT04570657|183762065|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.004||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.071|0.079||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.079|-0.071|0.473
91932115|NCT04570657|183762066|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.012||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.086||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 8: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.086|-0.110|0.437
91932116|NCT04570657|183762066|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.059||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.039|0.157||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 8: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.157|-0.039|0.221
91932117|NCT04570657|183762066|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.038||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.136|0.06||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 16: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.060|-0.136|0.308
91932118|NCT04570657|183762066|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.025||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.122|0.072||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 16: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.072|-0.122|0.372
91932119|NCT04570657|183762069|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.215|0.154||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.154|-0.215|0.416
91932120|NCT04570657|183762069|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.047||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.231|0.137||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.137|-0.231|0.371
91932121|NCT04570657|183762070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.9|||Chi-squared|||||1.90|0.76|0.612
91932122|NCT04570657|183762070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.88|2.25|||Chi-squared|||||2.25|0.88|0.348
91932123|NCT04570657|183762071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.50|0.575
91932124|NCT04570657|183762071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.53|1.38|||Chi-squared|||||1.38|0.53|0.679
91932125|NCT04570657|183762072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.002||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.825|3.828||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Activity Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||3.828|-3.825|0.500
91932126|NCT04570657|183762072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.364||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.198|2.47||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Activity Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||2.470|-5.198|0.324
91932127|NCT04570657|183762072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.421||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.103|1.26||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Impacts Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||1.260|-4.103|0.248
91932128|NCT04570657|183762072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.694||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.383|0.996||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Impacts Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.996|-4.383|0.210
91932129|NCT04570657|183762072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.691||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.715|5.096||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Symptoms Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||5.096|-3.715|0.420
91932130|NCT04570657|183762072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.15||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.579|1.28||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Symptoms Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||1.280|-7.579|0.181
91768540|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|44.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||44.8|-4.8|1.000
91768541|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.3||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.8|33.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||33.2|-79.8|0.423
91811483|NCT00514540|183497749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||"Stoppage of trial early if 1) probability of response with the frontline treatment DC in the 1st 2 courses is unacceptably low compared to a target of 30% Pr(p1\*p2 \> .30\|data) \< 0.005, or 2) risk of a SAE is unacceptably high Pr(m \> m\* \|data) \< 0.001"|Bayesian probability model|Operating Characteristics of futility monitoring rule 1 \& safety monitoring rule 2 applied simultaneously for frontline treatment DC in courses 1 \& 2.||Disease status evaluated at the end of course 1 \& the end of course 2. Primary outcomes are response, defined as the absence of disease progression, and the time to a serious adverse event (SAE), defined as grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity or death. Bayesian probability model \& decision rules used to monitor patient outcomes.||||< 0.005
91811484|NCT00555321|183497754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|49.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||49.8|16.1|
91768542|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|8.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||8.2|-74.0|0.250
91932131|NCT04570657|183762072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.663||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.454|2.129||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||2.129|-3.454|0.380
91932132|NCT04570657|183762072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.896||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.694|0.903||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.903|-4.694|0.192
91932133|NCT04570657|183762073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|0.59|0.828
91932134|NCT04570657|183762073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.70|0.68|0.840
91932135|NCT04570657|183762074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|2.0||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with treatment group, background medication, geographic region, and ICS total daily dose as covariates.||||2.0|0.8|0.239
91768543|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|28.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||28.6|-8.6|1.000
91932136|NCT04570657|183762074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.7||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with treatment group, background medication, geographic region, and ICS total daily dose as covariates.||||1.7|0.6|0.461
91932137|NCT04570657|183762075|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|1.36||One-sided p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||1.36|0.56|0.346
91932138|NCT04570657|183762075|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.7||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.43|1.12||One-sided p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||1.12|0.43|0.166
91932139|NCT04570657|183762076|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.869||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.791|0.956||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||||0.956|0.791|0.029
91932140|NCT04570657|183762076|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.879||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|0.966||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||||0.966|0.800|0.040
91932141|NCT04570657|183762077|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.023||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.078|0.124||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|1 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||0.124|-0.078|0.385
91932142|NCT04570657|183762077|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.123||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.224|-0.022||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|1 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||-0.022|-0.224|0.060
91932143|NCT04570657|183762077|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|0.077||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.034|0.187||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|≥ 2 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||0.187|-0.034|0.186
91932144|NCT04570657|183762077|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.212||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.102|0.322||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|≥ 2 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||0.322|0.102|0.007
91932145|NCT04570657|183762078|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.559|0.71||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||Analysis at Week 16 based on MMRM which included fixed effects for baseline, background medication, geographic region, baseline ICS total daily dose, visit, treatment and the baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.||0.710|0.559|< 0.001
91932146|NCT04570657|183762078|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.675|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.599|0.76||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||Analysis at Week 16 based on MMRM which included fixed effects for baseline, background medication, geographic region, baseline ICS total daily dose, visit, treatment and the baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.||0.760|0.599|< 0.001
91932147|NCT01079962|183762079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.701||||0.5943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|3.29||No adjustment of p-value was done and priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in APP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||3.29|-1.89|0.5943
91932148|NCT01079962|183762080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8589||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.8589
91932149|NCT01079962|183762080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2223||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2223
91932150|NCT01079962|183762080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2443||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2443
91932151|NCT01079962|183762080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1481||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1481
91932152|NCT01079962|183762080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4188||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.4188
91768544|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|44.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.8|-4.8|1.000
91932153|NCT01079962|183762080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1586||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1586
91768545|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|33.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||33.1|-50.2|1.000
91932154|NCT01079962|183762081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2987||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in AIx at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2987
91932155|NCT01079962|183762081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6584||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in AIx at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.6584
91932156|NCT01079962|183762082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2511||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in cfPWV at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2511
91932157|NCT01079962|183762082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in cfPWV at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.5007
91932158|NCT01079962|183762083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9943||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in heart rate at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.9943
91932159|NCT01079962|183762083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in heart rate at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.5230
91768546|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|45.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||45.5|-72.2|1.000
91932160|NCT01079962|183762084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4447||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4447
91932161|NCT01079962|183762085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Total cholesterol at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.3960
91932162|NCT01079962|183762085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1919||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in LDL-cholesterol at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1919
91932163|NCT01079962|183762085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1896||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HDL-cholesterol at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1896
91932164|NCT01079962|183762086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9244||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9244
91932165|NCT01079962|183762087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9692||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.9692
91932166|NCT01079962|183762087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4731||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.4731
91932167|NCT01079962|183762087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2876||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2876
91932168|NCT01079962|183762087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.0420
91932169|NCT01079962|183762087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.5100
91932170|NCT01079962|183762087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1207||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1207
91932171|NCT01079962|183762089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.442||||0.7561||95.0|-2.36|3.24||No adjustment of p-value was done and priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.24|-2.36|0.7561
91932172|NCT01072539|183762092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among subgroups of Infection Sites: cSSSI, cIAI, CAP, cIAI + cSSSI, and cIAI + CAP.||||<0.0001
91932173|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0067||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Geriatrc: \<65 Years Versus (VS) Geriatrc: \>=65 Years||||0.0067
91932174|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0412||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Age categories: \<30 Years, 30 to 39 Years, 40 to 49 Years, 50 to 64 Years, and \>=65 Years.||||0.0412
91932175|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4792||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Sex: Male VS Sex: Female||||0.4792
91932176|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9669||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparson among Duration of Disease categories: \<3 Months, \>=3 Months and \<6 Months, and \>=6 Months||||0.9669
91932177|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0064||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among subgroups of infection site: cSSSI, cIAI, CAP, cIAI + cSSSI, and cIAI + CAP.||||0.0064
91932178|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Satistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among severity of infection subgroups: Mild, Moderate, and Severe.||||<0.0001
91932179|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||General Medical History: Yes VS General Medical History: No||||<0.0001
91932180|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||General Medical History (Present): Yes VS General Medical History (Present): No||||<0.0001
91932181|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||General Medical History (Past): Yes VS General Medical History (Past): No||||0.0006
91932182|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney Disorder: Yes VS Kidney Disorder: No||||<0.0001
91932183|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Liver Disorder: Yes VS Liver Disorder: No||||<0.0001
91932184|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0153||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among subgroups of Total Treatment Period of Tygacil: \<7 Days, 7 to 14 Days, and \>14 Days||||0.0153
91932185|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among subgroups of Mean Daily Dose of Tygacil: \<50 mg, 50 to \<100 mg, 100 to \<200 mg, and \>=200 mg.||||<0.0001
91932186|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0376||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Past Medication and Therapy: Yes VS Past Medication and Therapy: No||||0.0376
91768547|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-46.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|12.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||12.2|-100.0|0.203
91768548|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|33.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||33.1|-50.2|1.000
91768549|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|45.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||45.5|-72.2|1.000
91768550|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|68.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||68.0|-54.7|1.000
91932187|NCT01072539|183762093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Concomitant Medications: Yes VS Concomitant Medications: No||||<0.0001
91768551|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|56.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||56.6|-33.8|1.000
91768552|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|68.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||68.0|-54.7|1.000
91932188|NCT03731364|183762109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.276|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.276
91932189|NCT03731364|183762109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.651
91932190|NCT03731364|183762109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.556|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.556
91932191|NCT03731364|183762110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.136
91932192|NCT03731364|183762110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.649
91932193|NCT03731364|183762110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.608
91932194|NCT03731364|183762111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Not estimable|Regression, Logistic|Not estimable|Not estimable|Not estimable||||0
91932195|NCT03731364|183762111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Not estimable|Regression, Logistic|Not estimable|Not estimable|Not estimable||||0
91932196|NCT03731364|183762111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Not estimable|Regression, Logistic||Not estimable|Not estimable||||0
91932197|NCT03731364|183762112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.306
91932198|NCT03731364|183762112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.595
91932199|NCT03731364|183762112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.242
91932200|NCT03655717|183762131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.184||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for dronabinol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with dronabinol (i.e., a main effect for dronabinol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.184|-0.259|0.94
91932201|NCT03655717|183762131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.386||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for ethanol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with ethanol (i.e., a main effect for ethanol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.386|-0.421|0.94
91932202|NCT03655717|183762131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.568||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for the dronabinol + ethanol condition (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol+ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with both dronabinol and ethanol (i.e., the interaction between dronabinol and ethanol doses), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.568|-0.535|0.94
91932203|NCT03655717|183762132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.057||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for dronabinol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with dronabinol (i.e., a main effect for dronabinol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.057|-0.384|0.94
91932204|NCT03655717|183762132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.237||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for ethanol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with ethanol (i.e., a main effect for ethanol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.237|-0.588|0.94
91768553|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||86.7|-20.0|1.000
91768554|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||70.8|-100.0|1.000
91768555|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||86.7|-20.0|1.000
91932205|NCT03655717|183762132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.728||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for the dronabinol + ethanol condition (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol+ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with both dronabinol and ethanol (i.e., the interaction between dronabinol and ethanol doses), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.728|-0.354|0.94
91932206|NCT01185249|183762133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis-no difference in morning and evening weights on three consecutive days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51306|1.73806|||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis of within subjects design morning and evening weights. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between morning and evening weights.||1.73806|-0.51306|<.001
91932207|NCT01185249|183762133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
91932208|NCT02193815|183762137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Ratio|93.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.43|107.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||107.99|80.43|0.3465
91932209|NCT02193815|183762138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|165.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|143.12|192.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||192.25|143.12|<0.0001
91932210|NCT02193815|183762139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|65.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.46|75.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.81|56.46|<0.0001
91932211|NCT02193815|183762140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|93.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.3|107.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||107.81|80.30|0.3349
91932212|NCT02193815|183762140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|149.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.04|173.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||173.34|129.04|<0.0001
91932213|NCT02193815|183762140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|106.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.92|123.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||123.41|91.92|0.3991
91768556|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||86.7|-20.0|1.000
91768557|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||70.8|-100.0|1.000
91932214|NCT02193815|183762140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|71.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.08|83.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||83.36|62.08|<0.0001
91932215|NCT02193815|183762141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|96.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|124.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||124.64|74.00|0.7529
91932216|NCT02193815|183762141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|125.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.96|169.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||169.75|92.96|0.1318
91932217|NCT02193815|183762141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|103.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.3|134.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||134.68|79.30|0.8009
91932218|NCT02193815|183762141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|81.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.94|104.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||104.47|62.94|0.1012
91768558|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||86.7|-20.0|1.000
91932219|NCT00064350|183762146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the proportion of patients maintaining stable disease or objective response at 2 months after randomization between the two arms.||||0.005
91932220|NCT00064350|183762147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Compare PFS between the Sorafenib arm and the placebo arm||||0.014
91932221|NCT00064350|183762148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Compare OS between the Sorafenib arm and the placebo arm||||0.12
91932222|NCT00115765|183762150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.011||95.0|1.06|1.52|||Regression, Cox|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior chemotherapy, metastatic organs, disease site, oxaliplatin dose \< 85 mg/m2, and oxaliplatin dose \> 100 mg/m2||||1.52|1.06|0.011
91932223|NCT00115765|183762151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.005||95.0|1.11|1.83|||Regression, Cox|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior chemotherapy, metastatic organs, disease site, oxaliplatin dose \< 85 mg/m2, and oxaliplatin dose \> 100 mg/m2||||1.83|1.11|0.005
91932224|NCT00115765|183762155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.738||95.0|0.6|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, number of metastatic organs, and primary disease site||||2.05|0.60|0.738
91932225|NCT00115765|183762156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.257||95.0|0.77|2.62|||Regression, Cox|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, number of metastatic organs, and primary disease site||||2.62|0.77|0.257
91932226|NCT00115765|183762158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||||95.0|1.04|1.77||||||||1.77|1.04|
91932227|NCT00115765|183762159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||||95.0|0.91|1.71||||||||1.71|0.91|
91932228|NCT00115765|183762160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89||||||95.0|1.3|2.75||||||||2.75|1.30|
91932229|NCT00115765|183762161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||||95.0|0.67|1.54||||||||1.54|0.67|
91932230|NCT00115765|183762162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||||95.0|0.61|2.66||||||||2.66|0.61|
91932231|NCT00115765|183762163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||||95.0|0.28|1.67||||||||1.67|0.28|
91932232|NCT01683071|183762172|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|2.9||||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|94.0|||ANCOVA|||||94|-88|0.9494
91932233|NCT01683071|183762172|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-103.3||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14|-192|0.0237
91932234|NCT01683071|183762172|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-94.3||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.0|-5.0|||ANCOVA|||||-5|-184|0.0386
91932235|NCT01683071|183762172|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-96.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.0|-49.0|||ANCOVA|||||-49|-144|<0.0001
91932236|NCT01683071|183762173|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.9||||0.6182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.3|0.6|0.6182
91932237|NCT01683071|183762173|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.73||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.1|0.5|0.1097
91811485|NCT00555321|183497754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|43.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||43.5|9.6|
91932238|NCT01683071|183762173|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.85||||0.4046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.3|0.6|0.4046
91811486|NCT00555321|183497754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|48.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||48.5|14.8|
91811487|NCT00555321|183497754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|29.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||29.6|-8.7|
91932239|NCT01683071|183762173|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.74||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.9|0.6|0.0016
91932240|NCT01968187|183762198|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.029|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-2.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effect and HPWSQ-R total score at baseline as covariate.||||-2.2||0.0290
91932241|NCT01968187|183762199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.0233|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and CGI-S score as a covariate.||||-0.3||0.0233
91932242|NCT01968187|183762200|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.1172|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and HPWSQ-R domain score at baseline as a covariate.||HPWSQ-R Domain score: Behavior||0.2||0.1172
91932243|NCT01968187|183762200|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.1436|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and HPWSQ-R domain score -at baseline as a covariate.||HPWSQ-R Domain score: Drive||0.3||0.1436
91811488|NCT00555321|183497754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|23.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||23.2|-15.3|
91811489|NCT00555321|183497754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|28.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||28.4|-9.8|
91811490|NCT00555321|183497755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||8.7|-12.9|
91932244|NCT01968187|183762200|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0248|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and HPWSQ-R domain score -at baseline as a covariate.||HPWSQ-R Domain score: Severity||-0.5||0.0248
91932245|NCT01968187|183762201|OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.2||||0.0047|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-3.3|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and CY-BOCS total score at baseline as a covariate.||||-3.3||0.0047
91932246|NCT01968187|183762202|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.4||||0.0132|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-1.9|||ANCOVA|Compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and Food Domain Score of Reiss Profile at baseline as a covariate.||||-1.9||0.0132
91932247|NCT01708941|183762264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Log Rank|||The primary comparison was ipilimumab + HDI versus ipilimumab alone, across ipilimumab dose (Arms A \& C versus Arms B \& D)||||0.490
91932248|NCT01708941|183762265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Log Rank|||PFS comparison of higher dose ipilimumab versus lower dose ipilimumab (Arms A \& B versus Arms C \& D)||||0.144
91932249|NCT01708941|183762266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.691
91932250|NCT01708941|183762267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.868|||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of higher dose ipilimumab versus lower dose ipilimumab across HDI status (Arms A \& B versus Arms C \& D)||||0.868
91932251|NCT02108600|183762295|OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91932252|NCT01295580|183762300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +1.6 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the pain subscale (range 0-20)~Alpha inflation was controlled using pre-planned stepwise hypotheses testing (1) WOMAC Pain over 18 weeks then (2) over 26 weeks, (3) WOMAC Physical Function over 18 weeks then (4) over 26 weeks, (5) Subject Global Assessment over 18 weeks then (6) over 26 weeks, (7) WOMAC Knee Stiffness over 18 weeks then (8) over 26 weeks."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.39||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the first step WOMAC pain over 18 week pain subscale primary analyses.||The second step is to test Durolane WOMAC pain non-inferior to Artz WOMAC pain over 26 weeks.||"Primary Hypothesis:~Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≥ +1.6 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \< +1.6 units~Power Calculations:~Assume the over 18 weeks difference is 0mm, SD 20mm (5 on the Likert scale), 90% power, 2-sided test alpha 5%, and a 8mm non-inferiority margin (1.6 on the Likert scale), the sample size required is 132 subjects per group adjusted to 175 to hold power constant due to loss to follow-up and dropout."||0.39|-0.58|
91932253|NCT01295580|183762301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +1.6 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the pain subscale (range 0-20)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.37||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first pain over 18 weeks then pain over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week pain subscale results.||The third ordered test is Durolane WOMAC physical function subscale non-inferior to Artz WOMAC physical function subscale over 18 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] ≥ +1.6 units Ha: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] \< +1.6 units||0.37|-0.56|
91932254|NCT01295580|183762302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +5.44 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the physical function subscale (range 0-68).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.51||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 18 week physical function results.||The fourth step is to test Durolane WOMAC physical function non-inferior to Artz physical function over 26 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≥ +5.44 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \< +5.44 units||0.51|-1.81|
91932255|NCT01295580|183762303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +5.44 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the physical function subscale (range 0-68).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.53||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week physical function subscale results.||The fifth step is to test Durolane subject global assessment non-inferior to Artz global assessment over 18 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] ≥ +5.44 units Ha: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] \< +5.44 units||0.53|-1.69|
91932256|NCT01295580|183762304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of -0.8 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the subject global assessment (range 0-10). Note that because the assessment interpretation is reversed as compared to the WOMAC assessments the lower bound of the 95%CI is compared to the -0.8 non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.45||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 18 week subject global assessment results.||The sixth step is to test Durolane subject global assessment non-inferior to Artz subject global assessment over 26 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≤ -0.8 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \> -0.8 units||0.45|-0.15|
91932257|NCT01295580|183762305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of -0.8 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the subject global assessment (range 0-10). Note that because the assessment interpretation is reversed as compared to the WOMAC assessments the lower bound of the 95%CI is compared to the -0.8 non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.43||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week subject global assessment results.||The seventh step is to test Durolane WOMAC knee stiffness non-inferior to Artz WOMAC knee stiffness over 18 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≤ -0.8 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \> -0.8 units||0.43|-0.16|
91768559|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|42.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||42.1|-100.0|1.000
91932258|NCT01295580|183762306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +0.64 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the knee stiffness subscale (range 0-8).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 18 week knee stiffness subscale results.||The eight and last step is to test Durolane WOMAC knee stiffness non-inferior to Artz WOMAC knee stiffness over 26 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≥ +0.64 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \< +0.64 units||0.05|-0.33|
91932259|NCT01295580|183762307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of 0.64 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the knee stiffness subscale (range 0-8).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week knee stiffness subscale results.||This is the eighth and last pre-planned hypothesis test.||Ho: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] ≥ +0.64 units Ha: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] \< +0.64 units||0.03|-0.33|
91932260|NCT03943953|183762309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.018
91932261|NCT03943953|183762311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.001
91768560|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||70.8|-100.0|1.000
91768561|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||86.7|-20.0|1.000
91768562|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.4|75.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||75.4|-75.4|1.000
91932262|NCT03943953|183762313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.006
91932263|NCT03943953|183762315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.035
91932264|NCT03943953|183762317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.39
91932265|NCT01940510|183762330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.8|30.1|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals.||30.1|23.8|
91932266|NCT01940510|183762331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.5|54.3|||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals. The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|||54.3|43.5|
91932267|NCT01940510|183762332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|179.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.0|202.0|||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals. The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|||202|158|
91932268|NCT01940510|183762333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|220.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.0|255.0|||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals. The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|||255|190|
91811491|NCT00555321|183497755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|8.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||8.5|-13.6|
91811492|NCT00555321|183497755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|1.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||1.5|-23.8|
91811493|NCT00555321|183497755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||||
91811494|NCT00555321|183497755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|11.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||11.3|-12.1|
91932269|NCT05025787|183762347|SUPERIORITY||model treatment coefficient|-1.774|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.639||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.033|-0.514||A 95% confidence interval for the treatment coefficient in the linear mixed-effect model was (-3.033, -0.514), where the reference level was the active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean WOMAC-A pain between CNTX-6970 and Placebo. Linear mixed-effect models were used with block, period, sex, age, and KL-grade as covariates and treatment group as factor, with random effects for sites and subjects nested within sites. The test was performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).~Power was computed for effect sizes ranging from 0.25 to 0.50 using Monte Carlo simulation, and exceeded 80%."||-0.514|-3.033|.006
91932270|NCT03471767|183762358|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modeling (MLM) was used to model daily reports of cigarettes smoked as a function of week, treatment (AXS-05 vs. bupropion), and the interaction between week and treatment. The contrast between the two treatment groups in change in smoking intensity from baseline to week 3 was estimated within the context of the model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.65||This was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, because the primary hypothesis was established a-priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.65|-2.75|0.05
91932271|NCT03471767|183762364|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91932272|NCT05600309|183762365|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5||One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.50|0.59|0.3914
91932273|NCT05600309|183762366|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.92||One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.92|0.78|0.8091
91932274|NCT05600309|183762367|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.0||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|16.3||One-sided nominal p-value for testing.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method||Difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||16.3|-2.3|0.0502
91932275|NCT00807846|183762371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|2.76|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was based on 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in mean change from baseline in SBP. Change from Baseline in BP was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms for treatment with baseline height, baseline weight, baseline age, and baseline SBP as covariates. No formal hypothesis testing was applied to the primary analysis.||2.76|-0.56|0.274
91811495|NCT00555321|183497755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|4.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||4.1|-22.9|
91811496|NCT00555321|183497755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||8.7|-12.9|
91932276|NCT00807846|183762372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.088||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.57|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||2.57|-0.39|0.148
91932277|NCT00807846|183762373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.837||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.46|||ANCOVA|||"For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in blood pressure was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates.~Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05."||3.46|0.21|0.027
91932278|NCT00807846|183762374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.207||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.26|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||0.26|-2.67|0.106
91932279|NCT00807846|183762375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.74|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||1.74|-1.30|0.776
91932280|NCT00807846|183762376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.33|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline blood pressure as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||1.33|-1.69|0.815
91768563|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||70.8|-100.0|1.000
91768564|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||86.7|-20.0|1.000
91768565|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.4|75.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||75.4|-75.4|1.000
91768566|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.7|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||20.0|-86.7|1.000
91932281|NCT00807846|183762377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.033||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|8.82|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using ANCOVA model as well with treatment and Baseline value as a covariate. The LS mean change from Baseline was compared between treatment groups and an appropriate p-value and 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups was generated. This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||8.82|-2.76|0.303
91932282|NCT00807846|183762378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.079|||Chi-squared||Mean Difference (Final Values) indicates difference in incidence (proportion) between treatments.|The number of subjects with at least a 30% improvement in Parent/Guardian's Global Assessment of Overall Well-Being was compared between the two treatment groups using a chi-square test. A 95% CI for the difference in incidence between groups was also computed.||0.079|-0.202|0.392
91932283|NCT00807846|183762379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.69|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using ANCOVA model as well with treatment and Baseline value as a covariate. The LS mean change from Baseline was compared between treatment groups and an appropriate p-value and 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups was generated. This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||5.69|-6.50|0.897
91768567|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||100.0|13.3|1.000
91811497|NCT00555321|183497755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|5.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||5.4|-18.1|
91932284|NCT00807846|183762380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.102||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.053|||Chi-squared||Mean Difference (Final Values) indicates difference in incidence (proportion) between treatments.|The number of participants with at least a 30% improvement in participant's Global Assessment of Overall Well-Being was compared between the two treatment groups using a chi-square test. A 95% CI for the difference in incidence between groups was also computed.||0.053|-0.257|0.200
91932285|NCT02491073|183762402|OTHER||geometric mean ratio|1.05||||1.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.09|||geometric mean ration||The parameter dispersion type:Geometric coefficient of variation Dispersion Value: FT4: 0.220|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.09|0.98|1.05
91932286|NCT02491073|183762402|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.22|||Geometric Mean Ratio||parameter dispersion type: Geometric Coefficient of Variation Dispersion Value : FT3: 0.178|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.22|1.09|
91932287|NCT02491073|183762403|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.03|||||Parameter dispersion type: geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value 0.024|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.03|1.01|
91932288|NCT02491073|183762403|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.04|||||parameter dispersion value - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.020|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.04|1.03|
91932289|NCT02491073|183762403|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.06|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient variation dispersion value - 0.021|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.06|1.05|
91932290|NCT02491073|183762403|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.02|||||parameter dispersion type -geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.040|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.02|0.99|
91768568|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.2|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||44.0|-31.2|1.000
91768569|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||28.1|-48.6|0.655
91768570|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.1||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|46.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||46.0|0.2|0.541
91768571|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|34.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||34.4|-37.0|1.000
91932291|NCT02491073|183762403|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geotmetric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.03|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.041|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.03|1.00|
91768572|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-29.1||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|8.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||8.9|-67.0|0.178
91932292|NCT02491073|183762403|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.04|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.041|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.04|1.02|
91932293|NCT02491073|183762404|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value -0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
91932294|NCT02491073|183762404|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
91932295|NCT02491073|183762404|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH||1.01|1.00|
91932296|NCT02491073|183762404|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.02|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.041|TT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator.|1.02|0.99|
91932297|NCT02491073|183762404|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Slope|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.02|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.033|TT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.02|1.00|
91932298|NCT02491073|183762404|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.036|TT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|0.99|
91768573|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|35.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||35.0|-4.2|1.000
91932299|NCT02491073|183762404|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.047|TT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|0.98|
91932300|NCT02491073|183762404|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.043|TT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|0.98|
91932301|NCT02491073|183762404|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.0|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.048|TT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.00|0.97|
91768574|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|33.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||33.9|-54.4|1.000
91768575|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||28.1|-48.6|0.655
91768576|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|46.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||46.3|-50.1|1.000
91768577|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|19.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||19.2|-73.0|0.320
91768578|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||28.1|-48.6|0.655
91768579|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|46.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||46.3|-50.1|1.000
91768580|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|44.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||44.5|-52.2|1.000
91768581|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||44.0|-40.6|1.000
91768582|NCT02365649|183425714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|71.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||71.5|-29.2|0.603
91768583|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|56.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||56.5|-25.6|0.673
91768584|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.6||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|53.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||53.3|-14.0|0.265
91811498|NCT00555321|183497755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-9.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-9.5|-38.9|
91768585|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|51.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||51.5|-25.6|0.695
91768586|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.6||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||20.3|-61.4|0.394
91768587|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|28.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||28.3|-36.1|1.000
91768588|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.6||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|26.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||26.7|-47.9|0.683
91768589|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.7||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|61.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||61.4|-4.1|0.205
91932302|NCT02491073|183762405|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.16|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.148|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.16|1.06|
91932303|NCT02491073|183762405|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.2|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.202|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.20|1.07|
91932304|NCT02491073|183762405|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.18|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.203|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.18|1.04|
91932305|NCT02491073|183762405|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.1|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.179|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.10|0.99|
91932306|NCT02491073|183762405|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.52|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.178|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.52|1.15|
91932307|NCT02491073|183762405|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|1.52|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.224|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.52|1.33|
91932308|NCT02491073|183762405|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.27|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.203|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.27|1.12|
91932309|NCT02491073|183762405|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.27|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.215|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.27|1.11|
91768590|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|46.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||46.9|-17.9|0.388
91768591|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-28.8||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|8.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||8.0|-65.6|0.236
91768592|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|31.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.5|-50.6|1.000
91768593|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|58.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||58.9|-6.3|0.131
91932310|NCT02491073|183762406|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value -0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
91932311|NCT02491073|183762406|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
91932312|NCT02491073|183762406|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH||1.01|1.00|
91932313|NCT03977727|183762407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|48.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||48.4|7.88|.008
91932314|NCT03977727|183762408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.22||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|39.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||39.46|-5.42|.136
91932315|NCT03977727|183762409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||.73|.05|.029
91932316|NCT03977727|183762410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||-0.31|-2.84|.016
91932317|NCT03977727|183762411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||2.32|.04|.045
91932318|NCT03977727|183762414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||.16|-.59|.303
91932319|NCT03977727|183762415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|9.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||9.99|-10.32|.968
91932320|NCT03977727|183762416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||0|-.13|.059
91932321|NCT01419665|183762427|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin of + or - 12% was determined considering the variability of the point estimate of the add-on effect by taking a value lower than the lower boundary of the 95% CI for Rituximab+chemotherapy versus chemotherapy obtained from historical data.|difference in overall response rate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|5.14|||Binomial approximation|||||5.14|-5.94|
91932322|NCT01419665|183762430|OTHER|descriptive purposes, not powered for hypothesis testing|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||||1.76|0.97|
91932323|NCT01419665|183762431|OTHER|descriptive purposes, not powered for hypothesis testing|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||||1.52|0.55|
91768594|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|31.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.5|-45.6|1.000
91932324|NCT00711269|183762438|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-3.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.3|||ANOVA||\[Not specified\]|||1.3|-8.4|0.149
91932325|NCT00711269|183762438|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.8||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.0|||ANOVA|||||3.0|-6.6|0.462
91932326|NCT00711269|183762438|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-4.6||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.2|||ANOVA|||||1.2|-10.5|0.122
91932327|NCT00711269|183762438|SUPERIORITY|Maximum Contrast Method||||||0.235||||||Contrast Factors (Placebo, SM-13496 40-mg, SM-13496 80-mg): (-1, 0, 1) Adjusted P Value: 0.298|Maximum Contrast Method|Contrast (Placebo, SM-13496 40-mg, SM-13496 80-mg):(-2, 1, 1) Raw P Value: 0.108 Adjusted P Value: 0.145||||||0.235
91932328|NCT00711269|183762439|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-2.9|0.069
91932329|NCT00711269|183762439|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.8||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-2.3|0.287
91768595|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|62.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||62.2|-19.6|0.411
91932330|NCT00711269|183762439|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-2.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.4|||ANOVA|||||-0.4|-4.1|0.016
91932331|NCT00711269|183762440|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.7||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-2.0|0.289
91932332|NCT00711269|183762440|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.7||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-2.0|0.256
91932333|NCT00711269|183762440|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.7||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.8|-2.3|0.352
91932334|NCT00711269|183762441|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.4||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.0|-3.9|0.251
91932335|NCT00711269|183762441|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.2|||ANOVA|||||2.2|-2.7|0.847
91932336|NCT00711269|183762441|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.6||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.4|||ANOVA|||||1.4|-4.6|0.292
91932337|NCT01628016|183762498|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91932338|NCT03483506|183762500|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|8.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.88|11.82|||ANOVA||"Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation. BI 1467335 tab arm is the numerator, while BI 1467335 (C-14) iv arm is the denominator."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. The model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'formulation' as sources of variation; 'subject' was considered as a random effect, whereas 'formulation' was considered as a fixed effect.||11.82|5.88|
91932339|NCT03483506|183762502|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|62.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.08|74.14|||ANOVA||"Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation. BI 1467335 tab arm is the numerator, while BI 1467335 (C-14) iv arm is the denominator."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. The model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'formulation' as sources of variation; 'subject' was considered as a random effect, whereas 'formulation' was considered as a fixed effect.||74.14|52.08|
91932340|NCT00403559|183762522|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority determined as the F-IGA, IGA, erythema, scaling, and pruritis scores when compared between groups. The Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified baseline seborrheic dermatitis (SD) severity.||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.009
91932341|NCT02768194|183762524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.25||From the MMRM model with change from pre-dose as response, participant as a random effect; and treatment, period, day, location of sample in mouth (left or right) and treatment×day interaction as fixed effects; pre-dose mean SEM score as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.25|-0.46|0.5512
91768596|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.2||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|64.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||64.5|-0.2|0.067
91811499|NCT00555321|183497755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|14.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||14.4|-9.9|
91811500|NCT00555321|183497755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|10.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||10.7|-15.5|
91932342|NCT02768194|183762524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.35||From the MMRM model with change from pre-dose as response, subject as a random effect; and treatment, period, day, location of sample in mouth (left or right) and treatment×day interaction as fixed effects; pre-dose mean SEM score as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.35|-0.36|0.9671
91932343|NCT02768194|183762524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.26||From the MMRM model with change from pre-dose as response, subject as a random effect; and treatment, period, day, location of sample in mouth (left or right) and treatment×day interaction as fixed effects; pre-dose mean SEM score as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.26|-0.46|0.5830
91932344|NCT05291949|183762526|OTHER|Bland-Altman|Bias|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Bland-Altman||||Lower 95% Limit of agreement (LoA) value = -0.34 Upper 95% LoA = 0.94|||
91932345|NCT01029886|183762542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority of exenatide once weekly with respect to change in HbA1c was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (exenatide once weekly minus liraglutide) was less than zero. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the CI was \<0.25%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A sample of 408 subjects in each treatment arm would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true difference between treatments of 0.25% in change in HbA1c from baseline with a 2 sided t-test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.1%. MMRM model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.33|0.08|0.002
91932346|NCT01029886|183762543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c \<7.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, in which HbA1c stratum, country, and background OAD served as stratification factors.||||0.011
91932347|NCT01029886|183762544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline fasting serum glucose, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.66|0.05|0.021
91932348|NCT01029886|183762545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline body weight, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||1.40|0.39|<.001
91932349|NCT01029886|183762546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline total cholesterol, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.19|-0.01|0.079
91932350|NCT01029886|183762547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline HDL-C, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.02|-0.02|0.832
91932351|NCT01029886|183762548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting triglycerides were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using a MMRM model with treatment, baseline fasting triglycerides, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||1.15|1.04|<.001
91932352|NCT01029886|183762549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline SBP, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||2.47|-0.53|0.205
91932353|NCT01029886|183762550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline DBP, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.98|-0.96|0.981
91932354|NCT00242385|183762567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To establish bioequivalence in AUC 0-35d divided by the dose administered with a type I error of 5% the calculated two-sided 90% confidence interval were to be contained completely in the margins of equivalence defined as 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.002||||||||1.002|0.858|
91932355|NCT00242385|183762568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To establish bioequivalence in AUC 0-infinity divided by the dose administered with a type I error of 5% the calculated two-sided 90% confidence interval were to be contained completely in the margins of equivalence defined as 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.855|1.021||||||||1.021|0.855|
91932356|NCT02720016|183762580|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.016
91768597|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|37.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||37.2|-39.5|1.000
91768598|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.6||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|62.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||62.0|-8.8|0.178
91811501|NCT00555321|183497755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-4.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-4.1|-35.5|
91932357|NCT02720016|183762580|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.308||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.002
91932358|NCT02720016|183762580|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.894|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.296||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.492
91932359|NCT02720016|183762585|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.172||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts and included partners nested within couples||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.872
91768599|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|12.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||12.3|-23.8|0.720
91811502|NCT00555321|183497756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|15.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||15.3|-14.5|
91932360|NCT02720016|183762585|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.686|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts and included partners nested within couples||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.686
91932361|NCT02720016|183762585|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.256||0.798|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts and included partners nested within couples||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.798
91932362|NCT02720016|183762590|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.518||0.631|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.631
91932363|NCT02720016|183762590|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.461|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.495||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.560
91932364|NCT02720016|183762590|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.536||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.922
91932365|NCT04501679|183762616|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|37.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|48.5||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\<90 kg,\>=90 kg\]).|Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||48.5|26.3|<0.0001
91932366|NCT04501679|183762617|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|38.2||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||38.2|18.8|<0.0001
91932367|NCT04501679|183762618|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|42.4||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||42.4|24.3|<0.0001
91932368|NCT04501679|183762619|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|38.6||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\<90 kg,\>=90 kg\]).|Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||38.6|21.3|<0.0001
91932369|NCT04501679|183762620|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|31.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|43.2||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\<90 kg,\>=90 kg\]).|Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||43.2|20.7|<0.0001
91932370|NCT04501679|183762621|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.|Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|37.5||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|||37.5|18.4|<0.0001
91932371|NCT04501679|183762622|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|25.7||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||25.7|12.0|<0.0001
91932372|NCT02121756|183762631|OTHER|The sCD14 is measured in pg/ml and the median change is shown in pg/ml. the linear regression for the between arm comparison of baseline to week 12 change was performed using log10 transformed plasma sCD14||||||0.822|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8220
91932373|NCT02121756|183762632|OTHER|The sCD163 is measured in ng/ml and the median change is shown in ng/ml. the linear regression for the between arm comparison of baseline to week 12 change was performed using log10 transformed plasma sCD163.||||||0.0869|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0869
91932374|NCT02121756|183762633|OTHER|The IL-6 is measured in pg/ml and the median change is shown in pg/ml. the linear regression for the between arm comparison of baseline to week 12 change was performed using log10 transformed plasma IL-6.||||||0.5027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5027
91932375|NCT02121756|183762634|OTHER|||||||0.4548|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4548
91932376|NCT02121756|183762636|OTHER|||||||0.7556|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7556
91932377|NCT02121756|183762637|OTHER|||||||0.2075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2075
91932378|NCT02121756|183762638|OTHER|||||||0.0315|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0315
91932379|NCT02121756|183762639|OTHER|||||||0.7376|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7376
91932380|NCT02121756|183762640|OTHER|||||||0.2343|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2343
91932381|NCT02121756|183762641|OTHER|||||||0.7598|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7598
91932382|NCT02121756|183762642|OTHER|||||||0.983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9830
91932383|NCT02121756|183762643|OTHER|||||||0.3317|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3317
91932384|NCT02121756|183762644|OTHER|||||||0.6121|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6121
91932385|NCT02121756|183762645|OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5620
91932386|NCT00751114|183762646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.42||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed, with the HbA1c change from baseline to last on-treatment measurement as dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect and the corresponding baseline HbA1c value as covariate|ANCOVA||Difference (Insulin glargine - Sitagliptin)|"H0: no difference between insulin glargine mean HbA1c change and sitagliptin mean HbA1c change~H1: difference between insulin glargine mean HbA1c change and sitagliptin mean HbA1c change~Assuming:~* Estimated standard deviation of the change in HbA1c of 1.3%~* Expected mean difference to be detected of 0.4%~* Alpha risk of 5% (two-sided)~* Power of 90%~* Equal sample size in each treatment group (1:1 randomization)~A total number of 446 evaluable patients (223 in each group) was required"||-0.42|-0.77|<0.0001
91932387|NCT03095521|183762669|NON_INFERIORITY|two-sided 95% CIs estimation used to confirm non-inferior efficacy in primary endpoint. A non-inferiority conclusion was made relating to the primary parameter only.||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Arm Angal, Arm Antiangin||||0.028
91932388|NCT03095521|183762672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.482
91932389|NCT03095521|183762674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||change from baseline, 2 groups||||0.072
91932390|NCT03259490|183762675|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|103.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.36|105.83|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||105.83|100.36|
91932391|NCT03259490|183762676|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|100.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.11|104.77|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||104.77|96.11|
91932392|NCT03259490|183762677|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|100.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.65|104.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||104.10|96.65|
91932393|NCT03259490|183762678|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|99.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.52|105.7|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||105.70|94.52|
91932394|NCT03259490|183762679|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|107.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.52|113.31|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||113.31|102.52|
91932395|NCT03259490|183762680|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|97.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.63|101.93|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||101.93|92.63|
91932396|NCT03259490|183762681|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|103.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.38|105.92|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||105.92|100.38|
91932397|NCT03259490|183762682|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|100.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.68|104.86|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||104.86|95.68|
91932398|NCT03259490|183762683|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|97.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.65|103.29|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||103.29|91.65|
91932399|NCT05027516|183762684|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.05||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.83|||Permutation testing|||||1.83|0.55|0.1026
91932400|NCT05027516|183762685|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.12||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.19|||Permutation testing|||For aminoglycosides||2.19|0.47|1
91932401|NCT05027516|183762685|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.44|||Permutation testing|||For betalactams||1.44|0.69|1
91932402|NCT05027516|183762685|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|3.79||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|20.15|||Permutation testing|||For bacitracin||20.15|0.05|1
91932403|NCT05027516|183762685|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.83||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.91|||Permutation testing|||For glycopeptides||1.91|0|1
91932404|NCT05027516|183762685|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.19||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.15|||Permutation testing|||For trimethoprim||3.15|0.32|1
91932405|NCT05027516|183762685|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.82||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|14.64|||Permutation testing|||For cationic antimicrobial peptides||14.64|0.07|1
91932406|NCT05027516|183762685|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.49||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.34|||Permutation testing|||For mupirocin||5.34|0|1
91932407|NCT05027516|183762685|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.22|||Permutation testing|||For metronidazole||3.22|0|1
91932408|NCT05027516|183762685|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|6.44||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|46.02|||Permutation testing|||For fluoroquinolones||46.02|0.02|1
91932409|NCT05027516|183762685|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|148.86|||Permutation testing|||For sulfonamides||148.86|0.01|1
91932410|NCT05027516|183762685|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.01||||0.5621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||Permutation testing|||For tetracyclines||1.27|0.79|0.5621
91811503|NCT00555321|183497756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|8.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||8.8|-25.7|
91811504|NCT00555321|183497756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|17.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||17.5|-13.2|
91811505|NCT00555321|183497756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|13.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||13.1|-18.1|
91932411|NCT05027516|183762686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For streptococci||||0.196
91932412|NCT05027516|183762686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For streptococci||||0.568
91932413|NCT05027516|183762686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For Neisseria||||0.978
91932414|NCT05027516|183762686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For Neisseria||||0.184
91932415|NCT00723073|183762687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||Fisher Exact|||||1.10|0.89|0.96
91932416|NCT00723073|183762688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.7|||Fisher Exact|||||2.70|0.38|>0.99
91932417|NCT00723073|183762689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||1.97|0.44|>0.99
91932418|NCT00723073|183762690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.07|||Fisher Exact|||||2.07|0.61|0.48
91932419|NCT00723073|183762691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.37|||Fisher Exact|||||3.37|0.10|0.57
91932420|NCT00723073|183762692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
91932421|NCT00723073|183762695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91932422|NCT00723073|183762696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
91932423|NCT01536119|183762697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.38|||Chi-squared|||"Power analysis was conducted to a 15 % increase in exclusive breastfeeding rates (from 52% to 67%) with 80% power and an alpha of 0.05. A 25% attrition rate waas added. 107 couples were needed per group. Intention to treat analysis conducted.~Exclusive breastfeeding at 12 weeks"||1.38|0.91|0.27
91932424|NCT01536119|183762698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.09||95.0|0.98|1.44|||Chi-squared|||||1.44|0.98|0.09
91932425|NCT01536119|183762699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.06||95.0|1.0|1.13|||Fisher Exact|||||1.13|1.00|0.06
91932426|NCT01536119|183762700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.02||95.0|1.01|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|1.01|0.02
91932427|NCT01536119|183762701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Brief scale used||||0.25
91932428|NCT01536119|183762702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91932429|NCT01536119|183762703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91932430|NCT01536119|183762704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
91932431|NCT01536119|183762705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91932432|NCT01536119|183762706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91932433|NCT02365584|183762723|SUPERIORITY|"The assumptions required for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were to be tested as follows:~* The equality of variances was to verified using the Levene's test. If it was significant AUC values were to be properly transformed.~* The linear relationship of AUC with the basal total score within treatment group was to be tested by a regression analysis.~* The parallelism of the regression lines between groups and the slope non zero value with the appropriate F tests."|Adjusted LS Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7|=|0.5396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|25.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the AUC was the dependent and the independent was the baseline ESAS total score.||25|-47|=0.5396
91932434|NCT00838916|183762741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.04|
91932435|NCT00838916|183762741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - insulin glargine) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%||||||0.0086||||||p-value is for non-inferiority testing of albiglutide versus insulin glargine|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0086
91932436|NCT00838916|183762741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1463||||||p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide versus insulin glargine|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - insulin glargine) is equal to zero.||||||0.1463
91932437|NCT01927419|183762752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|61.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference of ORR||Exact 95% CI for difference in ORR uses Newcombe's method|61.8|31.4|
91932438|NCT01927419|183762752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|52.55|||Fisher Exact|||||52.55|3.79|
91932439|NCT01927419|183762753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.59|||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard||Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab|||0.59|0.21|
91932440|NCT01927419|183762754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|64.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference of ORR||Exact 95% CI for difference in ORR uses Newcombe's method|64.8|8.2|
91932441|NCT01927419|183762754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|511.89|||Fisher Exact|||||511.89|1.07|
91932442|NCT01927419|183762755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.97|||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard||Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab|||0.97|0.14|
91932443|NCT03260205|183762811|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-5.9||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|-0.78|||MMRM|||This outcome measure was analyzed using the linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV preschool version total score as the outcome, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, baseline ADHD-RS-IV and baseline ADHD-RS-IV score-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.78|-11.01|0.0242
91932444|NCT03260205|183762812|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Mean Square|-0.6||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.16|||MMRM|||This outcome measure was analyzed using the linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline Visits, with the CGI-I score as the outcome, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, baseline CGI-S as covariate.||-0.16|-1.03|0.0074
91932445|NCT03675737|183762828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.87||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Combined Positive Score \[CPS\] \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (CPS \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.87|0.70|<0.0001
91932446|NCT03675737|183762829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.84||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.84|0.65|<0.0001
91932447|NCT03675737|183762830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.79||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.79|0.53|<0.0001
91932448|NCT03675737|183762831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Combined Positive Score \[CPS\] \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (CPS \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.85|0.67|<0.0001
91932449|NCT03675737|183762832|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.82|0.63|<0.0001
91932450|NCT03675737|183762833|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.76||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.76|0.51|<0.0001
91932451|NCT03675737|183762834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.3||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|14.1||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Combined Positive Score \[CPS\] \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (CPS \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||14.1|4.4|0.00009
91932452|NCT03675737|183762835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.5||||0.00041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|15.0||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||15.0|3.9|0.00041
91932453|NCT03675737|183762836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.5||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|25.5||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||25.5|9.3|0.00002
91932454|NCT05195359|183762858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||<0.0001
91932455|NCT05195359|183762859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0003
91932456|NCT05195359|183762860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||||||0.0002
91932457|NCT05195359|183762861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0606|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||||||0.0606
91932458|NCT05195359|183762862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2056|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||SF-12 Physical Wellbeing||||0.2056
91932459|NCT05195359|183762862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4186|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6||SF-12 Mental Wellbeing||||0.4186
91811506|NCT00555321|183497756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|6.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||6.2|-29.4|
91932460|NCT05195359|183762863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0754|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||||||0.0754
91932461|NCT05195359|183762864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0137
91932462|NCT05195359|183762865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0152
91932463|NCT05195359|183762866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8148|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||SF-12 Physical Wellbeing||||0.8148
91932464|NCT05195359|183762866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0523|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||SF-12 Mental Wellbeing||||0.0523
91932465|NCT05195359|183762867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0729|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0729
91932466|NCT01146951|183762868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-26.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.3|-11.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-11.80|-40.30|0.003
91932467|NCT01146951|183762869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.074
91932468|NCT01146951|183762870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.1|-17.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-17.00|-47.10|<0.001
91811507|NCT00555321|183497756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|15.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||15.3|-16.9|
91932469|NCT01146951|183762871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-57.15||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.5|-17.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Partial Seizure Frequency||-17.30|-104.50|0.025
91932470|NCT01146951|183762871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-28.65||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.0|0.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of atypical absence seizure frequency||0.90|-72.00|0.128
91932471|NCT01146951|183762871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-54.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-126.6|-15.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for myoclonic seizure frequency||-15.40|-126.60|0.021
91932472|NCT01146951|183762871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-23.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.7|-5.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of tonic seizure frequency||-5.60|-40.70|0.031
91932473|NCT01146951|183762871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-71.4||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-464.7|30.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Tonic-clonic seizure frequency||30.50|-464.70|0.107
91932474|NCT01146951|183762871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-52.1||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-89.1|10.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of Atonic seizure frequency||10.80|-89.10|0.221
91932475|NCT01146951|183762872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of Week 12 of the Treatment Period||||0.041
91932476|NCT01146951|183762872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of final assessment (LOCF)||||0.007
91932477|NCT01517412|183762880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A step-down procedure was used to control the type I error: non-inferiority of lixisenatide prior to the main meal of the day versus lixisenatide prior to breakfast was tested first. If non-inferiority was established, then a test of superiority of lixisenatide prior to the main meal of the day over lixisenatide prior to breakfast was to be performed. The non-inferiority was assessed using upper bound of 2-sided 95% CI at a level of ≤0.4%.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.242|||||Lixisenatide Main Meal vs Lixisenatide Breakfast|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of main meal of the day and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||0.242|-0.067|
91932478|NCT01517412|183762880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide Main Meal vs Lixisenatide Breakfast|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of main meal of the day and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate. A step-down procedure was used to control the type I error. The superiority was assessed by comparing the p-value at significance level = 0.05.||||0.2664
91932479|NCT01253187|183762890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|106.03||||||90.0|98.86|113.72||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|38 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||113.72|98.86|
91932480|NCT01253187|183762891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|103.47||||||90.0|99.16|107.98||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|38 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||107.98|99.16|
91932481|NCT01253187|183762892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|105.24||||||90.0|97.3|113.83||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|33 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 35 (YAZ) and 36 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||113.83|97.30|
91932482|NCT01253187|183762893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|100.48||||||90.0|97.28|103.79||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|33 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 35 (YAZ) and 36 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||103.79|97.28|
91932483|NCT01253187|183762894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.88||||||90.0|91.24|109.34||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 40 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||109.34|91.24|
91932484|NCT01253187|183762895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|98.16||||||90.0|93.95|102.57||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 40 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||102.57|93.95|
91932485|NCT01253187|183762896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|100.28||||||90.0|93.15|107.95||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|40 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE and all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||107.95|93.15|
91932486|NCT01253187|183762897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.88||||||90.0|95.38|104.58||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|40 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE and all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||104.58|95.38|
91932487|NCT01253187|183762899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|100.3||||||90.0|97.65|103.02||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|32 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 34 (YAZ) and 36 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||103.02|97.65|
91932488|NCT04124692|183762911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91932489|NCT04124692|183762912|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0043|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.0043
91932490|NCT04124692|183762912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91932491|NCT05136170|183762938|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis was defined on this endpoint: the proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anaesthesia) \>10mm/5min at week 4 in cenegermin (rhNGF) was lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis was rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value was lower than 0.025.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.498||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.165|33.356||P-value of treatment variable from logistic regression model on proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anesthesia) \>10mm/5min|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with multiple imputation (MI) under a missing not at random (MNAR) mechanism using retrieve dropouts with proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \> 10 mm/5 min at Week 4 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||33.356|2.165|0.002
91932492|NCT05136170|183762939|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis is defined on this endpoint: the change from baseline (reduction) in the global SANDE score at week 12 in cenegermin is lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis is rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value is lower than 0.025.|Adjusted means difference|0.59||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.801|8.981||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in the global SANDE score.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with multiple imputation (MI) under a missing not at random (MNAR) mechanism using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in the global SANDE score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline global SANDE score as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||8.981|-7.801|0.890
91932493|NCT05136170|183762940|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was based on logistic regression model with multiple imputation (MI) under missing not at random (MNAR) using retrieve dropouts with proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10 mm/5 min at Week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.648||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.307|33.808|||Regression, Logistic|||This key secondary endpoint was analyzed by means of a logistic regression model with proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10mm/5min at Week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as fixed effects and site as random effect.||33.808|1.307|0.022
91932494|NCT05136170|183762941|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.221||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.934|9.377||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for severity at Week 12.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with multiple imputation (MI) under missing not at random (MNAR) using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in the severity SANDE score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline severity SANDE score as qualitative independent variables.Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||9.377|-8.934|0.962
91932495|NCT05136170|183762942|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.164||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.221|9.549||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for frequency at Week 12.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with multiple imputation (MI) under missing not at random (MNAR) using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in the frequency SANDE score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline frequency SANDE score as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||9.549|-9.221|0.973
91932496|NCT05136170|183762943|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|2.378||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.869|9.625||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 4|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Daily Activities) - Week 4||9.625|-4.869|0.52
91768600|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|11.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||11.5|-27.2|0.683
91768601|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.0||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|58.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||58.9|-12.8|0.215
91932497|NCT05136170|183762943|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|7.11||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.653|14.873||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Daily Activities) - Week 12||14.873|-0.653|0.073
91932498|NCT05136170|183762943|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-4.166||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.322|3.989||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Feelings) at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Feelings) - Week 4||3.989|-12.322|0.317
91932499|NCT05136170|183762943|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixedmodel for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall"|LS means difference|1.058||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.786|8.901||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Feelings) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Feelings) - Week 12||8.901|-6.786|0.792
91932500|NCT05136170|183762943|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall. Missing data will be imputed according to the questionnaire manuals"|LS means difference|-3.907||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.948|7.135||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Work) at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Work) - Week 4||7.135|-14.948|0.488
91932501|NCT05136170|183762943|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-0.284||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.998|9.431||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Work) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Work) - Week 12||9.431|-9.998|0.954
91932502|NCT05136170|183762943|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEl module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-0.049||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.658|7.559||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||TS (Treatment - in general) - Week 4||7.559|-7.658|0.99
91932503|NCT05136170|183762943|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|1.976||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.065|9.017||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||TS (Treatment - in general) - Week 12||9.017|-5.065|0.582
91932504|NCT05136170|183762943|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|5.232||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.457|11.922||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Symptom Bother Module at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Symptom - Bother - Week 4||11.922|-1.457|0.125
91932505|NCT05136170|183762943|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-0.156||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.912|6.6||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Symptom Bother Module at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Symptom - Bother - Week 12||6.6|-6.912|0.964
91932506|NCT05136170|183762944|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.795||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|1.748||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||"Analysis was based on MMRM with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in TFBUT at each timepoint adjusting by gender, age class, TFBUT scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. Patient was considered as a random effect and the covariance matrix used was unstructured.~Herein analysis for Week 4 was reported."||1.748|-0.157|0.102
91932507|NCT05136170|183762944|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.051||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.094|0.991||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline at Week 8.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||"Analysis was based on MMRM with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in TFBUT at each timepoint adjusting by gender, age class, TFBUT scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. Patient was considered as a random effect and the covariance matrix used was unstructured.~Herein analysis for Week 8 was reported."||0.991|-1.094|0.923
91932508|NCT05136170|183762944|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.136||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.849|1.12||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline at Week 12|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||"Analysis was based on MMRM with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in TFBUT at each timepoint adjusting by gender, age class, TFBUT scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. Patient was considered as a random effect and the covariance matrix used was unstructured.~Herein analysis for Week 12 was reported."||1.12|-0.849|0.787
91932509|NCT05136170|183762945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||<0.001
91932510|NCT05136170|183762945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||<0.001
91932511|NCT05136170|183762945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.014
91932512|NCT05136170|183762945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095||||||Not statistically significant result. p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.095
91932513|NCT05136170|183762946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.02
91932514|NCT05136170|183762946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.328
91932515|NCT05136170|183762946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.287
91932516|NCT05136170|183762946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.777
91932517|NCT05136170|183762947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.126
91932518|NCT05136170|183762947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.968
91932519|NCT05136170|183762947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.613
91932520|NCT05136170|183762947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.805
91932521|NCT05136170|183762948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Global score - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.543
91932522|NCT05136170|183762948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Global score - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.677
91932523|NCT05136170|183762948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Global score - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.914
91932524|NCT05136170|183762948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.874
91932525|NCT05136170|183762948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.945
91932526|NCT05136170|183762948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.727
91932527|NCT05136170|183762948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.342
91932528|NCT05136170|183762948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.821
91932529|NCT05136170|183762948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.926||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.926
91932530|NCT05136170|183762949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores (SANDE global score) - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.0344
91932531|NCT05136170|183762949|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value corresponds to a Fisher's exact test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Fisher Exact|||Herein analysis for NEI score \>= 50% - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||1
91932532|NCT05136170|183762949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores and/or NEI score \>= 50 - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.0235
91932533|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.888
91932534|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.651
91932535|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.267
91932536|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.459
91932537|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.192
91932538|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.568
91932539|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.871
91932540|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.85
91932541|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.364||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.364
91932542|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.646
91932543|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.739
91932544|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.664
91932545|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.846
91932546|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.248
91932547|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.341
91932548|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.413
91932549|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.927
91932550|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.914
91932551|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.564
91932552|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.489
91932553|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 4||||0.082
91932554|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 8 was reported.||||0.848
91932555|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 12 was reported.||||0.805
91932556|NCT05136170|183762950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 16 was reported.||||0.833
91932557|NCT05136170|183762953|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91932558|NCT05136170|183762954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
91932559|NCT05136170|183762955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91932560|NCT05136170|183762956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Global Score - Week 2 was reported||||0.017
91811508|NCT00555321|183497757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|50.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||50.6|15.8|
91932561|NCT05136170|183762956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Global Score - Week 4 was reported||||0.339
91932562|NCT05136170|183762956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 2 was reported.||||0.004
91932563|NCT05136170|183762956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 4 was reported.||||0.292
91932564|NCT05136170|183762956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 2 was reported.||||0.09
91932565|NCT05136170|183762956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 4 was reported.||||0.54
91932566|NCT05136170|183762957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores (SANDE global score) was reported.||||0.0064
91932567|NCT05136170|183762957|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value corresponds to a Fisher's exact test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Fisher Exact|||Herein analysis for NEI score \>= 50% was reported.||||1
91932568|NCT05136170|183762957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores and/or NEI score \>= 50 was reported.||||0.0034
91932569|NCT05136170|183762958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91932570|NCT05168813|183762971|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.77|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.77|0.44|< .001
91932571|NCT05168813|183762972|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.78|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.78|0.29|0.003
91932572|NCT05168813|183762973|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||1.04|0.07|0.056
91932573|NCT05168813|183762974|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||1.15|0.73|0.449
91932574|NCT05168813|183762975|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|8.87|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||8.87|0.59|0.23
91932575|NCT05168813|183762985|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.73|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.73|0.43|< .001
91932576|NCT05168813|183762986|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.68|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.68|0.27|< .001
91932577|NCT05168813|183762987|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.82|0.09|0.02
91932578|NCT05168813|183762988|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||1.09|0.67|0.218
91932579|NCT05168813|183762989|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.77|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||3.77|0.84|0.135
91932580|NCT01089582|183763000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The effect of possible prognostic factors response on response rate: primary diagnosis severity. Participants were classified as responders if they were very much improved or much improved from baseline.||||0.0023
91932581|NCT01089582|183763001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: significant medical history. Participants were classified as responders if they were much improved or improved from baseline.||||0.0382
91932582|NCT01089582|183763002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: primary diagnosis severity.||||0.1805
91932583|NCT01089582|183763002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: baseline QoL-AD score as assessed by participant.||||<0.0001
91932584|NCT01089582|183763002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: center number.||||<0.0001
91932585|NCT01089582|183763003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: primary diagnosis severity.||||0.0137
91932586|NCT01089582|183763003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: baseline QoL-AD score as assessed by caregiver.||||<0.0001
91932587|NCT01089582|183763003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: center number.||||<0.0001
91932588|NCT04069156|183763007|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary end point assessing non-inferiority of placebo was considered met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence limit of the difference in the composite success rate between treatment arms (placebo minus aspirin) was greater than the non-inferiority margin (-10%) by the Farrington-Manning test at 12-months in the principal analysis population.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.6||||Farrington-Manning risk difference||||||-1.6|<0.0001
91932589|NCT05822830|183763030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.9||||||||-4.9|-8.1|
91768602|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.3||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|5.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||5.8|-30.4|0.279
91811509|NCT00555321|183497757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|46.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||46.3|11.4|
91768603|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||15.4|-28.2|0.716
91811510|NCT00555321|183497757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|51.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||51.5|16.9|
91932590|NCT05822830|183763035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.6||||||||-3.6|-7.1|
91932591|NCT05822830|183763037|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.9||||||||-1.9|-3.2|
91932592|NCT05822830|183763038|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.7||||||||-4.7|-8.0|
91932593|NCT01021852|183763056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||11.5|5.3|<0.001
91932594|NCT01021852|183763056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||13.1|6.8|<0.001
91932595|NCT01021852|183763056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||13.8|7.7|<0.001
91932596|NCT01021852|183763056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||16.5|10.3|<0.001
91811511|NCT00555321|183497757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|31.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||31.6|-7.1|
91932597|NCT01021852|183763056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||7.4|1.8|0.001
91932598|NCT01021852|183763056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||6.9|1.3|0.004
91932599|NCT01021852|183763056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||12.5|6.9|<0.001
91932600|NCT01021852|183763056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||11.5|5.9|<0.001
91811512|NCT00555321|183497757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|27.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||27.2|-11.5|
91932601|NCT01021852|183763057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.2|-18.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-18.4|-43.2|<0.001
91932602|NCT01021852|183763057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-20.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-20.1|-44.9|<0.001
91932603|NCT01021852|183763057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.2|-18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-18.7|-43.2|<0.001
91932604|NCT01021852|183763057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-33.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-33.5|-58.0|<0.001
91811513|NCT00555321|183497757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|32.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||32.6|-5.9|
91932605|NCT01021852|183763057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-4.4|-26.7|0.006
91811514|NCT00555321|183497758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|36.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||36.8|-5.8|
91811515|NCT00555321|183497758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||38.0|-6.0|
91932606|NCT01021852|183763057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-2.1|-24.4|0.020
91932607|NCT01021852|183763057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-14.5|-36.8|<0.001
91932608|NCT01021852|183763057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-18.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-18.8|-41.2|<0.001
91932609|NCT01021852|183763058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-1.5|-18.9|0.022
91932610|NCT01021852|183763058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-7.0|-24.5|<0.001
91932611|NCT01021852|183763058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-14.9|-32.1|<0.001
91932612|NCT01021852|183763058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-11.7|-29.0|<0.001
91932613|NCT01021852|183763058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||0.2|-18.0|0.055
91932614|NCT01021852|183763058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||0.4|-17.8|0.060
91932615|NCT01021852|183763058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-10.4|-28.6|<0.001
91932616|NCT01021852|183763058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-2.2|-20.5|0.015
91811516|NCT00555321|183497758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|26.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||26.8|-16.6|
91932617|NCT01021852|183763059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.2||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||12.2|-9.5|
91932618|NCT01021852|183763059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|11.2||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||11.2|-10.3|
91932619|NCT01021852|183763059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|18.3||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||18.3|-4.2|
91932620|NCT01021852|183763059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|20.4||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||20.4|-2.3|
91932621|NCT01021852|183763060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|10.2||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||10.2|-1.0|
91932622|NCT01021852|183763060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.8||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||4.8|-3.6|
91932623|NCT01021852|183763060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.6||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||6.6|-2.7|
91932624|NCT01021852|183763060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.3||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||2.3|-4.5|
91932625|NCT02130258|183763068|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.04
91932626|NCT02130258|183763069|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.04
91932627|NCT02130258|183763070|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
91932628|NCT01008995|183763104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The study was designed to maintain a Type I error of 0.05 or less for the primary analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo for the primary endpoint at a significance level of 0.05. Power calculations were based on two sample size assumptions: 220 (1:1 ratio) and 320 participants (1:1 ratio). Simulation studies evaluated the power to detect a treatment difference between ustekinumab 45 mg group and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight \[\<=65 kg vs \> 65 kg). The power was \>99% for both sample size assumptions.||||<0.001
91932629|NCT01008995|183763105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91932630|NCT01008995|183763106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance on van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg) as factors in the model.||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91932631|NCT02856269|183763107|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum tests, X2 tests, Fisher exact tests, Kolmogorov-Smirnov|Cohen's D value|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Cohen's d is calculated after Box-Cox transformation. Small effect \<= 0.2, Medium effect \[0.3, 0.8\]; Large effect \>0.8|||||
91932632|NCT00127062|183763109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91932633|NCT00127062|183763109|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91932634|NCT00547378|183763122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified for center, was used to test the difference in responder rates between the 2 groups||||||0.016
91932635|NCT04633473|183763148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.922
91932636|NCT04633473|183763149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.521|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.521
91932637|NCT04633473|183763150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.678
91932638|NCT04633473|183763151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.326|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.326
91932639|NCT04633473|183763152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.09
91932640|NCT04633473|183763153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.154
91932641|NCT04633473|183763154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.309|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.309
91932642|NCT04633473|183763156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.181|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.181
91932643|NCT04633473|183763157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.008
91932644|NCT04095286|183763219|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.11|||||Treatment comparison between AMB dispersed in water and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.11|0.96|
91932645|NCT04095286|183763219|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.98|||||Treatment comparison between AMB oral tablet and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||0.98|0.85|
91932646|NCT04095286|183763222|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.09|||||Treatment comparison between AMB dispersed in water and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.09|1.02|
91932647|NCT04095286|183763222|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.08|||||Treatment comparison between AMB oral tablet and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.08|1.00|
91932648|NCT04095286|183763223|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.08|||||Treatment comparison between AMB dispersed in water and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.08|1.02|
91932649|NCT04095286|183763223|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.07|||||Treatment comparison between AMB oral tablet and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.07|1.01|
91932650|NCT01511107|183763260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 10% was used. Non-inferiority can be established by placing a confidence interval on the difference in the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 10 day regimen and the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 5 day regimen, and determining whether the lower 95% confidence bound is greater than -10%.|Difference between proportions|-0.172|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|-0.091||||||The null hypothesis that amoxicillin-clavulanate 5 days, placebo 5 days (reduced duration) is inferior to amoxicillin-clavulanate 10 days (standard duration) is tested against the alternative that reduced duration treatment is noninferior. Assuming failure rates of 15% and 25% in the standard and reduced duration groups, respectively, a 2-sided significance level of .05 and 10% attrition, it was calculated that 300 participants per group, would provide power of 95% for finding inferiority.||-.091|-.253|
91932651|NCT01511107|183763261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 10% was used. Non-inferiority can be established by placing a confidence interval on the difference in the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 10 day regimen and the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 5 day regimen, and determining whether the lower 95% confidence bound is greater than -10%.|Difference between proportions|-0.096|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.016||||||||.016|-.209|
91932652|NCT01511107|183763262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children whose NP isolates at enrollment are negative for AOM pathogens for whom the NP culture at day 12-14 yields a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.45
91932653|NCT01511107|183763263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: For AOM recurrences with a NP culture at onset that is negative for AOM pathogens, there is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.95
91932654|NCT01511107|183763264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children whose NP isolates at enrollment are positive only for one or more susceptible pathogens for whom the NP culture at day 12-14 yields a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.59
91932655|NCT01511107|183763265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: For AOM recurrences with a NP culture at onset that is positive only for one or more susceptible pathogens, there is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||>0.99
91811517|NCT00555321|183497758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|36.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||36.1|-10.8|
91932656|NCT01511107|183763266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children whose NP isolates at enrollment are positive for one or more nonsusceptible pathogens for whom the NP culture at day 12-14 yields a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.47
91932657|NCT01511107|183763267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: For AOM recurrences with a NP culture at onset that is positive for one or more nonsusceptible pathogens, there is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.05
91932658|NCT01511107|183763268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for the culture result at enrollment.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of subjects whose NP isolates at enrollment are pathogen-negative or positive only for at least one susceptible pathogen who become colonized with penicillin non-susceptible pathogens at any time over the course of follow-up||||0.58
91932659|NCT01511107|183763269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 6 week follow-up, non-illness visits at which a penicillin-nonsusceptible pathogen is recovered.||||0.74
91932660|NCT01511107|183763270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for S pn susceptibility at the index episode.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible S pn isolate.||||0.72
91932661|NCT01511107|183763271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for S pn susceptibility at onset of the AOM recurrence.||||||0.05
91932662|NCT01511107|183763272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for H flu susceptibility at onset of the index episode.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible H flu isolate.||||0.47
91932663|NCT01511107|183763273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for H flu susceptibility at onset of the AOM recurrence.||||||0.69
91932664|NCT01511107|183763274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children followed greater than 60 days having at least one AOM relapse or recurrence within 60 days of enrollment.||||0.16
91811518|NCT00555321|183497758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|37.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||37.3|-10.9|
91811519|NCT00555321|183497758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|26.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||26.0|-21.8|
91811520|NCT00555321|183497782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|43.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||43.3|-6.7|
91932665|NCT01511107|183763275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children completing the study having at least one AOM relapse or recurrence within the entire respiratory season.||||0.32
91932666|NCT01511107|183763276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Regression, Poisson|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of recurrences/relapses within 60 days of enrollment.||||0.23
91932667|NCT01511107|183763277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Poisson|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of recurrences/relapses within the entire respiratory season.||||0.22
91932668|NCT01511107|183763278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables and for length of follow-up.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean number of days a systemic antibiotic was received during the respiratory season.||||<.001
91932669|NCT01511107|183763279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, episode, day of the diary and AOM-SOS score at the episode.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the symptom burden as measured by the respective mean scores over time.||||0.07
91932670|NCT01511107|183763280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children for whom PDD was reported.||||0.70
91932671|NCT01511107|183763281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children for whom diaper dermatitis was reported.||||0.86
91932672|NCT00975195|183763291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Upper limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) \<1.2 indicates non-inferiority of Fluticasone withdrawal compared with Fluticasone maintenance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.189||Two-sided p-value to test superiority of fluticasone maintenance over fluticasone withdrawal if non-inferiority shown.|Chi-squared|Wald's chi-square test|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.189|0.941|0.3497
91932673|NCT00975195|183763292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18|||Regression, Negative Binomial|Adjusted for log time at risk using log link function|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.18|0.93|0.4441
91932674|NCT00975195|183763293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2269
91932675|NCT00975195|183763294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|1.481|||Chi-squared|Wald's chi-square test|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.481|0.975|0.0849
91932676|NCT00975195|183763295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.45|||Regression, Negative Binomial|Adjusted for log time at risk using log link function|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.45|0.92|0.2291
91932677|NCT00975195|183763296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2083|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2083
91932678|NCT00975195|183763297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.5562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.16|||Chi-squared|||||1.160|0.923|0.5562
91932679|NCT00975195|183763298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18|||Regression, Negative binomial|Adjusted for log time at risk using log link function|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.18|0.93|0.4342
91932680|NCT00975195|183763299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3155
91932681|NCT00975195|183763301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0134||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|-0.017|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.017|-0.069|0.0014
91932682|NCT00975195|183763302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.131|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.131|-0.004|0.0632
91811521|NCT00555321|183497782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|25.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||25.5|-21.6|
91932683|NCT00975195|183763303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.096|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.096|-0.122|0.8137
91932684|NCT00975195|183763304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|2.69|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.69|-9.74|0.2663
91932685|NCT00975195|183763305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.27|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.27|0.05|0.0033
91932686|NCT00975195|183763306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.499||0.4914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.91|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||1.91|-3.98|0.4914
91932687|NCT00975195|183763307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|1.71|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||1.71|-4.84|0.3490
91932688|NCT00975195|183763308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.9262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|3.04|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||3.04|-2.77|0.9262
91932689|NCT00975195|183763309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.716||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|6.01|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||6.01|-0.73|0.1241
91932690|NCT00975195|183763310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0123|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|-0.024|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.024|-0.073|<0.0001
91932691|NCT00975195|183763311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0255||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.006|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.006|-0.094|0.0855
91932692|NCT00975195|183763312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|-0.073|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.073|-0.249|0.0004
91811522|NCT00555321|183497782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|28.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||28.7|-20.1|
91932693|NCT00975195|183763313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.728||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.4|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.40|-0.46|0.1838
91932694|NCT00975195|183763314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.702||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.72|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.72|-0.03|0.0551
91932695|NCT00975195|183763315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|2.25|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.25|-1.06|0.4804
91932696|NCT00975195|183763316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.614||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.43|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.43|0.02|0.0467
91932697|NCT00975195|183763317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.02|-0.21|0.0223
91932698|NCT03003403|183763318|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2|||bootstrap resampling|||||1.20|0.82|0.97
91932699|NCT03003403|183763319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.00|-1.24|0.83
91932700|NCT03003403|183763320|SUPERIORITY|Difference in systolic blood pressure change post-baseline comparing intervention to usual care arm at 24 months.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-3.6|0.34
91932701|NCT03003403|183763320|SUPERIORITY|Difference in diastolic blood pressure change post-baseline comparing intervention to usual care arm at 24 months.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-2.4|0.323
91932702|NCT03003403|183763321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.8|0.991
91811523|NCT00555321|183497782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|32.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||32.1|-21.2|
91811524|NCT00555321|183497782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|14.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||14.2|-36.0|
91932703|NCT01179347|183763353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.092||95.0|-0.27|3.55||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|Hierarchical testing procedure was applied for both co-primary endpoints to maintain the overall alpha level. If and only if statistical superiority of the Tio R5 qd compared to Placebo in FEV1 AUC0-4h was demonstrated at the 1 sided alpha level of 0.025, confirmatory comparison in the second co-primary endpoint, at the same alpha level of 0.025 could be done .||3.55|-0.27|0.092
91932704|NCT01179347|183763354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.15||95.0|-0.5|3.3||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|Hierarchical testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful,||3.30|-0.50|0.15
91932705|NCT01179347|183763355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.23||95.0|-0.68|2.86||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|||2.86|-0.68|0.23
91932706|NCT01179347|183763356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.19||95.0|-0.62|3.02||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|||3.02|-0.62|0.19
91932707|NCT01179347|183763357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.62||95.0|-2.59|4.32||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|||4.32|-2.59|0.62
91932708|NCT01179347|183763358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.092||||0.84||95.0|0.453|2.633||Two-sided p-value.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, age group, baseline weight and baseline FEV1 percent predicted.|Tio R5 qd versus Placebo.|||2.633|0.453|0.84
91932709|NCT03342937|183763360|SUPERIORITY|1-sided test of single exponential mean with historical null hypothesis of 5.5 months median PFS||||||0.02||||||Sample size of 35 patients was chosen based on detecting the difference between a historical median PFS of 5.5 months and experimental median of 7.3 months, a hazard ratio of 0.75, with 80% power (1-sided test of single exponential mean, α=0.2).|1-sided exponential test|||||||0.02
91932710|NCT01299610|183763365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.70|-1.46|0.480
91932711|NCT01299610|183763365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed model for repeated measures|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.23|-2.00|0.118
91932712|NCT01299610|183763365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.572||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.36|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-0.36|-2.65|0.011
91932713|NCT01299610|183763366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 0.2% cream Vs Placebo: Day 2||0.42|-0.24|0.581
91932714|NCT01299610|183763366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.27|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream Vs Placebo: Day 2||0.27|-0.42|0.655
91932715|NCT01299610|183763366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.336||95.0|-0.52|0.18|||Mixed model repeated measures|||FP, 0.05% cream Vs Placebo: Day 2||0.18|-0.52|0.336
91768604|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|21.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||21.1|-27.5|1.000
91811525|NCT00555321|183497782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|17.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||17.3|-34.6|
91932716|NCT01299610|183763366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.63|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086 0.2% cream Vs Placebo: Day 3||0.63|-0.58|0.923
91932717|NCT01299610|183763366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.77|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream, Placebo: Day 3||0.77|-0.49|0.657
91932718|NCT01299610|183763366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.36|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Placebo, FP, 0.05% cream: Day 3||0.36|-0.93|0.386
91932719|NCT01299610|183763366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.67|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 0.2% cream, Placebo: Day 7||0.67|-1.15|0.601
91932720|NCT01299610|183763366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.35|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream, Placebo: Day 7||0.35|-1.54|0.212
91932721|NCT01299610|183763366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.32|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Placebo, FP, 0.05% cream: Day 7||-0.32|-2.26|0.010
91932722|NCT01299610|183763366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.68|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 0.2% cream, Placebo: Day 14||0.68|-1.17|0.602
91811526|NCT00555321|183497782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|35.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||35.1|-18.8|
91932723|NCT01299610|183763366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.31|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream, Placebo: Day 14||0.31|-1.61|0.180
91932724|NCT01299610|183763366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Placebo, FP, 0.05% cream: Day 14||-0.40|-2.37|0.006
91932725|NCT01617655|183763376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-27.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-27.1|-51.1|<0.0001
91932726|NCT01617655|183763377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-26.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.9|-51|<0.0001
91932727|NCT01617655|183763378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|-29.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.3|-51.4|<0.0001
91932728|NCT01617655|183763379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|-29.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.2|-51.4|<0.0001
91932729|NCT01617655|183763380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-20.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-20.9|-39.7|<0.0001
91932730|NCT01617655|183763381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-20.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-20.7|-39.7|<0.0001
91932731|NCT01617655|183763382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-25.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.3|-46.3|<0.0001
91932732|NCT01617655|183763383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-24.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.9|-46.2|<0.0001
91932733|NCT01617655|183763384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-28.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-19.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.6|-37.3|<0.0001
91932734|NCT01617655|183763385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-21.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.1|-39.2|<0.0001
91932735|NCT01617655|183763386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-24.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.1|-44.8|<0.0001
91932736|NCT01617655|183763387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-19.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.4|-36.2|<0.0001
91932737|NCT01617655|183763388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-24.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.6|-53.6|<0.0001
91932738|NCT01617655|183763389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|53.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||53.5|2.5|0.0016
91932739|NCT01617655|183763390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|54.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||54.9|2.6|0.0014
91932740|NCT01617655|183763391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.8||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-2.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-2.7|-26.9|0.0164
91932741|NCT01617655|183763392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.7||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|10.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||10.2|-2.9|0.2745
91932742|NCT01175213|183763404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.02|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.045||Testing the null hypothesis of 1 VASBI/year against a one-sided alternative at the 0.01 level of statistical significance.|Poisson|||||0.045||<0.0001
91932743|NCT03224585|183763428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121|||||||Paired samples Wilcoxon test|||This analysis compared the change in pain scores between baseline and 6 hours||||0.0121
91932744|NCT03224585|183763429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Paired samples Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0025
91932745|NCT01921634|183763430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||McNemar||The odds ratio was generated from a logistic regression model using generalized estimating equations with a logit link and represents a comparison of modified (numerator) vs standard (denominator).|||1.7|1.1|0.01
91932746|NCT00751179|183763431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
91932747|NCT00751179|183763432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
91932748|NCT00751179|183763434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
91932749|NCT00751179|183763436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
91932750|NCT04124042|183763481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.655|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.237||||||||1.237|0.347|
91932751|NCT04124042|183763481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|1.336||||||||1.336|0.381|
91932752|NCT04124042|183763482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|-0.62|0.413
91932753|NCT04124042|183763482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.535||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-0.79|0.629
91932754|NCT04124042|183763487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.1374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.16|-0.16|0.1374
91932755|NCT04124042|183763487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.2807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.00|-0.29|0.2807
91932756|NCT04124042|183763488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.14|0.346
91932757|NCT04124042|183763488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.27|0.968
91932758|NCT04124042|183763490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome measure #10 is an analysis of 2 tx groups (two doses of 0.45 mg/ml vs. a single dose of 0.45 mg/ml), whereas outcome measure #12 is all 6 tx groups. A MMRM model was used. LS Means in an MMRM model are influenced by the overall mean structure and covariance estimation. When fewer treatment groups are included, the model adjusts based on a different subset of data, leading to potential shifts in estimated LS Means due to changes in the reference population/covariance structure.||-0.75|-4.91|0.0081
91932759|NCT04124042|183763491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome measure #11 is an analysis of 2 tx groups (two doses of 0.45 mg/ml vs. a single dose of 0.45 mg/ml), whereas outcome measure #13 is all 6 tx groups. A MMRM model was used. LS Means in an MMRM model are influenced by the overall mean structure and covariance estimation. When fewer treatment groups are included, the model adjusts based on a different subset of data, leading to potential shifts in estimated LS Means due to changes in the reference population/covariance structure.||-2.34|-16.85|0.0101
91932760|NCT05388656|183763494|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91932761|NCT05388656|183763495|OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0018
91932762|NCT05388656|183763496|OTHER|||||||0.0108|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0108
91932763|NCT03201965|183763497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|8.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.16|3.22|<0.0001
91932764|NCT05441592|183763514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.486
91932765|NCT05441592|183763516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.234
91932766|NCT01341652|183763578|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.97
91932767|NCT01341652|183763579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||.08
91932768|NCT01341652|183763581|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8|||Regression, Cox|||||2.8|0.9|0.14
91932769|NCT04593940|183763608|SUPERIORITY||Recovery Rate Ratio|1.122||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|1.275|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.275|0.987|0.0793
91932770|NCT04593940|183763608|SUPERIORITY||Recovery Rate Ratio|1.12||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.275|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.275|.984|0.0864
91932771|NCT04593940|183763608|SUPERIORITY||Recovery Rate Ratio|1.006||||0.9354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.176|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.176|0.862|0.9354
91811527|NCT00555321|183497782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|6.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||6.3|-46.3|
91932772|NCT04593940|183763609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.309||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.647|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.647|1.041|0.0213
91932773|NCT04593940|183763609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.174||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.480|0.932|0.1732
91932774|NCT04593940|183763609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.944||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.243|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.243|0.717|0.6823
91932775|NCT04593940|183763610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.614||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.935|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.935|0.403|0.0229
91932776|NCT04593940|183763610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.629||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.951|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.951|0.416|0.0281
91932777|NCT04593940|183763610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.167||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.917|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.917|0.711|0.541
91932778|NCT04593940|183763611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.435||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.129|1.825|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.825|1.129|0.0032
91932779|NCT04593940|183763611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.338||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.718|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.718|1.041|0.0228
91932780|NCT04593940|183763611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.904||||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.211|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.211|0.675|0.4994
91932781|NCT04593940|183763612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.632||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.090|0.367|0.0988
91932782|NCT04593940|183763612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.552||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||0.960|0.317|0.0354
91932783|NCT04593940|183763612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.287||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|2.355|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||2.355|0.703|0.4132
91932784|NCT04593940|183763613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.1601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.28|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.28|1.00|0.1601
91932785|NCT04593940|183763613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.24|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.24|0.97|0.3550
91932786|NCT04593940|183763613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.07|0.80|0.2386
91932787|NCT04593940|183763614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.26|0.98|0.1519
91932788|NCT04593940|183763614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.2605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.26|0.98|0.2605
91932789|NCT04593940|183763614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.4359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.13|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.13|0.83|0.4359
91932790|NCT04593940|183763615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.06|-0.18|0.3210
91932791|NCT04593940|183763615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.5275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.17|-0.09|0.5275
91932792|NCT04593940|183763615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.15|0.9993
91932793|NCT04593940|183763616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.4982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-0.13|0.4982
91932794|NCT04593940|183763616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.10|0.3491
91932795|NCT04593940|183763616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|-0.25|0.9020
91932796|NCT04593940|183763617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-0.03|0.0842
91932797|NCT04593940|183763617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.5328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.37|-0.19|0.5328
91932798|NCT04593940|183763617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-0.46|0.4727
91932799|NCT04593940|183763618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|0.01|0.0399
91932800|NCT04593940|183763618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.41|-0.18|0.4515
91932801|NCT04593940|183763618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.43|0.6960
91932802|NCT04593940|183763619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.04|0.0903
91768605|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|7.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||7.1|-23.5|0.400
91768606|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|21.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||21.0|-19.6|1.000
91811528|NCT00555321|183497782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|5.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||5.2|-48.2|
91932803|NCT04593940|183763619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.45|-0.16|0.3480
91932804|NCT04593940|183763619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.44|0.6984
91932805|NCT04593940|183763620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.62|0.01|0.0450
91932806|NCT04593940|183763620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.2462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.13|0.2462
91932807|NCT04593940|183763620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.2304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.61|0.2304
91932808|NCT04593940|183763621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.66|0.03|0.0313
91932809|NCT04593940|183763621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|-0.01|0.0555
91932810|NCT04593940|183763621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.17|-0.60|0.2710
91932811|NCT04593940|183763622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.0|
91932812|NCT04593940|183763622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.5|
91932813|NCT04593940|183763622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7||||||||0.7|-1.8|
91932814|NCT04593940|183763623|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|53.7||||||||53.7|-0.4|
91932815|NCT04593940|183763623|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|40.0||||||||40.0|-14.8|
91932816|NCT04593940|183763623|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|26.6||||||||26.6|-38.7|
91932817|NCT04593940|183763624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3||||||||2.3|0.2|
91932818|NCT04593940|183763624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.1|
91932819|NCT04593940|183763624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6||||||||0.6|-2.0|
91932820|NCT04593940|183763625|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|0.0||||||||0.0|-14.0|
91932821|NCT04593940|183763625|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|3.4||||||||3.4|-11.1|
91932822|NCT04593940|183763625|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.1||||||||8.1|-10.1|
91932823|NCT04593940|183763626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8||||||||1.8|-0.1|
91932824|NCT04593940|183763626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7||||||||1.7|-0.3|
91932825|NCT04593940|183763626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||||||||0.4|-2.0|
91932826|NCT04593940|183763627|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.5||||||||3.5|-5.7|
91932827|NCT04593940|183763627|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.3||||||||3.3|-6.0|
91932828|NCT04593940|183763627|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.0||||||||8.0|-3.7|
91932829|NCT04593940|183763628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.0|
91932830|NCT04593940|183763628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||||||||1.4|-0.7|
91932831|NCT04593940|183763628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.3|
91932832|NCT04593940|183763629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.133|||Log Rank|||||1.133|0.680|0.3169
91932833|NCT04593940|183763629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.108|||Log Rank|||||1.108|0.672|0.2480
91932834|NCT04593940|183763629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.191||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.604|||Log Rank|||||1.604|0.885|0.2490
91932835|NCT04593940|183763630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.380|0.850|0.5175
91932836|NCT04593940|183763630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.179|||Log Rank|||||1.179|0.722|0.5216
91932837|NCT04593940|183763630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.6135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.424|||Log Rank|||||1.424|0.812|0.6135
91932838|NCT04593940|183763631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.565||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|1.931|||Log Rank|||||1.931|0.165|0.3628
91932839|NCT04593940|183763631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.3701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|1.948|||Log Rank|||||1.948|0.167|0.3701
91932840|NCT04593940|183763631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.988||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.211|11.251|||Log Rank|||||11.251|2.211|0.0001
91932841|NCT04146467|183763652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91811529|NCT00555321|183497782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|48.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||48.4|-5.2|
91811530|NCT00555321|183497782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|19.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||19.8|-32.9|
91811531|NCT00555321|183497782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|18.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||18.7|-34.8|
91932842|NCT04146467|183763654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0004
91932843|NCT04146467|183763662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91932844|NCT02128763|183763683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P value refers to difference between group on change in overall OSDI score (Row 1).|Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
91932845|NCT02128763|183763684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
91932846|NCT02128763|183763685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Pos hoc application of the Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment||||||0.77
91932847|NCT02128763|183763686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.95
91932848|NCT02128763|183763687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.051
91932849|NCT02128763|183763688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91932850|NCT02128763|183763689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91932851|NCT02128763|183763690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
91932852|NCT02128763|183763691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.77
91811532|NCT00555321|183497783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|26.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||26.3|-42.4|
91811533|NCT00555321|183497783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|19.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||19.0|-49.2|
91932853|NCT02128763|183763692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.95
91932854|NCT02128763|183763693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.25
91932855|NCT02128763|183763694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.61
91932856|NCT02128763|183763695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
91932857|NCT02128763|183763696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.60
91932858|NCT02128763|183763697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.17
91932859|NCT02128763|183763698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
91932860|NCT02128763|183763699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.71
91932861|NCT02128763|183763700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.66
91932862|NCT02128763|183763701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
91932863|NCT01934192|183763703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|22.9||||||||22.9|-5.1|
91932864|NCT01934192|183763704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.9||||||||10.9|-6.5|
91932865|NCT01934192|183763705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|22.9||||||||22.9|-5.1|
91932866|NCT01934192|183763706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|19.9||||||||19.9|-6.9|
91932867|NCT04105244|183763771|SUPERIORITY||Wald tests|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
91932868|NCT04105244|183763772|SUPERIORITY||Wald tests|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
91932869|NCT04105244|183763773|SUPERIORITY||Wald test|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
91932870|NCT04105244|183763776|SUPERIORITY||Wald test|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
91932871|NCT04105244|183763777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91932872|NCT00099359|183763791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||Overall comparison of 3 KM curves using an extension of the M-H test was performed. Results indicated a significant difference therefore a 2nd stage analysis was done to compare each pair of transmission rates, using 2-sample Mantel-Haenzel tests.|multiple comparison|Hochberg's modified Bonferroni method was used to adjust the significance level for comparisons between arms.||||||.046
91932873|NCT00099359|183763792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0001
91932874|NCT00099359|183763793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2432|||||||multiple comparison|||||||.2432
91932875|NCT00099359|183763794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
91932876|NCT00099359|183763797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted Odds ratio for treatment arm C (ZDV+3TC/NFV) association with Intrapartum Infection Status with Treatment Arm A (ZDV only) as reference group||||1.01|0.24|0.05
91932877|NCT00099359|183763797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.82||Adjusted odds ratio for association of treatment arm B (ZDV+NVP) with intrapartum infection status with Treatment Arm A (ZDV only) as reference.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.82|0.19|0.01
91932878|NCT00099359|183763797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.86|||Regression, Logistic|"Adjusted odds ratio for association of illegal substance use during pregnancy and intrapartum HIV infection status with NO being reference group."||||5.86|1.08|0.03
91932879|NCT00099359|183763797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.35||Adjusted odds ratio for the association of continuous log10 viral load with intrapartum infection status|Regression, Logistic|||||3.35|1.56|<0.0001
91932880|NCT02104804|183763812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.72|<0.001
91932881|NCT02104804|183763813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6133.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|781.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7668.5|-4597.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4597.9|-7668.5|<0.001
91811534|NCT00555321|183497783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.6|-19.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-19.8|-81.6|
91932882|NCT02104804|183763814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-39.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.41|-28.82|||ANCOVA|||||-28.82|-49.41|<0.001
91932883|NCT02104804|183763815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|12.6|||Difference in proportions|||||12.6|3.1|0.002
91932884|NCT02104804|183763816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-15.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|-10.22|||ANCOVA|||||-10.22|-21.53|<0.001
91932885|NCT02104804|183763817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.44|0.430
91932886|NCT00406783|183763820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91932887|NCT00406783|183763821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91932888|NCT01337167|183763891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|9.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|14.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=1.0 μg/mL||14.83|4.83|<0.001
91932889|NCT01337167|183763891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|8.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=0.15 μg/mL||8.14|2.23|<0.001
91811535|NCT00555321|183497783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|16.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||16.9|-55.9|
91932890|NCT01337167|183763891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419-Ctrl)|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|8.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary Analysis: Non-inferiority for titer \>=0.15 μg/mL||8.14|2.23|<0.001
91932891|NCT01337167|183763892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.74|-0.35|<0.001
91932892|NCT01337167|183763893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-3.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|0.66|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.66|-8.02|0.002
91932893|NCT01337167|183763894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.74|-0.28|<0.001
91932894|NCT01337167|183763895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.60|-1.80|<0.001
91932895|NCT01337167|183763896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-4.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|-0.97|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||-0.97|-8.14|0.001
91932896|NCT01337167|183763897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|2.23|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.23|-7.27|<0.001
91932897|NCT01337167|183763898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|4.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|8.28|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||8.28|0.23|<0.001
91932898|NCT01337167|183763899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.59|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.59|0.85|<0.001
91932899|NCT01337167|183763899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.54|100.0|||Clopper and Pearson|Acceptability requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the response rate is \>=90||||100.00|99.54|<0.001
91932900|NCT01337167|183763900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.42|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.42|-0.22|<0.001
91932901|NCT01337167|183763900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.54|100.0|||Clopper and Pearson|Acceptability requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the response rate is \>=90||||100.00|99.54|<0.001
91932902|NCT01337167|183763901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.41|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.41|-0.24|<0.001
91932903|NCT01337167|183763901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.53|100.0|||Clopper and Pearson|Acceptability requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the response rate is \>=90||||100.00|99.53|<0.001
91932904|NCT01337167|183763902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.38|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.38|1.20|<0.001
91932905|NCT01337167|183763903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|0.64||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.7|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.70|0.59|0.786
91932906|NCT01337167|183763904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.95|0.73|<0.001
91932907|NCT01337167|183763905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.42|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.42|1.15|<0.001
91932908|NCT01337167|183763906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||4.18|0.39|<0.001
91932909|NCT01337167|183763907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.78|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||4.78|-1.67|<0.001
91932910|NCT01337167|183763908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.10|-3.46|<0.001
91932911|NCT01337167|183763909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.26|9.78|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||9.78|3.26|<0.001
91932912|NCT01337167|183763910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.52|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.52|1.28|<0.001
91932913|NCT01337167|183763911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.10|0.91|<0.001
91768607|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|38.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||38.0|-22.2|0.620
91768608|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|7.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||7.1|-23.5|0.400
91932914|NCT01337167|183763912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|0.78||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.89|0.68|0.014
91932915|NCT01337167|183763913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.78|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.78|1.41|<0.001
91932916|NCT01337167|183763914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.98|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.98|1.32|<0.001
91932917|NCT01337167|183763915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.24|0.83|<0.001
91932918|NCT01337167|183763919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-7.7|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \<38°C||-7.7|-18.4|
91932919|NCT01337167|183763919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.5|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \>=38°C and \<38.5°C||9.5|0.5|
91932920|NCT01337167|183763919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|11.2|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°C||11.2|2.8|
91932921|NCT01337167|183763919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.2|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \>=39.5°C||2.2|-0.6|
91932922|NCT01337167|183763919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-7.7|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \<38°C||-7.7|-18.6|
91932923|NCT01337167|183763919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|10.8|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \>=38°C and \<38.5°C||10.8|1.9|
91932924|NCT01337167|183763919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|10.7|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°C||10.7|2.4|
91932925|NCT01337167|183763919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.4|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \>=39.5°C||2.4|-0.3|
91932926|NCT04172701|183763934|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||<0.0001
91811536|NCT00555321|183497783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|9.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||9.4|-62.6|
91932927|NCT04172701|183763935|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91932928|NCT04172701|183763936|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91932929|NCT04172701|183763937|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.475|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.308|1.663|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model.The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.663|1.308|<0.0001
91932930|NCT04172701|183763938|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.0003
91932931|NCT04172701|183763939|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.001
91932932|NCT04172701|183763940|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.237|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.237|1.059|0.0006
91932933|NCT04172701|183763941|OTHER|||||||0.00074|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.00074
91932934|NCT04172701|183763942|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||<0.0001
91932935|NCT04172701|183763943|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.601|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.404|1.826|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.826|1.404|<0.0001
91932936|NCT04172701|183763944|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91932937|NCT04172701|183763945|OTHER|||||||0.2875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2875
91932938|NCT04172701|183763946|OTHER|||||||0.4602|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4602
91932939|NCT04172701|183763947|OTHER|||||||0.0062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0062
91932940|NCT04172701|183763948|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0002
91932941|NCT04172701|183763949|OTHER|||||||0.4907|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4907
91932942|NCT04172701|183763950|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91932943|NCT04172701|183763951|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91932944|NCT04172701|183763952|OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.543
91932945|NCT04172701|183763953|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.080
91932946|NCT04172701|183763954|OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.363
91932947|NCT04172701|183763955|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
91932948|NCT04172701|183763956|OTHER|||||||0.0494|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0494
91932949|NCT04172701|183763957|OTHER|||||||0.0091|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0091
91932950|NCT04172701|183763958|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
91932951|NCT04172701|183763959|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
91932952|NCT04172701|183763960|OTHER|||||||0.7298|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7298
91932953|NCT04172701|183763961|OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0093
91932954|NCT04172701|183763962|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
91932955|NCT04172701|183763963|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.255|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.255|1.104|<0.0001
91932956|NCT04172701|183763964|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.194||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.367|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.367|1.043|0.0103
91932957|NCT04172701|183763965|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.104||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.034|1.178|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.178|1.034|0.0030
91811537|NCT00555321|183497783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.0|-33.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-33.1|-94.0|
91932958|NCT04172701|183763966|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.175|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.221|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.221|1.130|<0.0001
91932959|NCT04172701|183763967|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.236|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.346|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.346|1.134|<0.0001
91932960|NCT04172701|183763968|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.214||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.431|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.431|1.029|0.0212
91932961|NCT04172701|183763969|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.026||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.105|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.105|0.952|0.5024
91932962|NCT04172701|183763970|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.304|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|1.369|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.369|1.243|<0.0001
91932963|NCT04172701|183763971|OTHER|||||||0.7198|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.7198
91932964|NCT04172701|183763972|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.598|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.598|0.719|0.7341
91932965|NCT04172701|183763973|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.74
91932966|NCT04172701|183763974|OTHER|||||||0.9985|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.9985
91932967|NCT04172701|183763975|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.5097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.289|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.289|0.600|0.5097
91932968|NCT04172701|183763976|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.51
91932969|NCT04172701|183763977|OTHER|||||||0.6069|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.6069
91932970|NCT04172701|183763978|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.025||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.49|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.490|0.705|0.8960
91932971|NCT04172701|183763979|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9
91932972|NCT04172701|183763980|OTHER|||||||0.1354|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.1354
91932973|NCT04172701|183763981|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|1.139|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.139|0.305|0.1158
91932974|NCT04172701|183763982|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
91932975|NCT02126670|183763983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.799
91932976|NCT02757092|183763985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91932977|NCT02757092|183763986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
91932978|NCT02757092|183763987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91932979|NCT02757092|183763988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91932980|NCT02757092|183763989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91932981|NCT02757092|183763990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
91932982|NCT02757092|183763991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
91932983|NCT02757092|183763992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91932984|NCT02757092|183763993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91932985|NCT02757092|183763994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91932986|NCT02757092|183763995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91932987|NCT02757092|183763996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Descriptive statistics were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median and interquartile range depending on the nature and distribution of the variables||||0.05
91932988|NCT02757092|183763997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
91932989|NCT02757092|183763998|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91768609|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|14.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||14.2|-22.7|1.000
91768610|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|26.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||26.6|-18.7|1.000
91811538|NCT00555321|183497783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|34.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||34.3|-32.6|
91932990|NCT02757092|183763999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91932991|NCT02757092|183764000|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
91932992|NCT02757092|183764002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91932993|NCT02757092|183764003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91932994|NCT02757092|183764004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91932995|NCT02757092|183764005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
91932996|NCT02757092|183764006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
91932997|NCT02757092|183764007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
91932998|NCT02757092|183764008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91768611|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|19.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||19.6|-9.7|0.678
91768612|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|26.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||26.2|-10.5|0.636
91811539|NCT00555321|183497783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|20.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||20.6|-47.4|
91811540|NCT00555321|183497783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|0.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||0.5|-72.6|
91932999|NCT02757092|183764009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
91933000|NCT02757092|183764011|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91933001|NCT02757092|183764012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91933002|NCT02757092|183764013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91933003|NCT01975246|183764017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.4|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline DBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.||The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied for missing data, where the value from the measurements at the closest preceding visit replaced the missing value.||-2.4|-5.3|<0.0001
91933004|NCT01975246|183764018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-3.1|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline SBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.||The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied for missing data, where the value from the measurements at the closest preceding visit replaced the missing value.||-3.1|-7.6|<0.0001
91933005|NCT01975246|183764019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment and center as fixed effects.||"The Non-completers considered failure (NCF) method was applied for missing data, where missing data due to early discontinuation will be replaced as failure up to the planned final visit to be reached by all patients."||3.4|1.2|<0.0051
91933006|NCT01646398|183764020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.75||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.75|0.99|
91933007|NCT01646398|183764020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||0.89|0.59|
91933008|NCT01646398|183764020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.44||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.44|1.96|
91933009|NCT01646398|183764020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|3.86||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.86|2.22|
91933010|NCT01646398|183764020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.75||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.75|1.10|
91933011|NCT01646398|183764020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.74|1.12|
91933012|NCT01646398|183764020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.24||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.24|1.59|
91933013|NCT01646398|183764020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.23|0.77|
91933014|NCT01646398|183764020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.86||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.86|1.61|
91933015|NCT01646398|183764020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.92||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.92|1.81|
91933016|NCT01646398|183764020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.79||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.79|1.42|
91933017|NCT01646398|183764020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|3.49||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.49|1.84|
91933018|NCT01646398|183764021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|34.0||||||Difference in proportions (13vPnC - 23vPS) expressed as a percentage presented along with exact, 2-sided 95%CI. Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.||34.0|19.3|
91933019|NCT01646398|183764022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.75||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.75|0.99|
91933020|NCT01646398|183764022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||0.89|0.59|
91933021|NCT01646398|183764022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.44||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.44|1.96|
91933022|NCT01646398|183764022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|3.86||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.86|2.22|
91768613|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|52.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||52.5|-9.7|0.190
91768614|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|35.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||35.3|-17.3|0.504
91768615|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||31.0|-27.8|0.916
91933023|NCT01646398|183764022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.75||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.75|1.10|
91933024|NCT01646398|183764022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.74|1.12|
91933025|NCT01646398|183764022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.24||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.24|1.59|
91933026|NCT01646398|183764022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.23|0.77|
91933027|NCT01646398|183764022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.86||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||2.86|1.61|
91933028|NCT01646398|183764022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.92||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||2.92|1.81|
91933029|NCT01646398|183764022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.79||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||2.79|1.42|
91933030|NCT01646398|183764022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|3.49||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.49|1.84|
91933031|NCT01646398|183764022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|4.14||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 2.0.||4.14|2.38|
91933032|NCT00880763|183764087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|82.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not).|||82.8|37.0|<0.001
91933033|NCT00880763|183764087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|74.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|89.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not).|||89.0|47.6|<0.001
91933034|NCT00880763|183764087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|55.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|76.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not).|||76.0|24.9|<0.001
91811541|NCT00555321|183497783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|31.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||31.1|-41.1|
91933035|NCT00880763|183764088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|24.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||24.2|-11.3|
91933036|NCT00880763|183764088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|24.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||24.2|-12.4|
91933037|NCT00880763|183764088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|24.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||24.2|-12.0|
91933038|NCT00880763|183764089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|36.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||36.2|-2.5|
91933039|NCT00880763|183764089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|36.3|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||36.3|-3.4|
91933040|NCT00880763|183764089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|36.1|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||36.1|-3.3|
91933041|NCT00880763|183764090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2|||||Computed using a longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment, with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|||-1.2|-2.3|
91933042|NCT00880763|183764090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.3|||||Computed using a longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment, with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|||-1.3|-2.4|
91933043|NCT00880763|183764090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.1|||||Computed using a longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment, with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|||-1.1|-2.2|
91933044|NCT01746940|183764115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1088||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||0.1088
91933045|NCT01746940|183764115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||0.0005
91933046|NCT03057951|183764116|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.69|0.9|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|"Cox regression, with terms for treatment, region, baseline status of diabetes, age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr) at baseline.~alpha=0.0497 (resulting from interim analysis)."||0.90|0.69|0.0003
91933047|NCT03057951|183764117|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.61|0.88|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Joint frailty model that accounts for dependence between recurrent HHF and cardiovascular death, with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, baseline LVEF, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, and treatment. eGFR (CKP-EPI)cr: Glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction. alpha=0.0497 (resulting from interim analysis).||0.88|0.61|0.0009
91933048|NCT03057951|183764118|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Treatment by time interaction|1.363|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.861|1.865|||Random intercept random coeff. model||Empa 10 mg vs. Placebo slope \[/year\]|"Random coefficient model allowing for random intercept and random slope per patient, with factors age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI), baseline LVEF as linear covariate(s) and region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline-by-time interaction, treatment-by-time interaction and treatment as fixed effects.~Only 'on-treatment' data from treated patients were used. alpha=0.001. covariance structure: Unstructured."||1.865|0.861|<0.0001
91933049|NCT03057951|183764119|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.24|0.73|0.7243
91933050|NCT03057951|183764120|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.83|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||0.83|0.60|<0.0001
91933051|NCT03057951|183764121|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.09|0.76|0.2951
91933052|NCT03057951|183764122|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.15|0.87|0.9893
91933053|NCT03057951|183764123|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.07|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.07|0.65|0.1539
91933054|NCT03057951|183764124|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Comparison vs Placebo \[T-P\]|"Model includes age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) as linear covariate(s) and region, baseline diabetes status, sex, week reachable, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline KCCQ-Clinical-Summary-Score-by-visit interaction as fixed effect(s).~Unstructured covariance structure."||2.19|0.45|0.0028
91933055|NCT03057951|183764125|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Joint frailty model that accounts for the dependence between recurrent all-cause hospitalisation and all-cause mortality was used. Joint frailty model with terms for age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), treatment, region, baseline diabetes status and sex.||1.01|0.85|0.1012
91933056|NCT00696436|183764126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-12.01||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-12.01|-16.54|<0.001
91933057|NCT00696436|183764126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|-10.91||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-10.91|-15.41|<0.001
91933058|NCT00696436|183764126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-0.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-4.44|0.009
91768616|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|31.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||31.7|-31.7|1.000
91933059|NCT00696436|183764126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|-2.37||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.37|-6.25|<0.001
91933060|NCT00696436|183764126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||0.45|-3.31|0.136
91933061|NCT00696436|183764126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-1.27||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-5.12|0.001
91933062|NCT00696436|183764127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.07|-11.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-11.76|-18.07|<0.001
91933063|NCT00696436|183764127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.71|-11.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-11.40|-17.71|<0.001
91933064|NCT00696436|183764127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|-0.92||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.92|-6.17|0.008
91933065|NCT00696436|183764127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-2.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-8.09|<0.001
91933066|NCT00696436|183764127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-0.55||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.55|-5.81|0.018
91933067|NCT00696436|183764127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-2.42||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.42|-7.73|<0.001
91933068|NCT00696436|183764128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|-7.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.81|-10.91|<0.001
91933069|NCT00696436|183764128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-7.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.04|-10.12|<0.001
91933070|NCT00696436|183764128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-2.99|0.011
91933071|NCT00696436|183764128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-3.67|<0.001
91933072|NCT00696436|183764128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.38||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-2.19|0.166
91933073|NCT00696436|183764128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.24||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-2.88|0.020
91933074|NCT00696436|183764129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|-5.69||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.69|-9.33|<0.001
91933075|NCT00696436|183764129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-4.39||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.39|-8.03|<0.001
91933076|NCT00696436|183764129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.67||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.67|-3.69|0.005
91933077|NCT00696436|183764129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-1.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.64|-4.69|<0.001
91933078|NCT00696436|183764129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.64|-2.39|0.257
91933079|NCT00696436|183764129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.33||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-3.39|0.017
91933080|NCT00696436|183764130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-12.54||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.54|-17.30|<0.001
91933081|NCT00696436|183764130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-11.27||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.27|-15.99|<0.001
91933082|NCT00696436|183764130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-0.87||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-4.85|0.005
91933083|NCT00696436|183764130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.73||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.73|-6.80|<0.001
91933084|NCT00696436|183764130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.40|-3.55|0.119
91933085|NCT00696436|183764130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|-1.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-5.49|<0.001
91933086|NCT00696436|183764131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-8.13||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.13|-11.48|<0.001
91933087|NCT00696436|183764131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|-7.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.30|-10.63|<0.001
91933088|NCT00696436|183764131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.58||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-3.39|0.006
91933089|NCT00696436|183764131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.14||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-4.00|<0.001
91933090|NCT00696436|183764131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-2.53|0.107
91933091|NCT00696436|183764131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.30|-3.15|0.017
91933092|NCT00696436|183764132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|-10.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.45|-15.56|<0.001
91933093|NCT00696436|183764132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|-9.43||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.43|-14.51|<0.001
91933094|NCT00696436|183764132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.72||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.72|-3.56|0.194
91933095|NCT00696436|183764132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|-1.46||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-5.84|0.001
91933096|NCT00696436|183764132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.73||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.73|-2.51|0.720
91933097|NCT00696436|183764132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|-0.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-4.79|0.018
91933098|NCT00696436|183764133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|-6.87||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.87|-10.42|<0.001
91933099|NCT00696436|183764133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-5.99||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.99|-9.52|<0.001
91933100|NCT00696436|183764133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.77||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.77|-2.21|0.341
91933101|NCT00696436|183764133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-3.80|0.003
91933102|NCT00696436|183764133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.64|-1.30|0.821
91933103|NCT00696436|183764133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.12||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-2.89|0.071
91933104|NCT00696436|183764134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.96|-12.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.94|-17.96|<0.001
91933105|NCT00696436|183764134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|-11.43||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.43|-16.42|<0.001
91933106|NCT00696436|183764134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-1.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.22|-5.42|0.002
91933107|NCT00696436|183764134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-2.97||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.97|-7.26|<0.001
91933108|NCT00696436|183764134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|0.29||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-3.88|0.091
91933109|NCT00696436|183764134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-1.46||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-5.72|<0.001
91933110|NCT00696436|183764135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-8.36||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.36|-11.92|<0.001
91933111|NCT00696436|183764135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|-7.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.40|-10.94|<0.001
91933112|NCT00696436|183764135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-0.82||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-3.81|0.002
91933113|NCT00696436|183764135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-1.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.19|-4.24|<0.001
91933114|NCT00696436|183764135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.14||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.14|-2.82|0.076
91933115|NCT00696436|183764135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-3.25|0.024
91933116|NCT00696436|183764136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|-10.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.02|-15.66|<0.001
91933117|NCT00696436|183764136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-9.11||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.11|-14.72|<0.001
91933118|NCT00696436|183764136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.62||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.62|-4.10|0.149
91933119|NCT00696436|183764136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-1.83||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.83|-6.65|<0.001
91933120|NCT00696436|183764136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.53||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.53|-3.16|0.494
91933121|NCT00696436|183764136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-0.93||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.93|-5.72|0.007
91933122|NCT00696436|183764137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|-5.79||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.79|-10.03|<0.001
91933123|NCT00696436|183764137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-5.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.88|-10.10|<0.001
91933124|NCT00696436|183764137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.42||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.42|-2.14|0.691
91933125|NCT00696436|183764137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.57||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-4.20|0.010
91933126|NCT00696436|183764137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.32||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.32|-2.20|0.625
91933127|NCT00696436|183764137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.66||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-4.27|0.008
91933128|NCT00696436|183764138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|7.88||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.88|3.15|<0.001
91933129|NCT00696436|183764138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|7.37||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.37|2.94|<0.001
91933130|NCT00696436|183764138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.03|1.03|0.032
91933131|NCT00696436|183764138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.06||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.06|1.04|0.029
91933132|NCT00696436|183764138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.89||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.89|0.96|0.080
91933133|NCT00696436|183764138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.92||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|0.97|0.071
91933134|NCT00696436|183764139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.15||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.15|2.10|<0.001
91933135|NCT00696436|183764139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.54||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.54|1.86|<0.001
91933136|NCT00696436|183764139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.8||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.80|0.83|0.306
91933137|NCT00696436|183764139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.97||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.92|0.132
91933138|NCT00696436|183764139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.58||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.74|0.695
91933139|NCT00696436|183764139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.74||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.81|0.381
91933140|NCT00696436|183764140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.41||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.41|3.20|<0.001
91933141|NCT00696436|183764140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|7.19||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.19|2.73|<0.001
91933142|NCT00696436|183764140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.94||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.94|0.99|0.056
91933143|NCT00696436|183764140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.02||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|1.02|0.036
91933144|NCT00696436|183764140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.66||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.85|0.317
91933145|NCT00696436|183764140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.73||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.87|0.234
91768617|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.3|-35.3|0.504
91768618|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.1||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|22.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||22.3|-36.6|0.635
91768619|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|42.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||42.5|-21.1|0.513
91933146|NCT01293006|183764149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.91|||Difference of Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.91|-0.12|
91933147|NCT01293006|183764152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|3.36|||Difference of the Least Means Squares|||Day 1, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||3.36|-1.30|
91933148|NCT01293006|183764152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.5|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.50|-0.08|
91933149|NCT01293006|183764152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.77|7.41|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||7.41|-5.77|
91933150|NCT01293006|183764152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.63|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.63|0.00|
91811542|NCT00555321|183497783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|16.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||16.9|-55.9|
91811543|NCT00555321|183497783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.9|-3.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||-3.5|-81.9|
91933151|NCT01293006|183764153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.04|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||2.04|-0.60|
91933152|NCT01293006|183764153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|3.77|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||3.77|0.33|
91933153|NCT01293006|183764154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.47|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.47|-0.41|
91933154|NCT01293006|183764154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.27|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.27|-0.53|
91933155|NCT01293006|183764154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.18|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.18|-0.61|
91933156|NCT01293006|183764154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.98|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.98|-0.32|
91933157|NCT01293006|183764154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.78|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.78|-0.26|
91933158|NCT01293006|183764154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.8|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.80|0.10|
91933159|NCT01293006|183764155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.31|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.31|-0.50|
91933160|NCT03353753|183764171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.25||Two-sided P-value|Log Rank|Strata: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)|Ripretinib: Placebo; based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model using randomization stratification factors \[prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)\]|||0.25|0.09|<0.0001
91933161|NCT03353753|183764172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504||||||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0504
91933162|NCT03353753|183764174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.62||Not evaluated for statistical significance as a result of the sequential testing procedure for the secondary endpoints of ORR and OS.|Log Rank|Strata: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)|Ripretinib: Placebo; based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model using randomization stratification factors \[prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)\]|||0.62|0.21|0.0004
91933163|NCT03353753|183764175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Not evaluated for statistical significance as a result of the sequential testing procedure for the secondary endpoints of ORR, OS, and QOL.|ANCOVA|Factors: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)||||||0.001
91933164|NCT03353753|183764176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Not evaluated for statistical significance as a result of the sequential testing procedure for the secondary endpoints of ORR, OS, and QOL.|ANCOVA|Factors: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)||||||0.004
91811544|NCT00555321|183497796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|6.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||6.0|-21.2|
91811545|NCT00555321|183497796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|5.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||5.3|-18.2|
91933165|NCT03353753|183764177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91933166|NCT00600028|183764181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The values represents three months on each intervention|||||0.001
91933167|NCT00600028|183764182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The values represents three months on each intervention|||||.0001
91933168|NCT04397718|183764367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.06|||Chi-squared||Logistic regression adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||3.06|0.46|0.667
91933169|NCT04397718|183764368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.49|||Log Rank||Cox regression model adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD.|||1.49|0.58|0.876
91933170|NCT04397718|183764369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.92|||Chi-squared||Logistic regression adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD.|||2.92|0.31|0.991
91933171|NCT04397718|183764370|SUPERIORITY||Quantile Regression|0.0||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.11|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||4.11|-2.03|0.841
91933172|NCT04397718|183764371|SUPERIORITY||Quantile Regression|0.0||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||0|0|0.746
91933173|NCT04397718|183764372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.39|||Log Rank||Cox regression model adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||7.39|0.72|0.1
91811546|NCT00555321|183497796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||4.5|-14.9|
91811547|NCT00555321|183497796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|7.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||7.1|-25.1|
91811548|NCT00555321|183497796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||4.5|-15.6|
91933174|NCT04397718|183764373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.0|||Fisher Exact||||Logistical regression adjusted for age, hypertension, COPD, and baseline severity score.|2|0.33|0.425
91933175|NCT04397718|183764374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.42|||Chi-squared||Logistic regression adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD.|||3.42|0.44|0.688
91933176|NCT03589326|183764379|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.29||P-value is based on CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to randomization strata (age): 18 through \<45 years, ≥45 through \<60 years, and ≥60 years.|Chi-squared||Risk difference and 95% CI: adjusted percent ponatinib - adjusted percent imatinib and its 95% CI.|||0.29|0.06|=0.0021
91933177|NCT00906074|183764398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Neoplasm||||0.881
91811549|NCT00555321|183497796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||3.9|-12.7|
91933178|NCT00906074|183764398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Tobacco use||||0.517
91933179|NCT00906074|183764398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||BMI(kg/mˆ2)\>30||||0.053
91933180|NCT00906074|183764398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Diabetes mellitus||||0.289
91933181|NCT00906074|183764398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Immunosuppression/Corticosteroids||||1.000
91933182|NCT00906074|183764398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Anemia (Hb\<9gr/dL)||||0.169
91933183|NCT00906074|183764398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Malnutrition (hypoalbuminemia)||||0.637
91811550|NCT00555321|183497796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||||
91811551|NCT00555321|183497796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|5.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||5.3|-18.2|
91811552|NCT00555321|183497796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||4.5|-14.9|
91811553|NCT00555321|183497796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||||
91811554|NCT00555321|183497796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||4.5|-15.6|
91811555|NCT00555321|183497796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||3.9|-12.7|
91933184|NCT00906074|183764399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||||||1.000
91933185|NCT00906074|183764400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||||||0.873
91933186|NCT00906074|183764405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||||||0.156
91933187|NCT00906074|183764406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.444
91933188|NCT01778127|183764423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
91933189|NCT01778127|183764423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91933190|NCT01778127|183764423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91933191|NCT01778127|183764424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91933192|NCT01778127|183764424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91933193|NCT01778127|183764424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91933194|NCT01778127|183764425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91933195|NCT01778127|183764425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
91933196|NCT01778127|183764425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91933197|NCT01778127|183764426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91933198|NCT01778127|183764426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91933199|NCT01778127|183764426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
91933200|NCT01778127|183764427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91933201|NCT01778127|183764427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91933202|NCT01778127|183764427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
91933203|NCT01778127|183764428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
91933204|NCT01778127|183764428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
91933205|NCT01778127|183764428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91933206|NCT01778127|183764429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91933207|NCT01778127|183764429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91811556|NCT00555321|183497797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|10.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||10.2|-25.6|
91811557|NCT00555321|183497797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|22.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||22.3|-11.7|
91933208|NCT01778127|183764429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91811558|NCT00555321|183497797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|15.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||15.2|-20.1|
91933209|NCT01778127|183764430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91933210|NCT01778127|183764430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91933211|NCT01778127|183764430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
91933212|NCT01778127|183764431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91933213|NCT01778127|183764431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91933214|NCT01778127|183764431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91933215|NCT01778127|183764432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91933216|NCT01778127|183764432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91811559|NCT00555321|183497797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|12.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||12.5|-24.0|
91811560|NCT00555321|183497797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|24.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||24.2|-10.5|
91811561|NCT00555321|183497797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|17.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||17.6|-18.5|
91811562|NCT00555321|183497797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|9.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||9.4|-23.3|
91933217|NCT01778127|183764432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
91933218|NCT01778127|183764433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91933219|NCT01778127|183764433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91933220|NCT01778127|183764433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91933221|NCT01778127|183764434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91933222|NCT01778127|183764434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91933223|NCT01778127|183764434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
91933224|NCT01348425|183764436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is +/- 10%, type I error is assumed to be 0.05, with a power of 0.8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.5||Schuirman's TOST equivalence test on change in stent length upon deployment between longer and shorter stents.|t-test, 2 sided|To test the hypothesis whether the percent change in stent length is contained within \[-10%, 10%\].||The alternative hypothesis is equivalence in mean change in stent length upon deployment between longer and shorter stents, i.e., the difference in mean change between the longer and shorter stents is close to 0. Thus, a small p-value indicates a 95% confidence interval covers 0.||3.5|-2.0|<0.01
91933225|NCT01968954|183764454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-57.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-53.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-53.1|-61.0|<0.001
91933226|NCT01968954|183764455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-33.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-33.6|-38.8|<0.001
91933227|NCT01968954|183764455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-31.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-31.7|-37.7|
91933228|NCT01968954|183764455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-25.7||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-25.7|-32.3|
91933229|NCT01968954|183764456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-51.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-48.1|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-48.1|-55.2|<0.001
91933230|NCT01968954|183764456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-46.4||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-46.4|-54.9|
91933231|NCT01968954|183764456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-41.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-36.5||||||Week 52:LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-36.5|-45.8|
91933232|NCT01968954|183764457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-51.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-47.9|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-47.9|-55.1|<0.001
91933233|NCT01968954|183764457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-46.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-46.6|-54.6|
91933234|NCT01968954|183764457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.2|-36.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-36.3|-45.2|
91768620|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||28.1|-24.7|0.898
91768621|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|15.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||15.5|-41.7|0.379
91768622|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||27.4|-34.5|0.822
91933235|NCT01968954|183764458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.55||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|29.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||29.5|-35.4|0.860
91933236|NCT01968954|183764458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|51.4||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||51.4|-47.2|
91933237|NCT01968954|183764458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|70.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||70.4|-44.5|
91933238|NCT01968954|183764459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.0|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||7.0|2.4|<0.001
91768623|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|35.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||35.0|-17.3|0.508
91768624|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||22.4|-34.3|0.683
91933239|NCT01968954|183764459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|9.1||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||9.1|4.5|
91768625|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|45.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||45.1|-16.6|0.490
91933240|NCT01968954|183764459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||5.8|0.9|
91933241|NCT01968954|183764460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-59.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.4|-54.8|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-54.8|-63.4|<0.001
91933242|NCT01968954|183764461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-48.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-39.3|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-39.3|-58.0|<0.001
91933243|NCT01968954|183764462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|-51.2||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-51.2|-60.8|
91933244|NCT01968954|183764462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-41.0||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-41.0|-51.8|
91933245|NCT01968954|183764463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-57.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-52.0||||||TG \<200 mg/dL (Week 24): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-52.0|-63.1|
91933246|NCT01968954|183764463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-41.5||||||TG \<200 mg/dL (Week 52): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-41.5|-53.9|
91933247|NCT01968954|183764463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-39.8||||||TG \>=200 mg/dL (Week 24): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-39.8|-58.9|
91933248|NCT01968954|183764463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-41.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-30.1||||||TG \>=200 mg/dL (Week 52): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-30.1|-52.2|
91933249|NCT01968954|183764464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-8.5||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-8.5|-19.9|
91933250|NCT01968954|183764464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-14.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-14.7|-25.1|
91933251|NCT01968954|183764464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-2.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-2.8|-15.7|
91933252|NCT01968954|183764465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||5.7|1.8|
91933253|NCT01968954|183764465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|6.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||6.7|3.1|
91933254|NCT01968954|183764465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.6||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||4.6|0.7|
91933255|NCT01968954|183764466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||1.7|-1.9|
91933256|NCT01968954|183764466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.9||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||3.9|-0.1|
91933257|NCT01968954|183764466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.1||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||3.1|-1.0|
91933258|NCT01968954|183764467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS-Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-8.5||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-8.5|-19.9|
91933259|NCT01968954|183764467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-14.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-14.7|-25.1|
91933260|NCT01968954|183764467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-2.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-2.8|-15.7|
91933261|NCT01968954|183764468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-64.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.1|-59.2||||||TG \<200 mg/dL (Week 12): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-59.2|-69.1|
91933262|NCT01968954|183764468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.4|-47.7||||||TG \>=200 mg/dL (Week 12): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-47.7|-71.4|
91933263|NCT01968954|183764469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-58.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-58.8|-68.0|
91933264|NCT01968954|183764470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-67.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|-62.1||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-62.1|-72.2|
91811563|NCT00555321|183497797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|6.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||6.5|-27.4|
91933265|NCT01968954|183764471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-69.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.7|-64.6||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-64.6|-74.7|
91933266|NCT01968954|183764472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|-43.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-43.8|-50.7|
91933267|NCT01968954|183764473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-8.3||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-8.3|-12.9|
91933268|NCT01968954|183764474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.5||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||3.5|1.4|
91933269|NCT01968954|183764475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.4||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-1.4|-1.7|
91933270|NCT01968954|183764475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.4||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-1.4|-1.7|
91933271|NCT01968954|183764475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-1.0|-1.4|
91811564|NCT00555321|183497797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-2.7|-37.5|
91933272|NCT01968954|183764476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-0.3|-0.4|
91933273|NCT01968954|183764476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-0.3|-0.4|
91933274|NCT01968954|183764476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.2||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-0.2|-0.3|
91933275|NCT01968954|183764477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.86|41.64||||||Week 12||41.64|13.86|
91811565|NCT00555321|183497797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|19.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||19.7|-15.5|
91933276|NCT01968954|183764477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.32|23.56||||||Week 24||23.56|9.32|
91933277|NCT01968954|183764477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|15.24||||||Week 52||15.24|6.36|
91933278|NCT01968954|183764478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.09|173.91||||||Week 12||173.91|52.09|
91933279|NCT01968954|183764478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|112.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.81|225.52||||||Week 24||225.52|55.81|
91933280|NCT01968954|183764478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.13|49.49||||||Week 52||49.49|17.13|
91933281|NCT00547638|183764486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (when subtracting the percentage of DERMABOND PROTAPE successful subjects from the percentage of DERMABOND HVD successful subjects) does not exceed 8%.|Difference in Proportion of Successes|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|1.0|||Gart-Nam||The value for the Estimated Parameter is expressed as a percentage and is defined as the difference in the proportion of sucesses between study groups.|||1.0|-17.7|
91933282|NCT00547638|183764487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||||||The total mHCS scores are summarized as proportion of subjects with good outcome (total scores of zero) and a comparison of treatment groups by Fisher Exact Test was performed to confirm differences in groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.457
91933283|NCT00547638|183764488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Differences between treatment groups in the incidence rate of infection at Day 14 and Day 30 were compared using the Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91933284|NCT00547638|183764488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Differences between treatment groups in the incidence rate of infection at Day 30 were compared using the Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91933285|NCT00547638|183764489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||Intent to treat population was analyzed.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.188
91933286|NCT00547638|183764489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Intent to treat population was analyzed.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.883
91933287|NCT00547638|183764490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91933288|NCT01963208|183764498|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.06||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|3.52||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the distributions of the two treatment groups with respect to percent change in seizure frequency.|Rank ANCOVA|||||3.52|-17.44|0.1788
91933289|NCT00438399|183764514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the superiority of Clobetasol propionate shampoo over one of three other comparators, in terms of Subject's overall preference. It was to be analyzed using a non parametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank Signed test on ITT population.||||0.0003
91933290|NCT00438399|183764514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the superiority of Clobetasol propionate shampoo over one of three other comparators, in terms of Subject's overall preference. It was to be analyzed using a non parametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank Signed test on ITT population.||||0.007
91933291|NCT00438399|183764514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the superiority of Clobetasol propionate shampoo over one of three other comparators, in terms of Subject's overall preference. It was to be analyzed using a non parametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank Signed test on ITT population.||||<0.0001
91933292|NCT01283997|183764518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in the measurements for touch by the fingertip||0.24|-0.13|0.54
91933293|NCT01283997|183764518|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in the measurements for touch by the palm||0.23|-0.13|0.60
91933294|NCT01283997|183764518|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in the measurements for touch by the forearm||0.15|-0.40|0.37
91933295|NCT01283997|183764519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in Numbness severity at baseline and week 10.||0.59|-2.06|0.56
91933296|NCT00884221|183764546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by constructing a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower-limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and it would be claimed that highly purified menotrophin was non-inferior to recombinant FSH with respect to ongoing pregnancy rate in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol.|Difference in pregnancy rates, ITT|2.2||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.6||Since there was only one primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiplicity was needed for the primary analysis.|Sign test|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Difference tested: highly purified menotrophin-recombinant FSH, ITT analysis set|"The non-inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was:~H0: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH ≤ -10.0% against the alternative H1: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH \> -10.0%,~where π MENOPUR and π recombinant FSH denote the ongoing pregnancy rate after treatment with MENOPUR and recombinant FSH, respectively, in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol."||8.6|-4.2|0.499
91933297|NCT00884221|183764547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Estradiol||||<0.001
91933298|NCT00884221|183764548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||FSH||||<0.001
91933299|NCT00884221|183764549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Free Androgen Index||||<0.001
91933300|NCT00884221|183764550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Luteinizing hormone||||<0.001
91811566|NCT00555321|183497797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|16.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||16.9|-19.4|
91933301|NCT00884221|183764551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Progesterone||||0.630
91933302|NCT00884221|183764552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by constructing a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower-limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and it would be claimed that highly purified menotrophin was non-inferior to recombinant FSH with respect to ongoing pregnancy rate in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol.|Difference in pregnancy rates, PP|3.0||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|9.8||Since there was only one primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiplicity was needed for the primary analysis.|Sign test|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Difference tested: highly purified menotrophin - recombinant FSH, PP|"The non-inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was:~H0: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH ≤ -10.0% against the alternative H1: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH \> -10.0%,~where π MENOPUR and π recombinant FSH denote the ongoing pregnancy rate after treatment with MENOPUR and recombinant FSH, respectively, in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol."||9.8|-3.8|0.387
91933303|NCT00884221|183764553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Prolactin||||0.047
91933304|NCT00884221|183764554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Sex hormone binding globulin||||0.009
91933305|NCT00884221|183764555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Testosterone||||<0.001
91933306|NCT00884221|183764556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles \>= 12 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.025
91933307|NCT00884221|183764556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles 12-14 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.024
91933308|NCT00884221|183764556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.728||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles 15-16 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.728
91933309|NCT00884221|183764556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles \>=17 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.285
91933310|NCT00884221|183764557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Only participants who underwent the oocyte retrieval procedure were included in the analysis||Treatments were compared using the Wilcoxon test for the average number of oocytes retrieved.||||<0.001
91933311|NCT00884221|183764558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Only participants who had oocytes retrieved were included in the analysis.||||||0.969
91933312|NCT00884221|183764559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 1 / 2pn||||0.406
91933313|NCT00884221|183764559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 2 / 2pn||||0.232
91933314|NCT00884221|183764559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 3 / 2pn||||0.412
91933315|NCT00884221|183764559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 4 / 2pn||||0.438
91768626|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||48.5|-1.9|0.078
91768627|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|38.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||38.4|-17.7|0.466
91811567|NCT00555321|183497797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|7.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||7.9|-29.3|
91933316|NCT00884221|183764559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 5 / 2pn||||0.390
91933317|NCT00884221|183764559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status, inner cell mass grading and trophectoderm grading 4AA / 2pn||||0.958
91933318|NCT00884221|183764559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status, inner cell mass grading and trophectoderm grading 5AA / 2pn||||0.954
91933319|NCT00884221|183764560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of distributions|0.398||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in live birth rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Estimated value is difference between highly purified menotrophin and recombinant FSH, ITT analysis set|||9.1|-3.6|0.398
91933320|NCT00884221|183764561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of distributions|1.8||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in cumulative live birth rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Estimated value is difference between highly purified menotrophin and recombinant FSH, ITT analysis set|||9.2|-5.6|0.686
91933321|NCT01263093|183764564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical inference was made using the test treatment of LY2216684 + clopidogrel and the reference treatment of clopidogrel alone.|||0.83|0.72|
91933322|NCT01263093|183764565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical inference was made using the test treatment of LY2216684 + clopidogrel and the reference treatment of clopidogrel alone.|||0.67|0.53|
91933323|NCT01263093|183764567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of Paired Differences|0.0||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.25|0.00|0.3303
91933324|NCT04857593|183764632|OTHER||Mean change in EPDS score|5.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91933325|NCT01494987|183764689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.32||P-value is from a mixed-effect model including terms for baseline HbA1c value, prior antihyperglycemia therapy, treatment group, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis||The estimation (LSM) is of the placebo-corrected change from baseline.|Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%, an effective sample size of 400 would provide at least 90% power to detect a statistically significant treatment difference of -0.5% (ranolazine vs. placebo) for the reduction of HbA1c from baseline at Week 24 based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 and 1:1 randomization.||-0.32|-0.71|<0.001
91933326|NCT00205699|183764731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value refers to the time by treatment condition interaction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in DEXA % fat used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0, 6 and 12 weeks) and medication group as independent variables, with Toeplitz covariance structure specified, based on Bayesian information criteria (BIC). The null hypotheses were that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time) and that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||<0.0001
91933327|NCT00205699|183764732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
91933328|NCT00205699|183764733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
91933329|NCT00205699|183764734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
91933330|NCT00205699|183764735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
91933331|NCT00205699|183764736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA was used to test for the main effect of time on the outcome, and to test for a time by treatment condition interaction that would indicate differences between groups in change over time in the primary outcome. The null hypotheses were that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time) and that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||<0.003
91933332|NCT00205699|183764736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied (p\<0.05/4 = 0.0125).|Contrast|Contrasts based on the ANCOVA-derived time by treatment condition interaction.||||||0.003
91933333|NCT00205699|183764736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied (p\<0.05/4 = 0.0125).|ANCOVA|Contrasts based on the ANCOVA-derived time by treatment condition interaction.||||||0.002
91933334|NCT02928380|183764751|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.02||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model with weight of the peanut particle (food occlusion) as response variable, treatment and period as fixed effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment is such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|H0: The mean mass of food particles retrieved from using a marketed denture adhesive with a flat ribbon nozzle is no different from using no adhesive H01: The mean mass of food particles retrieved from using a marketed denture adhesive with a flat ribbon nozzle is different from using no adhesive.||0.00|-0.05|0.0987
91933335|NCT01677507|183764769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Actually these are 2 sided paired t-tests.||Right Eye treated vs. untreated||3.3|2.4|0.0001
91933336|NCT01677507|183764769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye treated vs. untreated||3.2|2.5|0.0001
91933337|NCT01677507|183764769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Right Eye treated vs. untreated||3.4|2.5|0.0001
91933338|NCT01677507|183764769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||3.3|2.5|0.0001
91933339|NCT01677507|183764770|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t test, 2 sided||Right Eye treated to untreated||1.3|0.9|0.0001
91933340|NCT01677507|183764770|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||1.1|0.7|0.0001
91933341|NCT01677507|183764770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Right Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.2|-0.2|0.94
91933342|NCT01677507|183764770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.2|-0.1|0.54
91933343|NCT01677507|183764771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Right Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.7|0.01|0.04
91933344|NCT01677507|183764771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left eye, treated vs. untreated||0.6|-0.1|0.15
91933345|NCT01677507|183764771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Right Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.6|-0.3|0.52
91933346|NCT01677507|183764771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.4|-0.4|0.88
91933347|NCT00961441|183764774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate for ratio|1.0271|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8817|1.1964|||ANOVA|Point estimates for the geometric means ratios children/adults for Cmax normalized by dose and body weight and 90% CIs have been calculated.||An ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates and Confidence Intervals (CIs).||1.1964|0.8817|
91933348|NCT00961441|183764775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate for ratio|0.9914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.811|1.2118|||ANOVA|Point estimates for the geometric means ratios children/adults for AUCtau normalized by dose and body weight and 90% CIs have been calculated.||An ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates and Confidence Intervals (CIs).||1.2118|0.8110|
91933349|NCT01586156|183764779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91933350|NCT01586156|183764780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91933351|NCT01586156|183764781|OTHER|Pearson's correlation test of association of alprenolol binding changes to dose carvedilol.||||||0.02||||||Correlation of the change in alprenolol binding relative to dose carvedilol.|Pearson|||||||0.02
91933352|NCT01586156|183764782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91933353|NCT01586156|183764784|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91933354|NCT01586156|183764785|NON_INFERIORITY|Carvedilol did not lead to worse cardiac output as compared to placebo.||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
91933355|NCT04465396|183764786|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.83|113.8|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in statistical software suite (SAS), with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||113.80|104.83|
91933356|NCT04465396|183764786|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|113.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.32|119.95|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||119.95|108.32|
91933357|NCT04465396|183764787|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.5|109.11|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||109.11|88.50|
91933358|NCT04465396|183764787|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.8|102.05|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||102.05|83.80|
91933359|NCT04465396|183764788|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.51|113.51|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||113.51|105.51|
91933360|NCT04465396|183764788|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|118.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.31|124.83|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||124.83|112.31|
91933361|NCT03334396|183764818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|5.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.84|1.17|0.020
91933362|NCT03334396|183764818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|8.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.70|1.93|<0.001
91933363|NCT03334396|183764819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.01|1.23|0.014
91933364|NCT03334396|183764820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.88|1.06|0.032
91933365|NCT03334396|183764820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.67|1.29|0.006
91933366|NCT03334396|183764820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.89|2.01|<0.001
91933367|NCT03334396|183764821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.05|0.74|0.210
91933368|NCT03334396|183764821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.70|1.10|0.029
91933369|NCT03334396|183764821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|8.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.91|1.91|<0.001
91933370|NCT03334396|183764822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.77|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.03|-24.77|0.021
91933371|NCT03334396|183764822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.05|-6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.10|-28.05|0.002
91933372|NCT03334396|183764822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.84|-14.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.24|-34.84|<0.001
91933373|NCT03334396|183764823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|15.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.24|1.20|0.025
91933374|NCT03334396|183764823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|20.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.99|1.79|0.004
91933375|NCT03334396|183764823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|28.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.58|2.68|<0.001
91933376|NCT03334396|183764824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|0.72|0.246
91933377|NCT03334396|183764824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.77|0.79|0.169
91933378|NCT03334396|183764824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|7.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.18|1.82|<0.001
91933379|NCT03334396|183764825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.82|0.103
91933380|NCT03334396|183764825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.65|0.352
91933381|NCT03334396|183764825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-1.00|0.006
91933382|NCT03334396|183764826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-1.84|0.005
91933383|NCT03334396|183764826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-1.48|0.051
91933384|NCT03334396|183764826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.79|0.002
91933385|NCT03334396|183764827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.25|1.11|0.019
91933386|NCT03334396|183764827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.14|1.44|<0.001
91933387|NCT03334396|183764827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|6.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.96|2.51|<0.001
91933388|NCT03334396|183764828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.63|0.37|0.424
91933389|NCT03334396|183764828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|13.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.75|0.61|0.182
91933390|NCT03334396|183764828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|10.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.41|0.36|0.441
91933391|NCT03334396|183764829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.90|-11.57|0.093
91933392|NCT03334396|183764829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|-1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.92|-14.01|0.010
91933393|NCT03334396|183764829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|-9.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.13|-20.46|<0.001
91933394|NCT03334396|183764830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|7.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.77|0.17|0.874
91933395|NCT03334396|183764830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|13.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.36|0.62|0.176
91933396|NCT03334396|183764830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.65|0.59|0.201
91933397|NCT03334396|183764831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-11.67|0.039
91933398|NCT03334396|183764831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-10.86|0.058
91933399|NCT03334396|183764831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.33|-5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.98|-16.33|<0.001
91933400|NCT03334396|183764832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.067
91933401|NCT03334396|183764832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.799
91933402|NCT03334396|183764832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.782
91811568|NCT00555321|183497804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|36.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||36.0|-6.3|
91933403|NCT03334396|183764833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.69|-4.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.81|-33.69|0.009
91933404|NCT03334396|183764833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.43|-3.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.35|-31.43|0.015
91933405|NCT03334396|183764833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.71|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.30|-37.71|<0.001
91933406|NCT03334396|183764834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-4.98|0.028
91933407|NCT03334396|183764834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.27|-5.89|0.003
91933408|NCT03334396|183764834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|-2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.99|-7.33|<0.001
91933409|NCT03334396|183764835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.56|0.069
91933410|NCT03334396|183764835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.56|0.066
91933411|NCT03334396|183764835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.73|<0.001
91933412|NCT03334396|183764836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||0.41|-1.30|0.305
91933413|NCT03334396|183764836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||-0.10|-1.77|0.029
91933414|NCT03334396|183764836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||-0.36|-1.93|0.004
91933415|NCT03334396|183764836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||0.16|-1.51|0.113
91933416|NCT03334396|183764836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||-0.22|-1.85|0.014
91933417|NCT03334396|183764836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||-0.37|-1.91|0.004
91933418|NCT03334396|183764837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-3.92|0.015
91933419|NCT03334396|183764837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-3.56|0.036
91933420|NCT03334396|183764837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|-2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.69|-5.91|<0.001
91933421|NCT03334396|183764838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||1.29|-9.39|0.136
91933422|NCT03334396|183764838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||5.10|-5.81|0.898
91933423|NCT03334396|183764838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||1.52|-8.32|0.174
91933424|NCT03334396|183764838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.13|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||1.41|-15.13|0.104
91933425|NCT03334396|183764838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.09|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-0.19|-17.09|0.045
91768628|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.3|-17.1|1.000
91933426|NCT03334396|183764838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.97|-4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-4.59|-19.97|0.002
91933427|NCT03334396|183764838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.89|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||0.57|-17.89|0.066
91933428|NCT03334396|183764838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||2.91|-15.89|0.175
91933429|NCT03334396|183764838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.84|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||-2.72|-19.84|0.010
91933430|NCT03334396|183764838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-0.70|-13.93|0.030
91933431|NCT03334396|183764838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||1.39|-11.65|0.122
91933432|NCT03334396|183764838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|-10.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-10.41|-22.64|<0.001
91933433|NCT03334396|183764839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.08|-0.00|0.061
91933434|NCT03334396|183764839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.08|-0.00|0.060
91933435|NCT03334396|183764839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.12|0.04|<0.001
91768629|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.3|-17.1|0.447
91933436|NCT03334396|183764839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.11|0.00|0.046
91933437|NCT03334396|183764839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.11|-0.00|0.059
91811569|NCT00555321|183497804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|10.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||10.2|-23.4|
91933438|NCT03334396|183764839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK algorithm)||0.16|0.06|<0.001
91933439|NCT03334396|183764840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||9.30|-3.36|0.356
91933440|NCT03334396|183764840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||7.50|-4.81|0.668
91933441|NCT03334396|183764840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|12.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||12.86|1.25|0.017
91933442|NCT03334396|183764841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.71|0.41|0.603
91933443|NCT03334396|183764841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.12|1.50|0.006
91933444|NCT03334396|183764841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|12.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.55|1.78|0.002
91933445|NCT03011450|183764951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933446|NCT03011450|183764952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933447|NCT03011450|183764953|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933448|NCT03011450|183764954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0156
91933449|NCT03011450|183764955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933450|NCT03011450|183764956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933451|NCT03011450|183764957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933452|NCT03011450|183764958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0001
91933453|NCT03011450|183764959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933454|NCT03011450|183764960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.5380
91933455|NCT03011450|183764961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933456|NCT03011450|183764962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1165
91933457|NCT03011450|183764963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0142
91933458|NCT03011450|183764964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933459|NCT03011450|183764965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933460|NCT03011450|183764966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933461|NCT03011450|183764967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4589|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.4589
91933462|NCT03011450|183764968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91811570|NCT00555321|183497804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|10.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||10.0|-23.4|
91933463|NCT03011450|183764969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933464|NCT03011450|183764970|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933465|NCT03011450|183764971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2486|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2486
91933466|NCT03011450|183764972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933467|NCT03011450|183764973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933468|NCT03011450|183764974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933469|NCT03011450|183764975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933470|NCT03011450|183764976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0001
91933471|NCT03011450|183764977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2763|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2763
91933472|NCT03011450|183764978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933473|NCT03011450|183764979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933474|NCT03011450|183764980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933475|NCT03011450|183764981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933476|NCT03011450|183764982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1651|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1651
91933477|NCT03011450|183764983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933478|NCT03011450|183764984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933479|NCT03011450|183764985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933480|NCT03011450|183764986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933481|NCT03011450|183764987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5107|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.5107
91933482|NCT03011450|183764988|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||0.0018|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0018
91933483|NCT03011450|183764989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0742|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0742
91933484|NCT03011450|183764990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933485|NCT03011450|183764991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2707|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2707
91933486|NCT03011450|183764992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0009
91933487|NCT03011450|183764993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2879|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2879
91933488|NCT03011450|183764994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9786|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.9786
91933489|NCT03011450|183764995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0075
91933490|NCT03011450|183764996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0241|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0241
91933491|NCT03011450|183764997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933492|NCT03011450|183764998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0502|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0502
91933493|NCT03011450|183764999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933494|NCT03011450|183765000|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91933495|NCT03011450|183765001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0209
91933496|NCT03011450|183765002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933497|NCT03011450|183765003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933498|NCT03011450|183765004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933499|NCT03011450|183765005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933500|NCT03011450|183765006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0001
91933501|NCT03011450|183765007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
91933502|NCT03519516|183765072|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.749|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.749
91933503|NCT03519516|183765073|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.041
91933504|NCT03519516|183765074|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.694
91933505|NCT03519516|183765075|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.495|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.495
91933506|NCT03519516|183765076|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.492||||||statistical analysis between groups for final visit with green lissamine|Chi-squared|||||||0.492
91933507|NCT03519516|183765076|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.238||||||statistical analysis between groups for final visit with fluorescein|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.238
91933508|NCT03519516|183765077|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.213|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.213
91933509|NCT03519516|183765079|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.741|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.741
91933510|NCT03519516|183765081|NON_INFERIORITY|The study drug is considered non-inferior with respect to the comparator if there are no differences above twenty percent||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.110
91933511|NCT00592553|183765082|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-30.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.68||0.4756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.8|53.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) method including rank transformed 6MWD as the dependent variable; and rank transformed baseline 6MWD, treatment, visit, age (less than \[\<\] 9 years versus \[vs.\] greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 9 years) and corticosteroid use (yes vs. no) stratification factors, and interaction between treatment and visit as independent variables.||53.75|-114.8|0.4756
91933512|NCT00592553|183765082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|62.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.21||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.66|147.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method including rank transformed 6MWD as the dependent variable; and rank transformed baseline 6MWD, treatment, visit, age (\< 9 years vs. \>= 9 years) and corticosteroid use (yes vs. no) stratification factors, and interaction between treatment and visit as independent variables.||147.96|-22.66|0.1490
91768630|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.3|-17.1|1.000
91768631|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|3.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.6|-27.1|1.000
91768632|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|3.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.6|-27.1|0.193
91933513|NCT01244191|183765111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.8086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.149|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and the 95% confidence interval from stratified Cox-regression model (adjusting for number of prior therapies, gender, and smoking history).|||1.149|0.841|0.8086
91933514|NCT01752842|183765119|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation is based on assumption that treatment with Fenofibrate will lead to 11% decrease in plasma TG and ceramide biomarkers. We also assume that there will be no significant change in ceramides without intervention. Based on these assumptions, 86 subjects are required to have 90% chance of detecting a decrease in the primary outcome measure from 1.29 in the placebo group to 1.15 in the Fenofibrate group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.04||This P-value is based on ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA was used to compare mean change of cardiac diastolic function adjusting for body fat percent, baseline values of BMI, diastolic/systolic blood pressure, HbA1c, fasting glucose, triglycerides, ethnicity, gender and race.|Null hypothesis is no difference of mean change of cardiac diastolic function as measured by E' (cm/s) between placebo and Fenofibrate.|Two-sample t-test was used to compare baseline mean values of biomarkers. All statistical tests are two-sided at significance level 0.05.|0.04|-1.56|0.07
91768633|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|3.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.6|-27.1|0.498
91811571|NCT00555321|183497804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|23.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||23.4|-22.0|
91933515|NCT01752842|183765120|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation is based on assumption that treatment with Fenofibrate will lead to 11% decrease in plasma TG and ceramide biomarkers. We also assume that there will be no significant change in ceramides without intervention. Based on these assumptions, 86 subjects are required to have 90% chance of detecting a decrease in the primary outcome measure from 1.29 in the placebo group to 1.15 in the Fenofibrate group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0058||||0.8128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0418|0.0543||This P-value is based on ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA was used to compare mean change of outcome adjusting for body fat percent, demographic variables and baseline biomarkers.|Null hypothesis is no difference of mean change of fractional shortening percent between placebo and Fenofibrate.|Two-sample t-test was used to compare baseline mean values of biomarkers. All statistical tests are two-sided at significance level 0.05.|0.0543|-0.0418|0.8128
91768634|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.3|-17.1|1.000
91933516|NCT01752842|183765121|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation is based on assumption that treatment with Fenofibrate will lead to 11% decrease in plasma TG and ceramide biomarkers. We also assume that there will be no significant change in ceramides without intervention. Based on these assumptions, 86 subjects are required to have 90% chance of detecting a decrease in the primary outcome measure from 1.29 in the placebo group to 1.15 in the Fenofibrate group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.65||This P-value is based on ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare mean change of outcome adjusting for body fat percent, demographic variables and baseline biomarkers.||Null hypothesis is no difference of mean change of C24:0/C16:0 ceramide ratio between placebo and Fenofibrate.|Two-sample t-test was used to compare baseline mean values of biomarkers. All statistical tests are two-sided at significance level 0.05.|-0.65|-2.93|0.0034
91933517|NCT02164513|183765122|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||The adjusted p-values should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for either of the comparisons.|Negative binomial model||Covariates of treatment group, sex, exacerbation history (\<=1, \>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status (Screening), geographical region and post-bronchodilator percent predicted Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (Screening) were used.|||0.81|0.70|<0.001
91933518|NCT02164513|183765122|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.9||The adjusted p-values should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for either of the comparisons|Negative binomial model||Covariates of treatment group, sex, exacerbation history (\<=1, \>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status (Screening), geographical region and post-bronchodilator percent predicted Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (Screening) were used.|||0.90|0.80|<0.001
91933519|NCT02164513|183765123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0061|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.109||The adjusted p-value at Week 52 should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for the comparison of FF/UMEC/VI versus (vs) FF/VI at Week 52.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||0.109|0.085|<0.001
91933520|NCT02164513|183765124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.1||The adjusted p-value at Week 52 should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for the comparison of FF/UMEC/VI vs FF/VI at Week 52.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-1.1|-2.4|<0.001
91933521|NCT02164513|183765125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.91||The adjusted p-values should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for either of the comparisons.|Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.91|0.80|<0.001
91933522|NCT02164513|183765125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.91|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.91|0.78|<0.001
91933523|NCT02164513|183765126|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.75|||Negative binomial Model|||||0.75|0.62|<0.001
91933524|NCT02164513|183765127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.85|0.70|<0.001
91933525|NCT02164513|183765128|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01|||Negative binomial model|||||1.01|0.76|0.064
91933526|NCT02164513|183765128|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.78|||Negative binomial model|||||0.78|0.56|<0.001
91768635|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.3|-17.1|0.447
91933527|NCT05301322|183765135|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for both RSV A and RSV B NTs.|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|0.951|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|RSV A||0.951|0.785|
91933528|NCT05301322|183765135|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for both RSV A and RSV B NTs.|GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|0.943|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|RSV B||0.943|0.766|
91933529|NCT05301322|183765136|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|0.963|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: H1N1 A/Victoria||0.963|0.769|
91933530|NCT05301322|183765136|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.866|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: H3N2 A/Darwin||0.866|0.680|
91933531|NCT05301322|183765136|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.019|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: B/Austria||1.019|0.789|
91933532|NCT05301322|183765136|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|0.964|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: B/Phuket||0.964|0.779|
91933533|NCT04971785|183765141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|5.7||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|14.9|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) between each pair of treatment groups were from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) category as stratification factors.|||14.9|-3.6|0.2289
91933534|NCT04971785|183765142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.8||||0.6959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|7.4|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% CI between each pair of treatment groups presented were from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline ELF category as stratification factors.|||7.4|-11.1|0.6959
91933535|NCT04971785|183765143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|52.6|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% CI between each pair of treatment groups presented are from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline ELF category as stratification factors.|||52.6|18.8|<0.0001
91933536|NCT04971785|183765144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|26.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|40.9|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% CI between each pair of treatment groups presented were from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline ELF category as stratification factors.|||40.9|11.3|0.0006
91933537|NCT03829332|183765145|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.00624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||Hazards ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).||0.95|0.64|0.00624
91933538|NCT03829332|183765146|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.79744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.39|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region, and baseline PD-L1 status.||HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).||1.39|0.87|0.79744
91933539|NCT03829332|183765147|OTHER||Percent Difference|12.8||||0.00037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.1|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percent = 0 versus H1: difference in percent \> 0.||Percent difference and 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).||20.1|5.4|0.00037
91768636|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.3|-17.1|1.000
91768637|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.3|-17.1|1.000
91768638|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.3|-17.1|0.447
91768639|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.3|-17.1|1.000
91768640|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.3|-17.1|1.000
91768641|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||13.3|-15.5|1.000
91768642|NCT02365649|183425715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.3|-17.1|1.000
91768643|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|43.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||43.9|-57.2|1.000
91933540|NCT03829332|183765150|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-3.9||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-0.47|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||-0.47|-7.34|0.0262
91933541|NCT03829332|183765151|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-4.5||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-0.08||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.|cLDA model|||||-0.08|-8.91|0.0461
91933542|NCT03829332|183765152|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-1.1||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|2.59|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||2.59|-4.78|0.5596
91933543|NCT03829332|183765153|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-0.88||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|3.74|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||3.74|-5.49|0.7088
91933544|NCT03829332|183765154|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-3.01||||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|0.7|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||0.70|-6.71|0.1116
91933545|NCT03829332|183765155|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.33|0.75|0.9601
91933546|NCT03829332|183765156|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||0.88|0.42|0.0079
91768644|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|55.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||55.8|-9.2|0.323
91768645|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||60.0|6.7|0.516
91768646|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.7||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|14.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||14.0|-77.4|0.191
91768647|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|22.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||22.6|-26.0|1.000
91768648|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||24.0|-7.3|1.000
91811572|NCT00555321|183497804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-0.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||-0.1|-38.6|
91811573|NCT00555321|183497804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-1.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||-1.8|-39.1|
91933547|NCT03829332|183765157|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.56|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.56|0.73|0.7457
91933548|NCT03829332|183765158|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.44|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.44|0.75|0.8122
91933549|NCT03829332|183765159|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.67|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.67|0.92|0.1480
91933550|NCT03829332|183765160|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.46|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.46|0.70|0.4068
91933551|NCT05458011|183765165|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-2.66|<0.0001
91933552|NCT03292952|183765190|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91933553|NCT04656418|183765203|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Compared the time-normalized number of HAE attacks in the active and placebo arms by using a two-sided Wilcoxon test (Hierarchical Testing H01) at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91933554|NCT04656418|183765204|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Compared the time-normalized number of HAE attacks in the active and placebo arms by using a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||6 Months of treatment||||<0.001
91933555|NCT04656418|183765205|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||6 Months of treatment||||<0.001
91933556|NCT04656418|183765205|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||First 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
91933557|NCT04656418|183765205|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||Second 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
91933558|NCT04656418|183765206|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||6 Months of treatment||||<0.001
91933559|NCT04656418|183765206|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||First 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
91768649|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||60.0|6.7|0.261
91768650|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|55.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||55.8|-9.2|0.323
91811574|NCT00555321|183497804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|34.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||34.0|-8.7|
91811575|NCT00555321|183497804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|8.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||8.7|-25.2|
91811576|NCT00555321|183497804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|7.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||7.7|-26.3|
91933560|NCT04656418|183765206|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||Second 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
91933561|NCT04656418|183765207|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||First 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
91933562|NCT04656418|183765207|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||Second 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
91933563|NCT04656418|183765208|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Compared the time-normalized number of HAE attacks in the active and placebo arms by using a two-sided Wilcoxon test (Hierarchical testing H02) at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91933564|NCT02667457|183765256|OTHER|||||||0.0095||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0095
91933565|NCT02667457|183765256|OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0029
91933566|NCT02667457|183765257|OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0066
91933567|NCT02667457|183765257|OTHER|||||||0.0334||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0334
91933568|NCT02667457|183765258|OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0066
91933569|NCT02667457|183765258|OTHER|||||||0.0301||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0301
91933570|NCT02667457|183765259|OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0066
91933571|NCT02667457|183765259|OTHER|||||||0.0387||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0387
91933572|NCT02667457|183765260|OTHER|||||||0.0359||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0359
91933573|NCT02667457|183765260|OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0022
91933574|NCT02475850|183765265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06||p\<0.05 threshold (primary outcome)|Regression, Cox|multistate model accounting for death as a semi-competing risk||||1.06|0.80|0.245
91933575|NCT02475850|183765266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.83|0.99||p\< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.83|0.004
91933576|NCT02475850|183765268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least-squared means across|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.309|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.1|2.54||p \< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness||||2.54|-1.10|0.309
91933577|NCT02475850|183765269|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.59||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.8|0.93||p \< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness||||0.93|-1.80|0.528
91933578|NCT02475850|183765270|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.037|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.0|0.2||p \< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness|Difference in least-squared means across all follow-up (repeated measures: 12 months/24 months)|||0.20|-2.00|0.037
91933579|NCT02475850|183765271|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.009|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.36|-0.02||p\<0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness||||-0.02|-2.36|0.009
91933580|NCT02475850|183765272|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.897|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.38|1.25||p \<0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness|Difference in least-squared means across all follow-up (repeated measures: 12 months, 24 months)|||1.25|-1.38|0.897
91933581|NCT03097614|183765276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91933582|NCT00680953|183765280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.343||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.606|||Log Rank|||||0.606|0.194|0.0001
91933583|NCT00680953|183765281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9951|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9951
91933584|NCT00680953|183765282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1568|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1568
91933585|NCT00915538|183765285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The expected results for non-inferiority would be +/- 5% of difference between the two groups in the primary efficacy parameter.|AUC|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The cross-over means there were 16 determinants for each time for each treatment. The AUC of FEV-1 was measured in each subject for each treatment arm and the mean of this data was compared.||||0.76
91933586|NCT00915538|183765285|OTHER|Two sample T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91933587|NCT00915538|183765286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power calculation was not done for secondary parameter. The comparison was for the FEV-1/FVC expressed as fraction at each time point||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The cross over means there were 16 determinants for each time for each treatment||||0.76
91933588|NCT03864536|183765305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The statistical significance level was set using alpha of 0.05 without multiplicity correction. This pilot study was not powered for all the outcomes so the magnitude and estimates of intervention efficacy was of primary interest.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91933589|NCT03864536|183765306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The statistical significance level was set using alpha of 0.05 without multiplicity correction. This pilot study was not powered for all the outcomes so the magnitude and estimates of intervention efficacy was of primary interest.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91933590|NCT04058158|183765310|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined equivalence margin was \[-337.2 to 337.2\].|Least squares mean difference|34.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.66|116.62||||||||116.62|-47.66|
91933591|NCT04058158|183765311|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined equivalence margin was \[0.77 to 1.29\].|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.23||||||||1.23|0.95|
91933592|NCT02215616|183765312|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.78||||0.4853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|2.98||Threshold for significance at 0.045 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using Mixed Model Repeated Measures model (MMRM) with treatment group (3 levels: placebo, laquinimod 0.5 mg and laquinimod 1 mg), categorical week (4 levels: Weeks 4, 13, 26, and 52), treatment by week interaction, country, TMS baseline value and TMS baseline by week interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured variance-covariance structure was used in the initial model.||2.98|-1.42|0.4853
91933593|NCT01634113|183765314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.152||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.152|-0.312|0.4963
91933594|NCT01634113|183765314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.292|0.195||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.195|-0.292|0.6936
91933595|NCT01634113|183765316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.5995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.394||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.394|-0.229|0.5995
91933596|NCT01634113|183765316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|0.333||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.333|-0.303|0.9251
91933597|NCT01634113|183765317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.324||0.8279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.243|22.743||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||22.743|-18.243|0.8279
91768651|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|58.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||58.5|-41.8|1.000
91933598|NCT01634113|183765317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.826||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.987|18.994||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||18.994|-23.987|0.8181
91933599|NCT01634113|183765319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.283||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.283|-0.161|0.5869
91933600|NCT01634113|183765319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.156||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.156|-0.305|0.5230
91811577|NCT00555321|183497804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|21.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12.||21.1|-24.5|
91933601|NCT02062463|183765389|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|6.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using a conditional logistic regression model.||6.95|2.05|<0.001
91933602|NCT02062463|183765390|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using a conditional logistic regression model.||1.98|0.80|0.316
91933603|NCT01956240|183765420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|A 1-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess for possible differences among evaluations in each group separately for pectoralis minor length.||||||<0.05
91933604|NCT01956240|183765421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Separate 2-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used to test for interactions of angle x evaluation (1,2,3) and for main effects of evaluation.||||||>0.05
91933605|NCT03172481|183765433|OTHER|The primary efficacy analysis used a mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on the full day laboratory classroom SKAMP-C scores from each time point as the dependent variable. The repeated measures model adjusted means (LS-means) for PRC-063 and placebo were compared statistically using a t-test with an overall 5% significance level to evaluate efficacy. The LS-means estimate an overall treatment effect across the entire 13-hour classroom evaluation.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91933606|NCT01061736|183765449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.64||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived. The multiplicity issues were addressed by using the Hommel-procedure.||4.64|0.85|0.1155
91811578|NCT00555321|183497804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-1.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-1.9|-40.5|
91933607|NCT01061736|183765449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|9.63||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.63|1.53|0.0041
91933608|NCT01061736|183765449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.61||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.61|0.52|0.7119
91811579|NCT00555321|183497804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|-4.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-4.3|-41.8|
91811580|NCT02480439|183497820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8747|1.0668|||||Relative Bioavailability A/B. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0668|0.8747|
91768652|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.7||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|23.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||23.9|-77.2|0.593
91933609|NCT01061736|183765449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.35||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.35|1.06|0.0363
91933610|NCT01061736|183765449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|5.29||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.29|1.03|0.0426
91933611|NCT01061736|183765450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.773|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|3.703||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo was derived. The multiplicity issues for part B were addressed by using a Bonferroni correction for each dose together with a hierarchical testing procedure across the 3 co-primary and the main secondary endpoints. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||3.703|2.077|<0.0001
91933612|NCT01061736|183765450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.975|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.957|5.344||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.344|2.957|<0.0001
91933613|NCT01061736|183765451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|-0.157||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Differences in least square (LS) mean between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived. Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.157|-0.312|<0.0001
91933614|NCT01061736|183765451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.258|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|-0.181||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.181|-0.336|<0.0001
91933615|NCT01061736|183765452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Rank ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using two-sided rank-based ANCOVA model. Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only when the previous endpoints were statistically significant).||||<0.0001
91933616|NCT01061736|183765452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Rank ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91933617|NCT01061736|183765453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.661|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.451|8.863||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived. Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only when the previous endpoints were statistically significant).||8.863|2.451|<0.0001
91933618|NCT01061736|183765453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.565|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.946|10.515||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.515|2.946|<0.0001
91768653|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|55.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||55.8|-9.2|0.323
91933619|NCT01093755|183765464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 3 months||||0.30
91933620|NCT01093755|183765464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 6 months||||0.52
91933621|NCT01093755|183765465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 3 months||||0.70
91933622|NCT01093755|183765465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 6 months||||0.64
91933623|NCT03115112|183765466|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of 0.35% was determined based on a reference clinical trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of sitagliptin, 100 mg, compared to placebo on HbA1c reduction in subjects with type 2 DM. A margin of 0.35% was selected to be approximately half of sitagliptin effect and remained clinically meaningful.|Difference of LS Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.22|||||Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.|||0.22|-0.07|
91933624|NCT03115112|183765467|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.05|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Covariate includes region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline FPG value as a fixed effect covariate.||||-0.05|-0.70|0.0123
91933625|NCT03115112|183765468|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.92|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Included region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline body weight value as fixed effect covariate.||||-1.92|-3.15|<0.0001
91933626|NCT03115112|183765469|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-2.33||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.05|||t-test, 1 sided|p value was presented based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Included region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline body weight value as fixed effect covariate.|||0.05|-4.70|0.0276
91933627|NCT02093234|183765474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91933628|NCT02093234|183765475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91811581|NCT02480439|183497820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.9223|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8352|1.0185|||||Relative Bioavailability B/C. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0185|0.8352|
91933629|NCT02093234|183765476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91933630|NCT02093234|183765477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.02
91933631|NCT01170702|183765525|NON_INFERIORITY|The non inferiority margin is clinically important reduction in 24 hour hydromorphone consumption of 25%, 37.5% and 50% absolute reduction, compared with control.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.975|1.25|1.25|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||1.25|1.25|.05
91933632|NCT06964165|183765557|OTHER||Difference in pre-IDS ORR|-39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.8|-17.7||||||||-17.7|-56.8|
91933633|NCT01551758|183765568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|0.92|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.99|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.99|0.85|=0.025
91933634|NCT01551758|183765569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the incidence ratio is less than 2.|Incidence ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||||Calculated as % of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the FF/VI group divided by the % of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the Usual Care group|||1.5|0.9|
91933635|NCT01551758|183765570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.08||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.47|||Generalized linear model|||||1.47|0.79|0.632
91933636|NCT01551758|183765571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.52|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.52|0.83|=0.439
91933637|NCT01551758|183765572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.06||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Generalized linear model|||||1.27|0.89|0.488
91933638|NCT01551758|183765573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|0.98||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.05|||Generalized linear model|||||1.05|0.92|0.622
91933639|NCT01551758|183765574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.05||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.15|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.15|0.95|0.336
91933640|NCT01551758|183765575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.2|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.20|1.05|<0.001
91933641|NCT01551758|183765576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.23|||Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care.|||2.23|1.60|<0.001
91933642|NCT01551758|183765577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.66|||Cox proprotional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care|||0.66|0.37|<0.001
91933643|NCT01551758|183765578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02|||Cox porportional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care|||1.02|0.85|0.111
91933644|NCT01551758|183765579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01|||Cox porportional hazards model|||||1.01|0.84|0.081
91933645|NCT01551758|183765580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.66|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.66|0.98|0.075
91933646|NCT00781963|183765623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep onset latency from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||-3.0|-28.7|<.001
91933647|NCT00781963|183765624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in wake after sleep onset from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||5.9|-26.3|0.21
91933648|NCT00781963|183765625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in total wake time from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||-11.7|-62.2|0.004
91933649|NCT00781963|183765626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||11.3|2.0|.005
91933650|NCT00781963|183765627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency (from wrist actigraphy) from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||0.5|-3.3|0.15
91933651|NCT00781963|183765628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in PSQI score from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||-1.3|-3.5|<.001
91933652|NCT02700919|183765629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Log Rank|||Change from Baseline on Day 7||||0.012
91933653|NCT02700919|183765629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Change from Baseline on Day 7||||<0.001
91933654|NCT02700919|183765629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Log Rank|||Change from Baseline on Day 7||||0.102
91933655|NCT02700919|183765629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.107|-0.053|0.507
91933656|NCT02700919|183765629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.136|-0.021|0.148
91933657|NCT02700919|183765629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.048|-0.109|0.443
91933658|NCT02700919|183765633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.399
91811582|NCT02480439|183497821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.9998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.0477|||||Relative Bioavailability A/B. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0477|0.9540|
91933659|NCT02700919|183765633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.091
91933660|NCT02700919|183765633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.437
91933661|NCT02700919|183765637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.720
91933662|NCT02700919|183765637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.298
91933663|NCT02700919|183765637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.470
91933664|NCT00421603|183765665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat sample of all randomized patients. All statistical tests were 2-tailed and employed at a significance level of 5%, unless otherwise stated. The original sample size of 120 patients was chosen to ensure sufficient power (at least 80%) of a two-sided test with level of significance α=0.05 for detecting difference between the two experimental treatments with respect to the percentage of subjects who achieve continuous 3-weeks abstinence.|||||=|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The dichotomous primary outcome was analyzed using logistic regression with independent predictors: treatment (MAS-ER and topiramate vs. placebo) and adjusted for baseline severity of cocaine use (total number of cocaine use days in the 28 days prior to randomization).||||=.05
91933665|NCT01231607|183765719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|22.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-4.4|48.4|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the dutasteride 0.02 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||48.4|-4.4|0.046
91933666|NCT01231607|183765719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|67.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|41.6|94.2|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the dutasteride 0.1 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||94.2|41.6|<0.001
91933667|NCT01231607|183765719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|94.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|67.8|121.0|||General linear model|Each dose of dutasteride independently analyzed for comparison against placebo using a general linear model.|Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the dutasteride 0.5 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||121.0|67.8|<0.001
91933668|NCT01231607|183765719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|61.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|34.4|88.4|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||88.4|34.4|<0.001
91933669|NCT01231607|183765719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Differences between dutasteride (DUT) and finasteride (FIN) were assessed using a general linear model (GLM) adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL hair count (HC). The one-sided 99.165% confidence interval (CI) for DUT minus FIN was derived, and noninferiority (NI) demonstrated if the lower end of the CI was greater than -35 hairs. If NI was achieved with a dose of DUT, the primary endpoint was to be analyzed for superiority against FIN using a GLM adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL HC.|Least squares mean difference|-39.4|||<|0.001||99.165|-66.1|-12.7|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.02 mg LS mean.|||-12.7|-66.1|<0.001
91768654|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|58.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||58.5|-41.8|1.000
91811583|NCT02480439|183497821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.0149|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9685|1.0636|||||Relative Bioavailability B/C. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0636|0.9685|
91933670|NCT01231607|183765719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Differences between dutasteride (DUT) and finasteride (FIN) were assessed using a general linear model (GLM) adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL hair count (HC). The one-sided 99.165% confidence interval (CI) for DUT minus FIN was derived, and noninferiority (NI) demonstrated if the lower end of the CI was greater than -35 hairs. If NI was achieved with a dose of DUT, the primary endpoint was to be analyzed for superiority against FIN using a GLM adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL HC.|Least squares mean difference|6.5||||0.28||99.165|-20.1|33.1|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.1 mg LS mean.|||33.1|-20.1|0.28
91933671|NCT01231607|183765719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Differences between dutasteride (DUT) and finasteride (FIN) were assessed using a general linear model (GLM) adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL hair count (HC). The one-sided 99.165% confidence interval (CI) for DUT minus FIN was derived, and noninferiority (NI) demonstrated if the lower end of the CI was greater than -35 hairs. If NI was achieved with a dose of DUT, the primary endpoint was to be analyzed for superiority against FIN using a GLM adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL HC.|Least squares mean difference|33.0||||0.002||99.165|6.1|60.0|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.5 mg LS mean.|||60|6.1|0.002
91811584|NCT02480439|183497822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.9992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9541|1.0464|||||Relative Bioavailability A/B. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0464|0.9541|
91768655|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|66.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||66.5|-23.1|0.600
91768656|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.7||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|65.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||65.2|-1.9|0.162
91933672|NCT01231607|183765719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-66.1|-12.7|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.02 mg LS mean.|||-12.7|-66.1|<0.001
91933673|NCT01231607|183765719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|6.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-20.1|33.1|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.1 mg LS mean.|||33.1|-20.1|0.56
91933674|NCT01231607|183765719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|33.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|98.33|6.1|60.0|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.5 mg LS mean.|||60|6.1|0.003
91933675|NCT01709786|183765739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bland-Altman Analysis|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is not reported since Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|Limits of agreement||Limits of agreement are -2.02 to 5.00. This is not a confidence interval because Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|||||
91933676|NCT01709786|183765740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Limits of agreement|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|||||p-value not reported since Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|Bland-Altman Analysis||Limits of agreement are -3.44 to 2.18. This is not a confidence interval because Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|||||
91933677|NCT03779334|183765746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial Test|Performance Criterion = 5%||||||<0.0001
91933678|NCT06533475|183765774|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9624|1.076|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated: Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)/ Minzasolmin Capsule (Fasted)|||1.076|0.9624|
91933679|NCT06533475|183765774|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.024|1.13|||||"The GLSM ratio was calculated as:~Minzasolmin Tablet (Fed)/Minzasolmin Tablet (Fasted)."|||1.130|1.024|
91933680|NCT06533475|183765775|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9649|1.078|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as: Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)/ Minzasolmin Capsule (Fasted)|||1.078|0.9649|
91768657|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|67.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||67.4|-34.1|1.000
91933681|NCT06533475|183765775|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.021|1.127|||||"The GLSM ratio was calculated as:~Minzasolmin Tablet (Fed)/Minzasolmin Tablet (Fasted)."|||1.127|1.021|
91933682|NCT06533475|183765776|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|0.9771||||||90.0|0.7966|1.199|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as: Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)/ Minzasolmin Capsule (Fasted)|||1.199|0.7966|
91933683|NCT06533475|183765776|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|1.299|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as: Minzasolmin tablet (Fed)/ Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)|||1.299|0.7940|
91933684|NCT01082367|183765809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|99.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.52|4.67|<0.001
91933685|NCT00664755|183765812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|6.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.59|1.17|0.011
91811585|NCT02480439|183497822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.0134|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9676|1.0612|||||Relative Bioavailability B/C. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0612|0.9676|
91933686|NCT02307838|183765820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.59||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-1.07|0.0155
91933687|NCT00865189|183765865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Binomial test|||This proportion was described for each treatment arm with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and compared with the standard proportion of 10% (CI) for each treatment arm.||||0.015
91933688|NCT00865189|183765865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||Binomial test|||This proportion was described for each treatment arm with a 95% CI and compared with the standard proportion of 10% (CI) using for each treatment arm.||||0.906
91933689|NCT01658579|183765877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.179||0.7304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.614|5.124|||Linear Mixed Model|||Analysis was performed using a linear mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects, and participant as random effect.||5.124|-3.614|0.7304
91933690|NCT03641547|183765887|OTHER||Post prob of tox at dose level 6|0.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.165||||||The primary analysis is performed using the Time-To-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TiTE-CRM). Giving posterior estimates for the probability of toxicity (DLT) at each dose level.||0.165|0|
91933691|NCT03641547|183765888|OTHER||Post prob of tox at dose level 4|0.185|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.397||||||The primary analysis is performed using the Time-To-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TiTE CRM). Giving posterior estimates for the probability of toxicity (DLT) at each dose level.||0.397|0.042|
91933692|NCT02767856|183765899|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not enroll enough samples. The stats here are only for reference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and primary visit outcome||0.16|-0.08|0.48
91933693|NCT02767856|183765900|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not reach the target sample size. the stats are for reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.99|-0.75|0.26
91933694|NCT02767856|183765901|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not reach the target sample size. The stats are for reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|74.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||74.20|-21.75|0.26
91933695|NCT02767856|183765902|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not reach the target sample size. The stats are for reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|19.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.3|-41.3|0.44
91933696|NCT00418379|183765914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
91933697|NCT00418379|183765914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
91933698|NCT05127044|183765919|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.81438645|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol-Correlation Coefficient-R Value||||
91933699|NCT05127044|183765919|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.85442277|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
91933700|NCT05127044|183765919|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.0758872|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
91933701|NCT05127044|183765919|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.7929338|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
91933702|NCT05127044|183765919|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.86294585|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
91933703|NCT05127044|183765920|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between hemoglobin concentration and weight.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.2184||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.1544
91933704|NCT05127044|183765920|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between hemoglobin concentration and gestational age.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.3909||||0.0087|||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.0087
91933705|NCT05127044|183765920|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and sex as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0252||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3038
91933706|NCT05127044|183765920|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and ethnicity as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0213||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6434
91933707|NCT05127044|183765920|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and weight as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0477||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1544
91933708|NCT05127044|183765920|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and gestational age as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.1528||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0087
91933709|NCT05127044|183765921|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between melanin concentration and weight.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.1552||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.3143
91933710|NCT05127044|183765921|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between melanin concentration and gestational age.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.0832||||0.5914|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.5914
91933711|NCT05127044|183765921|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and sex as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.000665||||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.868
91933712|NCT05127044|183765921|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and ethnicity as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.574||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
91933713|NCT05127044|183765921|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and weight as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0241||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3143
91933714|NCT05127044|183765921|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and gestational age as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0069||||0.5914|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5914
91933715|NCT05127044|183765922|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between bilirubin concentration and weight.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.0353||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.8203
91933716|NCT05127044|183765922|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between bilirubin concentration and gestational age.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.595||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.0001
91933717|NCT05127044|183765922|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and sex as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0363||||0.2156|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2156
91933718|NCT05127044|183765922|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and ethnicity as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.2172||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0066
91933719|NCT05127044|183765922|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and weight as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.00124||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8203
91933720|NCT05127044|183765922|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and gestational age as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.354||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
91933721|NCT00400712|183765952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||||0.44
91933722|NCT00400712|183765953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.83
91933723|NCT00400712|183765954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA - comparing absolute measures and including baseline as co-variate||||0.45
91933724|NCT00400712|183765955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values||||||0.72
91933725|NCT00400712|183765956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|controlled for baseline values||||||0.60
91933726|NCT00400712|183765957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.66
91933727|NCT00400712|183765958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.78
91933728|NCT00414960|183766084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.64|5.83||P-value is for comparison of change from baseline between enzastaurin and placebo group.|2-sample pooled t-test||Using placebo as a reference group, the mean difference = enzastaurin minus placebo.|||5.83|-10.64|0.556
91933729|NCT00363246|183766099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Health Status. No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.049
91933730|NCT00363246|183766099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain in last 4 weeks (interference with daily activities). No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.013
91933731|NCT00363246|183766099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain when transfer. No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.0001
91933732|NCT00363246|183766099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy level. No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.009
91768658|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|77.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||77.2|-50.5|1.000
91933733|NCT00363246|183766100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|We used chi-squared test for categorical variable (most variables) and t-test (2-sided) for continuous variables (few variables).||Health Status. No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||0.033
91933734|NCT00363246|183766100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain in last 4 weeks (interference with daily activities). No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||0.013
91933735|NCT00363246|183766100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain when transfer. No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||<0.001
91933736|NCT00363246|183766100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy level. No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||0.007
91933737|NCT00383721|183766169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91933738|NCT00383721|183766169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91768659|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||70.8|-100.0|1.000
91933739|NCT00383721|183766170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.062
91933740|NCT00383721|183766170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.583|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.583
91933741|NCT00383721|183766171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.020
91933742|NCT00383721|183766171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91933743|NCT00132314|183766179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.2|||Log Rank|||Time-to-event analysis; The primary outcome hypothesis is tested using a two-sided log-rank test to compare the hazard rate for the IM treatment group to that for the oral treatment group.||1.20|0.63|0.39
91933744|NCT00132314|183766180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.2||95% Confidence Interval: 0.63 to 1.20|Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.63|
91933745|NCT00698035|183766250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline estradiol between LC/MS and RIA||||>0.05
91933746|NCT00698035|183766250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||singificant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of week 4 estradiol between LC/MS and RIA||||>0.05
91933747|NCT00698035|183766253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SI from BL to W12||||0.021
91933748|NCT00698035|183766253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SD from BL to W12||||<0.001
91933749|NCT00698035|183766253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0228||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SI from BL to W12||||0.0228
91933750|NCT00698035|183766253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SD from BL to W12||||<0.001
91933751|NCT00698035|183766254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SS from Baseline to Week 12||||0.004
91933752|NCT00698035|183766254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SS from Baseline to Week 12||||0.139
91933753|NCT00698035|183766255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in rugae, pallor, petechiae, mucosal thinning and dryness between baseline and week 12||||<0.001
91933754|NCT00698035|183766255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in rugae, pallor, mucosal thinning, and dryness from baseline to 12 weeks||||<0.001
91768660|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||86.7|-20.0|1.000
91768661|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.9|2.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||2.9|-82.9|0.464
91768662|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||19.3|-100.0|0.400
91768663|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-46.7||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|17.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||17.2|-100.0|0.464
91933755|NCT00698035|183766255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in petechiae between baseline and week 12||||0.0061
91933756|NCT00654953|183766264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom for medication group = 2 (group)||The analysis tested the null hypothesis of no difference among groups in terms of the # of days to relapse (first two conseqcutively positive urines) using ANOVA.||||0.05
91933757|NCT05137730|183766337|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7109|0.8611|||||Least squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from the linear mixed effects model.|||0.8611|0.7109|
91933758|NCT05137730|183766338|OTHER||Dose effect|1.5395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2929|1.7862||||||A linear regression model was used, including sequence and period as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and ln(dose) as a covariate.||1.7862|1.2929|
91933759|NCT05137730|183766339|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7576|0.9375|||||LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from the linear mixed effects model.|||0.9375|0.7576|
91768664|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||70.8|-100.0|1.000
91768665|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||86.7|-20.0|1.000
91768666|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.1|41.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||41.8|-95.1|1.000
91768667|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||70.8|-100.0|1.000
91933760|NCT05137730|183766340|OTHER||Dose effect|1.2823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0431|1.5215||||||A linear regression model using was used, including sequence and period as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and ln(dose) as a covariate.||1.5215|1.0431|
91768668|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||86.7|-20.0|1.000
91768669|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|50.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.5|-77.2|1.000
91933761|NCT05137730|183766341|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7462|0.8893|||||LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from the linear mixed effects model.|||0.8893|0.7462|
91933762|NCT05137730|183766342|OTHER||Dose effect|1.0937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0763|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.2493||||||A linear regression model was used, including sequence and period as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and ln(dose) as a covariate.||1.2493|0.9380|
91933763|NCT01840228|183766347|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.91|||Chi-squared|||||1.91|0.63|0.74
91933764|NCT01840228|183766348|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.36|||Fisher Exact|||||1.36|0.14|0.13
91933765|NCT01840228|183766349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.43|||Fisher Exact|||||4.43|0.51|0.71
91933766|NCT01840228|183766350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91768670|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||100.0|-70.8|1.000
91768671|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||100.0|13.3|1.000
91768672|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|40.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||40.4|-33.8|1.000
91768673|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||48.5|-15.2|0.408
91768674|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|57.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||57.2|9.5|0.266
91768675|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.2|-0.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||-0.5|-66.2|0.121
91768676|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||-10|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||14.6|-34.6|-10.0
91768677|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||19.3|-6.0|1.000
91768678|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|31.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||31.9|-45.3|1.000
91768679|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||48.5|-15.2|0.408
91768680|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|55.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||55.7|-29.1|1.000
91811586|NCT00824512|183497856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment performed for this study and all statistical tests are two-sided at the 5% significance level.|Non parametric ANCOVA on the rank test|The baseline value was used as a covariate.||||||0.9133
91933767|NCT01413542|183766393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of Difference||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of ACE inhibition on FBF response to bradykinin (p\<0.001). Other comparisons: Effect of DPP4 inhibition on FBF response to bradykinin (p=0.89); Effect of ACE (p=0.16), DPP4 (p=0.82), or combined inhibition (p=0.35) on FBF response to sub P.|Mixed Models Analysis|"Effect of DPP4 inhibition on vasodilator response to GLP-1 (p=0.14) or BNP (p=0.85).~p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance."||"Group 1: The effect of treatment (placebo, ACE or DPP4 inhibitor, or the combination) on vasodilator response to peptide, measured as forearm blood flow was determined.~Group 2: The effect of treatment (placebo, DPP4 inhibitor) on vasodilator response to peptide, measured as percent change in forearm blood flow was determined."||||<0.001
91933768|NCT01413542|183766394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of DPP4 inhibition on tPA release during sub P in women (p=0.02 vs. placebo).Effect of ACE inhibition on tPA release during sub P in women (p\<0.001); effect of DPP4 inhibition on tPA release during sub P and (p=0.001 vs. ACE inhibition alone).|Mixed Models Analysis|p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance||||||0.02
91933769|NCT01413542|183766395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of combined ACE and DPP4 inhibition on change in heart rate in response to max dose substance P (p=0.011 vs placebo; ).|Wilcoxon signed rank|p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance.||||||0.011
91933770|NCT01413542|183766396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of combined DPP4 and ACE inhibition on the change in the norepinephrine AV gradient during substance P as compared to treatment with placebo.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.05
91933771|NCT01413542|183766396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of combined DPP4 and ACE inhibition on the change in the norepinephrine AV gradient during substance P as compared to treatment with ACE inhibition alone (p=0.007).|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.007
91933772|NCT01413542|183766397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of intra-arterial GLP-1 on venous GLP-1 concentrations during placebo (p=0.01).|wilxocon signed rank test|||||||0.01
91933773|NCT01413542|183766397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of intra-arterial GLP-1 on venous GLP-1 concentrations during sitagliptin (p=0.01).|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.01
91933774|NCT01413542|183766397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of DPP4 inhibition on venous GLP-1 levels at high dose of intra-arterial GLP-1 (p=0.04 vs. placebo).|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.04
91933775|NCT01148563|183766398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||bootstrapping||The hypothesis test was based on ln(relative risk), with the tele-monitoring group value as the relative risk numerator and the control group value as the denominator. The standard error was generated by bootstrapping the sample.|||0.05|-0.65|0.094
91933776|NCT01148563|183766399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.08|||bootstrapping|The standard error was generated by bootstrapping the sample.|The hypothesis test was based on ln(relative risk) with the tele-monitoring group value as the numerator and the control group as the denominator.|||1.08|0.45|0.105
91933777|NCT01879319|183766402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.1||||||||6.1|-11.2|
91933778|NCT01879319|183766403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|9.7||||||||9.7|-2.9|
91933779|NCT00084929|183766406|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|0.933||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves were estimated with the use of data pooled from the radiologists because of the small number of positive cases reviewed by each radiologist.||0.933|0.853|
91933780|NCT00084929|183766406|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|0.96|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|"Sensitivity, for each radiologist, was calculated as the percentage of patients with lesions that were larger than or equal to the prespecified threshold and that were detected on both colonoscopy and CT colonography.~The per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were first estimated for each radiologist, and then the average values among the radiologists were calculated."||0.96|0.838|
91933781|NCT00084929|183766406|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|0.9|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|Specificity, for each radiologist, was calculated as the percentage of patients who did not have lesions larger than the prespecified threshold on colonoscopy as well as CT colonography The per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were first estimated for each radiologist, and then the average values among the radiologists were calculated.||0.9|0.813|
91933782|NCT00084929|183766406|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.273|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|Positive Predictive Value (PPV) the positive predictive value was calculated as the percentage of patients with CT colonographic findings that were also seen on colonoscopy||0.273|0.194|
91933783|NCT00084929|183766406|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|0.998|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|Negative Predictive Value (NPV) the negative predictive value was calculated as the percentage of patients with no CT colonographic findings larger than the prespecified threshold that were not detected on colonoscopy.||0.998|0.990|
91933784|NCT00084929|183766407|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|0.93||||||"Accuracy: ROC analysis CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.93|0.853|
91933785|NCT00084929|183766407|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|0.96|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|"Sensitivity CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.96|0.832|
91933786|NCT00084929|183766407|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|0.902|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|"Specificity CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.902|0.817|
91933787|NCT00084929|183766407|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|0.292||||||"Positive Predictive Value (PPV) CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.292|0.209|
91933788|NCT00084929|183766407|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|0.998||||||"Negative Predictive Value (NPV) CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.998|0.990|
91933789|NCT00084929|183766408|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|0.913||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.913|0.842|
91933790|NCT00084929|183766408|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|0.929|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.929|0.803|
91933791|NCT00084929|183766408|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|0.909|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.909|0.825|
91933792|NCT00084929|183766408|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.355||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.355|0.256|
91933793|NCT00084929|183766408|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.994||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.994|0.984|
91933794|NCT00084929|183766409|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|0.902||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.902|0.833|
91933795|NCT00084929|183766409|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|0.912|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.912|0.776|
91933796|NCT00084929|183766409|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|0.914|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.914|0.831|
91933797|NCT00084929|183766409|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.397||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.397|0.299|
91933798|NCT00084929|183766409|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|0.992||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.992|0.980|
91933799|NCT00084929|183766410|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.878||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.878|0.810|
91933800|NCT00084929|183766410|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|0.849|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.849|0.711|
91933801|NCT00084929|183766410|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.92|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.92|0.840|
91933802|NCT00084929|183766410|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|0.463||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.463|0.335|
91933803|NCT00084929|183766410|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|0.984||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.984|0.971|
91933804|NCT00084929|183766411|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.828||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.828|0.763|
91933805|NCT00084929|183766411|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|0.727|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.727|0.579|
91933806|NCT00084929|183766411|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|0.923|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.923|0.851|
91933807|NCT00084929|183766411|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|0.513||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.513|0.389|
91933808|NCT00084929|183766411|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|0.965||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.965|0.941|
91933809|NCT00084929|183766412|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion (\>=10mm))||||
91933810|NCT00084929|183766413|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion (\>=9mm))||||
91933811|NCT00084929|183766414|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=8mm)||||
91933812|NCT00084929|183766415|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=7mm)||||
91933813|NCT00084929|183766416|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=6mm)||||
91933814|NCT00084929|183766417|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=5mm)||||
91933815|NCT00091026|183766425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|14.0|||Chi-squared|||||14|-13|0.22
91933816|NCT00091026|183766426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.95
91933817|NCT00091026|183766427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.86
91933818|NCT00065442|183766428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.775||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.979|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with treatment, PSA (ln), and LDH (ln) as the independent variables, stratified by randomization strata.|sipuleucel-T/placebo|||0.979|0.614|0.032
91933819|NCT00065442|183766428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|0.965|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization strata.|Cox regression model with treatment as the independent variable, stratified by randomization strata (sipuleucel-T/placebo)|||0.965|0.608|0.023
91933820|NCT00065442|183766429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.951||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.169|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization strata|Cox regression model with treatment as the independent variable, stratified by randomization strata|||1.169|0.773|0.628
91933821|NCT01797965|183766446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5937|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 12||||0.5937
91933822|NCT01797965|183766446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6233|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 24||||0.6233
91933823|NCT01797965|183766446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1884|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 48||||0.1884
91933824|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0204|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 301||||0.0204
91933825|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 301||||0.0805
91933826|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2535|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 36 for 301||||0.2535
91933827|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4738|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 301||||0.4738
91933828|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2302|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 60 for 301||||0.2302
91933829|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8522|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 72 for 301||||0.8522
91933830|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0431|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 84 for 301||||0.0431
91933831|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0339|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 96 for 301||||0.0339
91933832|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3195|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 108 for 301||||0.3195
91933833|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2119|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 120 for 301||||0.2119
91933834|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3619|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 132 for 301||||0.3619
91768681|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.7||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.3|11.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||11.9|-65.3|0.241
91933835|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 144 for 301||||0.0170
91933836|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Baseline 303||||0.0170
91933837|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 303||||0.0849
91933838|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 303||||0.0057
91933839|NCT01797965|183766447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 303||||0.3960
91933840|NCT01797965|183766449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.902||||0.8417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|2.473|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for the baseline relapse rate, history of prior IFN beta use (yes/no), baseline EDSS (\<=2.5 vs \>2.5) and baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35).||||2.473|0.329|0.8417
91933841|NCT01797965|183766471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3813|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 12||||0.3813
91933842|NCT01797965|183766471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1679|||||||ANOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 24||||0.1679
91933843|NCT01797965|183766471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5634|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 48||||0.5634
91933844|NCT01797965|183766471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7003|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 144||||0.7003
91933845|NCT01797965|183766471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7812|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 168||||0.7812
91933846|NCT01797965|183766471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3246|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 192||||0.3246
91933847|NCT01797965|183766471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6423|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 216||||0.6423
91933848|NCT01797965|183766471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0288|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 240||||0.0288
91933849|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2567|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 301||||0.2567
91933850|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6152|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 301||||0.6152
91933851|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2024|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 36 for 301||||0.2024
91933852|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9988|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 301||||0.9988
91933853|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7962|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 60 for 301||||0.7962
91933854|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8486|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 72 for 301||||0.8486
91933855|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4478|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 84 for 301||||0.4478
91933856|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 96 for 301||||0.3250
91933857|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 108 for 301||||0.1290
91933858|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7295|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 120 for 301||||0.7295
91811587|NCT02622321|183497886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.277||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (less than \[\<\] 9 or greater than or equal to \[\>/=\] 9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.277|0.057|<0.0001
91933859|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8647|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 132 for 301||||0.8647
91933860|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2183|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 144 for 301||||0.2183
91933861|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3945|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Baseline 303||||0.3945
91933862|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5068|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 303||||0.5068
91933863|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1669|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 303||||0.1669
91933864|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5038|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 303||||0.5038
91933865|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 144 for 303||||0.6001
91933866|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8617|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 168 for 303||||0.8617
91933867|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 192 for 303||||0.2590
91933868|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5159|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 216 for 303||||0.5159
91933869|NCT01797965|183766472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6123|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 240 for 303||||0.6123
91933870|NCT01764256|183766473|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence: p\<0.05||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects with at least one unsolicited adverse event (related or unrelated)||||0.44
91933871|NCT01764256|183766473|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence: p\<0.05||||||0.7446|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects with at least one unsolicited adverse event: potentially related||||0.7446
91933872|NCT01764256|183766474|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||0.5694|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||0.5694
91933873|NCT01764256|183766474|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic reaction)||||1.0000
91933874|NCT01764256|183766474|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.0000
91933875|NCT01764256|183766475|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||0.6004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||0.6004
91933876|NCT01764256|183766475|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic reaction)||||1
91933877|NCT01764256|183766475|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.00
91933878|NCT01764256|183766476|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||1.0000
91933879|NCT01764256|183766476|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic)||||1.0000
91933880|NCT01764256|183766476|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.0000
91933881|NCT01764256|183766477|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||1.0000
91933882|NCT01764256|183766477|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic)||||1.0000
91933883|NCT01764256|183766477|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.0000
91933884|NCT00304915|183766482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.37|0.003
91933885|NCT00973921|183766531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.0|||Wilson|||The 95% confidence Interval (CI) of the primary outcome has been calculated using the Wilson method of estimating the CI of a single proportion||1.0|0.86|<0.01
91933886|NCT00973921|183766532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.74|||<|0.0001|||||||Bland Altman|||||||<0.0001
91933887|NCT00973921|183766534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.5||||0.0034|||||||Bland-Altman|||||||0.0034
91768682|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||48.5|-15.2|0.408
91768683|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|55.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||55.7|-29.1|1.000
91768684|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|36.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||36.6|-43.3|1.000
91933888|NCT00230100|183766535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Implemented a general mixed model analysis of variance (MMANOVA), which models the means per group over the respective time period and the covariance between the repeated measures over the assessments. The MMANOVA approach estimates a separate mean for each phase of treatment per group. The MMANOVA is called a mixed model because it includes both fixed (e.g., treatment, gender) and random (subject-specific) terms. MMANOVA allows for randomly missing observations (not included in analysis)."||||<0.05
91933889|NCT00230100|183766536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Implemented a general mixed model analysis of variance (MMANOVA), which models the means per group over the respective time period and the covariance between the repeated measures over the assessments. The MMANOVA approach estimates a separate mean for each phase of treatment per group. The MMANOVA is called a mixed model because it includes both fixed (e.g., treatment, gender) and random (subject-specific) terms. MMANOVA allows for randomly missing observations (not included in analysis)."||||<0.05
91933890|NCT00230100|183766537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Implemented a general mixed model analysis of variance (MMANOVA), which models the means per group over the respective time period and the covariance between the repeated measures over the assessments. The MMANOVA approach estimates a separate mean for each phase of treatment per group. The MMANOVA is called a mixed model because it includes both fixed (e.g., treatment, gender) and random (subject-specific) terms. MMANOVA allows for randomly missing observations (not included in analysis)."||||<0.05
91933891|NCT00230100|183766538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was hypothesized that the single-gender group composition and women-focused group content (WRG) would result in better substance abuse treatment outcomes (lower ASI alcohol composite scores) than standard mixed-gender group treatment (GDC).||||<0.05
91933892|NCT00230100|183766539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.009
91933893|NCT04348591|183766546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.029||This p value corresponds to the main effect for experimental group; a-priori threshold was .012|Mixed Models Analysis|||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined main effects of experimental group, instruction provided, headache, racial background, and type of neurostimulation administered. HF-HRV was transformed using an lg function for normality.||.029|-.12|.221
91933894|NCT04348591|183766546|SUPERIORITY|This is a within subject analysis that uses data across groups, controlling for the effect of neurostimulation alone, coil to cortex distance, and racial background|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison between sham neurostimulation and high frequency neurostimulation||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance examined the main effect of type of neurostimulation provided||.103|.016|.008
91933895|NCT04348591|183766546|SUPERIORITY|The analysis controls for coil to cortex distance, racial background and effect of neurostimulation alone. It compares sham stimulation with low frequency neurostimulation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined the main effect of type of neurostimulation provided.||.111|.029|.001
91933896|NCT04348591|183766547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.689|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the result for the main effect found of group (emotion dysregulation group versus misophonia)|A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined changes in SCL between groups, experimental types of neurostimulation, and their interaction, controlling for baseline, racial background, coil to cortex distance, and headache||.689|-.243|.34
91933897|NCT04348591|183766547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the main effect of neurostimulation condition. Specifically here we show the difference in estimated marginal means between sham and HF-rTMS||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined changes in SCL between groups, experimental types of neurostimulation, and their interaction, controlling for baseline, racial background, coil to cortex distance, and headache||.787|.198|.001
91933898|NCT04348591|183766547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the main effect of neurostimulation administered, specifically comparing estimated marginal means for sham and LF-rTMS||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined changes in SCL between groups, experimental types of neurostimulation, and their interaction, controlling for baseline, racial background, coil to cortex distance, and headache||.757|.182|.002
91768685|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|62.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||62.9|-2.9|0.217
91768686|NCT02365649|183425716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|69.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||69.9|-16.5|0.603
91933899|NCT04348591|183766547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||mean difference between sham and HF-rTMS for misophonia participants only when downregulating misophonic sounds|The investigators tested the interaction between experimental neurostimulation (sham, active high frequency rTMS, active low frequency rTMS), instruction provided (listen to neutral sound; listen to aversive sound, listen to misophonic sound, downregulate aversive sound, downregulate misophonic sound), and group (misophonic, clinical control) as part of the same MMANOVA analysis described above (i.e., controlling for coil-to-cortex distance, racial background, baseline, \& presence of headache).||||.0005
91933900|NCT04348591|183766549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09853||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14149|0.25411|||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences between groups in BOLD bilateral dlPFC signal during the regulation of misophonic versus aversive sounds. One outlier was removed from the misophonia group to avoid violating the normality assumption.||.25411|-.14149|.57
91933901|NCT04348591|183766550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131419||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22667|0.301257|||t-test, 2 sided|50 degrees of freedom||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences between groups in vmPFC activation that was greater when downregulating misophonic versus non-misophonic distress. One participant from each group was excluded for being an outlier||0.301257|-0.226670|.778
91933902|NCT04348591|183766551|SUPERIORITY||z score|4.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects whole-brain using cluster|||Mixed effects (FSL's FLAME 1; Oxford Univ., UK) whole brain analyses using cluster correction following a voxel-wise Z-score threshold of 2.3.||||<.05
91933903|NCT04348591|183766552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.766|0.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the main effect from the MMANOVA analysis for group difference.||The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||.372|-.766|.49
91933904|NCT04348591|183766552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.97||This p-value corresponds to the difference between sham and HF-rTMS stimulation|Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. This analysis presents the main effect of neurostimulation experimental condition. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||1.97|.62|<.0000001
91933905|NCT04348591|183766552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.605||The test corresponds to the difference between sham and LF-rTMS|Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. This analysis presents the main effect of neurostimulation experimental condition. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||.605|.057|.018
91933906|NCT04348591|183766552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||For participants with misophonia difference in distress produced by a misophonic sound when downregulating misophonic sounds while receiving sham vs.HF-rTMS|The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. This analysis presents the interaction effect of group by neurostimulation experimental condition. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||||<.000001
91933907|NCT04348591|183766553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the result corresponding to the main effect of time in the repeated measures ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA (controlling for racial background)||||<.001
91933908|NCT04348591|183766553|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.012|||||||ANCOVA|This analysis corresponds to the main effect of group.||Repeated measures ANOVA (controlling for racial background)||||>.012
91933909|NCT04348591|183766554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Anxiety subscale||||.78
91933910|NCT04348591|183766554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Depression subscale||||.29
91933911|NCT04348591|183766554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Fatigue subscale||||.64
91933912|NCT04348591|183766554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Sleep disturbance subscale||||.16
91933913|NCT04348591|183766554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Ability to partake in social roles subscale||||.56
91933914|NCT00186056|183766582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.26|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of HAMD \* medication group F(2,26)=1.38, eta sq = .05||||||<.26
91933915|NCT00302718|183766620|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91933916|NCT00302718|183766622|OTHER|||||||0.2114|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2114
91933917|NCT00302718|183766624|OTHER|||||||0.6954|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6954
91933918|NCT00302718|183766626|OTHER|||||||0.9895|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9895
91933919|NCT00738374|183766627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis compared responders and non-responders.||||0.0008
91933920|NCT00738374|183766628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0795
91933921|NCT00738374|183766644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2712
91933922|NCT02300077|183766703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91933923|NCT02300077|183766704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91933924|NCT02300077|183766705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91933925|NCT02300077|183766706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
91933926|NCT00077376|183766707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective response rate|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|58.0||||||||58|26|
91768687|NCT02365649|183425717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|52.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||52.6|-27.6|0.686
91933927|NCT00077376|183766708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective response rate|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|58.0||||||||58|31|
91933928|NCT05757427|183766715|OTHER|"The sample size is calculated solely for the first primary endpoint, no minimal number of benign nor malignant lesions was set.~The sample size is calculated for this trial design, assuming a p1 = 75% and p0 = 60% for power (1-beta) of 80%, and an alpha level of 5%.~We will conclude that the Wavelia # 2 Microwave Breast Imaging system is effective in detecting breast lesions if more than 43 of the 62 subjects' lesions are detected."|Proportion of detected lesions|90.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.45|95.49||||||||95.49|80.45|
91768688|NCT02365649|183425717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||50.3|-12.8|0.257
91768689|NCT02365649|183425717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||27.4|-47.4|0.709
91768690|NCT02365649|183425717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|24.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||24.1|-16.6|1.000
91933929|NCT05757427|183766717|OTHER|The percentage of malignant and benign breast lesions correctly detected by Wavelia MWBI on patients that did not have a biopsy clip marking the lesion position in the breast, will be presented with 95% confidence interval.|Proportion of detected lesions|88.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.66|96.71||||||||96.71|65.66|
91933930|NCT05757427|183766718|OTHER||Proportion of patients with AEs|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91933931|NCT02528253|183766822|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.66|0.1117
91933932|NCT02528253|183766822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.76|0.0281
91933933|NCT02528253|183766823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-2.21|0.0035
91933934|NCT02528253|183766823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-2.64|0.0002
91933935|NCT02528253|183766824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.50|0.3118
91933936|NCT02528253|183766824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.60|0.0958
91933937|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.60|0.0015
91933938|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.65|0.0004
91933939|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.39|0.0959
91768691|NCT02365649|183425717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|23.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||23.0|-6.1|0.428
91768692|NCT02365649|183425717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|22.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||22.9|-9.3|0.639
91933940|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.44|0.0370
91933941|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.76|0.0008
91933942|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.96|<.0001
91933943|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.50|0.0711
91933944|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.50|0.0661
91933945|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.70|0.0009
91933946|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.84|0.0008
91933947|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.00|<.0001
91933948|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.61|0.0274
91933949|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.50|0.1495
91933950|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.65|0.0123
91933951|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.71|0.0307
91933952|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.91|0.0009
91933953|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.51|0.2103
91933954|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.48|0.2656
91933955|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.68|0.0152
91933956|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.50|0.5164
91933957|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.66|0.1488
91933958|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.60|0.2431
91933959|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.62|0.2428
91933960|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.54|0.4561
91933961|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.56|0.3523
91933962|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.53|0.4403
91933963|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.58|0.3205
91933964|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.51|0.5763
91933965|NCT02528253|183766825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.61|0.2887
91933966|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.50|0.0121
91933967|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.71|-2.05|<.0001
91933968|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.33|-0.89|0.3697
91933969|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-1.16|0.0658
91933970|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.70|0.0004
91933971|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.96|0.0013
91933972|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-1.21|-2.70|<.0001
91933973|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.39|-0.99|0.3906
91933974|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.60|0.0082
91933975|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.97|-2.34|<.0001
91933976|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-2.15|0.0006
91933977|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-1.16|-2.73|<.0001
91933978|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-1.47|0.0385
91933979|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-2.06|0.0003
91768693|NCT02365649|183425717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|39.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||39.2|-22.2|0.583
91933980|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-2.21|0.0035
91933981|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-2.64|0.0002
91933982|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.57|-1.09|0.5412
91933983|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.87|0.0107
91933984|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.66|-2.29|0.0004
91933985|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-1.94|0.0464
91933986|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.37|-2.30|0.0068
91933987|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.26|-1.70|0.1485
91933988|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-1.94|0.0507
91768694|NCT02365649|183425717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|41.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||41.9|-7.2|0.171
91768695|NCT02365649|183425717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|29.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||29.7|-24.8|0.859
91768696|NCT02365649|183425717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91768697|NCT02365649|183425717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||13.0|-13.4|1.000
91768698|NCT02365649|183425717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91768699|NCT02365649|183425718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|28.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||28.9|-23.9|1.000
91768700|NCT02365649|183425718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|47.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||47.5|-5.0|0.204
91768701|NCT02365649|183425718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||3.1|-23.1|0.540
91768702|NCT02365649|183425718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|2.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||2.1|-14.6|1.000
91811588|NCT02622321|183497887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.375||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.375|0.102|<0.0001
91768703|NCT02365649|183425718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|15.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.3|-10.1|1.000
91768704|NCT02365649|183425718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|16.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||16.7|-11.8|1.000
91768705|NCT02365649|183425718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|16.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||16.8|-15.0|1.000
91768706|NCT02365649|183425718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|31.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||31.4|-2.5|0.135
91933989|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.41|-1.60|0.2480
91933990|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-1.71|0.1605
91933991|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-1.50|0.3654
91933992|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-1.71|0.1782
91933993|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.58|-1.47|0.3981
91933994|NCT02528253|183766827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-1.84|0.1089
91933995|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.18|0.1472
91933996|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.24|0.0135
91933997|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.18|0.0893
91933998|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.23|0.0044
91933999|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.28|0.0025
91934000|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.32|0.0002
91934001|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.11|0.8348
91934002|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.26|0.0020
91768707|NCT02365649|183425718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|20.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||20.4|-11.9|0.623
91768708|NCT02365649|183425718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||3.1|-23.1|1.000
91811589|NCT02622321|183497888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.218||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for all bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.218|0.055|<0.0001
91768709|NCT02365649|183425718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||17.7|-18.7|1.000
91934003|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.30|0.0001
91934004|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.25|0.0272
91934005|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.31|0.0009
91934006|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.18|0.1680
91934007|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.16|0.2968
91934008|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.23|0.0219
91934009|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.25|0.0717
91934010|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.29|0.0207
91934011|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.11|0.8399
91768710|NCT02365649|183425718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||3.1|-23.1|0.501
91768711|NCT02365649|183425719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|28.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||28.9|-23.9|1.000
91768712|NCT02365649|183425719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|47.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||47.5|-5.0|0.204
91934012|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.25|0.0299
91934013|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.29|0.0060
91934014|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.24|0.1974
91934015|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.22|0.2780
91934016|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.21|0.4330
91934017|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.20|0.4946
91934018|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.25|0.1884
91934019|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.20|0.5210
91934020|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.23|0.3329
91934021|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.21|0.5173
91934022|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.25|0.2346
91934023|NCT02528253|183766829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.23|0.3634
91934024|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.26|0.0007
91934025|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.44|1.29|0.0004
91934026|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.50|0.87|0.3456
91934027|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.53|0.89|0.2771
91934028|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.41|0.98|0.0594
91934029|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.75|1.14|0.0105
91934030|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.98|0.85|0.2360
91934031|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.75|0.81|0.3746
91934032|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|0.94|0.0974
91934033|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.08|0.92|0.0806
91934034|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.47|1.03|0.0407
91934035|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.58|0.58|0.5966
91934036|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.1492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.96|0.85|0.1492
91934037|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.24|0.95|0.0720
91934038|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.00|0.25|0.9926
91934039|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||6.04|0.51|0.3726
91934040|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.12|0.22|0.7874
91934041|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.46|0.32|0.7950
91934042|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||6.68|0.66|0.2065
91934043|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.17|1.23|0.0006
91934044|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.72|1.55|<.0001
91934045|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.01|0.0387
91934046|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.97|0.0903
91934047|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.01|1.21|0.0006
91934048|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.09|1.08|0.0166
91934049|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.62|1.36|0.0001
91934050|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.73|0.93|0.1389
91934051|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.89|0.2504
91934052|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.98|1.12|0.0057
91934053|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.93|1.14|0.0126
91934054|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.22|1.71|<.0001
91934055|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|0.79|0.3485
91934056|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.19|0.98|0.0642
91934057|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.14|1.48|<.0001
91934058|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.31|0.42|0.9819
91934059|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.02|0.62|0.4333
91934060|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.00|0.41|0.8140
91934061|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.8331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.40|0.49|0.8331
91934062|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.12|0.73|0.2682
91934063|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.29|1.31|0.0001
91768713|NCT02365649|183425719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||3.1|-23.1|0.540
91768714|NCT02365649|183425719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|2.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||2.9|-9.2|1.000
91768715|NCT02365649|183425719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||17.0|-5.6|0.614
91768716|NCT02365649|183425719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|11.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||11.5|-9.1|1.000
91768717|NCT02365649|183425719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|16.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||16.8|-15.0|1.000
91768718|NCT02365649|183425719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|31.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||31.4|-2.5|0.135
91768719|NCT02365649|183425719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|12.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||12.1|-14.1|1.000
91768720|NCT02365649|183425719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91768721|NCT02365649|183425719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||20.3|-11.3|1.000
91768722|NCT02365649|183425719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91768723|NCT02365649|183425720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|51.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||51.9|-21.9|0.669
91768724|NCT02365649|183425720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|45.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||45.2|-15.2|0.343
91768725|NCT02365649|183425720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|17.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||17.2|-57.2|0.442
91768726|NCT02365649|183425720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|32.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||32.2|-23.4|1.000
91768727|NCT02365649|183425720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|23.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||23.5|-13.6|0.601
91768728|NCT02365649|183425720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|21.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||21.7|-18.2|1.000
91934064|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.61|1.49|<.0001
91934065|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.10|0.0071
91934066|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.57|0.95|0.1187
91934067|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.79|1.08|0.0110
91934068|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.30|0.0003
91934069|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.87|1.57|<.0001
91934070|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.97|1.11|0.0069
91934071|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.91|0.2076
91934072|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|1.10|0.0072
91934073|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.22|0.97|0.0694
91768729|NCT02365649|183425720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|47.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||47.5|-14.5|0.301
91768730|NCT02365649|183425720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|39.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||39.4|-10.3|0.256
91768731|NCT02365649|183425720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|29.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||29.5|-26.5|0.917
91768732|NCT02365649|183425720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||-2.5|-37.5|1.000
91811590|NCT02622321|183497889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.198||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for treated bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.198|0.031|<0.0001
91934074|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.36|1.53|<.0001
91934075|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.00|0.92|0.1210
91934076|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.76|0.6706
91934077|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|1.20|0.0022
91934078|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.22|0.56|0.7546
91934079|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.24|0.57|0.7347
91934080|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.84|0.50|0.9029
91934081|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.18|0.62|0.6402
91934082|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|0.62|0.6199
91934083|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.05|0.0229
91934084|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.30|1.30|0.0002
91934085|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.47|0.88|0.3150
91934086|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.57|0.94|0.1370
91934087|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.97|1.17|0.0018
91934088|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.81|1.02|0.0342
91934089|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.24|1.27|0.0003
91768733|NCT02365649|183425720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||17.3|-28.8|0.697
91934090|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.90|0.2561
91934091|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.90|0.2358
91934092|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.87|1.13|0.0040
91768734|NCT02365649|183425720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||-2.5|-37.5|0.126
91768735|NCT02365649|183425721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||50.8|-30.8|0.691
91934093|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.02|0.97|0.0723
91934094|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.92|1.45|<.0001
91934095|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.94|0.98|0.0653
91934096|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.40|0.74|0.9177
91934097|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.01|1.11|0.0088
91934098|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.83|0.89|0.1197
91934099|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.92|0.92|0.0913
91934100|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.19|0.72|0.4317
91934101|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.08|0.77|0.3498
91934102|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.15|0.80|0.2768
91934103|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.92|1.09|0.0101
91934104|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|1.13|0.0054
91934105|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.39|0.84|0.5493
91934106|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.74|1.03|0.0269
91934107|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.80|1.07|0.0144
91934108|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|0.97|0.0846
91934109|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.91|1.09|0.0101
91934110|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.97|0.0848
91934111|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.32|0.79|0.8732
91934112|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.89|0.2734
91934113|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|0.86|0.2839
91934114|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.07|1.05|0.0238
91934115|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.53|0.81|0.5212
91934116|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.80|0.5954
91934117|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.79|0.98|0.0638
91934118|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.44|0.78|0.2661
91934119|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.21|0.69|0.4717
91934120|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.00|0.68|0.5798
91934121|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.95|0.72|0.5027
91934122|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.77|0.64|0.8165
91934123|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.52|0.92|0.1996
91934124|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.10|0.0074
91934125|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.45|0.87|0.3557
91934126|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.75|1.06|0.0170
91934127|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.38|0.76|0.8641
91934128|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.91|0.1768
91934129|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.55|0.7696
91934130|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.78|0.66|0.7433
91934131|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.99|0.0562
91934132|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.03|0.0274
91934133|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.58|0.95|0.1206
91934134|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.69|1.02|0.0365
91934135|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|0.96|0.0964
91934136|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.89|0.2515
91934137|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|0.66|0.8122
91768736|NCT02365649|183425721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||60.0|-2.5|0.086
91768737|NCT02365649|183425721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|25.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||25.6|-45.6|0.702
91811591|NCT02622321|183497890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.11||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.52||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.520|0.025|0.0050
91811592|NCT02622321|183497891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.435||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for all bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.435|0.119|<0.0001
91934138|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.13|0.86|0.1848
91934139|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.90|0.2622
91934140|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.93|0.1579
91934141|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.89|0.2773
91934142|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.96|0.1032
91934143|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.4418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.50|0.84|0.4418
91934144|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.63|0.92|0.1608
91934145|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.2628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.02|0.83|0.2628
91934146|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.01|0.0447
91934147|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.90|0.2560
91934148|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.53|0.93|0.1741
91934149|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.93|0.1647
91934150|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.99|0.0619
91934151|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.61|0.90|0.2025
91768738|NCT02365649|183425721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-1.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||-1.0|-24.0|0.557
91768739|NCT02365649|183425721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|15.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.0|-16.5|1.000
91768740|NCT02365649|183425721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|24.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||24.2|-14.4|0.707
91934152|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.58|0.88|0.2601
91768741|NCT02365649|183425721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|28.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||28.8|-27.9|1.000
91768742|NCT02365649|183425721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|40.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||40.6|-7.2|0.175
91768743|NCT02365649|183425721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.7||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|35.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||35.4|-18.0|0.517
91811593|NCT02622321|183497892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.21||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.486||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for treated bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.486|0.089|0.0003
91934153|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.77|0.73|0.5635
91934154|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.11|0.91|0.1338
91934155|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.91|0.2137
91934156|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|1.04|0.0256
91934157|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.46|0.87|0.3531
91934158|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|1.02|0.0358
91934159|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.91|0.1840
91934160|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.67|0.94|0.1250
91934161|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.61|0.8266
91934162|NCT02528253|183766832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|0.74|0.5673
91934163|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.08|1.12|0.0076
91934164|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.69|1.46|<.0001
91934165|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.74|0.98|0.0700
91934166|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.89|0.2655
91768744|NCT02365649|183425721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|1.000
91768745|NCT02365649|183425721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||14.6|-25.5|0.663
91768746|NCT02365649|183425721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|0.251
91811594|NCT02622321|183497893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.154||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.154|0.037|<0.0001
91768747|NCT02365649|183425722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|41.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||41.0|-41.0|1.000
91768748|NCT02365649|183425722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||50.3|-12.8|0.257
91934167|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.98|1.16|0.0022
91934168|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.35|1.11|0.0125
91934169|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.54|1.21|0.0032
91934170|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.85|0.91|0.1528
91934171|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|0.90|0.1863
91934172|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|0.98|0.0667
91934173|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.39|1.18|0.0101
91934174|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.25|1.13|0.0162
91934175|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|0.69|0.5599
91768749|NCT02365649|183425722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|15.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||15.9|-55.9|0.440
91768750|NCT02365649|183425722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||19.3|-24.3|1.000
91768751|NCT02365649|183425722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|15.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.0|-16.5|1.000
91768752|NCT02365649|183425722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|15.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.9|-55.9|0.440
91768753|NCT02365649|183425722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|31.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||31.4|-28.7|1.000
91768754|NCT02365649|183425722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|34.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||34.9|-14.0|0.404
91768755|NCT02365649|183425722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|29.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||29.7|-24.8|0.859
91890492|NCT00461981|183674073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|11.7||||||95.0|-13.0|34.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||34.9|-13.0|
91890493|NCT00461981|183674074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-15.8||||||95.0|-40.7|8.0||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||8.0|-40.7|
91890494|NCT00461981|183674075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT ratio|0.43||||||95.0|0.24|0.87||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.87|0.24|
91890495|NCT00461981|183674076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.2||||||95.0|0.09|0.48||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.48|0.09|
91890496|NCT00461981|183674077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|3.36||||||95.0|1.54|7.13||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||7.13|1.54|
91890497|NCT00461981|183674078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT ratio|3.26||||||95.0|1.44|7.19||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||7.19|1.44|
91890498|NCT00461981|183674079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.06||||||95.0|0.56|1.96||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.96|0.56|
91890499|NCT00461981|183674080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.58||||||95.0|0.31|1.12||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.12|0.31|
91890500|NCT00461981|183674081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|2.4||||||95.0|1.48|3.97||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.97|1.48|
91890501|NCT00461981|183674082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.48||||||95.0|0.27|0.87||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.87|0.27|
91890502|NCT00461981|183674083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.45||||||95.0|0.8|2.66||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||2.66|0.80|
91890503|NCT00461981|183674084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.75||||||95.0|0.88|3.39||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.39|0.88|
91890504|NCT00461981|183674085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.49||||||95.0|0.8|2.69||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||2.69|0.80|
91890505|NCT00461981|183674086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.62||||||95.0|0.33|1.16||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.16|0.33|
91890506|NCT00461981|183674087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-45.9||||||95.0|-71.7|-11.6||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-11.6|-71.7|
91890507|NCT00461981|183674088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-25.0||||||95.0|-57.2|4.8||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||4.8|-57.2|
91890508|NCT00461981|183674089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|65.0||||||95.0|34.4|85.3||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||85.3|34.4|
91890509|NCT00461981|183674090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-30.4|30.3||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||30.3|-30.4|
91890510|NCT00461981|183674091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-37.0||||||95.0|-57.8|-17.5||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-17.5|-57.8|
91890511|NCT00461981|183674092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-8.3||||||95.0|-38.5|14.5||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||14.5|-38.5|
91890512|NCT00461981|183674093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|21.9||||||95.0|-6.7|48.1||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||48.1|-6.7|
91890513|NCT00461981|183674094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-22.4||||||95.0|-54.4|12.2||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||12.2|-54.4|
91934176|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.68|1.09|0.0202
91934177|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.57|1.04|0.0335
91934178|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||6.17|1.04|0.0416
91934179|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|7.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||7.69|1.37|0.0075
91934180|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.34|0.53|0.5374
91768756|NCT02365649|183425722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|1.000
91768757|NCT02365649|183425722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||14.6|-25.5|0.663
91934181|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.89|0.92|0.0820
91934182|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.81|1.23|0.0108
91934183|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|1.24|0.0006
91768758|NCT02365649|183425722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|0.251
91768759|NCT02365649|183425723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|43.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||43.8|-23.8|0.606
91768760|NCT02365649|183425723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|64.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significant at the 0.5 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||64.1|5.9|0.034
91934184|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.59|1.47|<.0001
91934185|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.63|0.96|0.0963
91934186|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.02|0.0332
91934187|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.01|1.21|0.0007
91934188|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.64|1.37|0.0001
91934189|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.05|1.60|<.0001
91934190|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.95|1.05|0.0235
91934191|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.76|1.01|0.0459
91934192|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.04|1.17|0.0020
91934193|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.91|1.27|0.0019
91934194|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.62|1.62|<.0001
91934195|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.72|0.6765
91934196|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.54|1.23|0.0022
91768761|NCT02365649|183425723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||0.6|-30.6|0.532
91934197|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.15|1.56|<.0001
91934198|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.63|1.08|0.0270
91934199|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.38|1.35|0.0030
91934200|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.44|0.38|0.3770
91934201|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|4.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.79|1.49|0.0009
91768762|NCT02365649|183425723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||21.8|-20.5|1.000
91768763|NCT02365649|183425723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||13.3|-14.4|1.000
91934202|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||5.78|1.87|<.0001
91934203|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.10|1.20|0.0011
91934204|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.47|1.41|<.0001
91934205|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|1.03|0.0273
91934206|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.93|0.1736
91934207|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.81|1.09|0.0092
91934208|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|1.20|0.0015
91934209|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.63|1.45|<.0001
91934210|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|1.06|0.0164
91934211|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.89|0.2857
91934212|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.80|1.07|0.0149
91934213|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.02|1.43|0.0001
91934214|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.28|1.57|<.0001
91934215|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.92|0.93|0.1180
91934216|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.14|1.13|0.0062
91934217|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|1.24|0.0009
91934218|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.61|1.56|0.0003
91934219|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|5.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||5.28|1.82|<.0001
91934220|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|0.76|0.3120
91768764|NCT02365649|183425723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||14.6|-16.0|1.000
91768765|NCT02365649|183425723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|35.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||35.8|-11.7|0.350
91811595|NCT02622321|183497894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.05||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.227||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.227|0.009|0.0002
91811596|NCT02622321|183497898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|21.55||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|35.22||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 25. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm. Analysis was performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA).||35.22|7.89|0.0029
91934221|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.14|1.30|0.0019
91934222|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.59|1.52|0.0001
91934223|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.95|1.12|0.0064
91934224|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.31|1.32|0.0001
91934225|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.89|0.2757
91934226|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.99|0.0575
91934227|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.96|1.17|0.0015
91934228|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.16|1.23|0.0007
91934229|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.31|1.31|0.0001
91934230|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.79|1.07|0.0124
91934231|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.91|1.15|0.0025
91934232|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.51|1.33|0.0002
91934233|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.79|1.48|<.0001
91934234|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.80|0.5701
91934235|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.22|1.26|0.0004
91934236|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.46|1.40|<.0001
91934237|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.17|1.35|0.0008
91934238|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.83|1.19|0.0059
91934239|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.46|0.60|0.7741
91934240|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.25|1.50|<.0001
91934241|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.90|1.32|0.0008
91768766|NCT02365649|183425723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significant at the 0.5 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||41.3|2.0|0.034
91934242|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.97|0.0890
91934243|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.10|0.0067
91934244|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.85|1.10|0.0072
91934245|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.06|1.23|0.0004
91934246|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.15|1.20|0.0013
91934247|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.34|<.0001
91934248|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.30|1.51|<.0001
91934249|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.71|1.72|<.0001
91934250|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.98|0.0732
91934251|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.68|1.01|0.0399
91934252|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.67|1.00|0.0536
91934253|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.88|1.12|0.0043
91934254|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.91|1.07|0.0143
91934255|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.16|1.23|0.0007
91934256|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.38|1.17|0.0050
91934257|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.40|1.18|0.0043
91934258|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.89|0.2777
91768767|NCT02365649|183425723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|18.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||18.3|-15.9|1.000
91934259|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|1.02|0.0326
91768768|NCT02365649|183425723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|1.000
91768769|NCT02365649|183425723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||14.6|-25.5|0.663
91768770|NCT02365649|183425723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|0.251
91768771|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||30.6|-0.6|0.536
91934260|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.92|0.1823
91934261|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.02|0.0350
91934262|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.88|1.07|0.0164
91934263|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.84|1.04|0.0257
91934264|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.35|1.14|0.0070
91934265|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|1.13|0.0085
91934266|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.4925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.41|0.85|0.4925
91934267|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.93|0.1534
91934268|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.95|0.1202
91934269|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.95|0.1222
91934270|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.90|1.06|0.0179
91934271|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|1.12|0.0065
91934272|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|1.06|0.0223
91934273|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.40|1.17|0.0045
91934274|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.28|0.77|0.9385
91934275|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.95|0.1093
91768772|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||30.6|-0.6|0.238
91934276|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.57|0.93|0.1631
91768773|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|24.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||24.3|-34.3|1.000
91768774|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||23.8|-43.8|0.606
91768775|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|21.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||21.0|-28.5|1.000
91934277|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.74|1.03|0.0285
91934278|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.81|1.02|0.0389
91934279|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|1.04|0.0240
91934280|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.34|1.15|0.0063
91934281|NCT02528253|183766833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.47|1.22|0.0021
91934282|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.75|0.0003
91934283|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-0.85|<.0001
91934284|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.47|0.0615
91934285|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.50|0.0356
91934286|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.60|0.0032
91934287|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.88|0.0003
91934288|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.08|<.0001
91934289|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.54|0.0844
91934290|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.60|0.0258
91934291|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-0.80|0.0004
91934292|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.78|0.0079
91934293|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.08|<.0001
91768776|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|9.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||9.2|-59.2|0.181
91768777|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.281
91768778|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
91811597|NCT02622321|183497899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.01||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|22.45||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 25. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm.||22.45|5.56|0.0019
91768779|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|11.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||11.3|-61.3|0.231
91811598|NCT02622321|183497900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.72||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.62|-1.82||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 29. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm.||-1.82|-17.62|0.0171
91768780|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.5||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||69.2|5.8|0.099
91934294|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.57|0.0977
91934295|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.50|0.2150
91934296|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.79|0.0016
91934297|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.88|0.0058
91934298|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.91|0.0038
91934299|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.58|0.1707
91934300|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.62|0.1083
91768781|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|60.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||60.3|2.2|0.052
91768782|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||27.4|-47.4|0.709
91934301|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.64|0.0734
91934302|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.56|0.4603
91934303|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.74|0.0799
91934304|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.66|0.2339
91934305|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.73|0.1199
91934306|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.60|0.3840
91768783|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|64.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||64.1|0.9|0.194
91934307|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.68|0.2000
91934308|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.65|0.2997
91934309|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.71|0.1778
91934310|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.65|0.3438
91934311|NCT02528253|183766835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.71|0.1876
91934312|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.72|0.0002
91934313|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.79|<.0001
91934314|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.50|0.0193
91934315|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.42|0.0845
91934316|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.49|0.0212
91934317|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.81|0.0003
91934318|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-0.99|<.0001
91934319|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.50|0.0790
91934320|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.55|0.0336
91768784|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|45.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||45.2|-17.7|0.400
91768785|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|32.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||32.9|-42.9|1.000
91934321|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.73|0.0008
91934322|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.77|0.0034
91934323|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.01|<.0001
91934324|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.59|0.0361
91934325|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.44|0.2786
91934326|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.68|0.0058
91934327|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.71|0.0365
91934328|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.80|0.0092
91934329|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.49|0.2923
91934330|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.51|0.2231
91768786|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|51.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||51.1|-18.6|0.477
91934331|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.60|0.0724
91934332|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.50|0.4776
91934333|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.64|0.1482
91768787|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|21.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||21.3|-26.4|0.833
91811599|NCT02622321|183497901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.07||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 29. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm.||-0.07|-0.25|0.0014
91934334|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.56|0.3249
91934335|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.62|0.1997
91934336|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.53|0.4823
91934337|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.60|0.2754
91934338|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.50|0.5861
91934339|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.54|0.4346
91934340|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.36|-0.42|0.8752
91934341|NCT02528253|183766837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.60|0.2663
91934342|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.77|0.0013
91934343|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.87|0.0001
91934344|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.43|0.2272
91768788|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.6||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|21.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||21.7|-30.9|0.732
91768789|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|54.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||54.2|-15.4|0.468
91934345|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.58|0.0209
91934346|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.67|0.0029
91934347|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.92|0.0002
91768790|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|11.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||11.7|-34.1|0.339
91934348|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.10|<.0001
91934349|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.53|0.1198
91934350|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.66|0.0160
91934351|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.85|0.0003
91934352|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.77|0.0091
91934353|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.90|0.0007
91934354|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.48|0.2264
91934355|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.56|0.0961
91934356|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.69|0.0121
91934357|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.77|0.0270
91934358|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.94|0.0019
91934359|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.48|0.3906
91934360|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.59|0.1209
91934361|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.76|0.0107
91934362|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.61|0.2396
91934363|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.69|0.1088
91934364|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.65|0.1673
91934365|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.66|0.1751
91934366|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.59|0.3164
91934367|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.62|0.2253
91934368|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.58|0.3408
91934369|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.58|0.3391
91934370|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.50|0.5818
91934371|NCT02528253|183766839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.62|0.2562
91934372|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.69|0.0137
91934373|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.76|0.0044
91934374|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.35|0.6194
91934375|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.59|0.0271
91934376|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.66|0.0085
91934377|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.87|0.0027
91934378|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.13|<.0001
91934379|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.54|0.1859
91934380|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.63|0.0573
91934381|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.88|0.0005
91934382|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.66|0.0841
91768791|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|10.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||10.2|-39.3|0.263
91768792|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|46.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||46.0|-22.3|0.697
91768793|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||19.9|-23.2|0.880
91934383|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.85|0.0074
91934384|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.49|0.3160
91934385|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.47|0.3763
91934386|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.65|0.0505
91768794|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||11.2|-32.7|0.355
91768795|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|37.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||37.1|-27.1|1.000
91768796|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|22.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||22.6|-19.6|0.891
91811600|NCT01958008|183497918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0636|1.4713|||Regression, Linear|Power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and pharmacokinetic endpoint Cmax,ss||Dose proportionality was analysed over the dose range 10 to 50 mg for plasma PK parameters based on a power model||1.4713|1.0636|
91934387|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.88|0.0118
91934388|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.03|0.0012
91934389|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.54|0.2966
91934390|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.66|0.0956
91768797|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||19.3|-25.8|0.779
91768798|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||39.9|-23.7|0.678
91768799|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|25.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||25.2|-16.0|0.663
91811601|NCT01958008|183497919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0519|1.3759|||Regression, Linear|Power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and pharmacokinetic endpoint AUC tau,ss||Dose proportionality was analysed over the dose range 10 to 50 mg for plasma PK parameters based on a power model||1.3759|1.0519|
91934391|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.81|0.0117
91934392|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.57|0.3732
91934393|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.66|0.1922
91811602|NCT03194698|183497938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0312
91811603|NCT03194698|183497939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91811604|NCT03194698|183497940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91934394|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.63|0.2986
91934395|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.65|0.2584
91811605|NCT00710710|183497985|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.7021
91811606|NCT00710710|183497985|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.9156
91768800|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|11.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||11.0|-28.7|0.494
91768801|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|36.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||36.2|7.6|0.083
91768802|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|32.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||32.0|-2.1|0.151
91811607|NCT00710710|183497985|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.7021
91934396|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.57|0.5195
91934397|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.60|0.3752
91934398|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.56|0.5157
91934399|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.56|0.5065
91934400|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.38|-0.47|0.8373
91934401|NCT02528253|183766841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.56|0.5146
91934402|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.76|0.0059
91934403|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.93|0.0002
91934404|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.56|0.0756
91934405|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.47|0.2197
91934406|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.63|0.0208
91934407|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.91|0.0013
91934408|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.08|<.0001
91934409|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.53|0.1873
91934410|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.66|0.0305
91934411|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.84|0.0013
91934412|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.78|0.0158
91768803|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|24.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||24.1|-22.4|1.000
91934413|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.91|0.0015
91934414|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.45|0.4173
91934415|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.62|0.0659
91768804|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|26.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||26.3|-25.4|1.000
91811608|NCT00710710|183497985|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.9156
91934416|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.74|0.0078
91934417|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.72|0.0737
91934418|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.97|0.0021
91934419|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.48|0.4535
91811609|NCT00710710|183497988|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.91|||Regression, Cox||if HR is below 1, then 60mg BI 2536 IV on day 1-3 is better.|||1.91|0.78|0.38
91934420|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.56|0.2271
91934421|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.81|0.0086
91934422|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.63|0.2243
91934423|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.81|0.0331
91934424|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.66|0.1838
91934425|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.75|0.0795
91934426|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.63|0.2847
91934427|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.76|0.0745
91934428|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.59|0.3110
91934429|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.70|0.1375
91934430|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.58|0.4036
91934431|NCT02528253|183766843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.79|0.0641
91934432|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.85|0.0037
91811610|NCT00710710|183497989|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.78|||Regression, Cox||if HR is below 1, then 60mg BI 2536 IV on day 1-3 is better.|||1.78|0.68|0.69
91811611|NCT00710710|183497990|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9161
91934433|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.91|0.0013
91934434|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.53|0.1712
91934435|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.60|0.0686
91934436|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.66|0.0289
91934437|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.02|0.0003
91934438|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.22|<.0001
91934439|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.55|0.2056
91934440|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.78|0.0084
91934441|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.31|-0.98|0.0002
91934442|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.90|0.0063
91934443|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.09|0.0002
91934444|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.63|0.1155
91934445|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.59|0.1652
91934446|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.78|0.0129
91811612|NCT00710710|183497990|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9842
91811613|NCT00710710|183497990|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9161
91934447|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.87|0.0236
91934448|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.93|0.0136
91934449|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.30|-0.47|0.6624
91934450|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.75|0.0468
91934451|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.81|0.0250
91934452|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.72|0.1539
91934453|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.91|0.0169
91934454|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.77|0.1049
91934455|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.82|0.0599
91934456|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.65|0.3041
91934457|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.83|0.0737
91934458|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.71|0.2293
91934459|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.82|0.0806
91934460|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.62|0.3680
91934461|NCT02528253|183766845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.79|0.0893
91934462|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.88|0.0007
91934463|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.03|<.0001
91934464|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.53|0.1291
91934465|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.63|0.0290
91934466|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.77|0.0015
91934467|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.87|0.0041
91934468|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.25|<.0001
91934469|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.55|0.1799
91934470|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.62|0.0696
91934471|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.99|<.0001
91934472|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.74|0.0387
91934473|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.00|0.0005
91768805|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.2||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|12.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||12.9|-31.3|0.417
91768806|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.2||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|6.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||6.2|-46.7|0.125
91768807|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|40.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||40.0|-14.1|0.497
91768808|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.8|-24.0|0.993
91934474|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.51|0.2768
91934475|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.53|0.2408
91934476|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.78|0.0064
91934477|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.90|0.0115
91768809|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.1|9.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||9.6|-46.1|0.200
91768810|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||50.8|-7.9|0.177
91811614|NCT00710710|183497990|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9842
91768811|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.4||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|46.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||46.2|-1.4|0.074
91934478|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.08|0.0006
91934479|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.59|0.2028
91934480|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.64|0.1351
91934481|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.82|0.0133
91768812|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||20.3|-36.1|0.585
91768813|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||50.8|-7.9|0.177
91768814|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|36.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||36.8|-12.7|0.343
91934482|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.65|0.2157
91934483|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.76|0.0781
91934484|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.62|0.3527
91934485|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.65|0.2994
91934486|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.63|0.3326
91934487|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.65|0.2822
91890514|NCT00461981|183674095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|33.3||||||95.0|-81.1|90.6||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||90.6|-81.1|
91934488|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.57|0.4932
91934489|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.26|-0.58|0.4571
91934490|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.30|-0.56|0.5586
91934491|NCT02528253|183766847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.67|0.2664
91934492|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||3.36|1.36|0.0010
91934493|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||4.16|1.73|<.0001
91934494|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.51|1.05|0.0300
91934495|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.86|1.44|<.0001
91934496|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||3.32|1.69|<.0001
91934497|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.99|1.04|0.0290
91934498|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.47|1.31|0.0003
91934499|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||3.03|1.62|<.0001
91934500|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.10|1.16|0.0033
91934501|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.88|1.06|0.0179
91934502|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.08|1.18|0.0021
91934503|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.6629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.38|0.81|0.6629
91934504|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.75|1.04|0.0251
91934505|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.59|0.94|0.1278
91768815|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||20.3|-36.1|0.585
91811615|NCT00715078|183497997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cohort B is considered non-inferior to Cohort A if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of Cohort B vs. Cohort A in the geometric mean of cumulative CD54 upregulation ratio is \>0.8. The use of one-sided CI is based on an assumption that a higher concentration will correspond to a higher CD54 upregulation ratio. The use of 0.8 as margin is based on the assumption that a relative difference of \<20% in upregulation ratios may not be clinically significant.|ratio of geometric means (GeoMean)|1.046||||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.936|1.168|||ANOVA|||The sample size determination is based on a standard deviation of 0.45 for the log transformed CD54 upregulation ratio estimated from previous studies assuming there is no difference in central values between the two compared cohorts. A sample size of 38 subjects per cohort will provide 70% power for the non-inferiority test for the two pairwise comparisons (Cohort B vs. Cohort A and Cohort C vs. Cohort A).||1.168|0.936|0.5019
91934506|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.65|0.98|0.0749
91934507|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.66|0.99|0.0633
91934508|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.67|0.99|0.0626
91768816|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.0||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-9.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||-9.9|-50.1|0.539
91890515|NCT00461981|183674096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|0.0||||||95.0|-97.5|84.2||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||84.2|-97.5|
91890516|NCT00461981|183674097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-9.5||||||95.0|-65.2|58.8||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||58.8|-65.2|
91934509|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.51|0.89|0.2727
91934510|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.57|0.92|0.1749
91934511|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.42|0.84|0.5239
91934512|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.49|0.87|0.3336
91934513|NCT02528253|183766849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.54|0.91|0.2163
91934514|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.08|0.78|0.3260
91934515|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.56|1.01|0.0445
91934516|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.61|0.65|0.9263
91934517|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.94|0.81|0.3194
91934518|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.38|1.04|0.0308
91811616|NCT00715078|183497997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cohort C is considered non-inferior to Cohort A if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of Cohort C vs. Cohort A in the geometric mean of cumulative CD54 upregulation ratio is \>0.8. The use of one-sided CI is based on an assumption that a higher concentration will correspond to a higher CD54 upregulation ratio. The use of 0.8 as margin is based on the assumption that a relative difference of \<20% in upregulation ratios may not be clinically significant.|the ratio of geometric means|0.907||||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.813|1.013|||ANOVA|||The sample size determination is based on a standard deviation of 0.45 for the log transformed CD54 upregulation ratio estimated from previous studies assuming there is no difference in central values between the two compared cohorts. A sample size of 38 subjects per cohort will provide 70% power for the non-inferiority test for the two pairwise comparisons (Cohort B vs. Cohort A and Cohort C vs. Cohort A).||1.013|0.813|0.1443
91934519|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.69|1.20|0.0048
91934520|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.51|1.12|0.0114
91934521|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.56|0.71|0.7857
91934522|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.44|1.18|0.0041
91934523|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.28|1.11|0.0109
91934524|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.27|1.03|0.0363
91934525|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.59|1.20|0.0040
91934526|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.84|0.88|0.1992
91934527|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.70|0.85|0.3084
91934528|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.94|0.99|0.0586
91768817|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.7||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|9.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||9.3|-40.8|0.277
91768818|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.7||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|11.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||11.5|-42.9|0.422
91934529|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.97|0.98|0.0630
91934530|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.04|1.03|0.0347
91934531|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.33|0.69|0.7900
91934532|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.00|1.06|0.0207
91934533|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.07|1.11|0.0093
91768819|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|46.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||46.5|-46.5|1.000
91811617|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.22||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.22|-0.38|
91934534|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.91|1.02|0.0400
91934535|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.65|0.88|0.2478
91934536|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.96|1.03|0.0304
91811618|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.39||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.39|-0.20|
91811619|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.32||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.32|-0.28|
91934537|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.56|0.81|0.4763
91934538|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.01|1.07|0.0178
91934539|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.53|0.80|0.5223
91934540|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.72|0.91|0.1708
91934541|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.50|0.79|0.6022
91934542|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.81|0.96|0.0846
91934543|NCT02528253|183766850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.39|0.73|0.9626
91934544|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|3.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.98|-2.49|0.6508
91934545|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.9629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|3.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.18|-3.33|0.9629
91934546|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.7007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.69|-2.48|0.7007
91934547|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.88|-3.32|0.8902
91934548|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.5698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.15|-3.89|0.5698
91934549|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.72|-3.32|0.8464
91768820|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|13.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||13.5|-34.9|0.454
91811620|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.24||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.24|-0.41|
91811621|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.44||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.44|-0.32|
91811622|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.77||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.77|0.01|
91934550|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.66|-8.72|0.0919
91934551|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-9.47|0.0477
91934552|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.4735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|2.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.87|-6.17|0.4735
91934553|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|2.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.06|-6.82|0.2935
91934554|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|1.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.35|-7.56|0.1714
91934555|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.7521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.56|-6.30|0.7521
91768821|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.9||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|5.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||5.4|-41.1|0.364
91934556|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|2.61|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.61|-8.24|0.3078
91934557|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.88|-8.78|0.1090
91934558|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-10.27|0.0289
91934559|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|2.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.91|-6.41|0.4613
91934560|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|2.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.38|-6.78|0.3460
91934561|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.93|-8.26|0.1179
91934562|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.92|-7.78|0.5151
91934563|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|2.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.46|-9.22|0.2550
91934564|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.79|-7.57|0.0157
91934565|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.78|-7.57|0.0159
91934566|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.43|-5.94|0.0896
91934567|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.72|-4.57|0.3749
91934568|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|1.71|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.71|-4.55|0.3733
91934569|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.73|-4.80|0.8056
91934570|NCT02528253|183766854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|2.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.93|-5.25|0.5764
91934571|NCT02528253|183766855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.41|0.62|0.7366
91934572|NCT02528253|183766855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.58|0.71|0.7710
91934573|NCT02528253|183766856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4724|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.4724
91934574|NCT02528253|183766856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7142|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.7142
91934575|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.44|0.87|0.3960
91934576|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.5932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.20|0.73|0.5932
91934577|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.46|0.88|0.3326
91934578|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.08|0.65|0.1765
91934579|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.39|0.84|0.5619
91934580|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.3909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.16|0.69|0.3909
91934581|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.35|0.80|0.7562
91934582|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.31|0.78|0.9476
91811623|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.54||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.54|-0.22|
91934583|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.36|0.79|0.7746
91934584|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.23|0.71|0.6377
91934585|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.33|0.79|0.8532
91934586|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.40|0.83|0.5644
91934587|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|0.769|0.8|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.35|0.80|0.7690
91811624|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.07||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.07|0.24|
91811625|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.42||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.42|-0.37|
91934588|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.44|0.85|0.4321
91934589|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.35|0.80|0.7714
91934590|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.34|0.79|0.8389
91811626|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.78||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.78|-0.00|
91934591|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.29|0.76|0.9383
91934592|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.33|0.78|0.8800
91934593|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.7946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.26|0.74|0.7946
91934594|NCT02528253|183766857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.25|0.74|0.7803
91934595|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.41|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.41|0.96|0.1272
91934596|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.27|0.86|0.6322
91934597|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.36|0.89|0.3559
91934598|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96||||0.6798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.18|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.18|0.77|0.6798
91934599|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.14||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.44|0.90|0.2670
91934600|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.5865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.19|0.74|0.5865
91934601|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.13||||0.3378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.47|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.47|0.88|0.3378
91934602|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.20|0.71|0.5510
91934603|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.60|0.90|0.2088
91934604|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.3|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.30|0.73|0.8692
91934605|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.35|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.35|0.78|0.8444
91934606|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.34|0.78|0.8936
91934607|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.28|0.75|0.8716
91934608|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.29|0.75|0.8827
91934609|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.34|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.34|0.77|0.8996
91811627|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.5||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.50|-0.29|
91934610|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.20|0.69|0.4880
91934611|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.27|0.73|0.7938
91934612|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.20|0.69|0.5092
91934613|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.22|0.71|0.6148
91934614|NCT02528253|183766859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.13|0.66|0.2844
91934615|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.73|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.73|0.70|0.6764
91934616|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.6|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.60|0.65|0.9351
91934617|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.46|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.46|0.64|0.8731
91934618|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.72|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.72|0.75|0.5370
91934619|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.59|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.59|0.70|0.8031
91934620|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.55|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.55|0.57|0.8192
91934621|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.46|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.46|0.54|0.6345
91934622|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.4|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.40|0.56|0.6103
91934623|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.67|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.67|0.67|0.7949
91934624|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.57|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.57|0.63|0.9920
91934625|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.67|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.67|0.55|0.8772
91934626|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.6|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.60|0.53|0.7614
91934627|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.43|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.43|0.52|0.5629
91934628|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.85|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.85|0.67|0.6821
91934629|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.77|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.77|0.64|0.8049
91934630|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.62|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.62|0.47|0.6673
91934631|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.4475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.46|0.43|0.4475
91811628|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.45||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.45|0.59|
91934632|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.5|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.50|0.49|0.5925
91934633|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.79|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.79|0.58|0.9486
91934634|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.61|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.61|0.52|0.7673
91934635|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||2.20|0.56|0.7635
91934636|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.94|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.94|0.50|0.9564
91934637|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.8359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.75|0.50|0.8359
91934638|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.21|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||2.21|0.64|0.5914
91934639|NCT02528253|183766861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.95|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.95|0.56|0.8826
91934640|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|10.97|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||10.97|3.07|0.0005
91934641|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|10.15|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||10.15|2.26|0.0021
91934642|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.42|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||8.42|1.02|0.0125
91934643|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|5.97|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.97|-1.36|0.2176
91934644|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|5.14|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.14|-2.16|0.4235
91934645|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|22.11|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||22.11|2.50|0.0143
91934646|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|22.35|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||22.35|2.76|0.0124
91934647|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|12.36|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||12.36|-4.60|0.3675
91934648|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|16.11|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||16.11|0.74|0.0319
91934649|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|16.38|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||16.38|0.97|0.0276
91934650|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.27|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.27|-0.14|0.0627
91934651|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.97|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.97|0.54|0.0187
91934652|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.06|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.06|-1.03|0.2419
91934653|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.4124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|3.56|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||3.56|-1.46|0.4124
91934654|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.24|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.24|-0.76|0.1730
91934655|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|9.08|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||9.08|1.77|0.0037
91768822|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|55.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||55.2|-35.2|0.544
91768823|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||14.6|-25.5|0.663
91768824|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||0.6|-30.6|0.251
91768825|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|1.000
91811629|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.62||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.62|-0.21|
91934656|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|7.39|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||7.39|0.09|0.0449
91934657|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|5.65|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.65|-1.21|0.2038
91934658|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|6.59|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||6.59|-0.19|0.0644
91934659|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.3775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|4.9|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.90|-1.86|0.3775
91934660|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.6|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||6.60|-3.70|0.5806
91934661|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|6.27|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||6.27|-3.68|0.6084
91934662|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|16.99|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||16.99|-11.56|0.6991
91768826|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|10.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.8|-21.2|0.606
91934663|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|24.68|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||24.68|1.66|0.0265
91934664|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|4.21|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.21|-3.61|0.8795
91934665|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|5.87|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.87|-1.68|0.2758
91934666|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|8.0|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||8.00|-0.92|0.1197
91934667|NCT02528253|183766870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|8.24|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||8.24|-0.39|0.0743
91768827|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|16.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||16.0|-21.7|1.000
91934668|NCT01546285|183766891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study is to show a mean difference of less than 5mmHg and a standard deviation less than 8mmHg for the difference in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP readings taken by B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-0.22|||Compare the mean difference with 5mmHg|||A total of no less than 65 subjects are needed for this study. Assuming a mean of no more than 4 mmHg and a standard deviation of no more than 5 mmHg for the difference, this sample size ensures that the percent of subjects with equivalent NIBP is at least 80% with 90% confidence. The difference between the B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP determinations will be compared. A difference of within 10 mmHg is considered equivalent in NIBP.||-0.22|-2.58|
91934669|NCT01546285|183766891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study is to show a mean difference of less than 5mmHg and a standard deviation less than 8mmHg for the difference in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP readings taken by B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-2.66||||||A total of no less than 65 subjects are needed for this study. Assuming a mean of no more than 4mmHg and a standard deviation of no more than 5mmHg for the difference, this sample size ensures that the percent of subjects with equivalent NIBP is a least 80% with 90% confidence. The difference between the B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors in the systolic, diastolic, and mean BP determinations will be compared. A difference of within 10mmHg is considered equivalent in NIBP.||-2.66|-3.95|
91934670|NCT01546285|183766891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study is to show a mean difference of less than 5mmHg and a standard deviation less than 8mmHg for the difference in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP readings taken by B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|-2.67||||||A total of no less than 65 subjects are needed for this study. Assuming a mean of no more than 4mmHg and a standard deviation of no more than 5mmHg for the difference, this sample size ensures that the percent of subjects with equivalent NIBP is a least 80% with 90% confidence. The difference between the B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors in the systolic, diastolic, and mean BP determinations will be compared. A difference of within 10mmHg is considered equivalent in NIBP.||-2.67|-4.73|
91768828|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|1.000
91768829|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||17.7|-18.7|1.000
91768830|NCT02365649|183425724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|0.501
91811630|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.76||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.76|-0.07|
91811631|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.72||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.72|-0.11|
91934671|NCT00225147|183766892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
91934672|NCT00225147|183766892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91934673|NCT00225147|183766893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.040
91934674|NCT00225147|183766893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91934675|NCT01114373|183766917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and the primary outcome measures.||||0.0269
91934676|NCT01114373|183766917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.84
91768831|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|48.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||48.0|-13.0|0.633
91768832|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||50.1|9.9|0.0024
91811632|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.75||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.75|0.85|
91811633|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.81||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.81|-0.04|
91811634|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.75||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.75|-0.10|
91811635|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.81||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.81|-0.05|
91811636|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|2.15||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.15|1.22|
91934677|NCT01114373|183766918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and the primary outcome measures.||||0.0492
91934678|NCT01114373|183766918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
91934679|NCT01114373|183766919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
91934680|NCT01114373|183766920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.88
91934681|NCT01114373|183766921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
91934682|NCT01114373|183766922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
91934683|NCT01114373|183766923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
91934684|NCT01114373|183766924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
91934685|NCT01114373|183766925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.06
91934686|NCT01114373|183766926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.21
91934687|NCT01114373|183766927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.41
91934688|NCT01114373|183766928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
91934689|NCT01114373|183766929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
91934690|NCT01114373|183766930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.39
91934691|NCT03444870|183766931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline (BL) + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + Apolipoprotein E, Allele e4 (APOE e4) + Baseline Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognition Subscale 13 (ADAS-Cog13) Score + Baseline Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Group-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL).||0.05|-0.66|0.0954
91934692|NCT03444870|183766933|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.02|-2.52|0.0544
91934693|NCT03444870|183766934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.7|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.70|-0.48|0.1729
91934694|NCT03444870|183766935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||-0.03|-1.68|0.0425
91934695|NCT03444870|183766936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.93|-0.28|0.2904
91934696|NCT03444870|183766937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.20|-2.14|0.1036
91934697|NCT03444870|183766938|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.65|-0.79|0.8468
91934698|NCT03444870|183766939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.74|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||1.74|-1.35|0.8030
91934699|NCT03444870|183766940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.34|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.34|-0.34|0.1439
91934700|NCT03444870|183766947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|-66.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.71|-58.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Type of Tracer + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||-58.16|-74.71|<.0001
91934701|NCT03444870|183766948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.7816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.04|0.7816
91934702|NCT03444870|183766948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Medial Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.03|0.6203
91768833|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|34.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||34.8|-34.8|1.000
91811637|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.99||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.99|0.01|
91934703|NCT03444870|183766948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Frontal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.03|-0.03|0.7754
91934704|NCT03444870|183766948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Parietal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.05|0.9022
91934705|NCT03444870|183766949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Parietal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||||<.001
91934706|NCT03444870|183766950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91934707|NCT03444870|183766951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.396
91934708|NCT03444870|183766952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91934709|NCT02034552|183766969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109||||||\[80% CI\]: \[10.1%- 39.6%\]|Clopper and Pearson|Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 will be estimated with exact binomial 80% CI using the method of Clopper and Pearson.||H0: Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 ≤5%. The Type I error rate for the test in each treatment group, is one-sided 0.10. A one-sided p-value will be reported for this test.||||0.0109
91934710|NCT02034552|183766969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||\[80% CI\]: \[40.8% - 73.7%\]|Clopper and Pearson|Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 will be estimated with exact binomial 80% CI using the method of Clopper and Pearson.||H0: Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 ≤5%. The Type I error rate for the test in each treatment group, is one-sided 0.10. A one-sided p-value will be reported for this test.||||<0.0001
91934711|NCT02034552|183766969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||\[80% CI\]: \[31.8% - 68.2%\]|Clopper and Pearson|Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 will be estimated with exact binomial 80% CI using the method of Clopper and Pearson.||H0: Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 ≤5%. The Type I error rate for the test in each treatment group, is one-sided 0.10. A one-sided p-value will be reported for this test.||||<0.0001
91934712|NCT00074802|183766977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.43||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.05|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.19|-15.05|.267
91934713|NCT00074802|183766978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses of responder status.||||.018
91934714|NCT00074802|183766978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses of remitter status.||||.034
91934715|NCT00074802|183766979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.39|-5.02|.0005
91934716|NCT00074802|183766980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.61||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-11.84|.0775
91934717|NCT00074802|183766981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.53||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Paroxetine+CBT \> Paroxetine alone in BFNE change.|||-2.35|-8.70|.0006
91934718|NCT00074802|183766982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-2.16|.871
91934719|NCT00074802|183766983|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|12.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.76|-11.95|.949
91811638|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.03||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.03|0.05|
91934720|NCT02513771|183767014|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified by screening CD4 count (\<= or \> 350 cells/mm\^3) and statin use.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in sCD14 from baseline to week 15/16.||||1.000
91934721|NCT04295356|183767047|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least squares means of Cmax was estimated to assess the PK similarity between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS (bioequivalence margin of 80% to 125%).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|102.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.08|111.9|||ANCOVA|The stratification factors (gender \[male or female\], study center, and body weight as measured on Day -1) were included in ANCOVA model as covariates.||Equivalence test in Cmax between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS||111.90|94.08|
91934722|NCT04295356|183767048|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least squares means of AUC0-inf was estimated to assess the PK similarity between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS (bioequivalence margin of 80% to 125%).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|103.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.98|114.29|||ANCOVA|The stratification factors (gender \[male or female\], study center, and body weight as measured on Day -1) were included in ANCOVA model as covariates.||Equivalence test in AUC0-inf between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS||114.29|93.98|
91811639|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.94||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.94|-0.04|
91811640|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|2.31||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.31|1.26|
91934723|NCT04295356|183767049|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least squares means of AUC0-last was estimated to assess the PK similarity between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS (bioequivalence margin of 80% to 125%).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|105.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.09|121.86|||ANCOVA|The stratification factors (gender \[male or female\], study center, and body weight as measured on Day -1) were included in ANCOVA model as covariates.||Equivalence test in AUC0-last between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS||121.86|91.09|
91934724|NCT01784588|183767057|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was demonstrated if the entire confidence interval was above -15% at 36 months. The sample size was estimated under the assumption that the proportion of subjects with treatment success is 85% for each of Solyx and Obtryx. For a (one-sided) type I error rate of 0.05, 194 subjects (97 per arm) are needed to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of Solyx with a NI margin of 15%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|7.4||Non-inferiority was evaluated using a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (SIS minus TMUS). The CI was calculated based on the pooling of treatment differences across propensity score strata for a binary endpoint.||||Available Cases Only - Intent-to-Treat||7.4|-8.2|
91934725|NCT01784588|183767057|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was demonstrated if the entire confidence interval was above -15% at 36 months. The sample size was estimated under the assumption that the proportion of subjects with treatment success is 85% for each of Solyx and Obtryx. For a (one-sided) type I error rate of 0.05, 194 subjects (97 per arm) are needed to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of Solyx with a NI margin of 15%.|Unadjusted Treatment Difference (%)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|8.4||Non-inferiority was evaluated using a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (SIS minus TMUS). The CI was calculated based on the pooling of treatment differences across propensity score strata for a binary endpoint.||||Available Cases Only - Intent-to-Treat||8.4|-5.4|
91934726|NCT03807245|183767062|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean fold increase from Day 1 to Day 85: adjusted geometric mean ratio GBS-NN/NN2 25mcg/placebo||||<0.0001
91934727|NCT03807245|183767062|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean fold increase from Day 1 to Day 85: adjusted geometric mean ratio GBS-NN/NN2 50mcg/placebo||||<0.0001
91934728|NCT04904614|183767065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91934729|NCT04904614|183767066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
91934730|NCT04904614|183767067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
91934731|NCT04904614|183767069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
91934732|NCT04268004|183767071|OTHER|Chi-squared test was used to determine if study arm is associated with FP uptake.|||||=|0.64|||||||Chi-squared|df=(1, 19)||Chi-square test was used to determine if study arm is associated with FP uptake.||||=.64
91934733|NCT01668030|183767079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0853|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0853
91934734|NCT04724733|183767085|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
91934735|NCT04724733|183767085|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
91934736|NCT04724733|183767085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0172
91934737|NCT04724733|183767086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.0320
91934738|NCT04724733|183767086|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
91934739|NCT04724733|183767086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0008
91934740|NCT03372603|183767103|OTHER||Ratio|1.336|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.847|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK2798745 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 90% credible interval is presented.|||1.847|0.965|
91934741|NCT03341923|183767122|NON_INFERIORITY|"Difference (DT1MF-AMMF) of percentage of subjects rated as Optimal was provided with two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). If lower limit of CI was above -10% as non-inferiority criteria, non-inferiority was to be demonstrated."|Difference in proportion|6.1||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.9|||McNemar|||||11.9|0.2|0.0455
91934742|NCT03341923|183767122|SUPERIORITY|After demonstrating noninferiority, if lower limit of CI was above 0% as superiority criteria, superiority was to be demonstrated.|Difference in proportion|6.1||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.9|||McNemar|||||11.9|0.2|0.0455
91934743|NCT02806947|183767131|OTHER|No formal hypothesis test was planned or performed for comparing Day 28 CR/PR proportions between arms. Rather, the risk difference is estimated by a point estimate and 90% confidence interval.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.223|0.059|||||The risk difference estimate is the observed proportion of Day 28 CR/PR in the sirolimus arm minus the proportion in the prednisone arm. A Wald confidence interval for this difference is given.|The primary objective of this Phase II trial was to describe the proportion of patients with Day 28 CR/PR in each treatment arm and to estimate the risk difference of these rates using a point estimate and 90% confidence interval. These estimates are used to inform about the efficacy of sirolimus in contrast to prednisone for potential future research.||0.059|-0.223|
91934744|NCT02806947|183767131|OTHER|No formal hypothesis test was planned or performed for comparing Day 56 CR/PR proportions between arms. Rather, the risk difference is estimated by a point estimate and 95% confidence interval.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.315|0.011|||||The risk difference estimate is the observed proportion of Day 56 CR/PR in the sirolimus arm minus the proportion in the prednisone arm. A Wald confidence interval for this difference is given.|A secondary objective of this Phase II trial was to describe the proportion of patients with Day 56 CR/PR in each treatment arm and to estimate the risk difference of these rates using a point estimate and 95% confidence interval. These estimates are used to inform about the efficacy of sirolimus in contrast to prednisone for potential future research.||0.011|-0.315|
91934745|NCT02806947|183767132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with CR/PR and steroid dose of 0.25mg/kg/day or less at Day 28 post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||< 0.001
91934746|NCT02806947|183767133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in classification of acute GVHD response at Day 28 post-randomization between participants on the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These classifications were compared between treatment arms using Fisher's exact test, due to the presence of small numbers of participants in some categories.||||0.320
91934747|NCT02806947|183767133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in classification of acute GVHD response at Day 56 post-randomization between participants on the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These classifications were compared between treatment arms using Fisher's exact test, due to the presence of small numbers of participants in some categories.||||0.014
91934748|NCT02806947|183767134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078||||||Statistical significance was determine using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with treatment failure at Day 28 post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.078
91811641|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|1.11||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.11|0.06|
91934749|NCT02806947|183767134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with treatment failure at Day 56 post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.068
91934750|NCT02806947|183767135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with overall survival between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.785
91934751|NCT02806947|183767136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with disease-free survival between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.340
91934752|NCT02806947|183767137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with event-free survival between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.713
91934753|NCT02806947|183767138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with non-relapse mortality between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with malignancy relapse treated as a competing risk for non-relapse mortality. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.726
91768834|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|29.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||29.8|-39.8|1.000
91768835|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|27.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||27.2|-24.7|1.000
91934754|NCT02806947|183767139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with malignancy relapse between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with death treated as a competing risk for malignancy relapse. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.402
91934755|NCT02806947|183767140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with chronic GVHD between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with death and malignancy relapse treated as competing risks for chronic GVHD. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.296
91934756|NCT02806947|183767141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with GVHD-free survival at 6 months post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.936
91934757|NCT02806947|183767141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with GVHD-free survival at 6 months post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.598
91934758|NCT02806947|183767142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with serious infections between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with death treated as a competing risk for serious infection. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.221
91934759|NCT04511819|183767143|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.347|0.174|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.174|-0.347|0.8762
91934760|NCT00844649|183767210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.835||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test stratified by randomization strata of geographic region (North America versus Others), Karnofsky performance score (70 to 80 versus 90 to 100), and presence of liver metastasis|Stratified Log-rank Test||Hazard ratio of Albumin bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine/gemcitabine alone. The associated hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.835|0.617|<0.0001
91934761|NCT00844649|183767211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|0.821||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by randomization strata of geographic region (North America versus Others), Karnofsky performance score (70 to 80 versus 90 to 100), and presence of liver metastasis (yes vs no)|Stratified Log-rank Test||Hazard ratio of Albumin bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine / gemcitabine alone. The associated hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.821|0.581|<0.0001
91934762|NCT00844649|183767212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.178|4.662|||Chi-squared||Response rate ratio: albumin-bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine /gemcitabine alone|PA+G/PG = response rate ratio of albumin bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine / gemcitabine.||4.662|2.178|<0.0001
91934763|NCT03373110|183767222|OTHER|||||||0.973||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models fit via maximum likelihood to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction. We used separate models to assess the intervention effects across the 8-week intervention period as well as the complete 16-week follow-up period.|The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.973
91768836|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|15.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||15.1|-55.1|0.384
91811642|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.17||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.17|0.11|
91811643|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.15||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.15|0.11|
91934764|NCT03373110|183767222|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 8 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||.005
91934765|NCT03373110|183767222|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 8 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||.004
91934766|NCT03373110|183767222|OTHER|||||||0.627||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 16 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.627
91934767|NCT03373110|183767222|OTHER|||||||0.359||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 16 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.359
91934768|NCT03373110|183767222|OTHER|||||||0.597||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 16 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.597
91934769|NCT01599754|183767263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.147|||Log Rank|||||1.147|0.660|0.3211
91934770|NCT01599754|183767264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.9246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.756|||Log Rank|||||1.756|0.600|0.9246
91934771|NCT00753935|183767278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.005
91934772|NCT03282357|183767287|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin, delta = 10 percent (%). The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences between percentages was constructed using the Newcombe's recommended method.|Difference in Percentage|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.5||||||||-0.5|-13.1|
91934773|NCT03282357|183767288|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin, delta = 15%. The two-sided 95% CI for the differences between percentages was constructed using the Newcombe's recommended method.|Difference in Percentage|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-0.3||||||||-0.3|-9.8|
91934774|NCT00594204|183767330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.97|7.68||p-values are obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|||7.68|2.97|<0.0001
91934775|NCT00594204|183767331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.3|7.5||p-values obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Week 12||7.5|3.3|<0.0001
91934776|NCT00594204|183767331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.8|6.5||p-values obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Week 24||6.5|2.8|<0.0001
91934777|NCT00594204|183767332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.74|8.88|||Regression, Logistic|p-value are obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Odds Ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|||8.88|3.74|<0.0001
91811644|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|2.4||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.40|1.33|
91934778|NCT01369212|183767339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wald test|Proportion with HBsAg loss at week 240 in each group is estimated by Kaplan-Meier and then equality of proportion is tested using Wald test.||||||0.72
91934779|NCT01369212|183767340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||The cumulative percentages with HBsAg loss at week 192 were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and then the equality is tested using Wald test.|Wald Test|||||||0.09
91934780|NCT01369212|183767341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.46
91934781|NCT01369212|183767342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91934782|NCT01369212|183767343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91768837|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.281
91768838|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
91811645|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|1.05||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.05|-0.07|
91934783|NCT01369212|183767344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
91934784|NCT01369212|183767345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91934785|NCT01369212|183767346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.44
91768839|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-35.0||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8|0.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||0.8|-70.8|0.108
91811646|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.91||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.91|-0.24|
91768840|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|52.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||52.6|-27.6|0.686
91811647|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.98||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.98|-0.13|
91934786|NCT01369212|183767347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
91934787|NCT01369212|183767348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
91934788|NCT01369212|183767349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91934789|NCT01369212|183767350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
91934790|NCT01369212|183767351|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91934791|NCT01369212|183767352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.87
91934792|NCT01369212|183767353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91934793|NCT01369212|183767354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
91934794|NCT01369212|183767356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.66
91934795|NCT01369212|183767357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91934796|NCT06795204|183767367|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper boundary of 90% CI should not exceed the margin of 10ms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Upper boundary is 6.82ms, does not cross margin of the 10ms|1 min post-dose; worse case for the study drug||6.82|1.29|<0.05
91934797|NCT06795204|183767367|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper boundary of 90% CI should not exceed the margin of 10ms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.66|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Upper boundary is 14.10ms, cross margin of the 10ms|3 h post-dose; worse case of the positive control||14.10|10.66|<0.05
91934798|NCT06795204|183767367|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper boundary of 90% CI should not exceed the margin of 10ms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.07|13.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Upper boundary is 13.55ms, cross margin of the 10ms|4 h post-dose, second worse case of the positive control||13.55|10.07|<0.05
91934799|NCT01016678|183767394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|18.0||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of percentage of participants pain free at 2 hours post-dose (active) to percentage of participants pain free at 2 hours post-dose (placebo)||||0.0038
91934800|NCT01016678|183767395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|8.0||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1294
91934801|NCT03084718|183767427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.140|-0.052|0.567
91934802|NCT03084718|183767427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.209|0.018|0.015
91934803|NCT03084718|183767427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.188|-0.003|0.059
91934804|NCT03084718|183767427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.150|-0.011|0.090
91934805|NCT03084718|183767427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.129|-0.031|0.231
91934806|NCT03084718|183767427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.059|-0.101|0.612
91934807|NCT03084718|183767427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.180|0.023|0.011
91934808|NCT03084718|183767428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.097|-0.060|0.647
91934809|NCT03084718|183767428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.196|0.039|0.004
91768841|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|55.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||55.5|-5.5|0.126
91934810|NCT03084718|183767428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.149|-0.008|0.076
91934811|NCT03084718|183767428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.179|0.020|0.014
91934812|NCT03084718|183767428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.131|-0.026|0.192
91934813|NCT03084718|183767428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.032|-0.126|0.244
91934814|NCT03084718|183767428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.151|-0.003|0.060
91934815|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.098|-0.074|0.780
91934816|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.162|-0.011|0.086
91934817|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.129|-0.043|0.324
91934818|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.150|-0.024|0.153
91934819|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.117|-0.055|0.482
91934820|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.054|-0.119|0.463
91934821|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.117|-0.052|0.453
91934822|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.123|-0.064|0.533
91934823|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.199|0.011|0.029
91768842|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||27.4|-47.4|0.709
91768843|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.5||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||69.2|5.8|0.099
91768844|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||50.3|-12.8|0.257
91934824|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.146|-0.041|0.274
91934825|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.169|-0.019|0.119
91934826|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.116|-0.071|0.638
91934827|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.042|-0.147|0.274
91934828|NCT03084718|183767429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.171|-0.013|0.092
91934829|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.00|-0.31|0.053
91934830|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.11|-0.42|0.001
91768845|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|38.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||38.0|-38.0|1.000
91934831|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.06|-0.37|0.006
91934832|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.05|-0.26|0.176
91934833|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.09|-0.22|0.423
91934834|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.20|-0.11|0.574
91934835|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.05|-0.35|0.011
91934836|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo"||0.06|-0.27|0.215
91934837|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.01|-0.32|0.070
91768846|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|50.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||50.7|-19.5|0.465
91768847|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|27.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||27.0|-19.3|0.745
91934838|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.07|-0.40|0.005
91934839|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.12|-0.21|0.566
91934840|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.04|-0.29|0.124
91934841|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.08|-0.25|0.336
91934842|NCT03084718|183767430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.05|-0.37|0.010
91934843|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.01|-0.38|0.067
91934844|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.14|-0.53|< 0.001
91934845|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.01|-0.40|0.038
91811648|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.17||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.17|1.05|
91934846|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.05|-0.35|0.130
91934847|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.17|-0.22|0.811
91934848|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.33|-0.07|0.202
91768848|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|16.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||16.1|-32.6|0.512
91768849|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|57.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||57.2|-12.2|0.281
91768850|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||14.6|-30.8|0.486
91768851|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.8||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|8.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||8.0|-39.5|0.212
91768852|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|46.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||46.0|-22.3|0.697
91811649|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.64||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.64|-0.74|
91811650|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.56||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.56|-0.86|
91934849|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.01|-0.39|0.044
91934850|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.11|-0.37|0.283
91934851|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.13|-0.60|0.003
91768853|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||19.9|-23.2|0.880
91768854|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||11.2|-32.7|0.355
91768855|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||39.9|-23.7|0.678
91811651|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.8||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.80|-0.57|
91934852|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.03|-0.50|0.027
91934853|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.00|-0.48|0.054
91934854|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.10|-0.38|0.258
91934855|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.34|-0.14|0.423
91768856|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|21.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||21.9|-18.6|0.873
91768857|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|22.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||22.0|-22.3|0.990
91768858|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||39.9|-23.7|0.678
91934856|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.04|-0.42|0.111
91934857|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.05|-0.36|0.135
91934858|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.14|-0.56|< 0.001
91811652|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.58||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.58|0.22|
91934859|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.03|-0.44|0.024
91934860|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.01|-0.40|0.067
91934861|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.13|-0.29|0.444
91768859|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|25.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||25.2|-16.0|0.663
91768860|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|11.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||11.0|-28.7|0.494
91768861|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|48.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||48.1|-1.6|0.169
91768862|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|49.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||49.7|11.5|0.005
91934862|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.32|-0.09|0.285
91934863|NCT03084718|183767431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.01|-0.40|0.060
91934864|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.0|-1.1|0.115
91934865|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.1|2.0|0.008
91934866|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.2|-0.9|0.099
91934867|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.8|-2.5|0.275
91934868|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||5.8|-5.4|0.943
91934869|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||2.7|-8.6|0.308
91934870|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.7|0.8|0.024
91934871|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.0|-1.4|0.129
91811653|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.59||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.59|-0.93|
91934872|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||15.2|2.8|0.004
91934873|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.1|-0.3|0.061
91934874|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||10.5|-2.0|0.180
91934875|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.4|-5.1|0.721
91934876|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||3.1|-9.4|0.328
91934877|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.2|1.0|0.022
91934878|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.1|-0.9|0.101
91934879|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.9|2.8|0.003
91811654|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.62||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.62|-0.98|
91934880|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.8|-0.2|0.061
91934881|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.3|-1.9|0.196
91934882|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||6.3|-4.9|0.814
91934883|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||2.6|-8.6|0.291
91934884|NCT03084718|183767432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.1|1.3|0.016
91934885|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
91934886|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
91934887|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
91934888|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.913
91934889|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.871
91934890|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.958
91934891|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
91768863|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||28.1|-26.8|0.963
91934892|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.010
91934893|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.011
91934894|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.002
91934895|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.996
91934896|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.632
91934897|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.630
91934898|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
91768864|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|33.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||33.2|-19.8|0.729
91768865|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||20.0|-25.8|0.804
91768866|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.0||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|13.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||13.1|-41.1|0.306
91768867|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|40.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||40.0|-14.1|0.497
91934899|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.002
91934900|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.001
91934901|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
91934902|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.960
91934903|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.725
91934904|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.764
91934905|NCT03084718|183767433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
91934906|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||8.7|-2.8|0.316
91934907|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.7|-0.9|0.097
91934908|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.2|-1.3|0.128
91934909|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.8|-3.9|0.511
91811655|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.45||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.45|-1.05|
91811656|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|1.02||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.02|-0.47|
91811657|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.11||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.11|0.15|
91811658|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.74||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.74|-0.27|
91934910|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.3|-4.3|0.610
91934911|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||5.4|-6.3|0.882
91934912|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.9|1.5|0.013
91934913|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.2|-2.8|0.219
91934914|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.8|-2.2|0.166
91934915|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.9|-2.0|0.151
91934916|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|8.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.2|-6.9|0.871
91934917|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.3|-6.8|0.837
91934918|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||7.7|-7.4|0.966
91934919|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||16.9|2.1|0.012
91934920|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.1|-2.5|0.233
91934921|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.4|-1.2|0.113
91934922|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.2|-1.3|0.120
91934923|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.6|-5.1|0.691
91934924|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.5|-5.2|0.722
91934925|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||6.2|-6.5|0.966
91934926|NCT03084718|183767434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||14.5|2.2|0.008
91768868|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.8|-24.0|0.993
91811659|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.91||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.91|-0.03|
91934927|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||7.9|-3.4|0.426
91768869|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.5||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|4.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||4.1|-51.2|0.101
91768870|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|38.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||38.3|-24.0|0.655
91811660|NCT01529346|183498000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.67||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.67|-0.30|
91934928|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.2|-0.1|0.055
91934929|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.1|-0.2|0.059
91768871|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.5||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|40.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||40.0|-9.0|0.221
91934930|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.0|-2.5|0.263
91768872|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||20.3|-36.1|0.585
91811661|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.14||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.14|-0.19|
91811662|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.37||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.37|0.03|
91811663|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.24||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.24|-0.10|
91934931|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.8|-2.6|0.280
91934932|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||5.6|-5.9|0.965
91934933|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.3|2.2|0.007
91811664|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.21||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.21|-0.16|
91811665|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.45||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.45|-0.06|
91934934|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.2|-3.5|0.308
91934935|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.2|-1.6|0.124
91934936|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||14.3|-0.4|0.063
91934937|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.4|-5.5|0.602
91934938|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||10.6|-4.3|0.402
91934939|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||8.6|-6.3|0.753
91934940|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||17.4|2.9|0.006
91934941|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||9.2|-3.1|0.331
91934942|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.9|-0.5|0.073
91934943|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.4|0.1|0.048
91934944|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.9|-3.6|0.410
91934945|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.4|-3.1|0.320
91934946|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||6.8|-5.7|0.867
91934947|NCT03084718|183767435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||15.0|2.9|0.004
91934948|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.9|-3.2|0.260
91934949|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.9|-4.2|0.387
91934950|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||9.7|-5.4|0.574
91934951|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||6.7|-8.6|0.799
91934952|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||5.5|-9.8|0.577
91934953|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||6.5|-8.8|0.764
91934954|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.8|-1.1|0.097
91934955|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||8.8|-9.9|0.908
91934956|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||16.5|-2.2|0.135
91934957|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo"||8.1|-10.7|0.786
91934958|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|17.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||17.1|-1.7|0.109
91934959|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.7|-10.1|0.876
91934960|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||1.0|-17.9|0.080
91934961|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||15.3|-3.2|0.202
91934962|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||9.7|-5.9|0.635
91934963|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.1|-2.6|0.191
91934964|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||8.3|-7.4|0.914
91934965|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||11.3|-4.6|0.407
91934966|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||6.4|-9.4|0.718
91934967|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||3.1|-12.7|0.235
91934968|NCT03084718|183767436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.9|-1.6|0.118
91934969|NCT01978509|183767443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.70
91934970|NCT01594333|183767450|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status(diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone)|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.25|0.82|0.91
91934971|NCT01594333|183767451|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status(metabolic syndrome alone or diabetes at enrollment).|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.16|0.79|0.67
91934972|NCT01594333|183767452|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.16||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.56||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (metabolic syndrome alone or diabetes at enrollment).|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.56|0.87|0.32
91934973|NCT01594333|183767453|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (metabolic syndrome alone or diabetes) at enrollment.|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.12|0.81|0.57
91934974|NCT01594333|183767454|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.31||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, type of qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.31|0.60|0.54
91934975|NCT01594333|183767455|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time since qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment.|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.14|0.84|0.80
91934976|NCT01594333|183767457|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.22||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment.|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.22|0.53|0.31
91934977|NCT01594333|183767458|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.12|0.75|0.38
91934978|NCT00589979|183767463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.1006||95.0|0.89|3.55||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Cox frailty model|Model included treatment, sequence, period, and first-order carryover as fixed effects and frailty; patient nested within sequence was frailty.|The Hazard Ratio (HR) provided is the ratio of Placebo to Lidoderm.|The two treatments were compared by time-varying relative hazards, associated P values, and 95% confidence intervals. Appropriate survival or hazard functions were calculated.||3.55|0.89|0.1006
91934979|NCT00589979|183767465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.1272||95.0|0.86|4.02||The logistic regression model for repeated measures used for this analysis included treatment, sequence, period, and first-order carry-over as fixed effects and repeated measures taken on patients nested within sequence.|Regression, Logistic|The results presented are reported in terms of odds ratios, corresponding 95% confidence intervals, and P-values for each fixed effect in the model.|The Odds Ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|The proportion of patients who exited from the current treatment period prior to the 4-week planned duration was analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures.||4.02|0.86|0.1272
91934980|NCT00589979|183767466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.0224||95.0|-1.01|-0.08||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||-0.08|-1.01|0.0224
91934981|NCT00589979|183767467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.2747||95.0|-0.31|1.09||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects regression||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||1.09|-0.31|0.2747
91934982|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4498||95.0|-0.8|0.36||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Intense: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.36|-0.80|0.4498
91934983|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.1065||95.0|-1.11|0.11||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effect models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Sharp: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.11|-1.11|0.1065
91934984|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.0484||95.0|-0.94|0.0||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Hot: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||-0.00|-0.94|0.0484
91934985|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.4973||95.0|-0.93|0.46||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effect models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Dull: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.46|-0.93|0.4973
91934986|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.3966||95.0|-0.16|0.41||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effect models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Cold: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.41|-0.16|0.3966
91934987|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.6941||95.0|-0.53|0.35||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Sensitive: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.35|-0.53|0.6941
91934988|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.5664||95.0|-0.45|0.82||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Tender: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.82|-0.45|0.5664
91934989|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.6871||95.0|-0.55|0.37||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Itchy: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.37|-0.55|0.6871
91934990|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.2318||95.0|-1.08|0.27||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Shocking: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.27|-1.08|0.2318
91934991|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.3383||95.0|-0.64|0.22||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Numb: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.22|-0.64|0.3383
91934992|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.874||95.0|-0.63|0.73||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Electrical: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.73|-0.63|0.8740
91934993|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.999||95.0|-0.54|0.54||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Tingling: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.54|-0.54|0.9990
91934994|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.4183||95.0|-0.85|0.36||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Cramping: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.36|-0.85|0.4183
91768873|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|53.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||53.9|-4.8|0.124
91811666|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.7||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.70|0.19|
91811667|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.54||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.54|0.04|
91811668|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.87||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.87|0.32|
91768874|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||39.9|-9.5|0.234
91768875|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|23.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||23.4|-32.9|0.741
91768876|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-6.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||-6.0|-44.0|0.544
91811669|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.4||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.40|-0.16|
91811670|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.68||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.68|0.12|
91811671|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.5||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.50|-0.05|
91811672|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.01||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.01|0.40|
91811673|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.4||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.40|-0.19|
91811674|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.49||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.49|-0.10|
91811675|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.43||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.43|-0.16|
91811676|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.06||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.06|0.41|
91768877|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.5||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|7.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||7.3|-38.2|0.238
91811677|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.64||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.64|0.01|
91934995|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.8227||95.0|-0.71|0.57||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Radiating: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.57|-0.71|0.8227
91934996|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.587||95.0|-0.48|0.85||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Throbbing: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.85|-0.48|0.5870
91934997|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.2181||95.0|-1.15|0.27||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Aching: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.27|-1.15|0.2181
91934998|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.6276||95.0|-0.68|0.42||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Heavy: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.42|-0.68|0.6276
91934999|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.0917||95.0|-1.23|0.09||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Overall unpleasantness: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.09|-1.23|0.0917
91935000|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.2089||95.0|-1.13|0.25||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Intense deep pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.25|-1.13|0.2089
91935001|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4188||95.0|-0.75|0.31||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Intense surface pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.31|-0.75|0.4188
91935002|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.6959||95.0|-0.32|0.21||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Average surface pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.21|-0.32|0.6959
91811678|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.62||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.62|-0.01|
91811679|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.71||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.71|0.08|
91811680|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.61||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.61|0.92|
91935003|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.4806||95.0|-0.64|0.3||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Average deep pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.30|-0.64|0.4806
91935004|NCT00589979|183767468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.2291||95.0|-0.74|0.18||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Average paroxysmal pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.18|-0.74|0.2291
91935005|NCT00589979|183767469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3185||95.0|0.77|2.27||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The Odds Ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Global impression of change from baseline with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||2.27|0.77|0.3185
91935006|NCT00589979|183767470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4748||95.0|0.72|2.06||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The odds ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Global impression of change from baseline with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||2.06|0.72|0.4748
91935007|NCT00589979|183767471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.7839||95.0|-0.74|0.98||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.98|-0.74|0.7839
91935008|NCT00589979|183767473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.3773||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.04|-0.02|0.3773
91935009|NCT00589979|183767474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2605||95.0|0.38|1.3||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The odds ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Treatment satisfaction with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||1.30|0.38|0.2605
91935010|NCT00589979|183767475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3193||95.0|0.44|1.3||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The odds ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Treatment satisfaction with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||1.30|0.44|0.3193
91811681|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.76||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.76|0.04|
91935011|NCT00589979|183767476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74||||0.1378||95.0|-0.57|4.04||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates||4.04|-0.57|0.1378
91935012|NCT00589979|183767477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6833||95.0|0.47|1.65||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects.|The Odds Ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|||1.65|0.47|0.6833
91935013|NCT00589979|183767478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.16||||0.1143||95.0|-5.48|49.8||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Disturbance: the overall treatment difference for Lidoderm and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||49.8|-5.48|0.1143
91935014|NCT00589979|183767478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.9108||95.0|-19.8|22.2||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Effectiveness: the overall treatment difference for Lidoderm and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||22.2|-19.8|0.9108
91935015|NCT00589979|183767478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.31||||0.3769||95.0|-10.3|27.0||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Supplementation: the overall treatment difference for Lidoderm and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||27.0|-10.3|0.3769
91935016|NCT03428997|183767482|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed-effects model, where the test material/negative control is a fixed effect and the subject is a random effect|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.274|||||||2-sided t-test|||Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal between the compared treatments.||||0.274
91935017|NCT02553317|183767514|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0099||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Log Rank|||Time to platelet count response in the caplacizumab arm and placebo arm was compared by conducting a two-sided stratified log-rank test based on a KM analysis, with severity of neurological involvement (according to the Glasgow coma scale \[GCS\] category, stratification factor used in randomization: ≤12 / 13-15) as stratification factor.||||= 0.0099
91935018|NCT02553317|183767514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|2.195|||||The HR was estimated from a Cox proportional Hazards regression model.|Time to platelet count response was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model with time to platelet count response as dependent variable, and treatment group and GCS category as independent variables. The hazard (or platelet count normalization rate) ratio from the Cox model was reported along with 95% CI.||2.195|1.095|
91935019|NCT02553317|183767515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was conducted with adjustment for GCS category (stratification factor used in randomization).||||< 0.0001
91935020|NCT02553317|183767516|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A CMH test was conducted with adjustment for GCS category (stratification factor used in randomization).||||= 0.0004
91935021|NCT02553317|183767517|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0572||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A CMH test was conducted with adjustment for GCS category (stratification factor used in randomization).||||= 0.0572
91935022|NCT02802878|183767564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Adjusted for two observations per subject.|Regression, Linear|Side treated as a repeated factor||||||.67
91935023|NCT03970395|183767591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|23.84||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.5|Risk Ratio (RR)||Risk Difference 0.41 (IC 95; 0.25-0.53)|||23.84|2.46|0.01
91935024|NCT03970395|183767592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|13.27|||Relative Risk (RR)||Risk Difference 0.47 (IC 95; 0.31-0.64)|||13.27|2.36|0.01
91935025|NCT03970395|183767593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|23.18|||Risk Ratio (RR)||Risk Difference 0.44 (IC 95%; 0.27-0.60)|||23.18|2.42|0.01
91935026|NCT03970395|183767594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.91||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|11.38|||Risk Ratio (RR)||Risk Difference 0.54 (IC 95; 0.36-0.72)|||11.38|2.12|0.01
91811682|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.69||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.69|-0.03|
91935027|NCT01906866|183767608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|62.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||62.26|2.38|=0.035
91935028|NCT01906866|183767609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.787|=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.61|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.8|-44.61|=0.011
91935029|NCT01906866|183767612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||MMRM|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis||||0.053
91935030|NCT01906866|183767612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||MI analysis|||||||0.039
91935031|NCT01906866|183767614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||MMRM|||||||0.077
91935032|NCT01906866|183767615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91935033|NCT01529385|183767663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91935034|NCT01529385|183767664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91935035|NCT01529385|183767665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||<.05
91935036|NCT01529385|183767666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91935037|NCT01529385|183767667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91811683|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.77||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.77|0.05|
91935038|NCT01529385|183767668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91935039|NCT01529385|183767670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91935040|NCT01529385|183767671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91811684|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.68||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.68|0.92|
91935041|NCT01529385|183767672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91935042|NCT01401465|183767673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|88.235|||<|0.0001||||||The significance level was set at 0.025 to adjust for the fact that two co-primary endpoints were being tested.|Two-sided Signed Rank Test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of the CI not available due to ties.|The null hypothesis is that the median of the standardized Total Preference Score = 50. Values \> 50 indicate preference for ciclesonide, while values \< 50 indicate preference for mometasone. For the primary endpoint of the Total Preference Score, assuming an SD of 40, a sample size of 155 will have 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 SD units (10 raw score units) from the neutrality preference population value of 50, using a single group t-test with a 0.025 two-sided significance level.||||<0.0001
91935043|NCT01401465|183767674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.22|16.58||The significance level was set at 0.025 to adjust for the fact that two co-primary endpoints were being tested.|Linear Mixed Model|Linear Mixed Model with effects for Period, Treatment, Sex, Race, Study Center, and covariates of Age and Baseline.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline (CfBL) for CIC is equal to the mean CfBL for MOM. In Study 060-301, a correlation between BL periods 1 and 2 of 0.7 and a change score SD of 15 was seen for the RACS. A sample size of 41 in each sequence group (82 total ) gives a 2 x 2 crossover design 80% power to detect the difference in the CfBL of 0.35 SD units (5.25 raw score units) using a two group t-test with a 0.025 two-sided significance level and a SD of 15 for the difference.||16.58|11.22|<0.0001
91935044|NCT01401465|183767674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.56||The significance level was set at 0.025 to adjust for the fact that two co-primary endpoints were being tested.|Linear Mixed Model|Linear Mixed Model with effects for Period, Treatment, Sex, Race, Study Center, and covariates of Age and Baseline||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline (CfBL) for CIC is equal to the mean CfBL for MOM. In Study 060-301, a correlation between BL periods 1 and 2 of 0.7 and a change score SD of 15 was seen for the RACS. A sample size of 41 in each sequence group (82 total ) gives a 2 x 2 crossover design 80% power to detect the difference in the CfBL of 0.35 SD units (5.25 raw score units) using a two group t-test with a 0.025 two-sided significance level and a SD of 15 for the difference.||7.56|2.20|<0.0001
91935045|NCT01401465|183767675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|88.889|||<|0.0001||||||If both primary endpoints are significant, the evaluation of this key secondary endpoint will be conducted at a significance level of 0.05.|Two-sided signed-rank test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of the CI not available due to ties.|The null hypothesis is that the median of the standardized Treatment Process Composite Preference Score = 50. Values \> 50 indicate preference for ciclesonide, while values \< 50 indicate preference for mometasone. Assuming an SD of 40, as observed in Study 060-301, a sample size of 128 will have 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 SD units (10 raw score units) from the neutrality preference population value of 50, using a single group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significant level||||<0.0001
91935046|NCT01401465|183767676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI of the LS mean difference of ciclesonide nasal aerosol minus mometasone aqueous nasal spray was calculated from the ANCOVA model, and the upper bound of the CI was compared to the non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI of this difference was \< 0.5.|Difference in LS Means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||f both primary endpoints are significant, the evaluation of this key secondary endpoint will be conducted at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Site, treatment, period, treatment sequence as fixed effects, subject nested within sequence as a random effect, and baseline rTNSS as a covariate.|Ciclesonide 74 mcg minus Mometasone 200 mcg|The null hypothesis is that the change from baseline in rTNSS for ciclesonide 74 mcg nasal aerosol minus the change from baseline in rTNSS for mometasone AQ 200 mcg is greater than 0.5.||0.1|-0.3|
91935047|NCT01115738|183767704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.24||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.98|55.47||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||55.47|-10.98|0.188
91935048|NCT01115738|183767704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|36.07||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||36.07|-28.20|0.809
91935049|NCT01115738|183767705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.93||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|54.12||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||54.12|-20.26|0.370
91935050|NCT01115738|183767705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.89||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|72.06||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||72.06|-0.29|0.052
91935051|NCT01115738|183767705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.45||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.55|58.45||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||58.45|-39.55|0.703
91935052|NCT01115738|183767705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.45||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.53|53.44||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||53.44|-42.53|0.823
91935053|NCT01115738|183767705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.69||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|57.84||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||57.84|-0.47|0.054
91935054|NCT01115738|183767705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|39.9||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||39.90|-17.29|0.436
91935055|NCT01115738|183767705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.87||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|32.71||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||32.71|-14.96|0.463
91935056|NCT01115738|183767705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.62|19.94||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||19.94|-26.62|0.777
91935057|NCT01115738|183767708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|6.48||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||6.48|-13.10|0.505
91768878|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.9||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|5.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.4|-41.1|0.364
91768879|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|46.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||46.5|-46.5|1.000
91768880|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|13.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||13.5|-34.9|0.454
91935058|NCT01115738|183767708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|4.27||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||4.27|-14.74|0.278
91935059|NCT01115738|183767708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|14.02||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||14.02|-19.44|0.749
91935060|NCT01115738|183767708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|17.53||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||17.53|-15.24|0.890
91935061|NCT01115738|183767708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.89||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|4.24||P-value is for 6 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||4.24|-18.02|0.223
91935062|NCT01115738|183767708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|12.1||P-value is for 6 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||12.10|-9.44|0.808
91935063|NCT01115738|183767708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.07||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|-0.04||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||-0.04|-20.11|0.049
91935064|NCT01115738|183767708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|8.86||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||8.86|-10.85|0.842
91935065|NCT01115738|183767708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.03||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.58|3.52||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||3.52|-13.58|0.247
91935066|NCT01115738|183767708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|8.71||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||8.71|-8.09|0.942
91935067|NCT01115738|183767711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.449||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.81|45.71|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values at baseline for clopidogrel treated participants as response and CYP2C19 metabolizer status as covariate of main interest.||45.71|-38.81|0.8711
91935068|NCT01115738|183767712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.714||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.78|55.36|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values of 6 hours post Prasugrel LD as response and treatment, CYP2C19 metabolizer status, interaction of treatment-by-CYP2C19 metabolizer status as fixed effects.||55.36|-72.78|0.7875
91935069|NCT01115738|183767712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.435||||0.8913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.23|46.37|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values of 6 hours Post-Prasugrel LD as response and treatment, CYP2C19 metabolizer status, interaction of treatment-by-CYP2C19 metabolizer status as fixed effects.||46.37|-53.23|0.8913
91935070|NCT01115738|183767712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.6229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.43|58.83|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values of 6 hours Post-Prasugrel LD as response and treatment, CYP2C19 metabolizer status, interaction of treatment-by-CYP2C19 metabolizer status as fixed effects.||58.83|-35.43|0.6229
91935071|NCT04009213|183767718|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: δT - δC ≥ 0.9 Ha: δT - δC \< 0.9|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.025
91935072|NCT04009213|183767719|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: qT - qC ≥ 10% H1: qT - qC \< 10%|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||< 0.025
91768881|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-6.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||-6.0|-44.0|0.063
91935073|NCT04009213|183767720|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: pC - pT ≥ 10% H1: pC - pT \< 10%,|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||<0.025
91935074|NCT04009213|183767721|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: πC - πT ≥ 15% H1: πC - πT \< 15%,|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||< 0.025
91935075|NCT02921763|183767725|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0533|||||||Sign test|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst, the values before treatment initiation and at last observation were compared, frequency of increase and decrease was summarized and the sign test was performed separately in the efficacy analysis set and study completers."||||=0.0533
91935076|NCT02921763|183767727|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7328|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.7328
91935077|NCT02921763|183767727|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1193|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.1193
91935078|NCT02921763|183767728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||0.7221
91935079|NCT02921763|183767728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0861|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||0.0861
91935080|NCT02921763|183767732|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||=0.0020
91935081|NCT02921763|183767732|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||=0.0001
91935082|NCT02921763|183767732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||<0.0001
91935083|NCT02921763|183767732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||<0.0001
91935084|NCT02921763|183767732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||<0.0001
91935085|NCT02921763|183767733|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||=0.0024
91935086|NCT02921763|183767733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
91811685|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.95||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.95|0.16|
91935087|NCT02921763|183767733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
91935088|NCT02921763|183767733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
91935089|NCT02921763|183767733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
91935090|NCT02921763|183767734|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||=0.0037
91935091|NCT02921763|183767734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
91935092|NCT02921763|183767734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
91935093|NCT02921763|183767734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
91935094|NCT02921763|183767734|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||=0.0003
91935095|NCT02921763|183767735|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Separately in the efficacy analysis set and study completers, the values before treatment initiation and at last observation were compared, the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.8035
91935096|NCT02921763|183767736|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Separately in the efficacy analysis set and study completers, the values before treatment initiation and at last observation were compared, the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.8185
91935097|NCT01709981|183767745|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.31
91935098|NCT02659605|183767757|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.572|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.572
91935099|NCT02659605|183767758|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.849|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.849
91768882|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|55.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||55.2|-35.2|0.544
91935100|NCT02659605|183767759|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.886|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.886
91935101|NCT02659605|183767760|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.612|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.612
91768883|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||14.6|-25.5|0.663
91935102|NCT02659605|183767761|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.728|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.728
91768884|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||0.6|-30.6|0.251
91768885|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91935103|NCT02659605|183767762|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.584|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.584
91935104|NCT00475540|183767788|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.1 software. One patient did not receive the assigned mesh treatment because the surgeon felt there was inadequate vaginal caliber, so non mesh repair was performed. This subject was analyzed in the non mesh group for the 3-month and 1-year outcomes rather than intent-to-treat approach. This subject was lost to follow-up after 12 months and not included in the 3-year analysis.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-tests, Wilcoxon signed rank, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests continuous variables; X2 for categorical variables. Combined cure outcomes Fisher's exact test||Sample size primary outcome 1 year: 45 participants per arm, 20% difference success (70% no mesh and 90% mesh), alpha of .05 and 80% power, 15% loss to follow-up.||||<0.05
91935105|NCT04390568|183767805|OTHER|The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and the area under the concentration-time curve of Spesolimap in plasma over the time interval from 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞) of the intravenous dose groups.|Slope|1.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.268|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|No statistical hypotheses tests were planned for this trial.||1.268|0.979|
91935106|NCT04390568|183767806|OTHER|The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and the maximum measured concentration of the Spesolimap in plasma (Cmax) of the intravenous dose groups.|Slope|1.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.183|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|No statistical hypotheses tests were planned for this trial.||1.183|0.961|
91935107|NCT03245723|183767809|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.38
91935108|NCT03245723|183767810|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.12
91935109|NCT03784027|183767813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|9.9|||Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||9.9|7.4|<0.001
91935110|NCT03784027|183767814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-7.1||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||-7.1|-9.9|<0.001
91935111|NCT03784027|183767815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
91935112|NCT03784027|183767816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.9|-4.9|<0.001
91935113|NCT03784027|183767817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-9.8||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||-9.8|-14.8|<0.001
91935114|NCT03784027|183767818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear|||||0.5|-0.4|0.74
91935115|NCT03784027|183767819|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-4.8|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||-4.8|-7.6|
91935116|NCT03784027|183767820|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values. Differences in percents are shown in percentage points.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.05|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.05|-1.5|
91811686|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.97||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.97|0.17|
91935117|NCT03784027|183767821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.1|-0.1|
91935118|NCT03784027|183767822|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||-0.6|-1.6|
91935119|NCT03784027|183767823|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.009|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.009|-0.006|
91935120|NCT03784027|183767824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||Regression, Linear|Based on a longitudinal model adjusting for baseline value and period as fixed effects. The model accounts for correlated data from the same subject.||||0.03|-0.02|0.75
91935121|NCT03784027|183767825|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||||(For total daily insulin use) Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.8|-0.1|
91935122|NCT01512108|183767836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.27||||0.0026||95.0|-0.44|-0.09|||ANOVA|||||-0.09|-0.44|0.0026
91935123|NCT01512108|183767837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.3||||0.0458||95.0|-0.6|-0.01|||ANOVA|||||-0.01|-0.60|0.0458
91768886|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||13.0|-13.4|1.000
91768887|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|18.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||18.7|-14.4|1.000
91768888|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|1.000
91768889|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||17.7|-18.7|1.000
91768890|NCT02365649|183425725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|0.501
91935124|NCT02373371|183767838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Main analysis:~* nbDPKAdispM3 the number of KA disappeared at M3 after treatment with DPDT compared to the inclusion layer,~* nbCPKAdispM3 the number of KA disappeared at M3 after treatment with conventional blue light,~The primary endpoint is:~differenceM3 = nbDPKAdispM3 - nbCPKAdispM3 The main analysis will consist of a signed Wilcoxon rank test for matched data testing whether difference M3 is significantly different from 0"||||0.8460
91768891|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||50.1|9.9|0.155
91768892|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||50.1|9.9|0.024
91768893|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|33.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||33.4|-40.1|1.000
91768894|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|29.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||29.2|-46.4|0.633
91811687|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.03||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.03|0.24|
91768895|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|27.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||27.2|-24.7|1.000
91768896|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|12.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||12.5|-61.3|0.209
91935125|NCT02373371|183767840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91935126|NCT02373371|183767841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91935127|NCT04847141|183767844|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-3.6||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|7.4||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants meeting the primary efficacy endpoint between C19-IG 20% 1 g and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||7.4|-14.6|0.5167
91935128|NCT04847141|183767844|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.2||||0.8197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|12.0||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants meeting the primary efficacy endpoint between C19-IG 20% 2 g and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||12.0|-9.6|0.8197
91935129|NCT04847141|183767845|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1||||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.44|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 7||0.44|-0.24|0.5756
91935130|NCT04847141|183767845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.17|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 7||0.17|-0.52|0.3289
91935131|NCT04847141|183767845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.34|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 14||0.34|-0.12|0.3418
91811688|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.78||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.78|0.97|
91935132|NCT04847141|183767845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.13|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 14||0.13|-0.34|0.3688
91935133|NCT04847141|183767846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 3||1.2|-4.7|0.1506
91935134|NCT04847141|183767846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.6||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 1 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||4.6|-1.3|0.1655
91935135|NCT04847141|183767846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.0||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.7||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||1.7|-6.5|0.2337
91935136|NCT04847141|183767846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.8||||0.7212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 1 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||4.2|-6.1|0.7212
91935137|NCT04847141|183767846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.1||||0.3897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.1||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||3.1|-7.8|0.3897
91811689|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.92||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.92|0.08|
91935138|NCT04847141|183767847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.1||||0.5489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|13.3||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 3||13.3|-7.1|0.5489
91935139|NCT04847141|183767847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.4||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|14.7||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 3||14.7|-5.8|0.3920
91811690|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.84||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.84|-0.03|
91935140|NCT04847141|183767847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.7||||0.7632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.9||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||12.9|-9.5|0.7632
91935141|NCT04847141|183767847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.9||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|19.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||19.2|-3.6|0.1702
91935142|NCT04847141|183767847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.0||||0.7316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|9.4||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||9.4|-13.3|0.7316
91935143|NCT04847141|183767847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.9||||0.2104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|18.0||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||18.0|-4.2|0.2104
91935144|NCT04847141|183767847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.9||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 29||13.2|-2.9|0.2059
91935145|NCT04847141|183767847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.6463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.3||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 29||10.3|-6.5|0.6463
91935146|NCT04847141|183767848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9033|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9033
91935147|NCT04847141|183767848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5456|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5456
91935148|NCT04847141|183767849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.79||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.6||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required oxygen supplementation between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between each of 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||4.6|-2.9|0.6311
91935149|NCT04847141|183767849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|2.6||||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.3||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required oxygen supplementation between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between each of 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||7.3|-1.2|0.1441
91935150|NCT04847141|183767850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (LSM) Difference|0.02||||0.8555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LSM between 1 g C19-IG 20% \& placebo was calculated using an ANCOVA model,with number of days on oxygen as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect,adjusting for baseline characteristics(including age \& gender).|||0.27|-0.23|0.8555
91935151|NCT04847141|183767850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.28|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LSM between 2 g C19-IG 20% \& placebo was calculated using an ANCOVA model,with number of days on oxygen as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect,adjusting for baseline characteristics(including age \& gender).|||0.28|-0.22|0.8108
91935152|NCT04847141|183767852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.07|-0.00|0.0692
91935153|NCT04847141|183767852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.05|-0.02|0.4956
91935154|NCT04847141|183767852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.03|-0.13|0.2200
91935155|NCT04847141|183767852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.01||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.01|-0.14|0.0906
91935156|NCT04847141|183767852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||-0.00|-0.07|0.0439
91935157|NCT04847141|183767852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||0.02|-0.05|0.4128
91935158|NCT04847141|183767854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.27||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.27|-0.28|0.9713
91935159|NCT04847141|183767854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.35|-0.20|0.5985
91935160|NCT04847141|183767854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.28||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.28|-0.25|0.9209
91935161|NCT04847141|183767854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.25|-0.28|0.9181
91935162|NCT04847141|183767854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.41||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||0.41|-0.11|0.2443
91935163|NCT04847141|183767854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.39||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||0.39|-0.13|0.3233
91768897|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.283
91768898|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
91811691|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.93||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.93|0.09|
91935164|NCT04847141|183767855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.0||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.5||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required at least 1 COVID-19 related MAV between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||11.5|-5.3|0.4676
91768899|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-41.7||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.8|-5.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||-5.5|-77.8|0.048
91811692|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.59||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.59|0.75|
91935165|NCT04847141|183767855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.9||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|13.4||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required at least 1 COVID-19 related MAV between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||13.4|-3.6|0.2507
91935166|NCT04847141|183767856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.1||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|4.0||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required hospital admission between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||4.0|-3.8|0.9744
91935167|NCT04847141|183767856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|2.7||||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.5||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required hospital admission between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||7.5|-1.6|0.1878
91935168|NCT04847141|183767857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.4|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.40|-0.38|0.9485
91935169|NCT04847141|183767857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.54|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.54|-0.25|0.4734
91935170|NCT04847141|183767858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.02||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|3.12||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required ICU admission between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.12|-3.05|0.9853
91935171|NCT04847141|183767858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.01||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.07||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required ICU admission between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.07|-2.99|0.9890
91935172|NCT04847141|183767859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.12|-0.07|0.5780
91768900|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|61.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||61.4|-18.6|0.408
91935173|NCT04847141|183767859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.10|-0.09|0.9065
91935174|NCT04847141|183767863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.02||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|3.12||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants with critical COVID-19 illness between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.12|-3.05|0.9853
91935175|NCT04847141|183767863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.01||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.07||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants with critical COVID-19 illness between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.07|-2.99|0.9890
91935176|NCT01357980|183767880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-1.54||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.39||No multiplicity adjustment applied: each test conducted at a 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of the average Daily IEF change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline average daily IEF value as covariate.||0.39|-3.47|0.11
91935177|NCT01357980|183767880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.61||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.05||No multiplicity adjustment applied: each test conducted at a 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of the average Daily IEF change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline average daily IEF value as covariate.||0.05|-1.27|0.07
91768901|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|55.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||55.5|-5.5|0.126
91768902|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|21.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||21.1|-54.5|0.454
91768903|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.7||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|69.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||69.7|1.8|0.183
91768904|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||50.3|-12.8|0.257
91811693|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.72||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.72|-0.27|
91935178|NCT01357980|183767881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|219.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.6|369.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||369.5|69.6|<0.01
91935179|NCT01357980|183767881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|224.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|140.9|307.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||307.4|140.9|<0.01
91935180|NCT01357980|183767881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|117.0||||0.09||95.0|-20.0|254.0|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||254.0|-20.0|0.09
91935181|NCT01357980|183767881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|223.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.3|353.1|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||353.1|94.3|<0.01
91935182|NCT01357980|183767881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|138.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|242.2|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||242.2|34.7|0.01
91935183|NCT01357980|183767881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|186.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.2|319.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||319.4|53.2|<0.01
91935184|NCT01357980|183767882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-23.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.6|18.9|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||18.9|-66.6|0.25
91935185|NCT01357980|183767882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-67.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.9|-21.2|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-21.2|-112.9|<0.01
91935186|NCT01357980|183767882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-35.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-4.6|-65.6|0.03
91935187|NCT01357980|183767882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-51.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.5|-12.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-12.4|-89.5|0.01
91935188|NCT01357980|183767882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-32.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-11.0|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-11.0|-53.7|<0.01
91935189|NCT01357980|183767882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-45.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-14.1|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-14.1|-76.6|<0.01
91768905|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|33.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|ANOVA||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||33.6|-44.7|1.000
91768906|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|76.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||76.3|-9.7|0.307
91935190|NCT01357980|183767883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|1.7||||0.05||95.0|||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 14 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||0.05
91935191|NCT01357980|183767883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|2.3|||<|0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 14 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||<0.01
91935192|NCT01357980|183767884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|2.3||||0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 42 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||0.01
91935193|NCT01357980|183767884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|1.8|||<|0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 42 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||<0.01
91935194|NCT01357980|183767885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|1.9||||0.05|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 84 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||0.05
91935195|NCT01357980|183767885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|2.1|||<|0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 84 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||<0.01
91935196|NCT01357980|183767886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-1.13|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||-0.35|-1.91|<0.01
91935197|NCT01357980|183767886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.18||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.90|-1.26|0.7
91935198|NCT01357980|183767886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.52||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.52|-1.56|0.3
91935199|NCT01357980|183767886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.48||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.52|-1.47|0.3
91935200|NCT01357980|183767886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-1.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||-0.73|-2.02|<0.01
91935201|NCT01357980|183767886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.55|-1.35|0.4
91935202|NCT04507776|183767890|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Baseline||||0.75
91935203|NCT04507776|183767890|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Year 1 (Month 12)||||<0.05
91935204|NCT04507776|183767890|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Baseline||||<0.05
91935205|NCT04507776|183767890|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Year 7||||0.43
91935206|NCT04507776|183767891|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Change at Year 1 (Month 12)||||0.0001
91935207|NCT04507776|183767891|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Change at Year 7||||0.247
91935208|NCT04507776|183767892|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Baseline||||0.21
91935209|NCT04507776|183767892|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Year 1 (Month 12)||||<0.05
91935210|NCT04507776|183767892|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Baseline||||0.62
91935211|NCT04507776|183767892|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Year 7||||0.18
91935212|NCT04507776|183767893|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Change at Year 1 (Month 12)||||0.0001
91935213|NCT04507776|183767893|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Change at Year 7||||0.003
91935214|NCT03532776|183767943|EQUIVALENCE|BE limits: -20.0% to 20.0%|Equivalence ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|7.0||||||||7|-12|
91935215|NCT00868166|183767946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.71
91935216|NCT00868166|183767947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.83
91935217|NCT00868166|183767947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Non-stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.73
91935218|NCT00868166|183767949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.21
91935219|NCT00868166|183767949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Non-stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.20
91935220|NCT00868166|183767951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.56
91935221|NCT01797445|183767958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|3.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.0|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region (US vs ex-US).|The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was ≥ 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was \< 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group.||7.1|-1.0|0.13
91935222|NCT04190186|183768003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.594|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
91935223|NCT00168064|183768014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The PG formulation was determined to be non-inferior to the AP formulation if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval around the ratio of the response rates (PG/AP) was \> = 0.75.|ratio of proportions|1.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.552|||ANCOVA||ratio is response rate of PG formulation divided by response rate of AP formulation|||1.552|0.974|
91935224|NCT01397448|183768037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31|||Log Rank|||||0.31|0.04|<0.001
91935225|NCT01397448|183768037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.23|||Log Rank|||||0.23|0.01|<0.001
91935226|NCT02466412|183768041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|63.9326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.6045|82.3991|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|"Geometric LS mean ratio (CHTP 1.1 M:mCC).~Expressed as %"|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the CHTP 1.1 M:mCC ratio for Cmax. Therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||82.3991|49.6045|
91935227|NCT02466412|183768042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|60.0052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9517|80.0997|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|"Geometric LS mean ratio (CHTP 1.1 M:mCC).~Expressed as %"|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the CHTP 1.1 M:mCC ratio for AUC(0-last). Therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||80.0997|44.9517|
91935228|NCT03483116|183768048|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%.|Response rate|0.1553|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.272||||||||0.272|0.039|
91935229|NCT03483116|183768048|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%|Response rate|0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.117||||||||0.117|-0.115|
91935230|NCT03483116|183768048|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%|Difference Response rate|0.1543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.27||||||Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%||0.270|0.038|
91935231|NCT01181102|183768058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"(non-inferiority) When analyzed using the Z test at a one-sided 0.025 significance level, with the addition of a non-inferiority margin of 5% to the incidence in the enoxaparin group.~(superiority) The incidence of thromboembolic events for the FAS was compared using the χ2 test (two-sided significance level: 0.05)"|Cox Proportional Hazard|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.6||non-inferiority:P \< 0.001 superiority:P = 0.010|non-inferiority:Z test. superiority:χ2 t|||The incidence proportion of thromboembolic events in the DU-176b group (P˅DU) = The incidence proportion of thromboembolic events in the enoxaparin group (P˅E) + Δ (5%). Alternative hypothesis H˅11: P˅DU \< P˅E + Δ (level of significance, 0.025; one-sided). If the null hypothesis H˅01 was rejected, the following analysis had to be sequentially performed using the χ2 test statistic. Null hypothesis H˅02: P˅DU = P˅E Alternative hypothesis H˅12: P˅DU ≠ P˅E (level of significance, 0.05; two-sided).||-1.6|-11.5|<0.001
91935232|NCT01181102|183768059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||χ2 test|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.9||||||||5.9|-0.8|
91935233|NCT01315002|183768060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of error percentage in the antisaccade task between nicotine and placebo. An ANOVA model was used with treatment (nicotine, placebo) as a within-subjects factor. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided). Results showed significantly better antisaccade performance (i.e. less antisaccade errors) in the nicotine condition.||||<0.05
91935234|NCT00239837|183768070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wald χ2|7.14||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Data analyzed using repeated logistic regression model (generalized estimating equations). Domain X EV Level X Group interaction tested.|We began the analyses with a full-factorial model regressing choice on domain (gain=1, loss=0), the EV of the risky choice relative to the safe option (EV; range = -.38 to +.38), and dummy-coded treatment groups (Control= -1, Intervention =1).|||||.008
91935235|NCT00929734|183768108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.292
91935236|NCT00929734|183768109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.462
91935237|NCT00929734|183768110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA with natural logarithm of hs-CRP (ln hs-CRP)|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
91935238|NCT00929734|183768111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA with natural logarithm of interleukin 6 (ln IL6)|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
91935239|NCT00980980|183768112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Proportional-hazards models|Proportional-hazards models with shared frailties accounted for clustering within hospitals.||||||0.01
91935240|NCT00094887|183768140|OTHER||||||=|0.8085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.8085
91935241|NCT04093258|183768153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 0.67. Superiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 1.0.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|6.85|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Finite-sample corrected Akaike's Information Criterion|Odds ratio was calculated as Test/Control|"The proportion of response (1) was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with a binary distribution and logit link function for all questions."||6.85|0.33|
91935242|NCT04093258|183768154|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 0.67. Superiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 1.0.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.19|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Finite-sample corrected Akaike's Information Criterion|Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|"The proportion of response (1) was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with a binary distribution and logit link function for all questions."||1.19|0.10|
91935243|NCT04093258|183768155|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least square mean difference|-5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.202|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|0.52|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||0.52|-12.48|
91768907|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||70.8|-4.1|0.172
91811694|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.65||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.65|-0.37|
91935244|NCT00643604|183768187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69||0.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.69
91935245|NCT00643604|183768188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
91935246|NCT00643604|183768189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.13
91935247|NCT00643604|183768190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0||||p value for Symptom Score|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Changes in mean CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.03
91935248|NCT00643604|183768190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0||||p value for Activity Score.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Activity Score N=5; Baseline component score could not be calculated for one subject. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
91935249|NCT00643604|183768190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Quality of Life Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.31
91935250|NCT00643604|183768190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Total Score N=5; Baseline Activity component score could not be calculated for one subject. Total Score could not be calculated for this subject.~Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values."||||0.13
91935251|NCT00643604|183768191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Effectiveness Score Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.19
91935252|NCT00643604|183768191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Side-Effects Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.19
91935253|NCT00643604|183768191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Convenience Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.03
91935254|NCT00643604|183768191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Global Satisfaction Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.88
91935255|NCT00643604|183768192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Gather/Set-up. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.25
91935256|NCT00643604|183768192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Prepare Drug. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.06
91935257|NCT00643604|183768192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Connect Drug. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.63
91935258|NCT00643604|183768192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change Dressing. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.88
91935259|NCT00643604|183768192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Total Time. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.13
91935260|NCT00643604|183768193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.5
91935261|NCT00643604|183768194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon sign-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.25
91935262|NCT00643604|183768195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
91935263|NCT00643604|183768196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.50
91935264|NCT00643604|183768197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
91935265|NCT00643604|183768198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
91935266|NCT00643604|183768199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
91935267|NCT02702011|183768201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|65.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.29|86.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference was calculated as: (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Empagliflozin 2.5 mg group) - (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Placebo group)|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a linear covariate was fitted to the change from baseline of 24 hour UGE (g/24h) on Day 7, where baseline refers to the last observation prior to the first intake of any randomised trial medication.||86.90|43.29|<0.0001
91935268|NCT02702011|183768201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.8|103.58|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference was calculated as: (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Empagliflozin 10 mg group) - (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Placebo group)|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a linear covariate was fitted to the change from baseline of 24 hour UGE (g/24h) on Day 7, where baseline refers to the last observation prior to the first intake of any randomised trial medication.||103.58|58.80|<0.0001
91935269|NCT02702011|183768201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|98.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.91|120.31|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference was calculated as: (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Empagliflozin 25 mg group) - (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Placebo group)|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a linear covariate was fitted to the change from baseline of 24 hour UGE (g/24h) on Day 7, where baseline refers to the last observation prior to the first intake of any randomised trial medication.||120.31|75.91|<0.0001
91935270|NCT02007954|183768234|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Shapiro-Wilk test was run for normality. Baseline and follow-up AFP compared using two-tailed Student's t-test.||||.01
91935271|NCT05263921|183768294|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|107.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.66|115.64||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||115.64|99.66|
91935272|NCT05263921|183768294|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.09|130.03||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||130.03|112.09|
91935273|NCT05263921|183768294|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|125.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.08|134.69||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||134.69|116.08|
91935274|NCT05263921|183768295|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|108.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.06|117.14||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||117.14|101.06|
91935275|NCT05263921|183768295|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.36|130.2||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||130.20|112.36|
91935276|NCT05263921|183768295|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|127.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.32|137.15||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||137.15|118.32|
91935277|NCT05263921|183768296|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|115.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.03|127.34||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||127.34|104.03|
91935278|NCT05263921|183768296|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|145.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.68|160.99||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||160.99|131.68|
91768908|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||55.1|-40.9|1.000
91935279|NCT05263921|183768296|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|161.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.95|178.66||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||178.66|145.95|
91768909|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|54.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||54.5|-27.8|1.000
91768910|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.7||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||28.1|-51.5|0.675
91768911|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.9||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|33.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||33.5|-59.2|0.644
91768912|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|50.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.6|-50.6|1.000
91768913|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|50.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.0|-33.4|1.000
91768914|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||55.1|-40.9|1.000
91935280|NCT05263921|183768297|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|110.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.38|128.82||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||128.82|95.38|
91935281|NCT05263921|183768297|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|106.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.76|123.73||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||123.73|91.76|
91935282|NCT05263921|183768297|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|125.21||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||125.21|92.70|
91935283|NCT05263921|183768298|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|110.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.51|128.47||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||128.47|94.51|
91935284|NCT05263921|183768298|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|124.86||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||124.86|92.00|
91935285|NCT05263921|183768298|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.48|125.72||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||125.72|92.48|
91935286|NCT05263921|183768299|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|108.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.32|132.32||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||132.32|89.32|
91935287|NCT05263921|183768299|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.05|133.0||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||133.00|90.05|
91935288|NCT05263921|183768299|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|117.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.37|142.77||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||142.77|96.37|
91935289|NCT00640146|183768340|OTHER|||||||0.0213|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using Fisher exact test comparing the percentage of participants with a laxation response within 2 hours of the first dose of study drug, testing MNTX against placebo.||||0.0213
91935290|NCT00640146|183768341|OTHER|||||||0.0463|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using Fisher exact test comparing the percentage of participants with a laxation response within 4 hours of the first dose of study drug, testing MNTX against placebo.||||0.0463
91935291|NCT01779648|183768388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.785
91768915|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|50.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||50.6|-50.6|1.000
91768916|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|50.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||50.0|-33.4|1.000
91768917|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||55.1|-40.9|1.000
91768918|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|60.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||60.2|-40.2|1.000
91768919|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|59.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||59.6|-22.9|0.392
91768920|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|50.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.5|-44.7|1.000
91768921|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|51.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||51.5|6.5|0.070
91811695|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.77||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.77|-0.23|
91935292|NCT01779648|183768389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.195
91935293|NCT01779648|183768390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.722
91935294|NCT01779648|183768391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.158
91935295|NCT01779648|183768392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.301
91935296|NCT01779648|183768393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline TVF (total volume flow) are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||<0.001
91935297|NCT01779648|183768394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline PVF (peak volume flow) are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||<0.001
91935298|NCT01779648|183768395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline PV (peak velocity)are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||0.929
91935299|NCT01779648|183768397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline peak volume flow are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||0.008
91935300|NCT01779648|183768398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline total volume flow are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||0.132
91935301|NCT02119026|183768407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.967
91935302|NCT02119026|183768408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.474
91935303|NCT02119026|183768409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.464
91935304|NCT02119026|183768410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.854
91935305|NCT02119026|183768411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.728
91935306|NCT02119026|183768412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.668
91935307|NCT02119026|183768413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.618
91935308|NCT02119026|183768414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792||||||The rate of overall response was measured as the response rate from randomization until the day of documented complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (whichever status is recorded first). Analysis corresponds to numbers of CR and PR.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.792
91935309|NCT02119026|183768415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||The rate of overall response was measured as the response rate from randomization until the day of documented complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (whichever status is recorded first). Analysis corresponds to numbers of CR and PR.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.371
91935310|NCT03783442|183768439|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.8|||Stratified Log-rank Test|One-sided p-value estimated from log rank test stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy and Investigator chemotherapy choice|Stratified Hazard ratio was based on Cox regression model including treatment arm as a covariate and stratified by pooled geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World), prior definitive therapy and Investigator choice of chemotherapy as strata.|||0.80|0.54|<0.0001
91935311|NCT03783442|183768440|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.75|||Stratified Log-rank test|One-sided p-value estimated from log rank test stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy and Investigator chemotherapy choice.|Stratified Hazard ratio was based on Cox regression model including treatment arm as a covariate and stratified by pooled geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World), prior definitive therapy and Investigator choice of chemotherapy as strata.|||0.75|0.52|<0.0001
91935312|NCT03783442|183768441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy, and Investigator choice of chemotherapy.|Odds ratio was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy, and Investigator choice of chemotherapy.|||3.27|1.73|<0.0001
91935313|NCT03783442|183768442|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.62||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.87|||Stratified Log-rank test|One-sided p-value estimated from log rank test stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy and Investigator chemotherapy choice.|Stratified Hazard ratio was based on Cox regression model including treatment arm as a covariate and stratified by pooled geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World), prior definitive therapy and Investigator choice of chemotherapy as strata.|||0.87|0.44|0.0029
91935314|NCT03783442|183768444|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.4||||0.1372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided p-value estimated from a mixed effect model|Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia Score at Cycle 6||10.3|-1.4|0.1372
91768922|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||49.2|9.8|0.007
91768923|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|32.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||32.8|-26.1|0.826
91811696|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.31||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.31|0.33|
91811697|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.89||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.89|-0.24|
91935315|NCT03783442|183768444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided p-value estimated from a mixed effect model|Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Eating Score at Cycle 6||3.7|-2.5|0.7130
91935316|NCT03783442|183768444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided p-value estimated from a mixed effect model|Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux Score at Cycle 6||1.3|-4.1|0.3001
91935317|NCT03783442|183768444|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.2|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain Score at Cycle 6||0.2|-3.9|
91935318|NCT03783442|183768444|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.4|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Index Score at Cycle 6||1.4|-2.1|
91935319|NCT03783442|183768445|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.2|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis, with QLQ-C30 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 6||6.2|0.4|
91935320|NCT03783442|183768445|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.1|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis, with QLQ-C30 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 6||5.1|0.0|
91935321|NCT03783442|183768446|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.9|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||1.9|-4.7|
91935322|NCT02016898|183768449|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.67|0.7
91935323|NCT02016898|183768450|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01||0.539|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.539
91935324|NCT02505542|183768461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.822|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.605|38.864||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used whereby the second test (CZP 200 mg Q4W vs PBO) was interpreted as statistically significant only if the first test (CZP 200 mg Q2W vs PBO) was significant at the 0.05 level as well.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio (and corresponding p-value) resulted from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, geographic region, and modified New York (mNY) classification for study participants who did not experience a flare. An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a study participant on CZP was more likely not to experience a flare than a study participant on placebo. Penalized maximum likelihood approach was used for logistic regression.||38.864|9.605|<0.001
91935325|NCT02505542|183768461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.069|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.395|27.955||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used whereby the second test (CZP 200 mg Q4W vs PBO) was interpreted as statistically significant only if the first test (CZP 200 mg Q2W vs PBO) was significant at the 0.05 level as well.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio (and corresponding p-value) resulted from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, geographic region, and modified New York (mNY) classification for study participants who did not experience a flare. An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a study participant on CZP was more likely not to experience a flare than a study participant on placebo. Penalized maximum likelihood approach was used for logistic regression.||27.955|7.395|<0.001
91768924|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|27.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||27.7|-27.2|1.000
91935326|NCT02505542|183768465|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||P-values were from stratified log-rank test comparing the Certolizumab pegol 200 mg Q2W Double-Blind (RS) group with the Placebo Double-Blind (RS) group (Geographic region and modified New York (mNY) classification were used as stratification factors).||||<0.001
91935327|NCT02505542|183768465|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||P-values were from stratified log-rank test comparing the Certolizumab pegol 200 mg Q4W Double-Blind (RS) group with the Placebo Double-Blind (RS) group (Geographic region and modified New York (mNY) classification were used as stratification factors).||||<0.001
91768925|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.3|-27.8|0.649
91811698|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.94||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.94|-0.25|
91811699|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.8||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.80|-0.31|
91935328|NCT02505542|183768467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.95|35.961|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||35.961|8.950|<0.001
91935329|NCT02505542|183768467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.385|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.952|21.778|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||21.778|5.952|<0.001
91935330|NCT02505542|183768467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.653|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.333|37.399|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||37.399|8.333|<0.001
91935331|NCT02505542|183768467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.863|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|24.822|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||24.822|5.670|<0.001
91935332|NCT02505542|183768468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.205|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.851|41.439|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||41.439|9.851|<0.001
91935333|NCT02505542|183768468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.275|23.218|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||23.218|6.275|<0.001
91935334|NCT02505542|183768469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.891|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|42.744|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||42.744|10.210|<0.001
91935335|NCT02505542|183768469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.377|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.456|19.738|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||19.738|5.456|<0.001
91935336|NCT02505542|183768470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.211|34.785|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||34.785|8.211|<0.001
91935337|NCT02505542|183768470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.954|24.476|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||24.476|5.954|<0.001
91935338|NCT02505542|183768471|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.561|34.085|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||34.085|8.561|<0.001
91935339|NCT02505542|183768471|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.503|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.939|22.278|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||22.278|5.939|<0.001
91768926|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|12.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||12.4|-45.7|0.304
91768927|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|38.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||38.7|-18.2|0.720
91935340|NCT02505542|183768472|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.17|-1.66|<0.001
91768928|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|25.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||25.4|-23.0|0.923
91768929|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||10.4|-50.4|0.197
91768930|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|43.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||43.5|-20.4|0.486
91811700|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|1.19||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.19|0.08|
91768931|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|42.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||42.7|-7.0|0.168
91811701|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.83||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.83|0.07|
91935341|NCT02505542|183768472|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.96|-1.45|<0.001
91935342|NCT02505542|183768473|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.94|-2.99|<0.001
91935343|NCT02505542|183768473|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.72|-2.77|<0.001
91935344|NCT02505542|183768474|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.11|-2.04|<0.001
91935345|NCT02505542|183768474|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.96|-1.90|<0.001
91935346|NCT02505542|183768475|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||0.02|-0.42|=0.074
91935347|NCT02505542|183768475|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.02|-0.46|=0.036
91935348|NCT02505542|183768476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.308|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.084|36.898|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||36.898|9.084|<0.001
91811702|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.44||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.44|-0.36|
91935349|NCT02505542|183768476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.255|23.098|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||23.098|6.255|<0.001
91935350|NCT02505542|183768477|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|=|0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.51|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||0.51|-2.50|=0.195
91811703|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.68||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.68|-0.07|
91811704|NCT01529346|183498001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.45||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.45|-0.32|
91811705|NCT01529346|183498002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|3.71||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||3.71|0.43|
91811706|NCT01529346|183498002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|3.33||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||3.33|0.05|
91811707|NCT01529346|183498002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|3.99||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||3.99|0.69|
91811708|NCT01529346|183498002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.19|8.79||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||8.79|5.19|
91811709|NCT01529346|183498002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|17.63||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||17.63|1.97|
91935351|NCT02505542|183768477|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|=|0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.91|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||0.91|-2.11|=0.432
91935352|NCT02505542|183768478|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||-0.02|-0.78|=0.040
91935353|NCT02505542|183768478|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.03|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||0.03|-0.73|=0.074
91935354|NCT02666508|183768519|OTHER|Test conducted was a test of difference between plaque identifying toothpaste and non-plaque identifying toothpaste for change in DPIA from pre to post.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.44|||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||-0.44|-1.60|0.001
91935355|NCT02666508|183768520|OTHER|Test conducted was a test of the difference between plaque identifying toothpaste and non-plaque identifying toothpaste for change in hsCRP|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.32|||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||0.32|-0.69|0.459
91935356|NCT00318565|183768540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial distribution|93.3||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|90.1||||Exact binomial distribution|||An acute success rate of 88% is anticipated and the one-sided 95% lower confidence bound will be compared to 80%. The statistical hypothesis for the primary efficacy endpoint is evaluated as a one-tailed hypothesis at a = 0.05.|||90.1|.05
91935357|NCT00318565|183768541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Distribution|1.5||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||7.0|||Exact Binomial Distribution|||The anticipated rate of the CSAE is 2.7% and the one-sided 95% upper confidence bound will be compared to 7%||7||.05
91935358|NCT00835003|183768549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations estimated a sample size of 1272 women with an estimated proportion of 8% in the 39 weeks Group and 14% in the 38 weeks group|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.65|0.31
91935359|NCT01804036|183768558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
91935360|NCT01804036|183768559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
91935361|NCT01804036|183768560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
91935362|NCT01804036|183768561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
91935363|NCT01804036|183768562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.20
91811710|NCT01529346|183498002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|11.37||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||11.37|-4.28|
91811711|NCT01529346|183498002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.97|18.68||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||18.68|2.97|
91811712|NCT01529346|183498002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.82|30.97||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||30.97|13.82|
91935364|NCT01804036|183768563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
91811713|NCT01529346|183498003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|23.27||||||LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||23.27|1.26|
91935365|NCT01804036|183768564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.52
91935366|NCT01804036|183768565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
91935367|NCT01804036|183768566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
91935368|NCT01804036|183768567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
91935369|NCT01804036|183768568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
91935370|NCT01804036|183768569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91935371|NCT01804036|183768570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91935372|NCT01804036|183768571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
91935373|NCT00830960|183768592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference in PRU|-183.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.0|-137.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements excluded.||||-137|-229|<0.0001
91935374|NCT00830960|183768592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-139.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.0|-102.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements excluded.||||-102|-177|<0.0001
91935375|NCT00830960|183768593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-57.0||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|-17.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-17|-97|0.0058
91935376|NCT00830960|183768593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-35.0||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-2.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel"|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-2|-68|0.0365
91935377|NCT00830960|183768593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-68.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.0|-32.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-32|-104|0.0004
91935378|NCT00830960|183768593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-160.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.0|-110.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-110|-211|<0.0001
91935379|NCT00830960|183768593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-115.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.0|-73.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-73|-156|<0.0001
91935380|NCT00830960|183768593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-171.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.0|-125.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-125|-216|<0.0001
91935381|NCT00830960|183768593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-212.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-259.0|-167.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-167|-259|<0.0001
91768932|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|27.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||27.6|-34.3|0.833
91811714|NCT01529346|183498003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.82|15.18||||||LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||15.18|-6.82|
91768933|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|53.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||53.4|-8.2|0.173
91768934|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|42.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||42.8|-7.6|0.178
91811715|NCT01529346|183498003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|23.61||||||||23.61|1.52|
91935382|NCT00830960|183768594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-119.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.0|-73.0||"P-value for 30 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|LS Mean Difference in PRU|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-73|-166|<0.0001
91935383|NCT00830960|183768594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-113.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.0|-73.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-73|-154|<0.0001
91935384|NCT00830960|183768594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-85.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.0|-48.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-48|-121|<0.0001
91935385|NCT00830960|183768594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-35.0||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|2.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||2|-72|0.0647
91935386|NCT00830960|183768594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.0|-57.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-57|-143|<0.0001
91935387|NCT00830960|183768595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|15.0||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|27.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||27|4|0.0072
91935388|NCT00830960|183768595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|9.0||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||18|-1|0.0647
91935389|NCT00830960|183768595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|11.0||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|19.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||19|3|0.0054
91935390|NCT00830960|183768595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|51.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|66.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||66|36|<0.0001
91768935|NCT02365649|183425726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|30.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|ANCOVA||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||30.9|-30.9|1.000
91768936|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|16.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||16.3|-71.9|0.580
91768937|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|39.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||39.7|-53.6|1.000
91768938|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.4||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|23.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||23.3|-72.2|0.580
91811716|NCT01529346|183498003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.51|44.61||||||||44.61|20.51|
91935391|NCT00830960|183768595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|48.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||48|23|<0.0001
91935392|NCT00830960|183768595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|61.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||61|36|<0.0001
91935393|NCT00830960|183768595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|76.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||76|47|<0.0001
91935394|NCT00830960|183768595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|59.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||59|36|<0.0001
91935395|NCT00830960|183768595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|68.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||68|44|<0.0001
91935396|NCT00830960|183768596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|50.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||50|27|<0.0001
91935397|NCT00830960|183768596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|42.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||42|21|<0.0001
91935398|NCT00830960|183768596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|17.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|28.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||28|6|0.0026
91935399|NCT00830960|183768596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|50.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||50|24|<0.0001
91935400|NCT00830960|183768596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|35.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|52.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||52|18|0.0001
91935401|NCT00830960|183768596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|28.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|44.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||44|13|0.0005
91935402|NCT00830960|183768596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|11.0||||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|27.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||27|-5|0.1898
91935403|NCT00830960|183768596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|45.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||45|18|<0.0001
91935404|NCT00830960|183768598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-110.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.0|-76.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-76|-143|<0.0001
91935405|NCT00830960|183768598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-92.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.0|-60.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-60|-123|<0.0001
91935406|NCT00830960|183768598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-51.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-19.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-19|-83|0.0020
91935407|NCT00830960|183768605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.255
91935408|NCT00830960|183768605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.427
91935409|NCT00830960|183768605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.683
91935410|NCT00830960|183768605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.034
91811717|NCT01529346|183498004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.5||||||Hazard Ratio (HR) estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.5|0.6|
91811718|NCT01529346|183498004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.9|0.9|
91935411|NCT03859960|183768611|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.006
91935412|NCT03859960|183768611|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.23
91935413|NCT03859960|183768612|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.001
91935414|NCT03859960|183768612|OTHER|||||||0.731|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.731
91935415|NCT03859960|183768613|OTHER|||||||0.214|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.214
91935416|NCT03859960|183768613|OTHER|||||||0.993||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.993
91935417|NCT03859960|183768614|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.41
91935418|NCT03859960|183768614|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.676
91935419|NCT03859960|183768615|OTHER|||||||0.511||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.511
91935420|NCT03859960|183768615|OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.248
91768939|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-38.9||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|5.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||5.2|-83.0|0.287
91811719|NCT01529346|183498004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.6||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.6|0.7|
91935421|NCT03859960|183768616|OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.654
91768940|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|41.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||41.9|-53.0|1.000
91768941|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|38.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||38.3|-69.4|1.000
91811720|NCT01529346|183498004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.4||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.4|1.0|
91811721|NCT01529346|183498005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.8||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||3.8|1.1|
91811722|NCT01529346|183498005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|4.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||4.9|1.4|
91935422|NCT03859960|183768616|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.025
91935423|NCT02180217|183768617|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|53.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.44|3.73|<.001
91935424|NCT02703987|183768649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|-0.04|0.0801
91935425|NCT02703987|183768650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-0.03|0.0714
91935426|NCT02703987|183768651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.6|-0.48|0.0609
91935427|NCT01309841|183768655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.795|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.795|1.062|0.015
91935428|NCT01309841|183768655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.509||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|1.949|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.949|1.168|0.001
91935429|NCT01309841|183768656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.479||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|2.107||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.107|1.038|0.028
91935430|NCT01309841|183768656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.691||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.205|2.373||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.373|1.205|0.002
91935431|NCT01309841|183768658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.86|0.24|<0.001
91935432|NCT01309841|183768658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ls mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||1.13|0.51|<0.001
91935433|NCT01309841|183768659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.04|-0.23|0.176
91935434|NCT01309841|183768659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.32|0.008
91935435|NCT01309841|183768660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.23|-0.12|0.564
91935436|NCT01309841|183768660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.36|0.01|0.042
91935437|NCT01309841|183768661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.87||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|8.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||8.39|-0.66|0.094
91935438|NCT01309841|183768661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|13.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||13.14|4.04|<0.001
91935439|NCT01309841|183768662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.96|0.12|0.011
91935440|NCT01309841|183768662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||1.41|0.57|<0.001
91935441|NCT01309841|183768664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.06|-0.21|0.273
91935442|NCT01309841|183768664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.02||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.02|-0.26|0.089
91768942|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|16.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||16.3|-71.9|0.580
91768943|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|53.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||53.0|-41.9|1.000
91811723|NCT01529346|183498005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|4.1||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||4.1|1.1|
91811724|NCT01529346|183498005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|9.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||9.9|2.8|
91811725|NCT01529346|183498006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.0||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.0|0.4|
91811726|NCT01529346|183498006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.2||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.2|0.5|
91935443|NCT01309841|183768664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.02||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.17||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.17|-0.14|0.849
91935444|NCT01309841|183768664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.13|-0.18|0.749
91935445|NCT01309841|183768664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.01|-0.26|0.062
91935446|NCT01309841|183768664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.07||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.35|0.003
91935447|NCT01309841|183768664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.06|-0.29|0.202
91935448|NCT01309841|183768664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.01||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.01|-0.34|0.072
91768944|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.4||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|23.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||23.3|-72.2|0.580
91768945|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-44.4||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.9|-12.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||-12.0|-76.9|0.103
91768946|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|53.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||53.0|-41.9|1.000
91768947|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|49.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||49.4|-58.3|1.000
91768948|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.7|48.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||48.7|-48.7|1.000
91768949|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|63.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||63.0|-29.7|0.637
91811727|NCT01529346|183498006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.8||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||0.8|0.3|
91768950|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|33.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||33.3|-60.0|1.000
91811728|NCT01529346|183498006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.6||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||0.6|0.2|
91811729|NCT02282020|183498025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.58|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months)|An odds ratio \>1 favours the olaparib arm|||4.58|1.40|0.002
91768951|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|66.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||66.6|-29.4|0.570
91768952|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|10.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||10.2|-39.7|0.330
91768953|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|19.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||19.4|-40.0|1.000
91811730|NCT02282020|183498026|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.91||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.91|0.43|0.013
91811731|NCT02282020|183498027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.15|0.56|0.229
91768954|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|66.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||66.6|-29.4|0.570
91768955|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|10.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||10.2|-39.7|0.330
91811732|NCT02282020|183498028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.49||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.49|0.76|0.714
91935449|NCT01309841|183768665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Due to convergence issues, study pooled center is also included as a fixed, rather than random effect.||0.20|-0.25|0.831
91935450|NCT01309841|183768665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Due to convergence issues, study pooled center is also included as a fixed, rather than random effect.||0.06|-0.41|0.141
91935451|NCT02475395|183768666|OTHER||Sensitivity|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.9|95.3|||||Sensitivity estimates the percent true positive results obtained by Trak. Positive results are less than 15 M/mL sperm concentration and are part of a sub fertile diagnostic assessment.|||95.3|79.9|
91935452|NCT02475395|183768666|OTHER||Specificity|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|96.1|||||Specificity is calculated by the percentage of true negative results obtained using Trak compared to reference method. Negative (for subfertility) results are greater than 15 M/mL.|||96.1|88.7|
91935453|NCT02475395|183768667|OTHER||Sensitivity|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|98.3||||||||98.3|86.3|
91935454|NCT02475395|183768667|OTHER||Specificity|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.6|97.3||||||||97.3|90.6|
91935455|NCT02475395|183768668|OTHER||Sensitivity|96.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|99.1||||||||99.1|88.7|
91935456|NCT02475395|183768668|OTHER||Specificity|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|96.5||||||||96.5|89.2|
91935457|NCT03103906|183768680|OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.56||||0.3334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.99|25.07|||Chi-squared|||||25.07|-19.99|0.3334
91768956|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|35.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||35.4|-33.8|1.000
91768957|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|39.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||39.7|-42.6|1.000
91768958|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|0.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||0.1|-42.9|0.100
91935458|NCT00764478|183768688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.7||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.7|-6.3|0.0136
91935459|NCT00764478|183768688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.2||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.2|-6.9|0.0100
91935460|NCT00764478|183768689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||Adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.2|-0.8|0.0100
91935461|NCT00764478|183768689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||Adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.2|-0.9|0.0052
91935462|NCT00764478|183768690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5352||||||Overall adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5352
91935463|NCT00764478|183768690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4274||||||Overall adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4274
91935464|NCT00764478|183768691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-1.1|-4.2|0.0007
91935465|NCT00764478|183768691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-1.3|-4.4|0.0003
91935466|NCT00764478|183768691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-1.8|-5.4|<0.0001
91935467|NCT00764478|183768691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-1.9|-5.5|<0.0001
91935468|NCT00764478|183768691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-1.3|-5.7|0.0021
91935469|NCT00764478|183768691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-2.0|-6.4|0.0002
91935470|NCT00764478|183768691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-4.4|0.1907
91935471|NCT00764478|183768691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.4|-5.8|0.0238
91935472|NCT00764478|183768692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2922|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.2922
91935473|NCT00764478|183768692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.1001
91935474|NCT00764478|183768692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0011
91935475|NCT00764478|183768692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0011
91935476|NCT00764478|183768692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0194|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0194
91935477|NCT00764478|183768692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0841|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0841
91935478|NCT00764478|183768692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4858|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.4858
91935479|NCT00764478|183768692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2496|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.2496
91935480|NCT00764478|183768693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2912|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2912
91935481|NCT00764478|183768693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1151|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1151
91935482|NCT00764478|183768695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0019
91935483|NCT00764478|183768695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0045
91935484|NCT00764478|183768695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0112|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0112
91935485|NCT00764478|183768695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0021|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0021
91935486|NCT00764478|183768696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-0.1|-0.4|<0.0001
91935487|NCT00764478|183768696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-0.1|-0.3|0.0076
91935488|NCT00764478|183768696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-0.2|-0.6|0.0004
91935489|NCT00764478|183768696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-0.1|-0.5|0.0040
91935490|NCT00764478|183768696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.1|-0.6|0.0061
91935491|NCT00764478|183768696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.1|-0.6|0.0031
91768959|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|35.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||35.4|-33.8|1.000
91768960|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|45.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||45.3|-33.8|1.000
91935492|NCT00764478|183768696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-0.5|0.1086
91768961|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.6||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||14.6|-29.9|0.598
91935493|NCT00764478|183768696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.0|-0.6|0.0376
91935494|NCT00764478|183768697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.0005
91935495|NCT00764478|183768697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.0026
91935496|NCT00764478|183768697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.0007
91935497|NCT00764478|183768697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.0002
91935498|NCT00764478|183768697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0387|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0387
91935499|NCT00764478|183768697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0059
91935500|NCT00764478|183768697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.311|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.3110
91935501|NCT00764478|183768697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0613|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.0613
91935502|NCT00764478|183768697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0640
91935503|NCT00764478|183768697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0139|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0139
91935504|NCT00764478|183768698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9708|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.9708
91935505|NCT00764478|183768698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7891|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.7891
91935506|NCT00764478|183768698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5222|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.5222
91935507|NCT00764478|183768698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8686|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.8686
91935508|NCT00764478|183768698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0696|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0696
91935509|NCT00764478|183768698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0049|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0049
91935510|NCT00764478|183768698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0196|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.0196
91935511|NCT00764478|183768698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0032|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.0032
91935512|NCT00764478|183768698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0061|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0061
91935513|NCT00764478|183768698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0012
91935514|NCT00764478|183768699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0147
91935515|NCT00764478|183768699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0720
91935516|NCT00764478|183768699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1213|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1213
91935517|NCT00764478|183768699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0588|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0588
91935518|NCT00764478|183768699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0200
91935519|NCT00764478|183768699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0017
91935520|NCT00764478|183768699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.2401
91935521|NCT00764478|183768699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0009
91935522|NCT00764478|183768699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0525|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0525
91935523|NCT00764478|183768699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0025
91935524|NCT00764478|183768700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0377|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0377
91935525|NCT00764478|183768700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0771|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0771
91935526|NCT00764478|183768700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1264|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1264
91935527|NCT00764478|183768700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0280
91935528|NCT00764478|183768700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0583|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0583
91935529|NCT00764478|183768700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0021
91935530|NCT00764478|183768700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0866|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0866
91935531|NCT00764478|183768700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0048
91935532|NCT00764478|183768700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0147
91768962|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|24.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||24.3|-30.7|1.000
91768963|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared|||Non-responders, Week 52|Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|50.4|-24.7|0.468
91811733|NCT02282020|183498029|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.85||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.85|0.41|0.005
91935533|NCT00764478|183768700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0030
91935534|NCT00764478|183768701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0104
91935535|NCT00764478|183768701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0005
91935536|NCT00764478|183768701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0692
91935537|NCT00764478|183768701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0128|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0128
91935538|NCT00764478|183768701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0809|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0809
91935539|NCT00764478|183768701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0260
91935540|NCT00764478|183768701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2576|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.2576
91935541|NCT00764478|183768701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0077|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0077
91935542|NCT00764478|183768701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.396|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.3960
91935543|NCT00764478|183768701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0141|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0141
91935544|NCT00764478|183768702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.9|-5.1|0.0056
91935545|NCT00764478|183768702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.8|-5.0|0.0068
91935546|NCT00764478|183768702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.2|-5.0|0.0743
91935547|NCT00764478|183768702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.6|-5.9|0.0177
91935548|NCT00764478|183768702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-1.0|-6.6|0.0081
91935549|NCT00764478|183768702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.4|-6.1|0.0247
91935550|NCT00764478|183768703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-0.6|0.9808
91935551|NCT00764478|183768703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-0.9|0.2830
91935552|NCT00764478|183768703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.6|-0.6|0.9751
91935553|NCT00764478|183768703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.7879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-0.6|0.7879
91935554|NCT00764478|183768703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.7|-0.8|0.9654
91935555|NCT00764478|183768703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.1|-0.4|0.3917
91935556|NCT00764478|183768704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.2|-1.8|0.0120
91935557|NCT00764478|183768704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.5|-2.2|0.0011
91935558|NCT00764478|183768704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.8|-1.2|0.6885
91935559|NCT00764478|183768704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.1|-2.1|0.0398
91935560|NCT00764478|183768704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.1|-2.1|0.0258
91935561|NCT00764478|183768704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.5|-2.5|0.0031
91935562|NCT00764478|183768705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.6|-3.2|0.0033
91935563|NCT00764478|183768705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.1|-2.5|0.0622
91935564|NCT00764478|183768705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.5|-3.6|0.0083
91935565|NCT00764478|183768705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.6|-3.8|0.0064
91935566|NCT00764478|183768705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.9|-4.3|0.0022
91935567|NCT00764478|183768705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-3.7|0.0196
91935568|NCT00764478|183768706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-1.3|0.1883
91935569|NCT00764478|183768706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-1.3|0.1684
91935570|NCT00764478|183768706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-0.9|0.9522
91935571|NCT00764478|183768706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.0|-1.8|0.0514
91935572|NCT00764478|183768706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.0|-1.8|0.0531
91935573|NCT00764478|183768706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-2.2|0.0078
91811734|NCT02282020|183498030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.69||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.69|0.35|<0.001
91935574|NCT00764478|183768707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.5|-0.7|0.7746
91935575|NCT00764478|183768707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-1.0|0.2754
91935576|NCT00764478|183768707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-0.6|0.9109
91935577|NCT00764478|183768707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.8|-0.6|0.7295
91935578|NCT00764478|183768707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.8|-0.7|0.9800
91935579|NCT00764478|183768707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.0|-0.5|0.5122
91935580|NCT00764478|183768708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.9|0.2191
91935581|NCT00764478|183768708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.0|-1.1|0.0589
91935582|NCT00764478|183768708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.0|0.3683
91935583|NCT00764478|183768708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-1.3|0.0982
91935584|NCT00764478|183768708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.3|-1.3|0.1969
91935585|NCT00764478|183768708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.5|-1.0|0.5615
91935586|NCT00764478|183768709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.2|-1.5|0.0101
91935587|NCT00764478|183768709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.2|-1.5|0.0146
91935588|NCT00764478|183768709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-1.4|0.0861
91768964|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||28.1|-15.7|1.000
91935589|NCT00764478|183768709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.1|-1.6|0.0342
91935590|NCT00764478|183768709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.4|-2.0|0.0037
91935591|NCT00764478|183768709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-1.9|0.0096
91935592|NCT00764478|183768710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.4|-1.7|0.0019
91935593|NCT00764478|183768710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.1|-1.2|0.0791
91768965|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|45.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||45.4|-15.2|0.538
91768966|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|25.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||25.6|-48.0|0.692
91768967|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||17.9|-46.9|0.388
91935594|NCT00764478|183768710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.5|-2.0|0.0006
91935595|NCT00764478|183768710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.2|-1.6|0.0123
91768968|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|16.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||16.9|-54.8|0.418
91768969|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||20.0|-54.1|0.448
91768970|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.7||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||19.9|-47.4|0.430
91935596|NCT00764478|183768710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-2.0|0.0054
91935597|NCT00764478|183768710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.1|-1.7|0.0350
91768971|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|37.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||37.6|-42.8|1.000
91811735|NCT02282020|183498031|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.05||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.05|0.53|0.089
91935598|NCT00862121|183768711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.212||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.683|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio (OR) for Baseline CDAI measures the effect of an increase of one unit on the outcome. The OR \[95% CI\] and p-value (likelihood-based) are for Pentasa versus placebo estimated in a logistic regression analysis including TREATMENT and CDAI at baseline as covariates. Power to demonstrate superiority of PENTASA Sachet 6 g/day over placebo in the primary efficacy analysis was 90% for a planned sample size of 255 participants per treatment arm (assuming 10% nonassessable participants).||2.683|0.017|0.231
91935599|NCT00804843|183768744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.27||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.78|||ANOVA|||||0.78|-0.24|0.811
91935600|NCT00804843|183768745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|3.64||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|8.36|||ANOVA|||||8.36|-1.09|0.898
91935601|NCT02678312|183768775|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0655||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6589|1.7232||The adjusted hazard ratio and the p-values are based on a Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by modified age group with treatment and NYHA/ROSS class group included as factor.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.7232|0.6589|0.7958
91768972|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.2||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|12.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||12.9|-55.3|0.406
91768973|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||17.9|-46.9|0.388
91768974|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|30.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||30.8|-46.5|1.000
91768975|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.3||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|4.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||4.1|-54.7|0.204
91768976|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||31.0|-34.9|0.907
91768977|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|36.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||36.3|-40.2|1.000
91768978|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|41.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||41.3|-28.4|1.000
91768979|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|48.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||48.4|-15.5|0.450
91768980|NCT02365649|183425727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|46.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||46.6|-27.0|0.661
91768981|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|77.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||77.5|-77.5|1.000
91768982|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||70.8|-20.8|0.608
91768983|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
91935602|NCT02455388|183768800|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin set.|||||<|0.001|||||||Intraclass correlation coefficient|||||||<0.001
91768984|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|77.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||77.5|-77.5|1.000
91768985|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|49.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||49.0|-49.0|1.000
91768986|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.0||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.3|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|ANOVA||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||19.3|-79.3|0.565
91935603|NCT02455388|183768801|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91935604|NCT02455388|183768802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.01
91935605|NCT00092677|183768837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.591||95.0|0.826|1.115|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.115|0.826|0.591
91935606|NCT00092677|183768838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973||||0.732||95.0|0.833|1.137|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.137|0.833|0.732
91935607|NCT00092677|183768839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.024||95.0|0.628|0.967|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||0.967|0.628|0.024
91935608|NCT00092677|183768840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.344||95.0|0.563|1.222|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.222|0.563|0.344
91935609|NCT00092677|183768841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.968||95.0|0.842|1.179|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.179|0.842|0.968
91935610|NCT00092677|183768842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.088||||0.771||95.0|0.617|1.917|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.917|0.617|0.771
91935611|NCT00092677|183768843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.636||||0.147||95.0|0.345|1.173|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.173|0.345|0.147
91935612|NCT00092677|183768844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683||||0.015||95.0|0.503|0.929|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||0.929|0.503|0.015
91935613|NCT00092677|183768845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.456||||||95.0|0.197|1.057||The p-value was not provided as there were less than 40 patients who reported the specific endpoint.|Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.057|0.197|
91935614|NCT00092677|183768846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.608||||||95.0|0.199|1.86||The p-value was not provided as there were less than 40 patients who reported the specific endpoint.|Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.860|0.199|
91935615|NCT00092677|183768847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.647||95.0|0.682|1.85|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.850|0.682|0.647
91768987|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|84.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||84.6|15.4|0.467
91935616|NCT00092677|183768848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.799||95.0|0.788|1.363|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.363|0.788|0.799
91935617|NCT00092677|183768849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.667||||0.052||95.0|0.996|2.791|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||2.791|0.996|0.052
91935618|NCT00092677|183768850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.504||||0.008||95.0|1.111|2.035|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||2.035|1.111|0.008
91768988|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|49.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||49.0|-49.0|1.000
91768989|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
91768990|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|89.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||89.5|-64.5|1.000
91935619|NCT00092677|183768851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.829||95.0|-0.063|0.051|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||0.051|-0.063|0.829
91935620|NCT00092677|183768852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<=|0.001||95.0|-33.3|-31.0|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||-31.0|-33.3|<=0.001
91935621|NCT00092677|183768853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<=|0.001||95.0|-51.8|-48.2|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||-48.2|-51.8|<=0.001
91935622|NCT00092677|183768854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<=|0.001||95.0|2.4|5.5|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||5.5|2.4|<=0.001
91935623|NCT00092677|183768855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<=|0.001||95.0|-22.6|-17.3|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||-17.3|-22.6|<=0.001
91935624|NCT00873288|183768856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||> 0.05
91768991|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|60.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||60.7|-35.7|1.000
91768992|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.0|-66.0|1.000
91768993|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|84.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||84.6|15.4|0.467
91768994|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|60.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||60.7|-35.7|1.000
91935625|NCT00873288|183768858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Chi-squared|The Pearson Chi-squared value = 1.590||||||0.207
91768995|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
91768996|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|72.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||72.9|-19.6|0.249
91768997|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|18.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||18.2|-28.2|1.000
91768998|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||3.9|-30.5|0.511
91811736|NCT02282020|183498032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.29||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.29|0.14|<0.001
91935626|NCT00873288|183768859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91768999|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|78.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||78.1|-11.4|0.140
91769000|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|34.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||34.6|-14.6|0.569
91935627|NCT00010803|183768870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33|||Log Rank|Time to dementia in Ginkgo vs placebo groups. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to compute hazard ratios and log-rank tests.||The null hypothesis is that the instantaneous hazard rate for Ginkgo biloba and placebo are the same. Assumptions were based on 4%/yr dementia and 6%/yr mortality and dropout combined. A sample size of 3000 with an average follow up of 5 years resulted in 96% power to detecting a 30% reduction in the rate of dementia at a 2-sided significance level of 0.5.||1.33|0.94|0.21
91935628|NCT00010803|183768871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||Log Rank|||Total Mortality||1.27|0.85|0.70
91935629|NCT00010803|183768871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.62|||Log Rank|||Atherosclerotic CHD mortality||1.62|0.70|0.78
91935630|NCT00010803|183768871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58|||Log Rank|||Incident Myocardial Infarction||1.58|0.79|0.54
91935631|NCT00010803|183768871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously Provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.18|||Log Rank|||Incident Angina||1.18|0.61|0.32
91935632|NCT00010803|183768871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.23|||Log Rank|||Incident CHD||1.23|0.72|0.66
91935633|NCT00010803|183768871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously Provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18|||Log Rank|||Incident CHF||1.18|0.71|0.48
91935634|NCT00010803|183768871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45|||Log Rank|||Incident Stroke||1.45|0.52|0.25
91935635|NCT00010803|183768871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45|||Log Rank|||Incident TIA||1.45|0.52|0.59
91935636|NCT00010803|183768871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5|||Log Rank|||Incident CVD||1.50|0.84|0.42
91935637|NCT00010803|183768871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25|||Log Rank|||Total CHD and CVD combined||1.25|0.80|0.98
91935638|NCT00010803|183768872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment X Time interaction|-0.002||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models comparing rates of change in global cognition scores (z-scores) by treatment group||0.005|-0.009|.65
91935639|NCT01878097|183768895|SUPERIORITY||F-stat|7.12||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
91935640|NCT01878097|183768896|SUPERIORITY||F-stat|7.18||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
91769001|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||28.5|-19.7|1.000
91769002|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|72.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||72.9|-19.6|0.249
91935641|NCT01595438|183768899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Difference of symp resolution rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|10.42|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of symptomatic resolution rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||10.42|-2.39|
91935642|NCT01595438|183768900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable combined resp rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.12|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable combined response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||13.12|0.30|
91935643|NCT01595438|183768901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable response rates|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|12.36|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||12.36|0.33|
91769003|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|18.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||18.2|-28.2|1.000
91769004|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|24.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||24.6|-29.0|1.000
91769005|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|61.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||61.8|-35.1|0.613
91935644|NCT01595438|183768902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||3.56|-2.70|
91935645|NCT01595438|183768903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|13.81|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.81|0.68|
91935646|NCT01595438|183768904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.72|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.72|-1.21|
91935647|NCT01595438|183768905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|15.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||15.24|2.27|
91935648|NCT01595438|183768906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|18.85|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||18.85|2.86|
91935649|NCT01595438|183768907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.68|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.68|-1.17|
91935650|NCT01595438|183768908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|13.74|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.74|0.88|
91769006|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|31.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||31.5|-34.8|1.000
91769007|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|14.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||14.8|-45.9|0.615
91935651|NCT01595438|183768909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|17.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||17.55|1.72|
91935652|NCT01595438|183768910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.02|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.02|-4.07|
91935653|NCT01595438|183768911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.03|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.03|-4.23|
91935654|NCT01595438|183768912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|6.3|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.30|-3.71|
91935655|NCT01595438|183768913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.55|-3.64|
91935656|NCT01595438|183768914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.56|-2.03|
91935657|NCT01595438|183768915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.24|-2.90|
91769008|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|67.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||67.5|-27.5|0.560
91769009|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|36.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared|||Non-responders, Week 52||36.8|-26.8|1.000
91935658|NCT01595438|183768916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.04|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.04|-4.30|
91769010|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||19.9|-37.7|1.000
91769011|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||57.1|-37.1|1.000
91811737|NCT02282020|183498035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes factors for patient, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline TOI score and baseline TOI score by visit interaction.||||5.5|-0.5|0.108
91935659|NCT01595438|183768917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|4.32|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.32|-2.07|
91935660|NCT01595438|183768918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|6.91|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.91|-2.94|
91935661|NCT01595438|183768919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.61|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.61|-1.99|
91935662|NCT01595438|183768920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|7.16|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.16|0.41|
91935663|NCT01595438|183768921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.05|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||9.05|-1.00|
91935664|NCT01595438|183768922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.1|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.1|-10.4|
91935665|NCT01595438|183768923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|10.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.2|-7.8|
91769012|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|46.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||46.1|-26.1|0.588
91935666|NCT01595438|183768924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||9.2|-7.5|
91935667|NCT01595438|183768925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|16.89|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||16.89|-13.18|
91935668|NCT01595438|183768926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|25.21|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||25.21|-10.03|
91935669|NCT01595438|183768927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|24.01|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||24.01|-9.91|
91769013|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-15.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||-15.2|-64.8|0.058
91769014|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|63.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||63.2|-29.9|0.631
91769015|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|44.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||44.8|-25.7|0.597
91769016|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|30.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||30.0|-46.7|1.000
91811738|NCT02282020|183498036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|6.86||Estimated from an unadjusted logistic regression model|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours the olaparib arm|||6.86|0.88|0.092
91811739|NCT02282020|183498037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.39||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours the olaparib arm|||4.39|1.32|0.004
91811740|NCT02282020|183498038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.91||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.91|0.42|0.014
91811741|NCT02282020|183498039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.14|0.56|0.213
91811742|NCT02282020|183498040|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.51||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.51|0.76|0.699
91811743|NCT02282020|183498041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.27||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.27|0.12|<0.001
91935670|NCT01595438|183768928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.038
91935671|NCT01595438|183768929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.129
91935672|NCT01595438|183768930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.080
91935673|NCT01595438|183768931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.155
91935674|NCT04426890|183768988|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was declared if the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was entirely within an equivalence margin of \[-2.5, 2.0\].|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|1.63||||||The statistical analysis of mean change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 12 between CT-P39 300 mg treatment arm (Arm 1) and Xolair 300 mg treatment arm (Arm 2), using ANCOVA with multiple imputation based on the MAR assumption was performed for the mITT Set.||1.63|-0.22|
91935675|NCT02855450|183769012|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|4.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||These statistics refer to Day 7 and primary eye||9.2|0.2|0.040
91935676|NCT02855450|183769012|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|2.4||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.0||Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 28 and primary eye||9.0|-4.1|0.457
91935677|NCT02855450|183769012|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|4.0||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.5||Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 56 and primary eye||11.5|-3.5|0.283
91935678|NCT02855450|183769012|SUPERIORITY|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Least square means difference|3.5||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.3|||ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 7 and secondary eye||8.3|-1.3|0.147
91935679|NCT02855450|183769012|SUPERIORITY|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|least square mean difference|3.0||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.4|||ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 28 and secondary eye||10.4|-4.4|0.421
91935680|NCT02855450|183769012|SUPERIORITY|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|least square mean difference|4.3||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|13.0|||ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 56 and secondary eye||13.0|-4.4|0.327
91935681|NCT01376245|183769026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.191|0.089|<0.001
91935682|NCT01376245|183769026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.230|0.129|<0.001
91935683|NCT01376245|183769026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.194|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.245|0.143|<0.001
91935684|NCT01357889|183769048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish BE, the 90% CI for the ratio of Process 3 (P3) to Process 2 (P2) geometric least squares means (LSMs) for AUC (0-inf) must have fallen within the BE limit of 0.8 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs (P3:P2)|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.842|1.042|||ANOVA|||||1.042|0.842|
91935685|NCT01357889|183769049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish BE, the 90% CI for the ratio of Process 3:Process 2 geometric least squares means for Cmax must have fallen within the BE limit of 0.8 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs (P3:P2)|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.813|1.056|||ANOVA|||||1.056|0.813|
91935686|NCT01170221|183769062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (early clinical response at the 48-72 Hour Visit) between the tedizolid group and the linezolid group was calculated using the ITT analysis set. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||||95.0|-6.1|6.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to tedizolid clinical response rate minus linezolid clinical response rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline.|The primary objective is to determine the noninferiority in the early clinical response rate of oral tedizolid phosphate compared with that of oral linezolid treatment at the 48-72 Hour Visit in the ITT Analysis Set in patients with ABSSSI.||6.2|-6.1|
91935687|NCT01170221|183769063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI will be calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the sustained response at EOT using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.2||Hierarchical testing procedure of Westfall and Krishen used to control for inflation of the overall type I error rate. If NI is declared for the primary, NI will be tested for the secondary outcomes in this order: Secondary Outcomes Measures 2 to 5.|||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||4.2|-9.6|
91935688|NCT01170221|183769064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the sustained response at EOT using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.4|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||5.4|-7.7|
91935689|NCT01170221|183769065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.9|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||4.9|-5.8|
91935690|NCT01170221|183769066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.0|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||3.0|-4.6|
91935691|NCT01170221|183769067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.5|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the 48-72 Hour Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline.||8.5|-1.4|
91935692|NCT01170221|183769068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the Day 7 Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline.||6.4|-2.8|
91935693|NCT02940626|183769112|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||Wald Test on equality of proportions|||Subjects were analyzed for efficacy in the group to which they randomized. Sponsor defined outcomes were based on review of microbiology results from samples tested at the central lab. If sample was not sent to the central lab., determination was based on results from the local microbiology lab. In cases where both local \& central lab results were available, concordance was confirmed for S. aureus. Therefore, the analysis used local microbiology data in order to utilize a more complete dataset.||||.5470
91935694|NCT00138424|183769156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.24||||0.57|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.57
91935695|NCT00138424|183769156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.26||||0.53|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.53
91769017|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|71.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||71.8|-18.5|0.361
91769018|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||31.0|-39.6|0.812
91769019|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.5||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|6.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||6.3|-61.3|0.345
91769020|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||57.1|-37.1|1.000
91769021|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|46.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||46.1|-26.1|0.588
91935696|NCT00138424|183769156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.3||||0.62|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.62
91769022|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|23.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||23.9|-53.9|0.657
91769023|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|65.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||65.4|-25.4|0.635
91811744|NCT02282020|183498042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.66||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.66|0.33|<0.001
91935697|NCT00138424|183769156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.8||||0.1|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.10
91935698|NCT00138424|183769157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.07||||0.87|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.87
91935699|NCT00138424|183769157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.31||||0.46|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.46
91769024|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|46.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||46.7|-25.7|0.573
91935700|NCT00138424|183769157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.41||||0.49|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.49
91935701|NCT00138424|183769157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.87||||0.05|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.05
91935702|NCT00138424|183769157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.12||||0.78|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.78
91935703|NCT00138424|183769157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.52||||0.18|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.18
91935704|NCT00138424|183769157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.2||||0.75|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.75
91935705|NCT00138424|183769157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.2||||0.75|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.75
91935706|NCT01802554|183769158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.039
91935707|NCT01802554|183769159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.701
91935708|NCT01802554|183769160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
91935709|NCT01802554|183769161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.268
91935710|NCT01802554|183769162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.021
91935711|NCT02431468|183769186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0||||LSM and two-sided 80% CI were provided for treatment group differences and estimated endpoint values. A true mean difference in change from baseline in the SIB (one-sided at α=0.10) of at least 6.5 points in favor of bryostatin groups was assumed.|t-test, 1 sided|||The primary statistical objective for efficacy was to estimate the effect of bryostatin on the mean change in the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) after 12 weeks of treatment. A linear model was used for both estimation and significance testing. Primary analysis populations were defined as the Full Analysis Set (FAS) and the Completer Analysis Set (CAS)||||<0.1
91935712|NCT02431468|183769186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change from baseline in SIB in the Completer Analysis Set (CAS)||||<0.1
91935713|NCT01056341|183769204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||"P-value not adjusted for multiplicity. An Independent Committee conducted this analysis to determine the most efficacious of all arms with a good safety profile.~P-value linked to the 3 mg/kg/day 6 months selected arm ."|One-sided Z-tests|One-sided Z-tests for proportions (contrasts tests on placebo) with pooled variance||The interim analysis was carried out after the first 188 patients have completed their W24 visit or been withdrawn prematurely from study therapy. For each propranolol arm, individual hypotheses H0,i: θi≤0||||< 0.0001
91935714|NCT01056341|183769205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The methodology used guaranteed that the familywise type I error rate was below the nominal one-sided significance level of 0.005.|combination tests|Superiority was tested using the closed testing procedure and combination tests for all intersection hypotheses using Simes' adjustment.||"The objective is to test the superiority of the selected arm using the approach of Posch et al.~The primary analysis was performed on the intent-to-treat population: all treated patients in Stage 1 and all treated patients in stage 2 randomized to placebo or the selected arm."||||< 0.0001
91935715|NCT01167582|183769219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 Post Randomization||||<0.001
91935716|NCT01167582|183769219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 2 Post Randomization||||<0.001
91935717|NCT01167582|183769219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3 Post Randomization||||<0.001
91935718|NCT01167582|183769220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91935719|NCT01167582|183769221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.73|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|||5.73|0.99|
91935720|NCT01167582|183769222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||||95.0|-5.3|24.7|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|||24.7|-5.3|
91935721|NCT01167582|183769223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|56.02|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|Mortality||56.02|0.91|
91935722|NCT01167582|183769223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.22|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|Myocardial Infarction||4.22|0.48|
91935723|NCT03956225|183769232|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in change from baseline in MGS was declared if the lower confidence limit (LCL) was greater than -5.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.2||||Mixed effects repeated measures||Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean is presented. Least squares mean difference (iLux minus LipiFlow). Lower Confidence Limit is presented.||||-2.2|
91935724|NCT01583452|183769234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||With a confidence interval of 95%, an alpha risk of 5% and a desired power of 80%; expecting a 24hrs difference between the intervention and the control group, we estimated 20 patients for each one of them.||||0.665
91935725|NCT01583452|183769235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||||||0.094
91935726|NCT01583452|183769236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||||||0.059
91935727|NCT01583452|183769237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||||||0.830
91935728|NCT02157506|183769246|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||=0.0059
91935729|NCT02157506|183769246|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0001
91935730|NCT02157506|183769246|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0062|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0062
91935731|NCT02157506|183769246|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0086
91935732|NCT02157506|183769247|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0076|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0076
91935733|NCT02157506|183769247|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0052|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0052
91935734|NCT02157506|183769247|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1064
91935735|NCT02157506|183769247|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1151|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1151
91935736|NCT02157506|183769248|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4241|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4241
91935737|NCT02157506|183769248|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4035
91935738|NCT02157506|183769248|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.8308
91935739|NCT02157506|183769248|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1180
91935740|NCT02157506|183769249|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0048
91935741|NCT02157506|183769249|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0022
91935742|NCT02157506|183769249|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0045
91935743|NCT02157506|183769249|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0294|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0294
91935744|NCT02157506|183769250|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2022
91935745|NCT02157506|183769250|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0658|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0658
91935746|NCT02157506|183769250|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0741|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0741
91769025|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-34.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|-0.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||-0.1|-68.3|0.176
91935747|NCT02157506|183769250|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0497|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0497
91935748|NCT02157506|183769251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1842|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1842
91935749|NCT02157506|183769251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.3328
91935750|NCT02157506|183769251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1465|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1465
91935751|NCT02157506|183769251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2799|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2799
91935752|NCT02157506|183769252|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2499|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2499
91935753|NCT02157506|183769252|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.8281
91935754|NCT02157506|183769252|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4121|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4121
91935755|NCT02157506|183769252|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8592|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.8592
91935756|NCT02157506|183769253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1391
91935757|NCT02157506|183769253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1724
91769026|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.4|-35.4|1.000
91935758|NCT02157506|183769253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1245|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1245
91935759|NCT02157506|183769253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1690
91935760|NCT02157506|183769254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4936|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4936
91935761|NCT02157506|183769254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.992|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.9920
91935762|NCT02157506|183769254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2789|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2789
91935763|NCT02157506|183769254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.9100
91935764|NCT00868452|183769255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91935765|NCT00868452|183769256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91935766|NCT00868452|183769257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
91935767|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.55|-65.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.29|-77.55|<0.001
91935768|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.94|-52.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-52.38|-65.94|<0.001
91935769|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.81|-33.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-33.40|-45.81|<0.001
91935770|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-34.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-34.37|-47.83|<0.001
91935771|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-76.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.87|-65.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.72|-86.87|<0.001
91935772|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.81|-61.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-61.20|-79.81|<0.001
91935773|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.54|-36.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.86|-57.54|<0.001
91935774|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.21|-29.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-29.56|-48.21|<0.001
91935775|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.72|-61.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-61.70|-74.72|<0.001
91935776|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.84|-58.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-58.14|-70.84|<0.001
91769027|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.4|-35.4|1.000
91769028|NCT02365649|183425728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.4|-35.4|1.000
91769029|NCT02365649|183425729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
91935777|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.04|-59.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-59.57|-77.04|<0.001
91935778|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.31|-44.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-44.65|-65.31|<0.001
91935779|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.72|-64.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-64.41|-76.72|<0.001
91935780|NCT01763866|183769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.11|-51.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-51.72|-69.11|<0.001
91935781|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.38|-64.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-64.51|-75.38|<0.001
91935782|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.06|-56.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-56.57|-69.06|<0.001
91935783|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.03|-32.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-32.03|-43.03|<0.001
91935784|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-37.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-37.28|-49.70|<0.001
91769030|NCT02365649|183425729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|57.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||57.5|-32.5|1.000
91769031|NCT02365649|183425729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|0.487
91769032|NCT02365649|183425729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|31.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ|Non-respoonders||31.6|-9.4|0.375
91769033|NCT02365649|183425729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||3.9|-30.5|1.000
91811745|NCT02282020|183498043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.01||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.01|0.51|0.055
91935785|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.49|-65.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.35|-84.49|<0.001
91935786|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-66.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-66.62|-83.00|<0.001
91935787|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.32|-35.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.57|-54.32|<0.001
91935788|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.06|-35.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.55|-52.06|<0.001
91935789|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.67|-61.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-61.08|-72.67|<0.001
91935790|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-60.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.56|-72.60|<0.001
91935791|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.19|-58.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-58.12|-73.19|<0.001
91935792|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.37|-54.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.46|-71.37|<0.001
91769034|NCT02365649|183425729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|35.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||35.6|-19.4|0.651
91769035|NCT02365649|183425729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|27.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||27.8|-29.5|1.000
91769036|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|77.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||77.5|-77.5|1.000
91811746|NCT02328755|183498072|OTHER|Single group|cumulative incidence|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.58||||||The analysis applies only to the first row, for recipients of HLA-matched HCT who received the phase II MTD (180mcg) peg-IFN-a (n=31).||0.58|0.24|
91769037|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|49.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||49.0|-49.0|1.000
91769038|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
91769039|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|89.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||89.5|-64.5|1.000
91769040|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|60.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||60.7|-35.7|1.000
91769041|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||31.0|-66.0|1.000
91769042|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|62.5||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|96.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||96.0|29.0|0.444
91769043|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|72.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||72.4|-22.4|0.619
91769044|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-37.5||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|-4.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||-4.0|-71.0|0.231
91769045|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-37.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|-4.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||-4.0|-71.0|1.000
91769046|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|72.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||72.4|-22.4|0.619
91935793|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.86|-64.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-64.01|-74.86|<0.001
91935794|NCT01763866|183769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.68|-60.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.22|-76.68|<0.001
91769047|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.0|-66.0|1.000
91769048|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|75.0||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||100.0|45.0|0.133
91769049|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.5||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|82.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||82.5|-7.5|0.315
91935795|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.6|-74.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-74.6|-92.6|<0.001
91935796|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.2|-69.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-69.2|-90.2|<0.001
91935797|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-35.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.3|-53.4|<0.001
91935798|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|-44.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.6|-65.4|<0.001
91935799|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.9|-57.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.8|-81.9|<0.001
91935800|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5|-56.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-56.7|-74.5|<0.001
91935801|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-33.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-33.9|-57.7|<0.001
91935802|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-29.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.9|-47.8|<0.001
91935803|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.9|-67.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.0|-83.9|<0.001
91935804|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-67.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.8|-88.0|<0.001
91935805|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-48.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.4|-63.1|<0.001
91935806|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-40.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.6|-60.6|<0.001
91935807|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-78.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.2|-70.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-70.0|-86.2|<0.001
91769050|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||5.0|-55.0|0.487
91935808|NCT01763866|183769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-80.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.7|-68.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-68.6|-91.7|<0.001
91935809|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-85.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.2|-75.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-75.9|-95.2|<0.001
91935810|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.8|-64.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-64.9|-86.8|<0.001
91935811|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.6|-37.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.1|-56.6|<0.001
91935812|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-40.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.9|-62.6|<0.001
91935813|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.4|-59.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-59.0|-84.4|<0.001
91935814|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.6|-52.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.0|-71.6|<0.001
91935815|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|-36.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-36.6|-61.5|<0.001
91935816|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.2|-25.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.5|-45.2|<0.001
91935817|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.2|-67.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.9|-86.2|<0.001
91935818|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.3|-65.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-65.3|-86.3|<0.001
91769051|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|72.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||72.9|-19.6|0.249
91935819|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|-49.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.4|-65.1|<0.001
91935820|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-33.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-33.4|-55.9|<0.001
91935821|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.5|-70.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-70.4|-87.5|<0.001
91769052|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||3.9|-30.5|0.487
91935822|NCT01763866|183769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.8|-60.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-60.0|-83.8|<0.001
91935823|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.29|-55.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.27|-65.29|<0.001
91935824|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.23|-51.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.51|-63.23|<0.001
91935825|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.84|-27.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.70|-37.84|<0.001
91935826|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.34|-33.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-33.71|-45.34|<0.001
91935827|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.78|-56.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-56.56|-73.78|<0.001
91935828|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.32|-57.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.19|-72.32|<0.001
91935829|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-29.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.81|-46.68|<0.001
91935830|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.15|-29.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.90|-45.15|<0.001
91935831|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.73|-54.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.48|-64.73|<0.001
91935832|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-53.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.60|-64.80|<0.001
91935833|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.6|-51.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.94|-64.60|<0.001
91935834|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.29|-50.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.32|-64.29|<0.001
91935835|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.18|-54.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.94|-65.18|<0.001
91935836|NCT01763866|183769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.22|-55.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-55.42|-70.22|<0.001
91935837|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.25|-56.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-56.03|-67.25|<0.001
91769053|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||3.9|-30.5|0.511
91769054|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|78.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||78.1|-11.4|0.140
91935838|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|-48.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.46|-61.40|<0.001
91935839|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.79|-29.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.44|-40.79|<0.001
91935840|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.15|-31.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.30|-44.15|<0.001
91935841|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.88|-57.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.39|-75.88|<0.001
91935842|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.49|-51.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.52|-68.49|<0.001
91935843|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.55|-31.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.47|-49.55|<0.001
91935844|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-24.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.28|-41.30|<0.001
91935845|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.78|-54.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.13|-65.78|<0.001
91935846|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.27|-51.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.57|-63.27|<0.001
91769055|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|34.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||34.6|-14.6|0.569
91811747|NCT02328755|183498073|OTHER|Single group|Kaplan-Meier|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|75.0||||||The analysis applies only to the first row, data at 6 months, for recipients of HLA-matched HCT who received the phase II MTD (180mcg) peg-IFN-a (n=31).|Survival proportion estimates at 6 months and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method.|75|40|
91935847|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.95|-52.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.21|-66.95|<0.001
91935848|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.26|-41.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.27|-58.26|<0.001
91935849|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.57|-55.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.24|-66.57|<0.001
91935850|NCT01763866|183769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.63|-48.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-48.62|-64.63|<0.001
91769056|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||28.5|-19.7|1.000
91935851|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-53.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.89|-63.10|<0.001
91935852|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.49|-47.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-47.01|-57.49|<0.001
91935853|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|-28.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.98|-38.33|<0.001
91935854|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.27|-34.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-34.74|-45.27|<0.001
91935855|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.61|-52.07||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.07|-66.61|<0.001
91935856|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.56|-51.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.93|-65.56|<0.001
91935857|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.09|-27.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.75|-42.09|<0.001
91935858|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.57|-32.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-32.71|-46.57|<0.001
91811748|NCT02328755|183498073|OTHER|Single group|Kaplan-Meier|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|58.0||||||The analysis applies only to the 3rd row, data at 24 months, for recipients of HLA-matched HCT who received the phase II MTD (180mcg) peg-IFN-a (n=31).|Survival proportion estimates at 6 months and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method.|58|19|
91935859|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.66|-50.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.05|-59.66|<0.001
91935860|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.66|-51.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.61|-60.66|<0.001
91935861|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.72|-44.83||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.83|-56.72|<0.001
91935862|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.11|-48.76||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.76|-61.11|<0.001
91935863|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.94|-50.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.74|-59.94|<0.001
91935864|NCT01763866|183769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.27|-50.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-50.46|-63.27|<0.001
91935865|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.03|-53.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.55|-64.03|<0.001
91769057|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|50.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.6|-23.9|0.447
91935866|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|-41.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.52|-53.20|<0.001
91935867|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-29.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.60|-40.23|<0.001
91935868|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.06|-30.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.35|-42.06|<0.001
91935869|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.27|-53.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.54|-69.27|<0.001
91935870|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.77|-45.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-45.25|-60.77|<0.001
91935871|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.17|-29.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.74|-45.17|<0.001
91935872|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.15|-26.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.47|-42.15|<0.001
91935873|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.6|-51.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.40|-61.60|<0.001
91769058|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|6.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||6.0|-19.3|1.000
91935874|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.29|-48.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.13|-58.29|<0.001
91935875|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.06|-43.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-43.99|-57.06|<0.001
91935876|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.43|-39.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.47|-54.43|<0.001
91935877|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.47|-51.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.14|-61.47|<0.001
91769059|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||28.5|-19.7|1.000
91769060|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|67.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||67.5|-27.5|0.560
91935878|NCT01763866|183769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|-46.06||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-46.06|-59.40|<0.001
91935879|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.66|-42.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.15|-50.66|<0.001
91935880|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|-39.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.63|-49.75|<0.001
91935881|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.36|-21.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.75|-30.36|<0.001
91935882|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.61|-26.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.57|-36.61|<0.001
91935883|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.69|-38.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-38.27|-50.69|<0.001
91935884|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.48|-41.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.21|-52.48|<0.001
91935885|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.39|-22.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.21|-34.39|<0.001
91935886|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|-22.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.50|-33.86|<0.001
91935887|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.5|-39.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.97|-49.50|<0.001
91935888|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.46|-41.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.57|-52.46|<0.001
91935889|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.38|-35.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.79|-45.38|<0.001
91935890|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-34.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-34.66|-46.00|<0.001
91811749|NCT02328755|183498074|OTHER|Single group|||||||||||||||||Survival proportion estimates at 6 months and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method.|||
91935891|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.76|-42.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.35|-51.76|<0.001
91935892|NCT01763866|183769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.27|-42.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-42.98|-54.27|<0.001
91935893|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.73|-41.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.94|-51.73|<0.001
91769061|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|0.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||0.2|-40.2|0.231
91769062|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||19.9|-37.7|1.000
91769063|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|45.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||45.7|-32.4|1.000
91769064|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|18.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||18.2|-28.2|1.000
91769065|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|24.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||24.6|-29.0|1.000
91769066|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||57.1|-37.1|1.000
91769067|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|22.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||22.8|-45.7|0.700
91769068|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-15.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||-15.2|-64.8|0.058
91769069|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||69.2|-22.5|0.354
91769070|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||50.4|-18.1|0.450
91769071|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|35.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||35.8|-39.1|1.000
91769072|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||69.2|-22.5|0.354
91935894|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.43|-37.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.30|-48.43|<0.001
91769073|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|42.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||42.7|-24.6|0.700
91769074|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.2||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||17.9|-46.2|0.621
91769075|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|38.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||38.5|-51.8|1.000
91935895|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-23.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.65|-33.56|<0.001
91935896|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.74|-24.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.70|-35.74|<0.001
91935897|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.66|-38.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-38.54|-51.66|<0.001
91935898|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.01|-35.85||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.85|-49.01|<0.001
91935899|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.68|-23.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.84|-36.68|<0.001
91935900|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.79|-18.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-18.59|-31.79|<0.001
91935901|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.77|-37.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.74|-48.77|<0.001
91935902|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.04|-39.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.61|-51.04|<0.001
91935903|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.65|-35.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.61|-46.65|<0.001
91935904|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.72|-28.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.25|-41.72|<0.001
91935905|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.83|-42.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.25|-51.83|<0.001
91935906|NCT01763866|183769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.67|-38.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-38.54|-50.67|<0.001
91769076|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||31.0|-39.6|0.812
91935907|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.91|-55.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.03|-64.91|<0.001
91935908|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.57|-48.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.64|-59.57|<0.001
91935909|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-32.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-32.77|-42.80|<0.001
91935910|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.34|-36.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-36.67|-47.34|<0.001
91935911|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.22|-49.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.59|-64.22|<0.001
91935912|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.68|-55.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.29|-68.68|<0.001
91935913|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.48|-30.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.04|-44.48|<0.001
91935914|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.07|-36.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-36.51|-50.07|<0.001
91935915|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.79|-49.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.79|-60.79|<0.001
91935916|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.16|-54.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.32|-64.16|<0.001
91935917|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.82|-44.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.45|-56.82|<0.001
91769077|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|23.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||23.9|-53.9|0.657
91935918|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.91|-49.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.64|-63.91|<0.001
91935919|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.51|-52.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.99|-62.51|<0.001
91769078|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||69.2|-22.5|0.354
91769079|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||50.4|-18.1|0.450
91811750|NCT02328755|183498075|OTHER|Single group|||||||||||||||||GVHD proportion estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using methods of Fine and Gray.|||
91811751|NCT02328755|183498076|OTHER|Single group|||||||||||||||||Non-relapse mortality estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using methods of Fine and Gray.|||
91935920|NCT01763866|183769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.85|-50.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-50.27|-61.85|<0.001
91935921|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.65|-54.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.94|-65.65|<0.001
91935922|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.23|-42.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.65|-54.23|<0.001
91935923|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.09|-34.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-34.23|-45.09|<0.001
91935924|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.12|-31.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.52|-43.12|<0.001
91935925|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.55|-49.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.99|-65.55|<0.001
91935926|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.91|-49.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.60|-64.91|<0.001
91935927|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.53|-32.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-32.26|-47.53|<0.001
91935928|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.26|-30.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.88|-46.26|<0.001
91935929|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.99|-48.82||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.82|-59.99|<0.001
91935930|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.58|-50.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.68|-61.58|<0.001
91935931|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.8|-42.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.53|-55.80|<0.001
91935932|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.21|-40.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.40|-57.21|<0.001
91769080|NCT02365649|183425730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.2||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||17.9|-46.2|0.621
91769081|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|95.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20%of the cells have expected cell count \<5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||95.6|-62.2|1.000
91811752|NCT05081011|183498122|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||A p-value of 0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Log Rank|||||||0.006
91935933|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.82|-52.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.65|-62.82|<0.001
91935934|NCT01763866|183769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-45.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-45.98|-58.10|<0.001
91935935|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|82.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.2|88.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||88.5|70.2|<0.001
91935936|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|80.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|86.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||86.8|67.9|<0.001
91935937|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|68.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|78.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||78.1|53.1|<0.001
91935938|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|69.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|78.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||78.5|54.8|<0.001
91935939|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|80.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.3|88.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||88.3|67.3|<0.001
91935940|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|83.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.7|89.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||89.6|70.7|<0.001
91935941|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|43.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|56.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||56.7|29.5|<0.001
91935942|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|30.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|44.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||44.2|16.7|<0.001
91935943|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|81.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|88.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||88.0|69.5|<0.001
91935944|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|84.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.1|90.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||90.2|73.1|<0.001
91811753|NCT05081011|183498123|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|57.4||A p-value of 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Welch 2-sample method|||||57.4|8.0|0.01
91935945|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|54.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.8|66.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||66.9|39.8|<0.001
91935946|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|76.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||76.6|51.0|<0.001
91935947|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|91.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.6|95.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||95.3|81.6|<0.001
91935948|NCT01763866|183769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|84.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.8|90.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||90.0|72.8|<0.001
91935949|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|83.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.9|89.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||89.2|71.9|<0.001
91935950|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|78.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.2|85.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||85.3|65.2|<0.001
91935951|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|73.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||73.9|47.3|<0.001
91811754|NCT05081011|183498124|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.4||A p-value of 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Welch 2-sample method|||||-0.4|-6.8|0.03
91811755|NCT05081011|183498125|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.8|||Welch 2-sample method|||||2.8|-0.03|0.06
91811756|NCT05081011|183498126|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.5|||Welch 2-sample method|||||3.5|-1.6|0.46
91935952|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|64.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.8|75.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||75.2|49.8|<0.001
91935953|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|80.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.8|87.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||87.9|65.8|<0.001
91935954|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|81.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|88.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||88.1|67.9|<0.001
91935955|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|55.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||55.1|26.4|<0.001
91935956|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|49.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||49.3|20.7|<0.001
91935957|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|77.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.9|84.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||84.7|63.9|<0.001
91935958|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|81.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.8|87.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||87.5|68.8|<0.001
91935959|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|52.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|65.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||65.3|37.6|<0.001
91935960|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|75.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||75.5|49.1|<0.001
91935961|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|92.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.3|95.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||95.9|82.3|<0.001
91811757|NCT05081011|183498127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.91|||2-sample test|2-sample test for equality of proportions with Yates continuity correction|Comparison of percentage (proportion) of participants achieving glycemic control.|Comparison of percentage (proportion) of participants achieving glycemic control.||0.91|0.21|0.005
91935962|NCT01763866|183769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|78.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.9|85.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||85.4|64.9|<0.001
91935963|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|-25.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.11|-39.06|<0.001
91935964|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-14.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.03|-29.70|<0.001
91935965|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.53|-20.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-20.38|-34.53|<0.001
91935966|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.36|-21.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.62|-37.36|<0.001
91935967|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.71|-13.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-13.33|-27.71|<0.001
91811758|NCT05081011|183498128|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|-30.1|||Welch 2-sample method|||||-30.1|-107.1|0.001
91769082|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|79.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||79.6|-21.3|0.592
91935968|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.01|-20.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-20.92|-37.01|<0.001
91935969|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.11|-24.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.93|-39.11|<0.001
91935970|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|-29.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.23|-45.61|<0.001
91935971|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|-28.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.38|-42.94|<0.001
91935972|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.36|-18.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-18.27|-35.36|<0.001
91935973|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.74|-26.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.37|-40.74|<0.001
91935974|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|-23.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.58|-40.80|<0.001
91769083|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|38.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||38.2|-64.8|1.000
91811759|NCT00558025|183498130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin: -15 %, power: 80%|Risk Difference (RD)|-10.75||||||95.0|-20.51|1.48|||Wilson score interval|||Successfully switched patients||1.48|-20.51|
91935975|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.91|-21.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.23|-34.91|<0.001
91769084|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|80.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||80.0|-80.0|1.000
91811760|NCT00558025|183498130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0803||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.0803
91769085|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||64.7|-39.7|1.000
91811761|NCT00558025|183498131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2061||95.0|-2.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, country and baseline as covariate||||0.6|-2.8|0.2061
91811762|NCT00558025|183498132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4694||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, country and baseline as covariate||||0.4|-0.8|0.4694
91811763|NCT00558025|183498133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.1804||95.0|-2.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, country and baseline as covariate||||0.4|-2.3|0.1804
91811764|NCT00558025|183498134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1623|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.1623
91811765|NCT00558025|183498135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1299|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.1299
91811766|NCT00558025|183498136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.6190
91811767|NCT01506479|183498138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|16.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.6|12.0|<0.0001
91935976|NCT01763866|183769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.59|-19.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-19.73|-34.59|<0.001
91769086|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.0||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.2|23.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||23.2|-83.2|0.545
91769087|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|90.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||90.0|10.0|0.464
91769088|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||64.7|-39.7|1.000
91769089|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|-10.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||-10.0|-90.0|0.182
91769090|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|95.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||95.6|-62.2|1.000
91935977|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.81|-25.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.60|-40.81|<0.001
91935978|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.92|-11.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.72|-27.92|<0.001
91935979|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.87|-21.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.44|-36.87|<0.001
91935980|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.56|-19.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-19.32|-35.56|<0.001
91935981|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.39|-14.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.36|-30.39|<0.001
91769091|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|79.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||79.6|-21.3|0.592
91769092|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|38.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||38.2|-64.8|1.000
91935982|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.62|-19.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-19.58|-36.62|<0.001
91935983|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.46|-24.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.78|-40.46|<0.001
91935984|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.52|-26.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.25|-43.52|<0.001
91935985|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.69|-28.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.30|-44.69|<0.001
91811768|NCT01506479|183498139|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.34|ONE_SIDED|90.0||4.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.10|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the vigorous exercise group warrants further investigation using a futility threshold of 3.5 compared to the control group (difference between the mean change in the control group and the mean change in the vigorous exercise group). The alternative hypothesis is that vigorous exercise does not warrant further investigation.||4.6||0.34
91890517|NCT00461981|183674098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-20.0||||||95.0|-71.6|33.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||33.9|-71.6|
91890518|NCT00461981|183674099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.23||||||95.0|0.15|0.35||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.35|0.15|
91890519|NCT00461981|183674100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.11||||||95.0|0.05|0.22||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.22|0.05|
91890520|NCT00461981|183674101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|4.85||||||95.0|2.51|9.22||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||9.22|2.51|
91890521|NCT00461981|183674102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|3.31||||||95.0|1.46|7.54||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||7.54|1.46|
91890522|NCT00461981|183674103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.35||||||95.0|0.58|3.04||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.04|0.58|
91890523|NCT00461981|183674104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.44||||||95.0|0.16|1.07||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.07|0.16|
91890524|NCT00461981|183674105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|2.46||||||95.0|1.26|5.06||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||5.06|1.26|
91890525|NCT00461981|183674106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.89||||||95.0|0.7|1.0||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.00|0.70|
91890526|NCT00461981|183674107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.51||||||95.0|0.23|1.22||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.22|0.23|
91890527|NCT00461981|183674108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|4.0||||||95.0|4.0|4.0||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||4.00|4.00|
91890528|NCT00461981|183674109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.22|3.63||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.63|0.22|
91890529|NCT00461981|183674110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.66||||||95.0|0.25|1.73||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.73|0.25|
91890530|NCT00461981|183674115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91890531|NCT00731133|183674123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.6466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9016||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7858|4.5073|||Mixed Models Analysis|7,24||Open-label study testing for change in side-effects ratings over time (i.e., slope).||4.5073|.7858|0.05
91890532|NCT00731133|183674124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2196||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8075|0.0615|||Mixed Models Analysis|7,24||Open label study testing changes in amphetamine use over time (i.e., slope).||0.06150|-0.8075|0.05
91890533|NCT00943852|183674125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Fixed effects model with terms for subject, treatment and period||||||<0.001
91890534|NCT00943852|183674126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Fixed effects model with terms for subject, treatment and period||||||<0.001
91890535|NCT03098563|183674127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|||||||.021
91890536|NCT02672852|183674128|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|70.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.7|76.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||76.0|65.7|< 0.001
91890537|NCT02672852|183674129|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|76.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.4|82.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||82.5|70.4|< 0.001
91890538|NCT02672852|183674130|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||34.6|17.3|< 0.001
91890539|NCT02672852|183674131|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|80.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.5|86.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||86.6|74.5|< 0.001
91890540|NCT02672852|183674132|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|50.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||50.8|40.3|< 0.001
91890541|NCT02672852|183674133|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|44.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|50.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||50.0|39.5|< 0.001
91890542|NCT02672852|183674134|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|62.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|67.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||67.9|56.4|< 0.001
91890543|NCT02672852|183674135|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|73.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|81.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||81.9|66.0|< 0.001
91890544|NCT02672852|183674136|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|28.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||28.7|13.7|< 0.001
91890545|NCT02672852|183674137|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|42.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||42.2|24.0|< 0.001
91890546|NCT02672852|183674138|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||44.2|23.2|< 0.001
91890547|NCT01725126|183674187|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.75|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in body weight.||1.75|-1.38|
91890548|NCT01725126|183674187|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.36|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in body weight.||2.36|-0.20|
91890549|NCT01725126|183674188|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.87|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 percent change from Baseline in body weight.||1.87|-1.64|
91935986|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.19|-16.49||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.49|-34.19|<0.001
91935987|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.95|-29.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.02|-43.95|<0.001
91935988|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.61|-21.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.74|-42.61|<0.001
91935989|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-24.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.10|-38.40|<0.001
91935990|NCT01763866|183769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.79|-19.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-19.55|-36.79|<0.001
91935991|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.63|-2.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-2.58|-21.63|0.20
91935992|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.13|-11.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.97|-33.13|0.003
91935993|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.09|7.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.19|-12.09|1.00
91935994|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.46|-4.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.44|-25.46|0.053
91935995|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|-5.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.79|-25.06|0.073
91935996|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|-3.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-3.92|-24.90|0.027
91935997|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|8.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.30|-10.63|1.00
91935998|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|9.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.11|-12.12|0.63
91935999|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-12.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-12.54|-32.90|<0.001
91769093|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||100.0|28.9|0.429
91769094|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|79.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||79.6|-21.3|0.592
91936000|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.69||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.76|-8.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.28|-30.76|0.007
91936001|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-17.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.71|-8.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.46|-26.71|0.002
91936002|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.76|-16.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.59|-35.76|<0.001
91936003|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.38|-9.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.55|-32.38|<0.001
91936004|NCT01763866|183769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.84|-18.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-18.57|-40.84|<0.001
91936005|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-12.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.69|0.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||0.57|-24.69|0.20
91936006|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.86|-13.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-13.35|-41.86|0.003
91936007|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|9.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.43|-16.16|1.00
91936008|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|-3.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-3.99|-32.28|0.053
91936009|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.34|-6.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-6.10|-27.34|0.073
91936010|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-9.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.92|3.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||3.29|-21.92|0.027
91936011|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|7.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.72|-13.05|1.00
91936012|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|14.69||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||14.69|-10.66|0.63
91936013|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.03|-4.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.04|-32.03|<0.001
91936014|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.71|-6.96||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-6.96|-32.71|0.007
91936015|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.84|-5.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.26|-27.84|0.002
91769095|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||4.4|-71.1|0.455
91769096|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.7||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|77.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||77.4|-14.0|0.191
91769097|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|22.1|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||22.1|-22.1|1.000
91890550|NCT01725126|183674188|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|2.75|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 percent change from Baseline in body weight.||2.75|-0.24|
91890551|NCT01725126|183674189|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.694|1.331|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-4 hour) weighted mean glucose.||1.331|-1.694|
91890552|NCT01725126|183674189|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.409|0.698|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-24 hour) weighted mean glucose.||0.698|-1.409|
91890553|NCT01725126|183674189|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.232|0.526|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-4 hour) weighted mean glucose.||0.526|-2.232|
91890554|NCT01725126|183674189|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.447|0.009|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-24 hour) weighted mean glucose.||0.009|-2.447|
91890555|NCT01725126|183674190|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.277|1.587|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B -Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in fasting glucose.||1.587|-1.277|
91890556|NCT01725126|183674190|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.524|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.939|0.892|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in fasting glucose.||0.892|-1.939|
91890557|NCT01725126|183674192|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.365|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in HbA1c.||0.365|-0.495|
91890558|NCT01725126|183674192|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.472|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in HbA1c.||0.472|-0.910|
91890559|NCT01725126|183674196|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.729|1.5008|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day -1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day -1 in GSK2890457+Liraglutide treated participants in the Liraglutide PK Population.||1.5008|0.7290|
91890560|NCT01725126|183674197|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|1.0334|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.781|1.3673|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day -1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day -1 in GSK2890457+Liraglutide treated participants in the Liraglutide PK Population.||1.3673|0.7810|
91769098|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|7.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||7.3|-24.0|1.000
91769099|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|71.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||71.2|-24.5|0.538
91936016|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.04|-9.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.98|-31.04|<0.001
91936017|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.88|-10.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-10.68|-32.88|<0.001
91936018|NCT01763866|183769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-18.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-18.62|-44.10|<0.001
91936019|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.99|-4.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.74|-21.99|0.088
91936020|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.98|-10.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-10.64|-31.98|0.005
91936021|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|7.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.27|-10.27|1.00
91936022|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.17|-2.91||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-2.91|-24.17|0.056
91936023|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.88|-5.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.54|-24.88|0.073
91936024|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.97|-4.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.42|-24.97|0.027
91936025|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|9.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.05|-9.94|1.00
91936026|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|10.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.16|-10.66|0.62
91936027|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.64|-15.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-15.50|-34.64|<0.001
91936028|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.81|-8.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.77|-30.81|0.007
91769100|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|29.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||29.8|-29.8|1.000
91811769|NCT01506479|183498139|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.10. If the p-value is less than 0.10, the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative (moderate exercise does not warrant further investigation).|t-test, 1 sided||"The estimate is the difference between the control group and the moderate exercise group.~The upper bound of the confidence interval should be compared to the futility threshold of 3.5 to reject or not reject the null hypothesis."|The null hypothesis is that the moderate exercise group warrants further investigation using a futility threshold of 3.5 compared to the control group (difference in the mean change between the control group and the moderate exercise group). The alternative hypothesis is that moderate exercise does not warrant further investigation .||2.8||0.03
91936029|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.27|-7.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-7.03|-25.27|0.005
91936030|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.11|-14.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.25|-32.11|<0.001
91936031|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-13.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-13.43|-33.00|<0.001
91936032|NCT01763866|183769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|-22.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-22.14|-43.60|<0.001
91936033|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.16|-4.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.78|-24.16|0.088
91936034|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.71|-12.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-12.24|-40.71|0.005
91936035|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|8.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.32|-11.41|1.00
91936036|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-0.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-0.97|-29.40|0.056
91936037|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-5.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.80|-27.05|0.073
91936038|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|2.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||2.48|-21.68|0.027
91936039|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|8.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.61|-12.16|1.00
91936040|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|17.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||17.14|-7.25|0.62
91936041|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.24|-9.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.73|-34.24|<0.001
91811770|NCT01506479|183498140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1334
91936042|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-5.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.90|-31.60|0.007
91936043|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.46|-4.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.92|-27.46|0.005
91936044|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.04|-8.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.05|-29.04|<0.001
91936045|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.09|-11.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.81|-33.09|<0.001
91936046|NCT01763866|183769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.96|-24.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-24.70|-48.96|<0.001
91936047|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|10.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.15|2.91|0.034
91936048|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|12.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.79|3.43|0.017
91936049|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.34||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.34|3.00|0.001
91936050|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|13.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.22|3.93|0.006
91936051|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|8.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.09|-0.19|0.85
91936052|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.68|13.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.58|4.68|<0.001
91936053|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|11.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.64|3.51|0.003
91936054|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|12.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.84|3.86|0.003
91936055|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|9.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.04|1.68|<0.001
91936056|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|14.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||14.80|2.51|0.010
91936057|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|9.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.23|1.69|0.013
91769101|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|27.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||27.0|-35.3|1.000
91811771|NCT03315208|183498187|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared statistic value|0.23||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|df=1||||||0.63
91936058|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|11.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.10|2.40|0.002
91936059|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.13|15.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||15.32|5.13|<0.001
91936060|NCT01763866|183769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|12.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||12.97|4.73|<0.001
91936061|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|10.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.99|2.66|0.034
91936062|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|12.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.73|3.01|0.017
91936063|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|13.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.03|4.58|0.001
91936064|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|13.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.11|3.46|0.006
91936065|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|8.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.57|-0.42|0.85
91936066|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|11.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.89|2.22|<0.001
91769102|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.1|-26.7|0.515
91936067|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|12.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.87|4.07|0.003
91936068|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|11.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.99|2.29|0.003
91936069|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|7.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.73|-1.33|<0.001
91936070|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|13.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.72|0.97|0.010
91936071|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|9.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.56|0.52|0.013
91936072|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|9.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.60|0.07|0.002
91811772|NCT03315208|183498188|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||0.29
91936073|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|15.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||15.51|4.05|<0.001
91811773|NCT03315208|183498189|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.56||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||.50
91890561|NCT01725126|183674199|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|0.675|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.585|0.779|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day 1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day 1 in GSK2890457 treated participants in the PK Population.||0.779|0.585|
91936074|NCT01763866|183769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|13.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||13.72|4.40|<0.001
91936075|NCT01669811|183769314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|32.6||p-value is obtained using chi square method.|Chi-squared|95% CI is obtained using Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on healing of refractory RE in comparison with D20 qd||32.6|14.9|<0.0001
91936076|NCT01669811|183769315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|42.6||p-value is obtained using chi square method.|Chi-squared|95% CI is obtained using Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on healing of refractory RE in comparison with D20 qd||42.6|21.9|<0.0001
91936077|NCT01669811|183769316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.83|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||1.83|0.91|0.1452
91936078|NCT01669811|183769317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.18|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.18|0.97|0.0837
91936079|NCT01669811|183769318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.26|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.26|0.80|0.2678
91936080|NCT01669811|183769319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.12|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.12|0.62|0.6389
91936081|NCT01669811|183769320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.38|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.38|0.80|0.4485
91936082|NCT00093470|183769359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|1.072||one-sided p-value; threshold for statistical significance \<0.025|Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Hazard ratio of DFS for Arm A to Arm B|||1.072|0.538|0.026
91936083|NCT00093470|183769360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|1.155||one-sided p-value; threshold for statistical significance \< 0.025|Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Hazard ratio of OS for Arm A to Arm B|||1.155|0.567|0.056
91936084|NCT01019252|183769361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|A longitudinal general linear mixed effects model was used.||||7.21|3.28|<.0001
91936085|NCT01019252|183769362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|A longitudinal general linear mixed effects model was used.||||1.39|.94|<.0001
91936086|NCT01019252|183769363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.93|12.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|A longitudinal general linear mixed effects model was used.||||12.93|8.93|<.0001
91936087|NCT02514772|183769364|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|16.9||||||||16.9|-20.6|
91936088|NCT02514772|183769365|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|16.9||||||||16.9|-20.6|
91936089|NCT02514772|183769366|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|17.6||||||||17.6|-21.2|
91936090|NCT02514772|183769367|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|13.3||||||Incidence difference of infusion-related reactions, occurred on day of or on day after first infusion (i.e. on study day 1 or on study day 2).||13.3|-24.2|
91936091|NCT02514772|183769367|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|13.6||||||Incidence difference of infusion-related reactions, occurred on day of or on day after second infusion (i.e. on study day 14 or on study day 15).||13.6|-24.5|
91936092|NCT02514772|183769367|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|11.4||||||Incidence difference of infusion-related reactions overall on day(s) of or day(s) after either infusion (i.e. on day 1 or 2 and on day 14 or day 15).||11.4|-26.0|
91936093|NCT00877006|183769378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group, region, preassigned standard treatment, and lymphoma type as factors and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of interest is superiority of BR over standard treatment.||||0.0005
91936094|NCT00877006|183769379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test by preassigned standard treatment and lymphoma type.|BR/RCHOP-RCVP|||1.68|0.58|0.9677
91936095|NCT03657810|183769452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Type III P-Value are from the likelihood ration test from the logistic regression model with factors of treatment, gender, and investigator.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91769103|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|22.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||22.1|-22.1|1.000
91936096|NCT03657810|183769453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Type III P-Value are from the likelihood ration test from the logistic regression model with factors of treatment, gender, and investigator|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.052
91936097|NCT04547998|183769461|SUPERIORITY|The difference in the proportion of responders (RECELL-Control) was tested for superiority of RECELL treatment (with a 10% superiority margin). For the null hypothesis to be rejected and super-superiority of RECELL to Control to be established, the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in the proportion of responders (RECELL-Control) had to be greater than 10%.||||||0.012|||||||continuity-corrected method|Liu et al 2002||||||0.012
91936098|NCT04547998|183769462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on Wilcoxon signed rank test at 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was based on the following repigmentation categories: 0% to 25%, 26% to 50%, 51% to 79%, and 80% to 100%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91936099|NCT04547998|183769463|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||2-sided (0.05 significance level), based on 19 participants with assessable color matching outcomes for both treatments|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91936100|NCT00291499|183769475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
91936101|NCT00291499|183769476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91769104|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|31.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||31.9|-23.6|1.000
91769105|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|71.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||71.2|-24.5|0.538
91936102|NCT00291499|183769477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Threshold p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.043
91936103|NCT00291499|183769478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||Threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
91936104|NCT00291499|183769479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||Threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
91936105|NCT00291499|183769480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91936106|NCT01457924|183769481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||Note: There is a discrepancy in the number of par. in ITT populations at Wk 24 and Wk 48: 228 and 229 respectively. This resulted from a data issue: one par was incorrectly excluded from ITT pop. at Wk 24, but correctly included in Wk 48. This error affects all source tables, analyses relating to ITT and per protocol populations, primary endpoint and secondary MRI endpoints reported at Wk 24. This discrepancy affects all statistical analyses, but not summary statistics.||0.548|0.221|<0.001
91936107|NCT01457924|183769481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.548|0.221|<0.001
91936108|NCT01457924|183769481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.548|0.221|<0.001
91936109|NCT01457924|183769481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.548|0.221|<0.001
91936110|NCT01457924|183769482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.38||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.72|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.72|0.20|0.003
91936111|NCT01457924|183769482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.38||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.72|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.72|0.20|0.003
91936112|NCT01457924|183769482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.65|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.65|0.19|0.001
91936113|NCT01457924|183769482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.39|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.39|0.13|<0.001
91936114|NCT01457924|183769485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.6|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.60|0.16|<0.001
91936115|NCT01457924|183769485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.56||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.06|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.06|0.29|0.075
91936116|NCT01457924|183769485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.51||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.95|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.95|0.27|0.035
91936117|NCT01457924|183769485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.55|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.55|0.19|<0.001
91936118|NCT01457924|183769486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.22||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.84|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.84|0.06|0.026
91936119|NCT01457924|183769486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.49||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.86|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.86|0.13|0.296
91936120|NCT01457924|183769486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.5||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.78|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.78|0.14|0.285
91936121|NCT01457924|183769486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.25||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.71|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.71|0.09|0.009
91936122|NCT01457924|183769487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.18||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.58|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.58|0.05|0.004
91936123|NCT01457924|183769487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.5||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.63|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.63|0.15|0.248
91936124|NCT01457924|183769487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.46||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.43|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.43|0.15|0.181
91936125|NCT01457924|183769487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.62|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.62|0.10|0.003
91936126|NCT01457924|183769488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.58|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.58|0.15|<0.001
91936127|NCT01457924|183769488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.68|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.68|0.17|0.002
91936128|NCT01457924|183769488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.77|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.77|0.21|0.006
91936129|NCT01457924|183769488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.35|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.35|0.11|<0.001
91936130|NCT05053126|183769510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.132|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|31.65||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The sensitivity and integrity of the study was validated by comparing the mean responses of oxycodone HCl, the positive control (C), to the placebo (P):~H0: μC - μP ≤ δ1 versus Ha: μC - μP \> δ1 where δ1 =15"|||31.65|<0.0001
91936131|NCT05053126|183769510|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.2469|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether pregabalin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||3.4||0.2469
91936132|NCT05053126|183769510|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.48||0.1756|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether pregabalin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||2.5||0.1756
91936133|NCT05053126|183769510|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μL ≤ 0.2 (μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μL \> 0.2 (μC - 50)"||4.3||0.0001
91811774|NCT03315208|183498190|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.96||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term. BSI scores were binarized (0 and \>=1) for this analysis due to the non-normal distribution of this outcome.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||0.45
91936134|NCT05053126|183769510|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.0099|ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μL ≤ 0.2 (μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μL \> 0.2 (μC - 50)"||8.0||0.0099
91936135|NCT05053126|183769510|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.9888|ONE_SIDED|95.0||23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μL - μp ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μL - μp \< δ2 where δ2 = 11"||23.4||0.9888
91936136|NCT05053126|183769510|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.9997|ONE_SIDED|95.0||27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μL - μp ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μL - μp \< δ2 where δ2 = 11"||27.1||0.9997
91936137|NCT05053126|183769511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.79|85.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||85.42|65.79|<0.0001
91936138|NCT05053126|183769511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.03|54.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||54.65|35.03|<0.0001
91936139|NCT05053126|183769511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.945|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.12|59.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||59.75|40.12|<0.0001
91936140|NCT05053126|183769511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.99|90.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||90.61|70.99|<0.0001
91936141|NCT05053126|183769511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.09|91.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||91.73|72.09|<0.0001
91936142|NCT05053126|183769511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.6|-20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.9|-40.6|<0.0001
91936143|NCT05053126|183769511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.5|-15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.9|-35.5|<0.0001
91936144|NCT05053126|183769511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.945||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.62|15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.01|-4.62|0.3829
91936145|NCT05053126|183769511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|16.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.11|-3.50|0.2896
91936146|NCT05053126|183769512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.247|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.77|27.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.17|19.77|<0.0001
91936147|NCT05053126|183769512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.71|14.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.09|6.71|<0.0001
91936148|NCT05053126|183769512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.59|14.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.99|7.59|<0.0001
91936149|NCT05053126|183769512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.62|28.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.03|20.62|<0.0001
91936150|NCT05053126|183769512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.65|26.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.04|18.65|<0.0001
91769106|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||4.4|-37.8|0.478
91811775|NCT03315208|183498192|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||0.76
91769107|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|27.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||27.0|-35.3|1.000
91890562|NCT01725126|183674200|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|0.662|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.578|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day 1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day 1 in GSK2890457 treated participants in the PK Population.||0.757|0.578|
91890563|NCT02917603|183674281|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is that there would be no mean difference between baseline and last measure between intervention and control groups with p\<.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|||<|0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean differences between baseline and last measure in the PHQ- 9 score will not differ between groups. Study is powered a two-tailed test of significance, allowing the detection of a significant difference in either direction and the following assumptions: expected difference in PHQ-9 is 5 points, the documented clinically significant effect;78 (2) the variance of scores is 5.33; (3) error protection: α =.10, β = .20 and, (4) anticipated attrition of 15%||||<.009
91890564|NCT02917603|183674282|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is there will be the mean differences between baseline scores will be the same between groups. Study powered after primary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||<|0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.21
91890565|NCT02917603|183674283|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is there will be the mean differences between baseline scores will be the same between groups. Study powered after primary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||<|0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.06
91890566|NCT02917603|183674284|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is there will be the mean differences between baseline scores will be the same between groups. Study powered after primary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||<|0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.73
91890567|NCT02145468|183674308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.47|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|||1.47|0.91|0.238
91890568|NCT02145468|183674309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.38|||Log Rank||"Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk.~with the treatment compared with placebo."|||1.38|0.90|0.329
91890569|NCT02145468|183674310|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.47|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.47|0.88|0.338
91890570|NCT02145468|183674310|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.38|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.38|0.88|0.410
91890571|NCT02145468|183674311|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.38|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death, MI or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.38|0.86|0.472
91890572|NCT02145468|183674312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.44|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of arterial CV events (CV death, MI, SRI-UR or stroke), Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.44|0.91|
91936151|NCT05053126|183769512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|-9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.38|-16.8|<0.0001
91936152|NCT05053126|183769512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|-8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.47|-15.9|<0.0001
91936153|NCT05053126|183769512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.258||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.57|-2.86|0.7051
91936154|NCT05053126|183769512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.246||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.82|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.57|-4.82|0.6160
91936155|NCT05053126|183769513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.235|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.31|25.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.67|18.31|<0.0001
91936156|NCT05053126|183769513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.227||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.73|10.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.07|2.73|0.0042
91936157|NCT05053126|183769513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.12|13.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.48|6.12|<0.0001
91936158|NCT05053126|183769513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.44|24.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.81|17.44|<0.0001
91936159|NCT05053126|183769513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.59|24.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.95|17.59|<0.0001
91936160|NCT05053126|183769513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.3|-11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.9|-19.3|<0.0001
91936161|NCT05053126|183769513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|-8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.50|-15.9|<0.0001
91936162|NCT05053126|183769513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.246||0.7001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.56|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.83|-4.56|0.7001
91936163|NCT05053126|183769513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233||0.7479|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.96|-4.40|0.7479
91769108|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.1|-26.7|0.515
91769109|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|34.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||34.6|-17.9|1.000
91769110|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|31.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||31.9|-23.6|1.000
91769111|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|71.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 20||71.9|-21.9|0.344
91936164|NCT05053126|183769514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.45|30.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.19|25.45|<0.0001
91936165|NCT05053126|183769514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.435|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.17|16.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.89|12.17|<0.0001
91936166|NCT05053126|183769514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.437|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.49|20.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.22|15.49|<0.0001
91936167|NCT05053126|183769514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.438|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.4|36.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||36.77|34.40|<0.0001
91936168|NCT05053126|183769514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.47|41.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||41.21|36.47|<0.0001
91936169|NCT05053126|183769514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|-10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.9|-15.6|<0.0001
91936170|NCT05053126|183769514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.435|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|-7.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.61|-12.3|<0.0001
91936171|NCT05053126|183769514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.22|8.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.94|4.22|<0.0001
91936172|NCT05053126|183769514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.65|13.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.38|8.65|<0.0001
91936173|NCT04024072|183769515|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.93|
91936174|NCT04024072|183769515|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.70|
91936175|NCT04024072|183769515|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.27||||||||0.27|-0.74|
91936176|NCT04024072|183769515|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.51|
91936177|NCT01632735|183769519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99|||GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations regression examined primary relapse (measured by urinalysis) over time by condition, controlling for age and gender.||||0.99|0.57|<0.05
91936178|NCT01632735|183769520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta (timexcondition)|0.239|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses controlled for age and gender.||Mixed modeling using a repeated-measures random-effects model was conducted to test for the effects of treatment (dummy coded with 1 = mobile intervention, 0 = control) and time as well as the treatment x time interaction on the primary outcome measures of recovery behaviors mean days over time (baseline, discharge, 3, 6, and 9-month follow-ups).||0.248|0.219|<0.001
91936179|NCT01632735|183769521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta (time x condition)|0.115|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|A repeated-measures model tested for effects of treatment vs. control on recovery self-confidence over time controlling for age and gender.||Mixed modeling using a repeated-measures random-effects model was conducted to test for the effects of treatment (dummy coded with 1 = mobile intervention, 0 = control) and time as well as the treatment x time interaction on the outcome measure of recovery confidence mean score over time.||0.123|0.106|<0.001
91936180|NCT01632735|183769522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta effect (timexcondition)|0.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses controlled for age and gender.||Mixed modeling using a repeated-measures random-effects model was conducted to test for the effects of treatment (dummy coded with 1 = mobile intervention, 0 = control) and time as well as the treatment x time interaction on the outcome measure of self-help utilization (mean days in past month) over the study period (baseline, discharge, and 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-ups).||0.233|0.2|<0.001
91936181|NCT03589885|183769584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1014.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.83|14940.62|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||14940.62|68.83|<0.0001
91936182|NCT03589885|183769584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|96.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.22|537.78|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||537.78|17.22|<0.0001
91936183|NCT03589885|183769585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.95|221.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||221.64|11.95|<0.0001
91936184|NCT03589885|183769585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.38|119.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||119.57|7.38|<0.0001
91936185|NCT03589885|183769586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|88.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.15|484.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||484.52|16.15|<0.0001
91936186|NCT03589885|183769586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|189.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||189.01|7.60|<0.0001
91936187|NCT04111107|183769590|OTHER|||||||0.966|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank (2 sided)|||H0: Progression-free ratio = 1||||0.966
91936188|NCT04111107|183769593|OTHER|Single proportion was estimated.|proportion|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.1|||||exact binomial confidence interval|The proportion with a complete or partial response was estimated and an exact binomial confidence interval was calculated||21.1|0.1|
91936189|NCT00039741|183769595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||Interval regression|Adjusted for baseline HIV-1 RNA, age (\<3 years vs 3 years), origin (PACTG vs PENTA sites), and perinatal ART exposure versus no exposure.||||0.11|-0.41|0.26
91936190|NCT00039741|183769595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32|||Interval regression|Adjusted for baseline HIV-1 RNA, age (\<3 years vs 3 years), origin (PACTG vs PENTA sites), and perinatal ART exposure versus no exposure.||||0.32|-0.20|0.56
91936191|NCT00321269|183769623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis- Treatment Arm X Time F (2, 116)=0.09, P\>F=0.90.||||0.90
91936192|NCT00321269|183769624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,110)=2.08; P=0.13||||||0.13
91936193|NCT03571256|183769634|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.8||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-3.9|0.600
91936194|NCT01948141|183769658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.59
91936195|NCT01948141|183769661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.36
91936196|NCT01861054|183769697|OTHER|||||||0.3149||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison on ALDH+ cells by ALDEFLUOR assay||||0.3149
91936197|NCT01861054|183769697|OTHER|||||||0.8148||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison on CD44+/CD24- by flow citometry||||0.8148
91936198|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho AKT Extent||||>0.9999
91936199|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho-AKT Intensity||||>0.9999
91936200|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER|||||||0.2245|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AKT Extent||||0.2245
91936201|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER|||||||0.5785|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AKT Intensity||||0.5785
91936202|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho-FAK Extent||||>0.9999
91936203|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER|||||||0.3139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho-FAK Intensity||||0.3139
91936204|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAK Extent||||0.2120
91936205|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAK Intensity||||>0.9999
91936206|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||C-PTEN Extent||||>0.9999
91936207|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER|||||||0.8728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||C-PTEN Intensity||||0.8728
91936208|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||D-PTEN Extent||||>0.9999
91936209|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER|||||||0.8728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||D-PTEN Intensity||||0.8728
91936210|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER|||||||0.2265|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCR1 Extent||||0.2265
91936211|NCT01861054|183769698|OTHER|||||||0.2403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCR1 Intensity||||0.2403
91936212|NCT01861054|183769699|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Interleukin 1 Beta||||>0.9999
91936213|NCT01861054|183769699|OTHER|||||||0.6945||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Interleukin 6||||0.6945
91936214|NCT01861054|183769699|OTHER|||||||0.9448||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Interleukin 8||||0.9448
91936215|NCT01861054|183769699|OTHER|||||||0.6292||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tumor Necrosis Factor - alpha||||0.6292
91936216|NCT01861054|183769699|OTHER|||||||0.2354||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Granulocyte Macrophage Colony Stm Factor||||0.2354
91936217|NCT01861054|183769699|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor||||>0.9999
91936218|NCT01861054|183769699|OTHER|||||||0.4719||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor||||0.4719
91936219|NCT01861054|183769700|OTHER|||||||0.0951|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD31 Extent||||0.0951
91936220|NCT01861054|183769700|OTHER|||||||0.1643|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD31 Intensity||||0.1643
91936221|NCT01861054|183769701|OTHER|||||||0.4183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P62 Extent||||0.4183
91936222|NCT01861054|183769701|OTHER|||||||0.3702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P62 Intensity||||0.3702
91936223|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.6168||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lymphocyte in WBC||||0.6168
91936224|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.6168||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total T cell in lymphocytes||||0.6168
91936225|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||B cell in lymphocytes||||0.1453
91936226|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||T-helper cell in lymphocytes||||0.1453
91936227|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CTL in lymphocytes||||0.1453
91936228|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NKT cell in lymphocytes||||>0.9999
91936229|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.7634||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||ADCC NK subsets in lymphocytes||||0.7634
91936230|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.5487||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Regulatory NK subsets in lymphocytes||||0.5487
91936231|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Exhausted NK subsets in lymphocytes||||>0.9999
91936232|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD56-CD16+ NK subsets in lymphocytes||||>0.9999
91936233|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1451||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD11b in PMNs - IL-8||||0.1451
91936234|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.2779||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD18 in PMNs - IL-8||||0.2779
91936235|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1444||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD11b - IL-8||||0.1444
91769112|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|53.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 20||53.5|-17.8|0.429
91936236|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD66b - IL-8||||0.1453
91936237|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.92||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD18 - IL-8||||0.9200
91936238|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.2779||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD11b in PMNs - US||||0.2779
91936239|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.6164||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD18 in PMNs - US||||0.6164
91936240|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD11b - US||||>0.9999
91936241|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.2032||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD66b - US||||0.2032
91936242|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD18 - US||||>0.9999
91936243|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.525||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - IL-8||||0.5250
91936244|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.6706||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - IL-8||||0.6706
91936245|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.8312||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - IL-8||||0.8312
91936246|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - IL-8||||0.3992
91936247|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - IL-8||||0.2952
91936248|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - IL-8||||0.3992
91936249|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - IL-8||||0.2952
91936250|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.525||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - IL-8||||0.5250
91936251|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - US||||0.3992
91936252|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - US||||0.2952
91936253|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - US||||>0.9999
91936254|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - US||||0.3992
91936255|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - US||||0.3992
91936256|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - US||||0.2952
91769113|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|25.0|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 20||25.0|-46.4|1.000
91936257|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - US||||0.3992
91936258|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - US||||0.2952
91936259|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.2238||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - LPS||||0.2238
91936260|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.2238||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - LPS||||0.2238
91936261|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1543||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - LPS||||0.1543
91936262|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - LPS||||0.1547
91936263|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - LPS||||0.1547
91936264|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - LPS||||0.1547
91936265|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.4314||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - LPS||||0.4314
91936266|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.3153||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - LPS||||0.3153
91936267|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - LPS+IL-8||||0.4700
91936268|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - LPS+IL-8||||0.1605
91936269|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - LPS+IL-8||||0.1605
91936270|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - LPS+IL-8||||0.1605
91936271|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - LPS+IL-8||||0.1547
91936272|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - LPS+IL-8||||0.1547
91936273|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.3153||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - LPS+IL-8||||0.3153
91936274|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1543||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - LPS+IL-8||||0.1543
91936275|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1601||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent FITC eColi Control||||0.1601
91936276|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.2368||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent FITC eColi Test||||0.2368
91936277|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent PMNs unstimulated||||0.1605
91936278|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent PMNs fMLP||||0.4700
91936279|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.3392||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent L-selectin unstimulated||||0.3392
91936280|NCT01861054|183769706|OTHER|||||||0.808||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent L-selectin fMLP||||0.8080
91936281|NCT00599027|183769707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Endpoint after 28 days of treatment|ANCOVA|Overall treatment effect tested using F-test(alpha=0.05;two-sided). Diff between least square means of the 2 groups calculated with two-sided 95% C.I||||||0.001
91936282|NCT04962503|183769708|OTHER|||||||0.0313||||||Change from baseline to Day 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
91936283|NCT04962503|183769708|OTHER|||||||0.0625||||||Change from baseline to Day 9|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
91936284|NCT00476996|183769718|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|20.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||27.9|12.8|< 0.0001
91936285|NCT00476996|183769718|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||32.7|17.7|< 0.0001
91936286|NCT00476996|183769718|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|36.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||36.6|21.6|< 0.0001
91936287|NCT00476996|183769718|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||37.7|22.8|< 0.0001
91936288|NCT00476996|183769719|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|2.1||||0.1885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||5.2|-1.0|0.1885
91936289|NCT00476996|183769719|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|3.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||6.8|0.3|0.0330
91936290|NCT00476996|183769720|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|4.2||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||7.6|0.7|0.0175
91936291|NCT00476996|183769720|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|4.3||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||7.8|0.9|0.0134
91936292|NCT00476996|183769720|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||14.8|6.2|< 0.0001
91936293|NCT00476996|183769720|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||14.7|6.2|< 0.0001
91936294|NCT00476996|183769721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 24 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.3|-0.8|< 0.0001
91936295|NCT00476996|183769721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 24 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.6|-1.1|< 0.0001
91936296|NCT00476996|183769721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 48 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
91936297|NCT00476996|183769721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 48 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.9|-1.5|< 0.0001
91936298|NCT00476996|183769722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.66|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||3.66|1.85|< 0.0001
91936299|NCT00476996|183769722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.91|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||4.91|2.49|< 0.0001
91936300|NCT00476996|183769722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|5.96|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||5.96|2.93|< 0.0001
91936301|NCT00476996|183769722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|7.18|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||7.18|3.54|< 0.0001
91936302|NCT00476996|183769723|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||19.1|7.4|< 0.0001
91936303|NCT00476996|183769723|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|16.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||22.1|10.2|< 0.0001
91936304|NCT00476996|183769723|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||25.6|12.9|< 0.0001
91936305|NCT00476996|183769723|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||27.1|14.5|< 0.0001
91936306|NCT00476996|183769724|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|4.6||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||8.5|0.7|0.0203
91936307|NCT00476996|183769724|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|6.7||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||10.8|2.6|0.0014
91769114|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 28||57.1|-40.4|1.000
91769115|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|46.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 28||46.6|-29.9|0.671
91769116|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|30.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 28||30.5|-56.7|0.656
91769117|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 36||64.7|-31.4|0.627
91769118|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|46.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 36||46.7|-27.7|0.701
91769119|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|18.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 36||18.1|-56.2|0.603
91769120|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 44||64.7|-31.4|0.627
91769121|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|39.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 44||39.0|-34.2|1.000
91936308|NCT00476996|183769724|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|6.6||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||11.2|2.1|0.0042
91769122|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|38.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 44||38.0|-47.6|1.000
91769123|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|71.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 52||71.9|-21.9|0.344
91769124|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|60.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 52||60.9|-10.9|0.248
91769125|NCT02365649|183425731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|25.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 52||25.0|-46.4|1.000
91769126|NCT02365649|183425732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
91769127|NCT02365649|183425732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||70.8|-20.8|0.608
91936309|NCT00476996|183769724|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||18.6|8.2|< 0.0001
91936310|NCT00476996|183769725|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||27.5|11.3|< 0.0001
91936311|NCT00476996|183769725|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||32.7|16.8|< 0.0001
91936312|NCT00476996|183769725|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||34.9|19.5|< 0.0001
91936313|NCT00476996|183769725|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||35.3|20.0|< 0.0001
91936314|NCT00676793|183769745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change, i.e. median change=0.0.||||=0.078
91936315|NCT00676793|183769746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.094||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change, i.e. median change=0.0.||||=0.094
91936316|NCT01617187|183769808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.6||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary efficacy hypotheses|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||3.6|-6.1|0.6043
91936317|NCT01617187|183769808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.0||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary efficacy hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.0|-10.1|0.0356
91936318|NCT01617187|183769808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||0.2|-11.1|0.0587
91936319|NCT01617187|183769809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||0.3|-0.3|0.9083
91936320|NCT01617187|183769809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||0.0|-0.6|0.0601
91936321|NCT01617187|183769809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||0.2|-0.5|0.3898
91811776|NCT03315208|183498193|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.07||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term. Due to the non-normal distribution of the Craving Scale, scores on this measure were binarized (\< 15 and \>= 15) for this analysis.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||.21
91936322|NCT01617187|183769810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||||0.3700
91936323|NCT01617187|183769810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1708||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||||0.1708
91936324|NCT01617187|183769810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2620
91936325|NCT01617187|183769811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg's method|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Olanzapine 15 mg QD|||-0.0|-2.4|0.0491
91769128|NCT02365649|183425732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|0.487
91936326|NCT01617187|183769811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg's method|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Olanzapine 15 mg QD|||-0.0|-2.3|0.0491
91936327|NCT01617187|183769811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||2.0|-0.0|0.0567
91936328|NCT01617187|183769811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||1.9|0.0|0.0391
91936329|NCT01617187|183769811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||3.3|1.0|0.0003
91936330|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||2.9|-1.4|0.4849
91936331|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.9|-2.2|0.8902
91936332|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.5826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.9|-3.4|0.5826
91769129|NCT02365649|183425732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||55.1|-15.1|0.250
91769130|NCT02365649|183425732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||24.0|-7.3|0.444
91769131|NCT02365649|183425732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|31.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||31.6|-9.4|0.375
91769132|NCT02365649|183425732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|37.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||37.8|-31.1|1.000
91769133|NCT02365649|183425732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.4||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|52.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||52.8|-8.0|0.215
91769134|NCT02365649|183425732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|27.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||27.8|-29.5|1.000
91769135|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.5|25.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||25.5|-55.5|0.671
91769136|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|39.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||39.8|-19.8|0.718
91769137|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||22.4|-52.4|0.461
91769138|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.5|-14.5||Statistically significant at 0.05 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||-14.5|-85.5|0.030
91769139|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|17.9|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||17.9|-42.9|0.483
91769140|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|20.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||20.8|-50.8|0.431
91769141|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|41.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||41.1|-31.1|1.000
91769142|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|23.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||23.6|-38.6|0.635
91890573|NCT02145468|183674313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.36|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of coronary events (CHD death, MI, SRI-UR or any unplanned coronary artery revascularization), Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.36|0.86|0.505
91936333|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.9271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||3.0|-3.3|0.9271
91936334|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.0|-5.1|0.1902
91936335|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.7|-6.2|0.2710
91936336|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.6773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||4.3|-2.8|0.6773
91936337|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.6|-5.2|0.2895
91936338|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||2.6|-6.0|0.4261
91936339|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||5.5|-2.9|0.5505
91936340|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||2.4|-5.6|0.4286
91936341|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|3.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||3.1|-7.0|0.4423
91936342|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||7.7|-1.4|0.1691
91811777|NCT03315208|183498194|SUPERIORITY||t statistic|0.29||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Due to the non-normal distribution of the PDA variable, this variable was treated as binary (\<50% and \>=50%) for mixed models; however, due to the small numbers of participants (\< 5) in certain cells of treatment condition (UP versus TAU) by time point, we ran into issues with convergence of linear mixed models. Thus, here we report the results from an independent samples t-test of means (percentage of past 30 days abstinent) at post-treatment (UP versus TAU).||||0.77
91811778|NCT02746874|183498195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.978
91811779|NCT02746874|183498197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.978
91811780|NCT02746874|183498198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.371
91811781|NCT02746874|183498199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.325
91936343|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.7|-5.8|0.4682
91936344|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.4961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||3.5|-7.2|0.4961
91936345|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.4697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||2.8|-6.1|0.4697
91936346|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.6|-7.8|0.0947
91936347|NCT01617187|183769812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.4|-10.2|0.0675
91936348|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1736||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1736
91936349|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1736||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1736
91936350|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.285||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.2850
91936351|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.3290
91936352|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6938||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.6938
91936353|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1105||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.1105
91936354|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6804||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.6804
91936355|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9704||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.9704
91936356|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6604||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.6604
91936357|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2447||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.2447
91936358|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4834||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.4834
91936359|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9189||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.9189
91936360|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.437||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.4370
91936361|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2894||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.2894
91936362|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6953||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.6953
91769143|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|-5.2||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||-5.2|-74.8|0.056
91811782|NCT02746874|183498200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.466
91811783|NCT02746874|183498201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.368
91811784|NCT02746874|183498202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.509
91890574|NCT02145468|183674314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.26|0.64|0.536
91890575|NCT02145468|183674314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.24|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.24|0.69|0.6
91890576|NCT02145468|183674315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.43|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death, MI or stroke, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.43|0.88|0.356
91890577|NCT02145468|183674316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.39|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death, MI, SRI-UR, stroke or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.39|0.9|0.329
91890578|NCT02145468|183674317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.47|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CHD death, MI or SRI-UR, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.47|0.89|0.285
91890579|NCT02145468|183674318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CHD death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.46|0.86|0.401
91890580|NCT02145468|183674319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.44|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of all-cause death, MI or SRI-UR,Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.44|0.89|0.295
91890581|NCT02145468|183674320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of all-cause death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.43|0.86|0.412
91890582|NCT02145468|183674321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.49|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death, type I (spontaneous) MI or SRI-UR, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.49|0.83|0.469
91890583|NCT02145468|183674322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.48|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death or type I (spontaneous) MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.48|0.78|0.664
91890584|NCT02145468|183674323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.19|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Participants with first occurrence of definite or probable stent thrombosis, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.19|0.27|0.130
91890585|NCT02145468|183674324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||Wald chi-squared||Odds ratio is estimated using a logistic regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|||1.27|0.84|0.744
91890586|NCT02145468|183674325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.22|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Participants with all-cause mortality, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.22|0.53|0.309
91890587|NCT02145468|183674326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.28|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.28|0.53|0.398
91936363|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4892||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.4892
91769144|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|32.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||32.5|-47.5|1.000
91769145|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|49.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||49.7|-14.7|0.296
91769146|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|32.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||32.4|-42.4|1.000
91769147|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|35.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||35.9|-45.9|1.000
91769148|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|45.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||45.2|-17.7|0.400
91769149|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||22.4|-52.4|0.439
91769150|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|56.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||56.6|-12.8|0.259
91769151|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|9.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||9.7|-30.6|0.310
91769152|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.4||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-0.1||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||-0.1|-38.8|0.097
91769153|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.4||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|57.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||57.2|-8.5|0.181
91769154|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||20.0|-15.9|0.826
91811785|NCT02746874|183498203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.593
91890588|NCT02145468|183674326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.18|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.18|0.55|0.264
91936364|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1954||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.1954
91890589|NCT02145468|183674327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.22|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CHD death events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.22|0.47|0.251
91811786|NCT02746874|183498204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.687
91811787|NCT02746874|183498205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.813
91811788|NCT02746874|183498206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.687
91811789|NCT02746874|183498207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.840
91811790|NCT02746874|183498208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.913
91811791|NCT02746874|183498209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.301
91811792|NCT02746874|183498210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
91811793|NCT02746874|183498211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.813
91811794|NCT02746874|183498213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.047
91811795|NCT02746874|183498214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.115
91936365|NCT01617187|183769813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.7990
91936366|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.2|-0.1|0.4255
91936367|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.1|-0.1|0.9564
91936368|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.1|-0.2|0.6363
91936369|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.2|0.8759
91936370|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.2|0.9598
91769155|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|16.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||16.1|-21.2|1.000
91936371|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.2|0.9789
91936372|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-0.3|0.4671
91936373|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.2|-0.3|0.6359
91936374|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.2|-0.4|0.5454
91936375|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.4|-0.2|0.4188
91936376|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.2|-0.3|0.5318
91936377|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.2|-0.4|0.5683
91936378|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.4|-0.1|0.2972
91936379|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.2|-0.4|0.4820
91936380|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.3|-0.3|0.9901
91936381|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.2|-0.4|0.6682
91936382|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.1|-0.5|0.1111
91936383|NCT01617187|183769814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.1|-0.5|0.2400
91936384|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6205||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.6205
91811796|NCT02746874|183498215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.349
91936385|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4829||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.4829
91936386|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3945||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.3945
91936387|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4076||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.4076
91936388|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.969||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.9690
91936389|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.1170
91936390|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5088||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.5088
91936391|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3426||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.3426
91936392|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0762||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0762
91936393|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5531||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.5531
91936394|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4875||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.4875
91936395|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0692
91936396|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7482||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.7482
91936397|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8037||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.8037
91936398|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0859||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.0859
91936399|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.585||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.5850
91936400|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9698||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.9698
91936401|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0132||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.0132
91769156|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|45.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||45.4|-16.7|0.369
91769157|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|16.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||16.4|-18.2|1.000
91769158|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|16.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||16.1|-21.2|1.000
91936402|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7129||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 42||||0.7129
91936403|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5074||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 42||||0.5074
91936404|NCT01617187|183769815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 42||||0.0040
91769159|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|42.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||42.7|-20.2|0.660
91769160|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|17.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||17.5|-19.7|0.908
91769161|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.1||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|7.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||7.7|-27.8|0.446
91936405|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.7|0.8829
91936406|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.5|0.5488
91936407|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-1.1|0.7830
91936408|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.8|-1.0|0.8070
91936409|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.1|0.5280
91936410|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.6|0.4025
91936411|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.2|-0.8|0.6471
91936412|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.5|0.2504
91936413|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.9223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-1.2|0.9223
91769162|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.8|-9.5|0.135
91936414|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.8839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.2|-1.0|0.8839
91769163|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.2||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||28.1|-5.7|0.306
91769164|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|20.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||20.7|-13.4|0.686
91769165|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|35.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||35.2|-25.4|0.754
91769166|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||17.3|-32.6|0.548
91769167|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-22.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||5.0|-50.1|0.120
91769168|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.4||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.7|-44.5|0.403
91769169|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|17.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.0|-33.0|0.533
91769170|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|19.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||19.4|-37.2|0.539
91769171|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|35.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||35.2|-25.4|0.754
91769172|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|10.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||10.3|-39.4|0.256
91811797|NCT01156311|183498227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.33|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -8, -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 16, 20, 24 MRI scans.||-0.33|-1.17|<0.0001
91936415|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-1.2|0.8077
91769173|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.8||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|-0.8||Statistically significant at 0.1 level.|Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||-0.8|-54.7|0.055
91769174|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|33.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||33.2|-28.8|0.887
91769175|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|39.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||39.4|-10.3|0.256
91811798|NCT01156311|183498227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.33|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -8, -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 16, 20, 24 MRI scans.||-0.33|-1.83|0.0124
91811799|NCT01156311|183498228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 20, 24 MRI scans.||-0.25|-1.50|0.0010
91769176|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||17.9|-36.0|0.518
91936416|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.7|-1.0|0.6216
91936417|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.7|-0.7|0.4248
91936418|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.0|-1.3|0.7667
91936419|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.6282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.8|-1.1|0.6282
91936420|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.6|-1.9|0.3150
91936421|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.4|-2.0|0.1908
91936422|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.7|-2.3|0.3128
91936423|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.3|-1.5|0.8812
91936424|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-2.4|0.1143
91769177|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|37.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||37.6|-25.1|0.695
91769178|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|36.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||36.4|-13.5|0.373
91769179|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|20.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||20.8|-34.6|0.628
91769180|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||0.6|-30.6|1.000
91769181|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|20.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||20.9|-22.4|1.000
91769182|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||0.6|-30.6|0.251
91769183|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.1|-23.1|1.000
91769184|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||17.7|-18.7|1.000
91769185|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.1|-23.1|0.501
91769186|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||22.1|-3.0|0.488
91936425|NCT01617187|183769816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.0|-2.3|0.4418
91936426|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.3|-0.3|0.2160
91936427|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.7|0.9494
91936428|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.3|-1.6|0.1834
91936429|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.3|-0.8|0.6347
91936430|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.8|-1.2|0.6917
91936431|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-2.3|0.1431
91936432|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.6267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.5|-0.9|0.6267
91936433|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-1.3|0.7260
91936434|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-2.2|0.3326
91936435|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.9|-0.9|0.4575
91936436|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-1.8|0.4930
91936437|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.6|-2.8|0.1886
91936438|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.2643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.5|-0.7|0.2643
91890590|NCT02145468|183674328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.67|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Myocardial infarction (fatal and non-fatal) events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.67|0.91|0.182
91936439|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.8|-2.2|0.3516
91936440|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.7|-3.1|0.2068
91936441|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.7284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.9|-1.3|0.7284
91936442|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.7|-2.4|0.2698
91936443|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.5|-3.3|0.1510
91936444|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.8039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.5|-2.0|0.8039
91936445|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.2|-3.5|0.0306
91936446|NCT01617187|183769817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.1|-4.1|0.0406
91936447|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.7819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.5|-1.1|0.7819
91936448|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-1.5|0.7030
91936449|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.6|-1.7|0.9520
91890591|NCT02145468|183674328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.58|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Myocardial infarction (fatal and non-fatal) events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.58|0.93|0.158
91890592|NCT02145468|183674329|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.12|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Type I (spontaneous) MI events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||2.12|0.85|0.21
91769187|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|1.000
91769188|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|0.232
91769189|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|0.501
91890593|NCT02145468|183674330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.24|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|SRI-UR events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||2.24|0.58|0.697
91890594|NCT02145468|183674331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.96|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Stroke (fatal and non-fatal) events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.96|0.46|0.883
91890595|NCT02145468|183674332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.32|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.32|0.54|0.457
91890596|NCT02145468|183674332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.38|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.38|0.63|0.736
91890597|NCT02145468|183674333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.59|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Any unplanned coronary revascularization, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.59|0.77|0.581
91890598|NCT00515723|183674349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in DEXA total fat used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0, 6, and 12 weeks) as the independent variable, with Toeplitz covariance structure specified, based on Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time).||||0.002
91890599|NCT00515723|183674349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in DEXA total fat used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0, 6, and 12 weeks) and treatment group as independent variables, with Toeplitz covariance structure specified, based on Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||0.002
91890600|NCT00515723|183674350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in insulin sensitivity used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0 and 12 weeks) as the independent variable, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on the Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time).||||0.05
91890601|NCT00515723|183674350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in insulin sensitivity used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0 and 12 weeks) and treatment group as the independent variables, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on the Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||0.22
91890602|NCT00798434|183674351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.97|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline urgency episodes.||Based on a 2-sided t-test (5% significance). Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change in mean micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours at Week 12 for the 2 groups. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method used for statistical analyses of the FAS (change from baseline to Week 12).||-0.97|-2.12|<0.0001
91890603|NCT00798434|183674352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|-14.25|||2-sided Van Elteren's test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of median treatment difference and confidence interval (CI)|Week 12 LOCF||-14.25|-14.67|<0.0001
91890604|NCT00798434|183674353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.42|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline severe urgency episodes||Week 12 LOCF||-0.42|-1.28|0.0001
91890605|NCT00798434|183674354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||2-sided Van Elteren's test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of median treatment difference and CI|Week 12 LOCF||0.00|0.00|0.0005
91936450|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.6|-2.1|0.7907
91936451|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.4|-3.1|0.1391
91936452|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.5|-3.1|0.4901
91936453|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.8079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||2.2|-1.7|0.8079
91936454|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-2.7|0.3889
91936455|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-3.4|0.3907
91890606|NCT00798434|183674355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.64|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of micturitions||Week 12 LOCF||-0.64|-1.33|<0.0001
91936456|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.5363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||3.0|-1.5|0.5363
91936457|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.5075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.4|-2.9|0.5075
91936458|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.4526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.7|-3.7|0.4526
91936459|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||4.3|-0.7|0.1548
91936460|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.6589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.8|-2.9|0.6589
91936461|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.5171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.0|-3.9|0.5171
91936462|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.2|-3.6|0.3133
91936463|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.7|-3.8|0.1723
91890607|NCT00798434|183674356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-7.19|||2-sided Van Elteren's test|||Week 12 LOCF||-7.19|-7.40|<0.0001
91890608|NCT00798434|183674357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of night-time micturitions||Week 12 LOCF||-0.09|-0.40|0.0026
91936464|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.2|-5.4|0.0663
91936465|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.7|-3.5|0.5128
91936466|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-4.6|0.0842
91936467|NCT01617187|183769818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.6|-5.4|0.1217
91936468|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.5|-0.0|0.0584
91890609|NCT00798434|183674358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-9.09|||2-sided Van Elteren's test|||Week 12 LOCF||-9.09|-9.52|0.0012
91936469|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.5|0.5197
91936470|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.9693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.9|0.9693
91936471|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.4|-0.8|0.6161
91936472|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-1.2|0.7880
91936473|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.0|-1.8|0.5526
91936474|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.7647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.5|-1.1|0.7647
91936475|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-1.2|0.8900
91769190|NCT02365649|183425733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||22.1|-3.0|0.488
91769191|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|37.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||37.5|2.5|0.295
91769192|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|34.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||34.9|-7.4|0.355
91769193|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|15.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||15.1|-55.1|0.384
91811800|NCT01156311|183498228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 20, 24 MRI scans.||0.00|-1.25|0.0339
91890610|NCT00798434|183674359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.0||||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The protocol-defined analysis (ANOVA, parametric) not presented because normality assumptions were not met, instead an alternative analysis (Van-Elteren'ts test, non-parametric) as defined in the statistical analysis plan presented.|Van-Elteren's Test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of median treatment difference and CI|Week 12 LOCF||0.00|0.00|0.1005
91890611|NCT00798434|183674360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||2-sided Van Elteren's test|||Week 12 LOCF||0.00|0.00|0.0218
91890612|NCT00798434|183674361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.1|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and daily sum rating of USS at baseline||Week 12 LOCF||-3.10|-6.30|<0.0001
91890613|NCT00798434|183674362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.515||||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|2.528||Logistic regression determined the odds of improvement versus no improvement in dryness, where improvement was defined as dry at both weeks 8 and 12 relative to baseline incontinence.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, and age category||LOCF||2.528|0.909|0.1113
91890614|NCT00798434|183674363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of pads per 24 hours||Incontinence pads at Week 12 LOCF||-0.04|-0.47|0.0230
91890615|NCT00798434|183674363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of creams per 24 hours||Creams at Week 12 LOCF||0.01|-0.12|0.0909
91890616|NCT00798434|183674363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of powders per 24 hours||Powder at Week 12 LOCF||0.02|-0.08|0.2039
91890617|NCT00798434|183674364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.096|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.181|4.395|||Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, and age category||Week 12 LOCF||4.395|2.181|<0.0001
91890618|NCT00798434|183674367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.506|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.767|3.556||Logistic regression determined the odds of improvement versus no improvement in PPBC score, where improvement was defined as a negative change from baseline.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline PPBC category||Week 12 LOCF||3.556|1.767|<0.0001
91890619|NCT00798434|183674371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.916||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.305|2.811||Logistic regression determined the odds of improvement versus no improvement in PPBC score, where improvement was defined as an increase of 1 or more points in difference of scores relative to baseline.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline PPUS category||LOCF||2.811|1.305|0.0009
91890620|NCT00798434|183674373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-4.59|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline symptom/bother score||Week 12 LOCF||-4.59|-9.65|<0.0001
91890621|NCT00798434|183674374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|6.73|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total health-related quality of life (HRQL) score.||Week 12 LOCF||6.73|2.24|<0.0001
91890622|NCT00798434|183674375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|8.22|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Coping Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||8.22|2.57|0.0002
91890623|NCT00798434|183674375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|7.93|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Concern Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||7.93|2.84|<0.0001
91890624|NCT00798434|183674375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.81|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Sleep Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||6.81|1.38|0.0032
91936476|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.7097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-1.9|0.7097
91890625|NCT00798434|183674375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.53|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Social Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||4.53|0.49|0.0152
91890626|NCT00798434|183674376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.537|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.281|5.484||Analysis determined the odds of responding on the OAB-S scale (satisfaction with OAB control) for Fesoterodine versus placebo, where a responder was defined as a response of 'satisfied' or better on all 7 questions at week 12.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time and age category||LOCF||5.484|2.281|<0.001
91890627|NCT00798434|183674377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.045|4.058||Analysis determined the odds of responding on the OAB-S scale (OAB medication expectation) for Fesoterodine versus placebo, where a responder was defined as a response of 'satisfied' or better on all 7 questions at week 12.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time and age category||LOCF||4.058|2.045|<0.0001
91890628|NCT00798434|183674378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.3163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|12.49|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||General Health Perception; LOCF||12.49|-4.13|0.3163
91890629|NCT00798434|183674378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.63||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|11.11|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Incontinence Impact; LOCF||11.11|-23.70|0.4698
91890630|NCT00798434|183674378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.58|12.88|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Role Limitations; LOCF||12.88|-24.58|0.5321
91890631|NCT00798434|183674378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.39||0.6523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.74|13.12|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Physical Limitations; LOCF||13.12|-20.74|0.6523
91890632|NCT00798434|183674378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|16.99|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Social Limitations; LOCF||16.99|-10.47|0.6344
91890633|NCT00798434|183674378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.2013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.71|6.49|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Personal Relationships; LOCF||6.49|-28.71|0.2013
91890634|NCT00798434|183674378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.3831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|7.83|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Emotions; LOCF||7.83|-19.96|0.3831
91890635|NCT00798434|183674378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|18.23|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Sleep/Energy; LOCF||18.23|-9.30|0.5167
91890636|NCT00798434|183674378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.53|0.15|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Severity of Urinary Symptoms; LOCF||0.15|-20.53|0.0532
91890637|NCT00798434|183674379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0229|0.0262|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline single utility score||||0.0262|-0.0229|0.8959
91890638|NCT00558792|183674428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0099
91890639|NCT00558792|183674429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91890640|NCT00558792|183674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1212||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1212
91890641|NCT00558792|183674432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0200
91890642|NCT00558792|183674433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0044
91890643|NCT00558792|183674434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0371
91890644|NCT00558792|183674435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|14.1||||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|39.6||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||39.6|-11.4|0.2758
91890645|NCT00558792|183674435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|12.3||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|35.6||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||35.6|-11.1|0.3102
91890646|NCT00558792|183674435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|1.9||||0.8893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|28.4||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||28.4|-24.6|0.8893
91890647|NCT00558792|183674436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-1.7||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.3||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||1.3|-4.7|0.2511
91890648|NCT00558792|183674436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|1.3||||0.4985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.3||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||5.3|-2.6|0.4985
91890649|NCT00558792|183674436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-3.1||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.4||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||0.4|-6.5|0.0693
91890650|NCT00558792|183674437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|-1.5||||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|24.8||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||24.8|-27.9|0.9104
91936477|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||2.1|-0.9|0.4601
91936478|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.6288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.1|-1.8|0.6288
91936479|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.6099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.3|-2.3|0.6099
91936480|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.5|-0.7|0.2790
91936481|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.9|-2.1|0.4253
91936482|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.3014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.9|-2.9|0.3014
91936483|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.7|-1.7|0.9720
91769194|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-22.5||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|14.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||14.5|-59.5|0.311
91936484|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.0|-2.2|0.4758
91936485|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.2|-2.8|0.4419
91769195|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.3||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|11.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||11.3|-43.8|0.422
91769196|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|9.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||9.2|-59.2|0.181
91769197|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.281
91890651|NCT00558792|183674437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|-12.6||||0.2857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|10.5||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||10.5|-35.7|0.2857
91890652|NCT00558792|183674437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|11.1||||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|35.5||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||35.5|-13.3|0.3664
91936486|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-2.4|0.4762
91936487|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-3.1|0.1046
91936488|NCT01617187|183769819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.5|-3.7|0.1411
91936489|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.4|-1.2|0.2754
91936490|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.7|-0.8|0.8500
91936491|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.9|-1.1|0.8439
91936492|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.4|0.4741
91936493|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.4|-1.6|0.2158
91936494|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.8|-1.7|0.5060
91769198|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
91811801|NCT06133348|183498235|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.8|||Paired t-Test|||||5.8|0.9|0.0089
91811802|NCT06133348|183498236|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.8||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|18.8|||Paired t-Test|||||18.8|2|0.0169
91890653|NCT00558792|183674438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specifcity between Doses|-3.7||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.2||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||1.2|-8.7|0.1322
91890654|NCT00558792|183674438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-1.3||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.2||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||4.2|-6.9|0.6381
91890655|NCT00558792|183674438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-2.4||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.4||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||2.4|-7.2|0.3217
91890656|NCT00558792|183674439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|7.6||||0.5843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|34.7||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||34.7|-19.6|0.5843
91890657|NCT00558792|183674439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|4.6||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|29.7||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||29.7|-20.5|0.7197
91890658|NCT00558792|183674439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|3.0||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|30.1||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||30.1|-24.1|0.8292
91890659|NCT00558792|183674440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-4.2||||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.7||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||0.7|-9.0|0.0888
91890660|NCT00558792|183674440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-0.8||||0.7796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.8||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||4.8|-6.4|0.7796
91890661|NCT00558792|183674440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-3.4||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.5||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||1.5|-8.2|0.1662
91890662|NCT04893460|183674519|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Cost activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
91890663|NCT04893460|183674519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Quit Letter activity||||<.001
91890664|NCT04893460|183674519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Pitfalls activity||||.004
91890665|NCT04893460|183674519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Smoke Free activity||||.098
91890666|NCT04893460|183674519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Letter to Youth activity||||.042
91890667|NCT04893460|183674519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.364|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to 6 weeks post baseline.||||.364
91890668|NCT04893460|183674520|SUPERIORITY||median pairwise average|17.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxson Signed Rank Test|||The non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate whether participants were smoking fewer cigarettes per day.||||<.001
91890669|NCT04893460|183674521|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Cost activity|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.776
91890670|NCT04893460|183674521|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Quit Latter activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.219
91890671|NCT04893460|183674521|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Pitfalls activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.043
91890672|NCT04893460|183674521|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Smoke Free activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.219
91890673|NCT04893460|183674521|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Letter to Youth activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.110
91890674|NCT04893460|183674521|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to 6 week post baseline assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.868
91890675|NCT03578887|183674522|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91890676|NCT03578887|183674523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
91890677|NCT00215137|183674555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was performed on the difference between the open label endpoint and baseline YBOCS scores.||||0.0002
91890678|NCT00215137|183674555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||A Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was performed on the difference in the pre and post randomization YBOCS scores, using grouping to either escitalopram or placebo as a grouping variable.||||.0417
91890679|NCT03333876|183674556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Each group was compared to baseline.||||<.001
91936495|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.9956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-1.1|0.9956
91936496|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.3|-1.8|0.1624
91890680|NCT00568178|183674584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio in Geometric Mean|0.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.74|0.54|0.001
91890681|NCT00568178|183674585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||||95.0|-9.9|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-9.9|
91890682|NCT00568178|183674586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||||95.0|-9.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-9.2|
91890683|NCT00568178|183674587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.6||No P Value was calculated for this outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured variance-covariance was used.||||1.60|0.86|
91890684|NCT00568178|183674588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-3.8||||||95.0|-15.2|7.6||A P-Value was not calculated for this outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.6|-15.2|
91890685|NCT01531673|183674590|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.77||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.84|||Mixed-effect repeated measure (MMRM)|||||9.84|-0.3|0.0647
91890686|NCT01531673|183674590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.91||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.68|||MMRM|||||1.68|-9.5|0.1686
91890687|NCT01531673|183674590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.31|||MMRM|||||-0.31|-8.1|0.0348
91890688|NCT01531673|183674590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|-14.59|||MMRM|||||-14.59|-24.57|<0.0001
91890689|NCT01531673|183674590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.14||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-1.25|||MMRM|||||-1.25|-9.03|0.0101
91890690|NCT01531673|183674590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.19||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-1.21|||MMRM|||||-1.21|-9.16|0.011
91890691|NCT01531673|183674590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|-4.82|||MMRM|||||-4.82|-14.38|0.0001
91890692|NCT01531673|183674590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.77||||0.3745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.17|||MMRM|||||2.17|-5.71|0.3745
91890693|NCT01531673|183674591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-0.46|||MMRM|||||-0.46|-12.94|0.0357
91890694|NCT01531673|183674592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.2||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.75|-2.65|||MMRM|||||-2.65|-31.75|0.0238
91890695|NCT01014208|183674607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-rank test||The Pike estimator was the statistical method used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||1.42|0.89|0.333
91890696|NCT01014208|183674608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed OR|||1.24|0.56|0.4053
91890697|NCT01014208|183674608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.1||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed CR|||1.10|0.39|0.1167
91890698|NCT01014208|183674609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.43||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed OR|||2.43|0.55|0.8209
91890699|NCT01014208|183674609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.43||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed CR|||2.43|0.62|0.6313
91890700|NCT01014208|183674610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.36||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified log-rank test||Confidence Interval estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.36|0.90|0.346
91890701|NCT01014208|183674611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified log-rank test||Confidence Interval estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.15|0.70|0.377
91890702|NCT01014208|183674612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|9.5||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.50|0.83|0.1161
91890703|NCT01014208|183674613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.27||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Statistics are presented for Completion rate|||1.27|0.56|0.4481
91890704|NCT01014208|183674614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.17|||ANCOVA|||||2.170|-2.110|0.978
91890705|NCT01014208|183674615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.129||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.434|3.691|||ANCOVA|||||3.691|-1.434|0.387
91890706|NCT01014208|183674616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Neutrophils, Cycle 1. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.16|0.74|0.479
91890707|NCT01014208|183674616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Neutrophils, Cycle 2. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.02|0.64|0.059
91936497|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-1.5|0.7662
91769199|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|11.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||11.3|-61.3|0.231
91936498|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.8363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.1|-1.3|0.8363
91936499|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.5|-1.8|0.2388
91769200|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|58.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||58.9|-3.9|0.214
91769201|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|50.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||50.0|-7.5|0.277
91769202|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|17.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||17.2|-57.2|0.442
91769203|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||57.1|-17.1|0.419
91769204|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||50.4|-10.4|0.214
91769205|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||22.4|-52.4|0.439
91769206|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.1||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|56.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||56.4|-10.1|0.284
91769207|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|24.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||24.3|-23.9|0.988
91769208|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|13.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||13.9|-38.1|0.370
91936500|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.9435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.4|-1.5|0.9435
91936501|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.9|-0.8|0.4267
91769209|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.6||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|60.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||60.2|-8.9|0.268
91769210|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|17.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||17.5|-27.4|0.665
91769211|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|21.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||21.0|-28.9|0.759
91811803|NCT06133348|183498237|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.3|||Paired t-Test|||||4.3|0.5|0.0162
91811804|NCT06133348|183498238|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.1|||Paired t-Test|||||6.1|0.7|0.0144
91936502|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.0|-1.6|0.6810
91936503|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.9|-1.4|0.7673
91936504|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.9|-1.9|0.4830
91936505|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.5|-2.1|0.2128
91936506|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.5|-2.8|0.1756
91936507|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.4246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||2.0|-0.8|0.4246
91936508|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.6|-2.1|0.2873
91936509|NCT01617187|183769820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.7308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.4|-1.9|0.7308
91936510|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.2|0.2116
91936511|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.9039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.7|-0.6|0.9039
91936512|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.4|-1.2|0.2959
91936513|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.1|0.5909
91769212|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|56.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||56.6|-12.8|0.259
91769213|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||19.9|-23.2|0.880
91936514|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-1.4|0.1489
91936515|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-2.0|0.1000
91936516|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-0.8|0.7830
91936517|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.4|0.2679
91936518|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.5|-1.9|0.2321
91936519|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-1.3|0.7368
91936520|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.7|-1.4|0.4606
91811805|NCT06133348|183498239|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.5|||Paired t-Test|||||5.5|0.4|0.0264
91811806|NCT06133348|183498240|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||Paired t-Test|||||1.6|-0.3|0.1622
91936521|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.7|-2.0|0.3241
91936522|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.1|-1.1|0.9860
91936523|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.3|-1.8|0.1890
91936524|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.6|-2.0|0.3030
91936525|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.0|-2.3|0.0550
91936526|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||-0.0|-2.2|0.0415
91890708|NCT01014208|183674616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Neutrophils, Cycle 3. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.48|0.83|0.451
91811807|NCT06133348|183498241|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5|||Paired t-Test|||||2.5|-0.4|0.1506
91811808|NCT06133348|183498242|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.4|||Paired t-Test|||||5.4|1.5|0.0012
91890709|NCT01014208|183674616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Platelets, Cycle 1. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.29|0.86|0.597
91890710|NCT01014208|183674616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Platelets, Cycle 2. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.10|0.70|0.199
91890711|NCT01014208|183674616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.59||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Platelets, Cycle 3. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.59|0.93|0.102
91890712|NCT01014208|183674617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.0||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank||Confidence Interval estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.00|0.36|0.035
91890713|NCT01008553|183674626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0003
91890714|NCT00581555|183674639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|14.7||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 8.||14.7|-14.7|0.999
91890715|NCT00581555|183674639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|16.7||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 10.||16.7|-12.8|0.795
91890716|NCT00581555|183674639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|17.1||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 12.||17.1|-12.5|0.758
91890717|NCT00581555|183674639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|21.6||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 16.||21.6|-8.3|0.381
91890718|NCT00581555|183674639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|31.4||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 20.||31.4|0.8|0.041
91890719|NCT00581555|183674639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|46.3||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 24.||46.3|14.8|<0.001
91890720|NCT00581555|183674640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||1.2|0.0|0.049
91890721|NCT00581555|183674641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Pearson chi-square|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors with a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||||0.002
91890722|NCT00581555|183674642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Log Rank|Time to first relapse was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier's, and comparisons between groups was performed using log rank tests.||||||0.0003
91890723|NCT00581555|183674643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.3||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||7.3|2.1|<0.001
91769214|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||11.2|-32.7|0.355
91769215|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|37.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||37.1|-27.1|1.000
91769216|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|25.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||25.9|-17.0|0.688
91769217|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|24.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||24.5|-22.3|0.927
91769218|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|60.0||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||60.0|-5.0|0.075
91769219|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|32.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||32.7|-4.8|0.154
91769220|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|24.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||24.2|-14.4|0.707
91890724|NCT00581555|183674644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|135.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.3||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|218.1||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||218.1|52.3|0.001
91890725|NCT00581555|183674645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.139||95.0|-0.8|5.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||5.5|-0.8|0.139
91890726|NCT00581555|183674646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 2.||2.5|-2.3|0.956
91890727|NCT00581555|183674646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 4.||1.5|-3.6|0.41
91890728|NCT00581555|183674646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.9||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 6.||3.9|-4.8|0.844
91890729|NCT00581555|183674646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 8.||1.8|-1.8|0.968
91890730|NCT00581555|183674646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 10.||2.5|-1.1|0.441
91890731|NCT00581555|183674646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.8||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 12.||2.8|-0.9|0.3
91890732|NCT00581555|183674646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 16.||4.5|0.7|0.008
91936527|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||-0.6|-3.3|0.0058
91769221|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|40.0||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||40.0|10.0|0.085
91769222|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|33.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||33.3|-4.0|0.137
91769223|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|14.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||14.5|-38.2|0.370
91769224|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|24.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||24.4|-31.6|1.000
91769225|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|7.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||7.0|-39.8|0.174
91769226|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.1||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|9.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||9.7|-43.9|0.203
91769227|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|44.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||44.7|-4.5|0.286
91769228|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|20.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||20.6|-27.7|0.773
91769229|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.5||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|4.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||4.1|-51.2|0.101
91769230|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|44.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||44.4|-14.1|0.332
91769231|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|39.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||39.8|-7.5|0.189
91890733|NCT00581555|183674646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.0||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 20.||5.0|0.9|0.005
91769232|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.1||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|13.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||13.9|-42.2|0.329
91936528|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.1|-2.3|0.0691
91769233|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|53.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||53.9|-4.8|0.124
91769234|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||39.9|-9.5|0.234
91936529|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.5|-2.7|0.0063
91936530|NCT01617187|183769821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.6|-3.4|0.0056
91890734|NCT00581555|183674646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.6||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 24.||4.6|0.2|0.031
91890735|NCT00581555|183674647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1196||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact test|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors with a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure.||Analysis from baseline to Week 24.||||0.1196
91890736|NCT02787044|183674648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||Note, each participant can be included in the primary analysis up to 3 times (participating seasons).||1.17|0.97|0.21
91890737|NCT02787044|183674649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.94|0.44
91890738|NCT02787044|183674650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||Each participant can be analyzed up to three times (seasons)||1.2|.97|0.16
91890739|NCT02787044|183674651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|.96|0.26
91890740|NCT02787044|183674652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.84|0.96
91890741|NCT01638429|183674654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.16
91890742|NCT01638429|183674656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is comparing change in methane eradiacators before and after treatment to change in methane non-eradiacators before and after treatment||||0.028
91890743|NCT01638429|183674657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is comparing change in methane eradiacators before and after treatment to change in methane non-eradiacators before and after treatment||||0.01
91890744|NCT01638429|183674658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.97
91890745|NCT01638429|183674658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.85
91890746|NCT01638429|183674659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.61
91890747|NCT01638429|183674659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.45
91890748|NCT01638429|183674660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.018
91890749|NCT01638429|183674660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.14
91890750|NCT01638429|183674661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.43
91890751|NCT01638429|183674661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.44
91890752|NCT01638429|183674662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.13
91890753|NCT01638429|183674662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.25
91890754|NCT01638429|183674663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.29
91890755|NCT01638429|183674663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.27
91890756|NCT01638429|183674664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.22
91890757|NCT01638429|183674664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.059
91890758|NCT01638429|183674665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.33
91890759|NCT01638429|183674665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.075
91890760|NCT02040584|183674666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9423|||||||Fisher Exact|Week 52||"Null hypothesis (H0): there were no differences in kidney function between the two groups, in contrast with the alternative hypothesis (H1), in which there were differences:~HO: CBS = CBC versus H1: CBS ≠ CBC, where CBS and CBC were percentages of patients who showed clinical benefit at Week 52 for the study group and control group, respectively."||||0.9423
91890761|NCT04978493|183674721|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|4.84|||||(Adjusted mean BI 706321 and ustekinumab) - (adjusted mean Placebo and ustekinumab)|The analysis was a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). For the ANCOVA model, absolute change in SES-CD score was the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline corticosteroid use (yes/no) were fixed effects and baseline SES-CD score was a continuous covariate.||4.84|-0.99|
91936531|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.7847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.6|0.7847
91936532|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.5|0.5859
91936533|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.6|-1.0|0.6413
91769235|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||17.7|-37.8|0.484
91769236|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|37.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||37.3|-57.3|1.000
91890762|NCT04978493|183674722|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|13.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|36.14|||||(Adjusted mean BI 706321 and ustekinumab) - (adjusted mean Placebo and ustekinumab)|The analysis was a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). For the ANCOVA model, absolute change in SES-CD score was the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline corticosteroid use (yes/no) were fixed effects and baseline SES-CD score was a continuous covariate.||36.14|-9.46|
91811809|NCT06133348|183498243|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0|||Paired t-Test|||||2|0.5|0.0021
91890763|NCT04978493|183674723|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.42|-2.64|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||-2.64|-48.42|
91890764|NCT04978493|183674724|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.49|22.12|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||22.12|-20.49|
91890765|NCT04978493|183674725|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|13.25|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||13.25|-21.14|
91890766|NCT04978493|183674726|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|18.78|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||18.78|-17.67|
91890767|NCT04978493|183674727|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.91|18.85|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||18.85|-24.91|
91890768|NCT04978493|183674728|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|17.34|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||17.34|-23.86|
91890769|NCT04978493|183674729|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.32|8.89|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||8.89|-42.32|
91890770|NCT04978493|183674730|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|23.41|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||23.41|-21.53|
91890771|NCT04978493|183674731|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-22.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.42|5.19|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||5.19|-45.42|
91890772|NCT02387970|183674741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
91890773|NCT02387970|183674742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.235
91890774|NCT02387970|183674743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.165
91890775|NCT02387970|183674744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
91890776|NCT02387970|183674745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.121
91890777|NCT02387970|183674746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.248
91890778|NCT02387970|183674747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.854
91890779|NCT02628028|183674749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.473
91890780|NCT02628028|183674749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.670
91890781|NCT02628028|183674749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.823
91890782|NCT02628028|183674750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.743
91890783|NCT02628028|183674750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.124
91890784|NCT02628028|183674750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.858
91890785|NCT02628028|183674751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.199
91890786|NCT02628028|183674751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.028
91890787|NCT02628028|183674751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.863
91890788|NCT02628028|183674752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.44|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.44|-0.53|0.863
91936534|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-0.6|0.7307
91936535|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-0.6|0.7176
91936536|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.3|0.4860
91936537|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.8|-0.8|0.9321
91936538|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-0.7|0.7691
91936539|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-1.3|0.5694
91936540|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.2|-0.6|0.5583
91936541|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.0|-0.7|0.7307
91936542|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.3|-1.8|0.1715
91936543|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.4219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.5|-0.6|0.4219
91936544|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.2|-0.9|0.7437
91936545|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.6|-1.9|0.3110
91936546|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.0|-1.0|0.9805
91936547|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.8741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.8|-1.0|0.8741
91936548|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.6|-1.7|0.3288
91936549|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.9336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-1.0|0.9336
91936550|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-1.7|0.1722
91936551|NCT01617187|183769822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.4|-2.1|0.1909
91936552|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.7|-0.7|0.9851
91936553|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.4912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.5|-0.9|0.4912
91936554|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-1.0|0.8559
91811810|NCT06133348|183498244|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4|||Paired t-Test|||||2.4|0.6|0.0027
91936555|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.5635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.1|-0.6|0.5635
91936556|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-1.3|0.2321
91936557|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-1.1|0.8867
91936558|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.4|-0.2|0.1499
91936559|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.2|0.2860
91936560|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.8978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-1.1|0.8978
91936561|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.8|0.1|0.0283
91936562|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-0.7|0.8667
91936563|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.4|-0.7|0.5044
91936564|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.4|0.5|0.0040
91936565|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.1|-0.7|0.6330
91936566|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.7|-0.5|0.2981
91936567|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.1|-0.7|0.6556
91936568|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.2889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.4|-1.3|0.2889
91936569|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.0|-1.1|0.9399
91936570|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-1.0|0.8955
91936571|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.5|-1.5|0.3681
91936572|NCT01617187|183769823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-1.4|0.8215
91936573|NCT03337139|183769827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|ANCOVA|||Comparing groups on 13 week weight loss, prior to randomization.||||.98
91936574|NCT03337139|183769827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I weight loss||Comparing groups on 26 week weight loss||||.75
91936575|NCT03337139|183769827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I weight loss||Comparing groups on 52 week weight loss||||.02
91936576|NCT03337139|183769828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|ANCOVA|||Comparing groups on 13 week MVPA||||.12
91936577|NCT03337139|183769828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for changes in Phase I MVPA||Comparing groups on 52 week MVPA||||.16
91936578|NCT03337139|183769829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||A priori threshold for statistical significant was p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparing groups on 26 week retention rates||||.43
91936579|NCT03337139|183769829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparing groups on 52 week retention rates.||||.48
91936580|NCT03337139|183769830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance was p\<.05.|Permutation test|Permutation test (nonparametric test) was chosen due to the violation of t-test assumptions in the data set.||Comparing groups on phone calls completed in Phase II (52 weeks)||||.64
91936581|NCT03337139|183769830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Permutation test|Permutation test (nonparametric test) was chosen due to the violation of t-test assumptions in the data set.||Comparing groups on text messages completed in Phase II (52 weeks)||||.499
91936582|NCT03337139|183769831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Permutation test|Permutation test (nonparametric test) was chosen due to the violation of t-test assumptions in the data set.||Comparing groups on TAQ scores at 52 weeks||||.86
91936583|NCT03337139|183769832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I engagement in self-monitoring||Comparing groups on percent days of self-monitoring of weight during Phase II||||.002
91811811|NCT06133348|183498245|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.697|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.4|||Paired t-Test|||||1.4|0.0|0.0494
91936584|NCT03337139|183769832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I engagement in self-monitoring||Comparing groups on percent days of self-monitoring of eating during Phase II||||.001
91936585|NCT03337139|183769832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I engagement in self-monitoring||Comparing groups on percent days of self-monitoring of physical activity during Phase II||||.25
91936586|NCT03337139|183769833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I perceived supportive accountability||Comparing groups on changes in perceived accountability during Phase II||||.005
91936587|NCT02554253|183769834|SUPERIORITY|Pilot study||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||Raw scores converted to z-scores using published references. Percentage of patients experiencing a decline of \> 1 standard deviation was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test. The outcome of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) was defined a-priori as a decline of decline of \>1 standard deviation (i.e. z-score decline of \> 1) on at least 2 neurocognitive tests and was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test.||||0.23
91936588|NCT02554253|183769835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91936589|NCT02554253|183769836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91936590|NCT02559206|183769852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.569||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|0.076|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.076|-1.214|0.0839
91936591|NCT02559206|183769852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.297||||0.3661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|0.348|||MMRM|||||0.348|-0.942|0.3661
91936592|NCT02559206|183769852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.286||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.936|0.363|||MMRM|||||0.363|-0.936|0.3869
91936593|NCT02559206|183769852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.771||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.419|-0.123|||MMRM|||||-0.123|-1.419|0.0199
91936594|NCT02559206|183769852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0276||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.0276
91769237|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|16.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||16.5|-38.9|0.431
91769238|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|7.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||7.1|-48.5|0.250
91769239|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|50.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||50.9|-40.9|1.000
91769240|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|23.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||23.3|-25.2|1.000
91769241|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|19.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||19.6|-31.1|1.000
91769242|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|55.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||55.2|-35.2|0.544
91769243|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|20.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||20.9|-22.4|1.000
91769244|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|12.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||12.8|-28.5|0.627
91769245|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|1.000
91890789|NCT02628028|183674752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.65|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.65|-0.32|0.503
91936595|NCT02559206|183769853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.569||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|0.076|||MMRM|||||0.076|-1.214|0.0839
91936596|NCT02559206|183769853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.455||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|0.191|||MMRM|||||0.191|-1.102|0.1669
91769246|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||17.7|-18.7|1.000
91769247|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|26.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||26.8|-18.3|1.000
91769248|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|29.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||29.3|-0.7|0.232
91811812|NCT06133348|183498246|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Paired t-Test|||||2.3|-1.1|0.4707
91890790|NCT02628028|183674752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.23|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.23|-0.77|0.289
91890791|NCT02628028|183674753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.626
91890792|NCT02628028|183674753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.418
91890793|NCT02628028|183674753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.951
91890794|NCT02628028|183674754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.905|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.905
91890795|NCT02628028|183674754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.069
91890796|NCT02628028|183674754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.547
91890797|NCT01743989|183674787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.383
91769249|NCT02365649|183425734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|20.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||20.6|-6.3|0.412
91769250|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-745.7||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2369.73|878.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||878.37|-2369.73|0.356
91769251|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1119.5||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2698.52|459.5||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||459.50|-2698.52|0.158
91769252|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1166.0||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3531.3|1199.32||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||1199.32|-3531.30|0.322
91769253|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-828.2||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2387.16|730.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||730.75|-2387.16|0.287
91769254|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1286.1||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2772.59|200.43||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Responders, Week 52||200.43|-2772.59|0.088
91769255|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-502.2||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2505.74|1501.38||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||1501.38|-2505.74|0.613
91769256|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|283.4||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-823.64|1390.49||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||1390.49|-823.64|0.609
91769257|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-78.2||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-930.47|774.16||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||774.16|-930.47|0.855
91769258|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|283.5||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-751.66|1318.57||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||1318.57|-751.66|0.584
91769259|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|356.6||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1095.03|1808.19||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||1808.19|-1095.03|0.624
91769260|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-135.1||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1233.48|963.25||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||963.25|-1233.48|0.806
91769261|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|186.2||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1229.59|1602.06||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||1602.06|-1229.59|0.793
91769262|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-304.8||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1350.04|740.44||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||740.44|-1350.04|0.561
91769263|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1119.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2083.81|-154.11||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Clinical responders, Week 28||-154.11|-2083.81|0.024
91769264|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-819.3||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1959.79|321.21||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||321.21|-1959.79|0.156
91769265|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-346.6||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1592.66|899.45||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||899.45|-1592.66|0.580
91769266|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1275.9||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2415.88|-135.92||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Clinical responders, Week 52||-135.92|-2415.88|0.029
91769267|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-534.9||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1883.23|813.5||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||813.50|-1883.23|0.431
91769268|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.4||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1200.67|1149.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||1149.95|-1200.67|0.965
91769269|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|623.6||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.52|1430.64||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||1430.64|-183.52|0.123
91769270|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|368.2||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1031.23|1767.6||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||1767.60|-1031.23|0.591
91769271|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|192.2||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-648.22|1032.68||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||1032.68|-648.22|0.642
91769272|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|455.8||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.37|992.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||992.95|-81.37|0.093
91769273|NCT02365649|183425735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|463.6||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-428.99|1356.2||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||1356.20|-428.99|0.296
91769274|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.0||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.83|15.83||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 20||15.83|-19.83|0.822
91769275|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.4||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|8.25||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 20||8.25|-20.97|0.386
91769276|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|12.9||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|29.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 20||29.95|-4.22|0.136
91811813|NCT06133348|183498247|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.7|||Paired t-Test|||||-0.7|-4.3|0.0082
91936597|NCT02559206|183769853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.299||||0.3637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.947|0.348|||MMRM|||||0.348|-0.947|0.3637
91936598|NCT02559206|183769853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.258||||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.905|0.389|||MMRM|||||0.389|-0.905|0.4333
91936599|NCT02559206|183769853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5528||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.5528
91936600|NCT02559206|183769854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.992||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|1.756|||MMRM|||||1.756|0.228|0.0110
91936601|NCT02559206|183769854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.048||||0.9013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.716|0.812|||MMRM|||||0.812|-0.716|0.9013
91936602|NCT02559206|183769854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.299||||0.4447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|1.067|||MMRM|||||1.067|-0.469|0.4447
91811814|NCT06133348|183498248|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4|||Paired t-Test|||||0.4|-2.7|0.1327
91936603|NCT02559206|183769854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.662||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|1.428|||MMRM|||||1.428|-0.104|0.0904
91936604|NCT02559206|183769854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.0700
91936605|NCT02559206|183769855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.992||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|1.756|||MMRM|||||1.756|0.228|0.0110
91936606|NCT02559206|183769855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.161||||0.6801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|0.925|||MMRM|||||0.925|-0.604|0.6801
91936607|NCT02559206|183769855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.095||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.861|0.67|||MMRM|||||0.670|-0.861|0.8069
91811815|NCT06133348|183498249|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.2046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.6|||Paired t-Test|||||0.6|-2.9|0.2046
91811816|NCT06133348|183498250|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.4|||Paired t-Test|||||1.4|-2.8|0.5252
91811817|NCT06133348|183498251|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.4569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9|||Paired t-Test|||||2.9|-1.3|0.4569
91811818|NCT06133348|183498252|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.8||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|29.0|||Paired t-Test|||||29.0|-4.7|0.1497
91811819|NCT06133348|183498253|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.5||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|43.7|||Paired t-Test|||||43.7|-10.4|0.2163
91936608|NCT02559206|183769855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.246||||0.5275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.011|0.519|||MMRM|||||0.519|-1.011|0.5275
91769277|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.0||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.87|19.97||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||19.97|-17.87|0.912
91769278|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.3||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.77|3.25||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||3.25|-27.77|0.118
91769279|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|12.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|30.65||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||30.65|-5.61|0.171
91769280|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.9||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|12.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 36||12.63|-26.50|0.479
91769281|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-17.1||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.12|-1.04||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Responders, Week 36||-1.04|-33.12|0.037
91769282|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.9||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|25.65||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 36||25.65|-11.86|0.463
91769283|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.6||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.59|14.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 44||14.37|-23.59|0.627
91769284|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.2||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.75|3.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 44||3.37|-27.75|0.122
91769285|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|10.7||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|28.89||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 44||28.89|-7.49|0.243
91769286|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.2||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|14.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||14.63|-22.95|0.658
91769287|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.3||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.69|3.12||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||3.12|-27.69|0.115
91769288|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|10.0||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|28.06||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||28.06|-7.96|0.267
91769289|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|10.06||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 20||10.06|-9.74|0.974
91769290|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|6.55||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 20||6.55|-7.61|0.882
91769291|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|7.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 20||7.75|-7.92|0.982
91769292|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|12.51||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||12.51|-8.11|0.673
91769293|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.7||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|10.04||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||10.04|-4.64|0.467
91811820|NCT06133348|183498254|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|7.7|||Paired t-Test|||||7.7|-0.6|0.0915
91890798|NCT04655027|183674818|OTHER|Treatment effect|Difference in Estimate (LSM)|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.155|50.15|||ANCOVA|||||50.150|-11.155|0.212
91890799|NCT04655027|183674819|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin by treatment effect|Difference in Estimate|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|0.208|||ANCOVA|||||0.208|-0.477|0.441
91936609|NCT02559206|183769855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4201||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.4201
91936610|NCT02559206|183769856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.70|0.79|0.1663
91936611|NCT02559206|183769856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.17|0.61|0.4399
91936612|NCT02559206|183769856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.85|0.57|0.5540
91936613|NCT02559206|183769856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.19|1.10|0.0262
91936614|NCT02559206|183769856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249||||||For each DR formulation, the Correlation Test p-values are obtained from the correlation statistic controlling for geographic region.|Correlation test|||||||0.0249
91936615|NCT02559206|183769857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.70|0.79|0.1663
91936616|NCT02559206|183769857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.58|0.49|0.7710
91769294|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|10.23||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||10.23|-5.79|0.583
91811821|NCT06133348|183498255|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|16.9|||Paired t-Test|||||16.9|-6.3|0.3573
91936617|NCT02559206|183769857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.58|0.48|0.8021
91936618|NCT02559206|183769857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.14|0.37|0.8011
91936619|NCT02559206|183769857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8578||||||For each DR formulation, the Correlation Test p-values are obtained from the correlation statistic controlling for geographic region.|Correlation test|||||||0.8578
91936620|NCT03127852|183769905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SF-36 physical component summary score.||||.48
91936621|NCT03127852|183769905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SF-36 mental component summary score.||||.73
91936622|NCT03127852|183769906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported number of hospital visits.||||.02
91936623|NCT03127852|183769906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported emergency department visits.||||.12
91936624|NCT03127852|183769906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported number of clinic visits.||||.39
91936625|NCT03127852|183769906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported number of family physician visits.||||.28
91936626|NCT03127852|183769907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SCHFI maintenance sub-scale.||||.74
91936627|NCT03127852|183769907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SCHFI management sub-scale.||||.67
91936628|NCT03127852|183769907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SCHFI confidence sub-scale.||||.92
91936629|NCT03127852|183769908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of MLHFQ total score.||||.67
91936630|NCT03127852|183769908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of MLHFQ physical domain score.||||.43
91936631|NCT03127852|183769908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of MLHFQ emotional domain score.||||.64
91936632|NCT03127852|183769909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of HADS anxiety sub-scale.||||.06
91936633|NCT03127852|183769909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of HADS depression sub-scale.||||.77
91936634|NCT03127852|183769910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SEMCD6.||||.13
91936635|NCT03518034|183769921|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin in terms of HR is 1.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17|||||HR of AndroGel to placebo and 95% CI were estimated from Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing CVD.|The hazard ratio (HR) and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) status. In this analysis, the time to event for a participant is defined as the time from randomization to the first component event of MACE. If a subject does not experience a MACE during the study, the time is right-censored at the time of participant's last available follow-up observation.||1.17|0.78|
91936636|NCT03518034|183769923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21|||||HR of AndroGel to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from a Cox proportional-hazards regression model with adjustment of pre-existing CVD status.|The HR and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing CVD status. In this analysis, the time to event for a participant is defined as the time from randomization to the first component event of CV safety endpoint. If a participant does not experience a CV safety endpoint during the study, the time is right-censored at the time of participant's last available follow-up observation.||1.21|0.86|
91936637|NCT03518034|183769924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.77|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior cardiovascular disease (CVD).|The high grade prostate cancer endpoint was analyzed using a discrete time proportional hazard regression model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for pre-existing CVD status. The HR of AndroGel to Placebo and its 2-sided 95% CI were provided.||6.77|0.39|
91936638|NCT03518034|183769925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||P-value is derived from the omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test of the current model versus the null (intercept) model using linear mixed regression model.|linear mixed regression model|Omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test from linear mixed regression model||A linear mixed regression model was used to analyze the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24, with the dependent variable being the change in PDQ-Q4 score. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CVD status. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within-subject.||||0.011
91936639|NCT03518034|183769925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.79|||||LS mean difference (AndroGel - Placebo) at month 6 was derived from linear mixed regression model.|Month 6 (results were derived from a linear mixed regression model that had a dependent variable of the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CV disease status. Additionally, an unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within participants).||0.79|0.19|
91936640|NCT03518034|183769925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.83|||||LS mean difference (AndroGel - Placebo) at month 12 was derived from linear mixed regression model.|Month 12 (results were derived from a linear mixed regression model that had a dependent variable of the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CV disease status. Additionally, an unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within participants).||0.83|0.11|
91936641|NCT03518034|183769925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.96|||||LS mean difference (AndroGel - Placebo) at month 24 was derived from linear mixed regression model.|Month 24 (results were derived from a linear mixed regression model that had a dependent variable of the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CV disease status. Additionally, an unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within participants).||0.96|-0.01|
91936642|NCT03518034|183769926|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.86||||||Month 6 risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||3.86|0.96|
91936643|NCT03518034|183769926|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.63||||||Month 12 risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||3.63|0.64|
91936644|NCT03518034|183769926|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.94||||||Month 24 risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||1.94|0.42|
91936645|NCT03518034|183769926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||The omnibus test p value is a test of the null hypothesis of no difference between AndroGel and placebo groups across all time points.|GEE Poisson regression model|||Risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the TRT versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||||0.197
91936646|NCT03518034|183769928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.97|||||Cox proportional-hazards model.|The HR and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing CVD status. In this analysis, the time to event for a subject is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a clinical fracture. If a subject does not experience a clinic fracture during the study, the follow-up time is right-censored at the time of subject's last available follow-up observation.||1.97|1.04|
91936647|NCT03518034|183769929|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||p-value is from an omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test of the current model versus the null (intercept) model using repeated measure log-binomial regression.|omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test|||Repeated measures log-binomial regression with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and adjusted for pre-existing CVD, and an unstructured covariance matrix to account for correlations among repeated measures within-subject.||||0.002
91936648|NCT03518034|183769930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||P-value is from an omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test of the current model versus the null (intercept) model using repeated measure log-binomial regression.|Repeated measures log-binomial regr.|||The risk ratio of progression to diabetes in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures log-binomial regression with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, and pre-existing CVD, and an unstructured covariance matrix to account for correlations among repeated measures within-subject.||||0.494
91936649|NCT03518034|183769931|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.23|0.78|
91769295|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|24.31||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 36||24.31|-13.33|0.564
91769296|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.4||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.74|11.04||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 36||11.04|-15.74|0.728
91936650|NCT03518034|183769932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.62|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.62|0.76|
91936651|NCT03518034|183769933|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.32|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.32|0.92|
91936652|NCT03518034|183769934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.51|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.51|0.56|
91936653|NCT03518034|183769935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.31|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.31|0.55|
91936654|NCT03518034|183769936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.42|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.42|0.47|
91936655|NCT03518034|183769937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.41|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.41|0.65|
91936656|NCT03518034|183769938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.54|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.54|0.87|
91936657|NCT03518034|183769939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.84|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||3.84|0.95|
91936658|NCT02007252|183769940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.1037|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||= 0.1037
91769297|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|20.08||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 36||20.08|-9.16|0.460
91936659|NCT02007252|183769940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.4806|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 12||||= 0.4806
91936660|NCT03325556|183769941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3676||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.727||1-sided p-value reported. The protocol-defined O'Brien Flemming stopping boundary for the planned IA was a 1-sided p-value equal to 0.0033|Regression, Cox||Model included covariates for Treatment group, dementia subtype, and region, and robust sandwich-type variance estimator.|||0.727|0.172|0.0023
91936661|NCT03325556|183769942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2812||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.785||1-sided p-value|Regression, Cox||Model included covariates for Treatment group, dementia subtype, and region, and robust sandwich-type variance estimator.|||0.785|0.261|0.0024
91936662|NCT00762268|183769949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.0
91936663|NCT00762268|183769950|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Change from intake scores.||||0.05
91936664|NCT00762268|183769951|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91936665|NCT05034614|183769957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.75
91936666|NCT03892707|183769963|SUPERIORITY|The between-group comparison on primary endpoint - change from baseline in pain intensity as measured on 0-10 points NRS scale at 10 days after the start of treatment was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The difference between pain intensity at 10 days after the start of treatment and baseline (V3-V1) as response variable, treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was included into the model.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"Since the superiority of one treatment over the other is investigated and taking into consideration that smaller negative values of the primary variable correspond to the greater reduction of pain, the statistical hypotheses are:~Null hypothesis (H0):~H0: μ2 - μ1 ≥ 0~Alternative hypothesis (HA):~HA: μ2 - μ1 \< 0, where μ1 и μ2 are the mean changes from baseline in pain intensity for (1) modern NSAIDs therapy and for (2) modern NSAIDs + Milgamma\\ Milgamma compositum therapy, correspondingly."||||<0.001
91936667|NCT03892707|183769964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes from baseline in pain intensity measured on 0-10 points NRS scale at 5, 24 and 38 days after were compared between groups using ANCOVA models similar to those used for the analysis of the primary variable.||||<0.001
91936668|NCT03892707|183769965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91769298|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|12.0||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|32.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 44||32.75|-8.72|0.253
91936669|NCT03892707|183769966|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison was carried out using logistic regression with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. Treatment effect was tested using the corresponding p-value.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For Visit 2 (5 days after the start of treatment) relief in pain intensity was defined as 100%\*(pain intensity at baseline - pain intensity at Visit 2)/ pain intensity at baseline. The denominator for the proportion of patients was the number of patients with available pain intensity measurements after imputation using Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.||||<0.001
91936670|NCT03892707|183769966|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison was carried out using logistic regression with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. Treatment effect was tested using the corresponding p-value.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For Visit 3 (10 days after the start of treatment) relief in pain intensity was defined as 100%\*(pain intensity at baseline - pain intensity at Visit 3)/ pain intensity at baseline. The denominator for the proportion of patients was the number of patients with available pain intensity measurements after imputation using Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.||||<0.001
91936671|NCT03892707|183769966|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison was carried out using logistic regression with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. Treatment effect was tested using the corresponding p-value.||||||0.061|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For Visit 4 (24 days after the start of treatment) relief in pain intensity was defined as 100%\*(pain intensity at baseline - pain intensity at Visit 4)/ pain intensity at baseline. The denominator for the proportion of patients was the number of patients with available pain intensity measurements after imputation using Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.||||0.061
91936672|NCT03892707|183769967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in pain-related disability as measured by Roland Morris disability questionnaire at 10 days after the start of treatment was compared between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline value disability score as a covariate.||||<0.001
91769299|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.1||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|15.84||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 44||15.84|-13.67|0.884
91936673|NCT03892707|183769968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Episode of pain flare-up was defined as presence of at least 1 day with pain following a period without pain lasting at least 4 weeks . The denominator for the proportion was the number of FAS patients who had at least one pain-free period with approximately 4 weeks duration registered during the study.||||<0.001
91936674|NCT03892707|183769969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|60.7||||||Difference in proportion of patients with at least one pain flare-up resulting in consultancy with physician||60.7|-3.6|
91936675|NCT03892707|183769969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|17.4||||||Difference in proportion of patients with at least one pain flare-up resulting in disruption of daily activity||17.4|-51.6|
91936676|NCT03892707|183769969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|55.5||||||Difference in proportion of patients with at least one pain flare-up resulting in NSAIDs intake||55.5|-4.1|
91936677|NCT03892707|183769970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NSAIDs intake during the study was analyzed. In order to calculate the total number of treatment days with NSAIDs, first, intersecting or adjacent records were collapsed, irrespective of the specific drug used; the duration of each of the resulting intake periods was determined as (End date - Start date + 1) and, finally, all individual duration values were summed up. In case medication intake was ongoing at the end of study, end date was imputed by the date of study completion.||||0.986
91936678|NCT03892707|183769973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 5 days since the start of study treatment.||||0.921
91936679|NCT03892707|183769973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 10 days since the start of study treatment||||0.051
91936680|NCT03892707|183769973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 38 days since the start of study treatment||||0.651
91936681|NCT03892707|183769973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 3 months since the start of study treatment||||0.106
91936682|NCT01807949|183769994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.62||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.06|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (less than \[\<\] 18 versus greater than equal to \[\>=\]18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||4.06|1.18|0.0004
91936683|NCT01807949|183769994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.44|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.44|1.56|<0.0001
91936684|NCT01807949|183769995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|6.98|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||6.98|1.86|0.0007
91936685|NCT01807949|183769995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|7.81|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||7.81|2.69|<0.0001
91936686|NCT01807949|183769996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.59|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI.||0.59|0.23|<0.0001
91936687|NCT01807949|183769996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.54|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.54|0.17|0.0001
91769300|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.8||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|21.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 44||21.95|-10.28|0.474
91936688|NCT01807949|183769997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.21||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|5.33|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline CFQ-R respiratory domain score.||5.33|-0.91|0.1651
91936689|NCT01807949|183769997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.85||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|5.98|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||5.98|-0.27|0.0736
91936690|NCT01807949|183769998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9568|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8829|4.6431||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||4.6431|1.8829|<0.0001
91936691|NCT01807949|183769998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3834||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5234|3.7286||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||3.7286|1.5234|0.0001
91769301|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.6||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|24.3||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||24.30|-17.03|0.727
91936692|NCT01807949|183769999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.6912||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5187|0.9209||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using regression analysis for a negative binomial distribution with sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70) as covariates with the logarithm of time on study as the offset.||0.9209|0.5187|0.0116
91936693|NCT01807949|183769999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.5659||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4191|0.7641||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.7641|0.4191|0.0002
91936694|NCT01807949|183770000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.64|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline weight.||1.64|0.62|<0.0001
91936695|NCT01807949|183770000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.95||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||1.46|0.43|0.0003
91936696|NCT01807949|183770001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2313||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1037|0.3589|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI z-score.||0.3589|0.1037|0.0005
91936697|NCT01807949|183770001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2217||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0961|0.3473|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.3473|0.0961|0.0006
91936698|NCT01807949|183770002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard regression, time is the time-to-first event or censoring, with adjustment for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||||0.0384
91936699|NCT01807949|183770002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.533||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||||0.0003
91769302|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|16.78||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||16.78|-12.63|0.780
91936700|NCT01807949|183770003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6373||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.9764|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||0.9764|0.4160|0.0393
91936701|NCT01807949|183770003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4429||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2863|0.6851|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.6851|0.2863|0.0002
91936702|NCT01807949|183770004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0028||||0.7679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0211|0.0156|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L index score.||0.0156|-0.0211|0.7679
91936703|NCT01807949|183770004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0009||||0.9214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0192|0.0174|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.0174|-0.0192|0.9214
91936704|NCT01807949|183770005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.3|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L VAS score.||5.3|-0.5|0.1034
91936705|NCT01807949|183770005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.2|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||6.2|0.4|0.0262
91936706|NCT01807949|183770006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.64||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|13.51|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM effectiveness score.||13.51|3.77|0.0005
91936707|NCT01807949|183770006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.75|16.48|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||16.48|6.75|<0.0001
91936708|NCT01807949|183770006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.18||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-0.14|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM side effects score.||-0.14|-6.21|0.0403
91936709|NCT01807949|183770006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.29||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-1.28|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||-1.28|-7.31|0.0054
91769303|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|22.54||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||22.54|-9.57|0.424
91769304|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.3||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.23|11.62||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 20||11.62|-14.23|0.841
91769305|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.1||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|8.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 20||8.75|-12.94|0.702
91769306|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.7||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|17.83||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 20||17.83|-6.43|0.353
91769307|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|16.0||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||16.00|-11.89|0.770
91769308|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.3||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|6.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||6.37|-17.04|0.367
91769309|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|7.0||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|20.07||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||20.07|-6.09|0.291
91769310|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.7||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.87|19.4||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 36||19.40|-20.87|0.942
91769311|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.0||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|4.91||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 36||4.91|-28.89|0.162
91769312|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|10.9||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|29.82||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 36||29.82|-7.96|0.253
91769313|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|27.21||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 44||27.21|-16.25|0.617
91769314|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.0||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|12.24||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 44||12.24|-24.22|0.515
91769315|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|13.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|34.23||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 44||34.23|-6.53|0.180
91769316|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|21.09||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||21.09|-21.86|0.972
91769317|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.9||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.94|13.1||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||13.10|-22.94|0.589
91769318|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|14.1||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|34.22||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||34.22|-6.07|0.168
91769319|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.9||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.36||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 20||12.36|-8.50|0.712
91769320|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.3||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|3.9||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 20||3.90|-8.41|0.465
91769321|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.3||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|7.52||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 20||7.52|-6.83|0.924
91811822|NCT06133348|183498256|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1|||Paired t-Test|||||1.1|-2.8|0.3741
91936710|NCT01807949|183770006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|4.07|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM convenience score.||4.07|-4.07|1.0000
91936711|NCT01807949|183770006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.8777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.37|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.37|-3.74|0.8777
91936712|NCT01807949|183770006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.64||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|9.61|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM global satisfaction score.||9.61|-0.32|0.0668
91936713|NCT01807949|183770006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.16||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|12.08|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||12.08|2.23|0.0045
91936714|NCT00881361|183770080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91936715|NCT02141217|183770084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of non-inferiority was based on Farrington and Manning method. The upper limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval of less than 10 % provide enough evidence to show the non-inferiority between the treatment arms.|Treatment Difference (percentage)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.0||||||||8.0|-4.9|
91936716|NCT02141217|183770085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of non-inferiority was based on Farrington and Manning method. The upper limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval of less than 10 % provide enough evidence to show the non-inferiority between the treatment arms.|Treatment Difference (percentage)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.4||||||||7.4|-5.6|
91936717|NCT02141217|183770086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of non-inferiority was based on Farrington and Manning method. The upper limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval of less than 10 % provide enough evidence to show the non-inferiority between the treatment arms.|Treatment Difference (percentage)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.0||||||||9.0|-4.4|
91936718|NCT01628393|183770101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.04944 level of significance to keep the overall level of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91936719|NCT01628393|183770101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.04944 level of significance to keep the overall level of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91936720|NCT01628393|183770102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91936721|NCT01628393|183770102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91936722|NCT01628393|183770103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91936723|NCT01628393|183770103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91936724|NCT01628393|183770104|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.01|||Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, the number of relapses within 24 months prior to the study, and the absence or presence of GdE lesions at Baseline.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / Placebo|||1.01|0.22|0.0531
91936725|NCT01628393|183770104|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.69||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.34|||Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, the number of relapses within 24 months prior to the study, and the absence or presence of GdE lesions at Baseline.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / Placebo|||1.34|0.36|0.2714
91936726|NCT01226706|183770109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||"A sample of 16 subjects per group was required to detect a mean difference of 50 mL in maximum capacity at cystoscopy between botulinum toxin and placebo at 90% power with a two-sided type I error of 5%.~Difference scores were computed for the primary outcome, which were then compared using the Wilcoxon- Mann-Whitney U test. This type of analysis was used to identify both between group differences and within group differences (over time) while using non-parametric statistics."||||.016
91936727|NCT01226706|183770110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.152
91936728|NCT01226706|183770111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.095
91936729|NCT01226706|183770112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.067
91936730|NCT01226706|183770116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.038
91936731|NCT01226706|183770117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.095
91936732|NCT01226706|183770118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.038
91936733|NCT01226706|183770122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.904
91936734|NCT01226706|183770123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.080
91936735|NCT01226706|183770124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.230
91936736|NCT01226706|183770128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||-0.2|-2.1|0.021
91936737|NCT01226706|183770129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||-0.5|-2.1|0.007
91936738|NCT01226706|183770130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||-0.4|-2.0|0.013
91936739|NCT01226706|183770131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.173
91936740|NCT01226706|183770132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.051
91936741|NCT01226706|183770133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.051
91936742|NCT01226706|183770134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.557
91769322|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|9.6||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||9.60|-8.88|0.938
91936743|NCT01226706|183770135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.029
91936744|NCT01226706|183770136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.132
91936745|NCT01226706|183770137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.085
91936746|NCT01226706|183770138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.099
91936747|NCT01226706|183770139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.132
91936748|NCT01226706|183770140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.072
91936749|NCT01226706|183770141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.230
91936750|NCT01226706|183770142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.314
91936751|NCT01226706|183770143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.013
91936752|NCT01226706|183770144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.888
91936753|NCT04015440|183770148|OTHER|Linear Regression|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91936754|NCT04015440|183770149|OTHER|Regression||||||0.027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.027
91936755|NCT04015440|183770150|OTHER|Logistic Regression||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.004
91936756|NCT01899677|183770159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Mann whitney U|||Mann Whitney U test was used to compare cytokine levels between groups.||||0.32
91936757|NCT01899677|183770160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Mann whitney U|||||||0.73
91936758|NCT01899677|183770161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Mann whitney U|||||||0.66
91936759|NCT01899677|183770162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Mann whitney U|||||||0.76
91936760|NCT02151682|183770173|NON_INFERIORITY|A logistic regression model was fitted to the response using baseline pain, age group, treatment, and underlying pain condition as explanatory variables, followed by a Farrington-Manning test for non-inferiority, based on Full Analysis Set.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.06||The p-value is based on Farrington-Manning variance estimator using a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.2. A 1-sided alpha of 0.1 was used. A p-value \<0.1 represents non-inferiority.|Farrington-Manning test|Non-inferiority of tapentadol prolonged-release versus morphine prolonged-release has been demonstrated.|A confidence interval for the risk difference (RD) completely above the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.2 represents non-inferiority of tapentadol prolonged-release versus morphine prolonged-release.|||0.06|-0.19|0.0790
91769323|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|7.64||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||7.64|-3.17|0.410
91936761|NCT01306032|183770193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.034
91936762|NCT01306032|183770193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.68
91936763|NCT02988219|183770198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3861|||||||Chi-squared|||Bradycardia during surgery||||0.3861
91936764|NCT02988219|183770198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2591|||||||Chi-squared|||No bradycardia observed in the perioperative period||||0.2591
91936765|NCT02988219|183770199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||Chi-squared|||Arrhythmia before surgery||||0.597
91936766|NCT02988219|183770199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||arrhythmia during surgery||||0.4
91936767|NCT02988219|183770199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6544|||||||Chi-squared|||arrhythmia after surgery||||0.6544
91936768|NCT02988219|183770199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Chi-squared|||long QTc \> 0.45s after surgery||||0.077
91936769|NCT02988219|183770199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0174|||||||Chi-squared|||long QTc \> 0.24 s in the perioperative time||||0.0174
91936770|NCT01522443|183770208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) was stratified by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior cabazitaxel use.||||||0.773
91936771|NCT01522443|183770209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Test was stratified by baslined Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior cabazitaxel use.||||||<0.001
91769324|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|6.35||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||6.35|-5.89|0.941
91769325|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.7||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|9.67||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 36||9.67|-8.23|0.872
91769326|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|4.2||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 36||4.20|-6.27|0.692
91890800|NCT04655027|183674819|OTHER|Baseline hs CRP by treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.707|5.017|||ANCOVA|||||5.017|-9.707|0.532
91769327|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|5.54||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.54|-6.32|0.896
91890801|NCT04655027|183674820|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.635|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.635|0.723|0.688
91890802|NCT04655027|183674820|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.822|||ANCOVA|||||0.822|0.045|0.029
91890803|NCT04655027|183674820|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.366|||ANCOVA|||||0.366|-0.201|0.568
91890804|NCT04655027|183674821|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.031|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.031|0.687|0.096
91890805|NCT04655027|183674821|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|-0.282|0.630
91890806|NCT04655027|183674821|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.342|||ANCOVA|||||0.342|0.037|0.015
91890807|NCT04655027|183674822|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|1.354|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.354|1.123|< 0.001
91890808|NCT04655027|183674822|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.149|||ANCOVA|||||0.149|-0.027|0.171
91890809|NCT04655027|183674822|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.101|||ANCOVA|||||0.101|-0.039|0.387
91890810|NCT04655027|183674823|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.312|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.312|0.606|0.561
91890811|NCT04655027|183674823|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.75|||ANCOVA|||||0.750|0.013|0.043
91890812|NCT04655027|183674823|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.302|||ANCOVA|||||0.302|-0.222|0.766
91890813|NCT04655027|183674824|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|1.369|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.369|1.108|< 0.001
91890814|NCT04655027|183674824|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.159|||ANCOVA|||||0.159|-0.059|0.351
91890815|NCT04655027|183674824|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.114|||ANCOVA|||||0.114|-0.031|0.248
91890816|NCT04655027|183674825|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.598|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.598|1.043|0.021
91890817|NCT04655027|183674825|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.223|||ANCOVA|||||0.223|-0.276|0.826
91890818|NCT04655027|183674825|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.132|||ANCOVA|||||0.132|-0.212|0.634
91890819|NCT04655027|183674826|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.786|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||0.786|0.257|0.007
91890820|NCT04655027|183674826|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.798|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.480|-0.798|0.610
91890821|NCT04655027|183674826|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.536|||ANCOVA|||||0.536|-0.387|0.740
91890822|NCT00186888|183674848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial Proportion|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.3|96.9||||||||96.9|71.3|
91890823|NCT00186888|183674849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial Proportion|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|99.6||||||||99.6|65.1|
91890824|NCT00186888|183674850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.452||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CYP3A4\*1B: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.452
91811823|NCT06133348|183498257|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.6187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Paired t-Test|||||1.0|-0.6|0.6187
91811824|NCT06133348|183498258|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.1|||Paired t-Test|||||0.1|-0.04|0.3572
91890825|NCT00186888|183674850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.106||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CYP3A5\*3: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.106
91811825|NCT06133348|183498259|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.3|||Paired t-Test|||||4.3|-0.5|0.1080
91811826|NCT06133348|183498260|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.5|||Paired t-Test|||||2.5|-0.6|0.2088
91811827|NCT06133348|183498263|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.7333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Paired t-Test|||||0.2|-0.1|0.7333
91811828|NCT06133348|183498264|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.6382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3|||Paired t-Test|||||1.3|-0.8|0.6382
91811829|NCT06133348|183498265|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Paired t-Test|||||0.4|-0.8|0.4771
91811830|NCT00345254|183498293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
91811831|NCT02663232|183498324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Melanoma Stage (IIIC \[referral category\] versus (vs) M1a vs M1b vs M1c) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.001
91890826|NCT00186888|183674851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP 1143: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.245
91890827|NCT00186888|183674851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.297||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP 15622: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.297
91890828|NCT00186888|183674851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP Exon 2: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.372
91890829|NCT00186888|183674851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.844||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP Exon 5: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.844
91890830|NCT00186888|183674851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.616||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pgp Exon 21: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.616
91890831|NCT00186888|183674851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.424||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pgp Exon 26: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.424
91890832|NCT03086655|183674913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.93|||||This is the 'inflation part' of the zero inflated negative binomial model. We used cluster robust standard errors due to the multiple observations over time being nested within participant. Result shows odds of intervention group relative to control.|"We used zero inflated negative binomial regression due to the count variable being overdispersed and containing a large number of 0. The analysis aggregated over multiple time points per participant. It simultaneously tests the odds of having 0 openings and the difference in the rate of openings between the 2 intervention groups. These 2 results are reported separately.~Null hypothesis 1: the odds of having 0 openings is lower in intervention than control group."||1.93|0.90|
91890833|NCT03086655|183674913|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio (IRR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||||This is the negative binomial part of the model. We used cluster robust standard errors due to the multiple observations being nested within participant. Result shows intervention group had lower rate of openings relative to control.|"We used zero inflated negative binomial regression due to the count variable being overdispersed and containing many 0s. The analysis aggregated over multiple time points per participant. It simultaneously tests the odds of having 0 openings and the difference in the rate of openings between the 2 intervention groups. These 2 results are reported separately.~Null hypothesis 2: the incidence rate ratio for # days with box opening is \>1, i.e. more openings in intervention than control group."||0.98|0.61|
91890834|NCT03086655|183674914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|overall Wald chi2 (2 d.f.), simultaneously testing if parameters for both 6 mo. by intervention and 12 mo. by intervention are different from 0.||"statistical analyses is a GEE model with logit link function and binomial distribution with odds of undetectable VL as outcome and as predictors: intervention, time and time\*intervention. We hypothesize that over time, the odds of undetectable VL will be higher for the intervention than the control group, which would be reflected in a significant interaction effect time\*intervention.~H0: no significant interaction effect time\*intervention"||||0.08
91890835|NCT03086655|183674915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|(equal variances assumed)|Difference = control group - treatment group|||0.43|-0.11|<0.05
91890836|NCT03086655|183674916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|overall Wald chi2 (4 d.f.), simultaneously testing if parameters for all follow-ups by intervention are different from 0.||"statistical analyses is a GEE model with logit link function and binomial distribution with odds of optimal adherence as outcome and as predictors: intervention, time and time\*intervention. We hypothesize that over time, the odds of optimal adherence will be higher for the intervention than the control group, which would be reflected in a significant interaction effect time\*intervention.~H0: no significant interaction effect time\*intervention"||||0.08
91890837|NCT04531982|183674922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4825||||||Two-sided p-value for treatment difference at Week 26 from MMRM analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between LSM changes for adjunctive pimavanserin and adjunctive placebo (pimavanserin - placebo) at the specified visit from MMRM analysis.||||0.4825
91890838|NCT04531982|183674923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8872||||||Two-sided p-value for treatment difference at Week 26 from MMRM analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8872
91890839|NCT03524092|183674947|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|31.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.2|15.2|<0.001
91890840|NCT03524092|183674948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.8|20.2|<0.001
91936772|NCT01522443|183770210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.1|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior cabazitaxel use.||||1.10|0.44|0.121
91936773|NCT01700985|183770255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91936774|NCT01700985|183770256|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||At Day 15.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91936775|NCT01700985|183770257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||At Day 15.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91936776|NCT00067470|183770264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|92.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.0||0.025||95.0|11.0|172.0|||Regression, Linear|||||172|11|0.025
91936777|NCT00067470|183770265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.053||95.0|-0.1|11.5|||Regression, Linear|The raw data were adjusted for the observed differences in baseline between the groups and fitted to a longitudinal repeated measures linear model.||||11.5|-0.1|0.053
91936778|NCT01148693|183770267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: Adding gentamicin to contrast medium during ERCP has no relation with postERCP cholangitis Power calculation: 80%||||<0.05
91936779|NCT03970824|183770370|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|105.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.19|115.16||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||115.16|97.19|
91936780|NCT03970824|183770370|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|92.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.29|100.61||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||100.61|85.29|
91936781|NCT03970824|183770370|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.06|106.63||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||106.63|90.06|
91936782|NCT03970824|183770371|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|107.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.29|117.13||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||117.13|98.29|
91936783|NCT03970824|183770371|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|93.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.08|102.5||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||102.50|86.08|
91936784|NCT03970824|183770371|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|100.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|109.92||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||109.92|92.42|
91936785|NCT03970824|183770372|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|101.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.33|108.89||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||108.89|95.33|
91936786|NCT03970824|183770372|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.91|104.92||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||104.92|91.91|
91936787|NCT03970824|183770372|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|100.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.69|106.85||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||106.85|93.69|
91936788|NCT01192204|183770385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analyses reflect percent change intrapatient pre versus post histologic grade scores|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|We used a 2-tailed Mann Whitney U test to evaluate these data.||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (intrapatient pre versus post treatment scores)||||0.048
91936789|NCT01192204|183770385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analyses reflect percent change pre versus post histologic grade scores|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (pre versus post treatment scores)||||0.50
91936790|NCT01192204|183770386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|specifically, we used the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.||||||<0.002
91936791|NCT01192204|183770386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||0.036
91936792|NCT01192204|183770387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||2-tailed unpaired t test|||||||0.002
91936793|NCT01192204|183770387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||two-tailed unpaired t test|||||||0.16
91936794|NCT02146248|183770388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795||||||The two-tailed P value equals 0.4795|McNemar|||McNemar paired. Hypothesis is no change in tubal patency status. All subjects know to have bilateral patency in one of the exams during natural cycle||||0.4795
91890841|NCT03524092|183674949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.5|14.5|<0.001
91890842|NCT03524092|183674950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|38.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.6|21.9|<0.001
91890843|NCT03524092|183674951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.6|22.4|<0.001
91890844|NCT03524092|183674952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|38.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.9|22.3|<0.001
91890845|NCT03524092|183674953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|25.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.094|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.16|31.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with modified baseline observation carried forward (mBOCF).||||31.32|19.16|<0.001
91890846|NCT03524092|183674954|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-839.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|245.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1323.08|-356.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with modified baseline observation carried forward (mBOCF).||||-356.21|-1323.08|<0.001
91890847|NCT03524092|183674955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.51|<0.001
91890848|NCT04303780|183674958|EQUIVALENCE|A hazard ratio \<1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer PFS for AMG 510 relative to docetaxel. P-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.663||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|0.864|||Log Rank|||||0.864|0.509|0.002
91890849|NCT03826030|183674959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was no overall difference in FM-UE scale change between the three groups on day 15. The change in FM-UE was modelled using a linear mixed-effects repeated measures model adjusted for visit (ie, day 15, day 45, and day 105), treatment group, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline FM-UE, time from stroke (30-90 vs. 91-180 days), and enrolment site. An AR(1) autocorrelation structure was used for visit, and variance components structure for sites.||||0.39
91890850|NCT01325311|183674966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Using the Student t-test. If the normality assumption is tenuous, an appropriate transformation of the data such as logarithm will be considered for Student t-test or a nonparametric test such as Wilcoxon rank-sum test will be used for comparison.||||0.922
91890851|NCT01732822|183674981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.92|0.650
91890852|NCT01732822|183674982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.92|0.738
91890853|NCT01732822|183674983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.23||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.92|0.400
91890854|NCT01732822|183674984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.91|0.482
91890855|NCT01732822|183674985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.89|0.913
91890856|NCT01732822|183674986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.92|0.724
91890857|NCT01732822|183674987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.33||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.79|0.846
91890858|NCT01732822|183674988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.87|0.298
91890859|NCT01732822|183674989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.90|0.462
91890860|NCT01732822|183674990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.92|0.793
91890861|NCT01732822|183674991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.92|1.000
91890862|NCT01732822|183674992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.91|0.829
91890863|NCT01732822|183674993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.92|0.949
91890864|NCT01732822|183674994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.78|0.377
91890865|NCT01732822|183674998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.71|0.164
91890866|NCT01732822|183674999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.67|0.306
91890867|NCT01732822|183675000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.93|0.887
91769328|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.0||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|9.87||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||9.87|-7.92|0.826
91890868|NCT01732822|183675001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.84|0.489
91890869|NCT01732822|183675002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.95|0.138
91890870|NCT01732822|183675003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.95|0.139
91890871|NCT01732822|183675004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||||2.00|1.24|<0.001
91890872|NCT02314780|183675005|OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.001
91890873|NCT02314780|183675006|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.002
91890874|NCT02314780|183675007|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.002
91890875|NCT02314780|183675008|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91890876|NCT02314780|183675009|OTHER||||||=|0.138|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.138
91890877|NCT02314780|183675010|OTHER||||||=|0.696|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.696
91890878|NCT02055781|183675066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Fisher Exact|||BAT arm compared to pooled pacritinib arms (QD + BID - ITT Efficacy)||||0.0011
91890879|NCT02055781|183675066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0173
91890880|NCT02055781|183675066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0007
91890881|NCT02055781|183675067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0791|||||||Fisher Exact|||BAT arm compared to pooled pacritinib arms (QD + BID - ITT Efficacy)||||0.0791
91890882|NCT02055781|183675067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6524|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6524
91890883|NCT02055781|183675067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0106
91890884|NCT00201643|183675077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1162||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.75||Analysis were also conducted in all randomized women with a known outcome \& in randomized treatment group(modified intent to treat). Analysis of the primary outcome used a repeated measures approach where each baby was considered a repeated measure|Fisher Exact|||Our Hypothesis was that administration of a rescue ACS would show a 40% reduction in incidence of composite neonatal morbity in patients delivering \< 34 weeks. Sample size estimates based on composite morbidity of 28%. Each arm required 217 subjects to have 80% power to detect a 40% reduction to 16.8%(2-tailed,alpha =0.05)using comparison for proportions/groups(Fisher exact test) OR,95% CI \& P values were determined using a repeated measure model where each twin is considered a repeat measure.||0.75|0.27|0.002
91890885|NCT03446781|183675086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.002
91890886|NCT03446781|183675087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91890887|NCT03446781|183675088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91890888|NCT03446781|183675089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91890889|NCT03446781|183675090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.033
91890890|NCT03446781|183675091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91890891|NCT03446781|183675092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|With factors of treatment group and analysis center adjusted for baseline values in the model||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91890892|NCT03446781|183675093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91890893|NCT03446781|183675094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91890894|NCT02898077|183675155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.765||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|0.955|||Log Rank|||||0.955|0.613|0.0184
91890895|NCT02898077|183675156|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.203||||||||1.203|0.771|
91890896|NCT02898077|183675157|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.968||||||||0.968|0.598|
91890897|NCT02898077|183675158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||||||||1.2|0.5|
91890898|NCT02898077|183675159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.421||||||||1.421|0.577|
91890899|NCT00996476|183675167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.97|||ANCOVA||TMC435 50 mg minus PR48 control|Difference in least square (LS) mean change from baseline from the PR48 control group||-1.97|-2.83|
91890900|NCT00996476|183675167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-1.98|||ANCOVA||TMC435 100 mg minus PR48 control|Difference in least square (LS) mean change from baseline from the PR48 control group||-1.98|-2.85|
91890901|NCT00996476|183675172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|11.8|||||PR48 control minus TMC12/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC12/PR24 50 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||11.8|-58.3|
91890902|NCT00996476|183675172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|9.8|||||PR48 control minus TMC12/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC12/PR24 100 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||9.8|-61.1|
91890903|NCT00996476|183675172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.9|19.4|||||PR48 control minus TMC24/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC24/PR24 50 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||19.4|-59.9|
91890904|NCT00996476|183675172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.6|8.3|||||PR48 control minus TMC24/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC24/PR24 100 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||8.3|-66.6|
91890905|NCT01470001|183675187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|39.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model with repeated measurements||A planned sample size of 56 subjects per group provided 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 between post void dribbling response rates (assumed to be 0.35 under the null hypothesis and 0.60 under the alternative hypothesis) at a one-sided 0.05 significance level.||39.7|-4.3|.1135
91769329|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|5.58||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.58|-4.82|0.885
91769330|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|5.76||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.76|-6.03|0.964
91890906|NCT01470001|183675188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.3||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|30.8|||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression with repeated measurements||||30.8|-2.3|.0919
91769331|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.1||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|9.72||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||9.72|-7.59|0.806
91769332|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|5.47||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.47|-4.65|0.871
91890907|NCT01470001|183675189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|6.2||p value was adjusted for age.|ANCOVA||we calculated the estimated difference in change between the placebo and treatment groups.|the difference in change between the groups was measured||6.2|-17.5|0.44
91890908|NCT02236988|183675222|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|65.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.0|77.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 1 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||77.6|55.0|
91890909|NCT02236988|183675222|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.8|95.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 2 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||95.5|67.8|
91890910|NCT02236988|183675222|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.9|99.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 3 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||99.9|70.9|
91890911|NCT02236988|183675224|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.7|73.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 1 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||73.9|51.7|
91890912|NCT02236988|183675224|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|71.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.6|85.1|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 2 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.1|59.6|
91890913|NCT02236988|183675224|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|73.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.7|88.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 3 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.2|61.7|
91890914|NCT02236988|183675225|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|62.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.1|74.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 1 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||74.4|52.1|
91890915|NCT02236988|183675225|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|71.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.7|85.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 2 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.2|59.7|
91890916|NCT02236988|183675225|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.0|88.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 3 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.4|62.0|
91890917|NCT02236988|183675226|OTHER||Median Difference|1.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 1 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.5|0.0090
91936795|NCT00425100|183770393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.2|-2.7||All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%. Efficacy was claimed only when all 3 primary diary endpoints demonstrated statistical significance in change from baseline to Week 12.|2-sided paired t-test|paired t-test comparing baseline with post-baseline values||Open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline in number of micturition episodes per 24 hours at Week 12 is equal to 0. The sample size was based on a statistical power for each of the three individual diary endpoints of .95 which would yield an overall power of 85%.||-2.7|-3.2|<0.0001
91936796|NCT00425100|183770394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.0|-1.4||All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%. Efficacy was claimed only when all 3 primary diary endpoints demonstrated statistical significance in change from baseline to Week 12.|2-sided paired t-test|paired t-test comparing baseline with post-baseline values||Open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline in number of urgency urinary incontinence per 24 hours is equal to 0. The sample size was based on a statistical power for each of the three individual diary endpoints of .95 which would yield an overall power of 85%.||-1.4|-2.0|<0.0001
91936797|NCT00425100|183770395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.4|-4.5||All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%. Efficacy was claimed only when all 3 primary diary endpoints demonstrated statistical significance in change from baseline to Week 12.|2-sided paired t-test|paired t-test comparing baseline with post-baseline values||Open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline in number of urgency episodes per 24 hours is equal to 0. The sample size was based on a statistical power for each of the three individual diary endpoints of .95 which would yield an overall power of 85%.||-4.5|-5.4|<0.0001
91936798|NCT00425100|183770397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2 sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
91769333|NCT02365649|183425736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|5.19||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.19|-6.28|0.850
91936799|NCT00425100|183770398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
91936800|NCT00425100|183770399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
91936801|NCT00425100|183770400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
91936802|NCT00425100|183770402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
91936803|NCT00425100|183770404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.4|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
91936804|NCT00425100|183770405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.6|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
91936805|NCT00425100|183770406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.3|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
91936806|NCT00425100|183770407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
91936807|NCT00425100|183770408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
91769334|NCT02365649|183425737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.9||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.73|25.9||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||25.90|-33.73|0.792
91769335|NCT02365649|183425737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|18.1||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|44.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||44.75|-8.62|0.179
91936808|NCT00425100|183770409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.7|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
91936809|NCT00425100|183770411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
91936810|NCT02219087|183770438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
91936811|NCT02219087|183770439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
91936812|NCT02219087|183770440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
91936813|NCT02219087|183770441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385
91936814|NCT02219087|183770442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.843
91936815|NCT02219087|183770443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.438
91769336|NCT02365649|183425737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-19.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.87|12.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||12.63|-50.87|0.230
91936816|NCT05127421|183770445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|9.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by the stratification factor (face and/or neck Investigator's Global Assessment \[IGA\] score of 2 or 3 at screening).||||9.47|0.83|0.091
91936817|NCT05127421|183770445|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|39.6|||||The 95% confidence interval was computed based on a large-sample normal approximation with continuity correction.|||39.6|-0.5|
91936818|NCT01714817|183770452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7077|1.6421|||Stratified logistic regression||Abatacept IV:Placebo IV 95%CI for Odds Ratio|||1.6421|0.7077|0.7264
91936819|NCT01714817|183770453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4148|1.5956|||||Abatacept IV:Placebo IV|||1.5956|0.4148|
91936820|NCT01714817|183770454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.17||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|||0.42|-0.76|0.571
91936821|NCT01714817|183770455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.09||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|||0.22|-0.41|0.561
91936822|NCT01714817|183770458|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|1.651|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.595828|10.897784||||||CR - Day 365||10.897784|-7.595828|
91936823|NCT01714817|183770458|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.8828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.848056|7.082461||||||PR - Day 365||7.082461|-8.848056|
91936824|NCT01714817|183770458|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.7682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.446714|8.910353||||||NR - Day 365||8.910353|-10.446714|
91769337|NCT02365649|183425737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|16.4||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.54|50.4||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||50.40|-17.54|0.337
91769338|NCT02365649|183425737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.1||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|23.93||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||23.93|-21.75|0.924
91936825|NCT01714817|183770467|SUPERIORITY|Day 365|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3251|6.2849||||||||6.2849|0.3251|
91936826|NCT01714817|183770467|SUPERIORITY|Day 729|Estimate of Difference vs Drug|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|15.1||||||||15.1|-8.4|
91936827|NCT01714817|183770487|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.9682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.760178|2.823876||||||Lupus treatment failure - Day 365||2.823876|-4.760178|
91936828|NCT01714817|183770487|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.4707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.588691|3.647365||||||Overall treatment failure - Day 365||3.647365|-4.588691|
91936829|NCT01714817|183770487|SUPERIORITY|Lupus treatment failure - Day 729|Estimate of Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.1||||||||6.1|-4.5|
91936830|NCT01714817|183770487|SUPERIORITY|Overall treatment failure - Day 729|Estimate of Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.8||||||||8.8|-3.3|
91936831|NCT02555657|183770502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.57|0.0574
91936832|NCT02555657|183770503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.69|0.0728
91936833|NCT02555657|183770504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.82|0.3802
91936834|NCT02555657|183770505|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|8.3||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|18.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||18.4|-1.4|0.0457
91936835|NCT02555657|183770506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.9||||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.2|-3.3|0.1752
91936836|NCT02555657|183770507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.0||||0.6629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||3.8|-5.9|0.6629
91936837|NCT02555657|183770508|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.59|||Regression, Cox|||||1.59|0.82|0.7936
91936838|NCT02555657|183770509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.68|||Regression, Cox|||||1.68|1.08|0.9964
91936839|NCT02555657|183770510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.92|||Regression, Cox|||||1.92|1.33|1.0000
91936840|NCT02555657|183770514|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.3||||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|13.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.5|-8.7|0.3388
91936841|NCT02555657|183770515|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.6||||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||5.5|-8.6|0.6701
91936842|NCT02555657|183770516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-6.5||||0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||-0.8|-12.2|0.9877
91936843|NCT00405821|183770530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||P-value was adjusted to include multiple looks at data including an interim efficacy review at 50% and 75% accrual of person-years on study|Regression, Cox|adjusted for baseline log10 viral load, baseline CD4 count, gender, and age||Intent-to-treat analysis used Cox proportional hazards (CPH) models, adjusting for baseline log10 viral load (VL), CD4 cell count, gender and age to assess the risk of disease progression||0.99|0.58|<0.05
91936844|NCT00405821|183770531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.48||we included multiple GUD events per subject in the estimate of GUD incidence|rate ratio with 95% CI|||Null hypothesis is no difference by treatment arm in rate of GUD.||0.48|0.19|<0.05
91936845|NCT00405821|183770532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.463||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.194|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is no difference in annual rate of change in log10 viral load by arm.||-0.194|-0.731|0.05
91936846|NCT02372097|183770536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two tablets of SYR-472 25 mg and 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg were considered bioequivalent if 90% CI of the mean differences of natural log-transformed AUC(0-168) of SYR-472Z was within the range of ln(0.80) to ln(1.25) or within the range of ln(0.9) to ln(1.11) and the results of dissolution test satisfied the requirement.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0344|0.0004||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the AUC(0-168) as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.0004|-0.0344|
91936847|NCT02372097|183770537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two tablets of SYR-472 25 mg and 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg were considered bioequivalent if 90% CI of the mean differences of natural log-transformed Cmax of SYR-472Z was within the range of ln(0.80) to ln(1.25) or within the range of ln(0.9) to ln(1.11) and the results of dissolution test satisfied the requirement.|LS mean difference|-0.1292|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2177|-0.0406||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the Cmax as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||-0.0406|-0.2177|
91936848|NCT02372097|183770538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.021||||||90.0|-0.0362|-0.0058||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the AUC(0-inf) as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||-0.0058|-0.0362|
91936849|NCT02372097|183770539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1452|0.8952||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with Tmax as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.8952|-0.1452|
91936850|NCT02372097|183770540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.0168|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0504|0.0169||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the MRT as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.0169|-0.0504|
91936851|NCT02372097|183770541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1099|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0235|0.1963||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the λz as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.1963|0.0235|
91936852|NCT00713284|183770576|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91936853|NCT01432457|183770593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.69||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR dose to placebo. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.69|0.44|0.006
91769339|NCT02365649|183425737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.7||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.69|14.35||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||14.35|-37.69|0.373
91936854|NCT01432457|183770593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.08||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR dose to placebo. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||3.08|0.84|< 0.001
91936855|NCT01432457|183770594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.36||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.45|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.45|0.28|0.014
91936856|NCT01432457|183770594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.74|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.74|0.59|0.002
91769340|NCT02365649|183425737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.1||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.94|22.79||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||22.79|-28.94|0.813
91936857|NCT01432457|183770595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||"p-value was obtained from the separate pair-wise Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test versus placebo for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences controlling for site."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-I was analyzed with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row-mean-score-difference test using ridit scores. Each DVS SR arm was separately compared to placebo controlling for site. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.029
91936858|NCT01432457|183770595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||"p-value was obtained from the separate pair-wise Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test versus placebo for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences controlling for site."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-I was analyzed with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row-mean-score-difference test using ridit scores. Each DVS SR arm was separately compared to placebo controlling for site. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||||< 0.001
91936859|NCT01432457|183770596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CGI-S was analyzed using the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline CGI-S score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.34|0.05|0.009
91936860|NCT01432457|183770596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CGI-S was analyzed using the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline CGI-S score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.43|0.13|< 0.001
91936861|NCT01432457|183770597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.17||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.34|-0.01|0.062
91936862|NCT01432457|183770597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.22||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.39|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.39|0.04|0.014
91936863|NCT01432457|183770598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.242||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.726|||Regression, Logistic|||Response in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||1.726|0.893|0.198
91936864|NCT01432457|183770598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.378||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Response in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||1.910|0.995|0.054
91936865|NCT01432457|183770599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.105||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.631|||Regression, Logistic|||Remission in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||1.631|0.749|0.615
91936866|NCT01432457|183770599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.412||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|2.057|||Regression, Logistic|||Remission in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.057|0.969|0.072
91936867|NCT01432457|183770600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.8||p-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model as change from baseline = Treatment + Site + Gender + Baseline|ANCOVA|||The treatment by gender interaction was first tested using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, site, gender, and treatment by gender as factors and the baseline total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.80|-0.98|0.837
91936868|NCT01432457|183770600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.55||p-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model as change from baseline = Treatment + Site + Gender + Baseline|ANCOVA|||The treatment by gender interaction was first tested using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, site, gender, and treatment by gender as factors and the baseline total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.55|-1.19|0.471
91936869|NCT04134728|183770601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.76|2.48|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||2.48|0.76|0.2868
91769341|NCT02365649|183425737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.3||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|28.65||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||28.65|-18.02|0.651
91769342|NCT02365649|183425737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-23.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.12|1.49||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical responders||1.49|-49.12|0.065
91769343|NCT02365649|183425737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.3||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.61|48.28||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||48.28|-37.61|0.802
91936870|NCT04134728|183770601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.98|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the percentage of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the percentage of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||3.15|0.98|0.0596
91936871|NCT04134728|183770601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.29|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 200 mg dose of Sarilumab alternating with placebo every week and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 200 mg dose of Sarilumab alternating with placebo every week differs from placebo in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||4.23|1.29|0.0049
91936872|NCT04134728|183770601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.36|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 and 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||0.95|0.36|0.0293
91936873|NCT04134728|183770601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.2308|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.47|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 and 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||1.20|0.47|0.2308
91936874|NCT01090102|183770719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
91936875|NCT01090102|183770720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
91936876|NCT00150345|183770782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.493||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.755|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio computed from the logistic regression (logit model) including terms for treatment arm, concomitant fluconazole, and positive PCR before randomization. Event IFI=yes is modeled.|Hypothesis: H0: rv - rp = 0 vs H1: rv - rp does not equal 0, where ri is rate of IFI (i=v for voriconazole group, i=p for deferred voriconazole group). Logit model (including important covariates) used. The adjusted odds ratio and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for adjusted odds ratio calculated. If 95% CI around odds ratio does not contain a value of 1, then the null hypothesis of equal rates of IFI between immediate voriconazole and deferred voriconazole to be rejected.||1.755|0.129|0.258
91936877|NCT00150345|183770783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.822||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.696|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio computed from the logistic regression (logit model) including terms for treatment arm, concomitant fluconazole, and positive PCR before randomization. Event defervescence=yes is modeled.|||1.696|0.398|0.596
91936878|NCT00150345|183770784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.936||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|1.988|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio computed from the logistic regression (logit model) including terms for treatment arm, concomitant fluconazole, and positive PCR before randomization. Event defervescence=yes is modeled.|||1.988|0.441|0.864
91936879|NCT00150345|183770785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.955
91936880|NCT00150345|183770787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % participants that died|5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|16.78|||||Approximate 2-sided confidence interval (CI).|Difference in proportions expressed as a percent: immediate voriconazole versus (vs) deferred voriconazole treatment||16.78|-5.08|
91936881|NCT00150345|183770788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.190
91811832|NCT02663232|183498324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Melanoma Stage IIIC/M1a/M1b \[referral category\] vs M1c with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.196
91936882|NCT00150345|183770789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.888||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.004|-0.059||SAS PROC REG with SELECTION=STEPWISE option of SLENTRY=0.05 and SLSTAY=0.10 utilized. Stepwise option combined forward stepping (with a 0.05 level to enter) with elimination of variables already in model that do not stay significant at 0.10 level.|Regression, Linear|Variables: association with age, c-reactive protein, and time to continuous defervescence not significant at 0.05 level; not included in final model||Continuous defervescence achieved=Yes||-0.059|-44.004|0.049
91936883|NCT00150345|183770809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|19.97||||||Difference in proportions expressed as a percent: immediate voriconazole vs deferred voriconazole treatment||19.97|-14.96|
91936884|NCT01392742|183770818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for RVR at Week 4.||||0.000
91936885|NCT01392742|183770818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Binary logistic regression for gender at Week 4.||||0.018
91936886|NCT01392742|183770818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for liver fibrosis at Week 4.||||0.062
91936887|NCT01392742|183770818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for HCV genotype at Week 4.||||0.050
91936888|NCT01392742|183770818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for height at Week 4.||||0.001
91936889|NCT01392742|183770818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for treatment duration at Week 4.||||0.001
91936890|NCT01392742|183770818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for EVR at Week 12.||||0.037
91936891|NCT01392742|183770818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for gender at Week 12.||||0.018
91936892|NCT01392742|183770818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for liver fibrosis at Week 12.||||0.092
91936893|NCT01392742|183770818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for height at Week 12.||||0.001
91936894|NCT01392742|183770818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for treatment duration at Week 12.||||0.042
91936895|NCT00618995|183770872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are comparable if the geometric mean ratio (GMR) is contained within the interval \[0.50-2.00\].|Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.97||||||90.0|0.8|1.18||||||The endpoint is the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7 following a 7 day course of daily dosing in the overall 24 hour collection interval. The point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[Treatment A/B\] of the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7.||1.18|0.8|
91936896|NCT00618995|183770872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.77|1.14||||||||1.14|0.77|
91936897|NCT00618995|183770872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.87||||||90.0|0.71|1.05||||||||1.05|0.71|
91936898|NCT00618995|183770872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.84||||||90.0|0.69|1.02||||||||1.02|0.69|
91936899|NCT00618995|183770872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.76|1.13||||||||1.13|0.76|
91936900|NCT00618995|183770872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.9||||||90.0|0.74|1.09||||||||1.09|0.74|
91936901|NCT00618995|183770873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.84|1.06||||||||1.06|0.84|
91936902|NCT00618995|183770873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.84|1.05||||||||1.05|0.84|
91936903|NCT00618995|183770873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.57||||||90.0|0.51|0.64||||||||0.64|0.51|
91936904|NCT00618995|183770873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.54||||||90.0|0.48|0.6||||||||0.60|0.48|
91936905|NCT00618995|183770873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.6||||||90.0|0.54|0.67||||||||0.67|0.54|
91936906|NCT00618995|183770873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.57||||||90.0|0.51|0.64||||||||0.64|0.51|
91936907|NCT05067452|183770905|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-1.59|0.900
91936908|NCT05067452|183770906|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.945||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.478|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.23|-0.478|0.146
91936909|NCT05067452|183770907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.677|||ANCOVA|Linear regression used with the binary outcome (linear probability model)||||0.677|-0.207|0.281
91936910|NCT05067452|183770908|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression used with the binary outcome (linear probability model)||||0.768|-0.060|0.094
91936911|NCT05067452|183770909|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.2|-7.83|0.669
91936912|NCT05067452|183770910|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.695|0.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.743|-0.695|0.949
91936913|NCT05067452|183770911|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.679|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.679|-1.58|0.308
91936914|NCT05067452|183770912|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.499|-4.77|0.593
91936915|NCT05067452|183770913|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.611|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.611|-5.86|0.112
91936916|NCT05067452|183770916|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.92|-8.25|0.349
91936917|NCT01135017|183770917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-59.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.322|-29.457||No adjustment for multiplicity was made. The priori threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed AF burden data with treatment arm as a fixed effect term and baseline log-transformed AF burden as a covariate|"Percent change in AF burden with dronedarone relative to placebo~LS Mean difference from the ANCOVA model on log-transformed AF burden data was exponentiated to convert back to percent change."|"The planned sample size of 286 participants was estimated to have 70% power to detect a reduction in mean AF burden of 30% relative to the placebo group.~Due to the smaller-than-planned sample size, the power to detect this difference was estimated to be only 44%, based on the original assumption. However, the power to detect larger treatment effects (\>40% reduction) remained high and the posthoc power to detect a 60% reduction in AF burden was 99%."||-29.457|-76.322|0.0015
91936918|NCT00763243|183770935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.31||Change during waiting period (no intervention); no change was hypothesized||1.89|-1.44|0.766
91936919|NCT00763243|183770935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=5.0||Change during the training period||2.44|0.90|<0.001
91936920|NCT00763243|183770935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=2.87||Change from pre-training through follow-up period||3.20|0.35|0.021
91936921|NCT00763243|183770935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.19|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.89||Change from pretraining to 6 month follow up||1.19|-0.53|0.40
91936922|NCT00763243|183770936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.24||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|3.05|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=1.79||Change during waiting period of no intervention||3.05|-0.39|0.11
91936923|NCT00763243|183770936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.81||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.84|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=4.05||Change during training period||3.84|1.05|0.004
91936924|NCT00763243|183770936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|4.46|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=2.07||1 Month Follow Up change from pre-training||4.46|-0.24|0.072
91936925|NCT00763243|183770936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.28||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=1.02||6 month follow up change from pre-training||2.53|-0.97|0.34
91936926|NCT00763243|183770937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.36||Waiting period - no treatment||1.65|-1.20|0.729
91936927|NCT00763243|183770937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=2.46||Training Period - Pretraining to Post-Training Visit||-0.11|-3.44|0.039
91936928|NCT00763243|183770937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.98||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.90||1 Month Follow Up Period from Pretraining||1.40|-3.17|0.40
91936929|NCT00763243|183770937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.89||6 Month Follow Up period from pretraining||1.26|-2.59|0.40
91936930|NCT00507416|183770976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||||||The global difference among arms was based on the Wald test.|Wald test|||||||0.458
91936931|NCT03418051|183771005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.824
91936932|NCT03418051|183771005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.426
91936933|NCT03418051|183771006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.722
91936934|NCT03418051|183771006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.843
91936935|NCT03418051|183771007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.046
91936936|NCT03418051|183771007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.845
91936937|NCT03418051|183771008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.138
91936938|NCT03418051|183771008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.523
91936939|NCT03418051|183771009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.069
91936940|NCT03418051|183771009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.413
91936941|NCT03418051|183771010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.604
91936942|NCT03418051|183771010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.499
91936943|NCT03418051|183771011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||A priori threshold was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
91936944|NCT03418051|183771011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.853
91936945|NCT03418051|183771012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||A priori threshold set to 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.142
91936946|NCT03418051|183771012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.167
91936947|NCT03418051|183771013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.849||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.849
91936948|NCT03418051|183771013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.993
91936949|NCT03418051|183771014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.535
91936950|NCT03418051|183771014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.569
91936951|NCT03418051|183771015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||A priori threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.405
91936952|NCT03418051|183771015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||A priori threshold set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.229
91936953|NCT03418051|183771016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.609
91936954|NCT03418051|183771016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||A priori threshold was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.027
91936955|NCT03418051|183771017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Independent sample Mann-Whitney U|||||||0.613
91936956|NCT03418051|183771018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Independent sample Mann-Whitney U|||||||0.925
91936957|NCT03418051|183771019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.641
91936958|NCT03418051|183771019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.897
91936959|NCT03418051|183771020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.561||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.561
91936960|NCT03418051|183771020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.925
91936961|NCT03418051|183771021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.233
91936962|NCT03418051|183771021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.634
91936963|NCT03418051|183771022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.233
91936964|NCT03418051|183771022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.634
91936965|NCT03418051|183771023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.030
91936966|NCT03418051|183771023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.618
91936967|NCT03418051|183771024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.456
91936968|NCT03418051|183771024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||A priori threshold set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.568
91936969|NCT03418051|183771025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.919
91936970|NCT03418051|183771025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.558
91936971|NCT03418051|183771026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.796
91936972|NCT03418051|183771026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.558
91936973|NCT03418051|183771027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.701
91936974|NCT03418051|183771027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.68
91936975|NCT03418051|183771028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.883
91936976|NCT03418051|183771028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.401
91936977|NCT03418051|183771029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.393
91936978|NCT03418051|183771029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.779
91936979|NCT03418051|183771030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.246
91936980|NCT03418051|183771030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.191
91936981|NCT03418051|183771031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.703
91936982|NCT03418051|183771031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.282
91936983|NCT03418051|183771032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.925
91936984|NCT03418051|183771032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.551
91936985|NCT03418051|183771033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.506
91936986|NCT03418051|183771033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||A priori threshold at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.753
91936987|NCT03418051|183771034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.777
91936988|NCT03418051|183771034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.475
91936989|NCT03418051|183771035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.738
91936990|NCT03418051|183771035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
91936991|NCT03418051|183771036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.738
91936992|NCT03418051|183771036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.830
91811833|NCT02663232|183498324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Melanoma Stage IIIc with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||||0.002
91936993|NCT03418051|183771037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.700
91936994|NCT03418051|183771037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.492
91936995|NCT03418051|183771038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.820
91936996|NCT03418051|183771038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.526
91936997|NCT01769469|183771083|OTHER|||||||0.2085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of difference at Week 48 from baseline||||0.2085
91936998|NCT01769469|183771087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2452|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.2452
91811834|NCT02663232|183498324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.716||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|6.616|||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation (n=184)||The association of Melanoma Stage M1a (using Melanoma Stage IIIC as referral category) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||6.616|1.115|0.028
91811835|NCT02663232|183498324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.466||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|1.291|||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation (n=184)||The association of Melanoma Stage M1b (using Melanoma Stage IIIC as referral category) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||1.291|0.168|0.142
91936999|NCT01769469|183771095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||.0806
91937000|NCT01769469|183771106|OTHER|||||||0.6545|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.6545
91937001|NCT01769469|183771110|OTHER|||||||0.8739|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.8739
91937002|NCT01769469|183771118|OTHER|||||||0.5014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.5014
91937003|NCT01769469|183771119|OTHER|||||||0.2431|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.2431
91937004|NCT01769469|183771120|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.7209
91937005|NCT01769469|183771121|OTHER|||||||0.5379|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.5379
91937006|NCT01769469|183771122|OTHER|||||||0.7986|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.7986
91937007|NCT01769469|183771142|OTHER|||||||0.8507|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.8507
91937008|NCT01769469|183771143|OTHER|||||||0.3483|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.3483
91937009|NCT01769469|183771150|OTHER|||||||0.4043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4043
91937010|NCT01769469|183771151|OTHER|||||||0.2927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2927
91937011|NCT01769469|183771152|OTHER|||||||0.1134|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1134
91937012|NCT01769469|183771153|OTHER|||||||0.5782|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5782
91937013|NCT01769469|183771154|OTHER|||||||0.8658|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8658
91937014|NCT01769469|183771155|OTHER|||||||0.5491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5491
91937015|NCT01769469|183771156|OTHER|||||||0.0238|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0238
91937016|NCT01769469|183771157|OTHER|||||||0.1172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1172
91937017|NCT01769469|183771158|OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1220
91937018|NCT01769469|183771159|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91937019|NCT01769469|183771161|OTHER|||||||0.7785|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7785
91937020|NCT01769469|183771162|OTHER|||||||0.4933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4933
91937021|NCT01769469|183771163|OTHER|||||||0.5491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5491
91937022|NCT01769469|183771164|OTHER|||||||0.5161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5161
91937023|NCT01769469|183771165|OTHER|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5990
91937024|NCT01769469|183771166|OTHER|||||||0.8579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8579
91937025|NCT01769469|183771167|OTHER|||||||0.0719|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0719
91937026|NCT01769469|183771168|OTHER|||||||0.3148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3148
91937027|NCT01769469|183771169|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1390
91937028|NCT01769469|183771170|OTHER|||||||0.2726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2726
91937029|NCT01769469|183771171|OTHER|||||||0.537|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5370
91937030|NCT01769469|183771172|OTHER|||||||0.2926|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2926
91937031|NCT01769469|183771173|OTHER|||||||0.1906|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1906
91937032|NCT01769469|183771174|OTHER|||||||0.2255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2255
91937033|NCT01769469|183771175|OTHER|||||||0.6285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6285
91937034|NCT01769469|183771176|OTHER|||||||0.0148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0148
91937035|NCT01769469|183771177|OTHER|||||||0.0166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0166
91937036|NCT01769469|183771178|OTHER|||||||0.0277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0277
91937037|NCT01769469|183771179|OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2610
91937038|NCT01769469|183771180|OTHER|||||||0.4154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4154
91937039|NCT01769469|183771181|OTHER|||||||0.7125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7125
91937040|NCT02713789|183771233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.827|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP2||||0.827
91937041|NCT02713789|183771233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP2||||0.594
91937042|NCT02713789|183771233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP3||||0.274
91937043|NCT02713789|183771233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP3||||0.766
91769344|NCT02365649|183425737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.6||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|21.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||21.63|-20.46|0.955
91769345|NCT02365649|183425737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-10.6||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.73|14.47||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||14.47|-35.73|0.395
91937044|NCT02713789|183771234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.384
91937045|NCT02713789|183771234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.144
91937046|NCT02713789|183771234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.022
91937047|NCT02713789|183771234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.137
91937048|NCT02713789|183771234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.123
91769346|NCT02365649|183425738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.0082||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1299|0.1136||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||0.1136|-0.1299|0.893
91769347|NCT02365649|183425738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0685||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0334|0.1705||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||0.1705|-0.0334|0.182
91769348|NCT02365649|183425738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1323||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2552|-0.0093||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Responders||-0.0093|-0.2552|0.036
91937049|NCT02713789|183771235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.160
91937050|NCT02713789|183771235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.208
91937051|NCT02713789|183771235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.316
91937052|NCT02713789|183771235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.221
91937053|NCT02713789|183771235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.172
91937054|NCT02713789|183771236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.199
91937055|NCT02713789|183771236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.203
91937056|NCT02713789|183771236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.500
91937057|NCT02713789|183771236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.296
91937058|NCT02713789|183771236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.286
91937059|NCT02713789|183771237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.449
91937060|NCT02713789|183771237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.381
91937061|NCT02713789|183771237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.011
91937062|NCT02713789|183771237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.05
91937063|NCT02713789|183771237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.09
91937064|NCT02713789|183771238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.074
91937065|NCT02713789|183771238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.468
91937066|NCT02713789|183771238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.109
91937067|NCT02713789|183771238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.493
91937068|NCT02713789|183771238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.235
91937069|NCT02713789|183771239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP1||||0.136
91937070|NCT02713789|183771239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP1||||0.498
91937071|NCT02713789|183771239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP4||||0.369
91937072|NCT02713789|183771239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP4||||0.337
91937073|NCT02713789|183771239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP5||||0.160
91937074|NCT00141037|183771250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Nonparametric Test|||The endpoint is assessed using a Wilcoxon nonparametric test and missing values are imputed using the last observation carried forward.||||0.79
91937075|NCT00141037|183771251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||The difference was analyzed using a Fisher's exact test.||||0.85
91769349|NCT02365649|183425738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0768||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0749|0.2286||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||0.2286|-0.0749|0.316
91769350|NCT02365649|183425738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0573||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0471|0.1617||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||0.1617|-0.0471|0.277
91769351|NCT02365649|183425738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0428||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0741|0.1597||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||0.1597|-0.0741|0.467
91811836|NCT02663232|183498324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.822||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|1.928|||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation (n=184)||The association of Melanoma Stage M1c (using Melanoma Stage IIIC as referral category) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||1.928|0.351|0.653
91937076|NCT00861380|183771258|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN3+1 vs Control). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster- related effect.|VE (1-RR)|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.8|100.0||P-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 =(vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||100|82.8|<0.0001
91937077|NCT00861380|183771259|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN2+1vsControl). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster- related effect.|VE (1-RR)|91.8|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|99.6||p-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 = (vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||99.6|58.3|= 0.0009
91937078|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|14.657|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.229|16.197|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||16.197|13.229|
91937079|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|13.582|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.691|15.693|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||15.693|11.691|
91769352|NCT02365649|183425738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.036||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1336|0.0616||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||0.0616|-0.1336|0.464
91769353|NCT02365649|183425738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0404||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0444|0.1252||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||0.1252|-0.0444|0.345
91811837|NCT02663232|183498325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Family family history of melanoma (yes vs no) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.240
91811838|NCT02663232|183498326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of sun exposure yes vs no with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.719
91937080|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|8.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.376|9.639|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.639|7.376|
91937081|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|7.603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.206|9.221|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.221|6.206|
91937082|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|1.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.185|2.205|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.205|1.185|
91937083|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|1.845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|2.724|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.724|1.194|
91937084|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as . 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|3.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.269|4.839|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||4.839|3.269|
91769354|NCT02365649|183425738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.0873||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1822|0.0076||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical responders||0.0076|-0.1822|0.071
91769355|NCT02365649|183425738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1109||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1109|0.3326||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||0.3326|-0.1109|0.317
91769356|NCT02365649|183425738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0848||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0248|0.1945||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||0.1945|-0.0248|0.125
91769357|NCT02365649|183425738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0559||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0745|0.1864||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||0.1864|-0.0745|0.390
91937085|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|3.322|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.423|4.445|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||4.445|2.423|
91937086|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|14.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.071|16.015|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||16.015|13.071|
91937087|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|13.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.841|15.857|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||15.857|11.841|
91937088|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|7.813|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.782|8.955|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||8.955|6.782|
91937089|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|7.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.377|9.42|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.420|6.377|
91937090|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|2.313|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.972|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.972|1.770|
91811839|NCT02663232|183498327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of primary tumor site (trunk \[referral category\] vs head and neck vs upper extremities vs lower extremities vs. visceral/mucosa) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.262
91811840|NCT02663232|183498328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of LDH (elevated \[referral category\] vs normal vs unknown) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.313
91937091|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|1.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.307|2.886|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.886|1.307|
91937092|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model without strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|4.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.429|5.028|||Negative Binomial model without strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.028|3.429|
91937093|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model without strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|3.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.981|5.177|||Negative Binomial model without strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.177|2.981|
91937094|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|14.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.628|15.516|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||15.516|12.628|
91937095|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|15.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.079|17.269|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||17.269|13.079|
91937096|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|5.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.026|6.917|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||6.917|5.026|
91769358|NCT02365649|183425739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|8.7||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|24.16||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||24.16|-6.79|0.263
91937097|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|8.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.077|10.255|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.255|7.077|
91937098|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|2.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.357|3.71|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||3.710|2.357|
91937099|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|2.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.361|2.96|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.960|1.361|
91937100|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|5.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.196|5.939|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.939|4.196|
91937101|NCT00861380|183771263|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|4.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.285|5.566|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.566|3.285|
91937102|NCT00861380|183771271|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2626735.|PYAR|9.218|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.103|9.335|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.335|9.103|
91937103|NCT00861380|183771271|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1354702.|PYAR|9.212|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.052|9.375|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.375|9.052|
91937104|NCT00861380|183771271|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.378|10.624|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.624|10.378|
91937105|NCT00861380|183771271|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|10.429|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.259|10.601|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.601|10.259|
91937106|NCT00861380|183771271|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|10.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.997|10.239|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.239|9.997|
91937107|NCT00861380|183771271|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|9.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.755|10.088|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.088|9.755|
91937108|NCT00861380|183771279|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =229978.|PYAR|22.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.02|23.24|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||23.240|22.020|
91937109|NCT00861380|183771279|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =120190.|PYAR|22.747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.912|23.606|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||23.606|21.912|
91769359|NCT02365649|183425739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|15.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|28.93||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Responders||28.93|1.47|0.031
91769360|NCT02365649|183425739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.0||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.93|3.9||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||3.90|-27.93|0.135
91769361|NCT02365649|183425739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.3||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|23.27||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||23.27|-10.61|0.458
91937110|NCT00861380|183771279|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =214181.|PYAR|24.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.852|25.166|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||25.166|23.852|
91937111|NCT00861380|183771279|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =112060.|PYAR|26.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.308|27.189|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||27.189|25.308|
91937112|NCT00861380|183771279|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =211914.|PYAR|27.502|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.81|28.207|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||28.207|26.810|
91937113|NCT00861380|183771279|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111071.|PYAR|26.1||||||95.0|25.171|27.055|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||27.055|25.171|
91937114|NCT00861380|183771279|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =213913.|PYAR|28.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.958|29.377|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||29.377|27.958|
91937115|NCT00861380|183771279|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111414.|PYAR|29.835|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.843|30.85|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||30.850|28.843|
91937116|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =229978.|PYAR|816.813|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|815.226|818.392|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||818.392|815.226|
91937117|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =120190.|PYAR|841.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|839.098|843.239|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||843.239|839.098|
91937118|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =229978.|PYAR|702.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|700.372|704.114|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for Acute Otitis Media (AOM)/Respiratory Tract Infections (RTI), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||704.114|700.372|
91937119|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =120190.|PYAR|720.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|718.355|723.435|||negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||723.435|718.355|
91937120|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =214181.|PYAR|929.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|928.755|930.923|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||930.923|928.755|
91937121|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =112060.|PYAR|953.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|951.77|954.257|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||954.257|951.770|
91937122|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =214181.|PYAR|804.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|803.017|806.38|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||806.380|803.017|
91811841|NCT02663232|183498329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of time since diagnosis of primary melanoma (continuous variable) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.291
91937123|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =112060.|PYAR|818.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|816.391|820.912|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||820.912|816.391|
91937124|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =211914.|PYAR|916.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|914.891|917.256|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||917.256|914.891|
91937125|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111071.|PYAR|928.568|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|927.038|930.076|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||930.076|927.038|
91937126|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =211914.|PYAR|796.894||||||95.0|795.175|798.605|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||798.605|795.175|
91937127|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111071.|PYAR|803.918|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|801.571|806.25|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||806.250|801.571|
91811842|NCT02663232|183498330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of tumor sample source (primary tumor \[referral category\] vs metastases vs relapses) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.164
91937128|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =213913.|PYAR|865.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|864.227|867.121|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||867.121|864.227|
91811843|NCT02663232|183498331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of tumor sample type (paraffin-embedded blocks \[referral category\] vs slides of paraffin blocks vs cytology slides) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.505
91811844|NCT02663232|183498332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.701|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of method of fixation (buffered formalin \[referral category\] vs other) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.701
91811845|NCT02663232|183498333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Berslow thickness (≤1 mm \[referral category\] vs 1.01-2 mm vs 2.01-4 mm vs 4 mm) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.683
91937129|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111414.|PYAR|871.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|869.771|873.707|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||873.707|869.771|
91937130|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =213913.|PYAR|753.423|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|751.591|755.249|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||755.249|751.591|
91937131|NCT00861380|183771283|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111414.|PYAR|755.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|753.008|758.064|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||758.064|753.008|
91937132|NCT00637377|183771291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set to 10. The power is 90 % according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.46|||||The difference is calculated as Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept. A negative value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q4 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.05.|null hypothesis: pi ≤ pc-delta where pi is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Aflibercept 2mg Q4, pc is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 and delta is the non-inferiority margin. The null hypothesis is tested calculating a two-sided 95 % confidence using normal approximation of the difference of percentages of participants maintaining vision at week 52 (Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 minus Aflibercept 2mg Q4).||2.46|-4.86|
91937133|NCT00637377|183771291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set to 10. The power is 90 % according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.71|||||The difference is calculated as Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept. A negative value favors the Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.05.|null hypothesis: pi ≤ pc-delta where pi is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4, pc is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 and delta is the non-inferiority margin. The null hypothesis is tested calculating a two-sided 95 % confidence using normal approximation of the difference of percentages of participants maintaining vision at week 52 (Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 minus Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4).||1.71|-5.40|
91937134|NCT00637377|183771291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set to 10. The power is 90 % according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|2.55|||||The difference is calculated as Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept. A negative value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q8 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.05.|null hypothesis: pi ≤ pc-delta where pi is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Aflibercept 2mg Q8, pc is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 and delta is the non-inferiority margin. The null hypothesis is tested calculating a two-sided 95 % confidence using normal approximation of the difference of percentages of participants maintaining vision at week 52 (Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 minus Aflibercept 2mg Q8).||2.55|-4.81|
91811846|NCT02663232|183498334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.615|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Ulceration (no \[referral category\] vs yes) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.615
91811847|NCT02663232|183498335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.949|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of presence of regression (Without regression \[referral category\] vs With regression) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.949
91937135|NCT00637377|183771292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-1.9484||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1009|0.204||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline ETDRS letter score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.2040|-4.1009|0.076
91937136|NCT00637377|183771292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.062||||0.9555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2398|2.1158||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline ETDRS letter score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||2.1158|-2.2398|0.9555
91937137|NCT00637377|183771292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.9014||||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0615|1.2587||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q8 group|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline ETDRS letter score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.2587|-3.0615|0.4131
91937138|NCT00637377|183771293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.57||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|2.88||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q4 group|The null hypothesis is that the two proportions are equal.||2.88|-12.02|0.229
91937139|NCT00637377|183771293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.78||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|8.46||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4 group|The null hypothesis is that the two proportions are equal.||8.46|-6.91|0.843
91937140|NCT00637377|183771293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.65||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|4.88||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q8 group|The null hypothesis is that the two proportions are equal.||4.88|-10.18|0.490
91937141|NCT00637377|183771294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-2.7885||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9012|-0.6757||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline NEI VFQ-25 total score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||-0.6757|-4.9012|0.0097
91937142|NCT00637377|183771294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.932||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0658|1.2019||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline NEI VFQ-25 total score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.2019|-3.0658|0.3917
91937143|NCT00637377|183771294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-1.947||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0659|0.1718||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline NEI VFQ-25 total score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.1718|-4.0659|0.0717
91937144|NCT00637377|183771295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-1.18||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.979|-0.382||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A negative value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline CNV area as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||-0.382|-1.979|0.0038
91937145|NCT00637377|183771295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.17||||0.6784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|0.972||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A negative value favors Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline CNV area as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.972|-0.632|0.6784
91937146|NCT00637377|183771295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.733||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.534|0.068||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A negative value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline CNV area as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.068|-1.534|0.0727
91937147|NCT01293084|183771298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91937148|NCT01293084|183771299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91937149|NCT01375647|183771307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.9|||Chi-squared|2 sided, not adjusted||||3.9|-9.6|0.4
91811848|NCT02663232|183498336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Vascular invasion (Without vascular invasion \[referral category\] vs With vascular invasion) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.374
91890918|NCT02236988|183675226|OTHER||Median Difference|1.26||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 2 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|0.50|0.0073
91890919|NCT02236988|183675226|OTHER||Median Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 3 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|1.00|<0.0001
91890920|NCT02236988|183675232|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|90.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.8|101.1|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 4 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||101.1|81.8|
91890921|NCT02236988|183675232|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|73.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.3|82.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 5 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||82.0|66.3|
91890922|NCT02236988|183675232|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.2|89.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 6 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||89.2|72.2|
91890923|NCT02236988|183675233|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.5|93.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 4 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||93.0|77.5|
91890924|NCT02236988|183675233|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.8|78.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 5 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||78.9|65.8|
91890925|NCT02236988|183675233|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|85.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 6 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.5|71.2|
91890926|NCT02236988|183675234|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.1|93.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 4 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||93.6|78.1|
91890927|NCT02236988|183675234|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.3|79.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 5 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||79.5|66.3|
91890928|NCT02236988|183675234|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.0|86.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 6 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||86.4|72.0|
91890929|NCT02236988|183675235|OTHER||Median Difference|2.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 4 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|1.00|0.0002
91890930|NCT02236988|183675235|OTHER||Median Difference|1.02||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 5 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.50|0.0049
91890931|NCT02236988|183675235|OTHER||Median Difference|1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 6 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|1.00|0.0010
91769362|NCT02365649|183425739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.9||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|13.45||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||13.45|-9.59|0.738
91769363|NCT02365649|183425739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.4||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.32|7.6||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||7.60|-18.32|0.412
91769364|NCT02365649|183425739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.9||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|16.36||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||16.36|-8.56|0.534
91769365|NCT02365649|183425739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|11.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|22.01||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical responders||22.01|-0.10|0.052
91769366|NCT02365649|183425739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-13.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.15|-1.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Clinical responders||-1.63|-26.15|0.027
91769367|NCT02365649|183425739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.02|21.97||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||21.97|-24.02|0.928
91769368|NCT02365649|183425739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.5||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|8.77||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||8.77|-13.72|0.658
91937150|NCT01375647|183771308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|19.8||2-sided, no adjustment|Chi-squared|||||19.8|7.0|0.00004
91769369|NCT02365649|183425739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.5||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|9.96||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||9.96|-16.96|0.601
91769370|NCT02365649|183425741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.0|-1.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||-1.0|-99.0|1.000
91769371|NCT02365649|183425741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
91811849|NCT02730455|183498341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite Measure: The global odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, United States of America \[USA\]) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||1.07|0.38|0.086
91811850|NCT02730455|183498341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite Measure: The global odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||0.95|0.34|0.031
91937151|NCT01375647|183771309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sabin type 1 shedding||||0.5
91769372|NCT02365649|183425741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
91769373|NCT02365649|183425741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
91769374|NCT02365649|183425742|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-66.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||-13.3|-100.0|1.000
91937152|NCT01375647|183771309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sabin type 2 shedding||||0.2
91937153|NCT01375647|183771309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sabin type 3 shedding||||0.1
91937154|NCT01375647|183771311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.5||||||Sabin type 1||4.5|-7.3|
91937155|NCT01375647|183771311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9||||||Sabin type 2||0.9|-7.2|
91937156|NCT01375647|183771311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.1||||||||6.1|-3.2|
91937157|NCT01375647|183771312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-26.5||||||||-26.5|-40.7|
91937158|NCT01375647|183771312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-17.5||||||||-17.5|-31.1|
91937159|NCT01375647|183771312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.6|-38.0||||||||-38.0|-52.6|
91937160|NCT01375647|183771313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.981
91937161|NCT01375647|183771314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91937162|NCT03788967|183771319|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in overall response was greater than -12.5%, non-inferiority was declared.|Risk Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.2||||||||3.2|-9.7|
91937163|NCT03788967|183771321|OTHER||Risk Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|1.9||||||||1.9|-11.3|
91937164|NCT03788967|183771322|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.4||||||Statistical Analysis 1 (EOT)||3.4|-0.1|
91937165|NCT03788967|183771322|OTHER||Risk Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.8||||||Statistical Analysis 2 (TOC)||2.8|-4|
91937166|NCT03788967|183771322|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.6||||||Statistical Analysis 3 (LFU)||2.6|-5.7|
91937167|NCT03788967|183771323|OTHER||Risk Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.3|
91937168|NCT03788967|183771324|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.6||||||||0.6|-3.8|
91937169|NCT03788967|183771325|OTHER||Risk Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.3||||||||2.3|-3.3|
91937170|NCT03788967|183771326|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.2||||||||3.2|-0.2|
91937171|NCT03788967|183771327|OTHER||Risk Difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.8||||||||0.8|-5.3|
91937172|NCT03788967|183771328|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.6||||||||2.6|-5.1|
91937173|NCT03788967|183771329|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.1||||||Statistical Analysis 1 (EOT)||4.1|-0.8|
91937174|NCT03788967|183771329|OTHER||Risk Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.9||||||Statistical Analysis 2 (TOC)||1.9|-10.8|
91937175|NCT03788967|183771329|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.0||||||||5|-7.9|
91937176|NCT03788967|183771333|OTHER||Risk Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||||||||1.2|-1.6|
91769375|NCT02365649|183425742|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||86.7|-20.0|0.250
91937177|NCT03788967|183771334|OTHER||Risk Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.7||||||||0.7|-12.4|
91937178|NCT03788967|183771335|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.3||||||||5.3|-8.5|
91937179|NCT03788967|183771339|OTHER||Risk Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|4.1||||||Overall response for participants with AP||4.1|-13.5|
91937180|NCT03788967|183771339|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.7||||||Overall response in participants with cUTI||7.7|-11.0|
91937181|NCT03788967|183771340|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|9.9||||||||9.9|-7.2|
91937182|NCT03788967|183771340|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|3.8||||||≥65 to \<75 years||3.8|-20.6|
91937183|NCT03788967|183771340|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|8.7||||||≥75 years||8.7|-23.8|
91937184|NCT03788967|183771341|OTHER||Risk Difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.5||||||Central and Eastern Europe||3.5|-9.6|
91937185|NCT03788967|183771342|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.044
91937186|NCT03788967|183771343|OTHER|||||||0.736|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.736
91937187|NCT01316939|183771364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.8||||||Placebo Vs GSK1605786A 500 mg once daily at Week 28 and 52||4.8|-12.9|
91937188|NCT01316939|183771364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.6||||||Placebo Vs GSK1605786A 500 mg BID at Week 28 and 52||1.6|-14.8|
91937189|NCT01316939|183771365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|4.2||||||Placebo Vs GSK1605786A 500 mg once daily at Week 28 and 52||4.2|-12.2|
91937190|NCT01316939|183771365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.6||||||||2.6|-13.1|
91937191|NCT01281189|183771423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91||||0.8568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.751|34.576|||ANCOVA|Includes treatment as a fixed effect and adjusts for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from sx onset, site of onset, and use of riluzole.||||34.576|-28.751|0.8568
91937192|NCT01281189|183771424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.427|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from symptom onset to the first dose of study treatment, site of onset, and use of riluzole.|||Hazard Ratio (HR) (Dex/PBO)|1.427|0.750|0.8375
91937193|NCT01281189|183771425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|0.076||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|1.28|||mixed-effects repeated-measures model|Mixed-effects repeated-measures model with treatment, visit, treatment-by visit interaction, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline-by-visit interaction|The mixed-effects repeated-measures model also adjusted for the following covariates: duration from symptom onset, site of onset, and use of riluzole.|||1.280|-1.128|0.9019
91937194|NCT01281189|183771426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.348|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from symptom onset to the first dose of study treatment, site of onset, and use of riluzole||||1.348|0.801|0.7715
91937195|NCT01281189|183771427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.298|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from symptom onset to the first dose of study treatment, site of onset, and use of riluzole||||1.298|0.745|0.9033
91937196|NCT01281189|183771428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.192|||Cox Proportional Hazards model||Hazard ratio (Dex/PBO)|||1.192|0.789|0.7720
91937197|NCT03351478|183771429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.62|< 0.0001
91937198|NCT03351478|183771429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.28|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.28|-0.04|0.145
91937199|NCT03351478|183771430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.76|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.76|-4.87|0.1529
91937200|NCT03351478|183771430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.3377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.55|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||3.55|-1.21|0.3377
91937201|NCT03351478|183771431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline 2-hour postprandial glucose as a covariate.||-0.5|-1.33|<0.0001
91937202|NCT03351478|183771431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.3|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥ 130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline 2-hour postprandial glucose as a covariate.||0.3|-0.37|0.8397
91937203|NCT03351478|183771432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-0.35|-1.25|0.0005
91937204|NCT03351478|183771432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.7|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||0.7|-0.09|0.1339
91937205|NCT03351478|183771433|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-1.54|-2.95|<0.0001
91937206|NCT03351478|183771433|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.19|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||1.19|-0.17|0.1407
91937207|NCT03351478|183771434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.17|-3.89|0.0325
91769376|NCT02365649|183425742|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|95.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||95.6|-62.2|1.000
91769377|NCT02365649|183425742|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||4.4|-71.1|0.500
91937208|NCT03351478|183771434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.63|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||2.63|-0.42|0.1565
91937209|NCT03351478|183771435|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|8.1||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|12.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at the screening.||12.89|3.36|0.0048
91937210|NCT03351478|183771436|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|16.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.26|24.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at the screening.||24.52|9.26|0.0001
91937211|NCT00527072|183771491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.654||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|0.718|||exact binomial distribution|||null hypothesis H0: proportion = 0.30||0.718|0.586|0.05
91937212|NCT00527072|183771492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.791||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.844|||exact binomial distribution|||||0.844|0.730|0.05
91937213|NCT00527072|183771493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.646||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|0.711|||exact binomial distribution|||||0.711|0.577|0.05
91937214|NCT02657434|183771494|OTHER|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio, log|0.562|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.671|||Log Rank|||||0.671|0.471|<0.0001
91937215|NCT02657434|183771495|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.056|||Log Rank|||||1.056|0.709|0.1559
91937216|NCT02657434|183771495|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.056|||Log Rank|||||1.056|0.707|0.1546
91937217|NCT02657434|183771496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event free rate|4.68||||0.2606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|12.83|||z test|||||12.83|-3.47|0.2606
91937218|NCT02657434|183771497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.12||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|13.11|||Z-test|||||13.11|-2.87|0.2090
91769378|NCT02365649|183425742|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||4.4|-71.1|1.000
91769379|NCT01506271|183425743|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test based on unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|MK-7655 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.6|-6.2|< 0.001
91937219|NCT02657434|183771498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|14.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|5.9|0.0005
91937220|NCT02657434|183771499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.45|0.0024
91937221|NCT00608881|183771509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||π hat|0.494|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|0.534|||||π hat is the estimate of the probability π that a randomly selected subject treated with CoQ has a better outcome than a randomly selected subject treated with placebo. Under the null hypothesis of no effect of CoQ, π = 0.50.|In this joint rank analysis, subjects are ranked from worst to best outcome with subjects who die being assigned the worst ranks (and ranked according to the time of death) and subjects who survive being ranked more favorably in the order of the change from baseline to Month 60 in TFC score.||0.534|0.454|
91937222|NCT00608881|183771510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.91||||||||0.91|-0.44|
91769380|NCT01506271|183425743|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test based on unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||10.8|-2.0|< 0.001
91769381|NCT01506271|183425744|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||4.5|-4.7|0.979
91769382|NCT01506271|183425744|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference.|Percentage Difference|-1.8||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||1.5|-6.2|0.153
91937223|NCT00608881|183771511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.58||||||||1.58|-1.40|
91937224|NCT00608881|183771512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|3.79||||||||3.79|-6.68|
91937225|NCT00608881|183771513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.16||||||||2.16|-4.40|
91937226|NCT00608881|183771514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.39||||||||1.39|-1.48|
91937227|NCT00608881|183771515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|3.23||||||||3.23|-4.78|
91937228|NCT00608881|183771516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.14||||||||2.14|-1.32|
91937229|NCT00608881|183771517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.51||||||||1.51|-2.71|
91937230|NCT00608881|183771518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.87||||||||2.87|-2.28|
91937231|NCT00608881|183771519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|7.44||||||||7.44|0.31|
91937232|NCT00608881|183771520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.18||||||||3.18|-1.10|
91937233|NCT00608881|183771521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2||||||||1.20|0.81|
91937234|NCT00608881|183771522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15||||||||1.15|0.75|
91937235|NCT00510484|183771526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91769383|NCT01506271|183425745|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference.|Percentage Difference|0.9||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||4.7|-2.4|0.324
91769384|NCT01506271|183425745|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference|Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||3.2|-3.3|> 0.999
91769385|NCT01506271|183425746|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|20.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||20.1|-5.4|
91769386|NCT01506271|183425746|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|18.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||18.8|-6.7|
91769387|NCT01506271|183425747|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.4|-10.3|
91769388|NCT01506271|183425747|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|10.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||10.1|-5.0|
91769389|NCT01506271|183425748|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||12.7|-4.5|
91769390|NCT01506271|183425748|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|12.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||12.8|-4.4|
91769391|NCT01506271|183425749|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||3.9|-4.0|
91769392|NCT01506271|183425749|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.4|-4.8|
91769393|NCT01506271|183425750|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|2.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.3|-6.7|
91769394|NCT01506271|183425750|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||7.4|-3.7|
91769395|NCT01506271|183425751|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||0.6|-7.5|
91811851|NCT02730455|183498342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||1.28|0.35|0.222
91769396|NCT01506271|183425751|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|2.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.4|-6.7|
91769397|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Diarrhoea||8.1|-4.7|
91769398|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|8.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Diarrhoea||8.2|-4.6|
91769399|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nausea||6.9|-7.3|
91769400|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nausea||8.0|-6.5|
91769401|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vomiting||9.6|-2.3|
91769402|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vomiting||11.8|-0.7|
91769403|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Postoperative Infection||3.5|-7.6|
91769404|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Postoperative Infection||2.2|-8.4|
91769405|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Seroma||4.7|-2.4|
91769406|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Seroma||9.7|1.0|
91769407|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - ALT increased||6.6|-5.0|
91769408|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - ALT increased||6.7|-4.9|
91937236|NCT00510484|183771527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91937237|NCT00510484|183771528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91937238|NCT00510484|183771529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91937239|NCT00510484|183771530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91937240|NCT00510484|183771531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91937241|NCT00510484|183771532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.013
91937242|NCT00510484|183771533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91937243|NCT01106391|183771544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate of technical success (%)|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5|96.2|||||The 95% confidence interval was based on the exact confidence interval (Collett, 1991)|Since this was a feasibility study without comparisons, sample size was not determined based on statistical consideration. No formal hypothesis testing was performed either.||96.2|79.5|
91937244|NCT01106391|183771545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate of achieved primary safety(%)|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.1|99.6|||||The 95% confidence interval was based on the exact confidence interval (Collett, 1991)|Since this was a feasibility study without comparisons, sample size was not determined based on statistical consideration. No formal hypothesis testing was performed either.||99.6|88.1|
91769409|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - AST increased||7.3|-3.7|
91937245|NCT01181141|183771585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.0|-18.8|
91937246|NCT00118911|183771587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.631|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.337|<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.963|||ANCOVA|We used multiple imputation.||Hypothesis was that CBT would be superior to RES||-0.963|-8.30|<.03
91937247|NCT00118911|183771588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Those who were assigned to CBT and made a partial or full response maintained their gains over follow-up|We examined whether those in the CBT condition maintained their gains over time. Analysis was restricted to those assigned to CBT who were responders or partial responders.||.18|-.41|>.05
91937248|NCT05014542|183771589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 15) - mean (WOMAC total of group C in Week 15)|WOMAC total analysis between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the data distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
91937249|NCT05014542|183771590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain of group A at Week 15) - mean (WOMAC pain of group C at Week 15)|WOMAC pain analysis between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the data distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||<.001
91937250|NCT05014542|183771591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness of group A at Week 15) - mean (WOMAC stiffness of group C at Week 15)|WOMAC stiffness between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
91937251|NCT05014542|183771592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability of group A in Week 15) - mean (WOMAC functional disability of group C in Week 15)|WOMAC functional disability between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with a power of 95 % and a level of significance α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessment (the mid-spread).||||<0.001
91769410|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - AST increased||7.4|-3.7|
91769411|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Lipase increased||4.2|-6.5|
91937252|NCT05014542|183771593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS of group A in Week 15) - mean (VAS of group C in Week 15)|Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was compared between groups at Week 15, when the acupuncture of group A ended. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) presented the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
91937253|NCT05014542|183771594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ of group A in Week 15) - mean (KDSQ of group C in Week 15)|The Kidney Deficiency Syndrome Questionnaire (KDSQ) was compared between groups in Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of data distribution. The comparability of groups regarding the null hypothesis of similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were used to analyse the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessment.||||<0.001
91937254|NCT05014542|183771595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-774.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG of A group in Week 15) - mean (DRUG of C group in Week 15)|In Week 15, DRUG was compared between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
91937255|NCT05014542|183771596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (A group L knee in Week 15) - mean (C group L knee in Week 15)|Active extension of left (L) knees in Week 15 in the between-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.8493
91769412|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Lipase increased||3.0|-7.2|
91769413|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-0.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Hypertension||-0.3|-8.7|
91937256|NCT05014542|183771596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.107||||0.69654|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (A group R knee in Week 15) - mean (C group R knee in Week 15)|Active extension of the right (R) knees in Week 15 in the between-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.69654
91937257|NCT05014542|183771597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (active flexion L knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (active flexion L knee of group C at Week 15)|L knee flexion between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.490
91811852|NCT02730455|183498342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||1.06|0.28|0.073
91811853|NCT02730455|183498343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure.||1.08|0.29|0.085
91811854|NCT02730455|183498343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure.||1.04|0.28|0.067
91937258|NCT05014542|183771597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.517|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (active flexion R knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (active flexion R knee of group C at Week 15)|Right (R) knee flexion between groups in Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.517
91769414|NCT01506271|183425752|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Hypertension||4.3|-6.4|
91769415|NCT01506271|183425753|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Fisher Exact||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||0|0|> 0.999
91769416|NCT01506271|183425753|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Fisher Exact||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||0|0|> 0.999
91937259|NCT05014542|183771598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L upper leg of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of L upper leg of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the left (L) upper leg between groups analysis at Week 15. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessment.||||0.083
91937260|NCT05014542|183771598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R upper leg of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of R upper leg of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the right (R) upper leg between groups analysis at Week 15. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.084
91937261|NCT05014542|183771599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.341|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of L knee of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the left (L) knee in Week 15 was analysed between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.341
91937262|NCT05014542|183771599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of R knee of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the right (R) knee in between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.317
91937263|NCT05014542|183771600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 24) -mean (WOMAC total of group C in Week 24)|WOMAC total was analysed in Week 24 between groups, nine weeks after acupuncture ended. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tested the normality of the distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95 % power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
91769417|NCT01506271|183425754|NON_INFERIORITY|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.0|-9.1|0.001
91937264|NCT05014542|183771601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain of group A at Week 24) - mean (WOMAC pain of group C at Week 24)|WOMAC pain was analysed between groups 9 weeks after acupuncture ended in Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tested the normality distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data (the mid-spread).||||<.001
91937265|NCT05014542|183771602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness of group A in Week 24) - mean (WOMAC stiffness of group C in Week 24)|WOMAC stiffness between groups A and C in Week 24, 9 weeks after acupuncture ended. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of distribution. Group comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95 % power and a level of significance α=0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
91769418|NCT01506271|183425754|NON_INFERIORITY|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-2.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|5.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||5.3|-9.7|0.002
91769419|NCT01506271|183425755|NON_INFERIORITY|Two participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.2|-6.3|< 0.001
91937266|NCT05014542|183771603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability of group A in Week 24) - mean (WOMAC functional disability of group C in Week 24)|WOMAC functional disability at Week 24 was analysed between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of data. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables (to accept or reject the null hypothesis of comparability) was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
91769420|NCT01506271|183425755|NON_INFERIORITY|Two participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.3|-2.0|< 0.001
91769421|NCT01506271|183425756|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.4|-6.7|< 0.001
91937267|NCT05014542|183771604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS in Week 24 of group A) - mean (VAS in Week 24 of group C)|VAS was compared between groups in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data.||||<0.001
91937268|NCT05014542|183771605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ in Week 24 of group A) - mean (KDSQ in Week 24 of group C)|KDSQ between groups in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data.||||<0.001
91937269|NCT05014542|183771606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-581.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG in Week 24 of group A) - mean (DRUG in Week 24 of group C)|The DRUG between groups in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data.||||<0.001
91937270|NCT05014542|183771607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||mean (Act ext L of A group in Week 24) - mean (Act ext L of C group in Week 24)|Left (L) knee analysis between groups A and C in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% statistical power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessment.||||
91937271|NCT05014542|183771607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||mean (Act ext R knee of A group in Week 24) - mean (Act ext R knee of C group in Week 24)|Right (R) knee analysis between groups at Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of comparability between groups was tested by the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessment.||||
91937272|NCT05014542|183771608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.953|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (L knee act flexion of group A in Week 24) - mean (L knee act flexion of group C in Week 24)|Left (L) knee flexion between groups at Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of the distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at a specified assessment (time-point).||||0.953
91937273|NCT05014542|183771608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (R knee act flexion of group A in Week 24) - mean (R knee act flexion of group C in Week 24)|Right (R) knee flexion between groups at Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of the distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at an assessment.||||0.491
91937274|NCT05014542|183771609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L upper leg of group A in Week 24) - mean (circumference of L upper leg of group C in Week 24)|Circumference of the left (L) upper leg between groups in Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the normality of a distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of groups comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||0.261
91937275|NCT05014542|183771609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.273|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R upper leg of group A in Week 24) - mean (circumference of R upper leg of group C in Week 24)|Circumference of the R upper leg between groups at Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the normality of distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables (null hypothesis) was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||0.273
91769422|NCT01506271|183425756|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.5|-6.3|< 0.001
91769423|NCT01506271|183425757|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test based on Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-1.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.9|-9.6|0.002
91769424|NCT01506271|183425757|NON_INFERIORITY|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|8.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.2|-7.2|< 0.001
91769425|NCT01506271|183425758|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||7.4|-7.4|< 0.001
91937276|NCT05014542|183771610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.445|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L knees in Week 24 of group A) - mean (circumference of L knees in Week 24 of group C)|Circumference of left (L) knees in Week 24, in between-groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at an assessment.||||0.445
91937277|NCT05014542|183771610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R knees in Week 24 of group A) - mean (circumference of R knees in Week 24 of group C)|Circumference of right (R) knees at Week 24 was analysed between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||0.260
91937278|NCT05014542|183771611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 39) - mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 0)|Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupunctures ended) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline assessment by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The null hypothesis at weeks 0 and 39 was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95 % power and a level of significance α=0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the sample.||||<0.001
91937279|NCT05014542|183771611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC total in Week 0 of group C).|WOMAC total of group C in Week 39 was tested for the significance level and mean difference by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. WOMAC total at Week 0 (pre-experimental baseline assessment) and Week 39 were compared to test the null hypothesis of group comparability by the Mann-Whitney U test with 95 % power and a level of significance α=0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of a sample.||||< 0.001
91937280|NCT05014542|183771612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain in Week 39 of group A) - mean (WOMAC pain in Week 0 of group A)|The pain subscale of the WOMAC index of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupunctures ended) was compared with baseline by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range and standard deviation were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||<0.001
91937281|NCT05014542|183771612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC pain in Week 0 of group C)|The pain subscale of the WOMAC index of group C in Week 39 (end of acupuncture of group C) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range and standard deviation were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of data.||||<0.001
91937282|NCT05014542|183771613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 39 of group A) - mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 0 of group A)|The stiffness subscale of the WOMAC index of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
91937283|NCT05014542|183771613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 0 of group C)|The stiffness subscale of the WOMAC index of group C in Week 39 (end of acupuncture of group C) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range and standard deviation were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of data.||||<0.001
91769426|NCT01506271|183425758|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.6|-5.2|< 0.001
91769427|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Blood, lymphatic||5.1|-7.3|
91769428|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Blood, lymphatic||0.1|-10.3|
91769429|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Cardiac disorder||5.0|-5.2|
91769430|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Cardiac disorder||6.3|-4.5|
91811855|NCT02730455|183498344|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.97|1.64|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.64|-16.97|0.106
91811856|NCT02730455|183498344|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.1||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|3.27|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||3.27|-15.43|0.202
91811857|NCT02730455|183498345|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.99|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.99|-2.64|0.780
91937284|NCT05014542|183771614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability in Week 39 of group A) - mean(WOMAC functional disability in Week 0 of group A)|The functional disability subscale of the WOMAC index of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
91937285|NCT05014542|183771614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC functional disability in Week 0 of group C)|The functional disability subscale of the WOMAC index of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
91937286|NCT05014542|183771615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS in Week 39 of group A) - mean (VAS in Week 0 of group A)|VAS of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
91937287|NCT05014542|183771615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS in Week 39 of group C) - mean (VAS in Week 0 of group C)|VAS of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group C ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||< 0.001
91937288|NCT05014542|183771616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ in Week 39 of group A) - mean (KDSQ in Week 0 of group A)|KDSQ of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
91937289|NCT05014542|183771616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ in Week 39 of group C) - mean (KDSQ in Week 0 of group C)|KDSQ of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group C ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
91937290|NCT05014542|183771617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-361.4||||0.204|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG in Week 39 of group A) - mean (DRUG in Week 0 of group A)|The DRUG of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||0.204
91937291|NCT05014542|183771617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-305.4||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG in Week 39 of group C) - mean (DRUG in Week 0 of group C)|The DRUG of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group C ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||0.134
91937292|NCT05014542|183771618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (Lequesne index in Week 24 of A group) - mean (Lequesne index in Week 24 of C group)|The Lequesne index in Week 24 compared two confirmed comparable groups (at baseline), 9 weeks after acupuncture treatment in group A ended, while the C group was still a control. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The between-group comparability test at Week 24 was provided to accept or reject the null hypothesis by the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95 % power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion.||||< 0.001
91769431|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|15.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - GI disorders||15.3|-3.9|
91937293|NCT04446299|183771686|NON_INFERIORITY|The predetermined non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|8.52|||Mantel Haenszel|||||8.52|-1.68|<0.001
91937294|NCT03819478|183771689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.4880
91937295|NCT03819478|183771689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1683|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1683
91937296|NCT03819478|183771690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7636|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.7636
91937297|NCT03819478|183771691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1584|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1584
91769432|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - GI disorders||13.6|-5.4|
91769433|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Gen. dis \& admin.||11.0|-2.0|
91769434|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Gen. dis \& admin.||7.8|-4.2|
91937298|NCT03819478|183771691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1623|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1623
91937299|NCT03819478|183771692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.0350
91937300|NCT03819478|183771693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2422|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.2422
91937301|NCT03819478|183771693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5082|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.5082
91937302|NCT03819478|183771694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5119|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.5119
91937303|NCT03819478|183771694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4902|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.4902
91769435|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Infect. \& Infest.||12.0|-3.6|
91769436|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Infect. \& Infest.||8.0|-6.5|
91769437|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Injury, poison.||5.1|-7.3|
91769438|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 1250mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Injury, poison.||8.5|-5.0|
91769439|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|7.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Investigations||7.4|-9.8|
91769440|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Investigations||6.5|-10.5|
91937304|NCT03819478|183771695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.8500
91937305|NCT03819478|183771696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3685|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.3685
91937306|NCT03819478|183771696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0894|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.0894
91937307|NCT03819478|183771697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5334|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.5334
91937308|NCT03819478|183771698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1573|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1573
91937309|NCT00091962|183771704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||repeated measures mixed-effect model with treatment, time (4 time points), and sex; all 2- and 3-factor interaction terms with subject intercepts were treated as a random effect to account for individual differences at randomization.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91937310|NCT01488409|183771707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91937311|NCT01488409|183771708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
91937312|NCT01488409|183771709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91937313|NCT01488409|183771710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91937314|NCT01488409|183771711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91937315|NCT03258632|183771729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|0.73|<.05
91937316|NCT03162458|183771731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91937317|NCT03162458|183771732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
91937318|NCT03162458|183771733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.055
91937319|NCT03162458|183771734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.051
91937320|NCT03162458|183771735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||Mean body temperatures, measured in the morning on Days 2-5 (based on patient diary data)||||0.19
91937321|NCT03162458|183771735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Mean body temperatures, measured in the evening on Days 2-5 (based on patient diary data)||||0.44
91937322|NCT03162458|183771736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
91937323|NCT03162458|183771737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91937324|NCT03162458|183771738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91937325|NCT03162458|183771739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
91937326|NCT03162458|183771740|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91937327|NCT01183312|183771743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank (paired)|||||||0.77
91937328|NCT01183312|183771744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.51
91937329|NCT01183312|183771745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.32
91937330|NCT01183312|183771746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.56
91937331|NCT01183312|183771747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.14
91937332|NCT01183312|183771748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.89
91937333|NCT01183312|183771749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.13
91937334|NCT04491240|183771755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|73.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|82.91404||0.020875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.97687|132.6031|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||132.6031|13.97687|0.020875
91769441|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nervous System||2.2|-8.4|
91937335|NCT04491240|183771755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|69.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.67648||0.000953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.88502|102.235|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||102.2350|36.88502|0.000953
91937336|NCT04491240|183771755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|53.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.85531||0.002233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.69923|81.72077|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||81.72077|24.69923|0.002233
91937337|NCT04491240|183771756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|331.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|315.823||0.008948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.5938|557.4462|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||557.4462|105.5938|0.008948
91769442|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nervous System||2.2|-8.4|
91937338|NCT04491240|183771756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|366.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|414.9726||0.020921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.77651|663.4835|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||663.4835|69.77651|0.020921
91937339|NCT04491240|183771756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|239.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|204.0934||0.004873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.20037|385.1996|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||385.1996|93.20037|0.004873
91937340|NCT03549117|183771759|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.15||||0.8142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.45||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||1.45|-1.14|0.8142
91769443|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|5.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Psychiatric disorders||5.4|-5.7|
91769444|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|5.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Psychiatric disorders||5.5|-5.7|
91937341|NCT03549117|183771759|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.84||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep Time Problems.||0.84|-2.23|0.3690
91937342|NCT03549117|183771759|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.7995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.25||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline; between treatment 95% CI.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Symptoms on Waking in the Morning.||1.25|-1.61|0.7995
91769445|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Renal \& Urinary||3.0|-7.2|
91937343|NCT03549117|183771759|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15||||0.7285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.98||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Practical Problems.||0.98|-0.69|0.7285
91937344|NCT03549117|183771760|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.7961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.17||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||1.17|-1.52|0.7961
91937345|NCT03549117|183771760|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.86||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.68||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep time problems.||0.68|-2.41|0.2710
91937346|NCT03549117|183771760|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.9236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.45||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for symptoms on waking in the morning.||1.45|-1.60|0.9236
91937347|NCT03549117|183771760|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.8756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.75||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for practical problems.||0.75|-0.87|0.8756
91937348|NCT03549117|183771761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.9314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.42||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.42|-0.38|0.9314
91937349|NCT03549117|183771761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.8005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.35||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.35|-0.45|0.8005
91937350|NCT03549117|183771761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.4||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||0.40|-0.38|0.9613
91937351|NCT03549117|183771761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.4966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.26||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.26|-0.54|0.4966
91937352|NCT03549117|183771762|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.45|-0.39|0.8775
91937353|NCT03549117|183771762|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.35||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.35|-0.47|0.7747
91937354|NCT03549117|183771762|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.8535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.47||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||0.47|-0.39|0.8535
91937355|NCT03549117|183771762|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.35||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.35|-0.47|0.7720
91937356|NCT03549117|183771763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9258|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.9258
91937357|NCT03549117|183771763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2368|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test.||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.2368
91937358|NCT03549117|183771763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4432|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4432
91937359|NCT03549117|183771763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9856|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.9856
91937360|NCT03549117|183771763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7854|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test.||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.7854
91937361|NCT03549117|183771763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4141|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.4141
91937362|NCT03549117|183771763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3028|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.3028
91937363|NCT03549117|183771763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3955|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.3955
91937364|NCT03549117|183771764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3826|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.3826
91937365|NCT03549117|183771764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6251|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.6251
91937366|NCT03549117|183771764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2381|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.2381
91937367|NCT03549117|183771764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4245|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4245
91937368|NCT03549117|183771764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8213|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.8213
91769446|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Renal \& Urinary||3.0|-7.2|
91937369|NCT03549117|183771764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1823|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.1823
91937370|NCT03549117|183771764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7744|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.7744
91937371|NCT03549117|183771764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5811|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.5811
91937372|NCT00605072|183771771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||p-value for between group comparison (group\*visit)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline AGE and Mini-Mental-State-Examination||||||0.008
91937373|NCT00605072|183771772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age||||||0.74
91937374|NCT00605072|183771773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age at baseline||||||0.81
91937375|NCT00605072|183771774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
91769447|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|0.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Resp. \& chest||0.7|-10.7|
91937376|NCT00605072|183771775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
91937377|NCT02259127|183771776|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.03|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Primary: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis specification: Pre-specified"||-0.03|-0.14|= 0.004
91937378|NCT02259127|183771776|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.18|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for trial cohort (ODYSSEY A or ODYSSEY B)|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (Frequentist \<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.02|-0.36|=0.057
91937379|NCT02259127|183771776|NON_INFERIORITY|Bayesian estimation was used for the primary analysis of the difference in treatment failure by 96 weeks by arm in \<14kg cohort. An informative prior distribution was used based on the treatment effect observed in \>=14kg cohort, with relative weight defined by clinical opinion, solicited prior to the main trial results.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for trial cohort (ODYSSEY A or ODYSSEY B)|"Statistical Analysis Title: Primary: diff in adj. KM estimates (Bayesian \<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.02|-0.19|0.02
91937380|NCT02259127|183771776|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.04|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY A\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.04|-0.21|0.003
91769448|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Resp. \& chest||4.4|-8.4|
91769449|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|8.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Skin \& subcutan.||8.1|-2.4|
91769450|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Skin \& subcutan.||4.5|-4.7|
91937381|NCT02259127|183771776|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.03|-0.12|0.22
91937382|NCT02259127|183771777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||=|0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 665~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||11|-1|= 0.1377
91937383|NCT02259127|183771777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||=|0.8895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|8.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 286~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||8|-10|= 0.8895
91937384|NCT02259127|183771777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0|||=|0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 381~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||17|0.4|=0.0435
91937385|NCT02259127|183771777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|47.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||47|6|0.021
91937386|NCT02259127|183771778|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0|||=|0.2256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 670~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||8|-2|= 0.2256
91937387|NCT02259127|183771778|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||=|0.9536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 286~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||7|-8|= 0.9536
91769451|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vascular disorders||2.0|-9.9|
91769452|NCT01506271|183425760|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vascular disorders||6.6|-6.9|
91769453|NCT00539994|183425780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91937388|NCT02259127|183771778|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||=|0.1104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 384~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||12|-1|= 0.1104
91937389|NCT02259127|183771778|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|37.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||37|2|0.038
91937390|NCT02259127|183771779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.0|||=|0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|82.0|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of CD4 at week 96, adjusted for randomised arm, baseline CD4 and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||82|-12|= 0.144
91937391|NCT02259127|183771779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|109.0|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of CD4 at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline CD4 and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||109|-21|0.185
91769454|NCT00539994|183425780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91937392|NCT02259127|183771779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.0|||=|0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|93.0|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of CD4 at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline CD4 and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||93|-39|= 0.427
91937393|NCT02259127|183771779|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-308.0|368.0|||Regression, Linear|||||368|-308|0.86
91937394|NCT02259127|183771780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-11.1|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-11.1|-19|< 0.001
91769455|NCT01928927|183425823|SUPERIORITY||Theta statistic|0.5||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.73||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Theta statistic; DeLong & Clarke-Pearson||The theta statistic estimates the probability that a randomly selected outcome from the telmisartan arm is \<= a randomly selected outcome from the control arm.|Null hypothesis: theta = 0.50||0.73|0.26|0.97
91769456|NCT01928927|183425824|SUPERIORITY||Theta statistic|0.57||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Theta statistic; DeLong & Clarke-Pearson||The theta statistic estimates the probability that a randomly selected outcome from the telmisartan arm is \<= a randomly selected outcome from the control arm.|Null hypothesis: theta = 0.50||0.83|0.31|0.61
91769457|NCT01604291|183425891|OTHER|||||||0.9109||||||The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|Chi-squared|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Gender||||0.9109
91769458|NCT01604291|183425891|OTHER|||||||0.1163||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Age||||0.1163
91769459|NCT01604291|183425891|OTHER|||||||0.9269||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Height||||0.9269
91769460|NCT01604291|183425891|OTHER|||||||0.3376||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Weight||||0.3376
91937395|NCT02259127|183771780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||=|0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-8.5|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\<14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-8.5|-40.3|= 0.0032
91937396|NCT02259127|183771780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-11.1|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-11.1|-23.9|< 0.001
91937397|NCT02259127|183771780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-8.4|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-8.4|-18.5|< 0.001
91937398|NCT02259127|183771781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||=|0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.36|0.55|= 0.53
91937399|NCT02259127|183771781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.49|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.49|0.47|= 0.86
91937400|NCT02259127|183771781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.46|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.46|0.48|= 0.52
91769461|NCT01604291|183425891|OTHER|||||||0.4618||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Body mass index.||||0.4618
91811858|NCT02730455|183498345|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.73|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.73|-2.89|0.622
91937401|NCT02259127|183771781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.04|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.04|0.42|= 0.86
91937402|NCT02259127|183771782|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.13|0.61|= 0.24
91769462|NCT01604291|183425904|OTHER||phi-coefficient|-0.0835||||0.0463|||||||Chi-squared|The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|phi-coefficient is a measure of the degree of association between two binary variables|Correlation with dose modification for Peginterferon alfa-2a.||||0.0463
91937403|NCT02259127|183771782|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.74|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.74|0.5|= 0.83
91937404|NCT02259127|183771782|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.7|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.7|0.75|= 0.57
91937405|NCT02259127|183771782|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.88|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.88|0.33|= 0.01
91937406|NCT02259127|183771783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.77|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.77|0.11|= 0.01
91811859|NCT02730455|183498346|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||3.40|-1.10|0.315
91937407|NCT02259127|183771783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.33|0.09|= 0.13
91937408|NCT02259127|183771783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.03|0.05|0.055
91769463|NCT01604291|183425904|OTHER||phi-coefficient|0.0666||||0.2052|||||||Chi-squared|The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|phi-coefficient is a measure of the degree of association between two binary variables.|Correlation with dose modification for Ribavirin.||||0.2052
91769464|NCT01604291|183425904|OTHER||phi-coefficient|-0.1672||||0.0033|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|phi-coefficient is a measure of the degree of association between two binary variables.|Correlation with dose modification for Telaprevir/boceprevir.||||0.0033
91769465|NCT02775916|183425926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.332|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.343|1.937||||||||1.937|-3.343|
91937409|NCT02259127|183771784|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.02|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 48 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 48 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.02|-0.1|= 0.003
91937410|NCT02259127|183771784|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.01|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 48 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 48 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.01|-0.13|= 0.035
91937411|NCT02259127|183771784|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.004|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 48 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 48 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.004|-0.11|= 0.039
91937412|NCT02259127|183771784|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.18||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Other [Bootstrap method]|||||0.02|-0.36|0.057
91937413|NCT02259127|183771785|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.04|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 144 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 144 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.04|-0.16|= 0.003
91937414|NCT02259127|183771785|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.03|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 144 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 144 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.03|-0.21|= 0.009
91937415|NCT02259127|183771785|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.01|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 144 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 144 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.01|-0.16|= 0.079
91937416|NCT02259127|183771786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.68|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.68|0.38|= 0.993
91937417|NCT02259127|183771786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2|0.13|= 0.33
91937418|NCT02259127|183771786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.12|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||3.12|0.32|= 0.991
91937419|NCT02259127|183771786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.13|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||7.13|0.14|= 0.997
91937420|NCT02259127|183771787|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 677~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.01|-0.12|= 0.015
91769466|NCT02775916|183425927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.466|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.55||||||||3.55|-2.52|
91769467|NCT02775916|183425928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|6.89||||||||6.89|-6.08|
91769468|NCT02775916|183425928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.615|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|13.93||||||||13.93|-5.27|
91937421|NCT02259127|183771787|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.172|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.029|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for trial cohort (ODYSSEY A or ODYSSEY B)|"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted difference (frequentist \<14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.029|-0.362|= 0.075
91937422|NCT02259127|183771787|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.126|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.036|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 295~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.036|-0.21|= 0.004
91937423|NCT02259127|183771787|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.023|||=|0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.056|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 382~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.056|-0.096|= 0.547
91937424|NCT02259127|183771802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.7|0.3|= 0.004
91937425|NCT02259127|183771802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.5|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of weight at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline weight and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.5|0.2|= 0.024
91937426|NCT02259127|183771802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusting Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of weight at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline weight and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.6|-0.1|= 0.075
91937427|NCT02259127|183771802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||||0.5|-0.8|0.67
91937428|NCT02259127|183771803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of BMI-for-age at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline BMI-for-age and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.25|0.01|= 0.036
91937429|NCT02259127|183771803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.36|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of BMI-for-age at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline BMI-for-age and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.36|-0.03|=0.092
91937430|NCT02259127|183771803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||=|0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of BMI-for-age at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline BMI-for-age and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.25|-0.05|=0.176
91937431|NCT02259127|183771803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||||0.5|-1.1|0.50
91937432|NCT00719862|183771804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3782||0.005||95.0|-1.8|-0.31|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.31|-1.80|0.005
91937433|NCT00719862|183771805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2987|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1881||0.112||95.0|-0.67|0.07|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||0.07|-0.67|0.112
91937434|NCT00719862|183771806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8617|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3803||0.023||95.0|-1.61|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.12|-1.61|0.023
91937435|NCT00719862|183771807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7395|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3305||0.025||95.0|-1.39|-0.09|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline||-0.09|-1.39|0.025
91937436|NCT00719862|183771808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|||Change from baseline||||0.051
91937437|NCT00107172|183771832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.98|||Log Rank|Competing risk P-value = 0.91.||The competing risk analysis accounting for death/regional and distant recurrence as competing events was performed.||1.98|0.51|0.98
91769469|NCT02775916|183425929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|8.66||||||||8.66|-21.76|
91769470|NCT02775916|183425930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.626|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.94|9.0||||||||9.00|-30.94|
91769471|NCT02775916|183425931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.595|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.75|14.37||||||||14.37|-29.75|
91937438|NCT00107172|183771833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.71|0.75
91937439|NCT00107172|183771838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 30 between arms.||||0.37
91937440|NCT00107172|183771838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 90 between arms.||||0.25
91937441|NCT00107172|183771839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ respiratory adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 30 between arms.||||0.35
91937442|NCT00107172|183771839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ respiratory adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 90 between arms.||||0.31
91937443|NCT00107172|183771842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR arm.||||0.03
91937444|NCT00107172|183771842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR + BX arm.||||0.18
91937445|NCT00107172|183771843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR arm.||||0.38
91937446|NCT00107172|183771843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR + BX arm.||||0.16
91937447|NCT04268303|183771844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91937448|NCT04268303|183771844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91937449|NCT04268303|183771845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91937450|NCT04268303|183771845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91937451|NCT04268303|183771845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91937452|NCT04268303|183771845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91937453|NCT04268303|183771845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91937454|NCT04268303|183771845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91937455|NCT04268303|183771845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91937456|NCT04268303|183771845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||0.0075
91937457|NCT04268303|183771845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.0032
91937458|NCT04268303|183771845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4097|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.4097
91937459|NCT04268303|183771845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0457|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 10 minutes post-dose||||0.0457
91937460|NCT04268303|183771845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 10 minutes post-dose||||0.9720
91937461|NCT03706040|183771860|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.0||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||27.7|-1.7|0.084
91937462|NCT03706040|183771860|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.0||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.6|-4.6|0.179
91937463|NCT03706040|183771861|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.7||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||20.0|-2.5|0.129
91937464|NCT03706040|183771861|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||9.4|-9.4|0.994
91937465|NCT03706040|183771862|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||22.1|5.4|0.001
91937466|NCT03706040|183771862|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.0|6.6|<0.001
91937467|NCT03706040|183771863|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.073||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|11.61|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.61|-32.25|0.353
91937468|NCT03706040|183771863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.305||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.24|5.53|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||5.53|-39.24|0.139
91937469|NCT03706040|183771866|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.9||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||31.4|-5.6|0.171
91937470|NCT03706040|183771866|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.7||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.5|-13.1|0.552
91937471|NCT03706040|183771868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||21.6|1.7|0.022
91937472|NCT03706040|183771868|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.8||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||14.4|-2.9|0.192
91937473|NCT03706040|183771871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.506||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.15|2.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||2.68|-15.15|0.169
91937474|NCT03706040|183771871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.589||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|3.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.22|-14.94|0.204
91937475|NCT03706040|183771873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.7||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||23.1|-9.7|0.422
91811860|NCT02730455|183498346|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.56|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.56|-2.96|0.542
91937476|NCT03706040|183771873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.2||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||10.0|-20.3|0.505
91937477|NCT03706040|183771875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||17.3|3.0|0.005
91937478|NCT03706040|183771875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.9||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||6.8|-1.1|0.151
91937479|NCT03706040|183771877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.3|0.4|0.035
91937480|NCT03706040|183771877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.5||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||4.4|-1.4|0.311
91811861|NCT02730455|183498349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||"mRS: The Cochran-Armitage trend test of a monotonically increasing dose response in proportion of excellent outcome.~Dose levels are log transformed."||||0.028
91811862|NCT02730455|183498349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||BI: The Cochran-Armitage trend test of a monotonically increasing dose response in proportion of excellent outcome. Dose levels are log transformed.||||0.049
91937481|NCT03706040|183771879|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.3||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.5|-12.0|0.965
91937482|NCT03706040|183771879|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.1||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||8.1|-14.3|0.583
91937483|NCT03706040|183771883|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.9|-13.0|0.539
91937484|NCT03706040|183771883|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.2||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|31.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||31.5|-7.0|0.213
91937485|NCT03706040|183771885|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.6|-3.6|0.988
91937486|NCT03706040|183771885|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||2.7|-4.7|0.594
91811863|NCT00001723|183498404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91811864|NCT01324999|183498424|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing baseline to week 24.||||0.68
91811865|NCT01324999|183498425|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
91811866|NCT01324999|183498426|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
91811867|NCT01324999|183498427|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparing baseline to week 24||||0.19
91811868|NCT01324999|183498428|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing Baseline to week 24.||||0.68
91811869|NCT01324999|183498429|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparing baseline to week 24||||0.92
91811870|NCT01324999|183498430|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline to week 24||||0.44
91937487|NCT03706040|183771889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6137||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.531|-0.105|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.105|-2.531|0.033
91937488|NCT03706040|183771889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.626||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.885|-0.411|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.411|-2.885|0.009
91937489|NCT00439725|183771893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3858|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.393||1st test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (confidence interval) (two-sided testing).||0.393|0.087|< 0.0001
91937490|NCT00439725|183771894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385|<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.383||2nd test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant. If the 1st test in hierarchy was significant.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing).||0.383|0.085|< 0.0001
91937491|NCT00439725|183771895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3659|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.405||3rd test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant. If the previous tests in hierarchy were significant|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing).||0.405|0.096|< 0.0001
91937492|NCT00439725|183771896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3274|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.528||4th test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant. If the previous tests in hierarchy were significant|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing).||0.528|0.146|< 0.0001
91937493|NCT00439725|183771899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1121||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison.|Log Rank|||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing), comparison was done for the treatment emergent (within two days after end of treatment) bleeding events.||||0.1121
91937494|NCT00439725|183771900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4131|<|0.0001||95.0|2.307|11.652||No adjustment for multiple comparison, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment done for treatment-emergent (time window: 2 days)||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing), comparison was done for the treatment emergent (within two days after end of treatment) bleeding events.||11.652|2.307|< 0.0001
91811871|NCT01712490|183498432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|0.983|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio (A+AVD/ABVD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) are based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region and number of International Prognostic Factor Project (IPFP) risk factors at baseline with treatment as the explanatory variable in the model. Hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 favors A+AVD arm.||0.983|0.603|0.035
91937495|NCT01673490|183771926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91937496|NCT01673490|183771927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||for Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91937497|NCT01673490|183771927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||for Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91937498|NCT00379236|183771929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Screening pain score was the covariate; study center was modeled as a random effect while all other variables were modeled as fixed effects.||||||0.008
91937499|NCT00379236|183771930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is purely nominal|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91937500|NCT00379236|183771931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
91811872|NCT01712490|183498433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.184|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio (A+AVD/ABVD) and 95% CI are based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region and number of IPFP risk factors at baseline with treatment as the explanatory variable in the model. Hazard ratio \<1 favors A+AVD arm.||1.184|0.448|0.199
91937501|NCT00379236|183771932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.047
91811873|NCT00060008|183498466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
91937502|NCT00379236|183771933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.618
91937503|NCT00379236|183771934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
91937504|NCT00379236|183771935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline pain score was the covariate; study center was modeled as a random effect while all other variables were modeled as fixed effects.||||||0.002
91937505|NCT00379236|183771946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91937506|NCT02940860|183771952|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority could be claimed if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was above -0.5 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23|||||The Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) used for testing, included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, strata, and the continuous covariates of baseline Hb and baseline Hb-by-week interaction.|"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose treatment group and with N=500 subjects in the iron sucrose treatment group, assuming no difference between the treatment groups and assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 1.5 g/dL, the power was 100% for demonstrating non-inferiority of the change in Hb from baseline to week 8, using a non-inferiority margin of -0.5 g/dL.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.23|-0.06|
91811874|NCT00560859|183498474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of change from baseline|2.0||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.16
91811875|NCT03653637|183498549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.3|||Regression, Cox|This model adjusted for site and lifetime suicide attempt history.|The HR represents the PLF+TAU group compared to TAU.|||1.30|0.43|0.263
91937507|NCT02940860|183771953|OTHER||95% two-sided CI (iron isomaltoside)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.86||||||"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose, the power was 88% to demonstrate that the upper bound of the 95% CI of the incidence of treatment-emergent serious and/or severe non-serious hypersensitivity AEs was less than 3%.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.86|0.06|
91937508|NCT02940860|183771953|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.77||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the individual trial with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.77|-0.19|
91937509|NCT02940860|183771953|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be claimed if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.5 % point.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the pooled FERWON-IDA and FERWON-NEPHRO trials (2008 subjects treated with iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 1000 subjects treated with iron sucrose) with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.48|-0.57|
91937510|NCT02940860|183771954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated and confirmed treatment-emergent composite cardiovascular AEs. Any treatment emergent composite cardiovascular AEs were included in the statistical evaluation. The overall incidence of adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was tabulated and compared between the treatment groups by a Fisher's exact test.||||0.0248
91937511|NCT02940860|183771955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0185|||||||Log Rank|||The time to first adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a log-rank test.||||0.0185
91937512|NCT02940860|183771957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 1~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 1.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.87|1.00|0.0478
91937513|NCT02940860|183771957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.36|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 2~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 2.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||2.36|1.39|<0.0001
91937514|NCT02940860|183771957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.79|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 4~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 4.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.79|1.11|0.0048
91937515|NCT02940860|183771957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 8~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 8.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.27|0.80|0.9440
91937516|NCT02940860|183771958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Hb response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a 2-sided log-rank test.||||0.0174
91937517|NCT02940860|183771959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.5074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of subjects who achieved a Hb level of \>12 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects. The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value.||1.45|0.83|0.5074
91811876|NCT03653637|183498552|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.3||p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.30|-.43|.72
91937518|NCT02940860|183771960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||"The proportion of subjects who achieved an increase in Hb concentration ≥2 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose was presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||1.60|0.96|0.1035
91937519|NCT02940860|183771961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||"Proportion of subject who achieved a s-ferritin level of ≥100 ng/mL AND a TSAT of 20-50% at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||2.40|1.38|<0.0001
91937520|NCT02940860|183771962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.31|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.31|0.12|<0.0001
91937521|NCT02940860|183771962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.36|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.36|0.14|<0.0001
91937522|NCT02940860|183771962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.28|0.02|0.0208
91811877|NCT03653637|183498553|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.3||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.30|-.43|.23
91937523|NCT02940860|183771963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|309.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|280.7|337.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||337.8|280.7|<0.0001
91937524|NCT02940860|183771963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|95.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|123.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||123.7|67.9|<0.0001
91937525|NCT02940860|183771963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.7834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|28.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||28.1|-21.2|0.7834
91937526|NCT02940860|183771963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.7621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|24.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||24.7|-18.1|0.7621
91937527|NCT02940860|183771964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|10.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||10.7|6.9|<0.0001
91937528|NCT02940860|183771964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.4|0.3|0.0129
91937529|NCT02940860|183771964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.5|-0.4|0.2403
91937530|NCT02940860|183771964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.2|-0.9|0.8094
91937531|NCT02940860|183771965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|32.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||32.7|20.4|<0.0001
91811878|NCT03653637|183498554|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.27||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-0.04|0.58||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.58|-.04|.09
91937532|NCT02940860|183771965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.2229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||5.1|-1.2|0.2229
91937533|NCT02940860|183771965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.6|-2.9|0.9046
91811879|NCT03653637|183498555|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.76||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|||2.76|-.42|.15
91937534|NCT02940860|183771965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 8 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||0.8|-5.8|0.1307
91937535|NCT02940860|183771966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.92|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.92|-0.73|0.8196
91937536|NCT02940860|183771966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.7132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.73|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.73|-1.06|0.7132
91937537|NCT02940860|183771966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.25|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||1.25|-0.71|0.5860
91937538|NCT04914819|183771972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in weight among participants who completed final assessment||10.8|0.04|0.048
91937539|NCT04914819|183771973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
91937540|NCT04914819|183771974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.331
91937541|NCT04914819|183771975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.734
91811880|NCT03653637|183498556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.91|-1.78|.52
91937542|NCT03961295|183771979|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.2984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0786|1.5486||||||Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of variance (ANCOVA) with weight as a covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.||1.5486|1.0786|
91937543|NCT03961295|183771980|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.3274|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1147|1.5807||||||Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.||1.5807|1.1147|
91937544|NCT03961295|183771981|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.1978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0394|1.3804||||||Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.||1.3804|1.0394|
91937545|NCT00962754|183772031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority since our hypothesis was that there would be no difference in outcome between the intervention and the control group.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||"log transformation of mean duration of hospitalization,difference between two groups expressed as ratio of geometric means for duration. 95% confidence intervals calculated using bootstrapping method.~correction by linear regression model"|t-test, 2 sided|||We calculated that 85 patients in each group would give a power in excess of 85% to detect a difference of two days or more in the geometric mean length of hospital stay with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.19|0.81|<0.05
91937546|NCT00438464|183772054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91811881|NCT03653637|183498557|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|188.5||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimation parameter statistic provided is the U value from the Mann-Whitney U test.|||||.83
91937547|NCT00438464|183772055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91937548|NCT00438464|183772056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91937549|NCT00438464|183772057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.805
91937550|NCT00438464|183772058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
91937551|NCT00438464|183772059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF3, Within GG3||||0.70
91937552|NCT00438464|183772059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Estrogen receptor beta (ERβ), Within GG3||||0.38
91937553|NCT00438464|183772059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Androgen receptor (AR), Within GG3||||0.41
91937554|NCT00438464|183772059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within GG3||||0.75
91937555|NCT00438464|183772059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-oxo-5α-steroid 4-dehydrogenase 2 (SRD5A2), Within GG3||||0.57
91937556|NCT00438464|183772059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2C (UBE2C), Within GG3||||0.12
91937557|NCT00438464|183772059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cleaved Caspase 3 (Caspase), Within GG3||||0.03
91937558|NCT00438464|183772060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Vascular Epithelial Growth Factor (VEGF3), Within GG4||||0.45
91937559|NCT00438464|183772060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Estrogen receptor beta (ERβ), Within GG4||||0.83
91937560|NCT00438464|183772060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Androgen receptor (AR), Within GG4||||0.04
91937561|NCT00438464|183772060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within GG4||||0.80
91937562|NCT00438464|183772060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-oxo-5α-steroid 4-dehydrogenase 2 (SRD5A2), Within GG4||||0.61
91811882|NCT03653637|183498559|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.15||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.15|-.58|.24
91811883|NCT03653637|183498560|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.||"This analysis concerns the verbal aggression subscale."|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.19|-.06|.28
91811884|NCT03653637|183498560|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.12||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|"This analysis concerns the physical aggression subscale."||.12|-.25|.48
91937563|NCT00438464|183772060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||UBE2C, Within GG4||||0.86
91937564|NCT00438464|183772060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Caspase, Within GG4||||0.02
91937565|NCT00438464|183772065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF3, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.84
91937566|NCT00438464|183772065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ERβ, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.36
91937567|NCT00438464|183772065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AR, Within Finasteride||||0.09
91937568|NCT00438464|183772065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.46
91937569|NCT00438464|183772065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SRD5A2, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.88
91937570|NCT00438464|183772065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||UBE2C, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.18
91937571|NCT00438464|183772065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Caspase, Within Finasteride Arm||||<0.001
91937572|NCT00438464|183772066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF3, Within Placebo Arm||||0.32
91937573|NCT00438464|183772066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ERβ, Within Placebo Arm||||0.83
91937574|NCT00438464|183772066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AR, Within Placebo Arm||||0.77
91937575|NCT00438464|183772066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within Placebo Arm||||0.87
91937576|NCT00438464|183772066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SRD5A2, Within Placebo Arm||||0.91
91937577|NCT00438464|183772066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||UBE2C, Within Placebo Arm||||0.90
91937578|NCT00438464|183772066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Caspase, Within Placebo Arm||||<0.001
91937579|NCT03943446|183772067|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Difference in ER Rate|-0.1|||=|0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.23|||Fisher Exact|||||0.23|-0.44|=0.590
91937580|NCT03943446|183772067|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in ERR|-0.01|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.31|||Fisher Exact|||||0.31|-0.34|=1.000
91937581|NCT02707601|183772073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.002
91937582|NCT02707601|183772073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.042
91937583|NCT02707601|183772074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.002
91937584|NCT02707601|183772074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.002
91937585|NCT02707601|183772075|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.1|||Fisher exact test||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||6.1|-6.1|1.00
91937586|NCT00223652|183772077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=.001
91937587|NCT00223652|183772077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91937588|NCT00223652|183772077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.95
91937589|NCT00223652|183772078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.37
91937590|NCT00223652|183772079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
91937591|NCT00223652|183772079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
91937592|NCT00223652|183772079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91937593|NCT00223652|183772080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||<0.0001
91937594|NCT00223652|183772080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||0.12
91937595|NCT00223652|183772080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||0.86
91937596|NCT00223652|183772081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.37
91937597|NCT00223652|183772082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||>0.37
91937598|NCT03004976|183772087|OTHER||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Odds|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.55||Wilcoxon Two Sample Test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary efficacy analysis (mRS shift from baseline to 90 days)||1.55|0.53|0.71
91811885|NCT03653637|183498560|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|"This analysis concerns the anger subscale."||.07|-.24|.30
91937599|NCT03004976|183772087|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||Cumulative Logit Proportional Odds Model|||Additional analysis of the primary endpoint (mRS score at 90 days), adjusted for baseline mRS, baseline NIHSS, and institution.||2.3|0.4|0.87
91937600|NCT02781454|183772126|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-5.558||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||-0.315|-10.80|0.039
91811886|NCT03653637|183498560|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.||"This analysis concerns the hostility subscale."|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.22|-.17|.82
91811887|NCT03653637|183498561|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.11||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|||.11|-.27|.41
91811888|NCT03653637|183498562|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.48||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|||.48|-.68|.67
91811889|NCT01346839|183498567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.05
91811890|NCT02068443|183498572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|-0.48|||||Estimated Value was for the difference between Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride QD and Alogliptin alone (Metformin QD - Alogliptin alone).|||-0.480|-0.821|
91811891|NCT02068443|183498572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority of Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride QD to Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride BID.|LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.247|||||Estimated Value was for the difference between Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride QD and Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride BID (Metformin QD - Metformin BID).|||0.247|-0.026|
91890932|NCT02236988|183675241|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.4|103.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 8 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||103.0|80.4|
91890933|NCT02236988|183675241|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.1|100.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 9 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||100.0|78.1|
91890934|NCT02236988|183675242|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.8|88.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 8 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.0|73.8|
91890935|NCT02236988|183675242|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|78.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.9|85.7|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 9 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.7|71.9|
91890936|NCT02236988|183675243|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.3|88.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 8 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.6|74.3|
91890937|NCT02236988|183675243|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.3|86.3|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 9 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||86.3|72.3|
91890938|NCT02236988|183675244|OTHER||Median Difference|0.98||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|1.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 8 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.50|0.02|0.0374
91890939|NCT02236988|183675244|OTHER||Median Difference|0.51||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 9 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.50|0.00|0.1907
91890940|NCT02236988|183675250|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|121.3|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 11 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||121.3|98.6|
91890941|NCT02236988|183675250|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.4|119.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 12 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||119.2|96.4|
91890942|NCT02236988|183675250|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.5|80.8|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 13 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||80.8|65.5|
91937601|NCT02781454|183772127|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.792||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.296||linear contrast active vs placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo ratio of week 4 to week 0||1.296|0.484|0.332
91937602|NCT02781454|183772128|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.411||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo ratio of week 4 to week 0||0.810|0.208|0.013
91937603|NCT02781454|183772129|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.343||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.36|42.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||42.042|-41.36|0.986
91937604|NCT02781454|183772130|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.994||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo ratio of week 4 to week 0||1.126|0.876|0.915
91937605|NCT02781454|183772131|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|1.089||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.609|6.786|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||6.786|-4.609|0.694
91937606|NCT02781454|183772132|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.242||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|13.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||13.126|-12.64|0.969
91937607|NCT02781454|183772133|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|2.597||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.772|7.966|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||7.966|-2.772|0.323
91937608|NCT02781454|183772134|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-2.017||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.767|1.733|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||1.733|-5.767|0.273
91937609|NCT02781454|183772135|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.708||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|4.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo||4.535|0.111|0.713
91937610|NCT02781454|183772137|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-0.399||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.966|1.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||1.169|-1.966|0.601
91937611|NCT02781454|183772138|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-2.734||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.938|2.471|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||2.471|-7.938|0.285
91937612|NCT00493974|183772139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3876||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3876
91937613|NCT00493974|183772140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6413||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6413
91937614|NCT00493974|183772141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6433||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6433
91937615|NCT00493974|183772142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.63
91937616|NCT00493974|183772143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4957||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4957
91937617|NCT00493974|183772144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91937618|NCT00493974|183772145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91937619|NCT03796182|183772162|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.09|118.2||||||||118.20|82.09|
91937620|NCT03796182|183772163|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|93.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.15|102.65||||||||102.65|85.15|
91937621|NCT03796182|183772164|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|88.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.99|95.76||||||||95.76|80.99|
91937622|NCT03796182|183772166|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|94.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.19|100.73||||||||100.73|88.19|
91937623|NCT04682353|183772176|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.748|1.274||||||||1.274|0.748|
91937624|NCT04682353|183772176|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.226|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.598||||||||1.598|0.940|
91937625|NCT04682353|183772176|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.817|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.392||||||||2.392|1.380|
91937626|NCT04682353|183772178|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.506||||||||1.506|0.960|
91937627|NCT04682353|183772178|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.393|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.815||||||||1.815|1.070|
91937628|NCT04682353|183772178|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.301|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.806|2.933||||||||2.933|1.806|
91937629|NCT04682353|183772179|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.699|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|3.135||||||||3.135|0.921|
91937630|NCT04682353|183772179|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.364|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.273|4.39||||||||4.390|1.273|
91937631|NCT04682353|183772179|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|3.748|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.033|6.908||||||||6.908|2.033|
91937632|NCT04682353|183772180|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|4.093||||||||4.093|0.886|
91937633|NCT04682353|183772180|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|3.317|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.585|6.942||||||||6.942|1.585|
91937634|NCT04682353|183772180|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.824|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.796|12.135||||||||12.135|2.796|
91937635|NCT04682353|183772181|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.302||||||||1.302|0.920|
91937636|NCT04682353|183772181|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.415|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.148|1.744||||||||1.744|1.148|
91937637|NCT04682353|183772181|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.017|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.692|2.405||||||||2.405|1.692|
91937638|NCT04682353|183772182|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.303||||||||1.303|0.948|
91937639|NCT04682353|183772182|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.439|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.174|1.762||||||||1.762|1.174|
91937640|NCT04682353|183772182|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.751|2.459||||||||2.459|1.751|
91937641|NCT04682353|183772183|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.115|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.252||||||||1.252|0.993|
91937642|NCT04682353|183772183|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.277|1.833||||||||1.833|1.277|
91937643|NCT04682353|183772183|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.888|2.425||||||||2.425|1.888|
91937644|NCT02193828|183772220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||<.0001
91937645|NCT02193828|183772220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||<.0001
91937646|NCT02193828|183772220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||<.0001
91937647|NCT02193828|183772220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.0713
91937648|NCT02193828|183772220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0002
91937649|NCT02193828|183772220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0001
91937650|NCT02193828|183772220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0001
91937651|NCT02193828|183772220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0446
91811892|NCT02723084|183498583|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was calculated for each arm and a 2- sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A minus Arm B) was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution to assess non-inferiority in SVR12 rates of arm A to arm B. If the lower bound of the CI for the difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10%, then arm A was considered non-inferior to arm B.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|12.1|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A - Arm B)||12.1|-3.5|
91811893|NCT00225251|183498633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91937652|NCT02193828|183772221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.2431
91811894|NCT01702454|183498638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|8.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|12.96|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for A/Christchurch strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||12.96|6.21|
91811895|NCT01702454|183498638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.02|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for A/Victoria strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||4.02|1.81|
91937653|NCT02193828|183772221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.0625
91937654|NCT02193828|183772221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3409|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.3409
91937655|NCT02193828|183772221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.7040
91937656|NCT02193828|183772221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||0.3556
91937657|NCT02193828|183772221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1275|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.1275
91937658|NCT02193828|183772221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.7883
91937659|NCT02193828|183772221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9123|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.9123
91937660|NCT02193828|183772222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0002
91937661|NCT02193828|183772222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
91937662|NCT02193828|183772222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0002
91937663|NCT02193828|183772222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0139
91937664|NCT02193828|183772223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0004
91937665|NCT02193828|183772223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0075
91937666|NCT02193828|183772223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91811896|NCT01702454|183498638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|5.37|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for B/Brisbane strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||5.37|2.89|
91937667|NCT02193828|183772223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0031
91937668|NCT02193828|183772224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.3135
91937669|NCT02193828|183772224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7249|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.7249
91937670|NCT02193828|183772224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.1573
91937671|NCT02193828|183772224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1234|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.1234
91937672|NCT02193828|183772225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0006
91937673|NCT02193828|183772225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0014
91937674|NCT02193828|183772225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0012
91937675|NCT02193828|183772225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.1298
91937676|NCT02193828|183772226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0048
91937677|NCT02193828|183772226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0034
91937678|NCT02193828|183772226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0079
91937679|NCT02193828|183772226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3216|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3216
91937680|NCT02193828|183772227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0065
91937681|NCT02193828|183772227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0349
91937682|NCT02193828|183772227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0033
91937683|NCT02193828|183772227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3423|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.3423
91937684|NCT00862654|183772228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Each test was two-sided, at the 0.050 significance level.||The primary efficacy criterion was analyzed by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic, stratified by center (or analysis-center) after ridit transformation with the row mean difference statistics, testing the hypothesis of equality. The p-value had to be inferior to 0.05 at week 4, in the ITT/LOCF population. PP analysis was also performed to assess the robustness of the results obtained in the ITT/LOCF population.||||<0.01
91937685|NCT00862654|183772228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Each test was two-sided, at the 0.050 significance level.||The primary efficacy criterion was analyzed by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic, stratified by center (or analysis-center) after ridit transformation with the row mean difference statistics, testing the hypothesis of equality. The p-value had to be inferior to 0.05 at week 4, in the ITT/LOCF population. PP analysis was also performed to assess the robustness of the results obtained in the ITT/LOCF population.||||0.039
91937686|NCT03219567|183772229|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||OCT compared to MRI||||0.35
91937687|NCT01313208|183772230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.41|||Mantel Haenszel|P-value from Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by participant's baseline methotrexate use (yes or no).|Etanercept/Placebo|||3.41|0.99|0.055
91937688|NCT01412060|183772279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio (cariprazine 3-9 mg vs placebo) is based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable.|||0.73|0.28|0.0010
91937689|NCT00004732|183772280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.51|||||HR (95% CI) adjusted for age, sex and symptomatic status|||1.51|0.81|
91937690|NCT00004732|183772281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.23|||||HR (95% CI) for WOMEN CAS vs CEA (adjusted for age and symptomatic status)|||2.23|0.82|
91937691|NCT01181778|183772297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Daily Pill|-0.4||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.8|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose the Daily Pill before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||1.8|-2.6|0.705
91937692|NCT01181778|183772297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Weekly Patch|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|5.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose the Weekly Patch before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||5.0|2.6|<0.0001
91937693|NCT01181778|183772297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Monthy Ring|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|17.8|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose the Monthly Ring before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||17.8|14.3|<0.0001
91937694|NCT01181778|183772297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Other Method|-3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.2|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose Other Method before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||-2.2|-5.0|<0.0001
91937695|NCT01181778|183772297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Undecided|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-14.1|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose Undecided before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||-14.1|-17.6|<0.0001
91811897|NCT01702454|183498638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|8.63|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for B/Hub-Wuj strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||8.63|5.21|
91937696|NCT01998269|183772433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||correlation coefficient|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation||r= 0.60, p-value\<0.001. P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|We examined correlations between patient scores on the Measure of Medication Self-Management (MeDS) and the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence questionnaire.||||<.001
91937697|NCT02293902|183772437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.185|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.583|26.594||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by prior biologic use (Yes, No) and weight at screening (\<55 kg, \>=55 kg).|Placebo vs. Sarilumab 150 mg|26.594|5.583|<0.0001
91937698|NCT02293902|183772437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.446|15.158||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by prior biologic use (Yes, No) and weight at screening (\<55 kg, \>=55 kg).|Placebo vs. Sarilumab 200 mg|15.158|3.446|<0.0001
91937699|NCT01135394|183772469|OTHER|The genes with p-values below 10\^-6 were identified|Pearson correlation p-value|0.0000001|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|||||The genes with p-values below 10\^-6 were identified|Genes with p-values below 10^-6|||After the change (end-of-treatment minus baseline) in HOMA-IR index had been calculated for each subject, the change (end-of-treatment minus baseline) in expression of each of approximately 45,000 transcripts contained in a human gene array was calculated. A Pearson correlation p-value was calculated for the correlation between change in gene expression and change in HOMA-IR index, with the purpose of identifying the genes whose expression changed in concert with changes in HOMA-IR index.|The genes with P-values below 10\^-6 were identified|||<0.0000001
91937700|NCT02088541|183772482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.75|||Log Rank|||||1.75|0.79|0.4221
91937701|NCT02088541|183772483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9464|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9464
91937702|NCT02088541|183772484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0986|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0986
91937703|NCT02088541|183772486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0844|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0844
91811898|NCT01702454|183498640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in percentages|44.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.87|52.84||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||52.84|35.87|
91937704|NCT05355818|183772620|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian|Historical information from LP0133-1401 (NCT04871711)/LP0133-1402 (NCT04872101) as prior information is used.|There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 13.5% to 58.2%.|Based on the primary estimand 'composite'. Data considered non-response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed as non-response.||||
91937705|NCT05355818|183772621|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 12.3% to 59.9%.|Primary estimand: Composite. Data considered non-response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed as non-response.||||
91937706|NCT05355818|183772622|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 5.6% to 51.1%.|||||
91937707|NCT05355818|183772623|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 8.7% to 49.4%|||||
91937708|NCT05355818|183772624|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|25.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 3.9% to 42.3%.|Primary estimand: Composite. Data considered non-response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed as non-response.||||
91937709|NCT05355818|183772625|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.47||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|29.78|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||29.78|5.16|0.0054
91937710|NCT05355818|183772626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.21||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|39.72|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||39.72|2.69|0.0248
91937711|NCT05355818|183772627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.08||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|33.46|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||33.46|-11.30|0.3320
91937712|NCT05355818|183772628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.02||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.51|53.52|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||53.52|12.51|0.0016
91937713|NCT05355818|183772629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.65||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||Primary estimand: Composite. Data considered non-response by using WOCF (including the baseline value) after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed using WOCF (including the baseline value).||-0.88|-4.42|0.0038
91937714|NCT01601704|183772645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|At the pre-planned 50% interim analysis, a non-inferiority analysis was conducted based on the estimated hazard ratio (NB32/Placebo) for the time to the first confirmed occurrence of MACE. The upper-bound of the 99.7% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was compared to 1.4, the non-inferiority margin.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.57|1.34|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.34|0.57|
91937715|NCT01601704|183772646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.66|1.33|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.33|0.66|
91937716|NCT01601704|183772647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.21|1.19|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.19|0.21|
91937717|NCT01601704|183772648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.55|1.67|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.67|0.55|
91937718|NCT01601704|183772649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.43|2.55|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||2.55|0.43|
91811899|NCT01702454|183498640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in percentages|45.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.58|53.3||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||53.3|36.58|
91937719|NCT01783470|183772650|EQUIVALENCE|All p values presented are two tailed. p values \< 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance for the primary outcome.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon sign-ranks test|||Since the sample size of twelve subjects limited the ability to demonstrate that measurements were normally distributed, we used the non-parametric Wilcoxon sign-ranks test to assess the primary and secondary endpoints. All p values presented are two tailed. p values \< 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance for the primary outcome.||||0.001
91937720|NCT00247273|183772652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to establish noninferiority for the primary efficacy variable at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, a total of 1068 patients, 534 per treatment group, is required. This calculation is based on the following assumptions: the noninferiority margin (or delta) = 1.5%, the common SD (standard deviation) of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Month 12 = 4.5%, the 1 year dropout rate = 20%, and the true mean difference μD - μM = 0.5%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.274|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.274|-0.505|
91937721|NCT00247273|183772653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.475|0.323|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.323|-0.475|
91937722|NCT00247273|183772654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0035|0.0024|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.0024|-0.0035|
91937723|NCT00247273|183772655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimates of the common SD, dropout rate at month 24 and true difference are also based on previous risedronate Phase III studies (RVN008993, RVE009093, ROE009394, HMR4003E/3001).|LS Mean Difference|-0.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.249|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled centers.||The sample size of 1068 patients will provide approximately 90% power to demonstrate the noninferiority of the monthly regimen at month 24, using a 2% noninferiority margin and assuming a common SD of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at month 24 of 5%, a 2-year dropout rate of 30%, and a true mean difference (uDaily-uMonthly) of 0.8%.||0.249|-0.727|
91937724|NCT00247273|183772656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.439|||ANOVA|Fixed Effects for treatment \& pooled center||||0.439|-0.609|
91937725|NCT00247273|183772657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0048|0.0029|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.0029|-0.0048|
91937726|NCT00247273|183772658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|3.28|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||3.28|-2.83|
91937727|NCT00247273|183772659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|1.33|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||1.33|-4.47|
91937728|NCT00247273|183772660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.53|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||4.53|-2.54|
91937729|NCT00247273|183772661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|0.8|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.80|-6.45|
91937730|NCT00247273|183772662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.00|-0.05|
91937731|NCT00247273|183772663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-0.36|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||-0.36|-7.98|
91937732|NCT00247273|183772664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.01|-0.06|
91937733|NCT00247273|183772665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|0.66|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.66|-12.04|
91937734|NCT00247273|183772666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.64|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.64|-0.29|
91937735|NCT00247273|183772667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|3.48|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||3.48|-0.85|
91937736|NCT00247273|183772668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.7|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.70|-0.45|
91937737|NCT00247273|183772669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|2.43|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||2.43|-3.96|
91937738|NCT00247273|183772670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.54|||Fisher Exact|||||2.54|0.36|1.0000
91937739|NCT00247273|183772671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.03|||Fisher Exact|||||2.03|0.47|1.0000
91937740|NCT00511108|183772714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.7||||0.002||95.0|-48.7|-10.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (yes or no), and baseline value as a covariate||||-10.6|-48.7|0.002
91937741|NCT00511108|183772715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Difference|73.8|||<|0.001||95.0|44.2|104.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (yes or no), and log-scaled baseline value as a covariate|The outcome was analyzed by ANCOVA on the log scale. Results have been back-transformed to the original scale.|||104.4|44.2|<0.001
91937742|NCT00511108|183772716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-407.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-513.4|-302.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (yes or no), and baseline value as a covariate||||-302.1|-513.4|<0.001
91937743|NCT02911519|183772720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is intention-to-treat analysis. The Brief Group Psychoeducation is the numerator and the group of Treatment as Usual Only is the denominator for relative risk.|||1.16|0.77|0.59
91937744|NCT02911519|183772721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Brief Group Psychoeducation is the numerator and the group of Treatment as Usual Only is the denominator for relative risk. This is intention-to-treat analysis.|||1.10|0.87|0.73
91937745|NCT02911519|183772722|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is intention-to-treat analysis.|||0.39|-0.36|0.94
91937746|NCT02911519|183772722|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is intention-to-treat analysis.|||0.18|-0.57|0.30
91937747|NCT02911519|183772724|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis.|||0.17|-0.10|0.61
91937748|NCT02911519|183772725|SUPERIORITY|This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 1ST DOMAIN (physical health) in the first row.|Slope|0.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 1ST DOMAIN (physical health) in the first row.|||0.30|-0.38|0.81
91937749|NCT02911519|183772725|SUPERIORITY|This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 2ND DOMAIN (psychological) in the second row.|Slope|-0.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis.This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 2ND DOMAIN (psychological) in the second row.|||0.29|-0.38|0.81
91937750|NCT02911519|183772725|SUPERIORITY|This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 3RD DOMAIN (social relationships) in the third row.|Slope|0.16||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 3RD DOMAIN (social relationships) in the third row.|||0.65|-0.33|0.52
91937751|NCT02911519|183772725|SUPERIORITY|This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 4TH DOMAIN (environment) in the fourth row.|Slope|0.19||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 4TH DOMAIN (environment) in the fourth row.|||0.53|-0.15|0.27
91937752|NCT02911519|183772726|SUPERIORITY|This analysis applies to SSFB objective domain in the first row.|Slope|-0.01||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This analysis applies to SSFB objective domain in the first row.|||0.01|-0.01|0.33
91937753|NCT02911519|183772726|SUPERIORITY|This is an intention to treat analysis. This analysis applies to SSFB subjective domain in the second row.|Slope|-0.01||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This analysis applies to SSFB subjective domain in the second row.|||0.01|-0.02|0.19
91937754|NCT02911519|183772727|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis.|||0.19|-0.19|0.97
91937755|NCT00810043|183772728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior vertebral body height restoration as a percent (Post-procedure change from baseline)||||0.430
91937756|NCT00810043|183772728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Middle vertebral body height restoration as a percent (Post-procedure change from baseline)||||0.643
91937757|NCT00810043|183772728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior vertebral body height restoration as a percent (Post-procedure change from baseline)||||0.165
91937758|NCT00810043|183772729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior VBH restored||||0.402
91937759|NCT00810043|183772729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Middle VBH restored||||0.578
91937760|NCT00810043|183772729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior VBH restored||||0.166
91937761|NCT00810043|183772731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior VBH gained by postural reduction||||0.900
91937762|NCT00810043|183772731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Middle VBH gained by postural reduction||||0.620
91937763|NCT00810043|183772731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior VBH gained by postural reduction||||0.349
91937764|NCT00810043|183772732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.889
91937765|NCT00810043|183772733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.486
91937766|NCT00810043|183772734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
91937767|NCT00810043|183772735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.360
91937768|NCT02001688|183772736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91937769|NCT02001688|183772736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.020
91937770|NCT02001688|183772736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.0192
91937771|NCT02001688|183772737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p-value of Stratified Wilcoxon test||||||0.0005
91937772|NCT02001688|183772737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.0193
91937773|NCT02001688|183772737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2485|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.2485
91937774|NCT02001688|183772738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of Kruskal-Wallis test (3 groups: Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 80mg,Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 160mg and placebo)||||||<0.0001
91937775|NCT02001688|183772739|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of Kruskal-Wallis test (3 groups: Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 80mg, Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 160mg and placebo)||||||<0.0001
91937776|NCT02864706|183772761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||ANCOVA|Incidence of CAV at 5-7 yrs was compared between groups using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification according to baseline distribution||||||0.0043
91937777|NCT02864706|183772762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.037
91937778|NCT00270998|183772811|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p = 0.0492 to account for interim analysis|Regression, Logistic|||A priori, the combination treatment was considered superior (75% success rate) to either single-modality therapy (60% success rate) at 80% power with 150 participants per group.||||<0.0492
91937779|NCT00270998|183772811|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.02||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p = 0.0492 to account for interim analysis|Regression, Logistic|||A priori, the combination treatment was considered superior (75% success rate) to either single-modality therapy (60% success rate) at 80% power with 150 participants per group.||||0.02
91937780|NCT00270998|183772811|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.49||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p = 0.0492 to account for interim analysis|Regression, Logistic|||A priori, the combination treatment was considered superior (75% success rate) to either single-modality therapy (60% success rate) at 80% power with 150 participants per group.||||0.49
91937781|NCT00270998|183772812|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.006
91937782|NCT00270998|183772812|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.048|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.048
91937783|NCT00270998|183772812|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.42
91937784|NCT00270998|183772813|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937785|NCT00270998|183772813|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937786|NCT00270998|183772813|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937787|NCT00270998|183772814|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91811900|NCT01702454|183498640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in percentages|37.86||||||95.0|28.83|46.26||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||46.26|28.83|
91937788|NCT00270998|183772814|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937789|NCT00270998|183772814|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937790|NCT00270998|183772815|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937791|NCT00270998|183772815|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937792|NCT00270998|183772815|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937793|NCT00270998|183772816|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937794|NCT00270998|183772816|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937795|NCT00270998|183772816|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937796|NCT00270998|183772817|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.03
91937797|NCT00270998|183772817|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.048|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.048
91937798|NCT00270998|183772817|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937799|NCT00270998|183772818|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937800|NCT00270998|183772818|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937801|NCT00270998|183772818|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91937802|NCT00047853|183772834|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91937803|NCT00047853|183772835|OTHER|||||||9.3e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000093
91937804|NCT02443805|183772837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Source Model: Type III effects Covariates: Treatment group, Gender, Age Class, Sensitization Status, Asthma Status, Pooled Center, Baseline Average RTSS.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91937805|NCT00968708|183772843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If after accrual of 550 participants with MACE events, the upper bound of a 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio (alogliptin to placebo) was \<1.0, superiority of alogliptin to placebo for the primary MACE composite would be concluded. If the upper bound of the 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio of the primary MACE composite was \<1.3 but ≥1.0 then non-inferiority but not superiority of alogliptin to placebo was to be concluded.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.315|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.16|||Cox proportional hazards|||Statistical analyses of the primary MACE composite endpoint was based on sequences of 1-sided repeated confidence intervals (CIs) to assess non-inferiority or statistical superiority with respect to the null hypotheses. Each sequence of repeated CIs was constructed using critical values from a 1-sided stopping boundary for a group sequential design (GSD), to preserve an overall false-rejection rate of 2.5%. Each sequence of 1-sided repeated CIs had a simultaneous coverage probability of 97.5%.||1.160||0.315
91937806|NCT00968708|183772843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If after accrual of 550 participants with MACE events, the upper bound of a 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio (alogliptin to placebo) was \<1.0, superiority of alogliptin to placebo for the primary MACE composite would be concluded. If the upper bound of the 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio of the primary MACE composite was \<1.3 but ≥1.0 then non-inferiority but not superiority of alogliptin to placebo was to be concluded.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.332|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.169||Stratified by endpoint renal function (defined as the last observed postbaseline renal function (normal renal function/mild renal impairment vs moderate/severe renal impairment including end-stage renal disease)) and geographic region.|Cox proportional hazards|||Stratified by endpoint renal function and geographic region||1.169||0.332
91937807|NCT00968708|183772844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the confidence interval for the primary MACE composite was \<1.0, then statistical superiority of alogliptin to placebo for the secondary MACE composite would be demonstrated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.135||||||||1.135||
91937808|NCT00587834|183772881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Exact Bionomial Test|||Superiority relative to a pre-defined standard (50% success)||||<0.0001
91937809|NCT00587834|183772882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Compare participants with (1) Gintuit equally red and Control not equally red to (2) Gintuit not equally red and Control equally red||||<0.0001
91937810|NCT00587834|183772883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Compare participants with (1)Gintuit equally firm and Control not equally firm to (2) Gintuit not equally firm and Control equally firm||||<0.0001
91937811|NCT00587834|183772884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Exact binomial test|||Superiority relative to a pre-defined threshold (80%) success||||<0.0001
91937812|NCT00587834|183772885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Exact binomial test|||The proportion of Gintuit as the preferred procedure.||||<0.0001
91937813|NCT00587834|183772886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173||95.0|||||McNemar|McNemar's paired comparison test||Compare participants with (1) Gintuit not sensitive and Control sensitive to (2) Gintuit sensitive and Control not sensitive.||||0.3173
91937814|NCT00305604|183772888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|<|0.001||95.0|-0.94|-0.47|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-0.47|-0.94|<0.001
91937815|NCT00305604|183772889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.0|<|0.001||95.0|-40.0|-13.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-13.5|-40.0|<0.001
91937816|NCT00305604|183772890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-61.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.0|<|0.001||95.0|-82.1|-40.0|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-40.0|-82.1|<0.001
91937817|NCT00305604|183772891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.2|<|0.001||95.0|-32.6|-14.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-14.4|-32.6|<0.001
91937818|NCT03488914|183772916|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.09||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.56|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 3-months||||.56|-2.78|.19
91937819|NCT03488914|183772916|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression|-1.66||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.48|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 6-months||||.48|-3.78|.12
91937820|NCT03488914|183772916|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|2.07|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 9-months||||2.07|-2.05|.99
91937821|NCT03488914|183772916|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.78||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.11|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 12-months||||1.11|-2.67|.42
91937822|NCT03488914|183772916|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.09||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.51|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 15-months||||.51|-2.69|.18
91937823|NCT03488914|183772917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.99|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 3-months||||.99|-.86|.96
91937824|NCT03488914|183772917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.19||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.14|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 6-months||||-.14|-2.25|.03
91937825|NCT03488914|183772917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.1|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 9-months||||1.10|-.83|.79
91937826|NCT03488914|183772917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.11|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 12-months||||1.11|-.99|.91
91937827|NCT03488914|183772917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.42||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.65|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 15-months||||.65|-1.50|.44
91937828|NCT03488914|183772918|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.58|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 3-months||||.58|-1.09|.54
91937829|NCT03488914|183772918|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.46|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 6-months||||1.46|-.70|.49
91937830|NCT03488914|183772918|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.66|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 9-months||||.66|-1.18|.59
91937831|NCT03488914|183772918|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.37|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 12-months||||1.37|-.86|.65
91937832|NCT03488914|183772918|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.67|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 15-months||||.67|-1.40|.49
91937833|NCT03488914|183772919|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|995.0|-1.07|0.34|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 3-months||||.34|-1.07|.31
91937834|NCT03488914|183772919|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.71||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.15|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 6-months||||.15|-1.57|.10
91937835|NCT03488914|183772919|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.53||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.28|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 9-months||||.28|-1.34|.20
91937836|NCT03488914|183772919|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.64|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 12-months||||.64|-1.14|.58
91811901|NCT01702454|183498640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion|Difference in percentages|56.0||||||95.0|48.32|63.04||||||"To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.~B/Hu-Wuj = B/Hubei-Wujiagang/158/2009 (Yamagata)"||63.04|48.32|
91937837|NCT03488914|183772919|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.45||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.47|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 15-months||||.47|-1.37|.34
91937838|NCT01021813|183772933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method.|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any sleep paralysis AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group .||1.4|-1.1|
91937839|NCT01021813|183772934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method.|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any complex sleep-related behaviors AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||1.1|-1.3|0.482
91937840|NCT01021813|183772935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.8||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any falls AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||1.5|-3.9|0.508
91937841|NCT01021813|183772936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of AEs|0.8||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any suicidal ideation/behavior AEs considered an ECI between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||2.0|-0.7|0.159
91937842|NCT01021813|183772937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.8||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any Hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||2.0|-0.7|0.159
91937843|NCT01021813|183772938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.4||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any selected AEs associated with potential abuse between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||2.2|-3.8|0.767
91937844|NCT01021813|183772939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 1|-0.81||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms during Night 1 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||3.1|-5.1|0.567
91937845|NCT01021813|183772939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 2|-2.4||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms during Night 2 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||1.6|-7.3|0.185
91937846|NCT01021813|183772939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 3|-0.78||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms during Night 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||3.9|-5.6|0.680
91937847|NCT01021813|183772939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Across Nights|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms across Nights 1, 2, and 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||6.4|-6.4|1.000
91937848|NCT01021813|183772940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 1|5.03||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|15.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Night 1 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.8|-5.8|0.365
91937849|NCT01021813|183772940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 2|8.72||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Night 2 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||19.2|-2.0|0.109
91937850|NCT01021813|183772940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 3|6.02||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|16.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Night 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||16.9|-5.1|0.287
91937851|NCT01021813|183772940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage:Night 1, 2 or 3|10.82||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|21.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Nights 1, 2, or 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||21.7|-0.3|0.057
91937852|NCT01021813|183772941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 1|4.46||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|14.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Night 1 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||14.5|-5.7|0.386
91937853|NCT01021813|183772941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 2|5.31||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|15.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Night 2 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.5|-5.0|0.311
91937854|NCT01021813|183772941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 3|4.96||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Night 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.3|-5.5|0.351
91937855|NCT01021813|183772941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage:Night 1, 2 or 3|4.58||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Nights 1, 2, or 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.3|-6.3|0.409
91937856|NCT01021813|183772942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means: Month 1|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|29.0||To account for multiplicity, Hochberg's procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 5% level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||A Longitudinal Data Analysis Model was used to test the difference in LS mean change from baseline in sTSTm for Month 1 (Average of Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4) in the Suvorexant group vs. the Placebo group.||29.0|16.4|<0.0001
91811902|NCT01702454|183498642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in SPR|62.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.27|68.89||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains||68.89|55.27|
91937857|NCT01021813|183772943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means: Month 1|-9.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-4.5||To account for multiplicity, Hochberg's procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 5% level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||A Longitudinal Data Analysis Model was used to test the difference in LS mean change from baseline in sTSOm for Month 1 (Average of Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4) in the Suvorexant group vs. the Placebo group.||-4.5|-14.6|0.0002
91937858|NCT01269047|183772960|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-4.2|0.04
91937859|NCT01269047|183772960|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.3|||ANOVA|||||-1.3|-5.8|0.008
91937860|NCT01269047|183772960|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.0|||ANOVA|||||-2.0|-6.4|0.003
91937861|NCT01269047|183772960|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.98|||ANOVA|||||0.98|-2.3|0.37
91937862|NCT01269047|183772961|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.81|-0.21|0.2
91937863|NCT01269047|183772961|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.25|0.48
91937864|NCT01269047|183772961|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.12|0.18
91937865|NCT01269047|183772961|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|-0.62|1.0
91937866|NCT01626989|183772962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Friedman Test comparing all 3 nights||||||0.001|||||||nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||.001
91937867|NCT03366844|183772976|OTHER||Proportion|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.724|||||95% confidence interval for one proportion were estimated using the Exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|||0.724|0.465|
91937868|NCT02688153|183773005|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.366|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3660
91937869|NCT02688153|183773006|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8377
91937870|NCT00595868|183773032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.9|||Chi-squared|||||2.9|1.0|0.06
91937871|NCT00595868|183773033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2|||Chi-squared|||||5.2|0.9|0.10
91937872|NCT02061748|183773068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0111
91937873|NCT02061748|183773069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0861|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0861
91937874|NCT02061748|183773070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0011
91811903|NCT01702454|183498642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in SPR|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.08|55.06||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||55.06|39.08|
91937875|NCT02061748|183773071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0019
91937876|NCT02061748|183773072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0808|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0808
91937877|NCT02061748|183773073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3502|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.3502
91937878|NCT02061748|183773074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0068
91937879|NCT02061748|183773075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0271
91937880|NCT02061748|183773076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0749
91937881|NCT02061748|183773077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0072
91937882|NCT02061748|183773078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0055
91937883|NCT02061748|183773079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0284
91937884|NCT02061748|183773080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.907
91937885|NCT02061748|183773081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8208|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.8208
91937886|NCT02061748|183773082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1534|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.1534
91811904|NCT01702454|183498642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion|Difference in SPR|56.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.44|63.43||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||63.43|49.44|
91937887|NCT02061748|183773083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3055|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.3055
91937888|NCT02061748|183773084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9573|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.9573
91937889|NCT02061748|183773085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8465|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.8465
91937890|NCT02061748|183773086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0006
91937891|NCT02061748|183773087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||<0.0001
91937892|NCT02061748|183773088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0185|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0185
91937893|NCT02061748|183773089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0138|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0138
91937894|NCT02061748|183773090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.261
91937895|NCT02061748|183773091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4407|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.4407
91937896|NCT02061748|183773092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2665|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.2665
91937897|NCT02061748|183773093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8017|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.8017
91937898|NCT02061748|183773094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||<0.0001
91937899|NCT02061748|183773095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2083|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.2083
91937900|NCT02061748|183773096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0023
91937901|NCT02061748|183773097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5331|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.5331
91937902|NCT02061748|183773098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0003
91811905|NCT01702454|183498642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in SPR|56.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.41|63.49||||||"To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.~B/Hu-Wuj = B/Hubei-Wujiagang/158/2009 (Yamagata)"||63.49|49.41|
91937903|NCT02061748|183773099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2646|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.2646
91937904|NCT02061748|183773100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0004
91937905|NCT02061748|183773101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0004
91937906|NCT05742841|183773107|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91937907|NCT02971007|183773118|OTHER|Statistical analyses primarily descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing. Summary statistics are presented by treatment group. For continuous variables, the number of observations, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum are provided as summary statistics.||||||||||||||||No formal sample size calculations were made. The sample size was determined empirically rather than with a specific statistical rationale and is considered sufficient to achieve the study objectives of this proof of concept study. Women with moderate to severe Vulvovaginal candidiasis were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 treatment groups, stratified by signs and symptoms composite score of up to 12 (moderate) and greater than 13 (severe).|Statistical analyses primarily descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing. Summary statistics are presented by treatment group. For continuous variables, the number of observations, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum are provided as summary statistics.|||
91937908|NCT00607919|183773156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91937909|NCT00443846|183773209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the difference (Group 1 - Group 2) in seroprotection rate was greater than -10%.|Difference (Group 1 - Group 2)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7||||||Analysis of non-inferiority was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method||3.7|-3.7|
91937910|NCT00109772|183773223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|controlled for centers||||||.8940
91937911|NCT03437044|183773240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|the corresponding baseline value of platelet reactivity was used as covariate||||||0.001
91937912|NCT03437044|183773241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|the corresponding baseline value of platelet reactivity was used as covariate||||||<0.001
91937913|NCT00813917|183773246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||For this randomized phase II we used a one sided test with a false positive(type I error)rate of 0.20 to assess whether additional studies of the experimental arm are warranted.|Chi-squared|1 sided||Data were compared between treatment groups using Chi Square test.||||0.126
91937914|NCT05441540|183773247|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91937915|NCT05441540|183773248|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91937916|NCT05441540|183773249|OTHER|||||||0.7613|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7613
91937917|NCT05441540|183773250|OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7640
91937918|NCT01359046|183773251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
91937919|NCT01359046|183773252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91937920|NCT02665468|183773253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91937921|NCT03037307|183773275|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.63||Treatment Comparison for study validity.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: factors for participant (random effect); period \& treatment, participant-level \& period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariates.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||3.63|1.89|<.0001
91937922|NCT03037307|183773276|OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: factors for participant (random effect); period \& treatment, participant-level \& period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariates|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||3.00|1.25|<.0001
91937923|NCT00294684|183773333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.57|||Log binomial|||RR greater than one indicates benefit of steriods and a P value of treatment success from a log-binomial model with these covariates: Treatment group, age a HPE, BASM as fixed effects, and site as a random effect.||1.57|0.83|0.43
91937924|NCT00294684|183773334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.8|0.6|0.99
91937925|NCT00294684|183773335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean difference reported as steroid minus placebo (negative values mean larger average values of total bilirubin in placebo).||0.3|-3.49|0.0973
91937926|NCT00294684|183773336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean difference of steroid minus placebo (negative values indicate larger average values of bilirubin in placebo)||0.05|-4.65|0.0552
91937927|NCT00294684|183773337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.6607||95.0|-2.16|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean difference of steroid minus placebo (negative values indicate larger average bilirubin in placebo)||1.38|-2.16|0.6607
91937928|NCT00294684|183773338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1603|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1603
91937929|NCT00294684|183773339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2801|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2801
91937930|NCT00294684|183773340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.14|||Log Binomial|||||3.14|0.62|0.41
91937931|NCT00294684|183773341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.92|||Log Binomial|||||2.92|0.03|0.29
91937932|NCT01515488|183773350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|42.6|||t-test, 2 sided|DF=331.2||||42.6|22.1|<0.0005
91937933|NCT01248364|183773353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.55|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline FPG, diagnosis group, and baseline FPG by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||0.55|-0.16|0.2790
91937934|NCT01248364|183773354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.62|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline FPG, diagnosis group and baseline FPG by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||0.62|-0.16|0.2438
91937935|NCT01248364|183773355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.79|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG fast, diagnosis group and baseline EPG fast by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||1.79|-1.19|0.6931
91937936|NCT01248364|183773356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|4.07|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG fast, diagnosis group and baseline EPG fast by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||4.07|-0.38|0.1028
91937937|NCT01248364|183773357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|10.5|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG AUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG AUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||10.50|0.47|0.0326
91937938|NCT01248364|183773358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline PPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline PPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||0.04|-3.20|0.0552
91937939|NCT01248364|183773359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|2.27|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline PPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline PPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||2.27|-1.66|0.7561
91937940|NCT01248364|183773360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|6.9|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG AUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG AUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||6.90|-0.64|0.1024
91937941|NCT01248364|183773361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|7.14|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||7.14|-4.53|0.6576
91937942|NCT01248364|183773362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.2795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|3.05|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||3.05|-10.41|0.2795
91937943|NCT00996593|183773374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||80|50|
91937944|NCT00996593|183773375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||35|10|
91937945|NCT00996593|183773376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|53.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||53|22|
91937946|NCT00996593|183773377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||41|14|
91937947|NCT00996593|183773382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|75.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|96.0||With prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||96|54|1.0
91937948|NCT00996593|183773382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|70.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|88.0||Without prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||88|51|1.0
91937949|NCT00996593|183773383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
91937950|NCT00996593|183773384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|31.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|54.0||With prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||54|9|1.0
91937951|NCT00996593|183773384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|17.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|33.0||Without prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||33|2|1.0
91937952|NCT00996593|183773385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
91811906|NCT01067456|183498675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91811907|NCT00227903|183498686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0||||Not corrected for multiple comparison|Mixed Models Analysis|2 degrees of freedom||We estimated that 110 people with 10% attrition would provide 80% power||||0.88
91937953|NCT00996593|183773386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9
91937954|NCT01033487|183773399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0339|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0059||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was reported.|||0.0059|
91937955|NCT01033487|183773399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0431||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0431|
91937956|NCT01033487|183773399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0277|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.056||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0560|
91811908|NCT00227903|183498687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91937957|NCT01033487|183773399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0215||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0215|
91937958|NCT01033487|183773399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0309|||ONE_SIDED|80.0|-0.0371||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 80% CI was reported.|||-0.0371|
91937959|NCT01033487|183773399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246|||ONE_SIDED|80.0|-0.0037||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 80% CI was reported.|||-0.0037|
91937960|NCT01033487|183773399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0294|||ONE_SIDED|80.0|0.0062||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 80% CI was reported.|||0.0062|
91811909|NCT00227903|183498688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0||||Not corrected for multiple comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|2 degrees of freedom||We estimated that 110 people with 10% attrition would provide 80% power.||||0.88
91811910|NCT00227903|183498689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
91811911|NCT00227903|183498690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.67|0.36|0.79
91811912|NCT00227903|183498691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.42|0.79
91811913|NCT00227903|183498692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|0.34|0.88
91811914|NCT00227903|183498693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|0.57|0.88
91811915|NCT00227903|183498694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.32|0.50
91811916|NCT00227903|183498695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91811917|NCT00227903|183498696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91811918|NCT00227903|183498697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91811919|NCT00227903|183498698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91811920|NCT00227903|183498699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.27|0.50
91811921|NCT00227903|183498700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|0.44|0.07
91937961|NCT01033487|183773408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0676||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0676|
91937962|NCT01033487|183773408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0245|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1431||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1431|
91937963|NCT01033487|183773408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0243|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1594||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1594|
91937964|NCT01033487|183773408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1222||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1222|
91937965|NCT01033487|183773408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0539|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0239|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0849||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0849|
91937966|NCT01033487|183773408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0238|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0088||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0088|
91937967|NCT01033487|183773408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0068||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0068|
91937968|NCT01033487|183773409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0214|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0576||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0576|
91937969|NCT01033487|183773409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1136||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1136|
91937970|NCT01033487|183773409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1413||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1413|
91937971|NCT01033487|183773409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0212|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1252||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1252|
91937972|NCT01033487|183773409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0211|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0946||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0946|
91937973|NCT01033487|183773409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0213|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0383||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0383|
91937974|NCT01033487|183773409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.011||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0110|
91811922|NCT00227903|183498701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.52|0.47|0.07
91811923|NCT00227903|183498702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.08|0.07
91937975|NCT00735670|183773448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.445
91937976|NCT00735670|183773449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|-0.31||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.15||Comparison of venlafaxine vs. placebo on change of PHQ-9 over time controlling for baseline PHQ-9 score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model (LMM) analysis was used and included a random intercept effect based on lowest Akaike's Information Criterion values when we compared three random coefficient models (intercept, slope and intercept and slope). To examine whether allocation group influenced the effect of time and baseline PHQ-9 sore on the trajectory of PHQ-9 scores, we included two interaction terms (time by allocation group and baseline PHQ-9 score by allocation group).||-0.15|-0.48|0.725
91937977|NCT04046341|183773454|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|McNemar|||||||.008
91937978|NCT04046341|183773455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.014
91811924|NCT00227903|183498703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.90|0.10|0.07
91811925|NCT00227903|183498704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.20|0.32|0.91
91811926|NCT00227903|183498705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.07|0.35|0.91
91811927|NCT00227903|183498706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.23|0.14|0.91
91811928|NCT00227903|183498707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|7.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.12|0.21|0.91
91811929|NCT00227903|183498708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.55|0.46|.04
91811930|NCT00227903|183498709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.17|0.35|0.04
91811931|NCT00227903|183498710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.04|0.04
91811932|NCT00227903|183498711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|0.04|0.04
91811933|NCT00227903|183498712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.01
91811934|NCT00227903|183498713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91937979|NCT04046341|183773456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.013
91937980|NCT04046341|183773457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91937981|NCT04046341|183773458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.209||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.209
91937982|NCT00435994|183773480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0020
91937983|NCT00435994|183773481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0020
91811935|NCT04309656|183498732|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|85.85||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.21|90.75|||ANOVA|||||90.75|81.21|0.0001
91811936|NCT04309656|183498732|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.99||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.65|104.62|||ANOVA|||||104.62|82.65|0.3001
91937984|NCT03846219|183773509|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.64||A one-sided alpha level of 0.1 was used.|generalized linear model|Estimates were adjusted for baseline volume of T2 lesions, MRI field strength (1.5 or 3.0 Tesla), and baseline number of Gd+ lesions (0, ≥1).|Rate ratio of 45 mg IMU-838 / placebo|H0: cumulative number of CUA MRI lesions up to Week 24 with 45 mg IMU-838 equal to or higher than that with placebo. A generalized linear model with a negative binomial distribution and logarithmic link function was used. Log transformation of time from 1st IMP dose to date of last MRI assessment was used as offset term. 51 patients per group were necessary to have 80% power to detect a difference of 3.5 in mean event rate with a significance level 0.1, 1-sided.||0.64|0.22|0.0002
91937985|NCT03846219|183773510|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.53||A hierarchical testing procedure with a one-sided alpha level of 0.1 was used.|Generalized linear model|Estimates were adjusted for baseline volume of T2 lesions, MRI field strength (1.5 or 3.0 Tesla), and baseline number of Gd+ lesions (0, ≥1).|Rate ratio of 30 mg IMU-838 / placebo|A generalized linear model with a negative binomial distribution and logarithmic link function was used. Log transformation of time from 1st IMP dose to date of last MRI assessment was used as offset term.||0.53|0.17|<.0001
91937986|NCT05109702|183773566|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.157|||MMRM|||The Least Square (LS) means, LS mean difference, Standard Errors (SEs), two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.157|-0.214|0.764
91937987|NCT05109702|183773567|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.969||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.483|10.155|||MMRM|||The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.155|-1.483|0.144
91937988|NCT05109702|183773568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.363|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.363|-0.005|0.056
91937989|NCT05109702|183773568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.359|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.359|-0.010|0.064
91937990|NCT05109702|183773568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.279|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.279|-0.093|0.328
91937991|NCT05109702|183773568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.168|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.168|-0.208|0.837
91811937|NCT04309656|183498733|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|100.6||||0.6686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.23|103.03|||ANOVA|||||103.03|98.23|0.6686
91811938|NCT04309656|183498733|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.7||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.2|99.1|||ANOVA|||||99.10|81.20|0.0745
91811939|NCT04309656|183498734|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|101.03||||0.4683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.65|103.47|||ANOVA|||||103.47|98.65|0.4683
91937992|NCT05109702|183773569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.187|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.187|-0.123|0.686
91937993|NCT05109702|183773569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.188|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.188|-0.123|0.680
91937994|NCT05109702|183773569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.207|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.207|-0.107|0.529
91937995|NCT05109702|183773569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.185|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.185|-0.132|0.745
91937996|NCT05109702|183773570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.192|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.192|-0.141|0.765
91937997|NCT05109702|183773570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.331|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.331|-0.002|0.053
91937998|NCT05109702|183773570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.219|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.219|-0.117|0.552
91937999|NCT05109702|183773570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.124|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.124|-0.216|0.593
91811940|NCT04309656|183498734|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.63||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.1|99.05|||ANOVA|||||99.05|81.10|0.0734
91938000|NCT05109702|183773571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.158|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.158|-0.183|0.884
91938001|NCT05109702|183773571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.233|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.233|-0.109|0.474
91938002|NCT05109702|183773571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.285|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.285|-0.060|0.202
91938003|NCT05109702|183773571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.396|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.396|0.047|0.013
91938004|NCT05109702|183773572|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.224|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.224|-0.131|0.604
91938005|NCT05109702|183773572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.236|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.236|-0.119|0.519
91938006|NCT05109702|183773572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.275|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.275|-0.085|0.299
91938007|NCT05109702|183773572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.324|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.324|-0.039|0.124
91938008|NCT05109702|183773573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.647|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.647|-0.196|0.293
91938009|NCT05109702|183773573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.783|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.783|-0.062|0.094
91938010|NCT05109702|183773573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.608|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.608|-0.245|0.404
91938011|NCT05109702|183773573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|0.377|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.377|-0.485|0.806
91938012|NCT05109702|183773574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.343|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.343|-0.273|0.824
91811941|NCT03720470|183498739|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||31.4|14.7|<0.0001
91811942|NCT03720470|183498739|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.1|43.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||43.5|26.1|<0.0001
91811943|NCT03720470|183498740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|41.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||41.6|22.2|<0.0001
91811944|NCT03720470|183498740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|52.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||52.7|33.7|<0.0001
91811945|NCT03720470|183498741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|26.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||26.3|9.5|0.0002
91938013|NCT05109702|183773574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.431|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.431|-0.186|0.437
91938014|NCT05109702|183773574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.519|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.519|-0.105|0.193
91938015|NCT05109702|183773574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.679|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.679|0.048|0.024
91938016|NCT05109702|183773575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.907|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.907|-0.386|0.430
91938017|NCT05109702|183773575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|1.132|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.132|-0.164|0.143
91938018|NCT05109702|183773575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|1.042|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.042|-0.267|0.245
91938019|NCT05109702|183773575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.97|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.970|-0.352|0.359
91938020|NCT05109702|183773576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.292|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.292|0.030|0.016
91938021|NCT05109702|183773576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.242|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.242|-0.021|0.099
91811946|NCT03720470|183498741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||43.7|26.0|<.0001
91938022|NCT05109702|183773576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.179|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.179|-0.086|0.493
91811947|NCT03720470|183498741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||13.4|-2.9|0.2084
91938023|NCT05109702|183773576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.135|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.135|-0.133|0.987
91938024|NCT05109702|183773577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.173|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.173|-0.109|0.655
91938025|NCT05109702|183773577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.125|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.125|-0.157|0.826
91938026|NCT05109702|183773577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.13|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.130|-0.155|0.861
91938027|NCT05109702|183773577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.187|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.187|-0.101|0.556
91938028|NCT05109702|183773578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.226|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.226|-0.116|0.527
91938029|NCT05109702|183773578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.418|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.418|0.077|0.005
91938030|NCT05109702|183773578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.181|||MMRM|||Wek 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.181|-0.164|0.920
91938031|NCT05109702|183773578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.269|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.269|-0.080|0.286
91938032|NCT05109702|183773579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.369|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.369|-0.015|0.071
91811948|NCT03720470|183498741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|30.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||30.7|13.5|<0.0001
91938033|NCT05109702|183773579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.278|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.278|-0.107|0.384
91938034|NCT05109702|183773579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.28|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.280|-0.109|0.391
91811949|NCT03720470|183498742|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||30.5|13.7|<0.0001
91938035|NCT05109702|183773579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.222|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.222|-0.171|0.802
91938036|NCT05109702|183773580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.178|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.178|-0.206|0.884
91938037|NCT05109702|183773580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.293|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.293|-0.091|0.303
91938038|NCT05109702|183773580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.253|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.253|-0.135|0.554
91938039|NCT05109702|183773580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.391|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.391|-0.001|0.051
91938040|NCT05109702|183773581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.591|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.591|-0.077|0.131
91938041|NCT05109702|183773581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.685|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.685|0.016|0.040
91938042|NCT05109702|183773581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.389|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.389|-0.287|0.767
91938043|NCT05109702|183773581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.485|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.485|-0.198|0.410
91938044|NCT05109702|183773582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.501|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.501|-0.166|0.324
91938045|NCT05109702|183773582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.525|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.525|-0.143|0.262
91938046|NCT05109702|183773582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.485|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.485|-0.190|0.391
91811950|NCT03720470|183498742|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||43.7|26.3|<0.0001
91811951|NCT03720470|183498742|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|5.2||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||5.2|-12.2|
91811952|NCT03720470|183498742|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|18.5||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||18.5|0.4|
91811953|NCT03720470|183498743|OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||34.1|14.0|<0.0001
91811954|NCT03720470|183498743|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|30.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||39.8|20.3|<0.0001
91811955|NCT03720470|183498743|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.2||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||4.2|-9.6|
91811956|NCT03720470|183498743|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.6||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||9.6|-3.3|
91811957|NCT01988103|183498770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|16.4||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|27.0|||Chi-squared|||||27.0|5.8|0.0032
91811958|NCT01988103|183498770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|21.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|32.1|||Chi-squared|||||32.1|10.1|0.0003
91811959|NCT01988103|183498771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|15.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|27.1|||Chi-squared|||||27.1|3.1|0.0165
91811960|NCT01988103|183498771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|20.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|33.3|||Chi-squared||Missing values were imputed using the LOCF method.|||33.3|8.2|0.0020
91811961|NCT01988103|183498772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-13.6|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-13.6|-44.5|0.0003
91811962|NCT01988103|183498772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-22.6|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-22.6|-53.4|<0.0001
91811963|NCT01988103|183498773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-14.0|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-14.0|-44.9|0.0002
91811964|NCT01988103|183498773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-24.1|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-24.1|-54.9|<0.0001
91811965|NCT01988103|183498774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|19.7||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|33.4|||Chi-squared|||||33.4|6.1|0.0057
91811966|NCT01988103|183498774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|42.9|||Chi-squared|||||42.9|15.4|<0.0001
91811967|NCT01988103|183498775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-6.7|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-6.7|-22.6|0.0003
91811968|NCT01988103|183498775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-16.9|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate. Missing values were imputed using the LOCF method.|||-16.9|-32.7|<0.0001
91811969|NCT01988103|183498776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-0.3|-3.2|0.0204
91811970|NCT01988103|183498776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.0|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-2.0|-4.9|<0.0001
91811971|NCT01988103|183498777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.5149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.53|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||3.53|-1.78|0.5149
91811972|NCT01988103|183498777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|4.5|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||4.50|-0.79|0.1693
91811973|NCT02451839|183498795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.001
91811974|NCT02451839|183498796|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91811975|NCT02451839|183498797|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91811976|NCT02451839|183498798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91938047|NCT05109702|183773582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.568|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.568|-0.114|0.192
91938048|NCT05109702|183773583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.999|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.999|-0.141|0.140
91938049|NCT05109702|183773583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|1.117|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.117|-0.025|0.061
91938050|NCT05109702|183773583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.78|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.780|-0.374|0.490
91938051|NCT05109702|183773583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.953|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.953|-0.212|0.212
91938052|NCT05109702|183773584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.101|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.101|-0.134|0.784
91811977|NCT02451839|183498799|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91811978|NCT02451839|183498800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91811979|NCT02451839|183498801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.015
91811980|NCT02451839|183498802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91811981|NCT02451839|183498803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.006
91811982|NCT02451839|183498804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91811983|NCT02451839|183498805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91811984|NCT02451839|183498806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.006
91811985|NCT02451839|183498807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91811986|NCT02451839|183498808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91811987|NCT02451839|183498809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91811988|NCT02451839|183498810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91811989|NCT01949051|183498870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.943|-0.756|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.756|-1.943|<0.0001
91811990|NCT01949051|183498870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.118||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.712|-0.525|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.525|-1.712|0.0003
91811991|NCT01949051|183498870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Levocabastine OD would be declared as non-inferior to levocabastine BID if upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference estimate (OD vs BD) was less than 1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.823||||||||0.823|-0.361|
91811992|NCT04483011|183498943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||\< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Dave 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.034
91811993|NCT04483011|183498943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.79||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation of Comparator.||||0.265
91811994|NCT04483011|183498943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||\< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator groups.||||0.044
91811995|NCT04483011|183498944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.88||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation of RiaGev.||||0.008
91811996|NCT04483011|183498944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34||0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.297
91811997|NCT04483011|183498944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.88||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator supplementation.||||0.04
91811998|NCT04483011|183498945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.57||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in the RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.004
91938053|NCT05109702|183773584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.176|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.176|-0.058|0.324
91938054|NCT05109702|183773584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.210|-0.027|0.130
91938055|NCT05109702|183773584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.350|0.110|0.000
91938056|NCT05109702|183773585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|1.613|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.613|-0.834|0.532
91938057|NCT05109702|183773585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.515|1.959|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.959|-0.515|0.252
91938058|NCT05109702|183773585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|3.231|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||3.231|0.732|0.002
91938059|NCT05109702|183773586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.268|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.268|-0.386|0.723
91938060|NCT05109702|183773586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|0.137|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.137|-0.519|0.254
91938061|NCT05109702|183773586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.028|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||-0.028|-0.690|0.034
91938062|NCT05109702|183773586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.414|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.414|-0.255|0.640
91938063|NCT05109702|183773587|SUPERIORITY|Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.|LS Mean Difference|1.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.893||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.223|7.133|||MMRM|||||7.133|-4.223|0.615
91811999|NCT04483011|183498945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.88||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.640
91812000|NCT04483011|183498945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.57||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator supplementation.||||0.014
91812001|NCT04483011|183498946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1037.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1590.74||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 8 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.013
91938064|NCT05109702|183773587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.894||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.866|10.494|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.494|-0.866|0.097
91938065|NCT05109702|183773587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.93||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|6.81|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||6.810|-4.690|0.718
91938066|NCT05109702|183773587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.963||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.728|8.903|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||8.903|-2.728|0.298
91938067|NCT05109702|183773588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.814||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.854|8.191|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.191|-2.854|0.343
91938068|NCT05109702|183773588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.814||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.813|9.232|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||9.232|-1.813|0.188
91938069|NCT05109702|183773588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.849||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|8.143|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||8.143|-3.040|0.371
91938070|NCT05109702|183773588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.883||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|12.573|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||12.573|1.259|0.017
91938071|NCT05109702|183773589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.452|6.147|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||6.147|-4.452|0.754
91812002|NCT04483011|183498946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-302.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1427.42||0.382|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 8 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison before before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.382
91812003|NCT04483011|183498947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-135.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2153.66||0.793|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 8 over Day 1 baseline is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation||||0.793
91812004|NCT04483011|183498947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-134.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1830.16||0.758|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 8 over Day 1 baseline is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.758
91812005|NCT04483011|183498948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|123.89||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation||||0.003
91812006|NCT04483011|183498948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|88.62||0.766|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.766
91812007|NCT04483011|183498949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.2||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator groups after 7-day supplementation.||||0.029
91812008|NCT04483011|183498950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator groups.||||0.034
91812009|NCT04483011|183498951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.99||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.014
91812010|NCT04483011|183498951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.66||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.049
91938072|NCT05109702|183773589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.865|7.731|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||7.731|-2.865|0.368
91938073|NCT05109702|183773589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.734||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.014|6.715|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||6.715|-4.014|0.621
91938074|NCT05109702|183773589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.766||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.688|10.168|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.168|-0.688|0.087
91938075|NCT05109702|183773590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|9.425|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.425|-0.958|0.110
91812011|NCT01454947|183498956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P values computed using difference between proportions (z value) with Bonferroni correction.|2 proportion Z-test|||||||0.007
91812012|NCT01025791|183498959|OTHER||0.1 mg vs. placebo|-7.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|-3.0|||ANOVA|||||-3.00|-11.1|0.003
91812013|NCT01025791|183498959|OTHER||0.2 mg vs. placebo|-1.23||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.42|2.96|||ANOVA|||||2.96|-5.42|0.310
91938076|NCT05109702|183773590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.647||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.535|7.855|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.855|-2.535|0.315
91938077|NCT05109702|183773590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.678||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.582|7.928|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.928|-2.582|0.318
91938078|NCT05109702|183773590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.525|8.111|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.111|-2.525|0.303
91938079|NCT05109702|183773591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.975||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.402|10.273|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||10.273|-1.402|0.136
91938080|NCT05109702|183773591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.972||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.966|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||9.966|-1.700|0.165
91812014|NCT01025791|183498959|OTHER||0.5 mg vs. placebo|0.01||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|4.06|||ANOVA|||||4.06|-4.05|0.498
91812015|NCT01025791|183498959|OTHER||1 mg vs. placebo|-5.69||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.74|-1.63|||ANOVA|||||-1.63|-9.74|0.012
91812016|NCT01025791|183498959|OTHER||1 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|-3.97||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.16|0.22|||ANOVA|||||0.22|-8.16|0.059
91812017|NCT01025791|183498959|OTHER||0.4 mg vs. placebo|2.22||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|6.54|||ANOVA|||||6.54|-2.09|0.191
91812018|NCT01025791|183498959|OTHER||1.2 mg vs. placebo|1.24||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.67|6.15|||ANOVA|||||6.15|-3.67|0.333
91812019|NCT01025791|183498959|OTHER||1.2 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-1.43||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|3.63|||ANOVA|||||3.63|-6.50|0.314
91812020|NCT01025791|183498959|OTHER||1 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|-9.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|-4.37|||ANOVA|||||-4.37|-14.2|0.001
91812021|NCT01025791|183498959|OTHER||1.2 mg + 1.0 mg vs. placebo|-6.45||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|-1.51|||ANOVA|||||-1.51|-11.4|0.017
91812022|NCT01025791|183498959|OTHER||1.0 mg + 0.6 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-9.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|-5.02|||ANOVA|||||-5.02|-14.9|0.001
91812023|NCT01025791|183498959|OTHER||1 mg + 1 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-9.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-4.17|||ANOVA|||||-4.17|-13.8|0.002
91938081|NCT05109702|183773591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.008||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.207|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||7.207|-4.600|0.665
91938082|NCT05109702|183773591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.043||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|10.995|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.995|-0.950|0.099
91938083|NCT05109702|183773592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.926||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.232|6.254|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.254|-5.232|0.861
91938084|NCT05109702|183773592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.925||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.983|7.497|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.497|-3.983|0.548
91938085|NCT05109702|183773592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.839|9.777|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.777|-1.839|0.180
91812024|NCT01025791|183498964|OTHER||GMR (Fed/Fasted)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.92||||||||0.92|0.86|
91938086|NCT05109702|183773592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.993||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.941|9.807|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.807|-1.941|0.189
91812025|NCT01025791|183498965|OTHER||GMR (Fed/fasted)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19||||||||1.19|0.79|
91812026|NCT01025791|183498966|OTHER||0.1 mg vs placebo|-0.53||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.92|2.86|||ANOVA|||||2.86|-3.92|0.396
91812027|NCT01025791|183498966|OTHER||0.2 mg vs. placebo|2.33||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|5.83|||ANOVA|||||5.83|-1.17|0.1329
91812028|NCT01025791|183498966|OTHER||0.5mg vs. placebo|-2.96||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.35|0.43|||ANOVA|||||0.43|-6.35|0.0741
91812029|NCT01025791|183498966|OTHER||1 mg vs. placebo|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.69|10.47|||ANOVA|||||10.47|3.69|<0.001
91812030|NCT01025791|183498966|OTHER||1 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|4.39||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|7.09|||ANOVA|||||7.09|0.89|0.0211
91812031|NCT01025791|183498966|OTHER||0.4 mg vs. placebo|0.85||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.79|6.48|||ANOVA|||||6.48|-4.79|0.399
91812032|NCT01025791|183498966|OTHER||1.2 mg vs. placebo|4.54||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.94|11.02|||ANOVA|||||11.02|-1.94|0.100
91812033|NCT01025791|183498966|OTHER||1.2 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|3.38||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.29|10.06|||ANOVA|||||10.06|-3.29|0.195
91812034|NCT01025791|183498966|OTHER||1.0 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|9.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|16.58|||ANOVA|||||16.58|1.74|0.022
91812035|NCT01025791|183498966|OTHER||1.2 mg + 1.0 mg vs. placebo|5.74||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|13.16|||ANOVA|||||13.16|-1.68|0.098
91812036|NCT01025791|183498966|OTHER||1 mg + 0.6 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|3.48||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|10.9|||ANOVA|||||10.90|-3.94|0.214
91812037|NCT01025791|183498966|OTHER||1 mg + 1 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|4.24||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|11.52|||ANOVA|||||11.52|-3.03|0.163
91812038|NCT02237950|183499024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.015
91812039|NCT02237950|183499025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
91812040|NCT02237950|183499026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.002
91812041|NCT02237950|183499027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
91812042|NCT02237950|183499028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.012
91938087|NCT05109702|183773593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.608||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.799|6.438|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.438|-3.799|0.613
91812043|NCT02237950|183499029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.059
91812044|NCT02237950|183499030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
91812045|NCT01896531|183499033|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||=|0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.55|||Log Rank|||All randomized participants||1.55|0.81|= 0.56
91812046|NCT01896531|183499033|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.11|||Log Rank|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||2.11|0.54|= 0.86
91938088|NCT05109702|183773593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|9.653|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.653|-0.586|0.083
91938089|NCT05109702|183773593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.639||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.508|8.851|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.851|-1.508|0.165
91938090|NCT05109702|183773593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.672||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.964|9.522|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.522|-0.964|0.110
91938091|NCT05109702|183773594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|6.994|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.994|0.154|0.041
91938092|NCT05109702|183773594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.723|6.118|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.118|-0.723|0.122
91938093|NCT05109702|183773594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|8.056|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.056|1.146|0.009
91938094|NCT05109702|183773594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.781||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|7.536|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.536|0.544|0.024
91938095|NCT05109702|183773595|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.394|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.394|-0.115|0.282
91938096|NCT05109702|183773595|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.375|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.375|-0.134|0.353
91938097|NCT05109702|183773595|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.218|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.218|-0.297|0.764
91938098|NCT05109702|183773595|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.476|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.476|-0.044|0.104
91938099|NCT05109702|183773596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.288|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.288|-0.300|0.969
91812047|NCT01896531|183499034|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||=|0.0234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|2.07|||Log Rank|||All randomized participants||2.07|1.12|= 0.0234
91812048|NCT01896531|183499034|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||=|0.2867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|3.65|||Log Rank|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||3.65|0.75|= 0.2867
91938100|NCT05109702|183773596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.394|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.394|-0.194|0.504
91938101|NCT05109702|183773596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.314|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.314|-0.281|0.915
91938102|NCT05109702|183773596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.499|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.499|-0.102|0.195
91938103|NCT05109702|183773597|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.449|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.449|-0.133|0.287
91938104|NCT05109702|183773597|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.458|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.458|-0.124|0.260
91938105|NCT05109702|183773597|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.291|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.291|-0.296|0.987
91938106|NCT05109702|183773597|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.519|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.519|-0.075|0.143
91938107|NCT05109702|183773598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||-0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.49|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.490|-0.102|-0.198
91938108|NCT05109702|183773598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.564|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.564|-0.028|0.076
91938109|NCT05109702|183773598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.367|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.367|-0.231|0.656
91938110|NCT05109702|183773598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.454|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.454|-0.150|0.324
91938111|NCT05109702|183773599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.39|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.390|-0.182|0.477
91938112|NCT05109702|183773599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.598|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.598|0.026|0.033
91812049|NCT01896531|183499034|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||=|0.1369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|2.93|||Log Rank|||Participants who are Akt Dx+||2.93|0.94|= 0.1369
91938113|NCT05109702|183773599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.420|-0.158|0.374
91938114|NCT05109702|183773599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.529|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.529|-0.056|0.114
91938115|NCT05109702|183773600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.822|0.475|||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediately Upon Instillation at Week 1||0.475|-0.822|0.598
91938116|NCT05109702|183773600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.783|0.273|||t-test, 2 sided|||1 Minute Post Instillation at Week 1||0.273|-0.783|0.343
91938117|NCT05109702|183773600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.721|0.262|||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Minutes Post Instillation at Week 1||0.262|-0.721|0.359
91938118|NCT03812588|183773601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.261||0.292|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear regression model of condition in predicting change in HRSD-24. P-value and coefficient are Medication:Track. Medication (Escitalopram or Placebo) with Track (RFM or CFM) as co-variates. The threshold for statistical significance was p\>0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.292
91938119|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.69|0.0856
91938120|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.84|0.8546
91938121|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.86|0.62|0.0012
91938122|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.87|0.8414
91938123|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.64|0.2412
91938124|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.44||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.44|0.88|0.4548
91938125|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.88||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.88|0.53|0.0093
91938126|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.42||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.42|0.86|0.8414
91938127|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.75|0.1749
91938128|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.27||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.27|0.96|0.3121
91938129|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.78|0.1351
91938130|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.93|0.8414
91812050|NCT01896531|183499035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-5.2|||=|0.5202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.46|8.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All randomized participants||8.06|-18.46|= 0.5202
91938131|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.67|0.2158
91938132|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.71|0.3279
91938133|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.72|0.2472
91938134|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.79|0.8414
91938135|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.81|0.6193
91938136|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.96|0.3121
91938137|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.70|0.0191
91938138|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.14||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.33||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.33|0.97|0.8414
91938139|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.76|0.2412
91938140|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.35||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.35|0.99|0.3121
91938141|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.94|0.68|0.0135
91812051|NCT01896531|183499035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-23.33|||=|0.2035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.24|5.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||5.58|-52.24|= 0.2035
91812052|NCT01896531|183499035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-4.35|||=|0.7697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.48|19.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Participants who are Akt Dx+||19.79|-28.48|= 0.7697
91812053|NCT01896531|183499036|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||=|0.5974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.73|||Log Rank|||All randomized participants||1.73|0.76|= 0.5974
91812054|NCT01896531|183499036|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||=|0.5385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.79|||Log Rank|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||1.79|0.28|= 0.5385
91812055|NCT01896531|183499036|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.6097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.75|||Log Rank|||Participants who are Akt Dx+||1.75|0.35|= 0.6097
91938142|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.87|0.8414
91938143|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.66|0.1749
91938144|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.41||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.41|0.93|0.3121
91938145|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.7||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.86|0.57|0.0038
91938146|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.27|0.84|0.8414
91938147|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.76|0.2412
91938148|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.2||||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.41||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.41|1.02|0.2053
91938149|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.70|0.0241
91938150|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.88|0.8414
91938151|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.94||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.94|0.69|0.0732
91938152|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.82|0.6090
91938153|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.76|0.56|<0.0001
91938154|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.82|0.8414
91938155|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.7828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.82|0.7828
91938156|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.21||||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|1.02|0.2053
91938157|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.92||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.92|0.65|0.0093
91938158|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.31||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.31|0.93|0.8414
91938159|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.73|0.2412
91938160|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.14||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.37||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.37|0.95|0.3121
91938161|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.93|0.64|0.0135
91938162|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.34||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.34|0.92|0.8414
91938163|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.79|0.2412
91938164|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.6652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.18|0.91|0.6652
91938165|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.75|0.0275
91938166|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.93|0.8414
91938167|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.76|0.2412
91938168|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.96|0.3121
91938169|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.99|0.72|0.0387
91938170|NCT01392378|183773606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.89|0.8414
91938171|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.82|0.9350
91938172|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.93|0.7918
91812056|NCT05185089|183499039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-0.62|0.989
91938173|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.80|0.6922
91938174|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.93|0.9765
91938175|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.78|0.6915
91938176|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.36||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.36|0.94|0.7918
91812057|NCT05185089|183499039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-1.16|0.054
91812058|NCT05185089|183499040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.62|||ANCOVA|||||0.62|-0.52|0.872
91812059|NCT05185089|183499040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.14|0.041
91812060|NCT05185089|183499041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.61|0.991
91938177|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.4389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.75|0.4389
91938178|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.85|0.9765
91938179|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.87|0.9350
91938180|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.18||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.18|0.90|0.7918
91938181|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.88|0.9430
91938182|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.85|0.9765
91938183|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.74|0.5167
91938184|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.78|0.7918
91938185|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.73|0.2514
91938186|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.84|0.9872
91938187|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.73|0.2582
91812061|NCT05185089|183499041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.97|0.215
91938188|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.91|0.7918
91938189|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.74|0.2514
91938190|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.88|0.9765
91812062|NCT05185089|183499042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.45|||ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.73|0.639
91812063|NCT05185089|183499042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-1.00|0.092
91812064|NCT05185089|183499043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.17|0.650
91812065|NCT05185089|183499043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.41|0.010
91812066|NCT05185089|183499044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.53|||ANCOVA|||||0.53|-0.44|0.856
91812067|NCT05185089|183499044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.87|0.036
91812068|NCT05185089|183499045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|-0.73|0.678
91938191|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.6915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.30|0.86|0.6915
91938192|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.38||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.38|0.93|0.7918
91938193|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.78|0.6922
91938194|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.83|0.9872
91938195|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.70|0.3609
91938196|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.3||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.30|0.89|0.7918
91938197|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.71|0.2514
91938198|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.26|0.86|0.9765
91938199|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.79|0.6304
91938200|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.91|0.7918
91938201|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.75|0.2514
91938202|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.88|0.9765
91938203|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.71|0.2582
91938204|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.18|0.84|0.9279
91938205|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.72|0.2514
91812069|NCT05185089|183499045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.31|||ANCOVA|||||2.31|0.16|0.025
91812070|NCT05185089|183499046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.22|0.633
91812071|NCT05185089|183499046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.56|||ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.02|0.063
91938206|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.76|0.9765
91938207|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.71|0.1424
91938208|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.84|0.7918
91938209|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.73|0.2514
91938210|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.79|0.9765
91938211|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.78|0.6304
91938212|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.88|0.7918
91938213|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.81|0.6922
91938214|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.82|0.9765
91938215|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.84|0.6572
91938216|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.86|0.7918
91938217|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.79|0.2514
91938218|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.88|0.9872
91938219|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.78|0.6304
91812072|NCT05185089|183499047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.44|0.732
91812073|NCT05185089|183499047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.89|||ANCOVA|||||0.89|0.01|0.044
91812074|NCT05185089|183499048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.58|||ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.19|0.318
91812075|NCT05185089|183499048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|0.05|0.030
91812076|NCT05185089|183499049|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.105||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33|||ANCOVA|||||1.33|0.88|0.438
91812077|NCT05185089|183499049|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||ANCOVA|||||1.31|0.82|0.761
91812078|NCT05185089|183499050|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|0.88|0.449
91938220|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.88|0.7918
91938221|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.80|0.6922
91938222|NCT01392378|183773608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.81|0.9765
91938223|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.66||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.66|0.82|0.7148
91938224|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.45||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.45|0.75|0.7907
91938225|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.4765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.60|0.81|0.4765
91938226|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3||||0.5037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.76||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.76|0.89|0.5037
91938227|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.17|0.52|0.9414
91938228|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.71||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.71|0.45|0.7907
91938229|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.32|0.2900
91938230|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.77||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.77|0.44|0.8826
91938231|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.4||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.40|0.18|0.5823
91938232|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.8||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.80|0.27|0.7636
91938233|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.14|0.2407
91938234|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||3.22|0.43|0.8826
91938235|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.81||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.81|0.26|0.0961
91938236|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.38|0.7636
91938237|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.39|0.2900
91938238|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.82||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.82|0.60|0.8826
91938239|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.9925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.54||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.54|0.65|0.9925
91938240|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.17|0.52|0.7636
91938241|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.53|0.3929
91938242|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|0.62|0.8826
91938243|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.20|0.70|0.7433
91938244|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.35||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.35|0.46|0.7636
91938245|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.34|0.2407
91938246|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.83||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.83|0.61|0.8826
91938247|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.71||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.71|0.51|0.9414
91812079|NCT05185089|183499050|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.125||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|0.82|0.732
91938248|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.14|0.68|0.7636
91938249|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.63||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.63|0.50|0.7380
91938250|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.58||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.58|0.49|0.8826
91812080|NCT05185089|183499051|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.161||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54|||ANCOVA|||||1.54|0.84|0.400
91812081|NCT05185089|183499051|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.187||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|0.69|0.912
91812082|NCT05185089|183499052|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.084||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.29|||ANCOVA|||||1.29|0.93|0.287
91812083|NCT05185089|183499052|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||ANCOVA|||||1.29|0.90|0.420
91812084|NCT05185089|183499053|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.05|||ANCOVA|||||1.05|0.96|0.765
91812085|NCT05185089|183499053|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.033||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.97|||ANCOVA|||||0.97|0.85|0.004
91812086|NCT00770289|183499056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.899|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|0.911||The statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation|||Change from baseline at Week 12: Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate compatibility between the questionnaires.||0.911|0.886|<0.0001
91938251|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.65||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.65|0.67|0.9414
91938252|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|0.58|0.7907
91938253|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.43|0.2407
91938254|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.02||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.02|0.42|0.2670
91812087|NCT00770289|183499056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.797|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|0.82||The statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation|||Change from baseline at Week 12: Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate compatibility between the questionnaires.||0.820|0.771|<0.0001
91812088|NCT00770289|183499056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.765|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|0.791||The statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation|||Change from baseline at Week 12: Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate compatibility between the questionnaires.||0.791|0.736|<0.0001
91938255|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.62|0.5823
91938256|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.65|0.7636
91938257|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.86|0.48|0.0422
91812089|NCT02733991|183499058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based Estimated mean; Treatment arm - Control arm|||-2.25|-3.51|<0.0001
91812090|NCT02733991|183499059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.01|-33.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based Estimated mean; Treatment arm - Control arm|||-33.19|-52.01|<0.0001
91812091|NCT02733991|183499060|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 40 min/day|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.46|||||Model based Estimated mean; difference = control arm - treatment arm|||-0.46||
91938258|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.53|0.2670
91938259|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.78||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.78|0.72|0.8454
91812092|NCT02733991|183499060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.8||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|77.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based Estimated mean; Difference = Treatment arm - Control arm|||77.11|0.46|0.0474
91812093|NCT02956486|183499068|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.22|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (mild cognitive impairment \[MCI\]/Prodromal, mild alzheimer's disease \[AD\]), concurrent AD medication use, region, apolipoprotein E (ApoE4) status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.22|-0.57|0.385
91812094|NCT02956486|183499070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.02|-0.06|0.345
91812095|NCT02956486|183499071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|-6.88|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||-6.88|-18.79|<.001
91938260|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.00|0.81|0.7636
91938261|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.45|0.2824
91938262|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3||||0.5155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.06|0.83|0.5155
91938263|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.50|0.5823
91938264|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.7||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.70|0.78|0.7636
91938265|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.25|0.56|0.4644
91938266|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.31||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.31|0.59|0.8826
91938267|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.61|0.5823
91938268|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.65|0.7636
91938269|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.60|0.3299
91938270|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.54|0.2670
91938271|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.48|0.5823
91938272|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.69||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.69|0.68|0.7907
91938273|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.43|0.2742
91938274|NCT01392378|183773610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.42|0.2670
91938275|NCT01392378|183773611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.71|0.813
91938276|NCT01392378|183773611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.34||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.34|0.79|0.845
91938277|NCT01392378|183773611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.65|0.461
91938278|NCT01392378|183773611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.68|0.545
91938279|NCT01392378|183773612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.79|0.712
91938280|NCT01392378|183773612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.84|0.837
91938281|NCT01392378|183773612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.78|0.357
91938282|NCT01392378|183773612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.76|0.190
91938283|NCT01392378|183773612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.83|0.813
91938284|NCT01392378|183773612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.73|0.136
91938285|NCT01392378|183773612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.74|0.104
91938286|NCT01392378|183773612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.85||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.85|0.64|<0.001
91812096|NCT02956486|183499072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.22|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.22|-0.67|0.316
91812097|NCT02956486|183499073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.02|-0.07|0.254
91938287|NCT01392378|183773612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.72|0.712
91938288|NCT01392378|183773612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.70|0.206
91938289|NCT01392378|183773612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.93||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.93|0.65|0.066
91938290|NCT01392378|183773612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.97|0.67|0.085
91812098|NCT02956486|183499074|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Mean Slope|-0.008||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.129|||Linear mixed effects model|||Based on the linear mixed effects model, which included assessment time and treatment group by assessment time interaction as covariate with random intercept and slope.||0.129|-0.145|0.9088
91938291|NCT01392378|183773613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.77|0.712
91938292|NCT01392378|183773613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.74|0.206
91938293|NCT01392378|183773613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.72|0.104
91938294|NCT01392378|183773613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.87|0.63|0.001
91938295|NCT01392378|183773613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.82|0.813
91938296|NCT01392378|183773613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.90|0.837
91938297|NCT01392378|183773613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.81|0.534
91938298|NCT01392378|183773613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.87|0.961
91938299|NCT01392378|183773614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.42||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.42|0.75|0.850
91938300|NCT01392378|183773614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.44|0.77|0.837
91938301|NCT01392378|183773614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.94||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.69|0.695
91812099|NCT02956486|183499075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Based on a Cox regression model which included treatment group, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, APOE4 status (positive, negative) as covariate.||1.16|0.77|0.6155
91938302|NCT01392378|183773614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.60|0.408
91938303|NCT01392378|183773615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.30|0.69|0.813
91938304|NCT01392378|183773615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.92||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.25||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.25|0.68|0.837
91938305|NCT01392378|183773615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.94||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.68|0.695
91938306|NCT01392378|183773615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.36|0.71|0.961
91812100|NCT02956486|183499076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||Based on a Cox regression model which included treatment group, concurrent AD medication use, region, APOE4 status (positive, negative) as covariate.||1.35|0.96|0.1281
91938307|NCT01392378|183773615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.18||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.65||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.65|0.85|0.808
91938308|NCT01392378|183773615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.50|0.80|0.837
91938309|NCT01392378|183773615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.92||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.66|0.695
91938310|NCT01392378|183773615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.82||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.58|0.408
91938311|NCT01392378|183773615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.07||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.46||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.46|0.78|0.813
91938312|NCT01392378|183773615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.59|0.343
91938313|NCT01392378|183773615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.12||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.52||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.52|0.82|0.695
91938314|NCT01392378|183773615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.31|0.69|0.925
91938315|NCT01392378|183773616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|0.81|0.910
91938316|NCT01392378|183773616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.37|0.79|0.850
91938317|NCT01392378|183773616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.70|0.868
91938318|NCT01392378|183773616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.67|0.914
91938319|NCT01392378|183773617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.89|0.910
91812101|NCT02956486|183499077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.9|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.90|-1.75|0.525
91938320|NCT01392378|183773617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.89|0.850
91812102|NCT02956486|183499078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.62|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.62|-0.64|0.977
91812103|NCT02956486|183499079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.32|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||1.32|-1.09|0.854
91938321|NCT01392378|183773617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.85|0.961
91938322|NCT01392378|183773617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.85|0.916
91938323|NCT01392378|183773617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.87|0.910
91938324|NCT01392378|183773617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.89|0.909
91938325|NCT01392378|183773617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.93|0.868
91938326|NCT01392378|183773617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.81|0.914
91938327|NCT01392378|183773617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.76|0.910
91938328|NCT01392378|183773617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.76|0.850
91938329|NCT01392378|183773617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.78|0.868
91812104|NCT02956486|183499080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.26|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.26|-0.79|0.314
91938330|NCT01392378|183773617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.76|0.914
91938331|NCT01392378|183773618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.83|0.910
91812105|NCT02956486|183499081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.07|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||1.07|-0.93|0.895
91938332|NCT01392378|183773618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.94||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.82|0.850
91938333|NCT01392378|183773618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.86|0.939
91938334|NCT01392378|183773618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.75|0.279
91812106|NCT02956486|183499082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.17|-0.09|0.542
91938335|NCT01392378|183773618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.97|0.76|0.149
91938336|NCT01392378|183773618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.91|0.850
91938337|NCT01392378|183773618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.99|0.79|0.394
91938338|NCT01392378|183773618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.87|0.916
91938339|NCT01392378|183773619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.26||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.76||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.76|0.90|0.869
91938340|NCT01392378|183773619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.48||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.48|0.78|0.850
91938341|NCT01392378|183773619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.52||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.52|0.80|0.868
91938342|NCT01392378|183773619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.52||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.52|0.80|0.916
91938343|NCT01392378|183773620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.78|0.910
91938344|NCT01392378|183773620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.05||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.83|0.850
91938345|NCT01392378|183773620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.09||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.37||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.37|0.87|0.868
91938346|NCT01392378|183773620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.81|0.916
91812107|NCT02956486|183499083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.01|-0.02|0.380
91938347|NCT01392378|183773620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.99||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.79|0.910
91938348|NCT01392378|183773620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.94||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.17|0.76|0.850
91938349|NCT01392378|183773620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.17|0.77|0.868
91938350|NCT01392378|183773620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.79|0.916
91938351|NCT01392378|183773620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.77|0.910
91938352|NCT01392378|183773620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.84||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.67|0.850
91938353|NCT01392378|183773620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.78|0.939
91938354|NCT01392378|183773620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.96||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.76|0.916
91938355|NCT00180271|183773631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84||The trial involved prespecified event monitoring at up to 20 successive periods by an independent DSMB to permit trial termination if the CRT-D was superior to, inferior to, or not different from ICD according to prespecified stopping rules.|Log Rank||A Hazard ratio \< 1.0 would indicate that the result favors CRT-D.|The trial utilized a Wang-Tsiatis (delta=0.1) group-sequential design with 95% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.75 at a two-sided significance level of 0.05. Primary analysis based on statistical evaluation comparing the life-table event-free survival time graphs for CRT-D and ICD-only arms of the trial. Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to estimate a hazard ratio and statistical significance was evaluated with the log-rank test. Stratified by center and ischemic status.||0.84|0.52|< 0.001
91938356|NCT00180271|183773632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.86|||Andersen-Gill|Andersen-Gill model performed, adjusted for a previous HF event in the study, stratified by ischemic status and using robust variance estimation.|Model adjusted for previously experienced heart failure event in the study. Hazard Ratio (95% CI) comparing patients with a previous heart failure event to those patients without a prior heart failure event equaled 8.84 (6084, 11.43), p\<0.001.|||0.86|0.53|0.001
91938357|NCT00788697|183773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|11.3||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|23.6|||McNemar|||||23.6|-1.0|0.0754
91938358|NCT00788697|183773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|19.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|30.5|||McNemar|||||30.5|8.3|0.0011
91938359|NCT00788697|183773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|-19.4||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-7.8|||McNemar|||||-7.8|-30.9|0.0016
91938360|NCT00788697|183773641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|57.4|||McNemar|||||57.4|37.4|<.0001
91938361|NCT00788697|183773641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|60.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|70.2|||McNemar|||||70.2|50.5|<.0001
91938362|NCT00788697|183773641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|38.9|||McNemar|||||38.9|19.7|<.0001
91938363|NCT00788697|183773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|37.0|||McNemar|||||37.0|20.5|<.0001
91938364|NCT00788697|183773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|47.1|||McNemar|||||47.1|31.3|<.0001
91938365|NCT00788697|183773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|4.2||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.3|||McNemar|||||12.3|-4.0|0.3173
91938366|NCT00788697|183773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91938367|NCT00788697|183773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91938368|NCT00788697|183773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wald Test|||||||0.0004
91938369|NCT00788697|183773644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91938370|NCT00788697|183773644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91938371|NCT00788697|183773644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761|||||||Wald Test|||||||0.7610
91938372|NCT01998880|183773651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.59||Type I error controlled through closed test procedure.|Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.59|0.36|<0.0001
91938373|NCT01998880|183773653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.5|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.50|0.31|<0.0001
91938374|NCT01998880|183773654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||1.16|0.61|0.2841
91938375|NCT01998880|183773655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|45.1|||Chi-squared|||||45.1|23.5|<0.0001
91938376|NCT01998880|183773657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.61|||Log-ranked, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.61|0.35|<0.0001
91938377|NCT01998880|183773661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.53|0.30|<0.0001
91938378|NCT01998880|183773662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.65|0.31|<0.0001
91938379|NCT01998880|183773663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|33.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|43.9|||Chi-squared|||Includes subjects with best overall response: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||43.9|22.1|< 0.0001
91938380|NCT00014911|183773694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|61.0|||Fisher Exact|||||61|30|
91938381|NCT00014911|183773695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0|||Fisher Exact|||||44|16|
91938382|NCT00014911|183773696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|63.0|||Fisher Exact|||||63|42|
91938383|NCT05064332|183773702|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|101.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.01|110.61||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||110.61|93.01|
91938384|NCT05064332|183773703|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|108.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.85|119.11||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||119.11|98.85|
91938385|NCT05064332|183773704|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|95.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.44|107.04||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||107.04|84.44|
91938386|NCT05064332|183773705|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|117.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.82|136.73||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||136.73|101.82|
91938387|NCT01569087|183773714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91938388|NCT04532918|183773720|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|255.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|208.7|312.3|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax||312.3|208.7|
91938389|NCT04532918|183773720|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|189.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.0|233.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax||233.1|154.0|
91938390|NCT04532918|183773721|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|238.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|207.6|273.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf||273.8|207.6|
91938391|NCT04532918|183773721|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|148.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.1|171.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf||171.7|129.1|
91938392|NCT04532918|183773722|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|261.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|229.8|298.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast||298.1|229.8|
91938393|NCT04532918|183773722|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|163.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|142.8|186.6|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast||186.6|142.8|
91938394|NCT04532918|183773723|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|273.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|227.9|328.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M1||328.1|227.9|
91938395|NCT04532918|183773723|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|275.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|228.7|332.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M1||332.7|228.7|
91812108|NCT02956486|183499084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.02|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.02|-0.82|0.063
91938396|NCT04532918|183773723|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|24.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.15|31.72|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M8||31.72|19.15|
91938397|NCT04532918|183773723|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|37.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.18|49.03|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M8||49.03|29.18|
91938398|NCT04532918|183773724|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|291.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|260.6|326.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for metabolite: M1||326.8|260.6|
91938399|NCT04532918|183773724|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|215.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|192.0|242.4|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M1||242.4|192.0|
91938400|NCT04532918|183773724|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|55.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.19|64.83|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for metabolite: M8||64.83|47.19|
91938401|NCT04532918|183773724|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|68.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.99|80.39|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for metabolite: M8||80.39|57.99|
91938402|NCT04532918|183773725|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|306.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|273.3|343.6|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M1||343.6|273.3|
91938403|NCT04532918|183773725|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|227.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.1|255.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M1||255.8|202.1|
91938404|NCT04532918|183773725|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|51.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.8|59.45|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M8||59.45|43.80|
91938405|NCT04532918|183773725|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|70.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.21|82.44|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M8||82.44|60.21|
91812109|NCT02956486|183499085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.01|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||-0.01|-1.11|0.045
91812110|NCT02956486|183499086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.24|-0.32|0.799
91938406|NCT04532918|183773726|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|74.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.42|94.26|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for allopurinol||94.26|59.42|
91938407|NCT04532918|183773726|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|80.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.88|102.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for allopurinol||102.7|63.88|
91938408|NCT04532918|183773726|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|96.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|101.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for oxypurinol||101.8|92.11|
91938409|NCT04532918|183773726|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.36|104.0|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for oxypurinol||104.0|94.36|
91938410|NCT04532918|183773727|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|98.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.26|105.9|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for allopurinol||105.9|91.26|
91938411|NCT04532918|183773727|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.72|109.2|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for allopurinol||109.2|93.72|
91938412|NCT04532918|183773727|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.02|103.5|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for oxypurinol||103.5|95.02|
91938413|NCT04532918|183773727|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|96.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.15|100.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for oxypurinol||100.1|92.15|
91938414|NCT04532918|183773728|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|98.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.1|106.0|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for allopurinol||106.0|91.10|
91938415|NCT04532918|183773728|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.99|109.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for allopurinol||109.8|93.99|
91812111|NCT02956486|183499087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.07|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||-0.07|-0.56|0.012
91812112|NCT01867021|183499149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The HI GMTs of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 considered non-inferior to HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIVf / GMT TIV) was ≤1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.06|||ANCOVA|Not applicable(NA)||Non-inferiority of HI GMTs of TIV vaccine over HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H1N1 at day 22||2.06|1.66|
91938416|NCT04532918|183773728|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|98.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|101.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for oxypurinol||101.7|94.50|
91938417|NCT04532918|183773728|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|95.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.61|99.48|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects||99.48|92.61|
91938418|NCT03788616|183773741|EQUIVALENCE|assuming 95% power of the study|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
91938419|NCT04839393|183773751|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|108.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.24|135.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||135.84|87.24|
91938420|NCT04839393|183773752|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|113.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.34|143.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||143.28|89.34|
91938421|NCT04839393|183773753|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|38.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.8|45.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The test treatment was PF-06865571 300 mg + PF-06882961 200 mg BID (Period 3 - Day 47), which was reported separately in comparison to the reference treatment of PF-06865571 300 mg (Period 1 - Day 1).||45.74|32.80|
91938422|NCT04839393|183773754|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.95|80.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||80.40|67.95|
91938423|NCT04839393|183773755|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.82|80.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||80.18|66.82|
91938424|NCT04839393|183773756|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|115.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.37|155.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||155.73|85.37|
91938425|NCT04839393|183773757|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|118.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|149.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||149.66|94.05|
91938426|NCT00671970|183773773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91812113|NCT01867021|183499149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The HI GMTs of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 considered non-inferior to HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIVf / GMT TIV) was ≤1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of HI GMTs of TIV vaccine over HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H3N2 at day 22||1.64|1.38|
91812114|NCT01867021|183499149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The HI GMTs of TIV vaccine for strain B considered non-inferior to HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIVf / GMT TIV) was ≤1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of HI GMTs of TIV vaccine over HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine for the strain B at day 22||1.08|0.93|
91938427|NCT00671970|183773774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.613
91938428|NCT00671970|183773775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91938429|NCT00671970|183773776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91938430|NCT00671970|183773777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91938431|NCT00671970|183773778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.179
91938432|NCT00671970|183773779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.008
91938433|NCT01094808|183773836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean value for 200 mg Pregabalin|33.391|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.106||0.14||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; alpha level of 0.05 used|ANCOVA||A confidence interval was not calculated|ANCOVA for overall treatment effects||||0.14
91938434|NCT01094808|183773837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean value for 200 mg Pregabalin|35.301|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.295||0.12||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; alpha level of 0.05 used|ANCOVA||A confidence interval was not calculated|ANCOVA for overall treatment effects||||0.12
91938435|NCT03051217|183773893|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|65.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.22|81.9|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||81.90|48.22|
91938436|NCT03051217|183773893|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|79.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|93.17|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||93.17|65.10|
91938437|NCT03051217|183773893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.695|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.129|195.877||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||195.877|5.129|<0.0001
91938438|NCT03051217|183773893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.739|533.168||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||533.168|11.739|<0.0001
91812115|NCT01867021|183499150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 considered non-inferior to percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion TIVf - Seroconversion TIV) was ≤10%.|Difference in seroconversion rates|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|11.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine over TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H1N1 at day 22||11.5|5.6|
91812116|NCT01867021|183499150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 considered non-inferior to percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion TIVf - Seroconversion TIV) was ≤10%.|Difference in seroconversion rates|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|16.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine over TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H3N2 at day 22||16.1|10.1|
91812117|NCT01867021|183499150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine for strain B considered non-inferior to percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion TIVf - Seroconversion TIV) was ≤10%.|Difference in seroconversion rates|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine over TIVf vaccine for the strain B at day 22||2.3|-5|
91812118|NCT01129960|183499159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3726|||||||Dunnett's test (analysis of covariance)|||||||0.3726
91812119|NCT01129960|183499159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8034|||||||Dunnett's test (analysis of covariance)|||||||0.8034
91812120|NCT01129960|183499159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1391|||||||Dunnett's test (analysis of covariance)|||||||0.1391
91812121|NCT00071513|183499172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean changes in Short Moods and Feelings measure of depression was the unit of analysis.||||<0.05
91812122|NCT00071513|183499172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A secondary hypothesis of the study was that attachment to school and/or perceptions of school supportiveness would mediate the effect of the HSTS intervention on depressive symptoms.||||<0.01
91812123|NCT03171415|183499239|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups||||>0.05
91812124|NCT03171415|183499239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups, at day 28 and Day 56||||<0.05
91812125|NCT03171415|183499239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups||||<0.05
91812126|NCT03171415|183499239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups||||<0.05
91812127|NCT03171415|183499240|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91812128|NCT03171415|183499240|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91812129|NCT03171415|183499240|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91812130|NCT03171415|183499240|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91812131|NCT03171415|183499246|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91812132|NCT02848651|183499249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.54|0.3502
91812133|NCT02848651|183499256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.40|0.1783
91812134|NCT02848651|183499256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.23|0.0358
91812135|NCT02848651|183499257|SUPERIORITY||Differences in Rates|13.27||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.00|2.53|0.0326
91812136|NCT02848651|183499257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|30.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.82|45.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.62|14.82|<0.0001
91812137|NCT02848651|183499257|SUPERIORITY||Differences in Rates|41.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.13|60.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.61|22.13|<0.0001
91812138|NCT00680043|183499268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|0.29|||ANOVA|||||0.29|-0.79|
91812139|NCT00680043|183499268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.56|0.52|||ANOVA|||||0.52|-0.56|
91812140|NCT00680043|183499270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.84|
91812141|NCT00680043|183499270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.03|0.92|
91812142|NCT02480114|183499271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.549||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|0.827|||Proportional Odds Regression|||||0.827|0.364|0.004
91812143|NCT02480114|183499272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91812144|NCT02480114|183499273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.371|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|0.597|||Proportional Odds Regression|||||0.597|0.244|<0.001
91812145|NCT04203238|183499297|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91812146|NCT01662908|183499298|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|30.2||||||||30.2|-12.7|
91812147|NCT03510884|183499340|SUPERIORITY|Bonferroni adjustment was applied to handle multiplicity for the comparison of each alirocumab dosing regimen group versus its placebo group for the primary efficacy endpoint.|LS mean difference|-43.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-56.0|-30.7||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per interactive voice response system (IVRS), time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-30.7|-56.0|<0.0001
91812148|NCT03510884|183499340|SUPERIORITY|Bonferroni adjustment was applied to handle multiplicity for the comparison of each alirocumab dosing regimen group versus its placebo group for the primary efficacy endpoint.|LS mean difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.4|-21.2||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-21.2|-46.4|<0.0001
91812149|NCT03510884|183499341|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported and independently for each dosing regimen. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the first secondary endpoint for each dosing regimen independently.|LS mean difference|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-56.3|-34.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-34.7|-56.3|<0.0001
91812150|NCT03510884|183499341|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported and independently for each dosing regimen. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the first secondary endpoint for each dosing regimen independently.|LS mean difference|-41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.7|-30.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-30.2|-52.7|<0.0001
91890943|NCT02236988|183675250|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.1|114.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 14 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||114.9|93.1|
91890944|NCT02236988|183675251|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.2|88.3|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 11 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.3|75.2|
91890945|NCT02236988|183675251|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|89.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 12 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||89.5|75.9|
91890946|NCT02236988|183675251|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|68.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.9|74.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 13 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||74.0|62.9|
91890947|NCT02236988|183675251|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|77.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.3|84.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 14 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||84.0|71.3|
91890948|NCT02236988|183675252|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.6|88.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 11 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.6|75.6|
91890949|NCT02236988|183675252|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|90.1|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 12 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||90.1|76.5|
91890950|NCT02236988|183675252|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|68.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.4|74.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 13 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||74.5|63.4|
91938439|NCT03051217|183773894|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|52.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.95|75.39|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||75.39|29.95|
91938440|NCT03051217|183773894|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.34|90.15|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||90.15|43.34|
91938441|NCT03051217|183773894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.193|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.113|238.619||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||238.619|6.113|<0.0001
91938442|NCT03051217|183773894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.138|434.659||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||434.659|11.138|<0.0001
91938443|NCT03051217|183773895|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|53.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.67|76.47|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||76.47|30.67|
91812151|NCT03510884|183499342|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-37.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.5|-28.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-28.2|-47.5|<0.0001
91812152|NCT03510884|183499342|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-42.0|-19.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-19.4|-42.0|<0.0001
91890951|NCT02236988|183675252|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|77.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.8|84.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 14 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||84.4|71.8|
91938444|NCT03051217|183773895|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.95|99.04|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||99.04|51.95|
91938445|NCT03051217|183773895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.696|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.047|247.634||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||247.634|6.047|<0.0001
91938446|NCT03051217|183773895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.459|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.54|649.437||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||649.437|15.540|<0.0001
91938447|NCT03051217|183773896|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.1|-3.844||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-3.844|-9.100|<0.0001
91938448|NCT03051217|183773896|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.099|-3.91||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-3.910|-9.099|<0.0001
91938449|NCT03051217|183773897|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.265|-2.002||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline Itch NRS with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline Itch NRS as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-2.002|-4.265|<0.0001
91938450|NCT03051217|183773897|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.295|-3.069||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline Itch NRS with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline Itch NRS as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-3.069|-5.295|<0.0001
91938451|NCT01989754|183773900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.73|||Cox proportional hazard method|||||0.73|0.57|<.0001
91938452|NCT01989754|183773901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||=|0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|||||0.94|0.55|=0.0148
91938453|NCT01989754|183773902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.22|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|||||1.22|0.61|=0.4067
91938454|NCT03364491|183773942|SUPERIORITY|Model included treatment and preoperative hemoglobin level \<8 g/dL (yes/no) as covariates. We estimated that a total sample size of 11,000 participants (5,500 per group) would achieve 85% power to detect a 33% lower incidence of the primary outcome (1.67%) in the TXA group, at a type I error rate (two-sided) of 5%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.26|0.74|1.07||Following two interim analyses, a two-tailed P value of less than 0.047 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Other (Log-binomial regression model)|||||1.07|0.74|0.19
91938455|NCT04539262|183773959|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.16||Least square (LS) Mean, Standard Error (SE), 95% CI and p-value were from Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.49|0.1117
91938456|NCT04539262|183773959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.46||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.46|-1.16|0.3793
91938457|NCT04539262|183773959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.52||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||0.52|-1.00|0.5248
91938458|NCT04539262|183773959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.44|||ANCOVA|LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate||||0.44|-0.94|0.4610
91812153|NCT03510884|183499343|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.2|-29.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline non-HDL-C value and Baseline non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-29.1|-52.2|<0.0001
91938459|NCT04539262|183773959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.81||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.40|0.5006
91938460|NCT04539262|183773960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.3417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.02||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.02|-0.37|0.3417
91938461|NCT04539262|183773960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.21||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-0.24|0.1803
91938462|NCT04539262|183773960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.16||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.27|0.1233
91938463|NCT04539262|183773960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.8||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.80|-0.64|0.8203
91938464|NCT04539262|183773960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.41||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.65|0.6458
91938465|NCT04539262|183773961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.61||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-1.05|0.5951
91938466|NCT04539262|183773961|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-1.54|0.0872
91938467|NCT04539262|183773961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.56||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.94|0.6031
91938468|NCT04539262|183773961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.87||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.87|-0.64|0.7578
91938469|NCT04539262|183773961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.56||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.48|0.8846
91938470|NCT02980692|183773994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
91938471|NCT02980692|183773994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0006
91938472|NCT02980692|183773994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0088
91938473|NCT02980692|183773994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0041
91938474|NCT02980692|183773995|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|92.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.24|98.83||||||||98.83|86.24|
91938475|NCT02980692|183773995|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|89.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.42|96.71||||||||96.71|81.42|
91938476|NCT02980692|183773995|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|86.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.07|95.27||||||||95.27|78.07|
91938477|NCT02980692|183773995|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|81.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.52|90.15||||||||90.15|72.52|
91938478|NCT02980692|183773995|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|81.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.52|90.15||||||||90.15|72.52|
91938479|NCT02980692|183773996|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|79.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.37|88.84||||||||88.84|69.37|
91938480|NCT02980692|183773996|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|75.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.39|85.61||||||||85.61|64.39|
91938481|NCT02980692|183773996|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|72.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.88|83.38||||||||83.38|60.88|
91938482|NCT02980692|183773996|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|68.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.44|78.56||||||||78.56|57.44|
91938483|NCT02980692|183773996|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|62.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.72|73.61||||||||73.61|51.72|
91938484|NCT02980692|183773997|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|58.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|70.02||||||||70.02|46.40|
91938485|NCT02980692|183773997|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|48.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.19|60.68||||||||60.68|36.19|
91938486|NCT02980692|183773997|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|39.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.09|51.6||||||||51.60|27.09|
91938487|NCT02980692|183773997|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|40.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.91|51.09||||||||51.09|28.91|
91938488|NCT02980692|183773997|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|37.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.39|48.28||||||||48.28|26.39|
91938489|NCT02980692|183773998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0850
91938490|NCT02980692|183773998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0234|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0234
91938491|NCT02980692|183773998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0140
91938492|NCT02980692|183773998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0731|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0731
91938493|NCT02980692|183773999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938494|NCT02980692|183773999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.92|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938495|NCT02980692|183773999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.83|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938496|NCT02980692|183773999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.65|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938497|NCT02980692|183773999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.02|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938498|NCT02980692|183774000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0111
91938499|NCT02980692|183774000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0774|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0774
91938500|NCT02980692|183774000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0190
91938501|NCT02980692|183774000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1282|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1282
91938502|NCT02980692|183774001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.88|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938503|NCT02980692|183774001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.07|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938504|NCT02980692|183774001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938505|NCT02980692|183774001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.78|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938506|NCT02980692|183774001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938507|NCT02980692|183774002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91938508|NCT02980692|183774002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91938509|NCT02980692|183774002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91938510|NCT02980692|183774002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91938511|NCT02980692|183774003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.38|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938512|NCT02980692|183774003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.73|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938513|NCT02980692|183774003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.84|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938514|NCT02980692|183774003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.18|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938515|NCT02980692|183774003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.41|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938516|NCT02980692|183774004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
91938517|NCT02980692|183774004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
91938518|NCT02980692|183774004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0011
91938519|NCT02980692|183774004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0167|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0167
91938520|NCT02980692|183774005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.74|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938521|NCT02980692|183774005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-43.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938522|NCT02980692|183774005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938523|NCT02980692|183774005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.65|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938524|NCT02980692|183774005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.13|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938525|NCT02980692|183774006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
91938526|NCT02980692|183774006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0055
91938527|NCT02980692|183774006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0039
91938528|NCT02980692|183774006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0487|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0487
91938529|NCT02980692|183774007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.59|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938530|NCT02980692|183774007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938531|NCT02980692|183774007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.26|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938532|NCT02980692|183774007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.63|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938533|NCT02980692|183774007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.83|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938534|NCT02980692|183774008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0987
91938535|NCT02980692|183774008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0360
91938536|NCT02980692|183774008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0346|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0346
91938537|NCT02980692|183774008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4442|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4442
91938538|NCT02980692|183774009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4869|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52093|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938539|NCT02980692|183774009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.543|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59145|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938540|NCT02980692|183774009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4857|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56968|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938541|NCT02980692|183774009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4583|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52285|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938542|NCT02980692|183774009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54013|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938543|NCT02980692|183774010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0064
91938544|NCT02980692|183774010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0516|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0516
91938545|NCT02980692|183774010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0114
91938546|NCT02980692|183774010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0820
91938547|NCT02980692|183774011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.506|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938548|NCT02980692|183774011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.77|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938549|NCT02980692|183774011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.004|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938550|NCT02980692|183774011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.508|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938551|NCT02980692|183774011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.649|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938552|NCT02980692|183774012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0351|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0351
91938553|NCT02980692|183774012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0876|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0876
91938554|NCT02980692|183774012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0269|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0269
91938555|NCT02980692|183774012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0185|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0185
91938556|NCT02980692|183774013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.58|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938557|NCT02980692|183774013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.26|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938558|NCT02980692|183774013|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938559|NCT02980692|183774013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.02|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938560|NCT02980692|183774013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938561|NCT02980692|183774014|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.73||||||||3.73|0.00|
91938562|NCT02980692|183774014|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.83||||||||3.83|0.00|
91938563|NCT02980692|183774014|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.07||||||||6.07|0.00|
91938564|NCT02980692|183774014|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.73||||||||3.73|0.00|
91938565|NCT02980692|183774015|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|85.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.54|93.61||||||||93.61|76.54|
91938566|NCT02980692|183774015|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|81.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.69|90.81||||||||90.81|71.69|
91938567|NCT02980692|183774015|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|76.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.42|87.13||||||||87.13|65.42|
91938568|NCT02980692|183774015|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|71.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.86|81.25||||||||81.25|60.86|
91938569|NCT02980692|183774015|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|65.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.56|76.1||||||||76.10|54.56|
91938570|NCT02980692|183774016|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|56.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.88|68.96||||||||68.96|44.88|
91938571|NCT02980692|183774016|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|64.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.19|76.62||||||||76.62|52.19|
91938572|NCT02980692|183774016|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.41|57.59||||||||57.59|32.41|
91938573|NCT02980692|183774016|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|47.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|58.92||||||||58.92|35.20|
91938574|NCT02980692|183774016|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|42.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.38|53.68||||||||53.68|30.38|
91938575|NCT02980692|183774017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7081|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7081
91938576|NCT02980692|183774017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9244|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9244
91938577|NCT02980692|183774017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5365|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5365
91938578|NCT02980692|183774017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2925|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2925
91938579|NCT02980692|183774018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.453|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.9358|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938580|NCT02980692|183774018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.883|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.1147|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938581|NCT02980692|183774018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.084|STANDARD_DEVIATION|76.2272|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938582|NCT02980692|183774018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.173|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.5367|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938583|NCT02980692|183774018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.399|STANDARD_DEVIATION|141.677|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938584|NCT02980692|183774019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0203
91938585|NCT02980692|183774019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5194|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5194
91812154|NCT03510884|183499343|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-44.1|-19.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline non-HDL-C value and Baseline non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-19.7|-44.1|<0.0001
91890952|NCT02236988|183675253|OTHER||Median Difference|0.98||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|1.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 11 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.50|0.03|0.0523
91890953|NCT02236988|183675253|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 12 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.00|0.00|0.2598
91890954|NCT02236988|183675253|OTHER||Median Difference|1.5||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 13 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|1.00|0.0053
91890955|NCT02236988|183675253|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 14 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.00|0.00|0.1093
91890956|NCT04308590|183675262|EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis will determine whether there is a difference between treatment groups in terms of change from Baseline to Week 22 in 24-hour average SBP. This was performed using a linear mixed-model-for-repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis using a placebo wash-out multiple imputation for treatment discontinuation and for patients that use rescue medication.|Least squares mean difference|-2.67||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.096|3.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.766|-9.096|0.4160
91890957|NCT01072630|183675371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|0.6||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||0.60|-4.67|0.1302
91890958|NCT01072630|183675371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.61||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||0.61|-4.51|0.1350
91890959|NCT02683785|183675394|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.58||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value,Treatment Group,Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used.p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented.|||0.58|-1.31|0.442
91890960|NCT02683785|183675395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented|||-0.01|-0.90|0.046
91890961|NCT02683785|183675395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.29||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||0.29|-1.05|0.257
91890962|NCT02683785|183675395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.31||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 3 is presented|||0.31|-1.31|0.220
91890963|NCT02683785|183675395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.11||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||0.11|-1.59|0.085
91890964|NCT02683785|183675395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.58||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||0.58|-1.31|0.442
91890965|NCT02683785|183675395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.28||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||0.28|-1.93|0.139
91890966|NCT02683785|183675395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.19||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented|||0.19|-2.00|0.103
91938586|NCT02980692|183774019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0599|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0599
91938587|NCT02980692|183774019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1220
91938588|NCT02980692|183774020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938589|NCT02980692|183774020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938590|NCT02980692|183774020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938591|NCT02980692|183774020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91938592|NCT02980692|183774020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.82|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91812155|NCT03510884|183499344|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-39.8|-21.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-21.9|-39.8|<0.0001
91812156|NCT03510884|183499344|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.5|-13.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-13.1|-33.5|<0.0001
91938593|NCT00792701|183774024|OTHER|Correlation|Correlation Coefficient|0.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91938594|NCT00792701|183774027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Correlation Coefficient|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing RRM1 levels and ERCC1 levels between all patients.||||.0003
91938595|NCT03363165|183774066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.54||||0.7586|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-38.52||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline six-minute walk distance, age, race, former smoker.|||||-38.52|0.7586
91938596|NCT03363165|183774067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.0298|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.78||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline maximal treadmill walking time, age, race, former smoker|||||0.78|0.0298
91938597|NCT03363165|183774068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.4019|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-3.1||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline perfusion, age, race, former smoker.|||||-3.10|0.4019
91938598|NCT03363165|183774069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.28||||0.208|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-5.37||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline muscle measure, age, race, former smoker.|||||-5.37|0.2080
91938599|NCT03363165|183774070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.398|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.11||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WIQ distance score, age, race, former smoker|||||-8.11|0.3980
91938600|NCT03363165|183774071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.7852|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-14.5||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SF-36 physical functioning score, age, race, former smoker.|||||-14.50|0.7852
91938601|NCT03363165|183774072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.14||||0.8414|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-11.76||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SF-36 physical functioning score, age, race, former smoker.|||||-11.76|0.8414
91938602|NCT03363165|183774073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.5912|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-14.11||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WIQ distance score, age, race, former smoker.|||||-14.11|0.5912
91938603|NCT03363165|183774074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.5442|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-25.47||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline six-minute walk distance, age, race, former smoker.|||||-25.47|0.5442
91938604|NCT03363165|183774075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.6603|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|||Adjusted for baseline pain-free treadmill walking time, age, race, former smoker.|ANCOVA||||||-2.11|0.6603
91938605|NCT03363165|183774076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78||||0.5647|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-24.99||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline six-minute walk distance, age, race, former smoker.|||||-24.99|0.5647
91938606|NCT02052141|183774095|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.1|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated.|||-0.10|-0.71|0.03
91938607|NCT02052141|183774096|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|-0.11|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated.|||-0.11|-1.20|0.05
91938608|NCT02052141|183774097|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.31|-0.38|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated.|||-0.38|-3.31|0.04
91938609|NCT02052141|183774098|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|-0.03|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated|||-0.03|-0.41|0.07
91938610|NCT03000686|183774109|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1339|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.249|2.295|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 15 minutes post-infusion|||2.295|-2.249|
91938611|NCT03000686|183774109|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5923|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.168|1.146|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 60 minutes post-chamber entry.|||1.146|-9.168|
91938612|NCT03000686|183774109|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.668|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4927|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.576|7.231|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for immediately post-exercise|||7.231|-10.576|
91938613|NCT03000686|183774109|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.824|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6695|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.142|2.506|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 30 minutes post-chamber exit|||2.506|-4.142|
91938614|NCT03000686|183774110|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.662|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1933|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.037|3.815|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 15 minutes post-infusion|||3.815|-5.037|
91938615|NCT03000686|183774110|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.796|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.729|4.027|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 60 minutes post-chamber entry.|||4.027|-9.729|
91938616|NCT03000686|183774110|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.475|8.086|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 2 minutes post-exercise start|||8.086|-8.475|
91938617|NCT03000686|183774110|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.291|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|4.386|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 30 minutes post-chamber exit|||4.386|-4.960|
91938618|NCT03000686|183774117|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.148|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.264|0.973|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 15 minutes post-infusion is presented.|||0.973|-1.264|
91938619|NCT03000686|183774117|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.172|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.271|2.942|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 60 minutes post-chamber entry is presented.|||2.942|-5.271|
91938620|NCT03000686|183774117|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.169|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.624|4.258|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation immediately post-exercise is presented.|||4.258|-4.624|
91938621|NCT03000686|183774117|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.367|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.498|0.753|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 30 minutes post-chamber exit is presented.|||0.753|-1.498|
91890967|NCT02683785|183675395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.28||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented.|||0.28|-2.06|0.132
91938622|NCT03000686|183774118|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.203|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8872|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.578|1.968|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 15 minutes post-infusion is presented.|||1.968|-1.578|
91938623|NCT03000686|183774118|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8799|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|7.495|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 60 minutes post-chamber entry is presented.|||7.495|-0.001|
91938624|NCT03000686|183774118|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.029|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8146|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.673|4.578|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 2 minutes post-exercise start is presented.|||4.578|-6.673|
91938625|NCT03000686|183774118|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.873|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.762|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.669|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 30 minutes post-chamber exit is presented.|||0.669|-2.380|
91938626|NCT01484561|183774165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.98|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with change in logarithmic mGFR from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold Change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||0.98|0.86|
91938627|NCT01484561|183774166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.11|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic mGFR from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.11|0.97|
91938628|NCT01484561|183774167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.16|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic mGFR from Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.16|1.02|
91938629|NCT01484561|183774168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.97|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (MDRD) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||0.97|0.91|
91938630|NCT01484561|183774169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.02|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (MDRD) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.02|0.96|
91938631|NCT01484561|183774170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.08|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (MDRD) from Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.08|1.00|
91938632|NCT01484561|183774171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|0.98|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (Cockcroft-Gault) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||0.98|0.92|
91938633|NCT01484561|183774172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (Cockcroft-Gault) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.02|0.97|
91938634|NCT01484561|183774173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.07|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (Cockcroft-Gault) from Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.07|1.01|
91938635|NCT01484561|183774174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.08|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic creatinine from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.08|1.02|
91938636|NCT01484561|183774175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.04|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic creatinine from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.04|0.98|
91938637|NCT01484561|183774176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.0|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic creatinine from Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.00|0.94|
91938638|NCT01484561|183774177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.6|48.73||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR20 Response at End of Period 1||48.73|23.60|<0.001
91938639|NCT01484561|183774177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.56|29.34||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR20 Response at End of Period 2||29.34|2.56|0.050
91938640|NCT01484561|183774178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.24|30.8||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR50 Response at End of Period 1||30.80|11.24|<0.001
91938641|NCT01484561|183774178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.92|27.08||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR50 Response at End of Period 2||27.08|6.92|0.006
91938642|NCT01484561|183774179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.06|25.05||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR70 Response at End of Period 1||25.05|12.06|<0.001
91812157|NCT03510884|183499345|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-48.2|-29.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-29.6|-48.2|<0.0001
91890968|NCT02683785|183675396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.06||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented.|||0.06|-0.97|0.082
91938643|NCT01484561|183774179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|13.12||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR70 Response at End of Period 2||13.12|1.51|0.038
91938644|NCT01484561|183774180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|-0.78||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.78|-1.53|<0.001
91938645|NCT01484561|183774181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|-0.12||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.12|-0.83|0.028
91938646|NCT01484561|183774182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.04||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||1.04|0.32|0.002
91938647|NCT01484561|183774183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|-0.84||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.84|-1.67|<0.001
91938648|NCT01484561|183774184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|-0.12||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.12|-0.88|0.031
91938649|NCT01484561|183774185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.15||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||1.15|0.36|0.002
91812158|NCT03510884|183499345|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-42.8|-22.7|||MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-22.7|-42.8|<0.0001
91812159|NCT03510884|183499346|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-53.8|-31.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Non-HDL-C value and Baseline Non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-31.8|-53.8|<0.0001
91812160|NCT03510884|183499346|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.9|-27.0||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline non-HDL-C value and Baseline non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-27.0|-47.9|<0.0001
91812161|NCT03510884|183499347|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-41.3|-24.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-24.2|-41.3|<0.0001
91812162|NCT03510884|183499347|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.6|-20.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-20.2|-35.6|<0.0001
91812163|NCT03510884|183499348|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|77.6|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.3|960.0||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. Logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||960.0|6.3|=0.0001
91812164|NCT03510884|183499348|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.2|69.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. Logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||69.8|3.2|<0.0001
91812165|NCT03510884|183499349|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.0|174.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||174.8|4.0|<0.0001
91938650|NCT01484561|183774186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.44|-0.74||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.74|-7.44|0.045
91812166|NCT03510884|183499349|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|40.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.7|290.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||290.9|5.7|<0.0001
91812167|NCT03510884|183499350|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|52.7|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.5|804.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||804.3|3.5|=0.0011
91890969|NCT02683785|183675396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.41||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||0.41|-0.96|0.426
91890970|NCT02683785|183675396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.18||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 3 is presented|||0.18|-1.38|0.129
91890971|NCT02683785|183675396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.06||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented.|||0.06|-1.63|0.067
91890972|NCT02683785|183675396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.63||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||0.63|-1.28|0.494
91890973|NCT02683785|183675396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.21||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented.|||0.21|-2.08|0.107
91890974|NCT02683785|183675396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.17||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented.|||0.17|-2.13|0.092
91890975|NCT02683785|183675396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented.|||0.20|-2.22|0.098
91890976|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.1||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 1|||0.1|-5.6|0.061
91890977|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 2|||1.7|-5.6|0.282
91890978|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|0.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component Week 4|||0.9|-8.4|0.113
91890979|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 6|||4.0|-5.9|0.695
91890980|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 8|||1.8|-9.4|0.176
91812168|NCT03510884|183499350|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|43.1|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.7|498.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||498.6|3.7|=0.0006
91890981|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 10|||-0.2|-10.8|0.041
91890982|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 12|||0.6|-10.1|0.082
91890983|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 1|||0.6|-1.1|0.587
91890984|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 2|||0.6|-1.3|0.457
91890985|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 4|||0.6|-1.8|0.298
91890986|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 6|||0.9|-1.3|0.726
91890987|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 8|||0.4|-1.9|0.213
91890988|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 10|||0.7|-1.9|0.331
91890989|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 12|||0.6|-2.1|0.248
91890990|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.3||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 1|||3.3|-9.0|0.350
91890991|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|3.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 2|||3.8|-9.8|0.383
91890992|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 4|||3.9|-13.5|0.271
91890993|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|6.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 6|||6.7|-12.1|0.565
91890994|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 8|||5.4|-15.2|0.343
91890995|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|4.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 10|||4.9|-17.3|0.266
91938651|NCT01484561|183774187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.78|3.06||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||3.06|-2.78|0.936
91938652|NCT01484561|183774188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|7.42||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||7.42|1.04|0.030
91938653|NCT01484561|183774189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.96|-0.55||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.55|-3.96|0.030
91938654|NCT01484561|183774190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|1.04||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||1.04|-2.64|0.472
91938655|NCT01484561|183774191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|3.15||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||3.15|-0.24|0.158
91938656|NCT01484561|183774192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.87|-7.59||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-7.59|-19.87|<0.001
91938657|NCT01484561|183774193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.58|-2.21||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-2.21|-15.58|0.029
91938658|NCT01484561|183774194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|9.77||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||9.77|-0.10|0.107
91938659|NCT01484561|183774195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.96|-7.84||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-7.84|-23.96|0.001
91812169|NCT03510884|183499351|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.6||The percentage of participants reaching LDL-C level lower than 110 mg/dL was 0% in the placebo arm, as a result it was possible to derive the estimated odds-ratio, but the estimated confidence interval (CI) was very wide, with the upper limit estimated to Infinity, therefore upper limit of 97.5% CI was not available to report.|Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Exact conditional logistic regression||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Odds ratios and confidence intervals estimated from exact conditional logistic regression model.|The LOCF approach followed by exact conditional logistic regression model. The exact conditional logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the quartiles of the Baseline LDL-C value.|||6.6|<0.0001
91938660|NCT01484561|183774196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.251|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.9|2.5||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||2.50|-13.90|0.251
91938661|NCT01484561|183774197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.87|17.52||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||17.52|2.87|0.023
91938662|NCT01484561|183774198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.58|-8.67||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-8.67|-21.58|<0.001
91938663|NCT01484561|183774199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|5.5||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||5.50|-10.30|0.616
91812170|NCT03510884|183499351|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|104.8|||=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.2|2095.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||2095.9|5.2|=0.0005
91938664|NCT01484561|183774200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.82|19.62||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||19.62|5.82|0.003
91938665|NCT01484561|183774201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.78|-7.82||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-7.82|-22.78|<0.001
91938666|NCT01484561|183774202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.247|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.62|2.38||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||2.38|-13.62|0.247
91938667|NCT01484561|183774203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.95|17.41||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||17.41|1.95|0.040
91938668|NCT01484561|183774204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|-0.23||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.23|-0.56|<0.001
91938669|NCT01484561|183774205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|-0.03||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.03|-0.31|0.053
91938670|NCT01484561|183774206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.35||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||0.35|0.10|0.003
91938671|NCT01112982|183774207|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Presence of synovial pannus and the serum urate level.||||0.34
91812171|NCT03510884|183499352|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|=|0.0237|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-30.3|-0.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||-0.1|-30.3|=0.0237
91938672|NCT01112982|183774209|OTHER|Spearman Correlation Coefficient||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The Severity of Synovial Pannus and the Serum Urate level.||||0.73
91938673|NCT01112982|183774210|OTHER|correlation between severity of synovial pannus and the serum urate level.||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.73
91938674|NCT01112982|183774211|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||"The presence of synovial pannus in the index joint."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.32
91938675|NCT01112982|183774212|OTHER|Kappa Coefficient||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The absence of erosive changes.||||0.09
91938676|NCT01112982|183774212|OTHER|the absence of Intraosseous Tophi.||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91938677|NCT01112982|183774212|OTHER|The absence of Soft Tissue Tophi||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91938678|NCT01112982|183774212|OTHER|The absence of Joint Effusion.||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91938679|NCT01112982|183774212|OTHER|The absence of Bone Marrow Edema.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91938680|NCT01112982|183774212|OTHER|The absence of Soft Tissue Edema.||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91938681|NCT01112982|183774213|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||"The Presence of synovial Pannus in the index joint."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.32
91938682|NCT01112982|183774213|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||"The Severity of Synovial Pannus in the index joint."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.99
91812172|NCT03510884|183499352|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-24.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7|=|0.0043|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-44.4|-5.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||-5.4|-44.4|=0.0043
91938683|NCT03371251|183774215|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|2.0||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|18.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: SRI-4 Response||18.5|-14.5|0.8434
91812173|NCT03510884|183499353|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|=|0.4288|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.7|10.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||10.4|-21.7|=0.4288
91938684|NCT03371251|183774215|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|2.0||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|18.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: \>= 4-Point Reduction from Baseline in SLEDAI-2K Global Score||18.5|-14.5|0.8434
91938685|NCT03371251|183774215|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|17.7||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|30.9|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: No New BILAG A or More than One BILAG B Organ Score Compared with Baseline||30.9|4.5|0.0141
91938686|NCT03371251|183774215|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|17.7||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|30.9|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: No Deterioration from Baseline in PGA by \>=30mm||30.9|4.5|0.0141
91938687|NCT03371251|183774231|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-2.6||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.8|14.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||||14.5|-19.8|0.7985
91938688|NCT03371251|183774232|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-6.9||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.9|9.8|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Overall||9.8|-22.9|0.3498
91812174|NCT03510884|183499353|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|=|0.1148|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.7|5.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||5.7|-32.7|=0.1148
91812175|NCT00157950|183499383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.6|99.8|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||99.8|93.6|
91812176|NCT00157950|183499384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the proportion of subjects receiving Gardasil who were seropositive at Week 4 postdose 3 must be greater than 90%|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.8|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||100|96.8|
91812177|NCT00157950|183499385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the proportion of subjects receiving Gardasil who were seropositive at Week 4 postdose 3 must be greater than 90%|Proportion|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.2|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||100|95.2|
91938689|NCT03371251|183774233|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-21.8||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.2|-7.4|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical analysis for Overall||-7.4|-36.2|0.0072
91938690|NCT03371251|183774233|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-17.7||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.9|-4.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Day 210||-4.5|-30.9|0.0141
91938691|NCT03371251|183774234|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|4.9||||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|20.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||||20.5|-10.7|0.6107
91938692|NCT03371251|183774235|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|15.4||||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|31.8|||Pearson's chi-square test|||||31.8|-0.9|0.1237
91812178|NCT00157950|183499386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the proportion of subjects receiving Gardasil who were seropositive at Week 4 postdose 3 must be greater than 90%|Proportion|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||100|95.0|
91938693|NCT03371251|183774236|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-13.7||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.7|-0.7|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Overall||-0.7|-26.7|0.0581
91938694|NCT03371251|183774236|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-14.3||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.2|3.2|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Day 210||3.2|-31.2|0.0471
91938695|NCT03371251|183774237|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.6596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|0.94|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for CLASI-A (Total Activity)||0.94|-1.63|0.6596
91812179|NCT01287897|183499408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.3406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|21.7||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||21.7|-13.0|0.3406
91812180|NCT01287897|183499408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|36.7||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||36.7|0.7|0.0438
91812181|NCT01287897|183499409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|32.6||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||32.6|-12.1|0.2258
91938696|NCT03371251|183774237|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.4105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.81|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for CLASI-B (Total Damage)||0.81|-0.27|0.4105
91938697|NCT03371251|183774238|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.07|7.58|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Day 210||7.58|-6.07|0.8546
91938698|NCT03371251|183774239|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|1.71|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Sum of Swelling for Day 210||1.71|-0.63|0.4455
91938699|NCT03371251|183774239|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|2.47|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Sum of Tenderness for Day 210||2.47|-0.65|0.3367
91938700|NCT03371251|183774239|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|1.86|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Sum of Active Joints for Day 210||1.86|-0.34|0.2550
91938701|NCT03371251|183774240|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|1.93|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|||1.93|-0.34|0.2498
91938702|NCT03371251|183774241|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.12|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Day 180||0.12|-0.02|0.2558
91938703|NCT03371251|183774242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.88|||Log Rank||Hazard rate of BOS161721 120 mg / Hazard rate of placebo|||0.88|0.18|0.0479
91938704|NCT03371251|183774244|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.4||0.7898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.92|31.7|||ANOVA||This is based on LS Means|||31.70|-22.92|0.7898
91938705|NCT03371251|183774245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.68|||Log-Rank Test (2-Sided)||Hazard rate of BOS161721 120mg / Hazard rate of placebo|||0.68|0.16|0.0083
91938706|NCT00753623|183774264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91938707|NCT03332303|183774265|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (calculated using Yates' continuity correction) on the absolute difference between the proportion of patients identified as Responders in the Test and Reference groups (pT - pR) is contained within the range \[-20%, +20%\] then therapeutic equivalence of the Test product to the Reference product was considered to have been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|2.8||||||Therapeutic equivalence was evaluated for both primary and secondary endpoints in the per-protocol (PP) population.||2.8|-13.0|
91812182|NCT01287897|183499410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|23.9||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||23.9|-10.6|0.2627
91938708|NCT03332303|183774265|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|23.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the primary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||<0.0001
91938709|NCT03332303|183774265|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the primary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||<0.0001
91938710|NCT03332303|183774266|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (calculated using Yates' continuity correction) on the absolute difference between the proportion of patients identified as Treatment Successes in the Test and Reference groups (pT - pR) is contained within the range \[-20%, +20%\] then therapeutic equivalence of the Test product to the Reference product was considered to have been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|6.7||||||Therapeutic equivalence was evaluated for both primary and secondary endpoints in the per-protocol (PP) population.||6.7|-10.7|
91938711|NCT03332303|183774266|SUPERIORITY|To conclude superiority of the Test product over Placebo, the proportion of Treatment Successes in the Test product group must be numerically and statistically superior to that of the Placebo (p \< 0.05; using a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel \[CMH\] test).|% Difference|-0.8||||0.8068|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||0.8068
91938712|NCT03332303|183774266|SUPERIORITY|To conclude superiority of the Reference product over Placebo, the proportion of Treatment Successes in the Reference product group must be numerically and statistically superior to that of the Placebo (p \< 0.05; using a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel \[CMH\] test).|% Difference|1.8||||0.8003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||0.8003
91938713|NCT00871572|183774290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-1.64|0.0296
91938714|NCT00871572|183774290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-1.37|0.0418
91938715|NCT00871572|183774290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-1.41|0.0514
91938716|NCT00871572|183774291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-4.46|0.2565
91938717|NCT00871572|183774291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-4.25|0.1245
91812183|NCT01287897|183499410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|36.7||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||36.7|0.8|0.0425
91812184|NCT01287897|183499411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.7||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|37.6||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||37.6|-7.5|0.1362
91812185|NCT01287897|183499412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.1527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|18.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||18.6|-4.3|0.1527
91812186|NCT01287897|183499412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|33.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||33.2|3.1|0.0235
91938718|NCT00871572|183774291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-4.92|0.0594
91938719|NCT00871572|183774292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-124.56||||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-490.02|240.9|||ANCOVA|||||240.90|-490.02|0.4978
91938720|NCT00871572|183774292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-338.64||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-656.55|-20.72|||ANCOVA|||||-20.72|-656.55|0.0372
91938721|NCT00871572|183774292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-466.83||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-799.48|-134.18|||ANCOVA|||||-134.18|-799.48|0.0068
91938722|NCT00871572|183774293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.814
91938723|NCT00871572|183774293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.4|0.681
91938724|NCT00871572|183774293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.7|0.715
91938725|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.56||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-3.09||P-value is for Pre-Morning Meal (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.09|-44.03|0.0248
91938726|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.08|-17.48||P-value is for Pre-Morning Meal (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.48|-53.08|0.0002
91938727|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.12|-20.53||P-value is for Pre-Morning Meal (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.53|-58.12|<0.0001
91812187|NCT01287897|183499412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|30.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||30.2|-2.3|0.0792
91938728|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42||||0.6513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.66|21.82||P-value is for 2 Hours After Morning Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.82|-34.66|0.6513
91938729|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.5045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.61|16.21||P-value is for 2 Hours After Morning Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.21|-32.61|0.5045
91938730|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|18.49||P-value is for 2 Hours After Morning Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.49|-32.90|0.5774
91938731|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.81||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-11.53||P-value is for Pre-Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.53|-60.10|0.0045
91938732|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.15||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|-12.21||P-value is for Pre-Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.21|-54.10|0.0024
91938733|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.87||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.98|-15.75||P-value is for Pre-Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.75|-59.98|0.0011
91938734|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.48||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.47|-1.49||P-value is for 2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.49|-55.47|0.0389
91938735|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.65||||0.1896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.24|7.94||P-value is for 2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.94|-39.24|0.1896
91938736|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.56||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.28|2.16||P-value is for 2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.16|-47.28|0.0729
91938737|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.78||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.79|-14.77||P-value is for Pre Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.77|-74.79|0.0041
91938738|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.42|-28.48||P-value is for Pre Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.48|-80.42|<0.0001
91938739|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.19||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.57|-18.81||P-value is for Pre Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.81|-73.57|0.0013
91938740|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.82||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.51|-9.13||P-value is for 2 Hours After Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.13|-70.51|0.0118
91938741|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.8||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.42|-17.18||P-value is for 2 Hours After Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.18|-70.42|0.0016
91938742|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.56||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.63|-11.48||P-value is for 2 Hours After Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.48|-67.63|0.0065
91938743|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.88||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.43|-7.33||P-value is for Bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.33|-66.43|0.0154
91938744|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.93|-21.07||P-value is for Bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.07|-71.93|0.0006
91812188|NCT01287897|183499412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.1909||90.0|-8.4|27.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||27.6|-8.4|0.1909
91938745|NCT00871572|183774296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.07||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.13|-15.01||P-value is for Bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.01|-69.13|0.0029
91938746|NCT00871572|183774297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.62||||0.3815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.44|83.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||83.68|-32.44|0.3815
91938747|NCT00871572|183774297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.12|55.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||55.93|-45.12|0.8315
91938748|NCT00871572|183774297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.25||||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.93|77.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||77.44|-28.93|0.3658
91938749|NCT00871572|183774298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.06||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.24|142.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||142.37|-32.24|0.2131
91938750|NCT00871572|183774298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|89.68||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|166.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||166.10|13.27|0.0220
91938751|NCT00871572|183774298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.26||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.29|188.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||188.22|26.29|0.0101
91938752|NCT00871572|183774299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.49|-0.75|0.1596
91938753|NCT00871572|183774299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.31|-0.24|0.0791
91938754|NCT00871572|183774299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.10|-0.67|0.1564
91938755|NCT00871572|183774300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8018.51||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13104.14|29141.16|||ANCOVA|||||29141.16|-13104.14|0.4500
91938756|NCT00871572|183774300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5174.85||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13158.65|23508.35|||ANCOVA|||||23508.35|-13158.65|0.5739
91938757|NCT00871572|183774300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18153.92||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1188.23|37496.06|||ANCOVA|||||37496.06|-1188.23|0.0653
91812189|NCT01287897|183499412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|17.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||17.0|-5.4|0.1981
91938758|NCT00871572|183774301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18094.32||||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54734.08|90922.71|||ANCOVA|||||90922.71|-54734.08|0.6209
91938759|NCT00871572|183774301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5783.59||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58650.71|70217.89|||ANCOVA|||||70217.89|-58650.71|0.8581
91812190|NCT01287897|183499412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.3|35.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||35.8|5.3|0.0132
91938760|NCT00871572|183774301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36218.98||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30955.5|103393.46|||ANCOVA|||||103393.46|-30955.50|0.2850
91938761|NCT00871572|183774302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.7|0.584
91938762|NCT00871572|183774302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.426
91938763|NCT00871572|183774302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.6|0.657
91938764|NCT00871572|183774303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.1|0.365
91938765|NCT00871572|183774303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.1|0.191
91938766|NCT00871572|183774303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.1|0.297
91938767|NCT00871572|183774304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.8|0.523
91938768|NCT00871572|183774304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.476
91938769|NCT00871572|183774304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.7|0.634
91938770|NCT00871572|183774305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.919
91938771|NCT00871572|183774305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.864
91812191|NCT01287897|183499412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.6|41.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||41.7|8.6|0.0063
91812192|NCT01287897|183499412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2|43.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||43.1|6.2|0.0138
91938772|NCT00871572|183774305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.726
91938773|NCT00187889|183774310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|3.6||The P-value applies to this comparison, without adjustment, to the completers of the trial.|Satterthwaite corrected t-test||An expanded definition of the outcome measure is the difference between the percentage change (week 16) and the percentage change week 0). This is a calculation based on 4 measurements.|The null hypothesis is that the treatments are equivalent with respect to the primary outcome. The Satterthwaite corrected t-tests adjusts for potentially unequal variance in the groups.||3.6|-22.8|0.15
91938774|NCT00187889|183774310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.72|||Satterthwaite corrected t-test||The Satterthwaite corrected t-tests adjusts for potentially unequal variance in the groups. This is a different outcome variable than the primary.|The null hypothesis is that treatments are equivalent on this outcome. The study was powered around the primary outcome. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was planned.||0.72|-0.79|0.92
91938775|NCT03954444|183774312|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval, should be within -20% to +20%|Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|8.0||||||||8.0|-2.6|
91938776|NCT03954444|183774312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.04
91938777|NCT03954444|183774312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1126|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1126
91938778|NCT01938001|183774320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.62|||Log Rank|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).|Hazard ratio and its confidence interval (CI) were estimated from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the stratification factors noted above.|||0.62|0.34|< 0.0001
91938779|NCT01938001|183774321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||||0.0006
91938780|NCT01938001|183774322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.95||||||Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||0.95|0.37|
91938781|NCT01938001|183774323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||||< 0.0001
91938782|NCT01938001|183774324|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||||= 0.0010
91938783|NCT01938001|183774325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79|||Log Rank|||||0.79|0.36|0.0015
91938784|NCT01938001|183774326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.32|0.2993
91938785|NCT01938001|183774327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).|Hazard ratio and its CI were estimated from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the stratification factors noted above.|||0.67|0.38|< 0.0001
91812193|NCT01287897|183499413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|32.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||32.1|-1.4|0.0662
91812194|NCT01287897|183499413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|25.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||25.8|-6.9|0.1708
91938786|NCT01938001|183774328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.71|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||0.71|0.39|<0.0001
91938787|NCT03205982|183774332|EQUIVALENCE|If the difference (between treatment and control arm) is greater than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), we consider the treatment arm is different from the control arm. MCID is calculated as 0.25-0.5\* standard deviation (SD). Conversely, the equivalence margin is the biggest difference (between 2 arms) to be considered no difference between 2 arms. Therefore, the equivalence margin should be smaller than MCID, i.e., it should be smaller than the smallest possible MCID.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0005|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|0.995|||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed model with logit link (logistic model)||Compares difference in adherence changes between Intervention and Control arms||0.995|0.993|<0.0001
91938788|NCT01468701|183774344|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||0.90|0.60|
91938789|NCT01468701|183774346|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||0.98|0.63|
91938790|NCT01468701|183774347|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.11|0.57|
91938791|NCT01468701|183774349|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.14|0.57|
91938792|NCT01468701|183774357|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.73|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function, concomitant antiplatelets use and concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding.||0.73|0.38|
91938793|NCT01468701|183774361|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.57|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, concomitant antiplatelets use, concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding, hypertension, and diabetes.||1.57|0.60|
91938794|NCT01468701|183774363|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.8|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||0.80|0.54|
91938795|NCT03170258|183774382|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One-sample 2-sided t-test against a mean of 0 used to evaluate the main effect of VTA activation during neurofeedback.||||||0.0015
91938796|NCT03170258|183774383|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sample t-test against 0 for the ratio of Beta to Theta power.||||||>0.10
91812195|NCT01287897|183499413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|26.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||26.0|-10.5|0.2416
91938797|NCT02853123|183774398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.661|-0.053|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||-0.053|-0.661|0.0217
91938798|NCT02853123|183774399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.265|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|IC measured prior to exercise, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.265|0.106|<.0001
91938799|NCT02853123|183774400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.141|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|IC measured end of exercise, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.141|-0.009|0.0852
91938800|NCT02853123|183774401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.194|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.194|0.117|<.0001
91938801|NCT02853123|183774402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.267|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.267|0.134|<.0001
91938802|NCT02853123|183774403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.083|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|1 min, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.083|-0.300|0.2645
91938803|NCT02853123|183774403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|-0.028|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|2 min, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||-0.028|-0.452|0.0267
91938804|NCT02853123|183774403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.039|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|2.5 min, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||-0.039|-0.596|0.0258
91938805|NCT02853123|183774404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.208|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.208|-0.268|0.8025
91812196|NCT01287897|183499413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.1||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|42.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||42.3|-4.1|0.0880
91812197|NCT01287897|183499414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|7.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||7.2|-3.2|0.2610
91812198|NCT01287897|183499414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|7.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||7.0|-5.6|0.4291
91938806|NCT02853123|183774405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.3634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.286|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.286|-0.106|0.3634
91938807|NCT01391468|183774406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91938808|NCT01391468|183774407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.744
91938809|NCT01391468|183774408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|||||Only the probiotics group arrived at the reported p-value after 6 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0042
91938810|NCT01391468|183774409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|||||Only the probiotics group arrived at the reported p-value after 6 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0099
91938811|NCT01510834|183774423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.824|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.148||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.578|-3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.070|-10.578|.001
91812199|NCT01287897|183499414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.5791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|8.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||8.6|-11.0|0.5791
91938812|NCT01510834|183774424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0872|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.731||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|11.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.26|2.91|.001
91938813|NCT01510834|183774425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|-1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.70|-5.84|<.001
91938814|NCT01510834|183774426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.269||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.751|-0.4244|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.4244|-3.751|.015
91938815|NCT00633893|183774462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2225|0.4844||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.4844|0.2225|<0.0001
91938816|NCT00633893|183774462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3615|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2475|0.5281||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat principle.||0.5281|0.2475|<0.0001
91812200|NCT01287897|183499414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.7544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.8|7.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 8.||7.7|-18.8|0.7544
91938817|NCT00633893|183774463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2891|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1902|0.4395||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/ VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/ VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.4395|0.1902|<0.0001
91938818|NCT00633893|183774463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3774|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2577|0.5525||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/ VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/ VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.5525|0.2577|<0.0001
91938819|NCT00633893|183774464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2422|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1476|0.3975||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.3975|0.1476|<0.0001
91812201|NCT01287897|183499414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.2308||90.0|-8.3|21.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||21.9|-8.3|0.2308
91812202|NCT01287897|183499414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.5038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|11.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 12.||11.7|-11.8|0.5038
91812203|NCT01287897|183499414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|16.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||16.0|0.0|0.0498
91812204|NCT01287897|183499414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|28.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||28.7|3.9|0.0155
91812205|NCT01287897|183499414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|28.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||28.9|0.9|0.0399
91812206|NCT01287897|183499414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|24.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 8.||24.3|-7.2|0.1866
91812207|NCT01287897|183499414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|34.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||34.7|0.9|0.0415
91812208|NCT01287897|183499414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|32.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 12.||32.1|0.9|0.0408
91812209|NCT01287897|183499415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|14.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||14.5|-2.8|0.1342
91812210|NCT01287897|183499415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.2623|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|9.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||9.8|-4.3|0.2623
91812211|NCT01287897|183499415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|13.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||13.2|-7.7|0.3324
91812212|NCT01287897|183499415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.5|9.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 8.||9.1|-15.5|0.6637
91812213|NCT01287897|183499415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.2721||90.0|-9.3|20.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||20.2|-9.3|0.2721
91812214|NCT01287897|183499415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|16.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 12.||16.9|-8.8|0.3022
91812215|NCT01287897|183499416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|15.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||15.8|-7.2|0.2687
91812216|NCT01287897|183499416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|17.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||17.3|-7.1|0.2460
91812217|NCT01287897|183499416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|29.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||29.5|-1.1|0.0633
91812218|NCT01287897|183499416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.8|18.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 8.||18.6|-13.8|0.4036
91812219|NCT01287897|183499416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.1921||90.0|-7.9|25.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||25.6|-7.9|0.1921
91812220|NCT01287897|183499416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|27.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 12.||27.5|-6.5|0.1541
91938820|NCT00633893|183774464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.1861|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1062|0.3261||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.3261|0.1062|<0.0001
91938821|NCT00633893|183774465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2799|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1844|0.4247||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.4247|0.1844|<0.0001
91938822|NCT00633893|183774465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3653|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.5338||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.5338|0.2500|<0.0001
91938823|NCT00633893|183774466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2615|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1593|0.4292||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal DVT to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal DVT equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal DVT. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.4292|0.1593|<0.0001
91938824|NCT00633893|183774466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3972|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2595|0.6079||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal DVT to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal DVT equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal DVT. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.6079|0.2595|<0.0001
91938825|NCT00633893|183774467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6087||||0.1084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3653|1.0145||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal PE to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal PE equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal PE. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.0145|0.3653|0.1084
91938826|NCT00633893|183774467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6846||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4164|1.1257||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal PE to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal PE equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal PE. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.1257|0.4164|0.1329
91938827|NCT00633893|183774468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.647||||0.3059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3543|1.1813||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.1813|0.3543|0.3059
91938828|NCT00633893|183774468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9416||||0.8288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5458|1.6245||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.6245|0.5458|0.8288
91938829|NCT00633893|183774469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5794||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3215|1.0443||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.0443|0.3215|0.1316
91938830|NCT00633893|183774469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8433||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4959|1.4341||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.4341|0.4959|0.5288
91938831|NCT00633893|183774470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6577||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3874|1.1169||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.1169|0.3874|0.2361
91938832|NCT00633893|183774470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7708||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4631|1.2832||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.2832|0.4631|0.3155
91938833|NCT00633893|183774472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.485||||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0891|2.6391||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major bleeding equal to 1.0. Treated participants with at least one dose of study drug were included.||2.6391|0.0891|0.3925
91938834|NCT00633893|183774472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2457||||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0269|2.2437||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major bleeding equal to 1.0. Participants treated with at least one dose of study drug were included.||2.2437|0.0269|0.3551
91938835|NCT00633893|183774473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2027||||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6897|2.0975||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.0975|0.6897|0.5148
91938836|NCT00633893|183774473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.616||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9554|2.7336||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.7336|0.9554|0.1412
91938837|NCT00633893|183774474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2928||||0.3932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7158|2.3348||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.3348|0.7158|0.3932
91938838|NCT00633893|183774474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8235||||0.0621||95.0|1.047|3.176||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||3.1760|1.0470|0.0621
91938839|NCT00633893|183774475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2579||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9064|1.7457||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with minor bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with minor bleeding equal to 1.0.||1.7457|0.9064|0.1691
91938840|NCT00633893|183774475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6971||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2468|2.3102||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with minor bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with minor bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.3102|1.2468|0.0013
91938841|NCT00633893|183774476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2374||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9276|1.6507||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with total bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with total bleeding equal to 1.0. Total bleeding was defined as any major, clinically relevant non-major, or minor bleeding.||1.6507|0.9276|0.1466
91938842|NCT00633893|183774476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6468||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2552|2.1606||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with total bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with total bleeding equal to 1.0. Total bleeding is any major, clinically relevant non-major, or minor bleeding.||2.1606|1.2552|0.0005
91938843|NCT02741310|183774484|OTHER|The clinical hypothesis was that there would be no clinically meaningful difference between the blood pressure effects of sumatriptan alone and the effects of a single dose of erenumab IV and sumatriptan concomitant therapy. A clinically meaningful difference was defined as the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of treatment difference between erenumab IV and sumatriptan compared to sumatriptan alone being ≥ 5 mmHg on the time-weighted scale resting MAP.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|2.08||||||A linear mixed effects regression analysis was performed to assess if the time-weighted average in MAP for erenumab with sumatriptan is similar to sumatriptan alone. A two-sided 90% confidence interval (equivalent to a one-sided upper 95% CI) for the mean treatment difference was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model with fixed effects for treatment and period and a random effect for subject.||2.08|-2.16|
91938844|NCT02741310|183774486|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03||||||The mean for each treatment was compared using a linear mixed effects model with group A (sumatriptan alone) as the reference treatment group. The linear mixed effects model included treatment (erenumab with sumatriptan vs sumatriptan alone) and period as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.03|0.93|
91938845|NCT02741310|183774487|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.05||||||The mean for each treatment was compared using a linear mixed effects model with group A (sumatriptan alone) as the reference treatment group. The linear mixed effects model included treatment (erenumab with sumatriptan vs sumatriptan alone) and period as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.05|0.96|
91938846|NCT02741310|183774488|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.09||||||The mean for each treatment was compared using a linear mixed effects model with group A (sumatriptan alone) as the reference treatment group. The linear mixed effects model included treatment (erenumab with sumatriptan vs sumatriptan alone) and period as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.09|0.82|
91938847|NCT01057862|183774528|OTHER|We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the start and end of study only as a comparison and not a meaningful analysis. Since higher scores represent a more severe form of the disorder, a drop in scores is seen as an indicator that the treatment had an effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.35|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The active arm had a mean PG-YBOCS score of 16 (n=5) at study start with a SD of 7.35. At end of study the active arm had a mean PG-YBOCS score of 10 (n=5) with a SD of 9.35. The placebo arm is not included here as there were only two scores.|Enrollment was lower than expected and due to the low numbers of subjects completing the study (7 subjects (5 active and 2 placebo) completed all interventions) the numbers were not powerful enough to conduct a full analysis or provide any meaningful statistical analyses. We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the beginning and end of the study only as a comparison and not as a meaningful analysis.||||
91938848|NCT01057862|183774529|OTHER|We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the start and end of study only as a comparison and not a meaningful analysis. Since higher scores represent a more severe form of the disorder, a drop in scores is seen as an indicator that the treatment had an effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The active treatment arm had a mean G-SAS score of 26.8 (n=5) at study start with a SD of 11.73. At end the active treatment arm had a mean G-SAS score of 12.6 (n=5) with a SD of 9.45. The placebo arm is not included as there were only 2 scores.|Enrollment was lower than expected and due to the low numbers of subjects completing the study (7 subjects (5 active and 2 placebo) completed all interventions) the numbers were not powerful enough to conduct a full analysis or provide any meaningful statistical analyses. We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the beginning and end of the study only as a comparison and not as a meaningful analysis.||||
91938849|NCT01525667|183774560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means (LSM) Difference|25.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|43.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM difference =LSM Low dose - LSM Placebo|||43.86|7.61|0.0067
91938850|NCT01525667|183774560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means (LSM) difference|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|36.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM difference= LSM High Dose - LSM Placebo|||36.99|-7.12|0.18
91938851|NCT01525667|183774561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|18.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|30.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.02|6.03|0.004
91938852|NCT01525667|183774561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|9.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|23.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.17|-4.72|0.19
91938853|NCT01525667|183774562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|6.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|16.41|||ANCOVA|||||16.41|-3.50|0.19
91938854|NCT01525667|183774562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|15.26|||ANCOVA|||||15.26|-4.29|0.25
91938855|NCT01525667|183774563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.21|0.4
91938856|NCT01525667|183774563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
91938857|NCT01525667|183774564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|33.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.47|0.16|0.05
91938858|NCT01525667|183774564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|28.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.65|-7.26|0.24
91938859|NCT00291187|183774565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-9.9|||ANCOVA|||||-9.9|-33.1|<0.001
91812221|NCT01287897|183499416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|10.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||10.9|-10.5|0.4893
91812222|NCT01287897|183499416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|27.4|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||27.4|-0.9|0.0619
91938860|NCT00291187|183774565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-14.7|||ANCOVA|||||-14.7|-37.8|<0.001
91938861|NCT00291187|183774565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-11.3|||ANCOVA|||||-11.3|-34.2|<0.001
91938862|NCT00291187|183774566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-4.3|||ANCOVA|||||-4.3|-44.1|0.017
91938863|NCT00291187|183774566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-13.9|||ANCOVA|||||-13.9|-53.6|0.001
91938864|NCT00291187|183774566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.1|-37.0|0.081
91812223|NCT01287897|183499416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|33.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||33.1|2.3|0.0290
91938865|NCT00291187|183774567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|54.5|||ANCOVA|||||54.5|13.0|0.002
91938866|NCT00291187|183774567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|68.6|||ANCOVA|||||68.6|27.2|<0.001
91938867|NCT00291187|183774567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|50.0|||ANCOVA|||||50.0|9.1|0.005
91938868|NCT00291187|183774568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-18.9|0.006
91938869|NCT00291187|183774568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-6.5|||ANCOVA|||||-6.5|-22.1|<0.001
91938870|NCT00291187|183774568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||||-4.6|-20.0|0.002
91938871|NCT01957787|183774643|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Estimates of the log odds and Wald standard error from a random effects logistic regression model were combined across imputed datasets for reference.|Random effects logistic regression model|||The null hypothesis was tested comparing the lower bound of the Wald 97.5% 1-sided confidence interval for the estimated rate of local tumor control to the performance goal of 84.0%. If the lower bound was greater than 84.0%, the null hypothesis was rejected and the endpoint was considered met.||||0.410
91938872|NCT01367860|183774697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-4.05|0.05
91938873|NCT01367860|183774698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91938874|NCT01367860|183774699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.43|-2.21|<0.05
91938875|NCT01367860|183774700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-2.76|<0.05
91938876|NCT01367860|183774702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.01|-2.58|<0.05
91812224|NCT01287897|183499416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|31.4|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 8.||31.4|-3.8|0.0988
91812225|NCT01287897|183499416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|35.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||35.0|-0.5|0.0549
91812226|NCT01287897|183499416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|31.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 12.||31.3|-3.3|0.0920
91938877|NCT01367860|183774703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.3|-1.3|<0.05
91938878|NCT01367860|183774704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|8.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.8|-2.36|<0.05
91938879|NCT01367860|183774705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-4.4|<0.05
91938880|NCT01367860|183774706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|7.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.55|-7.15|<0.05
91938881|NCT01367860|183774707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|7.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.67|-7.14|<0.05
91938882|NCT01367860|183774708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.16|4.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.76|-8.16|<0.05
91938883|NCT01367860|183774709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|3.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.46|-0.12|<0.05
91938884|NCT01367860|183774710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-2|<0.05
91938885|NCT01367860|183774711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.85|-2.55|<0.05
91812227|NCT01287897|183499417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|12.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||12.9|-9.5|0.4031
91812228|NCT01287897|183499417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|26.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||26.8|-4.6|0.1219
91812229|NCT01287897|183499417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|26.4|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||26.4|-6.5|0.1600
91812230|NCT01287897|183499417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.6019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.5|14.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 8.||14.2|-19.5|0.6019
91812231|NCT01287897|183499417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3||0.1601||90.0|-8.0|32.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||32.5|-8.0|0.1601
91812232|NCT01287897|183499417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|26.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 12.||26.6|-11.8|0.2622
91812233|NCT01287897|183499418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.8|10.6|||Linear mixed model (LMM)|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||10.6|-29.8|0.2173
91938886|NCT01367860|183774712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.23|-2.29|<0.05
91812234|NCT01287897|183499418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.4|9.4|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||9.4|-33.4|0.1778
91812235|NCT01287897|183499418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.37||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.0|11.2|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||11.2|-43.0|0.1661
91812236|NCT01287897|183499418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.66||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.1|14.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 8.||14.3|-44.1|0.1993
91812237|NCT01287897|183499418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.7|2.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||2.3|-62.7|0.0632
91812238|NCT01287897|183499418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.71||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.4|15.8|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 12.||15.8|-49.4|0.1975
91812239|NCT01287897|183499418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.25||0.5868|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.6|22.9|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||22.9|-17.6|0.5868
91812240|NCT01287897|183499418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.93||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.0|-4.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||-4.3|-47.0|0.0243
91812241|NCT01287897|183499418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.12||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.0|4.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||4.3|-49.0|0.0834
91812242|NCT01287897|183499418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.43||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.7|0.0|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 8.||-0.0|-57.7|0.0499
91812243|NCT01287897|183499418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.45||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-77.1|-12.7|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||-12.7|-77.1|0.0111
91812244|NCT01287897|183499418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.49||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.7|-7.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 12.||-7.3|-71.7|0.0221
91938887|NCT01367860|183774713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.08|-1.67|<0.05
91938888|NCT02481596|183774727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Beta=.083. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.045
91938889|NCT02481596|183774727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Beta=.126. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.006
91938890|NCT02481596|183774728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518||||||Beta=.031. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.518
91938891|NCT02481596|183774728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092||||||Beta=.092. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.092
91938892|NCT02481596|183774729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Beta=-.027. Threshold p\<.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations||||.53
91938893|NCT02481596|183774729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Beta=-.037. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.41
91938894|NCT02481596|183774730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Beta=.088. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for harmful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.024
91938895|NCT02481596|183774730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Beta=.128. Threshold p\<.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for harmful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.003
91938896|NCT02481596|183774731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Beta=-.133. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for helpful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.001
91938897|NCT02481596|183774731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Beta=-.115. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for helpful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.012
91938898|NCT02481596|183774732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Beta=.114. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.015
91938899|NCT02481596|183774732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Beta=.101. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.034
91938900|NCT00631540|183774742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Patency Rate|91.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.2|95.9|||Z-test, 1-sided||GEE model estimate.|Alternative hypothesis is 9-month primary patency rate greater than 60%.||95.9|84.2|<0.0001
91938901|NCT02437487|183774755|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.2217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7919|1.8849||||||||1.8849|0.7919|
91938902|NCT02437487|183774757|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.2624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7668|2.0785||||||||2.0785|0.7668|
91938903|NCT02437487|183774758|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.2217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7919|1.8849||||||||1.8849|0.7919|
91938904|NCT02437487|183774759|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.0878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7383|1.6029||||||||1.6029|0.7383|
91938905|NCT01230749|183774803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-27.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.792|-8.008|||ANCOVA|||||-8.008|-46.792|0.006
91938906|NCT01230749|183774803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-20.47||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.801|-1.142|||ANCOVA|||||-1.142|-39.801|0.038
91938907|NCT01230749|183774803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-13.24||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.635|6.151|||ANCOVA|||||6.151|-32.635|0.178
91938908|NCT01230749|183774804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-28.28||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.606|-8.957|||ANCOVA|||||-8.957|-47.606|0.005
91938909|NCT01230749|183774804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-21.97||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.154|-2.786|||ANCOVA|||||-2.786|-41.154|0.025
91938910|NCT01230749|183774804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-17.71||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.86|1.431|||ANCOVA|||||1.431|-36.860|0.069
91938911|NCT01230749|183774805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|2.76||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.542|14.054|||ANCOVA|||||14.054|-8.542|0.628
91938912|NCT01230749|183774805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|13.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.392|25.008|||ANCOVA|||||25.008|2.392|0.018
91938913|NCT01230749|183774805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|5.87||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.417|17.148|||ANCOVA|||||17.148|-5.417|0.303
91938914|NCT01230749|183774806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.86||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.634|-0.082|||ANCOVA|||||-0.082|-3.634|0.041
91938915|NCT01230749|183774806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.26||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.033|1.509|||ANCOVA|||||1.509|-2.033|0.769
91938916|NCT01230749|183774806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.69||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.463|1.091|||ANCOVA|||||1.091|-2.463|0.444
91938917|NCT01230749|183774807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR mulitplied by 100 percent|95.1||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.031|127.324|||ANCOVA|||||127.324|71.031|0.774
91938918|NCT01230749|183774807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|89.9||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.567|121.403|||ANCOVA|||||121.403|66.567|0.555
91938919|NCT01230749|183774808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|100.17||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.217|107.647|||ANCOVA|||||107.647|93.217|0.968
91938920|NCT01230749|183774808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|101.18||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.179|108.7|||ANCOVA|||||108.700|94.179|0.785
91938921|NCT01230749|183774809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|133.27||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.275|177.115|||ANCOVA|||||177.115|100.275|0.097
91938922|NCT01230749|183774809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR mulitplied by 100 percent|101.82||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.26|135.942|||ANCOVA|||||135.942|76.260|0.917
91938923|NCT01230749|183774810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.46||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|1.323|||ANCOVA|||||1.323|-0.408|0.295
91938924|NCT01230749|183774810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.03||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.838|0.904|||ANCOVA|||||0.904|-0.838|0.941
91938925|NCT01230749|183774810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|1.02||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.892|||ANCOVA|||||1.892|0.150|0.022
91938926|NCT03906136|183774811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.10|0.43|0.119
91938927|NCT03906136|183774812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.95|0.37|0.029
91938928|NCT03906136|183774813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.14|0.45|0.154
91938929|NCT03906136|183774813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.39|0.54|0.562
91938930|NCT03906136|183774814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.94|0.32|0.029
91938931|NCT03906136|183774814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.25|0.44|0.264
91938932|NCT03906136|183774815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.83|0.29|0.008
91938933|NCT03906136|183774815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||0.80|0.28|0.005
91938934|NCT03906136|183774816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.28|0.40|0.263
91938935|NCT03906136|183774816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.10|0.34|0.103
91938936|NCT03906136|183774817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.01|0.40|0.055
91938937|NCT03906136|183774817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.31|0.52|0.409
91938938|NCT03906136|183774818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.34|0.53|0.477
91938939|NCT03906136|183774818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.61|0.63|0.968
91938940|NCT03906136|183774819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.75|-0.16|0.205
91938941|NCT03906136|183774819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||0.82|-0.08|0.108
91938942|NCT03906136|183774820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.23|-0.12|0.525
91938943|NCT03906136|183774820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.14|-0.25|0.577
91938944|NCT03906136|183774821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.89||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.54|-2.32|0.220
91938945|NCT03906136|183774821|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||0.50|-0.70|0.745
91938946|NCT03906136|183774822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.74|-1.01|0.768
91938947|NCT03906136|183774822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.60|-1.34|0.451
91938948|NCT03906136|183774823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.97|-0.46|0.477
91938949|NCT03906136|183774823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.58|-0.92|0.660
91938950|NCT03906136|183774824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.79|-0.45|0.586
91938951|NCT03906136|183774824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.82|-0.39|0.491
91938952|NCT03906136|183774825|SUPERIORITY|Week 12|Mean Difference (Net)|4.49||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|9.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.56|-0.58|0.082
91938953|NCT03906136|183774825|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.73||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||7.81|-2.35|0.292
91938954|NCT00878644|183774831|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||16.1|-1.5|0.14
91938955|NCT00878644|183774832|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||19.9|-1.8|0.13
91938956|NCT00878644|183774833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney Test|Test stratified by age category (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years), for continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) 1-year change in VABS-II|||As the (nonparametric) comparison treated 1-year deaths as worst possible outcomes and worst possible 1-year VABS-II as next worst possible outcomes, using change in VABS-II for other participants alive at 1 year, no relevant estimation of effect size is possible for this secondary outcome.|||0.13
91938957|NCT00878644|183774834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"Test used the continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) neuropsychological scores, with Lowest Possible Score treated as lowest possible value."||||||0.81
91938958|NCT01696396|183774835|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered for formal statistical testing of the abrilumab 70 mg group. The primary and key secondary endpoints were tested under a sequential framework of statistical hypotheses, each with 2-sided significance level of 0.10 for the treatment effect of abrilumab 70 mg compared with placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.44|0.54|0.76
91938959|NCT01696396|183774835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|8.9||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.9|-7.9|
91938960|NCT01696396|183774835|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.57|0.80|0.22
91938961|NCT01696396|183774835|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|19.4||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||19.4|-4.6|
91938962|NCT01696396|183774835|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|5.73|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.73|0.74|0.25
91938963|NCT01696396|183774835|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|22.6||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||22.6|-6.8|
91938964|NCT01696396|183774836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.53|0.90|0.16
91938965|NCT01696396|183774836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|21.0||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||21.0|-1.8|
91938966|NCT01696396|183774836|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.84|0.93|0.13
91938967|NCT01696396|183774836|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|27.5||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||27.5|-2.1|
91938968|NCT01696396|183774836|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|8.2|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.20|1.17|0.056
91938969|NCT01696396|183774836|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|39.2||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||39.2|2.8|
91938970|NCT01696396|183774837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.01|1.27|0.021
91938971|NCT01696396|183774837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.8|31.3||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||31.3|5.8|
91938972|NCT01696396|183774837|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|3.87|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.87|0.94|0.14
91938973|NCT01696396|183774837|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|29.7||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||29.7|-2.3|
91812245|NCT01287897|183499419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.27||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.0|21.4|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||21.4|-39.0|0.3157
91812246|NCT01287897|183499419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.28||0.4171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.0|26.4|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||26.4|-34.0|0.4171
91938974|NCT01696396|183774837|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|4.39|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.39|0.79|0.23
91938975|NCT01696396|183774837|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|31.3||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||31.3|-6.4|
91938976|NCT01696396|183774838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.47|1.13|0.047
91938977|NCT01696396|183774838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|27.1||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||27.1|2.4|
91938978|NCT01696396|183774838|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.29|0.52|0.84
91938979|NCT01696396|183774838|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|15.2||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||15.2|-15.2|
91812247|NCT01287897|183499419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.79||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.6|25.5|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||25.5|-36.6|0.3837
91812248|NCT01287897|183499419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.27||0.3204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.8|22.8|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 8.||22.8|-40.8|0.3204
91812249|NCT01287897|183499419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.64||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.3|2.6|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||2.6|-62.3|0.0649
91938980|NCT01696396|183774838|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.72|0.49|0.78
91938981|NCT01696396|183774838|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.4|18.3||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||18.3|-17.4|
91938982|NCT01696396|183774839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|3.91|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.91|0.69|0.34
91812250|NCT01287897|183499419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.87||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.9|1.8|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 12.||1.8|-63.9|0.0598
91812251|NCT00786487|183499468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91812252|NCT00786487|183499468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91812253|NCT01500629|183499469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.33|-1.90|0.156
91938983|NCT01696396|183774839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|11.7||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||11.7|-3.9|
91938984|NCT01696396|183774839|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|7.41|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||7.41|1.07|0.078
91938985|NCT01696396|183774839|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|22.6||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||22.6|-0.6|
91938986|NCT01696396|183774839|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|10.66|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||10.66|1.07|0.083
91938987|NCT01696396|183774839|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|28.3||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||28.3|-1.2|
91938988|NCT01696396|183774840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|3.93|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.93|0.59|0.47
91938989|NCT01696396|183774840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|8.1||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.1|-4.7|
91812254|NCT01500629|183499470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.92|-1.49|0.625
91938990|NCT01696396|183774840|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|6.98|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.98|0.77|0.21
91938991|NCT01696396|183774840|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|14.5||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||14.5|-4.3|
91938992|NCT01696396|183774840|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|9.45|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||9.45|0.75|0.21
91812255|NCT01500629|183499471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.67|-2.12|0.291
91812256|NCT01500629|183499472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||1.07|-1.21|0.899
91938993|NCT01696396|183774840|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|17.9||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||17.9|-6.0|
91938994|NCT01696396|183774841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.3|-16.9|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||-16.9|-67.3|0.006
91938995|NCT01696396|183774841|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.79||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.5|-0.5|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||-0.5|-81.5|0.095
91938996|NCT01696396|183774841|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.84||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-74.3|0.7|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||0.7|-74.3|0.11
91938997|NCT01696396|183774842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.47||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.0|-4.9|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||-4.9|-50.0|0.045
91938998|NCT01696396|183774842|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.59||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.7|11.5|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||11.5|-58.7|0.27
91938999|NCT01696396|183774842|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.37||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.8|19.1|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||19.1|-51.8|0.45
91939000|NCT00394277|183774848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.075||||0.584||95.0|0.831|1.391||All secondary comparisons were tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||This reflects the primary protocol-specified comparison (standard Pegasys induction dosing arms versus pooled Pegasys induction dosing arms). The study was designed to have at least 86% power for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between these two pooled groups, with assumed response rates of 28%, 32%, 36%, and 43% in the four treatment arms.||1.391|0.831|0.584
91939001|NCT00394277|183774849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.039||||0.775||95.0|0.803|1.344||All secondary comparisons are tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||(PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg) vs. (PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg)||1.344|0.803|0.775
91939002|NCT00394277|183774850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.004||||0.973||95.0|0.777|1.299||All secondary comparisons are tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||(PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg) vs. (PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg)||1.299|0.777|0.973
91812257|NCT01500629|183499473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.701||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.701
91939003|NCT00394277|183774851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.951||95.0|0.78|1.304||All secondary comparisons are tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||(PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg) vs. (PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg)||1.304|0.780|0.951
91939004|NCT02371980|183774852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.517||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|0.828||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 5mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.828|0.323|0.006
91939005|NCT02371980|183774852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.476||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.767||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 10 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.767|0.296|0.002
91939006|NCT02371980|183774852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.483||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.782||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 20 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.782|0.298|0.003
91939007|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.68|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.68|-1.63|0.421
91939008|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.08|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||-0.08|-2.39|0.037
91939009|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.75|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.75|-1.57|0.488
91939010|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.93|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.93|-3.93|0.002
91939011|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.51|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-1.51|-4.49|<0.001
91939012|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-0.98|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.98|-4.02|0.001
91939013|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.13|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-1.13|-4.76|0.001
91939014|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.919|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|-2.03|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-2.03|-5.64|<0.001
91939015|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-1.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-1.16|-4.84|0.001
91939016|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.938||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.08|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-1.08|-4.76|0.002
91939017|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-2.68|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-2.68|-6.34|<0.001
91939018|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.949|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.78|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-1.78|-5.50|<0.001
91939019|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.16|-3.92|0.033
91939020|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|-1.82|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-1.82|-5.55|<0.001
91939021|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-0.73|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.73|-4.52|0.007
91939022|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.912||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.82|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.82|-4.40|0.004
91939023|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.906|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-2.31|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-2.31|-5.86|<0.001
91939024|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.921||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-0.96|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.96|-4.57|0.003
91812258|NCT01500629|183499474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.108||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.108
91939025|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.008||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|0.06|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||0.06|-3.89|0.057
91939026|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.997|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|-1.55|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||-1.55|-5.46|<0.001
91939027|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-0.55|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||-0.55|-4.51|0.012
91939028|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.012||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.09|-3.88|0.061
91939029|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.997||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.4|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||-0.40|-4.31|0.018
91939030|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.015||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.12|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.12|-3.87|0.065
91939031|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||MMRM Model|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-0.86|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-0.86|-5.31|0.007
91939032|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|-1.77|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-1.77|-6.16|<0.001
91939033|NCT02371980|183774853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.143||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-1.34|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-1.34|-5.82|0.002
91939034|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.14|-0.20|0.732
91939035|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.07|-0.26|0.273
91939036|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.09|-0.24|0.361
91939037|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.09|-0.48|0.004
91939038|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.12|||Least Squares Mean Difference|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.12|-0.50|0.002
91939039|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.16|-0.55|<0.001
91939040|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.06|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-0.06|-0.54|0.014
91939041|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-0.16|-0.63|0.001
91939042|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-0.14|-0.62|0.002
91939043|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.03|||Least Squares Mean Difference|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-0.03|-0.51|0.025
91812259|NCT01500629|183499475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.253||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.253
91812260|NCT01500629|183499476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.287||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.287
91939044|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.26|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-0.26|-0.74|<0.001
91939045|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.15|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-0.15|-0.63|0.002
91939046|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||0.12|-0.36|0.333
91939047|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.13|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.13|-0.61|0.002
91939048|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.04|-0.53|0.023
91939049|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.03|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||0.03|-0.44|0.092
91939050|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.2|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.20|-0.67|<0.001
91939051|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.09|-0.57|0.008
91939052|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.11|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||0.11|-0.42|0.248
91939053|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||-0.10|-0.63|0.006
91939054|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||0.03|-0.50|0.087
91939055|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.14|-0.38|0.362
91812261|NCT01500629|183499477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.409||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.409
91812262|NCT01500629|183499478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.092||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.092
91939056|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.10|-0.40|0.251
91939057|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.14|-0.37|0.391
91939058|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.1|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||0.10|-0.45|0.209
91939059|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.06|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-0.06|-0.60|0.018
91939060|NCT02371980|183774854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-0.09|-0.65|0.009
91939061|NCT02371980|183774856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|0.766||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 5mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.766|0.302|0.002
91939062|NCT02371980|183774856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.455|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.725||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 10 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.725|0.286|<0.001
91812263|NCT01500629|183499479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.042||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.042
91939063|NCT02371980|183774856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|0.771||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 20 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.771|0.304|0.002
91939064|NCT01280812|183774858|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3000.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.||Intent to treat analysis||||
91939065|NCT01060098|183774864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 0 compared to week 12||||0.003
91939066|NCT01060098|183774864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 0 compared to week 12||||0.04
91939067|NCT01060098|183774864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 0 compared to week 12||||0.48
91939068|NCT00789724|183774865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.033
91939069|NCT01594749|183774874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||<0.001
91812264|NCT01500629|183499480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.307||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.307
91812265|NCT01500629|183499481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.903||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.903
91812266|NCT01500629|183499482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.121||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.121
91812267|NCT01500629|183499483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.689||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.689
91939070|NCT01594749|183774875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage vs. Control|0.6||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7||P-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||1.7|-0.2|0.085
91812268|NCT01500629|183499484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.314||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.314
91939071|NCT01594749|183774877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on CMH method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||<0.001
91939072|NCT01594749|183774878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||||||P-value based on CMH method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||0.184
91939073|NCT01594749|183774879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on CMH method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||<0.001
91939074|NCT00922974|183774906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Based on the one-sided exact binomial test with α=0.025 and a 2:1 randomization, 228 patients would be required to detect a 40% improvement in the response rate from 51% (external beam radiation therapy) to 70% (Radiosurgery/SBRT) with a statistical power of 0.80.||||0.99
91939075|NCT00922974|183774907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.27|||Stratified log rank|One-sided significance level = 0.025.|Reference level = Radiosurgery/SBRT|||1.27|0.72|0.38
91812269|NCT01500629|183499485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.034||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.034
91939076|NCT00922974|183774908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|12.8|||Stratified log rank|One-sided significance level = 0.025|Significance level = Radiosurgery/SBRT|||12.8|0.24|0.29
91939077|NCT00922974|183774909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||Percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events.||||0.93
91939078|NCT00922974|183774909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||Percentage of patients with any adverse events.||||0.09
91939079|NCT00922974|183774910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.59
91939080|NCT00922974|183774911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.38
91939081|NCT00922974|183774912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming that the data are normally distributed, the two sample t-test assuming equal variances will be used to test the hypothesis at the one-sided 0.025 significance level. A mean difference of 7 points represents a clinically meaningful change (CMC). A difference of less than 7 points between the treatment arms will not be considered meaningful, even if it has statistical significance.||||0.28
91939082|NCT00922974|183774913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4313|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Treatment Arm (External Beam Radiation Therapy vs. Radiosurgery/SBRT) is reported here.||||0.4313
91939083|NCT00922974|183774913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8707|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Age (\< 63 years vs. ≥ 63 years) is reported here.||||0.8707
91939084|NCT00922974|183774913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1549|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Gender (female vs. male) is reported here.||||0.1549
91812270|NCT01500629|183499486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.845||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.845
91812271|NCT01500629|183499487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.619||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.619
91812272|NCT01500629|183499488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.803||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.803
91812273|NCT01500629|183499489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.175||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.175
91812274|NCT01500629|183499490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.206|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.206
91812275|NCT01500629|183499491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.072||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.072
91939085|NCT00922974|183774913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Race (Other vs. while) is reported here.||||0.0193
91939086|NCT00922974|183774913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Zubrod performance status (0 vs. 1,2) is reported here.||||0.0016
91939087|NCT00922974|183774913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Taking pain medication (No vs. Yes) is reported here.||||0.0003
91939088|NCT00922974|183774913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Tumor type (radioresistant vs. other) is reported here.||||0.6371
91812276|NCT01500629|183499492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.014||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||.0140
91812277|NCT01500629|183499493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.22|-0.24|0.907
91812278|NCT01500629|183499494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.18|-0.28|0.666
91939089|NCT00922974|183774914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Treatment Arm (External Beam Radiation Therapy vs. Radiosurgery/SBRT) is reported here.||||0.0218
91939090|NCT00922974|183774914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Age (\< 63 years vs. ≥ 63 years) is reported here.||||0.9437
91939091|NCT00922974|183774914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0696|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Gender (female vs. male) is reported here.||||0.0696
91939092|NCT00922974|183774914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Race (Other vs. while) is reported here.||||0.1140
91939093|NCT00922974|183774914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Zubrod performance status (0 vs. 1,2) is reported here.||||0.0003
91939094|NCT00922974|183774914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Taking pain medication (No vs. Yes) is reported here.||||<0.0001
91939095|NCT00922974|183774914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7732|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Tumor type (radioresistant vs. other) is reported here.||||0.7732
91939096|NCT00922974|183774915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5198|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Treatment Arm (External Beam Radiation Therapy vs. Radiosurgery/SBRT) is reported here.||||0.5198
91939097|NCT00922974|183774915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1197|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Age (\< 63 years vs. ≥ 63 years) is reported here.||||0.1197
91939098|NCT00922974|183774915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Gender (female vs. male) is reported here.||||0.0306
91812279|NCT01500629|183499495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.28|-0.29|0.972
91812280|NCT01500629|183499496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.59|-0.31|0.521
91812281|NCT01500629|183499497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.39|-0.15|0.376
91939099|NCT00922974|183774915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Race (Other vs. while) is reported here.||||0.7903
91939100|NCT00922974|183774915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Zubrod performance status (0 vs. 1,2) is reported here.||||<0.0001
91939101|NCT00922974|183774915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Taking pain medication (No vs. Yes) is reported here.||||0.0026
91939102|NCT00922974|183774915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3282|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Tumor type (radioresistant vs. other) is reported here.||||0.3282
91939103|NCT00191386|183774919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 6 Months|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91939104|NCT00191386|183774919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 12 Months|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91939105|NCT00191386|183774919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 2 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91939106|NCT00191386|183774919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 3 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91939107|NCT00191386|183774919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 4 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91812282|NCT01500629|183499498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.30|-0.11|0.350
91939108|NCT00191386|183774920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 6 Months.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91939109|NCT00191386|183774920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 12 Months.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91939110|NCT00191386|183774920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 2 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91812283|NCT01500629|183499499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.34|-0.36|0.947
91939111|NCT00191386|183774920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 3 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91939112|NCT00191386|183774920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 4 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91939113|NCT02574481|183774933|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions.|||||<|0.0001||||||A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions. If the P-value from the one-sided Farrington-Manning test is \<0.05, Eluvia is concluded to be non-inferior to Zilver PTX.|Farrington-Manning|||||||<0.0001
91939114|NCT02574481|183774934|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions..|||||<|0.0001||||||A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions. If the P-value from the one-sided Farrington-Manning test is \<0.05, Eluvia is concluded to be non-inferior to Zilver PTX.|Farrington-Manning|||||||<0.0001
91939115|NCT03404219|183774969|OTHER|Single group pre-post, follow-up|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model (repeated measures)|||Single arm||||0.09
91939116|NCT05302804|183774980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||p-value reflects main effect of treatment.|ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis was there was no difference between menthol gel and control gel~time x trial ANOVA statistical analysis"||||0.742
91939117|NCT05302804|183774981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||p-value is main effect of menthol|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||0.742
91939118|NCT05302804|183774982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value reflects main effect of menthol|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||0.048
91939119|NCT05302804|183774983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.104
91939120|NCT05302804|183774984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.051
91939121|NCT05302804|183774985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effect of treatment|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||< 0.001
91939122|NCT05302804|183774986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.026
91939123|NCT05302804|183774987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value at time 30 min of exercise|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.001
91939124|NCT05302804|183774988|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939125|NCT02038790|183774991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.5000
91939126|NCT02038790|183774992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0196
91939127|NCT02038790|183774993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0006
91812284|NCT01500629|183499500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.19|-0.30|0.651
91812285|NCT01500629|183499505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.38|-1.30|0.261
91812286|NCT01500629|183499506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||1.04|-0.51|0.481
91812287|NCT01500629|183499507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.89|-0.85|0.961
91890996|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|2.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 12|||2.7|-19.1|0.136
91890997|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|3.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 1|||3.6|-14.5|0.230
91890998|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 2|||5.9|-15.2|0.381
91890999|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|5.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 4|||5.0|-22.4|0.207
91891000|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|11.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 6|||11.6|-18.4|0.648
91891001|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|7.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 8|||7.5|-25.4|0.278
91891002|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|5.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 10|||5.0|-29.1|0.160
91891003|NCT02683785|183675401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 12|||3.9|-30.5|0.127
91891004|NCT02683785|183675402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented|||1.8|-1.9|0.957
91891005|NCT02683785|183675402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||2.8|-2.1|0.775
91891006|NCT02683785|183675402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||1.7|-2.7|0.624
91939128|NCT02038790|183774994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4422
91939129|NCT02038790|183774995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2377
91939130|NCT02038790|183774996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0603
91939131|NCT02038790|183774997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0010
91939132|NCT02009930|183775121|OTHER||Wilson Method used|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|22.9||||||||22.9|9.4|
91812288|NCT01500629|183499508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||1.04|-0.57|0.546
91812289|NCT02902965|183499509|OTHER||median PFS|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|10.8|||||Kaplan-Meier estimates for median PFS and its associated 95% confidence intervals using log-log transformed Greenwood variance estimate were calculated.|||10.8|6.2|
91812290|NCT02902965|183499510|OTHER||ORR in %|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|68.2|||||Overall response = confirmed sCR + CR + VGPR + PR with corresponding 95% Exact binomial Cl|||68.2|44.7|
91939133|NCT02009930|183775122|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Only descriptive statistics were calculated (frequency, percent). Inferential statistics were not necessary, nor appropriate|||
91939134|NCT02009930|183775123|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Correlation between FRS and CAC risk categories in participants with at least 1 additional risk factor expressed as a p-value|Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient|Correlation between FRS and CAC risk categories in participants with at least 1 additional risk factor. Spearman's rho = 0.04||Compare risk categories (FRS and CAC)||||0.79
91939135|NCT02009930|183775124|OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Relationship between FRS and metabolic syndrome. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and metabolic syndrome (presence/absence of metabolic syndrome)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, metabolic syndrome - presence/absence) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk)||||0.063
91812291|NCT02902965|183499511|OTHER||PFS rate|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|16.9|||||Kaplan-Meier method used for PFS rate and its associated 95% confidence intervals using log-log transformed Greenwood variance estimate were calculated.|||16.9|1.6|
91812292|NCT02902965|183499514|OTHER||median TTP|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|12.0|||||KM estimates for median TTP with associated 95% CI|||12|7.8|
91939136|NCT02009930|183775124|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Relationship between CAC and metabolic syndrome. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and metabolic syndrome (presence/absence of metabolic syndrome)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, metabolic syndrome - presence/absence) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high)||||0.21
91939137|NCT02009930|183775125|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Relationship between FRS and living in the dorms. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and living in the dorms (\< 5 years, \> 5 years)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, living in the dorms - \<5 years/\> 5 years) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk categories (low, moderate, mod -high, high, and very high)||||0.56
91939138|NCT02009930|183775125|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Relationship between CAC and living in the dorms. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and living in the dorms (\< 5 years, \> 5 years)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, living in the dorms - \<5 years/\> 5 years) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, moderate - high, high, and very high)||||0.13
91939139|NCT02009930|183775126|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||Relationship between FRS and PT failures. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and PT failures (with, without PT failure)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, PT failure - with/without PT failure) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk categories (low, moderate, moderate-high, high, and very high)||||0.44
91939140|NCT02009930|183775126|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Relationship between CAC and PT failures. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and PT failures (with, without PT failure)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, PT failure - with/without PT failure) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk categories (low, low-moderate, mod -high, high, and very high)||||0.49
91812293|NCT02259582|183499534|SUPERIORITY|Based on RECIST v1.1. Response outcomes from an assessment done anytime less than Day 35 were considered as not evaluable unless the response assessment was progress disease.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04|||=|0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.095|||Log Rank|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate both the survival curves and the median survival time. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the median survival time was calculated. A p-value for treatment effect was generated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.||.095|.013|=0.0401
91812294|NCT01969240|183499535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.86||||||||0.86|0.46|
91812295|NCT01969240|183499536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The a-priori significance level was 0.05.||||||<0.013
91812296|NCT01969240|183499537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|11.5||||||||11.5|9.1|
91939141|NCT02009930|183775127|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Relationship between FRS and overall years of service. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and overall years of service (15-19, 20-24, 25+)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, overall years of service) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk categories (low, moderate, moderate -high, high, and very high)||||0.11
91939142|NCT02009930|183775127|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Relationship between CAC and overall years of service. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and overall years of service (15-19, 20-24, 25+)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, overall years of service) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk)||||0.003
91939143|NCT02009930|183775129|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Relationship between CAC and metabolic syndrome. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and metabolic syndrome (presence/absence of metabolic syndrome)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, metabolic syndrome - presence/absence) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high)||||0.21
91812297|NCT01969240|183499538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.998
91812298|NCT01969240|183499539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||negative binomial model|||||||<0.001
91812299|NCT01969240|183499540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.9||||||||-0.90|-4.8|
91812300|NCT01969240|183499541|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6||||||||3.6|-0.2|
91891007|NCT02683785|183675402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||3.8|-1.0|0.243
91891008|NCT02683785|183675402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||2.9|-2.5|0.875
91891009|NCT02683785|183675402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented|||2.8|-3.4|0.848
91891010|NCT02683785|183675402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||2.4|-2.8|0.883
91891011|NCT02683785|183675403|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented|||2.0|-4.4|0.463
91891012|NCT02683785|183675403|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||2.9|-3.7|0.809
91891013|NCT02683785|183675403|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||2.0|-5.8|0.324
91891014|NCT02683785|183675403|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||3.2|-4.2|0.783
91891015|NCT02683785|183675403|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||2.5|-5.4|0.464
91891016|NCT02683785|183675403|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented|||3.5|-4.9|0.736
91891017|NCT02683785|183675403|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||3.7|-4.8|0.806
91891018|NCT02683785|183675404|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||1.6|-0.9|0.586
91891019|NCT02683785|183675404|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||0.8|-1.9|0.416
91891020|NCT02683785|183675404|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||0.3|-2.8|0.120
91891021|NCT02683785|183675404|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||1.4|-2.1|0.687
91812301|NCT00412854|183499569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|3.39||||||"Difference in seroprotection rates against diphteria toxoid:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose primary vaccination course."||3.39|-1.68|
91939144|NCT02009930|183775130|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Relationship between CAC and living in the dorms. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and living in the dorms (\< 5 years, \> 5 years)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, living in the dorms - \<5 years/\> 5 years) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, moderate - high, high, and very high)||||0.13
91939145|NCT02009930|183775131|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Relationship between CAC and PT failures. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and PT failures (with, without PT failure)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, PT failure - with/without PT failure) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk categories (low, low-moderate, mod -high, high, and very high)||||0.49
91939146|NCT02009930|183775132|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Relationship between CAC and overall years of service. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and overall years of service (15-19, 20-24, 25+)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, overall years of service) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk)||||0.003
91939147|NCT00879437|183775161|NON_INFERIORITY|if 19 evaluable patients enrolled for DIPG, study is powered at 80% to detect a 20% improvement in 1-year EFS compared to historical control if 21 evaluable patients enrolled for HGG, study is powered at 80% to detect a 20% improvement in 1-year EFS compared to historical control|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|one sample log-rank||comparing 1-year EFS of DIPG on this trial versus historical control (1-year EFS of 17% from CCG-9941; PMID 12177103) comparing 1-year EFS of HGG on this trial versus historical control (1-year EFS of 36% from ACNS0126; PMID 21339192)||||< 0.05
91939148|NCT00879437|183775201|OTHER|The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the median EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc) and R (https://cran.r-project.org/).|||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the median EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals.|||
91939149|NCT00879437|183775202|OTHER|The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the one-year EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc) and R (https://cran.r-project.org/).|||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the one-year EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals.|||
91939150|NCT00879437|183775203|OTHER|||||||||||||||||partial response defined as 51% to 99% reduction in tumor size,determined using WHO bi-dimensional criteria (product of the greatest tumor diameter and its perpendicular diameter)|Not applicable (8 partial responses in 16 patients = 50%)|||
91939151|NCT01001234|183775208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.26||The statistical significance level for the primary endpoint was α=0.0477, and had been adjusted to account for the interim sample size adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Testing of primary endpoint and secondary endpoints was conducted sequentially in a pre-specified order, thus strongly controlling Type I error.||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to the primary outcome was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe) and region (United States \[US\] or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||2.26|1.06|0.025
91939152|NCT01001234|183775209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.9||Secondary endpoints were to be formally tested only if the test of the primary endpoint was statistically significant at the α=0.0477 level. The secondary endpoints were then tested sequentially in a pre-specified order, each at the α=0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|This first secondary hypothesis was not statistically significant, therefore the other two were not formally tested for statistical significance.||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to pain relief at 2 hours post Stage 2 dose for participants between 12 and 17 years of age was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe) and region (US or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||1.90|0.96|0.080
91939153|NCT01001234|183775210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.1||This second secondary hypothesis was not formally tested since the first secondary was not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to pain freedom at 2 hours post Stage 2 dose for participants between 6 and 17 years of age was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe), age (6 to 11 years old or 12 to 17 years old), and region (US or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||2.10|1.10|0.010
91812302|NCT00412854|183499569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.3||||||"Difference in seroprotection rates against tetanus toxoid:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||2.30|-2.29|
91939154|NCT01001234|183775211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.63||This third secondary hypothesis was not formally tested since the first secondary was not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to pain relief at 2 hours post Stage 2 dose for participants between 6 and 17 years of age was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe), age (6 to 11 years old or 12 to 17 years old), and region (US or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||1.63|0.91|0.178
91939155|NCT01363258|183775212|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed models fitted with binomial (logit link) and gamma (log link) distributions, with additional dispersion parameters, were used to estimate and test intervention effects in terms of occurrence and intensity of CRBs, respectively. Inference was conducted in the link scale, but inverse-link estimates in the original scales (proportions and CRB scores, for the binomial and gamma models, respectively) were computed to facilitate interpretation.|Effect size|-0.16||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED||||||Time by group interaction test|||||||0.1433
91939156|NCT03238352|183775239|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.657|-0.782|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Test Product versus Negative Control at Week 8 is a primary endpoint comparison.||-0.782|-1.657|<0.0001
91939157|NCT03238352|183775239|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.705|-0.858|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.858|-1.705|<.0001
91939158|NCT03238352|183775239|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.901|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Test Product versus Combined Control (Placebo and Negative Control) group was obtained by using estimates statement in the ANCOVA model.||-0.901|-1.600|<0.0001
91939159|NCT03238352|183775240|OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|37.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.306|<|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.916|51.995||P-value from Van Elteren test|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||51.995|22.916|<0.0004
91939160|NCT03238352|183775240|OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|49.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.079|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.791|63.966||P-value from Van Elteren test|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||63.966|35.791|<.0001
91939161|NCT03238352|183775240|OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|43.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.862|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.001|55.334||P-value from Van Elteren test.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Test Product versus Combined Control (Placebo and Negative Control) group is obtained by using estimates statement in the ANCOVA model||55.334|32.001|<.0001
91939162|NCT04153929|183775259|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: The maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91812303|NCT00412854|183499570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.18||||||"Difference in seroprotection rates against PRP:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||6.18|0.15|
91812304|NCT00412854|183499571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of subjects with a vaccine response was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.3||||||"Difference in vaccine response rates against PT:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||2.30|-2.29|
91812305|NCT00412854|183499571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of subjects with a vaccine response was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.3||||||"Difference in vaccine response rates against FHA:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||2.30|-2.29|
91939163|NCT04153929|183775259|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91939164|NCT04153929|183775259|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 1 model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91939165|NCT04153929|183775259|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 2 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91939166|NCT04153929|183775259|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 1.8 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91939167|NCT04153929|183775259|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.46||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-0.46|-1.06|<0.0001
91939168|NCT04153929|183775259|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.01||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.01|-1.60|<0.0001
91939169|NCT04153929|183775259|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.26||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.26|-1.87|<0.0001
91939170|NCT04153929|183775259|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.1||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.10|-1.72|<0.0001
91939171|NCT04153929|183775259|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-1.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.19|-1.78|<0.0001
91939172|NCT04153929|183775259|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-1.22||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.22|-1.84|<0.0001
91939173|NCT04153929|183775260|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: The maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91939174|NCT04153929|183775260|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91939175|NCT04153929|183775260|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 1 model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91939176|NCT04153929|183775260|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 2 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91939177|NCT04153929|183775260|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 1.8 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91939178|NCT04153929|183775260|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.11||||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.68||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||0.68|-2.90|0.2228
91812306|NCT00412854|183499571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of subjects with a vaccine response was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroresponse rate|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|5.07||||||"Difference in vaccine response rates against PRN:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||5.07|-2.17|
91939179|NCT04153929|183775260|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-2.01||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-2.01|-5.56|<0.0001
91939180|NCT04153929|183775260|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.81||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.81|-7.41|<0.0001
91939181|NCT04153929|183775260|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-4.38||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-4.38|-8.12|<0.0001
91939182|NCT04153929|183775260|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-4.47||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-4.47|-8.02|<0.0001
91939183|NCT04153929|183775260|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-7.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-5.83||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-5.83|-9.52|<0.0001
91939184|NCT04153929|183775261|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.66||||0.4439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.03||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||1.03|-2.34|0.4439
91812307|NCT00708643|183499609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2863|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-3.0047|2.7153|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus the habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A will provide a lower level of limbal hyperemia than the habitual lens.||2.7153|-3.0047|
91939185|NCT04153929|183775261|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.28||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-1.61||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.61|-4.95|0.0001
91812308|NCT00708643|183499610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7605|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.0804|1.8821|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides better comfort than the habitual lens by having a lower rating on the scale.||1.8821|-0.0804|
91812309|NCT00708643|183499611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7002|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.2228|4.6564|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus the habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides a lowe level of upper lid margin staining than the habitual lens.||4.6564|0.2228|
91812310|NCT00708643|183499612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1873|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.2596|4.2599|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus the habitual lens.|||4.2599|1.2596|
91812311|NCT00708643|183499613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3407|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.8625|5.0524|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides a lower level of tarsal hyperemia than the habitual lens.||5.0524|-0.8625|
91812312|NCT00708643|183499614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6975|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.241|4.0043|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides lower levels of corneal staining than the habitual lens.||4.0043|-0.2410|
91812313|NCT02493608|183499685|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91812314|NCT02493608|183499686|OTHER|||||||0.218||||||POD 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.218
91812315|NCT02493608|183499686|OTHER|||||||0.638||||||POD 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638
91812316|NCT02493608|183499687|OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.113
91812317|NCT03045887|183499722|OTHER||Ratio|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.61|||||AUC(0-t). Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||0.61|0.27|
91812318|NCT03045887|183499722|OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.47|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.47|0.65|
91812319|NCT03045887|183499722|OTHER||Ratio|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.74|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.74|1.01|
91812320|NCT03045887|183499722|OTHER||Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.62|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.62|0.69|
91812321|NCT03045887|183499722|OTHER||Ratio|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.64|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.64|0.95|
91812322|NCT03045887|183499723|OTHER||Ratio|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.47|||||Treatment ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Day 14/Day 1) for AUC(0-24) is presented|||1.47|1.01|
91812323|NCT03045887|183499724|OTHER||ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.99||||||||0.99|0.61|
91939186|NCT04153929|183775261|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-3.23||P-value is considered nominal|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.23|-6.62|<0.0001
91812324|NCT03045887|183499724|OTHER||ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.22||||||||1.22|0.75|
91812325|NCT03045887|183499724|OTHER||ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.97||||||||0.97|0.68|
91812326|NCT03045887|183499724|OTHER||ratio|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.86||||||||0.86|0.51|
91812327|NCT03045887|183499724|OTHER||ratio|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.9||||||||0.90|0.63|
91812328|NCT03045887|183499725|OTHER||ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.36|||||Treatment ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Day 14/Day 1) for Cmax is presented|||1.36|0.96|
91812329|NCT03045887|183499731|OTHER||Ratio|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|2.55|||||Treatment ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Day 14/Day 1) for Ctau is presented.|||2.55|1.67|
91812330|NCT00680745|183499753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0867|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.27||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.27|-0.61|<0.0001
91812331|NCT00680745|183499753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0885|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.32||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided).||-0.32|-0.67|<0.0001
91812332|NCT00680745|183499753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0873|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.51||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided).||-0.51|-0.86|<0.0001
91812333|NCT00680745|183499754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3153||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.15||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.15|-1.08|0.1410
91812334|NCT00680745|183499754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3217||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.21||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.21|-1.47|0.0091
91812335|NCT00680745|183499754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3168|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.92||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.92|-2.17|<0.0001
91812336|NCT00680745|183499755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.874|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-18.0||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-18.0|-45.0|
91812337|NCT00680745|183499755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.968||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-12.3||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-12.3|-39.7|0.0002
91939187|NCT04153929|183775261|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-4.0||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-4.00|-7.53|<0.0001
91939188|NCT04153929|183775261|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-3.77||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.77|-7.11|<0.0001
91939189|NCT04153929|183775261|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-7.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|-5.31||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-5.31|-8.79|<0.0001
91939190|NCT04153929|183775261|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-2.18||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as Semaglutide - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-2.18|-5.52|<0.0001
91939191|NCT04153929|183775262|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.62||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|3.57||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||3.57|-4.82|0.7708
91939192|NCT04153929|183775262|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|0.68||||0.7462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|4.79||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||4.79|-3.44|0.7462
91939193|NCT04153929|183775262|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.32||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|0.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||0.98|-7.62|0.1302
91939194|NCT04153929|183775262|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.61||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-0.18||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-0.18|-9.03|0.0414
91812338|NCT00680745|183499755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|-15.6||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-15.6|-42.2|<0.0001
91812339|NCT00680745|183499756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|22.1||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||22.1|5.4|
91812340|NCT00680745|183499756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.392||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|25.9||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||25.9|8.7|0.0001
91939195|NCT04153929|183775262|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.55||||0.2273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|1.6||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||1.60|-6.71|0.2273
91939196|NCT04153929|183775262|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-8.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-3.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.98|-12.81|0.0002
91812341|NCT00680745|183499756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|27.4||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||27.4|9.9|<0.0001
91812342|NCT00680745|183499757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.45||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.45|-1.19|
91812343|NCT00680745|183499757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4234||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.11||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.11|-1.78|0.0262
91812344|NCT00680745|183499757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.5|-0.84||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.84|-2.50|<0.0001
91812345|NCT00680745|183499758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.522|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-7.9||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-7.9|-21.8|
91812346|NCT00680745|183499758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.594|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-12.2||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-12.2|-26.3|<0.0001
91812347|NCT00680745|183499758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.545|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-19.5||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-19.5|-33.5|<0.0001
91812348|NCT04446377|183499770|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that LAM-002A would induce greater changes in viral load from Day 1 to Day 4 than would Placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.53||Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.20|Mixed Models Analysis|ANCOVA linear mixed model to evaluate the relative differences between the LAM-002A and Placebo groups in the log10 viral load from Day 1 to Day 4.|The difference between the groups (LAM-002A vs Placebo).|The analysis tested whether the viral load in nasopharyngeal samples was lower at Day 4 in those receiving LAM-002A compared to Placebo.||0.53|-1.47|0.35
91812349|NCT04446377|183499772|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that LAM-002A would reduce the cumulative rate of hospitalization or death during the 28-day period comprising 10 days of study drug administration and a further 18 days of observation.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.89|||Log Rank|||||22.89|0.18|0.55
91812350|NCT04446377|183499774|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression at Baseline||||
91812351|NCT04446377|183499774|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from GEE Logistic Regression at Day 1||||
91812352|NCT04446377|183499774|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from GEE logistic regression at Day 4||||
91812353|NCT04446377|183499774|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from GEE logistic regression at Day 11||||
91812354|NCT04446377|183499775|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that, relative to Placebo, LAM-002A would result in a greater proportion of participants with a SARS-CoV-2 viral load \<LLOQ on Day 4.|Relative Risk|2.51||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|8.48||Prespecified significance level of 0.20.|Fisher Exact|||||8.48|0.74|0.20
91939197|NCT04153929|183775262|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.72||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|1.42||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as Semaglutide - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||1.42|-6.86|0.1967
91939198|NCT04153929|183775263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.2|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||5.20|0.28|
91939199|NCT04153929|183775263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|25.74|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||25.74|2.43|
91939200|NCT04153929|183775263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|60.03|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||60.03|5.21|
91812355|NCT01862874|183499823|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|85.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|97.3|||One-sided exact test||Vaccine efficacy is defined as the percentage reduction in relative risk for the V501 group versus the placebo group.||If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%, then superiority of the V501 group is demonstrated.|97.3|52.7|<0.001
91812356|NCT01862874|183499824|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of maximum temperature ≥37.5°C|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.9|-3.5|0.256
91812357|NCT01862874|183499825|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of injection-site erythema|Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Injection-site erythema||7.9|-2.1|0.251
91812358|NCT01862874|183499825|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of injection-site pain|Risk Difference (RD)|6.4||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|12.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Injection-site pain||12.2|0.5|0.033
91812359|NCT01862874|183499825|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of injection-site swelling|Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|11.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Injection-site swelling||11.3|2.3|0.003
91812360|NCT01862874|183499826|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of systemic AEs|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.3|||||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.3|-5.2|
91812361|NCT01862874|183499827|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of vaccine-related systemic AEs|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.8|||||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.8|-4.1|
91812362|NCT01862874|183499828|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|86.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|97.4|||One-sided exact test||Vaccine efficacy is defined as the percentage reduction in relative risk for the V501 versus the placebo group.||If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%, superiority of the V501 group is demonstrated.|97.4|55.2|<0.001
91939201|NCT04153929|183775263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|91.55|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||91.55|7.31|
91939202|NCT04153929|183775263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.57|72.04|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||72.04|6.57|
91939203|NCT04153929|183775263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|124.47|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||124.47|9.84|
91939204|NCT04153929|183775263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|26.79|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as Semaglutide / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||26.79|2.52|
91939205|NCT04153929|183775264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|95.73|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||95.73|0.14|
91939206|NCT04153929|183775264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|163.56|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||163.56|0.39|
91939207|NCT04153929|183775264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|471.09|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||471.09|1.35|
91939208|NCT04153929|183775264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|613.51||||||Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||613.51|1.78|
91939209|NCT04153929|183775264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|761.44|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||761.44|2.37|
91939210|NCT04153929|183775264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|999.0|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo. The upper limit is bigger than 999.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||999|4.71|
91939211|NCT04153929|183775264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|413.33|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as Semaglutide / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||413.33|1.22|
91939212|NCT01686958|183775314|OTHER|This is a primarily descriptive study, no statistical analysis is planned; however, analyses were performed at the alpha=0.05 level of significance and exact analyses will be used wherever possible.|||||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Confidence intervals \[CI\] will be constructed for outcomes of interest at the alpha=0.05 level of significance, i.e. 95% CI.||||A total of 30 subjects will be accrued to this study and treated with the PAD-105. The sample size is based primarily on feasibility and logistical concerns, however, is sufficiently large to allow the safety objectives to be met. Specifically, with 30 total patients, if no treatment-related grade 4 or 5 adverse events are observed, then a one-sided, 95% confidence interval would have an upper bound of 0.095.|For continuous outcomes, standard summary statistics will include n, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum. For categorical data, tables will show n and % of patients.|||
91939213|NCT00108953|183775386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.6||||0.016||95.0|0.33|0.95|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups.||0.95|0.33|0.016
91939214|NCT00108953|183775387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.007||95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups||0.74|0.37|0.007
91939215|NCT00108953|183775388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.018||95.0|0.45|0.83|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups||0.83|0.45|0.018
91939216|NCT00108953|183775390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.038||95.0|0.4|1.05|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups||1.05|0.40|0.038
91812363|NCT02056340|183499840|OTHER|||||||0.611||||||Threshold for significaance was p value \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a linear mixed-effects model which accounted for all measurements taken and the time that those measurements were taken.||||0.611
91812364|NCT02056340|183499841|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||P value reflects baseline to 72 hours between groups. A p-value \<0.05 will be considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was at 72 hours for the self-reported influenza severity score.||||0.029
91812365|NCT00883116|183499846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Log Rank|||||1.7|1.0|0.0397
91812366|NCT00883116|183499847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.3|0.8|0.8011
91891022|NCT02683785|183675405|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented.|||0.8|-1.3|0.651
91891023|NCT02683785|183675405|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||0.5|-1.9|0.271
91891024|NCT02683785|183675405|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||0.4|-2.2|0.186
91891025|NCT02683785|183675405|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||0.2|-2.4|0.109
91891026|NCT01305408|183675416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|1.06||Statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||1.06|-3.76|0.2717
91891027|NCT04777864|183675510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Parent group only||||0.18
91891028|NCT04777864|183675510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adolescent group only||||0.91
91891029|NCT04777864|183675511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Regression, Linear|||Parent: Post-Index Visit||||0.975
91891030|NCT04777864|183675511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Regression, Linear|||Adolescent: Post-Index Visit||||0.854
91891031|NCT04777864|183675514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Index Visit||||0.03
91891032|NCT04777864|183675514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months after initial clinic visit||||0.21
91891033|NCT04777864|183675515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.76
91939217|NCT00293241|183775396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.405|||Log Rank||"Hospitalization:hospital admission with overnight stay;ER/office visits with cardioversions;acute treatment of worsened cardiac condition~CV:new/worsening HF,angina,MI,arrhythmia,stroke, TIA,acute peripheral vascular emergencies,pulmonary embolism"|"Analysis:Time to first cardiovascular hospitalization (CV hosp)~H0:freedom from CV hosp MVP=freedom from CV hosp DDD (dual chamber conventional pacing)~Ha:freedom from CV hosp MVP≠freedom from CV hosp DDD~Power calculation:~The study is designed to detect a difference event-free survival after 2 years of 5.5 % absolute, going from 91.5% to 97%.~Test=two-sided alpha=0.05 power=80% 1:1 randomization n=600"||1.405|0.612|0.72
91939218|NCT00293241|183775397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.127||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.57|||Log Rank|||"Analysis:Time to first all cause death or cardiovascular hospitalization~H0:freedom from death or CV hospitalization=freedom from death or CV hospitalization~Ha:freedom from death or CV hospitalization≠freedom from death or CV hospitalization"||1.570|0.808|0.48
91812367|NCT01031069|183499880|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above (\>) 0.5 for HPV-16 type.|Adjusted GMT ratio|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.52||||||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-16 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-16, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) one month after the administration of the third dose of vaccine in HIV+ subjects.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|4.52|1.92|
91812368|NCT01031069|183499880|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above (\>) 0.5 for HPV-18 type.|Adjusted GMT ratio|7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.84|12.66||||||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-18 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-18, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) one month after the administration of the third dose of vaccine in HIV+ subjects.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|12.66|4.84|
91812369|NCT01031069|183499881|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above 1 for HPV-18 type, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|7.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|11.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV+ subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-18 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-18, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV+ subjects, assessed following a sequential approach.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|11.54|4.79|<0.0001
91812370|NCT01031069|183499881|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above 1 for HPV-16 type, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV+ subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-16 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-16, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV+ subjects, following a sequential approach.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|4.11|1.83|<0.0001
91812371|NCT01031069|183499898|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) for HPV-18 type being above 1, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|5.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.2|9.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV- subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratio for anti-HPV-18 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV-/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV-/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-18, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV- subjects.||9.06|3.20|<0.0001
91812372|NCT01031069|183499898|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) for HPV-16 type being above 1, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.84|5.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV- subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratio for anti-HPV-16 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV-/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV-/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-16, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV- subjects.||5.06|1.84|<0.0001
91812373|NCT01317160|183499903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Domeij-Arverud et al., Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:675-80.||||0.042
91812374|NCT01317160|183499903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|Age was adjusted for in the calculation.|Risk of VTE by routine care (numerator) divided by IPC treatment (denominator)|||6.32|1.25|<0.05
91812375|NCT01317160|183499905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.737|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.737
91812376|NCT03578367|183499933|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.0|33.1||||||||33.1|5.0|
91939219|NCT00293241|183775398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.521||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|2.424|||Log Rank|||Analysis:Time to first persistent AT/AF H0:freedom from persistent AT/AF=freedom from persistent AT/AF Ha:freedom from persistent AT/AF≠freedom from persistent AT/AF||2.424|0.954|0.08
91812377|NCT03578367|183499933|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.4|44.8||||||||44.8|12.4|
91812378|NCT03578367|183499934|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|30.3||||||||30.3|-1.7|
91812379|NCT03578367|183499934|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.9|41.7||||||||41.7|5.9|
91812380|NCT01705288|183499952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intention to Treat Analysis||||0.36
91812381|NCT01705288|183499953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intention to Treat Analysis||||0.05
91812382|NCT01705288|183499954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91812383|NCT00670800|183499963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.143
91812384|NCT00670800|183499963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.900
91812385|NCT00670800|183499963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.133
91812386|NCT00670800|183499964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
91812387|NCT00670800|183499964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.717
91812388|NCT00670800|183499964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
91939220|NCT00293241|183775399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.425||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|3.543|||Log Rank|||Analysis:Time to permanent AF H0:freedom from permanent AF=freedom from permanent AF Ha:freedom from permanent AF≠freedom from permanent AF||3.543|0.573|0.44
91812389|NCT00670800|183499965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.498
91812390|NCT00670800|183499965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.835
91812391|NCT00670800|183499965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.606
91812392|NCT00670800|183499966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.118
91812393|NCT00670800|183499966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.581
91812394|NCT00670800|183499966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.190
91939221|NCT00293241|183775400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Analysis:Wilcoxon Test for Comparison of Percentage of Ventricular Pacing (%VP) During Followup by Randomization Arm~H0:distribution %VP MVP=distribution %VP DDD~Ha:distribution %VP MVP≠distribution %VP DDD~Ha:"||||<0.0001
91939222|NCT00293241|183775401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.048
91939223|NCT00293241|183775403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Repeated measures logistic regression|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression||||0.78
91939224|NCT00293241|183775404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Beta-blockers=Change in Beta-blockers Ha:Change in Beta-blockers≠Change in Beta-blockers||||0.34
91939225|NCT00293241|183775404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Digitalis/digoxin=Change in Digitalis/digoxin Ha:Change in Digitalis/digoxin≠Change in Digitalis/digoxin||||0.65
91812395|NCT03274687|183499992|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in mean change score (∆2 - ∆1) is -5.||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis (H0): mean change score of HYPORT (∆2) is worse than that of COPORT (∆1), specifically ∆2 - ∆1 \< -5. Alternative hypothesis (HA): ∆2 is not worse than ∆1, specifically ∆2 - ∆1 ≥ -5. The study sample size is based on 90% power for this endpoint and 91% power for the bowel endpoint (resulting in 81.9% statistical power to reject the null hypothesis for both endpoints) and a one-sided alpha=0.025 with an overall type I error of 0.05 with a Bonferroni adjustment.||||0.98
91812396|NCT03274687|183499993|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in mean change score (∆2 - ∆1) is -6.||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis (H0): mean change score of HYPORT (∆2) is worse than that of COPORT (∆1), specifically ∆2 - ∆1 \< -5. Alternative hypothesis (HA): ∆2 is not worse than ∆1, specifically ∆2 - ∆1 ≥ -5. The study sample size is based on 91% power for this endpoint and 90% power for the urinary endpoint (resulting in 81.9% statistical power to reject the null hypothesis for both endpoints) and a one-sided alpha=0.025 with an overall type I error of 0.05 with a Bonferroni adjustment.||||0.96
91812397|NCT03274687|183499994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.70
91812398|NCT03274687|183499994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.67
91812399|NCT03274687|183499994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 year||||0.66
91812400|NCT03274687|183499995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.0011
91812401|NCT03274687|183499995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.93
91812402|NCT03274687|183499995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 year||||0.30
91812403|NCT03274687|183499996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level 0.05||Protocol definition of biochemical failure||||0.29
91812404|NCT03274687|183499996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level 0.05||Phoenix definition of biochemical failure||||0.22
91812405|NCT03274687|183499997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.96
91812406|NCT03274687|183499998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.35
91812407|NCT03274687|183499999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.41
91939226|NCT00293241|183775404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Calcium antagonists=Change in Calcium antagonists Ha:Change in Calcium antagonists≠Change in Calcium antagonists||||0.55
91939227|NCT00293241|183775404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Antiarrhythmic drug=Change in Antiarrhythmic drug Ha:Change in Antiarrhythmic drug≠Change in Antiarrhythmic drug||||0.53
91939228|NCT00293241|183775406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.243||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.923|||Log Rank|||"Analysis:Time to all-cause death~H0:survival MVP ON=survival MVP OFF Ha:survival MVP ON≠survival MVP OFF"||1.923|0.803|0.33
91939229|NCT00293241|183775407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.492||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|1.637|||Log Rank|||||1.637|0.148|0.24
91939230|NCT00293241|183775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical test for Number of subjects with CV hospitalization||||0.83
91939231|NCT00293241|183775411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0:Change in P-R interval=Change in P-R interval Ha:Change in P-R interval≠Change in P-R interval||||0.34
91939232|NCT00293241|183775411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0:Change in QRS duration=Change in QRS duration Ha:Change in QRS duration≠Change in QRS duration||||0.19
91939233|NCT00293241|183775411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0:Change in P-wave duration=Change in P-wave duration Ha:Change in P-wave duration≠Change in P-wave duration||||0.29
91939234|NCT00293241|183775412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||No Symptoms (Baseline)||||0.24
91939235|NCT00293241|183775412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||No Symptoms (12 months)||||0.92
91939236|NCT00293241|183775412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||No Symptoms (24 Months)||||1.0
91939237|NCT00293241|183775413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91939238|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.85|0.70|
91939239|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.90|0.72|
91939240|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.87|0.74|
91939241|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||3.63|0.68|
91939242|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||4.82|0.86|
91939243|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.46|0.31|
91939244|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||4.55|0.27|
91939245|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||2.61|0.19|
91939246|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||6.85|0.49|
91939247|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||4.73|0.76|
91812408|NCT03274687|183500000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.60
91939248|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||2.40|0.62|
91939249|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.65|0.52|
91939250|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.82|0.25|
91939251|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.23|0.24|
91939252|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||3.41|0.31|
91939253|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B,Day 1||4.46|0.32|
91939254|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||4.05|0.42|
91939255|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.14|0.24|
91939256|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.17|0.26|
91939257|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||0.89|0.11|
91939258|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||0.93|0.10|
91939259|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||4.99|0.74|
91939260|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.61|0.15|
91939261|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.90|0.21|
91939262|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|15.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||15.09|1.17|
91939263|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|7.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||7.07|0.52|
91939264|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||4.25|0.23|
91939265|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.62|0.21|
91939266|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||3.77|0.37|
91939267|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||3.94|0.38|
91939268|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.45|0.51|
91939269|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.63|0.31|
91939270|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.53|0.36|
91939271|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||2.08|0.24|
91939272|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.50|0.44|
91939273|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.61|0.58|
91939274|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|10.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||10.69|0.46|
91939275|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||5.99|0.31|
91939276|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||3.01|0.15|
91939277|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.74|0.50|
91939278|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.32|0.39|
91939279|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.39|0.35|
91939280|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||1.80|0.66|
91939281|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.29|0.90|
91939282|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.17|0.76|
91939283|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.35|0.50|
91939284|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.02|0.24|
91939285|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.89|0.60|
91939286|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.15|0.41|
91939287|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.20|0.31|
91812409|NCT03274687|183500002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.47||Two-side significance level 0.05|Log Rank||Reference = COPORT|||9.47|0.26|0.61
91812410|NCT03274687|183500003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||Patients with any grade 3 or higher adverse event of any attribution||||0.53
91939288|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.32|0.48|
91939289|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.98|0.28|
91939290|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.68|0.15|
91812411|NCT03274687|183500003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6929|||||||Chi-squared|||Patients with any grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal adverse event of any attribution||||0.6929
91812412|NCT03274687|183500003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2605|||||||Chi-squared|||Patients with any grade 3 or higher genitourinary adverse event of any attribution||||0.2605
91812413|NCT01199289|183500028|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.068||||0.5838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.175|||ANCOVA|||||0.175|-0.311|0.5838
91812414|NCT01199289|183500028|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.075||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.166|||ANCOVA|||||0.166|-0.316|0.5391
91812415|NCT01199289|183500028|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.113||||0.3583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.129|||ANCOVA|||||0.129|-0.355|0.3583
91812416|NCT01199289|183500029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.4076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.064|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Bronchodilator||0.064|-0.157|0.4076
91812417|NCT01199289|183500029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.022||||0.6915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.086|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Bronchodilator||0.086|-0.130|0.6915
91812418|NCT01199289|183500029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.019||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.088|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Bronchodilator||0.088|-0.126|0.7271
91812419|NCT01199289|183500029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.005||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.095|||ANCOVA|||Post-Bronchodilator||0.095|-0.086|0.9210
91812420|NCT01199289|183500029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.157|||ANCOVA|||Post-Bronchodilator||0.157|-0.017|0.1139
91812421|NCT01199289|183500029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.021||||0.6426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.107|||ANCOVA|||Post-Bronchodilator||0.107|-0.066|0.6426
91812422|NCT01199289|183500030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.847||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.686|-2.009|||ANCOVA|||AM||-2.009|-31.686|0.0262
91812423|NCT01199289|183500030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.723||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.239|7.793|||ANCOVA|||AM||7.793|-21.239|0.3627
91812424|NCT01199289|183500030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.488||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.791|8.814|||ANCOVA|||AM||8.814|-19.791|0.4507
91812425|NCT01199289|183500030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.426||||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.686|2.834|||ANCOVA|||PM||2.834|-23.686|0.1228
91812426|NCT01199289|183500030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.738||||0.3092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.758|6.281|||ANCOVA|||PM||6.281|-19.758|0.3092
91812427|NCT01199289|183500030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.043||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.831|4.744|||ANCOVA|||PM||4.744|-20.831|0.2167
91939291|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.66|0.21|
91939292|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.18|0.42|
91939293|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.83|0.25|
91939294|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.76|0.24|
91939295|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.29|0.51|
91939296|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.99|0.47|
91939297|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.25|0.53|
91939298|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.08|0.35|
91939299|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.03|0.31|
91939300|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.28|0.46|
91939301|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.08|0.27|
91939302|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.77|0.10|
91939303|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.30|0.56|
91939304|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.50|0.53|
91939305|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.23|0.39|
91939306|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.28|0.50|
91939307|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.79|0.32|
91939308|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.09|0.45|
91939309|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.96|0.42|
91939310|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.92|0.34|
91939311|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.10|0.37|
91939312|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.55|0.56|
91939313|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.46|0.08|
91939314|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.47|0.08|
91939315|NCT03803202|183775428|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.57|0.09|
91939316|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||2.23|0.52|
91939317|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.98|0.51|
91812428|NCT01199289|183500031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.331||||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.332|||ANCOVA|||||1.332|-0.670|0.5157
91812429|NCT01199289|183500031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.234||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.229|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.760|-1.229|0.6434
91939318|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||2.83|0.72|
91939319|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.68|0.59|
91939320|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||3.05|0.90|
91939321|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.25|0.68|
91939322|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||2.15|0.49|
91939323|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.74|0.39|
91939324|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||2.59|0.59|
91939325|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||3.91|0.75|
91939326|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.46|0.36|
91812430|NCT01199289|183500031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.199||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.196|0.799|||ANCOVA|||||0.799|-1.196|0.6954
91812431|NCT01199289|183500032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.283||||0.5577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.231|0.665|||ANCOVA|||||0.665|-1.231|0.5577
91812432|NCT01199289|183500032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.038||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.904|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.980|-0.904|0.9366
91812433|NCT01199289|183500032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.138||||0.7745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|1.084|||ANCOVA|||||1.084|-0.808|0.7745
91939327|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.84|0.47|
91939328|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.52|0.57|
91939329|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.56|0.64|
91939330|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.28|0.52|
91939331|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||3.09|0.49|
91939332|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.14|0.43|
91939333|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||1.73|0.37|
91939334|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||3.01|0.76|
91939335|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.94|0.69|
91939336|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.91|0.98|
91939337|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||2.22|0.54|
91939338|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.36|0.41|
91939339|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.55|0.47|
91939340|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||4.99|0.84|
91939341|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||5.98|1.13|
91939342|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.15|0.37|
91939343|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||3.06|0.61|
91939344|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.09|0.55|
91939345|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.65|0.59|
91939346|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||3.49|0.74|
91939347|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.65|0.42|
91939348|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.05|0.49|
91939349|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.39|0.63|
91939350|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.07|0.64|
91939351|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||2.34|0.53|
91939352|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.09|0.49|
91939353|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||1.75|0.50|
91939354|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.00|0.42|
91939355|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.29|0.38|
91939356|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.73|0.52|
91939357|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||2.66|0.84|
91812434|NCT01199289|183500033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.026||||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.303|||ANCOVA|||||0.303|-0.251|0.8524
91812435|NCT01199289|183500033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.033||||0.8139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.240|-0.305|0.8139
91812436|NCT01199289|183500033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.9881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.276|||ANCOVA|||||0.276|-0.281|0.9881
91812437|NCT01199289|183500034|SUPERIORITY|With use of SABA|LS Mean Difference|-0.062||||0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.141|0.1213
91812438|NCT01199289|183500034|SUPERIORITY|With use of SABA|LS Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.061|||ANCOVA|||||0.061|-0.095|0.6643
91812439|NCT01199289|183500034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.042||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.036|||ANCOVA|With use of SABA||||0.036|-0.121|0.2879
91812440|NCT01199289|183500034|SUPERIORITY|Without use of SABA|LS Mean Difference|-0.074||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.001|||ANCOVA|||||0.001|-0.150|0.0546
91812441|NCT01199289|183500034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.004||||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.071|||ANCOVA|||Without use of SABA||0.071|-0.080|0.9078
91812442|NCT01199289|183500034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.035||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Without use of SABA||0.040|-0.111|0.3616
91812443|NCT02636868|183500038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.363
91812444|NCT02636868|183500038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.360
91891034|NCT04777864|183675515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Index Visit||||0.96
91891035|NCT04777864|183675515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months after initial clinic visit||||0.96
91891036|NCT06988800|183675516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVAs and post hoc Tukey pairwise tests||||<.001
91891037|NCT06988800|183675517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVAs and post hoc Tukey pairwise tests.||||<.001
91891038|NCT06988800|183675518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVAs and post hoc Tukey pairwise tests||||<.001
91891039|NCT02344290|183675519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.84|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo. Two-sided 95% repeated confidence interval that adjusts for interim looks according to the realized Lan and DeMets implementation of the O'Brien-Fleming sequential stopping boundary is presented.|||0.84|0.48|
91891040|NCT02344290|183675520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.87|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||0.87|0.36|
91891041|NCT02344290|183675521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.97|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||0.97|0.40|
91891042|NCT02344290|183675522|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.02|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||4.02|0.11|
91891043|NCT02344290|183675523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.38|0.35|
91891044|NCT02344290|183675524|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.03|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.03|0.44|
91891045|NCT02344290|183675525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|1.05|0.36|
91891046|NCT02344290|183675527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54|||||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo. Estimation of the confidence interval used a Bayes analysis with a non-informative prior using adaptive rejection Metropolis sampling. In this case, the interval shown is a 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval.|0.54|0.00|
91891047|NCT02344290|183675528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.94|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||0.94|0.64|
91891048|NCT02344290|183675529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.12|0.70|
91891049|NCT02344290|183675530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.13|0.76|
91891050|NCT02344290|183675531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.20|0.71|
91891051|NCT02344290|183675532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.31|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.31|0.68|
91891052|NCT02344290|183675533|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.51|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||2.51|0.14|
91891053|NCT02344290|183675534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.02|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||2.02|0.42|
91891054|NCT02344290|183675535|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.10|0.90|
91891055|NCT02344290|183675536|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.57|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.57|1.07|
91891056|NCT02344290|183675537|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.19|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||2.19|1.14|
91891057|NCT02344290|183675538|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.37|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||3.37|0.17|
91891058|NCT02344290|183675539|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.18|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||3.18|0.56|
91891059|NCT02344290|183675540|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.12|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.12|0.97|
91891060|NCT02344290|183675543|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.08|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.08|0.52|
91891061|NCT02344290|183675544|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.16|0.96|
91891062|NCT02344290|183675545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-0.1|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference was estimated as baseline-adjusted mean difference in change at year 2, using linear regression.|||-0.1|-8.6|0.04
91939358|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.28|0.84|
91939359|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||4.19|1.71|
91939360|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|6.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||6.06|2.47|
91939361|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||2.30|0.70|
91939362|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.81|0.57|
91939363|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||4.15|1.21|
91939364|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.57|0.70|
91939365|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.05|0.35|
91939366|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.39|0.65|
91812445|NCT02636868|183500038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.461
91812446|NCT02636868|183500039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.401
91939367|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.93|0.41|
91939368|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.79|0.33|
91939369|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.48|0.32|
91939370|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||2.83|0.57|
91939371|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.81|0.31|
91939372|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.97|0.39|
91812447|NCT02636868|183500039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.372
91939373|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||3.30|1.05|
91939374|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||3.55|1.10|
91939375|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|5.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||5.12|1.62|
91939376|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.87|0.49|
91939377|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||2.62|0.74|
91939378|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||3.27|0.87|
91939379|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.53|0.41|
91939380|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.60|0.45|
91939381|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||5.04|0.86|
91939382|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||2.07|0.57|
91939383|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.89|0.53|
91939384|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||2.07|0.56|
91939385|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.14|0.40|
91939386|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.61|0.46|
91939387|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.60|0.47|
91939388|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.01|0.49|
91939389|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.53|0.75|
91939390|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.96|0.68|
91939391|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.07|0.20|
91939392|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.11|0.22|
91939393|NCT03803202|183775429|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.44|0.29|
91939394|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.14|0.56|
91939395|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||2.16|0.89|
91939396|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.06|0.51|
91939397|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.09|0.85|
91939398|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.30|0.91|
91939399|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.49|0.60|
91939400|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.40|0.46|
91939401|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.91|0.62|
91939402|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.23|0.40|
91939403|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.68|0.58|
91939404|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||2.29|0.76|
91939405|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.53|0.51|
91939406|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||1.72|0.54|
91939407|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.14|0.57|
91939408|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||3.10|0.86|
91939409|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||3.14|0.83|
91939410|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.24|0.59|
91812448|NCT02636868|183500039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.648
91812449|NCT02636868|183500040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference across treatments||||0.996
91812450|NCT02636868|183500040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.951
91812451|NCT02636868|183500040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.995
91812452|NCT02636868|183500041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.10|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model using Poisson distribution with pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.312
91812453|NCT02636868|183500041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.10|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model using Poisson distribution with pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.094
91812454|NCT02636868|183500041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.10|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model using Poisson distribution with pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model.||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.414
91812455|NCT02636868|183500042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099||||||A priori statistical significance of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.099
91812456|NCT02636868|183500042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||A priori statistical significance of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO2 in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.090
91939411|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.39|0.58|
91939412|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.80|0.40|
91939413|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.87|0.63|
91939414|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.37|0.45|
91939415|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.65||||||95.0|0.32|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.32|0.32|
91939416|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.64|0.37|
91939417|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.49|0.30|
91939418|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.18|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||1.18|0.31|
91939419|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.18|0.54|
91939420|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.65|0.66|
91939421|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||0.95|0.30|
91939422|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.57|0.73|
91939423|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||1.04|0.32|
91939424|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.32|0.44|
91939425|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.01|0.66|
91939426|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.50|0.48|
91939427|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.38|0.45|
91939428|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.52|0.47|
91939429|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.12|0.34|
91939430|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||1.94|0.64|
91939431|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.42|0.77|
91939432|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.14|0.66|
91939433|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.47|0.47|
91939434|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.53|0.50|
91939435|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||2.20|0.74|
91939436|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|25.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.33|38.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2, Day 30||38.34|16.33|
91939437|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|21.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.31|33.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2, Day 30||33.77|14.31|
91939438|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|35.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.09|54.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2, Day 30||54.22|23.09|
91939439|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.62|1.25|
91939440|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||3.56|1.83|
91939441|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||4.48|2.20|
91939442|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.62|0.59|
91939443|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.51|0.59|
91939444|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.99|0.76|
91939445|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.21|0.71|
91939446|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.46|0.85|
91939447|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.72|1.25|
91812457|NCT02636868|183500042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||A priori statistical significance of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO2 in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.461
91939448|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.51|0.59|
91939449|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.29|0.56|
91939450|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.30|0.54|
91939451|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.18|0.61|
91939452|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.21|0.65|
91939453|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.50|0.73|
91939454|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|19.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.26|30.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8, Day 30||30.87|12.26|
91939455|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|19.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|32.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8, Day 30||32.00|12.07|
91939456|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|41.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|66.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8, Day 30||66.90|26.20|
91939457|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|7.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||7.36|3.06|
91939458|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|5.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|8.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||8.37|3.83|
91939459|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|7.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.19|11.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||11.82|5.19|
91939460|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.42|0.49|
91939461|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.14|0.44|
91939462|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.95|0.76|
91939463|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.21|0.39|
91939464|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.50|0.54|
91812458|NCT02636868|183500043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|ANOVA|treatment and pooled site in model||Null hypothesis of no treatment between treatments||||0.534
91939465|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.64|0.53|
91939466|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.11|0.84|
91939467|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.43|0.55|
91939468|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.50|0.95|
91939469|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.44|0.55|
91939470|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.54|0.63|
91939471|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||2.12|0.82|
91939472|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.37|0.70|
91939473|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.37|0.71|
91939474|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.67|0.78|
91939475|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.52||||||95.0|0.99|2.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.32|0.99|
91939476|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.18|1.00|
91939477|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||3.22|1.35|
91939478|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.26|0.36|
91939479|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.26|0.40|
91939480|NCT03803202|183775433|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.73|0.47|
91939481|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.42|0.57|
91939482|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||3.08|1.12|
91939483|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.49|0.53|
91939484|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.87|0.84|
91939485|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.73|1.18|
91939486|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.69|0.69|
91939487|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.21|0.54|
91939488|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.81|0.74|
91939489|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.00|0.44|
91939490|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.78|0.65|
91939491|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||2.63|0.96|
91812459|NCT02636868|183500043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|ANOVA|Treatment and pooled site in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.480
91812460|NCT02636868|183500043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|ANOVA|Treatment and pooled site in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.313
91812461|NCT02127567|183500056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|1.5|<0.001
91812462|NCT02127567|183500057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|1.1|<0.01
91812463|NCT02127567|183500058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-0.7|0.44
91812464|NCT02127567|183500059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|0.8|<0.01
91812465|NCT02127567|183500060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|0.7|<0.01
91812466|NCT02127567|183500061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-2.0|0.78
91812467|NCT02127567|183500062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|4.1|<0.01
91812468|NCT02127567|183500063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|0.5|0.002
91812469|NCT03182829|183500064|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority was chosen|Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0|||Chi-squared||||Fisher's exact test|100|90|<0.05
91812470|NCT03316131|183500065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|9.22||||||||9.22|-8.67|
91812471|NCT03316131|183500066|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.25||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for Verinurad||1.25|1.03|
91812472|NCT03316131|183500066|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.07||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M1||1.07|0.88|
91812473|NCT03316131|183500066|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.08||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M8||1.08|0.91|
91812474|NCT03316131|183500067|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for Verinurad||1.13|1.00|
91812475|NCT03316131|183500067|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M1||1.02|0.90|
91812476|NCT03316131|183500067|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.04||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M8||1.04|0.94|
91812477|NCT03316131|183500071|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for Verinurad||1.13|1.00|
91812478|NCT03316131|183500071|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96||||||90.0|0.9|1.02||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M1||1.02|0.90|
91812479|NCT03316131|183500071|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.04||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M8||1.04|0.94|
91812480|NCT02664441|183500072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.||||0.6|-4.1|0.40
91812481|NCT02664441|183500073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.||||-0.4|-5.7|0.02
91812482|NCT02664441|183500074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-2.7|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Analysis for Fat Intake||-2.7|-37.8|.032
91812483|NCT02664441|183500074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-430.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-761.0|-100.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Analysis for Total Calorie Intake||-100|-761|.02
91812484|NCT02664441|183500075|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|||2.08|0.97|0.19
91812485|NCT02664441|183500076|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|Analysis for HDL Cholesterol||1.11|0.91|0.82
91939492|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.72|0.58|
91939493|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||1.47|0.53|
91939494|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.30|0.83|
91939495|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.44|0.80|
91939496|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||1.99|0.69|
91939497|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||3.67|1.19|
91939498|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.88|0.88|
91939499|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.65|0.62|
91939500|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.67|0.94|
91939501|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.64|0.50|
91939502|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.21|0.52|
91939503|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||2.54|0.97|
91939504|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.60|0.60|
91939505|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||1.33|0.40|
91939506|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.44|0.73|
91939507|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||1.63|0.46|
91939508|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||1.12|0.42|
91939509|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.55|0.92|
91939510|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||1.37|0.44|
91939511|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.25|0.54|
91939512|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.12|0.84|
91939513|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.66|0.66|
91939514|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.37|0.51|
91812486|NCT02664441|183500076|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|Analysis for Triglycerides||1.19|0.83|0.92
91939515|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||2.11|0.75|
91939516|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.72|0.57|
91939517|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||1.86|0.63|
91939518|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.08|0.69|
91939519|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.14|0.67|
91939520|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.29|0.52|
91939521|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.59|0.68|
91939522|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.80|0.76|
91939523|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||3.01|1.42|
91939524|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|4.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||4.58|2.37|
91939525|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|4.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|5.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||5.79|2.83|
91939526|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.27|0.49|
91939527|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.48|0.63|
91939528|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.65|0.66|
91939529|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.29|0.75|
91939530|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.19|0.77|
91939531|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.37|1.08|
91939532|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.49|0.50|
91939533|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.72|0.65|
91939534|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||2.10|0.71|
91939535|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.75|0.56|
91939536|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||2.47|0.84|
91939537|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||3.15|1.00|
91939538|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||2.30|1.02|
91939539|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||2.26|1.06|
91939540|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||2.53|1.09|
91939541|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||2.07|0.81|
91939542|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||2.57|1.04|
91939543|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||3.47|1.35|
91939544|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.68|0.58|
91939545|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.05|0.77|
91939546|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.81|0.99|
91939547|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.95|0.39|
91939548|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.54|0.70|
91939549|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.57|0.67|
91939550|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.25|0.56|
91939551|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.52|0.75|
91939552|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.86|0.77|
91939553|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.90|0.76|
91939554|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.58|1.11|
91939555|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||3.52|1.41|
91939556|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.47|0.50|
91812487|NCT02664441|183500077|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|||0.92|0.41|0.03
91812488|NCT02664441|183500078|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.39||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|||2.14|0.90|0.32
91812489|NCT02664441|183500079|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|||1.10|0.81|0.69
91812490|NCT02664441|183500080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-166.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-269.7|-63.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||||-63.1|-269.7|0.004
91812491|NCT02664441|183500081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-145.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-653.5|363.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||363.4|-653.5|0.58
91939557|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.35|0.51|
91939558|NCT03803202|183775434|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||2.02|0.69|
91939559|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.5|-0.4|0.805
91939560|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.102
91812492|NCT02664441|183500082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.5||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.||||2.1|-19.1|0.088
91812493|NCT02560584|183500083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact one-sided test for a single propor|||"The proportion of patients with malignancy detected only with BLC with Cysview was to be analyzed using an exact one-sided test for a single proportion based on the cumulative binomial distribution with a significance level of 2.5%.~Null hypothesis: Malignancy is detected with BL only in 0.5% or less of the patients"||||<0.0001
91939561|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.158
91939562|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.2|-0.4|0.596
91939563|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.025
91939564|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|0.1|0.005
91939565|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.037
91939566|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.9|0.2|0.002
91939567|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.230
91939568|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.984
91939569|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.262
91939570|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.264
91939571|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.6|-0.4|0.638
91939572|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.036
91939573|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.094
91939574|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.266
91939575|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.250
91939576|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.5|-0.5|0.927
91939577|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.3|-0.5|0.679
91939578|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.3|-0.6|0.589
91939579|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.880
91939580|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.4|-0.2|0.623
91939581|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.232
91939582|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.451
91939583|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.785
91939584|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||1.1|0.4|<.001
91939585|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||1.1|0.4|<.001
91939586|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.5|-0.1|0.146
91939587|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.8|0.2|0.003
91939588|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.113
91939589|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.3|-0.6|0.453
91939590|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.111
91939591|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.020
91939592|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.218
91939593|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.125
91939594|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.6|-0.4|0.706
91812494|NCT02560584|183500085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact one-sided test for single proporti|||"The proportion of patients with one or more CIS lesions detected with BL and none with WL was to be evaluated using an exact binomial test for single proportion with a significance level of 2.5% (one-sided).~Null hypothesis: One or more CIS lesions are detected with BLC with Cysview and none with WL in less than or equal to 0.1% of the patients."||||<0.0001
91939595|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.246
91939596|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||1.1|0.3|<.001
91939597|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.010
91812495|NCT03518073|183500123|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.265|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.265|0.959|
91939598|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.2|-0.7|0.260
91939599|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.7|-0.3|0.366
91939600|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.046
91939601|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.1|-0.8|0.101
91939602|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.522||95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.6|-0.3|0.522
91939603|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.026
91939604|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.2|-0.6|0.236
91939605|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.528
91939606|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.8|0.0|0.081
91939607|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.2|-0.5|0.388
91939608|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.151
91939609|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.7|0.1|0.024
91939610|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.476
91939611|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.8|0.0|0.077
91939612|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.262
91939613|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.767
91939614|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.364
91939615|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.522
91939616|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.962
91939617|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.091
91939618|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.093
91939619|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.3|-0.6|0.455
91939620|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.093
91939621|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||1.1|0.1|0.017
91939622|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.3|-0.5|0.561
91939623|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.343
91939624|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.132
91939625|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.6|-0.5|0.898
91939626|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.9|-0.3|0.313
91939627|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.8|-0.3|0.366
91939628|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.961
91939629|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.269
91939630|NCT03803202|183775437|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.245
91939631|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.213
91939632|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.097
91939633|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.631
91939634|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.699
91939635|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.042
91939636|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.092
91939637|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.8|0.1|0.007
91939638|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||1.0|0.3|<.001
91939639|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.237
91939640|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.248
91812496|NCT03518073|183500123|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.209|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.209|0.907|
91812497|NCT03518073|183500124|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.29|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.290|0.943|
91812498|NCT03518073|183500124|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.053|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.053|0.737|
91939641|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.193
91939642|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.5|-0.4|0.838
91939643|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.898
91939644|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.143
91939645|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.108
91939646|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.7|-0.3|0.396
91939647|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.9|-0.2|0.182
91939648|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.6|-0.4|0.593
91939649|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.9|-0.2|0.186
91939650|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.1|0.0|0.038
91939651|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.8|-0.3|0.408
91939652|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.805
91939653|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.711
91939654|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.891
91939655|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.649
91939656|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||1.0|0.3|<.001
91939657|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||0.9|0.3|<.001
91939658|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.454
91939659|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||1.0|0.2|0.003
91939660|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.021
91939661|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.205
91939662|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.015
91939663|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.209
91939664|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.6|-0.3|0.502
91939665|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.054
91939666|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.190
91939667|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.616
91939668|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.8|0.1|0.018
91812499|NCT03518073|183500125|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.284|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.284|0.873|
91812500|NCT03518073|183500125|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.006|1.453|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.453|1.006|
91812501|NCT03518073|183500126|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.3|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.300|0.963|
91812502|NCT03518073|183500126|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.119|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.119|0.805|
91812503|NCT03518073|183500127|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.221|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.221|0.880|
91812504|NCT03518073|183500127|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.065|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.065|0.742|
91939669|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.056
91939670|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.7|-0.4|0.527
91939671|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.8|-0.4|0.444
91939672|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.6|-0.5|0.869
91939673|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.305
91812505|NCT03518073|183500128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.01|0.253
91812506|NCT03518073|183500128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.02|0.354
91812507|NCT03518073|183500129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.554||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.68|-2.44|0.691
91812508|NCT03518073|183500129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.599||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.66|-2.64|0.749
91812509|NCT03045081|183500132|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. GEE allows for the analysis of repeated measures with unknown covariance structure and uses all available data that participants provide, even if follow-up data are missing (ie, intent-to-treat analysis). Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months; i.e., as treated 'completer' analysis) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interactions.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample)||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in pain self efficacy over time compared to the usual care group.||||<0.05
91891063|NCT02344290|183675546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88|||Chi-squared||Treatment effect was estimated as relative risk (pitavastatin/placebo), adjusted for presence of NCP at entry.|||0.88|0.52|0.003
91891064|NCT02344290|183675547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.62|||||Treatment group difference was estimated as baseline-adjusted difference in mean change at year 2, using linear regression.|||0.62|-9.2|
91891065|NCT02344290|183675548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of LpPla2 Levels at Month 24||||<0.001
91891066|NCT02344290|183675549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Change in LpPla2 from Baseline at Month 24||||<0.001
91891067|NCT02344290|183675550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of hsCRP Levels at Month 24||||0.02
91891068|NCT02344290|183675551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Change in hsCRP from Baseline at Month 24||||0.09
91891069|NCT02344290|183675552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of soluble CD163 Levels at Month 24.||||0.65
91891070|NCT02344290|183675553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Change in soluble CD163 from Baseline at Month 24||||0.88
91891071|NCT02344290|183675554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect modification by sex was evaluated via interaction of treatment and sex in the Cox proportional hazards regression model.||Evaluation of treatment effect modification by sex (i.e. pitavastatin effect differing in females compared to males).||||0.98
91891072|NCT02344290|183675554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.04|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among females.|Evaluation of pitavastatin effect among females.||1.04|0.39|
91891073|NCT02344290|183675554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among males.|Evaluation of pitavastatin effect among males.||0.86|0.48|
91891074|NCT02344290|183675555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect modification by race was evaluated via interaction of treatment and race in the Cox proportional hazards regression model.||Evaluation of treatment effect modification by race (i.e. pitavastatin effect differing between races).||||0.14
91891075|NCT02344290|183675555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.59||||||Pitavastatin effect among Asians from subgroup analysis by race.|Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Asians.|0.59|0.09|
91891076|NCT02344290|183675555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.96|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Blacks.|Pitavastatin effect among Blacks from subgroup analysis by race.||0.96|0.46|
91891077|NCT02344290|183675555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.13|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Whites.|Pitavastatin effect among Whites from subgroup analysis by race.||1.13|0.49|
91891078|NCT02344290|183675555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.1||||||Pitavastatin effect among Other race from subgroup analysis by race.|Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Other race.|2.10|0.36|
91891079|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|77.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891080|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|28.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891081|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|5.7||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891082|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|4.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891083|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|79.2||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891084|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|23.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891085|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|3.8||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891086|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|6.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891087|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|82.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891088|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|23.5||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891089|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|5.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891090|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|5.8||||||95.0||||||||||||
91812510|NCT03045081|183500132|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interactions.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain self-efficacy over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was limited to those participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer analysis').||||<0.05
91891091|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|76.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891092|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|20.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891093|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|6.2||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891094|NCT00379288|183675566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|3.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
91891095|NCT00503139|183675698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sample|A two-sided t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that mHAQ scores at 6 months, 1 year, 1.5 years, and 2 years were equal to the baseline score.||||<0.001
91891096|NCT00503139|183675699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sample|A two-sided t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that VAS Fatigue scores at 6 months, 1 year, 1.5 years, and 2 years were equal to the baseline score.||||<0.001
91891097|NCT00091169|183675703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91891098|NCT00091169|183675704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91891099|NCT00091169|183675705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
91891100|NCT00091169|183675706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
91891101|NCT00091169|183675707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.00001
91891102|NCT00091169|183675708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.677|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.677
91891103|NCT00833833|183675711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.99||||||With a 12-month accrual period and 12-month follow-up after the study closed to accrual, assuming a 10% drop out rate, 96 participants in each treatment arm would have had 85% power to detect a hazard rate ratio of 1.67 using a one-sided log rank test with an overall significance level of 0.025 adjusted for one interim analysis) and a significance level of 0.0245 for the final analysis.||0.99|0.54|
91891104|NCT00833833|183675716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|46.66||||||||46.66|0.84|
91891105|NCT00833833|183675717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.070
91891106|NCT00833833|183675718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.29||||||||1.29|0.57|
91891107|NCT00921687|183675738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Intervention clinic (vs control clinic)|||2.30|1.01|0.04
91891108|NCT00921687|183675739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.44||95.0|0.84|1.49|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Intervention clinic (vs control clinic)|||1.49|0.84|0.44
91891109|NCT00316602|183675740|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that Group 2 (Atopic Dermatitis Participants) is non-inferior to Group 1 (Healthy Participants) in terms of seroconversion rate at Week 6 was predefined as -5% for the difference in seroconversion rates.|Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-1.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.3||||||||||-4.3|
91891110|NCT00626990|183675755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|99.1|0.73|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.73|0.76
91891111|NCT00626990|183675755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||Regression, Cox|||||0.79|0.52|<0.0001
91891112|NCT00626990|183675756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.72|0.11
91891113|NCT00626990|183675756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.7|||Regression, Cox|||||0.70|0.49|<0.0001
91891114|NCT04410523|183675798|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0541||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.229|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||0.229|0.016|0.025
91891115|NCT04410523|183675798|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0542||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.165|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.165|-0.049|0.286
91891116|NCT04410523|183675798|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0521||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.168|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.168|-0.037|0.212
91891117|NCT04410523|183675798|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.094|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.094|-0.076|0.831
91891118|NCT04410523|183675798|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0434||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.077|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.077|-0.094|0.852
91891119|NCT04410523|183675799|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-1.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.363||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.219|3.083|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||3.083|-6.219|0.508
91891120|NCT04410523|183675799|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-3.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.384||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.691|0.695|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.695|-8.691|0.095
91891121|NCT04410523|183675799|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-2.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2943||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.405|1.627|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||1.627|-7.405|0.209
91891122|NCT04410523|183675799|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8718||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.971|3.398|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||3.398|-3.971|0.878
91891123|NCT04410523|183675799|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|1.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8652||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.578|4.765|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||4.765|-2.578|0.558
91891124|NCT04410523|183675802|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1493||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.252|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||0.252|-0.336|0.780
91891125|NCT04410523|183675802|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1489||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|-0.127|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||-0.127|-0.713|0.005
91891126|NCT04410523|183675802|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1446||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.573|0.004|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.004|-0.573|0.047
91891127|NCT04410523|183675802|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1182||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.216|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.216|-0.249|0.887
91891128|NCT04410523|183675802|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1184||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.118|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.118|-0.348|0.333
91891129|NCT04410523|183675803|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1485||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.195|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||0.195|-0.389|0.515
91891130|NCT04410523|183675803|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1484||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.51|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.510|-0.074|0.143
91891131|NCT04410523|183675803|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.364|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.364|-0.207|0.590
91891132|NCT04410523|183675803|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.265|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.265|-0.199|0.778
91891133|NCT04410523|183675803|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.305|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.305|-0.160|0.539
91891134|NCT03268603|183675815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91891135|NCT00734591|183675865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact method|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|28.46|||||Incidence density ratio confidence interval derived from exact methods utilizing exact binomial limits and ratio of exposures.|||28.46|0.50|
91891136|NCT00734591|183675866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact method|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|24.01|||||Incidence density ratio confidence interval derived from exact methods utilizing exact binomial limits and ratio of exposures.|||24.01|0.37|
91891137|NCT00734591|183675867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||||||||1.10|0.60|
91891138|NCT00734591|183675868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact method|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|20.68|||||Incidence density ratio confidence interval derived from exact methods utilizing exact binomial limits and ratio of exposures.|||20.68|1.01|
91891139|NCT03248882|183675879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.4|-1.1||||||||-1.1|-19.4|
91891140|NCT03248882|183675879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.3|-40.1||||||||-40.1|-51.3|
91891141|NCT03248882|183675879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.2|-47.1||||||||-47.1|-57.2|
91891142|NCT03248882|183675879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-66.0|-57.8||||||||-57.8|-66.0|
91891143|NCT03248882|183675880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.0|6.3||||||||6.3|-14.0|
91891144|NCT03248882|183675880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.0|-12.2||||||||-12.2|-29.0|
91891145|NCT03248882|183675880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.8|-16.1||||||||-16.1|-32.8|
91891146|NCT03248882|183675880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.9|-35.0||||||||-35.0|-47.9|
91891147|NCT05032872|183675901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||.49
91891148|NCT05032872|183675902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.48
91891149|NCT05032872|183675903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting satisfaction with contact quality||||.04
91891150|NCT05032872|183675903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting dissatisfaction with contact quantity||||.44
91891151|NCT05032872|183675903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting satisfaction with contact quantity||||.99
91891152|NCT05032872|183675903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting knowing others' experience||||.87
91891153|NCT05032872|183675903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting shared understanding||||.98
91891154|NCT05032872|183675903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting relationship salience||||.76
91891155|NCT05032872|183675904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.29
91891156|NCT05032872|183675905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition predicting positive affect||||.51
91891157|NCT05032872|183675905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition predicting negative affect||||.83
91891158|NCT05032872|183675906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.51
91891159|NCT05032872|183675907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.65
91891160|NCT05032872|183675908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting management of distress||||.01
91891161|NCT05032872|183675908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||time x condition interaction predicting caregiver overload||||.75
91891162|NCT05032872|183675908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting relational deprivation||||.59
91891163|NCT05032872|183675908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting job caregiving conflict||||.51
91891164|NCT05032872|183675908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting role captivity||||.25
91939674|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.046
91939675|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.299
91939676|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.140
91939677|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||1.3|0.4|<.001
91939678|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.012
91812511|NCT03045081|183500133|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. Main effects of group and time, and group × time interactions were evaluated. Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months; 'study completers') were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).||||||0.068||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample)||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Activity Engagement - over time compared to the usual care group. Note: this questionnaire has 2 subscales, Activity Engagement and Pain Willingness. Intent-to-treat and as treated analyses were conducted for each subscale.||||0.068
91812512|NCT03045081|183500133|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 \<0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group by time interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Activity Engagement - over time compared to the usual care group.This analysis was limited to those participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer' analysis).||||<0.05
91939679|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.200
91939680|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.8|0.0|0.037
91939681|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.380
91939682|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.0|0.2|0.006
91939683|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.018
91939684|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.810
91812513|NCT03045081|183500133|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.||||||0.173||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group by time interaction such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Pain Willingness - over time compared to the usual care group.||||0.173
91939685|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.173
91939686|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.096
91939687|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.710
91939688|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.100
91939689|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.1|0.2|0.007
91939690|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.251
91939691|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.618
91939692|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.9|0.0|0.041
91939693|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.111
91939694|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.758
91939695|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.012
91939696|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.8|0.1|0.025
91939697|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.912
91939698|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.174
91939699|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.138
91939700|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.267
91939701|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.300
91939702|NCT03803202|183775438|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.982
91939703|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.08|1.06|
91939704|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||1.37|0.68|
91939705|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.00|0.92|
91939706|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||3.79|1.25|
91939707|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||1.77|0.80|
91939708|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.00|0.73|
91939709|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||2.29|0.94|
91939710|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||4.04|1.68|
91939711|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|9.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|14.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||14.50|5.65|
91939712|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||2.95|1.09|
91939713|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER|Serotype 33F|Ratio of GMT|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.11|0.86|
91939714|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||1.83|0.93|
91939715|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||1.43|0.67|
91939716|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.26|1.62|
91939717|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||4.90|1.68|
91939718|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||2.06|0.98|
91939719|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||1.48|0.54|
91939720|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||1.64|0.73|
91939721|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||3.25|1.40|
91939722|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|7.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|11.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||11.50|4.61|
91939723|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||2.48|0.96|
91939724|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||1.84|0.83|
91939725|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.94|1.51|
91939726|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||2.97|1.46|
91939727|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||3.20|1.56|
91939728|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||5.89|1.79|
91939729|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||3.62|1.63|
91939730|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12 F||2.55|0.89|
91939731|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||2.57|1.11|
91939732|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||5.20|2.18|
91939733|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.26|22.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||22.72|8.26|
91939734|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||3.46|1.36|
91939735|NCT03803202|183775439|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||2.57|1.11|
91939736|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||1.93|0.95|
91939737|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||2.13|1.07|
91939738|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.33|1.09|
91939739|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||3.47|1.45|
91939740|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||2.65|1.27|
91939741|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.23|0.77|
91939742|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||1.91|0.80|
91939743|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||4.07|1.70|
91939744|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||3.67|1.61|
91939745|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||3.65|1.70|
91939746|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||2.54|1.10|
91939747|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.07|0.98|
91939748|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||2.26|1.11|
91939749|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.72|1.23|
91939750|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.05||||||Serotype 10A||4.05|1.66|
91939751|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||2.73|1.32|
91939752|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.71|0.93|
91939753|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||2.53|1.11|
91939754|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||4.93|2.17|
91939755|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||4.22|1.85|
91939756|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||3.88|1.79|
91939757|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||3.01|1.40|
91939758|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.84|1.37|
91939759|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||4.18|2.12|
91939760|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||4.44|2.02|
91939761|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|5.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||5.86|2.25|
91939762|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||4.18|1.96|
91939763|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.96|0.91|
91939764|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|4.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||4.61|1.87|
91812514|NCT03045081|183500133|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used to test this hypothesis.||||||0.167||||||Wald χ2 \>0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group by time interaction such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Pain Willingness - over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer' analysis).||||0.167
91891165|NCT05032872|183675908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting sense of self||||.34
91891166|NCT05032872|183675908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting personal gain||||.75
91891167|NCT05032872|183675908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting caregiving competence||||.99
91891168|NCT05032872|183675908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting management of situition||||.61
91891169|NCT05032872|183675908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting management of meaning||||.92
91891170|NCT05032872|183675908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting expressive support||||.96
91891171|NCT05032872|183675909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.37
91891172|NCT05032872|183675910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.89
91891173|NCT05032872|183675911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.30
91891174|NCT05032872|183675912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.52
91891175|NCT05032872|183675913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent sample T-test comparing the treatment and control group||||.45
91891176|NCT00338962|183675915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferonni adjustments were applied. Mixed effects models were used to assess changes in PTSD symptoms over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=49.633||||||0.00
91891177|NCT00338962|183675917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Gastrointestinal symptoms compared||||0.007
91891178|NCT03733314|183675918|SUPERIORITY||Difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|45.4|||||The difference of percentage was calculated as E6011 minus placebo.|||45.4|-24.9|
91891179|NCT03733314|183675923|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|18.0|||||The difference of percentage was calculated as E6011 minus placebo.|||18.0|-32.1|
91891180|NCT03733314|183675924|SUPERIORITY||Difference|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.0|||||The difference of percentage was calculated as E6011 minus placebo.|||24.0|-7.3|
91891181|NCT04155047|183675949|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1861||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.066|-0.711|0.0987
91891182|NCT04514510|183675954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||||||0.64
91891183|NCT04514510|183675960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
91891184|NCT00821587|183675964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||We hypothesize that subjects on CsA are more likely to achieve undetectable viral level in patients receiving antiviral therapy for recurrent HCV after Liver Transplant|Chi-squared|||We hypothesize that subjects on CsA are more likely to achieve undetectable viral levels after liver transplant. Comparisons between the two groups (Undetectable viral level vs. Detectable viral level) were performed with Pearson Chi-square tests or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables.||||<0.05
91891185|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|7.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891186|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|5.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891187|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Ctime at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|7.17||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0006
91939765|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||6.26|2.55|
91939766|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||5.91|2.46|
91939767|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||5.90|2.74|
91939768|NCT03803202|183775440|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||3.23|1.38|
91939769|NCT01125293|183775453|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Two stage design, exact method|||In a two-stage Simon design, a VGPR or better rate of at least 18% is considered promising versus a 5% or less rate. In stage 1, if 1 or fewer of 23 evaluable participants achieve VGPR, the regimen is considered non-promising else continue with 24 more patients enrolled. If \</=4 of 47 evaluable patients have VGPR or better, the regimen is considered non-promising. If \>/=5, then the regimen is considered promising for further study. With this design, there is 90% power and 1-sided 10% alpha.|The study did not continue to stage 2 given 1 VGPR or better response was observed in 23 evaluable participants in stage 1.|||0.69
91939770|NCT01270958|183775460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939771|NCT01270958|183775461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939772|NCT01270958|183775462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939773|NCT01270958|183775463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939774|NCT01270958|183775464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939775|NCT01270958|183775465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91812515|NCT03045081|183500134|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. Main effects of group and time, and group × time interactions were evaluated. Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).||||||0.176||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved confidence in patient-provider interactions over time compared to the usual care group.||||0.176
91939776|NCT01270958|183775466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939777|NCT01270958|183775467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939778|NCT01270958|183775468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91939779|NCT01270958|183775469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939780|NCT01270958|183775470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939781|NCT01270958|183775471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939782|NCT01270958|183775472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939783|NCT01270958|183775473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939784|NCT01270958|183775474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939785|NCT01270958|183775475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939786|NCT01270958|183775476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939787|NCT01270958|183775477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939788|NCT01270958|183775478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91939789|NCT02228564|183775483|NON_INFERIORITY|"The sample size calculation assumes the following:~The LIFESTREAM™ Covered Stent composite event rate is estimated at 10.5% The Performance Goal is set at 19.5% The Type 1 error, α = 0.05 (one-sided). The Type 2 error, β = 0.10 (Power = 1 - β = 90%). The calculated sample size is 139 subjects to be followed through the 9-month follow-up visit (using nQuery 7.0). To accommodate 10% censoring, the sample size is increased to 154."|||||<|0.0325|||||||Exact binomial test|||"H0: The proportion of subjects in the LifeStream™ Covered Stent group (PBBX) with events in the primary endpoint is greater than or equal to that of the PG of 19.5%.~H1: The proportion of subjects in the LifeStream™ Covered Stent group (PBBX) with events in the primary endpoint is less than that of the PG of 19.5%."||||<0.0325
91939790|NCT02925312|183775503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||McNemar|||The study was powered to detect a difference of 0.5 in the change in HbA1c with SD=2 with 80% power at alpha=0.05 with a sample size of 128 in each group (paired t-test). Differences in patient characteristics and the unadjusted differences in the outcome measures between the intervention and control groups were tested using linear mixed models, McNemar tests and conditional logistic models due to matching.||||0.05
91939791|NCT00971633|183775542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Secondary Hypothesis: A single dose of U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg table over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K. ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.028|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.K. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally Treatment U.K. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally||1.028|0.796|
91939792|NCT00971633|183775542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.S. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean rations (U.K. ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.S. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.126|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.S. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally Treatment U.S. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United States (U.S.) taken orally||1.126|0.873|
91939793|NCT00971633|183775543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Secondary Hypothesis: A single dose of U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg table over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K.) ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|0.966|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.K. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally Treatment U.K. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally||0.966|0.813|
91939794|NCT00971633|183775543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|§ Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.S. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean rations (U.K. ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.S. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.037|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.S. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally. Treatment U.S. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United States (U.S.) taken orally||1.037|0.872|
91939795|NCT00418717|183775581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||||95.0|-0.25|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.25|
91939796|NCT03136367|183775656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.045
91939797|NCT03136367|183775656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.20
91939798|NCT03136367|183775656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.82
91939799|NCT03136367|183775657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.048
91939800|NCT03136367|183775657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.015
91939801|NCT03136367|183775657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.43
91939802|NCT03136367|183775658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.46
91939803|NCT03136367|183775658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.34
91812516|NCT03045081|183500134|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used to test this hypothesis.||||||0.143||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved confidence in patient-provider interactions over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer' analysis).||||0.143
91939804|NCT03136367|183775658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.165
91939805|NCT03136367|183775660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.25
91939806|NCT03136367|183775660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.89
91939807|NCT03136367|183775660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.54
91939808|NCT03136367|183775661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.72
91939809|NCT03136367|183775661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|McNemar|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.41
91939810|NCT03136367|183775661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.28
91939811|NCT03136367|183775662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.01
91939812|NCT03136367|183775662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.12
91939813|NCT03136367|183775662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.78
91939814|NCT03136367|183775663|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||<0.01
91939815|NCT03136367|183775663|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||<0.01
91939816|NCT03136367|183775664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.06
91939817|NCT03136367|183775664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.65
91939818|NCT03136367|183775664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.36
91939819|NCT03136367|183775665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.11
91939820|NCT03136367|183775665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.037
91939821|NCT03136367|183775665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.28
91939822|NCT00523614|183775667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Size of the study adapted to the use of DNG/EE in female fertile age. Market share of DNG/EE of 13% in Germany. Assuming that 30% of women in the fertile age range were current users of OCs, a prevalence of current use of DNG/EE of about 4% was estimated.~Based on these data the number of cases needed to exclude a twofold increased VTE risk was estimated at about 500-700 cases (based on four controls per case)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||<|0.05||95.0|0.57|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: OR ≥ 2 (VTE of DNG/EE vs. other low-dose COC)||1.39|0.57|<0.05
91812517|NCT03045081|183500135|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. Main effects of group and time, and group × time interactions were evaluated. Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved satisfaction with pain treatment over time compared to the usual care group.||||<0.05
91939823|NCT00446641|183775674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.654||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We assumed that the prevalence of AR would be 12 % among ischemic stroke patients who were treated with aspirin 100 per day. The prevalence could be reduced to 4% with additional cilostazol therapy||||0.654
91939824|NCT04038385|183775686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.87||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.25|-20.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.49|-65.25|0.001
91939825|NCT04038385|183775687|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|23.91||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|45.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||45.62|2.21|0.031
91939826|NCT04038385|183775688|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.33|0.662
91939827|NCT04038385|183775689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|0.00|0.047
91939828|NCT04038385|183775690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.39|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|35.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.02|8.64|<0.01
91939829|NCT04038385|183775691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.1|1.0|0.056
91939830|NCT04038385|183775692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.3|1.0|0.050
91939831|NCT04038385|183775693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-2.5|0.001
91939832|NCT04038385|183775694|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.4|0.082
91939833|NCT04038385|183775695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.8|-2.2|0.001
91939834|NCT04038385|183775696|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-1.4|0.039
91939835|NCT04038385|183775697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.3|0.962
91939836|NCT04038385|183775698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|.277
91939837|NCT04038385|183775699|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.0|0.155
91939838|NCT04038385|183775700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.5|0.740
91939839|NCT04038385|183775701|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|.122
91939840|NCT04038385|183775702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|.177
91939841|NCT04038385|183775703|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.3|0.514
91812518|NCT03045081|183500135|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.001||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant for the group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved satisfaction with pain treatment over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each of the study time points (i.e., 'completer' analysis).||||<0.001
91812519|NCT03045081|183500137|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).||||||0.102||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate greater reductions in pain intensity and interference over time compared to the usual care group.||||0.102
91939842|NCT04038385|183775704|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|0.335
91939843|NCT04038385|183775705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.4|0.750
91939844|NCT04038385|183775706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.7|0.455
91939845|NCT04038385|183775707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.0|0.053
91812520|NCT03045081|183500137|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate greater reductions in pain intensity and interference over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each time point (as treated, 'completer' analysis).||||<0.05
91812521|NCT02436889|183500151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.949
91939846|NCT04038385|183775708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-0.9|.986
91939847|NCT04038385|183775709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|0.6|0.810
91812522|NCT02436889|183500152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.11||||0.2415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|8.31|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||8.31|-2.09|0.2415
91812523|NCT02436889|183500153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.16|-5.87|||ANCOVA|||||-5.87|-18.16|0.0001
91939848|NCT04038385|183775710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|0.4|0.591
91939849|NCT02279160|183775717|SUPERIORITY||Multiple imputation|0.742||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.958|||ANCOVA|||||0.958|0.575|0.0220
91939850|NCT02279160|183775718|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.9002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|30.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon|||||30.0|-28.0|0.9002
91939851|NCT03180294|183775737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Using a two sample t-test with a one-sided type I error of 0.05 (overall type I error of 0.1 after a Bonferroni correction) and an effect size of 0.45, 62 patients/arm were calculated to be needed to achieve 80% statistical power. Adjusting for 20% non-compliance resulted in a total sample size of 234 patients..||||0.46
91939852|NCT03180294|183775737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Using a two sample t-test with a one-sided type I error of 0.05 (overall type I error of 0.1 after a Bonferroni correction) and an effect size of 0.45, 62 patients/arm were calculated to be needed to achieve 80% statistical power. Adjusting for 20% non-compliance resulted in a total sample size of 234 patients..||||0.54
91939853|NCT03180294|183775738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.95
91939854|NCT03180294|183775738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.73
91812524|NCT02436889|183500154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-1.59|0.1956
91812525|NCT02436889|183500155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.40|0.34|0.0168
91812526|NCT02436889|183500156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.71|||ANCOVA|||||3.71|0.50|0.0101
91812527|NCT01034462|183500157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.095||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.256|-0.935|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.935|-5.256|0.0051
91812528|NCT01034462|183500158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.632||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.193|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-1.070|-4.193|0.0010
91939855|NCT03180294|183775738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.46
91939856|NCT03180294|183775738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.42
91939857|NCT03180294|183775739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||One-side significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.24
91939858|NCT03180294|183775739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.74
91939859|NCT03180294|183775740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.41
91939860|NCT03180294|183775740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.60
91939861|NCT03180294|183775740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.90
91939862|NCT03180294|183775740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.79
91939863|NCT03180294|183775741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.41
91939864|NCT03180294|183775741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.35
91939865|NCT03180294|183775741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.83
91939866|NCT03180294|183775741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.79
91939867|NCT03180294|183775742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.78
91939868|NCT03180294|183775742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.51
91939869|NCT03180294|183775742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.49
91939870|NCT03180294|183775742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.50
91939871|NCT03180294|183775743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level 0.05||||||0.71
91939872|NCT03180294|183775743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level 0.05||||||0.34
91939873|NCT03180294|183775744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.23
91939874|NCT03180294|183775744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.25
91939875|NCT01951326|183775766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0048
91939876|NCT01951326|183775767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0116|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0116
91939877|NCT01951326|183775768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0616|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0616
91939878|NCT01951326|183775769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0851|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0851
91939879|NCT01951326|183775770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0147
91812529|NCT00303498|183500200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|43.0||||0.0302|||||||ANCOVA|Change at Week 24: P-value was obtained from the non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for baseline treadmill exercise time.||The median of the treatment difference was calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||||0.0302
91939880|NCT01951326|183775771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.1510
91939881|NCT01951326|183775772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2402
91939882|NCT01951326|183775773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0460
91939883|NCT01951326|183775774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0031
91939884|NCT01951326|183775775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0100
91939885|NCT01951326|183775776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0077
91939886|NCT01951326|183775777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0422
91939887|NCT03300427|183775803|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-900.0||||0.7594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6781.7|4981.8|||ANCOVA|||The study hypothesis is that short-term therapy with sacubitril/valsartan added on standard HF therapy improves cardiac efficiency in subjects with systolic HF.||4981.8|-6781.7|0.7594
91939888|NCT03300427|183775805|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-575.5||||0.8422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6365.5|5214.5|||ANCOVA|||The study hypothesis is that short-term therapy with sacubitril/valsartan added on standard HF therapy improves cardiac efficiency in subjects with systolic HF.||5214.5|-6365.5|0.8422
91939889|NCT00762528|183775895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91939890|NCT00762528|183775896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91939891|NCT00762528|183775897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91939892|NCT00762528|183775898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91939893|NCT00762528|183775899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91939894|NCT00762528|183775900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91939895|NCT00762528|183775901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91939896|NCT00762528|183775902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91939897|NCT03417505|183775903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test comparison||||||<0.01
91939898|NCT03417505|183775904|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank comparisons, one-sided||||||<0.05
91939899|NCT03417505|183775905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired 1-sided t-test||||||<0.01
91939900|NCT03417505|183775906|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank comparison, one sided p value||||||<0.01
91939901|NCT03417505|183775907|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|paired||||||>0.05
91939902|NCT03417505|183775908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||<0.05
91939903|NCT03417505|183775909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||<0.01
91939904|NCT03417505|183775910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||<0.05
91939905|NCT03417505|183775911|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||>0.05
91939906|NCT04211961|183775932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91939907|NCT04211961|183775933|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
91939908|NCT04211961|183775934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3
91939909|NCT04211961|183775935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91939910|NCT04211961|183775937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
91939911|NCT04211961|183775938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91939912|NCT04211961|183775939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91939913|NCT04211961|183775941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
91939914|NCT04211961|183775942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
91939915|NCT04211961|183775943|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
91939916|NCT04211961|183775944|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
91939917|NCT04211961|183775945|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
91939918|NCT04362813|183776047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is based on a Logistic regression model adjusted by treatment, region (North America vs Europe), and baseline 9-point ordinal scale (\<=4, \>=5).||2.54|0.76|0.2874
91939919|NCT04362813|183776048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is based on a Logistic regression model adjusted by treatment, region (North America vs Europe), and baseline 9-point ordinal scale (\<=4, \>=5)||1.50|0.30|0.3303
91939920|NCT04445688|183776080|SUPERIORITY||difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-4.4|||ANOVA|||||-4.4|-10.2|<0.0001
91939921|NCT04445688|183776081|SUPERIORITY||difference in Least Squares Mean|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-14.1|||ANOVA|||||-14.1|-29.5|<0.0001
91939922|NCT04445688|183776082|SUPERIORITY||difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.2|||ANOVA|||||-4.2|-10.5|<0.0001
91939923|NCT00918346|183776094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limit was set to 1.5 mmHg. Equivalence was shown if the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (unpreserved-preserved) lay entirely within the equivalence range (-1.5 mmHg, 1.5 mmHg). Target sample size was 34 evaluable patients (40 randomized), assuming a standard deviation of 3.0 mmHg change in IOP, a power of 80%, an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.60 and a twosided type 1 error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.96||95.0|-0.46|0.49|||ANCOVA|Baseline IOP a covariate|Analysis model used IOP measurements at four timepoints (at 8, 12, 16 and 20 o'clock) on Baseline and Week 4.|H1 (the alternative hypothesis aimed to be proven): the unpreserved formulation is equivalent with the preserved formulation||0.49|-0.46|0.96
91939924|NCT00918346|183776095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limit was set to 1.5 mmHg. Equivalence was shown if the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (unpreserved-preserved) lay entirely within the equivalence range (-1.5 mmHg, 1.5 mmHg). Target sample size was 34 evaluable patients (40 randomized), assuming a standard deviation of 3.0 mmHg change in IOP, a power of 80%, an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.60 and a twosided type I error rate of 5%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.83||95.0|-0.52|0.42|||ANCOVA|Baseline IOP a covariate|Analysis model used IOP measurements at four timepoints (at 8, 12, 16 and 20 o'clock) on Baseline and Week 4|H1 (the alternative hypothesis aimed to be proven): the unpreserved formulation is equivalent with the preserved formulation||0.42|-0.52|0.83
91939925|NCT03549429|183776102|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|8.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.4|||McNemar|||We compared the proportion of patients who had postoperative eyelid erythema with Tegaderm™ to those who had postop eyelid erythema with EyeGard®.||14.4|1.5|0.03
91939926|NCT03549429|183776103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||0.23
91939927|NCT02157168|183776105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and is the main comparison in the study.|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.624
91939928|NCT02157168|183776105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91939929|NCT02157168|183776106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and compares the two randomized groups CG and IG (IG1+IG2).|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.278
91939930|NCT02157168|183776106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.056
91939931|NCT02157168|183776107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and compares the two randomized groups CG and IG (IG1+IG2).|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.889
91939932|NCT02157168|183776107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.691
91939933|NCT02157168|183776108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and compares the two randomized groups CG and IG (IG1+IG2).|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.741
91939934|NCT02157168|183776108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.966
91939935|NCT02157168|183776109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||This comparison captures the change over the intervention period.|Chi-squared|||||||.117
91939936|NCT02157168|183776109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638||||||This comparison is an indication of whether the change seen between baseline and 6 months in the IG1 was due to the intervention or simply due to 6 months' enrollment.|Chi-squared|||||||.638
91939937|NCT02971293|183776110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939938|NCT02971293|183776110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91812530|NCT00303498|183500201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.495|||||||ANCOVA|Change at Week 24: P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.4950
91939939|NCT02971293|183776110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.020
91939940|NCT02971293|183776122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.002
91939941|NCT02971293|183776122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939942|NCT02971293|183776122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.011
91939943|NCT02971293|183776123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939944|NCT02971293|183776123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939945|NCT02971293|183776123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.201
91939946|NCT02971293|183776124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939947|NCT02971293|183776124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939948|NCT02971293|183776124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.020
91939949|NCT02971293|183776125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939950|NCT02971293|183776125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939951|NCT02971293|183776125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||<0.001
91812531|NCT00303498|183500202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.6||||0.3874|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||Change at Week 24 for PLAX 2D mode||||0.3874
91939952|NCT02971293|183776126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939953|NCT02971293|183776126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939954|NCT02971293|183776126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.092
91812532|NCT00303498|183500202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.7038|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||Change at Week 24 for PSAX M-mode||||0.7038
91812533|NCT00303498|183500203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.8998|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.8998
91812534|NCT00303498|183500204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.7245|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.7245
91812535|NCT00303498|183500205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8649|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.8649
91812536|NCT00303498|183500206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5909||||||The statistical analysis (P value) was performed on the composite change for all categories.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 24||||0.5909
91939955|NCT02971293|183776127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939956|NCT02971293|183776127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939957|NCT02971293|183776127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.279
91939958|NCT02971293|183776128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939959|NCT02971293|183776128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939960|NCT02971293|183776128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||<0.001
91939961|NCT02971293|183776129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.205
91939962|NCT02971293|183776129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.002
91939963|NCT02971293|183776129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.060
91939964|NCT02971293|183776130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.111
91939965|NCT02971293|183776130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939966|NCT02971293|183776130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.015
91939967|NCT02971293|183776131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.621
91939968|NCT02971293|183776131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.138
91939969|NCT02971293|183776131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.333
91939970|NCT02971293|183776132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.748
91939971|NCT02971293|183776132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.005
91939972|NCT02971293|183776132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.013
91939973|NCT02971293|183776133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.064
91939974|NCT02971293|183776133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939975|NCT02971293|183776133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.030
91939976|NCT02971293|183776134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.018
91939977|NCT02971293|183776134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91939978|NCT02971293|183776134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.047
91939979|NCT02971293|183776135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.477
91939980|NCT02971293|183776135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.014
91939981|NCT02971293|183776135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.084
91939982|NCT02971293|183776136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.213
91939983|NCT02971293|183776136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.001
91939984|NCT02971293|183776136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.046
91939985|NCT02754661|183776141|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin (δ) is pre-defined to be 5% in this study. Posterior Probability was based on Bayesian analysis.|Posterior Probability Bayesian analysis|0.9999|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Support the claim of statistical non-inferiority of CCE vs CTC|||||
91939986|NCT02754661|183776142|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.203|0.5434|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.5434|0.2030|<0.0001
91939987|NCT02754661|183776143|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.026||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0847|0.0327|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.0327|-0.0847|0.0190
91939988|NCT02754661|183776144|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0023||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1249|0.1249|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.1249|-0.1249|0.0930
91939989|NCT02754661|183776145|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0607||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0371|0.1585|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.1585|-0.0371|0.0034
91939990|NCT00729326|183776146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-values were not adjusted. The primary measure was change in 24-hour glucose without multiplicity adjustments for other analyses.|ANCOVA|Analyses for continuous variables adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, baseline of the continuous variable.Analysis method was Grizzle's model.||Null hypothesis: The 24-hour average glucose for exenatide was greater than or equal to that for sitagliptin after 4 weeks of treatment. The primary objective was to compare exenatide with sitagliptin on the time-averaged glucose during the 24-hour inpatient periods after 4 weeks of treatment.||||<.001
91939991|NCT00729326|183776147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91939992|NCT00729326|183776148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.766
91939993|NCT00729326|183776149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91939994|NCT00729326|183776150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91939995|NCT00729326|183776151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.117
91939996|NCT00729326|183776152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91939997|NCT00729326|183776153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91939998|NCT00729326|183776154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91939999|NCT00729326|183776155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91940000|NCT00729326|183776156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91940001|NCT00729326|183776157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91940002|NCT00729326|183776158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91812537|NCT00546637|183500207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1959||95.0|-0.9|0.2||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (Net) = Least squares mean|The null hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline in 24-hour micturition-related urgency was the same at Week 12 for the two treatment groups: fesoterodine + alpha-blocker vs. placebo + alpha-blocker. It was estimated that 900 randomized subjects would have 85% power to detect a mean difference of -0.93(SD = 4.15) between the 2 treatments on the primary endpoint,mean reduction of micturition-related urgency episodes/24hr from Baseline to Week 12,assuming a 10% non-evaluability rate.||0.2|-0.9|0.1959
91812538|NCT00546637|183500208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0621||95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|||0.0|-1.0|0.0621
91940003|NCT01000025|183776169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.21||Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center, but included K-Ras mutation status.1-sied p-value.|Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center, but included K-Ras mutation status.||The trial was designed to detect a 25% deduction in risk of death with PF-804 with 90% power using a 1-sided 2.5% level significance test. The sample size was estimated as 720 patients.||1.21|0.83|0.506
91940004|NCT01000025|183776170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center.||||1.03|0.61|0.043
91940005|NCT01000025|183776171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.44||1-sided pvalue|Log Rank|||||1.44|0.67|0.46
91940006|NCT01000025|183776172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.79|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center, but included K-Ras mutation status.||||0.79|0.55|< 0.0001
91940007|NCT01000025|183776173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.11||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.3|1.84|0.001
91812539|NCT00546637|183500210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0056||95.0|-0.8|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.1|-0.8|0.0056
91812540|NCT00546637|183500210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.009||95.0|-0.7|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||-0.1|-0.7|0.0090
91812541|NCT00546637|183500211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||P-value was based on a ranked ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and ranked baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons were performed only if the corresponding numerical change from Baseline at the same visit was statistically significant.||Week 4||||0.0012
91812542|NCT00546637|183500211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||P-value was based on a ranked ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and ranked baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons were performed only if the corresponding numerical change from Baseline at the same visit was statistically significant.||Week 12||||0.0027
91940008|NCT04423757|183776175|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||8.56|-1.81|0.2796
91940009|NCT04423757|183776176|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.276||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.091|0.781|||Regression, Logistic||For the calculation of the odds ratio Placebo is taken as reference.|Logistic regression includes treatment as covariate.||0.781|0.091|0.0468
91940010|NCT04423757|183776177|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.47|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|S-Anxiety scale - Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||7.17|-4.47|0.6980
91940011|NCT04423757|183776177|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2589|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|8.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|T-Anxiety scale - Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||8.76|-1.67|0.2589
91940012|NCT04423757|183776178|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||1.15|-0.13|0.1863
91812543|NCT00546637|183500212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1112||95.0|-0.2|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.0|-0.2|0.1112
91812544|NCT00546637|183500212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0855||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.0|-0.3|0.0855
91812545|NCT00546637|183500214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.3847||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 4||||0.3847
91812546|NCT00546637|183500214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4449||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 12||||0.4449
91940013|NCT04423757|183776179|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.8326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.46|5.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||5.76|-4.46|0.8326
91940014|NCT04423757|183776180|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||0.89|-0.43|0.5567
91940015|NCT01654523|183776201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change in the single arm trial|6.695|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.505|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.041|9.348|||Paired t-test|||||9.348|4.041|<0.05
91940016|NCT01575899|183776204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1526||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.42|||Chi-squared|||||5.42|1.28|0.008
91940017|NCT01575899|183776206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2589||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.02|||Chi-squared|||||10.02|1.5|0.004
91940018|NCT00753688|183776259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.48||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.48|0.26|<0.001
91940019|NCT00753688|183776260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.12||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||1.12|0.67|0.256
91940020|NCT00753688|183776264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.6||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value for leiomyosarcoma|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.60|0.23|<0.001
91940021|NCT00753688|183776264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value for synovial sarcoma|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.98|0.19|0.005
91812547|NCT00546637|183500216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.0062||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 4||||0.0062
91812548|NCT00546637|183500216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0825||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 12||||0.0825
91812549|NCT00546637|183500217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0||||P-value for median was based on a ranked ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and ranked baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons were performed only if the corresponding numerical change from Baseline at the same visit was statistically significant.||Week 4||||0.0025
91940022|NCT00753688|183776264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.6||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value for other STS histologies|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.60|0.25|<0.001
91812550|NCT00546637|183500218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1748||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.0|-0.3|0.1748
91940023|NCT01854593|183776270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
91940024|NCT01854593|183776271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91940025|NCT01854593|183776272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91940026|NCT01854593|183776273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91940027|NCT01854593|183776274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.667
91940028|NCT01854593|183776275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.593
91940029|NCT01854593|183776276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.298
91940030|NCT01854593|183776277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.929
91940031|NCT01854593|183776278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.445
91940032|NCT01854593|183776279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.131
91940033|NCT01854593|183776280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.149
91940034|NCT01854593|183776281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.670
91940035|NCT01854593|183776282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.378
91940036|NCT01216397|183776321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|99.4||||||90.0|94.2|105.0|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||105.0|94.2|
91940037|NCT01216397|183776322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.1||||||90.0|96.1|104.2|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||104.2|96.1|
91940038|NCT01216397|183776323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.1||||||90.0|94.7|105.8|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||105.8|94.7|
91940039|NCT01216397|183776331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|97.9||||||90.0|92.5|103.7|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||103.7|92.5|
91940040|NCT01216397|183776332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.4||||||90.0|95.7|105.4|||ANOVA|||||105.4|95.7|
91940041|NCT01216397|183776333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.3||||||90.0|95.7|105.2|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||105.2|95.7|
91940042|NCT01455415|183776345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.73||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model which included baseline pain, sequence, period and treatment as covariate.||1.73|0.83|0.3287
91940043|NCT01455415|183776346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.51||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model which included baseline pain, sequence, period and treatment as covariate.||2.51|0.98|0.0625
91940044|NCT01455415|183776347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.22||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline pain severity, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.22|-0.21|0.9448
91940045|NCT01455415|183776348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.14||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline interference score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.14|-0.32|0.4548
91940046|NCT01455415|183776349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using linear mixed effects model including baseline score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.03|-0.44|0.0272
91812551|NCT00546637|183500218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6572||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.2|-0.1|0.6572
91812552|NCT00546637|183500220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0051||95.0|-2.9|-0.5||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.5|-2.9|0.0051
91940047|NCT01455415|183776350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.3||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline HADS-A score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.30|-0.42|0.7344
91940048|NCT01455415|183776351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.24||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline HADS-D score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.24|-0.42|0.6007
91940049|NCT01455415|183776352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.96||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline total score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.96|-3.13|0.2987
91940050|NCT01455415|183776353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.16||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline symptoms domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.16|-0.85|0.1769
91940051|NCT01455415|183776354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.24||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline activities of daily living domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.24|-0.48|0.5119
91940052|NCT01455415|183776355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.4335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.74||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline physical functioning / large fiber domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.74|-1.72|0.4335
91940053|NCT01455415|183776356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.3||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline small fiber domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.30|-0.31|0.9653
91940054|NCT01455415|183776357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline autonomic domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.11|-0.38|0.2690
91940055|NCT01455415|183776358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline mobility domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.05|-0.05|0.9951
91940056|NCT01455415|183776359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline self-care domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.05|-0.05|0.9726
91940057|NCT01455415|183776360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline usual activities domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.08|-0.04|0.5497
91940058|NCT01455415|183776361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.11||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline pain / discomfort domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.11|-0.02|0.1495
91940059|NCT01455415|183776362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.01||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline anxiety / depression domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.01|-0.11|0.1297
91812553|NCT00546637|183500220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1231||95.0|-2.3|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.3|-2.3|0.1231
91812554|NCT00546637|183500221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3579||95.0|-1.0|0.4||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.4|-1.0|0.3579
91812555|NCT00546637|183500221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9274||95.0|-0.8|0.7||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.7|-0.8|0.9274
91940060|NCT01455415|183776363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline Dolan 1997 index summary score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.02|-0.04|0.4279
91940061|NCT01455415|183776364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline Dolan 2001 index summary score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.02|-0.04|0.5505
91940062|NCT01455415|183776365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|||||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was done using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit transformation, under alternative hypothesis of raw mean scores differ.||||0.0604
91940063|NCT01455415|183776366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.171||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Repeated measure mixed effects model|The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||A longitudinal analysis was done using a repeated measure linear mixed effects model including visit, treatment, an indicator variable for Week 6, and treatment by visit and by the indicator variable interaction as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error (estimated by using an unstructured covariance structure) as random factors. The treatment differences were tested using within-participant variability as the error term.||0.171|-0.248|0.7174
91940064|NCT01455415|183776367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|||||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was done using a CMH test with modified ridit transformation, under alternative hypothesis of raw mean scores differ.||||0.1511
91940065|NCT02460978|183776380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0579|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for baseline HbA1c, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline HbA1c.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-0.26|-0.49|<0.0001
91812556|NCT00546637|183500222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0223||95.0|-0.7|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.1|-0.7|0.0223
91812557|NCT00546637|183500222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1744||95.0|-0.6|0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.1|-0.6|0.1744
91812558|NCT00546637|183500223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7564||95.0|-0.4|0.5||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.5|-0.4|0.7564
91940066|NCT02460978|183776380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for baseline HbA1c, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline HbA1c.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-0.30|-0.53|<0.0001
91940067|NCT02460978|183776381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5291|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-7.72|-13.73|<0.0001
91812559|NCT00546637|183500223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.401||95.0|-0.3|0.7||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.7|-0.3|0.4010
91940068|NCT02460978|183776381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5331|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|-8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-8.02|-14.04|<0.0001
91940069|NCT02460978|183776382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3829|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-2.45|-3.96|<0.0001
91940070|NCT02460978|183776382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3812|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-2.99|-4.49|<0.0001
91940071|NCT02460978|183776383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3468|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-11.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-11.05|-20.26|<0.0001
91812560|NCT00546637|183500224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1472||95.0|-0.2|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.0|-0.2|0.1472
91940072|NCT02460978|183776383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3419|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.34|-15.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-15.14|-24.34|<0.0001
91940073|NCT02460978|183776384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4519|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|-5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-5.03|-14.66|<0.0001
91940074|NCT02460978|183776384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4487||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.16|-4.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-4.55|-14.16|0.0001
91940075|NCT02460978|183776385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0415|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|11.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||11.06|6.97|<0.0001
91940076|NCT02460978|183776385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0396|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|12.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||12.74|8.66|<0.0001
91940077|NCT02460978|183776386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.06|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c and randomization strata||Odds Ratio vs. Placebo||4.06|1.81|<0.0001
91940078|NCT02460978|183776386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c and randomization strata||Odds Ratio vs. Placebo||4.60|2.05|<0.0001
91812561|NCT00546637|183500224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5839||95.0|-0.2|0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.1|-0.2|0.5839
91812562|NCT00546637|183500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6621||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q1||0.2|-0.1|0.6621
91940079|NCT01142193|183776398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.85|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
91940080|NCT01142193|183776398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.53|28.1|||Hodges-Lehmann|||||28.1|8.53|
91940081|NCT01142193|183776399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.7||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91812563|NCT00546637|183500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.5|-0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q2||-0.2|-0.5|<.0001
91812564|NCT00546637|183500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3242||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q3||0.2|-0.1|0.3242
91812565|NCT00546637|183500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1604||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q4||0.0|-0.3|0.1604
91940082|NCT01142193|183776400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|16.3||||0.007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis was stratified by Geographic Region.||||||0.007
91812566|NCT00546637|183500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4102||95.0|-0.2|0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q5||0.1|-0.2|0.4102
91940083|NCT01142193|183776401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|25.36|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91940084|NCT01142193|183776402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.85|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91940085|NCT01142193|183776406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|23.61||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91940086|NCT01142193|183776407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.4||||0.048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis was stratified by Geographic Region.||||||0.048
91940087|NCT01961089|183776423|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test.||||||0.09|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing AL between G6 and IOLM||||0.09
91940088|NCT01961089|183776423|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing AL between G6 and LS||||<0.001
91812567|NCT00546637|183500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3079||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q6||0.2|-0.1|0.3079
91812568|NCT00546637|183500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q7||0.2|-0.1|0.4066
91812569|NCT00546637|183500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1595||95.0|0.0|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q1||0.3|-0.0|0.1595
91940089|NCT01961089|183776423|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing AL between IOLM and LS||||<0.0001
91940090|NCT01961089|183776423|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing CCT between G6 and LS||||<0.0001
91940091|NCT01961089|183776423|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing ACD between G6 and IOLM||||<0.0001
91940092|NCT01961089|183776423|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing ACD between G6 and LS||||<0.01
91940093|NCT01961089|183776423|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.02|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing ACD between IOLM and LS||||0.02
91940094|NCT01961089|183776423|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing LT between G6 and LS||||<0.01
91940095|NCT01961089|183776423|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing WtW between G6 and IOLM||||<0.0001
91940096|NCT01961089|183776423|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing WtW between G6 and LS||||<0.0001
91940097|NCT01961089|183776423|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing WtW between IOLM and LS||||<0.001
91940098|NCT01961089|183776424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Repeatability was determined with random effect ANOVAs (estimates of random effects). They were calculated as the square root of the sum of the (Device x EyeID) interaction component plus (EyeID) and (Device) variance components plus the residual variance component. A (Device x Operator) interaction component was not assessed because each device was consistently operated by the same operator such that there was no Device x Operator interaction component. CV = Coefficient of Variation = SD/mean.||||0.05
91812570|NCT00546637|183500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0614||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q2||0.0|-0.3|0.0614
91812571|NCT00546637|183500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2032||95.0|-0.1|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q3||0.3|-0.1|0.2032
91812572|NCT00546637|183500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0631||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q4||0.0|-0.3|0.0631
91812573|NCT00546637|183500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9706||95.0|-0.2|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q5||0.2|-0.2|0.9706
91940099|NCT01961089|183776425|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.13|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing SimK between G6 and IOLM||||0.13
91940100|NCT01961089|183776425|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.25|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing SimK between G6 and LS||||0.25
91940101|NCT01961089|183776425|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.21|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing SimK between IOLM and LS||||0.21
91940102|NCT01062009|183776435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi square analysis comparing number of participants with new fever in each group||||0.24
91940103|NCT01731990|183776464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment effect for ratio to placebo|1.06||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.15|0.97|0.284
91940104|NCT01183104|183776468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|LS mean difference|0.11||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.02|0.087
91940105|NCT01183104|183776469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91940106|NCT01183104|183776470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91940107|NCT01183104|183776471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.030
91812574|NCT00546637|183500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8058||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q6||0.2|-0.1|0.8058
91940108|NCT01183104|183776472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91940109|NCT01183104|183776473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
91940110|NCT00323310|183776474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.5|1.1|<0.0001
91940111|NCT00323310|183776475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.4|0.9|<0.0001
91940112|NCT00323310|183776476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||0.9|0.4|<0.0001
91940113|NCT00323310|183776477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.6|1.1|<0.001
91940114|NCT00323310|183776478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.4|0.8|<0.001
91940115|NCT00323310|183776479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||0.8|0.4|<0.0001
91940116|NCT00323310|183776480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.5|1.0|<0.0001
91940117|NCT00323310|183776481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.4|0.9|<0.0001
91940118|NCT00323310|183776482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.1|0.6|<0.0001
91812575|NCT00546637|183500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q7||0.2|-0.1|0.3302
91812576|NCT00546637|183500227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1136||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1136
91812577|NCT00546637|183500228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5775||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5775
91812578|NCT00546637|183500229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7433||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7433
91812579|NCT00546637|183500230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9402||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9402
91812580|NCT00546637|183500231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.004||95.0|-4.5|-0.9||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.9|-4.5|0.0040
91940119|NCT00937326|183776490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4816||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||0.4816
91812581|NCT00546637|183500231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0068||95.0|-4.8|-0.8||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||-0.8|-4.8|0.0068
91812582|NCT00546637|183500232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0412||95.0|0.1|3.6||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 4||3.6|0.1|0.0412
91812583|NCT00546637|183500232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.1373||95.0|-0.5|3.4||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 12||3.4|-0.5|0.1373
91812584|NCT00546637|183500233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0941||95.0|-0.3|3.8||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||3.8|-0.3|0.0941
91812585|NCT00546637|183500233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.2273||95.0|-0.8|3.4||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||3.4|-0.8|0.2273
91940120|NCT00937326|183776490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1147||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||0.1147
91940121|NCT00937326|183776490|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||1.0000
91940122|NCT00937326|183776490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4816||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||0.4816
91940123|NCT00937326|183776514|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|168.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.87|228.94|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval (CI) were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 0.25 g/day.||228.94|123.87|
91940124|NCT00937326|183776514|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|110.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.18|139.43|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 0.25 g/day.||139.43|88.18|
91940125|NCT00937326|183776514|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|133.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.55|176.21|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 0.5 g/day.||176.21|100.55|
91940126|NCT00937326|183776514|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Other|94.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.31|126.48|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. The AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 0.5 g/day.||126.48|70.31|
91940127|NCT00937326|183776514|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|141.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.2|180.39|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 1.0 g/day.||180.39|111.20|
91940128|NCT00937326|183776514|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|114.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.56|153.11|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. The AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 1.0 g/day.||153.11|85.56|
91940129|NCT00937326|183776514|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|167.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.73|231.25|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 2.0 g/day.||231.25|120.73|
91940130|NCT00937326|183776514|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|117.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.14|162.79|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. The AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 2.0 g/day.||162.79|85.14|
91940131|NCT00937326|183776515|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|122.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|171.8|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 0.25 g/day.||171.80|86.94|
91940132|NCT00937326|183776515|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|94.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.07|129.16|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 0.5 g/day.||129.16|69.07|
91812586|NCT00546637|183500234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0507||95.0|0.0|4.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 4||4.3|-0.0|0.0507
91940133|NCT00937326|183776515|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|114.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.54|143.95|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 1.0 g/day.||143.95|91.54|
91940134|NCT00937326|183776515|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|120.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.66|163.23|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 2.0 g/day.||163.23|88.66|
91940135|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.997
91940136|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.581
91940137|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.987
91812587|NCT00546637|183500234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1136||95.0|-0.4|4.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 12||4.1|-0.4|0.1136
91812588|NCT00546637|183500235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0845||95.0|-0.3|4.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 4||4.1|-0.3|0.0845
91940138|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.999
91940139|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.850
91940140|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.843
91940141|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.961
91940142|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.939
91940143|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.966
91940144|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.075
91812589|NCT00546637|183500235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0662||95.0|-0.2|4.6||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||4.6|-0.2|0.0662
91812590|NCT00546637|183500236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.1085||95.0|-0.3|3.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||3.2|-0.3|0.1085
91940145|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.700
91812591|NCT00546637|183500236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.7685||95.0|-1.6|2.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||2.1|-1.6|0.7685
91940146|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.732
91940147|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.552
91940148|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.196
91812592|NCT00546637|183500237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.0005||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 4||||0.0005
91812593|NCT00546637|183500237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.0|||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 8||||<.0001
91940149|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.393
91940150|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.775
91940151|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||1.000
91940152|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||0.989
91940153|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||0.603
91940154|NCT00937326|183776520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||0.108
91940155|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.525
91940156|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.818
91940157|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.999
91940158|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.809
91940159|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||0.993
91940160|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||0.954
91940161|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||1.000
91940162|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||0.344
91812594|NCT00546637|183500237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.0003||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 12||||0.0003
91812595|NCT00546637|183500238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.2251||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|||||0.2251
91940163|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.968
91940164|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.316
91940165|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.984
91940166|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.235
91940167|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||1.000
91940168|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||0.656
91940169|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||0.994
91940170|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||0.285
91812596|NCT00587483|183500241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.37||An alpha of 0.0167 was used to account for multiple comparisons among the 3 groups. Given the total of 3 comparisons, 0.05/3 = 0.0167 was used in the calculation.|Regression, Logistic|||The expected overall incidence of ventricular fibrillation after removal of the aortic clamp is at least 70%. Using a chi square analysis with 80% power and an alpha of 0.0167, we estimate that we will need 113 patients in each group to show a 30% reduction in the incidence of ventricular fibrillation with amiodarone.||1.37|0.48|0.427
91812597|NCT00587483|183500241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.39|0.117
91940171|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.992
91940172|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.822
91940173|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.538
91940174|NCT00937326|183776521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.907
91940175|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.999
91812598|NCT00587483|183500241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.47|0.433
91812599|NCT00587483|183500242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.45|0.215
91812600|NCT00587483|183500242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.32|0.008
91812601|NCT00587483|183500242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.52|0.424
91812602|NCT04984993|183500248|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 0 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>0, where mu is the population mean change from baseline in the EF domain of the IIEF questionnaire at week 24.||||<0.001
91812603|NCT04984993|183500249|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 30 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>30, where mu is the population mean percentage of MED3000 uses per patient that resulted in the patient noticing their erection starting within 15 minutes.||||<0.001
91812604|NCT04984993|183500249|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 30 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>30, where mu is the population mean percentage of MED3000 uses per patient that resulted in the patient noticing their erection starting within 10 minutes.||||<0.001
91812605|NCT04984993|183500249|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 30 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>30, where mu is the population mean percentage of MED3000 uses per patient that resulted in the patient noticing their erection starting within 5 minutes.||||0.890
91812606|NCT04984993|183500250|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91812607|NCT04984993|183500250|OTHER|||||||0.3327||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.3327
91812608|NCT04984993|183500250|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.999
91812609|NCT03108027|183500269|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.538|0.6811|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6811|0.5380|
91812610|NCT03108027|183500269|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6152|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5437|0.6868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6868|0.5437|
91812611|NCT03108027|183500269|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0057|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.076|0.0647|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0647|-0.0760|
91812612|NCT03108027|183500270|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6206|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5335|0.7077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7077|0.5335|
91812613|NCT03108027|183500270|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7347|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6469|0.8225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8225|0.6469|
91812614|NCT03108027|183500270|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.197|-0.0311|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0311|-0.1970|
91812615|NCT03108027|183500271|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.3|82.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning average PEF||82.9|61.3|
91812616|NCT03108027|183500271|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|86.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.1|97.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning average PEF||97.8|76.1|
91812617|NCT03108027|183500271|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.6|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning average PEF||-4.1|-25.6|
91812618|NCT03108027|183500271|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|73.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.9|84.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening average PEF||84.2|61.9|
91812619|NCT03108027|183500271|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|58.7||||||90.0|47.5|69.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening average PEF||69.9|47.5|
91812620|NCT03108027|183500271|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.3|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening average PEF||25.5|3.3|
91812621|NCT00003901|183500314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.23|||Regression, Cox|||||2.23|1.13|0.007
91812622|NCT00003901|183500315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.69|0.886
91812623|NCT00003901|183500316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.63||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.36|||Regression, Cox|||||2.36|1.13|0.009
91812624|NCT00003901|183500317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.48|0.332
91812625|NCT00268996|183500333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-11.717||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.995|14.607|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|||14.607|-31.995|0.348
91812626|NCT00268996|183500334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.082||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.049|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means is shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||0.049|-0.214|0.220
91812627|NCT00268996|183500335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|3.977||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.331|32.379|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|||32.379|-18.331|0.751
91812628|NCT00268996|183500336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-60.737|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.486|-57.78|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet at Week 26 (LOCF)||-57.780|-63.486|<0.001
91812629|NCT00268996|183500336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-59.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.21|-56.222|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet at Week 52 (LOCF)||-56.222|-62.210|<0.001
91812630|NCT00268996|183500337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.253||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.998|7.504|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||7.504|-6.998|0.945
91812631|NCT00268996|183500338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|-0.062||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.009|0.886|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||0.886|-1.009|0.898
91812632|NCT00268996|183500339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|-5.165||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.185|-1.145|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||-1.145|-9.185|0.012
91812633|NCT00268996|183500340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|-1.967||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.912|-0.022|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||-0.022|-3.912|0.047
91940176|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.982
91812634|NCT00268996|183500341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|6.958||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.568|29.364|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Week 26 (LOCF): Comparison between Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet||29.364|-11.568|0.487
91812635|NCT00268996|183500341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|12.255||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.725|36.562|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Week 52 (LOCF): Comparison between Placebo Vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet||36.562|-7.725|0.247
91812636|NCT00268996|183500342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-1.112||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.363|4.433|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||4.433|-6.363|0.687
91812637|NCT00268996|183500342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-3.237||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.976|2.865|||ANOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|||2.865|-8.976|0.290
91812638|NCT00268996|183500343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|16.725||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.232|33.271|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||33.271|2.232|0.022
91812639|NCT00268996|183500343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|9.256||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.136|27.172|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52 (LOCF)||27.172|-6.136|0.252
91812640|NCT00268996|183500344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|15.449||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.204|43.632|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26||43.632|-7.204|0.196
91940177|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.677
91812641|NCT00268996|183500344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|38.567||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.355|83.997|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52||83.997|4.355|0.024
91812642|NCT00268996|183500345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-2.098||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.303|14.517|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||14.517|-16.303|0.790
91812643|NCT00268996|183500345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|1.986||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.807|20.673|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52 (LOCF)||20.673|-13.807|0.818
91812644|NCT00268996|183500346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-0.252||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.151|21.561|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||21.561|-18.151|0.980
91812645|NCT00268996|183500346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-8.585||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.007|37.012|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52 (LOCF)||37.012|-39.007|0.663
91812646|NCT00268996|183500348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment Difference|1.758||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.675|16.192|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160mg EC tablet once daily - Placebo).|For vessel volume||16.192|-12.675|0.811
91812647|NCT00268996|183500348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.627||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.171|16.425|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily - Placebo).|For lumen volume||16.425|-11.171|0.708
91812648|NCT00268996|183500349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.012||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.136||Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value , matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Mean vessel area||0.136|-0.160|0.873
91812649|NCT00268996|183500349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.048||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.354|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value , matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Mean vessel area||0.354|-0.258|0.756
91940178|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.688
91940179|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.903
91940180|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.945
91940181|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.949
91940182|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.924
91940183|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.394
91940184|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.687
91812650|NCT00268996|183500349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.061||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.36|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value , matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Mean lumen area||0.360|-0.237|0.687
91812651|NCT00268996|183500350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.584||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.819|5.65|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibrous tissue volume||5.650|-6.819|0.854
91812652|NCT00268996|183500350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|1.926||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.748|6.6||Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibro-fatty volume||6.600|-2.748|0.418
91940185|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.568
91940186|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.486
91940187|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.973
91812653|NCT00268996|183500351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|3.701|||ANOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibrous tissue as % of VH plaque||3.701|0.299|0.021
91812654|NCT00268996|183500351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.739||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.635|3.114|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibro-fatty as percentage of VH plaque||3.114|-1.635|0.540
91940188|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.739
91940189|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.731
91940190|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.991
91940191|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.994
91940192|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.963
91940193|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.929
91940194|NCT00937326|183776522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.970
91940195|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.989
91940196|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.989
91940197|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.982
91940198|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.999
91940199|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||0.685
91940200|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||0.999
91940201|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||0.971
91812655|NCT00862745|183500374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, threshold for significance is P \< .05|ANCOVA|Mean difference=Drug A minus Drug B||Null hypothesis: fesoterodine treatment is not associated with greater reduction in urgency incontinence frequency compared to placebo in women diagnosed using the 3IQ||||<0.001
91812656|NCT01414075|183500382|OTHER|||||||0.0757||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.0757
91940202|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||1.000
91940203|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.405
91940204|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.975
91940205|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.999
91940206|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.629
91940207|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.982
91940208|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.982
91940209|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.999
91940210|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.874
91812657|NCT01414075|183500382|OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.0630
91812658|NCT01414075|183500382|OTHER|||||||0.8653||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.8653
91812659|NCT01414075|183500382|OTHER|||||||0.8982||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.8982
91940211|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||0.986
91812660|NCT00867009|183500430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|32.3|45.09||||||||45.09|32.30|
91940212|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||0.997
91812661|NCT00867009|183500431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median number of months|5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.4|6.7||||||||6.70|4.40|
91812662|NCT00867009|183500432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|39.0|51.0||||||||51|39|
91940213|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||1.000
91812663|NCT00867009|183500433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|59.6|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|53.06|65.94||||||||65.94|53.06|
91812664|NCT00147199|183500449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|20.0||||0.00044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.8|||ANCOVA|Lowest rank was assigned for death, discontinuation due to disease progression, and for patients who initiated additional approved PAH therapy.||Sample size was calculated based on the primary endpoint; change in 6MWD at Week 12. Assuming a between-treatment difference of 35m, a standard deviation of 75m, and a type I (alpha) error of 0.05 (i.e., two-sided p-value of less than 0.05), in order to have 90% power to detect this difference, 100 subjects per treatment group were required for this trial (total n=200). This allowed for a dropout rate of 10% as 110 subjects per group was planned.||32.8|8.0|0.00044
91812665|NCT00147199|183500451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|-0.5|0.623
91812666|NCT00147199|183500452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Imputation strategies were implemented for 16 inhaled treprostinil subjects and 9 placebo subjects without values reported at Week 12|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|0.0|0.807
91940214|NCT00937326|183776523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||0.697
91940215|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||1.000
91940216|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||0.812
91940217|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||0.996
91812667|NCT00147199|183500453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|13.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.8|||ANCOVA|||||24.8|4.0|0.007
91812668|NCT00147199|183500454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|18.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|28.3|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||28.3|8.5|0.0003
91812669|NCT00147199|183500455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-4.0||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Global Score||0|-8.0|0.027
91812670|NCT00147199|183500455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-2.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Physical Dimension||0.0|-3.0|0.037
91812671|NCT00147199|183500455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-1.0||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Emotional Dimension Score||0.0|-2.0|0.173
91812672|NCT00147199|183500457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-167.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-333.0|-64.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-64|-333|0.001
91812673|NCT00453921|183500574|OTHER||||||<|0.04||||||For active therapy/placebo relative to both placebo|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.04
91812674|NCT00453921|183500576|EQUIVALENCE|Looking for statistical difference, p \< .01, between groups looking at change scores|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91812675|NCT00453921|183500577|EQUIVALENCE|group differences|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91812676|NCT00453921|183500580|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91812677|NCT00453921|183500580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||a priopr|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91812678|NCT00174915|183500581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each febuxostat dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL versus \[v.\] \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812679|NCT00174915|183500581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each febuxostat dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812680|NCT00174915|183500581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each febuxostat dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812681|NCT00174915|183500581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 80 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|25.7||||||97.5|16.7|34.7||||||||34.7|16.7|
91812682|NCT00174915|183500581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 120 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|42.7||||||97.5|34.0|51.3||||||||51.3|34.0|
91812683|NCT00174915|183500581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812684|NCT00174915|183500581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812685|NCT00174915|183500581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812686|NCT00174915|183500581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812687|NCT00174915|183500581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91940218|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||0.198
91940219|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||1.000
91812688|NCT00174915|183500581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.479
91812689|NCT00174915|183500581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812690|NCT00174915|183500582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812691|NCT00174915|183500582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812692|NCT00174915|183500582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812693|NCT00174915|183500582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812694|NCT00174915|183500582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812695|NCT00174915|183500582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812696|NCT00174915|183500582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.011
91812697|NCT00174915|183500582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812698|NCT00174915|183500582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.091
91812699|NCT00174915|183500582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812700|NCT00174915|183500583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91940220|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||0.358
91812701|NCT00174915|183500583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812702|NCT00174915|183500583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812703|NCT00174915|183500583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812704|NCT00174915|183500583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812705|NCT00174915|183500583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812706|NCT00174915|183500583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.074
91812707|NCT00174915|183500583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812708|NCT00174915|183500583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.001
91812709|NCT00174915|183500583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
91812710|NCT00174915|183500584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812711|NCT00174915|183500584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812712|NCT00174915|183500584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812713|NCT00174915|183500584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812714|NCT00174915|183500584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812715|NCT00174915|183500584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812716|NCT00174915|183500584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812717|NCT00174915|183500584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812718|NCT00174915|183500584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812719|NCT00174915|183500584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812720|NCT00174915|183500585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812721|NCT00174915|183500585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812722|NCT00174915|183500585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812723|NCT00174915|183500585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812724|NCT00174915|183500585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812725|NCT00174915|183500585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812726|NCT00174915|183500585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812727|NCT00174915|183500585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91940221|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||0.852
91940222|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||0.678
91940223|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||1.000
91940224|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||0.191
91940225|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||0.805
91812728|NCT00174915|183500585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812729|NCT00174915|183500585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91812730|NCT00174915|183500586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.789
91812731|NCT00174915|183500586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.320
91812732|NCT00174915|183500586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.381
91812733|NCT00174915|183500586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.809
91812734|NCT00174915|183500586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
91812735|NCT00174915|183500586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.247
91812736|NCT00174915|183500586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.415
91812737|NCT00174915|183500586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.649
91812738|NCT00174915|183500586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.807
91940226|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||0.960
91812739|NCT00174915|183500586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.844
91812740|NCT00174915|183500587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.699
91812741|NCT00174915|183500587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.822
91812742|NCT00174915|183500587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.579
91812743|NCT00174915|183500587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.679
91812744|NCT00174915|183500587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
91812745|NCT00174915|183500587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
91812746|NCT00174915|183500587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.560
91812747|NCT00174915|183500587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.309
91812748|NCT00174915|183500587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.759
91812749|NCT00174915|183500587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.385
91812750|NCT00174915|183500588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.949
91812751|NCT00174915|183500588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
91812752|NCT00174915|183500588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.577
91812753|NCT00174915|183500588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.598||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.598
91812754|NCT00174915|183500588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
91812755|NCT00174915|183500588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.969
91812756|NCT00174915|183500588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.056
91812757|NCT00174915|183500588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.659
91812758|NCT00174915|183500588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.197
91812759|NCT00174915|183500588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
91812760|NCT00174915|183500589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.683
91940227|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.985
91812761|NCT00174915|183500589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.078
91812762|NCT00174915|183500589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.442
91812763|NCT00174915|183500589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.990
91812764|NCT00174915|183500589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
91812765|NCT00174915|183500589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.662
91812766|NCT00174915|183500589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
91812767|NCT00174915|183500589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.705
91812768|NCT00174915|183500589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.337
91812769|NCT00174915|183500589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.643
91812770|NCT00174915|183500590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.645
91812771|NCT00174915|183500590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.756
91812772|NCT00174915|183500590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.428
91812773|NCT00174915|183500590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons..|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.076
91812774|NCT00174915|183500590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.106
91812775|NCT00174915|183500590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.069
91812776|NCT00174915|183500590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.837
91812777|NCT00174915|183500590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.749
91812778|NCT00174915|183500590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.581
91812779|NCT00174915|183500590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.311
91812780|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 1: Day 2||||0.55
91812781|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 1: Day 8||||0.54
91812782|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 2: Day 1||||0.54
91812783|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 2: Day 8||||0.54
91812784|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 3: Day 1||||0.54
91812785|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 3: Day 8||||0.57
91812786|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 1||||0.54
91812787|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 2||||0.52
91812788|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 4||||0.52
91812789|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 8||||0.61
91812790|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 5: Day 1||||0.54
91812791|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 5: Day 8||||0.52
91812792|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 6: Day 1||||0.52
91812793|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests||Dose 6: Day 4||||0.52
91812794|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 6: Day 8||||0.52
91812795|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 7: Day 1||||0.52
91812796|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 7 - Day 8||||0.52
91812797|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 8: Day 1||||0.52
91812798|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 8: Day 8||||0.52
91812799|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 9: Day 1||||0.52
91812800|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests||Dose 9: Day 8||||1.00
91812801|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests||Dose 10: Day 1||||0.52
91812802|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 2||||0.52
91812803|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 4||||0.52
91812804|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 8||||0.52
91812805|NCT03060447|183500605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 14||||0.52
91812806|NCT03060447|183500606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Log Rank|P-value between treatment groups was based on log-rank test.||≥ 50 Copies/mL||||0.035
91812807|NCT03060447|183500606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Log Rank|P-value between treatment groups was based on log-rank test.||≥ 200 Copies/mL||||0.024
91812808|NCT03060447|183500607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values between treatment groups were based on Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.67
91812809|NCT03060447|183500608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values between treatment groups were based on Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.78
91812810|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Baseline||||0.34
91812811|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.11
91812812|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.81
91812813|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.83
91812814|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.12
91812815|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.45
91812816|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.25
91812817|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.053
91812818|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.16
91812819|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, ATI Remission Visit||||0.27
91812820|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Baseline||||0.35
91812821|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.013
91812822|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.15
91812823|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.30
91812824|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.003
91812825|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.49
91812826|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.25
91812827|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.055
91940228|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.733
91812828|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.90
91812829|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, ATI Remission Visit||||0.39
91812830|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Baseline||||0.75
91812831|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 1: Day 2||||<0.001
91812832|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.69
91812833|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.15
91812834|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.018
91812835|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.030
91812836|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.087
91812837|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 10: Day 2||||<0.001
91812838|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.066
91812839|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, ATI Remission||||0.86
91812840|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Baseline||||0.19
91812841|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.021
91812842|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.31
91812843|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.10
91812844|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.018
91812845|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.69
91812846|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.46
91812847|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.21
91812848|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.67
91812849|NCT03060447|183500609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, ATI Remission||||0.60
91812850|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.002
91812851|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.58
91812852|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.009
91812853|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY|ISG15, Dose 10: Day 1||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||||0.031
91812854|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.001
91812855|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.003
91812856|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.057
91812857|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.009
91812858|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.057
91812859|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.005
91812860|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 1: Day 2||||<0.001
91812861|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.17
91812862|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.003
91940229|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.365
91812863|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY|MX1, Dose 10: Day 1||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||||0.100
91812864|NCT03060447|183500610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 10: Day 2||||<0.001
91812865|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7469|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Baseline||||0.7469
91812866|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1207|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.1207
91812867|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.4113
91812868|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.1113
91812869|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.2410
91812870|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.1098
91812871|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.0369
91812872|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
91812873|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1658|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.1658
91812874|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.9431
91812875|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6514|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Baseline||||0.6514
91812876|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.0821
91812877|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.2353
91812878|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.1779
91812879|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.7491
91812880|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.0700
91812881|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.3711
91812882|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
91812883|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.0700
91812884|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.8303
91812885|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Baseline||||0.9530
91812886|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1735|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.1735
91812887|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.2971
91812888|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 4: Day 4||||1.0000
91812889|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 6: Day 1||||1.0000
91812890|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.3374
91812891|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.7656
91812892|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
91812893|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.3374
91812894|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.4320
91812895|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8597|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Baseline||||0.8597
91812896|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 4: Day 1||||1.0000
91812897|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.0306
91812898|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.8345
91812899|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.9151
91812900|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.1098
91812901|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 1||||1.0000
91812902|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
91812903|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4555|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.4555
91812904|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.6171
91812905|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0677|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Baseline||||0.0677
91812906|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.4712
91812907|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6889|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.6889
91812908|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1437|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.1437
91812909|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.7491
91812910|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.0700
91812911|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.7656
91812912|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.1752
91812913|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.0700
91812914|NCT03060447|183500611|SUPERIORITY|CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 14||||||0.2246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||||0.2246
91812915|NCT04249310|183500714|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.46|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox-regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|||2.46|0.32|
91812916|NCT04249310|183500715|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.15|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|Moderate or Severe COPD Exacerbation||1.15|0.63|
91812917|NCT04249310|183500715|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.01|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|Moderate COPD Exacerbation||1.01|0.43|
91812918|NCT04249310|183500715|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.31|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|Severe COPD Exacerbation||1.31|0.62|
91812919|NCT01119131|183500735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.699
91812920|NCT01119131|183500736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.308
91812921|NCT01119131|183500737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.419
91812922|NCT01119131|183500738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.253
91812923|NCT01119131|183500739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.793
91812924|NCT01119131|183500741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.949
91812925|NCT01119131|183500742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.957
91812926|NCT00459667|183500753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome|17.4||||||95.0|14.4|20.7||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome||20.7|14.4|
91812927|NCT00459667|183500753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome|15.8||||||95.0|13.1|18.9||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome||18.9|13.1|
91812928|NCT00459667|183500753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome|31.1||||||95.0|24.4|38.4||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome||38.4|24.4|
91812929|NCT00459667|183500754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||number of patients w/ IS reactions.|31.7||||||95.0|28.0|35.7||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Injection-site (IS) reactions.||35.7|28.0|
91812930|NCT00459667|183500754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||number of patients w/ IS reactions.|26.2||||||95.0|22.8|29.8||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Injection-site (IS) reactions.||29.8|22.8|
91812931|NCT00459667|183500754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||number of patients w/ IS reactions.|31.7||||||95.0|24.9|39.0||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Injection-site (IS) reactions.||39.0|24.9|
91812932|NCT00556712|183500764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.62|<0.0001
91812933|NCT00556712|183500768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.72|0.0097
91940230|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.413
91940231|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.765
91812934|NCT00556712|183500771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.66|0.0050
91812935|NCT00556712|183500774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.51|0.1768
91812936|NCT00556712|183500777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.4|||Log Rank|||||1.40|0.49|0.4797
91812937|NCT00556712|183500779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.61|<0.0001
91812938|NCT00556712|183500781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|6.53||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|10.3|||Chi-squared||The approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||10.3|2.7|0.0006
91812939|NCT00556712|183500783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Upgrade Rates|4.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.7|||Chi-squared||The approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||6.7|1.6|0.0007
91812940|NCT00556712|183500785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|9.8||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.4|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Analysis included CR + PR + SD rate.||16.4|3.1|0.0035
91812941|NCT00556712|183500785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|19.7|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Analysis included CR + PR + SD \> 12 weeks rate.||19.7|7.1|<0.0001
91812942|NCT00556712|183500787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.74|0.3787
91812943|NCT00556712|183500789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.58|< 0.0001
91812944|NCT00556712|183500792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.87|0.5385
91812945|NCT00556712|183500795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.79|0.6530
91812946|NCT00818662|183500812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.8||||0.476||95.0|-3.1|1.5|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||1.5|-3.1|0.476
91812947|NCT00818662|183500812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.7||||0.53||95.0|-1.6|3.0|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||3.0|-1.6|0.530
91812948|NCT00818662|183500813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.812||95.0|-2.9|3.7|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||3.7|-2.9|0.812
91812949|NCT00818662|183500813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.9||||0.602||95.0|-4.3|2.5|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||2.5|-4.3|0.602
91812950|NCT00818662|183500814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.7||||0.368||95.0|-2.3|0.8|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog and education level (in years)|||0.8|-2.3|0.368
91812951|NCT00818662|183500814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.8||||0.319||95.0|-0.8|2.4|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog and education level (in years)|||2.4|-0.8|0.319
91812952|NCT00818662|183500815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.3||||0.778||95.0|-1.8|2.4|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADCS-ADL and education level (in years)|||2.4|-1.8|0.778
91812953|NCT00818662|183500815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.2||||0.851||95.0|-2.3|1.9|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADCS-ADL and education level (in years)|||1.9|-2.3|0.851
91812954|NCT00818662|183500816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.1||||0.306||95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.1|0.306
91812955|NCT00818662|183500816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.3||||0.028||95.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|0.0|0.028
91812956|NCT00818662|183500817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.1||||0.66||95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.3|0.660
91812957|NCT00818662|183500817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.0||||0.766||95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.2|0.766
91812958|NCT00818662|183500818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.9||||0.206||95.0|-1.0|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.8|-1.0|0.206
91812959|NCT00818662|183500818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.4||||0.331||95.0|-4.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-4.3|0.331
91812960|NCT00818662|183500819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.7||||0.64||95.0|-2.1|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-2.1|0.640
91812961|NCT00818662|183500819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|2.5||||0.075||95.0|-0.3|5.3|||ANCOVA|||||5.3|-0.3|0.075
91812962|NCT00818662|183500820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.1||||0.093||95.0|-0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-0.2|0.093
91812963|NCT00818662|183500820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.1||||0.094||95.0|-0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-0.2|0.094
91812964|NCT00818662|183500821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.1||||0.096||95.0|-2.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-2.3|0.096
91812965|NCT00818662|183500821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.0||||0.123||95.0|-2.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-2.2|0.123
91812966|NCT00818662|183500822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.167||95.0|-0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.2|0.167
91812967|NCT00818662|183500822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.0||||0.998||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.998
91812968|NCT00818662|183500823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.173||95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.2|0.173
91812969|NCT00818662|183500823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.1||||0.744||95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.744
91812970|NCT00818662|183500824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.5||||0.238||95.0|-1.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-1.0|0.238
91812971|NCT00818662|183500824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.1||||0.4||95.0|-3.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-3.6|0.400
91812972|NCT00818662|183500825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.6||||0.695||95.0|-3.6|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.4|-3.6|0.695
91812973|NCT00818662|183500825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.3||||0.41||95.0|-4.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-4.5|0.410
91812974|NCT00818662|183500826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.0||||0.988||95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-1.5|0.988
91812975|NCT00818662|183500826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.555||95.0|-1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-1.0|0.555
91812976|NCT00818662|183500827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.5||||0.783||95.0|-12.2|9.2|||ANCOVA|||||9.2|-12.2|0.783
91812977|NCT00818662|183500827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-2.1||||0.7||95.0|-13.1|8.8|||ANCOVA|||||8.8|-13.1|0.700
91812978|NCT00818662|183500828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-15.2||||0.191||95.0|-38.0|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.7|-38.0|0.191
91812979|NCT00818662|183500828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.6||||0.892||95.0|-25.4|22.1|||ANCOVA|||||22.1|-25.4|0.892
91812980|NCT00818662|183500829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.1||||0.588||95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|0.588
91812981|NCT00818662|183500829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.2||||0.351||95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.351
91812982|NCT01722071|183500843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided paired t-test was performed to determine whether oxytocin administration was associated with reward-related BOLD signal changes (within the Nucleus Accumbens \[Bilateral\]). For the group of 18 participants, BOLD signal activity was compared between oxytocin and placebo scanning days.||||0.890
91812983|NCT01722071|183500843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided paired t-test was performed to determine whether oxytocin administration was associated with reward-related BOLD signal changes (within the Nucleus Accumbens \[Bilateral\]). For the group of 8 participants, BOLD signal activity was compared between oxytocin and placebo scanning days.||||0.422
91812984|NCT01722071|183500843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided paired t-test was performed to determine whether oxytocin administration was associated with reward-related BOLD signal changes (within the Nucleus Accumbens \[Bilateral\]). For the group of 10 participants, BOLD signal activity was compared between oxytocin and placebo scanning days.||||0.814
91812985|NCT01338493|183500844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91812986|NCT01338493|183500845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91812987|NCT01846611|183500846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.925|||=|0.5236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.177|||Unstratified log rank test|||||1.177|0.727|= 0.5236
91812988|NCT01846611|183500847|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935|||=|0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.147|||Unstratified log rank test|||||1.147|0.762|= 0.5174
91812989|NCT01846611|183500848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.523|||=|0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.075|2.158|||Fisher Exact|||||2.158|1.075|= 0.0142
91812990|NCT00775645|183500865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline score, taxane regiment, and age.||||0.4|-2.2|0.17
91812991|NCT00775645|183500866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.7|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline score, taxane regiment, and age.||||2.7|-3|0.92
91812992|NCT00775645|183500867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline score, taxane regiment, and age.||||3.3|-0.7|0.20
91812993|NCT00775645|183500868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||||||0.46
91812994|NCT02671422|183500873|OTHER||1 year-survival rate|0.342|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.894|||||Confidence interval is computed based on the LOGLOG method.|||0.894|0.000|
91812995|NCT03061331|183500884|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||2.7|-2.5|0.9277
91812996|NCT02625259|183500885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.83||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean Cmax of TAK-117 tablet versus capsule dosage form.||1.83|1.00|
91812997|NCT02625259|183500885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.67||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean Cmax of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with food versus without food.||1.67|0.86|
91812998|NCT02625259|183500885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.07||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean Cmax of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with lansoprazole versus a single dose of TAK-117 alone.||0.07|0.02|
91812999|NCT02625259|183500887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.18||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90 % CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUClast of TAK-117 tablet versus capsule dosage form.||2.18|0.98|
91813000|NCT02625259|183500887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.78||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUClast of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with food versus without food.||2.78|1.11|
91813001|NCT02625259|183500887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.04||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUClast of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with lansoprazole versus a single dose of TAK-117 alone.||0.04|0.01|
91813002|NCT02625259|183500888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.51||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90 % CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUC∞ of TAK-117 tablet versus capsule dosage form.||2.51|0.93|
91813003|NCT02625259|183500888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.25||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUC∞ of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with food versus without food.||2.25|1.00|
91940232|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.434
91813004|NCT02625259|183500888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.18||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUC∞ of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with lansoprazole versus a single dose of TAK-117 alone.||0.18|0.03|
91813005|NCT00513474|183500890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Gray's test for competing risks|||||||.036
91813006|NCT04772755|183500903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0249
91813007|NCT04772755|183500904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8918|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8918
91813008|NCT04772755|183500905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6587|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6587
91813009|NCT04772755|183500906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0059
91940233|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.184
91940234|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.142
91813010|NCT04772755|183500907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1647|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1647
91813011|NCT04772755|183500908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0090
91813012|NCT04772755|183500909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0273|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0273
91813013|NCT04772755|183500910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0458|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0458
91813014|NCT04772755|183500911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0976
91813015|NCT03761147|183500927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91813016|NCT05838742|183500954|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|1.17|-0.23|
91813017|NCT05838742|183500954|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|0.95|-0.46|
91813018|NCT05838742|183500954|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|1.10|-0.31|
91940235|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.999
91813019|NCT05838742|183500954|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|0.80|-0.60|
91813020|NCT00501293|183501034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of MTS at baseline and 6 months||||||0.028
91813021|NCT00501293|183501034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of placebo at baseline and 6 months||||||<0.001
91813022|NCT00501293|183501035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of MTS at baseline and 6 months||||||0.027
91813023|NCT00501293|183501035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of placebo at baseline and 6 months||||||<0.001
91813024|NCT00501293|183501038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of MTS at baseline and 6 months||||||0.071
91813025|NCT00501293|183501038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of placebo at baseline and 6 months||||||0.017
91813026|NCT01042236|183501059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|2.41||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.41|-1.18|0.4907
91813027|NCT01042236|183501059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.32||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.32|-2.27|0.5944
91813028|NCT01042236|183501060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.94||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.94|-1.91|0.9870
91813029|NCT01042236|183501060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.15||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.15|-2.71|0.4167
91813030|NCT01042236|183501061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.26||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.26|-0.24|0.9403
91813031|NCT01042236|183501061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.09|-0.42|0.1881
91940236|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.876
91813032|NCT01042236|183501062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.22|-0.26|0.8602
91813033|NCT01042236|183501062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.06|-0.43|0.1271
91813034|NCT01172847|183501085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.05|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir||1.05|0.91|
91813035|NCT01172847|183501085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.02|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir carboxylate||1.02|0.95|
91813036|NCT01172847|183501086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.06|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of rimantadine||1.06|1.00|
91813037|NCT01172847|183501087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.96|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir||0.96|0.77|
91813038|NCT01172847|183501087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir carboxylate||1.05|0.92|
91813039|NCT01172847|183501088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.06|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|mean exposure ratio of rimantadine||1.06|0.99|
91813040|NCT00183092|183501093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.53|||Regression, Cox|||||3.53|0.58|0.43
91813041|NCT00183092|183501094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.54||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. One subject in the placebo group was administered only 25 items on the MMSE due to visual impairment, and this subject's score was scaled based on percentage correct.|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||.54
91813042|NCT00183092|183501095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.9||||0.36||95.0||||significance threshold p=0.05|Quade's rank analysis of covariance|||The difference between scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance.||||.36
91813043|NCT00183092|183501096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.01||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Quade's rank analysis of covariance|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||.01
91813044|NCT00183092|183501097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.03||95.0||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Quade's rank analysis of covariance|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.03
91813045|NCT00183092|183501098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.92||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.92
91813046|NCT00183092|183501099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.71||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.71
91813047|NCT00183092|183501100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.7||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.70
91813048|NCT02132767|183501101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91940237|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.756
91813049|NCT02132767|183501102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
91813050|NCT02132767|183501103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91813051|NCT02132767|183501104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
91813052|NCT02132767|183501105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91813053|NCT02132767|183501106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91813054|NCT02132767|183501107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
91813055|NCT02132767|183501108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Regression, Poisson|||||||0.73
91813056|NCT02865187|183501116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.1||a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.1|-7.4|0.71
91813057|NCT02865187|183501117|SUPERIORITY||Chi square|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||1.00
91813058|NCT03557151|183501163|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Transdisciplinary Care is being compared to Usual Care using the Time 2 HbA1c (as baseline) and Time 5 HbA1c (as the outcome) controlling for race/ethnicity, gender, and age of the patient. The interaction of condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Missing data were not imputed.||0.60|-0.68|0.895
91813059|NCT03557151|183501164|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|6.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TC is being compared to UC using baseline and 12 month data, controlling for patient age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The interaction between condition and time is used to examine the treatment effect. Missing data were not imputed.||6.88|-2.29|.33
91813060|NCT03557151|183501165|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|8.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TC is being compared to UC using baseline and 12 month data and controlling for patient age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The interaction between condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Missing data are not imputed.||8.53|-.32|.07
91813061|NCT03557151|183501166|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis included baseline and 12-month data. The interaction of condition (TC or UC) and time was used to examine the treatment effect. Child sex, age, and race/ethnicity were covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||5.0|-9.77|.527
91813062|NCT03557151|183501167|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis uses baseline and 12 month data. The interaction of condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Child sex, age, and race/ethnicity were used as covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||2.35|-8.94|.253
91813063|NCT03557151|183501168|SUPERIORITY||Slope|9.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|17.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis included baseline and 12 month data. The condition by time interaction was used to evaluate the treatment effect. Child age, sex, and race/ethnicity were included as covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||17.08|2.31|0.01
91813064|NCT03557151|183501169|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|4.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis uses baseline and 12-month data. The interaction between condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Child age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||4.35|-3.62|.83
91813065|NCT00923598|183501191|EQUIVALENCE|A method by Armitage et al was used, where by equivalence of treatments would be concluded if the 95% CI for the difference fell within the prespecified tolerated interval. Under these assumptions, a trial with 36 subjects (72 limbs) would correctly conclude there is no treatment difference with probability 80%, and incorrectly conclude equivalence when there is a difference of 20% with probability 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|17.0|||Fisher Exact|||||17|-10|0.05
91813066|NCT00467259|183501207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|p-value obtained from Fisher's exact test and corresponds to the test of the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||1000 naturally postmenopausal women not on concomitant E+P therapy at baseline were to be randomized (800 TTS; 200 placebo). It was assumed 60% would complete 1 year and 80% of these would have evaluable biopsies. Of the 800 randomized to TTS approximately 380 were expected to have evaluable biopsies at 1 year. 380 patients on TTS with evaluable biopsies at 1 year would provide 90% power to rule out an incidence of hyperplasia of 2% using the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI.||||1.0000
91813067|NCT00467259|183501208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|p-value obtained from Fisher's exact test and corresponds to the test of the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||1000 naturally postmenopausal women not on concomitant E+P therapy at baseline were to be randomized (800 TTS; 200 placebo). It was assumed 60% would complete 1 year and 80% of these would have evaluable biopsies. Of the 800 randomized to TTS approximately 380 were expected to have evaluable biopsies at 1 year. 380 patients on TTS with evaluable biopsies at 1 year would provide 90% power to rule out an incidence of hyperplasia of 2% using the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI.||||1.0000
91813068|NCT00467259|183501209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|p-value obtained from Fisher's Exact test and corresponds to the test of the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||1000 naturally postmenopausal women not on concomitant E+P therapy at baseline were to be randomized (800 TTS; 200 placebo). It was assumed 60% would complete 1 year and 80% of these would have evaluable biopsies. Of the 800 randomized to TTS approximately 380 were expected to have evaluable biopsies at 1 year. 380 patients on TTS with evaluable biopsies at 1 year would provide 90% power to rule out an incidence of hyperplasia of 2% using the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI.||||1.0000
91813069|NCT03715764|183501282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Results for the final model, variable GROUP, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
91813070|NCT03715764|183501282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Results for the final model for the variable TIME, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91813071|NCT03715764|183501282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Results for the final model, variable Group x Time (Statistical interaction of group and time), adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
91813072|NCT03715764|183501283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||Results for the final model, variable GROUP, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
91813073|NCT03715764|183501283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049||||||Results for the final model, variable TIME, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0049
91940238|NCT00937326|183776524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.983
91940239|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||0.809
91813074|NCT03715764|183501283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Results for the final model, adjusted for confounders, for the variable Group x Time (Statistical interaction of group and time).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
91813075|NCT03715764|183501284|SUPERIORITY|Used as a confounder in the mixed effect model analysis for primary outcome. All participants enrolled in the study were included in the 12 months analysis.|||||<|0.2||||||Confounding variables with p-values \< 0.2 were carried forward to the final model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.2
91813076|NCT03715764|183501285|SUPERIORITY|Used as a confounder in the mixed effect model analysis for primary outcome. All participants enrolled in the study were included in the 12 months analysis.|||||<|0.2||||||Confounding variables with p-values \< 0.2 were carried forward to the final model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.2
91940240|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||1.000
91940241|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||0.989
91940242|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||0.130
91813077|NCT00662363|183501294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||independent sample t test|||Primary outcome measures chosen were between group comparisons for change on Constipation Symptom Questionnaire ratings at exit from the study. The PAC-SYM is a symptom scale where higher numbers indicate more symptoms. Change from baseline to Day 7 was calculated and larger negative differences indicated greater improvement in constipation symptoms. The PAC-QOL is a quality of life scale where higher numbers indicate better quality of life. Change from baseline to 7 days was calculated.||||<0.05
91813078|NCT01905657|183501296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.00024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.77|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.77|0.38|0.00024
91813079|NCT01905657|183501296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.70|0.36|0.00002
91813080|NCT01905657|183501296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.00076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||0.88|0.58|0.00076
91813081|NCT01905657|183501296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.75|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||0.75|0.49|<0.00001
91813082|NCT01905657|183501297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.77|0.43|0.00009
91813083|NCT01905657|183501297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.78|0.45|0.00007
91813084|NCT01905657|183501297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.06758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||1.04|0.73|0.06758
91813085|NCT01905657|183501297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.00462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||0.94|0.66|0.00462
91813086|NCT01905657|183501300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|-2.3||||0.66608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|8.2||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage not equal to 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||8.2|-12.7|0.66608
91813087|NCT01905657|183501300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|22.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|30.7||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage greater than 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||30.7|14.0|<0.00001
91813088|NCT01905657|183501300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|8.7||||0.00045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|13.9||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage greater than 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||13.9|3.6|0.00045
91813089|NCT01905657|183501300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|9.1||||0.00024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|14.3||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage greater than 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||14.3|4.1|0.00024
91813090|NCT06092710|183501311|OTHER|Then, to see if the median of a particular group is diﬀerent from 0 (= no sensitivity: not feeling the diﬀerences in airflow induced by the diﬀerent tests given by the operator), Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected.||||||0.05572|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-parametric tests on patient sensitivity, given the non-normal distribution, (based on the median of the data) were applied to analyse the diﬀerences between the groups (ST1+ ST2 according to the STATUS3 and STATUS4 classification criteria). To analyse any diﬀerences in sensitivity between patient groups, Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied. In this type of analysis, having a p-value greater than 1% and ideally greater than 5% would indicate the absence of diﬀerences between groups.||||0.05572
91940243|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.870
91813091|NCT06092710|183501311|OTHER|Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected.|||||<|8e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||to see if the median of a particular group is diﬀerent from 0 (= no sensitivity: not feeling the diﬀerences in airflow induced by the diﬀerent tests given by the operator), Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected. In this case, it means that the patients in the test group feel the diﬀerences in airflow depending on their position.||||<0.0000008
91813092|NCT06092710|183501311|OTHER|Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected. In this case, it means that the patients in the test group feel the diﬀerences in airflow depending on their position.|||||<|1e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||to see if the median of a particular group is diﬀerent from 0 (= no sensitivity: not feeling the diﬀerences in airflow induced by the diﬀerent tests given by the operator), Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected. In this case, it means that the patients in the test group feel the diﬀerences in airflow depending on their position.||||<0.0000001
91813093|NCT06092710|183501312|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.06e-06||||||Confidence level used: 0.95 Tukey multiple comparisons of means (95% family-wise confidence level)|ANOVA|||Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status with SFI (Intermediate Final Score) For these analyses, as the SFI score follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value, a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another.||||0.00000106
91813094|NCT06092710|183501312|SUPERIORITY|||||||48||||||Confidence level used: 0.95 Tukey multiple comparisons of means (95% family-wise confidence level)|ANOVA|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status with SFT score (Final Total score):~For these analyses, as SFT score follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value, a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0000000048
91813095|NCT06092710|183501312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.73||||7.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Determination of cut-oﬀ values for SFI:~The Cutoﬀ\_final txt file includes the various sensitivity and specificity calculations as well as the Youden index in order to determine the best cut-oﬀ value (largest Youden). The ROC curves allow the values in the file to be appreciated graphically."||||0.00000077
91813096|NCT06092710|183501312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.37||||6.9e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Determination of cut-oﬀ values for SFT:~The Cutoﬀ\_final txt file includes the various sensitivity and specificity calculations as well as the Youden index in order to determine the best cut-oﬀ value (largest Youden). The ROC curves allow the values in the file to be appreciated graphically."||||0.00000069
91813097|NCT06092710|183501313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142266|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.0142266
91813098|NCT06092710|183501313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023308|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.0023308
91813099|NCT06092710|183501313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023308|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.0023308
91813100|NCT06092710|183501313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9915779|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.9915779
91813101|NCT06092710|183501313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999943|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.9999943
91813102|NCT06092710|183501313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9905111|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.9905111
91813103|NCT05119569|183501314|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.313||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.658|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.658|0.149|0.0022
91813104|NCT05119569|183501315|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.265||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.55|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.550|0.128|0.0004
91813105|NCT05119569|183501316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.005||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.317|13.078|||Logistic Regression Model|||||13.078|1.317|0.0117
91813106|NCT05119569|183501321|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.78||||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|1.922|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||1.922|0.316|0.5889
91813107|NCT05119569|183501322|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.076||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.355|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.355|0.016|0.0011
91813108|NCT05119569|183501323|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.104||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.481|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.481|0.022|0.0038
91813109|NCT05119569|183501324|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.512||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|1.126|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||1.126|0.233|0.0958
91813110|NCT05119569|183501325|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.283|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.283|0.039|<0.0001
91813111|NCT05119569|183501326|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.053||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.233|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.233|0.012|0.0001
91813112|NCT03700671|183501349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A P-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for significance|ANOVA|||A sample size of 38 using G\*Power 3.1 software was calculated based on previously published data in which the mean difference between HIIT and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) was 3.2 ml.kg-1.min-1 with a pooled standard deviation of 3 ml.kg-1.min-1. Statistical significance was set at = 0.05 and power set to 0.95. To allow for 10% attrition 42 individuals were recruited to the study||||<0.01
91813113|NCT03700671|183501350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||0.05 was used as a threshold for significance|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91813114|NCT04434092|183501379|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met when the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -20%.|Weighted Difference in Proportion|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.67|11.14|||||95% CI for the difference in proportions of participants with TA is calculated by Stratified Newcombe CI method.|||11.14|-15.67|
91813115|NCT04434092|183501380|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio is above 0.2|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.82||||||||1.82|0.57|
91813116|NCT04434092|183501381|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI for the difference between crovalimab and eculizumab in the proportion of participants with BTH is less than the non-inferiority margin of 20%|Weighted Difference in Proportion|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.82|5.26|||||95% CI for the difference in proportions of participants is calculated by Stratified Newcombe CI method.|||5.26|-14.82|
91813117|NCT04434092|183501382|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met when the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -20%.|Weighted Difference in Proportion|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|16.31|||||95% CI for the difference in proportions of participants is calculated by Stratified Newcombe CI method.|||16.31|-11.37|
91813118|NCT04434092|183501383|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was a -5 point score, where higher scores indicated less fatigue, and hence non-inferiority hypothesis was tested comparing the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference with a non-inferiority margin of -5 points.|Difference in Adjusted mean|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.6|||||Non-inferiority is met when the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -5.|||4.60|0.68|
91813119|NCT02879305|183501475|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.07|0.81|
91813120|NCT02879305|183501476|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.24|||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, Baseline Hgb, dialysis type and region along with 95% CI for treatment difference (daprodustat-rhEPO).|||0.24|0.12|
91813121|NCT02879305|183501477|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.156123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||The p-value was compared against 0.0125 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.07|0.81|0.156123
91813122|NCT02879305|183501478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.023539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||The p-value was compared against 0.006250 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.00|0.78|0.023539
91813123|NCT02879305|183501479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.325797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||The p-value was compared against 0.025000 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.11|0.85|0.325797
91813124|NCT02879305|183501480|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.1||||0.026947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|0.2||The p-value was compared against 0.008333 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|ANCOVA||Analysis was carried out by using ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, Baseline monthly IV iron dose, dialysis type and region.|||0.2|-18.4|0.026947
91813125|NCT02879305|183501481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.3281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.13|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.13|0.82|0.3281
91813126|NCT02879305|183501482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.23|0.74|0.3553
91813127|NCT02879305|183501483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.04|0.63|0.0524
91813128|NCT02879305|183501484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.25|0.56|0.1927
91813129|NCT02879305|183501485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.01|||Chi-squared||Overall HR is presented using Model 1. Model 1 assumed a common treatment effect, regardless of number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a Prentice, Williams and Peterson(PWP) model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.01|0.80|0.0351
91813130|NCT02879305|183501485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.11|0.85|0.3258
91813131|NCT02879305|183501485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||Chi-squared||Second Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||0.98|0.58|0.0158
91813132|NCT02879305|183501485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.17|||Chi-squared||Third Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.17|0.47|0.0981
91813133|NCT02879305|183501485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.11|0.85|0.3258
91813134|NCT02879305|183501485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94|||Chi-squared||Subsequent Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||0.94|0.60|0.0058
91813135|NCT02879305|183501486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.06|0.73|0.0872
91813136|NCT02879305|183501487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.04|0.87|0.1540
91813137|NCT02879305|183501488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.07|0.77|0.1244
91813138|NCT02879305|183501489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.02|0.81|0.0540
91813139|NCT02879305|183501490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.7658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.45|0.84|0.7658
91813140|NCT02879305|183501491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.02|0.69|0.0425
91813141|NCT02879305|183501492|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21||||||||0.21|0.03|
91813142|NCT02879305|183501493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|3.5||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for dialysis type, and region was used to compare the number of responders between the treatment groups.|||7.1|-0.1|0.0367
91813143|NCT02879305|183501494|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.86|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-rhEPO) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||3.86|0.00|
91813144|NCT02879305|183501495|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.52||||0.0805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.54|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.54|0.49|0.0805
91813145|NCT02879305|183501496|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.05|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-rhEPO) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||4.05|0.28|
91813146|NCT02879305|183501497|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.53||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.55|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.55|0.50|0.0139
91813147|NCT02879305|183501498|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.94|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in means between arms.|||1.94|-1.28|0.6551
91813148|NCT02879305|183501498|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.1586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.44|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in means between arms.|||0.44|-1.36|0.1586
91813149|NCT02879305|183501498|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.3646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.84|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in means between arms.|||0.84|-1.20|0.3646
91813150|NCT02879305|183501499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.54|||ANCOVA||For SBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, dialysis type, region and Baseline value.|||1.54|-1.54|0.5012
91813151|NCT02879305|183501499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.31|||ANCOVA||For DBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, dialysis type, region and Baseline value.|||1.31|-0.42|0.8451
91813152|NCT02879305|183501499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.7312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.28|||ANCOVA||For MAP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, dialysis type, region and Baseline value.|||1.28|-0.67|0.7312
91813153|NCT02879305|183501500|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of exacerbation rate|1.0||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of model estimated exacerbation rates and CIs were estimated using a negative binomial model for the treatment group comparison.|||1.11|0.91|0.5290
91813154|NCT02879305|183501502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.52|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group, dialysis type and region.|||1.52|0.71|0.5772
91813155|NCT02879305|183501503|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.29||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.86|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.86|-0.29|0.1620
91813156|NCT02879305|183501503|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.61||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.18|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.18|0.04|0.0180
91813157|NCT02879305|183501503|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.97|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.97|-0.31|0.1530
91940244|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.864
91940245|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.997
91940246|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.682
91940247|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||0.798
91940248|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||0.730
91940249|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||1.000
91940250|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||1.000
91813158|NCT02879305|183501503|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.22|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.22|-0.17|0.0686
91813159|NCT02879305|183501504|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.6807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.54|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.54|-0.88|0.6807
91940251|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.464
91940252|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.634
91940253|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.254
91813160|NCT02879305|183501504|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.17||||0.3256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.91|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.91|-0.57|0.3256
91813161|NCT02879305|183501504|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.5144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.78|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.78|-0.81|0.5144
91940254|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.034
91940255|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.765
91940256|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.434
91940257|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.184
91940258|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.142
91940259|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.955
91940260|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.985
91813162|NCT02879305|183501504|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.27|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.27|-1.47|0.9120
91813163|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.5|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.50|-0.99|0.7432
91813164|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.33|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.33|-0.16|0.0631
91813165|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.87|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.87|-0.79|0.4604
91813166|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.15|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.15|-0.60|0.2688
91940261|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.923
91940262|NCT00937326|183776525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.883
91813167|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.84|||MMRM||General health,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.84|-0.32|0.1918
91940263|NCT00937326|183776526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.118
91813168|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.04|||MMRM||General health,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.04|-0.14|0.0677
91940264|NCT00937326|183776526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.119
91940265|NCT00937326|183776526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.293
91940266|NCT00937326|183776526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.966
91940267|NCT00937326|183776527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.940
91940268|NCT00937326|183776527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.197
91813169|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.32|||MMRM||General health,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.32|-0.98|0.8386
91940269|NCT00937326|183776527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.097
91940270|NCT00937326|183776527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.404
91940271|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.2060
91940272|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.1790
91940273|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2741||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.2741
91940274|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6001||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.6001
91940275|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6711||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.6711
91940276|NCT00937326|183776528|OTHER|||||||0.1361||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.1361
91940277|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3369||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.3369
91940278|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0975||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.0975
91813170|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.41|||MMRM||General health,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.41|-0.99|0.7928
91940279|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2184||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.2184
91940280|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.1013
91940281|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3286||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.3286
91940282|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5193||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.5193
91940283|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9788||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.9788
91940284|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1214||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.1214
91940285|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5751||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.5751
91940286|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2409||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.2409
91940287|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4829||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.4829
91940288|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7563||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.7563
91940289|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2907||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.2907
91940290|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7663||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.7663
91940291|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5825||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI||||0.5825
91940292|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.3220
91940293|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0564||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.0564
91940294|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.1960
91940295|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5997||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.5997
91940296|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9637||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.9637
91940297|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.3240
91940298|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.8440
91940299|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6483||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.6483
91940300|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6452||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.6452
91940301|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.1253
91940302|NCT00937326|183776528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2583||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.2583
91940303|NCT00937326|183776529|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||1.000
91940304|NCT00937326|183776529|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||1.000
91813171|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.71|||MMRM||Mental health,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.71|-0.63|0.4537
91813172|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.65|||MMRM||Mental health,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.65|-0.74|0.5548
91940305|NCT00937326|183776529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||0.901
91940306|NCT00937326|183776529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||0.155
91940307|NCT00937326|183776529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.845
91940308|NCT00937326|183776529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.164
91940309|NCT00937326|183776529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.699
91940310|NCT00937326|183776529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.313
91940311|NCT00937326|183776530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.896
91813173|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.3626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.88|||MMRM||Mental health,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.88|-0.61|0.3626
91940312|NCT00937326|183776530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.080
91940313|NCT00937326|183776530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.792
91940314|NCT00937326|183776530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.645
91940315|NCT00937326|183776531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.992
91940316|NCT00937326|183776531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.999
91940317|NCT00937326|183776531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.548
91940318|NCT00937326|183776531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.989
91940319|NCT00937326|183776531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.877
91940320|NCT00937326|183776531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.887
91940321|NCT00937326|183776531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.916
91940322|NCT00937326|183776531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.860
91940323|NCT00937326|183776532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.996
91940324|NCT00937326|183776532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.989
91940325|NCT00937326|183776532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.999
91940326|NCT00937326|183776532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.763
91940327|NCT00937326|183776533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.810
91940328|NCT00937326|183776533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.753
91940329|NCT00937326|183776533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.404
91940330|NCT00937326|183776533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.671
91940331|NCT00937326|183776533|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||1.000
91940332|NCT00937326|183776533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.622
91940333|NCT00937326|183776533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.332
91940334|NCT00937326|183776533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.998
91940335|NCT00937326|183776534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.994
91940336|NCT00937326|183776534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.979
91940337|NCT00937326|183776534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.993
91813174|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81||||0.9721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.02|||MMRM||Mental health,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.02|-1.64|0.9721
91813175|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.78|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.78|-0.96|0.5789
91940338|NCT00937326|183776534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.999
91940339|NCT03250624|183776592|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.89|||ANCOVA|||||0.89|-1.46|0.632
91940340|NCT00106249|183776599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91813176|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.24|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.24|-0.51|0.2054
91940341|NCT00106249|183776600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91940342|NCT00927576|183776633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis of the results showed a 95% chance of finding a p\<0.05 difference in 166 subjects and a 99% chance of finding a p \<0.05 difference in 230 subjects in comparison of Group 1 controls and sTBI patients.|Difference in z-score, sTBI vs. controls|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|for repeated measures with effect sizes (omega squared).||The null hypotheses was that the severe TBI group would not differ from the control group in SRT latencies.||||< 0.001
91940343|NCT00927576|183776633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis of controls (i.e., with z-score = 0) showed a 95% chance of detecting a p \< 0.05 significance level for z-scores exceeding 0.54 in the mild TBI patient group..|z-score difference between groups|-0.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value reflects the likelihood of detection a difference of the magnitude observed.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the mild TBI group would not differ in age-corrected z-score from that of a control subjects in the large control group.||||.50
91940344|NCT01819506|183776646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.912
91940345|NCT02420990|183776649|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91940346|NCT02420990|183776649|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91940347|NCT02420990|183776649|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||0.05
91940348|NCT02420990|183776649|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||0.05
91813177|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.89|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.89|-0.98|0.5389
91813178|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.4289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.09|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.09|-0.91|0.4289
91813179|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08||||0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.75|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.75|-0.60|0.4096
91940349|NCT02420990|183776649|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||0.05
91940350|NCT02420990|183776650|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91940351|NCT02420990|183776650|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91940352|NCT02420990|183776650|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91940353|NCT02420990|183776650|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91813180|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4||||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.07|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||1.07|-0.27|0.1196
91940354|NCT02420990|183776650|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91940355|NCT02420990|183776651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
91940356|NCT01150760|183776659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0007
91940357|NCT01150760|183776660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91940358|NCT01150760|183776661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91940359|NCT01150760|183776662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.1022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1022
91940360|NCT01150760|183776663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91940361|NCT01150760|183776664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
91813181|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.2093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.01|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||1.01|-0.42|0.2093
91813182|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.1674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.19|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||1.19|-0.40|0.1674
91940362|NCT01150760|183776665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
91940363|NCT01150760|183776666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0030
91940364|NCT01150760|183776667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.7637|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7637
91940365|NCT01150760|183776668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.0402|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0402
91940366|NCT01150760|183776669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0755|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0755
91940367|NCT01150760|183776670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.0532|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0532
91940368|NCT01150760|183776671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91940369|NCT01150760|183776672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
91940370|NCT01963780|183776682|SUPERIORITY|Performance goal is 65%.|Proportion|0.544||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.657|||one-sided exact binomial test|||||0.657|0.428|0.9663
91940371|NCT01963780|183776683|OTHER|No statistical hypothesis testing|Proportion|0.167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.268||||||||0.268|0.092|
91940372|NCT01963780|183776684|OTHER|No statistical hypothesis testing|Proportion|0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.143||||||||0.143|0.021|
91940373|NCT01963780|183776685|OTHER|No statistical hypothesis testing|Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||||||||0.4|0.1|
91940374|NCT01975675|183776688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment-naive noncirrhotic participants in the LDV/SOF (treatment naive) group were compared to the adjusted historical SVR null rate of 63% using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||< 0.001
91940375|NCT01975675|183776688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment-naive noncirrhotic participants in the LDV/SOF+RBV (treatment naive) group were compared to the adjusted historical SVR null rate of 63% using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||< 0.001
91940376|NCT01975675|183776689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.0|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions is based on the exact method (standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests).|||1.0|-10.2|
91940377|NCT01975675|183776689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.2|||||The 95% CI on the difference in proportions is based on the exact method (standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests).|||4.2|-4.2|
91940378|NCT01015820|183776715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance p ≤ 0.05||||0.001
91940379|NCT01015820|183776716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance p ≤ 0.05||||0.03
91940380|NCT01998399|183776717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total enrollment only 25 patients and the study was terminated early due to low enrollment. No further statistical analysis was done.||||0.41
91940381|NCT01711658|183776733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.46|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.1803|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|Hazard ratio (lapatinib/placebo) set at 0.65 (35% reduction), 1-sided alpha 0.20 (final test at 0.1803 accounting for 1 interim analysis), logrank test, 80% power, 69 events in 128 randomized (142 total enrolled) patients required. Final analysis at 67 (of 69) events drops power to 79%.||1.46|0.56|0.3436
91940382|NCT01711658|183776734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.86|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|||1.86|0.61|0.5836
91940383|NCT01711658|183776735|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.65|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|||1.65|0.25|0.1743
91940384|NCT01711658|183776736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7989|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.7989
91940385|NCT01711658|183776737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3728||||||IMRT|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.3728
91940386|NCT01711658|183776737|OTHER|||||||0.7781||||||Cisplatin|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.7781
91940387|NCT01711658|183776737|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||Pre-IMRT lapatinib/placebo|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.8000
91940388|NCT01711658|183776737|OTHER|||||||0.6459||||||Concurrent lapatinib/placebo|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.6459
91940389|NCT01711658|183776737|OTHER|||||||0.4792||||||Maintenance lapatinib/placebo|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.4792
91813183|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.54|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.54|-0.82|0.6585
91940390|NCT01711658|183776738|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.17|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|||2.17|0.62|0.6735
91940391|NCT01459068|183776770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We estimated 150 participants in each arm using the test for paired means, based on a moderate effect size (0.50), 80% power, two-tailed 5% significance level, design effect of 1.5, and up to a 50% expected drop-out rate (due to frequent cross-border movement).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|longitudinal model|longitudinal to model within-person change in mean scores||||-0.40|-0.59|<0.001
91940392|NCT01459068|183776771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|power calculations were not done for secondary outcomes|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.28|||longitudinal model|||||-0.28|-0.59|<0.001
91940393|NCT01459068|183776772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We estimated 150 participants in each arm using the test for paired means, based on a moderate effect size (0.50), 80% power, two-tailed 5% significance level, design effect of 1.5, and up to a 50% expected drop-out rate (due to frequent cross-border movement).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.35||a priori threshold for significance set at 0.05|longitudinal model|longitudinal analysis modeling within-person change in mean scores||||-0.35|-0.51|<0.001
91940394|NCT01459068|183776773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|no power calculations on secondary outcomes|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.34|||longitudinal model|||||-0.34|-0.61|<0.001
91940395|NCT01459068|183776774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|no power calculations for secondary measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.15|||longitudinal model|||||-0.15|-0.34|<0.001
91940396|NCT01459068|183776775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|no power calculations for secondary measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.5|||longitudinal model|||||0.50|-0.44|0.896
91940397|NCT02023112|183776776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of participants with SVR12|91.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.1|96.6|||||Tested using the following hierarchical order: among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants 1) superiority of 16-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold; 2) superiority of 12-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.|"Among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants, superiority of the 16-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.~Lower bound of 95% confidence interval (LCB) must have exceeded 67% to achieve superiority. Threshold indicates value the LCB had to exceed to demonstrate superiority for the treatment arm and was based on the SVR rates with pegylated-interferon (IFN) alfa-2a or 2b/RBV in treatment-naïve, noncirrhotic HCV genotype 2-infected participants."||96.6|80.1|
91940398|NCT02023112|183776776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of participants with SVR12|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|85.1|||||Tested using the following hierarchical order: among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants 1) superiority of 16-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold; 2) superiority of 12-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.|"Among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants, superiority of the 12-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.~LCB must have exceeded 67% to achieve superiority. Threshold indicates value the LCB had to exceed to demonstrate superiority for the treatment arm and was based on the SVR rates with pegylated-IFN alfa-2a or 2b/RBV in treatment-naïve, noncirrhotic HCV genotype 2-infected participants."||85.1|61.2|
91940399|NCT01068717|183776814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric least squares (LS) mean|109.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.67|116.85||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||116.85|102.67|
91940400|NCT01068717|183776814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|100.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.7|117.56||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||117.56|85.70|
91940401|NCT01068717|183776815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.29|107.41||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states||107.41|91.29|
91940402|NCT01068717|183776815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|100.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.86|103.67||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||103.67|96.86|
91940403|NCT01068717|183776817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|102.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.96|106.91||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||106.91|97.96|
91940404|NCT01068717|183776817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|99.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.61|103.05||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||103.05|96.61|
91813184|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.69||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.4|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.40|-0.03|0.0293
91813185|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.11|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.11|-0.45|0.2057
91813186|NCT02879305|183501505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.4849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.9|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.90|-0.86|0.4849
91813187|NCT02879305|183501506|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.4621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.64|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.64|-0.58|0.4621
91813188|NCT02879305|183501506|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.35||||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.98|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.98|-0.29|0.1439
91940405|NCT01068717|183776822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|102.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.96|106.91||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||106.91|97.96|
91940406|NCT01068717|183776822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|101.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|107.88||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||107.88|96.10|
91940407|NCT01068717|183776823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio (%) of geometric LS mean|102.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.31|107.16||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||107.16|98.31|
91940408|NCT01068717|183776823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio (%) of geometric LS mean|99.22||||||90.0|96.48|102.04||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||102.04|96.48|
91940409|NCT01068717|183776824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|99.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.9|105.59||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||105.59|92.90|
91940410|NCT01068717|183776824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|102.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.82|109.09||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||109.09|96.82|
91940411|NCT01449955|183776842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the results of change over time (e.g., comparing baseline to 1 month posttreatment) as well as comparing differences between condition (e.g., placebo compared to rapamycin).||||>0.05
91940412|NCT01449955|183776843|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||> 0.5
91940413|NCT01449955|183776844|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
91940414|NCT01449955|183776845|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
91940415|NCT01449955|183776846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< .05
91940416|NCT01449955|183776847|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
91940417|NCT01176240|183776864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHQ composite score as a co-variate.||Study 306A was initially designed as a blinded interim analysis by an independent DMC to ensure that the overall study was adequately powered. Study 306A was not powered to provide statistical significance as a stand alone study. Thus, no additional efficacy end points were prospectively defined beyond the primary end point.||||0.978
91940418|NCT01176240|183776865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||0.018
91940419|NCT01176240|183776867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors. As the first secondary endpoint was not positive, statistical analysis was not performed on additional secondary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||0.60
91940420|NCT01176240|183776873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHQ composite score as a co-variate.||||||0.238
91940421|NCT00771173|183776874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The independent samples t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that the mean VAS score for the active treatment cohort (i.e., those receiving pyridium) was no different than the mean VAS score for those receiving placebo.||||.745
91940422|NCT00807014|183776875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with terms for baseline value, treatment, and center. Treatment-by-center interaction was not included.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91940423|NCT00948428|183776930|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval around the difference between the Generic Imiquimod and Aldara Complete Clearance rates in the PP population were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, and each of these rates was greater than, and statistically different (p\<0.05) from, the Vehicle rate in the ITT population, then Generic Imiquimod and Aldara were considered to be therapeutically equivalent|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.84|9.15||||||||9.15|-10.84|
91940424|NCT00948428|183776930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Based on Intent-to-Treat Population||||0.0001
91940425|NCT00948428|183776931|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval around the difference between the Generic Imiquimod and Aldara Partial Clearance rates in the PP population were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, then Generic Imiquimod and Aldara were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.11|5.95||||||||5.95|-12.11|
91940426|NCT00948428|183776932|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval around the difference between the Generic Imiquimod and Aldara Complete Clearance rates in the ITT population were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, then Generic Imiquimod and Aldara were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.92|8.88||||||||8.88|-9.92|
91940427|NCT02037204|183776938|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences in clinical outcome between baseline and 3, and 18 months after surgery.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences in clinical outcome between baseline and 3, and 18 months after surgery.||||<0.05
91940428|NCT05516134|183776959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. treatment, paired sample t-test||||<0.01
91940429|NCT05516134|183776960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
91940430|NCT05516134|183776961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
91940431|NCT05516134|183776962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
91940432|NCT05516134|183776963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
91940433|NCT05516134|183776964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.11
91940434|NCT05516134|183776965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
91940435|NCT05516134|183776966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91940436|NCT00420342|183777001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1182||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5 mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.1182
91940437|NCT00420342|183777001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2224||95.0||||2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.2224
91940438|NCT00420342|183777001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6929||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.6929
91940439|NCT00420342|183777002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0702||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5 mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.0702
91813189|NCT02879305|183501506|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.24||||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.92|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.92|-0.43|0.2392
91940440|NCT00420342|183777002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.1980
91940441|NCT00420342|183777002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5777||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.5777
91940442|NCT03053401|183777013|OTHER|Test of difference was conducted.||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
91940443|NCT03053401|183777014|OTHER|||||||0.762||||||Alpha = 0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.762
91940444|NCT03053401|183777014|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Alpha = 0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test with Exact Option|||||||0.410
91940445|NCT03053401|183777015|OTHER|Test of Difference conducted.||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.454
91940446|NCT00407550|183777065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.015
91940447|NCT00407550|183777066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.56
91940448|NCT01444898|183777068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.07
91813190|NCT02879305|183501506|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.60|-0.90|0.6545
91940449|NCT01444898|183777069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91940450|NCT01444898|183777070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.8
91813191|NCT02879305|183501507|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.64||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.31|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.31|-0.02|0.0290
91813192|NCT02879305|183501507|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.24|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.24|-0.11|0.0509
91813193|NCT02879305|183501507|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.77||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.53|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.53|0.01|0.0237
91940451|NCT01444898|183777071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
91940452|NCT01444898|183777072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.8
91940453|NCT01444898|183777073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.2
91940454|NCT01444898|183777074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.2
91940455|NCT01444898|183777075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
91940456|NCT01444898|183777076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
91940457|NCT01599806|183777078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Difference of symp resolution rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|10.42|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of symptomatic resolution rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||10.42|-2.39|
91940458|NCT01599806|183777079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable combined resp rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.12|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable combined response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||13.12|0.30|
91940459|NCT01599806|183777080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable response rates|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|12.36|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||12.36|0.33|
91940460|NCT01599806|183777081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||3.56|-2.70|
91940461|NCT01599806|183777082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|13.81|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.81|0.68|
91940462|NCT01599806|183777083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.72|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.72|-1.21|
91940463|NCT01599806|183777084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|15.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||15.24|2.27|
91940464|NCT01599806|183777085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|18.85|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||18.85|2.86|
91940465|NCT01599806|183777086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.68|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.68|-1.17|
91940466|NCT01599806|183777087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|13.74|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.74|0.88|
91940467|NCT01599806|183777088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|17.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||17.55|1.72|
91940468|NCT01599806|183777089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.02|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.02|-4.07|
91940469|NCT01599806|183777090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.03|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.03|-4.23|
91940470|NCT01599806|183777091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|6.3|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.30|-3.71|
91940471|NCT01599806|183777092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.55|-3.64|
91940472|NCT01599806|183777093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.56|-2.03|
91940473|NCT01599806|183777094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.24|-2.90|
91940474|NCT01599806|183777095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.04|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.04|-4.30|
91940475|NCT01599806|183777096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|4.32|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.32|-2.07|
91940476|NCT01599806|183777097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|6.91|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.91|-2.94|
91813194|NCT02879305|183501507|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.39|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.39|-0.24|0.0828
91940477|NCT01599806|183777098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.61|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.61|-1.99|
91940478|NCT01599806|183777099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|7.16|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.16|0.41|
91940479|NCT01599806|183777100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.05|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||9.05|-1.00|
91813195|NCT02879305|183501508|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0003||||0.4939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0326|0.0331|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0331|-0.0326|0.4939
91940480|NCT01599806|183777101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.1|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.1|-10.4|
91940481|NCT01599806|183777102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|10.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.2|-7.8|
91940482|NCT01599806|183777103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||9.2|-7.5|
91940483|NCT01599806|183777104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|16.89|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||16.89|-13.18|
91940484|NCT01599806|183777105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|25.21|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||25.21|-10.03|
91940485|NCT01599806|183777106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|24.01|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||24.01|-9.91|
91940486|NCT01599806|183777107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.038
91940487|NCT01599806|183777108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.129
91940488|NCT01599806|183777109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.080
91940489|NCT01599806|183777110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.155
91940490|NCT00563368|183777152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.831||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.39||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.39|1.13|0.0009
91940491|NCT00563368|183777152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|4.77||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.77|1.53|0.0001
91940492|NCT00563368|183777152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.12||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||9.12|5.86|<0.0001
91940493|NCT00563368|183777152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.832|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|4.96||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.96|1.69|<0.0001
91940494|NCT00563368|183777152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.63||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.63|1.38|0.0003
91940495|NCT00563368|183777152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.831|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|8.38||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||8.38|5.11|<0.0001
91813196|NCT02879305|183501509|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.6|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.6|-4.2|0.9292
91813197|NCT02879305|183501510|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.01|-0.13|0.0428
91813198|NCT02879305|183501510|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.11|0.1155
91813199|NCT02879305|183501510|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.12|0.1426
91813200|NCT02879305|183501510|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.13|0.1152
91813201|NCT00613938|183501515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.9|<|0.001||95.0|39.01|85.73||Comparisons of tapentadol dose groups and placebo was performed with Hochberg procedure for adjustment for the multiple tests.|ANCOVA||The results shown are the treatment group differences between Tapentadol IR 50mg group and placebo.|Null hypothesis: There are no differences in pain intensity measured by SPID-48 hours between any of tapentadol dose groups and placebo. ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, center and baseline pain intensity score was used for the primary analysis.||85.73|39.01|<0.001
91940496|NCT00563368|183777153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5832||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|3.563||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.563|1.154|0.0140
91940497|NCT00563368|183777153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6418||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.283|3.932||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.932|1.283|0.0046
91940498|NCT00563368|183777153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.644|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.424|20.81||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||20.81|5.424|<0.0001
91940499|NCT00563368|183777153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7391||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.514||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.514|1.460|0.0011
91940500|NCT00563368|183777153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6158||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|3.781||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.781|1.241|0.0066
91940501|NCT00563368|183777153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0857|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|17.66||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||17.66|4.650|<0.0001
91940502|NCT03326583|183777178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.05
91940503|NCT03326583|183777179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91940504|NCT03326583|183777180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91940505|NCT03326583|183777181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91813202|NCT00312494|183501539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1077||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons. Dunnet's procedure for multiple dose comparisons to placebo was used for primary efficacy measure at Week 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||N=135/arm (405 total) for 85% power for 2-sample t-test (2-sided alpha=0.05) based on true mean difference=3.5 and SD=10. Interim Analysis (IA) to validate sample-size assumptions and adjust sample-size if needed. Based on IA results total sample-size increased to N=223/arm (669 total) to maintain desired power. Null Hypothesis=No statistically significant difference between add-on ziprasidone (higher, lower dose) and add-on placebo groups with respect to the population mean for primary endpoint||||0.1077
91813203|NCT00312494|183501539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4274||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons. Dunnet's procedure for multiple dose comparisons to placebo was used for primary efficacy measure at Week 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score. Tests were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.4274
91813204|NCT00312494|183501540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4025||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.4025
91813205|NCT00312494|183501540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.283||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.2830
91813206|NCT00312494|183501540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4125||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.4125
91940506|NCT01784614|183777192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.96||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 0.1 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||1.65|0.56|0.908
91940507|NCT01784614|183777192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.67||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 1.0 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||0.98|0.45|0.083
91940508|NCT01784614|183777192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.53||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 3.0 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||0.78|0.36|0.010
91940509|NCT01784614|183777192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 6.0 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||0.51|0.18|<0.001
91940510|NCT03168555|183777199|EQUIVALENCE|compares visit 1 with visit 2||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91940511|NCT03168555|183777201|EQUIVALENCE|compares visit 1 with visit 2||||||0.63|||||||paired t-test|lognormalized values||compares visit 1 with visit 2||||0.63
91940512|NCT03168555|183777202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91940513|NCT03168555|183777203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91940514|NCT03168555|183777204|OTHER|Spearman correlation||||||0.41|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.41
91940515|NCT03168555|183777205|OTHER|Spearman correlation||||||0.35|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.35
91940516|NCT03168555|183777205|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.03
91940517|NCT03168555|183777206|EQUIVALENCE|comparing visit 1 with visit 2||||||0.36|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.36
91940518|NCT03168555|183777207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.29
91940519|NCT03168555|183777208|OTHER|Spearman correlation||||||0.73|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.73
91940520|NCT03168555|183777208|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.77
91940521|NCT03168555|183777209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
91940522|NCT01235507|183777229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91940523|NCT01235507|183777229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91940524|NCT01235507|183777229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91940525|NCT01235507|183777231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91940526|NCT01235507|183777231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91940527|NCT01235507|183777231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91940528|NCT01235507|183777232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91940529|NCT01235507|183777232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91940530|NCT01235507|183777232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91940531|NCT01235507|183777233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91940532|NCT01235507|183777233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91940533|NCT01235507|183777233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91940534|NCT01235507|183777234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91940535|NCT01235507|183777234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91940536|NCT01235507|183777234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91813207|NCT00312494|183501540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1527||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.1527
91813208|NCT00312494|183501541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0101||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0101
91813209|NCT00312494|183501541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0694||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0694
91813210|NCT00312494|183501541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0183||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0183
91813211|NCT00312494|183501541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0176||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0176
91940537|NCT01235507|183777235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91940538|NCT01235507|183777235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91940539|NCT01235507|183777235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91940540|NCT01235507|183777236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91940541|NCT01235507|183777236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91940542|NCT01235507|183777236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91940543|NCT02738580|183777245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The proportion of patients with elevated Progesterone on last day of stimulation(\>1.5 ng/mL) was compared between both groups using the Chi-square test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91940544|NCT02738580|183777246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.49|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.49
91940545|NCT00583661|183777247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size determination: A sample of 24 subjects followed for approximately 100 days provides greater than 80% power to conclude that, with a 1-sided alpha=0.025 test, the SAE rate of the EXCOR (assumed to be 0.21 per patient-day) is less than 0.25 per patient-day. This sample size was estimated using 10,000 simulations of this study. A total enrollment of 48 subjects (24 per cohort) were enrolled and implanted with the EXCOR® Pediatric.|Poisson confidence interval|0.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.25||A Poisson exact confidence interval was calculated and the critical-value method was used for the significance testing. Success was defined as the upper bound of the 95% Poisson exact confidence interval being less than 0.25.|Poisson confidence interval|||Ho: EXCOR® SAE Rate \>=0.25 Ha: EXCOR® SAE Rate \< 0.25 Where serious adverse event (SAE) rate is calculated as the total number of serious adverse events divided by the sum of days all patients are on the EXCOR® Pediatric device, and 0.25 serious adverse events per patient-day is the success criterion. Study success in terms of safety will be demonstrated by the upper bound of a two-sided 95% Poisson exact confidence interval being less than 0.25.||0.25|0|<0.05
91940546|NCT01324687|183777249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.8387||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7261|0.9689|||GEE / Poisson regression models|||Rate ratio of ED use rate of the intervention group as compared to the control group.||0.9689|0.7261|0.017
91940547|NCT00701441|183777276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||For comparing pre versus post, paired t tests were used. We considered tests in the hypothesized direction conclusive|t-test, 2 sided|For each comparison, we tested at the 0.05 level with double-sided P values. We used no correction for multiple testing when declaring significance.||Flow mediated dilation = \[(average maximum dilation post cuff deflation - average baseline diameter)/ average baseline diameter\]100||||0.02
91940548|NCT00701441|183777277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||We only consider tests in the hypothesized direction conclusive, so testing is conservative from that perspective. However, we used no correction for multiple testing when declaring significance|t-test, 2 sided|||For comparing pre- versus post-treatment, paired t tests were used. For each variable and comparison, we tested at the 0.05 level with double-sided P values.||||0.02
91940549|NCT02690168|183777282|OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0053
91940550|NCT02690168|183777283|OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.477
91940551|NCT02690168|183777284|OTHER|||||||0.917|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.917
91940552|NCT02690168|183777286|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91940553|NCT02758119|183777293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91940554|NCT04209400|183777296|NON_INFERIORITY|P \< 0.05 is considered a statistically significant difference in seroconversion between the two groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that the vaccines equally affect the achievement of seroconversion level.||||1
91940555|NCT01496274|183777304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value is based on a Wilcoxon signed-rank test of H0: AsBR ratio (prophylaxis regimen/on-demand regimen) ≥ 0.50. The ratio was based on the original scale.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A test of null hypothesis that the ratio of AsBR (prophylaxis regimen/on-demand regimen) was ≥ 0.50 was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 level. Matched pairs design with 19 subjects and 2 observations per subject.||||<0.0001
91940556|NCT03296787|183777391|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.7265|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7265
91940557|NCT03296787|183777391|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.9839|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9839
91940558|NCT03296787|183777391|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of Cmax (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.9393|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9393
91940559|NCT03296787|183777391|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of Cmax (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.1321|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1321
91940560|NCT03296787|183777392|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC(0-72) (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3600
91940561|NCT03296787|183777392|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC(0-72) (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0816|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0816
91940562|NCT03296787|183777392|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC(0-72) (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.2686|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2686
91940563|NCT03296787|183777392|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC(0-72) (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0059
91813212|NCT00312494|183501541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2302||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.2302
91940564|NCT03296787|183777393|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0998|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0998
91813213|NCT00312494|183501541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0796||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0796
91813214|NCT00312494|183501542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6191||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.6191
91813215|NCT00312494|183501542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5629||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.5629
91813216|NCT00312494|183501542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9049||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.9049
91940565|NCT03296787|183777393|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0155|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0155
91940566|NCT03296787|183777393|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUClast (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0916|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0916
91940567|NCT03296787|183777393|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUClast (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0014|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0014
91940568|NCT03296787|183777394|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC∞ (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0038
91940569|NCT03296787|183777394|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC∞ (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
91940570|NCT03296787|183777394|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC∞ (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0389|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0389
91940571|NCT03296787|183777394|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC∞ (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0011
91940572|NCT02823080|183777440|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91940573|NCT02823080|183777441|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91940574|NCT02823080|183777442|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91940575|NCT02823080|183777446|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91940576|NCT00676208|183777447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91940577|NCT00676208|183777448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91940578|NCT01379924|183777449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for group differences at baseline and variables associated with differential study retention.|Usual care arm is reference group|Multiple logistic regression modeling used to compute adjusted odds ratios for 12-month follow-up data.||.92|.07|.037
91940579|NCT01379924|183777450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.|Usual care arm is reference group.|||.86|.07|.029
91940580|NCT01379924|183777451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.|Usual care arm is the reference group|||.75|.06|.017
91940581|NCT01379924|183777452|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.217
91940582|NCT01379924|183777453|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.444
91940583|NCT01379924|183777454|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|9.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.011
91940584|NCT01379924|183777456|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.758
91940585|NCT01379924|183777457|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.024
91940586|NCT01379924|183777458|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up||||||.354
91940587|NCT01379924|183777459|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.121
91940588|NCT01379924|183777460|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.205
91940589|NCT01379924|183777461|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.803|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.803
91940590|NCT01379924|183777462|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.347
91940591|NCT01379924|183777463|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.591
91940592|NCT00617656|183777492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67|||Log Rank|||This is a futility analysis. The initial hypothesis of the clinical trial was that the experimental group as a whole was superior to the control group.||1.67|0.76|0.56
91813217|NCT00312494|183501542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7153||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.7153
91940593|NCT00617656|183777492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.51|||Log Rank|||||1.51|0.73|0.79
91940594|NCT00617656|183777492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.95|||Log Rank|||||2.95|1.38|0.0001
91940595|NCT00617656|183777493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.12|||Log Rank|||||2.12|1.13|0.006
91940596|NCT02579863|183777580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.33475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.45|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by Age (\<75 years vs \>= 75 years) and ISS stage (I or II vs. III).|||1.45|0.56|0.33475
91940597|NCT02579863|183777581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.83416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.84|||Stratified log-rank test||"Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by Age (\<75 years vs \>= 75 years) and ISS stage (I or II vs. III)."|||1.84|0.81|0.83416
91940598|NCT02579863|183777582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs SOC|5.8||||0.13102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|15.8|||One-sided p-value for testing|H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by 'Age' (\<75 years vs \>= 75 years) and 'ISS stage' (I or II vs. III); If there were no participants in one of the treatment groups involved in a comparison for a particular stratum, then that stratum was excluded from the treatment comparison.|15.8|-4.3|0.13102
91940599|NCT01224106|183777605|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.044||||0.6744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|-0.248|0.6744
91940600|NCT01224106|183777605|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.085||||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.135|-0.304|0.4494
91940601|NCT01224106|183777607|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.035||||0.7458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.250|-0.179|0.7458
91940602|NCT01224106|183777607|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.042||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.275|-0.191|0.723
91940603|NCT01224106|183777611|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.191||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.407|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.025|-0.407|0.0825
91940604|NCT01224106|183777611|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.043||||0.7171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.276|-0.19|0.7171
91940605|NCT01224106|183777614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9734|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the Abeta 1-42 CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 105 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.9734
91940606|NCT01224106|183777614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0629|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the Abeta 1-42 CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 225 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0629
91940607|NCT01224106|183777614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the p-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 105 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0084
91940608|NCT01224106|183777614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the p-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 225 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0003
91940609|NCT01224106|183777614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the t-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 105 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0903
91940610|NCT01224106|183777614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the t-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 225 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0434
91940611|NCT00446797|183777633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To conclude non inferiority, the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in change scores between the 2 treatment groups (nsNSAIDs - celecoxib) must be greater than -10 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||||95.0|-0.76|7.55|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed), and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Least squares mean||7.55|-0.76|
91940612|NCT00446797|183777634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||||95.0|-0.89|7.08|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed) and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||7.08|-0.89|
91813218|NCT00312494|183501542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.2420
91813219|NCT00312494|183501542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6121||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.6121
91940613|NCT00446797|183777634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||||95.0|-0.55|7.48|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed) and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||7.48|-0.55|
91813220|NCT00312494|183501543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6138||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.6138
91940614|NCT00446797|183777634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||||95.0|-0.91|6.42|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed) and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||6.42|-0.91|
91940615|NCT00446797|183777635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1591||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment and the baseline pain VAS score||Day 2||||0.1591
91940616|NCT00446797|183777635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3995||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment and the baseline pain VAS score||Day 3||||0.3995
91813221|NCT00312494|183501543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6536||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.6536
91940617|NCT00446797|183777635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6805||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment and the baseline pain VAS score||Day 7||||0.6805
91940618|NCT00446797|183777636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2411||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 2||||0.2411
91813222|NCT00312494|183501543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4758||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.4758
91940619|NCT00446797|183777636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1163||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 3||||0.1163
91940620|NCT00446797|183777636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 7||||0.0440
91940621|NCT00446797|183777637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7223||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 3||||0.7223
91940622|NCT00446797|183777637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0541||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 7||||0.0541
91940623|NCT00446797|183777638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 2||||0.2900
91940624|NCT00446797|183777638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0157||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 3||||0.0157
91940625|NCT00446797|183777638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1206||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 7||||0.1206
91940626|NCT00446797|183777639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0846||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 2||||0.0846
91940627|NCT00446797|183777639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3041||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 3||||0.3041
91940628|NCT00446797|183777639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1216||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 7||||0.1216
91940629|NCT00446797|183777640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.395||95.0|-0.33|0.62||Overall p-value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.62|-0.33|0.395
91813223|NCT00312494|183501543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7581||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.7581
91813224|NCT00312494|183501543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2221||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.2221
91813225|NCT00312494|183501543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5665||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.5665
91940630|NCT00446797|183777640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.004||95.0|0.18|1.04||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||1.04|0.18|0.004
91940631|NCT00446797|183777640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.122||95.0|-0.08|0.77||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.77|-0.08|0.122
91940632|NCT00446797|183777641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.604||95.0|-0.32|0.49||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.49|-0.32|0.604
91940633|NCT00446797|183777641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.124||95.0|-0.07|0.63||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.63|-0.07|0.124
91813226|NCT00312494|183501544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1063||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 total score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS total score.||||0.1063
91813227|NCT00312494|183501544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2499||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 total score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS total score.||||0.2499
91940634|NCT00446797|183777641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.062||95.0|0.03|0.61||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.61|0.03|0.062
91940635|NCT00446797|183777642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.705||95.0|-0.36|0.47||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.47|-0.36|0.705
91940636|NCT00446797|183777642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.064||95.0|-0.01|0.73||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.73|-0.01|0.064
91940637|NCT00446797|183777642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.074||95.0|-0.01|0.68||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.68|-0.01|0.074
91940638|NCT00446797|183777643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017||95.0|0.11|1.05||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||1.05|0.11|0.017
91940639|NCT00446797|183777643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.108||95.0|-0.05|0.74||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.74|-0.05|0.108
91940640|NCT00446797|183777643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.117||95.0|-0.01|0.66||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.66|-0.01|0.117
91940641|NCT00446797|183777644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.229||95.0|-0.17|0.6||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.60|-0.17|0.229
91940642|NCT00446797|183777644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.027||95.0|0.05|0.75||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.75|0.05|0.027
91940643|NCT00446797|183777644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.07||95.0|0.01|0.65||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.65|0.01|0.070
91940644|NCT00446797|183777645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.954||95.0|-0.64|0.53||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.53|-0.64|0.954
91940645|NCT00446797|183777645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.172||95.0|-0.19|1.02||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||1.02|-0.19|0.172
91940646|NCT00446797|183777645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.541||95.0|-0.3|0.62||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.62|-0.30|0.541
91940647|NCT00446797|183777646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.924||95.0|-0.75|0.58||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.58|-0.75|0.924
91940648|NCT00446797|183777646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.898||95.0|-0.62|0.51||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.51|-0.62|0.898
91940649|NCT00446797|183777646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.655||95.0|-0.33|0.6||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.60|-0.33|0.655
91940650|NCT00446797|183777647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.929||95.0|-0.59|0.62||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.62|-0.59|0.929
91940651|NCT00446797|183777647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.712||95.0|-0.5|0.71||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.71|-0.50|0.712
91940652|NCT00446797|183777647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.993||95.0|-0.44|0.51||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.51|-0.44|0.993
91813228|NCT00312494|183501544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0876||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 positive score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS positive score.||||0.0876
91813229|NCT00312494|183501544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3623||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 positive score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS positive score.||||0.3623
91940653|NCT00446797|183777648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.779||95.0|-0.53|0.75||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.75|-0.53|0.779
91940654|NCT00446797|183777648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.972||95.0|-0.69|0.65||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.65|-0.69|0.972
91940655|NCT00446797|183777648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.844||95.0|-0.47|0.61||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.61|-0.47|0.844
91940656|NCT00446797|183777649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.944||95.0|-0.63|0.6||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.60|-0.63|0.944
91940657|NCT00446797|183777649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.654||95.0|-0.62|0.38||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.38|-0.62|0.654
91940658|NCT00446797|183777649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.952||95.0|-0.36|0.39||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.39|-0.36|0.952
91940659|NCT00446797|183777650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.842||95.0|-0.65|0.59||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.59|-0.65|0.842
91940660|NCT00446797|183777650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.828||95.0|-0.57|0.49||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.49|-0.57|0.828
91940661|NCT00446797|183777650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.542||95.0|-0.3|0.53||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.53|-0.30|0.542
91940662|NCT00446797|183777651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.404||95.0|-0.92|0.42||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.42|-0.92|0.404
91940663|NCT00446797|183777651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.816||95.0|-0.53|0.58||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.58|-0.53|0.816
91940664|NCT00446797|183777651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.837||95.0|-0.37|0.52||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.52|-0.37|0.837
91940665|NCT00446797|183777652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.887||95.0|-0.54|0.45||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.45|-0.54|0.887
91940666|NCT00446797|183777652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.889||95.0|-0.43|0.51||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.51|-0.43|0.889
91940667|NCT00446797|183777652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.738||95.0|-0.3|0.47||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.47|-0.30|0.738
91940668|NCT02580591|183777654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.46|-0.11|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.11|-0.46|<0.0001
91940669|NCT02580591|183777654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|-0.3|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.30|-0.60|<0.0001
91940670|NCT02580591|183777654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.37|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.37|-0.68|<0.0001
91940671|NCT02580591|183777655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.14|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.14|-0.40|
91813230|NCT00312494|183501544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4686||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 negative score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS negative score.||||0.4686
91813231|NCT00312494|183501544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2202||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 negative score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS negative score.||||0.2202
91940672|NCT02580591|183777655|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.59|-0.28|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.28|-0.59|<0.0001
91940673|NCT02580591|183777655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|-0.35|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.35|-0.66|<0.0001
91940674|NCT02580591|183777656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.314|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.314|0.673|
91813232|NCT00312494|183501545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0728||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline GAF score.||||0.0728
91813233|NCT00312494|183501545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3174||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline GAF score.||||0.3174
91940675|NCT02580591|183777656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.202||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.818|1.766|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.766|0.818|0.2752
91940676|NCT02580591|183777656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.02||||0.9077|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.693|1.501|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.501|0.693|0.9077
91940677|NCT02580591|183777656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.274|||Negative binomial model|||For Week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.274|0.682|
91940678|NCT02580591|183777656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.258||||0.1438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.713||This is a nominal p-value.|Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.713|0.925|0.1438
91940679|NCT02580591|183777656|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.051||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.433||This is a nominal p-value.|Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.433|0.771|0.7543
91940680|NCT02580591|183777657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.2|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline weight, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-1.20|-2.32|
91940681|NCT02580591|183777657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.91|-2.18|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline weight, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-2.18|-3.91|<0.0001
91940682|NCT02580591|183777657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-4.3|-2.57|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline weight, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-2.57|-4.30|<0.0001
91813234|NCT00312494|183501546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.446||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline LIFE-RIFT total score.||||0.4460
91813235|NCT00312494|183501546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3253||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline LIFE-RIFT total score.||||0.3253
91813236|NCT01985581|183501565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.0||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-5.9|0.0392
91813237|NCT01985581|183501566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.6|||ANOVA|||||4.6|-4.0|0.894
91813238|NCT01985581|183501567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-3.2|||ANOVA|||||-3.2|-9.1|0.0001
91813239|NCT01985581|183501569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.8706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.7|||ANOVA|||||3.7|-3.2|0.8706
91813240|NCT02057198|183501572|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||||0.05|-0.34|0.52
91813241|NCT02057198|183501572|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.35||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||||0.35|-0.69|0.66
91813242|NCT02057198|183501573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||<0.001
91813243|NCT02057198|183501573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||0.01
91813244|NCT02057198|183501574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||0.99
91940683|NCT02580591|183777658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|-0.03|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.030|-0.069|
91940684|NCT02580591|183777658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.101|-0.039|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.039|-0.101|<0.0001
91813245|NCT02057198|183501574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||0.52
91813246|NCT02057198|183501575|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.43||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models. Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.||-0.19|-0.67|0.05
91813247|NCT02057198|183501575|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models. Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.||-0.57|-1.14|0.002
91813248|NCT02057198|183501577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi square (two proportion test)|||||||0.48
91813249|NCT02057198|183501577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi square (two proportion test)|||||||0.66
91813250|NCT03878745|183501579|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> 0, we can conclude in superiority.|Overall Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.35||||||||0.35|0.07|
91813251|NCT03878745|183501580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6||||||||1.6|-1.6|
91940685|NCT02580591|183777658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.122|-0.06|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.060|-0.122|<0.0001
91813252|NCT03878745|183501581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.1||||||||0.1|-3.6|
91813253|NCT03878745|183501582|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Terumo PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.026||<0.001
91813254|NCT03878745|183501583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.2||||||||1.2|-1.2|
91813255|NCT00065507|183501585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.18|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline HBV DNA and LVDr status.||||-1.18|-2.30|<0.0001
91813256|NCT00065507|183501586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.96|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline HBV DNA and LVDr Status||||-0.96|-1.85|<0.0001
91813257|NCT00065507|183501587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|32.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|45.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.2|20.2|<0.0001
91813258|NCT00065507|183501588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean percent treatment difference|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|50.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.3|24.8|<0.0001
91813259|NCT00065507|183501589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent treatment difference|19.2||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24 treatment difference||34.6|3.7|0.0193
91813260|NCT00065507|183501589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent treatment difference|16.4||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 treatment difference||32.0|0.9|0.0425
91813261|NCT00065507|183501595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.82|||Regression, Linear|Model estimate incorporates prognostic factors measured at baseline. Adjusted for baseline||Covariate adjusted model for MELD score at Week 24||0.82|-1.63|0.51
91813262|NCT00065507|183501595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.88|||Regression, Linear|Model estimate incorporates prognostic factors measured at baseline. Adjusted for baseline||Covariate adjusted model for MELD score at Week 48||1.88|-1.08|<0.0001
91813263|NCT00065507|183501603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|25.2||||||Difference estimate ETV - ADV at Week 48||25.2|-4.5|
91940686|NCT02580591|183777659|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.2|||Mixed effect Model Repeat MeasurementMix||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.2|-3.9|
91940687|NCT02580591|183777659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-6.8|-1.1|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, , treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-1.1|-6.8|<0.0001
91940688|NCT02580591|183777659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-6.6|-0.9|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.9|-6.6|<0.0001
91940689|NCT02580591|183777659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model includes baseline DBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.9|-1.5|
91813264|NCT00065507|183501604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|8.0||||||Difference Estimate at Week 48||8.0|-8.7|
91813265|NCT00065507|183501605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|6.9||||||Difference Estimate at Week 48||6.9|-21.3|
91813266|NCT00065507|183501606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|11.7||||||Difference Estimate at Week 48||11.7|-0.3|
91813267|NCT00065507|183501607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for age \<=45 versus age \>45 years, gender, and race (white versus non-white).||treatment comparison of HCC-free survival at Week 48||1.18|0.46|0.20
91940690|NCT02580591|183777659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.6|0.1|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model includes baseline DBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, ß, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.1|-3.6|0.0047
91940691|NCT02580591|183777659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.3|0.4|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|||For DBP, the model includes baseline DBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, ß, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.4|-3.3|0.0202
91813268|NCT00665353|183501629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.158||||0.29|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.059|||This is an unadjusted p-value. Statistical significance was defined a priori as 0.10.|Exact test of proportions|||The proportion of subjects responding was compared to a historical null rate of 0.10. The hypothesized response rate was 0.30.|||0.059|0.29
91813269|NCT00665353|183501632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.053||||0.42|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.001|||This is an unadjusted p-value. Statistical significance was defined a priori as 0.10.|Exact test of proportions|||The proportion of subjects responding was compared to a historical null rate of 0.02. The hypothesized response rate was 0.15.|||0.001|0.42
91813270|NCT00870363|183501637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
91813271|NCT02632552|183501644|EQUIVALENCE|Using a pre-intervention rate of 18 for both intervention and control, and a post-control change of 1, assuming an alpha of 0.05, we have power (0.8) to detect a difference of differences in change in mean urgent care/ED utilization of 0.75 with a standard deviation equal to the control mean; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||Mixed Effects Negative Binomial Model|A segmented negative binomial regression model was used to estimate changes in ED/urgent care utilization between the intervention and control groups.||||1.45|0.85|0.45
91813272|NCT02632552|183501645|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.61|-7.21|0.05
91813273|NCT02632552|183501646|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||1.57|0.08|0.03
91813274|NCT02632552|183501647|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||0.29|-0.41|0.75
91813275|NCT02632552|183501648|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||0.70|-0.50|0.74
91813276|NCT02632552|183501649|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||1.29|-2.21|0.63
91813277|NCT02632552|183501650|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta of Mean Difference|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||4.05|-0.97|0.23
91940692|NCT01366534|183777666|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy Maentel-Haenzel Method|-17.6||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.4|33.3|||2-sided Fisher Exact test||Pre-defined futility criteria for efficacy: point estimate of increase of VE in Ad35.CS.01 Group over GSK257049 Group less than 0%|Comparison of the efficacy (occurrence of P. falciparum parasitemia, assessed by blood slide) of an immunization regimen comprising of one dose of Ad35.CS.01 vaccine followed one month later by 2 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, with that of 3 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, in healthy malaria-naïve volunteers aged 18-50 years in the sporozoite challenge model.||33.3|-107.4|0.7675
91940693|NCT01366534|183777666|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy: Maentel-Haenzel Method|44.0||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|60.4|||2-sided Fisher Exact test|||Comparison of the efficacy (occurrence of P. falciparum parasitemia, assessed by blood slide) of an immunization regimen comprising of one dose of Ad35.CS.01 vaccine followed one month later by 2 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at 1 month intervals, with that of 3 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, in healthy malaria-naïve volunteers aged 18-50 years in the sporozoite challenge model.||60.4|20.7|0.0066
91940694|NCT01366534|183777666|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy: Maentel-Haenzel Method|52.4||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|69.6|||2-sided Fisher Exact test|||Comparison of the efficacy (occurrence of P. falciparum parasitemia, assessed by blood slide) of an immunization regimen comprising of one dose of Ad35.CS.01 vaccine followed one month later by 2 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at 1 month intervals, with that of 3 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, in healthy malaria-naïve volunteers aged 18-50 years in the sporozoite challenge model.||69.6|25.4|0.0021
91940695|NCT00324272|183777718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704
91813278|NCT02632552|183501651|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|3.1||MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.10|-7.95|0.38
91813279|NCT02632552|183501652|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||3.52|-9.10|0.38
91813280|NCT02141997|183501751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.863|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-value calculated using 1-sided Fisher's Exact test.||||=0.863
91813281|NCT02141997|183501751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.414|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-value calculated using 1-sided Fisher's Exact test.||||=0.414
91813282|NCT02141997|183501751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.196|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-value calculated using 1-sided Fisher's Exact test.||||=0.196
91813283|NCT00598663|183501781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||ANCOVA|ANOVA with adjustment for period effect and subject as random effect. Period was included in the model regardless of statistical significance.||||||<0.0001
91813284|NCT00732615|183501788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|52.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|64.0||A fixed sequence test procedure was used to control the study level type I error. Order of test sequence started with the primary efficacy endpoint and proceeded to the 3 secondary efficacy endpoints, in the order defined in the protocol.|Fisher Exact|The 2-sided Fisher's Exact test was utilized to test for difference between NPSP558 and the placebo treatment groups.|The above two sided asymptotic 95% confidence interval is based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis is that the % of subjects meeting primary efficacy endpoint criteria are the same for both tmt arms. The sample size was determined based on the assumption that 40% and 10% of subjects for NPSP558 and pbo arms would meet the endpt criteria, respectively. Based on 2-tailed test, alpha of 0.05 and 2-to-1 randomization ratio, 84 (56 NPSP558, 28 pbo) subjects who completing the study would achieve 80% statistical power. Adjusted for dropouts, planned enrollment was 110 subjects.||64.0|40.6|<0.001
91813285|NCT00732615|183501789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Following fixed sequence test procedure described in the primary endpoint section, statistical hypothesis testing was conducted for this secondary endpoint after the testing for the primary endpoint reached statistical significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis conducted using percentage change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as factor, and baseline calcium dose as covariate.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the percentage changes from baseline for the two treatment arms.||||<0.001
91940696|NCT00324272|183777718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.217
91940697|NCT00324272|183777720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
91940698|NCT00324272|183777720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.426
91940699|NCT00324272|183777721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.351
91940700|NCT00324272|183777721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.480
91940701|NCT00324272|183777722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91940702|NCT00324272|183777722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
91940703|NCT00324272|183777723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Local recurrence in the groin cohort.||||1.00
91940704|NCT00324272|183777723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||In transit or regional recurrence in the groin cohort.||||0.301
91940705|NCT00324272|183777723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Distant metastasis in the groin cohort (with the patient being alive at the end of the study follow-up period on 1.6.10).||||0.474
91940706|NCT00324272|183777723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Local recurrence in the groin cohort.||||0.606
91940707|NCT00324272|183777723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||In transit or regional recurrence in the axillary cohort.||||1.000
91940708|NCT00324272|183777723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Distant metastasis in the axillary cohort (with the patient being alive at the end of the study follow-up period on 1.6.10).||||0.486
91940709|NCT00324272|183777724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.58|||Regression, Cox|||Death from metastatic disease in the groin cohort.||2.58|0.40|0.963
91940710|NCT00324272|183777724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.2|||Regression, Cox|||Death from an unrelated cause in the groin cohort.||3.20|0.03|0.338
91813286|NCT00732615|183501790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.711|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.619|52.363||Following fixed sequence test procedure described in the primary endpoint section, statistical hypothesis testing was conducted for this secondary endpoint after the testing for the first secondary endpoint reached statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the proportions of subjects (who achieved this secondary endpoint) from the two treatment arms.||52.363|2.619|<0.001
91813287|NCT00732615|183501791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.879||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.922||Following fixed sequence test procedure described in the primary endpoint section, statistical hypothesis testing was conducted for this secondary endpoint after the testing for the second secondary endpoint reached statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of subjects with any reported clinical symptoms for the two treatment arms are the same.||1.922|0.402|0.747
91940711|NCT00324272|183777724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.47|||Regression, Cox|||Death from metastatic disease in the axillary cohort.||2.47|0.35|0.880
91940712|NCT00324272|183777724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|13.95|||Regression, Cox|||Death from an unrelated cause in the axillary cohort.||13.95|0.05|0.923
91940713|NCT04882072|183777725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|8.47||||||||8.47|0.41|
91940714|NCT02918318|183777746|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.475|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.77|3.7||1-sided|Dunnett adjustment|||||3.70|-5.77|0.475
91813288|NCT01341964|183501799|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|not normally distributed, values were log-transformed.||||||0.66
91813289|NCT01516424|183501801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power is 80%, non-inferiority margin is 7.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|7.75||Satisfaction with the non-inferiority criteria was determined by the upper limit of confidence interval. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was less than 7.0, then non-inferiority was concluded.|ANCOVA|Study center and grouping as fixed effects.|This is ITT analysis data.|"ANCOVA was employed to compare the changes of PANSS scores at week 8 relative to the baseline in these 2 groups. Least Squares Means for the differences in changes between the 2 groups (μ blonanserin - μ risperidone) and the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval were calculated in accordance with the main model.~H0: Compared with risperidone, blonanserin reduced more than 7.0 in mean change in PANSS total score from baseline at week 8 of treatment (μ blonanserin-μ risperidone\> 7.0)."||7.75|-0.36|<0.05
91940715|NCT02918318|183777746|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.32|5.47||1-sided|Dunnett adjustment|||||5.47|-4.32|0.504
91940716|NCT02918318|183777746|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.66|3.83||1-sided|Dunnett adjustment|||||3.83|-5.66|0.482
91940717|NCT01548417|183777760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Effects Modeling (MEM) with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation was used to measure differences in alcohol-cued craving..||||.003
91940718|NCT01548417|183777761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Effect Modeling (MEM) with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation was used to measure differences in changes in drinking.||||.05
91940719|NCT01548417|183777761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data represent the estimated marginal mean + or - SEM. \*P\<0.05, mifepristone vs. placebo (linear mixed effects modeling).||||<0.05
91940720|NCT04583969|183777763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.02|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Odds ratio, CI, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline OS, age (continuous), and baseline CRP. Missing data imputed using the 3-stage multiple imputation procedure described in the statistical analysis plan.||2.02|0.63|0.691
91940721|NCT04583969|183777764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Odds ratio, CI, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline OS, age (continuous), and baseline CRP. Missing data imputed using the 3-stage multiple imputation procedure described in the statistical analysis plan.||1.99|0.77|0.378
91940722|NCT04583969|183777765|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio, confidence intervals, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal score, age, and baseline CRP.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.96||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|||1.20|0.76|0.689
91940723|NCT04583969|183777766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.18|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Hazard ratio, confidence intervals, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal Score, age, and baseline CRP.||1.18|0.79|0.718
91940724|NCT04583969|183777767|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation (MI) for participants lost to follow-up before Day 8 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital while those participants lost to follow-up after discharge to home are assigned a score of 2.||1.39|0.75|0.907
91940725|NCT04583969|183777801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.27|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab|||1.27|0.87|0.609
91940726|NCT04583969|183777802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab|||1.26|0.85|0.708
91940727|NCT04080752|183777804|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.897||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.76|0.55|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.55|-1.76|0.2494
91940728|NCT00444080|183777817|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91940729|NCT01641081|183777846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0148|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2353|0.2934|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2934|0.2353|<0.0001
91940730|NCT01641081|183777846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0156|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2218|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2830|0.2218|<0.0001
91813290|NCT01516424|183501801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power is 80%, non-inferiority margin is 7.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|6.65||Satisfaction with the non-inferiority criteria was determined by the upper limit of confidence interval. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was less than 7.0, then non-inferiority was concluded.|ANCOVA|Study center and grouping as fixed effects.|This is PPS analysis data.|"ANCOVA was employed to compare the changes of PANSS total scores at end of treatment relative to the baseline in these 2 groups. LSMeans for the differences in changes between the 2 groups (μ blonanserin - μ risperidone) and the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval were calculated in accordance with the main model.~H0: Compared with risperidone, blonanserin reduced more than 7.0 in mean change in PANSS total score from baseline at week 8 of treatment (μ blonanserin-μ risperidone\> 7.0)."||6.65|-0.76|<0.05
91940731|NCT01641081|183777846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1941|0.2544|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2544|0.1941|<0.0001
91940732|NCT01641081|183777846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0146|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1887|0.2461|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2461|0.1887|<0.0001
91940733|NCT01095666|183777848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0869|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.42||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-0.76|<0.0001
91940734|NCT01095666|183777848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0865|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.45||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.79|<0.0001
91940735|NCT01095666|183777849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-15.6||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-15.6|-28.6|<0.0001
91940736|NCT01095666|183777849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-20.7||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-20.7|-33.5|<0.0001
91940737|NCT01095666|183777850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8758|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.84|-30.73||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-30.73|-53.84|<0.0001
91940738|NCT01095666|183777850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7921|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.53|-37.74||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-37.74|-60.53|<0.0001
91940739|NCT01095666|183777851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2765|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.56||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-1.65|<0.0001
91940740|NCT01095666|183777851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2747|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.28||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-1.28|-2.36|<0.0001
91940741|NCT01095666|183777852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.702||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|24.7||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|Modified logistic regression|Modified logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||24.7|6.2|0.0010
91940742|NCT01095666|183777852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.594||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.5||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|Modified logistic regression|Modified logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||24.5|6.5|0.0007
91940743|NCT04018612|183777915|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.091||0.0258|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-7.53|||ANCOVA||SPID24 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline (BL) Pain Intensity-Numerical Pain Relief Scale (PI-NPRS) as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was -∞|||-7.53||0.0258
91940744|NCT04018612|183777915|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.154||0.0115|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-11.35|||ANCOVA||SPID24 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline PI-NPRS as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|||-11.35||0.0115
91940745|NCT04018612|183777916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.267||0.0087|ONE_SIDED|90.0|5.92||||ANCOVA||TOTPAR24 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline PI-NPRS as a covariate. The upper limit of one-sided 90% CI was +∞||||5.92|0.0087
91940746|NCT04018612|183777916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.297||0.012|ONE_SIDED|90.0|5.31||||ANCOVA||TOTPAR24 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline PI-NPRS as a covariate. The upper limit of one-sided 90% CI was +∞||||5.31|0.0120
91940747|NCT01041404|183777976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.59|0.0002
91940748|NCT01041404|183777978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.58|0.0003
91940749|NCT01041404|183777979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|12.8||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.9|||Chi-squared|||||20.9|4.7|0.0017
91940750|NCT01041404|183777981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.40|<0.0001
91940751|NCT01041404|183777982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|9.6||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|16.9|||Chi-squared|||||16.9|2.4|0.0081
91940752|NCT01041404|183777982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.41||||||||2.41|1.14|
91940753|NCT01041404|183777983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.60|0.0046
91940754|NCT00892957|183778005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
91940755|NCT00892957|183778006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.001
91940756|NCT00892957|183778007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.012
91813291|NCT00597766|183501806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GroupXtime interaction|-0.17||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,92)=2.06, p=0.16|Linear mixed model|1st order antedependence covariance structure||"Hypothesis that 60mg group would have greater pain relief than the the 20mg group.~The study was powered to detect the difference in pain between the 40mg and placebo at 4-wks. To detect effect size 0.75 with alpha of 0.05, beta of 0.20, 31 the difference between the 60mg and placebo groups (effect size \> 1.0),18 participants per group are needed. \*NOTE\* the design was changed from placebo-control due to ethical concerns arising from ethical concerns of placebo injection."||||0.16
91940757|NCT00892957|183778008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.158
91940758|NCT00892957|183778010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.380
91940759|NCT00892957|183778011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.545
91940760|NCT02483078|183778035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Fisher Exact|The Fisher's Exact test if the count in any cell was less than 5; otherwise Chi-Square test was to be used||||||.0032
91940761|NCT02483078|183778036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0377|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0377
91940762|NCT02483078|183778037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1201|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.1201
91940763|NCT02483078|183778038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0013
91940764|NCT02483078|183778042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7123|||||||ANCOVA|||The raw and change from baseline in CD4 cell count at the end of the 1-week double blind treatment period was to be summarized by treatment group for the first week during the double-blind treatment phase. For change from baseline summaries, subjects with an undefined change from baseline, because of missing data, were to be excluded.||||.7123
91940765|NCT02483078|183778044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0993|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0993
91940766|NCT01962688|183778055|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91940767|NCT00669032|183778064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91940768|NCT00669032|183778065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.525|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.525
91940769|NCT00669032|183778066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.030
91940770|NCT00669032|183778067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
91940771|NCT00669032|183778068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
91940772|NCT00669032|183778069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91940773|NCT00669032|183778070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.021
91940774|NCT00669032|183778071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91940775|NCT00669032|183778072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.023
91940776|NCT00669032|183778073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91940777|NCT00669032|183778074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9129|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9129
91940778|NCT02564029|183778079|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|-3.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||-3.86|-8.60|
91940779|NCT02564029|183778079|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.78|-3.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||-3.06|-7.78|
91940780|NCT02564029|183778079|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|-2.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||-2.84|-7.60|
91940781|NCT02564029|183778079|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||3.20|-1.58|
91940782|NCT02564029|183778079|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.43|1.41|||Mixed Model Repreated Measure Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||1.41|-3.43|
91940783|NCT02564029|183778079|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|2.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||2.16|-2.56|
91940784|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|-3.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.86|-8.60|
91940785|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.78|-3.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.06|-7.78|
91940786|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|-2.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-2.84|-7.60|
91940787|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||3.20|-1.58|
91940788|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.43|1.41|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.41|-3.43|
91940789|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|2.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||2.16|-2.56|
91813292|NCT00597766|183501806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|-0.04||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,90)=0.1, p=0.77|linear mixed model|first order antedependent covariance structure||"Hypothesis that 40mg group would have greater pain reduction than the 20mg group.~The study was powered to detect the difference in pain between the 40mg and placebo at 4-wks. To detect effect size 0.75 with alpha of 0.05, beta of 0.20, 31 the difference between the 60mg and placebo groups (effect size \> 1.0),18 participants per group are needed. \*NOTE\* the design was changed from placebo-control due to ethical concerns arising from ethical concerns of placebo injection."||||0.77
91813293|NCT00597766|183501807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|-0.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,36)=1.7, p=0.2|Linear mixed model|first order antedpendent covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes. The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.2
91940790|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.01|-5.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-5.01|-8.01|
91940791|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.93|-4.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-4.95|-7.93|
91940792|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|-4.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-4.28|-7.20|
91940793|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|1.46|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.46|-1.31|
91940794|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||0.65|-2.19|
91940795|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||0.70|-2.09|
91940796|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|-3.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.25|-5.60|
91940797|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.57|-3.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.17|-5.57|
91940798|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.57|-3.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.19|-5.57|
91813294|NCT00597766|183501807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|-0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,35)=0.0, p=0.9|linear mixed model|1st order antedependence covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes.The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.9
91813295|NCT00597766|183501808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Groupxtime interaction|1.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,36)=1.6, p=0.2|linear mixed model|unstructured covariance structure||The study was not powered for secondary analyses. The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.2
91813296|NCT00597766|183501808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Groupxtime interaction|1.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,35)=1.0, p=0.3|linear mixed model|Unstructured covariance structure||Secondary outcomes were not powered for analysis. The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.3
91813297|NCT00597766|183501809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|0.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,36)=0.06, p=0.8|linear mixed model|first order antedepentent covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes.The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.8
91813298|NCT00597766|183501809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|1.7||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,35)=1.1, p=0.3|linear mixed model|first order antedependent covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes.The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.3
91940799|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|1.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.19|-1.08|
91940800|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|1.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.10|-1.18|
91940801|NCT02564029|183778080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.13|-1.11|
91813299|NCT00530764|183501821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportions of responders were compared between the treatment groups using logistic regression with region and treatment groups as factors. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between each of the Sativex treatment groups and placebo. The estimated response rates, odds ratios, 95% CIs for the odds ratios and p-values were presented.||2.60|0.72|0.33
91813300|NCT00530764|183501821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||As for Sativex Low dose versus placebo||1.76|0.46|0.62
91813301|NCT00530764|183501821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||As for Sativex Low dose versus placebo||2.28|0.62|0.61
91813302|NCT00530764|183501822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.35|-3.33|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||Each of the active treatment groups were compared with placebo using pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. The Hodges-Lehmann estimates and 95% CI for the median differences were also presented.||-3.33|-21.35|0.0077
91813303|NCT00530764|183501822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|7.14|||Wilcoxin rank sum test|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||7.14|-11.04|0.67
91813304|NCT00530764|183501822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.75||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.14|0.0|||Wilcoxin rank sum test|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.00|-17.14|0.039
91940802|NCT02712008|183778126|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.|Least square mean difference|-2.09||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.67|- 4.84|0.1368
91940803|NCT02712008|183778126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.04||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0||2.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||2.18|- 2.10|0.9716
91940804|NCT02712008|183778127|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.15||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||5.20|-0.90|0.1665
91940805|NCT02712008|183778127|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.9||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|4.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||4.95|-1.16|0.2223
91940806|NCT02712008|183778127|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.39||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|3.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||3.32|-2.54|0.7943
91940807|NCT02712008|183778127|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.66||||0.6655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|3.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||3.67|-2.35|0.6655
91940808|NCT02712008|183778127|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.33||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|5.33||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||5.33|-0.67|0.1278
91940809|NCT02712008|183778127|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.51||||0.3159|TWO_SIDED|-1.51|-4.47|1.45||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||1.45|-4.47|0.3159
91940810|NCT02712008|183778127|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.27||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||2.63|-3.18|0.8537
91940811|NCT02712008|183778128|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-24.43||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.46|5.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||5.61|-54.46|0.1105
91940812|NCT02712008|183778128|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.79||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||- 4.74|- 50.83|0.0183
91940813|NCT02712008|183778129|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-55.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||- 18.01|- 93.81|0.0040
91940814|NCT02712008|183778129|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-40.51||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.46|-2.57||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-2.57|-78.46|0.0365
91940815|NCT02712008|183778129|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-37.15||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.53|-0.77||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-0.77|-73.53|0.0454
91940816|NCT02712008|183778129|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.75||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.54|39.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||39.03|-35.54|0.9266
91813305|NCT00530764|183501823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.75||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (average pain) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors.||-0.22|-1.28|0.006
91940817|NCT02712008|183778129|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.49||||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.58|21.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||21.59|-52.58|0.4116
91940818|NCT02712008|183778129|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.36||||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.42|40.14||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||40.14|-33.42|0.8574
91940819|NCT02712008|183778129|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-38.9||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.06|-2.73||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-2.73|-75.06|0.0351
91940820|NCT02712008|183778130|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-1.8||||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model.||9.8|-13.5|0.7617
91940821|NCT02712008|183778130|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.1||||0.2268|TWO_SIDED|95.0||16.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model.||16.3|- 4.1|0.2268
91940822|NCT02712008|183778131|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-1.3||||0.8896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|17.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||17.7|-20.4|0.8896
91940823|NCT02712008|183778131|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.4||||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|25.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||25.5|-12.6|0.5021
91940824|NCT02712008|183778131|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.0||||0.5273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|24.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||24.7|-12.8|0.5273
91813306|NCT00530764|183501823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.09||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.44|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.44|-0.62|0.75
91940825|NCT02712008|183778131|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-1.5||||0.8683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|16.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||16.6|-19.7|0.8683
91940826|NCT02712008|183778131|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|8.8||||0.3546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|27.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||27.4|-9.8|0.3546
91940827|NCT02712008|183778131|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.2||||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|19.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||19.5|-19.0|0.9801
91940828|NCT02712008|183778131|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|8.8||||0.3528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|27.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||27.4|-9.9|0.3528
91940829|NCT02436915|183778177|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of TUG (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete TUG from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
91940830|NCT02436915|183778178|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the MoCA score (i.e., greater percent increase decrease of MoCA score from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
91813307|NCT00530764|183501823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.36||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.18|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.18|-0.89|0.19
91813308|NCT00530764|183501824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.73||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (worst pain) was analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors.||-0.17|-1.30|0.011
91940831|NCT02436915|183778179|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the dual task performance of walking (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to walking speed from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
91940832|NCT02436915|183778180|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of dual task standing (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to standing sway speed from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91940833|NCT02436915|183778181|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would reduce the depression (i.e., greater percent decrease of GDS score from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
91940834|NCT02436915|183778182|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of TMT (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete TMT from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
91940835|NCT02436915|183778183|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of dual task standing (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to standing postural sway area from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.0007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0007
91940836|NCT02436915|183778184|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of walking (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to stride time from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91940837|NCT03805971|183778185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective of the test is to assess if the pCLE feature full chia seed sign is found statistically more frequently in the benign pleura group than in the malignant pleural infiltrations group."||||0.0003
91940838|NCT03805971|183778185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective is to assess if the abnormal tissular architecture is significantly more frequently found in the malignant pleural infiltrations group than in the benign pleura group."||||<0.0001
91940839|NCT03805971|183778185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective is to assess if the pCLE feature cellular shape homogeneity is found statistically more frequently in the benign pleura group than in the malignant pleural infiltrations group."||||0.0052
91813309|NCT00530764|183501824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.35||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.11|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.11|-0.81|0.14
91813310|NCT00530764|183501824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.24||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.32|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.32|-0.81|0.40
91940840|NCT03805971|183778185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective is to assess if dysplastic vessels are more frequently found in the malignant pleural infiltrations group than in the benign pleura group."||||<0.0001
91813311|NCT00530764|183501825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean sleep disturbance NRS score was analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors.||-0.31|-1.45|0.003
91813312|NCT00530764|183501825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.08||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.49|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.49|-0.65|0.78
91813313|NCT00530764|183501825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.33||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.24|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo.||0.24|-0.90|0.26
91813314|NCT00840294|183501857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91813315|NCT00828347|183501875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
91813316|NCT01340898|183501879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup A one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants||100|98.9|
91940841|NCT00364832|183778195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|0.9|||||To analyze dose conversion factors (CF), 2nd regression (R) analysis was performed on 3 different CF dose groups, using the R slope estimates of Hb change over 6 weeks. Equi-effective CF was interpolated using value that gives an Hb change of zero.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1x/ week (0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 dose group)||0.90|0.73|
91940842|NCT00364832|183778195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86|||||To analyze dose conversion factors (CF), 2nd regression (R) analysis was performed on 3 different CF dose groups, using the R slope estimates of Hb change over 6 weeks. Equi-effective CF was interpolated using value that gives an Hb change of zero.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1x/ 3 weeks (0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 dose group)||0.86|0.55|
91940843|NCT00364832|183778195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.09|||||To analyze dose conversion factors (CF), 2nd regression (R) analysis was performed on 3 different CF dose groups, using the R slope estimates of Hb change over 6 weeks. Equi-effective CF was interpolated using value that gives an Hb change of zero.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1x/ 4 weeks (0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 dose group)||1.09|0.81|
91940844|NCT01585168|183778261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4109||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using FWE (family wise error) correction.|t-test, 2 sided|A Paired t-test was performed to explore the difference between two groups.|FHN was found to have lower mean BOLD activation while given drug compared to placebo in amygdala.|||||0.032
91940845|NCT01585168|183778261|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.6615||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.125
91940846|NCT01585168|183778264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7264||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using FWE (family wise error) correction.|t-test, 2 sided||FHP was found to have lower mean BOLD activation while given drug compared to placebo in anterior cingulate cortex.|||||0.356
91940847|NCT01585168|183778264|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.8348||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91940848|NCT02057068|183778269|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Intention to treat analysis with last observation carried forward|||Partial Eta Squared = .282|||<.001
91940849|NCT02057068|183778270|SUPERIORITY|Intention to treat analysis with last observation carried forward|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91940850|NCT02057068|183778271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91940851|NCT01704976|183778274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91940852|NCT01704976|183778275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91940853|NCT01704976|183778276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91940854|NCT01704976|183778277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91940855|NCT01704976|183778278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91940856|NCT00329784|183778279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91940857|NCT00329784|183778279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91940858|NCT00329784|183778280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91940859|NCT00329784|183778281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.369
91940860|NCT00329784|183778282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.642
91940861|NCT00329784|183778283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Seasonal Rhinoconjunctivitis||||0.417
91940862|NCT00329784|183778283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Perennial Rhinoconjunctivitis||||0.926
91940863|NCT00329784|183778284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Peanut Wheal||||<0.001
91940864|NCT00329784|183778284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Egg Wheal||||0.361
91940865|NCT00329784|183778284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Milk Wheal||||0.760
91940866|NCT00329784|183778284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Sesame Wheal||||0.834
91940867|NCT00329784|183778284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Brazil Nut Wheal||||0.882
91940868|NCT00329784|183778284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Hazel Nut Wheal||||0.226
91940869|NCT00329784|183778284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Cashew Wheal||||0.024
91940870|NCT00329784|183778284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Walnut Wheal||||0.204
91940871|NCT00329784|183778284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Almond Wheal||||0.194
91940872|NCT00329784|183778285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Peanut IgE||||0.859
91940873|NCT00329784|183778285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Egg IgE||||0.885
91940874|NCT00329784|183778285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Milk IgE||||0.403
91940875|NCT00329784|183778285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Sesame IgE||||0.106
91940876|NCT00329784|183778285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Brazil Nut IgE||||0.202
91940877|NCT00329784|183778285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Hazel Nut IgE||||0.108
91940878|NCT00329784|183778285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Cashew IgE||||0.157
91940879|NCT00329784|183778285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Walnut IgE||||0.040
91940880|NCT00329784|183778285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Almond IgE||||0.262
91940881|NCT00588380|183778370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Using the Kruskal-Wallis test (general allelic model), we assessed univariate associations of rs6923761 genotype with Phi Total in the presence of either glucose alone, glucose and 0.75 pmol/kg/min GLP-1 or glucose and 1.5 pmol/kg/min GLP-1 If the p-value for the overall univariate test of association was \<0.1, then the associations for specific genotype pairs (e.g.: 1,1 vs. 1,2 or 2,2 vs. 1,1) were also examined using a Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test.||||0.11
91940882|NCT00588380|183778371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All data are presented as means ± SEM. Using the Kruskal-Wallis test (general allelic model), we assessed univariate associations of genotype with ΦTotal||||0.09
91940883|NCT02809846|183778374|OTHER|Bivariate associations between variables were assessed using statistical methods appropriate for the variable types. Baseline characteristics (demographics, other morbidities, baseline medication use, pain intensity and QOL) were compared between the two treatment groups to assess effectiveness of randomization and identify important covariates for multivariable analyses. Associations between demographic variables and primary and secondary endpoints were examined.|||||<|0.05||||||Sensitivity analyses comparing use of data from all participants with use of participants with complete data only was also performed. Agreement between different measures representing the same variable type was assessed using correlation analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Multivariable analysis with mixed effect regression models were used to assess the effect of treatment group on the primary and secondary outcomes.||Initially, a sample size of 20 participants per treatment group (active and sham) was selected to achieve 90% power to find a 20% difference in mean percent change in opioid consumption between the two groups with an estimated standard deviation of 22% and 80% power to detect the same difference with a standard deviation of 19% at a two-sided alpha = 0.05|Similar models were used to assess associations of treatment group with secondary endpoints. Model fit was assessed by Akaike's Information Criteria to determine optimal covariance structure.|||<0.05
91940884|NCT05563714|183778396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|11.33|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (base model)|Adjusted OR (base model), 95% CI - Includes clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status as a co-variate.||11.33|2.41|<0.001
91940885|NCT05563714|183778396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|13.05|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (expanded model)|Adjusted OR (expanded model), 95% CI - Adjusted for clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status, patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, number of comorbidities, antiplatelet therapy used at baseline, and baseline use of H2 receptor antagonists.||13.05|2.54|<0.001
91940886|NCT05563714|183778397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|141.49|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (base model)|Adjusted OR (base model), 95% CI - Included clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status as a co-variate.||141.49|6.07|<0.001
91940887|NCT05563714|183778397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.56|289.88|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (expanded model)|Adjusted OR (expanded model), 95% CI - Adjusted for clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status, patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, number of comorbidities, antiplatelet therapy used at baseline, and baseline use of H2 receptor antagonists.||289.88|6.56|<0.001
91940888|NCT05563714|183778398|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted OR, 95% CI (base model) - Included clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status as a co-variate.|Odds Ratio, log|19.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|29.09|||generalized linear mixed effects model|||We used generalized linear mixed effects modeling (logit link) to estimate the odds of medication optimization at week 7-10. This model included fixed effects for CNNF (vs. usual care), target provider specialty and size, and a random effect for clinician to account for the clustering of patients. We report the log odds ratios with corresponding confidence intervals for the main effect. The main effect was tested at a two-sided 5% significance level.||29.09|10.63|<0.001
91940889|NCT02427100|183778407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.18
91813317|NCT01340898|183501879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|100.0|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup C one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants.||100|98.3|
91813318|NCT01340898|183501879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.8|99.9|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup W-135 one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants||99.9|97.8|
91940890|NCT02427100|183778408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00036||||||The Linear Mixed Model (LMM) regression analysis (repeated measures) was adjusted for daily minutes of accelerometer wear time, gender, age, BMI, education, and meeting physical activity guidelines at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|A fourth root transformation of daily accelerometer-measured minutes of MVPA was used to normalize the distribution and was included in the analyses.||||||.00036
91940891|NCT02120352|183778409|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.2|||||Comparison between CAB LA 600 mg+RPV LA 900 mg IM-Q8W and CAB 30 mg+ABC/3TC QD|||12.2|-4.8|
91940892|NCT02120352|183778409|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.5|||||Comparison between CAB LA 400 mg+RPV LA 600 mg IM-Q4W and CAB 30 mg+ABC/3TC QD|||11.5|-5.8|
91940893|NCT00444964|183778474|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91940894|NCT00444964|183778475|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91940895|NCT00444964|183778476|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91940896|NCT00166517|183778477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed versus a constant, 85%, based on historical data.||||||0.003||95.0||||p ≥.85, where p is the proportion of subjects who achieved ≥3-fold rise from baseline in the group that received RotaTeq®|Exact test of proportion|Exact test of proportion, based on binomial distribution||||||0.003
91940897|NCT02573233|183778500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Rank ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region||Analysis was performed using a rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region.||||0.8400
91813319|NCT01340898|183501879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|100.0|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup Y one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants||100|98.3|
91940898|NCT02573233|183778501|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-235.02||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-414.19|-55.84||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Linear fixed-effect model|||Analysis was performed using a linear fixed-effect model with treatment, region and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and the baseline value as continuous covariate.||-55.84|-414.19|0.0336
91940899|NCT02573233|183778502|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.89||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.0|46.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Linear fixed-effect model|||Analysis was performed using a linear fixed-effect model with treatment, region and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and the baseline value as continuous covariate.||46.78|-19.00|0.4795
91940900|NCT02573233|183778503|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.98||||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.92|22.97||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Linear fixed-effect model|||Analysis was performed using a linear fixed-effect model with treatment, region and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and the baseline value as continuous covariate.||22.97|-60.92|0.4494
91940901|NCT02573233|183778504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6865||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Rank ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region||Analysis was performed using a rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region.||||0.6865
91940902|NCT02573233|183778505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7588||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Rank ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region||Analysis was performed using a rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region.||||0.7588
91940903|NCT02573233|183778506|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.4||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.9|-11.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using a Mixed-effect Model with Repeated Measures (MRMM) with treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, region, and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and baseline biomarker-by-visit interaction as fixed covariate, and assuming an unstructured covariance structure separately by treatment group.||-11.9|-32.9|0.0012
91940904|NCT02573233|183778507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.3|-12.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using a Mixed-effect model with Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, region, and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and baseline biomarker-by-visit interaction as fixed covariate, and assuming an unstructured covariance structure separately by treatment group.||-12.8|-31.3|0.0005
91940905|NCT00249795|183778513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.085||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 4.5% level to account for multiplicity.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of any component of the composite event in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.085|0.907|0.8570
91940906|NCT00249795|183778514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.016||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 1% level to account for multiplicity.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of any component of the composite event in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.016|0.869|0.1200
91940907|NCT00249795|183778515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916||||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.053||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of a stroke in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.053|0.796|0.2162
91940908|NCT00249795|183778516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.11||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of death in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.110|0.927|0.7590
91940909|NCT00249795|183778517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|0.993||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of HF episodes in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||0.993|0.809|0.0369
91940910|NCT00249795|183778518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.975||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of hospitalization for Heart Failure in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||0.975|0.763|0.0175
91940911|NCT00249795|183778519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.093||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of hospitalization for other CV cause in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.093|0.930|0.8377
91940912|NCT05103475|183778520|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||1||||||The investigators used Fisher's exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|The reported value represents the calculated p-value for the Fisher's Exact test.||||||1.0
91940913|NCT05103475|183778521|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91940914|NCT05103475|183778522|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.15||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
91940915|NCT05103475|183778523|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for control group scores.||||0.43
91940916|NCT05103475|183778523|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for RAP group score.||||0.24
91940917|NCT05103475|183778523|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.53||||||F = 0.41|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.53
91940918|NCT05103475|183778524|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for control group.||||0.70
91940919|NCT05103475|183778524|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for RAP group.||||0.17
91940920|NCT05103475|183778524|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.18||||||F = 1.95|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.18
91940921|NCT05103475|183778525|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.37
91940922|NCT05103475|183778525|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.50
91940923|NCT05103475|183778525|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.9||||||F = 0.01|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.90
91940924|NCT05103475|183778526|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.56
91940925|NCT05103475|183778526|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.32
91940926|NCT05103475|183778526|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.41||||||F = 0.71|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.41
91940927|NCT05103475|183778527|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.50
91940928|NCT05103475|183778527|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.60
91940929|NCT05103475|183778527|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.98||||||F = 0.0|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.98
91940930|NCT05103475|183778528|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.54
91940931|NCT05103475|183778528|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.15
91940932|NCT05103475|183778528|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.04||||||F = 4.9|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.04
91940933|NCT05103475|183778529|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.11
91940934|NCT05103475|183778529|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.09
91940935|NCT05103475|183778529|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.75||||||F = 0.10|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.75
91940936|NCT05103475|183778530|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.||Likelihood to participate in a program like it in the future||||0.41
91940937|NCT05103475|183778530|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.003||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|||Help to manage back pain.||||0.003
91940938|NCT05103475|183778530|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||1||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small sample sizes.|Fisher Exact|The reported value represents the calculated p-value for the Fisher's Exact test.||Would recommend to another Veteran.||||1.00
91940939|NCT05103475|183778530|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.07||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|||Liked the program.||||0.07
91940940|NCT05103475|183778531|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.91
91940941|NCT05103475|183778531|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.51
91940942|NCT05103475|183778531|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.42||||||F = 0.68|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.42
91940943|NCT02228824|183778532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on 25 sets of imputed data and then analyzed using SAS PROC MIANALYZE||||2.17|0.86|<0.001
91940944|NCT02228824|183778534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.21|-1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.78|-75.21|0.041
91940945|NCT02228824|183778535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on 25 sets of imputed data and then analyzed using SAS PROC MIANALYZE||||-0.13|-1.26|0.016
91940946|NCT02228824|183778536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.002|-0.04|0.03
91940947|NCT02917629|183778572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0011|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.024||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000229822 baseline and post exposure||||0.031
91813320|NCT02028065|183501926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.7|||||Difference is Sugammadex 4 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|Planned sample size of 150 participants in each sugammadex group (4 mg/kg and 16 mg/kg) allowed estimation of adjudicated hypersensitivity in each sugammadex group with a 95% confidence interval with a half-width between 1.2 and 4.2 percentage points. Calculation, based on method of Clopper and Pearson (Biometrika 1934;26\[4\]:404-413), used underlying event rate of up to 6% in the sugammadex high dose group, based on study results from protocol P06042 (NCT00988065).||10.7|-0.9|
91940948|NCT02917629|183778572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0217|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0257||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000230585 baseline and post exposure||||0.031
91940949|NCT02917629|183778572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0098|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000249245 baseline and post exposure||||<0.001
91940950|NCT02917629|183778572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000261792 baseline and post exposure||||<0.001
91940951|NCT02917629|183778573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.006|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.006||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000234806 baseline and post exposure||||0.002
91940952|NCT02917629|183778574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0013|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0072||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000232479 baseline and post exposure||||0.002
91940953|NCT02917629|183778574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0037|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0193||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000233163 baseline and post exposure||||0.020
91940954|NCT02917629|183778574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0098|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000249245 baseline and post-exposure||||0.001
91940955|NCT01042938|183778588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7991|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7606||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3693|-0.2289|||Standard pooled variances t-test|||Hypothesis: The mean RDS for curcumin group is significantly different (i.e., lower) than mean RDS of placebo group at end of radiation treatment.||-0.2289|-1.3693|0.0077
91940956|NCT01042938|183778589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis: The presence of moist desquamation significantly differed between the curcumin group and the placebo group.||||0.0022
91813321|NCT02028065|183501926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.2|||||Difference is Sugammadex 16 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen(Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|Planned sample size of 150 participants in each sugammadex group (4 mg/kg and 16 mg/kg) allowed estimation of adjudicated hypersensitivity in each sugammadex group with a 95% confidence interval with a half-width between 1.2 and 4.2 percentage points. Calculation, based on method of Clopper and Pearson (Biometrika 1934;26\[4\]:404-413), used underlying event rate of up to 6% in the sugammadex high dose group, based on study results from protocol P06042 (NCT00988065).||14.2|1.7|
91813322|NCT02028065|183501927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||||Difference is Sugammadex 4 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|||2.5|-4.8|
91940957|NCT01042938|183778590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean redness (i.e., mean a\* number value) between the curcumin and placebo groups.||||0.145
91940958|NCT01042938|183778591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.685||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.059|4.428|||ANCOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean MPQ pain scores between the curcumin and placebo groups.||4.428|-1.059|0.218
91940959|NCT01042938|183778591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean sensory subscale pain scores between curcumin and placebo groups.||3.6|-0.6|0.152
91940960|NCT01042938|183778591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Hypohesis: There is a signifcant difference in affective subscale pain scores between curcumin and placebo groups.||1.1|-0.7|0.700
91940961|NCT01042938|183778591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean perceived pain scores between curcumin and placebo groups.||0.7|-0.4|0.559
91940962|NCT03136484|183778592|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the one-sided p-value from a t-distributed test statistic comparing the treatment contrast with 0.3 rather than zero as in a superiority test.|Treatment difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.33|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide + canagliflozin placebo vs Canagliflozin + semaglutide placebo|The responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, region and stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including region and stratification factor as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-0.33|-0.65|<.0001
91940963|NCT03136484|183778592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.33|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide + canagliflozin placebo vs Canagliflozin + semaglutide placebo|The responses were analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, region and stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including region and stratification factor as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-0.33|-0.65|<.0001
91940964|NCT00360685|183778653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sample size was based on the difference in the proportion of patients in each arm who were predicted to develop severe mucositis defined as clinical grade 3 or 4 per the CTCAE. A sample-size of 42 evaluable subjects per study-arm allowed detection of an absolute difference of 30%, which corresponds to a reduction in the incidence of severe mucositis from 60% in the methotrexate arm to 30% in the MMF arm (alpha=0.05, power=0.80).||||0.06
91940965|NCT00360685|183778654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||K-sample tests for comparing the cumulat|||||||0.8
91940966|NCT00360685|183778655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
91940967|NCT01203787|183778669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0262
91940968|NCT03061812|183778676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.82|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Calculated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||1.82|1.17|0.0051
91940969|NCT03061812|183778677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.87|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Calculated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||1.87|1.22|< 0.0001
91940970|NCT03061812|183778678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|4.65||||||||4.65|-5.66|
91940971|NCT03061812|183778679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.3352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||1.18|0.39|0.3352
91940972|NCT03061812|183778680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||1.12|0.47|0.0358
91813323|NCT02028065|183501927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.7|||||Difference is Sugammadex 16 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|||3.7|-4.2|
91813324|NCT02669433|183501947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.79||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||0.79|-4.80|0.158
91813325|NCT02669433|183501947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.6069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|3.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||3.55|-2.08|0.6069
91813326|NCT02669433|183501948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.6531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||1.60|-2.55|0.6531
91813327|NCT02669433|183501948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.75||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||2.75|-1.41|0.5274
91813328|NCT02669433|183501949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.3953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||0.5|-0.2|0.3953
91813329|NCT02669433|183501949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.42||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||0.42|-0.28|0.7008
91813330|NCT00576927|183501951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|8.717||p-value suspect because of sparse cell counts|Chi-squared|||||8.717|0.156|0.655
91813331|NCT01850524|183501962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.018|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.||||1.018|0.676|0.073
91813332|NCT01850524|183501963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.998||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.261|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an Unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||1.261|0.790|0.988
91813333|NCT01850524|183501964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression model with treatment group as categorical predictor variable,age(\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS(stage I or II vs stage III),and BPI-SF worst pain score(\<4 vs \>=4)at screening as covariates.|||3.09|1.43|<0.001
91813334|NCT01850524|183501965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.463|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with prognostic factor: age (\<75 years vs \>=75) and ISS (stage I or II vs stage III).|Odds ratio \> 1 favors Ixazomib+LenDex versus LenDex alone.|||1.463|0.656|0.9195
91940973|NCT00431496|183778682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|42.3||||||95.0|30.8|53.7||||||||53.7|30.8|
91940974|NCT00431496|183778683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|52.1||||||95.0|40.5|63.7||||||||63.7|40.5|
91940975|NCT00431496|183778684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|78.9||||||95.0|69.4|88.4||||||||88.4|69.4|
91940976|NCT00431496|183778685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|54.9||||||95.0|43.4|66.5||||||||66.5|43.4|
91940977|NCT00431496|183778686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|53.5||||||95.0|41.9|65.1||||||||65.1|41.9|
91940978|NCT00431496|183778687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|46.5||||||95.0|34.9|58.1||||||||58.1|34.9|
91940979|NCT01685203|183778694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline log(subscript)10(subscript) HCV RNA level and Interleukin-28B (IL28B) genotype (CC or non-CC) were used as predictors||||||0.381
91940980|NCT01685203|183778694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in rates after adjusting for Interleukin-28 (IL28) genotype (CC or Non-CC) using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions and continuity-corrected variances.|Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.086
91940981|NCT01602549|183778708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.965|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.12|||||Day 1: The adjusted means (AMs) and ratios were estimated using a mixed model (MM) fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg : Placebo Day 1||1.120|0.831|
91940982|NCT01602549|183778708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.029|||||Day 8: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg : Placebo Day 8||1.029|0.763|
91940983|NCT01602549|183778708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.033|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8: Day 1||1.033|0.850|
91940984|NCT01602549|183778708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8:Day 1 Placebo||1.170|0.890|
91940985|NCT01602549|183778710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.864|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|1.064|||||Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||1.064|0.702|
91940986|NCT01602549|183778710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.257|||||Day 8: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||1.257|0.824|
91940987|NCT01602549|183778710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.166|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8 VS Day 1 GSK962040 50 mg||1.166|0.889|
91940988|NCT01602549|183778710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.055|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8 Vs Day 1 Placebo||1.055|0.709|
91813335|NCT01850524|183501966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression model with treatment group as categorical predictor variable,age(\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS(stage I or II vs stage III),and BPI-SF worst pain score(\<4 vs \>=4)at screening as covariates.|||1.70|0.79|0.436
91813336|NCT01850524|183501967|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.402|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.185|1.659|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||1.659|1.185|<0.001
91813337|NCT01850524|183501969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|0.925|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||0.925|0.589|0.008
91813338|NCT01850524|183501970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.859||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.078|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||1.078|0.684|0.189
91940989|NCT01602549|183778711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 1||||0.157
91940990|NCT01602549|183778711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 8||||0.186
91940991|NCT01602549|183778713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-4.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.015|7.537|||||Day 1: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, and Baseline gastric half emptying time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||7.537|-16.015|
91940992|NCT01602549|183778713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-5.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.567|6.914|||||Day 8: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, and Baseline gastric half emptying time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||6.914|-17.567|
91940993|NCT01602549|183778714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.16||||||95.0|-3.9|-0.41|||||Day 1; Part I: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part I-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||-0.41|-3.90|
91940994|NCT01602549|183778714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-1.85|||||Day 8; Part I: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part I-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-1.85|-5.41|
91940995|NCT01602549|183778714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.07|||||Day 1; Part II: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part II- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||0.07|-4.65|
91940996|NCT01602549|183778714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-0.07|||||Day 8; Part II: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part II- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-0.07|-4.85|
91940997|NCT01602549|183778714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-5.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|-0.49|||||Day 8; Part III: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part III -GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-0.49|-10.28|
91940998|NCT01602549|183778714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.54|||||Day 1; Part IV: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part IV-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||0.54|-1.65|
91940999|NCT01602549|183778714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.22|||||Day 8; Part IV: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part IV-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||0.22|-2.02|
91941000|NCT01602549|183778714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-6.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.77|0.39|||||Day 1; Total: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Total- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||0.39|-13.77|
91941001|NCT01602549|183778714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|-5.29|||||Day 8; Total: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Total- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-5.29|-19.67|
91941002|NCT01602549|183778714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|3.13|||||Day 1; Part III: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part III- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||3.13|-6.53|
91941003|NCT01602549|183778715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|2.78|||||Day 1; Pre-dose: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Pre dose: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||2.78|-9.07|
91941004|NCT01602549|183778715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|2.75|||||Day 1; 120 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||2.75|-9.11|
91941005|NCT01602549|183778715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|2.27|||||Day 1; 180 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1:||2.27|-9.59|
91813339|NCT01850524|183501976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.845|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|OS in High-risk Population Carrying Del(17p), Amp(1q21), t(4;14), or t(14;16) Mutations||1.845|0.678|0.662
91941006|NCT01602549|183778715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|1.76|||||Day 1; 240 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||1.76|-10.07|
91941007|NCT01602549|183778715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-0.81|||||Day 8; Pre-dose: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Pre dose: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-0.81|-12.79|
91941008|NCT01602549|183778715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|2.03|||||Day 8; 120 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||2.03|-9.96|
91941009|NCT01602549|183778715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|0.71|||||Day 8; 180 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||0.71|-11.29|
91941010|NCT01602549|183778715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|-2.91|||||Day 8; 240 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-2.91|-14.88|
91941011|NCT01602549|183778716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.9|||||OFF: Treatment Period: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model fitting treatment and Baseline amount of hours spent ON/OFF as main effects.|OFF: Treatment Period||-0.90|-3.71|
91941012|NCT01602549|183778716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.48|||||ON: Treatment Period: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model fitting treatment and Baseline amount of hours spent ON/OFF as main effects.|ON: Treatment Period||3.48|0.28|
91941013|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.79|16.13|||||Day 1, pre-dose: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|Pre-dose: Day GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||16.13|-21.79|
91941014|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|19.56|||||Day 1, 0 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|0 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||19.56|-18.39|
91813340|NCT01850524|183501977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.24|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|PFS in High-risk Population Carrying del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16) Mutations||1.240|0.466|0.271
91813341|NCT01850524|183501979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.12|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Time to Pain Progression||1.120|0.661|0.260
91813342|NCT02157298|183501982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1053|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.39||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.39|-0.81|<0.0001
91813343|NCT02157298|183501983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.301|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-12.2||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-12.2|-33.2|<0.0001
91813344|NCT02157298|183501984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.7|-1.7|<0.0001
91813345|NCT02157298|183501985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4017||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.07||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.07|-1.51|0.0743
91941015|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|20.86|||||Day 1, 30 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|Day 1, 30 min PD||20.86|-17.18|
91941016|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|19.28|||||Day 1, 60 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|60 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||19.28|-18.72|
91941017|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.35|15.58|||||Day 1, 90 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|90 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||15.58|-22.35|
91813346|NCT02157298|183501986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.769||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|10.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Tsitatis, Davidian, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment with adjustment for baseline value and DPP-4||H0: proportion(dapa) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: proportion(dapa) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||10.7|-4.0|0.3727
91813347|NCT04059094|183501987|OTHER||Adjusted means difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.5468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.5|||Mixed model with repeated measurements||Adjusted means difference was calculated as value from BI 1265162 200μg minus value from placebo group.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for baseline, visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, and random effect for patient was applied. No hypothesis testing was performed, as this trial was prematurely discontinued. MMRM only included data from 200µg BI and placebo, as the sample size of the BI 20µg, BI 50µg and BI 100µg dose levels was limited because of the premature discontinuation of the trial.||6.5|-3.5|0.5468
91941018|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.13|14.76|||||Day 1, 120 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||14.76|-23.13|
91941019|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|12.58|||||Day 1, 180 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||12.58|-25.36|
91941020|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|19.75|||||Day 1, 240 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||19.75|-18.20|
91941021|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|19.52|||||Day 8, pre-dose: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|Pre-dose: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||19.52|-18.51|
91941022|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|22.33|||||Day 8, 0 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|0 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||22.33|-15.70|
91941023|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.97|16.08|||||Day 8, 30 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|30 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||16.08|-21.97|
91941024|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.13|15.88|||||Day 8, 60 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|60 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||15.88|-22.13|
91941025|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|17.63|||||Day 8, 90 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|90 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||17.63|-20.40|
91941026|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|18.28|||||Day 8, 120 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||18.28|-19.70|
91941027|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.98|22.02|||||Day 8, 180 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||22.02|-15.98|
91941028|NCT01602549|183778717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|23.07|||||Day 8, 240 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||23.07|-14.91|
91941029|NCT03627494|183778789|OTHER||Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.03|||||"Analysis was performed using Mixed Effect Model with treatment and period as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Variance Components covariance structure was used."|||1.03|0.84|
91941030|NCT03627494|183778790|OTHER||Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.04|||||"Analysis was performed using Mixed Effect Model with treatment and period as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Variance Components covariance structure was used."|||1.04|0.84|
91941031|NCT03627494|183778791|OTHER||Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.01|||||"Analysis was performed using Mixed Effect Model with treatment and period as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Variance Components covariance structure was used."|||1.01|0.79|
91941032|NCT02177786|183778831|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.75||Data was calculated using a mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model including terms for treatment group, baseline eGFR, visit and treatment by visit interaction for comparison of change from baseline in eGFR between selonsertib and placebo.|MMRM|||||2.75|-2.00|0.755
91941033|NCT02177786|183778831|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.23||Data was calculated using a MMRM model including terms for treatment group, baseline eGFR, visit and treatment by visit interaction for comparison of change from baseline in eGFR between selonsertib and placebo.|MMRM|||||3.23|-1.55|0.492
91941034|NCT02177786|183778831|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.56||Data was calculated using a MMRM model including terms for treatment group, baseline eGFR, visit and treatment by visit interaction for comparison of change from baseline in eGFR between selonsertib and placebo.|MMRM|||||1.56|-3.29|0.481
91941035|NCT02177786|183778832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-2.2||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|11.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by stage of disease to compare the response rate between selonsertib and placebo.|The 95% confidence interval (CI) in the difference in percentages between selonsertib and placebo was based on Wald Asymptotic test.|||11.7|-16.1|0.798
91941036|NCT02177786|183778832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-9.2||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on a CMH test stratified by stage of disease to compare the response rate between selonsertib and placebo.|The 95% CI in the difference in percentages between selonsertib and placebo was based on Wald Asymptotic test.|||4.0|-22.3|0.175
91941037|NCT02177786|183778832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-2.9||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|10.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on a CMH test stratified by stage of disease to compare the response rate between selonsertib and placebo.|The 95% CI in the difference in percentages between selonsertib and placebo was based on Wald Asymptotic test.|||10.9|-16.6|0.686
91941038|NCT01957215|183778847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.72||||0.0201||95.0|0.1134|1.3199||P- value was obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and NRS Baseline value as a covariate|ANCOVA||ADJ DIFF is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of 0.35% Indomethacin Patches minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Patches|||1.3199|0.1134|0.0201
91941039|NCT02408484|183778937|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||p-value for the change in MCF from baseline to 1 hour post infusion for the firstBLEED population|ANOVA|||||||0.0028
91941040|NCT02408484|183778937|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value for the change in MCF from baseline to 1 hour post infusion for the BLEED population|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91941041|NCT01726504|183778947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||During the 8-week treatment period, the adjusted change from baseline in mean weekly CSBMs was 1.72 ± 0.12 (95% CI, 1.48 to 1.96) in the EA group and 0.82 ± 0.13 (95% CI, 0.58 to 1.07, P\<0.001) times more than that in the SA group.||||<0.001
91941042|NCT00524043|183778979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.504||95.0|-5.47|11.09||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (Placebo, Paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and Paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Sample size estimation was based on the assumption that the difference between the paliperidone ER 1.5 mg dose group and the placebo group in the mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to end point was 11 points with a within-group standard deviation of 20 points. It was calculated that 65 patients were needed per treatment group to detect a statistically significant treatment difference between the paliperidone ER 1.5 mg dose group and the placebo group with a power of 87.5%.||11.09|-5.47|0.504
91941043|NCT00524043|183778979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.431||95.0|-11.46|4.9||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (Placebo, Paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and Paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Paliperidone ER 6 mg was used for assay sensitivity||||4.90|-11.46|0.431
91941044|NCT00524043|183778980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||95.0||||Based on ANCOVA model on ranks with treatment (Placebo, Paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and Paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.626
91941045|NCT00524043|183778981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.87||95.0|-4.86|5.74||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||5.74|-4.86|0.870
91941046|NCT00524043|183778982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.126
91941047|NCT00524043|183778983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0||||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.691
91941048|NCT03012594|183778984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91941049|NCT03531762|183779015|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|108.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.2|117.13||||||||117.13|101.20|
91941050|NCT03531762|183779016|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.69|118.55||||||||118.55|101.69|
91941051|NCT03531762|183779017|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|104.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|116.61||||||||116.61|92.93|
91941052|NCT02019758|183779029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean post-treatment maximum eosinophil count will be compared between the OVB and MDI groups using a two-sample t-test.||||0.31
91941053|NCT02019758|183779030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean DSQ scores will be compared between the OVB and MDI groups using a two-sample t-test.||||0.70
91941054|NCT02019758|183779035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.08||||||||2.08|0.52|
91941055|NCT02019758|183779036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91941056|NCT02019758|183779037|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91941057|NCT02019758|183779038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91941058|NCT00735072|183779043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the week 24 change in %activated CD8+ T cells between arms. Assuming a standard deviation as high as 3.5% and a Type I error of 5%, with 21 subjects in each treatment arm we would have 80% statistical power to detect a mean 3 percentage-point difference in the percent of activated CD8+ T cells between the active drug and placebo groups.||||0.014
91941059|NCT00735072|183779044|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
91941060|NCT00735072|183779045|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
91941061|NCT01291511|183779058|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.4|||Log Rank|||||8.4|3.2|<0.0001
91941062|NCT01291511|183779059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and site as main effects and DBRP baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91941063|NCT01291511|183779061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062||||||P-value is based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and site as main effects and DBRP baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0062
91941064|NCT01263314|183779073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.01|4.5|||ANOVA|||||4.50|-7.01|0.3551
91941065|NCT01263314|183779073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.3474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.08|4.48|||ANOVA|||||4.48|-7.08|0.3474
91941066|NCT01263314|183779073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|4.09|||ANOVA|||||4.09|-7.42|0.3105
91941067|NCT01263314|183779073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.8|3.27|||ANOVA|||||3.27|-15.8|0.1346
91941068|NCT01263314|183779073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.6|-0.56|||ANOVA|||||-0.56|-19.6|0.0416
91941069|NCT01263314|183779073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|1.32|||ANOVA|||||1.32|-17.7|0.0762
91941070|NCT01263314|183779074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.47|4.41|||ANOVA|||||4.41|-3.47|0.418
91941071|NCT01263314|183779074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|8.05|||ANOVA|||||8.05|0.18|0.0434
91941072|NCT01263314|183779074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.85|11.72|||ANOVA|||||11.72|3.85|0.0019
91941073|NCT01263314|183779074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|3.71|||ANOVA|||||3.71|-1.42|0.2223
91941074|NCT01263314|183779074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|6.82|||ANOVA|||||6.82|1.69|0.0056
91941075|NCT01263314|183779074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.83|7.96|||ANOVA|||||7.96|2.83|0.0012
91813348|NCT04059094|183501988|OTHER||Adjuste means difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.5|||ANCOVA||Adjusted means difference was calculated as value from BI 1265162 200μg minus value from placebo group.|ANCOVA based on analysis of covariance with fixed effects for baseline and treatment was applied. Statistical analysis was performed for 200μg BI and placebo groups only. No hypothesis testing was performed, as this trial was prematurely discontinued. ANCOVA only included data from 200µg BI and placebo, as the sample size of the BI 20µg, BI 50µg and BI 100µg dose levels was limited because of the premature discontinuation of the trial.||6.5|-2.4|0.3039
91813349|NCT01698801|183502008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall dichotomized response rate|87.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.269|100.0||One sample binomial test for the overall response rate was performed to provide p-value (significance level: 0.05) based on EE population. The hypotheses of interest are: H0: p = 0.3, H1: p ≠ 0.3, where p is overall response.|Binomial test for dichotomized response|||||100|74.269|<0.0001
91813350|NCT00665847|183502027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|52.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|62.2|||||The standard error for a proportion was calculated as the square root of the variance divided by the number of patients. The variance for a proportion is equal to p\*(1-p), with p being the proportion.|||62.2|42.7|
91813351|NCT02642614|183502155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted mean|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.72|||ANCOVA||"Standard Error of Mean is actually Standard Error of ratio of adjusted means, adjusted means ratio is calculated as 5 milligram BI 1026706 divided by Placebo."|Adjusted means were calculated by exponentiating Least Square (LS) means of corresponding values obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model to the natural log transformed endpoint variable, including treatment effect and study baseline as covariates, and adjusting for stratification factors (extensive pharmacokinetic (PK) sub-study participation and Multiple-breath washout (MBW) sub-study participation)||2.72|0.93|0.1540
91813352|NCT02642614|183502155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted mean|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|2.65|||ANCOVA||"Standard Error of Mean is actually Standard Error of ratio of adjusted means, adjusted means ratio is calculated as 25 milligram BI 1026706 divided by Placebo."|The adjusted means were calculated by exponentiating the LS means of the corresponding values obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model to the natural log transformed endpoint variable, including treatment effect and study baseline as covariates, and adjusting for stratification factors (extensive PK sub-study participation and MBW sub-study participation)||2.65|0.94|0.1430
91941076|NCT01263314|183779076|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.76|||||GMR = geometric mean ratio|||1.76|0.85|
91941077|NCT01263314|183779077|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.33||||||||1.33|0.88|
91941078|NCT01263314|183779077|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.55||||||||1.55|1.02|
91941079|NCT01263314|183779077|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.48||||||||1.48|0.98|
91941080|NCT01263314|183779080|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.3 mg vs. placebo|9.58||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|17.46|||ANOVA|||||17.46|1.69|0.0253
91813353|NCT02642614|183502155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted mean|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.41|||ANCOVA||"Standard Error of Mean is actually Standard Error of ratio of adjusted means, adjusted means ratio is calculated as 100 milligram BI 1026706 divided by Placebo."|The adjusted means were calculated by exponentiating the LS means of the corresponding values obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model to the natural log transformed endpoint variable, including treatment effect and study baseline as covariates, and adjusting for stratification factors (extensive PK sub-study participation and MBW sub-study participation)||2.41|0.86|0.2398
91813354|NCT01729754|183502180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|59.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|65.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and confidence intervals (CIs) are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||65.9|52.9|<0.001
91813355|NCT01729754|183502180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|55.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|61.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||61.8|48.3|<0.001
91813356|NCT01729754|183502181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.9|60.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||60.8|47.9|<0.001
91941081|NCT01263314|183779080|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-2.59||||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|5.29|||ANOVA|||||5.29|-10.5|0.2856
91941082|NCT01263314|183779080|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.7 mg/ 0.3 mg vs. placebo|-4.06||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|3.82|||ANOVA|||||3.82|-11.9|0.1895
91941083|NCT01263314|183779080|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.3 mg vs. placebo|-4.16||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.70|-10.0|0.1157
91941084|NCT01263314|183779080|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-11.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|-5.79|||ANOVA|||||-5.79|-17.5|0.0018
91941085|NCT01263314|183779080|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.7 mg/ 0.3 mg vs. placebo|-10.6||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|-4.77|||ANOVA|||||-4.77|-16.5|0.0034
91941086|NCT00654420|183779122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Finkelstein Proportional Hazards Model|||Finkelstein proportional hazards model for interval-censored data was used to assess treatment effect on PFS in Phase II. The hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval for the Dalotuzumab (10 mg/kg) + Erlotinib treatment arm compared to the Erlotinib treatment arm was reported.||1.57|0.47|0.268
91941087|NCT00654420|183779123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.64|||Regression, Cox|||The treatment difference in survival between treatment groups was assessed by Cox regression. The estimated hazard ratio for treatment of the Dalotuzumab (10 mg/kg) + Erlotinib treatment arm compared to the Erlotinib treatment arm was reported from the Cox model.||2.64|0.78|0.879
91813357|NCT01729754|183502181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|56.5||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||56.5|43.2|<0.001
91813358|NCT01729754|183502184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|26.7||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||26.7|11.5|<0.001
91813359|NCT01729754|183502184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|27.6||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||27.6|12.4|<0.001
91813360|NCT01729754|183502187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||31.7|16.2|<0.001
91813361|NCT01729754|183502187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|27.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights|||27.3|11.7|<0.001
91813362|NCT01729754|183502190|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.2|41.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||41.1|29.2|<0.001
91813363|NCT01729754|183502190|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|43.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights|||43.4|31.1|<0.001
91813364|NCT01729754|183502190|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||22.1|8.3|<0.001
91813365|NCT01729754|183502190|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||24.4|10.3|<0.001
91813366|NCT01729754|183502191|OTHER||Difference in percentages|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.7||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||34.7|19.1|<0.001
91813367|NCT01729754|183502191|OTHER||Difference in percentages|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||32.6|17.0|<0.001
91813368|NCT01729754|183502194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||16.0|7.8|<0.001
91813369|NCT01729754|183502194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||16.6|8.5|<0.001
91813370|NCT01729754|183502194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||11.6|2.8|0.001
91813371|NCT01729754|183502194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||12.3|3.3|<0.001
91813372|NCT01729754|183502195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||22.1|9.4|<0.001
91813373|NCT01729754|183502195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||17.9|5.6|<0.001
91813374|NCT01729754|183502199|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-7.2|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-7.2|-9.3|<0.001
91813375|NCT01729754|183502199|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-7.3|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-7.3|-9.3|<0.001
91813376|NCT01729754|183502199|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-0.5|-2.1|0.002
91813377|NCT01729754|183502199|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-0.6|-2.2|0.001
91813378|NCT01729754|183502200|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-1.0|-2.4|<0.001
91813379|NCT01729754|183502200|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.5|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-1.5|-2.9|<0.001
91813380|NCT01729754|183502203|OTHER||Difference in percentages|39.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|46.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||46.1|31.8|<0.001
91813381|NCT01729754|183502203|OTHER||Difference in percentages|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|39.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||39.1|24.5|<0.001
91813382|NCT01729754|183502203|OTHER||Difference in percentages|11.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||19.5|4.1|0.003
91813383|NCT01729754|183502203|OTHER||Difference in percentages|4.8||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||12.5|-2.9|0.221
91813384|NCT01729754|183502204|OTHER||Difference in percentages|25.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|33.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||33.4|17.7|<0.001
91813385|NCT01729754|183502204|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||22.9|6.9|<0.001
91813386|NCT01853046|183502213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.796|1.63||||||Point estimates (LS-means) and 2-sided exploratory 90% confidence intervals for AUC(0-tlast) of regorafenib calculated by re-transformation of the logarithmic data from ANOVAs.||1.63|0.796|
91813387|NCT01853046|183502213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS-means|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.397|1.18||||||Point estimates (LS-means) and 2-sided exploratory 90% confidence intervals for AUC(0-tlast) of metabolites M-2 calculated by re-transformation of the logarithmic data from ANOVAs.||1.18|0.397|
91813388|NCT01853046|183502213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS-means|0.446|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.996||||||Point estimates (LS-means) and 2-sided exploratory 90% confidence intervals for AUC(0-tlast) of metabolites M-5 calculated by re-transformation of the logarithmic data from ANOVAs||0.996|0.200|
91813389|NCT05022784|183502238|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compares the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||<.0001
91813390|NCT05022784|183502239|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||<.0001
91813391|NCT05022784|183502240|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.37
91941088|NCT00654420|183779124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.8||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method for stratified data was used for comparison of percentage of participants with objective response (ORR) between the two treatment groups. Response rate calculation was based on full follow-up.||9.4|-15.9|0.721
91941089|NCT03236506|183779141|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming a 95% SVR rate (based on published studies) in the DOT arm of the trial in this population and a non-inferiority limit of 14% (which would be likely to maintain cost-effectiveness) then at a 5% significance level and 90% power we would need a sample size of 42 in each group 126 in total. To allow for drop-outs we will aim to recruit 135 individuals, 45 per group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.0|||Logistic|||||3.00|0.14|0.67
91941090|NCT03236506|183779141|NON_INFERIORITY|Described in Statistical Analysis 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.45|||logistic|||||2.45|0.11|0.41
91941091|NCT03236506|183779141|NON_INFERIORITY|Described in Statistical Analysis 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.61|||logistic|||||6.61|0.23|0.82
91941092|NCT00638274|183779151|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91941093|NCT00638274|183779151|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91941094|NCT00838383|183779163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.0||||0.5307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.3|151.4|||ANCOVA|||||151.4|-291.3|0.5307
91941095|NCT00838383|183779163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-73.2||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.5|148.2|||ANCOVA|||||148.2|-294.5|0.5121
91941096|NCT00838383|183779164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-123.1||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.5|99.3|||ANCOVA|||||99.3|-345.5|0.2735
91941097|NCT00838383|183779164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-174.5||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-396.8|47.9|||ANCOVA|||||47.9|-396.8|0.1223
91941098|NCT00838383|183779165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-66.6||||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.0|154.8|||ANCOVA|||||154.8|-288.0|0.5505
91941099|NCT00838383|183779165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-110.3||||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-331.7|111.0|||ANCOVA|||||111.0|-331.7|0.3237
91941100|NCT00838383|183779166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-166.5||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.6|56.6|||ANCOVA|||||56.6|-389.6|0.1412
91941101|NCT00838383|183779166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-199.8||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-425.0|25.5|||ANCOVA|||||25.5|-425.0|0.0813
91941102|NCT02709109|183779192|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.2||||0.8173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.8|-1.4|0.8173
91813392|NCT05022784|183502241|OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.477
91941103|NCT02709109|183779192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.9|-3.3|0.5903
91941104|NCT02709109|183779192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.9|-3.4|0.5917
91941105|NCT02709109|183779192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.8|-3.6|0.5021
91813393|NCT05022784|183502242|OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.644
91941106|NCT02709109|183779192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.5|-3.8|0.1382
91941107|NCT02709109|183779192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.9||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.5|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.5|-1.7|0.4962
91941108|NCT01000818|183779195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The raltegravir AUC0-12 hr geometric mean ratio (raltegravir + omeprazole/raltegravir) is noniferior at less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.39||||||95.0|1.04|1.84||||||||1.84|1.04|
91941109|NCT01000818|183779195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The raltegravir AUC0-12 hr geometric mean ratio (raltegravir + omeprazole/raltegravir) is noniferior at less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.45||||||95.0|1.09|1.93||||||||1.93|1.09|
91941110|NCT03920865|183779226|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.627|1.03||||||||1.03|0.627|
91941111|NCT03920865|183779226|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.588|1.21||||||||1.21|0.588|
91941112|NCT03920865|183779228|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.695|1.3||||||||1.30|0.695|
91941113|NCT03920865|183779228|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.27||||||||1.27|0.715|
91941114|NCT03920865|183779229|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.39||||||||1.39|0.830|
91941115|NCT03920865|183779229|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.21||||||||1.21|0.740|
91941116|NCT03920865|183779231|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.49||||||||1.49|0.962|
91941117|NCT03920865|183779231|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.21||||||||1.21|0.810|
91941118|NCT04010370|183779250|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of McAuley index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||<0.001
91941119|NCT04010370|183779251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Belfiore index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.319
91941120|NCT04010370|183779252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Cederholm index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.27
91941121|NCT04010370|183779253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Avignon index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.246
91941122|NCT04010370|183779254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Matsuda index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.259
91941123|NCT04010370|183779255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Gutt index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
91941124|NCT04010370|183779256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Stumvoll index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.022
91941125|NCT04010370|183779257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of HOMA-IR index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
91813394|NCT05022784|183502243|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.206
91813395|NCT05022784|183502244|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.052
91813396|NCT05022784|183502245|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.044
91813397|NCT05022784|183502246|OTHER|||||||0.525|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.525
91813398|NCT05022784|183502247|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.024
91813399|NCT05022784|183502248|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.016
91813400|NCT05022784|183502249|OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.913
91813401|NCT05022784|183502250|OTHER|||||||0.448|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.448
91813402|NCT05022784|183502251|OTHER|||||||0.515|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.515
91813403|NCT05022784|183502252|OTHER|||||||0.829|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.829
91813404|NCT05022784|183502253|OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.471
91813405|NCT05022784|183502254|OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.915
91813406|NCT05022784|183502255|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.190
91813407|NCT05022784|183502256|OTHER|||||||0.928|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.928
91813408|NCT05022784|183502257|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.490
91813409|NCT05022784|183502258|OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.667
91813410|NCT05022784|183502259|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.032
91813411|NCT05022784|183502260|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.721
91813412|NCT05022784|183502261|OTHER|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.352
91813413|NCT05022784|183502262|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.136
91813414|NCT05022784|183502263|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.270
91813415|NCT05022784|183502264|OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.306
91813416|NCT05022784|183502265|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.145
91813417|NCT05022784|183502266|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.109
91813418|NCT05022784|183502267|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.454
91813419|NCT05022784|183502268|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.960
91813420|NCT05022784|183502269|OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.265
91813421|NCT05022784|183502270|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.026
91813422|NCT05022784|183502271|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.016
91813423|NCT05022784|183502272|OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.937
91813424|NCT05022784|183502273|OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.948
91813425|NCT05022784|183502274|OTHER|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.574
91813426|NCT05022784|183502275|OTHER|||||||0.491|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.491
91813427|NCT05022784|183502276|OTHER|||||||0.432|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.432
91813428|NCT00594997|183502312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.0001
91813429|NCT02389998|183502316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.03
91941126|NCT04010370|183779258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of ISI index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
91941127|NCT04010370|183779259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Raynaud index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.541
91813430|NCT02389998|183502317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
91813431|NCT02389998|183502318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||McNemar|||||||0.3
91813432|NCT01770379|183502348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.03|0.79|0.2001
91813433|NCT01770379|183502348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|0.83|0.1574
91813434|NCT00778700|183502352|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|-0.51|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the main factor and Baseline score as the covariate.||||-0.51|-1.85|0.0041
91813435|NCT00778700|183502352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|-0.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the main factor and Baseline score as the covariate.||||-0.73|-2.08|0.0007
91813436|NCT00778700|183502352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|-0.53|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the main factor and Baseline score as the covariate.||||-0.53|-1.88|0.0035
91813437|NCT03274440|183502373|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in YBOCCS as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.577|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|||Test for interaction effect between condition and time (includes all three groups and all time points)||||.577
91813438|NCT03274440|183502373|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in YBOCCS as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.|||||<|0.001|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|F=10.50; df=6, 10||Test for main effect of time (includes all three groups and all time points)||||<.001
91813439|NCT03274440|183502373|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in YBOCCS as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.72|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|||Test for main effect of condition (includes all three groups and all time points)||||.72
91813440|NCT03274440|183502374|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in STAI-S as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.577|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|||Test for interaction between condition and time||||.577
91813441|NCT03274440|183502374|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in STAI-S as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.|||||<|0.001|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|F=7.00, df=6,10||Test for main effect of time||||<.001
91813442|NCT03274440|183502374|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in STAI-S as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.002|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|F=6.26, df=2, 10||Test for main effect of condition||||.002
91813443|NCT02611778|183502398|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference (FYB201 - Lucentis) was calculated using Least Square Means. If the 90% CI was completely contained in the interval \]-3.5;3.5\[ ETDRS letters, equivalence of FYB201 and Lucentis could be concluded.|Difference in least square means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.9|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 8 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|The hypothesis of biosimilarity of FYB201 and Lucentis was tested with a two-sided equivalence test with an equivalence margin of 3 ETDRS letters. An ANCOVA model was used with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 8 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and the country and the treatment group as fixed effects.||0.9|-1.6|
91813444|NCT02611778|183502399|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.5|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.5|-1.6|
91941128|NCT04010370|183779260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of QUICKI index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
91941129|NCT04010370|183779261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of FIRI index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.531
91941130|NCT04010370|183779262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Bennett index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.726
91941131|NCT04010370|183779263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of TyG index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.787
91941132|NCT01815580|183779275|OTHER||||||>|0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.75
91941133|NCT01815580|183779276|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91941134|NCT01815580|183779277|OTHER||||||>|0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.3
91941135|NCT01815580|183779278|OTHER||||||>|0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.12
91941136|NCT01815580|183779279|OTHER||||||>|0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.22
91941137|NCT01262599|183779280|SUPERIORITY|Applies to primary and secondary outcomes: Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, one-way repeated measures analysis of variance, t test, or Mann-Whitney rank sum test, as appropriate. (SigmaStat 3.5; Systat Software, Inc., San Jose, Calif.). Intention-to-treat using last value carried forward was used for missing data.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Before the start of this study, a sample size analysis, assuming a clinically meaningful 50± 40 percent (mean ± SD) decrease in pain scores from pulsed electromagnetic field treatment, suggested that a minimum of 11 patients per group were needed.||||<0.01
91941138|NCT01610206|183779288|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate the progression-free survival hazard ratio of the combination of weekly gemcitabine and pazopanib compared to weekly gemcitabine alone in patients with persistent or recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07|||non-parametric weighted Tarone-Ware test|||||1.07|0.61|0.019
91941139|NCT02999191|183779295|OTHER||Ratio|89.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.304|110.25|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fasted (numerator) and Solution, fasted (denominator). The Standard Deviation \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.25|73.304|
91941140|NCT02999191|183779295|OTHER||Ratio|170.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.85|208.54|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fed (numerator) and Tablets, fasted (denominator). The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||208.54|139.85|
91941141|NCT02999191|183779296|OTHER||Ratio|84.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.26|110.24|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fasted (numerator) and Solution, fasted (denominator). The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.24|64.260|
91941142|NCT02999191|183779296|OTHER||Ratio|136.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.885|185.61|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fed (numerator) and Tablets, fasted (denominator). The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||185.61|99.885|
91941143|NCT02566109|183779314|OTHER|Estimation of Pearson correlation|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.57472||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 2 months.||||0.6102
91941144|NCT02566109|183779314|OTHER|Correlation|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.25733||||0.8343|TWO_SIDED||||||Peason Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 6 months.||||0.8343
91941145|NCT02566109|183779315|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.09487||||0.9395|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 2 months.||||0.9395
91941146|NCT02566109|183779315|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.97287||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 6 months.||||0.1486
91941147|NCT02566109|183779316|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.10327||||0.9341|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 2 months.||||0.9341
91941148|NCT02566109|183779316|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.99696||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 6 months.||||0.0497
91813445|NCT02611778|183502400|OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.7|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.7|-1.8|
91813446|NCT02611778|183502401|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.8|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and 12 months (average of Weeks 40, 44 and 48) as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.8|-1.6|
91813447|NCT02611778|183502402|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.469|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.22|19.6|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCP retinal thickness between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCP retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||19.60|-18.22|
91941149|NCT02566109|183779317|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.98432||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.1129
91941150|NCT02859558|183779343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.48
91813448|NCT02611778|183502403|OTHER||Difference in least square means|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.632|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.49|21.85|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCP retinal thickness between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCP retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||21.85|-16.49|
91813449|NCT02611778|183502404|OTHER||Difference in least square means|-5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.136|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.62|10.8|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCS retinal thickness between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCS retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||10.80|-22.62|
91813450|NCT02611778|183502405|OTHER||Difference in least square means|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.285|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.28|20.63|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCS retinal thickness between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCS retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||20.63|-13.28|
91813451|NCT02611778|183502406|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4709|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.706|0.846|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in total lesion area between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline total lesion area as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||0.846|-0.706|
91813452|NCT02611778|183502407|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5387|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.547|1.23|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in total lesion area between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline total lesion area as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.230|-0.547|
91813453|NCT02611778|183502408|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|1.67|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with change in NEI VFQ-25 composite score between baseline and Week 24 as dependent variable, baseline NEI VFQ-25 composite score as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.67|-1.25|
91813454|NCT02611778|183502409|OTHER||Difference in least square means|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|3.42|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with change in NEI VFQ-25 composite score between baseline and Week 48 as dependent variable, baseline NEI VFQ-25 composite score as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||3.42|0.04|
91813455|NCT00385996|183502415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial distribution|Binomial distribution and test proportion =0.50||One arm phase 2 trial. This study is designed to asses response rate and defined as the percentage of subjects achieving at least 50% tumor volume. One-sided alpha is set at no more than 5% and the power no less than 90%,and the null hypothesis of RR of less than 10% and alternative hypothesis of RR of greater than 30%, a total of 30 patients will be enrolled (Fleming 1982).At least 7 responders out of 30 patients are needed to reject the null hypothesis of a 10% RR.||||<0.01
91813456|NCT00385996|183502417|OTHER||TTP [% without disease at 24 months]|63.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|83.8|||||Using the Kaplan-Meier method.|One arm study||83.8|43.4|
91813457|NCT00385996|183502418|OTHER||% alive without disease at 25 months|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.1|91.3|||||Using the Kaplan-Meier method.|One arm study||91.3|54.1|
91941151|NCT02859558|183779343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91941152|NCT02859558|183779343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.50
91813458|NCT04008030|183502419|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.81||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.0095.|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by the same factors as used in the Cox proportional hazard model.|a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.81|0.48|0.0003
91813459|NCT04008030|183502420|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.32||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.0209.|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by the same factors as used in the Cox proportional hazard model.|From a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.32|0.14|<0.0001
91813460|NCT04008030|183502422|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||||from a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.79|0.52|
91813461|NCT04008030|183502423|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.46|||||From a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.46|0.23|
91813462|NCT04008030|183502425|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||||95.0|0.45|0.8|||||from a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, ≥ 2) per IRT.|||0.80|0.45|
91813463|NCT04008030|183502426|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||||95.0|0.48|0.83|||||from a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, ≥ 2) per IRT.|||0.83|0.48|
91813464|NCT04008030|183502427|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2||||||95.0|0.12|0.31|||||From a stratified Cox proportional hazard model by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.31|0.12|
91813465|NCT04008030|183502428|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2||||||95.0|0.12|0.31|||||From a stratified Cox proportional hazard model by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.31|0.12|
91813466|NCT04008030|183502429|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||||95.0|0.52|0.79|||||from a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.79|0.52|
91813467|NCT04008030|183502430|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||||95.0|0.48|0.8|||||Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.80|0.48|
91941153|NCT02859558|183779343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91941154|NCT02859558|183779343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.44
91941155|NCT02859558|183779343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91941156|NCT02859558|183779344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.39
91941157|NCT02859558|183779344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.46
91941158|NCT02859558|183779344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.056
91941159|NCT02859558|183779344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.025
91941160|NCT02859558|183779344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.072
91941161|NCT02859558|183779344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.47
91941162|NCT02859558|183779344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.086
91813468|NCT04008030|183502432|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0011||95.0|1.26|2.5||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.006|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value from stratified CMH Test.|||Stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT|2.50|1.26|0.0011
91813469|NCT04008030|183502433|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02||||||95.0|3.91|12.62|||||Stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right)|||12.62|3.91|
91941163|NCT02859558|183779344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.18
91941164|NCT02859558|183779344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.88
91941165|NCT02859558|183779344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.061
91941166|NCT02859558|183779344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.042
91941167|NCT02859558|183779344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.54
91813470|NCT04008030|183502433|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||||95.0|1.06|2.63|||||Stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right)|||2.63|1.06|
91813471|NCT04008030|183502434|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.83|||||From a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.83|0.45|
91813472|NCT02574247|183502450|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row CRM at -9 dB SNR||||0.34
91941168|NCT02859558|183779345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.97
91813473|NCT02574247|183502450|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row CRM at -6 dB SNR||||0.64
91941169|NCT02859558|183779345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.21
91941170|NCT02859558|183779345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.12
91941171|NCT02859558|183779345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.055
91941172|NCT02859558|183779345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.28
91941173|NCT02859558|183779345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.38
91941174|NCT02859558|183779345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.35
91941175|NCT02859558|183779345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.007
91941176|NCT02859558|183779345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.045
91941177|NCT02859558|183779345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.085
91941178|NCT02859558|183779345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.044
91941179|NCT02859558|183779345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.60
91941180|NCT02859558|183779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Joint Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91941181|NCT02859558|183779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Joint Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91941182|NCT02859558|183779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.64
91941183|NCT02859558|183779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.69
91941184|NCT02859558|183779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.40
91941185|NCT02859558|183779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91941186|NCT02859558|183779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91941187|NCT04507360|183779352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Mean difference in Overall row"||||
91941188|NCT04507360|183779354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
91941189|NCT04507360|183779354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
91941190|NCT04507360|183779354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
91941191|NCT04507360|183779354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
91941192|NCT04507360|183779354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
91941193|NCT04507360|183779354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
91941194|NCT04507360|183779354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
91813474|NCT02574247|183502450|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row IEEE at -6 dB SNR||||0.24
91813475|NCT02574247|183502450|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row IEEE at -3 dB SNR||||0.20
91813476|NCT02574247|183502453|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row CRM slope||||0.03
91813477|NCT02574247|183502453|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for row IEEE slope||||0.04
91813478|NCT06273124|183502460|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier 7 Day Survival Estimate|95.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|97.0|||Bootstrapping Kaplan-Meier estimates|||Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the 7-day survival rates and p-values for the survival probabilities being greater than 75% were calculated with a bootstrap to account for the correlated data from having each participant wear multiple infusion sets.||97|94|<0.001
91813479|NCT06273124|183502461|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier 7 Day Survival Estimate|95.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|96.0|||Bootstrapping Kaplan-Meier estimates|||Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the 7-day survival rates and p-values for the survival probabilities being greater than 75% were calculated with a bootstrap to account for the correlated data from having each participant wear multiple infusion sets.||96|93|<0.001
91813480|NCT03336853|183502462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|0.66|<.0001
91813481|NCT01528254|183502463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.58|||Regression, Cox|||||0.58|0.45|<0.001
91813482|NCT01528254|183502464|OTHER||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.05|0.042
91813483|NCT01528254|183502465|OTHER||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.47|-0.29|0.635
91813484|NCT01528254|183502466|OTHER||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.05|0.530
91813485|NCT01528254|183502467|OTHER||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.90|-0.35|0.381
91813486|NCT01528254|183502468|OTHER||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 1||0.38|-0.53|0.744
91813487|NCT01528254|183502468|OTHER||Slope|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 2||-0.09|-0.91|0.017
91813488|NCT01528254|183502468|OTHER||Slope|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of study||-0.17|-0.99|0.006
91813489|NCT01528254|183502469|OTHER||Slope|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 1||-0.79|-9.26|0.020
91813490|NCT01528254|183502469|OTHER||Slope|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 2||-1.69|-8.46|0.003
91813491|NCT01528254|183502469|OTHER||Slope|-5.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|-2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of study||-2.16|-8.61|0.001
91813492|NCT00416078|183502514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||F test of time X group effect F(1,3)=.26|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat||||.65
91813493|NCT00416078|183502515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||t test of differential change over time in the two groups t(30)=.67|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.51
91813494|NCT00416078|183502516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||t test of differential change over time in the two groups t(29)=.27|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.79
91941195|NCT04507360|183779354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
91813495|NCT00416078|183502517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||t test for differential change over time in the two groups t(29)=.70|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.49
91941196|NCT04507360|183779354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
91941197|NCT04507360|183779354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
91941198|NCT04507360|183779355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
91813496|NCT00416078|183502518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||t test for differential change over time in the two groups t(29)=.43|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.67
91813497|NCT00416078|183502519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.64
91813498|NCT01686633|183502529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|0.045|<0.001
91813499|NCT01686633|183502529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.086||||||||0.086|-0.037|
91813500|NCT02607033|183502544|OTHER|Wilxocon signed Rank test||||||0.028|||||||Wilxocon signed Rank test|||Wilxocon signed Rank test to compare pre to post onset of pain time in the Exercise + Weight loss group. Due to low sample size were unable to compare changes between the Exercise + Weight Loss group and the Exercise only groups.||||0.028
91813501|NCT00773292|183502570|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91813502|NCT00708162|183502571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the EVG group was at least 10% worse than the RAL group with respect to percentage of participants achieving and maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL through Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the EVG group was less than 10% worse than the RAL group.|Difference in percentages|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.2|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions and normal approximation.|The planned sample size of 700 HIV-1 infected participants, (350 in each group) was estimated to provide at least 85% power to establish noninferiority in the percentage of participants achieving and maintaining confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL through Week 48. For sample size and power computation, it was assumed that both elvitegravir and raltegravir arms have a response rate of 0.74, that a noninferiority margin was 0.10, and that the significance level of the test was 1-sided 0.025 level.||8.2|-6.0|
91813503|NCT00708162|183502572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the EVG arm was at least 10% worse than the RAL arm with respect to percentage of participants achieving and maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL through Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the EVG arm was less than 10% worse than the RAL arm.|Difference in percentages|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.9|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||9.9|-4.6|
91813504|NCT00708162|183502573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.7|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||7.7|-6.0|
91813505|NCT00708162|183502574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|8.2|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||8.2|-6.4|
91813506|NCT00708162|183502575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.3|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||9.3|-5.0|
91813507|NCT00708162|183502576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.8|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||6.8|-7.9|
91813508|NCT00708162|183502581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.3|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||7.3|-6.9|
91813509|NCT00708162|183502582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.4|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||4.4|-10.2|
91941199|NCT04507360|183779355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
91813510|NCT00708162|183502583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.7|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||4.7|-8.6|
91813511|NCT00708162|183502584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|5.5|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||5.5|-8.8|
91813512|NCT00708162|183502585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log10 copies/mL|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19|||||The difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were obtained using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||0.19|-0.16|
91813513|NCT00708162|183502586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log10 copies/mL|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.22|||||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were obtained using ANOVA adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||0.22|-0.12|
91813514|NCT00708162|183502587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in cells/mm^3|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|16.0|||||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were obtained using ANOVA adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||16|-33|
91813515|NCT00708162|183502588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in cells/mm^3|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|39.0|||||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were obtained using ANOVA adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||39|-25|
91813516|NCT00605813|183502637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was renal dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||0.003
91813517|NCT00605813|183502638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was past medical history of other illness. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history of other illness in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91813518|NCT00605813|183502639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was non-pharmaceutical therapies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without non-pharmaceutical therapies in the participants of responders."||||0.040
91813519|NCT00605813|183502640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was present or past history of intentional suicidal ideation. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between present or past history of intentional suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt) in the participants of responders."||||0.004
91813520|NCT01163279|183502641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Statistical analysis applies to post intervention performance category|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91813521|NCT01163279|183502641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Statistical analysis applies to post intervention satisfaction category|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91941200|NCT04507360|183779355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
91941201|NCT04507360|183779355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
91941202|NCT04507360|183779356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
91813522|NCT01163279|183502641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3-month follow up performance category|Chi-squared|||||||0.54
91813523|NCT01163279|183502641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3-month follow up satisfaction category|Chi-squared|||||||0.26
91813524|NCT01163279|183502642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91813525|NCT01163279|183502643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91941203|NCT04507360|183779356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
91813526|NCT01163279|183502644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91813527|NCT01163279|183502645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91813528|NCT01163279|183502646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.1
91941204|NCT04507360|183779356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
91941205|NCT04507360|183779356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
91941206|NCT04507360|183779357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
91941207|NCT04507360|183779357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
91941208|NCT04507360|183779357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
91941209|NCT04507360|183779357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
91941210|NCT04507360|183779357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
91941211|NCT04507360|183779357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
91941212|NCT04507360|183779357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
91941213|NCT04507360|183779357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
91941214|NCT04507360|183779357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
91941215|NCT04507360|183779357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
91941216|NCT04507360|183779360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
91941217|NCT04507360|183779360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
91941218|NCT04507360|183779360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
91941219|NCT04507360|183779360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
91941220|NCT04507360|183779360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
91813529|NCT01163279|183502646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91813530|NCT01163279|183502647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91941221|NCT04507360|183779360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
91941222|NCT04507360|183779360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
91941223|NCT04507360|183779360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
91941224|NCT04507360|183779360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
91941225|NCT04507360|183779360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
91941226|NCT04507360|183779360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
91941227|NCT04507360|183779360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
91941228|NCT04507360|183779361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
91941229|NCT04507360|183779361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
91941230|NCT04507360|183779361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
91941231|NCT04507360|183779361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
91941232|NCT04507360|183779361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
91941233|NCT04507360|183779361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
91941234|NCT04507360|183779361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
91941235|NCT04507360|183779361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
91941236|NCT04507360|183779361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
91941237|NCT04507360|183779361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
91941238|NCT04507360|183779361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
91941239|NCT04507360|183779361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
91941240|NCT00400946|183779362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.60
91813531|NCT01163279|183502647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91813532|NCT01163279|183502648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.1
91813533|NCT01163279|183502648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91813534|NCT01163279|183502649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91941241|NCT03950440|183779377|OTHER|Propensity scores were obtained from three separate multivariable logistic regression models contrasting each group versus the two other groups. The result from this multivariable model quantifies the degree of separation between both groups.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.44||The double robust approach refers to the weighted analysis with all variables involved in the construction of the propensity-based weights added as confounders in the model.|Poisson regression||TAVI-group compared to the SAVR-group|Frailty scores (Tilburg and essential) and Euroscore were specified in the protocol. Age was added during the meeting before start of the data-analysis|The double robust approach refers to the weighted analysis with all variables involved in the construction of the propensity-based weights added as confounders in the model.|0.44|0.16|<0.0001
91941242|NCT00439309|183779396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sealing success rates for the investigational group and control groups were assumed to be 0.85 (85%) and 0.75 (75%), respectively, and the non-inferiority margin (10%) is 0.10. For safety reasons it was desired to have at least 100 Vascular Sealant treated subjects. It was determined that a sample size of at least 31 evaluable subjects is required for the control group. For blocking purposes, the number of evaluable control group subjects was set to 33, for a 3:1 randomization.||||||0.072|||||||Z-Test|one-sided Z-test based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution testing||The effectiveness analyses were performed on the ITT population.||||0.072
91941243|NCT00439309|183779397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for superiority of the Vascular Sealant System compared to the GELFOAM Treatment from two-sided test based on the GEE regression model.||||||0.006
91941244|NCT00439309|183779398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for superiority of the Vascular Sealant System compared to the GELFOAMTreatment from two-sided test based on the GEE regression model||||||0.654
91941245|NCT00439309|183779399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
91941246|NCT00439309|183779400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to obtain estimated median times to wound closure and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group||||||0.404
91941247|NCT02043509|183779401|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|9.35|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||9.35|0.93|
91941248|NCT02043509|183779402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.75|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||1.75|0.61|
91941249|NCT02043509|183779403|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.31|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||2.31|0.79|
91941250|NCT02043509|183779404|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.03|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||4.03|0.72|
91941251|NCT02043509|183779405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.46|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||5.46|0.89|
91941252|NCT02043509|183779406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|10.69|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||10.69|1.14|
91813535|NCT01163279|183502650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91941253|NCT02043509|183779407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|17.36|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||17.36|0.90|
91941254|NCT02043509|183779408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||||||0.118
91941255|NCT03189563|183779412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3656||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline motor MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.3656
91941256|NCT03189563|183779412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3119||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline motor MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.3119
91941257|NCT03189563|183779413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1470
91941258|NCT03189563|183779413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2520
91941259|NCT03189563|183779414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1528||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 1 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1528
91941260|NCT03189563|183779414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6146||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 1 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.6146
91941261|NCT03189563|183779415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5691||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline S\&E scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.5691
91941262|NCT03189563|183779415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1309||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline S\&E scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1309
91941263|NCT03189563|183779416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7913||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PDQ-39 summary index. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.7913
91813536|NCT01163279|183502650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91813537|NCT01163279|183502651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91941264|NCT03189563|183779416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9399||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PDQ-39 summary index. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.9399
91941265|NCT03189563|183779417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4978||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline H\&Y scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.4978
91941266|NCT03189563|183779417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline H\&Y scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.8880
91941267|NCT03189563|183779418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5755||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 2 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.5755
91941268|NCT03189563|183779418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1517||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 2 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1517
91941269|NCT03189563|183779419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2095||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 3 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2095
91941270|NCT03189563|183779419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6094||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 3 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.6094
91941271|NCT03189563|183779420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 4 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2260
91941272|NCT03189563|183779420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 4 subscale score All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2260
91941273|NCT03189563|183779421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8274||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CGI-S score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.8274
91941274|NCT03189563|183779421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3416||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CGI-S score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.3416
91813538|NCT03227029|183502681|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.0|80.0|||||Proportions of study participants were calculated and presented with 90% exact confidence intervals. This highlights that we are 95% sure that the true proportion is not higher that the upper limit of the confidence interval.|||80|46|
91813539|NCT03227029|183502681|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|84.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.0|94.0||||||||94|67|
91813540|NCT03227029|183502681|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.0|82.0||||||||82|32|
91941275|NCT03189563|183779422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4052||||||P-value is from ANCOVA model. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4052
91941276|NCT03189563|183779422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2643||||||P-value is from ANCOVA model. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2643
91941277|NCT02443155|183779493|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|1.48|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.89|||Mixed model repeated measurements||NNC0114-0006 + liraglutide / Placebo|Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.89|1.16|=0.0017
91941278|NCT02443155|183779493|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|1.23|||=|0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.57|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.57|0.97|=0.0927
91941279|NCT02443155|183779493|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|1.12|||=|0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.42|0.87|=0.3780
91941280|NCT02443155|183779493|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|1.2|||=|0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.53|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.53|0.94|=0.1377
91941281|NCT02443155|183779493|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|1.33|||=|0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.69|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.69|1.04|=0.0214
91941282|NCT02443155|183779493|SUPERIORITY||Treatmrnt ratio|1.1|||=|0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.41|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.41|0.87|=0.4187
91941283|NCT01998906|183779626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|30.2|||Chi-squared|||||30.2|5.0|0.0051
91941284|NCT01998906|183779627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|31.4|||Chi-squared|||||31.4|7.2|0.0014
91941285|NCT01998906|183779628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|19.1|||Chi-squared|||||19.1|-6.4|0.3077
91941286|NCT01998906|183779630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.44|0.0275
91941287|NCT01998906|183779632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.35|0.0555
91813541|NCT03227029|183502682|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with usolicited AEs|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.0|54.0||||||||54|20|
91941288|NCT05724069|183779643|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.239|||=|0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|0.074|||paired T-test|||Subjects in this analysis are 15 and not 30 (this happens because arms are not mutually exclusive, as explained in previous sections). Each subject can contribute with 0, 1, 2 pairs. Only data that constitute pairs evaluable for primary endpoint are considered in the analysis; the pairs evaluable for primary endpoint were 23.||0.074|-0.553|=0.1279
91941289|NCT03552289|183779646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8283|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||0.8283
91941290|NCT05241470|183779667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9575|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9575
91941291|NCT05241470|183779667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9741|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9741
91941292|NCT05241470|183779668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5696|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5696
91941293|NCT05241470|183779669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0266
91941294|NCT05241470|183779670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0055
91941295|NCT05241470|183779671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0097
91941296|NCT05241470|183779672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0137
91941297|NCT05241470|183779673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0332|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0332
91941298|NCT05241470|183779674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0394
91941299|NCT05241470|183779675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0121
91941300|NCT05241470|183779676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0224|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0224
91941301|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||2.36e-05|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus parainfluenzae: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0000236
91941302|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.0033243|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria elongata: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0033243
91941303|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.00500088|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter sp.\_HMT\_898: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.00500088
91941304|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.0066975|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Parvimonas sp.\_HMT\_110: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0066975
91941305|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.00710228|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter aphrophilus: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.00710228
91941306|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.00744022|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Kingella oralis: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.00744022
91941307|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.01434037|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus sp.\_HMT\_036: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.01434037
91813542|NCT03227029|183502682|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with usolicited AEs|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.0|69.0||||||||69|34|
91813543|NCT03227029|183502682|OTHER||% placebo recipients with usolicited AEs|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.0|68.0||||||||68|18|
91813544|NCT03227029|183502684|OTHER||% recipients infected with vaccine virus|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.0|97.0||||||||97|72|
91941308|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.01955327|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus haemolyticus: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.01955327
91941309|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.01995277|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria mucosa: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.01995277
91941310|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.02082528|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Parvimonas sp.\_HMT\_393\_nov\_97.053%: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02082528
91941311|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.02188156|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Ottowia sp.\_HMT\_894: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.02188156
91941312|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.02321733|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Cryptobacterium curtum: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02321733
91941313|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.02397996|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Lautropia mirabilis: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.02397996
91941314|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.02509094|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus paraphrohaemolyticus: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02509094
91941315|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.02648847|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga sp.\_HMT\_332: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02648847
91941316|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.02828764|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria flavescens: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02828764
91941317|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.03454372|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga gingivalis\_nov\_96.429%: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03454372
91941318|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.03747507|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga sputigena: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03747507
91941319|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.03776136|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus sputorum: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03776136
91941320|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.03853215|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga gingivalis\_nov\_90.546%: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03853215
91941321|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.04751303|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella denticola: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.04751303
91941322|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.05190512|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter sp.\_HMT\_513: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.05190512
91941323|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.0550647|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Veillonella sp.\_HMT\_780: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0550647
91941324|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.05861488|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria perflava: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.05861488
91941325|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.06727926|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Slackia exigua: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.06727926
91941326|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.07051698|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Shuttleworthia satelles: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.07051698
91941327|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.0740793|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter sp.\_HMT\_458: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0740793
91941328|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.07426973|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Ruminococcaceae\_\[G-1\] bacterium\_HMT\_075: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.07426973
91941329|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.07829888|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Campylobacter showae: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.07829888
91941330|NCT06048809|183779681|OTHER|||||||0.08462924|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Streptococcus sp.\_HMT\_056: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.08462924
91941331|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.062378|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Abiotrophia defectiva: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.062378
91941332|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.063437|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Saccharibacteria\_(TM7)\_\[G1\] bacterium\_HMT\_346: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.063437
91941333|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.069908|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Olsenella sp.\_HMT\_807: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.069908
91941334|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.079736|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Fusobacterium nucleatum\_nucleatum\_subsp.\_animalis: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.079736
91941335|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.094642|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Bergeyella sp.\_HMT\_322: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.094642
91941336|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.095848|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Peptostreptococcaceae\_\[XI\]\[G-1\] \[Eubacterium\]\_infirmum: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.095848
91941337|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.107931|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella sp.\_HMT\_317: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.107931
91941338|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.109114|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Bacteroidales\_\[G-2\] bacterium\_HMT\_274: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.109114
91941339|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.11083|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Actinomyces sp.\_HMT\_175\_nov 97.951%: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.11083
91941340|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.120377|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Slackia exigua: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.120377
91941341|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.123758|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Granulicatella adiacens: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.123758
91941342|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.123992|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella oris: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.123992
91941343|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.133385|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Streptococcus sp.\_HMT\_064: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.133385
91941344|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.144598|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Schaalia odontolyticus: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.144598
91941345|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.147278|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Mogibacterium diversum: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.147278
91941346|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.148674|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella denticola: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.148674
91813545|NCT03227029|183502684|OTHER||% recipients infected with vaccine virus|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.0|100.0||||||||100|82|
91941347|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.149722|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Absconditabacteria\_(SR1)\_\[G-1\] bacterium\_HMT\_875: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.149722
91941348|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.154465|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella nigrescens: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.154465
91813546|NCT03227029|183502684|OTHER||% recipients infected with vaccine virus|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|22.0||||||||22|0|
91813547|NCT03227029|183502687|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV-PRNT|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.0|76.0||||||||76|42|
91813548|NCT03227029|183502687|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV-PRNT|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.0|98.0||||||||98|76|
91941349|NCT06048809|183779682|OTHER|||||||0.158139|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Streptococcus chosunense: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.158139
91941350|NCT02658149|183779685|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
91941351|NCT02658149|183779686|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.204
91941352|NCT02658149|183779687|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91941353|NCT02658149|183779688|OTHER|||||||0.741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.741
91941354|NCT02658149|183779689|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
91941355|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9825|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.9825
91941356|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5737|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.5737
91941357|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.5703
91941358|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.5684
91941359|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8235|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.8235
91941360|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2384|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.2384
91941361|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1634
91941362|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7816|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.7816
91941363|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3917
91941364|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1749
91941365|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||<0.001
91941366|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0905
91941367|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3766|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3766
91941368|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0253
91941369|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0209
91941370|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8206|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.8206
91941371|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0907
91941372|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0177
91941373|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0050
91941374|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3724
91941375|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2796|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.2796
91941376|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0066
91941377|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0081
91941378|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.7853
91941379|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0039
91941380|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3057|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3057
91941381|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3374
91941382|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1410
91941383|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0017
91941384|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0677
91941385|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1608
91941386|NCT01156363|183779716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0196
91941387|NCT00047008|183779754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.128|||Log Rank|||A sample size of 684 analyzable patients provides 80% power to detect a relative reduction of 25% in the rate of death in the accelerated-fractionation radiotherapy group as compared with the standard-fractionation radiotherapy group, assuming a 2-year rate of overall survival of 45% in the standard-fractionation radiotherapy group, with the use of a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 significance level.||1.128|0.719|0.180
91813549|NCT03227029|183502687|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV-PRNT|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|22.0||||||||22|0|
91813550|NCT03227029|183502687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91941388|NCT00047008|183779755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.43||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||1.43|0.83|0.76
91941389|NCT00047008|183779756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||1.44|0.85|0.80
91941390|NCT00047008|183779757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||1.20|0.81|0.42
91941391|NCT00047008|183779758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.23||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||1.23|0.81|0.50
91941392|NCT00047008|183779759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Acute toxicity||||0.21
91813551|NCT03227029|183502687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91813552|NCT03227029|183502688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91941393|NCT00047008|183779759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Late toxicity||||0.18
91941394|NCT00047008|183779760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.92
91941395|NCT00047008|183779761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.67
91941396|NCT00047008|183779762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.43
91941397|NCT00047008|183779763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.39
91941398|NCT02773368|183779771|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment Contrast|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD, region as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation are included in the analysis. Missing data was imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation. The non-inferiority margin of 0.3 % was added to the end-of-treatment value for prematurely discontinued and withdrawn from trial IDegLira subjects.||-0.20|-0.48|
91941399|NCT02773368|183779771|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c; and superiority of IDegLira was confirmed for weight change and the number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) in change from baseline in HbA1c was strictly below 0%.|Treatment Contrast|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.21|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|This endpoint was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD and region as factors and corresponding baseline value as covariate. Data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation were included in the analysis. Missing data were imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation.||-0.21|-0.50|
91813553|NCT03227029|183502688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91813554|NCT03227029|183502689|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV F protein|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.0|76.0||||||||76|42|
91813555|NCT03227029|183502689|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV F protein|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.0|98.0||||||||98|76|
91813556|NCT03227029|183502689|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV F protein|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|22.0||||||||22|0|
91813557|NCT03227029|183502689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91813558|NCT03227029|183502689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91813559|NCT03227029|183502690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91941400|NCT02773368|183779772|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) in change from baseline in body weight was strictly below 0 kg.|Treatment Contrast|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-1.19|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|This endpoint was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD and region as factors and corresponding baseline weight as covariate. Data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation were included in the analysis. Missing data were imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation.||-1.19|-2.64|
91813560|NCT03227029|183502690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91813561|NCT01291173|183502693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.8825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.175|-0.203|0.8825
91813562|NCT01291173|183502693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.258||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|-0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.069|-0.446|0.0077
91813563|NCT01291173|183502693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.345||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.155|-0.534|0.0004
91813564|NCT01291173|183502694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4676
91813565|NCT01291173|183502694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0198
91813566|NCT01291173|183502694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0031
91813567|NCT01291173|183502695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3341
91813568|NCT01291173|183502695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0063
91813569|NCT01291173|183502695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0022
91813570|NCT01291173|183502696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0937
91813571|NCT01291173|183502696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0127
91813572|NCT01291173|183502696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0009
91813573|NCT01291173|183502699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0091
91813574|NCT01291173|183502699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
91813575|NCT01291173|183502699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91813576|NCT01291173|183502700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-5.34|0.0142
91813577|NCT01291173|183502700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.88|-5.62|0.0075
91813578|NCT01291173|183502700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.56|-7.30|<0.0001
91813579|NCT01291173|183502701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.7538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|-1.11|0.7538
91813580|NCT01291173|183502701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.44|-0.45|0.3062
91813581|NCT01291173|183502701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.7697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|-0.81|0.7697
91813582|NCT01291173|183502702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.2046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|-0.29|0.2046
91813583|NCT01291173|183502702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-0.42|0.3348
91813584|NCT01291173|183502702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.63|-0.00|0.0505
91813585|NCT01291173|183502703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||||0.0371
91813586|NCT01291173|183502703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||||0.1380
91813587|NCT01291173|183502703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||||0.0459
91813588|NCT01291173|183502703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.0278
91813589|NCT01291173|183502703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.0022
91813590|NCT01291173|183502703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||<0.0001
91813591|NCT01291173|183502703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.0149
91813592|NCT01291173|183502703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.0009
91813593|NCT01291173|183502703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||<0.0001
91813594|NCT01291173|183502704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-7.44|0.030
91813595|NCT01291173|183502704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.94|-8.95|0.002
91813596|NCT01291173|183502704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|-4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.92|-11.99|<0.001
91813597|NCT01291173|183502705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-5.64|0.0824
91813598|NCT01291173|183502705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.91|-5.05|0.1725
91813599|NCT01291173|183502705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.73|-6.69|0.0148
91813600|NCT01291173|183502706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Physical Score||3.38|-0.89|0.2504
91813601|NCT01291173|183502706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Physical Score||3.21|-1.02|0.3090
91813602|NCT01291173|183502706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Physical Score||4.64|0.37|0.0216
91813603|NCT01291173|183502706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Mental Score||2.90|-2.75|0.9587
91813604|NCT01291173|183502706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Mental Score||3.45|-2.17|0.6530
91813605|NCT01291173|183502706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Mental Score||2.86|-2.79|0.9814
91813606|NCT01074450|183502716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.23|108.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.1|94.23|
91813607|NCT01074450|183502717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.74|109.92|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.92|99.74|
91813608|NCT01074450|183502718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.05|109.52|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.52|99.05|
91813609|NCT04788953|183502736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects tobit regression model (censored normal). Group (Solriamfetol, Placebo), visit (Baseline, End-of-Treatment), trial (1-4) main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||The statistical null hypothesis was that solriamfetol does not improve change in MWT scores versus placebo after 4 weeks of treatment (H0: µsol - µpl ≤ 0). Study was designed to have 97% power to detect a difference of 5.7 minutes or greater on MWT sleep latency (α=0.05, assumed σ=7.2) with 100 participants. Blinded interim power analysis on the baseline data conducted in October 2023 indicated the trial would have \>99% power to detect a similar difference with only 74 participants.||||<0.001
91813610|NCT04788953|183502737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol, Placebo), visit (Baseline, End-of-Treatment), trial (1-4) main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||<0.001
91813611|NCT04788953|183502738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||"Chi-squared tests performed on dichotomized CGI-Change data (Improved \[very much improved, much improved, minimally improved\] vs. Not Improved \[no change, minimally worse, much worse, very much worse\])."|Chi-squared|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.01
91813612|NCT04788953|183502740|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.02
91813613|NCT04788953|183502741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.64
91813614|NCT04788953|183502742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.04
91813615|NCT04788953|183502743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and Condition (Baseline vs. Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.61
91813616|NCT04788953|183502744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and Condition (Baseline vs. Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.57
91813617|NCT04788953|183502745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||<0.001
91813618|NCT00469092|183502746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI is less than 0.4%. Furthermore, superiority of BIAsp 30 OD over insulin glargine OD was shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference is lower than 0%. Equivalence is shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference is lower than 0.4% and the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.029||95.0|-0.3|-0.02||P-value is for the test for difference in means equals 0 against the alternative that the difference is different from 0.|Regression, Linear|||HbA1c was compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model (ANCOVA) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate. Mean and SE are estimated from the model.||-0.02|-0.30|0.029
91813619|NCT00469092|183502747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||95.0||||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The profiles were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a repeated measures mixed model including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction and country as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.||||0.0059
91813620|NCT00469092|183502748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.914||||||95.0|0.57|1.47|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \<= 6.5% treatment target.|||1.47|0.57|
91941401|NCT02773368|183779773|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c and superiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in body weight) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the rate ratio (IDegLira over IGlar) of rate of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes was strictly below 1.|Treatment Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75|||Negative binomial regression model||IDegLira over IGlar|This endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log link and the logarithm of the exposure time as offset. The model included treatment and pre-trial OAD as fixed factors. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputations (conditioning on expected event rate before premature treatment discontinuation or withdrawal from trial as if treated with IGlar).||0.75|0.23|
91813621|NCT00469092|183502748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||||95.0|0.67|1.54|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7.0% treatment target.|||1.54|0.67|
91813622|NCT00469092|183502748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.131||||||95.0|0.72|1.77|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the reduction more than 1.0% from baseline treatment target.|||1.77|0.72|
91813623|NCT00469092|183502748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.905||||||95.0|0.59|1.38|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7% no nocturnal (00:00-06:00) hypoglycemia treatment target|||1.38|0.59|
91813624|NCT00469092|183502748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.181||||||95.0|0.74|1.87|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7%, no daytime (06:01-23:59) hypoglycemia treatment target|||1.87|0.74|
91813625|NCT00469092|183502748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.122||||||95.0|0.69|1.82|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7%, no hypoglycemia treatment target.|||1.82|0.69|
91813626|NCT00469092|183502749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||||95.0|-2.4|2.48|||||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the burden score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|The Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores. The scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||2.48|-2.40|
91813627|NCT00469092|183502749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||||95.0|-3.56|3.11|||||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the efficacy score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|The Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores. The scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||3.11|-3.56|
91813628|NCT00469092|183502749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||||95.0|-3.14|2.35|||||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the symptoms score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|The Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores. The scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||2.35|-3.14|
91813629|NCT00469092|183502749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||||95.0|-2.36|2.14|||Regression, Linear||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the overall score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores, and transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||2.14|-2.36|
91941402|NCT02773368|183779774|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c; and superiority of IDegLira was confirmed for weight change, number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes and change in HbA1c) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) in insulin dose after 26 weeks was strictly below 0 U.|Treatment Contrast|-15.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-11.13|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|The endpoint was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD and region as factors and corresponding baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing data were imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation.||-11.13|-19.60|
91941403|NCT01665872|183779804|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.172
91941404|NCT01665872|183779805|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.5337|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Are CES-D scores at 12 months different between groups?||||0.5337
91941405|NCT01665872|183779806|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.092||||||This test looks at a difference in Parental Distress at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0920
91941406|NCT01665872|183779806|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.3352||||||This test looks at a difference in Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3352
91941407|NCT01665872|183779806|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.0404||||||This test looks at a difference in Difficult Child at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0404
91941408|NCT01665872|183779806|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.0915||||||This test looks at a difference in PSI total score (percentile) at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0915
91941409|NCT01665872|183779807|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-square was used with a p-value of 0.05 to determine if the difference was statistically greater than 0.||||||0.2914|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2914
91941410|NCT01929018|183779809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.87
91941411|NCT01929018|183779809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.38
91941412|NCT01929018|183779810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.75
91941413|NCT01929018|183779810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.11
91941414|NCT01929018|183779811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.11
91941415|NCT01929018|183779811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.23
91941416|NCT01929018|183779812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.27
91941417|NCT01929018|183779812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.58
91941418|NCT01929018|183779813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.83
91941419|NCT01929018|183779813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.13
91941420|NCT01929018|183779814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.03
91941421|NCT01929018|183779814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.02
91941422|NCT01929018|183779815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.03
91941423|NCT01929018|183779815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.06
91941424|NCT01929018|183779816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.62
91941425|NCT01929018|183779816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.40
91941426|NCT01929018|183779817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.96
91941427|NCT01929018|183779817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.35
91941428|NCT01047436|183779826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference between treatments|26.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|53.7|||Fisher Exact|||The sample size was not statistically determined in this initial trial with ArTimist. For the primary outcome analysis, the percentage of patients defined as having success were determined. The difference between ArTiMist and quinine, along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined. The difference between treatments were compared using Fisher's Exact test||53.7|-0.3|0.17
91813630|NCT01086540|183502757|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.71||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 24.|The null hypothesis was that the mean change in 6MWD between baseline and Week 24 does not differ between rituximab and placebo. A repeated measures random effect model was fit to model the distance walked as a function of treatment, visit week, a treatment by visit week interaction, and a quadratic visit term. A random slope and intercept were fit for each participant using a separate unstructured covariance matrix for each treatment group. The model included all available data up to Week 24.||||0.12
91813631|NCT01086540|183502758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures mixed model was fit with PVR as the outcome and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.42
91813632|NCT01086540|183502759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 48 value. P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit to model the distance walked as a function of treatment, visit week, a treatment by visit week interaction, and a quadratic visit term. A random slope and intercept were fit for each participant using a separate unstructured covariance matrix for each treatment group. The model included all available data up to Week 48.||||0.28
91813633|NCT01086540|183502759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 24 value. P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 24.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit to model the distance walked as a function of treatment, visit week, a treatment by visit week interaction, and a quadratic visit term. A random slope and intercept were fit for each participant using a separate unstructured covariance matrix for each treatment group. The model included all available data up to Week 48.||||0.031
91813634|NCT01086540|183502760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to clinical worsening were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.92
91813635|NCT01086540|183502761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to change or addition of PAH medications were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.36
91813636|NCT01086540|183502762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with the mental component score as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.81
91941429|NCT01047436|183779828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.01|||Log Rank|||The time for the parasite count to fall by 90% (PCT90) was determined for each patient as the time in minutes/seconds, when the parasite count fell by 90% The PCT90 was appropriately summarised for each treatment for the FAS . The times were presented graphically for each endpoint using a life-table curve (Kaplan-Meier method). For each endpoint the survival curves were compared by the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was calculated along with its 95% CI.||3.01|0.48|0.70
91813637|NCT01086540|183502763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with the physical component score as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.30
91813638|NCT01086540|183502764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with HAQ-DI as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.58
91813639|NCT01086540|183502765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||A Poisson model was used to describe the rate of new digital ulcers (per week) as the outcome with treatment, number of digital ulcers at Baseline, and if the measurement was affected by changed or new PAH therapeutic agents as covariates.||||0.47
91813640|NCT01086540|183502766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with severity of Raynaud's (0 to 100) as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.43
91813641|NCT01086540|183502767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with DLCO as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.65
91941430|NCT01047436|183779830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.76||95.0|0.34|2.18||Difference between survival curves compared by Log Rank test|Log Rank|||The PCT50 was determined for each patient as the time in minutes/seconds, when the parasite count fell by 50% The PCT50 was appropriately summarised for each treatment for the FAS . The times were presented graphically for each endpoint using a life-table curve (Kaplan-Meier method). For each endpoint the survival curves were compared by the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was calculated along with its 95% CI.||2.18|0.34|0.76
91941431|NCT01789255|183779840|OTHER|||||||0.02642|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02642
91941432|NCT01789255|183779841|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
91813642|NCT01086540|183502769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures mixed model was fit with percent change in PVR as the outcome and baseline PVR, treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.42
91813643|NCT01086540|183502774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to all-cause mortality were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.17
91813644|NCT01086540|183502775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to all-cause mortality were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.35
91813645|NCT02707991|183502776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.036|ONE_SIDED|||||one-sided test|z-test for difference in proportions|||||||0.036
91813646|NCT02612428|183502801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|1.64|||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the Intent-to-treat (ITT) population utilizing a log-rank test.||1.640|0.509|0.762
91813647|NCT02612428|183502802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6829
91813648|NCT02612428|183502803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.048
91941433|NCT02635867|183779842|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive data and rates of success were calculated independently for indirect and direct therapies. Statistical analyses of proportions were done using Fisher's test and 95% confidence intervals (CI)|||||>|0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The clinical outcome measures assessed were pain using visual analog pain scale, pulp vitality assessment at 12 months.~The success rate was based on 3 measures of pulp vitality that resulted in a diagnosis of vital or nonvital:~Vital: palpation = negative/ percussion = negative/ response to cold stimuli= positive response Non vital: palpation = positive / percussion = positive. / response to cold stimuli= positive or delayed response time in seconds and lingering."||||>0.1
91813649|NCT01928329|183502812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03||The \<0.05 is the apriori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|HbA1c Linear Mixed Model Results (adjusts the model for: baseline BMI, gender, study site, race (White/Non White) and Baseline C-Peptide production).||||0.03|-0.50|0.0816
91813650|NCT01928329|183502813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||The \<0.05 is the apriori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|HbA1c Linear Mixed Model Results (adjusts the model for: baseline BMI, gender, study site, race (White/Non White) and Baseline C-Peptide production).||||0.25|-0.28|0.912
91813651|NCT01928329|183502814|SUPERIORITY||Z score|-0.801||||0.423|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.423
91813652|NCT01928329|183502815|SUPERIORITY||Z score|-1.312||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.189
91813653|NCT05167734|183502825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|values greater than 0 infer higher hemoglobin in active intervention|||1.2|0.1|0.02
91813654|NCT05167734|183502826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|adjusted mean difference|3-months post hospitalization||1.1|0.0|0.04
91941434|NCT02128958|183779844|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Log Rank|||The between-treatment comparison (CF102 vs Placebo) of Overall Survival will be performed using the log rank test as the primary analysis.||||0.536
91941435|NCT02128958|183779845|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Log Rank|||The between-treatment comparison (CF102 vs Placebo) of Time to Progression will be performed using the log rank test as the primary analysis.||||.371
91813655|NCT05167734|183502826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission||Hospital Discharge||0.7|-0.3|0.42
91813656|NCT05167734|183502827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.352
91813657|NCT05167734|183502828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||threshold for significance - p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91813658|NCT05167734|183502829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.4|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|Hospital Discharge||2.40|0.44|0.94
91813659|NCT05167734|183502829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.2|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||4.20|0.76|0.18
91813660|NCT05167734|183502829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.0|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||3.00|0.51|0.64
91813661|NCT05167734|183502830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.8|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|Hospital discharge||4.80|0.68|0.23
91813662|NCT05167734|183502830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|6.8|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||6.80|0.87|0.09
91813663|NCT05167734|183502830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|7.2|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||7.20|0.88|0.084
91813664|NCT05167734|183502831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|218.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|510.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, surgical vs. non-surgical admission, and baseline ADLs|scores greater than 0 reflect greater ambulatory distance in active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||510|-73|0.13
91813665|NCT05167734|183502831|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|178.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.0|510.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, surgical vs. non-surgical admission, baseline ADLs||3-months post hospitalization||510|-154|0.27
91813666|NCT05167734|183502832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.8|||proportional odds|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||7.80|0.79|0.12
91813667|NCT05167734|183502832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|10.5|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||10.5|0.91|0.07
91941436|NCT02128958|183779846|OTHER|||||||0.521|||||||Log Rank|||The between-treatment comparison (CF102 vs Placebo) will be performed on Time to Progression Free Survival using the logrank test.||||0.521
91813668|NCT05167734|183502833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.8|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization for anxiety score||1.80|0.14|0.29
91813669|NCT05167734|183502833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.6|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization for anxiety score||2.60|0.18|0.57
91813670|NCT05167734|183502833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.3|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization for depression score||1.30|0.10|0.12
91813671|NCT05167734|183502833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.4|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization for depression score||2.40|0.16|0.48
91813672|NCT05167734|183502834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.6|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||5.60|0.39|0.56
91813673|NCT05167734|183502834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|59.9|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||59.9|1.40|0.02
91813674|NCT05167734|183502835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|||1.40|0.02|0.09
91813675|NCT05167734|183502837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|logistic models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds for the given event associated with intervention associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||1.80|0.30|0.48
91813676|NCT05167734|183502838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|24.0|||Regression, Logistic|logistic models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds for the given event associated with intervention associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||24.0|0.19|0.54
91813677|NCT03742037|183502871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference to placebo|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.4749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||0.68|-1.45|0.4749
91813678|NCT03742037|183502871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean to placebo|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||0.49|-1.65|0.2941
91813679|NCT03742037|183502871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference to placebo|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.9802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||1.08|-1.05|0.9802
91813680|NCT03742037|183502871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||-0.12|-2.25|0.0291
91941437|NCT02128958|183779849|OTHER|||||||0.988|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of ALT will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.988
91941438|NCT02128958|183779849|OTHER|||||||0.989|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of AST will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.989
91813681|NCT03742037|183502872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||1.9|0.54|0.974
91813682|NCT03742037|183502872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||2.65|0.75|0.2845
91813683|NCT03742037|183502872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||2.32|0.66|0.5115
91813684|NCT03742037|183502872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||2.32|0.66|0.5115
91813685|NCT00056407|183502884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|23.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.6|30.3||The p value is given is for the overall assessment.|Mantel-Cox||Estimation data given are for the overall assessment.|||30.3|15.6|<0.0001
91813686|NCT00056407|183502885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|23.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.5|30.0||The p value is given is for the overall assessment.|Mantel-Cox||Estimation data are given are for the overall assessment.|||30.0|15.5|<0.0001
91813687|NCT00056407|183502886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|22.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.2|29.8||The p value is given for the overall assessment.|Mantel-Cox||Estimation data are given for the overall assessment.|||29.8|15.2|<0.0001
91941439|NCT02128958|183779849|OTHER|||||||0.717|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of Albumin will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.717
91813688|NCT00056407|183502909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|18.8|||<|0.001||95.0|17.3|20.4|||general linear model, t-test||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the difference between the adjusted means (-6.1 and 12.7) for the placebo and Dutasteride arms, respectively.|||20.4|17.3|<0.001
91813689|NCT02335099|183502936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|217.52|||Fisher Exact|||||217.52|0.27|0.32
91813690|NCT02335099|183502937|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.2|||Log Rank|||||3.20|0.23|0.82
91813691|NCT04702997|183502944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.268|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|10.24||KDIGO strata, treatment group, time (Week 1 to 12), and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||10.24|5.18|<0.0001
91813692|NCT01103284|183502977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) was adjusted for the following baseline covariates: age, C-peptide, insulin dose by body weight and AUC||||||0.33
91813693|NCT01103284|183502978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model was adjusted for the following covariates: age, Baseline C-peptide, Baseline insulin dose adjusted for body weight, and Baseline AUC.||||||0.68
91813694|NCT01103284|183502979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model was adjusted for the following covariates: age, Baseline C-peptide, Baseline insulin dose adjusted for body weight, and Baseline AUC||||||0.44
91813695|NCT01103284|183502981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.79||Standard multiple imputation was used to predict the number and timing of hypoglycemic events after discontinuing the study for subjects who did not remain in the study until Month 25.|negative binomial regression|||The number of hypoglycemia events during the study was analyzed using a negative binomial regression model, with number of events as the dependent variable, and treatment, age, baseline daily insulin dose, and baseline C-peptide as covariates. The log of duration in the study for each patient was used as an offset variable in the model.||0.79|-0.02|0.07
91813696|NCT01190254|183503025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-4.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.4||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing two asenapine groups versus the placebo group|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.4|-9.9|0.070
91813697|NCT01190254|183503025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-5.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.5||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing two asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.5|-10.7|0.064
91813698|NCT01190254|183503025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for Linear dose-response pattern (Placebo\<2.5 mg\<5.0 mg)|MMRM|||Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 56 in PANSS Total Score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model was used to evaluate 3 pre-defined dose-response patterns (Linear, Convex, Concave)||||0.064
91941440|NCT02128958|183779849|OTHER|||||||0.891|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of Bilirubin (direct) will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.891
91941441|NCT02128958|183779849|OTHER|||||||0.275|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of Bilirubin (Total) will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.275
91941442|NCT02128958|183779849|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of PT will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.549
91941443|NCT02128958|183779849|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of INR will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.479
91941444|NCT02565576|183779857|SUPERIORITY||estimate of contrast posterior median|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|1.14|||bayesian|||Primary analysis was performed on the PD analysis set. Changes from baseline in QMG scores at Week 25 were analyzed using a Bayesian model. The model investigated effects for treatment (CFZ533 or placebo) and baseline QMG score. A difference of 3 points on the mean change in QMG score between CFZ533 and placebo was deemed a clinical meaningful effect.||1.14|-3.41|
91941445|NCT00282568|183779868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|94.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|99.41|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of AUC0-24. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 1 and 7) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 14 and 21). The natural log (ln) was used to transform AUC0-24 prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||99.41|90.72|
91941446|NCT00282568|183779870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|88.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.69|93.96|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of Cmax. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 1 and 7) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 14 and 21). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmax prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||93.96|82.69|
91941447|NCT00282568|183779871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.72|91.93|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of Cmin. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 1 and 7) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 14 and 21). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmin prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||91.93|82.72|
91941448|NCT00796003|183779927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.6|41.6|||Binomial test|one-tailed 5% level at a significance level||Null Hypothesis: Overall Remission Rate = 5%||41.6|14.6|<0.0001
91941449|NCT03185819|183779939|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|-0.35||Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||A pooled (54 mg and 84 mg) sequential multiple testing procedure was implemented to control type I error by comparing pooled data against midazolam + placebo matched to esketamine nasal spray.||-0.35|-11.19|= 0.037
91941450|NCT03185819|183779939|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|1.55||Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Individual esketamine dose (84 mg versus medazolam + esketamine matched placebo) independent testing was planned to be performed after pooled (56 mg + 84 mg) analysis.||1.55|-12.91|= 0.123
91941451|NCT03185819|183779939|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|0.53||Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Individual esketamine dose (56 mg versus medazolam + esketamine matched placebo) independent testing was planned to be performed after pooled (56 mg + 84 mg) analysis.||0.53|-12.25|= 0.072
91941452|NCT03185819|183779939|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|4.19||||||||4.19|-9.08|
91941453|NCT02910089|183779947|SUPERIORITY|As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations with an identity link function (as a continuous variable) and normally distributed errors|Model-based Mean Differences are reported that have been adjusted for imbalanced baseline characteristics|||0.32|-0.2|
91941454|NCT02910089|183779948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.4||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations with an identity link function and normally distributed errors|Model-based Mean Differences are reported that have been adjusted for imbalanced baseline characteristics|Average of the percentage (proportion x 100) of days covered across all subjects.||4.40|-2.42|
91941455|NCT02910089|183779949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations with a logit link and binary distributed errors||||1.28|0.83|
91941456|NCT02910089|183779950|OTHER|As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|See comments|Generalized Estimating Equations with a logit link and binary distributed errors||||1.17|0.71|
91941457|NCT03434041|183779954|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-2.0||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|0.55||2-sided|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.55|-4.64|0.123
91813699|NCT01190254|183503025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for Convex dose-response pattern (Placebo\<2.5 mg=5.0 mg)|MMRM|||Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 56 in PANSS Total Score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model was used to evaluate 3 pre-defined dose-response patterns (Linear, Convex, Concave)||||0.046
91813700|NCT01190254|183503025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for Concave dose-response pattern (Placebo=2.5 mg\<5.0 mg)|MMRM|||Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 56 in PANSS Total Score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model was used to evaluate 3 pre-defined dose-response patterns (Linear, Convex, Concave)||||0.273
91813701|NCT01190254|183503026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Confirmative testing for the key secondary endpoint was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were superior to placebo in change from baseline in PANSS total score at Day 56 (hypotheses associated with Primary outcome measure). If this did not occur, no confirmative testing could be performed and multiplicity unadjusted p-values are provided. Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-0.5|0.218
91813702|NCT01190254|183503026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.024||95.0|-0.6|0.0|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Confirmative testing for the key secondary endpoint was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were superior to placebo in change from baseline in PANSS total score at Day 56 (hypotheses associated with Primary outcome measure). If this did not occur, no confirmative testing could be performed and multiplicity unadjusted p-values are provided. Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.0|-0.6|0.024
91813703|NCT01190254|183503027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-3.3|0.067
91813704|NCT01190254|183503027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.5|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.5|-3.8|0.012
91813705|NCT01190254|183503028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-2.6|0.097
91813706|NCT01190254|183503028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-2.6|0.099
91941458|NCT03434041|183779955|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-1.33||||||||-1.33|-5.33|
91813707|NCT01190254|183503029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-5.6|0.062
91813708|NCT01190254|183503029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-3.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.4|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.4|-6.0|0.025
91813709|NCT01190254|183503030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.4|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.4|-4.6|0.098
91813710|NCT01190254|183503030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.3||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-4.8|0.071
91813711|NCT01190254|183503031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-3.1|0.106
91813712|NCT01190254|183503031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.9||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.2|-3.6|0.026
91941459|NCT03434041|183779956|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.97||||||||0.97|-2.96|
91941460|NCT02977507|183779972|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.041
91941461|NCT02977507|183779972|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.0005
91941462|NCT02977507|183779973|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.002
91941463|NCT02977507|183779973|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.0001
91941464|NCT02977507|183779974|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.004
91941465|NCT02977507|183779974|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.001
91941466|NCT02977507|183779978|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.003
91813713|NCT01190254|183503032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-2.6|0.083
91813714|NCT01190254|183503032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-2.7|0.067
91813715|NCT01190254|183503033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-2.1|0.131
91813716|NCT01190254|183503033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-2.1|0.135
91813717|NCT01190254|183503034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-2.0|0.071
91813718|NCT01190254|183503034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-1.9|0.120
91813719|NCT01190254|183503035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-1.2|0.263
91813720|NCT01190254|183503035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-1.3|0.146
91813721|NCT01190254|183503036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline PANSS Total Score|OR was adjusted for baseline and (pooled) site. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total PANSS 30% response|||3.6|1.1|0.028
91813722|NCT01190254|183503036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline PANSS Total Score|OR was adjusted for baseline and (pooled) site. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total PANSS 30% response|||3.3|1.0|0.048
91813723|NCT01190254|183503037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.576||||||p-value is for Log Rank test of difference in time to event (PANSS 30% response) curves between the three treatment groups|Log Rank|||||||0.576
91813724|NCT01190254|183503037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site, treatment and baseline PANSS Total Score|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a Total PANSS 30% Responder than placebo|||2.0|0.9|0.171
91813725|NCT01190254|183503037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site, treatment and baseline PANSS Total Score|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a Total PANSS 30% Responder than placebo|||1.8|0.8|0.368
91813726|NCT01190254|183503038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, and the interaction of visit by treatment|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.0|-0.6|0.094
91813727|NCT01190254|183503038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, and the interaction of visit by treatment|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.2|-0.8|0.003
91813728|NCT01190254|183503039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.8||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of region (Asia-Pacific, North America, Eastern Europe \[Africa/Latin America sites assigned to this region\]) and treatment|OR was adjusted for region. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving CGI-I response|||2.8|0.8|0.177
91813729|NCT01190254|183503039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.9||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of region (Asia-Pacific, North America, Eastern Europe \[Africa/Latin America sites assigned to this region\]) and treatment|OR was adjusted for region. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving CGI-I response|||2.9|0.9|0.114
91941467|NCT02977507|183779978|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.0007
91941468|NCT02977507|183779980|OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Paired t-test|||Melanin index: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.569
91941469|NCT02977507|183779980|OTHER|||||||9e-05|||||||Paired t-test|||Melanin index: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.00009
91813730|NCT01190254|183503040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057||||||p-value is for Log Rank test of difference in time to event (CGI-I response) curves between the three treatment groups|Log Rank|||||||0.057
91813731|NCT01190254|183503040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site and treatment|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a CGI-I Responder than placebo|||2.3|0.9|0.135
91813732|NCT01190254|183503040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.9|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site and treatment|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a CGI-I Responder than placebo|||2.9|1.2|0.010
91813733|NCT01190254|183503041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.8|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||4.8|-2.0|0.417
91813734|NCT01190254|183503041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|4.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.6|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||7.6|0.8|0.017
91813735|NCT01190254|183503042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||2.8|-1.6|0.600
91813736|NCT01190254|183503042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.1||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.3|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||4.3|-0.1|0.064
91813737|NCT01190254|183503043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.33|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.33|-0.13|0.407
91813738|NCT01190254|183503043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.19||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.42|-0.04|0.111
91813739|NCT00202644|183503053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of anagrelide could be concluded if lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval for the difference between treatment groups (Hydroxyurea - Anagrelide) was \> -100 x 10\^9/Liter.|Least Square Mean|-100.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.42|-21.49||||||||-21.49|-179.42|
91813740|NCT00202644|183503054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of anagrelide could be concluded if lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval for the difference between treatment groups (Hydroxyurea - Anagrelide) was \> -100 x 10\^9/Liter.|Least Square Mean|-113.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.4|-38.83||||||Month 3||-38.83|-187.40|
91813741|NCT00202644|183503054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of anagrelide could be concluded if lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval for the difference between treatment groups (Hydroxyurea - Anagrelide) was \> -100 x 10\^9/Liter.|Least Square Mean|-68.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.95|18.43||||||Month 36||18.43|-154.95|
91813742|NCT03232281|183503071|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was confirmed.|Rate difference (%)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.58|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||2.58|-4.41|
91813743|NCT03232281|183503072|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.93|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 4. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||1.93|-5.26|
91813744|NCT03232281|183503072|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.16|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 8. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||-0.16|-6.80|
91813745|NCT03232281|183503073|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.93|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 4. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||1.93|-5.26|
91941470|NCT02977507|183779980|OTHER|||||||0.821|||||||Paired t-test|||Erythema: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.821
91941471|NCT02977507|183779980|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Paired t-test|||Erythema: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.502
91941472|NCT02977507|183779980|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Paired t-test|||Melanin index: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.810
91941473|NCT02977507|183779980|OTHER|||||||0.435|||||||Paired t-test|||Erythema: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.435
91941474|NCT01906476|183780018|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority trials of pharmaceuticals have used 30% to 50% of the difference between treatment and control conditions to define non-inferiority margins. (Jones, Jarvis, Lewis, \& Ebbutt, 1996; Nutt et al., 2008). A meta-analysis of CBT found an overall effect size of d=0.82.(Cuijpers, Smit, Bohlmeijer, Hollon, \& Andersson, 2010). Using the midpoint of 40% for the acceptable criterion, we set d=0.33 as the non-inferiority criterion.|||||||||||||||||"Cohen's d and upper limits of one-sided 95% Confidence intervals for each time are as follows:~Mid-treatment -0.19 (95% upper limit= 0.06) End of treatment 0.03 (0.24) 3 months post treatment -0.02 (0.19) 6 months post treatment -0.07 (0.14)"|||
91941475|NCT01906476|183780019|SUPERIORITY||ICER estimate|-152.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1143.09|1094.72||||||We calculated the ICER (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) estimate, computed using the difference in average cost between the two arms, divided by the difference in average Depression Free Days (DFD) as defined using QIDS (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology), between the two arms, Stepped Care minus Telephone Cognitive Behavior Therapy. The confidence interval was created using bootstrapping.||1094.72|-1143.09|
91941476|NCT01248585|183780020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.177||1-sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided 0.05 level test with 90% power, 298 participants required.||0.177|0|0.05
91941477|NCT01248585|183780021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.009||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.08|0.432
91941478|NCT01248585|183780023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.18||Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||0.18|0.01|0.15
91941479|NCT01248585|183780024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.06|3.97|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.97|-5.06|0.07
91941480|NCT01576406|183780033|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|91.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.47|144.72||||||Confidence interval (CI): Geometric mean ratio and 90 percent (%) CI were derived from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.||144.72|57.47|
91941481|NCT01576406|183780033|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|143.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.11|232.12||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||232.12|89.11|
91941482|NCT01576406|183780033|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|108.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.13|168.99||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||168.99|70.13|
91941483|NCT01576406|183780033|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|72.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.07|107.5||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||107.50|49.07|
91941484|NCT01576406|183780059|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|91.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.56|146.79||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||146.79|56.56|
91941485|NCT01576406|183780059|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|149.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.85|243.46||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||243.46|91.85|
91941486|NCT01576406|183780059|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|114.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.57|176.89||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||176.89|73.57|
91941487|NCT01576406|183780059|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|64.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.5|105.89||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||105.89|39.50|
91941488|NCT01576406|183780060|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|108.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.47|185.26||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||185.26|63.47|
91941489|NCT01576406|183780060|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|202.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.96|340.3||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||340.30|120.96|
91941490|NCT01576406|183780060|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|130.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.61|197.47||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||197.47|86.61|
91941491|NCT01576406|183780060|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|62.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.54|92.78||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||92.78|42.54|
91941492|NCT01627782|183780072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Least Square Means|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|70.0|-20.0|-12.01|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-12.01|-20.00|< 0.001
91941493|NCT01627782|183780072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Least Square Means|-16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|70.0|-18.96|-13.84|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-13.84|-18.96|< 0.001
91941494|NCT00142818|183780101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
91941495|NCT04315298|183780123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (log scale)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.456|-1.035||P-value is based on the ANCOVA model for differences between treatment groups in terms of \[ln(CRP at day 4 ) - ln(baseline CRP)\].|ANCOVA|||||-1.035|-1.456|<0.0001
91941496|NCT04315298|183780123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (log scale)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.511|-1.09||p-value is based on the ANCOVA model for differences between treatment groups in terms of \[ln(CRP at day 4 ) - ln(baseline CRP)\].|ANCOVA|||||-1.090|-1.511|<0.0001
91941497|NCT04315298|183780124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.3707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|21.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.7|-8.4|0.3707
91941498|NCT04315298|183780124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|21.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.3|-7.4|0.3261
91941499|NCT04315298|183780125|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline||||36.8|-26.2|0.7328
91941500|NCT04315298|183780126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.66|0.76|0.5687
91941501|NCT04315298|183780126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.62||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.62|0.74|0.7014
91941502|NCT04315298|183780127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.7||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.70|0.83|0.3622
91813746|NCT03232281|183503073|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-0.52|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 8. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||-0.52|-8.93|
91813747|NCT03232281|183503073|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|1.17|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 12. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||1.17|-7.44|
91813748|NCT00861146|183503080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||||||<.01
91813749|NCT00861146|183503081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||mixed model regression analyses (F)|2.04|||>|0.15|||||||mixed model regression analyses|||Drinking outcomes assessed using the timeline follow-back were evaluated with mixed model regression analyses using maximum likelihood estimation. Time was measured in three monthly periods and treated as a repeated factor (due to the fixed time period between estimates).||||> .15
91813750|NCT00861146|183503082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||<.001
91813751|NCT02024867|183503111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size of 120 per group was calculated according to an assumed treatment cure rate of 95% with 10 days of antibiotics, and a non-inferiority margin of 7% (allowing up to 88% cure rate with 3 days of antibiotics), to achieve a power of 0.80 (alpha=0.05). An additional 25 patients were recruited to account for an estimated 10% lost to follow-up.|Rate Difference|4.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.5|||Chi-squared|||||9.5|-1.5|0.25
91813752|NCT02024867|183503112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|10.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|19.2|||Chi-squared|||||19.2|2.1|0.02
91813753|NCT02024867|183503113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|10.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|18.2|||Chi-squared|||||18.2|2.1|0.03
91813754|NCT02024867|183503114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|0.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.0|||Chi-squared|||||7.0|-6.9|>0.05
91941503|NCT04315298|183780127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.63||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.63|0.79|0.5802
91813755|NCT02024867|183503115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|10.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.9|||Chi-squared|||||19.9|0.8|0.046
91813756|NCT02024867|183503116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|rate difference|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91813757|NCT02278263|183503152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Assuming a common standard deviation of 412 mL, to detect a difference of 300 mL of blood loss between the two treatment arms (sTXA and tTXA) and the placebo group, a sample size of 125 participants is required for a statistical power of 0.85, and a type I error of 0.05. The sample size required was 125 participants in total. The was increased by 15% to allow for expected dropouts. Therefore, a minimum of 147 patients was required for the study.||||<0.05
91813758|NCT00527943|183503212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.01|0.85|0.072
91813759|NCT00527943|183503213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.81|0.018
91813760|NCT00527943|183503214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.57|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.57|1.18|<0.001
91813761|NCT00527943|183503215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.54|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.54|1.29|<0.001
91813762|NCT00527943|183503216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.00|0.84|0.038
91813763|NCT00527943|183503217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.99|0.81|0.027
91941504|NCT04315298|183780128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.02||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical and MSOD) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.02|0.83|0.2340
91941505|NCT04315298|183780128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.79||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical and MSOD) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.79|0.74|0.6949
91941506|NCT04315298|183780129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.43||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||2.43|0.66|0.3151
91941507|NCT04315298|183780129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.41||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.41|0.39|0.1884
91941508|NCT04315298|183780129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.4||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||3.40|0.76|0.4356
91941509|NCT04315298|183780129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.1||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.4||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||4.40|1.01|0.0371
91941510|NCT04315298|183780129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.05||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||3.05|0.32|0.8923
91941511|NCT04315298|183780129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.71||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.71|0.25|0.6940
91941512|NCT04315298|183780130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.14||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.65||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 87.04 pg/mL (median)||5.65|0.81|0.0832
91941513|NCT04315298|183780130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.93||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.8||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 87.04 pg/mL (median)||4.80|0.77|0.1369
91941514|NCT04315298|183780130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.95||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 87.04 pg/mL (median)||1.95|0.28|0.9636
91941515|NCT04315298|183780130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.74||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 87.04 pg/mL (median)||0.74|0.08|0.0038
91813764|NCT00527943|183503218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.03|0.87|0.174
91813765|NCT00527943|183503219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.02|0.86|0.108
91941516|NCT04315298|183780130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.13||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \< 166.68pg/mL (Median)||3.13|0.47|0.7380
91941517|NCT04315298|183780130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.7342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.05||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \<166.68pg/mL (Median)||3.05|0.48|0.7342
91941518|NCT04315298|183780130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.58||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|16.17||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 166.68pg/mL (Median)||16.17|0.79|0.1934
91941519|NCT04315298|183780130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.33||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|23.94||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 166.68pg/mL (Median)||23.94|1.19|0.0159
91941520|NCT04315298|183780130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.75||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \<254.95 pg/mL (Median)||8.75|0.13|0.6281
91941521|NCT04315298|183780130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|6.13||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \<254.95 pg/mL (Median)||6.13|0.06|0.4971
91941522|NCT04315298|183780130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.86||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (Median)||2.86|0.03|0.2990
91941523|NCT04315298|183780130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.41||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (Median)||4.41|0.22|0.9360
91941524|NCT04315298|183780131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.47||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.47|0.52|0.9032
91813766|NCT00527943|183503220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.22|0.83|0.963
91941525|NCT04315298|183780131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.88||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||0.88|0.29|0.0052
91941526|NCT04315298|183780131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.21||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.21|0.48|0.1168
91941527|NCT04315298|183780131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.72||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.72|0.69|0.3753
91941528|NCT04315298|183780131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.66|0.40|0.4956
91941529|NCT04315298|183780131|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.02||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.02|0.50|0.8439
91941530|NCT04315298|183780132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.79||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 67.11 pg/mL (median)||2.79|0.52|0.3890
91941531|NCT04315298|183780132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.7838||95.0|0.3|1.41||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 67.11pg/mL (median)||1.41|0.30|0.7838
91941532|NCT04315298|183780132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.65||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 67.11 pg/mL (median)||1.65|0.28|0.2370
91941533|NCT04315298|183780132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.0004||95.0|0.1|0.59||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 67.11pg/mL (median)||0.59|0.10|0.0004
91941534|NCT04315298|183780132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.32||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \< 131.90 pg/mL (median)||1.32|0.37|0.1740
91941535|NCT04315298|183780132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 131.90 pg/mL (median)||1.66|0.38|0.3664
91941536|NCT04315298|183780132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.7318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.87||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \< 131.90 pg/mL (median)||1.87|0.53|0.7318
91941537|NCT04315298|183780132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.37||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 131.90 pg/mL (median)||2.37|0.59|0.4155
91941538|NCT04315298|183780132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.45||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \< 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.45|0.23|0.6262
91941539|NCT04315298|183780132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.553||95.0|0.21|2.3||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.30|0.21|0.5530
91941540|NCT04315298|183780132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.85||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \< 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.85|0.25|0.8775
91941541|NCT04315298|183780132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.99||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.99|0.41|0.7485
91941542|NCT04315298|183780133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.79||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.79|0.63|0.4556
91941543|NCT04315298|183780133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.04|0.35|0.0248
91941544|NCT04315298|183780133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.6842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.67||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.67|0.62|0.6842
91941545|NCT04315298|183780133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.32||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||2.32|0.89|0.0671
91941546|NCT04315298|183780133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.74||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.74|0.41|0.6146
91941547|NCT04315298|183780133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.99||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.99|0.48|0.9730
91941548|NCT04315298|183780135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.59||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.59|0.59|0.6987
91941549|NCT04315298|183780135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.09|0.39|0.0453
91941550|NCT04315298|183780135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.09||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||2.09|0.73|0.9734
91941551|NCT04315298|183780135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.2||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No)|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||3.20|1.14|0.0040
91813767|NCT00527943|183503221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.79|0.021
91813768|NCT00527943|183503222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.58|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.58|0.83|0.418
91813769|NCT00527943|183503223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.31|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.31|0.88|0.493
91813770|NCT00527943|183503224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.23|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.23|0.90|0.515
91813771|NCT00527943|183503225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.23|0.70|0.606
91813772|NCT00137423|183503240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|28.3||||||95.0|16.8|42.3|||F distribution|||Objective response rate required a sample size of 100 to test null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% versus alternative hypothesis that true response rate was \>=15% with 90% power and alpha level of 0.05. If number of OR\> =11 null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% could be rejected with a target α error rate of 0.05.||42.3|16.8|
91813773|NCT00137423|183503240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|11.5||||||95.0|4.4|23.4|||F distribution|||Objective response rate required a sample size of 100 to test null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% versus alternative hypothesis that true response rate was \>=15% with 90% power and alpha level of 0.05. If number of OR\> =11 null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% could be rejected with a target α error rate of 0.05.||23.4|4.4|
91813774|NCT00137423|183503244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-year survival rate|77.4||||||95.0|63.6|86.5|||Kaplan-Meier method||valid presentation only if at least 1 patient has overall survival \>=1 year. Based on normal approximation, 95% CI will be derived by log transformation of the cumulative hazard rate.|||86.5|63.6|
91813775|NCT00137423|183503244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-year survival rate|66.0||||||95.0|51.6|77.1|||Kaplan-Meier method||valid presentation only if at least 1 patient has overall survival \>=1 year. Based on normal approximation, 95% CI will be derived by log transformation of the cumulative hazard rate.|||77.1|51.6|
91813776|NCT04339296|183503268|EQUIVALENCE|An independent sample t-test was performed between intervention and control group to determine if the difference of the mean medication adherence is equal to zero (null hypothesis).|Mean Difference (Net)|7.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical test was set at 95% confidence level.|t-test, 2 sided||Medication Adherence Difference = Intervention Adherence - Control Adherence|||||<0.01
91813777|NCT04339296|183503269|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis assumes that the true mean difference for intervention participants self-reported medication adherence scores (from baseline to 6-month) is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical test was set at 95% confidence level.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference (intervention participants self-reported score) = baseline minus 6-month.|||||<0.01
91941552|NCT04315298|183780135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.17||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.17|0.43|0.9551
91813778|NCT04339296|183503269|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis assumes that the true mean difference for control participants self-reported medication adherence scores (from baseline to 6-month) is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical tests was set at 95% confidence level.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference (control participants self-reported score) = baseline minus 6-month.|||||0.07
91813779|NCT00969150|183503286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.49||||0.2492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||1.05|-4.02|0.2492
91813780|NCT00969150|183503287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.54||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||1.29|-2.38|0.5625
91813781|NCT01765153|183503321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04366667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04366667
91813782|NCT00353262|183503502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.02||||||Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.02|0.79|
91813783|NCT00353262|183503502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.99||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.99|0.76|
91813784|NCT00353262|183503502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.1||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 2, Day 1||1.10|0.85|
91813785|NCT00353262|183503503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.08||||||Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.08|1.01|
91813786|NCT00353262|183503503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.05||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 1, Day 2||1.05|0.98|
91813787|NCT00353262|183503503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.0||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 2, Day 1||1.00|0.94|
91813788|NCT00353262|183503504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.24||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.24|0.83|
91813789|NCT00353262|183503504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.42||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 2, Day 1||1.42|0.94|
91813790|NCT00353262|183503504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.44||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 1, Day 1||1.44|0.96|
91813791|NCT00353262|183503504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.08|0.69|
91813792|NCT00353262|183503504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.34||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.34|0.86|
91813793|NCT00353262|183503504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.55||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.55|1.00|
91941553|NCT04315298|183780135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.1||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.10|0.42|0.8722
91941554|NCT04315298|183780138|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Severe||||1.0000
91941555|NCT04315298|183780138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0353|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Severe||||0.0353
91941556|NCT04315298|183780138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3187|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Critical||||0.3187
91941557|NCT04315298|183780138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0261|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Critical||||0.0261
91941558|NCT04315298|183780138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9117|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: MSOD||||0.9117
91813794|NCT00353262|183503504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.01||||||5-FU: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.01|0.66|
91941559|NCT04315298|183780138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7584|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: MSOD||||0.7584
91941560|NCT04315298|183780142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.94||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||0.94|0.11|0.0385
91941561|NCT04315298|183780142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.05||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.05|0.14|0.0782
91941562|NCT04315298|183780142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.2436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.14||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||2.14|0.70|0.2436
91941563|NCT04315298|183780142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.51||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.51|0.46|0.3223
91941564|NCT04315298|183780142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.52||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.52|0.36|0.4670
91813795|NCT00353262|183503504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.97||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.97|0.64|
91813796|NCT00353262|183503504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.19||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.19|0.78|
91813797|NCT00353262|183503504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04||||||FBAL: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.04|0.91|
91813798|NCT00353262|183503504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.04||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.04|0.90|
91813799|NCT00353262|183503504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.07||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.07|0.93|
91813800|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.9||||||5'-DFUR: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.90|0.61|
91813801|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.79||||||5'-DFUR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.79|0.53|
91813802|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.06||||||5'-DFUR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.06|0.71|
91813803|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.08||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.08|0.63|
91813804|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.34||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.34|0.78|
91813805|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.1||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.10|0.65|
91813806|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.18||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.18|0.65|
91813807|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.3||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.30|0.71|
91813808|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.49||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.49|0.81|
91941565|NCT04315298|183780142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.47||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.47|0.35|0.3728
91941566|NCT04315298|183780148|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.5851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|12.4||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|-7.0|0.5851
91941567|NCT04315298|183780148|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.5|-11.7|0.5767
91941568|NCT04315298|183780149|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.4777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|18.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|-9.4|0.4777
91941569|NCT04315298|183780149|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.4202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|18.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.2|-8.4|0.4202
91941570|NCT04315298|183780150|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.9696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.9||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.9|-9.5|0.9696
91941571|NCT04315298|183780150|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.7||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|4.4||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.4|-13.8|0.3152
91813809|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|0.98||||||5-FU: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.98|0.56|
91813810|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.76||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.76|0.44|
91813811|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.03||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.03|0.59|
91813812|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||FBAL: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.00|0.83|
91813813|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.91||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.91|0.76|
91813814|NCT00353262|183503506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.00|0.83|
91813815|NCT00353262|183503508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.33||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.33|1.09|
91813816|NCT00353262|183503508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|1.48||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.48|1.21|
91813817|NCT00353262|183503508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.23||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.23|1.01|
91813818|NCT00353262|183503510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.09|0.96|
91813819|NCT00353262|183503510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.08||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.08|0.95|
91813820|NCT00353262|183503510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.05||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.05|0.93|
91813821|NCT00353262|183503510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.09||||||Free Platinum: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.09|0.94|
91813822|NCT00353262|183503510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.08||||||Free Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.08|0.92|
91813823|NCT00353262|183503510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.07||||||Free Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.07|0.91|
91813824|NCT01304966|183503659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.013
91813825|NCT04105998|183503660|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.64
91813826|NCT04105998|183503661|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.19
91813827|NCT04105998|183503662|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.067
91813828|NCT04105998|183503663|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.25
91813829|NCT04105998|183503664|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.058
91813830|NCT04105998|183503665|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.111
91813831|NCT02073279|183503723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.89|||Log Rank|||Stratified by prior therapy (B-cell depleting therapy or immunosuppressants/others) and most recent attack (first attack or relapse).||0.89|0.23|0.0184
91813832|NCT02073279|183503724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.178||0.4436||95.0|-5.086|11.515|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: treatment group as fixed effect and baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||11.515|-5.086|0.4436
91813833|NCT02073279|183503725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.567||0.1824||95.0|-1.008|5.221|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment group as fixed effect. Baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||5.221|-1.008|0.1824
91813834|NCT01857232|183503834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.004
91813835|NCT01857232|183503834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0987
91813836|NCT01857232|183503834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1041|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1041
91813837|NCT01857232|183503835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|1-sided||||||0.0235
91813838|NCT01857232|183503835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1651|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|1-sided||||||0.1651
91813839|NCT01857232|183503835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1332|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|1-sided||||||0.1332
91813840|NCT00391274|183503844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.1326||95.0|0.76|8.25||Logistic regression of best overall tumor response (complete response + partial response).|Regression, Logistic|Treatment was the only covariate.||||8.25|0.76|0.1326
91813841|NCT00391274|183503845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7704||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7704
91813842|NCT00391274|183503845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7784||95.0|0.75|1.46|||Regression, Cox|Treatment was the only covariate.||||1.46|0.75|0.7784
91813843|NCT00391274|183503848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.4921||95.0|0.78|1.68||P-value for Overall Survival (up to 24 months)|Regression, Cox|Treatment was the only covariate.||||1.68|0.78|0.4921
91813844|NCT00391274|183503848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.4||P-value for Overall Survival (up to 30 months)|Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.74|0.9256
91813845|NCT04501666|183503857|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.4|50.8||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||50.8|29.4|< 0.0001
91941572|NCT04315298|183780151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|7.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||7.2|-22.8|0.3217
91813846|NCT04501666|183503858|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|14.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|22.6||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||22.6|6.7|0.0025
91813847|NCT04501666|183503860|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|31.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|40.4||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||40.4|23.0|< 0.0001
91813848|NCT04501666|183503861|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|38.7||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||38.7|22.3|< 0.0001
91813849|NCT04501666|183503862|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|48.2||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||48.2|27.8|< 0.0001
91813850|NCT04501666|183503863|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|30.7||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||30.7|14.7|< 0.0001
91813851|NCT04501666|183503864|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|25.0||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||25.0|12.3|< 0.0001
91813852|NCT00894322|183503902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4||Treatment group and HbA1c stratum at screening were factors. Placebo was reference group.|ANOVA|||||-0.40|-1.50|0.0013
91813853|NCT00894322|183503903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c strata at screening.||||||0.0033
91813854|NCT00894322|183503904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.835||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.68|||ANOVA|treatment group and HbA1c stratum at screening were factors.||Least square mean (LS) mean, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value calculated for the changes in weight from baseline in participants in cohort 2 treated with exenatide with placebo as reference group.||0.68|-2.73|0.2285
91813855|NCT00894322|183503905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|-14.3|||ANOVA|treatment group and HbA1c stratum at screening were factors.||||-14.3|-66.5|0.0035
91941573|NCT04315298|183780151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|8.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||8.7|-20.2|0.4630
91813856|NCT03338855|183503910|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.183|1.047|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta RD (basal vs high insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||1.047|-3.183|0.3047
91813857|NCT03338855|183503911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.784|-0.625|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta EGP (basal vs low insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-0.625|-2.784|0.0036
91813858|NCT03338855|183503911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.146|-1.438|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta EGP (basal vs high insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-1.438|-3.146|<0.0001
91813859|NCT03338855|183503912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta RER (basal vs high insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||0.030|-0.006|0.1842
91941574|NCT04315298|183780151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|2.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.3|-28.2|0.0971
91813860|NCT03338855|183503913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|-0.013|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of 24-hour RER between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-0.013|-0.033|0.0001
91813861|NCT03338855|183503914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.027|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of energy expenditure between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||0.027|-0.245|0.1095
91813862|NCT03338855|183503915|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-246.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|464.3||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1209.5|716.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|Comparison of fat mass between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||716.2|-1209.5|0.6005
91813863|NCT03338855|183503915|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-666.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|301.1||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1291.0|-41.9|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of lean mass between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-41.9|-1291.0|0.0376
91813864|NCT03338855|183503916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.854|-0.657|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|Comparison of total mass between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-0.657|-1.854|0.0003
91813865|NCT03338855|183503917|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-244.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|165.168||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-590.002|101.401|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|Comparison of FGF21 AUC between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||101.401|-590.002|0.1555
91813866|NCT00399360|183503948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
91813867|NCT00399360|183503949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
91813868|NCT00399360|183503950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91813869|NCT00399360|183503951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
91813870|NCT00399360|183503952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
91813871|NCT00399360|183503953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
91813872|NCT00399360|183503954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
91813873|NCT00399360|183503955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
91813874|NCT00399360|183503956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91813875|NCT00399360|183503957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91813876|NCT03143569|183503964|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.45
91813877|NCT03143569|183503965|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91813878|NCT03143569|183503966|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91813879|NCT03143569|183503967|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91813880|NCT03143569|183503968|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.018
91813881|NCT02472795|183503973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.56|0.39
91813882|NCT02472795|183503973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.91|0.02
91813883|NCT02472795|183503973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.95|0.004
91813884|NCT02472795|183503973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.75|0.06
91813885|NCT02472795|183503975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.2837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|0.123|||ANCOVA|||||0.123|-0.413|0.2837
91813886|NCT02472795|183503975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.797|-0.234|||ANCOVA|||||-0.234|-0.797|0.0006
91813887|NCT02472795|183503975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|-0.305|||ANCOVA|||||-0.305|-0.825|0.0001
91813888|NCT02472795|183503975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.173|-0.586|||ANCOVA|||||-0.586|-1.173|<0.0001
91813889|NCT02472795|183503977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.626||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.513|6.085|||ANCOVA|||||6.085|-32.513|0.1755
91813890|NCT02472795|183503977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.096||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.552|-19.069|||ANCOVA|||||-19.069|-59.552|0.0003
91813891|NCT02472795|183503977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.329|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.981|-28.574|||ANCOVA|||||-28.574|-65.981|<0.0001
91813892|NCT02472795|183503977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.541|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.585|-35.32|||ANCOVA|||||-35.320|-77.585|<0.0001
91813893|NCT04318080|183503995|SUPERIORITY|Analysis tested whether ORR with tislelizumab was superior to a historical ORR of 45% using a one-sided binomial exact test (α = 0.05).|Z-test|2.62||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||One-sided p-value based on a binomial exact test comparing observed ORR to historical rate of 45%.|Binomial Exact Test|||The primary analysis was conducted on both cohorts combined, A binomial exact test was performed to test the null hypothesis (H0: ORR = 45% based on previous clinical trials) and alternative hypothesis (ORR \>45%). If the one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.05, tislelizumab was considered to statistically significantly increase ORR compared to the historical control.||||0.0044
91813894|NCT01536379|183504003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.5|40.7||||||||40.7|-109.5|
91813895|NCT01536379|183504024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|204.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|550.0|||||Week 24 comparison|||550.00|90.00|
91813896|NCT01536379|183504024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.84|25.0|||||Week 52 comparison|||25.00|-169.84|
91813897|NCT01536379|183504025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1232.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25735.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50457.0|52921.8|||||Week 24 comparison|||52921.8|-50457.0|
91813898|NCT01536379|183504025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13128.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24165.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61868.9|35612.2|||||Week 52 comparison|||35612.2|-61868.9|
91813899|NCT01536379|183504026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|3.7|||||Week 24 comparison|||3.7|-31.3|
91813900|NCT01536379|183504026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|22.2|||||Week 52 comparison|||22.2|-8.6|
91813901|NCT01536379|183504027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2791.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4651.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12105.0|6524.0|||||Week 24 comparison|||6524|-12105|
91813902|NCT01536379|183504027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-458.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4501.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9487.0|8572.0|||||Week 52 comparison|||8572|-9487|
91813903|NCT01536379|183504028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.156|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.01|||||Week 24 comparison|||1.01|-3.59|
91813904|NCT01536379|183504028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.82|||||Week 52 comparison|||2.82|-1.24|
91813905|NCT01536379|183504029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30326.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34677.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100559.1|39905.3|||||Week 24 comparison|||39905.3|-100559.1|
91813906|NCT01536379|183504029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46955.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32594.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113218.9|19308.3|||||Week 52 comparison|||19308.3|-113218.9|
91941575|NCT04315298|183780151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.9||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.9|-26.4|0.1193
91941576|NCT04315298|183780152|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|7.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||7.7|-9.3|0.8844
91813907|NCT01536379|183504030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.2|||||Week 24 comparison|||4.2|-10.1|
91813908|NCT01536379|183504030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.3|||||Week 52 comparison|||6.3|-7.2|
91813909|NCT01536379|183504031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|648.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12618.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24661.1|25957.7|||||Week 24 comparison|||25957.7|-24661.1|
91813910|NCT01536379|183504031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5618.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12153.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29994.8|18757.0|||||Week 52 comparison|||18757.0|-29994.8|
91813911|NCT01536379|183504032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.5|||||Week 24 comparison|||3.5|-3.2|
91813912|NCT01536379|183504032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.3|||||Week 52 comparison|||2.3|-3.5|
91813913|NCT01536379|183504033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|0.98|||||Week 24 comparison|||0.98|-4.07|
91813914|NCT01536379|183504033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.329|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|1.67|||||Week 52 comparison|||1.67|-3.68|
91813915|NCT01536379|183504034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.067|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.505|||||Week 24 comparison|||0.505|-0.638|
91813916|NCT01536379|183504034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.838|0.305|||||Week 52 comparison|||0.305|-0.838|
91813917|NCT01536379|183504035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.9|100.3|||||Week 24 comparison|||100.3|-105.9|
91813918|NCT01536379|183504035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|81.4|||||Week 52 comparison|||81.4|-107.1|
91813919|NCT01536379|183504036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.56|5.71|||||Week 24 comparison|||5.71|-31.56|
91813920|NCT01536379|183504036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.315|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|13.72|||||Week 52 comparison|||13.72|-19.11|
91813921|NCT01536379|183504037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|3.96||||||||3.96|-4.84|
91813922|NCT05027438|183504075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 1.42 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
91813923|NCT05027438|183504075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 1.54 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
91813924|NCT05027438|183504076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.98||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction|Friedman test|||% change in medication dose from baseline to post-treatment||||0.004
91813925|NCT05027438|183504076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|62.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.93||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction|Friedman test|||% change in medication dose from baseline to 3-month follow-up||||0.005
91813926|NCT05027438|183504077|SUPERIORITY||Proportion (%)|31.8||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran's Q test|Bonferroni correction||baseline to post-treatment||||0.052
91813927|NCT05027438|183504077|SUPERIORITY||Proportion (%)|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran's Q test|Bonferroni correction||baseline to 3-month follow-up||||<0.001
91813928|NCT05027438|183504078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 0.54 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
91813929|NCT05027438|183504078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 0.47 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
91813930|NCT05027438|183504079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.34||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 0.10 (small \>=0.02)|||0.101
91813931|NCT05027438|183504079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 0.34 (medium; large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
91813932|NCT05027438|183504080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 0.87 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
91813933|NCT05027438|183504080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 0.96 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
91813934|NCT05027438|183504081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates improvement)|Sleep Disturbance - higher scores indicate more sleep disturbance. The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10.|effect size (f2) = 1.14 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
91813935|NCT05027438|183504081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates improvement)|Sleep Disturbance - higher scores indicate more sleep disturbance. The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10.|effect size (f2) = 1.21 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
91813936|NCT05027438|183504082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)||effect size (f2) = 0.18 (medium \>=0.15)|||0.22
91813937|NCT05027438|183504082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)||effect size (f2) = 1.99 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
91813938|NCT04729127|183504083|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.79
91813939|NCT04729127|183504083|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.27
91813940|NCT04729127|183504084|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.04
91941577|NCT04315298|183780152|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.0||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||13.0|-3.3|0.2247
91941578|NCT04315298|183780152|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.2102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|2.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.3|-28.2|0.2102
91941579|NCT04315298|183780152|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.9||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.9|-26.4|0.8292
91813941|NCT04729127|183504084|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.02
91813942|NCT04729127|183504085|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.78
91813943|NCT04729127|183504085|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.89
91813944|NCT04729127|183504086|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.07
91813945|NCT04729127|183504086|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.88
91813946|NCT04729127|183504089|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.26
91813947|NCT04729127|183504089|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.74
91813948|NCT02807350|183504095|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|29.0||||||\>1 point analysis||29|7|
91813949|NCT02807350|183504095|OTHER|\>2 points analysis|Risk Difference (RD)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|28.0||||||||28|10|
91813950|NCT02807350|183504096|OTHER|\>1 analysis|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|15.0||||||||15|-7|
91813951|NCT02807350|183504096|OTHER|\>2 analysis|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|17.0||||||||17|-2|
91813952|NCT03388138|183504116|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the etafilcon A with ketotifen lens relative to the etafilcon A lens was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.1 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.0017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.025|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as etafilcon A with ketotifen - etafilcon A|||0.025|-0.021|
91813953|NCT03388138|183504117|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the etafilcon A with ketotifen lens relative to the etafilcon A lens was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.1 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.0007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01158|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.024|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as etafilcon A with ketotifen - etafilcon A|||0.024|-0.022|
91813954|NCT02436759|183504135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Two-sided t-test with treatment as a fixed factor and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91813955|NCT02436759|183504136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|Two-sided t-test||||||0.12
91813956|NCT01912287|183504148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.42|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||This comparison is from the Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis using a quadratic growth curve over time. This comparison is at post-treatment. Note, although all 3 groups are included in the GLMM, this statistical test specifically compares response rates of KY vs. SE at post-treatment||5.42|1.12|.03
91813957|NCT01912287|183504148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|11.82|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||This comparison is from the Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis using a quadratic growth curve over time. This comparison is at post-treatment. Note, although all 3 groups are included in the GLMM, this statistical test specifically compares response rates of CBT vs. SE at post-treatment||11.82|2.12|<.001
91813958|NCT01912287|183504148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.03|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||This comparison is from the Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis using a quadratic growth curve over time. This comparison is at post-treatment. Note, although all 3 groups are included in the GLMM, this statistical test specifically compares response rates of KY vs. CBT at post-treatment||1.03|0.24|0.07
91813959|NCT04600414|183504158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.38|||Multi-level model to account for cluster|||||0.38|0.03|<0.001
91813960|NCT04600414|183504159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|2.57|||Multi-level model to account for cluster|||||2.57|-4.97|0.532
91813961|NCT00553150|183504209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91813962|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.8096|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0866|26.5327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95 percent (%) Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained from the model.||26.5327|15.0866|<0.0001
91813963|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7321|30.1929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||30.1929|18.7321|<0.0001
91813964|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5792||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3385|5.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.1800|-6.3385|0.8428
91813965|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9993||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7832|3.7845|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.7845|-7.7832|0.4957
91813966|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9683||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8567|6.7932|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.7932|-4.8567|0.7431
91813967|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3889|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1044|-15.6734|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.6734|-27.1044|<0.0001
91813968|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.809|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5584|-17.0596|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.0596|-28.5584|<0.0001
91813969|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.8414|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6435|-14.0393|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.0393|-25.6435|<0.0001
91813970|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0418|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6705|-19.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-19.4130|-30.6705|<0.0001
91813971|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.4618|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1455|-20.7782|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.7782|-32.1455|<0.0001
91813972|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.4943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.244|-17.7445|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.7445|-29.2440|<0.0001
91813973|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4538||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5274|3.6198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.6198|-6.5274|0.5720
91813974|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9938||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0695|-3.918|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.9180|-14.0695|0.0006
91813975|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8686||||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2342|6.9713|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.9713|-3.2342|0.4704
91813976|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0725||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0533|7.1984|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.1984|-3.0533|0.4255
91813977|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3425||||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5053|4.8204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.8204|-5.5053|0.8959
91813978|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3224||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7402|8.385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.3850|-1.7402|0.1967
91813979|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5264||||0.1733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5676|8.6203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.6203|-1.5676|0.1733
91813980|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1113||||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0285|6.2512|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.2512|-4.0285|0.6697
91813981|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8623|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8712|15.8535|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||15.8535|5.8712|<0.0001
91813982|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0663|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0281|16.1045|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.1045|6.0281|<0.0001
91941580|NCT04315298|183780153|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.2203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|24.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|-6.0|0.2203
91941581|NCT04315298|183780153|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.8||||0.2483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|22.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.6|-6.1|0.2483
91941582|NCT04315298|183780154|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|18.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.5|-11.2|0.6020
91941583|NCT04315298|183780154|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|19.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.5|-8.9|0.4342
91941584|NCT04315298|183780155|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|14.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.7|-4.3|0.2896
91941585|NCT04315298|183780155|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|6.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.2|-11.8|0.5355
91813983|NCT00975481|183504221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6513||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5552|13.7474|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||13.7474|3.5552|0.0010
91813984|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6388|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5727|22.7049|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||22.7049|10.5727|<0.0001
91813985|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.8432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7627|25.9238|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||25.9238|13.7627|<0.0001
91813986|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6121||||0.6029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7209|4.4967|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.4967|-7.7209|0.6029
91813987|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9241||||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0571|3.2089|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.2089|-9.0571|0.3477
91813988|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0908||||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.085|6.2667|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.2667|-6.0850|0.9769
91813989|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2509|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3155|-12.1864|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-12.1864|-24.3155|<0.0001
91813990|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5629|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6616|-13.4642|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-13.4642|-25.6616|<0.0001
91813991|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.548|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7036|-10.3923|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-10.3923|-22.7036|<0.0001
91813992|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4554|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4199|-15.4908|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.4908|-27.4199|<0.0001
91813993|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7673|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7925|-16.7422||Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-16.7422|-28.7925|<0.0001
91813994|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7524|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8485|-13.6563|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-13.6563|-25.8485|<0.0001
91941586|NCT04315298|183780156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|-9.2|0.9210
91941587|NCT04315298|183780156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.7||||0.3174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|4.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.5|-13.8|0.3174
91813995|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0888||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3225|18.8551|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||18.8551|5.3225|0.0006
91813996|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0768||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3132|16.8403|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.8403|3.3132|0.0038
91941588|NCT04315298|183780157|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.66|0.98|0.0705
91941589|NCT04315298|183780157|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.43||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.43|0.92|0.1800
91941590|NCT04315298|183780158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.52||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.52|0.91|0.1831
91941591|NCT04315298|183780158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.34||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.34|0.82|0.8770
91941592|NCT04315298|183780159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.7103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.06||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.06|0.35|0.7103
91941593|NCT04315298|183780160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.43||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.43|0.89|0.1512
91941594|NCT04315298|183780160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.24||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.24|0.85|0.2952
91941595|NCT04315298|183780161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.50|0.89|0.2297
91813997|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1875||||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.989|2.6139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.6139|-10.9890|0.2257
91813998|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8589||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6927|5.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.9750|-7.6927|0.8042
91813999|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6335||||0.6399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5177|5.2506|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.2506|-8.5177|0.6399
91814000|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2763|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0228|-9.5229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.5229|-23.0228|<0.0001
91941596|NCT04315298|183780161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.3||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.30|0.79|0.8651
91941597|NCT04315298|183780162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|12.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.1|-15.2|0.8864
91941598|NCT04315298|183780162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|10.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.1|-15.8|0.7500
91941599|NCT04315298|183780163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||0.6858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.6|-9.1|0.6858
91941600|NCT04315298|183780163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.0|-7.0|0.9173
91941601|NCT04315298|183780164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.5239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|17.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.3|-9.7|0.5239
91941602|NCT04315298|183780164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.5809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|15.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.6|-10.0|0.5809
91941603|NCT04315298|183780165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.9343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|10.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.1|-9.3|0.9343
91814001|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9477||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7374|-6.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.1580|-19.7374|0.0002
91814002|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7223||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.572|-6.8727|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.8727|-20.5720|0.0001
91814003|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2643|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9226|-7.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-7.6060|-20.9226|<0.0001
91814004|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9356||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6548|-4.2165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.2165|-17.6548|0.0016
91814005|NCT00975481|183504222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7103||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5055|-4.9151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.9151|-18.5055|0.0008
91941604|NCT04315298|183780165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|4.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.1|-14.1|0.2822
91941605|NCT04315298|183780166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.4519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.18||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.18|0.75|0.4519
91941606|NCT04315298|183780166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.2818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.24||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.24|0.81|0.2818
91941607|NCT04315298|183780167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.43|0.84|0.4674
91814006|NCT00975481|183504223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.009|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7265|34.2916|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||34.2916|13.7265|<0.0001
91814007|NCT00975481|183504223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.4156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.116|39.7151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||39.7151|19.1160|<0.0001
91814008|NCT00975481|183504223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3979||||0.2239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7479|3.9521|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.9521|-16.7479|0.2239
91814009|NCT00975481|183504223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1396||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5328|6.2526|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.2526|-14.5328|0.4326
91941608|NCT04315298|183780167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.28|0.77|0.8503
91941609|NCT04315298|183780168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.6156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.02||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.02|0.31|0.6156
91941610|NCT04315298|183780169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.03|0.41|0.0843
91941611|NCT04315298|183780169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.07||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.07|0.44|0.1576
91941612|NCT04315298|183780170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.14||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.14|0.57|0.1980
91941613|NCT04315298|183780170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.36||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.73|0.7973
91941614|NCT04315298|183780171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.75||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.75|0.13|0.5023
91941615|NCT04315298|183780172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.8|-0.2|0.2804
91941616|NCT04315298|183780172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.3|-0.5|0.5023
91941617|NCT04315298|183780172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||1.9|-0.7|0.3821
91941618|NCT04315298|183780172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||1.1|-1.2|0.9737
91941619|NCT04315298|183780172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.4||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||3.4|-1.1|0.3179
91941620|NCT04315298|183780172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||2.5|-1.5|0.6302
91941621|NCT04315298|183780172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.2862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||5.0|-1.5|0.2862
91941622|NCT04315298|183780172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.4509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.1||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||4.1|-1.8|0.4509
91941623|NCT04315298|183780173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.5|-0.8|0.5640
91941624|NCT04315298|183780173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.2|-1.0|0.1602
91941625|NCT04315298|183780173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||1.2|-1.3|0.9144
91941626|NCT04315298|183780173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||0.3|-2.1|0.1450
91814010|NCT00975481|183504223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7283||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.195|8.7383|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.7383|-12.1950|0.7447
91814011|NCT00975481|183504223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.4069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6795|-20.1343|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.1343|-40.6795|<0.0001
91941627|NCT04315298|183780173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.1||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||2.1|-1.7|0.8378
91941628|NCT04315298|183780173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||0.6|-2.9|0.1988
91941629|NCT04315298|183780173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.8556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.7||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||2.7|-2.2|0.8556
91941630|NCT04315298|183780173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||1.0|-3.7|0.2630
91941631|NCT04315298|183780174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.5|-0.2|0.3662
91941632|NCT04315298|183780174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.6|0.0|0.0820
91941633|NCT04315298|183780174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.6|-0.9|0.6984
91941634|NCT04315298|183780174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.6|-0.6|0.9833
91941635|NCT04315298|183780174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||2.0|-0.3|0.1436
91941636|NCT04315298|183780174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||1.4|-0.6|0.4190
91941637|NCT04315298|183780174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||1.2|-0.7|0.6520
91941638|NCT04315298|183780174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||0.9|-1.1|0.8010
91941639|NCT04315298|183780175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.2|-0.4|0.3724
91941640|NCT04315298|183780175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.3|-0.2|0.7034
91814012|NCT00975481|183504223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.1487|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4812|-17.8161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.8161|-38.4812|<0.0001
91814013|NCT00975481|183504223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7374|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1651|-15.3096|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.3096|-36.1651|<0.0001
91814014|NCT00975481|183504223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.8134|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9257|-25.7012|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-25.7012|-45.9257|<0.0001
91814015|NCT00975481|183504223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.5552|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7675|-23.3429|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-23.3429|-43.7675|<0.0001
91814016|NCT00975481|183504223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1439|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4754|-20.8124|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.8124|-41.4754|<0.0001
91814017|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.8779|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5658|30.1899|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||30.1899|19.5658|<0.0001
91814018|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.9857|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.667|31.3043|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||31.3043|20.6670|<0.0001
91814019|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0544||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2911|7.3998|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.3998|-3.2911|0.4489
91814020|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5743||||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7941|5.9427|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.9427|-4.7941|0.8329
91814021|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6863||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7203|7.0929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.0929|-3.7203|0.5387
91941641|NCT04315298|183780175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.7|-0.4|0.5841
91814022|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1283|-17.5187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.5187|-28.1283|<0.0001
91941642|NCT04315298|183780175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.6|-0.4|0.6648
91941643|NCT04315298|183780175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||1.0|-0.4|0.4624
91941644|NCT04315298|183780175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||1.0|-0.3|0.2546
91941645|NCT04315298|183780175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||0.5|-1.0|0.5312
91941646|NCT04315298|183780175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||0.3|-1.1|0.3039
91941647|NCT03267511|183780201|OTHER||Difference of Least Mean Square|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.6499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|||"The reason for entering same analysis for primary and secondary is because statistical analysis was not done separately for primary outcome measure.~The decision was clinical decision at the time of protocol design.There was no comparisons for the primary objective as the main objective was to look at the rank order of the treatments in level of stain reduction after 8 weeks of treatment. This was achieved via the adjusted means and confidence intervals for the means along with plots of MLSI over time. The hypothesis was that the test products would reduce stain to a greater extent than the reference products. Two comparisons of interest were done under secondary and exploratory objectives."|0.31|-0.19|0.6499
91941648|NCT03267511|183780201|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|-0.33 to 0.18|||0.18|-0.33|0.5680
91941649|NCT03267511|183780202|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.6499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.31|-0.19|0.6499
91941650|NCT03267511|183780203|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.18|-0.33|0.5680
91941651|NCT03050307|183780204|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.966|3.339||||||||3.339|-10.966|
91941652|NCT03050307|183780205|NON_INFERIORITY|If the primary outcome measure was met, then the hypothesis for this outcome measure was that if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference was ≥-10%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to H pylori eradication was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.469|18.825||||||||18.825|-4.469|
91814023|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.64|-18.9672|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-18.9672|-29.6400|<0.0001
91941653|NCT03050307|183780206|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.644|4.741||||||||4.741|-16.644|
91941654|NCT03050307|183780207|OTHER|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.175|23.07||||||Epigastric Pain (Postprandial)||23.070|-25.175|
91941655|NCT03050307|183780207|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.907|20.931||||||Epigastric Pain (Fasting/Nocturnal)||20.931|-11.907|
91941656|NCT03050307|183780207|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.255|43.321||||||Abdominal Bloating||43.321|-11.255|
91941657|NCT03050307|183780207|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.109|25.348||||||Heartburn||25.348|-5.109|
91941658|NCT03050307|183780207|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.138|20.694||||||Lack of Appetite||20.694|-45.138|
91814024|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.1916|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5768|-17.8064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.8064|-28.5768|<0.0001
91941659|NCT01250899|183780209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of 12-wk 25(OH)D ≥30ng/mL|70.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|80.0|||Exact binomial||The primary endpoint (mean change in 25(OH)D following 12 weeks of vitamin D repletion in vitamin D insufficient subjects) was dichotomized to success or failure to achieve a week twelve 25(OH)D level ≥30ng/mL.|We predicted that HIV-infected subjects would have a 70% twelve-week repletion success rate compared to 85% among historical controls.Eighty subjects provided 91% power to detect a 12-week repletion rate statistically different than 85% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60%, 80%).||80|60|<0.05
91941660|NCT01536418|183780216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|19.3||||||||19.3|-3.0|
91941661|NCT01536418|183780217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|10.8||||||CDAI score (Clinical remission), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID; at Week 8||10.8|-5.8|
91941662|NCT01536418|183780217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|14.3||||||CDAI score (Clinical remission), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID; at Week 12||14.3|-3.0|
91941663|NCT01536418|183780217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.5||||||CDAI score (Clinical remission), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID; at both Weeks 8 and 12||9.5|-4.6|
91814025|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9313|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1559|-18.7066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-18.7066|-29.1559|<0.0001
91814026|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6869|-20.1358|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.1358|-30.6869|<0.0001
91814027|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2994|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6361|-18.9626|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-18.9626|-29.6361|<0.0001
91814028|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4301||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9725|3.1123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.1123|-5.9725|0.5349
91814029|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1367||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6684|-4.605|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.6050|-13.6684|0.0001
91814030|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3357||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2244|5.8958|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.8958|-3.2244|0.5637
91814031|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4065||||0.8612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1779|4.9909|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.9909|-4.1779|0.8612
91814032|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9175||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7022|5.5373|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.5373|-3.7022|0.6954
91814033|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7658||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7552|7.2868|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.2868|-1.7552|0.2287
91814034|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8366||||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7158|6.389|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.3890|-2.7158|0.4267
91814035|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3476||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2429|6.9381|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.9381|-2.2429|0.3140
91941664|NCT01536418|183780218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|15.9||||||CDAI score (Clinical response), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID at Week 8||15.9|-6.0|
91941665|NCT01536418|183780218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.7||||||CDAI score (Clinical response), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID at both Week 8 and Week 12||18.7|-1.0|
91941666|NCT02498392|183780246|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|=|0.416|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.1|0.66|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.66|-1.10|= 0.416
91941667|NCT02498392|183780247|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|=|0.647|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.41|1.07||1-sided|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.07|-0.41|= 0.647
91814036|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4724|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9992|14.9456|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||14.9456|5.9992|<0.0001
91814037|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.032|14.0544|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||14.0544|5.0320|<0.0001
91814038|NCT00975481|183504224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.494|14.6144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||14.6144|5.4940|<0.0001
91814039|NCT00975481|183504225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4728|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4718|19.4737|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||19.4737|9.4718|<0.0001
91814040|NCT00975481|183504225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7131|24.7437|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||24.7437|14.7131|<0.0001
91814041|NCT00975481|183504225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2088||||0.9348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8289|5.2466|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.2466|-4.8289|0.9348
91814042|NCT00975481|183504225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7271||||0.5009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7841|3.3299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.3299|-6.7841|0.5009
91814043|NCT00975481|183504225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3325||||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4245|4.7595|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.7595|-5.4245|0.8975
91814044|NCT00975481|183504225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.264|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.266|-9.2619|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.2619|-19.2660|<0.0001
91814045|NCT00975481|183504225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1999|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2294|-11.1704|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-11.1704|-21.2294|<0.0001
91814046|NCT00975481|183504225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8053|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8822|-9.7283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.7283|-19.8822|<0.0001
91941668|NCT02473289|183780271|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.31|TWO_SIDED|75.0|-2.77|1.1||1-sided|MMRM|Here 'MMRM' refers to Mixed-effect Model Using Repeated Measures.||||1.10|-2.77|0.310
91941669|NCT03285490|183780300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 complete clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
91941670|NCT03285490|183780301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 partial clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
91814047|NCT00975481|183504225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5195|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4361|-14.603|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.6030|-24.4361|<0.0001
91814048|NCT00975481|183504225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4555|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.423|-16.488|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-16.4880|-26.4230|<0.0001
91814049|NCT00975481|183504225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0609|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0872|-15.0345|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.0345|-25.0872|<0.0001
91814050|NCT00975481|183504226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1634|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9014|4.4254|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.4254|1.9014|<0.0001
91814051|NCT00975481|183504226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6706|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4066|5.9346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.9346|3.4066|<0.0001
91814052|NCT00975481|183504226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1478||||0.8184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1217|1.4173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.4173|-1.1217|0.8184
91814053|NCT00975481|183504226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2211||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.054|1.4963|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.4963|-1.0540|0.7324
91814054|NCT00975481|183504226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0946||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1898|1.3791|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.3791|-1.1898|0.8844
91814055|NCT00975481|183504226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2754|-1.7558|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.7558|-4.2754|<0.0001
91814056|NCT00975481|183504226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9423|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2101|-1.6745|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.6745|-4.2101|<0.0001
91814057|NCT00975481|183504226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3484|-1.7891|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.7891|-4.3484|<0.0001
91941671|NCT00068822|183780312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment effect|0.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Between group comparisons, confidence intervals, and P values were calculated with the use of analysis-of-covariance models with adjustment for study group assignment, baseline value of the outcome measure, and study center. Negative treatment effects favor the control procedure, and positive treatment effects favor vertebroplasty.||2.8|-1.3|0.49
91814058|NCT00975481|183504226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7651|-3.2805|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.2805|-5.7651|<0.0001
91814059|NCT00975481|183504226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4495|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7031|-3.1959|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.1959|-5.7031|<0.0001
91814060|NCT00975481|183504226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8438|-3.3081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.3081|-5.8438|<0.0001
91814061|NCT00975481|183504227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0798|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0453|58.1142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||58.1142|34.0453|<0.0001
91814062|NCT00975481|183504227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.8771|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8247|61.9295|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||61.9295|37.8247|<0.0001
91814063|NCT00975481|183504227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5797||||0.9248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6918|11.5325|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.5325|-12.6918|0.9248
91814064|NCT00975481|183504227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3632||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5264|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.8000|-15.5264|0.5857
91814065|NCT00975481|183504227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4225||||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.827|16.6719|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.6719|-7.8270|0.4768
91814066|NCT00975481|183504227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.6594|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.6804|-34.6385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-34.6385|-58.6804|<0.0001
91814067|NCT00975481|183504227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5346|-37.3514|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-37.3514|-61.5346|<0.0001
91814068|NCT00975481|183504227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.6573|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.86|-29.4546|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-29.4546|-53.8600|<0.0001
91814069|NCT00975481|183504227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.4567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2925|-38.621|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-38.6210|-62.2925|<0.0001
91814070|NCT00975481|183504227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.2403|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1923|-41.2882|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-41.2882|-65.1923|<0.0001
91814071|NCT00975481|183504227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.4546|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5459|-33.3633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-33.3633|-57.5459|<0.0001
91814072|NCT00975481|183504228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.845|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6464|59.0436|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||59.0436|34.6464|<0.0001
91814073|NCT00975481|183504228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.5013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3036|69.6991|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||69.6991|45.3036|<0.0001
91941672|NCT00068822|183780313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.0||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Physical Component Summary treatment effect||3.7|-1.7|0.45
91941673|NCT00068822|183780313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.6|||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Mental Component Summary treatment effect||4.6|-3.7|0.83
91941674|NCT00068822|183780313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain Frequency Index treatment effect||0.6|-0.2|0.33
91941675|NCT00068822|183780313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.33||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain Bothersome Index treatment effect||0.6|-0.2|0.33
91941676|NCT00068822|183780313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.05||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||ANCOVA|||EQ-5D Index treatment effect||0.11|-0.01|0.13
91941677|NCT00068822|183780313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.4||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||SOF-ADL treatment effect||1.6|-0.8|0.5
91941678|NCT00068822|183780314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment effect|0.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Between group comparisons, confidence intervals, and P values were calculated with the use of analysis-of-covariance models with adjustment for study group assignment, baseline value of the outcome measure, and study center. Negative treatment effects favor the control procedure, and positive treatment effects favor vertebroplasty.||1.7|-0.3|0.19
91814074|NCT00975481|183504228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0913||||0.4129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3421|7.1595|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.1595|-17.3421|0.4129
91941679|NCT00617162|183780320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.2|||Fisher Exact|||||2.2|-5.5|0.3989
91941680|NCT00424099|183780345|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.16
91941681|NCT00424099|183780346|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.45
91941682|NCT03689972|183780347|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Mean|4.24|||=|0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|20.85|||Negative Binomial Regression|The model included treatment as classification variable \& baseline body weight, duration of natalizumab exposure at baseline, \& region as covariates.||||20.85|0.86|=0.0755
91941683|NCT03689972|183780348|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.68|93.01|||Exact Binomial method|Percentage of participants preferring natalizumab SC at end of crossover period of Part 2, and 95% CI was calculated using the exact binomial method.||||93.01|80.68|
91941684|NCT03689972|183780350|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of annualized relapse rate|1.32481|||=|0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42016|4.17725|||Poisson Regression|Poisson regression model was adjusted for baseline body weight, duration of natalizumab exposure at baseline, and region.||||4.17725|0.42016|=0.6312
91941685|NCT03689972|183780356|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.47|||=|0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|3.54||Performed with factors:route of administration,period,sequence,body weight,duration of natalizumab exposure,stratification factor,baseline TSQM score.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||3.54|-2.61|=0.764
91941686|NCT03689972|183780363|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.08|||=|0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.25||Performed with factors:route of administration,period,sequence,body weight,duration of natalizumab exposure,stratification factor,baseline TSQM score.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||0.25|-0.09|=0.357
91941687|NCT00435929|183780371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.268|1.603||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for SQV||1.603|0.268|
91941688|NCT00435929|183780371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.764|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.505|1.156||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for RTV.||1.156|0.505|
91941689|NCT00435929|183780372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.311|1.644||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for SQV.||1.644|0.311|
91941690|NCT00435929|183780372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.551|1.292||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for RTV.||1.292|0.551|
91941691|NCT02417064|183780386|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-3.2||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|0.45|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.45|-6.88|0.088
91941692|NCT02417064|183780386|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|-0.49||||||||-0.49|-7.67|
91941693|NCT02417064|183780387|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-2.0|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|1.42|||ANCOVA|||||1.42|-5.52|= 0.250
91941694|NCT02417064|183780387|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-0.6||||||||-0.6|-7.53|
91941695|NCT02437162|183780402|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|2.586||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.138|14.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.310|-9.138|0.669
91941696|NCT02437162|183780402|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-0.646||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.18|10.887|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.887|-12.180|0.913
91941697|NCT04338321|183780464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.44|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|15.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.68|3.19|=0.003
91941698|NCT03321526|183780489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5355
91941699|NCT03097133|183780527|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.11|||ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-6.60|0.006
91814075|NCT00975481|183504228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1893||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4954|11.1168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.1168|-13.4954|0.8488
91814076|NCT00975481|183504228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1995||||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1963|17.5954|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||17.5954|-7.1963|0.4086
91814077|NCT00975481|183504228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.9363|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1108|-39.7618|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-39.7618|-64.1108|<0.0001
91814078|NCT00975481|183504228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.0343|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2801|-35.7885|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-35.7885|-60.2801|<0.0001
91814079|NCT00975481|183504228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.6455|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9964|-29.2946|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-29.2946|-53.9964|<0.0001
91814080|NCT00975481|183504228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.5926|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5881|-50.5971|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-50.5971|-74.5881|<0.0001
91814081|NCT00975481|183504228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.6906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7965|-46.5847|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-46.5847|-70.7965|<0.0001
91814082|NCT00975481|183504228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.3018|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5427|-40.0609|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-40.0609|-64.5427|<0.0001
91814083|NCT00975481|183504229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4604||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.321|26.5998|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||26.5998|6.3210|0.0016
91814084|NCT00975481|183504229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8247|38.1696|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||38.1696|17.8247|<0.0001
91814085|NCT00975481|183504229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1425||||0.8254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3591|9.0742|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||9.0742|-11.3591|0.8254
91941700|NCT00371540|183780550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||Note: The differences between the number of individuals evaluable for this secondary outcome and the number of individuals evaluable for the primary outcome is related to specimen loss by the laboratory. As such of the Routine care group only 96 of 102 patients completing the study were evaluable for the viral load outcome and only 86 of 87 patients in the Home visit group.||||0.65
91941701|NCT00371540|183780551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91941702|NCT00371540|183780552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91941703|NCT01989572|183780553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.528|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on HLA-A2 status, site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions.||||||0.528
91941704|NCT01989572|183780554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on HLA-A2 status, site of metastases, and number of metastatic lesions||||||0.131
91941705|NCT01989572|183780555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on GM-CSF, site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||||||0.60
91814086|NCT00975481|183504229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.747||||0.8858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5075|11.0015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.0015|-9.5075|0.8858
91814087|NCT00975481|183504229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4279||||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8972|13.7529|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||13.7529|-6.8972|0.5128
91814088|NCT00975481|183504229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6028||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7485|-7.4572|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-7.4572|-27.7485|0.0008
91941706|NCT01989572|183780556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||stratifying on GM-CSF, site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions|Log Rank|||||||0.71
91941707|NCT01989572|183780557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparison in patients with positive HLA-A2 status||||0.88
91941708|NCT01989572|183780557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparison in patients with negative HLA-A2 status||||0.69
91941709|NCT01989572|183780558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparison in patients with positive HLA-A2 status||||0.91
91941710|NCT01989572|183780558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparisons in patients with negative HLA-A2 status||||0.13
91941711|NCT00262639|183780559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.03
91941712|NCT00262639|183780560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||This p value is for the interaction of AW status by medication group.|ANOVA|||The analysis was an ANOVA interaction analysis with alcohol withdrawal (AW) group (Low vs. High) by medication group (active versus placebo medication) across the 6 weeks of the medication trial.||||0.0006
91941713|NCT04159701|183780563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.60|-3.73|0.380
91941714|NCT04159701|183780564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.50|-1.89|0.415
91941715|NCT04159701|183780565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.53|-2.09|0.369
91941716|NCT04159701|183780566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by baseline UAS7 (\< 28 vs \>= 28) score.||||2.70|0.14|0.674
91941717|NCT04159701|183780567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by baseline UAS7 (\< median vs \>= median) score.||||2.68|0.13|0.674
91941718|NCT03605836|183780570|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.01|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-1.46|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-1.46|-6.55|=0.0021
91941719|NCT03605836|183780570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.42|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-1.82|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-1.82|-7.02|=0.0009
91941720|NCT03605836|183780571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|||=|0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-0.09|-0.57|=0.0073
91941721|NCT03605836|183780571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|||=|0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-0.04|-0.53|=0.0245
91941722|NCT01933399|183780581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|16.6|||ANCOVA||"Difference in mean change in scores from baseline to follow-up by treatment group with no adjusment for baseline.~a priori threshold determined to be .05. no adjustments for multiple comparisons."|ANCOVA Adjusted for baseline score||16.6|2.2|.01
91941723|NCT01933399|183780581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.6||a priori threshold determined to be .05. no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline.||||12.6|-2.0|.16
91941724|NCT01933399|183780582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline.||-0.4|-2.3|0.01
91941725|NCT01933399|183780582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline.||0|-2.1|.05
91941726|NCT00633360|183780594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.59
91941727|NCT00633360|183780595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
91941728|NCT03241589|183780598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.429|||Regression, Logistic||Referent group is Urban|We followed power calculations described in uploaded protocol document, using an incomplete design matrix with a 3-month transition period, a level of precision α=0.05 and a minimum power level of 0.80. We also assumed a total number of clusters I=36 as per the study design and the number of baseline measurements B=2. Due to insufficient sample size, we modified groups studied.||1.429|0.606|0.7428
91941729|NCT03241589|183780599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.258||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.181|4.315|||Regression, Logistic|2 degrees of freedom, Wald Chi-Square 11.5759|Veterans with expired requests = referent.|||4.315|1.181|0.0031
91814089|NCT00975481|183504229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7134||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9136|-5.5132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-5.5132|-25.9136|0.0028
91814090|NCT00975481|183504229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0325||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3295|-2.7355|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.7355|-23.3295|0.0135
91814091|NCT00975481|183504229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.1396|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1071|-19.1721|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-19.1721|-39.1071|<0.0001
91814092|NCT00975481|183504229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.2502|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3224|-17.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.1780|-37.3224|<0.0001
91941730|NCT03011775|183780624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The threshold for statistical significance was P value of .05||||||<0.05
91941731|NCT03011775|183780625|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91941732|NCT03011775|183780627|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91941733|NCT03011775|183780628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91941734|NCT03011775|183780630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91941735|NCT03011775|183780631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91941736|NCT03011775|183780632|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.3
91814093|NCT00975481|183504229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5693|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7614|-14.3772|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.3772|-34.7614|<0.0001
91941737|NCT03748420|183780633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09845||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.56|1.06|0.0103
91941738|NCT03748420|183780634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1166||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.30|0.82|0.7967
91941739|NCT03748420|183780635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08906||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.99|0.0589
91941740|NCT03748420|183780636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0871||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5|-0.8|0.21
91941741|NCT03748420|183780637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1234||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|0.20
91941742|NCT03748420|183780638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.96||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.99|110.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.04|-124.99|0.901
91941743|NCT01634100|183780675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and rifampicin divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|135.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.58|141.06|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||141.06|129.58|
91941744|NCT01634100|183780675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus probenecid divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|153.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.41|160.88|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||160.88|146.41|
91941745|NCT01634100|183780676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and rifampicin divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|175.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.14|191.56|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||191.56|160.14|
91941746|NCT01634100|183780676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus probenecid divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|125.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.67|138.78|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||138.78|113.67|
91941747|NCT01634100|183780677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and rifampicin divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|136.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.61|142.48|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||142.48|130.61|
91941748|NCT01634100|183780677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus probenecid divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|153.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.5|161.06|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||161.06|146.50|
91941749|NCT01594411|183780730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||one-sided binomial with alpha level of 0|||"The proportion of patients whose final treatment plan changes from the preliminary will be estimated, and a one-sided binomial test with alpha level of .05 will be used to test whether it is greater than 10%.~This is the level at which it is assumed that patient management has been modified by a practically important amount."||||<0.001
91941750|NCT00924729|183780731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91941751|NCT01332097|183780736|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|54.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|150.1||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment A vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||150.1|-41.7|
91941752|NCT01332097|183780736|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.5|44.5||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment C vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||44.5|-148.5|
91941753|NCT01332097|183780736|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|106.9||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment D vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||106.9|-96.0|
91941754|NCT01332097|183780736|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|33.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|133.9||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment F vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||133.9|-66.8|
91941755|NCT01332097|183780736|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|202.0||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment H vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||202.0|-2.4|
91941756|NCT01332097|183780736|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|182.6||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment A vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||182.6|-107.1|
91941757|NCT01332097|183780736|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.7|71.8||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment C vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||71.8|-215.7|
91814094|NCT00975481|183504230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2535||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5623|1.9446|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.9446|0.5623|0.0005
91814095|NCT00975481|183504230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.501|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8073|4.1948|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.1948|2.8073|<0.0001
91814096|NCT00975481|183504230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3418||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3559|1.0396|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.0396|-0.3559|0.3347
91814097|NCT00975481|183504230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3208||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3808|1.0225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.0225|-0.3808|0.3678
91941758|NCT01332097|183780736|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-72.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.5|96.9||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment D vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||96.9|-241.5|
91941759|NCT01332097|183780736|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.9|119.2||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment F vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||119.2|-154.9|
91941760|NCT01332097|183780736|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|123.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|263.0||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment H vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||263.0|-15.8|
91941761|NCT00856986|183780738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference, LSMean|-0.52||||||95.0|-0.68|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||The estimated treatment difference between Detemir+Lira 1.8 and Lira 1.8 as well as 95% confidence interval and p-value were calculated by an ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous OAD as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. The p-value reflects a two-sided test for the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups with a significance level of 5% and with the power of 90%.||-0.36|-0.68|
91941762|NCT00856986|183780739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference, LSMean|-0.41||||||95.0|-0.6|-0.21|||ANCOVA||The analysis values for intensified Lira 1.8 mg subjects were kept in the treatment group and the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied.|The estimated treatment difference between Detemir+Lira 1.8 and Lira 1.8 as well as 95% confidence interval and p-value were calculated by an ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous OAD as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. The p-value reflects a two-sided test for the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups with a significance level of 5%.||-0.21|-0.6|
91941763|NCT00856986|183780740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS mean|-0.51||||||95.0|-0.7|-0.31|||ANCOVA||The mean change in HbA1c from randomisation to week 52 was analysed including the values before intensification as LOCF for intensified subjects|||-0.31|-0.7|
91941764|NCT02448914|183780771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was first to attempt to show non-inferiority. To show non-inferiority of TRIGEL over Duodopa, the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the treatment ratio had to be above the chosen non-inferiority margin of 0.9. If non-inferiority was shown, analysis continued with test of superiority. To show superiority of TRIGEL versus Duodopa, the lower confidence limit had to be above 1 (corresponding to a p-value less than 0.05).|back-transformed ratio|1.382|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.264|1.511|||ANCOVA|||Levodopa AUC 0-14h/dose, was derived using the trapezoidal method and divided by the total administered dose of levodopa during the corresponding time interval.The primary endpoint was log transformed and analysed using an ANCOVA, adjusting for treatment, period and patient. The back-transformed ratio of TRIGEL over Duodopa was calculated together with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the associated (2 sided) p value.||1.511|1.264|<0.0001
91941765|NCT03209362|183780796|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.5453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|6.6|||ANCOVA|||||6.6|-12.4|0.5453
91941766|NCT03209362|183780797|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5||||0.5386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|7.8|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||7.8|-14.9|0.5386
91941767|NCT03209362|183780797|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|8.6|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||8.6|-15.2|0.5873
91941768|NCT03209362|183780798|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.6347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|9.2|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||9.2|-15.0|0.6347
91941769|NCT03209362|183780798|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.7806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|10.8|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||10.8|-14.3|0.7806
91941770|NCT03209362|183780799|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.8819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|11.4|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||11.4|-13.2|0.8819
91941771|NCT03209362|183780799|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|7.1|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||7.1|-18.3|0.3796
91941772|NCT03209362|183780800|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.6217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|9.0|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||9.0|-14.9|0.6217
91941773|NCT03209362|183780800|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|9.8|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||9.8|-14.8|0.6901
91941774|NCT01628042|183780801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|2.46|||ANCOVA|||||2.46|1.36|
91941775|NCT01628042|183780801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.55|2.74|||ANCOVA|||||2.74|1.55|
91941776|NCT01628042|183780801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.00|1.11|
91941777|NCT01628042|183780802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.27|||ANCOVA|||||2.27|0.89|
91814098|NCT00975481|183504230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6686|0.7406|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.7406|-0.6686|0.9197
91941778|NCT01628042|183780802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ration|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|2.63|||ANCOVA|||||2.63|1.07|
91941779|NCT01628042|183780802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|3.13|||ANCOVA|||||3.13|1.23|
91941780|NCT01628042|183780803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.74|||ANCOVA|||||0.74|0.41|
91941781|NCT01628042|183780803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.65|||ANCOVA|||||0.65|0.36|
91941782|NCT01628042|183780803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.90|0.50|
91941783|NCT04852666|183780814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.751|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.751
91941784|NCT04852666|183780814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
91941785|NCT04852666|183780815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.778
91941786|NCT04852666|183780815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.357
91941787|NCT04852666|183780816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.012
91941788|NCT04852666|183780816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.956
91941789|NCT04852666|183780817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.103
91941790|NCT04852666|183780817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91941791|NCT04852666|183780818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.785
91941792|NCT04852666|183780819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.200
91941793|NCT04852666|183780820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.887
91941794|NCT04852666|183780820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
91941795|NCT05426460|183780834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.438
91941796|NCT05426460|183780835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.847
91941797|NCT05426460|183780836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANOVA|||2 X 2 ANOVA||||.570
91941798|NCT05426460|183780837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.657|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.657
91941799|NCT05426460|183780838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.254
91941800|NCT05426460|183780839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA with Main effect p-values for tDCS and AAT reported in comments below||||.852
91941801|NCT05426460|183780840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.732
91941802|NCT05426460|183780841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.038
91941803|NCT05426460|183780842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.029
91941804|NCT05426460|183780843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.353
91941805|NCT01405027|183780857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4864|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4864
91941806|NCT01193049|183780862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.46||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM Fold Reduction (FR) is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||0.46|0.14|0.001
91941807|NCT01193049|183780862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo : NE|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.3||1-sided p value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC(Placebo) from NE.||0.30|0.13|<0.001
91941808|NCT01193049|183780862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FC from BL: SP vs NE|0.2||||0.553||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FC from BL in IL-5 after placebo treatment.||||0.553
91941809|NCT01193049|183780862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FR from Placebo :SP vs NE|-0.02||||0.964||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FR from placebo in IL-5 after prednisone treatment.||||0.964
91941810|NCT01193049|183780863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.27||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.62||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||0.62|0.12|0.009
91941811|NCT01193049|183780863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo : NE|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.43||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR is the GM of individual FC Prednisone)/FC(Placebo) from NE.||0.43|0.22|<0.001
91941812|NCT01193049|183780863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FC from BL: SP vs NE|-0.02||||0.962||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FC from BL in IL-13 after placebo treatment.||||0.962
91941813|NCT01193049|183780863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FR from Placebo: SP vs NE|0.07||||0.83||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FR from placebo in IL-13 after prednisone treatment.||||0.83
91941814|NCT01193049|183780864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.8||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.47||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||1.47|0.43|0.258
91941815|NCT01193049|183780864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|1.08||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.46||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from NE.||1.46|0.80|0.681
91941816|NCT01193049|183780865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo:SP|0.61||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.24||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||1.24|0.30|0.117
91941817|NCT01193049|183780865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.64||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.86||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from NE.||0.86|0.47|0.011
91941818|NCT01193049|183780867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: IL-5|1.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.99||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) for IL-5.||1.99|1.15|0.010
91941819|NCT01193049|183780867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: IL-13|1.35||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.71||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) for IL-13.||1.71|1.07|0.020
91941820|NCT01193049|183780868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.82||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.09||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-17 from SP.||1.09|0.62|0.119
91941821|NCT01193049|183780868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.68||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.14||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-17 from NE.||1.14|0.41|0.103
91941822|NCT01193049|183780869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.77||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-1β from SP.||0.77|0.46|0.003
91941823|NCT01193049|183780869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.49||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.93||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-1β from NE.||0.93|0.26|0.036
91941824|NCT01193049|183780870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.7||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.24||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in MIP-1β from SP.||1.24|0.40|0.143
91941825|NCT01193049|183780870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.61||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.02||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in MIP-1β from NE.||1.02|0.37|0.056
91941826|NCT05085327|183780875|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|CLM Original: Labeled SPF|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91941827|NCT05085327|183780875|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|CLM Mint: Labeled SPF|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91941828|NCT05085327|183780875|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|CLM Black Cherry: Labeled SPF|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91941829|NCT02234050|183780882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.997|2.028|||Regression, Cox|||||2.028|0.997|0.204
91941830|NCT02234050|183780885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.71|||Regression, Cox|||||1.71|0.53|0.94
91941831|NCT00592176|183780887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91941832|NCT02280096|183780911|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.028||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.028
91941833|NCT02280096|183780912|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.001||||0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
91941834|NCT02280096|183780913|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.016||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.016
91941835|NCT02280096|183780914|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.64||||0.64|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Reading speed||||0.64
91941836|NCT02280096|183780914|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Count speed||||0.43
91941837|NCT02280096|183780914|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.9||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Alternation||||0.9
91941838|NCT02280096|183780915|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.83||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.83
91941839|NCT02280096|183780916|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.92||||0.92|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.92
91941840|NCT02280096|183780917|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.017||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Total moves||||0.017
91941841|NCT02280096|183780917|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Correct moves||||0.010
91941842|NCT02280096|183780918|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Execution time||||0.001
91941843|NCT02280096|183780918|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Problem-solving time||||0.001
91941844|NCT03733132|183780925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.854
91941845|NCT03733132|183780926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.389
91941846|NCT03733132|183780927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
91941847|NCT03733132|183780928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.371
91941848|NCT03733132|183780929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.686
91941849|NCT02219516|183780939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|153.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.0|203.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||203|115|
91941850|NCT02219516|183780939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|173.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.0|230.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||230|131|
91941851|NCT02219516|183780939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|228.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.0|336.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||336|155|
91941852|NCT02219516|183780941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|131.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|174.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||174|98.6|
91941853|NCT02219516|183780941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|222.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|171.0|287.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||287|171|
91941854|NCT02219516|183780941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|211.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.0|319.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||319|139|
91941855|NCT02219516|183780942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|124.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.8|173.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||173|88.8|
91941856|NCT02219516|183780942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|248.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|168.0|366.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||366|168|
91941857|NCT02219516|183780942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|230.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.0|363.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||363|146|
91941858|NCT02219516|183780944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.1|101.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||101|57.1|
91814099|NCT00975481|183504230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9117||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6013|-0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.2220|-1.6013|0.0099
91941859|NCT02219516|183780944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|45.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.9|58.3|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||58.3|34.9|
91941860|NCT02219516|183780944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|47.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.5|72.5|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||72.5|31.5|
91814100|NCT00975481|183504230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9326||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6269|-0.2384|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.2384|-1.6269|0.0088
91814101|NCT00975481|183504230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2175||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9171|-0.5178|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.5178|-1.9171|0.0008
91941861|NCT02219516|183780945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|80.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.9|113.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||113|57.9|
91941862|NCT02219516|183780945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|40.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.3|59.5|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||59.5|27.3|
91941863|NCT02219516|183780945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.5|68.7|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||68.7|27.5|
91941864|NCT02219516|183780946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.6|150.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||150|60.6|
91941865|NCT02219516|183780946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.2|113.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||113|30.2|
91941866|NCT02219516|183780946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.6|32.8|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||32.8|13.6|
91941867|NCT01872897|183780947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.79||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|-4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.74|-14.85|0.0003
91941868|NCT01872897|183780948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.82|-8.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.71|-22.82|<0.0001
91941869|NCT01872897|183780949|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.2|-29.6|0.0004
91941870|NCT01872897|183780950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-26.2|0.0019
91941871|NCT01872897|183780951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.6|0.0290
91941872|NCT01872897|183780952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57|-8.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.23|-20.57|<0.0001
91941873|NCT01872897|183780953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.55|-15.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.19|-31.55|<0.0001
91941874|NCT01872897|183780954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.6|-10.0|<0.0001
91941875|NCT01872897|183780955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.3|-9.4|0.0001
91941876|NCT01872897|183780956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-10.9|0.0075
91814102|NCT00975481|183504230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1592|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.838|-2.4804|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.4804|-3.8380|<0.0001
91941877|NCT01872897|183780957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.145||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.432|-10.858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.858|-37.432|0.0007
91941878|NCT04254796|183780958|OTHER|Calculation of the effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.68||||||The goal of the analysis was to measure the effect size of the change in the primary mechanistic outcome (Putamen structural node strength), with a Go/No-Go threshold of Cohen's d \> 0.20.||0.68|-0.13|
91941879|NCT02845440|183780960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.79||A priori threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||4.79|1.20|0.013
91941880|NCT02845440|183780960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.74||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||2.74|0.62|0.481
91941881|NCT02845440|183780960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.24||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||3.24|1.04|0.036
91941882|NCT02845440|183780961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.06||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.06|0.88|0.174
91941883|NCT02845440|183780961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.06||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.06|0.45|0.092
91941884|NCT02845440|183780962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.75||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||4.75|1.61|<0.001
91941885|NCT02845440|183780962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.64||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.64|0.50|0.742
91941886|NCT02845440|183780963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.51||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) as well as TUD medication use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of TUD medication use on abstinence rates attributable to the AD+CHW intervention was 2.8%.|2.51|0.99|0.056
91941887|NCT02845440|183780964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.33||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) as well as varenicline use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of varenicline use on abstinence rates attributable to the AD+CHW intervention was 13.9%.|3.33|1.16|0.012
91941888|NCT02845440|183780965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.79||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||2.79|1.05|0.032
91941889|NCT02845440|183780965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.75||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||2.75|0.68|0.376
91941890|NCT02845440|183780965|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||4.05|0.42|0.645
91941891|NCT02845440|183780966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.56||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The CHW intervention increased odds of self-reported use of any TUD medication by 1.85.||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.56|1.34|<0.001
91941892|NCT02845440|183780966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.05|0.46|0.084
91941893|NCT02845440|183780966|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.55|0.59|0.589
91941894|NCT02845440|183780967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|4.68||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||4.68|1.99|<0.001
91941895|NCT02845440|183780967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.57||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.57|0.51|0.698
91941896|NCT02845440|183780967|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.78|0.43|0.845
91941897|NCT02845440|183780968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.2||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) as well as TUD medication use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of TUD medication use on abstinence rates attributable to the CHW intervention was 55.6%.|2.20|0.92|0.158
91941898|NCT02845440|183780969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.13||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) as well as varenicline use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients and mediation analysis estimates were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of varenicline use on abstinence rates attributable to the CHW intervention was 36.6%.|3.13|1.14|0.013
91941899|NCT02845440|183780970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.33|||Regression, Linear|||The model had a clinic varying random intercept. This statistical model included cohort 1: TAU , AD, and AD+CHW||0.33|-0.16|0.505
91941900|NCT02845440|183780970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.27||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.27|-0.22|0.848
91941901|NCT02845440|183780970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.25|-0.13|0.529
91941902|NCT02845440|183780971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.18|-0.16|0.937
91941903|NCT02845440|183780971|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.29|||Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.29|-0.19|0.683
91941904|NCT02845440|183780971|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.74|||Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.74|-0.15|0.190
91941905|NCT01849562|183780972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|82.7||||||Differences in proportions between Group 1 (sovaprevir 200 mg plus ACH-3102 150/50 mg plus RBV) and overall placebo (placebo from Group 1 and Group 2 combined) along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals for risk difference calculated using exact unconditional methods were obtained.||82.7|1.8|
91941906|NCT01849562|183780972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|93.6||||||Differences in proportions between Group 2 (sovaprevir 400 mg plus ACH-3102 150/50 mg plus RBV) and overall placebo (placebo from Group 1 and Group 2 combined) along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals for risk difference calculated using exact unconditional methods were obtained.||93.6|24.2|
91941907|NCT04599972|183780980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.979|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.753|5.064|||Regression, Logistic|||All treatment comparisons for primary and secondary endpoints related to BDCVA were conducted with a logistic regression model including fixed effects of baseline BDCVA at 40 cm as a covariate and treatment.||5.064|1.753|<0.01
91941908|NCT04599972|183780981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.807|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.655|4.762|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.762|1.655|<0.01
91941909|NCT04599972|183780982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.002|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.431|10.499|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.499|3.431|<0.01
91941910|NCT04599972|183780983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.161|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.404|7.204|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.204|2.404|<0.01
91941911|NCT02069704|183780984|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio BEVZ92 to Avastin|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|109.0|||||For the ratio: BEVZ92 represents the numerator and reference bevacizumab the denominator|Based on previously published PK data for reference bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer, we assumed a conservative inter-participant coefficient of variation for AUC of around 35%. A sample size of 51 patients in each treatment arm could show bioequivalence with a nominal power of 90% and an α of 0·05, if the 90% CIs for the ratio of BEVZ92 to reference bevacizumab of the geometric means for AUC0-336h and AUCss were within the acceptance interval of 80%-125%.||109.0|90.5|
91941912|NCT02069704|183780985|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio BEVZ92 to Avastin|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|112.0||||||||112.0|90.2|
91941913|NCT00554853|183780998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
91941914|NCT02861118|183780999|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Regression, Logistic|||IBD||||0.024
91941915|NCT02861118|183780999|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.006
91941916|NCT02861118|183780999|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease||||0.006
91941917|NCT02861118|183781000|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Logistic|||IBD||||0.044
91941918|NCT02861118|183781000|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.003
91941919|NCT02861118|183781000|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Myocardial Infarction||||0.003
91941920|NCT02861118|183781001|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.007
91941921|NCT02861118|183781002|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.002
91941922|NCT02861118|183781002|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Skin Disease||||0.003
91941923|NCT01690988|183781018|OTHER|Test of independence|Difference in Percentages|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.301||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|7.38|||Chi-squared||Difference in delirium incidence between placebo control and combined ketamine groups.|The primary analysis was a comparison between the placebo control group and the combined ketamine groups||7.38|-6.07|0.912
91941924|NCT01690988|183781019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||ANOVA|one-way||We compared the combined average pain level (pain level at rest, taking a deep breath, and/or when moving) over the entire day (AM and PM).||||0.964
91941925|NCT01690988|183781020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||"All morphine equivalent drugs consumed by patients perioperatively~Opioid Drugs included:~\* Postoperatively while still in hospital, the list of pain medication used included Morphine, Hydromorphone, Meperidine, Nalbuphine, Oxycodone,Oxymorphone, Tramadol, bupivacaine, (Codeine, Fentanyl, Naloxone) Total Opiates (Morphine Equivalent) in milligrams The median(IQR) opioid consumption was compared across the three study groups Placebo vs. Lo-K (0.5 mg/kg) vs. Hi-K (1 mg/kg)"||||0.476
91814103|NCT00975481|183504230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1802|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8656|-2.4947|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.4947|-3.8656|<0.0001
91814104|NCT00975481|183504230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.465|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1583|-2.7717|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.7717|-4.1583|<0.0001
91814105|NCT00975481|183504231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0783|6.5102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.5102|4.0783|<0.0001
91814106|NCT00975481|183504231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8983|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6799|8.1167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.1167|5.6799|<0.0001
91814107|NCT00975481|183504231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6545||||0.2917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5676|1.8767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.8767|-0.5676|0.2917
91814108|NCT00975481|183504231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8489||||0.1738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3784|2.0763|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.0763|-0.3784|0.1738
91814109|NCT00975481|183504231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9372||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3024|2.1767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.1767|-0.3024|0.1373
91814110|NCT00975481|183504231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6397|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8537|-3.4257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.4257|-5.8537|<0.0001
91814111|NCT00975481|183504231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4453|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6662|-3.2244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.2244|-5.6662|<0.0001
91814112|NCT00975481|183504231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3571|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5887|-3.1255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.1255|-5.5887|<0.0001
91814113|NCT00975481|183504231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2437|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4397|-5.0477|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-5.0477|-7.4397|<0.0001
91814114|NCT00975481|183504231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0493|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2568|-4.8419|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.8419|-7.2568|<0.0001
91814115|NCT00975481|183504231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1812|-4.741|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.7410|-7.1812|<0.0001
91941926|NCT01690988|183781021|SUPERIORITY||frequency-test|0.572||||0.572|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Assessed from patient-reported postoperative nausea and vomiting section of Behavioral Pain Scale or Behavioral Pain Scale (Non-Intubated) Patients where asked whether they currently have nausea/vomiting AM \& PM the response choices: None, Mild, Moderate, Severe Incidence of nausea\\vomiting accounted for any positive reporting(Mild, moderate, or sever) Daily incidence accounted for any positive incidence AM/PM in each POD Any POD nausea/vomiting reports the incidence across day 1-3"||||0.572
91941927|NCT01690988|183781023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||Frequency of patients reporting hallucinations using the DSAQ instrument.||||0.01
91941928|NCT01690988|183781024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||"Patients where asked whether Following their surgery they had bad dreams or nightmares the response choices: Yes/No question The incidence of hallucination and nightmares were assessed separately and compared across the three study group."|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91941929|NCT01975376|183781041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.930905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95 percent (%) Confidence Interval (CI) were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) at pre-screening (less than \[\<\] 100 milligrams per deciliters \[mg/dL\], greater than and equal to \[\>=\] 100 mg/dL) with treatment as a co-variate.||1.22|0.80|0.930905
91941930|NCT01975376|183781042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.784265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.30|0.82|0.784265
91941931|NCT01975376|183781043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.892441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.20|0.81|0.892441
91941932|NCT01975376|183781044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.845797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.26|0.83|0.845797
91941933|NCT01975376|183781045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.431903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.36|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.36|0.49|0.431903
91941934|NCT01975376|183781046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.883797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.21|0.80|0.883797
91941935|NCT01975376|183781047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.45569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.95|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.95|0.74|0.455690
91941936|NCT01975376|183781048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.469496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.48|0.84|0.469496
91941937|NCT01975376|183781049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.633022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.23|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||9.23|0.26|0.633022
91941938|NCT01975376|183781050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.46765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.48|0.83|0.467650
91941939|NCT01975376|183781051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.015462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.89|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||0.89|0.32|0.015462
91941940|NCT01975376|183781052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.011863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.88|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||0.88|0.33|0.011863
91941941|NCT01975376|183781053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.316066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.0|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||2.00|0.12|0.316066
91941942|NCT01975376|183781054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.020328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.91|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||0.91|0.30|0.020328
91941943|NCT01975376|183781055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.367069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.27|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.27|0.53|0.367069
91941944|NCT01975376|183781056|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.443081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.29|0.56|0.443081
91941945|NCT01975376|183781057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.343817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.12|0.71|0.343817
91941946|NCT01975376|183781058|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.889065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.85|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.85|0.59|0.889065
91941947|NCT01975376|183781059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.308388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.13|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.13|0.69|0.308388
91814116|NCT00975481|183504232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.6205|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1192|-20.1219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.1219|-33.1192|<0.0001
91814117|NCT00975481|183504232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5724|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1073|-26.0375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-26.0375|-39.1073|<0.0001
91814118|NCT00975481|183504232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8966||||0.5685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6607|8.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.4540|-4.6607|0.5685
91814119|NCT00975481|183504232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5761||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.159|3.0068|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.0068|-10.1590|0.2848
91814120|NCT00975481|183504232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1754||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7855|3.4347|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.4347|-9.7855|0.3440
91814121|NCT00975481|183504232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0454|34.989|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||34.9890|22.0454|<0.0001
91814122|NCT00975481|183504232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5383|29.5506|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||29.5506|16.5383|<0.0001
91814123|NCT00975481|183504232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8772|30.0131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||30.0131|16.8772|<0.0001
91814124|NCT00975481|183504232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1136|40.8244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||40.8244|28.1136|<0.0001
91941948|NCT01975376|183781060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.874835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.42|0.74|0.874835
91814125|NCT00975481|183504232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9963|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5734|35.4192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||35.4192|22.5734|<0.0001
91814126|NCT00975481|183504232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.397|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8946|35.8994|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||35.8994|22.8946|<0.0001
91941949|NCT01975376|183781061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.526269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.6|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.60|0.79|0.526269
91941950|NCT01975376|183781062|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-60.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.43|-59.71|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Lease Square (LS)- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-59.71|-61.43|<0.001
91814127|NCT00975481|183504233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.6044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4091|59.7996|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||59.7996|33.4091|<0.0001
91814128|NCT00975481|183504233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.7222|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.5038|63.9407|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||63.9407|37.5038|<0.0001
91814129|NCT00975481|183504233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6987||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9815|12.584|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||12.5840|-13.9815|0.9174
91814130|NCT00975481|183504233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5629||||0.5002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9006|8.7749|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.7749|-17.9006|0.5002
91814131|NCT00975481|183504233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3982||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0337|19.8301|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||19.8301|-7.0337|0.3482
91814132|NCT00975481|183504233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.3031|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4869|-34.1193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-34.1193|-60.4869|<0.0001
91814133|NCT00975481|183504233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.1672|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.4276|-37.9069|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-37.9069|-64.4276|<0.0001
91814134|NCT00975481|183504233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.2062|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.589|-26.8234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-26.8234|-53.5890|<0.0001
91814135|NCT00975481|183504233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3974|-38.4445|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-38.4445|-64.3974|<0.0001
91814136|NCT00975481|183504233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.2851|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3904|-42.1798|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-42.1798|-68.3904|<0.0001
91814137|NCT00975481|183504233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.3241|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5825|-31.0656|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-31.0656|-57.5825|<0.0001
91814138|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.3823|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.1244|-30.6401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI was obtained from the model.||-30.6401|-62.1244|<0.0001
91814139|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.5199|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2633|-35.7765|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-35.7765|-67.2633|<0.0001
91941951|NCT01975376|183781063|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.48|-53.92|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-53.92|-55.48|<0.001
91941952|NCT01975376|183781064|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-46.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.68|-45.76|||ANCOVA|||LS- mean difference and associated 95% CI, and p-value were from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-45.76|-47.68|<0.001
91941953|NCT01975376|183781065|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-54.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.66|-54.09|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Non-HDL-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-54.09|-55.66|<0.001
91941954|NCT01975376|183781065|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-36.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.07|-35.95|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Total cholesterol: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-35.95|-37.07|<0.001
91941955|NCT01975376|183781065|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-20.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.42|-18.93|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||VLDL-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-18.93|-21.42|<0.001
91941956|NCT01975376|183781065|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|-30.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.44|-28.07|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||RLP-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-28.07|-32.44|<0.001
91941957|NCT01975376|183781065|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|-58.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.42|-57.69|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Apo B: LS -mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-57.69|-59.42|<0.001
91941958|NCT01975376|183781065|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|6.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|6.59|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||HDL-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||6.59|5.69|<0.001
91941959|NCT01975376|183781065|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|4.03|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Apo A-I: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||4.03|3.02|<0.001
91941960|NCT01975376|183781066|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Lp (a): LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model on the difference of log-transformed observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||0.68|0.66|<0.001
91941961|NCT01975376|183781066|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.81|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Triglycerides: LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model through Week 70 on the difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||0.81|0.80|<0.001
91941962|NCT01975376|183781067|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.1|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model on the difference of log-transformed observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||1.10|1.03|<0.001
91941963|NCT00356057|183781068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.437
91941964|NCT00356057|183781068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
91941965|NCT00356057|183781069|EQUIVALENCE|Complication-free rate was evaluated in an equivalence (non-inferiority) format compared to a target of 85% minus delta (10%), where delta is the clinically significant difference for establishing equivalence.||||||0.0596|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0596
91941966|NCT00356057|183781070|EQUIVALENCE|Complication-free rate was evaluated in an equivalence (non-inferiority) format compared to a target of 85% minus delta (10%), where delta is the clinically significant difference for establishing equivalence.||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
91941967|NCT00356057|183781073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
91941968|NCT00356057|183781073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91941969|NCT00356057|183781077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91941970|NCT00356057|183781077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91941971|NCT00356057|183781078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91941972|NCT00356057|183781078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91941973|NCT00356057|183781079|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91941974|NCT00356057|183781079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91941975|NCT00356057|183781080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91941976|NCT00356057|183781080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91941977|NCT01451398|183781081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in HbA1c = Baseline HbA1c + Region + Pooled OAD Strata + Visit + Treatment + (Treatment\*Visit), using AR(1) variance/covariance structure.||||-0.23|-0.57|<0.0001
91941978|NCT01451398|183781082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|Model: Treatment + Pooled OAD Stratum + Region + Baseline HbA1c||||4.80|1.55|0.0005
91941979|NCT01451398|183781083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.361||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.17|||Regression, Logistic|Model: Treatment + Pooled OAD Stratum + Region + Baseline HbA1c||||11.17|1.70|0.0021
91941980|NCT01451398|183781084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.1698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model: FPG = Baseline FPG + Region + Pooled OAD Stratum + Visit + Treatment + (Treatment \* Visit)~Variance/Covariance Matrix is Autoregression 1"||||3.18|-18.03|0.1698
91941981|NCT01451398|183781087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|FEV1 = Baseline FEV1 + Age + Gender + Race + Height + Visit + Treatment + (Treatment\*Visit)||||-0.05|-0.12|
91941982|NCT01451398|183781090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative binomial regression|Model: Treatment + Region + OAD Stratum + Exposure Time||||||<0.0001
91941983|NCT01451398|183781091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2024|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model: Treatment + Region + OAD Stratum + Exposure Time||||||0.2024
91941984|NCT01451398|183781094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.34|||ANCOVA||Model: Baseline Weight + Change in HbA1c at Week 24 + Region + OAD Stratum + Treatment|||2.34|0.90|<0.0001
91814140|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0366||||0.4524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7924|21.8657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||21.8657|-9.7924|0.4524
91941985|NCT00565812|183781143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Slopes|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.50877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent confidence interval (CI), P-values: Random coefficients mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with random intercept and slope for each participant,fixed effects for treatment group,time (years),treatment group\*time interaction,(collapsed)Kellgren and Lawrence Grades (KLG), KLG\*time interaction,geographic region,gender,age,body mass index with unstructured covariance matrix for random effects. Statistical hypothesis used Hochberg procedure with 2-sided alpha =0.0499.||0.046|-0.023|0.508770
91941986|NCT00565812|183781143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Slopes|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.754074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI, P-values: MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), treatment group\*time interaction, (collapsed) KLG, KLG\*time interaction, geographic region, gender, age, body mass index with unstructured covariance matrix for random effects. Statistical hypothesis used Hochberg procedure with 2-sided alpha=0.0499.||0.040|-0.029|0.754074
91941987|NCT00565812|183781144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.067|-0.022|0.312
91941988|NCT00565812|183781144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.067|-0.022|0.327
91941989|NCT00565812|183781145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.054|-0.046|0.881
91941990|NCT00565812|183781145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.042|-0.056|0.780
91941991|NCT00565812|183781146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.05|-1.26|0.639
91941992|NCT00565812|183781146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.70|-1.61|0.957
91814141|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4423||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4599|18.3446|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||18.3446|-13.4599|0.7620
91814142|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1573||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8609|16.1754|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.1754|-15.8609|0.9846
91814143|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.4189|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7157|68.1221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||68.1221|36.7157|<0.0001
91814144|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.8246|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0228|64.6264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||64.6264|33.0228|<0.0001
91941993|NCT00565812|183781146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.01|-1.76|0.893
91941994|NCT00565812|183781146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.76|-1.01|0.365
91941995|NCT00565812|183781146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.51|-1.63|0.678
91941996|NCT00565812|183781146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.93|-2.18|0.902
91941997|NCT00565812|183781146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.61|-2.89|0.577
91941998|NCT00565812|183781146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.21|-2.26|0.980
91941999|NCT00565812|183781146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.23|-2.37|0.950
91942000|NCT00565812|183781146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.06|-3.53|0.292
91942001|NCT00565812|183781147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\* visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.46|-0.30|0.683
91942002|NCT00565812|183781147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.35|-0.42|0.853
91942003|NCT00565812|183781147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\* visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-0.41|0.938
91942004|NCT00565812|183781147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.52|-0.32|0.648
91942005|NCT00565812|183781147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-0.49|0.916
91942006|NCT00565812|183781147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.31|-0.60|0.528
91942007|NCT00565812|183781147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.27|-0.73|0.365
91942008|NCT00565812|183781147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.25|-0.74|0.328
91942009|NCT00565812|183781147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.35|-0.66|0.540
91942010|NCT00565812|183781147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.30|-0.71|0.423
91942011|NCT00565812|183781148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-0.17|0.904
91942012|NCT00565812|183781148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.13|-0.24|0.582
91942013|NCT00565812|183781148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.18|-0.22|0.818
91942014|NCT00565812|183781148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group x visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG x visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-0.20|0.988
91942015|NCT00565812|183781148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.24|-0.20|0.857
91942016|NCT00565812|183781148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.27|-0.17|0.658
91942017|NCT00565812|183781148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.17|-0.28|0.612
91942018|NCT00565812|183781148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.13|-0.32|0.391
91942019|NCT00565812|183781148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.24|-0.24|1.000
91942020|NCT00565812|183781148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.03|-0.45|0.086
91942021|NCT00565812|183781149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.55|-0.88|0.586
91942022|NCT00565812|183781149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.38|-1.05|0.789
91942023|NCT00565812|183781149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.52|-1.21|0.821
91942024|NCT00565812|183781149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.09|-0.63|0.294
91942025|NCT00565812|183781149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.97|-1.02|0.532
91814145|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.5395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5968|62.4823|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||62.4823|30.5968|<0.0001
91942026|NCT00565812|183781149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.43|-1.55|0.938
91942027|NCT00565812|183781149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.29|-1.97|0.680
91942028|NCT00565812|183781149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.90|-1.33|0.730
91942029|NCT00565812|183781149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.76|-1.55|0.901
91814146|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.5565|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0679|73.0451|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||73.0451|42.0679|<0.0001
91814147|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.9622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.3293|69.5952|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||69.5952|38.3293|<0.0001
91814148|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.6772|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.866|67.4884|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||67.4884|35.8660|<0.0001
91942030|NCT00565812|183781149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.83|-2.45|0.333
91942031|NCT00565812|183781150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||5.01|-0.33|0.086
91942032|NCT00565812|183781150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.78|-1.56|0.415
91942033|NCT00565812|183781150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.57|-1.97|0.569
91942034|NCT00565812|183781150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.02|-1.51|0.374
91942035|NCT00565812|183781150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.64|-1.38|0.288
91942036|NCT00565812|183781150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.17|-1.81|0.440
91942037|NCT00565812|183781150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-3.30|0.896
91942038|NCT00565812|183781150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.20|-1.92|0.464
91942039|NCT00565812|183781150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-3.27|0.901
91814149|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.4454||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7051|57.1857|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||57.1857|17.7051|0.0003
91942040|NCT00565812|183781150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.66|-3.45|0.800
91942041|NCT00565812|183781151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.095|-0.093|0.984
91942042|NCT00565812|183781151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.047|-0.140|0.330
91942043|NCT00565812|183781151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.146|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.046|-0.146|0.308
91942044|NCT00565812|183781151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.013|-0.180|0.089
91942045|NCT00565812|183781151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.068|-0.137|0.508
91942046|NCT00565812|183781151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.066|-0.137|0.490
91942047|NCT00565812|183781151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.094|-0.132|0.739
91942048|NCT00565812|183781151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.061|-0.162|0.376
91942049|NCT00565812|183781151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.104|-0.121|0.883
91942050|NCT00565812|183781151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.089|-0.135|0.690
91942051|NCT00565812|183781152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.095|-0.078|0.849
91942052|NCT00565812|183781152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.078|-0.096|0.837
91942053|NCT00565812|183781152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.078|-0.105|0.776
91942054|NCT00565812|183781152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.008|-0.191|0.033
91942055|NCT00565812|183781152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.034|-0.163|0.201
91942056|NCT00565812|183781152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.006|-0.201|0.038
91942057|NCT00565812|183781152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.094|-0.114|0.848
91942058|NCT00565812|183781152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.084|-0.122|0.714
91942059|NCT00565812|183781152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.131|-0.082|0.652
91942060|NCT00565812|183781152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.127|-0.085|0.700
91942061|NCT00565812|183781153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.36|-1.00|0.220
91942062|NCT00565812|183781153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.68|-2.67|0.997
91942063|NCT00565812|183781153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.55|-2.09|0.613
91942064|NCT00565812|183781153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-2.75|0.964
91942065|NCT00565812|183781153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.17|-2.69|0.872
91942066|NCT00565812|183781153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.01|-2.81|0.947
91942067|NCT00565812|183781153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|3.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.33|-3.03|0.927
91814150|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.6714|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2888|61.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||61.0540|22.2888|<0.0001
91814151|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7583||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2956|1.7789|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.7789|-37.2956|0.0744
91942068|NCT00565812|183781153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.12|-2.18|0.547
91942069|NCT00565812|183781153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|4.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.71|-1.47|0.304
91942070|NCT00565812|183781153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|2.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.43|-3.73|0.679
91942071|NCT00565812|183781154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.55|-1.80|0.738
91942072|NCT00565812|183781154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.64|-2.70|0.632
91942073|NCT00565812|183781154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.96|-2.77|0.736
91942074|NCT00565812|183781154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.08|-2.66|0.811
91942075|NCT00565812|183781154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.26|-3.71|0.335
91942076|NCT00565812|183781154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.41|-2.52|0.966
91814152|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5551||||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5573|10.4471|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||10.4471|-29.5573|0.3458
91942077|NCT00565812|183781154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.28|-4.16|0.299
91942078|NCT00565812|183781154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.82|-2.56|0.925
91814153|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.792||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1777|20.7616|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||20.7616|-19.1777|0.9375
91942079|NCT00565812|183781154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.30|-2.14|0.676
91942080|NCT00565812|183781154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.23|-3.18|0.732
91942081|NCT00565812|183781155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.49|-2.22|0.911
91942082|NCT00565812|183781155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.54|-3.16|0.500
91942083|NCT00565812|183781155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.15|-1.81|0.596
91942084|NCT00565812|183781155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.44|-2.51|0.979
91942085|NCT00565812|183781155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.03|-3.20|0.659
91942086|NCT00565812|183781155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-2.89|0.823
91942087|NCT00565812|183781155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.57|-4.04|0.387
91814154|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.2037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8113|-35.5961|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-35.5961|-74.8113|<0.0001
91942088|NCT00565812|183781155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-3.25|0.737
91814155|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.0005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.002|-26.9989|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-26.9989|-67.0020|<0.0001
91942089|NCT00565812|183781155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.97|-1.73|0.443
91942090|NCT00565812|183781155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.04|-3.62|0.585
91942091|NCT00565812|183781156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.85|-1.68|0.613
91942092|NCT00565812|183781156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.78|-2.76|0.670
91942093|NCT00565812|183781156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.16|-3.82|0.296
91942094|NCT00565812|183781156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.83|-3.15|0.604
91942095|NCT00565812|183781156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.75|-4.46|0.163
91942096|NCT00565812|183781156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.48|-2.69|0.939
91942097|NCT00565812|183781156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.12|-4.61|0.233
91942098|NCT00565812|183781156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.36|-2.32|0.720
91942099|NCT00565812|183781156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.85|-2.82|0.993
91942100|NCT00565812|183781156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.44|-3.19|0.794
91942101|NCT00565812|183781157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.02|-0.07|0.069
91942102|NCT00565812|183781157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.57|-0.53|0.335
91942103|NCT00565812|183781157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.11|-0.33|0.153
91814156|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.6534||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7246|-16.5822|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-16.5822|-56.7246|0.0004
91814157|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-59.4297|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.5162|-40.3433|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-40.3433|-78.5162|<0.0001
91814158|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.2265|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8131|-31.6399|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-31.6399|-70.8131|<0.0001
91814159|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8794||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4726|-21.2862|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-21.2862|-60.4726|0.0001
91814160|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.5197||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7096|41.3298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||41.3298|5.7096|0.0102
91814161|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.7321||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3632|45.1011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||45.1011|10.3632|0.0021
91814162|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7334||||0.5935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2807|12.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||12.8140|-22.2807|0.5935
91814163|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5486||||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3397|21.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||21.4370|-14.3397|0.6945
91814164|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2936||||0.4177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4975|25.0847|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||25.0847|-10.4975|0.4177
91814165|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.2531||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.802|-10.7042|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-10.7042|-45.8020|0.0019
91814166|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9711||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9541|-1.988|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.9880|-37.9541|0.0299
91814167|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2261||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1785|1.7264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.7264|-34.1785|0.0759
91814168|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.4655||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2278|-15.7032|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.7032|-49.2278|0.0002
91814169|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1835||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5832|-6.7838|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.7838|-41.5832|0.0069
91814170|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4385||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8861|-2.991|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.9910|-37.8861|0.0222
91814171|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.589||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0126|37.1654|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||37.1654|12.0126|0.0002
91814172|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4903|41.7298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||41.7298|16.4903|<0.0001
91814173|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6428||||0.6809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0309|15.3165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||15.3165|-10.0309|0.6809
91814174|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3215||||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0415|9.3985|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||9.3985|-16.0415|0.6067
91814175|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4722||||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.335|18.2795|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||18.2795|-7.3350|0.3999
91814176|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.9461||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5327|-9.3596|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.3596|-34.5327|0.0007
91814177|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.9105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.564|-15.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.2570|-40.5640|<0.0001
91814178|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1168||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8907|-6.3428|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.3428|-31.8907|0.0036
91814179|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.4672|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8298|-14.1046|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.1046|-38.8298|<0.0001
91814180|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.4315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.925|-19.938|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-19.9380|-44.9250|<0.0001
91814181|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.6378||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2802|-10.9954|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-10.9954|-36.2802|0.0003
91814182|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6675||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.708|41.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||41.0430|-39.7080|0.9728
91814183|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.7977||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1059|79.4894|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||79.4894|6.1059|0.0246
91814184|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5411||||0.7068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.785|48.8672|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||48.8672|-33.7850|0.7068
91814185|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7069||||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0358|47.4496|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||47.4496|-26.0358|0.5492
91814186|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1248||||0.5899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3098|53.5595|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||53.5595|-31.3098|0.5899
91814187|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8736||||0.6998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8691|43.6163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||43.6163|-29.8691|0.6998
91814188|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0394||||0.6187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4818|51.5606|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||51.5606|-31.4818|0.6187
91814189|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4573||||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0355|49.9502|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||49.9502|-29.0355|0.5863
91814190|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.2566||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.608|5.0948|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.0948|-75.6080|0.0832
91814191|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0907||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7519|4.5704|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.5704|-68.7519|0.0827
91814192|NCT00975481|183504234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.6728||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5352|11.1895|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.1895|-74.5352|0.1386
91814193|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3637||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1566|0.884|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.8840|-0.1566|0.1691
91814194|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8444||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3238|1.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.3650|0.3238|0.0017
91814195|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2093||||0.4305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3141|0.7327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.7327|-0.3141|0.4305
91814196|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1206||||0.6517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4064|0.6476|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.6476|-0.4064|0.6517
91814197|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0374||||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5666|0.4919|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.4919|-0.5666|0.8892
91814198|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1544||||0.5576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6737|0.3649|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.3649|-0.6737|0.5576
91814199|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2431||||0.3594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7658|0.2796|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.2796|-0.7658|0.3594
91814200|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4011||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9291|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.1270|-0.9291|0.1355
91814201|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6351||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1466|-0.1236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.1236|-1.1466|0.0153
91814202|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7238||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2418|-0.2059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.2059|-1.2418|0.0065
91814203|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8818||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4042|-0.3594|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.3594|-1.4042|0.0011
91942104|NCT00565812|183781157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.47|-0.95|0.672
91814204|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1614|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9373|-1.3856|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.3856|-2.9373|<0.0001
91814205|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0336|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8085|-2.2587|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.2587|-3.8085|<0.0001
91814206|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2791||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0586|0.5004|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.5004|-1.0586|0.4804
91814207|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7608|0.8087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.8087|-0.7608|0.9519
91814208|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.497||||0.2152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.286|0.2921|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.2921|-1.2860|0.2152
91814209|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8824|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1094|2.6553|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.6553|1.1094|<0.0001
91814210|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1854|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.407|2.9638|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.9638|1.4070|<0.0001
91814211|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6645|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8786|2.4503|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.4503|0.8786|<0.0001
91814212|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7545|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9912|3.5179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.5179|1.9912|<0.0001
91814213|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2858|3.8294|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.8294|2.2858|<0.0001
91814214|NCT00975481|183504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5366|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7578|3.3155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.3155|1.7578|<0.0001
91814215|NCT01895855|183504236|SUPERIORITY|The lower, two sided 95% confidence bound on protective efficacy must be \>/= 30%.|Vaccine Efficacy|90.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|62.7||||||Confidence intervals for the protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.|||62.7|
91814216|NCT01895855|183504237|SUPERIORITY|The lower, two sided 95% confidence bound on protective efficacy must be \>/= 30%.|Vaccine Efficacy|79.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|49.9||||||Confidence intervals for the protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.|||49.9|
91814217|NCT01895855|183504238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||0.0073
91814218|NCT01895855|183504239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||33 participants were challenge 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
91814219|NCT01895855|183504240|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|84.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|100.0|||||Confidence interval for the protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||100.0|67.0|
91814220|NCT01895855|183504241|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|50.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|66.8|||||Confidence interval for protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||66.8|33.6|
91814221|NCT01895855|183504242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Fisher Exact|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||0.0025
91814222|NCT01895855|183504243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Fisher Exact|||33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||0.0159
91814223|NCT01895855|183504244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
91814224|NCT01895855|183504245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
91814225|NCT01895855|183504246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
91814226|NCT01895855|183504247|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
91814227|NCT03559257|183504249|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.32|-3.92|<0.0001
91814228|NCT03559257|183504250|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.72|-3.41|<0.0001
91814229|NCT03559257|183504251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.935|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.719|5.693|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||5.693|2.719|<0.0001
91814230|NCT03559257|183504252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.252|5.381|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||5.381|2.252|<0.0001
91814231|NCT03559257|183504253|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.19|15.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.87|9.19|<0.0001
91814232|NCT03559257|183504254|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|11.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.14|15.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.89|7.14|<0.0001
91814233|NCT03559257|183504255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.878||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.374|14.554|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||14.554|2.374|0.0001
91814234|NCT03559257|183504256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.999|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|548.706|999.999|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure||Estimated value and upper bound are \>999.999|||999.999|548.706|<0.0001
91814235|NCT03559257|183504257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.012|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.352|10.679|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||10.679|2.352|<0.0001
91814236|NCT03559257|183504258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|999.99|999.99|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure||Point estimate, upper limit and lower limit are \>999.99|||999.99|999.99|<0.0001
91814237|NCT03559257|183504259|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.65|-4.14|<0.0001
91814238|NCT03559257|183504260|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.29|-3.96|<0.0001
91814239|NCT03559257|183504261|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91814240|NCT03559257|183504262|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.58|<0.0001
91814241|NCT03559257|183504263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment.||||<0.0001
91814242|NCT03559257|183504263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism.||||0.3880
91814243|NCT03559257|183504263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism.||||0.0004
91814244|NCT03559257|183504263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||Work impairment.||||0.0003
91814245|NCT03559257|183504264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91814246|NCT03559257|183504265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1267|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1267
91814247|NCT03559257|183504266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1630
91814248|NCT03559257|183504267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0277|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0277
91814249|NCT01387347|183504277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.2596|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Inferior corneal fluorescein staining score at Day 29(primary sign) was summarized using descriptive statistics (number of observations, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum). Active treatment was compared to placebo using a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances, assessed at the α = 0.05 level||||0.2596
91814250|NCT01387347|183504277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of central corneal fluorescein staining score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0075
91814251|NCT01387347|183504277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of superior corneal fluorescein staining score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0210
91814252|NCT01387347|183504278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3734|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups uses a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances, assessed at the alpha = 0.05 level.||||0.3734
91814253|NCT01387347|183504278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of discomfort score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups on Day 28||||0.0244
91942105|NCT00565812|183781157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.43|-1.05|0.765
91942106|NCT00565812|183781157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.49|-0.96|0.675
91942107|NCT00565812|183781157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.84|-1.00|0.560
91942108|NCT00565812|183781157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.97|-0.84|0.433
91942109|NCT00565812|183781157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.16|-0.70|0.318
91942110|NCT00565812|183781157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.18|-0.68|0.303
91942111|NCT00565812|183781158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLGU\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.26|0.08|0.039
91942112|NCT00565812|183781158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-0.91|0.395
91942113|NCT00565812|183781158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.25|-0.54|0.160
91814254|NCT01519960|183504280|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43|||=|0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis stratified by hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotype A versus non-A genotypes and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) less than (\<) 5 times (×) upper limit of normal (ULN) versus greater than or equal to (≥) 5 × ULN at Baseline. The OR was calculated using Group B as reference.||19.2|1.54|= 0.0043
91814255|NCT01519960|183504280|OTHER||||||=|0.3732|||||||Breslow-Day|||||||= 0.3732
91814256|NCT00951808|183504361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||optimal threshold level of sPLA2|48.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|58.0|||||The optimal threshold level (TL) was determined to be the same for all analysis groups.|The optimal threshold level (TL), determined via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, maximizes the difference between the true positive rate (TPR) and the false positive rate (FPR). Since there is no corresponding analytic standard deviation (SD) for this value, we computed a robust SD based upon the interquartile range (IQR)/1.35 from a bootstrap sample of optimal TLs.||58|38|
91814257|NCT03194555|183504401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.17||||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|8.01|||Chi-squared|||||8.01|-3.67|0.4267
91814258|NCT03194555|183504402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|66.83|||Chi-squared|||||66.83|-18.46|0.268
91814259|NCT03194555|183504403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|67.4|||Chi-squared|||||67.4|-17.2|0.0926
91814260|NCT03194555|183504404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|67.4|||Chi-squared|||||67.4|-17.2|0.2894
91814261|NCT03194555|183504405|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.83||||0.5724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1557|8.8157|||Chi-squared|||||8.8157|-5.1557|0.5724
91814262|NCT03194555|183504406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.84||||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|30.83|||Chi-squared|||||30.83|-11.15|0.2998
91814263|NCT03194555|183504407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.67||||0.2673|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2673
91814264|NCT03194555|183504410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.76||||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.5005|36.9805|||Chi-squared|||||36.9805|-94.5005|0.3527
91814265|NCT03194555|183504411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.95||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5246
91814266|NCT03194555|183504413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34||||0.8649|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8649
91814267|NCT01831154|183504414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value of 1.34 and Cramer's V .190||Cross tabulation with statistical testing with chi-square and Cramer's V was performed on infection to determine if there was any difference in surgical site infections between the interventional groups in 30 day period.||||0.512
91814268|NCT01831154|183504415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
91814269|NCT01831154|183504417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.132
91814270|NCT01831154|183504418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||||||A one way ANOVA was used to determine if participants in the tight glycemic group had shorter intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) than participants in the other interventional groups.|ANOVA|||||||0.908
91814271|NCT03255382|183504443|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|73.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|85.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||85.3|61.3|< 0.001
91814272|NCT03255382|183504444|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|46.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|60.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||60.8|32.8|< 0.001
91814273|NCT03255382|183504445|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|63.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.2|76.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||76.6|50.2|< 0.001
91814274|NCT03255382|183504446|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.4|65.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||65.7|40.4|< 0.001
91814275|NCT03255382|183504447|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|39.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|51.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||51.9|27.3|< 0.001
91814276|NCT03255382|183504448|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|48.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||48.5|24.1|< 0.001
91814277|NCT03255382|183504449|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|46.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|59.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||59.0|33.7|< 0.001
91814278|NCT03255382|183504450|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|9.9||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||19.7|0.1|0.047
91814279|NCT03255382|183504451|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|79.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.5|53.8|< 0.001
91814280|NCT03255382|183504452|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|79.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.9|53.3|< 0.001
91814281|NCT03255382|183504453|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|79.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.5|53.8|< 0.001
91814282|NCT03255382|183504454|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|70.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.0|43.0|< 0.001
91814283|NCT03255382|183504455|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|64.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.5|77.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||77.2|52.5|< 0.001
91814284|NCT03255382|183504456|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|1.7||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||5.4|-2.1|0.392
91814285|NCT03255382|183504457|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|36.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|49.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||49.3|23.8|< 0.001
91814286|NCT03255382|183504458|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|70.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.0|43.2|< 0.001
91814287|NCT03255382|183504459|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|64.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|78.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||78.3|51.5|< 0.001
91814288|NCT03255382|183504460|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|79.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.8|53.3|< 0.001
91814289|NCT03255382|183504461|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||2.1|-2.0|0.991
91814290|NCT03255382|183504462|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|3.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||9.8|-3.2|0.323
91814291|NCT03255382|183504463|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||32.6|10.4|< 0.001
91814292|NCT03255382|183504464|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|45.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||45.5|20.7|< 0.001
91814293|NCT03255382|183504465|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|41.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|55.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||55.3|27.3|< 0.001
91942114|NCT00565812|183781158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.35|-1.44|0.638
91942115|NCT00565812|183781158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.54|-1.32|0.537
91942116|NCT00565812|183781158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*(visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.93|-1.90|0.988
91942117|NCT00565812|183781158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.22|-2.12|0.962
91942118|NCT00565812|183781158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.37|-1.97|0.856
91942119|NCT00565812|183781158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.63|-0.90|0.237
91942120|NCT00565812|183781158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.09|-1.44|0.475
91942121|NCT00565812|183781159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.16|-1.07|0.938
91942122|NCT00565812|183781159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.17|-1.04|0.906
91814294|NCT03255382|183504466|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||58.5|30.9|< 0.001
91942123|NCT00565812|183781159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.04|-1.50|0.726
91942124|NCT00565812|183781159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.00|-1.52|0.681
91814295|NCT03255382|183504467|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|-5.56|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-5.56|-8.82|< 0.001
91814296|NCT03255382|183504468|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.43|-7.72|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-7.72|-11.43|< 0.001
91814297|NCT03255382|183504469|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|-6.87|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.87|-10.72|< 0.001
91814298|NCT03255382|183504470|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.958|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|-5.88|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.88|-9.68|< 0.001
91942125|NCT00565812|183781160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.21|-1.07|0.900
91942126|NCT00565812|183781160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.50|-0.77|0.528
91942127|NCT00565812|183781160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.94|-1.51|0.647
91942128|NCT00565812|183781160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.09|-1.34|0.841
91942129|NCT00565812|183781161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.48|-0.84|0.587
91942130|NCT00565812|183781161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.38|-0.91|0.687
91942131|NCT00565812|183781161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.01|-1.56|0.677
91942132|NCT00565812|183781161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.74|-0.80|0.469
91942133|NCT00565812|183781162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.17|-0.71|0.632
91942134|NCT00565812|183781162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.42|-0.45|0.308
91942135|NCT00565812|183781162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.79|-1.33|0.615
91942136|NCT00565812|183781162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.62|-1.48|0.425
91942137|NCT00565812|183781163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.72|-0.39|0.214
91942138|NCT00565812|183781163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.03|-1.06|0.980
91814299|NCT03255382|183504471|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-5.71|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.71|-10.07|< 0.001
91942139|NCT00565812|183781163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.49|-0.83|0.575
91942140|NCT00565812|183781163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.14|-1.16|0.986
91942141|NCT00565812|183781164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.52|0.13|0.030
91942142|NCT00565812|183781164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.61|-0.76|0.480
91942143|NCT00565812|183781164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.32|-0.30|0.132
91942144|NCT00565812|183781164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.34|-0.26|0.117
91942145|NCT00565812|183781165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.44|-0.32|0.133
91942146|NCT00565812|183781165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.82|-0.93|0.524
91942147|NCT00565812|183781165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.78|-1.27|0.743
91942148|NCT00565812|183781165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-0.73|0.310
91814300|NCT03255382|183504472|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.175|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-6.06|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.06|-10.71|< 0.001
91942149|NCT00565812|183781166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.38|-0.04|0.058
91942150|NCT00565812|183781166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.96|-0.44|0.213
91942151|NCT00565812|183781166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-0.33|0.143
91814301|NCT03255382|183504473|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|42.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||42.4|17.1|< 0.001
91814302|NCT03255382|183504474|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.4|80.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||80.0|53.4|< 0.001
91942152|NCT00565812|183781166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.81|-0.80|0.450
91942153|NCT00565812|183781167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.80|-1.19|0.701
91942154|NCT00565812|183781167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.14|-0.84|0.764
91942155|NCT00565812|183781167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.43|-1.80|0.228
91942156|NCT00565812|183781167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.74|-1.47|0.514
91942157|NCT00565812|183781168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.65|0.19|0.023
91942158|NCT00565812|183781168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.75|-0.68|0.391
91942159|NCT00565812|183781168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.37|-0.34|0.142
91942160|NCT00565812|183781168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.21|-0.47|0.204
91942161|NCT00565812|183781175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.952||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|1.756|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio (OR), 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.756|0.516|0.875
91942162|NCT00565812|183781175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.273||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|2.247|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||2.247|0.721|0.406
91942163|NCT00565812|183781175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.787||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.384|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.384|0.448|0.406
91942164|NCT00565812|183781175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.154||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.942|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.942|0.685|0.591
91942165|NCT00565812|183781176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.704||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.160|0.428|0.168
91942166|NCT00565812|183781176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.423|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.423|0.560|0.634
91942167|NCT00565812|183781176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.583||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.955|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||0.955|0.356|0.032
91814303|NCT03255382|183504475|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|70.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.8|42.7|< 0.001
91814304|NCT03255382|183504476|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|59.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.3|73.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||73.6|46.3|< 0.001
91814305|NCT03255382|183504477|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|59.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||59.1|30.8|< 0.001
91814306|NCT03255382|183504478|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|68.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||68.8|41.2|< 0.001
91814307|NCT03255382|183504479|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|1.7||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||5.4|-2.1|0.392
91814308|NCT03255382|183504480|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|8.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||16.7|0.1|0.048
91814309|NCT03255382|183504481|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|18.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||29.5|7.1|0.001
91814310|NCT03255382|183504482|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|45.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||45.9|20.2|< 0.001
91814311|NCT03255382|183504483|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|41.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|55.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||55.3|27.3|< 0.001
91814312|NCT03255382|183504484|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|46.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|60.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||60.1|32.6|< 0.001
91814313|NCT03255382|183504485|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|19.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||31.9|7.6|0.001
91814314|NCT03255382|183504486|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||51.5|25.0|< 0.001
91814315|NCT03255382|183504487|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.0|||van Elteren test|||P-values were calculated by stratified van Elteren test.||-2.0|-4.5|< 0.001
91814316|NCT03255382|183504488|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.7|||van Elteren test|||P-values were calculated by stratified van Elteren test.||-2.7|-5.1|< 0.001
91814317|NCT03255382|183504489|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.146|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.764|1.528|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||1.528|0.764|< 0.001
91814318|NCT03255382|183504490|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.704|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||1.704|0.936|< 0.001
91814319|NCT03255382|183504491|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.1|-3.6|< 0.001
91814320|NCT03255382|183504492|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.6|-4.3|< 0.001
91814321|NCT03255382|183504493|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.32|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.32|-0.90|0.352
91814322|NCT03255382|183504494|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.29|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.29|-0.88|0.315
91814323|NCT03255382|183504495|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-2.7|-6.9|< 0.001
91814324|NCT03255382|183504496|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.1|-12.6|< 0.001
91814325|NCT03255382|183504497|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-7.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-7.2|-13.2|< 0.001
91814326|NCT03255382|183504498|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.8|-12.8|< 0.001
91814327|NCT03255382|183504499|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.8|-12.4|< 0.001
91814328|NCT03255382|183504500|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-7.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-7.1|-12.9|< 0.001
91814329|NCT03255382|183504501|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.385||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|7.23|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||7.23|1.74|0.002
91942168|NCT00565812|183781176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.774||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.227|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.227|0.489|0.276
91942169|NCT00565812|183781177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.14|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors and age and body mass index as covariates.||0.14|-0.21|0.709
91942170|NCT00565812|183781177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors and age and body mass index as covariates.||0.20|-0.15|0.798
91942171|NCT00565812|183781178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.032||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.337|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, baseline JSW, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.337|0.797|0.810
91942172|NCT00565812|183781178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.068||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.383|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, baseline JSW, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.383|0.824|0.620
91942173|NCT00565812|183781179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.745||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|0.997|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||0.997|0.557|0.047
91942174|NCT00565812|183781179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.864||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.150|0.650|0.317
91942175|NCT00565812|183781180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.043||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.806|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.806|0.602|0.881
91942176|NCT00565812|183781180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.186||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|2.009|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||2.009|0.701|0.525
91814330|NCT03255382|183504502|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.25|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||7.25|2.01|< 0.001
91942177|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.96|-1.50|0.668
91942178|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.85|-0.61|0.326
91814331|NCT03255382|183504503|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.787|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|10.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||10.20|3.11|< 0.001
91942179|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.01|-1.56|0.679
91942180|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.14|0.57|0.005
91942181|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.01|-0.80|0.399
91942182|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.92|1.12|<0.001
91942183|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.68|-1.08|0.668
91942184|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.13|0.39|0.012
91942185|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group x visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.67|-0.27|0.109
91942186|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.48|-0.42|0.163
91942187|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.85|-2.02|0.424
91942188|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.76|-1.07|0.635
91942189|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.61|-1.34|0.855
91942190|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.30|0.38|0.013
91942191|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.73|-2.44|0.292
91942192|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.68|-1.47|0.897
91942193|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.92|-2.36|0.390
91942194|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.99|-1.26|0.659
91814332|NCT03255382|183504504|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.784|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|11.38|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||11.38|4.31|< 0.001
91814333|NCT03255382|183504505|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.001
91942195|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.42|-1.73|0.847
91814334|NCT03255382|183504506|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.001
91814335|NCT03255382|183504507|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-0.9|-3.2|< 0.001
91942196|NCT00565812|183781184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.34|-0.79|0.333
91942197|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.32|-1.31|0.238
91942198|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.91|-0.72|0.815
91942199|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.10|-0.54|0.508
91942200|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.02|0.38|0.004
91942201|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.70|-1.07|0.683
91942202|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.09|0.33|0.007
91942203|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.07|-0.71|0.687
91814336|NCT03255382|183504508|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.1|-3.5|< 0.001
91942204|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.78|-0.00|0.050
91814337|NCT03255382|183504509|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.9|-4.3|< 0.001
91814338|NCT03255382|183504510|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.8|-4.4|< 0.001
91814339|NCT03255382|183504511|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|53.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||53.1|23.6|< 0.001
91814340|NCT03255382|183504512|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|70.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.9|42.7|< 0.001
91942205|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.54|-0.35|0.215
91942206|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.89|0.03|0.042
91814341|NCT03255382|183504513|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with prior phototherapy (yes/no), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.1|-9.6|< 0.001
91814342|NCT03255382|183504514|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.5|-9.7|< 0.001
91814343|NCT03255382|183504515|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-4.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-4.1|-9.0|< 0.001
91814344|NCT03255382|183504516|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-5.0|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.0|-11.1|< 0.001
91814345|NCT03255382|183504517|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0215|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.13|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.130|0.045|< 0.001
91814346|NCT03255382|183504518|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.096|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.096|0.022|0.002
91814347|NCT03255382|183504519|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|20.5|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||20.5|9.4|< 0.001
91814348|NCT03255382|183504520|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|22.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||22.2|11.4|< 0.001
91814349|NCT03255382|183504521|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-6.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-6.2|-16.6|< 0.001
91814350|NCT03255382|183504522|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-8.4|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-8.4|-19.1|< 0.001
91814351|NCT03255382|183504523|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-9.8|-24.8|< 0.001
91814352|NCT03255382|183504524|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-14.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-14.2|-28.8|< 0.001
91814353|NCT00735787|183504532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary null hypothesis for this study was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects that achieved PGA clear or almost clear at Week 16 between the adalimumab and placebo groups. Analysis was done using a two-sided Fisher's exact test at alpha level=0.05.||||0.014
91814354|NCT00624052|183504565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.47|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.66|0.47|
91814355|NCT00624052|183504565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||||95.0|0.14|0.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.59|0.14|
91814356|NCT00624052|183504565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||||95.0|0.12|0.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.48|0.12|
91814357|NCT00624052|183504565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||||95.0|0.17|0.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.59|0.17|
91814358|NCT00624052|183504565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||||95.0|0.15|0.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.49|0.15|
91814359|NCT00624052|183504565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||||95.0|0.42|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.68|0.42|
91814360|NCT01474876|183504592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and participant age||||0.0164
91814361|NCT01474876|183504592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and presence of enthesitis at Visit 0||||0.0200
91814362|NCT01474876|183504592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and BASDAI score at Visit 0||||0.0867
91814363|NCT01474876|183504592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and participant age||||0.0001
91814364|NCT01474876|183504592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and positive tuberculosis screening at Visit 0||||0.0734
91814365|NCT01474876|183504592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and male gender||||0.0438
91814366|NCT01474876|183504592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and BASDAI score at Visit 0||||0.5030
91814367|NCT01474876|183504601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and presence of enthesitis at Visit 0||||0.0576
91814368|NCT01474876|183504601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and BASDAI score at Visit 0||||0.1739
91814369|NCT01474876|183504601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and Psoriasis at Visit 0||||0.0733
91814370|NCT01474876|183504601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and BASDAI at Visit 0||||0.5000
91814371|NCT04035161|183504620|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority criterion with a 0.5 log10 margin will be implemented for the average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control (i.e., the upper two-sided 95% confidence bound of the post-product application bacterial load corrected for pre-product application bacterial load of the Investigational Product - Active Control should be less than 0.5 log10).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16||||||"Abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control on the abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||0.16|-0.15|
91814372|NCT04035161|183504620|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority criterion with a 0.5 log10 margin will be implemented for the average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control (i.e., the upper two-sided 95% confidence bound of the post-product application bacterial load corrected for pre-product application bacterial load of the Investigational Product - Active Control should be less than 0.5 log10).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.05||||||"Groin at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control on the groin at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||-0.05|-0.43|
91814373|NCT04035161|183504620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|1.97||||||"Abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Negative Control on the abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||1.97|1.66|
91814374|NCT04035161|183504620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.56||||||"Groin at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Negative Control on the groin at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||2.56|2.19|
91814375|NCT04035161|183504623|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority criterion with a 0.5 log10 margin will be implemented for the average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control (i.e., the upper two-sided 95% confidence bound of the post-product application bacterial load corrected for pre-product application bacterial load of the Investigational Product - Active Control should be less than 0.5 log10).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.23||||||"Abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control on the abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||0.23|-0.08|
91814376|NCT04035161|183504623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.15||||||"Abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Negative Control on the abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||2.15|1.84|
91814377|NCT03479307|183504659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.013|-0.407|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (95% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Vehicle of Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-0.407|-1.013|< 0.0001
91814378|NCT03479307|183504659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.439|-0.895|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (95% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Vehicle of Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution arm at Visit 5 (including all time points).||-0.895|-1.439|< 0.0001
91814379|NCT03479307|183504659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.413|-0.868|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (95% CI): Ketotifen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm minus Vehicle of Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution arm at Visit 5 (including all time points).||-0.868|-1.413|< 0.0001
91814380|NCT03479307|183504659|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.40|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.0007|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.235|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (one-sided, 97.5% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Ketotiphen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm at Visit 5, 3 minutes Post-CAC (non-inferiority test).||0.235||0.0007
91814381|NCT03479307|183504659|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.40|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077||||0.0002|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.175|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (one-sided, 97.5% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Ketotiphen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm at Visit 5, 5 minutes Post-CAC (non-inferiority test).||0.175||0.0002
91814382|NCT03479307|183504659|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.40|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.101|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (one-sided, 97.5% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Ketotiphen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm at Visit 5, 7 minutes Post-CAC (non-inferiority test).||0.101||< 0.0001
91814383|NCT02113956|183504665|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.57|||Poisson regression||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|||2.57|0.79|
91814384|NCT02113956|183504666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|1.12|0.36|
91814385|NCT02113956|183504667|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.02|||Poisson||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|2.02|0.45|
91814386|NCT02113956|183504668|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.18|||Poisson||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|3.18|0.12|
91814387|NCT02113956|183504669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.997|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|0.997|0.23|
91814388|NCT02113956|183504670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.53|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|2.53|0.38|
91814389|NCT02113956|183504671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|7.09|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of HIV testing|7.09|1.65|
91814390|NCT02113956|183504672|SUPERIORITY||Incident Risk Ratio (IRR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.5|||Poisson||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|1.5|0.22|
91814391|NCT02113956|183504673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.09|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|2.09|0.6|
91814392|NCT02113956|183504674|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.68|||||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|1.68|0.22|
91814393|NCT02113956|183504675|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|92.03|||||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|92.03|0.01|
91814394|NCT02113956|183504676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.88|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|1.88|0.46|
91814395|NCT02113956|183504677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|16.95|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|16.95|0.88|
91814396|NCT02113956|183504678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|7.58|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of HIV testing|7.58|1.52|
91814397|NCT02467465|183504680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.175
91814398|NCT02467465|183504681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
91814399|NCT02467465|183504682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.466
91814400|NCT02467465|183504684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.737
91814401|NCT02467465|183504685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.275
91814402|NCT02467465|183504686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
91814403|NCT02467465|183504688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.849|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.849
91814404|NCT02467465|183504689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.425
91814405|NCT02467465|183504690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.487
91814406|NCT02467465|183504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.651
91814407|NCT02467465|183504693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.387
91814408|NCT02467465|183504694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.755
91814409|NCT02467465|183504696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.032
91814410|NCT02467465|183504697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.058
91814411|NCT02467465|183504698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.279
91814412|NCT01499563|183504699|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-0.4|||Mixed Effects model for Repeated Measure||95% CI for LS Mean difference are with Bonferroni correction|The study was powered for prespecified comparison of both doses of ITI-007 with placebo using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The study was not statistically powered to include multiple comparisons of risperidone to placebo and thus, this comparison is not presented here.||-0.4|-11.1|0.017
91814413|NCT01499563|183504699|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.5|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure||95% CI for LS Mean difference are with Bonferroni correction|The study was powered for prespecified comparison of both doses of ITI-007 with placebo using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The study was not statistically powered to include multiple comparisons of risperidone to placebo and thus, this comparison is not presented here.||4.5|-6.3|0.708
91814414|NCT03658538|183504703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-0.5||P-value corresponds to the statistical significance of the group difference (active vs. control) in the primary outcome, and was not adjusted for the multiple comparison and based on the a priori threshold for statistical significance (P\<0.05).|Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM)|The analysis was adjusted for covariates.||||-0.5|-8.2|0.025
91814415|NCT03658538|183504704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||P-value corresponds to the statistical significance of the group difference (active vs. control) in the primary outcome, and was not adjusted for the multiple comparison and based on the a priori threshold for statistical significance (P\<0.05).|Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM)|The analysis was adjusted for covariates.||||||0.061
91814416|NCT00319644|183504713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0||||0.26||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The chi-square test(or Fisher exact test where needed) was used to compare proportions with dichotomous variables. The Student-t test was used for quantitative variables woth normal distribution, and Mann-Whitney-U test was used for data not normally distributed.||||0.26
91814417|NCT00597012|183504715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.5|||ANCOVA|||"The primary analysis was implemented with an analysis of covariance with changes in the WOMAC physical-function score from baseline to 6 months as the dependent variable, treatment as the independent variable of interest, and study site as a covariate.~The primary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach in which patients who did not withdraw from the study were evaluated in the group to which they were randomly assigned."||6.5|-1.8|0.26
91814418|NCT00597012|183504716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.0|||ANCOVA|||||7.0|-1.2|0.16
91814419|NCT00597012|183504717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.6|||ANCOVA|||||6.6|-4.4|0.68
91814420|NCT04916600|183504727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|22.0||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|Chi-squared||Treatment difference = Active device \>=24 hour group - remainder of participants (Active \<24 hr, Sham \>=24 hr, and Sham \<24 hr groups)|||||.043
91814421|NCT04916600|183504728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|t-test, 2 sided|df=101||||||.032
91814422|NCT01245270|183504732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||"For the incremental area under the curve (AUCi), only the extent of interpolated values above baseline contributed.~Values obtained following the control and extract capsules were compared by paired t-tests."|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91814423|NCT01245270|183504733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028||95.0||||For incremental area under the curve (AUCi), only the extent of interpolated values above baseline contributed. Values obtained following the control and extract capsules were compared by paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
91942207|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.56|-1.41|0.401
91942208|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.99|-0.96|0.980
91942209|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.76|-1.25|0.632
91942210|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.07|0.09|0.032
91942211|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.83|-1.29|0.668
91942212|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.16|0.06|0.038
91942213|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.95|-1.13|0.868
91942214|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.62|-0.43|0.257
91942215|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.15|-1.00|0.895
91942216|NCT00565812|183781185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.67|-0.46|0.268
91814424|NCT01277523|183504740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.22||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.220|0.002|0.0457
91814425|NCT01277523|183504740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.198||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.198|-0.019|0.1039
91814426|NCT01277523|183504741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.231||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.231|-0.000|0.0509
91942217|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.82|-0.92|0.908
91814427|NCT01277523|183504741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.168||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.168|-0.061|0.3605
91814428|NCT01277523|183504742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.207|-0.026|0.1264
91814429|NCT01277523|183504742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.179|-0.053|0.2845
91814430|NCT01277523|183504743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.217|0.009|0.0338
91814431|NCT01277523|183504743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.191|-0.017|0.0999
91942218|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.31|-2.05|0.008
91942219|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.54|-1.25|0.440
91942220|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.22|-1.57|0.140
91942221|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.24|-0.58|0.474
91942222|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.50|-1.32|0.376
91942223|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.64|-0.32|0.186
91942224|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.32|-1.63|0.185
91942225|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.52|-1.53|0.334
91814432|NCT01277523|183504744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.198|-0.024|0.1252
91814433|NCT01277523|183504744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.163|-0.058|0.3549
91942226|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.02|-2.00|0.055
91814434|NCT01277523|183504745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.292|-0.055|0.1819
91814435|NCT01277523|183504745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.5448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.226|-0.119|0.5448
91814436|NCT01277523|183504747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.219|-0.102|0.4762
91814437|NCT01277523|183504747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.196|-0.123|0.6558
91814438|NCT01277523|183504749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.300|-0.301|0.9960
91814439|NCT01277523|183504749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.239|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.239|-0.355|0.7030
91942227|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.72|-1.38|0.539
91942228|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.22|-2.30|0.018
91942229|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.56|-1.52|0.365
91942230|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.59|-1.47|0.403
91942231|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.21|-2.43|0.020
91942232|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.77|-2.98|<0.001
91942233|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.46|-1.66|0.269
91942234|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.18|-1.92|0.104
91942235|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.06|-2.30|0.038
91942236|NCT00565812|183781186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.05|-2.28|0.041
91942237|NCT02896192|183781204|OTHER||CI||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of participants in the population of interest would achieve 10% weight loss.|Exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91814440|NCT01277523|183504750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|-0.217|0.7309
91814441|NCT01277523|183504750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.133|-0.232|0.5954
91942238|NCT02896192|183781205|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of participants in the population of interest would achieve 10% weight loss.|Exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91942239|NCT02896192|183781206|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-25.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.49|-22.98|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for visit, baseline body weight and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-22.98|-28.49|<0.0001
91814442|NCT01277523|183504751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.252|-0.074|0.2841
91814443|NCT01277523|183504751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.182|-0.140|0.7950
91942240|NCT02896192|183781207|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-27.77||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.58|-14.96|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline daily hunger score and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-14.96|-40.58|0.0005
91814444|NCT01277523|183504752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.95|||Regression, Cox|||||16.95|0.07|0.9671
91814445|NCT01277523|183504752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06||||0.5557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|22.7|||Regression, Cox|||||22.70|0.19|0.5557
91814446|NCT01277523|183504753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.41|0.3567
91814447|NCT01277523|183504753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.32|0.1168
91814448|NCT01959542|183504759|OTHER|Pearson's product-moment correlation|Pearson's product-moment correlation|-0.53||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.0|0.1|||Pearson's product-moment correlation|||||0.10|-086|0.09
91814449|NCT01959542|183504760|OTHER||Pearson's product-moment correlation|-0.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||Pearson's product-moment correlation|Pearson's product moment correlation||||-0.15|-0.62|0.03
91814450|NCT02584504|183504817|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.5|-32.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-32.4|-46.5|<0.0001
91814451|NCT02584504|183504817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-72.9|-58.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-58.7|-72.9|<0.0001
91814452|NCT02584504|183504817|OTHER|Statistical test was not planned because this comparison was for a descriptive purpose.|LS Mean Difference|-26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-20.0|||||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W group vs Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W group was compared to Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-20.0|-32.5|
91814453|NCT02584504|183504818|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.4|-33.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Hierarchical procedure for comparisons of Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W versus Placebo Q2W and Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus Placebo Q2W were processed separately.||-33.8|-47.4|<0.0001
91814454|NCT02584504|183504818|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-74.2|-60.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-60.5|-74.2|<0.0001
91814455|NCT02584504|183504819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-56.6|-44.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-44.5|-56.6|<0.0001
91814456|NCT02584504|183504819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-66.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-72.3|-60.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-60.1|-72.3|<0.0001
91814457|NCT02584504|183504820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-57.4|-45.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-45.4|-57.4|<0.0001
91814458|NCT02584504|183504820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-73.3|-61.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-61.3|-73.3|<0.0001
91814459|NCT02584504|183504821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.5|-19.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-19.9|-32.5|<0.0001
91814460|NCT02584504|183504821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-58.3|-45.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-45.5|-58.3|<0.0001
91814461|NCT02584504|183504822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.5|-20.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-20.9|-33.5|<0.0001
91814462|NCT02584504|183504822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-59.7|-47.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-47.1|-59.7|<0.0001
91814463|NCT02584504|183504823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.7|-25.0||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-25.0|-37.7|<0.0001
91814464|NCT02584504|183504823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-56.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-62.5|-49.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-49.8|-62.5|<0.0001
91814465|NCT02584504|183504824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.6|-26.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-26.3|-38.6|<0.0001
91814466|NCT02584504|183504824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-63.8|-51.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-51.4|-63.8|<0.0001
91814467|NCT02584504|183504825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-27.4|-17.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-17.6|-27.4|<0.0001
91814468|NCT02584504|183504825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.4|-36.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-36.5|-46.4|<0.0001
91814469|NCT02584504|183504826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.9|268.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||268.9|13.9|<0.0001
91814470|NCT02584504|183504826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|281.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|33.3|2382.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||2382.2|33.3|<0.0001
91814471|NCT02584504|183504827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|102.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.0|556.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||556.8|19.0|<0.0001
91814472|NCT02584504|183504827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|500.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|47.9|5230.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||5230.9|47.9|<0.0001
91814473|NCT02584504|183504828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-43.4|-22.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-22.5|-43.4|<0.0001
91814474|NCT02584504|183504828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-61.5|-40.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-40.3|-61.5|<0.0001
91814475|NCT02584504|183504829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.7||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.0|11.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||11.3|0.0|0.0241
91814476|NCT02584504|183504829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.1|13.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||13.5|2.1|0.0022
91814477|NCT02584504|183504830|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.9||||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.9|17.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||17.7|-5.9|0.2645
91814478|NCT02584504|183504830|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.6||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-23.5|0.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||0.4|-23.5|0.0299
91814479|NCT02432846|183504833|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|2.579|||Log Rank|||||2.579|0.371|0.964
91814480|NCT02432846|183504833|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|1.222|||Log Rank|||||1.222|0.314|0.163
91814481|NCT02432846|183504833|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.421|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.270|0.421|0.250
91814482|NCT02432846|183504834|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.756||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|2.134|||Log Rank|||||2.134|0.268|0.596
91814483|NCT02432846|183504834|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.661||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|1.418|||Log Rank|||||1.418|0.308|0.285
91814484|NCT02432846|183504834|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.699||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|1.29|||Log Rank|||||1.290|0.378|0.240
91814485|NCT02432846|183504835|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|||||=|0.812|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.812
91814486|NCT02432846|183504836|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|||||=|0.861|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.861
91814487|NCT03992781|183504867|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-53.1|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUDOS score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
91814488|NCT03992781|183504868|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-35.4|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUDOS score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
91814489|NCT03992781|183504869|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-33.2|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUXOS score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
91814490|NCT03992781|183504869|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-47.1|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUXOS score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
91814491|NCT03992781|183504870|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-27.6|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in JSEQ score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
91814492|NCT03992781|183504870|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-34.5|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in JSEQ score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
91814493|NCT03992781|183504871|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-43.4|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in VAS score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
91814494|NCT03992781|183504871|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-35.4|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in VAS score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
91814495|NCT01996826|183504879|OTHER|Based on prior studies endothelial rejection episodes tend to occur in the range of about 60% of transplants. We used rates ranging from 50 to 70 % to compute the sample size. We specified the probability of a type 1 error equal to 0.05, study power equal to 80%, a follow-up period of 12 months, and 4% loss to follow-up. Calculations resulted in sample size estimates of between 65 and 124 participants.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.14|||Log Rank|||Endothelial rejection rates in patients in the treatment group and the control group were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier survival curve. The Kaplan-Meier/product limit estimator is a non-parametric statistical test used to show the probability of an event occurring at a given time interval. The Kaplan-Meier estimator is used to show what the probability of corneal transplant rejection (and therefore transplant survival) after administration of the active treatment or control.||1.14|0.12|0.10
91814496|NCT01996826|183504880|OTHER|The count of ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Fisher Exact|||The incidence of Ocular Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||1.06|0.78|0.36
91814497|NCT01996826|183504880|OTHER|Mild ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.4|||Fisher Exact|||The number of mild severity Ocular Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||1.4|0.63|0.82
91814498|NCT01996826|183504880|OTHER|Moderate severity ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.2|||Fisher Exact|||The number of moderate severity Ocular Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||2.2|0.41|>0.99
91814499|NCT01996826|183504880|OTHER|Severe ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||Severe ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.||1.9|0.20|0.51
91814500|NCT01996826|183504881|OTHER|The incidence of Systematic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were calculated and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||Fisher Exact|||||1.02|0.79|0.24
91814501|NCT01996826|183504881|OTHER|Mild severity systemic adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.62||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.9|||Fisher Exact|||The number of mild systemic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||3.9|0.68|0.40
91814502|NCT01996826|183504881|OTHER|Moderate severity systemic adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.95|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|14.5|||Fisher Exact|||The number of moderate severity systemic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||14.5|0.26|>0.99
91814503|NCT01996826|183504881|OTHER|Severe systemic adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|14.5|||Fisher Exact|||The number of severe systemic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||14.5|0.26|>0.99
91814504|NCT00518323|183504891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.508||95.0|-8.36|4.16||The p value was associated with the closed testing procedure using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|If there were approximately 49 subjects per treatment group who had Week 6 (LOCF or end point) PANSS total measurements, the study was expected to have approximately 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 13.2 points between any paliperidone ER group compared with placebo for the primary outcome measure.||4.16|-8.36|0.508
91814505|NCT00518323|183504891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.006||95.0|-16.58|-3.67||The p value was associated with the closed testing procedure using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|If there were approximately 49 subjects per treatment group who had Week 6 (LOCF or end point) PANSS total measurements, the study was expected to have approximately 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 13.2 points between any paliperidone ER group compared with placebo for the primary outcome measure.||-3.67|-16.58|0.006
91814506|NCT00518323|183504891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.086||95.0|-13.07|-0.09||The p value was associated with the closed testing procedure using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|If there were approximately 49 subjects per treatment group who had Week 6 (LOCF or end point) PANSS total measurements, the study was expected to have approximately 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 13.2 points between any paliperidone ER group compared with placebo for the primary outcome measure.||-0.09|-13.07|0.086
91814507|NCT00518323|183504892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.968
91814508|NCT00518323|183504892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||<0.001
91814509|NCT00518323|183504892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.021
91814510|NCT00518323|183504893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.846||95.0|-4.54|3.73||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.73|-4.54|0.846
91814511|NCT00518323|183504893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.001||95.0|4.28|12.82||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||12.82|4.28|<0.001
91814512|NCT00518323|183504893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.067||95.0|-0.28|8.33||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||8.33|-0.28|0.067
91814513|NCT00518323|183504894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.058||95.0|-0.29|16.56||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||16.56|-0.29|0.058
91814514|NCT00518323|183504894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001||95.0|8.08|25.43||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||25.43|8.08|<0.001
91814515|NCT00518323|183504894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.003||95.0|4.76|22.23||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||22.23|4.76|0.003
91814516|NCT00518323|183504895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.237||95.0|-13.11|3.26||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.26|-13.11|0.237
91814517|NCT00518323|183504895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.119||95.0|-15.15|1.74||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.74|-15.15|0.119
91814518|NCT00518323|183504895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.574||95.0|-11.0|6.11||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||6.11|-11.00|0.574
91814519|NCT03164928|183504896|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.673|||ANCOVA|||||0.673|-0.450|0.68
91814520|NCT03164928|183504897|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.542|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 6||0.542|-0.194|0.34
91814521|NCT03164928|183504897|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.661|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 18||0.661|-0.609|0.93
91814522|NCT03164928|183504897|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|0.795|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 24||0.795|-0.572|0.74
91814523|NCT03164928|183504897|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.848|0.239|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 36||0.239|-1.848|0.12
91814524|NCT03164928|183504898|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.223|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 6 (Total Hip)||0.223|-1.050|0.19
91814525|NCT03164928|183504898|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.631|0.515|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 12 (Total Hip)||0.515|-0.631|0.83
91814526|NCT03164928|183504898|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.108|0.565|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 18 (Total Hip)||0.565|-1.108|0.51
91814527|NCT03164928|183504898|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|0.746|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 24 (Total Hip)||0.746|-1.098|0.69
91814528|NCT03164928|183504898|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.465|1.286|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 36 (Total Hip)||1.286|-1.465|0.89
91814529|NCT03164928|183504898|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|0.614|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 6 (Femoral Neck)||0.614|-0.969|0.64
91814530|NCT03164928|183504898|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|1.0|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 12 (Femoral Neck)||1.000|-0.808|0.83
91814531|NCT03164928|183504898|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|1.442|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 18 (Femoral Neck)||1.442|-0.697|0.48
91814532|NCT03164928|183504898|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.222|1.443|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 24 (Femoral Neck)||1.443|-1.222|0.86
91814533|NCT03164928|183504898|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.378|2.13|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 36 (Femoral Neck)||2.130|-1.378|0.66
91814534|NCT01514760|183504925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This a comparison for participants with uncontrolled asthma at baseline and change in scores over time.||||0.03
91814535|NCT03329690|183504937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test with region as a stratification factor||||||<0.0001
91814536|NCT01519414|183504991|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
91814537|NCT00531817|183505026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.29|25.42||The p-value was not adjusted. The primary objective was a single comparison with an a priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Power calculation: Assuming placebo+DMARDs response rate of 15% and tocilizumab 8 mg/kg+DMARDs response rate of 28% based on previous trials, a sample size of 570 patients (2:1 ratio, tocilizumab+DMARDs n=380 and placebo+DMARDs n=190) will provide \> 90% power to detect a difference between 2 treatment arms with 5% Type I error with a 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Null Hypothesis: The percentage of patients responding in each treatment group (tocilizumab+DMARDs vs placebo+ DMARDs) is the same.||25.42|12.29|<0.0001
91814538|NCT03204305|183505046|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 for all analyses. Bonferroni corrections were made to reduce family-wise error rate.|t-test, 2 sided|Composite VT was compared using independent t-tests.||VT in the 8 volumes of interest were analyzed using linear regression model group coded encoded as a dummy variable \[1=females cannabis users; 2= female healthy controls\], age as a covariate, and VT for VOIs (ventral striatum, amygdala, putamen, cingulate, globus pallidus, insula, frontal cortex, and hippocampus) as dependent variables, followed by post hoc Tukey's HSD between between groups.||||0.02
91814539|NCT03204305|183505046|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.36||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91814540|NCT03204305|183505046|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.35||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91814541|NCT03204305|183505046|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91814542|NCT03204305|183505047|SUPERIORITY||t test|-2.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91814543|NCT03388294|183505072|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|7.32||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.028
91814544|NCT03388294|183505073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The focus for this analysis is change over time||||<0.001
91814545|NCT03388294|183505074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
91814546|NCT03388294|183505075|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
91814547|NCT03388294|183505076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
91814548|NCT03388294|183505077|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time||||||0.849|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.849
91814549|NCT03388294|183505078|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.063
91814550|NCT03388294|183505079|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91814551|NCT03388294|183505083|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
91814552|NCT03388294|183505084|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
91814553|NCT03388294|183505085|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.864
91814554|NCT03388294|183505086|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91814555|NCT03388294|183505087|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.881
91814556|NCT03388294|183505088|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.846
91814557|NCT01641692|183505131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.127|0.004|0.036
91814558|NCT01641692|183505131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.090|-0.030|0.331
91814559|NCT01641692|183505131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.095|-0.027|0.272
91814560|NCT01641692|183505131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.149|0.026|0.005
91814561|NCT01641692|183505131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.073|-0.050|0.722
91814562|NCT01641692|183505131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.119|-0.006|0.076
91814563|NCT01641692|183505131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.113|-0.010|0.101
91814564|NCT01641692|183505134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.1|0.840
91814565|NCT01641692|183505134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-2.4|0.553
91814566|NCT01641692|183505134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-0.4|0.121
91814567|NCT01641692|183505134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.1|0.814
91814568|NCT01641692|183505134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.5|0.683
91814569|NCT01641692|183505134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|-1.2|0.456
91814570|NCT01641692|183505134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.7|0.399
91814571|NCT01641692|183505135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|0.2|0.030
91814572|NCT01641692|183505135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-0.1|0.077
91814573|NCT01641692|183505135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5|0.5|0.010
91814574|NCT01641692|183505135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|0.9|0.002
91814575|NCT01641692|183505135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|0.7|0.005
91814576|NCT01641692|183505135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|1.2|<0.001
91814577|NCT01641692|183505135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|0.0|0.054
91814578|NCT01641692|183505136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-1.4|0.752
91814579|NCT01641692|183505136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-0.1|0.072
91814580|NCT01641692|183505136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-1.1|0.503
91814581|NCT01641692|183505136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.1|0.476
91814582|NCT01641692|183505136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-0.2|0.084
91814583|NCT01641692|183505136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-1.8|0.970
91814584|NCT01641692|183505136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-2.4|0.423
91814585|NCT00657241|183505219|SUPERIORITY|All hemodynamic variables are continuous and all participants received both treatments, so paired-t analysis could be used. While paired t-tests do not necessarily require a power and sample size analysis, we estimated that 30 subjects were sufficient to detect an 8% difference in CTTI between comparators at p\<0.05 with a conservatively estimated power of 0.8.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||<0.05
91814586|NCT00657241|183505221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
91814587|NCT00657241|183505222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
91814588|NCT00657241|183505223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
91814589|NCT00657241|183505224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
91814590|NCT02738151|183505231|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Toujeo vs Tresiba was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was \<0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.051||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Toujeo vs. Tresiba|A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type 1 error. Analysis was performed using a MMRM approach with treatment groups, randomization strata, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed categorical effects and baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.051|-0.152|<.0001
91814591|NCT02738151|183505231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of Toujeo over Tresiba was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 between Toujeo over Tresiba on ITT population was \<0 (zero).||0.051|-0.152|0.3302
91814592|NCT02921776|183505376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91814593|NCT02921776|183505377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91814594|NCT02921776|183505378|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Effect size|Effect size =-0.29||||||0.10
91814595|NCT02921776|183505378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.10
91814596|NCT02921776|183505379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Benzodiazepine exposure||||0.02
91814597|NCT02921776|183505379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Opioid Exposure||||0.291
91814598|NCT02921776|183505380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.04||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91814599|NCT02921776|183505381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91814600|NCT02921776|183505382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.72|0.19|0.93
91814601|NCT02921776|183505383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91814602|NCT02921776|183505385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91814603|NCT02921776|183505386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.94
91814604|NCT02921776|183505386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient Extubation or Discharge from ICU||||0.89
91814605|NCT02921776|183505386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-Month||||0.38
91814606|NCT02921776|183505386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||||0.63
91814607|NCT02921776|183505386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.73
91814608|NCT02921776|183505387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.82
91814609|NCT02921776|183505387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient extubation or discharge from ICU||||0.84
91814610|NCT02921776|183505387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month||||0.96
91814611|NCT02921776|183505387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||||0.17
91814612|NCT02921776|183505387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.39
91814613|NCT02921776|183505388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1-month||||0.26
91814614|NCT02921776|183505388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-month||||0.25
91814615|NCT02921776|183505388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6-month||||0.79
91814616|NCT02921776|183505396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.01|0.05|0.05
91814617|NCT02921776|183505396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for baseline communication difficulty||1.30|0.06|0.10
91814618|NCT05247229|183505397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.73|||Chi-squared|||Q10 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.73|0.00|0.05
91814619|NCT05247229|183505397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.7|||Chi-squared|||Q13 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.70|-0.25|0.36
91814620|NCT05247229|183505398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.42||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.11|||Chi-squared|||Q6 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.11|-0.96|0.12
91814621|NCT05247229|183505398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.41||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Q7 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||1.05|-0.23|0.21
91814622|NCT05247229|183505398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.54|||Chi-squared|||Q15 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.54|-0.41|0.78
91814623|NCT05247229|183505399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.86|||Chi-squared|||Q1 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.86|0.16|0.01
91814624|NCT05247229|183505399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.52|||Chi-squared|||Q2 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.52|-0.34|0.67
91814625|NCT05247229|183505399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41|||Chi-squared|||Q3 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.41|-0.15|0.35
91814626|NCT05247229|183505399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.61|||Chi-squared|||Q4 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.61|-0.43|0.73
91814627|NCT05247229|183505399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.52|||Chi-squared|||Q5 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.52|-0.13|0.23
91814628|NCT05247229|183505399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Q9 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||1.15|0.27|0.00
91814629|NCT05247229|183505399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.73|||Chi-squared|||Q10 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.73|0.00|0.05
91814630|NCT05247229|183505399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.82|||Chi-squared|||Q11 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.82|-0.07|0.10
91814631|NCT05247229|183505399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.91|||Chi-squared|||Q12 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.91|-0.30|0.32
91814632|NCT05247229|183505399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.7|||Chi-squared|||Q13 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.70|-0.25|0.36
91814633|NCT05247229|183505399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.35||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.78|||Chi-squared|||Q14 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.78|-0.07|0.11
91814634|NCT01921179|183505437|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on neurocognitive performance Attention and Executive Function Overall Domain Z Score|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91814635|NCT01921179|183505438|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measure multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare neurocognitive performance on Overall Attention /Executive Function overall score at baseline and at 6+ month post-GOALS training follow-up|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure MANOVA was used to compare performance on neurocognitive domain scores at baseline and at 6+ month follow-up post-GOALS training||||||<0.001
91814636|NCT01921179|183505439|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on functional performance|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on functional performance||||||>0.05
91814637|NCT01921179|183505440|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measure multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare performance on Goal Processing Scale Overall domain scores at baseline and 6+ month post-GOALS training follow-up|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91814638|NCT01921179|183505441|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on emotional regulation measures - POMS Total score|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS versus the BHE training on emotional regulation measures - POMS Total score||||||<0.05
91814639|NCT01921179|183505442|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measure multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare participants' self-report on POMS Total Mood Disturbance overall score at baseline and 6+ month post-GOALS training follow-up|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91814640|NCT00858442|183505446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Applies normality test of shapiro Wilks = 0.953, P\> 0.449 in group without PRP and in PRP group shapiro Wilks=0.946, P \> 0.259.~The data were normally distributed, with equal variances (Test of levene: F = 0.1234, P\> 0.99)"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.452|>|0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.332|2.428||Applies t-test for equality of means. t = -1.016 is obtained. p\> 0.1574|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.428|-7.332|>0.1574
91814641|NCT00858442|183505447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Applies normality test of shapiro Wilks =0.972, P\> 0.687 in group without PRP and in PRP group shapiro Wilks = 0.964, P \> 0.410.~The data were normally distributed, with equal variances (Test of levene: F = 3.153, P\> 0.082)"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.50519|>|0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28561|0.74189||Applies t-test for equality of means. t = -0.538 is obtained. p\> 0.593|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74189|-1.28561|>0.593
91814642|NCT00858442|183505448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Applies normality test of shapiro Wilks=0.822, P\<0.001 in group without PRP, and in PRP group shapiro Wilks =0.910, P\<0.017.~The data were no normally distributed, with equal variances (Test of levene, F=1.324, P\>0.255)"|||||>|0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mean rank group without PRP= 28.88 Mean rank group with PRP= 26.31 Z value = -0.027||||||>0.398
91814643|NCT02016625|183505449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis (H0): ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) vs. alternative hypothesis (H1): ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|108.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.992|117.076|||ANOVA||ratio of cyclo + FDV to cyclo treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of cyclo + FDV to cyclo treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||117.076|99.992|0.0033
91814644|NCT02016625|183505450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) vs. H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|106.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.36|115.534|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||115.534|98.360|0.0019
91814645|NCT02016625|183505451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|90.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.6||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.281|101.205|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||101.205|80.281|0.0457
91814646|NCT02016625|183505452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|140.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.8||0.8122|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.772|177.833|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||177.833|111.772|0.8122
91814647|NCT02016625|183505453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|116.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.674|125.801|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||125.801|108.674|0.0650
91814648|NCT02016625|183505454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|122.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9||0.4181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.8|143.6|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||143.60|104.80|0.4181
91814649|NCT02016625|183505455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|127.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.8||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.453|141.827|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||141.827|114.453|0.6207
91814650|NCT02016625|183505456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|136.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.4||0.8592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.683|157.793|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||157.793|118.683|0.8592
91814651|NCT02016625|183505457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|99.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.5||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.857|118.644|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||118.644|82.857|0.0269
91814652|NCT02016625|183505458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|93.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.1||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.059|110.022|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||110.022|80.059|0.0493
91814653|NCT02016625|183505459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|99.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.375|106.115|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||106.115|93.375|0.0000
91814654|NCT02016625|183505460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|96.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.53|104.45|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||104.45|88.53|0.0008
91814655|NCT02603809|183505471|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all aprocitentan doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrast Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cran.r-projects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
91814656|NCT02603809|183505471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.548||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.49|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||2.49|-5.10|0.8117
91814657|NCT02603809|183505471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.532||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|-1.17|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.17|-8.68|0.0053
91814658|NCT02603809|183505471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.554|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-3.19|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-3.19|-10.80|<.0001
91942241|NCT02896192|183781208|OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||One-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that ≥ 5% of participants in the population of interest would achieve ≥ 25% improvement in daily hunger score.|Exact binomial test|||||||0.0004
91942242|NCT02896192|183781209|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.27|-14.88|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for visit, baseline waist circumference and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-14.88|-21.27|<0.0001
91942243|NCT02896192|183781212|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.6|-24.29|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline BMI and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-24.29|-30.60|<0.0001
91942244|NCT04857892|183781223|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9335|1.126|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.126|0.9335|
91942245|NCT04857892|183781223|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.072|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9693|1.185|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.185|0.9693|
91942246|NCT04857892|183781224|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.126|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9918|1.278|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.278|0.9918|
91942247|NCT04857892|183781224|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9278|1.201|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.201|0.9278|
91942248|NCT04857892|183781225|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9209|1.166|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.166|0.9209|
91814659|NCT02603809|183505471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.549||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|-1.15|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.15|-8.75|0.0057
91814660|NCT02603809|183505472|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all aprocitentan doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrasts Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cran-rprojects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
91814661|NCT02603809|183505472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.445||0.7071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|3.54|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||3.54|-8.44|0.7071
91942249|NCT04857892|183781225|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9049|1.151|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.151|0.9049|
91942250|NCT04857892|183781226|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.129|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.067|1.195|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.195|1.067|
91942251|NCT04857892|183781226|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.178|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.178|1.050|
91814662|NCT02603809|183505472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|-1.12|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.12|-12.98|0.0138
91814663|NCT02603809|183505472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.457||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-3.88|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-3.88|-15.92|0.0003
91814664|NCT02603809|183505472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0077||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.58|-1.59|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.59|-13.58|0.0077
91814665|NCT02603809|183505478|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all aprocitentan doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrast Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cran.r-projects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
91814666|NCT02603809|183505478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.401||0.5356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|1.69|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||1.69|-5.19|0.5356
91814667|NCT02603809|183505478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|-2.4|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-2.40|-9.25|0.0001
91814668|NCT02603809|183505478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.04|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-4.04|-10.96|<.0001
91814669|NCT02603809|183505478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|-2.19|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-2.19|-9.11|0.0003
91814670|NCT00380978|183505492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Group sample sizes of 800 in each group achieve 80% power to detect equivalence when the margin of equivalence extends from 0.1 to 0.25||1.20|0.90|0.65
91942252|NCT04857892|183781227|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.267|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.267|1.070|
91942253|NCT04857892|183781227|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.087|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9975|1.184|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.184|0.9975|
91942254|NCT04857892|183781228|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.036|1.122|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||1.122|1.036|
91814671|NCT00380978|183505493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||Chi-squared|||There rate of instrumented vaginal delivery will be equal in both groups.||1.20|0.80|0.63
91814672|NCT00380978|183505494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.047
91814673|NCT00380978|183505495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91814674|NCT00380978|183505496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-3|-4|<0.005
91814675|NCT00380978|183505497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.005
91814676|NCT00380978|183505498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
91814677|NCT00380978|183505499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.005
91814678|NCT02981342|183505523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0495|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0495
91814679|NCT02981342|183505523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0230
91814680|NCT02981342|183505524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0085
91814681|NCT02981342|183505524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0123
91814682|NCT02981342|183505525|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1
91814683|NCT02981342|183505525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3017
91814684|NCT02981342|183505530|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1
91814685|NCT02981342|183505530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3017
91814686|NCT02981342|183505532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|3.272|||Log Rank|||||3.272|0.782|0.1938
91814687|NCT02981342|183505532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.533||||0.2477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|3.15|||Log Rank|||||3.150|0.746|0.2477
91814688|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Worst in Last 24 Hours||2.13|-0.84|0.383
91814689|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Worst in Last 24 Hours||1.28|-1.91|0.692
91814690|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Least in Last 24 Hours||1.80|-0.85|0.469
91814691|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Least in Last 24 Hours||1.22|-1.62|0.776
91814692|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain on the Average||2.11|-0.72|0.328
91814693|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain on the Average||1.54|-1.45|0.954
91814694|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Right Now||2.36|-0.85|0.350
91814695|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain right now.||2.44|-1.01|0.405
91814696|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered General Activity||1.91|-1.06|0.565
91814697|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered General Activity||1.43|-1.74|0.848
91814698|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Mood||1.25|-1.37|0.928
91814699|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Mood||1.08|-1.71|0.650
91814700|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Walking Ability||1.60|-1.89|0.865
91814701|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Walking Ability||2.50|-1.23|0.497
91814702|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Normal Work||2.50|-0.72|0.272
91814703|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Normal Work||2.19|-1.25|0.583
91814704|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Relations||1.79|-1.53|0.876
91814705|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with relations.||2.19|-1.37|0.644
91814706|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Sleep||2.48|-0.97|0.384
91814707|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.71|-0.90|0.318
91814708|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Enjoyment of Life||2.78|-1.15|0.407
91814709|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Enjoyment of Life||2.62|-1.58|0.620
91814710|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BPI-Mean Interference Score||1.91|-0.90|0.475
91814711|NCT02981342|183505534|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BPI-Mean Interference Score||1.96|-1.04|0.540
91814712|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|10.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global health status||10.68|-13.46|0.818
91814713|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|8.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global health status||8.42|-16.03|0.533
91814714|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|10.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Physical functioning||10.82|-16.40|0.681
91814715|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.63|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Physical functioning||4.59|-22.63|0.189
91814716|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.29|20.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Role functioning||20.21|-18.29|0.921
91814717|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|19.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Role functioning.||19.42|-19.40|0.999
91814718|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|9.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Emotional functioning||9.68|-18.20|0.541
91814719|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Emotional functioning||7.27|-21.17|0.330
91814720|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|10.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Cognitive Functioning||10.66|-14.74|0.747
91814721|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.22|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Cognitive functioning||7.73|-18.22|0.419
91814722|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|11.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Social functioning||11.19|-19.23|0.596
91814723|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.68|-3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Social functioning||-3.55|-34.68|0.017
91814724|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.57||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|14.49||Social Scales: Fatigue|Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptoms Scales: Fatigue||14.49|-16.03|0.919
91942255|NCT04857892|183781228|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9914|1.075|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||1.075|0.9914|
91814725|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|23.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Fatigue||23.69|-6.72|0.267
91814726|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.66|15.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Nausea and Vomiting||15.77|-18.66|0.866
91814727|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.59||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.23|13.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Nausea and Vomiting||13.43|-21.23|0.652
91814728|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.67||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.39|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Pain||24.60|-10.39|0.417
91814729|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.69||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|21.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Pain||21.89|-13.16|0.618
91814730|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.85|6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Dyspnoea||6.18|-27.85|0.206
91814731|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.08|21.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Dyspnoea||21.80|-12.08|0.566
91814732|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|8.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Insomnia||8.96|-23.01|0.380
91814733|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|17.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Insomnia||17.64|-14.60|0.850
91814734|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.78|15.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Appetite loss||15.21|-20.78|0.756
91814735|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.31||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|21.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Appetite loss||21.82|-15.77|0.747
91814736|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|9.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|28.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Constipation||28.09|-9.16|0.311
91814737|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.75|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Constipation||8.80|-28.75|0.290
91814738|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.58||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.93|10.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Diarrhoea||10.78|-31.93|0.323
91814739|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.08|16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Diarrhoea||16.48|-26.08|0.651
91814740|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.57|16.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Financial Difficulties||16.59|-13.57|0.841
91814741|NCT02981342|183505535|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.57||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|22.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Financial Difficulties||22.54|-8.03|0.344
91814742|NCT00112502|183505589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||||||||1.7|0.8|
91814743|NCT00112502|183505590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||||||||1.2|0.6|
91814744|NCT00112502|183505591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8||||||||1.8|0.9|
91814745|NCT00112502|183505592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||||||||1.3|0.6|
91814746|NCT00112502|183505594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||||||||1.5|0.7|
91814747|NCT00112502|183505595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||||||||1.2|0.5|
91814748|NCT00112502|183505596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8||||||||1.8|0.8|
91814749|NCT00112502|183505597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1||||||||1.1|0.5|
91814750|NCT02094716|183505681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6084|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6084
91814751|NCT02094716|183505683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6937|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6937
91814752|NCT02094716|183505684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1010
91814753|NCT02094716|183505684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0764
91814754|NCT01203046|183505716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was used for the calculation of statistical power an author of 5% level, it was felt that the difference between the minimum value of non inferiority does not exceed 10%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|19.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.83|0.35|<0.05
91814755|NCT01203046|183505717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Consider a 5% confidence level, the power of assigned contrast was 80% to detect a difference minima of at least 10% of equivalence between the analyzed groups.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.51|0.21|<0.05
91814756|NCT03814746|183505718|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.08|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.55|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.55|0.76|> 0.999
91814757|NCT03814746|183505718|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.27|0.62|> 0.999
91942256|NCT04857892|183781229|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|2.705|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.135|3.427|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf)|||3.427|2.135|
91942257|NCT04857892|183781230|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|2.761|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|3.527|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t)|||3.527|2.160|
91814758|NCT03814746|183505719|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.7|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.70|0.87|
91814759|NCT03814746|183505719|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.17|0.59|
91814760|NCT03814746|183505724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.97|||Cox Model|for time to first occurrence of VOC||||1.97|0.92|
91814761|NCT03814746|183505724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Cox Model|for time to first occurrence of VOC||||1.58|0.72|
91814762|NCT03814746|183505724|SUPERIORITY|for time to second occurrence of VOC|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.04|||Cox Model|||||2.04|0.81|
91814763|NCT03814746|183505724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.54|||Cox Model|for time to second occurrence of VOC||||1.54|0.59|
91814764|NCT03814746|183505725|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.43|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.43|0.75|
91814765|NCT03814746|183505725|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.14|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.14|0.59|
91814766|NCT03814746|183505725|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.59|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.59|0.77|
91814767|NCT03814746|183505725|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.25|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.25|0.60|
91814768|NCT03814746|183505726|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.09|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||2.09|0.85|
91814769|NCT03814746|183505726|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.38|0.57|
91814770|NCT03814746|183505726|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.09|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||2.09|0.77|
91814771|NCT03814746|183505726|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.44|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.44|0.52|
91814772|NCT01817725|183505795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91814773|NCT00909779|183505797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The study was powered under a one-sided alternative hypothesis, in which arformoterol is superior to placebo, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 or less. To achieve 80% power, it was necessary to observe 86 total events for the primary endpoint adjusted for interim analysis. Assuming an annual event proportion of 17.3% in the placebo group and 30% lost to follow-up, we anticipated to randomize approximately 900 subjects (450 per arm).~The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio is 1.4."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.864|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio was calculated as arformoterol vs. placebo.|"The null hypothesis is: There is 40% or higher excess risk of the primary events in the arformoterol group relative to placebo (a constant hazard ratio of 1.4).~The primary analysis was a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group, baseline smoking status, sex, age, BMI, and baseline FEV1 as covariates. The hazard ratio and 90% two-sided confidence interval for the hazard ratio (adjusted for the interim analysis) comparing arformoterol to placebo were estimated."||0.864|0.425|
91814774|NCT00561080|183505840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority was achieved if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was greater than 1.2|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio (GMTR)|1.11||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22|||ANOVA||GMTR = GMT Post Dose 2/GMT Post dose 1|||1.22|1.02|0.948
91814775|NCT00561080|183505840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority was achieved if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was greater than 1.2|GMTR|0.78|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.85|||ANOVA||GMTR = GMT Post Dose 2/GMT Post dose 1|||0.85|0.73|>0.999
91814776|NCT00561080|183505841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|2.62|||||GMFR=GMT Post Dose/GMT Pre Dose|||2.62|2.11|
91814777|NCT00561080|183505843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.17|||||GMT Ratio = Group 2 GMT/Group 1 GMT|ANCOVA model includes country and age at first vaccination as independent variables and baseline antibody titre as covariate. The GMT 12-month post-last dose is the GMT adjusted from the ANCOVA model||1.17|0.96|
91814778|NCT00561080|183505843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||||GMT Ratio = GMT Group 3/GMT Group 1|ANCOVA model includes country and age at first vaccination as independent variables and baseline antibody titre as covariate. The GMT 12-month post-last dose is the GMT adjusted from the ANCOVA model||1.19|0.98|
91814779|NCT02295995|183505864|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The between-group difference at 12 weeks \[mean difference (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval\] was calculated for all outcome measures. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated as the difference in mean-level change (from baseline to 12 weeks) between the two groups divided by the standard deviation (SD) and is interpreted as d=0.20 (small), d=0.50 (medium), and d=0.80 (large). Cohen's d for physical activity in this sample was 1.37|Cohen's d calculated as the change from baseline to 12 weeks in both groups.|||
91814780|NCT02295995|183505865|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The between-group difference at 12 weeks \[mean difference (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval\] was calculated for all outcome measures. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated as the difference in mean-level change (from baseline to 12 weeks) between the two groups divided by the standard deviation (SD) and is interpreted as d=0.20 (small), d=0.50 (medium), and d=0.80 (large). Cohen's d for PCL-5 in this sample was 0.38|Cohen's d calculated as the change from baseline to 12 weeks in both groups.|||
91814781|NCT02295995|183505866|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The between-group difference at 12 weeks \[mean difference (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval\] was calculated for all outcome measures. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated as the difference in mean-level change (from baseline to 12 weeks) between the two groups divided by the standard deviation (SD) and is interpreted as d=0.20 (small), d=0.50 (medium), and d=0.80 (large). Cohen's d for 6-minute walk in this sample was 0.50|Cohen's d calculated as the change from baseline to 12 weeks in both groups.|||
91814782|NCT04262232|183505900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.95|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||-0.95|-2.6|0.0001
91814783|NCT04262232|183505901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.63|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||1.63|1.17|<0.0001
91814784|NCT04262232|183505903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-0.61|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||-0.61|-4.99|0.01
91814785|NCT04262232|183505905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|2.02|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||2.02|-1.02|0.51
91814786|NCT01975909|183505909|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of SARA (i.e., greater percent decrease of SARA score from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91814787|NCT01975909|183505910|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of 25-foot walking test (i.e., greater percent increase of walking speed from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
91814788|NCT01975909|183505911|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of 9-hole peg test (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete the test from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91814789|NCT01975909|183505912|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of 90-second walking test (i.e., greater percent increase of walking speed from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
91814790|NCT01975909|183505913|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the standing postural control stability (i.e., greater percent decrease increase of postural sway speed from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91814791|NCT01975909|183505914|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of TUG test (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete TUG test from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91814792|NCT03628703|183505916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91942258|NCT04857892|183781231|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|2.498|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.821|3.425|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||3.425|1.821|
91814793|NCT04350788|183505920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed program satisfaction between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner). The following result is for patient.||||0.02
91814794|NCT04350788|183505920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed program satisfaction between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner). The following result is for partner.||||0.25
91814795|NCT04350788|183505921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in general domain.||||0.36
91814796|NCT04350788|183505921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in content domain.||||0.38
91814797|NCT04350788|183505921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in navigation domain.||||0.02
91814798|NCT04350788|183505921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in general domain.||||0.62
91814799|NCT04350788|183505921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in content domain.||||0.65
91814800|NCT04350788|183505921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in navigation domain.||||0.45
91814801|NCT04350788|183505922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
91814802|NCT04350788|183505923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in urinary domain.||||0.01
91814803|NCT04350788|183505923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in bowel domain.||||0.41
91814804|NCT04350788|183505923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in sexual domain.||||0.21
91814805|NCT04350788|183505923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in hormonal domain.||||0.52
91814806|NCT04350788|183505923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in urinary domain.||||0.79
91814807|NCT04350788|183505923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in bowel domain.||||0.84
91814808|NCT04350788|183505923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in sexual domain.||||0.82
91814809|NCT04350788|183505923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in hormonal domain.||||0.33
91814810|NCT04350788|183505924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
91814811|NCT04350788|183505924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
91814812|NCT04350788|183505925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized linear regression|||||||0.05
91814813|NCT04350788|183505926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91814814|NCT04350788|183505927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
91814815|NCT04350788|183505928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
91814816|NCT04350788|183505929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91814817|NCT04350788|183505930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
91814818|NCT04350788|183505931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
91814819|NCT01698463|183505977|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||\<0.05 (threshold for significance).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91814820|NCT04709575|183505978|SUPERIORITY||linear mixed-effect model|-0.995||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9886|-0.0011|||LS Mean Difference|||||-0.0011|-1.9886|0.0497
91814821|NCT02967692|183505997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.027|||Log Rank|||||1.027|0.655|0.042
91814822|NCT02967692|183506005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183||||0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.619|||Log Rank|||||1.619|0.865|0.2975
91814823|NCT04447417|183506024|OTHER||Point estimate|0.43|||<=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.49||One-sided p-value. Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|linear mixed model||Point estimate obtained was back-transformed by exponentiation|TEWL data for linear mixed model was log-transformed to account for right skewness of data and heteroskedasticity. The linear mixed effect on log (TEWL) included age, sex, number of STS, localization on the body, visit, number of STS-by-visit interaction and number of STS-by-age interaction as fixed effects. Model was run on data on lesional skin area.||0.49|0.37|<=0.0001
91814824|NCT00066066|183506054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in non-smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 3 months post-therapy.||||>0.05
91814825|NCT00066066|183506054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in non-smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 6 months post-therapy.||||>0.05
91814826|NCT00066066|183506054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in non-smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 12 months post-therapy.||||<0.05
91814827|NCT00066066|183506054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 3 months post-therapy.||||<0.05
91814828|NCT00066066|183506054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 6 months post-therapy.||||<0.05
91814829|NCT00066066|183506054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 12 months post-therapy.||||>0.05
91814830|NCT02155738|183506055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aim 1: Quantify the impact of IV acetaminophen on 1a) postoperative pain scores ... 1a) To achieve this aim, we will measure the degree of postoperative pain using visual analog scales (VAS) at multiple specified time points throughout the postoperative period; we report on change from Baseline VAS at 24 Hours Postop. Null Hypothesis is that there is no difference between subgroups in VAS scores. Sample size was determined considering significant differences in VAS scores.||||<0.05
91814831|NCT02155738|183506056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1b) We will use equianalgesic dosage tables to convert intra- and postoperative narcotics into morphine equivalents to compare narcotic requirements for the first week after surgery. We hypothesize that those patients receiving preemptive IV acetaminophen will have lower postoperative VAS scores and reduced narcotic requirements compared to placebo.||||<0.05
91814832|NCT01466348|183506067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.6|||ANOVA|No baseline covariate adjustment was carried out.|A positive difference favors the paracetamol/ caffeine treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||5.6|1.5|0.0008
91814833|NCT01466348|183506068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|8.4|||ANOVA|No baseline covariate adjustment was applied.|A positive difference favors the paracetamol/ caffeine treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||8.4|4.5|<0.0001
91814834|NCT03928847|183506090|SUPERIORITY|The mean EGCG blood levels were compared among 450 mg, 600 mg, and 750 mg groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|250.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91814835|NCT03928847|183506091|OTHER|ELISA data from each patient before and after EGCG treatment were compared and analyzed with the use of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed).|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91814836|NCT03928847|183506092|OTHER|ELISA data from each patient before and after EGCG treatment were compared and analyzed with the use of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed).|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91814837|NCT03928847|183506093|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
91814838|NCT03928847|183506094|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
91814839|NCT03928847|183506095|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
91814840|NCT00914810|183506097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-0.8|0.55
91814841|NCT00914810|183506098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|13.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.6|7.4|<0.0001
91942259|NCT04857892|183781232|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.193|1.451|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf)|||1.451|1.193|
91942260|NCT04857892|183781233|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.193|1.452|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t)|||1.452|1.193|
91942261|NCT04857892|183781234|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.232|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.138|1.333|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||1.333|1.138|
91942262|NCT00655811|183781341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||One-way anova was used to compare the mean COVAS values between groups.||||<0.05
91814842|NCT01268111|183506109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
91814843|NCT00952341|183506113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant~chemotherapy.~The apriori significance level was set at 0.05.~There was no adjustment for multiplicity."||||0.007
91814844|NCT00952341|183506114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.~The apriori significance level was set at 0.05.~There was no adjustment for multiplicity."||||0.942
91814845|NCT00952341|183506115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.~The apriori significance level was set at 0.05.~There was no adjustment for multiplicity."||||0.001
91814846|NCT00952341|183506116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant~chemotherapy."||||0.003
91814847|NCT00952341|183506117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.||||0.882
91814848|NCT00952341|183506118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.||||0.001
91814849|NCT02066467|183506141|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binominal methodology|||||||<0.0001
91814850|NCT02066467|183506143|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binominal methodology|||||||<0.0001
91814851|NCT04259762|183506144|OTHER|This is a summary of the total number of participants in the focus groups who endorsed the particular theme.|Proportion endorsing themes|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||All focus groups were summarized together and, therefore, the denominators (N=85 \[Community\], N=11 \[Provider\]) for each theme are the same. Further, the focus groups only made qualitative (and no quantitative) assessments/endoresement of themes. No formal comparisons among groups were made.||||
91942263|NCT00655811|183781341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.550
91814852|NCT04259762|183506146|OTHER|Formal statistical comparisons were not made.|Proportion endorsing attempt to screen|0.567|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.831|||||"Pooled estimate of attempt to screening. Using R:~n1 \<- c(20,28,11,15,26,23,21); nt \<- c(45,50,45,50,50,50,22) p1 \<- n1/nt; v1 \<- p1\*(1-p1)/nt fit \<- lm(p1 \~ 1,weight=1/v1) summary(fit)$coef\[1\] + qt(.975,6)\*c(0,-1,1)\*summary(fit)$coef\[2\]"|||0.831|0.303|
91814853|NCT03453684|183506147|OTHER||Overall SE of the estimate|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.45 Standard error of the estimate of w\^2: 0.39|||||
91814854|NCT03453684|183506148|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|9.85|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.61 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): \^a (fixed to 0)|||||
91814855|NCT03453684|183506149|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|8.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.02 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): \^a (fixed to 0)|||||
91814856|NCT03453684|183506150|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|4.83|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.003 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): 0.03|||||
91814857|NCT03453684|183506151|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|17.21|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.13|||||
91814858|NCT03453684|183506152|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91814859|NCT03453684|183506153|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value should be read as: 2.1E-06 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): 0.24|||||
91942264|NCT00655811|183781341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91942265|NCT00655811|183781341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
91942266|NCT00655811|183781342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91942267|NCT00655811|183781342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91942268|NCT00655811|183781342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91942269|NCT00655811|183781343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91814860|NCT03453684|183506154|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): 0.08|||||
91814861|NCT03453684|183506155|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.02|||||
91814862|NCT03453684|183506156|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91814863|NCT00706979|183506157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the primary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate of any ever-occurring quit attempt.||1.4|1.1|0.008
91814864|NCT00706979|183506158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the secondary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate of 7 days of abstinence at some point during the study.||1.7|1.0|0.09
91814865|NCT00706979|183506159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the primary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate for the primary outcome of any 24hr quit attempt.||1.5|1.1|0.004
91814866|NCT00706979|183506160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the secondary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate for 7 days of abstinence at the six month follow-up.||1.6|0.9|0.3
91814867|NCT02418468|183506189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM|||||0.07|-0.26|0.262
91814868|NCT02337907|183506196|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.124||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.124|-0.163|0.7907
91814869|NCT02337907|183506196|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.7622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.171||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.171|-0.125|0.7622
91814870|NCT02337907|183506196|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.8789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.152||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.152|-0.130|0.8789
91814871|NCT02337907|183506196|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.006||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.006|-0.285|0.0609
91814872|NCT02337907|183506196|SUPERIORITY|H1-0: Mean NTB response of pooled doses of 10 mg QD, 25 mg QD, 25 mg BID and 50 mg QD = Mean NTB response of placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.074||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.074|-0.135|0.5687
91814873|NCT02337907|183506197|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.12||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.120|-0.101|0.8694
91942270|NCT04984876|183781394|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.83||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|506.78|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||506.78|4.34|0.002
91942271|NCT04984876|183781394|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|100.98|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||100.98|0.80|0.073
91814874|NCT02337907|183506197|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.9512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.109||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.109|-0.116|0.9512
91814875|NCT02337907|183506197|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.115||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.115|-0.105|0.9321
91814876|NCT02337907|183506197|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.025||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.025|-0.199|0.1288
91814877|NCT02337907|183506197|SUPERIORITY|H1-0: Mean NTB response of pooled doses of 10 mg QD, 25 mg QD, 25 mg BID and 50 mg QD = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.061||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.061|-0.098|0.6492
91814878|NCT02337907|183506198|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.5287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.77||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||2.77|-1.43|0.5287
91814879|NCT02337907|183506198|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.099||0.7105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|1.76||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.76|-2.57|0.7105
91814880|NCT02337907|183506198|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|3.03||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.03|-1.16|0.3822
91814881|NCT02337907|183506198|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.6472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.61||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.61|-2.59|0.6472
91814882|NCT02337907|183506199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.64||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.64|-0.46|0.7551
91814883|NCT02337907|183506199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.8||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.80|-0.29|0.3643
91942272|NCT04984876|183781395|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.86||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|188.85|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||188.85|1.69|0.018
91942273|NCT04984876|183781395|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|59.93|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||59.93|0.45|0.164
91942274|NCT04984876|183781396|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|70.08|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||70.08|0.51|0.138
91942275|NCT04984876|183781396|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|45.56|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||45.56|0.30|0.247
91942276|NCT04984876|183781397|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|31.56|||proportional odds model||proportional odds model adjusting for treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), log transformed baseline total IgE at screening and region.|||31.56|3.63|<0.001
91942277|NCT04984876|183781397|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.36|||proportional odds model||proportional odds model adjusting for treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), log transformed baseline total IgE at screening and region.|||14.36|1.80|0.001
91942278|NCT04984876|183781398|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|93.16|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||93.16|0.74|0.082
91942279|NCT04984876|183781398|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|16.43|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||16.43|0.02|0.632
91942280|NCT04984876|183781403|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-2.4|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||-2.40|-5.15|<0.001
91942281|NCT04984876|183781403|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-2.09|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||-2.09|-7.77|<0.001
91814884|NCT02337907|183506199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.6||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.60|-0.45|0.7822
91814885|NCT02337907|183506199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.65||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.65|-0.43|0.6889
91942282|NCT04984876|183781403|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-0.32|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||-0.32|-6.08|0.015
91942283|NCT04984876|183781403|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.68||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|1.25|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||1.25|-4.62|0.130
91942284|NCT04984876|183781404|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.33||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.36|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.36|-1.03|0.173
91942285|NCT04984876|183781404|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.29||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.39|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.39|-0.96|0.202
91942286|NCT04984876|183781404|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.34|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.34|-1.09|0.151
91942287|NCT04984876|183781404|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.49|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.49|-0.94|0.264
91942288|NCT04984876|183781404|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.43||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.3|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.30|-1.16|0.123
91942289|NCT04984876|183781404|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.47|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.47|-0.94|0.258
91814886|NCT02337907|183506200|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.15||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.15|-0.52|0.1595
91814887|NCT02337907|183506200|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.962||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.01||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.01|-0.77|0.2455
91814888|NCT02337907|183506200|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.13||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.13|-0.57|0.1732
91814889|NCT02337907|183506200|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.31||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||4.31|0.63|0.0088
91814890|NCT01592344|183506201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0048
91814891|NCT01592344|183506202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91814892|NCT01592344|183506203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91814893|NCT01592344|183506204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91814894|NCT02738333|183506213|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 100 participants per treatment group would provide over 90% power to establish non-inferiority in the SVR12 rates between the LDV/SOF group and SOF+RBV group. Sample size was based on the assumptions that the clinically meaningful non-inferiority margin is 10%, both groups have a SVR12 rate of 96%, and the significance level is 0.025 one-sided.|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|7.1|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||7.1|-5.3|
91814895|NCT03033511|183506260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.36||stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.84|0.537
91814896|NCT03033511|183506261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36||stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.92|0.237
91814897|NCT03033511|183506262|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.35||||||Change at Week 6||2.35|-3.08|
91814898|NCT03033511|183506262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-10.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-6.29||||||Change at Week 12||-6.29|-14.58|
91814899|NCT03033511|183506262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-27.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.19|-9.16||||||Change at Week 18||-9.16|-46.19|
91814900|NCT03033511|183506262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-18.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.28|1.39||||||Change at Week 24||1.39|-38.28|
91814901|NCT03033511|183506262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.63|-1.37||||||Change at Week 30||-1.37|-42.63|
91814902|NCT03033511|183506262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 36||||
91814903|NCT03033511|183506262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 42||||
91814904|NCT03033511|183506262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-56.67|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 48||||
91814905|NCT03033511|183506262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 60||||
91814906|NCT03033511|183506262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 66||||
91814907|NCT03033511|183506262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 78||||
91814908|NCT03033511|183506262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|-6.19||||||Change at Final Visit||-6.19|-12.16|
91814909|NCT04327388|183506275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.9561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|1.402|||Log-rank test|Analyzed based on logrank test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|Hazard ratio for estimation of treatment effect of each sarilumab dose versus placebo was assessed by cox proportional hazard model stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|||1.402|0.751|0.9561
91814910|NCT04327388|183506275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.135||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|1.543|||Log-rank test|Analyzed based on logrank test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|Hazard ratio for estimation of treatment effect of each sarilumab dose versus placebo was assessed by cox proportional hazard model stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|||1.543|0.835|0.3376
91814911|NCT04327388|183506276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.7||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|5.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|By Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.||||5.81|-9.27|0.6280
91814912|NCT04327388|183506276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2||||0.8478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|7.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|By Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.||||7.41|-6.93|0.8478
91814913|NCT01464346|183506510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|88.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.69|90.33|||ANCOVA|Mixed effects model was used, with day of sensor wear(1,3 or 6) as covariate. Day was centered to 0 to permit interpretation of the model intercept||||90.33|85.69|<0.05
91814914|NCT01464346|183506511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|90.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.77|92.28|||ANCOVA|Mixed effects model was used, with day of sensor wear(1,3 or 6) as covariate. Day was centered to 0 to permit interpretation of the model intercept||||92.28|88.77|< 0.05
91814915|NCT01286012|183506524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91814916|NCT01286012|183506525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.915
91814917|NCT01286012|183506526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6714|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6714
91814918|NCT01286012|183506527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
91814919|NCT01286012|183506528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.361
91814920|NCT00827983|183506529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by calculating a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and the test group considered not inferior to the control treatment.|Difference in pregnancy rates|-3.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.7|||Chi-squared|||"The non -inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was that the ongoing pregnancy rate (oPR) in the test group (Pe)was lower than the oPR in the control group (Pc)against the alternative one that the oPR in the test group was equal to or higher than the oPR in the control group.~H0 : Pc\>= Pe + d(-10%) H1 : Pc\< Pe + d(-10%)"||3.7|-9.9|0.37
91814921|NCT00827983|183506530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|3.68|||Chi-squared|||||3.68|-9.87|0.37
91814922|NCT00827983|183506531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.8|-4.7|0.85
91814923|NCT02226003|183506547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.84|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.84|-1.49|< 0.001
91814924|NCT02226003|183506547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.91|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.91|-1.57|< 0.001
91814925|NCT02226003|183506548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs Placebo|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|16.4||||||||16.4|-11.2|
91814926|NCT02226003|183506548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs Placebo|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|16.4||||||||16.4|-11.4|
91942290|NCT04984876|183781404|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.58|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.58|-0.92|0.324
91814927|NCT02226003|183506550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-38.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.93|-27.96|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-27.96|-49.93|< 0.001
91814928|NCT02226003|183506550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-46.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.09|-35.02|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-35.02|-57.09|< 0.001
91814929|NCT02226003|183506551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-62.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.47|-44.37|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-44.37|-80.47|< 0.001
91814930|NCT02226003|183506551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-69.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.83|-51.46|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-51.46|-87.83|< 0.001
91814931|NCT02226003|183506552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|16.83|||Logistic regression model|||||16.83|2.81|< 0.001
91814932|NCT02226003|183506552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|18.31|||Logistic regression model|||||18.31|2.98|< 0.001
91814933|NCT02226003|183506553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-1.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-1.01|-2.99|< 0.001
91814934|NCT02226003|183506553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-1.11|-3.10|< 0.001
91814935|NCT02226003|183506554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-4.44||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-1.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-1.01|-7.87|0.011
91814936|NCT02226003|183506554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-6.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-2.95|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-2.95|-9.83|< 0.001
91814937|NCT02226003|183506555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.65||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|0.79|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.79|-4.09|0.184
91814938|NCT02226003|183506555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.18||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|0.26|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.26|-4.62|0.080
91814939|NCT01876485|183506556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|Numerator degrees of freedom = 1 for both models (4mo and 10mo) and denominator degrees of freedom vary based on multiple imputation.||"We compared group differences in HbA1c at 4. The value of HbA1c at 4 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline HbA1c was a covariate.~Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the HbA1c in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n = 140 EPIC, n = 140 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group."||||0.003
91814940|NCT01876485|183506556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|Numerator degrees of freedom = 1 for both models (4mo and 10mo) and denominator degrees of freedom vary based on multiple imputation.||"We compared group differences in HbA1c at 10 months. The value of HbA1c at 10 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline HbA1c was a covariate.~Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the HbA1c in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n = 140 EPIC, n = 140 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group."||||.60
91814941|NCT01876485|183506557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|||We compared group differences in DDS at 4 months. The value of DDS at 4 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline DDS was a covariate. Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the DDS in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n=138 EPIC, n=135 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group.||||0.003
91814942|NCT01876485|183506557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|||We compared group differences in DDS at 10 months. The value of DDS at 10 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline DDS was a covariate. Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the DDS in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n=138 EPIC, n=135 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group.||||.003
91814943|NCT02446990|183506572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.2|0.96|0.1969
91814944|NCT02446990|183506573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.94|0.3461
91814945|NCT02446990|183506574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.94|0.2493
91814946|NCT02446990|183506575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.89|0.5162
91814947|NCT02446990|183506576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.88|0.1647
91814948|NCT02446990|183506577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.90|0.6024
91814949|NCT02446990|183506578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.75|0.1458
91814950|NCT02446990|183506579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.89|0.9790
91942291|NCT04984876|183781404|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.73|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.73|-0.78|0.473
91814951|NCT02446990|183506580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.92|0.4299
91814952|NCT02446990|183506581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.88|0.5916
91814953|NCT02446990|183506582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.6963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.89|0.6963
91942292|NCT04984876|183781405|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.57|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.57|-0.44|0.597
91814954|NCT02446990|183506583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.96|0.2222
91814955|NCT02446990|183506584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.94|0.3671
91814956|NCT02446990|183506585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.5285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.87|0.5285
91814957|NCT01064401|183506586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.645||Estimated from a negative binomial regression model adjusted for the baseline relapse rate, history of prior IFN beta use, baseline EDSS (≤ 2.5 vs \> 2.5) and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.645|0.469|< 0.0001
91814958|NCT01064401|183506586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|53.1||||||||53.1|35.5|
91814959|NCT01064401|183506587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|54.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.9|60.8||Estimated from a negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline volume of T2 hyperintense lesions, history of prior IFN beta use and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Negative Binomial Regression|The logarithmic transformation of the scan number of the MRI assessment was included in the model as the 'offset' parameter.||||60.8|46.9|< 0.0001
91814960|NCT01064401|183506588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted by baseline EDSS values as continuous variable, history of prior IFN beta use, and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.07|0.66|0.1575
91814961|NCT01064401|183506588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|34.2||||||||34.2|-7.0|
91814962|NCT01064401|183506589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.69||Based on Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for baseline relapse rate, history of prior IFN beta use, baseline EDSS (EDSS ≤ 2.5 vs EDSS \> 2.5) and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||0.69|0.50|< 0.0001
91814963|NCT01064401|183506589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction in Risk of Relapse|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|49.5||||||||49.5|30.8|
91814964|NCT01064401|183506590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.95||Based on logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score, history of prior IFN beta use, and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Regression, Logistic|||||0.95|0.60|0.0176
91814965|NCT01064401|183506590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction in Odds of Worsening|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|39.6||||||||39.6|4.7|
91814966|NCT03649711|183506607|OTHER|Post treatment values were compared using ANCOVA||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91814967|NCT03649711|183506607|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||mean changes in values were compared by Wilcoxon rank sum test adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferonni method) between CKD-ticagrelor arm, and the non-CKD controls||||0.18
91814968|NCT03649711|183506608|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||CKD groups randomized were compared for post treatment values.||||0.22
91942293|NCT04984876|183781405|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.39||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.11|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.11|-0.89|0.064
91942294|NCT04984876|183781405|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.22||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.28|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.28|-0.72|0.191
91942295|NCT04984876|183781405|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.48|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.48|-0.51|0.472
91942296|NCT04984876|183781405|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.03||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.62|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.62|-0.57|0.537
91942297|NCT04984876|183781405|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.27|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.27|-0.91|0.141
91942298|NCT04984876|183781405|OTHER||LS Meand difference|-0.45||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.13|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.13|-1.04|0.063
91942299|NCT04984876|183781405|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.48|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.48|-0.68|0.368
91942300|NCT04984876|183781406|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.24||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.39|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.39|-0.87|0.225
91942301|NCT04984876|183781406|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.3|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.30|-0.93|0.153
91942302|NCT04984876|183781406|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.34|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.34|-0.95|0.179
91942303|NCT04984876|183781406|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.77|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.77|-0.55|0.631
91814969|NCT02117999|183506614|NON_INFERIORITY|Sample size calculation was performed to detect a difference of 0.95 D between the average Kmax changes for the T-ionto CL and standard CL groups at 12 months, at a significance level of 5% and a power of 81%, assuming a standard deviation of 1.20 D.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of changes from baseline in each group was made using the paired Student t-test. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures ANOVA between groups and time (3 days, 7 days, 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-months). The outcome measures over time were corrected for baseline values. The relationship between the change in Kmax at 12 months and baseline parameters was assessed using Pearson's correlation analysis for either group.||||<0.05
91942304|NCT04984876|183781406|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.52||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.14|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.14|-1.18|0.060
91942305|NCT04984876|183781406|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.56|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.56|-0.72|0.404
91942306|NCT04984876|183781406|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.38||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.3|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.30|-1.06|0.135
91942307|NCT04984876|183781406|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.01||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.72|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.72|-0.70|0.514
91942308|NCT04984876|183781407|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.51|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.51|-0.42|0.574
91942309|NCT04984876|183781407|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.09|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.09|-0.83|0.056
91942310|NCT04984876|183781407|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.36||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.12|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.12|-0.83|0.069
91942311|NCT04984876|183781407|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.19||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.27|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.27|-0.65|0.205
91942312|NCT04984876|183781407|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.37|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.37|-0.76|0.248
91942313|NCT04984876|183781407|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.42||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.14|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.14|-0.98|0.071
91942314|NCT04984876|183781407|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.09|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.09|-1.06|0.048
91814970|NCT02117999|183506615|NON_INFERIORITY|sample size calculation was performed to detect a difference of 0.95 D between the average Kmax changes for the T-ionto CL and standard CL groups at 12 months, at a significance level of 5% and a power of 81%, assuming a standard deviation of 1.20 D. The sample size of the study was 34 cases (allocation ratio of 2:1)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of changes from baseline in each group was made using the paired Student t-test. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures ANOVA between groups and time (3 days, 7 days, 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-months). The outcome measures over time were corrected for baseline values.||||0.05
91814971|NCT01331148|183506620|OTHER|||||||0.0507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Due to the longitudinal nature of the data and presence of missing values, repeated measures analyses were conducted using the MIXED procedure in SAS. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to quantify the relationship between PedsQL scores with 25OHD concentrations and pain days. Two-way analysis of variance models compared PedsQL scores between treatment groups over time.||||0.0507
91814972|NCT01280552|183506634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified for age and MGMT methylation status|Log Rank|||Stratified log rank p value stratified for age and MGMT methylation status||||0.010
91814973|NCT01280552|183506636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Analyses were stratified for age and MGMT methylation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.033
91814974|NCT00887354|183506637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.055|0.025|<.0001
91814975|NCT01010906|183506668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval falls within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then treatment of HI participants is similar to treatment of healthy matched for mild HI participants.|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|3.43||||||||3.43|0.96|
91814976|NCT01010906|183506668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval falls within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then treatment of HI participants is similar to treatment of healthy matched for moderate HI participants.|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|6.04||||||||6.04|1.60|
91814977|NCT01010906|183506668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval falls within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then treatment of HI participants is similar to treatment of healthy matched for severe HI participants.|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|8.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|13.64||||||||13.64|5.20|
91814978|NCT01010906|183506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|3.24||||||||3.24|0.76|
91814979|NCT01010906|183506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|4.03||||||||4.03|1.21|
91814980|NCT01010906|183506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|6.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|9.71||||||||9.71|3.90|
91814981|NCT03739112|183506693|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for relative vaccine efficacy (VE) was \> -20%.|percent VE|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|28.7|||||VE of VLP vaccine versus Fluarix = (1-ARVv/ARVc) x 100% where ARVv = attack rate in participants vaccinated with the Quadrivalent VLP Influenza vaccine and ARVc = attack rate in participants vaccinated with an active Fluarix.|||28.7|-16.7|
91814982|NCT03054857|183506741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.532||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|3.406|||Chi-squared|||||3.406|0.689|0.289
91814983|NCT03054857|183506742|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.329||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|4.319|||Chi-squared|||||4.319|0.409|0.636
91814984|NCT03054857|183506744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.792||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.626|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-2.626|0.187
91814985|NCT03054857|183506745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.644|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.606||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|10.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.45|-19.74|0.543
91814986|NCT02529137|183506757|NON_INFERIORITY|the non-inferiority margin was set at 4%|difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.01||||||||1.01|-0.30|
91814987|NCT01344447|183506777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|20.4||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Majority reader; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||20.4|<0.0001
91814988|NCT01344447|183506777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|63.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|60.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 1; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||60.9|<0.0001
91814989|NCT01344447|183506777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|17.8||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 2; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||17.8|<0.0001
91814990|NCT01344447|183506777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|13.3||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 3; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||13.3|<0.0001
91814991|NCT01344447|183506777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|16.5||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Clinical investigator; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||16.5|<0.0001
91814992|NCT01344447|183506778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-3.6|
91814993|NCT01344447|183506778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-5.4||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-5.4|
91814994|NCT01344447|183506778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-4.7|
91814995|NCT01344447|183506778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-5.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-5.9|
91814996|NCT01344447|183506778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|21.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|14.1||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||14.1|
91814997|NCT01344447|183506779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|7.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.7|
91814998|NCT01344447|183506779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|30.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|28.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||28.6|
91814999|NCT01344447|183506779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|8.5||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||8.5|
91815000|NCT01344447|183506779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|6.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||6.6|
91815001|NCT01344447|183506779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|7.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.9|
91815002|NCT01344447|183506780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|61.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|55.3||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||55.3|
91815003|NCT01344447|183506780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|60.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|53.6||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||53.6|
91815004|NCT01344447|183506780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|59.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|53.1||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||53.1|
91815005|NCT01344447|183506780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|58.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|52.2||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||52.2|
91815006|NCT01344447|183506780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|61.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|56.7||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||56.7|
91815007|NCT01344447|183506781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|97.7||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||97.7|
91815008|NCT01344447|183506781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|97.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|97.3||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||97.3|
91815009|NCT01344447|183506781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|97.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|96.9||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||96.9|
91815010|NCT01344447|183506781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|97.7||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||97.7|
91815011|NCT01344447|183506781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|99.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|98.9||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||98.9|
91815012|NCT01344447|183506782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA Minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded Reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
91815013|NCT01344447|183506782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
91815014|NCT01344447|183506782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
91815015|NCT01344447|183506782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
91815016|NCT01344447|183506782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at normal point||||
91815017|NCT01344447|183506782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-enhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at normal point||||
91815018|NCT01344447|183506782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
91815019|NCT01344447|183506782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-enhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
91815020|NCT02357901|183506808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||significance at the 0.025 level|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
91815021|NCT02357901|183506808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||significance at the 0.025 level|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
91815022|NCT02357901|183506809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91815023|NCT02357901|183506809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91815024|NCT02357901|183506810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
91815025|NCT02357901|183506810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
91815026|NCT02357901|183506811|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
91815027|NCT02357901|183506811|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
91815028|NCT02357901|183506812|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|-4.3||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-4.30|-14.56|0.0003
91815029|NCT02357901|183506812|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|-7.28||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-7.28|-17.51|<0.0001
91815030|NCT02357901|183506813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
91815031|NCT02357901|183506813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
91815032|NCT02357901|183506814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
91815033|NCT02357901|183506814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
91815034|NCT02357901|183506815|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.46||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.46|-0.96|<0.0001
91815035|NCT02357901|183506815|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.62||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.12|<0.0001
91815036|NCT02357901|183506816|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.33||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.33|-0.89|<0.0001
91815037|NCT02357901|183506816|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.41||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.41|-0.97|<0.0001
91815038|NCT02357901|183506817|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.36||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||0.36|-1.13|0.3143
91815039|NCT02357901|183506817|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.23||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.72|0.0101
91815040|NCT02357901|183506818|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|0.14||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||0.14|-3.29|0.0726
91815041|NCT02357901|183506818|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.9||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.90|-4.32|0.0028
91815042|NCT02357901|183506819|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|9.2||Significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|a random effects ANOVA model with treatment included as fixed effect and center as random effect.||||9.20|5.81|<0.0001
91815043|NCT02357901|183506819|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|9.21||Significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|a random effects ANOVA model with treatment included as fixed effect and center as random effect.||||9.21|5.82|<0.0001
91815044|NCT02759120|183506864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.53|||Regression, Cox|||||1.53|0.71|0.83
91815045|NCT02759120|183506865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.78|||Regression, Cox|||||1.78|0.70|0.65
91815046|NCT02759120|183506866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.17|||Regression, Cox|||||2.17|0.82|0.25
91815047|NCT02759120|183506867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.01|||Regression, Cox|||||2.01|0.91|0.13
91815048|NCT02759120|183506868|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.89|||Regression, Cox|||||1.89|0.78|0.40
91815049|NCT02759120|183506869|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.90|0.16
91815050|NCT02759120|183506870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.83|||Regression, Cox|||||2.83|-0.56|0.19
91815051|NCT02759120|183506871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.35|||Regression, Cox|||||3.35|-1.67|0.51
91815052|NCT02759120|183506872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.46|0.13
91815053|NCT02759120|183506873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.39|||Regression, Cox|||||3.39|-4.64|0.76
91942315|NCT04984876|183781407|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.25|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.25|-0.85|0.142
91942316|NCT01077193|183781411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See above.|Mean Percent Excess Weight Loss|37.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.18||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|45.5||No multiple comparison adjustments are necessary as this is a single hypothesis on 1 parameter for a within group change comparison to 36.1%.|t-test, 1 sided|||A sample size of 32 achieves power\>90% to demonstrate non-inferiority using a one-sided t-test (alpha=0.025) when the margin of equivalence is a 5% difference in EWL. The true difference between %EWL for patients undergoing a greater curvature procedure and the target %EWL is hypothesized to be 0. The target %EWL at 3 years is 41.1%, based upon prior studies. This power analysis assumes data are drawn from a single population with a standard deviation of 8.20.||45.5|30.2|0.3227
91942317|NCT04960202|183781413|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-6.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.208|-4.066|||Normal approximation|||The difference of the percentage in the 2 treatment groups and its 95% confidence interval, and p-value based on Normal approximation of the data are presented.||-4.066|-8.208|<0.0001
91942318|NCT04960202|183781416|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-5.638|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.852|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.308|-3.967|||Normal approximation|||The difference of the percentage in the 2 treatment groups and its 95% confidence interval, and p-value based on Normal approximation of the data are presented.||-3.967|-7.308|<0.0001
91942319|NCT04960202|183781417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.294||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.136|1.476|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained alleviation is based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 logarithm to base 10 \[log10\] copies/milliliter \[mL\], \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.476|1.136|0.0003
91942320|NCT04960202|183781418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.266|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.412|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained alleviation is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.412|1.134|<0.0001
91942321|NCT04960202|183781419|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.258|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.131|1.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained alleviation is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.400|1.131|<0.0001
91942322|NCT04960202|183781420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.871||||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.162|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.162|0.652|0.3473
91942323|NCT04960202|183781421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.936||||0.5762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.182|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.182|0.740|0.5762
91942324|NCT04960202|183781422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969||||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.213|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No),baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.213|0.773|0.7807
91942325|NCT04960202|183781423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.219||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.401|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained resolution is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.401|1.061|0.0053
91942326|NCT04960202|183781424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.348|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained resolution is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.348|1.068|0.0022
91942327|NCT04960202|183781425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.194||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.066|1.337|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained resolution is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.337|1.066|0.0021
91815054|NCT02759120|183506874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.46|||Regression, Cox|||||0.46|-0.24|0.54
91815055|NCT02759120|183506875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||0.80|-0.79|0.99
91815056|NCT02759120|183506876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.39|||Regression, Cox|||||3.39|-4.64|0.76
91815057|NCT02759120|183506877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.051|||Regression, Cox|||||0.051|-0.031|0.63
91942328|NCT04960202|183781432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.088||||0.5293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.416|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.416|0.836|0.5293
91815058|NCT02759120|183506878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.043|||Regression, Cox|||||0.043|-0.007|0.15
91815059|NCT02759120|183506879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.15|||Regression, Cox|||||2.15|-1.11|0.53
91815060|NCT02759120|183506880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.2|||Regression, Linear|||||2.20|-1.61|0.75
91815061|NCT04302389|183506883|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within-subject comparison at two timepoints (baseline, 3 months)||||<0.001
91815062|NCT02063516|183506902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 80 adult patients randomized from different surgical department would have 80% power to detect a difference in 2 point in mean. Sampling size was determined using 2 sided t-test (alpha=0.05).||||0.04
91815063|NCT02063516|183506903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.836
91815064|NCT02063516|183506904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 30 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.0035
91815065|NCT02063516|183506904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 60 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.003
91815066|NCT02063516|183506904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 90 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.0042
91815067|NCT02063516|183506904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 120 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.004
91815068|NCT02293655|183506912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Baseline Time point||||0.55
91815069|NCT02293655|183506912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at MPH Maintenance Visit (Week 8)||||.30
91942329|NCT04960202|183781433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.053||||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.303|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.303|0.850|0.6379
91815070|NCT02293655|183506912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 1 (Week 9)||||.28
91815071|NCT02293655|183506912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 2 (Week 10)||||.00
91815072|NCT02293655|183506912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 3 (Week 12)||||.01
91815073|NCT02293655|183506913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.4||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at baseline timepoint||||.32
91815074|NCT02293655|183506913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Maintenance Time Point (week 8)||||.90
91815075|NCT02293655|183506913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Randomization Phase 1 (week 9)||||.007
91815076|NCT02293655|183506913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.6||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Randomization Phase 2 (week 10)||||.26
91815077|NCT02293655|183506913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|123.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.6||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Randomization Phase 3 (week 12)||||.01
91815078|NCT02293655|183506914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||.33
91815079|NCT02293655|183506914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Maintenance (week 8)||||.06
91815080|NCT02293655|183506914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|108.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 1 (week 9)||||.05
91815081|NCT02293655|183506914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|118.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.2||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 2 (week 10)||||.008
91815082|NCT02293655|183506914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.9||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 3 (week 12)||||.07
91815083|NCT02063854|183506928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using t-test at a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.1346|||||||t-test, 1 sided|With a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.1346
91815084|NCT02063854|183506928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using t-test at a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.6711|||||||t-test, 1 sided|With a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.6711
91815085|NCT02063854|183506928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.001||||||||0.001|-1.920|
91815086|NCT02063854|183506928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.617|-0.794||||||||-0.794|-2.617|
91815087|NCT02063854|183506928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|1.658||||||||1.658|-0.166|
91815088|NCT02246673|183506958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-28.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.85|-22.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||-22.51|-33.85|<0.0001
91815089|NCT02246673|183506958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-25.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.23|-19.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||-19.34|-31.23|<0.0001
91815090|NCT02246673|183506958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-29.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.15|-25.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||-25.15|-33.15|<0.0001
91942330|NCT04960202|183781434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.046||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.290|0.848|0.6760
91942331|NCT04960202|183781435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.4||||0.1997||95.0|7.788|48.328|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: PF-07321332 300 mg + Ritonavir 100 mg|||48.328|7.788|0.1997
91942332|NCT04960202|183781435|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.159|19.253|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: Placebo|||19.253|4.159|
91942333|NCT04960202|183781436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.875||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.097|43.156|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: PF-07321332 300 mg + Ritonavir 100 mg|||43.156|10.097|0.2810
91942334|NCT04960202|183781436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.823|22.725|||Breslow Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: Placebo|||22.725|6.823|
91942335|NCT04960202|183781437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.119||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.412|42.837|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: PF-07321332 300 mg + Ritonavir 100 mg|||42.837|10.412|0.2226
91942336|NCT04960202|183781437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.036||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.808|21.28|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: Placebo|||21.280|6.808|0.2342
91942337|NCT03687827|183781455|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is confirmed if non-inferiority is confirmed and the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is entirely above zero.|Estimated treatment difference|1.43||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.74|0.12|0.0321
91942338|NCT03687827|183781455|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -0.83% has been applied, corresponding to 0.2 hours/24 hours|Estimated treatment difference|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.74||||||||2.74|0.12|
91942339|NCT00981292|183781483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||A Bonferroni adjustment was made for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||This data was analysed by two-way repeated measures ANOVA (task \[epoch\] x treatment). In the case of those analyses that showed a significant main effect of treatment or a task/epoch x treatment interaction, planned comparisons of data from each task or epoch were then made between placebo and each of the EGCG treatment groups using t tests calculated with the Mean Squares Error from the ANOVA.||||<0.05
91942340|NCT00981292|183781484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Task performance data were analysed by within subjects ANCOVA (treatment) with pre-treatment performance included as a co-variate for each individual task/measure.||||>0.05
91942341|NCT00981292|183781485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mood data was analysed via student t-test.||||>0.05
91815091|NCT02246673|183506958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-22.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.36|-18.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||-18.14|-26.36|<0.0001
91815092|NCT02246673|183506958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-17.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.54|-13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||-13.50|-21.54|<0.0001
91942342|NCT03377452|183781486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.02||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|19.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.22|-4.71|0.2313
91942343|NCT03377452|183781487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the change in the outcome from baseline to 3-months after the last intervention/control session for the intervention group versus the same change in the control group.|||-1.72|-4.91|<0.001
91942344|NCT03146403|183781506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7474|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7474
91942345|NCT03146403|183781507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6450
91942346|NCT03146403|183781508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3157
91942347|NCT03146403|183781509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3869|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3869
91942348|NCT03146403|183781510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2200
91942349|NCT02182999|183781513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.596|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A sample size of 17 patients in each group was previously calculated on the basis of a significance level of .05, a power of 80%, an anticipated pooled standard Deviation (SD) of 1.0 of the mean verbal NRS pain level, and a minimal clinically important difference in the mean verbal NRS pain level of 1.0 points between the groups. Anticipating a loss to follow-up, we planned to recruit a total of 50 patients (25 patients each group).||||0.596
91942350|NCT02182999|183781514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.353
91942351|NCT00926185|183781523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.9381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39|||Dunnett's test||Analysis of covariance model with treatment, baseline, and site.|||0.39|-0.26|0.9381
91942352|NCT00926185|183781523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.2||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.53|||Dunnett's test||Analysis of covariance model with treatment, baseline, and site.|||0.53|-0.13|0.3585
91942353|NCT00926185|183781523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.27||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.6|||Dunnett's test||Analysis of covariance model with treatment, baseline, and site.|||0.60|-0.06|0.1375
91942354|NCT00638690|183781525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.646|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|0.768||Nominal P-value is 0.0142 at interim analysis based on group sequential design.|Log Rank|This was a stratified analysis.||||0.768|0.543|<0.0001
91942355|NCT00638690|183781526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.462|0.728||Nominal P-value = 0.05.|Log Rank|This was a stratified analysis.||||0.728|0.462|<0.0001
91942356|NCT00638690|183781527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.266|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.459|8.018||Nominal P-value = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||8.018|3.459|<0.001
91942357|NCT00638690|183781528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.673|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|0.776||The nominal P-value = 0.05.|Log Rank|This was a stratified analysis.||||0.776|0.585|<0.0001
91942358|NCT02203916|183781532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4502|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.138|-8.497||"Overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 was controlled using principle of 'closed' testing: each pairwise comparison to placebo was conducted at 0.05 level with no p-value adjustment if hypothesis all treatment groups equal was first rejected at 0.05."|ANCOVA|Post-baseline p-values were from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed factor and baseline values as a continuous covariate.||||-8.497|-18.138|<0.001
91942359|NCT02203916|183781532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.77|-10.141||"Overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 was controlled using principle of 'closed' testing: each pairwise comparison to placebo was conducted at 0.05 level with no p-value adjustment if hypothesis all treatment groups equal was first rejected at 0.05."|ANCOVA|Post-baseline p-values were from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed factor and baseline values as a continuous covariate.||||-10.141|-19.770|<0.001
91942360|NCT03152110|183781554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.203
91942361|NCT03152110|183781555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.931
91942362|NCT01620593|183781594|SUPERIORITY|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91942363|NCT03536923|183781601|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0001
91942364|NCT03536923|183781602|OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
91942365|NCT03536923|183781604|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0001
91942366|NCT03054740|183781605|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances (Design: Intercept + Pain Previous IV + Intervention) F = .001, df1 = 1, df2=28, Sig. = .972|||
91815093|NCT02246673|183506958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-15.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.53|-11.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||-11.49|-19.53|<0.0001
91815094|NCT02246673|183506958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-9.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||-5.51|-13.97|<0.0001
91942367|NCT03054740|183781606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.390
91942368|NCT01378299|183781610|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91942369|NCT01378299|183781611|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward||||<0.05
91942370|NCT01378299|183781612|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91942371|NCT01378299|183781613|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91942372|NCT01378299|183781614|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91942373|NCT01378299|183781615|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91942374|NCT01378299|183781616|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91942375|NCT01378299|183781618|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was by intention to treat with the last value carry forward. Those who had at least one follow-up from baseline and with acceptable assay coefficient of variability were included in the analysis. The data of 79 subjects were analyzed; 15 in the GG, 43 in the GA and 21 in the AA genotype.||||<0.05
91942376|NCT01378299|183781619|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91942377|NCT01378299|183781620|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91942378|NCT01378299|183781621|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91942379|NCT01448707|183781626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Non-Linear mixed|-7.9||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|-1.19||P-Value for non-inferiority of DRV/rtv MONO vs DRV/rtv + 2NRTIs (delta = 12%).|Mixed Models Analysis|Predicted response rate:confidence limits are obtained by means of logistic regression model with treatment group and Hepatitis C status as covariates||||-1.19|-14.64|0.2331
91942380|NCT01448707|183781627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and 80% power.|Non-Linear mixed|-10.1||||0.6933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.73|-19.50|0.6933
91942381|NCT01448707|183781628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Week 48: Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and 80% power.|Non-linear mixed model|-3.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.72|-8.77|0.0016
91942382|NCT01448707|183781628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Week 96: Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and 80% power.|non-linear mixed model|-0.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|6.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.58|-7.89|0.0022
91942383|NCT02667392|183781635|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
91942384|NCT02667392|183781636|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91942385|NCT02667392|183781637|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91942386|NCT02667392|183781638|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91942387|NCT02667392|183781639|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91942388|NCT02667392|183781640|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91942389|NCT02667392|183781641|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91942390|NCT02667392|183781642|OTHER|a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05||||||0.0089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0089
91942391|NCT02667392|183781643|OTHER|a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91942392|NCT02667392|183781644|OTHER|a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
91942393|NCT02667392|183781645|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91942394|NCT00383708|183781646|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact test|One-sided p value||The percentage of subjects (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
91942395|NCT00383708|183781647|OTHER|||||||0.1654||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup previously treated with pegvisomant (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.1654
91942396|NCT00383708|183781647|OTHER|||||||0.0115||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup previously treated with lanreotide Autogel (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.0115
91942397|NCT00383708|183781647|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup previously treated with octreotide LAR (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.0003
91942398|NCT00383708|183781648|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup diabetic subjects (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.084
91942399|NCT00383708|183781648|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup non diabetic subjects (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
91942400|NCT00383708|183781649|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup 'while taking final dose during co-administration' (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
91942401|NCT00383708|183781649|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup 'at any time during co-administration' (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
91942402|NCT02033850|183781676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ADL (baseline vs 6 months)||||.145
91942403|NCT02033850|183781676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ADL (6 vs 12 months)||||.618
91942404|NCT02033850|183781676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ADL (baseline vs 12 months)||||.262
91942405|NCT02033850|183781676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on IADL (baseline vs 6 months)||||.240
91942406|NCT02033850|183781676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on IADL (6 vs 12 months)||||.134
91942407|NCT02033850|183781676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on IADL (baseline vs 12 months)||||.457
91942408|NCT02033850|183781676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on DAD (baseline vs 6 months)||||.612
91942409|NCT02033850|183781676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on DAD (6 vs 12 months)||||.522
91942410|NCT02033850|183781676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on DAD (baseline vs 12 months)||||.800
91942411|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on AQ (baseline vs 6 months)||||.204
91942412|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on AQ (6 vs 12 months)||||.810
91942413|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on AQ (baseline vs 12 months)||||.193
91942414|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ index (baseline vs 6 months)||||.698
91942415|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ index (6 vs 12 months)||||.283
91942416|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ index (baseline vs 12 months)||||.647
91942417|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ visual (baseline vs 6 months)||||.057
91942418|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ visual (6 vs 12 months)||||.685
91942419|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ visual (baseline vs 12 months)||||.056
91942420|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on GDS (baseline vs 6 months)||||.393
91942421|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on GDS (6 vs 12 months)||||.958
91942422|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on GDS (baseline vs 12 months)||||.448
91942423|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MCS (baseline vs 6 months)||||.567
91942424|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MCS (6 vs 12 months)||||.274
91942425|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MCS (baseline vs 12 months)||||.668
91942426|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on PCS (baseline vs 6 months)||||.709
91942427|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on PCS (6 vs 12 months)||||.567
91942428|NCT02033850|183781677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on PCS (baseline vs 12 months)||||.867
91942429|NCT02033850|183781678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Chi-squared|||MCS outcome (baseline vs 6 months)||||.095
91942430|NCT02033850|183781678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Chi-squared|||MCS outcome (6 vs 12 months)||||.729
91942431|NCT02033850|183781678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Chi-squared|||MCS outcome (baseline vs 12 months)||||.115
91942432|NCT02033850|183781678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||Chi-squared|||PCS outcome (baseline vs 6 months)||||.576
91942433|NCT02033850|183781678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||Chi-squared|||PCS outcome (6 vs 12 months)||||.191
91942434|NCT02033850|183781678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||PCS outcome (baseline vs 12 months)||||.790
91942435|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MoCA (baseline vs 6 months)||||.936
91942436|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MoCA (6 vs 12 months)||||.188
91942437|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MoCA (baseline vs 12 months)||||.381
91942438|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MMSE (baseline vs 6 months)||||.458
91942439|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MMSE (6 vs 12 months)||||.236
91942440|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MMSE (baseline vs 12 months)||||.601
91942441|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL immediate (baseline vs 6 months)||||.839
91942442|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL immediate (6 vs 12 months)||||.021
91815095|NCT02246673|183506958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-4.98||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect||Cohort 4||-0.76|-9.19|0.0221
91815096|NCT02246673|183506958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-35.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.89|-31.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||-31.87|-38.89|<0.0001
91815097|NCT02246673|183506958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-27.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-23.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||-23.57|-30.60|<0.0001
91815098|NCT02246673|183506958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-31.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.77|-27.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||-27.75|-34.77|<0.0001
91942443|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL immediate (baseline vs 12 months)||||.032
91942444|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL recall (baseline vs 6 months)||||.858
91942445|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL recall (6 vs 12 months)||||.212
91942446|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL recall (baseline vs 12 months)||||.268
91942447|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF recall (baseline vs 6 months)||||.184
91942448|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF recall (6 vs 12 months)||||.358
91942449|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF recall (baseline vs 12 months)||||.768
91942450|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on short story (baseline vs 6 months)||||.164
91942451|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on short story (6 vs 12 months)||||.420
91942452|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on short story (baseline vs 12 months)||||.527
91942453|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on visual search (baseline vs 6 months)||||.762
91942454|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on visual search (6 vs 12 months)||||.405
91942455|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on visual search (baseline vs 12 months)||||.674
91942456|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on SDMT (baseline vs 6 months)||||.328
91942457|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on SDMT (6 vs 12 months)||||.198
91942458|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on SDMT (baseline vs 12 months)||||.639
91942459|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF copy (baseline vs 6 months)||||.098
91942460|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF copy (6 vs 12 months)||||.235
91942461|NCT02033850|183781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF copy (baseline vs 12 months)||||.789
91942462|NCT02033850|183781680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on Stroop test (baseline vs 6 months)||||.743
91942463|NCT02033850|183781680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on Stroop test (6 vs 12 months)||||.428
91942464|NCT02033850|183781680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on Stroop test (baseline vs 12 months)||||.294
91942465|NCT02033850|183781680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-A (baseline vs 6 months)||||.157
91942466|NCT02033850|183781680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-A (6 vs 12 months)||||.094
91942467|NCT02033850|183781680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-A (baseline vs 12 months)||||.476
91942468|NCT02033850|183781680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-B (baseline vs 6 months)||||.142
91942469|NCT02033850|183781680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-B (6 vs 12 months)||||.651
91942470|NCT02033850|183781680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-B (baseline vs 12 months)||||.534
91942471|NCT02033850|183781681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on phonemic fluency (baseline vs 6 months)||||.882
91942472|NCT02033850|183781681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on phonemic fluency (6 vs 12 months)||||.835
91942473|NCT02033850|183781681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on phonemic fluency (baseline vs 12 months)||||.951
91942474|NCT02033850|183781681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on semantic fluency (baseline vs 6 months)||||.392
91942475|NCT02033850|183781681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on semantic fluency (6 vs 12 months)||||.973
91942476|NCT02033850|183781681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on semantic fluency (baseline vs 12 months)||||.486
91942477|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||MoCA variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.920
91942478|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||MoCA variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.170
91942479|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Chi-squared|||MoCA variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.716
91942480|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Chi-squared|||MMSE variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.973
91942481|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Chi-squared|||MMSE variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.973
91942482|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||MMSE variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.300
91942483|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL immed. variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.068
91942484|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL immed. variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.089
91942485|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL immed. variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.241
91942486|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL recall variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.089
91942487|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL recall variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.170
91942488|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL recall variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.413
91942489|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF recall variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.777
91942490|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF recall variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.134
91942491|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF recall variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.498
91815099|NCT02246673|183506959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|24.27||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.57|35.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||35.98|12.57|0.0002
91942492|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Chi-squared|||Short story variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.942
91942493|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Chi-squared|||Short story variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.578
91942494|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||Short story variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.413
91942495|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Visual search variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||1
91942496|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Chi-squared|||Visual search variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.038
91815100|NCT02246673|183506959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|20.08||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.38|31.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||31.79|8.38|0.0013
91942497|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658|||||||Chi-squared|||Visual search variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.658
91942498|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Chi-squared|||SDMT variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.522
91942499|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Chi-squared|||SDMT variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.674
91942500|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||SDMT variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.170
91942501|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Chi-squared|||Stroop test variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.961
91942502|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||Stroop test variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.413
91942503|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Chi-squared|||Stroop test variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.477
91942504|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-A variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.420
91942505|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-A variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.241
91942506|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-A variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.295
91942507|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-B variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.453
91942508|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-B variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.952
91942509|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-B variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.881
91942510|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||Phonemic fluency variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.413
91942511|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Chi-squared|||Phonemic fluency variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.961
91942512|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Chi-squared|||Phonemic fluency variation (baseline vs 12 months)||||.951
91942513|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Chi-squared|||Semantic fluency variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.951
91942514|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Chi-squared|||Semantic fluency variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.674
91942515|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Chi-squared|||Semantic fluency variation (baseline vs 12 months)||||.951
91942516|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF copy variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||1
91942517|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF copy variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.027
91942518|NCT02033850|183781682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF copy variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.169
91942519|NCT02033850|183781683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.478
91942520|NCT02033850|183781684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||"Corrected for multiple comparisons using the 3D parameter settings with threshold-free cluster enhancement.~A priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05"|General linear model voxel-wise|||Z-transformed ReHo difference in vermis VIIIb||||0.029
91942521|NCT02033850|183781684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||"Corrected for multiple comparisons using the 3D parameter settings with threshold-free cluster enhancement.~A priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05"|General linear model voxel-wise|||Z-transformed ReHo difference in right VIIb lobule||||0.04
91942522|NCT02033850|183781684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||"Corrected for multiple comparisons using the 3D parameter settings with threshold-free cluster enhancement.~A priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05"|General linear model voxel-wise|||Z-transformed ReHo difference in left VIIb lobule||||0.039
91942523|NCT02820038|183781685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|Regression model adjusted for whether participant met criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, Other CMI+SMART, DrugFactsBox® (DFB) Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to meet the criteria for Informed Decision-Making at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||2.24|0.52|0.8408
91942524|NCT02820038|183781685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|Regression model adjusted for whether participant met criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or Other CMI+SMART, 1=DFB or DFB + SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to meet the criteria for Informed Decision-Making at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.12|0.66|0.58
91942525|NCT02820038|183781685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|Regression model adjusted for whether participant met criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or DFB Only, 1=Other CMI + SMART or DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to meet the criteria for Informed Decision-Making at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||2.68|0.82|0.1937
91942526|NCT02820038|183781685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.379||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.92|||Regression, Logistic|Sample restricted to participants who did not meet the criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or DFB Only, 1=Other CMI + SMART or DFB+SMART.|In this analysis, participants were restricted to those who did not meet criteria for informed decision-making at baseline.||4.92|1.15|0.0193
91942527|NCT02820038|183781685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.48|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or DFB Only, 1=Other CMI + SMART or DFB+SMART.|In this analysis, participants were restricted to those who met the criteria for informed decision-making at baseline.||1.48|0.19|0.2216
91942528|NCT02820038|183781686|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.75|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in knowledge between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.75|-1.83|0.1630
91942529|NCT02820038|183781686|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.77|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in knowledge between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.|Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|1.77|-2.33|0.7892
91942530|NCT02820038|183781686|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-0.13|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in knowledge between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||-0.13|-4.25|0.0377
91942531|NCT02820038|183781687|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.08|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in values favorable to aggressive therapy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.|Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|1.08|-0.98|0.9216
91815101|NCT02246673|183506959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.23|33.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||33.17|14.23|<0.0001
91815102|NCT02246673|183506959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|18.37||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|28.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||28.44|8.30|0.0008
91815103|NCT02246673|183506959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|18.82||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|32.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||32.79|4.86|0.0101
91815104|NCT02246673|183506959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|20.52||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.56|34.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||34.48|6.56|0.0055
91815105|NCT02246673|183506959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|10.36||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|17.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||17.59|3.13|0.0065
91815106|NCT02246673|183506959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|1.79||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|8.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect||Cohort 4||8.94|-5.37|0.6140
91815107|NCT02246673|183506959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|30.83||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.62|46.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||46.04|15.62|0.0002
91815108|NCT02246673|183506959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|24.38||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.63|39.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||39.14|9.63|0.0019
91815109|NCT02246673|183506959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|26.35||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.59|41.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||41.11|11.59|0.0009
91815110|NCT02246673|183506960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|139.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.92|184.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||184.31|93.92|<0.0001
91815111|NCT02246673|183506960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|174.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|125.52|233.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||233.42|125.52|<0.0001
91815112|NCT02246673|183506960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|168.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.13|212.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||212.93|123.13|<0.0001
91815113|NCT02246673|183506960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|188.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.04|239.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||239.46|138.04|<0.0001
91815114|NCT02246673|183506960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|70.43||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.74|107.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||107.12|33.74|0.0005
91815115|NCT02246673|183506960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|91.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.81|128.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||128.19|54.81|<0.0001
91815116|NCT02246673|183506960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|40.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.17|55.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||55.05|25.17|<0.0001
91815117|NCT02246673|183506960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|15.96||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|30.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||30.71|1.20|0.0350
91815118|NCT02246673|183506960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|236.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|178.29|293.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||293.86|178.29|<0.0001
91815119|NCT02246673|183506960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|146.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.4|202.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||202.01|90.40|<0.0001
91815120|NCT02246673|183506960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|176.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.77|232.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||232.38|120.77|<0.0001
91815121|NCT02246673|183506961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|135.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.33|178.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||178.32|93.33|<0.0001
91815122|NCT02246673|183506961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|178.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.25|227.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||227.90|129.25|<0.0001
91815123|NCT02246673|183506961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|163.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.8|207.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||207.16|120.80|<0.0001
91815124|NCT02246673|183506961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|169.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.82|217.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||217.03|122.82|<0.0001
91815125|NCT02246673|183506961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|59.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|90.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||90.34|28.85|0.0007
91815126|NCT02246673|183506961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|73.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.79|104.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||104.28|42.79|<0.0001
91815127|NCT02246673|183506961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|33.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.21|46.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||46.20|21.21|<0.0001
91815128|NCT02246673|183506961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|27.08||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.58|39.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||39.58|14.58|0.0001
91815129|NCT02246673|183506961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|188.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|152.55|225.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||225.10|152.55|<0.0001
91942532|NCT02820038|183781687|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.17|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in values favoring aggressive therapy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||1.17|-0.45|0.3843
91942533|NCT02820038|183781687|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.09|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in values favoring aggressive therapy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.09|-0.54|0.5090
91942534|NCT02820038|183781688|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.12|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in gist reasoning ability at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.12|-0.77|0.1486
91942535|NCT02820038|183781688|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.22|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.22|-0.47|0.4888
91942536|NCT02820038|183781688|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.38|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.38|-0.32|0.8637
91815130|NCT02246673|183506961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|116.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.76|151.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||151.90|81.76|<0.0001
91815131|NCT02246673|183506961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|151.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|116.59|186.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||186.73|116.59|<0.0001
91815132|NCT05413369|183506968|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Non-inferiority p-value was calculated from a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and randomization stratum of previous oral anti-diabetic drug(OADs) as fixed effects,and baseline HbA1c continuous value as covariate||Statistical analysis for change from baseline in HbA1c||-0.07|-0.33|<0.001
91815133|NCT05413369|183506969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and randomization stratum of previous as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c continuous value as covariate||Statistical analysis for change from baseline in HbA1c||-0.05|-0.35|0.003
91815134|NCT05413369|183506970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.32|-0.66|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups, randomization stratums of HbA1c and previous OADs as fixed effects, and baseline body weight continuous value as covariate.||Statistical analysis for change from baseline in body weight||-0.66|-2.32|<0.001
91815135|NCT05413369|183506971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.25|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment group, randomization stratum of previous OADs, and continuous baseline value of HbA1c||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants reaching HbA1c value \<7% at Week 24||2.85|1.25|<0.001
91815136|NCT05413369|183506972|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.76|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment group, randomization stratum of previous OADs, and continuous baseline value of HbA1c and body weight.||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants reaching HbA1c value \<7% with no body weight gain at Week 24||3.76|1.79|<0.001
91815137|NCT05413369|183506973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment group, randomization stratum of previous OADs, and continuous baseline value of HbA1c and body weight.||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants reaching HbA1c value \<7% with no body weight gain at Week 24 and no hypoglycemia during treatment||3.60|1.52|<0.001
91942537|NCT02820038|183781689|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.66|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater gist reasoning ability at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.66|-0.33|0.5070
91942538|NCT02820038|183781689|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.52|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.52|-0.25|0.4821
91942539|NCT02820038|183781689|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.44|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.44|-0.33|0.7777
91942540|NCT02820038|183781690|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.58|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in satisfaction at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.58|-0.93|0.6084
91942541|NCT02820038|183781690|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.23|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||1.23|-0.71|0.5970
91942542|NCT02820038|183781690|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.31|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.31|-0.65|.5094
91942543|NCT02820038|183781691|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.5866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|3.89|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in satisfaction at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||3.89|-6.85|0.5866
91942544|NCT02820038|183781691|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.8689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|4.52|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||4.52|-3.82|0.8689
91942545|NCT02820038|183781691|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|5.86|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||5.86|-2.53|.4356
91815138|NCT00525733|183507023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
91815139|NCT00189228|183507059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is not a drug study.||||<0.01
91815140|NCT00455429|183507096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.600
91942546|NCT02820038|183781692|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.2366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.26|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in self-efficacy at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||9.26|-2.30|0.2366
91942547|NCT02820038|183781692|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.8841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|4.83|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in self-efficacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||4.83|-4.16|0.8841
91942548|NCT02820038|183781692|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|5.95|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in self-efficacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||5.95|-3.05|0.5264
91942549|NCT02820038|183781693|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.18|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in medication adherence at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||4.18|-4.40|0.9604
91942550|NCT02820038|183781693|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-0.4|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in adherence between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||-0.40|-6.84|0.0279
91942551|NCT02820038|183781693|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.18|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in medication adherence between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||7.18|0.67|0.0184
91942552|NCT02820038|183781694|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.3056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|8.14|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in illness intrusiveness at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||8.14|-2.56|0.3056
91942553|NCT02820038|183781694|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|8.32|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in illness intrusiveness between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||8.32|0.06|0.0466
91815141|NCT00455429|183507096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.822
91815142|NCT00455429|183507096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.656
91815143|NCT00455429|183507097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|2.9|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||2.90|-9.70|0.427
91815144|NCT00455429|183507097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|4.82|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||4.82|-7.37|0.922
91815145|NCT00455429|183507097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|4.21|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||4.21|-6.49|0.919
91815146|NCT00455429|183507098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|23.18|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||23.18|-15.83|0.941
91815147|NCT00455429|183507098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|33.52|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||33.52|-5.12|0.196
91815148|NCT00455429|183507098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|31.86|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||31.86|-2.00|0.096
91815149|NCT00455429|183507099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.460
91815150|NCT00455429|183507099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.479
91815151|NCT00455429|183507099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.462
91815152|NCT00455429|183507100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.363
91815153|NCT00455429|183507100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.968
91815154|NCT00455429|183507100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.501
91815155|NCT00455429|183507101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.333
91815156|NCT00455429|183507101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.527
91815157|NCT00455429|183507101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.353
91815158|NCT00455429|183507102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.631
91815159|NCT00455429|183507102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.523
91815160|NCT00455429|183507102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.101
91815161|NCT00455429|183507103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.429
91815162|NCT00455429|183507103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.206
91815163|NCT00455429|183507103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.107
91815164|NCT00455429|183507104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.097
91815165|NCT00455429|183507104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.077
91815166|NCT00455429|183507104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.489
91815167|NCT00455429|183507105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.566
91815168|NCT00455429|183507105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.382
91815169|NCT00455429|183507105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.282
91815170|NCT00455429|183507106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.206
91815171|NCT00455429|183507106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.433
91815172|NCT00455429|183507106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.290
91815173|NCT00455429|183507107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.484
91815174|NCT00455429|183507107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.952
91815175|NCT00455429|183507107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.350
91815176|NCT04351087|183507109|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis based on (MCID) for the KOOS-Pain, alpha 0.05 \& SD 15 points, 88 patients (44/group) would be required to detect a 9-point difference between treatment groups with 80% power. Due to change in regulatory requirements during accrual, enrollment was halted at 79 patients with 71 meeting inclusion criteria. A repeated power calculation demonstrated that the study achieved 56% power to detect a between-group difference in excess of the 9-point MCID for the KOOS-Pain.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|12.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.92|-8.57|0.69
91815177|NCT01412021|183507124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
91815178|NCT01412021|183507125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
91815179|NCT01412021|183507126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
91815180|NCT01412021|183507127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
91815181|NCT01412021|183507128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
91815182|NCT01412021|183507130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
91815183|NCT01412021|183507132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
91815184|NCT01412021|183507133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
91815185|NCT01412021|183507134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815186|NCT01412021|183507135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815187|NCT01412021|183507136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815188|NCT01412021|183507137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815189|NCT01412021|183507138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815190|NCT01412021|183507139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815191|NCT01412021|183507140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815192|NCT01412021|183507141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815193|NCT01412021|183507142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815194|NCT01412021|183507144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0132
91815195|NCT01412021|183507145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815196|NCT01412021|183507146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815197|NCT01412021|183507147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815198|NCT01412021|183507148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815199|NCT01412021|183507149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815200|NCT01412021|183507150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815201|NCT01412021|183507151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815202|NCT01412021|183507152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815203|NCT01412021|183507153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815204|NCT02448654|183507156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.18
91815205|NCT02448654|183507157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.03
91815206|NCT02448654|183507158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.037
91815207|NCT00484939|183507159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91815208|NCT00484939|183507160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||This statistical analysis compared the number of responders in the 2 treatment groups. A responder was defined as any participant with a best overall response of complete response or partial response. There were 28 responders in the bevacizumab + capecitabine group and 14 responders in the capecitabine group.||||0.029
91815209|NCT00484939|183507163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.130
91815210|NCT02404285|183507172|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91815211|NCT02404285|183507174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91815212|NCT00529542|183507190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|5.3||All hypotheses tests were two-sided.|Linear mixed-effects models|Linear mixed-effects models were fit to continuous outcomes to assess the change from baseline to 6 weeks between groups.|This analysis revealed that the required sample size was 235 subjects per group for 80% power to detect an absolute 2% increase in FMD with Atorvastatin vs. Placebo. We stopped the trial because we had insufficient funds for the required sample size.|This study was initiated as a pilot study with the goal of enrolling 19 women in each group, which we hypothesized would provide 80% power to detect an absolute difference in the change in FMD from baseline between the two groups (Atorvastatin vs. Placebo) of 3.75%, assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 4%, using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with α=0.05. Recruitment was slow due to strict inclusion/ exclusion criteria so we analyzed our data after the first 20 women completed the study.||5.3|-9.3|0.58
91815213|NCT00529542|183507191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||2.3|-0.9|0.39
91815214|NCT00529542|183507192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.2|-46.4|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-46.4|-95.2|<0.001
91815215|NCT00529542|183507193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.3|-35.9|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-35.9|-79.3|<0.001
91815216|NCT00529542|183507194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.5|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||9.5|-2.7|0.26
91815217|NCT00529542|183507195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-82.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.2|-38.1|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-38.1|-126.2|<0.001
91815218|NCT00529542|183507196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.8|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||5.8|-12.4|0.45
91815219|NCT00529542|183507197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.9|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||7.9|-2.8|0.33
91815220|NCT00529542|183507198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|586.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1811.0|2983.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||2983|-1811|0.61
91815221|NCT00529542|183507199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3385.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.0|7056.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||7056|-287|0.07
91815222|NCT00529542|183507200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|27.8|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||27.8|-24.1|0.88
91815223|NCT00529542|183507201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.5|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-0.5|-1.6|<0.001
91815224|NCT00529542|183507202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-364.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-655.3|-73.2|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-73.2|-655.3|0.02
91815225|NCT00529542|183507203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.5|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||1.5|-6.4|0.21
91815226|NCT00529542|183507204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|5.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||5.0|-16.9|0.27
91815227|NCT00529542|183507205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|0.1|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||0.1|-15.8|0.05
91815228|NCT00529542|183507206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|13.7|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||13.7|-6.8|0.48
91815229|NCT00529542|183507207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||1.0|-0.6|0.63
91815230|NCT06002958|183507216|OTHER||Cohen's d|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.815|0.255|||||Inner|||0.255|-0.815|
91815231|NCT06002958|183507216|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|0.545|||||Outer|||0.545|-0.503|
91815232|NCT06002958|183507216|OTHER||Cohen's d|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.225|||||Individual|||0.225|-0.850|
91815233|NCT06002958|183507216|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.534|||||Process|||0.534|-0.850|
91815234|NCT05760300|183507222|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|84.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.1|119.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||119|60.1|
91815235|NCT05760300|183507222|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.8|133.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||133|80.8|
91815236|NCT05760300|183507223|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.6|175.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||175|63.6|
91815237|NCT05760300|183507223|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.8|151.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||151|77.8|
91815238|NCT05760300|183507224|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|83.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.4|104.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||104|67.4|
91815239|NCT05760300|183507224|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.2|179.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||179|56.2|
91815240|NCT05760300|183507225|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.1|143.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||143|65.1|
91815241|NCT05760300|183507225|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|77.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.7|142.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||142|42.7|
91815242|NCT05760300|183507230|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|160.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.2|263.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||263|97.2|
91815243|NCT05760300|183507230|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|65.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.0|124.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||124|35.0|
91815244|NCT05760300|183507230|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.3|141.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||141|53.3|
91815245|NCT05760300|183507230|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.4|105.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||105|50.4|
91815246|NCT05760300|183507231|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|139.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.8|221.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||221|87.8|
91815247|NCT05760300|183507231|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|66.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.3|120.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||120|37.3|
91815248|NCT05760300|183507231|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.5|135.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||135|54.5|
91815249|NCT05760300|183507231|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.4|100.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||100|49.4|
91815250|NCT05760300|183507232|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.7|217.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||217|32.7|
91815251|NCT05760300|183507232|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.1|112.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||112|30.1|
91815252|NCT05760300|183507232|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|85.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.1|135.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||135|54.1|
91815253|NCT05760300|183507232|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|69.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.9|99.2|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||99.2|48.9|
91815254|NCT05477875|183507237|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.538|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.538
91815255|NCT05477875|183507238|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.538|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.538
91815256|NCT05477875|183507239|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.516|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.516
91815257|NCT05477875|183507240|EQUIVALENCE|"Alpha = 0.05, two-way ANOVA with Group x Time Points as fixed factors and PROWL-SS from (1-100) as the dependent variable."|||||<|0.851|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.851
91815258|NCT05477875|183507241|EQUIVALENCE|"Alpha = 0.05, two-way ANOVA with Group x Time Points as fixed factors and QIRC from (1-100) as the dependent variable."|||||<|0.543|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.543
91815259|NCT05477875|183507242|EQUIVALENCE|"Alpha = 0.05, two-way ANOVA with Group x Time Points as fixed factors and OSDI from (0-48) as the dependent variable."||||||0.725|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.725
91815260|NCT05477875|183507243|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.516|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.516
91815261|NCT03989440|183507255|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.54||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-1.48|0.59
91815262|NCT03989440|183507256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.56||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-3.62|0.13
91815263|NCT03989440|183507257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-2.81|0.16
91815264|NCT03989440|183507258|SUPERIORITY||% Difference in responder rate|-9.3||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|25.4|||Fisher Exact|||||25.4|-43.3|0.68
91815265|NCT01955161|183507259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.26||Corrected for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||1.26|-0.59|0.9591
91815266|NCT01955161|183507259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.98||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||0.98|-0.88|1.000
91815267|NCT01955161|183507260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.21||Corrected for multiplicity according toe the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||1.21|-1.37|1.000
91815268|NCT01955161|183507260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.31||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||1.31|-1.29|1.000
91815269|NCT01955161|183507261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||0.20|-0.15|1.000
91815270|NCT01955161|183507261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.02||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, ADAS-cog total score and either ADCS-ADL23 total score or ADCS CGIC had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||0.02|-0.34|1.000
91815271|NCT04608500|183507270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|5.54|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||5.54|2.16|<0.0001
91815272|NCT04608500|183507271|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.263||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|1.499||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||||1.499|1.064|0.0077
91815273|NCT04608500|183507272|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.193||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.39||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by Analysis Center||||1.390|1.024|0.0189
91815274|NCT04608500|183507273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.672|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|16.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||16.54|6.05|<0.0001
91815275|NCT04608500|183507274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.821|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|5.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 4||5.99|2.77|<0.0001
91815276|NCT04608500|183507274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|6.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 8||6.63|3.52|<0.0001
91815277|NCT04608500|183507275|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.715||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.129|2.605||p-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 4||2.605|1.129|0.0114
91815278|NCT04608500|183507275|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.319||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.082|1.607||p-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 8||1.607|1.082|0.0061
91815279|NCT01925404|183507277|SUPERIORITY|We fitted difference-in-differences (DID) models between the two measurement waves and four study arms. The effect of the intervention was modeled as the wave by study arm interaction. All models used random effects to account for intra-class correlation within each park as well as fixed effects to account for observation times (time of day, weekend versus weekdays).||||||0.0063||||||Significance threshold. p=0.05|negative binomial distribution|||Comparison of change from baseline;||||.0063
91815280|NCT00697515|183507305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91815281|NCT00697515|183507306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||ANOVA|||2.0 hours post-dose||||0.0017
91815282|NCT00697515|183507306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||4.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815283|NCT00697515|183507306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||8.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815284|NCT00697515|183507306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815285|NCT00697515|183507306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815286|NCT00697515|183507306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||14.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815287|NCT00697515|183507307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Average over the treatment day||||<0.0001
91815288|NCT00697515|183507307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||2.0 hours post-dose||||0.0010
91815289|NCT00697515|183507307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||4.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815290|NCT00697515|183507307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||8.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815291|NCT00697515|183507307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815292|NCT00697515|183507307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815293|NCT00697515|183507307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||14.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815294|NCT00697515|183507308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Over the treatment day||||<0.0001
91815295|NCT00697515|183507308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||ANOVA|||2.0 hours post-dose||||0.0031
91815296|NCT00697515|183507308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||4.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815297|NCT00697515|183507308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||8.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815298|NCT00697515|183507308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815299|NCT00697515|183507308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815300|NCT00697515|183507308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||14.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
91815301|NCT00697515|183507309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91815302|NCT00697515|183507310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91815303|NCT00697515|183507313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Prescott's Test|||||||<0.0001
91815304|NCT00697515|183507314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91815305|NCT00697515|183507316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91815306|NCT00697515|183507317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91815307|NCT05954052|183507322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|14.24|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the analysis of (ABC) scores at baseline and 12 weeks in this single-arm, open-label pilot study (n=6 participants, all with paired data including the early dropout), we use superiority test, This aligns with the study's hypothesis that oral glutathione supplementation would lead to an improvement (i.e., a decrease in ABC scores, indicating reduced irritability). Superiority testing evaluates whether the post-treatment mean (or median) is significantly lower than the baseline||14.24|-6.24|0.1807
91815308|NCT05517382|183507392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At baseline||||0.20
91815309|NCT05517382|183507392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Post game||||0.59
91815310|NCT05517382|183507392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At 3 month||||0.94
91815311|NCT05517382|183507392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||GEE|Controlling for baseline thriving status, this reflects the interaction between the intervention group and time.||||||0.55
91815312|NCT05517382|183507393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Group effect.|At post game.||0.04|-0.23|0.1759
91815313|NCT05517382|183507393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Group effect.|At 3 month||0.02|-0.35|0.0857
91815314|NCT03886220|183507402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|9.546||P-value for test of difference between elagolix dose group and placebo is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.546|1.086|0.035
91815315|NCT02461225|183507447|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0005
91815316|NCT02461225|183507448|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91815317|NCT03526458|183507449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|28.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||28.9|4.4|0.012
91815318|NCT03526458|183507450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|26.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||26.3|-3.6|0.132
91815319|NCT03526458|183507451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.9|-4.4|0.654
91815320|NCT03526458|183507452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.299
91815321|NCT03526458|183507453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.076
91815322|NCT03526458|183507454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|143.9||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.0|306.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||306.8|-286|0.943
91815323|NCT03526458|183507455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.185
91942554|NCT02820038|183781694|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|3.9|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in illness intrusiveness between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||3.90|-4.38|0.9106
91942555|NCT02820038|183781695|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group..|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in health distress at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.10|-0.57|0.1762
91815324|NCT00651755|183507464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.33|||90% CI||Ratio Geometric Mean AUC (Area Under Curve) of Analyte,CP, between Aprepitant treatment to control Group.|||1.33|1.08|
91815325|NCT00651755|183507465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|ratio Geometric mean AUC|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.86|||equivalence analysis||The geometric mean AUC ratio is the ratio of geometric mean AUC between aprepitant treatment and the control group|||0.86|0.65|
91815326|NCT00651755|183507466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13|||equivalence analysis|The geometric mean AUC ratio is the ratio of geometric mean AUC between aprepitant treatment to the control group|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC of Analyte, 4-OHCP, between Aprepitant treatment to control Group|||1.13|0.83|
91815327|NCT00651755|183507467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.33|||equivalence analysis||Ratio Geometric Mean AUC (Area Under Curve) of Analyte, VC, Between Aprepitant treatment to control Group.|||1.33|0.82|
91815328|NCT00651755|183507468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||||90.0|1.02|1.15|||equivalence analysis||The geometric mean AUC ratio is the ratio of geometric mean AUC between aprepitant treatment and the control group.|||1.15|1.02|
91815329|NCT00651755|183507469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.32|||equivalence analysis||Ratio Geometric Mean AUC (Area Under Curve) of Analyte,PL, Between Aprepitant treatment to control Group.|||1.32|1.01|
91815330|NCT03760146|183507507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Serotype 1: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.90|0.71|
91815331|NCT03760146|183507507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.93||||||Serotype 3: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.93|0.78|
91815332|NCT03760146|183507507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||||||Serotype 4: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.93|0.71|
91815333|NCT03760146|183507507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94||||||Serotype 5: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.94|0.74|
91815334|NCT03760146|183507507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.88||||||Serotype 6A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.88|0.66|
91815335|NCT03760146|183507507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95||||||Serotype 6B: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.95|0.73|
91815336|NCT03760146|183507507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96||||||Serotype 7F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.96|0.77|
91815337|NCT03760146|183507507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05||||||Serotype 9V: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.05|0.82|
91815338|NCT03760146|183507507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||||||Serotype 14: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.13|0.89|
91815339|NCT03760146|183507507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.97||||||Serotype 18C: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.97|0.74|
91815340|NCT03760146|183507507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Serotype 19A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.90|0.71|
91815341|NCT03760146|183507507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.91||||||Serotype 19F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.91|0.70|
91815342|NCT03760146|183507507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||||||Serotype 23F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.97|0.70|
91815343|NCT03760146|183507508|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.62||||||Serotype 8: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.62|0.49|
91815344|NCT03760146|183507508|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.12||||||Serotype 10A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.12|1.63|
91815345|NCT03760146|183507508|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.01||||||Serotype 11A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.01|1.52|
91815346|NCT03760146|183507508|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.72||||||Serotype 12F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.72|1.27|
91815347|NCT03760146|183507508|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|3.71||||||Serotype 15B: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||3.71|2.62|
91815348|NCT03760146|183507508|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.32||||||Serotype 22F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.32|1.70|
91815349|NCT03760146|183507508|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.57||||||Serotype 33F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.57|1.21|
91815350|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26||||||Serotype 1: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.26|0.84|
91815351|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.22||||||Serotype 3: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.22|0.92|
91815352|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||||||Serotype 4: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.38|0.87|
91815353|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||Serotype 5: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.07|0.72|
91815354|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.53||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.53|0.95|
91815355|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.56||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.56|1.00|
91815356|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.07|0.74|
91815357|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.26|0.83|
91815358|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.54||||||Serotype 14: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.54|1.01|
91815359|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.68||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.68|1.06|
91815360|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.25|0.85|
91815361|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.22|0.80|
91815362|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.22||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.22|1.27|
91815363|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2||||||Serotype 8: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.20|0.78|
91815364|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.28|0.84|
91815365|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.56||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.56|0.96|
91815366|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.39||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.39|0.88|
91815367|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.56||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.56|0.88|
91815368|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.17|0.69|
91815369|NCT03760146|183507509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.30|0.81|
91815370|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5||||||Serotype 1: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.50|1.01|
91815371|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||||||Serotype 3: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.16|0.87|
91815372|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.13||||||Serotype 4: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.13|2.65|
91815373|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36||||||Serotype 5: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.36|0.91|
91815374|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.83||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.83|3.06|
91815375|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|4.26||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.26|2.73|
91815376|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.91||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.91|1.30|
91815377|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|4.33||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.33|2.83|
91815378|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|2.96||||||Serotype 14: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.96|1.93|
91815379|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|4.04||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.04|2.53|
91815380|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.81||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.81|1.91|
91815381|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.68||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.68|1.76|
91815382|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|6.32||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||6.32|3.65|
91815383|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.12||||||Serotype 8: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.12|1.38|
91815384|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.0||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.00|1.31|
91815385|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.68||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.68|1.04|
91815386|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.41||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.41|1.51|
91815387|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.05||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.05|1.13|
91815388|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.20|1.30|
91815389|NCT03760146|183507510|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.79||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.79|1.10|
91815390|NCT00449644|183507520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.77||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|61.23|||Cox proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||||61.23|2.26|0.0034
91815391|NCT00449644|183507521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.8|||Cox proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||||3.80|1.57|<0.0001
91815392|NCT00449644|183507522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.53|||Cox-proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||||6.53|1.51|0.0022
91815393|NCT00449644|183507523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.59|||Cox proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||MGIT negative (Responders)||2.59|1.05|0.0290
91815394|NCT00449644|183507524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.38||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.97|63.88|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 8||63.88|13.97|0.003
91815395|NCT00449644|183507524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.12||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|42.17|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 24||42.17|-10.70|0.237
91815396|NCT00449644|183507524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.02||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.37|39.18|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 104 (Stage 1 Trial End)||39.18|-21.37|0.5564
91815397|NCT00449644|183507525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|36.83|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 24||36.83|5.59|0.008
91815398|NCT00449644|183507525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.27||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|31.51|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 72||31.51|-1.21|0.069
91815399|NCT00449644|183507525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|35.08|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 120||35.08|1.28|0.035
91815400|NCT01566461|183507526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||||||<0.001
91815401|NCT01566461|183507527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91815402|NCT01566461|183507528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91815403|NCT01566461|183507529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.926
91815404|NCT01566461|183507530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91815405|NCT01566461|183507531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91815406|NCT01566461|183507532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.859
91815407|NCT01566461|183507533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
91815408|NCT01566461|183507534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.096
91815409|NCT01566461|183507535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91815410|NCT01566461|183507536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.121
91815411|NCT01566461|183507537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91815412|NCT01566461|183507538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91815413|NCT01566461|183507539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.095
91815414|NCT01566461|183507540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.878
91815415|NCT01566461|183507541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.590
91815416|NCT01566461|183507542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.302
91815417|NCT01566461|183507543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.111
91815418|NCT01566461|183507544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.103
91815419|NCT01566461|183507545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.049
91815420|NCT05778786|183507564|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.0 logMAR was used.|Least-Square Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1|||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 9 subjects provide at least 99% statistical power to test for superiority.||-0.10||
91815421|NCT05778786|183507565|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 62 points was used.|Least-quares mean|69.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|65.2||||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 165 subjects provide at least 99% statistical power to test for superiority.|||65.2|
91815422|NCT05778786|183507566|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.80 was used|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.974|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.989|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|Method used is Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.989|0.950|
91815423|NCT05778786|183507567|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.80 was used|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|0.997|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Method used is Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.997|0.976|
91815424|NCT05778786|183507568|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.80 was used|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|0.997|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|Method used is Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.997|0.977|
91815425|NCT05778786|183507569|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.05 was used.|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.01 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible Interval.||0.010|0.000|
91815426|NCT05778786|183507570|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 58 points was used.|Least-squares Mean|66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|61.2||||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 135 subjects provide at least 97% statistical power to test for superiority.|||61.2|
91815427|NCT05778786|183507571|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 61 points was used.|Least-squares Mean|69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|66.6||||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 135 subjects provide at least 97% statistical power to test for superiority.|||66.6|
91815428|NCT00663052|183507599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|18.34||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.88|||Fisher Exact||Primary endpoint used 95% CI to compare to prespecified target rates for each treatment arm.|With 125 participants/group, estimation was: 1)approximately 90% power to reject null hypothesis- PASI 75 response rate at 24 weeks: 50% in ETN 50 mg QW, assuming true rate is 65% or greater; 2)90% power to reject null hypothesis- PASI 75 response rate at 24 weeks: 60% in 50 mg BIW, assuming true rate is 74% or greater. The 95% CI widths on these are approximately ±8.8%, indicating PASI 75 for ETN 50 mg QW and ETN 50 mg BIW must be at least 58.8% \& 68.8%, respectively to reject null hypotheses.||29.88|6.80|0.0015
91815429|NCT00663052|183507600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.14||||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|10.16|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||10.16|-3.88|0.3605
91815430|NCT00663052|183507600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|17.91||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|29.32|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||29.32|6.50|0.0013
91815431|NCT00663052|183507600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.51|31.7|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||31.70|7.51|0.0011
91815432|NCT00663052|183507600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|20.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.77|30.4|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||30.40|9.77|<.0001
91815433|NCT00663052|183507600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|23.37|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||23.37|5.39|0.0010
91815434|NCT00663052|183507600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.75||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|19.16|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||19.16|2.35|0.0087
91815435|NCT00663052|183507600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.46||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|20.15|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||20.15|2.77|0.0068
91815436|NCT00663052|183507601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|1.5||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|4.32|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||4.32|-1.31|0.2435
91815437|NCT00663052|183507601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|1.64||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.67|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||7.67|-4.40|0.5929
91815438|NCT00663052|183507601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.44||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|24.86|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||24.86|2.02|0.0156
91815439|NCT00663052|183507601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|25.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.89|37.47|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||37.47|12.89|<.0001
91815440|NCT00663052|183507601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|21.84||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.82|33.85|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||33.85|9.82|0.0003
91815441|NCT00663052|183507601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|31.38|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||31.38|8.23|0.0006
91815442|NCT00663052|183507601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|18.34||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.88|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||29.88|6.80|0.0015
91815443|NCT00663052|183507602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.74||The P-value at Week 2 was not applicable as the percentage of participants achieving 90% improvement in PASI in both treatment groups were 0%.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.74|-0.74|
91815444|NCT00663052|183507602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|2.81|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||2.81|-2.77|1.0000
91815445|NCT00663052|183507602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.94||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|11.07|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||11.07|-3.20|0.2611
91815446|NCT00663052|183507602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|18.37||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|28.45|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||28.45|8.30|0.0002
91815447|NCT00663052|183507602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|17.31||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|29.19|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||29.19|5.43|0.0031
91815448|NCT00663052|183507602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|15.92||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|28.04|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||28.04|3.80|0.0081
91815449|NCT00663052|183507602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|16.78||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|29.1|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||29.10|4.46|0.0064
91815450|NCT00663052|183507603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.74||The P-value at Week 2 was to be calculated by Fisher Exact method but was not estimable as the percentage of participants achieving 100% improvement in PASI in both treatment groups were 0%.||||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.74|-0.74|
91815451|NCT00663052|183507603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-0.73||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.44|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||1.44|-2.90|1.0000
91815452|NCT00663052|183507603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-1.46||||0.4983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|1.29|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||1.29|-4.21|0.4983
91815453|NCT00663052|183507603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|1.57||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|6.37|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||6.37|-3.23|0.4957
91815454|NCT00663052|183507603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.14||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|9.52|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||9.52|-3.24|0.3115
91815455|NCT00663052|183507603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.99||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|15.1|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||15.10|-1.13|0.0773
91815456|NCT00663052|183507603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.53||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|13.87|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||13.87|-2.82|0.1830
91815457|NCT00663052|183507604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.3||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||-0.3|-2.3|0.0103
91815458|NCT00663052|183507604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.8||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.6|-3.0|0.0031
91815459|NCT00663052|183507604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-1.7|-4.4|<0.0001
91815460|NCT00663052|183507604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-2.2|-5.0|<0.0001
91815461|NCT00663052|183507604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-1.5|-4.0|<0.0001
91815462|NCT00663052|183507604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.1||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.8|-3.3|0.0012
91815463|NCT00663052|183507604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.0||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||-0.7|-3.4|0.0042
91815464|NCT00663052|183507605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 50. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||<0.0001
91815465|NCT00663052|183507605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 75. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||<0.0001
91815466|NCT00663052|183507605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 90. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0053
91815467|NCT00663052|183507605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 100. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0432
91815468|NCT00663052|183507606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.74|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.74|-0.74|
91815469|NCT00663052|183507606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-0.73||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.44|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||1.44|-2.90|1.0000
91815470|NCT00663052|183507606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|3.67|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||3.67|-3.58|1.0000
91815471|NCT00663052|183507606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.1||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|12.47|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||12.47|-0.26|0.0401
91815472|NCT00663052|183507606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.29||||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|11.54|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||11.54|-4.95|0.4415
91815473|NCT00663052|183507606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.6||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|17.87|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||17.87|-0.67|0.0617
91815474|NCT00663052|183507606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.64||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|18.24|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||18.24|-0.96|0.0720
91815475|NCT00663052|183507607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-1.45||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|2.16|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||2.16|-5.07|0.6223
91815476|NCT00663052|183507607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.21||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|13.98|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||13.98|-1.56|0.1000
91815477|NCT00663052|183507607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|15.59||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|26.65|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||26.65|4.53|0.0037
91815478|NCT00663052|183507607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|22.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|34.33|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||34.33|9.75|0.0004
91815479|NCT00663052|183507607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.46||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|25.97|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||25.97|0.94|0.0285
91815480|NCT00663052|183507607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|15.05||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|27.43|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||27.43|2.67|0.0139
91815481|NCT00663052|183507607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.56||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.38|31.74|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||31.74|7.38|0.0012
91815482|NCT00663052|183507608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.01||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|16.03|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||16.03|-6.01|0.3956
91815483|NCT00663052|183507608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.66||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|21.14|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||21.14|-3.82|0.1754
91815484|NCT00663052|183507608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.81||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|25.72|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||25.72|1.90|0.0207
91815485|NCT00663052|183507608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.23|29.53|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||29.53|9.23|<0.0001
91815486|NCT00663052|183507608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.54||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|23.29|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||23.29|3.79|0.0044
91815487|NCT00663052|183507608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.62||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|20.13|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||20.13|1.11|0.0223
91815488|NCT00663052|183507608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.37||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|20.78|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||20.78|1.96|0.0133
91815489|NCT00663052|183507609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison between treatment groups for PGA Clear/Almost Clear (0,1). Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0003
91815490|NCT00663052|183507609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison between treatment groups for PGA Clear/Almost Clear/Mild (0,1,2). Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0022
91815491|NCT00663052|183507610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||-0.0|-0.3|0.0193
91815492|NCT00663052|183507610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.1|-0.4|0.0114
91815493|NCT00663052|183507610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.2|-0.5|0.0006
91815494|NCT00663052|183507610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
91815495|NCT00663052|183507610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.1|-0.5|0.0058
91815496|NCT00663052|183507610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.1|-0.6|0.0018
91815497|NCT00663052|183507610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||-0.2|-0.6|0.0009
91815498|NCT00663052|183507611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.6396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.2|-0.3|0.6396
91815499|NCT00663052|183507611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.1|-0.7|0.0074
91815500|NCT00663052|183507611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.2|-0.9|0.0007
91815501|NCT00663052|183507611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
91815502|NCT00663052|183507611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.1|-0.8|0.0040
91815503|NCT00663052|183507611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.3|-0.9|0.0004
91815504|NCT00663052|183507611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||-0.1|-0.5|0.1799
91815505|NCT00663052|183507612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.7757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.3|-0.2|0.7757
91815506|NCT00663052|183507612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||0.1|-0.4|0.2112
91815507|NCT00663052|183507612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||0.2|-0.3|0.5467
91815508|NCT00663052|183507612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.3684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.1|-0.4|0.3684
91815509|NCT00663052|183507612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||-0.2046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||0.1|-0.4|-0.2046
91815510|NCT00663052|183507612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||0.0|-0.5|0.0649
91815511|NCT00663052|183507612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.8683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.2|-0.3|0.8683
91815512|NCT00663052|183507613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.8898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.2|-0.3|0.8898
91815513|NCT00663052|183507613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.1|-0.7|0.0090
91815514|NCT00663052|183507613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.2|-0.7|0.0028
91815515|NCT00663052|183507613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.3|-0.9|0.0001
91815516|NCT00663052|183507613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
91815517|NCT00663052|183507613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.2|-0.8|0.0016
91815518|NCT00663052|183507613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.0|-0.6|0.0602
91815519|NCT00663052|183507616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.42||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.55|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||8.55|-7.70|1.0000
91815520|NCT00663052|183507616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.94||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|13.63|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||13.63|-5.75|0.4213
91815521|NCT00663052|183507616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.98||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|13.35|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||13.35|-5.38|0.4039
91815522|NCT00663052|183507616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|2.5||||0.6168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|11.88|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||11.88|-6.87|0.6168
91815523|NCT00663052|183507617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||||2.3|-2.8|0.8620
91815524|NCT00663052|183507618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.68||||0.3525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|17.4|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||17.40|-6.05|0.3525
91815525|NCT00663052|183507618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.7||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|27.2|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||27.20|2.19|0.0202
91815526|NCT00663052|183507618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.41||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|26.64|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||26.64|2.17|0.0178
91815527|NCT00663052|183507618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|21.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|32.03|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||32.03|11.02|<0.0001
91815528|NCT00663052|183507618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.53||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|20.64|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||20.64|0.43|0.0325
91815529|NCT00663052|183507618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|12.04||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|21.97|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||21.97|2.10|0.0129
91815530|NCT00663052|183507618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.28||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|21.3|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||21.30|1.26|0.0209
91815531|NCT00663052|183507619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|12.1||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|24.44|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||24.44|-0.24|0.0461
91815532|NCT00663052|183507619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.83||||0.1314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|20.1|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||20.10|-2.44|0.1314
91815533|NCT00663052|183507619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.2||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|21.74|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||21.74|0.65|0.0289
91815534|NCT00663052|183507619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.52||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|17.07|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||17.07|-0.04|0.0433
91815535|NCT00663052|183507619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.06||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|15.43|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||15.43|-1.32|0.0902
91815536|NCT00663052|183507619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.79||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|16.26|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||16.26|-0.68|0.0630
91815537|NCT00663052|183507619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.7||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|16.93|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||16.93|-1.53|0.0907
91815538|NCT00663052|183507622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.25||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|15.9|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||15.90|-9.39|0.6255
91815539|NCT00663052|183507622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|9.3||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|21.45|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||21.45|-2.85|0.1292
91815540|NCT00663052|183507622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.86||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|22.78|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||22.78|0.94|0.0251
91815541|NCT00663052|183507622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.16||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|24.64|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||24.64|3.68|0.0055
91815542|NCT00663052|183507622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.99||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|22.2|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||22.20|1.78|0.0159
91815543|NCT00663052|183507622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|9.05||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|19.18|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||19.18|-1.08|0.0672
91815544|NCT00663052|183507622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.51||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|20.75|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||20.75|0.27|0.0351
91815545|NCT00663052|183507623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.24||||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|16.58|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||16.58|-4.11|0.2283
91815546|NCT00663052|183507623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.49||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|14.66|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||14.66|-3.68|0.2326
91815547|NCT00663052|183507623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|18.52|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||18.52|1.47|0.0165
91815548|NCT00663052|183507623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|18.52|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||18.52|1.47|0.0165
91815549|NCT00663052|183507623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|4.85||||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|13.15|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||13.15|-3.46|0.2536
91815550|NCT00663052|183507623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.6||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|13.78|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||13.78|-2.59|0.1761
91815551|NCT00663052|183507623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|4.01||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|13.2|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||13.20|-5.18|0.3943
91815552|NCT00663052|183507624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.8|-1.5|0.5748
91815553|NCT00663052|183507624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.2||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.0|-2.4|0.0471
91815554|NCT00663052|183507624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.7|-3.3|0.0025
91815555|NCT00663052|183507624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.2||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.9|-3.5|0.0009
91815556|NCT00663052|183507624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.7|-3.1|0.0015
91815557|NCT00663052|183507624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.5||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.2|-2.7|0.0197
91815558|NCT00663052|183507624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.3||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.0|-2.6|0.0506
91942556|NCT02820038|183781695|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.15|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in health distress between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.15|-0.36|0.4186
91815559|NCT00663052|183507625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.04||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.09|0.00|0.0435
91815560|NCT00663052|183507625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.05||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.10|0.01|0.0275
91815561|NCT00663052|183507626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.9473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.7|-0.7|0.9473
91815562|NCT00663052|183507626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.6|-0.8|0.8217
91815563|NCT00663052|183507627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Adjusted Mean Change|-0.7||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.0|-1.4|0.0539
91815564|NCT00663052|183507627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Adjusted Mean Change|-0.5||||0.1494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.2|-1.3|0.1494
91815565|NCT00663052|183507633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||||0.2139
91815566|NCT00663052|183507633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||||1.0000
91815567|NCT00663052|183507635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||||0.2443
91815568|NCT00663052|183507635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||||1.0000
91815569|NCT00663052|183507636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups at Week 12||||0.0807
91815570|NCT00663052|183507636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1454|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups at Week 24||||0.1454
91815571|NCT01252940|183507650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups in the percentages of virologic success was constructed using normal approximation. Noninferiority was assessed using a conventional 95% CI approach, with a noninferiority margin of 12%. It would be concluded that the FTC/RPV/TDF STR group was not inferior to the SBR group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (FTC/RPV/TDF STR - SBR) in the response rate was greater than -12%.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.1||||||||9.1|-1.6|
91815572|NCT03939897|183507695|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.506|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5060
91815573|NCT03939897|183507698|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.2989|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2989
91815574|NCT00706641|183507818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Tumor samples from 20 patients were analyzed for expression of pSFK. A paired t-Test was used to calculate the significance of the difference in expression levels before and after treatment.||||0.003
91815575|NCT00706641|183507821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.20
91815576|NCT00706641|183507822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.42
91815577|NCT01327300|183507849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The GIS scoring system is from 1-7 with one being a worse outcome and 7 the better outcome.~Comparisons below list the p values for comparison of difference in GIS between baseline and mesalamine."||||.001
91815578|NCT01327300|183507849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of mean difference in GIS scores between baseline and placebo is made below.||||0.008
91815579|NCT01327300|183507850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Correlation coefficients were used for each of three biomarkers in relation to other biomarkers and to the questionnaires and patient's symptoms.||||0.873
91815580|NCT01327300|183507850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pearson's linear coefficient||The study tested three biomarkers and symptom domains at baseline and the end of 12 weeks of placebo using the Mann-Whitney test, as well as correlations between domains with Pearson's linear correlation coefficient.||||0.810
91815581|NCT01327300|183507851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.5||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed P values are listed for baseline versus 12 weeks of mesalamine||"The FBDSI score is based on the severity of abdominal pian. Severity is rated as the following:~None= 0 points Mild= (1-36) Moderate =(37-110) Severe= (\>110 points)"||||0.67
91815582|NCT01327300|183507851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||See prior description of the FBDSI score. Change in the FBDSI after 12 weeks of intervention is made using a two sided t-test.||||0.77
91815583|NCT01327300|183507852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the IBS QOL we compared the change in IBS-Quality of Life (IBS-QOL) after 12 weeks of mesalamine.||||0.61
91815584|NCT01327300|183507852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in IBS-Quality of Life (IBS-QOL)from baseline after 12 weeks of intervention was made.||||0.33
91815585|NCT01327300|183507853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.71||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in HADS score of baseline to 12 weeks of mesalamine is made.||||0.71
91815586|NCT01327300|183507853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in HADS score between baseline and after 12 weeks of placebo is made.||||0.57
91815587|NCT01327300|183507854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the lactulose/mannitol ratio is made after a 12 week intervention with mesalamine to 12 weeks of placebo.||||0.55
91815588|NCT05620576|183507855|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.82|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.82|-0.61|
91815589|NCT05620576|183507856|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.99|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.99|-0.47|
91815590|NCT05620576|183507857|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.78|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.78|-0.11|
91815591|NCT05620576|183507858|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.96|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.96|-0.56|
91815592|NCT05620576|183507859|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|7.75|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||7.75|-9.41|
91815593|NCT05620576|183507860|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.24|-0.51|
91815594|NCT05620576|183507861|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.11|
91815595|NCT05620576|183507862|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|23.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.05|152.33|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||152.33|-108.05|
91815596|NCT02603432|183507863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.863||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model.||||0.863|0.556|0.0005
91815597|NCT02603432|183507886|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.26||||0.913|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.901||||Log Rank||||||0.901|0.9130
91815598|NCT02666183|183507889|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-2.251||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.051|0.55|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.550|-5.051|0.162
91815599|NCT02666183|183507889|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-3.663||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.538|-0.789|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||-0.789|-6.538|0.007
91815600|NCT02666183|183507889|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-1.413||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|1.464|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||1.464|-4.290|0.714
91815601|NCT02666183|183507890|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.531||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.297|0.234|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.234|-1.297|0.173
91815602|NCT02666183|183507890|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-1.456||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.241|-0.671|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||-0.671|-2.241|0.001
91942557|NCT02820038|183781695|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in health distress between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.24|-0.28|0.8848
91942558|NCT02820038|183781696|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in health status at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.25|-0.15|0.6403
91942559|NCT02820038|183781696|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in global health status between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.16|-0.14|0.8766
91942560|NCT02820038|183781696|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.7603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater improvement in global health status between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.18|-0.13|0.7603
91942561|NCT02820038|183781697|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.63|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in disease activity at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.63|-0.43|0.7093
91942562|NCT02820038|183781697|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.52|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in disease activity between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.52|-0.30|0.5941
91942563|NCT02820038|183781697|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in disease activity between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.40|-0.42|0.9476
91815603|NCT02666183|183507890|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.925||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.711|-0.139|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||-0.139|-1.711|0.021
91815604|NCT02666183|183507891|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.984||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.939|0.971|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.971|-2.939|0.323
91815605|NCT02666183|183507891|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-1.768||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.785|0.249|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.249|-3.785|0.086
91815606|NCT02666183|183507891|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.784||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.794|1.226|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||1.226|-2.794|0.443
91815607|NCT00666757|183507892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). The analysis will contrast the remission rates at 12 week endpoint between treatment groups.||||0.26
91815608|NCT00666757|183507893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis.Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-week endpoint.||||0.07
91815609|NCT00666757|183507894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). Repeated Measures Analysis. The analysis will contrast the remission remission rates at 12-week endpoint.||||0.03
91815610|NCT00666757|183507895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). The analysis will contrast the response rates at 12-week endpoint.||||0.09
91815611|NCT00666757|183507896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). The analysis will contrast the response rates at 12-week endpoint.||||0.001
91815612|NCT00666757|183507897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.002
91815613|NCT00666757|183507898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.001
91815614|NCT00666757|183507899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.003
91815615|NCT00666757|183507900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis.Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.01
91815616|NCT00666757|183507901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.02
91815617|NCT00666757|183507902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.20
91815618|NCT00666757|183507903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Only those patients who had at least moderate pain at baseline (defined as baseline BPI Average 24-Hour Pain Score greater than or equal to 3). Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.03
91815619|NCT00666757|183507904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.03
91815620|NCT00666757|183507905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.002
91815621|NCT00666757|183507906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.01
91815622|NCT00666757|183507907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||||||0.07
91815623|NCT00666757|183507908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||||||0.34
91815624|NCT00666757|183507909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.02
91815625|NCT00666757|183507910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.01
91815626|NCT00666757|183507911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.97
91815627|NCT00666757|183507912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.32
91815628|NCT00666757|183507913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||Transformed absolute score||||0.12
91815629|NCT00666757|183507914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||Transformed Absolute Score||||0.16
91815630|NCT00666757|183507915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.002
91815631|NCT00666757|183507916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.53
91815632|NCT01231581|183507917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.32|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios are estimated using a Pike estimator.|||1.32|0.66|0.352
91815633|NCT01649375|183507928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||3.67|0.90|0.0967
91815634|NCT01649375|183507928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.96|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||8.96|2.14|<.0001
91815635|NCT01649375|183507929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.48|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||7.48|1.19|0.0194
91815636|NCT01649375|183507929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07|||<|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|12.44|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||12.44|2.06|<.0004
91815637|NCT01649375|183507930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.41|<0.0001
91815638|NCT01649375|183507930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|0.37|<0.0001
91815639|NCT01649375|183507931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|16.26|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||16.26|2.31|0.0003
91815640|NCT01649375|183507931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|24.12|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||24.12|3.47|<.0001
91815641|NCT01649375|183507932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.37|-1.77|<0.0001
91815642|NCT01649375|183507932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.65|-2.04|0.0002
91815643|NCT01649375|183507933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.03|0.66|0.0110
91815644|NCT01649375|183507933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.105||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.32|1.96|0.0002
91815645|NCT01649375|183507934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.48|-3.43|0.0096
91815646|NCT01649375|183507934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.16|-4.09|0.0005
91815647|NCT01649375|183507935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|16.21|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||16.21|1.13|0.0325
91942564|NCT02820038|183781698|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.48|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in depression at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.48|-1.65|0.9128
91942565|NCT02820038|183781698|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.91|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in depression between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.91|-1.50|0.6312
91942566|NCT02820038|183781698|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.87|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in depression between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.87|-1.57|0.5766
91942567|NCT02820038|183781699|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.75|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in fatigue at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.75|-3.34|0.2123
91942568|NCT02820038|183781699|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.2691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.7|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in fatigue between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.70|-2.48|0.2691
91942569|NCT02820038|183781699|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.13|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in fatigue between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.13|-2.06|0.5655
91942570|NCT02820038|183781700|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|10.55|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in health literacy at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||10.55|-5.51|0.5364
91942571|NCT02820038|183781700|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|8.01|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in health literacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||8.01|-4.68|0.6050
91942572|NCT02820038|183781700|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|6.05|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in health literacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||6.05|-6.66|0.9240
91942573|NCT02820038|183781701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.89|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of attending at least one class session. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to participate in the BetterChoices, BetterHealth program if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.89|0.43|0.7871
91942574|NCT02820038|183781701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.189||||0.5815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|2.198|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of attending at least one class. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to participate in at least one session of the BetterChoices,BetterHealth program if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.198|0.643|0.5815
91942575|NCT02820038|183781701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.679||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|1.262|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of attending at least one class. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to participate in at least one session of the BetterChoices, BetterHealth program if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.262|0.366|0.2211
91942576|NCT02820038|183781702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.804||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of viewing at least one page on website. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to use the RA Self-Management website if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.72|0.38|0.5740
91942577|NCT02820038|183781702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.425||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|2.649|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of viewing at least one page on website. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to visit the RA Self-Management Website if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.649|0.766|0.1278
91942578|NCT02820038|183781702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.614||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|1.15|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of viewing at least one page on website. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to visit the RA Self-Management Website if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.15|0.328|0.1278
91942579|NCT02820038|183781703|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|28.9|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in visual selective learning between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||28.9|-5.2|0.17
91942580|NCT02820038|183781703|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable|Mean Difference (Net)|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|29.5|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in visual selective learning between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||29.5|2.5|0.02
91942581|NCT02820038|183781703|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline values of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|19.2|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would experience a greater increase in visual selective learning between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||19.2|-8.1|0.42
91942582|NCT02820038|183781704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.8|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater medication self-management knowledge at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.8|-5.2|0.15
91942583|NCT02820038|183781704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater medication self-management knowledge at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.3|-4.4|0.07
91942584|NCT02820038|183781704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.6|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would experience greater medication self-management knowledge at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.6|-4.2|0.13
91815648|NCT01649375|183507935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|15.01|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||15.01|1.02|0.0471
91815649|NCT01856790|183507936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.05
91815650|NCT01856790|183507937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.002
91815651|NCT01856790|183507939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.97
91942585|NCT02820038|183781705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.29|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater verbatim recall of information concerning medication benefits and risks at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.29|-0.19|0.68
91942586|NCT02820038|183781705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater verbatim recall of information concerning medication benefits and risks at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.31|-0.06|0.20
91942587|NCT02820038|183781705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater verbatim recall of information concerning medication benefits and risks at the 6-week follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.19|-0.19|0.99
91942588|NCT02820038|183781706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.105||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|3.432|||Regression, Logistic|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to view at least one webpage if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.|Modeled probability of viewing at least one webpage. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART.|3.432|1.291|0.0028
91942589|NCT02820038|183781707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.04|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would view more webpages if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.04|-1.71|0.0601
91942590|NCT02820038|183781708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.81|||Regression, Logistic||Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, Other CMI+SMART, DrugFactsBox® (DFB) Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to be using at least one DMARD (Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug) at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||3.81|0.22|0.90
91942591|NCT02820038|183781708|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.35|||Regression, Logistic||. Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in the percentage of participants using at least one DMARD (Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug) between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.35|0.24|0.63
91942592|NCT02820038|183781708|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.54|||Regression, Logistic||Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, DrugFactsBox® (DFB) Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would experience a greater increase in the percentage of participants using at least one DMARD (Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug) between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||3.54|0.37|0.81
91815652|NCT01856790|183507943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||.001
91815653|NCT01856790|183507944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.005
91815654|NCT04091646|183507950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|9.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||9.76|2.51|<0.0001
91815655|NCT04091646|183507951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|7.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio||7.52|1.46|0.0033
91815656|NCT04091646|183507951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|7.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio||7.38|1.94|0.0002
91815657|NCT04091646|183507952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 2 Erythema Score||||<0.0001
91815658|NCT04091646|183507952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 4 Erythema Score||||<0.0001
91815659|NCT04091646|183507952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 8 Erythema Score||||<0.0001
91815660|NCT04091646|183507953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|17.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data||Erythema Success at Week 2||17.13|1.49|0.0065
91815661|NCT04091646|183507953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|13.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data||Erythema Success at Week 4||13.38|2.15|0.0002
91815662|NCT04091646|183507953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data||Erythema Success at Week 8||6.63|1.50|0.0021
91815663|NCT04091646|183507954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 2 Scaling Score||||<0.0001
91815664|NCT04091646|183507954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 4 Scaling Score||||<0.0001
91815665|NCT04091646|183507954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 8 Scaling Score||||<0.0001
91815666|NCT04091646|183507955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|Scaling Success at Week 2||4.33|0.90|0.0759
91815667|NCT04091646|183507955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|Scaling Success at Week 4||4.61|1.18|0.0122
91815668|NCT04091646|183507955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|Scaling Success at Week 8||6.55|1.74|0.0003
91815669|NCT04091646|183507957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|7.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 2||7.63|1.72|0.0007
91815670|NCT04091646|183507957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|6.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 4||6.68|1.63|0.0009
91815671|NCT04091646|183507957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 8||6.35|1.60|0.0007
91815672|NCT01921829|183507958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91815673|NCT01921829|183507959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91815674|NCT01921829|183507961|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.95
91815675|NCT01921829|183507962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
91815676|NCT01921829|183507963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
91815677|NCT01921829|183507964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91815678|NCT01921829|183507965|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.95
91815679|NCT01921829|183507966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91815680|NCT01921829|183507967|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
91815681|NCT01921829|183507968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91815682|NCT01921829|183507969|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
91815683|NCT01921829|183507970|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
91815684|NCT01921829|183507971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91815685|NCT01921829|183507972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91815686|NCT01921829|183507973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91815687|NCT01921829|183507974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91815688|NCT01921829|183507975|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
91815689|NCT01921829|183507976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91815690|NCT01921829|183507977|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
91815691|NCT01921829|183507978|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.95
91815692|NCT05394025|183507984|SUPERIORITY||Interaction|0.02||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18|||likelihood ratio test||Beta for time by COVID-19 status|Null hypothesis no difference in trends of I/ADL scores between Veterans with COVID-19 and comparators. We used adjusted linear mixed model (LMM) to model ADL scores over time (i.e., survey cycles) and by COVID-19 status. The LMM included an interaction term for time and COVID-19 status. LMM models were fitted with random intercepts (i.e., patient ID) and slopes (i.e., survey cycle). LMMs included fixed effects for patient baseline age, sex, and care assessment needs score.||0.18|-0.13|0.77
91815693|NCT05394025|183507984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.67|||likelihood ratio test||Beta coefficient for mean difference in mean longitudinal I/ADL score|Null hypothesis no difference in trends of I/ADL scores between Veterans with COVID-19 and comparators. We used adjusted linear mixed model (LMM) to model I/ADL scores over time (i.e., survey cycles) and by COVID-19 status. The LMM included an interaction term for time and COVID-19 status. LMM models were fitted with random intercepts (i.e., patient ID) and slopes (i.e., survey cycle). LMMs included fixed effects for patient baseline age, sex, and care assessment needs score.||0.67|-0.44|0.60
91815694|NCT03538158|183508035|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.7||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.7|299.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,131)=.07||||299.1|-287.7|.82
91815695|NCT03538158|183508036|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,75)=.03||||4.4|-3.5|.97
91815696|NCT02876900|183508047|SUPERIORITY|Assuming an effect size of 0.35 on the change in PANSS total score from baseline to Week 6 for the 2 pairwise comparisons between each active asenapine maleate transdermal patch treatment arm and placebo, the power for detecting a statistically significant HP-3070 advantage was approximately 0.90, having 204 evaluable participants per each treatment arm using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.025 for each comparison.|Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.634||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.64||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the truncated Hochberg procedure with a truncation factor y=0.9. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-1.64|-8.06|0.003
91815697|NCT02876900|183508047|SUPERIORITY|Assuming an effect size of 0.35 on the change in PANSS total score from baseline to Week 6 for the 2 pairwise comparisons between each active asenapine maleate transdermal patch treatment arm and placebo, the power for detecting a statistically significant HP-3070 advantage was approximately 0.90, having 204 evaluable participants per each treatment arm using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.025 for each comparison.|Least Square Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|-3.4||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the truncated Hochberg procedure with a truncation factor y=0.9. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-3.4|-9.81|<0.001
91815698|NCT02876900|183508048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the Hochberg procedure. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.16|-0.55|<0.001
91815699|NCT02876900|183508048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.25||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the Hochberg procedure. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.25|-0.64|<0.001
91815700|NCT00791518|183508073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||||95.0|0.1|0.4|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<80% group minus \>=80% group and are adjusted for Investigator.|||0.4|0.1|
91815701|NCT00791518|183508074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||||95.0|0.2|0.4|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<50% group minus \>=50% group and was adjusted for Investigator.|||0.4|0.2|
91815702|NCT00791518|183508079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.7||||||95.0|-0.4|1.7|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<80% group minus \>=80% group and was adjusted for Investigator.|||1.7|-0.4|
91815703|NCT00791518|183508080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.2|2.1|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<50% group minus \>=50% group and was adjusted for Investigator.|||2.1|-0.2|
91815704|NCT00720057|183508083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The treatment differences between the two groups were tested each at the 5% two-sided significant level using a hierarchal testing procedure to control the overall type 1 error. SPID16-24 was eligible for testing only after a statistically significant difference between the two arms with respect to SPID0-24 was observed. The SPIDs were analyzed via ANCOVA model with treatment and trial site as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity score as the covariate.||||<0.001
91815705|NCT00720057|183508084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91815706|NCT00720057|183508085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91815707|NCT00720057|183508086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The statistics are from the Kaplan-Meier method. The median for naproxen treatment arm was not estimable from Kaplan-Meier method, therefore it is presented as the maximum value from the full range.||||<0.001
91815708|NCT00720057|183508087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91815709|NCT00720057|183508088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91815710|NCT03341533|183508119|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in NPIS between the two groups.|difference in medians|0.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.39
91815711|NCT03341533|183508120|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in MME use on the hospital floor between groups.|Difference of medians|-4.5||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||Ice packs - Usual care|||||0.88
91815712|NCT03341533|183508121|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the outpatient MME consumption will be the same across the two groups.|difference in medians|-7.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||Ice packs - Usual Care|||||0.75
91942593|NCT03934203|183781723|OTHER|The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between 50 mg BI 409306 and placebo is greater than or equal to 10 milliseconds at least for one timepoint after dosing.' The one-sided tests were performed at the 5% level; due to the symmetry of the normal distribution 2-sided 90% confidence intervals for the differences of adjusted means per timepoint were used.|Difference of adjusted means|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 20 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 50 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||2.4|0.2|
91942594|NCT03934203|183781724|OTHER|The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between 250 mg BI 409306 and placebo is greater than or equal to 10 milliseconds at least for one timepoint after dosing.' The one-sided tests were performed at the 5% level; due to the symmetry of the normal distribution 2-sided 90% confidence intervals for the differences of adjusted means per timepoint were used.|Difference of adjusted means|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 40 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 250 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||7.1|4.4|
91942595|NCT03934203|183781725|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.5|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo at 1 hour and 30 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||13.6|10.5|
91942596|NCT03934203|183781726|OTHER|T-Test based on the results of the MMRM (fitted to the data for all timepoints). The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between moxifloxacin and placebo is less than or equal to 5 milliseconds at 2 hours after drug administration.'|Difference of adjusted means|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.4|13.4||The corresponding alpha-level according to Hochberg's adjustment for mulitplicity was 0.0167.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||13.4|10.4|0.00000000
91942597|NCT03934203|183781727|OTHER|T-Test based on the results of the MMRM (fitted to the data for all timepoints). The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between moxifloxacin and placebo is less than or equal to 5 milliseconds at 3 hours after drug administration.'|Difference of adjusted means|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||3e-08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.3|12.8||The corresponding alpha-level according to Hochberg's adjustment for mulitplicity was 0.0250.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||12.8|9.3|0.00000003
91815713|NCT03341533|183508122|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the postoperative BPI pain severity score will be the same between groups|difference in medians|-0.3||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||Ice Packs - Usual Care|||||0.80
91815714|NCT03642717|183508175|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815715|NCT03642717|183508178|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815716|NCT03642717|183508179|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in body weight at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815717|NCT03642717|183508180|OTHER|||||||0.0076||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||0.0076
91815718|NCT03642717|183508181|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91815719|NCT02587065|183508183|OTHER||Spearman's correlation coefficient|-0.85||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|2.02|||Mixed-effects REML regression|||Adjusted change of convenience satisfaction domain of TSQM-9.||2.02|-3.72|0.56
91942598|NCT03934203|183781728|OTHER|T-Test based on the results of the MMRM (fitted to the data for all timepoints). The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between moxifloxacin and placebo is less than or equal to 5 milliseconds at 4 hours after drug administration.'|Difference of adjusted means|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||2e-07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.9|12.4||The corresponding alpha-level according to Hochberg's adjustment for mulitplicity was 0.050.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||12.4|8.9|0.00000020
91942599|NCT03934203|183781729|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 20 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 50 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||3.3|1.4|
91942600|NCT03934203|183781730|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.6|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 40 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 250 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||12.8|10.6|
91942601|NCT03934203|183781731|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Minimum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 24 hours after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 50 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||-0.1|-2.3|
91942602|NCT03934203|183781732|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Minimum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 12 hours after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 250 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||1.3|-1.3|
91942603|NCT00560794|183781746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis stated that the true MRD response probability (π) ≤ 5%.|1-sided exact binomial test|||||||0.0000
91942604|NCT02512276|183781785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|6.4||||||||6.4|3.0|
91942605|NCT02512276|183781786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.22||||||||1.22|0.91|
91942606|NCT02512276|183781787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.28||||||||1.28|0.94|
91942607|NCT02512276|183781788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.85||||||||0.85|0.45|
91815720|NCT01559012|183508194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.32||A sample size modeling (MGH Mallinckrodt General Clinical Research Center) showed that a total of 12 patients were needed in order to detect a difference of 2 points of PUQE score between the two groups at P \< 0.01 and a beta \> 0.90.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test. P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant||This is an analysis between groups of intervention clonidine versus placebo. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD.||3.32|1.05|0.001
91815721|NCT01559012|183508194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size modeling (MGH Mallinckrodt General Clinical Research Center) showed that a total of 12 patients were needed in order to detect a difference of 2 points of PUQE score between the two groups at P \< 0.01|within patient variation|1.83|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.24|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is a within patient variation between clonidine and placebo. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean +/- Standard Deviation (SD).||3.24|0.43|<0.02
91942608|NCT02512276|183781789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36||||||||1.36|0.91|
91942609|NCT02512276|183781790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34||||||||1.34|0.78|
91942610|NCT00880607|183781812|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank-sum test because the outcome variable was found to have a skewed distribution.|Median Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|21.2||Hodges-Lehmanne estimation method|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmanne estimation method|||21.2|-5.8|.27
91815722|NCT01559012|183508195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|11.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis within groups clonidine versus placebo. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD. .||11.5|1.78|0.009
91815723|NCT01559012|183508195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size modeling for crossover studies (MGH Mallinckrodt General Clinical Research Center) showed that a total of 12 patients were needed in order to detect a difference of 2 points of PUQE score between the two groups at P \< 0.01|within patient variation|7.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|12.83|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis within-patient. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD.||12.83|2.17|<0.01
91815724|NCT01559012|183508196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of percentage of positivity|0.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.47|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"All patients were treated with TD clonidine for 5 days and switched to placebo for 5 days, or the other way round~Allocation order randomized"||0.47|0.04|0.000
91815725|NCT01559012|183508197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean values|0.8||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.57|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD. .||1.57|0.13|0.013
91815726|NCT01559012|183508198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days off-therapy %|29.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD. .||||0.051
91815727|NCT01559012|183508199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.0||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0089
91815728|NCT01559012|183508202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|10.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||10.9|0.9|0.01
91815729|NCT01559012|183508203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.3|0.3|0.055
91815730|NCT00946712|183508204|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.04|0.83|0.22
91815731|NCT00946712|183508205|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.12|0.75|0.40
91815732|NCT00946712|183508206|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.00|0.66|0.054
91815733|NCT00946712|183508208|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.10|0.88|0.83
91815734|NCT00946712|183508210|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted.||||||0.48
91815735|NCT00946712|183508211|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted.||||||0.060
91815736|NCT04665050|183508214|OTHER|Estimated difference and confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Injection Site Erythema||12.7|-12.7|
91815737|NCT04665050|183508214|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|7.3|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Injection Site Pain||7.3|-30.0|
91815738|NCT04665050|183508214|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|14.1|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Injection Site Swelling||14.1|-14.1|
91815739|NCT04665050|183508215|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|17.5|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Fatigue||17.5|-9.4|
91815740|NCT04665050|183508215|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|9.9|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Arthralgia||9.9|-9.9|
91815741|NCT04665050|183508215|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|13.6|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Myalgia||13.6|-17.5|
91815742|NCT04665050|183508215|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Headache||12.7|-12.7|
91815743|NCT04665050|183508216|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.1|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|||7.1|-7.1|
91815744|NCT04665050|183508217|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.4|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 3||2.40|1.07|
91815745|NCT04665050|183508217|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.11|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 7F||2.11|0.69|
91815746|NCT04665050|183508217|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.24|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 19A||3.24|1.24|
91815747|NCT04665050|183508217|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.57|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 22F||3.57|1.04|
91815748|NCT04665050|183508217|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.86|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 33F||1.86|0.71|
91815749|NCT04665050|183508217|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.58|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 8||2.58|1.24|
91815750|NCT04665050|183508217|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.0|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 9N||3.00|1.19|
91815751|NCT04665050|183508217|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.0|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 10A||5.00|1.47|
91815752|NCT04665050|183508217|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.89|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 11A||3.89|1.52|
91815753|NCT04665050|183508217|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.83|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 12F||4.83|1.20|
91815754|NCT04665050|183508217|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|4.17|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 17F||4.17|1.59|
91815755|NCT04665050|183508217|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.56|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 20A||3.56|1.46|
91815756|NCT04665050|183508218|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.21|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 3||2.21|1.08|
91815757|NCT04665050|183508218|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.6|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 7F||3.60|1.36|
91815758|NCT04665050|183508218|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.23|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 19A||3.23|1.45|
91815759|NCT04665050|183508218|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.99|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 22F||3.99|1.36|
91815760|NCT04665050|183508218|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.37|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 33F||2.37|0.97|
91815761|NCT04665050|183508218|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.68|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 8||2.68|1.32|
91815762|NCT04665050|183508218|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.74|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 9N||3.74|1.49|
91815763|NCT04665050|183508218|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.65|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 10A||3.65|1.28|
91815764|NCT04665050|183508218|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.89|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 11A||2.89|1.28|
91815765|NCT04665050|183508218|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|6.27|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 12F||6.27|1.94|
91815766|NCT04665050|183508218|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.31|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 17F||4.31|1.92|
91815767|NCT04665050|183508218|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.25|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 20A||3.25|1.30|
91815768|NCT04665050|183508219|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|3.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|6.88|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 6A||6.88|1.86|
91815769|NCT04665050|183508219|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|6.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|10.98|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15A||10.98|3.54|
91815770|NCT04665050|183508219|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.39|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15C||4.39|1.23|
91815771|NCT04665050|183508219|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|10.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|18.78|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 16F||18.78|5.39|
91815772|NCT04665050|183508219|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|42.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.67|90.03|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23A||90.03|19.67|
91815773|NCT04665050|183508219|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|12.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|21.94|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23B||21.94|6.97|
91815774|NCT04665050|183508219|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|24.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.65|52.86|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 24F||52.86|11.65|
91815775|NCT04665050|183508219|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|25.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.65|44.93|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 31||44.93|14.65|
91815776|NCT04665050|183508219|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.72|23.47|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 35B||23.47|8.72|
91815777|NCT04665050|183508220|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|5.19|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 6A||5.19|1.73|
91815778|NCT04665050|183508220|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|13.98|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15A||13.98|4.61|
91815779|NCT04665050|183508220|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|5.58|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15C||5.58|1.77|
91815780|NCT04665050|183508220|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|13.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.45|20.19|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 16F||20.19|8.45|
91815781|NCT04665050|183508220|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.19|14.09|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23A||14.09|5.19|
91815782|NCT04665050|183508220|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|6.36|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23B||6.36|2.72|
91815783|NCT04665050|183508220|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|28.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.59|49.58|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 24F||49.58|16.59|
91815784|NCT04665050|183508220|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|10.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.71|15.73|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 31||15.73|6.71|
91815785|NCT04665050|183508220|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|15.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.62|21.9|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 35B||21.90|11.62|
91815786|NCT00853723|183508223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test of means for the percentage change in PINP and CTX using two one-sided tests applied to data from the parallel group design with a sample size of 31 in the PTH(1-34) group and 62 in the combined PTHrP(1-36) group achieved 80% power at 2.5% significant level for two-sided hypothesis testing (adjusted for the hypothesis testing at two key endpoints).|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline by day 15 in all three arms.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.0005
91815787|NCT00853723|183508224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in all Arms/groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for stasistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
91942611|NCT00880607|183781813|OTHER|Log-rank test in Kaplan-Meier used.||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.42
91815788|NCT00853723|183508225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test of means for the percentage change in PINP and CTX using two one-sided tests applied to data from the parallel group design with a sample size of 31 in the PTH(1-34) group and 62 in the combined PTHrP(1-36) group achieved 80% power at 2.5% significant level for two-sided hypothesis testing (adjusted for the hypothesis testing at two key endpoints).|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline at Day 60 and at Day 90 for the PTH group and at day 90 for the PTHrP 400 and PTHrP 600 groups .|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91815789|NCT00853723|183508226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in PTHrP 400 and 600 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for stastistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
91815790|NCT00853723|183508227|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in the PTHrP 400 group|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for stastistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
91815791|NCT00853723|183508228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in all Arms/groups|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical signifcance was p=0.05||||||>0.05
91815792|NCT00853723|183508229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in all Arms/groups|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||>0.05
91815793|NCT00853723|183508230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change from baseline at Day 15 and 30 in the PTHrP 400 group and at Day 15 in the PTHrP 600 group|F-test, one way analysis of variance|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.0005
91942612|NCT00880607|183781815|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
91815794|NCT00853723|183508231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to PTH group on Day 60 compared to the PTHrP 400|F-test, one way analysis of variance|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
91815795|NCT00853723|183508231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the PTH group on Day 30 compared to the PTHrP 400 group and Day 60 compared to the PTHRp 600 group|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
91815796|NCT00853723|183508231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value correspond to the PTH group on Day 15 compared to the PTHrP 400 group and Day 15 and 30 compared to the PTHrP 600 group.|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.0005
91815797|NCT00853723|183508232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase from baseline to D90 in the PTHrP 400 group.|F-test, one way analysis of variance|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
91815798|NCT00853723|183508233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p value corresponds to an increased from baseline at all time points in all Arms/groups as well as to the increase in the in the PTHrP 400 group at Day 60 and 90 compared to the PTHrP 600 and PTH groups .|F-test, one way analysis of variance|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
91815799|NCT00853723|183508233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the comparison of the PTHrP 400 group at Day 15 to the PTHrP 600 and PTH groups|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
91942613|NCT00880607|183781816|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
91942614|NCT00880607|183781817|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91942615|NCT00880607|183781818|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91815800|NCT00853723|183508234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to an increase compared to baseline in the PTHrP 600 group at D15 and D30|F-test, one way analysis of variance|The threshold for stastistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
91815801|NCT00853723|183508234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate.|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to change from baseline in the PTHrP 400 group at Day 15,30, 60 and 90 and the PTH group at day 90.|Kruskal-Wallis|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
91815802|NCT00853723|183508235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the PTH group on Day 15 compared to the PTHrP 400 group and to the PTHrP 600 group at Day 30 and Day 60|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
91815803|NCT00853723|183508235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate.|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Thre reported p-value correspond to the PTH group compared to the PTHrp 600 group at day 15|Kruskal-Wallis|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.0005
91815804|NCT01787175|183508261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in time to complete A&P|-17.73||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|-0.23|||Mixed-effects linear model|||Null hypothesis: Participants will require the same amount of time to complete assessments and plans using either IMM or CPRS. Power calculation: With 2 replications per subject, and assuming an ICC of 0.15, a two-sided alpha 0.05 comparison adjusted for 5 multiple comparisons (adjusted alpha = 0.01), and power of 80%, an N of 32 clinicians was required for each group (32 using IMM, and 32 using CPRS).||-0.23|-35.24|0.047
91815805|NCT01787175|183508262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Value of problem scores for A&P complete|0.04||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||Mixed-effects linear model|||Null hypothesis: Participants will receive the same scores for assessments and plans completed using either IMM or CPRS. Power calculation: With 2 replications per subject, and assuming an ICC of 0.15, a two-sided alpha 0.05 comparison adjusted for 5 multiple comparisons (adjusted alpha = 0.01), and power of 80%, an N of 32 clinicians was required for each group (32 using IMM, and 32 using CPRS).||0.09|-0.01|0.15
91815806|NCT01787175|183508263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Participants will receive the same proportion of acceptable scores for assessments and plans completed using either IMM or CPRS. Power calculation: With 2 replications per subject, and assuming an ICC of 0.15, a two-sided alpha 0.05 comparison adjusted for 5 multiple comparisons (adjusted alpha = 0.01), and power of 80%, an N of 32 clinicians was required for each group (32 using IMM, and 32 using CPRS).||2.98|1.22|0.005
91815807|NCT02867709|183508264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.22||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.22|1.09|0.0285
91815808|NCT02867709|183508264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.29||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.29|1.14|0.0129
91815809|NCT02867709|183508265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||1.83|1.02|0.0711
91815810|NCT02867709|183508265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.2||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||2.20|1.25|0.0129
91815811|NCT02867709|183508266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.17||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.17|1.25|0.0711
91815812|NCT02867709|183508266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.32||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.32|1.35|0.0129
91815813|NCT02867709|183508267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.48||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.48|1.33|0.0711
91815814|NCT02867709|183508267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.92||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.92|1.59|0.0129
91815815|NCT02867709|183508268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.53||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.53|1.04|0.0711
91815816|NCT02867709|183508268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.83|1.20|0.0129
91815817|NCT02867709|183508269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.72||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.72|0.96|0.1833
91815818|NCT02867709|183508269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.02||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.02|1.14|0.0167
91815819|NCT02867709|183508270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.83|1.04|0.1066
91815820|NCT02867709|183508270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.84||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.84|1.05|0.0440
91815821|NCT02867709|183508271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.49|0.81|0.9522
91815822|NCT02867709|183508271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.51||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.51|0.83|0.9522
91815823|NCT03971695|183508288|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|100.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|111.48|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 14.2. Ratio is T1/R.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||111.48|90.18|
91815824|NCT03971695|183508288|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|91.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.37|98.35|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 9.5. Ratio is T2/T1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||98.35|85.37|
91815825|NCT03971695|183508289|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|114.08|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 20.5. Ratio is T1/R.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||114.08|84.20|
91815826|NCT03971695|183508289|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|77.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.11|88.22|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 17.4. Ratio is T2/T1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||88.22|68.11|
91815827|NCT03971695|183508293|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|96.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.96|106.9|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 13.9. Ratio is T1/R.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||106.90|86.96|
91815828|NCT03971695|183508293|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|91.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|97.54|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 8.9. Ratio is T2/T1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||97.54|85.40|
91815829|NCT01881230|183508296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.692||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|2.629|||Log Rank|||For stratified analysis, the stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox proportional hazards model were used, where the stratification factor is the disease free interval (\<= 1 year; \> 1 year).||2.629|1.089|0.0183
91815830|NCT01881230|183508296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.904|||Log Rank|||For stratified analysis, the stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox proportional hazards model were used, where the stratification factor is the disease free interval (\<= 1 year; \> 1 year).||0.904|0.373|0.0152
91815831|NCT01881230|183508296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.8599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.597|||Log Rank|||For stratified analysis, the stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox proportional hazards model were used, where the stratification factor is the disease free interval (\<= 1 year; \> 1 year).||1.597|0.676|0.8599
91815832|NCT01881230|183508299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.375||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|2.143|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard model. The stratification factor is the disease free interval (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year).||2.143|0.882|0.1579
91815833|NCT01881230|183508299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.221|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard model. The stratification factor is the disease free interval (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year).||1.221|0.520|0.2945
91815834|NCT01881230|183508299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.101||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.708|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard model. The stratification factor is the disease free interval (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year).||1.708|0.710|0.6691
91815835|NCT02515942|183508316|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal), baseline lesion size as covariates after multiple imputations.|Treatment Effect|-0.35||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.64|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.64|0.0636
91942616|NCT00901394|183781826|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For baseline comparisons among the three groups, one-way ANOVA was used for normally distributed variables and χ2 goodness-of-fit for categorical variables. To model the effects of B-vitamin treatment on nitrous-oxide-induced total homocysteine increase at the three different timepoints within individual patients and between the three groups, a linear mixed model with was used and we included a group × time interaction in the model.||||<0.05
91942617|NCT00887822|183781963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of survival between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.41|0.75|0.8636
91942618|NCT00887822|183781965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of progression-free survival between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.21|0.66|0.4709
91942619|NCT00887822|183781967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.22|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of progression-free survival between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.22|0.58|0.3685
91942620|NCT00887822|183781969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.41|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of disease progression between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.41|0.67|0.8589
91942621|NCT00887822|183781970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|7.02||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|22.4|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||22.4|-8.3|0.3480
91942622|NCT00887822|183781971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.0|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of response between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.00|0.29|0.0462
91942623|NCT00887822|183781972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|0.45||||0.9426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|13.3|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||13.3|-12.4|0.9426
91942624|NCT02000622|183781975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance (2-sided) is 0.05.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Study is sized to provide 90% power to detect a true treatment effect of PFS hazard ratio 0.653.||0.80|0.43|0.0009
91815836|NCT02515942|183508316|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.29||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.59|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Least squares mean for change from baseline from ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal), baseline lesion size as covariates after multiple imputations.||0.00|-0.59|0.1019
91815837|NCT02515942|183508316|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Least squares mean for change from baseline from ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal), baseline lesion size as covariates after multiple imputations.||0.35|-0.24|0.5987
91815838|NCT02515942|183508317|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.0||||0.5029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||0.11|-0.11|0.5029
91815839|NCT02515942|183508317|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.04||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||0.14|-0.07|0.6820
91942625|NCT02000622|183781976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.83||PFS2 tested using a multiple testing procedure with a recycling strategy. With 157 PFS2 events, a priori threshold for statistical significance (2-sided) was 0.008.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||0.83|0.40|0.0033
91942626|NCT02000622|183781977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.29||OS tested using a multiple testing procedure with a recycling strategy. With 140 OS events, a priori threshold for statistical significance (2-sided) was 0.018.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||1.29|0.63|0.5665
91942627|NCT02000622|183781979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Variables for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, adjusted for baseline global health status/QoL score, baseline score-visit interaction.|Mean difference \>0 favours olaparib.|||12.4|2.5|0.0035
91942628|NCT02000622|183781980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.78|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||0.78|0.41|0.0005
91942629|NCT02000622|183781981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.47|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS.||0.47|0.24|<0.0001
91942630|NCT02000622|183781982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.74|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS2.||0.74|0.38|0.0002
91942631|NCT02000622|183781983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.23||OS tested using a multiple testing procedure with a recycling strategy. With 192 OS events, a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.045.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||1.23|0.66|0.5131
91942632|NCT02000622|183781984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.18|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||1.18|0.67|0.4167
91942633|NCT02000622|183781985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.5|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS.||0.50|0.27|<0.0001
91942634|NCT02000622|183781986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS2.||0.72|0.40|<0.0001
91942635|NCT01462045|183781987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.6|-25.6|<0.01
91942636|NCT01462045|183781988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|10.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.8|0.83|<0.01
91942637|NCT02045979|183781989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 percent (%).|ratio of the geometric means|108.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.5|119.79|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||119.79|98.50|
91942638|NCT02045979|183781989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|101.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.45|110.94|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||110.94|92.45|
91942639|NCT02045979|183781989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|94.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.01|102.78|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.78|86.01|
91942640|NCT02045979|183781990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|107.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.49|116.94|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||116.94|98.49|
91942641|NCT02045979|183781990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|99.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.15|108.37|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||108.37|92.15|
91942642|NCT02045979|183781990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|93.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.76|101.11|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||101.11|86.76|
91942643|NCT02045979|183781991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|100.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.15|106.88|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||106.88|95.15|
91942644|NCT02045979|183781991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|96.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.06|102.03|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.03|91.06|
91942645|NCT02045979|183781991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|95.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.83|101.33|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||101.33|90.83|
91942646|NCT02045979|183781992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.54|105.55|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||105.55|91.54|
91815840|NCT02515942|183508317|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.04||||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||0.14|-0.07|0.6826
91815841|NCT02515942|183508317|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.12||||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.28|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||0.03|-0.28|0.1545
91815842|NCT02515942|183508317|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.13||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||0.02|-0.29|0.1398
91815843|NCT02515942|183508317|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.01||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||0.14|-0.16|0.4717
91815844|NCT02515942|183508317|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.25||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||-0.05|-0.45|0.0530
91815845|NCT02515942|183508317|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.17||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.37|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||0.03|-0.37|0.1386
91815846|NCT02515942|183508317|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.08||||0.7087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||0.27|-0.11|0.7087
91815847|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.72||||0.9243|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.15|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||-0.29|-5.15|0.9243
91815848|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.51||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.89|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.91|-1.89|0.3929
91815849|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.23||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|5.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||5.61|0.85|0.0418
91815850|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.32||||0.5632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.91|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 8||2.27|-2.91|0.5632
91815851|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.29||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.25|3.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 8||3.83|-1.25|0.2575
91815852|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.61||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.91|4.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 8||4.12|-0.91|0.2058
91815853|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.94||||0.8392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.44|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 15||0.57|-4.44|0.8392
91815854|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effecgt|-0.12||||0.5255|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.59|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 15||2.35|-2.59|0.5255
91815855|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.81||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.61|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 15||4.24|-0.61|0.1685
91815856|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment|-2.01||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.45|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||0.43|-4.45|0.8544
91815857|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.03||||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|4.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||4.44|-0.38|0.1402
91815858|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|4.03||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.67|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||6.40|1.67|0.0150
91815859|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.14||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.11|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 30||2.39|-2.11|0.4682
91815860|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.38||||0.4125|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.84|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 30||2.60|-1.84|0.4125
91815861|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.24||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.94|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 30||2.42|-1.94|0.4431
91815862|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.04||||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.72|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||1.63|-3.72|0.6924
91815863|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.61||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.26|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||2.04|-3.26|0.6160
91815864|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.44||||0.4149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.18|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||3.06|-2.18|0.4149
91815865|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.29||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.27|3.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||3.85|-1.27|0.2582
91815866|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.81||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.72|3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||3.34|-1.72|0.3402
91815867|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.48||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.99|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||2.03|-2.99|0.5976
91815868|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.5||||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.3|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||2.29|-3.30|0.5916
91815869|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.3||||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.05|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||2.45|-3.05|0.5564
91815870|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.2||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|2.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||2.93|-2.53|0.4625
91815871|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.94||||0.8221|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.64|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||0.76|-4.64|0.8221
91815872|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.98||||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.68|3.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||3.64|-1.68|0.3179
91815873|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.92||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.29|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||5.55|0.29|0.0773
91815874|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.95||||0.6708|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.71|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.81|-3.71|0.6708
91815875|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.99||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.71|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.74|-3.71|0.6790
91815876|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.04||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.72|2.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.64|-2.72|0.5070
91815877|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.3||||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.44|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||2.84|-3.44|0.5487
91815878|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.25||||0.6973|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.35|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||1.85|-4.35|0.6973
91942647|NCT02045979|183781992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|96.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.27|103.36|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.36|89.27|
91815879|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.95||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||2.11|-4.00|0.6548
91942648|NCT02045979|183781992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.42|105.27|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||105.27|91.42|
91815880|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.35||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.76|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||3.05|-3.76|0.5533
91942649|NCT02045979|183781993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|99.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.66|105.94|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||105.94|93.66|
91942650|NCT02045979|183781993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|97.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.39|103.35|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.35|91.39|
91942651|NCT02045979|183781993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|97.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.58|103.68|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.68|92.58|
91942652|NCT02045979|183781994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|101.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.45|107.36|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||107.36|95.45|
91942653|NCT02045979|183781994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.27|104.72|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||104.72|93.27|
91942654|NCT02045979|183781994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|103.11|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.11|93.15|
91942655|NCT02045979|183781995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|103.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.47|110.29|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||110.29|97.47|
91942656|NCT02045979|183781995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|100.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.37|106.29|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||106.29|94.37|
91942657|NCT02045979|183781995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|97.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.07|102.24|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.24|92.07|
91942658|NCT02045979|183781996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|106.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.07|114.63|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||114.63|99.07|
91815881|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.11||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.25|4.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||4.46|-2.25|0.3358
91942659|NCT02045979|183781996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|100.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.24|108.12|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||108.12|94.24|
91942660|NCT02045979|183781996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|95.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.53|101.6|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||101.60|89.53|
91942661|NCT02045979|183781997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|108.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.54|119.9|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||119.90|98.54|
91815882|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.46||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.85|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||4.77|-1.85|0.2850
91815883|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.55||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.14|3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||3.04|-4.14|0.5778
91815884|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.3||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.24|5.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||5.85|-1.24|0.2018
91815885|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.85||||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.62|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||6.32|-0.62|0.1457
91815886|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.56||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.29|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||3.18|-4.29|0.5758
91815887|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.85||||0.3833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.84|4.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||4.55|-2.84|0.3833
91815888|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.41||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.21|5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||5.02|-2.21|0.3083
91942662|NCT02045979|183781997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|101.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.51|111.05|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||111.05|92.51|
91942663|NCT02045979|183781997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|94.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.01|102.82|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.82|86.01|
91942664|NCT04283773|183782008|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||The test of significance is Kruskal Wallis was used to examine the Difference in Median between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons . A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assessment of statistical differences in P16 expression between 3 groups. The immunohistochemical evaluation is done using German- semiquantitative scoring system. The score ranges from ( 0, 1,2,3,4,6,8,9 and 12). The data will entered on SPSS,version 24 as numbers. The test of significance is Kruskal Wallis was used to examine the Difference in Median between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons . A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.||8|0|0.001
91942665|NCT04283773|183782009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.009||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||Data were analysed using IBM-SPSS version 24. Correlation analysis was used (Spearman' Ranked correlation, 2-tailed). A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient(|||Correlation between Ki 67 expression using percentage of Ki67 positive nuclei and P16 cytoplasmic expression using German semi quantitative score among MOGCT group. Data were analysed using IBM-SPSS version 24. Correlation analysis was used (Spearman' Ranked correlation, 2-tailed). A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.||8|0|0.009
91815889|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.54||||0.7063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.19|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||2.11|-5.19|0.7063
91815890|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.14||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.46|5.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||5.74|-1.46|0.2227
91815891|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.68||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.15|7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||7.21|0.15|0.0907
91815892|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.17||||0.4799|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.23|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||4.57|-4.23|0.4799
91815893|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.2||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.54|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||4.14|-4.54|0.5237
91815894|NCT02515942|183508319|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.37||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.62|3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||3.87|-4.62|0.5451
91815895|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.15||||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.79|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.09|-1.79|0.4609
91942666|NCT04283773|183782010|SUPERIORITY|One-way ANOVA was used to examine the Difference in Mean between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons .Data was expressed as mean (SD). P value is significant if less than 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.699|TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.5|13.0||One-way ANOVA was used to examine the Difference in Mean between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons .Data was expressed as mean (SD). P value is significant if less than 0.05.|ANOVA|||Correlation between P16 cytoplasmic score using German semi-quantitative system and FIGO staging of MOGCTs was done via One-way ANOVA was used to examine the Difference in Mean between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons .Data was expressed as mean (SD).||13|9.5|0.699
91815896|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.46||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.37|-1.44|0.3771
91815897|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.32||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.24|-1.60|0.4161
91815898|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.88||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.26|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||-0.49|-5.26|0.9385
91815899|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.4||||0.5862|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.76|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||1.96|-2.76|0.5862
91815900|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.48||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||4.82|0.14|0.0875
91942667|NCT03558828|183782041|OTHER|A power analysis based on the study's primary aim (impact of augmented treatments on non-responders) was conducted. An estimated effect size of d=0.41 for the difference between the two augmented treatments was used. With a 2-tailed alpha of 0.05, a pre-post correlation of r=0.60, and a sample size of 188 non-responders, an estimated 80% power was obtained. Assuming 67% non-response to the initial treatments and 10% attrition, the final target sample size was N=312.|Effect size estimates|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests.|GEEs||Effect size estimates (Cohen's d) for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope (i.e., change) effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator.||"The longitudinal trajectories using generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were estimated. Cases for responders are duplicated and weighted based on the inverse probability of being assigned to a particular adaptive intervention (i.e., responders have a ½ probability of assignment to a specific adaptive intervention, and non-responders have a ¼ probability).~Only the Phase 1 (baseline to 8 weeks) treatment condition x time interaction was included because it preceded the randomization to Phase 2 (weeks 9-34) treatment conditions. Planned contrasts were used to test specific hypotheses. Effect size estimates for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator. All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests."|||
91942668|NCT03558828|183782042|OTHER|A power analysis based on the study's primary aim (impact of augmented treatments on non-responders) was conducted. An estimated effect size of d=0.41 for the difference between the two augmented treatments was used. With a 2-tailed alpha of 0.05, a pre-post correlation of r=0.60, and a sample size of 188 non-responders, an estimated 80% power was obtained. Assuming 67% non-response to the initial treatments and 10% attrition, the final target sample size was N=312.|Effect size estimates|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests.|GEEs||Effect size estimates for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope (i.e., change) effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator. An estimated effect size of d=0.41 was used.||There were time slope terms for Phase 1 (baseline to 8-week assessment), Phase 2 (9-weeks to 34-week assessment), and Phase 3 (maintenance from 35-weeks to 50-week assessment). Also, there were interactions of condition and time slopes. For Phase 1, only the Phase 1 treatment condition x time interaction was included because it preceded the randomization to Phase 2 treatment conditions. Supplementary analyses were conducted to compare the trajectories of responders versus non-responders to the Phase 1 treatment. Effect size estimates for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope (i.e., change) effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator. The resulting effect size is equivalent to a Cohen's d, representing mean change (or difference in change) in standard deviation units. All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests.|||
91942669|NCT03671148|183782065|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|33.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The comparison between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups for the primary efficacy endpoint (ACR20 at Week 24) was performed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD (0 vs ≥ 1), number of prior biologic therapies (0 vs ≥ 1), and extent of psoriasis (≥ 3% BSA or \< 3% BSA) at Baseline.||33.0|15.9|<0.001
91942670|NCT03671148|183782066|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.07|-0.26|<0.001
91942671|NCT03671148|183782067|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|54.6||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||54.6|33.9|<0.001
91942672|NCT03671148|183782068|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|31.2||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||31.2|13.9|<0.001
91815901|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.53||||0.4059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.32|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||3.37|-2.32|0.4059
91815902|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.24||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.58|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||4.05|-1.58|0.2860
91815903|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.71||||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.1|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||3.52|-2.10|0.3727
91815904|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.91||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.85|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||3.66|-1.85|0.3360
91942673|NCT03671148|183782069|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|21.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||21.0|7.0|<0.001
91942674|NCT03671148|183782070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|5.31||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||5.31|2.41|<0.001
91815905|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.95||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.24|6.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||6.66|1.24|0.0316
91815906|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.04||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|5.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||5.76|0.32|0.0762
91815907|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.68||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|6.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||6.61|0.75|0.0544
91815908|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.91||||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||4.77|-0.95|0.1955
91815909|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.77||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.65|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||1.12|-4.65|0.7844
91815910|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.49||||0.2973|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.11|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||5.08|-2.11|0.2973
91815911|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.33||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.18|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||4.84|-2.18|0.3127
91815912|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.16||||0.5227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.67|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||3.36|-3.67|0.5227
91815913|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.63||||0.7643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.54|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.28|-4.54|0.7643
91815914|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.38||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.25|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.48|-4.25|0.7331
91942675|NCT03671148|183782071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.9||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.9|0.6|0.009
91942676|NCT03671148|183782072|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||23.6|9.7|<0.001
91815915|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.25||||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.59|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||3.09|-2.59|0.4557
91815916|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.29||||0.4549|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.97|3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||3.55|-2.97|0.4549
91815917|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.93||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.26|4.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||4.13|-2.26|0.3535
91815918|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.65||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.54|3.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||3.84|-2.54|0.3970
91815919|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.78||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.99|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||5.55|-1.99|0.2714
91815920|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.72||||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.97|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||5.41|-1.97|0.2741
91815921|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.06||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.74|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||3.62|-3.74|0.5084
91942677|NCT03671148|183782073|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|6.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.3|0.8|0.024
91815922|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.82||||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|6.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||6.37|-0.73|0.1537
91815923|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.79||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.69|5.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||5.27|-1.69|0.2542
91815924|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.03||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.46|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||2.40|-4.46|0.6504
91815925|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.3||||0.3405|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.78|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||5.38|-2.78|0.3405
91815926|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.41||||0.2194|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.59|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||6.42|-1.59|0.2194
91815927|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.11||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.87|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||5.09|-2.87|0.3596
91942678|NCT03671148|183782074|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.2|3.5|0.009
91815928|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.07||||0.5086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.04|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||3.90|-4.04|0.5086
91815929|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.33||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.57|6.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||6.23|-1.57|0.2211
91815930|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.4||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.47|6.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||6.26|-1.47|0.2126
91815931|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.56||||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||6.55|-1.44|0.2053
91815932|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.2||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.72|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||6.12|-1.72|0.2353
91815933|NCT02515942|183508320|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.36||||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.24|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||3.53|-4.24|0.5471
91942679|NCT03671148|183782075|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|38.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||54.8|22.9|<0.001
91815934|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.74||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.38|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||-0.11|-5.38|0.0913
91815935|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.28||||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.89|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.33|-2.89|0.4454
91815936|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.46||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||5.08|-0.16|0.8861
91815937|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.16||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.49|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||3.80|-1.49|0.7130
91815938|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.37||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||5.01|-0.26|0.8759
91815939|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.22||||0.7256|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.39|3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||3.82|-1.39|0.7256
91815940|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.17||||0.3111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.22|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||1.88|-4.22|0.3111
91942680|NCT00425945|183782077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|14.9||||||||14.9|-0.1|
91942681|NCT00425945|183782078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|10.8||||||||10.8|-2.1|
91942682|NCT00425945|183782079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||||||||2.5|-1.7|
91942683|NCT00425945|183782080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|38.7||||||||38.7|-2.3|
91942684|NCT00425945|183782081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||||0.3|-0.1|
91942685|NCT00425945|183782082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.0|
91942686|NCT00425945|183782083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.5||||||||0.5|-6.8|
91942687|NCT00425945|183782084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-1.5|
91942688|NCT00425945|183782085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4||||||||0.4|0.0|
91942689|NCT00425945|183782086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4||||||||2.4|0.1|
91942690|NCT00425945|183782087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.3||||||||2.3|-4.4|
91942691|NCT00425945|183782088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||||||||2.5|-0.9|
91942692|NCT00425945|183782089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.1|
91942693|NCT00425945|183782090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.3||||||||9.3|-1.6|
91942694|NCT00425945|183782091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.8||||||||0.8|-3.4|
91942695|NCT05618808|183782115|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.32|||||REGN9933 vs Enoxaparin||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|1.32|0.47|
91942696|NCT05618808|183782118|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|1.61|||||REGN9933 vs Enoxaparin||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|1.61|0.16|
91942697|NCT05618808|183782119|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.32|||||REGN9933 vs Enoxaparin||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|1.32|0.47|
91942698|NCT05618808|183782125|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.95|||||Enoxaparin vs Apixaban||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|0.95|0.32|
91942699|NCT02527564|183782126|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at week 1 - suvorexant (double-blind)||||0.10
91942700|NCT02527564|183782126|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at week 1- placebo (double-blind) group||||0.57
91942701|NCT02527564|183782126|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Unpaired 2-sided t-test|||Between group change at week 1||||0.44
91942702|NCT02527564|183782127|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significantly significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at week 1 - suvorexant (double-blind)||||0.035
91942703|NCT02527564|183782127|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Paired 2-sided t-test|A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.||Within group change at week 1- placebo (double-blind) group||||0.55
91942704|NCT02527564|183782127|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Between group change at week 1||||0.89
91942705|NCT02527564|183782128|OTHER|||||||0.97||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significantly significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at month 3 - suvorexant (open-label)||||0.97
91942706|NCT02527564|183782129|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significantly significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at month 3 - suvorexant (open-label)||||0.28
91942707|NCT01804842|183782130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|71.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.14|84.01|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met DR qPM is the denominator for the % ratio of least squares (LS) means and the comparator for the p-values.||84.01|61.14|0.0018
91942708|NCT01804842|183782130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|71.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.85|84.09|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||84.09|60.85|0.0020
91942709|NCT01804842|183782130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|99.8||||0.9844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.91|117.33|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||117.33|84.91|0.9844
91942710|NCT01804842|183782131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|83.8||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.1|103.23|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met DR qPM is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||103.23|68.10|0.1595
91942711|NCT01804842|183782131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|111.3||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|136.99|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||136.99|90.37|0.3867
91942712|NCT01804842|183782131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|132.7||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.78|163.39|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||163.39|107.78|0.0294
91942713|NCT01804842|183782132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|91.0||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|96.67|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||96.67|85.70|0.0028
91942714|NCT01804842|183782132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|90.9||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.58|96.53|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||96.53|85.58|0.0024
91942715|NCT01804842|183782132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|95.1||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.54|100.99|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||100.99|89.54|0.0992
91942716|NCT01804842|183782133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|90.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.55|95.56|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||95.56|85.55|0.0006
91942717|NCT01804842|183782133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|90.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.65|95.67|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||95.67|85.65|0.0007
91942718|NCT01804842|183782133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|94.3||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.24|99.69|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||99.69|89.24|0.0389
91942719|NCT00628134|183782134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was used for comparisons||||0.07
91942720|NCT00628134|183782135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was used for comparisons||||0.29
91942721|NCT02365506|183782136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|Least Square mean (LSM) and 95% confidence interval (CI) is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||10.5|-26.0|0.358
91942722|NCT02365506|183782136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||16.7|-20.0|0.840
91942723|NCT02365506|183782137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||7.8|-19.8|0.338
91942724|NCT02365506|183782137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||19.9|-9.4|0.425
91942725|NCT02365506|183782138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||3.5|-16.5|0.174
91942726|NCT02365506|183782138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||13.1|-6.3|0.448
91942727|NCT02365506|183782139|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|29.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||29.6|-12.0|0.339
91942728|NCT02365506|183782139|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|33.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||33.4|-7.7|0.178
91942729|NCT02365506|183782140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.9|-14.1|0.564
91942730|NCT02365506|183782140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||20.2|-14.7|0.721
91942731|NCT03774875|183782144|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|45.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test adjusting for the stratification of the 5 difficult to treat manifestation types at randomization.|Adjusted difference (apremilast - placebo) in response rates calculated using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||45.2|18.6|<0.0001
91942732|NCT03774875|183782145|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|-3.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and baseline value as a covariate.|Difference in LS Means = Apremilast - Placebo|||-3.43|-7.15|<0.0001
91942733|NCT03774875|183782146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.12||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.58|-10.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate variable.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||-10.14|-66.58|0.0085
91942734|NCT03774875|183782147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.86|-2.34|<0.0001
91942735|NCT03774875|183782148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.63|-7.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||-7.60|-24.63|0.0003
91942736|NCT03774875|183782149|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification of the 5 difficult to treat manifestation types at randomization.|The adjusted difference in response rates (Apremilast - Placebo) using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||25.8|1.1|0.0328
91942737|NCT03774875|183782150|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|37.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|49.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the stratification of the 5 difficult to treat manifestation types at randomization.|Adjusted difference (Apremilast - Placebo) in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||49.9|24.1|<0.0001
91942738|NCT03774875|183782151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.55||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|51.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||51.48|-21.62|0.4216
91942739|NCT03774875|183782152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-148.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.9525||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-352.8793|56.8304|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||56.8304|-352.8793|0.1559
91942740|NCT03774875|183782153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|8.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||8.73|-2.43|0.2667
91942741|NCT03774875|183782154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.83|5.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||5.91|-10.83|0.5620
91942742|NCT03774875|183782155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|8.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||8.86|-10.16|0.8927
91942743|NCT03774875|183782156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||0.24|-15.90|0.0572
91942744|NCT02352090|183782182|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
91942745|NCT05179057|183782281|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model included treatment, level of viremia at baseline (≥10,000 copies/mL or \<10,000 copies/mL adenovirus DNA), age (≥12 years or \<12 years), and absolute lymphocyte counts at baseline. The null hypothesis is that the true percentage for posoleucel plus SoC is less than or equal to the true percentage for placebo plus SoC, and the alternative hypothesis is that it is greater.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.69|||||Posoleucel versus Placebo|||3.69|0.26|
91815941|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.7||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.73|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||1.34|-4.73|0.2360
91815942|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.53||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.55|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||2.49|-3.55|0.4110
91942746|NCT03375203|183782308|OTHER||Back-transformed Least Square Mean Ratio|0.88|||=|0.346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|0.70|= 0.346
91942747|NCT03375203|183782308|OTHER||Back-transformed Least Square Mean Ratio|0.64|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|0.51|= 0.001
91942748|NCT03375203|183782308|OTHER||Back-transformed Least Square Mean Ratio|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.64|||ANCOVA|||||0.64|0.41|< 0.001
91942749|NCT03375203|183782308|OTHER|||||||0|||||||MCP-mod|||||||0.000
91942750|NCT03107793|183782355|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0871|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.0871
91942751|NCT02808507|183782392|OTHER||Treatment initiation ratio|1.04||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||See above comments|||The primary analysis was based on the facility-level rate ratio. We first calculated an unadjusted ratio of the treatment initiation rates between the two arms and the corresponding 95% CI. We first fit a Poisson regression to the facility-level counts and the district and historical volume covariates. The residuals ratios, calculated as the ratio of the observed over the expected counts, were then used in the second stage to estimate the between-arm rate ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||1.3|0.80|0.73
91942752|NCT02808507|183782393|OTHER||Treatment initiation ratio|1.05||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13|||Poisson regression||Adjusted for district, study phase and clinic random effect.|The primary outcome of the study was the comparative number of people with incident TB diagnosed and started on treatment at study clinics during the two study periods, excluding the six-month washout period. The number of people starting treatment for incident TB was calculated by performing a review of paper and electronic medical records at each clinic on a quarterly basis during the study.||1.13|0.97|0.68
91942753|NCT02808507|183782394|OTHER||Prevalence ratio|1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.95||"The pre-specified secondary study outcome was the number of Xpert-based TB diagnoses made among enrolled contacts (secondary cases) by arm."|Poisson regression||Adjusted for study phase and district|||1.95|0.51|0.80
91815943|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.13||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.57|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||2.83|-2.57|0.5247
91815944|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.37||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.04|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||-0.70|-6.04|0.0534
91815945|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.5||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.18|-0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||-0.82|-6.18|0.0475
91815946|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.92||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.11|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||-0.74|-7.11|0.0575
91815947|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.16||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.29|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||0.97|-5.29|0.1876
91815948|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.76||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.38|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||4.91|-1.38|0.7644
91815949|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.85||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.42|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||-0.28|-7.42|0.0838
91815950|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.38||||0.4444|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.89|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||3.13|-3.89|0.4444
91815951|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.47||||0.8977|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.04|6.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||6.97|-0.04|0.8977
91815952|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.05||||0.4917|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.92|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.82|-2.92|0.4917
91815953|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.05||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.89|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.79|-2.89|0.4909
91815954|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.0||||0.4992|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.82|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.81|-2.82|0.4992
91815955|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.09||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.25|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||2.07|-4.25|0.3285
91815956|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.45||||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.57|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||0.67|-5.57|0.1568
91815957|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.36||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.46|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||1.74|-4.46|0.2867
91815958|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.93||||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.51|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||-0.35|-7.51|0.0798
91815959|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.47||||0.2962|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.0|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||2.06|-5.00|0.2962
91815960|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.46||||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.05|5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||5.98|-1.05|0.8163
91815961|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.64||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.81|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||-0.47|-6.81|0.0708
91815962|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.46||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.67|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||3.59|-2.67|0.5750
91815963|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|4.1||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.03|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||7.17|1.03|0.9560
91815964|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.22||||0.1283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.86|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||0.42|-6.86|0.1283
91815965|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.28||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.88|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||1.33|-5.88|0.2085
91815966|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.94||||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.61|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||4.49|-2.61|0.6335
91815967|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.64||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.31|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||1.03|-6.31|0.1778
91815968|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.7||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.33|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||2.94|-4.33|0.4027
91815969|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.94||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.64|5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||5.53|-1.64|0.7570
91815970|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.9||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.03|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||0.23|-8.03|0.1132
91815971|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.71||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.8|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||1.37|-6.80|0.1965
91815972|NCT02515942|183508321|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.18||||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.85|5.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||5.21|-2.85|0.6471
91815973|NCT03616912|183508332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.27|1.09|0.016
91815974|NCT03616912|183508333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|0.79|0.470
91815975|NCT03616912|183508334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.45|0.63|0.839
91815976|NCT03616912|183508334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.80|0.391
91815977|NCT03616912|183508336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.53|0.820
91815978|NCT03616912|183508336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|0.67|0.565
91815979|NCT03616912|183508337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.52|0.598
91815980|NCT03616912|183508337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.50|0.674
91815981|NCT03616912|183508338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.70|-1.65|0.979
91815982|NCT03616912|183508338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|-2.03|0.678
91815983|NCT03616912|183508339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.42|0.43|0.965
91815984|NCT03616912|183508339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.92|0.51|0.661
91815985|NCT03616912|183508340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|-0.61|0.578
91815986|NCT03616912|183508340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-1.29|0.309
91815987|NCT03616912|183508341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.84|0.287
91815988|NCT03616912|183508341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.99|0.113
91815989|NCT01124604|183508358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||||95.0|-1.04|0.8|||||Test for no difference between treatments was derived from Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with factors treatment, disease and Baseline pain intensity as covariate.|||0.80|-1.04|
91815990|NCT01762943|183508377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|F=1.40, df=2,26||||||.27
91815991|NCT01762943|183508378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|F=6.29, df=1,28||||||.018
91815992|NCT03090100|183508408|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 10%|Difference in percentage|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|19.2|||z-test|||||19.2|9.2|<0.001
91815993|NCT03090100|183508408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91815994|NCT03090100|183508409|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 10%|Difference in percentage|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|8.9|||z-test|||||8.9|-0.2|<0.001
91815995|NCT03090100|183508409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.062
91815996|NCT03090100|183508410|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.7||||||||-1.7|-12.2|
91815997|NCT03090100|183508411|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.2||||||||1.2|-6.0|
91815998|NCT03090100|183508412|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.5||||||||15.5|3.8|
91815999|NCT03090100|183508413|OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|17.4||||||||17.4|5.8|
91816000|NCT03090100|183508414|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|14.5||||||||14.5|4.9|
91816001|NCT03090100|183508415|OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|13.2||||||||13.2|2.3|
91816002|NCT03090100|183508416|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.1||||||||3.1|-3.5|
91816003|NCT03090100|183508417|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.4||||||||3.4|-6.2|
91816004|NCT03090100|183508418|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|15.3||||||||15.3|4.2|
91816005|NCT03090100|183508419|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.9||||||||3.9|-4.2|
91816006|NCT03090100|183508420|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.3||||||||3.3|-5.0|
91816007|NCT00456521|183508438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.56|-2.86|||ANCOVA|||||-2.86|-5.56|<0.001
91816008|NCT00456521|183508439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||<|0.001||95.0|2.02|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.13|2.02|<0.001
91816009|NCT00456521|183508440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|4.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.37|1.95|<0.001
91816010|NCT00456521|183508441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-4.82|<0.001
91816011|NCT00456521|183508442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91816012|NCT00456521|183508443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.53||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91816013|NCT00456521|183508444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|4.95|||ANCOVA|||||4.95|1.52|<0.001
91816014|NCT00456521|183508445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.04|||ANCOVA|||||5.04|1.23|0.001
91816015|NCT00456521|183508446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91816016|NCT00456521|183508447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.98||||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.165
91816017|NCT00456521|183508448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.79||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.79|-3.34|
91816018|NCT00456521|183508449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|1.86||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.86|-7.26|
91816019|NCT00456521|183508450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.14||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||4.14|0.97|
91816020|NCT00456521|183508451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.49||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.49|0.25|
91816021|NCT00456521|183508452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.87||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.87|-0.70|
91816022|NCT00456521|183508453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.63||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.63|-0.85|
91816023|NCT00456521|183508454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.6||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.60|-0.78|
91816024|NCT00456521|183508455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-1.42||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-1.42|-9.16|
91816025|NCT02596854|183508456|NON_INFERIORITY|α=0.025 with a margin of Δ=0.5 were used for non-inferiority testing|Median Difference (Net)|-0.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3522|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|-0.269||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Notably, no separate comparative statistical analysis was performed for the 1.5T and 3.0T subgroups, which were pooled for analysis. All patients underwent both synthetic MR and commercial conventional MR in a single arm.|Non-inferiority of synthetic MR versus conventional commercial MR the hypothesis can be stated as H0: S ≤ -Δ and HA: S \> -Δ.|To mitigate possible bias, the hypothesis test was executed via pre-programmed SAS module, which does not show the data for individual synthetic and conventional group values. The data for these individual groups is thus not currently available as part of the study report held by the sponsor or submitted to FDA. Thus, this data cannot be presented without additional analysis (re-programming) of the original SAS used to perform the study. Data were only reported as the difference between synthetic - conventional to determine non-inferiority, and data for individual crossovers (synthetic vs. conventional) were not calculated.The raw conventional scan images and those post-processed with the research software were combined as pre-specified in the study protocol|-0.269|-0.428|<0.001
91816026|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.35|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.35|0.96|0.1351
91816027|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.41|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.41|1.01|0.0383
91816028|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||1.43|1.02|0.0325
91816029|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.68|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.68|1.20|<0.0001
91816030|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.82|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.82|1.16|0.0015
91816031|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.93|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.93|1.24|0.0002
91816032|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.17|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||2.17|1.38|<0.0001
91816033|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.18|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||2.18|1.40|<0.0001
91816034|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.81|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.81|1.22|0.0001
91816035|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.85|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.85|1.25|<0.0001
91816036|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.05|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||2.05|1.38|<0.0001
91816037|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.89|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.89|1.28|<0.0001
91816038|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.07|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||2.07|1.16|0.0034
91816039|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.07|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||2.07|1.17|0.0029
91942754|NCT02040857|183782412|OTHER|Exact binomial test||||||0.0011|||||||Exact binomial test|||Primary objective is treatment discontinuation rate at 2 yr for patients receiving Palbociclib therapy. If the true rate of discontinuation by two years is 48% or higher, treatment duration will be considered not feasible and not worthy of further study. If the rate of discontinuation is 33.3% or less, the 2 yr duration will be deemed feasible and worthy of further study. Using a one-sided alpha = 0.025, there is \> 90% power to reject the null hypothesis in favor of feasibility.||||0.0011
91942755|NCT00976963|183782418|NON_INFERIORITY|The equivalence margin for non-inferiority of Fosfomycin to TMP/SMX is 10%.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wald test for noninferiority|||The null hypothesis is that Fosfomycin is inferior to TMP/SMX.||||<0.001
91942756|NCT00608842|183782420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|20.4||||||Complete Clearance||20.4|-18.4|
91942757|NCT00608842|183782420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|20.4||||||Complete Clearance||20.4|-18.4|
91942758|NCT00608842|183782420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|31.5||||||Complete Clearance||31.5|-12.2|
91942759|NCT00608842|183782420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|27.5||||||≥ 75% Cleared||27.5|-23.0|
91942760|NCT00608842|183782420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|19.6||||||≥ 75% Cleared||19.6|-28.3|
91942761|NCT00608842|183782420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|29.5||||||≥ 75% Cleared||29.5|-22.3|
91942762|NCT01024920|183782426|OTHER|||||||0.8531||||||P-value for comparison of Kaplan-Meier estimates at 9 months using normal approximation test (two-sided).|Normal approximation test|||||||0.8531
91942763|NCT01024920|183782428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.6395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.8|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery.|A stratified log-rank test (two-sided, 0.05 significance level) was used to test the effect of nintedanib on PFS compared with sunitinib. The test was stratified by Motzer risk score category (low/intermediate or high) and prior nephrectomy surgery for Renal Cell Cancer (yes or no).||1.800|0.697|0.6395
91942764|NCT01024920|183782429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.484||||0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|1.212|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \> 1 favours nintedanib.|A logistic regression model stratified by Motzer risk score category and prior surgery for renal cell cancer (RCC) was used to compare the objective response rate between the two treatment arms. The corresponding odds ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals was also presented.||1.212|0.193|0.1213
91816040|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.33|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||2.33|1.30|0.0003
91816041|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.08|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||2.08|1.17|0.0027
91816042|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.34|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||2.34|1.01|0.0448
91942765|NCT01024920|183782431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.564||P-value from log-rank stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery. Hazard ratio \< 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.564|0.542|0.7593
91942766|NCT01024920|183782432|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.143||||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.873|||Log Rank|P-value from log-rank stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery.|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery. Hazard ratio \< 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.873|0.697|0.5958
91942767|NCT01024920|183782433|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142||||0.5712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.812|||Log Rank|P-value from log-rank stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery (two-sided).|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery. Hazard ratio \< 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.812|0.720|0.5712
91942768|NCT01791465|183782475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91942769|NCT01791465|183782476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Unadjusted - this was a Wilcoxon signed rank p-value (Baseline vs. week 16) comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|no adjustments||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between baseline and 16 week IL-6||||0.34
91942770|NCT01791465|183782477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
91942771|NCT01791465|183782478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91942772|NCT01791465|183782479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91942773|NCT01791465|183782480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
91942774|NCT01791465|183782481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91942775|NCT01791465|183782482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91942776|NCT01791465|183782483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91942777|NCT01791465|183782484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91942778|NCT01791465|183782485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91942779|NCT01791465|183782486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91942780|NCT01791465|183782487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91942781|NCT01791465|183782488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
91942782|NCT01791465|183782489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91942783|NCT01791465|183782490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91942784|NCT01791465|183782491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
91942785|NCT01791465|183782492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
91942786|NCT01791465|183782493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91942787|NCT01791465|183782494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91942788|NCT01791465|183782495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
91942789|NCT02736929|183782503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up||22.3|-2.7|0.12
91816043|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.83|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||2.83|1.24|0.0033
91816044|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.3|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||3.30|1.42|0.0004
91816045|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.001||95.0|1.34|3.08|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||3.08|1.34|0.0010
91816046|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.8718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.43|0.74|0.8718
91816047|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.63|0.86|0.3078
91816048|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.66|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||1.66|0.86|0.2909
91816049|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.91|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.91|0.99|0.0539
91816050|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.7393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.54|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.54|0.74|0.7393
91816051|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.74|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.74|0.84|0.2967
91816052|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.98|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||1.98|0.95|0.0934
91816053|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.97|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.97|0.95|0.0919
91816054|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.51|||ANOVA|||SNF1LK; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||3.51|2.11|<0.0001
91816055|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|3.9|||ANOVA|||SNF1LK; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||3.90|2.37|<0.0001
91816056|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|4.23|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||4.23|2.54|<0.0001
91816057|NCT00464568|183508471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|4.27|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||4.27|2.59|<0.0001
91816058|NCT00464568|183508486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-0.5545|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.79598||0.647226|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model|||Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg: VASP||||0.647226
91816059|NCT00464568|183508486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-0.3816|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.00754||0.95084|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg: VASP||||0.95084
91816060|NCT00464568|183508486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|0.0256|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.24118||0.53499|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo Vs GSK256066 50 mcg: VASP||||0.53499
91816061|NCT00464568|183508486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-1.3371|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5459||0.81527|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg: VASP||||0.81527
91816062|NCT00464568|183508486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-2.8053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.88217||0.32998|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo Vs GSK256066 1 mcg: pVASP||||0.32998
91816063|NCT00464568|183508486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-1.6602|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.30724||0.65729|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg: pVASP||||0.65729
91816064|NCT00464568|183508486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|0.156|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73976||0.89831|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg: pVASP||||0.89831
91816065|NCT00464568|183508486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-1.5165|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.70748||0.84479|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg: pVASP||||0.84479
91816066|NCT02255981|183508548|OTHER|Non-inferiority could be considered if the outcomes were comparable to the most known studies yet published or, in the case of non-treatable disorder, if the acupuncture treatment got to maintain the VA and prevent the losses. There are many known studies with conventional treatment and estimations of the worsening of vision in this pathologies on the time without treatment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.392|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Using the SPSS program and the non-parametrical technic of Wilcoxon it was determined the p-value.~It should be noted that the null hypothesis is that all these eyes should have a zero gain or perhaps a loss in VA at two years of follow-up."|t-test, 1 sided|From this estimation, it is induced that there are differences in results before and after the treatment.|The datum corresponds to the difference in letters seen between exams at the start and the final examination for all participants. Calculi were made by a Microsoft Excel Descriptive Statistics program.|"Besides that it is of interest to compare with the published studies outcomes, realized with anti-VEGF treatments, and with the known expectations of AV lost without treatment, the data were converted in letters ETDRS chart and here are registered the mean number of letters gained or lost in each group.~Ho: Differences between mean measurements before and after are similar H1: Differences between mean measurements before and after are different."|The null hypothesis was no gain or loss in VA. The alternative hypothesis was stabilization or some gain in letters seen over the baseline count.The published studies report a small gain in VA in about a third of participants and only in cases of NV-AMD with conventional treatment, and an expectancy of loss of vision in the other non treated or non-treatable macular diseases. Some of the participants in this trial had had ocular injections without positive change. Non-inferiority in this trial means outcomes of similar magnitude to the known studies.|||<0.05
91816067|NCT01232920|183508557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
91816068|NCT00885755|183508562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|1.535||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Positive / Negative) for the biomarker p95.||1.535|0.109|
91816069|NCT00885755|183508562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.282||||||Univariate Cox regression: Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker IGF1R.||3.282|0.430|
91816070|NCT00885755|183508562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|2.425||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker c-MET.||2.425|0.306|
91816071|NCT00885755|183508562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|1.453||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Cytoplasm H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker PTEN.||1.453|0.164|
91816072|NCT00885755|183508562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|3.16||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the biomarker HER2.||3.160|0.377|
91816073|NCT00885755|183508562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|4.132||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Mutation Status: Wild type / Mutation) for the biomarker PI3K amino acids.||4.132|0.409|
91816074|NCT00885755|183508562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|6.197||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VF) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||6.197|0.226|
91816075|NCT00885755|183508562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|10.47||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||10.470|0.378|
91816076|NCT00885755|183508562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.732|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|12.783||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: VF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||12.783|0.235|
91816077|NCT00885755|183508562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|4.968||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / HR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||4.968|0.067|
91816078|NCT00885755|183508562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|6.72||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||6.720|0.082|
91816079|NCT00885755|183508562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|4.199||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HR / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||4.199|0.274|
91816080|NCT00885755|183508565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.79||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Positive / Negative) for the biomarker p95 HER2.||1.790|0.120|
91816081|NCT00885755|183508565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|3.518||||||Univariate Cox regressionHazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker IGF1R.||3.518|0.394|
91816082|NCT00885755|183508565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|2.514||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the biomarker c-met.||2.514|0.268|
91816083|NCT00885755|183508565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.768||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Cytoplasm H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the marker PTEN.||1.768|0.183|
91816084|NCT00885755|183508565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|2.733||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the biomarker HER2.||2.733|0.242|
91816085|NCT00885755|183508565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|3.632||||||Univariate Cox regressionHazard ratio (Mutation Status: Wild type / Mutation) for the biomarker PI3K amino acids.||3.632|0.337|
91816086|NCT00885755|183508565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|5.336||||||Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VF) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||5.336|0.172|
91816087|NCT00885755|183508565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.666|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|9.305||||||Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||9.305|0.298|
91816088|NCT00885755|183508565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.732|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|12.783||||||Hazard ratio (Phenotype: VF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||12.783|0.235|
91816089|NCT00885755|183508565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|4.968||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / HR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||4.968|0.067|
91816090|NCT00885755|183508565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|9.319||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||9.319|0.098|
91816091|NCT00885755|183508565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|5.64||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HR / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||5.640|0.296|
91816092|NCT00885755|183508573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.641||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Positive / Negative) for the biomarker p95 HER 2.||0.641|0.001|
91816093|NCT00885755|183508573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.208|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.6||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Membrane H-Score: ≥median /\<median) for the biomarker IGF1R.||2.600|0.017|
91816094|NCT00885755|183508573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|27.103||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Membrane H-Score: ≥ median /\<median) for the biomarker c-MET.||27.103|0.169|
91816095|NCT00885755|183508573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|23.396||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Cytoplasm H-Score: ≥ median /\< median) for the biomarker PTEN.||23.396|0.150|
91816096|NCT00885755|183508573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|8.075||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Membrane H-Score: ≥median /\< median) for the biomarker HER2.||8.075|0.091|
91816097|NCT00885755|183508573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|1.9||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (PI3K mutation status: WT versus M) for the biomarker PI3K Amino Acids.||1.900|0.012|
91816098|NCT00885755|183508573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|18.915||||||Univariate logistic regressionOdds ratio (Phenotype: FF / VF) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||18.915|0.053|
91816099|NCT00885755|183508573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|1.945||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Phenotype: HR / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H||1.945|0.004|
91816100|NCT01334723|183508581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||||95.0|0.35|0.412|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.412|0.350|
91816101|NCT01334723|183508581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.294||||||95.0|0.235|0.368|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.368|0.235|
91816102|NCT01334723|183508582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.613||||||95.0|0.562|0.668|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.668|0.562|
91942790|NCT02736929|183782504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||0.5|0.1|0.024
91942791|NCT02736929|183782505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||0.6|0.0|0.027
91942792|NCT02736929|183782506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||7.1|0.5|0.024
91942793|NCT02736929|183782507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||2.0|-9.8|0.19
91942794|NCT02736929|183782508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||0.4|-1.3|0.31
91942795|NCT02736929|183782509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||1.5|-1.8|0.86
91942796|NCT02736929|183782510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||1.2|-1.7|0.77
91942797|NCT02972593|183782514|OTHER|Data collapsed to participant level, creating an ever/never response for each participant for each infection outcome type. Analyses performed at the participant level to determine if proportion of outcome types were similar between transfusion groups using Fisher's Exact tests, due to small expected cell counts, using SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Power analyses performed based on these proportions using bootstrapping methods in SAS and confirmed with nQuery v8.7.1.0.||||||0.0122|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0122
91942798|NCT02972593|183782515|OTHER|||||||0.7742|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.7742
91942799|NCT02972593|183782516|OTHER|||||||0.1443|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.1443
91942800|NCT00118404|183782526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.34|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 0.038, df = 1, p \<=.42|Hazard ratio for relapse in C-CT group compared to that in the fluoxetine group.|The sample size was based on a predicted 30% difference in relapse/recurrence rates between C-CT and fluoxetine (ie,30% vs 60%) across both the experimental phase and the first 12 months of follow-up. With these assumptions, 180 randomized patients (60 per cell) were required to detect a statistically significant difference using a log-rank test with 1-sided α = 0.05 and 80% power.||2.34|0.50|.42
91942801|NCT00118404|183782526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.01|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 3.92, df = 1|Hazard Ratio for relapse in fluoxetine group compared to that in the pill placebo group.|||1.01|.23|.02
91942802|NCT00118404|183782526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.06|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 3.391, df = 1|Hazard ratio for relapse in C-CT group compared to that in the placebo group.|||1.06|0.26|.03
91942803|NCT00118404|183782526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.93|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 5.06, df = 1|Hazard ratio for relapse in active treatment group (fluoxetine or C-CT) compared to that in the placebo group.|||0.93|0.27|.01
91942804|NCT00118404|183782527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.76|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 0.002, df = 1|Hazard ratio for relapse/recurrence in the C-CT group compared to that in the fluoxetine group.|||1.76|0.55|.48
91942805|NCT00118404|183782527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.31|||Log Rank|Chi-square = 1.19, df = 1|Hazard ratio of relapse/recurrence in the Fluoxetine arm over the 20 months of follow-up since randomization compared to the pill placebo arm.|||1.31|.39|.14
91942806|NCT00118404|183782527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.29|||Log Rank|chi-square = 1.262, df = 1|Hazard ratio of relapse/recurrence in the C-CT arm over the 20 months of follow-up since randomization compared to the pill placebo arm.|||1.29|.40|.13
91942807|NCT00118404|183782527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.2|||Log Rank|Chi-square = 1.595, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the active treatment (FLX or C-CT) arm compared to PBO (placebo)arm.|||1.20|.43|.10
91942808|NCT00118404|183782528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.84|||Log Rank|chi-square = .07, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence for C-CT arm compared to FLX arm was reported.|||1.84|.63|.40
91942809|NCT00118404|183782528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.13|||Log Rank|chi-square = 2.407, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the FLX arm compared tp C-CT arm was reported.|||1.13|.37|.61
91942810|NCT00118404|183782528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.19|||Log Rank|chi-square = 1.731, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the C-CT arm compared to PBO arm is reported.|||1.19|.41|.09
91942811|NCT00118404|183782528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.676|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.08|||Log Rank|chi-square = 2.705, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the active treatment (FLX or C-CT) arm compared to PBO arm was reported.|||1.08|.42|.05
91942812|NCT02963766|183782529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-1.8|<0.001
91942813|NCT02963766|183782530|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.7|0.002
91942814|NCT02963766|183782530|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.9|-2.2|<0.001
91942815|NCT02963766|183782531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-2.65|0.021
91942816|NCT02963766|183782531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.29|-3.72|<0.001
91942817|NCT02963766|183782531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-3.03|<0.001
91816103|NCT01334723|183508582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.542||||||95.0|0.427|0.689|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.689|0.427|
91816104|NCT01334723|183508583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.519||||||95.0|0.472|0.57|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.570|0.472|
91816105|NCT01334723|183508583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.436||||||95.0|0.333|0.57|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.570|0.333|
91816106|NCT04649164|183508618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests comparing peer mentors' baseline and 16-week scores, and caregiver mentees' baseline and 16-week scores, respectively||||0.36
91816107|NCT04649164|183508620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
91816108|NCT04649164|183508621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
91816109|NCT04649164|183508622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91816110|NCT04649164|183508625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91816111|NCT01549964|183508647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.34||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.34|-0.77|<0.001
91816112|NCT01549964|183508647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.49||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||0.49|0.15|<0.001
91816113|NCT01549964|183508647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.6||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.60|-1.03|<0.001
91816114|NCT01549964|183508647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||0.23|-0.12|0.524
91816115|NCT01549964|183508648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.08||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.08|1.00|0.050
91816116|NCT01549964|183508648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.67||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.67|0.23|<0.001
91816117|NCT01549964|183508648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|11.42||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.42|2.24|<0.001
91816118|NCT01549964|183508648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.39||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|0.50|0.493
91816119|NCT01549964|183508649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-16.6||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-16.6|-33.8|<0.001
91816120|NCT01549964|183508649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.7||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||1.7|-12.0|0.142
91816121|NCT01549964|183508649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-22.6||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-22.6|-39.9|<0.001
91816122|NCT01549964|183508649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-4.2||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-4.2|-18.1|0.002
91816123|NCT00499096|183508686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91816124|NCT02245841|183508704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||< .001
91816125|NCT02245841|183508705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||<0.001
91816126|NCT02245841|183508706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||0.002
91816127|NCT02245841|183508707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||0.050
91816128|NCT02245841|183508708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||<0.001
91816129|NCT02438722|183508712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.50|0.44
91942818|NCT02963766|183782532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.491|34.902|||Regression, Logistic|||||34.902|3.491|<0.001
91816130|NCT02438722|183508713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.72|0.94
91816131|NCT02438722|183508715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.64|0.54
91816132|NCT02438722|183508716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.73|0.95
91816133|NCT03343483|183508724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.93|-2.21|.896
91816134|NCT03343483|183508725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
91816135|NCT03343483|183508726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
91816136|NCT03343483|183508727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
91816137|NCT03343483|183508728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
91816138|NCT03343483|183508729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
91816139|NCT01835743|183508730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00005
91816140|NCT01835743|183508731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test for two independent samples to compare the change in VAS scores across the evaluation period between the two procedure administration groups||||||<0.0001
91816141|NCT00117559|183508749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91816142|NCT04949165|183508750|NON_INFERIORITY|The study employed a non-inferiority design with a non-inferiority margin of 1 g/dL for haemoglobin levels at 4 months, a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, at least 85% power and under the assumption that the true difference in the means was 0.3 g/dL. The estimated sample size also allowed for up to 10% loss to follow- up or iron supplementation for those initially not requiring supplements, thus the sample size was 292.||||||0.025||||||Non-inferiority threshold of -1 g/dL for the lower bound of the 97.5% CI.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
91816143|NCT00579826|183508763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91816144|NCT00579826|183508764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91816145|NCT00579826|183508765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91816146|NCT00579826|183508766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91816147|NCT00579826|183508767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91816148|NCT04191382|183508768|OTHER|Other descriptive analysis|Ratio of Geometric Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63||||||Geometric LS-means ratio of proportional change was the ratio of geometric LS-means of the proportional change between groups (Amcenestrant 400 mg versus Letrozole 2.5 mg).||1.63|0.72|
91816149|NCT04191382|183508768|OTHER|Other descriptive analysis|Ratio of Geometric Means|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.12||||||Geometric LS-means ratio of proportional change was the ratio of geometric LS-means of the proportional change between groups (Amcenestrant 200 mg versus Letrozole 2.5 mg).||2.12|0.95|
91816150|NCT01748643|183508773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91816151|NCT01748643|183508774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91816152|NCT01748643|183508775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91816153|NCT01748643|183508776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.97
91816154|NCT01748643|183508777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.64
91816155|NCT01748643|183508778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.58
91816156|NCT03054870|183508816|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was determined from a separate study where 6 blinded readers read and re-read 75 Xe-133 planar ventilation imaging studies in 2 read sessions separated by a minimum of 4 weeks. The readers scored the 6 regions of the lung using the same ventilation scoring metric used in this study. Based on analysis of the read/re-read results, 60% was established as a suitable margin for establishing the non-inferiority of Technegas compared to Xe-133.|||||<|0.0141||||||P-value is one-sided; for testing non-inferiority the associated critical value for PA is provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval.|Mixed Models Analysis|Binary agreement scores between Technegas and Xe-133 ventilation scores by subject-lung region served as the dependent variable in the model.||PA between Technegas and Xe-133 from analysis of each of the 3 blinded readers' ventilation scores was subjected to the following test of null (H0) versus alternate hypotheses (HA): H0: PA \<= 60% versus HA: PA \> 60%. The original sample size of 240 subjects was based on 90% power and one-sided alpha=0.025. For the unplanned interim analysis of 200 subjects, testing for non-inferiority used one-sided alpha=0.0141 (critical value provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval).|Binary agreement scores were analyzed for each reader separately using a generalized linear model with SAS® PROC GENMOD. The logit function (log odds ratio) was specified as the link function, and subject was specified as a repeated measure to allow for correlations between lung regions within a subject. The estimate of the intercept of the model using generalized estimating equation (GEE) methodology provided an overall estimate of the agreement and corresponding confidence interval in terms of the log odds ratio. Simple algebra was used to obtain the corresponding estimates and confidence intervals in terms of percent agreement (PA). For the study to be considered a success, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for at least 2 of the 3 blinded readers for the primary efficacy endpoint.|||<0.0141
91816157|NCT03054870|183508817|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was determined from a separate study where 6 blinded readers read and re-read 75 Xe-133 planar ventilation imaging studies in 2 read sessions separated by a minimum of 4 weeks. The readers scored the 6 regions of the lung using the same ventilation scoring metric used in this study. Based on analysis of the read/re-read results, 60% was established as a suitable margin for establishing the non-inferiority of Technegas compared to Xe-133.|||||<|0.0141||||||P-value is one-sided; for testing non-inferiority the associated critical value for PA is provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval.|Mixed Models Analysis|Binary agreement scores between Technegas and Xe-133 ventilation scores by subject-lung region served as the dependent variable in the model.||PA between Technegas and Xe-133 from analysis of each of the 3 blinded readers' ventilation scores was subjected to the following test of null (H0) versus alternate hypotheses (HA): H0: PA \<= 60% versus HA: PA \> 60%. The original sample size of 240 subjects was based on 90% power and one-sided alpha=0.025. For the unplanned interim analysis of 200 subjects, testing for non-inferiority used one-sided alpha=0.0141 (critical value provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval).|Binary agreement scores were analyzed for each reader separately using a generalized linear model with SAS® PROC GENMOD. The logit function (log odds ratio) was specified as the link function, and subject was specified as a repeated measure to allow for correlations between lung regions within a subject. The estimate of the intercept of the model using generalized estimating equation (GEE) methodology provided an overall estimate of the agreement and corresponding confidence interval in terms of the log odds ratio. Simple algebra was used to obtain the corresponding estimates and confidence intervals in terms of percent agreement (PA). For the study to be considered a success, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for at least 2 of the 3 blinded readers for the primary efficacy endpoint.|||<0.0141
91942819|NCT02963766|183782532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.666|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.653|37.253|||Regression, Logistic|||||37.253|3.653|<0.001
91942820|NCT02963766|183782532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.163|30.932|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.932|4.163|<0.001
91942821|NCT02963766|183782533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.689
91942822|NCT02963766|183782533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.6|0.924
91942823|NCT02963766|183782533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.6|0.776
91942824|NCT04964557|183782545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-56.6|||ANCOVA|||||-56.6|-68|<0.001
91942825|NCT04964557|183782546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-76.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.7|-71.7|||ANCOVA|||||-71.7|-81.7|<0.001
91942826|NCT00323427|183782566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0974||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.23||No multiple testing adjustment.|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Mean(Arm 1) = Mean(Arm 2)||0.23|-0.15|0.69
91942827|NCT00323427|183782567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.38||No adjustment.|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Mean(Arm 1) = Mean(Arm 2)||0.38|-0.16|0.42
91942828|NCT00323427|183782568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.29||No adjustment|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: mean(Arm 1) = Mean (Arm 2)||0.29|-0.30|0.97
91942829|NCT02493868|183782569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84|||Weighted Log-rank|||||0.84|0.29|= 0.003
91816158|NCT03054870|183508818|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of inter-observer percent agreement were obtained as follows. For each reader-pair, binary agreement scores by subject and lung region were analyzed using a generalized linear model with SAS® PROC GENMOD. The logit function (log odds ratio) was specified as the link function, and subject was specified as a repeated measure to allow for correlations between lung regions within a subject. The estimate of the intercept of the model using generalized estimating equation (GEE) methodology provided an overall estimate of the agreement and corresponding confidence interval in terms of the log odds ratio. Simple algebra was used to obtain the corresponding estimates and confidence intervals in terms of percent agreement.|||
91816159|NCT03054870|183508819|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For each pair of readers, by lung region estimates of kappa statistics and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were generated from cross-tabulation frequencies of the readers' ventilation scores using SAS® PROC FREQ and the AGREE option.|||
91816160|NCT02009046|183508820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.60|0.75|0.6430
91816161|NCT02009046|183508820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.44|0.39|0.3718
91942830|NCT05849441|183782587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||This is for the subscale: Support-Seeking.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.04
91942831|NCT05849441|183782587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||This is for subscale: Problem Solving|Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
91942832|NCT05849441|183782587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||This is for subscale: Distancing|Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
91942833|NCT05849441|183782587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This is for subscale: Internalizing|Regression, Linear|||||||0.79
91942834|NCT05849441|183782587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||This is for subscale: Externalizing|Regression, Linear|||||||0.93
91942835|NCT05849441|183782587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||This is for subscale: Mindfulness|Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
91942836|NCT05849441|183782588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||This is for subscale: Reappraisal|Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
91942837|NCT05849441|183782588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||This is for subscale: Suppression|Regression, Linear|||||||0.24
91942838|NCT05849441|183782589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||This is for subscale: Manage own emotions|Regression, Linear|||||||0.53
91942839|NCT05849441|183782589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||This is for subscale: Identify and Understand Own Emotions|Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
91942840|NCT05849441|183782589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||This is for subscale: Deal with emotions of others|Regression, Linear|||||||0.27
91942841|NCT05849441|183782589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||This is for subscale: Perceive emotions through faces and bodies|Regression, Linear|||||||0.59
91942842|NCT05849441|183782590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
91942843|NCT05849441|183782591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||This is for subscale: Fear of Negative Evaluation|Regression, Linear|||||||0.65
91942844|NCT05849441|183782591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||This is for subscale: Social avoidance and distress (new)|Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
91942845|NCT05849441|183782591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||This is for subscale: social avoidance and distress (general)|Regression, Linear|||||||0.23
91942846|NCT05849441|183782592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
91942847|NCT05849441|183782593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||This is for subscale: Negativity|Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
91942848|NCT05849441|183782593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This is for subscale: Emotion regulation|Regression, Linear|||||||0.79
91942849|NCT05849441|183782594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||This is for subscale: Working Memory|Regression, Linear|||||||0.14
91942850|NCT05849441|183782594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||This is for subscale: Planning|Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
91816162|NCT02009046|183508821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.37|0.67|0.8083
91942851|NCT05849441|183782594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||This is for subscale: Inhibit|Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
91942852|NCT05849441|183782594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||This is for subscale: Regulation|Regression, Linear|||||||0.37
91942853|NCT05849441|183782595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
91942854|NCT05849441|183782596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.88
91942855|NCT01431521|183782621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-44.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.67|-34.07|||Linear mixed effects model|Treatment as fixed factor and predose Day 1 value, as a fixed covariate||||-34.07|-54.67|<0.001
91942856|NCT01431521|183782621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-26.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.97|-16.37|||Linear mixed effects model|Treatment as fixed factor and predose Day 1 value, as a fixed covariate||||-16.37|-36.97|<0.001
91942857|NCT01431521|183782621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean difference|-17.69||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.97|-7.39|||Linear mixed effects model|Treatment as fixed factor and predose Day 1 value, as a fixed covariate||||-7.39|-36.97|0.007
91942858|NCT01431521|183782622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.35|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|6.0|||Linear mixed effect model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||6.00|-18.69|>0.200
91942859|NCT01431521|183782622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-16.74||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|-4.4|||Linear mixed effects model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||-4.40|-29.08|0.028
91942860|NCT01431521|183782623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.47|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|10.92|||Linear mixed effects model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||10.92|-17.85|>0.200
91942861|NCT01431521|183782623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.67|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|3.71|||Linear mixed effects model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||3.71|-25.06|>0.200
91942862|NCT01994109|183782627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91816163|NCT02009046|183508821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.13|0.32|0.1083
91816164|NCT02009046|183508822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.10|0.35|0.1006
91816165|NCT02009046|183508822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.53|0.16|0.2117
91816166|NCT02009046|183508823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.78|1.05|0.0218
91816167|NCT02009046|183508823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||2.75|1.09|0.0211
91816168|NCT02009046|183508824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.73|0.90|0.1763
91942863|NCT01994109|183782627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91942864|NCT01994109|183782628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91942865|NCT01994109|183782628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91942866|NCT02418585|183782657|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.64|-7.31|=0.020
91942867|NCT02418585|183782658|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-3.5|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-6.67|=0.034
91942868|NCT03949621|183782715|OTHER|Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with weight as a covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9632|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7938|1.1688||||||||1.1688|0.7938|
91942869|NCT03949621|183782716|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9606|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|1.1562||||||||1.1562|0.798|
91942870|NCT03949621|183782717|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0162|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9001|1.1473||||||||1.1473|0.9001|
91942871|NCT01236768|183782720|EQUIVALENCE|Comparative analysis of AG200-15 and Levora for breakthrough bleeding and/or spotting.||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparative evaluation of AG200-15 and Levora||||0.089
91942872|NCT00605358|183782725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.93|||Chi-squared|||Participants in the Open Door Intervention and the Services Referral condition were compared on rates of engagement in mental health services over the study follow-up period.||4.93|1.17|.018
91942873|NCT01957085|183782727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.04||||||Statistical significance was set at .05 to determine statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||=.04
91942874|NCT01957085|183782728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91942875|NCT01957085|183782729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91942876|NCT01957085|183782731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91816169|NCT02009046|183508824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.58|0.45|0.5869
91816170|NCT02009046|183508825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.44|0.75|0.8102
91816171|NCT02009046|183508825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.34|0.39|0.2956
91816172|NCT02009046|183508826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.56|0.82|0.4645
91816173|NCT02009046|183508826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.40|0.43|0.3809
91816174|NCT02009046|183508827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.1335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.09|0.52|0.1335
91816175|NCT02009046|183508827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.06|0.29|0.0741
91816176|NCT02009046|183508828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||2.01|0.54|0.9085
91942877|NCT02148952|183782735|SUPERIORITY|We hypothesized a 15% reduction in the composite outcome between the intervention and control arm.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||Chi-squared, Corrected|In secondary analyses, a Rao-Scott test with 3 degrees of freedom resulted in a p value of 0.88.|Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.18|0.83|0.90
91942878|NCT02148952|183782736|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.20|0.89|0.67
91942879|NCT02148952|183782737|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.20|0.89|0.68
91942880|NCT02148952|183782738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.16|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.16|0.76|0.56
91816177|NCT02009046|183508828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||3.62|0.36|0.8059
91816178|NCT02009046|183508829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.71|0.44|0.6861
91816179|NCT02009046|183508829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9973|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.|No results provided, as model would not converge.|||||0.9973
91816180|NCT02009046|183508830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||2.80|1.39|0.0002
91816181|NCT02009046|183508830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||5.09|1.44|0.0030
91816182|NCT00620828|183508831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient cohort was inclusive of patient undergoing single TKA from June 2007 to July 2008. Effect size was calculated for the numeric pain rating scale at the immediate post-operative period, 4-hour, 8-hour , 12-hour, and 24-hour time periods as a means to assess post-operative pain control.||||<0.05
91816183|NCT00620828|183508832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Significant differences in Fentanyl PCA pump usage across study arms were assessed for the 4-8h,8-12h,and 12h-24h time frames.||||.05
91816184|NCT00620828|183508833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis was performed on data collected 24-hours post-operatively for patient cohort.||||.05
91816185|NCT00620828|183508834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Knee extension and knee flexion measured at 24-hours post-operatively for patient cohort.||||.05
91816186|NCT00620828|183508835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Straight leg raise data collected at 4-hours, 8-hours, 12-hours and 24-hours post-operatively for patient cohort.||||.05
91942881|NCT02148952|183782739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.27|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.27|0.95|0.19
91942882|NCT02148952|183782740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.53|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.53|0.74|0.73
91816187|NCT00003641|183508845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|stratified on the stratification factors used for randomization||||||0.964
91816188|NCT00003641|183508846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.558|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Stratified on the stratification factors used for randomization||||||0.558
91816189|NCT01082965|183508847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Leasts Square (LS) Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.9742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.58||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype, site as covariates.||0.58|-0.60|0.9742
91816190|NCT01082965|183508848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.49||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.49|-0.51|0.9638
91942883|NCT02148952|183782741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate any severe maternal complication within 7 days||1.20|0.79|0.81
91942884|NCT02148952|183782741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of seizures||1.52|0.57|0.76
91942885|NCT02148952|183782741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.41|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of loss of consciousness for \> 1 hr||1.41|0.70|0.97
91942886|NCT02148952|183782741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.38|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of high fever with foul-smelling vaginal discharge||1.38|0.76|0.90
91942887|NCT02148952|183782741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of hemorrhage||1.17|0.77|0.61
91942888|NCT02148952|183782741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.58|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of stroke||1.58|0.34|0.41
91942889|NCT02148952|183782742|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.58|0.72|0.74
91942890|NCT02148952|183782743|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.47|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.47|0.81|0.57
91942891|NCT02148952|183782744|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.80|0.78|0.41
91816191|NCT01082965|183508849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.16||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.16|-0.53|0.2548
91816192|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Whole Brain Gray: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.12|-0.18|0.6316
91942892|NCT02148952|183782745|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.13|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||2.13|0.45|0.95
91942893|NCT02148952|183782746|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.43|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.43|0.69|0.97
91942894|NCT02148952|183782747|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.10|0.76|0.32
91942895|NCT02148952|183782748|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.08|0.78|0.30
91942896|NCT02148952|183782749|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91942897|NCT02148952|183782750|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Birth Companion Present||||0.18
91942898|NCT02148952|183782750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|9.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|28.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||28.3|3.4|<0.001
91942899|NCT02148952|183782750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|132.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|645.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal temperature taken||645|26.9|<0.001
91942900|NCT02148952|183782750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|35.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Partography started||35.6|1.5|0.01
91942901|NCT02148952|183782750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|413.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.8|2589.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Checklist use||2589|65.8|<0.001
91942902|NCT02148952|183782751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|53.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|217.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Hand hygiene||217|13.1|<0.001
91942903|NCT02148952|183782751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||No oxytocin given before delivery||4.2|1.3|0.007
91942904|NCT02148952|183782751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean towel available||12.1|2.7|<0.001
91942905|NCT02148952|183782751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean scissors or blade available||1.7|0.7|0.72
91942906|NCT02148952|183782751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cord tie available||1.0|1.0|0.48
91942907|NCT02148952|183782751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mucus extractor available||1.1|0.9|0.73
91942908|NCT02148952|183782751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag and mask available||1.1|0.9|0.56
91942909|NCT02148952|183782751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Pads available||3.5|1.3|0.005
91942910|NCT02148952|183782751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|185.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|1738.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Checklist use||1738|19.7|<0.001
91942911|NCT02148952|183782752|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Oxytocin administered||7.2|2.1|<0.001
91942912|NCT02148952|183782752|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag used||1.4|0.3|0.25
91942913|NCT02148952|183782752|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Birth attendant present||1.0|1.0|0.25
91942914|NCT02148952|183782753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn weight taken||1.4|0.9|0.25
91942915|NCT02148952|183782753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|317.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.4|1989.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn temperature taken||1989|50.4|<0.001
91942916|NCT02148952|183782753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|22.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Skin-to-skin care initiated at birth||22.0|2.4|<0.001
91942917|NCT02148952|183782753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|194.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Skin-to-skin care maintained for 1 hr||194|7.7|<0.001
91942918|NCT02148952|183782753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|33.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Initiation of breast-feeding||33.2|11.4|<0.001
91942919|NCT02148952|183782753|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Checklist use||||<0.001
91942920|NCT02148952|183782754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|182.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|993.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal temperature taken||993|33.5|<0.001
91942921|NCT02148952|183782754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|25.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||25.8|3.8|<0.001
91942922|NCT02148952|183782754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mother given magnesium sulfate||2.1|0.1|0.30
91942923|NCT02148952|183782755|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91942924|NCT02148952|183782756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Birth companion present||1.0|1.0|1.00
91942925|NCT02148952|183782756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|46.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||46.5|7.9|<0.001
91942926|NCT02148952|183782756|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated due to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Maternal temperature taken||||<0.001
91942927|NCT02148952|183782756|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Partography started||||<0.001
91942928|NCT02148952|183782756|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Checklist use||||<0.001
91942929|NCT02148952|183782757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|60.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Hand hygiene||60.4|6.6|<0.001
91942930|NCT02148952|183782757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||No oxytocin given before delivery||4.1|1.0|0.04
91942931|NCT02148952|183782757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean towel available||4.3|1.3|0.006
91942932|NCT02148952|183782757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean scissors or blade available||1.1|1.0|0.34
91942933|NCT02148952|183782757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cord tie available||1.0|1.0|0.25
91942934|NCT02148952|183782757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mucus extractor available||1.1|1.0|0.50
91942935|NCT02148952|183782757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag and mask available||1.0|1.0|0.32
91942936|NCT02148952|183782757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Pads available||2.1|0.9|0.11
91942937|NCT02148952|183782757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|196.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Checklist available||196|7.3|<0.001
91942938|NCT02148952|183782758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Oxytocin administered||7.5|1.8|<0.001
91942939|NCT02148952|183782758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag used||1.3|0.3|0.19
91942940|NCT02148952|183782758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Birth companion present||1.0|1.0|0.50
91942941|NCT02148952|183782759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn weight taken||1.3|1.0|0.08
91942942|NCT02148952|183782759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|91.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|758.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn temperature taken||758|11.0|<0.001
91942943|NCT02148952|183782759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|27.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Skin-to-skin care initiated at birth||27.5|2.5|<0.001
91942944|NCT02148952|183782759|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Skin-to-skin care maintained for 1 hr||||0.01
91942945|NCT02148952|183782759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Initiation of breast-feeding||16.7|3.7|<0.001
91942946|NCT02148952|183782759|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Checklist use||||<0.001
91942947|NCT02148952|183782760|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Maternal temperature taken||||<0.001
91942948|NCT02148952|183782760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|34.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||34.3|4.7|<0.001
91942949|NCT02148952|183782760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mother given magnesium sulfate||6.6|0.2|0.95
91942950|NCT01899768|183782797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.44|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo.|||1.44|1.10|
91942951|NCT01899768|183782798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.19|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo.|||1.19|0.87|
91942952|NCT01899768|183782821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.75|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo. Estimated value and CI are presented for the mean cough count over 0-4 hr.|||1.75|0.86|
91942953|NCT01899768|183782821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.72|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo. Estimated value and CI are presented for the mean cough count over 4-8 hr.|||1.72|1.07|
91942954|NCT01899768|183782822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo. Estimated value and CI are presented for the mean cough count over 0-4 hr.|||1.40|0.67|
91942955|NCT01899768|183782822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.36|||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|||||1.36|0.79|
91942956|NCT00414973|183782848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001||95.0|2.89|5.89||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|Null hypothesis=no difference between percentage changes from baseline in lumbar spine bone mineral density for female patients receiving teriparatide compared to female patients receiving calcitonin.||5.89|2.89|<0.0001
91942957|NCT00414973|183782849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.9062||95.0|-1.3|1.46|||ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|||1.46|-1.30|0.9062
91942958|NCT00414973|183782850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Week 12 Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
91942959|NCT00414973|183782850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Week 24 Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
91942960|NCT00414973|183782851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.2409||95.0|-1.87|7.13|||ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|||7.13|-1.87|0.2409
91942961|NCT00414973|183782852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.6156||95.0|-4.85|2.92|||ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|||2.92|-4.85|0.6156
91942962|NCT00414973|183782853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||95.0||||P-value for Week 12 Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.0026
91942963|NCT00414973|183782853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.0006
91942964|NCT01925014|183782892|NON_INFERIORITY|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.033|||||The non-inferiority was established.|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.||0.033|-0.008|
91942965|NCT01925014|183782893|NON_INFERIORITY|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.091|||||The non-inferiority was established.|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.||0.091|-0.021|
91942966|NCT04476108|183782945|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.32|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.32|-1.17|
91942967|NCT04476108|183782946|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.35|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.35|-1.09|
91942968|NCT04476108|183782947|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.15|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.15|-0.69|
91942969|NCT04476108|183782948|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.31|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.31|-1.20|
91942970|NCT04476108|183782949|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|6.06|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||6.06|-11.71|
91942971|NCT04476108|183782950|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.78|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.78|-0.09|
91942972|NCT04476108|183782951|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-188.46|187.97|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||187.97|-188.46|
91942973|NCT04476108|183782952|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.1|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.10|-0.01|
91942974|NCT00471276|183782953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percent)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.6|||Exact 2-sided confidence interval|||||16.6|3.5|
91942975|NCT00471276|183782954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percent)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|19.6|||Exact 2-sided confidence interval|||||19.6|5.1|
91942976|NCT01487863|183782974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2141|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||0.2141
91942977|NCT01810380|183782992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.1||For all efficacy analyses the primary comparison is the difference between brexpiprazole 2 to 4 mg/day and placebo at Week 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Pooled site, visit, treatment as fixed effects, baseline score as continuous covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit as interactions||The overall significance level was 0.05. The primary and the key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically. Only if the primary endpoint was statistically significant would confirmatory testing continue with the key secondary endpoint.||0.1|-8.2|0.0560
91942978|NCT01810380|183782992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-12.2|0.0002
91816193|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.6256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.19||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Whole Brain Gray: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.19|-0.12|0.6256
91942979|NCT03787095|183783020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no change from baseline to post-baseline among participants treated with Cemiplimab. Per the analysis plan, only participants in the Cemiplimab arm are evaluated.||||0.71
91942980|NCT03787095|183783021|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no change from baseline to post-baseline among participants treated with Cemiplimab. Per the analysis plan, only participants in the Cemiplimab arm are evaluated.||||1.00
91942981|NCT03787095|183783022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no change from baseline to post-baseline among participants treated with Cemiplimab. Per the analysis plan, only participants in the Cemiplimab arm are evaluated.||||0.33
91942982|NCT00814307|183783115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|39.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.12|48.95||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||48.95|29.12|<0.0001
91942983|NCT00814307|183783115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|33.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.04|43.13||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||43.13|23.04|<0.0001
91942984|NCT00814307|183783116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.27||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Linear mixed effect model|||p-value was calculated using linear mixed effect model. The fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction were included, along with participant as random effect.||-0.27|-0.50|<.0001
91942985|NCT00814307|183783116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.2||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Linear mixed effect model|||p-value was calculated using linear mixed effect model. The fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction were included, along with participant as random effect.||-0.20|-0.43|<0.0001
91942986|NCT00814307|183783117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.24||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|10.96||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690550 to placebo.||10.96|-0.49|0.0728
91942987|NCT00814307|183783117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.31||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|6.46||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690550 to placebo.||6.46|-3.85|0.6193
91942988|NCT03227224|183783179|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.9||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.12|4.82|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||4.82|-3.12|0.724
91816194|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.5847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.19||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Whole Brain Gray: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.19|-0.12|0.5847
91942989|NCT03227224|183783179|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.1||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.13|-0.16|||MMRM|||||-0.16|-6.13|0.083
91942990|NCT03227224|183783179|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|1.63|||MMRM|||||1.63|-4.70|0.424
91942991|NCT03782376|183783224|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.5||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|24.5||Threshold for significance was 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel-chi-square test|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||24.5|-1.5|0.089
91942992|NCT03782376|183783225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.9||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.8|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||17.8|-6.0|0.338
91942993|NCT03782376|183783226|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|20.2|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||20.2|-6.0|0.300
91942994|NCT03782376|183783227|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.4||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|18.6|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||18.6|-5.8|0.314
91942995|NCT03782376|183783228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|30.2|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||30.2|6.8|0.004
91942996|NCT03039192|183783268|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|-1.09|||ANCOVA|||||-1.09|-6.56|0.006
91816195|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.09||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Superior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.09|-0.46|0.1555
91816196|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.14||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Superior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.14|-0.51|0.2416
91816197|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.26||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Superior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.26|-0.33|0.8070
91816198|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.6828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.43||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Medial Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.43|-0.59|0.6828
91816199|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Medial Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.29|-0.26|0.8987
91816200|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Medial Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.25|-0.28|0.8922
91816201|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.7555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.52||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Inferior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.52|-0.39|0.7555
91816202|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.79||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Inferior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.79|-0.18|0.1928
91816203|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.49||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Inferior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.49|-0.26|0.4946
91816204|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.4||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Medial Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.40|-0.56|0.7029
91816205|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.08||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Medial Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.08|-0.68|0.1085
91942997|NCT02407236|183783291|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||14.9|5.7|< 0.001
91816206|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Medial Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.18|-0.44|0.3588
91816207|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.53||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Inferior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.53|-0.20|0.3053
91816208|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.36||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Inferior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.36|-0.36|0.9861
91816209|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.28||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Inferior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.28|-0.41|0.6558
91942998|NCT02407236|183783291|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||14.8|5.6|< 0.001
91942999|NCT02407236|183783292|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.8|15.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||15.8|4.8|< 0.001
91816210|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.51||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Superior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.51|-0.53|0.9471
91816211|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.23||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Superior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.23|-0.77|0.2136
91816212|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.6435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.67||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Superior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.67|-0.47|0.6435
91816213|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.02||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Inferior Parietal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.02|-0.41|0.0659
91816214|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.31||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Inferior Parietal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.31|-0.41|0.7687
91816215|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Inferior Parietal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.10|-0.73|0.1061
91943000|NCT02407236|183783292|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.0|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||18.4|7.0|< 0.001
91943001|NCT02407236|183783293|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|14.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||23.6|5.5|0.002
91816216|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.19||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Insula: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.19|-0.41|0.3925
91816217|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.14||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Insula: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.14|-0.58|0.1991
91943002|NCT02407236|183783293|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||29.0|10.3|< 0.001
91943003|NCT02407236|183783294|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|15.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||24.2|6.0|0.002
91816218|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.24||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Insula: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.24|-0.45|0.5176
91816219|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.18||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Precuneus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.18|-0.50|0.3140
91816220|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.29||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Precuneus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.29|-0.46|0.6348
91816221|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.12||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Precuneus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.12|-0.64|0.1491
91943004|NCT02407236|183783294|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||27.2|8.6|< 0.001
91943005|NCT03277794|183783368|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.354
91943006|NCT03277794|183783368|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.465
91816222|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.27||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Anterior Cingulate Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.27|-0.59|0.4226
91943007|NCT03277794|183783369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.159
91943008|NCT03277794|183783369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.200
91943009|NCT03277794|183783370|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.121
91943010|NCT03277794|183783370|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.134
91943011|NCT03277794|183783371|OTHER|||||||0.899||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.899
91943012|NCT03277794|183783371|OTHER|||||||0.128||||||Unadjusted|Regression, Linear|||||||0.128
91943013|NCT03277794|183783372|OTHER|||||||0.198||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.198
91943014|NCT03277794|183783372|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.017
91943015|NCT03277794|183783373|OTHER|||||||0.091||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.091
91943016|NCT03277794|183783373|OTHER|||||||0.591||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.591
91943017|NCT03277794|183783374|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.030
91943018|NCT03277794|183783374|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
91943019|NCT03277794|183783375|OTHER|||||||0.163||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.163
91943020|NCT03277794|183783375|OTHER|||||||0.865||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.865
91943021|NCT03277794|183783376|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.980
91943022|NCT03277794|183783376|OTHER|||||||0.758||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.758
91943023|NCT03277794|183783377|OTHER|||||||0.124||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.124
91943024|NCT03277794|183783377|OTHER|||||||0.168||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.168
91943025|NCT03277794|183783378|OTHER|||||||0.436||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.436
91943026|NCT03277794|183783378|OTHER|||||||0.706||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.706
91943027|NCT03277794|183783379|OTHER|||||||0.604||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Internalizing||||0.604
91943028|NCT03277794|183783379|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Internalizing||||0.177
91943029|NCT03277794|183783379|OTHER|||||||0.325||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Externalizing||||0.325
91943030|NCT03277794|183783379|OTHER|||||||0.227||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Externalizing||||0.227
91943031|NCT03277794|183783379|OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Substance Use||||0.106
91943032|NCT03277794|183783379|OTHER|||||||0.058||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Substance Use||||0.058
91943033|NCT03277794|183783380|OTHER|||||||0.862||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Emotional Supports||||0.862
91943034|NCT03277794|183783380|OTHER|||||||0.382||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Emotional Supports||||0.382
91943035|NCT03277794|183783380|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Tangible Supports||||0.680
91943036|NCT03277794|183783380|OTHER|||||||0.988||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Tangible Supports||||0.988
91943037|NCT03277794|183783380|OTHER|||||||0.701||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Affectionate||||0.701
91943038|NCT03277794|183783380|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Affectionate||||0.154
91943039|NCT03277794|183783381|OTHER|||||||0.719||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Physical Health||||0.719
91943040|NCT03277794|183783381|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Physical Health||||0.150
91943041|NCT03277794|183783381|OTHER|||||||0.789||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Psychological||||0.789
91943042|NCT03277794|183783381|OTHER|||||||0.811||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Psychological||||0.811
91943043|NCT03277794|183783381|OTHER|||||||0.726||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Social||||0.726
91943044|NCT03277794|183783381|OTHER|||||||0.795||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Social||||0.795
91943045|NCT03277794|183783381|OTHER|||||||0.837||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Environment||||0.837
91943046|NCT03277794|183783381|OTHER|||||||0.048||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Environment||||0.048
91943047|NCT00850135|183783444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for the correlation between AUC-110 and birth weight|correlation|||||||0.035
91943048|NCT01512693|183783485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity will be concluded if the GMR (moderate hepatic insufficiency / healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.40, 2.50\].|GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.19||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a categorical factor for population (moderate hepatic insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and body mass index (BMI). Data are back transformed to geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR) (moderate hepatic insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||1.19|0.61|
91943049|NCT01512693|183783486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.0||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with a categorical factor for population (moderate hepatic insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and BMI. Data are back transformed to GMR (moderate hepatic insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||1.00|0.51|
91943050|NCT02044367|183783496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|137.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.773|149.25|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||149.250|125.773|
91816223|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.5||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Anterior Cingulate Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.50|-0.49|0.9778
91816224|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.9456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.43||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Anterior Cingulate Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.43|-0.40|0.9456
91816225|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.15||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Amygdala: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.15|-0.55|0.2299
91816226|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Amygdala: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.28|-0.54|0.5069
91816227|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.17||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Amygdala: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.17|-0.45|0.3524
91816228|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.4182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.47||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Thalamus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||1.47|-0.80|0.4182
91816229|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.326||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.04||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Thalamus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||1.04|-0.42|0.3630
91816230|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.9837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Thalamus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.74|-0.73|0.9837
91816231|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Basal Ganglia: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.42|-0.04|0.0974
91816232|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Basal Ganglia: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.27|-0.04|0.1246
91816233|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Basal Ganglia: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.32|-0.20|0.6190
91816234|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.25||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Hippocampus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.25|-0.39|0.6350
91816235|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.32||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Hippocampus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.32|-0.40|0.8205
91816236|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Hippocampus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.14|-0.42|0.2959
91816237|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.32||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Landau: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.32|-0.56|0.5520
91816238|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.45||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Landau: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.45|-0.50|0.9046
91816239|NCT01082965|183508850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.02||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Landau: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||-0.02|-0.62|0.0402
91816240|NCT01082965|183508851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.11||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.82|31.82||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 1: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||31.82|-21.82|0.6880
91816241|NCT01082965|183508851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.143||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|30.87||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||30.87|-11.30|0.3157
91816242|NCT01082965|183508851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.921||0.3228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|33.28||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 8: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||33.28|-13.56|0.3228
91816243|NCT01082965|183508852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.479||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.12||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total IR: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||4.12|-12.90|0.2540
91943051|NCT02044367|183783496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|130.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.628|142.2|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||142.200|119.628|
91943052|NCT02044367|183783497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|146.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.217|161.576|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||161.576|132.217|
91943053|NCT02044367|183783497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|141.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.644|155.876|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||155.876|127.644|
91943054|NCT02044367|183783498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|137.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.418|149.797|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||149.797|126.418|
91943055|NCT02044367|183783498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|132.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.714|144.342|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||144.342|120.714|
91943056|NCT02044367|183783499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|147.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.384|163.779|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||163.779|133.384|
91943057|NCT02044367|183783499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|144.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.853|160.242|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||160.242|130.853|
91943058|NCT04157751|183783507|OTHER||Stratified Win Ratio|1.36||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.68||p-value for WR\<=1.0 (one-sided), variance calculated using the asymptotic normal U statistics approach.|Asymptotic normal U statistics approach||WR estimate= \[((a)+(c)+(e)+(g)) / ((b)+(d)+(f)+(h))\]|"Stratified win ratio (WR) was used, calculated as total number of wins in the empa group across all strata divided by total number of losses. Weights were applied analogous to a Mantel-Haenszel approach.~1. death in pbo first;~2. death in empa first;~3. HFEs in pbo more frequently;~4. HFEs in empa more frequently;~5. HFEs in pbo first;~6. HFEs in empa first;~7. KCCQ-TSS change lower in pbo;~8. KCCQ-TSS change lower in empa"||1.68|1.09|0.0027
91943059|NCT04157751|183783508|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|2.501||p-value for OR=1.0 (two-sided).|Regression, Logistic|Wald Confidence interval.|Comparison vs. Placebo.|Logistic regression including terms for baseline KCCQ-TSS, treatment and heart failure status||2.501|0.927|0.0970
91943060|NCT04157751|183783509|OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean|4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|8.59||p-value for difference = 0 (two-sided)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood estimation based on a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis to obtain adjusted means for the treatment effects. This model included discrete fixed effects for treatment group, and heart failure status at each visit and continuous fixed effects for baseline value at each visit. Missing data caused by patient withdrawal or other reasons were handled implicitly by the MMRM approach. Unstructured covariance structure was used.||8.59|0.32|0.0347
91943061|NCT04157751|183783510|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a discrete fixed effect for heart failure status and a continuous fixed effect for baseline NT-proBNP level.|Comparison vs. Placebo|Area under the curve (AUC) of change from baseline in log-transformed NT-proBNP level over 30 days of treatment was analysed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). NT-proBNP level is regarded as log-normally distributed, therefore values were log-transformed prior to analysis. The linear trapezoidal rule was used to calculate the AUC after the log-transformation had been applied to each value.||0.98|0.82|0.0176
91943062|NCT04157751|183783513|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.1||p-value for HR=1.0 (two sided)|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with terms for heart failure status and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo.|||1.10|0.46|0.1241
91943063|NCT00441012|183783596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|100.0||||||95.0|98.7|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|The purpose of the primary analysis is to demonstrate that there is an adequate seroprotection rate (percentage of participants with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose. An adequate response requires the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the seroprotection rate to exceed 90%.||100.0|98.7|
91943064|NCT00441012|183783596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|99.1||||||95.0|69.9|99.9|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|The purpose of the primary analysis is to demonstrate that there is an adequate seroprotection rate (percentage of participants with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose. An adequate response requires the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the seroprotection rate to exceed 90%.||99.9|69.9|
91943065|NCT00441012|183783597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Modified Process Vaccine is non-inferior to COMVAX with respect to anti-HBs GMT. The non-inferiority criterion requires that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the ratio of the Month 11 GMTs \[GMT modified process vaccine/GMT COMVAX™\] is \>0.67.|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|2.5||||||95.0|1.9|3.3||||||||3.3|1.9|
91943066|NCT00441012|183783599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|93.9||||||95.0|90.0|96.6|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||96.6|90.0|
91943067|NCT00441012|183783599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|92.1||||||95.0|87.8|95.3|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the secondary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of participants with anti-PRP \> 1µg/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose.||95.3|87.8|
91943068|NCT04498468|183783614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining analysis, day 28.||-0.19|-0.91|0.003
91943069|NCT04498468|183783614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 18-59 year old subgroup.||0.28|-1.28|0.19
91943070|NCT04498468|183783614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 60+ year old subgroup.||-0.02|-1.86|0.047
91943071|NCT04498468|183783614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, Sjogren's subgroup.||0.10|-1.49|0.08
91943072|NCT04498468|183783614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, non-Sjogren's subgroup.||0.14|-1.67|0.09
91943073|NCT04498468|183783614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining analysis, day 28||-0.30|-1.05|< 0.001
91943074|NCT04498468|183783614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 18-59 year old subgroup.||0.61|-1.04|0.58
91943075|NCT04498468|183783614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 60+ year old subgroup.||-0.21|-2.17|0.021
91943076|NCT04498468|183783614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, Sjogren's subgroup.||0.34|-1.88|0.16
91943077|NCT04498468|183783614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, non-Sjogren's subgroup.||0.14|-1.55|0.097
91943078|NCT04498468|183783615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Eye dryness, day 28||0.4|-11.4|0.069
91943079|NCT04498468|183783615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS Eye discomfort, Day 28||6.3|-7.0|0.92
91943080|NCT04498468|183783615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS eye fatigue, day 28||3.1|-5.8|0.55
91943081|NCT04498468|183783616|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||McNemar|||||2.0|0.8|0.42
91943082|NCT04498468|183783617|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.42|||McNemar|||||1.42|0.76|1.00
91943083|NCT02092324|183783619|SUPERIORITY|1-proportion test for greater than 10% difference.||||||0.002||||||p-value for Protocol-defined objective response|binomial|||Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate (based on Simon's 2-stage).||||0.002
91943084|NCT02092324|183783619|SUPERIORITY|1-proportion test for greater than 10% difference||||||0.9||||||p-value is for IWG-defined objective response|binomial|||Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate (based on Simon's 2-stage).||||0.90
91943085|NCT02092324|183783622|SUPERIORITY|Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate.|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for protocol-defined objective response. p-value for IWG-defined objective response is 0.70|Clopper-Pearson method|||||||<0.0001
91943086|NCT02092324|183783622|SUPERIORITY|Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate.||||||0.7||||||p-value for IWG-defined objective response|Clopper-Pearson method|||||||0.70
91943087|NCT02092324|183783632|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square test statistic)||||||0.003||||||p-value for protocol-defined objective response.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square test statistic) comparing Wildtype and Mutant CSF3R status for protocol-defined objective response||||0.003
91943088|NCT02092324|183783632|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square)||||||0.1||||||p-value for IWG-defined objective response = 0.1|Fisher Exact|||2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square test statistic) comparing Wildtype and Mutant CSF3R status for IWG-defined objective response||||0.1
91943089|NCT00499460|183783640|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment increases metabolic clearance of oxycodone through enzyme induction and results in lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is oxycodone oral clearance. Explanatory variables include treatment, period and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
91943090|NCT00499460|183783641|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that powder garlic treatment lowers Cold Pressor Test tolerance (i.e., diminished analgesic response) after oxycodone administration due to a more rapid metabolic clearance and lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is log Tolerance AUC. Explanatory variables include treatment, period and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
91943091|NCT00499460|183783642|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment lowers opioid side effects after oxycodone administration due to a more rapid metabolic clearance and lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is total SSE rating score. Explanatory variables include treatment, period, time and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
91943092|NCT00499460|183783643|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment lowers opioid side effects after oxycodone administration due to a more rapid metabolic clearance and lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is total CASE rating score. Explanatory variables include treatment, period, time and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
91943093|NCT00499460|183783644|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Garlic powder versus placebo||The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder induces CYP3A-mediated metabolism resulting in a lower oral midazolam AUC.||||>0.05
91943094|NCT00499460|183783645|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment induces intestinal P-glycoprotein, reduces the bioavailability and hence AUC of orally administered digoxin.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Garlic powder versus placebo||||||>0.05
91816244|NCT01082965|183508852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.7684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|5.37||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total DR: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||5.37|-4.17|0.7684
91816245|NCT01082965|183508853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 1, Detection Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.17|-0.09|0.4940
91943095|NCT00997555|183783657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
91943096|NCT00997555|183783658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||(bronchoscopy 5.1 days, 95% CI +/- 3.6 days versus control 6.7 days, 95% CI +/- 6.3 days, p = 0.7).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
91943097|NCT00997555|183783659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|(bronchoscopy 10 days, 95% CI +/- 10 days versus control 18 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days, p = 0.4).||||||0.4
91943098|NCT00997555|183783660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|(bronchoscopy 21 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days versus control 26 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days, p = 0.5).||||||0.5
91943099|NCT00804986|183783674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.47||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.11||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.11|-0.83|0.0109
91943100|NCT00804986|183783674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.67||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.31||p-value represents change from baseline to week 12 HbA1c for 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.31|-1.02|0.0003
91943101|NCT00804986|183783674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.76||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.76|-1.46|<0.0001
91943102|NCT00804986|183783674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.93||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.93|-1.64|<0.0001
91943103|NCT00804986|183783674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.88||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.88|-1.59|<0.0001
91943104|NCT00804986|183783675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|1.93||||0.655||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.655
91943105|NCT00804986|183783675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|3.36||||0.436||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.436
91943106|NCT00804986|183783675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.45||||0.914||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.914
91943107|NCT00804986|183783675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|3.3||||0.446||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.446
91943108|NCT00804986|183783675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|2.84||||0.508||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.508
91816246|NCT01082965|183508853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Detection Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.22|-0.02|0.1031
91816247|NCT01082965|183508853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 8, Detection Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.16|-0.06|0.3277
91816248|NCT01082965|183508853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 1, Identification Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.08|-0.05|0.6585
91816249|NCT01082965|183508853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.8863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.08||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Identification Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.08|-0.07|0.8863
91816250|NCT01082965|183508853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 8, Identification Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.13|-0.06|0.4388
91816251|NCT03722017|183508889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge Timepoint||||0.006
91943109|NCT00804986|183783675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|2.89||||0.561||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.561
91943110|NCT00804986|183783675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-7.4||||0.135||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.135
91816252|NCT03722017|183508889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to the SNF Discharge Timepoint||||0.110
91816253|NCT03722017|183508889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to the 90 Day Follow-Up Timepoint||||0.060
91816254|NCT03722017|183508890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.049||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge Timepoint||||0.738
91816255|NCT03722017|183508890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to the SNF Discharge Timepoint||||0.995
91943111|NCT00804986|183783675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-4.45||||0.357||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.357
91943112|NCT00804986|183783675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-8.05||||0.105||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.105
91816256|NCT03722017|183508890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to the 90 Day Follow Up Timepoint||||0.721
91816257|NCT03314584|183508917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=21.662, df = 1||||||<0.000
91816258|NCT03314584|183508918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=5.624, df=1||||||0.004
91816259|NCT03314584|183508919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=3.092, df=1||||||0.046
91816260|NCT03314584|183508920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.022, df=1||||||0.018
91816261|NCT03314584|183508921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=0.279, df=1||||||0.598
91816262|NCT03314584|183508922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.101, df=1||||||0.296
91816263|NCT03314584|183508923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.672, df = 1||||||0.033
91816264|NCT03314584|183508924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=0.268, df=1||||||0.606
91816265|NCT03314584|183508925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.142, df=1||||||0.287
91816266|NCT03314584|183508926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.039, df=1||||||0.049
91816267|NCT03314584|183508927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.084, df=1||||||0.338
91816268|NCT00930579|183508975|OTHER|This study used two-sided t-tests to compare changes within group- before and after metformin treatment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: there will be no statistically significant change between the amount of Ki-67 (protein involved in cell proliferation) in participants' tumor cells before and after taking the prescribed dose of Metformin, as measured at the 5% significance level.||||0.98
91816269|NCT01046682|183509029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Using data from a different population, ie, patients with peripheral artery disease, and a different intervention, ie, omega-3 fatty acids, 15 participants were needed per group to achieve 80% power to detect a difference in means of -3.6% (the difference between the control group mean of -0.3% and a treatment group mean of 3.3%) assuming a common standard deviation of 3.3 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. 5 patients added to each arm in case nonparametric.||||<0.05
91816270|NCT02449174|183509122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8958|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8958
91816271|NCT02449174|183509123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2059|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.2059
91816272|NCT01520363|183509136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.182|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.294||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.086|0.722|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t= -1.291; p=.211|.722|-3.086|.211
91816273|NCT01520363|183509136|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.345|1.432|||t-test, 2 sided|df=22||||1.432|-1.345|.949
91816274|NCT01520363|183509137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.456||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|1.451||df=20|t-test, 2 sided|df=20|||t=0.622; p=.541|1.451|-0.785|.541
91816275|NCT01520363|183509137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.956||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.206||df=23|t-test, 2 sided||||t=-.069; p=0.946|1.206|-1.290|.946
91816276|NCT01520363|183509138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.116||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.609|1.154|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t=-0.342; p=0.736|1.154|-1.609|.736
91816277|NCT01520363|183509138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.409|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.143|1.961|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.548; p=0.589|1.961|-1.143|.589
91816278|NCT01520363|183509139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.429|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.203||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.886|0.029|||t-test, 2 sided|df=20|||t=-2.044; p=0.05|0.029|-2.886|.05
91816279|NCT01520363|183509139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.862||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.589|1.672|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.053; p=0.958|1.672|-1.589|0.958
91816280|NCT01520363|183509140|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.227|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.897|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t=0.706; p=0.488|0.897|-0.442|0.488
91816281|NCT01520363|183509140|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.535||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.874|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=0.782; p=0.442|0.874|-0.394|0.442
91816282|NCT01520363|183509141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.682|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.317||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|1.709|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t=1.380; p=0.182|1.709|-0.346|0.182
91816283|NCT01520363|183509141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.864|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|1.929|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=3.112; p=0.005|1.929|0.391|<0.005
91816284|NCT01520363|183509142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.091|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.504||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.463|1.644|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.122; p=0.90|1.644|-1.463|0.90
91816285|NCT01520363|183509142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.551||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.573|1.533|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=0.941; p=0.356|1.533|-0.573|0.356
91816286|NCT01520363|183509143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.136|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.493|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.209; p=0.836|1.493|-1.220|0.836
91816287|NCT01520363|183509143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.698||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.993|1.233|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=0.222; p=0.826|1.233|-0.993|0.826
91816288|NCT01520363|183509144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|5.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.05|-11.80|0.42
91816289|NCT01520363|183509145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|4.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.96|-7.02|<0.73
91816290|NCT01520363|183509146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4615|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8016||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3603|28.2834|||t-test, 2 sided|df=12|||t=0.903; p=0.371|28.2834|-11.3603|0.371
91816291|NCT01520363|183509146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9917|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0163||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4553|16.4387|||t-test, 2 sided|df=11|t=0.960; p=0.358|||16.4387|-6.4553|0.358
91816292|NCT01520363|183509147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.09412|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.06228||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27756|15.4658|||t-test, 2 sided|df=16|t=0.530; p=0.603|||15.46580|-9.27756|0.603
91816293|NCT01520363|183509147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42857|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.21479||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04665|8.9038|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|t=0.810; p=0.432|||8.90380|-4.04665|0.432
91816294|NCT01520363|183509148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.765|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.276||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.745|25.275|||t-test, 2 sided|df=16|||t=1.846; p=0.083|25.275|-1.745|0.083
91943113|NCT00804986|183783675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-6.02||||0.221||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.221
91943114|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-4.54||||0.4848||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.4848
91943115|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-19.48||||0.0029||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0029
91943116|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-32.52|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943117|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-30.45|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943118|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-35.25|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943119|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-5.32||||0.6279||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.6279
91943120|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-29.72||||0.0072||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0072
91943121|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-42.49|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91816295|NCT01520363|183509148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.378||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.802|15.802|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|||t=1.952; p=0.073|15.802|-0.802|0.073
91816296|NCT01520363|183509149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7474|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.711||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1269|16.6217|||t-test, 2 sided|df=18|t=0.612; p=0.549|||16.6217|-9.1269|0.549
91816297|NCT01520363|183509149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7143|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5084||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8174|10.246|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|t=0.162; p=0.874|||10.2460|-8.8174|0.874
91816298|NCT01520363|183509150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8167|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.2609||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2046|23.8379|||t-test, 2 sided|df=17|t=0.402; p=0.693|||23.8379|-16.2046|0.693
91816299|NCT01520363|183509150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.8994||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6102|16.2902|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14|t=0.117; p=0.909|||16.2902|-14.6102|0.909
91816300|NCT01520363|183509151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-2.17|0.21
91816301|NCT01520363|183509152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.15|-0.66|0.28
91816302|NCT00973479|183509210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91816303|NCT00973479|183509211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91816304|NCT00973479|183509212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA of van der Waerden scores|||||||<0.001
91816305|NCT00973479|183509213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91943122|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-43.05||||0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0001
91943123|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-51.38|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943124|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-20.21||||0.0335||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0335
91943125|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-21.91||||0.0221||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0221
91943126|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-39.41|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943127|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-36.07||||0.0002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0002
91816306|NCT00973479|183509214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA of van der Waerden scores|||||||<0.001
91943128|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-40.36|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943129|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-6.41||||0.503||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.5030
91943130|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-12.49||||0.1938||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.1938
91943131|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-33.13||||0.0003||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0003
91943132|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-24.66||||0.0101||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0101
91943133|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-43.47|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943134|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-24.69||||0.006||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0060
91943135|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-34.26||||0.0002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0002
91943136|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-38.55|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943137|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-40.34|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91816307|NCT01154218|183509227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.49|108.33||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||108.33|91.49|
91816308|NCT01154218|183509227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|106.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.26|116.35||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||116.35|98.26|
91943138|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-46.26|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943139|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-11.84||||0.2468||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.2468
91943140|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-21.13||||0.0413||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||||||0.0413
91943141|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-35.19||||0.0004||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0004
91943142|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-29.59||||0.004||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0040
91943143|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-49.9|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943144|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-24.02||||0.0199||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0199
91943145|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-35.77||||0.0008||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0008
91943146|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-38.17||||0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0001
91943147|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-40.74||||0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0001
91943148|NCT00804986|183783678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-53.16|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943149|NCT00804986|183783679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1131.85||||0.4193||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.4193
91943150|NCT00804986|183783679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1471.04||||0.3026||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.3026
91943151|NCT00804986|183783679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-5547.95|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943152|NCT00804986|183783679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-6116.19|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943153|NCT00804986|183783679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-7786.69|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91943154|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.08||||0.693||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.693
91943155|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.31||||0.104||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.104
91816309|NCT01154218|183509227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|85.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.88|93.25||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||93.25|78.88|
91943156|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.13||||0.506||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.506
91943157|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.09||||0.648||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.648
91943158|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.09||||0.647||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.647
91943159|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.01||||0.781||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.781
91943160|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.401||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.401
91943161|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.03||||0.464||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.464
91943162|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.42||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.420
91943163|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.01||||0.762||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.762
91943164|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.738||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.738
91943165|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.14||||0.277||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.277
91943166|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.21||||0.094||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.094
91943167|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.792||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.792
91943168|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.21||||0.105||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.105
91943169|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.12||||0.403||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.403
91943170|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.799||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.799
91943171|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.32||||0.029||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.029
91943172|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.12||||0.439||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.439
91943173|NCT00804986|183783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.27||||0.062||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.062
91943174|NCT00804986|183783683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.16||||0.8003||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.8003
91943175|NCT00804986|183783683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.26||||0.6736||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.6736
91943176|NCT00804986|183783683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.53||||0.0123||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0123
91943177|NCT00804986|183783683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.44||||0.4771||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.4771
91943178|NCT00804986|183783683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-2.01||||0.0013||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0013
91943179|NCT01256918|183783695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence|0.0|||>|0.05|||||||incidence|||"Any occurence of posterior capsular rupture in attempted vertical chop would have been an indicator of overzealous penetration as the vertical chop even though effective would not have been safe.~We hypothesised that use of callibrated phacotip after careful preoperative assessment for performing vertical chop during phacoemulsification is not associated with any posterior capsular rupture we noted any incidence of posterior capsular rupture."||||>0.05
91943180|NCT01256918|183783696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson correlation coefficient|0.850958|||<|0.05|||||||pearson correlation coefficient|||null hypothesis : there is no correlation between nuclear colour and phacodepth required for a full thickness crack during a vertical chop||||<0.05
91943181|NCT01256918|183783697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson correlation coefficient|0.842617|||<|0.05|||||||pearson correlation coefficient|||"Null hypothesis:~there is no correlation between nuclear opalescence and phacodepth required to achieve full thickness nuclear crack using a callibrated phacotip."||||<0.05
91943182|NCT01256918|183783698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson correlation coefficient|0.111166|||>|0.05|||||||pearson correlation coefficient|||null hypothesis there is no correlation between lens thickness and penetration of phacotip (phacodepth)required to achieve full thickness crack in vertical chop during phacoemulsification||||>0.05
91943183|NCT01387594|183783725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.13|1.56||A p-value was not computed; hypothesis was tested using confidence interval (CI) approach.|||The lower limit of 80% CI greater than 0.5 indicates the statistical significance at alpha=0.1 level.|The null hypothesis is the (median) percent decrease in total lymphocytes count is greater or equal to 50%, equivalently indicating that the geometric mean ratio (GMR: post-treatment/pretreatment) in total lymphocyte counts is less than or equal to 0.5.||1.56|1.13|
91943184|NCT03073200|183783733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|76.4|||Fisher Exact|||||76.4|51.0|<0.001
91943185|NCT03073200|183783734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|70.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|81.0|||Fisher Exact|||||81|59.3|<0.001
91943186|NCT03073200|183783735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.3|82.5|||Fisher Exact|||||82.5|63.3|<0.001
91943187|NCT03073200|183783736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|60.2|||Fisher Exact|||||60.2|40.6|<0.001
91943188|NCT03073200|183783737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|57.6|||Fisher Exact|||||57.6|38.0|<0.001
91943189|NCT03073200|183783738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|56.8|||Fisher Exact|||||56.8|33.2|<0.001
91943190|NCT03073200|183783739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|52.0|||Fisher Exact|||||52.0|29.3|<0.001
91943191|NCT03073200|183783740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|66.9|||Fisher Exact|||||66.9|35.3|<0.001
91943192|NCT03073200|183783741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|55.2|||Fisher Exact|||||55.2|27.0|<0.001
91943193|NCT03073200|183783742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.747||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.38|-28.70|0.005
91943194|NCT03073200|183783743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.682|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|-12.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.04|-18.69|<0.001
91943195|NCT03073200|183783744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.853||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.90|-20.11|0.006
91943196|NCT03073200|183783747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|41.7|||Fisher Exact|||||41.7|0.1|0.089
91943197|NCT03073200|183783748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|45.4|||Fisher Exact|||||45.4|0.6|0.070
91943198|NCT04757376|183783749|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical equivalence: the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in the mean of the primary efficacy endpoint between treatment groups was entirely within an equivalence margin, \[- 1.45, + 1.45\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included the treatment as a fixed effect and age, baseline LS-BMD T-score, and prior bisphosphonates therapy (Yes versus No) as covariates.||||0.38|-0.76|
91943199|NCT01307046|183783763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.4|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-3.4|-6.8|<.001
91943200|NCT01307046|183783764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-6.5|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-6.5|-11.9|<.001
91943201|NCT00796224|183783827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|157.98||||||90.0|98.87|252.44|||ANOVA|||Test (60 mg/kg Azithromycin ER)/ Reference (30 mg/kg Azithromycin IR)||252.44|98.87|
91943202|NCT00796224|183783829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|91.63||||||90.0|56.21|149.38|||ANOVA|||||149.38|56.21|
91943203|NCT00796224|183783831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|65.44||||||90.0|23.56|181.77|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 1 hour postdose||181.77|23.56|
91943204|NCT00796224|183783831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|50.57||||||90.0|25.24|101.3|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 2 hours postdose||101.30|25.24|
91943205|NCT00796224|183783831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|100.07||||||90.0|57.91|172.92|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 3 hours postdose||172.92|57.91|
91943206|NCT00796224|183783831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|164.93||||||90.0|103.78|262.12|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 4 hours postdose||262.12|103.78|
91943207|NCT00796224|183783831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|174.41||||||90.0|110.07|276.36|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 8 hours postdose||276.36|110.07|
91943208|NCT00796224|183783831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|173.01||||||90.0|111.45|268.55|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 24 hours postdose||268.55|111.45|
91943209|NCT00796224|183783831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|189.35||||||90.0|129.76|276.3|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 48 hours postdose||276.30|129.76|
91943210|NCT00796224|183783831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|183.14||||||90.0|124.61|269.14|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 72 hours postdose||269.14|124.61|
91943211|NCT04195750|183783867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||0.88|0.63|0.00031
91943212|NCT04195750|183783868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.17644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||1.10|0.77|0.17644
91943213|NCT04195750|183783869|SUPERIORITY|P-value, difference in percentage and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Difference in Percentage|18.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|23.2||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Belzutifan minus Everolimus|||23.2|14.0|<0.00001
91943214|NCT04195750|183783873|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||0.96|0.58|0.0185
91943215|NCT04195750|183783874|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||1.20|0.72|0.5533
91943216|NCT04195750|183783875|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||0.69|0.41|<0.0001
91943217|NCT04195750|183783876|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|6.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|9.55|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||9.55|3.21|<0.0001
91943218|NCT04195750|183783877|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.47||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|5.54|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||5.54|-0.59|0.1134
91943219|NCT04195750|183783878|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.19|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||2.19|0.70|0.0002
91943220|NCT04195750|183783879|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.72||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.31|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||6.31|1.12|0.0051
91943221|NCT04363944|183783886|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of vertical bowl transfer at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||<|0.001||||||Comparing the change in performing a vertical bowl transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was \<.001|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task vertical bowl transfer- moving the bowl vertically up and down||||<0.001
91943222|NCT04363944|183783886|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of moving the bowl horizontally at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.001||||||Comparing the change in performing a horizontal bowl transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was .001|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal bowl transfer- moving the bowl horizontally||||=.001
91943223|NCT04363944|183783886|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the vertical mug transfer at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.003||||||Comparing the change in performing a vertical mug transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was .003|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task vertical mug transfer- moving the mug vertically up and down||||=.003
91943224|NCT04363944|183783886|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the horizontal mug transfer at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.009||||||Comparing the change in performing a horizontal mug transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was .009|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal mug transfer- moving the mug horizontally||||=.009
91943225|NCT04363944|183783886|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the simulated sip at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.||mRehab task simulate sip- bring mug within one inch of mouth as if taking a drink||||=.933
91943226|NCT04363944|183783886|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of entering a phone number at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task enter phone number||||=.136
91943227|NCT04363944|183783886|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the quick tap at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task quick tap- tapping a moving object on the phone screen||||=.005
91943228|NCT04363944|183783887|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t-tests comparing performance at the first session of in-home training to the last session of in-home training were conducted.|||||=|0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task vertical bowl transfer- moving bowl vertically up and down||||=.228
91943229|NCT04363944|183783887|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.||||||0.196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal bowl- bowl moved horizontally||||.196
91943230|NCT04363944|183783887|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task Vertical Mug- Mug moved vertically and then placed on counter||||=.024
91943231|NCT04363944|183783887|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal mug transfer- moving the mug horizontally||||=.038
91943232|NCT04363944|183783887|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.306||||||calculated p-value greater than .05|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task simulate sip||||=.306
91943233|NCT04363944|183783888|EQUIVALENCE|The average of the WMFT from testing sessions pre intervention (week 1 and approximately week 2) was compared to the WMFT immediately following mRehab home intervention (week 8) using a two tailed paired t-test.|||||=|0.017||||||calculated p-value .017|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.017
91943234|NCT04363944|183783889|EQUIVALENCE|Test, the scores from the first and second in-laboratory visits were averaged to account for variability in the performance of individuals with stroke. This averaged preintervention score was compared with the third in-laboratory visit to assess the immediate change in performance following use of mRehab.|||||=|0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared pre and post intervention data for participants using mRehab for a 6 week home program.||||=.019
91943235|NCT03559192|183783893|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|=|0.0443|ONE_SIDED|80.0||-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09||= 0.0443
91943236|NCT03559192|183783894|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0017|ONE_SIDED|80.0||-2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.21||0.0017
91943237|NCT03559192|183783896|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|=|0.4188|ONE_SIDED|80.0||0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41||= 0.4188
91943238|NCT03559192|183783897|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.2503|ONE_SIDED|80.0||0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10||0.2503
91943239|NCT03517722|183783912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.0|0.4|0.042
91943240|NCT00089999|183783969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|0.3|0.691
91943241|NCT00089999|183783970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.6|||Fisher Exact||Overall Response (i.e. sum of Complete and Partial Responses) comparison|||1.6|0.3|0.443
91943242|NCT03991468|183783977|NON_INFERIORITY|A Mixed Model Repeated Measures logistic regression was used to prove WSI major discordance (MD) rate non-inferior to Glass MD rate. A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in MD rate was constructed. If the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 4%, then WSI would be considered non-inferior to Glass, assuming power = 0.9 and alpha = 0.05 a sample size of 2000 was calculated to be sufficient to prove non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dependent var = major discordance status (yes/no); independent var = modality (WSI/Glass) as a fixed effect \& site, reader, \& case as random effects.||||1.0|-0.1|
91943243|NCT00616772|183783978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.004|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline cIMT, baseline atorvastatin dose, central imaging site, treatment group, time; interaction between treatment group and time||||0.004|-0.016|0.220
91943244|NCT00616772|183783979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.011|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline cIMT as covariate.||||0.011|-0.014|0.813
91943245|NCT00616772|183783980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.005|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline IMT as covariate||||0.005|-0.018|0.249
91943246|NCT00616772|183783981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline IMT as covariate||||0.010|-0.020|0.487
91943247|NCT00616772|183783982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.035|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline IMT as covariate||||0.035|-0.004|0.112
91943248|NCT01673373|183783997|OTHER|Due to the early termination of enrollment, all inferential analyses were interpreted as descriptive and carried out in an exploratory manner.|||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was computed using a one-sided exact test of the difference between the observed rate and the Performance Goal (equal to 70%). The defined threshold for statistical significance is .025.|one-sided exact|||The original Performance Goal of 70% patency rate was derived from a thorough literature review of trials with renal bare metal stent placement. Other assumptions included a determination of samples size based upon a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and desired power of 87%, and assumption of 10% attrition. The null hypothesis was that the incidence of primary patency at 9 months is less than or equal to 70%.|"The cumulative incidence of primary patency was computed as the number of subject-lesions with primary patency at 9 months divided by the number of subject-lesions and was analyzed using the allowable window of 243 to 303 trial days.~An exact binomial one-sided 95% CI was constructed and the lower limit compared to the Performance Goal equal to 70%."|||<.0001
91943249|NCT01673373|183783998|OTHER|A one-sided 95% Confidence Interval for the mean difference between baseline and 9-month systolic blood pressure was constructed and the lower limit compared to the 10 mmHg performance goal. A p-value of the difference between the estimated systolic blood pressure change from the baseline and the performance goal was computed using a paired t-test.||||||0.0192||||||The defined threshold for statistical significance is .025.|t-test, 1 sided|||The primary endpoint of systolic blood pressure was analyzed according to the Performance Goal of a decrease in systolic blood pressure of 10 mmHg between procedure and 9 months.||||.0192
91943250|NCT01654224|183784010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.005||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.005
91816310|NCT01154218|183509228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.3|108.66||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||108.66|91.30|
91816311|NCT01154218|183509228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|107.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.58|117.35||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||117.35|98.58|
91943251|NCT01654224|183784010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.001||||||A/Victoria/210/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91943252|NCT01654224|183784010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.004||||||B/Brisbane/60/2008|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
91943253|NCT01654224|183784010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.672||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.672
91943254|NCT01654224|183784010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.011||||||A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.011
91943255|NCT01654224|183784010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.01||||||B/Texas/6/2011|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.010
91943256|NCT01654224|183784011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.074||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.074
91943257|NCT01654224|183784011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.006||||||A/Victoria/210/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
91943258|NCT01654224|183784011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.069||||||B/Brisbane/60/2008|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.069
91943259|NCT01654224|183784011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.663||||||A/California/07/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.663
91943260|NCT01654224|183784011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.003||||||A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
91943261|NCT01654224|183784011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.063||||||B/Texas/6/2011|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.063
91943262|NCT01654224|183784012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.917||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.917
91943263|NCT01654224|183784012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.36||||||A/Victoria/210/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.360
91943264|NCT01654224|183784012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.248||||||B/Brisbane/60/2008|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.248
91943265|NCT01654224|183784012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.178||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.178
91943266|NCT01654224|183784012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.152||||||A/Victoria/361/2011(H1N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.152
91943267|NCT01654224|183784012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.285||||||B/Texas/6/2011|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.285
91943268|NCT00166504|183784018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.3|<|0.001||95.0|-14.3|-5.7|||ANOVA||Direction of the Comparison: Vytorin minus Atorvastatin.|||-5.7|-14.3|<0.001
91943269|NCT04423718|183784049|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-0.97||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.92||Strictly hierarchical testing procedure: Since p-value below significance level 0.025, fixed sequence testing continued with next primary endpoint (HDq16-2q8) / within EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy with secondary endpoint (BCVA at W60, HDq12-2q8)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||0.92|-2.87|0.0009
91943270|NCT04423718|183784049|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-1.14||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.69||Strictly hierarchical testing procedure: Since p-value below significance level 0.025, fixed sequence testing continued with secondary endpoint (no IRF no SRF at W16)/within EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy with secondary endpoint (BCVA at W60, HDq16-2q8)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.69|-2.97|0.0011
91943271|NCT04423718|183784050|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-0.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.84||EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy: i.e. secondary endpoint was tested for EMA/PMDA after primary endpoint (HDq12-2q8). Since p-value below significance level 0.025, EMA/PMDA specific fixed sequence testing continued with next primary endpoint (HDq16-2q8)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||0.84|-2.57|0.0002
91943272|NCT04423718|183784050|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.66||EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy: i.e. secondary endpoint was tested after primary endpoint (HDq16-2q8). Since p-value below significance level 0.025, EMA/PMDA specific fixed sequence testing continued with secondary endpoint test (no IRF no SRF at W16)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.66|-2.51|<0.0001
91943273|NCT04423718|183784051|SUPERIORITY|One sided test (alpha = 0.025) for superiority|Difference|11.733||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.263|18.204||Strictly hierarchical testing procedure to adjust for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|All HD - 2q8||18.204|5.263|0.0002
91943274|NCT04423718|183784052|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-1.748||||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.784|4.287||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq12 - 2q8||4.287|-7.784|0.5704
91943275|NCT04423718|183784052|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-0.939||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.997|5.119||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq16 - 2q8||5.119|-6.997|0.7611
91943276|NCT04423718|183784053|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-0.182||||0.9554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.565|6.2||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq12 - 2q8||6.200|-6.565|0.9554
91943277|NCT04423718|183784053|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-2.221||||0.4834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.435|3.994||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq16 - 2q8||3.994|-8.435|0.4834
91943278|NCT04423718|183784054|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-1.22||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.51||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CNV size and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||-0.51|-1.94|0.0009
91943279|NCT04423718|183784054|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.48||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.27||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CNV size and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.27|-1.22|0.2076
91943280|NCT04423718|183784055|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.55||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.06||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline total lesion area and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||-0.06|-1.04|0.0287
91816312|NCT01154218|183509228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|85.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.45|93.22||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||93.22|78.45|
91816313|NCT01154218|183509231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|106.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.55|118.51||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.51|96.55|
91943281|NCT04423718|183784055|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.44||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.06||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline total lesion area and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.06|-0.94|0.0870
91943282|NCT04423718|183784056|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|11.725||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.527|18.923||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq12 - 2q8||18.923|4.527|0.0015
91943283|NCT04423718|183784056|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|7.451||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|14.76||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq16 - 2q8||14.760|0.142|0.0458
91943284|NCT04423718|183784057|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-11.12||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.06|-1.18||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CST and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||-1.18|-21.06|0.0283
91943285|NCT04423718|183784057|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-10.51||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.12|-0.9||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CST and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||-0.90|-20.12|0.0321
91943286|NCT04423718|183784058|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.72||||0.3817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|0.9||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||0.90|-2.35|0.3817
91943287|NCT04423718|183784058|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.87||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.8||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.80|-2.55|0.3070
91943288|NCT03887052|183784081|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary endpoint was performed as a one-sided test with a 0.025 significance level of the null hypothesis (H0) that the WCD false positive shock alarm rate per patient-day for the study device was equal to or greater than the comparator rate (0.29). A random-effects Poisson regression model was fit with the number of false-positive shock alarms for each patient as the outcome, the logarithm of days of wear as an offset, and random site effect.|||||<|0.001||||||"Hypotheses:~H0: p1 ≥ 0.29 H1: p1 \< 0.29~where p1 = A-WCD False Positive Alarm Rate"|One-sided non-inferiority|Poisson Regression Analysis||The analysis was based on the cohort of 130 patients with three false-positive shock alarms occurring over a total of 3501 patient-days (500 weeks), or 0.0060 false-positive shock alarms per patient-week. The Poisson distribution was used to model the results and calculate the false-positive shock alarm rate.||||<0.001
91943289|NCT01058395|183784160|SUPERIORITY|"Comparison between groups at 3 months (primary).~Comparison between the 2 tiers."||||||0.021||||||P-value|ANCOVA|Threshold for significance was P-value \< 0.05||DRS levels changes at from 4 weeks to 3 months comparing the different doses.||||0.021
91943290|NCT01058395|183784160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between groups in the DRS scores at 3 months.||||0.258
91943291|NCT01058395|183784160|SUPERIORITY|t-test||||||0.541|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between groups in the DRS scores at 4 weeks.||||0.541
91943292|NCT01058395|183784162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|176.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91943293|NCT01266876|183784163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Each treatment group was compared to placebo using ANCOVA-derived contrasts.~A hierarchical testing procedure was applied to ensure strong control of overall Type-I error rate at 0.05 level. Order was following:~1. Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus placebo~2. Alirocumab 300 mg Q4W versus placebo~3. Alirocumab 200 mg Q4W versus placebo~4. Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W versus placebo~Testing continued only when high-order test was statistically significant at 5% level."||||0.0000
91943294|NCT01266876|183784163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0000
91943295|NCT01266876|183784163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0035
91943296|NCT01266876|183784163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0113
91816314|NCT01154218|183509231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|111.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.47|123.33||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||123.33|100.47|
91943297|NCT02213081|183784213|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to determine if the mean difference in pain scores before compared to during ulipristal therapy were equivalent or non-equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||<0.05
91943298|NCT01836029|183784217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.266|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.22||The 1-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.22||0.266
91943299|NCT01836029|183784219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.399|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.22||The 1-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.22||0.399
91943300|NCT01836029|183784220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.536||||||p-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for randomization stratification factors and comparing tumor response rates between the treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.536
91943301|NCT01526928|183784232|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Since an MTD was never reached for any of the rociletinib FB or HBr formulations/doses, a 750 mg BID HBr starting dose was selected based on early efficacy data from Phase 1, and enrollment into Phase 2 was initiated at this dosage. As the Phase 1 efficacy data matured, the recommended dose was adjusted to 625 mg BID based on antitumor activity and safety evaluations.|||
91943302|NCT05559203|183784257|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample||Feasibility study so no power calculation. N = 18 with baseline and follow-up data.||||.752
91943303|NCT05559203|183784258|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Feasibility study so no power calculation. N = 18 with baseline and follow-up data.||||.197
91943304|NCT05559203|183784259|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.562
91943305|NCT05559203|183784260|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety subscale||||.020
91943306|NCT05559203|183784260|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression subscale||||.002
91816315|NCT01154218|183509231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|86.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.89|95.43||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||95.43|77.89|
91816316|NCT01154218|183509234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|100.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.16|110.97||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||110.97|90.16|
91816317|NCT01154218|183509234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|108.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.11|120.77||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||120.77|98.11|
91816318|NCT01154218|183509234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|74.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.55|82.98||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||82.98|67.55|
91816319|NCT01154218|183509235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|100.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.46|110.73||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||110.73|90.46|
91816320|NCT01154218|183509235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|108.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.03|120.02||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||120.02|98.03|
91816321|NCT01154218|183509235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|76.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.23|84.74||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||84.74|69.23|
91943307|NCT05559203|183784261|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.036
91816322|NCT01154218|183509236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|102.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.84|112.31||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.31|92.84|
91816323|NCT01154218|183509236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|108.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.98|119.75||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||119.75|98.98|
91816324|NCT01154218|183509236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|71.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.46|79.05||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||79.05|65.46|
91816325|NCT01265849|183509238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4051||||||For the primary efficacy measure a two-sided p-value of 0.05 or less is considered to be statistically significant in comparing the LI+CIZ+SOC treatment vs. SOC alone for superiority.|Log Rank|Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||The primary objective was to compare overall survival in the LI + CIZ + SOC group to that in the SOC alone group for superiority of the former.||||0.4051
91816326|NCT01265849|183509238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5402|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.5402
91943308|NCT05559203|183784262|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.042
91816327|NCT01265849|183509238|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.32|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.32|0.89|0.4128
91816328|NCT01265849|183509238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7181|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.7181
91943309|NCT05559203|183784263|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91816329|NCT01265849|183509238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||Log Rank|This log Rank p-value is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.9480
91943310|NCT05559203|183784264|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.781|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.781
91943311|NCT02725268|183784352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.12||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.12|0.58|=0.178
91816330|NCT01265849|183509238|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.42|0.81|0.6101
91816331|NCT01265849|183509239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0478|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.0478
91816332|NCT01265849|183509239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.0137
91816333|NCT01265849|183509239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.95|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||0.95|0.48|0.0236
91943312|NCT02725268|183784352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85|||=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.86||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.86|1.19|=0.092
91943313|NCT02725268|183784352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.57|||=|0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.49||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||4.49|1.47|=0.147
91943314|NCT02725268|183784354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.5||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.50|0.72|=0.968
91943315|NCT02725268|183784354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.37||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.37|0.95|=0.145
91943316|NCT02725268|183784354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||=|0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.73||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.73|0.87|=0.243
91943317|NCT02725268|183784355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.11|0.57|=0.170
91816334|NCT01265849|183509239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4115|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.4115
91816335|NCT01265849|183509239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2862|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.|||This HR is presented as (LI + SOC) / SOC. A HR \< 1.0 favors LI+SOC. Wald p-value for this HR is 0.3859.|||0.2862
91943318|NCT02725268|183784355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||=|0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.68||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.68|1.04|=0.224
91816336|NCT01265849|183509239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.29|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.29|0.52|0.3859
91816337|NCT01265849|183509240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7304||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|This Log Rank P-value is based on an unstratified analysis.||The secondary endpoint LRC failure is analyzed similar to the primary OS endpoint. The primary comparison is LI+CIZ+SOC vs SOC; LI+SOC vs SOC results are also reported.||||0.7304
91816338|NCT01265849|183509240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7171||||||P-values are reported unadjusted for multiplicity.|Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.7171
91816339|NCT01265849|183509240|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.36|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.36|0.79|0.8020
91816340|NCT01265849|183509240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4231|||||||Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.4231
91816341|NCT01265849|183509240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6998|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.6998
91816342|NCT01265849|183509240|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.69|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.69|0.81|0.3944
91816343|NCT01265849|183509241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6142|||||||Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.6142
91943319|NCT02725268|183784355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.28|||=|0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.96||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||3.96|1.32|=0.244
91943320|NCT02725268|183784356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.9|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||2.90|0.66|
91943321|NCT02725268|183784356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.14|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||1.14|0.04|
91943322|NCT02725268|183784356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.00|0.00|
91943323|NCT02725268|183784357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|5.96|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||5.96|1.53|
91943324|NCT02725268|183784357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.86|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.86|0.18|
91943325|NCT02725268|183784357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.21|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||1.21|0.15|
91943326|NCT02725268|183784358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|7.67|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||7.67|0.89|
91943327|NCT02725268|183784358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.51|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.51|0.05|
91943328|NCT02725268|183784358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.67|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.67|0.01|
91943329|NCT01838304|183784361|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|14.81|||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test for odd's ratio of time below a saturation of 80% to total time||14.81|4.21|<0.0001
91943330|NCT03674541|183784363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.043
91816344|NCT01265849|183509241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3024|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.3024
91816345|NCT01265849|183509241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.42082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.28|||Regression, Cox||A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.28|0.55|0.42082
91816346|NCT01265849|183509241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9784|||||||Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.9784
91816347|NCT01265849|183509241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8461||||||This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.|Log Rank|||||||0.8461
91816348|NCT01265849|183509241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.65|||Regression, Cox||A Hazard Ratio of \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.65|0.53|0.8131
91816349|NCT01265849|183509242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3303|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is from an unstratified analysis.||This secondary endpoint PFS is analyzed similar to OS and LRC.||||0.3303
91943331|NCT03674541|183784364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity for secondary outcomes|Welch's t-test|||||||0.008
91943332|NCT03674541|183784365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.263
91943333|NCT03674541|183784366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.039
91943334|NCT03674541|183784367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.068
91943335|NCT03674541|183784368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.045
91943336|NCT03674541|183784369|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Not adjusted multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||1.000
91943337|NCT03674541|183784370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.093
91943338|NCT03674541|183784371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.427
91943339|NCT03674541|183784372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.262
91943340|NCT03674541|183784373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.038
91943341|NCT03674541|183784374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.147
91943342|NCT00117572|183784382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is (Induction+CRT)/CRT|Comparison of overall survival curves||1.41|0.59|0.68
91943343|NCT00117572|183784383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is (Induction+CRT)/CRT|||1.25|0.55|0.37
91943344|NCT00117572|183784384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.12|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is (Induction+CRT)/CRT|||1.12|0.51|0.16
91943345|NCT00117572|183784385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
91943346|NCT00117572|183784386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
91943347|NCT00117572|183784387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparison of change scores between treatment groups||||||0.55
91943348|NCT00117572|183784388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
91943349|NCT00117572|183784389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91943350|NCT00117572|183784390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91816350|NCT01265849|183509242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6669|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.6669
91816351|NCT01265849|183509242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.31|0.90|0.3728
91816352|NCT01265849|183509242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5739|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.5739
91943351|NCT00117572|183784391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91943352|NCT00117572|183784392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91943353|NCT00117572|183784393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91943354|NCT00117572|183784394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.090
91943355|NCT04973085|183784400|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91943356|NCT00654368|183784408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), defined below, exceeded the noninferiority margin of -0.6, then noninferiority was to be concluded.|Mean Difference|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.06|||||The 95% CI was calculated using the mean square error from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) fitted with effects for treatment and covariates of duration of disease, type of reimbursement, and 6 month DAS28.|||-0.06|-0.75|
91943357|NCT00815776|183784421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The unadjusted reductions are straight arithmetic averages and are supplied for informational purposes only. The pooled variance is calculated from the unadjusted standard deviations, and the t statistic is calculated as described in Laster (2003) using an average sample size of 54 and 106 degrees of freedom.|||||<|0.0096|||||||student's t-test with 2n-2 DoF|||The LS means were used to calculate the test statistic for non-inferiority of the CID to the traditional splint device. The null hypothesis was that the reduction of CMI score for the CID is less than 80% of the reduction in the splint group. A significant p-value(\< 0.05) would reject this null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the CID demonstrated a reduction of at least 80% of that seen in the splint group.||||<0.0096
91816353|NCT01265849|183509242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8162|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.8162
91816354|NCT01265849|183509242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.43|0.84|0.4728
91816355|NCT01265849|183509243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.1797
91816356|NCT01265849|183509243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.0159
91816357|NCT01265849|183509243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio of \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.04|0.55|0.0896
91816358|NCT01265849|183509243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5175|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.5175
91816359|NCT01265849|183509243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.4530
91816360|NCT01265849|183509243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.3|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.30|0.54|0.4376
91816361|NCT01265849|183509244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.395||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|Approximately 30% of participants completed the QOL instrument at first administration (Month2), thus the study did not have the power for QoL comparisons. These completer analyses are descriptive only.||||0.2100
91816362|NCT01265849|183509244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.401||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|Approximately 30% of participants completed the QOL instrument at last administration (Month 36), thus the study did not have power for QoL comparisons. These completer analyses are descriptive only.||||0.1701
91943358|NCT00815776|183784422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety analyses were performed on the ITT population.||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Safety analyses were performed on the ITT population. The safety of the CID was characterized by the proportion of subjects with all serious and non-serious study-related adverse events and Unanticipated Adverse Device Events (UADEs). In addition, summaries of the onset, duration, severity, treatment relatedness, and outcome of all adverse events were reported.||||0.688
91943359|NCT00815776|183784423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2995||||||From the pilot study, 50 subjects (CID arm) and 25 (exercise arm) were required for at least 80% power to detect a difference in the mean reduction in CMI scores between arms if muPassive is less than approximately 70% of that in the CID arm.|t-test, 2 sided|||A significant p-value for the treatment group effect would indicate that the CID group and Exercise group were significantly different, based on results of a two-sided t test for difference in means, with alpha=0.5, and allowing for unequal sample sizes.||||.2995
91943360|NCT04228445|183784424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.394|26.662|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||26.662|7.394|<0.0001
91943361|NCT04228445|183784424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.772|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.625|32.617|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||32.617|8.625|<0.0001
91943362|NCT04228445|183784425|OTHER||Percentage of Responders|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.6|96.9|||||Missing data imputed as non-responder|||96.9|78.6|
91943363|NCT04228445|183784425|OTHER||Percentage of Responders|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.7|96.8|||||Missing data imputed as non-responder|||96.8|77.7|
91943364|NCT04228445|183784426|OTHER||percentage of satisfaction|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|95.6||||||||95.6|78.2|
91943365|NCT04228445|183784426|OTHER||percentage of satisfaction|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.5|89.6||||||||89.6|67.5|
91816363|NCT01265849|183509245|SUPERIORITY|This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Median Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.397||0.5871|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|LI + CIZ + SOC, Standard of Care (SOC)||||0.5871
91943366|NCT04228445|183784427|OTHER||median time to visualization (minutes)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|7.0||||||||7.00|5.25|
91943367|NCT04228445|183784427|OTHER||median time to visualization (minutes)|5.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|7.0||||||||7.00|5.12|
91943368|NCT04228445|183784428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.738|43.663|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||43.663|8.738|<0.0001
91943369|NCT04228445|183784428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.199|34.369|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||34.369|7.199|<0.0001
91943370|NCT04228445|183784429|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|91.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Left Ureter||||
91943371|NCT04228445|183784429|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Left Ureter||||
91943372|NCT04228445|183784429|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Left Ureter||||
91943373|NCT04228445|183784429|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Right Ureter||||
91943374|NCT04228445|183784429|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Right Ureter||||
91943375|NCT04228445|183784429|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Right Ureter||||
91943376|NCT04228445|183784430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.771||||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.534|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||1.534|.388|0.4595
91943377|NCT04228445|183784431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.036||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|2.11|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||2.110|.509|0.9220
91816364|NCT01265849|183509245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.247||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.1700
91943378|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.111|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7186|0.4965|||||Week 1. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.4965|-2.7186|
91943379|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.904|0.8685|||||Week 1. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.8685|-1.9040|
91943380|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5332|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.914|0.8475|||||Week 1. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.8475|-1.9140|
91943381|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1387|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8848|0.6075|||||Week 2. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6075|-2.8848|
91943382|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3962|0.6153|||||Week 2. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6153|-2.3962|
91943383|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3045|0.6951|||||Week 2. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6951|-2.3045|
91943384|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4575|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6013|0.6863|||||Week 4. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6863|-3.6013|
91943385|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7381|0.9593|||||Week 4. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.9593|-2.7381|
91943386|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0028|0.6799|||||Week 4. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6799|-3.0028|
91943387|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3209|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3021|1.6603|||||Week 6. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.6603|-2.3021|
91943388|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.896|1.5209|||||Week 6. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.5209|-1.8960|
91943389|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4593|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|1.2424|||||Week 6. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.2424|-2.1610|
91943390|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1342|1.83|||||Week 8. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.8300|-3.1342|
91943391|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6903|1.5904|||||Week 8. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.5904|-2.6903|
91943392|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9665|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0984|1.1654|||||Week 8. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.1654|-3.0984|
91816365|NCT01265849|183509246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.183||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for head and neck pain at Long Term Follow-up Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, tumor location \& stage, geographic region, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|||||0.6296
91816366|NCT01265849|183509246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.103||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for head and neck pain at Long Term Follow-up Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, tumor location \& stage, geographic region, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.7454
91943393|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0892|2.374|||||Week 12. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.3740|-3.0892|
91943394|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1704|2.5407|||||Week 12. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.5407|-2.1704|
91943395|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4643|2.2281|||||Week 12. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.2281|-2.4643|
91943396|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4276|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6569|0.8018|||||Week 22 (Follow up). The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.8018|-3.6569|
91943397|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.381|2.4639|||||Week 22 (Follow up). The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.4639|-1.3810|
91943398|NCT03028467|183784446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.708|1.1217|||||Week 22 (Follow up). The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.1217|-2.7080|
91943399|NCT00460525|183784453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|0.17||||0.175||95.0|-0.09|0.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Cox|No adjustments were made.|Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as one minus the relative risk (RR), which was estimated by exponentiating the treatment parameter (ß) from the Cox model fit.|Time to first clinical malaria episode with significant parasitemia (2500/mm\^3) and temperature of greater than or equal to 37.5 degrees C was analyzed by fitting a Cox Proportional Hazards model. The null hypothesis of no vaccine efficacy was tested by the stratified log-rank test (score test). The point and interval estimates for vaccine efficacy were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in the model.||0.37|-0.09|0.175
91943400|NCT00460525|183784455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|0.2||||0.068||95.0|-0.02|0.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Poisson regression|No adjustments|Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as one minus the relative risk (RR), which was estimated by exponentiating the treatment parameter (ß) from the Poisson model fit.|Incidence density, defined as number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR, was compared using Poisson regression. The null hypothesis of no vaccine efficacy was tested. The point and interval estimates for vaccine efficacy were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in the model.||0.37|-0.02|0.068
91943401|NCT02550093|183784465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HEAT||||.47
91943402|NCT02550093|183784465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||COLD||||0.70
91943403|NCT02550093|183784466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HEAT||||0.84
91943404|NCT02550093|183784466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||COLD||||0.95
91943405|NCT02550093|183784467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HEAT||||0.92
91943406|NCT02550093|183784467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||COLD||||0.63
91943407|NCT02550093|183784468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91943408|NCT02550093|183784469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91943409|NCT02550093|183784470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91943410|NCT02550093|183784471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91943411|NCT02550093|183784472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91943412|NCT02550093|183784473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
91943413|NCT02550093|183784474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
91943414|NCT02550093|183784475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91943415|NCT02550093|183784476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
91943416|NCT03649815|183784492|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.067
91943417|NCT03649815|183784492|OTHER|||||||0.071||||||Controlled for gender, age, and baseline symptomatology|Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.071
91943418|NCT03649815|183784493|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.047
91943419|NCT03649815|183784493|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||Controlled for gender, age and baseline symptomatology|Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.036
91943420|NCT03649815|183784494|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.032
91943421|NCT03649815|183784494|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Controlled for gender, age and baseline symptomatology|Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.006
91943422|NCT03573804|183784496|OTHER|A two-tailed paired T-test for equivalence was used to evaluate equivalence between the average raw tumor.|Mean Difference (Net)|224.675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.26044|359.08956||Using an alpha value of 0.05, dof = 60, the null hypothesis of sample mean equivalence was rejected.|t-test, 2 sided|A paired two-tailed t-test was used on the paired prone-to-supine tumor intensity values.||Regions of interest (ROIs) for tumor were defined by the radiologist segmentation of tumor in supine and prone positions. ROIs for the surrounding tissue were selected such that tumor and normal regions had equal volumes. The alpha level was assumed to be of 0.05 (dof = 60), and the null hypothesis of equivalence (mu = 0).||359.08956|90.26044|<0.001
91943423|NCT03573804|183784497|OTHER|A two-tailed paired T-test was used to compare sample means in between the prone and supine mean benign tissue intensities.|Mean Difference (Net)|165.833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.34708|253.31892||Using an alpha value of 0.05, dof = 60, the null hypothesis of sample mean equivalence was rejected.|t-test, 2 sided|A paired two-tailed t-test was used on the paired prone-to-supine normal tissue intensity values.||Regions of interest (ROIs) for surrounding tissues were selected as the surrounding benign tissue regions directly adjacent to the segmented tumor regions. Tumor and surrounding regions had equal volumes. The mean surrounding region intensities reported were all calculated from the prone and supine T1-weighted MR images segmented by the radiologist.||253.31892|78.34708|<0.001
91943424|NCT03573804|183784498|OTHER|A two-tailed paired T-test was used to compare sample means in between the prone and supine tumor-to-surrounding tissue ratios.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04209|0.28209||Using an alpha value of 0.05, dof = 60, the null hypothesis of sample mean equivalence was rejected.|t-test, 2 sided|A two-tailed paired T-test was used to compare sample means in between the prone and supine tumor-to-surrounding tissue ratios.||The ratios of tumor-to-surrounding tissue intensities, as calculated in Secondary Objective Part A, were compared between prone and supine T1-weighted MR image scans.||0.28209|-0.04209|0.0058
91943425|NCT03573804|183784500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00049664|||||||Students two-tailed paired t-test|||||||0.00049664
91943426|NCT02200510|183784519|EQUIVALENCE|Because this was a pilot study, the goal was to detect effects sizes for a larger R01 or R21.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.575
91943427|NCT02200510|183784519|EQUIVALENCE|Because this was a pilot study, the goal was to detect effects sizes for a larger R01 or R21.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138||||0.721|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.721
91943428|NCT03057106|183784520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.16||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at rtandomization.|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.67|0.46
91943429|NCT03057106|183784521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.||||0.88|0.52|0.0035
91943430|NCT03057106|183784522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.76||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.76|1.04|0.033
91943431|NCT01874353|183784553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.41||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.41|0.22|<0.0001
91943432|NCT01874353|183784553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.19||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.19|0.17|
91943433|NCT01874353|183784554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib|||1.00|0.54|0.0537
91816367|NCT01265849|183509246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.465||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for swallowing at month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, tumor location \& stage, geographic region, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|||||0.7452
91816368|NCT01265849|183509246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.496||0.771|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for swallowing at Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.7710
91943434|NCT01874353|183784554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.49||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib|||2.49|0.38|
91943435|NCT01874353|183784555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.41|0.23|<0.0001
91943436|NCT01874353|183784555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.03||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib|||1.03|0.18|
91943437|NCT01874353|183784556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.72||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.72|0.34|0.0002
91943438|NCT01874353|183784556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.97||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||3.97|0.22|
91943439|NCT01874353|183784557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.191|2.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, visit and baseline TOI with the treatment by visit and baseline TOI by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||2.126|-2.191|0.9765
91943440|NCT01874353|183784558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.48||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.48|0.28|<0.0001
91943441|NCT01874353|183784558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.08||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.08|0.21|
91943442|NCT01874353|183784559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.68|0.39|<0.0001
91943443|NCT01874353|183784559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.85||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model included treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.85|0.37|
91943444|NCT01874353|183784560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.49||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.49|0.28|<0.0001
91943445|NCT01874353|183784560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.04||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the Olaparib arm|||1.04|0.20|
91943446|NCT01874353|183784561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.22|<0.0001
91943447|NCT03728881|183784564|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.44|0.57|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.57|0.44|
91943448|NCT03728881|183784566|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|Ratio of the GMCs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.95|1.29|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.29|0.95|
91943449|NCT03728881|183784568|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.36|0.5|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.50|0.36|
91943450|NCT03728881|183784570|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.75|1.08|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.08|0.75|
91943451|NCT03728881|183784571|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
91943452|NCT03728881|183784572|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.006
91943453|NCT03728881|183784573|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
91943454|NCT03728881|183784574|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.48
91943455|NCT03728881|183784580|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.42|0.56|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||0.56|0.42|
91943456|NCT03728881|183784581|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91943457|NCT03728881|183784583|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.93|1.27||||||||1.27|0.93|
91943458|NCT03728881|183784584|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.0006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.0006
91943459|NCT03728881|183784586|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.35|0.49|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||0.49|0.35|
91943460|NCT03728881|183784587|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
91943461|NCT03728881|183784589|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.71|1.04|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.04|0.71|
91943462|NCT03728881|183784590|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.478|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.478
91943463|NCT03728881|183784592|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.58|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.58|1.12|
91943464|NCT03728881|183784595|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.54|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.54|1.09|
91943465|NCT03728881|183784598|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.81|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.81|1.20|
91943466|NCT03728881|183784599|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose 9-10 year old girls and one-dose 11-14 year old girls. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
91943467|NCT03728881|183784601|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.75|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.75|1.15|
91943468|NCT03728881|183784602|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose 9-10 year old girls and one-dose 11-14 year old girls. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.368|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.368
91816369|NCT01265849|183509247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.185||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for head and neck pain at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|||||0.6337
91816370|NCT01265849|183509247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.962||0.945|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for head and neck pain at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.9450
91816371|NCT01265849|183509247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.465||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for Swallowing at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI+ CIZ + SOC.|||||0.4071
91816372|NCT01265849|183509247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.347||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for Swallowing at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.0296
91816373|NCT01265849|183509248|SUPERIORITY|Statistical tests were for a significant treatment effect in the Cox Proportional Hazards model including treatment, disease stage, tumor location, and geographical region.|% of significant test results|21.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|26.9||"Under the null hypothesis of no effect the expected number of significant test results would be balanced between treatments.~The expected number (%) of statistically significant results would be approximately 14 (5%) of 282."|Regression, Cox|||"Treatment comparisons of LI+CIZ+SOC v. SOC were repeated at all levels of HP, HP ratios, and HP combinations for endpoints OS, PFS, and LRC.~Significant outcomes for the treatment term in the model (two-sided p\<0.05) were accumulated."||26.9|17.0|<0.05
91816374|NCT01265849|183509249|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|11.2|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + CIZ + SOC and SOC.||11.2|5.6|<.0001
91816375|NCT01265849|183509249|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|14.7|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + SOC and SOC.||14.7|4.7|<0.0001
91816376|NCT01265849|183509250|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|15.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|20.8|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + CIZ + SOC and SOC.||20.8|9.6|<0.0001
91816377|NCT01265849|183509250|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|28.9|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + SOC and SOC.||28.9|8.2|<0.0001
91816378|NCT01265849|183509251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for participants receiving LI + CIZ + SOC.||||0.0007
91816379|NCT01265849|183509251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative that response is predictive of increased survival in subjects receiving LI + SOC.||||0.0434
91816380|NCT01265849|183509251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for participants receiving LI, considering both treatment groups combined.||||<0.0001
91816381|NCT01265849|183509252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for low risk participants receiving LI + CIZ + SOC.||||0.0101
91816382|NCT01265849|183509252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4843|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for low risk participants receiving LI + SOC.||||0.4843
91816383|NCT01265849|183509252|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0067||||||The null hypothesis is that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for participants receiving LI, considering both treatment groups combined.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0067
91816384|NCT01265849|183509253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.801|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis is that the Hazard Ratio (HR) for low risk subjects responding to LI (combined arms LI + CIZ + SOC, LI + SOC) is \>=1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis that subjects responding to LI are at reduced risk of death (HR \< 1.0).||0.801|0.152|0.0131
91816385|NCT01265849|183509253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.246||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.787|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis is that the Hazard Ratio (HR) for low risk subjects responding to LI + CIZ + SOC is \>=1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis that subjects responding to LI + CIZ + SOC are at reduced risk of death (HR \< 1.0).||0.787|0.077|0.0181
91816386|NCT00362115|183509254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|0.16||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-5.96|0.0631
91943469|NCT03728881|183784604|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.38|0.56|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.56|0.38|
91943470|NCT03728881|183784604|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.48|0.7|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||0.70|0.48|
91943471|NCT03728881|183784604|EQUIVALENCE|A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|||||=|0.079||||||The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.079
91943472|NCT03728881|183784605|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between the older one-dose recipients and the older three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||NOTE: Younger one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women) both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 36 months, so a p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=1.0000
91943473|NCT03728881|183784607|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.82|1.25||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.25|0.82|
91943474|NCT03728881|183784607|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.01|1.54||||||The cohort for the analysis of HPV16 at 36 months by enrollment age group includes participants who received the appropriate number of vaccine doses within the specified windows, were initially seronegative for HPV16, underwent blood collection at the 36-month mark, and reported no additional HPV vaccinations outside the study before the 36-month blood collection, as confirmed by self-report or serologic testing for HPV6/HPV11.||1.54|1.01|
91943475|NCT03728881|183784607|EQUIVALENCE|A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|||||=|0.14||||||The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.14
91943476|NCT03728881|183784608|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between the younger one-dose recipients and the younger three-dose recipients.|||||=|0.001||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||Calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between younger one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and the younger three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women).||||=0.001
91816387|NCT00362115|183509254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|-2.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.20|-8.33|0.0008
91816388|NCT00362115|183509254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|-0.61||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-6.73|0.0188
91816389|NCT00362115|183509254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-2.63||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.63|-8.80|0.0003
91943477|NCT03728881|183784608|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose and older three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.737||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||Calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between older one-dose recipients (12-14 Year Old Girls) and the older three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=0.737
91816390|NCT00362115|183509254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|-0.65||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-6.77|0.0177
91816391|NCT00362115|183509254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.855||95.0|-2.72|3.27||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.27|-2.72|0.8550
91816392|NCT00362115|183509254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|0.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.91|-5.08|0.1719
91816393|NCT00362115|183509254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|2.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.50|-3.49|0.7469
91816394|NCT00362115|183509254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|0.49||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-5.55|0.1001
91816395|NCT00362115|183509254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.47||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.47|-3.52|0.7294
91816396|NCT00362115|183509255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|-1.41||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.41|-10.84|0.0111
91816397|NCT00362115|183509255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-6.08||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.08|-15.51|< 0.0001
91816398|NCT00362115|183509255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|-5.1||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.10|-14.53|< 0.0001
91816399|NCT00362115|183509255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|-7.52||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.52|-17.02|< 0.0001
91816400|NCT00362115|183509255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|-3.76||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.76|-13.19|0.0005
91816401|NCT00362115|183509255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|7.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||7.17|-2.06|0.2768
91816402|NCT00362115|183509255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|2.51||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.51|-6.74|0.3688
91816403|NCT00362115|183509255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|3.48||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.48|-5.75|0.6293
91816404|NCT00362115|183509255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|1.06||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.06|-8.25|0.1298
91816405|NCT00362115|183509255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|4.82||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.82|-4.41|0.9315
91816406|NCT00362115|183509256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-3.09||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.09|-13.17|0.0016
91816407|NCT00362115|183509256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.17|-5.09||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.09|-15.17|< 0.0001
91816408|NCT00362115|183509256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-7.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.72|-17.80|< 0.0001
91816409|NCT00362115|183509256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|-6.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.20|-16.36|< 0.0001
91816410|NCT00362115|183509256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.75|-5.63||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.63|-15.75|< 0.0001
91816411|NCT00362115|183509256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|4.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.91|-4.96|0.9909
91816412|NCT00362115|183509256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|2.92||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.92|-6.96|0.4213
91816413|NCT00362115|183509256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.0646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|0.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-9.59|0.0646
91816414|NCT00362115|183509256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.2107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|1.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-8.15|0.2107
91816415|NCT00362115|183509256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.3059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|2.37||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.37|-7.54|0.3059
91943478|NCT03728881|183784610|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.33|0.52||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.52|0.33|
91943479|NCT03728881|183784610|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.37|0.6||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.60|0.37|
91943480|NCT03728881|183784610|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.028||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.028
91943481|NCT03728881|183784611|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between the older one-dose recipients and the older three-dose recipients.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: Younger one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women) both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 24months, so a p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=1.000
91943482|NCT03728881|183784613|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.65|1.1||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.10|0.65|
91943483|NCT03728881|183784613|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.77|1.29||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.29|0.77|
91943484|NCT03728881|183784613|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.24||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|The p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.24
91943485|NCT03728881|183784614|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between younger one-dose and younger three-dose recipients.|||||=|0.216||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between younger one-dose recipients (9-12 Year Old Girls) and younger three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women).||||=0.216
91943486|NCT03728881|183784614|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose and older three-dose recipients.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between older one-dose recipients (12-14 Year Old Girls) and older three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=1.000
91943487|NCT03728881|183784616|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.43|0.64||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.64|0.43|
91943488|NCT03728881|183784616|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.41|0.58||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.58|0.41|
91943489|NCT03728881|183784616|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.73||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|The p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.73
91943490|NCT03728881|183784617|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate one-dose and three-dose recipients who enrolled June - August.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 36 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=1.000
91943491|NCT03728881|183784619|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.26||||||96.0|1.0|1.58||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.58|1.00|
91943492|NCT03728881|183784619|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.01||||||96.0|0.83|1.24||||||||1.24|0.83|
91943493|NCT03728881|183784619|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.15||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|The p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.15
91943494|NCT03728881|183784620|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.|||||=|0.253||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.||||=0.253
91943495|NCT03728881|183784620|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.|||||=|0.015||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=0.015
91943496|NCT03728881|183784622|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.43||||||99.0|0.33|0.55||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.55|0.33|
91816416|NCT00362115|183509257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|0.98||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.98|-5.69|0.1653
91816417|NCT00362115|183509257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.81||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-7.50|0.0151
91816418|NCT00362115|183509257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.03||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-6.70|0.0480
91816419|NCT00362115|183509257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-1.08||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-7.81|0.0098
91816420|NCT00362115|183509257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-0.98||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-7.68|0.0113
91816421|NCT00362115|183509257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|4.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.84|-1.68|0.3416
91816422|NCT00362115|183509257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.06||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.06|-3.49|0.8973
91816423|NCT00362115|183509257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.7292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|3.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.84|-2.69|0.7292
91816424|NCT00362115|183509257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|2.79||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.79|-3.79|0.7646
91816425|NCT00362115|183509257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|2.88||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.88|-3.67|0.8133
91816426|NCT00362115|183509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.51|-4.51||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.51|-12.51|< 0.0001
91816427|NCT00362115|183509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.31|-8.9||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.90|-17.31|< 0.0001
91943497|NCT03728881|183784622|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.34|0.52||||||||0.52|0.34|
91943498|NCT03728881|183784622|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.95||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.95
91943499|NCT03728881|183784623|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 24 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=1.000
91816428|NCT00362115|183509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-7.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.95|-16.27|< 0.0001
91816429|NCT00362115|183509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.07|-12.46||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.46|-21.07|< 0.0001
91816430|NCT00362115|183509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.58|-9.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.17|-17.58|< 0.0001
91816431|NCT00362115|183509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.3735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.58||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.58|-2.10|0.3735
91816432|NCT00362115|183509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|1.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.20|-6.91|0.1668
91816433|NCT00362115|183509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|2.15||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.15|-5.86|0.3629
91816434|NCT00362115|183509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|-2.36||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.36|-10.67|0.0022
91816435|NCT00362115|183509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|0.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.93|-7.18|0.1303
91816436|NCT00362115|183509259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-2.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.72|-8.12|< 0.0001
91816437|NCT00362115|183509259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-5.65||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.65|-11.33|< 0.0001
91943500|NCT03728881|183784625|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.69|1.19||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.19|0.69|
91943501|NCT03728881|183784625|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.69|1.14||||||||1.14|0.69|
91943502|NCT03728881|183784625|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.88||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.88
91943503|NCT03728881|183784626|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.|||||=|0.629||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.||||=0.629
91943504|NCT03728881|183784626|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.|||||=|0.175||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=0.175
91943505|NCT03728881|183784628|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.52||||||96.0|0.43|0.64||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.64|0.43|
91943506|NCT03728881|183784628|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.48||||||96.0|0.4|0.58||||||||0.58|0.40|
91943507|NCT03728881|183784628|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.46||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.46
91943508|NCT03728881|183784629|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients from coastal districts.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 36 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV16 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=1.000
91943509|NCT03728881|183784631|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.27||||||96.0|1.03|1.57||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.57|1.03|
91943510|NCT03728881|183784631|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.99||||||96.0|0.8|1.23||||||||1.23|0.80|
91943511|NCT03728881|183784631|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.095||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.095
91943512|NCT03728881|183784632|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.|||||=|0.327||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=0.327
91816438|NCT00362115|183509259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|-5.9||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.90|-11.52|< 0.0001
91816439|NCT00362115|183509259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-7.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.91|-13.73|< 0.0001
91943513|NCT03728881|183784632|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.|||||=|0.012||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.||||=0.012
91943514|NCT03728881|183784634|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.36|0.58||||||||0.58|0.36|
91943515|NCT03728881|183784634|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.32|0.5||||||||0.50|0.32|
91943516|NCT03728881|183784634|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.3||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.30
91943517|NCT03728881|183784635|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 24 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV16 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=1.000
91943518|NCT03728881|183784637|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|1.02||||||99.0|0.79|1.32||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.32|0.79|
91943519|NCT03728881|183784637|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.81||||||99.0|0.63|1.04||||||||1.04|0.63|
91943520|NCT03728881|183784637|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.1||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.10
91943521|NCT03728881|183784638|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=1.000
91943522|NCT03728881|183784638|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.|||||=|0.339||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.||||=0.339
91943523|NCT05505734|183784649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.535|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.73||The pre-specified alpha (type I error) at the IA was set at 0.003 for the primary and first secondary endpoint|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values are estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.730|0.392|<0.001
91816440|NCT00362115|183509259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|-6.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.64|-12.31|< 0.0001
91816441|NCT00362115|183509259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|4.61||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.61|-0.56|0.1249
91816442|NCT00362115|183509259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.4542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|1.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.70|-3.79|0.4542
91816443|NCT00362115|183509259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|1.44||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.44|-3.97|0.3574
91816444|NCT00362115|183509259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|-0.57||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-6.18|0.0184
91816445|NCT00362115|183509259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.70|-4.77|0.1450
91816446|NCT00362115|183509260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|-3.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.26|-12.46|0.0009
91816447|NCT00362115|183509260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|-8.77||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.77|-18.46|< 0.0001
91943524|NCT05505734|183784650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.539|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.733||The pre-specified alpha (type I error) at the IA was set at 0.003 for the primary and first secondary endpoint|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.733|0.397|<0.001
91943525|NCT05505734|183784651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.724||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.724|0.405|<0.001
91943526|NCT05505734|183784652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.72||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.720|0.406|<0.001
91943527|NCT05505734|183784653|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.64||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Negative binomial|||Rates, rate ratios and two-sided p-values were estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A rate ratio less than 1 favors BDA MDI treatment group.||0.64|0.34|<0.001
91943528|NCT05505734|183784654|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.63||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Negative binomial|||Rates, rate ratios and two-sided p-values were estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A rate ratio less than 1 favors BDA MDI treatment group.||0.63|0.33|<0.001
91943529|NCT05505734|183784655|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||<0.001
91943530|NCT05505734|183784656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||<0.001
91943531|NCT00732472|183784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.777|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|7.91|||||Day 1, Max HR|||7.91|-3.39|
91943532|NCT00732472|183784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.922|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|7.28|||||Day 7, Max HR|||7.28|-4.78|
91943533|NCT00732472|183784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|8.91|||||Day 1, Max HR|||8.91|-2.37|
91943534|NCT00732472|183784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.729|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|3.39|||||Day 7, Max HR|||3.39|-7.89|
91943535|NCT00732472|183784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.899|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|13.39|||||Day 1, Max HR|||13.39|1.59|
91943536|NCT00732472|183784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|15.05|||||Day 7, Max HR|||15.05|2.34|
91943537|NCT00732472|183784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.34|||||Day 1, WM|||4.34|-4.80|
91943538|NCT00732472|183784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|5.4|||||Day 7, WM|||5.40|-5.09|
91943539|NCT00732472|183784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|6.77|||||Day 1, WM|||6.77|-2.12|
91943540|NCT00732472|183784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.378|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|2.45|||||Day 7, WM|||2.45|-7.48|
91943541|NCT00732472|183784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|10.81|||||Day 1, WM|||10.81|1.51|
91943542|NCT00732472|183784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.642|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|12.54|||||Day 7, WM|||12.54|1.57|
91943543|NCT02623699|183784735|SUPERIORITY||least square (LS) mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|=|0.9689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.53||Joint rank p-value was calculated from ANCOVA model which included treatment as fixed effect, adjusts for covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank||ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect, adjusts for the covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank test combining function and mortality were used for statistical inference and the estimates were from the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for change from baseline. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data for withdrawals other than death in the joint rank analysis. Multiple imputation was used to handle all missing data in the ANCOVA for change from baseline.||5.53|-3.19|= 0.9689
91943544|NCT02623699|183784736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.84|0.53|< 0.0001
91943545|NCT02623699|183784736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.75|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.95|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.95|0.60|=0.0002
91943546|NCT02623699|183784736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.81|||=|0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||1.02|0.65|=0.0641
91943547|NCT02623699|183784736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.84|0.53|<0.0001
91943548|NCT02623699|183784737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78||The analysis was based on ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. P-value for this secondary outcome measure (OM) is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.|ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, baseline disease duration since symptom onset, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data for withdrawals. Difference in LS geometric mean ratio to baseline (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.78|0.49|< 0.0001
91943549|NCT02623699|183784738|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.45||The analysis was based on ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, baseline disease duration since symptom onset, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|P-value for this secondary OM is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.45|0.25|< 0.0001
91943550|NCT02623699|183784739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.829|=|0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.528|19.322||Joint rank p-value was calculated from ANCOVA model which included treatment as fixed effect, adjusts for covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, baseline SVC, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank|P-value for this secondary OM is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.|ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect, adjusts for the covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, baseline SVC, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank test combining function and mortality were used for statistical inference and the estimates were from the ANCOVA for change from baseline. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data for withdrawals other than death in the joint rank analysis. Multiple imputation was used to handle all missing data in the ANCOVA for change from baseline.||19.322|-3.528|= 0.3233
91943551|NCT02623699|183784740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|=|0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.255||ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and adjusts for following covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline HHD overall megascore, and use of riluzole/edaravone. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|P-value for this secondary OM is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.||||0.255|-0.207|= 0.8390
91943552|NCT01426009|183784744|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0347|0.1099|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response,with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1099|0.0347|0.0003
91943553|NCT01426009|183784744|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0676|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0307|0.1046|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response,with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1046|0.0307|0.0006
91943554|NCT01426009|183784744|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0644|0.1398|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1398|0.0644|<0.0001
91943555|NCT01426009|183784744|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0918|0.1681|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||00.1681|0.0918|<0.0001
91943556|NCT01426009|183784744|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0073|0.082|||Mantel Haenszel||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.0820|0.0073|0.0200
91943557|NCT01426009|183784744|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0284||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0243|0.1382|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1382|0.0243|0.0060
91943558|NCT01426009|183784744|SUPERIORITY|Day 1 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0018|0.0752|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.0752|0.0018|0.0402
91943559|NCT01426009|183784744|SUPERIORITY|Day 1 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0337|0.1055|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1055|0.0337|0.0003
91943560|NCT01426009|183784744|SUPERIORITY|Day 1 analysis|Least Squares Mean|0.0501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.0861|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.0861|0.0140|0.0074
91943561|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0767|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0505|0.1028|||ANCOVA||standard error of the mean difference|ACU 0-24 on Day 1||0.1028|0.0505|<0.0001
91943562|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0127|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0965|0.1475|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|ACU 0-24 Day 1||0.1475|0.0965|<0.0001
91943563|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0965|0.1479|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 Day 1||0.1479|0.0965|<0.0001
91816448|NCT00362115|183509260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|-7.63||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.63|-17.21|< 0.0001
91816449|NCT00362115|183509260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|-12.92||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.92|-22.83|< 0.0001
91816450|NCT00362115|183509260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|-8.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.84|-18.52|< 0.0001
91816451|NCT00362115|183509260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.58||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.58|-4.25|0.9424
91816452|NCT00362115|183509260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|-0.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.93|-10.26|0.0189
91816453|NCT00362115|183509260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|0.21||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-9.01|0.0612
91816454|NCT00362115|183509260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|-5.07||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.07|-14.63|< 0.0001
91816455|NCT00362115|183509260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|-1.0||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-10.33|0.0175
91943564|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1362|0.1888|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 day 1||0.1888|0.1362|<0.0001
91943565|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1434|0.1946|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 day 1||0.1946|0.1434|<0.0001
91943566|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0189|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0716|0.1473|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 day 1||0.1473|0.0716|<0.0001
91943567|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0812|0.1379|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on Day 7||0.1379|0.0812|<0.0001
91943568|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0993|0.1548|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC0-24 on Day 7||0.1548|0.0993|<0.0001
91943569|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1169|0.173|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1730|0.1169|<0.0001
91943570|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1403|0.1972|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1972|0.1403|<0.0001
91943571|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1117|0.173|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1730|0.1117|<0.0001
91816456|NCT00362115|183509261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-0.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-7.26|0.0108
91816457|NCT00362115|183509261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|-4.55||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.55|-11.16|< 0.0001
91816458|NCT00362115|183509261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|-5.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.26|-11.82|< 0.0001
91816459|NCT00362115|183509261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|-7.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.20|-13.98|< 0.0001
91816460|NCT00362115|183509261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.52|-5.9||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.90|-12.52|< 0.0001
91943572|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0795|0.1972|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1972|0.0795|<0.0001
91816461|NCT00362115|183509261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|4.59||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.59|-1.45|0.3060
91943573|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0776|0.1301|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1301|0.0776|<0.0001
91943574|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1212|0.1724|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1724|0.1212|<0.0001
91943575|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1322|0.1837|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1837|0.1322|<0.0001
91943576|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1919|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1655|0.2184|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.2184|0.1655|<0.0001
91943577|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1738|0.2251|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.2251|0.1738|<0.0001
91943578|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0872|0.1625|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1625|0.0872|<0.0001
91943579|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.1587|||ANCOVA|standard error of the Mean difference|standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.1587|0.0970|<0.0001
91943580|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1151|0.1756|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.1756|0.1151|<0.0001
91816462|NCT00362115|183509261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.02||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.02|-5.37|0.1823
91816463|NCT00362115|183509261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|0.29||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-6.01|0.0751
91943581|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1699|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1393|0.2004|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.2004|0.1393|<0.0001
91943582|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0155|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1503|0.2125|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.2125|0.1503|<0.0001
91943583|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1393|0.201|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.201|0.1393|<0.0001
91943584|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0951|0.1817|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.1817|0.0951|<0.0001
91943585|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0155|0.0786|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.0786|0.0155|<0.0001
91943586|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0918|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0611|0.1226|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1226|0.0611|<0.0001
91943587|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0155|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0519|0.1139|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1139|0.0519|<0.0001
91943588|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0158|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0982|0.1617|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 o day 1||0.1617|0.0982|<0.0001
91943589|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1061|0.1678|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1678|0.1061|<0.0001
91943590|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.1377|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1377|0.0490|<0.0001
91943591|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0573|0.1186|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1186|0.0573|<0.0001
91943592|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0788|0.1388|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1388|0.0788|<0.0001
91943593|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0872|0.1478|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1478|0.0872|<0.0001
91943594|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1226|0.1838|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|||0.1838|0.1226|<0.0001
91943595|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0747|0.135|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|||0.1350|0.0747|<0.0001
91943596|NCT01426009|183784745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0589|0.1398|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1398|0.0589|<0.0001
91816464|NCT00362115|183509261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|-1.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.64|-8.18|0.0034
91943597|NCT00515099|183784838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline ln(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in ln(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Month 12 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.60
91943598|NCT00515099|183784839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Missing Month 12 AUC values were not imputed. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.40
91943599|NCT00515099|183784840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from baseline (pre-treatment initiation) to Month 12||||0.59
91943600|NCT00515099|183784840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from baseline (pre-treatment initiation) to Month 24||||0.14
91943601|NCT00515099|183784842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.099|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of groups up to Month 12||||>0.099
91943602|NCT00515099|183784842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of groups up to Month 24||||0.75
91943603|NCT00515099|183784843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||2-Hour AUC change from baseline (pre-initiation treatment) to Month 24. Primary imputation method used for missing Month 24 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL.||||0.38
91943604|NCT00515099|183784843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||4-Hour AUC change from baseline (pre-initiation treatment) to Month 24. Missing Month 24 AUC values were not imputed. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL.||||0.33
91943605|NCT00515099|183784844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in HbA1c from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from Baseline to Month 12||||0.07
91943606|NCT00515099|183784844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in HbA1c from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from Baseline to Month 24||||0.16
91943607|NCT03342404|183784845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|77.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.4|87.0|||||The difference in proportions (luspatercept - placebo) and 95% CI were estimated from the exact unconditional test|||87.0|63.4|
91943608|NCT03342404|183784845|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|77.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|85.5|||||The common risk difference (luspatercept - placebo) and 95% CI were estimated from the CMH test stratified by baseline Hb category and baseline NTDT-PRO T/W domain score category|||85.5|68.7|
91816465|NCT00362115|183509261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-0.33||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-6.72|0.0306
91816466|NCT00362115|183509262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-2.33||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.33|-13.90|0.0061
91816467|NCT00362115|183509262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|-5.44||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.44|-17.56|0.0002
91816468|NCT00362115|183509262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|-6.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.28|-18.34|< 0.0001
91816469|NCT00362115|183509262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.75|-11.34||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.34|-23.75|< 0.0001
91816470|NCT00362115|183509262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.86|-7.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.80|-19.86|< 0.0001
91816471|NCT00362115|183509262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.9355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|5.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.28|-5.74|0.9355
91816472|NCT00362115|183509262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|2.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.20|-9.41|0.2223
91816473|NCT00362115|183509262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|1.35||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.35|-10.19|0.1328
91816474|NCT00362115|183509262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.61|-3.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.70|-15.61|0.0016
91816475|NCT00362115|183509262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-0.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-11.70|0.0437
91816476|NCT00362115|183509263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-0.16||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-8.39|0.0417
91816477|NCT00362115|183509263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|-1.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.84|-10.44|0.0053
91816478|NCT00362115|183509263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-3.56||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-12.12|0.0004
91943609|NCT03342404|183784846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-1.03|0.0924
91943610|NCT03342404|183784847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.67|||ANCOVA|||||1.67|1.16|< 0.0001
91816479|NCT00362115|183509263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|-5.16||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.16|-13.97|< 0.0001
91816480|NCT00362115|183509263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.03||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.03|-13.60|< 0.0001
91816481|NCT00362115|183509263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.6372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.85||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.85|-2.97|0.6372
91816482|NCT00362115|183509263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|3.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.20|-5.05|0.6588
91816483|NCT00362115|183509263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|1.47||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.47|-6.72|0.2082
91816484|NCT00362115|183509263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|-0.12||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-8.57|0.0437
91816485|NCT00362115|183509263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-0.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-8.19|0.0495
91943611|NCT03342404|183784848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.3|80.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.4|54.3|< 0.0001
91943612|NCT03342404|183784849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-1.06|0.2641
91943613|NCT03342404|183784850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-1.02|0.0721
91943614|NCT03342404|183784851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.79|||ANCOVA|||||1.79|1.20|< 0.0001
91816486|NCT00362115|183509264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|-3.97||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.97|-14.74|0.0007
91816487|NCT00362115|183509264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.02|-7.73||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.73|-19.02|< 0.0001
91816488|NCT00362115|183509264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.83||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.83|-16.00|0.0003
91816489|NCT00362115|183509264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.11|-11.47||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.47|-23.11|< 0.0001
91816490|NCT00362115|183509264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|-6.78||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.78|-18.01|< 0.0001
91816491|NCT00362115|183509264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|8.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||8.01|-2.17|0.2594
91816492|NCT00362115|183509264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|4.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.26|-6.46|0.6859
91816493|NCT00362115|183509264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|7.15||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||7.15|-3.43|0.4898
91816494|NCT00362115|183509264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|0.53||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.53|-10.55|0.0760
91816495|NCT00362115|183509264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|5.21||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.21|-5.44|0.9647
91816496|NCT00362115|183509265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|-3.43||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.43|-11.13|0.0002
91943615|NCT03342404|183784852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|4.78|||ANCOVA|||||4.78|-0.39|0.0959
91816497|NCT00362115|183509265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|-6.97||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.97|-15.01|< 0.0001
91816498|NCT00362115|183509265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|-4.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.64|-12.59|< 0.0001
91816499|NCT00362115|183509265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|-9.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.50|-17.79|< 0.0001
91816500|NCT00362115|183509265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|-4.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.70|-12.69|< 0.0001
91816501|NCT00362115|183509265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|5.62||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.62|-1.63|0.2790
91816502|NCT00362115|183509265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|2.1||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.10|-5.53|0.3772
91816503|NCT00362115|183509265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.7302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|4.43||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.43|-3.11|0.7302
91816504|NCT00362115|183509265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|-0.42||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-8.31|0.0302
91816505|NCT00362115|183509265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.38||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.38|-3.22|0.7644
91816506|NCT00362115|183509266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.19||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.19|-12.70|0.0001
91943616|NCT03342404|183784853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.00|-1.58|0.0510
91816507|NCT00362115|183509266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|-9.24||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.24|-18.19|< 0.0001
91943617|NCT03342404|183784854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-1.80|0.0047
91943618|NCT03342404|183784855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.0|0.8|0.1359
91816508|NCT00362115|183509266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-7.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.80|-16.66|< 0.0001
91816509|NCT00362115|183509266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.51|-13.35||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-13.35|-22.51|< 0.0001
91816510|NCT00362115|183509266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.21|-9.25||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.25|-18.21|< 0.0001
91816511|NCT00362115|183509266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|4.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.91|-3.26|0.6905
91816512|NCT00362115|183509266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|-0.13||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-8.76|0.0433
91816513|NCT00362115|183509266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.1736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|1.31||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.31|-7.22|0.1736
91816514|NCT00362115|183509266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.08|-4.23||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.23|-13.08|0.0001
91816515|NCT00362115|183509266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-0.14||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANOVA|||||-0.14|-8.77|0.0429
91816516|NCT00362115|183509267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-2.04||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-7.77|0.0009
91816517|NCT00362115|183509267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-5.32||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.32|-11.33|< 0.0001
91816518|NCT00362115|183509267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-5.67||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.67|-11.63|< 0.0001
91816519|NCT00362115|183509267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|-8.18||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.18|-14.34|< 0.0001
91816520|NCT00362115|183509267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-6.36||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.36|-12.37|< 0.0001
91816521|NCT00362115|183509267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|4.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.50|-0.98|0.2068
91816522|NCT00362115|183509267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|1.25||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.25|-4.56|0.2622
91943619|NCT03342404|183784856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|0.9|0.0657
91816523|NCT00362115|183509267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|0.88||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.88|-4.85|0.1730
91816524|NCT00362115|183509267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-1.62||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.62|-7.56|0.0025
91816525|NCT00362115|183509267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-5.60|0.0681
91816526|NCT00362115|183509268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|-3.87||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.87|-13.28|0.0004
91816527|NCT00362115|183509268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|-7.42||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.42|-17.26|< 0.0001
91816528|NCT00362115|183509268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-6.78||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.78|-16.51|< 0.0001
91943620|NCT03342404|183784857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 PCS to Week 24||2.96|-0.19|0.0847
91943621|NCT03342404|183784857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|3.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 PCS to Week 48||3.65|-0.15|0.0712
91943622|NCT03342404|183784857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54||||0.1633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 MCS to Week 24||3.72|-0.63|0.1633
91816529|NCT00362115|183509268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|-9.25||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.25|-19.38|< 0.0001
91943623|NCT03342404|183784857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 MCS to Week 48||5.36|0.04|0.0469
91943624|NCT03342404|183784858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.4787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of participants with improvement of iron overload (LIC/ICT responders) at Week 24||13.0|-21.4|0.4787
91943625|NCT03342404|183784858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of participants with improvement of iron overload (LIC/ICT responders) at Week 48||2.4|-31.5|0.0827
91943626|NCT03342404|183784859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.14||||0.5949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.77|101.06|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in serum ferritin at Week 24||101.06|-46.77|0.5949
91943627|NCT03342404|183784859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.46||||0.3454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.01|87.93|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in serum ferritin at Week 48||87.93|-61.01|0.3454
91943628|NCT03342404|183784860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.6628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in LIC at Week 24||0.30|-0.47|0.6628
91943629|NCT03342404|183784860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in LIC at Week 48||1.42|-0.09|0.0859
91943630|NCT03342404|183784861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.2||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|38.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of participants who were transfusion free over 24 weeks||38.6|5.0|0.0013
91943631|NCT03342404|183784862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|53.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants Who are Transfusion-Free Over 48 Weeks||53.0|20.9|< 0.0001
91943632|NCT03342404|183784864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.15||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|38.04|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in 6MWT distance at Week 24||38.04|-5.73|0.1466
91816530|NCT00362115|183509268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-7.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.70|-17.53|< 0.0001
91816531|NCT00362115|183509268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|7.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||7.72|-1.17|0.1479
91816532|NCT00362115|183509268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|4.19||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.19|-5.16|0.8382
91943633|NCT03342404|183784864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.44||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|31.59|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in 6MWT distance at Week 48||31.59|-6.72|0.2011
91943634|NCT03342404|183784865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|52.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|66.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants with an Increase From Baseline ≥1.5 g/dL in Mean Hemoglobin Values in the Absence of Transfusion||66.2|36.2|< 0.0001
91816533|NCT00362115|183509268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|4.82||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.82|-4.42|0.9317
91816534|NCT00362115|183509268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|2.37||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.37|-7.29|0.3169
91943635|NCT03342404|183784866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.1989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With a Decrease From Baseline ≥ RD (= 1) in the Non-Transfusion Dependent β-thalassemia-Patient Reported Outcome (NTDT-PRO) Tiredness and Weakness (T/W) Domain Score Week 13 to Week 24||3.7|0.8|0.1989
91943636|NCT03342404|183784866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With a Decrease From Baseline ≥ RD (= 1) in the Non-Transfusion Dependent β-thalassemia-Patient Reported Outcome (NTDT-PRO) Tiredness and Weakness (T/W) Domain Score Week 37 to Week 48||5.0|0.9|0.0733
91943637|NCT03676465|183784940|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91943638|NCT03676465|183784941|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91943639|NCT03676465|183784942|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91816535|NCT00362115|183509268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|3.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.91|-5.44|0.7488
91943640|NCT03676465|183784943|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91943641|NCT03676465|183784944|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91943642|NCT03676465|183784945|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91943643|NCT03676465|183784946|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91943644|NCT03676465|183784947|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91943645|NCT03676465|183784948|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91943646|NCT03676465|183784949|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91943647|NCT03676465|183784950|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91943648|NCT03676465|183784951|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91943649|NCT03676465|183784952|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91943650|NCT03676465|183784953|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91943651|NCT00085644|183784957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|37.6|||<|0.001||95.0|27.4|47.8|||Chi-squared||Risk difference is measured as a percentage.|ASAS 20 response rates of the adalimumab group were compared with the placebo group using Pearson's Chi-square test. The counts and percentages were calculated for total sample and by therapy group. Statistical tests were 2-sided. For the statistical analysis, subjects with missing data before Week 12 were considered as nonresponders. The comparisons were performed at an alpha level = 0.05.||47.8|27.4|< 0.001
91943652|NCT00085644|183784958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.985||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.985
91943653|NCT00893763|183785047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects linear model|||We compared groups in a single analytical model using a mixed effects linear model with CPIS as the response variable. For this model, group (CHX, control), day, group by day interaction, APACHE III score and hospital (VCU, USF) were modeled as fixed effects and subject was modeled as a random effect.||||0.1763
91943654|NCT00893763|183785047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression analysis was performed using the binary response variable of colonization or no colonization and dependent variables for group, length of intubation, and group-by-length-of-intubation interaction. The probability of a type 1 error ( a ) was set to 0.05.||||0.8656
91943655|NCT04107935|183785077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983||||||Propensity score matching was used to form pairs of intervention and control participants. Specifically, a greedy matching procedure with a matching caliper of 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|Since baseline characteristics achieved a good balance, those variables were not entered into the propensity score matched model.||||||0.9830
91943656|NCT04107935|183785078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8365||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8365
91943657|NCT04107935|183785079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5727||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5727
91943658|NCT04107935|183785080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9381||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9381
91943659|NCT04107935|183785082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.608
91943660|NCT00376675|183785084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.317
91943661|NCT03489850|183785094|SUPERIORITY||Parameter Estimate|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.69|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.69|-1.01|.62
91943662|NCT03489850|183785095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.98|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||.98|.30|<0.05
91943663|NCT03489850|183785096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.48|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.48|0.47|<0.05
91943664|NCT03489850|183785097|SUPERIORITY||F|7.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91943665|NCT01302691|183785098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.1||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes treatment group, time point, and the interaction of time by treatment with restriction of same baseline mean across treatment groups||||0.6|-2.7|0.205
91943666|NCT01302691|183785104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes treatment group, time point, and the interaction of time by treatment with restriction of same baseline mean across treatment groups||||-0.8|-5.7|0.011
91943667|NCT01678560|183785137|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Fisher exact test statistic value|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Active continuous monitoring of PAP treatment in OSA will result in improved adherence at 90 days Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|Fisher Exact|Exact Fisher test was used on the information from the limited population.||PAP devices delivery to the patients was outsourced by the institution eliminating the point of recruitment for the study at our department. The recruitment was halted and the study proceeded with the follow-up of already recruited patients. As a result of the limited recruitment, planned statistical data analysis was not performed on the primary outcomes due to the smaller then expected number of subjects (expected 110 subjects in the Usual arm and 110 subjects in the Wireless arm.|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|||<0.01
91943668|NCT01678560|183785138|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Fisher exact test statistic value|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"Hypothesis: Active continuous monitoring of PAP treatment in OSA (Wireless group) will result in improved adherence at 90 days compared to Usual Group.~Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population."|Fisher Exact|Exact Fisher test was used on the information from the limited population||CPAP devices delivery to the patients was outsourced by the institution eliminating the point of recruitment for the study at our department The recruitment was halted and the study proceeded with the follow-up of already recruited patients. As a result of the limited recruitment, planned statistical data analysis was not performed on the primary outcomes due to the smaller then expected number of subjects (expected 110 subjects in the Usual arm and 110 subjects in the Wireless arm|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|||<0.01
91943669|NCT01678560|183785139|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Estimation Parameter Other[Fisher exact|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis - Number of patients effectively treated with the PAP will be higher in the Wireless Group compared to the Usual Group Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|Fisher Exact|||CPAP devices delivery to the patients was outsourced by the institution eliminating the point of recruitment for the study at our department The recruitment was halted and the study proceeded with the follow-up of already recruited patients. As a result of the limited recruitment, planned statistical data analysis was not performed on the primary outcomes due to the smaller then expected number of subjects (expected 110 subjects in the Usual arm and 110 subjects in the Wireless arm.||||<0.01
91816536|NCT00362115|183509269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|-3.4||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.40|-9.98|< 0.0001
91816537|NCT00362115|183509269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-5.86||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.86|-12.76|< 0.0001
91816538|NCT00362115|183509269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|-5.22||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.22|-12.05|< 0.0001
91943670|NCT01678560|183785140|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Other[Fisher exact test statistic value]|0.0286|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis - PAP treatment Adherence in the first 3 months of treatment predicts the PAP treatment Adherence in the next 9 months of treatment Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Fisher Exact||Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|||<0.01
91943671|NCT01678560|183785141|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Exact Fisher test|0.0039|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"Hypothesis: Patients with the higher AHI are more likely to become adherent to the PAP therapy.~Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population"|Fisher Exact|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population||Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|||<0.01
91943672|NCT00959699|183785168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Strata-Adjusted Difference|33.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|53.3||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel p-value is adjusted for randomization strata of HCV-RNA (\< or \>= 800,000 IU/mL) and Cirrhosis/Fibrosis (Yes or No)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The methodology for 95% Confidence Interval (CI) is based on a Modified Koch approach which adjusted for Randomization Strata of Cirrhosis/Fibrosis (Yes or No). The adjustment of randomization strata of HCV-RNA (\< or \>= 800,000 IU/mL) was not possible due to sparse data.||53.3|14.1|0.0008
91943673|NCT00959699|183785169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Observed Difference|34.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|53.9||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel p-value is adjusted for randomization strata of HCV-RNA (\< or \>= 800,000 IU/mL) and Cirrhosis/Fibrosis (Yes or No)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The methodology for 95% CI is based on the asymptotic normal approximation to the binomial distribution||53.9|14.5|0.0007
91943674|NCT02858713|183785176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|6.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.28|1.42|=0.004
91943675|NCT02858713|183785177|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.415|||=|0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.939|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change baseline to week 4||0.939|-1.770|=0.545
91943676|NCT02858713|183785177|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.415||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.939|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change from baseline to week 4||0.939|-1.770|0.545
91943677|NCT02858713|183785177|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.581||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.099|0.938|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change from baseline to week 8||0.938|-2.099|0.450
91943678|NCT02858713|183785177|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.77||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.389|0.848|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change from baseline to week 26||0.848|-2.389|0.348
91943679|NCT02858713|183785178|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|0.4||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.795|||Regression, Linear|||LS-PGA: Change from baseline to week 4||0.795|0.005|0.047
91943680|NCT02858713|183785178|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.091||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.504|||Regression, Linear|||LS-PGA: Change from baseline to week 8||0.504|-0.321|0.662
91943681|NCT02858713|183785178|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.18||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.264|0.625|||Regression, Linear|||LS-PGA: Change from baseline to week 26||0.625|-0.264|0.424
91943682|NCT01388491|183785202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.75|31.17||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||31.17|-54.75|0.5892
91943683|NCT01388491|183785203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|31.94||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||31.94|-25.96|0.839
91943684|NCT01388491|183785204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-1.77||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||-1.77|-7.87|0.0021
91943685|NCT01388491|183785205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2||||0.2312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|8.58||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||8.58|-2.08|0.2312
91943686|NCT01388491|183785206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.85||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||4.85|-1.70|0.3440
91943687|NCT01388491|183785207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.92||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.92|-0.24|0.2522
91816539|NCT00362115|183509269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.92|-6.79||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.79|-13.92|< 0.0001
91816540|NCT00362115|183509269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.11|-6.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.20|-13.11|< 0.0001
91816541|NCT00362115|183509269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|4.4||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.40|-1.83|0.4188
91816542|NCT00362115|183509269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|1.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.95|-4.62|0.4255
91816543|NCT00362115|183509269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|2.58||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.58|-3.91|0.6869
91943688|NCT01388491|183785208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.13||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||5.13|0.58|0.0143
91943689|NCT01388491|183785209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.8507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|5.91||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||5.91|-4.87|0.8507
91943690|NCT01388491|183785210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.14|0.00|0.0459
91943691|NCT01388491|183785211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.26|0.01|0.0318
91943692|NCT01388491|183785212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|361.6||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.45|811.61||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||811.61|-88.45|0.1148
91943693|NCT01388491|183785213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.2||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.92|52.39||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||52.39|-35.92|0.7136
91943694|NCT01388491|183785214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.11|-0.29|0.3903
91943695|NCT01388491|183785215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.3||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|34.8||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||34.80|-6.29|0.1731
91943696|NCT00121485|183785217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|200 patients (137 HMII and 67 XVE) provides 80% power (alpha= 0.05 (one-sided)) using a Blackwelder like analysis and a non-inferiority margin of 10%. The protocol specifies that once non-inferiority is proven, the data will be analyzed for superiority using closed testing methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.7||||2.5e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|46.9||Two (2) interim analysis were pre-specified in the protocol. The type I error rate was preserved at 5% by use of the O'Brien-Fleming spending function.|Fisher Exact|||Primary endpoint is 2-yr survival free of stroke or re-operation to repair/replace the device. Patients are a success if composite endpoint achieved. Patients urgently transplanted due to device failure are failures. Patients electively transplanted after reversal of co-morbidity will be considered success if they achieve 2 years of survival from day of VAD implant and no stroke. HMII is a success if the proportion of HMII pts achieving the composite endpoint is equal to or better than HM XVE||46.9|24.5|0.00000025
91943697|NCT00576147|183785269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|95.0||||||||95.0|75.0|
91943698|NCT00576147|183785269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.4|93.7||||||||93.7|86.4|
91943699|NCT06408818|183785316|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
91816544|NCT00362115|183509269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|1.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.01|-5.77|0.1678
91816545|NCT00362115|183509269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|1.6||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.60|-4.96|0.3132
91816546|NCT00362115|183509270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|-3.52||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.52|-12.48|0.0005
91816547|NCT00362115|183509270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|-5.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.93|-15.24|< 0.0001
91816548|NCT00362115|183509270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-5.44||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.44|-14.70|< 0.0001
91816549|NCT00362115|183509270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|-8.42||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.42|-17.95|< 0.0001
91816550|NCT00362115|183509270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-7.48||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.48|-16.74|< 0.0001
91816551|NCT00362115|183509270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.8103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|3.75||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.75|-4.79|0.8103
91816552|NCT00362115|183509270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|1.34||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.34|-7.57|0.1702
91816553|NCT00362115|183509270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|1.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.84|-7.02|0.2504
91816554|NCT00362115|183509270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|-1.14||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-10.28|0.0144
91816555|NCT00362115|183509270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|-0.21||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.21|-9.06|0.0402
91816556|NCT00362115|183509271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|-2.04||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-8.41|0.0014
91816557|NCT00362115|183509271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.82|-4.22||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.22|-10.82|< 0.0001
91816558|NCT00362115|183509271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-4.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.93|-11.51|< 0.0001
91816559|NCT00362115|183509271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|-5.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.72|-12.49|< 0.0001
91816560|NCT00362115|183509271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|-4.3||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.30|-10.87|< 0.0001
91816561|NCT00362115|183509271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.5519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|3.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.95|-2.11|0.5519
91816562|NCT00362115|183509271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|1.79||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-4.54|0.3938
91816563|NCT00362115|183509271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.1949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|1.07||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.07|-5.21|0.1949
91816564|NCT00362115|183509271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|0.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-6.21|0.0732
91816565|NCT00362115|183509271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|1.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.70|-4.59|0.3669
91816566|NCT00362115|183509272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-3.41||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.41|-14.94|0.0019
91816567|NCT00362115|183509272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|-4.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.26|-16.15|0.0008
91943700|NCT06408818|183785317|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
91943701|NCT06408818|183785318|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
91943702|NCT06408818|183785319|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
91943703|NCT06408818|183785320|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
91943704|NCT06408818|183785321|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.22
91943705|NCT06408818|183785322|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
91943706|NCT06408818|183785323|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
91943707|NCT06408818|183785324|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used logistic regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.22
91943708|NCT06408818|183785325|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used logistic regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.57
91943709|NCT06408818|183785326|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
91816568|NCT00362115|183509272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|-2.85||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.85|-14.88|0.0040
91816569|NCT00362115|183509272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|-6.22||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.22|-18.96|0.0001
91816570|NCT00362115|183509272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-4.89||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.89|-16.85|0.0004
91943710|NCT06408818|183785327|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
91943711|NCT06408818|183785328|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.39
91816571|NCT00362115|183509272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|2.98||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.98|-8.39|0.3499
91943712|NCT02268942|183785342|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Exact Binomial|||"Success at six months is estimated to be 86% compared to a performance goal of 77.5%. Using an exact binomial test, with a one-sided alpha of 0.05, and 80% Power, a sample size of 145 implanted subjects was planned.~Success will be met if the lower bound of the upper one-sided exact 95% confidence interval is greater than 77.5%."||||0.0003
91943713|NCT02268942|183785343|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"The secondary endpoint is an improvement in the mean length of initial hospital stay (initial recovery and step down unit), which is calculated by considering the number of days in acute care (ICU/CCU) plus the number of days in intermediate/step-down care, comprising the total number of days post-implant to discharge.~This secondary endpoint will be calculated using an upper tail one-sided t-test at 0.05 level of significance compared to 26.1 days for median sternotomy patients."||||<0.0001
91816572|NCT00362115|183509272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.2115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|2.14||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.14|-9.61|0.2115
91816573|NCT00362115|183509272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|3.54||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.54|-8.34|0.4279
91816574|NCT00362115|183509272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|0.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-12.41|0.0566
91943714|NCT00995215|183785344|OTHER|Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and paired t-test.||||||0.05||||||A P value \<0.05 was taken as indicative of statistical significance.|ANOVA|||The effects of electrical (spinal cord stimulation) SCS with disc electrode and wire leads on airway pressure generation were compared. Since SCS with the disc leads, when applied in clinical trials, resulted in airway pressure generation that approximated pressures generated with a normal maximum cough, airway pressure generation achieved during SCS with these leads served as our gold standard to which all comparisons were made.||||0.05
91943715|NCT01332851|183785345|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.5|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.1||We used a threshold of p \< .05 as the criterion for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio of 2.5 indicates that children with parents in the control group were 2.5 times more likely to be removed from their home and placed into foster care compared to the intervention group.|Child welfare system removals were analyzed with a survival models that used condition assignment to predict hazard of being removed from the birth parent home.||6.10|1.03|=.043
91943716|NCT01332851|183785346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parents in the PFR condition were 0.94 higher on sensitivity scores (on the unstandardized sensitivity measure) across the three post-intervention time points than parents in the R\&R condition. The standard error (SE) of this difference was .42.|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline sensitivity score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline.||||<.05
91943717|NCT01332851|183785347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had a higher mean compared to the R\&R group. (the absolute value of the standardized effect is d=.15).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline security score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||>.05
91943718|NCT01332851|183785348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean across the two post-intervention time points was -.20 (SE=.50) lower in the PFR group than R\&R group. The standardized effect size was d=.04.|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline problem behavior score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline.||||>.05
91943719|NCT01332851|183785349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean across post-intervention time points was .41 (SE=.53) higher in the PFR group than the R\&R group. The standardized effect size was d=-.07|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline competence stress score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||>.05
91943720|NCT01332851|183785350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had a higher mean level of social and emotional development compared to the R\&R group (the absolute value of the standardized effect is d=.10).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline social-emotional competence score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline.||||>.05
91943721|NCT01332851|183785351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had lower mean level of problem behavior compared to the R\&R group (the absolute value of standardized effect is d= .12).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline problem behavior score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||>.05
91943722|NCT01332851|183785352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Adjusted mean at 3-month post-intervention was -.07 (SE=.08) lower for PFR compared to R\&R group.|Tested mean differences by condition at 3-month follow-up controlling for baseline score, months between baseline and the end of the intervention, and age of child and using an ANVOVA/regression model. Null hypothesis was that post-intervention means were equal.||||>.05
91943723|NCT01332851|183785353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Adjusted mean at 3-month post-intervention was -.06 (SE=.08) lower for PFR compared to R\&R group.|||||>.05
91943724|NCT01332851|183785354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had lower atypical affective communication compared to the R\&R group (the absolute value of the standardized effect size was d=.19).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||<.05
91816575|NCT00362115|183509272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.50|-10.30|0.1435
91816576|NCT00362115|183509273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|0.68||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.68|-6.16|0.1162
91943725|NCT03446612|183785359|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.6953|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12998|||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to acetylcholine (7.5 ug/min) is presented.|||||
91943726|NCT03446612|183785359|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.1683|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to acetylcholine (15 ug/min) is presented.|||||
91943727|NCT03446612|183785359|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.3238|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to acetylcholine (30 ug/min) is presented.|||||
91943728|NCT03446612|183785361|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.2968|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to sodium nitroprusside (3 ug/min) is presented.|||||
91943729|NCT03446612|183785361|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|1.4425|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to sodium nitroprusside (10 ug/min) is presented.|||||
91943730|NCT03446612|183785363|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|-0.1598|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to L-NMMA (2 umol/min) is presented.|||||
91943731|NCT03446612|183785363|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|-0.3715|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to L-NMMA (8 umol/min) is presented.|||||
91943732|NCT04445051|183785417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|57.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||57.5|8.3|0.010
91943733|NCT04445051|183785417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|58.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||58.8|9.8|0.007
91943734|NCT04445051|183785417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|25.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||25.9|-23.1|0.908
91943735|NCT04445051|183785417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|59.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||59.8|10.8|0.006
91943736|NCT04445051|183785417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|61.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||61.8|11.9|0.005
91943737|NCT04445051|183785417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|26.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||26.5|-23.3|0.899
91943738|NCT04445051|183785418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|49.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||49.6|-31.9|0.665
91943739|NCT04445051|183785418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|22.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||22.4|-58.7|0.375
91943740|NCT04445051|183785418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.0||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|13.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||13.6|-67.6|0.188
91943741|NCT04445051|183785418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.6||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.3|21.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||21.9|-59.3|0.361
91943742|NCT04445051|183785418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|30.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||30.5|-52.3|0.600
91943743|NCT04445051|183785418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|49.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||49.0|-33.5|0.707
91943744|NCT04445051|183785419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.65||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.65|-1.08|0.615
91816577|NCT00362115|183509273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|1.48||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.48|-5.69|0.2494
91816578|NCT00362115|183509273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|2.12||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.12|-5.01|0.4247
91816579|NCT00362115|183509273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.3007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|1.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-5.79|0.3007
91816580|NCT00362115|183509273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|0.77||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.77|-6.67|0.1195
91816581|NCT00362115|183509273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.23||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.23|-5.76|0.2032
91816582|NCT00362115|183509273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|2.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.01|-5.27|0.3787
91816583|NCT00362115|183509273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.5967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|2.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.64|-4.59|0.5967
91816584|NCT00362115|183509273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|2.31||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.31|-5.36|0.4345
91816585|NCT00362115|183509273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|1.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.28|-6.24|0.1954
91816586|NCT02188589|183509282|EQUIVALENCE|The difference between the mean baseline and mean follow-up NOSE scores was evaluated by paired t-test with significance indicated by p\<0.05.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91816587|NCT00878709|183509299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||Log Rank|The Log-rank test is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||0.90|0.49|0.008
91816588|NCT00878709|183509301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.6914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.212|||Log Rank|||The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior Trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<=3 or \>=4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.212|0.747|0.6914
91816589|NCT00878709|183509302|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.83|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Disease-free survival including ductal carcinoma in situ (DFS-DCIS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||0.83|0.45|
91816590|NCT00878709|183509304|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Distant disease free survival (DDFS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||1.05|0.52|
91816591|NCT00878709|183509306|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.04|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Time to distant recurrence (TTDR) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||1.04|0.51|
91816592|NCT00878709|183509310|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92||The Log-rank test is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||0.92|0.57|0.008
91816593|NCT00878709|183509312|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|||0.89|0.56|
91816594|NCT00878709|183509313|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|||1.01|0.6|
91816595|NCT00878709|183509314|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|||1.03|0.60|
91816596|NCT00768300|183509316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.66||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test with strata of baseline presence of pulmonary hypertension and whether a surgical lung biopsy was performed with definite or probable usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) based on core pathology review.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with strata of baseline presence of pulmonary hypertension and whether a surgical lung biopsy was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|||2.66|1.14|0.010
91816597|NCT00768300|183509318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|4.29||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.805|9.376||P-value was calculated using the Van Elteren test with strata of baseline presence of PH and whether a SLB was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|Van Elteren test||The point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect for percent change from baseline.|||9.376|-0.805|0.086
91943745|NCT04445051|183785419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.56||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.56|-1.17|0.480
91943746|NCT04445051|183785419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.77||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.77|-0.95|0.839
91943747|NCT04445051|183785419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.80|-0.92|0.894
91943748|NCT04445051|183785419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.30|-1.46|0.195
91943749|NCT04445051|183785419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.36||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.36|-1.40|0.242
91943750|NCT04445051|183785420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.74||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.74|-1.20|0.639
91943751|NCT04445051|183785420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.63||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.63|-1.30|0.492
91943752|NCT04445051|183785420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.86||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.86|-1.07|0.828
91943753|NCT04445051|183785420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.13||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.13|-0.81|0.744
91943754|NCT04445051|183785420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.36||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.36|-1.62|0.208
91943755|NCT04445051|183785420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.20|-1.77|0.116
91943756|NCT04445051|183785421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.96||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.96|-0.75|0.798
91943757|NCT04445051|183785421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.60|-1.10|0.556
91943758|NCT04445051|183785421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.49||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.49|-1.21|0.399
91816598|NCT00768300|183509319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|2.85||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.9||P-value was calculated using the Van Elteren test with strata of baseline presence of PH and whether a SLB was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|Van Elteren test||The point estimate and its 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect for percent change from baseline.|||7.90|-2.20|0.250
91943759|NCT04445051|183785421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.41||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.41|-0.30|0.198
91943760|NCT04445051|183785421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.48||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.48|-1.27|0.365
91943761|NCT04445051|183785421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.08||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.08|-1.82|0.033
91943762|NCT04445051|183785422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.96||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.96|-0.83|0.882
91943763|NCT04445051|183785422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.57||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.57|-1.21|0.478
91943764|NCT04445051|183785422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.51||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.51|-1.27|0.391
91943765|NCT04445051|183785422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.09||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.09|-0.69|0.657
91943766|NCT04445051|183785422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.20|-1.62|0.125
91943767|NCT04445051|183785422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.00|-1.81|0.051
91943768|NCT04445051|183785423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.97||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.97|-0.83|0.877
91943769|NCT04445051|183785423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.47||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.47|-1.31|0.351
91943770|NCT04445051|183785423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.40|-1.38|0.278
91943771|NCT04445051|183785423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.06||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.06|-0.73|0.711
91943772|NCT04445051|183785423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.15||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.15|-1.97|0.024
91943773|NCT04445051|183785423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.31||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.31|-2.14|0.009
91943774|NCT05083949|183785450|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|99.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.23||0.7792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.03|102.19|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.19|97.03|0.7792
91943775|NCT05083949|183785451|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.18||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.39|106.59|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.59|96.39|0.6493
91943776|NCT05083949|183785452|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.65||0.471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.85|105.55|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.55|97.85|0.4710
91943777|NCT05083949|183785453|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|98.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.14||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.24|102.15|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.15|94.24|0.4251
91943778|NCT05083949|183785454|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|99.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.25||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.93|102.11|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.11|96.93|0.7379
91943779|NCT05083949|183785455|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.82||0.5895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|105.24|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.24|97.40|0.5895
91943780|NCT00126425|183785483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.83||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader A readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.83|0.23|=0.004
91943781|NCT00126425|183785483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader B readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.84|0.23|=0.004
91943782|NCT00126425|183785483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader C readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.84|0.23|=0.004
91943783|NCT01316380|183785484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0005||95.0|0.057|0.199||Step-wise testing for the two treatment groups for the primary endpoint, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.025 (one-sided) for primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.199|0.057|0.0005
91943784|NCT01316380|183785484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.23||Step-wise testing for the two treatment groups for the primary endpoint, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.230|0.088|<0.0001
91943785|NCT01316380|183785485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.001||95.0|0.049|0.194||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.194|0.049|0.001
91943786|NCT01316380|183785485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0028||95.0|0.038|0.182||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.182|0.038|0.0028
91943787|NCT01316380|183785486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.1714||95.0|-0.025|0.14||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.140|-0.025|0.1714
91943788|NCT01316380|183785486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0119||95.0|0.023|0.188||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.188|0.023|0.0119
91943789|NCT01316380|183785487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0003||95.0|0.058|0.192||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.192|0.058|0.0003
91943790|NCT01316380|183785487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.082|0.216||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.216|0.082|<0.0001
91943791|NCT01316380|183785488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1182||95.0|-0.016|0.138||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.138|-0.016|0.1182
91943792|NCT01316380|183785488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0102||95.0|0.024|0.178||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.178|0.024|0.0102
91943793|NCT01316380|183785490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.2155||95.0|0.03|2.24||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since the percent patients with event is less than 50% the median is not calculable, but Hazard Ratio is still estimable from the Cox model.||2.24|0.03|0.2155
91943794|NCT01316380|183785490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.5071||95.0|0.43|5.44||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since the percent patients with event is less than 50% the median is not calculable, but Hazard Ratio is still estimable from the Cox model.||5.44|0.43|0.5071
91943795|NCT01316380|183785491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.1217||95.0|0.29|1.16||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since only 22 of the 155 patients in the placebo group, 21 of the 154 patients in the Tio R2.5 group and 13 of the 155 patients in the Tio R5 group had asthma exacerbations, the median times were not calculable (nc).||1.16|0.29|0.1217
91816599|NCT00768300|183509320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|16.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|37.0||P-value was calculated using the Van Elteren test with strata of baseline presence of PH and whether a SLB was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|Van Elteren test||The point estimate and 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect for percent change from baseline.|||37.00|-5.00|0.150
91943796|NCT01316380|183785491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8974||95.0|0.53|1.75||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since only 22 of the 155 patients in the placebo group, 21 of the 154 patients in the Tio R2.5 group and 13 of the 155 patients in the Tio R5 group had asthma exacerbations, the median times were not calculable (nc). The Hazard Ratio is still estimable from the Cox model.||1.75|0.53|0.8974
91943797|NCT01316380|183785492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.476||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.476|-0.032|0.0872
91943798|NCT01316380|183785492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.7995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.221||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.221|-0.287|0.7995
91943799|NCT01316380|183785493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.247||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.||0.247|-0.053|0.2038
91943800|NCT01316380|183785493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.141||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.141|-0.158|0.9104
91943801|NCT01316380|183785494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.265||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.265|-0.003|0.0559
91943802|NCT01316380|183785494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.123||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.123|-0.144|0.8795
91943803|NCT02574520|183785506|SUPERIORITY|Primary|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.1|||ANOVA|Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) for scheduled pain measurements was estimated with time as a repeating factor within subject.|Least squares mean from the MMRM described in the Statistical Test of Hypothesis.|Pain Intensity on Movement 0-48 hr||0.10|-0.84|0.124
91943804|NCT01365091|183785518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and coefficient of variation between test and reference drugs are 98% and 17.24%, respectively|Geometric mean ratio|95.204|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.618|103.446|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||103.446|87.618|
91943805|NCT01365091|183785518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and coefficient of variation are 80% and 22.62%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|107.606|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.552|119.924|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||119.924|96.552|
91943806|NCT01365091|183785518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 16.26%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|104.373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.504|112.883|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B= FDC (test value)|||112.883|96.504|
91943807|NCT01365091|183785518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 81% and 14.42%,respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|88.188|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.368|94.419|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||94.419|82.368|
91943808|NCT01365091|183785518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 13.09%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|98.168|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.263|104.451|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||104.451|92.263|
91943809|NCT01365091|183785518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 8.02%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|95.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.47|98.714|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||98.714|91.470|
91943810|NCT01365091|183785518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 15.55%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.601|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.55|99.0|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||99|15.55|
91943811|NCT01365091|183785518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 84% and 15.65%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|110.656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.416|119.559|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||119.559|102.416|
91943812|NCT01365091|183785518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|OH-Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 12.61%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|106.264|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.826|113.117|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||113.117|99.826|
91943813|NCT01365091|183785518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 10.30%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.164|105.139|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||105.139|95.164|
91943814|NCT01365091|183785518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 10.38%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|93.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.055|98.47|||ANCOVA|Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||98.470|89.055|
91943815|NCT01365091|183785519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and coefficient of variation are 98% and 17.24%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.596|101.38|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.380|82.596|
91943816|NCT01365091|183785519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.66%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.889|101.119|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.119|93.889|
91943817|NCT01365091|183785519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.43%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|96.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.35|100.316|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||100.316|93.350|
91943818|NCT01365091|183785519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 96% and 14.37%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.585|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.56|98.035|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||98.035|85.56|
91943819|NCT01365091|183785519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 96.028% and 101.095%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|98.529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.028|101.095|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.095|96.028|
91943820|NCT01365091|183785519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 6.55%, respectively|Geometric mean ratio|96.239|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.286|99.286|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||99.286|93.286|
91943821|NCT01365091|183785519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 12.19%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|102.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.956|109.407|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||109.407|96.956|
91943822|NCT01365091|183785519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.07%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.778|100.613|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||100.613|93.778|
91943823|NCT01365091|183785519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.18%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.512|103.648|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||103.648|96.512|
91943824|NCT01365091|183785519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 1:The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 93% and 17.35%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|92.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.502|101.053|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.053|85.502|
91943825|NCT01365091|183785519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.75%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|101.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.494|104.147|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||104.147|98.494|
91943826|NCT01365091|183785519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.73%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.111|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.367|102.932|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||102.932|97.367|
91943827|NCT01365091|183785521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For AUC(0-inf) metformin, Arm 1, the corresponding power and coefficient of variation are 80% and 21.06%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.494|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.697|101.226|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value).|||101.226|82.697|
91943828|NCT01365091|183785521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.60%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.955|101.132|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.132|93.955|
91943829|NCT01365091|183785521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 1. The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.31%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.393|100.247|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value).|||100.247|93.393|
91943830|NCT01365091|183785521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 96% and 14.25%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.573|97.939|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||97.939|85.573|
91943831|NCT01365091|183785521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.38%,respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|98.535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.044|101.09|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.090|96.044|
91943832|NCT01365091|183785521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 6.52%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|96.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.319|99.29|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||99.290|93.319|
91943833|NCT01365091|183785521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 11.75%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|102.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.589|108.525|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||108.525|96.589|
91816600|NCT00768300|183509323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|0.5||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||The p-value was based on a Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by baseline pulmonary hypertension (Yes/No) and surgical lung biopsy was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review (Yes/No).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The point estimate and 95% confidence interval were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect|||1.00|0.00|0.793
91816601|NCT03011307|183509338|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Intercept Difference in score on a scale|0.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||.2|0|0.75
91816602|NCT03011307|183509339|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Slope Difference|0.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||0.2|0.0|0.057
91816603|NCT03011307|183509340|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Intercept Difference in Daily Steps|-402.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1358.0|553.0||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||553|-1358|0.41
91816604|NCT03011307|183509341|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|344.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|173.0|515.0||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Slope Difference|||"The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.~The slope is the number of daily steps divided by the natural log of time in days."||515|173|<0.001
91816605|NCT03011307|183509342|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in World Health Organization Disability Assessment Score 2.0 value was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Intercept Difference: score on a scale|-5.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-2.3||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline World Health Organization Disability Assessment Score 2.0 value, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||-2.3|-9.5|0.002
91816606|NCT03011307|183509343|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Slope Difference|1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||2.4|0.6|0.001
91816607|NCT03011307|183509344|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00035||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00085|0.0015||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Intercept difference: Opioid probability|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||.0015|-.00085|0.537
91816608|NCT03011307|183509345|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Slope Difference: Opioid probability|-0.166||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|-0.16||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||-0.160|-0.172|0.010
91816609|NCT03011307|183509346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Scores were compared statistically at baseline and 2 months between groups using a generalized linear model with time as a fixed factor.||||.55
91816610|NCT03011307|183509347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Groups were compared over time from baseline to 2 months using a generalized linear model with time as a fixed factor.||||0.46
91943834|NCT01365091|183785521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 5: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.07%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.187|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.832|100.662|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||100.662|93.832|
91943835|NCT01365091|183785521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Sarexagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.08%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.56|103.594|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||103.594|96.560|
91943836|NCT01365091|183785521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 94% and 17.13%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|93.219|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.835|101.238|||ANCOVA|||||101.238|85.835|
91943837|NCT01365091|183785521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.72%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|101.346|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.574|104.196|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||104.196|98.574|
91943838|NCT01365091|183785521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.71%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.324|102.864|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||102.864|97.324|
91943839|NCT03398824|183785522|OTHER|Fanconi Anemia is a rare disease. Therefore, the primary end point of the study was to assess the proportion of subjects with a HR during 6 months of metformin treatment; sample size was calculated assuming that a HR rate \< 20% suggests preliminary efficacy of treatment that warranted additional investigation and, conversely, that the study should be deemed futile if the rate of HR was \<5%.|response rate|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|57.3|||||||Fanconi Anemia is a rare disease. Therefore, the primary end point of the study was to assess the proportion of subjects with a HR during 6 months of metformin treatment; sample size was calculated assuming that a HR rate \>20% suggests preliminary efficacy of treatment that warranted additional investigation and, conversely, that the study should be deemed futile if the rate of HR was \<5%.|57.3|11.3|
91943840|NCT05307523|183785526|OTHER|Paired t-test for normally distributed data Wilcoxon Rank test for the not normally distributed data|||||<|0.05||||||Paired T-test for the normally distributed data and a Wilcoxon Rank test for the non-parametric data were used|Both Paired T-test and Wilcoxon Rank|The data included both normally and not normally distributed data for the baseline, mid-study, and final study assessment points.||||||<0.05
91943841|NCT02875366|183785565|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|2.9|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||2.9|-9.2|0.3021
91943842|NCT02875366|183785566|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.6|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.6|-8.0|0.1894
91943843|NCT02875366|183785567|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.3||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|10.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||10.1|-40.8|0.2328
91943844|NCT02875366|183785568|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.1203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.4|-3.1|0.1203
91943845|NCT02875366|183785569|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-149.6||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.0|-4.2|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-4.2|-295.0|0.0439
91943846|NCT02875366|183785570|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.5||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|4.7|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||4.7|-19.8|0.2237
91943847|NCT02875366|183785571|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.09|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.09|-1.12|0.0226
91943848|NCT02875366|183785572|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.32||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|0.31|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.31|-12.94|0.0613
91943849|NCT02875366|183785573|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.6409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.5|-0.9|0.6409
91943850|NCT02875366|183785574|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0||||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.7|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||4.7|-2.7|0.5889
91816611|NCT03011307|183509348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Groups were compared between preoperative and 2 month postoperative sessions using linear regression with time as a fixed factor.||||0.38
91816612|NCT00877058|183509349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.48|||Chi-squared|||||0.48|0.15|<0.05
91816613|NCT00877058|183509349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.05|0.24|0.68|||Chi-squared|||||0.68|0.24|0.001
91816614|NCT00877058|183509350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.52|||Chi-squared|||||2.52|0.96|<0.05
91816615|NCT00877058|183509350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.08|||Chi-squared|||||2.08|0.79|<0.05
91816616|NCT00877058|183509351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.97|||Chi-squared|||||0.97|0.31|<0.05
91943851|NCT02875366|183785575|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.4||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||8.1|-1.2|0.1460
91943852|NCT02875366|183785576|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.5||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.4|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||10.4|-3.4|0.3091
91943853|NCT02875366|183785577|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.3961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.6|-0.3|0.3961
91943854|NCT02875366|183785578|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9||||0.3905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||3.1|-1.2|0.3905
91943855|NCT02875366|183785579|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.2||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||14.1|-1.8|0.1257
91943856|NCT02735044|183785663|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 versus Lantus was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to month 6 was \<0.3%.|LS Mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|0.179||||||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA models which included the treatment group, the randomization stratum of age group at screening visit (\<12 years and \>=12 years), and the continuous fixed covariates of the baseline HbA1c value.||0.179|-0.172|
91943857|NCT02735044|183785663|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of HOE901-U300 versus Lantus was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups was \<0 (zero).||||||0.965||||||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|||A step-wise closed testing approach was used to control the type I error. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA models which included the treatment group, the randomization stratum of age group at screening visit (\<12 years and \>=12 years), and the continuous fixed covariates of the baseline HbA1c value.||||0.965
91943858|NCT00412113|183785678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.03|||<|0.001||95.0|9.14|39.63||There was only one primary endpoint and the p-value was not adjusted for comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the BP(\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL goal (\< 100mg/dL) at Week 6.~With \~120 in each treatment arm, planned power was at least 90% to detect a difference between treatments, assuming 35% in the Caduet and 15% in the Norvasc arm achieving BP \<140/90 mmHg and LDL \<100 mg/dL and using a chi-square test with 0.05 two-sided significance level."||39.63|9.14|<0.001
91943859|NCT00412113|183785679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.39|||<|0.001||95.0|12.61|78.09||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analysis|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL-goal (\<100 mg/dL) at Week 4.||78.09|12.61|<0.001
91943860|NCT00412113|183785680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2|||<|0.001||95.0|2.93|9.24||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL-goal (\<130mg/dL) at Week 4.||9.24|2.93|<0.001
91943861|NCT00412113|183785681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.001||95.0|2.89|9.11||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL-goal (\<130mg/dL) at Week 6.||9.11|2.89|<0.001
91943862|NCT00412113|183785682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|65.51|||<|0.001||95.0|27.1|158.34||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving (\<100mg/DL) at Week 4.||158.34|27.10|<0.001
91816617|NCT00877058|183509351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.02|||Chi-squared|||||1.02|0.33|<0.05
91816618|NCT00567892|183509352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||All statistical tests were two-sided and were evaluated at the α = 0.05 level of significance.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|Since the assumptions of parametric tests were not met we used non-parametric tests for the analysis.||The null hypothesis for this study was the difference between the change in THI score due to active rTMS treatment and the change in THI score due to rTMS sham was not different from 0.||4|-6|0.944
91816619|NCT00567892|183509352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|10.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The assumptions of parametric tests were not met.|All statistical tests were two-sided and were evaluated at the α = 0.05 level of significance.|The null hypothesis for this study was the difference between the change in THI score due to 4 weeks active rTMS treatment and the change in THI score due to 4 weeks rTMS sham was not different from 0.||10|-9|0.674
91816620|NCT01344161|183509355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to adjust mean differences on all variables.||||||0.001
91943863|NCT00412113|183785683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.04|||<|0.001||95.0|19.42|90.99||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving LDL-goal (\<100mg/DL) at Week 6.||90.99|19.42|<0.001
91943864|NCT00412113|183785684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.785||95.0|0.6|1.98||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg)at Week 4||1.98|0.60|0.785
91943865|NCT00412113|183785685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.171||95.0|0.83|2.88||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) at Week 6.||2.88|0.83|0.171
91943866|NCT00412113|183785686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.76||||0.585||95.0|-1.97|3.48||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at Week 4.||3.48|-1.97|0.585
91943867|NCT00412113|183785687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.0|||>|0.999||95.0|-2.01|2.01||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at Week 4.||2.01|-2.01|> 0.999
91943868|NCT00412113|183785688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.363||95.0|-2.83|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in pulse rate at Week 4.||1.04|-2.83|0.363
91943869|NCT00412113|183785689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-3.25||||0.02||95.0|-5.99|-0.51||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at Week 6.||-0.51|-5.99|0.020
91943870|NCT00412113|183785690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.87||||0.351||95.0|-2.71|0.97||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at Week 6.||0.97|-2.71|0.351
91943871|NCT00412113|183785691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.922||95.0|-1.91|2.11||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in mean change from baseline in pulse rate at Week 6.||2.11|-1.91|0.922
91943872|NCT00412113|183785692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-49.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-54.68|-43.91||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in LDL at Week 4.||-43.91|-54.68|<0.001
91943873|NCT00412113|183785693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.739||95.0|-2.07|1.47||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in HDL at Week 4.||1.47|-2.07|0.739
91943874|NCT00412113|183785694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-57.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-64.02|51.81||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in TC at Week 4.||51.81|-64.02|<0.001
91943875|NCT00412113|183785695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-47.27|||<|0.001||95.0|-63.37|-31.16||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in TG at Week 4.||-31.16|-63.37|<0.001
91943876|NCT00412113|183785696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-51.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-56.88|-45.55||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in LDL at Week 6.||-45.55|-56.88|<0.001
91943877|NCT00412113|183785697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.02||||0.329||95.0|-3.07|1.03||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in HDL at Week 6.||1.03|-3.07|0.329
91943878|NCT00412113|183785698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-62.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-68.49|-55.65||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in TC at Week 6.||-55.65|-68.49|<0.001
91943879|NCT00412113|183785699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-53.95|||<|0.001||95.0|-77.61|-30.29||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change in TG from baseline in at Week 6.||-30.29|-77.61|<0.001
91943880|NCT00412113|183785700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.1|-1.7||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in mean change from baseline to Week 4 in Framingham predicted absolute 10-year risk.||-1.7|-3.1|<0.001
91943881|NCT00412113|183785701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.5|-2.1||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in Framingham predicted absolute 10-year risk.||-2.1|-3.5|<0.001
91943882|NCT01201967|183785702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.22|2.14|0.002
91943883|NCT01201967|183785703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-4.06|0.045
91816621|NCT00525174|183509422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was performed comparing the proportions of patients in each treatment group who had no improvement or worsening in amblyopic eye visual acuity from baseline to 24 weeks (change from baseline \<= +4 letters for E-ETDRS testing).||||0.02
91943884|NCT01201967|183785704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-0.93|0.55
91943885|NCT01201967|183785705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|24.9|||Chi-squared|||||24.9|5.20|<0.001
91943886|NCT01201967|183785706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-0.51|0.28
91943887|NCT01201967|183785707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|0.63|0.83
91943888|NCT01201967|183785708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|0.012|0.029
91943889|NCT01201967|183785709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|9.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.46|1.71|0.005
91943890|NCT01201967|183785710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.14|-0.54|0.11
91943891|NCT01425307|183785748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We hypothesized that the Alternative arm mean TCD velocity at 24 months will be less than the Standard arm mean TCD velocity plus 15cm/sec. We used Lan-DeMets boundaries to control overall Type I error rate at α = 0.05. For looks at exactly 1/3, 2/3, and 100 percent of the completed subjects, the cumulative α were estimated to be 0.0001, 0.001, and 0.05, respectively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.98||P value for non inferiority was 8.82 X 10\^-16|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model||Participants were randomized at a central site, stratified by site with a block size of four, and an adaptive randomization scheme was used to balance the covariates of baseline age and TCD velocity. The treatment period lasted 24 months. The primary study endpoint was the 24 month TCD velocity calculated from a general linear mixed model, with the non-inferiority margin set at 15 cm/s. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population.||8.98|0.10|<0.05
91943892|NCT01425307|183785752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91943893|NCT01425307|183785762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
91943894|NCT03128307|183785763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Assuming a priori threshold for statistical significant of p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91943895|NCT03128307|183785764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91943896|NCT00740116|183785770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Statistical significance threshold was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U-test, one-sided test||||||0.03
91943897|NCT00740116|183785771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Statistical significance threshold was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U-test, one-sided test||||||0.07
91943898|NCT00740116|183785772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.46|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.97||Statistical significance threshold was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U-test, one-sided test||||0.97||0.46
91943899|NCT00740116|183785773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||p\< 0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91943900|NCT00740116|183785774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.72||Statistical significance threshold p-value \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||2.72|0.05|0.22
91943901|NCT01111331|183785787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean ratio|100.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.86|105.1|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for subject and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by empa||105.10|96.86|
91943902|NCT01111331|183785788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.9||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.79|112.8||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for subject and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by empa||112.80|89.79|0.0021
91943903|NCT01111331|183785789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.29|101.8|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||101.80|95.29|
91943904|NCT01111331|183785790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.12|105.15|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||105.15|91.12|0.0001
91943905|NCT01111331|183785791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.4|98.43|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||98.43|93.40|
91943906|NCT01111331|183785792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.84|106.47||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||106.47|91.84|0.0001
91816622|NCT00525174|183509423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The trial was designed as a non-inferiority study. The sample size was computed to be 170 subjects to have 90% power and a type I error rate of 5% for a noninferiority limit of 0.075 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), based on assumed standard deviation of 24-week visual acuity scores of 0.16 logMAR, a correlation between baseline and final acuities of 0.20, and 10% noncompletion of the study primary outcome examination.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.76|||ANCOVA|The logMAR visual acuity scores were adjusted for baseline amblyopic eye acuity.||The trial was designed as a non-inferiority study. The sample size was computed to be 170 subjects to have 90% power and a type I error rate of 5% for a noninferiority limit of 0.075 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), based on assumed standard deviation of 24-week visual acuity scores of 0.16 logMAR, a correlation between baseline and final acuities of 0.20, and 10% noncompletion of the study primary outcome examination.||0.76||
91943907|NCT01111331|183785800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.89|102.0|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||102.00|95.89|
91943908|NCT01111331|183785807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|96.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.64|98.6|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||98.60|93.64|
91943909|NCT01111331|183785814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline INR value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.04|0.73|
91943910|NCT01111331|183785815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline INR value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||0.98|0.79|
91943911|NCT01111331|183785816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline INR value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.48|0.67|
91943912|NCT01111331|183785817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.02|0.79|
91943913|NCT01111331|183785818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.95|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.95|0.64|
91943914|NCT01111331|183785819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||0.98|0.84|
91943915|NCT01111331|183785820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.4|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.40|0.68|
91943916|NCT01111331|183785821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.51|0.47|
91943917|NCT03650387|183785849|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-Holm was used for alpha correction.|Exact one-sample binomial test|The one-sample binomial test was used to test whether the probability of being a responder (p) is significantly above 60%.||||||< 0.0001
91943918|NCT03650387|183785850|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-Holm was used for alpha correction.|Exact one-sample binomial test|The one-sample binomial test was used to test whether the probability of being a responder (p) is significantly above 60%.||||||< 0.0001
91943919|NCT03650387|183785851|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-Holm was used for alpha correction.|Exact one-sample binomial test|The one-sample binomial test was used to test whether the probability of being a responder (p) is significantly above 60%.||||||< 0.0001
91943920|NCT02903966|183785881|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.87|||||Analysis performed using a Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and baseline value by visit interactions|||0.87|-1.23|
91943921|NCT02903966|183785882|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.22|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and baseline value by visit interactions|||1.22|-1.18|
91943922|NCT02903966|183785883|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|4.02|||||Day 15. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||4.02|-4.11|
91943923|NCT02903966|183785883|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|-0.35|||||Day 29. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||-0.35|-5.99|
91943924|NCT02903966|183785883|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|2.88|||||Day 43. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||2.88|-6.26|
91943925|NCT02903966|183785884|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.59|||||Day 57. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||4.59|-4.01|
91816623|NCT00525174|183509423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.83|||ANCOVA|The logMAR visual acuity scores were adjusted for baseline amblyopic eye acuity.||In addition to the test of non-inferiority, an efficacy test of Patching over Bangerter filters was also completed.||0.83|-0.06|0.09
91943926|NCT02903966|183785884|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|3.85|||||Day 71. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||3.85|-3.64|
91943927|NCT02903966|183785884|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|5.1|||||Day 85. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||5.10|-2.87|
91943928|NCT02903966|183785885|OTHER||Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.8|||||Day 15. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||1.80|0.27|
91943929|NCT02903966|183785885|OTHER||Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||||Day 29. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||1.00|0.20|
91943930|NCT02903966|183785885|OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.62|||||Day 43. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||0.62|0.09|
91816624|NCT00525174|183509423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment group difference in rate of improvement was evaluated using a population averaged linear mixed model after performing an inverse transformation of time to obtain linearity.||||0.20
91943931|NCT02903966|183785886|OTHER||Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.97|||||Day 57. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||0.97|0.25|
91943932|NCT02903966|183785886|OTHER||Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.57|||||Day 71. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||1.57|0.20|
91943933|NCT02903966|183785886|OTHER||Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.18|||||Day 85. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||2.18|0.31|
91943934|NCT02903966|183785887|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|2.07|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||2.07|-2.05|
91943935|NCT02903966|183785888|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.27|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||2.27|-2.11|
91943936|NCT02903966|183785889|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|3.77|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||3.77|-5.29|
91943937|NCT02903966|183785890|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|4.08|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||4.08|-5.68|
91943938|NCT02903966|183785895|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.86|||||Day 15. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||0.86|-1.58|
91943939|NCT02903966|183785895|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.08|||||Day 29. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||1.08|-1.29|
91943940|NCT02903966|183785895|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.04|||||Day 43. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||1.04|-1.72|
91943941|NCT02903966|183785896|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.75|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||1.75|-1.87|
91943942|NCT01320033|183785913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-6.1|0.006
91943943|NCT01320033|183785913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-5.4|0.024
91943944|NCT01320033|183785913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.2|0.595
91943945|NCT02425891|183785920|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.69|0.0025
91816625|NCT00525174|183509423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The relationship between the fellow eye blur from the Bangerter filter at baseline and amblyopic improvement at the 24-week outcome was evaluated with an ANCOVA model with acuity in the fellow eye being categorized as better than versus equal to or worse than acuity in the amblyopic eye.||||0.49
91816626|NCT00525174|183509423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The association of fixation preference while the Bangerter filter was over the fellow eye at baseline (amblyopic eye, fellow eye, alternates) with 24-week amblyopic eye acuity was evaluated in an ANCOVA model.||||0.21
91816627|NCT00525174|183509425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of patients in each treatment group with amblyopic eye visual acuity within 1 line of the fellow eye or better.||||0.27
91816628|NCT00525174|183509426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of patients in each treatment group with amblyopic visual acuity 20/25 or better at 24 weeks.||||0.86
91943946|NCT02425891|183785921|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.49|<.0001
91943947|NCT02425891|183785922|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.75|0.0770
91943948|NCT02425891|183785923|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.53|0.0016
91816629|NCT00525174|183509426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||The time to first achieve amblyopic eye visual acuity of 20/25 or better was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model.||||0.28
91816630|NCT00525174|183509427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of patients with 3 or more lines of amblyopic eye visual acuity improvement from baseline to 24 weeks.||||0.61
91816631|NCT00525174|183509430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to evaluate change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels from baseline to 24 weeks by treatment group.||||0.90
91943949|NCT02425891|183785924|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Overall Response Rates|10.12||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|16.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.84|3.40|0.0021
91943950|NCT02425891|183785925|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Overall Response Rates|16.3||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|26.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.92|5.67|0.0016
91943951|NCT02425891|183785926|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.63|0.0285
91816632|NCT00525174|183509431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to evaluate change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels from baseline to 24 weeks by treatment group.||||0.88
91816633|NCT00525174|183509433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||A treatment group difference in the fellow eye visual acuity at 24 weeks was evaluated in an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline fellow eye acuity.||||0.07
91816634|NCT00525174|183509433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the proportion of subjects in each treatment group who tested 2 or more logMAR lines worse in the fellow eye at 24 weeks compared with baseline.||||0.21
91816635|NCT00525174|183509434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of impact of treatment at 6 weeks.||||0.03
91943952|NCT02425891|183785927|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.43|0.0047
91943953|NCT02425891|183785928|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.81|0.8078
91943954|NCT02425891|183785929|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.73|0.8879
91943955|NCT02145429|183785945|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.10|0.04
91943956|NCT02145429|183785946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-2.03|<0.001
91943957|NCT02145429|183785947|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|-1.89|0.26
91943958|NCT02943577|183785948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.68|-2.70|0.2398
91943959|NCT02943577|183785949|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4||||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.77|-0.95|0.5522
91943960|NCT02943577|183785950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.99|-2.01|0.9901
91943961|NCT02943577|183785951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.17|-1.17|0.5563
91943962|NCT01355224|183785952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, baseline intention.||||||.0150
91943963|NCT01355224|183785953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0365|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, and baseline intent.||||||0.0365
91943964|NCT01355224|183785954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0622|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, and baseline intent.||||||0.0622
91943965|NCT03991936|183785956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.635|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to 24 weeks in the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) for the triamcinolone acetonide groups: 2.5 mg/mL, 5.0 mg/mL, 7.5 mg/mL, and 10 mg/mL would be no different than the change from baseline to 24 weeks for the placebo group.||||<0.001
91816636|NCT00525174|183509435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of impact of treatment at 24 weeks.||||<0.001
91943966|NCT03502941|183785976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91943967|NCT03502941|183785977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91943968|NCT00808028|183785984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
91943969|NCT00808028|183785984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0007
91943970|NCT00808028|183785984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
91943971|NCT00808028|183785984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
91943972|NCT00808028|183785984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
91943973|NCT00808028|183785984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0392|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0392
91943974|NCT00808028|183785984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0225
91943975|NCT00808028|183785984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0244
91943976|NCT00808028|183785985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
91943977|NCT00808028|183785985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0004
91943978|NCT00808028|183785985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
91943979|NCT00808028|183785985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
91816637|NCT00525174|183509436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the adverse effects subscale at 6 weeks.||||0.90
91816638|NCT00525174|183509437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the adverse effects subscale at 24 weeks.||||0.01
91816639|NCT00525174|183509438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the compliance subscale at 6 weeks.||||0.12
91816640|NCT00525174|183509439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the compliance subscale at 24 weeks.||||0.001
91816641|NCT00525174|183509440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of social stigma at 6 weeks.||||<0.001
91816642|NCT00525174|183509441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of social stigma at 24 weeks.||||<0.001
91816643|NCT04254978|183509461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial distribution|||Comparison of the true response rate of bomedemstat to a fixed efficacy target of 5%: Null hypothesis (H0): p ≤ 0.05 versus alternate hypothesis (H1): p \> 0.05||||<.0001
91816644|NCT02310919|183509479|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority hypothesis testing of the primary outcome, a one-sided 95% CI was constructed for the relative risk. The alternative trigger will be considered non-inferior to the standard trigger if the lower bound of the one-sided CI of the relative risk is not less than 0.8 (i.e. risk reduction limit of 20%).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.83|||Using the standard trigger as the reference, the relative risk (i.e. risk ratio) (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the probability of the outcome was calculated using log-binomial regression models with application of GEE.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The alternative trigger will be considered non-inferior to the standard hCG trigger if it is at least 80% as effective at inducing oocyte competence. Considering a cluster size of 15 oocytes and an estimated intra-cluster correlation of 0.1, we calculated that approximately 50 participants were needed in each study arm when the non-inferiority difference is -0.1 (i.e. 20% of 0.5 total competent proportion) with a power of 0.8 and a one-sided alpha of 0.05.|||0.83|
91816645|NCT02310919|183509480|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|generalized linear model with log link|Comparison was done using generalized linear modeling with log link function|The numerator was the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in number of oocytes retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.01|0.71|0.06
91816646|NCT02310919|183509481|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|generalized linear model with log link|Comparison was done using generalized linear modeling with log link function.|The numerator was the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the number of MII oocytes retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.04|0.72|0.13
91816647|NCT02310919|183509482|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in oocyte maturity rate retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.05|0.90|0.47
91816648|NCT02310919|183509483|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|||0.97|0.76|0.01
91816649|NCT02310919|183509484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in ICSI fertilization rate retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.10|0.90|0.95
91816650|NCT02310919|183509485|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the percentage of high quality cleavage-stage embryos between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.12|0.81|0.52
91816651|NCT02310919|183509486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|||1.16|0.84|0.87
91816652|NCT02310919|183509487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.74||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Fisher Exact||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in livebirths in fresh transfers between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.74|0.59|1.0
91816653|NCT02310919|183509488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the change in bloating scores from day of baseline ultrasound to post-trigger day 5 between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||||0.98
91816654|NCT02310919|183509489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the change in abdominal circumference from day of baseline ultrasound to post-trigger day 5 between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||||0.39
91816655|NCT02310919|183509490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the change in body weight from day of baseline ultrasound to post-trigger day 5 between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||||0.41
91816656|NCT02310919|183509491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91816657|NCT02310919|183509492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91943980|NCT00808028|183785985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
91943981|NCT00808028|183785985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0036
91943982|NCT00808028|183785985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
91943983|NCT00808028|183785985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
91943984|NCT01599585|183786003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One tailed test at .05a = .05 margin was set at standardized difference of .50|Regression, Beta|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.68||||||||.68|.12|
91943985|NCT01599585|183786015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One tailed test at .05a = .05 margin was set at standardized difference of .50|Regression, Beta|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.78||||||||.78|.16|
91943986|NCT05085275|183786030|NON_INFERIORITY|The study planned to enroll 400 patients (200 patients in each treatment arm) to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.60 for the primary composite endpoint, with differences between treatment groups assessed using a 2-sided alpha of \<0.05|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.46|.1602
91943987|NCT05085275|183786032|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2392||0.3|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||.30
91943988|NCT05085275|183786033|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8295||0.17|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.17
91943989|NCT05706623|183786056|OTHER|Analysis of variance model|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|0.8354|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5216|1.338||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment Group (test) versus Normal Hepatic Function Group (reference). The analysis was performed on natural log (ln) transformed parameters using an analysis of variance model with the hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||1.338|0.5216|
91943990|NCT05706623|183786058|OTHER|Analysis of variance model|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9356|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5889|1.4864||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment Group (test) versus Normal Hepatic Function Group (reference). The analysis was performed on ln transformed parameters using an analysis of variance model with the hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||1.4864|0.5889|
91943991|NCT01263470|183786070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|-0.386||||||||-0.386|-0.755|
91943992|NCT01263470|183786070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|-0.598||||||||-0.598|-0.925|
91943993|NCT01263470|183786070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.987|-0.665||||||||-0.665|-0.987|
91943994|NCT01263470|183786070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.035|-0.739||||||||-0.739|-1.035|
91943995|NCT01263470|183786070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.132||||||||-0.132|-0.570|
91943996|NCT01263470|183786070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|-0.342||||||||-0.342|-0.743|
91816658|NCT02310919|183509493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91943997|NCT01263470|183786070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.607|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|-0.406||||||||-0.406|-0.808|
91943998|NCT01263470|183786070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.859|-0.475||||||||-0.475|-0.859|
91943999|NCT01263470|183786071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|-0.104||||||||-0.104|-0.213|
91944000|NCT01263470|183786071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.234|-0.114||||||||-0.114|-0.234|
91944001|NCT01263470|183786071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|-0.1||||||||-0.100|-0.219|
91944002|NCT01263470|183786071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|-0.095||||||||-0.095|-0.212|
91944003|NCT01263470|183786071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|-0.003||||||||-0.003|-0.116|
91944004|NCT01263470|183786071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|-0.014||||||||-0.014|-0.136|
91944005|NCT01263470|183786071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.0||||||||0.000|-0.121|
91944006|NCT01263470|183786071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.006||||||||0.006|-0.114|
91944007|NCT01263470|183786072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|-0.233||||||||-0.233|-0.419|
91816659|NCT02310919|183509494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91816660|NCT02310919|183509495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
91816661|NCT02310919|183509496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91816662|NCT02310919|183509497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91816663|NCT02310919|183509498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
91944008|NCT01263470|183786072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.268||||||||-0.268|-0.470|
91944009|NCT01263470|183786072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|-0.241||||||||-0.241|-0.438|
91944010|NCT01263470|183786072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|-0.288||||||||-0.288|-0.485|
91944011|NCT01263470|183786072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.076||||||||-0.076|-0.280|
91944012|NCT01263470|183786072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.112||||||||-0.112|-0.329|
91944013|NCT01263470|183786072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.299|-0.085||||||||-0.085|-0.299|
91944014|NCT01263470|183786072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|-0.131||||||||-0.131|-0.346|
91944015|NCT01263470|183786073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.644|-0.356||||||||-0.356|-0.644|
91944016|NCT01263470|183786073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|-0.464||||||||-0.464|-0.763|
91944017|NCT01263470|183786073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.804|-0.516||||||||-0.516|-0.804|
91944018|NCT01263470|183786073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.832|-0.559||||||||-0.559|-0.832|
91944019|NCT01263470|183786073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.494|-0.156||||||||-0.156|-0.494|
91944020|NCT01263470|183786073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.267||||||||-0.267|-0.610|
91944021|NCT01263470|183786073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.315||||||||-0.315|-0.654|
91944022|NCT01263470|183786073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|-0.357||||||||-0.357|-0.683|
91944023|NCT01263470|183786074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|-7.93||||||||-7.93|-23.27|
91816664|NCT02310919|183509499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91944024|NCT01263470|183786074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.34|-10.05||||||||-10.05|-25.34|
91944025|NCT01263470|183786074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|-8.02||||||||-8.02|-24.14|
91944026|NCT01263470|183786074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-14.89||||||||-14.89|-32.06|
91944027|NCT01263470|183786074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|1.02||||||||1.02|-12.66|
91944028|NCT01263470|183786074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|-1.08||||||||-1.08|-14.76|
91944029|NCT01263470|183786074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|0.93||||||||0.93|-13.53|
91944030|NCT01263470|183786074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|-5.94||||||||-5.94|-21.45|
91944031|NCT01263470|183786075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|-7.93||||||||-7.93|-23.27|
91944032|NCT01263470|183786075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.34|-10.05||||||||-10.05|-25.34|
91944033|NCT01263470|183786075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|-8.02||||||||-8.02|-24.14|
91944034|NCT01263470|183786075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-14.89||||||||-14.89|-32.06|
91944035|NCT01263470|183786075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|1.02||||||||1.02|-12.66|
91944036|NCT01263470|183786075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|-1.08||||||||-1.08|-14.76|
91944037|NCT01263470|183786075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|0.93||||||||0.93|-13.53|
91944038|NCT01263470|183786075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|-5.94||||||||-5.94|-21.45|
91944039|NCT01263470|183786076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.52|-8.94||||||||-8.94|-26.52|
91944040|NCT01263470|183786076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.07|-16.37||||||||-16.37|-32.07|
91816665|NCT02310919|183509500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91944041|NCT01263470|183786076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.03|-16.65||||||||-16.65|-32.03|
91944042|NCT01263470|183786076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.04|-19.52||||||||-19.52|-37.04|
91816666|NCT02310919|183509501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91944043|NCT01263470|183786076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.28|0.18||||||||0.18|-17.28|
91944044|NCT01263470|183786076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-7.18||||||||-7.18|-22.90|
91944045|NCT01263470|183786076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-7.42||||||||-7.42|-22.90|
91944046|NCT01263470|183786076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-10.4||||||||-10.40|-27.80|
91944047|NCT01263470|183786077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.19|-5.64||||||||-5.64|-24.19|
91944048|NCT01263470|183786077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.86|-12.48||||||||-12.48|-27.86|
91944049|NCT01263470|183786077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.41|-15.73||||||||-15.73|-30.41|
91944050|NCT01263470|183786077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.05|-20.29||||||||-20.29|-36.05|
91944051|NCT01263470|183786077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.06||||||||3.06|-15.60|
91944052|NCT01263470|183786077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.41|-3.64||||||||-3.64|-19.41|
91944053|NCT01263470|183786077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|-6.8||||||||-6.80|-22.04|
91944054|NCT01263470|183786077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.61|-11.43||||||||-11.43|-27.61|
91944055|NCT01263470|183786078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.094||||||||0.094|-0.384|
91944056|NCT01263470|183786078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.374||||||||0.374|-0.106|
91944057|NCT01263470|183786078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.39||||||||0.390|-0.103|
91944058|NCT01263470|183786078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.227||||||||0.227|-0.218|
91944059|NCT01263470|183786078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.245||||||||0.245|-0.241|
91944060|NCT01263470|183786078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.524||||||||0.524|0.038|
91944061|NCT01263470|183786078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.54||||||||0.540|0.041|
91944062|NCT01263470|183786078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.38||||||||0.380|-0.077|
91944063|NCT01263470|183786079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.156||||||||0.156|-0.245|
91944064|NCT01263470|183786079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.21||||||||0.210|-0.185|
91944065|NCT01263470|183786079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.369||||||||0.369|-0.053|
91944066|NCT01263470|183786079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.235||||||||0.235|-0.140|
91944067|NCT01263470|183786079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.341||||||||0.341|-0.097|
91944068|NCT01263470|183786079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.395||||||||0.395|-0.036|
91944069|NCT01263470|183786079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.553||||||||0.553|0.097|
91944070|NCT01263470|183786079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.423||||||||0.423|0.006|
91944071|NCT01263470|183786080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.209||||||||0.209|-0.444|
91944072|NCT01263470|183786080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.162||||||||0.162|-0.362|
91944073|NCT01263470|183786080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.324||||||||0.324|-0.166|
91944074|NCT01263470|183786080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.121||||||||0.121|-0.355|
91944075|NCT01263470|183786080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.408||||||||0.408|-0.203|
91944076|NCT01263470|183786080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.364||||||||0.364|-0.124|
91944077|NCT01263470|183786080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.526||||||||0.526|0.071|
91944078|NCT01263470|183786080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.322||||||||0.322|-0.118|
91944079|NCT01263470|183786081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.308||||||||0.308|-0.230|
91944080|NCT01263470|183786081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.379||||||||0.379|-0.029|
91944081|NCT01263470|183786081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.453||||||||0.453|0.044|
91944082|NCT01263470|183786081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.407||||||||0.407|-0.035|
91944083|NCT01263470|183786081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.34||||||||0.340|-0.236|
91944084|NCT01263470|183786081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.421||||||||0.421|-0.044|
91944085|NCT01263470|183786081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.261|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.496||||||||0.496|0.026|
91944086|NCT01263470|183786081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.448||||||||0.448|-0.049|
91944087|NCT01263470|183786082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.75|-8.94||||||||-8.94|-38.75|
91944088|NCT01263470|183786082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.14|-9.61||||||||-9.61|-37.14|
91944089|NCT01263470|183786082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.18|-28.02||||||||-28.02|-53.18|
91944090|NCT01263470|183786082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.93|-30.58||||||||-30.58|-54.93|
91944091|NCT01263470|183786082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.98||||||||8.98|-19.70|
91944092|NCT01263470|183786082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.13|8.35||||||||8.35|-18.13|
91944093|NCT01263470|183786082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.22|-10.01||||||||-10.01|-34.22|
91944094|NCT01263470|183786082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.98|-12.55||||||||-12.55|-35.98|
91944095|NCT01263470|183786083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.79|-35.83||||||||-35.83|-80.79|
91944096|NCT01263470|183786083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.84|-40.47||||||||-40.47|-80.84|
91944097|NCT01263470|183786083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.03|-60.4||||||||-60.40|-97.03|
91944098|NCT01263470|183786083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-87.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.26|-68.6||||||||-68.60|-106.26|
91944099|NCT01263470|183786083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.69|19.23||||||||19.23|-24.69|
91944100|NCT01263470|183786083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.85|14.7||||||||14.70|-24.85|
91944101|NCT01263470|183786083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.16|-5.11||||||||-5.11|-41.16|
91944102|NCT01263470|183786083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.36|-13.33||||||||-13.33|-50.36|
91944103|NCT01263470|183786084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.736|8.455||||||||8.455|-2.736|
91944104|NCT01263470|183786084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|10.165||||||||10.165|0.748|
91944105|NCT01263470|183786084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.181|12.248||||||||12.248|3.181|
91944106|NCT01263470|183786084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.763|8.877||||||||8.877|-3.763|
91944107|NCT01263470|183786084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.924|21.396||||||||21.396|7.924|
91944108|NCT01263470|183786084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.353|23.16||||||||23.160|11.353|
91944109|NCT01263470|183786084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.629|25.401||||||||25.401|13.629|
91944110|NCT01263470|183786084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.013|21.701||||||||21.701|7.013|
91944111|NCT01263470|183786085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|1.089||||||||1.089|-0.019|
91944112|NCT01263470|183786085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.764|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|1.315||||||||1.315|0.214|
91944113|NCT01263470|183786085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|1.58||||||||1.580|0.418|
91944114|NCT01263470|183786085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.489||||||||1.489|0.430|
91944115|NCT01263470|183786085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|1.552||||||||1.552|0.315|
91944116|NCT01263470|183786085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|1.774||||||||1.774|0.551|
91944117|NCT01263470|183786085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|2.036||||||||2.036|0.759|
91944118|NCT01263470|183786085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.956||||||||1.956|0.760|
91944119|NCT01263470|183786086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|16.38||||||||16.38|-7.87|
91944120|NCT01263470|183786086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|23.42||||||||23.42|-0.90|
91944121|NCT01263470|183786086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|16.95||||||||16.95|-10.56|
91944122|NCT01263470|183786086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|8.94||||||||8.94|-16.27|
91944123|NCT01263470|183786086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|19.29||||||||19.29|-9.79|
91944124|NCT01263470|183786086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|26.19||||||||26.19|-2.67|
91944125|NCT01263470|183786086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|19.4||||||||19.40|-12.02|
91944126|NCT01263470|183786086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|11.71||||||||11.71|-18.04|
91944127|NCT01327573|183786088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||"This p-value was for the overall slope difference between groups (i.e. the interaction between group and time).~Significance level was set at 0.1 a priori."|Mixed effects model analysis|||Analysis used eGFR, group, time, and group-by-time variables.||||0.09
91944128|NCT03070119|183786093|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.08||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation (MI) including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.08|0.69|
91816667|NCT02310919|183509502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91944129|NCT03070119|183786093|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.91|||=|0.3711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.11|0.75|=0.3711
91944130|NCT03070119|183786093|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|1.06|||=|0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.34|0.84|=0.6344
91944131|NCT03070119|183786094|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.03||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.03|0.63|
91944132|NCT03070119|183786094|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.83|||=|0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.13|0.60|=0.2306
91944133|NCT03070119|183786094|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.92|||=|0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.38|0.61|=0.6730
91944134|NCT03070119|183786095|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.7||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||6.7|0.5|
91944135|NCT03070119|183786095|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|=|0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||8.2|-0.8|=0.1054
91816668|NCT02310919|183509503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91816669|NCT02310919|183509504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91816670|NCT02310919|183509505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91816671|NCT02310919|183509506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91816672|NCT02310919|183509507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
91816673|NCT03244865|183509508|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be verified if the RMSE between the two systems is within 7 BPM. A complete power analysis was not included as this is a pilot study.|||||<|0.1||||||Pilot Study|t-test, 2 sided|||There is only one ARM in the study. Standard monitoring and LaborView monitoring will be collected simultaneously and analyzed.||||<.1
91816674|NCT00277212|183509510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.552||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.03||stratified Log-Rank test, controlling for type of index mood episode|Log Rank||Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index modd episode as stratification factor, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.030|0.296|0.058
91816675|NCT00277212|183509511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.671||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|1.011||p-value for equality of survival curves|Log Rank|stratified log-rank test, controlling for type of index mood episode|aripiprazole/placebo; Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index mood episode as stratification facto, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.011|0.446|0.055
91944136|NCT03070119|183786095|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|=|0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||8.4|-1.2|=0.1432
91944137|NCT03070119|183786096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.9||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline percent predicted SVC and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||15.9|0.3|
91944138|NCT03070119|183786096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|=|0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline percent predicted SVC and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||20.4|-1.7|=0.0963
91944139|NCT03070119|183786096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|=|0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|15.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline percent predicted SVC and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||15.2|-6.6|= 0.4388
91944140|NCT03070119|183786097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.477||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline HHD overall megascore and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||0.477|0.051|
91816676|NCT00277212|183509512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.354||p-value for equality of survival curves|Log Rank|stratified log-rank test, conrolling for type of index mood episode|aripiprazole/placebo; Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index mood episode as stratification facto, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.354|0.454|0.381
91816677|NCT00277212|183509513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.871||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.128||p-value for equality of survival curves|Log Rank|stratified Log-Rank Test, controlling for type of index mood episode|aripiprazole/placebo; Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index mood episode as stratification facto, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.128|0.672|0.295
91816678|NCT00277212|183509515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatement Difference|2.24||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.57||ANOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=index mood episode) used for baseline comparisons. ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons|ANCOVA||Aripiprazole vs. placebo|Week 52 LOCF||3.57|0.91|0.001
91816679|NCT00277212|183509516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||aripiprazole/placebo|Week 52 LOCF||1.07|0.29|0.073
91816680|NCT00277212|183509516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Any Time||||0.194
91816681|NCT00277212|183509517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative risk|3.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 LOCF||8.94|1.30|0.007
91816682|NCT00277212|183509517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91816683|NCT00277212|183509518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|1.09||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, with double-blind treatment as main effects and index mood episode as covariate, is used for Baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||1.09|-2.37|0.467
91816684|NCT00277212|183509518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.78||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.78|-0.06|
91816685|NCT00277212|183509518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.3||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 24||1.30|0.19|
91816686|NCT00277212|183509518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.86||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 36||1.86|0.08|
91816687|NCT00277212|183509518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.92||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52||1.92|-0.08|
91816688|NCT00277212|183509518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.26||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||1.26|0.31|0.001
91944141|NCT03070119|183786097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|=|0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline HHD overall megascore and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||0.430|-0.141|=0.3207
91944142|NCT03070119|183786097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|=|0.5452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.234|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline HHD overall megascore and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||0.234|-0.124|=0.5452
91944143|NCT03070119|183786099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||=|0.4202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|1.461|||Log Rank|The analysis was based on a log rank test stratified by median baseline plasma NfL.|The analysis was based on a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for baseline plasma NfL, and riluzole or edaravone use.|||1.461|0.282|=0.4202
91944144|NCT03070119|183786100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||=|0.3108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|1.357|||Log Rank|The analysis was based on a log rank test stratified by median baseline plasma NfL.|The analysis was based on a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for baseline plasma NfL, and riluzole or edaravone use.|||1.357|0.199|=0.3108
91816689|NCT00277212|183509518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.04||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Highest Change from baseline||1.04|0.23|0.002
91944145|NCT01996865|183786101|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.2|0.6|0.3296
91944146|NCT01996865|183786102|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.1|0.4|0.1222
91944147|NCT00557362|183786224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.083|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model adjusted for enrollment BSCVA and corneal de-epithelialization||||0.083|-0.28|0.29
91944148|NCT00557362|183786225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.02|||Regression, Cox|||||2.02|0.76|0.40
91944149|NCT00557362|183786226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.53|||Regression, Linear|||||0.53|-0.20|0.37
91944150|NCT00557362|183786227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.41|||Regression, Linear|||Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was examined in a linear regression model with enrollment BSCVA and treatment arm as covariates among a subgroup of ulcers caused by Fusarium spp.||0.41|-0.25|0.62
91944151|NCT00557362|183786227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.17|||Regression, Linear|||Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was evaluated in a linear regression model with enrollment BSCVA and treatment arm as covariates in a subgroup of ulcers caused by Aspergillus spp.||0.17|-0.57|0.26
91944152|NCT00557362|183786228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||||0.14|-0.26|0.53
91944153|NCT00397631|183786268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001||95.0|-1.13|-0.65|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline HbA1c||||-0.65|-1.13|<0.001
91944154|NCT00397631|183786269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001||95.0|-30.4|-15.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline FPG||||-15.2|-30.4|<0.001
91944155|NCT00397631|183786270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37|<|0.001||95.0|-57.2|32.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline 2-hour PPG||||32.2|-57.2|<0.001
91944156|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.61|23.27|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||23.27|-25.61|
91944157|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|36.27|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||36.27|-9.84|
91944158|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.43|-2.1|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-2.10|-41.43|
91944159|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.63|-3.57|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-3.57|-42.63|
91944160|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.85|7.28|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.28|-30.85|
91944161|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.66|7.57|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.57|-27.66|
91944162|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.72|7.43|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.43|-37.72|
91944163|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.66|19.45|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||19.45|-23.66|
91944164|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.75|-2.57|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-2.57|-38.75|
91944165|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-3.71|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-3.71|-39.70|
91944166|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.62|7.38|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.38|-28.62|
91816690|NCT00277212|183509524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.34||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANOVA|ANOVA model, with double-blind treatment as main effects, is used for Baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||0.34|-0.35|0.971
91891188|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|4.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91944167|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.94|-10.12|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-10.12|-41.94|
91944168|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|9.36|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||9.36|-33.56|
91944169|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|24.57|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||24.57|-15.91|
91944170|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.56|-8.02|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-8.02|-42.56|
91944171|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-2.82|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-2.82|-37.12|
91944172|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.56|-5.08|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-5.08|-38.56|
91944173|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.48|-2.55|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-2.55|-33.48|
91944174|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.21|10.81|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||10.81|-33.21|
91944175|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.22|25.81|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||25.81|-16.22|
91944176|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.86|2.41|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||2.41|-32.86|
91944177|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-17.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.56|0.53|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||0.53|-34.56|
91944178|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.49|-6.39|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-6.39|-41.49|
91944179|NCT02202161|183786271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.96|-3.93|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-3.93|-34.96|
91944180|NCT02202161|183786286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.49|||||Mean and confidence interval (CI) for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.49|0.92|
91944181|NCT02202161|183786286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.38|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.38|0.89|
91944182|NCT02202161|183786286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.27|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.27|0.87|
91944183|NCT02202161|183786286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.52|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.52|1.03|
91944184|NCT02202161|183786286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.5|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.50|1.04|
91944185|NCT02202161|183786286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.31|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.31|0.94|
91944186|NCT02202161|183786288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.13|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.13|0.68|
91944187|NCT02202161|183786288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.31|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.31|0.82|
91944188|NCT02202161|183786288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.26|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.26|0.85|
91944189|NCT02202161|183786288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.45|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.45|0.97|
91944190|NCT02202161|183786288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.49|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.49|1.01|
91944191|NCT02202161|183786288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.48|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.48|1.04|
91944192|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.17|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.17|0.91|
91944193|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.98|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.98|0.78|
91944194|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.78|
91816691|NCT00277212|183509524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.51||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 8||0.51|-0.03|
91816692|NCT00277212|183509524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.6||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 24||0.60|-0.13|
91816693|NCT00277212|183509524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.55||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 36||0.55|-0.06|
91816694|NCT00277212|183509524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.65||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52||0.65|-0.06|
91944195|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.83|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.83|0.68|
91944196|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.92|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.92|0.76|
91944197|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.10|0.92|
91816695|NCT00277212|183509524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.52||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||0.52|-0.04|0.095
91816696|NCT00277212|183509524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.63||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripirazole - placebo|Highest change from Baseline||0.63|-0.01|0.061
91944198|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.19|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.19|0.95|
91944199|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.16|0.94|
91944200|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.05|0.88|
91816697|NCT00277212|183509525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.458||95.0|-0.25|0.11||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANOVA|ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, is used for baseline estimates.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||0.11|-0.25|0.458
91816698|NCT00277212|183509525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 8||0.26|-0.05|
91816699|NCT00277212|183509525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 24||0.20|-0.11|
91816700|NCT00277212|183509525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.42||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 36||0.42|0.00|
91816701|NCT00277212|183509525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at week 52||0.16|-0.05|
91816702|NCT00277212|183509525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||0.11|-0.22|0.515
91816703|NCT00277212|183509525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Highest Change from Baseline||0.23|-0.16|0.730
91816704|NCT00277212|183509526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.2||Means, mean differences, 95% confidence intervals for the differences, and the p-values are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANOVA|ANOVA, controlling for treatment, used for baseline estimates.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||0.20|-0.08|0.435
91816705|NCT00277212|183509526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 8||0.30|0.04|
91816706|NCT00277212|183509526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 24||0.17|-0.11|
91816707|NCT00277212|183509526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 36||0.13|-0.13|
91816708|NCT00277212|183509526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.14||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52||0.14|-0.08|
91816709|NCT00277212|183509526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||0.17|-0.06|0.358
91944201|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.07|0.89|
91944202|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.17|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.17|0.98|
91944203|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.05|0.90|
91944204|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.13|0.80|
91944205|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.90|0.65|
91944206|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.85|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.85|0.64|
91944207|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.69|0.51|
91944208|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.81|0.62|
91944209|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.14|0.89|
91944210|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.21|0.88|
91944211|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.71|
91944212|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.74|
91944213|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.76|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.76|0.59|
91944214|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.87|0.68|
91944215|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.14|0.92|
91944216|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.66|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.66|0.97|
91944217|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.50|0.90|
91944218|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.61|1.06|
91944219|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.48|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.48|0.96|
91944220|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.42|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.42|0.93|
91944221|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.16|0.79|
91944222|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.17|0.86|
91944223|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.96|0.73|
91944224|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.91|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.91|0.73|
91944225|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.82|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.82|0.66|
91944226|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.86|0.69|
91944227|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.03|0.84|
91944228|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.21|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.21|0.99|
91944229|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.11|0.93|
91944230|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.90|
91944231|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.06|0.92|
91944232|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.08|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.08|0.94|
91944233|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.92|
91944234|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.69|
91944235|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.85|0.58|
91944236|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.86|0.62|
91944237|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.71|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.71|0.50|
91816710|NCT00277212|183509526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.31||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Highest Change from Baseline||0.31|0.03|0.021
91944238|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.8|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.80|0.59|
91944239|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.09|0.81|
91944240|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.22|0.80|
91944241|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.93|0.64|
91944242|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.90|0.67|
91944243|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.75|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.75|0.55|
91816711|NCT03336216|183509528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.19|1.82||||||||1.82|1.19|
91816712|NCT03336216|183509528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.77|1.3||||||||1.30|0.77|
91816713|NCT03336216|183509528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.6|1.03||||||||1.03|0.60|
91816714|NCT03336216|183509529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.33|2.02||||||||2.02|1.33|
91816715|NCT03336216|183509529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||||60.0|0.87|1.46||||||||1.46|0.87|
91816716|NCT03336216|183509529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||||60.0|0.55|0.94||||||||0.94|0.55|
91816717|NCT03336216|183509532|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|1.8||||0.6537||95.0|-5.5|9.0||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||9.0|-5.5|0.6537
91944244|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.81|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.81|0.60|
91944245|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.80|
91944246|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||2.00|1.01|
91944247|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.75|0.94|
91944248|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.58|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.58|0.98|
91944249|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.56|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.56|0.95|
91944250|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.57|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.57|0.96|
91816718|NCT03336216|183509532|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|12.5||||0.0951||95.0|3.1|21.9||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||21.9|3.1|0.0951
91816719|NCT03336216|183509532|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|5.0||||0.5171||95.0|-8.0|18.1||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||18.1|-8.0|0.5171
91816720|NCT03336216|183509533|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|-0.8||||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|7.7||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||7.7|-9.4|0.8505
91816721|NCT03336216|183509533|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|1.5||||0.8144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|12.8||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||12.8|-9.9|0.8144
91816722|NCT03336216|183509533|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|0.7||||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|12.1||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||12.1|-10.7|0.9087
91816723|NCT03336216|183509536|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.96|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model by ECOG and type of prior chemotherapy|||1.96|0.76|
91816724|NCT03336216|183509536|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.86|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model by ECOG and type of prior chemotherapy|||1.86|0.59|
91816725|NCT03336216|183509536|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.46|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model by ECOG and type of prior chemotherapy|||1.46|0.45|
91816726|NCT01023581|183509563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.37||For each set of comparisons in the primary analysis, the null hypothesis was rejected only if both comparisons between a combination and its constituent doses were statistically significant at the 2-sided 2.5% level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The primary efficacy analysis consisted of 2 separate sets of comparisons between each BID combination of alogliptin and metformin (alogliptin/metformin 12.5/500 mg BID and 12.5/1000 mg BID) and its constituent doses of alogliptin and metformin. The null hypothesis was that the combination of alogliptin and metformin had no additional effect on glycemic control at Week 26 either when compared with the constituent dose of alogliptin or with the constituent dose of metformin.||-0.37|-0.96|<0.001
91816727|NCT01023581|183509563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.27|-0.87|<0.001
91944251|NCT02202161|183786289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.11|0.72|
91944252|NCT02202161|183786290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.11|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.11|0.87|
91944253|NCT02202161|183786290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.89|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.89|0.71|
91944254|NCT02202161|183786290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.90|0.74|
91944255|NCT02202161|183786290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.77|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.77|0.63|
91944256|NCT02202161|183786290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.85|0.70|
91944257|NCT02202161|183786290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.06|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.06|0.89|
91944258|NCT02202161|183786290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.07|0.77|
91944259|NCT02202161|183786290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.68|
91944260|NCT02202161|183786290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.91|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.91|0.70|
91944261|NCT02202161|183786290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.77|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.77|0.58|
91944262|NCT02202161|183786290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.83|0.64|
91944263|NCT02202161|183786290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.02|0.80|
91944264|NCT03685643|183786296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91944265|NCT03685643|183786297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91944266|NCT03685643|183786298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91944267|NCT03797144|183786301|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of ODI from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_ODI ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_ODI \> 0 where μ\_ODI is the mean improvement of ODI score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.06
91944268|NCT03797144|183786301|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of ODI from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_ODI ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_ODI \> 0 where μ\_ODI is the mean improvement of ODI score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.012
91816728|NCT01023581|183509563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||||-0.71|-1.29|<0.001
91816729|NCT01023581|183509563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||||-0.16|-0.73|<0.001
91816730|NCT02404311|183509643|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|-0.015||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
91816731|NCT02404311|183509643|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|-0.015||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
91816732|NCT02404311|183509643|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|-0.015||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
91944269|NCT03797144|183786302|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.002||||||Back Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.002
91944270|NCT03797144|183786302|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."|||||<|0.001||||||Back Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||<0.001
91944271|NCT03797144|183786302|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."|||||<|0.001||||||Leg Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||<0.001
91944272|NCT03797144|183786302|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."|||||<|0.001||||||Leg Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||<0.001
91944273|NCT03797144|183786303|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.174||||||Health State Score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.174
91944274|NCT03797144|183786303|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.002||||||Health State Score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.002
91944275|NCT03797144|183786303|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.003||||||Index score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.003
91944276|NCT03797144|183786303|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.012||||||Index score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.012
91944277|NCT03299166|183786340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect.||0.60|-2.59|0.2202
91944278|NCT03299166|183786347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4 Analysis.~Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect."||0.75|-1.67|0.4508
91944279|NCT03299166|183786347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8 Analysis.~Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect."||-0.06|-3.02|0.0410
91944280|NCT03296072|183786354|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|7.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|10.19|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||10.19|5.18|<.0001
91944281|NCT03296072|183786355|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|33.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.89|37.68|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||37.68|28.89|<.0001
91944282|NCT03296072|183786356|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.04|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||2.04|1.59|<.0001
91944283|NCT03296072|183786357|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|7.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|11.07|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||11.07|5.07|<.0001
91944284|NCT03296072|183786358|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|10.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|15.37|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||15.37|6.58|<.0001
91944285|NCT03296072|183786359|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.2|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||1.20|0.75|<.0001
91944286|NCT02043704|183786365|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the pain scores between the groups.||||||0.328||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments.||The comparison was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.||||0.328
91944287|NCT03958149|183786389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Independent t-test|||||||<0.001
91944288|NCT03958149|183786390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Factorial Mixed ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91944289|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.3474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance for repeated measures||Dryness - Study eye - Day 15±2 The model included fixed effect terms for time point, baseline covariate (i.e. the day 1 - pre-dose value) and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||9.1|-3.3|0.3474
91944290|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.3|-8.2|0.1327
91944291|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Study eye - Day 15±2||1.6|-11.2|0.1327
91944292|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Study eye - Day 15±2||10.0|-2.5|0.2237
91944293|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.1|-8.4|0.4905
91944294|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Study eye - Day 15±2||0.5|-12.3|0.0687
91816733|NCT02404311|183509644|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.914|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
91944295|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.7609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.6|-4.2|0.7609
91944296|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.8|-6.0|0.6428
91944297|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.2|-6.9|0.4599
91944298|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Study eye - Day 15±2||10.5|-4.6|0.4217
91944299|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.503||||-2.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.0|-10.0|-2.5
91944300|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.2|-6.9|0.4599
91944301|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.6157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.4|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.4|-2.6|0.6157
91944302|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.3|-3.7|0.9120
91944303|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Study eye - Day 15±2||2.5|-4.6|0.5463
91816734|NCT02404311|183509644|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
91944304|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky Feeling - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.3|-5.9|0.9065
91944305|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.5065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.7|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky Feeling - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.7|-7.3|0.5065
91944306|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.5977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky Feeling - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.2|-7.1|0.5977
91944307|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred Vision - Study eye - Day 15±2||1.9|-6.3|0.2785
91944308|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.3|-4.6|0.7454
91944309|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.4588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.9|-2.7|0.4588
91944310|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|12.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Study eye - Day 15±2||12.3|-3.7|0.2812
91944311|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.6811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Study eye - Day 15±2||9.8|-6.5|0.6811
91944312|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.6|-10.8|0.5169
91944313|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.7874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.8|-5.9|0.7874
91944314|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||6.1|-7.6|0.8299
91944315|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.6386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.4|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.4|-8.7|0.6386
91944316|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||10.2|1.3|0.0132
91944317|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|3.7|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||3.7|-5.3|0.7177
91816735|NCT02404311|183509644|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.895|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
91816736|NCT02404311|183509645|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to C.1086C\_V1\_V2 Tags after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0215
91816737|NCT02404311|183509645|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-96ZM651.02 V1v2 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0003
91944318|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-1.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||-1.9|-11.2|0.0077
91944319|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||10.0|0.6|0.0301
91944320|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.8657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.1|-4.3|0.8657
91944321|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||-0.1|-9.7|0.0440
91944322|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||9.6|-1.4|0.1351
91944323|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.2|-6.0|0.8821
91944324|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||1.3|-10.3|0.1208
91944325|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||3.5|-3.3|0.9440
91944326|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||4.5|-2.2|0.4903
91944327|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||4.3|-2.3|0.5364
91816738|NCT02404311|183509645|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.228||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-TV1.GSKvacV1V2/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0010
91944328|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.7|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky feeling - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.7|-2.9|0.5100
91944329|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky feeling - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.8|-0.9|0.1132
91944330|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky feeling - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||6.5|-2.4|0.3457
91944331|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.9|0.8|0.0185
91944332|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.1|0.2|0.0408
91944333|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||3.0|-4.4|0.6992
91816739|NCT02404311|183509646|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to C.1086C\_V1\_V2 Tags after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
91816740|NCT02404311|183509646|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-96ZM651.02 V1v2 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
91816741|NCT02404311|183509646|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|6.099||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-TV1.GSKvacV1V2/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0002
91816742|NCT02404311|183509647|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.018||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to 1086 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
91816743|NCT02404311|183509647|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.036||||0.6698|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to TV1 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.6698
91816744|NCT02404311|183509647|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.125||||0.1435|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to ZM96 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.1435
91816745|NCT02404311|183509648|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.965||||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to 1086 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.9661
91944334|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||12.8|-1.0|0.0905
91944335|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.3054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.4|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||10.4|-3.4|0.3054
91816746|NCT02404311|183509648|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|1.118||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to TV1 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.8593
91816747|NCT02404311|183509648|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|1.138||||0.4396|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to ZM96 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.4396
91816748|NCT00159588|183509655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||Between-group analysis|Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test||||0.056
91816749|NCT00159588|183509656|SUPERIORITY|Between-group analysis||||||0.012||||||Between-group analysis|t-test, 2 sided|Kruskal-Wallis test||Kruskal-Wallis test||||0.012
91816750|NCT00755131|183509733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size determination was based on a t-test assuming a normal distribution with non-equal variance with the mean and standard deviation for the experimental group (postinfarction patients) of HMGB1 levels equal to 15 ± 7 and 2 ± 1 ng/dl for the control group derived from a previous study, respectively. The required sample size was calculated to be 30 subjects per group to detect on the size of one SD with α value of 0.05 (two-sided) and power (1 - β) of 0.8.||||<0.05
91816751|NCT00755131|183509734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91816752|NCT00755131|183509735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91816753|NCT01480076|183509744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 3: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816754|NCT01480076|183509744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 6: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816755|NCT01480076|183509744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Difference of Month 3 versus Month 6: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0007
91816756|NCT01480076|183509744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within-group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 9: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91944336|NCT03031327|183786409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5024||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||4.8|-9.6|0.5024
91944337|NCT03031327|183786411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test with pool method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-0.1|0.1226
91944338|NCT03031327|183786411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.2854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test with pool method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.2|0.2854
91816757|NCT01480076|183509744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2531|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Difference of Month 6 versus Month 9: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2531
91816758|NCT01480076|183509744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 12: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816759|NCT01480076|183509744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2299|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Difference of Month 9 versus Month 12: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2299
91816760|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816761|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5405|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5405
91944339|NCT03031327|183786411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining -||Student t-test on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-0.6|0.6525
91816762|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816763|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816764|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7272|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7272
91816765|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816766|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816767|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7484|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7484
91816768|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816769|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816770|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1877|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1877
91816771|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91944340|NCT03031327|183786411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining -||Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.5|-0.4|0.8843
91944341|NCT03031327|183786411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|-0.6|0.0806
91944342|NCT03031327|183786411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|-0.7|0.0628
91944343|NCT03031327|183786412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.2004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.2|0.2004
91944344|NCT03031327|183786412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.6|-0.3|0.5413
91944345|NCT03031327|183786412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-0.8|0.4607
91944346|NCT03031327|183786412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.4|-0.2|0.1248
91944347|NCT03031327|183786412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.1|0.0|0.0624
91816772|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816773|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5460
91944348|NCT03031327|183786412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-1.0|0.7927
91944349|NCT03031327|183786413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.6|0.9717
91944350|NCT03031327|183786413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.6|0.7386
91944351|NCT03031327|183786413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-0.6|0.7498
91944352|NCT03031327|183786413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.3229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-1.1|0.3229
91944353|NCT03031327|183786413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.5|0.5700
91944354|NCT03031327|183786413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.3|-0.2|0.1197
91944355|NCT03031327|183786414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.6|-0.6|0.8787
91944356|NCT03031327|183786414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.5|0.8159
91944357|NCT03031327|183786414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.6|-0.4|0.6525
91944358|NCT03031327|183786414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-1.0|0.3340
91944359|NCT03031327|183786414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.7|0.9749
91944360|NCT03031327|183786414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.1984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.2|0.1984
91944361|NCT03031327|183786415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|16.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Frequency of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||16.4|-10.5|0.6497
91944362|NCT03031327|183786415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|2.6|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Frequency of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||2.6|-16.5|0.1443
91816774|NCT01480076|183509745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816775|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816776|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9073|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9073
91816777|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0009
91816778|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816779|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5542|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5542
91944363|NCT03031327|183786415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|1.1|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Frequency of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.1|-20.9|0.0751
91944364|NCT03031327|183786415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|15.5|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Severity of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||15.5|-7.9|0.5015
91816780|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816781|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91944365|NCT03031327|183786415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|4.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Severity of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||4.4|-12.5|0.3217
91944366|NCT03031327|183786415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|1.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Severity of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.8|-17.5|0.1026
91816782|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5810
91816783|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0140
91816784|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816785|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4138|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4138
91944367|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944368|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91816786|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2740
91816787|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816788|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6453|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6453
91816789|NCT01480076|183509746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0090
91816790|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816791|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2475|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2475
91816792|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816793|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816794|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2422|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2422
91816795|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816796|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816797|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1262|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1262
91816798|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816799|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816800|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8858|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8858
91944369|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91816801|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816802|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91944370|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
91816803|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2111|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2111
91816804|NCT01480076|183509747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.0072|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0072
91944371|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
91944372|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944373|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
91944374|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
91816805|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816806|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5577|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5577
91816807|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816808|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91944375|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944376|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
91944377|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
91944378|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944379|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944380|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944381|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944382|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944383|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944384|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944385|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944386|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944387|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944388|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944389|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944390|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944391|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5267|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.5267
91944392|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2633|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.2633
91944393|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6552|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.6552
91944394|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.1262
91944395|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.2094
91816809|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9365|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9365
91816810|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91944396|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimation|-1.0||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|-1.0|0.0377
91944397|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944398|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944399|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91816811|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91944400|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944401|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944402|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944403|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944404|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944405|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944406|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944407|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944408|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944409|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944410|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944411|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91816812|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2008|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2008
91816813|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0102|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0102
91816814|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91944412|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944413|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944414|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944415|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944416|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944417|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944418|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944419|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944420|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91816815|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7134|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7134
91816816|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0066
91816817|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816818|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8202|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8202
91944421|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944422|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944423|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944424|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944425|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944426|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944427|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944428|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944429|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944430|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944431|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944432|NCT03031327|183786416|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91944433|NCT03031327|183786417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||2.6|-1.5|0.5842
91944434|NCT03031327|183786417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.0|-2.2|0.4606
91944435|NCT03031327|183786417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-3.0|0.2319
91944436|NCT03031327|183786417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.4|-2.3|0.6018
91816819|NCT01480076|183509748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0049
91944437|NCT03031327|183786417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.4857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.1|-2.2|0.4857
91944438|NCT03031327|183786417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.8|-2.0|0.9015
91944439|NCT03031327|183786418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.3574
91944440|NCT03031327|183786418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.3574
91944441|NCT03031327|183786418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||P-value is NA due to the measured values of corneal sensitivity equal to zero.|Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|0.0|00
91944442|NCT03031327|183786418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||P-value is NA due to the measured values of corneal sensitivity equal to zero.|Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|0.0|00
91944443|NCT03031327|183786418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.1
91944444|NCT03031327|183786418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.1
91944445|NCT03793010|183786430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.81||||||||1.81|-1.20|
91944446|NCT03793010|183786431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|2.24||||||||2.24|-1.05|
91944447|NCT03793010|183786432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9||||||||0.9|-1.0|
91944448|NCT00908050|183786433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0394|||||||Chi-squared|||The averaged data calculated from three nights in each recording period for each subject will be submitted to statistical analysis. Descriptive and non-parametric statistics will be used for the secondary end-points.||||0.0394
91944449|NCT00087594|183786592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|41.3||||||95% CI for G1 participants||41.3|-27.8|
91944450|NCT00087594|183786592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|35.4||||||95% CI for G2/3 participants||35.4|-10.4|
91944451|NCT00087594|183786592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|76.9||||||95% CI for G1 participants with 2 log drop at W 12||76.9|12.0|
91944452|NCT00087594|183786592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||95% CI for G1 participants with non 2 log drop at W 12||||
91944453|NCT00087594|183786592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|50.5||||||95% CI for G1 participants with missing HCV-RNA at W 12||50.5|-77.2|
91944454|NCT01952041|183786613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test statistic=0.06, degrees of freedom=2||||||0.80
91944455|NCT01952041|183786614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.44|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is intervention arm vs. TAU for time to first relapse from randomization. There is not a standard error (SE) that directly links to the hazard ratio. The confidence interval provided illustrates the dispersion for the hazard ratio.|||1.44|0.42|0.43
91944456|NCT01952041|183786615|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment by time interaction terms are given to test difference of slopes between arms.|||1.02|-0.58|0.58
91944457|NCT01952041|183786616|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment by time interaction terms are given to test difference of slopes between arms.|||0.26|-0.22|0.84
91944458|NCT01952041|183786617|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment by time interaction terms are given to test difference of slopes between arms.|||0.04|-5.40|0.06
91944459|NCT01736176|183786618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed-effect Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included the fixed effects of study site and visit, with baseline score as a covariate, and the baseline-by-visit interaction.||The primary null hypothesis was no change in least-square (LS) mean, calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measures model (MMRM), for NMSS total score from baseline to Week 12. The statistical test was two-sided and the null hypothesis was rejected at the significance level of α = 0.050.||||< 0.001
91944460|NCT01736176|183786622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed-effect Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included the fixed effects of study site and visit, with baseline score as a covariate, and the baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.004
91944461|NCT01569568|183786656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori threshold is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of glutamine is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PCGM.||||0.001
91944462|NCT01569568|183786656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of myoinositol is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PCGM.||||0.011
91944463|NCT01569568|183786656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of glutamine is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PWM.||||0.004
91944464|NCT01569568|183786656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of myoinositol is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PWM.||||0.046
91944465|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a 2 (Group) x 6 (ROI Pair) ANOVA to assess functional connectivity between the nodes of the DMN, using age as a covariate.||The null hypothesis states predicts no main effects of Group, ROI pair, or Age, suggesting that the connectivity between all DMN nodes is the same across groups.||||<0.001
91816820|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91944466|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC/mPFC node and the left IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.024
91944467|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold is 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC/mPFC node and the PCC node does not differ between groups.||||0.040
91816821|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1324|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1324
91816822|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91944468|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC/mPFC node and the right IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.008
91944469|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left IPL node and the right IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.470
91944470|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the PCC node and the left IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.829
91944471|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the PCC node and the right IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.801
91944472|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a 2 (Group) x 6 (ROI Pair) ANOVA to assess functional connectivity between the nodes of the SMN, using age as a covariate.||The null hypothesis states predicts no main effects of Group, ROI pair, or Age, suggesting that the connectivity between all SMN nodes is the same across groups.||||<0.001
91944473|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the left aI/fO node does not differ between groups.||||0.550
91944474|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the left SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.113
91944475|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the right aI/fO node does not differ between groups.||||0.039
91944476|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the right SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.005
91944477|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left aI/fO and the left SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.426
91944478|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left aI/fO node and the right aI/fO node does not differ between groups.||||0.256
91944479|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left aI/fO and the right SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.853
91816823|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816824|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4759|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4759
91944480|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the right aI/fO node and the left SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.003
91816825|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0016
91816826|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error||||<0.0001
91816827|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2489|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2489
91816828|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0017
91944481|NCT01569568|183786657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the right aI/fO node and the right SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.023
91944482|NCT01569568|183786659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance is not assumed. Two tailed t-test WASI verbal IQ between cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.929
91816829|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816830|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0126|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0126
91816831|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816832|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0033
91816833|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1758|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1758
91816834|NCT01480076|183509749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0246|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0246
91816835|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816836|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0111
91816837|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816838|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816839|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0970
91816840|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816841|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816842|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0789
91944483|NCT01569568|183786659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison WASI performance IQ cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
91944484|NCT01569568|183786659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison of WASI full IQ cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.094
91944485|NCT01569568|183786659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison of CTMT global composite score between cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.853
91944486|NCT01569568|183786659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison of BRIEF BRI cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91944487|NCT01569568|183786659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variances not assumed. Comparison of BRIEF MI cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91944488|NCT01569568|183786659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variances not assumed. Comparison of BRIEF GEC between cases and controls.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91944489|NCT00416572|183786668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||> 0.05
91944490|NCT00416572|183786668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
91944491|NCT00416572|183786668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||standardized beta|-0.12|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||=0.08
91944492|NCT00416572|183786668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||standardized beta|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||<0.001
91944493|NCT00416572|183786669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.50
91944494|NCT00416572|183786669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized beta|0.14|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||=0.04
91944495|NCT00416572|183786669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized beta|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between the education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||<0.001
91944496|NCT00416572|183786669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized beta|0.15|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||=0.02
91944497|NCT00416572|183786670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome||||>.05
91816843|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816844|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91944498|NCT00416572|183786670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
91944499|NCT00416572|183786670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
91944500|NCT00416572|183786670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
91944501|NCT00290355|183786671|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.24||Two-sided p value from Cox regression model adjusted for covariate(s) node/squam/stage to test the null hypothesis was: the distribution of time to recurrences was the same in each group (H0 = \[HR=1\]).|Regression, Cox|The p value by log rank test was 0.1995. Criterion for evaluation of the objective: one sided p-value \< 10%||Hazard ratio of GSK 249553 study product.||1.24|0.44|0.256
91944502|NCT03345849|183786690|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and European Union/European Medicines Agency regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|28.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|Comparison of the upadacitinib group and placebo group was performed using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for stratification factors (baseline steroid use \[Yes, No\], endoscopic disease severity \[SES-CD \< 15, ≥ 15\] and number of prior biologics with prior inadequate response or intolerance \[0, 1, \> 1\]).||28.8|12.7|<0.0001
91944503|NCT03345849|183786691|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||36.4|20.9|<0.0001
91944504|NCT03345849|183786692|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|39.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||39.9|26.2|<0.0001
91944505|NCT03345849|183786693|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||27.8|15.8|<0.0001
91944506|NCT03345849|183786694|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors endoscopic disease severity and number of prior failed biologic therapies.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors endoscopic disease severity and number of prior biologic failed.|||39.8|15.7|<0.0001
91944507|NCT03345849|183786695|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|8.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||8.3|4.2|<0.0001
91944508|NCT03345849|183786696|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|21.842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1933|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.566|28.118|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||28.118|15.566|<0.0001
91944509|NCT03345849|183786697|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||19.2|4.2|0.0022
91816845|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0284
91816846|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91944510|NCT03345849|183786698|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||28.4|11.3|<0.0001
91816847|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91944511|NCT03345849|183786699|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|10.8||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||18.6|2.9|0.0071
91944512|NCT03345849|183786700|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|-1.4||||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.4|||Chi-squared||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||2.4|-5.2|0.4494
91944513|NCT03345849|183786701|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.0||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||19.9|-1.9|0.1044
91944514|NCT03345849|183786702|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||28.2|14.3|<0.0001
91944515|NCT03345849|183786703|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||43.7|21.5|<0.0001
91944516|NCT04437511|183786710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.508|4.331|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.331|1.508|<0.001
91944517|NCT04437511|183786711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.883|4.618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.618|1.883|<0.001
91944518|NCT04437511|183786712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.841|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.841|0.104|0.012
91944519|NCT04437511|183786713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.868|0.089|0.016
91944520|NCT04437511|183786714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.086|-0.565|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.565|-2.086|0.0006
91944521|NCT04437511|183786715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.794|-2.250|<0.001
91944522|NCT04437511|183786716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-0.95|<0.001
91816848|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0108
91944523|NCT04437511|183786717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.95|<0.001
91944524|NCT04437511|183786718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.566|0.840|0.0001
91944525|NCT04437511|183786719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|2.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.748|0.913|<0.001
91944526|NCT04437511|183786720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-86.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.275|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.87|-83.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-83.87|-88.87|<0.0001
91944527|NCT04437511|183786721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-0.0041||||0.4522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0148|0.0066|||ANCOVA|||||0.0066|-0.0148|0.4522
91944528|NCT04437511|183786722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.04|0.01|0.002
91944529|NCT04437511|183786722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-5.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||-5.56|-7.76|<0.001
91944530|NCT04437511|183786722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Ventricles||3.52|2.52|<0.001
91944531|NCT05032755|183786725|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|1.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term|||||<.0001
91816849|NCT01480076|183509750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816850|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816851|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8392|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8392
91816852|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0162|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0162
91816853|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816854|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6956|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6956
91944532|NCT05032755|183786726|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||<.0001
91944533|NCT05032755|183786727|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.065
91944534|NCT05032755|183786728|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.007
91944535|NCT05032755|183786729|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.325|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 2 levels (pre- vs post-intervention). Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.325
91944536|NCT05032755|183786731|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.035
91944537|NCT05032755|183786732|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.27
91944538|NCT05032755|183786733|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|-1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.037||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.24
91944539|NCT05032755|183786738|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.113|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 2 levels (pre- vs post-intervention). Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.113
91944540|NCT05564039|183786771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.10|<0.0001
91944541|NCT05564039|183786772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-8.7|<.0001
91944542|NCT05564039|183786773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|13.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.32|3.82|<0.0001
91944543|NCT05564039|183786774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|23.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.02|6.51|<0.0001
91944544|NCT05564039|183786775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|51.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.36|4.58|<0.0001
91944545|NCT05564039|183786776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|16.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.98|5.11|<0.0001
91816855|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0042|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0042
91816856|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816857|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7949|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7949
91816858|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0679|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0679
91816859|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0027
91816860|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8053|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8053
91816861|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2638|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2638
91944546|NCT05564039|183786777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.07|41.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.30|9.07|<0.0001
91944547|NCT05564039|183786778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.18|178.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||178.89|7.18|<0.0001
91944548|NCT05564039|183786779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|49.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.77|8.40|<0.0001
91944549|NCT05564039|183786780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-1.32|<0.001
91944550|NCT05564039|183786781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.5|-7.8|0.0002
91944551|NCT05564039|183786782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.1|-3.1|<0.0001
91944552|NCT05564039|183786783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.2|||ANCOVA|||||9.2|-1.0|0.1181
91944553|NCT03233308|183786785|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Change from Baseline||||0.0010
91944554|NCT03233308|183786786|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline (percent difference from baseline)||||0.0003
91944555|NCT03233308|183786787|OTHER|||||||0.0687|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline -EVP||||0.0687
91944556|NCT03233308|183786787|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline -IOP||||<0.0001
91944557|NCT03233308|183786788|OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline (percent difference from baseline) -EVP||||0.0087
91944558|NCT03233308|183786788|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline (percent difference from baseline)- IOP||||<0.0001
91944559|NCT04916314|183786807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.6||Omnibus likelihood ratio test for significant change in co-primary outcomes at 3 or 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-5|0.8
91944560|NCT04916314|183786808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.8||omnibus likelihood ratio test for significant change in co-primary outcomes at 3 or 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-5.7|0.8
91944561|NCT00853112|183786845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-115.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|98.36||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-371.5|-1.1|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and standard deviation (SD) from the Bayesian analysis.||-1.1|-371.5|0.120
91944562|NCT00853112|183786845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-170.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|107.84||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-409.2|-7.1|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model.|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne.s.m2/cm5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-7.1|-409.2|0.250
91944563|NCT00853112|183786845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-240.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|109.28||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-444.8|-33.8|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model.|||The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-33.8|-444.8|0.485
91944564|NCT00853112|183786845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-327.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.41||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-492.9|-148.0|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model.|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-148.0|-492.9|0.810
91944565|NCT00853112|183786845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-379.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.61||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-520.6|-238.8|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. Posterior distribution was calculated and was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-238.8|-520.6|0.974
91944566|NCT00853112|183786846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-195.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|207.38||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-618.8|228.3|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline fitted as a covariate.||228.3|-618.8|0.354
91944567|NCT00853112|183786846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-34.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|190.99||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-424.1|356.0|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||356.0|-424.1|0.860
91944568|NCT00853112|183786846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-435.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|195.94||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-835.9|-35.6|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||-35.6|-835.9|0.034
91944569|NCT00853112|183786846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-334.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|201.74||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-746.7|77.3|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||77.3|-746.7|0.107
91944570|NCT00853112|183786846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-278.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|200.89||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-688.3|132.2|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||132.2|-688.3|0.177
91944571|NCT00853112|183786846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|315.91||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-594.1|696.3|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||696.3|-594.1|0.873
91944572|NCT00853112|183786846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|75.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|303.08||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-543.8|694.1|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||694.1|-543.8|0.806
91944573|NCT00853112|183786846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-262.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|301.1||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-877.8|352.1|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||352.1|-877.8|0.390
91944574|NCT00853112|183786846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-329.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|302.97||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-948.1|289.4|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||289.4|-948.1|0.286
91944575|NCT00853112|183786846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-62.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|314.15||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-704.3|578.9|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||578.9|-704.3|0.843
91944576|NCT00853112|183786847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|322.8||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-659.7|658.8|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||658.8|-659.7|0.999
91944577|NCT00853112|183786847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|72.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|309.69||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-560.2|704.7|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||704.7|-560.2|0.817
91944578|NCT00853112|183786847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-82.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|307.67||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-711.0|545.7|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||545.7|-711.0|0.790
91944579|NCT00853112|183786847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-325.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|309.58||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-957.8|306.7|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||306.7|-957.8|0.301
91944580|NCT00853112|183786847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|321.0||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-716.8|594.4|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||594.4|-716.8|0.850
91944581|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-269.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.93||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-785.39|246.76|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||246.76|-785.39|0.295
91944582|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-97.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|234.55||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-577.02|381.72|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||381.72|-577.02|0.680
91944583|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-376.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|241.06||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-869.53|116.31|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||116.31|-869.53|0.129
91944584|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-342.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|247.07||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-846.9|162.32|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||162.32|-846.90|0.176
91944585|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-316.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|261.58||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-850.9|217.17|||Longitudinal analysis|||Hour 1: Longitudinal analysis was used to analyze p-value and included baseline as a covariate.||217.17|-850.90|0.235
91816862|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0007
91816863|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8502|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8502
91944586|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-198.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|247.62||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-705.04|308.91|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||308.91|-705.04|0.430
91816864|NCT01480076|183509751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0917|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0917
91816865|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1795|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1795
91944587|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|229.23||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-432.23|508.04|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||508.04|-432.23|0.870
91944588|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-114.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|244.95||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-614.57|386.45|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||386.45|-614.57|0.645
91944589|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-299.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|241.63||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-794.81|195.61|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||195.61|-794.81|0.225
91944590|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-332.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|255.93||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-856.55|192.05|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||192.05|-856.55|0.205
91944591|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-86.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|263.63||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-625.87|452.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||452.42|-625.87|0.745
91944592|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|245.25||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-484.46|520.47|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||520.47|-484.46|0.942
91944593|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-265.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|259.53||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-796.15|264.28|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||264.28|-796.15|0.314
91944594|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-275.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|258.01||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-803.57|252.88|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||252.88|-803.57|0.295
91944595|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-326.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|272.96||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-885.12|232.02|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||232.02|-885.12|0.241
91944596|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-145.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|218.5||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-592.24|300.83|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||300.83|-592.24|0.510
91944597|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|77.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|199.85||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-330.7|486.63|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||486.63|-330.70|0.699
91944598|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-341.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|204.65||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-760.45|76.64|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||76.64|-760.45|0.106
91944599|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-289.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|211.69||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-722.17|143.35|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||143.35|-722.17|0.182
91944600|NCT00853112|183786848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-256.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|224.88||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-716.26|203.06|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||203.06|-716.26|0.263
91944601|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-328.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|385.78||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1114.11|457.92|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||457.92|-1114.11|0.401
91944602|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-164.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|370.54||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-920.05|590.12|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||590.12|-920.05|0.659
91944603|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-287.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|372.6||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1047.59|473.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||473.42|-1047.59|0.447
91944604|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-457.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|374.26||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1220.86|306.53|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||306.53|-1220.86|0.231
91816866|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0715|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0715
91816867|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.2065|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2065
91816868|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1649|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1649
91816869|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4894|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4894
91944605|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-75.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|384.2||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-858.19|707.71|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||707.71|-858.19|0.846
91944606|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-115.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|357.2||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-844.24|612.96|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||612.96|-844.24|0.748
91944607|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|342.91||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-702.41|696.67|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||696.67|-702.41|0.993
91944608|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|174.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|342.93||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.41|874.81|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||874.81|-526.41|0.615
91944609|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-494.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|344.72||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1199.04|209.21|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||209.21|-1199.04|0.161
91944610|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-134.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|355.5||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-859.74|590.77|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||590.77|-859.74|0.708
91944611|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|47.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|365.43||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-697.56|792.79|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||792.79|-697.56|0.897
91944612|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|98.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|350.87||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-617.15|813.99|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||813.99|-617.15|0.781
91944613|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-28.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|355.47||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-753.46|696.83|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||696.83|-753.46|0.937
91944614|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-369.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|353.25||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1090.86|351.72|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||351.72|-1090.86|0.304
91944615|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-185.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|363.77||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.54|556.27|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||556.27|-927.54|0.613
91944616|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|265.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|324.88||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-397.45|928.48|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||928.48|-397.45|0.420
91944617|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|240.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|311.63||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.81|876.14|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||876.14|-395.81|0.447
91944618|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-176.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|309.11||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-808.1|454.63|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||454.63|-808.10|0.572
91944619|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|311.11||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-663.31|607.38|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||607.38|-663.31|0.929
91944620|NCT00853112|183786849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|29.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|323.01||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-629.62|688.79|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||688.79|-629.62|0.928
91944621|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.83|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.83|-0.35|0.412
91944622|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.58|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.58|-0.58|0.999
91816870|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.8611|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8611
91816871|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0073
91944623|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.74|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.74|-0.39|0.535
91944624|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.01|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.01|-0.13|0.128
91944625|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.53|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.53|-0.67|0.823
91944626|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.99|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.99|-0.40|0.396
91944627|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.72|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.72|-0.63|0.899
91944628|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.64|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-0.70|0.928
91944629|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.11|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-0.25|0.203
91944630|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.80|-0.60|0.772
91944631|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.69|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.69|-0.52|0.771
91944632|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.42|-0.75|0.572
91944633|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.6|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.60|-0.58|0.966
91944634|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.0|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.00|-0.17|0.157
91944635|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.79|-0.43|0.546
91944636|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.64|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-0.51|0.818
91944637|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.42|-0.71|0.603
91944638|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.74|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.74|-0.37|0.495
91944639|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.8|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.80|-0.31|0.375
91944640|NCT00853112|183786850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.84|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.84|-0.34|0.392
91944641|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|2.86|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.86|-12.47|0.210
91944642|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|2.9|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.90|-11.84|0.225
91944643|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|3.93|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||3.93|-11.28|0.332
91816872|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1343|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1343
91944644|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|6.28|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||6.28|-9.06|0.714
91944645|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.63|-0.39|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||-0.39|-15.63|0.040
91944646|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|0.75|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.75|-13.02|0.079
91944647|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|4.77|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||4.77|-8.46|0.573
91944648|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|3.15|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||3.15|-10.50|0.280
91944649|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|5.51|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||5.51|-8.28|0.684
91944650|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|-1.34|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: Longitudinal analysis was used to analyze p-value and included baseline as a covariate.||-1.34|-15.01|0.021
91944651|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|6.25|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||6.25|-8.86|0.727
91944652|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|2.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.42|-12.12|0.183
91944653|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.51|1.49|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.49|-13.51|0.112
91944654|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|7.23|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||7.23|-7.91|0.928
91944655|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-1.5|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||-1.50|-16.52|0.020
91944656|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.55|1.94|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.94|-13.55|0.136
91944657|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|3.63|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||3.63|-11.27|0.303
91944658|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.87|2.52|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.52|-12.87|0.180
91944659|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|5.2|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||5.20|-10.31|0.506
91944660|NCT00853112|183786851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-1.14|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||-1.14|-16.54|0.026
91944661|NCT01553591|183786859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.014
91944662|NCT01553591|183786859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.004
91944663|NCT01553591|183786860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.112
91944664|NCT01553591|183786860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
91944665|NCT02477800|183786874|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|0.11||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.403|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.403|-0.469|0.2250
91944666|NCT02477800|183786874|SUPERIORITY||Difference from late start group|0.03||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.326|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.326|-0.262|0.8330
91816873|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.6468|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6468
91816874|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6441|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6441
91944667|NCT02477800|183786875|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|0.2||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.74|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.74|-0.35|0.4795
91944668|NCT02477800|183786875|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.1||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.49|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.49|-0.62|0.8106
91944669|NCT02477800|183786876|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.583||||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5835|0.4181|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADAS-Cog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region,and laboratory ApoE status.||0.4181|-1.5835|0.2536
91944670|NCT02477800|183786876|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.588||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6067|0.4309|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADAS-Cog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region,and laboratory ApoE status.||0.4309|-1.6067|0.2578
91944671|NCT02477800|183786877|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|0.7||||0.1225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.64|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCS-ADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.64|-0.19|0.1225
91944672|NCT02477800|183786877|SUPERIORITY||Difference from late start group|0.7||||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.61|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCS-ADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.61|-0.25|0.1506
91944673|NCT00423592|183786879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.7|||Exact binomial test|A 1-sample test for a binomial proportion was performed.||Sample size: 30 participants; 80% power to rule out 50% recurrence rate of serum ALT/AST abnormalities following ambrisentan treatment (assumes 25% recurrence rate); 99% power to rule out 75% recurrence rate (assumes 37.5% recurrence rate). H\_0 = proportion of subjects experiencing primary endpoint at 12% vs 1-sided alternative of \< 12%. P-value from exact binomial test. Summary statistics included the estimated proportion, 95% confidence interval (CI), and the p-value of the hypothesis test.||9.7|0.0|0.01
91944674|NCT00423592|183786882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.6||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|40.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing and descriptive statistics were carried out on the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) 6-minute walk distance change from baseline.||40.4|6.3|0.009
91944675|NCT00423592|183786883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing and descriptive statistics were carried out on the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) Borg dyspnea index change from baseline.||0.0|-1.0|0.046
91944676|NCT00423592|183786885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.44||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.1|2.1|0.001
91944677|NCT00423592|183786886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.98||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||6.8|-0.1|0.059
91816875|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2176|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2176
91816876|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.91||0.2814|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2814
91816877|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7533|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7533
91816878|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0653|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0653
91944678|NCT00423592|183786887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.0|1.7|0.002
91944679|NCT00423592|183786888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.56||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||11.3|3.1|0.001
91944680|NCT00423592|183786889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.4||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||5.6|0.6|0.017
91944681|NCT00423592|183786890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.45||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||5.8|0.1|0.046
91944682|NCT00423592|183786891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.3|1.7|0.003
91944683|NCT00423592|183786892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.41||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.2|-0.1|0.059
91944684|NCT00423592|183786893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.96||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||9.3|-1.5|0.152
91944685|NCT00423592|183786894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.78||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||6.2|1.7|0.001
91944686|NCT00062647|183786895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No margin was justified owing to the exploratory nature of the investigation.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||||95.0|-35.5|31.9|||the difference in the 2 eradication rate|Statistical testing was limited to interval estimation (95% CI) of the difference in the 2 eradication rates using the method of Agresti and Caffo.||||31.9|-35.5|
91944687|NCT00255008|183786905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of patients (%)|80.0||||||95.0|28.36|99.49||||||||99.49|28.36|
91944688|NCT00255008|183786905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of patients (%)|76.47||||||95.0|50.1|93.19||||||||93.19|50.10|
91944689|NCT00255008|183786905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of patients (%)|87.5||||||95.0|47.35|99.48||||||||99.48|47.35|
91944690|NCT02583360|183786912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91816879|NCT01480076|183509752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.0876|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0876
91816880|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0281
91944691|NCT02583360|183786913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.907
91944692|NCT02583360|183786914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.592
91944693|NCT01682759|183786932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Omarigliptin was considered non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-treatment difference in least-squares (LS) means for change from baseline in A1C at Week 54 (omarigliptin vs. glimepiride) was lower than 0.35%.|Difference in the least squares means|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|||0.30|0.06|
91944694|NCT01682759|183786933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method; the 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||0.1|-13.9|
91944695|NCT01682759|183786934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method; the 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||3.8|-1.6|
91944696|NCT01682759|183786935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.2|||||cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups|||11.2|0.1|
91944697|NCT01682759|183786936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference (%)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.3|||||Between-group CIs are calculated via Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|A1C \<6.5%||3.3|-10.6|
91944698|NCT01682759|183786937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-16.4|||Difference in percentages||Miettinen \& Nurminen method; the 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||-16.4|-26.5|<0.001
91944699|NCT01682759|183786938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||Difference in the least squares means||cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
91944700|NCT01682759|183786939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-2.8|||||Between-group CIs are calculated via Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|A1C \< 7.0%||-2.8|-17.8|
91944701|NCT01855919|183786943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-0.77|0.0026
91944702|NCT01855919|183786944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.48|0.0026
91944703|NCT01855919|183786945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.25|0.0439
91944704|NCT01855919|183786946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06||p-value is for worst pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.66|0.1010
91944705|NCT01855919|183786946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.21||p-value is for least pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.79|0.0009
91944706|NCT01855919|183786946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05||p-value is for Pain Right Now|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.74|0.0230
91944707|NCT01855919|183786946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.05||p-value is for General Activity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.66|0.0874
91944708|NCT01855919|183786946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01||p-value is for Mood|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.63|0.0436
91944709|NCT01855919|183786946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.18||p-value is for Walking Ability|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.45|0.3902
91944710|NCT01855919|183786946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.33||p-value is for Normal Work|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.33|0.9910
91944711|NCT01855919|183786946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23||p-value is for Relationship People|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.30|0.7848
91944712|NCT01855919|183786946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.3||p-value is for Sleep|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.32|0.9424
91944713|NCT01855919|183786946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.27||p-value is for Enjoyment of Life|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.35|0.7932
91944714|NCT01855919|183786946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.3761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15||p-value is for Average of 7 Items|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.40|0.3761
91944715|NCT01855919|183786947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13||p-value is for Average Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.71|0.0049
91944716|NCT01855919|183786947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||p-value is for Worst pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.69|0.0442
91944717|NCT01855919|183786948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.53||p-value is for ≥30%|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.53|1.13|0.0003
91944718|NCT01855919|183786948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.75||p-value is for ≥50%|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.75|1.18|0.0003
91944719|NCT01855919|183786949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.58|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.58|1.12|0.0012
91944720|NCT01855919|183786950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.46|0.0019
91944721|NCT01855919|183786951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.03|0.3012
91944722|NCT01855919|183786952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|3.47||p-value for Physical Functioning|ANCOVA|||||3.47|-0.93|0.2581
91944723|NCT01855919|183786952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|3.79||p-value for Role (Physical)|ANCOVA|||||3.79|-2.62|0.7208
91944724|NCT01855919|183786952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|4.19||p-value for Bodily Pain|ANCOVA|||||4.19|-1.09|0.2487
91944725|NCT01855919|183786952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.31||p-value for General Health|ANCOVA|||||5.31|0.57|0.0151
91944726|NCT01855919|183786952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.85||p-value for Vitality|ANCOVA|||||3.85|-1.54|0.4000
91944727|NCT01855919|183786952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|4.43||p-value for Social Functioning|ANCOVA|||||4.43|-1.17|0.2529
91944728|NCT01855919|183786952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.75||p-value for Role(Emotional)|ANCOVA|||||2.75|-3.55|0.8042
91944729|NCT01855919|183786952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.48||p-value is for Mental Health|ANCOVA|||||5.48|0.94|0.0058
91944730|NCT01855919|183786953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.02|0.5237
91944731|NCT01855919|183786954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0||p-value for Work time missed|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.05|0.0460
91944732|NCT01855919|183786954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||p-value for Impairment at work|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.08|0.0753
91944733|NCT01855919|183786954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||p-value for Work productivity loss|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.08|0.0795
91944734|NCT01855919|183786954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||p-value for Work activity impairment|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.06|0.1466
91944735|NCT00908895|183786961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|70.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We assess that 15% is a significative strength difference. According to a 80% study power, a SD at 25% and a 20% lost to follow-up, we found 118 patients for the all study.||||<0.05
91944736|NCT00908895|183786962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|90.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0|<|0.05||95.0|80.0|100.0|||Chi-squared|||||100|80|<0.05
91944737|NCT03350724|183786963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.039
91944738|NCT03350724|183786964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.037
91944739|NCT03350724|183786965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|||||||0.032
91944740|NCT03350724|183786966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.171
91944741|NCT03350724|183786967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.484
91944742|NCT03350724|183786968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.368
91944743|NCT03350724|183786969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.308
91944744|NCT03350724|183786970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.999
91944745|NCT03350724|183786971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.015
91944746|NCT03350724|183786972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.021
91944747|NCT03350724|183786973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.035
91944748|NCT03350724|183786974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.444
91944749|NCT03350724|183786975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.765
91944750|NCT03350724|183786976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.941
91944751|NCT03350724|183786977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.421
91944752|NCT03350724|183786978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.357
91944753|NCT03350724|183786979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.22
91944754|NCT03350724|183786980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.882
91944755|NCT03350724|183786981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.64
91944756|NCT03350724|183786982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.967
91944757|NCT03350724|183786983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.375
91944758|NCT04806165|183786999|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.309|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the motivational interviewing (MI) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.309
91944759|NCT04806165|183786999|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the personalized recommendation (PR) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.190
91944760|NCT04806165|183786999|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the psychoeducation (PE) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.690
91816881|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0654
91816882|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3400
91944761|NCT04806165|183786999|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the repeated administration (RA) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||0.038
91944762|NCT04806165|183786999|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.735|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis provides results on the 2 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on treatment receipt, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.735
91944763|NCT04806165|183786999|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis provides results on the 6 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on treatment receipt, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.001
91944764|NCT04806165|183786999|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis provides results on the 14 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on treatment receipt, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.014
91944765|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|Gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables to improve imputation quality. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. For sensitivity analysis, models were run again using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.53||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on secondary outcomes. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the motivational interviewing component (MI) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns their disordered weight and shape behaviors and thoughts since engagement with the intervention. Linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||||0.25
91944766|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.36||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on willingness to seek psychotherapy. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the psychoeducation component (PE) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||0.44
91944767|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on willingness to seek psychotherapy. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the personalized recommendation component (PR) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||0.44
91944768|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.29||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on willingness to seek psychotherapy. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the repeated administration component (RA) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||0.53
91944769|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.53||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis provides results on the 2 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on willingness to seek psychotherapy, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on).||||0.07
91944770|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-1.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis provides results on the 6 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on willingness to seek psychotherapy, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on).||||0.01
91944771|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.85||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis provides results on the 14 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on willingness to seek psychotherapy, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on).||||0.042
91944772|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.08||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.89
91944773|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.34||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.69
91944774|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.69||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.40
91944775|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.35||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.55
91944776|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.88||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.32
91944777|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.37||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.63
91816883|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0012
91816884|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7490
91944778|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.90
91944779|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.95||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.27
91944780|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.67||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.42
91944781|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|1.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.04
91944782|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|1.22||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Multilevel Models|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.16
91816885|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.3592|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3592
91816886|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0015
91944783|NCT04806165|183787000|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.99
91944784|NCT04806165|183787001|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the time effect of attitudinal changes over the 14 week course of the study, regardless of the combination of components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Results will help determine whether mean participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns varied based on the time elapsed since engagement with the intervention (ie., do attitudinal changes post-inntervention endure over time?).||||<.001
91944785|NCT04806165|183787001|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.026
91944786|NCT04806165|183787001|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.465|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.465
91944787|NCT04806165|183787001|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.536|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.536
91816887|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2967|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2967
91816888|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.8735|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8735
91944788|NCT04806165|183787001|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.049
91944789|NCT02059174|183787007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A frailty model was used with effects for treatment, period and sequence and a random effect for participant. A value of 1.00 for the hazard ratio corresponds to no difference between treatments.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.59|||||ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|Because numerous participants did not achieve End of Action within the 30-hour clamp timeframe, the pre-specified hypothesis of similarity with regard to mean DOA could not be tested and a survival analysis approach was undertaken. The hazard rate is a measure of the instantaneous risk of reaching End of Action at time t given End of Action has not been met up until time t, with the hazard ratio being an estimate of the relative difference in hazard rates between treatments.||1.59|0.72|
91944790|NCT02059174|183787008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.01|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.01|0.88|
91944791|NCT02059174|183787009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||0.99|0.81|
91944792|NCT02059174|183787010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.06|0.92|
91944793|NCT02059174|183787011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.02|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.02|0.91|
91944794|NCT02059174|183787012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.02|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.02|0.91|
91944795|NCT02059174|183787013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.03|0.93|
91944796|NCT02059174|183787014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.97|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||0.97|0.86|
91816889|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1696|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1696
91816890|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0089
91944797|NCT02059174|183787015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.04|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.04|0.95|
91944798|NCT01196936|183787017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The calculated p-value is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91944799|NCT01196936|183787018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0266
91944800|NCT01196936|183787019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91944801|NCT01196936|183787020|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91944802|NCT01196936|183787021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91944803|NCT01196936|183787022|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
91944804|NCT01196936|183787023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.071
91944805|NCT01196936|183787024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.739
91944806|NCT01196936|183787025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8315|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8315
91944807|NCT03229538|183787026|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.86||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.05|0.71|0.14
91944808|NCT03229538|183787026|OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank = 97||0.9|-2.6|
91944809|NCT03229538|183787026|OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.5|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 96||0.5|-3.5|
91944810|NCT03229538|183787026|OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.1|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 95||0.1|-4.4|
91944811|NCT03229538|183787026|OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.7|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 94||2.7|-4.3|
91944812|NCT03229538|183787026|OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.2|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 93||0.2|-7.8|
91944813|NCT03229538|183787026|OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.9|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 92||0.9|-7.8|
91944814|NCT03229538|183787026|OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.3|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 91||1.3|-7.5|
91944815|NCT03229538|183787027|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.74||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|0.34|0.428
91944816|NCT03229538|183787028|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.83||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.61|0.228
91944817|NCT03229538|183787029|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone over placebo.|Percent Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4||||||||0.4|-4.0|
91944818|NCT03229538|183787030|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone over placebo.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.79||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|0.50|0.309
91944819|NCT03229538|183787031|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone over placebo.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.91||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|0.52|0.723
91944820|NCT03229538|183787033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.86||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.67|0.256
91944821|NCT02511106|183787039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.3|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.30|0.18|<0.0001
91944822|NCT02511106|183787040|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.34|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.34|0.21|<0.0001
91944823|NCT02511106|183787043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4913||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.3307|0.7299|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.7299|0.3307|0.0004
91944824|NCT02511106|183787044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4912|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.3439|0.7017|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.7017|0.3439|<0.0001
91944825|NCT00723489|183787078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.2|-0.3|0.86
91944826|NCT00723489|183787079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.2|-0.2|0.86
91944827|NCT00723489|183787080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.05||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.05|-0.5|0.10
91944828|NCT00723489|183787081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.3|-0.2|0.66
91944829|NCT00723489|183787082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91944830|NCT00723489|183787083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
91944831|NCT00723489|183787084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|0.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|This analysis excludes 1 SC-(AD) participant who did not seroconvert. Only participants who had peripheral blood T-cell samples collected from Day 0 to Day 30 as specified in the Outcome Measure Time Frame were included in analysis (1 SC -(Non-AD) participant was excluded). T-cell data from 3 SC-(Non-AD) and 1 SC-(AD) participant was excluded due to problems with sample processing||0.3|-0.1|0.48
91944832|NCT00723489|183787085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|-0.3||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|Participants who did not seroconvert were excluded from this analysis (2 TC-(AD) and 5 TC-(Non-AD)). T-cell data from 4 TC-(AD) and 3 TC-(Non-AD) subjects was excluded due to problems with sample processing||-0.02|-0.5|0.036
91944833|NCT00723489|183787086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|0.04||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|This analysis excludes 1 SC-(AD) participant who did not seroconvert. Only participants who had peripheral blood T-cell samples collected from Day 0 to Day 30 as specified in the Outcome Measure Time Frame were included in analysis (1 SC -(Non-AD) participant was excluded). T-cell data from 3 SC-(Non-AD) and 1 SC-(AD) participant was excluded due to problems with sample processing||0.4|-0.3|0.82
91944834|NCT00723489|183787087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|-0.4||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.01||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|Participants who did not seroconvert were excluded from this analysis (2 TC-(AD) and 5 TC-(Non-AD)). T-cell data from 4 TC-(AD) and 3 TC-(Non-AD) subjects was excluded due to problems with sample processing||-0.01|-0.7|0.045
91944835|NCT02274311|183787089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Measures of central tendency (mean) and variability (range and/or SD) were used to describe numeric variables. Paired Student's t test was used to verify the mean differences between dependent normally distributed variables. Wilcoxon sign test was performed to non-normally distributed dependent variables.~Asignificance level of 5%was adopted for all statistical tests (P \<.05)."||||< 0.05
91944836|NCT01955005|183787162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||This was a 2x2 comparison using Fisher's exact due to low expected cell count. Fisher's exact p\<0.001||||<0.001
91944837|NCT01955005|183787163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Z score|568.5||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91944838|NCT01955005|183787164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Table Probability|0.0142||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's Exact|||||||0.02
91944839|NCT01200758|183787172|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior Ctrough in SC formulation was demonstrated, if the lower bound of 90% confidence interval (CI) was above 0.8.|Geometric mean ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|1.94|||||Geometric mean ratio adjusted for tumor load at baseline.|||1.94|1.36|
91944840|NCT01200758|183787173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-4.82||||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|4.4|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.4|-14.0|0.2835
91944841|NCT01200758|183787173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.33||||||||1.33|0.38|
91944842|NCT01200758|183787174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|7.66||||0.2047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|20.3|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||20.3|-5.0|0.2047
91944843|NCT01200758|183787174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.71||||||||5.71|0.68|
91944844|NCT01200758|183787175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-0.49||||0.8911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson.|||6.8|-7.7|0.8911
91944845|NCT01200758|183787175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.65||||||||1.65|0.56|
91944846|NCT01200758|183787176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CRR|17.86||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|35.0|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||35.0|0.8|0.0335
91944847|NCT01200758|183787176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.78||||||||4.78|1.06|
91816891|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0297|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0297
91816892|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8806|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8806
91944848|NCT01200758|183787177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-6.58||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|4.6|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.6|-17.8|0.2331
91944849|NCT01200758|183787177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.22||||||||1.22|0.44|
91944850|NCT01200758|183787178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|0.49||||0.9157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||9.8|-8.8|0.9157
91944851|NCT01200758|183787178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.51||||||||1.51|0.66|
91944852|NCT01200758|183787179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.28||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|3.5|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||3.5|-18.0|0.1715
91944853|NCT01200758|183787179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.22||||||||1.22|0.52|
91944854|NCT01200758|183787180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-0.18||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|8.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||8.8|-9.2|0.9671
91944855|NCT01200758|183787180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.64||||||||1.64|0.60|
91944856|NCT01200758|183787182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26|||Wald test|||||1.26|0.64|0.5526
91944857|NCT01200758|183787184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36|||Wald test|||||1.36|0.71|0.9115
91944858|NCT01200758|183787187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.53||||||The ratio of observed rituximab serum was determined as AUC SC/AUC IV during Cycle 7 of induction treatment.||1.53|1.24|
91944859|NCT01200758|183787188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.015||||||||1.015|0.872|
91944860|NCT01828567|183787217|OTHER|A logistic regression model was used. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement prevention program enrollment between the usual care and intervention arms by month 6.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|||The first primary outcome is the cumulative enrollment in prevention programs over the six months of follow up. This will be assessed via self-report at months 1 and 6. As defined by the eligibility criteria, all patients will have a value of 0 at baseline.||3.89|1.66|<.0001
91944861|NCT01828567|183787219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.7||A general linear model with an unstructured covariance matrix to take into account the within-patient correlation between repeated measures over time.|Repeated Measures|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means.|We estimate the parameters in the model using the SAS procedure MIXED (SAS Version 9.4, Cary, NC). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement in PAM scores between the usual care and intervention arms at 1 month.|For the primary hypothesis we will be examining the effect during the 1-month long intervention delivery period.||3.7|-0.8|0.204
91944862|NCT01828567|183787220|EQUIVALENCE|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means, which is appropriate for a randomized controlled trial and is equivalent in efficiency to an ANCOVA model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.7||A general Linear model with an unstructured covariance matrix to take into account the within-patient correlation between repeated measures over time. For the primary hypothesis we will be assessing sustainability at 6 months.|Repeated Measures|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means.|We estimate the parameters in the model using the SAS procedure MIXED (SAS Version 9.4, Cary, NC). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement in PAM scores between the usual care and intervention arms at 6 month.|||4.7|0.2|0.030
91944863|NCT01828567|183787222|EQUIVALENCE|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2|||Repeated Measures|A general linear model with an unstructured covariance matrix to take into account the within-patient correlation between repeated measures over time.|We estimate the parameters in the model using the SAS procedure MIXED (SAS Version 9.4, Cary, NC). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement in FRS scores between the usual care and intervention arms at 6 month.|Our secondary outcome of interest is the Framingham Risk Score, measured at baseline and month 6.||2.2|-0.7|0.330
91944864|NCT01099761|183787227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.023
91944865|NCT01099761|183787227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
91944866|NCT01099761|183787227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.435|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.435
91944867|NCT01099761|183787228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.039
91944868|NCT03325010|183787235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.0||Nominal p-value is considered statistically significant if less than 0.05. To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-5.2|0.1768
91944869|NCT03325010|183787236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value for this outcome measure would only be evaluated for statistical significance if the primary outcome measure was statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.6|0.1095
91944870|NCT03325010|183787237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value for this outcome measure would only be evaluated for statistical significance if the primary and preceding secondary outcome measures were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight group (\<50 kg, ≥50 kg).||||||0.8190
91944871|NCT03325010|183787238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value for this outcome measure would only be evaluated for statistical significance if the primary and preceding secondary outcome measures were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight group (\<50 kg, ≥50 kg)||||||0.0008
91944872|NCT02614261|183787239|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.26|-2.92|<.001
91944873|NCT02614261|183787239|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.05|-2.71|<.001
91816893|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2170
91944874|NCT02614261|183787240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.623||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.167|2.256|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%,||2.256|1.167|.004
91944875|NCT02614261|183787240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.788|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|2.474|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||2.474|1.291|<.001
91944876|NCT02614261|183787240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.498||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|2.43|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||2.430|0.923|.102
91944877|NCT02614261|183787240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.819||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|2.888|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||2.888|1.146|.011
91944878|NCT02614261|183787240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.761||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|3.563|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||3.563|0.163|0.729
91944879|NCT02614261|183787240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.897||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.998|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||5.998|0.600|.276
91944880|NCT02614261|183787241|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|7.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.99|2.12|<.001
91944881|NCT02614261|183787241|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|9.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.55|3.03|<.001
91944882|NCT02614261|183787242|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.76|-3.27|<.001
91944883|NCT02614261|183787242|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.26|-2.77|<.001
91944884|NCT02614261|183787243|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.34|.181
91944885|NCT02614261|183787243|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-0.48|.006
91944886|NCT02614261|183787244|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-22.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.74|-13.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.69|-31.74|<.001
91944887|NCT02614261|183787244|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|-9.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.09|-27.09|<.001
91944888|NCT02614261|183787245|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.39|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-16.39|.025
91944889|NCT02614261|183787245|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.12|||ANCOVA|||||2.12|-13.10|.157
91944890|NCT02614261|183787246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.263
91944891|NCT02614261|183787246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.290
91944892|NCT00113555|183787288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|-1.003|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks test was used to determine the significance of differences between scores at follow-up compared to pre-implant.||-1.003|-1.325|<0.001
91944893|NCT04474366|183787297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
91944894|NCT01700140|183787307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91944895|NCT01700140|183787307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2284|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2284
91944896|NCT01700140|183787307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2549|||||||Cochran-Armitage test|||||||0.2549
91944897|NCT01700140|183787308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91944898|NCT01700140|183787308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1527|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1527
91944899|NCT01700140|183787308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1864|||||||Cochran-Armitage test|||||||0.1864
91944900|NCT01700140|183787309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|3.172|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||3.172|0.266|0.8361
91944901|NCT01700140|183787309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.423||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|1.237|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||1.237|0.144|0.0724
91944902|NCT01700140|183787310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|2.388|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||2.388|0.616|0.6466
91944903|NCT01700140|183787310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|1.21|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||1.210|0.566|0.2701
91944904|NCT01700140|183787311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the first irradiation||||1.0000
91944905|NCT01700140|183787311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the first irradiation||||0.1051
91944906|NCT01700140|183787311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4856|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the second irradiation||||0.4856
91944907|NCT01700140|183787311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the second irradiation||||0.1047
91944908|NCT01700140|183787311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the third irradiation||||0.1617
91944909|NCT01700140|183787311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the third irradiation||||0.3099
91944910|NCT01700140|183787312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the first irradiation||||1.0000
91944911|NCT01700140|183787312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the first irradiation||||0.1051
91944912|NCT01700140|183787312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the second irradiation||||0.6761
91944913|NCT01700140|183787312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3513|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the second irradiation||||0.3513
91944914|NCT01700140|183787312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the third irradiation||||0.2060
91944915|NCT01700140|183787312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the third irradiation||||0.0511
91944916|NCT00864123|183787434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Data were analyzed with separate 2 (site: Florida, MGH) by 2 (condition: CBT+DCS, CBT+Placebo) by 3 (time: pre-treatment, mid-treatment, post-treatment; Dependent variables: CY-BOCS Total Score) fixed-effects linear regression with time as the repeated measure. Cohen's d was used to examine the magnitude of treatment effects.||||<0.05
91944917|NCT00864123|183787435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Data were analyzed with separate 2 (site: Florida, MGH) by 2 (condition: CBT+DCS, CBT+Placebo) by 3 (time: pre-treatment, mid-treatment, post-treatment; Dependent variables: CGI-Severity) fixed-effects linear regression with time as the repeated measure. Cohen's d was used to examine the magnitude of treatment effects.||||<0.05
91944918|NCT03455530|183787449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio based on the mean difference from the log scale.|||1.19|0.45|
91944919|NCT03455530|183787449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio based on the mean difference from the log scale.|||3.24|0.55|
91944920|NCT04221945|183787486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87||One sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by planned type of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), stage at screening, and planned total radiotherapy dose.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||0.87|0.59|0.0004
91944921|NCT04221945|183787487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94||One sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by planned type of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), stage at screening, and planned total radiotherapy dose.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||0.94|0.57|0.0076
91944922|NCT04221945|183787488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by planned type of EBRT, stage at screening, and planned total radiotherapy dose.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||0.89|0.58|0.0011
91944923|NCT04221945|183787489|OTHER||Difference in Survival Rate|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|16.7|||||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo|||16.7|5.1|
91944924|NCT04221945|183787490|OTHER||Difference in Survival Rate|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|13.5|||||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo|||13.5|2.3|
91944925|NCT04221945|183787491|OTHER||Difference in Survival Rate|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|12.5|||||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo|||12.5|2.3|
91944926|NCT04221945|183787492|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.3||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.1|||One-sided p-value for testing||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by planned type of EBRT, Stage at screening and planned total radiotherapy dose.|9.1|-2.5|0.1307
91944927|NCT04221945|183787493|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.7||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.7|||One-sided p-value for testing||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by planned type of EBRT, Stage at screening and planned total radiotherapy dose.|6.7|-5.2|0.4082
91944928|NCT04221945|183787494|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.6||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.9|||One-sided p-value for testing.||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by planned type of EBRT, Stage at screening and planned total radiotherapy dose.|7.9|-0.7|0.0496
91944929|NCT04221945|183787495|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.2||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.9|||One-sided p-value for testing.||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by planned type of EBRT, Stage at screening and planned total radiotherapy dose.|5.9|-1.5|0.1244
91944930|NCT04221945|183787496|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||One-sided p-value|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||0.89|0.59|0.0010
91944931|NCT04221945|183787497|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9||One-sided p-value|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||0.90|0.58|0.0016
91944932|NCT04221945|183787498|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.95||One-sided p-value|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||0.95|0.56|0.0083
91944933|NCT04221945|183787499|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.88||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by planned type of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), stage at screening, and planned total radiotherapy dose.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||0.88|0.54|0.0015
91944934|NCT04221945|183787500|OTHER||Difference LS Means|0.07||||0.9593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.8|||cLDA model||Pembrolizumab minus placebo||Based on a cLDA model with the patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratified by planned type of EBRT.|2.80|-2.66|0.9593
91944935|NCT04221945|183787501|OTHER||Difference LS Means|0.68||||0.5145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.71|||cLDA model||Pembrolizumab minus placebo||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratified by planned type of EBRT.|2.71|-1.36|0.5145
91944936|NCT04221945|183787502|OTHER||Difference LS Means|0.75||||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.15|||cLDA model||Pembrolizumab minus placebo||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratified by planned type of EBRT.|2.15|-0.65|0.2953
91816894|NCT01480076|183509753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.2392|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2392
91944937|NCT05740566|183787564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|0.768||P-value is calculated using a stratified log-rank test.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratios and 95% CIs are estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model; a hazard ratio \<1.0 indicates a better survival of tarlatamab arm.|||0.768|0.468|<0.001
91944938|NCT06210035|183787608|SUPERIORITY||F test|6.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91944939|NCT06210035|183787609|SUPERIORITY||F test|0.78||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.460
91944940|NCT06210035|183787610|SUPERIORITY||F test|2.13||||0.127|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.127
91944941|NCT06210035|183787611|SUPERIORITY||F test|0.004||||0.952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.952
91944942|NCT01029691|183787613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||unadjusted systolic blood pressure at baseline between groups||||0.45
91944943|NCT01029691|183787613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted diastolic blood pressure at baseline between groups||||0.66
91944944|NCT01029691|183787613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted systolic blood pressure at week 1||||0.61
91944945|NCT01029691|183787613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted diastolic blood pressure at week 1||||0.75
91944946|NCT01029691|183787614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.085
91944947|NCT01029691|183787615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91944948|NCT01029691|183787619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4
91944949|NCT05492877|183787645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.071||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.869|1.32|||Regression, Cox||||The p-value was based on a 2-sided log rank test stratified by region|1.320|0.869|0.599
91944950|NCT05492877|183787648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.234|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.882|1.726|||Regression, Cox|||||1.726|0.882|
91944951|NCT03737318|183787766|SUPERIORITY||Treatment × Time interaction (β)|106.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.06|149.76||Two-sided test of the treatment × time interaction. Alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Linear||Sign convention: A more positive β indicates a more positive Session 1→3 slope in the traditional treatment group relative to the biofeedback group (reference level).|Following our preregistered statistical analysis plan, the visual-acoustic and ultrasound biofeedback groups were pooled for comparison of biofeedback versus traditional treatment.||149.76|63.06|< .0001
91944952|NCT03737318|183787767|SUPERIORITY||Treatment × Time (linear) interaction (β|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-1.4||Two-sided test of the treatment × time interaction. Alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Test of treatment × time (Pre, Post) interaction.|Sign convention: Negative β indicates a smaller linear time slope in the traditional treatment group relative to the biofeedback group (reference level)|Following our preregistered statistical analysis plan, the visual-acoustic and ultrasound biofeedback groups were pooled for comparison of biofeedback versus traditional treatment.||-1.40|-4.85|< .001
91944953|NCT03737318|183787768|SUPERIORITY||Treatment × Time linear interaction (β)|0.0147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0594||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||Two-sided test of the treatment × time interaction. Alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Test of treatment (Traditional vs biofeedback) × linear time.|Sign convention: positive β indicates a larger linear time slope in the traditional group relative to the biofeedback group (reference level)|Following our preregistered statistical analysis plan, the visual-acoustic and ultrasound biofeedback groups were pooled for comparison of biofeedback versus traditional treatment.||0.13|-0.10|.80
91944954|NCT01603628|183787804|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|-0.063||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.063|-0.453|0.010
91944955|NCT01603628|183787804|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|-0.018||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.018|-0.405|0.033
91944956|NCT01603628|183787805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.532||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.532|0.040|0.023
91944957|NCT01603628|183787805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.374||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.374|-0.115|0.299
91944958|NCT01603628|183787806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.704||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.704|0.126|0.005
91944959|NCT01603628|183787806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.573||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.573|0.004|0.047
91944960|NCT01603628|183787806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.756||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.756|0.145|0.004
91944961|NCT01603628|183787806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.74||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.740|0.141|0.004
91944962|NCT01603628|183787806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.797||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.797|0.191|0.001
91944963|NCT01603628|183787806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.541||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.541|-0.081|0.153
91944964|NCT01603628|183787806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.711||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.711|0.100|0.010
91944965|NCT01603628|183787806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.571||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.571|-0.031|0.078
91944966|NCT01603628|183787807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.99||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.768|0.779||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2||0.779|-4.768|0.158
91944967|NCT01603628|183787807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.974|-0.524||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2||-0.524|-5.974|0.020
91816895|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0219|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0219
91944968|NCT01603628|183787807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.489|1.648||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||1.648|-4.489|0.363
91944969|NCT01603628|183787807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.11||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.127|0.914||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.914|-5.127|0.171
91944970|NCT01603628|183787807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.143|-0.525||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6||-0.525|-6.143|0.020
91816896|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1259|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1259
91944971|NCT01603628|183787807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.92||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.688|-1.148||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6||-1.148|-6.688|0.006
91944972|NCT01603628|183787807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.07||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.621|1.491||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||1.491|-5.621|0.254
91944973|NCT01603628|183787807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.935|1.014||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||1.014|-5.935|0.165
91944974|NCT01603628|183787807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.61||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.517|0.296||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.296|-5.517|0.078
91944975|NCT01603628|183787807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.09||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.944|1.758||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||1.758|-3.944|0.451
91944976|NCT01930487|183787808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0016
91944977|NCT01930487|183787809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0249|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0249
91944978|NCT01930487|183787810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.9147|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.9147
91944979|NCT01930487|183787811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0070
91944980|NCT01930487|183787812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sidede||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||<0.0001
91944981|NCT01930487|183787813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0476
91944982|NCT01930487|183787814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0352|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0352
91816897|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.5312|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5312
91816898|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0022
91816899|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4968|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4968
91944983|NCT01930487|183787815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0208|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0208
91944984|NCT01930487|183787816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||<0.0001
91944985|NCT01930487|183787817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0024
91944986|NCT01930487|183787818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0081
91944987|NCT01930487|183787819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.8191|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.8191
91944988|NCT01930487|183787820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0482
91944989|NCT01930487|183787821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0230
91944990|NCT01930487|183787822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.1202|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.1202
91944991|NCT01930487|183787823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0063
91944992|NCT01930487|183787824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.3347|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3347
91944993|NCT01930487|183787825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0094
91944994|NCT01930487|183787826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0009
91944995|NCT01930487|183787827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0067
91944996|NCT01930487|183787828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6938|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.6938
91944997|NCT01930487|183787829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0805|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0805
91944998|NCT01930487|183787830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2451|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.2451
91816900|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.6283|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6283
91816901|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0016
91816902|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6631|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6631
91816903|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.477|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4770
91816904|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4027|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4027
91816905|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1077|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1077
91944999|NCT01930487|183787831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0323|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0323
91945000|NCT01930487|183787832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.344|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3440
91945001|NCT01930487|183787833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0119|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0119
91816906|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.98||0.1781|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1781
91816907|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2422|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2422
91945002|NCT01930487|183787834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||<0.0001
91945003|NCT01930487|183787835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0137
91945004|NCT01930487|183787836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0866|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0866
91945005|NCT01930487|183787837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0656|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0656
91945006|NCT01930487|183787838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0626|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0626
91945007|NCT01930487|183787839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.8100
91945008|NCT01930487|183787840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9556|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.9556
91945009|NCT01930487|183787841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.3414|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3414
91945010|NCT01930487|183787842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0330
91945011|NCT01930487|183787843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3326|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3326
91945012|NCT01930487|183787844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0348|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0348
91945013|NCT01930487|183787845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2089|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.2089
91945014|NCT01930487|183787846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3738|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3738
91945015|NCT01930487|183787847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.447|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.4470
91945016|NCT01930487|183787848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.6382|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.6382
91945017|NCT01930487|183787849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||paird t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0026
91945018|NCT01930487|183787850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.1045|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.1045
91816908|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0994|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0994
91816909|NCT01480076|183509754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.2194|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2194
91945019|NCT01930487|183787851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.6941|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.6941
91945020|NCT01930487|183787852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0138|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0138
91945021|NCT02711553|183787853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.904|1.395||p-value is 2-sided.|Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.395|0.904|0.4821
91945022|NCT02711553|183787853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.734|1.153||p-value is 2-sided.|Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.153|0.734|0.6417
91945023|NCT02711553|183787854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.336||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.862|||Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.862|0.959|0.0870
91945024|NCT02711553|183787854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.342|||Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.342|0.669|0.7599
91945025|NCT02711553|183787855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||1.9|0.6|0.878
91945026|NCT02711553|183787855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||0.9|0.2|0.023
91945027|NCT02711553|183787856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||2.4|0.6|0.680
91945028|NCT02711553|183787856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.6|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||2.6|0.6|0.499
91945029|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.09||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|MMRM Model|Least Squares (LS) Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||PWB||0.09|-2.28|0.069
91945030|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.04||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||PWB||-0.04|-2.42|0.042
91945031|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.19||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||SWB||0.19|-1.83|0.112
91945032|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.67||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||SWB||0.67|-1.35|0.505
91945033|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.17||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||EWB||0.17|-1.56|0.116
91945034|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.59||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||EWB||0.59|-1.16|0.521
91945035|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.44||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FWB||-0.44|-2.87|0.008
91945036|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.62||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FWB||0.62|-1.82|0.335
91945037|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-1.18||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||HCS||-1.18|-4.69|0.001
91945038|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.12||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||HCS||0.12|-3.40|0.068
91945039|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.0||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FACT-Hep||0.00|-2.04|0.051
91945040|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.38||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FACT-Hep||0.38|-1.68|0.212
91945041|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-2.04||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||TOI||-2.04|-9.30|0.002
91945042|NCT02711553|183787860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|0.22||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||TOI||0.22|-7.07|0.066
91945043|NCT03399786|183787904|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-33.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||Confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of least squares (LS) means using mixed-effect model repeat measurement (MMRM), randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||-33.1|-65.0|< 0.0001
91945044|NCT03399786|183787905|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-36.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-25.2|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated Apo B value.||-25.2|-48.6|< 0.0001
91945045|NCT03399786|183787906|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-38.5|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated non-HDL-C value.||-38.5|-64.8|< 0.0001
91945046|NCT03399786|183787907|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-48.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|-38.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated TC value.||-38.1|-58.7|< 0.0001
91945047|NCT03399786|183787908|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|110.5|||Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for secondary endpoints in pre-specified order to control type I error.Testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05.Multiple imputation addressed missing data at week 24.Combined estimate for odds ratio obtained by Rubin's formulae.Logistic regression models stratified by randomized strata include fixed categorical effect of treatment group \& continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C.||110.5|5.7|< 0.0001
91945048|NCT03399786|183787909|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|24.2|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|195.6|||Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for secondary endpoints in pre-specified order to control type I error.Testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05.Multiple imputation addressed missing data at week 24.Combined estimate for odds ratio obtained by Rubin's formulae.Logistic regression models stratified by randomized strata include fixed categorical effect of treatment group \& continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C.||195.6|3.0|= 0.0028
91945049|NCT03399786|183787910|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-132.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.3|-88.9|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||-88.9|-175.3|< 0.0001
91945050|NCT03399786|183787911|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||=|0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3|||Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by using Rubin's formulae. Logistic regression models stratified the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||1.3|0|= 0.0845
91945051|NCT03399786|183787912|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7|||=|0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|24.9||The p-value is nominal for descriptive purpose only due to statistical hypothesis testing terminated previously.|Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by using Rubin's formulae. Logistic regression models stratified the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||24.9|1.3|= 0.0203
91816910|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945052|NCT03399786|183787913|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||The p-value is nominal for descriptive purpose only due to statistical hypothesis testing terminated previously.|Logistic Regression Models Analysis|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by using Rubin's formulae. Logistic regression models stratified the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||0.3|0.0|= 0.0004
91945053|NCT01928186|183787942|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|the mid-P adjustment to Fisher's exact test||Association between response assessed by Ki-67 protein staining (i.e. \< 10% positive cells in the surgical sample) and by the influx constant Ki decline (i.e. 30 % or larger decline between the baseline and post-therapy FLT PET) was analyzed using the mid-P adjustment to Fisher's exact test.||||0.51
91945054|NCT04540627|183787956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5802
91945055|NCT04540627|183787957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4868|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4868
91945056|NCT04540627|183787958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2681|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2681
91945057|NCT04540627|183787959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2431
91945058|NCT04540627|183787964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4868|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4868
91945059|NCT04540627|183787966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0403
91945060|NCT00211536|183788012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the average A1C, the goal was to show non-inferiority of MIP compared to SC. The minimal clinically relevant increase in A1C (%) was set at 0.50%. The between-subjects standard deviation of A1C was assumed to be 1.0% based on previous studies.|Least square means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures analysis of variance, adjusting for baseline A1C using SAS Proc Mixed to compare A1C trends over time between the treatment groups||Sample size calculations were performed on the primary endpoint: the average glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C). Sample size was estimated using a two-sample, one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.05. The projected sample size of 50 subjects per treatment group provides 79% power to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the average A1C in both the MIP and SC groups are equivalent, assuming an effect size of 0.50% and a standard deviation of 1.0%.||0.5||<0.05
91945061|NCT00805194|183788043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.92|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, Confidence Interval (CI) and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||0.92|0.68|0.0019
91816911|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0860
91816912|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0010
91816913|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945062|NCT00805194|183788044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.92||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat. had 2), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||"The overall alpha level followed a Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming shape parameter to preserve an overall 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.~HR below 1 favors nintedanib"|"Hierarchical testing was tested in a fixed sequence of statistical hypotheses in (1) patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first-line therapy, (2) patients with adenocarcinoma, and (3) all patients. Each hypothesis could be only tested at the pre-specified alpha level if the previous null hypothesis in the testing sequence had been rejected.~Overall survival for patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first line therapy."||0.92|0.60|0.0073
91945063|NCT00805194|183788044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat. had 2), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||"The overall alpha level followed a Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming shape parameter to preserve an overall 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.~HR below 1 favors nintedanib"|"Hierarchical testing was tested in a fixed sequence of statistical hypotheses in (1) patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first-line therapy, (2) patients with adenocarcinoma, and (3) all patients. Each hypothesis could be only tested at the pre-specified alpha level if the previous null hypothesis in the testing sequence had been rejected.~Overall survival for patients with adenocarcinoma."||0.99|0.70|0.0359
91945064|NCT00805194|183788044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.05||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat. had 2), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||The overall alpha level followed a Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming shape parameter to preserve an overall 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. HR below 1 favors nintedanib|"Hierarchical testing was tested in a fixed sequence of statistical hypotheses in (1) patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first-line therapy, (2) patients with adenocarcinoma, and (3) all patients. Each hypothesis could be only tested at the pre-specified alpha level if the previous null hypothesis in the testing sequence had been rejected.~Overall survival for all patients."||1.05|0.83|0.2720
91945065|NCT00805194|183788045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.96||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|||0.96|0.75|0.0070
91945066|NCT00805194|183788046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.93||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|||0.93|0.73|0.0012
91945067|NCT00805194|183788047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.39||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||2.39|0.76|0.3067
91945068|NCT00805194|183788047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.08||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||2.08|0.96|0.0761
91945069|NCT00805194|183788050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.09||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||2.09|1.35|<0.0001
91945070|NCT00805194|183788050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.05||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on investigator's assessment||2.05|1.31|<0.0001
91945071|NCT00805194|183788052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the central independent review||||<0.0001
91945072|NCT00805194|183788052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||||<0.0001
91945073|NCT00805194|183788053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat.had 2), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|||1.21|0.87|0.7282
91945074|NCT00805194|183788054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of cough||1.05|0.77|0.1858
91945075|NCT00805194|183788054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.2||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of dyspnoea||1.20|0.91|0.5203
91945076|NCT00805194|183788054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>= 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of pain||1.09|0.82|0.4373
91945077|NCT02530281|183788095|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91945078|NCT02530281|183788096|OTHER||||||=|0.065|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||=0.065
91945079|NCT02530281|183788097|OTHER||||||=|0.065|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||=0.065
91945080|NCT02530281|183788098|OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||=0.001
91945081|NCT02530281|183788099|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91816914|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2777|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2777
91816915|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0002
91816916|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945082|NCT02530281|183788100|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91945083|NCT00535236|183788104|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||<0.001
91945084|NCT00535236|183788104|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.003
91945085|NCT00535236|183788104|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.017
91945086|NCT00535236|183788105|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjustied for prevaccination values||||||<0.001
91945087|NCT00535236|183788105|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.004
91945088|NCT00535236|183788105|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.026
91945089|NCT00535236|183788106|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|35.3|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||35.3|-21.7|
91945090|NCT00535236|183788106|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|42.9|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||42.9|-15.1|
91945091|NCT00535236|183788106|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|15.7|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||15.7|-20.4|
91945092|NCT00535236|183788106|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|27.6|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||27.6|-6.5|
91945093|NCT00535236|183788106|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|17.0|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||17.0|-18.1|
91945094|NCT00535236|183788107|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|16.5|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||16.5|-31.7|>0.999
91945095|NCT00535236|183788107|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.0||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|23.2|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||23.2|-18.8|0.302
91945096|NCT00535236|183788107|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|31.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|46.2|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||46.2|9.7|0.009
91945097|NCT00535236|183788107|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|22.6||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|36.6|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||36.6|1.3|0.041
91945098|NCT00535236|183788107|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-11.7||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|0.6|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||0.6|-33.2|0.064
91945099|NCT00535236|183788108|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-5.0||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|9.5|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||9.5|-36.3|0.556
91945100|NCT00535236|183788108|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.5||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|13.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||13.0|-25.8|0.617
91816917|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1078|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1078
91945101|NCT00535236|183788108|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.5||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|12.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||12.0|-13.7|0.411
91945102|NCT00535236|183788108|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.9||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|13.6|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||13.6|-12.3|0.328
91945103|NCT00535236|183788108|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||10.0|-19.2|>0.999
91945104|NCT00535236|183788109|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.5||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|41.8|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||41.8|-21.3|0.552
91945105|NCT00535236|183788109|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.7||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|39.4|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||39.4|-22.5|0.696
91945106|NCT00535236|183788109|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.5||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||18.0|-9.8|0.221
91945107|NCT00535236|183788109|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.8||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|19.1|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||19.1|-13.7|0.402
91945108|NCT00535236|183788109|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.8||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|18.2|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||18.2|-18.5|0.679
91816918|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87||0.0082|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0082
91816919|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91816920|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1838|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1838
91945109|NCT04167514|183788133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|3.866|||One-sided Wald|One-sided Wald test of superior odds of overall response under AAT treatment compared to placebo.Threshold of significance at \<0.025.|Wald CIs|||3.866|0.954|0.034
91945110|NCT01766401|183788234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.04|||MMRM|||||-0.04|-2.96|0.0438
91945111|NCT01766401|183788235|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.2|||MMRM|||||0.20|-3.02|0.0868
91945112|NCT00886587|183788236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|0.04||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.17||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Treatment, visit number, and treatment-visit number interaction term as factors, with baseline score and age as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.17|-1.09|0.9416
91945113|NCT00886587|183788237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|0.35||||0.5431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.48||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Treatment, visit number, and treatment-visit number interaction term as factors, with baseline score and age as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.48|-0.78|0.5431
91945114|NCT00886587|183788238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.36||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment as a factor, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.36|-0.47|0.788
91945115|NCT00886587|183788239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.96||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Treatment, visit number, and treatment-visit number interaction term as factors, with baseline score and age as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.96|-0.90|0.9508
91945116|NCT01523613|183788240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.262
91945117|NCT01523613|183788241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.523
91945118|NCT01523613|183788242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.100
91945119|NCT01108068|183788243|EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were expressed as means ± SD or median (range). Group differences in pQCT Z-scores according to genotype T-test was used to compare differences at baseline between affecteds and unaffecteds||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences in the two groups were assessed using Student's t-test or the rank-sum test if skewed.||Cortical area Z-score||||0.0003
91945120|NCT01108068|183788243|EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were expressed as means ± SD or median (range). Group differences in pQCT Z-scores according to genotype||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences in the two groups were assessed using Student's t-test or the rank-sum test if skewed.||Periosteal circumference Z-score||||0.001
91945121|NCT00696774|183788254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.2|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.20|-1.12|0.005
91945122|NCT00696774|183788256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-4.36|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-4.36|-7.34|
91945123|NCT00696774|183788257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.81|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-1.81|-3.13|
91945124|NCT00696774|183788258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.48|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-2.48|-4.10|
91945125|NCT00696774|183788259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.54|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-1.54|-2.89|
91945126|NCT00696774|183788260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.3|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-1.30|-2.45|
91945127|NCT00696774|183788261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.63|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.63|-1.31|
91945128|NCT00696774|183788262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-2.8|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-2.80|-6.04|
91945129|NCT00696774|183788263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.84|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.84|-1.42|
91945130|NCT00696774|183788264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.24|-1.08|
91945131|NCT00696774|183788265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.18|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.18|-0.81|
91945132|NCT00696774|183788266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|2.6|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 4||2.60|-0.99|
91945133|NCT00696774|183788266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.42|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 8||3.42|-0.69|
91945134|NCT00696774|183788267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|19.47|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 4||19.47|10.63|
91945135|NCT00696774|183788267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|16.24|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 8||16.24|4.72|
91945136|NCT00696774|183788268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-4.02|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 4||-4.02|-7.75|
91945137|NCT00696774|183788268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-2.54|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 8||-2.54|-6.65|
91945138|NCT00033293|183788271|OTHER||Chi-squared test statistic|8.125||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|A two-way test with a null hypothesis of no association, using SAS 9.4.||"The 5 categories of OMA ratings are: stance, gait, arm \& hand function, opsoclonus, \& mood/behavior. For each category, a patient's response will be based on a comparison of the baseline evaluation to the best of 3 time points: 2 months, 6 months \& 1 year. If a patient crosses over to the IVIG arm or switches to ACTH at any time, the patient will be considered a non-responder. The proportion of responders from the 2 treatment arms were compared using a chi-squared test."||||0.0044
91945139|NCT00033293|183788272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.1979||||0.0919|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The two samples from the respective treatment arms were compared using a one-sided t-test with a significance level of .05.||||0.0919
91945140|NCT00033293|183788273|OTHER|The two samples from the respective treatment arms were compared using a one-sided t-test with a significance level of .05.|Mean Difference (Net)|16.75||||0.2364|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2364
91945141|NCT00935701|183788279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Restless-Impulsive subscale||||0.01
91816921|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.0364|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0364
91816922|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945142|NCT00935701|183788279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Emotional Lability subscale||||0.09
91945143|NCT00935701|183788279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Global Index Total||||0.02
91945144|NCT00935701|183788279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on DSM-IV Inattentive subscale||||0.01
91945145|NCT00935701|183788279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on DSM-IV Hyperactive-Impulsive subscale||||0.03
91945146|NCT00935701|183788279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on DSM-IV Total||||0.01
91945147|NCT00935701|183788280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Bedtime Resistance subscale||||0.08
91945148|NCT00935701|183788280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Sleep Onset Delay subscale||||0.03
91945149|NCT00935701|183788280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Sleep Duration subscale||||0.82
91945150|NCT00935701|183788280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Sleep Anxiety subscale||||0.58
91816923|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1714|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1714
91945151|NCT00935701|183788280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Night Wakings subscale||||0.66
91945152|NCT00935701|183788280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Parasomnias subscale||||0.18
91945153|NCT00935701|183788280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Daytime Sleepiness subscale||||0.31
91945154|NCT00935701|183788280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Total Disturbance||||0.07
91945155|NCT00935701|183788281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Child Domain Total||||0.04
91945156|NCT00935701|183788281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Parent Domain Total||||0.31
91945157|NCT00935701|183788281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Total Stress||||0.07
91945158|NCT00679380|183788325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|3.8||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.5|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|All p-values were based on the Chi-square test; comparisons of budesonide MMX and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.025 level of significance and the comparison of Entocort EC and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.05 level of significance. The study was not powered to show statistical significance for Entocort EC versus budesonide MMX.||10.5|-3.0|0.2876
91945159|NCT00679380|183788325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|12.9||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|21.3|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||21.3|4.6|0.0047
91945160|NCT00679380|183788325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|8.1||||0.0481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|15.9|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||15.9|0.4|0.0481
91945161|NCT00679380|183788326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-8.0||||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8||||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|Clinical improvement and endoscopic improvement were analyzed hierarchically. If at least one primary endpoint comparison was statistically significant, clinical improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance. If at least one comparison of clinical improvement was statistically significant, endoscopic improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX dose group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance.||4.|-20.8|0.2174
91945162|NCT00679380|183788326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|8.5||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|22.0|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||22.0|-5.0|0.2215
91945163|NCT00679380|183788326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-0.7||||0.9185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|12.7|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||12.7|-14.1|0.9185
91816924|NCT01480076|183509755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.1259|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1259
91816925|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816926|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816927|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816928|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0004
91816929|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816930|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816931|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816932|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0069
91816933|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816934|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816935|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
91816936|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0006
91816937|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816938|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816939|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816940|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0040
91945164|NCT00679380|183788327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|5.4||||0.4293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|18.8|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|As per the hierarchical testing procedure for secondary endpoints, because clinical improvement was not statistically significant in the ITT population, formal statistical comparisons for endoscopic improvement between the 2 budesonide MMX groups and placebo were not conducted. The statistical comparison between the Entocort EC and placebo groups is shown here.||18.8|-8.0|0.4293
91945165|NCT00678249|183788338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91945166|NCT04337203|183788349|OTHER|Feasibility study and calculated confidence interval.||||||0.54|||||||Independent samples proportions test|||||||0.54
91945167|NCT03049852|183788380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91945168|NCT03049852|183788382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
91945169|NCT02141854|183788383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.179||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.285||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the first in the sequence.||0.285|0.074|0.0009
91945170|NCT02141854|183788383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.182||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.291||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the second in the sequence.||0.291|0.074|0.0010
91816941|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816942|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816943|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0047
91816944|NCT01480076|183509756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0118
91945171|NCT02141854|183788383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.326||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.431||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the third in the sequence.||0.431|0.221|0.0000
91945172|NCT02141854|183788383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.322||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.432||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fourth in the sequence.||0.432|0.212|0.0000
91945173|NCT02141854|183788384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.276||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.361||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fifth in the sequence.||0.361|0.191|0.0000
91945174|NCT02141854|183788384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.274||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.36||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the sixth in the sequence.||0.360|0.189|0.0000
91945175|NCT02141854|183788384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.183||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.268||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the seventh in the sequence.||0.268|0.098|0.0000
91816945|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816946|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91945176|NCT02141854|183788384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.123||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.208||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the eighth in the sequence.||0.208|0.038|0.0047
91945177|NCT02141854|183788385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|18.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.751|25.15||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||25.150|11.751|0.0000
91945178|NCT02141854|183788385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|16.718||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.988|23.449||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||23.449|9.988|0.0000
91945179|NCT02141854|183788385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|31.221||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.513|37.93||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||37.930|24.513|0.0000
91945180|NCT02141854|183788385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|29.597||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.839|36.354||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||36.354|22.839|0.0000
91945181|NCT02141854|183788385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|12.771||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.179|19.363||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||19.363|6.179|0.0002
91816947|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816948|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1398|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1398
91816949|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816950|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816951|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816952|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0935|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0935
91945182|NCT02141854|183788385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|12.879||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.216|19.541||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||19.541|6.216|0.0002
91816953|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816954|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91945183|NCT02141854|183788385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|11.146||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.511|17.782||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||17.782|4.511|0.0010
91945184|NCT02141854|183788386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.156||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|-0.063||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.063|-0.248|0.0010
91945185|NCT02141854|183788386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.195||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|-0.102||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.102|-0.288|0.0000
91945186|NCT02141854|183788386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.304||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|-0.212||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.212|-0.397|0.0000
91945187|NCT02141854|183788386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.277||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.184||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.184|-0.370|0.0000
91945188|NCT02141854|183788386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.149||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|-0.058||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.058|-0.239|0.0014
91945189|NCT02141854|183788386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.082||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.01||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.010|-0.174|0.0818
91945190|NCT02141854|183788386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.121||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|-0.03||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.030|-0.213|0.0094
91945191|NCT02141854|183788387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.702||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.001|-0.403||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.403|-1.001|0.0000
91945192|NCT02141854|183788387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.607||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.908|-0.307||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.307|-0.908|0.0001
91945193|NCT02141854|183788387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.066||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.365|-0.766||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.766|-1.365|0.0000
91945194|NCT02141854|183788387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.989||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.291|-0.686||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.686|-1.291|0.0000
91816955|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91945195|NCT02141854|183788387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.364||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.659|-0.068||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.068|-0.659|0.0160
91945196|NCT02141854|183788387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.382||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.681|-0.083||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.083|-0.681|0.0124
91816956|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0760
91816957|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91945197|NCT02141854|183788387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.287||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.584|0.011||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.011|-0.584|0.0588
91945198|NCT02141854|183788388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.0001
91945199|NCT02141854|183788388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<.0001
91945200|NCT02141854|183788388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.0003
91945201|NCT02141854|183788388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<.0001
91945202|NCT02141854|183788388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7203||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.7203
91945203|NCT02141854|183788388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.996||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.9960
91945204|NCT02141854|183788388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.325||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.3250
91945205|NCT02141854|183788389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.473||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.677||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.677|0.269|0.0000
91945206|NCT02141854|183788389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.428||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.632||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.632|0.224|0.0000
91945207|NCT02141854|183788389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.623||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.828||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.828|0.418|0.0000
91945208|NCT02141854|183788389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.681||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|0.885||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.885|0.478|0.0000
91816958|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0019
91816959|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0037
91945209|NCT02141854|183788389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.15||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.354||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.354|-0.054|0.1490
91945210|NCT02141854|183788389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.253||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.455||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.455|0.051|0.0143
91945211|NCT02141854|183788389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.209||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.411||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.411|0.006|0.0435
91945212|NCT01868594|183788392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
91945213|NCT01868594|183788393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0432
91945214|NCT01868594|183788394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7344||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7344
91945215|NCT01868594|183788395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Total cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.2780
91816960|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2489|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2489
91816961|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816962|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
91816963|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0052|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0052
91816964|NCT01480076|183509757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7714|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7714
91816965|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816966|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91945216|NCT01868594|183788395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8114||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of HDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.8114
91945217|NCT01868594|183788395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1619||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of LDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.1619
91945218|NCT01868594|183788395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Triglycerides changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.0764
91816967|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816968|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816969|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91945219|NCT01868594|183788396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3107||||||The p-value associated with comparison of changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of basal insulin changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.3107
91945220|NCT01868594|183788396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5236||||||The p-value associated with comparison of changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of prandial insulin changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.5236
91945221|NCT01868594|183788396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847||||||The p-value associated with comparison of changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of total daily dose insulin changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.3847
91945222|NCT01868594|183788397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6716
91945223|NCT01868594|183788398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2484||||||The p-value associated with comparison of Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of total Treatment Satisfaction score at Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.2484
91945224|NCT01868594|183788398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761||||||The p-value associated with comparison of Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of Perceived Hyperglycaemia question at Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups."||||0.7610
91945225|NCT01868594|183788398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3714||||||The p-value associated with comparison of Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of Perceived Hypoglycemia question at Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups."||||0.3714
91816970|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816971|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816972|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816973|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91945226|NCT02598661|183788412|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|36.89||The p-value was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) controlling for prior RBC transfusion burden (≤6 versus\[vs.\]\>6 units RBC) \& international prognostic scoring system (IPSS) risk group (low vs. intermediate-1) applied to randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson Score method.|||36.89|9.90|<0.001
91945227|NCT02598661|183788414|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.64|34.18||The p-value was calculated based on CMH controlling for prior RBC transfusion burden (≤6 vs. \>6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1) applied to randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson Score method.|||34.18|12.64|<0.001
91945228|NCT02598661|183788417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.586||The p-value (2-sided) was calculated using the stratified log-rank test for superiority of imetelstat sodium versus placebo in hazard ratio.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by prior RBC transfusion burden (≤ 6 vs. \> 6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1), with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.586|0.105|<0.001
91945229|NCT02598661|183788418|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|11.9||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|27.56||The p-value was calculated based on CMH controlling for prior RBC transfusion burden (≤ 6 vs. \> 6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1) applied to randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson Score Method.|||27.56|-4.10|0.112
91945230|NCT02598661|183788421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|1.823||P value (two-sided) for superiority of imetelstat sodium versus placebo in hazard ratio was calculated using stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were calculated from the Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by prior RBC transfusion burden (≤6 vs. \>6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1), with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.823|0.526|0.949
91945231|NCT04566445|183788454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0901|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.087|0.211|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.211|-0.087|
91816974|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816975|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91945232|NCT04566445|183788454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.066|0.234|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.234|-0.066|
91945233|NCT04566445|183788454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1198|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.102|0.294|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||0.294|-0.102|
91945234|NCT04566445|183788454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.007|0.404|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||0.404|0.007|
91945235|NCT04566445|183788454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2135|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.155|0.55|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||0.550|-0.155|
91945236|NCT04566445|183788454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2152|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.068|0.779|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||0.779|0.068|
91945237|NCT04566445|183788454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2644|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.385|0.489|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||0.489|-0.385|
91945238|NCT04566445|183788454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2662|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.049|0.928|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||0.928|0.049|
91945239|NCT04566445|183788454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3361|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.248|0.862|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||0.862|-0.248|
91816976|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816977|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816978|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91945240|NCT04566445|183788454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3392|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.058|1.063|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||1.063|-0.058|
91945241|NCT04566445|183788455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.103|1.393|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||1.393|-0.103|
91945242|NCT04566445|183788455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.081|1.594|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||1.594|0.081|
91945243|NCT04566445|183788460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||1.7|-2.6|
91816979|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91945244|NCT04566445|183788460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|0.4|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.4|-4.0|
91945245|NCT04566445|183788460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|0.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||0.8|-4.1|
91945246|NCT04566445|183788460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|-2.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||-2.8|-7.7|
91945247|NCT04566445|183788460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||3.5|-2.5|
91945248|NCT04566445|183788460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|-1.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||-1.7|-7.7|
91945249|NCT04566445|183788460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|6.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||6.1|-0.9|
91945250|NCT04566445|183788460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|1.4|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||1.4|-5.6|
91945251|NCT04566445|183788460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|8.4|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||8.4|1.0|
91945252|NCT04566445|183788460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|4.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||4.5|-2.8|
91945253|NCT04566445|183788460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|11.6|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||11.6|2.7|
91945254|NCT04566445|183788460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|7.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||7.1|-1.8|
91945255|NCT04453722|183788465|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital TWA SpO2 \<90% (%)||0|-0.4|0.120
91945256|NCT04453722|183788465|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-407.0||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1816.0|208.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital AUC SpO2 \<90% (% \* min)||208|-1816|0.349
91945257|NCT04453722|183788465|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Post-discharge TWA SpO2 \<90% (%)||0|-0.2|0.307
91945258|NCT04453722|183788465|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-35.0||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.0|67.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Post-discharge AUC SpO2 \<90% (% \* min)||67|-195|0.431
91945259|NCT04453722|183788466|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.27|||Fisher Exact|||variable: In hospital Any event, N (%)c||4.27|0.22|>0.99
91945260|NCT04453722|183788466|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.9|||Chi-squared|||variable: Post-discharge Any event, N (%)||2.90|0.35|>0.99
91816980|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0009
91945261|NCT04453722|183788467|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Number||4.0|-26.0|0.354
91945262|NCT04453722|183788467|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-46.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-274.0|5.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Total duration (min)||5.1|-274|0.133
91945263|NCT04453722|183788467|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.1||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.0|0.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Duration \>2 min (min)||0.1|-213|0.075
91945264|NCT04453722|183788467|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Mean duration-all patients (min)||-0.4|-4.5|0.009
91945265|NCT04453722|183788467|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: in hospital mean duration for events in those with any events (min)||-0.7|-4.7|0.001
91945266|NCT04453722|183788467|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: post-discharge number||1.0|-4.0|0.584
91945267|NCT04453722|183788467|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|3.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Post-discharge duration (min)||3.3|-18.6|0.556
91945268|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Degree of disturbing daily life except sleep (at the day of discharge)||2.0|0.0|0.096
91945269|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Degree of disturbing sleep (at the day of discharge)||2.0|0.0|0.205
91945270|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: comfortable to wear (at the day of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.839
91945271|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to audible alert (at the day of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.621
91945272|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to tactile alert||1.0|-1.0|0.898
91945273|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: easily cleaned/disinfected (at the day of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.654
91945274|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: adequate battery life (at the day of discharge)||1.0|-1.0|0.929
91945275|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Satisfy with the electrode patch (at the day of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.200
91945276|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Willing to use after study (at the day of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.987
91945277|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Disturb IV line (at the day of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.581
91945278|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Degree of disturbing daily life except sleep (after 24 hours of discharge)||3.0|0.0|0.180
91945279|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: degree of distributing sleep (after 24 hours of discharge)||2.0|0.0|0.171
91945280|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to audible alert (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.074
91945281|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to tactile alert (after 24 hours of discharge)||1.0|-2.0|0.414
91816981|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816982|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816983|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
91816984|NCT01480076|183509758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
91816985|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816986|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816987|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816988|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0032
91816989|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816990|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816991|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816992|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0021
91816993|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816994|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91945282|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Easily cleaned/disinfected (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.506
91816995|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816996|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0097
91816997|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816998|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91816999|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817000|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0103
91817001|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817002|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817003|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817004|NCT01480076|183509759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1227|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1227
91817005|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817006|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817007|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1754|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1754
91817008|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0192
91817009|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817010|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817011|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0001
91817012|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0157
91817013|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945283|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Adequate battery life (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.747
91945284|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: satisfy with the electrode patch (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-2.0|0.023
91945285|NCT04453722|183788470|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Willing to use after study (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.023
91945286|NCT04453722|183788471|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Degree of disturbing routine work||0.0|-1.0|0.73
91945287|NCT04453722|183788471|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Easily cleaned/disinfected||1.0|0.0|0.097
91945288|NCT04453722|183788471|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Adequate battery life||1.0|0.0|0.02
91945289|NCT04453722|183788471|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Satisfy with the electrode patch||1.0|0.0|0.037
91945290|NCT04453722|183788471|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to audible alert||1.0|-2.0|0.482
91945291|NCT04453722|183788471|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Willing to use after study||1.0|0.0|0.031
91945292|NCT04453722|183788471|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||variable: Patients' complaint about the device|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Patients' complaint about the device||1.0|0.0|0.947
91945293|NCT04453722|183788471|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Disturb IV line||0.0|0.0|0.324
91817014|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0002
91817015|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1012|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1012
91945294|NCT00137267|183788472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91945295|NCT00137267|183788473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.152
91945296|NCT02061540|183788498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0373||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.251|-2.432|||Wilcoxon's signed rank test|||Analysis was performed to compare baseline and endpoint data.||-2.432|-27.251|0.0043
91945297|NCT01948518|183788503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming 15% change in absolute value of DLCO representing a significant clinical difference and a standard deviation of 17.4% in normal nonsmoking individuals \[Miller A, Thornton JC, Warshaw R, et al. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1983;127 (suppl 3):270-277.\], 13 subjects needed to be studied to reject the null hypothesis when there is no significant difference between DLCO measurements before and after sildenafil, with power 0.8 and type I error probability 0.05 (SAS 9.2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC)||||=0.30
91945298|NCT01948518|183788504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The average 6 minute walk distance at baseline was 1195±407 feet. After oral administration of sildenafil, 6 minute walk distance was 1214±383 feet (p=0.63).||||=0.63
91945299|NCT00958191|183788570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in HHS from pre-op to 1 year||||<0.0001
91945300|NCT00958191|183788570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in HHS from pre-op to 3 years||||<0.0001
91945301|NCT00958191|183788570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HHS from pre-op to 5 years||||<0.0001
91945302|NCT00958191|183788571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip Pain Score from pre-op to 1 year||||<0.0001
91945303|NCT00958191|183788571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip Pain Score from pre-op to 3 years||||<0.0001
91945304|NCT00958191|183788571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip Pain Score from pre-op to 5 years||||<0.0001
91945305|NCT00958191|183788572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip ROM score from pre-op to 1 year||||<0.0001
91945306|NCT00958191|183788572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip ROM score from pre-op to 3 years||||<0.0001
91945307|NCT00958191|183788572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip ROM score from pre-op to 5 years||||<0.0001
91945308|NCT00958191|183788573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Phyiscal Component Score from preop to 1 year||||<0.0001
91817016|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0749
91817017|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817018|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0455|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0455
91817019|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4699|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4699
91817020|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0235|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0235
91817021|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817022|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1978|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1978
91817023|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1977|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1977
91817024|NCT01480076|183509760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2250
91945309|NCT00958191|183788573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SF-12 Phyiscal Component Score from preop to 3 year||||<0.0001
91945310|NCT00958191|183788573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Phyiscal Component Score from preop to 5 year||||<0.0001
91945311|NCT00958191|183788573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Component Score from preop to 1 year||||0.0242
91945312|NCT00958191|183788573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0247|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Component Score from preop to 3 year||||0.0247
91945313|NCT00958191|183788573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1372|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Component Score from preop to 5 year||||0.1372
91817025|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817026|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817027|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945314|NCT00958191|183788574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in LEAS Score from preop to 1 year||||<0.0001
91945315|NCT00958191|183788574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in LEAS Score from preop to 3 year||||<0.0001
91945316|NCT00958191|183788574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in LEAS Score from preop to 5 year||||<0.0001
91945317|NCT01642004|183788576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|96.85|0.43|0.81||Stratified by region (US/Canada, Rest Of World (ROW), Europe) and prior treatment regimen (Paclitaxel, Another agent) as entered in the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. HR = Nivolumab over Docetaxel|||0.81|0.43|0.0002
91945318|NCT00598806|183788590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.55|0.1094
91945319|NCT00598806|183788591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.63|0.1038
91945320|NCT01714336|183788639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.75
91945321|NCT01021553|183788651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.16||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.79|0.75|0.4959
91817028|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0649|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0649
91817029|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817030|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817031|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817032|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1138|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1138
91817033|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817034|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945322|NCT01021553|183788651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.11||||0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.65|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.65|0.74|0.6161
91945323|NCT01021553|183788651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.13||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.61|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.61|0.79|0.4971
91945324|NCT01021553|183788652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.03||||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.58|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Week 0 to 4||1.58|0.67|0.9037
91817035|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0003
91817036|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1850
91817037|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945325|NCT01021553|183788652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.0||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Week 0 to 4||1.48|0.67|0.9939
91945326|NCT01021553|183788652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.01||||0.9541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.43|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 0-4||1.43|0.71|0.9541
91945327|NCT01021553|183788652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.33||||0.2798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.24|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 4-8||2.24|0.79|0.2798
91817038|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817039|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817040|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0887|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0887
91945328|NCT01021553|183788652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.09||||0.7255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.75|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 4-8||1.75|0.68|0.7255
91817041|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817042|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817043|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0011
91817044|NCT01480076|183509761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1853|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1853
91945329|NCT01021553|183788652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.18||||0.4347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.8|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 4-8||1.80|0.77|0.4347
91945330|NCT01021553|183788653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.14||||0.6583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.05|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||2.05|0.63|0.6583
91945331|NCT01021553|183788653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|0.96||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.65|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.65|0.56|0.8790
91945332|NCT01021553|183788653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.03||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.67|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.67|0.64|0.8971
91945333|NCT01021553|183788656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatments|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.43|3.48|||||For AUC (0-inf)|||3.48|2.43|
91945334|NCT01021553|183788656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatments|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|3.54||||||||3.54|2.51|
91945335|NCT01021553|183788657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatments|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|4.47||||||||4.47|2.95|
91945336|NCT00572728|183788716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.046|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.83||The Delong method was used to test if the observed AUC was significantly different than 0.5 with the one-sided p value DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL, Biometrics (1988)|Delong method|one-sided p-value|"percent change in SUVmax was computed as: %ΔSUVmax = 100\*(FLT1-FLT2)/FLT1 a 90% 2-sided confidence interval was constructed from 2000 Bootstrapping estimates from which the 1-sided 95% CI was derived.~Hanley SE(AUC) reported."|"A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to assess the significance of the Area Under the Curve (AUC) under the Null Hypothesis with a one sided alpha=0.05 (95% one-sided CL):~H0: AUC = 0.50 (no difference from guessing) given the alternative hypothesis: Ha:AUC \>= 0.75 AUC = ROC(%ΔSUVmax\| path response) where percent change (%ΔSUVmax ) was defined as (SUVmax at FLT1 -SUVmax at FLT2)/SUVmax at FLT1 x 100"||.83||0.046
91945337|NCT00572728|183788717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||spearman correlation|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.54|||spearman correlation method||This estimate uses the Fisher's z Transformation to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic|H0: ρ = 0; that is, there is no correlation between SUVmax @ FLT-1 and Ki-67 LI a Fisher's z Transformation was applied to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic||0.54|0.13|0.002
91945338|NCT00572728|183788718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.81|||Spearman Correlation method|we use Fisher's z Transformation to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic|this estimate uses the Fisher's z Transformation to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic|H0: ρ = 0; that is, there is no correlation between SUVmax @ FLT-3 and Ki-67 LI||0.81|0.47|<0.0001
91945339|NCT00572728|183788719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided exact p value from Wilcoxon two-sample test||"H0: Mean SUVmax (RCB 0,I) = Mean SUVmax (RCB II,III) After dichotomization, Wilcoxon two-sample test was used to compare uptake values between RCB groups.~In other words, we are comparing the means (of SUVmax) @ FLT1 between the RCB 0,I and the RCB II,III groups.."||||0.66
91945340|NCT00572728|183788720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|\*two-sided exact p value from Wilcoxon two-sample test||H0: SUVmax (RCB 0,I) = SUVmax (RCB II,III) in other words, we are comparing the SUVmax @ FLT2 between the RCB 0,I and the RCB II,III groups.||||0.86
91817045|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817046|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0005
91817047|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0027
91945341|NCT00572728|183788721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided exact p value from Wilcoxon two-sample test||H0: SUVmax (RCB 0,I) = SUVmax (RCB II,III) in other words, we are comparing the SUVmax @ FLT3 between the RCB 0,I and the RCB II,III groups.||||0.010
91817048|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0167
91817049|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945342|NCT00572728|183788721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||H0: %SUVmax FLT1-FLT3 (RCB 0,I) = %SUVmax FLT1-FLT3 (RCB II,III) A logistic regression model is used to determine if a larger percent change in SUVmax is associated with (RCB 0,I); the null hypothesis assumes that there is no association.||0.97|0.76|0.013
91945343|NCT00572728|183788722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.94||Delong 1-sided p-value (alpha=0.05)|Delong Method|The Delong-Delong Clark-Pearson method using modified U-statistics was used to evaluate the AUC||"ROC analysis was used to compute the AUC and evaluate if %ΔSUVmax FLT1-FLT3 is predictive of pCR with alpha=0.05.~The Null Hypothesis assumes that the P(%ΔSUVmax FLT1-FLT3\|pCR)= 1 - P(%ΔSUVmax FLT1-FLT3\|non-pCR) that is: H0: AUC =0.5 (guessing)"||.94|.72|<0.001
91945344|NCT00572728|183788723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|two-sided p value from Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA||"Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA was used to test whether there was a difference in %SUVmax (FLT1-FLT2) among LN statuses.~H0: no difference between the 3 LN status."||||0.86
91945345|NCT00572728|183788724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||two-sided p value from Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
91945346|NCT01833806|183788727|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.78|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||Binomial|||The alternative hypothesis test was that the proportion of Responders would be greater than the proportion of subjects experiencing pain progression. This PAS was powered to enroll 70 subjects based on the pivotal trial proportion of 18:8 (Responders:Pain progression). The study was closed at an enrollment of 32 subjects.||0.98|0.58|= 0.01
91945347|NCT02724111|183788730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91945348|NCT02724111|183788731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91945349|NCT02724111|183788732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91945350|NCT02724111|183788733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91945351|NCT02724111|183788734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91945352|NCT02724111|183788735|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91945353|NCT02724111|183788736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91945354|NCT02724111|183788737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
91945355|NCT02996500|183788738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.83||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-1.97|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-1.97|-13.73|0.0050
91945356|NCT02996500|183788738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|-3.66|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-3.66|-14.37|<0.001
91945357|NCT02996500|183788738|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-10.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|-5.63|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-5.63|-16.36|<0.001
91945358|NCT02996500|183788738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.62|-5.92|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-5.92|-16.62|<0.001
91945359|NCT00835276|183788793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|87.96||||||90.0|80.15|96.53|||||To establish bioequivalence, the mean values for the test product differ by no more than 20% from the respective mean values for the reference listed product.|||96.53|80.15|
91945360|NCT00835276|183788794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.47||||||90.0|85.15|98.26|||||To establish bioequivalence, the mean values for the test product differ by no more that 20% from the repective mean values for the reference listed product.|||98.26|85.15|
91945361|NCT00835276|183788795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.47||||||90.0|85.32|98.07|||||To establish bioequivalence, the mean values for the test product differ by no more than 20% from the respective mean values for the reference listed product.|||98.07|85.32|
91945362|NCT02332876|183788818|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91945363|NCT02402881|183788819|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|We used generalized linear mixed-effects models with multiple outputation reiterated 1000 times to bootstrap the 95% CIs and the P values.||Our primary outcome was the proportion of non-administered doses of prescribed pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. We compared rates of VTE prophylaxis non-administration pre-post-intervention. For estimating conditional odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), the binomial family and a logit link were used; for estimating the conditional proportions, the Poisson family and a log link were used.||||<0.05
91817050|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817051|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0024
91945364|NCT02402881|183788820|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|We used generalized linear mixed-effects models with multiple outputation reiterated 1000 times to bootstrap the 95% CIs and the P values.||Our secondary outcome was the proportion of VTE events. We compared rates of VTE prophylaxis nonadministration pre-post-intervention. For estimating conditional odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% CIs, the binomial family and a logit link were used; for estimating the conditional proportions, the Poisson family and a log link were used.||||<0.05
91945365|NCT00415623|183788826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.0|-4.4|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough SBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-4.4|-9.0|<0.001
91945366|NCT00415623|183788827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.7|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough DBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-2.5|-5.7|<0.001
91945367|NCT00415623|183788828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.1|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough SBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-5.1|-9.1|<0.001
91945368|NCT00415623|183788829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.4|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough DBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-2.6|-5.4|<0.001
91945369|NCT00415623|183788830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.002||95.0|1.36|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||3.99|1.36|0.002
91945370|NCT00415623|183788831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46|||<|0.001||95.0|2.28|8.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||8.74|2.28|<0.001
91945371|NCT00415623|183788832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.001||95.0|1.5|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||4.36|1.50|0.001
91817052|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0669|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0669
91945372|NCT00415623|183788833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||<|0.001||95.0|2.12|8.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||8.19|2.12|<0.001
91945373|NCT01369069|183788836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted for baseline NIHSS strata (3-7, 8-14, 15-22) and thrombolysis use (Yes/No; includes both IV and IA therapies). Multiple imputation was used for missing data.|It was hypothesized that intensive blood glucose control would be efficacious and safe in acute ischemic stroke patients compared to standard glucose control.||1.08|0.87|0.55
91817053|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0018
91817054|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
91945374|NCT01369069|183788837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.87|||Fisher Exact||The data of the estimation parameter and the confidence intervals were presented as percentages.|||3.87|1.29|<0.001
91945375|NCT01369069|183788838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|6.2|||Chi-squared||The data of the estimation parameter and the confidence intervals were presented as percentages.|||6.20|-8.33|0.77
91945376|NCT01369069|183788839|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|6.75|||Chi-squared||The data of the estimation parameter and the confidence intervals were presented as percentages.|||6.75|-5.79|0.88
91945377|NCT01369069|183788840|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.25|-0.13|0.74
91945378|NCT01369069|183788841|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.58|0.24
91945379|NCT02573012|183788842|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.613||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.879|||ANCOVA|||||0.879|0.346|0.001
91945380|NCT02573012|183788843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.889|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.889|0.285|0.018
91945381|NCT02573012|183788843|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.833||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|0.972|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.972|0.714|0.021
91817055|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0190
91817056|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0106
91817057|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0009
91817058|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1937|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1937
91817059|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0445
91945382|NCT02573012|183788844|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|2.342||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|4.023|||ANCOVA|||||4.023|0.661|0.006
91945383|NCT02573012|183788864|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|2.264||||0.009||95.0|0.574|3.953|||ANCOVA|||||3.953|0.574|0.009
91945384|NCT02253173|183788925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945385|NCT02253173|183788925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945386|NCT02253173|183788925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945387|NCT02253173|183788926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945388|NCT02253173|183788926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945389|NCT02253173|183788926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945390|NCT02253173|183788927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945391|NCT02253173|183788927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945392|NCT02253173|183788927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945393|NCT02253173|183788928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0149|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0149
91945394|NCT02253173|183788928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945395|NCT02253173|183788928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945396|NCT02253173|183788929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945397|NCT02253173|183788929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945398|NCT02253173|183788929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945399|NCT02253173|183788930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945400|NCT02253173|183788930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945401|NCT02253173|183788930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945402|NCT02253173|183788931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945403|NCT02253173|183788931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945404|NCT02253173|183788931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945405|NCT02253173|183788932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945406|NCT02253173|183788932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945407|NCT02253173|183788932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945408|NCT02253173|183788933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945409|NCT02253173|183788933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945410|NCT02253173|183788933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945411|NCT02253173|183788934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945412|NCT02253173|183788934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945413|NCT02253173|183788934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945414|NCT02253173|183788935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945415|NCT02253173|183788935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945416|NCT02253173|183788935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945417|NCT02253173|183788936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945418|NCT02253173|183788936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945419|NCT02253173|183788936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945420|NCT02253173|183788937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945421|NCT02253173|183788937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945422|NCT02253173|183788937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945423|NCT02253173|183788938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0260
91817060|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6475|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6475
91817061|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0097
91945424|NCT02253173|183788938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0019
91945425|NCT02253173|183788938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0105
91945426|NCT02253173|183788939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0069
91945427|NCT02253173|183788939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0009
91945428|NCT02253173|183788939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945429|NCT02253173|183788940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
91817062|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0386|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0386
91945430|NCT02253173|183788940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945431|NCT02253173|183788940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945432|NCT02253173|183788941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1269|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1269
91945433|NCT02253173|183788941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0019
91945434|NCT02253173|183788941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0082
91945435|NCT02253173|183788942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0094
91945436|NCT02253173|183788942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
91945437|NCT02253173|183788942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
91945438|NCT02253173|183788943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0128
91945439|NCT02253173|183788943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945440|NCT02253173|183788943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0008
91945441|NCT02253173|183788944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
91945442|NCT02253173|183788944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945443|NCT02253173|183788944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945444|NCT02253173|183788945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9616|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9616
91945445|NCT02253173|183788945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2439|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2439
91945446|NCT02253173|183788945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6518|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6518
91945447|NCT02253173|183788946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7829|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7829
91945448|NCT02253173|183788946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2328
91945449|NCT02253173|183788946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4118
91945450|NCT02253173|183788947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0639|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0639
91945451|NCT02253173|183788947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0356|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0356
91945452|NCT02253173|183788947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0914|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0914
91945453|NCT02253173|183788948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0503
91945454|NCT02253173|183788948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0055
91945455|NCT02253173|183788948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0263|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0263
91945456|NCT02253173|183788949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945457|NCT02253173|183788949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945458|NCT02253173|183788949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945459|NCT02253173|183788950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945460|NCT02253173|183788950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945461|NCT02253173|183788950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945462|NCT02253173|183788951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945463|NCT02253173|183788951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945464|NCT02253173|183788951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945465|NCT02253173|183788952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945466|NCT02253173|183788952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945467|NCT02253173|183788952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945468|NCT02253173|183788953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945469|NCT02253173|183788953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945470|NCT02253173|183788953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945471|NCT02253173|183788954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945472|NCT02253173|183788954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945473|NCT02253173|183788954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945474|NCT02253173|183788955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945475|NCT02253173|183788955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945476|NCT02253173|183788955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945477|NCT02253173|183788956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945478|NCT02253173|183788956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945479|NCT02253173|183788956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91817063|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0219|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0219
91817064|NCT01480076|183509762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0076
91817065|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1471|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1471
91945480|NCT02253173|183788957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945481|NCT02253173|183788957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945482|NCT02253173|183788957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945483|NCT02253173|183788958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945484|NCT02253173|183788958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945485|NCT02253173|183788958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945486|NCT02253173|183788959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945487|NCT02253173|183788959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945488|NCT02253173|183788959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945489|NCT02253173|183788960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945490|NCT02253173|183788960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945491|NCT02253173|183788960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945492|NCT02253173|183788961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
91945493|NCT02253173|183788961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945494|NCT02253173|183788961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945495|NCT02253173|183788962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
91945496|NCT02253173|183788962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945497|NCT02253173|183788962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945498|NCT02253173|183788963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945499|NCT02253173|183788963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945500|NCT02253173|183788963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945501|NCT02253173|183788964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945502|NCT02253173|183788964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945503|NCT02253173|183788964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91945504|NCT02253173|183788965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9075|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9075
91945505|NCT02253173|183788965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0492|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0492
91945506|NCT02253173|183788965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0019
91945507|NCT02253173|183788966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9719|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9719
91945508|NCT02253173|183788966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0614|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0614
91945509|NCT02253173|183788966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0085
91945510|NCT02253173|183788967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9999
91945511|NCT02253173|183788967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2855|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2855
91945512|NCT02253173|183788967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1189|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1189
91945513|NCT02253173|183788968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4162|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4162
91945514|NCT02253173|183788968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0013
91945515|NCT02253173|183788968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91945516|NCT02253173|183788969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9929|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9929
91945517|NCT02253173|183788969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9634|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9634
91945518|NCT02253173|183788969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0898|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0898
91945519|NCT02253173|183788970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5146|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5146
91945520|NCT02253173|183788970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0099
91945521|NCT02253173|183788970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0150
91945522|NCT02253173|183788971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9039|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9039
91945523|NCT02253173|183788971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3751|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3751
91817066|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5503|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5503
91817067|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3854|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3854
91817068|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4893|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4893
91817069|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2166|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2166
91817070|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4149|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4149
91817071|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3849|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3849
91817072|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8980
91817073|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0046
91817074|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0594|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0594
91817075|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2975|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2975
91817076|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7155|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7155
91817077|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5070
91817078|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5848|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5848
91817079|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8020
91817080|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2540
91817081|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9057|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.9057
91945524|NCT02253173|183788971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0073
91817082|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9679|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.9679
91817083|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5875|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5875
91817084|NCT01480076|183509763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7440
91817085|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0032
91817086|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0828
91817087|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7756|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7756
91817088|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2200
91817089|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
91817090|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0061
91817091|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6258|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6258
91817092|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6987|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6987
91817093|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0025
91817094|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0021
91817095|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4385|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4385
91817096|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2275|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2275
91817097|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0446|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0446
91817098|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5757|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5757
91817099|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8936|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8936
91817100|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5675|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5675
91817101|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2539|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2539
91817102|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6673|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6673
91817103|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0849
91817104|NCT01480076|183509764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1187|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1187
91817105|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0022
91817106|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0299|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0299
91817107|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8135|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8135
91817108|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3526|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3526
91817109|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
91817110|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0039
91817111|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6924|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6924
91817112|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7639|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7639
91817113|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0013
91817114|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0011
91817115|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4340
91817116|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4224|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4224
91817117|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1628|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1628
91817118|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5666|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5666
91817119|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8315|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8315
91817120|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3852|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3852
91817121|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0652|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0652
91817122|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5719|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5719
91817123|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9237|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.9237
91817124|NCT01480076|183509765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1310
91817125|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817126|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817127|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
91817128|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0003
91817129|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817130|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817131|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
91817132|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0102
91817133|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817134|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817135|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
91817136|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0012
91817137|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817138|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817139|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0026
91945525|NCT02545049|183788975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.98|0.76|0.0264
91817140|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0161
91817141|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817142|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
91817143|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1151|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1151
91817144|NCT01480076|183509766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0040
91817145|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817146|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6769|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6769
91817147|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817148|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5780
91817149|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817150|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817151|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817152|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8886|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8886
91817153|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817154|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3221|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3221
91817155|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817156|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817157|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817158|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4668|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4668
91817159|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945526|NCT02545049|183788976|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.01|0.76|0.0689
91945527|NCT02545049|183788977|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.04||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.04|0.90|0.3558
91945528|NCT02545049|183788978|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.04|0.77|0.1337
91945529|NCT02545049|183788979|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Ratio of least squares means|0.676|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.704||P-value from F-test of equal means between the treatment groups. A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|ANCOVA|||||0.704|0.650|<0.0001
91945530|NCT02545049|183788980|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.99|0.60|0.0406
91945531|NCT04191096|183788984|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.49||A one-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No).|||1.49|0.96|0.9467
91945532|NCT04191096|183788985|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.85122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.53|0.88|0.85122
91945533|NCT04191096|183788986|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.97907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.54||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.54|1.01|0.97907
91945534|NCT04191096|183788987|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.27202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.3||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.30|0.61|0.27202
91817160|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5695|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5695
91817161|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0058
91817162|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0010
91817163|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817164|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2040
91817165|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817166|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6306|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6306
91817167|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non- responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817168|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0020
91817169|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817170|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4052|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4052
91817171|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817172|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8626|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8626
91817173|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
91817174|NCT01480076|183509767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0263|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0263
91817175|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817176|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8999|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8999
91817177|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817178|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7156|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7156
91817179|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0050
91817180|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0490
91817181|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817182|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2740
91817183|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817184|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5556|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5556
91817185|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817186|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0476
91817187|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817188|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8627|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8627
91817189|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817190|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4312|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4312
91817191|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0305|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0305
91945535|NCT04191096|183788988|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.23|0.69|0.2972
91945536|NCT04191096|183788989|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.41||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.41|0.81|0.6863
91945537|NCT04191096|183788990|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.39|0.95|0.9235
91945538|NCT04191096|183788991|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.8801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No).|||1.50|0.90|0.8801
91945539|NCT04191096|183788992|OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.7||||0.9576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.4||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No).|||0.4|-5.8|0.9576
91945540|NCT04191096|183788993|OTHER||Percent difference|-0.8||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.8||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||4.8|-6.3|0.6053
91945541|NCT04191096|183788994|OTHER||Percent difference|-5.6||||0.9105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.6||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified prior docataxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docataxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||2.6|-13.7|0.9105
91945542|NCT00003389|183789014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was performed.||||||0.32
91817192|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.2059|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2059
91817193|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0008
91945543|NCT00003389|183789015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was performed.||||||0.86
91945544|NCT01901809|183789057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|20.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.8|2.0|0.018
91945545|NCT01901809|183789058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.9|-14.4|0.33
91945546|NCT02776904|183789059|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Adjustment with Tukey-Kramer|ANOVA|3 DF||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Visual Memory||||0.0003
91945547|NCT02776904|183789059|OTHER|||||||0.0281||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer|ANOVA|DF 3||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Verbal memory||||0.0281
91945548|NCT02776904|183789059|OTHER|||||||0.0035||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|DF 3||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Visual Motor composite||||0.0035
91945549|NCT02776904|183789060|OTHER|||||||0.2637||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Reaction Time||||0.2637
91945550|NCT02776904|183789061|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Used Tukey's Adjustment|ANOVA|||Descriptive analysis, including means and standard deviations was used to summarize all participant data. Velocity was normalized to leg length. Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters for healthy athletes. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on gait velocity for healthy athletes. Adjusted using Tukey's post hoc method for the pairwise comparisons (0.05 threshold for significance)||||<0.001
91945551|NCT02776904|183789062|OTHER|Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on gait parameters of step length. Adjusted using Tukey's post hoc method for the pairwise comparisons (0.05 threshold for significance).|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey's post hoc method for the pair wise comparisons between walk status and sex for step length.||||||< 0.0001
91817194|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3685|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3685
91817195|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0016
91817196|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9862|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9862
91817197|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.5561|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5561
91817198|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.2281|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2281
91817199|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0006
91817200|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6004
91817201|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817202|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9040
91817203|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0401
91817204|NCT01480076|183509768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.0651|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0651
91817205|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817206|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4540
91817207|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817208|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2949|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2949
91817209|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817210|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0046
91817211|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817212|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5020
91817213|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817214|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2157|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2157
91817215|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817216|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0026
91817217|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817218|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3435|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3435
91817219|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817220|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1357|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1357
91817221|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
91817222|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0511
91945552|NCT02776904|183789063|OTHER|Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on percent of gait cycle in DLS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey's post hoc method for the pairwise comparisons with p\<.05.||||||< 0.0001
91945553|NCT02776904|183789064|OTHER|Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on percent of gait cycle in SLS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey's post hoc method for pairwise comparison between walk status and sex for %GC in SLS.||||||< 0.0001
91945554|NCT02776904|183789065|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91945555|NCT02776904|183789066|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91945556|NCT02776904|183789067|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91945557|NCT04657003|183789069|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-11.5|<0.001
91945558|NCT04657003|183789069|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.0|-13.7|<0.001
91945559|NCT04657003|183789070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|15.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.84|7.30|<0.001
91945560|NCT04657003|183789070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.08|23.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.14|10.08|<0.001
91945561|NCT04657003|183789071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.06|33.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.58|13.06|<0.001
91945562|NCT04657003|183789071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.04|44.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.39|17.04|<0.001
91945563|NCT04657003|183789072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.81|58.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||58.31|13.81|<0.001
91945564|NCT04657003|183789072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|89.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.67|21.20|<0.001
91945565|NCT04657003|183789073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.73|83.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.73|9.73|<0.001
91945566|NCT04657003|183789073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.03|144.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||144.94|17.03|<0.001
91945567|NCT04657003|183789074|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-11.7|<0.001
91945568|NCT04657003|183789074|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.0|-13.8|<0.001
91945569|NCT04657003|183789075|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.2|-4.2|<0.001
91945570|NCT04657003|183789075|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.0|-5.0|<0.001
91945571|NCT04657003|183789076|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.80|-2.15|<0.001
91945572|NCT04657003|183789076|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.88|-2.24|<0.001
91945573|NCT04657003|183789077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.21|45.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||45.59|17.21|<0.001
91945574|NCT04657003|183789077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.27|57.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||57.67|20.27|<0.001
91945575|NCT04657003|183789078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.61|69.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||69.26|25.61|<0.001
91945576|NCT04657003|183789078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.29|100.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||100.37|34.29|<0.001
91945577|NCT04657003|183789079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.46|88.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||88.50|20.46|<0.001
91945578|NCT04657003|183789079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|113.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||113.38|26.00|<0.001
91945579|NCT04657003|183789080|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-46.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.67|-40.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.91|-52.67|<0.001
91945580|NCT04657003|183789080|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-49.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.18|-43.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-43.33|-55.18|<0.001
91945581|NCT04657003|183789081|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-9.2|<0.001
91945582|NCT04657003|183789081|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.9|-11.8|<0.001
91945583|NCT04657003|183789082|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.03|-7.11|<0.001
91945584|NCT04657003|183789083|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-3.36||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.81|-7.36|0.112
91945585|NCT04657003|183789084|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|9.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.71|4.40|<0.001
91945586|NCT04657003|183789085|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.9|-27.5|<0.001
91945587|NCT04657003|183789086|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.6|-28.6|<0.001
91945588|NCT04657003|183789087|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-8.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.32|-12.04|<0.001
91945589|NCT04657003|183789088|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-23.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.62|-18.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.24|-28.62|<0.001
91945590|NCT04657003|183789089|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.4|-8.0|<0.001
91945591|NCT04657003|183789090|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-3.5|<0.001
91945592|NCT04657003|183789091|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.9|-25.5|<0.001
91945593|NCT04657003|183789091|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.7|-37.0|<0.001
91945594|NCT04657003|183789092|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|0.7|0.001
91945595|NCT04657003|183789092|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|1.1|<0.001
91817223|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817224|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8703|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8703
91817225|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817226|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9049|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9049
91817227|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0019
91817228|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0033
91817229|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817230|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4087|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4087
91817231|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817232|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2755|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2755
91817233|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.0251|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0251
91817234|NCT01480076|183509769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.0989|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0989
91817235|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817236|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8767|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8767
91945596|NCT04657003|183789093|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|4.1|<0.001
91817237|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817238|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3673|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3673
91817239|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
91817240|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.0273|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0273
91817241|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817242|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9091|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9091
91817243|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817244|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7718|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7718
91817245|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817246|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0038
91817247|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817248|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2720
91817249|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817250|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4767|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4767
91945597|NCT04657003|183789093|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|10.7|||ANCOVA|||||10.7|5.0|<0.001
91817251|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.0553|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0553
91817252|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.0632|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0632
91817253|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817254|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9398|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9398
91817255|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817256|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5655|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5655
91817257|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.0204|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0204
91817258|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.1414|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1414
91817259|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817260|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6279|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6279
91817261|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817262|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2239|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2239
91817263|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0049
91945598|NCT00935766|183789095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91945599|NCT00935766|183789096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91945600|NCT00935766|183789097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
91945601|NCT00848172|183789129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.345||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.345
91817264|NCT01480076|183509770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.3457|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3457
91817265|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817266|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2087
91817267|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817268|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4487|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4487
91817269|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0013
91817270|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0188|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0188
91817271|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817272|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4243|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4243
91817273|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817274|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9989|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9989
91817275|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0207|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0207
91817276|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.0161|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0161
91817277|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945602|NCT00848172|183789130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.031||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.031
91945603|NCT02723019|183789156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyzed using logistic regression analysis||||0.01
91945604|NCT02723019|183789157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.19
91945605|NCT02723019|183789158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||P-value is for the time by group interaction effect, testing the difference in rate of change between the Intervention and Control groups from baseline to 6 months post baseline|multilevel model analysis, random interc|||multilevel model analysis, random intercepts and slopes, appropriate link function for outcome, full maximum likelihood estimation||||0.73
91945606|NCT02723019|183789159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value is for the time by group interaction effect, testing the difference in rate of change between the Intervention and Control groups from baseline to 6 months post baseline|multilevel model analysis, random interc|||multilevel model analysis, random intercepts and slopes, appropriate link function for outcome, full maximum likelihood estimation||||0.28
91945607|NCT02723019|183789160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||P-value is for the time by group interaction effect, testing the difference in rate of change between the Intervention and Control groups from baseline to 6 months post baseline|multilevel model analysis, random interc|||multilevel model analysis, random intercepts and slopes, appropriate link function for outcome, full maximum likelihood estimation||||0.71
91945608|NCT02723019|183789161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||negative binomial regression model analy|||negative binomial regression model analysis||||0.42
91945609|NCT00779116|183789259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical tests were performed atthe significance level of 5%, without multiplicity adjustment.|Mainland-Gart Test|The p-value was derived from Mainland-Gart Test applied to a 2 (treatment sequence) by 2 (preferred period) contingency table.||The Mainland-Gart test was applied to the preference rates in the subjects who showed a preference, to assess the difference in preference rates between RediTab and Zyrtec.||||<0.0001
91945610|NCT00170846|183789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.1241||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5077|5.7559|||ANCOVA|||||5.7559|-3.5077|0.6332
91945611|NCT00170846|183789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.5933||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8815|5.0682|||ANCOVA|||||5.0682|-3.8815|0.7943
91945612|NCT01469637|183789278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.18|||ANOVA|||||1.18|1.12|
91945613|NCT01469637|183789279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.15|||ANOVA|||||1.15|1.09|
91945614|NCT04716010|183789299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
91817278|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4256|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4256
91945615|NCT04716010|183789299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91945616|NCT04716010|183789299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91945617|NCT04716010|183789299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.024
91945618|NCT04716010|183789299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91945619|NCT04716010|183789299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91945620|NCT04716010|183789300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
91945621|NCT04716010|183789300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91945622|NCT04716010|183789300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91945623|NCT04716010|183789300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.022
91945624|NCT04716010|183789300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91945625|NCT04716010|183789300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91945626|NCT04716010|183789301|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \>0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945627|NCT04716010|183789301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945628|NCT04716010|183789301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945629|NCT04716010|183789301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945630|NCT04716010|183789301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945631|NCT04716010|183789301|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945632|NCT04716010|183789302|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91817279|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945633|NCT04716010|183789302|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945634|NCT04716010|183789302|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91817280|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3313|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3313
91817281|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0238|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0238
91817282|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0150
91945635|NCT04716010|183789302|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945636|NCT04716010|183789302|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945637|NCT04716010|183789302|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945638|NCT04716010|183789303|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945639|NCT04716010|183789303|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945640|NCT04716010|183789303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945641|NCT04716010|183789303|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91817283|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945642|NCT04716010|183789303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945643|NCT04716010|183789303|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945644|NCT04716010|183789304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945645|NCT04716010|183789304|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91817284|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0171|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0171
91945646|NCT04716010|183789304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945647|NCT04716010|183789304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945648|NCT04716010|183789304|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945649|NCT04716010|183789304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945650|NCT04716010|183789305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945651|NCT04716010|183789305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945652|NCT04716010|183789305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945653|NCT04716010|183789305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945654|NCT04716010|183789305|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945655|NCT04716010|183789305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945656|NCT04716010|183789306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945657|NCT04716010|183789306|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945658|NCT04716010|183789306|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945659|NCT04716010|183789306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945660|NCT04716010|183789306|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945661|NCT04716010|183789306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945662|NCT04716010|183789307|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945663|NCT04716010|183789307|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945664|NCT04716010|183789307|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945665|NCT04716010|183789307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91817285|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0007
91817286|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5146|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5146
91817287|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0003
91817288|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.1224|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1224
91817289|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0168|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0168
91817290|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2272|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2272
91817291|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0570
91817292|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5832|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5832
91817293|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.0561|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0561
91817294|NCT01480076|183509771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.2971|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2971
91817295|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817296|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0029
91817297|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817298|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8041|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8041
91945666|NCT04716010|183789307|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91817299|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817300|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0026
91817301|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817302|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0689|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0689
91817303|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817304|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7182|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7182
91817305|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817306|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.0061|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0061
91817307|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817308|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0179
91945667|NCT04716010|183789307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945668|NCT04716010|183789308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91817309|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817310|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6911|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6911
91945669|NCT04716010|183789308|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945670|NCT04716010|183789308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945671|NCT04716010|183789308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945672|NCT04716010|183789308|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91817311|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91945673|NCT04716010|183789308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945674|NCT04716010|183789309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945675|NCT04716010|183789309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945676|NCT04716010|183789309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945677|NCT04716010|183789309|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945678|NCT04716010|183789309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945679|NCT04716010|183789309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945680|NCT04716010|183789310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945681|NCT04716010|183789310|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945682|NCT04716010|183789310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91817312|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.0666|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0666
91817313|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817314|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0158|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0158
91945683|NCT04716010|183789310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945684|NCT04716010|183789310|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945685|NCT04716010|183789310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945686|NCT04716010|183789311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945687|NCT04716010|183789311|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945688|NCT04716010|183789311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945689|NCT04716010|183789311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945690|NCT04716010|183789311|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945691|NCT04716010|183789311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945692|NCT04716010|183789312|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945693|NCT04716010|183789312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945694|NCT04716010|183789312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945695|NCT04716010|183789312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945696|NCT04716010|183789312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945697|NCT04716010|183789312|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945698|NCT04716010|183789313|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945699|NCT04716010|183789313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945700|NCT04716010|183789313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945701|NCT04716010|183789313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945702|NCT04716010|183789313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945703|NCT04716010|183789313|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945704|NCT04716010|183789314|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945705|NCT04716010|183789314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91817315|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817316|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6684|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6684
91817317|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817318|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.0141|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0141
91817319|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817320|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0042
91817321|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817322|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7329|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7329
91817323|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817324|NCT01480076|183509772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0242|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0242
91817325|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0001
91817326|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9151|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9151
91817327|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817328|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6128|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6128
91817329|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0331|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0331
91817330|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1919|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1919
91817331|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817332|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4481|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4481
91817333|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817334|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5454|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5454
91817335|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0516|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0516
91817336|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0175|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0175
91817337|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0001
91817338|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9371|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9371
91817339|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0056
91817340|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5475|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5475
91817341|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0699|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0699
91945706|NCT04716010|183789314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945707|NCT04716010|183789314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945708|NCT04716010|183789314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945709|NCT04716010|183789314|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945710|NCT04716010|183789315|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945711|NCT04716010|183789315|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945712|NCT04716010|183789315|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945713|NCT04716010|183789315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945714|NCT04716010|183789315|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945715|NCT04716010|183789315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945716|NCT04716010|183789316|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945717|NCT04716010|183789316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945718|NCT04716010|183789316|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945719|NCT04716010|183789316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91817342|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.587|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5870
91817343|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0245
91945720|NCT04716010|183789316|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945721|NCT04716010|183789316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945722|NCT04716010|183789317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945723|NCT04716010|183789317|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945724|NCT04716010|183789317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945725|NCT04716010|183789317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945726|NCT04716010|183789317|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945727|NCT04716010|183789317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945728|NCT04716010|183789318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91817344|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9926|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9926
91945729|NCT04716010|183789318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945730|NCT04716010|183789318|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945731|NCT04716010|183789318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945732|NCT04716010|183789318|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91945733|NCT04716010|183789318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91945734|NCT01708915|183789359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.699|-1.025||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-1.025|-1.699|<0.0001
91945735|NCT01708915|183789359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.324|-0.642||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-0.642|-1.324|<0.0001
91945736|NCT01708915|183789359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.4171||95.0|-0.541|0.225||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||0.225|-0.541|0.4171
91945737|NCT01708915|183789360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.305|-0.793||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-0.793|-1.305|<0.0001
91945738|NCT01708915|183789360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.731|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.003|-0.459||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-0.459|-1.003|<0.0001
91945739|NCT01708915|183789360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.7037||95.0|-0.356|0.241||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||0.241|-0.356|0.7037
91945740|NCT01708915|183789361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.064|-1.247|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.||||-1.247|-2.064|<0.0001
91945741|NCT01708915|183789361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.578|-0.759|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.||||-0.759|-1.578|<0.0001
91817345|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0027
91817346|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6368|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6368
91817347|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3358|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3358
91945742|NCT01708915|183789361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.0259||95.0|-0.875|-0.056|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.||||-0.056|-0.875|0.0259
91945743|NCT01708915|183789362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.385|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.943|11.032|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.|Odds Ratio was calculated by Nicoboxil/Nonivamide : Placebo. Odds ratios \> 1 favour Nicoboxil/Nonivamide.|||11.032|4.943|<0.0001
91945744|NCT01708915|183789362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.469|5.308|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.|Odds Ratio was calculated by Nicoboxil/Nonivamide : Nicoboxil. Odds ratios \> 1 favour Nicoboxil/Nonivamide.|||5.308|2.469|<0.0001
91945745|NCT01708915|183789362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.594||||0.0129||95.0|1.104|2.303|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.|Odds Ratio was calculated by Nicoboxil/Nonivamide : Nonivamide. Odds ratios \> 1 favour Nicoboxil/Nonivamide.|||2.303|1.104|0.0129
91945746|NCT01045551|183789381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
91945747|NCT01045551|183789382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9024|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91945748|NCT02313506|183789386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.6|-5.7||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because Type II error is a greater concern than Type I error in feasibility studies.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of the group type on the outcome measures after adjusting for blocking and baseline (T0). We assessed 3 planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over time. Contrast 1 compared T0-T1 between the 2 groups to determine if the intervention was superior to the control.||-5.7|-56.6|0.02
91945749|NCT02313506|183789386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|28.9|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of the group type on the outcome measures after adjusting for blocking and baseline (T0). We assessed 3 planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over time. Contrast 2 compared T0-T1 in the immediate group against T1-T2 in the delayed group.||28.9|-19.6|0.71
91945750|NCT02313506|183789386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|9.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of the group type on the outcome measures after adjusting for blocking and baseline (T0). We assessed 3 planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over time. Contrast 3 compared T0-T1 in the immediate group against T0-T2 in the delayed group.||9.1|-31.1|0.29
91945751|NCT00537810|183789451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||Post-treatment||||0.60
91945752|NCT00537810|183789451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||6 month follow up||||0.13
91945753|NCT00537810|183789451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||12 month follow up||||0.29
91945754|NCT03860181|183789468|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical significance's p-value was set at 0.05. For Surgeon 1's differences, they were calculated as patient POSAS score - surgeon POSAS score, with a negative difference signifying that the patients thought more highly of the scars than the physicians since lower POSAS scores are more favorable.||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U = 215||||||0.896
91817348|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5089|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5089
91817349|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0141
91817350|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4280
91817351|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0002
91817352|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3827|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3827
91817353|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0748|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0748
91817354|NCT01480076|183509773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5663|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5663
91817355|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1544|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1544
91945755|NCT03860181|183789468|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical significance's p-value was set at 0.05. For Surgeon 2's differences, they were calculated as patient POSAS score - surgeon POSAS score, with a negative difference signifying that the patients thought more highly of the scars than the physicians since lower POSAS scores are more favorable.||||||0.612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U = 210||||||0.612
91817356|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0167
91817357|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3868|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3868
91817358|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2214|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2214
91945756|NCT02422186|183789525|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-3.6|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.07|-7.20|=0.059
91945757|NCT02422186|183789526|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-3.6|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-7.16|=0.052
91945758|NCT05281094|183789533|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|12.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.51|50.35|||||. Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1.||50.35|-52.51|
91945759|NCT05281094|183789534|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|17.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|44.7|||||Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1||44.70|-24.52|
91945760|NCT05281094|183789535|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|13.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|44.98|||||Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1.||44.98|-34.70|
91945761|NCT05281094|183789536|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.04|22.0|||||Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1.||22.00|-45.04|
91945762|NCT04223778|183789564|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL) - Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 4 percentage points.|Estimated Difference|-1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.34|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.||||-0.34|-3.44|<.001
91945763|NCT04223778|183789565|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|16.3|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||16.3|3.3|
91945764|NCT04223778|183789566|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.0|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.0|0.2|
91945765|NCT04223778|183789567|OTHER|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL)- Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|3.9|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|HIV-1 RNA \<40 copies/mL||3.90|-3.28|
91945766|NCT04223778|183789567|OTHER|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL)- Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|4.43|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL||4.43|-2.58|
91945767|NCT04223778|183789570|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-4.5|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-4.5|-13.4|
91945768|NCT04223778|183789575|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-19.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.07|-6.44|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting Cholesterol||-6.44|-33.07|
91945769|NCT04223778|183789575|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|3.84|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||3.84|-6.55|
91945770|NCT04223778|183789575|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-13.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.69|-3.2|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||-3.20|-24.69|
91945771|NCT04223778|183789575|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-17.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.02|-5.46|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||-5.46|-30.02|
91945772|NCT04223778|183789575|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-21.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.51|2.96|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting Triglycerides||2.96|-45.51|
91945773|NCT04223778|183789576|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|2.09|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||2.09|-10.43|
91945774|NCT04223778|183789576|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|3.09|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||3.09|-1.46|
91945775|NCT04223778|183789576|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|1.74|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||1.74|-9.47|
91945776|NCT04223778|183789576|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.38|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||1.38|-11.21|
91945777|NCT04223778|183789576|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|19.43|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||19.43|-16.14|
91945778|NCT04223778|183789577|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|9.7|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||9.70|-7.60|
91945779|NCT04223778|183789577|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|0.05|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||0.05|-6.37|
91945780|NCT04223778|183789577|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|11.03|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||11.03|-2.27|
91945781|NCT04223778|183789577|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|11.19|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||11.19|-3.93|
91945782|NCT04223778|183789577|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|12.31|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||12.31|-15.89|
91945783|NCT04223778|183789578|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-18.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.05|-4.76|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||-4.76|-32.05|
91945784|NCT04223778|183789578|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|5.08|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||5.08|-5.06|
91945785|NCT04223778|183789578|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-14.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.81|-2.43|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||-2.43|-25.81|
91945786|NCT04223778|183789578|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-18.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.45|-6.0|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||-6.00|-30.45|
91945787|NCT04223778|183789578|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-27.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.08|-4.49|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||-4.49|-51.08|
91945788|NCT04223778|183789578|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.12||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.56|-0.68||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting LDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|-0.68|-27.56|0.0094
91945789|NCT04223778|183789578|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.23||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|-4.17||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|-4.17|-32.28|0.0021
91945790|NCT04223778|183789579|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|6.18|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||6.18|-6.26|
91945791|NCT04223778|183789579|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.54|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||2.54|-1.84|
91945792|NCT04223778|183789579|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|6.11|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||6.11|-4.83|
91945793|NCT04223778|183789579|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|5.83|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||5.83|-6.81|
91945794|NCT04223778|183789579|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|9.57|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||9.57|-20.46|
91945795|NCT04223778|183789579|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|6.9||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting LDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|6.90|-5.63|0.4093
91945796|NCT04223778|183789579|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.4397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|6.75||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|6.75|-7.72|0.4397
91945797|NCT04223778|183789580|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|10.17|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||10.17|-5.54|
91945798|NCT04223778|183789580|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|0.65|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||0.65|-5.69|
91945799|NCT04223778|183789580|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|8.42|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||8.42|-3.73|
91945800|NCT04223778|183789580|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|10.56|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||10.56|-2.63|
91945801|NCT04223778|183789580|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|24.96|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||24.96|-3.97|
91945802|NCT04223778|183789581|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.46|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||1.46|-0.59|
91817359|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0743|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0743
91945803|NCT05325333|183789586|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at 5 mins for children with DLD||||||0.567|||||||LSD test|||||||0.567
91945804|NCT05325333|183789586|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at 5 mins for children with TD||||||0.003|||||||LSD test|||||||0.003
91945805|NCT05325333|183789587|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at one week for children with DLD||||||0.187|||||||LSD test|||||||0.187
91945806|NCT05325333|183789587|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at one week for children with TD||||||0.256|||||||LSD test|||||||0.256
91945807|NCT05325333|183789588|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at 5 Mins for DLD||||||0.747|||||||LSD test|||||||0.747
91945808|NCT05325333|183789588|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at 5 Mins for TD||||||0.031|||||||LSD test|||||||0.031
91945809|NCT05325333|183789589|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at one week for DLD||||||0.061|||||||LSD test|||||||0.061
91945810|NCT05325333|183789589|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at one week for TD||||||0.747|||||||LSD test|||||||0.747
91945811|NCT05325333|183789590|SUPERIORITY|Word recognition (number of words accurately identified) on Expanding condition and Standard Retrieval Schedules for DLD||||||0.026|||||||LSD test|||||||0.026
91945812|NCT05325333|183789590|SUPERIORITY|Word recognition (number of words accurately identified) on Expanding condition and Standard Retrieval Schedules for TD||||||0.72|||||||LSD test|||||||0.720
91945813|NCT05325333|183789591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
91945814|NCT05325333|183789592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.673
91945815|NCT01265719|183789626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.74|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in BCVA was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline BCVA value as covariate.|\<5 years||0.74|-0.09|0.1126
91945816|NCT01265719|183789626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in BCVA was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline BCVA value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||0.06|-0.12|0.4840
91945817|NCT01265719|183789628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.56|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in HCD was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline HCD value as covariate.|\<5 years||0.56|-0.63|0.9020
91945818|NCT01265719|183789628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.43|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in HCD was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline HCD value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||0.43|-0.37|0.8826
91945819|NCT01265719|183789629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|0.89|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in IOP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline IOP value as covariate.|\<5 years||0.89|-4.13|0.2003
91945820|NCT01265719|183789629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.39|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in IOP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline IOP value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years (IOP \<21mmHg at Baseline)||1.39|-1.59|0.8940
91945821|NCT01265719|183789629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|-1.36|||ANCOVA|The results were interpreted with caution because of the very small sample size of non-PG treatment group (n=4).|Change from baseline to last available observation in IOP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline IOP value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years (IOP ≥21mmHg at Baseline)||-1.36|-11.95|0.0184
91945822|NCT01265719|183789630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|15.9|||Fisher Exact|||||15.90|-13.97|>0.999
91945823|NCT01265719|183789631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|14.55|||Fisher Exact|||||14.55|-15.32|>0.999
91945824|NCT01265719|183789632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|16.09|||Fisher Exact|||||16.09|-13.78|>0.999
91945825|NCT01265719|183789634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.6||||0.6414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|16.48|||Fisher Exact|||||16.48|-13.39|0.6414
91945826|NCT01265719|183789635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.65|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in longest lash length (LLL) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline LLL value as covariate.|\<5 years||1.65|-0.43|0.2437
91945827|NCT01265719|183789635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.5199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.43|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in LLL was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline LLL value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||0.43|-0.85|0.5199
91945828|NCT01265719|183789636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.8643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|28.94|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in corneal thickness was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline corneal thickness value as covariate.|\<5 years||28.94|-34.30|0.8643
91945829|NCT01265719|183789636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|8.8|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in corneal thickness was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline corneal thickness value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||8.80|-10.54|0.8591
91945830|NCT01265719|183789637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.5||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|19.36|||Fisher Exact|||||19.36|-10.49|0.2413
91945831|NCT00303602|183789640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||P-value for Week 2 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.428
91945832|NCT00303602|183789640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0||||P-value for Week 4 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.859
91945833|NCT00303602|183789640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0||||P-value for Week 8 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.885
91945834|NCT00303602|183789640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||P-value for Week 12 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.784
91945835|NCT00303602|183789640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0||||P-value for Week 16 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.465
91945836|NCT00303602|183789641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Change Difference|-0.19||||0.442||95.0|-0.67|0.3|||ANCOVA||Change = Endpoint minus baseline|||0.30|-0.67|0.442
91945837|NCT00303602|183789642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Change Difference|-0.32||||0.328||95.0|-0.95|0.32|||ANCOVA||Change = Endpoint minus baseline|||0.32|-0.95|0.328
91945838|NCT00303602|183789643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
91945839|NCT00303602|183789644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Change Difference|0.1||||0.914||95.0|-1.65|1.84|||ANCOVA||Change = endpoint minus baseline|||1.84|-1.65|0.914
91945840|NCT00303602|183789645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||Up to Week 16 p-value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.325
91945841|NCT00303602|183789647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.344
91945842|NCT00303602|183789648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0||||Systolic Blood Pressure Change to Endpoint p-value|Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.708
91945843|NCT00303602|183789648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453||95.0||||Diastolic Blood Pressure Change to Endpoint p-value|Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.453
91945844|NCT00303602|183789649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||95.0||||Total Cholesterol Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.187
91945845|NCT00303602|183789649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.163
91945846|NCT00303602|183789649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0||||Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.323
91945847|NCT00303602|183789649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||Triglycerides Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.581
91945848|NCT00303602|183789650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.227
91945849|NCT00303602|183789651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.020
91817360|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22||0.1601|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1601
91945850|NCT00303602|183789652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.834
91945851|NCT00303602|183789653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals on this regression in CMH test.||||||0.022
91945852|NCT00303602|183789654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||95.0||||Endpoint Metabolic Syndrome p-value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
91945853|NCT00303602|183789655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.118
91945854|NCT00303602|183789656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
91945855|NCT00303602|183789657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.229
91817361|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1251|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1251
91817362|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1764|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1764
91817363|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5528|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5528
91817364|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1080
91817365|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.4644|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4644
91817366|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.91||0.0887|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0887
91945856|NCT02442765|183789658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-0.6||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-0.6|-7.4|=0.021
91945857|NCT02442765|183789658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.7||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|||||2.7|-3.9|=0.731
91945858|NCT02442765|183789658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|||=|0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.4||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|||||1.4|-8.4|=0.157
91945859|NCT02442765|183789658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||=|0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.3||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.3|-8.4|=0.150
91945860|NCT02442765|183789658|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-2.65|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD) was used with weight = 0.6 for Stage 1 and 0.4 for Stage 2.||||||=0.008
91945861|NCT02442765|183789658|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.26|||=|0.208|TWO_SIDED|||||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|SPCD was used with weight = 0.6 for Stage 1 and 0.4 for Stage 2.||||||=0.208
91945862|NCT02442765|183789659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.331
91945863|NCT02442765|183789659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|0.400
91945864|NCT02442765|183789659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.014
91945865|NCT02442765|183789659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.145
91945866|NCT02442765|183789659|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-2.51||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||OLS = ordinary least squares|||||0.012
91945867|NCT02442765|183789659|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.66||||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.097
91945868|NCT02442765|183789660|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|SPCD was used with weight = 0.6 for Stage 1 and 0.4 for Stage 2.||||0.2|-1.3|=0.182
91945869|NCT02442765|183789660|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.4|-1.1|=0.390
91945870|NCT02442765|183789660|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|||=|0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.7|-0.8|=0.462
91945871|NCT02442765|183789660|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|||=|0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.6|-0.8|=0.528
91945872|NCT02442765|183789660|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-0.39|||=|0.695|TWO_SIDED|||||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, Baseline (BL), BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|ANCOVA|||||||=0.695
91945873|NCT02442765|183789660|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-0.12|||=|0.904|TWO_SIDED|||||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, Baseline (BL), BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|ANCOVA|||||||=0.904
91945874|NCT02442765|183789661|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|||=|0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.8||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.8|-3.2|=0.247
91945875|NCT02442765|183789661|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.6|-2.3|=0.721
91945876|NCT02442765|183789661|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|||=|0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.8||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.8|-4.3|=0.419
91945877|NCT02442765|183789661|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||=|0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.9||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||3.9|-2.0|=0.534
91945878|NCT02442765|183789661|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.4|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.163
91817367|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0071
91945879|NCT02442765|183789661|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|0.19|||=|0.851|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.851
91945880|NCT02442765|183789662|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.2|-1.4|=0.146
91945881|NCT02442765|183789662|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|||=|0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.1|-0.4|=0.399
91945882|NCT02442765|183789662|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|||=|0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.0||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||2.0|-0.6|=0.283
91945883|NCT02442765|183789662|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||2.5|-0.1|=0.065
91945884|NCT02442765|183789662|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-0.22|||=|0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.829
91945885|NCT02442765|183789662|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|1.94|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.052
91945886|NCT02442765|183789663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|||=|0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-2.7|=0.530
91945887|NCT02442765|183789663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|||=|0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-3.1|=0.326
91817368|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0640
91817369|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1552|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1552
91817370|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5979|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5979
91817371|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.4444|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4444
91945888|NCT02442765|183789663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|||=|0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|-0.8|=0.135
91945889|NCT02442765|183789663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|||=|0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-3.1|=0.895
91945890|NCT02442765|183789663|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted Z-statistic|0.67|||=|0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.502
91945891|NCT02442765|183789663|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted Z-statistic|-0.58|||=|0.564|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.564
91945892|NCT02442765|183789664|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.0|-1.6|=0.061
91945893|NCT02442765|183789664|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.5|-1.1|=0.400
91945894|NCT02442765|183789664|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|||=|0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.3|-2.4|=0.115
91945895|NCT02442765|183789664|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|||=|0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.6|-2.1|=0.264
91945896|NCT02442765|183789664|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-2.44|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.015
91945897|NCT02442765|183789664|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.4|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.163
91945898|NCT02442765|183789665|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.0||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||-0.0|-7.8|=0.050
91945899|NCT02442765|183789665|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||=|0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.2||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||2.2|-5.4|=0.412
91945900|NCT02442765|183789665|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|||=|0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.8||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||5.8|-7.8|=0.775
91945901|NCT02442765|183789665|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.3|||=|0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.1||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||10.1|-3.5|=0.333
91945902|NCT02442765|183789665|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.5|||=|0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.133
91945903|NCT02442765|183789665|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|0.22|||=|0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.829
91945904|NCT02442765|183789666|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|=0.118
91945905|NCT02442765|183789666|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|=0.191
91945906|NCT02442765|183789666|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.225
91945907|NCT02442765|183789666|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.227
91945908|NCT02442765|183789666|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.97|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.049
91945909|NCT02442765|183789666|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.78|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.075
91945910|NCT02442765|183789667|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|=0.364
91945911|NCT02442765|183789667|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|=0.427
91945912|NCT02442765|183789667|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|=0.098
91945913|NCT02442765|183789667|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|=0.168
91945914|NCT02442765|183789667|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.86|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.063
91945915|NCT02442765|183789667|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.57|||=|0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.115
91945916|NCT02442765|183789668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.6|=0.014
91945917|NCT02442765|183789668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.111
91945918|NCT02442765|183789668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.1|=0.062
91945919|NCT02442765|183789668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|=0.305
91945920|NCT02442765|183789668|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-3.01|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.003
91945921|NCT02442765|183789668|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.79|||=|0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.073
91945922|NCT02442765|183789669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-2.2|=0.909
91945923|NCT02442765|183789669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|||=|0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.8|||ANCOVA|||||3.8|-0.9|=0.226
91945924|NCT02442765|183789669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|||=|0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.1|||ANCOVA|||||7.1|-2.9|=0.405
91945925|NCT02442765|183789669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-5.8|=0.714
91945926|NCT02442765|183789669|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.75|||=|0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.456
91945927|NCT02442765|183789669|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.42|||=|0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.678
91945928|NCT02442765|183789670|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.1|=0.278
91945929|NCT02442765|183789670|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.8|=0.817
91945930|NCT02442765|183789670|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-1.4|=0.500
91945931|NCT02442765|183789670|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.9|=0.795
91945932|NCT02442765|183789670|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.25|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.213
91945933|NCT02442765|183789670|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.02|||=|0.985|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.985
91945934|NCT02442765|183789672|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.9|=0.018
91945935|NCT02442765|183789672|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||=|0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-1.3|=0.956
91945936|NCT02442765|183789672|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|||=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-1.8|=0.451
91945937|NCT02442765|183789672|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||=|0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-1.9|=0.519
91945938|NCT02442765|183789672|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-0.72|||=|0.471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.471
91945939|NCT02442765|183789672|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.5|||=|0.618|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.618
91945940|NCT04607291|183789683|OTHER|A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with screening.|||||||||||||||||"A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with screening. A stepwise selection procedure (alpha entry and alpha exit = 0.15) was used to determine what factors were included in the model. Overall performance is assessed using the AUC.~Factors included in the model: sex, stool test recommended by physician, know where to get stool test, fear of colonoscopy index score, ABR - afraid score, and knowledge that colonoscopy can reduce worry.~AUC: 0.71"|||
91945941|NCT04607291|183789684|OTHER|A logistic regression model was used to identify characteristics associated with high intent of getting a Fit test.||||||||||||||||Evaluating factors associated with high intent of getting a Fit test.|"A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with high intent of getting a fit test. A stepwise selection procedure (alpha entry and alpha exit = 0.15) was used to determine what factors were included in the model. Overall performance is assessed using the AUC.~Factors included in the model: sex, race, stool test or colonoscopy recommended by physician, know where to get stool test, CBPR score, and barriers to screening score.~AUC: 0.80"|||
91945942|NCT01693562|183789715|EQUIVALENCE|Other||||||0.016|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.016
91945943|NCT01693562|183789716|EQUIVALENCE|Other||||||0.0046|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.0046
91945944|NCT05466240|183789717|EQUIVALENCE|For each post-baseline collection time point, treatment difference and p-value comparing the mean change in viral load from baseline between treatment arms from an analysis of covariance model with covariate baseline viral load.|||||<|0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.95
91945945|NCT02759939|183789720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.80
91945946|NCT02759939|183789720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.32
91945947|NCT02759939|183789720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.99
91945948|NCT02759939|183789720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.72
91945949|NCT04735432|183789741|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, 12-week study to evaluate the noninferiority of the pharmacodynamic effect of efgartigimod PH20 SC 1000 mg compared with efgartigimod IV 10 mg/kg in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis.|LS mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.782|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and total IgG levels at baseline as a covariate. The NI evaluation was based on a percent reduction from baseline in total IgG levels at day 29 (week 4) using an NI margin of 10%. Only the results for mITT analysis set are entered.||-0.66|-7.73|< 0.0001
91945950|NCT00626327|183789755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion for measles was greater than -5%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference % (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MMRV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.5||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to measles following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV given alone.||0.5|-3.4|
91945951|NCT00626327|183789755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion for mumps was greater than -5%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference % (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV - MMRV )|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.7||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to mumps following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV administered alone.||3.7|-1|
91945952|NCT00626327|183789755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion for rubella was greater than -5%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MMRV)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.8||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to rubella following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV administered alone.||0.8|-4.5|
91945953|NCT00626327|183789755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroprotection for varicella was greater than -10%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MMRV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.2||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to varicella following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV administered alone.||1.2|-3.9|
91945954|NCT00626327|183789756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.5||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup A when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY-CRM vaccine given alone.||4.5|-4.7|
91945955|NCT00626327|183789756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup C when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY-CRM vaccine given alone.||1.9|-1.8|
91945956|NCT00626327|183789756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup W-135 when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY vaccine given alone.||3.9|-1.3|
91945957|NCT00626327|183789756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.3||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup Y when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY-CRM vaccine given alone.||5.3|-1.9|
91945958|NCT00626327|183789761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MMRV+MenACWY group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with seroconversion for varicella was greater than -10%.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV- MMRV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8||||||Non-inferiority of anti-varicella response following one dose of MMRV when administered concomitantly with MenACWY vaccine as compared to MMRV administered alone.||0.8|-2.4|
91945959|NCT04880642|183789778|SUPERIORITY|"The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference in survival up to Day 60 between the two groups and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis i.e. a difference in survival up to Day 60 between the two groups excisted.~The overall 2-sided significance level of 5% was applied to the primary endpoint."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.36|||Log Rank|||||2.36|0.40|0.949
91945960|NCT04880642|183789779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.91|0.301
91945961|NCT04880642|183789780|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-1|0.425
91945962|NCT04880642|183789781|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.0|-9.3|0.671
91945963|NCT04880642|183789782|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.6|-11.4|0.948
91945964|NCT02987205|183789839|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of this 95% CI was less than the prespecified non-inferiority limit of 0.50, the Test product would be claimed to be non-inferior to the Comparator product.||||||0.013||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0130
91817372|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.27||0.3863|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3863
91945965|NCT05306964|183789872|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
91945966|NCT05306964|183789873|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||GLMM|||||||0.4
91945967|NCT05306964|183789874|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
91945968|NCT05306964|183789875|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
91945969|NCT05306964|183789876|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||GLMM|||||||0.4
91945970|NCT05306964|183789877|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
91945971|NCT05306964|183789878|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
91945972|NCT05306964|183789879|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
91945973|NCT05306964|183789880|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||GLMM|||||||0.7
91945974|NCT05306964|183789881|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
91945975|NCT05306964|183789882|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GLMM|||||||0.02
91945976|NCT05306964|183789883|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
91945977|NCT05306964|183789884|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||GLMM|||||||0.7
91945978|NCT05306964|183789885|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||GLMM|||||||0.1
91945979|NCT05306964|183789886|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
91945980|NCT05306964|183789887|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GLMM|||||||<0.001
91945981|NCT05306964|183789888|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91945982|NCT05306964|183789889|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
91945983|NCT05306964|183789890|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||GLMM|||||||0.9
91945984|NCT05306964|183789891|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||GLMM|||||||0.8
91945985|NCT05306964|183789892|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91945986|NCT05306964|183789893|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91945987|NCT05306964|183789894|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
91945988|NCT05306964|183789895|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91945989|NCT05306964|183789896|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||GLMM|||||||0.9
91945990|NCT05306964|183789897|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91945991|NCT05306964|183789898|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||GLMM|||||||0.9
91945992|NCT05306964|183789899|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91945993|NCT05306964|183789900|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91945994|NCT05306964|183789901|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91945995|NCT05306964|183789902|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
91945996|NCT05306964|183789903|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
91945997|NCT05306964|183789904|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
91945998|NCT00750867|183789941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128||||||The P-Value was obtained by comparing the UMSARS-I scores at final visit and at baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0128
91945999|NCT00750867|183789941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||The P-Value was obtained by comparing the UMSARS-II scores at final visit and at baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.025
91946000|NCT03018340|183789942|SUPERIORITY||Difference in weighted MMRM LSMs|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the primary statistical comparison for Stage 1 and Stage 2 combined.||-0.1|-3.4|0.0390
91946001|NCT03018340|183789942|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.9|-6.1|0.0003
91946002|NCT03018340|183789942|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-2.1|0.6940
91946003|NCT04652102|183789953|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.826|0.299|0.433|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95.826% Pearson-Clopper confidence interval (CI) on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.433|0.299|
91946004|NCT04652102|183789953|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|48.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.826|31.0|61.4||1-sided p-value from the exact binomial test on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases (equivalent to a test on VE with H0: VE ≤30%). Statistically significant if lower than 0.02087.|Exact Binomial Test||2-sided 95.826% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95.826% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Vaccine efficacy (VE) calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||61.4|31.0|0.01600
91946005|NCT04652102|183789965|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.389|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.389|0.133|
91946006|NCT04652102|183789965|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|70.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.5|86.1|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||86.1|42.5|
91946007|NCT04652102|183789966|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.581|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.581|0.084|
91946008|NCT04652102|183789966|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|63.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|91.7|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||91.7|-25.5|
91946009|NCT04652102|183789967|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|0.452|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.452|0.242|
91946010|NCT04652102|183789967|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|53.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|71.2|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||71.2|25.4|
91946011|NCT04652102|183789968|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.571|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.782|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.782|0.340|
91946012|NCT04652102|183789968|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.5|56.7|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||56.7|-200.5|
91946013|NCT01756833|183790005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.035||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07||Two prespecified interim analyses for efficacy performed when 1/3 \& 2/3 of primary outcome available, significance level, 1-sided, alpha=.0005. Final analysis 1-sided, alpha=.024. Futility analysis performed when \~2/3 primary outcome was available.|ANCOVA on normal scores|||"Null hypothesis: normal score of MTD at follow-up adjusted for baseline and gender in doxycycline assigned patients - normal score of MTD at follow-up adjusted for baseline and gender in placebo assigned patients = 0.~Sample size: The criterion (alpha) set for statistical significance was 1-sided .025; use of this level means that the inference from the test result will be the same as the inference from 2-sided testing at the .05 significance level."|For the primary analysis, diameters at baseline were ranked from smallest to largest (ranks 1-254). At the 2-year follow-up, ranks 1 through 225 were assigned to the diameters of surviving patients with no aneurysm repair (with missing values estimated by multiple imputation), ranks 226 through 247 were assigned to surviving patients who underwent aneurysm repair (in order of longest to shortest time from randomization to repair), and ranks 248 through 254 were assigned to patients who died (in order of longest to shortest time from randomization to death). Each rank was converted to a normal score corresponding to the value on the standard normal curve (z score) of its percentile among all 254 ranks. The primary analysis was based on linear regression of the change in normal scores from baseline to 2 years. Independent variables were baseline normal score, sex, and a dichotomous variable for the randomly assigned treatment group (0 for placebo, 1 for doxycycline).|0.07|-0.07|0.71
91946014|NCT00808132|183790014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|2.201|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.201|0.822|<0.001
91946015|NCT00808132|183790014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.209|2.533|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.533|1.209|<0.001
91946016|NCT00808132|183790015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|1.47|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.470|0.139|0.017
91946017|NCT00808132|183790015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.83|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.830|0.556|<0.001
91946018|NCT00808132|183790016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.742|||ANCOVA|||Month 6: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.742|0.901|<0.001
91946019|NCT00808132|183790016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.671|||ANCOVA|||Month 12: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.671|0.756|<0.001
91946020|NCT00808132|183790016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|1.962|||ANCOVA|||Month 6: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.962|1.152|<0.001
91946021|NCT00808132|183790016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.164|2.044|||ANCOVA|||Month 12: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.044|1.164|<0.001
91946022|NCT00808132|183790017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.138
91946023|NCT00808132|183790017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91946024|NCT00808132|183790017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.765
91946025|NCT00808132|183790017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91817373|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6352|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6352
91946026|NCT00808132|183790017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91946027|NCT00808132|183790018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|0.509|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.509|-0.632|0.832
91946028|NCT00808132|183790018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.696|0.436|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.436|-0.696|0.651
91946029|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946030|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0074
91946031|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946032|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946033|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946034|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946035|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946036|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946037|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946038|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0016
91946039|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946040|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946041|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91817374|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1265|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1265
91817375|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6161|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6161
91817376|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5280
91946042|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.1058
91946043|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946044|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0024
91946045|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946046|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946047|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946048|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946049|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946050|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0012
91946051|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946052|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946053|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946054|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0029
91946055|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946056|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0046
91946057|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946058|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0043
91946059|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946060|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946061|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0016
91946062|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946063|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946064|NCT00808132|183790019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91946065|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1-4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.546
91946066|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5-8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.821
91946067|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9-12: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.698
91946068|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13-16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.446
91946069|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17-20: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.892
91946070|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21-24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.810
91946071|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25-28: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.473
91946072|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29-32: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.030
91946073|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33-36: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.453
91946074|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37-40: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.391
91946075|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41-44: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.407
91946076|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45-48: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.644
91946077|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49-52: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.666
91946078|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1-4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.641
91946079|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5-8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.361
91946080|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9-12: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.100
91946081|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13-16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.142
91946082|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17-20: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.906
91946083|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21-24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.798
91946084|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25-28: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.258
91946085|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29-32: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.058
91946086|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33-36: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.230
91946087|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37-40: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.360
91946088|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41-44: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.892
91946089|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45-48: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.912
91946090|NCT00808132|183790021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49-52: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.791
91946091|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.93||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||2.10|-7.96|0.253
91946092|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.84||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.10|-8.78|0.127
91946093|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.15||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.46|-7.76|0.180
91946094|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.67||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|1.85|||ANOVA|||Snoring: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.85|-7.19|0.247
91946095|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.63||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.9|||ANCOVA|||ASoB: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||2.90|-4.15|0.726
91946096|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.17||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|1.29|||ANCOVA|||ASoB: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.29|-5.63|0.218
91817377|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.51||0.1769|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1769
91946097|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|3.87|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||3.87|-3.85|0.996
91946098|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean DIfference|0.83||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||4.60|-2.94|0.665
91946099|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.76||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|8.78|||ANOVA|||Sleep adequacy: Month 3, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||8.78|-3.26|0.368
91946100|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.84||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|8.75|||ANCOVA|||Sleep adequacy: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||8.75|-3.07|0.345
91946101|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|2.42|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index I: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||2.42|-5.12|0.482
91946102|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean DIfference|-2.15||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index I: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.55|-5.86|0.254
91946103|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.97||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.82|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index II: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.82|-5.76|0.308
91946104|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index II: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.23|-6.20|0.190
91946105|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Sleep quantity: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.17|-0.32|0.550
91946106|NCT00808132|183790022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Sleep quantity: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.32|-0.15|0.477
91946107|NCT00808132|183790024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Vasomotor function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||<0.001
91946108|NCT00808132|183790024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Vasomotor function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||<0.001
91946109|NCT00808132|183790024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.680
91946110|NCT00808132|183790024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.493
91946111|NCT00808132|183790024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.698
91946112|NCT00808132|183790024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.055
91946113|NCT00808132|183790024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|||||||ANCOVA|||Sexual function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.428
91946114|NCT00808132|183790024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||Sexual function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.071
91946115|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.624
91946116|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.868
91946117|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.087
91946118|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.425
91946119|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.307
91946120|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.689
91946121|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.285
91946122|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91946123|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.065
91946124|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.014
91946125|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91946126|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.226
91946127|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91946128|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946129|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91817378|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.24||0.4743|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4743
91946130|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946131|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946132|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946133|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946134|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946135|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946136|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946137|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946138|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91817379|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6901|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6901
91817380|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0245
91946139|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946140|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946141|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.317
91946142|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.531
91946143|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.610
91946144|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.848
91946145|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.551
91946146|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.300
91946147|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.299
91946148|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91946149|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.660
91946150|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.199
91946151|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.770
91946152|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91946153|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.769
91946154|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946155|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946156|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946157|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946158|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946159|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946160|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946161|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91817381|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7707|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7707
91817382|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4989|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4989
91817383|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.0387|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0387
91817384|NCT01480076|183509774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.88||0.4635|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4635
91817385|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1392|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1392
91817386|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1448|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1448
91817387|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0187|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0187
91817388|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2920
91817389|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.3968|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3968
91817390|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.642|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6420
91817391|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0100
91817392|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8634|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8634
91817393|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0134|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0134
91817394|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8147|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8147
91946162|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946163|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946164|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946165|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946166|NCT00808132|183790025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91946167|NCT01846208|183790053|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|55.8|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants passed Year 2 SU OFC: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||55.8|8.9|0.009
91946168|NCT01846208|183790053|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|49.1|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants passed Year 2 SU OFC: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||49.1|2.0|0.031
91946169|NCT01846208|183790054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|85.6|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 2 OFC: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||85.6|43.9|<0.0001
91817395|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.4035|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4035
91817396|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.25||0.7385|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7385
91946170|NCT01846208|183790054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.7||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|37.7|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 2 OFC: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||37.7|-2.3|0.151
91946171|NCT01846208|183790054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|69.2|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 1 OFC: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||69.2|19.4|0.002
91946172|NCT01846208|183790054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|41.3|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 1 OFC: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||41.3|-6.3|0.181
91946173|NCT01846208|183790056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.4|-21.9|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants with unrestricted consumption of unbaked (concentrated) egg 3 years after randomization: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||-21.9|-78.4|0.003
91946174|NCT01846208|183790056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|60.1|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants with unrestricted consumption of unbaked (concentrated) egg 3 years after randomization: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||60.1|7.2|0.023
91946175|NCT00369928|183790063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.88||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.38|0.56|0.982
91946176|NCT00369928|183790063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.79||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.25|0.50|0.666
91946177|NCT02871570|183790077|OTHER||ratio|0.7789|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6514|0.9313|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||0.9313|0.6514|
91946178|NCT02871570|183790078|OTHER||ratio|0.7776|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6493|0.9311|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||0.9311|0.6493|
91946179|NCT02871570|183790079|OTHER||ratio|1.2844|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0732|1.5372|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||1.5372|1.0732|
91946180|NCT02871570|183790080|OTHER||ratio|0.7945|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5955|1.0599|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||1.0599|0.5955|
91946181|NCT00281528|183790084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4476||95.0||||Group comparison was performed between group 260 mg/m\^2 ABI-007 every 3 weeks and group 130 mg/m\^2 ABI-007 weekly, as based on amended protocol, no type I error adjustment for multiplicity; a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study site||||||0.4476
91946182|NCT01225211|183790106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.679||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.484|2.125|||ANCOVA|||||2.125|-7.484|0.267
91946183|NCT01225211|183790106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-9.676|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.801|-4.551|||ANCOVA|||||-4.551|-14.801|<0.001
91946184|NCT01225211|183790107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.306||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.565|4.953|||ANCOVA|||||4.953|-7.565|0.680
91946185|NCT01225211|183790107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.67||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.053|3.712|||ANCOVA|||||3.712|-9.053|0.409
91946186|NCT01225211|183790107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-4.526||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.888|1.835|||ANCOVA|||||1.835|-10.888|0.161
91946187|NCT01225211|183790107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.867||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.543|3.81|||ANCOVA|||||3.810|-9.543|0.396
91946188|NCT01225211|183790107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.78||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.028|4.467|||ANCOVA|||||4.467|-12.028|0.365
91946189|NCT01225211|183790108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.6||||0.5978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|2.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||2.86|-1.66|0.5978
91946190|NCT00410514|183790127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was -3 mL/sec for Qmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for Qmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.42|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||1.42|-0.63|
91946191|NCT00410514|183790127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was -3 mL/sec for Qmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for Qmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec.|LS Mean Difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.68|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||1.68|-0.43|
91946192|NCT00410514|183790129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for PdetQmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O.|LS Mean Difference|-5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|2.09|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||2.09|-13.98|
91946193|NCT00410514|183790129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for PdetQmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O.|LS Mean Difference|-1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|6.96|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||6.96|-9.73|
91946194|NCT02449915|183790147|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
91946195|NCT01436357|183790148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.529||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|3.535|||Regression, Cox|||||3.535|0.661|0.317
91946196|NCT01436357|183790149|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16|||Fisher Exact|||||0.16|-0.01|0.029
91946197|NCT01436357|183790150|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.2|||Fisher Exact|||||0.20|0.01|0.015
91946198|NCT01436357|183790151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.00
91946199|NCT01436357|183790153|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||Fisher Exact|||||0.10|-0.08|0.499
91946200|NCT01021293|183790173|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ vaccine as compared to OPV vaccine in terms of the immune response to poliovirus type 1 one month after the third vaccine dose. Non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity to poliovirus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Control Group minus Poliorix Group\] in the percentage of seroprotected subjects|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.24||||||Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ as compared to OPV||1.24|-1.28|
91946201|NCT01021293|183790173|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ vaccine as compared to OPV vaccine in terms of the immune response to poliovirus type 2 one month after the third vaccine dose. Non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity to poliovirus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Control Group minus Poliorix Group\] in the percentage of seroprotected subjects|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.24||||||Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ as compared to OPV||1.24|-1.28|
91946202|NCT01021293|183790173|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ vaccine as compared to OPV vaccine in terms of the immune response to poliovirus type 3 one month after the third vaccine dose. Non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity to poliovirus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Control Group minus Poliorix Group\] in the percentage of seroprotected subjects|Difference in seroprotection rate|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.44||||||Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ as compared to OPV||-0.44|-3.9|
91946203|NCT01491802|183790212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.090
91946204|NCT01491802|183790213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.680
91946205|NCT01491802|183790214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.197
91946206|NCT01491802|183790215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.006
91946207|NCT01491802|183790216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.044
91946208|NCT01491802|183790217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.573
91946209|NCT01491802|183790218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.960
91946210|NCT01491802|183790219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.944
91946211|NCT01491802|183790220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.028
91946212|NCT03993314|183790222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757||||||Two-sided p-value|Farrington-Manning (Score) test|||Exact Farrington-Manning (Score) test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportion of patients achieving a level of numbness of T6 or higher between the two groups.||||0.757
91946213|NCT03993314|183790223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186||||||Two-sided p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test performed was an exact test; no continuity correction was used.||Exact Wilcoxon test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the median level of numbness between the two groups.||||0.186
91946214|NCT03993314|183790224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||Two-sided p-value|Farrington-Manning (Score) test|||Exact Farrington-Manning (Score) test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportion of patients requiring epidural activation between the two groups.||||0.132
91946215|NCT03993314|183790225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833||||||Two-sided p-value|Farrington-Manning (Score) test|||Exact Farrington-Manning (Score) test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportion of patients requiring supplemental IV sedation or general anesthesia between the two groups.||||0.833
91946216|NCT03993314|183790226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Two-sided p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test performed was an exact test; no continuity correction was used.||Exact Wilcoxon test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the median modified Bromage score between the two groups.||||0.004
91946217|NCT03993314|183790227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674||||||Two-sided p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test performed was an exact test; no continuity correction was used.||Exact Wilcoxon test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the median modified Bromage score between the two groups.||||0.674
91946218|NCT03993314|183790228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the time to discharge from the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) between the two groups.||||0.196
91946219|NCT01005966|183790233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.01||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|1.73||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on a mixed model with the factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for NaF toothpaste and AmF toothpaste to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||1.73|-7.75|0.2117
91946220|NCT01005966|183790234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.96||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|13.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||13.66|4.27|0.0002
91946221|NCT01005966|183790234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.57||||0.0557||95.0|-0.11|9.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||9.24|-0.11|0.0557
91946222|NCT01005966|183790234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.86|28.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||28.24|18.86|<0.0001
91946223|NCT01005966|183790234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.4||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|9.03||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||9.03|-0.23|0.0625
91946224|NCT01005966|183790234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|18.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.36|23.61||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||23.61|14.36|<0.0001
91946225|NCT01005966|183790234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|19.23||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||19.23|9.95|<0.0001
91946226|NCT01005966|183790234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.58||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|12.27||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||12.27|2.88|0.0017
91946227|NCT01005966|183790234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|16.64||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||16.64|7.31|<0.0001
91946228|NCT01005966|183790234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|26.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.88|31.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||31.24|21.88|<0.0001
91946229|NCT01005966|183790235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.24||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.62|314.09||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||314.09|-239.62|0.7912
91946230|NCT01005966|183790235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|532.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|259.06|806.16||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||806.16|259.06|0.0002
91946231|NCT01005966|183790235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|692.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|418.73|967.09||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||967.09|418.73|<0.0001
91946232|NCT01005966|183790235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1879.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1605.75|2153.04||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||2153.04|1605.75|<0.0001
91817397|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0139
91946233|NCT01005966|183790235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|495.38||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|221.09|769.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and Na MFP/ NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||769.66|221.09|0.0005
91946234|NCT01005966|183790235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|655.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|382.41|928.93||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||928.93|382.41|<0.0001
91946235|NCT01005966|183790235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1842.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1568.73|2115.6||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||2115.60|1568.73|<0.0001
91946236|NCT01005966|183790235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|160.3||||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.58|431.18||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||431.18|-110.58|0.2448
91946237|NCT01005966|183790235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1346.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1076.46|1617.11||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||1617.11|1076.46|<0.0001
91946238|NCT01005966|183790235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1186.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|915.38|1457.6||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||1457.60|915.38|<0.0001
91946239|NCT01347931|183790236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||A sample size of 26 patient pairs was determined based on the assumption of a true treatment difference in mean ADL endurance time of 4 ± 7 minutes using a two-tailed, paired t test (α=0.05, power=0.80).||10|2|<0.05
91946240|NCT01347931|183790237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-tailed t test||7|1|<0.05
91946241|NCT01749930|183790244|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2 treatments were compared for each time point by visit. LS mean of each treatment group, the difference in the LS mean, and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference were obtained. Noninferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the CIs \<1.5 mmHg at all time points of each visit and \<1.00 mmHg for at least 5 out of the 9 time points. If noninferiority was determined, superiority at each time point could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI\<0 mmHg at all time points of each visit.||||||0.216||||||The ANCOVA results for the comparison of LS means of mean IOP between treatment groups demonstrated noninferiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol. Superiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol was demonstrated at 8 of 9 time points (exception at 8 am Week 2).|ANCOVA|||||||0.216
91946242|NCT01749930|183790245|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.084
91946243|NCT01749930|183790246|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
91946244|NCT01749930|183790247|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No statistical analysis was performed on these proportions|||
91817398|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5207|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5207
91817399|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0091|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0091
91817400|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2312|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2312
91946245|NCT00945945|183790248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.75||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint (BOCF).|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = DLX30-PLA minus PLA-DLX60.|||0.75|-0.07|0.105
91946246|NCT03347279|183790260|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.53|||Negative Binomial|||||0.53|0.37|<0.001
91946247|NCT03347279|183790261|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.75|||Negative Binomial|||||0.75|0.46|<0.001
91946248|NCT03347279|183790262|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|0.08|<0.001
91946249|NCT03347279|183790263|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.47|0.2|<0.001
91946250|NCT03347279|183790264|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.46|<0.001
91946251|NCT03347279|183790265|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.19|0.004
91946252|NCT00394654|183790291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.168
91946253|NCT00394654|183790292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.254
91946254|NCT00394654|183790293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.677
91946255|NCT00394654|183790294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.318
91946256|NCT00394654|183790295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.798
91946257|NCT00394654|183790296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.766
91946258|NCT03442595|183790320|OTHER|test of difference in change of A1C between the two groups|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The study was powered to detect a difference of 0.5% in the change in A1C with SD = 2 with 80\& at alopha = 0.;05 with a sample size of 128 in each group (paired t-test). The study reaches 100% power to detect this observed difference with an alpha level of 0.01.||||<0.001
91946259|NCT02364999|183790359|EQUIVALENCE|Calculated based on 2-sided Miettinen and Nurminen method without strata for risk difference for confirmed response. EU equivalence margins (95% CI in -13% to 13%).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6531|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.608|7.9082|||||PF-06439535 vs Bevacizumab-EU|||7.9082|-6.6080|
91946260|NCT02364999|183790359|EQUIVALENCE|Calculated based on 2-sided Miettinen and Nurminen method without strata for risk ratio for confirmed response. US equivalence margins (90% CI in 0.73 to 1.37).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0146|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8856|1.1625|||||PF-06439535 vs Bevacizumab-EU|||1.1625|0.8856|
91946261|NCT02364999|183790359|EQUIVALENCE|Calculated based on 2-sided Miettinen and Nurminen method without strata for risk ratio for confirmed response. Japan equivalence margins (95% CI in 0.729 to 1.371).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8628|1.1933|||||PF-06439535 vs Bevacizumab-EU|||1.1933|0.8628|
91946262|NCT02364999|183790362|OTHER|Hazard ratio of PF-06439535 versus Bevacizumab-EU; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in PF-06439535; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in bevacizumab-EU.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.1077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.051|||Log Rank|Stratified by smoking, sex and region.||||1.051|0.608|0.1077
91946263|NCT02364999|183790363|OTHER|Hazard ratio of PF-06439535 versus Bevacizumab-EU; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in PF-06439535; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in bevacizumab-EU.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.931||||0.4492||95.0|0.777|1.116|||Log Rank|Stratified by smoking, sex and region.||||1.116|0.777|0.4492
91946264|NCT02364999|183790364|OTHER|Hazard ratio of PF-06439535 versus Bevacizumab-EU; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in PF-06439535; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in bevacizumab-EU.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.157|||Log Rank|Stratified by smoking, sex and region.||||1.157|0.729|0.4726
91817401|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.7578|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7578
91817402|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.42||0.5575|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5575
91817403|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4486|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4486
91817404|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0102
91817405|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1185|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1185
91817406|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7523|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7523
91817407|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.0214|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0214
91817408|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.12||0.9826|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9826
91817409|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6627|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6627
91817410|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4674|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4674
91817411|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2965|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2965
91817412|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1778|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1778
91817413|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.3903|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3903
91946265|NCT01234337|183790370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973|||=|0.405618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.217||One-sided p-value from log rank test (stratified per randomization as in interactive voice response system \[IVRS\]).|Log Rank|||PFS was compared using a stratified log-rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.005, stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease. The hazard ratio (sorafenib + capecitabine / placebo + capecitabine) and its 95 percent (%) CIs were calculated using the Cox model, stratified by the above factors. A Hazard ratio of less than (\<) 1 indicates superiority of Sorafenib + Capecitabine over Placebo + Capecitabine.||1.217|0.779|=0.405618
91946266|NCT01234337|183790371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.195|||=|0.930088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.513||One-sided p-value from log rank test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS). OS was compared using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (sorafenib + capecitabine / placebo + capecitabine) and its 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox model, stratified by randomization factors.|At the time of PFS final analysis, it was OS interim analysis (IA) with 285 total death events. According to protocol specified O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and 285 death events at IA, the prespecified alpha for this analysis was 0.0075 (one-sided). A Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Sorafenib+Capecitabine over Placebo+Capecitabine.||1.513|0.943|=0.930088
91946267|NCT01234337|183790372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||=|0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.146||One-sided p-value from log rank test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (sorafenib + capecitabine / placebo + capecitabine) and its 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox model, stratified by the above factors.|TTP was compared using a stratified log-rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease. A Hazard ratio \<1 indicates superiority of Sorafenib+Capecitabine over Placebo+Capecitabine.||1.146|0.723|=0.2105
91946268|NCT01234337|183790373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.93|||=|0.257412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.77||One-sided p-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR and 95% CI based on Cochran Mantel-Haenszel Test stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease. Difference = (Placebo + Capecitabine) - (Sorafenib + Capecitabine).||7.77|-3.9|=0.257412
91946269|NCT01234337|183790374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.34|||=|0.284674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.72||One-sided p-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"DCR and 95% CI based on general association Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by number of prior chemotherapies for metastatic disease, hormone receptor status, and region. Difference = Placebo + Capecitabine - Sorafenib + Capecitabine."||5.72|-10.4|=0.284674
91946270|NCT01234337|183790376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.441|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.967|0.086||||||Estimate of Difference (least squares mean \[LSM\] difference) = (Sorafenib + Capecitabine) - (Placebo + Capecitabine). The difference between the two treatment groups was evaluated with an analysis of covariance model using the baseline score and the same stratification factors as used for randomization (IVRS) as covariates.||0.086|-0.967|
91817414|NCT01480076|183509775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.53||0.2794|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2794
91946271|NCT01234337|183790377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.002||||||Estimate of Difference (least squares mean \[LSM\] difference) = (Sorafenib + Capecitabine) - (Placebo + Capecitabine). The difference between the two treatment groups was evaluated with an analysis of covariance model using the baseline score and the same stratification factors as used for randomization (IVRS) as covariates.||0.002|-0.053|
91946272|NCT01234337|183790378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-1.696|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.619|0.227||||||Estimate of Difference (least squares mean \[LSM\] difference) = (Sorafenib + Capecitabine) - (Placebo + Capecitabine). The difference between the two treatment groups was evaluated with an analysis of covariance model using the baseline score and the same stratification factors as used for randomization (IVRS) as covariates.||0.227|-3.619|
91946273|NCT01234337|183790379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.4||||||Statistical analysis for Cmax: 5-fluorouracil||1.40|0.92|
91946274|NCT01234337|183790379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.56||||||Statistical analysis for Cmax: Capecitabine||1.56|1.07|
91946275|NCT01234337|183790380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.3||||||Statistical analysis for AUC(0-tlast): 5-fluorouracil||1.30|0.95|
91946276|NCT01234337|183790380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.58||||||Statistical analysis for AUC(0-tlast): Capecitabine||1.58|1.22|
91946277|NCT02815982|183790430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.7|-14.6|<.05
91946278|NCT02815982|183790431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-559.0|630.2||p value was the actual signficance level|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||630.2|-559.0|<.001
91946279|NCT02815982|183790432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.3||controlling for caregiver BMI at baseline and PCS BMI percentile at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention BMI||3.3|-2.3|<.001
91946280|NCT02815982|183790433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.2||p \< .05 was the threshold|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||5.2|-5.4|<.03
91946281|NCT02815982|183790434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||<|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.3||p \< .05 was threshold|t-test, 2 sided|||||11.3|-4.3|<.09
91946282|NCT02815982|183790435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-328.6|||<|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2868.4|2211.2||p \< .05 threshold,|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||2211.2|-2868.4|<.08
91946283|NCT02815982|183790436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||threshold set at p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||.11|.01|<.0001
91817415|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0628|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0628
91817416|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1166|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1166
91817417|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0451|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0451
91817418|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9327|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9327
91817419|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.28||0.4177|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4177
91817420|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.64||0.5885|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5885
91817421|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0059
91817422|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3467|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3467
91817423|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0654
91817424|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3965|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3965
91817425|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.8548|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8548
91817426|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.35||0.2405|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2405
91817427|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0056
91946284|NCT02815982|183790437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|5.65||threshold set at p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||5.65|-11.3|<.001
91946285|NCT02815982|183790438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.06||threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||.06|-.04|<.001
91946286|NCT02815982|183790439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-348.9|||<|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2762.5|2064.8||p \< .05 was the threshold|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||2064.8|-2762.5|<.12
91946287|NCT00598585|183790441|SUPERIORITY|unpaired test, the threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
91946288|NCT00135694|183790453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.0|10.0||||||||10|-35|
91946289|NCT00135694|183790459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for immunosuppression dose the subject was receiving at the time of randomization.||||||0.0183
91946290|NCT00135694|183790460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for immunosuppression dose the subject was receiving at the time of randomization.||||||<0.0001
91946291|NCT02584660|183790461|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-1.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.674|||t-test|||||-0.674|-1.730|<.0001
91817428|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8105|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8105
91946292|NCT00461552|183790467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Treatment time month interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91946293|NCT00461552|183790468|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Treatment time month interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
91946294|NCT00374452|183790473|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the mean percentages of events per clinician between study arms, using mixed model regression adjusting for medical center, clinic type (community-based clinic vs not), clinician discipline (MD vs non-MD), presence of pharmacist in the clinic, and mean age of clinician's panels of patients as fixed effects, and clinic as a random effect to account for clustering of clinicians within clinics.||||>0.1
91946295|NCT04623255|183790503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in at least two inflammation markers' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.16
91946296|NCT04623255|183790504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in inflammation marker CRP' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.606
91946297|NCT04623255|183790505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in inflammation marker D-Dimer' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.245
91946298|NCT04623255|183790506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in inflammation marker LDH' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.653
91946299|NCT00998985|183790537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.89|4.03|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||4.03|2.89|
91946300|NCT00998985|183790537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.11|5.25|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.25|4.11|
91946301|NCT00998985|183790537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3|5.44|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.44|4.30|
91946302|NCT00998985|183790537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.78|4.92|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||4.92|3.78|
91946303|NCT00998985|183790537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.58|5.72|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.72|4.58|
91946304|NCT00998985|183790537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.19|5.33|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.33|4.19|
91946305|NCT00998985|183790537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.36|5.5|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.50|4.36|
91946306|NCT00998985|183790537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|5.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.93|5.74|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.74|4.93|
91946307|NCT00998985|183790538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|2.81|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||2.81|1.70|
91946308|NCT00998985|183790538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.38|3.49|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||3.49|2.38|
91817429|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0470
91817430|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6067|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6067
91817431|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56||0.4309|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4309
91817432|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.09||0.9761|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9761
91817433|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6261|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6261
91817434|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0860
91817435|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2884|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2884
91817436|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8854|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8854
91817437|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88||0.1226|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1226
91817438|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.07||0.7249|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7249
91817439|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5129|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5129
91817440|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1138|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1138
91817441|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1086|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1086
91817442|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5746|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5746
91817443|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.1831|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1831
91817444|NCT01480076|183509776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.8917|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8917
91817445|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817446|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1152|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1152
91817447|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817448|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4578|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4578
91817449|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.0125|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0125
91817450|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.0158|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0158
91817451|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817452|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2894|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2894
91817453|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817454|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7230
91946309|NCT00998985|183790538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.29|4.4|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||4.40|3.29|
91817455|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0038
91817456|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0097
91817457|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817458|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0628|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0628
91817459|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817460|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9232|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9232
91817461|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.1249|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1249
91817462|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.0093|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0093
91817463|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817464|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0937|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0937
91817465|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817466|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7814|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7814
91817467|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.2561|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2561
91817468|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.0255|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0255
91946310|NCT00998985|183790538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.42|5.53|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||5.53|4.42|
91946311|NCT00998985|183790538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.6|4.81|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||4.81|3.60|
91946312|NCT01040728|183790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.163|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.163|<0.0001
91946313|NCT01040728|183790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.186|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.186|<0.0001
91946314|NCT01040728|183790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.187|<0.0001
91946315|NCT01040728|183790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.117|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.117|<0.0001
91946316|NCT01040728|183790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.134|<0.0001
91946317|NCT01040728|183790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.128|<0.0001
91946318|NCT01040728|183790547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.141|<0.0001
91946319|NCT01040728|183790547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.225|0.157|<0.0001
91946320|NCT01040728|183790547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.226|0.159|<0.0001
91946321|NCT01040728|183790548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.248|0.181|<0.0001
91946322|NCT01040728|183790548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.272|0.205|<0.0001
91946323|NCT01040728|183790548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.119|<0.0001
91946324|NCT01040728|183790549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.251|0.178|<0.0001
91946325|NCT01040728|183790549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.208|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.208|<0.0001
91946326|NCT01040728|183790549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.199|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.271|0.199|<0.0001
91946327|NCT01040728|183790550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.273|0.201|<0.0001
91946328|NCT01040728|183790550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.23|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.230|<0.0001
91946329|NCT01040728|183790550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.138|<0.0001
91946330|NCT01040728|183790551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.169|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.169|<0.0001
91946331|NCT01040728|183790551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.205|<0.0001
91946332|NCT01040728|183790551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.205|<0.0001
91946333|NCT01040728|183790552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.097|<0.0001
91946334|NCT01040728|183790552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.181|0.105|<0.0001
91946335|NCT01040728|183790552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|0.120|<0.0001
91946336|NCT01040728|183790553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.276|0.384|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.384|0.276|<0.0001
91946337|NCT01040728|183790553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.272|0.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.381|0.272|<0.0001
91946338|NCT01040728|183790553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.316|0.424|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.424|0.316|<0.0001
91946339|NCT01040728|183790554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.214|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.342|0.214|<0.0001
91817469|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817470|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7241|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7241
91946340|NCT01040728|183790554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.200|<0.0001
91946341|NCT01040728|183790554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.238|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.366|0.238|<0.0001
91946342|NCT01040728|183790555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.244|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.363|0.244|<0.0001
91946343|NCT01040728|183790555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.222|0.343|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.343|0.222|<0.0001
91946344|NCT01040728|183790555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.275|0.395|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.395|0.275|<0.0001
91946345|NCT01040728|183790556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.309|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.430|0.309|<0.0001
91946346|NCT01040728|183790556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.366|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.306|0.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.426|0.306|<0.0001
91946347|NCT01040728|183790556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.202|0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.322|0.202|<0.0001
91946348|NCT01040728|183790557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.287|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.287|<0.0001
91946349|NCT01040728|183790557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.296|0.411|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.411|0.296|<0.0001
91946350|NCT01040728|183790557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.314|0.427|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.427|0.314|<0.0001
91946351|NCT01040728|183790558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.272|0.396|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.396|0.272|<0.0001
91946352|NCT01040728|183790558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.283|0.408|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.408|0.283|<0.0001
91946353|NCT01040728|183790558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.316|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.440|0.316|<0.0001
91946354|NCT01040728|183790559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.179|<0.0001
91946355|NCT01040728|183790559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.150|<0.0001
91946356|NCT01040728|183790559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.321|0.191|<0.0001
91946357|NCT01855867|183790567|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance was determined at the alpha 0.05 level. The study regimen completion rates of participants in the current study taking a fixed dose once daily combination of elvitegravir/cobicistat/TDF/FTC were compared to historical controls who used PEP regimens consisting of TDF/FTC daily and raltegravir twice daily, or earlier regimens of twice daily zidovudine (AZT)/lamivudine (3TC) and a protease inhibitor, using chi-square tests for independence.|chi square||||<|0.05||||||Reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|||using historical controls||||<0.05
91946358|NCT00542425|183790569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||Study size provided 95 percent power to detect a difference in means of 114 (ng/mL) for PINP endpoint between BA058 (SD=147.5) and placebo (SD=34.5). Study size was based on Bauer 2006 data and utilized a 2-tailed 2-sample t-test with a significance level of alpha=0.01 with a Bonferonni adjustment for multiple testing. It included a 10 percent adjustment for within study dropouts over 6 months and a 15 percent adjustment to maintain adequate power for a per protocol analysis of key endpoints.||||<0.001
91946359|NCT00542425|183790569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||Study size provided 95 percent power to detect a difference in means of 114 (ng/mL) for PINP endpoint between BA058 (SD=147.5) and placebo (SD=34.5). Study size was based on Bauer 2006 data and utilized a 2-tailed 2-sample t-test with a significance level of alpha=0.01 with a Bonferonni adjustment for multiple testing. It included a 10 percent adjustment for within study dropouts over 6 months and a 15 percent adjustment to maintain adequate power for a per protocol analysis of key endpoints.||||<0.001
91946360|NCT00542425|183790570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||For the BMD endpoint, the planned study size has 80 percent power with alpha=0.02 to detect a difference in mean change from baseline of 3.0 (percent) in BMD for the BA058 group and the BA058 Placebo group using an assumed SD of 3.5-4.0. The estimates for SD are based upon results of lumbar spine BMD presented by Body 2002.||||<0.001
91946361|NCT00542425|183790570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||For the BMD endpoint, the planned study size has 80 percent power with alpha=0.02 to detect a difference in mean change from baseline of 3.0 (percent) in BMD for the BA058 group and the BA058 Placebo group using an assumed SD of 3.5-4.0. The estimates for SD are based upon results of lumbar spine BMD presented by Body 2002.||||<0.001
91946362|NCT01424306|183790574|OTHER|||||||0.403||||||P value for the time x diet interaction reflects overall comparison of 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||RM-ANOVA||||0.403
91946363|NCT01424306|183790575|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.933||||||P-diet: reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.933
91946364|NCT01424306|183790576|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.196||||||P-diet: reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.196
91946365|NCT01424306|183790577|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.88||||||Reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.880
91946366|NCT01424306|183790578|OTHER|RM-ANOVA|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91946367|NCT01424306|183790579|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.366||||||P-value reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.366
91946368|NCT01424306|183790580|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.387||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.387
91946369|NCT01424306|183790581|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.476||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.476
91946370|NCT01424306|183790582|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.596||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.596
91946371|NCT01424306|183790583|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.492||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.492
91946372|NCT01424306|183790584|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.149||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.149
91946373|NCT01424306|183790585|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.056||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.056
91946374|NCT01424306|183790586|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.52||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.520
91946375|NCT01601873|183790590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.884
91946376|NCT01601873|183790591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
91946377|NCT01601873|183790592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.294
91946378|NCT01601873|183790593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.538
91946379|NCT01601873|183790594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.786
91946380|NCT01601873|183790595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.185
91946381|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single group study. Change in Pain from Baseline amongst those with a tumor response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive analysis only||Single group change from baseline||||0.11
91817471|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91817472|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0427
91946382|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Pain from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.01
91946383|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Pain from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.18
91946384|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life (QOL) from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.30
91946385|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.61
91946386|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study Change in Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.12
91946387|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only.||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.05
91946388|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.19
91946389|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.72
91946390|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.36
91946391|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.98
91946392|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.93
91946393|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.19
91946394|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.57
91946395|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.45
91946396|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.28
91946397|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.93
91946398|NCT02096471|183790605|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.89
91946399|NCT02483611|183790630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|149.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.07||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.0|235.0|||ANOVA|||||235|88|0.9651
91946400|NCT02483611|183790630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|145.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.48||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|244.0|||ANOVA|||||244|78|0.9651
91946401|NCT02483611|183790630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|147.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.75||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.0|200.0|||ANOVA|||The sample size was calculated with a power of 80% to detect differences of 20% in the timing of clinical onset and the duration of NMB. The pharmacodynamic (latency, clinical duration, recovery rate and total duration) and hemodynamic variables (mean arterial pressure (MAP) and HR) were compared between the groups via analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey post-hoc test. The significance level was set at 5%.||200|105|0.9651
91946402|NCT02483611|183790631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|82.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.62|99.27|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||99.27|72.62|<0.0001
91946403|NCT02483611|183790631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|86.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.78|140.6|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||140.60|71.78|<0.0001
91946404|NCT02483611|183790631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|92.9|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||92.90|40.50|<0.0001
91946405|NCT02483611|183790632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.49||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.25|||ANOVA|||||32.25|12.00|0.0015
91946406|NCT02483611|183790632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.69||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|39.83|||ANOVA|||||39.83|10.50|0.0015
91946407|NCT02483611|183790632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|16.5|||ANOVA|||||16.50|11.00|0.0015
91946408|NCT02483611|183790633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.77||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|41.5|||ANOVA|||||41.50|19.50|0.0003
91946409|NCT02483611|183790633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.97||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|49.5|||ANOVA|||||49.50|18.50|0.0003
91946410|NCT02483611|183790633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|30.05|||ANOVA|||||30.05|17.50|0.0003
91946411|NCT02483611|183790634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.87|136.8|||ANOVA|||||136.80|94.87|<0.0001
91946412|NCT02483611|183790634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.82|163.3|||ANOVA|||||163.30|95.82|<0.0001
91946413|NCT02483611|183790634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|125.2|||ANOVA|||||125.20|58|<0.0001
91946414|NCT02483611|183790635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.3|140.2|||ANOVA|||||140.20|106.30|<0.0001
91946415|NCT02483611|183790635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|126.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.5|149.4|||ANOVA|||||149.40|106.50|<0.0001
91946416|NCT02483611|183790635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.75|116.4|||ANOVA|||||116.40|71.75|<0.0001
91946417|NCT02483611|183790636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|94.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.18||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|112.0|||ANOVA|||||112.00|70.00|0.0527
91946418|NCT02483611|183790636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.05||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|104.0|||ANOVA|||||104.00|65.00|0.0527
91946419|NCT02483611|183790636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.62||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|140.0|||ANOVA|||||140.00|70.00|0.0527
91946420|NCT02483611|183790637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.1||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|110.0|||ANOVA|||||110.00|60.00|0.1996
91946421|NCT02483611|183790637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.38||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.00|67.00|0.1996
91946422|NCT02483611|183790637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|92.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|112.0|||ANOVA|||||112.00|73.00|0.1996
91946423|NCT02483611|183790638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.95||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|107.0|||ANOVA|||||107.00|58.00|0.7145
91946424|NCT02483611|183790638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.8||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|97.0|||ANOVA|||||97.00|59.00|0.7145
91946425|NCT02483611|183790638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.48||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0|||ANOVA|||||86.00|58.00|0.7145
91946426|NCT02483611|183790639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|96.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||96.00|57.00|0.1130
91946427|NCT02483611|183790639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||84.00|55.00|0.1130
91946428|NCT02483611|183790639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|74.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|83.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||83.00|59.00|0.1130
91946429|NCT02483611|183790640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|62.5||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|98.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||98.00|58.00|0.0731
91946430|NCT02483611|183790640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.5||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|74.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||74.00|55.00|0.0731
91946431|NCT02483611|183790640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|67.0||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|85.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||85.00|56.00|0.0731
91946432|NCT02483611|183790641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.5||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|85.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||85.00|60.00|0.1002
91946433|NCT02483611|183790641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.0||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|74.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||74.00|56.00|0.1002
91946434|NCT02483611|183790641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|90.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||90.00|60.00|0.1002
91946435|NCT02483611|183790642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.79||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.00|52.00|0.4338
91946436|NCT02483611|183790642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.13||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|95.0|||ANOVA|||||95.00|55.00|0.4338
91946437|NCT02483611|183790642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.82||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|55.00|0.4338
91946438|NCT02483611|183790643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|74.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.76||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|99.0|||ANOVA|||||99.00|57.00|0.9167
91946439|NCT02483611|183790643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.18||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|96.0|||ANOVA|||||96.00|51.00|0.9167
91946440|NCT02483611|183790643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.54||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|90.0|||ANOVA|||||90.00|53.00|0.9167
91946441|NCT02483611|183790644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.96||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|58.00|0.8067
91946442|NCT02483611|183790644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|74.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.65||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|86.0|||ANOVA|||||86.00|57.00|0.8067
91946443|NCT02483611|183790644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.54||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|90.0|||ANOVA|||||90.00|53.00|0.8067
91946444|NCT02483611|183790645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|93.0|||ANOVA|||||93.00|57.00|0.1015
91946445|NCT02483611|183790645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.78||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|89.0|||ANOVA|||||89.00|52.00|0.1015
91946446|NCT02483611|183790645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.01||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|44.00|0.1015
91946447|NCT02483611|183790646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.05||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|56.00|0.3423
91946448|NCT02483611|183790646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.73||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|83.0|||ANOVA|||||83.00|57.00|0.3423
91946449|NCT02483611|183790646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.81||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|41.00|0.3423
91946450|NCT02483611|183790647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.11||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|53.00|0.6817
91946451|NCT02483611|183790647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|82.0|||ANOVA|||||82.00|54.00|0.6817
91946452|NCT02483611|183790647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|47.00|0.6817
91946453|NCT02483611|183790648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|80.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||80.00|58.00|0.0937
91946454|NCT02483611|183790648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.5||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|90.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||90.00|56.00|0.0937
91946455|NCT02483611|183790648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|87.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||87.00|58.00|0.0937
91946456|NCT02483611|183790649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.5||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|88.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||88.00|60.00|0.1406
91946457|NCT02483611|183790649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.5||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|86.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||86.00|55.00|0.1406
91946458|NCT02483611|183790649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||84.00|55.00|0.1406
91946459|NCT02483611|183790650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.74||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|60.00|0.0504
91946460|NCT02483611|183790650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|49.00|0.0504
91946461|NCT02483611|183790650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.56||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|84.0|||ANOVA|||||84.00|58.00|0.0504
91946462|NCT02483611|183790651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|93.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||93.00|60.00|0.0205
91946463|NCT02483611|183790651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|62.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|72.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||72.00|54.00|0.0205
91946464|NCT02483611|183790651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|75.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||75.00|59.00|0.0205
91946465|NCT02483611|183790652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||86.00|58.00|0.3004
91946466|NCT02483611|183790652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|78.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||78.00|56.00|0.3004
91946467|NCT02483611|183790652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|81.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||81.00|62.00|0.3004
91946468|NCT02483611|183790653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.0||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|84.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||84.00|60.00|0.0178
91946469|NCT02483611|183790653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.5||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|75.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||75.00|51.00|0.0178
91946470|NCT02483611|183790653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|72.0||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|91.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||91.00|61.00|0.0178
91946471|NCT02483611|183790654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.51||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|99.0|||ANOVA|||||99.00|51.00|0.8746
91946472|NCT02483611|183790654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.96||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|82.0|||ANOVA|||||82.00|56.00|0.8746
91946473|NCT02483611|183790654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.94||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||||80.00|54.00|0.8746
91946474|NCT02483611|183790655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.95||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|47.00|0.4195
91946475|NCT02483611|183790655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.28||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||||80.00|53.00|0.4195
91946476|NCT02483611|183790655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.23||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||||80.00|52.00|0.4195
91946477|NCT02483611|183790656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.52||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|93.0|||ANOVA|||||93.00|47.00|0.5796
91946478|NCT02483611|183790656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.19||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|48.00|0.5796
91946479|NCT02483611|183790656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.26||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|50.00|0.5796
91946480|NCT02483611|183790657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.82||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|45.00|0.5351
91946481|NCT02483611|183790657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|82.0|||ANOVA|||||82.00|47.00|0.5351
91946482|NCT02483611|183790657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|51.00|0.5351
91946483|NCT02483611|183790658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.5||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|92.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||92.00|42.00|0.4988
91946484|NCT02483611|183790658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.0||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|85.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||85.00|50.00|0.4988
91946485|NCT02483611|183790658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|58.0||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|80.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||80.00|51.00|0.4988
91946486|NCT02483611|183790659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|89.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||89.00|43.00|0.7723
91946487|NCT02483611|183790659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.0||||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|82.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||82.00|51.00|0.7723
91946488|NCT02483611|183790659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.0||||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|78.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||78.00|50.00|0.7723
91946489|NCT02590406|183790660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||We calculated our sample size using data from EPO2: PV study (Couture: simultaneous submitted manuscript), where we found a difference in the FRC of 21% between reverse Trendelenburg with non-invasive positive pressure ventilation and beach chair position without positive pressure ventilation. Assuming there would be a difference of 21% in the apnea time, with a type I error of 5% and power of 80%, a total of 17 patients by group was needed.||||0.005
91946490|NCT02590406|183790661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91946491|NCT02590406|183790662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0003
91946492|NCT02590406|183790663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
91946493|NCT02590406|183790664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
91946494|NCT00631969|183790666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.109|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.562|-5.6561|||ANCOVA|||Power adjustment for 3 primary efficacy variables (3 variables have to be significant in favor of Vardenafil to conclude efficacy). Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-5.6561|-8.562|< 0.0001
91946495|NCT00631969|183790667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.027|||<|0.0001||95.0|-35.519|-22.534|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-22.534|-35.519|< 0.0001
91946496|NCT00631969|183790668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.193|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.021|-31.366|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-31.366|-45.021|< 0.0001
91946497|NCT00631969|183790669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|34.778|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted for age group and pooled center.||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
91946498|NCT00631969|183790670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.503|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.424|-10.764|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-10.764|-22.424|< 0.0001
91946499|NCT00631969|183790671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.167|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.261|-31.073|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-31.073|-45.261|< 0.0001
91946500|NCT00631969|183790672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.555|||<|0.0001||95.0|-43.645|-29.465|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-29.465|-43.645|< 0.0001
91946501|NCT00631969|183790673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.193|||<|0.0001||95.0|-31.562|-18.824|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-18.824|-31.562|< 0.0001
91946502|NCT00631969|183790675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.703|||<|0.0001||95.0|-30.067|-19.34|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-19.340|-30.067|< 0.0001
91946503|NCT00631969|183790676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.496|||<|0.0001||95.0|-34.865|-24.128|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-24.128|-34.865|< 0.0001
91946504|NCT00631969|183790677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.775|||<|0.0001||95.0|-33.155|-22.394|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-22.394|-33.155|< 0.0001
91946505|NCT00631969|183790678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.326|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.062|-17.598|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-17.598|-29.062|< 0.0001
91946506|NCT00631969|183790679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.384|||<|0.0001||95.0|-28.594|-18.175|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-18.175|-28.594|< 0.0001
91946507|NCT00631969|183790680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.076|||<|0.0001||95.0|-38.745|-27.407|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-27.407|-38.745|< 0.0001
91946508|NCT00631969|183790681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|74.449|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted for pooled centers and age group.||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
91946509|NCT00631969|183790682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|117.42||||||90.0|79.59|173.23||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years / patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||173.23|79.59|
91946510|NCT00631969|183790682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.7064||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of AUC. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α = 0.05.||||0.7064
91946511|NCT00631969|183790683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|133.07||||||90.0|87.46|202.46||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years / patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||202.46|87.46|
91946512|NCT00631969|183790683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.8749||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of Cmax. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α=0.05.||||0.8749
91946513|NCT00631969|183790684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|125.28||||||90.0|73.65|213.11||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years/ patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||213.11|73.65|
91946514|NCT00631969|183790684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.7375||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of AUC. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α=0.05.||||0.7375
91946515|NCT00631969|183790685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|123.84||||||90.0|80.12|191.42||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years / patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||191.42|80.12|
91946516|NCT00631969|183790685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.394||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of Cmax. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α = 0.05.||||0.3940
91946517|NCT01084096|183790686|SUPERIORITY|Trial powered to detect a 30% reduction in 28-d NM among \<5th %tile for birth weight infants. We used an intention-to-treat approach, with a model-based adaptation of the permutation test. We fitted an individual-level linear model with 28-d NM by site and randomization strata, nested within site, and computed the residual for each individual and mean cluster-level residuals. Next, we used an ANOVA model to test for trt differences between mean residuals for intervention and control clusters.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|Cluster-level with 62 degrees of freedom \[101 clusters-37 strata-2 treatment groups\].|Calculated from generalized linear models accounting for the cluster-level variance and adjusted for randomization strata. Each stratum corresponds to 2-4 clusters within the site with equal distribution to treatment and control arms.|||1.06|0.87|0.65
91946518|NCT01084096|183790687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3546|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3299|0.3792|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for randomization strata.|Risk difference represents risk in the intervention clusters minus the risk in the control clusters.|The trial was powered to detect a 30% reduction in 28-day neonatal mortality among infants born at less than the 5th percentile of birth weight, based on previous research and an expected increase from 10% to 50% in the use of antenatal corticosteroids among women at risk of preterm birth in the intervention group.||0.3792|0.3299|<0.0001
91946519|NCT01084096|183790688|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.58||P-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.58|1.33|<0.0001
91946520|NCT01084096|183790690|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22||P-value calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated p value was adjusted for randomization strata.|Generalized linear model with GEE||Relative risk calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated measure of risk was adjusted for randomization strata.|||1.22|1.02|0.0127
91946521|NCT01084096|183790691|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22||P-value calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated p value was adjusted for randomization strata.|Generalized linear model with GEE||Relative risk calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated measure of risk was adjusted for randomization strata.|||1.22|1.02|0.0181
91946522|NCT01451203|183790729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate of shift|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The ANCOVA on the ranks with treatment as factors and Baseline rank as covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||The mTSS was analyzed using LINEAR for the imputation of missing data at Week 52.The primary Week 52 analysis assessed whether treatment up to Week 52 with the CZP group was superior to the placebo group in mTSS at Week 52. The 2-sided null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: πC = πM Ha: πC ≠ πM where πC represented subjects in the CZP group at Week 52 and πM represented subjects in the placebo group at Week 52.||0.00|0.00|<0.001
91946523|NCT01451203|183790730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman point estimate of shift|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA on the ranks with treatment as factors and Baseline rank as covariate was used.||The mTSS was analyzed using LINEAR for the imputation of missing data at Week 24.||0.00|0.00|0.003
91946524|NCT01451203|183790731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91946525|NCT01451203|183790732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91946526|NCT01451203|183790733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91946527|NCT01249404|183790739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.1|||=|0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for MAS in the Dysport® 1000 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.1|-0.3|=0.2859
91946528|NCT01249404|183790739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|||=|0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for MAS in the Dysport® 1500 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||-0.1|-0.5|=0.0091
91946529|NCT01249404|183790740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.3|||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on visit results with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The mean PGA at Week 4 in the Dysport® 1000 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.5|-0.0|=0.0640
91946530|NCT01249404|183790740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.3|||=|0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on visit results with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The mean PGA at Week 4 in the Dysport® 1500 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.5|-0.0|=0.0665
91946531|NCT01249404|183790740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA on rank PGA scores||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons and the p-values are obtained from an analysis of variance on visit results based on ranked values with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as explanatory variables.|The LS mean rank values were back transformed to the original scale to give ranked PGA scores in an attempt to better normalise the data and restore power.||||0.0466
91946532|NCT01249404|183790740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA on rank PGA scores||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons and the p-values are obtained from an analysis of variance on visit results based on ranked values with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as explanatory variables.|The LS mean rank values were back transformed to the original scale to give ranked PGA scores in an attempt to better normalise the data and restore power.||||0.0406
91946533|NCT01249404|183790741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|||=|0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for barefoot comfortable walking speed in the Dysport® 1000 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.02|=0.7247
91946534|NCT01249404|183790741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|||=|0.7266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for barefoot comfortable walking speed in the Dysport® 1500 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.03|=0.7266
91946535|NCT04495166|183790787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||The sample size was calculated based on an effect size of 0.65 on depression, which is based on a previous meta-analysis (Sockol et al., 2011). Sample size calculation considered a difference in means between two independent groups, probability of type I error of 5%, statistical power of 80%, a two-tailed test, and a dropout rate of 15%.||||0.757
91946536|NCT04495166|183790788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.910
91946537|NCT04495166|183790790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.442
91817473|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.0498|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0498
91946538|NCT04495166|183790791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.223
91946539|NCT04495166|183790792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.540
91946540|NCT04495166|183790793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.901
91946541|NCT04495166|183790794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.748
91946542|NCT01716585|183790804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic HCV treatment-naive subjects administered telaprevir plus peginterferon (pegIFN)/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 70% to achieve noninferiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV, and the LCB of the 95% CI must have exceeded 80% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.7|98.1|||||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to proceed through the primary and first 3 secondary efficacy endpoints in the order numbered below.|With a sample size of 450 subjects and assuming that 92% of the subjects in Arm A will achieve SVR12, this study has greater than 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 70% and greater than 90% power to demonstrate superiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 80% (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion). 95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||98.1|94.7|
91946543|NCT01716585|183790805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure will be used to proceed through the primary and first 3 secondary efficacy endpoints in the order numbered below.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91946544|NCT01716585|183790806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic HCV treatment-naive subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 75% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.4|97.9||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure will be used to proceed through the primary and first 3 secondary efficacy endpoints in the order numbered below.|||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||97.9|93.4|
91946545|NCT01716585|183790807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic HCV treatment-naive subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 84% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.8|100.0|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||100.0|95.8|
91946546|NCT00125138|183790815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.6||One-sided pairwise p-value comparing each active treatment to placebo.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate||The null hypothesis for each endpoint is that each melperone dose has the same mean as placebo; the alternative hypothesis is that at least one dose is more efficacious than placebo. Only subjects with both a baseline and Day 43 (end of Maintenance Phase) value are included.||6.6|-6.3|0.5177
91946547|NCT00125138|183790815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean|-2.9||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.7||One-sided pairwise p-value comparing each active treatment to placebo.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate.||The null hypothesis for each endpoint is that each melperone dose has the same mean as placebo; the alternative hypothesis hypothesis is that at least one dose is more efficacious than placebo. Only subjects with both a baseline and Day 43 (end of Maintenance Phase) value are included.||2.7|-8.5|0.1519
91946548|NCT00125138|183790815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean|0.3||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.8||One-sided pairwise p-value comparing each active treatment to placebo.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate.||The null hypothesis for each endpoint is that each melperone dose has the same mean as placebo; the alternative hypothesis is that at least one dose is more efficacious than placebo. Only subjects with both a baseline and Day 43 (end of Maintenance Phase) value are included.||5.8|-5.2|0.5406
91946549|NCT00125138|183790816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9212||95.0||||Overall p-value using a one-way ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate.||Only subjects with both a baseline and a post-baseline value are included.||||0.9212
91946550|NCT00041119|183790817|SUPERIORITY|If the 5-year DFS for 4 cycles is 84.7% then a decrease of 23% in hazard rate for 6 cycles corresponds to an increase in 5-year DFS to 88%. Assuming a 2-sided significance level of 0.05, there is 90.9% power to detect such an increase at the final analysis conducted 6.4 years after study activation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28||||||The null hypothesis is that the hazards of both 6 and 4 cycle regimens are equal. The alternative hypothesis is a hazard ratio of 0.77, corresponding to a decrease of 23% in hazard due to longer duration of chemotherapy.||1.28|0.84|
91817474|NCT01480076|183509777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.9078|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9078
91817475|NCT02120950|183509796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.9|0.5480
91817476|NCT02120950|183509797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|0.6||||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.3|-3.1|0.7402
91946551|NCT00041119|183790818|EQUIVALENCE|For T to be considered equivalent to the standard CA, a confidence interval of the hazard ratio of T to CA should be wholly to the left of 1.3, corresponding to a 30% increase in hazard rate. If the 5-year DFS for CA is 88% then an increase of 30% in hazard rate for T corresponds to 5-year DFS of 84.7%. The null hypothesis is that the hazard ratio of T to CA exceeds 1.3. The alternative hypothesis is that the two hazard rates are equivalent.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.48||||||||1.48||
91946552|NCT00041119|183790819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were designed to detect effects in the marginal distributions of the two study factors, agent and length, and assume no interaction between the two factors. Calculations also assume exponential DFS and a total of 4556 treated patients accrued over 29 months and followed for four years after accrual termination for a total study time of 6.4 years. We assume the 5-year DFS of CA therapy is 88% and 84.7% for T. These assumptions are based upon results of SWOG 8897.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.56||||||||1.56||
91946553|NCT00041119|183790823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were designed to detect effects in the marginal distributions of the two study factors, agent and length, and assume no interaction between the two factors. Calculations also assume exponential DFS and a total of 4556 treated patients accrued over 29 months and followed for four years after accrual termination for a total study time of 6.4 years.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.49||||||||1.49|.84|
91946554|NCT01258738|183790832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.64||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|27.92||P-value \<0.05 was required to declare statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The null hypothesis was that the efficacy of etanercept was not different from placebo as measured by the proportion of subjects achieving an ASAS 40 response after 12 weeks of treatment. The alternative hypothesis was that the efficacy of etanercept was different from placebo.~The primary endpoint was tested at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only."||27.92|5.36|0.0062
91946555|NCT01258738|183790833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.46||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|19.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||19.24|3.69|0.0059
91946556|NCT01258738|183790833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|15.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4"||15.35|-4.98|0.3786
91946557|NCT01258738|183790833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.83||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|23.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||23.87|1.79|0.0304
91946558|NCT01258738|183790833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.52||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|29.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||29.75|7.29|0.0023
91946559|NCT01258738|183790834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.44||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|25.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||25.68|3.20|0.0189
91946560|NCT01258738|183790834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.29||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|22.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||22.75|-2.17|0.0983
91946561|NCT01258738|183790834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.61||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|23.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||23.84|-2.63|0.0867
91817477|NCT02120950|183509799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on treatment difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of the LS mean changes using an ANOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects.|||0.2|0.0|0.0682
91817478|NCT02120950|183509800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on treatment difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of the LS mean changes using an ANOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects.|||0.3|-0.1|0.1640
91817479|NCT02120950|183509803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-5.6||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Gained ≥ 5||3.7|-14.9|0.2348
91946562|NCT01258738|183790834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.27||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|29.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||29.43|3.10|0.0195
91946563|NCT01258738|183790835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|33.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||33.41|11.85|<0.0001
91946564|NCT01258738|183790835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.83||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|20.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||20.57|5.09|0.0021
91946565|NCT01258738|183790835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||24.60|5.18|0.0020
91946566|NCT01258738|183790835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|32.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||32.67|10.92|<0.0001
91946567|NCT01258738|183790836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946568|NCT01258738|183790836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.34|-0.74|<0.001
91946569|NCT01258738|183790836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.41|-0.81|<0.001
91946570|NCT01258738|183790836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.37|-0.85|<0.001
91946571|NCT01258738|183790837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.84||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|23.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||23.09|2.58|0.0209
91946572|NCT01258738|183790837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.65||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|15.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only.~Week 2"||15.48|1.82|0.0179
91946573|NCT01258738|183790837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.81||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|13.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||13.65|-0.03|0.0611
91946574|NCT01258738|183790837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|22.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||22.32|3.14|0.0141
91817480|NCT02120950|183509803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-2.2||||0.6877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Gained ≥ 10||8.6|-13.1|0.6877
91946575|NCT01258738|183790837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946576|NCT01258738|183790838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only."||||0.0022
91946577|NCT01258738|183790839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946578|NCT01258738|183790839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.13|-1.26|0.0156
91946579|NCT01258738|183790839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.14|-1.06|0.0111
91946580|NCT01258738|183790839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.07|-0.91|0.0936
91946581|NCT01258738|183790839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.23|-0.81|0.2678
91946582|NCT01258738|183790840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results included unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946583|NCT01258738|183790840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.19|-1.40|0.0102
91946584|NCT01258738|183790840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.39|-1.44|0.0007
91946585|NCT01258738|183790840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.23|-1.35|0.0057
91946586|NCT01258738|183790840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.22|-1.44|0.0077
91946587|NCT01258738|183790841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946588|NCT01258738|183790841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.23|-1.62|0.0091
91946589|NCT01258738|183790841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.19|-1.38|0.0097
91946590|NCT01258738|183790841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.20|-1.45|0.0101
91946591|NCT01258738|183790841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.33|-1.61|0.0031
91946592|NCT01258738|183790842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91817481|NCT02120950|183509803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-4.0||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|6.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Gained ≥ 15||6.5|-14.5|0.4556
91946593|NCT01258738|183790842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.25|-1.49|0.0064
91946594|NCT01258738|183790842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.02|-1.12|0.0407
91946595|NCT01258738|183790842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.05|-1.24|0.0349
91946596|NCT01258738|183790842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.37|-1.65|0.0021
91946597|NCT01258738|183790843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946598|NCT01258738|183790843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.11|-1.04|0.0164
91946599|NCT01258738|183790843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.13|-0.95|0.0095
91817482|NCT02120950|183509804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|1.7||||0.5372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Lost ≥ 5||7.2|-3.7|0.5372
91946600|NCT01258738|183790843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.12|-0.99|0.0127
91946601|NCT01258738|183790843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.10|-0.99|0.0166
91946602|NCT01258738|183790844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946603|NCT01258738|183790844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.27|-1.28|0.0029
91946604|NCT01258738|183790844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.13|-1.21|0.0147
91946605|NCT01258738|183790844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.22|-1.28|0.0056
91946606|NCT01258738|183790844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.39|-1.52|0.0010
91946607|NCT01258738|183790845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946608|NCT01258738|183790845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.12|-1.19|0.0173
91946609|NCT01258738|183790845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.16|-0.97|0.1618
91946610|NCT01258738|183790845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.13|-1.25|0.0153
91946611|NCT01258738|183790845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.07|-1.05|0.0866
91946612|NCT01258738|183790846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946613|NCT01258738|183790846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.14|-0.95|0.1413
91946614|NCT01258738|183790846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.06|-1.14|0.0284
91946615|NCT01258738|183790846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.03|-1.07|0.0659
91946616|NCT01258738|183790846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.18|-1.26|0.0098
91946617|NCT01258738|183790847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946618|NCT01258738|183790847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.25|-1.26|0.0037
91817483|NCT02120950|183509804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|0.6||||0.7569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Lost ≥ 10||4.7|-3.4|0.7569
91817484|NCT02120950|183509804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-0.6||||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Lost ≥ 15||3.1|-4.3|0.7402
91817485|NCT02120950|183509805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-6.0||||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|||5.9|-17.8|0.3244
91817486|NCT02120950|183509806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate.|The analysis population included only subjects with leakage in FA at baseline and Week 52. Baseline values were not carried forward.||0.6|-0.9|0.7109
91817487|NCT02120950|183509807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.1||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|11.3|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate.|The analysis population included only subjects with values for CST at baseline and Week 52. Baseline values were not carried forward.||11.3|-9.2|0.8355
91817488|NCT02120950|183509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.4|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate.|The analysis population included only subjects with values for NEI VFQ-25 score at baseline and Week 52.||1.4|-2.9|0.5069
91817489|NCT02120950|183509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference %|-0.6||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.1||The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12.|||5.1|-6.3|0.8423
91817490|NCT02424383|183509810|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Freedom from Target LesionRevascularization (TLR) were reported through 12 months with frequency counts, percentages and 95% confidence intervals from exact binomial test. In addition, Kaplan-Meier tables and curves were created.|||
91817491|NCT02424383|183509811|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Freedom from composite of safety events from the time following the index procedure through 30 days post procedure were reported with frequency counts, percentages and 95% confidence intervals from exact binomial test. Kaplan-Meier tables and curves were also calculated.|||
91817492|NCT01928862|183509837|OTHER||Treatment difference|-31.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.8|0.8||||||Confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportions between each Prepopik® group and PEG within each age group was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.||0.8|-58.8|
91817493|NCT01928862|183509837|OTHER||Treatment Difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.3|36.9||||||CI of the difference in proportions between each Prepopik® group and PEG within each age group was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.||36.9|-25.3|
91817494|NCT01928862|183509837|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.5|26.3||||||CI of the difference in proportions between each Prepopik® group and PEG within each age group was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.||26.3|-33.5|
91817495|NCT02053753|183509862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2 treatments were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means were between 0.80 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometrc Means (CP4:CP2)|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.181|||||The ratio and confidence interval of the geometric means are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||1.181|0.995|
91817496|NCT02053753|183509863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2 treatments were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means were between 0.80 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric Means (CP4:CP2)|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.934|1.131|||||The ratio and confidence interval of the geometric means are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||1.131|0.934|
91817497|NCT02439320|183509871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.0|1.6|<0.001
91817498|NCT02439320|183509871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.6|2.0|<0.001
91817499|NCT02439320|183509872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.3|<0.001
91817500|NCT02439320|183509872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|1.3|<0.001
91817501|NCT02439320|183509873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.8|<0.001
91817502|NCT02439320|183509873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3|1.9|<0.001
91817503|NCT02439320|183509874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.8|1.1|=0.029
91817504|NCT02439320|183509874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4|1.3|=0.002
91817505|NCT02439320|183509875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.5|0.3|<0.001
91817506|NCT02439320|183509875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.4|0.2|<0.001
91817507|NCT02439320|183509876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|0.5|0.120
91817508|NCT02439320|183509876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.0|0.4|0.035
91817509|NCT02439320|183509878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.9|0.386
91817510|NCT02439320|183509878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.9|0.470
91817511|NCT02439320|183509879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|1.1|0.006
91817512|NCT02439320|183509879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|1.0|0.037
91817513|NCT02439320|183509880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|1.5|<0.001
91817514|NCT02439320|183509880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||02.2|1.4|<0.001
91817515|NCT02404350|183509930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|5.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical values were calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-a status -naive or Incidence Rate) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||5.79|2.78|<0.0001
91817516|NCT02404350|183509930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|4.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical values were calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-a status -naive or Incidence Rate) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||4.87|2.35|<0.0001
91817517|NCT02404350|183509930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|6.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical values were calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-a status -naive or Incidence Rate) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||6.63|3.16|<0.0001
91817518|NCT02404350|183509931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0061|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA model||\*For the Statistical Test of the Hypothesis for the Secondary Outcome, The Estimation Parameter is the Standard Error of the Difference in Mean and not Standard Error of the Mean|Secukinumab 300 mg With Load compared to Placebo Estimate (for the difference in mean), SE and p-value are from a non-parametric ANCOVA model (Koch, 1998) with the change from baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score (or Erosion Score or Joint Space Narrowing Score) as the dependent variable, treatment and randomization stratum (TNFa status -naive or IR ) as factors, and weight and baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score as covariates.||||0.0061
91817519|NCT02404350|183509931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA model||\*For the Statistical Test of the Hypothesis for the Secondary Outcome, The Estimation Parameter is the Standard Error of the Difference in Mean and not Standard Error of the Mean|Secukinumab 300 mg With Load compared to Placebo Estimate (for the difference in mean), SE and p-value are from a non-parametric ANCOVA model (Koch, 1998) with the change from baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score (or Erosion Score or Joint Space Narrowing Score) as the dependent variable, treatment and randomization stratum (TNFa status -naive or IR ) as factors, and weight and baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score as covariates.||||0.0048
91817520|NCT02404350|183509931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0003|||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA model||For the Statistical Test of the Hypothesis for the Secondary Outcome, The Estimation Parameter is the Standard Error of the Difference in Mean and not Standard Error of the Mean|Secukinumab 300 mg With Load compared to Placebo Estimate (for the difference in mean), SE and p-value are from a non-parametric ANCOVA model (Koch, 1998) with the change from baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score (or Erosion Score or Joint Space Narrowing Score) as the dependent variable, treatment and randomization stratum (TNFa status -naive or IR ) as factors, and weight and baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score as covariates.||||0.0003
91817521|NCT02404350|183509932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|18.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||18.63|5.52|<0.0001
91817522|NCT02404350|183509932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.37|21.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||21.37|6.37|<0.0001
91817523|NCT02404350|183509932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.56|34.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||34.12|9.56|<0.0001
91817524|NCT02404350|183509933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|8.83|||Regression, Logistic|||"Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.~Missing responses are imputed as non-responders."||8.83|2.31|<0.0001
91817525|NCT02404350|183509933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|11.87|||Regression, Logistic|||"Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.~Missing responses are imputed as non-responders."||11.87|3.18|<0.0001
91817526|NCT02404350|183509933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.43|24.48|||Regression, Logistic|||"Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.~Missing responses are imputed as non-responders."||24.48|6.43|<0.0001
91817527|NCT02404350|183509934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||8.73|3.30|<0.0001
91817528|NCT02404350|183509934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|10.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||10.32|3.93|<0.0001
91817529|NCT02404350|183509934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||12.00|4.61|<0.0001
91817530|NCT02404350|183509935|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.15|-0.32|<0.0001
91817531|NCT02404350|183509935|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.14|-0.32|<0.0001
91817532|NCT02404350|183509935|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Contrast inj LS mean (Change)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.24|-0.42|<0.0001
91817533|NCT02404350|183509936|SUPERIORITY||Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure||-0.47|-0.85|<0.0001
91817534|NCT02404350|183509936|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Contrast in LS Mean (Change)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure||-0.47|-0.85|<0.0001
91817535|NCT02404350|183509936|SUPERIORITY||Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure||-0.67|-1.05|<0.0001
91817536|NCT02404350|183509937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.47|0.2250
91817537|NCT02404350|183509937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.29|0.0004
91817538|NCT02404350|183509937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.44||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.69|0.28|0.0004
91946619|NCT01258738|183790847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.25|-1.35|0.0044
91817539|NCT02404350|183509938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.65|0.22|0.0004
91817540|NCT02404350|183509938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.60|0.19|0.0003
91817541|NCT02404350|183509938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.44|0.13|<0.0001
91817542|NCT05389657|183509939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.617||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|2.283|||Regression, Logistic|multilevel logistic regression||We used logistic multilevel models to examine the impact of training assignment (reference = live training) on training completion, with a random intercept at the agency level. Covariates included prior level of training and/or experience in FBT, attitudes towards evidence-based practice (MPAS), perceived importance of eating disorder treatment to organization, and training preference.||2.283|0.167|0.47
91817543|NCT05389657|183509940|SUPERIORITY||adjusted group difference unstandardized|-1.268||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.618|1.083|||Regression, Linear|multilevel linear regression with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation||We used linear multilevel models with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation to examine the impact of training assignment (reference = live training) on knowledge acquisition at post-training, with a random intercept at the agency level. Covariates included baseline FBT-KA score, prior level of training and/or experience in FBT, attitudes towards evidence-based practice (MPAS), perceived importance of eating disorder treatment to organization, and training preference.||1.083|-3.618|.29
91817544|NCT05389657|183509941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|19.293|||Regression, Logistic|multilevel logistic regression||We used logistic multilevel models to examine the impact of training assignment (reference = live training) on engagement in FBT consultation at 12 months, with a random intercept at the agency level. Covariates included baseline intent to seek FBT consultation, prior level of training and/or experience in FBT, attitudes towards evidence-based practice (MPAS), perceived importance of eating disorder treatment to organization, and training preference.||19.293|0.070|0.92
91817545|NCT00944450|183509946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) for AUC geometric mean ratio (B/A)|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||||90.0|1.02|1.07||||||100 mg MK0431 monohydrate (Phase III/FMI formulation) (B) vs. 100 mg MK0431 anhydrous (Phase IIB formulation) (A)||1.07|1.02|
91817546|NCT00944450|183509947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) for Cmax geometric mean ratio (B/A)|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07||||||90.0|0.94|1.22||||||100 mg MK0431 monohydrate (Phase III/FMI formulation) (B) vs. 100 mg MK0431 anhydrous (Phase IIB formulation) (A)||1.22|0.94|
91946620|NCT01258738|183790847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.17|-1.26|0.0104
91817547|NCT02864251|183509971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.0||Log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression (\>= 1% vs \<1%/indeterminate/not evaluable), brain metastases (presence vs absence), smoking history (current/former vs never smoker), and prior osimertinib use (yes vs no) from IRT.|Log Rank||Arm A over Arm C Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||1.00|0.56|0.0528
91817548|NCT02864251|183509971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.99|||||Arm B over Arm C Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||2.99|1.43|
91817549|NCT02864251|183509972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.12|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (Arm A over Arm C) is based on a stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.12|0.62|0.2180
91817550|NCT02864251|183509972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.52|||||Hazard Ratio (Arm B over Arm C) is based on a stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||1.52|0.75|
91817551|NCT02864251|183509973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.16|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm A over Arm C) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||2.16|0.75|
91817552|NCT03760796|183509977|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.88||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for hospital site and a propensity score inclusive of individual level baseline characteristics.||||0.88|0.26|0.018
91817553|NCT03760796|183509978|OTHER|A Markov Model of cost-effectiveness, based on 30-day readmission rates, was built to assess the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of adopting the Corrie Platform compared to standard of care for post AMI patients; taking into account the estimated cost of Corrie ($2,750 per patient for a 1-year use term). The reported value is a ratio of the relative cost of intervention compared to the standard of care divided by the change in the outcome, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).|Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A negative ICER means the intervention cost is lower than the cost of standard of care, while the denominator was positive. A positive ICER means the intervention cost is greater than the cost of standard of care, while the denominator was positive.|||||
91817554|NCT03760796|183509992|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.98||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for hospital site and a propensity score inclusive of individual level baseline characteristics.||||2.98|0.69|0.33
91817555|NCT02211131|183510005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|0.96||Unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Unstratified Hazard Ratio (T-VEC + Surgery / Surgery)|||0.96|0.58|0.070
91817556|NCT02211131|183510006|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|0.97||Unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Unstratified Hazard Ratio (T-VEC + Surgery / Surgery)|||0.97|0.60|0.092
91817557|NCT02211131|183510008|OTHER||Treatment Difference|4.3||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|15.3||The two-sided p-value is based on the Pearson's Chi-square test.|Chi-squared||An 80% approximate exact CI for between-arm differences in binary rate is calculated using Wilson's score method with continuity correction.|||15.3|-6.9|0.594
91817558|NCT02211131|183510009|OTHER||Treatment Difference|14.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.4|21.6||The two-sided p-value is based on the Pearson's Chi-square test.|Chi-squared||80% exact CI for binary rate of each arm is calculated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||21.6|7.4|0.003
91817559|NCT02211131|183510014|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|0.81||Unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Unstratified Hazard Ratio (T-VEC + Surgery / Surgery)|||0.81|0.36|0.050
91817560|NCT05664490|183510020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.22||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link and robust standard errors to assess the effect of our intervention on PrEP adherence at Week 12|The Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm was the reference category for the risk ratio.|||1.22|0.64|0.44
91891189|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|5.95||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0002
91817561|NCT05664490|183510021|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link and robust standard errors to assess the effect of our intervention on reduced CMD symptoms at Week 12.|The reference category for the risk ratio presented is the Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm.|||1.42|0.71|0.99
91817562|NCT05664490|183510022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.89||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link to estimate to assess the effect of our intervention on PrEP adherence at Week 4.|The Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm was the reference category for the risk ratio.|||1.89|1.03|0.03
91817563|NCT05664490|183510023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link to assess the effect of the intervention on common mental disorders at Week 4.|The Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm was the reference category.|||1.29|0.50|0.37
91817564|NCT03144180|183510035|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided two-sample t-test with 80% power, an alpha of 0.05, and a common standard deviation of 14 seconds was used to determine the sample size.|Confidence Interval for a mean|49.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.459|82.571||||||||82.571|15.459|
91817565|NCT03144180|183510036|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided two-sample t-test with 80% power, an alpha of 0.05, and a common standard deviation of 14 seconds was used to determine the sample size.||||||0.0295||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0295
91946621|NCT01258738|183790847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.22|-1.33|0.0060
91817566|NCT03144180|183510037|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided two-sample t-test with 80% power, an alpha of 0.05, and a common standard deviation of 14 seconds was used to determine the sample size.||||||0.403||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.403
91817567|NCT01272830|183510039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data.||||0.0063
91817568|NCT01272830|183510039|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significant threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Changes from baseline data||||>0.05
91817569|NCT01272830|183510040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0226||||||Significance threshold p\<0.5|paired|||Change from baseline data (HSS pain walking)||||0.0226
91817570|NCT01272830|183510040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0375||||||Significance threshold P\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (HSS total score)||||0.0375
91817571|NCT01272830|183510040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (KSS knee pain)||||0.0391
91817572|NCT01272830|183510040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2137|||||||paired t-test|||Changes from baseline data (HSS pain walking)||||0.2137
91817573|NCT01272830|183510040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1312|||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (HSS total score)||||0.1312
91817574|NCT01272830|183510040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1578|||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (KSS knee pain)||||0.1578
91817575|NCT01272830|183510041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0083||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|t-test|||Changes from baseline data||||0.0083
91817576|NCT01272830|183510041|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significant threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data||||>0.05
91817577|NCT01272830|183510042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANOVA|||Change from baseline data||||0.01
91817578|NCT01272830|183510042|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||paired t-test|Significant threshold p\<0.05||Changes from baseline data||||>0.05
91817579|NCT00751348|183510043|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-measles was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|1.66||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-measles seroconversion rates.||1.66|-3.77|<0.05
91817580|NCT00751348|183510043|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-mumps was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-5.34|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.38||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-mumps seroconversion rates.||0.38|-10.4|<0.05
91817581|NCT00751348|183510043|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-rubella was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.34|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.06||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-rubella seroconversion rates.||2.06|-1.88|<0.05
91817582|NCT00751348|183510043|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-VZV was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.44||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-varicella zoster virus (anti-VZV) seroconversion rates.||1.44|-3.07|<0.05
91817583|NCT03583996|183510052|OTHER||Negative Likelihood Ratio (NLR)|0.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.882||||||The performance goal for validation of DSI ≤18.3 was the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) for negative likelihood ratio (NLR) to rule out an NLR of \>0.52. For the null and alternate hypotheses, the upper limit of the 95% CI was NLR \>0.52 and the upper limit of the 95% CI was NLR \<=0.52, respectively. The confidence level for the CI was adjusted to maintain a 1-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||0.882|0.097|
91817584|NCT03583996|183510052|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|0.982||||||The performance goal for validation of DSI \<= 18.3 was the observed sensitivity must have been \>0.85. The confidence level for the confidence interval (CI) was adjusted to maintain a 1-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||0.982|0.775|
91817585|NCT03583996|183510053|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.094|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.143||The odds ratio was for a 1-unit increase in DSI based on continuous DSI.|Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted (no covariates)||||1.143|1.047|<0.0001
91817586|NCT03583996|183510053|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.109|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|1.163|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for demographic covariates, including age, race, sex, BMI, and ethnicity.||||1.163|1.058|<0.0001
91817587|NCT03583996|183510053|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.145|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for severity of liver disease covariates, compensated cirrhosis (CP class A)||||1.145|1.041|<0.001
91817588|NCT03583996|183510053|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|1.142|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for severity of liver disease covariates, decompensated cirrhosis (CP class B)||||1.142|1.038|<0.001
91817589|NCT03969992|183510099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1924||||||A closed test procedure is used to protect the type I error rate; the order of testing was: AeroFact high dose compared to control and if significant (p-value \<0.05), the AeroFact low dose was compared to the control.|Generalized estimating equation method|||||||0.1924
91817590|NCT02063737|183510112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3882||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8272|0.0508|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for shift length|Adjusted difference between intervention groups (intervention - control) from the linear mixed model adjusting for shift length and repeated measures within individuals.|||0.0508|-0.8272|0.0830
91817591|NCT02063737|183510113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.0114
91817592|NCT02063737|183510114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for the baseline measure||||||.99
91817593|NCT02063737|183510115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline measure||||||0.0927
91817594|NCT02063737|183510116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for the baseline measure||||||0.0578
91817595|NCT02063737|183510117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.69
91817596|NCT02063737|183510118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.65
91817597|NCT02063737|183510119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.95
91817598|NCT02063737|183510120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.21
91817599|NCT02063737|183510121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.51
91817600|NCT02063737|183510122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.28
91817601|NCT02063737|183510123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.0930
91817602|NCT02063737|183510124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.56
91817603|NCT02063737|183510125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.20
91817604|NCT06049043|183510146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|3.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.84|-14.02|0.26
91817605|NCT06049043|183510147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.84||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.43|5.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.85|-13.43|0.44
91817606|NCT06049043|183510148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.10|-0.66|0.62
91817607|NCT06049043|183510149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|15.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.18|-2.50|0.16
91817608|NCT06049043|183510149|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.04|-0.13|0.28
91817609|NCT06049043|183510150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|11.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.28|-7.31|0.67
91817610|NCT06049043|183510150|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.08|-0.12|0.69
91817611|NCT06049043|183510151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.18|-0.09|0.09
91817612|NCT06049043|183510151|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.59|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.59|-0.86|0.71
91817613|NCT06049043|183510152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.27|-0.07|0.08
91817614|NCT06049043|183510152|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.48|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.48|-1.21|0.39
91817615|NCT06049043|183510154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|-0.95|0.89
91817616|NCT03089606|183510232|OTHER|2-tailed Fisher's exact test||||||0.08|||||||2-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Null hypothesis. No association between baseline C11-AMT PET SUVmax value and antitumor response to pembrolizumab.||||0.08
91817617|NCT00335972|183510238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was based on being able to detect noninferiority on both analgesia (pain score and opioids) and hemodynamic responses, and superiority on at least one of them with 90% power and significance level of 0.025 for each of noninferiority and superiority. For MAP with a noninferiority delta of 7.5 mmHg and expected the SD of 12, we needed a maximum of N= 65 per group. Incorporating the two interim and one final analyses, we thus planned a maximum sample size of N=71/group (N=142 total).|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-5.0||Noninferiority confidence intervals are 95% (alpha of 0.05/2=0.025 in direction of interest). Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing and 97.5% CI were reported.|repeated measures ANOVA||mean difference: Dexmedetomidine arm - Remifentanil arm|||-5|-13|<0.001
91817618|NCT00335972|183510238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.0|-4.0||Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing since superiority on either hemodynamics or pain control would be interpreted as Dex better than Remi (alpha=0.0125 = 0.025/2, 97.5% CI).|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: dexmedetomidine arm - remifentanil arm|superiority test||-4|-13|<0.001
91817619|NCT00335972|183510239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was based on being able to detect noninferiority on both analgesia (pain score and opioids) and hemodynamic responses, and superiority on at least one of them with 90% power and significance level of 0.025 for each of noninferiority and superiority. For VRS pain, the standard deviation (SD) was expected to be about 1.75, such that with a noninferiority delta of 1, we needed a maximum of N= 66 per group|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1||noninferiority confidence intervals are 95% (alpha of 0.05/2=0.025 in direction of interest).|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: Dexmedetomidine arm - Remifentanil arm|||-1.1|-2.7|<0.001
91817620|NCT00335972|183510239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|-0.9||Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing since superiority on either hemodynamics or pain control would be interpreted as Dex better than Remi (alpha=0.0125 = 0.025/2, 97.5% CI).|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: dexmedetomidine arm - remifentanil arm|superiority test||-0.9|-2.8|<0.001
91817621|NCT00335972|183510240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was based on being able to detect noninferiority on both analgesia (pain score and opioids) and hemodynamic responses, and superiority on at least one of them with 90% power and significance level of 0.025 for each of noninferiority and superiority.we needed a maximum of N= 65 per group. We assumed for opioids that the coefficient of variation (SD/mean) was about 0.4, resulting in a similar sample size (64/group) with noninferiority deltas of 20% of the observed mean|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||noninferiority confidence intervals are 95% (alpha of 0.05/2=0.025 in direction of interest)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean difference: Dexmedetomidine arm - Remifentanil|||-5|-10|<0.001
91817622|NCT00335972|183510240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|-3.0||Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing since superiority on either hemodynamics or pain control would be interpreted as Dex better than Remi (alpha=0.0125 = 0.025/2, 97.5% CI)|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: dexmedetomidine arm - remifentanil arm|superiority||-3|-10|<0.001
91946622|NCT01258738|183790848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946623|NCT01258738|183790848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.19|-0.80|0.2268
91946624|NCT01258738|183790848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.10|-0.93|0.1145
91946625|NCT01258738|183790848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.00|-1.00|0.0512
91946626|NCT01258738|183790848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.00|-1.02|0.0509
91946627|NCT01258738|183790849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946628|NCT01258738|183790849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.20|-0.79|0.2430
91946629|NCT01258738|183790849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.03|-1.09|0.0384
91817623|NCT03965962|183510242|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control group (Group 2) was greater than (\>) -5% at Day 28.|Difference in Percentage|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|4.35||||||||4.35|-2.33|
91817624|NCT03965962|183510242|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95 % CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control group (Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Difference in Percentage|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|6.5||||||||6.50|-1.32|
91817625|NCT00867451|183510269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
91817626|NCT02039674|183510286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|26.3||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|42.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||||42.1|8.9|0.0016
91817627|NCT02039674|183510287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0858|||||||Exact binomial distribution for testing|HO: ORR ≤20% versus H1: ORR \>20%||||||0.0858
91817628|NCT02039674|183510289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.00252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.83|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test||||0.83|0.35|0.00252
91817629|NCT02039674|183510290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.06762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.12|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test||||1.12|0.45|0.06762
91946630|NCT01258738|183790849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.06|-1.03|0.0797
91946631|NCT01258738|183790849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.21|-0.90|0.2186
91946632|NCT01258738|183790850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946633|NCT01258738|183790850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.14|-0.96|0.1410
91946634|NCT01258738|183790850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.21|-0.88|0.2299
91946635|NCT01258738|183790850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.29|-0.87|0.3221
91946636|NCT01258738|183790850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.20|-0.99|0.1891
91817630|NCT01358357|183510292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04||A hazard ratio of time to recurrence and its corresponding 95% Wald CI were estimated for the lurasidone arm vs.placebo arm, using a Cox proportional hazards model.Cox model included treatment effect as fixed effect, and stratified by pooled country.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||It was assumed that the recurrence event rates during the double-blind phase were to be 24% and 39% for subjects treated with lurasidone and placebo, respectively. A total of 120 recurrence events were required to achieve 90% power to detect the 15% difference in subjects who had a recurrence event during the double-blind phase between the treatment groups using a log-rank test with two sided alpha level of 0.05.||1.04|0.49|<0.078
91946637|NCT01258738|183790851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946638|NCT01258738|183790851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.09|-0.90|0.1080
91946639|NCT01258738|183790851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.03|-1.06|0.0389
91946640|NCT01258738|183790851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.11|-0.98|0.1181
91946641|NCT01258738|183790851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.22|-0.94|0.2271
91946642|NCT01258738|183790852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946643|NCT01258738|183790852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.24|-1.27|0.0044
91946644|NCT01258738|183790852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.01|-1.09|0.0455
91946645|NCT01258738|183790852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.17|-0.91|0.1750
91946646|NCT01258738|183790852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.03|-1.12|0.0379
91946647|NCT01258738|183790853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946648|NCT01258738|183790853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.06|-0.98|0.0826
91946649|NCT01258738|183790853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.15|-0.96|0.1538
91946650|NCT01258738|183790853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.05|-1.04|0.0728
91946651|NCT01258738|183790853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.08|-0.99|0.0975
91946652|NCT01258738|183790854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946653|NCT01258738|183790854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.11|-1.18|0.0186
91946654|NCT01258738|183790854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.13|-1.01|0.0106
91946655|NCT01258738|183790854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.20|-1.11|0.0048
91817631|NCT01358357|183510293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||<|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98||A HR of time to discontinuation and corresponding 95% Wald CI were est. for lurasidone arm vs.the placebo arm, using a Cox proportional hazards model. Model included treatment effect including treatment as a fixed effect,stratified by pooled country.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||0.98|0.54|<0.034
91946656|NCT01258738|183790854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.31|-1.31|0.0016
91946657|NCT01258738|183790855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946658|NCT01258738|183790855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.24|-1.37|0.0058
91946659|NCT01258738|183790855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.24|-1.42|0.0064
91946660|NCT01258738|183790855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.60|-1.85|0.0002
91946661|NCT01258738|183790855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.17|-1.49|0.0134
91946662|NCT01258738|183790856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946663|NCT01258738|183790856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.05|-1.09|0.0316
91946664|NCT01258738|183790856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.08|-0.99|0.0973
91946665|NCT01258738|183790856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.10|-1.27|0.0216
91946666|NCT01258738|183790856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.26|-1.03|0.2425
91946667|NCT01258738|183790857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946668|NCT01258738|183790857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.26|-0.92|0.2688
91946669|NCT01258738|183790857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.08|-1.17|0.0866
91946670|NCT01258738|183790857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.08|-1.34|0.0277
91946671|NCT01258738|183790857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.26|-1.04|0.2390
91946672|NCT01258738|183790858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946673|NCT01258738|183790858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.08|-1.00|0.0928
91946674|NCT01258738|183790858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.15|-1.27|0.0139
91946675|NCT01258738|183790858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.36|-1.53|0.0017
91817632|NCT01358357|183510294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.08||A HR of time to recurrence and its corresponding 95% Wald CI were estimated for lurasidone arm vs. placebo arm,using a Cox proportional hazards model. Model included treatment effect including treatment as a fixed effect stratified by pooled country.|Cox Proportional hazard Model|||||1.08|0.48|0.113
91817633|NCT01358357|183510296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.09||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.12||analysis of ANCOVA model contains treatment ,pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.29|0.406
91817634|NCT01358357|183510297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.11||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.04||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.26|0.162
91817635|NCT01358357|183510298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.07||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.13||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.27|0.496
91817636|NCT01358357|183510299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.8||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.2||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pool country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.8|0.128
91817637|NCT01358357|183510300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasdione vs.Placebo|-0.5||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-1.9|0.485
91817638|NCT01358357|183510301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.8|0.582
91817639|NCT01358357|183510302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.01||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.420
91817640|NCT01358357|183510303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.2||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.6|0.788
91817641|NCT01358357|183510304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.380
91817642|NCT01358357|183510305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|0.37||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|2.88||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.88|-2.14|0.772
91817643|NCT00108160|183510310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Our null hypothesis was that no significant effect of mupirocin ointment (treatment) on S. aureus re-infection would be seen at 18 months compared with placebo ointment. Based on prior studies, we estimated that 198 participants would need to be enrolled assuming a 20% dropout rate; 84 participants per arm would be required to detect a 66% decrease in re-infection from 30% to 10% with a significance level alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.9.||||0.356
91817644|NCT00323492|183510365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.034||95.0|-0.86|-0.03||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were applied.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.03|-0.86|0.034
91817645|NCT00323492|183510366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.031||95.0|-0.67|-0.03||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum text|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.03|-0.67|0.031
91817646|NCT00323492|183510367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.009||95.0|-0.18|-0.02||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.02|-0.18|0.009
91817647|NCT00323492|183510368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.01|-0.27||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wicoxon Rank Sum test|no adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.27|-1.01|< 0.001
91817648|NCT00323492|183510369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.51||95.0|-0.44|0.19||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||0.19|-0.44|0.51
91946676|NCT01258738|183790858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.43|-1.61|0.0008
91946677|NCT01258738|183790859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946678|NCT01258738|183790859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.4559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.38|-0.84|0.4559
91946679|NCT01258738|183790859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.05|-1.28|0.0345
91946680|NCT01258738|183790859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.05|-1.30|0.0340
91946681|NCT01258738|183790859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.03|-1.24|0.0634
91946682|NCT01258738|183790860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946683|NCT01258738|183790860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.43|-1.56|0.0007
91946684|NCT01258738|183790860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.22|-1.39|0.0073
91946685|NCT01258738|183790860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.21|-1.48|0.0094
91817649|NCT00323492|183510370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.79||95.0|-0.03|0.02||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||0.02|-0.03|0.79
91946686|NCT01258738|183790860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.19|-1.54|0.0120
91946687|NCT01258738|183790861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.96||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|32.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||32.37|7.54|0.0029
91946688|NCT01258738|183790861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|19.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||19.99|3.18|0.0100
91946689|NCT01258738|183790861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.75||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|23.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||23.89|3.62|0.0120
91946690|NCT01258738|183790861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.12||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||27.20|3.04|0.0213
91946691|NCT01258738|183790862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|20.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||20.92|-5.15|0.2755
91946692|NCT01258738|183790862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.57||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|21.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||21.54|-4.39|0.1950
91946693|NCT01258738|183790862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.99||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|27.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||27.26|0.72|0.0278
91946694|NCT01258738|183790862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.29||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|28.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||28.30|2.28|0.0174
91946695|NCT01258738|183790863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946696|NCT01258738|183790863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4 and 12 data only. Week 4||-0.09|-0.99|0.0201
91946697|NCT01258738|183790863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4 and 12 data only. Week 12||0.01|-1.02|0.0558
91946698|NCT01258738|183790864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946699|NCT01258738|183790864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.6741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.28|-0.18|0.6741
91946700|NCT01258738|183790864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.13|-0.33|0.3896
91946701|NCT01258738|183790864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.31|-0.22|0.7468
91946702|NCT01258738|183790864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.6871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.23|-0.35|0.6871
91946703|NCT01258738|183790865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946704|NCT01258738|183790865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.32|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||1.32|-0.57|0.4332
91946705|NCT01258738|183790865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.98|-0.98|0.9947
91817650|NCT00323492|183510371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.86
91946706|NCT01258738|183790865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||1.75|-0.28|0.1558
91946707|NCT01258738|183790865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||2.39|0.03|0.0488
91946708|NCT01258738|183790866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946709|NCT01258738|183790866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.7645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||2.80|-2.06|0.7645
91946710|NCT01258738|183790866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.4178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.55|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||3.55|-1.48|0.4178
91946711|NCT01258738|183790866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.79|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||3.79|-1.67|0.4430
91946712|NCT01258738|183790866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.31|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||5.31|-0.54|0.1095
91946713|NCT01258738|183790867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946714|NCT01258738|183790867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.49|-0.46|0.9504
91946715|NCT01258738|183790867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.34|-0.70|0.4971
91946716|NCT01258738|183790867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.54|-0.47|0.8999
91946717|NCT01258738|183790867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.62|-0.60|0.9712
91946718|NCT01258738|183790868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946719|NCT01258738|183790868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|3.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||3.24|-1.46|0.4556
91946720|NCT01258738|183790868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|5.75|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||5.75|-0.05|0.0543
91946721|NCT01258738|183790868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|5.53|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||5.53|-1.02|0.1754
91946722|NCT01258738|183790868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||4.82|-1.93|0.3985
91817651|NCT00323492|183510373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.65
91817652|NCT00323492|183510374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: no indication of shift from 0 in distribution of change from baseline. Alternative Hypothesis: shift from 0 is observed in distribution of change from baseline.||||0.11
91817653|NCT00323492|183510374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: no indication of shift from 0 in distribution of change from baseline. Alternative Hypothesis: shift from 0 is observed in distribution of change from baseline.||||0.34
91817654|NCT00323492|183510375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: treatment is not associated with the observed virologic response. Alternative Hypothesis: treatment is associated with the observed virologic response||||1.00
91817655|NCT02486042|183510389|OTHER|T-test for equality in means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STAT-3 in T0 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.22
91817656|NCT02486042|183510389|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of PPAR-gamma in T0 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.15
91946723|NCT01258738|183790869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946724|NCT01258738|183790869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.62|-0.18|0.2823
91946725|NCT01258738|183790869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.4029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.58|-0.23|0.4029
91946726|NCT01258738|183790869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.51|-0.25|0.5110
91946727|NCT01258738|183790869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.5844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.56|-0.32|0.5844
91946728|NCT01258738|183790870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946729|NCT01258738|183790870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.11|-0.95|0.0129
91817657|NCT02486042|183510389|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STC-1 in T0 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.78
91817658|NCT02486042|183510393|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STAT-3 in T1 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.43
91817659|NCT02486042|183510393|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of PPAR-gamma in T1 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.44
91817660|NCT02486042|183510393|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STC-1 in T1 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.50
91817661|NCT02486042|183510394|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STAT-3 in T2 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.001
91817662|NCT02486042|183510394|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of PPAR-gamma in T2 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.001
91817663|NCT02486042|183510394|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STC-1 in T2 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.01
91817664|NCT01466387|183510396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMC TF+YF+MenACWY-CRM/GMC TF+YF.|Ratio of GMC|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 29) was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the observed ratio of geometric mean concentrations between one dose of typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.6|0.81|
91817665|NCT01466387|183510397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMT TF+YF+MenACWY/GMT TF+YF.|Ratio of GMT.|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.41||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 29) was that the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of geometric mean titers between one dose of typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.41|0.65|
91817666|NCT01466387|183510398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMT JE + Rab + MenACWY-CRM/GMT JE + Rab.|Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and centers as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 57) was that the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of geometric mean titers between the second dose of Japanese Encephalitis and third dose of rabies virus vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to Japanese Encephalitis and rabies virus vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.16|0.7|
91817667|NCT01466387|183510399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMC JE + Rab + MenACWY-CRM/GMC JE + Rab.|Ratio of GMC|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 57) was that the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of geometric mean concentrations between the second dose of Japanese encephalitis and third dose of rabies virus vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to Japanese encephalitis and rabies virus vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.17|0.71|
91817668|NCT02530450|183510410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing the change between two time points within each group using Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||< 0.05
91817669|NCT02586896|183510459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
91817670|NCT02586896|183510461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
91817671|NCT02586896|183510462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
91817672|NCT02586896|183510463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
91817673|NCT00403273|183510504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91817674|NCT00403273|183510505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||comparison of proportions|0.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made, since we analyzed only one primary outcome. 19 patients per group were needed for 80% power and 24 patients per group for 90% power to detect a difference of 43% in proportion with primary outcome|comparison of proportions|compare proportion of patients with clinically meaningful change in 0-10 VAS pain (at least 2-point reduction on VAS pain) at 2-mths \& all timepoints|we hypothesized a greater proportion with meaningful reduction in pain on 0-10 scale in intervention versus placebo group.|For primary outcome analysis, we compared the proportion of responders with clinically meaningful change \[improvement\] in 0-10 VAS Pain, i.e. those with 2-point reduction in 0-10 VAS pain score at 2-mths, in the 2 groups using comparison of proportions. Proportion of responders were also analyzed at all efficacy timepoints using generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling. We used GEE for between-group comparisons in secondary outcomes at all efficacy endpoints, adjusted for baseline scores.||||<0.05
91817675|NCT00403273|183510506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91817676|NCT00403273|183510507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91817677|NCT00403273|183510508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91817678|NCT00403273|183510509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91817679|NCT00403273|183510510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91817680|NCT00589108|183510539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the mean maximum flexion between the three groups at 2 years post-surgery.||||0.64
91817681|NCT00589108|183510539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the mean maximum flexion between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.80
91946730|NCT01258738|183790870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.35|-0.61|0.6003
91946731|NCT01258738|183790870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.07|-0.89|0.0911
91946732|NCT01258738|183790870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.24|-0.73|0.3144
91946733|NCT01258738|183790871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91946734|NCT01258738|183790871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.6476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 2||0.29|-0.46|0.6476
91946735|NCT01258738|183790871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 4||0.39|-0.40|0.9777
91946736|NCT01258738|183790871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.4453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 8||0.65|-0.28|0.4453
91946737|NCT01258738|183790871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.5782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 12||0.60|-0.33|0.5782
91946738|NCT01258738|183790872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||-0.04|-1.88|0.0414
91817682|NCT00589108|183510540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference for the Knee Society Function Score between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.06
91946739|NCT01258738|183790873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91946740|NCT01258738|183790873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||-1.70|-4.16|<0.001
91946741|NCT01258738|183790874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91946742|NCT01258738|183790874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||-0.04|-1.88|0.0414
91946743|NCT01258738|183790875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only."||-0.08|-0.72|0.0132
91946744|NCT01258738|183790876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91946745|NCT01258738|183790876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.13|-0.52|0.2438
91946746|NCT01258738|183790876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.09|-0.42|0.1958
91946747|NCT01258738|183790876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.08|-0.46|0.1624
91946748|NCT01258738|183790876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.08|-0.54|0.0091
91946749|NCT01258738|183790877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91946750|NCT01258738|183790877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.08|-1.32|0.0836
91817683|NCT00589108|183510541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference for the Knee Society Pain Score between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.87
91817684|NCT00589108|183510542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the Knee Society Stair Climbing Score between the three groups at 2 years post-surgery.||||0.44
91817685|NCT00589108|183510542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the Knee Society Stair Climbing Score between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.08
91946751|NCT01258738|183790877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.5402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.54|-1.02|0.5402
91946752|NCT01258738|183790877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.8167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.87|-0.69|0.8167
91946753|NCT01258738|183790877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.73|-0.72|0.9891
91946754|NCT01258738|183790878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91946755|NCT01258738|183790878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.05|-0.08|0.6148
91946756|NCT01258738|183790878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.03|-0.11|0.2547
91946757|NCT01258738|183790878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.01|-0.08|0.1208
91946758|NCT01258738|183790878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.17|-0.13|0.8291
91946759|NCT01258738|183790879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91946760|NCT01258738|183790879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.23|-0.64|0.3536
91946761|NCT01258738|183790879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.05|-0.97|0.0769
91946762|NCT01258738|183790879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.33|-0.70|0.4698
91946763|NCT01258738|183790879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.12|-1.19|0.0167
91946764|NCT01258738|183790880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91817686|NCT00589108|183510543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the percentage of knees surviving between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.92
91817687|NCT00380393|183510571|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|69.1|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum||69.1|28.1|<0.001
91817688|NCT00380393|183510571|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|70.4|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area or distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum||70.4|31.4|<0.001
91817689|NCT00380393|183510572|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|54.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|70.0|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||70.0|31.2|<0.001
91946765|NCT01258738|183790880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.66|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-1.66|-4.39|<0.0001
91946766|NCT01258738|183790880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.86||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-1.62|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-1.62|-6.09|0.0008
91946767|NCT01258738|183790880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.61|-5.47|0.0143
91946768|NCT01258738|183790880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-1.02|-5.23|0.0038
91946769|NCT01258738|183790881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test||||<0.001
91946770|NCT01258738|183790881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-4.58|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-4.58|-10.85|<0.0001
91946771|NCT01258738|183790881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-3.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-3.09|-9.16|<0.0001
91946772|NCT01258738|183790881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.78||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-2.41|-9.15|0.0009
91946773|NCT01258738|183790881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-3.73|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-3.73|-10.34|<0.0001
91946774|NCT01258738|183790882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||With the exception of change from Baseline in the placebo group at Week 12, within group comparisons to baseline for all other treatment groups and time points were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||0.0370
91946775|NCT01258738|183790882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|4.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||4.37|-4.39|0.9965
91946776|NCT01258738|183790882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|9.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||9.10|-1.89|0.1970
91946777|NCT01258738|183790882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.07||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.84|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||11.84|0.30|0.0394
91946778|NCT01258738|183790883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.01 at Week 12 and \<0.001 thereafter, from paired t-test.||||<0.01
91946779|NCT01258738|183790883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.21|-0.02|0.1341
91946780|NCT01258738|183790883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.14|0.00|0.0447
91946781|NCT01258738|183790883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.13|-0.02|0.1345
91946782|NCT01258738|183790884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91946783|NCT01258738|183790884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||2.90|-0.27|0.1035
91946784|NCT01258738|183790884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||4.26|0.50|0.0134
91817690|NCT00380393|183510572|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|56.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|71.2|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area or distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||71.2|34.2|<0.001
91946785|NCT01258738|183790885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.05, from paired t-test.||||<0.05
91946786|NCT01258738|183790885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||3.19|-0.84|0.2520
91946787|NCT01258738|183790885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|3.34|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||3.34|-1.63|0.4981
91946788|NCT01258738|183790886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91946789|NCT01258738|183790886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.4621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||0.41|-0.90|0.4621
91817691|NCT00380393|183510573|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|55.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|71.7|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||71.7|31.0|0.0003
91817692|NCT00380393|183510573|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|57.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.3|73.0|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||73.0|34.3|<0.001
91946790|NCT01258738|183790886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.3842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||0.50|-1.28|0.3842
91946791|NCT01258738|183790887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91946792|NCT01258738|183790887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||0.86|-0.52|0.6357
91946793|NCT01258738|183790887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||0.36|-1.39|0.2439
91946794|NCT01258738|183790888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91946795|NCT01258738|183790888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||0.52|-1.55|0.3286
91946796|NCT01258738|183790889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91946797|NCT01258738|183790889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||0.37|-1.93|0.1829
91946798|NCT01258738|183790890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.05, from paired t-test.||||<0.05
91946799|NCT01258738|183790890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37||||0.5226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|9.68|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||9.68|-4.95|0.5226
91946800|NCT01258738|183790890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.6232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||8.14|-4.90|0.6232
91946801|NCT01258738|183790890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52||||0.3877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|11.57|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||11.57|-4.53|0.3877
91946802|NCT01258738|183790890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74||||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|12.69|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||12.69|-3.22|0.2402
91946803|NCT01258738|183790891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001 at Week 16 and thereafter, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91817693|NCT00380393|183510574|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|73.0|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||73.0|34.8|<0.001
91817694|NCT00380393|183510574|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|59.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|73.9|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||73.9|37.1|<0.001
91817695|NCT01536496|183510593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test||||0.04
91817696|NCT03865329|183510612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91817697|NCT03865329|183510613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91817698|NCT03865329|183510615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91946804|NCT01258738|183790891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.19||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-1.52|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-1.52|-16.85|0.0193
91946805|NCT01258738|183790891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.08||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||2.26|-12.41|0.1730
91946806|NCT01258738|183790891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.23|1.71|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||1.71|-14.23|0.1224
91946807|NCT01258738|183790891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.14||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.11|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.16|-18.11|0.0461
91946808|NCT01258738|183790892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91817699|NCT03865329|183510616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91817700|NCT00265616|183510617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91817701|NCT00265616|183510618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
91817702|NCT00265616|183510619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91817703|NCT00265616|183510621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4
91817704|NCT00265616|183510622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91817705|NCT00278954|183510633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SABI per subject per year|0.0||||0.01||99.0|0.0|0.101|||Poisson regression with log link||Mean SABI rate = 0 per subject per year. 1-sided 99% upper confidence bound could not be calculated.|The estimated serious acute bacterial infection (SABI) rate was calculated by dividing no. of infections by no.of subject years. The exponential of the upper limit of the 98% 2-sided Confidence Interval (CI) gave the upper, 1-sided, 99% confidence bound, estimated using Poisson regression. The equivalent upper bound per subject year was obtained by dividing this figure by total subject years.||0.101|0|0.01
91817706|NCT01589445|183510648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.47|<|0.161||95.0|-88.0|118.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||TC||118|-88.0|<0.161
91817707|NCT01589445|183510648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|143.22|<|0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-397.0|976.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||TG||976|-397.0|<0.913
91817708|NCT01589445|183510648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.59|<|0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|19.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HDL||19.0|-35.0|<0.322
91817709|NCT01589445|183510648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.05|<|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.8|76.2||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||LDL||76.2|-113.8|<0.210
91817710|NCT01589445|183510649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.41|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, Multiple Logistic Regression (MLR), OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA||The group 001 was divided according to Pro12Pro and Pro12Ala groups.There was no Ala12Ala group.These two groups were compared also in accordance with all parameters (glycemic levels, insulin levels, lipid profiles, BMI).|Change from Baseline in FSG at 3rd month||8.0|-7.9|<0.05
91817711|NCT01589445|183510650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||||2.4|-4.4|>0.05
91817712|NCT01589445|183510651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.27||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||||0.27|-0.40|<0.001
91817713|NCT01589445|183510651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.25|<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|15.52||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HOMA IR||15.52|-14.12|<0.004
91817714|NCT01589445|183510652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.46|<|0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-346.4|328.1||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HOMA B||328.10|-346.40|<0.808
91817715|NCT01589445|183510652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.0|<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.7|180.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HOMA S||180|-148.70|<0.025
91817716|NCT01589445|183510653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.04|26.52||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||FSI||26.52|-27.04|<0.039
91817717|NCT00481195|183510673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0439||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment ands concurrent treatment for bipolar disorders as factors. A significant treatment-by baseline interaction was observed in the total score that violates the assumption of parallelism on which an ANCOVA is based, so the data was analyzed using ANOVA without baseline as a covariate rather than ANCOVA.||||0.0439
91817718|NCT00481195|183510674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0795
91817719|NCT00481195|183510675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0272
91817720|NCT00481195|183510676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0802||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0802
91817721|NCT00481195|183510677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2407||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.2407
91817722|NCT00481195|183510678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0502||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0502
91817723|NCT00481195|183510679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0612||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0612
91817724|NCT00481195|183510680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1980
91946809|NCT01258738|183790892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.97||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.36|-11.58|0.0372
91946810|NCT01258738|183790892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|1.79|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||1.79|-7.98|0.2126
91946811|NCT01258738|183790892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.66||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.54|-12.79|0.0330
91946812|NCT01258738|183790892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.33|-13.38|0.0397
91946813|NCT01258738|183790893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001 at Week 16 and at Week 32 and thereafter, from paired t test.||||<0.001
91946814|NCT01258738|183790893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.29||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.46|-16.12|0.0382
91946815|NCT01258738|183790893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|2.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||2.19|-12.69|0.1648
91946816|NCT01258738|183790893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98||||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||2.15|-14.11|0.1476
91946817|NCT01258738|183790893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.68||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.68|-18.03|0.0687
91946818|NCT01258738|183790894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91946819|NCT01258738|183790894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||0.33|-1.21|0.2578
91946820|NCT01258738|183790894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||0.52|-1.21|0.4334
91817725|NCT00481195|183510681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8960
91817726|NCT00481195|183510682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2575||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2575
91817727|NCT00481195|183510683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3129||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3129
91946821|NCT01258738|183790895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91946822|NCT01258738|183790895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.3554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||1.70|-4.70|0.3554
91946823|NCT01258738|183790895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|1.99|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||1.99|-5.82|0.3350
91817728|NCT00481195|183510684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1565||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.1565
91946824|NCT01258738|183790896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41||||14.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|28.78|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||28.78|0.04|14.41
91946825|NCT01258738|183790897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.03||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|24.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||24.56|-2.51|0.1285
91946826|NCT03798366|183790949|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||2.0|-3.1|0.6757
91817729|NCT00481195|183510685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6737||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.6737
91817730|NCT00481195|183510686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2249||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.2249
91817731|NCT00481195|183510687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0862||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0862
91817732|NCT00481195|183510688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9281||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.9281
91817733|NCT00481195|183510689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4428||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.4428
91817734|NCT00481195|183510690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0965||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0965
91817735|NCT00481195|183510691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5389||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.5389
91817736|NCT00481195|183510692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0793||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0793
91817737|NCT00481195|183510693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3814||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.3814
91817738|NCT00481195|183510694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8099||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.8099
91817739|NCT00481195|183510695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0968||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0968
91817740|NCT00481195|183510696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1605||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.1605
91817741|NCT00481195|183510697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1869||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.1869
91817742|NCT00481195|183510698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0817||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0817
91817743|NCT00481195|183510699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3712||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.3712
91817744|NCT00481195|183510700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5427||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.5427
91817745|NCT00481195|183510701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3463||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.3463
91817746|NCT00481195|183510702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.2730
91817747|NCT00481195|183510703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7791||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.7791
91817748|NCT00481195|183510704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.9007
91946827|NCT03798366|183790950|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.6079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||1.9|-3.3|0.6079
91817749|NCT00481195|183510705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6431||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.6431
91817750|NCT00481195|183510706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6631||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder.||||||0.6631
91817751|NCT00481195|183510707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9768||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.9768
91817752|NCT00481195|183510708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9873||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment fro bipolar disorder||||||0.9873
91817753|NCT00481195|183510709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4567||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.4567
91817754|NCT00481195|183510710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6475||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.6475
91817755|NCT00481195|183510711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5066||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.5066
91817756|NCT00481195|183510712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4438||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.4438
91817757|NCT02932904|183510713|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.78||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA with last observation carried forward (LOCF) model was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||4.78|0.69|0.009
91817758|NCT02932904|183510713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.05||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.05|-0.95|0.303
91817759|NCT02932904|183510714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.627||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.37|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.37|-0.10|0.072
91817760|NCT02932904|183510714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.5|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.50|0.09|0.035
91817761|NCT02932904|183510714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.89|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.89|-0.44|0.149
91817762|NCT02932904|183510714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.48|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.48|-0.78|0.303
91817763|NCT02932904|183510714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.906||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.78|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.78|0.22|0.028
91817764|NCT02932904|183510714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|2.15|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.15|-1.33|0.645
91817765|NCT02932904|183510714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.77|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.77|0.06|0.043
91817766|NCT02932904|183510714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.49|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.49|-1.14|0.465
91817767|NCT02932904|183510715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.41|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.41|-2.84|0.009
91817768|NCT02932904|183510715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.834||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.35|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.35|-2.93|0.123
91817769|NCT02932904|183510715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.892||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.1|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.10|-3.61|0.039
91817770|NCT02932904|183510715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.929||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.66|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.66|-4.32|0.008
91817771|NCT02932904|183510715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.75|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 5, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.75|-4.78|0.007
91946828|NCT03798366|183790951|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||0.6|-4.8|0.1298
91946829|NCT03798366|183790952|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||-0.1|-5.6|0.0411
91946830|NCT01117428|183790955|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between Parts E and F in terms of Best Overall Response evaluated from screening until disease progression.||||||0.6645||||||No adjustment, 5% significance level|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6645
91946831|NCT00474539|183790958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-3.3|2.0||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=1:8 titer was calculated||2.0|-3.3|
91946832|NCT00474539|183790961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for or immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.69|1.08||||||For Meningococcal C the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.69|
91946833|NCT00474539|183790961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for or immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.23||||||95.0|0.97|1.55||||||For Meningococcal C the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.55|0.97|
91946834|NCT00474539|183790962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-3.5|2.0||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-3.5|
91946835|NCT00474539|183790962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.9|1.7||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.9|
91946836|NCT00474539|183790962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.2||||||95.0|-4.4|4.0||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||4.0|-4.4|
91946837|NCT00474539|183790962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.1|2.0||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-2.1|
91946838|NCT00474539|183790962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.2|2.2||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.2|
91946839|NCT00474539|183790962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.2|2.2||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.2|
91946840|NCT00474539|183790962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.2||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.3|
91946841|NCT00474539|183790962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.2||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.3|
91946842|NCT00474539|183790963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.72|1.03||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.03|0.72|
91946843|NCT00474539|183790963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.91||||||95.0|0.74|1.12||||||For tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.12|0.74|
91946844|NCT00474539|183790963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.78|1.1||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.78|
91946845|NCT00474539|183790963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.81|1.24||||||For tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.24|0.81|
91946846|NCT00474539|183790966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-1.7|3.2||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 1:8 titer was calculated.||3.2|-1.7|
91817772|NCT02932904|183510716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.71|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.71|-1.70|0.419
91817773|NCT02932904|183510716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.85|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.85|-1.51|0.581
91817774|NCT02932904|183510716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.56|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.56|-1.69|0.938
91817775|NCT02932904|183510716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.814||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.17|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.17|-2.04|0.592
91817776|NCT02932904|183510716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.89|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.89|-1.60|0.870
91817777|NCT02932904|183510716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.27|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.27|-3.16|0.098
91817778|NCT02932904|183510716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.24|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.24|-2.39|0.532
91817779|NCT02932904|183510716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.907||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.03|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.03|-3.60|0.046
91817780|NCT02932904|183510716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.97|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 5, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.97|-2.03|0.977
91817781|NCT02932904|183510716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|0.25|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 5, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.25|-3.68|0.087
91817782|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|5.201|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.201|0.037|0.515
91817783|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|7.051|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.051|0.049|0.677
91817784|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|11.912|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.912|0.181|0.720
91817785|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|7.861|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.861|0.053|0.732
91817786|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|11.303|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.303|0.066|0.913
91817787|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.507|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.507|0.090|0.164
91817788|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.287|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.287|0.050|0.098
91817789|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|3.731|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||3.731|0.383|0.758
91817790|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|1.814|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.814|0.107|0.256
91946847|NCT00242710|183790998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.18|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.18|1.56|<0.001
91946848|NCT00242710|183790998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.17|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.17|1.56|<0.001
91946849|NCT00242710|183790998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|4.76|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||4.76|2.81|<0.001
91946850|NCT00242710|183791000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.24|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.24|0.97|<0.001
91946851|NCT00242710|183791000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.46|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.46|1.19|<0.001
91946852|NCT00242710|183791000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.23|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.23|1.69|<0.001
91946853|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 1-4: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.12|-0.80|0.373
91946854|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 5-8: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.40|-1.70|0.738
91946855|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.65||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.71|||ANCOVA|||Week 9-12: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.71|-1.41|0.539
91946856|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 13-16: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.90|-0.71|0.233
91817791|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|1.561|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.561|0.059|0.154
91946857|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 17-20: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.39|-1.39|0.605
91946858|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.23||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 21-24: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.57|-1.12|0.305
91946859|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|3.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 25-28: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.52|-1.08|0.299
91946860|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.62||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|3.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 29-32: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.51|-0.27|0.092
91946861|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.55||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|3.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 33-36: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.29|-0.18|0.080
91946862|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.04||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 37-40: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.92|-0.85|0.279
91946863|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.13||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 41-44: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.11|-0.84|0.260
91946864|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 45-48: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.52|-1.50|0.618
91946865|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|2.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 49-52: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.96|-3.78|0.810
91946866|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.81|||ANCOVA|||Week 1-4: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.81|-1.14|0.654
91946867|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 5-8: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.28|-1.84|0.834
91946868|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 9-12: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.72|-2.41|0.744
91946869|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 13-16: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.91|-1.70|0.909
91946870|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 17-20: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.85|-1.94|0.963
91946871|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 21-24: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.94|-1.77|0.625
91946872|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 25-28: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.23|-2.39|0.947
91946873|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 29-32: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.53|-1.25|0.505
91817792|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|1.497|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||1.497|0.087|0.160
91817793|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|2.679|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||2.679|0.252|0.744
91817794|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|9.317|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.317|0.636|0.194
91817795|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|4.261|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.261|0.181|0.871
91817796|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|8.037|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.037|0.497|0.329
91817797|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|1.514|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||1.514|0.119|0.187
91817798|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|2.476|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||2.476|0.273|0.729
91817799|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|9.917|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.917|0.739|0.133
91817800|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|4.961|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.961|0.266|0.852
91817801|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|8.472|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.472|0.585|0.240
91817802|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|1.789|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||1.789|0.166|0.317
91817803|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.233|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.233|0.410|0.790
91817804|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|14.911|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.911|0.888|0.073
91817805|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|8.902|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.902|0.442|0.371
91817806|NCT02932904|183510717|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|17.063|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.063|1.027|0.046
91817807|NCT02932904|183510720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.082||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.51||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||5.51|1.25|0.002
91817808|NCT02932904|183510720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.068||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|3.73||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.73|-0.47|0.129
91946874|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 33-36: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.25|-1.23|0.564
91946875|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 37-40: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.57|-2.21|0.739
91946876|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 41-44: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.67|-2.27|0.766
91946877|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 45-48: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.10|-1.92|0.931
91946878|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|3.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 49-52: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.56|-3.17|0.911
91946879|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 1-4: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||4.30|0.92|0.003
91946880|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|6.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 5-8: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.58|1.79|<0.001
91946881|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.45||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|5.86|||ANCOVA|||Week 9-12: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.86|1.03|0.005
91946882|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 13-16: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.30|1.01|0.004
91946883|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 17-20: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||4.87|0.36|0.023
91946884|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.75||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 21-24: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.54|0.96|0.008
91946885|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.52||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|6.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 25-28: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.26|0.78|0.012
91946886|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 29-32: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.07|1.55|<0.001
91946887|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 33-36: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.83|1.68|<0.001
91946888|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 37-40: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.54|1.05|0.004
91946889|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.63||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.99|||ANCOVA|||Week 41-44: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.99|-0.73|0.175
91946890|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.35||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|3.75|||ANCOVA|||Week 45-48: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.75|-1.05|0.270
91946891|NCT00242710|183791001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.78||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|7.97|||ANCOVA|||Week 49-52: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||7.97|-0.41|0.077
91946892|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.826
91946893|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.534
91946894|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91946895|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.516
91946896|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.446
91946897|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.218
91946898|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91946899|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91946900|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.733
91946901|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.736
91946902|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.449
91946903|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.489
91946904|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.163
91946905|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.813
91946906|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.777|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.777
91946907|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.448
91946908|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.507
91946909|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.669
91946910|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.281
91946911|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.689
91946912|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.437
91946913|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91946914|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91946915|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.227
91946916|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.758
91946917|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.554
91946918|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91946919|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91946920|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91946921|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91946922|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91946923|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91946924|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.008
91946925|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91946926|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.005
91946927|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.008
91946928|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.062
91946929|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.007
91946930|NCT00242710|183791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.029
91946931|NCT00242710|183791004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.58|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||4.58|1.92|<0.001
91946932|NCT00242710|183791004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.46|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||4.46|1.83|<0.001
91946933|NCT00242710|183791004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|6.23|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||6.23|3.13|<0.001
91946934|NCT00242710|183791005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.87|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.87|0.80|<0.001
91946935|NCT00242710|183791005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.97|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.97|0.92|<0.001
91946936|NCT00242710|183791005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.59|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.59|1.17|<0.001
91946937|NCT00203294|183791016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Separate models were fit to the change scores for headache pain, nausea and vomiting, photophobia, phonophobia, and neck pain.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare nominal variables between groups. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare interval and ordinal variables between groups.||||<0.01
91946938|NCT00203294|183791016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare interval and ordinal variables between groups.||Fisher's exact test was used to compare nominal variables between groups.||||<0.01
91946939|NCT02177942|183791021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||ANCOVA||Difference is test treatment minus control treatment such that a positive difference favours the test treatment.|||0.13|-0.20|0.6931
91946940|NCT03062605|183791030|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.35||||||Significant at p \< 0.05|McNemar|||Strep Mutans, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.35
91946941|NCT03062605|183791030|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.29||||||Significant at p\<0.05|McNemar|||Strep Mutans, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.29
91946942|NCT03062605|183791030|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.09||||||Significant at p \< 0.05|McNemar|||Lactobacillus, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.09
91946943|NCT03062605|183791030|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.13||||||Significant at p \< 0.05|McNemar|||Lactobacillus, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.13
91817809|NCT02932904|183510721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|6.43||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||6.43|2.19|<0.001
91817810|NCT02932904|183510721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.17||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||5.17|0.95|0.005
91817811|NCT02590939|183510743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91817812|NCT02590939|183510744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91817813|NCT02590939|183510745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.666
91817814|NCT02590939|183510746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
91817815|NCT02590939|183510747|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91817816|NCT02590939|183510748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
91817817|NCT02590939|183510749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
91817818|NCT02590939|183510750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
91817819|NCT03706794|183510763|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|43.0||||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.829
91817820|NCT03706794|183510764|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|45.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.633
91817821|NCT03706794|183510765|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|45.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.633
91817822|NCT03706794|183510766|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|46.0||||0.633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.633
91817823|NCT03706794|183510767|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|52.0||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.315
91817824|NCT00566150|183510785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Unadjusted. Statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effects: group (as a between-subjects factor), time (as a within-subjects factor), group x time interaction.||Comparison of changes in outcome between treatment groups at week 6.||||0.29
91817825|NCT00566150|183510786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Unadjusted. Statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effects: group (as a between-subjects factor), time (as a within-subjects factor), group x time interaction.||Comparison of changes in outcome between treatment groups at week 6.||||0.07
91817826|NCT00566150|183510787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0||||Statistical significance was p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test for significance between groups.||Week 6||||.038
91817827|NCT00566150|183510788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79||95.0||||Unadjusted. Statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effects: group (as a between-subjects factor), time (as a within-subjects factor), group x time interaction.||Comparison of changes in outcome between treatment groups.||||0.79
91817828|NCT01527682|183510814|OTHER||Proportion|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.1|89.4|||||||The statistical analysis was performed according to study design. Using a Fleming single stage design (A'Hern approach) setting the probability of erroneously concluding that the responders rate is greater than 35% at 5% (one-sided alpha=0.05) and the probability of correctly concluding that the responders rate is at least 50% at 80% (beta error = 0.20), the minimum number of responder eyes was set at 31 out of 68, since this result is associated with a lower limit of the 90% exact confidence interval of 35.2%.|89.4|64.1|
91817829|NCT03979638|183510818|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-10.8||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||4.0|-23.5|0.1424
91817830|NCT03979638|183510818|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-6.1||||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||11.2|-20.8|0.4602
91817831|NCT03979638|183510818|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-7.8||||0.4181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||12.5|-24.4|0.4181
91817832|NCT03979638|183510818|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-16.7||||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||2.6|-32.3|0.0855
91817833|NCT03979638|183510819|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-20.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-9.5|-29.9|0.0010
91817834|NCT03979638|183510819|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-17.7||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-3.3|-29.9|0.0186
91817835|NCT03979638|183510819|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-19.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-1.9|-33.9|0.0320
91817836|NCT03979638|183510819|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-27.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-10.8|-40.3|0.0026
91817837|NCT03979638|183510820|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-28.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-14.5|-39.5|0.0005
91817838|NCT03979638|183510820|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-28.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-15.0|-39.7|0.0003
91817839|NCT03979638|183510820|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-29.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.7|-13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-13.2|-42.7|0.0014
91817840|NCT03979638|183510820|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-32.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-16.4|-45.3|0.0006
91817841|NCT02678676|183510846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.04||No adjustment to the p-value|Regression, Cox|||Test for statistical difference between pioglitazone and placebo with respect to time of first occurrence of the primary composite outcome event.||1.04|0.88|0.3444
91817842|NCT02678676|183510847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||||||Test for statistical difference between pioglitazone and placebo with respect to time of first occurrence of the primary composite outcome event.||1.16|0.83|
91817843|NCT03200899|183510848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.926|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.926
91817844|NCT03200899|183510849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.750
91817845|NCT03200899|183510850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.129
91817846|NCT03200899|183510851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.152
91817847|NCT03200899|183510852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.037
91817848|NCT03200899|183510853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.297
91817849|NCT03200899|183510854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.293
91817850|NCT03200899|183510855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.045
91817851|NCT04646499|183510858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Sign test|||||||0.34
91817852|NCT04646499|183510859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Sign test|||||||0.024
91817853|NCT04646499|183510860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Sign test|||||||0.083
91817854|NCT04646499|183510861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Sign test|||||||0.049
91817855|NCT04646499|183510862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Sign test|||||||0.31
91817856|NCT01538862|183510875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.82
91817857|NCT01400516|183510878|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Linear mixed model||control-teriparatide|||||0.28
91817858|NCT01412866|183510886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.08
91817859|NCT02496533|183510908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported anxiety as self-reported change of VAS between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.001
91817860|NCT02496533|183510909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported systolic blood pressure measurements between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.02
91817861|NCT02496533|183510909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.09||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-Value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses were performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported diastolic blood pressure between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.09
91946944|NCT01948791|183791033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference between the baseline score and post-baseline score falls on the left of MeanP-MeanB+1.40, the post-baseline noninferiority to baseline can be concluded. If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference between the baseline score and post-baseline score falls on the left of 0, superiority can be concluded.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis to test the non-inferiority of post-baseline change in ADAS-Cog from baseline was: H0: μP - μB ≥ 1.40, Ha: μP - μB \< 1.40 where μP and μB are the ADAS-Cog score (actual) at 16 weeks of Rivastigmine treatment and the baseline ADAS-Cog score (actual), respectively.||||<0.001
91946945|NCT00702949|183791048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median numerical change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 150 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.007
91946946|NCT00702949|183791051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median numerical change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 75 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.002
91946947|NCT00702949|183791052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median percent change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 75 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.009
91946948|NCT00702949|183791054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median percent change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 150 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.007
91946949|NCT01795716|183791056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90%CIs of the test/reference ratios for AUC0-∞ and Cmax were determined. Log-transformed data were used in the analysis. Following international guidelines (including those of the SFDA), the test and reference for mutations were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs of the test/reference ratios of AUC was within range of 0.80 to 1.25 and Cmax was within 0.70 to 1.43.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The 90% confidence intervals of the test/reference ratios for AUC0-∞ and Cmax were determined. Log-transformed data were used in the analysis. Following international guidelines (including those of the SFDA), the test and reference for mutations were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs of the test/reference ratios of AUC was within range of 0.80 to 1.25 and Cmax was within 0.70 to 1.43.||||<0.05
91946950|NCT01401101|183791057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Jointly modeled outcomes at the 3 waves by time, condition, and timeXcondition, to allow for different effects at 6 and 12 mos; controlled for interview mode (phone vs. in-person); used random effects to account for correlations wi/in site \& patient.|Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using the linear mixed-method model to estimate the difference between the PCM and TAU conditions||||0.97
91946951|NCT01401101|183791058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using the linear mixed-method model to estimate the difference between the PCM and TAU conditions||||0.54
91946952|NCT01401101|183791059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Jointly modeled outcomes at the 3 waves by time, condition, and timeXcondition, to allow for different effects at 6 and 12 mos; controlled for interview mode (phone vs. in-person); using random effects to control for correlations w/in site \& patient.|Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using the linear mixed-method model to estimate the difference between the PCM and TAU conditions||||0.33
91817862|NCT02496533|183510910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.009||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported respiration rate between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.009
91817863|NCT02496533|183510911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.45||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported pulse rate between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.45
91946953|NCT01610414|183791069|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall HZ vaccine efficacy was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|68.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.56|77.53|||Poisson method|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was evaluated in the prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) in autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) recipients 18 years of agee and older.||77.53|55.56|<0.0001
91946954|NCT00472043|183791086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91946955|NCT04957745|183791093|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||"Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Percentage of Total Viewing Time that Peripheral Target is Perceived across visual confusion conditions."|ANOVA|||"Effect of visual confusion conditions (binocular, unilateral monocular, and bilateral monocular visual confusions) on Percentage of Total Viewing Time Peripheral Target is Perceived is analyzed by repeated measure (within-subject) ANOVA. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05."||||<0.01
91946956|NCT02608892|183791114|SUPERIORITY|Use of pain management during newborn screening was described using frequency and proportion and expressed as an absolute difference in proportions with 95% confidence interval.|Absolute difference in proportions|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|11.5||||||||11.5|-26.2|
91946957|NCT00957723|183791122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change from pre-op to 1 year, 2 year and 5 year||||<0.0001
91946958|NCT00957723|183791123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change from pre-op to 1, 2, and 5 year||||<0.0001
91946959|NCT00957723|183791125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 1 year||||<0.0001
91946960|NCT00957723|183791125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 1 year||||0.0002
91946961|NCT00957723|183791125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 2 years||||<0.0001
91946962|NCT00957723|183791125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 2 years||||0.0177
91946963|NCT00957723|183791125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 3 year||||<0.0001
91946964|NCT00957723|183791125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 3 year||||0.0393
91946965|NCT00957723|183791125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 4 year||||<0.0001
91946966|NCT00957723|183791125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4905|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 4 year||||0.4905
91817864|NCT00502697|183510925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The original proposed sample size for this study was 300. This sample size was based on previous evidence that indicated that a reduction of 15% in the rate of preterm birth would be detectable with groups of 150. Because of concerns with systemic changes in the study's health care delivery environment, an interim analysis was conducted after 200 women had delivered. As a result of that analysis a decision was made to stop recruitment.||||.64
91817865|NCT01713868|183510969|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was significant, we presented results from the interaction model.||||||0.03||||||Adjusted education effect p=0.34. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.01. Adjusted education only effect p=0.74. Adjusted mHealth only effect p=0.02. Adjusted mHealth and education effect: p=0.03|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction.We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, this led to a sample of n=1600.||||0.03
91817866|NCT01713868|183510970|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was not significant, we only presented main effects model.|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted education effect: p=0.22. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.08.|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction. We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up,this led to a sample of n=1600.||||<0.001
91817867|NCT01713868|183510971|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was not significant, we only presented main effects model.|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted education effect p=0.07. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.54|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction. We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, this led to a sample of n=1600.||||<0.001
91817868|NCT01713868|183510972|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was not significant, we only presented main effects model.|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted education effect p=0.33. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.29.|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction. We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, this led to a sample of n=1600.||||<0.001
91817869|NCT01713868|183510973|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
91817870|NCT01713868|183510974|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
91817871|NCT01713868|183510975|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
91946967|NCT00957723|183791125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 5 year||||<0.0001
91946968|NCT00957723|183791125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 5 year||||0.0037
91946969|NCT00957723|183791127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||LEAS score change from preop to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years||||<0.0001
91817872|NCT01713868|183510976|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
91817873|NCT03026257|183511044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
91817874|NCT03026257|183511044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
91817875|NCT03026257|183511044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
91817876|NCT03026257|183511044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
91817877|NCT03026257|183511044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
91817878|NCT03026257|183511044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
91817879|NCT03026257|183511044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
91817880|NCT03026257|183511044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
91817881|NCT03265249|183511102|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|29.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29|-17.5|0.80
91817882|NCT00644969|183511134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|21.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.78|1.03|0.0457
91817883|NCT00644969|183511135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|50.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.71|0.75|0.0901
91817884|NCT00644969|183511136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.68|0.82|0.1524
91817885|NCT00644969|183511136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||2.05|0.45|0.9235
91817886|NCT00644969|183511137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-0.99|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference|Week 12 treatment difference||-0.99|-6.32|0.0077
91817887|NCT00644969|183511137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.52|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference|Week 24 treatment difference||3.52|-3.99|0.9022
91817888|NCT01933048|183511138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.43|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||A/H1N1||||0.43
91817889|NCT01933048|183511138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.8|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||A/H3N2||||0.80
91817890|NCT01933048|183511138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.55|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||B/Yamagata||||0.55
91817891|NCT01933048|183511138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.16|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||B/Brisbane||||0.16
91817892|NCT01714310|183511179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Group: F=.31, df=1/140|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.58
91817893|NCT01714310|183511179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=.03, df=1/140||||||.85
91817894|NCT01714310|183511179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=1.28, df=1/140||||||.26
91817895|NCT01714310|183511180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Group: F=0.00, df=1/44|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline through week 12) and time2 (weeks 4-12).||||||.97
91817896|NCT01714310|183511180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0002||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=136.22, df=1/44||||||<.0002
91817897|NCT01714310|183511180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=64.90, df=1/44||||||<.0001
91817898|NCT01714310|183511181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=41.85, df=1/89, p\<.0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
91817899|NCT01714310|183511182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=26.65, df=1/92, p \<.0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
91817900|NCT01714310|183511183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=40.35, df=1/89, p \< .0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
91817901|NCT01714310|183511184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=26.36, df=1/29, p \<.0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
91817902|NCT01714310|183511185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Group: F=.60, df=1/157|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.44
91817903|NCT01714310|183511185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=22.39, df=1/157||||||<.0001
91817904|NCT01714310|183511185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=4.40, df=1/157||||||.04
91817905|NCT01714310|183511186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Group: F=3.81, df=1/145|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|||No significant group\*time interactions. Group trend likely due to baseline differences.|||.05
91946970|NCT00877890|183791140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The choice of a 0.4% noninferiority margin was resulted from the considerations of expected clinical benefit of BYETTA in this study based on clinical data evaluating exenatide once weekly and BYETTA, regulatory guidance, published literature, and statistical considerations.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.39|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors.||Superiority of exenatide once weekly to BYETTA if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for treatment difference (exenatide once weekly minus BYETTA) is \<0; noninferiority if this upper limit is \<0.4%. Power: Assuming 15% dropout rate with 206 subjects will complete the study. This sample size would provide 90% power for non-inferiority test with assumption of greater reduction (0.1%) in exenatide once weekly and a common standard deviation of 1.1%.||-0.39|-0.94|<.0001
91946971|NCT00877890|183791141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiplicity adjustment using Hochberg procedure for the 3 key secondary endpoints (i.e., percent to achieving HbA1c goal of \<7%, change in fasting glucose, and percent of achieving fasting plasma glucose goal of \<=126 mg/dL) was performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target value of \<7% at Week 24 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
91946972|NCT00877890|183791142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target values of \<=6.5% at Week 24 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
91946973|NCT00877890|183791143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.5||Multiplicity adjustment using Hochberg procedure for the 3 key secondary endpoints (i.e., percent to achieving HbA1c goal of \<7%, change in fasting glucose, and percent of achieving fasting plasma glucose goal of \<=126 mg/dL) was performed.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline fasting plasma glucose. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-9.5|-31.4|0.0006
91946974|NCT00877890|183791144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiplicity adjustment using Hochberg procedure for the 3 key secondary endpoints (i.e., percent to achieving HbA1c goal of \<7%, change in fasting glucose, and percent of achieving fasting plasma glucose goal of \<=126 mg/dL) was performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving fasting plasma glucose target of \<=126 mg/dL at Week 24 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving fasting plasma glucose target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0008
91946975|NCT00877890|183791145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline body weight. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.01|-1.91|0.0514
91946976|NCT00877890|183791146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the systolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline systolic blood pressure. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.2|-4.7|0.2367
91946977|NCT00877890|183791147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.7717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline diastolic blood pressure. Power: based on the primary measurement.||2.2|-1.7|0.7717
91946978|NCT00877890|183791148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-9.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in total cholesterol from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline total cholesterol. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-9.1|-22.9|<.0001
91946979|NCT00877890|183791149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in HDL from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline HDL. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.3|-2.8|0.1251
91946980|NCT00877890|183791150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 30 to baseline (Day 1) , expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline triglycerides. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.04|0.87|0.2558
91946981|NCT04396106|183791156|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.721
91817906|NCT01714310|183511186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Tie: F=15.28, df=1/145||||||.0001
91946982|NCT02698176|183791164|OTHER||Estimation of DLT Rate|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.121|0.418|||||Point estimate and 2-sided 80% Bayesian credible interval for DLT rate estimated for the total number of participants from all 3 cohorts (CRPC+NMC+TNBC) that were evaluable for DLT analysis based on a non-informative prior distribution of Beta (1,1).|||0.418|0.121|
91946983|NCT02985684|183791183|OTHER|Acceptable performance: favorably exclude PG=0.88 with 95% confidence. Expected 6-month closure success proportion = 0.98. Acceptable performance margin = 0.10. PG = 0.98 - 0.10 = 0.88.|Binomial proportion|1.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.974|||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.05. If test rejects H0, then test primary outcome 2 (clinical success) at 1-sided alpha = 0.05; otherwise testing stops with failure to reject both primary outcome null hypotheses.|Binomial test (exact)||Exact 1-sided confidence interval lower bound from Clopper-Pearson method.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or lesser proportion with 6-month closure success compared to a performance goal (PG).~H0: P ≤ 0.88 vs H1: P \> 0.88, where P is the true proportion of subjects with 6-month closure success and 0.88 is the PG derived from clinical study outcomes for devices indicated for ASD closure.~N=103 subjects provide ≥95% power to exclude PG with 95% confidence if P=0.98 under H1."|||0.974|<0.0001
91946984|NCT02985684|183791184|OTHER|Acceptable performance: favorably exclude PG=0.76 with 95% confidence. Expected 6-month clinical success proportion = 0.88. Acceptable performance margin = 0.12. PG = 0.88 - 0.12 = 0.76.|Binomial proportion|0.9|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.843|||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.05. If test of primary outcome 1 rejects H0, then test at 1-sided alpha = 0.05; otherwise no testing of this primary outcome and failure to reject null hypothesis.|Binomial test (exact)||Exact 1-sided confidence interval lower bound from Clopper-Pearson method.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or lesser proportion with 6-month clinical success compared to a performance goal (PG).~H0: P ≤ 0.76 vs H1: P \> 0.76, where P is the true proportion of subjects with 6-month clinical success and 0.76 is the PG derived from clinical study outcomes for devices indicated for ASD closure.~N=112 subjects provide 95% power to exclude PG with 95% confidence if P=0.88 under H1."|||0.843|<0.0001
91946985|NCT03479203|183791212|OTHER|T-Test followed by Bonferroni post-hoc analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Blood assessed for C-reactive protein (CRP), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule (sICAM), the high mobility group box-1 (HMGB1), the NLRP3 inflammasome, and nitrates (NOx for nitric oxide) pre- and post-vaping. CRP, sICAM HMGB1 and NLRP3 is in ng/ml blood and NOx is in nanomol/ml. These numbers were weighted to obtain an inflammation index in blood. This index represents the fold increase over pre-vaping values."||6|1|0.05
91946986|NCT03419741|183791221|OTHER|We plan to enroll 20 participants within one year. Eleven participants were enrolled. 11/20 = 55% completed the number of enrollment.|%|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||percentage|||||||
91946987|NCT00836342|183791251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in mean carotenoid levels between subjects with a history of squamous cell carcinom and control subjects.||||0.31
91946988|NCT00836342|183791252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91946989|NCT00836342|183791253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91946990|NCT04853368|183791269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|4.04||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Primary analysis of ppFEV1 using MMRM excludes data inconsistent with baseline in terms of the timing of bronchodilator or airway clearance regimen.||||4.04|1.22|0.002
91946991|NCT04853368|183791269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.07|4.67||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Primary analysis of ppFEV1 using MMRM excludes data inconsistent with baseline in terms of the timing of bronchodilator or airway clearance regimen.||||4.67|-2.07|0.254
91817907|NCT01714310|183511186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=5.42, df=1/145||||||.02
91817908|NCT01714310|183511187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|Chi Square = .10, df=1, p=.76||||||.76
91817909|NCT01714310|183511188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Group: F=.78, df=1/220|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline through week 12) and time2 (weeks 4-12).||||||.38
91817910|NCT01714310|183511188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=.66, df=1/220||||||.42
91817911|NCT01714310|183511188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=.66, df=1/220||||||.13
91946992|NCT04853368|183791269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.9||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.07|6.77||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Primary analysis of ppFEV1 using MMRM excludes data inconsistent with baseline in terms of the timing of bronchodilator or airway clearance regimen.||||6.77|-5.07|0.402
91946993|NCT04853368|183791271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|9.92||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||9.92|1.07|0.022
91946994|NCT04853368|183791271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-14.1||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.59|-0.62||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||-0.62|-27.59|0.043
91946995|NCT04853368|183791272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.059|0.219||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.219|0.059|0.003
91946996|NCT04853368|183791272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.475|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.162|0.15||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.150|-0.162|0.475
91946997|NCT04853368|183791272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.332|0.212||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||Cohort 2: Difference between Triple Therapy and Placebo||0.212|-0.332|0.352
91946998|NCT04853368|183791273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0403||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0209|0.1568||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.1568|0.0209|0.017
91946999|NCT04853368|183791273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1033||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1814|0.288||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.2880|-0.1814|0.169
91947000|NCT04853368|183791273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1809|0.4527||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.4527|-0.1809|0.230
91947001|NCT04853368|183791274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.04|6.78||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.78|2.04|0.002
91947002|NCT04853368|183791274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.42|6.97||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.97|-4.42|0.350
91947003|NCT04853368|183791274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.3||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.75|11.34||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.34|-8.75|0.412
91947004|NCT04853368|183791275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|4.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.19|6.524||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.524|2.190|<0.001
91947005|NCT04853368|183791275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.449|3.268||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.268|-4.449|0.396
91947006|NCT04853368|183791275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.0||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.724|4.732||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.732|-8.724|0.305
91947007|NCT04853368|183791276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.475||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4443|11.5056||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.5056|1.4443|0.018
91947008|NCT04853368|183791276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.019||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1464|19.1844||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.1844|-7.1464|0.214
91947009|NCT04853368|183791276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|7.29||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.186|29.766||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.7660|-15.1860|0.286
91947010|NCT04853368|183791277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.6||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|11.37||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.37|-0.26|0.057
91947011|NCT04853368|183791277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|8.6||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|19.4||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.40|-2.18|0.088
91947012|NCT04853368|183791277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|11.2||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|29.25||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Note: The LS mean is estimated using the linear regression on the change in CFQ-R from baseline to day 29.||||29.25|-6.90|0.142
91947013|NCT01722552|183791286|EQUIVALENCE|The margin for non-equivalence was 25 percentage points.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.1|||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis was by intent to treat (ITT). This included data for all randomized subjects, with post-intervention adherence measured by the last 30 days of available data; adherence over the entire 6-month intervention period was measured using all available post-intervention data. Our sample size was designed to detect a 25 percentage point difference in proportion achieving optimal adherence post-intervention.||2.1|1.21|<0.05
91947014|NCT00568399|183791287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.987||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Coronary calcium score after treatment compared to baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This was a pilot study without a control group. There were no power calculations (see manuscript).||||0.001
91947015|NCT00724594|183791294|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||not significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Term infant cohort : NAC vs control H0= there will be no difference in resistive index in Middle Cerebral Artery after N-acetylcysteine or saline in the term cohort.||||0.9
91947016|NCT00724594|183791294|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preterm infant cohort: NAC vs control H0= there will be no difference in resisitive index in MCA after N-acetylcysteine or saline in preterm cohort||||0.9
91947017|NCT00724594|183791295|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||not significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Maternal cohort: NAC versus control l H0= PT will not be different in mothers after NAC or saline||||0.9
91947018|NCT00724594|183791295|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant cohort: NAC versus control H0= prothrombin time will not be different in the infants after NAC or saline||||0.9
91947019|NCT00724594|183791296|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||correcting for gestational age at birth||||0.072
91947020|NCT00724594|183791297|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91947021|NCT00405756|183791302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|0.56||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.560|0.278|<0.001
91947022|NCT00405756|183791302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|0.702||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.702|0.347|<0.001
91947023|NCT00405756|183791302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|1.075||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.075|0.589|0.134
91947024|NCT00405756|183791303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.541|||Log Rank|P-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.||||0.541|0.214|<0.001
91947025|NCT00405756|183791305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.337|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.493||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.493|0.231|<0.001
91817912|NCT01714310|183511189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Group: F=1.56, df=1/222|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.21
91817913|NCT01714310|183511189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=63.11, df=1/222||||||<.0001
91817914|NCT01714310|183511189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=12.86, df=1/222||||||.0004
91817915|NCT01714310|183511190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Group: F=5.42, df=1/223|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.02
91817916|NCT01714310|183511190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=1.77, df=1/223||||||.18
91817917|NCT01714310|183511190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=.47, df=1/223||||||.49
91817918|NCT01714310|183511191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Group: F=.02, df=1/223|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.90
91817919|NCT01714310|183511191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=1.60, df=1/223||||||.21
91817920|NCT01714310|183511191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=.12, df=1/223||||||.73
91817921|NCT01714310|183511192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Group: F=2.05, df=1/223|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.15
91817922|NCT01714310|183511192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=.29, df=1/223||||||.59
91817923|NCT01714310|183511192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=2.15, df=1/223||||||.14
91817924|NCT00218296|183511202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.99|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the usual care condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.99|0.26|0.04
91817925|NCT00218296|183511203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.83|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.83|0.07|0.019
91817926|NCT00218296|183511204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the usual care condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.94|0.18|0.03
91817927|NCT00218296|183511205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.48|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care Condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.48|0.004|.002
91817928|NCT00218296|183511206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.03|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care Condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||1.03|0.20|0.056
91817929|NCT00218296|183511207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.48||There were no adjustments in the analysis.|Chi-squared||The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care Condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.48|0.004|0.002
91817930|NCT01420289|183511209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|80.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||80|10|0.086
91817931|NCT01420289|183511210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|100.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||100|10|<0.05
91817932|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.82|0.68|0.000
91817933|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.52|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.52|1.14|0.000
91817934|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.17|0.93|0.000
91817935|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.13|0.80|0.755
91817936|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.83|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.83|0.95|0.426
91817937|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Smoker)||1.12|0.77|0.930
91817938|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.84|0.72|0.000
91817939|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.42|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.42|1.10|0.000
91817940|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.19|0.98|0.000
91817941|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.14|0.84|0.755
91817942|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.52|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.52|0.84|0.426
91817943|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Smoker)||1.12|0.81|0.930
91817944|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.84|0.74|0.000
91817945|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.32|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.32|1.08|0.000
91817946|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.26|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.26|1.08|0.000
91817947|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.13|0.60|0.755
91817948|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.52|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||2.52|0.82|0.426
91817949|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Smoker)||1.40|0.70|0.930
91947026|NCT00405756|183791305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.414|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.603||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.603|0.284|<0.001
91817950|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.6|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.60|0.49|0.000
91817951|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.76|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.76|1.29|0.000
91817952|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|1.93|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.93|1.54|0.000
91817953|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.17|0.72|0.755
91817954|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.95|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.95|0.78|0.426
91817955|NCT03441633|183511216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.20|0.70|0.930
91817956|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||1.09|0.90|0.000
91817957|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.25|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.25|0.98|0.000
91817958|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.45|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||2.45|0.94|0.164
91947027|NCT00405756|183791305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.125||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.125|0.606|0.223
91947028|NCT00405756|183791306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value calculation excludes the category - Response not evaluable (NE)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91947029|NCT00405756|183791306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value calculation excludes the category - Response not evaluable (NE)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91817959|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.22|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.22|0.87|0.826
91817960|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.43|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.43|0.94|0.190
91817961|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.57|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.57|0.18|0.526
91817962|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||0.91|0.77|0.000
91817963|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.24|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.24|1.01|0.000
91817964|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.83|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.83|0.76|0.164
91817965|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.26|0.95|0.826
91817966|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.13|0.77|0.190
91947030|NCT00405756|183791306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value calculation excludes the category - Response not evaluable (NE)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91947031|NCT00405756|183791306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.47|||Fisher Exact|||Based on dichotomized response: 1) CR or PR 2) SD or PD or NE||5.47|2.04|<0.001
91947032|NCT00405756|183791306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.62|||Fisher Exact|||Based on dichotomized response: 1) CR or PR 2) SD or PD or NE||2.62|0.95|0.096
91947033|NCT00405756|183791306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.37|||Fisher Exact|||Based on dichotomized response: 1) CR or PR 2) SD or PD or NE||3.37|1.33|0.002
91947034|NCT00405756|183791308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|0.531||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.531|0.228|<0.001
91947035|NCT00405756|183791308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.419|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|0.623||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.623|0.281|<0.001
91947036|NCT00405756|183791308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.191||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.191|0.571|0.302
91947037|NCT00405756|183791309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.553||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.553|0.296|<0.001
91947038|NCT00405756|183791309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.499|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|0.688||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.688|0.363|<0.001
91947039|NCT00405756|183791309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.827||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.085||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.085|0.630|0.169
91947040|NCT00286156|183791333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise comparisons adjusted for multiple testing (Tukey)|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups in iGFR||||<0.01
91947041|NCT01051856|183791352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91947042|NCT02176226|183791354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91947043|NCT02176226|183791355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91947044|NCT03894501|183791372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||.048
91947045|NCT03894501|183791373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.037
91947046|NCT03894501|183791374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.024
91947047|NCT03894501|183791375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.005
91947048|NCT03894501|183791376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANOVA|||||||.013
91947049|NCT03894501|183791377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||||||.035
91947050|NCT01072500|183791378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.98|||Regression, Cox|To compare interventions, we used a likelihood ratio test from a Cox regression model, stratified by field center and sex.||||0.98|0.69|0.03
91947051|NCT01072500|183791379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||||0.91|0.57|0.006
91947052|NCT01412333|183791393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.714|||Negative Binomial Model||Rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab ARR/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC ARR.|Adjusted by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||0.714|0.397|< 0.0001
91947053|NCT01412333|183791394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||Log Rank|||Time to onset of CDP at week 12||0.92|0.42|= 0.0169
91947054|NCT01412333|183791395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.051|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.029|0.089|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1 Gd lesion (present or not), baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.089|0.029|< 0.0001
91947055|NCT01412333|183791396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.171|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.225|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T2 lesion count, baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.225|0.130|< 0.0001
91947056|NCT01412333|183791397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.14|||=|0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|Stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||||1.56|0.84|= 0.4019
91947057|NCT01412333|183791398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.98|||Log Rank|||Time to onset of CDP at week 24||0.98|0.40|= 0.037
91947058|NCT01412333|183791399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.357|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.272|0.47|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1-hypointense lesion count, baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.47|0.272|< 0.0001
91947059|NCT01412333|183791400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.18|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.180|0.034|= 0.004
91947060|NCT01412333|183791401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.241|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in the rate of brain volume loss: 14.9%. Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.241|-0.018|= 0.09
91947061|NCT01412333|183791402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|=|0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|2.268|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||2.268|0.051|= 0.0404
91947062|NCT01412333|183791403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.32|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|Analyzed using CMH test, stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. rest-of-world) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||||2.32|1.41|< 0.0001
91947063|NCT01038635|183791428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximal tolerated dose|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximal tolerated dose not reached as no dose limiting toxicity documented. MTD considered to be last dose level.|||||
91947064|NCT04542525|183791437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Test of Binomial Proportion||||P-value is provided from exact test of binomial proportion (one-sided alpha = 2.5%) comparing PanOptix Toric Trifocal IOL Model TFNT20 with historical threshold 29.2 % (rate calculated for a non-toric IOL in Japanese study patients that would qualify for a T2 lens using the same toric calculator).|||<0.0001
91947065|NCT01566981|183791537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6925|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4708||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2221|1.1629|||t-test, 2 sided|without adjustments, df=39||"Null hypothesis was that Information and Communication Technology (ICT) supported diabetes care could have significant impact on reduction of baseline glycated hemoglobin (EHbA1c) after 1 year follow-up.~The sample in intervention group was normally distributed, so observed power (two-tailed hypothesis) was 0.45, for Cohen's d= 0.6 and alpha level =0.05"||1.1629|0.2221|0.005
91947066|NCT01009333|183791550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91947067|NCT01009333|183791551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.589
91947068|NCT01009333|183791552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91947069|NCT01012037|183791556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.97|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-0.52|-0.97|<0.0001
91947070|NCT01012037|183791556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-0.58|-1.02|<0.0001
91947071|NCT01012037|183791556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was +0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|-0.07|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||0.19|-0.07|
91817967|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.65|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||2.65|0.62|0.526
91947072|NCT01012037|183791557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-0.48|-0.83|<0.0001
91947073|NCT01012037|183791557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.84|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-0.49|-0.84|<0.0001
91947074|NCT01012037|183791557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was +0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||||95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||0.10|-0.10|
91947075|NCT01012037|183791558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-0.54|-1.00|<0.0001
91947076|NCT01012037|183791558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.05|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-0.59|-1.05|<0.0001
91947077|NCT01012037|183791558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was +0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|-0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||0.18|-0.08|
91947078|NCT01012037|183791559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.0029||95.0|-22.7|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-4.7|-22.7|0.0029
91947079|NCT01012037|183791559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.0001||95.0|-26.7|-8.8|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5 mg qd versus Placebo||-8.8|-26.7|0.0001
91947080|NCT01012037|183791559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||||95.0|-1.0|9.2|||ANCOVA||No non-inferiority margin was pre-defined for FPG|Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||9.2|-1.0|
91817968|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.45|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||1.45|1.28|0.000
91817969|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.35|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.35|1.14|0.000
91947081|NCT01012037|183791560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.0002||95.0|-25.3|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-7.8|-25.3|0.0002
91947082|NCT01012037|183791560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.6|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-10.2|-27.6|<0.0001
91947083|NCT01012037|183791560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||||95.0|-2.6|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||No non-inferiority margin was pre-defined for FPG|Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||7.3|-2.6|
91947084|NCT01012037|183791561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0653||95.0|-20.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||0.6|-20.6|0.0653
91947085|NCT01012037|183791561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0047||95.0|-25.8|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-4.7|-25.8|0.0047
91947086|NCT01012037|183791561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||||95.0|-0.7|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||No non-inferiority margin was pre-defined for FPG|Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||11.3|-0.7|
91947087|NCT02237898|183791570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91947088|NCT01809327|183791581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|-0.269|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.269|-0.657|0.001
91947089|NCT01809327|183791581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.280|-0.670|0.001
91947090|NCT01809327|183791581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|-0.207|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.207|-0.594|0.001
91947091|NCT01809327|183791581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|-0.169|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.169|-0.557|0.001
91947092|NCT01809327|183791581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P value corresponds to a comparison that canagliflozin is noninferior to Metformin XR by a margin of 0.35%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.133|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.133|-0.258|0.001
91947093|NCT01809327|183791581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P value corresponds to a comparison that canagliflozin is noninferior to Metformin XR by a margin of 0.35%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|0.082|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.082|-0.307|0.001
91947094|NCT01809327|183791582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.2|-1.6|0.016
91947095|NCT01809327|183791582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-1.1|-2.6|0.002
91947096|NCT01809327|183791582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.6|-2.1|0.001
91947097|NCT01809327|183791582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-1.4|-2.9|0.001
91947098|NCT01809327|183791583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.37|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||2.37|1.06|0.027
91947099|NCT01809327|183791583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.33|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||3.33|1.46|0.016
91947100|NCT01809327|183791584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.641|-0.182|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.182|-3.641|0.060
91947101|NCT01809327|183791584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.058|0.431|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.431|-3.058|0.147
91947102|NCT01809327|183791585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.5|||ANCOVA|||||9.5|1.2|0.147
91947103|NCT01809327|183791585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|0.2|0.147
91947104|NCT01809327|183791586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-3.7||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|3.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.4|-11.1|0.608
91947105|NCT01809327|183791586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|1.3||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||10.0|-7.3|0.806
91947106|NCT00852761|183791617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7298||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 3 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7298
91947107|NCT00852761|183791617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||This is the result for the Day 8 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
91947108|NCT00852761|183791618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7298||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 3 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7298
91947109|NCT00852761|183791618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||This is the result for the Day 8 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0060
91817970|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.95|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.95|0.98|0.164
91947110|NCT00852761|183791618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 15 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0060
91947111|NCT00852761|183791619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0332||||||Data apply to Day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0332
91947112|NCT00852761|183791621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3101||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 3 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.3101
91947113|NCT00852761|183791621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7242||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 8 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7242
91947114|NCT00852761|183791621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||||||This is the p value for day 15|Chi-squared|||||||0.0135
91947115|NCT00852761|183791623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1449||||||P value at day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1449
91947116|NCT00852761|183791623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634||||||P value at day 3.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1634
91947117|NCT00852761|183791623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5454||||||P value at day 8.|Chi-squared|||||||0.5454
91947118|NCT00852761|183791624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6715||||||This is the p value for day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6715
91947119|NCT00852761|183791624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7242||||||This is the p value for day 8.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7242
91947120|NCT00852761|183791624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6715||||||This is the p value for day 3.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6715
91947121|NCT00852761|183791625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4858||||||P value on day 8.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4858
91947122|NCT00852761|183791625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3001||||||P value on day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.3001
91947123|NCT01628718|183791666|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI margin for CAPS-IV scores was established a priori, based on a calculation of a reliable difference from baseline to posttreatment CAPS-IV scores from a previous trial (10 points). If the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the estimate does not contain the NI margin, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. .|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|9.44||one-tailed|Regression, Linear||Mean difference is the difference in mean CAPS-IV change scores (pre-post) between AD and CPT-C.|Null hypothesis: AD is inferior to CPT Alternative hypothesis: AD is non-inferior to CPT-C||9.44|-10.10|.05
91817971|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.41|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.41|0.76|0.826
91817972|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.76|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.76|0.82|0.190
91817973|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.5|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||4.50|0.17|0.526
91817974|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.42|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||1.42|1.16|0.000
91817975|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.43|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.43|1.10|0.000
91947124|NCT02140762|183791676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|67.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|69.0|||Generalized Linear Model||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The Poisson Distribution and Log Link options were used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤10%. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for VE is \> 10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 1 month after the 2nd injection for each strain is defined as \[1-(% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group / % of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\]x100. The combined VE across all strains will be computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||69|65|<0.0001
91947125|NCT02140762|183791676|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Model|||vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
91947126|NCT02140762|183791676|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear model.|||Vaccine effectiveness \<30% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
91947127|NCT02140762|183791676|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
91817976|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.64|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.64|0.49|0.164
91817977|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.34|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.34|0.84|0.826
91817978|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.23|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.23|0.66|0.190
91817979|NCT03441633|183511217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.36|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||2.36|0.09|0.526
91817980|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.53|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.53|1.20|0.000
91817981|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.15|0.89|0.014
91817982|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.99|0.77|0.000
91817983|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||0.97|0.75|0.000
91817984|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||0.97|0.74|0.013
91817985|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.31|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.31|0.84|0.157
91817986|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.29|0.82|0.124
91817987|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.96|0.61|0.062
91817988|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.22|0.78|0.079
91817989|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.38|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.38|0.86|0.140
91817990|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.45|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.45|1.17|0.000
91817991|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.09|0.87|0.014
91947128|NCT02140762|183791676|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness \<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
91947129|NCT02140762|183791677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine effectiveness|44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|47.0|||General Linear Model (GLM)||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The POISSON DISTRIBUTION and LOG LINK options was used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤10%. If the LL of the 95% CI for VE is \> 10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 4 months after the second injection for each strain is defined as \[1 - (% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group / % of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100.The combined VE across all strains will be computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||47|41|< 0.0001
91947130|NCT02140762|183791677|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91947131|NCT02140762|183791677|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<30% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91947132|NCT02140762|183791677|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91947133|NCT02140762|183791677|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91947134|NCT02140762|183791678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|46.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|49.0|||Generalized Linear Model||VE is based on the relative risk (RR).The Poisson Distribution and Log Link options were used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects:treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤ 10%. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for VE is \>10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 1 month after the 2nd injection for each strain is defined as \[1-(% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group / % of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\]x100. The combined VE across all strains will be computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||49|43|<0.0001
91947135|NCT02140762|183791678|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91947136|NCT02140762|183791678|OTHER|For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].|Vaccine Effectiveness|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<30%||||
91947137|NCT02140762|183791678|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91817992|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.12|0.91|0.000
91817993|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.05|0.85|0.000
91817994|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||0.93|0.74|0.013
91817995|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.13|0.76|0.157
91817996|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.20|0.81|0.124
91947138|NCT02140762|183791678|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91947139|NCT02140762|183791679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|23.0||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The POISSON DISTRIBUTION and LOG LINK options was used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|Generalized Linear Model||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The POISSON DISTRIBUTION and LOG LINK options was used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤10%. If the lower limit of 95% CI for VE is \> 10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 4 months after the 2nd injection for each strain is defined as \[1 - (% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group/% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||23|16|< 0.0001
91947140|NCT02140762|183791679|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91947141|NCT02140762|183791679|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<30% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91817997|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.96|0.65|0.062
91817998|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.48|1.02|0.079
91817999|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.49|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.49|0.99|0.140
91818000|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.05|0.88|0.000
91818001|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.99|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||0.99|0.84|0.014
91818002|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.90|0.76|0.000
91818003|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||0.91|0.77|0.000
91818004|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.00|0.85|0.013
91818005|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.54|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.54|0.68|0.157
91818006|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.29|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.29|0.53|0.124
91818007|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.13|0.48|0.062
91818008|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.33|0.57|0.079
91818009|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.59|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.59|0.67|0.140
91818010|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.47|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||0.47|0.32|0.000
91947142|NCT02140762|183791679|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91947143|NCT02140762|183791679|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91947144|NCT01711359|183791707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in response rate is \>-12%|Newcombe-Wilson method|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|24.1|||||Estimation Parameter: Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction for difference in the response rate (Baricitinib minus Methotrexate).|||24.1|5.5|
91947145|NCT01385098|183791729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91947146|NCT01385098|183791730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Change from preoperative to 12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91947147|NCT01385098|183791730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Change from preoperative to 12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
91947148|NCT00784225|183791754|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with visually significant AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for selenium||1.79|0.32|0.52
91818011|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||0.97|0.73|0.014
91947149|NCT00784225|183791754|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.77|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with visually significant AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for vitamin E||1.77|0.31|0.51
91947150|NCT00784225|183791755|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.75|0.37
91947151|NCT00784225|183791755|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.84|0.81
91947152|NCT00784225|183791756|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.98|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with advanced AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for selenium||7.98|0.79|0.12
91818012|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.91|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.91|1.51|0.000
91947153|NCT00784225|183791756|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.82|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with advanced AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for vitamin E||2.82|0.35|0.98
91947154|NCT00784225|183791757|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.64|0.19
91947155|NCT00784225|183791757|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.83|0.58
91947156|NCT02551874|183791758|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined by upper bound of 95% CI \<0.3%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03||Superiority|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline HbA1c, randomization stratification factor, visit, treatment-by-visit, and baseline HbA1c-by-visit.||||0.03|-0.30|0.118
91947157|NCT02551874|183791759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline body weight, randomization stratification factor, visit, treatment-by-visit, and baseline body weight-by-visit.||||-3.09|-4.20|<0.001
91947158|NCT02551874|183791760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.62|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c and randomization stratification factor (background medication of metformin with or without SU).||||0.62|0.30|<0.001
91947159|NCT02551874|183791761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|1.16|0.008
91947160|NCT02551874|183791762|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined by lower bound of 95% CI \>-10%.|Adjusted Percent Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|6.54||||||||6.54|-7.42|
91947161|NCT02551874|183791763|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined by upper bound of 95% CI \<12 mg/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.98|-13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline measurement, randomization stratification factor, visit, treatment-by-visit, and baseline-by-visit.||||-13.00|-26.98|<0.0001
91947162|NCT02528643|183791779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.146||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.696||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by geographic region and ECOG performance status. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Stratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: OS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: OS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a stratified one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level. Stratification factors were ECOG performance status and region from eCRF.||1.696|0.774|0.248
91818013|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.1|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||2.10|1.65|0.000
91818014|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.08|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.08|0.82|0.013
91818015|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.80|1.00|0.157
91818016|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.88|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.88|1.04|0.124
91818017|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.05|0.55|0.062
91818018|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.26|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.26|0.67|0.079
91818019|NCT03441633|183511218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.15|0.56|0.140
91818020|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.25|0.91|0.000
91818021|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.23|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||3.23|0.58|0.202
91818022|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.09|0.88|0.000
91818023|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||0.93|0.76|0.003
91818024|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.03|0.66|0.083
91818025|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.18|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||6.18|0.68|0.011
91818026|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.06|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.06|0.75|0.227
91818027|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.47|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.47|1.03|0.000
91818028|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.16|0.88|0.000
91818029|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.66|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||2.66|0.58|0.202
91818030|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.04|0.87|0.000
91818031|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||0.95|0.80|0.003
91818032|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.17|0.80|0.083
91818033|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||1.05|0.02|0.011
91818034|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.98|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||0.98|0.72|0.227
91818035|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.35|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.35|0.99|0.000
91818036|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|1.82|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.82|1.47|0.000
91818037|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.25|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||3.25|0.98|0.202
91818038|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.38|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.38|1.20|0.000
91818039|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.0|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.00|0.88|0.003
91818040|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.28|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.28|0.56|0.083
91818041|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.58|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||8.58|0.13|0.011
91818042|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.42|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.42|0.75|0.227
91818043|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.55|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.55|0.81|0.000
91818044|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.76|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.76|1.28|0.000
91818045|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.73|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||2.73|0.36|0.202
91818046|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.43|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.43|1.15|0.000
91818047|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.06|0.86|0.003
91947163|NCT02528643|183791779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.688||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Unstratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: OS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: OS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level.||1.688|0.773|0.252
91947164|NCT02528643|183791784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.474||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by ECOG performance status and region. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Stratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: PFS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: PFS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a stratified one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level. Stratification factors were ECOG performance status and region from eCRF.||1.474|0.732|0.396
91947165|NCT02528643|183791784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.959||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.345||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Unstratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: PFS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: PFS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level.||1.345|0.684|0.586
91947166|NCT02058940|183791799|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.2
91947167|NCT01192139|183791891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.011|1.068|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a saxagliptin tablet and a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.068|1.011|
91947168|NCT01192139|183791891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Lack of food effect was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.049|1.108|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.108|1.049|
91947169|NCT01192139|183791891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|104.65||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment A||||
91818048|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.68|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.68|0.95|0.083
91947170|NCT01192139|183791891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|108.74||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment B||||
91947171|NCT01192139|183791891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|100.84||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
91947172|NCT01192139|183791893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.011|1.068|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.068|1.011|
91947173|NCT01192139|183791893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.051|1.11|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.110|1.051|
91818049|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|6.21|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||6.21|0.18|0.011
91818050|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.17|0.72|0.227
91818051|NCT03441633|183511219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.87|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||0.87|0.50|0.000
91947174|NCT01192139|183791893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|102.84||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment A||||
91947175|NCT01192139|183791893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|106.89||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
91947176|NCT01192139|183791893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|98.99||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
91947177|NCT01192139|183791894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.109|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a saxagliptin tablet and a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.109|0.940|
91947178|NCT01192139|183791894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Lack of food effect was concluded if the fed to fasted ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.873|1.031|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.031|0.873|
91947179|NCT01192139|183791894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|25.68||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment A||||
91818052|NCT03441633|183511220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.75|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants||0.75|0.61|0.000
91818053|NCT03441633|183511220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.15|0.63|0.052
91818054|NCT03441633|183511220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants||0.80|0.67|0.000
91947180|NCT01192139|183791894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|26.21||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
91947181|NCT01192139|183791894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|27.63||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
91947182|NCT01192139|183791903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Least Squares Geometric Means|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.836|1.002|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a saxagliptin tablet and a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 96% and 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.002|0.836|
91947183|NCT01192139|183791903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|lack of food effect concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean and 90% CI|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|1.111|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.111|0.918|
91947184|NCT01192139|183791903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5542.2||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment A||||
91947185|NCT01192139|183791903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5072.9||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
91947186|NCT01192139|183791903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5023.3||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
91947187|NCT01192139|183791904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.854|0.992|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||0.992|0.854|
91947188|NCT01192139|183791904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.105|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.105|0.951|
91947189|NCT01192139|183791904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5287.1||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment A||||
91947190|NCT01192139|183791904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|4866.2||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
91818055|NCT03441633|183511220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.03|0.61|0.052
91818056|NCT03441633|183511220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.36|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants||1.36|1.17|0.000
91818057|NCT03441633|183511220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.27|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.27|0.45|0.052
91818058|NCT03441633|183511220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.21|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants||1.21|0.95|0.000
91818059|NCT03441633|183511220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||0.84|0.40|0.052
91947191|NCT01192139|183791904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|4746.8||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment C||||
91947192|NCT01192139|183791905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.007|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 96% and 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.007|0.865|
91947193|NCT01192139|183791905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Lack of food effect was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(inf) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.832|0.969|||||Ration = Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||0.969|0.832|
91947194|NCT01192139|183791905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|608.41||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment A||||
91947195|NCT01192139|183791905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|567.85||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
91947196|NCT01192139|183791905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|632.39||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
91947197|NCT03287960|183791911|OTHER|Two-sided confidence interval obtained using Clopper-Pearson method and one-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of participants in the population of interest will achieve 10% weight loss.||||||0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||||||0.0001
91947198|NCT03287960|183791912|OTHER|Two-sided confidence interval (CI) obtained using Clopper-Pearson method and one-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of patients in the population of interest would achieve 10% weight loss.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||||||<0.0001
91947199|NCT03287960|183791913|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for visit, baseline body weight and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-12.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.08|-9.66|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed ANOVA||||-9.66|-15.08|<.0001
91947200|NCT03287960|183791914|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline daily hunger score and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-42.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.35|-29.02|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) model||||-29.02|-56.35|<.0001
91947201|NCT03287960|183791915|OTHER|Two-sided CI obtained using Clopper-Pearson method and one-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that ≥5 % of participants in the population of interest would achieve ≥25 % improvement in daily hunger score.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||||||<.0001
91947202|NCT03287960|183791916|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for visit, baseline waist circumference and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-8.9||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|-3.61|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed ANOVA||||-3.61|-14.10|0.0031
91947203|NCT03287960|183791919|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline BMI and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|-11.2|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed ANOVA model||||-11.20|-16.80|<.0001
91947204|NCT00656136|183791931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.077||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.346||P-value is one-sided (afatinib vs placebo) log rank test stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)|Regression, Cox|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||Primary analysis was performed after 358 deaths were observed among randomized patients. The data cut-off date for the primary analysis was 08 July 2010.||1.346|0.862|0.7428
91947205|NCT00656136|183791931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.976||||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.17||P-value is one-sided (afatinib vs placebo) log rank test stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)|Regression, Cox|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||Final analysis was performed after 526 deaths were observed among randomized patients. The data cut-off date for the final analysis was 04 October 2013.||1.170|0.814|0.3955
91947206|NCT00656136|183791932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.475||P-value is one-sided (afatinib vs placebo) log rank test stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)|Regression, Cox|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||||0.475|0.306|<0.0001
91947207|NCT00656136|183791933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.61||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|115.0||P-value is derived from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors, gender and baseline ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Regression, Logistic|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||||115|2.1|0.0071
91947208|NCT00266799|183791962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was tested using the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio as quantitative estimate of the minimum effect of PLD relative to capecitabine. Margin for non-inferiority was set to 1.143, reflecting an acceptable difference in TTP of 0.75 months assuming an expected median TTP of up to 6 months with the comparator. If the estimate was below margin, PLD was to be considered non-inferior to capecitabine assuming sufficient sensitivity to detect the drug effects of~interest."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.54|||Log Rank|||By Investigator Assessment of ITT Population||1.54|0.76|0.6686
91947209|NCT00266799|183791962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was tested using the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio as quantitative estimate of the minimum effect of PLD relative to capecitabine. Margin for non-inferiority was set to 1.143, reflecting an acceptable difference in TTP of 0.75 months assuming an expected median TTP of up to 6 months with the comparator. If the estimate was below margin, PLD was to be considered non-inferior to capecitabine assuming sufficient sensitivity to detect the drug effects of~interest."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.65|||Log Rank|||By RECIST Criteria of ITT Population||1.65|0.80|0.4472
91947210|NCT00266799|183791962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.77|||Log Rank|||By Investigator Assessment of TTP Population||1.77|0.74|0.5508
91947211|NCT00266799|183791962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.89|||Log Rank|||By RECIST Criteria of TTP Population||1.89|0.77|0.4088
91947212|NCT00266799|183791963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1726||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||By Investigator Assessment||||0.1726
91947213|NCT00266799|183791963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6541||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||By RECIST Criteria||||0.6541
91947214|NCT00266799|183791964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58|||Log Rank|||||1.58|0.79|0.5265
91947215|NCT00266799|183791965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0841||95.0|||||Log Rank|p-value also given for Hazard Ratio||||||0.0841
91947216|NCT02607865|183791967|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.4|-0.6|< 0.0001
91947217|NCT02607865|183791967|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.4|-0.6|< 0.0001
91818060|NCT03441633|183511221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.17|-0.26|0.000
91947218|NCT02607865|183791967|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|-0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-0.4|< 0.0001
91947219|NCT02607865|183791967|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-0.4|< 0.0001
91947220|NCT02607865|183791967|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.3|0.1|= 0.0856
91947221|NCT02607865|183791967|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity, since the non-inferiority test of change in HbA1c for oral semaglutide 3 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg could not be confirmed. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg. If the mean treatment difference is non-negative, the superiority hypothesis of oral semaglutide 3 mg vs sitagliptin 100 mg will never be confirmed irrespective of the observed two-sided p-value.|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.3|0.0|= 0.0080
91947222|NCT02607865|183791967|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.5|-0.7|<0.0001
91947223|NCT02607865|183791967|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.5|-0.7|<0.0001
91818061|NCT03441633|183511221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.01|-0.18|0.001
91818062|NCT03441633|183511221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.15|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.15|-0.23|0.000
91818063|NCT03441633|183511221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.04|-0.19|0.001
91818064|NCT03441633|183511221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.53|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||0.53|0.47|0.000
91818065|NCT03441633|183511221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.02|-0.32|0.001
91818066|NCT03441633|183511221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.23|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||0.23|0.12|0.000
91818067|NCT03441633|183511221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.10|-0.37|0.001
91818068|NCT03441633|183511222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.12|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.12|-0.24|0.000
91947224|NCT02607865|183791967|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.4|<0.0001
91947225|NCT02607865|183791967|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.4|<0.0001
91947226|NCT02607865|183791967|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.4|0.1|=0.3851
91818069|NCT03441633|183511222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.12|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.12|-0.35|0.000
91818070|NCT03441633|183511222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.18|-0.28|0.000
91818071|NCT03441633|183511222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.11|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.11|-0.31|0.000
91818072|NCT03441633|183511222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||0.25|0.17|0.000
91818073|NCT03441633|183511222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.30|-0.70|0.000
91818074|NCT03441633|183511222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.14|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||0.14|0.01|0.000
91818075|NCT03441633|183511222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.20|-0.54|0.000
91818076|NCT03441633|183511223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.26|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.26|-0.42|0.000
91818077|NCT03441633|183511223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.19|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.19|-0.46|0.000
91818078|NCT03441633|183511223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.32|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.32|-0.45|0.000
91818079|NCT03441633|183511223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.15|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.15|-0.39|0.000
91818080|NCT03441633|183511223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.24|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||0.24|0.14|0.000
91818081|NCT03441633|183511223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.37|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.37|-0.86|0.000
91818082|NCT03441633|183511223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.01|-0.18|0.000
91818083|NCT03441633|183511223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.21|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.21|-0.64|0.000
91947227|NCT02607865|183791967|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg. If the mean treatment difference is non-negative, the superiority hypothesis of oral semaglutide 3 mg vs sitagliptin 100 mg will never be confirmed irrespective of the observed two-sided p-value.|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
91947228|NCT02607865|183791968|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-2.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-2.0|-3.0|< 0.0001
91947229|NCT02607865|183791968|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.1|-2.0|< 0.0001
91947230|NCT02607865|183791968|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity, since the non-inferiority test of change in HbA1c for oral semaglutide 3 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg could not be confirmed. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||=|0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-1.1|= 0.0185
91947231|NCT02607865|183791968|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-2.1|-3.1|<0.0001
91947232|NCT02607865|183791968|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.0|<0.0001
91947233|NCT02607865|183791968|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|type Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||=|0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.0|=0.0257
91818084|NCT03441633|183511224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.3|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||5.30|0.77|0.008
91818085|NCT03441633|183511224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.12|0.33|0.008
91818086|NCT03441633|183511224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.99|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.99|0.20|0.008
91947234|NCT02607865|183791989|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.65||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.65|1.09|=0.0063
91947235|NCT02607865|183791989|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.96|0.61|=0.0221
91947236|NCT02607865|183791989|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.68||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.68|0.41|<0.0001
91947237|NCT02607865|183791990|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.68||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.68|1.05|=0.0160
91947238|NCT02607865|183791990|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.86||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.86|0.51|=0.0022
91947239|NCT02607865|183791990|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.43||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.43|0.22|<0.0001
91947240|NCT03427528|183792011|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the BDI-II we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our BDI-II.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||<0.05
91818087|NCT03441633|183511224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.86|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||0.86|0.18|0.008
91818088|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.75|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||1.75|1.14|0.000
91818089|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||0.82|0.55|0.000
91818090|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.01|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||2.01|0.03|0.000
91818091|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.04|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||2.04|1.23|0.000
91818092|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||0.57|0.34|0.000
91818093|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.73|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||3.73|0.02|0.000
91818094|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||0.84|0.52|0.000
91818095|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.36|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||1.36|0.95|0.000
91818096|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.41|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||3.41|0.06|0.000
91818097|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||0.85|0.50|0.000
91818098|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||1.37|0.90|0.000
91947241|NCT03427528|183792012|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the GAD-7, we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our outcomes.|||||>|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||>0.05
91947242|NCT03427528|183792013|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the PSS-10, we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our PSS-10 outcomes.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||<0.05
91947243|NCT03427528|183792013|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the PSS-10 we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our PSS-10 outcomes.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||<0.05
91947244|NCT03427528|183792014|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||>0.05
91947245|NCT01351415|183792017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.84||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.0|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||The stratification factors for Log-Rank test and Hazard Ratio (HR) are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to first PD and smoking status.||1.00|0.71|0.1044
91947246|NCT01351415|183792018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.83||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|0.98|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||PFS 2: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.98|0.70|0.0573
91947247|NCT01351415|183792018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.63||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.83|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||PFS 3: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.83|0.49|0.0045
91947248|NCT01351415|183792019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated difference in response rate|0.0237||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0156|0.063|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||The stratification factors for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.0630|-0.0156|0.0810
91947249|NCT01351415|183792020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated difference in Disease Control|0.0326||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0288|0.094|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||The stratification factors for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.0940|-0.0288|0.0218
91818099|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.85|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||5.85|0.22|0.000
91818100|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|3.99|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||3.99|2.86|0.000
91947250|NCT01351415|183792021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.9|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.90|0.09|0.0600
91818101|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.13|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||0.13|0.09|0.000
91818102|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.52|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||1.52|0.11|0.000
91818103|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.91|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||1.91|0.78|0.000
91818104|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||0.09|0.00|0.000
91818105|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|18.0|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||18.00|0.07|0.000
91947251|NCT01351415|183792023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.79||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.95|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||TTP2: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.95|0.65|0.0311
91947252|NCT01351415|183792023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.69||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.92|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||TTP3: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.92|0.52|0.0326
91947253|NCT00247962|183792025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.99|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91947254|NCT00247962|183792026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||ANCOVA|||baseline||||0.719
91947255|NCT00247962|183792026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||week 16||||0.010
91947256|NCT03525613|183792030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4114||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6397|-0.1831|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||-0.1831|-0.6397|0.0004
91947257|NCT03525613|183792030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.318||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5423|-0.0937|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||-0.0937|-0.5423|0.0055
91818106|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||0.75|0.45|0.000
91818107|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.63|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||0.63|0.41|0.000
91818108|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.01|123.8|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||123.80|11.01|0.000
91818109|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.86|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||1.86|0.91|0.000
91818110|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||0.17|0.05|0.000
91818111|NCT03441633|183511225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.73||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|46.5|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||46.50|2.81|0.000
91818112|NCT03441633|183511226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.27|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.27|0.92|0.000
91818113|NCT03441633|183511226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.83|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.83|1.15|0.000
91818114|NCT03441633|183511226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.27|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.27|0.93|0.000
91818115|NCT03441633|183511226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.47|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.47|0.96|0.000
91818116|NCT03441633|183511226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.01|0.79|0.000
91947258|NCT03525613|183792031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3026|-0.5004|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.5004|-1.3026|<0.0001
91818117|NCT03441633|183511226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|7.55|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||7.55|3.14|0.000
91818118|NCT03441633|183511226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.67|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.67|1.19|0.000
91818119|NCT03441633|183511226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.05|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||4.05|2.12|0.000
91818120|NCT03441633|183511227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|4.24|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||4.24|3.02|0.000
91818121|NCT03441633|183511227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.98|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||0.98|-0.77|0.000
91818122|NCT03441633|183511227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.17|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||2.17|0.84|0.000
91818123|NCT03441633|183511227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.8|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||2.80|1.16|0.000
91818124|NCT03441633|183511227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||1.39|0.41|0.000
91818125|NCT03441633|183511227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||-0.18|-4.32|0.000
91818126|NCT03441633|183511227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.56|29.48|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||29.48|27.56|0.000
91818127|NCT03441633|183511227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|4.9|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||4.90|-1.05|0.000
91818128|NCT03161483|183511230|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|11.4||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.00|-6.57|0.214
91818129|NCT03161483|183511230|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|5.0||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|19.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.48|-9.77|0.512
91818130|NCT03161483|183511230|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|19.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|33.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.42|4.12|0.011
91818131|NCT03161483|183511231|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|10.3||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|27.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.97|-7.66|0.264
91818132|NCT03161483|183511231|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|6.5||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.00|-8.45|0.399
91818133|NCT03161483|183511231|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|19.3||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|33.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.36|4.01|0.012
91818134|NCT03161483|183511232|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|24.0||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|53.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.11|-12.38|0.446
91818135|NCT03161483|183511232|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|5.3|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.64|39.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.38|-27.64|>0.999
91818136|NCT03161483|183511232|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|14.2||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.54|44.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.48|-19.54|0.488
91818137|NCT03161483|183511233|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|12.4||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|24.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.07|-2.74|0.092
91818138|NCT03161483|183511233|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-5.3||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.43|8.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.06|-18.43|0.434
91818139|NCT03161483|183511233|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|8.0||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|19.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.65|-3.88|0.182
91818140|NCT03161483|183511234|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|12.1||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|23.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.78|-2.98|0.098
91947259|NCT03525613|183792031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7426||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1282|-0.357|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.3570|-1.1282|0.0002
91947260|NCT03525613|183792032|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2234||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3522|-0.0946|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0946|-0.3522|0.0007
91947261|NCT03525613|183792032|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1618||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2874|-0.0361|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0361|-0.2874|0.0116
91947262|NCT03525613|183792032|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1862||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3406|-0.0318|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0318|-0.3406|0.0181
91947263|NCT03525613|183792032|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1526||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|-0.0023|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0023|-0.3030|0.0467
91947264|NCT03525613|183792032|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2265||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3696|-0.0834|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0834|-0.3696|0.0019
91947265|NCT03525613|183792032|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1586||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3009|-0.0164|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0164|-0.3009|0.0288
91947266|NCT03525613|183792032|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2341||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4071|-0.0611|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0611|-0.4071|0.0080
91818141|NCT03161483|183511234|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-4.3||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|8.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.92|-17.36|0.521
91947267|NCT03525613|183792032|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2459||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3886|-0.1031|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.1031|-0.3886|0.0007
91947268|NCT03525613|183792032|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.8702|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.274|-0.4664|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.4664|-1.2740|<0.0001
91947269|NCT03525613|183792032|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.7189||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1039|-0.3339|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.3339|-1.1039|0.0003
91947270|NCT02120469|183792093|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose level B1 (eribulin 1.1 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks with everolimus 5 mg daily) was defined as the highest dose with acceptable toxicity (RP2D).|||
91947271|NCT02176005|183792110|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.0093|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.0144|||General linear model|||||0.0144|0.0060|<.000001
91947272|NCT02176005|183792111|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.0096|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0061|0.0151|||General linear model|||||0.0151|0.0061|<.000001
91947273|NCT02176005|183792112|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.9811||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8608|1.1182|||General linear model|||||1.1182|0.8608|0.806
91947274|NCT02176005|183792113|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.8785||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0155|||General linear model|||||1.0155|0.7600|0.139
91947275|NCT02176005|183792114|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|1.1763||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9982|1.3861|||General linear model|||||1.3861|0.9982|0.104
91947276|NCT02176005|183792115|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.9391||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7969|1.1066|||General linear model|||||1.1066|0.7969|0.519
91947277|NCT01981096|183792131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The a priori threshold was alpha = .05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age and baseline pain levels||This analysis represents the between group comparisons (i.e., FIT Teens vs. CBT) from baseline assessment to the 3-month follow-up, the primary endpoint of the trial.||||.011
91947278|NCT01981096|183792132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The a priori threshold was alpha = .05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age and baseline pain levels||This analysis represents the between group comparisons (i.e., FIT Teens vs. CBT) from baseline assessment to the 3-month follow-up, the primary endpoint of the trial.||||.055
91947279|NCT01899729|183792153|OTHER|Used mixed effects model||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
91947280|NCT01454531|183792157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired values|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is no changes in IgE-blocking factor values from visit 1 (baseline) to visit 6 (end of treatment) versus the alternative hypothesis of change in IgE-blocking factor values||||<0.001
91947281|NCT01454531|183792158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired samples|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is no changes in Phleum specific IgG4 values from visit 1 (baseline) to visit 6 (end of treatment) versus the alternative hypothesis of change in Phleum specific IgG4 values||||<0.001
91947282|NCT01454531|183792159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Parallel Line Assay|||Parallel Line Assay is based on the construction of two dose-response regression lines obtained plotting the allergen concentration used to prick test the subjects against the wheal size obtained. ANOVA allows to check for regression, linearity and parallelism. A common slope and y-intercepts are calculated. The CTI is the exponentiation of the difference between y-intercepts divided by the common slope. (Finney D.J., Statistical Method in Biological Assay, 1978).||||<0.01
91947283|NCT03756285|183792172|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Ratio|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: atrial fibrillation status at randomization, baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit.||||0.52|0.12|<0.001
91947284|NCT03756285|183792173|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Ratio|0.97||||0.568|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.74||||ANCOVA|Covariates: atrial fibrillation status at randomization, baseline value, treatment|||||0.74|0.568
91947285|NCT03756285|183792174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|74.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: atrial fibrillation status at randomization, baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit.||||74.1|-30.5|0.407
91947286|NCT05315297|183792192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91947287|NCT05315297|183792193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91947288|NCT05315297|183792194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91947289|NCT05315297|183792195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91947290|NCT05315297|183792196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91947291|NCT05315297|183792197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91947292|NCT00711009|183792205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exact 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (LPV/r + RAL minus LPV/r + FTC/TDF) was used to assess non-inferiority. The LPV/r+RAL arm was considered non-inferior to the LPV/r+FTC/TDF arm because the lower limit of the confidence interval was \>/= -20%. Because the LPV/r+RAL arm was considered non-inferior based on the 20% margin, the results were assessed on a more rigorous 12% margin (-12%), as prespecified.|Diff. in Percentage of Subj. Responding|-1.6||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|8.8|||exact binomial method|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the LPV/r + RAL arm was more than 20% lower than the response rate for the LPV/r + FTC/TDF arm. The planned sample size of 100 participants per treatment group provided 90% power to conclude that the LPV/r + RAL arm was non-inferior to the control arm, based on a non-inferiority margin of -20% (with a type I error rate of 0.05).||8.8|-12.0|0.850
91947293|NCT02534324|183792288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
91947294|NCT02534324|183792289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91947295|NCT01138995|183792290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's combination test|Between group difference for entire sample||||||0.75
91947296|NCT01138995|183792291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.022
91947297|NCT01138995|183792292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91947298|NCT01432236|183792330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.31||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite's approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.31|-0.91|0.0001
91947299|NCT01432236|183792332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|-3.87||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the FIQ total score. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-3.87|-9.33|<0.0001
91818142|NCT03161483|183511234|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|6.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|18.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.55|-5.24|0.267
91947300|NCT01432236|183792332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.11||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for parameter 'physical impairment'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.11|-0.74|0.0078
91947301|NCT01432236|183792332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.33||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'feel good'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.33|-1.36|0.0014
91947302|NCT01432236|183792332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.18||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above for parameter 'work missed'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.18|-1.01|0.0050
91947303|NCT01432236|183792332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.36||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'do work'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.36|-1.14|0.0002
91947304|NCT01432236|183792332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.28||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'pain'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.28|-1.00|0.0006
91947305|NCT01432236|183792332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.04||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'fatigue'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.04|-0.85|0.0315
91818143|NCT03161483|183511235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.7||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.5|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||1.5|-0.2|0.116
91818144|NCT03161483|183511235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.7||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||1.6|-0.1|0.094
91947306|NCT01432236|183792332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.35||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'rested'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.35|-1.17|0.0003
91947307|NCT01432236|183792332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.31||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'stiffness'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.31|-1.11|0.0007
91947308|NCT01432236|183792332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.17||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'anxiety'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.17|-0.93|0.0048
91947309|NCT01432236|183792332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.53||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'depression'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.53|-1.32|<0.0001
91947310|NCT01432236|183792333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The PGIC variable was analyzed using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit transformation.||||0.0637
91947311|NCT01432236|183792334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The PGIC variable was analyzed using CMH test with modified ridit transformation.||||0.1160
91947312|NCT01432236|183792335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||This secondary analyses was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for 30% responders. Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model using sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors. Logit link transformation was used for the model.||||0.0007
91947313|NCT01432236|183792335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|||||This secondary analyses was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for 50% responders. Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model using sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors. Logit link transformation was used for the model.||||0.0205
91947314|NCT01432236|183792336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.84||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-subject error as random factors.||0.84|0.31|<0.0001
91947315|NCT01432236|183792337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.81||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|-2.96||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-2.96|-12.66|0.0018
91947316|NCT01432236|183792338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-1.31||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors||-1.31|-10.29|0.0117
91947317|NCT01432236|183792339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|16.74||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||16.74|-0.04|0.0511
91818145|NCT03161483|183511235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.1||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||0.8|-0.6|0.881
91818146|NCT03161483|183511236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.6|-0.4|0.160
91818147|NCT03161483|183511236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.6|0.0|0.056
91947318|NCT01432236|183792340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. Analyzed as a count variable using a generalized linear model assuming a Poisson distribution and utilizing a log link transformation.||0.03|-0.29|0.1139
91947319|NCT01432236|183792342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented in the above table is for HADS-A (anxiety). Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.50|-1.40|<0.0001
91947320|NCT01432236|183792342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.39||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented in the above table is for HADS-D (depression). Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and subject within sequence and within-subject error as random factors.||-0.39|-1.37|0.0005
91947321|NCT01432236|183792344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.06|-0.02|0.3854
91947322|NCT01432236|183792346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.97||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.97|0.14|0.0085
91947323|NCT05064449|183792352|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|116.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.3|148.9|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Itraconazole / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Cmax for soticlestat with versus without itraconazole were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.||148.90|91.30|
91947324|NCT05064449|183792353|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.02|130.83|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of Cmax for soticlestat with versus without mefenamic acid were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.||130.83|88.02|
91947325|NCT05064449|183792354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|123.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.21|144.68|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Itraconazole / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUC∞ for soticlestat with versus without itraconazole were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC∞.||144.68|106.21|
91947326|NCT05064449|183792355|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.17|117.38|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUC∞ for soticlestat with versus without mefenamic acid were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC∞.||117.38|86.17|
91947327|NCT05064449|183792356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|121.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.47|143.79|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Itraconazole / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUClast for soticlestat with versus without itraconazole were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.||143.79|103.47|
91947328|NCT05064449|183792357|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.68|125.77|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUClast for soticlestat with versus without mefenamic acid were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.||125.77|91.68|
91947329|NCT05064449|183792358|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||=|0.2305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001|0.126|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference was calculated as (Soticlestat + Itraconazole) - Soticlestat Alone. The difference of medians (treatment effect) and the corresponding 90% CI was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann method and Walsh Averages.|||0.126|-0.001|=0.2305
91947330|NCT05064449|183792359|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.096|||=|0.583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.128|0.018|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference was calculated as (Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid) - Soticlestat Alone. The difference of medians (treatment effect) and the corresponding 90% was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann method and Walsh Averages.|||0.018|-0.128|=0.5830
91947331|NCT04450394|183792368|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.4%. Non-inferiority is achieved if the upper limit of the 90% Confidence Interval is below 0.4.|LS Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.11|
91947332|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.596||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.704|18.378|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (ASIAN vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week \[Wk\] 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||18.378|1.704|0.0045
91947333|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.989||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.967|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (BLACK vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.967|0.497|0.9755
91947334|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743||||0.4786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|1.688|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (HISPANIC vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.688|0.327|0.4786
91947335|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.405|20.597|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (OTHER vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||20.597|1.405|0.0140
91947336|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.094|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.094|1.062|<0.0001
91947337|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.136||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.819|20.701|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (ASIAN vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||20.701|1.819|0.0035
91947338|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.903||||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|1.857|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (BLACK vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.857|0.439|0.7821
91947339|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|1.723|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (HISPANIC vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.723|0.317|0.4846
91947340|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.424||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.353|21.749|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (OTHER vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||21.749|1.353|0.0170
91947341|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.695||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|0.925|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.925|0.523|0.0125
91947342|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.472||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.288|9.357|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for average number of drinks per week (1 vs 0). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||9.357|1.288|0.0139
91947343|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.6327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|2.311|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for average number of drinks per week (\> 1 vs 0). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.311|0.601|0.6327
91947344|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.061|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.080|1.042|<0.0001
91947345|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.185||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|1.326|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.326|1.058|0.0033
91947346|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.151|1.308|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.308|1.151|<0.0001
91947347|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.814||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|0.979|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, 1st 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.979|0.676|0.0289
91947348|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.276|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.177|1.383|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.383|1.177|<0.0001
91947349|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.894||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|0.973|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.973|0.821|0.0099
91947350|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.945||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.213|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.120|1.213|0.0058
91947351|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.380|1.154|<0.0001
91947352|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.945||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.213|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.120|1.213|0.0058
91947353|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.380|1.154|<0.0001
91947354|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.615||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.219|10.721|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (ASIAN vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||10.721|1.219|0.0205
91947355|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.981||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.903|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (BLACK vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.903|0.506|0.9557
91947356|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.599||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|1.312|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (HISPANIC vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.312|0.273|0.2000
91947357|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.684||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|13.083|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for (OTHER vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||13.083|1.037|0.0437
91947358|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|134.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.956|1009.0|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1009.0|17.956|<0.0001
91818148|NCT03161483|183511236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.3||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||1.6|-1.0|0.621
91818149|NCT03161483|183511238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.5|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.5|-4.7|0.546
91818150|NCT03161483|183511238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.6||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.4|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.4|-3.7|0.681
91947359|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.905|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.521|576.85|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (cEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||576.85|10.521|<0.0001
91947360|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.527||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.872|112.73|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (pEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||112.73|1.872|0.0105
91947361|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.563||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.120|1.152|0.0041
91947362|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.557|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.405|12.838|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||12.838|2.405|<0.0001
91947363|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.822||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.216|2.732|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.732|1.216|0.0037
91947364|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.342|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.977|32.347|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||32.347|3.977|<0.0001
91947365|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.158|1.068|<0.0001
91947366|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.158|1.068|<0.0001
91947367|NCT01066819|183792374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.921||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.686|14.362|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||14.362|1.686|0.0035
91947368|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.441||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Sex (MALE vs FEMALE). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.859|0.226|0.0162
91947369|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.745||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|2.741|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.741|1.111|0.0156
91947370|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.372||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|6.789|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.789|0.829|0.1075
91947371|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.906||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|2.559|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.559|0.321|0.8518
91947372|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.951|0.0012
91947373|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.441||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Sex (MALE vs FEMALE). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.859|0.226|0.0162
91947374|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.745||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|2.741|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.741|1.111|0.0156
91947375|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.372||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|6.789|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.789|0.829|0.1075
91947376|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.906||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|2.559|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.559|0.321|0.8518
91947377|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.951|0.0012
91947378|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.848||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.940|0.765|0.0017
91947379|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.848||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.940|0.765|0.0017
91947380|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.401||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Sex (MALE vs FEMALE). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.780|0.206|0.0071
91947381|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.016||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.169|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.169|0.001|0.0006
91947382|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.076||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.729|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (cEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.729|0.008|0.0255
91947383|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.184||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|1.845|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (pEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.845|0.018|0.1501
91947384|NCT01066819|183792391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.729|110.35|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (cEVR vs RVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||110.35|6.729|<0.0001
91947385|NCT02194699|183792394|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|0.84||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.34|0.53|0.4656
91818151|NCT03161483|183511238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.4||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.4|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||4.4|-1.6|0.350
91818152|NCT03161483|183511239|SUPERIORITY|\<= 7.5 mg/day|Stratified difference|0.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.13|15.91|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||15.91|-15.13|>0.999
91818153|NCT03161483|183511239|SUPERIORITY|\< 10 mg/day|Stratified difference|-3.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|13.0|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||13.00|-17.74|>0.999
91818154|NCT03161483|183511240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|2.8||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||11.6|-6.0|0.535
91818155|NCT03161483|183511240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|4.2||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.2|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||12.2|-3.9|0.309
91818156|NCT03161483|183511240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|6.5||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.1|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||14.1|-1.0|0.091
91947386|NCT02194699|183792394|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|1.13||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.5|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.50|0.85|0.4126
91947387|NCT02194699|183792394|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|15.83||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.71|47.01|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||47.01|-33.71|0.4656
91947388|NCT02194699|183792394|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|1.03||||0.8027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.31|0.81|0.8027
91947389|NCT02194699|183792394|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|-3.14||||0.8027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.46|19.08|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||19.08|-31.46|0.8027
91947390|NCT02194699|183792395|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean difference|1.86||||0.6033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|8.88|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of % change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures analysis on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||8.88|-5.16|0.6033
91947391|NCT02194699|183792395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.37||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|7.7|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of % change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||7.70|-0.97|0.1276
91947392|NCT02194699|183792395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.95||||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|6.62|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of % change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment||6.62|-0.73|0.1164
91947393|NCT02194699|183792396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.07|-0.47|0.1456
91947394|NCT02194699|183792396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.2|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.20|-0.13|0.6548
91947395|NCT02194699|183792396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.04||||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.10|-0.18|0.5763
91818157|NCT02767427|183511243|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test on data from a parallel-group design with sample sizes of 18 in the reference group and 18 in the treatment group achieves 80% power. The significance was set at 5%. The standard deviation was 1.00, and the equivalence limits were set at -1.00 and 1.00.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Two one-sided t-tests were conducted with 18 in each group.||||||<0.05
91947396|NCT02194699|183792397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.57|-0.04|0.0874
91947397|NCT02194699|183792397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.01||||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.17|-0.20|0.9083
91947398|NCT02194699|183792397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.22|-0.10|0.4506
91947399|NCT02194699|183792398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.27||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.01|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||-0.01|-0.53|0.0400
91947400|NCT02194699|183792398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.9735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.16|-0.16|0.9735
91947401|NCT02194699|183792398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.05|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.05|-0.21|0.2432
91947402|NCT02194699|183792399|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.39||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.03|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.03|0.15|0.0576
91947403|NCT02194699|183792399|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.83||||0.5249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.48|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.48|0.46|0.5249
91947404|NCT02194699|183792399|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.67||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.1|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.10|0.41|0.1155
91818158|NCT04753164|183511275|OTHER|Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in the number of BE days per week = baseline number of BE days per week + sex (Male; Female) + BMI group (\< 30 ; ≥ 30 kg/m2) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|LS Mean Difference to Placebo|0.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.69|||Mixed effects model f. repeated measures|||||0.69|-0.69|0.9992
91818159|NCT00694369|183511276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|ANOVA|"Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value~for 120-mg dose comparison is significant)."||||||<0.001
91818160|NCT00694369|183511276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|ANOVA|Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value for 120-mg dose comparison is significant)||||||<0.001
91818161|NCT00694369|183511276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen) is -4.45.|Difference in LS Means|0.06||||||95.0|-1.37|1.48|||||Difference in Least squares means (LS Means) (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen)|||1.48|-1.37|
91818162|NCT00694369|183511276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen) is -4.45.|Difference in LS Means|0.43||||||95.0|-0.73|1.6|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen)|||1.60|-0.73|
91947405|NCT02194699|183792401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.95||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.06|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||-0.06|-1.85|0.0360
91947406|NCT02194699|183792401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.70|-0.40|0.5864
91947407|NCT02194699|183792401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.17||||0.4689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.29|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.29|-0.63|0.4689
91947408|NCT02194699|183792402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|6.15||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|24.43|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||24.43|-12.13|0.5094
91947409|NCT02194699|183792402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.02||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|14.26|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||14.26|-8.22|0.5984
91947410|NCT02194699|183792402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|7.84||||0.3971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|26.0|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||26.00|-10.32|0.3971
91947411|NCT02194699|183792402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.59||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|14.83|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||14.83|-7.65|0.5310
91947412|NCT02194699|183792402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.46||||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|12.97|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||12.97|-6.06|0.4764
91947413|NCT02194699|183792402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.88||||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|13.37|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||13.37|-5.60|0.4221
91818163|NCT00694369|183511276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus cetaminophen/codeine) is -2.41.|Difference in LS Means|3.9||||||95.0|2.04|5.76|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib minus acetaminophen/codeine)|||5.76|2.04|
91818164|NCT00694369|183511276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus acetaminophen/codeine) is -2.41.|Difference in LS Means|4.27||||||95.0|2.61|5.94|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib minus acetaminophen/codeine)|||5.94|2.61|
91818165|NCT00694369|183511276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.38||||||95.0|-1.8|1.05|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib 120 mg minus etoricoxib 90 mg)|||1.05|-1.80|
91818166|NCT00694369|183511276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|10.59||||||95.0|8.72|12.47|||||Difference in LS Means (ibuprofen 2400 mg minus placebo)|||12.47|8.72|
91947414|NCT02194699|183792403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.04||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.14|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.14|-11.21|0.1099
91947415|NCT02194699|183792403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.46||||0.8112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|4.25|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||4.25|-3.33|0.8112
91947416|NCT02194699|183792403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.19||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.01|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||2.01|-4.40|0.4645
91947417|NCT02194699|183792404|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.33|0.44|0.3440
91947418|NCT02194699|183792404|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.46|0.75|0.7768
91947419|NCT02194699|183792404|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.5276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.21|0.69|0.5276
91947420|NCT03812224|183792413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.52|-0.73|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of migraine type and prior migraine preventive treatment status, and baseline value as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||-0.73|-2.52|<0.001
91947421|NCT03812224|183792414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by stratification factors of migraine type and prior migraine preventive treatment status.||||4.23|1.29|0.005
91947422|NCT03812224|183792415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.47|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.24|-0.71|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of migraine type (episodic migraine or chronic migraine) and prior migraine preventive treatment status (ever used or never used), and baseline value as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||-0.71|-2.24|<0.001
91947423|NCT02600715|183792418|EQUIVALENCE|Test for differences in continuous variables.||||||0.94||||||Two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.94
91947424|NCT00612573|183792428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|-0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|10.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||10.3|-14.8|0.779
91947425|NCT00612573|183792428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|11.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||11.7|-13.7|0.983
91947426|NCT00612573|183792428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|-0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|27.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||27.3|-1.5|0.087
91818167|NCT00694369|183511276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|6.75||||||95.0|4.53|8.97|||||Difference in LS Means (acetaminophen 2400 mg/codeine 240 mg minus placebo)|||8.97|4.53|
91818168|NCT00694369|183511277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value for 120-mg dose comparison is significant).||||||<0.001
91818169|NCT00694369|183511277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value for 120-mg dose comparison is significant)||||||<0.001
91947427|NCT00612573|183792429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.807
91947428|NCT00612573|183792429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.075
91947429|NCT00612573|183792429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.039
91947430|NCT00612573|183792430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.212
91947431|NCT00612573|183792430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.505
91947432|NCT00612573|183792430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.399
91818170|NCT00694369|183511277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.161||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Nominal p-value was provided in lieu of the 95% CI. Step-down manner was used, and the nominal p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was not reported.||||||0.161
91818171|NCT00694369|183511277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Nominal p-value was provided in lieu of the 95% CI. Step-down manner was used.||||||0.014
91818172|NCT00694369|183511277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Nominal p-value was provided in lieu of the 95% CI. Step-down manner was used.||||||0.007
91818173|NCT01405963|183511297|OTHER||Treatment Difference|7.65||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|16.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||16.60|-1.30|0.09
91818174|NCT01405963|183511297|OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.91||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|18.23|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||18.23|1.59|0.02
91818175|NCT01405963|183511298|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.35||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.1|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||1.10|-9.80|0.11
91818176|NCT01405963|183511298|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.66||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|0.39|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.39|-9.71|0.07
91818177|NCT01405963|183511302|OTHER||Treatment Difference|8.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|17.13|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||17.13|0.01|0.05
91818178|NCT01405963|183511302|OTHER||Treatment Difference|10.27||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|21.0|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||21.00|-0.46|0.06
91818179|NCT01405963|183511303|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-6.08||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||-0.60|-11.56|0.03
91818180|NCT01405963|183511303|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-7.44||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-0.66|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||-0.66|-14.22|0.03
91818181|NCT01405963|183511304|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.68|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.68|-0.01|0.05
91818182|NCT01405963|183511304|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.39||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.84|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.84|-0.06|0.08
91947433|NCT00612573|183792431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.276
91947434|NCT00612573|183792431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.231
91947435|NCT00612573|183792431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.081
91947436|NCT02516605|183792458|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.86||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.68|0.293
91947437|NCT02516605|183792458|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|0.37|<0.001
91947438|NCT02516605|183792458|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|0.26|<.001
91947439|NCT02516605|183792458|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.47|||ANCOVA|||||0.47|0.27|<.001
91947440|NCT02516605|183792468|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||6.0|-7.0|0.898
91947441|NCT02516605|183792468|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|10.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||10.0|-4.0|0.593
91947442|NCT02516605|183792468|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-3.0||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||4.0|-11.0|0.509
91947443|NCT02516605|183792468|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.5||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|7.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||7.0|-5.0|0.591
91947444|NCT02516605|183792468|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-2.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||4.0|-12.0|0.702
91818183|NCT01405963|183511305|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.28||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.53|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.53|0.03|0.03
91947445|NCT02516605|183792468|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-1.0||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||8.0|-10.0|0.838
91947446|NCT02516605|183792468|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|4.0||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||8.0|-3.0|0.297
91947447|NCT02516605|183792468|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-6.0||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||1.0|-14.0|0.236
91947448|NCT02516605|183792468|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-6.5||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-15.0|0.192
91947449|NCT02516605|183792468|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||9.0|-2.0|0.605
91947450|NCT02516605|183792468|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-11.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|-1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||-1.0|-21.0|0.037
91947451|NCT02516605|183792468|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-3.5||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||3.0|-11.0|0.397
91947452|NCT02516605|183792469|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||2.0|-1.0|0.342
91947453|NCT02516605|183792469|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||2.0|-1.0|0.699
91947454|NCT02516605|183792469|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-1.0||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||0.0|-3.0|0.377
91947455|NCT02516605|183792469|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||2.0|0.0|0.132
91947456|NCT02516605|183792469|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||2.0|0.0|0.292
91947457|NCT02516605|183792469|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-2.0|0.979
91947458|NCT02516605|183792469|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||4.0|0.0|0.102
91947459|NCT02516605|183792469|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||2.0|-1.0|0.717
91947460|NCT02516605|183792469|OTHER||Median difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-2.0|1.000
91947461|NCT02516605|183792469|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||5.0|0.0|0.142
91947462|NCT02516605|183792469|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||1.0|-1.0|0.975
91947463|NCT02516605|183792469|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-2.0|0.602
91947464|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Mean difference from baseline|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.436||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.91|11.34|||ANCOVA|Day 7||||11.34|-16.91|0.743
91947465|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-14.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.229||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.85|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||-0.28|-27.85|0.093
91947466|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71||0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|22.38|||ANCOVA|Day 21||||22.38|-6.81|0.376
91947467|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.187||0.448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.36|22.43|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||22.43|-8.36|0.448
91947468|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-15.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.192||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.3|-3.19|||ANCOVA|Day 56||||-3.19|-27.30|0.039
91947469|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-16.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.592||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.31|-2.54|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||-2.54|-31.31|0.054
91947470|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|11.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.434||0.185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.78|25.46|||ANCOVA|Day 7||||25.46|-2.78|0.185
91947471|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|7.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.226||0.351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.05|21.52|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||21.52|-6.05|0.351
91947472|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|16.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.707||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|31.38|||ANCOVA|day 21||||31.38|2.20|0.059
91947473|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|14.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.184||0.132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|29.44|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||29.44|-1.35|0.132
91818184|NCT01405963|183511305|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.33||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.66|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.66|-0.01|0.06
91818185|NCT01405963|183511306|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.70|0.12|0.01
91818186|NCT01405963|183511306|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.72|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.72|0.11|0.01
91818187|NCT01405963|183511307|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.45|0.04|0.02
91818188|NCT01405963|183511307|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.44|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.44|-0.07|0.15
91818189|NCT04007523|183511337|OTHER|Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.653|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.653
91818190|NCT04007523|183511337|OTHER|Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.614|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.614
91818191|NCT04007523|183511337|OTHER|Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
91818192|NCT01826487|183511359|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.415||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|33.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05. Secondary endpoints were tested for significance, only if the primary endpoint was statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method including stratification factors for age (less than \[\<\] 9 years versus \[vs.\] greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 9 years), duration of use of corticosteroids at baseline (approx. \>=6 to \<12 months vs. \>=12 months), and baseline 6MWD category (\>=350 meters vs \<350 meters), as well as baseline 6MWD as covariate.||33.39|-7.44|0.213
91947474|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.8|10.31|||ANCOVA|Day 56||||10.31|-13.80|0.809
91947475|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.59||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.29|3.48|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||3.48|-25.29|0.210
91818193|NCT01408030|183511370|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
91818194|NCT01408030|183511371|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||||||.47
91818195|NCT01408030|183511372|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.|||||<|0.001||||||"A mixed-model repeated-measures ANOVA was used to analyze ESS for drug and time (baseline, week 12) effects.~Listed P value is for time effect."|Mixed Models Analysis|Clinical site and patient were included in the model as random effects.||||||<0.001
91818196|NCT01408030|183511373|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values and random effect of clinic site.||||||0.43
91818197|NCT01408030|183511374|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
91818198|NCT01408030|183511375|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91818199|NCT03608774|183511378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.36||Protocol pre-specified an interim analysis of the primary outcome using O'Brien-Fleming bounds to maintain an overall 5% alpha level. The trial was stopped at the interim analysis. P-value was derived using stage-wise ordering of the sample space.|Chi-squared||Protocol pre-specified an interim analysis of the primary outcome using O'Brien-Fleming bounds to maintain an overall 5% alpha level. The trial was stopped at the interim analysis. Estimates were derived using stage-wise ordering of the sample space.|||0.36|0.16|<0.001
91818200|NCT03608774|183511379|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.22||||||||0.22|0.00|
91818201|NCT03608774|183511380|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.21||||||||0.21|-0.01|
91947476|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|13.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.963||0.086||90.0|0.58|27.25|||ANCOVA|day 7||||27.25|0.58|0.086
91947477|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.787||0.951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.57|13.53|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||13.53|-12.57|0.951
91947478|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.244||0.545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.79|18.83|||ANCOVA|day 21||||18.83|-8.79|0.545
91947479|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.697||0.982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.38|14.77|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||14.77|-14.38|0.982
91947480|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-13.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.797||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.21|-2.43|||ANCOVA|day 56||||-2.43|-25.21|0.047
91947481|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-18.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.81|-4.64|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||-4.64|-31.81|0.029
91947482|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.799||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.97|41.44|||ANCOVA|Day 7||||41.44|11.97|0.004
91947483|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.032||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.96|23.29|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||23.29|-6.96|0.370
91947484|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.014||0.558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.86|22.66|||ANCOVA|Day 21||||22.66|-10.86|0.558
91947485|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|8.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.911||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.34|27.15|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||27.15|-9.34|0.418
91947486|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-11.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69||0.156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.95|1.8|||ANCOVA|Day 56||||1.80|-23.95|0.156
91947487|NCT02516605|183792470|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-16.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.961||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.94|-1.92|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||-1.92|-31.94|0.064
91947488|NCT02643420|183792471|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.031|||t-statistics|The p-values are based on the calculated t-statistics from the bootstrapped sample mean and standard deviation.||||-0.031|-0.266|<0.0001
91947489|NCT02643420|183792472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.94|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.94|-1.43|0.685
91947490|NCT02643420|183792473|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.56|||Asymptotic normality assumption|P-value was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||1.56|0.93|0.155
91947491|NCT02643420|183792474|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|1.1||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.8|||Fisher Exact|||||10.8|-8.6|0.435
91947492|NCT02643420|183792475|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% CI of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.116|||t-statistics|||DSN in Cycle 2||0.116|-0.032|<0.0001
91947493|NCT02643420|183792475|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% CI of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.085|||t-statistics|||DSN in Cycle 3||0.085|-0.032|<0.0001
91947494|NCT02643420|183792475|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% CI of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.089|||t-statistics|||DSN in Cycle 4||0.089|-0.036|<0.0001
91818202|NCT03608774|183511381|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.38||||||||0.38|0.15|
91947495|NCT02643420|183792476|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0|||Fisher Exact|||||10.0|-9.5|1.000
91947496|NCT02643420|183792477|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|9.8|||Fisher Exact|||FN in Cycle 2||9.8|-9.7|1.000
91947497|NCT02643420|183792477|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|1.6||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|11.3|||Fisher Exact|||FN in Cycle 3||11.3|-8.2|0.201
91947498|NCT02643420|183792477|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|1.0||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|10.8|||Fisher Exact|||FN in Cycle 4||10.8|-8.7|0.232
91947499|NCT02127970|183792480|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was to be a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in responder rates is greater than -10%, then the single-dose dalbavancin regimen was to be declared non-inferior to the two dose dalbavancin regimen.|Difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.8|||||For the difference in clinical responder rates (single-dose group minus two dose group), the 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|||2.8|-8.5|
91947500|NCT04138758|183792517|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.85|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||0.85|0.68|
91947501|NCT04138758|183792518|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of first hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia.||0.97|0.57|
91947502|NCT04138758|183792519|OTHER|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of escalation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.27|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|||0.27|0.19|
91818203|NCT03608774|183511382|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.28|
91818204|NCT03608774|183511383|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.28|
91818205|NCT01586819|183511384|SUPERIORITY||Z score|-3.3902||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that subjects receiving Botox A as an added pre-treatment would have lower scores on the facial wrinkle severity scale post-treatment.||||.002
91818206|NCT01586819|183511385|SUPERIORITY||Z score|3.6115||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that subjects receiving Botox A as an added pre-treatment would have higher difference scores, pre- to post-treatment, on the facial wrinkle severity scale suggesting a more pronounced effect of the chemical peel in combination with the Botox A therapy.||||.001
91818207|NCT00004888|183511415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|0.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.642||||||||0.642|0.31|
91818208|NCT00004888|183511415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|0.457|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.61||||||||0.61|0.309|
91818209|NCT00136084|183511420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.624||||0.1559||95.0|0.832|3.205||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.041 so that the overall level of the study is maintained at 0.05 across the 4 interim analyses and the final analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was computed using a Monte Carlo approximation (10000 permutations) to an exact, risk-group stratified, test.|The odds ratio is defined as the ratio of the odds that a LDAC patient is MRD positive to the odds that a HDAC patient is MRD positive.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that HDAC and LDAC result in the same proportion of patients with positive MRD after 22 days. Power calculations indicate that enrollment of a total of 186 MRD-evaluable patients in a 5-stage O'Brien-Fleming group sequential design gives 80% power at the 5% level to detect a change in the MRD-positive proportion from 0.50 to 0.30. The design was developed using East statistical software.||3.205|.832|.1559
91818210|NCT00136084|183511421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.733||||||95.0|0.449|0.922|||Binomial proportion|||Estimate of the proportion of negative minimal residual disease.||.922|.449|
91818211|NCT00136084|183511422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.931||||||95.0|0.772|0.992|||Binomial proportion|||||.992|.772|
91818212|NCT00136084|183511423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.9||||||95.0|0.735|0.979|||Binomial proportion|||||.979|.735|
91818213|NCT00136084|183511425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91818214|NCT00136084|183511426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.0139||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0365|0.00873|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.00873|-0.0365|0.2287
91818215|NCT02174848|183511444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This comparison is for the initial study, during which patients in the placebo-DFP group received placebo and patients in the DFP-DFP group received deferiprone.||||0.0500
91818216|NCT02174848|183511444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9781|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This comparison is for the extension study, during which patients in both groups received deferiprone.||||0.9781
91818217|NCT02174848|183511445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0206|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0206
91818218|NCT02174848|183511446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2684|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.2684
91818219|NCT02174848|183511447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0821|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This comparison is for the initial study, during which patients in the placebo-DFP group received placebo and patients in the DFP-DFP group received deferiprone||||0.0821
91818220|NCT02174848|183511447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5885|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the placebo-DFP group, the comparison is of the scores at the start vs. the end of the extension study; for the DFP-DFP group, the comparison is of the scores at the start vs. the end of the initial study||||0.5885
91818221|NCT02174848|183511448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3306
91818222|NCT02623803|183511554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1459|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1459
91818223|NCT02623803|183511555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2050
91818224|NCT02623803|183511556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3989|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3989
91818225|NCT02623803|183511557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5285
91818226|NCT02623803|183511558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0697|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0697
91818227|NCT02623803|183511559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1029
91818228|NCT02623803|183511560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3136
91818229|NCT02623803|183511561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2196
91818230|NCT02623803|183511562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3057
91818231|NCT02623803|183511563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0404
91818232|NCT02623803|183511564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5314
91818233|NCT02623803|183511565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3166
91818234|NCT02623803|183511566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2363|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2363
91818235|NCT02623803|183511567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9171
91818236|NCT02623803|183511568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4194|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4194
91818237|NCT02623803|183511569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7073
91818238|NCT02623803|183511570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5107
91818239|NCT02623803|183511571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8339
91818240|NCT02623803|183511572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8927
91818241|NCT04452331|183511574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for clinical site||Diastolic BP||||0.06
91818242|NCT04452331|183511574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP||||0.90
91818243|NCT04452331|183511576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.29
91818244|NCT04452331|183511577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.10
91818245|NCT04452331|183511578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.44
91818246|NCT04452331|183511579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.01
91818247|NCT04452331|183511580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.01
91818248|NCT04452331|183511581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||0.54
91818249|NCT04452331|183511582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||0.74
91818250|NCT04452331|183511583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
91818251|NCT04452331|183511583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
91818252|NCT04452331|183511584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||<0.001
91818253|NCT04452331|183511584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||0.03
91818254|NCT04452331|183511585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, poisson|||||||<0.001
91818255|NCT04452331|183511585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, poisson|||||||0.08
91818256|NCT04452331|183511586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression including random effect of visit, to incorporate clustering of prescriptions within visits.||||||<.001
91818257|NCT04452331|183511586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression including random effect of visit, to incorporate clustering of prescriptions within visits.||||||0.98
91947503|NCT04138758|183792520|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.26|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of escalation.||0.26|0.19|
91947504|NCT04138758|183792521|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.51|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of any element of a composite outcome including exacerbation, hospitalization for pneumonia, or escalation.||0.51|0.42|
91947505|NCT04138758|183792522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.49|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of any element of a composite outcome including exacerbation, hospitalization for pneumonia, or escalation.||0.49|0.41|
91947506|NCT02275052|183792533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.31||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.12|27.74||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||27.74|-21.12|0.790
91947507|NCT02275052|183792534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.206|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.246|0.167|<0.001
91947508|NCT02275052|183792535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.346|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|-0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||-0.204|-0.487|<0.001
91947509|NCT02275052|183792536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.259|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.324|0.194|<0.001
91947510|NCT01143116|183792549|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6250
91947511|NCT01143116|183792549|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7500
91947512|NCT01143116|183792550|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8750
91947513|NCT01143116|183792550|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6250
91947514|NCT01143116|183792551|OTHER|||||||0.0254|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0254
91947515|NCT01143116|183792551|OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0039
91947516|NCT01143116|183792552|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91947517|NCT01143116|183792552|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91947518|NCT01143116|183792553|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91818258|NCT04452331|183511587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP||||0.20
91818259|NCT04452331|183511587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP||||0.82
91947519|NCT01143116|183792553|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91947520|NCT01143116|183792554|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91947521|NCT01143116|183792555|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91947522|NCT01143116|183792556|OTHER|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
91947523|NCT01143116|183792556|OTHER|||||||0.0078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0078
91947524|NCT01143116|183792557|OTHER|||||||0.7188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7188
91947525|NCT01143116|183792557|OTHER|||||||0.6406|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6406
91947526|NCT01143116|183792558|OTHER|||||||0.4375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4375
91947527|NCT01143116|183792558|OTHER|||||||0.2969|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2969
91947528|NCT01143116|183792559|OTHER|||||||0.5391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5391
91947529|NCT01143116|183792559|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
91947530|NCT01143116|183792560|OTHER|||||||0.4766|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4766
91947531|NCT01143116|183792560|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0068
91947532|NCT01143116|183792561|OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
91947533|NCT01143116|183792561|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4180
91947534|NCT02630459|183792576|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.2||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.20|-2.58|<0.001
91947535|NCT02630459|183792576|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.62||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.62|-3.00|<0.001
91947536|NCT02630459|183792576|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.25||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.41||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-0.41|-2.10|0.004
91947537|NCT02630459|183792577|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|13.8|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 4: Full Administration||13.8|-13.3|
91947538|NCT02630459|183792577|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 4: Not Full Administration||13.3|-13.8|
91947539|NCT02630459|183792577|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 4: Discontinued Investigational Product||13.3|-13.8|
91947540|NCT02630459|183792577|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|13.8|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 8: Full Administration||13.8|-13.3|
91947541|NCT02630459|183792577|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 8: Not Full Administration||13.3|-13.8|
91947542|NCT02630459|183792577|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 8: Discontinued Investigational Product||13.3|-13.8|
91947543|NCT02630459|183792578|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|9.99||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and obtained from the CMH test using data including placebo and corresponding erenumab dose group only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by stratification factor prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status.||9.99|2.24|<0.001
91947544|NCT02630459|183792578|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|12.06||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and obtained from the CMH test using data including placebo and corresponding erenumab dose group only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a CMH test, stratified by stratification factor prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status.||12.06|2.60|<0.001
91947545|NCT02630459|183792578|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|3.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.88||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and obtained from the CMH test using data including placebo and corresponding erenumab dose group only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a CMH test, stratified by stratification factor prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status.||7.88|1.30|0.009
91947546|NCT02630459|183792579|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.45||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.45|-2.63|<0.001
91947547|NCT02630459|183792579|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.49||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.49|-2.66|<0.001
91947548|NCT02630459|183792579|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.35||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-0.35|-1.80|0.004
91947549|NCT01797302|183792600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||interaction term from model group\*time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
91947550|NCT01797302|183792601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||interaction term for group\*time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.85
91947551|NCT01797302|183792602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
91947552|NCT01797302|183792603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
91947553|NCT01797302|183792604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0117||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0117
91947554|NCT01797302|183792605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91947555|NCT01797302|183792606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0256
91947556|NCT01797302|183792607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0945||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0945
91818260|NCT04452331|183511587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||Diastolic BP||||0.12
91818261|NCT04452331|183511587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|||Diastolic BP||||0.10
91818262|NCT04064294|183511588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 78||||||0.63
91818263|NCT04064294|183511589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 78||||||0.09
91818264|NCT04064294|183511590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|threshold for significance is 0.05, degrees of freedom = 2||||||0.011
91818265|NCT04064294|183511591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 75||||||0.033
91818266|NCT01289847|183511593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||one-sample Poisson rate|||For the primary efficacy analysis, the SABI rate for GAMMAPLEX and the upper bound of its one-sided 99% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by using the exact method for a one-sample Poisson rate.||||0.01
91818267|NCT01289847|183511594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|99.0|||||one-sample Poisson method|||||||0.01
91818268|NCT04534764|183511603|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control.|High Luminance Low Contrast||0.006|-0.039|
91818269|NCT04534764|183511603|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control.|Low Luminance High Contrast||0.031|-0.014|
91818270|NCT03556579|183511761|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.36|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Without Distance Filter||-0.36|-1.01|
91818271|NCT03556579|183511761|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.81|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Without Distance Filter||-0.81|-1.45|
91818272|NCT03556579|183511762|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-4.55|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-4.55|-13.16|
91818273|NCT03556579|183511762|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.24|-20.62|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-20.62|-29.24|
91947557|NCT01797302|183792608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91947558|NCT01797302|183792609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0094
91818274|NCT03556579|183511763|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||0.23|0.15|
91818275|NCT03556579|183511764|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.65|||Generalized linear mixed model|Generalized Linear mixed model with a lognormal distribution using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.65|0.46|
91818276|NCT03556579|183511765|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.15|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||-0.15|-1.07|
91818277|NCT03556579|183511766|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.23|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||0.23|0.14|
91818278|NCT03556579|183511767|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.66|-25.46|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|||-25.46|-31.66|
91818279|NCT03556579|183511767|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.48|-10.27|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test Minus Control.|||-10.27|-20.48|
91818280|NCT02968979|183511795|OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||likelihood-ratio test|||Statistical analysis applies to all rows and columns.||||0.0032
91947559|NCT00721136|183792648|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test in cases of nonparametric distribution. Categorical variables were expressed as numbers or percentages and analyzed with two-tailed Fisher's exact test or χ2-test as appropriate. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using STATA 10.1 (College Station, TX). A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test in cases of nonparametric distribution. Categorical variables were expressed as numbers or percentages and analyzed with two-tailed Fisher's exact test or χ2-test as appropriate. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using STATA 10.1 (College Station, TX). A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||
91947560|NCT00732199|183792651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T- test was conducted to compare the 2 groups.||||<0.05
91947561|NCT00732199|183792652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Compares control vs hypoxia trials vs recovery post-hypoxia||||||<0.05
91947562|NCT00732199|183792653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91947563|NCT00732199|183792654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91947564|NCT02274766|183792792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-8.3|||Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|Change from baseline is a dependent variable; the baseline value is a continuous covariate||32 subjects per treatment arm provided 90% power using a 2-sided test at 5% significance.||-8.3|-20.4|<0.0001
91947565|NCT02274766|183792793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.45||Change from Baseline in ON time without troublesome dyskinesia.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||3.45|0.35|0.0168
91947566|NCT02274766|183792793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.16||Change from Baseline in ON time with troublesome dyskinesia.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||0.16|-2.42|0.0853
91947567|NCT02274766|183792793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.18||Change from Baseline in OFF time.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.18|-2.02|0.0199
91947568|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.9||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.07||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.07|0.39|0.599
91947569|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.07||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.59||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.59|0.43|0.442
91947570|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.68||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.57||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.57|0.30|0.823
91818281|NCT02968979|183511795|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical Analysis 2 for Frequency of the Different Stages of Cachexia, excluding the refractory cachexia stage, in the General NSCLC Population According to Molecular Abnormalities Associated With NSCLC.~Statistical analysis applies to all rows and columns."||||0.0008
91818282|NCT02968979|183511805|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
91818283|NCT02968979|183511805|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
91818284|NCT02968979|183511805|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
91818285|NCT02968979|183511805|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
91818286|NCT02968979|183511805|OTHER|||||||0.1085|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||0.1085
91818287|NCT02968979|183511805|OTHER|||||||0.0482||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||0.0482
91818288|NCT02968979|183511805|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
91947571|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.81||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.97||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.97|0.33|0.690
91947572|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.75||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.71||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.71|0.33|0.764
91947573|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.64||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.56||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.56|0.27|0.841
91818289|NCT02968979|183511805|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
91818290|NCT02968979|183511805|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
91818291|NCT02968979|183511805|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
91818292|NCT00788827|183511820|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Each participants Hba1c (%) lab result was analysed pre and post stem cell infusion to achieve 2 mean readings per participant.||||<0.05
91818293|NCT04448210|183511837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.25
91818294|NCT04448210|183511838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||||||.72
91818295|NCT04448210|183511839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||.16
91947574|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.81||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.81||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7.This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.81|0.35|0.702
91818296|NCT04448210|183511840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||.43
91818297|NCT04448210|183511841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||.69
91818298|NCT04448210|183511842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||.38
91818299|NCT04448210|183511843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||.94
91818300|NCT04448210|183511844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||.94
91818301|NCT04448210|183511845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||.30
91818302|NCT01324349|183511895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank||Median difference equals control median minus Hemostatic Patch median in minutes.|The primary effectiveness endpoint was time to hemostasis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the survival distribution and to obtain the estimated median time to hemostasis for each treatment. Subjects who did not achieve hemostasis by 10 minutes were to be censored as of that time point. For each treatment, 95% Brookmeyer-Crowley confidence intervals for the median were computed based upon the sign test.||||<0.0001
91818303|NCT01324349|183511896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|47.3|||Suissa and Shuster test||Risk difference equals percentage hemostasis for Hemostatic Patch minus percentage hemostasis for control.|The secondary effectiveness endpoint was hemostasis within 3 minutes. The number and percentage of subjects who achieved hemostasis within 3 minutes are presented for each treatment group. The proportions of subjects who achieved hemostasis within 3 minutes were compared between treatments using the Suissa and Shuster test. Additionally, a 95% Blyth-Still-Casella confidence interval for the true proportion was computed for each treatment.||47.3|1.9|0.0339
91818304|NCT01324349|183511897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.5029|||||||Fisher Exact||Risk difference equals percent of subjects with any treatment emergent adverse events in control group minus percent of subjects with any treatment emergent adverse events in Hemostatic Patch group.|The incidence of subjects experiencing treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (defined under this protocol as Adverse Events) was summarized by MedDRA system organ class (SOC) and preferred term (PT) for each treatment group for the safety population. Tests for differences between the two treatments in the proportion of subjects experiencing any adverse event were made using Fisher's Exact Test.||||0.5029
91818305|NCT00851799|183511898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in annual rate of change|-4.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.9|-0.4||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference in the rate of CIMT change (Cohort A: ATV/RTV + FTC/TDF - Cohort C: DRV/RTV + FTC/TDF) was estimated by mixed effects linear regression model that adjusted for screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The primary hypothesis was that rate of change of CIMT would be faster over 144 weeks in participants initiating a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) compared with a RAL-containing regimen. However, In the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||-0.4|-8.9|0.013
91818306|NCT00851799|183511898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in annual rate of change|-2.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|1.5||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference in the rate of CIMT change (Cohort A: ATV/RTV + FTC/TDF - Cohort B: RAL + FTC/TDF) was estimated by mixed effects linear regression model that adjusted for screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The primary hypothesis was that rate of change of CIMT would be faster over 144 weeks in participants initiating a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) compared with a RAL-containing regimen. However, In the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||1.5|-7.0|0.15
91818307|NCT00851799|183511898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in annual rate of change|1.9||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.4|6.2||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference in the rate of CIMT change (Cohort C: DRV/RTV + FTC/TDF - Cohort B: RAL + FTC/TDF) was estimated by mixed effects linear regression model that adjusted for screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The primary hypothesis was that rate of change of CIMT would be faster over 144 weeks in participants initiating a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) compared with a RAL-containing regimen. However, In the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||6.2|-2.4|0.31
91947575|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.91||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.47||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.47|0.33|0.578
91947576|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.71||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.7||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.70|0.29|0.783
91818308|NCT00851799|183511899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Change|0.24||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.63|1.11||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The difference in change in relative FMD (Cohort A: ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF - Cohort C: DRV/RTV+FTC/TDF); estimated by linear regression that adjusted for study entry BA diameter and screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The study was designed to compare change from study entry to week 24 in brachial artery (BA) flow mediated dilation (FMD) between a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) and a RAL-containing regimen. However, in the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||1.11|-0.63|0.53
91818309|NCT00851799|183511899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Change (%)|-0.21||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.98|0.55||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The difference in change in relative FMD (Cohort B - Cohort A and C); estimated by linear regression that adjusted for study entry BA diameter and screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The study was designed to compare change from study entry to week 24 in brachial artery (BA) flow mediated dilation (FMD) between a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) and a RAL-containing regimen. However, in the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||0.55|-0.98|0.53
91818310|NCT04365556|183511937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<.05|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91818311|NCT04365556|183511938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.69
91818312|NCT04920123|183511952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.997
91818313|NCT04920123|183511953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.500
91818314|NCT04920123|183511954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.821
91818315|NCT04920123|183511955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.995
91818316|NCT04920123|183511956|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher scores indicate more severe depression.||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.076
91818317|NCT04920123|183511957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.432
91818318|NCT04920123|183511958|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.750
91818319|NCT03249779|183511988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0396
91818320|NCT03249779|183511989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1330
91818321|NCT01604343|183511997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|28.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.8|22.8|< 0.001
91818322|NCT01604343|183511997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.6|21.6|< 0.001
91818323|NCT01604343|183511998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||van der waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91818324|NCT01604343|183511998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||van der waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91818325|NCT01604343|183511999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.226|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-0.29|<0.001
91818326|NCT01604343|183511999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.256|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-0.32|<0.001
91818327|NCT01604343|183512000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|13.1|< 0.001
91818328|NCT01604343|183512000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|16.1|< 0.001
91818329|NCT01604343|183512001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|16.4|< 0.001
91818330|NCT01604343|183512001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|15.8|< 0.001
91818331|NCT01604343|183512002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|1.4|0.001
91818332|NCT01604343|183512002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.8|4.6|< 0.001
91818333|NCT00436748|183512031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact|||The null hypothesis for the Darbepoetin Alfa QW group was that the correction proportion (p) ≤ 0.8 ; Th alternative hypothesis was that p \> 0.8. The correction proportion was compared with 0.8 using the exact method to test the null hypothesis at a 1-sided overall significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
91818334|NCT00436748|183512031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.293|||||||Exact|||The null hypothesis for the Darbepoetin Alfa Q2W group was that the correction proportion (p) ≤ 0.8 ; Th alternative hypothesis was that p \> 0.8. The correction proportion was compared with 0.8 using the exact method to test the null hypothesis at a 1-sided overall significance level of 0.025.||||0.293
91818335|NCT03754959|183512113|OTHER||Ratio|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|106.2|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||106.2|90.2|
91818336|NCT03754959|183512113|OTHER||Ratio|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.9|102.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|||102.4|89.9|
91947577|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.64||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.87||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.87|0.22|0.797
91947578|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.58||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.26||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.26|0.27|0.919
91947579|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.55||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.43||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.43|0.21|0.892
91947580|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.47||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.93||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.93|0.11|0.860
91947581|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.05||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.86||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.86|0.38|0.463
91947582|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.35||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.42||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.42|0.09|0.932
91947583|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.43||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.17||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.17|0.16|0.952
91947584|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.46||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.81||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.81|0.12|0.873
91947585|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.43||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.16||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.16|0.16|0.953
91947586|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio9|1.26||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.82||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.82|0.56|0.281
91947587|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.35||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.35|0.42|0.500
91947588|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.76||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.77||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.77|0.32|0.744
91818337|NCT03754959|183512113|OTHER||Ratio|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.3|106.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||106.1|96.3|
91947589|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.21||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.04||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 14.|||3.04|0.49|0.334
91947590|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.81||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.85||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.85|0.35|0.698
91947591|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.18||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.88||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.88|0.48|0.353
91947592|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio9|1.01||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.26||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.26|0.45|0.489
91947593|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.46||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.23||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.23|0.17|0.940
91947594|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.01||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.4||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.40|0.42|0.495
91947595|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.82||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.37||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.37|0.28|0.647
91947596|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.87||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.86||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.86|0.40|0.646
91947597|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.74||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.9||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.90|0.29|0.741
91947598|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio9|2.18||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.95||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 7.|||7.95|0.62|0.109
91947599|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.37||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.45||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 14.|||3.45|0.55|0.240
91947600|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.1||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.44||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 7.|||4.44|0.27|0.447
91947601|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.03||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.74||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.74|0.39|0.472
91947602|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.78||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.9||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.90|0.21|0.698
91947603|NCT02130635|183792808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.53||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.37||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.37|0.21|0.911
91947604|NCT02417935|183792855|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of the 95% CI does not exceed 0.51 (pre-defined non-inferiority margin), it will be concluded that duloxetine is not inferior to Pregabalin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.439|-0.295|0.700
91947605|NCT02417935|183792856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|0.149
91947606|NCT02417935|183792857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Worst Pain||0.6|-0.3|.535
91818338|NCT03754959|183512113|OTHER||Ratio|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|101.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||101.1|86.8|
91947607|NCT02417935|183792857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Pain||0.2|-0.5|.436
91947608|NCT02417935|183792857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Pain||0.5|-0.2|.534
91947609|NCT02417935|183792857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Right Now||0.4|-0.4|.948
91947610|NCT02417935|183792857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||General Activity||0.1|-0.6|.225
91947611|NCT02417935|183792857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mood||0.2|-0.6|.276
91947612|NCT02417935|183792857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Walking Ability||0.2|-0.4|.507
91947613|NCT02417935|183792857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Normal Work||0.1|-0.5|.216
91947614|NCT02417935|183792857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relations with other people||0.1|-0.4|.233
91947615|NCT02417935|183792857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep||0.3|-0.3|.857
91947616|NCT02417935|183792857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Enjoyment of life||0.1|-0.5|.133
91947617|NCT02417935|183792857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Interference Score||0.11|-0.44|.246
91947618|NCT02417935|183792858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||2.2|-3.6|.627
91947619|NCT02417935|183792858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Burning Pain||0.2|-0.6|.355
91947620|NCT02417935|183792858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Pain||0.4|-0.3|.731
91947621|NCT02417935|183792858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain||0.4|-0.3|.721
91947622|NCT02417935|183792858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Evoked Pain||0.2|-0.5|.345
91947623|NCT02417935|183792858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Paresthesia/Dysesthesia||0.3|-0.5|.557
91947624|NCT02417935|183792859|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.4|.106
91947625|NCT02417935|183792860|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0161|0.0441|||ANCOVA|||||0.0441|-0.0161|.361
91947626|NCT02417935|183792861|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.8|.701
91947627|NCT02417935|183792862|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.366|-0.355|.976
91947628|NCT02417935|183792863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.264|0.537|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.537|-0.264|.503
91947629|NCT02417935|183792864|OTHER|||||||0.632||||||30% reduction|Fisher Exact|||||||.632
91947630|NCT02417935|183792864|OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||Fisher Exact|||50% Reduction||||.907
91818339|NCT03754959|183512113|OTHER||Ratio|93.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.3|99.3|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||99.3|87.3|
91818340|NCT03754959|183512113|OTHER||Ratio|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.8|96.7|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||96.7|83.8|
91818341|NCT03754959|183512114|OTHER||Ratio|105.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|116.9|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||116.9|95.6|
91818342|NCT03754959|183512114|OTHER||Ratio|117.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.5|129.6|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||129.6|106.5|
91818343|NCT03754959|183512114|OTHER||Ratio|112.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.9|123.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||123.1|102.9|
91818344|NCT03754959|183512114|OTHER||Ratio|110.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|135.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||135.1|90.1|
91818345|NCT03754959|183512114|OTHER||Ratio|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.5|110.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||110.1|84.5|
91818346|NCT03754959|183512114|OTHER||Ratio|89.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.9|106.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||106.4|74.9|
91818347|NCT03754959|183512115|OTHER||Ratio|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|114.8|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||114.8|84.2|
91947631|NCT02055976|183792921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-49.838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.775|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.335|-42.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-value (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.340|-57.335|<0.001
91818348|NCT03754959|183512115|OTHER||Ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.9|109.3|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10mg +Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||109.3|87.9|
91818349|NCT03754959|183512115|OTHER||Ratio|117.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.6|134.6|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||134.6|102.6|
91818350|NCT03754959|183512115|OTHER||Ratio|94.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|104.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||104.4|85.5|
91818351|NCT03754959|183512115|OTHER||Ratio|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.3|99.3|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||99.3|87.3|
91947632|NCT02055976|183792921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.912|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.523|-58.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-value (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.986|-74.523|<0.001
91818352|NCT03754959|183512115|OTHER||Ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.3|114.0|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||114.0|84.3|
91818353|NCT03754959|183512116|OTHER||Ratio|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.3|112.1|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||112.1|81.3|
91818354|NCT03754959|183512116|OTHER||Ratio|105.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.5|122.0|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10mg +Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||122.0|91.5|
91818355|NCT03754959|183512116|OTHER||Ratio|116.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.9|148.7|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||148.7|90.9|
91818356|NCT03754959|183512116|OTHER||Ratio|106.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.4|123.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||123.4|92.4|
91818357|NCT03754959|183512116|OTHER||Ratio|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|98.9|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||98.9|71.2|
91818358|NCT03754959|183512116|OTHER||Ratio|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.5|103.5|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||103.5|73.5|
91818359|NCT00449956|183512125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||||95.0|-1.3|-0.06|||||An analysis of covariance model with a factor for treatment and time-matched baseline as a covariate was used to compute 95% confidence intervals.|||-0.06|-1.30|
91818360|NCT00449956|183512125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 1.2 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||||95.0|-0.22|0.78|||||An analysis of covariance model with a factor for treatment and time-matched baseline as a covariate was used to compute 95% confidence intervals.|||0.78|-0.22|
91947633|NCT02055976|183792921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.903|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.284|-63.784|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-63.784|-79.284|<0.001
91818361|NCT03167879|183512128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|40.49||||||||40.49|2.79|
91818362|NCT03167879|183512129|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.09||||||||2.09|0.25|
91818363|NCT03167879|183512130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|257.6||||||||257.6|0.02|
91818364|NCT01067768|183512134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||The primary outcome analysis was performed using relative risk (RR) between the rate of urinary tract infection per 1,000 days of exposure of the test subjects to intervention and that of patients undergoing routine care.|The sample size was calculated for the primary outcome. An infection rate 15 per 1,000 urinary catheter days in the control group and an expected reduction in the intervention group 40% clinically important effect. Mapping one to one, 5% alpha error and beta error 20%.||1.3|0.50|
91818365|NCT01067768|183512135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||The difference between groups was evaluated with a U test Mann Whitney. The difference was statistically significant with p values less than 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: On average catheterization are the same in patients with daily review of the indication and control group patients||||0.016
91818366|NCT02972632|183512137|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 6 relative to baseline||||<0.001
91818367|NCT02972632|183512137|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
91947634|NCT02055976|183792921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.511|-39.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.551|-55.511|<0.001
91947635|NCT02055976|183792921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-62.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.993|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.557|-54.691|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.691|-70.557|<0.001
91818368|NCT02972632|183512138|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 6 relative to baseline||||<0.001
91818369|NCT02972632|183512138|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
91818370|NCT02972632|183512139|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 6 relative to baseline||||<0.001
91818371|NCT02972632|183512139|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
91818372|NCT02972632|183512140|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
91818373|NCT02972632|183512141|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
91818374|NCT02972632|183512142|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
91818375|NCT03450707|183512171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.5||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in lactate between the thiamine and placebo groups at 24 hours.~Lactate imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) for patients who expired."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 24 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||2.50|-1.82|0.72
91818376|NCT03450707|183512172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.58|||Regression, Linear|||As AUC-VO2s turned out to be normally distributed, we used a linear regression model to compare mean AUC-VO2s between treatment groups controlling for average temperature.||0.58|-1.34|0.43
91818377|NCT03450707|183512173|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test, testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the distribution of 72-hour lactates between thiamine and placebo groups.|No parameter estimated other than p-value = 0.88 from Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|||0.88
91818378|NCT03450707|183512174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.8||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH specific activity between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||0.80|0.01|0.072
91818379|NCT03450707|183512175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.7||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH activity between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||4.7|0.1|0.044
91818380|NCT03450707|183512176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.5||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-297.0|200.0||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH quantity between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||200.0|-297.0|0.828
91818381|NCT03450707|183512179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.22||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in SOFA scores between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model.||||4.22|0.47|0.10
91818382|NCT03450707|183512181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.6||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in Basal Respiration between the thiamine and placebo groups at 24 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.|Mean difference uses a non-logged version of the variable.|||1.6|-3.6|0.43
91818383|NCT03450707|183512182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.78||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in creatinine between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||1.78|-0.27|0.02
91818384|NCT01988571|183512187|SUPERIORITY|Power described in protocol.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7787||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for multiple imputation of missing data||Linear models adjusting for baseline values and utilized multiple imputation for missing data.||||0.84
91818385|NCT00004412|183512197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of ulcers undergoing partial and complete healing compared at 12 weeks. Mean Ulcer areas were calculated utilizing computerized planimetry, ulcer area tracings, and photography for baseline and 12 weeks and compared between the two study Arms.||||0.05
91818386|NCT03387813|183512213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.05|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.05|0.74|0.1624
91818387|NCT03387813|183512217|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was met if the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) of ln(HR) for the primary endpoint in Elevated NT-proBNP/BNP only vs. prior HFH only subjects is \> -0.2877 and the upper limit is \< 0.2877.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.6||||||||0.60|0.44|
91818388|NCT03387813|183512221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.03|0.70|0.0958
91818389|NCT03387813|183512225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.01|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.01|0.68|0.0644
91818390|NCT03387813|183512229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.77|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.77|0.61|0.8867
91818391|NCT03387813|183512233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.70|0.70|0.7119
91818392|NCT03387813|183512237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.3484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.47|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.47|-4.16|0.3484
91818393|NCT03387813|183512237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.6684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.26|-3.51|0.6684
91818394|NCT03387813|183512239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.71|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.71|-2.68|0.9901
91818395|NCT03387813|183512239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|4.24|||t-test, 1 sided|||||4.24|-1.29|0.2947
91818396|NCT03387813|183512241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.5741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|18.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||||18.60|-10.32|0.5741
91818397|NCT03387813|183512241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.7077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|18.27|||t-test, 1 sided|||||18.27|-12.41|0.7077
91818398|NCT03387813|183512244|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was met if the lower limit of the CI of ln(HR) for the primary endpoint in Elevated NT-proBNP/BNP only vs. prior HFH only subjects is \> -0.2877 and the upper limit is \< 0.2877.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.55||||||||0.55|0.38|
91818399|NCT03387813|183512248|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91818400|NCT03387813|183512252|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91818401|NCT03387813|183512256|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91818402|NCT03387813|183512262|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.54|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.54|0.39|<0.0001
91818403|NCT03387813|183512263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.76|0.53|<0.001
91818404|NCT03387813|183512268|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Systolic Pressure at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group||2.78|0.29|0.0160
91818405|NCT03387813|183512268|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Diastolic Pressure at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group.||1.56|0.03|0.0427
91818406|NCT03387813|183512268|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Mean Pressure at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group.||2.08|0.19|0.0188
91818407|NCT03387813|183512268|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Systolic Pressure at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group.||1.92|-0.66|0.3405
91818408|NCT03387813|183512268|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.6174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Diastolic Pressure at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group.||0.99|-0.59|0.6174
91818409|NCT03387813|183512268|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Mean Pressure at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group.||1.38|-0.58|0.4231
91818410|NCT03387813|183512269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of PA Systolic Pressure AUC between Treatment and Control group.||||0.0214
91818411|NCT03387813|183512269|OTHER|||||||0.1002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of PA Diastolic Pressure AUC between Treatment and Control group.||||0.1002
91818412|NCT03387813|183512269|OTHER|||||||0.0402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of PA Mean Pressure AUC between Treatment and Control group.||||0.0402
91818413|NCT03387813|183512270|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|37.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.52||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.38|185.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in BNP levels at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group||185.77|-111.38|0.6227
91818414|NCT03387813|183512271|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|59.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.87||0.4373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.44|211.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in BNP levels at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group||211.01|-91.44|0.4373
91818415|NCT03387813|183512272|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|468.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|256.65||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.09|973.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in NT-proBNP levels at 6months between Treatment vs Control group||973.30|-37.09|0.0692
91818416|NCT03387813|183512273|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|284.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|268.72||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-244.27|813.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in NT-proBNP levels at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group||813.60|-244.27|0.2903
91818417|NCT03387813|183512274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.78|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.78|0.53|<0.0001
91818418|NCT03387813|183512275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.81|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.81|0.57|<0.0001
91818419|NCT05876273|183512291|OTHER|The statistical analysis included general linear models (GLM), with repeated measures (NAP vs UMPC) and a covariate the 1-hour average CGM level prior to initiating either controller. This covariate was used to compute the adjusted performance differences between NAP and UMPC. The data was analyzed using the GLM procedures of IBM SPSS 28.0.||||||0.2||||||1-hour average CGM level prior to initiating either controller was included as a covariate in the analysis. This covariate was used to compute the adjusted performance differences between NAP and UMPC.|GLM with Repeated Measures|General linear models (GLM), with repeated measures (NAP vs UMPC)||||||0.2
91818420|NCT03917420|183512316|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|-0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91818421|NCT03917420|183512317|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|0.152|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91818422|NCT03917420|183512318|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91818423|NCT03917420|183512319|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|0.285|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91818424|NCT00591942|183512327|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI were used|KM Survival Curves|0.5637||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.5637
91818425|NCT03373383|183512339|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|17.2|||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|33.9||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||33.9|-3.8|=0.102
91818426|NCT03373383|183512339|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|19.1|||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|35.4||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||35.4|-1.2|=0.064
91947636|NCT02055976|183792921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-64.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.955|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.128|-56.409|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-56.409|-72.128|<0.001
91947637|NCT02055976|183792922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-42.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.417|-35.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.168|-49.417|<0.001
91947638|NCT02055976|183792922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.696|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.603|-48.921|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.921|-63.603|<0.001
91947639|NCT02055976|183792922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.733|-54.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.035|-68.733|<0.001
91947640|NCT02055976|183792922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.273|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.067|-39.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.088|-56.067|<0.001
91947641|NCT02055976|183792922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-63.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.776|-54.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.915|-71.776|<0.001
91947642|NCT02055976|183792922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.226|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.088|-58.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.295|-75.088|<0.001
91947643|NCT02055976|183792924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-67.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.785|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.757|-57.752|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.752|-76.757|<0.001
91818427|NCT03373383|183512339|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|19.2|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|35.5||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||35.5|-1.2|=0.063
91818428|NCT03373383|183512339|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|12.4|||=|0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|30.1||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp\[diff\]), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||30.1|-9.7|=0.248
91818429|NCT03373383|183512340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72|||=|0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.39||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||8.39|0.88|=0.081
91947644|NCT02055976|183792924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-87.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.959|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.969|-77.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-77.275|-96.969|<0.001
91818430|NCT03373383|183512340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.41||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||7.41|0.76|=0.137
91947645|NCT02055976|183792924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-93.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.949|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.153|-83.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-83.501|-103.153|<0.001
91947646|NCT02055976|183792924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.243|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.128|-59.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-59.321|-84.128|<0.001
91818431|NCT03373383|183512340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||=|0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.89||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||6.89|0.68|=0.192
91947647|NCT02055976|183792924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-96.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.541|-83.872|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-83.872|-108.541|<0.001
91947648|NCT02055976|183792924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-98.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.743|-86.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-86.323|-110.743|<0.001
91947649|NCT02055976|183792924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.736|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.63|-46.819|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-46.819|-65.630|<0.001
91947650|NCT02055976|183792924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-73.813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.881|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.507|-64.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-64.119|-83.507|<0.001
91947651|NCT02055976|183792924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-81.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.885|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.939|-71.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-71.538|-90.939|<0.001
91947652|NCT02055976|183792924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-72.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.983|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.461|-60.684|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-60.684|-84.461|<0.001
91947653|NCT02055976|183792924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-96.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.039|-84.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-84.405|-108.039|<0.001
91947654|NCT02055976|183792924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-102.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.919|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.945|-90.424|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-90.424|-113.945|<0.001
91947655|NCT02055976|183792926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-69.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.721|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|-58.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-value (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.175|-80.900|<0.001
91818432|NCT03373383|183512340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.42||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||9.42|1.05|=0.041
91947656|NCT02055976|183792926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-86.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.855|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.074|-74.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-74.818|-98.074|<0.001
91947657|NCT02055976|183792926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-98.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.898|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.983|-86.563|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-86.563|-109.983|<0.001
91947658|NCT02055976|183792926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.757|-57.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.112|-85.757|<0.001
91947659|NCT02055976|183792926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-94.959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.236|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.333|-80.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-80.585|-109.333|<0.001
91947660|NCT02055976|183792926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-98.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.727|-84.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-84.311|-112.727|<0.001
91947661|NCT02055976|183792926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.741|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.592|-43.791|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-43.791|-66.592|<0.001
91947662|NCT02055976|183792926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-72.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.848|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.825|-60.597|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-60.597|-83.825|<0.001
91947663|NCT02055976|183792926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-83.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.913|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.807|-71.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-71.323|-94.807|<0.001
91947664|NCT02055976|183792926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-73.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.678|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.147|-60.612|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-60.612|-87.147|<0.001
91947665|NCT02055976|183792926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-95.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.697||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.732|-82.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-82.124|-108.732|0.001
91947666|NCT02055976|183792926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-104.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.654|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.079|-91.639|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-91.639|-118.079|<0.001
91947667|NCT02055976|183792927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.717|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.039|-26.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.246|-37.039|<0.001
91947668|NCT02055976|183792927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-39.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.403|-34.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-34.358|-45.403|<0.001
91947669|NCT02055976|183792927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.45|-40.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-40.329|-51.450|<0.001
91818433|NCT03373383|183512344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.3||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||4.30|1.02|=0.045
91947670|NCT02055976|183792927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-30.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.006|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.11|-24.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-24.164|-36.110|<0.001
91947671|NCT02055976|183792927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-39.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.52|-33.531|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.531|-45.520|<0.001
91818434|NCT03373383|183512344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.93||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.93|0.93|=0.079
91947672|NCT02055976|183792927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.983|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.299|-35.445|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.445|-47.299|<0.001
91947673|NCT02055976|183792927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.717|-20.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-20.032|-30.717|<0.001
91947674|NCT02055976|183792927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.741|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.934|-28.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-28.047|-38.934|<0.001
91947675|NCT02055976|183792927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-38.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.262|-33.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.258|-44.262|<0.001
91947676|NCT02055976|183792927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-30.847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.879|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.568|-25.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-25.127|-36.568|<0.001
91947677|NCT02055976|183792927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.887|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.754|-34.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-34.285|-45.754|<0.001
91947678|NCT02055976|183792927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.869|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.647|-38.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-38.247|-49.647|<0.001
91947679|NCT02055976|183792929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.344|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.76|-34.476|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-34.476|-47.760|<0.001
91947680|NCT02055976|183792929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-54.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.402|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.543|-48.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.032|-61.543|<0.001
91947681|NCT02055976|183792929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-60.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.453|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.403|-53.694|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-53.694|-67.403|<0.001
91947682|NCT02055976|183792929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.589|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.999|-29.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-29.178|-43.999|<0.001
91947683|NCT02055976|183792929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-54.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.734|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.102|-47.265|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-47.265|-62.102|<0.001
91947684|NCT02055976|183792929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.688|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.845|-49.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.189|-63.845|<0.001
91947685|NCT02055976|183792929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.608|-26.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.915|-39.608|<0.001
91947686|NCT02055976|183792929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.239|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.388|-39.523|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.523|-52.388|<0.001
91947687|NCT02055976|183792929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.305|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.063|-44.937|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-44.937|-58.063|<0.001
91947688|NCT02055976|183792929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.547|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.523|-33.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.426|-47.523|<0.001
91947689|NCT02055976|183792929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-54.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.549|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.685|-47.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-47.583|-61.685|<0.001
91947690|NCT02055976|183792929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-59.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.602|-52.614|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-52.614|-66.602|<0.001
91947691|NCT02055976|183792930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.347|-36.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-36.183|-50.347|<0.001
91947692|NCT02055976|183792930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-57.962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.628|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.167|-50.758|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-50.758|-65.167|<0.001
91947693|NCT02055976|183792930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-64.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.682|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.039|-57.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.419|-72.039|<0.001
91947694|NCT02055976|183792930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.535|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.451|-29.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-29.405|-43.451|<0.001
91947695|NCT02055976|183792930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-53.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.538|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.325|-46.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-46.267|-60.325|<0.001
91947696|NCT02055976|183792930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.496|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.436|-48.542|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.542|-62.436|<0.001
91947697|NCT02055976|183792930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-35.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.059|-28.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-28.516|-42.059|<0.001
91947698|NCT02055976|183792930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-48.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.456|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.709|-41.982|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-41.982|-55.709|<0.001
91947699|NCT02055976|183792930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.526|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.116|-48.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.112|-62.116|<0.001
91818435|NCT03373383|183512344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.02||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.02|0.68|=0.338
91818436|NCT03373383|183512344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||=|0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.87||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.87|0.91|=0.087
91818437|NCT03373383|183512345|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.4|||=|0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|21.89||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||21.89|-6.59|=0.316
91947700|NCT02055976|183792930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.118|-32.971|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-32.971|-47.118|<0.001
91947701|NCT02055976|183792930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-53.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.883|-46.737|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-46.737|-60.883|<0.001
91947702|NCT02055976|183792930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-58.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.533|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.64|-51.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-51.600|-65.640|<0.001
91947703|NCT02055976|183792932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.643|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.646|14.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.145|3.646|<0.001
91947704|NCT02055976|183792932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|15.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.141|20.717|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||20.717|10.141|<0.001
91947705|NCT02055976|183792932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.959|17.683|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||17.683|6.959|<0.001
91947706|NCT02055976|183792932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.041||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|12.847|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.847|0.761|0.014
91947707|NCT02055976|183792932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.556|16.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.573|4.556|<0.001
91947708|NCT02055976|183792932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.969|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.993|18.796|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.796|6.993|<0.001
91947709|NCT02055976|183792932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.266||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.157|15.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.130|2.157|0.005
91818438|NCT03373383|183512345|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|9.99|||=|0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|23.26||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||23.26|-3.15|=0.133
91818439|NCT03373383|183512345|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|8.19|||=|0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|21.37||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||21.37|-3.95|=0.203
91947710|NCT02055976|183792932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.272|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.208|21.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||21.208|8.208|<0.001
91947711|NCT02055976|183792932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.317|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|17.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||17.757|4.580|<0.001
91947712|NCT02055976|183792932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.947|13.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.316|2.947|0.001
91947713|NCT02055976|183792932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.592|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.079|15.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.381|5.079|<0.001
91947714|NCT02055976|183792932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.767|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.565||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|10.864|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.864|0.670|0.014
91947715|NCT02055976|183792933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.905|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.296|9.863|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.863|2.296|<0.001
91947716|NCT02055976|183792933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.976|14.597|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.597|6.976|<0.001
91947717|NCT02055976|183792933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.945|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.206|12.932|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.932|5.206|<0.001
91947718|NCT02055976|183792933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|9.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.178|0.541|0.014
91947719|NCT02055976|183792933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.037|11.624|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||11.624|3.037|<0.001
91947720|NCT02055976|183792933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.856|13.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.293|4.856|<0.001
91947721|NCT02055976|183792933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.266||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.435|10.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.437|1.435|0.005
91891190|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D2m at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|6.92||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0285
91891191|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|6.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891192|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|6.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91818440|NCT03373383|183512345|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.39|||=|0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.65|17.79||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||17.79|-13.65|=0.784
91947722|NCT02055976|183792933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.271|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.702|14.724|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.724|5.702|<0.001
91947723|NCT02055976|183792933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.302|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.484|12.629|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.629|3.484|<0.001
91947724|NCT02055976|183792933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.778|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.312|9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.380|2.312|<0.001
91947725|NCT02055976|183792933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.766|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|10.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.421|3.400|<0.001
91947726|NCT02055976|183792933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.748||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|7.642|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.642|0.693|0.010
91947727|NCT02055976|183792935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.7208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6289||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5283|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.9700|-0.5283|0.127
91947728|NCT02055976|183792935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6461||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2259|2.3406|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.3406|-0.2259|0.053
91947729|NCT02055976|183792935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6511||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0486|1.5375|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.5375|-1.0486|0.354
91947730|NCT02055976|183792935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8615||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9066|2.5177|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.5177|-0.9066|0.176
91818441|NCT03317431|183512349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with DRD1 expression.||||<0.01
91818442|NCT03317431|183512350|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with DRD2 expression.||||>0.01
91947731|NCT02055976|183792935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8641||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2899|3.7242|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.7242|0.2899|0.011
91818443|NCT03317431|183512351|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with TH expression.||||>0.01
91818444|NCT03317431|183512352|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with DDC expression.||||>0.01
91818445|NCT03317431|183512353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with Ac-a-tubulin expression.||||<0.01
91818446|NCT00544076|183512371|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin that would be possible to detect (had the protocol reached intended accrual) was 20%,|||||>|0.1||||||no adjustments were made.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.1
91818447|NCT00544076|183512372|OTHER||||||>|0.1||||||no adjustments done|Chi-squared|no adjustments||compare percentage of patients potent at 6 and 18 months across pairs of treatment arms (arm I vs arm II, arm I vs arm III, arm II vs arm III)||||>0.1
91818448|NCT00544076|183512373|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||no adjustments done.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91818449|NCT00544076|183512374|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustments|ANOVA|no adjustments for df||"ANOVA test to compare difference of penile length (from baseline to month 18) across arms.~calculations are underpowered, as study did not accrue or retain patients as intended, and many patients declined to have measurements taken."||||0.08
91818450|NCT02907359|183512375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19||OS between Guadecitabine vs Treatment Choice using stratified log-rank test. Due to pre-specified hierarchical testing plan, other endpoints were not evaluated for statistical significance.|Stratified Log-rank test|||||1.19|0.74|0.6063
91818451|NCT00746941|183512427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7132|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.7132
91818452|NCT00746941|183512428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9086|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.9086
91818453|NCT00176592|183512441|SUPERIORITY|This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison. This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison of intention to treat study population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison. This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison of intention to treat study population.||||<0.05
91818454|NCT02180412|183512452|OTHER||Slope|7.76||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|13.37|||ANCOVA|||ALA Day 1 vs Day 2||13.37|2.14|.0434
91818455|NCT02180412|183512452|OTHER||Slope|16.29||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.32|21.25|||ANCOVA|||ALA Day 1 vs Day 3||21.25|11.32|.0003
91818456|NCT02180412|183512452|OTHER||Slope|15.98||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|25.26|||ANCOVA|||ALA Day 1 vs Day 4||25.26|6.7|.0198
91818457|NCT02180412|183512452|OTHER||Slope|10.69||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|22.49|||ANCOVA|||PBG Day 1 vs Day 2||22.49|-1.67|.158
91818458|NCT02180412|183512452|OTHER||Slope|24.52||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|37.74|||ANCOVA|||PGB Day 1 vs Day 3||37.74|11.3|.0127
91818459|NCT02180412|183512452|OTHER||Slope|28.45||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.64|47.27|||ANCOVA|||PBG Day 1 vs Day 4||47.27|9.64|.0328
91818460|NCT02180412|183512452|OTHER||Slope|12.2||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.4|489.8|||ANCOVA|||Total Porphyrins Day 1 vs Day 2||489.8|-465.4|.9993
91818461|NCT02180412|183512452|OTHER||Slope|454.5||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.87|1109.86|||ANCOVA|||Total Porphyrins Day 1 vs Day 3||1109.86|-200.87|.2915
91818462|NCT02180412|183512452|OTHER||Slope|326.12||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-292.0|944.25|||ANCOVA|||Total Porphyrins Day 1 vs Day 4||944.25|-292|.4382
91818463|NCT04654117|183512456|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel model predicting the effect of the overall consultation model on manual adherence, averaged across clinicians.|unstandardized beta|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
91818464|NCT04654117|183512457|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
91818465|NCT04654117|183512458|OTHER|multilevel modeling|multilevel modeling|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel modeling|||||||<.05
91818466|NCT04654117|183512459|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA|17.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91818467|NCT04654117|183512460|OTHER|multilevel model|multilevel model|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
91818468|NCT04654117|183512461|OTHER|multilevel model|multilevel model (beta)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
91818469|NCT01354496|183512462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.18|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.18|0.897|
91818470|NCT01354496|183512463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|1.22|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.22|0.922|
91818471|NCT01354496|183512464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.896|1.16|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.16|0.896|
91818472|NCT01354496|183512465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.882|1.15|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.15|0.882|
91818473|NCT01354496|183512467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.04|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.04|0.951|
91818474|NCT01354496|183512467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.905|0.983|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||0.983|0.905|
91818475|NCT01354496|183512468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|1.04|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.04|0.926|
91818476|NCT01354496|183512468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|0.993|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||0.993|0.891|
91818477|NCT01774786|183512500|SUPERIORITY|The study was designed to have 80% power to show a significant difference with respect to the primary endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0||The actual p-value significance threshold required for OS was 0.0455, after alpha spent at the interim analysis was taken into account.|Stratified Log-Rank|Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|Primary Analysis. The null hypothesis is that the survival distribution of OS is the same in the two treatment arms.||1.00|0.71|0.0565
91818478|NCT01774786|183512500|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99|||||HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm. Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|Final Analysis||0.99|0.72|
91818479|NCT01774786|183512501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||As pre-specified in the protocol, a p-value was only to be calculated for PFS if OS was statistically significant.|||A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the HR between the pertuzumab arm vs. the placebo arm.|Primary Analysis||0.86|0.62|
91818480|NCT01774786|183512501|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85|||||A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the HR between the pertuzumab arm vs. the placebo arm.|Final Analysis||0.85|0.62|
91947732|NCT02055976|183792935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.852||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0184|3.4049|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.4049|0.0184|0.024
91947733|NCT02055976|183792935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7844||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6992|2.4163|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.4163|-0.6992|0.138
91947734|NCT02055976|183792935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7064|2.4678|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.4678|-0.7064|0.137
91947735|NCT02055976|183792935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8053||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.337|1.8618|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.8618|-1.3370|0.373
91947736|NCT02055976|183792935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7472||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1611|1.8089|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.8089|-1.1611|0.333
91947737|NCT02055976|183792935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.9322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7488||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4441|3.4203|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.4203|0.4441|0.006
91947738|NCT02055976|183792935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7442||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6451|2.313|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.3130|-0.6451|0.133
91947739|NCT02055976|183792936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0411||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.973|6.1356|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||6.1356|-1.9730|0.155
91947740|NCT02055976|183792936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.2608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0965||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9035|7.425|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.4250|-0.9035|0.062
91947741|NCT02055976|183792936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1126||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3733|5.0182|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.0182|-3.3733|0.349
91818481|NCT01774786|183512502|OTHER|Exploratory|Difference in Objective Response|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.91|||||Difference in objective response was calculated as the pertuzumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary Analysis of Objective Response Rate||15.91|0.89|
91818482|NCT01774786|183512502|OTHER|Exploratory|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.89|||||Odds ratio was calculated as the pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|Primary Analysis of Objective Response Rate||1.89|1.04|
91818483|NCT01774786|183512503|OTHER|Exploratory|Difference in Objective Response|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.91|||||Difference in objective response was calculated as the pertuzumab arm minus placebo arm.|Final Analysis of Objective Response Rate||15.91|0.89|
91818484|NCT01774786|183512503|OTHER|Exploratory|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.89|||||Odds ratio was calculated as the pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|Final Analysis of Objective Response Rate||1.89|1.04|
91818485|NCT01774786|183512504|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.06|||||HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm. Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|Primary Analysis||1.06|0.64|
91818486|NCT01774786|183512504|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98|||||HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm. Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|Final Analysis||0.98|0.62|
91818487|NCT01774786|183512505|OTHER|Exploratory|Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|9.07|||||Difference in clinical benefit rate was calculated as the pertuzumab arm minus placebo arm.|||9.07|-2.34|
91818488|NCT01774786|183512505|OTHER|Exploratory|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.88|||||Odds ratio was calculated as the pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|||1.88|0.86|
91818489|NCT04544293|183512520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modelled using MMRM adjusted for baseline % predicted DLCOadj, treatment, visit, region, severity stratification and treatment-visit interaction.|Difference from placebo|||9.4|2.5|0.0007
91818490|NCT04544293|183512521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.9||Modelled using MMRM adjusted for baseline % predicted DLCOadj, treatment, visit, region, severity stratification and treatment-visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference from Placebo|||10.9|2.9|0.0008
91818491|NCT04544293|183512522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.59||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.79|-11.40|0.0072
91818492|NCT04544293|183512523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.81||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.52|-14.10|0.0149
91818493|NCT04544293|183512524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|-0.06|0.0845
91818494|NCT04544293|183512525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.87||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-10.76|0.1046
91818495|NCT04544293|183512526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.99||||0.1216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.57|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.59|-13.57|0.1216
91818496|NCT04544293|183512527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline compared to placebo.|||1.03|0.07|0.0234
91818497|NCT04544293|183512528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.83|-8.84|0.1043
91818498|NCT05045144|183512539|OTHER|The lot-to-lot consistency is demonstrated only if two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the 3 pair-wise geometric mean ratios of RSV MAT IgG ELISA concentration falls within 0.67 and 1.5.|GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the RSV MAT vaccine, as measured by ELISA in terms of IgG GMCs at Day 31.||1.13|0.92|
91818499|NCT05045144|183512539|OTHER|The lot-to-lot consistency is demonstrated only if two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the 3 pair-wise geometric mean ratios of RSV MAT IgG ELISA concentration falls within 0.67 and 1.5.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of Lot 1 and Lot 3 of the RSV MAT vaccine, as measured by ELISA in terms of IgG GMCs at Day 31.||1.05|0.85|
91818500|NCT05045144|183512539|OTHER|The lot-to-lot consistency is demonstrated only if two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the 3 pair-wise geometric mean ratios of RSV MAT IgG ELISA concentration falls within 0.67 and 1.5.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of Lot 2 and Lot 3 of the RSV MAT vaccine, as measured by ELISA in terms of IgG GMCs at Day 31.||1.03|0.83|
91818501|NCT05045144|183512540|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated for the A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain, if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by Flu D-QIV vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.82|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of HI GMTs of Flu D-QIV antibody titers against A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||0.82|0.63|
91818502|NCT05045144|183512540|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated for B/Washington/02/2019 strain, if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by Flu D-QIV vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of HI GMTs of Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Washington/02/2019 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||1.10|0.79|
91947742|NCT02055976|183792936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.3254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7702||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1801|7.831|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.8310|-3.1801|0.202
91947743|NCT02055976|183792936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.1048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7784||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5833|11.6263|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||11.6263|0.5833|0.015
91947744|NCT02055976|183792936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.2393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7396||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2058|10.6845|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.6845|-0.2058|0.030
91818503|NCT05045144|183512540|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated for B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain, if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by Flu D-QIV vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.93|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of HI GMTs of Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||0.93|0.69|
91818504|NCT05045144|183512541|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of RSV MAT vaccine is demonstrated for RSV A neutralizing antibody titers, if the LL of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by RSV MAT vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the RSV MAT vaccine when co-administered with Flu D-QIV vaccine, compared to RSV MAT vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of GMTs of RSV A neutralizing antibody titers at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||0.97|0.78|
91947745|NCT02055976|183792936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.1827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4251||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6334|6.9988|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||6.9988|-2.6334|0.185
91947746|NCT02055976|183792936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.1376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4716||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7718|7.0469|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.0469|-2.7718|0.195
91947747|NCT02055976|183792936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4909||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6358|5.2584|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.2584|-4.6358|0.450
91947748|NCT02055976|183792936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3322||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0274|5.2431|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.2431|-4.0274|0.397
91947749|NCT02055976|183792936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.7096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3367||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0659|10.3532|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.3532|1.0659|0.008
91947750|NCT02055976|183792936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.4558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.323||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1608|7.0724|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.0724|-2.1608|0.147
91947751|NCT02055976|183792938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.9203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5504|-2.2901|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.2901|-7.5504|<0.001
91947752|NCT02055976|183792938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.1983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3462|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8718|-4.5249|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-4.5249|-9.8718|<0.001
91947753|NCT02055976|183792938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.3118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3505|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9935|-4.6301|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-4.6301|-9.9935|<0.001
91947754|NCT02055976|183792938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.0629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1132|-1.0125|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.0125|-5.1132|0.002
91947755|NCT02055976|183792938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.6209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0367|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6804|-1.5614|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.5614|-5.6804|<0.001
91818505|NCT05045144|183512542|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated with respect to the SCR difference for Flu D-QIV antibody titers against A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain, if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI on the SCR difference (Flu D-QIV vaccine minus RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine) is less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% at Day 31 post vaccination.|Difference of Proportion|3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|10.29|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the difference of proportion of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||10.29|-3.44|
91818506|NCT05045144|183512542|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated with respect to the SCR difference for Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Washington/02/2019 strain, if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI on the SCR difference (Flu D-QIV vaccine minus RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine) is less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% at Day 31 post vaccination.|Difference of Proportion|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|10.32|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the difference of proportion of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against B/Washington/02/2019 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||10.32|-2.04|
91818507|NCT05045144|183512542|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated with respect to the SCR difference for Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain, if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI on the SCR difference (Flu D-QIV vaccine minus RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine) is less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% at Day 31 post vaccination.|Difference of Proportion|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|10.58|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the difference of proportion of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||10.58|-2.46|
91947756|NCT02055976|183792938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.1778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0269|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2184|-2.1372|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.1372|-6.2184|<0.001
91947757|NCT02055976|183792938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.2914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2954||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8649|-0.7178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.7178|-5.8649|0.006
91947758|NCT02055976|183792938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.3569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3157|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9706|-3.7432|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-3.7432|-8.9706|<0.001
91947759|NCT02055976|183792938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.3962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3233|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0247|-3.7677|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-3.7677|-9.0247|<0.001
91947760|NCT02055976|183792938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.9228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9199|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7506|-2.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.0950|-5.7506|<0.001
91947761|NCT02055976|183792938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.7094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5459|-2.8729|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.8729|-6.5459|<0.001
91947762|NCT02055976|183792938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.4374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9187|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.263|-2.6118|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.6118|-6.2630|<0.001
91947763|NCT02055976|183792939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.4492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2401||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7872|-7.1112|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-7.1112|-47.7872|0.004
91947764|NCT02055976|183792939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.5908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4568|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3577|-19.824|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-19.8240|-61.3577|<0.001
91818508|NCT00744627|183512552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|-1.88||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||P-values were tested at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-1.88|-5.74|<0.001
91818509|NCT00744627|183512553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-1.2||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis||||-1.20|-3.39|<0.001
91818510|NCT00744627|183512554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.19||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.19|-0.73|<0.001
91818511|NCT00744627|183512555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.901||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.18||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.18|-3.74|0.031
91947765|NCT02055976|183792939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5402||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0927|-6.2332|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-6.2332|-48.0927|0.006
91818512|NCT00744627|183512556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.393|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.496|3.83||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||3.830|1.496|<0.001
91818513|NCT00744627|183512557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.267|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-2.6||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-2.60|-7.61|<0.001
91818514|NCT00744627|183512558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.774||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|14.25||SF-36 social functioning subscore was the last endpoint to be tested in the hierarchical testing sequence.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||Results presented are for the number of participants at week 8 only.||14.25|3.32|0.002
91818515|NCT04809220|183512580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.43|<.001
91818516|NCT04809220|183512581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.47|<.001
91818517|NCT04809220|183512582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.87|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLM)|||For HbA1c ≤6.5%||1.87|0.71|0.560
91818518|NCT04809220|183512582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.45|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLM)|||For HbA1c \< 7%||2.45|1.05|0.028
91818519|NCT04809220|183512583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-14.4|<.001
91818520|NCT04809220|183512584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||Morning premeal-fasting||-2.7|-11.7|0.002
91818521|NCT04809220|183512584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Morning 2-hour post meal||-1.9|-18.3|0.016
91818522|NCT04809220|183512584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||Midday premeal||-2.3|-14.2|0.007
91818523|NCT04809220|183512584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||Midday 2-hour post meal||-4.5|-20.5|0.002
91818524|NCT04809220|183512584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Evening premeal||1.5|-9.3|0.158
91818525|NCT04809220|183512584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.7|||ANCOVA|||Evening 2-hour post meal||-3.7|-19.0|0.004
91818526|NCT04809220|183512585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.8|0.213
91818527|NCT00729183|183512595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.32|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) Model|||A longitudinal ANCOVA was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% confidence interval (CI). The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[BL\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. The weighted Least Squares (LS) mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||4.32|2.66|<0.001
91818528|NCT00729183|183512596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|7.9||||||Estimated difference (versus Placebo) and CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||7.9|-12.3|
91818529|NCT00729183|183512597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|12.3||||||Estimated difference (versus Placebo) and CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||12.3|-3.2|
91818530|NCT00729183|183512598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|6.42|||LDA|||A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||6.42|4.36|<0.001
91818531|NCT00729183|183512599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.25|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.25|0.88|<0.001
91818532|NCT00729183|183512599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|4.26|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||4.26|2.39|<0.001
91818533|NCT00729183|183512600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.35|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.35|0.60|0.001
91818534|NCT00729183|183512600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.93|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||4.93|2.69|<0.001
91947766|NCT02055976|183792939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.1677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8755||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8023|-6.5332|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-6.5332|-41.8023|0.004
91947767|NCT02055976|183792939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-19.2255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9203||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9471|-1.5038|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.5038|-36.9471|0.017
91947768|NCT02055976|183792939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-26.5155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8387||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0795|-8.9515|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-8.9515|-44.0795|0.002
91947769|NCT02055976|183792939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.3898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1768|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6698|-8.1097|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-8.1097|-28.6698|<0.001
91947770|NCT02055976|183792939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.7882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.264|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2423|-26.3341|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.3341|-47.2423|<0.001
91947771|NCT02055976|183792939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.8453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3864|-26.3041|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.3041|-47.3864|<0.001
91947772|NCT02055976|183792939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.9411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8656|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5748|-17.3075|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.3075|-48.5748|<0.001
91947773|NCT02055976|183792939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.3176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0238|-15.6114|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-15.6114|-47.0238|<0.001
91947774|NCT02055976|183792939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8576|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.465|-17.2289|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.2289|-48.4650|<0.001
91947775|NCT02055976|183792941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.431|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|10.506|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.506|4.820|<0.001
91947776|NCT02055976|183792941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.389|12.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.190|6.389|<0.001
91947777|NCT02055976|183792941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.336|10.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.175|4.336|<0.001
91947778|NCT02055976|183792941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.806||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.361|5.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.818|-1.361|0.110
91818535|NCT00729183|183512601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.29|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||3.29|1.09|<0.001
91818536|NCT00729183|183512601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|6.89|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||6.89|4.08|<0.001
91818537|NCT00729183|183512602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.35|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||1.35|0.07|0.030
91818538|NCT00729183|183512602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.43|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.43|0.97|<0.001
91818539|NCT00729183|183512603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.73|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.73|0.69|0.001
91818540|NCT00729183|183512603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.78|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||3.78|1.62|<0.001
91818541|NCT00729183|183512604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.16||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.95|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||0.95|-0.63|0.697
91818542|NCT00729183|183512604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.22||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.18|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.18|0.27|0.013
91818543|NCT00729183|183512605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|8.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|9.99|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||9.99|6.03|<0.001
91818544|NCT00729183|183512605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|11.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.96|13.97|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||13.97|8.96|<0.001
91818545|NCT00729183|183512606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|7.58|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||7.58|3.77|<0.001
91818546|NCT00729183|183512606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|9.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.98|11.77|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||11.77|6.98|<0.001
91947779|NCT02055976|183792941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.815||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.972|9.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.185|1.972|0.001
91818547|NCT00729183|183512607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-54.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.81|-43.26|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-CTx (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||-43.26|-64.81|<0.001
91818548|NCT00729183|183512607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-45.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.22|-28.96|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-CTx (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||-28.96|-62.22|<0.001
91818549|NCT00729183|183512608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-25.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.77|-12.92|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-P1NP (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||-12.92|-37.77|<0.001
91818550|NCT00729183|183512608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-9.07||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|5.56|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-P1NP (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||5.56|-23.69|0.225
91818551|NCT05083442|183512617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between groups from analysis of covariance with baseline fat mass included as the covariate.|Groups were compared using analysis of covariance with baseline included as the covariate.||1.9|-0.4|0.19
91818552|NCT05083442|183512618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between groups from analysis of covariance with baseline fat mass included as the covariate.|Groups were compared using analysis of covariance with baseline included as the covariate.||2.1|-1.5|0.745
91818553|NCT04865354|183512642|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority to be concluded if least squares means difference upper confidence limit is less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0034|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.009||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.||LSM results based on general linear mixed effects model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject as a random effect|Difference = PRECISION1 minus Clariti 1-Day|||0.009||
91818554|NCT00110812|183512651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|134.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|198.0||Adjusted for 3 pairwise comparisons.|ANOVA|stratified by geographic region and adjusted for baseline CD4.||||198|70|<.001
91818555|NCT00110812|183512651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|133.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|199.0||Adjusted for 3 pairwise comparisons.|ANOVA|stratified by geographic region and adjusted for baseline CD4.||||199|68|<.001
91947780|NCT02055976|183792941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.789||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.156|8.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||8.268|1.156|0.005
91818556|NCT00110812|183512653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.54|||ANOVA|stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA.||||.54|.08|.01
91818557|NCT00110812|183512653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.6|||ANOVA|stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA.||||.60|.12|.003
91818558|NCT00110812|183512654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|65.8||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with stratification by region and adjustment for baseline CD4||||||.009
91818559|NCT00110812|183512654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.2||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|stratified by region and adjusted for baseline CD4||||||.02
91818560|NCT00110812|183512657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.08||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|43.6|||Regression, Cox|Unadjusted, stratified by region.|Patients taking IL-2 alone compared to patients not taking IL-2.|||43.6|0.59|.14
91818561|NCT00110812|183512657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|53.6|||Regression, Cox|Unadjusted, stratified by region.|Patients taking IL-2 plus pericycle HAART compared to patients not receiving IL-2|||53.6|0.80|.08
91818562|NCT00110812|183512658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.99|||Regression, Cox||IL-2 without ART vs control group|||.99|.34|.048
91818563|NCT00110812|183512658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.62|||Regression, Cox||IL-2 with pericycle HAART compared to control|||.62|.17|<.001
91818564|NCT00110812|183512659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||ANOVA|Stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA||||0.64|0.03|.03
91818565|NCT00110812|183512659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||ANOVA|Stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA||||0.85|0.24|<.001
91818566|NCT00110812|183512662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.45|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by region.|IL-2 group compared to control group|||5.45|0.38|.59
91818567|NCT00110812|183512663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.4||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|Last measured CD4 is imputed if month 24 CD4 count is missing. Analysis is adjusted for baseline CD4.|IL-2 group minus control group CD4.|||||.05
91818568|NCT00110812|183512665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97|||Regression, Cox||IL-2 groups vs. control|||.97|.52|.03
91818569|NCT04476030|183512678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||-0.9|-3.0|0.0004
91818570|NCT04476030|183512679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||-0.5|-2.7|0.0054
91818571|NCT04476030|183512680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.2477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15||0.6|-2.2|0.2477
91818572|NCT04476030|183512680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.9248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 42||1.5|-1.6|0.9248
91818573|NCT04476030|183512681|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.8|-1.8|0.4458
91818574|NCT04476030|183512682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.69|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15|Generalized estimating equation is abbreviated as GEE in the method of estimation section.|1.69|0.78|0.4946
91818575|NCT04476030|183512682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.24|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 42||1.24|0.55|0.3579
91891193|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|5.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0001
91947781|NCT02055976|183792941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.035||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.844|9.932|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.932|1.844|0.002
91818576|NCT04476030|183512683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.24|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15||2.24|0.89|0.1417
91818577|NCT04476030|183512683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.44|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 42||1.44|0.62|0.7872
91818578|NCT04476030|183512684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.1|-0.4|0.1993
91818579|NCT04476030|183512685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.47|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 3||3.47|1.21|0.0079
91818580|NCT04476030|183512685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.62|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15||1.62|0.74|0.6588
91818581|NCT04476030|183512686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.8|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.8|-3.4|0.2322
91818582|NCT04476030|183512687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.68|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|||1.68|0.76|0.5439
91818583|NCT04476030|183512688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.69|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|||1.69|0.70|0.7054
91818584|NCT04476030|183512689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.7|-1.7|0.4188
91818585|NCT04476030|183512691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||1.0|-1.4|0.7758
91818586|NCT02342704|183512695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||Week 4||||0.1260
91818587|NCT02342704|183512695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3525|||||||negative binomial regression|p-value is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline GD lesion count||Week 4||||0.3525
91818588|NCT02342704|183512695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||Week 12||||0.0127
91818589|NCT02342704|183512695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0299|||||||negative binomial regression|p-value is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline GD lesion count||Week 12||||0.0299
91818590|NCT02342704|183512695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||Week 24||||0.0123
91818591|NCT02342704|183512695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|||||||negative binomial regression|p-value is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline GD lesion count||Week 24||||0.0076
91818592|NCT02342704|183512696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5318|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||T1 Lesion Volume Change||||0.5318
91818593|NCT02342704|183512696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0528|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||T2 Lesion Volume Change||||0.0528
91818594|NCT02342704|183512698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2632|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||||||0.2632
91818595|NCT01675882|183512757|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.81||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.11|||Fisher Exact|||The three pair-wise comparisons of viaskin peanut versus placebo were analyzed using the Bonferroni stepwise procedure, keeping the overall false-positive (alpha) risk below 5%. The comparison of viaskin peanut 250 µg versus placebo is statistically significant at p\<0.05. The subsequent comparison of viaskin peanut 100 µg versus placebo is not statistically significant at p\<0.05. Thus, no conclusion can be made on the comparison of viaskin peanut 50 µg vs placebo.||3.11|1.05|0.0292
91818596|NCT01675882|183512757|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.64||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.85|||Fisher Exact|||The three pair-wise comparisons of viaskin peanut versus placebo were analyzed using the Bonferroni stepwise procedure, keeping the overall false-positive (alpha) risk below 5%. The comparison of viaskin peanut 250 µg versus placebo is statistically significant at p\<0.05. The subsequent comparison of viaskin peanut 100 µg versus placebo is not statistically significant at p\<0.05.||2.85|0.95|0.1074
91818597|NCT01675882|183512757|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.0||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.38|||Fisher Exact|||The three pair-wise comparisons of viaskin peanut versus placebo were analyzed using the Bonferroni stepwise procedure, keeping the overall false-positive (alpha) risk below 5%. The comparison of viaskin peanut 250 µg versus placebo is statistically significant at p\<0.05.||3.38|1.18|0.0108
91818598|NCT01675882|183512758|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.95||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|6.49|||Fisher Exact|||||6.49|1.34|0.0035
91818599|NCT01675882|183512758|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.38||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.47|||Fisher Exact|||||5.47|1.04|0.0453
91818600|NCT01675882|183512758|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.77||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.14|||Fisher Exact|||||6.14|1.25|0.0076
91818601|NCT01675882|183512759|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.5||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.43|||Fisher Exact|||||4.43|0.51|0.7112
91818602|NCT01675882|183512759|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.47||||0.4048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.28|||Fisher Exact|||||2.28|0.10|0.4048
91818603|NCT01675882|183512759|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.75||||0.4705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.95|||Fisher Exact|||||4.95|0.62|0.4705
91818604|NCT01675882|183512760|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.5||||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.90|0.13|0.5921
91818605|NCT01675882|183512760|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.43||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.88|||Fisher Exact|||||2.88|0.71|0.3260
91818606|NCT01675882|183512760|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.38|||Fisher Exact|||||2.38|0.46|1.0000
91818607|NCT01675882|183512761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|70.2||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|193.69||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on log transformed values for peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The least squares (LS) mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||193.69|-2.41|0.0607
91818608|NCT01675882|183512761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|97.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.45|237.82||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||237.82|14.45|0.0150
91818609|NCT01675882|183512761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|242.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.03|482.65||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||482.65|100.03|<0.0001
91947782|NCT02055976|183792941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.153|13.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.349|5.153|<0.001
91947783|NCT02055976|183792941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.072||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.147|9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.380|1.147|0.006
91947784|NCT02055976|183792941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.843||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.402|8.728|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||8.728|1.402|0.004
91947785|NCT02055976|183792941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.413|8.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||8.780|1.413|0.004
91947786|NCT02055976|183792941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.832||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|7.943|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.943|0.658|0.011
91947787|NCT02055976|183792942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.525|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.373|18.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.405|8.373|<0.001
91947788|NCT02055976|183792942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.43|21.663|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||21.663|11.430|<0.001
91947789|NCT02055976|183792942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.137|18.438|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.438|8.137|<0.001
91947790|NCT02055976|183792942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.909||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.671|9.895|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.895|-1.671|0.081
91947791|NCT02055976|183792942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.927|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.743|15.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.377|3.743|<0.001
91947792|NCT02055976|183792942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.878|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.103|15.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.548|4.103|<0.001
91947793|NCT02055976|183792942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.326||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.395|16.612|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.612|3.395|0.002
91947794|NCT02055976|183792942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.367|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.56|22.943|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||22.943|9.560|<0.001
91947795|NCT02055976|183792942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.384||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.847|16.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.295|2.847|0.003
91947796|NCT02055976|183792942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.858||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.348|14.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.710|3.348|0.001
91818610|NCT01675882|183512762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|73.9||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|225.85||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||225.85|2.96|0.0372
91818611|NCT01675882|183512762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|96.7||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.92|278.11||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||278.11|12.92|0.0143
91818612|NCT01675882|183512762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|260.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.83|625.95||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||625.95|89.83|<0.0001
91818613|NCT01675882|183512763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|26.1||||0.6596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|236.0||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||236.00|-59.58|0.6596
91818614|NCT01675882|183512763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|8.9||||0.8702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.9|189.96||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||189.96|-65.90|0.8702
91818615|NCT01675882|183512763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|158.9||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|562.31||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||562.31|-5.50|0.0630
91818616|NCT01675882|183512764|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-80.2||||0.6776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.22|782.24||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||782.24|-237.22|0.6776
91818617|NCT01675882|183512764|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|158.8||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.1|1478.83||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1478.83|-166.10|0.5068
91818618|NCT01675882|183512764|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|53.8||||0.7972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-193.9|1085.38||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1085.38|-193.90|0.7972
91947797|NCT02055976|183792942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.876||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.827|14.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.260|2.827|0.002
91818619|NCT01675882|183512765|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|120.0||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|321.8||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for cumulative reactive dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline cumulative reactive dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean peanut protein cumulative reactive dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||321.80|2.30|0.0444
91818620|NCT01675882|183512765|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|147.6||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.67|365.51||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the cumulative reactive dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline cumulative reactive dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean peanut protein cumulative reactive dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||365.51|19.67|0.0175
91818621|NCT01675882|183512765|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|386.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|159.67|771.16||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the cumulative reactive dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline cumulative reactive dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean peanut protein cumulative reactive dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||771.16|159.67|<0.0001
91947798|NCT02055976|183792942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.252|14.544|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.544|3.252|0.001
91947799|NCT02055976|183792944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.311|-4.614|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-4.614|-10.311|<0.001
91947800|NCT02055976|183792944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.469|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-3.776|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-3.776|-9.610|<0.001
91947801|NCT02055976|183792944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.479|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.692|-5.817|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-5.817|-11.692|<0.001
91947802|NCT02055976|183792944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.773||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.596|3.451|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.451|-3.596|0.484
91947803|NCT02055976|183792944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.793||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.264|1.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.862|-5.264|0.173
91947804|NCT02055976|183792944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.761||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.452|1.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.546|-5.452|0.135
91947805|NCT02055976|183792944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.406||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||0.335|-9.230|0.034
91947806|NCT02055976|183792944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.617|-1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.910|-11.617|0.003
91818622|NCT01675882|183512766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.6||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.52||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the OFC symptom scores at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline OFC symptom scores, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean OFC score for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||0.52|-1.55|0.2510
91818623|NCT01675882|183512766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.2||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.05||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the OFC symptom scores at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline OFC symptom scores, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean OFC score for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1.05|-1.24|0.6820
91947807|NCT02055976|183792944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.458||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.836|-1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.066|-10.836|0.009
91947808|NCT02055976|183792944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.915||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.876|0.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||0.736|-6.876|0.056
91947809|NCT02055976|183792944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.937||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.408|1.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.293|-6.408|0.095
91947810|NCT02055976|183792944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.913||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.074|-1.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.469|-9.074|0.004
91947811|NCT02055976|183792945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.925|-17.836|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.836|-45.925|<0.001
91947812|NCT02055976|183792945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-29.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.571|-14.803|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-14.803|-43.571|<0.001
91947813|NCT02055976|183792945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-39.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.136|-25.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-25.178|-54.136|<0.001
91947814|NCT02055976|183792945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.601||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.713|22.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||22.350|-31.713|0.366
91947815|NCT02055976|183792945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.586||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.774|37.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||37.228|-16.774|0.773
91947816|NCT02055976|183792945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.362||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.206|23.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||23.915|-29.206|0.422
91947817|NCT02055976|183792945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.309||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.411|7.589|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.589|-33.411|0.107
91947818|NCT02055976|183792945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.461||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.923|-2.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.315|-43.923|0.015
91947819|NCT02055976|183792945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.535||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.108|3.789|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.789|-38.108|0.054
91947820|NCT02055976|183792945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.718||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.696|0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||0.865|-49.696|0.029
91818624|NCT01675882|183512766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.8||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.47||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the OFC symptom scores at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline OFC symptom scores, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean OFC score for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||2.47|-0.42|0.2117
91947821|NCT02055976|183792945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.705||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.541|18.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.968|-31.541|0.311
91947822|NCT02055976|183792945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.555||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.4|-7.485|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-7.485|-57.400|0.006
91947823|NCT02055976|183792947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-35.967|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.822|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.463|-14.472|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-14.472|-57.463|<0.001
91947824|NCT02055976|183792947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-29.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.044||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.123|-7.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-7.249|-51.123|0.005
91818625|NCT01675882|183512768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|17.4||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|38.82||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all Baseline covariates in the analysis set.||38.82|1.17|0.0337
91818626|NCT01675882|183512768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|26.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.38|49.45||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all Baseline covariates in the analysis set.||49.45|8.38|0.0020
91818627|NCT01675882|183512768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|20.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|40.91||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all Baseline covariates in the analysis set.||40.91|3.85|0.0120
91818628|NCT01675882|183512772|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.9||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1.90|0.72|<0.0001
91818629|NCT01675882|183512772|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.01||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||2.01|0.79|<0.0001
91818630|NCT01675882|183512772|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.11||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||3.11|1.39|<0.0001
91818631|NCT01451775|183512784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability study with standard bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%. Ratio calculated as empa 25mg fed divided by empa 25mg fasted.|Geometric mean ratio|84.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.856|87.344|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||87.344|80.856|
91818632|NCT01451775|183512784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an analysis of dose proportionality|Slope|0.9367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8988|0.9746||Does proportionality would be assumed if the 95% confidence interval includes one.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with logarithm of the dose fitted as a continuous covariate and sequence, subjects within sequence, period included as categorical variables.||||0.9746|0.8988|
91818633|NCT01451775|183512785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability study with standard bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%. Ratio calculated as empa 25mg fed divided by empa 25mg fasted.|Geometric mean ratio|63.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.736|70.439|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||70.439|56.736|
91818634|NCT01451775|183512785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an analysis of dose proportionality|Slope|0.9065|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8011|1.012||Does proportionality would be assumed if the 95% confidence interval includes one.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with logarithm of the dose fitted as a continuous covariate and sequence, subjects within sequence, period included as categorical variables.||||1.0120|0.8011|
91818635|NCT02016482|183512787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|43.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|53.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For US regulatory purposes, ranked first secondary endpoint.||53.6|32.8|< 0.001
91818636|NCT02016482|183512788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|53.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ranked sixth secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, this was the primary endpoint.||53.2|30.8|< 0.001
91818637|NCT02016482|183512789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-44.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|-36.0||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Ranked first secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked second secondary endpoint.||-36.0|-53.5|< 0.001
91818638|NCT02016482|183512790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ranked second secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked third secondary endpoint.||11.3|1.8|0.008
91818639|NCT02016482|183512791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Percent Change|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.0||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Ranked third secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked fourth secondary endpoint.||-2.0|-3.3|< 0.001
91818640|NCT02016482|183512792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.2||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Ranked fourth secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked fifth secondary endpoint.||-2.2|-3.6|< 0.001
91947825|NCT02055976|183792947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.175|-17.845|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.845|-62.175|<0.001
91947826|NCT02055976|183792947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.906||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.502|24.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||24.842|-18.502|0.614
91947827|NCT02055976|183792947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.067||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.554|13.427|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.427|-30.554|0.221
91947828|NCT02055976|183792947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.933||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.376|16.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.079|-27.376|0.303
91947829|NCT02055976|183792947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.53||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.882|6.875|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||6.875|-50.882|0.067
91947830|NCT02055976|183792947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.676||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.934|-12.588|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-12.588|-70.934|0.003
91947831|NCT02055976|183792947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-34.933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.832||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.41|-5.456|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-5.456|-64.410|0.010
91947832|NCT02055976|183792947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.978|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.725||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.282|5.326|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.326|-41.282|0.064
91947833|NCT02055976|183792947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.903||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.311|18.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.004|-29.311|0.318
91947834|NCT02055976|183792947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-19.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.807||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.902|4.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||4.032|-42.902|0.052
91818641|NCT02016482|183512793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|57.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|82.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ranked fifth secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked sixth secondary endpoint.||82.0|33.8|0.002
91947835|NCT02055976|183792948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.674|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.217|-10.731|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-10.731|-41.217|<0.001
91947836|NCT02055976|183792948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.831||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.665|-5.555|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-5.555|-36.665|0.004
91947837|NCT02055976|183792948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.917|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.758|-15.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-15.310|-46.758|<0.001
91947838|NCT02055976|183792948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.553||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.948|27.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||27.015|-10.948|0.799
91818642|NCT02016482|183512794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|43.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|55.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.2|31.3|< 0.001
91947839|NCT02055976|183792948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.682||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.748|16.727|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.727|-21.748|0.398
91947840|NCT02055976|183792948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.668|19.407|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||19.407|-18.668|0.515
91947841|NCT02055976|183792948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.801||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.549|7.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.437|-27.549|0.128
91947842|NCT02055976|183792948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.882||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.008|-6.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-6.695|-42.008|0.004
91947843|NCT02055976|183792948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.987||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.858|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.870|-32.858|0.049
91947844|NCT02055976|183792948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-13.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.326||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.368|4.709|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||4.709|-32.368|0.071
91947845|NCT02055976|183792948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.464||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.191|15.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.435|-22.191|0.361
91947846|NCT02055976|183792948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.389||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.698|3.629|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.629|-33.698|0.056
91947847|NCT02055976|183792950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-76.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.431|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.975|-65.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-65.403|-86.975|<0.001
91818643|NCT02016482|183512795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|44.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|56.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||56.5|33.2|< 0.001
91947848|NCT02055976|183792950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-95.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.556|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.238|-84.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-84.172|-106.238|<0.001
91947849|NCT02055976|183792950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-106.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.622|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.239|-94.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-94.915|-117.239|<0.001
91947850|NCT02055976|183792950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.622|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.39|-58.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.077|-84.390|<0.001
91947851|NCT02055976|183792950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-100.638|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.768|-87.508|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-87.508|-113.768|<0.001
91947852|NCT02055976|183792950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-103.386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.525|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.353|-90.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-90.420|-116.353|<0.001
91947853|NCT02055976|183792950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.382|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.813|-50.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-50.435|-71.813|<0.001
91947854|NCT02055976|183792950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-81.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.721|-70.954|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-70.954|-92.721|<0.001
91947855|NCT02055976|183792950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-89.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.567|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.74|-78.627|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-78.627|-100.740|<0.001
91947856|NCT02055976|183792950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-76.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.902|-64.593|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-64.593|-88.902|<0.001
91947857|NCT02055976|183792950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-100.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.781|-88.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-88.551|-112.781|<0.001
91947858|NCT02055976|183792950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-109.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.519|-97.462|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-97.462|-121.519|<0.001
91947859|NCT02055976|183792951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.473|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.671|-39.874|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.874|-53.671|<0.001
91947860|NCT02055976|183792951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.554|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.257|-52.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-52.143|-66.257|<0.001
91947861|NCT02055976|183792951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.595|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.007|-59.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-59.730|-74.007|<0.001
91947862|NCT02055976|183792951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.595|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.195|-32.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-32.908|-47.195|<0.001
91947863|NCT02055976|183792951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.135|-48.882|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.882|-63.135|<0.001
91947864|NCT02055976|183792951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-57.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.544|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.618|-50.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-50.533|-64.618|<0.001
91947865|NCT02055976|183792951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-37.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.389|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.721|-31.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-31.260|-44.721|<0.001
91818644|NCT02016482|183512796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|26.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.6|10.6|< 0.001
91818645|NCT02016482|183512797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|36.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|46.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.9|25.0|< 0.001
91818646|NCT02016482|183512798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|20.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.0|6.5|<0.001
91818647|NCT02016482|183512799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.8||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-2.8|-4.3|< 0.001
91818648|NCT02016482|183512800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-30.8||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-30.8|-46.9|< 0.001
91818649|NCT02016482|183512801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-23.7||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-23.7|-33.5|< 0.001
91818650|NCT02016482|183512802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-41.9||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-41.9|-58.3|< 0.001
91818651|NCT02016482|183512803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|12.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|2.4|0.004
91818652|NCT02016482|183512804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|26.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.8|10.1|< 0.001
91818653|NCT02016482|183512805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.9||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-3.1|< 0.001
91818654|NCT02016482|183512806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-30.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-30.4|-50.0|< 0.001
91818655|NCT02016482|183512807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-15.3||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-15.3|-23.6|< 0.001
91818656|NCT02016482|183512808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-6.1||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-6.1|-10.0|< 0.001
91818657|NCT02016482|183512809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.3|-55.0||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-55.0|-87.3|< 0.001
91818658|NCT02016482|183512810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.6|63.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 75||63.5|38.6|< 0.001
91818659|NCT02016482|183512810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|65.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 50||65.0|39.9|< 0.001
91818660|NCT02016482|183512810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|52.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 90||52.9|29.0|< 0.001
91818661|NCT02016482|183512810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|36.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 100||36.9|15.8|< 0.001
91818662|NCT02016482|183512811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|52.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|63.7||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.7|40.8|< 0.001
91818663|NCT02016482|183512812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|34.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|15.3|< 0.001
91818664|NCT02016482|183512813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|90.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.5|108.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||108.3|72.5|< 0.001
91947866|NCT02055976|183792951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-50.856|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.451|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.709|-44.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-44.002|-57.709|<0.001
91947867|NCT02055976|183792951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.505|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.315|-49.393|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.393|-63.315|<0.001
91947868|NCT02055976|183792951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.647|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.417|-35.926|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.926|-50.417|<0.001
91947869|NCT02055976|183792951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.698|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.633|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.916|-49.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.480|-63.916|<0.001
91947870|NCT02055976|183792951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.477|-54.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.134|-68.477|<0.001
91947871|NCT02055976|183792953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.69928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13216|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96175|-1.43682|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.43682|-1.96175|<0.001
91947872|NCT02055976|183792953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.07922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13446|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34622|-1.81223|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.81223|-2.34622|<0.001
91947873|NCT02055976|183792953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.23886|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13553|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.50795|-1.96978|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.96978|-2.50795|<0.001
91947874|NCT02055976|183792953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.43281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16311|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75689|-1.10872|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.10872|-1.75689|<0.001
91818665|NCT02016482|183512814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-8.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-8.4|-13.9|< 0.001
91818666|NCT02016482|183512815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-80.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.9|-63.3||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-63.3|-97.9|< 0.001
91947875|NCT02055976|183792953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.01501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33718|-1.69283|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.69283|-2.33718|<0.001
91947876|NCT02055976|183792953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.11359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4323|-1.79489|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.79489|-2.43230|<0.001
91818667|NCT02016482|183512816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-37.8||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-37.8|-64.0|< 0.001
91818668|NCT02016482|183512817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.1|-42.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-42.4|-73.1|< 0.001
91818669|NCT02016482|183512818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.001
91818670|NCT02016482|183512819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-21.6||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-21.6|-33.9|< 0.001
91947877|NCT02055976|183792953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.35298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62324|-1.08271|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.08271|-1.62324|<0.001
91947878|NCT02055976|183792953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.79615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1379|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07001|-1.52229|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.52229|-2.07001|<0.001
91947879|NCT02055976|183792953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.86921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13927|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14575|-1.59266|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.59266|-2.14575|<0.001
91947880|NCT02055976|183792953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.57311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14333|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85788|-1.28834|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.28834|-1.85788|<0.001
91947881|NCT02055976|183792953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.00256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28521|-1.7199|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.71990|-2.28521|<0.001
91947882|NCT02055976|183792953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.20298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14142|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48399|-1.92197|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.92197|-2.48399|<0.001
91947883|NCT02055976|183792954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.92915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55052|-36.30778|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-36.30778|-47.55052|<0.001
91947884|NCT02055976|183792954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.08604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88356|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.81235|-45.35973|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-45.35973|-56.81235|<0.001
91947885|NCT02055976|183792954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91014|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.29424|-49.73777|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.73777|-61.29424|<0.001
91947886|NCT02055976|183792954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.30375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07498|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.41376|-27.19373|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-27.19373|-39.41376|<0.001
91947887|NCT02055976|183792954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.8521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05746|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.92668|-41.77751|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-41.77751|-53.92668|<0.001
91947888|NCT02055976|183792954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-48.65686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6606|-42.65313|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.65313|-54.66060|<0.001
91947889|NCT02055976|183792954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.5292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96599|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.42015|-27.63826|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-27.63826|-39.42015|<0.001
91947890|NCT02055976|183792954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.8568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.00531|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.82617|-37.88744|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-37.88744|-49.82617|<0.001
91818671|NCT02016482|183512820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-4.5||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-4.5|-7.8|< 0.001
91947891|NCT02055976|183792954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.36865|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.40589|-40.33142|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-40.33142|-52.40589|<0.001
91947892|NCT02055976|183792954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-38.06019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1361|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.29176|-31.82863|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-31.82863|-44.29176|<0.001
91947893|NCT02055976|183792954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-48.57807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.76397|-42.39217|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.39217|-54.76397|<0.001
91947894|NCT02055976|183792954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.87214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09363|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.01968|-45.7246|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-45.72460|-58.01968|<0.001
91947895|NCT02055976|183792956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02639|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38399|-0.27916|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.27916|-0.38399|<0.001
91947896|NCT02055976|183792956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02682|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49727|-0.39077|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.39077|-0.49727|<0.001
91947897|NCT02055976|183792956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.48314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02698|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53671|-0.42956|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.42956|-0.53671|<0.001
91947898|NCT02055976|183792956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.30542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0323|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3696|-0.24124|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.24124|-0.36960|<0.001
91947899|NCT02055976|183792956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03183|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.50466|-0.37821|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.37821|-0.50466|<0.001
91947900|NCT02055976|183792956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03148|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52491|-0.3998|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.39980|-0.52491|<0.001
91947901|NCT02055976|183792956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02615|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32142|-0.21755|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.21755|-0.32142|<0.001
91818672|NCT02016482|183512821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|24.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DLQI = 0||24.3|7.1|< 0.001
91947902|NCT02055976|183792956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.37493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02649|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42754|-0.32231|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.32231|-0.42754|<0.001
91947903|NCT02055976|183792956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.41199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02676|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46512|-0.35886|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.35886|-0.46512|<0.001
91947904|NCT02055976|183792956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02979|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37723|-0.25888|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.25888|-0.37723|<0.001
91947905|NCT02055976|183792956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.42583|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02932|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48409|-0.36758|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.36758|-0.48409|<0.001
91947906|NCT02055976|183792956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02912|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51287|-0.39715|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.39715|-0.51287|<0.001
91947907|NCT02055976|183792957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-49.42411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72907|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.83019|-42.01803|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.01803|-56.83019|<0.001
91947908|NCT02055976|183792957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.63383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7905|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.16086|-59.10681|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-59.10681|-74.16086|<0.001
91947909|NCT02055976|183792957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.72901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81541|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.30431|-64.15371|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-64.15371|-79.30431|<0.001
91947910|NCT02055976|183792957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.56596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92236|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.35899|-35.77293|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.77293|-51.35899|<0.001
91947911|NCT02055976|183792957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-62.34926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86432|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.02607|-54.67245|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.67245|-70.02607|<0.001
91947912|NCT02055976|183792957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-65.06617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82052|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.65818|-57.47415|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.47415|-72.65818|<0.001
91947913|NCT02055976|183792957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.52435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66973|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.81299|-33.23571|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.23571|-47.81299|<0.001
91947914|NCT02055976|183792957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.14495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71641|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.52668|-48.76322|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.76322|-63.52668|<0.001
91947915|NCT02055976|183792957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.5637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7569|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0251|-54.1023|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.10230|-69.02510|<0.001
91947916|NCT02055976|183792957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.34109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16385|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.61427|-38.06792|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-38.06792|-54.61427|<0.001
91947917|NCT02055976|183792957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.3789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.52338|-53.23443|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-53.23443|-69.52338|<0.001
91947918|NCT02055976|183792957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-64.67274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06866|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.75728|-56.5882|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-56.58820|-72.75728|<0.001
91818673|NCT02016482|183512821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|37.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DLQI = 0/1||37.4|16.7|< 0.001
91818674|NCT02016482|183512822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.5||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Absenteeism||2.5|-1.0|0.416
91818675|NCT02016482|183512822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-11.6||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||-11.6|-22.9|< 0.001
91818676|NCT02016482|183512822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-9.3||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Overall work impairment||-9.3|-21.0|< 0.001
91818677|NCT02016482|183512822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-15.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Activity impairment||-15.4|-27.3|< 0.001
91947919|NCT02504424|183792969|OTHER||percent of breasts successfully exchange|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Success includes all breasts which were exchanged successfully in the Per Protocol Cohort, excluding non-device related failures. The Treatment Success Rate per breast is 100% (80/80). Note: Denominator = 80 (86 implanted breasts - 6 breasts). Failed exchange = 4 breasts (non-device related) \& Missing = 2 breasts (patient non-compliant w/study and withdrew consent after treatment).||||
91947920|NCT02504424|183792969|OTHER||% breasts successfully exchanged|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||Sensitivity Analysis (Best / Worst Case): Treatment Success by subject for the Per Protocol cohort includes all failures (excluding non-device related failures). The best case analysis considers success if the subject has at least one breast successfully reconstructed, and the worst case analysis considers it a failure if at least one breast has failed. The treatment success by subject is 100% for both best and worst case analysis.||||
91947921|NCT02504424|183792970|OTHER||% breasts successfully exchanged|95.2|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||Secondary analysis is repeated including all breasts in the PP cohort (including non-device related failures). The Treatment Success Rate by breast, based on the Per Protocol cohort, including all cause failures, is 95.2% (80/84). One subject (2 breasts) are not included in analysis as subject withdrew from the study prior to exchange of her expanders.||||
91947922|NCT04259749|183792977|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.4|||||Adjusted for age, education, lifetime use of tobacco products.|||3.40|0.58|
91947923|NCT04259749|183792977|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.63|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||5.63|0.92|
91818678|NCT02016482|183512823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|0.1|< 0.001
91818679|NCT02016482|183512824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||9.8|1.2|0.012
91947924|NCT04259749|183792978|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.07|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||4.07|0.61|
91947925|NCT04259749|183792978|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.02|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||9.02|1.32|
91947926|NCT04259749|183792979|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.68|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco|||3.68|.59|
91818680|NCT02016482|183512825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS anxiety score||-0.1|-2.0|0.025
91947927|NCT04259749|183792979|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.42|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products.|||6.42|1.05|
91818681|NCT02016482|183512825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS depression score||-0.4|-2.3|0.005
91818682|NCT02016482|183512826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Chi-squared|||||6|-0.9|0.164
91818683|NCT02016482|183512827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.1||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-3.4|< 0.001
91818684|NCT00606892|183512828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Significant treatment or treatment-by-time interactions were followed up by post hoc comparisons of placebo vs. varenicline for time (Pre- vs. Post-Nicotine infusion) and testing block (Smoking Block vs. Negative Affect Block).|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect repeated-measures crossover model with fixed main effect terms of treatment (placebo or varenicline) and time of measurement (Pre-Nicotine or Post-Nicotine) was utilized. Interactions between main effect terms were also analyzed.||||<0.05
91818685|NCT00606892|183512829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.0|<|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|F(1,10)=1.1||||||<0.3
91947928|NCT04259749|183792980|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.49|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco|||2.49|.47|
91947929|NCT04259749|183792980|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.31|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||3.31|.62|
91947930|NCT04259749|183792981|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.14|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||4.14|.72|
91947931|NCT04259749|183792981|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.95|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products.|||4.95|.83|
91947932|NCT04259749|183792982|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.18|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.18|.40|
91947933|NCT04259749|183792982|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.71|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||5.71|.73|
91947934|NCT04259749|183792983|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.75|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.75|.66|
91947935|NCT04259749|183792983|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.29|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco|||8.29|1.13|
91947936|NCT04259749|183792984|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.7|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.70|.51|
91947937|NCT04259749|183792984|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.31|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.31|.85|
91947938|NCT04259749|183792985|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.26|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.26|.29|
91947939|NCT04259749|183792985|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|7.06|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||7.06|.57|
91947940|NCT04259749|183792986|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.31|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.31|.33|
91947941|NCT04259749|183792986|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.83|7.13|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||7.13|.83|
91947942|NCT04259749|183792987|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.14|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.14|.72|
91947943|NCT04259749|183792987|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.95|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.95|.83|
91947944|NCT03922945|183792996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91818686|NCT00606892|183512830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant, based on 2-tailed tests. Significant treatment, or treatment-by-time interactions were followed by post hoc comparisons. To account for multiple testing, significance was set at p\<0.016.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect repeated-measures crossover model including fixed main effects for treatment condition (placebo or varenicline), time of measurement and interactions between treatment and time, was utilized. Because multiple measurements were collected before and after each nicotine dose, a change score (maximum post dose score - pre dose baseline) was used in the analysis.||||<0.05
91947945|NCT03922945|183792997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0017
91947946|NCT03922945|183793004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7465|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7465
91947947|NCT00313716|183793007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"H0: Proportion of participants expected to have a favorable GOS outcome in the Epo2 group - in Placebo group is \>= 0.2.~H1: Proportion in Epo2 group - in Placebo group \< 0.2"|Futility analysis|||The primary analysis plan was a futility trial of the Epo 2 regimen arm. We hypothesized that 30% of subjects in the placebo group would have a favorable outcome at six months and there would be no interaction between the Epo and the transfusion threshold groups. Using a one-sided alpha of 0.15, a sample size of 62 subjects in the Epo 2 regimen group and 100 subjects in the placebo group provided 91% power to test the futility hypothesis.||||.01
91947948|NCT00313716|183793007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||"H0: Proportion of participants expected to have a favorable GOS outcome in the Epo1 group - in Placebo group is \>= 0.2.~H1: Proportion in Epo1 group - in Placebo group \< 0.2"|Futility analysis|||The primary analysis plan was a futility trial of the Epo 1 regimen arm. We hypothesized that 30% of subjects in the placebo group would have a favorable outcome at six months and there would be no interaction between the Epo and the transfusion threshold groups.||||0.13
91947949|NCT00313716|183793007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||2-sample test of proportions|||We hypothesized that 40% of the patients in the TT7 group would have a favorable GOS score and that there would be no interaction between the Epo and TT groups. Assuming a 2-sided test with an alpha level of 0.05, we estimated that a sample size of 200 patients would provide 80% power to detect a 20% absolute increase in the GOS score for the TT10 group.||||.34
91947950|NCT00313716|183793008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
91947951|NCT00313716|183793009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Log Rank|||||||.25
91947952|NCT00313716|183793009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||||||.75
91947953|NCT00313716|183793009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||.72
91947954|NCT00313716|183793010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.45|||Regression, Cox|||||3.45|.93|.08
91947955|NCT00313716|183793011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||2-sample test - equality of proportions|||||.05|-.22|.26
91947956|NCT03521089|183793037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0039
91947957|NCT03521089|183793037|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91947958|NCT03521089|183793037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0156
91947959|NCT03521089|183793038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9674|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9674
91947960|NCT03521089|183793038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0938
91947961|NCT03521089|183793038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2500
91947962|NCT03521089|183793039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0067
91947963|NCT03521089|183793039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
91947964|NCT03521089|183793039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7500
91947965|NCT03521089|183793040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3069|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3069
91947966|NCT03521089|183793040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1875
91947967|NCT03521089|183793040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7188
91947968|NCT03521089|183793041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2609|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2609
91947969|NCT03521089|183793041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
91947970|NCT03521089|183793041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0156
91947971|NCT03521089|183793042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6951|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6951
91947972|NCT03521089|183793042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0938
91947973|NCT03521089|183793042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0938
91947974|NCT03521089|183793043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3592|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3592
91947975|NCT03521089|183793043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
91947976|NCT03521089|183793043|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91947977|NCT00772031|183793074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4|||ANCOVA|covariate adjustments: study site, baseline mod-to-sev 28-day headache-rate, topiramate use, medication overuse, and anti-depressive medications use.|Topiramate plus placebo mean reduction minus topiramate plus propranolol reduction|The study was designed to enroll 250 subjects to provide at least 90% power to detect a 3-day difference and 87% power to detect a 2.5-day difference in 28-day moderate-to-severe headache rate reductions at six months, assuming a type I error rate of 0.05, a two-sided test, a 10% loss to follow-up and a standard deviation of within-person change in days with headache of six.||2.4|-1.8|0.77
91947978|NCT00772031|183793075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.78||||||||2.78|0.75|
91947979|NCT00772031|183793076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.5|2.02||||||||2.02|0.50|
91947980|NCT00772031|183793078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75||0.91||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.91
91947981|NCT03474380|183793092|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a negative binomial distribution and a log link was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and site. The final model was adjusted for Veteran characteristics, including age, gender, race, marital status, service connection, rural status, and chronic disease burden concurrence score (Nosos).|rate ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.09|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)||Rate ratio, rate of days not in the community in 6 month intervals in intervention versus usual care.|Days not at home in 6 month intervals.||1.09|0.31|0.091
91947982|NCT03474380|183793093|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods), site, and indicator for the time point of the survey, and an indicator for the interaction of the time point of the survey with the time-varying indicator for treatment. The final model was adjusted for caregiver characteristics.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated mean difference from baseline to 3 months between usual care and intervention.|||0.8|-0.7|0.98
91947983|NCT03474380|183793094|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods), site, and indicator for the time point of the survey, and an indicator for the interaction of the time point of the survey with the time-varying indicator for treatment. The final model was adjusted for caregiver characteristics.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated mean difference from baseline to 3 months between usual care and intervention.|||1.0|-0.2|0.167
91947984|NCT03474380|183793095|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods), site, and indicator for the time point of the survey, and an indicator for the interaction of the time point of the survey with the time-varying indicator for treatment. The final model was adjusted for caregiver characteristics.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated mean difference from baseline to 3 months between usual care and intervention.|||0.1|-1.0|0.122
91947985|NCT01101321|183793096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|104.96|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||104.96|96.14|
91947986|NCT01101321|183793097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.44|101.73|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.73|95.44|
91947987|NCT01101321|183793098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.42|101.7|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.70|95.42|
91947988|NCT00542321|183793099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference between proportions|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Chi-Square = 0.750, df = 1||Pearson Chi-Square Test for difference between groups||||1.00
91947989|NCT00542321|183793100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rank sums|52.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Alpha = .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||There will be no difference in duration of mechanical ventilation between groups.||||1.0
91947990|NCT00542321|183793101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.451
91947991|NCT00542321|183793102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.43||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91947992|NCT00542321|183793103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rank sums|56.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91947993|NCT01111058|183793117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in survival proportions|0.0022||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.33|||Comparison of Kaplan-Meier estimates|Used Greenwood standard errors||||0.33|-0.33|0.90
91947994|NCT01111058|183793117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
91947995|NCT01111058|183793118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.086
91947996|NCT01856920|183793126|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha= 0.05||||||0.376|||||||Rank-Sum|||||||0.3760
91947997|NCT02790476|183793128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-17.63||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (288.36-347.65 = -59.29) and control (318.60-350.09 = -31.49) arms, resulting in a difference of -27.80.|1-3 months post intervention||-17.63|-38.20|<0.05
91947998|NCT02790476|183793128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.42|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-6.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (167.83-347.65 = -179.83) and control (182.67-350.09 = -167.41) arms, resulting in a difference of -12.42.|||-6.55|-18.40|<0.01
91947999|NCT02790476|183793129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.22||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (3.45-3.74 = -0.29) and control (3.45-4.59= -0.64) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.35.|Change in mean number of =\> 50 MME prescriptions pre- to 1-3 months post-intervention||0.22|-0.92|0.224
91948000|NCT02790476|183793129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (3.00-3.74 = -0.74) and control (3.15-4.59= -1.44) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.70.|Change in mean number of =\> 50 MME prescriptions pre- to 4-12 months post-intervention||-0.33|-1.08|<0.001
91948001|NCT02790476|183793129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (2.00-2.14 = -0.14) and control (2.20-2.55= -0.35) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.21.|Change in mean number of \> 90 MME prescriptions pre- to 1-3 months post-intervention||0.17|-0.59|0.279
91948002|NCT02790476|183793129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.12||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (1.71-2.14 = -0.43) and control (1.74-2.55= -0.81) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.38.|Change in mean number of \> 90 MME prescriptions pre- to 4-12 months post-intervention||-0.12|-0.63|<0.01
91948003|NCT02790476|183793130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Pre-intervention values were trimmed at 95% with bootstrapped means and confidence intervals.|This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean DME in the letter (72.3-76 = -3.7) and control (82-82.9 = -0.9) arms, resulting in a difference of -1.6.|||-0.1|-3.2|<0.05
91948004|NCT02790476|183793132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (2.44-3.72 = -1.28) and control (2.26-3.51= -1.25) arms, resulting in a difference of 0.03.|Change in mean number of new patients pre- to 1-3 months post-intervention||0.29|-0.23|0.823
91948005|NCT02790476|183793132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (2.08-3.72 = -1.64) and control (1.84-3.51= -1.67) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.03.|Change in mean number of new patients pre- to 4-12 months post-intervention||0.14|-0.20|0.692
91948006|NCT03287089|183793166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.43|||Chi-squared|||||2.43|0.49|0.84
91948007|NCT03287089|183793167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
91948008|NCT03287089|183793168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.68
91948009|NCT00783263|183793169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|-10.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|Longitudinal Data Analysis was based on a constrained LDA model with terms for treatment, time, stratum and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-10.60|-19.89|<0.001
91948010|NCT00783263|183793170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|-5.67|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|Longitudinal Data Analysis was based on a constrained LDA model with terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-5.67|-18.95|<0.001
91948011|NCT00783263|183793170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.92|-10.99|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|Longitudinal Data Analysis was based on a constrained LDA model with terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-10.99|-23.92|<0.001
91948012|NCT00783263|183793171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.9|||Logistic Regression|Logistic Regression included terms for treatment, stratum and baseline LDL-C category (3 levels: \<100, 100-\<130, ≥130 mg/dL).||||6.9|2.9|<0.001
91948013|NCT00783263|183793172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.8|||Logistic Regression|Logistic Regression included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C category (3 levels: \<100, 100-\<130, \>=130 mg/dL).||||5.8|1.7|<0.001
91948014|NCT00783263|183793172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|12.3|||Logistic Regression|Logistic Regression included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C category (3 levels: \<100, 100-\<130, \>=130 mg/dL).||||12.3|3.4|<0.001
91948015|NCT00783263|183793173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|14.0|||Logistic Regression|||||14.0|4.6|<0.001
91948016|NCT00783263|183793174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|11.8|||Logistic Regression|||Stratum I||11.8|2.2|<0.001
91948017|NCT00783263|183793174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|24.8|||Logistic Regression|||Stratum II||24.8|5.2|<0.001
91948018|NCT00783263|183793175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.59|-5.71|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Total Cholesterol (mg/dL)||-5.71|-11.59|<0.001
91948019|NCT00783263|183793175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|2.84|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Triglycerides (mg/dL)||2.84|-9.04|0.306
91948020|NCT00783263|183793175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|0.49|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol||0.49|-4.79|0.111
91948021|NCT00783263|183793175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-7.86|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Non High-Density Liproprotein Cholesterol||-7.86|-16.10|<0.001
91948022|NCT00783263|183793175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|-8.13|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||LDL Cholesterol/HDL Cholesterol||-8.13|-18.36|<0.001
91818687|NCT00606892|183512831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Post hoc comparisons of effects of varenicline versus placebo for different nicotine doses were performed and significance was adjusted for multiple testing using a p value of P\<0.016|ANOVA|Two-tailed tests were applied for main effects with P\<0.05||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures, crossover model was used with fixed main effects for treatment (placebo or varenicline), and time after treatment. Interactions between main effects were also analyzed.||||<0.05
91948023|NCT00783263|183793175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-2.36|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Total Cholesterol/HDL Cholesterol||-2.36|-10.53|0.002
91948024|NCT00783263|183793175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.75|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholestrol/HDL Cholesterol||-3.75|-15.30|0.001
91948025|NCT00783263|183793175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|-6.08|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B (Apo B)||-6.08|-12.74|<0.001
91948026|NCT00783263|183793175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|0.36|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Apolipoprotein A-I (Apo A-I)||0.36|-3.99|0.102
91948027|NCT00783263|183793175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-3.83|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B/Apo A-I||-3.83|-11.25|<0.001
91948028|NCT00783263|183793175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.13|10.97|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||hs-C-Reactive Protein||10.97|-13.13|0.861
91948029|NCT03018028|183793178|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
91948030|NCT03018028|183793178|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.2|-1.7|<0.0001
91948031|NCT03018028|183793178|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.0|<0.0001
91948032|NCT03018028|183793178|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|0.3||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.0|0.0799
91818688|NCT04681482|183512888|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.7|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to compare the risk of MB between cohorts.||0.70|0.54|<0.001
91948033|NCT03018028|183793178|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.1||||0.3942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|0.3942
91818689|NCT04681482|183512890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to compare the risk of stroke/SE between cohorts.||1.03|0.66|0.088
91818690|NCT04681482|183512892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to compare the risk of net clinical benefit between cohorts.||0.76|0.60|<0.001
91818691|NCT00896337|183512901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||9-month major adverse event rate|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.5||A one-sided exact-test was used to test the hypothesis that the primary endpoint rate in the Epic-treated cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 17.0%.|One-sided exact-test|||MAE rate was compared to a predefined performance goal of 17.0%, based on literature-derived expected rate of 8.0% for iliac stenting plus a 9.0% margin. Study had 87% statistical power to show the MAE rate (accounting for 9-month attrition of \<=15%) is less than the performance goal, assuming a 9-month MAE rate of 8.0%. If the exact one-sided 95% upper confidence bound of the observed rate is lower than the performance goal, the Epic stent would be considered to have acceptable performance.||8.5|0.9|<0.0001
91818692|NCT02531321|183512968|OTHER|Unpaired t test with Welch's correction|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91818693|NCT01113879|183512972|OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|85.0|||||Weighted Tau U|||Weighted Tau U effect size mean values in Block 1 of treatment (no aerobic exercise or stretching) were compared to weighted Tau U mean values in Block 2 of treatment (aerobic exercise or stretching adjuvant).||||< 0.001
91818694|NCT00082433|183513007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0005||95.0|0.69|0.9|||Log Rank|||The analysis was conducted when 903 progressions or deaths (446 in combination:457 in capecitabine) were observed in 960 participants.||.90|.69|.0005
91818695|NCT00082433|183513008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.44|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.50|1.44|<.0001
91818696|NCT00082433|183513012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wei-Lachin|||There was a statistically significant difference between groups in change from baseline FBSI score favoring capecitabine. A mean change from baseline of 2.5 was considered a clinically meaningful difference (minimally important difference or MID). On-treatment mean changes in the FBSI did not reach the MID in either group.||||<0.0001
91818697|NCT00082433|183513013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1162||95.0|0.78|1.03||The test was stratified by (taxane resistance \[yes/no\], measurable disease versus non-measurable disease, prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease \[yes/no\], and anthracycline resistance \[yes/no\]).|Log Rank|The analysis was conducted at the 0.05 level and no adjustments were performed||This primary analysis was a comparison between the 2 treatment arms using a 2-sided, α=0.05 level log-rank test (to reject the null hypothesis of equality of survival). The analysis was conducted when 880 deaths (430 in combination:450 in capecitabine) were observed from the 1221 randomized participants.||1.03|.78|.1162
91818698|NCT00082433|183513013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0231||95.0|0.75|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||This prespecified secondary analysis was a Cox model adjusted for age, Karnofsky performance status, number of organ sites, estrogen receptor status, hepatic impairment, time from diagnosis, liver/lung metastases.||.98|.75|.0231
91818699|NCT01796197|183513016|SUPERIORITY||Pathelogic Complete Response Rate|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Two stage design, exact method||Decision Rule: If the percentage of participants experiencing pathologic complete response (pCR) is ≤ 15% then the preoperative regimen is considered minimally effective. If the proportion of pCR ≥ 40% then the regimen is worthy of further study.|Null Hypothesis: pCR rate is less than or equal to 15% Alternative Hypothesis: pCR rate is greater than or equal to 40% Hypothesized False Positive Rate (alpha) : 3.9% Hypothesized False Negative Rate (1-beta) : 9.9%||||
91818700|NCT00244712|183513049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the ABC/3TC to the TDF/FTC would be declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL at Week 48 \[ABC/3TC minus TDF/FTC\] was -12% or greater.|difference in response percentage|0.39||||0.913||95.0|-6.63|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response percentage = percentage in Arm 1 minus percentage in Arm 2|||7.40|-6.63|0.913
91818701|NCT02818218|183513082|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.0005||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.161|0.17|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CVP. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CVP, and vice versa|||0.170|-0.161|0.944
91818702|NCT02818218|183513083|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.11|0.42|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CVP. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CVP, and vice versa|||0.42|0.11|<0.001
91818703|NCT02818218|183513084|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.19|0.48|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CVP. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CVP, and vice versa|||0.48|0.19|<0.001
91818704|NCT02818218|183513086|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.07||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.1|0.24|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CI. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CI, and vice versa|||0.24|-0.10|0.298
91818705|NCT02818218|183513087|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.05|0.37|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CI. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CI, and vice versa|||0.37|0.05|0.002
91818706|NCT02818218|183513088|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.17|0.47|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CI. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CI, and vice versa|||0.47|0.17|<0.001
91818707|NCT02970968|183513099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0099
91818708|NCT02970968|183513100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0160
91818709|NCT02970968|183513101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.039
91818710|NCT02970968|183513102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0223
91818711|NCT02970968|183513103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0497|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0497
91818712|NCT02970968|183513104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0207
91818713|NCT02970968|183513105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0429|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0429
91818714|NCT02970968|183513106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
91818715|NCT02970968|183513107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0003
91818716|NCT02970968|183513108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.023
91818717|NCT02970968|183513109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0078
91818718|NCT02970968|183513110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0294
91818719|NCT02970968|183513111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0229
91818720|NCT02970968|183513112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0018
91818721|NCT02970968|183513113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0013
91818722|NCT02970968|183513114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0001
91818723|NCT02970968|183513115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.018
91948034|NCT03018028|183793178|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.3||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurement||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.0|-0.6|0.0272
91818724|NCT02970968|183513116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0164|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0164
91818725|NCT02970968|183513117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0053
91818726|NCT02970968|183513118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0020
91818727|NCT03003520|183513121|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91818728|NCT03003520|183513121|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.477||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their CD8 density.||||0.872
91818729|NCT03003520|183513122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0403
91818730|NCT03003520|183513122|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.583||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their PDL1 % of total cells.||||0.523
91818731|NCT03003520|183513123|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91818732|NCT03003520|183513123|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.583||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their PDL1 % of tumor cells.||||0.557
91818733|NCT03003520|183513124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
91818734|NCT03003520|183513124|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.6||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their IFNG-Score.||||0.399
91818735|NCT01332149|183513127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.01|-0.58|0.0559
91818736|NCT01332149|183513128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.0||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.00|-0.47|0.0527
91818737|NCT01332149|183513128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.03||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.03|-0.50|0.0279
91818738|NCT01332149|183513128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.00|-0.48|0.0508
91818739|NCT01332149|183513128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.02|-0.49|0.0349
91818740|NCT01332149|183513128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.02|-0.46|0.0672
91818741|NCT01332149|183513128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.00|-0.48|0.0469
91948035|NCT03018028|183793178|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
91948036|NCT03018028|183793178|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
91948037|NCT03018028|183793178|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.1|-1.7|<0.0001
91948038|NCT03018028|183793178|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|0.2||||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.5|-0.1|0.1958
91948039|NCT03018028|183793178|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.2||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.1|-0.5|0.1868
91948040|NCT03018028|183793178|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.4||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-0.7|0.0077
91948041|NCT03018028|183793205|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.40|0.29|0.2579
91948042|NCT03018028|183793205|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.66||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.66|0.10|0.0052
91818742|NCT01332149|183513128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.03||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.03|-0.51|0.0280
91818743|NCT01332149|183513128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.06||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.06|-0.54|0.0140
91818744|NCT01332149|183513128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.01||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 9 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.01|-0.49|0.0375
91818745|NCT01332149|183513128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.05||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Overall change was estimated from the mixed effect model treatment main effect.|Overall change from baseline analysis. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.05|-0.46|0.0164
91818746|NCT01332149|183513130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.07|-0.49|0.1340
91818747|NCT01332149|183513131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.13||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.13|-0.37|0.3438
91818748|NCT01332149|183513131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.10|-0.40|0.2482
91818749|NCT01332149|183513131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.10|-0.41|0.2249
91818750|NCT01332149|183513131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.05|-0.46|0.1094
91818751|NCT01332149|183513131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.09|-0.41|0.2095
91818752|NCT01332149|183513131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.00|-0.50|0.0531
91818753|NCT01332149|183513131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.07|-0.44|0.1628
91818754|NCT01332149|183513131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.02||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.02|-0.48|0.0770
91818755|NCT01332149|183513131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 9 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.07|-0.43|0.1651
91818756|NCT01332149|183513131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.04||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall change from baseline analysis. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.04|-0.40|0.1006
91948043|NCT03018028|183793205|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.87|0.11|0.0259
91948044|NCT03018028|183793205|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|7.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||7.80|0.93|0.0674
91948045|NCT03018028|183793205|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.54||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||3.54|0.32|0.9087
91948046|NCT03018028|183793205|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.62||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||4.62|0.38|0.6498
91948047|NCT03018028|183793206|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.86||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.86|0.14|0.0219
91948048|NCT03018028|183793206|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.44||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.44|0.05|0.0005
91948049|NCT03018028|183793206|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.7||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.70|0.07|0.0098
91948050|NCT03018028|183793206|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.95||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|11.46||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||11.46|0.76|0.1193
91818757|NCT01332149|183513132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.74||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for center.||||1.74|0.93|0.1309
91818758|NCT01332149|183513135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.628||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||-0.05|-6.45|0.0463
91818759|NCT01332149|183513136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.2748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.05|-0.19|0.2748
91818760|NCT01332149|183513138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.577||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||1.97|-4.22|0.4758
91818761|NCT01332149|183513139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|7.67||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||7.67|-1.05|0.1363
91818762|NCT01332149|183513140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.371||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|2.9||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||2.90|-2.49|0.8808
91818763|NCT01332149|183513141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.4||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.40|-0.03|0.0887
91818764|NCT01332149|183513142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.53||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis performed using a logistic regression model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||1.53|0.72|0.7929
91818765|NCT01332149|183513143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.973||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|4.92||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||4.92|-2.83|0.5960
91818766|NCT01332149|183513144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.67||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||2.67|-3.36|0.8216
91818767|NCT01332149|183513145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.177||0.4829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.49||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||1.49|-3.14|0.4829
91818768|NCT01332149|183513146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.0||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||-0.00|-0.29|0.0431
91818769|NCT01332149|183513147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.01||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||0.01|-0.28|0.0602
91818770|NCT01332149|183513149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.24|-0.57|0.4172
91818771|NCT01332149|183513150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.23|-0.62|0.3724
91818772|NCT00071812|183513208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|18.8||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|32.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||32.8|4.8|0.0097
91818773|NCT00071812|183513208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|9.4||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|22.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||22.7|-3.9|0.1677
91818774|NCT00071812|183513208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|12.2||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|25.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||25.8|-1.3|0.0796
91818775|NCT00071812|183513209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|5.4||||0.2074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||13.7|-3.0|0.2074
91818776|NCT00071812|183513209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|4.1||||0.3177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||12.2|-4.0|0.3177
91818777|NCT00071812|183513209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|9.7||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|19.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||19.2|0.3|0.0418
91818778|NCT00071812|183513210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|2.7||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||9.3|-4.0|0.4299
91818779|NCT00071812|183513210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|-1.5||||0.5393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||3.3|-6.3|0.5393
91818780|NCT00071812|183513210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||5.4|-5.6|0.9769
91818781|NCT00071812|183513211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1752||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have any ACR response were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have an ACR response and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.1752
91948051|NCT03018028|183793206|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.56||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||5.56|0.31|0.7147
91948052|NCT03018028|183793206|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97||||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|8.85||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||8.85|0.44|0.3765
91948053|NCT02519777|183793228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.60
91948054|NCT02519777|183793228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.33
91948055|NCT02519777|183793228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.61
91948056|NCT02519777|183793230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.61
91948057|NCT02519777|183793230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.72
91948058|NCT02519777|183793230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.79
91948059|NCT02519777|183793230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.55
91818782|NCT00071812|183513211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have any ACR response were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have an ACR response and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.3440
91818783|NCT00071812|183513211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4308||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have any ACR response were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have an ACR response and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.4308
91948060|NCT02519777|183793230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.47
91948061|NCT02519777|183793230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.95
91948062|NCT02519777|183793230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.85
91948063|NCT02519777|183793230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.67
91948064|NCT02519777|183793230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.70
91948065|NCT02519777|183793231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.99
91818784|NCT00071812|183513214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0958||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation.||||0.0958
91948066|NCT02519777|183793231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.97
91948067|NCT02519777|183793231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.79
91948068|NCT02519777|183793231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.99
91948069|NCT02519777|183793231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.74
91818785|NCT00071812|183513214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7864||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.7864
91818786|NCT00071812|183513214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.0051
91818787|NCT00071812|183513215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.0960
91818788|NCT00071812|183513215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2859||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.2859
91818789|NCT00071812|183513215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.0109
91818790|NCT00071812|183513216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.1940
91818791|NCT00071812|183513216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2561||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.2561
91818792|NCT00071812|183513216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8707||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.8707
91818793|NCT03711162|183513374|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.12||0.5525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|97.6||P-value: based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.||||97.6|-52.3|0.5525
91818794|NCT03711162|183513374|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.53||0.4776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.5|47.1||P-value: based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from mixed model.||||47.1|-100.5|0.4776
91818795|NCT03711162|183513375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.56|0.9648
91818796|NCT03711162|183513375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.60|0.8530
91818797|NCT03711162|183513376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.05|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards for time to respiratory-related hospitalization.|||2.05|0.50|
91818798|NCT03711162|183513376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.88|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards for time to respiratory-related hospitalization.|||1.88|0.47|
91818799|NCT03711162|183513377|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||3.3|-4.4|0.7850
91818800|NCT03711162|183513377|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||4.1|-3.4|0.8617
91818801|NCT03711162|183513378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|85.7|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||85.7|-46.9|
91818802|NCT03711162|183513378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.9|35.8|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||35.8|-93.9|
91818803|NCT03711162|183513379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.95|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||1.95|0.68|
91818804|NCT03711162|183513379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.09|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||2.09|0.74|
91818805|NCT03711162|183513380|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|19.0|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||19.0|-11.5|
91818806|NCT03711162|183513380|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|16.8|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||16.8|-11.1|
91818807|NCT03711162|183513381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause hospitalization.|||1.78|0.65|
91818808|NCT03711162|183513381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.98|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause hospitalization.|||1.98|0.76|
91818809|NCT03711162|183513384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.81|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||3.81|0.44|
91818810|NCT03711162|183513384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.5|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||3.50|0.42|
91818811|NCT03711162|183513385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.08|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||4.08|0.66|
91818812|NCT03711162|183513385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||2.61|0.36|
91818813|NCT03711162|183513386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.08|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||4.08|0.66|
91818814|NCT03711162|183513386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||2.61|0.36|
91818815|NCT03711162|183513387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.91|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||1.91|0.59|
91818816|NCT03711162|183513387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||1.46|0.43|
91948070|NCT02519777|183793231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.69
91818817|NCT03711162|183513388|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.91|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||1.91|0.59|
91818818|NCT03711162|183513388|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||1.46|0.43|
91818819|NCT02431754|183513409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0937|||||||Normal approximation (Z-test)|||||||0.0937
91818820|NCT02431754|183513410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-1.69|0.1485
91818821|NCT01275066|183513416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35||0.0174||95.0||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category as covariates.||||||0.0174
91818822|NCT01275066|183513416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29||0.9542||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category as covariates.||||||0.9542
91818823|NCT01275066|183513417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.4935||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline 3MSCT as covariates.||||||0.4935
91818824|NCT01275066|183513417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.7783||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline 3MSCT as covariates.||||||0.7783
91818825|NCT01275066|183513418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline uKS normalized for creatinine, as covariates.||||||<0.0001
91818826|NCT01275066|183513418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|<|0.0001||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline uKS normalized for creatinine, as covariates.||||||<0.0001
91818827|NCT03240133|183513419|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were performed separately at each time point using a mixed effect linear model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and predose 3-symptom composite VAS score as a covariate.|Difference in Least Square Means|-6.98||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|-2.6|||Mixed effect linear model|||Change in HAE attack symptoms from pre-dose to 4 hours post-dose was assessed following treatment with either 750mg berotralstat or placebo.||-2.6|-11.37|0.0024
91948071|NCT02519777|183793231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.44
91818828|NCT03240133|183513419|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were performed separately at each time point using a mixed effect linear model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and predose 3-symptom composite VAS score as a covariate.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.1||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|7.29|||Mixed effect linear model|||Change in HAE attack symptoms from pre-dose to 4 hours post-dose was assessed following treatment with either 500mg berotralstat or placebo.||7.29|-11.49|0.6424
91948072|NCT02519777|183793231|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 96 from baseline||||1.00
91818829|NCT03240133|183513419|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were performed separately at each time point using a mixed effect linear model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and predose 3-symptom composite VAS score as a covariate.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.57||||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.03|||Mixed effect linear model|||Change in HAE attack symptoms from pre-dose to 4 hours post-dose was assessed following treatment with either 250mg berotralstat or placebo.||6.03|-4.9|0.8283
91818830|NCT03240133|183513420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.196||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.559|||logistic mixed effect model|||Analyses were performed using a generalized logistic model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect. The odds of a berotralstat 750 mg-treated-attack requiring SOC-Rx was 0.196 that of a placebo attack.||0.559|0.069|0.0029
91818831|NCT03240133|183513420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.472||||0.4048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|2.988|||logistic mixed effect model|||Analyses were performed using a generalized logistic model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect. The odds of a berotralstat 500 mg-treated-attack requiring SOC-Rx was 0.472 that of a placebo attack.||2.988|0.074|0.4048
91818832|NCT03240133|183513420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.587||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|4.733|||logistic mixed effect model|||Analyses were performed using a generalized logistic model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect. The odds of a berotralstat 250 mg-treated-attack requiring SOC-Rx was 0.587 that of a placebo attack.||4.733|0.073|0.5984
91818833|NCT00116831|183513429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for atheroma volume|-4.58||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818834|NCT00116831|183513430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for lumen volume|0.32||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818835|NCT00116831|183513431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for vessel volume|-3.56||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818836|NCT00116831|183513433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for atheroma area|-0.13||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818837|NCT00116831|183513434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for lumen area|0.02||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818838|NCT00116831|183513435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for vessel area|-0.11||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818839|NCT00116831|183513438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-0.64||||0.1221||95.0|-1.457|0.173|||ANCOVA|||||0.173|-1.457|0.1221
91818840|NCT00116831|183513439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-5.12||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818841|NCT00116831|183513441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-1.72||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818842|NCT00116831|183513443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-0.11||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818843|NCT00116831|183513444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-0.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818844|NCT00116831|183513445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-0.88||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818845|NCT00116831|183513446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-47.23||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818846|NCT00116831|183513447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-16.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818847|NCT00116831|183513449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to GLP as % difference from GLP|30.591||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818848|NCT00116831|183513450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|7.642||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818849|NCT00116831|183513451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|7.316||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818850|NCT00116831|183513452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|15.731||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818851|NCT00116831|183513453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|3.998||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818852|NCT00116831|183513454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|11.728||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818853|NCT00116831|183513455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-6.768||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818854|NCT00116831|183513456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-14.478||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818855|NCT00116831|183513457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-0.462||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818856|NCT00116831|183513458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|0.0164||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818857|NCT00116831|183513459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|0.118||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818858|NCT00116831|183513460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|0.14||||||95.0||||||||||||
91818859|NCT01344369|183513480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.08|112.75|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.75|93.08|
91818860|NCT01344369|183513481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.66|104.66|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.66|96.66|
91818861|NCT01344369|183513482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.43|105.48|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.48|96.43|
91948073|NCT02519777|183793231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.83
91818862|NCT01344369|183513483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.69|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.00|93.69|
91818863|NCT01344369|183513484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.76|100.77|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.77|92.76|
91818864|NCT01344369|183513485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.22|100.84|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.84|92.22|
91818865|NCT00526058|183513512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the Futura system to the Secura system would be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the two systems (Secura-Futura) in percent change of LDL-C measurements from pre- to post-treatment is less than the noninferiority margin 5.7%.||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
91818866|NCT00735371|183513520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0056
91818867|NCT00735371|183513520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91818868|NCT00735371|183513520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91948074|NCT02519777|183793231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.80
91818869|NCT00735371|183513521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0235||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0235
91818870|NCT00735371|183513521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91818871|NCT00735371|183513521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91818872|NCT04630093|183513547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs. 6 months after receiving panel-based pharmacogenetic testing||||0.001
91818873|NCT04120610|183513579|OTHER||Correlation|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.41||||||Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.41|0.10|
91818874|NCT04120610|183513580|OTHER||Correlation|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and ABI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.03|-0.46|
91818875|NCT04120610|183513580|OTHER||Correlation|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and ABI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.12|-0.51|
91818876|NCT04120610|183513580|OTHER||Correlation|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.14||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and ABI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.14|-0.38|
91818877|NCT04120610|183513581|OTHER||Correlation|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.12||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and TBI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.12|-0.52|
91818878|NCT04120610|183513581|OTHER||Correlation|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.15||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and TBI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.15|-0.52|
91818879|NCT04120610|183513581|OTHER||Correlation|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and TBI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.02|-0.47|
91818880|NCT04120610|183513582|OTHER||Correlation|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.36||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and Rutherford Classification. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.36|-0.08|
91818881|NCT04120610|183513582|OTHER||Correlation|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.39||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and Rutherford Classification. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.39|-0.02|
91818882|NCT04120610|183513582|OTHER||Correlation|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.47||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and Rutherford Classification. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.47|-0.02|
91818883|NCT03712410|183513592|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.186||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1860
91818884|NCT03712410|183513592|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.2752||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2752
91818885|NCT03712410|183513592|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.6233||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6233
91818886|NCT03712410|183513593|OTHER|Group Comparison||||||0.5638||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5638
91818887|NCT03712410|183513593|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.9848||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9848
91818888|NCT03712410|183513593|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.9169||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9169
91818889|NCT03712410|183513594|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) for arm Traditional PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91948075|NCT02519777|183793231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.86
91818890|NCT03712410|183513594|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9) for arm Traditional PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91818891|NCT03712410|183513594|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.0155||||||p-value for Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R) for arm Traditional PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0155
91818892|NCT03712410|183513594|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) for arm Online PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91818893|NCT03712410|183513594|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9) for arm Online PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91818894|NCT03712410|183513594|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.0504||||||p-value for Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R) for arm Online PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0504
91818895|NCT00314236|183513602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91818896|NCT00314236|183513603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.033
91818897|NCT01465464|183513606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|1.352|||Log Rank|||||1.352|0.878|0.435
91818898|NCT02739269|183513648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.479
91818899|NCT02739269|183513649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91818900|NCT02244580|183513650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.423||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.726|||Regression, Cox|||||0.726|0.246|0.0018
91818901|NCT02244580|183513651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.71|||Regression, Cox|||||0.71|0.25|0.001
91818902|NCT02136576|183513657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||"This p-value is for the Air Schiff comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||0.72
91818903|NCT02136576|183513657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||"This p-value is for the Air VAS comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||.93
91818904|NCT02136576|183513657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||"This p-value is for the WaterSchiff comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||.77
91818905|NCT02136576|183513657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||"This p-value is for the WaterVAS comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||.93
91818906|NCT00923559|183513665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.006||95.0|2.64|14.74||Null hypothesis MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom (df) = 68.3||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||14.74|2.64|.006
91818907|NCT00923559|183513666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.68||p-value unadjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom (df) = 69.3||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||4.68|0.46|.018
91818908|NCT00923559|183513667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.75||p-value unadjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom = 73.4||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||0.75|-0.21|.266
91818909|NCT00923559|183513668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.32||p-value unadjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||0.32|0.00|.052
91818910|NCT00923559|183513669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom (df) = 61.2||see under the PIR-GAS||-0.08|-1.61|.031
91948076|NCT02519777|183793231|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 96 from baseline||||1.00
91818911|NCT00923559|183513670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (df) = 71.2||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||0.31|-0.05|.158
91818912|NCT04903249|183513689|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
91818913|NCT04903249|183513690|OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.293
91818914|NCT04903249|183513691|OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
91818915|NCT04903249|183513697|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
91818916|NCT04903249|183513698|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91818917|NCT04903249|183513699|OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.327
91948077|NCT02519777|183793232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|9.42||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 24||9.42|-2.78|
91948078|NCT02519777|183793232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|10.87||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48||10.87|-0.53|
91818918|NCT04903249|183513700|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.479
91818919|NCT04903249|183513701|OTHER|||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
91818920|NCT04903249|183513702|OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.279
91818921|NCT04903249|183513703|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
91948079|NCT02519777|183793232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-8.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|0.13||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 96||0.13|-16.56|
91948080|NCT02519777|183793232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|9.42||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 24||9.42|-3.07|
91818922|NCT01951157|183513704|SUPERIORITY||The exact binomial estimator|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|48.4||||||The exact binomial estimator and its 95%CI was used. A pre-planned Bayesian supportive analysis test comparing PFS4 was performed.||48.4|13.2|
91818923|NCT01951157|183513704|SUPERIORITY||The exact binomial estimator|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|37.9||||||The exact binomial estimator and its 95%CI was used. A pre-planned Bayesian supportive analysis test comparing PFS4 was performed||37.9|5.7|
91818924|NCT01951157|183513704|SUPERIORITY||The exact binomial estimator|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|46.7||||||The exact binomial estimator and its 95%CI was used. A pre-planned Bayesian supportive analysis test comparing PFS4 was performed||46.7|12.6|
91818925|NCT01951157|183513705|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified|||||=|0.3873|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.3873
91818926|NCT01951157|183513709|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified|||||=|0.0177|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.0177
91818927|NCT01951157|183513710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Pre-specified||||||0.3526|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3526
91818928|NCT01951157|183513711|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified||||||0.9026|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat analys|||Changes in QoL scores over time were calculated and tested for statistical significance by means of wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat-measure analyses of variance.||||0.9026
91818929|NCT01951157|183513711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9862|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat analys|||Changes in QoL scores over time were calculated and tested for statistical significance by means of wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat-measure analyses of variance.||||0.9862
91818930|NCT01951157|183513711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8057|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat analys|||Changes in QoL scores over time were calculated and tested for statistical significance by means of ilcoxon signed ranks test repeat-measure analyses of variance.||||0.8057
91818931|NCT05218018|183513717|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
91818932|NCT00828191|183513741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by calculating a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and the test group considered not inferior to the control treatment.|Difference in pregnancy rates|-2.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.4|||Fisher Exact|||"The non -inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was that the ongoing pregnancy rate (oPR) in the test group (Pe)was lower than the oPR in the control group (Pc)against the alternative one that the oPR in the test group was equal to or higher than the oPR in the control group.~H0 : Pc\>= Pe + d(-10%) H1 : Pc\< Pe + d(-10%)"||4.4|-9.4|0.52
91818933|NCT00828191|183513742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.0|||ANOVA|||||4.0|-7.6|0.54
91818934|NCT00828191|183513743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||||4.8|-8.8|0.62
91818935|NCT01883427|183513744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Too few included to reach power||||>0.05
91818936|NCT02013167|183513746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by age (\< 35 years; ≥ 35 years), prior salvage therapy (yes vs. no), and prior allogeneic HSCT (yes vs. no).|Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicated a lower average event rate and longer survival time for blinatumomab relative to SOC chemotherapy.|||0.93|0.55|0.012
91818937|NCT02013167|183513747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors: age (\< 35 vs. ≥ 35), prior salvage therapy (yes vs. no), and prior allogeneic HSCT (yes vs. no).||||26.2|9.6|< 0.001
91818938|NCT02013167|183513748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|28.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors: age (\< 35 vs. ≥ 35), prior salvage therapy (yes vs. no), and prior allogeneic HSCT (yes vs. no).||||28.7|9.9|< 0.001
91818939|NCT02013167|183513749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.71|||||The hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival for Blinatumomab relative to SOC Chemotherapy.|||0.71|0.43|
91948081|NCT02519777|183793232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|10.06||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48||10.06|-3.11|
91948082|NCT02519777|183793232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|4.19||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 96||4.19|-7.89|
91948083|NCT02519777|183793232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|4.23||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 24||4.23|-4.53|
91948084|NCT02519777|183793232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|1.6||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48||1.60|-4.99|
91948085|NCT02519777|183793232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|6.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.42||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 96||15.42|-2.70|
91948086|NCT02519777|183793234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.67
91948087|NCT02519777|183793234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.78
91818940|NCT00483223|183513784|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no association between expression ratio and response rate Ha: Participants with expression ratio greater than 2 would have higher response rate||||0.54
91948088|NCT02519777|183793234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.94
91818941|NCT04041869|183513788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to test the effect of the intervention on physical activity, linear mixed models examined changes in steps per day from study baseline (week 0) to the end of the active intervention (week 8).||||<0.01
91948089|NCT02519777|183793234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.42
91948090|NCT02519777|183793234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.07
91948091|NCT02519777|183793234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.37
91948092|NCT02519777|183793234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.08
91948093|NCT02519777|183793234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.33
91948094|NCT02519777|183793234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.56
91948095|NCT02519777|183793236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.63
91948096|NCT02519777|183793236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.38
91948097|NCT02519777|183793236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.95
91948098|NCT02519777|183793236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.27
91948099|NCT02519777|183793236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.23
91948100|NCT02519777|183793236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.09
91818942|NCT01336738|183513798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.6803|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.29||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% confidence interval (CI) were based on LS mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.29|-0.13|0.6803
91818943|NCT01336738|183513798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|-0.28||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.28|-0.71|0.0017
91818944|NCT01336738|183513798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8|-0.36||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.36|-0.80|0.0003
91818945|NCT01336738|183513798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.91|-0.5||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.50|-0.91|<0.0001
91818946|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.292||0.4757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|14.2||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||14.20|-6.64|0.4757
91948101|NCT02519777|183793236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.03
91948102|NCT02519777|183793236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.02
91948103|NCT02519777|183793236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.09
91948104|NCT02519777|183793237|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 sCD14 in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||1.00
91818947|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.296||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|11.75||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.75|-9.11|0.8031
91818948|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.364||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|7.34||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||7.34|-13.78|0.5490
91818949|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.58|-4.55||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-4.55|-25.58|0.0051
91818950|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|7.46||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||7.46|-12.31|0.6291
91818951|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.001||0.4396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|13.72||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||13.72|-5.98|0.4396
91948105|NCT02519777|183793237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sCD14 in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.95
91948106|NCT02519777|183793237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sCD14 in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.96
91948107|NCT02519777|183793238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.52
91948108|NCT02519777|183793238|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||<0.01
91818952|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.46|3.34||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.34|-16.46|0.1934
91948109|NCT02519777|183793238|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||<0.01
91948110|NCT02519777|183793239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 sTNFr-II in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.91
91818953|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.039||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|-7.4||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.40|-27.24|0.0007
91818954|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.201||0.5479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|13.37||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||13.37|-7.11|0.5479
91818955|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.209||0.4276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|6.12||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||6.12|-14.39|0.4276
91818956|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.235||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.69|2.92||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.92|-17.69|0.1596
91818957|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.06|-12.6||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-12.60|-33.06|<0.0001
91818958|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.855||0.8509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|10.43||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||10.43|-12.63|0.8509
91818959|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.913||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.17|3.12||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.12|-20.17|0.1505
91948111|NCT02519777|183793239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sTNFr-II in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.86
91818960|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|5.08||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.08|-18.31|0.2662
91818961|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.818||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.97|-10.07||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-10.07|-32.97|0.0003
91818962|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.68|11.66||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.66|-15.68|0.7724
91818963|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.986||0.9202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.47|13.07||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||13.07|-14.47|0.9202
91818964|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.998||0.8183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|12.18||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||12.18|-15.40|0.8183
91818965|NCT01336738|183513799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.821||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-11.53||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-11.53|-38.40|0.0003
91948112|NCT02519777|183793239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sTNFr-II in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.94
91948113|NCT02519777|183793240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 VCAM in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.70
91948114|NCT02519777|183793240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 VCAM in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.28
91948115|NCT02519777|183793240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 VCAM in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.85
91818966|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.03||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.03|-0.10|0.2327
91818967|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.04||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.04|-0.08|0.3580
91818968|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.07||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.07|-0.20|0.0036
91818969|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.12|0.01||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.01|-0.12|0.1251
91818970|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.06||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.06|-0.11|0.3466
91818971|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.03||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.03|-0.20|0.0439
91818972|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|-0.09||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.09|-0.27|0.0040
91818973|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|-0.12||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.12|-0.29|0.0009
91818974|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|0.02||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.02|-0.23|0.1405
91818975|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.36|-0.12||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.12|-0.36|0.0067
91818976|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|-0.24||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.24|-0.50|0.0001
91818977|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|-0.22||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.22|-0.46|0.0002
91818978|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.17||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.17|-0.18|0.4887
91818979|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|-0.22||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.22|-0.57|0.0020
91818980|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|-0.41||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.41|-0.76|<0.0001
91818981|NCT01336738|183513800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|-0.42||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.42|-0.76|<0.0001
91818982|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.2067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.73||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.73|-0.16|0.2067
91818983|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.48||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.48|-0.40|0.8602
91818984|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.42||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.42|-0.47|0.9200
91818985|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.9||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.90|0.02|0.0399
91818986|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.77||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.77|-0.18|0.2266
91818987|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.52||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.52|-0.43|0.8493
91818988|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.46||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.46|-0.49|0.9511
91818989|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.83||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.83|-0.11|0.1369
91818990|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.92||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.92|-0.15|0.1562
91818991|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.4913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.35||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.35|-0.72|0.4913
91818992|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.71||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.71|-0.36|0.5130
91818993|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.12||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.12|0.06|0.0298
91818994|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.08||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.08|-0.35|0.3196
91818995|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.67||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.67|-0.77|0.8884
91818996|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.84||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.84|-0.59|0.7325
91818997|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.04||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.04|-0.36|0.3395
91818998|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.94||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.94|-0.68|0.7514
91818999|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.94||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.94|-0.68|0.7529
91819000|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.83||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.83|-0.79|0.9638
91819001|NCT01336738|183513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.47||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.47|-0.12|0.0962
91819002|NCT01852292|183513812|OTHER|Double Criteria for PFS|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.94||||||||0.94|0.44|
91819003|NCT01852292|183513813|OTHER|Double criteria for OS|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04||||||||1.04|0.49|
91819004|NCT03240575|183513873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.105|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.105|-0.001|0.0543
91819005|NCT03240575|183513874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.144|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.144|0.037|0.0011
91819006|NCT03240575|183513875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.058|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.058|-0.048|0.8593
91819007|NCT03240575|183513876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.156|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.156|0.040|0.0010
91819008|NCT04482179|183513877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
91819009|NCT04482179|183513878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
91819010|NCT03034954|183513887|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Reported p-value represents Time (baseline to post-tDCS) x Condition (Active or Sham) interaction for all OLTT Accuracy Measures. If the multivariate statistic is not significant no univariate statistical analyses are completed.|Repeated Measures ANOVA|repeated measures (OLTT baseline and post-tDCS); between-subjects (active vs. sham)||We used a multivariate statistic to compare OLTT means (Free Recall Total Error, Free Recall Average Error, Cued Recall Total Error, Cued Recall Average Error, Recognition Total Correct) at baseline (Version B) to post HD-tDCS OLTT means (Version C), by groups (active vs. sham). The overall statistic represents the simultaneous comparison of baseline OLTT measures to post HD-tDCS OLTT measures.||||.300
91819011|NCT03034954|183513889|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Statistic represents the interaction between Time (baseline to post-tDCS) by Condition (Active vs. Sham).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||A Repeated Measures ANOVA was used to compare baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham). The multivariate analyses included OLTT Response Times (i.e., Free Recall Average Response Time, Cued Recall Average Response Time, Recognition Average Response Time)||||.044
91819012|NCT03034954|183513889|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Univariate analysis of the OLTT Free Recall Average Time to Respond following significant multivariate repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham).||||.006
91819013|NCT03034954|183513892|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Univariate analysis of the OLTT Cued Recall Average Time to Respond following significant multivariate repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham).||||.15
91819014|NCT03034954|183513894|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Univariate analysis of the OLTT Recognition Average Time to Respond following significant multivariate repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham).||||.3
91819015|NCT03034954|183513899|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||MANOVA|||A Multivariate ANOVA was used to compare Active vs. Sham groups on discriminability measures (i.e. 0-back d', 2-back d', semantic 2-back d') and calculated working memory measures (i.e., 2-back d' minus 0-back d', semantic 2-back d' minus 0-back d').||||.450
91819016|NCT03034954|183513900|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-squared tests were conducted to determine group differences in actual condition assignment vs. estimated/perceived condition||||.078
91819017|NCT03034954|183513901|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.233
91819018|NCT03034954|183513903|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.600
91819019|NCT03034954|183513904|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.999
91819020|NCT03034954|183513905|OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.281
91819021|NCT03034954|183513906|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.082
91948116|NCT02519777|183793241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.99
91819022|NCT03034954|183513907|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.490
91819023|NCT03034954|183513908|OTHER|||||||0.488|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.488
91819024|NCT03034954|183513909|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.219
91819025|NCT00913744|183513980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.3||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|28.4|||Fisher Exact|P-value is from Fisher's exact test, comparing sham and ocriplasmin.||||28.4|-3.7|0.262
91819026|NCT00805935|183513981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91819027|NCT00805935|183513981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91819028|NCT00805935|183513981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparing Progesterone vaginal insert to Progesterone in oil within the menotropin treatments arms.||||0.481
91819029|NCT00805935|183513981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparing Progesterone vaginal insert to Progesterone in oil within the follitropin beta treatment group.||||0.483
91819030|NCT00283439|183514003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9654||||||One-sided test|Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.9654
91819031|NCT00283439|183514003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||||||One-sided test|Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.8690
91819032|NCT00283439|183514003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7133||||||One-sided test|Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.7133
91819033|NCT00283439|183514004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.294
91819034|NCT00283439|183514004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.608
91819035|NCT00283439|183514004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.603|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.603
91819036|NCT00283439|183514005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.091
91819037|NCT00283439|183514005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.300
91819038|NCT00283439|183514005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881|||||||Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.881
91819039|NCT00283439|183514006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.576
91819040|NCT00283439|183514006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.588
91819041|NCT00283439|183514006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.421
91819042|NCT01218516|183514007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|1.63||Per Primary Analysis Cut-Off Date|Log Rank|||||1.63|0.92|0.3519
91819043|NCT01218516|183514007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.03|1.74||Per Final Analysis Cut-Off Date|Log Rank|||||1.74|1.03|0.1555
91819044|NCT01632891|183514012|SUPERIORITY|Test used alpha level of 0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare proportions of Pf SCP clearance between treatment arms||||1.00
91948117|NCT02519777|183793241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.26
91948118|NCT02519777|183793241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.20
91819045|NCT02121483|183514047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1075|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7276|1.1704|||||Dose proportionality was assessed based on a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and AUC0-inf. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter β, a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed.|||1.1704|0.7276|
91819046|NCT02121483|183514048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1088|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7356|1.1838|||||Dose proportionality was assessed based on a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and AUC0-tz. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter β, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed.|||1.1838|0.7356|
91819047|NCT02121483|183514049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5504|1.1603|||||Dose proportionality was assessed based on a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and Cmax. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter β, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed.|||1.1603|0.5504|
91819048|NCT05583903|183514060|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91819049|NCT05583903|183514061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.26
91819050|NCT05583903|183514062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91819051|NCT05583903|183514063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91819052|NCT05583903|183514064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91819053|NCT05583903|183514065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
91819054|NCT05583903|183514066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
91819055|NCT05583903|183514067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91819056|NCT05583903|183514068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
91819057|NCT05583903|183514069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91819058|NCT05583903|183514070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91819059|NCT05583903|183514071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
91819060|NCT05583903|183514072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91819061|NCT05583903|183514073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
91819062|NCT05583903|183514074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
91819063|NCT01094548|183514121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91819064|NCT01094548|183514125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.431||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|1.185|||Log Rank|||||1.185|0.157|0.0940
91819065|NCT01094548|183514126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.666||||0.3919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.698|||Log Rank|||||1.698|0.261|0.3919
91819066|NCT01073865|183514186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower limit of the CI of the difference is greater than or equal to -17.5%. This non-inferiority margin was pre-defined in the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|13.9|||||%PFS at 24 weeks for Zoladex 10.8mg - %PFS at 24 weeks for Zoladex 3.6mg|CI for the difference (10.8 mg-3.6 mg) in %PFS at 24 weeks calculated using the score method recommended by Newcombe et al||13.90|-11.40|
91819067|NCT01073865|183514187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|9.67|||||ORR at 24 weeks for Zoladex 10.8mg - ORR at 24 weeks for Zoladex 3.6mg|CI for the difference (10.8 mg-3.6 mg) in ORR at 24 weeks calculated using the score method recommended by Newcombe et al||9.67|-15.47|
91948119|NCT02519777|183793242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 IP-10 in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.59
91948120|NCT02519777|183793242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 IP-10 in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.39
91819068|NCT01228747|183514230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.24|-44.02||Statistical testing was 2-sided, and was performed using a significance (α) level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"The statistical hypotheses, null hypothesis (H0) and alternate hypothesis (H1), are stated below:~H0: μLEV = μPBO vs. H1: μLEV ≠ μPBO~ANCOVA on the endpoint percentage change from Combined Baseline of GTC seizures per week using treatment and country as factors (categorical predictors) and Combined Baseline GTC seizure frequency per week as a covariate (a continuous predictor) where μLEV and μPBO are adjusted means for LEV and PBO, respectively."||-44.02|-68.24|<0.0001
91819069|NCT00680901|183514248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||Stratified log-rank test was conducted stratifying for prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant treatment use and region.|Log Rank||Pike estimator of HR was based on the stratified log rank test.|Primary Analysis: OS (PE population)||1.12|0.73|0.3492
91819070|NCT00680901|183514249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1||Stratified log-rank test was conducted stratifying for prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant treatment use and region.|Log Rank||Pike estimator of HR was based on the stratified log rank test.|Primary Analysis: OS (ITT population)||1.10|0.74|0.3244
91819071|NCT00847288|183514265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.0||Cox proportional hazard model was fitted with the group effect and other key baseline variables. The p-value for the main group effect is 0.0043, with an estimated hazard ratio of 1.5, monthly vs quarterly.|Regression, Cox|||"Let TM and TQ denote the median survival time to initiation of clinical action in monthly and quarterly review groups respectively. Null Hypothesis (HO): The time to initiation of clinical action is not affected by review frequency (monthly versus quarterly): TM=TQ Alternative Hypothesis (HA): The time to initiation of clinical action is affected by review frequency (monthly versus quarterly): TM≠TQ~Cox proportional hazard model will be fitted to estimate the hazard ratio."||2.0|1.1|0.0043
91819072|NCT00847288|183514267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.74|||logistic GEE for repeated observations|||The probability of action taken in three months interval is evaluated using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method under a logistic regression model. Univariate analysis is performed first for potential predictors and only those with a p-value less than 0.10 through univariate analysis are included in the multivariate model. Here we report the odds ratio of monthly arm against quarterly arm, adjusting for OptiVol crossing, new or chronic device, and AF or no AF.||1.74|1.20|0.0001
91819073|NCT02120794|183514271|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority test with an A1C margin of 0.4% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.395||||||||0.395|0.125|
91819074|NCT00500370|183514341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||<0.0001
91819075|NCT00500370|183514342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||<0.0001
91819076|NCT00500370|183514343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6766||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.6766
91819077|NCT00500370|183514344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0393
91819078|NCT00500370|183514345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1808||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.1808
91948121|NCT02519777|183793242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 IP-10 in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.80
91819079|NCT00500370|183514346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1204||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.1204
91819080|NCT00500370|183514347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6651||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6651
91819081|NCT00500370|183514348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1204||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.1204
91819082|NCT00500370|183514349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8479||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.8479
91819083|NCT00500370|183514350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2151||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.2151
91819084|NCT00500370|183514351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7619||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7619
91819085|NCT00500370|183514352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8973||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8973
91819086|NCT00500370|183514353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6507||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6507
91819087|NCT00500370|183514354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2593||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2593
91819088|NCT00500370|183514355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2919||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.2919
91819089|NCT00500370|183514356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0293||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.0293
91819090|NCT02586012|183514364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91819091|NCT02586012|183514365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91819092|NCT02586012|183514366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91819093|NCT01888497|183514440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|13.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.85|17.4||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam versus (vs) placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||17.40|10.85|<0.001
91819094|NCT01888497|183514440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For gabapentin versus placebo comparison, the non-inferiority margin for upper limit of 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was 2.4 cm.|Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.33|||||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||2.33|-0.66|
91948122|NCT02519777|183793243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 Neopterin in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.90
91948123|NCT02519777|183793243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 Neopterin in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.14
91948124|NCT02519777|183793243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 Neopterin in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.49
91948125|NCT02519777|183793244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 NFL in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.52
91948126|NCT02519777|183793244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 NFL in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.99
91948127|NCT02519777|183793244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 NFL in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.54
91948128|NCT00256204|183793250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Linear Model|||"Hypothesis #1: Slopes Superiority of 1mg Rasagiline over Placebo in the PC Phase Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week.~In this analysis, all available post-baseline observations in the PC Phase of the trial are analyzed (ITT efficacy data analysis set, weeks 12, 24 and 36). The placebo groups for rasagiline 1mg (delayed-start) and 2mg (delayed-start)are combined to one placebo group."||||0.0133
91948129|NCT00256204|183793250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures Mixed Linear Model|||"Hypothesis #1: Slopes Superiority of 2mg Rasagiline over Placebo in the PC Phase Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week.~In this analysis, all available post-baseline observations in the PC Phase of the trial are analyzed (ITT efficacy data analysis set, weeks 12, 24 and 36). The placebo groups for rasagiline 1mg (delayed-start)and 2mg (delayed-start) are combined to one placebo group."||||0.0001
91948130|NCT00256204|183793250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The analysis was performed on separate datasets and not on the combined dataset as was pre-specified to account for unexpected interactions of dose level by baseline UPDRS and of dose level by center .|Repeated Measures|||Hypothesis #2: Superiority of Early over Delayed Start at Week 72 In this analysis, observations of subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active-treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set).||||0.0250
91948131|NCT00256204|183793250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6028||95.0||||The analysis was performed on separate datasets and not on the combined dataset as was pre-specified to account for unexpected interactions of dose level by baseline UPDRS and of dose level by center|Repeated Measures|||Hypothesis #2:Superiority of Early over Delayed Start at Week 72 In this analysis, observations of subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active-treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set.)||||0.6028
91948132|NCT00256204|183793250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inf Test for difference in slopes between treatment groups. One sided 95% CI calculated for difference between slopes of the 1mg early-start group and the 1mg delayed-start group. The inferiority null hypothesis of the early-start group slope over delayed-start group slope is rejected, if the upper limit of one sided 95% CI for difference in slopes does not cross non-inferiority margin of 0.15 UPDRS points per week.|Slope|0.0||||||90.0|-0.036|0.036||||||"Hypothesis #3: Slopes Non-Inferiority of Early Start over Delayed Start in the Active Phase.~Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week. In this analysis, observations of all subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set)."||0.036|-0.036|
91948133|NCT00256204|183793250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inf Test for difference in slopes between treatment groups. One sided 95% CI calculated for difference between slopes of the 2mg early-start group and the 2mg delayed-start group. The inferiority null hypothesis of the early-start group slope over delayed-start group slope is rejected, if the upper limit of one sided 95% CI for difference in slopes does not cross non-inferiority margin of 0.15 UPDRS points per week.|Slope|0.029||||||90.0|-0.005|0.062||||||"Hypothesis #3: Slopes Non-Inferiority of Early Start over Delayed Start in the Active Phase.~Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week. In this analysis, observations of all subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set)."||0.062|-0.005|
91948134|NCT00256204|183793251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.005|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.857|-2.153|||ANCOVA|||The adjusted means of the changes in Total UPDRS from baseline to LOV in the placebo-controlled phase, observed in the 1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline early-start groups are compared (two contrasts) to the combined placebo group (1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline delayed-start groups), by applying an Analysis of Covariance model. The model includes treatment group, center and baseline Total UPDRS as covariates. For this analysis, both delayed start arms are pooled as a 'placebo arm'||-2.153|-3.857|<0.0001
91948135|NCT00256204|183793251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.154|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.004|-2.305|||ANCOVA|||"The adjusted means of the changes in Total UPDRS from baseline to LOV in the placebo-controlled phase, observed in the 1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline early-start groups are compared (two contrasts) to the combined placebo group (1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline delayed-start groups), by applying an Analysis of Covariance model. The model includes treatment group, center and baseline Total UPDRS as covariates.~For this analysis, both delayed start arms are pooled as a 'placebo arm'"||-2.305|-4.004|<0.0001
91819095|NCT01888497|183514440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|1.02||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.51||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||2.51|-0.39|0.134
91948136|NCT02074436|183793256|OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|0.001|||||Fisher Exact|||The results are from the first and only interim analysis focusing on the primary endpoint: proportion of patient with major bleeding (Grade 3 and 4) during the study. The interim analysis was performed after 11 patients in each arm were randomized and results were obtained. One-sided fisher's exact test was employed in the analysis. The null hypothesis is the probability of occurring major bleeding is the same for Arm A and Arm B||||0.5
91948137|NCT03490734|183793261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Corrected for multiple comparisons by using the threshold free cluster enhancement, nonparametric thresholding algorithm in FMRIB Software Library (FSL), resulting in a family-wise error rate (FWE) corrected significance threshold of p-FWE\<0.05|ANCOVA|||Whole-brain analyses were used. No clusters of significant activation were detected.||||0.52
91948138|NCT03490734|183793262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||Corrected for multiple comparisons by using the threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE), nonparametric thresholding algorithm in FSL, resulting in a family-wise error rate corrected significance threshold of p-FWE \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.016
91948139|NCT00792922|183793279|SUPERIORITY|Predicted prevalence was estimated in each community using the baseline observed prevalence, treatment arm \& parameters estimated from square root transformed model.For each arm estimated prevalences were averaged.Difference in adjusted mean prevalence for enhanced arm and standard arm was calculated.For confidence intervals for adjusted difference,steps 1 to 4 for 1000 bootstrap samples were repeated.Median of adjusted mean differences, corresponding 2.5 % \& 97.5 % percentiles were reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.8|||Regression, Linear|||"This is analysis done in Tanzania:~Only the main effect of coverage was analyzed.We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.Here we are looking at the prevalence of infection."||3.8|-1|0.22
91948140|NCT00792922|183793279|SUPERIORITY|For each community using the baseline observed prevalence, treatment arm and parameters estimated from square root transformed model we estimated predicted prevalence.For each arm we average estimated prevalences.The difference in the adjusted mean prevalence for enhanced arm and standard arm was then calculated.In order to derive the confidence intervals for the adjusted difference, we repeated Steps 1 to 4 for 1000 bootstrap samples.The median of the adjusted mean differences were reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.3|||Ordinary least squares linear regression|||"This is the analysis done in Tanzania:~Only the main effect of coverage was analyzed.We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.~Here we are looking at the prevalence of trachoma"||5.3|-0.3|0.73
91948141|NCT00792922|183793279|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|1.9|||Regression, Linear|||"This is the statistical analysis for Niger:~We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.Here we are looking at the prevalence of infection."||1.9|-11.1|0.20
91948142|NCT00792922|183793279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.5|||Regression, Linear|||"This is the statistical analysis for Niger:~We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.Here we are looking at the prevalence of trachoma."||12.5|-7.7|0.60
91948143|NCT04491591|183793280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.801
91948144|NCT04491591|183793281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Fisher Exact|||Reconstruction versus No reconstruction||||0.1336
91819096|NCT01888497|183514440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.98||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||3.98|1.01|<0.001
91948145|NCT04491591|183793281|SUPERIORITY|Immediate reconstruction versus delayed reconstruction||||||0.5505|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5505
91948146|NCT04491591|183793281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6178|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flap reconstruction versus Implant reconstruction||||0.6178
91948147|NCT04491591|183793282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2317|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2317
91948148|NCT04491591|183793283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1052|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1052
91948149|NCT04491591|183793284|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Within subjects pre/post comparison|||
91948150|NCT04491591|183793285|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91948151|NCT04491591|183793287|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analysis using mean and standard deviation|||
91948152|NCT04491591|183793288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0302
91948153|NCT04491591|183793289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Fisher Exact|||Reconstruction versus No reconstruction||||0.135
91948154|NCT04491591|183793289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||Immediate reconstruction versus delayed reconstruction||||0.510
91948155|NCT04491591|183793289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flap reconstruction versus Implant reconstruction||||0.469
91948156|NCT04491591|183793290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.308
91948157|NCT04491591|183793291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
91948158|NCT04111185|183793308|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91948159|NCT01277666|183793340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||comparison of Placebo and GSK1605786A 500 mg once daily||11.0|-6.1|0.546
91948160|NCT01277666|183793340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.7|||Mantel Haenszel|||comparison of Placebo and GSK1605786A 500 mg twice daily||10.7|-6.5|0.648
91819097|NCT01888497|183514441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.47||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.47|0.26|<0.001
91819098|NCT01888497|183514441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For gabapentin versus placebo comparison, the non-inferiority margin for upper limit of 95% CI was 0.1 m/sec.|Hodges-Lehman estimate|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.05|||||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.05|-0.07|
91819099|NCT01888497|183514441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.07||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.12|0.02|0.012
91819100|NCT01888497|183514441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.06||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.12||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.12|0.01|0.014
91819101|NCT01888497|183514442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|103.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|130.5||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||130.50|72.00|<0.001
91819102|NCT01888497|183514442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For gabapentin versus placebo comparison, the non-inferiority margin for upper limit of 95% CI was 8 lanes.|Hodges-Lehman estimate|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.5|||||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||16.50|-4.00|
91819103|NCT01888497|183514442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|3.0||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||9.00|-3.00|0.213
91819104|NCT01888497|183514442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|11.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|20.5||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||20.50|4.00|0.003
91819105|NCT04127786|183514495|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was greater than (\>) -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.3||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 2: Verorab®: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.3|-1.4|
91819106|NCT04127786|183514495|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.4||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 2: Verorab®: Adult (\>=18 years)||6.4|-0.6|
91819107|NCT04127786|183514495|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 3: Imovax Rabies: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.4|-1.4|
91819108|NCT04127786|183514495|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.6||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 3: Imovax Rabies: Adult (\>= 18 years)||4.6|-1.5|
91819109|NCT04127786|183514496|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority for VRVg-2 versus comparator vaccines was reached at Day 42, then superiority was demonstrated if the overall observed percentage of participants with an RVNA titer \>= 0.5 IU/mL at Day 42 was at least 99% in the VRVg-2 Group, with the lower limit of the 95% CI at least 97%.|Percentage Difference|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.3|100.0||||||The secondary immunogenicity outcome measures were evaluated sequentially following a fixed-sequence method.||100|99.3|
91819110|NCT04127786|183514497|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.3||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 2 and 5: Verorab®: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.3|-1.4|
91948161|NCT01277666|183793341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.8|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.8|-8.8|0.592
91819111|NCT04127786|183514497|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.7||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 2 and 5: Verorab®: Adult (\>=18 years)||2.7|-1.9|
91819112|NCT04127786|183514497|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.5||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 3 and 6: Imovax Rabies®: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.5|-1.4|
91819113|NCT04127786|183514497|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.3||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 3 and 6: Imovax Rabies®: Adult (\>= 18 years)||5.3|-0.5|
91819114|NCT04127786|183514498|NON_INFERIORITY|If the non-inferiority objective for VRVg-2 versus comparator vaccines at Day 28 was demonstrated, the overall non-inferiority of 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was demonstrated if the non-inferiority between pooled Groups 1+4 and Group 3 were both demonstrated in each age group.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4|||||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 and 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was \> -10%.|Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus Primary Series: Cohort-1 Group 3: Imovax Rabies® at Day 42: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.4|-1.4|
91819115|NCT04127786|183514498|NON_INFERIORITY|If the non-inferiority objective for VRVg-2 versus comparator vaccines at Day 28 was demonstrated, the overall non-inferiority of 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was demonstrated if the non-inferiority between pooled Groups 1+4 and Group 3 were both demonstrated in each age group.|Percentage Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.0|||||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 and 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was \> -10%.|Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus Primary Series: Cohort-1 Group 3: Imovax Rabies® at Day 42: Adult (\>= 18 years)||3.0|-3.1|
91819116|NCT04127786|183514500|NON_INFERIORITY|If the superiority objective of VRVg-2 was reached at Day 28, the non-inferiority of 2-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 28 versus 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the 2-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 28 and 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3||||||Imovax Rabies® at Day 28 versus Imovax Rabies® at Day 42||1.3|-4.4|
91819117|NCT01904604|183514525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|33.8|10.2|57.5||A one-sided test was used with the a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.0125. No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups. Subjects who did not complete the Week 52 oral food challenge were counted as treatment failures.||57.5|10.2|0.005
91948162|NCT01277666|183793341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.4|-9.2|0.475
91948163|NCT01277666|183793342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.3|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.3|-4.4|0.415
91819118|NCT01904604|183514525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|36.0|12.6|59.4||A one-sided test was used with the a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.0125. No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups. Subjects who did not complete the Week 52 oral food challenge were counted as treatment failures.||59.4|12.6|0.003
91819119|NCT01904604|183514525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|2.2|-25.8|30.1||A one-sided test was used with the a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.0125. No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|||||30.1|-25.8|0.48
91819120|NCT01904604|183514529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The two-sided t approximation was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups.||||0.80
91819121|NCT01904604|183514529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The two-sided t approximation was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups.||||0.008
91819122|NCT01904604|183514529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The two-sided t approximation was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups.||||0.01
91819123|NCT05124665|183514533|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that proportion of contacts accepting HIV testing between two study arms is equivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Cluster adjusted for household.||||12.9|1.6|0.004
91819124|NCT05124665|183514533|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is proportion of contacts accepting HIV testing is equivalent between the two study arms|Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value and confidence interval reflects the values multiplied by 100 (converting decimal to percentage).|||10|2|0.006
91819125|NCT05124665|183514534|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that the change in stigma score is equivalent between the two study arms.|Slope|2.2||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Van Rie Perceived TB and HIV Stigma scales adapted and validated in the Ugandan context are used. Scores range from 0 to 100 (standardized scale)||6.9|-2.5|0.358
91819126|NCT05124665|183514535|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that the difference in stigma score is equivalent between the two study arms|Slope|2.61||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.59|-1.38|0.199
91819127|NCT05124665|183514536|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is no effect from perceived HIV Stigma on HIV Test Uptake|Coefficient from Structural Equation|0.00087||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00007|0.00167|||Structural Equation Modeling|||||0.00167|0.00007|0.03
91819128|NCT05124665|183514537|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that TB stigma has no effect of HIV test uptake|Coefficient Structural Equation Model|0.0002||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0007|0.0011|||Structural Equation Modeling|||||0.0011|-0.0007|0.64
91948164|NCT01277666|183793342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.9|-3.9|0.354
91819129|NCT05124665|183514538|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that proportion of index patient nominated household contacts accepting HIV testing is equivalent between two study arms||||||0.452|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.452
91819130|NCT05124665|183514539|NON_INFERIORITY|Hypothesis is that the first tester's decision to test does not impact subsequent household contacts decision to test for HIV.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.86|0.264
91819131|NCT05124665|183514540|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that the index patient and contact nominations will match equally regardless of study arm.|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91819132|NCT02904057|183514550|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportion|92.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.4|98.8|||Fisher Exact|||Imputed Data: Difference between proportion of treatment responders and control responders (P\[treatment\] - P\[control\] with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an exact approach.||98.8|73.4|<0.0001
91819133|NCT02904057|183514550|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportion|92.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.4|98.8|||Fisher Exact|||Observed Data: Difference between proportion of treatment responders and control responders (P\[treatment\] - P\[control\] with CI was calculated using an exact approach.||98.8|73.4|<0.0001
91819134|NCT02633956|183514574|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|13.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|25.3||||||||25.30|2.28|
91819135|NCT02633956|183514574|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|20.3||||||||20.30|-2.18|
91819136|NCT02633956|183514574|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|20.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.33|32.92||||||||32.92|7.33|
91819137|NCT02633956|183514575|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.75||||||||0.75|0.07|
91948165|NCT01277666|183793343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.2|-5.2|0.985
91819138|NCT02633956|183514575|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.42||||||||0.42|-0.25|
91819139|NCT02633956|183514575|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.89||||||||0.89|0.14|
91819140|NCT02633956|183514576|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|103.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.58|242.81||||||||242.81|-35.58|
91819141|NCT02633956|183514576|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|114.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|251.13||||||||251.13|-21.53|
91819142|NCT02633956|183514576|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|215.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.84|374.26||||||||374.26|55.84|
91819143|NCT04206293|183514582|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||3.6|-0.2|0.0736
91819144|NCT04206293|183514582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.8|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||2.8|-1.5|0.5259
91819145|NCT04206293|183514583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||2.4|-2.8|0.8848
91819146|NCT04206293|183514583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||1.7|-1.8|0.9505
91819147|NCT04206293|183514584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.0|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||4.0|1.4|0.0007
91948166|NCT01277666|183793343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.1|-6.1|0.709
91819148|NCT04206293|183514584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.9|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||3.9|0.9|0.0033
91819149|NCT04206293|183514585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|-0.07|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Uf: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.070|-0.119|<0.0001
91819150|NCT04206293|183514585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|-0.048|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Uf: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.048|-0.094|<0.0001
91948167|NCT01277666|183793344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.4|-6.5|0.633
91819151|NCT04206293|183514585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|-0.061|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ue: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.061|-0.116|<0.0001
91819152|NCT04206293|183514585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|-0.061|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ue: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.061|-0.102|<0.0001
91819153|NCT04206293|183514585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0003||95.0|-0.116|-0.041|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ur: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.041|-0.116|0.0003
91948168|NCT01277666|183793344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||||9.0|-7.8|0.889
91819154|NCT04206293|183514585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|-0.044|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ur: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.044|-0.103|0.0001
91819155|NCT04206293|183514585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|-0.045|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ua: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.045|-0.117|0.0002
91819156|NCT04206293|183514585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|-0.052|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ua: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.052|-0.103|<0.0001
91819157|NCT04206293|183514586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.5786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.022|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q1: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.022|-0.038|0.5786
91819158|NCT04206293|183514586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.002|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q1: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.002|-0.049|0.0690
91948169|NCT01277666|183793345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.2|-8.1|0.541
91948170|NCT01277666|183793345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.7|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.7|-8.5|0.430
91948171|NCT01277666|183793346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.426||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|3.64||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||3.64|-5.89|0.642
91948172|NCT01277666|183793346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.652||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|4.87||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.87|-5.55|0.898
91948173|NCT01277666|183793346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.467||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|8.21||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||8.21|-1.48|0.173
91819159|NCT04206293|183514586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.012|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q2: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.012|-0.054|0.1934
91819160|NCT04206293|183514586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|-0.006|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q2: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.006|-0.062|0.0194
91819161|NCT04206293|183514586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.028|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q3: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.028|-0.001|0.0652
91948174|NCT01277666|183793346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.697||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|7.15||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||7.15|-3.45|0.493
91819162|NCT04206293|183514586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.024|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q3: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.024|-0.001|0.0756
91819163|NCT04206293|183514587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.8409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|5.1|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||5.10|-6.19|0.8409
91819164|NCT04206293|183514587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|8.35|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||8.35|-9.18|0.9183
91948175|NCT01657903|183793357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|41.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.42|47.89||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %RER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||47.89|34.42|<0.0001
91948176|NCT01657903|183793357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|41.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.51|48.06||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %RER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||48.06|34.51|<0.0001
91948177|NCT01657903|183793357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|40.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.06|47.61||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %RER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||47.61|34.06|<0.0001
91819165|NCT04206293|183514588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|70.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.0||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.0|282.0|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||282|-142|0.4128
91948178|NCT01657903|183793358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.01|12.72||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.72|6.01|<0.0001
91948179|NCT01657903|183793358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|12.82||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.82|6.07|<0.0001
91948180|NCT01657903|183793358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.28|15.03||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.03|8.28|<0.0001
91948181|NCT02312934|183793373|OTHER||||||=|0.41||||||All pairwise comparisons were Sidak corrected for multiple comparisons at the p \< 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = 0.72).||For the Primary Aim (Specific Aim 1), a mixed-models repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the interaction of treatment group (nicotine, placebo) with time (Visit), using change from baseline PCI FACT-Cog score (Visit 3, Visit 4, and Visit 5) as the dependent measure.||||=0.41
91948182|NCT02312934|183793374|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||All pairwise comparisons were Sidak corrected for multiple comparisons at the p \< 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = 0.72).||For the Secondary Aim (Specific Aim 2), a mixed-models repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the interaction of treatment group (nicotine, placebo) with time (Visit), using change from baseline CPT Scores (Visit 3, Visit 4, and Visit 5) as the dependent measure.||||0.79
91948183|NCT03395704|183793381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||< 0.0001
91948184|NCT01801189|183793385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Threshold for significance was P \<0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.10
91948185|NCT01801189|183793385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Threshold for significance \<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||POD 1||||.23
91948186|NCT01801189|183793385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Threshold for significance \<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||POD 2||||.31
91948187|NCT00498706|183793387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t value|-2.95||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91948188|NCT00498706|183793388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square|5.83||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91819166|NCT04206293|183514588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-82.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.0||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-355.0|191.0|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||191|-355|0.3851
91948189|NCT00498706|183793388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square|7.75||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared||Attrition before week 5 was significantly lower in T-CBT than in face-to-face CBT.|||||.006
91948190|NCT00498706|183793390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority is established by showing that the true difference between 2 treatment arms is likely to be smaller than a prespecified noninferiority margin that separates clinically important from clinically negligible (acceptable) differences.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Longitudinal depression scores were modeled with repeated-measures linear regression models.Time was treated as a categorical variable to account for nonlinear effects of time, and an unstructured covariance matrix was assumed.||1.17|-1.35|0.89
91948191|NCT00498706|183793391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority is established by showing that the true difference between 2 treatment arms is likely to be smaller than a prespecified noninferiority margin that separates clinically important from clinically negligible (acceptable) differences.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.695||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Longitudinal depression scores were modeled with repeated-measures linear regression models.Time was treated as a categorical variable to account for nonlinear effects of time, and an unstructured covariance matrix was assumed.||2.76|-0.63|0.22
91948192|NCT04524663|183793392|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|9.32|||Regression, Linear|||||9.32|-8.14|0.89
91948193|NCT04524663|183793393|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|18.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|34.83|||Regression, Linear|||||34.83|2.98|0.02
91948194|NCT04524663|183793394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.1|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||4.10|0.70|0.24
91948195|NCT04524663|183793395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
91948196|NCT04524663|183793396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.33|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.33|0.32|0.24
91948197|NCT00911508|183793399|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15||||||||1.15|0.65|
91948198|NCT00911508|183793400|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||||||||1.21|0.60|
91948199|NCT00911508|183793401|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93||||||||0.93|0.74|
91948200|NCT00911508|183793402|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||||||||1.09|0.72|
91948201|NCT00911508|183793403|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.68||||||||1.68|0.53|
91948202|NCT00911508|183793404|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.51||||||||1.51|0.51|
91819167|NCT04206293|183514589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|13.93|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||13.93|-0.89|0.0798
91819168|NCT04206293|183514589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|12.67|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||12.67|-1.55|0.1142
91819169|NCT04206293|183514590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.71|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ra: Change from Baseline to Day 28||2.71|-0.78|0.2592
91819170|NCT04206293|183514590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|2.57|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ra: Change from Baseline to Day 84||2.57|-0.38|0.1341
91819171|NCT04206293|183514590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.2138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|15.61|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Rz: Change from Baseline to Day 28||15.61|-3.79|0.2138
91819172|NCT04206293|183514590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|17.2|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Rz: Change from Baseline to Day 84||17.20|-0.77|0.0700
91819173|NCT04206293|183514591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.9608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.91|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||4.91|-4.70|0.9608
91819174|NCT04206293|183514591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|4.64|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||4.64|-7.48|0.6192
91819175|NCT04206293|183514592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.16|-0.20|0.8322
91819176|NCT04206293|183514592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.04|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.04|-0.25|0.1334
91819177|NCT04206293|183514593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.78||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.56|11.38|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||11.38|-21.56|0.5221
91948203|NCT00911508|183793405|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.72||||||||1.72|0.33|
91819178|NCT04206293|183514593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|24.03|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||24.03|-10.55|0.4174
91819179|NCT04206293|183514594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.3052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.44|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||8.44|-2.90|0.3052
91819180|NCT04206293|183514594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|15.5|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||15.50|4.48|0.0016
91819181|NCT04206293|183514595|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.73|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||1.73|-0.33|0.1672
91819182|NCT04206293|183514595|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.21|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||1.21|-0.10|0.0881
91819183|NCT04206293|183514596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.17|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||1.17|-0.02|0.0577
91819184|NCT04206293|183514596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.45|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.45|-0.85|0.5224
91819185|NCT04206293|183514597|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.2|-0.6|0.2666
91819186|NCT04206293|183514597|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.7|-0.3|0.4366
91948204|NCT00911508|183793406|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.09||||||||3.09|0.41|
91948205|NCT00911508|183793407|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.6||||||||0.60|0.45|
91948206|NCT00911508|183793408|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97||||||||0.97|0.77|
91819187|NCT04206293|183514598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||a\*: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.3|-0.6|0.4197
91819188|NCT04206293|183514598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||a\*: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.5|-0.6|0.9140
91819189|NCT04206293|183514598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||b\*: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.4|-0.6|0.7604
91819190|NCT04206293|183514598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||b\*: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.6|-1.0|0.5936
91819191|NCT04206293|183514598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||L\*: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.1|-0.9|0.0808
91819192|NCT04206293|183514598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||L\*: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.2|-1.0|0.1633
91819193|NCT04206293|183514599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.4|-1.6|0.1977
91819194|NCT04206293|183514599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.7535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||1.7|-2.2|0.7535
91819195|NCT04206293|183514600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|12.85|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||12.85|-4.16|0.2905
91819196|NCT04206293|183514600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|31.69|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||31.69|2.84|0.0241
91819197|NCT00782210|183514624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.135|<0.0001
91819198|NCT00782210|183514624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.139|<0.0001
91819199|NCT00782210|183514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.128|0.054|<0.0001
91819200|NCT00782210|183514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.064|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|0.064|<0.0001
91819201|NCT00782210|183514626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.233|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.113|<0.0001
91819202|NCT00782210|183514626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.108|<0.0001
91819203|NCT00782210|183514627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.201|0.128|<0.0001
91819204|NCT00782210|183514627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.139|<0.0001
91819205|NCT00782210|183514628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.144|<0.0001
91819206|NCT00782210|183514628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.156|<0.0001
91819207|NCT00782210|183514629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.133|<0.0001
91819208|NCT00782210|183514629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.130|<0.0001
91819209|NCT00782210|183514630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.136|<0.0001
91819210|NCT00782210|183514630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.123|<0.0001
91819211|NCT00782210|183514631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.134|<0.0001
91819212|NCT00782210|183514631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.131|<0.0001
91948207|NCT00911508|183793409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Month||6.9|3.7|<0.001
91948208|NCT00911508|183793409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5 Years||4.8|2.1|<0.001
91948209|NCT00911508|183793410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Month||-1.2|-2.3|0.001
91819213|NCT00782210|183514632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.059|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.131|0.059|<0.0001
91819214|NCT00782210|183514632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.147|0.075|<0.0001
91819215|NCT00782210|183514633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.059|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.131|0.059|<0.0001
91948210|NCT00911508|183793410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5 Year||-0.9|-1.9|0.001
91819216|NCT00782210|183514633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.127|0.054|<0.0001
91819217|NCT00782210|183514634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.061|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|0.061|<0.0001
91948211|NCT00911508|183793411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Month||-1.1|-2.0|<0.001
91948212|NCT00911508|183793411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5 Year||-0.4|-1.7|<0.001
91819218|NCT00782210|183514634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.064|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.138|0.064|<0.0001
91819219|NCT00782210|183514635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|0.049|<0.0001
91819220|NCT00782210|183514635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.126|0.051|<0.0001
91819221|NCT00782210|183514636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|0.054|<0.0001
91948213|NCT04308668|183793413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.2|||Fisher Exact||Values represent percentages. Experimental treatment arm compared with the placebo control arm.|||2.2|-7.0|0.35
91948214|NCT04308668|183793414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.61|0.117
91948215|NCT01266967|183793422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|52.6|||Exact Test||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OIR.|||52.6|29.3|<0.0001
91948216|NCT01266967|183793422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.3|49.8|||Exact Test||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OIR.|||49.8|25.3|<0.0001
91948217|NCT01519700|183793444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limit: -1 day Power: 90% Confidence level: 97.5% Randomization ratio: 1:1 (EP2006:Neupogen)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.26||||||The one-sided 97.5% Confidence Interval: \[-0.26, ∞).||||-0.26|
91819222|NCT00782210|183514636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.048|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|0.048|<0.0001
91819223|NCT00782210|183514637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.145|0.069|<0.0001
91819224|NCT00782210|183514637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|0.068|<0.0001
91819225|NCT00782210|183514638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|0.055|<0.0001
91819226|NCT00782210|183514638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.053|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.129|0.053|<0.0001
91819227|NCT00782210|183514639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.194|0.115|<0.0001
91819228|NCT00782210|183514639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.131|<0.0001
91819229|NCT00782210|183514640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.137|<0.0001
91819230|NCT00782210|183514640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.230|0.150|<0.0001
91948218|NCT05111548|183793451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.923
91948219|NCT05111548|183793452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.110
91948220|NCT05111548|183793453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.818
91819231|NCT00782210|183514641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.132|<0.0001
91819232|NCT00782210|183514641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.132|<0.0001
91819233|NCT00782210|183514642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.123|<0.0001
91819234|NCT00782210|183514642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.124|<0.0001
91819235|NCT00782210|183514643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|0.134|<0.0001
91819236|NCT00782210|183514643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|0.110|<0.0001
91819237|NCT00782210|183514644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.128|<0.0001
91819238|NCT00782210|183514644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.121|<0.0001
91948221|NCT05111548|183793454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.130
91948222|NCT03938857|183793464|OTHER||Slope|-0.1088295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4728041||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.035508|0.8178494|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value represents interaction between treatment and days.|Placebo group compared to combined Dexmedetomidine groups.||0.8178494|-1.035508|0.814
91948223|NCT01729559|183793492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 10% noninferiority margin was selected based on a previous trial showing a difference in the incidence of DVT of 13% with the use of 30 mg of enoxaparin every 12 hours compared to 5,000 U of unfractionated heparin (UFH) every 12 hr. To achieve 90% power using an a priori margin of 10% with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, a total of 182 patients (91 in each arm) was required.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|15.8||One-tailed test of the cumulative VTE incidence between treatment groups.|Chi-squared, Corrected||Unadjusted cumulative incidence values between the two treatment groups were subtracted to calculate the risk difference for VTE between groups. This difference was compared to the a priori 10% margin of difference using the 95% confidence interval.|Analysis was performed in a subset of patients who received at least one follow-up venous duplex ultrasound of the lower extremities.||15.8|-2.9|0.025
91948224|NCT01729559|183793492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 10% noninferiority margin was selected based on these data showing a difference in the incidence of DVT of 13% with the use of 30 mg of enoxaparin every 12 hours compared to 5,000 U of UFH every 12 hours. To achieve 90% power using an a priori margin of 10% with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, a total of 182 patients (91 in each arm) was required. This analysis was performed in the entire sample.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.7||One-tailed test of the cumulative VTE incidence between treatment groups.|Chi-squared, Corrected||Unadjusted cumulative incidence values between the two treatment groups were subtracted to calculate the risk difference for VTE between groups. This difference was compared to the a priori 10% margin of difference using the 95% confidence interval.|"Analysis was performed in the total sample of eligible patients and who received their assigned treatment (referred to as the randomized treated sample) ."||7.7|-1.6|0.025
91948225|NCT01453439|183793510|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1249|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Degrees of freedom=90.9|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of interest: time by group interaction|The estimated value describes the mean slope difference of CBT compared to SPT.|"We compared the difference in the rate of change in BDD symptom severity over time (during treatment phase) between the randomized treatment groups (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in BDD symptom severity in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||<.01
91948226|NCT01453439|183793510|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1038||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||Degrees of freedom=74.7|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of interest was the time by group interaction.|The estimated value describes the mean slope difference of CBT compared to SPT during follow-up (week 24 to week 50).|"We compared the difference in the rate of change in BDD symptom severity over time (during the follow-up phase) between the randomized treatment groups (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in BDD symptom severity during follow-up will not differ significantly between CBT and SPT treatments \[to be tested\]."||||.62
91948227|NCT01453439|183793511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Degrees of freedom=93.2|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in Patient Insight over time (During Treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in insight in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.10
91948228|NCT01453439|183793511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||Degrees of freedom=74.5|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in Patient Insight over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in insight in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.45
91948229|NCT01453439|183793512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Degrees of freedom=89.1|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in depressive symptoms over time (During Treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in depressive symptoms in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.05
91948230|NCT01453439|183793512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Degrees of freedom=63.7|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in depressive symptoms over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in depressive symptoms in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.26
91948231|NCT01453439|183793513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Degrees of freedom=91.4|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in Quality of life satisfaction over time (During treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in Quality of life satisfaction severity in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.04
91819239|NCT00782210|183514645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.359|0.216|<0.0001
91819240|NCT00782210|183514645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.258|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.258|<0.0001
91819241|NCT00782210|183514646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.224|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.368|0.224|<0.0001
91819242|NCT00782210|183514646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.255|0.399|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.399|0.255|<0.0001
91819243|NCT00782210|183514647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.327|0.181|<0.0001
91819244|NCT00782210|183514647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.366|0.220|<0.0001
91819245|NCT00782210|183514648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.348|0.201|<0.0001
91819246|NCT00782210|183514648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.219|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.366|0.219|<0.0001
91819247|NCT00782210|183514649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.161|<0.0001
91819248|NCT00782210|183514649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.180|<0.0001
91819249|NCT00782210|183514650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.169|0.319|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.319|0.169|<0.0001
91819250|NCT00782210|183514650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.196|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.346|0.196|<0.0001
91819251|NCT00782210|183514651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.076|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|0.076|<0.0001
91819252|NCT00782210|183514651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.113|<0.0001
91819253|NCT00782210|183514652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0003||95.0|0.059|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.059|0.0003
91819254|NCT00782210|183514652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.213|0.069|0.0001
91819255|NCT00782210|183514653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0019||95.0|0.043|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|0.043|0.0019
91819256|NCT00782210|183514653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.088|<0.0001
91819257|NCT00782210|183514654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0005||95.0|0.057|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.057|0.0005
91819258|NCT00782210|183514654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.089|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.089|<0.0001
91819259|NCT00782210|183514655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0261||95.0|0.01|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.156|0.010|0.0261
91819260|NCT00782210|183514655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.001||95.0|0.05|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.050|0.0010
91819261|NCT00782210|183514656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0154||95.0|0.018|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.165|0.018|0.0154
91819262|NCT00782210|183514656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0011||95.0|0.049|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.049|0.0011
91819263|NCT00782210|183514657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0006||95.0|0.057|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.057|0.0006
91819264|NCT00782210|183514657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.080|<0.0001
91819265|NCT00782210|183514658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0134||95.0|0.019|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.168|0.019|0.0134
91819266|NCT00782210|183514658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0025||95.0|0.04|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.040|0.0025
91819267|NCT00782210|183514659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.339|0.187|<0.0001
91819268|NCT00782210|183514659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.225|0.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.376|0.225|<0.0001
91819269|NCT00782210|183514660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.188|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.341|0.188|<0.0001
91819270|NCT00782210|183514660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.368|0.216|<0.0001
91819271|NCT00782210|183514661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.328|0.174|<0.0001
91819272|NCT00782210|183514661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.358|0.203|<0.0001
91819273|NCT00782210|183514662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.174|<0.0001
91819274|NCT00782210|183514662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.183|0.338|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.338|0.183|<0.0001
91819275|NCT00782210|183514663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.153|<0.0001
91819276|NCT00782210|183514663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.311|0.154|<0.0001
91819277|NCT00782210|183514664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.327|0.168|<0.0001
91819278|NCT00782210|183514664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.340|0.181|<0.0001
91948232|NCT01453439|183793513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Degrees of freedom=74.7|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in the quality of life satisfaction over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in the quality of life satisfaction in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.82
91948233|NCT01453439|183793514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3007||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of interest: Treatment main effect, two-sided alpha = 0.05 effect adjusted for site effects, time effects, and interactions|ANOVA|repeated measures 3-way ANOVA (treatment type, site, time (repeated)) Effect of interest: main effect of treatment: F(num df=1, den df=112) = 5.17|Least Squares Means difference|Null hypothesis: There is no significant different in the perceived credibility of CBT and SPT.||||0.0095
91948234|NCT01453439|183793518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Degrees of freedom=88.0|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in social functioning over time (During Treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts, and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in social functioning in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.30
91948235|NCT01453439|183793518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Degrees of freedom=74.5|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in social functioning over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in social functioning CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.85
91948236|NCT01453439|183793519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6882||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori significance level: 2-sided alpha = 0.05 effect adjusted for site effects, time effects, and interactions|ANOVA|repeated measures 3-way ANOVA (treatment type, site, time (repeated)) Effect of interest: main effect of treatment - F(num def=1,den df=79.9) = 15.55|Least Squares Means difference|Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in treatment satisfaction between patients with BDD assigned to CBT vs. SPT.||||0.0235
91948237|NCT01453439|183793520|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4259||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori significance level: 2-sided alpha=0.05 effect adjusted for site effects, time effects, and interactions|ANOVA|repeated measures 3-way ANOVA (treatment group, site, time (repeated)) effect of interest: main effect of treatment: F(num df=1, den df=110) = 7.59|Least Squares Mean difference|Null hypotheses: There is no significant difference in patient expectancy of improvement between BDD patients assigned to CBT vs. SPT.||||0.0069
91948238|NCT01014442|183793521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|1.305||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.25|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||4.2500|-0.8300|0.2649
91948239|NCT01014442|183793521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|11.405||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|42.78|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||42.7800|-10.2000|0.3113
91948240|NCT01014442|183793521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.305||||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.19|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1900|-0.8100|0.2953
91948241|NCT01014442|183793522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.29||||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.41|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.4100|-2.9900|0.1308
91948242|NCT01014442|183793522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-10.845||||0.4886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|20.79|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||20.7900|-31.5000|0.4886
91948243|NCT01014442|183793522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.2||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.19|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1900|-0.6000|0.2218
91948244|NCT01014442|183793523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.87||||0.0886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|0.28|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2800|-3.7900|0.0886
91948245|NCT01014442|183793523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-30.76||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.97|-6.36|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-6.3600|-54.9700|0.0220
91948246|NCT01014442|183793523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.56||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.27|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.2700|-1.0200|0.0008
91948247|NCT01014442|183793524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|3.945||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.23|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||8.2300|0.2500|0.0318
91948248|NCT01014442|183793524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-7.59||||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.19|30.7|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||30.7000|-51.1900|0.7144
91948249|NCT01014442|183793524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.27||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.88|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.8800|-0.3100|0.3930
91948250|NCT01014442|183793525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|17.08||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|74.32|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||74.3200|-16.5000|0.3002
91948251|NCT01014442|183793526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-25.24||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.25|-2.29|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-2.2900|-53.2500|0.0334
91948252|NCT01014442|183793527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-23.805||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.27|5.97|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||5.9700|-52.2700|0.1151
91948253|NCT01014442|183793528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-15.63||||0.5974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.88|30.56|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||30.5600|-63.8800|0.5974
91948254|NCT01014442|183793529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0005||||0.5466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00103|0.00259|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00259|-0.00103|0.5466
91948255|NCT01014442|183793529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00728||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00707|0.03161|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.03161|-0.00707|0.3223
91948256|NCT01014442|183793529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00026||||0.2108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0007|0.00012|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00012|-0.00070|0.2108
91948257|NCT01014442|183793529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0000112||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000014|0.0000462|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called a Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000462|-0.0000140|0.4334
91948258|NCT01014442|183793530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00081||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00216|0.0003|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00030|-0.00216|0.1511
91948259|NCT01014442|183793530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00695||||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0205|0.01103|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.01103|-0.02050|0.4131
91948260|NCT01014442|183793530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00017||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00046|0.00013|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00013|-0.00046|0.2677
91948261|NCT01014442|183793530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000185||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000394|-0.000005|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0000050|-0.0000394|0.0173
91948262|NCT01014442|183793531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00063||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0023|0.00084|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00084|-0.00230|0.3784
91948263|NCT01014442|183793531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.01602||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03229|0.00297|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00297|-0.03229|0.0942
91948264|NCT01014442|183793531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00037||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00062|-0.00015|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.00015|-0.00062|0.0032
91948265|NCT01014442|183793531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000126||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000328|-0.0000091|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0000091|-0.0000328|0.1760
91948266|NCT01014442|183793532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0043||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00027|0.00833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00833|-0.00027|0.0509
91948267|NCT01014442|183793532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00567||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03414|0.02671|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.02671|-0.03414|0.8262
91948268|NCT01014442|183793532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00023||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.0007|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00070|-0.00030|0.4345
91819279|NCT00782210|183514665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.422|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.422|0.181|<0.0001
91819280|NCT00782210|183514665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.37|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.370|0.128|<0.0001
91948269|NCT01014442|183793532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00001||||0.6472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000586|0.0000364|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000364|-0.0000586|0.6472
91948270|NCT01014442|183793533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0333||||0.5745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.5|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.5000|-1.9500|0.5745
91948271|NCT01014442|183793533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.8||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3333|0.0833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0833|-2.3333|0.2003
91948272|NCT01014442|183793533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.5||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0833|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000|-2.0833|0.0929
91948273|NCT01014442|183793533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0667|0.0000|0.0823
91948274|NCT01014442|183793534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0417||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7333|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.7333|-0.5000|0.8106
91948275|NCT01014442|183793534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1667|0.1667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1667|-0.1667|1.0000
91819281|NCT00782210|183514666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.253||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.005|21.709|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||21.709|5.005|0.0018
91819282|NCT00782210|183514666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.457|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.248||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.114|23.8|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||23.800|7.114|0.0003
91819283|NCT00782210|183514667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.849|25.523|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||25.523|8.849|<0.0001
91819284|NCT00782210|183514667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.226||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.259|22.86|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||22.860|6.259|0.0006
91948276|NCT01014442|183793534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0667||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3333|1.4667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.4667|-0.3333|0.6311
91948277|NCT01014442|183793534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1667|0.0167|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0167|-0.1667|0.4330
91948278|NCT01014442|183793535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1667|0.5833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.5833|-1.1667|1.0000
91948279|NCT01014442|183793535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0833||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0833|-2.0000|0.4947
91948280|NCT01014442|183793535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.1667||||0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9667|0.2|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2000|-1.9667|0.4425
91948281|NCT01014442|183793535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0333|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0333|-0.0500|0.9720
91948282|NCT01014442|183793536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0333||||0.8834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1667|0.7|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.7000|-1.1667|0.8834
91948283|NCT01014442|183793536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.8333||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000|-2.2000|0.0386
91819285|NCT00782210|183514668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.878|-0.162|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.162|-0.878|0.0045
91948284|NCT01014442|183793536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.525||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6167|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000|-2.6167|0.0558
91948285|NCT01014442|183793536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.15||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2333|-0.0667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0667|-0.2333|0.0082
91948286|NCT01014442|183793537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.13||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.5|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.5000|-0.2600|0.5224
91948287|NCT01014442|183793537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|11.16||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|30.29|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||30.2900|-5.2900|0.2088
91948288|NCT01014442|183793537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.165||||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.08|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0800|-0.4500|0.1794
91948289|NCT01014442|183793538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.125||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1900|-0.3800|0.4027
91948290|NCT01014442|183793538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-16.09||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.35|6.39|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||6.3900|-29.3500|0.0875
91948291|NCT01014442|183793538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.2||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.05|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0500|-0.3500|0.0112
91819286|NCT00782210|183514668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.005|-0.291|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.291|-1.005|0.0004
91819287|NCT00782210|183514669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.979|-0.185|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.185|-0.979|0.0041
91819288|NCT00782210|183514669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|-0.394|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.394|-1.189|0.0001
91819289|NCT00782210|183514670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.799|-0.409|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.409|-1.799|0.0019
91819290|NCT00782210|183514670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.74|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.740|-2.130|<0.0001
91819291|NCT00782210|183514671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
91819292|NCT00782210|183514671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
91819293|NCT00782210|183514672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
91819294|NCT00782210|183514672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|<0.0001
91819295|NCT00782210|183514673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
91819296|NCT00782210|183514673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
91819297|NCT00782210|183514674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0109||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum,visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0109
91819298|NCT00782210|183514674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0031||95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0031
91819299|NCT00782210|183514675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.016|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.016|0.522|0.0658
91819300|NCT00782210|183514675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.107|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.107|0.576|0.1701
91819301|NCT00782210|183514676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|1.374|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.374|0.313|0.2754
91819302|NCT00782210|183514676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.9792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.961|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.961|0.521|0.9792
91819303|NCT00782210|183514677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.078|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.078|0.506|0.1194
91819304|NCT00782210|183514677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.174|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.174|0.561|0.2570
91819305|NCT00782210|183514678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.7815|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5524|1.1054|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.1054|0.5524|0.1631
91819306|NCT00782210|183514678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1467||0.3342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6015|1.1889|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.1889|0.6015|0.3342
91819307|NCT00782210|183514679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2664||0.2985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2947|1.4556|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.4556|0.2947|0.2985
91819308|NCT00782210|183514679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.1211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4103||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5464|2.3003|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.3003|0.5464|0.7550
91819309|NCT00782210|183514680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.2911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5438|1.2008|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.2008|0.5438|0.2911
91819310|NCT00782210|183514680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1686||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5743|1.2535|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.2535|0.5743|0.4086
91819311|NCT01610791|183514687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in ALT from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
91819312|NCT01610791|183514687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AST from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
91819313|NCT01610791|183514688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diffrence in total cholesterol from baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
91819314|NCT01610791|183514688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in LDL cholesterol from baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
91819315|NCT04304001|183514708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||For each arm, the proportion of participants who receive colorectal cancer screening by 12 months was computed. The chi-square test was used to compare the two treatment arms for screening receipt. If the proportion of participants receiving colorectal cancer screening in the intervention arm is at least 15% higher than that in the control arm, the intervention was determined to be effective.||||<0.05
91819316|NCT04304001|183514709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bivariate analyses was conducted for the knowledge scale to compare differences between the intervention and control arms. Since knowledge was a continuous variable,the values between study arms were compared using two-sample independent t-tests.||||<0.05
91819317|NCT04304001|183514710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bivariate analyses was conducted for the self-efficacy scale to compare differences between the intervention and control arms. Since self-efficacy was a continuous variable, the values between study arms were compared using two-sample independent t-tests.||||<0.05
91819318|NCT04164901|183514711|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.39|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.56|||Kaplan-Meier|||||0.56|0.27|<0.0000001
91819319|NCT04164901|183514714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|15.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was calculated with placebo as the control (denominator).|||15.25|1.56|0.003
91819320|NCT04164901|183514721|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.35||||2.4e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.54|||Kaplan-Meier|||||0.54|0.23|0.00000024
91948292|NCT01014442|183793539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.215||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0500|-0.5600|0.0818
91819321|NCT05358821|183514729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.3657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2539|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8566|3.8749|||T-test||Difference was calculated as HP - HD.|||3.8749|2.8566|<0.0001
91819322|NCT04609020|183514774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.61|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|40.58|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||40.58|<0.0001
91819323|NCT04609020|183514775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.36|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|29.61|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||29.61|<0.0001
91819324|NCT04609020|183514776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.23|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|21.5|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||21.50|<0.0001
91819325|NCT04609020|183514777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.56|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|17.65|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||17.65|<0.0001
91819326|NCT04609020|183514778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.25|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|37.48|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||37.48|<0.0001
91819327|NCT02107599|183514783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Asymptotic Z-test|||||||0.0001
91819328|NCT02107599|183514784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Monte Carlo test|||Evaluate whether the VisQ interpretation significantly improves the reliability of Amyvid Scan interpretation.||||0.0060
91819329|NCT02107599|183514784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1229|TWO_SIDED||||||Monte Carlo test|||Evaluate whether the VisQ interpretation significantly improves the reliability of Amyvid Scan interpretation.||||0.1229
91819330|NCT02107599|183514784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Monte Carlo test|||Evaluate whether the VisQ interpretation significantly improves the reliability of Amyvid Scan interpretation.||||0.0260
91819331|NCT02462967|183514814|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
91819332|NCT02462967|183514814|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
91819333|NCT02462967|183514815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.447
91819334|NCT02462967|183514815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.921
91819335|NCT02462967|183514816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.522
91819336|NCT02462967|183514816|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
91819337|NCT02462967|183514817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.943
91819338|NCT02462967|183514817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.492
91819339|NCT02462967|183514818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.832
91819340|NCT02462967|183514818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.558
91819341|NCT02462967|183514819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.362
91819342|NCT02462967|183514819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.602
91819343|NCT02462967|183514820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.633
91819344|NCT02462967|183514820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.814
91819345|NCT02272413|183514822|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was to be rejected in favor of equivalence if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio in best ORR between the treatments was entirely contained within the equivalence margins of 0.736 to 1.359.|Ratio of best ORR|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7697|0.9506|||Log-binomial regression|||Analysis was based on a log-binomial regression model with subsequent transformation of the estimated parameter (ratio of best ORR) respective CIs to the ratio scale. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus Non-East Asian).||0.9506|0.7697|
91948293|NCT01014442|183793539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-14.03||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|2.94|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2.9400|-26.9000|0.0945
91948294|NCT01014442|183793539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.19||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0400|-0.4100|0.0081
91948295|NCT01014442|183793540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.36||||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.28|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2800|-1.1400|0.3289
91948296|NCT01014442|183793540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-20.3||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|4.71|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||4.7100|-49.3900|0.1243
91948297|NCT01014442|183793540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.03||||0.8704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.23|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2300|-0.2800|0.8704
91948298|NCT01014442|183793541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|5.22||||0.4043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|24.49|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||24.4900|-5.0100|0.4043
91948299|NCT01014442|183793542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.44||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|8.01|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||8.0100|-6.0700|0.8930
91948300|NCT01014442|183793543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-4.935||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|1.11|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.1100|-14.3100|0.0819
91948301|NCT01014442|183793544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-8.205||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.27|-0.07|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0700|-19.2700|0.0414
91948302|NCT01014442|183793545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|69.7186||||0.1552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4659|162.9545|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||162.9545|-23.4659|0.1552
91948303|NCT01014442|183793545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.7836||||0.6057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2675|2.5529|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2.5529|-3.2675|0.6057
91948304|NCT01014442|183793545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|299.1021||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5869|695.1789|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||695.1789|79.5869|0.0188
91948305|NCT01014442|183793546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|88.959||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7876|209.0183|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||209.0183|-5.7876|0.0659
91948306|NCT01014442|183793546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.4456||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1366|2.292|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2.2920|-3.1366|0.7842
91948307|NCT01014442|183793546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|121.3737||||0.4072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-233.6483|560.0069|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||560.0069|-233.6483|0.4072
91819346|NCT02272413|183514822|EQUIVALENCE|Additional analysis of the primary endpoint was performed for Japan according to a local protocol amendment Japan. For the submission in Japan, to conclude on equivalence, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of best ORR between the treatments had to be entirely contained within the equivalence margins of 0.736 to 1.359.|Ratio of best ORR|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7543|0.97|||Log-binomial regression|||Analysis was based on a log-binomial regression model with subsequent transformation of the estimated parameter (ratio of best ORR) respective CIs to the ratio scale. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus Non-East Asian).||0.9700|0.7543|
91819347|NCT02272413|183514823|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.37|||Score exact method|||At least 1 AE selected for comparability assessment, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.37|0.99|
91819348|NCT02272413|183514823|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.88|||Score exact method|||Infusion reactions, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.88|0.88|
91819349|NCT02272413|183514823|OTHER||Risk Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.32|||Score exact method|||Thromboembolic events, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||2.32|0.64|
91819350|NCT02272413|183514823|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.76|||Score exact method|||Febrile neutropenia, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||2.76|0.51|
91819351|NCT02272413|183514823|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|32.82|||Score exact method|||Gastrointestinal perforations, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||32.82|0.79|
91819352|NCT02272413|183514823|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39|||Score exact method|||Hypertension, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.39|0.66|
91819353|NCT02272413|183514823|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.57|||Score exact method|||Proteinuria, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.57|0.74|
91819354|NCT02272413|183514823|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.79|||Score exact method|||Pulmonary haemorrhage, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||10.79|0.28|
91948308|NCT01014442|183793547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|207.9933||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.2442|355.1739|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||355.1739|71.2442|0.0040
91948309|NCT01014442|183793547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|2.6186||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1999|6.7766|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||6.7766|-0.1999|0.0689
91819355|NCT02272413|183514823|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.74|||Score exact method|||Other hemorrhages, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.74|0.88|
91819356|NCT02272413|183514823|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.57|||Score excat method|||Wound healing complications/ abscesses/ fistulas, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||3.57|0.47|
91819357|NCT02272413|183514824|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.45|||Cox-proportional hazards regression|||Analysis based on a Cox-proportional hazards regression model. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus non East Asian).||1.45|1.02|
91819358|NCT02272413|183514825|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51|||Cox-proportional hazards regression|||Analysis based on a Cox-proportional hazards regression model. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus non East Asian).||1.51|1.00|
91819359|NCT02272413|183514826|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.48|||Cox-proportional hazards regression|||Analysis based on a Cox-proportional hazards regression model. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus non East Asian).||1.48|0.88|
91819360|NCT02872116|183514828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.59|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.59|<0.0001
91819361|NCT02872116|183514829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.56|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.56|<0.0001
91819362|NCT03552575|183514837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||1.0|-4.8|0.19
91819363|NCT03552575|183514838|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.85||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.16|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, and use of diuretics at baseline||||1.16|0.63|0.31
91819364|NCT03552575|183514839|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, and use of diuretics at baseline||||1.22|0.62|0.41
91819365|NCT03552575|183514840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||0.6|-6.8|0.10
91948310|NCT01014442|183793547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|635.7812||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.4696|2793.7642|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2793.7642|49.4696|0.0306
91948311|NCT01014442|183793548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|4.7477||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.5212|59.8304|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||59.8304|-73.5212|0.9029
91819366|NCT03552575|183514841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||2.0|-6.6|0.29
91819367|NCT03552575|183514842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||0.9|-2.0|0.46
91819368|NCT03552575|183514843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||0.6|-3.5|0.16
91819369|NCT03552575|183514844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
91819370|NCT01052545|183514846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the incidence rates per 1,000 bed-days and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for urine cultures ordered, ASB overtreatment and CAUTI under-treatment in each study period.|Regression, Logistic|to test whether there was a significant difference in monthly urine cultures ordered between the two study sites over time.||||||<0.05
91819371|NCT01052545|183514852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||We used χ2 test, Fisher's exact test and one-way ANOVA to determine if patient-level covariates differed between the baseline, intervention and maintenance periods at each study site.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91819372|NCT03792672|183514853|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) difference|115.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|144.0||0.4278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-128.0|359.0||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||359|-128|0.4278
91819373|NCT03792672|183514853|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|338.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|147.0||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|585.0||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||585|90.5|0.0269
91819374|NCT03792672|183514854|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.5089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.595||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.595|-1.37|0.5089
91819375|NCT03792672|183514854|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|0.773||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.773|-1.19|0.7208
91819376|NCT03792672|183514855|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|42.8||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 50 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||42.8|-14.8|0.4174
91948312|NCT01014442|183793548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0077||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6739|3.9521|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||3.9521|-3.6739|0.9692
91948313|NCT01014442|183793548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-149.7962||||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-644.4526|311.9735|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||311.9735|-644.4526|0.3744
91948314|NCT01014442|183793549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|7.8422||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.911|18.4444|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||18.4444|-3.9110|0.1362
91948315|NCT01014442|183793549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.1609||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5693|0.271|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2710|-0.5693|0.4325
91948316|NCT01014442|183793549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|47.2686||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.197|112.7806|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||112.7806|4.1970|0.0316
91948317|NCT01014442|183793550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estmator|19.0536||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|35.3852|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||35.3852|-0.4250|0.0572
91948318|NCT01014442|183793550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.3541||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2524|1.1097|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.1097|-0.2524|0.3198
91948319|NCT01014442|183793550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|54.0322||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7706|160.3469|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||160.3469|-6.7706|0.0845
91948320|NCT01014442|183793551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|25.0037||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2373|43.5102|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||43.5102|8.2373|0.0048
91948321|NCT01014442|183793551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.4297||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.9925|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.9925|0.0340|0.0277
91819377|NCT03792672|183514855|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1||0.3832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.3|31.5||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 50 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||31.5|-25.3|0.3832
91819378|NCT03792672|183514855|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.9368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.23|6.58||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 100 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||6.58|-7.23|0.9368
91948322|NCT01014442|183793551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|318.5455||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|154.1902|526.1716|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||526.1716|154.1902|0.0002
91948323|NCT01014442|183793552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.579||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5052|11.6346|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||11.6346|-14.5052|0.9417
91948324|NCT01014442|183793552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.1817||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1954|0.6246|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.6246|-0.1954|0.2941
91948325|NCT01014442|183793552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-4.9076||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.8234|109.9321|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||109.9321|-84.8234|0.8170
91819379|NCT03792672|183514855|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.32|10.7||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 100 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||10.7|-3.32|0.3790
91948326|NCT01014442|183793553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.4102||||0.2798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5642|3.0044|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||3.0044|-8.5642|0.2798
91948327|NCT01014442|183793553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|72.7203||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1596|393.5295|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||393.5295|-107.1596|0.4063
91948328|NCT01014442|183793553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-3.6042||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1854|-0.1887|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.1887|-8.1854|0.0441
91948329|NCT01014442|183793554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-5.8077||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7302|0.0033|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0033|-11.7302|0.0510
91948330|NCT01014442|183793554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-171.159||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-361.4437|171.9652|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||171.9652|-361.4437|0.2733
91948331|NCT01014442|183793554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.9621||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8456|0.2067|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2067|-4.8456|0.0718
91948332|NCT01014442|183793555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-8.6964||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7713|-4.6498|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-4.6498|-13.7713|0.0002
91948333|NCT01014442|183793555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-268.9537||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-506.7782|-77.397|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-77.3970|-506.7782|0.0058
91948334|NCT01014442|183793555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-4.828|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1455|-2.6133|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-2.6133|-7.1455|<0.0001
91948335|NCT01014442|183793556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|1.7477||||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.101|14.6563|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||14.6563|-12.1010|0.7144
91948336|NCT01014442|183793556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-156.3255||||0.3413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.0765|195.8348|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||195.8348|-526.0765|0.3413
91819380|NCT03792672|183514855|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|18.2||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 200 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||18.2|-3.44|0.2580
91948337|NCT01014442|183793556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.888||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0288|4.2273|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||4.2273|-3.0288|0.6251
91948338|NCT01014442|183793557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|24.315||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0292|79.365|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||79.3650|-16.0292|0.2342
91948339|NCT01014442|183793558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-13.5592||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.395|5.4825|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||5.4825|-37.3950|0.1964
91948340|NCT01014442|183793559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-22.7878||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8217|3.7573|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||3.7573|-44.8217|0.0672
91819381|NCT03792672|183514855|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.45|20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 200 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||20.2|-1.45|0.1524
91948341|NCT01014442|183793560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-21.4737||||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1567|8.5708|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||8.5708|-64.1567|0.2453
91948342|NCT01014442|183793561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00237||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00734|0.00106|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00106|-0.00734|0.1362
91948343|NCT01014442|183793561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.04797||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08467|0.26322|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.26322|-0.08467|0.4325
91948344|NCT01014442|183793561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00311||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00645|-0.00029|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.00029|-0.00645|0.0316
91948345|NCT01014442|183793561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0000158||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000134|0.0000552|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000552|-0.0000134|0.3269
91948346|NCT01014442|183793562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00383||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00761|0.0001|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00010|-0.00761|0.0572
91948347|NCT01014442|183793562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.09626||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25269|0.11464|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.11464|-0.25269|0.3198
91948348|NCT01014442|183793562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00131||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00352|0.00013|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00013|-0.00352|0.0845
91948349|NCT01014442|183793562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00001||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000025|0.0000043|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000043|-0.0000250|0.1769
91948350|NCT01014442|183793563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0049||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00876|-0.00148|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.00148|-0.00876|0.0048
91948351|NCT01014442|183793563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.14764||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31026|-0.01067|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.01067|-0.31026|0.0277
91948352|NCT01014442|183793563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0035||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00476|0.00168|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00168|-0.00476|0.0002
91948353|NCT01014442|183793563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000138||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000295|0.0000047|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000047|-0.0000295|0.1661
91948354|NCT01014442|183793564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00054||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01037|0.01042|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.01042|-0.01037|0.9417
91948355|NCT01014442|183793564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.1461||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39951|0.12988|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.12988|-0.39951|0.2941
91819382|NCT03792672|183514855|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.06|29.4||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 300 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||29.4|5.06|0.0220
91819383|NCT03792672|183514855|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|21.8||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 300 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||21.8|-2.59|0.1927
91948356|NCT01014442|183793564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00033||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00361|0.00421|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00421|-0.00361|0.8170
91948357|NCT01014442|183793564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodge-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000239||||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000594|0.0000154|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000154|-0.0000594|0.1927
91948358|NCT01014442|183793565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.1616||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0121|0.4188|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.4188|-0.0121|0.0821
91948359|NCT01014442|183793566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0427||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0455|0.1221|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1221|-0.0455|0.3628
91948360|NCT01014442|183793567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.001||||0.9873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1152|0.1173|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1173|-0.1152|0.9873
91948361|NCT01014442|183793568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0857||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.0265|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0265|-0.1870|0.2178
91948362|NCT01014442|183793574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rates|-1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|22.1|||Fisher Exact|||||22.1|-24.9|1.0000
91819384|NCT03792672|183514856|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.59||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|10.5||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 2 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||10.5|-21.8|0.5590
91819385|NCT03792672|183514856|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.72||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.5|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 2 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||0.242|-32.5|0.1049
91819386|NCT03792672|183514856|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.5||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.4|6.06||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 5 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||6.06|-39.4|0.2238
91819387|NCT03792672|183514856|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-18.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.3|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 5 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||4.56|-41.3|0.1847
91819388|NCT00453999|183514859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Differences between groups by log-rank statistic stratified by oxygen saturation and duration of illness at randomization, and flu season.||||||0.306
91819389|NCT00453999|183514860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Sore Throat: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
91948363|NCT00147082|183793598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||p values were calculated||||0.05
91948364|NCT00147082|183793599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The p value (\<0.05) was the threshold for significance|Kruskal-Wallis|||p value was calculated||||0.05
91948365|NCT00147082|183793600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The p value (\<0.05) was the threshold for significance|Kruskal-Wallis|||The p value was calculated||||0.05
91948366|NCT02242305|183793601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.27|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was used.|Treatment differences were estimated by reference to the Least Squares (LS) mean differences within 3 days and the corresponding 90% CIs. The mean difference calculated as Hyoscine Butylbromide tablets 10 mg - Hyoscine Butylbromide capsules 10 mg.|||0.27|-0.33|0.809
91948367|NCT02242305|183793601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.33|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was used.|Treatment differences were estimated by reference to the Least Squares (LS) mean differences within 1 day and the corresponding 90% CIs. The mean difference calculated as Hyoscine Butylbromide tablets 10 mg - Hyoscine Butylbromide capsules 10 mg.|||0.33|-0.39|0.809
91948368|NCT02242305|183793602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was used.||||||0.079
91819390|NCT00453999|183514860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nasal Congestion: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
91819391|NCT00453999|183514860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cough: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
91819392|NCT00453999|183514860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Aches and Pains: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
91948369|NCT02242305|183793607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline score as covariates was used.||||||0.531
91819393|NCT00453999|183514860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Fatigue: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
91819394|NCT00453999|183514860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Headache: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
91819395|NCT00453999|183514860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Feeling Feverish: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
91819396|NCT00453999|183514861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.276
91819397|NCT00453999|183514863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.994
91819398|NCT00453999|183514864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 12 hours||||>0.05
91819399|NCT00453999|183514864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 24 hours||||>0.05
91819400|NCT00453999|183514864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 36 hours||||>0.05
91819401|NCT00453999|183514864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 48 hours||||>0.05
91819402|NCT00453999|183514864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 72 hours||||>0.05
91819403|NCT00453999|183514864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 96 hours||||>0.05
91819404|NCT01907828|183514877|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis performed to provide freedom from atrial fibrillation rates at one year for each randomization arm using date of ablation procedure to date of first event.||||0.22
91819405|NCT01907828|183514881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2766|||||||Paired Student's t-test|||||||0.2766
91819406|NCT01907828|183514882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7663|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.7663
91819407|NCT01907828|183514885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.21||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|0.88|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 12 months||0.88|-12.61|0.0849
91819408|NCT01907828|183514885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.45||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-2.52|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 12 months||-2.52|-9.12|0.0014
91819409|NCT01907828|183514885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.21||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.16|8.02|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 12 months.||8.02|-14.16|0.5599
91819410|NCT01907828|183514885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.42||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.87|-2.99|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 12 months||-2.99|-13.87|0.0052
91819411|NCT01907828|183514886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.84||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|1.93|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 24 months||1.93|-13.34|0.1326
91819412|NCT01907828|183514886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.06||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|-3.83|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 24 months||-3.83|-10.06|0.0002
91819413|NCT01907828|183514886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.41||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.47|-0.7|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 24 months||-0.70|-16.47|0.0354
91819414|NCT01907828|183514886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.53||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.75|-4.91|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 24 months||-4.91|-15.75|0.0015
91819415|NCT01907828|183514887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4||0.5399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.3|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in OSBP at 12 months.||11.3|-6.0|0.5399
91819416|NCT01907828|183514887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.8|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in Office Diastolic Blood Pressure (ODBP) at 12 months||3.8|-4.6|0.8489
91819417|NCT01907828|183514887|SUPERIORITY|Change in Office Systolic Blood Pressure (OSBP) at 12 months.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.0||0.7999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|18.6|||Paired Student's t-test|||||18.6|-14.6|0.7999
91819418|NCT01907828|183514887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|3.4|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ODBP at 12 months||3.4|-14.2|0.2076
91819419|NCT01907828|183514888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.3||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.1|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in OSBP at 24 months||9.1|-7.9|0.8820
91819420|NCT01907828|183514888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0||0.8019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.7|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ODBP at 24 months||4.7|-3.7|0.8019
91819421|NCT01907828|183514888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.9||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|19.6|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in OSBP at 24 months||19.6|-4.8|0.2177
91948370|NCT03547960|183793608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.639
91819422|NCT01907828|183514888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.2|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ODBP at 24 months||5.2|-11.2|0.4502
91819423|NCT04414553|183514898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This compares pre/post data.||||0.29
91819424|NCT04414553|183514899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91819425|NCT04414553|183514900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
91819426|NCT04414553|183514901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
91819427|NCT04414553|183514902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062
91819428|NCT01874262|183514903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
91819429|NCT00167934|183514911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
91819430|NCT00167934|183514912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
91819431|NCT00537381|183514925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.728||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|2.686|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the only explanatory factor.|||2.686|1.112|0.014
91948371|NCT03547960|183793608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.283
91948372|NCT03547960|183793610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.564
91948373|NCT02625610|183793632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.11|||Log Rank|The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||1.11|0.74|0.1779
91948374|NCT02625610|183793633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||||||||1.28|0.85|
91948375|NCT02625610|183793635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.51||||||||1.51|0.55|
91948376|NCT03459794|183793645|OTHER|||||||||||||||||All measurements were compared to the same group at t=0, that is before the drug or placebo was administered. We compared the expression levels for each transcript, using the mean levels in each group, not at the individual participant level.|We analyzed the changes is level for each cytokine between the groups. P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance determined using the Holm-Sidak method. The threshold value for statistical significance for the mean value between groups was set at p =\<0.05 for each cytokine measured. The number of cytokines that met this threshold is reported.|||
91948377|NCT03459794|183793646|OTHER|||||||||||||||||All measurements were compared to the same treated/control group at t=0, before the drug or placebo was administered. We compared the expression levels for each transcript, using the mean levels in each group, not at the individual participant level.|We compared the expression levels for each transcript, using the mean levels in each group, not at the individual participant level. The p-value for each transcript is adjusted for multiple comparisons across all 770 transcripts, using the Benjamini-Yekutieli method. The number reported is the number of transcripts where p=\<0.05.|||
91948378|NCT03459794|183793647|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91819432|NCT00537381|183514926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.795
91819433|NCT00537381|183514927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.018
91948379|NCT00352027|183793649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.997|||||||Cox Model|||The association of age with EFS was compared. P values from Score test were computed for the statistical significance.||||0.9970
91948380|NCT00352027|183793652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.997|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.9970
91948381|NCT00352027|183793684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.265||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.265
91948382|NCT00352027|183793684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.057
91948383|NCT00352027|183793684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.079||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.079
91819434|NCT00537381|183514928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.476||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|2.522|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the only explanatory factor.|||2.522|0.853|0.163
91948384|NCT00352027|183793684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.025
91819435|NCT05544786|183514932|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|113.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.77|124.53|||||The ratios (and 90% confidence Intervals \[CIs\]) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||124.53|102.77|
91948385|NCT00352027|183793684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.680
91948386|NCT00352027|183793685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
91948387|NCT00352027|183793685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
91948388|NCT00352027|183793685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
91948389|NCT00352027|183793685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.184||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.184
91948390|NCT00352027|183793685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
91948391|NCT00352027|183793686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.319||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.319
91948392|NCT00352027|183793686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.010
91948393|NCT00352027|183793686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
91948394|NCT00352027|183793686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.015
91948395|NCT00352027|183793686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.588||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.588
91948396|NCT00352027|183793687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.071
91948397|NCT00352027|183793687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91948398|NCT00352027|183793687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91948399|NCT00352027|183793687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91948400|NCT00352027|183793687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.707
91948401|NCT00352027|183793688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
91948402|NCT00352027|183793688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.025
91948403|NCT00352027|183793688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.013
91948404|NCT00352027|183793688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.027
91948405|NCT00352027|183793688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.243||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.243
91948406|NCT00352027|183793689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.546||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.546
91819436|NCT05544786|183514932|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|121.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.75|134.2|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||134.20|110.75|
91819437|NCT05544786|183514932|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|125.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.43|137.61|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||137.61|114.43|
91948407|NCT00352027|183793689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.242
91948408|NCT00352027|183793689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.372
91948409|NCT00352027|183793689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.503||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.503
91948410|NCT00352027|183793689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.372
91948411|NCT00352027|183793690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.558||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.558
91948412|NCT00352027|183793690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.039
91948413|NCT00352027|183793690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.162
91948414|NCT00352027|183793690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.162
91948415|NCT00352027|183793691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.381||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.381
91948416|NCT00352027|183793691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.006
91948417|NCT00352027|183793691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.277
91948418|NCT00352027|183793691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.134||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.134
91948419|NCT00352027|183793692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.629
91948420|NCT00352027|183793692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.629
91948421|NCT00352027|183793692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.629
91948422|NCT00352027|183793692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.858||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.858
91948423|NCT00352027|183793693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.744||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.744
91948424|NCT00352027|183793693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.075||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.075
91948425|NCT00352027|183793693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.512
91948426|NCT00352027|183793693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.088
91948427|NCT00352027|183793694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.078
91948428|NCT00352027|183793694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.041
91948429|NCT00352027|183793694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.078
91948430|NCT00352027|183793694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.078
91819438|NCT05544786|183514932|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|121.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.42|132.79|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||132.79|110.42|
91819439|NCT05544786|183514933|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|113.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.96|125.4|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||125.40|102.96|
91819440|NCT05544786|183514933|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|122.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.02|135.22|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||135.22|111.02|
91819441|NCT05544786|183514933|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|126.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.0|139.27|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||139.27|115.00|
91819442|NCT05544786|183514933|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|122.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.11|134.57|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||134.57|111.11|
91819443|NCT05544786|183514934|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|110.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.01|122.82|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||122.82|99.01|
91819444|NCT05544786|183514934|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|140.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.57|157.01|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||157.01|126.57|
91819445|NCT05544786|183514934|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|149.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.86|168.96|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||168.96|132.86|
91819446|NCT05544786|183514934|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|147.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.4|165.83|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||165.83|130.40|
91819447|NCT05544786|183514935|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.31|107.23|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||107.23|87.31|
91819448|NCT05544786|183514935|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|86.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.38|96.26|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||96.26|78.38|
91819449|NCT05544786|183514935|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|99.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.39|112.8|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||112.80|87.39|
91819450|NCT05544786|183514935|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|79.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.07|89.73|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||89.73|70.07|
91819451|NCT05544786|183514936|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|95.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.45|106.44|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||106.44|86.45|
91819452|NCT05544786|183514936|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.96|95.98|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||95.98|77.96|
91819453|NCT05544786|183514936|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|88.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.97|106.83|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||106.83|72.97|
91819454|NCT05544786|183514936|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|77.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.04|93.76|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||93.76|64.04|
91819455|NCT05544786|183514937|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|101.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.71|118.44|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||118.44|87.71|
91819456|NCT05544786|183514937|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|92.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.52|107.38|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||107.38|79.52|
91819457|NCT05544786|183514937|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.4|120.1|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||120.10|78.40|
91819458|NCT05544786|183514937|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|70.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.92|87.19|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||87.19|56.92|
91819459|NCT05544786|183514938|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.08|103.37|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||103.37|90.08|
91819460|NCT05544786|183514939|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|96.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.13|103.59|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||103.59|90.13|
91819461|NCT05544786|183514940|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|98.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.28|110.36|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||110.36|87.28|
91819462|NCT05544786|183514941|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|78.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.42|85.07|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||85.07|72.42|
91819463|NCT05544786|183514942|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|87.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.45|110.92|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||110.92|69.45|
91819464|NCT05544786|183514943|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.87|92.68|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||92.68|56.87|
91819465|NCT04258605|183514960|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 1 and 2 years|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<.0001
91819466|NCT04258605|183514961|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 3-6 months, 1 year, 2 and 3 years|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<0.001
91948431|NCT00352027|183793695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
91819467|NCT04258605|183514962|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 3-6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<0.001
91819468|NCT04258605|183514963|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 3-6 months, 1 year, 2 and 3 years|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<0.001
91819469|NCT00181961|183514970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.016
91819470|NCT02453113|183515029|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||The statistical end point of the study will be the changes in density of CD11c+ dermal dendritic cells between two biopsies from a study subject where one sample is subjected to laser irradiation and the other is the control. For assessment of statistical significance, we will apply a paired sample t-test.|||
91819471|NCT04013191|183515030|OTHER||Point Estimate|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.725|1.19|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.19|0.725|
91819472|NCT04013191|183515031|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.67|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.67|0.894|
91819473|NCT04013191|183515032|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.893|1.68|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.68|0.893|
91819474|NCT04013191|183515033|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.26|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.26|0.829|
91819475|NCT04013191|183515034|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.53|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.53|0.908|
91819476|NCT04144166|183515041|OTHER||||||||||||||See above|||"Mean value for visual CRT and median value for device CRI were calculated for each participant. 3 values were measured (each) for CRT and CRI. Mean value is equal to SUM(m1,m2,m3)/3.~Median value was then calculated for the set (57) of calculated mean visual CRT and mean device CRI. Median value is equal to the middle value of the series of mean values. All measurements are in units of seconds."|See above|||
91819477|NCT01481116|183515052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 78: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
91819478|NCT01481116|183515052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 78: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
91819479|NCT01481116|183515052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 104: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
91819480|NCT01481116|183515052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 104: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
91819481|NCT01481116|183515053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.08||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, schedule and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates.||Change at Week 78||0.08|-2.70|0.065
91819482|NCT01481116|183515053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.11||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, schedule and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates.||Change at Week 78||-0.11|-2.78|0.034
91819483|NCT00934544|183515157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meir estimate|28.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.123|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|36.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.6|21.3|<0.0001
91819484|NCT02643251|183515168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3361|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3361
91819485|NCT00430092|183515218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91819486|NCT01956110|183515219|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above the pre-specified non-inferiority limit of -8.0%. Thus, non-inferiority of FE 999049 to GONAL-F with regard to ongoing pregnancy rate was demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.1||||||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -8.0% (absolute). Non-inferiority was evaluated based on a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||4.1|-5.9|
91948432|NCT00352027|183793695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
91948433|NCT00352027|183793695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
91948434|NCT00352027|183793695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
91948435|NCT00352027|183793696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.933||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.933
91948436|NCT00352027|183793696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.933||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.933
91948437|NCT00352027|183793696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.051
91948438|NCT00352027|183793696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0779||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0779
91819487|NCT01956110|183515220|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above the pre-specified non-inferiority limit of -8.0%. Thus, non-inferiority of FE 999049 to GONAL-F with regard to ongoing implantation rate was demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.8||||||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -8.0% (absolute). Non-inferiority was evaluated based on a two-sided 95% CI derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||4.8|-6.1|
91948439|NCT00352027|183793697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.415||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.415
91948440|NCT00352027|183793697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.005
91948441|NCT00352027|183793697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.245
91948442|NCT00352027|183793697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.005
91948443|NCT00352027|183793698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.814||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.814
91948444|NCT00352027|183793698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.553||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.553
91948445|NCT00352027|183793698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.173||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.173
91948446|NCT00352027|183793698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.122
91948447|NCT00352027|183793699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948448|NCT00352027|183793700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948449|NCT00352027|183793701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948450|NCT00352027|183793702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948451|NCT00352027|183793703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948452|NCT00352027|183793704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948453|NCT00352027|183793705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948454|NCT00352027|183793706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948455|NCT00352027|183793707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948456|NCT00352027|183793708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||0.005
91948457|NCT00352027|183793709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948458|NCT00352027|183793710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948459|NCT00352027|183793711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948460|NCT00352027|183793712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948461|NCT00352027|183793713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91948462|NCT00352027|183793714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.908|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.908
91948463|NCT00352027|183793715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.178|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.178
91948464|NCT00352027|183793716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.411|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.411
91948465|NCT00352027|183793718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4318|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.4318
91948466|NCT00352027|183793719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2199|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.2199
91948467|NCT00352027|183793720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8946|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.8946
91948468|NCT02607735|183793756|SUPERIORITY|The SVR12 rate for the SOF/VEL/VOX group was compared to the performance goal of 85% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.|||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||||||<0.001
91948469|NCT02430389|183793788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0575
91948470|NCT02430389|183793789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.348
91948471|NCT00742391|183793802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91948472|NCT00742391|183793803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
91819488|NCT01956110|183515221|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above -8.0% (pre-specified non-inferiority limit for the co-primary endpoints). Thus, the result was supportive of the co-primary endpoint analyses.|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.4||||||Treatment groups were compared using a two-sided 95% CI derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||3.4|-6.7|
91948473|NCT02394028|183793805|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|1.1||||0.8508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|12.56||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||12.56|-10.85|0.8508
91948474|NCT02394028|183793805|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|3.8||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|15.27||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||15.27|-8.30|0.5235
91948475|NCT02394028|183793807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|4.9||||0.7908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|16.11||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||16.11|-6.26|0.7908
91948476|NCT02394028|183793807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|5.8||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|17.05||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||17.05|-5.43|0.3170
91948477|NCT02394028|183793808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|11.3||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|19.65||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||19.65|2.70|0.0088
91819489|NCT01956110|183515222|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above -8.0% (pre-specified non-inferiority limit for the co-primary endpoints). Thus, the result was supportive of the co-primary endpoint analyses.|Treatment difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.2||||||Treatment groups were compared using a two-sided 95% CI derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||4.2|-7.0|
91819490|NCT01956110|183515223|OTHER|A logistic regression model was fitted to the data including AMH, log(AMH)\^2, treatment group and interactions between treatment group and AMH and treatment group and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor. A second logistic regression model (nested within the first model) was fitted including AMH and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor.|||||=|0.001||||||Inclusion of treatment provides a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: \<4 or \>=15 oocytes retrieved||||=0.001
91948478|NCT02394028|183793809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|11.5||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|18.83||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||18.83|4.11|0.0026
91948479|NCT02394028|183793811|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|13.45||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||13.45|-8.02|1
91948480|NCT02394028|183793811|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|2.3||||0.7908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|12.56||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||12.56|-8.78|0.7908
91948481|NCT02394028|183793813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|9.73||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||9.73|-6.51|1
91948482|NCT02394028|183793813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|6.5||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|15.16||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||15.16|-2.24|0.5235
91948483|NCT02394028|183793814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.5||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.3|||MMRM|||Bowel Domain Score||0.3|-1.4|0.3110
91948484|NCT02394028|183793815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Functional Domain Scale||0.9|-0.5|1
91948485|NCT02394028|183793815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Functional Domain Score||0.7|-0.7|1
91948486|NCT02394028|183793815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Bowel Domain Score||0.9|-0.8|1
91948487|NCT02394028|183793815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Bowel Domain Score||0.5|-1.1|1
91948488|NCT02394028|183793816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|17.3||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|30.27||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||30.27|3.52|0.0677
91948489|NCT02394028|183793817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|18.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.07|25.96||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||25.96|11.07|0.0480
91948490|NCT02394028|183793818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|13.5||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|29.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||29.94|-2.90|0.1210
91948491|NCT02394028|183793819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|6.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|11.93||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||11.93|0.54|0.0480
91948492|NCT02394028|183793820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|11.2||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|19.24||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||19.24|3.04|0.0677
91948493|NCT02394028|183793821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|16.2||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.96|23.31||Nominal p-value, no adjustment for multiplicity performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||23.31|8.96|0.0035
91948494|NCT02394028|183793822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||0.4009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Functional Symptoms Domain||0.4|-0.9|0.4009
91948495|NCT02394028|183793822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||0.4009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Bowel Symptoms Domain||0.4|-1.0|0.4009
91948496|NCT02109939|183793861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.758||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.285|0.613|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures including week 4.||||0.613|-6.285|0.1070
91948497|NCT02109939|183793862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.653||0.1822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with week 4 data.||||1.036|-5.450|0.1822
91948498|NCT02109939|183793863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.86|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.86|1.07|0.0134
91948499|NCT02109939|183793866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.27|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||2.27|1.14|0.0066
91948500|NCT02109939|183793869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43|||Generalized linear mixed model.|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.43|0.90|0.2852
91948501|NCT02109939|183793870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.79|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.79|1.14|0.0023
91948502|NCT02109939|183793879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.89|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.89|1.07|0.0140
91948503|NCT02109939|183793880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.76|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.76|0.98|0.0663
91948504|NCT01058356|183793887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.15|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: The efficay of the probiotic Lactobacilli (Lacidofil cap®) for the prevention of AAD in adults is not different form the placebo group in multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.~Power calculation:~The assumption of sample size calculation:~difference 18% (8% : 26%) α: 0.05, statistical power: 90%, two sided difference: 18% Compliance: 80%~\- Unadjusted sample size (N=200) 180 + 10(%) drop out = 180 + 180/ (1-0.1)2 = 222.2 Total 220 subjects"||4.15|0.17|<0.05
91948505|NCT01058356|183793888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: The efficay of the probiotic Lactobacilli (Lacidofil cap®) for the prevention of AAD in adults is not different form the placebo group in multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.~Power calculation:~The assumption of sample size calculation:~difference 18% (8% : 26%) α: 0.05, statistical power: 90%, two sided difference: 18% Compliance: 80%~\- Unadjusted sample size (N=200) 180 + 10(%) drop out = 180 + 180/ (1-0.1)2 = 222.2 Total 220 subjects"||1.55|0.18|<0.05
91948506|NCT00606021|183793897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.37||The significant level for the primary outcome measure of progression free survival during maintenance phase is one-sided 0.2.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||1.37|0.42|0.1815
91948507|NCT00606021|183793898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26||The significant level for the secondary outcome measure of progression free survival during overall period is one-sided 0.2.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||1.26|0.40|0.1233
91948508|NCT00606021|183793899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.28||The significant level for the secondary outcome measure overall survival during maintenance period is two-sided 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||2.28|0.56|0.7239
91948509|NCT00606021|183793900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.6376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.38||The significant level for the secondary outcome measure overall survival during overall period is two-sided 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||2.38|0.59|0.6376
91948510|NCT03198884|183793911|OTHER|The percent of patients with an RNA \<50 copies/mL at each time point was analyzed using McNemar's test following the guidelines of the Snapshot algorithm. Missing RNA data was considered a treatment failure. Change in mean serum creatinine from baseline was analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar||||Change in mean CD4+ cell counts from baseline was analyzed using a paired t-test. All analyses used a p-value of less than or equal to 0.05 as significant. Statistical analyses were performed using R software, version 3.4.3.|||<0.05
91948511|NCT03198884|183793912|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91948512|NCT01202643|183793918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.67
91948513|NCT01202643|183793919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Study was closed due to insufficient recruitment||||0.74
91948514|NCT00989664|183793921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91948515|NCT00692198|183793970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.79|0.52
91948516|NCT00692198|183793971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.25|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio, LTOT vs No LTOT|||1.25|0.64|0.53
91948517|NCT00692198|183793972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.01||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||Fisher Exact||Rate ratio, LTOT vs No LTOT|||1.13|0.91|0.81
91948518|NCT00692198|183793974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||Fisher Exact||Rate ratio, LTOT vs No LTOT|||1.19|0.98|0.12
91948519|NCT00692198|183793975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91948520|NCT00692198|183793976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91948521|NCT00692198|183793977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91948522|NCT00692198|183793978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91948523|NCT00692198|183793979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91948524|NCT00692198|183793980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91819491|NCT01956110|183515223|OTHER|A logistic regression model was fitted to the data including AMH, log(AMH)2, treatment group and interactions between treatment group and AMH and treatment group and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor. A second logistic regression model (nested within the first model) was fitted including AMH and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor.|||||=|0.002||||||Inclusion of treatment provides a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: \<4 or \>=20 oocytes retrieved||||=0.002
91948525|NCT00692198|183793981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|8.0|||||Relative risk, LTOT vs No LTOT|||8.00|0.54|
91948526|NCT00692198|183793982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91948527|NCT00692198|183793983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91948528|NCT03330275|183793984|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -0.25 was used. Non-inferioirty was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was above 0.25.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0574|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.183|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|It was calculated that a total of 24 participants was required to show that the Test lens is non-inferior to the control 1 lens with 80% power. Sample size for this study was based on night driving only.||0.183|-0.045|
91948529|NCT03330275|183793985|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.1 logMAR was used. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit was below 0.1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0076|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|-0.012|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|||-0.012|-0.043|
91948530|NCT03330275|183793986|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|22.604|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control 1|||22.604|0.442|
91948531|NCT03330275|183793987|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control1|||1.16|0.82|
91948532|NCT03330275|183793988|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|28.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|||28.5|7.1|
91948533|NCT03330275|183793989|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.74|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control 1|||1.74|0.33|
91948534|NCT03330275|183793990|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|20.7|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator Degrees of Freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|||20.7|-11.4|
91948535|NCT02577107|183793999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.618|31.011||||||||31.011|9.618|
91948536|NCT02988115|183794021|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.897|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.132|-17.697|||ANCOVA||bempedoic acid (BA) therapy minus placebo|||-17.697|-25.132|<0.001
91948537|NCT02988115|183794022|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-18.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.951|-14.865|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|||-14.865|-22.951|<0.001
91948538|NCT02988115|183794023|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-17.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.07|-14.811|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|non-HDL-C||-14.811|-21.070|<0.001
91948539|NCT02988115|183794023|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-14.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.287|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.283|-12.239|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|TC||-12.239|-17.283|<0.001
91948540|NCT02988115|183794023|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.581|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.062|-11.866|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|apoB||-11.866|-18.062|<0.001
91948541|NCT02988115|183794024|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-24.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-24.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.888|-12.712|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||BA therapy minus placebo|||-12.712|-35.888|<0.001
91948542|NCT00649220|183794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22626||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-side, paired t-test on the null hypothesis that antipsychotics are reduced by 10% compared to baseline||||0.22626
91948543|NCT00649220|183794076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34192||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Wilcoxon signed rank test on the null hypothesis that antipsychotics are reduced by 10% compared to baseline||||0.34192
91948544|NCT04594213|183794092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91948545|NCT04594213|183794093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91948546|NCT04594213|183794094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91948547|NCT04594213|183794095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91948548|NCT04594213|183794096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91948549|NCT04594213|183794097|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91948550|NCT04594213|183794098|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91948551|NCT04594213|183794099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91948552|NCT04594213|183794100|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91948553|NCT04594213|183794101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91948554|NCT04594213|183794102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91948555|NCT04594213|183794102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91819492|NCT01956110|183515224|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.291||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (any grade)||||=0.291
91819493|NCT01956110|183515224|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.644||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (moderate/severe)||||=0.644
91819494|NCT01956110|183515224|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.005||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Preventive interventions||||=0.005
91948556|NCT04594213|183794103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91948557|NCT04594213|183794103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91948558|NCT04594213|183794104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91819495|NCT01956110|183515224|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.046||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (any grade) and/or preventive interventions||||=0.046
91819496|NCT01956110|183515224|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.019||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (moderate/severe) and/or preventive interventions||||=0.019
91819497|NCT01956110|183515225|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model with treatment and age (\<35, 35- 37, and 38-40 years) as factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||=|0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.57||P-value corresponds to test for treatment difference.|Likelihood ratio test|||Treatment comparison: Cycle cancelled due to poor response||2.57|0.74|=0.302
91819498|NCT01956110|183515225|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model with treatment and age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years) as factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9||P-value corresponds to test for treatment difference.|Likelihood ratio test|||Treatment comparison:Triggering with GnRH agonist||0.9|0.2|0.019
91948559|NCT04594213|183794105|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91948560|NCT04594213|183794105|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91948561|NCT00104299|183794115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of -20%|Difference between group success rates|10.6|||<|0.001||95.1|-3.2|24.3||P-value is adjusted for interim analysis using a Lan-DeMets alpha spending function with an O'Brien-Fleming boundary, allocating 0.003 alpha to the interim analysis and 0.049 alpha to the final analysis.|95.1% CI of difference|Calculate 95.1% CI around the difference in success rates between arms. Lower bound above non-inferiority margin of -20% indicates non-inferiority.||In calculating the sample size, we assumed that the percentage of patients in both treatment groups would achieve disease remission off prednisone by 6 months was 70%. We specified a non-inferiority margin of -20% on the difference in remission rates (rituximab rate minus cyclophosphamide rate) and a one-sided 0.025 level test. Assuming a 10% dropout rate, RAVE required 100 patients in each arm to have 83% power to conclude non-inferiority.||24.3|-3.2|<0.001
91819499|NCT01956110|183515226|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.692|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of oocytes retrieved||||=0.692
91948562|NCT00104299|183794116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||||||P-value is from the Poisson regression model adjusting for clinical study site and ANCA type. The natural logarithm of participant-months is used as an offset in this model|Poisson regression model|||Participant-months are defined as duration in months from the first study drug dosing date to the last date of the participant in the protocol. The rate of selected AEs is defined as the total number of selected AEs divided by total participant-months, and indicates the number of events per participant per month on average. Participants are grouped according to their originally received treatment.||||0.927
91948563|NCT00104299|183794117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||95.1% Confidence Interval of Difference|10.6||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.2|24.4|||Chi-squared|At 6 months, the confidence interval is 95.1%.||The p-value is from a chi-square test.||24.4|-3.2|0.133
91948564|NCT00104299|183794118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7||The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the flaring pattern after complete remission|Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the flaring pattern after complete remission||Participants are censored at the time of crossover, open label rituximab, or best medical judgement, if applicable. If a participant has no flare after complete remission prior to their Month 18 visit, the duration is censored at the date of the Month 18 Visit||1.7|0.5|0.761
91948565|NCT00104299|183794119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the flaring pattern after remission||Participants are censored at the time of crossover, open label rituximab, or best medical judgement, if applicable. If a participant has no flare after complete remission prior to their Month 18 visit, the duration is censored at the date of the Month 18 Visit||1.5|0.6|0.861
91948566|NCT00104299|183794120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the pattern of achieving remission|The hazard ratio and confidence interval are based on a Cox proportional hazard model comparing rituximab to the control group, adjusting for clinical study site, ANCA type, and glucocorticoid use prior to baseline.|||1.3|0.7|0.497
91948567|NCT00104299|183794121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8|||Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the pattern of achieving complete remission|The hazard ratio and confidence interval are based on a Cox proportional hazard model comparing rituximab to the control group, adjusting for clinical study site, ANCA type, and glucocorticoid use prior to baseline.|||1.8|0.9|0.147
91948568|NCT00104299|183794122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Proportions of subjects experiencing a serious adverse event through 18 months and prior to censoring for open-label, crossover, or best medical judgment according to originally assigned treatment arm were compared using a two-sided Chi-squared test.||||0.504
91948569|NCT04646668|183794131|SUPERIORITY|Due to the pilot nature of the current study, formal power calculations were not conducted.||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in nicotine delivery between cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and heat not burn after the standardized 10-puff bout. ANOVAs were conducted to detect differences between products for nicotine concentration at five minutes (immediately following 10-puff bout). The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.002
91948570|NCT03288987|183794137|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared by comparing the 90% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to the reference product (Roche Bevacizumab) to the point-estimate margin and was based on the synthesis method.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Upper limit of CI is lower than the noninferiority margin (1.44).|The 90 % CI based on synthesis method is (0.45,1.38). In HR calculation, the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to Roche Bevacizumab was reported. (reference group was Roche Bevacizumab)|||1.35|0.46|0.47
91948571|NCT03288987|183794138|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.8|||Regression, Cox||In HR calculation, the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to Roche Bevacizumab was reported. (reference group was Roche Bevacizumab)|||1.80|0.55|0.99
91819500|NCT01956110|183515227|OTHER|"A logistic regression model was fitted to the data including AMH, log(AMH)\^2, treatment group and interactions between treatment group and AMH and treatment group and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor.~A second logistic regression model (nested within the first model) was fitted including AMH and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor."|||||=|0.019||||||Inclusion of treatment provides a better fit to the data|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||The relation between ovarian response potential (AMH at screening) and probability of achieving the targeted response was modelled using logistic regression models.||||=0.019
91819501|NCT01956110|183515228|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.909|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of metaphase II oocytes||||=0.909
91819502|NCT01956110|183515229|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).||||||0.53|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Fertilisation rate||||0.53
91948572|NCT03288987|183794139|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||0.17
91948573|NCT03288987|183794140|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.61|||Regression, Cox||In HR calculation, the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to Roche Bevacizumab was reported. (reference group was Roche Bevacizumab)|||1.61|0.76|0.59
91948574|NCT03288987|183794141|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||>0.05
91948575|NCT00608426|183794143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.02
91948576|NCT00608426|183794144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of telephone counseling between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||<.001
91948577|NCT00608426|183794144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of in-person counseling between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||0.57
91819503|NCT01956110|183515230|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.59|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of embryos||||=0.59
91948578|NCT00608426|183794144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of used medications between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||.15
91948579|NCT00608426|183794144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of combination counseling and medication between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||<.001
91948580|NCT00608426|183794144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of attended VA smoking cessation clinic between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||.77
91948581|NCT00608426|183794144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of received VA smoking cessation medication between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||.002
91948582|NCT00608426|183794145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.13
91948583|NCT00368069|183794148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.155||||0.038||95.0|0.009|0.301|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on (log-) POS freq/week over Treatment period with Treatment, (log-) Baseline POS freq/week as covariate.||||0.301|0.009|0.038
91948584|NCT00368069|183794148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over Placebo|14.4||||||95.0|0.9|26.0|||Transf. of ANCOVA results on log data|Percent Reduction of Keppra over PBO is calculated based on the ANCOVA on log data as 100\*(1-exp(LSmeans Keppra -LSMeans Placebo))||Treatment difference was assessed through the percent reduction in POS freq/week of Keppra over Placebo by back transformation of the results of the ANCOVA on log data||26.0|0.9|
91948585|NCT00368069|183794150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.158||||0.034||95.0|0.012|0.305|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA on (log-) seizure frequency per week over Treatment period with Treatment, (log-) Baseline seizure frequency per week as covariate.||||0.305|0.012|0.034
91948586|NCT00368069|183794150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over Placebo|14.7||||||95.0|1.2|26.3|||Transf. of ANCOVA results on log data|Percent Reduction of Keppra over Placebo is calculated based on the ANCOVA on log data as 100\*(1-exp(LSmeans Keppra -LSMeans Placebo))||Treatment difference was assessed through the percent reduction in POS frequency per week of Keppra over Placebo by back transformation of the results of the ANCOVA on log data||26.3|1.2|
91948587|NCT00368069|183794151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.07||95.0|0.95|3.55|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis including Treatment as a factor.|Based on the number of evaluable patients. A patient is considered as evaluable for the response status if he has seizure information in at least one of the period (baseline or treatment period.|||3.55|0.95|0.070
91948588|NCT00368069|183794152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects with missing data during the Treatment period were considered in the category \<-25%.||||||0.033
91948589|NCT00368069|183794153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.205||||0.003||95.0|0.07|0.341|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA on (log-) Treatment POS frequency per week with Treatment and (log-) Baseline POS frequency per week as covariate||||0.341|0.070|0.003
91948590|NCT00368069|183794153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over Placebo|18.6||||||95.0|6.7|28.9|||Transf. of ANCOVA results on log data|Percent Reduction of Keppra over Placebo is calculated based on the ANCOVA on log data as 100\*(1-exp(LSmeans Keppra -LSMeans Placebo))||Treatment difference was assessed through the percent reduction in POS frequency per week of Keppra over Placebo by back transformation of the results of the ANCOVA on log data||28.9|6.7|
91948591|NCT02532998|183794188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment differences|-1.258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.721|0.7945|||mixed linear model|Analyses done using mixed linear model involving fixed effect, random effect, and a covariate.||Statistical analysis of urinary sodium/potassium ratio between Treatment C and Treatment D.||0.7945|-1.721|
91948592|NCT02532998|183794203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment differences|3.409|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.946|3.872|||mixed linear model|Analyses done using mixed linear model involving fixed effect, random effect, and a covariate.||Statistical analysis of urinary sodium/potassium ratio between Treatment A and Treatment B.||3.872|2.946|
91819504|NCT01956110|183515230|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.414|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Good quality embryos||||=0.414
91819505|NCT01956110|183515231|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.344|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of blastocysts||||= 0.344
91948593|NCT00529152|183794239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Serum Ferritin from baseline to week 24 was compared using regression analysis; null hypothesis was defined as no change in serum ferritin from baseline to week 24||||0.0005
91948594|NCT01497899|183794248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% lower than the E/C/F/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24. The alternative hypothesis was that the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% lower than the E/C/F/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-2.9||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum.|Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|||7.7|-13.5|0.58
91948595|NCT00082628|183794258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Nonparametric ANCOVA Model|||||||<0.001
91948596|NCT03481634|183794264|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.3||1-sided p-value|ANOVA|||||0.3|-2.9|<0.001
91819506|NCT01956110|183515231|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.58|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Good-quality blastocysts||||= 0.58
91819507|NCT01956110|183515232|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Total gonadotropin dose||||<0.001
91948597|NCT03481634|183794264|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|LS mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.4||1-sided p-value|ANOVA|||||-1.4|-5.1|0.227
91948598|NCT03481634|183794265|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||(1-sided)|ANOVA|||||-0.0|-3.0|<0.001
91948599|NCT03481634|183794265|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.7||(1-sided)|ANOVA|||||-1.7|-5.2|
91948600|NCT03481634|183794269|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.7|||ANOVA|||||-1.7|-6.0|
91948601|NCT03481634|183794269|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-4.0|
91948602|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|16.4|||ANOVA|||Week 4||16.4|-17.7|
91948603|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|14.4|||ANOVA|||Week 4||14.4|-18.7|
91948604|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|29.7|||ANOVA|||Week 6||29.7|-5.2|
91948605|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|18.9|||ANOVA|||Week 6||18.9|-14.0|
91948606|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|17.9|||ANOVA|||Week 8||17.9|-16.0|
91948607|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|12.9|||ANOVA|||Week 8||12.9|-19.6|
91948608|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|23.6|||ANOVA|||Week 12||23.6|-10.7|
91948609|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|20.2|||ANOVA|||Week 12||20.2|-14.6|
91948610|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|17.8|||ANOVA|||Week 16||17.8|-15.7|
91948611|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|12.9|||ANOVA|||Week 16||12.9|-19.7|
91948612|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|26.5|||ANOVA|||Week 18||26.5|-8.6|
91948613|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|19.2|||ANOVA|||Week 18||19.2|-14.1|
91948614|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|13.4|||ANOVA|||Week 20||13.4|-20.2|
91948615|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|10.2|||ANOVA|||Week 20||10.2|-21.7|
91948616|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|3.9|||ANOVA|||Week 24||3.9|-31.7|
91948617|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.2|-35.4|
91819508|NCT01956110|183515233|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.062|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of stimulation days||||=0.062
91819509|NCT01956110|183515234|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using a chi-square test.|||||=|0.178|||||||Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison: Investigator-requested gonadotropin dose adjustments||||=0.178
91819510|NCT01956110|183515240|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.||||||0.32||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Late OHSS (any grade)||||0.320
91948618|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.5|||ANOVA|||Week 28||7.5|-25.0|
91948619|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|8.0|||ANOVA|||Week 28||8.0|-25.4|
91948620|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|15.5|||ANOVA|||Week 32||15.5|-21.8|
91948621|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|6.0|||ANOVA|||Week 32||6.0|-29.5|
91948622|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|57.9|||ANOVA|||Week 36||57.9|14.6|
91948623|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|40.0|||ANOVA|||Week 36||40.0|0.7|
91948624|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|11.9|||ANOVA|||Week 40||11.9|-24.2|
91948625|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|12.2|||ANOVA|||Week 40||12.2|-25.2|
91948626|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|26.3|||ANOVA|||Week 44||26.3|-10.4|
91948627|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|18.3|||ANOVA|||Week 44||18.3|-16.2|
91948628|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|32.9|||ANOVA|||Week 48||32.9|-5.8|
91948629|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|23.0|||ANOVA|||Week 48||23.0|-13.5|
91948630|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|23.0|||ANOVA|||Week 52||23.0|-14.5|
91948631|NCT03481634|183794272|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|12.2|||ANOVA|||Week 52||12.2|-22.3|
91819511|NCT01956110|183515240|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.||||||0.39||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Late OHSS (moderate/severe)||||0.390
91948632|NCT03481634|183794273|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|20.0|||ANOVA|||||20.0|-16.6|
91948633|NCT03481634|183794273|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|13.8|||ANOVA|||||13.8|-20.7|
91948634|NCT03481634|183794280|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.4|||Bootstrap method|||||8.4|-5.3|
91948635|NCT03481634|183794280|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|10.3|||Bootstrap method|||||10.3|-2.1|
91948636|NCT03481634|183794280|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.4|||Bootstrap method|||||12.4|-1.2|
91948637|NCT03481634|183794280|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.9|||Bootstrap method|||||12.9|0.6|
91948638|NCT03481634|183794280|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 76|Difference - %|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|9.4|||Bootstrap method|||||9.4|-3.9|
91948639|NCT03481634|183794280|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 76|Difference - %|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|7.0|||Bootstrap method|||||7.0|-5.7|
91948640|NCT03481634|183794280|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 100|Difference - %|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.1|||Bootstrap method|||||8.1|-5.0|
91948641|NCT03481634|183794280|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 100|Difference - %|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.4|||Bootstrap method|||||8.4|-4.0|
91948642|NCT03481634|183794282|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.8|||Bootstrap method|||||5.8|-6.4|
91948643|NCT03481634|183794282|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.0|||Bootstrap method|||||11.0|-1.3|
91948644|NCT03481634|183794282|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.2|||Bootstrap method|||||2.2|-10.2|
91948645|NCT03481634|183794282|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.5|||Bootstrap method|||||10.5|-2.2|
91948646|NCT03481634|183794282|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 72|Difference - %|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-2.8|||Bootstrap method|||||-2.8|-15.5|
91948647|NCT03481634|183794282|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 72|Difference - %|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.4|||Bootstrap method|||||4.4|-8.4|
91948648|NCT03481634|183794282|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 100|Difference - %|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-1.6|||Bootstrap method|||||-1.6|-14.0|
91948649|NCT03481634|183794282|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 100|Difference - %|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.8|||Bootstrap method|||||6.8|-5.7|
91948650|NCT03099304|183794304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.79||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|640.85||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||640.85|1.73|0.0057
91948651|NCT03099304|183794304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.3||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|487.28||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||487.28|1.24|0.0243
91948652|NCT03099304|183794304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|1305.2||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||1305.2|3.74|<0.0001
91948653|NCT03099304|183794304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.66||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|1121.4||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||1121.4|3.28|0.0001
91819512|NCT01166594|183515250|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91819513|NCT01633944|183515277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-1.07|0.0012
91948654|NCT03099304|183794305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||0.05|0.4936
91948655|NCT03099304|183794305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||0.62|0.1140
91948656|NCT03099304|183794305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||1.00|0.0501
91948657|NCT03099304|183794305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||0.58|0.1257
91948658|NCT03099304|183794306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.9794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.33|||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).||||4.33|0.33|0.9794
91948659|NCT03099304|183794306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.86|||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).||||5.86|0.51|0.4893
91948660|NCT03099304|183794313|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean (LSM) difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.13|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.13|-0.75|0.0056
91948661|NCT03099304|183794313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.10|-0.70|0.0095
91948662|NCT03099304|183794313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.37|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.37|-0.99|<0.0001
91948663|NCT03099304|183794313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.21|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.21|-0.80|0.0011
91948664|NCT03099304|183794315|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-36.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.15|-16.27|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-16.27|-57.15|0.0005
91948665|NCT03099304|183794315|SUPERIORITY||LM difference|-35.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.01||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.91|-15.33|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-15.33|-54.91|0.0006
91948666|NCT03099304|183794315|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-46.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.47|-25.57|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-25.57|-66.47|<0.0001
91948667|NCT03099304|183794315|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-43.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.52|-24.07|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-24.07|-63.52|<0.0001
91819514|NCT01633944|183515278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by stratum (dose level)||Responders with ≥30% pain reduction||||0.0012
91819515|NCT01633944|183515278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by stratum (dose level)||Responders with ≥50% pain reduction||||0.0754
91819516|NCT03354429|183515362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||The hypothesis was tested at the 4.996% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence was used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||0.96|0.71|0.015
91819517|NCT03354429|183515363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93||The hypothesis was tested at the 4.996% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence was used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||0.93|0.68|0.004
91948668|NCT03099304|183794322|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-0.24|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.24|-5.44|0.0326
91948669|NCT03099304|183794322|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-0.22|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.22|-5.26|0.0333
91948670|NCT03099304|183794322|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-2.48|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-2.48|-7.68|0.0002
91948671|NCT03099304|183794322|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-1.57|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-1.57|-6.59|0.0016
91948672|NCT03099304|183794324|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-23.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.35|-9.71|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-9.71|-37.35|0.0010
91948673|NCT03099304|183794324|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-18.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.86|-5.08|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-5.08|-31.86|0.0072
91948674|NCT03099304|183794324|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-29.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.61|-16.0|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-16.00|-43.61|<0.0001
91948675|NCT03099304|183794324|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-25.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.89|-12.22|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-12.22|-38.89|0.0002
91948676|NCT03099304|183794336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||0.05|0.4936
91948677|NCT03099304|183794336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||0.62|0.1140
91948678|NCT03099304|183794336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||1.00|0.0501
91948679|NCT03099304|183794336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||0.58|0.1257
91948680|NCT01624974|183794353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|0.047||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.134|||LDA model|The LDA model assumes that repeated measurements follow a multivariate normal distribution.||||0.134|-0.039|0.282
91948681|NCT02828982|183794382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in metabolic costs between the two groups||||0.585
91948682|NCT02828982|183794383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there were no differences in the number of steps taken outside of the home for the two prostheses.||||0.452
91948683|NCT02828982|183794384|OTHER|paired t-test of Physical component scores between the two conditions||||||0.48||||||a prior threshold for significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.480
91948684|NCT02828982|183794384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Mental Component Score||||0.408
91948685|NCT02828982|183794385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ambulation Score||||0.058
91948686|NCT02828982|183794385|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.123||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Appearance Score||||.123
91948687|NCT02828982|183794385|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.052||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Frustration Score||||.052
91948688|NCT02828982|183794385|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.188||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived Response Score||||.188
91948689|NCT02828982|183794385|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.336||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Residual Limb Health Score||||.336
91948690|NCT02828982|183794385|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.043||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Social Burden Score||||.043
91948691|NCT02828982|183794385|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.391||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sounds Score||||.391
91948692|NCT02828982|183794385|SUPERIORITY|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.799||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Utility Score||||.799
91948693|NCT02828982|183794385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Well-Being||||.173
91948694|NCT02828982|183794386|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.655||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Biceps Femoris||||0.655
91948695|NCT02828982|183794386|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.281||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Rectus Femoris||||.281
91948696|NCT02828982|183794386|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.844||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Soleus||||.844
91819518|NCT03354429|183515364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||The hypothesis was tested at the 4.996% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence was used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Logistic|NIHSS (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale) score and history of stroke (yes/no) included as covariates|Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||1.07|0.89|0.613
91819519|NCT03354429|183515365|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|9.14|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||9.14|1.74|0.001
91819520|NCT03354429|183515366|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|9.02|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||9.02|1.48|0.005
91819521|NCT03354429|183515367|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|6.43|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||6.43|1.67|<0.001
91819522|NCT03354429|183515368|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|7.02|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||7.02|3.28|<0.001
91819523|NCT00386256|183515369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics to assess demographic and medical characteristics, safety, text messaging or phone adherence, exercise adherence, and patient satisfaction. T-tests were used to determine significant differences between the HB text messaging and telephone groups (with inpatients and outpatients combined within each group). All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 14.0 for Windows.||||<.05
91819524|NCT00386256|183515370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics to assess demographic and medical characteristics, safety, text messaging or phone adherence, exercise adherence, and patient satisfaction. T-tests were used to determine significant differences between the HB text messaging and telephone groups (with inpatients and outpatients combined within each group). All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 14.0 for Windows.||||<.05
91819525|NCT00654381|183515373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 5 mg vs placebo at week 12||-0.7|-1.04|<0.0001
91819526|NCT00654381|183515373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.71|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs placebo at week 12||-0.71|-1.05|<0.0001
91819527|NCT00654381|183515374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.15|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||||-0.15|-0.49|0.0003
91819528|NCT00654381|183515374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.21|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs voglibose at week 26||-0.21|-0.56|<0.0001
91819529|NCT00654381|183515378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-14.0|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 5 mg vs placebo at week 12||-14.0|-25.4|<0.0001
91819530|NCT00654381|183515378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-14.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs placebo at week 12||-14.7|-26.2|<0.0001
91819531|NCT00654381|183515379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 5 mg vs Voglibose at week 26||-0.9|-13.0|0.0239
91819532|NCT00654381|183515379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-3.8|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs voglibose at week 26||-3.8|-15.8|0.0015
91819533|NCT03778931|183515524|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.546||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.768|||Log Rank|The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.||The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no); the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||0.768|0.387|0.0005
91819534|NCT03778931|183515525|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.697||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.88|||Log Rank|The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.||The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no); the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||0.880|0.552|0.0018
91819535|NCT03778931|183515526|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.592||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|0.958||The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no); the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||0.958|0.361|0.0325
91819536|NCT03778931|183515527|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.742||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.025|||Log Rank|The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.|Applied a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: ESR1-mutational status (ESR1-mut vs ESR1-wt), prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no).|||1.025|0.536|0.0697
91819537|NCT00915798|183515528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|0.56||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Frontal BOLD during abstinence in smokers and nonsmokers||||0.46
91819538|NCT00915798|183515528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|6.64||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Diagnosis by smoking status interaction.|Parietal BOLD during abstinence in smokers and nonsmokers||||0.012
91819539|NCT00915798|183515528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|211.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Main effect for smoking status.|Occipital BOLD during abstinence in smokers and nonsmokers.||||0.04
91819540|NCT00915798|183515528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|1.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Frontal BOLD smoking versus nonsmoking in smokers with ADHD compared to control smokers.||||0.22
91819541|NCT00915798|183515528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|0.43||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Parietal BOLD smoking versus nonsmoking in smokers with ADHD compared to control smokers.||||0.51
91819542|NCT00915798|183515528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|0.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Occipital BOLD smoking versus nonsmoking in smokers with ADHD compared to control smokers.||||0.69
91819543|NCT04180020|183515581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91819544|NCT02442778|183515663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.4||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.5||MMRM included fixed effect treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit,baseline,baseline-by-visit,baseline Neuropsychiatric Inventory Agitation/Aggression(NPI AA)(≤6 vs. \>6),falls risk assessment,baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications,cohorts.|MMRM|||||3.5|-2.7|0.789
91819545|NCT02442778|183515663|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||1.0|-5.0|0.200
91819546|NCT02442778|183515664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.4|-0.2|0.484
91819547|NCT02442778|183515664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.2|-0.3|0.704
91819548|NCT02442778|183515665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.4|-0.9|0.416
91819549|NCT02442778|183515665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.0|-1.3|0.066
91819550|NCT02442778|183515666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.5|0.249
91819551|NCT02442778|183515666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.5|0.199
91948697|NCT02828982|183794386|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.11||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Tibialis Anterior||||.110
91948698|NCT02828982|183794386|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.394||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Residual Side Biceps Femoris||||.394
91819552|NCT02442778|183515667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.7|-0.7|0.975
91819553|NCT02442778|183515667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.3|-1.0|0.334
91819554|NCT02442778|183515668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.2|-2.4|0.934
91819555|NCT02442778|183515668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||3.4|-1.2|0.342
91819556|NCT02442778|183515669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.6|-0.7|0.888
91819557|NCT02442778|183515669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-1.3|0.019
91819558|NCT02442778|183515670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||4.0|-2.9|0.756
91948699|NCT02828982|183794386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Residual Side Rectus Femoris||||.141
91948700|NCT02828982|183794387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.212
91948701|NCT02475564|183794388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||A sample size of at least 21 patients per arm would be necessary to have a 90% chance of detecting, as significant at the 1% level, a difference of 3 points in a scale of 10 points, between both groups as the primary outcome, after 42 days of treatment.||||0.7
91948702|NCT02475564|183794389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||||||0.1
91948703|NCT02475564|183794390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||||||0.8
91819559|NCT02442778|183515670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||-0.2|-7.0|0.038
91819560|NCT02442778|183515671|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.3|0.468
91819561|NCT02442778|183515671|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.3|0.158
91819562|NCT02442778|183515672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.4|-0.2|0.400
91819563|NCT02442778|183515672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.2|-0.3|0.566
91819564|NCT02442778|183515673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.3|-0.2|0.751
91819565|NCT02442778|183515673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.3|0.320
91819566|NCT02442778|183515674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.4|-1.8|0.782
91819567|NCT02442778|183515674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.0|-2.1|0.991
91819568|NCT02442778|183515675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||1.2|0.0|0.038
91819569|NCT02442778|183515675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.5|-0.6|0.911
91819570|NCT02442778|183515677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.6|-0.6|0.236
91948704|NCT02705755|183794401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|-0.23||P-values were reported without multiplicity adjustment.|Repeated-measures Mixed-effect Model|||Least squares mean differences were calculated based on a repeated-measures mixed-effect model with change from baseline at different time points as the dependent variable, the treatment group (TD-9855 or placebo), time point, baseline and the interaction between the treatment group and time point as fixed factors. A compound symmetry was used as the variance-covariance structure.||-0.23|-8.57|0.0399
91948705|NCT01906489|183794409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.4739|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3505|39.2931|||Fisher Exact|||||39.2931|3.3505|=0.0001
91819571|NCT02442778|183515677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||1.9|-1.3|0.684
91819572|NCT02641379|183515683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1002|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype I, Week 4 response \< 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||0.1002
91819573|NCT02641379|183515683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0184|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype I, Week 4 response \>= 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||0.0184
91819574|NCT02641379|183515683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype IV, Week 4 response \< 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||0.0910
91819575|NCT02641379|183515683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype IV, Week 4 response \>= 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||1.0000
91819576|NCT02641379|183515684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||||||The SVR rate i.e., 32.1% participants with genotype I who achieved SVR with 95 % confidence interval of 20.3 to 46.0 in groups A1+B1 was compared with SVR rate in group E using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method .|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Groups A1+B1 versus group E stratified by genotype I.||||0.0021
91819577|NCT02641379|183515684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3031||||||The SVR rate i.e., 20.0% participants with genotype IV who achieved SVR with 95 % confidence interval of 0.5 to 71.6 in groups A1+B1 was compared with SVR rate in group E using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method .|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Groups A1+B1 versus group E stratified by genotype IV||||0.3031
91819578|NCT01165138|183515698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.222|||ANCOVA|||||0.222|0.051|0.002
91819579|NCT01165138|183515698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.258|||ANCOVA|||||0.258|0.087|<0.001
91819580|NCT01165138|183515698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.120|-0.048|0.405
91819581|NCT01165138|183515699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.186||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.310|0.062|0.003
91819582|NCT01165138|183515699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.302|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.426|||ANCOVA|||||0.426|0.178|<0.001
91819583|NCT01165138|183515699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.236|||ANCOVA|||||0.236|-0.005|0.060
91819584|NCT01644175|183515717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|-39.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-39.3|-52.5|<0.0001
91819585|NCT01644175|183515718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|-43.6||Threshold for significance was ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-43.6|-56.2|<0.0001
91819586|NCT01644175|183515719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-41.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.3|-53.6|<0.0001
91819587|NCT01644175|183515720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-43.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.3|-55.3|<0.0001
91819588|NCT01644175|183515721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-30.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.3|-41.3|<0.0001
91819589|NCT01644175|183515722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|-32.0||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.0|-43.0|<0.0001
91819590|NCT01644175|183515723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.5|-31.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-31.4|-43.5|<0.0001
91948706|NCT01906489|183794410|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91948707|NCT01906489|183794411|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91948708|NCT01906489|183794413|OTHER||||||=|0.0953|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.0953
91948709|NCT01906489|183794414|OTHER||||||=|0.1238|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.1238
91948710|NCT01906489|183794415|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91819591|NCT01644175|183515724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-34.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-34.4|-46.4|<0.0001
91891194|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|5.85||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.012
91948711|NCT01906489|183794416|OTHER||||||=|0.0019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||=0.0019
91948712|NCT01906489|183794416|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91948713|NCT01906489|183794416|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||<0.0001
91948714|NCT01906489|183794416|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91819592|NCT01644175|183515725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-20.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-20.7|-29.3|<0.0001
91819593|NCT01644175|183515726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-32.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.7|-43.7|<0.0001
91819594|NCT01644175|183515727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-33.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.9|-46.2|<0.0001
91948715|NCT01906489|183794416|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91948716|NCT01906489|183794416|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91948717|NCT01906489|183794416|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||<0.0001
91948718|NCT01906489|183794416|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91948719|NCT01906489|183794418|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91948720|NCT01906489|183794418|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91948721|NCT01906489|183794418|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||<0.0001
91948722|NCT01906489|183794418|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91948723|NCT01906489|183794418|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91948724|NCT01906489|183794418|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91948725|NCT01906489|183794418|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||<0.0001
91948726|NCT01906489|183794418|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91948727|NCT01906489|183794420|OTHER||||||=|0.0031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||=0.0031
91948728|NCT01906489|183794420|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91948729|NCT01906489|183794420|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||<0.0001
91948730|NCT01906489|183794420|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91948731|NCT01906489|183794420|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91948732|NCT01906489|183794420|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91948733|NCT01906489|183794420|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||<0.0001
91819595|NCT01644175|183515728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-21.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.7|-31.1|<0.0001
91819596|NCT01644175|183515729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|-34.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-34.3|-51.6|<0.0001
91819597|NCT01644175|183515730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|89.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||89.8|16.5|<0.0001
91948734|NCT01906489|183794420|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91948735|NCT01906489|183794422|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91948736|NCT01906489|183794422|OTHER||||||=|0.0133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||=0.0133
91948737|NCT01906489|183794422|OTHER||||||=|0.3053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||=0.3053
91948738|NCT01906489|183794422|OTHER||||||=|0.1918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||=0.1918
91948739|NCT01906489|183794422|OTHER||||||=|0.209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||=0.2090
91948740|NCT01906489|183794422|OTHER||||||=|0.6184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||=0.6184
91948741|NCT01906489|183794422|OTHER||||||=|0.3604|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||=0.3604
91819598|NCT01644175|183515731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|121.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||121.0|20.6|<0.0001
91948742|NCT01906489|183794422|OTHER||||||=|0.4056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||=0.4056
91948743|NCT01906489|183794428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.1451|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5752|10.908|||Log Rank|||||10.9080|1.5752|=0.0017
91948744|NCT01707667|183794463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.9|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||9.9|1.6|0.012
91948745|NCT01707667|183794464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69051.4||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12004.5|150107.3|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||150107.3|-12004.5|0.079
91948746|NCT01707667|183794465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|63.7|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||63.7|-45.3|0.717
91948747|NCT01707667|183794466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.295
91948748|NCT01707667|183794467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.107|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||0.107|-0.465|0.180
91948749|NCT01707667|183794468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|44.3|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||44.3|-12.6|0.225
91948750|NCT03802331|183794470|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|166.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.17|192.53|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 19.0.|This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment.||192.53|143.17|
91948751|NCT03802331|183794471|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ajusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|235.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|179.82|308.42|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 35.4.|This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment.||308.42|179.82|
91948752|NCT03802331|183794472|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|159.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.11|181.34|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 16.5.|This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment.||181.34|140.11|
91948753|NCT03432819|183794481|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|9.24||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|19.03|||Regression, Linear|||||19.03|-0.55|0.06
91948754|NCT03432819|183794482|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.3|||Regression, Linear|||||8.30|0.70|0.02
91948755|NCT03432819|183794483|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||||0.26|-0.10|0.39
91948756|NCT03432819|183794484|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.20|-0.37|0.54
91948757|NCT03432819|183794485|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.14|-0.18|0.81
91948758|NCT03432819|183794486|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.01|-0.37|0.06
91948759|NCT03432819|183794487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.13|-0.78|0.16
91948760|NCT03432819|183794488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||-0.09|-0.84|0.02
91948761|NCT03432819|183794489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.47|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.47|-0.32|0.71
91819599|NCT01644175|183515732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-7.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-7.9|-21.3|<0.0001
91819600|NCT01644175|183515733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|11.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||11.0|3.6|0.0001
91819601|NCT01644175|183515734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.8699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.0|-8.3|0.8699
91948762|NCT03432819|183794490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.06|-0.73|0.10
91948763|NCT02735382|183794527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.663|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.116|5.283|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||5.283|4.116|<.0001
91948764|NCT02735382|183794528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.672|4.035|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.035|2.672|<.0001
91948765|NCT02735382|183794529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.885||||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.698|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.698|0.420|.8438
91948766|NCT02735382|183794530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.757|||t-test, 2 sided|df=292||A change score from baseline to 6-months was computed and served as the data to be analyzed in the t-test of group differences.||0.757|0.123|.007
91948767|NCT02996981|183794543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.299
91819602|NCT01495585|183515740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student t-test was used on the change in serum log HDV RNA after 28 days of therapy with lonafarnib.||||0.03
91819603|NCT01495585|183515740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student t-test was used on the change in serum log HDV RNA after 28 days of therapy with lonafarnib.||||<0.0001
91819604|NCT01495585|183515741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91819605|NCT01495585|183515741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
91819606|NCT01667978|183515745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91948768|NCT03451630|183794582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.49 with degrees of freedom (6, 3152).||Overall Test of Group by Time Interaction||||0.0211
91948769|NCT03451630|183794582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.09||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 4.83 with degrees of freedom (1, 3152).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using linear contrast.||5.09|0.29|0.0280
91948770|NCT03451630|183794582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.48||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.81 with degrees of freedom (1, 3152).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using linear contrast.||4.48|-0.35|0.0935
91948771|NCT03451630|183794582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.68||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.35 with degrees of freedom (1, 3152).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to12-Months using linear contrast.||2.68|-1.44|0.5538
91948772|NCT03451630|183794583|SUPERIORITY|Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).||||||0.8505|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.44 with degrees of freedom (6, 3154).||Overall Test of the Group by Time Interaction||||0.8505
91948773|NCT03451630|183794583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 16.97 with degrees of freedom (3, 3160).||Test for significant change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
91948774|NCT03451630|183794583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8656||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.14 with degrees of freedom (2, 1229).||Test for significant change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.8656
91819607|NCT00962104|183515910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|-3.91||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline CAARS-Inv:SV 18-Item Total ADHD Symptom score .|ANCOVA|||||-3.91|-7.66|<0.001
91819608|NCT00962104|183515911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|7.56||First gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Westfall and Krishen 2001) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 QoL measures. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|ANCOVA|Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline AAQoL total score.||||7.56|1.97|<0.001
91948775|NCT03451630|183794583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.46||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.51 with degrees of freedom (1, 3154)||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||3.46|-1.61|0.4740
91948776|NCT03451630|183794583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.6017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|3.13||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.27 with degrees of freedom (1, 3154).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||3.13|-1.81|0.6017
91948777|NCT03451630|183794583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.2||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.07 with degrees of freedom (1, 3154).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||2.20|-1.67|0.7860
91819609|NCT00962104|183515912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.82||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.56||Second gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Westfall and Krishen 2001) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 QoL measures. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|ANCOVA|Least Squares Mean difference between 2 treatment groups from Type III sum of squares analysis of covariance model:Change=treatment+country+baseline.||||1.56|-5.20|0.289
91948778|NCT03451630|183794584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.08 with degrees of freedom (2).||Overall Test of Marginal Group Differences||||0.59
91948779|NCT03451630|183794584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.11||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-square statistics 0.8 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the Treatment Effect||2.11|0.76|0.6692
91948780|NCT03451630|183794584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.93||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-square statistics 0.80 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the Treatment Effect||1.93|0.70|0.6692
91948781|NCT03451630|183794584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.59||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-square statistics 0.8 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the Treatment Effect||1.59|0.75|0.6692
91948782|NCT03451630|183794585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.08 with degrees of freedom (2).||Overall Test of Marginal Group Differences||||0.58
91948783|NCT03451630|183794585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.02||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.59 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect||3.02|0.43|0.7436
91948784|NCT03451630|183794585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.25||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.59 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect.||2.25|0.31|0.7436
91948785|NCT03451630|183794585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.59 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect.||2.97|0.62|0.7436
91948786|NCT03451630|183794586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5558||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.82 with degrees of freedom (6, 3057)||Overall test of treatment-by-time interaction||||0.5558
91948787|NCT03451630|183794586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 6.74 with degrees of freedom (3, 3063).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0002
91948788|NCT03451630|183794586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7846||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.24 with degrees of freedom (2,1197).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.7846
91948789|NCT03451630|183794586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.49||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-Statistics 1.36 with degrees of freedom (1, 3057).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.49|-1.92|0.2444
91948790|NCT03451630|183794586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.92||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.21 with degrees of freedom (1, 3057).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.92|-1.48|0.6480
91819610|NCT00962104|183515913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|-4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.22|-8.13|<0.001
91948791|NCT03451630|183794586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.47||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.88 with degrees of freedom (1, 3057).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.47|-1.34|0.3476
91948792|NCT03451630|183794587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5199||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.86 with degrees of freedom (6, 3148)||Overall test of treatment-by-time||||0.5199
91819611|NCT00962104|183515914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.14|-8.21|<0.001
91819612|NCT00962104|183515915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-1.45||This is the p-value for the Raw Behavioral Regulation Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-5.73|0.001
91819613|NCT00962104|183515915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|-3.31||This is the p-value for the Raw MI score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-3.31|-9.28|<0.001
91819614|NCT00962104|183515915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-4.78||This is the p-value for the Global Executive Composite Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-4.78|-14.75|<0.001
91819615|NCT00962104|183515916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.93||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|0.32||This is the p-value for the Raw Behavioral Regulation Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.32|-4.18|0.092
91819616|NCT00962104|183515916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.62||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|1.28||This is the p-value for the Raw MI Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||1.28|-4.52|0.272
91819617|NCT00962104|183515916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.55||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.32||This is the p-value for the Raw Global Executive Composite Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||1.32|-8.43|0.153
91819618|NCT00962104|183515917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.67|<0.001
91819619|NCT00962104|183515918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with term for treatment and country.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91819620|NCT00962104|183515919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.6||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.71|0.869
91819621|NCT00962104|183515920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.5||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.50|-0.59|0.870
91819622|NCT03274986|183515921|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.131||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.131|-0.197|<0.001
91819623|NCT03274986|183515922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0127|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.073||The hypothesis test was based on a two-sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.05, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF). The 1-sided 95% Upper Confidence Limit is presented.|||0.073||
91948793|NCT03451630|183794587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 5.56 with degrees of freedom (3, 3154).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0008
91819624|NCT03274986|183515923|OTHER||Difference in depth of focus|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis testing was not pre-specified.|||Difference in depth of focus (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||||
91819625|NCT03274986|183515927|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.115||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.115|-0.197|<0.001
91819626|NCT03274986|183515928|OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.65|27.37|||||95% CI for the difference (DFT015 - SN60WF) is estimated using Miettinen-Nurminen method (1985).|||27.37|9.65|
91819627|NCT00603746|183515932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.275|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.37|||ANCOVA|||||0.370|0.180|<0.001
91819628|NCT00603746|183515932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.272|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.367|||ANCOVA|||||0.367|0.178|<0.001
91819629|NCT00603746|183515932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.264|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|0.357|||ANCOVA|||||0.357|0.171|<0.001
91819630|NCT00603746|183515932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.320|0.131|<0.001
91819631|NCT00603746|183515932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.291|||ANCOVA|||||0.291|0.105|<0.001
91819632|NCT01524627|183515961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
91819633|NCT01524627|183515961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
91819634|NCT05627518|183515962|OTHER||Ratio|1.9954|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8399|2.1641|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treatment A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|The Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted ( treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||2.1641|1.8399|<0.0001
91948794|NCT03451630|183794587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9897||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.01 with degrees of freedom (2,1229).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.9897
91819635|NCT05627518|183515962|OTHER||Ratio|2.125|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9664|2.2963|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treatment A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|AUClast: Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||2.2963|1.9664|<0.0001
91819636|NCT05627518|183515963|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|2.3167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0922|2.5652|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treatment A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||2.5652|2.0922|<0.0001
91819637|NCT05627518|183515964|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.757|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7009|0.8177|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.8177|0.7009|<0.0001
91819638|NCT05627518|183515964|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.7684|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7102|0.8313|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.8313|0.7102|<0.0001
91819639|NCT05627518|183515965|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.2548|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1999|0.3247|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.3247|0.1999|<0.0001
91819640|NCT05627518|183515966|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|3.0245|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5098|3.6446|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treament A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted ( treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||3.6446|2.5098|<0.0001
91819641|NCT05627518|183515966|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|3.5277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9076|4.2799|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treament A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||4.2799|2.9076|<0.0001
91819642|NCT05627518|183515967|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|3.0245|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5098|3.6446|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treament A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted ( treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||3.6446|2.5098|<0.0001
91819643|NCT05627518|183515968|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.4923|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4131|0.5867|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.5867|0.4131|<0.0001
91819644|NCT05627518|183515968|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.4923|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4047|0.5989|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.5989|0.4047|<0.0001
91819645|NCT05627518|183515969|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.2522|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.3211|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing test formulation fed (treatment C) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment B). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.3211|0.1980|<0.0001
91819646|NCT01101841|183515985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91819647|NCT01101841|183515985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Week 12 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91819648|NCT01101841|183515986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||Week 24 persistence of effect|Logit model|||||||0.0066
91819649|NCT01101841|183516001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0368||||||Week 4 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0368
91819650|NCT01101841|183516001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||||||Week 12 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0064
91819651|NCT02223767|183516095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
91819652|NCT02223767|183516096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
91819653|NCT02822508|183516128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
91819654|NCT00994448|183516136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|34.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||t test for mean of days retained in the bupropion versus placebo groups||34.3|1.8|0.08
91819655|NCT02704364|183516168|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|28.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||28.0|-68.0|0.434
91819656|NCT02704364|183516168|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.0||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|71.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||71.0|-41.0|0.646
91819657|NCT01461096|183516195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.47|1.31||P-value was unadjusted for multiple comparisons and a P-value less than 5% was the threshold for statistical significance.|generalized log-rank test (Sun 1996)|The generalized log-rank test (Sun 1996) was performed to evaluate whether participants in the two arms had the same survival rate.|qHPV group represented the numerator for the hazard ratio and Placebo group represented the denominator.|||1.31|0.47|0.350
91819658|NCT04889625|183516209|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control lens with respect to binocular HLHC distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used; (0.05) logMAR is approximately half a line on an ETDRS chart.|least-square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.017|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A - delefilcon A|Distance (4m)||0.017|-0.017|
91819659|NCT04889625|183516209|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control lens with respect to binocular HLHC distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used; (0.05) logMAR is approximately half a line on an ETDRS chart.|least-square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0108|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|-0.008|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A - delefilcon A|Intermediate (64cm)||-0.008|-0.051|
91819660|NCT04889625|183516209|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control lens with respect to binocular HLHC distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used; (0.05) logMAR is approximately half a line on an ETDRS chart.|least-square mean difference|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0129|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|-0.011|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A - delefilcon A|Near (40cm)||-0.011|-0.062|
91948795|NCT03451630|183794587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.02 with degrees of freedom (1, 3148).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.03|-0.03|0.8749
91819661|NCT04889625|183516210|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate the primary hypotheses. However, the final sample size calculation was deemed large enough to test for Non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control. A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|least-square mean difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- delefilcon A|||10.5|2.0|
91819662|NCT00404352|183516211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||<0.001
91819663|NCT00404352|183516211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.008
91819664|NCT00404352|183516211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.009
91819665|NCT00404352|183516212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||<0.001
91819666|NCT00404352|183516212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.002
91819667|NCT00404352|183516212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.774
91819668|NCT01479621|183516219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||The study was considered positive if the trend test was positive and the test involving the highest Fp MDPI dose (100 mcg twice daily) indicated significantly greater time averaged FEV1 mean than placebo.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast evaluated the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed followed by pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo.||||0.0001
91819669|NCT01479621|183516219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.149||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.233||The study was considered positive if the trend test was positive and the test involving the highest Fp MDPI dose (100 mcg twice daily) indicated significantly greater time averaged FEV1 mean than placebo.|mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the second analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.233|0.066|0.0005
91948796|NCT03451630|183794587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.49 with degrees of freedom (1, 3148).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.01|-0.05|0.2216
91819670|NCT01479621|183516219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.126||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.208|||mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the third analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.208|0.044|0.0027
91819671|NCT01479621|183516219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.111||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.194|||mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the fourth analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.194|0.028|0.0086
91819672|NCT01479621|183516219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.052||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.136|||mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the fifth analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.136|-0.032|0.2227
91819673|NCT01479621|183516220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Significance at 0.05|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast evaluated the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo).||||0.0017
91819674|NCT01479621|183516220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|18.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|31.29||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||31.29|5.28|0.0060
91819675|NCT01479621|183516220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|20.32||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|33.03||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||33.03|7.61|0.0018
91819676|NCT01479621|183516220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|11.75||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|24.64||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||24.64|-1.15|0.0741
91819677|NCT01479621|183516220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|21.72||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.73|34.72||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||34.72|8.73|0.0011
91948797|NCT03451630|183794587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 3.52 with degrees of freedom (1, 3148).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.04|0.00|0.0607
91948798|NCT03451630|183794588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1884||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.46 with degrees of freedom (6, 3138)||Overall test of treatment-by-time||||0.1884
91948799|NCT03451630|183794588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 3.87 with degrees of freedom (3, 3144).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0090
91948800|NCT03451630|183794588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.53 with degrees of freedom (2, 1227).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.2170
91948801|NCT03451630|183794588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.28||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.71 with degrees of freedom (1, 3138).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.28|-0.06|0.1910
91948802|NCT03451630|183794588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.35||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 5.18 with degrees of freedom (1, 3138).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.35|0.03|0.0229
91948803|NCT03451630|183794588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.30 with degrees of freedom (1, 3138).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.06|-0.21|0.2547
91948804|NCT03451630|183794589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0413||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.49 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.0413
91948805|NCT03451630|183794589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.14 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.04|-0.28|0.1433
91948806|NCT03451630|183794589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.23||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.63 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.23|-0.10|0.4272
91948807|NCT03451630|183794589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.06||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 8.45 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||-0.06|-0.31|0.0037
91948808|NCT03451630|183794590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8231||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.38 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.8231
91948809|NCT03451630|183794590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 330.05 with degrees of freedom (2, 1948).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
91948810|NCT03451630|183794590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6061||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.50 with degrees of freedom (2 , 1948).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.6061
91948811|NCT03451630|183794590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.11|-0.15|0.7459
91948812|NCT03451630|183794590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.00 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.08|-0.18|0.3169
91948813|NCT03451630|183794590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.14||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.68 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.14|-0.07|0.4098
91948814|NCT03451630|183794591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4732||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.88 with degrees of freedom (4, 1945).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.4732
91948815|NCT03451630|183794591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 319.14 with degrees of freedom (2, 1948).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
91948816|NCT03451630|183794591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9628||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.04 with degrees of freedom (2, 1948).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.9628
91948817|NCT03451630|183794591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.04 with degrees of freedom (1, 1945).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.19|-0.16|0.8438
91948818|NCT03451630|183794591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (1, 1945).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.15|-0.19|0.7425
91948819|NCT03451630|183794591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.45 with degrees of freedom (1, 1945).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.17|-0.10|0.5044
91948820|NCT03451630|183794592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9804||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.9804
91948821|NCT03451630|183794592|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 21.80 with degrees of freedom (2, 3168).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
91948822|NCT03451630|183794592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9764||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.02 with degrees of freedom (2, 1211).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.9764
91948823|NCT03451630|183794592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.6||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-test statistics 0.03.||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.60|0.63|0.9757
91948824|NCT03451630|183794592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.68||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-test statistics 0.26.||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.68|0.67|0.7958
91819678|NCT01479621|183516221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0434||||||Significance at 0.05|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast evaluated the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo).||||0.0434
91819679|NCT01479621|183516221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|11.06||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|23.66||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||23.66|-1.54|0.0852
91819680|NCT01479621|183516221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|12.78||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|25.04||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||25.04|0.52|0.0411
91819681|NCT01479621|183516221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|9.28||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|21.69||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||21.69|-3.14|0.1428
91819682|NCT01479621|183516221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|18.23||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|30.82||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||30.82|5.64|0.0046
91819683|NCT01479621|183516222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated mean difference from placebo|2.76||||0.66685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|15.6|||GEE|The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||15.60|-10.07|0.66685
91948825|NCT03451630|183794592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.30||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.34|0.67|0.7646
91948826|NCT03451630|183794593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9622||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.15 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.9622
91819684|NCT01479621|183516222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated mean difference from placebo|6.76||||0.26741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|18.94||The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.|GEE|||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||18.94|-5.43|0.26741
91948827|NCT03451630|183794593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0377||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 3.28 with degrees of freedom (2, 3168).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0377
91948828|NCT03451630|183794593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistic 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2, 1903).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.8300
91948829|NCT03451630|183794593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.0||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.32||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||2.00|0.38|0.7507
91948830|NCT03451630|183794593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.13||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.15||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||2.13|0.42|0.8844
91948831|NCT03451630|183794593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.77||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.22||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.77|0.49|0.8227
91819685|NCT01479621|183516222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated mean difference from placebo|10.45||||0.09964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|23.15||The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.|GEE|||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||23.15|-2.24|0.09964
91819686|NCT01479621|183516222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|12.78||||0.03825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|25.11||The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.|GEE|||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||25.11|0.44|0.03825
91819687|NCT01479621|183516223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2841||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.2841
91819688|NCT01479621|183516223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||<0.0001
91819689|NCT01479621|183516223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0008
91819690|NCT01479621|183516223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0010
91948832|NCT03451630|183794594|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Frequency and test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for MMA-1a||||1.00
91948833|NCT03451630|183794594|OTHER|||||||0.242|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Frequency and test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for MMA-1b||||0.242
91948834|NCT03451630|183794595|OTHER|||||||0.1112|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for PCE-1||||0.1112
91948835|NCT03451630|183794595|OTHER|||||||0.4754|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for PCE-2||||0.4754
91948836|NCT03451630|183794596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|4.28||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect (without weight) using a Firth's penalized logistic regression model for rare events.||4.28|0.13|0.9079
91948837|NCT03451630|183794596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.72||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect (without weight) using a Firth's penalized logistic regression model for rare events.||3.72|0.13|0.9079
91948838|NCT03451630|183794596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.45||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect (without weight) using a Firth's penalized logistic regression model for rare events.||3.45|0.34|0.9079
91948839|NCT03451630|183794597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9912||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.07 with degrees of freedom (4, 335).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPC-1.||||0.9912
91948840|NCT03451630|183794597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.13 with degrees of freedom (2, 339).||Test for change over time for SPC-1||||0.8760
91948841|NCT03451630|183794597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.39 with degrees of freedom (2, 276).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPC-1||||0.6780
91948842|NCT03451630|183794597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1761||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.59 with degrees of freedom (4, 284).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPC-2||||0.1761
91819691|NCT01479621|183516229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.114||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|-0.033||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||-0.033|-0.195|0.0058
91948843|NCT03451630|183794597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3239||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.13 with degrees of freedom (2, 288).||Test for change over time for SPC-2||||0.3239
91948844|NCT03451630|183794597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7415||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.30 with degrees of freedom (2, 139).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPC-2||||0.7415
91948845|NCT03451630|183794598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9786||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (4, 608).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPD-1.||||0.9786
91948846|NCT03451630|183794598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4703||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.76 with degrees of freedom (2, 612).||Test for change over time for SPD-1||||0.4703
91948847|NCT03451630|183794598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.13 with degrees of freedom (2, 332).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPD-1||||0.8770
91819692|NCT01479621|183516229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.034||||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.114||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.114|-0.046|0.4083
91819693|NCT01479621|183516229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.011||||0.7882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.089||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.089|-0.068|0.7882
91819694|NCT01479621|183516229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.002||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.078||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.078|-0.082|0.9586
91948848|NCT03451630|183794598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6198||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.66 with degrees of freedom (4, 469).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPD-2||||0.6198
91948849|NCT03451630|183794598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6211||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.48 with degrees of freedom (2, 473).||Test for change over time for SPD-2||||0.6211
91948850|NCT03451630|183794598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1471||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.93 with degrees of freedom (2, 219).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPD-2.||||0.1471
91948851|NCT03451630|183794599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8247||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.38 with degrees of freedom (4, 280).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for AMM-1||||0.8247
91948852|NCT03451630|183794599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6651||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.41 with degrees of freedom (2, 284).||Test for change over time for AMM-1||||0.6651
91948853|NCT03451630|183794599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3441||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.07 with degrees of freedom (2, 218).||Test for change in treatment effect for AMM-1||||0.3441
91948854|NCT03451630|183794599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0847||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.07 with degrees of freedom (4, 280).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for AMM-2||||0.0847
91948855|NCT03451630|183794599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9695||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.03 with degrees of freedom (2, 284).||Test for change over time for AMM-2||||0.9695
91948856|NCT03451630|183794599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9396||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.06 with degrees of freedom (2, 200).||Test for change in treatment effect for AMM-2||||0.9396
91948857|NCT02041533|183794604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.45|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by histology (squamous vs. non-squamous) as entered into the IVRS.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.45|0.91|0.2511
91948858|NCT02041533|183794605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.43|0.95|
91948859|NCT02041533|183794606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.20|0.79|
91948860|NCT02041533|183794607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.24|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.24|0.86|
91948861|NCT02041533|183794608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06|||||Stratified by histology (squamous vs.non-squamous) at randomization. Strata adjusted odds ratio (Nivolumab over investigator choice of chemotherapy) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.06|0.46|
91948862|NCT00545740|183794610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.063
91948863|NCT00545740|183794610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.736
91948864|NCT00545740|183794610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.780
91819695|NCT01479621|183516229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.062||||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.018||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.018|-0.143|0.1306
91819696|NCT01479621|183516230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-17.66||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.43|-4.89||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||-4.89|-30.43|0.0068
91948865|NCT00545740|183794612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.047
91948866|NCT00545740|183794612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.741
91948867|NCT00545740|183794612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.780
91948868|NCT02117024|183794617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0011
91948869|NCT02117024|183794617|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Other|||With only 50% of enrollment complete prior to study termination by sponsor, insufficient sample size exists to fully complete efficacy analysis.||||<0.05
91819697|NCT01479621|183516230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.69||||0.9135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|13.23||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||13.23|-11.84|0.9135
91948870|NCT01646255|183794629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.2|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.57||Primary efficacy analyses was made with confirmatory 2-sided test with significance level 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Estimate of treatment effect has been obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model to the change from Baseline value in absolute time spent off. The ANCOVA model contained treatment and (pooled) site as factors and Baseline off time as covariate. A last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation approach was used for missing values (during both Titration and Maintenance Periods) for the primary efficacy analysis."||-0.57|-1.83|=0.0002
91948871|NCT01468844|183794642|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948872|NCT01468844|183794643|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948873|NCT01468844|183794644|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948874|NCT01468844|183794645|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 12 is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948875|NCT01468844|183794646|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 24 is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948876|NCT01468844|183794647|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 3 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948877|NCT01468844|183794648|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948878|NCT01468844|183794649|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948879|NCT01468844|183794650|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948880|NCT01468844|183794651|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948881|NCT01468844|183794652|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948882|NCT01468844|183794653|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|39.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|113.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948883|NCT01468844|183794654|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|313.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|267.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948884|NCT01468844|183794655|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|428.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|146.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948885|NCT01468844|183794656|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|119.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948886|NCT01468844|183794657|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91819698|NCT01479621|183516230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|2.67||||0.6689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.58|14.92||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||14.92|-9.58|0.6689
91819699|NCT01479621|183516230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.69||||0.3691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.12|6.74||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||6.74|-18.12|0.3691
91948887|NCT01468844|183794657|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948888|NCT01468844|183794657|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948889|NCT01468844|183794658|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948890|NCT01468844|183794658|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948891|NCT01468844|183794658|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91948892|NCT01241318|183794661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.44|||||The chlorhexidine arm is the numerator and dry cord care arm is the denominator in the relative risk calculation. Generalised estimating equation models were used to adjust for cluster randomized design.|||1.44|0.88|
91948893|NCT01241318|183794662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.47|||||Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for cluster-randomized design were used.|||1.47|0.86|
91948894|NCT01241318|183794663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13|||||Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for cluster-randomized design were used.|||1.13|0.47|
91948895|NCT02355665|183794667|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||3.66|1.10|0.021
91948896|NCT02355665|183794668|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|3.04||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||6.68|1.39|0.004
91948897|NCT02355665|183794669|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.87||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||6.71|1.23|0.011
91948898|NCT02355665|183794670|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|1.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||2.71|1.02|0.040
91948899|NCT02355665|183794671|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.09||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.98||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||3.98|1.09|0.023
91819700|NCT01479621|183516230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.24||||0.5072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|16.78||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||16.78|-8.31|0.5072
91948900|NCT02355665|183794672|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|6.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||6.42|1.32|0.006
91948901|NCT02355665|183794673|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.66||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.92||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||5.92|1.20|0.013
91819701|NCT01479621|183516231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-15.26||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.63|-2.88||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||-2.88|-27.63|0.0158
91948902|NCT02355665|183794674|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.60|-0.64|0.847
91948903|NCT02355665|183794675|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.42|-0.62|0.861
91819702|NCT01479621|183516231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-4.48||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.69|7.721||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||7.721|-16.69|0.4709
91819703|NCT01479621|183516231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-2.68||||0.6572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|9.19||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||9.19|-14.55|0.6572
91819704|NCT01479621|183516231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.98||||0.3292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|6.05||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||6.05|-18.01|0.3292
91819705|NCT01479621|183516231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|3.05||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|15.26||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||15.26|-9.16|0.6237
91819706|NCT03663283|183516232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0197
91819707|NCT03663283|183516233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours||||0.584
91948904|NCT02355665|183794676|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.24|-0.61|0.266
91948905|NCT02355665|183794677|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.09||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.55|-0.38|0.487
91948906|NCT02355665|183794678|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||0.43|-0.65|0.433
91948907|NCT02355665|183794679|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.01||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||-0.01|-1.15|0.022
91948908|NCT02355665|183794680|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.0||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||0.49|-0.50|0.665
91948909|NCT02355665|183794681|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||0.31|-0.51|0.300
91948910|NCT02355665|183794682|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.43|-0.78|0.754
91948911|NCT02355665|183794683|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.08||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.08|-0.89|0.116
91948912|NCT02355665|183794684|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.2||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.20|-0.47|0.392
91948913|NCT02355665|183794685|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.13|-0.59|0.179
91948914|NCT02355665|183794686|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.01||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.47|-0.44|0.925
91948915|NCT02355665|183794687|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.24|-0.66|0.325
91948916|NCT02355665|183794688|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.13||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.51|-0.24|0.891
91948917|NCT02355665|183794689|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.25|-0.48|0.721
91948918|NCT02355665|183794690|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||0.49|-0.54|0.608
91819708|NCT03663283|183516233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 weeks||||.5800
91819709|NCT03663283|183516234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
91819710|NCT03663283|183516235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours||||.7018
91819711|NCT03663283|183516235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 3||||.5327
91948919|NCT02355665|183794691|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.63||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||-0.09|-1.16|0.014
91948920|NCT02355665|183794692|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||0.38|-0.30|0.900
91819712|NCT00802412|183516247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.5|0.4|0.51
91948921|NCT02355665|183794693|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||0.31|-0.44|0.731
91948922|NCT02355665|183794694|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.04||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.36||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.36|-0.28|0.635
91948923|NCT02355665|183794695|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.32|-0.42|0.273
91948924|NCT02355665|183794696|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.28|-0.40|0.879
91948925|NCT02355665|183794697|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.02||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.32|-0.28|0.823
91948926|NCT02355665|183794698|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.0||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||0.40|-0.40|0.804
91948927|NCT02355665|183794699|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.13||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||0.57|-0.30|0.438
91948928|NCT02355665|183794700|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||0.28|-0.44|0.517
91948929|NCT02355665|183794701|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||-0.06|-0.77|0.027
91948930|NCT02355665|183794702|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.33||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.33|-0.93|0.105
91948931|NCT02355665|183794703|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.51|-0.60|0.604
91819713|NCT00802412|183516247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.55|||Regression, Cox|||||2.55|0.66|.45
91819714|NCT01417481|183516248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
91819715|NCT01417481|183516249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
91819716|NCT01417481|183516250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
91948932|NCT02355665|183794704|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.24|-0.93|0.194
91948933|NCT02355665|183794705|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.40|-0.62|0.502
91948934|NCT02355665|183794706|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||1.73|-2.84|0.483
91948935|NCT02355665|183794707|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-1.79||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|0.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||0.67|-4.24|0.102
91948936|NCT02355665|183794708|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||1.38|-2.27|0.532
91948937|NCT02355665|183794709|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-1.01||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.91||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||0.91|-2.93|0.354
91948938|NCT02355665|183794878|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.679||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.41||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment, baseline smoking category, study site, and baseline weight were factors.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments.||4.41|-2.42|0.558
91948939|NCT02355665|183794879|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.409||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|10.11||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment, baseline smoking category, study site, and baseline weight were factors.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments.||10.11|-4.03|0.383
91948940|NCT02355665|183794880|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.573||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|16.83||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment, baseline smoking category, study site, and baseline weight were factors.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments.||16.83|-2.56|0.138
91948941|NCT02380703|183794911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.32||For participants who dropped out, their time until study attrition was used as the exposure period; and they were carried forward as part of the overall incidence count.|Regression, Cox|||Sample-size calculations were performed, based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = 0.4) in rate of aggression onset over a 1-year period between APT and EU-PC, assuming 80% power and a type I error rate of 5%. Given an anticipated rate of aggression onset over 1 year of 37% for EU-PC, an ES of h = 0.4 allows detection of aggression onset in APT as high as 19%. Given this effect size and up to 10% attrition, our goal was to include 220 total participants.||2.32|0.78|0.29
91948942|NCT02380703|183794911|EQUIVALENCE|Examination of whether the presence of aggression is equivalent between APT and EU-PC|Difference in frequencies|1.21||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Association between presence of aggression and condition (APT vs EU-PC).|Chi-squared|X2(1) = 1.21||||||0.27
91948943|NCT02380703|183794912|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|1.59||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.19
91948944|NCT02380703|183794913|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|2.43||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.06
91948945|NCT02380703|183794914|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.33||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.80
91819717|NCT01417481|183516251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||=0.061
91948946|NCT02380703|183794915|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.89
91948947|NCT02380703|183794916|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|1.48||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.22
91948948|NCT02380703|183794917|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.38||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.77
91948949|NCT02380703|183794918|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.56||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.64
91948950|NCT01408862|183794945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Results will be expressed as mean + SD from independent experiments. Statistical significance between means were determined by Wilcoxon-paired test. Variable will be log-transformed if they were not normally distributed. . We used the CSS/ Statistica program package, StatSoft V 6.0.~This analysis applies to both GLP1R and GIPR categories"||||0.04
91948951|NCT01408862|183794946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||Results will be expressed as mean + SD from independent experiments. Statistical significance between means were determined by two-way ANOVA with repeated measures on one factor, for variables measured in several consecutive times. Variable will be log-transformed if they were not normally distributed. Wilcoxon test for paired samples was used. The Statistica program package (StatSoft V 6.0) were used to perform these analyses, which applied to both GLP1R and GIPR agonist effect categories.||||0.20
91948952|NCT01813149|183794948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=20 t-statistic = 2.90||A t-test to see if expression of α1-AR differs between phenylephrine responders and non-responders||||0.009
91948953|NCT01882439|183794960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|37.19|||Large sample approximation|Missing response (MR) = non-response (NR)||||37.19|14.72|<0.0001
91948954|NCT01882439|183794960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|34.51|||Large sample approximation|MR=NR||||34.51|12.10|<0.0001
91948955|NCT01882439|183794961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06422|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3792|-0.1266|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation||||-0.1266|-0.3792|<0.0001
91948956|NCT01882439|183794961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06453||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3419|-0.0881|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation||||-0.0881|-0.3419|0.0009
91948957|NCT03125902|183794999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.12|0.60|0.2032
91948958|NCT03125902|183794999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.14|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.14|0.62|0.2601
91948959|NCT03125902|183795000|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.70|0.1343
91948960|NCT03125902|183795000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.05|0.70|0.1285
91948961|NCT03125902|183795001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.64|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.64|0.76|0.5798
91948962|NCT03125902|183795001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.72|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.72|0.80|0.4035
91948963|NCT03125902|183795002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.43|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis||1.43|0.88|0.3425
91819718|NCT01417481|183516252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||=0.068
91948964|NCT03125902|183795002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.48|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.48|0.92|0.2166
91948965|NCT03125902|183795004|OTHER|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.71|0.6465
91948966|NCT03125902|183795006|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.37|0.87|0.1526
91948967|NCT03125902|183795007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.31|0.85|0.1834
91948968|NCT03125902|183795008|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.02|1.00|0.0513
91948969|NCT03125902|183795009|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.81|0.93|0.1226
91948970|NCT03125902|183795010|OTHER|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.54|0.0641
91948971|NCT03125902|183795020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.01227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.9|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.90|0.42|0.01227
91948972|NCT01997333|183795021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test.||||||0.761
91948973|NCT01997333|183795022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factors.||||||0.264
91948974|NCT01997333|183795024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank.||||||0.726
91948975|NCT02269709|183795027|OTHER|Changes in mean liver shear wave speed (SWS) between time points were assessed using a mixed-effect model with post hoc Tukey correction.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Baseline and Follow-up #1||||<0.0001
91948976|NCT02269709|183795027|OTHER|Changes in mean liver shear wave speed (SWS) between time points were assessed using a mixed-effect model with post hoc Tukey correction.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Baseline vs. Follow up #2||||<0.0001
91948977|NCT02269709|183795027|OTHER|Changes in mean liver shear wave speed (SWS) between time points were assessed using a mixed-effect model with post hoc Tukey correction.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Baseline vs. Follow-up #3||||<0.0001
91948978|NCT02269709|183795028|OTHER|Mean IVC pressures from different time points were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91948979|NCT04411472|183795029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.8025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.732|||One-sided p-value|||||1.732|0.805|0.8025
91948980|NCT04411472|183795030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|2.131|||One-sided p-value|||||2.131|0.139|0.1824
91948981|NCT04411472|183795031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.405|||One-sided p-value|||||0.405|0.001|0.0080
91948982|NCT04411472|183795032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.3894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.454|||One-sided p-value|||||1.454|0.606|0.3894
91948983|NCT04411472|183795033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|1.697|||One-sided p-value|||||1.697|0.128|0.1237
91948984|NCT04411472|183795035|SUPERIORITY||z-score statistic difference proportions|-7.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-0.4||one-sided p-value based on the z-score statistic for the difference in proportions|one-sided p-value|||||-0.4|-15.4|0.019
91948985|NCT04411472|183795036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Days alive and free of organ support through to Day 28||||0.5460
91948986|NCT04411472|183795036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of MV||||0.6770
91948987|NCT04411472|183795036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of RRT||||0.9930
91948988|NCT04411472|183795036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of vasopressors and inotropes||||0.7790
91948989|NCT04411472|183795037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Days alive and free of organ support through Day 28||||0.0510
91819719|NCT01417481|183516253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||=0.040
91819720|NCT01417481|183516254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||<0.05
91819721|NCT01417481|183516255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||<0.05
91948990|NCT04411472|183795037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of MV||||0.0130
91948991|NCT04411472|183795037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of RRT||||0.0250
91948992|NCT04411472|183795037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of vasopressors and inotropes||||0.0730
91948993|NCT04411472|183795038|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Days alive and free of organ support through Day 28||||1.0000
91948994|NCT04411472|183795038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of MV||||0.9790
91948995|NCT04411472|183795038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.675|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of RRT||||0.6750
91948996|NCT04411472|183795038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of vasopressors and inotropes||||0.0310
91948997|NCT04411472|183795039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||||||0.5450
91948998|NCT04411472|183795040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||||||0.0810
91948999|NCT04411472|183795041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||||||0.9790
91949000|NCT04411472|183795042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.437|||One-sided p-value|||||1.437|0.806|0.6916
91949001|NCT04411472|183795043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.234|||One-sided p-value|||||1.234|0.180|0.0628
91949002|NCT04411472|183795044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.054|||One-sided p-value|||||0.054|0.001|<0.0001
91949003|NCT00890396|183795045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||0.67
91949004|NCT00890396|183795046|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||>0.99
91949005|NCT00890396|183795047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.61
91949006|NCT00890396|183795048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.78
91949007|NCT00890396|183795049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.80
91949008|NCT00890396|183795050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.11
91949009|NCT00890396|183795051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.85
91949010|NCT00890396|183795052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.95
91949011|NCT00890396|183795053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.40
91949012|NCT00890396|183795054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.11
91949013|NCT00440232|183795055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.969||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.235|||Chi-squared|||||5.235|0.74|0.172
91949014|NCT00440232|183795056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||log rank chi square|1.247||||0.264||95.0|||||Log Rank|df=1||||||0.264
91949015|NCT00362297|183795057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident Risk Ratio|0.79||||0.052||95.0|0.63|1.0|||Regression, Poisson|Adjusted for period effects.||Comparison of genital HSV shedding rate on high dose acyclovir to standard dose valacyclovir. Powered with 80% chance of detecting 50% reduction in genital shedding rate on high dose acyclovir compared to standard dose valacyclovir.||1.00|0.63|0.052
91949016|NCT00819052|183795058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of nevirapine XR to nevirapine IR was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than -12%|Cochran's statistic|1.0||||||95.0|-4.3|6.2|||Cochran's statistic||Weighted treatment difference and corresponding variance were calculated based on Cochran's statistic.|||6.2|-4.3|
91819722|NCT01417481|183516256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||<0.01
91819723|NCT01417481|183516257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
91819724|NCT02614547|183516258|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.081||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.77|-3.67|||MMRM|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure (MMRM) used an unstructured covariance model time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-3.67|-20.77|0.008
91949017|NCT00819052|183795071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64||||0.7587||95.0|-34.34|25.05|||ANCOVA|Means adjusted for background ARV (Antiretroviral) stratum||||25.05|-34.34|0.7587
91949018|NCT00982111|183795128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.84|0.9561
91949019|NCT00982111|183795129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.80|0.6647
91949020|NCT00982111|183795130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.34|0.68|0.7945
91949021|NCT00982111|183795131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|1.00|0.0459
91949022|NCT00684073|183795140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.13||95.0||||p-value adjusted for treatment only|ANCOVA||Difference between treatments (Suboxone minus Subutex)estimated by ANCOVA = 0.42.|||||0.130
91949023|NCT01259388|183795145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.346|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.346
91949024|NCT01259388|183795147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91949025|NCT00620815|183795148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Group Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|1.02|1.25||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 1) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.25|1.02|
91819725|NCT02614547|183516259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|37.67|||Fisher Exact|||60 Hours||37.67|0.49|0.198
91819726|NCT02614547|183516259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|239.57|||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||239.57|1.31|0.023
91819727|NCT02614547|183516259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.22||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|62.08|||Fisher Exact|||Day 30||62.08|0.70|0.086
91819728|NCT02614547|183516260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.33||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|1152.71|||Fisher Exact|||60 Hours||1152.71|1.56|0.008
91819729|NCT02614547|183516260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.003
91819730|NCT02614547|183516260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|140.57|||Fisher Exact|||Day 30||140.57|1.01|0.030
91949026|NCT00620815|183795148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.91|1.12||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 1) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.12|0.91|
91949027|NCT00620815|183795148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.8|0.99||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 1)Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||0.99|0.80|
91949028|NCT00620815|183795148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.74|1.93||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 22) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.93|0.74|
91949029|NCT00620815|183795148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.52|1.38||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 22) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.38|0.52|
91819731|NCT02614547|183516261|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.536||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-4.22|||MMRM|||60 Hours: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment||-4.22|-27.50|0.010
91819732|NCT02614547|183516261|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.448||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|-4.5|||MMRM|||Day 7: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment||-4.50|-27.43|0.009
91819733|NCT02614547|183516261|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.213||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.05|-4.09|||MMRM|||Day 30: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment||-4.09|-26.05|0.010
91819734|NCT02614547|183516262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|90.81|||Fisher Exact|||60 Hours||90.81|0.73|0.080
91819735|NCT02614547|183516262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|239.57|||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||239.57|1.31|0.023
91819736|NCT02614547|183516262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|142.2|||Fisher Exact|||Day 30||142.20|1.04|0.030
91819737|NCT02614547|183516263|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.466||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|-0.86|||MMRM|||60 Hours: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-0.86|-11.24|0.025
91819738|NCT02614547|183516263|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.427||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|-1.34|||MMRM|||Day 7: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-1.34|-11.57|0.016
91819739|NCT02614547|183516263|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.568||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-1.35|||MMRM|||Day 30: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-1.35|-12.25|0.018
91949030|NCT00620815|183795148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.44|1.15||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 22) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.15|0.44|
91949031|NCT00620815|183795148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|1.01|1.3||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 43) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.30|1.01|
91949032|NCT00620815|183795148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.93|1.19||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 43) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.19|0.93|
91819740|NCT02614547|183516265|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.461||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.04|||ANCOVA|||60 Hours||7.04|-3.30|0.457
91819741|NCT02614547|183516265|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-1.47||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.55|||ANCOVA|||Day 7||4.55|-7.50|0.613
91949033|NCT00620815|183795148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.81|1.04||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 43) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.04|0.81|
91819742|NCT02614547|183516265|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.871||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|3.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 30||3.93|-8.13|0.474
91819743|NCT00409292|183516291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||binomial hypothesis test|||||||0.10
91819744|NCT00405548|183516353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91819745|NCT00405548|183516354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91819746|NCT00405548|183516355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91819747|NCT00405548|183516356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|A p-value of less 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.||Mean LV filling pressure was compared from baseline to 12 weeks within the BNP group.||||0.004
91819748|NCT00405548|183516356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|A p-value of less 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.||Mean LV filling pressure was compared from baseline to 12 weeks within the Placebo group.||||0.43
91819749|NCT04652479|183516366|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0028
91819750|NCT04652479|183516366|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0005
91819751|NCT04652479|183516367|OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0027
91819752|NCT04652479|183516367|OTHER|||||||0.0043||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0043
91819753|NCT04652479|183516368|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0003
91949034|NCT01032265|183795172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.27
91949035|NCT01032265|183795173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.52
91949036|NCT01032265|183795174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.30
91949037|NCT01032265|183795175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.02
91949038|NCT01032265|183795176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||<0.001
91949039|NCT01032265|183795177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23||95.0|||||negative binomial regression|||analysis between groups||||0.23
91949040|NCT01032265|183795178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.01
91949041|NCT02728804|183795180|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.29|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.29|0.66|0.65
91949042|NCT02728804|183795181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.43|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.43|0.79|0.70
91819754|NCT04652479|183516368|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0003
91949043|NCT02728804|183795182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.31|0.73|0.87
91949044|NCT02728804|183795183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||0.92|0.48|0.01
91949045|NCT02728804|183795184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.87|0.95|0.10
91949046|NCT02728804|183795184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.89|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||2.89|1.28|0.002
91949047|NCT00453349|183795277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 87% in the per protocol population"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||||95.0|-10.7|4.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||4.9|-10.7|
91819755|NCT04652479|183516369|OTHER|||||||0.161||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.161
91819756|NCT04652479|183516369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.66||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.201
91949048|NCT00453349|183795278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||||95.0|-9.9|6.0|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||6.0|-9.9|
91949049|NCT00453349|183795279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||||95.0|-7.4|0.8|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical improvement rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||0.8|-7.4|
91949050|NCT00453349|183795280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||||95.0|-8.1|7.5|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical improvement rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||7.5|-8.1|
91949051|NCT00453349|183795281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||||95.0|-12.7|20.3|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||20.3|-12.7|
91949052|NCT00453349|183795282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||||95.0|-19.4|17.6|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||17.6|-19.4|
91949053|NCT00453349|183795283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||||95.0|-8.6|4.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||4.9|-8.6|
91949054|NCT00453349|183795284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||||95.0|-8.1|7.5|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||7.5|-8.1|
91949055|NCT00453349|183795285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||||95.0|-24.9|15.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||15.9|-24.9|
91949056|NCT00453349|183795286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||||95.0|-30.5|11.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||11.9|-30.5|
91949057|NCT00149227|183795338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|0.975|||Cox's proportional hazard analysis|||"We estimated the number of enrolled patients to validate the hypothesis under the assumption that the valsartan add-on group achieves a 20% risk reduction compared with the conventional treatment group and gives 80% statistical power for detecting a clinical signiﬁcance with a two-tailed 5% statistical signiﬁcant level.~with a two-tailed 5% statistical signiﬁcant level."||0.975|-0.975|<0.05
91949058|NCT02978339|183795352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
91949059|NCT02978339|183795353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91949060|NCT02978339|183795354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91949061|NCT02978339|183795355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91949062|NCT02978339|183795356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.15
91949063|NCT02978339|183795357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.06
91949064|NCT02978339|183795358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.93
91949065|NCT00195702|183795364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the ACR20 response tested first. The ACR20 response rate at Week 24 was initially assessed using Pearson's chi-squared test at a significance level of 0.05. If significant, pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and the placebo group were performed.||||<0.001
91819757|NCT04652479|183516369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-67.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.001
91819758|NCT04652479|183516370|OTHER|||||||0.145||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.145
91949066|NCT00195702|183795364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the ACR20 response tested first. The ACR20 response rate at Week 24 was initially assessed using Pearson's chi-squared test at a significance level of 0.05. If significant, pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and the placebo group were performed.||||<0.001
91949067|NCT00195702|183795365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||An ANCOVA model with baseline erosion scores as the covariate was performed. An overall significance test at alpha =0.05 was done. Pairwise comparisons, each at alpha =0.05 (2-sided), were performed if the overall test was significant.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change in modified total Sharp x-ray score at Week 52 tested second. Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test procedure to the residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed following a non-parametric approach, ranking the results prior to fitting the model.||||<0.001
91949068|NCT00195702|183795365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||An ANCOVA model with baseline erosion scores as the covariate was performed. An overall significance test at alpha =0.05 was done. Pairwise comparisons, each at alpha =0.05 (2-sided), were performed if the overall test was significant.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change in modified total Sharp x-ray score at Week 52 tested second. Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test procedure to the residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed following a non-parametric approach, ranking the results prior to fitting the model.||||<0.001
91949069|NCT00195702|183795366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91949070|NCT00195702|183795366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91949071|NCT00195702|183795367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91949072|NCT00195702|183795367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91949073|NCT00195702|183795368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91949074|NCT00195702|183795368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91949075|NCT00195702|183795369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test to residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed using a parametric approach.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change from baseline in the HAQ at Week 52 tested last. The difference among all treatment groups was assessed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as the covariate. If this was significant (p\<=0.05), pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and placebo were evaluated using the same method.||||<0.001
91949076|NCT00195702|183795369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test to residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed using a parametric approach.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change from baseline in the HAQ at Week 52 tested last. The difference among all treatment groups was assessed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as the covariate. If this was significant (p\<=0.05), pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and placebo were evaluated using the same method.||||<0.001
91949077|NCT00195702|183795370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91949078|NCT00195702|183795370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91949079|NCT00195702|183795372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91949080|NCT00195702|183795372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91949081|NCT00195702|183795376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91949082|NCT00195702|183795376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91949083|NCT01078389|183795395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Ranked Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Erosion Score as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.472
91949084|NCT01078389|183795396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Total Score from full hands and feet as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.548
91949085|NCT01078389|183795397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Erosion Score from full hands and feet as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.389
91949086|NCT01078389|183795398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline RAMRIS Synovitis Score as a covariate.||Synovitis: Change from Baseline at Month 24||||<0.001
91949087|NCT01078389|183795398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline RAMRIS Erosion(Distal+Proximal) Score as a covariate.||Erosion(Distal+Proximal): Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.634
91819759|NCT04652479|183516370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.88||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided||Change in percentage|Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.111
91949088|NCT01078389|183795398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline RAMRIS Edema(Distal+Proximal) Score as a covariate.||Edema(Distal+Proximal): Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.307
91949089|NCT01078389|183795399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Total Score as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.122
91949090|NCT04823494|183795400|NON_INFERIORITY|For sample size in each sequence group is 16 (total N=32), a 2 X 2 crossover design will have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the SELF-FIT APHAB mean is inferior to the PRO-FIT APHAB mean. The non-inferiority difference margin is 8.4, the standard deviation of differences is 16.3, and p\<.025. The non-inferiority margin of 8.4 preserves half the 95% critical difference for the global APHAB score (16.8). The common standard deviation reported for the APHAB global score is 16.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|4.73||There were two outcome measures, primary and secondary, considered. As a result, the a priori p value of .05 for statistical significance was adjusted for multiple comparisons to .025.|t-test, 1 sided|The mean differences and 95% CIs in APHAB global score between SELF-FIT and PRO-FIT were calculated using bias-corrected \& accelerated bootstrapping.|The mean difference and 95% CIs are for Self-Fit minus Pro-Fit aided scores. These values are the pooled data for all 37 participants, 19 receiving one sequence and 18 the other sequence.|"For the wear-time crossover field trial, the APHAB was measured following both the audiology best-practices hearing aid fitting (PRO-FIT) and the self-fitting method (SELF-FIT).~* Null hypothesis: Mean (APHAB SELF-FIT - APHAB PRO-FIT ) ≥ 8.4~* Alternative hypothesis: Mean (APHAB SELF-FIT - APHAB PRO-FIT) \< 8.4~The mean difference between the aided scores for the two fitting methods, Self-Fit minus Pro-Fit, represent the primary outcome measure. The expected difference = 0."||4.73|-1.59|<0.025
91949091|NCT04823494|183795401|NON_INFERIORITY|For the QuickSIN, a clinically meaningful difference is 3 dB and half that difference resulted in a margin of 1.5 dB. This 1.5-dB margin was used for the QuickSIN for the non-inferiority analyses of the data from the field-trial component. The mean difference, QuickSIN Self-Fit minus QuickSIN Pro-Fit, should be less than 1.5 dB for the entire sample (N=37) to meet the non-inferiority criterion.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.2||The a priori threshold value of 0.05 was Bonferroni-adjusted to 0.025 based on the use of two outcome measures, APHAB global (primary) and QuickSIN (secondary).|t-test, 1 sided|The mean differences in dB, SELF-FIT minus PRO-FIT, were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (bias-corrected, accelerated bootstrap) generated.|Mean differences in aided QuickSIN SNR in dB, Self-Fit minus Pro-Fit, were calculated for the entire group of 37 participants with about 1/2 receiving one of the two fit sequences (Pro-Fit then Self-Fit or Self-Fit then Pro-Fit).|"For the QuickSIN, aided performance after each wear period was compared between SELF-FIT and PRO-FIT.~* Null hypothesis: Mean (QuickSIN SELF-FIT - QuickSIPRO-FIT) ≥ 1.5 dB~* Alternative hypothesis: Mean (QuickSIN SELF-FIT - QuickSIN PRO-FIT) \< 1.5 dB~Power calculations were based on the primary outcome measured, the aided APHAB global score, (see information for that outcome measure). With the minimum required N of 32 based on the APHAB global score, the power for QuickSIN exceeded 80%."||1.20|-0.03|<0.025
91949092|NCT03691831|183795414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|10.76||P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A summary of the wart clearance at Visit 10.||10.76|2.14|0.0001
91949093|NCT03691831|183795415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.||4.56|1.61|0.0001
91949094|NCT03691831|183795416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||21.8|9.0|<0.0001
91949095|NCT03691831|183795417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|15.53|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||15.53|1.76|0.0006
91949096|NCT03691831|183795418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91949097|NCT00337935|183795426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9||a priori theshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline Hemoglobin was used as a covariate.||||0.9|0.2|.0062
91949098|NCT00337935|183795427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91949099|NCT00337935|183795428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p=0.05|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91949100|NCT02361307|183795447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91949101|NCT00329433|183795448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Published data show that the incidence of PF4/heparin EIA antibodies is approximately 40% (range, 20% to 60%) following cardiac surgery. We estimated that antibody formation would occur in approximately 20% of patients following thoracic surgery. Sixty patients in each group would provide 80% power to detect a decrease in the incidence of positive PF4/heparin EIA tests from 20% to 4% at an alpha level of \<0.05.||||<0.05
91949102|NCT00329433|183795449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91949103|NCT00329433|183795450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91949104|NCT01189201|183795461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.07|107.8|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||107.80|102.07|
91949105|NCT01189201|183795462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.97|110.09|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||110.09|99.97|
91949106|NCT01189201|183795463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|107.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.7|114.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||114.02|101.70|
91819760|NCT04652479|183516370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided||Change in percentage|Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.001
91949107|NCT01189201|183795464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.55|120.83|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||120.83|99.55|
91949108|NCT01189201|183795467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.02|107.61|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||107.61|102.02|
91949109|NCT01189201|183795468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.23|112.62|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||112.62|97.23|
91949110|NCT01189201|183795469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|85.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.33|90.64|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||90.64|81.33|
91949111|NCT01189201|183795470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|61.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.1|69.71|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||69.71|54.10|
91949112|NCT01189201|183795471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|85.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.77|90.14|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||90.14|80.77|
91949113|NCT01189201|183795472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|93.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.07|102.05|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||102.05|85.07|
91949114|NCT01189201|183795473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|68.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.59|80.03|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||80.03|58.59|
91949115|NCT01189201|183795474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|90.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.24|98.19|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||98.19|84.24|
91949116|NCT01189201|183795475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|100.3|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||100.30|91.19|
91949117|NCT01189201|183795476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.95|104.53|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||104.53|91.95|
91949118|NCT01189201|183795477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.17|100.43|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||100.43|91.17|
91949119|NCT01189201|183795478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.36|100.09|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||100.09|86.36|
91949120|NCT01189201|183795479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|103.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|115.74|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||115.74|92.93|
91949121|NCT01189201|183795480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|96.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.78|103.42|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||103.42|89.78|
91949122|NCT03852901|183795488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.866|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.166|50.268||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 902.758; F = 70.003; Sig. \< 0.001 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||50.268|31.166|<0.001
91949123|NCT03852901|183795489|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.699|1.426||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 884.229; F = .367; Sig = .545 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||1.426|-2.699|0.545
91949124|NCT03852901|183795490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.044||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 880.629; F = 8.782; Sig. = 0.003 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||.044|.009|0.003
91949125|NCT03852901|183795491|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.329||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.255|-0.04||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 880.870; F = 3.970; Sig. = 0.047 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||-0.040|-5.255|0.047
91949126|NCT03852901|183795492|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-1.937||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 902.181; F = 9.049; Sig. = 0.003 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: repeated-measures. Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||-1.937|-9.210|0.003
91949127|NCT03852901|183795493|OTHER|||||||0.5849||||||Type III of fixed effects. Num df: 2; Den df = 33; F = 0.5451; Sig. = 0.5849 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit; Fixed effects: Visit, Sex, Age, fCSF||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||||0.5849
91949128|NCT03852901|183795494|OTHER|||||||0.0142||||||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 2; Den df = 35; F = 4.8191; Sig. = 0.0142 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit; Fixed effects: Visit, Sex, Age, fCSF||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||||0.0142
91949129|NCT03852901|183795495|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Type III of fixed effects. Num df: 2; Den df = 34; F = 4.1501; Sig. = 0.0244 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effects: ID; Repeated measures: Visit; Fixed effects: Visit, Sex, Age and fCSF||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||||0.024
91949130|NCT01409382|183795507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.6|||Chi-squared|||Take home babies||7.6|1.5|<0.05
91949131|NCT04120116|183795600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.08||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.11|0.068
91949132|NCT04120116|183795602|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.611||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.945|6.439||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.439|-3.945|0.634
91949133|NCT01098266|183795628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18||The log-rank test (unstratified) was used to compare the two treatment arms. In addition, a stratified version of the log-rank test was performed with the stratification factors used for randomization.|Log Rank|Cox regression analyses (unstratified and stratified) were performed to assess the influence of baseline covariates in an exploratory manner.||Study with one control per experimental patient, an accrual interval of 24 months, and an additional FU after the accrual interval of 12 months.If the true HR of experimental relative to control patients was 0.726, then 195 experimental patients and 195 control patients were required to be able to reject the null hypothesis that the experimental and control survival curves were equal with probability (power)0.80 Type I error probability associated with this test of this null hypothesis was 0.05||1.18|0.75|0.58
91949134|NCT01098266|183795629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17|||Log Rank|Cox regression analyses (unstratified and stratified) was performed to assess the influence of baseline covariates in an exploratory manner.||The log-rank test (unstratified and stratified) was used at an alpha level of 5% to test for differences in PFS between the two treatment arms. Kaplan-Meier curves and estimates were provided.||1.17|0.78|0.65
91949135|NCT01098266|183795630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.68|||Fisher Exact||Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the influence of baseline covariates in an exploratory manner|Difference in DCR between the two treatment arms were tested using a chi-squared test with 95% confidence intervals calculated in each treatment arm.||1.68|0.76|0.62
91949136|NCT01098266|183795633|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to symptomatic progression between treatment arms. Median and 95% confidence limits for the time to symptomatic progression were estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival methodology. Estimates of the treatment effect were expressed as hazard ratio including 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.26|||Log Rank|||QoL assessment was performed by using a questionnaire according to LCSS, which consists of nine 100-mm visual analog scales, with scores reported from 0 to 100(the best score). The LCSS subscore is the average symptom burden index computed as the mean score for all 6 major symptoms. Symptomatic progression was defined as a worsening in the average symptom burden index by 25%.||1.26|0.68|0.5806
91949137|NCT01733758|183795635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.39|||ANCOVA|||||-1.39|-1.72|
91949138|NCT01733758|183795635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-1.51|
91949139|NCT01733758|183795635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The first test in a sequential testing procedure starting with albiglutide 50 mg versus placebo, and if significant at 0.05 level, followed by albiglutide 30 mg versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least squares (LS) means (albiglutide 50 mg - placebo) is equal to zero.||||||<0.0001
91949140|NCT01733758|183795635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The second test in a sequential testing procedure starting with albiglutide 50 mg versus placebo, and if significant at 0.05 level, followed by albiglutide 30 mg versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test to test whether the difference of LS means (albiglutide 30 mg - placebo) is equal to zero.||||||<0.0001
91949141|NCT00727246|183795671|OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|A repeated measures ANOVA was completed to evaluate differences in cognitive composite scores between groups and CDP-Choline or placebo||A repeated measures ANOVA was completed to evaluate differences in cognitive composite scores of individuals with a history of TBI as compared to healthy controls 6 weeks after treatment with CDP Choline (1000 mg CDP-Choline 2 x per day for 6 weeks) as compared to those treated with placebo. A mean index score created as a composite cognitive performance across domains (higher t-score = higher cognition). Purpose was to serve as a measure of overall cognitive functioning for data analysis.||||.85
91949142|NCT00727246|183795672|OTHER|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|0.95|||||ANOVA|A repeated measures ANOVA was completed to evaluate differences in cognitive composite scores between groups and CDP-Choline or placebo||A repeated measure ANOVA was completed to evaluate potential differences in cognitive composite scores of individuals with a history of TBI as compared to healthy controls 6 weeks after treatment with CDP Choline (1000 mg CDP-Choline 2 x per day for 6 weeks) as compared to those treated with placebo.||||.329
91949143|NCT00661362|183795673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-0.55|<0.0001
91949144|NCT00661362|183795674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-0.85|<0.0002
91949145|NCT00661362|183795675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.684|<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-4.83|||ANCOVA|||||-4.83|-15.37|<0.0002
91949146|NCT00661362|183795676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-155.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.0||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.0|-47.0|||ANCOVA|||||-47|-264|0.0052
91949147|NCT00661362|183795677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2802.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|989.8||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4753.0|-852.0|||ANCOVA|||||-852|-4753|0.0052
91949148|NCT00661362|183795678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24.0|8.0|<0.0001
91949149|NCT03970330|183795741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1123.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-755.0|3000.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|||3000|-755|0.20
91949150|NCT03970330|183795742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|59.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at BASELINE||59.6|-1.9|0.06
91949151|NCT03970330|183795742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|41.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 4||41.2|-20.3|0.48
91949152|NCT03970330|183795742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|49.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||49.6|-11.8|0.21
91819761|NCT00811577|183516374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.57
91819762|NCT00811577|183516374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.56
91819763|NCT00811577|183516374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.61
91819764|NCT00811577|183516374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.80
91819765|NCT00811577|183516375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.47
91819766|NCT00811577|183516375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.080
91819767|NCT00811577|183516375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.96
91819768|NCT00811577|183516375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.22
91819769|NCT00811577|183516376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.87
91819770|NCT00811577|183516376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.15
91819771|NCT00811577|183516376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.77
91819772|NCT00811577|183516376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.75
91819773|NCT00811577|183516376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.050
91819774|NCT00811577|183516376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.83
91819775|NCT00811577|183516376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.37
91819776|NCT00811577|183516376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.43
91819777|NCT00811577|183516377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.16
91819778|NCT00811577|183516377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.14
91819779|NCT00811577|183516377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.69
91819780|NCT00811577|183516377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.89
91819781|NCT00811577|183516377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.30
91819782|NCT00811577|183516377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.46
91819783|NCT00811577|183516378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.086
91819784|NCT00811577|183516378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.66
91819785|NCT00811577|183516378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.069
91819786|NCT00811577|183516378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.68
91819787|NCT00811577|183516378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.095
91819788|NCT00811577|183516378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.62
91819789|NCT00811577|183516379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||A regression analysis was run to compare alpha-SMA between 3 mg and 10 mg AZX100 and placebo, adjusted for the subject's gender and age. GEE regression in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD was used because it properly handled the correlations among the three observations for each subject.||||0.44
91819790|NCT00811577|183516379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||A regression analysis was run to compare alpha-SMA between 3 mg and 10 mg AZX100 and placebo, adjusted for the subject's gender and age. GEE regression in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD was used because it properly handled the correlations among the three observations for each subject.||||0.41
91819791|NCT01455012|183516388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-160.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.23|-107.45||The analysis of this primary efficacy variable was performed using a two-sided alpha level of 5 %.|ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated on the basis of the Least Square Mean (LSM) of the difference as well as on the 95 % Confidence Interval and the p-value for that difference. Difference to Placebo was calculated as Rotigotine-Placebo.|The 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) and the p-value for the mean difference between Rotigotine and Placebo was obtained from a linear Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline antihypertensive use and a covariate for the Baseline number of nocturnal elevations of Systolic Blood Pressure that are associated with Periodic Limb Movements (PLMs).||-107.45|-213.23|<0.0001
91949153|NCT03970330|183795742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|46.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||46.2|-15.2|0.30
91819792|NCT00615056|183516479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.273||||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|2.108||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||2.108|0.769|0.8268
91949154|NCT03970330|183795742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|37.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||37.5|-24.0|0.65
91949155|NCT03970330|183795743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 4||||0.07
91819793|NCT00615056|183516479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.041||||0.5498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.041||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||1.041|0.553|0.5498
91949156|NCT03970330|183795743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||||0.07
91949157|NCT03970330|183795743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||||0.06
91949158|NCT03970330|183795743|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||||1.00
91949159|NCT03970330|183795744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treament groups at WEEK 4||||0.29
91949160|NCT03970330|183795744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||||0.24
91949161|NCT03970330|183795744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||||0.20
91949162|NCT03970330|183795744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||||0.53
91949163|NCT03970330|183795745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 4||||0.37
91949164|NCT03970330|183795745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||||0.39
91949165|NCT03970330|183795745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||||0.37
91949166|NCT03970330|183795745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||||0.39
91819794|NCT00615056|183516480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.8828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.238||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||2.238|0.820|0.8828
91949167|NCT03970330|183795746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|||9.2|-0.6|0.08
91949168|NCT02500706|183795781|NON_INFERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: HbA1c non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%"|Treatment difference|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||The endpoint was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.07|-0.11|<0.001
91949169|NCT02500706|183795781|NON_INFERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: HbA1c non-inferiority of postmeal faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Non-inferiority of postmeal faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%"|Treatment difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.19||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||The endpoint was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.19|0.004|<0.001
91949170|NCT02500706|183795781|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 4: HbA1c superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Superiority was to be confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the mean treatment difference (mealtime faster aspart minus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®) was below 0%-points."|Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||The endpoint was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.07|-0.11|0.633
91949171|NCT02500706|183795782|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 3: 1-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) increments superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog.~Superiority was confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the mean treatment difference (mealtime faster aspart minus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®) was below 0."|Treatment difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.45||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|ANOVA|||Change from baseline in postprandial glucose increment (meal test) is analysed using an analysis of variance model. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline postprandial glucose increment as a covariate.||-0.45|-1.36|<0.001
91949172|NCT02500706|183795783|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 5: 1,5-anhydroglucitol superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Superiority was to be confirmed if the lower boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the mean treatment difference (mealtime faster aspart minus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®) was above 0."|Treatment difference|0.02||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34||p-values are from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||Change from baseline in 1,5-anhydroglucitol was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline 1,5-anhydroglucitol as a covariate.||0.34|-0.31|0.924
91819795|NCT00615056|183516480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.689||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.273||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||1.273|0.373|0.1159
91819796|NCT00615056|183516481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|17.7|||Chi-squared|||One-sided Pearson chi square test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.||17.7|-15.8|0.4552
91819797|NCT00615056|183516481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|18.0|||Chi-squared|||One-sided Pearson chi square test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.||18.0|-19.1|0.5235
91819798|NCT00717769|183516486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 8||||0.519
91819799|NCT00717769|183516486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 15||||0.032
91819800|NCT00717769|183516486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 22||||0.008
91819801|NCT00717769|183516486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 29||||0.006
91819802|NCT00717769|183516488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 8||||0.533
91819803|NCT00717769|183516488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 15||||0.009
91819804|NCT00717769|183516488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 22||||0.002
91819805|NCT00717769|183516488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 29||||0.003
91819806|NCT00653224|183516596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.33|-0.45||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the mean of T5SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis for the primary endpoint is expressed as follows: 'The mean 24-hr reflective T5SS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.45|-1.33|<0.001
91819807|NCT00653224|183516597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.52|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.52|<0.001
91819808|NCT00653224|183516598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.47|-0.15||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
91819809|NCT00653224|183516599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.52|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.52|<0.001
91819810|NCT00653224|183516600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.042||95.0|-0.49|-0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ activities score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.01|-0.49|0.042
91819811|NCT00653224|183516601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.014||95.0|-0.52|-0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ activities score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.06|-0.52|0.014
91819812|NCT00653224|183516602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.036||95.0|-0.51|-0.02||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ activities score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.02|-0.51|0.036
91819813|NCT00653224|183516603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.01||95.0|-0.48|-0.07||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.07|-0.48|0.010
91949173|NCT04269629|183795856|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACEI) and the group without such treatment. The primary outcome was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.25||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||It was assumed that 24% of the patients would be on β-blockers and/or ACE inhibitors (ACEI). A χ2 test with a two-sided 5% significance level has an 80% power to detect the difference between the group without antihypertensive medication with 6% SR during VIT and the group on β-blockers and/or ACEI with 12.3% SR during VIT (OR = 2.2) when the sample sizes are 631 and 200, respectively. A drop-out rate of 37% was assumed which resulted in a required number of 1,319 patients.||||0.25
91949174|NCT04269629|183795857|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.29||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||0.29
91949175|NCT04269629|183795858|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitor) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes were analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.04||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05. Correlation of the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and/or hypertension with the risk for more severe systemic sting reactions (p=0.04).|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for correlation of the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and/or hypertension with the risk for more severe systemic sting reactions.||||0.04
91949176|NCT04269629|183795859|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.|||||<|0.001||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||<0.001
91949177|NCT04269629|183795860|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.99||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for sIgE levels - bee venom.||||0.99
91949178|NCT04269629|183795860|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.15||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for sIgE levels - vespid venom.||||0.15
91949179|NCT04269629|183795861|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.16||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||0.16
91949180|NCT04269629|183795862|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.5||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||0.50
91949181|NCT04269629|183795863|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
91819814|NCT00653224|183516604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.026||95.0|-0.43|-0.03||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.03|-0.43|0.026
91819815|NCT00653224|183516605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.018||95.0|-0.45|-0.04||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.04|-0.45|0.018
91819816|NCT00653224|183516606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.002||95.0|-0.47|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ N-N/E symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.47|0.002
91819817|NCT00653224|183516607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.006||95.0|-0.41|-0.07||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ N-N/E symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.07|-0.41|0.006
91819818|NCT00653224|183516608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.003||95.0|-0.47|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ N-N/E symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.47|0.003
91819819|NCT00653224|183516609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.61|-0.18||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ practical pbs. score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.18|-0.61|<0.001
91949182|NCT04269629|183795864|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitor) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes were analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.11||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for correlation of the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and/or hypertension with the risk for more frequent SR under VIT.||||0.11
91949183|NCT01000311|183795865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of 95% confidence interval|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|93.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 80% for the serogroup A.||93|83|
91949184|NCT01000311|183795865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of 95% confidence interval|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|98.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 85% for the serogroup C.||98|90|
91819820|NCT00653224|183516610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.57|-0.16||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ practical pbs. score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.16|-0.57|<0.001
91949185|NCT01000311|183795865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of 95% confidence interval|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|99.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 85% for the serogroup W.||99|93|
91949186|NCT01000311|183795865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lowe limit of 95% confidence interval|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|99.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 85% for the serogroup Y.||99|92|
91949187|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to diphtheria toxin, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to diphtheria toxin, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||2.6|-2.9|
91949188|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to tetanus toxin, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to tetanus toxin, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||3.9|-3.3|
91949189|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|4.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP vaccine is given, compared with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||4.3|-12.1|
91949190|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis (FHA antigen), when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|13.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis FHA antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||13.6|-5.1|
91949191|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone.||9.1|-8.8|
91949192|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||6.8|-10.6|
91949193|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to hepatitis B, when given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of hepatitis B vaccine given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to hepatitis B antigen, when hepatitis B vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when hepatitis B vaccine is given alone.||4.5|-5.2|
91949194|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to Hib vaccine, when given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of Hib vaccine given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to Hib antigen, when Hib vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when Hib vaccine is given alone.||11.2|0|
91949195|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 1), when IPV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of IPV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -5%.|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 1), when IPV routine is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when IPV is given alone||5.4|-3.1|
91949196|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 2), when IPV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of IPV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -5%.|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 2), when IPV routine is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when IPV is given alone||3|-1.4|
91949197|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 3), when IPV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of IPV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -5%.|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 3), when IPV routine is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when IPV is given alone||1.7|-3.3|
91819821|NCT00653224|183516611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.61|-0.18||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ practical pbs. score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.18|-0.61|<0.001
91819822|NCT00653224|183516612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.59|-0.18||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.18|-0.59|<0.001
91819823|NCT00653224|183516613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.55|-0.16||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.16|-0.55|<0.001
91819824|NCT00653224|183516614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.59|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.59|<0.001
91819825|NCT00653224|183516615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.63|-0.21||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.21|-0.63|<0.001
91819826|NCT00653224|183516616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.56|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.56|<0.001
91819827|NCT00653224|183516617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.63|-0.22||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.22|-0.63|<0.001
91819828|NCT00653224|183516618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.53|-0.13||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.13|-0.53|<0.001
91949198|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||4.6|-1.9|
91819829|NCT00653224|183516619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.52|-0.15||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.15|-0.52|<0.001
91949199|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||3.2|-10.3|
91949200|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||2.3|-8.7|
91949201|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||3.0|-2.8|
91949202|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||1.6|-7.3|
91949203|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||7.1|1.3|
91949204|NCT01000311|183795869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||0.5|-11.4|
91949205|NCT01000311|183795870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTap is given alone||1.28|0.81|
91949206|NCT01000311|183795870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis FHA antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis FHA antigen, when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone||1.19|0.9|
91949207|NCT01000311|183795870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone||1.28|0.84|
91949208|NCT01000311|183795870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.35|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone||1.35|0.88|
91949209|NCT01000311|183795871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.19|0.8|
91949210|NCT01000311|183795871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||0.93|0.62|
91819830|NCT00653224|183516620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.53|-0.14||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.14|-0.53|<0.001
91819831|NCT00653224|183516621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.32|-0.45||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the mean of T5SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T5SS over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.45|-1.32|<0.001
91819832|NCT00653224|183516622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.39|-0.36||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the mean of T5SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T5SS over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.36|-1.39|<0.001
91819833|NCT00653224|183516623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.2|-0.49||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T4SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean T4SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T4SS over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.49|-1.20|<0.001
91819834|NCT00653224|183516624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.18|-0.35||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T4SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean T4SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T4SS over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.35|-1.18|<0.001
91819835|NCT00653224|183516625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.17|-0.45||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T4SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean T4SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T4SS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.45|-1.17|<0.001
91819836|NCT00653224|183516626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.17|-0.31||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TNSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TNSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TNSS over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.31|-1.17|<0.001
91819837|NCT00653224|183516627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.005||95.0|-1.26|-0.22||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TNSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TNSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TNSS over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.22|-1.26|0.005
91819838|NCT00653224|183516628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.18|-0.3||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TNSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TNSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TNSS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.30|-1.18|<0.001
91819839|NCT00653224|183516629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.87|-0.3||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TOSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TOSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TOSS over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.30|-0.87|<0.001
91819840|NCT00653224|183516630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.91|-0.24||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TOSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TOSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TOSS over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.24|-0.91|<0.001
91819841|NCT00653224|183516631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.86|-0.28||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TOSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TOSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TOSS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.28|-0.86|<0.001
91819842|NCT00653224|183516632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.34|-0.13||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the sneezing mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Sneezing Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The sneezing mean score over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.13|-0.34|<0.001
91819843|NCT00653224|183516633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.34|-0.09||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the sneezing mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Sneezing Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The sneezing mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.09|-0.34|<0.001
91819844|NCT00653224|183516634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.33|-0.12||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the sneezing mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Sneezing Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The sneezing mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.12|-0.33|<0.001
91819845|NCT00653224|183516635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.32|-0.11||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the rhinorrhea mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Rhinorrhea Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The rhinorrhea mean score over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.11|-0.32|<0.001
91819846|NCT00653224|183516636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.008||95.0|-0.3|-0.05||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the rhinorrhea mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Rhinorrhea Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The rhinorrhea mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.05|-0.30|0.008
91819847|NCT00653224|183516637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.3|-0.09||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the rhinorrhea mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Rhinorrhea Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The rhinorrhea mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.09|-0.30|<0.001
91819848|NCT00653224|183516638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.384||95.0|-0.15|0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal congestion mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Congestion Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal congestion mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.06|-0.15|0.384
91819849|NCT00653224|183516639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.063||95.0|-0.24|0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal congestion mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Congestion Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal congestion mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.01|-0.24|0.063
91819850|NCT00653224|183516640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.124||95.0|-0.19|0.02||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal congestion mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Congestion Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal congestion mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.02|-0.19|0.124
91819851|NCT00653224|183516641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.002||95.0|-0.28|-0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal pruritus mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.06|-0.28|0.002
91949211|NCT01000311|183795871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.06|0.72|
91819852|NCT00653224|183516642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.016||95.0|-0.28|-0.03||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal pruritus mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.03|-0.28|0.016
91819853|NCT00653224|183516643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.003||95.0|-0.27|-0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal pruritus mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.06|-0.27|0.003
91819854|NCT00653224|183516644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.088||95.0|-0.2|0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the post-nasal drip mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Post-Nasal Drip Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The post-nasal drip mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.01|-0.20|0.088
91819855|NCT00653224|183516645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.117||95.0|-0.23|0.03||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the post-nasal drip mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Post-Nasal Drip Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The post-nasal drip mean score over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.03|-0.23|0.117
91819856|NCT00653224|183516646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.065||95.0|-0.21|0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the post-nasal drip mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Post-Nasal Drip Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The post-nasal drip mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.01|-0.21|0.065
91819857|NCT00653224|183516647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.32|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular pruritus mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.32|<0.001
91819858|NCT00653224|183516648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.002||95.0|-0.33|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular pruritus mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.33|0.002
91819859|NCT00653224|183516649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.32|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular pruritus mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.32|<0.001
91819860|NCT00653224|183516650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.3|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular itching/burning mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Itching/Burning Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular itching/burning mean score over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.30|<0.001
91819861|NCT00653224|183516651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.006||95.0|-0.29|-0.05||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular itching/burning mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Itching/Burning Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular itching/burning mean score over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
91819862|NCT00653224|183516652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular itching/burning mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Itching/Burning Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular itching/burning mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.29|<0.001
91949212|NCT01000311|183795871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.28|0.84|
91949213|NCT01000311|183795871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.2|0.82|
91949214|NCT01000311|183795871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.07|0.73|
91949215|NCT01000311|183795871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.04|0.68|
91949216|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|12.4|||||LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1 postdose AM 1 hour||12.4|-14.2|
91949217|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|12.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 1 hour||12.9|-11.8|
91949218|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 4 hour||2.8|-30.6|
91819863|NCT00653224|183516653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.31|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular tearing/watering mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Tearing/Watering Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular tearing/watering mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.31|<0.001
91949219|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|0.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 4 hour||0|-31.0|
91949220|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|3.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 8 hour||3.9|-23.8|
91949221|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|9.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 8 hour||9.7|-16.0|
91949222|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|8.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 predose PM||8.6|-26.2|
91949223|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|12.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 predose PM||12.6|-19.7|
91949224|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|12.2||||||Day 1 postdose PM 1 hour||12.2|-18.7|
91949225|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|9.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose PM||9.9|-18.7|
91949226|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose AM||1.3|-18.2|
91949227|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose AM||3.3|-14.8|
91949228|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 1 hour||-2.8|-28.1|
91819864|NCT00653224|183516654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.011||95.0|-0.29|-0.04||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular tearing/watering mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Tearing/Watering Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular tearing/watering mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.04|-0.29|0.011
91819865|NCT00653224|183516655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular tearing/watering mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Tearing/Watering Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular tearing/watering mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.29|<0.001
91819866|NCT00653224|183516656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.004||95.0|-0.27|-0.05||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular redness mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Redness Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular redness mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.05|-0.27|0.004
91819867|NCT00653224|183516657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.34|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular redness mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Redness Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular redness mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.34|<0.001
91819868|NCT00653224|183516658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular redness mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Redness Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular redness mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.29|<0.001
91949229|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|2.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 1 hour||2.3|-21.1|
91949230|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 4 hour||7.9|-25.6|
91949231|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|4.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 4 hour||4.4|-26.7|
91949232|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose PM||0.6|-24.0|
91949233|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|4.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose PM||4.4|-18.4|
91949234|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|16.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 1 hour||16.2|-13.0|
91949235|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|14.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 1 hour||14.2|-12.9|
91949236|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|7.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 4 hour||7.1|-16.4|
91949237|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 4 hour||7.9|-13.9|
91949238|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|6.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 predose AM||6.4|-15.8|
91949239|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|4.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 predose AM||4.5|-16.0|
91949240|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|13.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 postdose PM 4 hour||13.1|-13.6|
91819869|NCT00653224|183516659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||If the p-value is lower than 5% the distribution is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test is generally used to detect 'shift alternatives'. That is, the two distributions have the same general shape, but one of them is shifted relative to the other by a constant amount under the alternative hypothesis.||||<0.001
91949241|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 postdose PM 4 hour||9.6|-15.2|
91949242|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|3.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4 predose AM||3.0|-15.5|
91949243|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|0.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4 predose AM||0.5|-16.6|
91949244|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|8.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5 predose AM||8.4|-11.8|
91949245|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-0.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5 predose AM||-0.7|-19.4|
91949246|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|4.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6 predose AM||4.7|-18.1|
91949247|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6 predose AM||6.3|-14.8|
91819870|NCT00653224|183516660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||If the p-value is lower than 5% the distribution is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test (Lehmann, 1975 page 23) is generally used to detect 'shift alternatives'. That is, the two distributions have the same general shape, but one of them is shifted relative to the other by a constant amount under the alternative hypothesis.||||<0.001
91949248|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|14.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 predose AM||14.1|-12.2|
91949249|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|8.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 predose AM||8.4|-16.0|
91949250|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|9.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 1 hour||9.1|-15.1|
91949251|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|4.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 1 hour||4.8|-17.6|
91949252|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|3.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 4 hour||3.7|-22.7|
91949253|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-5.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 4 hour||-5.0|-29.5|
91949254|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|1.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose AM||1.1|-24.4|
91949255|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|3.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose AM||3.5|-20.2|
91949256|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|1.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 1 hour||1.4|-28.1|
91949257|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 1 hour||3.3|-24.0|
91949258|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|6.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 4 hour||6.9|-27.0|
91949259|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|11.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 4 hour||11.1|-20.4|
91819871|NCT00653224|183516661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.027||95.0|-2.56|-0.16||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.16|-2.56|0.027
91819872|NCT00653224|183516662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.554||95.0|-1.56|0.84||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.84|-1.56|0.554
91819873|NCT00653224|183516663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.015||95.0|-2.72|-0.29||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.29|-2.72|0.015
91819874|NCT00653224|183516664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.016||95.0|-8.34|-0.86||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.86|-8.34|0.016
91819875|NCT00653224|183516665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33||||0.017||95.0|-7.88|-0.79||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.79|-7.88|0.017
91819876|NCT00653224|183516666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.25||||0.027||95.0|-8.02|-0.47||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.47|-8.02|0.027
91819877|NCT00653224|183516667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44||||0.023||95.0|-8.25|-0.63||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.63|-8.25|0.023
91819878|NCT00653224|183516668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.56||||0.015||95.0|-8.23|-0.89||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.89|-8.23|0.015
91819879|NCT00653224|183516669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.11||||0.036||95.0|-7.95|-0.27||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.27|-7.95|0.036
91949260|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|11.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose PM||11.0|-19.5|
91949261|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|12.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose PM||12.8|-15.4|
91949262|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-2.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9 predose AM||-2.5|-23.0|
91819880|NCT00653224|183516670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51||||0.102||95.0|-9.95|0.93||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.93|-9.95|0.102
91819881|NCT00653224|183516671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.493||95.0|-5.66|2.78||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||2.78|-5.66|0.493
91819882|NCT00653224|183516672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38||||0.117||95.0|-9.91|1.15||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||1.15|-9.91|0.117
91819883|NCT00653224|183516673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.58||||0.409||95.0|-15.65|6.49||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||6.49|-15.65|0.409
91819884|NCT00653224|183516674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.54||||0.432||95.0|-16.1|7.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||7.01|-16.10|0.432
91819885|NCT00653224|183516675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.24||||0.45||95.0|-15.46|6.99||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||6.99|-15.46|0.450
91819886|NCT00653224|183516676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37||||0.251||95.0|-17.4|4.67||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||4.67|-17.40|0.251
91819887|NCT00653224|183516677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.06||||0.258||95.0|-19.48|5.36||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||5.36|-19.48|0.258
91819888|NCT00653224|183516678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.96||||0.288||95.0|-17.13|5.22||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||5.22|-17.13|0.288
91949263|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|4.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9 predose AM||4.3|-14.7|
91949264|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|2.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10 predose AM||2.9|-19.0|
91949265|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|6.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10 predose||6.3|-14.0|
91819889|NCT00653224|183516679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.91|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.34|-2.47||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-2.47|-9.34|<0.001
91819890|NCT00653224|183516680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.62|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.88|-3.35||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-3.35|-9.88|<0.001
91819891|NCT00653224|183516681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69||||0.001||95.0|-9.16|-2.21||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-2.21|-9.16|0.001
91819892|NCT00653224|183516682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.027||95.0|-1.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in ESS score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in ESS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in ESS score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-1.29|0.027
91819893|NCT00653224|183516683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.535||95.0|-0.7|0.37||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in ESS score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in ESS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in ESS score at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.37|-0.70|0.535
91819894|NCT00653224|183516684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.042||95.0|-1.26|-0.02||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in ESS score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in ESS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in ESS score at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.02|-1.26|0.042
91819895|NCT00653224|183516685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0||||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the change from baseline is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|Repeated measure analysis (CATMOD)|||The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The change from baseline to endpoint visit in score category (ESS score \< 8 or \>= 8) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||||0.171
91819896|NCT02896400|183516699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms including BNI (BNI only, BNI+NRT, BNI+QL, BNI+Text, BNI+NRT+QL, BNI+NRT+Text, BNI+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to the 8 arms that do not include BNI (Control, NRT only, QL only, Text only, NRT+QL, NRT+Text, QL+Text, NRT+QL+Text)||2.8|1.1|.01
91949266|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11 predose AM||-1.2|-31.0|
91949267|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11 predose AM||5.6|-22.1|
91819897|NCT02896400|183516699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms that include NRT (NRT only, BNI+NRT, NRT+QL, NRT+Text, BNI+NRT+QL, BNI+NRT+Text, NRT+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to 8 arms that do not include NRT (Control, BNI only, QL only, Text only, BNI+QL, BNI+Text, QL+Text, BNI+QL+Text)||3.2|1.3|.001
91819898|NCT02896400|183516699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms including QL intervention (QL only, BNI+QL, NRT+QL, QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL, BNI+QL+Text, NRT+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to all 8 arms that did not include QL (Control, BNI only, NRT only, Text only, BNI+NRT, BNI+Text, NRT+Text, BNI+NRT+Text)||2.2|0.9|0.14
91949268|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12 predose AM||7.9|-14.6|
91949269|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12 predose AM||4.9|-15.9|
91819899|NCT02896400|183516699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms including Text (Text only, BNI+Text, NRT+Text, QL+Text, BNI+NRT+Text, BNI+QL+Text, NRT+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to 8 arms that do not include Text (Control, BNI only, NRT only, QL only, BNI+NRT, BNI+QL, NRT+QL, BNI+NRT+QL)||1.7|0.7|0.64
91819900|NCT02984020|183516710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.69|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total treatment duration of Xeljanz as factor||||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
91819901|NCT02984020|183516710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.64|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including other past/present disease as factor||||3.59|1.64|<0.0001
91819902|NCT02984020|183516721|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total duration of treatment with Xeljanz as factor||||1.82|1.11|0.0053
91819903|NCT00394212|183516752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||P-value from non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test comparing treatments.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based on a 2-group test of means for unequal variance and unequal sample size (2:1 randomization ratio) with alpha = 0.05 and a power of 80%, the sample size required was 132; 88 subjects in the Transoral Suturing arm and 44 in the Sham Endoscopy arm. The study was prematurely discontinued due to reasons unrelated to safety and effectiveness and therefore was underpowered for evaluation of the primary and secondary hypotheses.||||0.066
91819904|NCT00394212|183516753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0||||P-value from two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing percents achieving 15% EWL at 6 months for the two treatments.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.317
91819905|NCT00394212|183516754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value from two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing percents achieved for the two treatments.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
91819906|NCT00394212|183516755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value from two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing percents achieved for the two treatments.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.174
91819907|NCT02347527|183516757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.038
91949270|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-1.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 predose AM||-1.7|-22.1|
91819908|NCT02347527|183516757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.036
91819909|NCT02347527|183516758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
91819910|NCT02347527|183516759|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Relationship between change in high-calorie food ratings and subsequent food intake (kcals).||||0.040
91949271|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|2.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 predose AM||2.9|-16.0|
91819911|NCT02347527|183516759|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Relationship between change in high-calorie food ratings and subsequent food intake (kcals).||||0.92
91819912|NCT01276314|183516767|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The p-value was analyzed for SJS/TEN participants with \>10% body surface area detachment.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|||For evaluating the time taken to heal skin erosion, the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates method was performed. Differences were considered statistically significant at P values of less than 0.05.||||0.01
91949272|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-3.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 1 hour||-3.2|-25.4|
91819913|NCT01276314|183516767|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||This p-value was analyzed for DRESS participants.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|||For evaluating the time taken to heal skin erosion, the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates method was performed. Differences were considered statistically significant at P values of less than 0.05.||||0.06
91819914|NCT00749775|183516794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at 4 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
91819915|NCT00749775|183516794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at 8 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
91819916|NCT00749775|183516794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at 12 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
91819917|NCT00749775|183516794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at last evaluation date does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
91819918|NCT00749775|183516795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at 4 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
91819919|NCT00749775|183516795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at 8 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
91819920|NCT00749775|183516795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at 12 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
91949273|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 1 hour||-1.5|-22.1|
91949274|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 4 hour||5.6|-29.0|
91819921|NCT00749775|183516795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at last evaluation date does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
91949275|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|6.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 4 hour||6.2|-25.9|
91949276|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-0.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose PM||-0.1|-22.4|
91949277|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|0.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 predose PM||0.4|-20.2|
91949278|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|10.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14 predose AM||10.5|-22.0|
91949279|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|9.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14 predose AM||9.0|-21.1|
91949280|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15 / Discharge||5.6|-21.7|
91949281|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|7.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15 / Discharge||7.6|-17.7|
91819922|NCT03064126|183516840|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.166||||0.0017|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.0553||||Chi-squared||||||0.0553|0.0017
91949282|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|16.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21 / Follow-up||16.7|-7.0|
91949283|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21 / Follow-up||16.2|-5.8|
91949284|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|22.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42 / End of Trial||22.6|-11.7|
91949285|NCT03091920|183795900|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|11.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42 / End of Trial||11.4|-20.4|
91819923|NCT03064126|183516841|NON_INFERIORITY|A Chi-Square Test was used to assess the hypothesis for the difference in 12-month MAE-free rate with non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.106|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.0248||||Chi-squared||||||0.0248|<0.0001
91819924|NCT03907683|183516874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0098|0.3185|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekday move more messages would not differ from zero||0.3185|.0098|0.037
91949286|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||3.8|-8.9|
91949287|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||4.5|-8.4|
91949288|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|3.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||3.4|-9.2|
91949289|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||-0.6|-13.5|
91949290|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||0.6|-11.5|
91949291|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||1.5|-10.8|
91949292|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||2.2|-9.4|
91949293|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||3.7|-8.0|
91949294|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|3.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||3.9|-13.8|
91949295|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||6.2|-11.7|
91949296|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||0.9|-9.7|
91949297|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||2.2|-8.5|
91949298|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||-0.3|-13.1|
91949299|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||1.2|-11.8|
91949300|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|3.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||3.5|-14.2|
91949301|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|0.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||0.5|-17.5|
91949302|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|0.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||0.2|-11.6|
91949303|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||1.5|-10.6|
91949304|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||6.4|-7.4|
91949305|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||4.7|-9.3|
91819925|NCT03907683|183516874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12538|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07674||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0274|0.2781|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekday sit less messages would not differ from zero||0.2781|-0.0274|.106
91949306|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||4.6|-9.4|
91949307|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||5.6|-8.7|
91949308|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||6.7|-6.2|
91949309|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||6.8|-6.2|
91949310|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|9.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||9.4|-6.4|
91949311|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||6.8|-9.3|
91949312|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||1.4|-10.0|
91949313|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||1.3|-10.3|
91949314|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||3.3|-8.2|
91819926|NCT03907683|183516874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13746||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0262|0.521|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekday inspirational quote messages would not differ from zero||.5210|-.0262|.076
91949315|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||-1.3|-13.0|
91949316|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||2.2|-7.7|
91949317|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||0.3|-9.7|
91949318|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|3.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||3.5|-11.6|
91949319|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||3.3|-12.0|
91949320|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||1.9|-10.6|
91949321|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||0.7|-12.0|
91949322|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|10.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||10.3|-8.3|
91949323|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||9.7|-9.2|
91949324|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|2.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose AM||2.3|-11.5|
91949325|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|4.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose AM||4.2|-9.9|
91819927|NCT03907683|183516874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.30563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16136||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0156|0.6268|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekend move more messages would not differ from zero||.6268|-.0156|.062
91819928|NCT03907683|183516874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.10676||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0645|0.4895|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekend sit less messages would not differ from zero||.4895|.0645|0.11
91949326|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-3.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||-3.0|-15.5|
91949327|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-1.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||-1.9|-14.6|
91949328|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||2.0|-12.6|
91949329|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|6.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||6.1|-8.7|
91949330|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|6.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||6.7|-8.2|
91949331|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||7.9|-7.3|
91949332|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||0.6|-10.3|
91949333|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||3.4|-7.7|
91819929|NCT03907683|183516874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.10837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16895||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2279|0.4447|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekend inspirational quote messages would not differ from zero||0.4447|-0.2279|.523
91819930|NCT03400332|183516898|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.94||||0.7416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.61|0.7416
91819931|NCT00048542|183516904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Chi-square test|||The study was sized to detect a difference in the proportion of subjects (40%) between placebo and the active adalimumab dose group who would experience disease flare assuming a placebo rate of 70% vs. a rate of 30% in the active group. Assuming a binomial distribution, an alpha of 0.05, 80% power, two-sided test, and an initial monotherapy responder rate of 70%, a minimum of 29 subjects were needed per treatment group within the appropriate strata.||||0.031
91819932|NCT00048542|183516906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-square test|||||||0.015
91819933|NCT00048542|183516907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.029
91819934|NCT00048542|183516908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.031
91819935|NCT00048542|183516909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.061
91819936|NCT00048542|183516909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.028
91819937|NCT00048542|183516910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.103
91819938|NCT00048542|183516910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.028
91819939|NCT00048542|183516911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.156
91819940|NCT00048542|183516911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.002
91819941|NCT02346136|183516962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37||Tested as two-tailed p\<0.025 to accommodate two co-primary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.62|0.62
91819942|NCT02346136|183516963|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.535||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model Poisson reg with fixed effects of age, baseline SPPB, baseline CES-D, and falls in prev year and random intercept and trt by site pair|Numerator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Tai Chi. Denominator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Health Education.|||1.57|0.182|0.194
91819943|NCT02346136|183516964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-2.53|.50
91819944|NCT02346136|183516965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Gait NW velocity variable||.05|-.04|.85
91819945|NCT02346136|183516965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Gait DT velocity variable||.06|-.02|.26
91819946|NCT02346136|183516966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.04|0.84
91819947|NCT02346136|183516967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.22|-0.61|.26
91819948|NCT02346136|183516968|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.3|-13.9|.92
91819949|NCT02346136|183516969|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.9|-17.2|.88
91819950|NCT02346136|183516970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical component score||3.71|-2.00|.55
91819951|NCT02346136|183516970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental component score||2.21|-4.41|.51
91819952|NCT02346136|183516971|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.41|-1.60|.69
91819953|NCT02346136|183516972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|7.26||to accommodate two co-primary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.26|-2.98|0.41
91819954|NCT02346136|183516974|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.476||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model Poisson reg with fixed effects of age, baseline SPPB, baseline CES-D, and falls in prev year and random intercept and trt by site pair|Numerator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Tai Chi. Denominator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Health Education.|||1.05|0.216|0.060
91819955|NCT02346136|183516975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.94|-0.40|0.13
91819956|NCT05619692|183517003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|3.73||The p-value was obtained using MMRM model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and WAIS-IV at baseline as continuous covariates.|MRMM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||3.73|-0.64|0.1642
91819957|NCT02703636|183517040|OTHER|The MMRM model contained visit as a fixed effect, baseline MMSE score as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided||change at week 24|||0.16|-0.87|0.1750
91819958|NCT00087633|183517050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.4|-20.8|0.725
91819959|NCT03316885|183517054|OTHER|The performance target in support of the primary effectiveness was percentage of eyes achieving objective monocular BCDVA at 1 year postoperative (Visit 5A) compared to the a priori SPE percentage of 92.5%. This is for the All Implanted Analysis Set (AAS) (as reported in EN ISO 11979-7:2014).|Comparison|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||100.0||||||||100.0||
91819960|NCT03316885|183517055|OTHER|The performance target in support of the primary effectiveness was percentage of eyes achieving objective monocular BCDVA at 1 year postoperative (Visit 5A) compared to the a priori SPE percentage of 92.5%. This is for the All Implanted Analysis Set (AAS) (as reported in EN ISO 11979-7:2014).|Comparison|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||100.0||||||||100.0||
91819961|NCT02196324|183517078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-1.5|= 0.0111
91819962|NCT02196324|183517079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|=|0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.8|= 0.0248
91819963|NCT02196324|183517080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-2.6|0.0005
91819964|NCT02196324|183517086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0||||||Week 2||-0.0|-1.4|
91819965|NCT02196324|183517086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1||||||Week 4||-0.1|-1.7|
91819966|NCT02196324|183517086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.2||p-value assume equal variance|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||-0.2|-2.0|0.0175
91819967|NCT02196324|183517087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Week 2||1.6|-3.1|
91819968|NCT02196324|183517087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3||||||Week 4||2.3|-2.7|
91819969|NCT02196324|183517087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1||||||Week 8||2.1|-3.6|
91819970|NCT02196324|183517088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||||||Week 2||0.1|-0.4|
91819971|NCT02196324|183517088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Week 4||0.2|-0.4|
91819972|NCT02196324|183517088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Week 8||0.1|-0.6|
91819973|NCT02196324|183517089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.72||p-value assume equal variance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.72|-0.02|0.0625
91819974|NCT00692770|183517101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||=|0.258329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.134||One sided P-value was stratified by region, risk of recurrence and previous curative treatment.|Log Rank|||||1.134|0.78|=0.258329
91819975|NCT00692770|183517102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891|||=|0.121383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.081||One sided P-value was stratified by region, risk of recurrence and previous curative treatment.|Log Rank|||||1.081|0.735|=0.121383
91819976|NCT00692770|183517103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995|||=|0.484742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.3||One-sided P-value was stratified by region, risk of recurrence and previous curative treatment.|Log Rank|||||1.3|0.761|=0.484742
91949334|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose||2.3|-10.0|
91819977|NCT00692770|183517104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.052|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted Area Under Curve (AUC) between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the EQ-5D index score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||0.052|0.025|<0.0001
91819978|NCT00692770|183517105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.978|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.797|4.159|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted Area Under Curve (AUC) between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the EQ-5D VAS score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||4.159|1.797|<0.0001
91819979|NCT00692770|183517106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|6.7|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted AUC between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the FACT-HEP score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||6.7|3.5|<0.0001
91819980|NCT00692770|183517107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.6|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted AUC between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the FACT-G score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||3.6|1.4|<0.0001
91819981|NCT00692770|183517108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.562|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|1.965|||||Significance of the biomarker main effect (RFS) and its corresponding hazard ratio estimate (HR) with 95% CI were reported. HR was expressed as high/low biomarker levels.|||1.965|1.241|
91819982|NCT00692770|183517109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.407|2.17|||||Significance of the biomarker main effect (RFS) and its corresponding hazard ratio estimate (HR) with 95% CI were reported. HR was expressed as high/low biomarker levels.|||2.170|1.407|
91819983|NCT00692770|183517110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.206|2.018|||||Significance of the biomarker main effect (RFS) and its corresponding hazard ratio estimate (HR) with 95% CI were reported. HR was expressed as high/low biomarker levels.|||2.018|1.206|
91819984|NCT01896895|183517148|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||The difference in change of JRS severity subscore between treatment groups was analyzed by an ANCOVA according to a hierarchical test procedure. First step of hierarchy is hypothesis of superiority of 50 unit dose group NT 201 compared to placebo. This was tested confirmatory (α=0.05, 2-sided) by an ANCOVA with treatment group, pooled site, and gender as fixed factors and baseline JRS severity subscore and age as covariates based on LS means comparison. Missing values were imputed by LOCF.||-0.6|-1.9|=0.0004
91819985|NCT01896895|183517148|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|||=|0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||The difference in change of JRS severity subscore between treatment groups was analyzed by an ANCOVA according to a hierarchical test procedure. Second step of hierarchy is hypothesis of superiority of 25 unit dose group NT 201 compared to placebo. This was tested confirmatory (α=0.05, 2-sided) by an ANCOVA with treatment group, pooled site, and gender as fixed factors and baseline JRS severity subscore and age as covariates based on LS means comparison. Missing values were imputed by LOCF.||0.2|-1.1|=0.1452
91819986|NCT00773175|183517171|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.5||||0.5064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.2|86.2||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department plus hospital stay|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||86.2|-221.2|0.5064
91819987|NCT00773175|183517171|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|102.7||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department stay only|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||102.7|-54.6|0.0325
91819988|NCT00773175|183517172|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-174.7||||0.8915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-340.3|-9.1||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department plus hospital stay|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||-9.1|-340.3|0.8915
91819989|NCT00773175|183517172|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.6||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.5|20.3||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department stay only|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||20.3|-137.5|0.5469
91819990|NCT00773175|183517174|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.0||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.6|86.7||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department plus hospital stay|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||86.7|-220.6|0.5035
91819991|NCT00773175|183517174|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|103.2||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department stay only|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||103.2|-54.0|0.0314
91819992|NCT00773175|183517178|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.5|9.4|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||9.4|-69.5|
91819993|NCT00773175|183517178|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.3|-3.1|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||-3.1|-77.3|
91819994|NCT00773175|183517179|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.5|9.4|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||9.4|-69.5|
91819995|NCT00773175|183517179|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.3|-3.1|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||-3.1|-77.3|
91819996|NCT00773175|183517181|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.5|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||5.5|0.3|
91819997|NCT00773175|183517181|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||4.7|-0.2|
91819998|NCT00773175|183517182|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.9|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||1.9|-2.8|
91819999|NCT00773175|183517182|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.8|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||0.8|-3.4|
91820000|NCT00773175|183517193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||||Treatment difference = SC minus IV|||0.3|0.1|
91820001|NCT00773175|183517194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANOVA|From Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model with center and treatment as factors.|Treatment difference = SC minus IV.|||0.0|-0.9|0.0658
91820002|NCT00773175|183517195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.6208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.9|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with center and treatment as factors|Treatment difference = SC minus IV|||2.9|-4.8|0.6208
91820003|NCT00773175|183517197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0685||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 1||||||0.0685
91820004|NCT00773175|183517197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 2||||||0.0004
91820005|NCT00773175|183517197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6861||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 3||||||0.6861
91820006|NCT00773175|183517197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2323||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 4||||||0.2323
91820007|NCT00773175|183517198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Effectiveness||||||0.0033
91820008|NCT00773175|183517198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Degree of difficulty||||||< 0.0001
91949335|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose AM||1.2|-11.4|
91949336|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||-2.2|-15.2|
91949337|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||1.3|-12.0|
91949338|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||2.8|-7.6|
91949339|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||0.8|-9.7|
91949340|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|0.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||0.8|-10.7|
91949341|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||1.3|-10.4|
91949342|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-3.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||-3.4|-14.6|
91949343|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||-2.8|-14.2|
91949344|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||1.5|-13.8|
91949345|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||1.2|-14.3|
91820009|NCT00773175|183517199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2012||||||CMH test controlling for Center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 1||||||0.2012
91820010|NCT00773175|183517199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 2||||||< 0.0001
91820011|NCT00773175|183517199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1302||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 4||||||0.1302
91820012|NCT00773175|183517199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0852||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 5||||||0.0852
91820013|NCT00773175|183517199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 6||||||0.0275
91949346|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||-1.0|-15.0|
91949347|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|0.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||0|-14.2|
91949348|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|6.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||6.4|-9.8|
91949349|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|8.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||8.5|-8.0|
91949350|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||3.7|-9.0|
91949351|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||5.8|-7.1|
91949352|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||3.9|-5.5|
91949353|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||4.9|-4.6|
91820014|NCT00773175|183517205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0247|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0247
91820015|NCT00773175|183517206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
91820016|NCT02775344|183517223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.198
91820017|NCT02775344|183517224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.393|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.393
91820018|NCT03909165|183517237|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.21||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-inf Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) = Birth to 27 days AUC0-inf Geometric Mean (GM) / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.21|0.56|
91820019|NCT03909165|183517237|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.98||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.98|1.00|
91820020|NCT03909165|183517237|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.11||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-inf GM.||1.11|0.60|
91820021|NCT03909165|183517237|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.56||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = Birth to 27 days AUC0-inf GM / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.56|0.96|
91820022|NCT03909165|183517237|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.62||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.62|1.03|
91820023|NCT03909165|183517237|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.13||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-inf GM.||1.13|0.70|
91820024|NCT03909165|183517238|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.23||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = Birth to 27 days AUC0-1hr GM / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.23|0.67|
91820025|NCT03909165|183517238|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.69||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.69|0.92|
91820026|NCT03909165|183517238|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.08||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-1hr GM.||1.08|0.64|
91820027|NCT03909165|183517238|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.06||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = Birth to 27 days AUC0-1hr GM / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.06|0.70|
91820028|NCT03909165|183517238|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.29||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.29|0.89|
91820029|NCT03909165|183517238|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.17||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-1hr GM.||1.17|0.80|
91820030|NCT03909165|183517240|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.4||||||2 mg/kg Cmax GMR = Birth to 27 days Cmax GM / 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM.||1.40|0.61|
91820031|NCT03909165|183517240|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.7||||||2 mg/kg Cmax GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM / 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM.||1.70|0.70|
91820032|NCT03909165|183517240|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.36||||||2 mg/kg Cmax GMR = 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM / 6 months to \< 2 years Cmax GM.||1.36|0.63|
91820033|NCT03909165|183517240|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.26||||||4 mg/kg Cmax GMR = Birth to 27 days Cmax GM / 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM.||1.26|0.70|
91820034|NCT03909165|183517240|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.89||||||4 mg/kg Cmax GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM / 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM.||0.89|0.52|
91820035|NCT03909165|183517240|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.43||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM / 6 months to \< 2 years Cmax GM.||1.43|0.83|
91820036|NCT03909165|183517245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.18||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent and age groups.|Log Rank|||The Hazard Ratio (HR) for the pairwise comparison of Sugammadex 2 mg/kg vs. Neostigmine + (Glycopyrrolate or Atropine) was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with covariates of treatment, age (continuous) and stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent.||4.18|1.37|= 0.0002
91820037|NCT03909165|183517246|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|29.5||||||The difference in percentage of participants with an AE in sugammadex 2 mg/kg group versus the Neostigmine + (Glycopyrrolate or Atropine) group was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent and age group.||29.5|-14.2|
91820038|NCT03909165|183517246|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|26.7||||||The difference in percentage of participants with an AE in sugammadex 4 mg/kg group versus the Neostigmine + (Glycopyrrolate or Atropine) group was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent and age group.||26.7|-13.5|
91820039|NCT06034496|183517248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.012
91820040|NCT06034496|183517248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.33
91820041|NCT06034496|183517248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Session (baseline, follow-up) x CES|ANOVA|||||||.85
91820042|NCT06034496|183517249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.6
91820043|NCT06034496|183517249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.9
91820044|NCT06034496|183517249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.05
91820045|NCT06034496|183517250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.26
91820046|NCT06034496|183517250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.17
91820047|NCT06034496|183517250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||CES x Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.73
91820048|NCT06034496|183517251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.18
91820049|NCT06034496|183517251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Time main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
91820050|NCT06034496|183517251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.53
91820051|NCT06034496|183517251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||CES x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.07
91820052|NCT06034496|183517251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||CES x Session|ANOVA|||||||.46
91820053|NCT06034496|183517251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.01
91820054|NCT06034496|183517251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||CES x Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.29
91820055|NCT06034496|183517252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.10
91820056|NCT06034496|183517252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Time main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
91949354|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||10.7|-6.5|
91949355|NCT03091920|183795901|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||9.6|-7.9|
91949356|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|16.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||16.8|-4.4|
91949357|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|19.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||19.8|-1.5|
91949358|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|9.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||9.0|-9.0|
91949359|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|13.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||13.4|-4.6|
91949360|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||7.1|-7.5|
91820057|NCT06034496|183517252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.81
91949361|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||8.9|-5.7|
91949362|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||12.1|-2.0|
91949363|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||12.3|-1.8|
91949364|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||9.6|-5.1|
91820058|NCT06034496|183517252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||CES x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.40
91820059|NCT06034496|183517252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.35
91820060|NCT06034496|183517252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.00
91820061|NCT06034496|183517252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||CES x Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.40
91820062|NCT06034496|183517253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||STAI-T CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.23
91820063|NCT06034496|183517253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||STAI-T Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.45
91820064|NCT06034496|183517253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||STAI-T CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.38
91949365|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||8.7|-6.0|
91949366|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||6.9|-5.0|
91949367|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|6.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||6.6|-5.3|
91949368|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||13.2|-8.1|
91949369|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|15.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||15.0|-6.3|
91949370|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||11.2|-4.6|
91949371|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||14.9|-1.0|
91949372|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||5.9|-8.5|
91820065|NCT06034496|183517253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||STAI-S CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.40
91820066|NCT06034496|183517253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||STAI-S Time main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
91820067|NCT06034496|183517253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||STAI-S Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
91820068|NCT06034496|183517253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||STAI-S CES x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.20
91820069|NCT06034496|183517253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||STAI-S CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.39
91820070|NCT06034496|183517253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||STAI-S Session x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.00
91820071|NCT06034496|183517253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||STAI-S CES x Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.38
91820072|NCT06034496|183517254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.85
91820073|NCT06034496|183517254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.69
91820074|NCT06034496|183517254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.4
91820075|NCT06034496|183517255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.13
91820076|NCT06034496|183517255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.26
91820077|NCT06034496|183517255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.44
91820078|NCT06034496|183517256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.36
91820079|NCT06034496|183517256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
91820080|NCT06034496|183517256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.96
91820081|NCT03277261|183517274|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.406|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.615||GEE (Generalized Estimating Equation) model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.615|0.268|<0.0001
91820082|NCT03277261|183517275|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.033|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.058||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.058|0.019|<0.0001
91820083|NCT03277261|183517276|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.076|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.104||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.104|0.056|<0.0001
91820084|NCT03277261|183517278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|5.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.536|8.375||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata and log transformed baseline MRI lesion counts (T1 unenhancing, T2, Gd enhancing) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.375|3.536|<0.0001
91820085|NCT03277261|183517279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.872|||=|0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.261||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata, and log-transformed baseline MRI counts (T1 unenhancing, T2, Gd enhancing) as covariates.|Logistic Regression|||||1.261|0.603|=0.4669
91820086|NCT03277261|183517280|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.072|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|-0.036||The model includes treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline volume (cube root transformed) as covariates and an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.036|-0.107|<0.0001
91820087|NCT03762083|183517282|OTHER|The clinical performance endpoint - Clinical cure rate on Day 7 - was calculated and presented together with a one-sided 95% CI based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Clinical cure rate|81.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|63.1|||||||"It was assumed that the true cure rate was equal to 70%, therefore 22 patients were needed to obtain 90% chance (90% power) to show that the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed cure rate was above 40%.~Hypotheses for the primary clinical performance endpoint:~* Null hypothesis: Clinical cure rate is less than or equal to 40%.~* Alternative hypothesis (one-sided): Clinical cure rate is above 40%."|||63.1|
91820088|NCT03762083|183517283|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Prop. negative for Amsel criterion 1.|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|97.0||||||||97.0|63.7|
91820089|NCT03762083|183517284|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Prop. negative for Amsel criterion 2.|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|98.8||||||||98.8|68.3|
91820090|NCT03762083|183517285|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Prop. negative for Amsel criterion 3.|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|97.1||||||||97.1|65.1|
91820091|NCT03762083|183517287|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 14|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|27.3||||||||27.3|0.1|
91820092|NCT03762083|183517287|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 35|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.6||||||||20.6|0|
91820093|NCT01203072|183517288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level for Cochran-Armitage test and comparison using Shirley-Williams method was set at one-sided, 0.025. For other tests, significance level and confidence coefficient were set at two-sided, 0.05 and 0.95, respectively, unless specified|Cochran-Armitage|||As the primary analysis, the dose-response relationship in the incidence of thromboembolic event was verified using the Cochran-Armitage test.||||<0.001
91820094|NCT00559962|183517410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.07|||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between AEGR-755 5 mg and placebo.||7.07|2.30|<0.001
91820095|NCT00559962|183517411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|7.57||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||7.57|2.27|<0.001
91820096|NCT00559962|183517411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.07||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||||7.07|2.30|<0.001
91820097|NCT00559962|183517411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|6.1||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||6.10|1.73|<0.001
91820098|NCT00559962|183517411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|11.33||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||||11.33|4.31|<0.001
91820099|NCT00559962|183517411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|5.72||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||5.72|1.58|<0.001
91820100|NCT00559962|183517411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|11.11||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||11.11|4.22|<0.001
91820101|NCT00559962|183517411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|9.86||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||9.86|5.16|<0.001
91820102|NCT04382911|183517449|EQUIVALENCE|A 2x2 table was constructed among all patients with histopathologically identified endometriosis (true positive) to compare sensitivity for FES PET/MRI versus sensitivity of conventional MRI.||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
91820103|NCT04382911|183517452|OTHER|A random effects linear regression model, modeling SUV-max as a function of the pain rating, while controlling for patient-level covariates (BMI, race, age) was performed. The investigators included physician as a random effect to account for physician-level correlation.|Slope|0.748||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.24
91949373|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||5.9|-8.5|
91820104|NCT04382911|183517452|OTHER|The investigators will implement a random effects linear regression model, modeling SUV-max as a function of EHP-30, while controlling for patient-level covariates (BMI, race, age). The investigators will include physician as a random effect to account for physician-level correlation.|Slope|0.406||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91820105|NCT04521166|183517453|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was a difference between Settings 1 and 2.|Slope|-0.0099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01572||0.5291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04075|0.02095||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Setting 2 was considered as the reference and the estimate reflects whether the slope for Setting 1 is significantly different from the slope for Setting 2|||0.02095|-0.04075|0.5291
91820106|NCT04521166|183517453|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was a difference between Setting 2 and Setting 3.|Slope|0.1329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0174|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0988|0.1671||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Setting 2 was considered as the reference and the estimate reflects whether the slope for Setting 3 is significantly different from the slope for Setting 2|||0.1671|0.09880|<0.001
91820107|NCT04521166|183517453|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was a difference between Setting 2 and Setting 4.|Slope|0.2016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01812|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.2371||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Setting 2 was considered as the reference and the estimate reflects whether the slope for Setting 4 is significantly different from the slope for Setting|||0.2371|0.1660|<.0001
91820108|NCT04521166|183517453|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)||||0.242
91820109|NCT04521166|183517453|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)||||0.242
91820110|NCT04521166|183517453|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).||||0.242
91820111|NCT04521166|183517453|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).||||0.242
91820112|NCT01110915|183517483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|exact test of binomial proportions|||Null Hypothesis: MRI-related complication rate between the MRI scan and one-month post-MRI \>=10%.||2.5||<0.0001
91949374|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||9.5|-9.2|
91949375|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||9.2|-9.5|
91820113|NCT01110915|183517484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||||||||Farrington-Manning test|A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025. Because there were no failures in either group, a p-value could not be calculated.||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||||
91820114|NCT01110915|183517485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||5.9|-5.0|<0.0001
91820115|NCT01110915|183517486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.5||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-6.1|0.0010
91820116|NCT01110915|183517487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.1||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-4.6|0.0001
91949376|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||7.4|-5.1|
91949377|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||9.2|-3.4|
91820117|NCT01110915|183517488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|exact test of binomial proportions|||Null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects with sustained ventricular arrhythmias and asystole during MRI scans \>= 10%.||1.9||<0.0001
91820118|NCT01110915|183517489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Complication rate at 4 months|7.7|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Kaplan-Meier method|||Null hypothesis: the system-related complication rate between the implant procedure and the 4-months visit \>= 20%.||10.9||<0.05
91820119|NCT03985813|183517490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||Threshold for significance P\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.083
91820120|NCT03985813|183517491|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Threshold for statistical significance P\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91820121|NCT02161718|183517498|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.56|||Log Rank|||||1.56|0.53|0.746
91820122|NCT02161718|183517499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.37|||Andersen-Gill Recurrent-Event Cox Model|||||1.37|0.43|0.372
91820123|NCT02161718|183517500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.56|0.963
91949378|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||4.8|-7.5|
91820124|NCT02350309|183517532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.0262|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|||The mixed model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and participant nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||||||-2.12|0.0262
91820125|NCT02350309|183517532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.48|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|||The mixed model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and participant nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||||||-4.46|<0.0001
91820126|NCT02350309|183517533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0215||||||P-value was calculated based on non-missing two-way contingency table between placebo and study treatment.|McNemar|||||||0.0215
91820127|NCT02350309|183517533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated based on non-missing two-way contingency table between placebo and study treatment.|McNemar|||||||<0.0001
91820128|NCT02350309|183517533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated based on non-missing two-way contingency table between placebo and study treatment.|McNemar|||||||<0.0001
91820129|NCT00207142|183517543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Efficacy at Week 48 on the Switch Arm was considered to be non-inferior to the Continuation Arm if the lower limit of the 95% Confidence Interval was greater than -15%.|Difference in proportions|2.9||||||95.0|-9.8|15.5|||Normal approximation|||The planned sample size of 178 randomized subjects (89 on each regimen) provides at least 80% power to demonstrate that the response rate on ATV is within a 15% margin of the response rate on ATV/RTV assuming: a 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rate between treatment regimens (switch-continuation); a response rate of 85% in both the Continuation and Switch regimens; a margin of -15% for the difference in response rates between treatment regimens.||15.5|-9.8|
91820130|NCT00207142|183517544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|5.0||||||95.0|-6.0|16.1|||Normal Approximation|||||16.1|-6.0|
91820131|NCT00207142|183517545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||||95.0|0.5|1.88|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Covariate in the model: treatment regimen.||1.88|0.50|
91820132|NCT00207142|183517546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||||95.0|0.37|1.9|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Covariate in the model: treatment regimen||1.90|0.37|
91820133|NCT00207142|183517547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in means at Week 48|7.0||||||95.0|-38.0|53.0|||Normal approximation|||||53|-38|
91949379|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||5.8|-6.5|
91949380|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|5.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||5.3|-9.9|
91820134|NCT01554618|183517560|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, and treatment group by visit interaction, baseline HbA1c value (continuous) and baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.19|-1.51|0.012
91820135|NCT01554618|183517563|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.7||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, and treatment group by visit interaction, baseline fasting plasma glucose value, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline fasting plasma glucose by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||5.7|-49.0|0.119
91820136|NCT01554618|183517564|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.189||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, and treatment group by visit interaction, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline body weight by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.15|-3.59|0.307
91820137|NCT01554618|183517565|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|94.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.26||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.6|285.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline fasting insulin, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline fasting insulin by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||285.5|-95.6|0.323
91820138|NCT01554618|183517566|SUPERIORITY||Difference|14.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Exenatide versus Placebo. Difference was the risk difference of the 2 proportions.|"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 6.5%:~Treatment group comparison was based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%). P-value was from the general association statistic."||27.7|1.9|0.077
91820139|NCT01554618|183517566|SUPERIORITY||Difference|14.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Exenatide versus Placebo. Difference was the risk difference of the 2 proportions.|"Treatment difference in HbA1c ≤ 6.5%:~Treatment group comparison was based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%). P-value was from the general association statistic."||27.7|1.9|0.077
91820140|NCT01554618|183517566|SUPERIORITY||Difference|22.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Exenatide versus Placebo. Difference was the risk difference of the 2 proportions.|"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 7.0%:~Treatment group comparison was based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%). P-value was from the general association statistic."||39.0|6.5|0.020
91820141|NCT01554618|183517568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in SBP:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline SBP, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline SBP by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||2.4|-8.0|0.284
91820142|NCT01554618|183517568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in DBP:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline DBP, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline DBP by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||5.1|-2.0|0.376
91820143|NCT01554618|183517570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|90.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.207||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.27|238.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in HOMA-B:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline HOMA-B, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline HOMA-B by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||238.00|-57.27|0.211
91820144|NCT01554618|183517570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.173||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|6.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in HOMA-S:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline HOMA-S, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline HOMA-S by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||6.29|-19.80|0.289
91820145|NCT01857063|183517583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.01||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline TNSS as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|||||0.10|-0.11|0.913
91820146|NCT01857063|183517585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline Weighted TNSS as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.16|-0.17|0.953
91949381|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||9.8|-5.4|
91820147|NCT01857063|183517586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline nasal congestion score as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.07|-0.07|0.974
91949382|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||13.7|0.2|
91949383|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||11.8|-1.7|
91949384|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||9.0|-3.1|
91949385|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||8.7|-3.4|
91949386|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|10.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||10.0|-5.4|
91949387|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||7.0|-8.4|
91949388|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||11.8|-1.6|
91949389|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||11.7|-1.7|
91949390|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|20.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||20.2|-1.6|
91949391|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|23.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||23.9|2.1|
91820148|NCT01857063|183517587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline nasal discharge score as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.01|-0.06|0.182
91820149|NCT01857063|183517588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.02||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline sneezing score as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.05|-0.01|0.161
91820150|NCT01205165|183517613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||P-value is calculated from Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare difference between baseline and week12|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline and Week 12||||0.00000
91820151|NCT00329407|183517627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|-3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Dunnett-Hsu adjustment was used to correct for multiple comparisons.||This was a within subject analysis. The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in least squares means values obtained for the baseline and week 10 assessment weeks.||-3.14|-6.58|<0.0001
91820152|NCT00329407|183517628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||There would a significant reduction in COWAT scores between baseline and Week 10.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Dunnett-Hsu adjustment was used to correct for multiple comparisons.||This is a within subject comparison of COWAT scores botained for the baseline session and the Week 10 session. The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference between these scores.||||0.001
91949392|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||13.9|0.2|
91949393|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|18.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||18.3|4.6|
91949394|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose AM||8.6|-4.8|
91949395|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose||10.8|-2.6|
91949396|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|19.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||19.6|-0.1|
91949397|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|19.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||19.4|-0.3|
91949398|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||15.5|0|
91820153|NCT00978068|183517629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.59||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.97|||Negative Binomial Regression||Group 1 represents the numerator for the rate ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the rate ratio.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria in Group 2 would be 0.70 episodes per person-year and estimated that we would need a sample of 300 participants for the study to have 80% power to show a 35% reduction in the incidence of malaria in Group 1, at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. We then observed an incidence of malaria in Group 2 that was higher than anticipated (2.19 episodes/person-yr) and revised the sample size to 150 participants, who would be followed for at least 6 months.||0.97|0.36|0.04
91820154|NCT00978068|183517630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional-Hazards|||||||0.13
91820155|NCT00978068|183517631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|11.16|||Negative Binomial Regression||Group 1 represents the numerator for the rate ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the rate ratio.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria in Group 2 would be 0.70 episodes per person-year and estimated that we would need a sample of 300 participants for the study to have 80% power to show a 35% reduction in the incidence of malaria in Group 1, at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. We then observed an incidence of malaria in Group 2 that was higher than anticipated (2.19 episodes/person-yr) and revised the sample size to 150 participants, who would be followed for at least 6 months.||11.16|0.06|0.87
91820156|NCT00978068|183517632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.12|||Cox Proportional-Hazards|Adjustment for repeated measures in the same patient|Group 1 represents the numerator for the hazard ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the hazard ratio.|||1.12|0.45|0.14
91820157|NCT00978068|183517633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.68|||Cox Proportional-Hazards|Adjustment for repeated measures in same participant.|Group 1 represents the numerator for the hazard ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the hazard ratio.|||0.68|0.14|0.004
91949399|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||16.1|0.6|
91949400|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|11.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||11.7|-5.1|
91949401|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|11.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||11.3|-5.4|
91949402|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||9.1|-6.1|
91820158|NCT00978068|183517634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.76|||Cox Proportional-Hazards|Adjustment for repeated measures in the same patient.|Group 1 represents the numerator in the hazard ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator in the hazard ratio.|||0.76|0.22|0.004
91820159|NCT02281552|183517649|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD to IR 5 mg BID was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of differences between the treatment groups (MR 11 mg QD - IR 5 mg BID) at Week 12 was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.6.|Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.69||||||Analysis was conducted using a linear mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM), which included treatment (tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD and IR 5 mg BID), visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||0.69|0.17|
91820160|NCT01434290|183517666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.35 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.19
91820161|NCT01434290|183517666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||One sample z-test|one-sided 0.025 significance level||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.35 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.08
91820162|NCT01434290|183517667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤40% was considered acceptable, ≥60% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.40 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.18
91949403|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|9.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||9.9|-5.3|
91949404|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose||12.6|-4.0|
91949405|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose AM||13.4|-3.2|
91949406|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|8.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||8.0|-11.0|
91949407|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|8.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||8.6|-10.3|
91949408|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|13.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||13.4|-7.7|
91949409|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||11.8|-9.4|
91949410|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|10.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||10.3|-8.4|
91949411|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||9.4|-9.3|
91949412|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|15.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||15.3|-1.3|
91820163|NCT01434290|183517667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤40% was considered acceptable, ≥60% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.40 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.38
91820164|NCT01434290|183517672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[Bowel one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.03
91949413|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|18.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||18.2|1.6|
91949414|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||12.3|-1.0|
91949415|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||13.9|0.5|
91949416|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||7.4|-8.4|
91949417|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|9.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||9.9|-6.0|
91949418|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||11.8|-4.0|
91949419|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||11.2|-4.6|
91949420|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|7.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||7.3|-8.0|
91949421|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|8.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||8.1|-7.2|
91949422|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|10.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||10.2|-11.5|
91949423|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|17.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||17.5|-4.1|
91949424|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||9.6|-9.1|
91949425|NCT03091920|183795902|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||10.2|-8.5|
91949426|NCT03091920|183795907|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|3.04|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||3.04|-9.68|
91949427|NCT03091920|183795907|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.66|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||3.66|-8.76|
91949428|NCT03091920|183795907|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|2.75|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||2.75|-8.62|
91949429|NCT03091920|183795907|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|3.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||3.92|-10.37|
91949430|NCT03091920|183795907|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|7.49|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||7.49|-6.46|
91820165|NCT01434290|183517672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[Bowel one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.03
91949431|NCT03091920|183795907|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|5.03|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||5.03|-7.74|
91820166|NCT01434290|183517672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017||\[Urinary one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.09
91949432|NCT03091920|183795907|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|6.04|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||6.04|-11.46|
91949433|NCT03091920|183795907|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|6.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||6.35|-10.09|
91949434|NCT03091920|183795907|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|5.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||5.35|-9.93|
91949435|NCT03091920|183795908|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|0.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||0.40|-14.52|
91820167|NCT01434290|183517672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-side significance level of 0.017||\[Urinary one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.43
91949436|NCT03091920|183795908|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|3.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||3.14|-11.52|
91949437|NCT03091920|183795908|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|3.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.83|-11.47|
91949438|NCT03091920|183795908|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.94|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.94|-6.10|
91949439|NCT03091920|183795908|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|3.47|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||3.47|-16.36|
91949440|NCT03091920|183795908|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|8.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||8.38|-10.44|
91949441|NCT03091920|183795909|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|6.54|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.54|-6.97|
91949442|NCT03091920|183795909|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|5.03|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||5.03|-8.24|
91949443|NCT03091920|183795909|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|4.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||4.65|-10.88|
91949444|NCT03091920|183795909|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|6.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||6.80|-8.45|
91949445|NCT03091920|183795909|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|9.58|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||9.58|-7.84|
91949446|NCT03091920|183795909|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|5.26|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||5.26|-11.23|
91949447|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.51|2.41|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||2.41|-13.51|
91949448|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|5.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||5.47|-10.41|
91949449|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|1.25|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||1.25|-17.36|
91949450|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.42|0.87|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||0.87|-17.42|
91949451|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.43|0.74|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||0.74|-19.43|
91949452|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|6.84|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||6.84|-12.95|
91949453|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|11.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||11.47|-4.74|
91949454|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|10.75|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||10.75|-5.10|
91820168|NCT01434290|183517673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||One-sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.39
91949455|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.23|6.37|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.37|-15.23|
91949456|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.65|5.94|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.94|-15.65|
91949457|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|7.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||7.47|-9.10|
91949458|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|5.16|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||5.16|-10.42|
91949459|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|2.72|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||2.72|-13.80|
91949460|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|8.23|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||8.23|-8.25|
91949461|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|6.23|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||6.23|-12.01|
91949462|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|11.13|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||11.13|-6.78|
91949463|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|5.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||5.47|-13.93|
91820169|NCT01434290|183517673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||One sample z-test|One-side significance level of 0.025||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.21
91949464|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|10.88|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||10.88|-8.14|
91949465|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|9.18|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||9.18|-10.32|
91949466|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|12.02|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||12.02|-7.04|
91949467|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.33|2.55|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||2.55|-18.33|
91949468|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|3.95|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||3.95|-16.92|
91949469|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|6.35|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||6.35|-14.03|
91949470|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|10.35|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||10.35|-8.80|
91949471|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|3.53|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||3.53|-17.79|
91949472|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|11.91|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||11.91|-8.59|
91949473|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.17|3.55|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||3.55|-16.17|
91949474|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|8.27|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||8.27|-10.60|
91949475|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.13|5.11|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||5.11|-19.13|
91949476|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|7.34|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||7.34|-15.55|
91949477|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|13.17|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||13.17|-9.63|
91949478|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.25|7.31|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||7.31|-14.25|
91949479|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|7.77|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||7.77|-11.24|
91949480|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|3.73|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||3.73|-14.83|
91949481|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|12.81|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||12.81|-8.85|
91949482|NCT03091920|183795910|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|10.82|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||10.82|-8.68|
91949483|NCT03091920|183795911|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|2.15|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||2.15|-6.38|
91949484|NCT03091920|183795911|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|1.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.80|-6.59|
91820170|NCT01434290|183517674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||one sampe z-test|One-sided significance level of 0.025||≤38% was considered acceptable, ≥58% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.44
91820171|NCT01434290|183517674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided significance level of 0.025||≤38% was considered acceptable, ≥58% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.53
91820172|NCT01434290|183517675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year Index Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.16
91820173|NCT01434290|183517675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year Index Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.03
91820174|NCT01434290|183517675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year VAS Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.83
91820175|NCT01434290|183517675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year VAS Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.86
91820176|NCT01399593|183517710|SUPERIORITY||Proportion difference|-3.9||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|16.3|||Fisher Exact|||||16.3|-23.9|0.76
91820177|NCT02365636|183517745|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.32||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.726||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average NRS scores at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the daily average NRS scores as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.726|-0.094|0.130
91949485|NCT03091920|183795911|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|1.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||1.60|-6.11|
91949486|NCT03091920|183795911|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|1.47|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||1.47|-8.25|
91949487|NCT03091920|183795911|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.18|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.18|-6.40|
91949488|NCT03091920|183795911|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||1.90|-6.90|
91820178|NCT02365636|183517745|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.24||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.652||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average NRS scores at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the daily average NRS scores as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.652|-0.167|0.245
91820179|NCT02365636|183517746|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.32||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.735||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.735|-0.093|0.128
91820180|NCT02365636|183517746|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.27||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.688||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.688|-0.140|0.194
91820181|NCT02365636|183517747|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.28||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.691||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.691|-0.128|0.177
91949489|NCT03091920|183795911|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|1.31|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.31|-11.22|
91949490|NCT03091920|183795911|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|1.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.40|-10.41|
91820182|NCT02365636|183517747|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.614||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.614|-0.204|0.325
91820183|NCT02365636|183517748|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.29||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.741||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.741|-0.158|0.202
91820184|NCT02365636|183517748|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.457||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.621||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.621|-0.280|0.457
91820185|NCT02365636|183517749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.856||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||1.856|0.456|0.815
91949491|NCT03091920|183795911|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|0.81|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||0.81|-10.27|
91949492|NCT03091920|183795912|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.06|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.06|-10.80|
91949493|NCT03091920|183795912|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|0.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||0.83|-10.87|
91949494|NCT03091920|183795912|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|1.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||1.10|-9.55|
91949495|NCT03091920|183795912|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.11|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.11|-7.40|
91949496|NCT03091920|183795912|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-1.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||-1.85|-15.64|
91949497|NCT03091920|183795912|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|1.15|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.15|-11.84|
91949498|NCT03091920|183795913|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|3.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||3.96|-4.86|
91949499|NCT03091920|183795913|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||3.65|-5.07|
91949500|NCT03091920|183795913|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|2.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.14|-8.79|
91949501|NCT03091920|183795913|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|3.67|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.67|-7.14|
91949502|NCT03091920|183795913|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|4.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||4.83|-8.58|
91949503|NCT03091920|183795913|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|2.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||2.10|-10.69|
91949504|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|2.41|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||2.41|-11.30|
91949505|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.75|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||1.75|-12.10|
91949506|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.87|2.42|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||2.42|-12.87|
91820186|NCT02365636|183517749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.117||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||2.117|0.520|0.893
91820187|NCT02365636|183517749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|1.55||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||1.550|0.357|0.430
91820188|NCT02365636|183517749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|2.088||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||2.088|0.494|0.967
91820189|NCT02365636|183517750|SUPERIORITY||LSM of difference with placebo|2.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|5.92||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 2 The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||5.92|-1.55|0.251
91820190|NCT02365636|183517750|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.3||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.07||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 2. The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||5.07|-2.46|0.495
91820191|NCT02365636|183517750|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.1||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|7.06||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 4. The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||7.06|-0.84|0.123
91820192|NCT02365636|183517750|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.8||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|6.77||5% level of significance.|miex model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 4. The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||6.77|-1.12|0.160
91820193|NCT02365636|183517751|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.3||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|6.48||5% level of significance|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes study center, treatment, and baseline.||||6.48|-3.81|0.609
91820194|NCT02365636|183517751|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference with placebo|2.1||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|7.19||5% level of significance|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes study center, treatment, and baseline.||||7.19|-3.05|0.427
91820195|NCT02365636|183517752|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.43||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.43|-0.07|0.166
91820196|NCT02365636|183517752|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.51||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.51|0.00|0.046
91820197|NCT02365636|183517752|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.53||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.53|-0.08|0.152
91820198|NCT02365636|183517752|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.46||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.46|-0.16|0.342
91820199|NCT02365636|183517753|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.7||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.70|-0.22|0.311
91820200|NCT02365636|183517753|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.3||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.73||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.73|-0.20|0.262
91820201|NCT02365636|183517753|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.5||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.97||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.97|-0.03|0.065
91820202|NCT02365636|183517753|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.3||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.76||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.76|-0.23|0.296
91820203|NCT02365636|183517754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245||||||5% level of significance|Regression, Cox|||||||0.245
91820204|NCT02365636|183517754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304||||||5% level of significance|Regression, Cox|||||||0.304
91949507|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-0.79|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||-0.79|-15.64|
91949508|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|0.86|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||0.86|-14.29|
91949509|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|4.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||4.38|-10.66|
91949510|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|5.45|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||5.45|-4.71|
91949511|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|4.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16||4.91|-4.94|
91949512|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|5.41|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.41|-10.07|
91949513|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|5.37|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.37|-10.26|
91949514|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.13|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||5.13|-6.62|
91820205|NCT02365636|183517755|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.33||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.33|-0.61|0.556
91949515|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|4.58|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||4.58|-6.83|
91949516|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|0.47|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||0.47|-10.72|
91820206|NCT02365636|183517755|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.2||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.31||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.31|-0.65|0.482
91949517|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|2.01|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||2.01|-9.29|
91949518|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|3.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||3.38|-11.22|
91949519|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|4.63|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||4.63|-9.54|
91949520|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.39|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||1.39|-10.90|
91949521|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||4.85|-7.35|
91949522|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|4.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||4.35|-8.57|
91949523|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|6.31|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||6.31|-6.21|
91949524|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|0.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||0.90|-14.22|
91949525|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|1.25|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||1.25|-14.01|
91949526|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.71|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||4.71|-9.30|
91949527|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|6.64|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||6.64|-6.97|
91949528|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-0.44|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||-0.44|-15.03|
91949529|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|3.16|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||3.16|-10.88|
91949530|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-2.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8||-2.95|-16.10|
91949531|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|0.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||0.50|-11.82|
91949532|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.77|0.54|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||0.54|-17.77|
91949533|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.79|2.69|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||2.69|-14.79|
91949534|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|7.79|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||7.79|-10.51|
91949535|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||3.60|-13.50|
91949536|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|3.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||3.96|-10.81|
91949537|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|1.89|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||1.89|-12.64|
91949538|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|7.39|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||7.39|-7.55|
91820207|NCT02365636|183517755|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.28||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4. The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.28|-0.81|0.333
91949539|NCT03091920|183795914|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|5.12|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||5.12|-8.89|
91949540|NCT03091920|183795915|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|2.59|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||2.59|-4.17|
91949541|NCT03091920|183795915|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|2.29|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||2.29|-4.47|
91949542|NCT03091920|183795915|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|2.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||2.14|-4.02|
91949543|NCT03091920|183795915|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.26|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||1.26|-6.60|
91949544|NCT03091920|183795915|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|2.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.10|-5.77|
91949545|NCT03091920|183795915|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|1.32|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||1.32|-5.83|
91949546|NCT03091920|183795915|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.56|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.56|-9.50|
91949547|NCT03091920|183795915|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|1.18|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.18|-9.52|
91949548|NCT03091920|183795915|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|0.87|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||0.87|-9.01|
91949549|NCT03091920|183795916|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|1.21|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.21|-8.01|
91949550|NCT03091920|183795916|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|1.02|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.02|-8.21|
91949551|NCT03091920|183795916|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|0.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||0.92|-7.53|
91949552|NCT03091920|183795916|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|2.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.23|-6.24|
91949553|NCT03091920|183795916|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-1.79|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||-1.79|-12.80|
91949554|NCT03091920|183795916|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|0.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||0.23|-10.43|
91949555|NCT03091920|183795917|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||4.95|-2.97|
91949556|NCT03091920|183795917|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|4.52|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||4.52|-3.41|
91949557|NCT03091920|183795917|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|2.56|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.56|-7.63|
91949558|NCT03091920|183795917|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|2.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.85|-7.36|
91949559|NCT03091920|183795917|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|5.49|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||5.49|-7.55|
91949560|NCT03091920|183795917|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||2.65|-10.00|
91949561|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|2.59|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||2.59|-7.76|
91949562|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|1.19|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||1.19|-9.32|
91949563|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|1.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||1.80|-9.51|
91949564|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.93|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||0.93|-10.40|
91949565|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|1.86|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||1.86|-12.06|
91949566|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|3.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||3.96|-9.87|
91949567|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.45|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||6.45|-4.70|
91949568|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.01|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||6.01|-4.90|
91949569|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|6.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.10|-7.22|
91949570|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|6.34|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.34|-7.27|
91949571|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|6.69|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||6.69|-3.26|
91949572|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|5.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||5.20|-4.69|
91949573|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-0.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||-0.36|-8.50|
91949574|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.03|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||-0.03|-8.30|
91949575|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|3.04|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||3.04|-9.82|
91949576|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|5.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||5.38|-7.51|
91949577|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|2.48|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||2.48|-8.12|
91949578|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|3.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||3.91|-6.63|
91949579|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.97|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||4.97|-7.35|
91949580|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.77|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||4.77|-7.30|
91949581|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|0.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||0.95|-12.68|
91949582|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|0.76|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||0.76|-13.16|
91949583|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|4.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||4.65|-7.87|
91949584|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|5.59|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||5.59|-6.85|
91949585|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|-1.08|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||-1.08|-12.74|
91949586|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|1.66|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||1.66|-9.73|
91949587|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|-2.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||-2.91|-13.59|
91949588|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-0.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||-0.35|-10.76|
91949589|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|1.05|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||1.05|-15.20|
91949590|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|1.98|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||1.98|-13.68|
91820208|NCT02365636|183517755|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.5||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.50|-0.62|0.833
91820209|NCT02365636|183517756|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.2||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.41||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.41|-0.75|0.563
91820210|NCT02365636|183517756|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.5||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2. The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.50|-0.64|0.804
91820211|NCT02365636|183517756|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.1||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.71||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.71|-0.49|0.714
91820212|NCT02365636|183517756|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.0||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.55||5% level of siignificance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4. The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.55|-0.64|0.871
91820213|NCT02583256|183517765|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.3|1.1|
91820214|NCT02583256|183517765|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.0|0.9|
91820215|NCT02583256|183517765|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.3|1.1|
91820216|NCT02583256|183517765|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.3|1.1|
91820217|NCT02583256|183517766|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion for the GMT ratio: Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.3|1.1|
91820218|NCT02583256|183517766|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.0|0.9|
91820219|NCT02583256|183517766|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.3|1.1|
91820220|NCT02583256|183517766|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.3|1.1|
91820221|NCT02583256|183517767|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.51||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.51|1.28|
91820222|NCT02583256|183517767|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.14||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2||1.14|0.99|
91820223|NCT02583256|183517767|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.58||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.58|1.27|
91820224|NCT02583256|183517767|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.51||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.51|1.22|
91820225|NCT02583256|183517768|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.32||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.32|1.07|
91820226|NCT02583256|183517768|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.09|0.90|
91820227|NCT02583256|183517768|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.25||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.25|1.01|
91820228|NCT02583256|183517768|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.27||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.27|0.98|
91820229|NCT02583256|183517768|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.5||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.5|1.3|
91820230|NCT02583256|183517768|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.1|0.9|
91820231|NCT02583256|183517768|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.4||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.4|1.2|
91820232|NCT02583256|183517768|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.5|1.2|
91820233|NCT02583256|183517769|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.6||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||8.6|-4.9|
91949591|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|7.33|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||7.33|-10.14|
91949592|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|3.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||3.14|-13.46|
91949593|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|5.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||5.40|-10.14|
91949594|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|3.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||3.23|-12.25|
91949595|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.72|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||6.72|-7.60|
91949596|NCT03091920|183795918|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|4.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||4.92|-8.88|
91949597|NCT03091920|183795919|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.48|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.48|-0.10|
91949598|NCT03091920|183795919|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|6.82|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.82|0.25|
91949599|NCT03091920|183795919|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.32|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||6.32|0.40|
91949600|NCT03091920|183795919|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|8.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.23|0.95|
91820234|NCT02583256|183517769|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.3||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||7.3|-5.6|
91949601|NCT03091920|183795919|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.12|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.12|0.86|
91820235|NCT02583256|183517769|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.4||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||10.4|-1.8|
91820236|NCT02583256|183517769|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.5||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||8.5|-3.3|
91820237|NCT02583256|183517769|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|9.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|16.17||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||16.17|3.11|
91949602|NCT03091920|183795919|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|7.81|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||7.81|1.27|
91949603|NCT03091920|183795919|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|6.61|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||6.61|-1.45|
91949604|NCT03091920|183795919|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|7.11|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.11|-0.78|
91949605|NCT03091920|183795919|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|6.45|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||6.45|-0.71|
91949606|NCT03091920|183795920|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|6.99|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.99|-2.65|
91949607|NCT03091920|183795920|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|8.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||8.91|-0.73|
91949608|NCT03091920|183795920|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.51|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.51|0.60|
91949609|NCT03091920|183795920|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|7.98|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||7.98|0.07|
91820238|NCT02583256|183517769|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.02|2.15||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||2.15|-10.02|
91820239|NCT02583256|183517769|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|12.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.73|19.12||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||19.12|6.73|
91820240|NCT02583256|183517769|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|8.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|14.54||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||14.54|2.17|
91820241|NCT02530294|183517787|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
91820242|NCT02530294|183517788|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||<0.001
91949610|NCT03091920|183795920|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|7.39|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.39|-1.15|
91949611|NCT03091920|183795920|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|7.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.92|-0.44|
91949612|NCT03091920|183795921|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.49|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||7.49|1.10|
91820243|NCT02530294|183517789|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||< 0.001
91949613|NCT03091920|183795921|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|6.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.10|-0.23|
91820244|NCT02530294|183517790|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
91820245|NCT02530294|183517791|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
91820246|NCT01948375|183517792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91820247|NCT01948375|183517794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.007||95.0|1.26|4.4||For the comparison of direct effect of placebo needle and real needle, p=0.007|Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.40|1.26|0.007
91820248|NCT01948375|183517795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.006||||||"for the comparison of difference of acupuncture pain in two periods between the two groups,t=-2.88, p=0.006.~t=-2.88 refers to the t value of t test."|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.006
91820249|NCT01948375|183517796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63|||=|0.048||95.0|1.01|2.64||For the comparison of direct effect of placebo needle and real needle, p=0.048|Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.64|1.01|=0.048
91820250|NCT04537806|183517804|SUPERIORITY||Proc Genmod|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|31.8|||Chi-squared||Estimates for treatment, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using Proc Genmod method, with treatment as a factor and age groups as a covariate variable.|||31.8|-31.8|1.0000
91820251|NCT03019627|183517810|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-3.83|||=|0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|5.68|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis||5.68|-13.34|=0.428
91820252|NCT03019627|183517810|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|0.16|||=|0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|9.76|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis||9.76|-9.45|=0.974
91820253|NCT03019627|183517811|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.12|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|6.91|||ANCOVA|||frequency statistical analysis - week 4||6.91|-9.14|=0.783
91820254|NCT03019627|183517811|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-3.82|||=|0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|6.41|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis - week 8||6.41|-14.1|=0.461
91820255|NCT03019627|183517811|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-15.3|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-4.97|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis - week 12||-4.97|-25.6|=0.004
91820256|NCT03019627|183517811|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|2.55|||=|0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|10.82|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis - week 4||10.82|-5.72|=0.544
91820257|NCT03019627|183517811|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|1.06|||=|0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|11.24|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis - week 8||11.24|-9.12|=0.837
91820258|NCT03019627|183517811|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-13.8|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|3.88|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis - week 12||3.88|-23.7|=0.007
91820259|NCT03019627|183517812|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.7|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||week 4||-0.01|-1.38|=0.046
91820260|NCT03019627|183517812|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.3|||=|0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.44|||ANCOVA|||week 8||0.44|-1.05|=0.425
91820261|NCT03019627|183517812|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.09|||=|0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.58|||ANCOVA|||week 12||0.58|-0.76|=0.788
91820262|NCT03019627|183517813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.71|||=|0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.54|||ANCOVA|||week 4||0.54|-1.95|=0.265
91820263|NCT03019627|183517813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.38|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||week 8||-0.17|-2.59|=0.026
91820264|NCT03019627|183517813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.6|||=|0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|||week 12||0.70|-1.90|=0.361
91949614|NCT03091920|183795921|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.11|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||9.11|0.50|
91949615|NCT03091920|183795921|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||9.36|0.84|
91949616|NCT03091920|183795921|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|6.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||6.70|-2.93|
91949617|NCT03091920|183795921|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|7.25|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.25|-2.15|
91949618|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|12.22|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||12.22|1.40|
91949619|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|11.99|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||11.99|1.12|
91949620|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|6.28|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||6.28|-8.18|
91949621|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|9.09|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||9.09|-5.39|
91949622|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|5.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||5.23|-5.98|
91949623|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||8.70|-2.50|
91949624|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|10.89|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||10.89|2.02|
91949625|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|9.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||9.95|1.19|
91949626|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.91|0.34|
91949627|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|5.66|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.66|-0.84|
91949628|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|6.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||6.36|-2.89|
91820265|NCT03019627|183517814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.25|||=|0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.25|||ANCOVA|||week 4||0.25|-0.76|=0.323
91820266|NCT03019627|183517814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.03|||=|0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.62|||ANCOVA|||week 8||0.62|-0.55|=0.908
91949629|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|4.99|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||4.99|-4.33|
91949630|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|9.88|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||9.88|-1.17|
91949631|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|10.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||10.96|-0.14|
91949632|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|9.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||9.40|0.36|
91949633|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|8.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||8.83|-0.22|
91949634|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|8.72|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||8.72|-0.65|
91949635|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|6.94|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||6.94|-2.42|
91949636|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|11.89|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||11.89|1.91|
91949637|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.08|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||11.08|1.22|
91820267|NCT03019627|183517814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.12|||=|0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.52|||ANCOVA|||week 12||0.52|-0.76|=0.702
91820268|NCT03019627|183517815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|5.75|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|9.48|||ANCOVA|||||9.48|2.02|=0.003
91820269|NCT01802775|183517817|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|9.5||||||Treatment difference was edoxaban - clopidogrel. For the treatment difference, 95% Confidence interval was calculated using a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||9.5|-17.3|
91820270|NCT01236196|183517822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91820271|NCT01236196|183517823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
91820272|NCT01236196|183517824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91820273|NCT01236196|183517825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91820274|NCT02103478|183517856|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.165|2.876|||||Course 1|||2.876|-3.165|
91820275|NCT02103478|183517856|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.463|3.288|||||Course 2|||3.288|-3.463|
91820276|NCT02103478|183517856|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.074|0.899|||||Course 1|||0.899|-6.074|
91820277|NCT02103478|183517856|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|4.888|||||Course 2|||4.888|-5.080|
91949638|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|9.93|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||9.93|0.05|
91820278|NCT02566759|183517906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.6662|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5969|0.7355||||||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) is equal to (=) a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b are the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9483, 1.0517) for the dose range of 10 mg to 750 mg.||0.7355|0.5969|
91820279|NCT02566759|183517906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.7795|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6597|0.8993|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b were the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90% CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9139, 1.0861) for the dose range of 30 mg to 400 mg.||0.8993|0.6597|
91820280|NCT02566759|183517906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|0.362|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3043|0.4301||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed lease square (LS) Means.||0.4301|0.3043|
91820281|NCT02566759|183517906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|1.799|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4625|2.2116||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||2.2116|1.4625|
91820282|NCT02566759|183517909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8145|0.9296||||||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b are the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90 % CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9483, 1.0517) for the dose range of 10 mg to 750 mg.||0.9296|0.8145|
91820283|NCT02566759|183517909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.9135|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8062|1.0209|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b were the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90% CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9139, 1.0861) for the dose range of 30 mg to 400 mg.||1.0209|0.8062|
91820284|NCT02566759|183517909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4324|0.5777||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||0.5777|0.4324|
91820285|NCT02566759|183517909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|2.563|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|3.1275||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||3.1275|2.1000|
91820286|NCT02566759|183517910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.8505|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7925|0.9084|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b are the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90 % CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9483, 1.0517) for the dose range of 10 mg to 750 mg.||0.9084|0.7925|<0.001
91820287|NCT02566759|183517910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.8415|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7618|0.9212|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b were the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90% CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9139, 1.0861) for the dose range of 30 mg to 400 mg.||0.9212|0.7618|<0.001
91820288|NCT02566759|183517910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|0.543|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4797|0.6149||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||0.6149|0.4797|
91820289|NCT02566759|183517910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|2.336|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9592|2.7854||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||2.7854|1.9592|
91820290|NCT01096784|183517912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0642||95.0|||||CMH Row Mean Score Test|||||||0.0642
91949639|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|10.22|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||10.22|0.45|
91949640|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|6.52|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||6.52|-3.17|
91949641|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|8.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||8.92|-0.86|
91949642|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|9.27|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||9.27|-1.18|
91949643|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|8.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||8.90|-1.38|
91949644|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|12.06|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||12.06|-1.70|
91949645|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|12.37|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||12.37|-1.14|
91949646|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|4.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||4.92|-5.35|
91949647|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|6.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||6.65|-3.42|
91949648|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|11.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||11.36|-1.19|
91949649|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|11.42|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||11.42|-0.83|
91949650|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|6.63|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||6.63|-4.02|
91949651|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|8.12|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||8.12|-2.26|
91820291|NCT05107128|183517930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5||The p-value was obtained from Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and SDMT score at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||0.5|-2.7|0.1675
91949652|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|4.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||4.85|-7.52|
91949653|NCT03091920|183795922|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|4.98|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||4.98|-7.25|
91949654|NCT03091920|183795923|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|0.282|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|||0.282|-0.857|
91949655|NCT03091920|183795923|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|0.498|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|||0.498|-0.708|
91949656|NCT03091920|183795923|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.335|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|||0.335|-0.727|
91949657|NCT03091920|183795928|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-23.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.13|37.753|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 8||37.753|-84.130|
91949658|NCT03091920|183795928|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-14.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.092|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.883|42.817|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 8||42.817|-70.883|
91820292|NCT05107128|183517931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.4872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.1||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and UHDRS - Independence Scale at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||1.1|-2.4|0.4872
91949659|NCT03091920|183795928|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-18.611|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.204|33.982|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 8||33.982|-71.204|
91820293|NCT05107128|183517932|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|6.9||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and SDMT score at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||6.9|-17.0|0.4089
91820294|NCT05107128|183517933|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.19||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and a baseline value as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||3.19|-1.78|0.5766
91820295|NCT05107128|183517934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.39||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and baseline value as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||0.39|-2.13|0.1777
91820296|NCT05107128|183517935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.3||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and Hi-DEF at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||7.3|0.4|0.0291
91949660|NCT03091920|183795928|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-25.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.885|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.551|11.774|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 15||11.774|-62.551|
91949661|NCT03091920|183795928|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-21.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.879|14.527|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 15||14.527|-56.879|
91949662|NCT03091920|183795928|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-23.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.691|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.618|9.053|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 15||9.053|-55.618|
91949663|NCT01682876|183795947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenA|Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.0|28.9|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs.one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenA||28.9|10|
91949664|NCT01682876|183795947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenC|Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.9|37.7|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenC||37.7|16.9|
91949665|NCT01682876|183795947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenW|Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.4|26.7|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenW||26.7|1.4|
91949666|NCT01682876|183795947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for Men Y|Vaccine Group differences at Day 86|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.6|37.6|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenY||37.6|15.6|
91820297|NCT05107128|183517936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and CGI at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||0.1|-0.3|0.2923
91949667|NCT01682876|183795947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenA|Vaccines Group Differences at Day 86|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.7|21.3|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenA||21.3|1.7|
91820298|NCT03761628|183517938|OTHER|The clinical performance endpoint - Clinical cure rate on Day 7 - was calculated and presented together with a one-sided 95% CI based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Clinical cure rate|40.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|23.3|||||||"It was assumed that the true cure rate was equal to 70%, therefore 22 patients were needed to obtain 90% chance (90% power) to show that the one-sided 95% CI for the observed cure rate was above 40%.~Hypotheses for the primary clinical performance endpoint:~* Null hypothesis: Clinical cure rate is less than or equal to 40%.~* Alternative hypothesis (one-sided): Clinical cure rate is above 40%."|||23.3|
91820299|NCT03761628|183517939|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Proportion with reduction|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.8|89.3||||||||89.3|49.8|
91949668|NCT01682876|183795947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenC|Vaccines Group differences at Day 86|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.9|29.2|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenC||29.2|9.9|
91949669|NCT01682876|183795947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenW|Vaccines Group Differences at Day 86|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.6|17.4|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenW||17.4|-8.6|
91949670|NCT01682876|183795947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenY|Vaccines Group Differences at Day 86|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|18.4|40.0|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse for two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenY||40|18.4|
91949671|NCT01682876|183795948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|9.1|28.0|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenA was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenA||28|9.1|
91949672|NCT01682876|183795948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|28.0||||||98.75|17.1|38.7|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenC||38.7|17.1|
91949673|NCT01682876|183795948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group differences at Day 86|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.0|27.1|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenW was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenW||27.1|1|
91949674|NCT01682876|183795948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine groups Differences at Day 86|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|16.2|39.3|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenY was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenY||39.3|16.2|
91949675|NCT01682876|183795948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine groups differences at Day 86|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.0|21.2|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenA was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenA||21.2|1|
91949676|NCT01682876|183795948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group differences at Day 86|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.5|27.1|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenC||27.1|9.5|
91949677|NCT01682876|183795948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-8.4|18.8|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenW was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenW||18.8|-8.4|
91820300|NCT03761628|183517941|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 14|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|52.7||||||||52.7|0.3|
91820301|NCT03761628|183517941|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 35|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|45.9||||||||45.9|0|
91820302|NCT05459129|183517953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pCR Rates|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.23|99.9||||||||99.90|-33.23|
91820303|NCT05459129|183517954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|87.72||||||||87.72|-21.05|
91949678|NCT01682876|183795948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group Differences at Day 86|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|17.0|39.6|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenY was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenY||39.6|17|
91949679|NCT01682876|183795953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.53||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced erythema in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||4.53|1.17|
91949680|NCT01682876|183795953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|6.36||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced induration in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||6.36|1.18|
91949681|NCT01682876|183795953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.34||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced tenderness in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.34|0.85|
91820304|NCT05459129|183517955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.91|||||HR was estimated by Cox regression. Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made in terms of median EFS per arm or HR between the arms.|||3.91|0.11|
91949682|NCT01682876|183795953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.42||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced change in eating habits in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.42|0.54|
91949683|NCT01682876|183795953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced sleepiness in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.52|0.76|
91949684|NCT01682876|183795953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced irritability in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.43|0.74|
91949685|NCT01682876|183795953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.74||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced fever (≥38 °C) in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.74|0.33|
91949686|NCT01682876|183795954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.65||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced erythema in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.65|0.77|
91949687|NCT01682876|183795954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.74||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced induration in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.74|0.81|
91949688|NCT01682876|183795954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.55||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced pain in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.55|1.04|
91949689|NCT01682876|183795954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.33||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced loss of appetite in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||3.33|0.98|
91949690|NCT01682876|183795954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.17||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced nausea in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.17|0.77|
91949691|NCT01682876|183795954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.57||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced fatigue in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.57|1.06|
91949692|NCT01682876|183795954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.89||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced myalgia in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.89|0.99|
91820305|NCT05459129|183517956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.43|||||HR was estimated by Cox regression. Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made in terms of media RFS per arm or HR between the arms.|||6.43|0.13|
91820306|NCT05459129|183517958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.99|88.32||||||||88.32|-54.99|
91820307|NCT05459129|183517959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.42|64.75|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made.|3 Months Analysis||64.75|-31.42|
91949693|NCT01682876|183795954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.42||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced arthralgia in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||4.42|0.97|
91949694|NCT01682876|183795954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.74||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced headache in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.74|1.22|
91949695|NCT01682876|183795954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.68||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced fever (≥38 °C) in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.68|0.48|
91949696|NCT00346775|183795961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.6|0.517
91949697|NCT02138227|183795964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91949698|NCT02138227|183795965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|F (2, 1574)||||||<0.01
91949699|NCT00965458|183796256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline ln(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in ln(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Month 12 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL.||||0.065
91949700|NCT00965458|183796257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 52 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.019
91949701|NCT00965458|183796257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 104 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.002
91949702|NCT00965458|183796258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 52 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.065
91949703|NCT00965458|183796258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 104 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.015
91949704|NCT00965458|183796259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 52 mean insulin use comparison||||0.020
91949705|NCT00965458|183796259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 104 mean insulin use comparison||||0.002
91949706|NCT00965458|183796260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is from a poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups|Regression, Logistic|||Hypoglycemic Events Occurring from Baseline to Week 52||||<0.001
91949707|NCT00965458|183796260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is from a poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups|Regression, Logistic|||Hypoglycemic Events Occurring from Week 52 to Week 104||||<0.001
91949708|NCT00965458|183796261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 52 mean HbA1C comparison||||0.746
91949709|NCT00965458|183796261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 104 mean HbA1C comparison||||0.942
91949710|NCT01545375|183796265|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to demonstrate that VE induced by GSK2189242A vaccine (three doses in the first year of life and a booster dose in the second year of life)in preventing clinical AOM diagnosed and verified against AAP criteria was greater than 0%, as compared to the control group. One-sided p-value for the Wald-Test obtained from the general Cox proportional hazard model was calculated.|Vaccine Efficacy|3.81||||0.3016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|16.9||The primary objective was met if the one-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0=\[clinical AOM VE ≤ 0%\] was lower than defined 1-sided alpha level: (17.8%).|Regression, Cox|||VE-AOM against AAP criteria: Occurrence of AOM during efficacy follow-up period was compared between groups to estimate Vaccine Efficacy (VE) and its 95% confidence interval using the Anderson \& Gill model (generalization of Cox proportional hazard model) taking into account for recurrent events \[Kelly, 2000\]. VE= (1 - hazard ratio) x 100 Censoring occurred at the time of the last scheduled or medically attended visit.||16.90|-11.35|0.3016
91949711|NCT04516291|183796339|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-12.7|-32.1|<0.001
91949712|NCT04516291|183796339|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-12.4|-31.7|<0.001
91949713|NCT04516291|183796339|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-14.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-14.2|-34.1|<0.001
91949714|NCT04516291|183796339|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-19.6|-35.7|<0.001
91949715|NCT04516291|183796339|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-18.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-18.8|-34.5|<0.001
91820308|NCT05459129|183517959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.34|53.34|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made.|6 Months Analysis||53.34|-53.34|
91949716|NCT04516291|183796339|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-16.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-16.9|-32.5|<0.001
91949717|NCT04516291|183796339|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-17.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-17.6|-35.4|<0.001
91949718|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-44.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|-30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-30.8|-57.1|<0.001
91949719|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-43.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-30.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-30.7|-56.9|<0.001
91949720|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-41.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-27.8|-54.8|<0.001
91949721|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-50.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|-39.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-39.6|-61.4|<0.001
91949722|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-35.2|-56.5|<0.001
91949723|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-50.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-40.1|-61.2|<0.001
91949724|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-56.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-44.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-44.7|-68.9|<0.001
91949725|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-6.5|-23.7|<0.001
91949726|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-2.1|-19.2|0.015
91949727|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-2.7|-20.3|0.011
91949728|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-5.3|-19.7|<0.001
91949729|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-5.6|-19.5|<0.001
91949730|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||1.0|-13.0|0.095
91949731|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-0.6|-16.4|0.036
91949732|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||2.9|-22.9|0.129
91949733|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||5.2|-21.0|0.238
91949734|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||1.8|-24.7|0.090
91949735|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.44||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||-5.3|-26.7|0.004
91820309|NCT05459129|183517960|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-13.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.83|38.16|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made|3 Months Analysis||38.16|-64.83|
91949736|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||-3.9|-25.1|0.008
91949737|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||2.5|-18.3|0.136
91949738|NCT04516291|183796341|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||2.9|-20.8|0.138
91949739|NCT04516291|183796343|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.6|-58.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-58.1|-81.6|<0.001
91949740|NCT04516291|183796343|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-79.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.5|-67.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-67.7|-91.5|<0.001
91949741|NCT04516291|183796343|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-77.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|-64.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-64.9|-89.4|<0.001
91949742|NCT04516291|183796343|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-86.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.2|-76.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-76.3|-96.2|<0.001
91949743|NCT04516291|183796343|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-80.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.9|-70.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-70.9|-89.9|<0.001
91949744|NCT04516291|183796343|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-92.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.9|-82.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-82.6|-101.9|<0.001
91820310|NCT05459129|183517960|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.49|63.82|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made|6 Months Analysis||63.82|-50.49|
91949745|NCT04516291|183796343|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-95.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.2|-84.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-84.2|-106.2|<0.001
91949746|NCT02181634|183796353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.75|||Log Rank|||||4.75|0.86|0.099
91949747|NCT02181634|183796354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.71|||Log Rank|||||3.71|0.64|0.34
91949748|NCT04250558|183796362|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Kinetic parameters were assessed by Mann-Whitney U test in MATLAB Statistics and Machine Learning Toolbox. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis based on logistic regression was utilized, with one surgical condition versus the other two states as the binary dependent variable, and each perfusion-related kinetic parameter of Imax, IS and BF as the independent variable. Power analysis was performed to evaluate the statistical validity, using G\*Power software||||0.05
91949749|NCT02843282|183796402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.040
91949750|NCT02843282|183796403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.004
91949751|NCT02843282|183796404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91949752|NCT02843282|183796405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.039
91949753|NCT02843282|183796406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.092
91820311|NCT04649151|183517985|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of Geometric Mean value (based on geometric least squares means \[GLSM\]) was considered demonstrated if: The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold).|GMR|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.237|||||GMR of P203 vs P301|||1.237|0.940|
91820312|NCT04649151|183517986|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin of 10%. Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%. and a point estimator \>-5% (minimum threshold)|percentage difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9|||||SRR difference of P203 vs P301|||1.9|-2.1|
91820313|NCT04649151|183517987|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI of noninferiority margin of 1.5. GMR point estimate \>=0.8 (minimum threshold).|GMR|5.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.477|5.745|||||GMR of GMC at BD-Day 29 P203 vs GMC at Day 57 P301|||5.745|4.477|
91820314|NCT04649151|183517988|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin of 10%. Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%.|SRR Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4|||||SRR difference of P203 BD-Day 29 vs P301 Day 57|||2.4|-0.8|
91820315|NCT04649151|183517989|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of GMC (based on GLSM\] was considered demonstrated if: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1|GMR|48.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.765|53.065|||||GMR of P203 vs P301|||53.065|43.765|
91820316|NCT04649151|183517992|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of Geometric Mean value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold).|GMR|4.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.972|5.083|||||GMR of GMC at BD-Day 29 P203 vs GMC at Day 57 P301|||5.083|3.972|
91949754|NCT02843282|183796407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.58||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.052
91949755|NCT02843282|183796408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.121
91949756|NCT02843282|183796409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.019
91949757|NCT02843282|183796410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.278
91949758|NCT02843282|183796411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.095
91949759|NCT02843282|183796412|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Whole brain voxel-wise correlation analy|||||||< 0.01
91949760|NCT02843282|183796413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
91949761|NCT02843282|183796414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
91949762|NCT01091116|183796415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5263||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Tests of Fixed Effects for the primary efficacy variable including baseline treatment and visit (from Visit 3 to Visit 5) as covariates||||0.5263
91949763|NCT02155660|183796436|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.01|0.71|0.0638
91949764|NCT02155660|183796436|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.04||||0.6575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.23|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.23|0.88|0.6575
91949765|NCT02155660|183796436|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.93||||0.3988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.10|0.78|0.3988
91949766|NCT02155660|183796437|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.04||||0.7564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.32|0.82|0.7564
91949767|NCT02155660|183796437|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.08||||0.5573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.37|0.84|0.5573
91949768|NCT02155660|183796437|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.02||||0.8644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.30|0.80|0.8644
91949769|NCT02155660|183796438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.5043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.059|-0.029|0.5043
91949770|NCT02155660|183796438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.037|-0.051|0.7691
91949771|NCT02155660|183796438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.064|-0.024|0.3767
91949772|NCT02155660|183796439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.011||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.192|1.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||1.171|-3.192|0.3636
91949773|NCT02155660|183796439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.388||||0.2106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.562|0.786|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.786|-3.562|0.2106
91949774|NCT02155660|183796439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.602||||0.5851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.763|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||1.560|-2.763|0.5851
91949775|NCT02155660|183796440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.99|-0.82|0.8525
91949776|NCT02155660|183796440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.89|-0.91|0.9870
91949777|NCT02155660|183796440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.79|-1.00|0.8204
91949778|NCT02155660|183796441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.301|-1.102|0.2636
91949779|NCT02155660|183796441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296||||0.4087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.998|0.406|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.406|-0.998|0.4087
91949780|NCT02155660|183796441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.425||||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.275|-1.125|0.2336
91949781|NCT02155660|183796442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.642||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.254|-1.029|0.0012
91949782|NCT02155660|183796442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.047|-0.727|0.0852
91820317|NCT04649151|183517995|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|VE|60.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|78.6|||VE|Vaccine efficacy (VE, percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).||||78.6|26.6|
91949783|NCT02155660|183796442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.364||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.023|-0.750|0.0650
91949784|NCT02155660|183796443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.002|-0.081|0.0415
91949785|NCT02155660|183796443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.055||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.015|-0.094|0.0069
91949786|NCT02155660|183796443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.014|-0.065|0.2008
91949787|NCT02155660|183796447|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.8158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.18|0.81|0.8158
91949788|NCT02155660|183796447|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.18|0.82|0.8378
91949789|NCT02155660|183796447|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.11|0.76|0.3759
91949790|NCT02155660|183796448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.36|0.76|0.9141
91949791|NCT02155660|183796448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.87|1.03|0.0323
91949792|NCT02155660|183796448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.5109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.48|0.82|0.5109
91949793|NCT02155660|183796450|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.68||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||0.96|0.49|0.0287
91949794|NCT02155660|183796450|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89||||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.22|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||1.22|0.65|0.4631
91820318|NCT04649151|183517996|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|VE|43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|72.2|||VE|VE (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).||||72.2|-16.5|
91949795|NCT02155660|183796450|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.67||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||0.94|0.48|0.0185
91949796|NCT02087085|183796462|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3589|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1804||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7132|-0.0047||MMRM model included treatment group, study region, analysis visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-analysis visit interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||||-0.0047|-0.7132|0.047
91949797|NCT02087085|183796463|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.5||MMRM model included treatment group, study region, analysis visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-analysis visit interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||||1.5|-3.9|0.390
91949798|NCT02087085|183796464|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.3||MMRM model included treatment group, study region, analysis visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-analysis visit interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||||1.3|-4.2|0.301
91949799|NCT01425268|183796492|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate for both expanders was 95%, at least 92 breasts implanted with a AeroForm Tissue Expander and 46 breasts implanted with a saline expander were needed to be 80% confident (i.e., have a statistical power of 80%) that the lower bound of the one-sided 95% Confidence Interval for the difference in the Success rates (πTreatment - πControl) was greater than or equal to -10%.|margin of non-inferiority|-7.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.3241||||||The Treatment Success Rate per breast is 96.1% (149/155) for AeroForm and 98.8% (82/83) for saline.The difference (AeroForm - saline) is -2.7% with a lower confidence limit of -7.3%, meeting the non-inferiority margin of \> -10%.|The study was powered to show that the Treatment Success rate for the AeroForm System (πTreatment) was not worse than the rate for the saline expander (πControl) by more than 10% (-0.10 \< πTreatment - πControl).|||-7.3241|
91949800|NCT01425268|183796493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan-Meier Log Rank test|Subjects not completing tissue expansion are censored in the analysis||||||<0.0001
91949801|NCT02681094|183796499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.55|<0.0001
91949802|NCT02681094|183796499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.50|<0.0001
91820319|NCT04649151|183517997|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2||NA = not estimable (not reached).||VE|VE (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.||||61.2|
91820320|NCT04649151|183517998|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|VE|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|98.9|||VE|VE (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).||||98.9|51.0|
91949803|NCT02681094|183796500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|26.9|||Method of Zhang, Tsiatis, and Davidian|||||26.9|12.7|<0.0001
91820321|NCT01103934|183518051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91820322|NCT01103934|183518052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91820323|NCT01120210|183518067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.016|0.564|||ANCOVA|one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in cardiac index (CI) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||0.564|-0.016|0.0595
91820324|NCT01120210|183518067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.064|0.595||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in cardiac index (CI) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||0.595|0.064|0.0215
91820325|NCT01120210|183518067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.214|0.921||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in cardiac index (CI) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||0.921|0.214|0.0049
91949804|NCT02681094|183796500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|19.1|||Method of Zhang, Tsiatis, and Davidian|||||19.1|4.4|0.0018
91949805|NCT02681094|183796501|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.58||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.57|-13.59|0.0135
91949806|NCT02681094|183796501|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.85|-8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.91|-20.85|<0.0001
91949807|NCT02681094|183796502|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-2.11|<0.0001
91949808|NCT01072175|183796503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of dabrafenib was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.34|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for dabrafenib were calculated.|||1.34|0.79|
91949809|NCT01072175|183796503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of GSK2285403 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.25|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2285403 were calculated.|||1.25|0.78|
91949810|NCT01072175|183796503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of GSK2298683 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.27|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2298683 were calculated.|||1.27|0.84|
91949811|NCT01072175|183796503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of GSK2167542 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.45|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2167542 were calculated.|||1.45|0.66|
91949812|NCT01072175|183796504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of dabrafenib was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.19|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-inf)/ Day 1 AUC(0-inf)) and 90% confidence interval for dabrafenib were calculated.|||1.19|0.85|
91949813|NCT01072175|183796504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-inf) of dabrafenib was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.08|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-inf)/ Day 1 AUC(0-inf)) and 90% confidence interval for dabrafenib were calculated.|||1.08|0.82|
91949814|NCT01072175|183796504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of GSK2285403 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.25|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-t)/ Day 1 AUC(0-t)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2285403 were calculated.|||1.25|0.84|
91949815|NCT01072175|183796504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-inf) of GSK2285403 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.03|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-inf)/ Day 1 AUC(0-inf)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2285403 were calculated.|||1.03|0.81|
91949816|NCT01072175|183796504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of GSK2298683 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.29|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-t)/ Day 1 AUC(0-t)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2298683 were calculated.|||1.29|0.81|
91949817|NCT01072175|183796504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of GSK2167542 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.37|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-t)/ Day 1 AUC(0-t)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2167542 were calculated.|||1.37|0.76|
91949818|NCT01072175|183796511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|15.9||||||Difference in response rate Arm2 - Arm1||15.9|-23.1|
91949819|NCT01072175|183796511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|40.7||||||Difference in response rate Arm3 - Arm1||40.7|2.5|
91949820|NCT01072175|183796512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|14.1||||||Difference in response rate Arm2- Arm1||14.1|-24.9|
91949821|NCT01072175|183796512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|33.7||||||Difference in response rate Arm3 - Arm1||33.7|-4.9|
91820326|NCT01120210|183518068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.4729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.312|2.131||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||2.131|-2.312|0.4729
91820327|NCT01120210|183518068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.164|1.464||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||1.464|-4.164|0.2123
91820328|NCT01120210|183518068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.639|0.483||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||0.483|-5.639|0.0821
91949822|NCT01072175|183796513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|26.8||||||||26.8|5.1|
91949823|NCT01072175|183796514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.87|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||0.87|0.38|0.0048
91949824|NCT01072175|183796514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||0.68|0.29|<0.0001
91949825|NCT01072175|183796516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.18|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||1.18|0.45|0.1667
91949826|NCT01072175|183796516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.9|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||0.90|0.32|0.0119
91949827|NCT01072175|183796524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following loge tranformation, Cmax of dabrafenib after repeat doses from the pooled data in Part B and D were analyzed by a linear model with the following fixed effects as categorical variables: Capsule type (Gelatin or HPMC), BRAF dose (75 or 150 mg BID), Capsule type by BRAF dose interaction, Day (Day 15 or 21), MEK dose (0, 1, 1.5 or 2 mg QD). Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.08|||||Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|||2.08|1.10|
91820329|NCT01120210|183518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.7682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.527|1.879||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in heart rate (HR) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||1.879|-2.527|0.7682
91820330|NCT01120210|183518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.764|4.235||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in heart rate (HR) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||4.235|-1.764|0.4107
91949828|NCT01072175|183796526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following loge transformation, AUC(0-tau) of dabrafenib was analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with dosing chort and day as fixed effects and subject as random effect. Based on the model, geometric mean ratio (Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID+Trametinib 2 mg QD/Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID alone) and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.69|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID+Trametinib 2 mg QD/Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID alone) and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were provided.|||1.69|0.89|
91949829|NCT01072175|183796526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following loge tranformation, AUC(0-tau) of dabrafenib after repeat doses from the pooled data in Part B and D were analyzed by a linear model with the following fixed effects as categorical variables: Capsule type (Gelatin or HPMC), BRAF dose (75 or 150 mg BID), Capsule type by BRAF dose interaction, Day (Day 15 or 21), MEK dose (0, 1, 1.5, 2 or 2 mg QD). Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were then provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.44|||||Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|||1.44|0.84|
91949830|NCT02839330|183796560|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of all the 3 pairwise comparisons of GMTs to fall between the predefined equivalence ranges of 0.667 and 1.5|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||||||aH5N1c Lot #1 vs. aH5N1c Lot #2||1.13|0.90|
91949831|NCT02839330|183796560|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: The 2-sided 95% CIs of all the 3 pairwise comparisons of GMTs to fall between the predefined equivalence ranges of 0.667 and 1.5|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08||||||aH5N1c Lot #2 vs. aH5N1c Lot #3||1.08|0.86|
91949832|NCT02839330|183796560|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: The 2-sided 95% CIs of all the 3 pairwise comparisons of GMTs to fall between the predefined equivalence ranges of 0.667 and 1.5|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09||||||aH5N1c Lot #1 vs. aH5N1c Lot #3||1.09|0.87|
91949833|NCT00218439|183796575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91949834|NCT00218439|183796576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
91949835|NCT00218439|183796577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
91949836|NCT00218439|183796578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
91949837|NCT00218439|183796579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
91949838|NCT02615158|183796580|EQUIVALENCE|If the 95% confidence interval of the difference in the change over time does not include 0, it means that there is a significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31||The alpha for statistical significance is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare change in maternal lifestyle group to child safety group.|H0: There are no differences between the maternal lifestyle and child safety groups in the change in BMI z-score over time. Mixed models included the interaction between time and intervention, accounting for clustering of the repeated measures within each individual.||0.31|-0.17|0.555
91949839|NCT02615158|183796580|EQUIVALENCE|95% CI|Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.39||Two-side test|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the Responsive Parenting to the safety intervention group.|||0.39|-0.08|0.200
91820331|NCT01120210|183518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.046|5.372||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in heart rate (HR) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||5.372|-1.046|0.1811
91820332|NCT01120210|183518070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|4.718||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||4.718|-6.060|0.8030
91949840|NCT02615158|183796581|EQUIVALENCE|95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated. If the 95% CI does not include 0, it means there is significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.52||The alpha for statistical significance is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare maternal lifestyle to child safety group.|H0: There is no difference between maternal lifestyle and child safety groups in the change of BMI over time.||0.52|-0.74|0.739
91949841|NCT02615158|183796581|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it means that there is a statistically significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.59||The alpha for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive parenting group to the child safety group.|H0: There are no differences in the change over time between responsive parenting and child safety groups.||0.59|-0.66|0.904
91949842|NCT02615158|183796582|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the change over time was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates significant difference in the change over time.|Slope|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.02||Alpha is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||H0 is that there is no difference between maternal lifestyle and child safety groups in the change of HEI 2015 score over time.||8.02|-1.4|0.168
91949843|NCT02615158|183796582|EQUIVALENCE|95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference in the change between the two groups.|Slope|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|5.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive feeding group to child safety group.|H0 is that there is no difference between the responsive parenting and child safety groups in the change of HEI score over time||5.52|-3.88|0.733
91820333|NCT01120210|183518070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.781|3.801||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||3.801|-7.781|0.4923
91949844|NCT02615158|183796583|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.2||Alpha is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the maternal lifestyle group to the child safety group.|Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between the two groups regarding the change of HEI 2015 score over time.||8.2|-1.6|0.186
91949845|NCT02615158|183796583|EQUIVALENCE|95% CI for the difference in change over time was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is significant difference between the two groups.|Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|4.91||Alpha is set to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive parenting group to child safety group.|H0 is there is no difference in the change of maternal HEI score over time between the two groups.||4.91|-4.97|0.990
91949846|NCT02615158|183796584|EQUIVALENCE|A 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates significant difference in change over time between the two groups.|Slope|23.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|45.46||Alpha is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is for maternal lifestyle group compared to safety control group.|Null hypothesis is there were no differences in the change over time for toddler MVPA across the two groups.||45.46|1.88|0.034
91949847|NCT02615158|183796584|EQUIVALENCE|H0 is that there is no difference between the change of MVPA over time between the two groups.|Slope|13.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.89||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|35.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive parenting group to child safety group.|||35.03|-7.98|0.216
91949848|NCT02615158|183796585|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI for the difference in the change between the two groups was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the change.|Slope|10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|20.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the maternal lifestyle group to the child safety group.|H0 is that there is no difference in the change of maternal MVPA over time between the two groups.||20.48|1.46|0.024
91949849|NCT02615158|183796585|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.|Slope|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|10.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare responsive parenting group to child safety group.|H0 is that there is no significant difference in the change of maternal MVPA between the two groups.||10.72|-8.76|0.804
91949850|NCT02615158|183796586|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.|Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.06||Alpha is set at 0.05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare maternal lifestyle group to the child safety group.|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.||0.06|-0.78|0.056
91949851|NCT02615158|183796586|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha is set at 0.05 to indicate statistical significance.|Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare responsive parenting group to child safety group.|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.||0.45|-0.39|0.896
91949852|NCT02257970|183796588|EQUIVALENCE|The likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis (equivalence between the two groups) was defined as P\<0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||For the analysis, the 4-month post-minus-pre change in this score for ketoprofen was compared.||||<0.0001
91949853|NCT02257970|183796589|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-to-post comparison: the likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis (equivalence between the two groups) was defined as P\<0.05|||||=|0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||=0.6
91949854|NCT02257970|183796589|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-to-Post comparison: The likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis (equivalence between the two groups) was defined as P\<0.05|||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||=0.01
91949855|NCT00883896|183796603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-5.9||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|13.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was assessed from 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||13.3|-25.0|0.558
91949856|NCT00883896|183796603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-11.4||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.3|-30.1|0.251
91949857|NCT00883896|183796603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-3.7||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.4|-21.7|0.707
91949858|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.1||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.7|-14.8|0.991
91949859|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-4.8||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||8.8|-18.4|0.518
91949860|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Perecent Difference|0.781||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||9.8|-16.9|0.630
91949861|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|9.4||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||27.0|-8.3|0.295
91949862|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Perecent Difference|-3.4||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||12.5|-19.3|0.686
91949863|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||18.2|-13.2|0.772
91949864|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|12.8||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||32.0|-6.5|0.201
91949865|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-10.4||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|6.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.5|-27.3|0.256
91949866|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|6.1||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||23.5|-11.4|0.519
91949867|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|16.7||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||35.2|-1.9|0.094
91949868|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.8||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||20.1|-14.4|0.760
91949869|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.6||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||18.0|-16.8|0.950
91949870|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|13.6||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|33.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||33.0|-5.9|0.185
91949871|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.2||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||19.3|-18.8|0.982
91949872|NCT00883896|183796604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-11.6||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.8|-29.0|0.223
91949873|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.5||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.8|-6.8|0.885
91949874|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|6.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|15.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||15.6|-3.4|0.180
91949875|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-2.7||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||1.1|-6.5|0.277
91949876|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|1.7||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||11.3|-7.9|0.740
91820334|NCT01120210|183518070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.251|3.708||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||3.708|-11.251|0.3152
91820335|NCT01120210|183518071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36||||0.1561||95.0|-8.047|1.331||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||1.331|-8.047|0.1561
91820336|NCT01120210|183518071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.482|-0.622||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||-0.622|-10.482|0.0282
91820337|NCT01120210|183518071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.818|-2.332||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||-2.332|-11.818|0.0043
91820338|NCT01120210|183518072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.347|16.823||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||16.823|-16.347|0.9769
91820339|NCT01120210|183518073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98||||0.8297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.592|20.551||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in LVEDV at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||20.551|-16.592|0.8297
91820340|NCT01120210|183518074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.352|3.968||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in LVEF at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||3.968|-3.352|0.8650
91820341|NCT01120210|183518075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.3748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|3.102||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in FS at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||3.102|-1.204|0.3748
91949877|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.4||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||10.1|-9.3|0.934
91820342|NCT01120210|183518076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.08||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.198|18.359||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||18.359|-4.198|0.2123
91820343|NCT01120210|183518076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.78||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.016|19.575||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||19.575|-2.016|0.1083
91820344|NCT01120210|183518076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.16||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.557|25.771||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||25.771|2.557|0.0180
91820345|NCT01120210|183518077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.4841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.308|2.554||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PASP at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||2.554|-5.308|0.4841
91820346|NCT01120210|183518077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.567|3.594||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||3.594|-5.567|0.6665
91820347|NCT01120210|183518077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.6904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.107|6.148||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PASP at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||6.148|-4.107|0.6904
91820348|NCT01120210|183518078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.197|3.588||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PADP at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||3.588|-2.197|0.6304
91820349|NCT01120210|183518078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.851|3.153||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PADP at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||3.153|-3.851|0.8420
91820350|NCT01120210|183518078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.138|2.669||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PADP at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||2.669|-4.138|0.6658
91820351|NCT01120210|183518079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-264.36||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-529.875|1.147||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SVR at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||1.147|-529.875|0.0510
91820352|NCT01120210|183518079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-383.32||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-592.781|-173.867||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SVR at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||-173.867|-592.781|0.0006
91820353|NCT01120210|183518079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-527.77||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-764.07|-291.478||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SVR at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||-291.478|-764.070|0.0001
91949878|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.6||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.4|-7.7|0.876
91949879|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.1||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||9.2|-11.4|0.842
91949880|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|4.1||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||16.3|-8.1|0.509
91949881|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|4.0||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||15.0|-7.0|0.504
91949882|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|5.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||17.0|-6.3|0.373
91949883|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-3.4||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.2|-12.0|0.499
91949884|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|7.0||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||18.3|-4.2|0.244
91949885|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.2||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.6|-15.0|0.979
91949886|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-9.8||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||2.2|-21.8|0.166
91949887|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.5||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.2|-13.2|0.947
91820354|NCT04296396|183518080|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority design assumed a noninferiority margin of 5%. For 90% power and 0.025 significance level 1-sided, a total sample size of 4,300 participants was required to state that the IOPP is not inferior to the fixed amount of 20 tablets. Given the short window to assess pain at 1-week post-discharge, a 20% missing rate was incorporated which gives a final sample size of 5,500 (2,750 per group).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|3.37|||||The risk difference is the rate in the fixed group minus the rate in the IOPP group. IOPP was to be determined as non-inferior if the lower 95% confidence limit for the risk difference is -5 percentage points or greater (i.e., closer to zero).|||3.37|-2.03|
91820355|NCT04296396|183518081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|96.25|0.99|1.51|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval is 96.25% due to false discovery rate adjustment|||1.51|0.99|0.046
91949888|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|8.3||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||23.8|-7.1|0.286
91949889|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.6||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||11.8|-15.0|0.822
91949890|NCT00883896|183796605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.1||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||12.1|-12.3|0.986
91949891|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.4|-2.3|0.205
91949892|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.3|-2.3|0.188
91949893|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 2: Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||0.0|0.0|
91820356|NCT04296396|183518082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91820357|NCT04296396|183518083|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.6|-3.5|||quantile regression||Confidence interval is 97.5% due to false discovery rate adjustment|||-3.5|-6.6|<0.001
91949894|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|1.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.6|-4.5|0.699
91949895|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|5.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||13.8|-3.0|0.155
91949896|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.0||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||0.9|-2.9|0.546
91949897|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.4|-2.3|0.205
91949898|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.2||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.1|-1.8|0.269
91949899|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.0||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.6|-1.6|0.723
91949900|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.4|-2.3|0.205
91949901|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 8: Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the cochran method.||0.0|0.0|
91820358|NCT04296396|183518084|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-19.2|-10.8|||quartile regression||Confidence interval is 98.75% due to false discovery rate adjustment|||-10.8|-19.2|<0.001
91949902|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|4.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||9.4|-1.3|0.125
91949903|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|5.0||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||11.8|-1.7|0.071
91949904|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.0||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.1|-1.2|0.317
91949905|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.6|-1.6|0.280
91949906|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.6||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||8.8|-7.6|0.892
91949907|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.5||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.2|-8.3|0.903
91949908|NCT00883896|183796606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.7||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||3.8|-7.2|0.625
91949909|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.900
91820359|NCT04296396|183518085|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||quantile regression|||||0|0|1.0
91820360|NCT04296396|183518086|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.85|0.52
91949910|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.522|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.522
91949911|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.147
91949912|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.534|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.534
91949913|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.206
91949914|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.070
91949915|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.936|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.936
91949916|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.625|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.625
91949917|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.586|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.586
91949918|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.685
91820361|NCT04296396|183518087|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1.00|0.98|0.15
91949919|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.340
91949920|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.212
91949921|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.455|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.455
91949922|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.145|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.145
91949923|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.660
91949924|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.050
91949925|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.428|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.428
91949926|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.160
91949927|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.757|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.757
91949928|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.408|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.408
91949929|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.983|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.983
91949930|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.374|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.374
91949931|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.992|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.992
91949932|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.422|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.422
91949933|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.743|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.743
91949934|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.188|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.188
91949935|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.385|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.385
91949936|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.148|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.148
91949937|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.304|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.304
91949938|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.552
91820362|NCT05320029|183518094|NON_INFERIORITY|If the two-side 95%CI limit of the difference between the two groups is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -10%, the non-inferiority hypothesis of this study is valid|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0458|0.0458|||Newcombe-Wilson|||||0.0458|-0.0458|<0.05
91949939|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.494|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.494
91949940|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.421|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.421
91949941|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.418|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.418
91949942|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.235|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.235
91949943|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.268|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.268
91949944|NCT00883896|183796618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.957|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.957
91949945|NCT01177943|183796669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80-125% was used for bioequivalence (BE) criteria in terms of geometric means.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean values|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.858|
91949946|NCT01177943|183796670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80-125% was used for bioequivalence (BE) criteria in terms of the ratio of geometric means.|Ratio of AUC(0-tlast) values|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|1.00|
91949947|NCT02467504|183796674|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.530
91949948|NCT02467504|183796675|OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.315
91949949|NCT02467504|183796676|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91949950|NCT02467504|183796677|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
91949951|NCT02467504|183796678|OTHER|Chi||||||0.474|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.474
91949952|NCT02467504|183796679|OTHER|description of Treg cells in CD4+ T cells||||||0.665|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.665
91949953|NCT02467504|183796680|OTHER|||||||0.616|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.616
91949954|NCT02467504|183796681|OTHER|||||||0.616|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.616
91949955|NCT02467504|183796682|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.200
91949956|NCT02467504|183796683|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.373
91820363|NCT02388997|183518151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variences|||||||0.59
91949957|NCT02467504|183796684|OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.565
91949958|NCT02467504|183796685|OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.221
91949959|NCT02467504|183796686|OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
91949960|NCT02467504|183796687|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
91949961|NCT02467504|183796688|OTHER|||||||0.881|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.881
91949962|NCT02467504|183796689|OTHER|||||||0.422|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.422
91949963|NCT02467504|183796690|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.055
91949964|NCT02467504|183796691|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91949965|NCT02467504|183796692|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.156
91949966|NCT03982069|183796712|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All listed antigens|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91949967|NCT03982069|183796713|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All listed antigens|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91949968|NCT03982069|183796714|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Day 28 for all listed antigens|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91949969|NCT03982069|183796714|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Day 0, A/H1N1-A/Brisbane|Chi-squared|||||||0.40
91949970|NCT03982069|183796714|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Day 0 A/H1N1-A/Kansas egg grown virus|Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91949971|NCT03982069|183796714|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Day 0 A/H1N1-A/Kansas cell grown virus|Chi-squared|||||||0.08
91949972|NCT03982069|183796714|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||Day 0 B/Victoria-B/Colorado|Chi-squared|||||||0.91
91949973|NCT03982069|183796714|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Day 0 B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91949974|NCT03982069|183796715|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Day 0 A/H1N1-A/Brisbane|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91949975|NCT03982069|183796715|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Day 0 A/H3N2-A/Kansas egg grown virus|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91949976|NCT03982069|183796715|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Day 0 A/H3N2-A/Kansas cell grown virus|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
91949977|NCT03982069|183796715|OTHER|||||||0.95||||||Day 0 B/Victoria-B/Colorado|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91949978|NCT03982069|183796715|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||Day 0 B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91949979|NCT03982069|183796715|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Day 28 for all listed variables|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91949980|NCT03982069|183796716|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66-egg based antigen||||||0.83
91949981|NCT03982069|183796716|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70-cell based antigen||||||0.79
91949982|NCT03982069|183796716|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Delaware||||||0.65
91949983|NCT03982069|183796716|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong||||||0.06
91949984|NCT03982069|183796716|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: B/Victoria-B/Washington||||||0.98
91949985|NCT03982069|183796716|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: B/Yamagata-B/Phuket||||||0.24
91949986|NCT03982069|183796716|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Day 28: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66-egg based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70-cell based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Delaware, B/Victoria-B/Washington, B/Yamagata-B/Phuket||||||<0.01
91949987|NCT03982069|183796716|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong||||||0.66
91949988|NCT03982069|183796717|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66 egg based antigen|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91949989|NCT03982069|183796717|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70 cell based antigen|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91949990|NCT03982069|183796717|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Delaware|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91949991|NCT03982069|183796717|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Day 0: A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91820364|NCT02388997|183518152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.58
91820365|NCT02388997|183518153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.87
91949992|NCT03982069|183796717|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||Day 0: B/Victoria-B/Washington|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91949993|NCT03982069|183796717|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Day 0: B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91949994|NCT03982069|183796717|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Day 28: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66 egg based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70 cell based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Delaware, B/Victoria-B/Washington, B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91949995|NCT03982069|183796717|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Day 28: A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91949996|NCT00078715|183796723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.141||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.251||The significance level reflects the direct comparison of drugs after factoring out baseline depression levels.|Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model was used with factors for drug, time of evaluation, the drug by time interaction, and a baseline depression covariate.||The hypothesis was that yohimbine would provide lower levels of depression than placebo. Initial estimates of sample size assumed a minimum of 25 patients were required to detect differences in depression.||2.251|-4.260|.527
91949997|NCT01020812|183796743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of participants|0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.636|||||The data was analyzed in a competing risk model with death as a competing risk. The proportion of 0.286 is the cumulative incidence function at 12 months.|The data was analyzed in a competitive risk model with the cumulative incidence function as the estimator. Death and other progression were competitive risks.||0.636|0.031|
91949998|NCT01020812|183796744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This is the overall survival probability at 18 months.|The data was analyzed using the Kaplan Meier estimator.||||
91949999|NCT05040295|183796748|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|102.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.21|111.51|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment B Ratio=Test/Reference|AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||111.51|94.21|
91950000|NCT05040295|183796748|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|106.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.07|113.66|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment C Ratio=Test/Reference|AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||113.66|100.07|
91950001|NCT05040295|183796749|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|101.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.25|115.87|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment B Ratio=Test/Reference|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||115.87|88.25|
91950002|NCT05040295|183796749|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|90.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.49|103.44|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment C Ratio=Test/Reference|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||103.44|78.49|
91950003|NCT00953849|183796752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
91950004|NCT00953849|183796753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
91950005|NCT00953849|183796754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
91950006|NCT00953849|183796755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
91950007|NCT01801475|183796759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The nonlinear mixed-effects modeling software program NONMEM (version VII; Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott City, MD) was used to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters. The first-order conditional estimation (FOCE) with η-ε interaction was used for the estimation process. Volume and clearance in this model is computed as a mean of the study population (pregnant and non-pregnant women) with a log-normal distribution in the population.||||<0.05
91820366|NCT02388997|183518154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.55
91820367|NCT02388997|183518155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.6
91820368|NCT02388997|183518157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||The p value is based on the fold change (ratio) of the geometric means of the time (days) to peak symptoms among asthmatics in the omalizumab/placebo treatment groups.|2-sample t-test on the log scale|||||||0.037
91820369|NCT00384813|183518158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||regression coefficient|0.33||||0.23||||||For both baseline to 4 month analyses (see above p value) and baseline to 10 month analyses, the variable of intervention group did not contribute significant additional variance.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.23
91820370|NCT03925727|183518195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0|||ANCOVA|||||6|-3.2|0.5533
91820371|NCT03925727|183518196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.0192
91820372|NCT02321462|183518205|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the difference was higher than the predefined noninferiority margin (-15%).|Adjusted difference|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|3.29|||||To investigate noninferiority of Eziclen compared to Fortrans®, the adjusted difference between these 2 groups was calculated with 95% CI of the adjusted difference.|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status (No IBD, IBD) was used.||3.29|-4.22|
91820373|NCT02321462|183518206|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.15|||=|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||ANOVA|A 2-way analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Right Colon BBPS Score.||0.28|0.02|=0.0249
91820374|NCT02321462|183518206|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.11|||=|0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.22|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Transverse Colon BBPS Score.||0.22|0.01|=0.0382
91820375|NCT02321462|183518206|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.06|||=|0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Left Colon BBPS Score.||0.16|-0.04|=0.2538
91820376|NCT02321462|183518206|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.33|||=|0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.62|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Global BBPS Score.||0.62|0.04|=0.0256
91820377|NCT02321462|183518207|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.11|||=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Right Colon BBPS Score (per protocol population).||0.24|-0.02|=0.0840
91820378|NCT02321462|183518207|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.08|||=|0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.18|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Transverse Colon BBPS Score (per protocol population).||0.18|-0.02|=0.1320
91820379|NCT02321462|183518208|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-6.94|||=|0.2199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for detection of polyps.||3.64|-17.53|=0.2199
91820380|NCT02321462|183518208|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|1.87|||=|0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|9.99|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for detection of adenomas.||9.99|-6.25|=0.6325
91820381|NCT02321462|183518208|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-1.55|||=|0.7086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|6.54|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for detection of other lesions.||6.54|-9.64|=0.7086
91820382|NCT02321462|183518209|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.01|||=|0.9927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||3.14|-3.12|=0.9927
91820383|NCT02321462|183518210|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-0.3|||=|0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||1.27|-1.88|=0.7039
91820384|NCT02321462|183518211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.1|||=|0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||0.25|-0.05|=0.1891
91820385|NCT02321462|183518212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|13.35|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.37|20.32|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||20.32|6.37|=0.0011
91820386|NCT01153581|183518222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91820387|NCT00245765|183518238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|150.3|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors.|Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|||150.3|13.7|<0.001
91820388|NCT00245765|183518238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|292.6|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors.|Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|||292.6|23.5|<0.001
91820389|NCT00245765|183518239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|64.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|1169.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors. Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.||||1169.1|12.7|<0.001
91820390|NCT00245765|183518239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|162.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|2999.2|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors.|Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|||2999.2|31.4|<0.001
91820391|NCT02741115|183518250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation used.||It was estimated that a sample size of 198 participants per group would provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment group difference in change from baseline to Week 26 in maximal VO2 scores of 10% (ie, an improvement of 2.8 mL/kg/min in the udenafil group compared to 0 in the control group, assuming a Type I error of 0.05 and standard deviation of 7.235). A difference of 2.8, equivalent to a 10% increase from a baseline of 28 mL/kg/min, represents approximately 0.4 standard deviations.||||0.092
91820392|NCT02741115|183518251|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analytical model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2.||||||0.024
91820393|NCT02741115|183518252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.591||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.591
91820394|NCT02741115|183518253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.169
91820395|NCT02741115|183518254|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment mean difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group, with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.012
91820396|NCT02741115|183518255|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference in the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group, with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.029
91820397|NCT02741115|183518256|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.011
91820398|NCT02741115|183518257|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.903||0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.696
91820399|NCT02741115|183518258|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319||0.915|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.915
91820400|NCT02741115|183518259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.363||0.891|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.||||0.891
91820401|NCT02741115|183518260|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.691|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group, with a continuous covariate of Baseline physical functioning (child reported)||||||0.691
91820402|NCT02741115|183518261|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.544||0.985|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline physical functioning (parent reported).||||||0.985
91820403|NCT02741115|183518262|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.039||0.273|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline psychosocial health summary score (child reported).||||||0.273
91820404|NCT02741115|183518263|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.327||0.966|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline psychosocial health summary score (parent reported).||||||0.966
91820405|NCT02741115|183518264|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.706|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (Treatment II).||||||0.706
91950008|NCT01801475|183796760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The nonlinear mixed-effects modeling software program NONMEM (version VII; Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott City, MD) was used to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters. The first-order conditional estimation (FOCE) with η-ε interaction was used for the estimation process. Volume and clearance in this model is computed as a mean of the study population (pregnant and non-pregnant women) with a log-normal distribution in the population.||||<0.05
91820406|NCT02741115|183518265|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.707||0.382|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (perceived physical appearance)||||||0.382
91820407|NCT02741115|183518266|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.611||0.236|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (treatment anxiety).||||||0.236
91820408|NCT02741115|183518267|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.543|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (cognitive problems).||||||0.543
91820409|NCT02741115|183518268|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.352|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (communication problems).||||||0.352
91950009|NCT00421928|183796768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05||95.0|-1.04|-0.33|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and pooled analysis center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||The primary null hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the tapentadol ER group was not different from the placebo group for the primary endpoint. Assuming the mean treatment group difference of 0.7 with an SD of 2.7, 314 subjects per treatment group were estimated to provide 90% power to show that the tapentadol ER group was statistically different from placebo at an alpha level of 0.05. The total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to a treatment group for the study was 942.||-0.33|-1.04|<0.05
91820410|NCT02741115|183518269|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.684||0.533|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors of ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (age 8-12, child reported).||||||0.533
91820411|NCT02741115|183518270|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.057||0.654|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (age 8-12, parent reported).||||||0.654
91820412|NCT02741115|183518271|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069||0.963|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (ages 13-18, child reported)||||||0.963
91820413|NCT02741115|183518272|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment group were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171||0.246|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors of ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (ages 13-18, parent reported).||||||0.246
91820414|NCT06425458|183518277|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= 0.05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Self-Esteem (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.0011
91820415|NCT06425458|183518277|OTHER|||||||0.0719||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= .05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Purpose in Life (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.0719
91820416|NCT06425458|183518277|OTHER|||||||0.7991||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= .05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Locus of Control (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.7991
91820417|NCT06425458|183518277|OTHER|||||||0.2208||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= .05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Self-Efficacy (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.2208
91820418|NCT06425458|183518277|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Self-Esteem). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
91820419|NCT06425458|183518277|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Purpose in Life). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
91820420|NCT06425458|183518277|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Locus of Control). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
91820421|NCT06425458|183518277|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Self-Efficacy). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
91820422|NCT03750903|183518302|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91820423|NCT03548584|183518310|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.32||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.87||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||-1.87|-8.77|0.0026
91820424|NCT03548584|183518311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||-0.07|-0.47|0.0078
91820425|NCT03548584|183518312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-0.63||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Aggressive Behavior||-0.63|-3.28|0.0040
91950010|NCT00444028|183796780|OTHER|"The units on such analyses are generally those of slope (rise over run), with 1.000 being perfect. Although any positive slope might be considered clinically useful, a 90% CI within the criteria of 0.800-1.250 may be considered a delivery system which is as good as it gets."|Slope|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.832|0.987||||||Dose proportionality by power analysis examines the linear regression of the log-AUC versus log-Dose on a by-patient basis across all doses administered. The slope and 90% confidence interval (CI) provide a clear, quantitative (best practices) assessment of the relationship of drug delivered to dose administered.||0.987|0.832|
91820426|NCT03548584|183518312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.14||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Physically Nonaggressive Behavior||-0.14|-2.68|0.0296
91820427|NCT03548584|183518312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.28||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Verbally Agitated Behavior||-0.28|-2.21|0.0113
91820428|NCT03548584|183518312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.18||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Hiding and Hoarding||0.18|-0.90|0.1941
91820429|NCT03548584|183518313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85||||0.4242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.93||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||2.93|-1.24|0.4242
91820430|NCT03548584|183518313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14||||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|1.34||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||1.34|-3.63|0.3665
91820431|NCT03548584|183518313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.32||||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|0.5||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6||0.50|-5.15|0.1065
91820432|NCT03548584|183518313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.08||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-2.05||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||-2.05|-8.12|0.0011
91820433|NCT03548584|183518313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|-3.4||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 10||-3.40|-9.54|<.0001
91820434|NCT03548584|183518313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.32||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.87||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||-1.87|-8.77|0.0026
91820435|NCT03548584|183518314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.16|-0.05|0.3048
91820436|NCT03548584|183518314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.12||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||0.12|-0.17|0.7058
91820437|NCT03548584|183518314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.4516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.1||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6||0.10|-0.23|0.4516
91820438|NCT03548584|183518314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.08||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||-0.08|-0.46|0.0052
91820439|NCT03548584|183518314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.08||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 10||-0.08|-0.47|0.0060
91820440|NCT03548584|183518314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.07|-0.47|0.0078
91820441|NCT03548584|183518315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||0.26|-0.05|0.1975
91820442|NCT03548584|183518315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||-0.06|-0.44|0.0084
91820443|NCT03548584|183518315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||-0.06|-0.46|0.0101
91820444|NCT03548584|183518315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||-0.15|-0.59|0.0008
91820445|NCT03548584|183518315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||-0.12|-0.55|0.0023
91820446|NCT03548584|183518315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||-0.09|-0.57|0.0070
91820447|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.1||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/= 20%: Week 2||1.91|0.64|0.7290
91820448|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.09||||0.6196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 4||1.52|0.78|0.6196
91820449|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.16||||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 6||1.53|0.88|0.2718
91820450|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.52||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 8||1.93|1.19|0.0004
91820451|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.42||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 10||1.76|1.15|0.0006
91820452|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.41||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 12||1.72|1.15|0.0004
91820453|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.22||||0.7211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 2||3.85|0.39|0.7211
91820454|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.11||||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 4||2.14|0.57|0.7606
91820455|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.12||||0.5902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 6||1.68|0.74|0.5902
91820456|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.7||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 8||2.54|1.14|0.0054
91820457|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.59||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 10||2.26|1.11|0.0066
91820458|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.62||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 12||2.23|1.18|0.0017
91820459|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.11||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 2||5.97|0.20|0.9074
91820460|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|0.98||||0.9625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 4||2.64|0.36|0.9625
91950011|NCT03947333|183796823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.221
91950012|NCT03947333|183796823|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.846||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model||3.68|-1.99|0.559
91950013|NCT03947333|183796824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.532
91950014|NCT03947333|183796825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.086
91950015|NCT03947333|183796825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.562|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.562
91950016|NCT03947333|183796825|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.348||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|1.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||1.254|-0.557|0.451
91950017|NCT03947333|183796826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.270
91950018|NCT03947333|183796826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.299
91950019|NCT03947333|183796826|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.1||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.786|1.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model||1.986|-1.786|0.917
91950020|NCT03947333|183796827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.093
91950021|NCT03947333|183796827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.034
91950022|NCT03947333|183796827|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.242||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.533|-0.049|0.103
91950023|NCT03947333|183796828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.116
91950024|NCT03947333|183796828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.009
91950025|NCT03947333|183796828|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.183||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.451|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.451|-0.084|0.178
91950026|NCT03947333|183796829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.188
91950027|NCT03947333|183796829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.749|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.749
91950028|NCT03947333|183796829|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.031||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.351|-0.288|0.847
91950029|NCT03947333|183796830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.182
91950030|NCT03947333|183796830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.158
91950031|NCT03947333|183796830|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.107||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.519|-0.305|0.612
91950032|NCT03947333|183796831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.970
91950033|NCT03947333|183796831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.786|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.786
91950034|NCT03947333|183796831|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|-0.088||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.493|0.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.317|-0.493|0.670
91820461|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.26||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 6||2.53|0.63|0.5120
91820462|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.98||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 8||3.79|1.03|0.0244
91820463|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.86||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 10||3.18|1.08|0.0161
91950035|NCT03947333|183796832|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.478|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.478
91950036|NCT03947333|183796832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.666
91950037|NCT03947333|183796832|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|-0.15||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.413|-0.713|0.601
91820464|NCT03548584|183518316|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.62||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 12||2.61|1.00|0.0347
91820465|NCT03548584|183518317|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|0.64||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||1.16|0.35|0.1503
91950038|NCT03947333|183796833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.654
91950039|NCT03947333|183796834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.485
91950040|NCT03947333|183796835|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||McNemar|||||||0.480
91950041|NCT03947333|183796835|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||McNemar|||||||0.023
91950042|NCT03947333|183796836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.542
91950043|NCT02898662|183796842|OTHER|The null hypothesis was that during the 52-week double-blind treatment period, the time to LOAC in the AZD1419 arm was equal to the corresponding time to LOAC in the placebo arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.87||1-sided p-value|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD1419 over placebo.|Comparison between groups for time to LOAC. Cox regression model analysis with age and gender included as covariates.||1.87|0.59|0.5722
91950044|NCT02898662|183796843|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.79||2-sided p-value|Generalized estimating equation analysis|||Comparison between groups for participants experiencing LOAC. Odds ratio was estimated using a generalized linear model based on a generalized estimating equation approach fitting treatment, visit and age and gender as covariates.||4.79|0.72|0.2006
91950045|NCT02898662|183796844|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.17||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for ACQ-5 score. Repeated measures analysis.||0.17|-0.22|0.8166
91950046|NCT02898662|183796845|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.26||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for asthma daily diary score. Repeated measures analysis.||0.26|-0.32|0.8412
91950047|NCT02898662|183796846|OTHER|The null hypothesis was that the time to moderate or severe exacerbation was not different between AZD1419 and placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.67||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD1419 over placebo.|Comparison between groups for time to moderate or severe asthma exacerbation. Cox regression model analysis with age and gender included as covariates.||1.67|0.38|0.5477
91950048|NCT02898662|183796846|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.86||2-sided p-value|Generalized estimating equation analysis|||Comparison between groups for participants with moderate or severe asthma exacerbation. Odds ratio was estimated using a generalized linear model based on a generalized estimating equation approach fitting treatment and visit as covariates.||1.86|0.41|0.7294
91950049|NCT02898662|183796848|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.2||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for pre-BD FEV1. Repeated measures analysis.||0.20|-0.08|0.3764
91950050|NCT02898662|183796848|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for post-BD FEV1. Repeated measures analysis.||0.11|-0.17|0.7013
91950051|NCT02898662|183796849|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|15.9||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for PEF. Repeated measures analysis.||15.90|-16.54|0.9686
91950052|NCT02898662|183796850|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.02||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|4.52||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for FeNO. Repeated measures analysis.||4.52|-8.55|0.5403
91950053|NCT00399542|183796851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||||||No adjustment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||70.6% improvement in response with lubiprostone at 90% statistical power||||0.023
91950054|NCT00399542|183796852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.391|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.391
91950055|NCT00399542|183796853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.151|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.151
91950056|NCT00399542|183796854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.163|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.163
91950057|NCT00399542|183796855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.185|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.185
91950058|NCT00399542|183796856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.300
91950059|NCT00399542|183796857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.303||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.303
91950060|NCT00399542|183796858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.047
91950061|NCT00399542|183796859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.008
91950062|NCT00399542|183796860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.663|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.663
91950063|NCT00399542|183796861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.224|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.224
91950064|NCT00399542|183796862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.271|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.271
91950065|NCT00399542|183796863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.945|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.945
91950066|NCT00399542|183796864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.352|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.352
91950067|NCT00399542|183796865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.180
91820466|NCT03548584|183518317|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.07||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||1.67|0.69|0.7559
91950068|NCT00399542|183796866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.275|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.275
91950069|NCT00399542|183796867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.722|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.722
91950070|NCT00399542|183796868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.177
91950071|NCT00399542|183796869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.082|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.082
91950072|NCT00399542|183796870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.110
91950073|NCT00399542|183796871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.146|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.146
91950074|NCT00399542|183796872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.373|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.373
91950075|NCT00399542|183796873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.339
91950076|NCT00399542|183796874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.023
91950077|NCT00399542|183796875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.073
91950078|NCT00399542|183796876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for center||||||0.062
91950079|NCT00399542|183796877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.060
91950080|NCT00399542|183796878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.290
91950081|NCT00399542|183796879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.495|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.495
91950082|NCT04680273|183796912|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.573|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-72) geometric mean ratio was 10.4%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-72) of GDC-9545 in plasma samples compared with the AUC(0-72) of total radioactivity in plasma samples.||||
91950083|NCT04680273|183796912|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.752|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.036|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-72) geometric mean ratio was 3.5%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-72) of total radioactivity (TR) in whole blood samples compared with the AUC(0-72) of TR in plasma samples.||||
91950084|NCT04680273|183796913|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.134|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-t) geometric mean ratio was 12.7%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-t) of GDC-9545 in plasma samples compared with the AUC(0-t) of total radioactivity in plasma samples.||||
91950085|NCT04680273|183796913|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.171|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-t) geometric mean ratio was 15.9%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-t) of total radioactivity (TR) in whole blood samples compared with the AUC(0-t) of TR in plasma samples.||||
91950086|NCT01430559|183796943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.43||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA, repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-1.20|<0.0001
91950087|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.09||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 2)||-0.09|-0.65|0.0103
91950088|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.04||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 4)||-0.04|-0.67|0.0295
91950089|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 8)||-0.17|-0.87|0.0041
91950090|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.43||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 12)||-0.43|-1.20|<0.0001
91950091|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 2)||-0.02|-0.64|0.0369
91950092|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.15||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 4)||0.15|-0.54|0.2642
91950093|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.1||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 8)||-0.10|-0.84|0.0140
91950094|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.28||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 12)||-0.28|-1.06|0.0009
91950095|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.17||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 2)||-0.17|-0.72|0.0017
91950096|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.03||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 4)||-0.03|-0.66|0.0328
91950097|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.16||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 8)||-0.16|-0.86|0.0043
91950098|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.43||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 12)||-0.43|-1.19|<0.0001
91950099|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.12||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 2)||-0.12|-0.65|0.0051
91950100|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.01||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 4)||0.01|-0.61|0.0593
91950101|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 8)||-0.16|-0.84|0.0046
91950102|NCT01430559|183796944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.39||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 12)||-0.39|-1.14|<0.0001
91950103|NCT01430559|183796945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.3||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 2)||-0.30|-0.94|0.0002
91950104|NCT01430559|183796945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 4)||-0.22|-0.92|0.0015
91950105|NCT01430559|183796945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.32||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 8)||-0.32|-1.08|0.0003
91950106|NCT01430559|183796945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.51||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 12)||-0.51|-1.34|<0.0001
91950107|NCT01430559|183796945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 2)||-0.02|-0.67|0.0363
91950108|NCT01430559|183796945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 4)||-0.04|-0.75|0.0311
91950109|NCT01430559|183796945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.16||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 8)||-0.16|-0.94|0.0057
91950110|NCT01430559|183796945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.64||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 12)||-0.64|-1.52|<0.0001
91950111|NCT01430559|183796947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.55||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 2)||2.55|0.79|0.2373
91950112|NCT01430559|183796947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.26||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 4)||2.26|0.84|0.2069
91950113|NCT01430559|183796947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.53||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 8)||2.53|0.97|0.0680
91950114|NCT01430559|183796947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.94||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 12)||3.94|1.47|0.0005
91950115|NCT01430559|183796947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.1736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.01||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 2)||5.01|0.75|0.1736
91950116|NCT01430559|183796947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.59||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 4)||3.59|0.82|0.1496
91950117|NCT01430559|183796947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.93||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 8)||3.93|1.14|0.0171
91950118|NCT01430559|183796947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|4.89||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 12)||4.89|1.57|0.0004
91950119|NCT01430559|183796948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.07||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.07|-0.31|0.0027
91950120|NCT01430559|183796948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.01||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.01|-0.30|0.0308
91950121|NCT01430559|183796948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.05|-0.31|0.0060
91950122|NCT01430559|183796948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.05||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.05|-0.34|0.0076
91950123|NCT01430559|183796949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|8.5||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.50|0.53|0.2843
91950124|NCT01430559|183796949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.87||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.87|0.86|0.1050
91950125|NCT01430559|183796949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.32||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.32|0.40|0.7861
91950126|NCT01430559|183796949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.78||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.78|0.77|0.1873
91950127|NCT01430559|183796950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.42||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||General health||4.42|-1.67|0.3738
91820467|NCT03548584|183518317|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.23||||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.72|0.88|0.2246
91950128|NCT01430559|183796950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|9.8||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical functioning||9.80|2.07|0.0028
91950129|NCT01430559|183796950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|12.38||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Role physical||12.38|3.95|0.0002
91950130|NCT01430559|183796950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|10.63||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Bodily pain||10.63|4.10|<0.0001
91950131|NCT01430559|183796950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|5.27||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Vitality||5.27|-1.18|0.2124
91820468|NCT03548584|183518317|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.38||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||1.87|1.02|0.0276
91820469|NCT03548584|183518317|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.46||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||1.89|1.12|0.0031
91820470|NCT03548584|183518317|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.47||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||1.89|1.14|0.0017
91820471|NCT03548584|183518318|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.1||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||3.03|0.40|0.8549
91820472|NCT03548584|183518318|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.95||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||3.32|1.14|0.0093
91820473|NCT03548584|183518318|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.56||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||2.22|1.10|0.0083
91820474|NCT03548584|183518318|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||2.58|1.32|<.0001
91820475|NCT03548584|183518318|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.57||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||2.09|1.18|0.0005
91820476|NCT03548584|183518318|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.32||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||1.69|1.03|0.0160
91820477|NCT02215070|183518331|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
91820478|NCT02215070|183518333|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.006
91820479|NCT02215070|183518334|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
91820480|NCT02449356|183518337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91820481|NCT02449356|183518338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91820482|NCT02096835|183518349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.021
91820483|NCT02096835|183518350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.021
91820484|NCT02096835|183518351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.503
91820485|NCT02096835|183518352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.571
91820486|NCT04368429|183518354|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in percentage was greater than (\>) -10% for the serogroup A.|Difference in percentage|20.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.38|28.75|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup A||28.75|11.38|
91820487|NCT04368429|183518354|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage was \>-10% for the serogroup C.|Difference in percentage|33.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|41.5|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup C||41.50|26.20|
91820488|NCT04368429|183518354|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage was \>-10% for the serogroup Y.|Difference in percentage|34.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.66|41.64|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup Y||41.64|26.66|
91820489|NCT04368429|183518354|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage was \>-10% for the serogroup W.|Difference in percentage|38.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.93|46.53|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup W||46.53|28.93|
91820490|NCT03633396|183518379|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.77|||Mixed-model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM including fixed effects of treatment, history of plaque psoriasis, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline PPPASI score as covariate.|Least-squares mean difference = Imsidolimab - Placebo|The change from Baseline in PPPASI at Week 16 was analyzed using a a general linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included fixed effects for treatment, history of plaque psoriasis (Yes/No), visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline PPPASI score as covariate.||3.77|-4.05|0.944
91820491|NCT03633396|183518381|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.879|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|2.686|||||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment as fixed effect, history of plaque psoriasis and Baseline PPPASI score as covariates and using multiple imputation for missing data.|||2.686|0.288|
91820492|NCT03633396|183518382|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.9|||||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment as fixed effect, history of plaque psoriasis and Baseline PPPIGA score as covariates and using multiple imputation for missing data.|||13.9|0.5|
91820493|NCT00023673|183518386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Lung toxicity (\<Grade 3 vs. \>= Grade 3): Lung V20||||0.62
91820494|NCT00023673|183518386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Esophagitis toxicity (\<Grade 2 vs. \>= Grade 2): Lung V20||||0.22
91820495|NCT00023673|183518387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Lung toxicity (\<Grade 3 vs. \>= Grade 3): Mean Lung Dose||||0.30
91820496|NCT00023673|183518387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Esophagitis toxicity (\<Grade 2 vs. \>= Grade 2): Mean Lung Dose||||0.17
91820497|NCT00023673|183518387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Esophagitis toxicity (\<Grade 2 vs. \>= Grade 2): Mean Esophageal Dose||||0.08
91820498|NCT00667342|183518413|OTHER|The association between response and Ktrans at Week 10 was evaluated.||||||0.0863|||||||Logistic Regression|||||||0.0863
91820499|NCT00667342|183518414|OTHER|The association between response and Vp at Week 10 was evaluated.||||||0.0573|||||||Logistic Regression|||||||0.0573
91820500|NCT00667342|183518415|OTHER|The association between response and Ve at Week 10 was evaluated.||||||0.0863|||||||Logistic Regression|||||||0.0863
91820501|NCT00293384|183518435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.57||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||85% statistical power|Simon optimal design|||Optimal Simon design for phase II study. p0=45% p1=65%.||||0.10
91820502|NCT00293384|183518436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.63||||||||||||||||||
91820503|NCT00293384|183518438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91820504|NCT00326612|183518470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0||||||||||||
91820505|NCT00326612|183518471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0|0.2|3.9||||||||3.9|0.2|
91820506|NCT00326612|183518472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.4|2.7||||||||2.7|0.4|
91820507|NCT00326612|183518473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.2|8.2||||||||8.2|0.2|
91820508|NCT00326612|183518474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0|0.0|67.3||||||||67.3|0.0|
91820509|NCT00326612|183518475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||||95.0|0.2|140.7||||||||140.7|0.2|
91820510|NCT01454934|183518489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.41||P-value was calculated from a 2-sided long-rank test stratified by histology, TPC option, and geographic region.|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, TPC option and geographic region as strata.|OS was compared between eribulin and TPC testing the following null hypothesis: H0: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is equal to OS in Arm B (TPC) against the alternative: H1: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is not equal to OS in Arm B (TPC).||1.41|0.95|0.1343
91950132|NCT01430559|183796950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|10.1||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Social functioning||10.10|1.82|0.0050
91950133|NCT01430559|183796950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.28||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Role emotional||10.28|1.46|0.0093
91950134|NCT01430559|183796950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|3.81||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Mental health||3.81|-2.66|0.7274
91950135|NCT01430559|183796950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.67||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Mental component aggregate||2.67|-0.78|0.2819
91950136|NCT01430559|183796950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.86||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical component aggregate||3.86|1.27|0.0001
91950137|NCT01430559|183796951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.66||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Mobility||4.66|1.45|0.0014
91950138|NCT01430559|183796951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.48||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Self-care||2.48|0.91|0.1080
91950139|NCT01430559|183796951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.62||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Usual activities||3.62|1.17|0.0119
91950140|NCT01430559|183796951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.83||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Pain/discomfort||2.83|0.93|0.0887
91950141|NCT01430559|183796951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.33||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Anxiety/depression||2.33|0.80|0.2466
91950142|NCT01430559|183796952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.02|-0.58|0.0367
91950143|NCT01430559|183796952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.02|-0.65|0.0652
91820511|NCT01454934|183518490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||P-value was calculated from a 2-sided long-rank test stratified by histology, TPC option, and geographic region.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, TPC option, and geographic region as strata.|OS was compared between eribulin and TPC testing the following null hypothesis: H0: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is equal to OS in Arm B (TPC) against the alternative: H1: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is not equal to OS in Arm B (TPC).||1.32|0.90|0.3946
91820512|NCT01454934|183518491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3034||||||The P-value was stratified by histology, TPC option, and geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OS was compared between eribulin and TPC testing the following null hypothesis: H0: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is equal to OS in Arm B (TPC) against the alternative: H1: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is not equal to OS in Arm B (TPC).||||0.3034
91950144|NCT01430559|183796952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.07||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.07|-0.81|0.0200
91950145|NCT01430559|183796952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.24||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.24|-1.02|0.0016
91950146|NCT00174460|183796963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.21|||ANCOVA|Results from analysis of covariance method (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline height SDS and target height SDS; Last observation carried forward (LOCF).||Treatment difference||1.210|0.773|<0.001
91950147|NCT00174460|183796964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.605|5.225|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||5.225|3.605|<0.001
91820513|NCT01018264|183518510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.2||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value|This represents the effect size between solifenacin and placebo.|||||0.53
91820514|NCT01018264|183518511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.53||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
91820515|NCT01018264|183518512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.35||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.22
91820516|NCT01018264|183518513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.27||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
91820517|NCT01018264|183518514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.11||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
91950148|NCT00174460|183796964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5327||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.977|0.208|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.208|-1.977|0.108
91950149|NCT00174460|183796965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7089||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.524|0.376|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference||0.376|-2.524|0.141
91950150|NCT00174460|183796966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3661|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.789|5.291|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline height, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||5.291|3.789|<0.001
91950151|NCT00174460|183796966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9822|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.049|6.08|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline height, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||6.080|2.049|<0.001
91950152|NCT00174460|183796967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1606|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.047|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline height SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.047|0.390|<0.001
91950153|NCT00174460|183796968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-1.68|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, age, and sex; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||-1.68|-3.73|<0.001
91950154|NCT00174460|183796968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.758||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.09|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, age, and sex; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.09|-2.04|0.537
91950155|NCT00174460|183796969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.46|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||0.46|-1.21|0.364
91950156|NCT00174460|183796969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.48|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.48|-0.94|0.506
91950157|NCT00174460|183796970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.188||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.54|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||2.54|-2.42|0.959
91950158|NCT00174460|183796970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.32|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||2.32|-2.11|0.919
91820518|NCT00792610|183518515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.05||95.0|0.05|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Chi-square analysis and Fischer's exact test were used for comparing group proportions between seropositive and seronegative participants. GMT and their 95% confidence intervals were also calculated using the software developed by Kirkman, T.W. (18) An ANOVA test was performed to compare the difference of the three groups at one, six and seven months categorized by the anti-HBs titers at 7-10 days after the booster.||.15|.05|<0.05
91820519|NCT03746522|183518516|OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||P-value was one-sided and compared with alpha = 0.025.|Rubin's Rule|||||||0.0006
91820520|NCT03746522|183518517|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||p-value was one-sided and compared with alpha = 0.025|Rubin's Rule|||||||0.0005
91820521|NCT03746522|183518518|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was one-sided and compared with alpha=0.025.|Rubin's Rule|||||||<0.0001
91820522|NCT03746522|183518519|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was one-sided and compared with alpha = 0.025.|Rubin's Rule|||||||<0.0001
91820523|NCT05422053|183518536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Control-IQ Use (13 Weeks) compared to Control-IQ Start||||<0.001
91820524|NCT02659020|183518566|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.945||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.397||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.397|0.639|0.775
91820525|NCT02659020|183518576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.667||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.158||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.158|0.385|0.148
91820526|NCT02659020|183518577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.007||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.007|0.476|0.055
91820527|NCT02659020|183518577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.398||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank|||||1.398|0.490|0.482
91820528|NCT02659020|183518578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.589||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|3.179||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||3.179|0.794|0.1891
91820529|NCT02659020|183518578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.668||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|7.71||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||7.710|0.923|0.0642
91820530|NCT02659020|183518579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.106||||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|2.194||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||2.194|0.558|0.7724
91820531|NCT02659020|183518579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222||||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|2.911||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||2.911|0.513|0.6508
91820532|NCT02659020|183518580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.661||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|1.041||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.041|0.419|0.073
91820533|NCT02659020|183518580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.703||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.253||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.253|0.395|0.225
91820534|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.764||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Fatigue||1.764|0.834|0.332
91820535|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.287||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Nausea and vomiting||1.287|0.514|0.389
91820536|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.598||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.926||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Pain||0.926|0.386|0.020
91820537|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.442||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Dyspnoea||1.442|0.622|0.821
91820538|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.931||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.509||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Insomnia||1.509|0.574|0.812
91820539|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|2.055||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Appetite loss||2.055|0.893|0.162
91820540|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.413||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Constipation||1.413|0.550|0.619
91820541|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.724||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Diarrhoea||1.724|0.746|0.597
91820542|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|1.381||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Financial difficulties||1.381|0.425|0.380
91820543|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.723||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Fatigue||1.723|0.635|0.877
91820544|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.102||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|2.139||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Nausea and vomiting||2.139|0.568|0.791
91820545|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.443||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Pain||1.443|0.454|0.487
91820546|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.85||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Dyspnoea||1.850|0.556|0.976
91820547|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.694||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|3.25||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Insomnia||3.250|0.882|0.111
91820548|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.108||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.979||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Appetite loss||1.979|0.620|0.760
91820549|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.119||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|2.135||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Constipation||2.135|0.586|0.747
91820550|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|2.576||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Diarrhoea||2.576|0.726|0.330
91820551|NCT02659020|183518581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.373||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|2.965||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Financial difficulties||2.965|0.636|0.411
91820552|NCT00393939|183518656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9222||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7156|1.1885||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Log Rank|||Independent radiology assessment||1.1885|0.7156|0.2651
91820553|NCT00393939|183518656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6921|1.0589||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Log Rank|||Investigator's assessment||1.0589|0.6921|0.0753
91820554|NCT00393939|183518657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.33||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Independent radiology assessment||2.33|1.17|0.0018
91820555|NCT00393939|183518657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.02||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Investigator's assessment||2.02|1.03|0.0172
91820556|NCT00393939|183518659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1539||||0.8933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9209|1.4458||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Log Rank|||||1.4458|0.9209|0.8933
91950159|NCT00174460|183796971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8161||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.158|1.374|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline volumetric cortical bone mineral density SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.374|-3.158|0.336
91950160|NCT00174460|183796971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6027||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.956|2.391|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline volumetric cortical bone mineral density SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||2.391|-0.956|0.300
91950161|NCT00174460|183796972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.266|6.963|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference||6.963|4.266|<0.001
91950162|NCT00174460|183796973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9666||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.558|2.595|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline cortical cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||2.595|-3.558|0.653
91950163|NCT00174460|183796973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8991||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.701|1.292|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline cortical cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.292|-3.701|0.251
91950164|NCT00174460|183796974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1499||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.524|3.795|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline total cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||3.795|-3.524|0.914
91950165|NCT00174460|183796974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4432||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.939|1.522|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline total cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.522|-0.939|0.547
91950166|NCT00174460|183796975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4542||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.049|3.572|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline muscle cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||3.572|1.049|0.007
91950167|NCT00174460|183796975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6536||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|3.44|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline muscle cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||3.440|-0.189|0.068
91950168|NCT00174460|183796978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5061||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.846|1.965|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline strength-strain index SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.965|-0.846|0.331
91950169|NCT00174460|183796978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4703||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.192|1.42|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline strength-strain index SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.420|-1.192|0.820
91950170|NCT00174460|183796979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.05|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline hand grip strength SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.05|-0.88|0.844
91950171|NCT00174460|183796979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.96|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline hand grip strength SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.96|-0.52|0.519
91950172|NCT00174460|183796982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.219|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measures mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height SDS, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.219|0.778|<0.001
91950173|NCT00174460|183796982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1519|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|0.994|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measures mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height SDS, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.994|0.382|<0.001
91950174|NCT00174460|183796984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3859|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.806|5.363|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measure mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height, sex, age, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 12||5.363|3.806|<0.001
91950175|NCT00174460|183796984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.134|4.992|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measure mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height, sex, age, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 24||4.992|2.134|<0.001
91950176|NCT04652245|183796991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.028
91950177|NCT04652245|183796992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
91950178|NCT01288911|183797010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|PFS based on ICR Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide. The (unstratified) log-rank test with an overall significance level of 0.05 (two-sided) was used to compare the PFS of enzalutamide to bicalutamide. The (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio of enzalutamide to bicalutamide, calculate the corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals and test the hypothesis that the hazard ratio is equal to 1.||0.57|0.34|<0.0001
91950179|NCT01288911|183797011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.55|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|PFS on based investigator assessment Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||0.55|0.33|<0.0001
91950180|NCT01288911|183797012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||PSA Response Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||||<0.0001
91950181|NCT01288911|183797013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Best PSA Response Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||||<0.0001
91950182|NCT01288911|183797014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.39|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to PSA progression Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||0.39|0.20|<0.0001
91950183|NCT01288911|183797015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|8.09|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to PSA Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||8.09|3.18|<0.0001
91950184|NCT01288911|183797016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|7.79|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to ≥ 30% PSA decline from baseline Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||7.79|3.96|<0.0001
91950185|NCT01288911|183797017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|10.16|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to ≥ 50% PSA decline from baseline Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||10.16|4.83|<0.0001
91950186|NCT01288911|183797018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|13.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.23|26.79|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to ≥ 90% PSA decline from baseline Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||26.79|7.23|<0.0001
91950187|NCT01288911|183797019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.74|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Radiographic PFS based on ICR Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||0.74|0.36|0.0002
91950188|NCT02543918|183797022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the ixekizumab arm to the control arm for the tetanus vaccine was established if the lower limit of the 90% CI excludes an absolute difference of 40% or more.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.6|19.2||||||Tetanus vaccine responders||19.2|-16.6|
91950189|NCT02543918|183797022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the ixekizumab arm to the control arm for the pneumococcal vaccine was established if the lower limit of the 90% CI excludes an absolute difference of 40% or more.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|11.0||||||Pneumococcal vaccine responders||11.0|-12.9|
91950190|NCT03503617|183797023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91950191|NCT02452892|183797029|SUPERIORITY|To control for multiple comparisons in the primary endpoint analysis, a hierarchical approach was taken. First LFMS 60min. was compared to LFMS sham. If p\<0.05 for this comparison, then LFMS 20min. was formally compared to LFMS sham for statistical significance.||||||0.307||||||"P-value displayed for 60min.~Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model."|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment,visit treatment\*visit age, \& gender included in model. Visit was the repeated measure within subjects.||Comparisons of 60 min LFMS vs. sham, LSMean diff with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) reported. Hypothesis 1: no difference between 60 min. LFMS and sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to end of Tx Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score. If hypothesis is rejected at significance level of 0.05, then second hypothesis will be tested. Hypothesis 2:no difference between 20 min. LFMS \& sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to the end of Tx. Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score.||||0.307
91950192|NCT02452892|183797029|SUPERIORITY|To control for multiple comparisons in the primary endpoint analysis, a hierarchical approach was taken. First LFMS 60min. was compared to LFMS sham. If p\<0.05 for this comparison, then LFMS 20min. was formally compared to LFMS sham for statistical significance.||||||0.859||||||P-value displayed for 20min. Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment,visit treatment\*visit age, \& gender included in model. Visit was the repeated measure within subjects.||Comparisons of 20 min LFMS vs. sham, LSMean diff with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) reported. Hypothesis 1: no difference between 60 min. LFMS and sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to end of Tx Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score. If hypothesis is rejected at significance level of 0.05, then second hypothesis will be tested. Hypothesis 2:no difference between 20 min. LFMS \& sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to the end of Tx. Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score.||||0.859
91950193|NCT02452892|183797030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-value was estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age, \& gender included in model. Visit was the repeated measure within subject.||||||0.966
91820557|NCT01494610|183518663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.366|1.665|||||Data reflect Asthma + COPD participants. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is a comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.665|1.366|
91950194|NCT02452892|183797031|SUPERIORITY|The persistence rate calculated based on Week 1 treatment group: 20 minutes LFMS, 60 minutes LFMS and sham therapy.||||||0.294||||||For 60 min LFMS, P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-value estimated using LR model including Wk2 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment, age \& gender as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|Non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing data, where missing post-baseline results were considered non-response||||||0.294
91950195|NCT02452892|183797031|SUPERIORITY|The persistence rate calculated based on Week 1 treatment group: 20 minutes LFMS, 60 minutes LFMS and sham therapy.||||||0.232||||||For 20min. LFMS, P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-value estimated using Logistic Regression model including Wk2 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment, age \& gender as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|Non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing data, where missing post-baseline results were considered non-response||||||0.232
91950196|NCT02452892|183797032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0932||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value was estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||Estimates for LS Means, confidence intervals, difference in LS means and p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, sex as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||||0.0932
91950197|NCT02452892|183797032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value was estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||Estimates for LS Means, confidence intervals, difference in LS means and p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, sex as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||||0.7509
91950198|NCT02452892|183797033|SUPERIORITY|Positive score is the sum of 10 items: 1,3,5,9,10,12,14,16,17,19.||||||0.2672||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment,age,\& gender as factors \& baseline positive PANAS score as a covariate.||||||0.2672
91950199|NCT02452892|183797033|SUPERIORITY|Positive score is the sum of 10 items: 1,3,5,9,10,12,14,16,17,19.||||||0.166||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment,age,\& gender as factors \& baseline positive PANAS score as a covariate.||||||0.1660
91950200|NCT02452892|183797034|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.0307||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were considered as random missing data.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~* All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~* The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~* The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.0307
91950201|NCT02452892|183797034|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.3537||||||"P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were considered as random missing data.~."|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.3537
91950202|NCT02452892|183797035|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.0848||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where incorrect Item #2 data was removed.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.0848
91950203|NCT02452892|183797035|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.593||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where Incorrect Item #2 data was removed.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.5930
91950204|NCT02452892|183797036|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.0307||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where incorrect Item #2 data was imputed using worst possible value.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.0307
91950205|NCT02452892|183797036|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.3907||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where incorrect Item #2 data was imputed using worst possible value.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.3907
91950206|NCT05489146|183797039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.046
91950207|NCT05489146|183797040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91820558|NCT01494610|183518663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.369|1.864|||||Data reflect participants with asthma only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is a comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.864|1.369|
91820559|NCT01494610|183518663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.421|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.274|1.584|||||Data reflect participants with COPD only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.584|1.274|
91950208|NCT05489146|183797041|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91950209|NCT05489146|183797042|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91950210|NCT05489146|183797043|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91950211|NCT05489146|183797044|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91950212|NCT05489146|183797045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91820560|NCT01494610|183518664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|0.971|||||Data reflect Asthma + COPD participants. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||0.971|0.886|
91820561|NCT01494610|183518664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|0.939|||||Data reflect participants with asthma only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||0.939|0.848|
91820562|NCT01494610|183518664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.049|||||Data reflect participants with COPD only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.049|0.889|
91820563|NCT02346240|183518716|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|61.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|71.2|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||71.2|52.1|
91820564|NCT02346240|183518716|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|56.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|66.0|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||66.0|46.4|
91820565|NCT02346240|183518716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.988|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.312|127.576||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||127.576|11.312|<0.0001
91820566|NCT02346240|183518716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.971|100.481||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||100.481|8.971|<0.0001
91820567|NCT02346240|183518716|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|24.1|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Etanercept Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||24.1|2.7|
91820568|NCT02346240|183518716|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|18.9|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Etanercept Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||18.9|-2.9|
91820569|NCT02346240|183518716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.756|||=|0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.114|2.768||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. ETN.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||2.768|1.114|=0.0152
91820570|NCT02346240|183518716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.388|||=|0.1523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|2.175||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. ETN|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||2.175|0.886|=0.1523
91950213|NCT05489146|183797046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
91950214|NCT02347124|183797059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.78||Adjusted for baseline sex, age, cigarettes per day, depression history, motivation, self-efficacy, current use of a stop-smoking medication, state quitline, and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.93|0.13
91950215|NCT02347124|183797060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.53||Adjusted for baseline sex, age, depression history, motivation, self-efficacy, state quitline, and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.69|0.90
91820571|NCT02346240|183518717|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|48.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.33|57.63|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||57.63|39.33|
91820572|NCT02346240|183518717|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.88|46.96|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||46.96|28.88|
91820573|NCT02346240|183518717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.129|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.787|404.555||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||404.555|7.787|<0.0001
91820574|NCT02346240|183518717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.566|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.061|264.196||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||264.196|5.061|=0.0004
91820575|NCT02346240|183518718|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|33.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.68|46.98|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||46.98|20.68|
91820576|NCT02346240|183518718|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.18|43.8|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||43.80|18.18|
91820577|NCT02346240|183518718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.949|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.407|189.828||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||189.828|8.407|<0.0001
91820578|NCT02346240|183518718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.084|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.363|167.179||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||167.179|7.363|<0.0001
91820579|NCT02346240|183518719|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|70.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.15|79.59|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||79.59|62.15|
91820580|NCT02346240|183518719|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|64.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.12|73.63|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||73.63|55.12|
91820581|NCT02346240|183518719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|76.277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.952|324.094||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||324.094|17.952|<0.0001
91820582|NCT02346240|183518719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.135|233.782||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||233.782|13.135|<0.0001
91950216|NCT02347124|183797061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.69||Model is adjusted for sex, age, cigarettes per day at baseline, depression, self-efficacy, motivation, self-reported use of a stop smoking medication at baseline, and stratification variables state quit line and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.69|0.89|0.21
91820583|NCT02346240|183518720|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.59|64.35|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||64.35|45.59|
91820584|NCT02346240|183518720|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.39|54.49|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||54.49|35.39|
91820585|NCT02346240|183518720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.717|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.741|170.198||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||170.198|9.741|<0.0001
91820586|NCT02346240|183518720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.504|113.453||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||113.453|6.504|<0.0001
91820587|NCT02346240|183518721|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.22|63.41|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||63.41|34.22|
91820588|NCT02346240|183518721|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|39.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.58|53.38|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||53.38|25.58|
91820589|NCT02346240|183518721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.65|356.602||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||356.602|14.650|<0.0001
91820590|NCT02346240|183518721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.527|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.002|245.256||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||245.256|10.002|<0.0001
91820591|NCT02942017|183518724|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-0.48|||MMRM|||Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.48|-4.52|0.0160
91820592|NCT02942017|183518725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.271||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|3.07|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.07|-1.98|0.6710
91820593|NCT02942017|183518726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.87|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.87|-2.06|0.4216
91820594|NCT02942017|183518726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.905||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|1.02|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.02|-2.57|0.3947
91820595|NCT02942017|183518726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.962||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.96|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.96|-2.86|0.3280
91820596|NCT02942017|183518726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.994||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.83|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.83|-3.12|0.2522
91820597|NCT02942017|183518726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.55|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.55|-3.78|0.1431
91820598|NCT02942017|183518726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.113||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|0.36|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-4.06|0.0991
91820599|NCT02942017|183518726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-0.13|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.13|-4.71|0.0389
91820600|NCT02942017|183518726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|-1.28|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.28|-5.67|0.0022
91820601|NCT02942017|183518726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.429||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-0.4|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.40|-6.08|0.0255
91820602|NCT02942017|183518726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|0.66|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.66|-4.73|0.1375
91820603|NCT02942017|183518726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.46|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.46|-3.11|0.8170
91820604|NCT02942017|183518727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.7|||GEE method|||Hour 60: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model.||6.7|1.2|0.0168
91820605|NCT02942017|183518727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.6|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model.||6.6|1.0|0.0482
91820606|NCT02942017|183518727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||2.0|0.3|0.5857
91950217|NCT02347124|183797062|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0||Model is adjusted for sex, age, cigarettes per day at baseline, depression, self-efficacy, motivation, self-reported use of a stop smoking medication at baseline, and stratification variables state quit line and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.00|1.01|0.04
91950218|NCT02347124|183797063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96||Model is adjusted for sex, age, cigarettes per day at baseline, depression, self-efficacy, motivation, self-reported use of a stop smoking medication at baseline, and stratification variables state quit line and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|0.95|0.09
91950219|NCT02347124|183797064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.05||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.47|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline knowledge score.||||0.47|-0.57|0.85
91820607|NCT02942017|183518728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.9||Hour 60:|GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D remission at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||7.9|1.5|0.0033
91820608|NCT02942017|183518728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|9.3|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D remission at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||9.3|1.5|0.0046
91950220|NCT02347124|183797065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.96|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline knowledge score.||||0.96|-0.14|0.14
91820609|NCT02942017|183518728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D remission at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||1.5|0.3|0.3085
91950221|NCT02347124|183797066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.56|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline self-efficacy score.||||0.56|0.13|.002
91950222|NCT02347124|183797067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.23||Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline self-efficacy score.|Regression, Linear|||||0.23|-0.22|0.97
91950223|NCT02347124|183797068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, use of stop-smoking medications, baseline motivation, and baseline cigarettes per day.||||0.04|-0.24|0.16
91950224|NCT02347124|183797069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.13|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, use of a smoking cessation medication at baseline, baseline motivation score, and baseline cigarettes per day.||||0.13|-0.16|0.83
91950225|NCT02347124|183797070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline motivation score.||||0.41|0.04|0.02
91950226|NCT02347124|183797071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21|||Regression, Linear|||||0.21|-0.17|0.82
91950227|NCT02347124|183797072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, baseline self-efficacy score, baseline cigarettes per day, and baseline use of stop smoking medications.||||0.16|-0.20|0.80
91950228|NCT02347124|183797073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.07||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.26|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, baseline self-efficacy score, baseline cigarettes per day, and baseline use of stop smoking medication.||||0.26|-0.11|0.45
91820610|NCT02942017|183518729|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.989||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|-2.42|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.42|-14.29|0.0063
91820611|NCT02942017|183518729|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-2.68|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.68|-16.83|0.0074
91950229|NCT03742271|183797079|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded in the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 0.50.|Proportion|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|0.995|||Binomial Exact Test|||This study was powered to test the hypothesis that at least 50% will have an acceptable lens fitting.||0.995|0.925|
91950230|NCT03137173|183797081|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed by the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-group difference (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin+aztreonam) using a 10% non-inferiority margin in the ITT population. Difference was computed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method, adjusted for geographical region and actual type of ABSSSI.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.8||||||||7.8|-1.2|
91950231|NCT03137173|183797082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed by the two-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin+aztreonam) using a 10% non-inferiority margin in the ITT population. Difference was computed using the CMH weights method, adjusted for geographical region and actual type of ABSSSI.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.6||||||||5.6|-3.5|
91950232|NCT03137173|183797083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed by the two-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin plus aztreonam) using a 10% non-inferiority margin in the CE populations. Difference was computed using the CMH weights method, adjusted for geographical region and actual type of ABSSSI.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.6||||||||5.6|-0.3|
91950233|NCT01535638|183797084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|123.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.0|141.1|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Trial Formulation II (reference) and Deleobuvir Final Formulation (test) in pairwise comparison. (reference : test)||141.1|108.0|
91950234|NCT01535638|183797084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|109.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|136.1|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Final Formulation modified (test) and Deleobuvir Final Formulation (reference) in pairwise comparison. (reference : test)||136.1|88.6|
91950235|NCT01535638|183797085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|122.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.9|139.1|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Final Formulation (test) and Deleobuvir Trial Formulation II (reference) in pairwise comparison. (test : reference)||139.1|107.9|
91950236|NCT01535638|183797085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|107.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.1|139.4|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Final Formulation modified (test) and Deleobuvir Final Formulation (reference) in pairwise comparison. (test : reference)||139.4|83.1|
91950237|NCT03524664|183797095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71) = 0.411, p =.523||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.523
91950238|NCT03524664|183797096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=1.89, p=.173||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.173
91950239|NCT03524664|183797097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=2.23, p=.140||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.140
91950240|NCT03524664|183797098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=.039, p=0.845||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||0.845
91950241|NCT03524664|183797099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=2.147, p=.147||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.147
91950242|NCT03524664|183797100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=.633, p=.429||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.429
91950243|NCT03524664|183797101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=1.618, p=.208||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.208
91950244|NCT03524664|183797102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=1.09, p=.300||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.300
91820612|NCT02942017|183518729|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.149||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|7.63|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||7.63|-4.88|0.6637
91950245|NCT03524664|183797103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=2.79, p=.099||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.099
91950246|NCT03524664|183797104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=2.70, p=.105||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.105
91950247|NCT03524664|183797105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=0.15, p=.699||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.699
91950248|NCT03524664|183797106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=0.005, p=.945||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.945
91950249|NCT03524664|183797107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=0.088, p=.767||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.767
91950250|NCT03524664|183797108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=.0.17, p=.682||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.682
91950251|NCT03524664|183797109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,42)=0.003, p=.960||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.960
91950252|NCT03524664|183797110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,42)=0.218, p=.643||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.643
91950253|NCT03524664|183797111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Time X Group F(2,90)=2.19, p.118||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.118
91950254|NCT03524664|183797112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Time x Group F(2,90)=.223, p=.800||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.800
91950255|NCT03524664|183797113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Group x Time F(2,92)=0.148, p=.863||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.863
91950256|NCT01522391|183797151|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.491|0.004|0.012
91950257|NCT01522391|183797152|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.491|0.004|0.012
91950258|NCT01522391|183797153|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.242||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.66|0.022|0.242
91950259|NCT01522391|183797153|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.428||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.696|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.696|0.039|0.482
91950260|NCT01522391|183797154|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.242||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.660|0.022|0.242
91950261|NCT01522391|183797154|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.428||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.696|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.696|0.039|0.482
91950262|NCT01522391|183797155|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.288||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|5.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.221|0.016|0.395
91950263|NCT01522391|183797155|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.067||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|1.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||1.218|0.004|0.067
91950264|NCT01522391|183797155|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.484||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|8.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||8.787|0.027|0.620
91950265|NCT01522391|183797156|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.287||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.550|0.015|0.403
91950266|NCT01522391|183797156|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.032||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.583|0.002|0.021
91950267|NCT01522391|183797156|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.271||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|4.779|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.779|0.015|0.368
91950268|NCT01522391|183797157|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|1.045||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|10.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||10.32|0.106|0.970
91950269|NCT01522391|183797157|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.447|0.005|0.009
91950270|NCT01522391|183797157|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.36||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|3.556|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||3.556|0.036|0.377
91950271|NCT01522391|183797158|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.961||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|11.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||11.43|0.081|0.974
91950272|NCT01522391|183797158|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.046||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.512|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.512|0.004|0.013
91950273|NCT01522391|183797158|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.447||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|4.883|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.883|0.041|0.504
91820613|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.21|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.41|0.5132
91950274|NCT01522391|183797159|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.242||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|2.659|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.659|0.022|0.242
91950275|NCT01522391|183797159|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.491|0.004|0.012
91950276|NCT01522391|183797159|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.428||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.697|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.697|0.039|0.483
91950277|NCT01522391|183797160|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.202||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.340|0.017|0.197
91950278|NCT01522391|183797160|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.021||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.227|0.002|0.002
91950279|NCT01522391|183797160|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.257||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|2.752|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||2.752|0.024|0.257
91950280|NCT01522391|183797161|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|20.38||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.42|63.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||63.19|-22.42|0.346
91950281|NCT01522391|183797161|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|29.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.71|71.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||71.90|-13.71|0.18
91950282|NCT01522391|183797161|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.64||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|31.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||31.16|-54.44|0.590
91950283|NCT01522391|183797162|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|5.95||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.84|42.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||42.73|-30.84|0.748
91950284|NCT01522391|183797162|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|14.62||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.65|51.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||51.88|-22.65|0.437
91950285|NCT01522391|183797162|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.66||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.92|18.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||18.61|-55.92|0.322
91820614|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.11|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.61|0.1672
91950286|NCT01522391|183797163|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|8.04||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|41.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||41.24|-25.15|0.631
91950287|NCT01522391|183797163|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|20.44||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.75|53.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||53.63|-12.75|0.224
91950288|NCT01522391|183797163|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.23||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.42|31.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||31.96|-34.42|0.941
91950289|NCT01522391|183797164|OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|0.97||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.93|34.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||34.87|-32.93|0.954
91950290|NCT01522391|183797164|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|15.72||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.18|49.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||49.62|-18.18|0.358
91950291|NCT01522391|183797164|OTHER||least Square Mean Difference|-7.94||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.82|25.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||25.94|-41.82|0.642
91950292|NCT01522391|183797165|OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.701
91950293|NCT01522391|183797165|OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.898
91950294|NCT01522391|183797165|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.271
91950295|NCT01522391|183797166|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.511
91950296|NCT01522391|183797166|OTHER|||||||0.777|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.777
91950297|NCT01522391|183797166|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.204
91950298|NCT01522391|183797167|OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.489
91950299|NCT01522391|183797167|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.249
91950300|NCT01522391|183797167|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.098
91950301|NCT01522391|183797168|OTHER|||||||0.291|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.291
91950302|NCT01522391|183797168|OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.113
91950303|NCT01522391|183797168|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.033
91950304|NCT01522391|183797169|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.825
91950305|NCT01522391|183797169|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.825
91950306|NCT01522391|183797169|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.208
91950307|NCT01522391|183797170|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.825
91950308|NCT01522391|183797170|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.820
91950309|NCT01522391|183797170|OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.086
91950310|NCT01522391|183797171|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.378
91950311|NCT01522391|183797171|OTHER|||||||0.975|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.975
91950312|NCT01522391|183797171|OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.962
91950313|NCT01522391|183797172|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.375
91950314|NCT01522391|183797172|OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.946
91950315|NCT01522391|183797172|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.495
91950316|NCT01522391|183797175|OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7 morning||||0.477
91950317|NCT01522391|183797175|OTHER|||||||0.651|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14 morning||||0.651
91950318|NCT01522391|183797175|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 21 morning||||0.340
91950319|NCT01522391|183797176|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7 morning||||0.300
91950320|NCT01522391|183797176|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||0.705
91950321|NCT01522391|183797176|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 21||||0.286
91950322|NCT02514889|183797196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|1.91||a priori threshold is p = .017, so that experiment-wide critical alpha would be p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: sex, age, ethnicity, marital status and educational attainment|Difference in differences interaction term is the product of assessment period (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting).|||1.91|-6.12|0.30
91950323|NCT02514889|183797197|EQUIVALENCE|p-value \>0.20 would be considered equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1342|5.3228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status||||5.3228|-0.1342|0.06
91950324|NCT02514889|183797198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status|Difference in differences interaction term is the product of assessment period (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting).|||3.63|-6.37|0.504
91950325|NCT02514889|183797199|SUPERIORITY|Difference in differences|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment, marital status|The difference in differences interaction term is the product of assessment period (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||2.74|-6.47|0.30
91950326|NCT02514889|183797200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The differences in difference interaction term consists of the product of assessment intervals (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||2.39|-1.47|0.640
91950327|NCT02514889|183797201|EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison conditions to be equivalent, as predicted, the critical alpha was set at P \> 0.20.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status|The differences in difference interaction term consists of the product of assessment intervals (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||0.22|-.31|0.747
91950328|NCT02514889|183797202|EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison conditions to be judged equivalent, as predicted, the critical p-value was set to P \>.20|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status|The differences in difference interaction term consists of the product of assessment intervals (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||1.14|-0.85|0.776
91950329|NCT01519648|183797284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.178|2.977|||Chi-squared|||||2.977|1.178|0.007
91950330|NCT03808298|183797289|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|2.9||||||||2.90|-1.99|
91820615|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 8:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.65|0.0963
91820616|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 12:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.49|0.4803
91950331|NCT03808298|183797289|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.73|2.24||||||||2.24|-2.73|
91950332|NCT03808298|183797289|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.25|2.79||||||||2.79|-2.25|
91950333|NCT03808298|183797289|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.94|3.09||||||||3.09|-1.94|
91950334|NCT03808298|183797289|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|2.35||||||||2.35|-2.62|
91950335|NCT03808298|183797289|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|4.11||||||||4.11|-0.88|
91950336|NCT03808298|183797289|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|3.85||||||||3.85|-1.63|
91950337|NCT03808298|183797289|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|2.79||||||||2.79|-3.13|
91950338|NCT03808298|183797289|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|4.47||||||||4.47|-2.60|
91950339|NCT03808298|183797289|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|2.98||||||||2.98|-2.03|
91950340|NCT03808298|183797290|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|2.64||||||||2.64|-0.19|
91950341|NCT03808298|183797290|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|2.33||||||||2.33|-0.12|
91950342|NCT03808298|183797290|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|3.67||||||||3.67|0.40|
91950343|NCT03808298|183797290|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|4.49||||||||4.49|0.60|
91820617|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.05|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 24:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.71|0.0844
91820618|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.09|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.68|0.1325
91820619|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.03|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 48:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.79|0.0332
91950344|NCT03808298|183797290|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|4.94||||||||4.94|0.09|
91950345|NCT03808298|183797290|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|4.47||||||||4.47|-1.62|
91950346|NCT03808298|183797290|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|3.39||||||||3.39|-0.10|
91950347|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.2||||||||2.20|-0.60|
91950348|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|2.55||||||||2.55|0.13|
91950349|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|3.27||||||||3.27|0.04|
91950350|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|3.2||||||||3.20|-0.64|
91950351|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|4.67||||||||4.67|-0.13|
91950352|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.31|3.7||||||||3.70|-2.31|
91820620|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.08|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 60:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.67|0.1273
91950353|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|2.1||||||||2.10|-1.35|
91950354|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.94|1.89||||||||1.89|-2.94|
91950355|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.19|1.72||||||||1.72|-3.19|
91950356|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.26|2.74||||||||2.74|-2.26|
91950357|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|2.96||||||||2.96|-2.02|
91950358|NCT03808298|183797291|EQUIVALENCE|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|2.54||||||||2.54|-2.39|
91950359|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|4.28||||||||4.28|-0.67|
91950360|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|3.31||||||||3.31|-2.11|
91950361|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|3.47||||||||3.47|-2.38|
91950362|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.85|4.14||||||||4.14|-2.85|
91950363|NCT03808298|183797291|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|2.6||||||||2.60|-2.36|
91950364|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.73||||||||0.73|-1.20|
91950365|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.96||||||||0.96|-1.08|
91950366|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|0.78||||||||0.78|-1.73|
91950367|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.7||||||||0.70|-1.80|
91820621|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 72:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.66|0.1059
91820622|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.03|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.82|0.0683
91820623|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.28|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.64|0.4458
91820624|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.7|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.70|-0.21|0.2905
91950368|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|1.05||||||||1.05|-2.42|
91950369|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.66|1.24||||||||1.24|-2.66|
91950370|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|0.85||||||||0.85|-1.91|
91950371|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|-0.48||||||||-0.48|-3.90|
91950372|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|0.0||||||||0.00|-3.41|
91950373|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|0.36||||||||0.36|-3.21|
91820625|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.3096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.55|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.55|-0.18|0.3096
91820626|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.11|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.55|0.1925
91950374|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|0.01||||||||0.01|-3.25|
91950375|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.36|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-3.36|
91950376|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.75|-0.14||||||||-0.14|-3.75|
91950377|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|0.29||||||||0.29|-3.06|
91950378|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.08|1.01||||||||1.01|-3.08|
91950379|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|0.76||||||||0.76|-3.03|
91950380|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.87|0.87||||||||0.87|-2.87|
91950381|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|1.07||||||||1.07|-0.89|
91950382|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.86||||||||0.86|-1.21|
91950383|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|0.83||||||||0.83|-1.71|
91950384|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|1.46||||||||1.46|-1.07|
91950385|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|1.0||||||||1.00|-2.50|
91950386|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|1.74||||||||1.74|-2.22|
91820627|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 4:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.11|-0.77|0.0101
91950387|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.63|-0.85||||||||-0.85|-3.63|
91950388|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|1.03||||||||1.03|-2.42|
91950389|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline Day 14 HR (bpm) at 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.96|0.49||||||||0.49|-2.96|
91950390|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.58|1.02||||||||1.02|-2.58|
91950391|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|0.95||||||||0.95|-2.34|
91950392|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|0.73||||||||0.73|-2.65|
91950393|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|0.53||||||||0.53|-3.11|
91950394|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.73|0.66||||||||0.66|-2.73|
91950395|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.77|1.37||||||||1.37|-2.77|
91950396|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|1.33||||||||1.33|-2.50|
91950397|NCT03808298|183797292|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|0.2||||||||0.20|-3.57|
91950398|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|0.17||||||||0.17|-2.56|
91950399|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|1.55||||||||1.55|-1.62|
91950400|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.09||||||||2.09|-1.22|
91950401|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.04|1.33||||||||1.33|-2.04|
91950402|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|3.33||||||||3.33|-1.00|
91950403|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|2.88||||||||2.88|-2.30|
91950404|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.81||||||||0.81|-3.00|
91950405|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|3.35||||||||3.35|-2.08|
91950406|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|3.12||||||||3.12|-2.48|
91950407|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.55|3.06||||||||3.06|-2.55|
91950408|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|3.12||||||||3.12|-3.17|
91950409|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|3.37||||||||3.37|-2.47|
91950410|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.42|2.34||||||||2.34|-3.42|
91950411|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|2.12||||||||2.12|-3.54|
91950412|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.31|1.88||||||||1.88|-3.31|
91950413|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|4.09||||||||4.09|-1.21|
91950414|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|2.49||||||||2.49|-2.90|
91950415|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|0.77||||||||0.77|-2.00|
91950416|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|1.5||||||||1.50|-1.71|
91950417|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||||90.0|-1.64|1.73||||||||1.73|-1.64|
91950418|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|1.02||||||||1.02|-2.39|
91950419|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|3.13||||||||3.13|-1.26|
91950420|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||||90.0|-3.92|1.35||||||||1.35|-3.92|
91950421|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|1.89||||||||1.89|-1.96|
91950422|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|4.13||||||||4.13|-1.34|
91950423|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|4.05||||||||4.05|-1.61|
91950424|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|4.35||||||||4.35|-1.32|
91950425|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|2.97||||||||2.97|-3.38|
91820628|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 8:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.56|0.1546
91820629|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.05|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 12:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.62|0.0901
91950426|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||||90.0|-3.48|2.42||||||||2.42|-3.48|
91950427|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|4.02||||||||4.02|-1.81|
91950428|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|4.04||||||||4.04|-1.67|
91950429|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|3.29||||||||3.29|-1.95|
91950430|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|5.96||||||||5.96|0.60|
91950431|NCT03808298|183797293|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|4.72||||||||4.72|-0.72|
91950432|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.29|
91950433|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.34||||||||0.34|-0.02|
91950434|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline (ms) at QRS Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.30|
91950435|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.18||||||||0.18|-0.26|
91950436|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.38||||||||0.38|-0.57|
91950437|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.56||||||||0.56|-0.65|
91950438|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||||90.0|-0.11|0.4||||||||0.40|-0.11|
91950439|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.74||||||||0.74|-0.34|
91950440|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.91||||||||0.91|-0.17|
91950441|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|1.05||||||||1.05|-0.04|
91950442|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.26|
91950443|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.18|
91950444|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|1.0||||||Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose||1.00|-0.08|
91950445|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.19|
91950446|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.1||||||||1.10|-0.33|
91950447|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.06||||||||1.06|-0.50|
91950448|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|1.11||||||||1.11|-0.06|
91950449|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.25|
91950450|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.36||||||||0.36|0.00|
91950451|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.34|
91950452|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.34||||||||0.34|-0.10|
91950453|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.57||||||||0.57|-0.40|
91950454|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.93||||||||0.93|-0.31|
91950455|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.58||||||||0.58|0.07|
91950456|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.19|
91950457|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.98||||||||0.98|-0.11|
91950458|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|1.05||||||||1.05|-0.06|
91950459|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.27|
91950460|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.14|
91950461|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.86||||||||0.86|-0.24|
91820630|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 24:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.62|0.0717
91950462|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|1.2||||||||1.20|0.07|
91950463|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|1.35||||||||1.35|-0.10|
91950464|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.07||||||||1.07|-0.50|
91950465|NCT03808298|183797294|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|1.04||||||||1.04|-0.14|
91820631|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.0|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 36:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.68|0.0468
91950466|NCT03808298|183797316|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|4.04||||||||4.04|-1.64|
91950467|NCT03808298|183797316|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.22|8.63||||||||8.63|2.22|
91950468|NCT03808298|183797316|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.81|11.28||||||||11.28|5.81|
91950469|NCT03808298|183797316|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.86|11.34||||||||11.34|5.86|
91950470|NCT03808298|183797316|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.43|11.61||||||||11.61|5.43|
91950471|NCT03808298|183797316|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.76|10.0||||||||10.00|3.76|
91950472|NCT03808298|183797316|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.58|8.62||||||||8.62|3.58|
91950473|NCT02713490|183797318|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-26.884||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.608|2.841|||ANOVA|||||2.841|-56.608|0.0381
91950474|NCT02713490|183797319|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.203||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.631|||ANOVA|||||0.631|0.065|0.0029
91950475|NCT02713490|183797320|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.098||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0284|0.1685|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.1685|0.0284|0.0088
91950476|NCT02713490|183797321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis applies to the overall distribution of time to first opioid rescue, estimated from Kaplan-Meier analysis.||||0.0230
91950477|NCT02713490|183797322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4285|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4285
91950478|NCT03039686|183797329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.27|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix -change = Baseline + Age Interactive response system (IXRS) Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||1.27|-2.17|
91950479|NCT03039686|183797329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.26|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix -change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||2.26|-1.10|
91950480|NCT03039686|183797331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.2|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.20|-0.21|
91950481|NCT03039686|183797331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.27|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.27|-0.12|
91950482|NCT03039686|183797333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.06|-0.00|
91950483|NCT03039686|183797333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.06|-0.00|
91950484|NCT03039686|183797335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.27|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.27|-0.08|
91950485|NCT03039686|183797335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.18|-0.17|
91950486|NCT03039686|183797337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|2.77|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||2.77|-6.76|
91950487|NCT03039686|183797337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|5.63|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||5.63|-3.71|
91950488|NCT03039686|183797340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|24.6|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||24.6|-21.1|
91950489|NCT03039686|183797340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|33.6|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||33.6|-11.0|
91950490|NCT00224952|183797367|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (4-Methylthio-2-hydroxyiminostilbene) as a function of age||||0.004
91950491|NCT00224952|183797367|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (4-Methylthio-2-hydroxyiminostilbene) as a function of age||||0.032
91950492|NCT00224952|183797367|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Fractional Recovery (MTHIS)) as a function of age||||0.018
91950493|NCT00224952|183797367|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery MTHIS)) as a function of age||||0.033
91950494|NCT00224952|183797367|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (5-N-acetylcysteine-3-ene VPA isomers)) as a function of age||||0.0004
91820632|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 48:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.56|0.2222
91950495|NCT00224952|183797367|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (5-N-acetylcysteine-2-ene VPA) ) as a function of age||||0.0003
91950496|NCT00224952|183797367|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Total N-acetylcysteine conjugates) as a function of age||||<0.0001
91950497|NCT00224952|183797367|OTHER|||||||0.522|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery NAC-3-ene VPA isomers)) as a function of age||||0.522
91950498|NCT00224952|183797367|OTHER|||||||0.925|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery NAC-2-ene VPA) ) as a function of age||||0.925
91950499|NCT00224952|183797367|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery Total NAC conjugates) as a function of age||||0.469
91950500|NCT00134563|183797368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction (%)|31.5||||0.0005||||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo|"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was sized to detect a 25% relative risk reduction with teriflunomide in the 2-year relapse rate at a significance level of 0.050 with a power ≥95% anticipating a potential 20% 2-year dropout rate."||||0.0005
91950501|NCT00134563|183797368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|31.2||||0.0002||||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo|||||0.0002
91820633|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.02|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 60:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.60|0.0682
91820634|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.08|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 72:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.72|0.0147
91820635|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 7:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.68|0.0837
91820636|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.5828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.26|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.46|0.5828
91820637|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.5674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.24|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.43|0.5674
91820638|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.4|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.18|0.4613
91820639|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 2:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.24|0.3240
91820640|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 4:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.24|0.3023
91820641|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 8:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.4127
91820642|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.25|0.2819
91820643|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.3884
91820644|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 36:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.25|0.2750
91820645|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.05|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 48:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.27|0.1811
91820646|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 60:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.3854
91820647|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.3822
91820648|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.9255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.17|0.9255
91820649|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.22|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.14|0.6714
91820650|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.18|0.9838
91950502|NCT00134563|183797369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|29.8||||0.0279||||||"Step down approach:~* H1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was also sized to detect a 37% hazard rate reduction of an assumed disability progression hazard rate of 0.1783 in the placebo group and 0.1116 in the teriflunomide group by the end of 2 years with a power of 80% anticipating a potential 20% 2-year dropout rate."||||0.0279
91950503|NCT00134563|183797369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|23.7||||0.0835||||||"Step down approach:~* H1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|||||0.0835
91820651|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.17|0.8884
91820652|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.6996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.23|0.6996
91820653|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.4426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.33|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.15|0.4426
91820654|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.24|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.20|0.8743
91820655|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.12|0.3498
91820656|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.56|0.0839
91820657|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.13|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.49|0.2595
91820658|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.66|0.0560
91820659|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.6187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.27|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.45|0.6187
91820660|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.07|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 72 MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.07|-0.72|0.0187
91820661|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.62|0.1531
91820662|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.3341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.58|0.3341
91820663|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.8969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.46|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.40|0.8969
91820664|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.5862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.44|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.25|0.5862
91820665|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.34|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.13|0.3776
91820666|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.26|0.9029
91820667|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.3|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.18|0.6173
91820668|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.10|0.2433
91820669|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 24 MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.59|0.0234
91820670|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.0|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.55|0.0540
91820671|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.58|0.0406
91820672|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.56|0.0295
91820673|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.50|0.0925
91820674|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.52|0.1631
91950504|NCT00134563|183797370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||Mixed-effect model with repeated measures \[MMRM\] on cubic root transformed total lesion volume data (treatment group, region of enrollment, baseline EDSS stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value (cubic root transformed) and baseline-by-visit interaction).||||0.0003
91950505|NCT00134563|183797370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0317||||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||Mixed-effect model with repeated measures \[MMRM\] on cubic root transformed total lesion volume data (treatment group, region of enrollment, baseline EDSS stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value (cubic root transformed) and baseline-by-visit interaction).||||0.0317
91820675|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.14|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.60|0.2213
91820676|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.9175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.39|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.36|0.9175
91950506|NCT00134563|183797373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8271||||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||||||0.8271
91950507|NCT00134563|183797373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3861||||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||||||0.3861
91820677|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.40|0.6763
91950508|NCT03382639|183797401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-1.4|0.426
91950509|NCT03382639|183797401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-1.5|0.725
91950510|NCT03382639|183797401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-0.7|0.808
91950511|NCT00148109|183797428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Estimate a 4 month progression-free survival rate for each group.||||<0.05
91820678|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.3805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.13|0.3805
91950512|NCT06104423|183797431|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference pre vs post treatment|-19.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-14.0|||paired t-test|||Primary endpoint, verified on the single cohort of patients who completed the monotherapy run-in period, is calculated as the mean difference in sitting systolic blood pressure between Visit 2 (Week 0, Baseline Visit of the combination therapy) and Visit 5 (Week 12, End of Study Visit). This is not a comparison of two different arms, but a comparison of two measurements taken from the same patient treated with combination therapy (single arm paired pre- vs. post-combination therapy comparison)||-14.0|-26.0|< 0.001
91950513|NCT00538434|183797432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-52.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.24|-30.32|||ANCOVA|adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at Baseline||||-30.32|-75.24|< 0.0001
91950514|NCT00538434|183797432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-73.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.28|-50.78|||ANCOVA|adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at Baseline||||-50.78|-95.28|< 0.0001
91950515|NCT00538434|183797432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-64.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.93|-42.45|||ANCOVA|adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at Baseline||||-42.45|-86.93|< 0.0001
91950516|NCT00538434|183797433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0313
91950517|NCT00538434|183797433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5793
91950518|NCT00538434|183797433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4905
91950519|NCT00538434|183797434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0062
91950520|NCT00538434|183797434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0943
91950521|NCT00538434|183797434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2955|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2955
91950522|NCT00538434|183797435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|8.03||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Physical Summary Score||8.03|-17.53|0.4644
91950523|NCT00538434|183797435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|11.23||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Physical Summary Score||11.23|-14.17|0.8196
91950524|NCT00538434|183797435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.8306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|13.91||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Physical Summary Score||13.91|-11.19|0.8306
91950525|NCT00538434|183797435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|2.24||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Psychosocial Summary Score||2.24|-15.01|0.1459
91950526|NCT00538434|183797435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.4375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|5.23||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Psychosocial Summary Score||5.23|-12.05|0.4375
91950527|NCT00538434|183797435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|8.15||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Psychosocial Summary Score||8.15|-9.00|0.9217
91950528|NCT00538434|183797435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.98|13.85||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Global Health Score||13.85|-16.98|0.8412
91950529|NCT00538434|183797435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.94|9.87||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Global Health Score||9.87|-20.94|0.4794
91950530|NCT00538434|183797435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.8906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|14.06||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Global Health Score||14.06|-16.16|0.8906
91950531|NCT00351611|183797436|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI bound was less than 0.10 (10%).|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.7094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1751|5.9784||||||A 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) on the difference in percentage of participants, between pregabalin and placebo was constructed using unconditional exact methods.||5.9784|-9.1751|
91950532|NCT00351611|183797437|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to mean deviation was demonstrated if the lower bound of the CI is greater than -2.0 decibels.|Difference in LS mean|-0.125||||0.4414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.194|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center in the model and the baseline mean deviation as the covariate was used to construct a 2-sided 95% CI on the difference in least squares (LS) mean between pregabalin and placebo.||0.194|-0.443|0.4414
91950533|NCT00351611|183797438|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.9||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.083|0.283|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with treatment and center in the model and the baseline visual acuity as the covariate was used to construct a 2-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference in LS mean between pregabalin and placebo.||0.283|-2.083|0.1346
91950534|NCT01589185|183797440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3962||||||\< 0.1 is considered borderline significant|Fisher Exact|||The number (%) of patients who died on or before end of study (EOS) was compared among all 5 groups. The mITT population was used.||||0.3962
91950535|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950536|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950537|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950538|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950539|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950540|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950541|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950542|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950543|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950544|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950545|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950546|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|Week 26 vs Baseline|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950547|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950548|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950549|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950550|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950551|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950552|NCT03781167|183797518|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950553|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||>|0.999|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||>0.999
91950554|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.5095|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||=0.5095
91950555|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.6962|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||=0.6962
91950556|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0035|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0035
91950557|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0324|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0324
91950558|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950559|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0072|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0072
91950560|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0129|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0129
91950561|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950562|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0119|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0119
91950563|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.22||||||A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.2200
91950564|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0063|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0063
91950565|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950566|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4331|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.4331
91950567|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0045|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.0045
91950568|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0049
91950569|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.6312|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.6312
91950570|NCT03781167|183797519|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1892|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.1892
91950571|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950572|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950573|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950574|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950575|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950576|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950577|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950578|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950579|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950580|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950581|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950582|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950583|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950584|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950585|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950586|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950587|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950588|NCT03781167|183797520|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950589|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950590|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950591|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950592|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950593|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950594|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950595|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950596|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950597|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950598|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950599|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950600|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91820679|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.6073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.32|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.19|0.6073
91820680|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.27|0.7848
91820681|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.25|0.9038
91820682|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.32|0.6869
91950601|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0042|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||=0.0042
91950602|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950603|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950604|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1135|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.1135
91950605|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0029|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0029
91950606|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0026|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0026
91950607|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0034|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0034
91950608|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0103|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0103
91950609|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950610|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0493|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0493
91950611|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3003|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.3003
91950612|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0354|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0354
91950613|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2553|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.2553
91950614|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.864|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.8640
91950615|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4774|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.4774
91950616|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3865|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.3865
91950617|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.||||||0.1186|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||0.1186
91950618|NCT03781167|183797521|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.083|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0830
91950619|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950620|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0041|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.0041
91950621|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950622|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950623|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950624|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950625|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950626|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950627|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950628|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950629|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950630|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950631|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950632|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950633|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950634|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950635|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950636|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950637|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950638|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950639|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91820683|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.26|0.9272
91950640|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950641|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950642|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950643|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950644|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950645|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950646|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0091|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0091
91950647|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950648|NCT03781167|183797522|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950649|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4447|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.4447
91950650|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3567|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.3567
91950651|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2315|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.2315
91950652|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0667|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||=0.0667
91950653|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950654|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950655|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950656|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2033|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||=0.2033
91950657|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950658|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0012|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||=0.0012
91950659|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0734|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||=0.0734
91950660|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950661|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0304|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||=0.0304
91950662|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||>|0.999|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||>0.999
91950663|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0891|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||=0.0891
91820684|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.31|0.6931
91950664|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0832|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0832
91950665|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4941|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.4941
91950666|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2764|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.2764
91950667|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3248|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.3248
91950668|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2535|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.2535
91950669|NCT03781167|183797523|OTHER|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.9274|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.9274
91950670|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3297|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.3297
91950671|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.9722|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.9722
91950672|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4403|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.4403
91820685|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.29|0.8262
91950673|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1946|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.1946
91950674|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2077|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.2077
91950675|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0692|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.0692
91820686|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.54|0.0749
91950676|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2276|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.2276
91950677|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.||||||0.3369|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||0.3369
91950678|NCT03781167|183797523|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1218|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.1218
91950679|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950680|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.002|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.0020
91950681|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950682|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950683|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950684|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950685|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950686|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950687|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950688|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950689|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950690|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950691|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950692|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950693|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950694|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950695|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950696|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950697|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950698|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950699|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950700|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950701|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950702|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950703|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950704|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950705|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950706|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950707|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950708|NCT03781167|183797524|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950709|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950710|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950711|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950712|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950713|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950714|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950715|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950716|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950717|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950718|NCT03781167|183797525|OTHER|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950719|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950720|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950721|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950722|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950723|NCT03781167|183797525|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950724|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950725|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950726|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950727|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950728|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950729|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950730|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950731|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950732|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950733|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950734|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950735|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950736|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950737|NCT03781167|183797526|OTHER|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950738|NCT03781167|183797526|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950739|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0035|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0035
91950740|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950741|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950742|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0098|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0098
91950743|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950744|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950745|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950746|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950747|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950748|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950749|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950750|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950751|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.003|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0030
91950752|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950753|NCT03781167|183797527|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91950754|NCT00679354|183797543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||1.000
91950755|NCT00679354|183797544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.56||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.057
91950756|NCT00679354|183797545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.22||||0.495|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.495
91950757|NCT00679354|183797546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.48||||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.114
91950758|NCT01258803|183797554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.154|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI with spacer and Placebo MDI combined with or without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.154|0.094|<0.001
91950759|NCT01258803|183797555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.131|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI without spacer and Placebo MDI combined with or without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.131|0.073|<0.001
91950760|NCT01258803|183797556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.052|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI with spacer and MF/F MDI without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.052|-0.008|0.144
91950761|NCT01258803|183797558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.048|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI with spacer and F DPI.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.048|-0.012|0.229
91950762|NCT01258803|183797559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.025|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI without spacer and F DPI.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.025|-0.033|0.790
91950763|NCT01258803|183797560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.135|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of F DPI and Placebo MDI combined with or without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.135|0.077|<0.001
91950764|NCT01632345|183797589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|22.4|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||22.4|-9.0|
91950765|NCT01632345|183797589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|24.9|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||24.9|-4.6|
91950766|NCT01632345|183797589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|6.3|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||6.3|-27.9|
91950767|NCT01632345|183797589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|18.4|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||18.4|-14.5|
91950768|NCT01632345|183797590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.8|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||8.8|-13.7|
91950769|NCT01632345|183797590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|14.7|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||14.7|-9.9|
91950770|NCT01632345|183797590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|8.2|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||8.2|-13.8|
91950771|NCT01632345|183797590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.1|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||4.1|-15.9|
91950772|NCT01632345|183797591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|0.5|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||0.5|-20.9|
91950773|NCT01632345|183797592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-20.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-7.8||Superiority analysis|Miettinen and Nurminen method||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||-7.8|-32.4|0.002
91950774|NCT01632345|183797593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-20.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-7.5||Superiority analysis|Miettinen and Nurminen method||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||-7.5|-32.6|0.002
91950775|NCT01632345|183797594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|34.4|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||34.4|-4.1|
91950776|NCT01632345|183797594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|29.1|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||29.1|-9.6|
91950777|NCT01632345|183797594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|26.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||26.0|-13.2|
91950778|NCT01632345|183797594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|34.4|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||34.4|-3.4|
91950779|NCT01632345|183797595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|11.2|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||11.2|-13.2|
91950780|NCT01632345|183797596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|9.2|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||9.2|-12.9|
91950781|NCT01632345|183797597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|10.7|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||10.7|-12.4|
91950782|NCT01632345|183797598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|21.5|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||21.5|-12.5|
91950783|NCT01632345|183797598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|19.8|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||19.8|-13.9|
91950784|NCT01632345|183797598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|28.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||28.0|-2.5|
91950785|NCT01632345|183797598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|25.7|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||25.7|-6.2|
91950786|NCT01632345|183797599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|2.7||||||95.0|-6.1|11.7|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||11.7|-6.1|
91950787|NCT01632345|183797600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|9.9|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||9.9|-9.7|
91950788|NCT01632345|183797601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|15.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||15.0|-7.3|
91950789|NCT01632345|183797602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|94.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||94.0|-28.1|
91950790|NCT01632345|183797602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|51.9|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||51.9|-68.5|
91950791|NCT01632345|183797602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|69.5|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||69.5|-44.6|
91950792|NCT01632345|183797602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|84.2|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||84.2|-45.1|
91950793|NCT01632345|183797603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|50.8|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||50.8|-38.2|
91950794|NCT01632345|183797604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|41.3|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||41.3|-46.5|
91950795|NCT01632345|183797605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|55.1|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||55.1|-64.0|
91950796|NCT01632345|183797606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.0|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||6.0|-11.7|
91950797|NCT01632345|183797607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|0.3|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||0.3|-14.1|
91950798|NCT00089505|183797613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.61||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses, but any adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function was used as a basis for calculating the repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|Regression, Cox|The model was stratified by screening CD4 strata (\<50 vs. \>=50 cells/mm\^3).|The HR is for NVP/NVP vs. NVP/LPV\_r.|||7.61|1.79|<0.001
91950799|NCT00089505|183797614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|NoNVP/NVP regimen will be considered equivalent to the NoNVP/LPV\_r regimen if the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio for virologi falure is entirely below 2.0; equivalence will be established if the same confidence interval is entirely within the range 0.5 to 2.0.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29||P-value is for a test of superiority and was not adjusted for interim analyses, but any adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function was used as a basis for calculating the repeated confidence intervals used.|Regression, Cox|The cox proportional hazard model was stratified by screening CD4 strata (\<50 vs. \>=50 cells/mm3).|The HR is for NoNVP/NVP vs. NoNVP/LPV\_r.|||1.29|0.56|0.43
91950800|NCT05047601|183797636|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.702||||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.167|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.167|0.422|0.1722
91950801|NCT05047601|183797636|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.645||||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.115|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.115|0.373|0.1163
91950802|NCT05047601|183797638|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.6766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.602|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.602|0.484|0.6766
91950803|NCT05047601|183797638|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.809||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|1.512|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.512|0.433|0.5070
91950804|NCT05047601|183797640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.672||||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.213|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.213|0.373|0.1869
91950805|NCT05047601|183797640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.633||||0.1221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|1.13|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.130|0.355|0.1221
91950806|NCT05047601|183797641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0368|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0368
91950807|NCT05047601|183797641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0186|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0186
91950808|NCT05047601|183797642|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|1.491|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.491|0.378|0.4126
91950809|NCT05047601|183797642|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.244||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|2.135|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||2.135|0.725|0.4273
91820687|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.45|0.1923
91950810|NCT05047601|183797643|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.726||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|1.103|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.103|0.478|0.1333
91950811|NCT05047601|183797643|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.953||||0.8088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.408|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.408|0.645|0.8088
91950812|NCT05047601|183797651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.969||||0.7991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.238|||Negative binomial regression model|||||1.238|0.758|0.7991
91950813|NCT05047601|183797651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.847||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.091|||Negative binomial regression model|||||1.091|0.657|0.1985
91950814|NCT02924129|183797668|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||Significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
91950815|NCT02924129|183797669|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|20.4||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||20.4|-2.4|<0.001
91950816|NCT02924129|183797670|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|26.3||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||26.3|2.9|<0.001
91950817|NCT02924129|183797671|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%||||||0.002||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||0.002
91950818|NCT02924129|183797672|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
91950819|NCT02924129|183797673|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
91950820|NCT02924129|183797674|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|23.3||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||23.3|-1.8|<0.001
91950821|NCT02924129|183797675|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|28.3||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||28.3|2.5|<0.001
91950822|NCT02924129|183797676|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001|||||||normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
91950823|NCT02924129|183797677|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
91950824|NCT02780869|183797688|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary endpoint was designed to establish comparable efficacy based upon a non-inferiority margin of 10% for the difference in the probability of TTH within 6 minutes comparing HEMOBLAST™ to G+T (HEMOBLAST™- G+T). Letting θ denote the true difference in the probability of hemostasis at 6 minutes between HEMOBLAST™ to G+T, the trial will test the null hypothesis H0: θ ≤ -0.10 vs. the alternative hypothesis HA : θ \> -0.10 using a one-sided level 0.025 test.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified adjustments for surgery type were made using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||||<0.0001
91950825|NCT02780869|183797688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Adjustment for mulitple comparisons were made when assessing secondary endpoints using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A secondary endpoint of superiority of HEMOBLAST relative to G+T for success at achieving hemostasis within 6 minutes was evaluated.||||0.0001
91950826|NCT02780869|183797689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustment for mulitple comparisons were made when assessing secondary endpoints using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05|Regression, Linear|||The difference in mean preparation time was tested using a linear regression model with stratified adjustment for surgery type.||||<0.0001
91950827|NCT02780869|183797690|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the probability of hemostasis within 3 minutes was tested using a logistic regression model with stratified adjustment for surgery type.|||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons when assessing secondary endpoints was performed using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91950828|NCT02780869|183797690|SUPERIORITY|The difference in the probability of hemostasis within 3 minutes was tested using a logistic regression model with stratified adjustment for surgery type.||||||0.0001||||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons when assessing secondary endpoints was performed using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0001
91950829|NCT03702166|183797726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Multiple t-tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons||||||0.01
91950830|NCT03702166|183797728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Multiple t-tests, with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons,||||||0.038
91950831|NCT03702166|183797730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||Multiple t-tests, with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.031
91950832|NCT03512028|183797734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction effect of group x time from pre- to post- intervention|ANOVA||Estimated difference between slopes|Mixed model ANOVA with group (RLIC, Sham) and time (pre-, post-, and follow-up ). The main analysis of interest is the group x time interaction from pre- to post-.||||0.002
91950833|NCT03512028|183797734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Main effect of time|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91950834|NCT03512028|183797734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844||||||Main effect of group|ANOVA|||||||0.844
91950835|NCT03245372|183797735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.114
91950836|NCT03245372|183797736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.692
91950837|NCT03245372|183797737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
91820688|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.73|0.0326
91820689|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.47|0.4440
91950838|NCT03245372|183797738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.443
91950839|NCT03245372|183797739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.668
91950840|NCT03245372|183797740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.516
91950841|NCT03245372|183797742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.229
91950842|NCT03245372|183797743|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91950843|NCT04047342|183797744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.3||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.30|0.72|.828
91950844|NCT00660829|183797748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5633|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3345|<|0.001||95.0|-2.22|-0.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.91|-2.22|<0.001
91950845|NCT00660829|183797749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7444|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1677|<|0.001||95.0|-1.07|-0.42|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.42|-1.07|<0.001
91950846|NCT00660829|183797750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4403|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3406|<|0.001||95.0|-2.11|-0.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.77|-2.11|<0.001
91950847|NCT00660829|183797751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2907|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3204|<|0.001||95.0|-1.92|0.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline||0.66|-1.92|<0.001
91950848|NCT00660829|183797752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline||||0.001
91950849|NCT02127931|183797759|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Correlation|||ADHD-I||||0.005
91950850|NCT02127931|183797759|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Correlation|||ADHD-C||||0.023
91950851|NCT02127931|183797760|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Correlation|||||||0.013
91950852|NCT02028182|183797776|OTHER||Kappa statistic-Concordance 0.4 mg/cm2|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|94.0||||||||94.0|60.4|
91950853|NCT02028182|183797776|OTHER||Kappa statistic: Concordance 0.20 mg/cm2|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|90.4||||||||90.4|55.6|
91820690|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.7057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.32|0.7057
91820691|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.2865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.13|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.42|0.2865
91820692|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.33|0.9475
91820693|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.61|0.1880
91820694|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.51|0.5950
91820695|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.41|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 24 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.41|-0.39|0.9636
91820696|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.28|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.50|0.5836
91820697|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.1|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 48 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.63|0.1568
91820698|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-0.79|-0.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Work and Activities, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.79|0.0155
91820699|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.0|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.76|0.0504
91820700|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.14|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.70|0.1865
91820701|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.0|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.87|0.0518
91950854|NCT02028182|183797776|OTHER||Kappa statistic: Concordance0.10 mg/cm2|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|88.4||||||||88.4|53.3|
91820702|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.53|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.53|-0.42|0.8330
91820703|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.42|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.34|0.8440
91820704|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.33|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.15|0.4602
91820705|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.43|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.03|0.0891
91820706|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.35|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.11|0.3088
91820707|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.2|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.24|0.8560
91820708|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.9702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.25|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.24|0.9702
91820709|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.8001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.25|0.8001
91820710|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.32|-0.11|0.3223
91820711|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.3385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.09|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.09|-0.26|0.3385
91820712|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.24|-0.16|0.7003
91820713|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||-0.02|-0.41|0.0311
91820714|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.06|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.06|-0.26|0.1976
91820715|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.5489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.13|-0.24|0.5489
91820716|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.7992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.13|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.13|-0.17|0.7992
91820717|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.40|0.0573
91820718|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.44|0.0431
91820719|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.09|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.52|0.0060
91820720|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.04|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.55|0.0215
91820721|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.44|0.0422
91950855|NCT01336647|183797792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy endpoint was responder rate calculated based on the percentage of subjects who were lice free at all follow-up visits (Days 1, 7 and 14). Because the number of responders and non-responders in the family size\>= 5 household members was less than five in at least one of the treatment arms, (Table 14.2.1.5), Fisher's Exact test was used to compare treatment arms, instead of the CMH test.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|The assessment of statistical significance will be done using Hochberg's modified Bonferroni test.||Null hypothesis; 80% power and 0.025 two-sided level of significance for each pairwise active vs. vehicle comparison||||<0.001
91950856|NCT01018680|183797794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||Using a 1:1 ratio of allocation to treatment, a 2-tailed 0.05 level of significance and 80% power, 253 participants per arm had been estimated to be adequate to assess an effect size of 0.25, based on a 2-sample Student's t-test. This derived estimate was increased slightly to 261 participants per arm to account for extremely early discontinuation that would have led to exclusion from the efficacy analysis in a small number of participants (approximately 3%).||||<0.001
91950857|NCT01018680|183797795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001||95.0||||First gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy (Westfall and Krishen 2001) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 secondary outcomes with sequential comparisons of treatments until outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950858|NCT01018680|183797796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.84|||<|0.001||95.0||||WOMAC Physical Disability Score p-value. Second gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 secondary outcomes with sequential treatment comparisons until outcome failed significance (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950859|NCT01018680|183797796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the WOMAC Pain Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91820722|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.51|0.0433
91820723|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.1|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.10|-0.57|0.0051
91820724|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.04|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.48|0.0973
91820725|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.13|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.13|-0.63|0.0036
91820726|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.0|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.52|0.0498
91820727|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.2|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.39|0.5111
91820728|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.22|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.39|0.5839
91820729|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.07|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.33|0.1905
91820730|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.1|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.54|0.1767
91820731|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.47|0.5182
91820732|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3930
91820733|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.25|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.50|0.5212
91950860|NCT01018680|183797796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.004||95.0||||This is the p-value for WOMAC Stiffness Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.004
91820734|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.50|0.4741
91820735|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.4482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.51|0.4482
91820736|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.06|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.69|0.0963
91820737|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.18|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.18|-0.86|0.0030
91820738|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.63|0.1116
91820739|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.17|-0.86|0.0040
91820740|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.43|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 14 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.54|0.8253
91820741|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.53|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 21 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.53|-0.30|0.5795
91820742|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.51|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.51|-0.21|0.4032
91820743|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.33|0.6117
91820744|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.16|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.35|0.4716
91950861|NCT01018680|183797797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for Night Pain Intensity. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950862|NCT01018680|183797797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for Worst Pain Intensity. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91820745|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.6041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.34|0.6041
91950863|NCT01018680|183797798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Worst Pain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950864|NCT01018680|183797798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Least Pain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950865|NCT01018680|183797798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Average Pain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950866|NCT01018680|183797798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Pain Right Now. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950867|NCT01018680|183797798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for General Activity. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950868|NCT01018680|183797798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Mood. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950869|NCT01018680|183797798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Walking Ability. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950870|NCT01018680|183797798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Normal Work. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950871|NCT01018680|183797798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Relations with Others. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950872|NCT01018680|183797798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Sleep. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950873|NCT01018680|183797798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Enjoyment of Life. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91820746|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.53|0.0424
91950874|NCT01018680|183797798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Mean Interference Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950875|NCT01018680|183797799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91950876|NCT01018680|183797800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91820747|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.7622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.32|0.7622
91950877|NCT01018680|183797801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.449||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Total Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.449
91820748|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.11|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.40|0.2689
91820749|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 48 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.44|0.2110
91820750|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.34|0.5873
91820751|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.46|0.0450
91820752|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.04|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.57|0.0847
91820753|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.6|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.60|-0.16|0.2522
91820754|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.43|0.5026
91820755|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.22|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.38|0.5911
91820756|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.18|0.5800
91820757|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.6754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.31|0.6754
91820758|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.04|0.1006
91820759|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.35|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.13|0.3588
91950878|NCT01018680|183797801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.265||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Tension-Anxiety Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.265
91820760|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.28|0.5807
91820761|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.4241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.13|0.4241
91820762|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.7984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.26|0.7984
91820763|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.22|0.8732
91820764|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.8621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.23|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.19|0.8621
91820765|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.45|0.1087
91820766|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.2153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.09|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.41|0.2153
91820767|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.07|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.51|0.1422
91820768|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.7211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.19|0.7211
91950879|NCT01018680|183797801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.18||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Depression-Dejection Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.180
91950880|NCT01018680|183797801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.041||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Anger-Hostility Score. 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.041
91950881|NCT01018680|183797801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.356||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Vigor-Activity Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.356
91950882|NCT01018680|183797801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.862||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Fatigue-Inertia Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.862
91820769|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.23|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.18|0.8224
91820770|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.6362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.31|0.6362
91820771|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.18|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.31|0.6094
91820772|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.0|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.49|0.0457
91820773|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.36|0.5691
91820774|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.40|0.2942
91820775|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.35|0.5389
91820776|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.40|0.4061
91820777|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.56|0.0990
91820778|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.63|0.0108
91820779|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.04|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.59|0.0889
91820780|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.49|-0.18|0.3721
91820781|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.36|0.5513
91950883|NCT01018680|183797801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.883||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Confusion-Bewilderment Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.883
91820782|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.26|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.01|0.0748
91820783|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.25|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.09|0.3545
91820784|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.6531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.23|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.14|0.6531
91820785|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.19|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.26|0.7520
91820786|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.23|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.26|0.8861
91820787|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.13|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.38|0.3280
91820788|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.05|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.46|0.1123
91820789|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.2541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.1|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.36|0.2541
91820790|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.09|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.66|0.0110
91950884|NCT01018680|183797802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.083||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.083
91950885|NCT01018680|183797803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91820791|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.36|0.7720
91950886|NCT01018680|183797804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 30% Response (LOCF) based on 24-Hour Average Pain Ratings. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91950887|NCT01018680|183797804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 50% Response (LOCF) based on 24-Hour Average Pain Ratings. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91950888|NCT01018680|183797805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 30% Response (LOCF) based on BPI Average Pain Ratings.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91950889|NCT01018680|183797805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 50% Response (LOCF) based on BPI Average Pain Ratings.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91950890|NCT01018680|183797806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
91891195|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NYmass at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-9.62||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0174
91950891|NCT01018680|183797807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0||||This is the p-value for PCS Weight Gain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.724
91950892|NCT01018680|183797807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0||||This is the p-value for PCS Weight Loss. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.106
91950893|NCT01018680|183797808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
91950894|NCT01018680|183797809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||This is the p-value for Diastolic Hypertension. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.063
91950895|NCT01018680|183797809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||This is the p-value for Systolic Hypertension. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.018
91950896|NCT01018680|183797810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.249
91950897|NCT01018680|183797811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||This is the p-value for outpatient group visits. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.241
91950898|NCT01018680|183797811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0||||This is the p-value for outpatient individual visits. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.087
91950899|NCT01018680|183797811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||This is the p-value for emergency room visits for non-psychiatric illness. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.414
91950900|NCT01018680|183797811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||This is the p-value for outpatient visits to other physicians. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.332
91950901|NCT01018680|183797811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0||||This is the p-value for the average number of hours worked for pay per week. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.183
91950902|NCT01018680|183797811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0||||This is the p-value for how long the participant has had this job. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.666
91950903|NCT01018680|183797811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||This is the p-value for the average number of hours of volunteer work per week. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.890
91950904|NCT01018680|183797811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||This is the p-value for psychiatric visits. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.413
91950905|NCT05056311|183797829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91950906|NCT05056311|183797830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91950907|NCT05056311|183797831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91950908|NCT05056311|183797833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91950909|NCT05056311|183797834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6374||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.6374
91950910|NCT01714726|183797841|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.3|36.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.8|8.3|=0.01
91950911|NCT00665366|183797873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-4.14|0.058
91950912|NCT00665366|183797874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.25|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 3|||0.25|-0.16|0.669
91950913|NCT00665366|183797874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.16|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 6|||0.16|-0.36|0.436
91950914|NCT00665366|183797874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 9|||0.00|-0.56|0.053
91950915|NCT00665366|183797874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.01|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 12|||-0.01|-0.59|0.044
91950916|NCT00665366|183797875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 3|||0.06|-0.22|0.240
91950917|NCT00665366|183797875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 6|||0.19|-0.15|0.843
91950918|NCT00665366|183797875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 9|||0.35|-0.04|0.117
91950919|NCT00665366|183797875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.38|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model|Week 12||||0.38|-0.04|0.109
91950920|NCT00665366|183797876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model|Week 12||||0.20|-0.37|0.567
91950921|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|3.03|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 3|||3.03|-1.66|0.566
91950922|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66||||0.221||95.0|-1.0|4.32|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 6|||4.32|-1.00|0.221
91950923|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.35|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 9|||4.35|-1.40|0.315
91950924|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|4.84|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 12|||4.84|-1.08|0.212
91950925|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.48|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 3|||0.48|-0.49|0.991
91950926|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.85|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 6|||0.85|-0.18|0.201
91950927|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.93|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 9|||0.93|-0.19|0.198
91950928|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.96|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 12|||0.96|-0.18|0.178
91950929|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.32|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 3|||0.32|-1.01|0.311
91950930|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.61|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 6|||0.61|-0.94|0.671
91950931|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.79|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 9|||0.79|-0.83|0.968
91820792|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.52|0.6311
91820793|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.6877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.33|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.50|0.6877
91950932|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.07|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 12|||1.07|-0.56|0.546
91950933|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.96|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 3|||0.96|-0.28|0.284
91950934|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.35|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 6|||1.35|-0.04|0.063
91950935|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.34|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 9|||1.34|-0.10|0.090
91950936|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.42|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 12|||1.42|-0.06|0.072
91950937|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.93|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 3|||0.93|-0.45|0.499
91950938|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.06|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 6|||1.06|-0.48|0.457
91950939|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.525||95.0|-0.56|1.1|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 9|||1.10|-0.56|0.525
91950940|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.09|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 12|||1.09|-0.58|0.544
91950941|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.52|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 3|||0.52|-0.08|0.149
91950942|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.54|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 6|||0.54|-0.15|0.264
91950943|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 9|||0.35|-0.35|0.988
91950944|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.44|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 12|||0.44|-0.27|0.641
91950945|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.61|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 3|||0.61|-0.02|0.068
91950946|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.74|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 6|||0.74|0.07|0.019
91950947|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.6|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 9|||0.60|-0.08|0.136
91950948|NCT00665366|183797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.18||95.0|-0.11|0.57|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 12|||0.57|-0.11|0.18
91950949|NCT00665366|183797878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.59|||Ration of response||Week 3|||1.59|0.81|0.466
91950950|NCT00665366|183797878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||Risk ratio||Week 6|||1.32|0.86|0.540
91950951|NCT00665366|183797878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.38|||Risk ratio||Week 9|||1.38|0.99|0.060
91950952|NCT00665366|183797878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||Risk ratio|||||1.23|0.94|0.289
91950953|NCT00665366|183797879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||Risk ratio (RR)||Week 3|||1.39|0.75|0.909
91950954|NCT00665366|183797879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3|||RR||Week 6|||1.30|0.86|0.573
91950955|NCT00665366|183797879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.36|||RR||Week 9|||1.36|0.98|0.080
91950956|NCT00665366|183797879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.27|||RR||Week 12|||1.27|0.95|0.211
91950957|NCT00665366|183797880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.29|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 6|||1.29|0.07|
91820794|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.58|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|-0.15|0.2465
91820795|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.05|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.36|0.1279
91820796|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.26|0.3946
91820797|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.15|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.23|0.6694
91820798|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.04|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.36|0.1113
91820799|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.13|0.5811
91820800|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.6794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.25|0.6794
91820801|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.25|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.14|0.6031
91820802|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.6673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.24|0.6673
91820803|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.6472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.16|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.25|0.6472
91820804|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.8654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.26|0.8654
91820805|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.11|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.48|0.2101
91950958|NCT00665366|183797880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.58|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 12|||1.58|0.08|0.031
91950959|NCT00665366|183797880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.34|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 12 (LOCF)|||1.34|-0.13|0.104
91820806|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.7128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.21|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.30|0.7128
91820807|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.09|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.27|0.3297
91820808|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of weight, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.08|0.4493
91820809|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.31|||MMRM|||Loss of weight, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.01|0.0717
91820810|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.02|0.1054
91820811|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.36|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|0.01|0.0408
91820812|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.38|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.38|0.03|0.0233
91820813|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.26|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.09|0.3610
91820814|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.32|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.08|0.2358
91820815|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.9492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.17|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.16|0.9492
91950960|NCT00665366|183797881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||ANCOVA||Week 3|||0.32|-0.21|
91950961|NCT00665366|183797881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.53|||ANCOVA||Week 6|||0.53|-0.05|
91950962|NCT00665366|183797881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.54|||ANCOVA||Week 12|||0.54|-0.11|0.197
91950963|NCT00665366|183797881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.63|||ANCOVA||Week 12 (LOCF)|||0.63|-0.07|0.111
91950964|NCT00665366|183797882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.64|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 12 LOCF|||0.64|-0.63|0.983
91950965|NCT00665366|183797883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.71|||Risk Ratio|Weight gain||||3.71|0.57|
91950966|NCT00665366|183797884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.582||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.582
91950967|NCT03628781|183797885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.384||||0.535|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.535
91950968|NCT03628781|183797886|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.829
91950969|NCT03628781|183797887|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.357
91950970|NCT03628781|183797888|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.782|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.782
91820816|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.12|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.28|0.4352
91820817|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.44|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.05|0.1176
91820818|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.7812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.30|0.7812
91820819|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.5085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.24|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.48|0.5085
91820820|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.34|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.28|0.8274
91820821|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.13|0.3675
91820822|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.15|0.1818
91820823|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.17|0.0826
91820824|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.6436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.11|0.6436
91950971|NCT00994123|183797892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.16|0.008
91950972|NCT00994123|183797892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.15||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.76|||Log Rank|||||4.76|0.97|0.059
91950973|NCT03778021|183797893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41||"Estimated differential change in score between intervention and comparison group from repeated measures linear mixed model.~All the reported analyses conservatively specified covariance structure as general covariance (unstructured). alpha = 0.05."|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures linear mixed model analysis. Student nested within school. Model fit time, intervention and time by intervention interaction.|Estimated differential change (intervention minus control) from repeated measures linear mixed model|"The unit of measure is score on a scale. The results show the least squares estimate of change in that score, from baseline to 8-month follow-up in each group from model.~Values from the 100 and 194 baseline respondents and from the 72 and 141 follow-up respondents of intervention and comparison groups respectively contributed to the repeated measures linear mixed model, where the units of analysis were participant-time. The nesting within schools was accounted for in the model."|"In the repeated measures linear mixed model, time was treated as a fixed effect. In the specification of the repeated measures linear mixed model, students were nested within schools.~All the reported analyses conservatively specified covariance structure as general covariance (unstructured)."|0.41|0.04|0.017
91820825|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.15|0.1827
91820826|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.09|0.9859
91820827|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.6672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.07|0.6672
91820828|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.03|0.2031
91820829|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.07|0.6664
91820830|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.3417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.13|0.3417
91820831|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.6622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.12|0.6622
91820832|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.11|0.9087
91820833|NCT02942017|183518730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.08|0.8263
91820834|NCT02942017|183518731|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.612||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.66|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.66|-8.06|0.0033
91820835|NCT02942017|183518731|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|0.72|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.72|-7.84|0.1017
91820836|NCT02942017|183518731|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.884||0.9845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|3.79|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.79|-3.72|0.9845
91820837|NCT02942017|183518732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|12.5|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||12.5|2.0|0.0005
91820838|NCT02942017|183518732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.4|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||8.4|1.0|0.0478
91820839|NCT02942017|183518732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.6|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||4.6|0.5|0.4399
91820840|NCT02942017|183518733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.9|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.90|-3.24|0.2636
91820841|NCT02942017|183518733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.4897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.43|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.43|-2.96|0.4897
91820842|NCT02942017|183518733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.59|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.59|-4.30|0.1341
91820843|NCT02942017|183518733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.408||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|0.85|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.85|-4.76|0.1691
91820844|NCT02942017|183518733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.149||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.97|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.97|-2.60|0.7852
91820845|NCT00739752|183518800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||=|0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||Regression, Poisson|||The two gain-framed groups were compared to the two loss-framed groups using poisson regression.||1.12|.88|=.885
91820846|NCT00739752|183518800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.31|||Regression, Poisson|||Groups receiving any framed interventions (gain-framed or loss-framed) were compared to those in the two non-framed control groups.||1.31|1.06|<.01
91820847|NCT00739752|183518800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.28|||Regression, Poisson|||The 3 vaccine-recommended groups were compared with the 3 vaccine-offered groups using poisson regression.||1.28|1.05|<.01
91820848|NCT00249470|183518811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|16.56|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||16.56|2.03|.004
91820849|NCT00249470|183518812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||=|0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.08|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.08|0.40|=0.82
91820850|NCT00249470|183518813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.37|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||9.37|1.21|0.04
91820851|NCT02917031|183518840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.595||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline, saxagliptin versus placebo.||1.850|-7.040|0.252
91820852|NCT02917031|183518841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.631||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.635|2.373|||ANCOVA|||Saxagliptin: Change from baseline||2.373|-5.635|0.425
91820853|NCT02917031|183518842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.996|2.197|||ANCOVA|||"Saxagliptin vs Placebo:~Change from baseline"||2.197|-1.996|0.925
91820854|NCT02917031|183518843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.605||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Saxagliptin vs placebo: Change from baseline||0.760|-7.970|0.105
91820855|NCT02917031|183518844|SUPERIORITY||Ratio for relative change|0.971||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.214|||ANCOVA|||Saxagliptin vs placebo: Change from baseline||1.214|0.777|0.796
91820856|NCT00640510|183518862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A sample size of at least 15 patients per group was necessary to verify that the decrease in PANSS-EC total score was significantly greater in the IM olanzapine group than the placebo group using Student's t-test with a power of 90% at a two-sided significance level of 5%.||||0.940
91820857|NCT00640510|183518863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 15 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
91820858|NCT00640510|183518863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 30 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.620
91820859|NCT00640510|183518863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 60 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.784
91820860|NCT00640510|183518863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 90 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.756
91820861|NCT00640510|183518864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91820862|NCT00640510|183518865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 30 Minutes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91820863|NCT00640510|183518865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 60 Minutes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91820864|NCT00640510|183518865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 90 Minutes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91820865|NCT00640510|183518865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 2 Hours.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91820866|NCT04300296|183518883|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|19.3|||||Bayesian model to obtain the posterior distribution of the treatment difference between AIN457 and placebo|||19.3|-44.8|
91820867|NCT04300296|183518883|OTHER||Posterior median difference|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|40.7|||||Bayesian model to obtain the posterior distribution of the treatment difference between AIN457 and placebo|||40.7|-17.0|
91820868|NCT04300296|183518883|OTHER||Posterior median difference|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|35.4|||||Bayesian model to obtain the posterior distribution of the treatment difference between AIN457 and placebo|||35.4|-25.4|
91820869|NCT02624284|183518916|SUPERIORITY|Analysis: Multiple regression predicting main effects of dose on latency to smoke. Age, sex, race, nicotine dependence, and pre-session craving for negative affect relief (QSU-B Factor 2) were included as covariates.||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.94
91820870|NCT02624284|183518917|SUPERIORITY|Analysis: Multiple regression predicting main effects of dose on number of cigarettes smoked. Age, sex, race, nicotine dependence, and pre-session craving for negative affect relief (QSU-B Factor 2) were included as covariates.||||||0.53|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.53
91820871|NCT02624284|183518919|SUPERIORITY|Analysis: Multiple regression predicting main effects of dose on days of abstinence. Age, sex, race and nicotine dependence were included as covariates.||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
91820872|NCT02506816|183518924|OTHER|The P-valor Wilcoxon method is a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test used to evaluate changes from baseline H-score values of the three biomarkers.||||||0.033||||||In order to adjust the multiple comparisons made, Benjamini-Hochberg's false discovery rate (FDR) 10% method was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||After having analyzed the H-score for each of 3 biomarkers, we calculated the change from baseline subtracting post-treatment H-score from baseline H-score. Data were expressed as mean value and relative standard deviation.||||0.033
91820873|NCT02506816|183518925|OTHER|The differences in the change from baseline of different biomarkers were evaluated by the P-valor Wilcoxon method, a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test.||||||0.03||||||In order to adjust the multiple comparisons made, Benjamini-Hochberg's false discovery rate (FDR) 10% method was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||After having analyzed the H-score for each of several biomarkers, we calculated the change from baseline subtracting post-treatment H-score from baseline H-score. Data were expressed as mean value and relative standard deviation.||||0.03
91820874|NCT02477020|183518939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.442||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|1.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using MMRM|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|||1.35|-12.26|0.115
91820875|NCT02477020|183518940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.508||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|2.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 1||2.19|-3.77|0.602
91820876|NCT02477020|183518940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.229||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|2.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 2||2.19|-6.62|0.322
91820877|NCT02477020|183518940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|2.1||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||2.10|-9.02|0.221
91820878|NCT02477020|183518940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|4.11||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 4||4.11|-8.33|0.504
91820879|NCT02477020|183518940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.231||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.48||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 5||2.48|-10.30|0.229
91820880|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.562||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.38||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 1||0.38|-1.84|0.195
91820881|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.786||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|0.36||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 2||0.36|-2.74|0.132
91820882|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.959||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-0.05||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 3||-0.05|-3.84|0.045
91820883|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.49||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 4||0.49|-3.56|0.135
91820884|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|0.14||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 5||0.14|-4.17|0.067
91820885|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.31||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 6||0.31|-4.11|0.092
91820886|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.566||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.46||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 1||1.46|-0.78|0.548
91820887|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.88||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 2||0.88|-2.11|0.420
91820888|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.76||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 3||1.76|-1.47|0.857
91820889|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|1.26||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 4||1.26|-2.44|0.527
91820890|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.71||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 5||1.71|-2.01|0.875
91820891|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|1.13||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 6||1.13|-2.58|0.441
91820892|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.43||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 1||0.43|-1.17|0.362
91820893|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 2||0.83|-1.26|0.687
91820894|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.76||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 3||0.76|-1.68|0.458
91820895|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.4||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 4||1.40|-1.38|0.991
91820896|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.782||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.82||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 5||0.82|-2.27|0.354
91820897|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.804||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|0.33||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 6||0.33|-2.85|0.119
91820898|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 1||0.60|-1.25|0.493
91820899|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 2||1.03|-0.96|0.949
91820900|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.604||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.33||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 3||0.33|-2.06|0.153
91820901|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 4||1.35|-1.34|0.994
91820902|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.73||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 5||0.73|-1.96|0.365
91820903|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.653||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.17||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 6||0.17|-2.41|0.088
91820904|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 1||1.03|-0.54|0.535
91820905|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.502||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.58||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 2||0.58|-1.40|0.412
91950974|NCT03778021|183797894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.41||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.49||"Estimated differential change in score between intervention and comparison group from repeated measures linear mixed model.~All the reported analyses conservatively specified covariance structure as general covariance (unstructured). alpha = 0.05"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures linear mixed model analysis. Student nested within school. Model fit time, intervention and time by intervention interaction.|Estimated differential change from baseline to follow-up from model (intervention minus control)|"Results present estimated change in score from baseline to 8-month follow-up in each group from model.~Values from the 100 and 194 baseline respondents and from the 72 and 141 follow-up respondents of intervention and comparison groups respectively contributed to the repeated measures linear mixed model, where the units of analysis were participant-time. The nesting within schools was accounted for in the model."|In the repeated measures linear mixed model, time was treated as a fixed effect. In the specification of the repeated measures linear mixed model, students were nested within schools|3.49|-0.66|0.18
91950975|NCT03778021|183797895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.81||"Repeated measures generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution (variable was I know I can - yes versus no)."|Mixed Models Analysis|The odds of the odds ratio is reported as the intervention effect.|Odds ratio from estimated least squares from generalized mixed model with binomial distribution specified. Intervention odds of change compared to comparison group odds of change via odds ratio..|"Odds ratio of 8-month follow-up to baseline percent reporting  I know I can was estimated from repeated measures generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution.~Values included from the 100 and 194 baseline respondents and from the 72 and 141 8-month follow-up respondents of intervention and comparison groups respectively. The person-timepoint is the unit of analysis."||2.81|0.60|0.51
91950976|NCT01928758|183797909|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-175.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.3|-133.1||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline cotinine after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2-weeks.|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group.|||-133.1|-218.3|<0.0001
91950977|NCT01928758|183797910|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.65||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline score after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2 weeks|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group|||1.65|-0.28|0.16
91950978|NCT01928758|183797911|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.16||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline score after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2 weeks|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group.|||2.16|-1.40|0.67
91820906|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.522||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.55||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 3||0.55|-1.52|0.354
91950979|NCT01928758|183797912|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.05||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline score after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2 weeks|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group|||1.05|-1.68|0.65
91950980|NCT04051320|183797939|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|2.164||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.160
91950981|NCT04051320|183797940|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.74||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1922
91950982|NCT04051320|183797941|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.837||||0.368|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.368
91950983|NCT04051320|183797942|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.23||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.881
91950984|NCT04051320|183797943|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|16.541||||0.000723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.000723
91950985|NCT04051320|183797944|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.072||||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.791
91950986|NCT04051320|183797945|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|4.952||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0372
91950987|NCT04051320|183797946|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|3.258||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0861
91820907|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.85||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 4||0.85|-1.49|0.589
91820908|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.569||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 5||0.60|-1.65|0.360
91950988|NCT04051320|183797947|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|2.37||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.139
91950989|NCT04051320|183797948|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.484||||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.237
91950990|NCT04051320|183797949|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.013||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.910
91950991|NCT04051320|183797950|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|4.609||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0449
91950992|NCT04051320|183797951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.322
91950993|NCT04051320|183797951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.772
91950994|NCT04051320|183797952|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|-0.568314||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.068
91950995|NCT04051320|183797952|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|-0.082904||||0.8759289|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.8759289
91950996|NCT04051320|183797953|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|-0.1275539||||0.70859639|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.70859639
91950997|NCT04051320|183797953|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|0.49225646||||0.2617744|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.2617744
91950998|NCT04051320|183797954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.568
91950999|NCT04051320|183797954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.944
91820909|NCT02477020|183518941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.58||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 6||0.58|-1.93|0.288
91820910|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.47||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 1||0.47|-1.87|0.238
91820911|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.784||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 2||0.83|-2.27|0.359
91820912|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.38||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 3||0.38|-3.34|0.119
91820913|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|0.8||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 4||0.80|-3.21|0.238
91820914|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 5||0.35|-3.81|0.102
91820915|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|0.56||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 6||0.56|-3.77|0.145
91820916|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 1||1.06|-0.93|0.902
91820917|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.78||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 2||0.78|-1.96|0.396
91820918|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 3||1.06|-1.79|0.612
91820919|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.856||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.33||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 4||1.33|-2.06|0.670
91820920|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.892||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.55||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 5||1.55|-1.98|0.807
91820921|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.853||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.54||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 6||0.54|-2.83|0.182
91820922|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.801||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.65||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 1||1.65|-1.52|0.933
91951000|NCT04051320|183797955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.103
91951001|NCT01294319|183797968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4872|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4872
91820923|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.66||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 2||1.66|-2.89|0.596
91820924|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.455||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|1.57||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 3||1.57|-4.18|0.371
91820925|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.625||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|2.84||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 4||2.84|-3.58|0.821
91820926|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|1.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 5||1.60|-4.81|0.323
91820927|NCT02477020|183518942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.732||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 6||0.98|-5.87|0.161
91820928|NCT02477020|183518943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.664||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.263|10.624|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 1||10.624|1.263|0.017
91820929|NCT02477020|183518943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.782||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.287|6.014|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 2||6.014|1.287|0.009
91820930|NCT02477020|183518943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.818||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|3.771|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 3||3.771|0.877|0.108
91820931|NCT02477020|183518943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|2.561|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 4||2.561|0.583|0.596
91820932|NCT02477020|183518943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.542||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|3.292|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 5||3.292|0.722|0.263
91820933|NCT02477020|183518943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.567||||0.253||95.0|0.725|3.388|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 6||3.388|0.725|0.253
91820934|NCT02477020|183518944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 1||0.14|-0.23|0.619
91820935|NCT02477020|183518944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 2||0.05|-0.48|0.116
91820936|NCT02477020|183518944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||-0.11|-0.77|0.009
91820937|NCT02477020|183518944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 4||0.00|-0.72|0.049
91820938|NCT02477020|183518944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.09||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 5||-0.09|-0.85|0.016
91951002|NCT01294319|183797969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2786
91951003|NCT00877929|183798068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0001||95.0|-7.9|-4.2|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-4.2|-7.9|0.0001
91820939|NCT02477020|183518944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.035||95.0|-0.83|-0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||-0.03|-0.83|0.035
91820940|NCT02477020|183518945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.21||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 1||0.21|-0.29|0.746
91820941|NCT02477020|183518945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 2||-0.03|-0.72|0.034
91820942|NCT02477020|183518945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.17||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 3||-0.17|-0.97|0.006
91820943|NCT02477020|183518945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 4||-0.12|-0.99|0.013
91820944|NCT02477020|183518945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.09||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 5||-0.09|-1.03|0.020
91820945|NCT02477020|183518945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.18||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 6||-0.18|-1.15|0.007
91820946|NCT02477020|183518946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|8.267||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 1||8.267|0.899|0.077
91820947|NCT02477020|183518946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.331||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.055|5.153||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 2||5.153|1.055|0.036
91820948|NCT02477020|183518946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.208|5.99||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 3||5.990|1.208|0.015
91820949|NCT02477020|183518946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.737||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|3.735||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 4||3.735|0.807|0.158
91820950|NCT02477020|183518946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.739||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|3.789||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 5||3.789|0.798|0.164
91820951|NCT02477020|183518946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.523|7.77||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 6||7.770|1.523|0.003
91820952|NCT02477020|183518947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.547||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|4.86||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BACS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BACS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||4.86|-1.26|0.246
91820953|NCT02477020|183518947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.767||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.69||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|Least square mean difference||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BACS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BACS total score-by-week interaction|Change at Week 6||5.69|-1.30|0.216
91820954|NCT02477020|183518948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.664||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|2.91||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BNSS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BNSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||2.91|-3.67|0.820
91820955|NCT02477020|183518948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|1.18||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BNSS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BACS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||1.18|-6.93|0.163
91820956|NCT02477020|183518949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.769||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|6.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PSP score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PSP score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||6.19|-0.81|0.131
91820957|NCT02477020|183518949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.313||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|7.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PSP score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PSP score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||7.19|-1.96|0.260
91820958|NCT02477020|183518950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.855||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|3.73||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline UPSA-B composite score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline UPSA-B composite score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||3.73|-3.61|0.973
91820959|NCT02477020|183518950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.92||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline UPSA-B composite score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline UPSA-B composite score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||3.92|-5.00|0.812
91820960|NCT01049919|183518960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||Proportional Hazards Regression|||||1.31|0.31|0.224
91820961|NCT01049919|183518961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Treatment-by-week p-value is reported.|Repeated measures model|The statistical analysis model includes treatment group, week, treatment-by-week, and baseline pain measurement.||||||0.671
91820962|NCT01049919|183518962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714||||||Treatment-by-week p-value is reported.|Repeated measures model|The statistical analysis model includes treatment group, week, treatment-by-week, and baseline pain measurement.||||||0.714
91820963|NCT01049919|183518964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.85|||Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.85|0.16|0.018
91820964|NCT00812929|183518968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|4.13||||||||4.13|-1.56|
91820965|NCT00812929|183518968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|3.37||||||||3.37|-2.32|
91820966|NCT00812929|183518968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.441|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.18||||||||3.18|-2.52|
91820967|NCT00812929|183518968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.438|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|5.37||||||||5.37|-0.31|
91820968|NCT00812929|183518969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.638|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|5.75||||||2 Hours||5.75|-0.72|
91820969|NCT00812929|183518969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.58||||||9.5 Hours||2.58|-2.34|
91820970|NCT00812929|183518969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.637|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|5.84||||||2 Hours||5.84|-0.64|
91820971|NCT00812929|183518969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.22||||||9.5 Hours||3.22|-1.70|
91820972|NCT00812929|183518969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.639|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|6.03||||||2 Hours||6.03|-0.45|
91820973|NCT00812929|183518969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.95||||||9.5 Hours||5.95|1.02|
91820974|NCT00812929|183518969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.637|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|9.54||||||2 Hours||9.54|3.06|
91820975|NCT00812929|183518969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|4.73||||||9.5 Hours||4.73|-0.19|
91820976|NCT00812929|183518970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|3.25|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||3.25|-1.37|
91820977|NCT00812929|183518970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.878|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.8|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||1.80|-1.66|
91951004|NCT00877929|183798069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.0001||95.0|-8.9|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-5.4|-8.9|0.0001
91820978|NCT00812929|183518970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|2.63|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||2.63|-0.82|
91820979|NCT00812929|183518970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|3.43|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||3.43|-1.19|
91820980|NCT00812929|183518970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.878|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.95|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||2.95|-0.51|
91820981|NCT00812929|183518970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.9|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||1.90|-1.55|
91820982|NCT00812929|183518970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.82|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||3.82|-0.80|
91951005|NCT00877929|183798070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.0001||95.0|-8.3|-4.9|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-4.9|-8.3|0.0001
91820983|NCT00812929|183518970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.03|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||5.03|1.57|
91820984|NCT00812929|183518970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.874|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.62|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||1.62|-1.83|
91820985|NCT00812929|183518970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.48|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||5.48|0.86|
91820986|NCT00812929|183518970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.877|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.84|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||3.84|0.38|
91820987|NCT00812929|183518970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.872|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.44|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||3.44|-0.00|
91820988|NCT00812929|183518971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.21|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||2.21|0.71|
91820989|NCT00812929|183518971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.06|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||2.06|0.59|
91820990|NCT00812929|183518971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.43|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||3.43|0.93|
91820991|NCT00812929|183518971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.48|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||2.48|0.81|
91820992|NCT00812929|183518971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.66|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||3.66|1.01|
91820993|NCT00812929|183518971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.25|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||3.25|0.86|
91820994|NCT00812929|183518971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.69|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||3.69|1.19|
91820995|NCT00812929|183518971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|10.94|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||10.94|2.75|
91820996|NCT00812929|183518971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.64|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||3.64|1.00|
91820997|NCT00812929|183518971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.48|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||6.48|2.00|
91820998|NCT00812929|183518971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.87|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||3.87|1.07|
91820999|NCT00812929|183518971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|12.71|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||12.71|2.90|
91821000|NCT02504372|183518992|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.96|||||HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||0.96|0.68|
91821001|NCT02504372|183518993|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.13499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value was based on the permutation test with multivariate Cox regression model.|HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||1.16|0.59|0.13499
91821002|NCT02504372|183518994|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.01327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value was based on the permutation test with multivariate Cox regression model.|HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||0.97|0.62|0.01327
91821003|NCT02504372|183519001|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.00143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.91|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value was based on the permutation test with multivariate Cox regression model.|HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||0.91|0.63|0.00143
91821004|NCT02975934|183519002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.36|<0.001
91821005|NCT02975934|183519003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.80|0.47|<0.001
91821006|NCT02975934|183519004|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.68|0.5044
91821007|NCT02975934|183519005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.78|0.9368
91821008|NCT02075840|183519022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, stratified|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.65|||Log Rank|||Stratified hazard ratio and p-value are stratified for covariates Race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and CNS metastases at baseline by IRC.||0.65|0.34|<0.0001
91821009|NCT02075840|183519024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Log Rank|Stratified hazard ratio and p-value are stratified for covariates Race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and CNS metastases at baseline by IRC.||||0.70|0.36|<0.0001
91821010|NCT02075840|183519026|SUPERIORITY|IRC, RECIST v1.1 Stratified Analysis (by race (Asian vs non-Asian) and CNS metastases at baseline by IRC)|Cause-Specific Hazard Ratio|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.28|||Log Rank|||||0.28|0.10|<0.0001
91821011|NCT02075840|183519028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|7.4||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|16.5||Stratified analysis|Mantel Haenszel|||||16.50|-1.71|0.0936
91821012|NCT02075840|183519030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.2||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||||1.20|0.48|0.2405
91821013|NCT02075840|183519041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.19|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis||Fatigue||1.19|0.46|0.2079
91821014|NCT02075840|183519041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.15||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Dyspnea||3.15|0.88|0.1137
91821015|NCT02075840|183519043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.74||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Coughing||1.74|0.44|0.7042
91821016|NCT02075840|183519043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.92||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Dyspnea||2.92|1.05|0.0285
91821017|NCT02075840|183519043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.61||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Pain in arm and shoulder||2.61|0.79|0.2377
91821018|NCT02075840|183519043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.1||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Pain in chest||1.10|0.24|0.0796
91821019|NCT02075840|183519043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.6435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.68||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Composite score||1.68|0.72|0.6435
91821020|NCT05429203|183519050|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.8
91821021|NCT05429203|183519051|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
91821022|NCT05429203|183519052|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
91821023|NCT05429203|183519053|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4
91821024|NCT05429203|183519054|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
91951006|NCT00877929|183798071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0001||95.0|-7.9|-4.3|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-4.3|-7.9|0.0001
91821025|NCT05429203|183519055|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
91821026|NCT05429203|183519056|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
91821027|NCT05429203|183519057|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
91821028|NCT05429203|183519058|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
91821029|NCT05429203|183519059|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
91821030|NCT05429203|183519060|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
91821031|NCT05429203|183519061|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
91821032|NCT02402452|183519065|OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean(GLSM)Ratio %|172.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.93|305.33||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUClast. A 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||305.33|97.93|
91821033|NCT02402452|183519066|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|171.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|300.38||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUCinf. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||300.38|97.65|
91821034|NCT02402452|183519067|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|145.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.77|252.48||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir Cmax. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||252.48|83.77|
91821035|NCT02644967|183519069|OTHER|Estimation||||||0.0158||||||P-value of the overall response tested against the null rate of 11% based on 1-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) test.|One-sided Clopper-Pearson test|||Testing the best overall confirmed response rate against the historical control rate of 0.11 (extracted from the literature review).||||0.0158
91821036|NCT02644967|183519070|OTHER|Estimation|Kaplan-Meier|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|7.0|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of median PFS in months.|||7.00|3.65|
91821037|NCT02644967|183519071|OTHER|Landmark analysis of overall survival at six (6) months.|Kaplan-Meier|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.3|94.2|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of percentage of participants surviving at six (6) months.|||94.2|74.3|
91821038|NCT02644967|183519072|OTHER|Landmark analysis of overall survival at twelve (12) months.|Kaplan-Meier|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|72.4|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of percentage of participants surviving at twelve (12) months.|||72.4|44.7|
91821039|NCT05179421|183519080|OTHER|NONMEM applies nonlinear mixed effects modeling to evaluate the relationship between predicted drug concentration after administration from known pharmacokinetics and a pharmacodynamic effect, in this case being a reduction in pain from sustained heat application.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scores over time will first be modeled using NONMEM with derived parameters of maximum effect (Emax) and doses to produce a 50% and 90% maximum drug effect (C50 and C90, respectively), the steepness of the dose response curve (γ), and the time to peak effect. Inter-subject variability (e.g., biological variability) will evaluate additive, proportional, and exponential models. Residual intrasubject variability (e.g., noise) will typically require an additive and multiplicative error model.||||<0.05
91821040|NCT01077960|183519082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91821041|NCT01077960|183519083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91821042|NCT01077960|183519084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91821043|NCT01077960|183519085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91821044|NCT01077960|183519086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91821045|NCT01077960|183519087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91951007|NCT00877929|183798072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0001||95.0|-6.6|-3.2|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-3.2|-6.6|0.0001
91821046|NCT01702233|183519088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All statistical analyses were of exploratory nature. A one-sided test of non-inferiority of Traumeel®S with respect to dexamethasone at level 0.025 was computed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as qualitative factor and the baseline value of the abduction rotation pain VAS for active external rotation as a covariate. The test decision was based on a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval . The non-inferiority margin was set to 13 mm on a 0-100 mm VAS scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||97.5|||ANCOVA|||||97.5||<0.05
91821047|NCT02800148|183519195|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|115.5||No p-value as calculated for bioequivalence, just a T/R ratio and 90% confidence interval|Fieller's method|||||115.5|96.1|
91821048|NCT00613509|183519202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9406
91821049|NCT00613509|183519202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio test|||||||0.9179
91821050|NCT03465878|183519205|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.999||||0.9813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|0.918|0.9813
91821051|NCT03465878|183519205|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.06||||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.15|0.976|0.1638
91821052|NCT03465878|183519205|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.933|0.7623
91821053|NCT03465878|183519205|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.04||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.962|0.2952
91821054|NCT03465878|183519205|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.97||||0.4052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|0.901|0.4052
91821055|NCT03465878|183519205|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.02||||0.5314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.948|0.5314
91821056|NCT02540954|183519207|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 5 letters.|Least squares mean difference|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.96|||ANCOVA|||||1.96|-1.51|< 0.0001
91821057|NCT02540954|183519208|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is 7%.|Treatment difference in %|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.0||||||||6.0|-3.7|
91821058|NCT02540954|183519213|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.152|0.392||||||||0.392|-4.152|
91821059|NCT01806896|183519234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|2.15||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Day 28)||2.15|-3.56|0.68
91821060|NCT01806896|183519236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.52||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Cue Rew\>Neut Left VS)||0.52|-0.72|0.79
91821061|NCT01806896|183519236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.51||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Cue Rew\>Neut Right VS)||0.51|-0.80|0.70
91821062|NCT01806896|183519236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.4||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Out\_win\_Rew\>Out\_win N Left VS)||0.40|-0.89|0.51
91821063|NCT01806896|183519236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.04||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Out\_win\_Rew\>Out\_win N Right VS)||0.04|-1.10|0.13
91821064|NCT01806896|183519239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|13.18||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Emotional Incentive-Neutral) Day 28||13.18|1.43|0.04
91821065|NCT01806896|183519239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|13.45||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Emotional Incentive-Positive) Day 28||13.45|1.69|0.03
91821066|NCT01806896|183519239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|13.15||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Emotional Incentive-Negative) Day 28||13.15|1.41|0.04
91821067|NCT01806896|183519239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.91|6.87||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Monetary Incentive-0.01 Euro) Day 28||6.87|-4.91|0.78
91821068|NCT01806896|183519239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|10.67||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Monetary Incentive-0.1 Euro) Day 28||10.67|-1.11|0.18
91821069|NCT01806896|183519239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|16.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.46|22.24||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Monetary Incentive-1 Euro) Day 28||22.24|10.46|<0.01
91951008|NCT01140646|183798109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0903||||||One sided t-test with 0.05 error rate was employed.|t-test, 1 sided|||To determine whether any reduction in hot flash score is beyond what is expected with a placebo (20-25%). Reference: Sloan JA, et al. Methodologic lessons learned from hot flash studies. J Clin Oncol. Dec 1 2001;19(23):4280-4290.||||0.0903
91821070|NCT02434770|183519242|EQUIVALENCE|Primary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to demonstrate the equivalence of two lots of BBIBP bOPV in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The immune response of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared equivalent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the serotype-specific GMT ratio for both serotypes was contained within (0.5, 2.0).|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.08|||||Lot 1 / Lot 2|||1.08|0.65|
91821071|NCT02434770|183519242|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The two Lots combined would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the serotype-specific GMT ratio of BBIBP Lots 1+2 over WHO control for both serotypes was \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34|||||Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.34|0.87|
91821072|NCT02434770|183519243|EQUIVALENCE|Primary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to demonstrate the equivalence of two lots of BBIBP bOPV in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The immune response of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared equivalent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the serotype-specific GMT ratio for both serotypes was contained within (0.5, 2.0).|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15|||||Lot 1 / Lot 2|||1.15|0.73|
91821073|NCT02434770|183519243|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The two Lots combined would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the serotype-specific GMT ratio of BBIBP Lots 1+2 over WHO control for both serotypes was \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.79|||||BBIBP bOPV Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.79|1.21|
91821074|NCT02434770|183519244|NON_INFERIORITY|Primary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The immune response of the combined lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in percent responders is greater than negative 10, provided the two lots are declared equivalent.|Difference in seroconversion rate|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.6|||||BBIBP bOPV (Lot 1 + Lot 2) - BioFarma bOPV|For serotype 1||4.6|-0.5|
91821075|NCT02434770|183519244|NON_INFERIORITY|Primary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The immune response of the combined lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in percent responders is greater than negative 10, provided the two lots are declared equivalent.|Difference in seroconversion rate|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.6|||||BBIBP bOPV (Lot 1 + Lot 2) - BioFarma bOPV|For Serotype 3||5.6|-0.1|
91821076|NCT02434770|183519244|OTHER|Secondary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to show consistency of the two lots in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The two lots would be declared consistent if the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rates is within 10 percentage points of the observed difference for both serotypes.|Difference in seroconversion rate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.1|||||Lot 1 - Lot 2|For Serotype 1||2.1|-3.0|
91821077|NCT02434770|183519244|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to show consistency of the two lots in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The two lots would be declared consistent if the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rates is within 10 percentage points of the observed difference for both serotypes.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.8|||||Lot 1 - Lot 2|For Serotype 3||2.8|-2.6|
91821078|NCT02434770|183519245|NON_INFERIORITY|To show non-inferiority of Lots 1+2 combined versus BioFarma bOPV Control, the lower limit of the 95% CI must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.63|||||Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.63|0.89|
91821079|NCT02434770|183519246|OTHER||Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.09||||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|4.48|||Fisher's exact 1-tailed test|Fisher's exact 1-tailed test of a lower rate in Lots 1+2|BBIBP bOPV (Lot 1 + Lot 2) - BioFarma bOPV|||4.48|-3.86|0.5586
91821080|NCT02434770|183519247|NON_INFERIORITY|To show non-inferiority of Lots 1+2 combined versus BioFarma bOPV Control, the lower limit of the 95% CI must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.38|||||Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.38|0.71|
91821081|NCT01282424|183519252|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is ≤ 20%.|Exact binomial test|||||||< 0.0001
91821082|NCT04074317|183519270|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and patient within sequence as random effect.|||||<|0.0001||||||Least-squares geometric means for ln-transformed data.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821083|NCT04074317|183519270|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and patient within sequence as random effect.||||||0.694|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.694
91821084|NCT04074317|183519270|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and patient within sequence as random effect.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821085|NCT04074317|183519271|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-21.29||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.23|-1.36|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose Levels: \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 90 minutes||-1.36|-41.23|0.041
91821086|NCT04074317|183519271|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-7.45||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.43|16.54|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose Levels: \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 90 minutes||16.54|-31.43|0.453
91821087|NCT04074317|183519271|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|13.85||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|36.15|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose Levels: \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 90 minutes||36.15|-8.46|0.161
91821088|NCT04074317|183519271|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-23.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.37|-12.48|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 180 minutes||-12.48|-35.37|<0.001
91821089|NCT04074317|183519271|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.0|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 180 minutes||14.00|-7.80|0.564
91821090|NCT04074317|183519271|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|27.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.96|38.09|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 180 minutes||38.09|15.96|<0.001
91821091|NCT04074317|183519271|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-1.74||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|13.22|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 360 minutes||13.22|-16.70|0.813
91951009|NCT01140646|183798109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1553||||||One sided t-test with 0.05 error rate was employed.|t-test, 1 sided|||To determine whether any reduction in hot flash frequency is beyond what is expected with a placebo (20-25%). Reference: Sloan JA, et al. Methodologic lessons learned from hot flash studies. J Clin Oncol. Dec 1 2001;19(23):4280-4290.||||0.1553
91951010|NCT03006276|183798114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.94|||Fisher Exact|||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||2.94|1.36|<0.001
91951011|NCT03006276|183798114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.89|||Fisher Exact|||||2.89|1.34|<0.001
91951012|NCT03006276|183798115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.43|||Fisher Exact|||last observation carried forward (LOCF)||2.43|1.17|0.007
91821092|NCT04074317|183519271|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|2.35||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|16.17|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 360 minutes||16.17|-11.47|0.730
91951013|NCT03006276|183798115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.44|||Fisher Exact|||observed cases (OC)||2.44|1.16|0.007
91951014|NCT00689728|183798141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.178
91951015|NCT00689728|183798141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
91951016|NCT00689728|183798143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.873||||0.062||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 30 mg. vs. placebo in Physical Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.062
91821093|NCT04074317|183519271|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|4.09||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|19.15|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 360 minutes||19.15|-10.97|0.582
91951017|NCT00689728|183798143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.427||||0.052||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 80 mg. vs. placebo in Physical Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.052
91951018|NCT00689728|183798143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.655||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 30 mg. vs. placebo in Mental Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.655
91951019|NCT00689728|183798143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.264||||0.173||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 80 mg. vs. placebo in Mental Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.173
91951020|NCT00689728|183798144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.281
91951021|NCT00689728|183798144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.218
91951022|NCT00689728|183798145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.500
91951023|NCT00689728|183798145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.444
91821094|NCT04074317|183519277|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80-125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|37.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.36|43.75||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||43.75|31.36|<0.0001
91821095|NCT04074317|183519278|OTHER||Ratio of least-square means|435.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha = 0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as PRAM least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.0001
91951024|NCT00689728|183798146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.337
91951025|NCT00689728|183798146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.038
91951026|NCT00689728|183798147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.403||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.403
91951027|NCT00689728|183798147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91951028|NCT00689728|183798148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2||||0.168||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.168
91951029|NCT00689728|183798148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3||||0.075||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.075
91951030|NCT00689728|183798149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3||||0.157||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.157
91951031|NCT00689728|183798149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.6||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.025
91951032|NCT00689728|183798150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.110
91951033|NCT00689728|183798150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1||||0.147||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.147
91951034|NCT00689728|183798151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172||||0.969||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.969
91951035|NCT00689728|183798151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.452||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.452
91951036|NCT00689728|183798152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.554
91951037|NCT00689728|183798152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.920
91951038|NCT00689728|183798153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.912||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.100
91821096|NCT04074317|183519279|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|60.44||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.41|80.43||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||80.43|45.41|0.0075
91821097|NCT04074317|183519279|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|93.32||||0.6773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.14|124.16||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA|Based on Least-Squares geometric means for ln-transformed data.|"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||124.16|70.14|0.6773
91821098|NCT04074317|183519279|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|97.43||||0.8768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.94|130.14||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||130.14|72.94|0.8768
91821099|NCT04074317|183519280|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|53.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.51|65.11||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was ana analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||65.11|44.51|<0.0001
91951039|NCT00689728|183798153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.322||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91951040|NCT00689728|183798154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||p-value represents comparison of LY2127399-30 mg dose versus placebo for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good response, moderate response, no response).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
91821100|NCT04074317|183519280|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|73.16||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.06|87.67||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||87.67|61.06|0.0192
91821101|NCT04074317|183519280|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|135.91||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.1|163.31||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||163.31|113.10|0.0244
91951041|NCT00689728|183798154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||p-value represents comparison of LY2127399-80 mg dose versus placebo for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good response, moderate response, no response).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
91951042|NCT00689728|183798155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.818||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.818
91951043|NCT00689728|183798155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.066||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.066
91951044|NCT00689728|183798156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.010
91951045|NCT00689728|183798156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.056
91951046|NCT00689728|183798157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91951047|NCT00689728|183798157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91951048|NCT00689728|183798158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin G change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
91951049|NCT00689728|183798158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin G change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.125
91951050|NCT00689728|183798158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin M change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91951051|NCT00689728|183798158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin M change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91951052|NCT00689728|183798158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin A change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.115
91951053|NCT00689728|183798158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin A change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.019
91951054|NCT00842829|183798161|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper limit of the 90% CI was \<8%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.4|||||The upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval is equivalent to the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval.|Treatment comparison difference (100 mcg - 200 mcg)||1.4||
91951055|NCT02155725|183798185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9889||||0.9563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6633|1.4744|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4744|0.6633|0.9563
91951056|NCT02155725|183798186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0064||||0.9786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6321|1.6022|||Regression, Logistic|||Failure on individual component of the primary endpoint defined as administration of 2 units of RBCs.||1.6022|0.6321|0.9786
91951057|NCT02155725|183798187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0169||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6177|1.6741|||Regression, Logistic|||Failure on individual component of the primary endpoint defined as a loss of at least 4 g/dL of Hb.||1.6741|0.6177|0.9474
91951058|NCT02539160|183798228|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|14.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.3|-1.1|0.105
91951059|NCT02539160|183798228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|13.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.7|-1.5|0.112
91951060|NCT01728454|183798259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.0360
91951061|NCT01728454|183798259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1087
91951062|NCT01728454|183798259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2263|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.2263
91951063|NCT01728454|183798259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5375|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.5375
91951064|NCT01728454|183798260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1017|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1017
91951065|NCT01728454|183798260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1927|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1927
91951066|NCT01728454|183798260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1017|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1017
91951067|NCT01728454|183798260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1927|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1927
91951068|NCT01728454|183798261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7508|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7508
91951069|NCT01728454|183798261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5507|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.5507
91951070|NCT01728454|183798261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3993|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.3993
91951071|NCT01728454|183798261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5821|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.5821
91951072|NCT01728454|183798262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.7507
91951073|NCT01728454|183798262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8919|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.8919
91951074|NCT01728454|183798263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.4780
91951075|NCT01728454|183798263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2354|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.2354
91951076|NCT01728454|183798264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1140
91951077|NCT01728454|183798264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1636|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1636
91951078|NCT01728454|183798265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1140
91951079|NCT01728454|183798265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0733|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.0733
91951080|NCT01728454|183798266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1253
91951081|NCT01728454|183798266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.3442
91951082|NCT01728454|183798267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0303|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.0303
91951083|NCT01728454|183798267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2864|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.2864
91951084|NCT01728454|183798268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4365|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.4365
91951085|NCT01728454|183798268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1302|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.1302
91951086|NCT01728454|183798268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3591|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.3591
91951087|NCT01728454|183798268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.0872
91951088|NCT01728454|183798268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4814|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.4814
91951089|NCT01728454|183798268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9162|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.9162
91951090|NCT01728454|183798268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6607|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.6607
91951091|NCT01728454|183798268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9527|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.9527
91951092|NCT01728454|183798269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2812|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||LOCF Cycle 1||||0.2812
91951093|NCT01728454|183798269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5858|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||LOCF Cycle 1||||0.5858
91951094|NCT01728454|183798269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4116|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||ODI Cycle 1||||0.4116
91951095|NCT01728454|183798269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4252|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||ODI Cycle 1||||0.4252
91951096|NCT01728454|183798270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6131|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.6131
91951097|NCT01728454|183798270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7881|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7881
91951098|NCT01728454|183798270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9376|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.9376
91951099|NCT01728454|183798270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6552|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.6552
91951100|NCT01728454|183798270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7143|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7143
91951101|NCT01728454|183798270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2985|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.2985
91951102|NCT01728454|183798270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3162|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.3162
91951103|NCT01728454|183798270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7503|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7503
91951104|NCT00689299|183798271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ANOVA with baseline score as covariate||||<0.05
91951105|NCT01362062|183798298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.001
91951106|NCT01362062|183798298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
91821102|NCT04074317|183519281|OTHER||Ratio of least-square means|73.53||||0.2541|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as PRAM least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||0.2541
91821103|NCT04074317|183519281|OTHER||Ratio of least-squares means|103.89|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as PRAM least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||>0.9999
91951107|NCT01362062|183798298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.001
91951108|NCT01362062|183798298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
91951109|NCT01362062|183798298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
91951110|NCT01362062|183798298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
91951111|NCT01362062|183798298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
91951112|NCT01362062|183798298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
91951113|NCT01362062|183798298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
91951114|NCT01362062|183798298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
91951115|NCT01362062|183798298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
91951116|NCT01362062|183798299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.003
91951117|NCT01362062|183798299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.005
91951118|NCT01362062|183798299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.002
91951119|NCT01362062|183798299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.014
91951120|NCT01362062|183798299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
91821104|NCT04074317|183519281|OTHER||Ratio of least-square means|141.29||||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||0.1747
91951121|NCT01362062|183798299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.008
91951122|NCT01362062|183798299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.014
91951123|NCT01362062|183798299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.009
91951124|NCT01362062|183798299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
91951125|NCT01362062|183798299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
91951126|NCT01362062|183798299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
91951127|NCT01362062|183798300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.002
91951128|NCT01362062|183798300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
91951129|NCT01362062|183798300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.002
91951130|NCT01362062|183798300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
91951131|NCT01362062|183798300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
91951132|NCT01362062|183798300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
91951133|NCT01362062|183798300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
91951134|NCT01362062|183798300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
91951135|NCT01362062|183798300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
91951136|NCT01362062|183798300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
91951137|NCT01362062|183798300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
91951138|NCT01362062|183798301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.001
91951139|NCT01362062|183798301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
91951140|NCT01362062|183798301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.001
91951141|NCT01362062|183798301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
91951142|NCT01362062|183798301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
91951143|NCT01362062|183798301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
91951144|NCT01362062|183798301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
91821105|NCT04074317|183519282|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|53.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.59|64.83||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||64.83|43.59|<0.0001
91821106|NCT04074317|183519282|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|65.24||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.02|78.8||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||78.80|54.02|0.0018
91821107|NCT04074317|183519282|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|122.73||||0.2391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.33|148.66||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||148.66|101.33|0.2391
91821108|NCT04074317|183519282|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.58|61.73||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||61.73|47.58|<0.0001
91821109|NCT04074317|183519282|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|71.29||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.99|80.69||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||80.69|62.99|0.0002
91821110|NCT04074317|183519282|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|131.55||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.01|149.17||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||149.17|116.01|0.0026
91821111|NCT04074317|183519282|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|51.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.74|56.39||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||56.39|46.74|<0.0001
91951145|NCT01362062|183798301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
91951146|NCT01362062|183798301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
91951147|NCT01362062|183798301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
91951148|NCT01362062|183798301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
91951149|NCT01362062|183798302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.001
91951150|NCT01362062|183798302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
91951151|NCT01362062|183798302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.001
91951152|NCT01362062|183798302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
91951153|NCT01362062|183798302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
91951154|NCT01362062|183798302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
91951155|NCT01362062|183798302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
91951156|NCT01362062|183798302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
91951157|NCT01362062|183798302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
91951158|NCT01362062|183798302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
91951159|NCT01362062|183798302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
91951160|NCT01362062|183798303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.064
91951161|NCT01362062|183798303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.104
91951162|NCT01362062|183798303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.052
91951163|NCT01362062|183798303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.043
91951164|NCT01362062|183798303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB of Visit 7.||||=0.015
91951165|NCT01362062|183798303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.023
91951166|NCT01362062|183798303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.028
91951167|NCT01362062|183798303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.048
91951168|NCT01362062|183798303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.025
91951169|NCT01362062|183798303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.023
91951170|NCT01362062|183798303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.022
91951171|NCT02545504|183798309|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.18||The significance level at final analysis is 0.046 (two-sided). Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|Log Rank|p-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, geographic region and primary tumor site.|Hazard ratio (HR) was stratified by ECOG status, geographic region and primary tumor site with treatment arm as the only covariate.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint.||1.18|0.74|0.5625
91951172|NCT02545504|183798310|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04||The significance level at final analysis was 0.032 (two-sided). Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|Log Rank|p-value was stratified by ECOG status,geographic region and primary tumor site.|HR was stratified by ECOG status,geographic region;primary tumor site with treatment arm as a covariate.Stratum with \<6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint. PFS was tested only if OS was significant. The P-value is for display only.||1.04|0.67|0.1031
91951173|NCT02545504|183798311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.15||The significance level at final analysis was 0.032 (two-sided). Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was stratified by ECOG status, geographic region and primary tumor site.|OR was stratified by ECOG status, geographic region and primary tumor site. Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint. ORR was tested only if OS and PFS were significant.The P-value is for display only.||2.15|1.00|0.0493
91951174|NCT02545504|183798311|SUPERIORITY||ORR Difference|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|18.8|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference for ORR between the treatment and placebo is calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel proportion.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint. ORR was tested only if OS and PFS were significant.||18.8|0.1|
91951175|NCT00434876|183798324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
91951176|NCT00434876|183798325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91951177|NCT00434876|183798326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
91951178|NCT00434876|183798327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91951179|NCT00758394|183798328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Two way Anova general linear model (subject and treatment as factors). Multiple comparison completed to determine differences between groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91951180|NCT00950755|183798329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|89.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||89|62|
91951181|NCT00950755|183798330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|69.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response.|||69|38|
91951182|NCT00950755|183798331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|49.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR.|||49|20|
91951183|NCT00950755|183798332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|57.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR + CCR.|||57|26|
91821112|NCT04074317|183519282|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|78.24||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.39|85.76||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.76|71.39|0.0003
91821113|NCT04074317|183519282|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|152.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.91|167.22||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||167.22|138.91|<0.0001
91821114|NCT02742103|183519291|OTHER||Rate difference (CSL112 - placebo)|-0.124|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|-0.005|||Newcombe-Wilson|||||-0.005|-0.296|
91821115|NCT02742103|183519292|OTHER||Rate difference (CSL112 - placebo)|-0.103|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.025|||Newcombe-Wilson|||||0.025|-0.277|
91821116|NCT02533921|183519308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6749||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1706|2.8338|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||2.8338|0.1706|0.0272
91821117|NCT02533921|183519309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8267||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7569|0.5097|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.5097|-2.7569|0.1761
91821118|NCT02533921|183519310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3889||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2291|0.3059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.3059|-1.2291|0.2369
91821119|NCT02533921|183519311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1309||||0.7484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9349|0.673|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|||0.6730|-0.9349|0.7484
91821120|NCT02533921|183519312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4789||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6338|0.2581|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.2581|-1.6338|0.1529
91821121|NCT02533921|183519313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3934||0.6834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9382|0.6167|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.6167|-0.9382|0.6834
91821122|NCT00533949|183519314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.76|||Log Rank||Reference group = 60 gy|The trial was a two-by-two factorial design with radiation therapy dose as one treatment factor and cetuximab as the other. A log-rank test for each factor at one-sided α of 0.0125 (α of 0.0250 for both factors to account for multiple comparisons) would yield power of 80% to detect an improvement in median survival from 17.1 to 24 months after 339 deaths were reported out of 500 patients. For RT analysis, the comparison was arms 1 \& 3 vs arms 2 \& 4; for cetuximab, arms 1 \& 2 vs arms 3 \& 4.||1.76|1.09|0.0042
91821123|NCT00533949|183519314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||Log Rank||Reference level = cetuximab|The trial was a two-by-two factorial design with radiation therapy dose as one treatment factor and cetuximab as the other. A log-rank test for each factor at one-sided α of 0.0125 (α of 0.0250 for both factors to account for multiple comparisons) would yield power of 80% to detect an improvement in median survival from 17.1 to 24 months after 339 deaths were reported out of 500 patients. For RT analysis, the comparison was arms 1 \& 3 vs arms 2 \& 4; for cetuximab, arms 1 \& 2 vs arms 3 \& 4.||1.35|0.84|0.29
91821124|NCT00533949|183519315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47|||Log Rank||Reference level = 60 Gy|Progression-free survival is estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 for each comparison.||1.47|0.95|0.12
91821125|NCT00533949|183519315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||Log Rank||Reference level = cetuximab|Progression-free survival is estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.22|0.80|0.89
91821126|NCT00533949|183519316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Gray's test||Reference level = 60 Gy|Local-regional failure was estimated by the cumulative incidence method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 for each comparison.||1.53|0.89|0.24
91821127|NCT00533949|183519316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Gray's test||Reference level = cetuximab|Local-regional failure was estimated by the cumulative incidence method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 for each comparison.||1.10|0.64|0.22
91951184|NCT00950755|183798333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR.|||19|1|
91951185|NCT03539900|183798353|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized participants. Models also considered weight status as a moderator or predictor.||||||.44
91951186|NCT03539900|183798354|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized participants. Models also considered weight status as a predictor or moderator.||||||.04
91951187|NCT03539900|183798355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.98
91951188|NCT03539900|183798356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.44
91951189|NCT03539900|183798357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.99
91951190|NCT03539900|183798358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.40
91951191|NCT03159455|183798398|OTHER||Slope|2.2305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2592|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6955|2.7655|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC0-24 was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|2.7655|1.6955|
91951192|NCT03159455|183798399|OTHER||Slope|1.9007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4102|2.3912|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for Cmax was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|2.3912|1.4102|
91951193|NCT03159455|183798400|OTHER||Slope|3.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1771|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8793|3.6087|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing on Day 28 (after multiple doses). Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC0-24,28 was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|3.6087|2.8793|
91951194|NCT03159455|183798401|OTHER||Slope|2.0711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7663|2.376|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing on Day 28 (after multiple doses). Dose proportionality of tablets for Cmax,28 was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|2.3760|1.7663|
91951195|NCT02022566|183798411|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91951196|NCT02022566|183798412|OTHER|Described elsewhere|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91951197|NCT03799198|183798426|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations for body weight at month 12 imputed from the WMP arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x=100) imputation approach. Percent change in body weight from baseline to month 12 was calculated for each study participant within the FAS and analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as a factor and baseline body weight (kg) as a covariate.||-1.50|-5.51|<0.001
91951198|NCT00960869|183798444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|2.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.|The proportion is from the PA32540 treatment group.|The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects with gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint was analyzed with the CMH test stratified by NSAID use (COX-2/Other NSAID/No) at randomization. A sample size of 250 subjects/treatment would provide 86% power to detect the difference of 8% between EC aspirin 325 mg (13%) and PA32540 (5%) with a 2-sided significance of 5%; and, provides adequate power to test the key secondary endpoints in sequential order.||5.5|1.1|0.005
91951199|NCT00960869|183798445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers and/or duodenal ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
91951200|NCT00960869|183798446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects with Treatment Success was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
91951201|NCT00960869|183798447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects discontinuing from the study due to NSAID-associated upper GI adverse events was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
91951202|NCT00960869|183798448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO and by baseline heartburn severity at randomization.||The proportion of subjects who had no heartburn at 6 months (regardless of the presence or absence of heartburn at baseline) was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
91951203|NCT03410693|183798453|SUPERIORITY||ORR difference (R-C)|-2.1|||=|0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.9|||Fisher Exact|||||9.9|-14.0|=0.6991
91951204|NCT03410693|183798453|SUPERIORITY||ORR difference (R - C)|-4.5|||=|0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|9.9|||Fisher Exact|||||9.9|-18.9|=0.7944
91951205|NCT03410693|183798454|SUPERIORITY||DCR difference (R-C)|-5.1|||=|0.7962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|9.7|||Fisher Exact|||||9.7|-19.9|=0.7962
91951206|NCT03410693|183798454|SUPERIORITY||DCR difference (R-C)|-10.3|||=|0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|6.9|||Fisher Exact|||||6.9|-27.5|=0.9109
91951207|NCT03410693|183798455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.226|||=|0.8672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.762|||Log Rank|||||1.762|0.853|= 0.8672
91951208|NCT03410693|183798455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.341||||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.043|||Log Rank|||||2.043|0.880|0.9171
91951209|NCT02687815|183798465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||||1.85|0.69|0.63
91951210|NCT02687815|183798466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.75|||Regression, Cox|||||2.75|0.63|0.46
91821128|NCT00533949|183519317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophagitis: Only those toxicities reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment were considered. The worst grade of esophagitis and the worst grade of pneumonitis at any time were classified by binary groupings of \< grade 3 and \>= grade 3. Comparisons were made using a two-sided chi-square test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
91821129|NCT00533949|183519317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2533|||||||Chi-squared|||PNEUMONITIS: Only those toxicities reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment were considered. The worst grade of esophagitis and the worst grade of pneumonitis at any time were classified by binary groupings of \< grade 3 and \>= grade 3. Comparisons were made using a two-sided chi-square test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.2533
91821130|NCT00533949|183519318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||Only those toxicities reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment were considered. The worst grade of of toxicity at any time was classified by a binary grouping of \< grade 3 and \>= grade 3. Comparisons were made using a two-sided chi-square test.||||0.52
91821131|NCT00533949|183519320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0233|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||FACT-TOI-LCS was assessed and changes from baseline to 3 months calculated and grouped using a 2 point decline as the threshold. Comparisons of decline vs no decline by RT level were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test and controlling for cetuximab assignment using a two-side significance level of 0.05.||||0.0233
91821132|NCT00533949|183519321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.92
91821133|NCT00533949|183519322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.19
91821134|NCT00533949|183519323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.33|||Regression, Cox||Reference level = EGFR H-Score \< 200|Univariate model of overall survival by EGFR group||1.33|0.68|0.78
91821135|NCT00533949|183519323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.65|||Regression, Cox||Reference level = EGFR H-Score \< 200|Univariate model of time to local-regional failure by EGFR group||1.65|0.74|0.61
91821136|NCT00533949|183519324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91821137|NCT00533949|183519325|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.001||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.002||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in GTV|Univariate model with GTV as a continuous variable||1.002|1.000|0.06
91821138|NCT00533949|183519325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.004||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in GTV|Multivariate model with GTV as a continuous variable, adjusting for planned radiation therapy dose group (60 Gy or 74 Gy) and the interaction of GTV and planned dose.|P-Value for the interaction of GTV and planned dose = 0.77|1.004|0.997|0.78
91821139|NCT00533949|183519326|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in SUV|Univariate model of overall survival time by PET SUV as a continuous variable||1.02|0.98|0.94
91821140|NCT00533949|183519326|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in SUV|Univariate model of time to local-regional failure by PET SUV as a continuous variable||1.02|0.98|0.72
91821141|NCT00533949|183519326|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in SUV|Univariate model of time to distant metastasis by PET SUV as a continuous variable||1.02|0.98|0.79
91821142|NCT00727194|183519328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-1.05||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||||-1.05|-7.45|0.0144
91821143|NCT00727194|183519328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.71||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.37||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.37|-10.80|0.1170
91821144|NCT00727194|183519329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
91821145|NCT00727194|183519329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0606
91821146|NCT00727194|183519330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|0.91||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||||0.91|-4.08|0.1873
91821147|NCT00727194|183519330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.57||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-0.17||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.17|-6.97|0.0410
91821148|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|18.6||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||Physical Functioning||18.60|-16.94|0.9190
91821149|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.86||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.05|23.33||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning||23.33|-39.05|0.5931
91821150|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.7319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|22.89||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Role Physical||22.89|-16.64|0.7319
91821151|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.14||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.36|31.08||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Role Physical||31.08|-45.36|0.6910
91821152|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.42||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.18|3.34||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Bodily Pain||3.34|-22.18|0.1311
91821153|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.86||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.08|11.36||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Bodily Pain||11.36|-41.08|0.2406
91821154|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.17||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|14.62||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||General Health||14.62|-0.29|0.0578
91821155|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.43||||0.5073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|31.11||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||General Health||31.11|-16.26|0.5073
91951211|NCT02687815|183798467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.66|0.99
91951212|NCT02687815|183798468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|8.8|||Regression, Linear|||||8.80|0.001|0.049
91951213|NCT02558634|183798472|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75||The level of significance was set at p=0.025 to allow a Bonferroni correction for these two tests (i.e. p=0.050 divided by two).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.75|0.75|0.025
91951214|NCT01798056|183798492|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria used: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the Geometric Mean (GM) ratio (GSK1437173A PreChemo group over Placebo PreChemo group) in anti-gE ELISA antibody concentrations is greater than 3.|Adjusted GMC ratio|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|30.0||||Difference of means between vaccines and placebo were calculated together with 2-sided confidence intervals and back-transformed to the original units||The analysis evaluated the anti-gE humoral immune responses at Month 2, following a two-dose administration of the GSK1437173A vaccine, as compared to placebo in subjects with solid tumours receiving chemotherapy (PreChemo Groups only).||30|17.9|
91951215|NCT01008059|183798521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91951216|NCT02660489|183798522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91951217|NCT02660489|183798523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91951218|NCT02660489|183798524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91951219|NCT02660489|183798525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91951220|NCT02660489|183798526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91951221|NCT02660489|183798527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91951222|NCT02660489|183798528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
91951223|NCT02660489|183798529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
91951224|NCT02322866|183798530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|||-2.9|-5.8|< 0.0001
91951225|NCT02322866|183798531|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Rate Difference|7.3||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|12.07||P-values were based on the test of general association between the response and treatment group using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with pooled site as stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||sarecycline - placebo|||12.07|2.53|0.0038
91951226|NCT02322866|183798532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-9.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 12||-9.5|-19.4|< 0.0001
91951227|NCT02322866|183798533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-7.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 9||-7.9|-17.3|< 0.0001
91951228|NCT02322866|183798534|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-7.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 6||-7.5|-16.1|< 0.0001
91951229|NCT02322866|183798535|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-5.3||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 3||-5.3|-13.5|< 0.0001
91951230|NCT02322866|183798536|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 9||-2.5|-5.2|< 0.0001
91951231|NCT02322866|183798537|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.4||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 6||-2.4|-5.0|< 0.0001
91951232|NCT02322866|183798538|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.7||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 3||-1.7|-4.1|< 0.0001
91951233|NCT02145949|183798553|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.03
91951234|NCT02145949|183798554|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
91951235|NCT02145949|183798555|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
91951236|NCT02145949|183798556|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
91951237|NCT02145949|183798557|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.12
91951238|NCT02145949|183798558|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.03
91951239|NCT02145949|183798559|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.71
91951240|NCT02145949|183798560|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.76
91951241|NCT02145949|183798561|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.40
91951242|NCT02145949|183798562|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.97
91951243|NCT02145949|183798563|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.89
91951244|NCT02145949|183798564|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.48
91951245|NCT02145949|183798565|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.02
91951246|NCT02145949|183798566|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.29
91951247|NCT02145949|183798567|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.33
91951248|NCT02145949|183798568|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.30
91951249|NCT02145949|183798569|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.98
91951250|NCT02145949|183798570|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.18
91951251|NCT02145949|183798571|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.52
91951252|NCT02145949|183798572|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.81
91951253|NCT04602078|183798597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Log Rank|||Comparisong between subgroups: patients with PD-L1 postive versus patients with PD-L1 negative||||0.444
91951254|NCT04602078|183798598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparisong between subgroups: patients with PD-L1 postive versus patients with PD-L1 negative||||0.414
91951255|NCT02452320|183798615|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91951256|NCT03737812|183798619|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|10.259||||||Analyzed using a logistic regression model with corresponding baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a main effect. Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||10.259|0.485|
91951257|NCT03737812|183798619|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|16.561||||||Analyzed using a logistic regression model with corresponding baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a main effect. Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||16.561|0.899|
91951258|NCT01474291|183798631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.3|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 generalized estimating equation (GEE) Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor Patient's Age (\>=65) upon physician's decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy (multivariate analysis)."||2.30|1.06|0.0230
91951259|NCT01474291|183798631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|8.43|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 GEE Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor No methotrexate (MTX) sequences within the two last years upon physician's decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy (multivariate analysis)."||8.43|3.92|<0.0001
91951260|NCT01474291|183798631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.7|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 GEE Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor Past history of severe infectious disease upon physician's decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy (multivariate analysis)."||3.70|1.11|0.0212
91951261|NCT01474291|183798631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.41|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 GEE Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor Higher Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joint Count and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (DAS28-ESR) (unit=1) on physician decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy; DAS28-ESR was calculated from the number of swollen joints and tender joints using 28-joint count, ESR (millimeters per hour \[mm/hour\]) and patient's global assessment of disease activity; scores range from 0 to 10; higher scores correspond to greater disease activity (multivariate analysis)."||1.41|1.05|0.0076
91951262|NCT03471507|183798653|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age and sex.||||||0.46
91951263|NCT02046993|183798691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of the percentage of patients doing HBPM between intervention and control group at baseline||||0.27
91951264|NCT02046993|183798691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Comparison of percentage of subjects doing HBPM at 3rd month from baseline within intervention group||||.020
91951265|NCT02046993|183798691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||McNemar|||comparison in percentage of patients doing Home BP monitoring at 6th month from baseline within intervention group||||.060
91951266|NCT02046993|183798691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Change in the proportion of patients doing HBPM at 3 months from baseline within the control group||||.002
91821156|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.17||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|11.72||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Vitality||11.72|-3.39|0.2474
91821157|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.68||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.24|20.88||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Vitality||20.88|-26.24|0.8085
91951267|NCT02046993|183798691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Change in proportion of patients doing HBPM at 6 months from baseline within control group||||.009
91951268|NCT02046993|183798692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline mean clinic systolic BP mCSBP readings between control and intervention||||0.813
91951269|NCT02046993|183798692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline mean clinic diastolic BP mCDBP readings between control and intervention||||0.865
91951270|NCT02046993|183798692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference of mean clinic systolic BP readings mCSBP between control and intervention at 3 months from baseline||||0.476
91951271|NCT02046993|183798692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference of mean clinic diastolic BP mCDBP readings between control and intervention at 3 months from baseline||||0.14
91951272|NCT02046993|183798692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference of mean clinic systolic BP readings mCSBP between control and intervention at 6 months from baseline||||0.495
91951273|NCT02046993|183798692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference in mean clinic diastolic BP readings mCDBP between control and intervention at 6 months from baseline||||0.967
91951274|NCT02046993|183798693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baselline SEMCD between telemonitoring group and enhanced usual care||||0.819
91951275|NCT02046993|183798693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SEMCD at 3 months between telemonitoring group and enhanced usual care||||0.512
91951276|NCT02046993|183798693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SEMCD at 6 months between telemonitoring group and enhanced usual care group||||0.325
91951277|NCT02046993|183798694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline mHSBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups||||0.532
91951278|NCT02046993|183798694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline mHDBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups||||0.902
91951279|NCT02046993|183798695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHSBP at 3 months between smartphone based telemonitoring group and control group on enhanced usual care||||0.138
91951280|NCT02046993|183798695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHDBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups at 3 months||||0.204
91951281|NCT02046993|183798696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHSBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring groups and Enhanced Usual Care groups at 6 months||||0.199
91951282|NCT02046993|183798696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHDBP in mmHg at 6 months between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups||||0.204
91821158|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.46||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|1.21||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Social Functioning||1.21|-24.13|0.0716
91821159|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.07||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.68|9.54||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Social Functioning||9.54|-41.68|0.1966
91821160|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.81||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|5.99||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||Role Emotional||5.99|-29.60|0.1701
91821161|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.95||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.58|44.48||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Role Emotional||44.48|-32.58|0.7422
91821162|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.9007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|7.67||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Mental Health||7.67|-6.83|0.9007
91821163|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.86||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|43.29||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Mental Health||43.29|-7.57|0.1519
91821164|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.6807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|6.72||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Physical Component Score||6.72|-4.57|0.6807
91821165|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.23||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.79|4.32||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Component Score||4.32|-16.79|0.2226
91821166|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.26||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Mental Component Score||1.26|-7.10|0.1505
91821167|NCT00727194|183519331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.55||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|19.87||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Mental Component Score||19.87|-8.77|0.4151
91821168|NCT00727194|183519332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.25||||0.3377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|10.44||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||Forced Vital Capacity||10.44|-3.94|0.3377
91951283|NCT00851721|183798726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||H0: μ(on-demand) = μ(prophylaxis) Versus H1: μ(on-demand) ≠ μ(prophylaxis) (Where H0 implies no difference in mean bleeding episode rate between prophylaxis and on-demand treatment arms and H1 implies otherwise. This test was performed at a significance level of 5%, two-sided, two sample)||||0.0003
91821169|NCT00727194|183519332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-10.57||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.71|12.56||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Forced Vital Capacity||12.56|-33.71|0.3391
91821170|NCT00727194|183519332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|4.35||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t test|||Negative Inspiratory Force||4.35|-4.35|1.0000
91821171|NCT00727194|183519332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.57||||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.87|4.73||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Negative Inspiratory Force||4.73|-17.87|0.2292
91821172|NCT04269161|183519344|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 10 seconds such that the device is no worse than 10 seconds on average than manual mode. Our study is a 2-treatment, 24-period crossover design that accounts for first-order carryover effects, indicating a slightly higher power than a 2x2. Each subject acted as their own control. The study was defined as intention to treat, such that manual adjustments during the automated arm would be included in that arm.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.885||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-3.27||The p-value is significant at 0.01.|t-test, 2 sided||The difference is time to re-establish in automatic mode minus time to re-establish in manual mode. (a negative number favors automatic mode)|A sample requirement of 48 patients was determined based on a pilot study to provide 88% power, and 0.05 significance (two sided) to show the mean difference is less than 10 seconds based on a 2x2 crossover design. Considering patient drop-out, a sample size of n=40 drops power to 82%.||-3.27|-16.51|0.003
91821173|NCT04269161|183519345|OTHER|The difference is defined as the difference of proportion of time in the target range of SpO2 in modes, automatic minus manual. Our study is a 2-treatment, 24-period crossover design that accounts for first-order carryover effects, indicating a slightly higher power than a 2x2. Each subject acted as their own control. The study was defined as intention to treat, such that manual adjustments during the automated arm would be included in that arm.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.018||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.034||The threshold for statistical significance is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t test with equal variances. Linear mixed model patient random effects, adjusted for site, sex, race, weight, gestational age, bed type.|Treatment difference = automatic - manual. A positive number favors automatic.|The difference in the proportion of time in the target saturation is calculated between the automatic and manual models. For each 6-hour time block, we calculate the proportion of time the patient stays within the prescribed SpO2 range.||.034|0.003|.02
91821174|NCT02896127|183519380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.69|||Regression, Logistic||||"PTFU=post-treatment follow-up (12 weeks after last study treatment)~95% confidence intervals are from a score method with continuity correction."|3.69|1.65|<.0001
91821175|NCT00958776|183519396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.55|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||1.55|0.69|0.973
91951284|NCT00851721|183798728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Spontaneous Bleeds||||0.0008
91951285|NCT00851721|183798728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0199|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Traumatic Bleeds||||0.0199
91951286|NCT00851721|183798728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Joint Bleeds||||0.0006
91951287|NCT00851721|183798728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0227|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Non-Joint Bleeds||||0.0227
91821176|NCT00958776|183519398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.72|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||1.72|0.75|0.558
91821177|NCT00958776|183519399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.31|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||1.31|0.59|0.633
91821178|NCT00958776|183519400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.32|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||2.32|0.92|0.747
91821179|NCT00958776|183519402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.98|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio is calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||2.98|0.41|0.303
91821180|NCT00958776|183519404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis stratified by symptom onset prior to randomization, Baseline ICU status, need for supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.||||||0.768
91821181|NCT00958776|183519405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis stratified by symptom onset prior to randomization, Baseline ICU status, need for supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.||||||0.758
91821182|NCT04027218|183519432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|2.79|||McNemar|||||2.79|2.34|0.001
91821183|NCT04027218|183519432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.13|||McNemar|||||2.13|1.70|0.002
91821184|NCT04027218|183519432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|1.92|||McNemar|||||1.92|1.87|0.004
91821185|NCT04027218|183519433|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.179||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91821186|NCT04027218|183519433|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.619||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91821187|NCT04027218|183519433|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.099||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91821188|NCT04027218|183519434|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.073||||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the number of negative changes, which implies participants with decrease in VAS score.|||||0.863
91821189|NCT04027218|183519434|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.267||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the number of negative changes, which implies participants with decrease in VAS score.|||||0.205
91821190|NCT04027218|183519434|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.858||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the number of negative changes, which implies participants with decrease in VAS score.|||||0.391
91821191|NCT04027218|183519436|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.672||||0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the absorbance comparing hemolysis in blood samples performed by clinical practice against to the corresponding intervention.|||||0.502
91821192|NCT04027218|183519436|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.327||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the absorbance comparing hemolysis in blood samples performed by clinical practice against to the corresponding intervention.|||||0.744
91821193|NCT04027218|183519436|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.885||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the absorbance comparing hemolysis in blood samples performed by clinical practice against to the corresponding intervention.|||||0.059
91821194|NCT00494494|183519438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Our estimate of a clinically relevant increase is 25 microns. With these specifications, the sample size that is required to have 0.90 power for the comparison between two groups at the two-sided 0.05 significance level is about 10 per group.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|8.91|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between the 2 groups. Standard methods were used for power calculation to determine the sample size needed to have 0.90 power for the comparison between two groups at the two-sided significance of 0.05.||8.91|-3.27|0.7029
91821195|NCT00494494|183519439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.56||0.1937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|6.43|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.43|-2.41|0.1937
91821196|NCT00494494|183519440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|16.52|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.52|-3.12|0.5066
91821197|NCT00494494|183519441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.227|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.227|-0.13|0.5099
91821198|NCT00494494|183519442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.64||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.55|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.55|-1.49|0.5005
91821199|NCT00433654|183519496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.7|||exact test of binomial proportions|||Null hypothesis: rate \> 10%||1.7||<0.001
91821200|NCT00433654|183519497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.0||||||95.0||||P-value and confidence interval could not be calculated because both groups were 100% successful.|Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||
91821201|NCT00433654|183519498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||<0.001
91951288|NCT00851721|183798728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Spontaneous Joint Bleeds||||0.0013
91821202|NCT00433654|183519499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.9|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||<0.001
91951289|NCT00851721|183798728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Spontaneous Non-Joint Bleeds||||0.0030
91951290|NCT00851721|183798728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0254|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Traumatic Joint Bleeds||||0.0254
91951291|NCT00851721|183798728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9322|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Traumatic Non-Joint Bleeds||||0.9322
91951292|NCT00851721|183798730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0271|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||||||0.0271
91951293|NCT00851721|183798737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0067||95.0|||||Mann-Whitney tests (Wilcoxon-Rank Sum)|||||||0.0067
91951294|NCT04047472|183798769|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of brolucizumab to aflibercept with respect to change from baseline in BCVA, considering a margin of 4 letters.|LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.9|-3.0|0.006
91951295|NCT04047472|183798770|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of brolucizumab to aflibercept with respect to change from baseline in BCVA, considering a margin of 4 letters.|LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-3.2|0.009
91951296|NCT02347345|183798826|OTHER|Descriptive pilot study. Not relevant.||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.07
91951297|NCT01333501|183798829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|7.23|||ANCOVA|||||7.23|-3.51|0.4940
91951298|NCT01333501|183798830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|7.99|||ANCOVA|||||7.99|-4.06|0.5183
91951299|NCT01333501|183798831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-3.69|0.1334
91951300|NCT01333501|183798832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.4501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|2.81|||ANCOVA|||||2.81|-6.27|0.4501
91951301|NCT01333501|183798833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.8561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|5.49|||ANCOVA|||||5.49|-4.57|0.8561
91951302|NCT01333501|183798834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.8858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|5.4|||ANCOVA|||||5.40|-4.67|0.8858
91951303|NCT01333501|183798835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.7119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|-0.76|0.7119
91951304|NCT01333501|183798836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.9496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.86|0.9496
91951305|NCT01333501|183798837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.50|-2.18|0.8944
91951306|NCT01333501|183798838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.92|||ANCOVA|||||0.92|-1.42|0.6757
91951307|NCT01333501|183798839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.50|-6.82|0.3585
91951308|NCT01333501|183798840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|2.14|||ANCOVA|||||2.14|-12.62|0.1610
91951309|NCT03485976|183798866|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91951310|NCT03485976|183798867|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91951311|NCT03485976|183798868|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Threshold for significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91951312|NCT01680835|183798938|OTHER|Freedom from primary safety composite event at 36 months compared to a performance goal of 35%|Kaplan Meier|0.771|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.678||||Log Rank||||||0.678|<0.001
91951313|NCT01680835|183798939|OTHER|No hypothesis Testing for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Stent Fracture at 1 Year||||
91951314|NCT01680835|183798939|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|0.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Stent Fracture at 2 Years||||
91821203|NCT00433654|183519500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|2.1|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||<0.001
91951315|NCT01680835|183798939|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint|Kaplan Meier|0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Stent Fracture at 3 Years||||
91951316|NCT01680835|183798940|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done at this endpoint|Kaplan Meier|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Freedom from acute death, freedom from amputation and freedom from clinically-driven target lesion revascularization at 1 year||||
91951317|NCT01680835|183798940|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|0.782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Freedom from acute death, freedom from amputation and freedom from clinically-driven target lesion revascularization at 2 years||||
91951318|NCT01680835|183798941|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Estimate from freedom from major amputation through 3 years.||||
91951319|NCT01680835|183798942|OTHER||Kaplan Meier|0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Freedom from clinically-driven TLR through 3 Years||||
91951320|NCT03026556|183798949|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|1.037|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.037|0.566|0.0844
91951321|NCT03026556|183798949|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.255||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|2.39|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.390|0.659|0.4892
91951322|NCT03026556|183798950|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|0.967|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||0.967|0.696|0.0182
91951323|NCT03026556|183798950|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.939|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.939|0.974|0.0702
91821204|NCT00433654|183519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|8.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.7|||exact test of binomial proportions|||Null hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with complication \> 20%||10.7||<0.001
91821205|NCT02915029|183519525|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypothesis being tested was that the intervention will increase patient activation.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|15.5|||ANCOVA|Primary outcome was change in PAM total score, adjusted for baseline level. Adjusting for family clustering with generalized estimated equations.|This reflects the between-group difference for the within-person change scores in PAM total score adjusting for baseline values per person.|Group 1(usual care) is the comparison group, group 2 is the intervention group.|Applied generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for within family (household) clustering.|15.5|1.9|0.01
91821206|NCT00079274|183519563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.68|||Regression, Cox|HR and p-value reported from a multivariate Cox PH regression model, adjusted for number of nodes, histologic grade, and T stage.||||1.68|0.92|0.15
91821207|NCT00079274|183519564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.92|||Regression, Cox|HR and p-value reported from a multivariate Cox PH regression model, adjusted for number of nodes, histologic grade, and T stage.||||1.92|0.85|0.25
91821208|NCT00079274|183519565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|two-sided chi-squared test||||||<0.001
91821209|NCT00079274|183519566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided chi-squared test||||||<0.001
91821210|NCT00280566|183519568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104|||||||Log Rank|alpha = 0.05 level of significance||Equality of Survival Curves across the treatment groups.||||0.0104
91821211|NCT00280566|183519569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0047|||||||Log Rank|No adjustment made for multiple comparisons||alpha = 0.05 level of significance||||0.0047
91951324|NCT03026556|183798951|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.6307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.278|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.278|0.667|0.6307
91821212|NCT00280566|183519570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0205||||||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||alpha = 0.05 level of significance||||0.0205
91821213|NCT00280566|183519571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1247|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1: Difference in Change during Period 2 MMRM ANCOVA: center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1247
91891196|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D1m at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-9.15||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.013
91951325|NCT03026556|183798951|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.8777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.055|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.055|0.540|0.8777
91821214|NCT00280566|183519571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.7515|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.7515
91821215|NCT00280566|183519571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3074|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3074
91821216|NCT00280566|183519571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0758|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0758
91821217|NCT00280566|183519571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0162|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0162
91821218|NCT00280566|183519571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0003|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0003
91821219|NCT00280566|183519571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0242|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0242
91951326|NCT03026556|183798952|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.223||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.585|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||0.585|0.085|0.0023
91821220|NCT00280566|183519571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0161|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0161
91821221|NCT00280566|183519572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0088|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0088
91821222|NCT00280566|183519572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3677|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3677
91821223|NCT00280566|183519572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0734|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0734
91821224|NCT00280566|183519572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9166|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9166
91821225|NCT00280566|183519572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2791|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2791
91821226|NCT00280566|183519572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.146|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1460
91821227|NCT00280566|183519572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7301|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.7301
91951327|NCT03026556|183798953|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.654||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|0.982|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||0.982|0.435|0.0406
91821228|NCT00280566|183519572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8162|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.8162
91821229|NCT00280566|183519573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0013|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0013
91821230|NCT00280566|183519573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1167|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1167
91951328|NCT03026556|183798953|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|2.63|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.630|0.469|0.8124
91951329|NCT03026556|183798954|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.025|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.025|0.716|0.0901
91821231|NCT00280566|183519573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0188|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0188
91821232|NCT00280566|183519573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3413|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3413
91821233|NCT00280566|183519573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.276|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2760
91821234|NCT00280566|183519573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0085|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0085
91821235|NCT00280566|183519573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1317|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1317
91821236|NCT00280566|183519573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1666|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1666
91821237|NCT00280566|183519574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0023|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0023
91821238|NCT00280566|183519574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.1412|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate||||0.1412
91821239|NCT00280566|183519574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0861|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0861
91821240|NCT00280566|183519574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.5992|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5992
91821241|NCT00280566|183519574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.5873|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5873
91821242|NCT00280566|183519574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.2116|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2116
91821243|NCT00280566|183519574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1847|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1847
91951330|NCT03026556|183798954|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.431||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|2.083|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.083|0.983|0.0616
91951331|NCT03026556|183798955|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.069|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.069|0.736|0.2073
91951332|NCT03026556|183798955|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.504||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|2.228|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.228|1.015|0.0417
91821244|NCT00280566|183519574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.9972|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9972
91821245|NCT00280566|183519575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.5954|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5954
91951333|NCT03026556|183798957|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.709||||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|1.299|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.299|0.387|0.2663
91951334|NCT03026556|183798957|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.8112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|2.863|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.863|0.261|0.8112
91951335|NCT03026556|183798958|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.075|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.075|0.546|0.1227
91951336|NCT03026556|183798958|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|2.26|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.260|0.573|0.7115
91951337|NCT03026556|183798959|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.149|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.149|0.741|0.4727
91951338|NCT03026556|183798959|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.721||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|2.79|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.790|1.062|0.0275
91951339|NCT03026556|183798960|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.346||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.189|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.189|0.828|0.2309
91951340|NCT03026556|183798960|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.557||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|3.821|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||3.821|0.635|0.3333
91951341|NCT03026556|183798961|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.9359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.226|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.226|0.829|0.9359
91951342|NCT03026556|183798961|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.8947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.465|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.465|0.716|0.8947
91951343|NCT02612194|183798965|OTHER|Estimation only.|Overall Response Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.369|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.369|0.000|
91951344|NCT02612194|183798966|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.1|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median OS (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median overall survival.|||6.1|0.2|
91951345|NCT02612194|183798967|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||1.8|0.2|
91951346|NCT00387621|183798968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|With Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons||||||<0.05
91951347|NCT00387621|183798969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||rank-sum test|Rank-sum test was used due to non-normality of data with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons||||||<0.05
91951348|NCT01190839|183798978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||||||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by the number of risk factors for recurrence of active CD and baseline use of an immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||0.097
91951349|NCT01190839|183798979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by the number of risk factors for recurrence of active CD and baseline use of an immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||<0.001
91951350|NCT01190839|183798980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||||||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by the number of risk factors for recurrence of active CD and baseline use of an immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||0.098
91951351|NCT01153971|183798989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91951352|NCT01789476|183799007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||One-sided ANOVA with Treatment Group as a Main Effect|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91951353|NCT01789476|183799008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||One-sided ANOVA with Treatment Group as a Main Effect|ANOVA|||||||<0.03
91951354|NCT01789476|183799009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||One-sided ANOVA with Treatment Group as a Main Effect|ANOVA|||||||<0.03
91951355|NCT01238861|183799010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.59|||Poisson Regression Method||The p-value was calculated by Poisson regression with over-dispersion adjustment factor. The correction for potential over dispersion was made by Pearson chi-square.|||1.59|0.74|0.781
91951356|NCT01238861|183799010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.64||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.97|||Poisson Regression Method||The p-value was calculated by Poisson regression with over-dispersion adjustment factor. The correction for potential over dispersion was made by Pearson chi-square.|||0.97|0.42|0.173
91951357|NCT01238861|183799010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.59||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.4|0.89|||Poisson Regression Method||The p-value was calculated by Poisson regression with over-dispersion adjustment factor. The correction for potential over dispersion was made by Pearson chi-square.|||0.89|0.40|0.096
91951358|NCT01238861|183799015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.125
91951359|NCT01238861|183799015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.074
91951360|NCT01238861|183799015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.057
91951361|NCT01238861|183799015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.010
91951362|NCT01238861|183799017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.336|-0.028|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||-0.028|-0.336|0.131
91821246|NCT00280566|183519575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.3414|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3414
91821247|NCT00280566|183519575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.9745|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate||||0.9745
91821248|NCT00280566|183519575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.5627|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5627
91821249|NCT00280566|183519575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.741|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.7410
91821250|NCT00280566|183519575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.9632|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9632
91821251|NCT00280566|183519576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9538|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9538
91821252|NCT00280566|183519576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8541|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.8541
91821253|NCT00280566|183519576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1084|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1084
91821254|NCT00280566|183519576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.038|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0380
91821255|NCT00280566|183519576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2649|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2649
91951363|NCT01238861|183799017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.173||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.317|-0.028|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||-0.028|-0.317|0.126
91951364|NCT01238861|183799017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.247|-0.032|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||-0.032|-0.247|0.097
91951365|NCT01238861|183799018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.654|0.306|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use without prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.306|-0.654|0.642
91951366|NCT01238861|183799018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.533|0.756|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use without prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.756|-0.533|0.824
91821256|NCT00280566|183519576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2394|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2394
91821257|NCT00280566|183519577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.8117|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.8117
91821258|NCT00280566|183519577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0443|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0443
91821259|NCT00280566|183519577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3039|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3039
91821260|NCT00280566|183519577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.9953|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9953
91821261|NCT00280566|183519577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1653|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1653
91821262|NCT00280566|183519577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.5771|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5771
91821263|NCT01147653|183519578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: The true mean 1-year change in GMFM-66 is the same on Autologous Umbilical Cord Blood and Placebo||3.7|-2.6|0.72
91821264|NCT01147653|183519579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91821265|NCT01147653|183519580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Behavior change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.473
91821266|NCT01147653|183519580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Bodily Pain/Discomfort change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.377
91821267|NCT01147653|183519580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Family Cohesion change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.844
91821268|NCT01147653|183519580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month General Behavior change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.322
91821269|NCT01147653|183519580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month General Health Perceptions change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.927
91821270|NCT01147653|183519580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Global Behavior change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.199
91821271|NCT01147653|183519580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Growth and Development change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.294
91821272|NCT01147653|183519580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Overall Health change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.726
91821273|NCT01147653|183519580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Parental Impact-Emotional change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.315
91821274|NCT01147653|183519580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Parental Impact-Time change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.396
91821275|NCT01147653|183519580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Physical Abilities change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.381
91821276|NCT01147653|183519580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Temperament and Moods change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.869
91821277|NCT01147653|183519581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12 month Access to Services change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous Cord Blood Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.055
91821278|NCT01147653|183519581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month 2 Emotional Well Being and Self Esteem change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.121
91821279|NCT01147653|183519581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month 2 Family Health change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.647
91821280|NCT01147653|183519581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Functioning change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.170
91821281|NCT01147653|183519581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Pain and Impact of Disability change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.410
91821282|NCT01147653|183519581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Participation and Physical Health change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.200
91821283|NCT01147653|183519581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Social wellbeing and acceptance change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.225
91821284|NCT01147653|183519584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.290
91821285|NCT01147653|183519587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.697
91821286|NCT01147653|183519588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.912
91821287|NCT01147653|183519589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.544
91821288|NCT01147653|183519590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91821289|NCT01147653|183519591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91821290|NCT01147653|183519592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.176
91821291|NCT01147653|183519593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.099
91821292|NCT01147653|183519594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
91951367|NCT01238861|183799018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.297|0.355|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use without prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.355|-0.297|0.910
91821293|NCT01147653|183519595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
91821294|NCT01147653|183519596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
91821295|NCT01147653|183519597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.310
91821296|NCT01147653|183519599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of Modified Ashworth Scale scores is the same at 1-year post-infusion with autologous cord blood and placebo.||||0.233
91821297|NCT01147653|183519603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.762
91821298|NCT01147653|183519604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of the 1-year GMFM-66 change score is the same for patients infused with Low and High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood.||||0.05
91821299|NCT01147653|183519604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of the 1-year GMFM-66 change score is the same for patients infused with High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood and Placebo.||||0.15
91821300|NCT01147653|183519604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of the 1-year GMFM-66 change score is the same for patients infused with Low doses of autologous umbilical cord blood and placebo.||||0.21
91821301|NCT01147653|183519605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of differences between observed and expected GMFM-66 change scores at 1-year post-infusion is the same for patients receiving Low and High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood.||||<0.01
91821302|NCT01147653|183519606|SUPERIORITY|H0: The population distribution of the Peabody Gross Motor Quotient change score 1 year post-infusion with autologous umbilical cord blood is the same in patients receiving a Low infused dose and a High infused dose.||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91821303|NCT01147653|183519607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The true mean 1-year change in normalized whole brain connectivity is the same in patients infused with Low and High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood.||0.38|0.01|0.04
91821304|NCT01302392|183519610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.249||Based on 1-sided test.|Log Rank|Analysis was stratified by the number of previous therapies (3 vs 4 vs ≥ 5) and geographical region (Europe vs. non-Europe)||||1.249|0.760|0.4172
91821305|NCT01696032|183519690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0654|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0654
91821306|NCT00376168|183519702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||one-sample t-test|one-sample t-test (combined) to test the null hypothesis that percent change = 0||"The primary efficacy analysis was based on two one-sample t-tests (one for each treatment group) to determine if the percent change in spleen volume is different than zero.~With 12 patients in each treatment group, there was greater than 95% power to detect a change of 20% or more using a one-sample t-test (alpha=0.025, 2-sided test to allow for each group to be tested separately) to evaluate the primary outcome of percent change in spleen volume after nine months."||||<0.0001
91821307|NCT00376168|183519702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||threshold for statistical significance = 0.025|one-sample t-test|one-sample t-test (combined) to test the null hypothesis that percent change = 0||"The primary efficacy analysis was based on two one-sample t-tests (one for each treatment group) to determine if the percent change in spleen volume is different than zero.~With 12 patients in each treatment group, there was greater than 95% power to detect a change of 20% or more using a one-sample t-test (alpha=0.025, 2-sided test to allow for each group to be tested separately) to evaluate the primary outcome of percent change in spleen volume after nine months."||||<0.0001
91821308|NCT00376168|183519703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0041
91821309|NCT00376168|183519703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||<0.0001
91821310|NCT00376168|183519704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0010
91951368|NCT01238861|183799018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.602|0.593|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use with prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.593|-0.602|0.992
91951369|NCT01238861|183799018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.337||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.548|1.222|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use with prophylactic at Week 51-52.||1.222|-0.548|0.624
91951370|NCT01238861|183799018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.267|0.567|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use with prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.567|-0.267|0.645
91951371|NCT01238861|183799019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.076|0.237|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.237|0.076|0.014
91951372|NCT01238861|183799019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.102|0.266|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.266|0.102|0.004
91951373|NCT01238861|183799019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.039|0.143|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.143|0.039|0.026
91951374|NCT01238861|183799020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.384
91951375|NCT01238861|183799020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.092
91951376|NCT01238861|183799020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.134
91951377|NCT01238861|183799020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.129
91951378|NCT01238861|183799022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.404||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.121|0.687|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.687|0.121|0.069
91951379|NCT01238861|183799022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.462||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.163|0.761|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.761|0.163|0.049
91951380|NCT01238861|183799022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.017|0.459|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.459|0.017|0.168
91951381|NCT01238861|183799023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.058|0.019|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.019|-0.058|0.510
91951382|NCT01238861|183799023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.008|0.074|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.074|0.008|0.113
91951383|NCT01238861|183799023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.016|0.038|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.038|-0.016|0.599
91951384|NCT01238861|183799024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.373||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.333|2.586|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||2.586|-3.333|0.871
91951385|NCT01238861|183799024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.857||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.175|5.889|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||5.889|-0.175|0.227
91951386|NCT01238861|183799024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.139||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.041|3.319|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||3.319|-1.041|0.503
91951387|NCT01238861|183799025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.907||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.483|12.297|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||12.297|-4.483|0.550
91951388|NCT01238861|183799025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.659||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.262|15.579|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||15.579|-0.262|0.215
91951389|NCT01238861|183799025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.006|9.086|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||9.086|-2.006|0.413
91951390|NCT01238861|183799026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.896
91951391|NCT01238861|183799026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.944
91951392|NCT01238861|183799026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.667
91951393|NCT01342445|183799042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Partial eta squared|0.34|||<|0.001||||||we adjusted p values to control for the false discovery rate using procedures described by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). Thus, an alpha value of .021 was used as significance threshold.|ANOVA|"F(4, 84) = 10.9~This was a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures across dosage conditions (no drug baseline, placebo, 30-mg, 50-mg, 70-mg LDX)."||This was a within-subject crossover design with all participants going through a no-drug baseline followed by placebo and three dosages of LDX, with the latter four conditions in a randomly assigned, counterbalanced order. The comparison condition was the placebo condition.||||<0.001
91951394|NCT01342445|183799043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||partial eta squared|0.28|||<|0.001||||||we adjusted p values to control for the false discovery rate using procedures described by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). Thus, an alpha value of .021 was used as significance threshold.|ANOVA|"F(4, 84) = 8.14~This was a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures across dosage conditions (no drug baseline, placebo, 30-mg, 50-mg, 70-mg LDX)."||This was a within-subject crossover design with all participants going through a no-drug baseline followed by placebo and three dosages of LDX, with the latter four conditions in a randomly assigned, counterbalanced order. The comparison condition was the placebo condition.||||<.001
91951395|NCT02652793|183799050|SUPERIORITY|Single-arm pilot study to assess BMD improvement after switching therapy. Null hypothesis: no change in lumbar spine BMD at Week 48. Sample size of 45 planned to detect a 2% increase with 90% power (α=0.025). Final analysis included 30 participants.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.019||Statistical test applied to lumbar spine BMD only. P-value reflects within-group change from baseline to Week 48.|Regression, Linear|Per-protocol analysis; missing data excluded|Represents mean change in lumbar spine BMD from baseline to Week 48.|Single-arm study; no comparator group||0.019|0.001|0.0239
91951396|NCT02652793|183799050|SUPERIORITY|Single-arm pilot study to assess BMD improvement after switching therapy. Null hypothesis: no change in left hip BMD at Week 48. Sample size of 45 planned to detect a 2% increase with 90% power (α=0.025). Final analysis included 30 participants.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.023||Left hip|Regression, Linear|Statistical test applied to left hip BMD only. P-value reflects within-group change from baseline to Week 48.|Represents mean change in left hip BMD from baseline to Week 48|Single-arm study; no comparator group||0.023|0.004|0.0046
91951397|NCT06045026|183799086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91951398|NCT06045026|183799086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91951399|NCT06045026|183799086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91951400|NCT06045026|183799086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91951401|NCT06045026|183799086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91951402|NCT06045026|183799086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91951403|NCT06045026|183799087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91951404|NCT06045026|183799087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91951405|NCT06045026|183799087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91951406|NCT06045026|183799087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91951407|NCT06045026|183799087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91951408|NCT06045026|183799087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91951409|NCT06045026|183799088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91951410|NCT06045026|183799088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91951411|NCT06045026|183799088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91951412|NCT06045026|183799088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91951413|NCT06045026|183799088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91951414|NCT06045026|183799088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91951415|NCT06045026|183799089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91951416|NCT06045026|183799089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91951417|NCT06045026|183799089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91951418|NCT06045026|183799089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91951419|NCT06045026|183799089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91951420|NCT06045026|183799089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91951421|NCT06045026|183799090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91951422|NCT06045026|183799090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91951423|NCT06045026|183799090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91951424|NCT06045026|183799090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91951425|NCT06045026|183799090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91951426|NCT06045026|183799090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91951427|NCT06045026|183799091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91951428|NCT06045026|183799091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91951429|NCT06045026|183799091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91951430|NCT06045026|183799091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91951431|NCT06045026|183799091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91951432|NCT06045026|183799091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91951433|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91951434|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91951435|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91951436|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91951437|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91951438|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91951439|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91951440|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91951441|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91951442|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91951443|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91951444|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91951445|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91951446|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91951447|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91951448|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91951449|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91951450|NCT06045026|183799092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91951451|NCT06045026|183799093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0100
91951452|NCT06045026|183799093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91951453|NCT06045026|183799093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91951454|NCT06045026|183799093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91951455|NCT06045026|183799093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91951456|NCT06045026|183799093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91951457|NCT06045026|183799094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91951458|NCT06045026|183799094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91951459|NCT06045026|183799094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91951460|NCT06045026|183799094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91951461|NCT06045026|183799094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91951462|NCT06045026|183799094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91951463|NCT06045026|183799096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||||<0.0001
91951464|NCT06045026|183799096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||||<0.0001
91951465|NCT06045026|183799096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91951466|NCT06045026|183799096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91951467|NCT06045026|183799096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91951468|NCT06045026|183799096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91951469|NCT06045026|183799096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91951470|NCT06045026|183799096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91951471|NCT04550234|183799099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|57.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.07|70.81||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||70.81|47.07|
91951472|NCT04550234|183799099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|145.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.66|178.52||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||178.52|118.66|
91951473|NCT04550234|183799099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|52.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.46|63.87||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||63.87|42.46|
91821311|NCT00376168|183519704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||<0.0001
91821312|NCT00376168|183519705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0460
91821313|NCT00376168|183519705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0031
91821314|NCT02203591|183519746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91821315|NCT02203591|183519746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91821316|NCT02203591|183519746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91821317|NCT02203591|183519746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91821318|NCT02203591|183519746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91821319|NCT02203591|183519746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91821320|NCT02203591|183519746|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|81.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|86.6||||||||86.6|75.6|
91821321|NCT02203591|183519746|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|81.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.3|87.1||||||||87.1|76.3|
91951474|NCT04550234|183799099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|101.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.48|124.08||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||124.08|82.48|
91951475|NCT04550234|183799099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.81|87.03||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||87.03|61.81|
91821322|NCT02203591|183519746|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.9|88.4||||||||88.4|77.9|
91821323|NCT02203591|183519746|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|38.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|45.6||||||||45.6|32.3|
91821324|NCT02203591|183519746|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|53.7||||||||53.7|40.1|
91821325|NCT02203591|183519746|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.3|59.6||||||||59.6|46.3|
91821326|NCT02203591|183519747|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferior margin of 0.5 log10/cm\^2|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.1|||||3M CHG/IPA C - Inguinal minus ChloraPrep - Inguinal|||-0.10|-0.57|
91821327|NCT02203591|183519747|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferior margin of 0.5 log10/cm\^2|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|0.74|||||3M CHG/IPA CH - Inguinal minus ChloraPrep - Inguinal|Since there are two investigational products a Hochberg step-up procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.||0.74|-0.44|
91821328|NCT02203591|183519748|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821329|NCT02203591|183519748|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821330|NCT02203591|183519748|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821331|NCT02203591|183519748|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821332|NCT02203591|183519748|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821333|NCT02203591|183519748|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821334|NCT02203591|183519748|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821335|NCT02203591|183519748|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|1.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821336|NCT02203591|183519749|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821337|NCT02203591|183519749|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821338|NCT02203591|183519749|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821339|NCT02203591|183519749|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821340|NCT02203591|183519749|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821341|NCT02203591|183519749|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821342|NCT02203591|183519749|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821343|NCT02203591|183519749|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821344|NCT02203591|183519750|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821345|NCT02203591|183519750|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821346|NCT02203591|183519750|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821347|NCT02203591|183519750|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821348|NCT02203591|183519750|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821349|NCT02203591|183519750|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821350|NCT02203591|183519750|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821351|NCT02203591|183519750|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|4.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821352|NCT02203591|183519751|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91951476|NCT04550234|183799099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|66.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.9|78.72||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||78.72|55.90|
91951477|NCT04550234|183799099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|106.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.81|126.47||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||126.47|89.81|
91951478|NCT04550234|183799099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|86.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.15|90.74||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||90.74|83.15|
91951479|NCT04550234|183799099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.35|96.42||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||96.42|88.35|
91951480|NCT04550234|183799099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.71|93.54||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.54|85.71|
91951481|NCT04550234|183799100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|102.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.12|117.86||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||117.86|89.12|
91951482|NCT04550234|183799100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|144.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.75|166.31||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||166.31|125.75|
91951483|NCT04550234|183799100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|76.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.71|88.23||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||88.23|66.71|
91951484|NCT04550234|183799100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.64|110.62||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||110.62|83.64|
91951485|NCT04550234|183799100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.86|95.34||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||95.34|83.86|
91821353|NCT02203591|183519751|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91951486|NCT04550234|183799100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.31|100.4||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||100.40|88.31|
91951487|NCT04550234|183799100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|97.36||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||97.36|86.37|
91951488|NCT04550234|183799100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.01|94.56||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||94.56|88.01|
91821354|NCT02203591|183519751|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821355|NCT02203591|183519751|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821356|NCT02203591|183519751|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821357|NCT02203591|183519751|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821358|NCT02203591|183519751|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821359|NCT02203591|183519751|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|5.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821360|NCT02203591|183519752|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821361|NCT02203591|183519752|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821362|NCT02203591|183519752|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91951489|NCT04550234|183799100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.43|103.61||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||103.61|96.43|
91951490|NCT04550234|183799100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.95|93.42||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.42|86.95|
91951491|NCT04550234|183799101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|102.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.04|118.93||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||118.93|89.04|
91951492|NCT04550234|183799101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|146.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.82|169.4||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||169.40|126.82|
91951493|NCT04550234|183799101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|76.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.38|88.67||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||88.67|66.38|
91951494|NCT04550234|183799101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.52|110.23||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||110.23|82.52|
91821363|NCT02203591|183519752|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821364|NCT02203591|183519752|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821365|NCT02203591|183519752|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821366|NCT02203591|183519752|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91951495|NCT04550234|183799101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|82.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.38|88.17||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||88.17|77.38|
91951496|NCT04550234|183799101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|87.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.63|93.01||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.01|81.63|
91951497|NCT04550234|183799101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.67|97.61||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||97.61|85.67|
91951498|NCT04550234|183799101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.98|93.94||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.94|87.98|
91951499|NCT04550234|183799101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.17|102.68||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.68|96.17|
91821367|NCT02203591|183519752|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91821368|NCT04115358|183519756|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821369|NCT04115358|183519757|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91951500|NCT04550234|183799101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|92.15||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||92.15|86.30|
91951501|NCT04550234|183799113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|108.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.13|124.49||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||124.49|94.13|
91951502|NCT04550234|183799113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.96|102.53||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.53|90.96|
91951503|NCT04550234|183799113|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.27|102.36||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.36|95.27|
91951504|NCT04550234|183799114|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|109.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|126.29||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||126.29|94.55|
91821370|NCT04115358|183519758|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821371|NCT04115358|183519759|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821372|NCT04115358|183519760|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821373|NCT04115358|183519761|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821374|NCT04115358|183519762|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821375|NCT04115358|183519763|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821376|NCT04115358|183519764|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821377|NCT04115358|183519765|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821378|NCT04115358|183519766|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821379|NCT04115358|183519767|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821380|NCT04115358|183519768|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821381|NCT04115358|183519769|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821382|NCT04115358|183519770|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821383|NCT04115358|183519771|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821384|NCT04115358|183519772|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821385|NCT04115358|183519773|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91951505|NCT04550234|183799114|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.38|102.97||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.97|90.38|
91951506|NCT04550234|183799114|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|97.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.34|100.73||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||100.73|94.34|
91951507|NCT04550234|183799115|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|131.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.03|161.02||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||161.02|107.03|
91951508|NCT04550234|183799115|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.23|114.39||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||114.39|81.23|
91951509|NCT04550234|183799115|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.08|99.4||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||99.40|91.08|
91951510|NCT01399619|183799120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value corresponds to a two sided test against the historical rate of 40%.|normal approximation|||the SVR12 rate in total Faldaprevir group compared with the historical rate of 40%.||||<0.0001
91951511|NCT03814499|183799152|OTHER||Coefficient|-2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
91951512|NCT03814499|183799153|OTHER||Coefficient|-3.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
91951513|NCT03814499|183799154|OTHER||Coefficient|369.9||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3269
91951514|NCT03814499|183799155|OTHER||Coefficient|365.4||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4265
91951515|NCT03814499|183799156|OTHER||Coefficient|264.3||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4782
91951516|NCT03814499|183799157|OTHER||Coefficient|730.2||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2716
91951517|NCT03814499|183799158|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.6||||0.4178|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4178
91951518|NCT03814499|183799159|OTHER||Coefficient|-1.5||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2677
91951519|NCT03814499|183799160|OTHER||Coefficient|-467.0||||0.3364|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3364
91951520|NCT03814499|183799161|OTHER||Coefficient|-908.0||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1124
91951521|NCT03814499|183799162|OTHER||Coefficient|479.2||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2649
91951522|NCT03814499|183799163|OTHER||Coefficient|1114.3||||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.216
91951523|NCT03814499|183799164|OTHER||Coefficient|0.1||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9032
91951524|NCT03814499|183799165|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.4||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7889
91951525|NCT03814499|183799166|OTHER||Coefficient|7.0||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0242
91951526|NCT03814499|183799167|OTHER||Coefficient|1.5||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5092
91951527|NCT03814499|183799168|OTHER||Coefficient|-47.1||||0.3634|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3634
91951528|NCT03814499|183799169|OTHER||Coefficient|-204.7||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0677
91951529|NCT03814499|183799170|OTHER||Coefficient|-235.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.156
91951530|NCT03814499|183799171|OTHER||Coefficient|-102.0||||0.3148|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3148
91951531|NCT03814499|183799172|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.1||||0.9349|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9349
91951532|NCT03814499|183799173|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.6||||0.7196|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7196
91951533|NCT03814499|183799174|OTHER||Coefficient|4.7||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0542
91951534|NCT03814499|183799175|OTHER||Coefficient|2.6||||0.4224|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4224
91951535|NCT03814499|183799176|OTHER||Coeffiient|-118.9||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1247
91951536|NCT03814499|183799177|OTHER||Coefficient|-135.2||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1461
91951537|NCT03814499|183799178|OTHER||Coefficient|-154.2||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0699
91951538|NCT03814499|183799179|OTHER||Coefficient|-164.6||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0901
91951539|NCT03417245|183799180|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.101|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.159||P-value derived from NB regression model during EP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression mode|||||0.159|0.064|<0.0001
91951540|NCT03417245|183799182|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.188||P-value derived from NB regression model during TP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.188|0.090|<0.0001
91951541|NCT03417245|183799184|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.083|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.141||P-value derived from NB regression model during EP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.141|0.049|<0.0001
91951542|NCT03417245|183799186|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.097|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.161||P-value derived from NB regression model during EP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.161|0.059|<0.0001
91951543|NCT03417245|183799188|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-19.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-12.5||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects, Baseline score as covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-12.50|-27.00|<0.0001
91951544|NCT03417245|183799189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.07|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|-2.9||ANCOVA model included treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects, Baseline score as covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-2.90|-11.23|=0.0011
91821386|NCT04115358|183519774|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821387|NCT04115358|183519775|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821388|NCT04115358|183519776|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821389|NCT04115358|183519777|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821390|NCT04115358|183519778|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821391|NCT04115358|183519779|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821392|NCT04115358|183519780|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821393|NCT04115358|183519781|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821394|NCT04115358|183519782|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821395|NCT04115358|183519783|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91951545|NCT00598442|183799198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.09|0.36|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.36|-0.09|
91821396|NCT04115358|183519784|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821397|NCT04115358|183519785|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821398|NCT04115358|183519786|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821399|NCT04115358|183519787|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
91821400|NCT00835497|183519788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|86.5||||||90.0|81.8|91.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||91.6|81.8|
91821401|NCT00835497|183519789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.0||||||90.0|94.2|99.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.9|94.2|
91821402|NCT00835497|183519790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.0||||||90.0|94.2|99.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.8|94.2|
91821403|NCT00835497|183519791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|88.9||||||90.0|83.5|94.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||94.6|83.5|
91821404|NCT00835497|183519792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|92.7||||||90.0|88.4|97.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.1|88.4|
91821405|NCT00835497|183519793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.0||||||90.0|88.8|97.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.5|88.8|
91821406|NCT01573624|183519796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.071|-0.019|0.264
91821407|NCT01573624|183519796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.079|-0.013|0.165
91821408|NCT01573624|183519796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.071|-0.020|0.271
91821409|NCT01573624|183519796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.055||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.100|0.010|0.018
91821410|NCT01573624|183519796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.055||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.101|0.010|0.018
91821411|NCT01573624|183519796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.124|0.032|<0.001
91821412|NCT01573624|183519796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.052||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-0.007|-0.097|0.023
91821413|NCT01573624|183519796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.000|-0.091|0.051
91821414|NCT01573624|183519796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.053||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-0.007|-0.098|0.023
91821415|NCT01573624|183519796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.021|-0.068|0.306
91821416|NCT01573624|183519796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.023|-0.068|0.330
91951546|NCT00598442|183799198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.08|0.54|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.54|0.08|
91951547|NCT00598442|183799199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.01|1.04|
91951548|NCT00598442|183799199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|0.94|
91951549|NCT00598442|183799200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.90|
91951550|NCT00598442|183799200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.04|0.93|
91951551|NCT00398476|183799251|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for overall product preference||||0.003
91951552|NCT00398476|183799251|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Scent/odor||||<0.001
91951553|NCT00398476|183799251|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Immediate taste||||<0.001
91821417|NCT01573624|183519797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||22.3|9.5|<0.001
91821418|NCT01573624|183519797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||23.9|10.9|<0.001
91821419|NCT01573624|183519797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||25.1|12.1|<0.001
91951554|NCT00398476|183799251|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for After-taste||||0.002
91951555|NCT00398476|183799251|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Less drip down throat||||0.037
91821420|NCT01573624|183519797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|29.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||29.4|16.5|<0.001
91821421|NCT01573624|183519797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|28.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||28.4|15.5|<0.001
91821422|NCT01573624|183519797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|33.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.5|20.6|<0.001
91821423|NCT01573624|183519797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-4.7|-17.6|<0.001
91821424|NCT01573624|183519797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-3.1|-16.1|0.004
91821425|NCT01573624|183519797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-1.9|-14.9|0.012
91821426|NCT01573624|183519797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||2.3|-10.6|0.209
91821427|NCT01573624|183519797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||1.4|-11.6|0.124
91821428|NCT01573624|183519798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|22.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||22.9|9.5|<0.001
91821429|NCT01573624|183519798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||24.0|10.5|<0.001
91821430|NCT01573624|183519798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|28.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||28.0|14.4|<0.001
91821431|NCT01573624|183519798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|35.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||35.5|22.1|<0.001
91821432|NCT01573624|183519798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|29.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||29.6|16.2|<0.001
91821433|NCT01573624|183519798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|33.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.4|19.8|<0.001
91821434|NCT01573624|183519798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-3.5|-17.2|0.003
91821435|NCT01573624|183519798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-2.5|-16.2|0.007
91821436|NCT01573624|183519798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||1.5|-12.3|0.126
91821437|NCT01573624|183519798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.523||95.0|-4.6|9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||9.1|-4.6|0.523
91821438|NCT01573624|183519798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||3.1|-10.5|0.290
91951556|NCT00398476|183799251|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Less run out nose||||<0.001
91821439|NCT01573624|183519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.0|-0.5|0.036
91821440|NCT01573624|183519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.0|-0.5|0.064
91821441|NCT01573624|183519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.1|-0.3|0.335
91821442|NCT01573624|183519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||-0.1|-0.5|0.012
91821443|NCT01573624|183519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.0|-0.5|0.023
91821444|NCT01573624|183519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
91821445|NCT01573624|183519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.4|0.0|0.104
91821446|NCT01573624|183519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.5|0.0|0.062
91821447|NCT01573624|183519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.6|0.1|0.006
91821448|NCT01573624|183519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.4|-0.1|0.217
91821449|NCT01573624|183519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.4|-0.1|0.143
91821450|NCT04399161|183519800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison among Children||||0.123
91821451|NCT04399161|183519800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison among Elderly||||0.314
91821452|NCT03417141|183519801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12||||0.014
91821453|NCT03417141|183519801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.006
91821454|NCT03417141|183519802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.093
91821455|NCT03417141|183519803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91821456|NCT03417141|183519804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91821457|NCT01723228|183519805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8||||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.05|||repeated measures model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||2.05|-0.48|0.2204
91821458|NCT01723228|183519806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||0.81|-0.99|0.8428
91821459|NCT01723228|183519807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.4796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|1.3|||ANCOVA|The statistical model is an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||1.30|-2.74|0.4796
91821460|NCT01723228|183519808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.93|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC||2.93|0.89|0.1148
91821461|NCT01723228|183519808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.||CGIC||||0.1052
91821462|NCT01723228|183519808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.75|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC Cognition||1.75|0.52|0.8857
91821463|NCT01723228|183519808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|||||For the CMH p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGIC Cognition||||0.9945
91951557|NCT00398476|183799251|OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for More soothing||||0.408
91821464|NCT01723228|183519808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.43|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC Behavior||2.43|0.56|0.6909
91821465|NCT01723228|183519808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6639|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For the CMH p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.||CGIC Behavior||||0.6639
91821466|NCT01723228|183519808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.3204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.68|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC Functional Abilities||2.68|0.72|0.3204
91821467|NCT01723228|183519808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For the CMH p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.||CGIC Functional Abilities||||0.3331
91821468|NCT01723228|183519809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.49|||Repeated Measures Model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||-0.49|-4.47|0.0151
91821469|NCT01723228|183519810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||-1.08|-3.53|0.0003
91821470|NCT02239536|183519836|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91821471|NCT02239536|183519837|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91821472|NCT02239536|183519837|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91821473|NCT05036642|183519854|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in measurements from 'no device' (baseline) to 'with device.'||||0.02
91951558|NCT00398476|183799251|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Less irritating||||0.070
91951559|NCT00398476|183799251|OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Urge to sneeze||||0.587
91951560|NCT00398476|183799252|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for IAQ items||||<0.001
91821474|NCT05036642|183519855|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Difference in measurements from 'no device' (baseline) to 'with device.'||||0.01
91821475|NCT05036642|183519856|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in measurements from 'no device' (baseline) to 'with device.'||||0.48
91821476|NCT01610700|183519861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-5.93||||0.124||95.0|-13.52|1.65|||ANCOVA|||The change in the primary impairment was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||1.65|-13.52|0.124
91821477|NCT01610700|183519862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.1||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|0.37|||ANCOVA|||The change in the spasticity visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||0.37|-14.56|0.062
91821478|NCT01610700|183519863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.88||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|8.96|||ANCOVA|||The change in the pain visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||8.96|-12.73|0.731
91821479|NCT01610700|183519864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-3.3||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|5.21|||ANCOVA|||The change in the muscle spasm visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||5.21|-11.82|0.443
91821480|NCT01610700|183519865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-6.85||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.31|6.6|||ANCOVA|||The change in the tremor visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||6.60|-20.31|0.311
91821481|NCT01610700|183519866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.38|||ANCOVA|||The change in bladder problems visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||2.38|-14.90|0.154
91821482|NCT01610700|183519867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.43|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects with better/much better assessments was compared between groups using a Fisher's Exact Test.||2.43|0.77|0.293
91821483|NCT01610700|183519869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.69||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.5|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Beck's Depression Inventory score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||2.50|-1.11|0.450
91821484|NCT01610700|183519870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.12||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.18|||ANCOVA|||The change baseline in the mean Fatigue Severity Scale Questionnaire score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||0.18|-0.43|0.427
91821485|NCT01610700|183519872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.72||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|3.82|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean total 28-item General Health Questionnaire score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||3.82|-2.38|0.647
91821486|NCT01610700|183519874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.54|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean total bladder control test score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||1.54|-1.77|0.889
91951561|NCT00398476|183799252|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for DAQ items||||<0.001
91821487|NCT01610700|183519877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||The from baseline in the mean sleep quality 100 mm visual analogue scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||-0.08|-14.11|0.047
91821488|NCT01610700|183519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-4.53||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|2.4|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean sleep amount 100 mm visual analogue scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||2.40|-11.45|0.198
91821489|NCT01610700|183519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.36||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.07|||ANCOVA|||The from baseline in the mean feeling upon wakening 100 mm visual analogue scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||6.07|-8.80|0.717
91821490|NCT01610700|183519880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.47||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Barthel Activities for Daily Living scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||0.07|-1.01|0.087
91821491|NCT01610700|183519884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.81||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.6|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Guy's Neurological Disability Scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||3.60|0.02|0.048
91821492|NCT01610700|183519885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.64|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Atkinson Morley Information Processing Battery test score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||1.64|-1.85|0.904
91821493|NCT01706952|183519886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|For surgical field grade, we calculated the mean within sides and assessed its difference, reporting a 95% confidence interval as calculated by a Student t test. We used the average per patient over time.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 13 for Windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). A power study was per formed with a power of 80% and a clinically significant difference in bleeding between the sides of 20% with a significance level of 5% (p \< 0.05).|"For the primary objective of surgical field grade, we calculated the mean within sides treated with cocaine vs adrenaline and assessed its difference, reporting a 95% con- fidence interval as calculated by a Student t test. As all of these values were measured over time, we used the average per patient over time. The total blood loss per side within subjects was also calculated, with 95% confidence interval again calculated by a Student t test. Once again, we took the average per patient over time as the main outcome.~Finally, we used a linear regression with surgical field improvement as the outcome and HR, MAP, or etCO2 as covariates, to investigate which variables may be related to the outcome. As these measures were taken over time, we used repeated measures analysis to investigate how these items correlate over time.~In addition to the operating surgeon, the statistician was blinded to the vasoconstrictor allocation."|||0.05
91821494|NCT01221441|183519916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The primary efficacy evaluation based on IKDC and the VAS were tested at week 52 evaluated 100 mm VAS with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in IKDC or VAS scores at week 52 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for both the IKDC and the VAS are rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
91821495|NCT01221441|183519917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The primary efficacy evaluation based on IKDC and the VAS were tested at week 52 evaluated 100 mm VAS with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in IKDC or VAS scores at week 52 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for both the IKDC and the VAS are rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
91821496|NCT01221441|183519918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The efficacy evaluation at week 104 evaluated KOOS with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in KOOS scores at week 104 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for KOOS is rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
91821497|NCT01221441|183519919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The efficacy evaluation at week 104 evaluated Lysholm score with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in KOOS scores at week 104 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for Lysholm score is rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
91951562|NCT00398476|183799253|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.255||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg in IAQ||||0.255
91951563|NCT00398476|183799254|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.056||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for all DAQ items||||0.056
91821498|NCT03523117|183519931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3108
91821499|NCT03523117|183519932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91821500|NCT03523117|183519933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91821501|NCT03523117|183519934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
91821502|NCT04452188|183519935|EQUIVALENCE|Prior studies suggest a 25-50% reduction in oxidative stress in normoxia relative to supra-physiologic oxygen. A 20% difference was considered clinically meaningful, and a sample size of 42 total participants was anticipated to achieve at least 80% power with a two-sided 5% significance level. However, an interim analysis recommended by the DSMB after enrollment of 29 patients revealed a significant difference in the primary outcome between the groups, and enrollment was thus stopped.|||||<|0.01||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||Each participant's post-operative samples were normalized to their baseline sample and described as a fold-of-change from baseline.||||<0.01
91821503|NCT04452188|183519937|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the post-operative length of stay between the two groups.||||0.66
91821504|NCT04452188|183519938|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the days alive and out of ICU at 30 days since surgery between the two groups||||0.66
91821505|NCT04452188|183519939|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91821506|NCT04452188|183519940|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
91821507|NCT04452188|183519941|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91951564|NCT00398476|183799255|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.845||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for IAQ Irtems||||0.845
91951565|NCT00398476|183799256|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.871||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for DAQ Items||||0.871
91821508|NCT04452188|183519942|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91821509|NCT04452188|183519943|OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.1
91821510|NCT00357370|183519944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1898|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.32|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||-0.32|-1.08|
91821511|NCT00357370|183519944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1903|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.4|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||-0.40|-1.16|
91821512|NCT00357370|183519945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4753|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|7.48|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||7.48|-38.37|
91821513|NCT00357370|183519945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4574|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.33|-4.55|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||-4.55|-50.33|
91821514|NCT00357370|183519949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8302|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|4.6|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||4.60|-10.69|
91821515|NCT00357370|183519949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|5.12|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||5.12|-10.17|
91821516|NCT01502644|183519953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|32.2|||Linear Mixed Modeling|Group, group×week, average baseline pain, and opioid use at baseline were entered as fixed effects using an autoregressive covariance structure.||||32.2|3.7|0.01
91821517|NCT03306264|183519966|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the 5-day AUC0-24 ratio of Least Square Mean (LSM) for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.66|105.6|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||105.6|92.66|
91821518|NCT03306264|183519966|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-24 ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|99.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.23|108.8|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||108.8|91.23|
91821519|NCT03306264|183519972|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-inf ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|104.6|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||104.6|91.80|
91821520|NCT03306264|183519972|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-inf ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|99.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.2|108.8|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||108.8|91.20|
91821521|NCT03306264|183519973|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-last ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.88|104.8|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||104.8|91.88|
91821522|NCT03306264|183519973|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-last ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.75|107.2|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||107.2|89.75|
91821523|NCT03306264|183519974|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-8 ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|97.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.74|104.5|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||104.5|91.74|
91821524|NCT03306264|183519974|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-8 ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|97.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.32|106.5|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||106.5|89.32|
91821525|NCT00554749|183519994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43|<|0.001||95.0|1.69|2.49|||paired t-test|Paired t-test of SSQ at baseline vs at 6 months, degrees of freedom=6. Difference in SSQ is reported.||||2.49|1.69|<0.001
91821526|NCT00094653|183520003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85|||Stratified Log Rank||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) and log-rank test p-values were stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.85|0.55|0.0004
91821527|NCT00094653|183520004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.87|||Stratified Log Rank||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) and log-rank test p-values were stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.87|0.51|0.0026
91821528|NCT00094653|183520004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Stratified Log Rank||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) and log-rank test p-values were stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.30|0.83|0.7575
91821529|NCT00094653|183520006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.00|0.66|
91821530|NCT00094653|183520006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.83|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.83|0.50|
91821531|NCT00094653|183520006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.53|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.53|1.01|
91821532|NCT00094653|183520008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.00|0.66|
91951566|NCT00398476|183799257|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91951567|NCT00398476|183799258|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.592||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.592
91821533|NCT00094653|183520008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.83|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.83|0.50|
91821534|NCT00094653|183520008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.53|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.53|1.01|
91821535|NCT00094653|183520010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0433
91821536|NCT00094653|183520010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
91821537|NCT00094653|183520010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0402||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0402
91821538|NCT00094653|183520013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0179
91821539|NCT00094653|183520013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
91821540|NCT00094653|183520013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0429||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0429
91821541|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.2805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Global quality of life change from baseline||8.6|-2.5|0.2805
91951568|NCT00398476|183799259|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91821542|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Global quality of life change from baseline||8.2|-5.0|0.6300
91821543|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.6026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Global quality of life change from baseline||6.8|-3.9|0.6026
91821544|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|8.9|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Physical change from baseline||8.9|-1.1|0.1219
91821545|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Physical change from baseline||11.0|-0.9|0.0978
91821546|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Physical change from baseline||3.8|-6.0|0.6590
91821547|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Role change, change from baseline||11.7|-3.0|0.2480
91821548|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.4742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|12.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Role change, change from baseline||12.0|-5.6|0.4742
91821549|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Role change, change from baseline||8.3|-6.1|0.7597
91821550|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Cognitive change from baseline||5.2|-4.7|0.9119
91821551|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.7616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|5.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Cognitive change from baseline||5.0|-6.9|0.7616
91821552|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.6266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Cognitive change from baseline||6.0|-3.6|0.6266
91821553|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Emotional change from baseline||4.8|-4.8|0.9984
91821554|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Emotional change from baseline||3.7|-7.8|0.4873
91821555|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Emotional change from baseline||6.7|-2.7|0.3938
91821556|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Social change from baseline||5.2|-8.1|0.6695
91821557|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.4041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Social change from baseline||4.6|-11.3|0.4041
91821558|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|8.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Social change from baseline||8.3|-4.5|0.5538
91821559|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.4|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Fatigue change from baseline||2.4|-10.3|0.2259
91821560|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.6168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Fatigue change from baseline||5.7|-9.6|0.6168
91821561|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.5329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Fatigue change from baseline||4.3|-8.2|0.5329
91821562|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Nausea and Vomiting change from baseline||5.0|-4.7|0.9397
91821563|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Nausea and Vomiting change from baseline||4.6|-7.1|0.6716
91821564|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Nausea and Vomiting change from baseline||6.2|-3.3|0.5497
91821565|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Pain change from baseline||0.3|-12.8|0.0625
91821566|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.3214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.9|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Pain change from baseline||3.9|-11.9|0.3214
91821567|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Pain change from baseline||4.2|-8.7|0.4898
91821568|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|0.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Dyspnea change from baseline||0.6|-11.8|0.0761
91821569|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.3187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Dyspnea change from baseline||3.7|-11.2|0.3187
91821570|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Dyspnea change from baseline||4.2|-7.9|0.5548
91821571|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.1|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Sleep disturbance change from baseline||3.1|-12.1|0.2450
91821572|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|8.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Sleep disturbance change from baseline||8.2|-10.0|0.8464
91821573|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.3351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Sleep Disturbance change from baseline||3.7|-10.9|0.3351
91821574|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.5|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Appetite loss change from baseline||5.5|-9.1|0.6291
91821575|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.1|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Appetite Loss change from baseline||10.1|-7.4|0.7675
91951569|NCT00398476|183799260|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.434||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.434
91951570|NCT00398476|183799261|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.797|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for IAQ||||0.797
91951571|NCT00398476|183799261|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.296|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for DAQ||||0.296
91951572|NCT00398476|183799262|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg in IAQ||||<0.001
91951573|NCT00398476|183799262|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg in DAQ||||<0.001
91951574|NCT00398476|183799263|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.968|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for IAQ||||0.968
91951575|NCT00398476|183799263|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.797|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for DAQ||||0.797
91951576|NCT00398476|183799264|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.221|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.221
91951577|NCT00398476|183799265|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.205|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.205
91951578|NCT00398476|183799266|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.108|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.108
91951579|NCT00398476|183799267|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.694|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.694
91951580|NCT00398476|183799268|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.020
91951581|NCT03764813|183799281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison is carried out among HbF values grouped according to the transfusion regimen (only cord blood transfusions, only adult transfusions, both cord and adult transfusions).||||<0.0001
91951582|NCT03764813|183799282|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91951583|NCT03764813|183799283|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.537|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91951584|NCT03764813|183799284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison is carried out among HbF values grouped according to the transfusion regimen (only cord blood transfusions, only adult transfusions, both cord and adult transfusions).||||<0.0001
91951585|NCT03602976|183799344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|190.7||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For GGT||||0.059
91951586|NCT03602976|183799344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Alkaline Phosphatase||||0.23
91951587|NCT03602976|183799345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91951588|NCT03602976|183799346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91951589|NCT03602976|183799347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
91951590|NCT03602976|183799348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91951591|NCT04837807|183799349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|This was a cross-over study, so there is really 30 subjects per group that was analyzed.||"Each participant in the study was asked to complete the IDEEL work at their baseline, week 1 and week 2 visits. The IDEEL work is graded on a scale to 100 with higher numbers being deemed as better scores thus representing more comfort than previous weeks."||||<0.05
91951592|NCT04837807|183799351|SUPERIORITY|OSDI scores were obtained across all three visits, baseline, week 1 and week 2. Lower OSDI scores indicate better eye health.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|This was a cross-over study, so there is really 30 subjects per group that was analyzed.||||||<0.05
91951593|NCT00920582|183799371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.348||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|4.219|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.219|0.431|0.609
91951594|NCT00920582|183799371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.356||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|4.23|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.230|0.453|0.601
91951595|NCT00920582|183799371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.624||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|5.066|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.066|0.521|0.400
91951596|NCT00920582|183799373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.031|||ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.086|0.365
91951597|NCT00920582|183799373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.064|||ANCOVA|||||0.064|-0.078|0.842
91951598|NCT00920582|183799373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|-0.089|0.565
91951599|NCT00920582|183799378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.197||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.764|6.312|||Mantel Haenszel|||||6.312|0.764|0.142
91951600|NCT00920582|183799378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.487||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|4.278|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.278|0.517|0.460
91951601|NCT00920582|183799378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.954||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.532|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.532|0.690|0.199
91951602|NCT03319160|183799382|OTHER||Incidence per 100 patient-years|7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|8.7|||||"Poisson distribution assumed due to the infrequent nature of the events. Number of appropriate shock events: 19 (17 subjects had one appropriate shock event, one subject had two appropriate shock events).~Length of exposure: 253 patient-years."|||8.7|6.3|
91951603|NCT03319160|183799384|OTHER||Incidence per 100 patient-years|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.4|||||||Poisson distribution assumed due to the infrequent nature of the events. Number of inappropriately shocked events: 8. Length of exposure: 253 patient-years.|4.4|1.9|
91951604|NCT04533204|183799399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.28|24.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.67|12.28|<.001
91951605|NCT04533204|183799400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.91||Performance on cued recall (error scores)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.91|.75|.004
91951606|NCT02260791|183799402|EQUIVALENCE|-12% to +15% equivalence margin using 90% CI around the difference in ACR20 response rate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|3.6||||||The difference and its 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for primary endpoint between FKB327 and Humira were estimated. If the 90% CI fell entirely between pre-specified equivalence margin (-12% to +15%), then FKB327 was considered equivalent to Humira.||3.6|-7.3|
91821576|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.3911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Appetite Loss change from baseline||4.0|-10.2|0.3911
91951607|NCT02260791|183799403|EQUIVALENCE|If the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 between FKB327 and Humira fell entirely between -0.6 and +0.6 then FKB327 was considered equivalent to Humira.|Difference in least square mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.18||||||The secondary hypothesis involved equivalence of the difference between FKB327 and Humira in DAS28-CRP at Week 24. Based on the repeated measures analysis model, the difference and its 95% CI in the least-squares means (LSMs) for DAS28-CRP at Week 24 between FKB327 and Humira were estimated. If the 95% CI fell entirely between the pre-specified margin (+/- 0.6), then FKB327 was considered equivalent to Humira.||0.18|-0.16|
91951608|NCT00280059|183799443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin for the proportion of seizure free participants set at 10%; non-inferiority declared if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in seizure-free proportion between pregabalin and lamotrigine was no more than 10% in favor of lamotrigine, but 0 was contained within the lower bound of the CI. Interpretation of superiority required lower bound of CI did not contain 0 in favor of pregabalin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.09|||Gart and Nam: correction of skewness||95% confidence interval for the true difference in proportions, as well as a one-sided test at α=0.025; confidence interval adjusted for centers clustered within a geographical region, with upper and lower confidence limits.|Analysis of the binary response variable for 6 consecutive months seizure freedom analyzed by comparing the proportions of favorable responders between the two treatment groups after stratifying by clusters and correcting for skewness (Gart and Nam, 1990). Percentage can be obtained by multiplying proportion by 100.||-0.09|-0.24|
91951609|NCT00280059|183799444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for geographic regions.|Regression, Cox|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \> 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||0.90|0.60|0.0034
91951610|NCT00280059|183799445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.74||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.74|0.65|0.8047
91951611|NCT00280059|183799446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.6||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.60|0.88|0.2537
91951612|NCT00280059|183799447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.52||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|22.04||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||22.04|1.93|0.0025
91951613|NCT00280059|183799448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.91||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.91|0.97|0.0744
91821577|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Constipation change from baseline||-0.2|-12.9|0.0431
91821578|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-2.4|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Constipation change from baseline||-2.4|-17.4|0.0101
91821579|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.5|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Constipation change from baseline||9.5|-2.8|0.2796
91821580|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Diarrhea change from baseline||10.8|-2.2|0.1940
91821581|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|14.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Diarrhea change from baseline||14.8|-0.9|0.0821
91821582|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.4169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Diarrhea change from baseline||3.8|-9.0|0.4169
91821583|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.5717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Financial Impact change from baseline||4.2|-7.5|0.5717
91821584|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|8.4|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Financial Impact change from baseline||8.4|-5.6|0.6949
91821585|NCT00094653|183520015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Financial Impact change from baseline||2.6|-8.8|0.2849
91821586|NCT00330551|183520022|SUPERIORITY||t-test|0.77|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|1.058|||t-test, 2 sided||||t(80)=5.3, p\<.001|1.058|0.483|=.05
91951614|NCT00280059|183799449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.47||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.8||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.80|1.19|0.0003
91951615|NCT00280059|183799459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety; model includes treatment and geographical cluster as fixed effects and respective baseline scores as a continuous covariate.||1.4|0.3|0.0025
91951616|NCT00280059|183799459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Depression; model includes treatment and geographical cluster as fixed effects and respective baseline scores as a continuous covariate.||1.1|0.1|0.0186
91951617|NCT00280059|183799460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: dichotomized sleep assessment analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, geographical region, the average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a continuous covariate, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The within subject covariance structure assumes an auto-regressive of order one covariance structure.||1.93|0.98|0.0683
91951618|NCT00280059|183799460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: dichotomized sleep assessment analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, geographical region, the average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a continuous covariate, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The within subject covariance structure assumes an auto-regressive of order one covariance structure.||1.66|0.78|0.5096
91821587|NCT00330551|183520023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.001
91821588|NCT00330551|183520024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.83
91821589|NCT00330551|183520025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||A priori hypothesis was that long-acting injectible risperidone would lead to greater duration of work/school attendance than oral risperidone.||||=.20
91821590|NCT00330551|183520026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||||||.71
91821591|NCT00330551|183520027|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.57|||||||ANOVA|||||||=.57
91821592|NCT00330551|183520029|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.16
91821593|NCT00330551|183520030|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||=.41
91821594|NCT06561217|183520054|NON_INFERIORITY|A predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.05 was used. The primary study was powered on a retrospective, paired, non-inferiority design to evaluate abstraction accuracy of elements commonly used to help screen patients for clinical trials.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.00007515||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval is Inf due to the test being one-sided. Alternative hypothesis: true median location shift is greater than -0.05|A Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality of paired differences in chart-level accuracy (alpha = 0.05). A one-sided, paired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (alpha = 0.05) was employed to test the primary null hypothesis of whether chart-level accuracy of the Human+AI arm for EHR chart abstraction was non-inferior to the chart-level accuracy of a Human-alone arm abstraction by at least 5% (i.e., noninferiority margin).|||0.00007515|<0.001
91821595|NCT06561217|183520054|SUPERIORITY|The primary study was powered on a retrospective, paired, superiority design to evaluate abstraction accuracy of elements commonly used to help screen patients for clinical trials.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality of paired differences in chart-level accuracy (alpha = 0.05). A one-sided, paired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (alpha = 0.05) was employed to test the null hypothesis of whether chart-level accuracy of the Human+AI arm for EHR chart abstraction was superior to the chart-level accuracy of a Human-alone arm abstraction.||||0.002
91951619|NCT00280059|183799460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56 (termination): dichotomized sleep assessment analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, geographical region, the average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a continuous covariate, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The within subject covariance structure assumes an auto-regressive of order one covariance structure.||1.63|0.73|0.6804
91951620|NCT02549040|183799487|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.09||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.09|0.85|
91951621|NCT02549040|183799487|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.26||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.26|1.02|
91951622|NCT02549040|183799487|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.11||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.11|0.88|
91951623|NCT02549040|183799487|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.99||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.99|0.80|
91951624|NCT02549040|183799488|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.98||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.98|0.79|
91951625|NCT02549040|183799488|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.21||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.21|0.98|
91951626|NCT02549040|183799488|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.0||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.00|0.81|
91951627|NCT02549040|183799488|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.97||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.97|0.79|
91951628|NCT02549040|183799489|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.82||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.82|0.61|
91951629|NCT02549040|183799489|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.01||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.01|0.75|
91951630|NCT02549040|183799489|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.81||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.81|0.60|
91951631|NCT02549040|183799489|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.86||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.86|0.66|
91951632|NCT02549040|183799490|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.93||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.93|0.72|
91951633|NCT02549040|183799490|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.18||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.18|0.94|
91951634|NCT02549040|183799490|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.96||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.96|0.76|
91821596|NCT06561217|183520055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: True difference is equal to 0. Alternate hypothesis: true difference is not equal to 0|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.55|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A two-sided, paired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (alpha = 0.05) was employed to test for difference between chart-level efficiency of the Human+AI arm and chart-level efficiency of the Human-alone arm abstraction.||2.55|-1.25|0.513
91951635|NCT02549040|183799490|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.94||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.94|0.74|
91951636|NCT02549040|183799493|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.94||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.94|0.75|
91951637|NCT02549040|183799493|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.18||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.18|0.95|
91951638|NCT02549040|183799493|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.95||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.95|0.76|
91951639|NCT02549040|183799493|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.96||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.96|0.77|
91951640|NCT02777554|183799800|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent exposure of the QD formulation to the BID tablet was established if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratio for Day 7 AUC0-24 and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|108.5|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL QD / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To assess the exposure between the extended release apremilast formulation, and Reference IR (30 mg reference IR BID) tablet following multiple oral doses, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Day 7 Cmax.||108.5|95.1|
91951641|NCT02777554|183799801|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent exposure of the QD formulation to the BID tablet was established if the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio for Day 7 AUC0-24 and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|102.2|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL QD / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To assess the exposure between the extended release apremilast formulation, and Reference IR (30 mg reference IR BID) tablet following multiple oral doses, an ANOVA model, with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Day 7 AUC0-24.||102.2|88.9|
91951642|NCT02777554|183799802|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|103.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|115.4|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the exposure of apremilast following single dose administration of extended release (QD) relative to the Reference IR (BID) tablet under fasted conditions, an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||115.4|93.6|
91951643|NCT02777554|183799802|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|90.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.6|101.3|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||101.3|81.6|
91951644|NCT02777554|183799802|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.3|128.1|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||128.1|103.3|
91951645|NCT02777554|183799802|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|126.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.7|140.8|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||140.8|113.7|
91951646|NCT02777554|183799803|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.3|106.2|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the exposure of apremilast following single dose administration of extended release (QD) relative to the Reference IR (BID) tablet under fasted conditions, an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||106.2|81.3|
91951647|NCT02777554|183799803|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.9|98.7|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||98.7|74.9|
91951648|NCT02777554|183799803|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.9|111.6|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||111.6|84.9|
91951649|NCT02777554|183799803|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|113.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|129.7|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||129.7|98.8|
91951650|NCT02777554|183799804|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.1|105.9|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the exposure of apremilast following single dose administration of extended release (QD) relative to the Reference IR (BID) tablet under fasted conditions, an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||105.9|81.1|
91951651|NCT02777554|183799804|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|86.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.0|98.8|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||98.8|75.0|
91951652|NCT02777554|183799804|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.0|111.8|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||111.8|85.0|
91951653|NCT02777554|183799804|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|113.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|129.7|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||129.7|98.8|
91821597|NCT04552587|183520096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared change from baseline to follow up in our single group of caregivers.||||0.23
91951654|NCT01966458|183799837|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 6% was pre-specified.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|10.7|||Farrington-Manning asymptotic test||Difference = HeartWare® VAS incidence rate - Control incidence rate Two-sided 90% exact binomial confident interval is used.|The primary endpoint is a non-inferiority test comparing HeartWare® VAS to Control.||10.7|-5.5|0.1444
91951655|NCT01966458|183799838|SUPERIORITY||Percent of Participants|19.2||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.6|23.3|||Exact Binomial Test||Two-sided exact binomial confidence interval used|The first secondary endpoint is the percent of participants with stroke/TIA at 12 months on the originally implanted device. It will be compared to 17.7%, which is the lower bound of a pre-defined margin of superiority based on the Endurance clinical trial.||23.3|15.6|0.7363
91951656|NCT01966458|183799839|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin on the difference in success proportions is 15%.|Difference in Percentages|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|-1.1|||Farrington-Manning asymptotic test||Difference = Control success rate - HeartWare® VAS success rate Two-sided 90% exact binomial confidence interval is used|||-1.1|-17.2|<0.0001
91951657|NCT01966458|183799839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0354|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0354
91951658|NCT01458535|183799840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.157
91951659|NCT01458535|183799840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.999
91951660|NCT01458535|183799840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.045
91951661|NCT00151775|183799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Non-weight adjusted dosage||||0.0008
91951662|NCT00151775|183799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Weight adjusted dosage||||<0.0001
91951663|NCT00151775|183799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Non-weight adjusted dosage||||0.0032
91951664|NCT00151775|183799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0265||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Weight adjusted dosage||||0.0265
91951665|NCT00151775|183799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Non-weight adjusted dosage||||<0.0001
91951666|NCT00151775|183799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Weight adjusted dosage||||<0.0001
91951667|NCT00151775|183799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.69||||0.0008||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0008
91951668|NCT00151775|183799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.057||||0.0026||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0026
91951669|NCT00151775|183799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.85||||0.0032||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0032
91951670|NCT00151775|183799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.58||||0.0125||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0125
91951671|NCT00151775|183799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
91951672|NCT00151775|183799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
91951673|NCT00151775|183799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-8.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
91951674|NCT00151775|183799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-8.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
91951675|NCT00151775|183799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-7.17||||0.0265||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0265
91951676|NCT00151775|183799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.85||||0.0084||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0084
91951677|NCT00151775|183799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-8.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
91951678|NCT00151775|183799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-7.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
91951679|NCT00151775|183799849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.58||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|-0.89|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis of systolic blood pressure. Null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||-0.89|-6.27|0.0093
91951680|NCT00151775|183799849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.49||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-1.05|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis for diastolic blood pressure. The null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||-1.05|-5.92|0.0052
91821598|NCT01393743|183520122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-30.81||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.49|-15.244||The P-value is based on a rank analysis of covariance with treatment and pooled country as factors, and prerandomization seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||The median difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-15.244|-45.49|0.0001
91951681|NCT00151775|183799849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.57||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|0.79|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis of systolic blood pressure. Null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||0.79|-5.93|0.1330
91951682|NCT00151775|183799849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.38||||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|1.5|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis for diastolic blood pressure. The null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||1.50|-4.27|0.3442
91951683|NCT00151775|183799849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.16||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-1.09|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated systolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested||-1.09|-5.24|0.0029
91951684|NCT00151775|183799849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.8||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-0.95|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated diastolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||-0.95|-4.65|0.0032
91951685|NCT00151775|183799850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.82||||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|1.65|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated systolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||1.65|-7.29|0.2113
91951686|NCT00151775|183799850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.92||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|1.09|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated diastolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||1.09|-6.92|0.1496
91951687|NCT02706327|183799885|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A post-hoc test was used with Bonferroni correction and adjusted p-value was 0.016.|Kruskal-Wallis|Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated for significant differences.||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not. A post-hoc test was used with Bonferroni correction.||||<0.001
91951688|NCT02706327|183799886|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.547
91951689|NCT02706327|183799887|OTHER|||||||0.895|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.895
91951690|NCT02706327|183799888|OTHER|||||||0.842|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.842
91951691|NCT02706327|183799889|OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.848
91951692|NCT04579666|183799890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.0||||0.7205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|13.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze the ranks of the CAFS score with treatment as a fixed effect, adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, time from symptom onset, baseline Log neurofilament light chain (NfL), and the randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and edaravone).||13.5|-19.5|0.7205
91951693|NCT04579666|183799895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.7||||0.6447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.2|||MMRM|||The mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||2.2|-3.5|0.6447
91951694|NCT04579666|183799896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-6.6||||0.0949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.2|||MMRM|||The MMRM included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||1.2|-14.3|0.0949
91951695|NCT04579666|183799897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.19||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.03|||MMRM|||The MMRM included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||0.03|-0.42|0.0935
91951696|NCT04579666|183799899|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|6.5||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.1|||MMRM|||The MMRM included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||11.1|1.8|0.0069
91951697|NCT01982942|183799919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that the BPF rates of change in the treatment and placebo groups are equal, which can be evaluated based on as assessment of parameter estimates from a linear mixed model (LMM).||||0.04
91951698|NCT01224171|183799925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|Clinical remission was tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test at a 5% significance level with stratification according to concomitant use of oral corticosteroids and concomitant use of immunomodulators (6-mercaptopurine \[6-MP\], azathioprine, or methotrexate) for the TNFα antagonist failure subpopulation.||10.5|-4.5|0.4332
91951699|NCT01270139|183799952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis - Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
91951700|NCT01270139|183799953|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
91951701|NCT01270139|183799954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis - Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
91951702|NCT01270139|183799955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
91951703|NCT01270139|183799956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
91951704|NCT01270139|183799957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
91951705|NCT01270139|183799958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
91951706|NCT01270139|183799959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nanogroup is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
91951707|NCT01270139|183799960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is Nanogroup is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
91951708|NCT01270139|183799961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
91951709|NCT01270139|183799962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano groups is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
91821599|NCT01393743|183520123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||The P value is based on non-missing values and is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pooled country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0019
91951710|NCT01270139|183799963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
91951711|NCT01270139|183799964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano groups is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
91821600|NCT01393743|183520125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.45||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.668|-8.518||The P value is based on a rank analysis of covariance with treatment and pooled country as factors, and prerandomization seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||The median difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-8.518|-40.668|0.0018
91951712|NCT01270139|183799965|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
91951713|NCT01270139|183799966|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
91951714|NCT01270139|183799967|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
91951715|NCT01270139|183799968|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
91951716|NCT01270139|183799969|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is ex-vivo arm with exposure of nanoparticles is superior to saline control.||||<0.05
91951717|NCT04140942|183799979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||6-Month Employment||||.15
91951718|NCT04140942|183799979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||6-Month Employment||||.001
91951719|NCT04140942|183799979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||12-Month Employment||||.87
91951720|NCT04140942|183799980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures.||||||0.04
91951721|NCT04140942|183799981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Chi-squared|||12-Month Recidivism Analysis||||.056
91951722|NCT04140942|183799981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||6-Month Recidivism Analysis||||.18
91951723|NCT02918968|183800003|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.61||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and P-value calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1) as covariate.|||0.61|0.29|<0.001
91951724|NCT02918968|183800005|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|37.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|50.4||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate.|\>=50% reduction||50.4|25.2|<0.001
91951725|NCT02918968|183800005|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|38.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|50.4||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate|≥ 90% reduction||50.4|26.3|<0.001
91951726|NCT02918968|183800006|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|53.1||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate.|≥ 50% reduction||53.1|28.3|<0.001
91951727|NCT02918968|183800006|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|33.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|45.4||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate|≥90% reduction||45.4|21.5|<0.001
91951728|NCT02918968|183800007|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|||||<|0.001||||||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91951729|NCT02918968|183800008|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|||||<|0.001||||||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91951730|NCT02918968|183800010|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.67||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1)|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and P-value calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1) as covariate.|||1.67|0.45|0.669
91951731|NCT00750061|183800011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change light touch score (wk6-d0)||||0.343
91951732|NCT00750061|183800011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change light touch score (m6-d0)||||0.69
91951733|NCT00750061|183800011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change pin-prick score (wk6-d0)||||1
91951734|NCT00750061|183800011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change pin-prick score (m6-d0)||||0.32
91951735|NCT00750061|183800011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change motor score (wk6-d0)||||1
91951736|NCT00750061|183800011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change motor score (m6-d0)||||0.582
91951737|NCT00750061|183800012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM change (Wk6 - D0)||||0.257
91951738|NCT00750061|183800012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM change (M6 - D0)||||0.168
91951739|NCT00750061|183800012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS change (Wk6 - D0)||||0.013
91951740|NCT00750061|183800012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS change (M6 - D0)||||0.137
91951741|NCT01374516|183800020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|60.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|68.0||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %). The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups (exact method by Breslow \& Day). The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 25%.||68.0|52.0|
91951742|NCT01374516|183800021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.7|69.8||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||69.8|58.7|
91951743|NCT01374516|183800022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.7|69.9||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||69.9|58.7|
91951744|NCT01374516|183800023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|61.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.7|68.0||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||68.0|54.7|
91951745|NCT00612456|183800165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the LOCF dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.332||0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.05|42.71||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||42.71|-31.05|0.6241
91951746|NCT00612456|183800165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the LOCF dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.081||0.7315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.52|50.26||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||50.26|-26.52|0.7315
91951747|NCT00612456|183800165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the OC dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.566||0.6212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|43.18||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||43.18|-31.65|0.6212
91951748|NCT00612456|183800165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the OC dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.662||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.44|46.84||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||46.84|-36.44|0.5987
91951749|NCT00612456|183800165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.114||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.28|35.64||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||LOCF Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||35.64|-37.28|0.4820
91951750|NCT00612456|183800165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.496||0.8562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|57.13||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||LOCF Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||57.13|-17.33|0.8562
91951751|NCT00612456|183800165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.3||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.46|36.35||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||OC Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||36.35|-37.46|0.4880
91821601|NCT01393743|183520126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.25||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.054|26.989||The P value is based on a rank analysis of covariance with treatment and pooled country as factors, and prerandomization seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The median difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|Median Difference to Placebo for Absence Seizures||26.989|-53.054|0.3478
91821602|NCT01393743|183520126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.87||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.338|59.938|||ANCOVA|||Median Difference to Placebo for Myoclonic Seizure||59.938|-15.338|0.61
91821603|NCT01393743|183520127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826||||||The P value is based on non-missing values and is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pooled country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1826
91821604|NCT01393743|183520128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4653|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P Value Compared to Placebo for Absence Seizures||||0.4653
91821605|NCT01393743|183520128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3694|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P Value Compared to Placebo for Myoclonic Seizures||||0.3694
91821606|NCT05409235|183520132|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.064||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.578|8.449|||Mantel Haenszel|MH test is adjusted for the randomization stratification factor (Screening DRSS score 47 or 53 or 61B).|A single imputation (non-response) when applying composite variable strategy. MI based for missing data at Week 24, assuming MAR when applying hypothetical strategy. Kept in the analysis when applying treatment policy strategy.|The study was powered to provide a 90% probability to detect a 20% difference between each treatment arm and the combined vehicle control.||8.449|-10.578|0.5730
91821607|NCT05409235|183520132|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.152||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.178|8.874|||Mantel Haenszel|||||8.874|-11.178|0.5750
91821608|NCT05409235|183520133|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|3.119||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.314|11.592|||Mantel Haenszel|||||11.592|-5.314|0.7276
91821609|NCT05409235|183520133|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|5.779||||0.8492|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.424|14.982|||Mantel Haenszel|||||14.982|-3.424|0.8492
91821610|NCT05409235|183520134|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.863||||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.036|4.309|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.309|-8.036|0.3097
91821611|NCT05409235|183520134|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.596||||0.3414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.021|4.829|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.829|-8.021|0.3414
91821612|NCT05409235|183520135|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.899||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4378|1.8467|||Log Rank|||||1.8467|0.4378|0.397
91821613|NCT05409235|183520135|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.113||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5596|2.2117|||Log Rank|||||2.2117|0.5596|0.605
91821614|NCT05409235|183520136|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-10.622||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.972|0.728|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.728|-21.972|0.0619
91821615|NCT05409235|183520136|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-4.942||||0.2483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.897|7.013|||Mantel Haenszel|||||7.013|-16.897|0.2483
91821616|NCT05409235|183520137|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.807||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4675|1.392|||Log Rank|||||1.3920|0.4675|0.237
91821617|NCT05409235|183520137|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.279||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7795|2.0981|||Log Rank|||||2.0981|0.7795|0.766
91821618|NCT05409235|183520138|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-6.389||||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.994|6.215|||Mantel Haenszel|||||6.215|-18.994|0.2022
91821619|NCT05409235|183520138|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.043||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.07|11.984|||Mantel Haenszel|||||11.984|-14.070|0.4476
91821620|NCT05409235|183520139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.843||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.533|1.334||log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor|Log Rank|||||1.334|0.533|0.268
91821621|NCT05409235|183520139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.738|1.775|||Log Rank|||||1.775|0.738|0.304
91821622|NCT05409235|183520140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4573|2.657|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||2.6570|0.4573|0.428
91821623|NCT05409235|183520140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.119||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|2.7846|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||2.7846|0.4500|0.419
91821624|NCT05409235|183520141|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.544||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.26|4.172|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.172|-7.260|0.6716
91821625|NCT05409235|183520141|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-3.412||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.025|2.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.200|-9.025|0.8414
91821626|NCT05409235|183520142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5325||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8478|1.7827|||ANCOVA|||||1.7827|-2.8478|0.647
91821627|NCT05409235|183520142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2849||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6356|0.0658|||ANCOVA|||||0.0658|-4.6356|0.945
91821628|NCT05409235|183520143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.108||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6722|1.8276|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||1.8276|0.6722|0.367
91821629|NCT05409235|183520143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.717||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4295|1.1981|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||1.1981|0.4295|0.857
91821630|NCT05409235|183520144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1531||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.793|47.0991|||ANCOVA|||||47.0991|-38.7930|0.437
91821631|NCT05409235|183520144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.2461||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-59.2538|26.7616|||ANCOVA|||||26.7616|-59.2538|0.733
91821632|NCT05409235|183520145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0634||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9712|13.098|||ANCOVA|||||13.0980|-4.9712|0.770
91821633|NCT05409235|183520145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0507||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1046|8.0032|||ANCOVA|||||8.0032|-10.1046|0.424
91951752|NCT00612456|183800165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.008||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|54.32||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||OC Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||54.32|-26.38|0.7556
91951753|NCT00612456|183800172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on efficacy population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.91|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||6.91|1.74|0.0015
91951754|NCT00612456|183800172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on efficacy population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.403||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.57|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||3.57|-2.05|0.5921
91951755|NCT00612456|183800172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on efficacy population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.988||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|4.07|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||4.07|-3.89|0.9646
91951756|NCT00612456|183800172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for RCA NONE field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.19|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||7.19|2.32|0.0003
91951757|NCT00612456|183800172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for RCA NONE field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|4.3|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||4.30|-1.02|0.2208
91951758|NCT00612456|183800172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for RCA NONE field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.927||0.9847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.83|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||3.83|-3.90|0.9847
91951759|NCT00612456|183800172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for eligible field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.376||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|6.31|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||6.31|0.75|0.0142
91951760|NCT00612456|183800172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for eligible field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.419||0.5547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|3.71|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||3.71|-2.02|0.5547
91951761|NCT00612456|183800172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for eligible field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.287||0.9114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|4.88|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||4.88|-4.37|0.9114
91951762|NCT00612456|183800175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.53|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Leakage Area of measurement.||1.53|-0.01|0.0534
91951763|NCT00612456|183800175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Leakage Area of measurement.||1.64|-0.00|0.0508
91951764|NCT00612456|183800175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.83|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Leakage Area of measurement.||1.83|-0.60|0.3141
91951765|NCT00612456|183800175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Blood Area of measurement.||0.62|-1.04|0.6018
91951766|NCT00612456|183800175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||Statistics has been presented for least square means.|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Blood Area of measurement.||2.00|-0.00|0.0509
91951767|NCT00612456|183800175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.566||0.3976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Blood Area of measurement.||1.68|-0.70|0.3976
91951768|NCT00612456|183800175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for Total Lesion size||1.23|-0.32|0.2410
91951769|NCT00612456|183800175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for Total Lesion size||2.09|0.44|0.0032
91951770|NCT00612456|183800175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for Total Lesion size||1.75|-0.58|0.3185
91951771|NCT00612456|183800175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for CNV Size||1.37|-0.14|0.1074
91821634|NCT05409235|183520146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0205||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1043|0.1452|||ANCOVA|||||0.1452|-0.1043|0.606
91821635|NCT05409235|183520146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0083||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1161|0.1326|||ANCOVA|||||0.1326|-0.1161|0.544
91821636|NCT05409235|183520147|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.544||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.247|9.158|||Mantel Haenszel|||||9.158|-12.247|0.406
91821637|NCT05409235|183520147|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|1.763||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.114|12.64|||Mantel Haenszel|||||12.640|-9.114|0.605
91821638|NCT05409235|183520148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5068|1.6556|||Log Rank|||||1.6556|0.5068|0.404
91821639|NCT05409235|183520148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.128||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6399|1.9868|||Log Rank|||||1.9868|0.6399|0.624
91821640|NCT05409235|183520149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2473|3.6295|||Log Rank|Comparisons are made using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.||||3.6295|0.2473|0.478
91821641|NCT05409235|183520149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.296||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3688|4.5512|||Log Rank|Comparisons are made using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor||||4.5512|0.3688|0.631
91821642|NCT05409235|183520150|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-13.7727||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.1319|-0.4134|||Mantel Haenszel|||||-0.4134|-27.1319|0.0450
91821643|NCT05409235|183520150|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-3.8234||||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.1549|10.5081|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.5081|-18.1549|0.3304
91821644|NCT05409235|183520151|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-14.8877||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.6462|-2.1293|||Mantel Haenszel|||||-2.1293|-27.6462|0.0275
91951772|NCT00612456|183800175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.65|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for CNV Size||1.65|0.04|0.0403
91951773|NCT00612456|183800175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.594||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.88|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for CNV Size||1.88|-0.50|0.2490
91821645|NCT05409235|183520151|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-7.5535||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0688|5.9617|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.9617|-21.0688|0.1790
91821646|NCT03080961|183520195|OTHER||SADE percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.7||||||SADE rate after minimally 26 days of VIBLOK treatment will be assessed by calculating the upper limit of the 2-sided exact 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval which needs to be below 10%. With a sample size of 36, an exact two-sided 95.0% confidence interval for a single proportion would show that the SADE incidence is below 10% at an expected incidence of 0.1%.||7.7|0.0|
91821647|NCT03080961|183520196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis will evaluate the difference in detection rate between pre and post-VIBLOK swabs. For each person the number of swabs with shedding only pre-VIBLOK will be assessed, and then the number of swabs with shedding only post-VIBLOK will be subtracted. A number above 0 indicates a decreased detection rate after VIBLOK. With an 8% anticipated asymptomatic shedding rate, 80% power, 50 subjects taking samples for 28 days are needed to show a 50% reduction.||||0.248
91821648|NCT03080961|183520197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91821649|NCT04976530|183520227|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.07||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||1.58|0.72|0.748
91821650|NCT04976530|183520228|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.33||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.04|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||2.04|0.86|0.202
91821651|NCT04976530|183520229|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.17||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.73|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||1.73|0.79|0.451
91821652|NCT04976530|183520230|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.59||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.46|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||2.46|1.02|0.041
91821653|NCT04976530|183520231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
91821654|NCT04976530|183520232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.079
91821655|NCT04976530|183520233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.427
91821656|NCT04976530|183520234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
91821657|NCT00445328|183520265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is based on chi-square test with alpha as 0.01.|Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
91821658|NCT00445328|183520267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Major Bleeding||||1.0000
91821659|NCT00445328|183520270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1355||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1355
91821660|NCT04456699|183520350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.9774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.97|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||1.97|1.00|0.9774
91821661|NCT04456699|183520350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.49|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||2.49|1.23|0.9993
91821662|NCT04456699|183520351|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||1.21|0.54|0.1527
91951774|NCT01830621|183800199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.88|0.337
91951775|NCT01830621|183800200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.76|0.837
91951776|NCT01830621|183800201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.00|0.48|0.955
91951777|NCT01830621|183800203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91951778|NCT03223649|183800212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03||Unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||-.03|-.17|0.005
91951779|NCT03223649|183800213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.011||Unadjusted P-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||0.011|-.033|0.349
91951780|NCT03223649|183800214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.002||Unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||-.002|-.084|.045
91951781|NCT03223649|183800215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.013||Unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||0.013|-0.051|0.226
91951782|NCT03223649|183800216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.884|-4.716|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.716|-6.884|<0.001
91951783|NCT03223649|183800217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.130|-0.330|0.39
91951784|NCT03223649|183800218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.114|||ANCOVA|Dependent variable in Kcal log transformed, comparison adjusted for: age(y), lean mass(kg), fat mass(kg)||||0.114|-0.071|0.648
91951785|NCT03223649|183800219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.354||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.857|3.525|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age (years)||||3.525|-1.857|0.539
91951786|NCT03223649|183800220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.766||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|2.45|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age (years)||||2.45|-4.57|0.550
91951787|NCT03223649|183800221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.127|1.579|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age (years)||||1.579|-1.127|0.741
91951788|NCT05664672|183800228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|37.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||37.0|15.9|<.0001
91951789|NCT05664672|183800228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|37.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||37.3|17.1|<.0001
91951790|NCT05664672|183800228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|33.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||33.7|14.9|<.0001
91951791|NCT05664672|183800228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|16.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|25.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||25.3|10.8|<.0001
91951792|NCT05664672|183800228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|147.0||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|230.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||230|93.7|0.1148
91951793|NCT05664672|183800228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|153.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.0|233.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||233|101|0.0440
91821663|NCT04456699|183520351|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||1.30|0.59|0.2491
91951794|NCT05664672|183800228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|136.0||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.8|210.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||210|87.8|0.2422
91951795|NCT05664672|183800229|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|49.9||||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|110.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||110|22.7|0.0994
91821664|NCT04456699|183520352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.5272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Based on stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, cycles and mutation status.|||6.5|-7.0|0.5272
91821665|NCT04456699|183520352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-3.2||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Based on stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, cycles and mutation status.|||2.3|-9.7|0.9020
91821666|NCT00457197|183520358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline drinks/day used as covariate.||||0.4709
91821667|NCT00457197|183520359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1272|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline percent heavy drinking days included as covariate.||||0.1272
91821668|NCT00457197|183520360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline GGT used as covariate.||||0.9642
91821669|NCT00457197|183520361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7222|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline AST used as covariate.||||0.7222
91951796|NCT05664672|183800229|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|65.8||||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|135.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||135|32.0|0.4162
91951797|NCT05664672|183800229|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|101.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|215.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||215|47.5|1.0000
91821670|NCT00457197|183520362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline ALT used as covariate.||||0.1412
91821671|NCT00457197|183520363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7071|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSD used as covariate.||||0.7071
91951798|NCT05664672|183800229|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.94|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||4.94|1.01|<.0001
91821672|NCT00457197|183520364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2569|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline IDS-SR used as a covariate.||||0.2569
91821673|NCT00457197|183520365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8814|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline YMRS used as a covariate.||||0.8814
91821674|NCT00457197|183520366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline PACS used as a covariate.||||0.2473
91821675|NCT02114879|183520425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The p-value refers to the time by group interaction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Marginal Model|||This Primary analysis used a marginal model with time (baseline and discharge), condition (EMR vs SOC), and time x condition as fixed effects, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on Bayesian information criteria (BIC).||||0.007
91821676|NCT02114879|183520426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91821677|NCT02114879|183520427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
91821678|NCT02114879|183520428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||The p-value refers to the time by group interaction. The statistical significance in this test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This Primary analysis used a marginal model with time (baseline and discharge), condition (EMR vs SOC), and time x condition as fixed effects, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on Bayesian information criteria (BIC).||||0.96
91821679|NCT02114879|183520429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The p-value is calculated from a 2x2 Contingency Table consisting of rows that represent Discharged Home Vs Discharged to Institution and columns that represent the EMR and SOC groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
91821680|NCT02114879|183520430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The p-value is calculated from a 2x2 Contingency Table consisting of rows that represent Yes/No Rehospitalization and columns that represent the EMR and SOC groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.85
91821681|NCT03120013|183520431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91821682|NCT03120013|183520432|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91821683|NCT03120013|183520433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91821684|NCT03120013|183520434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91821685|NCT03120013|183520435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91821686|NCT03120013|183520436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.006
91821687|NCT03120013|183520437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91821688|NCT03120013|183520438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.043
91821689|NCT04847674|183520542|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.027||||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2276|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1740|-0.2276|0.7914
91821690|NCT04847674|183520542|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.011||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2126|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1900|-0.2126|0.9115
91821691|NCT04847674|183520544|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.026||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0733|0.1261|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1261|-0.0733|0.6001
91951799|NCT05664672|183800229|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|2230.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|965.0|5160.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||5160|965|<.0001
91951800|NCT05664672|183800229|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|2940.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1350.0|6400.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||6400|1350|<.0001
91951801|NCT05664672|183800229|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|4530.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2020.0|10200.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||10200|2020|<.0001
91951802|NCT05664672|183800230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|9.87|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||9.87|3.29|<.0001
91951803|NCT05664672|183800230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|8.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|13.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||13.4|4.88|<.0001
91951804|NCT05664672|183800230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|11.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||11.2|3.88|<.0001
91951805|NCT05664672|183800230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|10.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||10.5|3.46|<.0001
91951806|NCT05664672|183800230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|94.4||||0.9972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|169.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||169|52.7|0.9972
91951807|NCT05664672|183800230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|134.0||||0.4655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.9|230.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||230|77.9|0.4655
91951808|NCT05664672|183800230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|109.0||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|192.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||192|62.1|0.9851
91951809|NCT05664672|183800231|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|19.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||19.2|9.72|<.0001
91951810|NCT05664672|183800231|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|22.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.6|12.1|<.0001
91951811|NCT05664672|183800231|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.68|18.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||18.6|9.68|<.0001
91951812|NCT05664672|183800231|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|22.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.2|11.2|<.0001
91821692|NCT04847674|183520544|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.027||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0732|0.1276|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1276|-0.0732|0.5922
91821693|NCT04847674|183520544|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.027||||0.6017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0744|0.1277|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1277|-0.0744|0.6017
91821694|NCT04847674|183520544|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.022||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0796|0.1239|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1239|-0.0796|0.6664
91821695|NCT04847674|183520545|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimator|0.4||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|3.31|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||3.31|-2.33|0.7261
91951813|NCT05664672|183800231|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.8||||0.7167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.6|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|60.6|0.7167
91951814|NCT05664672|183800231|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|105.0||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.3|147.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||147|75.3|0.9864
91951815|NCT05664672|183800231|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|85.1||||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.1|120.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||120|60.1|0.5911
91951816|NCT05664672|183800232|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|40.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||40.0|21.8|<.0001
91951817|NCT05664672|183800232|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|37.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||37.4|21.5|<.0001
91951818|NCT05664672|183800232|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|44.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||44.2|24.8|<.0001
91951819|NCT05664672|183800232|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|50.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||50.9|27.7|<.0001
91821696|NCT04847674|183520545|OTHER||HL estimator|-0.5||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|3.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||3.32|-3.56|0.7650
91821697|NCT04847674|183520545|OTHER||HL estimator|0.2||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|3.04|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||3.04|-2.44|0.7942
91821698|NCT04847674|183520545|OTHER||HL estimator|-0.8||||0.6147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.55|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||2.55|-3.81|0.6147
91821699|NCT04847674|183520547|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.083||||0.4394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2971|0.1301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1301|-0.2971|0.4394
91821700|NCT04847674|183520547|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.089||||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.1231|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1231|-0.3020|0.4051
91951820|NCT05664672|183800232|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|78.8||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.3|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|57.3|0.1950
91951821|NCT05664672|183800232|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|75.5||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.1|102.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||102|56.1|0.0699
91951822|NCT05664672|183800232|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|88.3||||0.7041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.7|120.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||120|64.7|0.7041
91951823|NCT05664672|183800233|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.57|18.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||18.4|9.57|<.0001
91951824|NCT05664672|183800233|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|17.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||17.9|9.84|<.0001
91951825|NCT05664672|183800233|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|18.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||18.6|9.93|<.0001
91951826|NCT05664672|183800233|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|9.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.67|12.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||12.9|6.67|<.0001
91951827|NCT05664672|183800233|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|143.0||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.0|202.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||202|101|0.0404
91951828|NCT05664672|183800233|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|143.0||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.0|198.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||198|104|0.0243
91951829|NCT05664672|183800233|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|146.0||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.0|205.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||205|105|0.0215
91951830|NCT05664672|183800234|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|7.8|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.80|3.69|<.0001
91951831|NCT05664672|183800234|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|7.96|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.96|4.01|<.0001
91951832|NCT05664672|183800234|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|8.03|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||8.03|3.92|<.0001
91951833|NCT05664672|183800234|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|8.89|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||8.89|4.17|<.0001
91821701|NCT04847674|183520550|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.093||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1031|0.2893|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2893|-0.1031|0.3485
91821702|NCT04847674|183520550|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.033||||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1644|0.2296|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2296|-0.1644|0.7432
91821703|NCT04847674|183520550|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.087||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2920|-0.1180|0.4014
91821704|NCT04847674|183520550|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.2153|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2153|-0.1960|0.9259
91821705|NCT04847674|183520552|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.42|-0.43|0.9829
91821706|NCT04847674|183520552|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.52|-0.32|0.6302
91951834|NCT05664672|183800234|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|88.1||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.4|131.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||131|59.4|0.8335
91951835|NCT05664672|183800234|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|92.9||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|134.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||134|64.2|0.9622
91821707|NCT04847674|183520552|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.35|-0.54|0.6707
91821708|NCT04847674|183520552|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.43|-0.44|0.9940
91821709|NCT04847674|183520553|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.4683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||1.26|-2.71|0.4683
91891197|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-4.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91821710|NCT04847674|183520553|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.2239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||0.75|-3.16|0.2239
91821711|NCT04847674|183520553|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||1.32|-2.51|0.5389
91821712|NCT04847674|183520553|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||1.00|-2.75|0.3564
91821713|NCT04847674|183520554|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.27|-0.62|0.4436
91821714|NCT04847674|183520554|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.32|-0.56|0.5970
91821715|NCT04847674|183520554|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.26|-0.68|0.3769
91821716|NCT04847674|183520554|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.29|-0.64|0.4595
91821717|NCT01833403|183520577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91821718|NCT02702401|183520579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.775||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.987|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level.|Cox regression model with Efron's method (treatment as covariate) stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||0.987|0.609|0.0186
91821719|NCT02702401|183520580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|0.998|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level.|Cox regression model with Efron's method (treatment as covariate) stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||0.998|0.611|0.0238
91821720|NCT02702401|183520581|OTHER||Difference in Percent|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|19.5|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||19.5|7.7|
91951836|NCT05664672|183800234|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|92.1||||0.9531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|135.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||135|62.8|0.9531
91951837|NCT05664672|183800235|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|22.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.3|14.4|<.0001
91821721|NCT02702401|183520583|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.688||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.877||One-sided p-value stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level.|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method (treatment as covariate) stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||0.877|0.540|0.0011
91821722|NCT01686646|183520594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean DIfference|3.5||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.5||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||6.5|0.4|0.0248
91821723|NCT01686646|183520594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favoured the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||4.1|-0.6|0.1513
91821724|NCT01686646|183520594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.6||Not significant based on hierarchical testing.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favoured the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in change from baseline in number of valid responses from RVIP task.||6.6|1.1|
91821725|NCT01686646|183520595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of accurate responses from the RVIP.||6.1|-0.2|0.0696
91821726|NCT01686646|183520595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.2||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||5.2|0.3|
91821727|NCT01686646|183520595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.9||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||3.9|-1.7|
91821728|NCT00689481|183520613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.016
91821729|NCT00689481|183520613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of the homogeneity of the odds ratio using a 0.1 significance level.||Consistency of results across investigative centers was verified using the Breslow-Day test of homogeneity the odds ration using a significance level of 0.1||||0.843
91951838|NCT05664672|183800235|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|22.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.1|14.8|<.0001
91951839|NCT05664672|183800235|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|19.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||19.4|12.8|<.0001
91951840|NCT05664672|183800235|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|22.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.7|14.6|<.0001
91951841|NCT05664672|183800235|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.4||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|78.2|0.9993
91951842|NCT05664672|183800235|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.9||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.7|123.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||123|79.7|0.9998
91951843|NCT05664672|183800235|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.4||||0.3019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.1|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|69.1|0.3019
91951844|NCT05664672|183800236|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|25.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||25.3|13.2|<.0001
91951845|NCT05664672|183800236|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|31.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||31.9|17.6|<.0001
91951846|NCT05664672|183800236|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|26.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||26.4|14.2|<.0001
91951847|NCT05664672|183800236|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|33.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||33.3|17.3|<.0001
91951848|NCT05664672|183800236|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|76.1||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|107.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||107|54.0|0.1530
91951849|NCT05664672|183800236|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.6||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|136.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||136|71.7|0.9999
91951850|NCT05664672|183800236|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|80.5||||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|112.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||112|57.8|0.3025
91821730|NCT00689481|183520614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.034
91821731|NCT00689481|183520615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||P-value is significant based on the Holm stepwise closed testing procedure to control multiplicity for the key secondary analyses if primary analysis was significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center.||||||0.004
91821732|NCT00689481|183520616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.052
91821733|NCT00689481|183520617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.033
91821734|NCT00689481|183520618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had mild disease at baseline||||0.859
91821735|NCT00689481|183520618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had moderate disease at baseline||||0.015
91821736|NCT03337724|183520619|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.02||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||Log Rank||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, tumor PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alteration status (PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations vs. PTEN alterations with no PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations).|||1.45|0.71|0.9237
91821737|NCT03337724|183520620|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.0||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.4|||Log Rank||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, prior therapy with a PI3K or mTOR inhibitor (yes vs. no).|||1.40|0.71|0.9965
91821738|NCT03337724|183520628|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.58|||||Stratification was done prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, tumor PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alteration status (PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations vs. PTEN alterations with no PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations).|||1.58|0.73|
91821739|NCT03337724|183520628|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37|||||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, prior therapy with a PI3K or mTOR inhibitor (yes vs. no).|||1.37|0.65|
91821740|NCT03337724|183520631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.22|||Log Rank||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, prior therapy with a PI3K or mTOR inhibitor (yes vs. no).||Stratified Analysis|2.22|0.83|0.2162
91821741|NCT02026115|183520658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.43
91821742|NCT02026115|183520659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Experimental group performed worse than usual care.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
91821743|NCT02026115|183520660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.32
91821744|NCT02026115|183520661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.36
91821745|NCT02026115|183520662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.01
91821746|NCT02026115|183520663|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91821747|NCT04084769|183520674|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|6.95||||||Serogroup A||6.95|-3.58|
91821748|NCT04084769|183520674|OTHER|95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.6||||||Serogroup C||1.60|-5.50|
91821749|NCT04084769|183520674|OTHER|95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|1.14||||||Serogroup Y||1.14|-4.09|
91821750|NCT04084769|183520674|OTHER|95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|2.07||||||Serogroup W||2.07|-4.72|
91821751|NCT04477304|183520689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.07||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.07|-0.12|<0.001
91821752|NCT04477304|183520690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.16|-0.23|<0.001
91821753|NCT04477304|183520691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.06|-0.10|<0.001
91821754|NCT04477304|183520692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.03||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.03|-0.08|<0.001
91821755|NCT04477304|183520693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.01|-0.03|0.392
91821756|NCT04477304|183520694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.05|-0.13|<0.001
91821757|NCT02782949|183520701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||0.3990
91821758|NCT02782949|183520704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.74
91951851|NCT05664672|183800237|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|30.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||30.4|17.0|<.0001
91951852|NCT05664672|183800237|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|36.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||36.6|21.6|<.0001
91951853|NCT05664672|183800237|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|36.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||36.2|20.8|<.0001
91951854|NCT05664672|183800237|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|38.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||38.4|21.4|<.0001
91951855|NCT05664672|183800237|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|79.4||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|58.6|0.1843
91951856|NCT05664672|183800237|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.1||||0.9994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.9|130.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||130|73.9|0.9994
91951857|NCT05664672|183800237|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|95.9||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.4|129.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||129|71.4|0.9891
91951858|NCT05664672|183800238|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|45.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||45.7|30.4|<.0001
91951859|NCT05664672|183800238|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|53.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||53.1|36.5|<.0001
91951860|NCT05664672|183800238|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|50.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||50.9|34.4|<.0001
91951861|NCT05664672|183800238|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|42.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|52.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||52.7|34.9|<.0001
91951862|NCT05664672|183800238|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.9||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|70.0|0.3027
91951863|NCT05664672|183800238|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|103.0||||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.9|125.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||125|83.9|0.9926
91951864|NCT05664672|183800238|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|97.5||||0.9938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.1|120.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||120|79.1|0.9938
91951865|NCT05664672|183800239|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|46.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|54.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||54.4|39.5|<.0001
91951866|NCT05664672|183800239|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|64.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||64.4|48.0|<.0001
91951867|NCT05664672|183800239|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|52.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|61.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||61.5|45.2|<.0001
91951868|NCT05664672|183800239|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|54.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.7|64.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||64.5|46.7|<.0001
91951869|NCT05664672|183800239|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|84.4||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.2|100.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||100|71.2|0.0504
91951870|NCT05664672|183800239|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|101.0||||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.4|119.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||119|86.4|0.9988
91951871|NCT05664672|183800239|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|96.0||||0.9238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.4|113.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||113|81.4|0.9238
91951872|NCT05664672|183800240|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|3.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|7.31|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.31|1.88|<.0001
91951873|NCT05664672|183800240|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|4.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|7.93|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.93|2.28|<.0001
91951874|NCT05664672|183800240|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|4.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|8.14|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||8.14|2.20|<.0001
91951875|NCT05664672|183800240|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|12.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||12.7|3.22|<.0001
91951876|NCT05664672|183800240|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|57.9||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|119.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||119|28.3|0.1840
91951877|NCT05664672|183800240|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|66.4||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|130.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||130|34.0|0.3552
91951878|NCT05664672|183800240|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|66.2||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|133.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||133|33.0|0.3810
91951879|NCT05664672|183800241|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|21.8|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||21.8|13.0|<.0001
91951880|NCT05664672|183800241|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|20.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|25.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||25.9|16.2|<.0001
91951881|NCT05664672|183800241|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|23.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||23.4|14.3|<.0001
91951882|NCT05664672|183800241|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|23.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||23.1|13.7|<.0001
91951883|NCT05664672|183800241|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|94.5||||0.9589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|72.0|0.9589
91951884|NCT05664672|183800241|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|115.0||||0.4442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.3|148.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||148|89.3|0.4442
91951885|NCT05664672|183800241|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|103.0||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.8|133.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||133|78.8|0.9975
91951886|NCT05664672|183800242|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|36.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|55.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||55.6|23.9|<.0001
91951887|NCT05664672|183800242|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|39.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|59.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||59.0|27.1|<.0001
91951888|NCT05664672|183800242|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|45.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||45.5|20.1|<.0001
91951889|NCT05664672|183800242|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|48.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|75.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||75.0|31.9|0.0002
91951890|NCT05664672|183800242|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|74.5||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|117.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||117|47.6|0.2938
91951891|NCT05664672|183800242|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|81.6||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|53.7|0.5552
91951892|NCT05664672|183800242|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|61.7||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|95.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||95.5|39.9|0.0254
91951893|NCT05664672|183800243|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|52.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.4|67.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||67.1|40.4|<.0001
91951894|NCT05664672|183800243|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|62.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||62.2|39.0|<.0001
91951895|NCT05664672|183800243|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|40.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|52.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||52.1|32.0|<.0001
91951896|NCT05664672|183800243|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|59.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||59.2|35.7|<.0001
91951897|NCT05664672|183800243|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|113.0||||0.5817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|148.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||148|86.8|0.5817
91951898|NCT05664672|183800243|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|107.0||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|138.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||138|83.7|0.8852
91951899|NCT05664672|183800243|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|88.9||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|115.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||115|68.7|0.6070
91951900|NCT05664672|183800244|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|32.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||32.0|5.44|<.0001
91951901|NCT05664672|183800244|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|53.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||53.3|10.7|<.0001
91951902|NCT05664672|183800244|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|57.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||57.4|10.6|0.0003
91951903|NCT05664672|183800244|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|22.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|54.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||54.1|9.21|0.0002
91951904|NCT05664672|183800244|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|59.1||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|150.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||150|23.3|0.4280
91951905|NCT05664672|183800244|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|107.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|255.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||255|44.8|0.9990
91951906|NCT05664672|183800244|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|110.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|272.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||272|44.9|0.9958
91951907|NCT05664672|183800245|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-50.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.7|-23.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-23.9|-77.7|<.0001
91951908|NCT05664672|183800245|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-45.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.6|-20.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-20.3|-69.6|<.0001
91951909|NCT05664672|183800245|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-42.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|-16.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-16.5|-68.2|0.0003
91951910|NCT05664672|183800245|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-44.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-17.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-17.0|-72.6|0.0004
91951911|NCT05664672|183800245|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-6.05||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|23.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||23.1|-35.2|0.9551
91951912|NCT05664672|183800245|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-0.198||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|26.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||26.9|-27.3|1.0000
91951913|NCT05664672|183800245|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.48||||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|30.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||30.6|-25.6|0.9981
91951914|NCT05664672|183800246|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|31.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|53.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||53.9|18.7|<.0001
91951915|NCT05664672|183800246|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|46.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||46.2|17.6|<.0001
91951916|NCT05664672|183800246|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|40.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||40.2|14.7|<.0001
91951917|NCT05664672|183800246|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|47.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||47.7|16.6|<.0001
91951918|NCT05664672|183800246|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|113.0||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.7|197.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||197|64.7|0.9511
91951919|NCT05664672|183800246|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|101.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|170.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||170|60.4|1.0000
91951920|NCT05664672|183800246|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.5||||0.9003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|148.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||148|50.6|0.9003
91821759|NCT03238911|183520710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-67.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|-51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose was compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95% CI, adjusting for strata (underlying disease and screening s-phosphate) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|"Power:~The power was set to 80%. Assuming incidences of 15% for iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 40% for ferric carboxymaltose, 49 subjects in each treatment group were required to detect a difference between the treatment groups. The significance level was set to 5%."||-51.5|-77.4|<0.0001
91821760|NCT03238911|183520711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8979|||||||Log Rank|||The time with hypophosphatemia from baseline to day 35 was estimated by a Kaplan-Meier plot. The treatment groups were compared by a log-rank test. Only subjects who had one or more s-phosphate value(s) \<2 mg/dL were included.||||0.8979
91821761|NCT03238911|183520712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose will be compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95 % CI, adjusting for strata (type of underlying disease (women with IDA due to gynaecological blood losses; yes/no) and screening s-phosphate level (\< or ≥ 3.5 mg/dL)) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||-23.3|-52.2|<0.0001
91821762|NCT03238911|183520713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.65|0.31|<0.0001
91821763|NCT03238911|183520713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.27|0.85|<0.0001
91821764|NCT03238911|183520713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.25|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.25|0.81|<0.0001
91951921|NCT05664672|183800247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|58.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||58.0|37.1|<.0001
91951922|NCT05664672|183800247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|43.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|52.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||52.9|35.1|<.0001
91821765|NCT03238911|183520713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.60|1.10|<0.0001
91891198|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|0.99||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0068
91951923|NCT05664672|183800247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|44.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|54.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||54.6|35.5|<.0001
91821766|NCT03238911|183520713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.32|0.75|<0.0001
91951924|NCT05664672|183800247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|49.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||49.4|31.0|<.0001
91821767|NCT03238911|183520713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.39|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.39|0.86|<0.0001
91821768|NCT03238911|183520714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.32|20.79|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||20.79|10.32|<0.0001
91821769|NCT03238911|183520714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.62|39.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||39.84|26.62|<0.0001
91821770|NCT03238911|183520714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.71|39.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||39.84|25.71|<0.0001
91821771|NCT03238911|183520714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.89|50.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||50.32|33.89|<0.0001
91951925|NCT05664672|183800247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|119.0||||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.2|151.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||151|93.2|0.2351
91951926|NCT05664672|183800247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|110.0||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|138.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||138|87.7|0.6570
91951927|NCT05664672|183800247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|113.0||||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.1|142.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||142|89.1|0.5112
91821772|NCT03238911|183520714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.09|41.48|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||41.48|23.09|<0.0001
91821773|NCT03238911|183520714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.33|44.78|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||44.78|27.33|<0.0001
91951928|NCT00643851|183800280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.62||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET was superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-1.11|<0.0001
91951929|NCT00643851|183800280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.45||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.94|<0.0001
91821774|NCT03238911|183520716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-105.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.04|-80.45|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-80.45|-131.04|<0.0001
91951930|NCT00643851|183800281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.883|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-11.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-11.4|-26.7|<0.0001
91951931|NCT00643851|183800281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.897|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-19.8||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-19.8|-35.1|<0.0001
91951932|NCT00643851|183800282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.633|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|39.0||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|modified logistic regression|||||39.0|20.8|<0.0001
91951933|NCT00643851|183800282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.947||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|27.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||27.4|8.1|0.0003
91951934|NCT00643851|183800283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.96||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.96|-1.72|<0.0001
91951935|NCT00643851|183800283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1912|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.82||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-1.57|<0.0001
91951936|NCT00643851|183800284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3388||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.61||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-0.72|0.8769
91951937|NCT00643851|183800284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3399|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.71||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.71|-2.04|<0.0001
91821775|NCT03238911|183520716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.95|-38.58|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-38.58|-82.95|<0.0001
91951938|NCT00643851|183800285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.66||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-0.98|
91951939|NCT00643851|183800285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.74||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.74|-2.40|
91951940|NCT01441882|183800316|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-parametric two-sided Mann-Whitney test was run assuming non-Gaussian distributions. Two-tailed with 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Percent change from baseline in responders compared to non-responders (lymph node size).||||0.0106
91951941|NCT01441882|183800316|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-parametric two-sided Mann-Whitney test was run assuming non-Gaussian distributions. Two-tailed with 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Percent change from baseline in responders compared to non-responders (Absolute Lymphocyte Count (ALC)).||||0.19860
91951942|NCT01441882|183800316|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-parametric two-sided Mann-Whitney test was run assuming non-Gaussian distributions. Two-tailed with 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Percent change from baseline in responders compared to non-responders (spleen size).||||0.5167
91951943|NCT00808665|183800333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91951944|NCT01694849|183800350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.092||||0.8539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|2.795||To deal with multiplicity of comparisons, a step-down approach was adopted to control the type I error to 0.05. The contrast GFT120 mg versus placebo was examined first. If not significant the GFT 80mg versus placebo contrast was not examined.|Regression, Logistic|Baseline NAS, Log transformed baseline aspartate aminotransferase and baseline plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 values|Standard error of the estimate|H\_01: OR\_80 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_11 : OR\_80 greater than 1 H\_02: OR\_120 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_12 : OR\_120 greater than 1||2.795|0.427|0.8539
91951945|NCT01694849|183800350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.897||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|2.232||To deal with multiplicity of comparisons, a step-down approach was adopted to control the type I error to 0.05. The contrast GFT120 mg versus placebo was examined first. If not significant the GFT 80mg versus placebo contrast was not examined.|Regression, Logistic|Baseline NAS, Log transformed baseline aspartate aminotransferase and baseline plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 values|Standard error of the estimate|H\_01: OR\_80 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_11 : OR\_80 greater than 1 H\_02: OR\_120 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_12 : OR\_120 greater than 1||2.232|0.361|0.8160
91951946|NCT01694849|183800351|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean change|-0.27||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score|Standard error of the least squares mean|"H0: difference in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline equal to 0 H1: difference in LS mean change from baseline not equal to 0~Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4"||0.2|-0.75|0.225
91951947|NCT01694849|183800351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.28||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score|Standard error of the least squares mean|"H0: difference in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline equal to 0 H1: difference in LS mean change from baseline not equal to 0~Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4"||0.2|-0.76|0.254
91951948|NCT01694849|183800352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.073||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|2.339|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score.|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.339|0.493|0.8586
91951949|NCT01694849|183800352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.601||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|3.432|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||3.432|0.747|0.2265
91951950|NCT01694849|183800353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.723||||0.5231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|1.958|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||1.958|0.267|0.5231
91951951|NCT01694849|183800353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|2.924|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.924|0.415|0.8459
91951952|NCT01694849|183800354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.638||||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|2.529|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.529|0.161|0.5229
91951953|NCT01694849|183800354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.433||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.421|4.875|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||4.875|.421|0.5646
91951954|NCT01694849|183800355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.382||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|1.656|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||1.656|0.088|0.1983
91951955|NCT01694849|183800355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|3.466|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||3.466|0.288|1.0000
91951956|NCT01694849|183800356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.653||||0.3543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|1.609|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||1.609|0.265|0.3543
91951957|NCT01694849|183800356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|2.953|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.953|0.547|0.5780
91951958|NCT01694849|183800357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|1.24||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in aspartate transaminase (U/L)||7.81|-5.33|0.711
91951959|NCT01694849|183800357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.94||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in aspartate transaminase (U/L)||5.7|-7.58|0.78
91951960|NCT01694849|183800357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-6.13||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in alanine aminotransferase (U/L)||3.71|-15.97|0.221
91951961|NCT01694849|183800357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.45||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in alanine aminotransferase (U/L)||0.49|-19.4|0.062
91951962|NCT01694849|183800357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-23.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.16|-18.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Alkaline phosphatases (U/L)||-18.88|-27.16|<0.001
91951963|NCT01694849|183800357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-23.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.04|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Alkaline phosphatases (U/L)||2.12|-28.04|<0.001
91951964|NCT01694849|183800357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-31.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.78|-19.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Gamma-glutamyl transferase (U/L)||-19.05|-43.78|<0.001
91951965|NCT01694849|183800357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-29.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.84|-16.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Gamma-glutamyl transferase (U/L)||-16.77|-41.84|<0.001
91951966|NCT01694849|183800358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.21|0.06|<0.001
91951967|NCT01694849|183800358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.26|0.11|<0.001
91951968|NCT01694849|183800359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|141.78||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.99|308.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||308.55|-24.99|0.095
91951969|NCT01694849|183800359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-70.57||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.85|98.71||Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error of the least square mean|||98.71|-239.85|0.412
91951970|NCT01694849|183800360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|32.39||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.63|151.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||151.42|-86.63|0.592
91951971|NCT01694849|183800360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|31.35||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.42|152.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||152.12|-89.42|0.61
91821776|NCT03238911|183520716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-293.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-368.15|-218.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-218.30|-368.15|<0.0001
91821777|NCT03238911|183520716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-117.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.6|-83.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-83.33|-151.60|<0.0001
91821778|NCT03238911|183520716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.8|-40.61|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-40.61|-101.80|<0.0001
91821779|NCT03238911|183520716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.92|-19.39|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-19.39|-54.92|<0.0001
91821780|NCT03238911|183520717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-99.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.42|-61.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-61.76|-136.42|<0.0001
91821781|NCT03238911|183520717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-25.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-25.90|-72.80|<0.0001
91821782|NCT03238911|183520717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-191.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.47|-140.09|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-140.09|-242.47|<0.0001
91821783|NCT03238911|183520717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.19|-64.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-64.20|-137.19|<0.0001
91821784|NCT03238911|183520717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.78|-24.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-24.96|-71.78|<0.0001
91821785|NCT03238911|183520717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|5.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||5.06|-35.04|0.1411
91951972|NCT01694849|183800361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|1.67||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||6.11|-2.77|0.459
91821786|NCT03238911|183520718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.59|-1.08|0.5620
91951973|NCT01694849|183800361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.67||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.72|-5.06|0.764
91951974|NCT01694849|183800362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-12.92||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.79|21.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||21.95|-47.79|0.466
91951975|NCT01694849|183800362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-5.82||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.07|29.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||29.42|-41.07|0.745
91951976|NCT01694849|183800363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-26.57||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.59|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG19||-4.54|-48.59|0.018
91951977|NCT01694849|183800363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-40.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.61|-18.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG19||-18.17|-62.61|<0.001
91951978|NCT01694849|183800363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|190.07||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.38|417.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG21||417.52|-37.38|0.101
91951979|NCT01694849|183800363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|228.33||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|458.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG21||458.82|-2.16|0.052
91951980|NCT01694849|183800364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.01|-0.29|0.002
91951981|NCT01694849|183800364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.15|-0.34|<0.001
91951982|NCT01694849|183800365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-16.54||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.07|8.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Hyaluronic acid||8.98|-42.07|0.203
91951983|NCT01694849|183800365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-6.79||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.49|18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||18.9|-32.49|0.603
91951984|NCT01694849|183800365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.73||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|PIIINP||0.48|-1.95|0.235
91951985|NCT01694849|183800365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.81||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|PIIINP||0.41|-2.04|0.193
91951986|NCT01694849|183800365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|6.21||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|19.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|TIMP-1||19.22|-6.81|0.348
91951987|NCT01694849|183800365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-14.66||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.81|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|TIMP-1||1.51|-27.81|0.029
91951988|NCT01694849|183800366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.02|-0.07|<0.001
91951989|NCT01694849|183800366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.02|-0.08|<0.001
91951990|NCT01694849|183800367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.07|-0.15|<0.001
91951991|NCT01694849|183800367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.07|-0.15|<0.001
91951992|NCT01694849|183800368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.06||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.23|-0.11|0.471
91951993|NCT01694849|183800368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.08|-0.42|0.005
91951994|NCT01694849|183800369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.07||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.12|-0.27|0.457
91951995|NCT01694849|183800369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.08||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.12|-0.28|0.428
91951996|NCT01694849|183800370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|-5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-5.24|-13.19|<0.001
91951997|NCT01694849|183800370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-5.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-5.04|-13.12|<0.001
91951998|NCT01694849|183800371|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.02||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.09|-0.05|0.531
91951999|NCT01694849|183800371|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.02||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.05|-0.08|0.638
91952000|NCT01694849|183800372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.14||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Total bilirubin||1.12|-1.39|0.831
91952001|NCT01694849|183800372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.2||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Total bilirubin||1.47|-1.07|0.754
91952002|NCT01694849|183800372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.03||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Conjugated Bilirubin||0.3|-0.36|0.848
91952003|NCT01694849|183800372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.11||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Conjugated Bilirubin||0.45|-0.22|0.511
91952004|NCT01694849|183800373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.83||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.29|-5.95|0.075
91952005|NCT01694849|183800373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.11||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||2.07|-4.29|0.491
91952006|NCT01694849|183800374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.03||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.04|-0.1|0.393
91952007|NCT01694849|183800374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.04||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.03|-0.11|0.289
91952008|NCT01694849|183800375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Triglycerides||-0.21|-0.73|<0.001
91952009|NCT01694849|183800375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Triglycerides||-0.29|-0.81|<0.001
91952010|NCT01694849|183800375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Cholesterol||-0.14|-0.56|0.001
91952011|NCT01694849|183800375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Cholesterol||-0.23|-0.64|<0.001
91952012|NCT01694849|183800375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Non-high Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.24|-0.67|<0.001
91952013|NCT01694849|183800375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Non-high Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.32|-0.75|<0.001
91952014|NCT01694849|183800375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.09||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|High Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||0.15|0.03|0.005
91952015|NCT01694849|183800375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|High Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||0.17|0.05|<0.001
91952016|NCT01694849|183800375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Very Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.11|-0.26|<0.001
91952017|NCT01694849|183800375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Very Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.09|-0.25|<0.001
91952018|NCT01694849|183800375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.02|-0.38|0.031
91952019|NCT01694849|183800375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.24||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.06|-0.42|0.009
91952020|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|5.73||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|11.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo A1||11.14|0.31|0.038
91952021|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|7.07||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|12.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo A1||12.55|1.59|0.012
91952022|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-12.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|-7.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo B||-7.25|-17.56|<0.001
91952023|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|-4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo B||-4.41|-14.81|<0.001
91952024|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|3.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo AII||4.96|2.14|<0.001
91952025|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|7.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo AII||7.53|4.67|<0.001
91952026|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII||-1.25|-3.29|<0.001
91952027|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII||-0.49|-2.52|0.004
91952028|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/B||-0.92|-2.63|<0.001
91952029|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.15||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/B||-0.29|-2|0.009
91952030|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.46||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/nonB||-0.17|-0.75|0.002
91952031|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/nonB||-0.1|-0.68|0.008
91952032|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.35||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Small dense Low Density Lipoproteins||0.19|-4.89|0.069
91952033|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-3.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Small dense Low Density Lipoproteins||-0.84|-5.95|0.01
91952034|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.84||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Lp(a)||3.61|-1.93|0.549
91952035|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.49||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Lp(a)||3.26|-2.28|0.728
91952036|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E||-0.61|-2.14|<0.001
91952037|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E||-0.36|-1.89|0.004
91952038|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E/B||-0.53|-1.82|<0.001
91952039|NCT01694849|183800376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.08||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E/B||-0.43|-1.72|0.001
91952040|NCT01694849|183800377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.8||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Least square mean changes from baseline|||0.18|-5.79|0.066
91952041|NCT01694849|183800377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.77||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.77|-2.24|0.615
91952042|NCT01694849|183800378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-17.4||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.88|16.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||16.08|-50.88|0.307
91952043|NCT01694849|183800378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-21.41||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.17|12.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||12.34|-55.17|0.213
91952044|NCT01694849|183800379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.08|-0.37|0.003
91952045|NCT01694849|183800379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.14||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.29|0.068
91952046|NCT01694849|183800380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.8||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.27|-2.86|0.448
91952047|NCT01694849|183800380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.17||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.9|-3.25|0.267
91952048|NCT01694849|183800381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.05||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.11|0.095
91952049|NCT01694849|183800381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.07||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.01|-0.13|0.022
91952050|NCT01694849|183800382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.46||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.05|-0.96|0.077
91952051|NCT01694849|183800382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.36||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.16|-0.87|0.172
91821787|NCT03238911|183520718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||3.12|0.38|0.0126
91821788|NCT03238911|183520718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.02|-1.19|0.6080
91821789|NCT03238911|183520718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||4.05|0.12|0.0379
91821790|NCT03238911|183520718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.2368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|3.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||3.12|-0.78|0.2368
91821791|NCT03238911|183520718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.75|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.75|-2.18|0.8287
91821792|NCT03238911|183520719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.81|29.73|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||29.73|18.81|<0.0001
91821793|NCT03238911|183520719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.83|22.67|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||22.67|8.83|<0.0001
91821794|NCT03238911|183520719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|28.22|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||28.22|12.07|<0.0001
91821795|NCT03238911|183520719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.49|38.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||38.96|25.49|<0.0001
91821796|NCT03238911|183520719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.79|30.95|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||30.95|14.79|<0.0001
91821797|NCT03238911|183520719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|17.82|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||17.82|3.39|0.0043
91821798|NCT03238911|183520720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.00|-0.34|0.0552
91952052|NCT01694849|183800383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.04||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.17|-0.24|0.732
91821799|NCT03238911|183520720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.13|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.13|-0.60|0.0023
91821800|NCT03238911|183520720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.21|-0.80|0.0008
91821801|NCT03238911|183520720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.49|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.49|-1.11|<0.0001
91821802|NCT03238911|183520720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.28|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.28|-1.01|0.0006
91821803|NCT03238911|183520720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.23|-0.94|0.0014
91821804|NCT03238911|183520721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|5.71|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||5.71|-7.96|0.7447
91821805|NCT03238911|183520721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.78|-0.63|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.63|-18.78|0.0363
91821806|NCT03238911|183520721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|9.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||9.59|-10.56|0.9242
91952053|NCT01694849|183800383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.2||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.4|0.062
91821807|NCT03238911|183520721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.17||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.84|0.49|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.49|-22.84|0.0602
91821808|NCT03238911|183520721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.68|-7.73|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-7.73|-28.68|0.0008
91821809|NCT03238911|183520721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.79||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.75|-6.83|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-6.83|-32.75|0.0031
91952054|NCT01694849|183800384|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|3.66||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||12.2|-4.89|0.4
91952055|NCT01694849|183800384|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-16.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.99|-7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-7.44|-24.99|<0.001
91821810|NCT03238911|183520722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.104|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.104|-0.029|0.2670
91952056|NCT01694849|183800385|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Fibrinogen||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
91952057|NCT01694849|183800385|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors||Fibrinogen|Standard error of the least square mean|-0.08|-0.46|0.005
91952058|NCT01694849|183800385|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Haptoglobin||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
91952059|NCT01694849|183800385|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Haptoglobin||-0.17|-0.37|<0.001
91952060|NCT01694849|183800386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.57||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha||4.06|-2.9|0.742
91952061|NCT01694849|183800386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|2.9||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|6.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha||6.43|-0.63|0.107
91952062|NCT01694849|183800386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.5||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Interleukine 6||1.59|-0.58|0.362
91952063|NCT01694849|183800386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.07||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Interleukine 6||1.18|-1.03|0.894
91952064|NCT01694849|183800387|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.76||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.48|-2|0.229
91952065|NCT01694849|183800387|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.45||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.76|-1.67|0.463
91952066|NCT01694849|183800388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.21||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.42|0.065
91952067|NCT01694849|183800388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.19||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.03|-0.41|0.098
91952068|NCT01694849|183800389|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.7||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.01|-1.61|0.553
91952069|NCT01694849|183800389|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|4.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||6.64|1.97|<0.001
91952070|NCT01694849|183800390|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.04||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.44|-0.37|0.861
91952071|NCT01694849|183800390|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.4||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0|-0.81|0.052
91952072|NCT01694849|183800391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.01||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.02|-0.01|0.473
91952073|NCT01694849|183800391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.01||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.03|0|0.124
91952074|NCT01694849|183800392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.15|0.47|<0.001
91952075|NCT01694849|183800392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.19|0.5|<0.001
91952076|NCT01694849|183800393|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.0||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.04|-0.04|0.842
91952077|NCT01694849|183800393|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.01||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.05|-0.03|0.589
91952078|NCT01694849|183800394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|48.93||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|146.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||146.6|-8.73|0.325
91952079|NCT01694849|183800394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|93.21||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|192.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||192.49|-6.06|0.066
91952080|NCT01694849|183800395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.72|1.1|<0.001
91952081|NCT01694849|183800395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|1.59||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||2.91|0.26|0.019
91952082|NCT01694849|183800396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.0||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0|0|0.447
91952083|NCT01694849|183800396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.0||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0|0|0.758
91952084|NCT01694849|183800397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.04||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.04|-1.12|0.942
91952085|NCT01694849|183800397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.57||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.66|-0.52|0.304
91952086|NCT05146999|183800413|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|83.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.81|94.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||94.87|72.81|<0.001
91952087|NCT03301272|183800453|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.5
91952088|NCT03457701|183800458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference.|0.02||||0.9971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|10.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis was based on a mixed effects model fitted with fixed effect terms for treatment, period, and iron isotope type and a random participant effect.|The null hypotheses is defined as the difference in fractional iron absorption between treatment arms (Daprodustat - rhEPO \[i.e., epoetin alfa or darbepoetin alfa\]) is equal to zero.||10.16|-10.13|0.9971
91952089|NCT01598831|183800518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.55||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|8.77||The threshold for statistical significance was a two sided 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlled for the stratification factor.|Rates by Arm are 26.8% for ART-123 and 29.4% for Placebo||In a post hoc sensitivity analysis for the primary outcome that accounted for pooled site as a random effect, the adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality rate was 24.8%in the rhsTM group vs 27.5%in the placebo group (P = .31).|8.77|-3.68|0.318
91952090|NCT04095039|183800525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||p-value is based on a sample that is less than 10% of the planned sample size (planned n=4,000)|Finkelstein-Schoenfeld method|||Primary outcome is for the individually randomized cohort since DSMB had concerns about selection bias for the cluster-randomized population due to differences in baseline characteristics that leaned towards the arm objectives.||||0.077
91952091|NCT00736840|183800603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Provided above|Sensitivity|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0363||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6607|0.8809|||Exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was sensitivity lower than 0.8. We assumed a sensitivity of 0.89 and required a power of 90% to test the hypothesis at a 5% level of significance, and calculated that 173 cirrhotic and 241 non-cirrhotic subjects were needed (for a one-sample binomial test of outcome versus constant).||0.8809|0.6607|0.0924
91952092|NCT00736840|183800604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample size was calculated to enable the testing of both study hypotheses (together) with at least 80% power. Our best estimate of sensitivity of the HIS diagnosis in the population, was 0.9 and its specificity 0.79. Requiring a power of 90% for each of the hypotheses and a 5% level of significance, to test the null hypotheses 173 cirrhotic and 241 non-cirrhotic subjects were needed.Therefore a total of at least 414 subjects were required.|AUC ROC|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0485|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|0.834|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.834|0.737|<0.0001
91952093|NCT01728194|183800607|OTHER||||||<|0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.025
91952094|NCT01728194|183800608|OTHER||||||<|0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.025
91952095|NCT02309372|183800609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.77|-2.28|0.32
91952096|NCT03289676|183800641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
91952097|NCT03289676|183800643|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.12||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.24|1.00|0.029
91952098|NCT01314261|183800647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||Ten participants in an ABT-267 arm and nine participants in the placebo arm would provide 84% power using Fisher's exact test with two-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect a difference of approximately 70% between the two arms.||||0.336
91952099|NCT01314261|183800647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||Ten participants in an ABT-267 arm and nine participants in the placebo arm would provide 84% power using Fisher's exact test with two-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect a difference of approximately 70% between the two arms.||||0.171
91952100|NCT01314261|183800647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||Ten participants in an ABT-267 arm and nine participants in the placebo arm would provide 84% power using Fisher's exact test with two-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect a difference of approximately 70% between the two arms.||||0.030
91952101|NCT01314261|183800648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.102
91821811|NCT03238911|183520722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.142|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.142|0.028|0.0040
91821812|NCT03238911|183520722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.127|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.127|0.001|0.0472
91821813|NCT03238911|183520722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.171|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.171|0.031|0.0050
91821814|NCT03238911|183520722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.172|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.172|0.029|0.0061
91821815|NCT03238911|183520722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055||||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.126|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.126|-0.016|0.1282
91821816|NCT03238911|183520724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.37|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.37|-0.82|0.4618
91821817|NCT03238911|183520724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.20|-0.54|0.3660
91821818|NCT03238911|183520724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.30|-0.25|0.8580
91821819|NCT03238911|183520724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.74|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.74|0.05|0.0257
91952102|NCT01314261|183800648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.362
91952103|NCT01314261|183800648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.079
91952104|NCT01314261|183800652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.083
91952105|NCT01314261|183800652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.515
91952106|NCT01314261|183800652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.221
91952107|NCT01314261|183800653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.155
91821820|NCT03238911|183520724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.77|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.77|0.19|0.0016
91821821|NCT03238911|183520724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.76|0.07|0.0185
91821822|NCT03238911|183520725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.84||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.26|7.57|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||7.57|-37.26|0.1922
91821823|NCT03238911|183520725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.28||||0.5601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.24|43.68|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||43.68|-80.24|0.5601
91821824|NCT03238911|183520725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.02||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.74|-1.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-1.30|-140.74|0.0459
91821825|NCT03238911|183520725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-207.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.82|-145.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-145.84|-268.82|<0.0001
91821826|NCT03238911|183520725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.81|-32.39|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-32.39|-124.81|0.0010
91821827|NCT03238911|183520725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.79||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.75|-28.82|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-28.82|-88.75|0.0002
91821828|NCT03238911|183520726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|55.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||55.33|26.30|<0.0001
91952108|NCT01314261|183800653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.214
91821829|NCT03238911|183520726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.61||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|11.53|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||11.53|1.69|0.0089
91821830|NCT03238911|183520726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.92|-32.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-32.03|-54.92|<0.0001
91952109|NCT01314261|183800653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.231
91952110|NCT01314261|183800654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.127
91952111|NCT01314261|183800654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.328
91952112|NCT01314261|183800654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.166
91952113|NCT01314261|183800655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.007
91952114|NCT01314261|183800655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.029
91952115|NCT01314261|183800655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.105
91952116|NCT01314261|183800658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.028
91952117|NCT01314261|183800658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.051
91952118|NCT01314261|183800658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.021
91952119|NCT01231620|183800659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.75|||Wilcoxon rank sum||IV Zanamivir 300 mg versus IV Zanamivir 600 mg|||0.75|-1.79|0.25
91952120|NCT01231620|183800659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.97|||Wilcoxon rank sum||Oral oseltamivir 75 mg versus IV Zanamivir 600 mg|||0.97|-2.11|0.39
91952121|NCT01231620|183800660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Wei-Johnson method|||||||0.506
91952122|NCT01231620|183800660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wei-Johnson method|||||||0.41
91952123|NCT04557189|183800708|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.452|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.452|0.031|
91952124|NCT04557189|183800709|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.394|||||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|0.394|-0.044|
91952125|NCT04557189|183800710|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.059|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.059|-0.253|
91952126|NCT04557189|183800711|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.141|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.033|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.033|-0.316|
91952127|NCT04557189|183800712|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.41|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.410|-0.029|
91952128|NCT04557189|183800713|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.365|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.365|-0.073|
91952129|NCT04557189|183800714|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.448|-0.019|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||-0.019|-0.448|
91952130|NCT04557189|183800715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.393|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.259|||||The hazard ratio is derived from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment group and the number of Apfel risk factors (3 or 4) as independent variables.|||1.259|0.122|
91952131|NCT04557189|183800716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.402|0.777||||||30 Minutes Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.777|-0.402|
91952132|NCT04557189|183800716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.401|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|1.059||||||1 Hour Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|1.059|-0.258|
91821831|NCT03238911|183520726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|2.04|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.04|-5.41|0.3730
91821832|NCT03238911|183520726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|2.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.90|-6.15|0.4778
91821833|NCT03238911|183520726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|1.98|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.98|-5.44|0.3575
91821834|NCT03238911|183520727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The rate difference with 95% Newcombe confidence interval, adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, could not be estimated due to lack of events. Thus, the unadjusted treatment difference is presented together with 95% Wald-based confidence interval. The p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics.||-3.6|-20.1|0.0050
91821835|NCT06893809|183520728|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|20.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||Sixty male patients scheduled for TURP surgery were divided into three equal groups. The results were evaluated at a 95% confidence interval, with significance set at p \< 0.05. This was achieved using SPSS 15.0. Between-group comparisons were performed using One-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks, and Friedman tests. Within-group comparisons used Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests, and Friedman tests were used for differences over time.||20|10|0.05
91821836|NCT06893809|183520728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was applied. Non-parametric method used due to ordinal scale structure.|Kruskal-Wallis||Patient and surgeon satisfaction were compared across study arms.|The aim of this analysis is to compare the three groups in terms of patient and surgeon satisfaction using a superiority approach. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in satisfaction scores between the groups. Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.||0|0|>0.05
91821837|NCT06893809|183520730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test used due to ordinal scale and non-normal distribution.|Sensory block levels compared across study arms using numerical dermatomal codes.|||1.6|0.5|0.05
91952133|NCT04557189|183800716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.786||||||2 Hours Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.786|0|
91821838|NCT06893809|183520732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.93|||Kruskal-Wallis||Dermatomal regression levels were compared across groups at 60 minutes.|||0.93|0.07|<0.05
91821839|NCT03091192|183520733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.37|0.313
91821840|NCT03091192|183520734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.17|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Savolitinib|||1.17|0.21|0.110
91821841|NCT00368940|183520774|SUPERIORITY||Cohen D at week 12|0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.13|0.005
91821842|NCT00368940|183520775|SUPERIORITY||Cohen D at week 12|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.20|0.001
91821843|NCT00368940|183520776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0268
91821844|NCT00368940|183520777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91821845|NCT03370341|183520783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that of no difference in levels of IA between Active and Sham stimulation. A paired samples t-test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-tailed).||||.56
91821846|NCT03370341|183520784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that of no difference in levels of IA between Active and Sham stimulation. A paired samples t-test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-tailed).||||.38
91952134|NCT04557189|183800716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.286||||||6 Hours Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.286|-0.093|
91952135|NCT04557189|183800716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|-0.203|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.17||||||24 Hours Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.170|-0.575|
91821847|NCT02573324|183520802|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world, and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|Terms abbreviated below: O6-methylguaninemethlytransferese (MGMT); Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA); EGFRde2-7 (EGFRvIII)||1.26|0.82|0.633
91821848|NCT02573324|183520802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.704
91821849|NCT02573324|183520803|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world, and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.24|0.76|0.504
91952136|NCT04557189|183800717|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.365|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.365|-0.073|
91952137|NCT00951912|183800884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7981|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.422|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6569|5.0607|||ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis: There are no difference in the difference of changes in plasma glucose.~Power calculation: The sample size of 55 subjects per group provided about 90% power to detect a significant change in the FG concentration of 8 mg/dL (7%) by using a general assumption of a 2-tailed a level of 0.05 and allowing for a 20% withdrawal rate."||5.0607|-6.6569|<0.05
91952138|NCT00951912|183800884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.411|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7486|8.9171|||ANOVA|||||8.9171|-2.7486|<0.05
91952139|NCT00951912|183800884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.399|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9234|9.6881|||ANOVA|||||9.6881|-1.9234|<0.05
91952140|NCT00951912|183800885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9308|8.3916|||ANOVA|||||8.3916|-11.9308|<0.05
91952141|NCT00951912|183800885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1818|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4232|10.8091|||ANOVA|||||10.8091|-9.4232|<0.05
91952142|NCT00951912|183800885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1624|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6067|12.5318|||ANOVA|||||12.5318|-7.6067|<0.05
91952143|NCT00951912|183800886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45967|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5428|3.5194|||ANOVA|||||3.5194|-3.5428|<0.05
91952144|NCT00951912|183800886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.68659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4532|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.202|0.8288|||ANOVA|||||0.8288|-6.2020|<0.05
91821850|NCT02573324|183520803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.599
91821851|NCT02573324|183520804|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.17||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.8||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world, and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.80|0.76|0.773
91821852|NCT02573324|183520804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.740
91952145|NCT00951912|183800886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.67485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44646|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.174|0.8243|||ANOVA|||||0.8243|-6.174|<0.05
91952146|NCT00951912|183800887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14977|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5857|4.6535|||ANOVA|||||4.6535|-10.5857|<0.05
91952147|NCT00951912|183800887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.9972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13581|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.583|6.5886|||ANOVA|||||6.5886|-8.5830|<0.05
91952148|NCT00951912|183800887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.9689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12126|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5817|9.5195|||ANOVA|||||9.5195|-5.5817|<0.05
91952149|NCT00951912|183800888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Rank|1.442|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91952150|NCT00951912|183800889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Ranks|1.895|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91952151|NCT00951912|183800890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Ranks|2.169|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91952152|NCT00951912|183800891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9113|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.444|15.318|||ANOVA|||||15.318|-8.444|<0.05
91952153|NCT00951912|183800891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8896|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3475|15.3092|||ANOVA|||||15.3092|-8.3475|<0.05
91952154|NCT00951912|183800891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8669|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7296|11.8174|||ANOVA|||||11.8174|-11.7296|<0.05
91952155|NCT00951912|183800892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean ranks|1.031|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91952156|NCT00951912|183800893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2343|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0057|9.6426|||ANOVA|||||9.6426|-6.0057|<0.05
91952157|NCT00951912|183800893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2199|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7619|8.817|||ANOVA|||||8.8170|-6.7619|<0.05
91952158|NCT00951912|183800893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.205|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5442|6.9624|||ANOVA|||||6.9624|-8.5442|<0.05
91952159|NCT00951912|183800894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1686|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0721|12.0964|||ANOVA|||||12.0964|-8.0721|<0.05
91952160|NCT00951912|183800894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1501|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8111|9.2679|||ANOVA|||||9.2679|-10.8111|<0.05
91952161|NCT00951912|183800894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1309|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7767|7.2092|||ANOVA|||||7.2092|-12.7767|<0.05
91952162|NCT00951912|183800895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6416|-0.2458|||ANOVA|||||-0.2458|-0.6416|<0.05
91952163|NCT00951912|183800895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09986|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3956|-0.0016|||ANOVA|||||-0.0016|-0.3956|<0.05
91821853|NCT02573324|183520805|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.27|0.71|0.381
91821854|NCT02573324|183520805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.409
91821855|NCT02573324|183520806|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.01|0.70|0.029
91821856|NCT02573324|183520807|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||0.93|0.56|0.002
91821857|NCT02573324|183520808|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.329||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|1.626||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.626|1.087|0.994
91821858|NCT02573324|183520809|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.185||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.446||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.446|0.972|0.938
91821859|NCT02573324|183520810|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.136||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.402||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.402|0.921|0.814
91952164|NCT00951912|183800895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09648|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0544|0.4358|||ANOVA|||||0.4358|0.0544|<0.05
91952165|NCT00951912|183800896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1146|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8617|-0.4089|||ANOVA|||||-0.4089|-0.8617|<0.05
91952166|NCT00951912|183800896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1156||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2003|0.2568|||ANOVA|||||0.2568|-0.2003|0.05
91952167|NCT00951912|183800896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1121|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4419|0.8851|||ANOVA|||||0.8851|0.4419|<0.05
91952168|NCT00951912|183800897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|<|0.05||95.0|-0.3911|0.0796|||ANOVA|||||0.0796|-0.3911|<0.05
91821860|NCT03892889|183520875|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-test was used based on the prospective phase efficacy sample when applicable.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91821861|NCT02873923|183520882|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.68|||||||As of today, the meta-analytic surrogacy evaluation scheme proposed by Buyse and Burzykowski et al. is considered as the most statistically rigorous method for the validation of surrogate endpoints. This approach requires individual-patient data (IPD) from multiple randomized clinical trials (RCT) with similar design and treatment to address surrogacy from a multi-level framework. At the patient level, the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the final endpoint regardless of the treatment (individual level association). At the trial level, the treatment effect on the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the treatment effect on the final endpoint (trial-level association). Individual-level and trial-level associations estimated using weighted linear regression and the two-stage model introduced by Buyse and Burzykowski.|0.68|0.63|
91952169|NCT00951912|183800897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8414|-0.3707|||ANOVA|||||-0.3707|-0.8414|0.05
91952170|NCT00951912|183800897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1163|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6804|-0.2202|||ANOVA|||||-0.2202|-0.6804|<0.05
91952171|NCT00951912|183800898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|102.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.3|304.1|||ANOVA|||||304.1|-99.3|<0.05
91952172|NCT00951912|183800898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|82.6||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.7|196.1|||ANOVA|||||196.1|-203.7|0.05
91952173|NCT00951912|183800898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-106.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|82.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.1|92.8|||ANOVA|||||92.8|-305.1|<0.05
91952174|NCT01377194|183800911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.303||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.457|-1.148|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||-1.148|-5.457|0.0027
91952175|NCT01377194|183800911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.141||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.293|-0.988|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||-0.988|-5.293|0.0043
91952176|NCT01377194|183800912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.827||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.033|-3.620|0.0459
91952177|NCT01377194|183800912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.72||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.494|-0.946|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.946|-4.494|0.0028
91952178|NCT00422227|183800913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91952179|NCT00422227|183800914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||ACR 20||||<0.001
91952180|NCT00422227|183800914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||ACR 50||||<0.001
91952181|NCT00422227|183800914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||ACR 70||||0.009
91821862|NCT02873923|183520883|OTHER||correlation coefficient|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.005|||||||As of today, the meta-analytic surrogacy evaluation scheme proposed by Buyse and Burzykowski et al. is considered as the most statistically rigorous method for the validation of surrogate endpoints. This approach requires individual-patient data (IPD) from multiple randomized clinical trials (RCT) with similar design and treatment to address surrogacy from a multi-level framework. At the patient level, the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the final endpoint regardless of the treatment (individual level association). At the trial level, the treatment effect on the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the treatment effect on the final endpoint (trial-level association). Individual-level and trial-level associations estimated using weighted linear regression and the two-stage model introduced by Buyse and Burzykowski.|0.005|0.00|
91821863|NCT01639001|183520887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.402|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.565||The study was to be considered positive if the 1-sided log-rank test for PFS, stratified for baseline stratification factors (ECOG PS, ethnicity, and brain metastases) was significant at the 0.02496level.|1 sided stratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG PS, ethnicity, and brain metastases. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis H0: λ=1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis HA: λ \< 1.0, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR; Crizotinib/Chemotherapy). Evaluation of 160 PFS events in the 2 arms using a 1-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 level of significance was required to detect a HR of 0.64 with 80% power.||0.565|0.286|<0.0001
91821864|NCT01639001|183520888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|41.869|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.34|53.398||If the PFS endpoint was significant, ORR was to be considered significant if 2-sided p-value from Pearson chi-square test was \<= 0.04992.|2-sided pearson chi-square test||Treatment difference in ORR (%)|The confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on normal distribution.||53.398|30.340|<0.0001
91821865|NCT01639001|183520889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056||||0.6172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.521||If the PFS and ORR endpoints were significant, OS was to be considered significant if 1-sided, log-rank test stratified for ECOG, ethnicity and metastases was \<= 0.02496.|1 sided stratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG PS, ethnicity, and brain metastases. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.|||1.521|0.734|0.6172
91821866|NCT01639001|183520890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|8.906||||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.275|20.086|||2-sided pearson chi-square test||Treatment Difference in DCR Rate (%)|The confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on normal distribution.||20.086|-2.275|0.1204
91821867|NCT01639001|183520894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.493|||1 sided unstratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.493|0.246|<0.0001
91821868|NCT01639001|183520895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.669||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|1.338|||1 sided unstratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||1.338|0.335|0.1270
91821869|NCT01639001|183520896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.186|0.412|||1 sided unstratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.412|0.186|<0.0001
91821870|NCT01639001|183520897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.61||2-sided Hochberg adjusted p-values|2 sided unstratified log rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.610|0.307|<0.0001
91821871|NCT01639001|183520898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|11.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Global QoL. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||11.11|3.79|<0.0001
91821872|NCT01639001|183520898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.613||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||6.49|0.73|0.0140
91821873|NCT01639001|183520898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.652||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 emotional functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.42|-1.12|0.2427
91821874|NCT01639001|183520898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7267|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 physical functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||9.30|4.15|<0.0001
91821875|NCT01639001|183520898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8109||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 role functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||10.47|3.15|0.0003
91952182|NCT00422227|183800915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Low Disease (DAS28 \<3.2)||||<0.001
91952183|NCT00422227|183800915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Remission (DAS28 \<2.6)||||0.069
91952184|NCT00422227|183800916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91952185|NCT00422227|183800917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91952186|NCT00422227|183800918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||≥0.6||||0.003
91952187|NCT00422227|183800918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||≥1.2||||0.001
91952188|NCT00422227|183800919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Painful Joints at Week 16||||0.014
91821876|NCT01639001|183520898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.594||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|10.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 social functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||10.06|1.13|0.0140
91821877|NCT01639001|183520899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0432||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 appetite loss. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-2.30|-9.79|0.0016
91821878|NCT01639001|183520899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5026||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 constipation. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||8.47|0.53|0.0263
91952189|NCT00422227|183800919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joints at Week 16||||<0.001
91952190|NCT00422227|183800920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Physician Global Assessment Week 16||||<0.001
91952191|NCT00422227|183800920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Subject Global Assessment Week 16||||<0.001
91952192|NCT00422227|183800921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.001
91952193|NCT00422227|183800922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||General Health Week 16||||<0.001
91952194|NCT00422227|183800922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Pain Week 16||||<0.001
91952195|NCT00422227|183800922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Fatigue Week 16||||0.001
91952196|NCT03747497|183800924|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|2.8||||||||2.8|-14.0|
91952197|NCT02646566|183800958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.003) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.003
91952198|NCT02646566|183800958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109||||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.109) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.109
91952199|NCT02646566|183800959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91952200|NCT02646566|183800959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.059
91952201|NCT02646566|183800960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91952202|NCT02646566|183800960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.053
91952203|NCT02646566|183800961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91952204|NCT02646566|183800961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.021
91952205|NCT02646566|183800962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.001
91952206|NCT02646566|183800962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.084
91952207|NCT02646566|183800963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91952208|NCT02646566|183800963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91952209|NCT02646566|183800964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91821879|NCT01639001|183520899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.8085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.94|18.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 diarrhea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||18.68|12.94|<0.0001
91952210|NCT02646566|183800964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.179
91952211|NCT02646566|183800965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91952212|NCT02646566|183800965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.315
91952213|NCT02646566|183800966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.065
91952214|NCT02646566|183800966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.520
91952215|NCT02646566|183800967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91952216|NCT02646566|183800967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.420
91952217|NCT02646566|183800968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91952218|NCT02646566|183800968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.258
91952219|NCT01683331|183800977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.06|||Chi-squared|||||1.06|1.01|0.87
91952220|NCT01683331|183800978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8|||Chi-squared|||||2.8|1.2|0.92
91952221|NCT01151085|183801042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between Male and Female  in the Frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||=0.030
91952222|NCT01151085|183801043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Severity of infections. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among mild, moderate and severe in the Frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
91952223|NCT01151085|183801044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past History. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Past History in the Frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||=0.017
91952224|NCT01151085|183801045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for Risk Factors for the Proportion of Responders to Voriconazole treatment -Severity of infections.||||<0.001
91952225|NCT00401726|183801075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.25||||0.218|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.218
91952226|NCT00401726|183801076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.76||95.0|-0.92|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|-0.92|0.76
91952227|NCT00401726|183801077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.148||95.0|-0.41|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.41|0.148
91952228|NCT00401726|183801078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.829||95.0|-1.09|0.87|||ANCOVA|||||0.87|-1.09|0.829
91952229|NCT00401726|183801079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.57||||0.728|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.728
91952230|NCT00401726|183801080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.805||95.0|-2.24|1.74|||ANCOVA|||||1.74|-2.24|0.805
91952231|NCT00401726|183801081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.123||95.0|-2.27|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-2.27|0.123
91952232|NCT00401726|183801082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.961|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value based on comparison of mean score differences||CGI-I raw scores (range 1-7) analyzed by generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by study center using the ridit scoring option.||||0.961
91952233|NCT03948646|183801083|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|1.27|0.0029
91952234|NCT03948646|183801084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.994||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.37|-2.16|||ANCOVA|||||-2.16|-41.37|0.0296
91952235|NCT01050998|183801116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|22.0|||Fisher Exact||95 percent (%) unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.0|-11.5|0.578
91952236|NCT01050998|183801116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|46.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.3|13.4|<0.001
91952237|NCT01050998|183801116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|15.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|32.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||32.2|-1.6|0.099
91952238|NCT01050998|183801116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|50.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||50.6|17.8|<0.001
91952239|NCT01050998|183801117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.4||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|25.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||25.4|-11.9|0.543
91952240|NCT01050998|183801117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|26.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|43.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||43.6|7.2|0.011
91952241|NCT01050998|183801117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|35.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.5|-2.5|0.108
91952242|NCT01050998|183801117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|32.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|49.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||49.0|12.5|0.001
91952243|NCT01050998|183801117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|35.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.7|-33.7|1.000
91952244|NCT01050998|183801117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|51.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|77.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||77.0|8.2|0.028
91952245|NCT01050998|183801117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.8||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|46.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.9|-24.3|0.661
91952246|NCT01050998|183801118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|30.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||30.3|-4.2|0.152
91952247|NCT01050998|183801118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|24.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|40.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||40.3|7.0|0.008
91952248|NCT01050998|183801118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|21.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|37.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||37.8|3.9|0.020
91821880|NCT01639001|183520899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7449|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 dyspnea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-4.19|-11.30|<0.0001
91821881|NCT01639001|183520899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.4915||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 fatigue. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.17|-9.82|0.0001
91821882|NCT01639001|183520899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6165||||0.2099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 financial difficulties. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.04|-9.27|0.2099
91821883|NCT01639001|183520899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7756||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 insomnia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.06|-10.49|0.0004
91821884|NCT01639001|183520899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.519||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 nausea and vomiting. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.40|-5.43|0.0902
91821885|NCT01639001|183520899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4349|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 pain. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-5.45|-11.42|<0.0001
91821886|NCT01639001|183520900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8547||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 alopecia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.56|-8.15|0.0039
91821887|NCT01639001|183520900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.9957||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 coughing. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.14|-10.85|0.0004
91821888|NCT01639001|183520900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5181||||0.7082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 dysphagia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.20|-3.23|0.7082
91821889|NCT01639001|183520900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6471|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|-5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 dyspnoea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-5.44|-11.85|<0.0001
91821890|NCT01639001|183520900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2504||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 haemoptysis. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.36|-2.86|0.1284
91821891|NCT01639001|183520900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2363||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in arm or shoulder. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-0.49|-7.98|0.0265
91821892|NCT01639001|183520900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2237||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in chest. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-0.71|-7.74|0.0185
91821893|NCT01639001|183520900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5901||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in other parts. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.23|-7.95|0.0075
91821894|NCT01639001|183520900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6732||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 peripheral neuropathy. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.39|-4.74|0.2848
91821895|NCT01639001|183520900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.398||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 sore mouth. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-0.24|-4.56|0.0296
91821896|NCT01639001|183520901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9136||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EQ-5D VAS subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||6.98|0.85|0.0123
91821897|NCT01639001|183520902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0425||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EQ-5D Index score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.08|0.00|0.0320
91821898|NCT01639001|183520904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall percent agreement|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|0.949|||||95% CI for agreement rate is calculated by the Wilson (Score) Confidence Limit method with alpha=0.05|||0.949|0.914|
91821899|NCT01639001|183520904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kappa|0.847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8065|0.8875|||||Kappa coefficient is a statistic which measures inter-rater agreement for qualitative (categorical) items.|||0.8875|0.8065|
91821900|NCT02610868|183520916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821901|NCT02610868|183520916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821902|NCT02610868|183520916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821903|NCT02610868|183520916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821904|NCT02610868|183520916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
91821905|NCT02610868|183520916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821906|NCT02610868|183520916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1131|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1131
91821907|NCT02610868|183520916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0026
91821908|NCT02610868|183520916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2569|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2569
91821909|NCT02610868|183520917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821910|NCT02610868|183520917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821911|NCT02610868|183520917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821912|NCT02610868|183520917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821913|NCT02610868|183520917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3130
91821914|NCT02610868|183520917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821915|NCT02610868|183520917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1054|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1054
91821916|NCT02610868|183520917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91821917|NCT02610868|183520917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1663|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1663
91821918|NCT02610868|183520919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821919|NCT02610868|183520919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821920|NCT02610868|183520919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821921|NCT02610868|183520919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821922|NCT02610868|183520919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1100
91821923|NCT02610868|183520919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821924|NCT02610868|183520919|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.0000
91821925|NCT02610868|183520919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821926|NCT02610868|183520919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0290
91821927|NCT02610868|183520920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821928|NCT02610868|183520920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821929|NCT02610868|183520920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821930|NCT02610868|183520920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821931|NCT02610868|183520920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821932|NCT02610868|183520920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91821933|NCT02610868|183520920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9016
91821934|NCT02610868|183520920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0753|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0753
91821935|NCT02610868|183520920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4992|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4992
91821936|NCT02610868|183520921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821937|NCT02610868|183520921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821938|NCT02610868|183520921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821939|NCT02610868|183520921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821940|NCT02610868|183520921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4567|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4567
91821941|NCT02610868|183520921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821942|NCT02610868|183520921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8115|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8115
91821943|NCT02610868|183520921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821944|NCT02610868|183520921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3282|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3282
91821945|NCT02610868|183520923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821946|NCT02610868|183520923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821947|NCT02610868|183520923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821948|NCT02610868|183520923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821949|NCT02610868|183520923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3786|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3786
91821950|NCT02610868|183520923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821951|NCT02610868|183520923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7787|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7787
91821952|NCT02610868|183520923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91821953|NCT02610868|183520923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3825|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3825
91821954|NCT02665481|183520961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.07|-0.15|0.50
91821955|NCT02665481|183520961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18)||0.19|-0.04|0.18
91821956|NCT02665481|183520961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.17|-0.04|0.23
91821957|NCT02665481|183520961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18)||0.07|-0.15|0.47
91821958|NCT02665481|183520962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.19|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.19|-0.02|0.12
91821959|NCT02665481|183520962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18)||0.07|-0.15|0.44
91821960|NCT02665481|183520962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.18|-0.03|0.17
91821961|NCT02665481|183520962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.11|-0.12|0.93
91821962|NCT02665481|183520963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.46||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|7.34|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||7.34|-14.27|0.53
91821963|NCT02665481|183520963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.88|-6.44|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||-6.44|-33.88|0.004
91821964|NCT02665481|183520963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.04||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|13.85|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6)||13.85|-7.76|0.58
91821965|NCT02665481|183520963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|7.46|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||7.46|-19.98|0.37
91821966|NCT02665481|183520964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.71||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|68.36|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||68.36|-22.95|0.33
91821967|NCT02665481|183520964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.35||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.18|73.88|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18)||73.88|-23.18|0.31
91821968|NCT02665481|183520964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.18||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.83|28.48|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||28.48|-62.83|0.46
91821969|NCT02665481|183520964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.11||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.41|69.64|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||69.64|-27.41|0.39
91821970|NCT02665481|183520965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.01|-0.02|0.37
91821971|NCT02665481|183520965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.00|-0.02|0.10
91821972|NCT02665481|183520965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.02|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.02|-0.004|0.21
91821973|NCT02665481|183520965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.00|-0.02|0.09
91821974|NCT02665481|183520966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.69|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.69|-0.38|0.57
91821975|NCT02665481|183520966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.55|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.55|-0.58|0.96
91821976|NCT02665481|183520966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.29|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.29|-0.78|0.37
91821977|NCT02665481|183520966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.57|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.57|-0.57|0.99
91821978|NCT02665481|183520967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.33|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6).||2.33|-0.47|0.19
91821979|NCT02665481|183520967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.77|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||2.77|-0.19|0.09
91821980|NCT02665481|183520967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.83|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.83|-1.97|0.42
91821981|NCT02665481|183520967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.94|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||1.94|-1.01|0.54
91821982|NCT02660359|183520982|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025 and only the significant dose continued in the hierarchal testing strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-8.97||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-4.44|||MMLM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[Botulinum toxin \[BTX\]-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-4.44|-13.5|0.0001
91821983|NCT02660359|183520982|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025 and only the significant dose continued in the hierarchal testing strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-9.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|-5.12|||MMLM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[Botulinum toxin \[BTX\]-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-5.12|-14.41|<0.0001
91821984|NCT02660359|183520983|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|45.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|340.69|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline- by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||340.69|6.09|0.0002
91821985|NCT02660359|183520983|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|31.69||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|240.58|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||240.58|4.17|0.0009
91952249|NCT01050998|183801118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|29.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|45.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||45.0|11.3|0.002
91821986|NCT02660359|183520984|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|7.34||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||7.34|1.72|0.0007
91821987|NCT02660359|183520984|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|6.07||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||6.07|1.43|0.0037
91821988|NCT02660359|183520984|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|7.79||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo||7.79|2.03|<0.0001
91821989|NCT02660359|183520984|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by- visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.33||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||5.33|1.40|0.0034
91821990|NCT02660359|183520984|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|15.58||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo||15.58|3.5|<0.0001
91821991|NCT02660359|183520984|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|11.24||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||11.24|2.48|<0.0001
91821992|NCT02660359|183520986|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|96.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|139.19|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||139.19|53.10|<0.0001
91821993|NCT02660359|183520986|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|90.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.07|134.48|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||134.48|47.07|<0.0001
91952250|NCT01050998|183801119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.9||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|29.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||29.4|-9.3|0.328
91821994|NCT02660359|183520987|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|175.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.9|227.0|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||227.0|122.90|<0.0001
91821995|NCT02660359|183520987|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|168.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.6|223.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||223.1|113.6|<0.0001
91821996|NCT02660359|183520988|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-24.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-24.4|-41.5|<0.0001
91952251|NCT01050998|183801119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|17.2||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|35.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.6|-2.0|0.084
91952252|NCT01050998|183801119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|38.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||38.2|0.7|0.049
91821997|NCT02660359|183520988|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-23.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-23.4|-41.5|<0.0001
91821998|NCT02660359|183520989|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|152.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.2|206.5|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||206.5|99.2|<0.0001
91821999|NCT02660359|183520989|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|169.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|111.7|227.6|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||227.6|111.7|<0.0001
91822000|NCT02660359|183520990|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.05|137.09|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||137.09|7.05|<0.0001
91822001|NCT02660359|183520990|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|28.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|126.25|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by- visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||126.25|6.24|<0.0001
91822002|NCT00548808|183521012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 0.4% for HbA1c was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.17|-0.25|0.716
91822003|NCT00548808|183521013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279||95.0||||P-value for 16 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit (Type 3 sums of squares).||||||0.279
91822004|NCT00548808|183521013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0||||P-value for 32 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit (Type 3 sums of squares).||||||0.846
91822005|NCT00548808|183521013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.741||95.0||||P-value for 48 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit (Type 3 sums of squares).||||||0.741
91822006|NCT00548808|183521014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.5||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<6.5% at 16 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.50|0.41|0.465
91822007|NCT00548808|183521014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.28||P-value for Patients Achieving HbA1c \<7% at 16 Weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.28|0.51|0.365
91822008|NCT00548808|183521014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.95||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<6.5% at 32 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.95|0.65|0.683
91822009|NCT00548808|183521014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.64||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<7% at 32 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.64|0.68|0.810
91822010|NCT00548808|183521014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.01||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<6.5% at 48 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||2.01|0.69|0.555
91952253|NCT01050998|183801119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|22.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|40.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||40.7|3.2|0.030
91952254|NCT01050998|183801119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|26.8||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|60.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||60.7|-9.3|0.188
91952255|NCT01050998|183801119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|57.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|81.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||81.8|15.2|0.010
91952256|NCT01050998|183801140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.1|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.10|-0.71|0.137
91822011|NCT00548808|183521014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.64||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<7% at 48 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.64|0.67|0.829
91822012|NCT00548808|183521016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0||||P-value for Week 16 Change from Baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in Blood Glucose = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit||||||0.604
91822013|NCT00548808|183521016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||P-value for Week 32 Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in Blood Glucose = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit||||||0.814
91822014|NCT00548808|183521016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0||||P-value for 48 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in Blood Glucose = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit||||||0.582
91822015|NCT00548808|183521019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.04||P-value for Cholesterol.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.04|-0.26|0.162
91822016|NCT00548808|183521019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||P-value for Triglycerides.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.05|-0.30|0.165
91822017|NCT00548808|183521019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09||P-value for Low Density Lipoprotein.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.09|-0.18|0.510
91822018|NCT00548808|183521019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06||P-value for High Density Lipoprotein.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.06|-0.02|0.382
91822019|NCT00120042|183521046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We planned that up to 300 women would be recruited. This sample size would achieve 80% poer at a 5% significance level to detect a reduction from 40% placental retention rate with no specific therapy (Group 1) to 20% with Group 2 or 3. An interim analysis was planned after 240 women had been recruited.||||0.05
91822020|NCT00120042|183521047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91822021|NCT01126541|183521076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean ±SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided).||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 1 to Week 24 (initial treatment)||||0.465
91822022|NCT01126541|183521076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean ±SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided)||||||0.161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm A vs. Arm B: Change from 1st retreatment to 24 weeks after||||0.161
91822023|NCT01126541|183521076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean ±SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided)||||||0.524|||||||Student t-test|||Arm A vs. Arm B: Change from 2nd retreatment to 24 weeks after||||0.524
91822024|NCT01126541|183521077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean plus or minus (±)SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided)|Adjusted difference|51.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.22|233.98|||||Covariate analysis with baseline DAS28-CRP value as covariate|||233.98|-131.22|
91822025|NCT01126541|183521097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 to Week 104||||0.389
91822026|NCT01126541|183521097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1st retreatment to Week 104||||0.374
91822027|NCT01126541|183521097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Weel 24 to Week 104||||0.277
91822028|NCT01126541|183521098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total cortisone: Week 24 to Week 104||||0.278
91822029|NCT01126541|183521098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Oral cortisone: Week 24 to Week 104||||0.887
91822030|NCT01126541|183521098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IV cortisone: Week 24 to Week 104||||<0.001
91822031|NCT04589559|183521122|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change score|-1.5||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A negative value of the estimation parameter of mean change score indicates a reduction in cardiac-related interoceptive fear.|||0.67|-3.67|0.152
91822032|NCT04589559|183521123|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change score|-6.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A negative value of the estimation parameter of mean change score indicates a reduction in trait anxiety.|||-0.69|-11.71|0.031
91822033|NCT04589559|183521124|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change score|-1.9||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|2.21|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A negative value of the estimation parameter of mean change score indicates a reduction in negative affect.|||2.21|-6.01|0.323
91822034|NCT04589559|183521125|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change in the measure|0.58||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A positive value of the estimation parameter of mean change in the measure indicates an increase in heart rate variability.|||1.33|-0.16|0.112
91822035|NCT02664038|183521127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|-8.23|2.588|||ANCOVA|covaried for days of heavy drinking over the 30 days prior to randomization.||||2.588|-8.23|<.05
91822036|NCT02664038|183521128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|-3.26|3.61|||ANCOVA|Days of heavy drinking 30 days prior to randomization||||3.61|-3.26|<.05
91822037|NCT02664038|183521129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.77|TWO_SIDED|0.05|1.45|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measure with Baseline, 13 weeks and 26 weeks||||4.43|1.45|.77
91822038|NCT02664038|183521130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.50|-1.61|<.05
91822039|NCT02664038|183521131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|0.19|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.11|.19|.05
91822040|NCT05773287|183521178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.509
91822041|NCT05773287|183521179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.552
91822042|NCT00673452|183521194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Model: PGI-S = baseline PGI-S + treatment + pooled investigator + visit + treatment-by-visit + baseline-by-visit.||Patients treated with 60-120 mg duloxetine for 12 weeks compared with placebo will show greater improvement in symptoms as assessed by Patient's Global Impressions of Improvement (PGI-I). Sample size determined using 2-sided t-test with significance level of 0.05, and discontinuation rate of 5% without postbaseline data. With 261 patients per arm, study has approximately 85% power to detect treatment group difference of -0.4 points (standard deviation of 1.5) in PGI-I between treatment groups.||||<0.001
91822043|NCT00673452|183521195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.31||P-value for Worst Pain Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.31|-1.19|<0.001
91822044|NCT00673452|183521195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24||P-value for Least Pain Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.24|-0.99|0.001
91822045|NCT00673452|183521195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.35||P-value for Average Pain Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.35|-1.13|<0.001
91822046|NCT00673452|183521195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.31||P-value for Pain Right Now Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.31|-1.20|<0.001
91822047|NCT00673452|183521195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.49||P-value for General Activity Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.49|-1.39|<0.001
91822048|NCT00673452|183521195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.49||P-value for Mood Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.49|-1.41|<0.001
91822049|NCT00673452|183521195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.36||P-value for Walking Ability Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.36|-1.24|<0.001
91822050|NCT00673452|183521195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.32||P-value for Normal Work Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.32|-1.21|<0.001
91822051|NCT00673452|183521195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.52||P-value for Relations with Other People Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.52|-1.38|<0.001
91822052|NCT00673452|183521195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.39||P-value for Sleep Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.39|-1.35|<0.001
91822053|NCT00673452|183521195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.86||P-value for Enjoyment of Life Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.86|-1.92|<0.001
91822054|NCT00673452|183521195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.52||P-value for Average Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.52|-1.33|<0.001
91822055|NCT00673452|183521196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.25||P-value for General Fatigue. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.25|-1.41|0.005
91822056|NCT00673452|183521196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.15||P-value for Physical Fatigue. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.15|-1.30|0.013
91822057|NCT00673452|183521196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.32||P-value for Mental Fatigue. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.32|-1.52|0.003
91822058|NCT00673452|183521196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.26||P-value for Reduced Activity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.26|-1.49|0.005
91822059|NCT00673452|183521196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.38||P-value for Reduced Motivation. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.38|-1.49|<0.001
91822060|NCT00673452|183521197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.89||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.53||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BDI-II Total score change from baseline to endpoint = baseline BDI-II total score + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.53|-3.25|0.007
91822061|NCT00673452|183521198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.16||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: CGI-S score change from baseline at endpoint = CGI-S score baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.16|-0.51|<0.001
91822062|NCT00673452|183521199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.27||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BAI total score change from baseline to endpoint = baseline BAI total + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||1.27|-1.13|0.907
91822063|NCT00673452|183521200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.22||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|8.67||P-value for Bodily Pain. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||8.67|1.76|0.003
91822064|NCT00673452|183521200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|9.43||P-value for General Health. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||9.43|3.41|<0.001
91822065|NCT00673452|183521200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|10.47||P-value for Mental Health. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||10.47|4.41|<0.001
91822066|NCT00673452|183521200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|8.88||P-value for Physical Functioning. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||8.88|2.06|0.002
91822067|NCT00673452|183521200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|16.45||P-value for Role-Emotional. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||16.45|3.11|0.004
91822068|NCT00673452|183521200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.59||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|8.11||P-value for Role-Physical. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||8.11|-4.93|0.632
91822069|NCT00673452|183521200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|10.61||P-value for Social Functioning. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||10.61|2.73|<0.001
91822070|NCT00673452|183521200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.31||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.79||P-value for Vitality. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||7.79|0.84|0.015
91822071|NCT00673452|183521200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.14||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.64||P-value for Physical Component Summary (PCS). The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||2.64|-0.35|0.134
91822072|NCT00673452|183521200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.6||P-value for Mental Component Summary (MCS). The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||5.60|2.05|<0.001
91822073|NCT00673452|183521201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.13||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MGH-CPFQ change from baseline at endpoint = MGH-CPFQ baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||0.13|-2.05|0.083
91822074|NCT00673452|183521202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.32||P-value for Mood. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.32|-1.18|<0.001
91822075|NCT00673452|183521202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.22||P-value for Anxiety. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.22|-1.05|0.003
91822076|NCT00673452|183521202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.25||P-value for Pain. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.25|-1.19|0.003
91822077|NCT00673452|183521202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.0||P-value for Sleep. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.00|-0.97|0.050
91822078|NCT00673452|183521202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.43||P-value for Stiffness. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.43|-1.32|<0.001
91822079|NCT00673452|183521203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91822080|NCT00673452|183521204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91822081|NCT00673452|183521205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.82||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|3.88||P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP). A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||3.88|-0.25|0.084
91822082|NCT00673452|183521205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.84||P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP). A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||1.84|-0.79|0.434
91822083|NCT00673452|183521206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.96||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.26||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||3.26|0.67|0.003
91822084|NCT00673452|183521207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Suicidal Ideation. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91822085|NCT00673452|183521208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.45|-1.21|<0.001
91822086|NCT03037528|183521231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.214
91952257|NCT01050998|183801140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.27|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.27|-1.07|0.001
91822087|NCT03037528|183521231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.017
91822088|NCT03037528|183521231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.457
91822089|NCT03037528|183521231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.580
91822090|NCT03037528|183521231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.275
91822091|NCT03037528|183521231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91822092|NCT03037528|183521231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
91952258|NCT01050998|183801140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.04|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.04|-0.75|0.080
91952259|NCT01050998|183801140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.33|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.33|-1.14|<0.001
91952260|NCT01050998|183801140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.08|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.08|-0.76|0.107
91952261|NCT01050998|183801140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.35|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.35|-1.17|<0.001
91952262|NCT01050998|183801140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.01|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.01|-0.83|0.046
91952263|NCT01050998|183801140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.38|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.38|-1.22|<0.001
91952264|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.06|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.06|-0.85|0.086
91952265|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.1|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.10|-0.99|0.016
91952266|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.02|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.02|-0.87|0.059
91952267|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.25|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.25|-1.14|0.002
91952268|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.09|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.09|-0.87|0.107
91952269|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.18|-1.11|0.007
91952270|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.06|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.06|-0.88|0.084
91952271|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.26|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.26|-1.20|0.002
91952272|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.02|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||1.02|-0.78|0.785
91822093|NCT03037528|183521231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.142
91822094|NCT03037528|183521232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.027
91822095|NCT03037528|183521232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
91822096|NCT03037528|183521232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.054
91822097|NCT03037528|183521232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.014
91822098|NCT03037528|183521232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
91822099|NCT03037528|183521232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
91822100|NCT03037528|183521232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.013
91822101|NCT03037528|183521232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.163
91822102|NCT03037528|183521233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.018
91822103|NCT03037528|183521233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
91822104|NCT03037528|183521233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.134
91822105|NCT03037528|183521233|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
91822106|NCT03037528|183521233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.048
91822107|NCT03037528|183521233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.066
91822108|NCT03037528|183521233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.045
91822109|NCT03037528|183521233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.053
91822110|NCT02908529|183521234|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91822111|NCT04497987|183521236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.63|0.26|<0.001
91822112|NCT04497987|183521237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.67|0.27|<0.001
91822113|NCT04497987|183521238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.94|0.46|0.021
91822114|NCT04099524|183521243|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||multiple correction adjusted p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||<0.05
91822115|NCT04099524|183521243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||multiple correction adjusted p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91822116|NCT04099524|183521244|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|chi-square|3.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||<0.05
91822117|NCT04099524|183521245|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||multiple correction adjusted p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||<0.05
91822118|NCT04099524|183521246|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance||||<0.05
91822119|NCT04733157|183521247|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.69|0.33
91822120|NCT01966926|183521282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|chi square|2.05||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was unadjusted, with an a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \<.05.|Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||||||.15
91822121|NCT01966926|183521283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.96||||0.61||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold of \<0.05 for statistical significance|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,27||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.61
91822122|NCT01966926|183521284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.95||||0.5||||||P-value is unadjusted; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,27||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.50
91822123|NCT01966926|183521285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.87||||0.15||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,27||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.15
91822124|NCT01966926|183521286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.91||||0.3||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,26||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.30
91822125|NCT01966926|183521287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.93||||0.17||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 1,28||Repeated measures analysis from three to six months.||||0.17
91822126|NCT02556710|183521324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score||||||0.94
91822127|NCT02556710|183521325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score||||||0.53
91822128|NCT02556710|183521326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.35
91822129|NCT00630877|183521329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91822130|NCT00630877|183521331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
91822131|NCT00630877|183521332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
91822132|NCT00630877|183521333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
91822133|NCT00630877|183521334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
91822134|NCT00630877|183521335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Independent groups t-test|||||||0.002
91822135|NCT00630877|183521336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Independent groups t-test|||||||<0.001
91822136|NCT01694706|183521368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|120.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.2||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.09|141.88|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir after a high-fat meal divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||141.88|102.09|0.3420
91822137|NCT01694706|183521368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.8||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.21|116.76|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir and Omeprazole divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||116.76|76.21|0.0962
91822138|NCT01694706|183521369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|118.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.4||0.3993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.19|169.628|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir after a high-fat meal divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||169.628|83.190|0.3993
91822139|NCT01694706|183521369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|93.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.0||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.783|133.03|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir and Omeprazole divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||133.030|65.783|0.2204
91822140|NCT01694706|183521370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|121.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.0||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.32|143.74|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir after a high-fat meal divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||143.74|102.32|0.3765
91822141|NCT01694706|183521370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.4||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.25|117.67|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir and Omeprazole divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||117.67|76.25|0.0946
91822142|NCT00451282|183521371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.69
91822143|NCT00451282|183521372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.89
91822144|NCT00451282|183521373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.69
91822145|NCT00451282|183521374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.18
91822146|NCT01797536|183521378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.08|||||GMR= Mild Hepatic Insufficiency Geometric Mean (GM) divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.08|0.34|
91822147|NCT01797536|183521378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.31|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.31|0.40|
91822148|NCT01797536|183521378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.61|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.61|0.48|
91822149|NCT01797536|183521379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.05|||||GMR = Mild Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.05|0.34|
91822150|NCT01797536|183521379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.14|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.14|0.35|
91822151|NCT01797536|183521379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.13|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.13|0.35|
91952273|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.26|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.26|-2.13|0.014
91952274|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.86|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.86|-0.94|0.931
91822152|NCT01797536|183521380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.05|||||GMR = Mild Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.05|0.32|
91822153|NCT01797536|183521380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.14|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.14|0.35|
91822154|NCT01797536|183521380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.08|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.08|0.32|
91822155|NCT01797536|183521381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.08|||||GMR = Mild Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.08|0.34|
91822156|NCT01797536|183521381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.25|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.25|0.38|
91822157|NCT01797536|183521381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.43|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.43|0.43|
91822158|NCT00456092|183521388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|10.2||A p-value \< 0.025 (2-sided) is considered statistically significant, after adjusting for two treatment comparisons using the Bonferroni procedure.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||10.20|1.72|0.002
91822159|NCT00456092|183521388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.88||A p-value \< 0.025 (2-sided) is considered statistically significant, after adjusting for two treatment comparisons using the Bonferroni procedure.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||13.88|2.40|< 0.001
91822160|NCT00456092|183521391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|24.67|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||24.67|1.06|0.056
91822161|NCT00456092|183521391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.95||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|32.35|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||32.35|1.49|0.012
91822162|NCT00456092|183521392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|47.54|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||47.54|0.61|0.204
91822163|NCT00456092|183521392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|37.88|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||37.88|0.45|0.371
91822164|NCT00456092|183521393|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.568||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.11|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.11|0.79|0.264
91822165|NCT00456092|183521393|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.91|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.91|1.00|0.071
91822166|NCT00456092|183521394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.305||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.57|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.57|0.66|0.549
91822167|NCT00456092|183521394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.033||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.03|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.03|0.53|1.000
91822168|NCT00456092|183521395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.34|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.34|0.98|0.083
91822169|NCT00456092|183521395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.44|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.44|0.77|0.279
91822170|NCT00456092|183521396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.66|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.66|0.66|0.548
91822171|NCT00456092|183521396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.11|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.11|0.52|1.000
91822172|NCT00456092|183521399|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.58||||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment as the factor.|Treatment Difference = Apremilast 20 mg BID - Placebo|||||0.136
91822173|NCT00456092|183521399|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.53||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment as the factor.|Treatment Difference = Apremilast 20 mg BID - Placebo|||||0.080
91822174|NCT00456092|183521400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.211|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||1.211|0.745|0.650
91822175|NCT00456092|183521400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.265||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|2.024|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||2.024|0.791|0.283
91822176|NCT00456092|183521401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.337||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|2.26|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||2.260|0.791|0.253
91822177|NCT00456092|183521401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.023||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|8.63|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||8.630|1.059|0.026
91822178|NCT00456092|183521402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|2.215|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||2.215|0.457|0.984
91822179|NCT00456092|183521402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|4.797|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||4.797|0.158|0.836
91822180|NCT00456092|183521407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.4||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Mental Component||||0.308
91822181|NCT00456092|183521407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Mental Component||||0.003
91822182|NCT00456092|183521407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.6||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Physical Component||||0.182
91822183|NCT00456092|183521407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Physical Component||||0.026
91822184|NCT00456092|183521408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model using treatment group, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.016
91822185|NCT00456092|183521408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model using treatment group, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.105
91822186|NCT00456092|183521410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.3||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors and baseline score as the covariate.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.028
91822187|NCT00456092|183521410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors with baseline score as the covariate.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.004
91952275|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.07|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.07|-1.80|0.070
91952276|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.82|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.82|-0.99|0.854
91952277|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.31|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.31|-2.19|0.011
91952278|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.40|-1.40|0.271
91952279|NCT01050998|183801141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.1|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.10|-1.97|0.031
91952280|NCT01050998|183801142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|7.0||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|20.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||20.5|-3.3|0.238
91952281|NCT01050998|183801142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|14.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|29.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||29.7|2.8|0.017
91952282|NCT01050998|183801142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|25.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||25.4|0.0|0.090
91952283|NCT01050998|183801142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|15.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|31.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||31.0|2.9|0.015
91952284|NCT01050998|183801142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.0||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|14.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||14.0|-4.2|0.412
91952285|NCT01050998|183801142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||16.4|-2.9|0.237
91952286|NCT01050998|183801142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.1||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|16.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||16.8|-2.8|0.231
91952287|NCT01050998|183801142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.1||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|14.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||14.4|-4.1|0.406
91952288|NCT01050998|183801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|24.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||24.4|-2.7|0.182
91952289|NCT01050998|183801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|25.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||25.5|-1.2|0.110
91952290|NCT01050998|183801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.3||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|26.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||26.9|-0.6|0.104
91952291|NCT01050998|183801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.4||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|32.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||32.7|3.5|0.016
91952292|NCT01050998|183801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.4||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|19.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||19.3|-1.0|0.115
91952293|NCT01050998|183801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.4||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|21.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||21.6|0.6|0.052
91952294|NCT01050998|183801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.8|-27.0|1.000
91952295|NCT01050998|183801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|38.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|71.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||71.2|1.6|0.059
91952296|NCT01050998|183801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.5||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|46.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.2|-18.2|0.591
91952297|NCT01050998|183801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|51.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||51.4|-16.6|0.570
91952298|NCT01050998|183801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|22.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.7|-35.0|0.529
91952299|NCT01050998|183801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|22.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.6|-37.5|1.000
91952300|NCT01050998|183801143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.8|-27.0|1.000
91952301|NCT01050998|183801144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|||||0.604|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.604
91822188|NCT00844545|183521431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|65.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.01|93.36|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||With at least 12 patients enrolled and assuming a null hypothesis of no post-dose change from baseline in mean platelet count, the study had approximately 88% power to detect as statistically significant an effect size (mean change from baseline/standard deviation) of at least 1 when using a one sample t-test with a two-sided α=0.05. All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-002A (adult) and C08-002B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||93.36|37.01|<0.0001
91822189|NCT00844545|183521432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|96.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||96|57|
91952302|NCT01050998|183801144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||<0.001
91952303|NCT01050998|183801144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.145
91952304|NCT01050998|183801144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.282
91822190|NCT00844545|183521433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
91952305|NCT01050998|183801144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||<0.001
91952306|NCT01050998|183801144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.047
91952307|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|||||0.237|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.237
91952308|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.005
91952309|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.134
91952310|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||<0.001
91952311|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.265
91952312|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.013
91952313|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.952
91952314|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.004
91952315|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.246
91952316|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||<0.001
91952317|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.126
91952318|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.831
91952319|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.005
91952320|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.125
91952321|NCT01050998|183801145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||<0.001
91952322|NCT01050998|183801146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.15||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.69|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio greater than (\>) 1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||1.69|0.78|0.486
91952323|NCT01050998|183801146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.54||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.18|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||2.18|1.09|0.015
91822191|NCT00844545|183521434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|86.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||86|38|
91822192|NCT00844545|183521435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
91822193|NCT00844545|183521436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|111.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.12|125.13|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||125.13|98.12|<0.0001
91952324|NCT01050998|183801146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.65||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.36|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||2.36|1.15|0.006
91952325|NCT01050998|183801146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.93|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||2.93|1.49|<0.001
91952326|NCT01050998|183801146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|0.97||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.55|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||1.55|0.61|0.906
91952327|NCT01050998|183801146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.71|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||2.71|1.31|<0.001
91952328|NCT01050998|183801146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.26||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.91|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||1.91|0.83|0.272
91952329|NCT01050998|183801146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.72|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||2.72|1.34|<0.001
91952330|NCT01050998|183801147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.7||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|22.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.0|-12.1|0.589
91952331|NCT01050998|183801147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.2||||0.032||95.0|2.8|36.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||36.7|2.8|0.032
91952332|NCT01050998|183801147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|18.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||18.0|-16.0|1.000
91952333|NCT01050998|183801147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|48.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||48.6|15.6|<0.001
91952334|NCT01050998|183801147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.9||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|23.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||23.6|-3.5|0.212
91952335|NCT01050998|183801147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|34.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.0|4.8|0.011
91952336|NCT01050998|183801147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.7||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|19.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||19.1|-7.0|0.446
91952337|NCT01050998|183801147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|22.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|37.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||37.8|7.6|0.003
91952338|NCT01050998|183801147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|9.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||9.7|-8.9|1.000
91952339|NCT01050998|183801147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.8||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|17.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||17.5|-4.1|0.317
91952340|NCT01050998|183801147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|12.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||12.1|-7.2|1.000
91952341|NCT01050998|183801147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.5||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|23.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||23.5|-0.5|0.106
91952342|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|20.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||20.4|-17.7|1.000
91952343|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|34.4|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.4|-3.1|0.120
91952344|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|20.4|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||20.4|-17.7|1.000
91952345|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|29.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|46.1|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.1|9.7|0.005
91952346|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.9||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|55.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||55.9|-16.4|0.382
91952347|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|39.0||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|69.6|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||69.6|-2.7|0.087
91952348|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|35.7|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.7|-33.7|1.000
91952349|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|51.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|77.0|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||77.0|8.2|0.028
91952350|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|27.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||27.9|-2.9|0.175
91952351|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|17.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|34.1|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.1|2.4|0.026
91822194|NCT00844545|183521437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
91822195|NCT00844545|183521438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
91952352|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.5||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|24.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||24.9|-5.1|0.271
91952353|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.8||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|36.0|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||36.0|3.4|0.021
91952354|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.8|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.8|-27.0|1.000
91952355|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|25.7||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|63.2|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||63.2|-8.8|0.283
91952356|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|22.7|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.7|-35.0|0.529
91822196|NCT00844545|183521439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
91952357|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|38.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|71.2|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||71.2|1.6|0.059
91952358|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|14.2|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||14.2|-7.0|1.000
91952359|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.8||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|19.4|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||19.4|-3.7|0.242
91952360|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.7||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|16.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||16.9|-5.1|0.410
91822197|NCT00844545|183521440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
91822198|NCT04875520|183521451|NON_INFERIORITY|Overall rate compared using GEE model includes any person affiliated with the school who tested positive at least once during the study period that the schools reported to us that were positive. This includes people in our testing program and not in our testing program.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01845||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04981|0.01292|||generalized estimating equations|||||0.01292|-0.04981|0.25
91822199|NCT04646616|183521525|NON_INFERIORITY|This is a single-group, of outcome measured at baseline and at 3 months. We hypothesized there would be an improvement or sustainability of the protective behaviours.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a single-group study. Selected outcomes were measured at baseline (first interaction with the community popular opinion leader (POL) and 3 months after.||0.39|-0.12|0.28
91822200|NCT04646616|183521526|OTHER|Test of proportions|difference in proportion|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.07|||Test of proportions|||Two sample test of proportions, testing whether the proportion of participants who lack health access at baseline and 3 months is equal (null hypothesis)||0.07|-0.08|0.85
91822201|NCT04646616|183521527|OTHER|Test of proportions.|difference in proportion|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||Test of proportions|||Test of proportions. Testing whether the proportion of participants who had a SAVAME factor at baseline and 3 months is equal (null hypothesis)||0.19|-0.04|0.19
91822202|NCT04646616|183521528|OTHER|Test of proportions.|difference in proportion|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.18|||Test of proportions|||Test of proportions. Testing whether the proportion of participants who lack access to SAVAME related services at baseline and 3 months is equal (null hypothesis)||0.18|-0.04|0.23
91822203|NCT03049813|183521532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||One-sided p value|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline year of study participation, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms - anergia||||||0.027
91822204|NCT03049813|183521532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0765||||||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|||||||0.0765
91822205|NCT03049813|183521533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||One-sided p value|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for baseline year of study participation, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms anergia||||||0.062
91822206|NCT03049813|183521534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Adjusting for baseline year of study participation, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, negative symptoms - anergia|Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
91822207|NCT03049813|183521535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Mixed-effects linear regression models. Covariates include: baseline year, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms (anergia). One-sided p value.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.013
91822208|NCT03049813|183521536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Mixed-effects linear regression models. Covariates include: baseline year, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms (anergia). One sided p-value.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.019
91822209|NCT03049813|183521537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692||||||Mixed-effects linear regression models. Covariates include: baseline year, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms (anergia).|Regression, Linear|||For this analysis, only participants who completed both pre-test and posttest were included. If someone completed a pre-test SSPA, but not a posttest SSPA, they were not included in the analysis.||||0.692
91822210|NCT02144675|183521542|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<.05
91822211|NCT01813019|183521572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.671
91822212|NCT01458171|183521590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.45||||||||0.450||
91952361|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|29.5|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||29.5|2.7|0.030
91822213|NCT01458171|183521590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.523||||||||0.523||
91822214|NCT01192152|183521611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.025|1.065|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||1.065|1.025|
91822215|NCT01192152|183521611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|103.05||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
91822216|NCT01192152|183521611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|98.61||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
91822217|NCT01192152|183521612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.009|1.062|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.062|1.009|
91822218|NCT01192152|183521612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|101.16||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
91822219|NCT01192152|183521612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|97.72||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
91952362|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|22.7|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.7|-35.0|0.529
91822220|NCT01192152|183521614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.053|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||1.053|0.948|
91822221|NCT01192152|183521614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|24.85||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
91822222|NCT01192152|183521614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|24.88||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
91822223|NCT01192152|183521631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|ratio of geometric least squares means|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|0.959|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided at least 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||0.959|0.833|
91822224|NCT01192152|183521631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|8713.4||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment B||||
91822225|NCT01192152|183521631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|9746.3||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment A||||
91822226|NCT01192152|183521632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric least squares means|0.906|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|0.968|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||0.968|0.848|
91822227|NCT01192152|183521632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|8377.8||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
91822228|NCT01192152|183521632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|9246.8||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment A||||
91822229|NCT01192152|183521634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|ratio of geometric least squares means|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.859|0.98|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided at least 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||0.980|0.859|
91822230|NCT01192152|183521634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|1055.9||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
91822231|NCT01192152|183521634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|1151.2||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
91822232|NCT03022617|183521643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.89||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
91822233|NCT01339390|183521653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5759||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7347|1.5229||calculated after fitting the data to a repeated measures mixed model to control for repeated subject and random site and group effects|t-test, 2 sided|accounted for repeated measures and random effects|The difference is expressed as the Move (arm 2) group minus the Move Out (arm 1) group|This is the analysis at 12 months, comparing the change in weight from 12 months to baseline in our Move Out (arm 1) vs Move (arm 2) groups||1.5229|-.7347|0.4937
91822234|NCT01339390|183521653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5759||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5395|1.7181||calculated after fitting the data to a repeated measures mixed model to control for repeated subject and random site and group effects|t-test, 2 sided|accounted for repeated measures and random effects|The difference is expressed as the Move (arm 2) group minus the Move Out (arm 1) group|This is the analysis at 24 months, comparing the change in weight from 24 months to baseline in our Move Out (arm 1) vs Move (arm 2) groups||1.7181|-0.5395|0.3062
91822235|NCT00378703|183521654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Progression-free survival was compared between Arm B (bevacizumab and temsirolimus) and Arm A (bevacizumab alone) using stratified log rank test, stratified on prior cytokine or vaccine therapy and risk category (low/intermediate/high risk)||||0.89
91822236|NCT00378703|183521654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Progression-free survival was compared between Arm C (bevacizumab and sorafenib) and Arm A (bevacizumab alone) using stratified log rank test, stratified on prior cytokine or vaccine therapy and risk category (low/intermediate/high risk).||||0.54
91822237|NCT00378703|183521654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Progression-free survival was compared between Arm D (sorafenib and temsirolimus) and Arm A (bevacizumab alone) using stratified log rank test, stratified on prior cytokine or vaccine therapy and risk category (low/intermediate/high risk).||||0.68
91822238|NCT00378703|183521657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|||||Each combination arm was compared with the bevacizumab alone arm. Since there were 3 pairwise comparisons, a Bonferroni--adjusted p-value of 0.017 was considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||The response rate of each combination arm was compared to that of the bevacizumab alone arm.||||0.0076
91822239|NCT00378703|183521657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|||||Each combination arm was compared with the bevacizumab alone arm. Since there were 3 pairwise comparisons, a Bonferroni--adjusted p-value of 0.017 was considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||The response rate of each combination arm was compared to that of the bevacizumab alone arm.||||0.0085
91822240|NCT00378703|183521657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3006|TWO_SIDED|||||Each combination arm was compared with the bevacizumab alone arm. Since there were 3 pairwise comparisons, a Bonferroni--adjusted p-value of 0.017 was considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||The response rate of each combination arm was compared to that of the bevacizumab alone arm.||||0.3006
91822241|NCT03181542|183521685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91822242|NCT03181542|183521686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.40
91822243|NCT03181542|183521687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.90
91822244|NCT00247728|183521694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample size is based on the paper 'Two-stage selection and testing design for comparative clinical trials', Thall, PF, Simon, R and Ellenberg, SS. Biometrika (1988),75,(2),303-310.||||||0.072||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.072
91822245|NCT00247728|183521694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample size is based on the paper 'Two-stage selection and testing design for comparative clinical trials', Thall, PF, Simon, R and Ellenberg, SS. Biometrika (1988),75,(2),303-310.||||||0.298||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.298
91952363|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|39.5|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||39.5|-26.7|1.000
91952364|NCT01050998|183801148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|22.6|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.6|-37.5|1.000
91952365|NCT01050998|183801150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|14.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.162||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|28.15|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||28.15|-0.05|0.051
91952366|NCT01050998|183801150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|21.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.028||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|35.07|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||35.07|7.39|0.003
91822246|NCT00247728|183521695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.087||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.087
91952367|NCT01050998|183801150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.136||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|21.14|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||21.14|-6.96|0.322
91822247|NCT00247728|183521695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.653||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.653
91822248|NCT01462357|183521697|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Gardasil 2 dose Group minus Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.15||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of seroconversion rates (SCR): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||1.15|-1.16|
91822249|NCT01462357|183521697|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Gardasil 2 dose Group minus Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.14||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of SCR: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||1.14|-1.15|
91822250|NCT01462357|183521698|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to GMT was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Gardasil 2 dose Group divided by Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 2.|GMT ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69|||ANOVA|||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of Geometric Mean Titers (GMT): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||0.69|0.54|
91822251|NCT01462357|183521698|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to GMT was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Gardasil 2 dose Group divided by Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 2.|GMT ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.26|||ANOVA|||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of GMT: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||0.26|0.20|
91952368|NCT01050998|183801150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|32.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.08|45.98|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||45.98|18.08|<0.001
91952369|NCT01050998|183801151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|14.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.981||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|30.22|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||30.22|-1.24|0.071
91822252|NCT01462357|183521699|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix 2 dose Group divided by Gardasil 2 dose Group) was above 1 for anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMT ratio|4.52||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|5.13|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV-18 immune response: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is superior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, in 9-14 year-old females, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7) regardless of serostatus.||5.13|3.97|0.0001
91822253|NCT01462357|183521699|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix 2 dose Group divided by Gardasil 2 dose Group) was above 1 for anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMT ratio|1.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|1.91|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV-16 immune response: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is superior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, in 9-14 year-old females, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7) regardless of serostatus.||1.91|1.49|0.0001
91822254|NCT04292730|183521730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|2.483||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||Primary analysis||2.483|1.092|0.0174
91822255|NCT04292730|183521730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.952||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||Primary analysis||1.952|0.880|0.1826
91822256|NCT04292730|183521730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|2.497||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable and baseline clinical status as a nominal covariate.|Proportional odds model|||Secondary analysis||2.497|1.095|0.0168
91822257|NCT04292730|183521730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.917||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable and baseline clinical status as a nominal covariate.|Proportional odds model|||Secondary analysis||1.917|0.862|0.2186
91822258|NCT04292730|183521731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|4.8||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|14.7||P-value was calculated from the Fisher exact test to compare each RDV group and the SOC group.|Fisher Exact|||||14.7|-5.2|0.3633
91822259|NCT04292730|183521731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|12.0||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|21.8||P-value was calculated from the Fisher exact test to compare each RDV group and the SOC group.|Fisher Exact|||||21.8|1.6|0.0201
91822260|NCT00556842|183521762|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-9.18|-3.56||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC total at 24 months.||-3.56|-9.18|
91822261|NCT00556842|183521762|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.42|-0.44||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC pain at 24 months.||-0.44|-1.42|
91822262|NCT00556842|183521762|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.65|-0.23||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC stiffness at 24 months.||-0.23|-0.65|
91822263|NCT00556842|183521762|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-7.11|-2.83||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC function at 24 months.||-2.83|-7.11|
91822264|NCT00556842|183521763|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.38|1.36||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on mobility (TUG) was estimated. We analyzed the TUG as a dichotomous outcome with the following categories: a) patients who complete the test in ≤12 seconds, and b) those who require \>12 seconds to complete the test or were unable to complete the test. We selected 12 seconds as the cut-off because this was the threshold used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The TUG was summarized using odds ratios and 99% CIs.||1.36|0.38|
91822265|NCT00556842|183521764|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.33|3.14||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (SF-12) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for SF-12 PCS at 24 months.||3.14|-0.33|
91822266|NCT00556842|183521764|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.38|3.05||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (SF-12) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for SF-12 MCS at 24 months.||3.05|-0.38|
91822267|NCT00556842|183521765|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.03|0.11||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (EQ-5D) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for EQ-5D utility index at 24 months.||0.11|-0.03|
91822268|NCT00556842|183521765|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.02|3.46||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (EQ-5D) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for EQ-5D VAS at 24 months.||3.46|-2.02|
91822269|NCT01032135|183521767|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
91822270|NCT01032135|183521768|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91822271|NCT01032135|183521769|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91822272|NCT01032135|183521774|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.68|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.68|0.23|0.0007
91822273|NCT01032135|183521774|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.27|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.27|0.23|0.16
91822274|NCT01032135|183521774|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.6|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||2.60|0.48|0.79
91822275|NCT01032135|183521779|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.08||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.29|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||-0.29|-1.87|0.009
91822276|NCT01032135|183521779|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.84||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.52|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.52|-2.20|0.23
91822277|NCT01032135|183521779|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.34||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.85|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.85|-1.52|0.58
91822278|NCT01032135|183521784|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.58|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.58|0.19|0.0001
91822279|NCT01032135|183521784|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.54|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.54|0.29|0.36
91822280|NCT01032135|183521784|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.54|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||3.54|0.58|0.45
91822281|NCT01032135|183521789|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.39|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||-0.39|-1.80|0.003
91822282|NCT01032135|183521789|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.14|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.14|-1.10|0.10
91822283|NCT01032135|183521793|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.14|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.14|0.38|0.13
91822284|NCT01032135|183521793|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.12|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||2.12|0.33|0.71
91822285|NCT01032135|183521793|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.4|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||3.40|0.64|0.36
91822286|NCT01032135|183521796|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.13||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.6|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.60|-0.94|0.75
91822287|NCT01032135|183521796|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.84||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.3|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.30|-1.98|0.16
91822288|NCT01032135|183521796|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.04|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||2.04|-0.85|0.42
91952370|NCT01050998|183801151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|19.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.798||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|34.8|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||34.80|4.06|0.013
91822289|NCT03400033|183521797|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference is greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.21|
91822290|NCT03400033|183521798|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.12||||0.3354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.66|29.41|||ANCOVA|||||29.41|-45.66|0.3354
91822291|NCT03400033|183521799|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference is greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.37|
91822292|NCT03400033|183521800|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was above the non-inferiority margin of - 15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|11.18||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|19.56|||Van Elteren's test||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Difference has been reported.|||19.56|2.83|0.0034
91822293|NCT03400033|183521801|OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.1645||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.27|0.06|0.0007
91822294|NCT03400033|183521802|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.22|||Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group and region.|||4.22|0.26|0.5308
91822295|NCT03400033|183521803|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.73||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|1.56|||MMRM||SBP|||1.56|-9.03|0.083
91822296|NCT03400033|183521803|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.23||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|0.54|||MMRM||DBP|||0.54|-4.99|0.057
91822297|NCT03400033|183521803|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.6||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.67|||MMRM||MAP|||0.67|-5.86|0.059
91822298|NCT03400033|183521804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|3.72|||ANCOVA||SBP|||3.72|-4.73|0.407
91822299|NCT03400033|183521804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.19|||ANCOVA||DBP|||1.19|-3.29|0.179
91822300|NCT03400033|183521804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.78|||ANCOVA||MAP|||1.78|-3.50|0.261
91822301|NCT03400033|183521805|OTHER||Ratio of exacerbation rate|0.7||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||Negative binomial model|||||0.94|0.52|0.0093
91822302|NCT03400033|183521807|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01|||MMRM||Week 8|||0.01|-0.32|0.0323
91822303|NCT03400033|183521807|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06|||MMRM||Week 12|||0.06|-0.29|0.0921
91822304|NCT03400033|183521807|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.08|||MMRM||Week 28|||0.08|-0.29|0.1291
91822305|NCT03400033|183521807|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||MMRM||Week 52|||0.06|-0.36|0.0859
91822306|NCT01868633|183521820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91822307|NCT02457325|183521842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
91822308|NCT02457325|183521843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.457
91822309|NCT02457325|183521844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.158
91822310|NCT02457325|183521845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.953|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.953
91822311|NCT02457325|183521846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693
91822312|NCT02457325|183521847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.158
91822313|NCT02457325|183521848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
91822314|NCT02457325|183521849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512
91822315|NCT02457325|183521850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
91822316|NCT02457325|183521851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.730
91822317|NCT02457325|183521852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.835
91822318|NCT03385239|183521872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-27.0||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-10.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-10|-41|0.0042
91822319|NCT03385239|183521872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-48.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-48|-66|<0.0001
91822320|NCT03385239|183521872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.0|-54.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-54|-70|<0.0001
91822321|NCT03385239|183521872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|-53.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-53|-69|<0.0001
91822322|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-30.0||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-8.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoC III||-8|-47|0.0123
91822323|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|-58.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Apo-C III||-58|-76|<0.0001
91822324|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-74.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|-65.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Apo-C III||-65|-80|<0.0001
91952371|NCT01050998|183801151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.873||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|23.36|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||23.36|-7.68|0.320
91822325|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-74.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|-66.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Apo-C III||-66|-80|<0.0001
91822326|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-3.0||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||7|-11|0.568
91822327|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-12.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-3|-19|0.008
91822328|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-3.0||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||6|-12|0.4476
91822329|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-8.0||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||0|-16|0.0606
91822330|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|7.0||||0.4509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|26.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||26|-10|0.4509
91822331|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|4.0||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|23.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||23|-12|0.6746
91822332|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|29.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|53.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||53|9|0.0032
91822333|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|12.0||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|32.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||32|-6|0.1996
91822334|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|12.0||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|24.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||24|1|0.0373
91822335|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|49.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||49|21|<0.0001
91822336|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|57.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||57|28|<0.0001
91822337|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|44.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||44|18|<0.0001
91822338|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.2826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||6|-18|0.2826
91822339|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-14|-34|<0.0001
91822340|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-15.0||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-4|-26|0.0118
91822341|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-20.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-9|-29|0.0009
91822342|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-21.0||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-6|-34|0.0086
91822343|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-53.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|-44.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-44|-60|<0.0001
91822344|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-50.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-50|-64|<0.0001
91822345|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-52.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-52|-66|<0.0001
91822346|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|2.0||||0.6801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||13|-7|0.6801
91822347|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-16.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||-7|-24|0.0007
91822348|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-5.0||||0.3183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||5|-14|0.3183
91822349|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||-1|-19|0.024
91822350|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|5.0||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||11|-1|0.0936
91822351|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||21|8|<0.0001
91822352|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|25.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||25|11|<0.0001
91822353|NCT03385239|183521874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||20|7|<0.0001
91822354|NCT03385239|183521875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.2591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|27.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.20|0.41|0.2591
91822355|NCT03385239|183521875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|740.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||740.02|9.54|<0.0001
91822356|NCT03385239|183521875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|322.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.31|5130.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||5130.99|20.31|<0.0001
91822357|NCT03385239|183521875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|342.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.72|4933.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||4933.89|23.72|<0.0001
91822358|NCT03385239|183521876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|69.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||69.88|0.02|0.9119
91822359|NCT03385239|183521876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.18||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|542.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||542.48|1.36|0.0306
91822360|NCT03385239|183521876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.54||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|514.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||514.20|1.27|0.0344
91822361|NCT03385239|183521876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.47||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|866.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||866.49|2.28|0.0123
91822362|NCT01574703|183521880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||P-value for the treatment effect from the Log-Rank test stratified by Cohort.|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for overall treatment comparison.||||0.37
91822363|NCT01574703|183521881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||P-value for the treatment effect from the Log-Rank test stratified by Cohort.|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for overall treatment comparison.||||0.53
91822364|NCT01574703|183521882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||P-value for the treatment effect from the Log-Rank test stratified by Cohort.|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for overall treatment comparison.||||0.34
91822365|NCT01574703|183521883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.49||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|4.23||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||4.23|-5.22|0.8375
91822366|NCT01574703|183521883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.05||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||5.05|-5.20|0.9780
91822367|NCT01574703|183521883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.13||||0.6142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|3.27||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||3.27|-5.54|0.6142
91822368|NCT01574703|183521883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42||||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|5.13||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||5.13|-4.28|0.8602
91822369|NCT01574703|183521883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.64||||0.7217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.88||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.88|-4.15|0.7217
91822370|NCT01574703|183521883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.06||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|3.28||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||3.28|-5.41|0.6322
91822371|NCT01574703|183521884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.9687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|3.34||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||3.34|-3.48|0.9687
91822372|NCT01574703|183521884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.56||||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.7||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||4.70|-3.58|0.7905
91822373|NCT01574703|183521884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.8962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.94||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||2.94|-3.36|0.8962
91822374|NCT01574703|183521884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.63||||0.7767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|4.98||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||4.98|-3.72|0.7767
91822375|NCT01574703|183521884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|2.85||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.85|-3.13|0.9260
91822376|NCT01574703|183521884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.77||||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|3.31||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||3.31|-4.85|0.7113
91822377|NCT01574703|183521885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|4.13||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||4.13|-5.27|0.8117
91822378|NCT01574703|183521885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.78||||0.7303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|3.65||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||3.65|-5.21|0.7303
91822379|NCT01574703|183521885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.21||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||3.21|-5.60|0.5946
91822380|NCT01574703|183521885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|3.85||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||3.85|-4.27|0.9200
91822381|NCT01574703|183521885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.62||||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|2.84||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.84|-4.09|0.7236
91822382|NCT01574703|183521885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42||||0.8201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|3.17||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||3.17|-4.01|0.8201
91822383|NCT01574703|183521886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|2.81||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||2.81|-3.22|0.8932
91822384|NCT01574703|183521886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23||||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.63||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||2.63|-3.09|0.8747
91822385|NCT01574703|183521886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|2.15||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||2.15|-3.35|0.6710
91822386|NCT01574703|183521886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.9886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.27||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||3.27|-3.32|0.9886
91822387|NCT01574703|183521886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39||||0.7631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.14||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.14|-2.92|0.7631
91822388|NCT01574703|183521886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37||||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.5||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||2.50|-3.23|0.8022
91822389|NCT01574703|183521887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.91||||0.6441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|2.96||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||2.96|-4.78|0.6441
91822390|NCT01574703|183521887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.69||||0.7327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.26||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||3.26|-4.63|0.7327
91822391|NCT01574703|183521887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.99||||0.6109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.82||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||2.82|-4.80|0.6109
91822392|NCT01574703|183521887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.93||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||2.93|-2.48|0.8707
91822393|NCT01574703|183521887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.9531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.48||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.48|-2.63|0.9531
91822394|NCT01574703|183521887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|2.39||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||2.39|-2.99|0.8262
91822395|NCT01574703|183521888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.59||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.67||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||1.67|-2.84|0.6105
91822396|NCT01574703|183521888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32||||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.01||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||2.01|-2.65|0.7895
91822397|NCT01574703|183521888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.8||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||1.80|-2.75|0.6804
91822398|NCT01574703|183521888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27||||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|2.49||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||2.49|-1.95|0.8127
91822399|NCT01574703|183521888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|2.25||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.25|-2.04|0.9218
91822400|NCT01574703|183521888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.16||||0.8841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.0||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||2.00|-2.32|0.8841
91822401|NCT00749931|183521889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91822402|NCT00749931|183521890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative reduction|0.47||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91822403|NCT03890367|183521944|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|10.43|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.68|16.2||||||||16.2|5.68|
91822404|NCT03890367|183521945|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.7|21.0||||||||21.0|12.7|
91822405|NCT03890367|183521946|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.7|21.0||||||||21.0|12.7|
91822406|NCT03890367|183521947|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>0%.|Difference in Percentage|10.43|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.68|16.2||||||||16.20|5.68|
91822407|NCT03890367|183521948|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>-10%.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.3|2.28||||||||2.28|-2.30|
91822408|NCT03890367|183521949|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.06|1.64||||||||1.64|1.06|
91822409|NCT03890367|183521950|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.06|1.64||||||||1.64|1.06|
91822410|NCT03890367|183521951|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>-10%.|Difference in Percentage|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.83|9.85||||||||9.85|1.83|
91822411|NCT03890367|183521952|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.04|9.18||||||||9.18|5.04|
91822412|NCT03890367|183521953|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.04|9.18||||||||9.18|5.04|
91822413|NCT03890367|183521954|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>-10%.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.71|2.67||||||||2.67|-2.71|
91822414|NCT03890367|183521955|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.82|2.84||||||||2.84|1.82|
91822415|NCT03890367|183521956|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.82|2.84||||||||2.84|1.82|
91822416|NCT04524403|183521962|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.24||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-1.52|0.7870
91822417|NCT04524403|183521962|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.75||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.51|-1.01|0.4018
91822418|NCT04524403|183521963|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.5228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.02|-1.03|0.5228
91822419|NCT04524403|183521964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.781||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|4.802|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.802|0.661|0.2537
91822420|NCT04524403|183521964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.916||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|2.722|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.722|0.308|0.8740
91822421|NCT04524403|183521965|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.021|-0.021|0.9870
91822422|NCT04524403|183521965|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.008||||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.029|-0.013|0.4624
91822423|NCT00991302|183521969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|stratified by dosing complexity||"Treatment comparison was made using a Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by dosing complexity.~The test was not stratified by region of enrollment due to dosing complexity and region of enrollment were almost identical: almost all (exception with two) participants in the US region were on QD and all participants in the Peru region were on BID or TID."||||0.52
91822424|NCT01709318|183521977|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|26.5|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||26.5|-4.3|
91822425|NCT01709318|183521977|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|24.8|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||24.8|-5.7|
91822426|NCT01709318|183521977|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|33.1|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||33.1|-1.7|
91822427|NCT01709318|183521977|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|25.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||25.4|-5.7|
91822428|NCT01709318|183521977|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|27.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||27.4|-3.5|
91822429|NCT01709318|183521977|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|15.9|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||15.9|-10.7|
91822430|NCT01709318|183521978|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|16.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||16.4|-3.6|
91822431|NCT01709318|183521978|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.0|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||11.0|-6.2|
91822432|NCT01709318|183521978|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|17.5|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||17.5|-3.8|
91822433|NCT01709318|183521978|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|18.9|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||18.9|-2.5|
91822434|NCT01709318|183521978|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|13.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||13.4|-5.0|
91822435|NCT01709318|183521978|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.0|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||11.0|-6.2|
91822436|NCT01709318|183521979|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.08||||0.096|||||||LDA|||||||0.096
91822437|NCT01709318|183521979|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.03||||0.993|||||||LDA|||||||0.993
91822438|NCT01709318|183521979|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.08||||0.124|||||||LDA|||||||0.124
91822439|NCT01709318|183521979|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.05||||0.845|||||||LDA|||||||0.845
91822440|NCT01709318|183521979|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.04||||0.976|||||||LDA|||||||0.976
91822441|NCT01709318|183521979|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.03||||0.995|||||||LDA|||||||0.995
91822442|NCT01709318|183521980|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.01||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
91822443|NCT01709318|183521980|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|0.19||||0.996|||||||LDA|||||||0.996
91822444|NCT01709318|183521980|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.06||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
91822445|NCT01709318|183521980|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.04||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
91822446|NCT01709318|183521980|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|0.09||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
91822447|NCT01709318|183521980|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.24||||0.998|||||||LDA|||||||0.998
91822448|NCT00827372|183521992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0658|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||With a sample size of 14 evaluable subjects, we will have 80% power to detect a change in excess arm volume of .8 standard deviations using a two-sided paired t-test. We will have 90% power to detect a difference of .9 standard deviations. A Paired T-Test was used to test the difference in arm volume from the second baseline measurement to Cycle 2 only.||||0.0658
91822449|NCT00827372|183521993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A Paired T-Test was used to compare the IFP affected at first versus affected at last reading.||||0.0061
91822450|NCT00827372|183521994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A Paired T-Test was used for the difference in the impedance ratio from the second baseline to cycle 2, day 1||||0.0143
91822451|NCT02139644|183521997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.154||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.267|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the first in the sequence.||0.267|0.041|0.0076
91822452|NCT02139644|183521997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.131||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.25|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the second in the sequence.||0.250|0.011|0.0322
91952372|NCT01050998|183801151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|31.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.873|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.85|46.89|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||46.89|15.85|<0.001
91952373|NCT01050998|183801151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|12.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.41|46.64|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||46.64|-22.41|0.483
91952374|NCT01050998|183801151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|31.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|65.77|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||65.77|-3.28|0.075
91952375|NCT01050998|183801151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.872||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.89|40.32|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||40.32|-31.89|0.815
91952376|NCT01050998|183801151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|36.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|70.63|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||70.63|1.58|0.041
91952377|NCT00370994|183801181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons were made between groups and within the group between baseline and different time points.|Repeated measures ANOVA.|||||||<0.001
91952378|NCT00370994|183801182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||There were significant differences in Oswestry Disability Index between both groups|Repeated measures of ANOVA|||||||0.001
91952379|NCT04246593|183801183|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites. In order to further explore the intervention effect, we fit GLMMs that adjust for (1) baseline dietary intake and (2) race and baseline income.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value calculated for the mean difference between the user and non-user groups.|GLMM|||||||0.84
91952380|NCT04246593|183801184|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value calculated for the mean difference between change in BMI for intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.61
91952381|NCT04246593|183801185|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.31||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value calculated for the mean difference in change scores between the intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.53
91952382|NCT04246593|183801186|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value applies to the mean difference in mean self-efficacy change scores between the intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.75
91822453|NCT02139644|183521997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.335||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.453|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the third in the sequence.||0.453|0.216|0.0000
91822454|NCT02139644|183521997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.325||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.447|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fourth in the sequence.||0.447|0.203|0.0000
91952383|NCT04246593|183801187|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value applies to the mean difference in mean total barriers score change between the intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.63
91952384|NCT04278846|183801188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.87
91952385|NCT04278846|183801189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.49
91952386|NCT04278846|183801190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.57
91952387|NCT04278846|183801191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.3
91952388|NCT04278846|183801192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.99
91952389|NCT04278846|183801193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.33
91952390|NCT04278846|183801194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.26
91952391|NCT04278846|183801195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.79
91952392|NCT04278846|183801196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.62
91952393|NCT04278846|183801197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.94
91952394|NCT04278846|183801198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.95
91952395|NCT04278846|183801199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.54
91952396|NCT04278846|183801200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.95
91952397|NCT04278846|183801201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.96
91952398|NCT04278846|183801203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.088
91822455|NCT02139644|183521998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.262||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.356|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fifth in the sequence.||0.356|0.168|0.0000
91822456|NCT02139644|183521998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.266||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.36|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the sixth in the sequence.||0.360|0.172|0.0000
91822457|NCT02139644|183521998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.151||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.244|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the seventh in the sequence.||0.244|0.057|0.0017
91822458|NCT02139644|183521998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.119||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.212|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the eighth in the sequence.||0.212|0.025|0.0132
91822459|NCT02139644|183521999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|10.926||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|19.471||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||19.471|2.380|0.0123
91822460|NCT02139644|183521999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|7.018||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|15.567||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||15.567|-1.531|0.1074
91822461|NCT02139644|183521999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|20.824||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.253|29.395||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||29.395|12.253|0.0000
91822462|NCT02139644|183521999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|21.273||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.728|29.818||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||29.818|12.728|0.0000
91822463|NCT02139644|183521999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|9.898||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.349|18.447||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||18.447|1.349|0.0233
91822464|NCT02139644|183521999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|14.255||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.732|22.778||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||22.778|5.732|0.0011
91822465|NCT02139644|183521999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|10.347||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.822|18.872||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||18.872|1.822|0.0175
91822466|NCT02139644|183522000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.165||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|-0.08||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.080|-0.251|0.0002
91952399|NCT04278846|183801204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.42
91952400|NCT04278846|183801205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.88
91952401|NCT04278846|183801207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.12
91952402|NCT04278846|183801208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.96
91952403|NCT04278846|183801209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.76
91952404|NCT04278846|183801210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.88
91952405|NCT04278846|183801211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.37
91822467|NCT02139644|183522000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.143||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.058||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.058|-0.229|0.0010
91822468|NCT02139644|183522000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.315|-0.144||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.144|-0.315|0.0000
91822469|NCT02139644|183522000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.194||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|-0.109||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.109|-0.279|0.0000
91822470|NCT02139644|183522000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.064||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.021||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.021|-0.150|0.1381
91822471|NCT02139644|183522000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.051||||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.035||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.035|-0.136|0.2438
91822472|NCT02139644|183522000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.029||||0.5095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.057||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.057|-0.114|0.5095
91822473|NCT02139644|183522001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.463||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.716|-0.209||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.209|-0.716|0.0004
91822474|NCT02139644|183522001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.464||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.718|-0.211||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.211|-0.718|0.0003
91822475|NCT02139644|183522001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.675||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.928|-0.421||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.421|-0.928|0.0000
91822476|NCT02139644|183522001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.704||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.957|-0.45||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.450|-0.957|0.0000
91822477|NCT02139644|183522001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.212||||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.042||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.042|-0.465|0.1014
91952406|NCT00796367|183801313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|10.03||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||10.03|7.39|<0.0001
91822478|NCT02139644|183522001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.239||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.014||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.014|-0.492|0.0640
91822479|NCT02139644|183522001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.241||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.494|0.013||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.013|-0.494|0.0626
91822480|NCT02139644|183522002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1679||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.1679
91822481|NCT02139644|183522002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1701||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.1701
91822482|NCT02139644|183522002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0437||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.0437
91822483|NCT02139644|183522002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1718||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.1718
91822484|NCT02139644|183522002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3134||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.3134
91822485|NCT02139644|183522002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.993||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.9930
91822486|NCT02139644|183522002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9999||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.9999
91822487|NCT02139644|183522003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.301||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.508||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.508|0.094|0.0044
91822488|NCT02139644|183522003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.253||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.458||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.458|0.048|0.0155
91822489|NCT02139644|183522003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.473||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.676||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.676|0.270|0.0000
91822490|NCT02139644|183522003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.23||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.437||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.437|0.023|0.0293
91822491|NCT02139644|183522003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.172||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.372||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.372|-0.028|0.0913
91822492|NCT02139644|183522003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.023||||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.177||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.177|-0.223|0.8216
91822493|NCT02139644|183522003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.071||||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.133||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.133|-0.275|0.4934
91822494|NCT01312909|183522006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.37||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model with terms treatment, age strata, body weight strata and pooled center. A testing order was used to control type I error. 1mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo first, and if statistically significant difference was observed, the 0.5 mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo.||2.37|0.59|0.6337
91822495|NCT01312909|183522006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model with terms treatment, age strata, body weight strata and pooled center. A testing order was used to control type I error. 1mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo first, and if statistically significant difference was observed, the 0.5 mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo.||3.39|0.88|0.1114
91822496|NCT01312909|183522007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 12||2.38|0.62|0.5793
91822497|NCT01312909|183522007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 12||3.51|0.91|0.0932
91822498|NCT01312909|183522007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 24||2.50|0.61|0.5647
91822499|NCT01312909|183522007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.2917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 24||2.96|0.72|0.2917
91822500|NCT01312909|183522007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 52||2.69|0.58|0.5616
91822501|NCT01312909|183522007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 52||3.78|0.84|0.1300
91822502|NCT01312909|183522009|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.6|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.60|-1.69|0.3540
91822503|NCT01312909|183522009|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.98|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.98|-1.35|0.7574
91822504|NCT01312909|183522009|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.5676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.84|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.84|-1.53|0.5676
91822505|NCT01312909|183522009|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.47|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.47|-1.92|0.2356
91822506|NCT01312909|183522009|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.38|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 52: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||1.38|-1.03|0.7730
91822507|NCT01312909|183522009|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.45|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 52: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.45|-1.99|0.2166
91822508|NCT01312909|183522010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 24: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||1.90|0.34|0.6133
91822509|NCT01312909|183522010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 24: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||4.79|1.07|0.0335
91822510|NCT01312909|183522010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 52: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||2.65|0.37|0.9874
91822511|NCT01312909|183522010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|6.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 52: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||6.55|1.19|0.0188
91822512|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity.|Mean treatment difference|-1.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg pooled - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.22|-1.73|<0.0001
91822513|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-0.4||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 2.5 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.11|-0.69|0.0069
91952407|NCT00796367|183801313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|9.09||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||9.09|5.95|<0.0001
91822514|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 5 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.60|-1.18|<0.0001
91822515|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 10 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.90|-1.47|<0.0001
91952408|NCT00796367|183801313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.68||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||2.68|-0.31|0.1189
91822516|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral Semaglutide 20 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.09|-1.68|<0.0001
91822517|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.30|-1.89|<0.0001
91822518|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow dose-escalation - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.14|-1.72|<0.0001
91822519|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast dose-escalation - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.04|-1.64|<0.0001
91822520|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.27|-1.85|<0.0001
91822521|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 2.5 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||1.45|0.87|<0.0001
91822522|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 5 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.96|0.38|<0.0001
91822523|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.37||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 10 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.67|0.08|0.0116
91822524|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.18||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 20 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.47|-0.12|0.2440
91822525|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.26|-0.34|0.7973
91822526|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.13||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow-dose escalation - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.42|-0.16|0.3901
91952409|NCT00796367|183801314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|14.16||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||14.16|6.24|<0.0001
91952410|NCT00796367|183801314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|11.19||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||11.19|4.36|<0.0001
91952411|NCT00796367|183801314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||2.15|0.84|0.2169
91822527|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.22||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast-dose escalation - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.52|-0.09|0.1612
91822528|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.17||||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow-dose escalation - Oral semaglutide 40 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.46|-0.13|0.2669
91822529|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.26||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast-dose escalation - Oral semaglutide 40 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.56|-0.05|0.0989
91822530|NCT01923181|183522031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.09||||0.5565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast-dose escalation - Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow-dose escalation|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.39|-0.21|0.5565
91822531|NCT00739336|183522055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Piecewise linear multilevel models with multiple observations nested within each participant were used. Random components (intercept, slope) were introduced into the model to account for dependence among measurements within a participant and assessed by nested model comparisons using the deviance statistic (difference in -2LL).||||<0.01
91822532|NCT01993108|183522075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
91822533|NCT01993108|183522075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.118
91952412|NCT04604015|183801331|OTHER||absolute difference|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.9|50.2|||McNemar|||The study was powered based on the results of a meta-analysis reporting the pooled NeuralBot (TCD) sensitivity for Right to Left Shunt detection, and the pooled TTE sensitivity for Right to Left Shunt detection.||50.2|32.9|<0.001
91822534|NCT01993108|183522075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.349
91822535|NCT01993108|183522075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.348|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.348
91822536|NCT01993108|183522076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
91822537|NCT01993108|183522076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.240
91822538|NCT01993108|183522076|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.081|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.081
91952413|NCT02129192|183801332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of Cmax of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|95.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.89|103.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for telmisartan 80 mg||103.17|88.89|
91822539|NCT01993108|183522076|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.247
91822540|NCT01993108|183522077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.049
91822541|NCT01993108|183522077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.497|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.497
91822542|NCT01993108|183522077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.814|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.814
91822543|NCT01993108|183522077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.593|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.593
91822544|NCT01993108|183522078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.926
91822545|NCT01993108|183522078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.126
91822546|NCT01993108|183522078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.852|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.852
91822547|NCT01993108|183522078|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.552|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.552
91822548|NCT01560624|183522079|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.97|||Cox proportion-hazard model|||||0.97|0.56|0.0275
91822549|NCT01560624|183522079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0391
91822550|NCT01560624|183522080|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimate location shift|7.0||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.0|||ANCOVA|||||16.0|0|0.0913
91822551|NCT01560624|183522081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91822552|NCT01560624|183522082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0028
91822553|NCT02099721|183522090|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is a hazard ratio significantly above 0.70.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.57|||||The hazard ratio, estimated by a Cox proportional hazard model, has time to first treated VT/VF for 1.5 Prevention in the numerator, with Secondary Prevention in the denominator.|"H0: Hazard ratio of Implanted 1.5 patients (Group C) to implanted secondary patients (Group A) ≤ 0.70~HA: Hazard ratio of Implanted 1.5 patients (Group C) to implanted secondary patients (Group A) \> 0.70"||0.57|0.38|
91822554|NCT02099721|183522091|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio significantly below 1 indicates reduced mortality in the 1.5 implanted group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.66||The p-value is for the effect of treatment group on time to death, adjusting for the baseline covariates of age, gender, QRS duration, ischemic cardiomyopathy, LBBB, NYHA classification, diabetes, LVEF, syncope, NSVT and PVCs.|Wald chi-square||Multiple imputations were employed to account for missing baseline covariates.|The null hypothesis is that the hazard ratio of implanted to non-implanted 1.5 patients = 1. The alternative is that the ratio is not equal to 1.||0.66|0.40|< 0.0001
91822555|NCT04574362|183522101|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||13.0|5.4|<0.0001
91822556|NCT04574362|183522102|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||20.0|9.6|<0.0001
91822557|NCT04574362|183522103|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||23.3|13.0|<0.0001
91822558|NCT04574362|183522104|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||22.3|11.4|<0.0001
91822559|NCT04574362|183522105|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||-8.0|-15.0|<0.0001
91822560|NCT04574362|183522106|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk differences and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||11.2|4.3|<0.0001
91822561|NCT04574362|183522107|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||11.0|4.4|<0.0001
91822562|NCT04574362|183522108|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|-0.7||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|15 minutes post-dose||0.4|-1.9|0.2057
91822563|NCT04574362|183522108|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.9702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|30 minutes post-dose||1.1|-1.1|0.9702
91952414|NCT02129192|183801332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of Cmax of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.7|103.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for amlodipine 5 mg||103.13|99.70|
91822564|NCT04574362|183522108|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|45 minutes post-dose||2.8|-0.7|0.2419
91822565|NCT04574362|183522108|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|60 minutes post-dose||4.8|-0.1|0.0597
91822566|NCT04574362|183522108|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.4||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|90 minutes post-dose||8.4|2.1|0.0012
91822567|NCT04574362|183522109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.6809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.5||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|15 minutes post-dose||2.5|-3.9|0.6809
91822568|NCT04574362|183522109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.2586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.0||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|30 minutes post-dose||6.0|-1.6|0.2586
91822569|NCT04574362|183522109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|45 minutes post-dose||8.8|0.2|0.0421
91822570|NCT04574362|183522109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.3||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|60 minutes post-dose||11.3|1.8|0.0066
91822571|NCT04574362|183522109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|14.9||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|90 minutes post-dose||14.9|4.8|0.0002
91952415|NCT02129192|183801332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of Cmax of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.46|105.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg||105.19|98.46|
91952416|NCT02129192|183801333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|30.15||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.99|36.38|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for telmisartan 80 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||36.38|24.99|1.0000
91952417|NCT02129192|183801333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.63|101.97|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for amlodipine 5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||101.97|94.63|<0.0001
91952418|NCT02129192|183801333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|79.69||||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.97|84.71|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||84.71|74.97|0.5422
91952419|NCT02129192|183801334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-tz of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|102.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for telmisartan 80 mg||102.38|96.14|
91952420|NCT02129192|183801334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-tz of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.43||||||90.0|99.84|103.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for amlodipine 5 mg||103.04|99.84|
91952421|NCT02129192|183801334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-tz of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.29|102.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg||102.40|98.29|
91952422|NCT02129192|183801335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|63.66||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.98|68.71|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for telmisartan 80 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||68.71|58.98|1.0000
91952423|NCT02129192|183801335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.08|102.48|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for amlodipine 5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||102.48|97.08|<0.0001
91952424|NCT02129192|183801335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|89.66||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|93.7|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||93.70|85.80|0.0001
91822572|NCT04574362|183522110|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.4||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|2.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||2.8|-23.5|0.1148
91822573|NCT03670810|183522154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.73|2.56|<0.001
91822574|NCT03670810|183522154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|6.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.77|3.07|<0.001
91822575|NCT03670810|183522155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.76|2.10|<.001
91822576|NCT03670810|183522155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|12.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.67|4.13|<.001
91822577|NCT03670810|183522156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.57|2.05|<0.001
91822578|NCT03670810|183522156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.53|2.04|<0.001
91822579|NCT03670810|183522157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.01|2.11|<0.001
91822580|NCT03670810|183522157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|4.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.85|2.53|<0.001
91822581|NCT03670810|183522158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|6.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|2.05|<0.001
91822582|NCT03670810|183522158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|7.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.88|2.77|<0.001
91822583|NCT03670810|183522159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.04|1.30|0.004
91822584|NCT03670810|183522159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.94|2.41|<0.001
91822585|NCT03670810|183522160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|1.80|<0.001
91822586|NCT03670810|183522160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|6.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.42|1.97|<0.001
91822587|NCT03670810|183522161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|1.48|<0.001
91822588|NCT03670810|183522161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.67|1.65|<0.001
91822589|NCT03670810|183522162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.78|1.10|0.031
91822590|NCT03670810|183522162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.25|2.40|<0.001
91822591|NCT03670810|183522163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|1.29|<0.001
91822592|NCT03670810|183522163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.20|1.21|0.001
91822593|NCT03670810|183522164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.65|0.33|<0.001
91822594|NCT03670810|183522164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.60|0.30|<0.001
91822595|NCT03670810|183522165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|4.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.28|1.79|<0.001
91822596|NCT03670810|183522165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.15|2.20|<0.001
91822597|NCT03670810|183522167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|53.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Freedom 30 Min. Postdose||53.37|0.77|0.086
91822598|NCT03670810|183522167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|59.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Freedom 30 Min. Postdose||59.08|0.89|0.065
91822599|NCT03670810|183522167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Free 1 Hour Postdose||6.68|1.42|0.004
91822600|NCT03670810|183522167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|14.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Free 1 Hour Postdose||14.44|3.43|<0.001
91822601|NCT03670810|183522167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 30 Min Postdose 100 mg||2.03|0.98|0.065
91822602|NCT03670810|183522167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 30 Min. Postdose 200 mg||2.52|1.25|0.001
91822603|NCT03670810|183522167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 1 Hour Postdose 100 mg||3.06|1.74|<0.001
91822604|NCT03670810|183522167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 1 Hour Postdose 200 mg||2.88|1.64|<0.001
91822605|NCT03670810|183522167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 30 Min 100 mg||1.71|0.71|0.651
91822606|NCT03670810|183522167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 30 Min. 200 mg||1.98|0.85|0.220
91822607|NCT03670810|183522167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 1 Hour 100 mg||1.54|0.78|0.593
91822608|NCT03670810|183522167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 1 Hour 200 mg||1.98|1.04|0.030
91822609|NCT03670810|183522168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.092
91822610|NCT03670810|183522168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.211
91822611|NCT03670810|183522169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.05|2.01|<0.001
91822612|NCT03670810|183522169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.26|2.12|<0.001
91822613|NCT03670810|183522170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.056
91822614|NCT03670810|183522170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.267
91822615|NCT03670810|183522170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms 100 mg||||0.003
91822616|NCT03670810|183522170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms 200 mg||||0.002
91822617|NCT03670810|183522170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Feeling/Concerns 100 mg||||0.014
91822618|NCT03670810|183522170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings/Concerns 200 mg||||0.018
91822619|NCT03670810|183522171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Recommend Treatment - Agree Strongly Agree||1.62|0.96|0.101
91822620|NCT03670810|183522171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Recommend Treatment Agree/Strongly Agree||1.67|0.99|0.063
91822621|NCT03670810|183522171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Willing to Take This Treatment Again - Agree/Strongly Agree||1.16|0.68|0.376
91822622|NCT03670810|183522171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Willing to Take This Treatment Again - Agree/Strongly Agree||1.03|0.60|0.082
91822623|NCT03670810|183522171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Extremely/Very Satisfied||1.62|0.96|0.096
91822624|NCT03670810|183522171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Extremely/Very Satisfied||1.80|1.06|0.016
91822625|NCT03670810|183522171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Prefer This Treatment||1.49|0.84|0.445
91822626|NCT03670810|183522171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.89|0.243
91822627|NCT03670810|183522172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.142
91822628|NCT03670810|183522173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|6.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.40|1.42|0.004
91822629|NCT03670810|183522173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|9.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.47|2.22|<0.001
91822630|NCT03670810|183522174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|1.74|<0.001
91822631|NCT03670810|183522174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.20|2.50|<0.001
91822632|NCT03670810|183522175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Nausea||1.36|0.75|0.953
91822633|NCT03670810|183522175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Nausea||1.41|0.78|0.768
91822634|NCT03670810|183522175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Phonophobia||0.71|0.39|<0.001
91822635|NCT03670810|183522175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.62|||Regression, Linear|||Phonophobia||0.62|0.34|<0.001
91952425|NCT02129192|183801336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-inf of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.32|103.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for telmisartan 80 mg||103.04|96.32|
91822636|NCT03670810|183522175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Photophobia||0.63|0.36|<0.001
91822637|NCT03670810|183522175|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Photophobia||0.71|0.40|<0.001
91822638|NCT03670810|183522175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Vomiting||1.25|0.17|0.129
91822639|NCT03670810|183522175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Vomiting||2.43|0.52|0.769
91822640|NCT00678691|183522176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||all p-values come from one model analysis and are therefore included in free text as such|piecewise model|A piecewise statistical model results for between group differences: P=.390 (baseline through week 5), p=.775 (week 5 - week 8||Authors expected armodafinal to work better than placebo reducing BFI scale scores by 30%. A piecewise statistical model was used to compare baseline scores against those over through week 8. Piecewise results for between group differences for BFI Scores: P=.390 (baseline through week 5), p=.775 (week 5 - week 8).||||<0.05
91822641|NCT00780572|183522257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9396||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7068|1.249|||Regression, Cox|||||1.2490|0.7068|0.6680
91822642|NCT00727857|183522269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.51|1.22|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. Least Squares (LS) mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.22|0.51|<0.0001
91822643|NCT00727857|183522269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.5|1.18|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.18|0.50|<0.0001
91822644|NCT00727857|183522269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8919||95.0|-0.37|0.33|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.33|-0.37|0.8919
91822645|NCT00727857|183522270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8||||0.0005||95.0|7.8|27.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||27.7|7.8|0.0005
91822646|NCT00727857|183522270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1||||0.0021||95.0|5.5|24.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||24.7|5.5|0.0021
91822647|NCT00727857|183522270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5981||95.0|-12.5|7.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||7.2|-12.5|0.5981
91822648|NCT00727857|183522271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.5074||95.0|-1.43|2.88|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.88|-1.43|0.5074
91822649|NCT00727857|183522271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.0047||95.0|0.9|4.95|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.95|0.90|0.0047
91822650|NCT00727857|183522271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.0435||95.0|0.06|4.33|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.33|0.06|0.0435
91822651|NCT00727857|183522272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.629||||0.3158||95.0|-0.602|1.861|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.861|-0.602|0.3158
91822652|NCT00727857|183522272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.619||||0.0067||95.0|0.452|2.785|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.785|0.452|0.0067
91822653|NCT00727857|183522272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.989||||0.1094||95.0|-0.223|2.201|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.201|-0.223|0.1094
91822654|NCT00727857|183522273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.88||||0.5963||95.0|-4.71|13.97|||ANCOVA||The estimate of the median percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method and the distribution-free confidence interval.|Nonparametric ANCOVA based on Tukey's normal rank transformation with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||13.97|-4.71|0.5963
91822655|NCT00727857|183522273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.81||||0.0265||95.0|2.88|22.24|||ANCOVA||The estimate of the median percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method and the distribution-free confidence interval.|Nonparametric ANCOVA based on Tukey's normal rank transformation with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||22.24|2.88|0.0265
91822656|NCT00727857|183522273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.33||||0.1053||95.0|-1.77|18.07|||ANCOVA||The estimate of the median percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method and the distribution-free confidence interval.|Nonparametric ANCOVA based on Tukey's normal rank transformation with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||18.07|-1.77|0.1053
91822657|NCT00727857|183522274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.0806||95.0|-0.2|3.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||3.1|-0.2|0.0806
91822658|NCT00727857|183522274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.6|-6.5|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-6.5|-9.6|<0.0001
91822659|NCT00727857|183522274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-11.1|-7.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-7.9|-11.1|<0.0001
91952426|NCT02129192|183801336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-inf of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.59|102.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for amlodipine 5 mg||102.87|99.59|
91822660|NCT00727857|183522275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.73||||0.0324||95.0|0.31|7.14|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||7.14|0.31|0.0324
91822661|NCT00727857|183522275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78||||0.0233||95.0|-7.05|-0.52|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.52|-7.05|0.0233
91822662|NCT00727857|183522275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.9|-4.12|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-4.12|-10.90|<0.0001
91822663|NCT00727857|183522276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.0993||95.0|-0.93|10.72|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||10.72|-0.93|0.0993
91822664|NCT00727857|183522276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.367||95.0|-8.14|3.01|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||3.01|-8.14|0.3670
91822665|NCT00727857|183522276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.46||||0.0119||95.0|-13.26|-1.66|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-1.66|-13.26|0.0119
91822666|NCT00727857|183522277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31||||0.0423||95.0|-8.48|-0.15|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.15|-8.48|0.0423
91822667|NCT00727857|183522277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.08|-4.12|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-4.12|-12.08|<0.0001
91822668|NCT00727857|183522277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79||||0.728||95.0|-7.93|0.35|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.35|-7.93|0.728
91822669|NCT00727857|183522278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.9231||95.0|-7.94|8.76|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||8.76|-7.94|0.9231
91822670|NCT00727857|183522278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16||||0.3082||95.0|-3.86|12.19|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||12.19|-3.86|0.3082
91822671|NCT00727857|183522278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75||||0.3753||95.0|-4.56|12.07|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||12.07|-4.56|0.3753
91822672|NCT00727857|183522279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.4999||95.0|-44.6|91.4|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||91.4|-44.6|0.4999
91822673|NCT00727857|183522279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.2||||0.0531||95.0|-0.9|129.3|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||129.3|-0.9|0.0531
91822674|NCT00727857|183522279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.9||||0.2369||95.0|-26.9|108.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||108.7|-26.9|0.2369
91822675|NCT00727857|183522280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5023||95.0|-0.09|0.19|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.19|-0.09|0.5023
91822676|NCT00727857|183522280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.48|-0.21|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.21|-0.48|<0.0001
91822677|NCT00727857|183522280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.53|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.25|-0.53|<0.0001
91822678|NCT00727857|183522281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7||||0.2849||95.0|-16.5|55.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||55.9|-16.5|0.2849
91822679|NCT00727857|183522281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-112.4|-42.8|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-42.8|-112.4|<0.0001
91822680|NCT00727857|183522281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-97.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-133.4|-61.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-61.2|-133.4|<0.0001
91822681|NCT00727857|183522282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.2894||95.0|-4.5|15.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||15.1|-4.5|0.2894
91822682|NCT00727857|183522282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8463||95.0|-10.3|8.5|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||8.5|-10.3|0.8463
91822683|NCT00727857|183522282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.2124||95.0|-16.0|3.6|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||3.6|-16.0|0.2124
91822684|NCT00727857|183522283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.804||95.0|-19.4|15.0|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||15.0|-19.4|0.8040
91822685|NCT00727857|183522283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5||||0.0008||95.0|12.0|45.0|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||45.0|12.0|0.0008
91822686|NCT00727857|183522283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.6||||0.0005||95.0|13.4|47.8|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||47.8|13.4|0.0005
91822687|NCT00727857|183522284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.9604||95.0|-83.3|79.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||79.2|-83.3|0.9604
91822688|NCT00727857|183522284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.3||||0.0004||95.0|62.5|218.0|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||218.0|62.5|0.0004
91822689|NCT00727857|183522284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.3||||0.0006||95.0|61.3|223.3|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||223.3|61.3|0.0006
91822690|NCT00727857|183522285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.9922||95.0|-64.4|65.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||65.1|-64.4|0.9922
91822691|NCT00727857|183522285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|111.7||||0.0004||95.0|49.7|173.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||173.7|49.7|0.0004
91822692|NCT00727857|183522285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|111.4||||0.0008||95.0|46.8|175.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||175.9|46.8|0.0008
91822693|NCT00727857|183522286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0072||95.0|-1.86|-0.29|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.29|-1.86|0.0072
91822694|NCT00727857|183522286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.3682||95.0|-0.41|1.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.10|-0.41|0.3682
91822695|NCT00727857|183522286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42||||0.0004||95.0|0.64|2.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.20|0.64|0.0004
91822696|NCT00727857|183522287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1986||95.0|-0.02|0.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.10|-0.02|0.1986
91822697|NCT00727857|183522287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.1487||95.0|-0.1|0.02|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.02|-0.10|0.1487
91822698|NCT00727857|183522287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.0076||95.0|-0.14|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.02|-0.14|0.0076
91822699|NCT00727857|183522288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.2384||95.0|-0.21|0.83|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.83|-0.21|0.2384
91822700|NCT00727857|183522288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4617||95.0|-0.69|0.31|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.31|-0.69|0.4617
91822701|NCT00727857|183522288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0593||95.0|-1.02|0.02|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.02|-1.02|0.0593
91822702|NCT00727857|183522289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.5044||95.0|-0.54|1.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.10|-0.54|0.5044
91822703|NCT00727857|183522289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.0004||95.0|-2.22|-0.64|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.64|-2.22|0.0004
91822704|NCT00727857|183522289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.53|-0.89|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.89|-2.53|<0.0001
91822705|NCT00727857|183522290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0017||95.0|-2.64|-0.62|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.62|-2.64|0.0017
91822706|NCT00727857|183522290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.01|2.94|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.94|1.01|<0.0001
91822707|NCT00727857|183522290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.59|4.61|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.61|2.59|<0.0001
91822708|NCT00727857|183522291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.76||||0.2466||95.0|-2.61|10.14|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||10.14|-2.61|0.2466
91822709|NCT00727857|183522291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.52||||0.0063||95.0|-14.63|-2.42|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-2.42|-14.63|0.0063
91822710|NCT00727857|183522291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.29||||0.0002||95.0|-18.65|-5.93|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-5.93|-18.65|0.0002
91822711|NCT00727857|183522292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.2069||95.0|-2.93|0.64|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.64|-2.93|0.2069
91822712|NCT00727857|183522292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.0052||95.0|0.73|4.15|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.15|0.73|0.0052
91822713|NCT00727857|183522292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.81|5.36|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||5.36|1.81|<0.0001
91822714|NCT00727857|183522293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.609||95.0|-1.28|0.75|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.75|-1.28|0.6090
91822715|NCT00727857|183522293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.6169||95.0|-1.22|0.72|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.72|-1.22|0.6169
91822716|NCT00727857|183522293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.974||95.0|-0.99|1.03|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.03|-0.99|0.9740
91822717|NCT00727857|183522294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.615||95.0|-3.09|5.21|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||5.21|-3.09|0.6150
91822718|NCT00727857|183522294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.2346||95.0|-6.38|1.57|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.57|-6.38|0.2346
91822719|NCT00727857|183522294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.1001||95.0|-7.61|0.67|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.67|-7.61|0.1001
91822720|NCT00727857|183522295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.1217||95.0|-0.76|6.48|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||6.48|-0.76|0.1217
91822721|NCT00727857|183522295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.0009||95.0|-9.36|-2.44|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-2.44|-9.36|0.0009
91822722|NCT00727857|183522295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.36|-5.16|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-5.16|-12.36|<0.0001
91822723|NCT01469065|183522296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|84.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.16|92.15||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test. Formal statistical inference was not performed thus p value was not reported.||92.15|78.16|
91822724|NCT01469065|183522296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.69|97.53||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||97.53|82.69|
91822725|NCT01469065|183522296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|87.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.27|94.63||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||94.63|80.27|
91822726|NCT01469065|183522296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|78.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.06|85.03||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||85.03|72.06|
91822727|NCT01469065|183522309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|82.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.06|89.9||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||89.90|76.06|
91822728|NCT01469065|183522309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|85.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.6|92.77||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||92.77|78.60|
91822729|NCT01469065|183522309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|85.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.59|92.76||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||92.76|78.59|
91822730|NCT01469065|183522309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|75.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.78|82.39||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||82.39|69.78|
91822731|NCT01469065|183522309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between Test and Reference|-35.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.89|-18.78||||||Treatment difference and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean.||-18.78|-52.89|
91822732|NCT01469065|183522310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|86.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.13|92.7||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||92.70|81.13|
91822733|NCT01469065|183522310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|91.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.24|97.44||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||97.44|85.24|
91822734|NCT01469065|183522310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|87.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.44|93.04||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||93.04|81.44|
91822735|NCT01469065|183522310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|77.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.91|83.34||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||83.34|72.91|
91822736|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|100.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|107.96||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.96|92.70|
91822737|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|99.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.04|107.43||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.43|92.04|
91822738|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|101.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.1|109.84||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||109.84|94.10|
91822739|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|96.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.69|104.52||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||104.52|89.69|
91822740|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|95.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.82|103.44||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||103.44|88.82|
91822741|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|98.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.37|106.64||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||106.64|91.37|
91822742|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|99.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|107.73||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.73|92.30|
91822743|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|94.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.53|102.1||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||102.10|87.53|
91822744|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|93.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|100.91||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.91|86.50|
91822745|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|92.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.81|100.15||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.15|85.81|
91822746|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|94.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.08|101.64||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||101.64|87.08|
91822747|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|87.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.2|94.81||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||94.81|81.20|
91822748|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|96.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.72|104.67||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||104.67|89.72|
91822749|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|96.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|103.76||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||103.76|88.90|
91822750|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|99.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|107.64||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.64|92.21|
91822751|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|94.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.46|102.11||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||102.11|87.46|
91822752|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|86.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.32|93.69||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||93.69|80.32|
91822753|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|87.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.34|94.93||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||94.93|81.34|
91822754|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|91.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.55|98.7||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||98.70|84.55|
91822755|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|88.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.0|95.74||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||95.74|82.00|
91822756|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|90.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.75|97.69||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||97.69|83.75|
91822757|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|90.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.03|98.08||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||98.08|84.03|
91822758|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|94.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.69|102.34||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||102.34|87.69|
91822759|NCT01469065|183522311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|93.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.17|100.77||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.77|86.17|
91822760|NCT01469065|183522312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|112.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.84|127.5||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||127.50|99.84|
91822761|NCT01469065|183522312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|102.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.78|114.85||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||114.85|90.78|
91822762|NCT01469065|183522312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|111.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.5|125.18||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||125.18|98.50|
91822763|NCT01469065|183522312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|96.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.46|109.48||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||109.48|85.46|
91822764|NCT01469065|183522313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|107.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.69|116.3||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||116.30|98.69|
91822765|NCT01469065|183522313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|92.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.26|100.5||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.50|85.26|
91822766|NCT01469065|183522313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|96.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.51|104.27||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||104.27|88.51|
91822767|NCT01469065|183522313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.38|99.65||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||99.65|84.38|
91822768|NCT04542070|183522315|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Difference in percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2|||||Difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK|||2.2|-0.5|
91822769|NCT04542070|183522315|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Adjusted difference in percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2|||||Adjusted difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK. Based on cochran-mantel haenszel stratified analysis was adjusted for the baseline stratification factors gender at birth and baseline BMI.|||2.2|-0.5|
91822770|NCT04542070|183522316|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Difference in percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.0|||||Difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK|||2.0|-0.6|
91822771|NCT04542070|183522316|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Adjusted difference in percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||||Adjusted difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK. Based on cochran-mantel haenszel stratified analysis was adjusted for the baseline stratification factors gender at birth and baseline BMI.|||2.0|-0.7|
91822772|NCT03993938|183522413|OTHER|Delta PVI percentage change and Delta LAP (v-wave) percentage change were correlated using Spearman's rank correlation - two-tailed.|Spearman's rank correlation|0.34||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's rank correlation|||||||0.066
91822773|NCT03467425|183522434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.51||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with covariates of treatment group, Baseline CAT score, number of exacerbations in the prior year, actual prior medication use strata and country.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical comparison is presented for combined data of responders, non-responders and those with imputed CAT score at Week 24.|||1.51|1.13|<0.001
91822774|NCT03467425|183522435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0121|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.073|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with covariates of treatment group, Baseline FEV1, actual prior medication use strata, country and timing of spirometry.|||0.073|0.026|<0.001
91822775|NCT03467425|183522436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.53|||Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with covariates of treatment group, actual prior medication use strata and country.|||4.53|0.87|0.103
91822776|NCT00025883|183522437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A null hypothesis of interest is there is no significant change over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) in response to metreleptin within GLD group.||||<0.001
91822777|NCT00025883|183522437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A null hypothesis of interest is there is no significant change over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) in response to metreleptin within PLD group.||||0.004
91822778|NCT00025883|183522438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides were log transformed for analysis due to non-normal distribution. Changes in triglycedies in response to metreleptin over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) are tested within GLD group.||||0.05
91822779|NCT00025883|183522438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides were log transformed for analysis due to non-normal distribution. Changes in triglycedies in response to metreleptin over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) are tested within PLD group.||||0.02
91822780|NCT01387607|183522463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1906||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.36||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-0.36|-1.10|0.0001
91822781|NCT01387607|183522464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4376||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8732|2.3667||Based on the combined categories from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mentel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|Statistical analysis performed for PGIC endpoint re-categorized into much/very much improved and other.||2.3667|0.8732|0.1397
91822782|NCT01387607|183522464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4626||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8596|2.4886||Based on the combined categories from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mentel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|Statistical analysis performed for PGIC endpoint re-categorized into any improvement (participants who were very much improved or much improved or minimally improved) and other.||2.4886|0.8596|0.1510
91822783|NCT01387607|183522465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6804||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.32||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.32|-6.30|0.0762
91822784|NCT01387607|183522466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8924||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2007|2.9827||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|||2.9827|1.2007|0.0044
91822785|NCT01387607|183522467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9683||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1151|3.4742||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|||3.4742|1.1151|0.0189
91822786|NCT01387607|183522468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0152||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|0.54||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.54|-7.39|0.0900
91822787|NCT01387607|183522469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1858||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|6.83||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for snoring.||6.83|-1.77|0.2485
91822788|NCT01387607|183522469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.265||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|2.1||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for awaken short of breath.||2.10|-6.81|0.2993
91822789|NCT01387607|183522469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4485||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|13.85||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for sleep adequacy.||13.85|4.21|0.0003
91822790|NCT01387607|183522470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1114||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.51||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for quantity of sleep.||0.51|0.07|0.0106
91822791|NCT01387607|183522470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6428||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.43||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for somnolence||7.43|0.96|0.0112
91822792|NCT01387607|183522471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6438||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.18||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.18|-6.29|0.0637
91822793|NCT01387607|183522472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.87||Logistic regression model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.67|0.6767
91822794|NCT01387607|183522473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1932|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.5||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-0.50|-1.26|<0.0001
91822795|NCT01387607|183522474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7785||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.42|-1.92||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-1.92|-32.42|0.0273
91822796|NCT01387607|183522475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0677||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||0.15|-0.12|0.8082
91822797|NCT01387607|183522476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.41||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-0.41|-0.89|<0.0001
91822798|NCT01387607|183522477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7309||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|22.55||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||22.55|-7.76|0.3388
91822799|NCT01387607|183522478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2115||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.18||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||1.18|0.35|0.0003
91822800|NCT01387607|183522479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8414||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.82||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.82|-2.50|0.3186
91822801|NCT01387607|183522480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0404||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.43||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.43|-1.67|0.7149
91822802|NCT01387607|183522481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673||0.2442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.11||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.11|-0.54|0.2442
91822803|NCT01387607|183522482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4019||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|1.11||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.11|-8.34|0.1332
91822804|NCT01387607|183522483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3595||0.2934||95.0|-1.09|0.33||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-1.09|0.2934
91822805|NCT01387607|183522484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3621||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.12||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.54|0.0226
91822806|NCT02033889|183522531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.71|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another anti-hyperglycemic agent, AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.71|-1.05|<0.001
91822807|NCT02033889|183522531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.53|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another anti-hyperglycemic agent, AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.53|-0.87|<0.001
91822808|NCT02033889|183522533|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo/Glimepiride|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.4|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct the 95% CI|5.4|-2.1|
91822809|NCT02033889|183522533|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo/Glimepiride|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.7|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct the 95% CI|4.7|-2.5|
91822810|NCT02033889|183522534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-38.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-31.99|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-31.99|-44.50|<0.001
91822811|NCT02033889|183522534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-26.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-20.48|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-20.48|-32.90|<0.001
91822812|NCT02033889|183522535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.03|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.03|-2.16|<0.001
91822813|NCT02033889|183522535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.11|-2.24|<0.001
91822814|NCT02033889|183522536|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.62|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|7.62|2.64|<0.001
91822815|NCT02033889|183522536|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.06|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|5.06|1.81|<0.001
91822816|NCT02033889|183522537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|-2.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-2.19|-6.81|<0.001
91822817|NCT02033889|183522537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-1.39|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.39|-5.96|0.002
91822818|NCT02033889|183522538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.98|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.98|-3.86|0.001
91822819|NCT02033889|183522538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.82||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.39|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.39|-3.24|0.013
91822820|NCT02033889|183522539|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|5.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|13.9|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|13.90|2.10|<0.001
91822821|NCT02033889|183522539|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.1||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|8.22|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|8.22|1.17|0.023
91822822|NCT02033889|183522540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-11.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct both the 95% CI and derive p-value for the difference between the proportions (i.e. percentages).||||-11.2|-22.2|<0.001
91822823|NCT02033889|183522540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method.|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct both the 95% CI and derive p-value for the difference between the proportions (i.e. percentages).||||-9.4|-20.9|<0.001
91822824|NCT02033889|183522559|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.5|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.50|-0.71|
91822825|NCT02033889|183522559|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|-0.83|0.37|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.37|-0.83|
91822826|NCT02033889|183522560|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.39|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|1.39|0.00|
91822827|NCT02033889|183522560|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.99|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.99|-0.38|
91822828|NCT02033889|183522561|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.68|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.68|-0.15|
91822829|NCT02033889|183522561|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.48|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.48|-0.33|
91822830|NCT02033889|183522562|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.39|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.39|-0.76|
91822831|NCT02033889|183522562|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.35|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.35|-0.78|
91822832|NCT02033889|183522566|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.88|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.88|-0.53|
91822833|NCT02033889|183522566|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|-0.88|0.51|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.51|-0.88|
91822834|NCT02033889|183522567|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.98|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.98|-0.48|
91822835|NCT02033889|183522567|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.91|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.91|-0.51|
91822836|NCT02033889|183522568|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.04|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.04|-0.95|
91822837|NCT02033889|183522568|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.23|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.23|-0.66|
91822838|NCT02033889|183522569|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.72|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.72|-0.61|
91822839|NCT02033889|183522569|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.49|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.49|-0.78|
91822840|NCT02033889|183522573|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.56|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.56|-1.01|
91822841|NCT02033889|183522573|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|-1.06|0.5|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.50|-1.06|
91822842|NCT02033889|183522574|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.13|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|1.13|-0.58|
91822843|NCT02033889|183522574|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.93|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.93|-0.70|
91822844|NCT02033889|183522575|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.24|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.24|-1.44|
91822845|NCT02033889|183522575|OTHER||Difference in the least Squares Means|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.05|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.05|-1.12|
91822846|NCT02033889|183522576|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.65|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.65|-0.77|
91822847|NCT02033889|183522576|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.85|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.85|-0.50|
91822848|NCT02391948|183522607|OTHER||mean population value age 12|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.8|98.6||||||||98.6|97.8|
91822849|NCT02391948|183522607|OTHER||mean population value age 12|89.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.6|91.1||||||||91.1|86.6|
91822850|NCT02391948|183522607|OTHER||mean population value age 12|50.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|53.6||||||||53.6|46.5|
91822851|NCT02391948|183522607|OTHER||mean population value age 12|25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|27.0||||||||27.0|23.7|
91822852|NCT02391948|183522607|OTHER||mean population value age 12|6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.66|7.38||||||||7.38|5.66|
91822853|NCT02391948|183522608|OTHER||mean population value age 12|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.49||||||||0.49|0.38|
91822854|NCT02391948|183522608|OTHER||mean population value age 12|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.77||||||||0.77|0.60|
91822855|NCT02391948|183522608|OTHER||mean population value age 12|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||||||||1.07|0.79|
91822856|NCT02391948|183522608|OTHER||mean population value age 12|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.54||||||||1.54|1.22|
91822857|NCT02391948|183522608|OTHER||mean population value age 12|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.31||||||||2.31|2.01|
91822858|NCT02391948|183522609|OTHER||mean population value|4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|4.54||||||||4.54|4.43|
91822859|NCT02391948|183522609|OTHER||mean population value|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|4.2||||||||4.20|3.99|
91822860|NCT02391948|183522609|OTHER||mean population value|3.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|4.25||||||||4.25|3.75|
91822861|NCT02391948|183522609|OTHER||mean population value|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.19||||||||3.19|2.73|
91822862|NCT02391948|183522609|OTHER||mean population value|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.75||||||||1.75|1.44|
91822863|NCT02391948|183522610|OTHER||mean population value|1362.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1313.6|1410.7||||||||1410.7|1313.6|
91822864|NCT02391948|183522610|OTHER||mean population value|1096.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1028.8|1158.62||||||||1158.62|1028.80|
91822865|NCT02391948|183522610|OTHER||mean population value|592.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|533.79|652.72||||||||652.72|533.79|
91822866|NCT02391948|183522611|OTHER||mean population value|3.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|4.07||||||||4.07|3.91|
91822867|NCT02391948|183522611|OTHER||mean population value|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|3.6||||||||3.60|3.39|
91822868|NCT02391948|183522611|OTHER||mean population value|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|3.37||||||||3.37|3.08|
91822869|NCT02391948|183522611|OTHER||mean population value|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|2.93||||||||2.93|2.67|
91822870|NCT02391948|183522611|OTHER||mean population value|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|1.91||||||||1.91|1.67|
91822871|NCT02391948|183522612|OTHER||mean population value|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|9.0|0.47|0.72||||||||0.72|0.47|
91822872|NCT02391948|183522612|OTHER||mean population value|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3||||||||1.30|0.91|
91822873|NCT02391948|183522612|OTHER||mean population value|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89||||||||0.89|0.48|
91822874|NCT02391948|183522612|OTHER||mean population value|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.65||||||||1.65|1.12|
91822875|NCT02391948|183522612|OTHER||mean population value|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|2.6||||||||2.60|2.08|
91822876|NCT02391948|183522613|OTHER||mean population value age 12|70.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.1|72.0||||||||72.0|69.1|
91822877|NCT02391948|183522613|OTHER||mean population value age 12|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.4|65.0||||||||65.0|59.4|
91822878|NCT02391948|183522613|OTHER||mean population value age 12|62.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|65.0||||||||65.0|60.9|
91822879|NCT02391948|183522613|OTHER||mean population value age 12|58.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.7|59.7||||||||59.7|56.7|
91822880|NCT02391948|183522613|OTHER||mean population value age 12|51.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.2|53.6||||||||53.6|50.2|
91822881|NCT02391948|183522614|OTHER||mean population value age 12|78.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.0|80.4||||||||80.4|76.0|
91822882|NCT02391948|183522614|OTHER||mean population value age 12|66.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|68.5||||||||68.5|63.5|
91822883|NCT02391948|183522614|OTHER||mean population value age 12|60.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.3|63.3|||mean population value age 12|||||63.3|57.3|
91822884|NCT02391948|183522614|OTHER||mean population value age 12|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|40.3||||||||40.3|35.6|
91822885|NCT02391948|183522614|OTHER||mean population value age 12|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|16.5||||||||16.5|12.4|
91822886|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.02|||||Data from all GMFCS levels was used, country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in family-centredness outcome.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||2.02|1.06|
91822887|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.03|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||2.03|1.07|
91822888|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.38|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in the amount of focus on environment.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.38|0.96|
91822889|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.58|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in focus on participation.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.58|1.07|
91822890|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in amount of physical therapy services.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.58|0.72|
91822891|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in amount of occupational therapy services.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.28|0.74|
91822892|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.6|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in amount of speech and language therapy.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.60|0.97|
91822893|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.88|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||1.88|1.00|
91822894|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.44|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||1.44|0.78|
91822895|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.26|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||1.26|0.54|
91822896|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||1.87|1.00|
91822897|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.53|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||1.53|0.83|
91822898|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||1.3|0.59|
91822899|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.29|0.9|
91822900|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22||||||Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.22|0.86|
91822901|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.13|0.7|
91822902|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.31|0.9|
91822903|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.32|0.91|
91822904|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.24|0.76|
91822905|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.15|.7|
91822906|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.48|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.48|.74|
91822907|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life -Self Care outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.21|.72|
91822908|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.5|.89|
91822909|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.38|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.38|.65|
91822910|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.31|.81|
91822911|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.39|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.39|.87|
91822912|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.25|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.25|.6|
91822913|NCT02391948|183522615|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.53|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.53|.92|
91822914|NCT02391948|183522619|OTHER||population average|2319.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1460.0|3218.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||3218|1460|
91822915|NCT02391948|183522619|OTHER||population average|1858.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1233.0|2530.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||2530|1233|
91822916|NCT02391948|183522620|OTHER||population average|5240.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3874.0|6670.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||6670|3874|
91822917|NCT02391948|183522620|OTHER||population average|4319.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3258.0|5443.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||5443|3258|
91822918|NCT02391948|183522621|OTHER||population average|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|151.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||151|67|
91822919|NCT02391948|183522621|OTHER||population average|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|145.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||145|58|
91822920|NCT02391948|183522621|OTHER||population average|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|35.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model. This analysis combined children in GMFCS Levels III-V.||35|0|
91822921|NCT02391948|183522622|OTHER||population average|2815.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2025.0|3650.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||3650|2025|
91822922|NCT02391948|183522622|OTHER||population average|3109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2502.0|3739.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||3739|2502|
91822923|NCT02391948|183522622|OTHER||population average|1056.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|471.0|1665.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model. This analysis combined children in GMFCS Levels III-V.||1665|471|
91822924|NCT02348489|183522626|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate (%)|1.92||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-3.67|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The complete response rate was compared between the treatment groups using a Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test at an alpha level of 0.04 stratified to adjust for stratification factors used at randomization: age (\<75 or \>=75), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0-1, 2-3), study center region (North American, Europe, Rest of World), and secondary AML (secondary to MDS or other antecedent hematologic disorder) or poor-risk cytogenetics (Yes, No/Unknown).||7.5|-3.67|0.482
91822925|NCT02348489|183522627|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14|||Stratified log-rank|||Overall survival curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared between the treatment groups using a 2-sided stratification log-rank test, stratified by the same factors used at randomization: age (\<75 or \>=75), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0-1, 2-3), study center region (North American, Europe, Rest of World), and secondary AML (secondary to MDS or other antecedent hematologic disorder) or poor-risk cytogenetics (Yes, No/Unknown).||1.14|0.83|0.7328
91822926|NCT01969838|183522635|NON_INFERIORITY|To evaluate the noninferiority of MMB over RUX, a conventional 2-sided confidence interval (CI) was calculated for the difference in splenic response rate (SRR) at Week 24: delta = prob(MMB) - 0.6\*prob(RUX). If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for delta was greater than 0, MMB was declared noninferior to RUX in SRR at Week 24. The 2-sided 95% CI of delta was calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) proportions. This is the noninferiority proportion difference.|Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.09||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.16|0.02|0.014
91822927|NCT01969838|183522636|NON_INFERIORITY|To evaluate the noninferiority of MMB over RUX, a conventional 2-sided CI was calculated for the difference in TSS response rate at Week 24: delta = prob(MMB) - 0.67\*prob(RUX). If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for delta was greater than 0, MMB was declared to be noninferior to RUX in TSS response rate at Week 24. The 2-sided 95% CI of delta was calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) proportions. This is called the noninferiority proportion difference.|Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.08|-0.08|0.98
91822928|NCT01969838|183522637|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.43|||Negative Binomial Model, Adjusted||A smaller ratio represents larger benefit.|||0.43|0.19|<0.001
91822929|NCT01969838|183522638|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A larger proportion represents larger benefit.|||0.26|0.09|<0.001
91822930|NCT01969838|183522639|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|-0.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A smaller proportion represents larger benefit.|||-0.02|-0.19|0.019
91822931|NCT00408993|183522640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.617||95.0||||Treatment effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05 and interaction effects at 0.10. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator and Baseline.||With 104 patients per arm, the study has at least 85% power to detect a treatment group difference of -1.20 points in baseline to endpoint mean change on the BPI 24-hour average pain score between Duloxetine and Placebo. Sample size determined using a two-sided t-test with alpha=0.05, and assuming a common standard deviation of 2.5 and a discontinuation rate of 25%.||||0.617
91822932|NCT00408993|183522641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||P-value for Worst Pain Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.070
91822933|NCT00408993|183522641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-value for Least Pain Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.151
91822934|NCT00408993|183522641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value for Pain Right Now Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.012
91822935|NCT00408993|183522641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0||||P-value for Average Interference Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.077
91822936|NCT00408993|183522642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.036
91822937|NCT00408993|183522643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955||95.0||||P-value for Visit 3|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.955
91822938|NCT00408993|183522643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Visit 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.004
91822939|NCT00408993|183522643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Visit 5|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.037
91952427|NCT02129192|183801336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-inf of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.23|102.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg||102.10|98.23|
91822940|NCT00408993|183522643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Visit 6|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
91822941|NCT00408993|183522643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-value for Visit 7|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.028
91822942|NCT00408993|183522644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.207
91952428|NCT02129192|183801337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|64.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.59|69.59|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for telmisartan 80 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||69.59|59.59|1.0000
91952429|NCT02129192|183801337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.69|102.29|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for amlodipine 5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||102.29|96.69|<0.0001
91952430|NCT02129192|183801337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|89.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.02|93.79|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||93.79|86.02|<0.0001
91952431|NCT00976521|183801340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint of infarct size at 30 days measured by cardiac MRI, was summarized using the median, IQR, minimum and maximum values, in each infusion group, comparing the pooled active infusion arm to the pooled control non-infusion arm with the Wilcoxon rank sum test in the ITT analysis set. Data was only analyzed in subjects completing the cardiac MRI study and for whom the imaging data was received and deemed analyzable by the core laboratory.||||0.034
91952432|NCT00976521|183801341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint of infarct size at 30 days measured by cardiac MRI, was summarized using the median, IQR, minimum and maximum values, in each infusion group, comparing the pooled active infusion arm to the pooled control non-infusion arm with the Wilcoxon rank sum test in the ITT analysis set. Data was only analyzed in subjects completing the cardiac MRI study and for whom the imaging data was received and deemed analyzable by the core laboratory.||||0.51
91952433|NCT00465894|183801345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
91952434|NCT00129220|183801365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-2.37|||ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||-2.37|-8.87|<0.001
91952435|NCT00129220|183801366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|4.59|||ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olazapine minus Haloperidol.|||4.59|-6.15|0.774
91952436|NCT00129220|183801367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|21.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||40.4|1.6|0.064
91952437|NCT00129220|183801368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.21|||ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||0.21|-1.15|0.171
91952438|NCT00129220|183801369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.15||P-value for 3-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||-0.15|-0.87|0.006
91822943|NCT00408993|183522645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
91822944|NCT00408993|183522647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0||||P-value for 5-Item Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.364
91952439|NCT00129220|183801369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.57||P-value for 6-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||0.57|-0.82|0.722
91952440|NCT00129220|183801370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|20.1||P-value for 3-Week Response Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.1|-6.7|0.333
91952441|NCT00129220|183801370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|18.4||P-value for 6-Week Response Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|-21.0|0.908
91952442|NCT00129220|183801371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|19.2||P-value for 3-Week Remission Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||19.2|-7.3|0.384
91952443|NCT00129220|183801371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|21.8||P-value is for 6-Week Remission Rate|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||21.8|-21.3|0.982
91822945|NCT00408993|183522647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||P-value for 8-Item Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.590
91952444|NCT00129220|183801372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.9||P-value for 3-Week Symptomatic Depression Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.9|-3.2|0.698
91952445|NCT00129220|183801372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|3.4||P-value for 6-Week Symptomatic Depression Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.4|-31.7|0.014
91822946|NCT00408993|183522648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.620
91822947|NCT00408993|183522649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0|||||ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.324
91822948|NCT00408993|183522650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0||||P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure|ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.642
91822949|NCT00408993|183522650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0||||P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure|ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.601
91822950|NCT00408993|183522651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value for Chloride|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.014
91822951|NCT00408993|183522651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.005
91822952|NCT00408993|183522651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Sodium|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.011
91822953|NCT00408993|183522651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||P-value for triglycerides|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.044
91822954|NCT00408993|183522652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-values.||||||0.017
91822955|NCT04193202|183522653|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|0.75||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.44|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|The model included terms for treatment group, visit, interaction of treatment by visit, gender, and baseline LCQ total score.|The estimated difference is the treatment difference in model based mean change from baseline at Week 12|||1.44|0.06|0.034
91822956|NCT04193202|183522654|OTHER||Estimated Difference|-6.92||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-1.97||Nominal p value, not controlled for multiplicity|Longitudinal ANCOVA|The model included terms for treatment group, visit, interaction of treatment by visit, gender, and baseline mean weekly cough severity VAS score.|The estimated difference is the treatment difference in model based mean change from baseline at Week 12.|||-1.97|-11.88|0.006
91822957|NCT01777997|183522657|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, repeated measures (GEE)|||Estimated mean change from baseline to weeks 24-48 on ART from repeated measures (GEE) model, against the null hypothesis of zero change. Estimated mean represents on ART levels minus pre-ART levels.||||0.001
91822958|NCT04622254|183522672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91822959|NCT04622254|183522673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91822960|NCT04622254|183522674|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91822961|NCT04622254|183522675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91822962|NCT04622254|183522676|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91822963|NCT04622254|183522677|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91822964|NCT04622254|183522678|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91822965|NCT04622254|183522679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91822966|NCT04622254|183522680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91822967|NCT04622254|183522681|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91822968|NCT04622254|183522682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91822969|NCT04622254|183522683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91822970|NCT04622254|183522684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91822971|NCT04622254|183522684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91822972|NCT04622254|183522685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91822973|NCT04622254|183522685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91822974|NCT02652624|183522688|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 470 participants (\~235 participants per treatment group) would provide at least 87% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 4% difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 between the 2 treatment groups. This was based on the assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL (based on Gilead Genvoya and Stribild studies) and that the significance level of the test is at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.9|2.9|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95.001% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the B/F/TAF group was at least 4% higher than the rate in the SBR group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL in the B/F/TAF group was less than 4% higher than that in the SBR group.||2.9|-2.9|
91822975|NCT02652624|183522688|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91822976|NCT02652624|183522689|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of B/F/TAF would be established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.001% CI of the difference between the treatment groups (B/F/TAF group - SBR group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in percentages|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-3.7|4.5|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95.001% CIs were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||4.5|-3.7|
91822977|NCT02652624|183522689|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91822978|NCT02652624|183522690|OTHER||Difference in least square means|3.0||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.0|||ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect in the model.|||34|-27|0.84
91822979|NCT03228680|183522695|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority (NI) margin was -3.0 oocytes. The NI was evaluated based on the two-sided 95% CI from the ANOVA on 'number of oocytes retrieved' with treatment and AMH stratum as fixed factors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||||If the lower bound of 95% CI was well above pre-specified NI limit of -3.0 oocytes, then NI of FE 999049 to FOLLISTIM with respect to number of oocytes retrieved in women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation would be demonstrated|Mean number of oocytes retrieved.||-0.1|-2.3|
91822980|NCT03228680|183522696|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|10.6|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of participants with at least one gestational sac 5-6 weeks after transfer.||10.6|-7.5|
91822981|NCT03228680|183522697|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.6|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of participants with positive beta-hCG.||9.6|-9.5|
91822982|NCT03228680|183522698|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|10.8|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of participants with vital pregnancy.||10.8|-6.7|
91822983|NCT03228680|183522699|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|12.8|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of implanted embryos 5-6 weeks after transfer.||12.8|-8.9|
91822984|NCT03228680|183522701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with blastocyst transfer cancellation.||||0.244
91822985|NCT03228680|183522702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with \<4 oocytes retrieved (low response).||||0.254
91822986|NCT03228680|183522702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with 4-7 oocytes retrieved (moderate response).||||0.041
91822987|NCT03228680|183522702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.705||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with 8-14 oocytes retrieved (targeted response).||||0.705
91822988|NCT03228680|183522702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with 15-19 oocytes retrieved (hyperresponse).||||0.183
91822989|NCT03228680|183522702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with \>= (more than equal to) 20 oocytes retrieved (severe hyperresponse).||||0.030
91822990|NCT03228680|183522703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants with extreme ovarian responses: AMH \< 15 pmol/L (\<4 oocytes retrieved)||||0.893
91822991|NCT03228680|183522703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants with extreme ovarian responses: AMH \>= 15 pmol/L (\>=15 oocytes retrieved)||||0.002
91822992|NCT03228680|183522703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P-value based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants with extreme ovarian responses: AMH \>= 15 pmol/L (\>=20 oocytes retrieved)||||0.021
91822993|NCT03228680|183522705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportions of participants with early OHSS (any grade).||||0.017
91822994|NCT03228680|183522705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe).||||0.035
91822995|NCT03228680|183522705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with early OHSS (any grade) and/or preventive interventions.||||0.006
91822996|NCT03228680|183522705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe) and/or preventive interventions.||||0.009
91822997|NCT03228680|183522706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportions of participants with late OHSS (any grade).||||0.968
91822998|NCT03228680|183522706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportions of participants with late OHSS (moderate/severe).||||0.582
91822999|NCT03228680|183522707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of follicles on stimulation Day 6 was analyzed.||||0.198
91823000|NCT03228680|183522708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of follicles at end-of-stimulation was analyzed.||||0.036
91823001|NCT03228680|183522709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The average size of 3 largest follicles was analyzed.||||0.592
91823002|NCT03228680|183522710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The average size of 3 largest follicles was analyzed.||||0.286
91823003|NCT03228680|183522711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The fertilization rate (number of oocytes with 2 pronuclei divided by the number of oocytes retrieved) was analyzed.||||0.395
91823004|NCT03228680|183522712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of embryos on Day 3 was analyzed.||||0.001
91823005|NCT03228680|183522712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of good-quality embryos on Day 3 was analyzed.||||0.004
91823006|NCT03228680|183522713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of blastocysts on Day 5 was analyzed.||||<.001
91823007|NCT03228680|183522713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of good-quality blastocysts on Day 5 was analyzed.||||<0.001
91823008|NCT03228680|183522714|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.03||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.09||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of FSH on stimulation Day 6.||1.09|0.98|0.228
91952446|NCT00129220|183801373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.48||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.25||P-value for 3-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||-0.25|-2.71|0.019
91823009|NCT03228680|183522714|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.97||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of LH on stimulation Day 6.||1.17|0.81|0.777
91823010|NCT03228680|183522715|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.94||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of FSH at end-of-stimulation.||0.94|0.84|<0.001
91823011|NCT03228680|183522715|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.17||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.39||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of LH at end-of-stimulation.||1.39|1.00|0.057
91823012|NCT03228680|183522716|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of estradiol on stimulation Day 6.||0.93|0.71|0.002
91823013|NCT03228680|183522717|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.95||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of estradiol at end-of-stimulation.||0.95|0.76|0.003
91823014|NCT03228680|183522718|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.02||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of progesterone on stimulation Day 6.||1.16|0.89|0.814
91823015|NCT03228680|183522719|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of progesterone levels at end-of-stimulation.||0.88|0.68|<0.001
91823016|NCT03228680|183522720|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin A on stimulation Day 6.||0.92|0.73|<0.001
91823017|NCT03228680|183522721|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.88||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin A at end-of-stimulation.||0.88|0.72|<0.001
91823018|NCT03228680|183522722|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin B on stimulation Day 6.||0.93|0.75|<0.001
91823019|NCT03228680|183522723|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.88||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin B at end-of-stimulation.||0.99|0.79|0.027
91823020|NCT03228680|183522724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of stimulation days at end-of-stimulation.||||0.694
91823021|NCT03732638|183522745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-1.46|0.0099
91823022|NCT03732638|183522746|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|0.2|0.0438
91823023|NCT03732638|183522747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-1.34|0.0017
91823024|NCT03732638|183522748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.31||P-value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary endpoints listed after this endpoint in the hierarchy were not tested.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.80|0.3868
91823025|NCT03192150|183522766|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the primary efficacy endpoint was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction) of differences between treatments in the proportion of participants with ACC Grade 0 who did not receive rescue medication versus all other grades combined.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||||||< 0.0001
91823026|NCT03192150|183522767|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.311||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.311|4.074||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 1||4.074|1.311|0.0054
91823027|NCT03192150|183522767|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.581|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.967|6.519||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 8||6.519|1.967|< 0.0001
91952447|NCT00129220|183801373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.62||P-value for 6-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||1.62|-1.95|0.855
91823028|NCT03192150|183522767|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.503|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.909|6.426||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 15||6.426|1.909|< 0.0001
91823029|NCT03192150|183522767|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.659|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.987|6.736||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 18||6.736|1.987|< 0.0001
91823030|NCT03192150|183522767|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.952||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.596|5.462||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 29||5.462|1.596|0.0008
91823031|NCT01420302|183522770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91823032|NCT02214147|183522806|OTHER|The effect of hepatic impairment on alisertib PK. Combined analysis of moderate and severe hepatic impairment in reference to normal hepatic function.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.8|||||Least Squares Geometric Means Ratio= Moderate + Severe Hepatic Impairment/Normal Hepatic Function|||1.80|1.12|
91823033|NCT02214147|183522807|OTHER|The effect of hepatic impairment on alisertib PK. Combined analysis of moderate and severe hepatic impairment in reference to normal hepatic function.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.33|4.43|||||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio=Moderate + Severe Hepatic Impairment/Normal Hepatic Function|||4.43|2.33|
91823034|NCT02214147|183522808|OTHER|The effect of hepatic impairment on alisertib PK. Combined analysis of moderate and severe hepatic impairment in reference to normal hepatic function.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.53|||||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio=Moderate + Severe Hepatic Impairment/Normal Hepatic Function|||3.53|1.84|
91823035|NCT05446909|183522827|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91823036|NCT05446909|183522828|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91823037|NCT05446909|183522829|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91823038|NCT05446909|183522830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91823039|NCT05446909|183522831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.754
91823040|NCT05446909|183522832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.985
91823041|NCT05446909|183522833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.877
91823042|NCT03759223|183522834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||0:24 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
91823043|NCT03759223|183522834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||0:24 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91823044|NCT03759223|183522834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||12:12 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.58
91823045|NCT05421078|183522847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.53|-15.14||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.14|-36.53|<.0001
91823046|NCT05421078|183522847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-22.66||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.66|-44.01|<.0001
91823047|NCT05421078|183522847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-25.55||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-25.55|-46.68|<.0001
91823048|NCT05421078|183522848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.53|-15.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||p value is calculated||-15.14|-36.53|<.0001
91823049|NCT05421078|183522848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-22.66||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.66|-44.01|<.0001
91823050|NCT05421078|183522848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-25.55||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-25.55|-46.68|<.0001
91823051|NCT05421078|183522849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.53|-15.14||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.14|-36.53|<.0001
91823052|NCT05421078|183522849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-22.66||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.66|-44.01|<.0001
91823053|NCT05421078|183522849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-25.55||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-25.55|-46.68|<.0001
91823054|NCT05421078|183522850|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|-16.04||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-16.04|-38.37|<.0001
91823055|NCT05421078|183522850|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.36|-20.1||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-20.10|-42.36|<.0001
91823056|NCT05421078|183522850|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-25.8||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-25.80|-47.83|<.0001
91823057|NCT05421078|183522851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|-16.04||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-16.04|-38.37|<.0001
91823058|NCT05421078|183522851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.36|-20.1||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-20.10|-42.36|<.0001
91823059|NCT05421078|183522851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-25.8||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-25.80|-47.83|<.0001
91823060|NCT05421078|183522852|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|-16.04||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-16.04|-38.37|<.0001
91823061|NCT05421078|183522852|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.36|-20.1||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-20.10|-42.36|<.0001
91823062|NCT05421078|183522852|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-25.8||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-25.80|-47.83|<.0001
91823063|NCT05421078|183522853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-12.18||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-12.18|-25.83|<.0001
91823064|NCT05421078|183522853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|-15.62||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.62|-29.28|<.0001
91823065|NCT05421078|183522853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.406|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.62|-18.1||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.10|-31.62|<.0001
91823066|NCT05421078|183522854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-12.18||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-12.18|-25.83|<.0001
91823067|NCT05421078|183522854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|-15.62||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.62|-29.28|<.0001
91823068|NCT05421078|183522854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.406|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.62|-18.1||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.10|-31.62|<.0001
91823069|NCT05421078|183522855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-12.18||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-12.18|-25.83|<.0001
91823070|NCT05421078|183522855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|-15.62||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.62|-29.28|<.0001
91823071|NCT05421078|183522855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.406|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.62|-18.1||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.10|-31.62|<.0001
91823072|NCT05421078|183522856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-14.31||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.31|-33.56|<.0001
91823073|NCT05421078|183522856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.01|-18.76||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.76|-38.01|<.0001
91823074|NCT05421078|183522856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|-19.03||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.03|-38.08|<.0001
91823075|NCT05421078|183522857|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-14.31||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.31|-33.56|<.0001
91823076|NCT05421078|183522857|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.01|-18.76||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.76|-38.01|<.0001
91823077|NCT05421078|183522857|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|-19.03||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.03|-38.08|<.0001
91823078|NCT05421078|183522858|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-14.31||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.31|-33.56|<.0001
91823079|NCT05421078|183522858|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.01|-18.76||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.76|-38.01|<.0001
91823080|NCT05421078|183522858|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|-19.03||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.03|-38.08|<.0001
91823081|NCT05421078|183522859|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|133.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.205|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.85|153.36||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||153.36|112.85|<.0001
91823082|NCT05421078|183522859|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|147.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.17|167.64||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||167.64|127.17|<.0001
91823083|NCT05421078|183522859|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|155.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.93|176.02||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||176.02|135.93|<.0001
91823084|NCT05421078|183522860|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|133.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.205|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.85|153.36||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||153.36|112.85|<.0001
91952448|NCT00129220|183801374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|5.7||P-value for 6-Week Syndromic Depression Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.7|-14.9|0.136
91952449|NCT00129220|183801375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Maximum Change from Baseline.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.003
91823085|NCT05421078|183522860|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|147.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.17|167.64||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||167.64|127.17|<.0001
91823086|NCT05421078|183522860|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|155.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.93|176.02||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||176.02|135.93|<.0001
91823087|NCT05421078|183522861|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|133.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.205|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.85|153.36||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||153.36|112.85|<.0001
91823088|NCT05421078|183522861|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|147.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.17|167.64||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||167.64|127.17|<.0001
91823089|NCT05421078|183522861|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|155.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.93|176.02||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||176.02|135.93|<.0001
91823090|NCT05944250|183522921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91823091|NCT05944250|183522925|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 1||||1
91823092|NCT05944250|183522925|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 2||||1
91823093|NCT05944250|183522925|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 3||||1
91823094|NCT05944250|183522925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 4||||0.15
91823095|NCT05944250|183522926|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 1||||1
91823096|NCT05944250|183522926|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 2||||1
91823097|NCT05944250|183522926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 3||||0.59
91823098|NCT05944250|183522926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 4||||0.09
91823099|NCT00086580|183522927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|0.795|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model was stratified by Rai Stage Group||||0.795|0.467|<0.001
91823100|NCT00086580|183522928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15||P-value presented is adjusted for multiple tests using Hochberg procedure for 3 clinically important secondary endpoints: ORR, CR rates and OS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH chi-square test for a difference in overall response rates between treatments stratified by Rai Stage Group.|Difference and confidence interval (CI) calculated using the recommended method by Altman et al.|Comparison of Overall Response.||0.15|-0.03|0.178
91823101|NCT00086580|183522928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.15||P-value presented is adjusted for multiple tests using Hochberg procedure for 3 clinically important secondary endpoints: ORR, CR rates and OS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH chi-square test for a difference in complete response rates between treatments stratified by Rai Stage Group.|Difference and confidence interval (CI) calculated using the recommended method by Altman et al.|Comparison of complete response (CR).||0.15|0.02|0.018
91823102|NCT00086580|183522929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.648||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.937||P-value presented is adjusted for multiple tests using Hochberg procedure for 3 clinically important secondary endpoints: ORR, CR rates and OS.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Rai Stage Group||||0.937|0.449|0.042
91823103|NCT00086580|183522930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.562|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.752|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model stratified by Rai Stage Group.||||0.752|0.420|<0.001
91823104|NCT00086580|183522932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.718||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|0.951|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Rai Stage Group.||||0.951|0.543|0.021
91823105|NCT00086580|183522940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.059|||Regression, Cox|||||1.059|0.531|0.102
91823106|NCT00086580|183522941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|0.671|||Regression, Cox|||||0.671|0.292|<0.001
91823107|NCT00086580|183522942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.066||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.836|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model||||1.836|0.619|0.819
91823108|NCT00086580|183522943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.69|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model||||0.690|0.250|<0.001
91823109|NCT00086580|183522946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH chi-square test for a difference in response rates between treatments stratified by Rai Stage Group.||||0.08|0.01|0.014
91823110|NCT03296163|183522951|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis was based on the risk ratio (RR) (MB02/EU-approved Avastin) with an equivalence margin predefined \[0.73, 1.36\].~The ORR estimate was stratified using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the RR and corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI)."|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.06|||||Direction of comparison is: For RR: MB02/EU-approved Avastin. 95% CI was also calculated: (0.758, 1.092)|||1.060|0.780|
91823111|NCT03296163|183522951|EQUIVALENCE|The ORR estimate was stratified using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the risk difference (RD) (MB02-EU-approved Avastin) with an equivalence margin predefined \[-12%, 12%\] and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.51|2.47|||||Direction of comparison is: For RD: MB02 - EU-approved Avastin. 95% CI was also calculated: (-11.76, 3.71)|||2.47|-10.51|
91823112|NCT03296163|183522952|OTHER|Hazard ratio of MB02 versus EU-approved Avastin; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in MB02; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in EU-approved Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.44||||||||1.44|0.98|
91823113|NCT03296163|183522953|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.485||||||||1.485|0.827|
91823114|NCT00558103|183522968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.2|43.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||43.3|17.2|
91823115|NCT00558103|183522968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.9|59.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||59.3|30.9|
91823116|NCT00558103|183522968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.8|62.1||Comparision of participants receiving lapatanib 1500 mg + placebo to historical control of 10% response rate|t-test, 1 sided||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving lapatanib 1500 mg + placebo with CR and PR.|||62.1|32.8|<0.001
91823117|NCT00558103|183522968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|57.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||57.3|11.3|
91823118|NCT00558103|183522968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.3|71.5||Comparision of participants receiving lapatanib 1000 mg + pazopanib 400 mg to 10% historical response rate|t-test, 1 sided||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving lapatanib 1000 mg + pazopanib 400 mg with CR and PR.|||71.5|43.3|<0.001
91823119|NCT00558103|183522968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|11.0||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|29.7|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percent difference in the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||29.7|-8.3|0.485
91823120|NCT00558103|183522968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|27.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|52.0|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percent difference in the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||52.0|2.3|0.116
91823121|NCT00308711|183522972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|1595.5||||0.974||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Log Rank||This was a Kaplan-Meier analysis of median time to vaginal delivery. Cervidil was compared separately to MVI 100 and MVI 50.|Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in time to vaginal delivery for MVI 100 compared to time to vaginal delivery for Cervidil.||||0.974
91823122|NCT00308711|183522972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1977.0||||0.011||95.0|1977.0|2253.0|||Log Rank|||||2253|1977|0.011
91823123|NCT00308711|183522973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority (NI) margin was within 15% relative to the rate of cesarean section for the comparator (Cervidil 10 mg dinoprostone vaginal insert).|Cox Proportional Hazard|27.8||||0.64||95.0|23.61|32.31|||Fisher Exact|||||32.31|23.61|0.64
91823124|NCT00308711|183522973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was rate of cearean section within 15% of Cervidil rate.|Cox Proportional Hazard|28.0||||0.59||95.0|23.86|32.42|||Fisher Exact|||||32.42|23.86|0.59
91823125|NCT01556204|183522981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||This p-value is from a single comparison between two arms for operative time.|t-test, 2 sided|||Variance estimates for this power analysis were taken from Nezhat C, et al, 2010. We determined that 37 subjects in each arm were needed to detect a difference of ≥ 32 minutes in operating time between conventional and robotic surgery for endometriosis with 80% power and a significance level of 0.05.||||0.71
91952450|NCT01883362|183801382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.86|||Log Rank|||||1.86|0.12|0.2655
91823126|NCT01556204|183522982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||This applies to Row title: Baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||Secondary analysis for pain at baseline for robotic vs conventional laparoscopy for endometriosis.||||0.53
91823127|NCT01556204|183522982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||This applies to Row title: 6-weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scores at 6 weeks comparison between robotic and laparoscopy.||||0.53
91823128|NCT01556204|183522982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||This applies to Row title: 6-months|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scores at 6 months for robotic vs laparoscopy.||||0.48
91823129|NCT04590495|183522990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.9460
91823130|NCT04590495|183522991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5699|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.5699
91823131|NCT04590495|183522992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6068
91823132|NCT04590495|183522993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.9030
91823133|NCT04590495|183522994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2668
91823134|NCT04590495|183522995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8749||||||adjusted for baseline VAMS score|paired t test|||||||0.8749
91823135|NCT04590495|183522996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7922||||||adjusted for baseline VAMS score for physical sedation|paired t test|||||||0.7922
91823136|NCT04590495|183522997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9925||||||adjusted for baseline SSS score|paired t test|||||||0.9925
91823137|NCT04590495|183522998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2628||||||adjusted for baseline score|paired t test|||||||0.2628
91823138|NCT04590495|183522999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0347||||||adjusted for baseline scores|paired t test|||||||0.0347
91823139|NCT04590495|183523000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6331||||||adjusted for baseline score|paired t test|||||||0.6331
91823140|NCT04590495|183523001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472||||||adjusted for baseline score|paired t test|||||||0.4720
91823141|NCT04590495|183523002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||adjusted for baseline reaction time|paired t test|||||||0.0200
91823142|NCT04590495|183523003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||adjusted for baseline reaction time|paired t test|||||||0.0620
91823143|NCT02318693|183523007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-8.8||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|6.2|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||6.2|-23.8|0.245
91823144|NCT02318693|183523008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-5.9||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.6|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||-0.6|-11.3|0.029
91823145|NCT02318693|183523009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-12.8||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-0.5|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||Comparison: Change from Baseline in Maximum Incremental Postprandial Glucose Levels at Breakfast. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||-0.5|-25.1|0.041
91952451|NCT01883362|183801383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.14|0.17|0.4297
91823146|NCT02318693|183523009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-14.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-0.5|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||Comparison: Change from Baseline in Maximum Incremental Postprandial Glucose Levels at Lunch. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||-0.5|-28.1|0.043
91823147|NCT02318693|183523009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|5.1||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|20.4|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||Comparison: Change from Baseline in Maximum Incremental Postprandial Glucose Levels at Dinner. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||20.4|-10.3|0.509
91823148|NCT02318693|183523010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|15.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|28.8|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||28.8|2.5|0.020
91823149|NCT02318693|183523011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.1||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|||Comparison: Change in Baseline in Percentage of Hypoglycemic Values \< 70 mg/dL. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||0.3|-2.5|0.134
91823150|NCT02318693|183523011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|||Comparison: Change in Baseline in Percentage of Hypoglycemic Values \< 60 mg/dL. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||0.4|-1.5|0.226
91823151|NCT02318693|183523011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.0||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|||Comparison: Change in Baseline in Percentage of Hypoglycemic Values \< 50 mg/dL. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||0.0|-0.1|0.332
91823152|NCT03591575|183523012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0446|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patients who reached the serum ferritin threshold at any time point prior to Month 12 were withdrawn from the study as per protocol, so that they could begin on standard chelation therapy. For these individuals, imputed data were used to estimate the values that would likely have been seen at Month 12 had they remained in the study.||||0.0446
91823153|NCT03591575|183523013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0446||||||he p-value shown here is for the difference between the groups at Month 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0446
91823154|NCT02915744|183523024|OTHER||ESMO-MCBS (v1.0)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91823155|NCT00813358|183523026|NON_INFERIORITY|NI=7%|KM product-limit estimator|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||||100|97.4|
91823156|NCT04011475|183523045|OTHER|||||||0.0276|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0276
91823157|NCT04011475|183523045|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.604|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) was from Cox regression comparing group A versus group B using group B as reference.|||1.604|0.47|0.6665
91823158|NCT04011475|183523045|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.377||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|5.221|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) was from Cox regression comparing group A versus group C using group C as reference.|||5.221|1.083|0.0310
91823159|NCT04011475|183523045|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.716||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.901|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) was from Cox regression comparing group B versus group C using group C as reference.|||5.901|1.250|0.0116
91823160|NCT04011475|183523046|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.67||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.04|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group A versus Group B using Group B as the reference group.|||1.04|0.43|0.0756
91823161|NCT04011475|183523046|OTHER||Rate ratio|4.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|8.4|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||8.40|2.27|< 0.0001
91823162|NCT04011475|183523046|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.34||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.68|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group C versus Group A using Group A as the reference group.|||0.68|0.17|0.0022
91823163|NCT04011475|183523047|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.25||||0.7394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.65|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||4.65|0.34|0.7394
91823164|NCT04011475|183523048|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.11|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group A versus Group B using Group B as the reference group.|||1.11|0.38|0.1116
91823165|NCT04011475|183523048|OTHER||Rate ratio|3.78||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|7.88|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||7.88|1.81|0.0004
91823166|NCT04011475|183523048|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.41||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.89|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group C versus Group A using Group A as the reference group.|||0.89|0.19|0.0239
91823167|NCT04011475|183523049|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.71||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.61|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group A versus Group B using Group B as the reference group.|||1.61|0.32|0.4164
91823168|NCT04011475|183523049|OTHER||Rate ratio|7.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|30.8|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||30.8|1.59|0.0100
91823169|NCT04011475|183523049|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.2||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.91|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group C versus Group A using Group A as the reference group.|||0.91|0.04|0.0377
91823170|NCT04011475|183523050|OTHER|||||||0.2035|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2035
91823171|NCT04011475|183523051|OTHER|||||||0.1858|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test was applied for assessing the inter-group difference.||||||0.1858
91823172|NCT04011475|183523052|OTHER|||||||0.0144|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.0144
91823173|NCT04011475|183523052|OTHER|||||||0.9219|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.9219
91823174|NCT04011475|183523052|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.9590
91952452|NCT01883362|183801384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.2424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.20|0.2424
91952453|NCT01883362|183801385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.14|0.17|0.4297
91952454|NCT01883362|183801386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.79|||Log Rank|||||1.79|0.19|0.3418
91823175|NCT04011475|183523053|OTHER|||||||0.2909|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.2909
91823176|NCT04011475|183523053|OTHER|||||||0.1618|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.1618
91823177|NCT04011475|183523053|OTHER|||||||0.4695|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.4695
91823178|NCT04011475|183523054|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||> 0.9999
91823179|NCT04011475|183523054|OTHER|||||||0.2516|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.2516
91823180|NCT04011475|183523054|OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.0036
91823181|NCT04011475|183523055|OTHER|||||||0.6189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.6189
91823182|NCT04011475|183523055|OTHER|||||||0.7656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.7656
91823183|NCT04011475|183523055|OTHER|||||||0.3594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.3594
91823184|NCT04011475|183523056|OTHER|||||||0.0483|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test was applied for assessing the inter-group difference.||||||0.0483
91823185|NCT00600821|183523059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.093||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.761||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified by gender and prior adjuvant therapy.||1.761|0.679|0.639
91823186|NCT00600821|183523060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.689||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified by gender and prior adjuvant therapy.||1.689|0.739|0.699
91823187|NCT00600821|183523061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.676||||0.9422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.107|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by gender and prior adjuvant therapy. Risk ratio in comparison to the Bevacizumab group was calculated assuming all other factors as constant.||1.107|0.412|0.9422
91823188|NCT02066298|183523129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||exact binomial test|a priori threshold for significance was 0.025||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either mometasone is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which mometasone is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to mometasone. The trial was designed to provide power of 0.85 for a 0.20 difference between the proportions being compared at a significance level of 0.025.||||0.14
91823189|NCT02066298|183523129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.025|exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either tiotropium is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which tiotropium is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to tiotropium. The trial was designed to provide power of 0.85 for a 0.20 difference between the proportions being compared at a significance level of 0.025.||||0.029
91823190|NCT02066298|183523129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||this analysis is considered exploratory|exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either mometasone is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which mometasone is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to mometasone. This was an exploratory analysis and there were no power considerations.||||0.001
91823191|NCT02066298|183523129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||this analysis is considered exploratory|exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either tiotropium is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which tiotropium is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to tiotropium. This was an exploratory analysis and there were no power considerations.||||0.45
91952455|NCT01883362|183801387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.4169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.74|||Log Rank|||||2.74|0.09|0.4169
91823192|NCT03160703|183523189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.2681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.01|-0.05|0.2681
91823193|NCT03160703|183523189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.02|-0.08|0.0043
91823194|NCT03160703|183523189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.05||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.05|-0.12|<.0001
91823195|NCT03160703|183523189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.08||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.08|-0.15|<.0001
91823196|NCT03160703|183523189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.06|-0.00|0.0779
91823197|NCT03160703|183523189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.1||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.10|0.03|0.0001
91823198|NCT00047463|183523247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that the groups would be similar in tolerance. This was a pilot study so we did not do a power calculation.||||0.26
91823199|NCT03235024|183523282|EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 52 per group would achieve \>80% power to reject the null hypothesis of equal means when the population mean difference is μ1 - μ2 = (-1.4) - (-5.3) = 3.9 with a standard deviation for both groups of 7.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.025 using a 1-sided 2-sample equal variance t-test.||||||0.0228||||||At Week 2|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0228
91823200|NCT02357576|183523289|OTHER|Percentage and frequencies were used to describe the incidence of PNAC in the two groups.||||||0.617|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.617
91823201|NCT02357576|183523290|OTHER|Percentage and frequencies were used to describe the incidence of severe PNAC.||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.450
91823202|NCT02357576|183523291|OTHER|The Kaplan Meier curve was used to evaluated the time to first PNAC event.||||||0.2716|||||||Log Rank|A log rank test was used to test the equality of the survival curve between the two groups.||||||0.2716
91823203|NCT00261716|183523308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||Intent to treat analysis||||.33
91823204|NCT00261716|183523309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=36||intent to treat analysis||||.75
91823205|NCT00261716|183523310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=17||||||.41
91823206|NCT00261716|183523311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|Fishers exact= 1.0; one degree of freedom||intent to treat --all participants who obtained at least one job||||>.05
91823207|NCT00261716|183523311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.05
91823208|NCT00261716|183523312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status effect- F(1,12)=..85||Intent to treat analysis||||.37
91823209|NCT00261716|183523312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|time effect F(1,54)=.2.05||||||.16
91823210|NCT00261716|183523312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status X time effect F (1,54)=.. 24||||||.63
91823211|NCT00261716|183523313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status effect F(1,12)=.26||intent to treat analysis||||.62
91823212|NCT00261716|183523313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|time effect F (1,58)=.21 ,.||||||.65
91823213|NCT00261716|183523313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status X time effect F(1,58)=.06||||||.81
91823214|NCT00261716|183523314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status effect F(1,12)=1.95,||Intent to treat analysis||||.19
91823215|NCT00261716|183523314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|time effect (1.54)=2.99,||||||.09
91823216|NCT00261716|183523314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status X time effect (F(1,54)=.74||||||.39
91823217|NCT00128180|183523315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
91823218|NCT02047110|183523329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.2652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|26.6||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, ASAS 40 response at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|To control the type I error rate, the primary endpoint was tested in a hierarchical fixed sequence approach. The proportion of patients achieving ASAS 40 response at Week 12 was pairwise compared in the following sequence: risankizumab 180 mg vs. placebo (1.) and risankizumab 90 mg vs. placebo (2.). The significance level was 5% (1-sided). The comparison risankizumab 18 mg vs. placebo was not included in the formal testing sequence; an exploratory p-value was provided.||26.6|-12.1|0.2652
91823219|NCT02047110|183523329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.4129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|20.8||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, ASAS 40 response at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|To control the type I error rate, the primary endpoint was tested in a hierarchical fixed sequence approach. The proportion of patients achieving ASAS 40 response at Week 12 was pairwise compared in the following sequence: risankizumab 180 mg vs. placebo (1.) and risankizumab 90 mg vs. placebo (2.). The significance level was 5% (1-sided). The comparison risankizumab 18 mg vs. placebo was not included in the formal testing sequence; an exploratory p-value was provided.||20.8|-15.9|0.4129
91823220|NCT02047110|183523329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|17.0||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, ASAS 40 response at Week 12, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|To control the type I error rate, the primary endpoint was tested in a hierarchical fixed sequence approach. The proportion of patients achieving ASAS 40 response at Week 12 was pairwise compared in the following sequence: risankizumab 180 mg vs. placebo (1.) and risankizumab 90 mg vs. placebo (2.). The significance level was 5% (1-sided). The comparison risankizumab 18 mg vs. placebo was not included in the formal testing sequence; an exploratory p-value was provided.||17.0|-21.8|0.4243
91823221|NCT02047110|183523330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.4||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||-0.1|-0.7|0.0229
91823222|NCT02047110|183523330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.3||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.1||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||0.1|-0.6|0.1038
91823223|NCT02047110|183523330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.5||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||-0.1|-0.7|0.0101
91823224|NCT02047110|183523331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|33.8||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||33.8|-4.6|0.0238
91823225|NCT02047110|183523331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|35.3||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||35.3|-0.8|0.0120
91823226|NCT02047110|183523331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|31.4||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||31.4|-7.1|0.0465
91823227|NCT02047110|183523332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.4|19.4|||||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|p-values are not presented as they were not meaningful; 3 treatment groups had only a single patient with partial remission.||19.4|-19.4|
91823228|NCT02047110|183523332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|18.3|||||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|p-values are not presented as they were not meaningful; 3 treatment groups had only a single patient with partial remission.||18.3|-18.3|
91823229|NCT02047110|183523332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|26.6|||||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|p-values are not presented as they were not meaningful; 3 treatment groups had only a single patient with partial remission.||26.6|-12.1|
91823230|NCT02047110|183523333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.5|43.1||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||43.1|5.5|0.0092
91823231|NCT02047110|183523333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|30.5||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||30.5|-5.9|0.1243
91823232|NCT02047110|183523333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|31.4||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||31.4|-7.1|0.1198
91823233|NCT02047110|183523334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.4||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.2||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||0.2|-1.0|0.1241
91952456|NCT00798161|183801497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.36||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.36|-0.79|<0.0001
91823234|NCT02047110|183523334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|0.3||||0.3033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.0||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||1.0|-0.5|0.3033
91823235|NCT02047110|183523334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.2||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.4||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||0.4|-0.8|0.3203
91823236|NCT02047110|183523335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|26.6||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 24, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||26.6|-12.1|0.2639
91823237|NCT02047110|183523335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.2691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|25.7||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 24, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||25.7|-10.9|0.2691
91952457|NCT00798161|183801497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.73|-0.3||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.30|-0.73|<0.0001
91823238|NCT02047110|183523335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|17.0||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 24, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||17.0|-21.8|0.4174
91823239|NCT01959581|183523358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA||||<.05
91823240|NCT03304379|183523360|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.63|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|-0.286||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using a Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with baseline randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction.||-0.286|-0.971|= 0.0003
91823241|NCT03304379|183523360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||>|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.154|-0.383||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||"(mFAS)~Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using a MMRM model with baseline, randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction"||-0.383|-1.154|> 0.0001
91823242|NCT03304379|183523361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.981|-0.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using a Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with baseline randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction.||-0.290|-0.981|= 0.0003
91823243|NCT03304379|183523361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.198|-0.443||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|MMRM|||"(mFAS)~Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using an Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with baseline randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction."||-0.443|-1.198|<0.0001
91823244|NCT03304379|183523362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.581|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.195|2.092||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analyses are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model.||2.092|1.195|= 0.0013
91823245|NCT03304379|183523363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||=|0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.009||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analyses are based on a multiple imputation approach using Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model.||-0.009|-0.28|= 0.0365
91952458|NCT00798161|183801497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.55||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.55|-0.99|<0.0001
91952459|NCT00798161|183801497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.36|-0.92||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.92|-1.36|<0.0001
91952460|NCT00798161|183801498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.56|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.26|-0.56|<0.0001
91952461|NCT00798161|183801498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.53|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.23|-0.53|<0.0001
91823246|NCT03402243|183523378|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.75|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized to a total menthol ban smoked relative to those randomized to a menthol cigarette ban|||1.75|1.1|
91823247|NCT03402243|183523378|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.11|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized to a menthol cigarettes ban relative to those randomized to no menthol ban|||1.11|0.68|
91823248|NCT03402243|183523378|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.45|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized to a menthol ban for cigarettes and e-cigarettes relative to those randomized to no menthol ban|||1.45|0.99|
91823249|NCT03402243|183523378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Average number of puffs per participants over the 6 week study period||||0.349
91823250|NCT03402243|183523379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison among groups in number of cigarette packs selected||||0.185
91823251|NCT03402243|183523379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison among groups in number of e-cigarette liquid units selected||||0.076
91823252|NCT03402243|183523380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
91891199|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.12||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0485
91952462|NCT00798161|183801498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.65|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs Linagliptin 2.5mg with metformin 500mg||-0.35|-0.65|<0.0001
91952463|NCT00798161|183801498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.48|-0.79|<0.0001
91952464|NCT00798161|183801499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.72|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.31|-0.72|<0.0001
91823253|NCT02802345|183523385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.431||0.7191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|2.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 12 weeks).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline SGRQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline SGRQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned. Data collected after Visit 5 (planned 12 weeks after start of study treatment) were not used for this analysis.|"H0: There is no difference in the mean change from baseline in SGRQ total score at Week 12 between treatment with nintedanib co-administered with sildenafil and treatment with nintedanib alone.~Ha: There is a difference in the mean change from baseline in SGRQ total score at Week 12 between treatment with nintedanib co-administered with sildenafil and treatment with nintedanib alone."|2.30|-3.33|0.7191
91823254|NCT02802345|183523386|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.198||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|1.39|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 12 weeks)|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline UCSD SOBQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline UCSD SOBQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned. Data collected after Visit 5 (planned 12 weeks after start of study treatment) were not used for this analysis.||1.39|-7.27|0.1823
91823255|NCT02802345|183523387|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.631||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.02|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 24 weeks)|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline SGRQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline SGRQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned.||1.02|-5.40|0.1809
91823256|NCT02802345|183523388|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.529||0.3421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|2.58|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 24 weeks)|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline UCSD SOBQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline UCSD SOBQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned.||2.58|-7.39|0.3421
91823257|NCT02802345|183523389|SUPERIORITY||Percentage ratio (%)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.2|||||Within strata confidence limits are calculated according to Wald. Percentage ratio = (% of Nintedanib+sildenafil) / (% of Nintedanib+placebo).|Relative risk, Comparison of treatment groups is calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the categorical covariate presence of any echocardiographic signs indicative of right heart dysfunction (yes/no), adjusted Mantel-Haenszel type risk ratios and risk differences with 95% confidence are presented.||1.20|0.58|
91823258|NCT02802345|183523389|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference (%)|-5.37||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|5.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Within strata confidence limits are calculated according to Wald. Percentage difference = (% of Nintedanib+sildenafil) - (% of Nintedanib+placebo).|Risk difference, Comparison of treatment groups is calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the categorical covariate presence of any echocardiographic signs indicative of right heart dysfunction (yes/no), adjusted Mantel-Haenszel type risk ratios and risk differences with 95% confidence are presented.||5.52|-16.25|0.334
91823259|NCT03969212|183523390|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.68|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.5|0.93|||GEE|||The odds ratio (OR) shown represents the odds of Baloxavir Marboxil (BMX) versus the odds of Placebo.||0.93|0.50|= 0.013
91823260|NCT03969212|183523391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.75|||=|0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.5|1.12|||GEE model|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.12|0.50|= 0.1550
91823261|NCT03969212|183523392|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo}]|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.55|1.06||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.06|0.55|
91823262|NCT03969212|183523393|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.46|1.04||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.04|0.46|
91823263|NCT03969212|183523394|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.48|0.91|||GEE model|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||0.91|0.48|
91823264|NCT03969212|183523395|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.48|1.09|||Two-Sided P-value|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.09|0.48|
91823265|NCT03969212|183523396|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.53|0.94|||Two-Sided P-value|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||0.94|0.53|
91823266|NCT03969212|183523397|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.59|1.06||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.06|0.59|
91823267|NCT03969212|183523398|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.49|1.07|||Two-Sided P-value|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.07|0.49|
91823268|NCT03969212|183523399|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.48|1.04||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.04|0.48|
91823269|NCT03773757|183523407|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of NPI-Q patient over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model that included a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.8719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8719
91823270|NCT03773757|183523408|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of SM-EOLD over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model that included a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.8389|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8389
91823271|NCT03773757|183523409|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of PHQ-8 over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model that included a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.3431|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3431
91823272|NCT03773757|183523410|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of NPI-Q caregiver distress over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model including a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.6612|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6612
91823273|NCT03773757|183523411|SUPERIORITY|A zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) model was used to compare the mean numbers of hospitalization/ED events between the two groups. The ZIP model consists of a combination of a standard Poisson distribution for count data and a binary logistic regression model to account for additional zero events exceeding what would be expected from an underlying Poisson distribution.||||||0.0007|||||||Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression Model|||||||0.0007
91823274|NCT00550836|183523426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||It was calculated that 39 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have 80% to detect a difference in median survival of 6 vs. 9.7 months for GE vs. PGE respectively with a minimum follow up of 6 months. Sample size was determined using a 1-sided log-rank test at alpha=0.20.||||0.36
91823275|NCT00550836|183523427|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91823276|NCT00550836|183523428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.419
91823277|NCT00550836|183523429|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.36
91823278|NCT01848990|183523465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference ≤0.40, it is concluded that Hylenex recombinant preadministration is noninferior to standard CSII.|least squares mean treatment difference|0.05||||0.4516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.18|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment (Hylenex, standard rapid-acting insulin CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|Sample size calculated based on approximately 400 participants (Pt) being enrolled. No more than 10% dropout rate at 6 months allowed at least 270 Hylenex and 90 standard CSII Pt to reach primary metabolic endpoint evaluation. Assuming HbA1c standard deviation of 0.7% and population difference of 0% between treatments, Pt reaching primary efficacy endpoint would provide \>90% power to demonstrate HbA1c noninferiority at margin of 0.4% using confidence bound from 2-tailed 95% confidence interval.||0.18|-0.08|0.4516
91823279|NCT01848990|183523466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference ≤0.40, it is concluded that Hylenex recombinant preadministration is noninferior to standard CSII.|least squares mean treatment difference|0.14||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, standard rapid-acting insulin CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|Sample size calculated based on approximately 400 Pt being enrolled. No more than 10% dropout rate at 6 months allowed at least 270 Hylenex and 90 standard CSII Pt to reach primary metabolic endpoint evaluation. Assuming HbA1c standard deviation of 0.7% and population difference of 0% between treatments, Pt reaching primary efficacy endpoint would provide \>90% power to demonstrate HbA1c noninferiority at margin of 0.4% using confidence bound from 2-tailed 95% confidence interval.||0.28|-0.01|0.0711
91823280|NCT01848990|183523467|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.69||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<56 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0105
91823281|NCT01848990|183523467|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.79||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<=70 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0130
91823282|NCT01848990|183523467|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.78||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|||||Nocturnal HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0511
91823283|NCT01848990|183523467|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.34||||0.1176|TWO_SIDED|||||Severe HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.1176
91823284|NCT01848990|183523468|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.81||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<56 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0456
91823285|NCT01848990|183523468|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.92||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<=70 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.2322
91823286|NCT01848990|183523468|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.87||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|||||Nocturnal HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.1365
91823287|NCT01848990|183523468|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|1.07||||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|||||Severe HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.8909
91823288|NCT01848990|183523469|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.98||||0.7292|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>240 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.7292
91823289|NCT01848990|183523469|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.95||||0.5895|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>300 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.5895
91823290|NCT01848990|183523470|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|1.04||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>240 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.5414
91823291|NCT01848990|183523470|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|1.03||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>300 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.7110
91823292|NCT01848990|183523471|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-3.4||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|7.5||Breakfast|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7.5|-14.2|0.5394
91823293|NCT01848990|183523471|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|4.3||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|14.8||Lunch|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||14.8|-6.1|0.4151
91823294|NCT01848990|183523471|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.6||Dinner|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||9.6|-9.5|0.9930
91823295|NCT01848990|183523471|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.2||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.9||Overall|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||6.9|-6.4|0.9410
91823296|NCT01848990|183523472|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-4.8||||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|4.7||Breakfast|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||4.7|-14.3|0.3239
91823297|NCT01848990|183523472|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.4||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.2||Lunch|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||10.2|-7.4|0.7540
91823298|NCT01848990|183523472|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-1.1||||0.7904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|7.2||Dinner|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7.2|-9.5|0.7904
91823299|NCT01848990|183523472|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-2.6||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4||Overall|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||3.4|-8.5|0.4016
91823300|NCT01848990|183523473|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-1.4||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.9|-5.6|0.5260
91823301|NCT01848990|183523474|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.5||||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||4.7|-3.7|0.8049
91823302|NCT01848990|183523475|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%||||||0.8955||||||HbA1c \<7.0%|Chi-squared|||||||0.8955
91823303|NCT01848990|183523475|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%||||||0.8926||||||HbA1c ≤6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.8926
91823304|NCT01848990|183523476|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.13||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.03|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.03|-0.76|0.7735
91823305|NCT01848990|183523477|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-1.1||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.0||Daily bolus dose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.0|-4.1|0.4948
91823306|NCT01848990|183523477|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|2.3||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.2||Daily basal dose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||5.2|-0.5|0.1099
91823307|NCT01848990|183523477|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.4||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.6||Daily total dose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||6.6|-3.7|0.5830
91823308|NCT01848990|183523478|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.1|-1.0|0.8778
91823309|NCT01848990|183523479|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-2.1||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|2.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.1|-6.3|0.3233
91823310|NCT01848990|183523481|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.0||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|7.8||Average glucose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7.8|-5.8|0.7708
91823311|NCT01848990|183523481|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.8||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.6||Median glucose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||8.6|-5.0|0.6058
91823312|NCT01848990|183523481|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.7||||0.6571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.5||Average daily standard deviation|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.5|-4.0|0.6571
91823313|NCT01848990|183523482|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-2.2||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|6.9||Time per day \<56 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||6.9|-11.3|0.6252
91823314|NCT01848990|183523482|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-5.5||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|14.9||Time per day ≤70 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||14.9|-25.9|0.5929
91823315|NCT01848990|183523482|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|6.9||||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|28.3||Time per day \>70 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||28.3|-14.4|0.5207
91823316|NCT01848990|183523482|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-23.3||||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.8|41.2||Time per day \<140 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||41.2|-87.8|0.4754
91823317|NCT01848990|183523482|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|23.9||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|88.6||Time per day ≥140 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||88.6|-40.7|0.4644
91823318|NCT01848990|183523482|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|2.8||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|59.8||Time per day outside of 71 to 180 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||59.8|-54.2|0.9232
91823319|NCT01848990|183523482|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|18.4||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|74.4||Time per day outside of 71 to 139 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||74.4|-37.5|0.5151
91823320|NCT01848990|183523483|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-33.5||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.9|48.9||Area per day \<56 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||48.9|-115.9|0.4216
91823321|NCT01848990|183523483|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-84.7||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-379.2|209.8||Area per day ≤70 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||209.8|-379.2|0.5697
91823322|NCT01848990|183523483|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|342.9||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6772.3|7458.2||Area per day ≥140 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7458.2|-6772.3|0.9241
91823323|NCT01848990|183523483|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|2.8||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|59.8||Area per day outside of 71 to 180 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||59.8|-54.2|0.9232
91823324|NCT01848990|183523483|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|258.2||||0.9423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6792.2|7308.7||Area per day outside of 71 to 139 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Least squares mean treatment difference (Hylenex minus Standard CSII)|||7308.7|-6792.2|0.9423
91823325|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4||Leisure activities|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.4|-0.7|0.5246
91823326|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.1||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Work life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.5|-0.8|0.6380
91952465|NCT00798161|183801499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.63|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.22|-0.63|<0.0001
91823327|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4||Local or long distance travel|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.4|-0.7|0.5719
91823328|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.4052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||Vacations|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.3|-0.8|0.4052
91823329|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Do physically|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.7240
91823330|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.6876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Family life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.6876
91823331|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.6478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Friendships and social life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.6478
91823332|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||Close personal relationship|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.6|0.9744
91823333|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.3||||0.3177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||Sex life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.8|-0.3|0.3177
91823334|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.3||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||Physical appearance|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.7|-0.2|0.2087
91823335|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||Self-confidence|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.5|-0.4|0.7907
91823336|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.3||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||Motivation|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.3|-0.8|0.3444
91823337|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.2||||0.2175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||The way people in general react|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.1|0.2175
91823338|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.4||||0.2062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||Feelings about the future|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.2|-1.0|0.2062
91952466|NCT00798161|183801499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.92|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.51|-0.92|<0.0001
91952467|NCT00798161|183801499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.16|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.75|-1.16|<0.0001
91823339|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||Financial situation|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.5|0.8762
91823340|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||Living situation and conditions|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.5|-0.5|0.8900
91823341|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.5||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2||Depend on others|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.2|-1.1|0.1367
91823342|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.3||||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9||Freedom to eat|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.9|-0.3|0.3144
91823343|NCT01848990|183523484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Freedom to drink|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.6869
91823344|NCT01848990|183523485|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.3|-0.3|0.9901
91823345|NCT01848990|183523486|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||DTSQs|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.3|-1.1|0.9081
91823346|NCT01848990|183523486|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||DTSQc|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.6|-1.5|0.9840
91823347|NCT01312766|183523517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The one-way Analysis of Variance with Least-Squares means was performed to calculate the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference between the two treatments. If the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference between means (hMG-IBSA minus Menopur®) was greater than -2.1, then hMG-IBSA would be considered to be not-inferior to the comparator.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.43|||ANOVA|||||3.43|0.43|0.012
91952468|NCT00798161|183801500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.73|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.29|-0.73|<0.0001
91823348|NCT01312766|183523518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
91823349|NCT01312766|183523520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
91823350|NCT01312766|183523521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91823351|NCT01312766|183523524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
91823352|NCT01312766|183523525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91823353|NCT01312766|183523526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91823354|NCT01312766|183523527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91823355|NCT01312766|183523528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91823356|NCT01312766|183523529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
91823357|NCT00298038|183523530|SUPERIORITY|Analysis based on the overall comparison of time to the first breakthrough overt HE episode between rifaximin and placebo groups adjusting for analysis region, using the Cox proportional hazards model (Score test, \[that is, Log rank test stratified by analysis region\]) with a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.05 under the proportional hazards assumption.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|0.641|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.641|0.276|<0.0001
91823358|NCT01940705|183523539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.578||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for Hearing Aid Skills and Knowledge test Skills scale||||0.001
91823359|NCT01940705|183523539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.235||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for Hearing Aid Skills and Knowledge test Knowledge scale||||0.003
91823360|NCT01940705|183523540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.956||||0.414|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.414
91823361|NCT01940705|183523541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.847
91823362|NCT02447991|183523542|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.33||||||Significance level p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of vertigo as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.33
91823363|NCT02447991|183523543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.18||||||Signficant at p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of unsteadiness/dizziness as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication||||<0.18
91823364|NCT02447991|183523544|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.62||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of vertigo as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience freedom from vestibular symptoms (i.e., severity rating of Grade 0) at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.62
91952469|NCT00798161|183801500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.69|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.26|-0.69|<0.0001
91952470|NCT00798161|183801500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.94|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.49|-0.94|<0.0001
91952471|NCT00798161|183801500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.3|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.86|-1.30|<0.0001
91823365|NCT02447991|183523545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.19||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportions of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of unsteadiness/dizziness as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience freedom from vestibular symptoms (i.e., severity rating of Grade 0) at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.19
91823366|NCT02447991|183523546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.14||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of headaches as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.14
91823367|NCT02447991|183523547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.72||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of photophobia/phonophobia as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.72
91823368|NCT02447991|183523548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.48||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of sensitivity to motion as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.48
91823369|NCT02447991|183523549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.35||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of nausea/vomiting as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication..||||<0.35
91823370|NCT02447991|183523550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.022||||||Significance of threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with effectiveness of study medication||||<0.022
91823371|NCT02447991|183523550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.418||||||Significance of threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with side effects of study medication||||<0.418
91823372|NCT02447991|183523550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.674||||||Significance of threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with convenience of study medication||||<0.674
91823373|NCT02447991|183523550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||Significance of threshold of p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with overall satisfaction of study medication||||<0.016
91823374|NCT02447991|183523551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.009||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on physical well-being||||<0.009
91952472|NCT00798161|183801501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.0005||95.0|-27.2|-7.6|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-7.6|-27.2|0.0005
91823375|NCT02447991|183523551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.467||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on mental well-being||||<0.467
91823376|NCT02447991|183523552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.013||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Logistic regression with GEE|GEE=generalized estimating equations - this accounts for repeated measures within patients.This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be tolerated as well as placebo with regard to fatigue.||||<0.013
91823377|NCT02447991|183523552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.021||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Logistic regression with GEE|GEE=generalized estimating equations - this accounts for repeated measures within patients. This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be tolerated as well as placebo with regard to sleepiness/drowsiness||||<0.021
91823378|NCT02447991|183523553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.76||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of vertigo measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.76
91823379|NCT02447991|183523554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.041||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of unsteadiness/dizziness episodes measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.041
91823380|NCT02447991|183523555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.12||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of headaches measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.12
91823381|NCT02447991|183523556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.051||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of photophobia/phonophobia measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.051
91952473|NCT00798161|183801501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.0006||95.0|-27.1|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-7.3|-27.1|0.0006
91952474|NCT00798161|183801501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-34.4|-14.8|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-14.8|-34.4|<0.0001
91952475|NCT00798161|183801501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-50.6|-31.0|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. linagliptin 2.5mg with metformin 1000mg||-31.0|-50.6|<0.0001
91823382|NCT02447991|183523557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of sensitivity to motion measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.006
91823383|NCT02447991|183523558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.67||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of nausea/vomiting measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.67
91823384|NCT03551210|183523559|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority bound was designated at the level of -15%|Difference in percentage|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|13.0||||||||13.0|-0.7|
91823385|NCT03551210|183523559|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||=|0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.29|0.49|=0.499
91823386|NCT03551210|183523560|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.3|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|9.7|||Barnard's test|||Visit 2||9.7|-0.6|=0.08
91823387|NCT03551210|183523560|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.7|||=|0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.8|||Barnard's test|||Visit 3||9.8|-2.0|=0.246
91823388|NCT03551210|183523561|OTHER||||||=|0.154|||||||Barnard test|||||||=0.154
91823389|NCT03551210|183523562|OTHER||||||=|0.14|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.14
91823390|NCT03551210|183523563|OTHER||||||=|0.26|||||||Barnard test|||||||=0.26
91823391|NCT03551210|183523564|OTHER||||||=|0.14||||||Visit 2 assessment|Barnard's test|||||||=0.14
91952476|NCT00798161|183801502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.0003||95.0|-22.9|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-6.8|-22.9|0.0003
91823392|NCT03551210|183523564|OTHER|||||||0.515||||||Visit 3 assessment|Barnard's test|||||||0.515
91823393|NCT03551210|183523564|OTHER|||||||0.515||||||Visit 4 assessment|Barnard's test|||||||0.515
91823394|NCT01513317|183523612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.082||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter is the difference in proportion of participants who had a reduction in RBC transfusion to treat the anemia of MDS.|||0.20|-0.03|0.271
91823395|NCT01513317|183523613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.07||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.93|||ANCOVA||The estimated parameter is the difference in LS means of the change from baseline hemoglobin levels at Week 13.|||0.93|-0.79|0.872
91823396|NCT01513317|183523614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.042||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter is the difference in proportion of participants achieving hemoglobin improvement at Week 13.|||0.15|-0.06|0.494
91823397|NCT01513317|183523615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.002||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter is the difference in proportion of participants who did not require a blood transfusion in the 8 weeks of treatment before unblinding at Week 13.|||0.09|-0.09|0.986
91823398|NCT01513317|183523616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.96||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.27|||ANCOVA||The estimated parameter is the difference in LS means for changes from baseline in bone marrow blasts at Week 13.|||6.27|-2.35|0.363
91823399|NCT01513317|183523617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.69||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.17|||ANCOVA||The estimated parameter is the difference in LS means of the number of RBC transfusions during the 8 weeks of treament before unblinding at Week 13.|||0.17|-3.55|0.073
91823400|NCT00274716|183523663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||0.9|-5.3|0.157
91823401|NCT00274716|183523663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||-1.0|-7.1|0.010
91823402|NCT00274716|183523663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||-0.1|-6.4|0.042
91823403|NCT00274716|183523663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||4.1|-2.1|0.517
91823404|NCT00274716|183523663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||2.3|-3.9|0.602
91823405|NCT00274716|183523664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||-0.1|-9.7|0.046
91823406|NCT00274716|183523664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||0.9|-8.7|0.108
91823407|NCT00274716|183523664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||0.8|-9.0|0.099
91952477|NCT00798161|183801502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-24.9|-8.8|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-8.8|-24.9|<0.0001
91952478|NCT00798161|183801502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.5|-13.4|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-13.4|-29.5|<0.0001
91952479|NCT00798161|183801502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-33.6|-17.6|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-17.6|-33.6|<0.0001
91823408|NCT00274716|183523664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||4.1|-5.7|0.752
91823409|NCT00274716|183523664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||5.0|-4.7|0.941
91823410|NCT00274716|183523665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||-0.7|-2.2|<0.001
91823411|NCT00274716|183523665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||-0.4|-1.9|0.003
91823412|NCT00274716|183523665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||-1.0|-2.4|<0.001
91823413|NCT00274716|183523665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||1.0|-0.5|0.462
91823414|NCT00274716|183523665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||1.3|-0.2|0.118
91823415|NCT00274716|183523666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||0.1|-3.7|0.059
91823416|NCT00274716|183523666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||-1.7|-5.5|<0.001
91952480|NCT00798161|183801503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-26.7|-9.1|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-9.1|-26.7|<0.0001
91823417|NCT00274716|183523666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||0.5|-3.3|0.136
91823418|NCT00274716|183523666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||1.4|-2.2|0.686
91823419|NCT00274716|183523666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||-0.3|-4.0|0.022
91823420|NCT00274716|183523667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||-3.7|-20.8|0.005
91823421|NCT00274716|183523667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||0.5|-16.7|0.066
91823422|NCT00274716|183523667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||4.4|-13.4|0.319
91823423|NCT00274716|183523667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||0.8|-16.4|0.077
91823424|NCT00274716|183523667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|5.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||5.1|-12.2|0.418
91823425|NCT00274716|183523668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||-1.2|-11.3|0.015
91823426|NCT00274716|183523668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||1.1|-9.2|0.124
91823427|NCT00274716|183523668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||7.2|-3.1|0.429
91952481|NCT00798161|183801503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0002||95.0|-25.6|-7.9|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-7.9|-25.6|0.0002
91952482|NCT00798161|183801503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-36.7|-19.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-19.1|-36.7|<0.0001
91823428|NCT00274716|183523668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-3.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||-3.4|-13.3|0.001
91823429|NCT00274716|183523668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||-1.1|-11.1|0.018
91823430|NCT00274716|183523669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|22.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||22.8|-12.9|0.587
91823431|NCT00274716|183523669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|12.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||12.8|-23.5|0.562
91823432|NCT00274716|183523669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|20.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||20.4|-15.8|0.802
91823433|NCT00274716|183523669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|20.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||20.5|-15.2|0.772
91823434|NCT00274716|183523669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|10.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||10.6|-25.9|0.409
91823435|NCT01257204|183523674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.9|36.8|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||36.8|4.9|
91823436|NCT01257204|183523674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.9|36.3|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||36.3|3.9|
91823437|NCT01257204|183523683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.8|26.7|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||26.7|-6.8|
91823438|NCT01257204|183523683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.4|24.2|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||24.2|-9.4|
91823439|NCT01268644|183523697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P value comparing baseline to week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
91823440|NCT01268644|183523698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P value comparing week 0 with week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91823441|NCT01268644|183523699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||P value comparing week 0 to week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
91823442|NCT01268644|183523700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.75
91823443|NCT01222494|183523705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.01
91823444|NCT01222494|183523706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.04
91823445|NCT01222494|183523707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.70
91823446|NCT01222494|183523708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.003
91823447|NCT01174030|183523711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.392|||<|0.001||95.0|2.637|26.71|||GEE:Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||26.710|2.637|<0.001
91823448|NCT01174030|183523711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.269||||0.549||95.0|0.586|2.747|||GEE:Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||2.747|0.586|0.549
91823449|NCT01174030|183523711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.738||||0.027||95.0|1.097|12.742|||GEE:Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||12.742|1.097|0.027
91823450|NCT01174030|183523712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.683||||0.003||95.0|1.388|5.188|||GEE:Logit link Function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model||||5.188|1.388|.003
91823451|NCT01174030|183523712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.892||||0.056||95.0|0.98|3.651|||GEE: Logit link Function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||3.651|0.980|0.056
91823452|NCT01174030|183523712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.885||||0.074||95.0|0.946|3.756|||GEE:Logit link Function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||3.756|0.946|0.074
91823453|NCT01174030|183523713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.582|||<|0.001||95.0|2.755|15.723|||GEE: Logit link function|Generalize Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||15.723|2.755|<0.001
91823454|NCT01174030|183523713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.853||||0.093||95.0|0.903|3.802|||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||3.802|0.903|0.093
91952483|NCT00798161|183801503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-46.4|-28.8|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-28.8|-46.4|<0.0001
91952484|NCT00798161|183801504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.0024||95.0|-23.7|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-5.1|-23.7|0.0024
91823455|NCT01174030|183523713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.365||||0.054||95.0|0.96|5.825|||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||5.825|0.960|0.054
91823456|NCT03779997|183523722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Log-linear GEE regression|||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of urine drug tests (UDT) negative for opioids between the two treatment arms.Treatment-as-usual (TAU) is the reference group.||1.02|0.60|0.07
91823457|NCT03779997|183523723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.1||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs|||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the percentage of patients engaged in treatment at week 12. TAU is the reference group.||1.10|0.65|0.20
91823458|NCT03779997|183523724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.16||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs|||Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in the percentage of participants engaged in treatment at week 24 post-randomization. TAU is the reference group.||1.16|0.45|0.18
91823459|NCT03779997|183523725|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.7||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms on the number of consecutive weeks with UDT negative for opioids.||2.7|-0.9|0.31
91823460|NCT03779997|183523726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.26||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in the number of participants who self-reported illicit opioid use at week 12.||2.26|0.23|0.57
91823461|NCT03779997|183523727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.066||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|GEE Poisson regression||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in the mean number of days adherent to buprenorphine by self-report.||1.15|0.89|0.88
91823462|NCT03779997|183523729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.24||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in number of participants who had one or more urine drug tests negative for buprenorphine.||3.24|0.42|0.77
91823463|NCT03779997|183523730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.43||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in number of participants who tested positive for stimulants at week 12.||1.43|0.32|0.30
91823464|NCT03779997|183523731|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided||TAU is the reference group|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in mean treatment satisfaction scores||0.32|-0.29|0.91
91823465|NCT04086472|183523732|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.31||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.25|7.64|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||7.64|-10.25|0.808
91823466|NCT04086472|183523732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.51||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.46|2.43|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||2.43|-15.46|0.229
91823467|NCT04086472|183523732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.81||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.58|3.96|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||3.96|-13.58|0.363
91823468|NCT04086472|183523732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.92||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.87|3.02|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||3.02|-14.87|0.273
91823469|NCT04086472|183523733|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.57|37.78|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|||37.78|-36.57|
91823470|NCT04086472|183523733|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|-22.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|15.53|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|||15.53|-56.70|
91823471|NCT04086472|183523733|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|-17.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.09|20.01|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|||20.01|-53.09|
91823472|NCT04086472|183523733|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|-22.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|15.53|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|Treatment vs. Placebo||15.53|-56.70|
91823473|NCT00436280|183523761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.512|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|1.206|||||Comparing GCB versus non-GCB|Comparing GCB versus non-GCB||1.206|0.217|
91823474|NCT00436280|183523762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.989|||||Comparing High Expression versus Low Expression|Comparing High Expression versus Low Expression||1.989|0.388|
91823475|NCT01663259|183523773|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion event-free at 1 and 2 years calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals were calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
91952485|NCT00798161|183801504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0002||95.0|-27.4|-8.7|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-8.7|-27.4|0.0002
91952486|NCT00798161|183801504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-37.1|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-18.5|-37.1|<0.0001
91952487|NCT00798161|183801504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-50.8|-32.2|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-32.2|-50.8|<0.0001
91952488|NCT00798161|183801505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-30.4|-11.4|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-11.4|-30.4|<0.0001
91823476|NCT01663259|183523774|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Survival proportion estimates at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
91823477|NCT01663259|183523775|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion LRP event-free at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
91823478|NCT01532687|183523778|SUPERIORITY|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.017|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Statistical results are for the full randomized population (n = 54). The study was originally designed with overall one-sided alpha of 5%, where a total of 73 patients (36 in the gemcitabine + placebo arm, and 37 in the gemcitabine + pazopanib arm) were required to achieve 80% power to detect a 2.5 month increase in median PFS (a hazard ratio of 0.55) between the two treatment arms. Study was closed early by the sponsor due to slow accrual and funds and thus was under powered.||||0.017
91823479|NCT01532687|183523778|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.195|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Comparison between the two arms for the liposarcoma subgroup||||0.195
91823480|NCT01532687|183523778|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.079|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Statistical results are for the 'other' sarcoma subgroup (n = 38)||||0.079
91823481|NCT01532687|183523780|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not powered for secondary endpoints. Given the study closed early due to slow enrollment, we do not anticipate detecting a statistical difference between the two groups||||||0.5||||||Yate's continuity correction was applied because of the number of subjects and successes (n = 4)|One-sided Proportions Test|||Statistical results are for the full randomized population (n = 54). The study tests whether gemcitabine plus pazopanib is superior to gemcitabine plus placebo (one-sided proportion test with Yate's continuity correction)||||0.5
91823482|NCT01532687|183523780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Yate's continuity correction was applied because of small number of participants (n = 16) and successes (n = 2).|One-sided Proportion Test|||Statistical results are for the Liposarcoma group (n = 16). The study tests whether gemcitabine plus pazopanib is superior to gemcitabine plus placebo (one-sided proportion test with Yate's continuity correction). Analysis was not powered for the secondary endpoints. Given the study closed early due to slow enrollment we do not anticipate detecting a statistical difference between the groups.||||0.3
91823483|NCT01532687|183523780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Yate's continuity correction was applied because of the small number of participants and successes (n = 2).|One-sided Proportion Test|||Statistical results are for the Other Sarcoma group (n = 38). The study tests whether gemcitabine plus pazopanib is superior to gemcitabine plus placebo (one-sided proportion test with Yate's continuity correction). Analysis was not powered for secondary endpoints. Given the study closed early due to slow enrollment, we do not anticipate detecting a statistical difference between the two groups.||||0.8
91952489|NCT00798161|183801505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.0003||95.0|-27.4|-8.3|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-8.3|-27.4|0.0003
91823484|NCT01532687|183523781|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.481|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Overall survival estimated among all randomized participants (n = 54)||||0.481
91823485|NCT01532687|183523781|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.353|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Overall survival compared between the two arms for the liposarcoma subgroup (n = 16)||||0.353
91823486|NCT01532687|183523781|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.408|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Overall survival comparison between the two treatment arms for the other sarcoma group (n = 38)||||0.408
91823487|NCT04116229|183523782|EQUIVALENCE|"Alternative hypothesis: people with normal-weight BMI have lower DBSI restricted fraction, or putative cellularity, than people with obesity.~Null hypothesis: DBSI restricted fraction, or putative cellularity, is not different between normal-weight and obese groups."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Independent-Samples Median Test|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.||||0.28
91823488|NCT04116229|183523782|EQUIVALENCE|"Alternative hypothesis: people with normal-weight BMI have lower DBSI hindered fraction, or putative vasogenic edema, than people with obesity.~Null hypothesis: DBSI hindered fraction, or putative vasogenic edema, is not different between normal-weight and obese groups."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Independent-Samples Median Test|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.||||0.03
91952490|NCT00798161|183801505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|-35.0|-15.9|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-15.9|-35.0|<0.0001
91952491|NCT00798161|183801505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|-48.5|-29.4|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5 mg with Metformin 1000 mg||-29.4|-48.5|<0.0001
91952492|NCT00798161|183801506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.372||||0.0062||95.0|1.278|4.402|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||4.402|1.278|0.0062
91823489|NCT04116229|183523783|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse crystallized cognitive function will relate to greater putative vasogenic edema (DBSI HF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Crystallized cogntive function is not related to DBSI HF."|Slope|-0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.01
91823490|NCT04116229|183523783|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse fluid cognitive function will relate to greater putative vasogenic edema (DBSI HF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Fluid cogntive function is not related to DBSI HF."|Slope|0.52||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.10
91823491|NCT04116229|183523783|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse crystallized cognitive function will relate to greater putative cellularity (DBSI RF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Crystallized cognitive function is not related to DBSI RF."|Slope|-0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.01
91823492|NCT04116229|183523783|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse fluid cognitive function will relate to greater putative cellularity (DBSI RF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Fluid cognitive function is not related to DBSI RF."|Slope|0.22||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.10
91823493|NCT04116229|183523784|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of insulin, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Insulin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.18|||>|0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||>0.46
91823494|NCT04116229|183523784|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of insulin, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Insulin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.22|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||>0.5
91823495|NCT04116229|183523785|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of leptin, a pro-inflammatory marker and satiety hormone, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Leptin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.15||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.62
91952493|NCT00798161|183801506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.163|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.343|7.397|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||7.397|2.343|<0.0001
91823496|NCT04116229|183523785|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of leptin, a pro-inflammatory marker and satiety hormone, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Leptin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.82
91823497|NCT04116229|183523786|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of ghrelin, an anti-inflammatory marker and hunger hormone, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Ghrelin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.19||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.53
91823498|NCT04116229|183523786|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of ghrelin, an anti-inflammatory marker and hunger hormone, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Ghrelin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.12||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.71
91823499|NCT04116229|183523787|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: greater HOMA-IR, where higher HOMA-IR indicates greater insulin resistance, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: HOMA-IR levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.19||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.53
91952494|NCT00798161|183801506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.854|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.363|9.973|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||9.973|2.363|<0.0001
91952495|NCT00798161|183801506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.094|||<|0.0001||95.0|8.238|35.471|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||35.471|8.238|<0.0001
91823500|NCT04116229|183523787|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: greater HOMA-IR, where higher HOMA-IR indicates greater insulin resistance, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: HOMA-IR levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.21||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.5
91823501|NCT04116229|183523788|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: IL-10 levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.09
91823502|NCT04116229|183523788|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: IL-10 levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.2||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.45
91823503|NCT04116229|183523789|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of adiponectin, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Adiponectin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.38||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.19
91823504|NCT04116229|183523789|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of adiponectin, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Adiponectin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.52
91823505|NCT04116229|183523790|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of TNF-alpha, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: TNF-alpha levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.90
91952496|NCT00798161|183801508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.465||||0.0102||95.0|1.342|8.943|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||8.943|1.342|0.0102
91952497|NCT00798161|183801508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.521||||0.0004||95.0|1.747|7.094|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||7.094|1.747|0.0004
91823506|NCT04116229|183523790|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of TNF-alpha, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: TNF-alpha levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.04||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.87
91823507|NCT04116229|183523791|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of MCP-1, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: MCP-1 levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.34||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.26
91823508|NCT04116229|183523791|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of MCP-1, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: MCP-1 levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.12||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.71
91952498|NCT00798161|183801508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.521||||0.0053||95.0|1.564|13.069|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||13.069|1.564|0.0053
91952499|NCT00798161|183801508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.947|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.314|33.08|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||33.080|4.314|<0.0001
91952500|NCT00798161|183801510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.181|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.903|5.316|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||5.316|1.903|<0.0001
91952501|NCT00798161|183801510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.382||||0.0027||95.0|1.352|4.196|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||4.196|1.352|0.0027
91823509|NCT04116229|183523792|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of CRP, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: CRP levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.19||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.54
91823510|NCT04116229|183523792|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of CRP, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: CRP levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.09||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.77
91823511|NCT02595684|183523793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
91823512|NCT02595684|183523793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.635|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.635
91823513|NCT02595684|183523794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.380
91823514|NCT02595684|183523794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.441
91823515|NCT02595684|183523795|SUPERIORITY|||||||515|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0515
91823516|NCT02595684|183523795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
91823517|NCT02595684|183523796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
91823518|NCT02595684|183523796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
91823519|NCT02595684|183523797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.767
91823520|NCT02595684|183523797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.779
91823521|NCT02595684|183523798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
91823522|NCT02595684|183523798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.767
91823523|NCT02595684|183523799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
91823524|NCT02595684|183523799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
91823525|NCT02595684|183523800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
91823526|NCT02595684|183523800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
91823527|NCT02595684|183523801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
91823528|NCT02595684|183523801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.086
91823529|NCT02595684|183523802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.285
91823530|NCT02595684|183523802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.854
91823531|NCT02595684|183523803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
91823532|NCT02595684|183523803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.263
91823533|NCT02595684|183523804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
91823534|NCT02595684|183523804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
91823535|NCT02595684|183523805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.722
91823536|NCT02595684|183523805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
91823537|NCT02595684|183523806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.260
91823538|NCT02595684|183523806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
91823539|NCT02595684|183523807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
91823540|NCT02595684|183523807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.952
91823541|NCT02595684|183523808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
91823542|NCT02595684|183523808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
91823543|NCT02595684|183523809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.092
91823544|NCT02595684|183523809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
91823545|NCT02809976|183523810|OTHER|single group/descriptive analysis||||||0.02|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.02
91823546|NCT01513291|183523817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.33153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis (cLDA)||Risk difference is for MK-6096 - Placebo. The cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Screening (Baseline) Period (≤8, \>8) as covariates|||0.4|-1.3|0.33153
91823547|NCT01513291|183523818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|21.6|||||Risk difference (MK-6096 - Placebo) was estimated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||21.6|-3.4|
91823548|NCT01513291|183523819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.9|||||Risk difference (MK-6096 - Placebo) was estimated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||8.9|-4.0|
91823549|NCT01513291|183523820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.24008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis (cLDA)||Risk difference is for MK-6096 - Placebo. The cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Screening (Baseline) Period (≤8, \>8) as covariates|||0.4|-1.4|0.24008
91823550|NCT01513291|183523821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.43093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||Generalized linear mixed effects model||Odds ratio is for MK-6096 / Placebo. The generalized linear mixed effects model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Screening (Baseline) Period 1 (≤8, \>8) as covariates.|||2.0|0.7|0.43093
91952502|NCT00798161|183801510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.622|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.153|6.093|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||6.093|2.153|<0.0001
91823551|NCT01513291|183523822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Generalized linear mixed effects model||Odds ratio is for MK-6096 / Placebo. The generalized linear mixed effects model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Treatment Period 1 (≤8, \>8) as covariates.|||1.5|0.7|0.97370
91823552|NCT01163682|183523826|NON_INFERIORITY|"This tests determined the odds of an increase of greater than or equal to 2 points on the BPI-SF worst pain score, from baseline to 16 weeks, among those in the intervention arm (electo-acupuncture), compared to those in the control arm (sham acupuncture). This change was considered to be clinically meaningful.~Null Hypothesis: electro-acupucture does not prevent taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy"|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.50|0.90|0.25
91823553|NCT01163682|183523827|NON_INFERIORITY|This tests determined the odds of an increase of greater than or equal to 5 points on the FACT-NTX scale, from baseline to 16 weeks, among those in the intervention arm (electo-acupuncture), compared to those in the control arm (sham acupuncture). This change was considered to be clinically meaningful.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.97|0.09
91823554|NCT01034397|183523828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Wrist region: Tocilizumab versus placebo; Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
91823555|NCT01034397|183523828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||||||2nd and 5th MCP joints: Tocilizumab versus placebo|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.026
91823556|NCT01034397|183523828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Total synovitis score: Tocilizumab versus placebo; Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
91823557|NCT01034397|183523829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||||||Percentage Change in OMERACT RAMRIS global score; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.421
91823558|NCT01034397|183523830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||||||Absolute change in OMERACT RAMRIS global score; Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.434
91952503|NCT00798161|183801510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.529|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.724|11.445|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||11.445|3.724|<0.0001
91823559|NCT01034397|183523833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Change in Wrist region; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
91823560|NCT01034397|183523833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||Change in 2nd to 5th MCP; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.065
91823561|NCT01034397|183523833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Change in Total synovitis; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
91823562|NCT01034397|183523835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Absolute Change in Bone erosion; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
91823563|NCT01034397|183523836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Percentage Change in Bone erosion; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
91823564|NCT01034397|183523839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||Percentage Change in Bone oedema; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.266
91823565|NCT01034397|183523840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||||||Absolute Change in Bone edema; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.337
91823566|NCT01034397|183523843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||||||Percentage change in DCE-MRI EER (global); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.114
91823567|NCT01034397|183523844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||||||Absolute Change in DCE-MRI EER; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.239
91823568|NCT01034397|183523847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||Percentage change in DCE-MRI EER (MCP); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.271
91823569|NCT01034397|183523848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||Absolute change in DCE-MRI EER (MCP); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.370
91823570|NCT01034397|183523851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Percentage and absolute change in DCE-MRI EER (wrist); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
91823571|NCT01034397|183523856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91823572|NCT01034397|183523859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.067
91823573|NCT01034397|183523861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
91823574|NCT01034397|183523863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
91823575|NCT01034397|183523865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Baseline to Week 12|Friedman's T test|||||||<0.001
91823576|NCT01034397|183523865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Change from Baseline to Week 12|Friedman's T test|||||||0.500
91823577|NCT01034397|183523866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.007
91823578|NCT01034397|183523869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
91823579|NCT01034397|183523871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
91823580|NCT01034397|183523873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.118
91823581|NCT01034397|183523875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
91823582|NCT01034397|183523877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.437
91823583|NCT01034397|183523878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
91823584|NCT01034397|183523881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.190
91823585|NCT01034397|183523883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.051
91952504|NCT00798161|183801511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.7||0.8893||95.0|-48.5|42.2|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||42.2|-48.5|0.8893
91952505|NCT00798161|183801511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.1||0.3234||95.0|-66.2|22.2|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||22.2|-66.2|0.3234
91823586|NCT02002767|183523885|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean(GLSM) Ratio|149.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.62|190.49||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each renal function group (normal and severely impaired) will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe renal impairment have a minimum increase of 100% in AUC0-last, AUCinf, or Cmax of velpatasvir compared to participants with normal renal function.||190.49|116.62|
91823587|NCT02002767|183523886|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|149.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.97|192.11||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each renal function group (normal and severely impaired) will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe renal impairment have a minimum increase of 100% in AUC0-last, AUCinf, or Cmax of velpatasvir compared to participants with normal renal function.||192.11|116.97|
91823588|NCT02002767|183523887|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|110.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.76|135.38||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each renal function group (normal and severely impaired) will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe renal impairment have a minimum increase of 100% in AUC0-last, AUCinf, or Cmax of velpatasvir compared to participants with normal renal function.||135.38|90.76|
91823589|NCT00113516|183523921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.405|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.315|0.494|||Kaplan-Meier||The probability of survival along with the corresponding confidence interval (CI) (for the log \[-log (1-year survival rate)\]) was calculated using a normal approximation and then back transformed to give a CI for the 1-year survival rate itself.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the true one-year probability of survival is 0.40 versus the alternative hypothesis that the true one-year probability of survival is at least 0.55. The sample size was determined using a One-Sample Survival design, assuming alpha=0.05 (1-sided), power= 0.90, 6 month accrual, a minimum follow-up period of 12 months, and an expectation that approximately 5% of subjects may be lost to follow-up.||0.494|0.315|
91823590|NCT00113516|183523925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|38.2||||||||38.2|18.2|
91823591|NCT00113516|183523939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.474
91823592|NCT00113516|183523940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.836
91823593|NCT00113516|183523940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.071
91823594|NCT00113516|183523940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.393
91823595|NCT00113516|183523940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.029
91823596|NCT00113516|183523940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.247
91823597|NCT00113516|183523941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.305
91823598|NCT00113516|183523942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.738
91823599|NCT00113516|183523942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.438
91823600|NCT00113516|183523942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.236
91823601|NCT00113516|183523942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.287
91823602|NCT00113516|183523942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.772
91823603|NCT00113516|183523943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.537
91823604|NCT00113516|183523944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.813
91823605|NCT00113516|183523944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.849
91823606|NCT00113516|183523944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.121
91823607|NCT00113516|183523944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.582
91823608|NCT00113516|183523944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.383
91823609|NCT00113516|183523945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.15|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.15|0.61|0.6782
91823610|NCT00113516|183523945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.3|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.30|0.77|0.1980
91823611|NCT00113516|183523945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.98|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.98|0.82|0.1344
91823612|NCT00113516|183523945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.39|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||3.39|0.56|0.4809
91823613|NCT00113516|183523945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.6||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|11.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group|Cycle 3, Day 1||11.13|1.19|0.0153
91823614|NCT00113516|183523945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.37|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group|Cycle 3, Day 28||14.37|0.52|0.2085
91823615|NCT00113516|183523945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|23.57|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group|Cycle 5, Day 28||23.57|0.08|0.8084
91823616|NCT00113516|183523946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.39|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.39|0.65|0.5070
91823617|NCT00113516|183523946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.4474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.82|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||2.82|0.63|0.4474
91823618|NCT00113516|183523946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.95|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||1.95|0.40|0.7599
91823619|NCT00113516|183523946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||0.80|0.12|0.0109
91823620|NCT00113516|183523946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.58|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||3.58|0.43|0.6878
91823621|NCT00113516|183523946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.12|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||8.12|0.38|0.4637
91823622|NCT00113516|183523947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.62|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||1.62|0.39|0.5277
91823623|NCT00113516|183523947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.29|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.29|0.58|0.4660
91823624|NCT00113516|183523947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.5337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.44|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.44|0.52|0.5337
91823625|NCT00113516|183523947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.13|0.13|0.0712
91823626|NCT00113516|183523947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.2948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|7.07|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||7.07|0.54|0.2948
91823627|NCT00113516|183523947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|38.48|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||38.48|0.28|0.3200
91823628|NCT00113516|183523948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.17|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.17|0.56|0.7824
91823629|NCT00113516|183523948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.47|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.47|0.77|0.1918
91823630|NCT00113516|183523948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.3|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||4.30|0.85|0.1093
91952506|NCT00798161|183801511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.8||0.0373||95.0|-98.5|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-3.1|-98.5|0.0373
91823631|NCT00113516|183523948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.39|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||3.39|0.56|0.4809
91823632|NCT00113516|183523948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|13.85|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||13.85|1.26|0.0110
91823633|NCT00113516|183523948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.37|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||14.37|0.52|0.2085
91823634|NCT00113516|183523948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|23.57|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||23.57|0.08|0.8084
91823635|NCT00113516|183523949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.53|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.53|0.62|0.5215
91823636|NCT00113516|183523949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.49|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.49|0.72|0.2504
91823637|NCT00113516|183523949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.11|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||2.11|0.42|0.8766
91823638|NCT00113516|183523949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||0.80|0.12|0.0109
91823639|NCT00113516|183523949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.18|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||4.18|0.46|0.5627
91823640|NCT00113516|183523949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.12|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||8.12|0.38|0.4637
91823641|NCT00113516|183523950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.84|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||1.84|0.39|0.6682
91823642|NCT00113516|183523950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.0|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.00|0.49|0.6854
91823643|NCT00113516|183523950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.6028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.37|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.37|0.49|0.6028
91952507|NCT00798161|183801511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.7||0.0018||95.0|-119.3|-28.6|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-28.6|-119.3|0.0018
91952508|NCT00798161|183801514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.326||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.973|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.973|0.109|0.0445
91952509|NCT00798161|183801514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.274||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.779|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.779|0.096|0.0151
91952510|NCT00798161|183801514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|0.996|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.996|0.177|0.0490
91823644|NCT00113516|183523950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.13|0.13|0.0712
91823645|NCT00113516|183523950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.3411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.15|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||7.15|0.50|0.3411
91823646|NCT00113516|183523950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|38.48|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||38.48|0.28|0.3200
91823647|NCT00113516|183523951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.17|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.17|0.70|0.4768
91823648|NCT00113516|183523951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.13|0.84|0.1484
91823649|NCT00113516|183523951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.8957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.18|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||2.18|0.50|0.8957
91823650|NCT00113516|183523951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.85|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.85|0.33|0.5681
91823651|NCT00113516|183523951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|10.88|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||10.88|1.35|0.0074
91823652|NCT00113516|183523951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.7|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||1.70|0.06|0.1637
91823653|NCT00113516|183523951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|29.12|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||29.12|0.23|0.4328
91823654|NCT00113516|183523952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.21|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.21|0.72|0.4269
91823655|NCT00113516|183523952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.86|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||1.86|0.51|0.9290
91823656|NCT00113516|183523952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.91|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||1.91|0.44|0.8195
91823657|NCT00113516|183523952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.38|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.38|0.26|0.2210
91823658|NCT00113516|183523952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.85|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||1.85|0.24|0.4297
91823659|NCT00113516|183523952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.11|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||1.11|0.06|0.0522
91823660|NCT00113516|183523952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.0|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||7.00|0.05|0.6949
91823661|NCT00113516|183523953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.65|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||1.65|0.51|0.7660
91823662|NCT00113516|183523953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.23|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.23|0.72|0.2682
91823663|NCT00113516|183523953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.7|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.70|0.69|0.2726
91823664|NCT00113516|183523953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.2787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.55|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.55|0.22|0.2787
91823665|NCT00113516|183523953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.4||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|17.56|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||17.56|1.09|0.0241
91823666|NCT00113516|183523953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.4||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|48.81|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||48.81|0.59|0.0943
91823667|NCT00113516|183523953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|11.79|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||11.79|0.04|0.8084
91823668|NCT03915548|183523958|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.54||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,747)=0.88|||.54
91823669|NCT03915548|183523959|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.09||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,746.4)=2.64|||.09
91823670|NCT03915548|183523960|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.55||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson model with log link; multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,717)=0.7|||.55
91823671|NCT03915548|183523961|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,394.7)=0.18|||.99
91952511|NCT00798161|183801514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.598||||0.2617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|1.467|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.467|0.244|0.2617
91952512|NCT00594568|183801515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.134
91952513|NCT00594568|183801515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
91823672|NCT03915548|183523962|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Overall score adjusted P = 0.99 Physical subscale adjusted P = 0.99 Social subscale adjusted P = 0.99 Emotional subscale adjusted P = 0.99 Functional subscale adjusted P = 0.99|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||"Group by time interaction:~Overall score: F(3,731.3)=0.03 Physical subscale: F(3,744.5)=0.23 Social subscale: F(3,740.6)=0.32 Emotional subscale: F(3,743)=0.46 Functional subscale: F(3,746.1)=0.3"|||0.99
91823673|NCT03915548|183523963|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Active coping adjusted P = 0.99 Planning adjusted P = 0.21 Positive reframing adjusted P = 0.99|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|||Active planning: F(3,746)=0.8 Planning: F(3,744.8)=2.93 Positive reframing = F(3,742)=0.21|||0.99
91823674|NCT03915548|183523964|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|||Disengagement: F(3,741.2)=5.09 Reengagement: F(3,745.7)=0.81|||0.02
91823675|NCT03915548|183523965|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Anxiety adjusted P = 0.99 Depression adjusted P = 0.99|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|||Anxiety: F(3,737.5)=0.17 Depression: F(3,733.6)=0.85|||0.99
91823676|NCT03915548|183523966|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.26||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.54||Importance subscale: Adjusted P = .09 Performance subscale: Adjusted P = \<.001 Satisfaction subscale: Adjusted P = \<.001|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|Importance subscale: Cohen's d = 0.26 (-.01, 0.54) Performance subscale: Cohen's d = 0.60 (0.32, 0.87) Satisfaction subscale: Cohen's d = 0.76 (0.48, 1.02)|||0.54|-.01|.09
91823677|NCT03217136|183523977|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Difference in Percentage|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|41.1||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||41.1|-2.6|
91823678|NCT03217136|183523978|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|9.9||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||9.9|-12.9|
91823679|NCT03217136|183523979|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|4.93||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||4.93|-26.67|
91823680|NCT03217136|183523980|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.18|-2.89||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||-2.89|-30.18|
91823681|NCT03217136|183523981|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.66|9.61||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||9.61|-23.66|
91823682|NCT03217136|183523982|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.59|1.39||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||1.39|-27.59|
91823683|NCT03091751|183524000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.41||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.88|245.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||||245.70|-224.88|0.77
91823684|NCT03091751|183524001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3068||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1501|0.4635|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.4635|0.1501|0.002
91952514|NCT00594568|183801515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.610
91823685|NCT03091751|183524002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.3|-8.9|0.30
91823686|NCT03091751|183524003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0058||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0119|0.0003|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.0003|-0.0119|0.16
91823687|NCT03091751|183524004|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.609||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.344|-1.879|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.879|-13.344|0.02
91823688|NCT01161329|183524009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was estimated that 128 individuals would be required for 80 % Power with a type I error of 5% to detect a 2-point difference in BBS with a standard deviation of +/- 4 points. Because of the slow recruitment and the statistically significant improvements observed in the primary outcome in the intervention group during an interim analysis the study was finalized with fewer participants than had been initially calculated.||||||0.001||||||The Bonferroni method was used to assess longitudinal Changes and correct for multiple comparisons, with significance set at p\<0.016 to minimize the risk for type I errors.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intention-to-treat analysis was performed to assess the effects on the outcome measures. Between-group differences for all outcome measures were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-test.||||0.001
91823689|NCT01161329|183524010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The p-value for the man differnece in SPPB between grpoups att three months was 0.09|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91823690|NCT01448850|183524031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.25||Data was analyzed using Poisson regression with Pearson correction, adjusting for treatment, background therapy and history of previous exacerbations.|Poisson regression|||||1.25|0.68|0.645
91823691|NCT01591746|183524070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91823692|NCT01591746|183524071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91823693|NCT01591746|183524072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Right breast initial percent volume expansion||||0.45
91823694|NCT01591746|183524072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Left breast initial percent volume expansion||||0.98
91952515|NCT00594568|183801516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.296
91952516|NCT00594568|183801516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.172
91952517|NCT00594568|183801516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.746
91952518|NCT00594568|183801517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.166
91952519|NCT00594568|183801517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91823695|NCT01591746|183524073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91823696|NCT01591746|183524074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91823697|NCT01591746|183524075|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91823698|NCT03495908|183524086|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.4% HbA1c|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2207||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6654|0.2241||Non-inferiority p-value based on the 0.4% non-inferiority margin|Mixed Models Analysis||RHI - RAI estimated treatment difference. Upper confidence interval 0.22 is less than the 0.4% non-inferiority margin.|RHI - RAI estimated treatment difference (ETD) in HbA1c. Per-protocol analysis is the pre-specified primary outcome.||0.2241|-0.6654|0.007
91823699|NCT03495908|183524087|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of Post-randomization prevalence of hypoglycemia based on 7-point glucose profiles.||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|||Post-randomization prevalence of hypoglycemia based on 7-point glucose profiles.||||.82
91823700|NCT03495908|183524088|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of the 7-point profiles within the ITT population (n=136)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.925||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|2.217||Results are from a Poisson regression model with repeated measures; generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach.|Regression, Poisson|Poisson regression model with repeated measures; generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach|The incidence rate ratio quantitates the risk of hypoglycemia in the RHI group (RR numerator) compared with the RAI group (RR numerator). Results from Poisson regression model with repeated measures; generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach.|Level 1 (≤70 mg/dL or (\<3.9 mmol/L)) and level 2 hypoglycemia (\<54 mg/dL (\<3.0 mmol/L)) events are analyzed. No level 3 events were reported for either group.||2.217|0.386|0.861
91823701|NCT03495908|183524089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01073||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03674|0.01528|||Mixed Models Analysis||Between Group Comparison (RHI-RAI) Estimated Treatment Difference (ETD) mixed effects model analysis|RHI versus RAI for Insulin Intent-to-treat Population N=136 Mixed Model Estimates for Insulin TDD U/kg I||0.01528|-0.03674|0.415
91823702|NCT03495908|183524090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0776||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2139|1.0587|||Mixed Models Analysis||Between Group Comparison (RHI-RAI) Estimated Treatment Difference (ETD) mixed effects model analysis|||1.0587|-3.2139|0.320
91823703|NCT03495908|183524091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-265.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.6|-243.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Treatment Difference (RHI-RAI) from repeated measures mixed model least squares estimates|||-243.11|-288.60|<0.0001
91823704|NCT03495908|183524092|NON_INFERIORITY|Change in A1C Non-inferiority Margin is 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1317||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5838|0.3205||p-value for non-inferiority|Mixed Models Analysis||Between Group Difference (RHI-RAI) mixed effects repeated measures model analysis.Upper confidence interval 0.32 is less than the 0.4% non-inferiority margin.|Intent-to-treat secondary outcome of HbA1c response for assessment of non-inferiority of RHI compared to RAI||0.3205|-0.5838|0.02
91823705|NCT01109316|183524094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline HbA1c.|This was the primary gated analysis.||0.76|0.20|
91823706|NCT01109316|183524095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.52|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age Stratum + Baseline HbA1c; where participant is treated as a random effect.|||0.52|-0.07|
91823707|NCT01109316|183524095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.56|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age Stratum + Baseline HbA1c; where participant is treated as a random effect.|||0.56|-0.05|
91952520|NCT00594568|183801517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
91823708|NCT01109316|183524096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.51|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.51|-0.29|
91823709|NCT01109316|183524096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.73|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.73|-0.41|
91823710|NCT01109316|183524096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.24|-0.18|
91823711|NCT01109316|183524096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.27|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.27|-0.56|
91823712|NCT01109316|183524096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.6|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.60|-0.48|
91823713|NCT01109316|183524096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.65|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.65|-0.85|
91823714|NCT01109316|183524097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.14|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Period + Sequence + Baseline HbA1c.|||0.14|-0.02|
91952521|NCT00594568|183801518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.935
91952522|NCT00594568|183801518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
91952523|NCT00594568|183801518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.070
91952524|NCT00594568|183801519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91952525|NCT00594568|183801519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91952526|NCT00594568|183801519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91823715|NCT01109316|183524097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Period + Sequence + Baseline HbA1c.|||0.18|0.01|
91823716|NCT01109316|183524098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c ≤6.5% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||1.75|0.50|
91823717|NCT01109316|183524098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.67|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c ≤6.5% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Lispro 2 Day.|||1.67|0.29|
91823718|NCT01109316|183524098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.41|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c \<7% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||1.41|0.56|
91823719|NCT01109316|183524098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.64|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c \<7% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Lispro 2 Day.|||1.64|0.66|
91823720|NCT01109316|183524099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||1.00
91823721|NCT01109316|183524100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period, and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.164
91823722|NCT01109316|183524100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period, and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.185
91823723|NCT01109316|183524101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||0.736
91823724|NCT01109316|183524101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||0.006
91823725|NCT01109316|183524101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||1.00
91823726|NCT01109316|183524101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||0.017
91823727|NCT01109316|183524102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.471
91823728|NCT01109316|183524102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||<0.001
91823729|NCT01109316|183524102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.737
91823730|NCT01109316|183524102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||<0.001
91823731|NCT01109316|183524104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.006
91823732|NCT01109316|183524104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.002
91823733|NCT01109316|183524105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Body Weight.|Crossover Model|||||||0.060
91823734|NCT01109316|183524105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0||||P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Body Weight.|Crossover Model|||||||0.486
91823735|NCT01109316|183524106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||P-value is for Systolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.056
91823736|NCT01109316|183524106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0||||P-value is for Systolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.805
91823737|NCT01109316|183524106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is for Diastolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Diastolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.020
91823738|NCT01109316|183524106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value is for Diastolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Diastolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.051
91823739|NCT01559311|183524114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H01: μ LVEF, 1= μ LVEF, 2a vs H1a: μ LVEF, 1 \< μ LVEF, 2a~* Where μ LVEF, 1 is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in DDDR Gp.~* μ LVEF, 2a is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in CRT-P ON Gp,"||||0.1734
91823740|NCT01559311|183524114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H03: μ LVEF, 1= μ LVEF, 2b vs H1a: μ LVEF, 1 \< μ LVEF, 2b~* Where μ LVEF, 1 is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in DDDR Gp.~* μ LVEF, 2b is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in the CRT-P OFF Gp"||||0.1439
91823741|NCT01559311|183524115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6276|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H02: μ LVESV, 1 = μ LVESV, 2a vs H1b: μ LVESV, 1 \> μ LVESV, 2a~* Where, μLVESV, 1 is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in the DDDR Group,~* μLVESV, 2a is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in the CRT-P ON group"||||0.6276
91823742|NCT01559311|183524115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5871|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H04: μ LVESV, 1 = μ LVESV, 2b vs H1b: μ LVESV, 1 \> μ LVESV, 2b~* Where, μLVESV, 1 is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in the DDDR Group,~* and μLVESV, 2b is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in CRT-P OFF group."||||0.5871
91823743|NCT00829621|183524170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.36
91823744|NCT01856140|183524171|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.52
91823745|NCT01856140|183524171|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks.||||0.47
91823746|NCT01856140|183524171|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 12 weeks.||||0.52
91823747|NCT01856140|183524172|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.227
91823748|NCT01856140|183524172|OTHER|||||||0.573|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks.||||0.573
91823749|NCT01856140|183524172|OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.588
91823750|NCT01856140|183524173|OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.262
91823751|NCT01856140|183524173|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks.||||0.631
91823752|NCT01856140|183524173|OTHER|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 12 weeks.||||0.796
91823753|NCT01856140|183524174|OTHER|||||||0.337|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.337
91823754|NCT01856140|183524174|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks||||0.078
91823755|NCT01856140|183524174|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 12 weeks.||||0.439
91823756|NCT03143829|183524209|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences at week 10||||0.083
91823757|NCT03143829|183524210|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Descriptive comparison||||.099
91823758|NCT03143829|183524211|OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison at time 4||||.558
91823759|NCT03143829|183524212|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||descriptive comparison of resource use||||.153
91823760|NCT00672477|183524213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.0001
91823761|NCT00672477|183524214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
91823762|NCT00924950|183524263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8571||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0008
91823763|NCT01602315|183524268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||median HR|0.99||||||||||||||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Bayesian Cox proportional hazard (PH) model.||||
91823764|NCT01602315|183524268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.82|||Regression, Cox|||||1.82|0.69|0.643
91823765|NCT01602315|183524268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||Adjusted on Covariates: treatment, sum of longest diameters from central data \[SLD (C)\], Hemaglobin (Hgb) and White Blood Cells (WBC).||0.97|0.30|0.039
91823766|NCT01602315|183524271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier method (median)|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|88.0|||||days|||88.0|27.0|
91823767|NCT01602315|183524277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.79|0.313
91823768|NCT01602315|183524278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier (median)|294.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|172.0|463.0||||||||463.0|172.0|
91823769|NCT01602315|183524292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.49|0.235
91823770|NCT01602315|183524292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||Adjusted on Covariates: treatment, sum of longest diameters from local data \[SLD (L)\], Hemaglobin (Hgb) and White Blood Cells (WBC).||1.02|0.4|0.062
91823771|NCT02057757|183524353|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 1.25 Days.||||||0.5634|||||||Fay - Shaw|||||||0.5634
91823772|NCT02057757|183524354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||The p-value for each time point was calculated; Day 3|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.645
91823773|NCT02057757|183524354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||The p-value for each value was calculated (Day 7).|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.989
91823774|NCT02057757|183524354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.809
91823775|NCT02057757|183524354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Day 28|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.671
91823776|NCT02057757|183524356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4277||||||Cough|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.4277
91823777|NCT02057757|183524356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4022||||||Sore Throat|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.4022
91823778|NCT02057757|183524356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5957||||||Fatigue|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.5957
91823779|NCT02057757|183524356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0446||||||Nasal Discharge|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.0446
91823780|NCT02057757|183524356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8628||||||Difficulty Breathing|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.8628
91823781|NCT02057757|183524356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Headache|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.16
91823782|NCT02057757|183524356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1234||||||Muscle Pain|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.1234
91823783|NCT02057757|183524356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2155||||||Nausea|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.2155
91823784|NCT02057757|183524356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5176||||||Vomiting|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.5176
91823785|NCT02057757|183524356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6986||||||Diarrhea|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.6986
91823786|NCT02057757|183524357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Fay - Shaw|||||||0.9850
91823787|NCT02057757|183524358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681||||||Any Time|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.681
91823788|NCT02057757|183524358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||Day 0|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.341
91823789|NCT02057757|183524358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321||||||Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.321
91823790|NCT02057757|183524358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957||||||Day 7|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.957
91823791|NCT02057757|183524358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.788||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.788
91823792|NCT02057757|183524358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544||||||Day 28|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.544
91823793|NCT02057757|183524359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Any Time|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.671
91823794|NCT02057757|183524359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325||||||Day 0|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.325
91823795|NCT02057757|183524359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
91823796|NCT02057757|183524359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 7|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
91823797|NCT02057757|183524359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.311
91823798|NCT02057757|183524360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||Any Time|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.973
91823799|NCT02057757|183524360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||Day 0|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.575
91823800|NCT02057757|183524360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548||||||Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.548
91823801|NCT02057757|183524360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 7|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
91823802|NCT02057757|183524360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
91823803|NCT02057757|183524360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 28|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
91823804|NCT02057757|183524361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||Pneumonia|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.928
91823805|NCT02057757|183524361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9669||||||ARDS|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.9669
91823806|NCT02057757|183524361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0832||||||Bronchitis|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.0832
91823807|NCT02057757|183524362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||Adults (\>= 18 Years ) - Global Assessment: Have you felt as good as you did before you had the respiratory illness?|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.0360
91823808|NCT02057757|183524362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Adults (\>= 18 Years) - Global Assessment: Are you functioning as well as you were before you had the respiratory illness?|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.0380
91823809|NCT02057757|183524362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5035||||||Children (\< 18 Years) - Global Assessment: Have you/your child felt as good as you did before you had the respiratory illness?|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.5035
91823810|NCT02057757|183524362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9231||||||Children (\<18 Years) - Global Assessment: Are you/your child functioning as well as you/your child were before you/your child had the respiratory illness?|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.9231
91823811|NCT02057757|183524366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9785||||||No Detectable Virus on Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.9785
91823812|NCT01416194|183524389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
91823813|NCT01416194|183524389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.2|0.4|0.91
91823814|NCT01416194|183524390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
91823815|NCT01416194|183524390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.4|0.5|0.76
91823816|NCT01416194|183524391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.9|0.3|0.01
91823817|NCT01416194|183524391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.5|0.4|0.37
91823818|NCT01416194|183524392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.1|0.5|0.10
91823819|NCT01416194|183524392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.2|0.4|0.19
91823820|NCT01416194|183524393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
91823821|NCT01416194|183524393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.1|0.4|0.90
91823822|NCT01416194|183524394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.5|1.4|<0.01
91823823|NCT01416194|183524394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.3|0.7|0.74
91823824|NCT01416194|183524395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.6|0.3|<0.01
91823825|NCT01416194|183524395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.9|0.4|0.01
91823826|NCT01416194|183524396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.5|0.1|<0.01
91823827|NCT01416194|183524396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.1|0.2|0.06
91823828|NCT01416194|183524397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
91823829|NCT01416194|183524397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.4|0.5|0.38
91823830|NCT01416194|183524399|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.5|0.9|0.24
91823831|NCT01416194|183524399|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.6|0.8|0.59
91823832|NCT01416194|183524400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.0|0.6|0.03
91823833|NCT01416194|183524400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.1|0.6|0.19
91952527|NCT00594568|183801520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.038
91952528|NCT00594568|183801520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.147
91823834|NCT01416194|183524401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.5|0.2|<0.01
91823835|NCT01416194|183524401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.3|0.3|0.24
91823836|NCT00048724|183524402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.452||||0.1439||95.0|0.88|2.396|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Age (\<= 50 years, \>50 years) and participation in a prior study (yes, no) were stratification factors.|Hazard ratio represents results of untreated control relative to treatment.|The primary scientific hypothesis is that, 0.5 ug/kg subcutaneous once weekly PegIntron as maintenance therapy is efficacious, when compared to no treatment, in the prevention of clinical events in adult subjects with compensated cirrhosis (Metavir F4), secondary to Chronic Hepatitis C, who have failed to respond to therapy with any α interferon plus ribavirin.||2.396|0.880|0.1439
91823837|NCT00048724|183524403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.564||||0.007||95.0|1.13|2.166|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Age (\<= 50 years, \>50 years) and participation in a prior study (yes, no) were stratification factors.|Hazard ratio represents results of untreated control relative to treatment.|The secondary hypothesis is that 0.5 ug/kg subcutaneous once weekly PegIntron as maintenance therapy is efficacious, when compared to no treatment, in the prevention of disease progression in adult subjects with compensated cirrhosis (Metavir F4), secondary to Chronic Hepatitis C, who have failed to respond to therapy with any α interferon plus ribavirin.||2.166|1.130|0.0070
91823838|NCT02732847|183524420|OTHER|Chi square tests used to compared groups||||||0.924||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered|Chi-squared|||||||0.924
91823839|NCT00414050|183524429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Modified Process Hepatitis B vaccine-5µg (micrograms) declared non-inferior to RECOMBIVAX HB™ if the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval for the ratio of Geometric Mean Titers (Modified Process Vaccine 5 micrograms/RECOMBIVAX HB™) was \>= 0.67. The study had 98 percent power for this test, based on an assumption of true equality.|Ratio of geometric means|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.35||||||Comparison of Induced (effected) Geometric Mean Titer for the Modified Hepatitis B Process Vaccine and RECOMBIVAX Hepatitis B vaccine.||2.35|1.69|
91823840|NCT00395044|183524431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.029
91823841|NCT00515827|183524442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.546||95.0||||P-value is 2-sided and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
91952529|NCT00594568|183801520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.604
91952530|NCT00594568|183801521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.143
91952531|NCT00594568|183801521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.464
91952532|NCT00594568|183801521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
91952533|NCT00594568|183801521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.347
91952534|NCT00594568|183801521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.820
91952535|NCT00594568|183801521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.243
91952536|NCT00594568|183801522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.784
91952537|NCT00594568|183801522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.931
91952538|NCT00594568|183801522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.718
91952539|NCT00594568|183801523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.634
91823842|NCT03254134|183524480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.97||||||There was no formal hypothesis testing.|The hazard ratio of stroke for the dabigatran group as compared to the warfarin group and its 95% CI were estimated from the propensity score matched group using a Cox regression model with treatment group as the dependent variable|0.970|0.534|
91823843|NCT03254134|183524481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.994||||||There was no formal hypothesis testing.|The hazard ratio of systemic embolism for the dabigatran group as compared to the warfarin group and its 95% CI were estimated from the propensity score matched group using a Cox regression model with treatment group as the dependent variable|0.994|0.303|
91823844|NCT01009099|183524485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Co-variates included in the analysis were time walked on the constant workrate test at baseline and adherence (sessions completed/expected).||The outcomes compared were time walked on the constant workrate treadmill test measured in minutes.||||0.63
91823845|NCT02188485|183524494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|Thwarted belonging (INQ-TB) at 10 week follow-up||||.278
91823846|NCT02188485|183524494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|Perceived burden (INQ-PB) at 10-week follow-up||||.591
91823847|NCT02188485|183524495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|||||.511
91823848|NCT02188485|183524496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|||||.014
91823849|NCT00799617|183524497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, use of PDE5 inhibitors||||0.78|0.38|<0.001
91823850|NCT00799617|183524498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.45||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes is the odds ratio for achieving the outcome versus not achieving the outcome among men assigned to testosterone versus those assigned to placebo.||2.45|0.83|0.20
91952540|NCT00594568|183801523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.901
91952541|NCT00594568|183801523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.659
91823851|NCT00799617|183524499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.84||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.83|0.30
91823852|NCT00799617|183524500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|67.0||Determined by a linear mixed model with all balancing factors and baseline outcome value as covariates and a random effect for participant.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference in change from baseline for participants assigned to testosterone v. placebo, with adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, PDE5 inhibitors, baseline outcome.|||67|14|.003
91823853|NCT00799617|183524501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|8.7||Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors.|Regression, Linear|||||8.7|4.8|<.001
91823854|NCT00799617|183524502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.79||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.~The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors."||0.79|-0.92|.88
91823855|NCT00799617|183524503|SUPERIORITY|Dichotomous hemoglobin response is an increase of 1g/dL or more from baseline.|Odds Ratio (OR)|31.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|277.8||The P-value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by a logistic mixed model with a random intercept for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|The statistical analysis was intent-to-treat by a logistic mixed effects model adjusted for balancing factors.||||277.8|3.7|.002
91952542|NCT00594568|183801526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.062
91952543|NCT00594568|183801526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
91952544|NCT00594568|183801526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.669
91952545|NCT00594568|183801527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.071
91952546|NCT00594568|183801527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91952547|NCT00594568|183801527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
91952548|NCT00594568|183801528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.518
91952549|NCT00594568|183801528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91952550|NCT00594568|183801528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.072
91952551|NCT00594568|183801529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.069
91952552|NCT00594568|183801529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91952553|NCT00594568|183801529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
91823856|NCT00799617|183524504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|3.74||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, use of PDE5 inhibitors||||3.74|2.13|<0.001
91823857|NCT00799617|183524505|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.61||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, use of PDE5 inhibitors||||3.61|1.68|<0.001
91823858|NCT00799617|183524506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.18||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.18|-3.00|0.28
91823859|NCT00799617|183524507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.00|0.90|0.15
91823860|NCT00799617|183524508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.29||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.29|0.20|0.03
91823861|NCT00799617|183524509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.46||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.46|-0.04|0.06
91823862|NCT00799617|183524510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.5||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.50|0.31|0.03
91823863|NCT00799617|183524511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|0.02|0.04
91823864|NCT00799617|183524512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.19||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Treatment Effect|||||-0.19|-0.79|<0.001
91952554|NCT00594568|183801530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.127
91823865|NCT00799617|183524513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.23||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Treatment Effect|||||-0.23|-1.20|0.004
91823866|NCT00799617|183524514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|80.0||Determined by linear mixed model with all balancing factors and baseline outcome value as covariates and a random effect for participant.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference in change from baseline for participants assigned to testosterone v. placebo, with adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, PDE5 inhibitors, baseline outcome.|||80|13|.006
91823867|NCT00799617|183524515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|26.0||Determined by a linear mixed model with all balancing factors and baseline outcome value as covariates and a random effect for participant.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference in change from baseline for participants assigned to testosterone v. placebo, with adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, PDE5 inhibitors, baseline outcome.|||26|-80|.31
91823868|NCT00799617|183524516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.7||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||3.7|2.1|<.001
91823869|NCT00799617|183524517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.3||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||5.3|3.2|<.001
91823870|NCT00799617|183524518|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||2.0|0.9|<.001
91823871|NCT00799617|183524519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.5|0.5|<.001
91952555|NCT00594568|183801530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
91952556|NCT00594568|183801530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.381
91952557|NCT00594568|183801531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91952558|NCT00594568|183801531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91952559|NCT00594568|183801531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.141
91952560|NCT00594568|183801532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.337
91823872|NCT00799617|183524520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."||1.7|0.8|<.001
91823873|NCT00799617|183524521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|809.0||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||809|5.3|<.001
91823874|NCT00799617|183524522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|10.9||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||10.9|6.0|<.001
91823875|NCT00799617|183524523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|7.2||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||7.2|4.3|<.001
91823876|NCT00799617|183524524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.6||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||2.6|1.1|<.001
91823877|NCT00799617|183524525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.7|0.3|.005
91952561|NCT00594568|183801532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
91952562|NCT00594568|183801532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.157
91823878|NCT00799617|183524526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.5|<.001
91823879|NCT00799617|183524527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.09||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||2.09|0.25|.01
91823880|NCT00799617|183524528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.36||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.36|-0.01|.052
91823881|NCT00799617|183524529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.58||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.58|-0.45|0.27
91823882|NCT00799617|183524530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.19||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors.|A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.||0.19|-0.76|.24
91823883|NCT00799617|183524531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.65||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors.|A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.||1.65|-1.89|.89
91823884|NCT00799617|183524532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.51||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|1.88||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors.|A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.||1.88|-12.91|.14
91952563|NCT00594568|183801533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.186
91952564|NCT00594568|183801533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.149
91952565|NCT00594568|183801533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
91952566|NCT00594568|183801534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.202
91952567|NCT00594568|183801534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
91952568|NCT00594568|183801534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.616
91952569|NCT01366846|183801552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-negative stratum.||||<0.001
91952570|NCT01366846|183801552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-positive stratum.||||0.004
91823885|NCT00799617|183524533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.39||The P-value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by a linear mixed model for continuous outcomes with a random intercept for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Intent-to-treat analysis by a linear mixed effects model adjusted for balancing factors.|||1.39|0.48|<.001
91823886|NCT02442830|183524549|OTHER|Log rank test||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||.002
91823887|NCT03851016|183524558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Mancova|||"Null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in change of depressive symptoms between Life Story Book Intervention and Usual Care. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) models with the GDS-12R at baseline as the covariate, and the treatment group and study site as factors. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.~A sample size of 20 was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 5 point difference in depressive symptoms."||||.113
91823888|NCT03851016|183524559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Mancova|||"Null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in change of Presence of Meaning (POM) between Life Story Book Intervention and Usual Care. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) models with the POM at baseline as the covariate, and the treatment group and study site as factors. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.~A sample size of 20 was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 5 point difference in POM."||||.123
91823889|NCT03851016|183524560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mancova|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in change of Search for Meaning (SFM) between Life Story Book Intervention and Usual Care. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) models with the SFM at baseline as the covariate, and the treatment group and study site as factors. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.~A sample size of 20 was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 5 point difference in SFM."||||.910
91823890|NCT02553746|183524572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.748
91823891|NCT02553746|183524573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.498
91952571|NCT01366846|183801553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of participants with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Consumption Group across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||<0.001
91823892|NCT02553746|183524574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.171
91823893|NCT02553746|183524575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.162
91823894|NCT02553746|183524576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.104
91823895|NCT02553746|183524577|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.005
91823896|NCT01660412|183524615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.00|0.85|<0.0001
91823897|NCT03328897|183524638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-2.77|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-2.77|-5.70|<0.001
91823898|NCT03328897|183524638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-2.33|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-2.33|-5.24|<0.001
91823899|NCT03328897|183524639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.555|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|-7.14|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-7.14|-13.25|<0.001
91823900|NCT03328897|183524639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.535|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.14|-6.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-6.10|-12.14|<0.001
91823901|NCT03328897|183524640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.853|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-4.24|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-4.24|-7.59|<0.001
91823902|NCT03328897|183524640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.842|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.69|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-3.69|-7.00|<0.001
91823903|NCT03328897|183524641|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|15.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.06|3.27|<0.001
91823904|NCT03328897|183524641|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|15.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.06|3.29|<0.001
91823905|NCT03328897|183524642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|32.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.37|3.88|<0.001
91823906|NCT03328897|183524642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|17.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.17|2.01|0.001
91823907|NCT03328897|183524643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.95|1.51|<0.001
91823908|NCT03328897|183524643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.41|0.002
91823909|NCT03328897|183524644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-2.3|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-2.3|-5.7|<0.001
91823910|NCT03328897|183524644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.8|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-1.8|-5.1|<0.001
91823911|NCT03328897|183524645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.33|||Regression, Cox|||||2.33|1.25|<0.001
91823912|NCT03328897|183524645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.25|||Regression, Cox|||||2.25|1.22|0.001
91823913|NCT03223298|183524684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-month mean change (from pre-op) in Jaw Pain compared between the Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.80
91823914|NCT03223298|183524685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-month mean Jaw Function Limitation Scale score compared between Botox group and placebo group.||||0.50
91823915|NCT03223298|183524686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in MIO with Pain at 3-months post-intervention compared between Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.30
91823916|NCT03223298|183524686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in MIO without Pain at 3-months post-intervention compared between Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.50
91952572|NCT01366846|183801554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-negative stratum.||||<0.001
91823917|NCT03223298|183524687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change at 3 months post intervention - General Health Score, compared between Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.40
91823918|NCT01040871|183524711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.038||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|2.037|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by IPI score|Odds ratio: VR-CAP CR rate relative to R-CHOP CR rate|||2.037|0.529|0.915
91823919|NCT01175824|183524738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in the LS mean between the two treatment arms (twice-daily insulin lispro Low Mixture minus the comparator arm) at 24 weeks is \<0.4%.|LS mean difference|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.04||||||||-0.04|-0.38|
91823920|NCT01175824|183524739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1858||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1858
91823921|NCT01175824|183524740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3588||95.0||||HbA1c concentration \<7%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.3588
91823922|NCT01175824|183524740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5958||95.0||||HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5958
91823923|NCT01175824|183524741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0827||95.0||||p-value is for the Week 12 comparison|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0827
91823924|NCT01175824|183524741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5353||95.0||||p-value is for the Week 24 comparison|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5353
91823925|NCT01175824|183524745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2833||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2833
91823926|NCT01175824|183524745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison at Week 24.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0176
91823927|NCT01175824|183524751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05||||Superiority will be concluded if of 95% CI upper limit for treatment difference (2x-daily insulin lispro LM minus the comparator arm) at 24 wks is \<0%||||-0.05|-0.39|
91823928|NCT00982319|183524756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91823929|NCT00767000|183524758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.8|-0.22|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.22|-0.80|<0.001
91952573|NCT01366846|183801554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-positive stratum.||||0.027
91823930|NCT00767000|183524758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.93|-0.36|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.36|-0.93|<0.001
91823931|NCT00767000|183524758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.53|||Contrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.53|-1.10|<0.001
91823932|NCT00767000|183524758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.04|-0.46|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.46|-1.04|<0.001
91823933|NCT00767000|183524759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-55.6|-17.5|||Constrained longitudial model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-17.5|-55.6|<0.001
91823934|NCT00767000|183524759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.7||||0.005||95.0|-45.4|-8.1|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-8.1|-45.4|0.005
91823935|NCT00767000|183524759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-54.0|-16.0|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-16.0|-54.0|<0.001
91823936|NCT00767000|183524759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-55.9|-17.9|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-17.9|-55.9|<0.001
91823937|NCT00767000|183524760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8||||0.791||95.0|-11.6|15.2|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||15.2|-11.6|0.791
91823938|NCT00767000|183524760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.3||||0.121||95.0|-2.7|23.2|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||23.2|-2.7|0.121
91823939|NCT00767000|183524760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3||||0.169||95.0|-22.6|4.0|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||4.0|-22.6|0.169
91823940|NCT00767000|183524760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.7||||0.321||95.0|-6.6|20.0|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||20.0|-6.6|0.321
91823941|NCT00127790|183524765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.01|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.010
91823942|NCT00127790|183524765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.581|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.581
91823943|NCT00127790|183524765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.011|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.011
91823944|NCT00127790|183524766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.33|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.33
91823945|NCT00127790|183524766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.112|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.112
91823946|NCT00127790|183524766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.737|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.737
91823947|NCT00127790|183524767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.063|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.063
91823948|NCT00127790|183524767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.786|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.786
91823949|NCT00127790|183524767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.039|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.039
91952574|NCT01366846|183801555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||<0.001
91952575|NCT01366846|183801556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Exact McNemar|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 60 to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 72 across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||0.250
91823950|NCT00127790|183524768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.016|||||||Generlaized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.016
91823951|NCT00127790|183524768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.187|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.187
91823952|NCT00127790|183524768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2||||0.015|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.015
91823953|NCT00097591|183524782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|0.927||The primary outcome measure was analyzed first in the UA/NSTEMI population, followed by All ACS subjects, followed by the STEMI population.|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||For UA/NSTEMI population||0.927|0.726|0.002
91823954|NCT00097591|183524782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|0.968|||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||For STEMI population||0.968|0.649|0.019
91823955|NCT00097591|183524782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.812|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.902|||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For All ACS population||0.902|0.732|<0.001
91823956|NCT00097591|183524783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.314||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|1.559|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For non-CABG TIMI Major or Minor Bleeding||1.559|1.107|0.002
91823957|NCT00097591|183524783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.315||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|1.683|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding||1.683|1.028|0.029
91823958|NCT00097591|183524783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.517||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.126|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - Life-threatening events (LT)||2.126|1.083|0.015
91823959|NCT00097591|183524783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.191||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.158|11.113|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Fatal||11.113|1.1580|0.002
91823960|NCT00097591|183524783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.119||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|2.152|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Symptomatic intracranial hemorrage (ICH)||2.152|0.582|0.736
91823961|NCT00097591|183524783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.617||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.159|5.908|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Requiring inotropes||5.908|1.159|0.016
91823962|NCT00097591|183524783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.998||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.885|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Requiring surgical intervention||1.885|0.528|0.995
91823963|NCT00097591|183524783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.499||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|2.379|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Requiring transfusion (\>=4 units)||2.379|0.945|0.084
91823964|NCT00097591|183524783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.313||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.656|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Minor Bleeding||1.656|1.040|0.022
91823965|NCT00097591|183524784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|0.894|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 30 days||0.894|0.688|<0.001
91823966|NCT00097591|183524784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|0.896|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 90 days||0.896|0.703|<0.001
91823967|NCT00097591|183524785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.876|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 30 days||0.876|0.672|<0.001
91823968|NCT00097591|183524785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|0.901|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 90 days||0.901|0.705|<0.001
91823969|NCT00097591|183524786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.838|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|0.921|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||||0.921|0.762|<0.001
91823970|NCT00097591|183524787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.919|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||||0.919|0.751|<0.001
91823971|NCT00563797|183524792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||F=7.73|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison is between baseline and during treatment.||||0.014
91823972|NCT00563797|183524793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||F=36.32|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of baseline and post-treatment||||.0001
91823973|NCT00563797|183524794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.025
91823974|NCT00563797|183524795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.019
91823975|NCT03264157|183524796|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is p-p0 ≤ -0.1. The alternative hypothesis is p-p0 \> -0.1, where p is the proportion of subjects with anti-rabies titer of \>0.5 IU/mL at Day 14 in subjects receiving BPL HRIG + vaccine and p0 is the proportion receiving comparator HRIG + vaccine. We reject the null hypothesis at the one-sided 0.025 significance level, and conclude that p-p0 \> -0.1, if the lower bound of an exact 95% binomial confidence interval exceeds -0.1.|lower 95% CI|-0.05||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|||The threshold for this test is \<=0.025.|Farrington and Manning test||||||-0.05|0.0006
91823976|NCT03264157|183524797|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non inferiority margin was 20%. The lower bound of the 95% CI required should be greater than 0.8 to conclude non-inferiority.|lower 95% CI|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94||||||||0.94|0.74|
91823977|NCT03264157|183524798|SUPERIORITY||95% CI|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Data analyzed as log normal. The value presented is the untransformed value of the difference between means.|||||
91823978|NCT03264157|183524799|NON_INFERIORITY|The same methodology was used as the primary endpoint for each visit. The statistical analysis is presenting the Day 14 data.|lower 95% CI|-0.05||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||Farrington and Manning test|||||0.10|-0.05|0.0006
91823979|NCT03264157|183524800|NON_INFERIORITY|The same methodology was used as the primary endpoint for each visit. The statistical analysis is presenting the Day 14 data.|lower 95% CI|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Farrington and Manning test||For Day 14, all subjects achieved the endpoint (RVNA titer \> LLOQ). Since the statistic to measure the performance is a proportion, the proportion is 1 and no variance is calculable.|||0|0|0
91823980|NCT00009737|183524802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio to the non-inferiority margin of 1.25 in a first step, and then of 1.20 in a second step.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||For difference between arms, \< 0.001 for non-inferiority|Wald Chi-Square Test|||||1.00|0.75|0.053
91823981|NCT00009737|183524803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio to the non-inferiority margin of 1.25|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99||For difference between arms, \< 0.001 for non-inferiority|Wald Chi-Square Test|||||0.99|0.74|0.041
91823982|NCT00009737|183524804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio to the non-inferiority margin of 1.25|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||For difference between arms, \< 0.001 for non-inferiority|Wald Chi-Square Test|||||1.01|0.69|0.071
91823983|NCT04188041|183524816|OTHER|see above||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired data was used to test for significant change in confidence.||||0.02
91823984|NCT02248922|183524864|OTHER|||||||0.4099|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4099
91823985|NCT02248922|183524865|OTHER|||||||0.6961|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6961
91823986|NCT02248922|183524866|OTHER|||||||0.354|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3540
91823987|NCT02248922|183524867|OTHER|||||||0.591|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5910
91823988|NCT02248922|183524868|OTHER|||||||0.4249|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4249
91823989|NCT02248922|183524869|OTHER|||||||0.3963|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3963
91823990|NCT02248922|183524870|OTHER|||||||0.3502|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3502
91823991|NCT02708745|183524877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
91823992|NCT02708745|183524878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
91823993|NCT02708745|183524879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||For the barrier 'not having enough time to discuss vaccine concerns', P=0.78. For the barrier 'not realizing until late in visit that parent had vaccine concerns', P=0.37. For the barrier 'not understanding parent specific vaccine concerns', P=0.66.|Chi-squared|||||||0.78
91823994|NCT01298063|183524887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|92.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.6||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.96|126.27||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||126.270|67.960|0.1998
91823995|NCT01298063|183524887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|94.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.278|124.549||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||124.549|72.278|0.1440
91823996|NCT01298063|183524888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|109.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.3||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.683|144.947||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||144.947|82.683|0.2002
91823997|NCT01298063|183524888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|126.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.8||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.028|187.159||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||187.159|86.028|0.5281
91823998|NCT01298063|183524889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|90.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.915|122.705||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||122.705|66.915|0.2309
91823999|NCT01298063|183524889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|94.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.4||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.563|124.764||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||124.764|71.563|0.1546
91824000|NCT04632940|183524898|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8912||0.5553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.308|1.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.251|-2.308|0.5553
91824001|NCT02550652|183524972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.3||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|28.1||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.1|-3.4|0.1145
91824002|NCT02550652|183524972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.3||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.1|22.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference in Percentage of Participants||||22.6|2.1|0.1145
91824003|NCT02550652|183524973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|20.1||||0.0246||95.0|3.0|37.2||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.2|3.0|0.0246
91824004|NCT02550652|183524973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|20.1||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.9|31.3||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.3|8.9|0.0246
91824005|NCT02550652|183524974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0744|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0744
91824006|NCT02550652|183524975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|21.7||||0.015||95.0|4.7|38.7||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.7|4.7|0.0150
91824007|NCT02550652|183524975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|21.7||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.6|32.8||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.8|10.6|0.0150
91824008|NCT02550652|183524976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.0||||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|13.4||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|-17.5|0.8461
91824009|NCT02550652|183524976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.0||||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.1|8.1||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.1|-12.1|0.8461
91824010|NCT02550652|183524977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3530
91824011|NCT02550652|183524978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.491||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||-0.491|-1.13|<0.0001
91824012|NCT02550652|183524978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.019|-0.602||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||-0.602|-1.019|<0.0001
91824013|NCT02550652|183524979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.178||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.275||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||0.275|0.081|0.0004
91824014|NCT02550652|183524979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.178||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.115|0.241|||ANCOVA|||||0.241|0.115|0.0004
91824015|NCT02550652|183524980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.088|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.052|0.124|||ANCOVA|Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).||||0.124|0.052|<0.0001
91824016|NCT02550652|183524980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.088|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.065|0.112||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||0.112|0.065|<0.0001
91824017|NCT02550652|183524981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|13.9||||0.09||95.0|-2.4|30.1||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.1|-2.4|0.0900
91824018|NCT02550652|183524981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|13.9||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.2|24.5||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|3.2|0.0900
91824019|NCT02550652|183524982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.6||||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|27.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.6|-6.4|0.1838
91824020|NCT02550652|183524982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.6||||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|21.7||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.7|-0.5|0.1838
91824021|NCT02550652|183524983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.3||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|24.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|-10.0|0.3726
91824022|NCT02550652|183524983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.3||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|18.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|-4.0|0.3726
91824023|NCT01706250|183524994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.98||0.6779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for IL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV at Wk 8||||0.6779
91824024|NCT01706250|183524994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.51||0.2847|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for NIL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV at Wk 8||||0.2847
91824025|NCT01706250|183524994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.35||0.6894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for TL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV at Wk 8||||0.6894
91824026|NCT01706250|183524995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.1||0.9909|||||||Signed Rank|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: IL count, BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.9909
91824027|NCT01706250|183524995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.91||0.6671|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV- BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.6671
91824028|NCT01706250|183524995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|23.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.05||0.0632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: IL count, BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.0632
91824029|NCT01706250|183524996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.31||0.7385|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: NIL count, BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.7385
91824030|NCT01706250|183524996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.77||0.7296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: NIL count, BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.7296
91824031|NCT01706250|183524996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.11||0.3774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: NIL count, BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.3774
91824032|NCT01706250|183524997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.53||0.7634|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: TL count, BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.7634
91824033|NCT01706250|183524997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.61||0.4087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: TL count, BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.4087
91824034|NCT01706250|183524997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.4||0.2455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: TL count, BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.2455
91824035|NCT01706250|183524998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.0000
91824036|NCT01706250|183524998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56||0.125|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.1250
91824037|NCT01706250|183524998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.625|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.6250
91824038|NCT01706250|183524998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||1.0000
91824039|NCT01706250|183524999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Erythema for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.0000
91824040|NCT01706250|183524999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Signed Rank|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Erythema for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||1.0000
91824041|NCT01706250|183525000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.00
91824042|NCT01706250|183525000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1|||||||Signed rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||1.0000
91824043|NCT01706250|183525001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||1|||||||Signed rank|||Change, in Peeling, for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||1.0000
91824044|NCT01706250|183525002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67||0.5313||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.5313
91824045|NCT01706250|183525002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.5||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.5000
91824046|NCT01706250|183525002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.75|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.7500
91824047|NCT01706250|183525002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84||0.25|||||||Signed rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.2500
91824048|NCT01706250|183525003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.2131|||||||Signed Rank)|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.2131
91824049|NCT01706250|183525003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16||0.2656||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.2656
91824050|NCT01706250|183525003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.2344||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.2344
91824051|NCT01706250|183525003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.3594||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.3594
91824052|NCT01706250|183525004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32||0.6172|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.6172
91824053|NCT01706250|183525004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93||0.3984|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.3984
91824054|NCT01706250|183525004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.0781||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.0781
91824055|NCT01706250|183525004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24||0.375||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.3750
91824056|NCT01706250|183525005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||1||95.0|||||[Signed Rank]|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.0000
91824057|NCT01706250|183525005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||0.0625||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.0625
91824058|NCT01706250|183525005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.25||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.2500
91824059|NCT01706250|183525005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38||0.25||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.2500
91824060|NCT01706250|183525006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Signed Rank|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.5||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.5000
91824061|NCT01706250|183525006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Signed Rank|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.75||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.7500
91824062|NCT01706250|183525006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62||0.4531||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.4531
91824063|NCT01706250|183525006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.625||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.6250
91824064|NCT02486406|183525019|SUPERIORITY||Wilson's score method|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.7|99.7||||||According to the Highlights of Prescribing Information of PEGASYS, the SVR24 rate was 47% among 45 treatment-naïve pediatric participants with HCV GT1 in the NV17424 trial. To show that the DAA regimen is superior to this current standard of care by 20%, the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the SVR12 rate across all participants in the study must be greater than 67%.||99.7|91.7|
91952576|NCT01366846|183801557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Exact McNemar|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 60 to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 72 across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||0.250
91824065|NCT01196871|183525025|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|2.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.439|3.548|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% confidence interval (CI) are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.548|2.439|
91824066|NCT01196871|183525025|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUCinfinity Ratio|2.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.431|3.56|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUCinfinity Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.560|2.431|
91824067|NCT01196871|183525025|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|2.354|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.826|3.035|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.035|1.826|
91824068|NCT01196871|183525025|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUCinfinity Ratio|2.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.839|3.068|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 AUCinfinity Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.068|1.839|
91824069|NCT01196871|183525026|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|1.843|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.843|1.440|
91824070|NCT01196871|183525026|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.546|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.838|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.838|1.300|
91824071|NCT01196871|183525028|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|1.14|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.140|0.921|
91824072|NCT01196871|183525028|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects mode Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|1.256|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.026|1.538|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.538|1.026|
91824073|NCT01196871|183525030|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.152|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.152|0.929|
91824074|NCT01196871|183525030|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.164|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.164|0.972|
91952577|NCT04311411|183801575|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-534.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-668.2|-400.02|||ANCOVA|||||-400.02|-668.20|<.0001
91952578|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0439||||0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0994|0.1871|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insula||0.1871|-0.0994|0.5437
91952579|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.1806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0441|0.2301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insula||0.2301|-0.0441|0.1806
91952580|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0491||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1846|0.0863|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insula||0.0863|-0.1846|0.4720
91952581|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0011||||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1079|0.1058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Medial frontal gyrus||0.1058|-0.1079|0.9842
91824075|NCT01196871|183525032|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|1.371|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.371|0.818|
91824076|NCT01196871|183525032|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUCinfinity Ratio|1.052|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|1.371|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUCinfinity Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.371|0.807|
91824077|NCT01196871|183525033|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.791|1.259|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.259|0.791|
91824078|NCT03509948|183525046|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|79.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.4|95.35||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||95.35|66.40|
91824079|NCT03509948|183525047|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|92.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.37|95.95||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||95.95|88.37|
91824080|NCT03509948|183525048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|90.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.99|97.2||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||97.20|84.99|
91824081|NCT03509948|183525050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.75||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||1.75|0.25|
91824082|NCT03509948|183525052|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|91.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.55|95.41||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||95.41|87.55|
91824083|NCT01331694|183525055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||||95.0|1.5|1.79|||||Hazard ratio for hospitalization or emergency department visit for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.79|1.50|
91824084|NCT01331694|183525055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||||95.0|1.17|1.41|||||Hazard ratio for hospitalization or emergency department visit for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.41|1.17|
91952582|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0077||||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0949|0.1102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Medial frontal gyrus||0.1102|-0.0949|0.8822
91824085|NCT01331694|183525055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||||95.0|1.59|2.0|||||Hazard ratio for emergency department visit for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||2.00|1.59|
91824086|NCT01331694|183525055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||||95.0|1.17|1.51|||||Hazard ratio for emergency department visit for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.51|1.17|
91824087|NCT01331694|183525055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||||95.0|1.41|1.94|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with oral steroid fill for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.94|1.41|
91824088|NCT01331694|183525055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||||95.0|1.26|1.76|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with oral steroid fill for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.76|1.26|
91824089|NCT01331694|183525055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||||95.0|1.23|1.57|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with antibiotic fill for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.57|1.23|
91824090|NCT01331694|183525055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||||95.0|1.17|1.51|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with antibiotic fill for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.51|1.17|
91824091|NCT00508742|183525064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.65||||||||0.65|0.47|
91824092|NCT00508742|183525065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9||||||Month 7: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.9|0.5|
91824093|NCT00508742|183525065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7||||||Month 12: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.7|0.4|
91824094|NCT00508742|183525065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||||||Month 13: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.5|0.3|
91824095|NCT00508742|183525065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7||||||Month 18: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.7|0.4|
91824096|NCT00508742|183525065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8||||||Month 24: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.8|0.4|
91952583|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0087||||0.8657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1111|0.0937|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Medial frontal gyrus||0.0937|-0.1111|0.8657
91952584|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0043||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.1736|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superior temporal gyrus||0.1736|-0.1650|0.9599
91952585|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0489||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1129|0.2107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superior temporal gyrus||0.2107|-0.1129|0.5490
91824097|NCT00320281|183525092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.432
91824098|NCT02312310|183525136|SUPERIORITY|Test of trend across doses.||||||0.393|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in outcome from baseline to 12 weeks tested using mixed effects models controlling for baseline measures, treatment, sex, age, and education.|||The flavanol effect on the change in each outcome from baseline to 12 weeks was tested using linear mixed effects models controlling for the respective baseline measures, four categories of treatment, sex, age, and education. Regression adjusted mean within-group tests of change were estimated and tested for statistical significance from the model. The primary test used for assessing the treatment effect was the linear trend contrast from the model across: placebo, low, medium and high dose. The model for cognitive measures incorporated additional outcome measurement times at 4 weeks and 20 weeks and included categorical time (4, 12, 20 weeks) as a predictor as well as a treatment (4 category) by time interaction, and a random intercept to control for repeated measures within individuals (results for 4 and 20 weeks not presented).|||.393
91824099|NCT00812812|183525141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|2.5|||ANCOVA||Mean difference was estimated as paroxetine minus placebo.|||2.5|-11.7|0.198
91824100|NCT02114892|183525146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
91824101|NCT02114892|183525147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
91824102|NCT02114892|183525148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.070
91824103|NCT02114892|183525149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.338|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.338
91824104|NCT02114892|183525150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
91824105|NCT02114892|183525151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91824106|NCT02114892|183525152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.083|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.083
91824107|NCT02114892|183525153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91824108|NCT02114892|183525154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91824109|NCT02114892|183525155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.946|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
91952586|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0446||||0.5854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2068|0.1176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superior temporal gyrus||0.1176|-0.2068|0.5854
91824110|NCT02114892|183525156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.365
91824111|NCT02114892|183525157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.557
91824112|NCT02114892|183525158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91824113|NCT02114892|183525159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91824114|NCT02114892|183525160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.672
91824115|NCT04327934|183525183|EQUIVALENCE|We compared groups across treatments||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
91824116|NCT04327934|183525184|EQUIVALENCE|We compared across groups and within groups over time.|||||<|0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.016
91824117|NCT04327934|183525184|EQUIVALENCE|We compared across groups and within groups over time.||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91824118|NCT04327934|183525187|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Friedman's tests to compare slopes|Friedman's test|||||||0.05
91824119|NCT04327934|183525189|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
91824120|NCT04327934|183525189|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
91824121|NCT04327934|183525190|EQUIVALENCE|We compared groups across treatments||||||0.0023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0023
91824122|NCT04327934|183525191|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
91824123|NCT04327934|183525192|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
91824124|NCT02443298|183525193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.18|1.81|||Cox proportional hazards model||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|This was analyzed by using a Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment and the stratification factor of OCS use at baseline as fixed effects.||1.81|1.18|0.0255
91824125|NCT02443298|183525194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.2|1.79|||Cox proportional hazards model||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|This was analyzed by using a Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment and the stratification factor of OCS use at baseline as fixed effects.||1.79|1.20|0.0131
91824126|NCT02443298|183525195|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.4937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.2366|1.8044|||Negative binomial regression||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|Annualized rate is obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression including logarithm of the exposure as an offset, treatment, and OCS use at baseline as covariate.||1.8044|1.2366|0.0065
91824127|NCT02443298|183525196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4619|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.88|1.57|||Cox proportional hazards model||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|Time to first event is obtained from fitting a Cox proportional-hazards model including treatment, and OCS use at baseline as covariate||1.57|0.88|0.4619
91824128|NCT02443298|183525197|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.1317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8652|1.4803|||Negative binomial regression||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|Annualized rate is obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression including logarithm of the exposure as an offset, treatment, and OCS use at baseline as covariate.||1.4803|0.8652|0.5550
91824129|NCT02443298|183525198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.104|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure for within-patient variation|Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|The adjusted mean (SE) are obtained from fitting a mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, OCS use at baseline, test day, treatment-by-test day interaction, baseline, and baseline-by-test day interaction as covariates patient as a random effect.||0.026|-0.104|0.4423
91952587|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0192||||0.7203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1259|0.0874|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Precentral gyrus||0.0874|-0.1259|0.7203
91952588|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0404||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0617|0.1425|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Precentral gyrus||0.1425|-0.0617|0.4330
91952589|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0596||||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1619|0.0426|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Precentral gyrus||0.0426|-0.1619|0.2488
91824130|NCT02443298|183525199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.126|-0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure for within-patient variation|Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|The adjusted mean (SE) are obtained from fitting a mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, OCS use at baseline, test day, treatment-by-test day interaction, baseline, and baseline-by-test day interaction as covariates patient as a random effect.||-0.009|-0.126|0.1377
91824131|NCT02443298|183525200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.297|||ANCOVA||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|The adjusted mean (SE) are obtained from fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model separately for each week including treatment, OCS use at baseline, and baseline as covariates. The weekly averages of daily measurements are calculated before fitting the model.||0.297|0.000|0.1985
91824132|NCT03095417|183525201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.747
91824133|NCT03095417|183525202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
91824134|NCT03095417|183525203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.264
91824135|NCT03095417|183525204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.511|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.511
91824136|NCT03095417|183525205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.677
91824137|NCT03095417|183525206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.815
91824138|NCT03095417|183525207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.719
91824139|NCT03095417|183525208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.346
91824140|NCT03095417|183525209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.910
91824141|NCT03095417|183525210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.794
91952590|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.8886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1059|0.0919|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cingulate gyrus||0.0919|-0.1059|0.8886
91824142|NCT03095417|183525211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.626
91824143|NCT03095417|183525212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.774
91824144|NCT02571452|183525213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-0.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-6.65|.021
91824145|NCT02571452|183525214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.30|-1.26|.568
91824146|NCT02571452|183525215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|-2.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.33|-5.87|<.001
91824147|NCT02571452|183525216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-1.61|.173
91824148|NCT03161314|183525217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.660
91824149|NCT03161314|183525217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.734
91824150|NCT03161314|183525217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.629
91824151|NCT03161314|183525217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.752
91824152|NCT03161314|183525217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.512
91824153|NCT03161314|183525217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
91824154|NCT03161314|183525217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
91824155|NCT03161314|183525218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.128
91824156|NCT03161314|183525218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.889
91824157|NCT03161314|183525218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.793
91824158|NCT03161314|183525218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.602
91824159|NCT03161314|183525218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.574
91824160|NCT03161314|183525218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
91824161|NCT03161314|183525218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
91824162|NCT03161314|183525219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.374
91824163|NCT03161314|183525219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.674
91824164|NCT03161314|183525219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.781
91824165|NCT03161314|183525219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.778
91824166|NCT03161314|183525219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.727
91824167|NCT03161314|183525219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.014
91824168|NCT03161314|183525219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
91824169|NCT03161314|183525220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.390
91824170|NCT03161314|183525220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.770
91824171|NCT03161314|183525220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.603
91824172|NCT03161314|183525220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.922
91824173|NCT03161314|183525220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.560
91824174|NCT03161314|183525220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.181
91824175|NCT03161314|183525220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
91824176|NCT03161314|183525221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.334
91952591|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0684||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0267|0.1635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cingulate gyrus||0.1635|-0.0267|0.1563
91952592|NCT04311411|183801576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0754||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1704|0.0196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cingulate gyrus||0.0196|-0.1704|0.1182
91952593|NCT04311411|183801577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.11|29.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting (Pre-lunch)||29.02|12.11|<.0001
91824177|NCT03161314|183525221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.766
91824178|NCT03161314|183525221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.598
91824179|NCT03161314|183525221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.682
91824180|NCT03161314|183525221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.707|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.707
91824181|NCT03161314|183525221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.008
91824182|NCT03161314|183525221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
91824183|NCT03161314|183525222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.287
91824184|NCT03161314|183525222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.861
91824185|NCT03161314|183525222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.641
91824186|NCT03161314|183525222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.864
91824187|NCT03161314|183525222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.888
91824188|NCT03161314|183525222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.262
91824189|NCT03161314|183525222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
91824190|NCT03698773|183525233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91824191|NCT03698773|183525234|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91824192|NCT01260922|183525245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.07|107.51|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.51|97.07|
91824193|NCT01260922|183525246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Slope|94.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|97.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||97.46|92.11|
91824194|NCT04165291|183525248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.01
91824195|NCT04165291|183525249|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||.08
91824196|NCT04165291|183525250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||.116
91824197|NCT04165291|183525251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.146|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91824198|NCT04165291|183525252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||||||.13
91824199|NCT04165291|183525253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||.35
91824200|NCT01599650|183525260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in LS mean|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|12.8|||ANOVA|||||12.8|7.3|<0.0001
91824201|NCT01599650|183525260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in LS Means|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|11.6|||ANOVA|||||11.6|5.8|<0.0001
91824202|NCT01731171|183525271|OTHER|The effect of treatment was calculated using logistic regression and the Cox proportional hazard function employing age, gender, and race as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.37|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic||Values less than one favor adjunctive probiotic treatment, while values higher than one favor the placebo.|||||=.029
91824203|NCT01731171|183525272|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.022
91824204|NCT01731171|183525273|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||=.009
91824205|NCT01731171|183525274|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||=.017
91824206|NCT01410110|183525275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|6.25||a prior threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|df = 40||t-test for equality of means||6.25|-11.57|.55
91824207|NCT01410110|183525276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|2.05||Time X Condition|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models allows for all randomized participants (N=48) to be included in the model.||F Test (df = 1,39.32), Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition||2.05|-1.73|.86
91824208|NCT01410110|183525277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|2.39||a priori threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.39|-7.36|<.31
91824209|NCT01410110|183525278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.08||a priori threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|df=39||||2.08|-1.77|.87
91824210|NCT01410110|183525279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,36.86)||1.33|-2.07|.67
91824211|NCT01410110|183525280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition, F Test F (df = 1,42.4)||.83|-1.67|.50
91824212|NCT01410110|183525281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,70.15)||2.01|.32|.008
91824213|NCT01410110|183525282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,37.8)||3.93|.169|.03
91824214|NCT01410110|183525283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|9.46||a priori p-value is .05. for two-tailed test. Positive estimated value is in the direction of the experimental condition.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,39.8)||9.46|-1.73|.17
91824215|NCT01700946|183525284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.035
91824216|NCT01700946|183525285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.105
91824217|NCT01700946|183525286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1181|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1181
91824218|NCT00684424|183525291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||R-ratio|-56.723|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.9499||||95.0|||||summary statistic|||R-ratio of seizure frequency summaries = \[(t-b)/(t+b)\]\*100; where t= treatment seizure frequency and b= baseline seizure frequency.||||
91824219|NCT01649856|183525302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|8.2||||0.076||95.0|-1.1|17.5|||Chi-squared|||||17.5|-1.1|0.076
91824220|NCT00835406|183525316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA will be performed on ln-transformed Ae0-36 and Rmax at the α level of 0.05.|Ratio of the mean|97.94||||||90.0|90.96|105.45|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.45|90.96|
91824221|NCT00835406|183525317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA will be performed on ln-transformed Ae0-35 and Rmax at the α level of 0.05.|Ratio of the mean|100.36||||||90.0|92.85|108.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||108.48|92.85|
91824222|NCT01071512|183525371|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data from subjects, including those who dropped out early.||||0.17
91824223|NCT01071512|183525372|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.6
91824224|NCT01071512|183525373|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.3
91824225|NCT01071512|183525374|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.02
91824226|NCT01071512|183525375|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.9
91824227|NCT00594256|183525378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||=0.002
91952594|NCT04311411|183801577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.63||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|14.79||Fasting|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting (Pre-lunch)||14.79|-1.53|0.1097
91824228|NCT00594256|183525379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||0.02
91824229|NCT00594256|183525380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||0.04
91824230|NCT00594256|183525381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||0.8
91824231|NCT00594256|183525382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||<0.01
91824232|NCT00853658|183525383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||(superiority)||1.03|0.85|0.1724
91824233|NCT00853658|183525383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||(superiority) Non-Diabetic patients||1.07|0.85|0.4579
91824234|NCT00853658|183525383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified Non-inferiority margin 1.104 is used.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.90|0.0368
91824235|NCT00853658|183525383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||(superiority)||1.10|0.90|0.9118
91824236|NCT02797262|183525387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the IPAM score between two groups.||||0.57
91824237|NCT02797262|183525389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the change of the plasma HIV RNA levels during the intervention period (week 0-16) between two groups.||||0.08
91824238|NCT02797262|183525389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the change of the plasma HIV RNA levels during the post-intervention period (week 16-28) between two groups.||||0.23
91824239|NCT02797262|183525389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the plasma HIV RNA levels during week 4-28 between two groups.||||0.03
91824240|NCT04160260|183525396|EQUIVALENCE|Omadacycline 300 mg PO provided equivalent total exposure as measured by AUC relative to omadacycline 100 mg IV.|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|107.5|||||A t-test on the natural log-transformed PK parameter AUC(0-48) was performed to obtain the Geometric Mean Ratio and its confidence interval.|Comparison was performed with the 100 mg intravenous (IV) omadacycline treatment group (data were obtained from 6 completed studies-NCT numbers not available). Using the Day 1 plasma concentration profile of the 100 mg IV QD dosing from these studies, a BID dosing on Day 1 and a QD dosing on Day 2 was simulated using the superposition principle. Log Geometric Mean (GM) AUC(0-48) of omadacycline for the 100 mg IV omadacycline group was as follows:Participants analyzed=63; GM (SD)=9.98 (0.2091).||107.5|84.2|
91824241|NCT04160260|183525397|EQUIVALENCE|Omadacycline 300 mg PO provided equivalent total exposure as measured by AUC relative to omadacycline 100 mg IV.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|115.5|||||A t-test on the natural log-transformed PK parameter AUC(0-24) was performed to obtain the Geometric Mean Ratio and its confidence interval.|Comparison was performed with the 100 mg IV omadacycline treatment group (data were obtained from 6 completed studies-NCT numbers not available). Using the Day 1 plasma concentration profile of the 100 mg IV QD dosing from these studies, a BID dosing on Day 1 and a QD dosing on Day 2 was simulated using the superposition principle. Log GM AUC(0-24) of omadacycline for the 100 mg IV omadacycline group was as follows:Participants analyzed=63; GM (SD)=9.26 (0.1985).||115.5|88.0|
91824242|NCT01227512|183525404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9495||||||The alpha level was set at 0.05|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|Participants who used rescue therapy within first 7 days of treatment period were censored at time they started the rescue therapy.||||||0.9495
91952595|NCT04311411|183801577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.94||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.49|22.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting (Pre-lunch)||22.38|5.49|0.0015
91952596|NCT04311411|183801577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Postprandial (Post-lunch)||8.09|-3.60|0.4469
91952597|NCT04311411|183801577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.8227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|6.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Postprandial (Post-lunch)||6.31|-5.02|0.8227
91952598|NCT04311411|183801577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|7.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Postprandial (Post-lunch)||7.45|-4.23|0.5861
91824243|NCT01227512|183525405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.146||95.0|-0.7|0.11||alpha level was set at 0.05. p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Includes factors of treatment, study center and covariate baseline.||||0.11|-0.70|0.1460
91824244|NCT01227512|183525406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.315||95.0|-0.57|0.19|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||P value corresponds to 24 hours post-dose.||0.19|-0.57|0.3150
91824245|NCT01227512|183525406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5381||95.0|-0.57|0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||P value corresponds to 72 hours post-dose.||0.30|-0.57|0.5381
91824246|NCT01227512|183525407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.2702||95.0|-0.73|0.21||P-value was derived from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.73|0.2702
91824247|NCT01227512|183525408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77||||0.0019||95.0|1.43|6.11||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||6.11|1.43|0.0019
91824248|NCT01227512|183525409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5128||||||p-value was derived from Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by treatment. Participants who received rescue therapy were censored at the time of receiving rescue therapy.|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||||||0.5128
91824249|NCT01227512|183525410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.1||||0.5795||95.0|0.79|1.52||P-value was derived using a CMH test stratified by hyponatremia symptoms severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.52|0.79|0.5795
91824250|NCT01227512|183525411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.33||||0.1568||95.0|0.07|1.65||p-value was derived using a CMH test stratified by hyponatremia symptoms severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.65|0.07|0.1568
91824251|NCT02517905|183525451|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-2.7||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|28.2|||ANOVA|||||28.2|-33.5|0.8661
91824252|NCT02517905|183525452|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-4.0||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|10.2|||ANOVA|||||10.2|-18.2|0.5780
91824253|NCT02517905|183525453|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|5.9||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|52.1|||ANOVA|||||52.1|-40.2|0.8010
91824254|NCT00023452|183525457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Disease Rate|-0.24|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the rate in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the rate in the 9INH arm.|||0.01||
91824255|NCT00023452|183525458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% CI was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Rate|-0.21|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.04|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the percentage in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the percentage in the 9INH arm.|||0.04||
91824256|NCT00023452|183525459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% CI was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Disease Rate|-0.25|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the percentage in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the percentage in the 9INH arm.|||0.03||
91824257|NCT00023452|183525460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91824258|NCT00023452|183525461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Grade 3 Drug Toxicity||||0.24
91824259|NCT00023452|183525461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Grade 4 Drug Toxicity||||0.59
91824260|NCT00023452|183525462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
91824261|NCT00023452|183525464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91824262|NCT00023452|183525465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91824263|NCT00023452|183525466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% CI was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Disease Rate|-0.19|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.06|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the percentage in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the percentage in the 9INH arm.|||0.06||
91824264|NCT04551105|183525497|SUPERIORITY||different in area under the LROC curve|0.0374|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.0557|||OR-DBM model|||||0.0557|0.0190|<0.05
91824265|NCT04551105|183525498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.78|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91824266|NCT04551105|183525499|SUPERIORITY||different in sensitivity|-0.0013|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2307|0.2281|||McNemar|||||0.2281|-0.2307|<0.05
91824267|NCT04551105|183525499|SUPERIORITY||different in specificity|0.1065|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0008|0.2122|||McNemar|||||0.2122|0.0008|<0.05
91824268|NCT04551105|183525499|SUPERIORITY||different in PPV|-0.086|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1824|0.0104|||McNemar|||||0.0104|-0.1824|<0.05
91824269|NCT04551105|183525499|SUPERIORITY||different in NPV|0.086|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0104|0.1824|||McNemar|||||0.1824|-0.0104|<0.05
91824270|NCT00459134|183525506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.0||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups.||The null hypothesis is that sexual function will be the same in both groups at 12 weeks. A Mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups was used to test this hypothesis.||3.00|-1.67|0.576
91824271|NCT00459134|183525507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|7.89||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups.||The null hypothesis was that quality of life would be the same in both groups at 12 weeks. A mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups was used to test this hypothesis.||7.89|1.09|0.010
91824272|NCT02276495|183525531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.668
91824273|NCT02276495|183525532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
91824274|NCT02276495|183525533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.013
91824275|NCT03047447|183525559|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with HgA1c for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91824276|NCT03047447|183525560|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with weight for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
91824277|NCT03047447|183525561|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with BMI for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
91824278|NCT03047447|183525562|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with body fat mass for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
91824279|NCT03047447|183525563|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with blood ketones for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
91824280|NCT02669329|183525577|OTHER||success proportion|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.9|93.4||||||||93.4|72.9|
91824281|NCT01404312|183525588|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority margin: 1.25 events per 100 person-years.~Sample size determination was based on the assumption of a primary endpoint rate of 2.0/100 person-years, with a one-sided 0.025 alpha level, and targeting at least 90% power. This required a sample size of approximately 2500. The sample size was adjusted upwards to account for loss to follow-up, interim monitoring, and to allow for subgroup analyses with reasonable power."|Incidence Rate Difference|-0.0231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.346|0.3|||||"Estimate given as Incidence rate in Arm A - Incidence Rate in Arm B (negative favors Arm A).~Incidence rate units: Events per 100 person-years"|Mantel-Haenszel method used for estimating standardized incidence rate in each arm and incidence rate difference.||0.300|-0.346|
91824282|NCT01404312|183525589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.016||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.002||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Estimate given as: Proportion Arm A - Proportion Arm B|"Comparison of the proportion of participants with any SAE occurrence between arms A and B.~H0: Proportion of participants with SAE in Arm A = Proportion of participants with SAE in Arm B."||0.002|-0.035|0.073
91824283|NCT01404312|183525590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0058||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.007||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact||Estimate given as: Proportion Arm A - Proportion Arm B|"Comparison of the proportion of participants with any targeted adverse event occurrence between arms A and B.~H0: Proportion of participants with a targeted adverse event in Arm A = Proportion of participants with a targeted adverse event in Arm B."||0.007|-0.019|0.405
91952599|NCT00933543|183801662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.43||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|63.18||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||63.18|0.65|0.0703
91824284|NCT01404312|183525591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.315|3.332|||||"Estimate given as: Odds of being in higher category (more stringent management due to toxicity) for Arm B compared with arm A~Not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|"Odds ratio of being in higher category estimated from proportional odds model~H0: Odds ratio of being in higher category for Arm A vs Arm B = 1"||3.332|1.315|
91824285|NCT01404312|183525592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3078||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||H0: Survival curve Arm A = Survival curve Arm B||||0.3078
91824286|NCT01404312|183525593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.396||||0.2802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|2.559||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio||Hazard ratio given as: Arm B hazard / Arm A hazard, i.e. HR \> 1 favors arm A|"Competing risk analysis using the Fine-Gray model, treating TB-related deaths as competing risks, and other deaths including deaths of unknown cause as the event of interest.~H0: Hazard Ratio for Arm A vs Arm B = 1"||2.559|0.762|0.2802
91824287|NCT02451748|183525621|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.5378||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7 was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and second visit is as follows.||||0.5378
91824288|NCT02451748|183525621|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.919||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7 was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and third visit is as follows.||||0.919
91824289|NCT02451748|183525621|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.4255||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7 was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the second and third visit is as follows.||||0.4255
91824290|NCT02451748|183525621|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.1037||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7R was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and second visit is as follows.||||0.1037
91824291|NCT02451748|183525621|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.0008||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7R was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and third visit is as follows.||||0.0008
91952600|NCT00933543|183801664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.92||||0.2969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|3.5||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||3.50|-11.35|0.2969
91824292|NCT02451748|183525621|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.0001||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7R was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the second and third visit is as follows.||||0.0001
91824293|NCT00071487|183525622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|7.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using a last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||7.2|-19.4|0.3677
91824294|NCT00071487|183525622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.4244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|20.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||20.6|-8.7|0.4244
91824295|NCT00071487|183525622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.3296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|6.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||6.6|-19.6|0.3296
91824296|NCT00071487|183525623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6423||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required protocol-prohibited medications were considered to have a flare on the date the prohibited medication was started or date of the first flare, whichever came first. Patients who withdrew from the study for reasons other than SLE disease manifestations or hospitalization related to SLE or who missed 2 or more consecutive visits were censored at the time of the last assessment.||||0.6423
91824297|NCT00071487|183525623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8536||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required protocol-prohibited medications were considered to have a flare on the date the prohibited medication was started or date of the first flare, whichever came first. Patients who withdrew from the study for reasons other than SLE disease manifestations or hospitalization related to SLE or who missed 2 or more consecutive visits were censored at the time of the last assessment.||||0.8536
91824298|NCT00071487|183525623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9705||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required protocol-prohibited medications were considered to have a flare on the date the prohibited medication was started or date of the first flare, whichever came first. Patients who withdrew from the study for reasons other than SLE disease manifestations or hospitalization related to SLE or who missed 2 or more consecutive visits were censored at the time of the last assessment.||||0.9705
91824299|NCT00071487|183525624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|4.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||4.1|-22.4|0.1763
91824300|NCT00071487|183525624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|14.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||14.3|-20.9|0.7112
91824301|NCT00071487|183525624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|7.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||7.5|-22.2|0.3320
91824302|NCT00071487|183525625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.6||||0.1287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|8.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||8.4|-65.6|0.1287
91952601|NCT00933543|183801665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.8913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|10.43||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||10.43|-9.09|0.8913
91824303|NCT00071487|183525625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98||||0.8807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|42.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||42.1|-36.2|0.8807
91824304|NCT00071487|183525625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.41||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|7.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||7.3|-68.1|0.1131
91824305|NCT00071487|183525626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|10.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||10.4|-13.8|0.7823
91824306|NCT00071487|183525626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|3.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||3.4|-18.2|0.1774
91824307|NCT00071487|183525626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.6406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|9.1|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||9.1|-14.8|0.6406
91824308|NCT00071487|183525627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|29.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||29.1|-38.6|0.7822
91952602|NCT00694070|183801688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The null and alternative hypotheses for these tests will have the form:~Ho: Pr{Success} \< Po vs. Ha: Pr{Success} ≥ Po. Critical values for numbers of successes were computed to give approximately a 90% chance of rejecting Ho in favor of the alternative (non-inferiority) if the true probability of success is at least Po. For Po = 80%, with n=51, critical number is 38. With this critical value and sample size, the power to reject Ho is approximately 87.43%."||||||0.0421|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0421
91824309|NCT00071487|183525627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|15.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||15.4|-45.3|0.3332
91824310|NCT00071487|183525627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|21.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||21.5|-46.9|0.4660
91824311|NCT00071487|183525628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5615||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI (SLE Flare Index).||||0.5615
91824312|NCT00071487|183525628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7593||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI (SLE Flare Index).||||0.7593
91824313|NCT00071487|183525628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2273||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI (SLE Flare Index).||||0.2273
91824314|NCT00071487|183525629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|-7.1||||0.4355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|10.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who dropped out or had missing data were considered failures.||10.6|-24.7|0.4355
91824315|NCT00071487|183525629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|4.4||||0.6669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|24.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who dropped out or had missing data were considered failures.||24.2|-15.5|0.6669
91824316|NCT00071487|183525629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|17.7||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|37.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who dropped out or had missing data were considered failures.||37.9|-2.5|0.0882
91824317|NCT00673049|183525666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.31||One-sided significance level at alpha=0.024 was used. Two-sided p-value was reported.|Log Rank|Nominal p-values were reported without adjustment for the interim analysis.||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by gender (Male or Female), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (less than or equal to \[=\<1\] or 2), and region (United States/Canada, European Union, rest of world). The stratified Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate the hazard ratio, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.310|0.909|0.35
91824318|NCT00673049|183525667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.287||One-sided significance level at alpha=0.001 was used. Two-sided p-value was reported.|Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by gender (Male or Female), ECOG performance status (less than or equal to \[=\<1\] or 2), and region (United States/Canada, European Union, rest of world). The stratified Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate the hazard ratio, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.287|0.898|0.426
91824319|NCT00673049|183525668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|1.668||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.1|||Chi-squared|||||5.1|-1.7|0.338
91952603|NCT00694070|183801689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The null and alternative hypotheses for these tests will have the form:~Ho: Pr{Success} \< Po vs. Ha: Pr{Success} ≥ Po. Critical values for numbers of successes were computed to give approximately a 90% chance of rejecting Ho in favor of the alternative (non-inferiority) if the true probability of success is at least Po. For Po = 95%, with n=51, critical number is 47. With this critical value and sample size, the power to reject Ho is approximately 88.96%."||||||0.0309|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0309
91824320|NCT00693992|183525697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.47|0.0006
91824321|NCT00693992|183525698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.73|0.89
91824322|NCT00693992|183525700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0061
91824323|NCT00693992|183525701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8393|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8393
91824324|NCT04265755|183525704|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a logistic regression model which includes age, sex, dose switch, Baseline value of interest, and mPRS as covariates and presents the mPRS estimates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||Based on a 1 standard deviation increase in mPRS.|Odds of achieving at least 50% reduction from Baseline in mean MMD over months 4, 5, and 6 in relation to mPRS.||1.13|0.90|0.86
91824325|NCT01863446|183525710|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test comparing Lighting 1 and Lighting2||||||0.334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.334
91824326|NCT01863446|183525710|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test comparing Lighting3 vs Lighting 4||||||0.423|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.423
91824327|NCT01863446|183525711|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test of Lighting1 vs Lighting2||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.780
91824328|NCT01863446|183525711|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test of Lighting3 vs Lighting4||||||0.791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.791
91824329|NCT01863446|183525712|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test||||||0.883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.883
91824330|NCT01863446|183525712|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test||||||0.271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.271
91824331|NCT02652780|183525745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008||||0.8783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.102|||ANCOVA|||A mixed model of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response, and participants, eyes of the participant as random factor, treatment and baseline LogMAR value as covariates in the model. P-value is used to assess the significance of the difference between All-GS010 and All-Sham with respect to change of LogMAR from baseline.||0.102|-0.119|0.8783
91824332|NCT04177693|183525766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.112
91824333|NCT04177693|183525767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.613
91824334|NCT04177693|183525768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.202
91824335|NCT04177693|183525769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.508
91824336|NCT04177693|183525770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.237
91824337|NCT04177693|183525771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.327
91824338|NCT04177693|183525772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.633
91824339|NCT04177693|183525773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.146
91824340|NCT04177693|183525774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
91824341|NCT04177693|183525775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91824342|NCT04177693|183525776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91824343|NCT03224468|183525777|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 85.2% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.4||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||0.40|0.15|<0.001
91824344|NCT03224468|183525778|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 83.6% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in scale score for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher score for MM).|The mean difference in scale scores between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||0.4|-1.4|0.50
91824345|NCT03224468|183525779|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 84.3% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||0.24|-0.30|0.90
91824346|NCT03224468|183525780|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 83.6% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.39||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||0.39|-0.38|0.93
91824347|NCT03224468|183525781|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 90.4% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.43||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||-0.43|-1.30|<0.001
91824348|NCT03224468|183525782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.5|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||2.5|-1.0|
91824349|NCT03224468|183525784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|3.5|||||Estimate is the mean difference in the congruency cost on response time for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate higher cost for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||3.5|-19.0|
91824350|NCT03224468|183525785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|-2.2|||||Estimate is the mean difference in the switching cost on response time for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate higher cost for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||-2.2|-45.9|
91824351|NCT03224468|183525786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.011|||||Estimate is the mean difference in discriminability for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate better ability to identify target items for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||0.011|-0.007|
91824352|NCT03224468|183525787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number of total errors for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate greater number of errors for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||1.7|-1.8|
91824353|NCT03224468|183525788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|0.3|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number of repetition errors for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate greater number of errors for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||0.3|-7.4|
91824354|NCT03224468|183525789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||||Estimate is the mean difference in discriminability for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate a greater ability to recognize previously studied words for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||0.1|-0.2|
91824355|NCT03224468|183525790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number recalled for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate a greater ability to recall previously studied words for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||1.0|-0.2|
91824356|NCT04713748|183525792|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Interclass correlation coefficient|||||||<0.0001
91824357|NCT00406029|183525794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.753
91824358|NCT00406029|183525794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline at endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.7|0.162
91824359|NCT00406029|183525794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-2.1|0.049
91824360|NCT00406029|183525794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-2.2|0.019
91824361|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.9|0.935
91952604|NCT00694070|183801690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The null and alternative hypotheses for these tests will have the form:~Ho: Pr{Success} \< Po vs. Ha: Pr{Success} ≥ Po. Critical values for numbers of successes were computed to give approximately a 90% chance of rejecting Ho in favor of the alternative (non-inferiority) if the true probability of success is at least Po. For Po = 90%, with n=51, critical number is 43. With this critical value and sample size, the power to reject Ho is approximately 93.57%."||||||0.0309|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0309
91824362|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.3|0.326
91824363|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.7|0.070
91824364|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-1.9|0.020
91824365|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.0|0.982
91824366|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.5|0.281
91824367|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.6|0.261
91824368|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.4|0.447
91824369|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.6|0.378
91824370|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.7|0.299
91824371|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.6|0.377
91824372|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-1.3|0.707
91952605|NCT04988035|183801694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.07|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation (MI) for participants lost to follow-up before Day 8 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital while those participants lost to follow-up after discharge to home are assigned a score of 2.||1.07|0.38|0.090
91824373|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.4|0.562
91824374|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.7|0.156
91824375|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.6|0.292
91824376|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-2.2|0.034
91824377|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.762
91824378|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.9|0.092
91824379|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.3|-2.3|0.013
91824380|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.4|-2.5|0.005
91824381|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.8|0.293
91824382|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-2.0|0.095
91824383|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.04||95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-2.3|0.040
91824384|NCT00406029|183525795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.3|-2.5|0.011
91824385|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.6|0.470
91824386|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.6|0.505
91824387|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.2|0.114
91824388|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|0.0|0.042
91824389|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.8|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.8|0.684
91824390|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.7|0.489
91824391|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.5|0.305
91824392|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.6|0.451
91824393|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.5|0.680
91824394|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.8|0.466
91824395|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.8|0.450
91824396|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.8|0.523
91824397|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.6|0.309
91824398|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.3|0.136
91952606|NCT04988035|183801695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal score, age, and baseline C-Reactive Protein (CRP).|Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan|1.53|0.31|0.358
91824399|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-0.2|0.106
91824400|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-0.3|0.144
91824401|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-1.1|0.954
91824402|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.3|0.152
91824403|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.3|0.012
91824404|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|0.2|0.025
91824405|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.3|0.151
91824406|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.5|0.235
91824407|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|0.5|0.007
91824408|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|0.1|0.033
91824409|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.757
91824410|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.5|0.341
91952607|NCT04988035|183801696|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.92|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||0.92|0.46|0.014
91824411|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|0.2|0.024
91824412|NCT00406029|183525796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.1||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|0.0|0.049
91952608|NCT04988035|183801697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.17|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|Includes all ordinal score categories. OR of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 after discharge are given a score of 2.||1.17|0.42|0.177
91952609|NCT04988035|183801698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.36|||Proportional odds model|||Includes all ordinal score categories. OR of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for participants lost to follow-up before Day 29 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 29 after discharge are given a score of 2.|Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|1.36|0.48|0.427
91952610|NCT04988035|183801733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.06|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|||1.06|0.56|0.109
91952611|NCT04988035|183801734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.98|||Regression, Cox||||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|0.98|0.51|0.036
91952612|NCT01828164|183801776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Change|29.0||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided||Percent change in tooth movement rate on the treatment side as compared to the control side.|||||0.0164
91824413|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.3|0.151
91824414|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.1|0.930
91824415|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.6|0.343
91824416|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.746
91824417|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.5|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.5|0.222
91824418|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-1.0|0.673
91824419|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.7|0.415
91824420|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.3|0.968
91824421|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-1.0|0.543
91952613|NCT01828164|183801777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change|220.8||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided||Percent change in root resorption rate on the control side as compared to the treatment side.|||||0.0423
91952614|NCT01828164|183801778|NON_INFERIORITY|1 point on the 10-point pain scale was used as the non-inferiority margin.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bootstrapped mean difference|This test bootstrapped the mean difference (Treatment Arm - Control Arm) less 1, the non-inferiority margin, 1000 times.||||||<0.001
91952615|NCT00635362|183801824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
91952616|NCT00635362|183801825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
91952617|NCT00635362|183801826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91952618|NCT00635362|183801827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
91952619|NCT00635362|183801828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91952620|NCT00620191|183801829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.05
91952621|NCT00620191|183801829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.36||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline ADAS-Cog value|The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.05
91952622|NCT00620191|183801830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.06
91952623|NCT00620191|183801830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline ADAS-Cog score.|The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.34
91824422|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.4|0.967
91824423|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.8|0.411
91824424|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.6|0.864
91824425|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.9|0.449
91952624|NCT00620191|183801831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.14||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.36
91824426|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-2.0|0.411
91824427|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-1.0|0.576
91824428|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-1.9|0.603
91824429|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-1.4|0.842
91824430|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.9|0.558
91824431|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|-0.6|0.245
91824432|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.5|0.930
91824433|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-1.5|0.759
91824434|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-2.4|0.374
91824435|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-1.3|0.621
91824436|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-2.1|0.607
91824437|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.4|0.907
91824438|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-2.1|0.368
91824439|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-1.1|0.654
91824440|NCT00406029|183525797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.7|0.769
91824441|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.0|0.055
91824442|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.0|0.071
91824443|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.8|0.288
91824444|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.6|0.764
91952625|NCT00620191|183801832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.34
91952626|NCT00674440|183801846|OTHER||Sensitivity|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.9|98.5||||||||98.5|80.9|
91952627|NCT00674440|183801846|OTHER||Specifity|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|95.6||||||||95.6|76.6|
91824445|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.9|0.342
91824446|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.611
91824447|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.8|0.424
91824448|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.991
91824449|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.3|0.185
91824450|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.0|0.597
91824451|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.5|0.090
91824452|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.9|0.686
91824453|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.0|0.501
91824454|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.6|0.764
91824455|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.9|0.715
91824456|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.7|0.924
91824457|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.2|0.264
91824458|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.7|0.976
91824459|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.9|0.626
91824460|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.925
91824461|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-1.0|0.849
91824462|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.7|0.755
91824463|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.8|0.863
91824464|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-0.5|0.477
91824465|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.0|0.432
91824466|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.909
91824467|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.812
91824468|NCT00406029|183525798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.5|0.540
91824469|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.7|0.829
91824470|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|0.0|0.042
91824471|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.3|0.204
91824472|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|0.1|0.035
91824473|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-1.2|0.696
91824474|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.7|0.625
91824475|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.6|0.478
91824476|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.5|0.380
91824477|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-1.2|0.925
91824478|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.5|0.285
91952628|NCT00863265|183801873|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|289.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||The estimation parameter is the difference between the placebo group and the ezetimibe group.|Phytosterol Diet compared to Ezetimibe||||0.01
91952629|NCT00863265|183801873|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that groups are equal.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|457.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Placebo vs. Ezetimibe Plus Phytosterols||||<0.01
91824479|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.5|0.296
91824480|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.5|0.241
91824481|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.9|0.571
91824482|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.1|0.032
91824483|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.4|0.214
91824484|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|0.0|0.051
91824485|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-0.9|0.572
91824486|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.1|0.041
91824487|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.5|0.240
91824488|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.0|0.047
91824489|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.5|0.228
91952630|NCT00863265|183801873|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that groups are equal|Mean Difference (Final Values)|168.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Ezetimibe vs. Ezetimibe Plus Phytosterols||||<0.01
91952631|NCT00863265|183801874|EQUIVALENCE|Not applicable in this study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal||||<0.01
91952632|NCT00863265|183801874|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Placebo vs. Ezetimibe Plus Phytosterols||||<0.01
91952633|NCT00863265|183801874|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal.||||<0.01
91952634|NCT00863265|183801875|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal.||||<0.01
91952635|NCT00863265|183801875|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that all groups are equal||||<0.01
91824490|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.6|0.1|0.030
91824491|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|0.0|0.059
91824492|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|0.2|0.021
91824493|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-0.6|0.428
91824494|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|0.2|0.025
91824495|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-0.1|0.064
91824496|NCT00406029|183525799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|0.0|0.047
91824497|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.4|0.345
91824498|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.6|0.468
91824499|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.7|0.596
91824500|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.2|0.107
91824501|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.8|0.348
91824502|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.1|0.938
91824503|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.1|0.897
91824504|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.8|0.518
91824505|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-2.2|0.311
91824506|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-1.0|0.597
91824507|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.5|0.925
91824508|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.9|0.478
91824509|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-1.5|0.995
91824510|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|0.0|0.057
91824511|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.9|0.431
91824512|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|-0.2|0.099
91824513|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.5|0.847
91824514|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-0.2|0.093
91952636|NCT00863265|183801875|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal.||||<0.05
91824515|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.9|0.471
91824516|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.6|-0.2|0.102
91824517|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|-0.9|0.415
91824518|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.5||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.0|0.0|0.051
91824519|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.8|-0.3|0.103
91824520|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.2|0.3|0.022
91824521|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.2|0.903
91824522|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-0.1|0.074
91824523|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.4|0.185
91824524|NCT00406029|183525800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.6|0.0|0.054
91824525|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.5|0.985
91824526|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.3|0.556
91824527|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.4|0.776
91824528|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.4|0.777
91824529|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.5|0.920
91824530|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.1|0.155
91824531|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.843
91824532|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.4|0.673
91824533|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.612
91824534|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.4|0.512
91824535|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.269
91824536|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.516
91824537|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.8|0.597
91824538|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.7|0.766
91824539|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.9|0.428
91952637|NCT05510297|183801880|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91824540|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.7|0.796
91824541|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.988
91824542|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.5|0.786
91824543|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.5|0.702
91824544|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.3|0.371
91824545|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.981
91824546|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.3|0.282
91824547|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.550
91824548|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.5|0.720
91952638|NCT05510297|183801881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2653.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5110.86||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-297.76522|5604.07522||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.05 for 2-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; data were checked for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test where p\>0.05 was interpreted as likely normal distribution.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5604.07522|-297.76522|0.074
91824549|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.742
91824550|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.2|0.211
91824551|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.6|0.906
91824552|NCT00406029|183525801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.868
91824553|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.6|0.747
91824554|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.140
91824555|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.148
91824556|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-1.2|0.005
91824557|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.8|0.256
91824558|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.8|0.343
91824559|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.0|0.102
91824560|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.161
91824561|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.150
91824562|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.175
91952639|NCT05510297|183801882|SUPERIORITY|a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.05 for 2-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made;|Mean Difference (Net)|4.44067|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.59009||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59116|27.47249|||t-test, 2 sided|||||27.47249|-18.59116|0.685
91824563|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-1.2|0.013
91824564|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.120
91824565|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.971
91824566|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.7|0.456
91824567|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-1.2|0.018
91824568|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.175
91824569|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.3|0.422
91824570|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.4|0.651
91824571|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.0|0.096
91824572|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.860
91824573|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.8|0.511
91952640|NCT05510297|183801883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51267|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44656||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31374|0.28841|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28841|-1.31374|0.191
91952641|NCT05510297|183801884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.35026||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19775|0.29775|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29775|-1.19775|0.218
91824574|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.9|0.286
91824575|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.3|-1.4|0.004
91824576|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.1|0.060
91824577|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.8|0.345
91824578|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.7|0.439
91824579|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.4|0.004
91824580|NCT00406029|183525808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.1|0.040
91824581|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.1|0.743
91824582|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-2.2|0.225
91952642|NCT05510297|183801885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.924|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19396||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13898|0.29098|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29098|-2.13898|0.125
91952643|NCT05510297|183801886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.00133|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.10148||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05486|0.5753|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5753|-0.05486|0.960
91952644|NCT05510297|183801890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.622|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6553||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53867|0.29467|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29467|-1.53867|0.168
91952645|NCT04409262|183801891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.7414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.78|0.7414
91952646|NCT04409262|183801892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.72|0.8993
91952647|NCT04409262|183801893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.44|0.77|0.7648
91952648|NCT04409262|183801894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.7867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.65|0.7867
91952649|NCT04409262|183801895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.63|0.4602
91824583|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-2.2|0.252
91824584|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-2.3|0.173
91824585|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-1.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-1.3|0.757
91824586|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-1.1|0.581
91824587|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-2.5|0.195
91824588|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-2.4|0.272
91824589|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.7|0.758
91824590|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-2.1|0.416
91824591|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-2.5|0.174
91824592|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-1.1|0.547
91824593|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.8|0.372
91952650|NCT04409262|183801896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.982||||0.8664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.80|0.8664
91824594|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-1.4|0.942
91824595|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-2.8|0.082
91824596|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-2.3|0.267
91824597|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-1.5|0.801
91824598|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.9|0.753
91824599|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-3.1|0.087
91824600|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.9|0.796
91824601|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-1.3|0.621
91824602|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.8|0.784
91824603|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-3.5|0.024
91824604|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.6|0.963
91824605|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|-0.8|0.331
91952651|NCT04409262|183801897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.75|0.9569
91952652|NCT04409262|183801898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.78|0.6331
91952653|NCT04409262|183801899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.70|0.9622
91952654|NCT04409262|183801900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.64|0.79|0.4850
91824606|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.4|0.898
91824607|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-3.0|0.058
91824608|NCT00406029|183525809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-1.3|0.832
91824609|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.3|-2.0|0.365
91824610|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.1|-2.4|0.476
91824611|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.6|-2.0|0.343
91824612|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.1||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-6.8|0.103
91824613|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.3||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-6.0|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-6.0|0.224
91824614|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-5.1|0.448
91824615|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-6.4|0.154
91824616|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-1.1|-8.5|0.010
91952655|NCT04409262|183801901|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-2.2||||0.5915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||5.9|-10.2|0.5915
91824617|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.0|-2.6|0.540
91824618|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|-4.7|0.646
91824619|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|-4.9|0.608
91824620|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.9||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-6.0|0.343
91824621|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.9|-2.5|0.419
91824622|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.1||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.1|-2.8|0.562
91824623|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|-5.3|0.525
91824624|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.0||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-7.0|0.148
91824625|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|-5.4|0.546
91824626|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.7||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-7.6|0.068
91824627|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.5||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-6.5|0.208
91824628|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.4||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-7.5|0.099
91952656|NCT04409262|183801901|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-2.5||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||5.6|-10.5|0.5494
91952657|NCT04409262|183801902|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-14.1||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||9.2|-37.4|0.2590
91952658|NCT04409262|183801902|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-14.6||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||7.8|-37.0|0.2290
91824629|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.1|-3.6|0.731
91824630|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.8|-4.5|0.861
91824631|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.1|-5.2|0.621
91824632|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.2||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-6.4|0.288
91824633|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||4.1|-3.5|0.861
91824634|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.7|-4.0|0.954
91824635|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.6||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|-5.5|0.419
91824636|NCT00406029|183525810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.2||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-6.9|0.088
91824637|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.2|-3.5|0.924
91824638|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.1|-3.8|0.840
91952659|NCT04409262|183801903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1125||||0.2434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|8.38|||Regression, Linear|||||8.38|-2.16|0.2434
91952660|NCT04409262|183801904|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|0.6||||0.8222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||5.6|-4.4|0.8222
91824639|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-4.4|0.599
91824640|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-6.0|0.134
91824641|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-4.1|3.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.3|-4.1|0.846
91824642|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.0|-2.3|0.467
91824643|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-4.8|0.533
91824644|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.1||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-6.7|0.094
91824645|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.7|-3.7|0.994
91824646|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.8|-3.5|0.944
91824647|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-5.1|0.424
91824648|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-7.8|0.042
91824649|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.7||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||7.8|-0.4|0.075
91952661|NCT04409262|183801904|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-1.3||||0.6944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||5.2|-7.8|0.6944
91952662|NCT04409262|183801904|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-3.0||||0.3919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||4.0|-10.1|0.3919
91952663|NCT04409262|183801905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.957||||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.78|0.6778
91952664|NCT04409262|183801906|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-0.9||||0.7692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.8|-8.7|0.7692
91952665|NCT04409262|183801907|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-0.3||||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.2|-7.8|0.9334
91952666|NCT01738672|183801910|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91952667|NCT01738672|183801911|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91824650|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.9||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||7.8|0.0|0.052
91824651|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.9|-4.0|0.975
91824652|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.8|-5.2|0.541
91824653|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.7|-4.1|0.931
91824654|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.8|-4.7|0.618
91824655|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.8||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-5.6|0.341
91824656|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.2||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-6.0|0.256
91824657|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.8||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||6.0|-2.4|0.399
91824658|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.4|-2.5|0.477
91952668|NCT01738672|183801912|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
91824659|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.8||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-6.8|0.172
91824660|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.3||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-6.2|0.254
91952669|NCT00948896|183801933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of all grade 3-4 adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.0001
91824661|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.8|-3.6|0.972
91824662|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||4.0|-3.5|0.891
91824663|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.8||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-6.6|0.143
91824664|NCT00406029|183525811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.2||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-6.8|0.083
91824665|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.2|0.154
91824666|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.4|0.380
91824667|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-0.3|0.288
91824668|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.4|0.355
91824669|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.831
91824670|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-1.2|0.198
91824671|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.8|0.792
91824672|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.8|0.749
91952670|NCT00948896|183801933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared to No chemoprevention arm|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of elevated temperature adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.01
91824673|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.896
91824674|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.5|0.480
91824675|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.4|0.285
91824676|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.3|0.212
91824677|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.9|0.883
91824678|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.9|0.947
91824679|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.1|0.663
91824680|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.3|0.157
91824681|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.4|0.283
91952671|NCT00948896|183801933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared to No chemoprevention arm|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of anemia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.01
91824682|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.0|0.768
91824683|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.3|0.334
91824684|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.2|0.465
91824685|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-1.2|0.688
91824686|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|0.0|0.062
91824687|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.2|0.579
91824688|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.7|0.644
91952672|NCT00948896|183801933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared to No chemoprevention arm|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of thrombocytopenia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.05
91824689|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.8|0.825
91824690|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.3|0.233
91824691|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.8|0.853
91824692|NCT00406029|183525812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-0.6|0.592
91824693|NCT02832674|183525847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint was an evaluation of the proportion of subjects with ≥ 20 mm2 lift at Day 90.||||0.05
91952673|NCT00948896|183801933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared with no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of all grade 3-4 adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.05
91952674|NCT00948896|183801933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared with no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of anemia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm||||<0.05
91824694|NCT02832674|183525848|OTHER|Binomial test of proportions||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
91824695|NCT02832674|183525849|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of all effectiveness endpoints was conducted on the ITT population and on the PP population.|The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
91824696|NCT02832674|183525850|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
91824697|NCT02832674|183525851|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
91824698|NCT02832674|183525852|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
91824699|NCT00718042|183525853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|99.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.79|99.91|||Point Estimate||Numerator = All blood donors tested nonreactive from all True Negative blood donors (16,223) Denominator = All True Negative blood donors (16,246) True Negative excludes donor specimens positive by supplemental testing (3)|||99.91|99.79|
91824700|NCT00718042|183525855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.7|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|96.70|
91824701|NCT00718042|183525858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|99.8|||Percentage Negative|||||99.8|97.4|
91824702|NCT02822794|183525862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL+RBV 12 Weeks (GT1) over the performance goal of 50%.||||||<0.001
91824703|NCT02822794|183525862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL +RBV 24 Weeks (GT1) over the performance goal of 50%.||||||<0.001
91824704|NCT04788147|183525891|OTHER|"The modified 3+3 design with 6 patients at the 'Recommended RefleXion FDG Dose level' aims to ensure that the observed proportion of patients below activity threshold to be less than 33%.~Probability of Observations at Most 1 of 6 below Activity Threshold True below activity rate 40% 30% 20% 10% Probability at most 1 of 6 patients below activity threshold 0.233 0.420 0.655 0.886"||||||||||||||||"Statistical analysis of the primary endpoint is not applicable to Cohort I. A modified 3+3 design was utilized wherein meeting the activity level threshold, not dose-limiting toxicity, is the endpoint. The RRFD is primarily based upon the lower FDG dose level where 5 to 6 out of 6 subjects have an Activity Concentration greater than 5 kBq/ml."|"Statistical analysis of the primary endpoint is not applicable to Cohort I. A modified 3+3 design was utilized wherein meeting the activity level threshold, not dose-limiting toxicity, is the endpoint. The RRFD is primarily based upon the lower FDG dose level where 5 to 6 out of 6 subjects have an Activity Concentration greater than 5 kBq/ml."|||
91824705|NCT05101252|183525903|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 98.75% confidence interval of was below 0.00 logMAR for distance.|Least-square Mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.14|-0.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 90% statistical power, that 22 subjects were required to test for superiority for distance.||-0.01|-0.14|
91824706|NCT05101252|183525903|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 98.75% confidence interval of was below 0.17 logMAR for intermediate.|Least-square Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.06|0.07|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 90% statistical power, that 12 subjects were required to test for superiority for intermediate.||0.07|-0.06|
91824707|NCT05101252|183525903|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 98.75% confidence interval of was below 0.17 logMAR for near.|Least-square Mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.02|0.16|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 90% statistical power, that 60 subjects were required to test for superiority for near.||0.16|0.02|
91824708|NCT05101252|183525904|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 98.75% confidence interval was above 32.|Least-square Mean|50.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.922|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|43.1|58.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 13 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores.||58.5|43.1|
91824709|NCT05101252|183525905|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference was below 0.05 logMAR.|LSM Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 95% statistical power, that 60 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Test compared to the Control for distance (4m).||0.05|-0.05|
91824710|NCT01504438|183525910|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
91824711|NCT01504438|183525911|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.31
91824712|NCT01504438|183525912|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
91824713|NCT01504438|183525913|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91824714|NCT03282955|183525933|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin= 1.151||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
91824715|NCT02138214|183525965|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||p-value threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.567
91824716|NCT02138214|183525966|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.110
91824717|NCT02138214|183525968|OTHER|||||||0.758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
91824718|NCT02138214|183525970|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.236
91824719|NCT02138214|183525971|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.759
91824720|NCT02138214|183525972|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.400
91824721|NCT03221257|183525983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.9326|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9326
91824722|NCT03221257|183525984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9968|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9968
91824723|NCT03221257|183525985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.7489|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7489
91824724|NCT03221257|183525986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2||||0.8898|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8898
91824725|NCT03221257|183525987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3826
91824726|NCT03221257|183525988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.2819|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2819
91824727|NCT03221257|183525989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35||||0.7534|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7534
91824728|NCT03221257|183525990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1701
91824729|NCT03221257|183525991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.44||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3515
91824730|NCT03221257|183525992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.51||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1177
91824731|NCT03221257|183525993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.98||||0.1931|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1931
91824732|NCT03221257|183525994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|121.3||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1811
91824733|NCT03221257|183525995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.433||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified log rank|||||||0.3261
91824734|NCT03221257|183525996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.454
91824735|NCT01971346|183526023|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||Type III TNF-alpha p-value=0.36. Type III IFN-alpha p-value=0.36. Interaction was not included in this model.|Regression, Linear|||A cumulative score reflecting change in PASI during the course of treatment was calculated and treated as a continuous response variable. Linear modeling was done to determine if change in PASI score was associated with the baseline TNF-alpha signal, baseline IFN-alpha signal and/or an interaction between these two signals.||||0.38
91824736|NCT01971346|183526024|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Test of Hypotheses for Between subject effect of PASI profile p-value=0.03 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time p-value=0.38 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time\*PASI profile p-value=0.31|ANOVA|||The strength of the TNF-alpha cytokine signals will be treated as a response variable in a univariate repeated measure analysis of variance, with PASI response profile and time as covariates. Testing if TNF-alpha signals are significantly altered during the course of etanercept therapy and if such changes differ between subjects with different PASI response profiles.||||0.03
91824737|NCT01971346|183526025|OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Test of Hypotheses for Between subject effect of PASI profile p-value=0.34 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time p-value=0.73 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time\*PASI profile p-value=0.57|ANOVA|||The strength of the IFN-alpha cytokine signals will be treated as a response variable in a univariate repeated measure analysis of variance, with PASI response profile and time as covariates. Testing if IFN-alpha signals are significantly altered during the course of etanercept therapy and if such changes differ between subjects with different PASI response profiles.||||0.34
91824738|NCT02755831|183526047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test||||<0.05
91824739|NCT02755831|183526048|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman test|Friedman's test was used to analyze differences with a post hoc Wilcoxon Ranked Sign test to compare differences at individual time points.||||||<.05
91824740|NCT02755831|183526049|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman|Friedman's test was used to analyze differences with a post hoc Wilcoxon Ranked Sign test to compare differences at individual time points.||||||<0.05
91824741|NCT02755831|183526050|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman Test|Friedman's test was used to analyze differences with a post hoc Wilcoxon Ranked Sign test to compare differences in treatment group only.||||||<0.05
91824742|NCT02755831|183526051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test used to compare mean difference in hospital costs at time of delivery.||||||<0.05
91824743|NCT01130740|183526135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a comparison of 6-month outcomes between the two study groups. (Primary comparison is for 12 months.)||||0.158
91824744|NCT01130740|183526135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the 12-month comparison between the 2 study groups, which is the primary study analysis.||||0.008
91824745|NCT01130740|183526136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the between-group 12-month comparison.||||0.274
91824746|NCT01130740|183526137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.177
91824747|NCT01181895|183526146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.188||P-value for the adjusted treatment difference for Vilanterol 25 µg OD versus Placebo.|ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the adjusted treatment difference in the weighted mean 0-24 hour FEV1 (Liters) at Week 12 for Vilanterol 25 µg OD versus Placebo.|||0.188|-0.048|0.244
91824748|NCT01181895|183526146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.113||P-value for the adjusted treatment difference for Salmetarol 50 µg BID versus Placebo.|ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the adjusted treatment difference in the weighted mean 0-24 hour FEV1 (Liters) at Week 12 for Salmeterol 50 µg BID versus Placebo.|||0.113|-0.124|0.926
91824749|NCT04419493|183526181|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|102.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|92.83|94.87|110.1|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio is: Alteplase, TPA-02/Alteplase, TPA-05. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected geometric least squares means Alteplase, TPA-02 vs. Alteplase, TPA-05 is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.~The statistical model used for the analysis of this endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.~This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. All effects were considered as fixed."||110.10|94.87|
91824750|NCT04419493|183526183|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|105.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|92.83|99.18|112.88|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio is: Alteplase, TPA-02/Alteplase, TPA-05. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected geometric least squares means Alteplase, TPA-02 vs. Alteplase, TPA-05 is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.~The statistical model used for the analysis of this endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.~This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. All effects were considered as fixed."||112.88|99.18|
91824751|NCT04419493|183526185|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00% .|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|102.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|92.83|94.79|110.12|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio is: Alteplase, TPA-02/Alteplase, TPA-05. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected geometric least squares means Alteplase, TPA-02 vs. Alteplase, TPA-05 is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.~The statistical model used for the analysis of this endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.~This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. All effects were considered as fixed."||110.12|94.79|
91824752|NCT03794089|183526190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|ANCOVA|||comparisons of groups at post-assessment controls for baseline GAD-7 total scores||||0.035
91824753|NCT03794089|183526191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|ANCOVA|||comparisons of groups at post-assessment controls for baseline PHQ-9 total scores||||0.231
91824754|NCT03794089|183526192|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.393||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.393
91824755|NCT03794089|183526192|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.022||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.022
91824756|NCT03794089|183526192|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.013||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.013
91824757|NCT03794089|183526192|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to Post assessment (16 weeks)||||0.049
91824758|NCT03794089|183526193|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.008
91824759|NCT03794089|183526193|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||<0.001
91824760|NCT03794089|183526193|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||<0.001
91824761|NCT03794089|183526193|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to Post-assessment (16 weeks)||||0.008
91824762|NCT03794089|183526194|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.44||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.440
91824763|NCT03794089|183526194|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.022||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.022
91824764|NCT03794089|183526194|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.032||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.032
91824765|NCT03794089|183526194|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.091||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to Post-assessment (16 weeks)||||0.091
91824766|NCT03794089|183526195|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.058||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.058
91824767|NCT03794089|183526195|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.032||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.032
91824768|NCT03794089|183526195|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.007||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.007
91824769|NCT03794089|183526195|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.044||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to Post assessment (16 weeks)||||0.044
91824770|NCT03794089|183526196|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.328||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.328
91824771|NCT03794089|183526196|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.148||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.148
91824772|NCT03794089|183526196|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.002
91824773|NCT03794089|183526196|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.069||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to Post-assessment (16 weeks)||||0.069
91824774|NCT03794089|183526197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|ANCOVA|||comparisons of groups at post-assessment controls for baseline Q-LES-Q-SF total scores||||0.928
91824775|NCT03794089|183526198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||0.402
91824776|NCT03794089|183526199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||<0.001
91824777|NCT03794089|183526200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|Used Satterthwaite method given unequal variances||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||.006
91824778|NCT03794089|183526201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|used Satterthwaite method given unequal variances||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||0.004
91824779|NCT03794089|183526202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||0.002
91824780|NCT03119766|183526214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.85|||ANOVA||Results are presented as estimated differences of Least Squares Means according to ANOVA model|Mean changes of GIS scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||1.85|0.04|0.041
91824781|NCT03119766|183526214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Fixed factor Treatment and random factor research center were used in mixed model. Difference in mean changes between groups was estimeted."|Mean changes of GIS scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared. Influence of between center variation was estimated.||1.74|0.04|0.041
91952675|NCT00948896|183801933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared with the no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of elevated temperature adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm||||<0.05
91824782|NCT03119766|183526215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 1 point.||||0.067
91952676|NCT00948896|183801933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Daily TS arm compare with the no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of anemia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the daily TS arm||||<0.01
91824783|NCT03119766|183526215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 2 points.||||0.029
91824784|NCT03119766|183526215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 3 points.||||0.082
91824785|NCT03119766|183526215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 4 points.||||0.046
91824786|NCT03119766|183526215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 5 points.||||0.111
91824787|NCT03119766|183526216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.15|||ANOVA||Results are presented as estimated differences of Least Squares Means according to ANOVA model|Mean changes of NDI scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||2.15|-0.93|0.435
91824788|NCT03119766|183526217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.26|||ANOVA||Results are presented as estimated differences of Least Squares Means according to ANOVA model|Mean changes of SF-36 scores (physical health domain) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||1.26|-2.00|0.655
91824789|NCT03119766|183526217|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.1|||ANOVA|||Mean changes of SF-36 scores (mental health domain) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||2.10|-0.79|0.375
91824790|NCT03119766|183526218|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91824791|NCT03119766|183526219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side effects analysis.||||0.08
91824792|NCT03119766|183526219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Therapeutic effect||||0.139
91824793|NCT03119766|183526219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy index analysis.||||0.251
91824794|NCT02034578|183526222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.873|1.04||||||B versus A||1.040|0.873|
91824795|NCT02034578|183526222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.805|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.749|0.865||||||C versus A||0.865|0.749|
91824796|NCT02034578|183526224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.924|1.01||||||B versus A||1.010|0.924|
91824797|NCT02034578|183526224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.896|0.942||||||C versus A||0.942|0.896|
91824798|NCT02034578|183526225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|1.011||||||B versus A||1.011|0.926|
91824799|NCT02034578|183526225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|0.947||||||C versus A||0.947|0.899|
91824800|NCT01782131|183526238|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme. The p-Value is based on the one-sided non-inferiority test. Non-inferiority of posaconazole vs. voriconazole is established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is less than 10%.|Estimated Difference in Percent|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.0|-11.6|<.0001
91824801|NCT01782131|183526239|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.8||||||||8.8|-8.2|
91824802|NCT01782131|183526240|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|4.9||||||||4.9|-9.9|
91824803|NCT01782131|183526241|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.1||||||||13.1|-6.9|
91824804|NCT01782131|183526242|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.1||||||||7.1|-13.9|
91824805|NCT01782131|183526243|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Difference in Percent|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|10.1||||||||10.1|-11.2|
91824806|NCT01782131|183526244|OTHER||Survival Rate in Percent|60.7||||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.8|67.8||Based on Stratified Log-Rank method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk).|Kaplan-Meier|From product-limit (Kaplan-Meier) method for censored data.||Analysis of Time to All-Cause Mortality Through Day 114: Posaconazole vs. Voriconazole||67.8|52.8|0.2767
91824807|NCT01782131|183526245|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|Difference in Percent|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|42.7||||||||42.7|-4.1|
91824808|NCT01782131|183526246|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|Difference in Percent|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|28.6||||||||28.6|-6.9|
91824809|NCT01782131|183526247|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.3||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Abnormal Hepatic Laboratory Value||3.6|-2.9|0.8305
91824810|NCT01782131|183526247|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.6||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||CNS and Visual Disturbances||4.2|-11.3|0.3633
91824811|NCT01782131|183526247|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.8||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Dermatologic Reactions||3.4|-9.1|0.3724
91824812|NCT01782131|183526247|OTHER||Difference in Percent|1.0||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Adrenal Insufficiency or Temporal Hypotension||5.5|-3.4|0.6431
91824813|NCT01782131|183526248|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.8||||||||2.8|-2.8|
91824814|NCT01782131|183526249|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.4||||||||-2.4|-17.9|
91824815|NCT01782131|183526250|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.8||||||||9.8|-6.1|
91824816|NCT01782131|183526251|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.7||||||||2.7|-5.6|
91824817|NCT01782131|183526252|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|4.5||||||||4.5|-11.0|
91824818|NCT01627249|183526254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.7|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Bevacizumab||5.7|1.4|<0.001
91824819|NCT01627249|183526254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.2|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Ranibizumab||4.2|0.1|0.034
91824820|NCT01627249|183526254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.2|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs. Bevacizumab||3.2|-0.4|0.12
91824821|NCT01627249|183526255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.1|-48.6|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab||-48.6|-91.1|<0.001
91824822|NCT01627249|183526255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-1.2|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Ranibizumab||-1.2|-36|0.036
91824823|NCT01627249|183526255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.2|-31.3|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs Bevacizumab||-31.3|-71.2|<0.001
91824824|NCT01627249|183526256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.1|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Bevacizumab||10.1|2.9|0.001
91824825|NCT01627249|183526256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.0|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Ranibizumab||8.0|1.4|0.0031
91824826|NCT01627249|183526256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.8|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs Bevacizumab||4.8|-1.1|0.21
91824827|NCT01627249|183526257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.7|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab||2.7|-1.3|0.69
91824828|NCT01627249|183526257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Ranibizumab||1.5|-2.3|0.69
91824829|NCT01627249|183526257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.1|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs Bevacizumab||3.1|-0.9|0.69
91824830|NCT01176591|183526272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91824831|NCT01176591|183526273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91824832|NCT01176591|183526274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91824833|NCT01176591|183526275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91824834|NCT01176591|183526277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91824835|NCT01073618|183526278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy rate (percent)|75.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.36|78.94|||Normal approximation to binomial||Confidence Interval (CI) by normal approximation to binomial.|Efficacy Rate (treatment effective) = Percentage of evaluable participants with clinical response of cure or improvement||78.94|71.36|
91952677|NCT00948896|183801935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|7.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|28.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference group.|The sample size was calculated to detect at least a 32% lower incidence of malaria in the DP arm compared to that in the TS arm. We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person-year with TS chemoprevention based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus we calculated that we would need to enroll 100 participants in each arm to detect our targeted protective efficacy with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||28|-19|0.57
91824836|NCT02039505|183526299|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.37||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|2.399|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used for analysis. Prior tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||2.399|0.779|0.2722
91824837|NCT02039505|183526300|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.88||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|7.108|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||7.108|1.168|0.0210
91824838|NCT02039505|183526306|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.66||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|3.596|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||3.596|0.762|0.1980
91824839|NCT02039505|183526307|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.33||||0.3168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|2.356|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||2.356|0.755|0.3168
91824840|NCT02039505|183526308|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.48||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.407|8.626|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||8.626|1.407|0.0067
91824841|NCT02039505|183526309|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.49||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.409|8.642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||8.642|1.409|0.0066
91824842|NCT02039505|183526310|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.02||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|6.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||6.033|0.677|0.2090
91824843|NCT02039505|183526311|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.38||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|17.981|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||17.981|0.636|0.1571
91824844|NCT01722331|183526318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.6|62.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||62.8|49.6|<0.001
91824845|NCT01722331|183526318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||64.1|51.0|<0.001
91824846|NCT01722331|183526319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|52.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||58.5|44.8|<0.001
91824847|NCT01722331|183526319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.6|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||57.4|43.6|<0.001
91824848|NCT01722331|183526323|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|38.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||38.8|26.8|<0.001
91824849|NCT01722331|183526323|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||38.0|25.9|<0.001
91824850|NCT01722331|183526324|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||17.2|8.3|<0.001
91824851|NCT01722331|183526324|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||17.3|8.0|<0.001
91824852|NCT01722331|183526326|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-6.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-6.8|-8.6|<0.001
91824853|NCT01722331|183526326|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-6.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-6.5|-8.3|<0.001
91824854|NCT01722331|183526327|OTHER||Difference in percentages|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|45.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||45.4|31.9|<0.001
91824855|NCT01722331|183526327|OTHER||Difference in percentages|36.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||42.5|29.3|<0.001
91824856|NCT04088097|183526328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||.01
91824857|NCT04088097|183526329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||||||.75
91824858|NCT04088097|183526330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||.03
91952678|NCT00948896|183801935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|28.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|44.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|The sample size was calculated to detect at least a 32% lower incidence of malaria in the DP arm compared to that in the TS arm. We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person-year with TS chemoprevention based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus we calculated that we would need to enroll 100 participants in each arm to detect our targeted protective efficacy with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||44|7|0.01
91952679|NCT00948896|183801935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|67.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|The sample size was calculated to detect at least a 32% lower incidence of malaria in the DP arm compared to that in the TS arm. We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person-year with TS chemoprevention based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus we calculated that we would need to enroll 100 participants in each arm to detect our targeted protective efficacy with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||67|45|<0.001
91824859|NCT03556761|183526332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.81|||Regression, Linear|||||0.81|0.20|0.03
91824860|NCT03556761|183526333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.95|0.12
91824861|NCT03556761|183526334|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.21|||Chi-squared|||||1.21|0.25|0.14
91824862|NCT03556761|183526335|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.64|0.36
91824863|NCT03556761|183526336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.02||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||||.13|-0.09|0.76
91824864|NCT03556761|183526337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
91824865|NCT03556761|183526338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|28.59||||||||28.59|0.32|
91824866|NCT03556761|183526339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.96|||Chi-squared|||||0.96|0.39|0.03
91824867|NCT01154166|183526342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean for treatment difference|-1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.26|||ANCOVA||The estimated value indicates the treatment difference for the adjusted mean for Ropinirole PR and placebo.|||-1.26|-2.27|<0.001
91824868|NCT00491244|183526368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.21|||Chi-squared|||||2.21|1.46|< 0.001
91824869|NCT00491244|183526369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.01|||Chi-squared|||||4.01|0.65|0.35
91824870|NCT01276327|183526370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|99.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|102.81|||Unscaled average Bioequivalence||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||102.81|97.11|
91824871|NCT01276327|183526371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|94.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.08|99.55|||Unscaled average Bioequivalence||Geometric Standard error of mean was calculated.|||99.55|89.08|
91824872|NCT01276327|183526372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together.|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|79.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.65|85.72|||Scaled average bioequivalence (SABE)||Geometric Standard error of mean was calculated.|||85.72|74.65|
91824873|NCT01276327|183526373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|97.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|106.51|||Scaled average bioequivalence (SABE)||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||106.51|88.90|
91824874|NCT01276327|183526374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|99.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|102.81|||Unscaled average bioequivalence||Geometric Standard error of mean was calculated.|||102.81|97.10|
91824875|NCT01276327|183526375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|101.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.18|105.67|||Unscaled average bioequivalence||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||105.67|98.18|
91824876|NCT01276327|183526376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|80.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.6|86.34|||Scaled average bioequivalence (SABE)||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||86.34|75.60|
91824877|NCT00807092|183526379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.666||||95.0|-1.332|1.306||A statistical significant threshold p less than 0.025|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (visit 2) value of mean IAUC(0-4hours) as covariate|BIAsp 30 - BHI 30|"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4hours) of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4hours) of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment greater than or equal to 0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4hours) of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4hours) of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment less than 0 mol\*h/L"||1.306|-1.332|
91824878|NCT00807092|183526380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.2412||95.0|-0.802|3.157||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; corresponding baseline (week 0) value of mean IAUC(0-4h) as covariate (breakfast/lunch/dinner)|Breakfast|"Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis for breakfast:~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mol\*h/L"||3.157|-0.802|0.2412
91824879|NCT00807092|183526380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.216||0.794||95.0|-2.724|2.087||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; corresponding baseline (week 0) value of mean IAUC(0-4h) as covariate (breakfast/lunch/dinner)|Lunch|"Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis for lunch:~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mol\*h/L"||2.087|-2.724|0.794
91824880|NCT00807092|183526380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.749||||0.3093||95.0|-2.2|0.703||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; corresponding baseline (week 0) value of mean IAUC(0-4h) as covariate (breakfast/lunch/dinner)|Dinner|"Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis for dinner:~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mol\*h/L"||0.703|-2.2|0.3093
91824881|NCT00807092|183526381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0891||95.0|-0.069|0.964||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of mean FBG as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean FBG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean FBG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean FBG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean FBG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.964|-0.069|0.0891
91824882|NCT00807092|183526383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.0472||95.0|0.006|0.984||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of mean FBG as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in FPG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in FPG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in FPG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in FPG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.984|0.0060|0.0472
91952680|NCT00948896|183801936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|9.0||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|38.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person year with TS based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus, that we would need to enroll 50 participants in each arm to detect a reduction in the incidence of malaria in either the monthly SP or DP arms (two-sided significance level 0.05) compared with the daily TS arm of 48% or greater with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||38|-35|0.065
91824883|NCT00807092|183526384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.676||95.0|-0.41|0.63||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 2) value of BG as covariate|Before breakfast|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.63|-0.41|0.676
91824884|NCT00807092|183526384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.026||95.0|0.15|2.31||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|2 hours after breakfast|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||2.31|0.15|0.026
91824885|NCT00807092|183526384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.5||95.0|-0.53|1.08||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Before lunch|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.08|-0.53|0.5
91824886|NCT00807092|183526384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.747||95.0|-0.86|1.19||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|2 hours after lunch|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.19|-0.86|0.747
91824887|NCT00807092|183526384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.581||95.0|-1.23|0.69||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Before dinner|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.69|-1.23|0.581
91824888|NCT00807092|183526384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.326||95.0|-1.42|0.48||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|2 hours after dinner|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.48|-1.42|0.326
91824889|NCT00807092|183526384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.643||95.0|-0.61|0.99||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Bedtime|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.99|-0.61|0.643
91824890|NCT00807092|183526384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.008||95.0|0.21|1.33||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|3 AM|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.33|0.21|0.0080
91824891|NCT00807092|183526384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.274||95.0|-0.22|0.75||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Average|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.75|-0.22|0.274
91824892|NCT00807092|183526385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.062||95.0|-0.05|2.04||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Breakfast|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||2.04|-0.05|0.062
91824893|NCT00807092|183526385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.933||95.0|-1.12|1.22||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Lunch|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.22|-1.12|0.933
91824894|NCT00807092|183526385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.922||95.0|-1.16|1.05||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Dinner|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.05|-1.16|0.922
91824895|NCT00807092|183526385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.313||95.0|-0.28|0.85||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Average|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.85|-0.28|0.313
91824896|NCT00807092|183526386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.6149||95.0|-0.547|0.921||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (visit 2) value of mean MAGE as covariate||The full analysis set using LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward) consists of all randomised subjects who had been exposed to at least one dose of the trial products.||0.921|-0.547|0.6149
91824897|NCT00807092|183526387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577||0.5706||95.0|-0.813|1.468||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of GA as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in GA of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in GA of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 % against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in GA of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in GA of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 %"||1.468|-0.813|0.5706
91952681|NCT00948896|183801936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|49.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|66.0||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization.|Negative Binomial Regression||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization. The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person year with TS based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus, that we would need to enroll 50 participants in each arm to detect a reduction in the incidence of malaria in either the monthly SP or DP arms (two-sided significance level 0.05) compared with the daily TS arm of 48% or greater with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||66|23|0.001
91824898|NCT00807092|183526388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.8598||95.0|-0.243|0.243||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of HbA1c as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in HbA1c of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in HbA1c of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 % against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in HbA1c of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in HbA1c of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0%"||0.243|-0.243|0.8598
91824899|NCT00807092|183526389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.671||95.0|-0.307|0.198||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of duration of hypoglycaemic events as covariate|Blood glucose below 3.5 mmol/l|"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 hours against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 hours"||0.198|-0.307|0.671
91824900|NCT00807092|183526389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.7544||95.0|-0.088|0.064||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of duration of hypoglycaemic events as covariate|Blood glucose below 2.5 mmol/l|"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 hours against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 hours"||0.064|-0.088|0.7544
91824901|NCT01229228|183526404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.417|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7891|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.923|27.91|||ANCOVA|||||27.910|16.923|<0.001
91824902|NCT01807585|183526406|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined by the application of a Z-test with a 10% non-inferiority margin as well as examination of confidence intervals.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.6|||One tailed Z-test|||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||7.6|-0.7|<0.0001
91824903|NCT02617589|183526414|SUPERIORITY|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Temozolomide|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|1.31||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.58|||Log-rank test stratified|Log-rank test stratified by complete or partial resection at baseline as entered into the IVRS.||||1.58|1.09|0.0037
91824904|NCT02617589|183526415|SUPERIORITY|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Temozolomide|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.71|||Log-rank test stratified|Log-rank test stratified by complete or partial resection at baseline as entered into the IVRS.||||1.71|1.19|
91824905|NCT02617589|183526419|SUPERIORITY|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Temozolomide|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|1.31||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.55|||Log-rank test stratified|Log-rank test stratified by complete or partial resection at baseline as entered into the IVRS.||||1.55|1.10|0.0024
91824906|NCT03062891|183526426|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|2.4|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline anxiety symptoms and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||2.40|-1.33|.572
91824907|NCT03062891|183526427|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.98|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline depression symptoms and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||1.98|-1.82|.934
91824908|NCT03062891|183526428|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.07||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.89|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between attentional problems and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||2.89|-0.76|.253
91824909|NCT03062891|183526429|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.2||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline paranois and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||3.10|-0.70|.215
91824910|NCT03062891|183526429|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.14||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.11|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline hallucinations and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||3.11|-0.83|.254
91824911|NCT03062891|183526429|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.59|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline cognitive disorganization and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||1.59|-2.13|.778
91824912|NCT03062891|183526430|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.67|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline positive mental health and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||1.67|-2.16|.800
91824913|NCT03062891|183526431|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.59||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.44|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline perceived stress and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||2.44|-1.25|.525
91824914|NCT03062891|183526432|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|3.03|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline threatening life events and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||3.03|-0.43|.140
91824915|NCT03062891|183526433|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.25|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in anxiety symptoms across the intervention period.||-0.25|-4.90|.030
91824916|NCT03062891|183526434|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.63||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.01|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in depression symptoms across the intervention period.||1.01|-2.24|.456
91824917|NCT03062891|183526435|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.34||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.53|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes attentional problems across the intervention period.||0.53|-5.21|.110
91824918|NCT03062891|183526436|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.69||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-0.07|||Generalized estimating equations|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in psychotic experiences (paranoia) across the intervention period.||-0.07|-3.31|.041
91824919|NCT03062891|183526436|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.48|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in psychotic experiences (hallucinations) across the intervention period.||0.48|-0.92|.531
91824920|NCT03062891|183526436|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in psychotic experiences (cognitive disorganization) across the intervention period.||0.11|-0.84|.130
91824921|NCT03062891|183526437|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.3|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in positive mental health across the intervention period.||1.30|-1.17|.916
91824922|NCT03062891|183526438|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.03||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-0.23|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in perceived stress across the intervention period.||-0.23|-3.83|.027
91824923|NCT03062891|183526440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline anxiety symptoms and exploding head syndrome||2.40|0.77|.296
91824924|NCT03062891|183526440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline insomnia symptoms and exploding head syndrome||1.02|0.47|.065
91824925|NCT03062891|183526440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline depression symptoms and exploding head syndrome||1.15|0.39|.145
91824926|NCT03062891|183526440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline life stress and exploding head syndrome||2.19|0.73|.398
91824927|NCT03062891|183526440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between sleep paralysis and exploding head syndrome||2.38|1.24|.001
91824928|NCT01129141|183526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|-11.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.53|-22.86|<.0001
91824929|NCT02076412|183526447|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval for treatment difference (risk difference) was based on the normal approximation|||27.1|0.5|0.1519
91824930|NCT02076412|183526452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.05|0.4927
91824931|NCT02076412|183526453|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.09||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.32|0.2499
91824932|NCT00958880|183526454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|10.46||||0.015||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.015
91824933|NCT00958880|183526455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.03||||0.575||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.575
91824934|NCT01516879|183526462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.08|-52.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 52 in LDL-C between evolocumab 420 mg and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-52.85|-61.08|<0.001
91824935|NCT01516879|183526463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-53.3|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-53.3|-62.3|<0.001
91824936|NCT01516879|183526464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|75.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.8|79.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by the stratification factor. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value at Week 52.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||79.7|70.8|<0.001
91824937|NCT01516879|183526465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.57|-54.45|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-54.45|-60.57|<0.001
91824938|NCT01516879|183526466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.19|-33.11|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-33.11|-37.19|<0.001
91824939|NCT01516879|183526467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-30.68|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-30.68|-36.21|<0.001
91824940|NCT01516879|183526468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.25|-46.28|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-46.28|-54.25|<0.001
91824941|NCT01516879|183526469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.56|-40.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-40.85|-47.56|<0.001
91824942|NCT01516879|183526470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.41|-33.87|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-33.87|-40.41|<0.001
91824943|NCT01516879|183526471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.79|-42.63|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-42.63|-49.79|<0.001
91824944|NCT01516879|183526472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.15|-18.55|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-18.55|-26.15|<0.001
91824945|NCT01516879|183526473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|-5.86|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-5.86|-17.21|<0.001
91824946|NCT01516879|183526474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|7.56|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||7.56|3.28|<0.001
91824947|NCT01516879|183526475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-18.08|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-18.08|-40.23|<0.001
91824948|NCT01516879|183526476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|3.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment group and stratification factor as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||3.48|-3.76|0.94
91824949|NCT03837496|183526557|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.66||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.27||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression.||Analysis comparing the change in monthly adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy across the study period adjusting for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression.||1.27|-2.59|.504
91824950|NCT03837496|183526557|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.1||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in weekly adherence rates to adjuvant endocrine therapy across the study period adjusting for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression.||-0.10|-0.44|.225
91824951|NCT03837496|183526558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.66||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes, distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in self-reported endocrine therapy adherence between groups on the MARS-5 scale from baseline to 12-weeks post-baseline adjusting for distress, receipt of ovarian suppression, and baseline values of criterion outcome.||0.66|-0.40|.630
91824952|NCT03837496|183526559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|6.44||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes, distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in satisfaction with adjuvant endocrine therapy between groups on the CTSQ from baseline to 12 weeks post-baseline adjusting for distress, receipt of ovarian suppression, and baseline values of criterion outcome.||6.44|-1.27|.186
91824953|NCT03837496|183526560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|1.91||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes, distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in symptom distress between groups on the BCPT scale from baseline to 12-weeks post-baseline adjusting for distress, receipt of ovarian suppression, and baseline values of criterion outcome.||1.91|-3.49|.562
91824954|NCT04666441|183526585|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.25|-0.88|0.0004
91824955|NCT04666441|183526585|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.34|-0.99|<0.0001
91824956|NCT04666441|183526585|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.24|-0.89|0.0007
91824957|NCT04666441|183526585|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.38|-1.05|<0.0001
91824958|NCT04666441|183526585|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0006||95.0|-0.88|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.24|-0.88|0.0006
91824959|NCT04666441|183526585|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007||95.0|-0.87|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.24|-0.87|0.0007
91824960|NCT04666441|183526586|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002||95.0|-0.72|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.72|0.0002
91824961|NCT04666441|183526586|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.82|<0.0001
91952682|NCT00948896|183801936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|69.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|80.0||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization.|Negative Binomial Regression||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization. The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person year with TS based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus, that we would need to enroll 50 participants in each arm to detect a reduction in the incidence of malaria in either the monthly SP or DP arms (two-sided significance level 0.05) compared with the daily TS arm of 48% or greater with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||80|53|<0.001
91824962|NCT04666441|183526586|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.83|<0.0001
91824963|NCT04666441|183526586|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002||95.0|-0.75|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.75|0.0002
91824964|NCT04666441|183526586|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.004||95.0|-0.62|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-0.62|0.0040
91824965|NCT04666441|183526586|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0007||95.0|-0.67|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.67|0.0007
91824966|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.82|<0.0001
91824967|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.40|-0.90|<0.0001
91824968|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.42|-0.97|<0.0001
91952683|NCT01590810|183801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.15|-1.59|0.503
91824969|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.58|-1.19|<0.0001
91824970|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.84|<0.0001
91824971|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.43|-0.95|<0.0001
91824972|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.44|-0.98|<0.0001
91824973|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.64|-1.25|<0.0001
91824974|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.37|-0.87|<0.0001
91824975|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.42|-0.93|<0.0001
91824976|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.44|-0.99|<0.0001
91824977|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.61|-1.25|<0.0001
91824978|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.31|-0.80|<0.0001
91824979|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.38|-0.89|<0.0001
91824980|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.43|-0.97|<0.0001
91824981|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.52|-1.15|<0.0001
91824982|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.27|-0.76|<0.0001
91824983|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.83|<0.0001
91824984|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.28|-0.82|<0.0001
91824985|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.32|-0.95|<0.0001
91824986|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.23|-0.73|0.0002
91824987|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.31|-0.82|<0.0001
91824988|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.87|<0.0001
91824989|NCT04666441|183526587|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.52|-1.16|<0.0001
91824990|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.18|-0.64|0.0005
91824991|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.23|-0.69|<0.0001
91824992|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.26|-0.75|<0.0001
91824993|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.32|-0.88|<0.0001
91824994|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.21|-0.69|0.0003
91952684|NCT01590810|183801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.55|-2.86|<0.0001
91824995|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.29|-0.77|<0.0001
91824996|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.29|-0.78|<0.0001
91824997|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.41|-0.98|<0.0001
91824998|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.25|-0.72|<0.0001
91824999|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.28|-0.74|<0.0001
91825000|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.30|-0.79|<0.0001
91825001|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.40|-0.99|<0.0001
91825002|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.16|-0.63|0.0009
91825003|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.23|-0.69|0.0001
91825004|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.27|-0.77|<0.0001
91825005|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.34|-0.92|<0.0001
91825006|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.10|-0.57|0.0046
91825007|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.15|-0.62|0.0011
91825008|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.13|-0.62|0.0029
91825009|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.08|-0.66|0.0120
91825010|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.09|-0.56|0.0062
91825011|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.16|-0.62|0.0011
91825012|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.17|-0.66|0.0011
91952685|NCT01590810|183801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.34|-10.13|<0.0001
91952686|NCT01590810|183801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.58|-9.10|<0.0001
91952687|NCT01590810|183801962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-7.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.92|-12.89|<0.0001
91825013|NCT04666441|183526588|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.29|-0.87|0.0001
91825014|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.007||95.0|-0.85|-0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.14|-0.85|0.0070
91825015|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-1.06|0.0002
91825016|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0008||95.0|-1.0|-0.26|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.26|-1.00|0.0008
91825017|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0125||95.0|-0.85|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.10|-0.85|0.0125
91825018|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0696||95.0|-0.7|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||0.03|-0.70|0.0696
91825019|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.07|-0.79|0.0187
91825020|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.52|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.52|-1.39|<0.0001
91825021|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.53|-0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.64|-1.53|<0.0001
91825022|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.48|-0.59|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.59|-1.48|<0.0001
91825023|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.60|-1.50|<0.0001
91825024|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.46|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.46|-1.34|<0.0001
91825025|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.35|-0.48|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.48|-1.35|<0.0001
91825026|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0004||95.0|-1.23|-0.35|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.35|-1.23|0.0004
91825027|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0058||95.0|-1.08|-0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.18|-1.08|0.0058
91825028|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0046||95.0|-1.11|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.20|-1.11|0.0046
91825029|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0019||95.0|-1.18|-0.27|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.27|-1.18|0.0019
91825030|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.33|-0.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.44|-1.33|<0.0001
91825031|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0079||95.0|-1.04|-0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.16|-1.04|0.0079
91825032|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0515||95.0|-0.9|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.00|-0.90|0.0515
91825033|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1864||95.0|-0.77|0.15|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.15|-0.77|0.1864
91825034|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2866||95.0|-0.72|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.21|-0.72|0.2866
91825035|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.647||95.0|-0.58|0.36|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.36|-0.58|0.6470
91825036|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.028||95.0|-0.97|-0.06|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.06|-0.97|0.0280
91825037|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0854||95.0|-0.84|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.05|-0.84|0.0854
91825038|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.07|-0.69|0.1078
91825039|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2235||95.0|-0.62|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.14|-0.62|0.2235
91825040|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1369||95.0|-0.68|0.09|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.09|-0.68|0.1369
91825041|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.661||95.0|-0.48|0.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.31|-0.48|0.6610
91825042|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0284||95.0|-0.81|-0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.05|-0.81|0.0284
91825043|NCT04666441|183526592|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.08||95.0|-0.71|0.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.04|-0.71|0.0800
91825044|NCT01114516|183526632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan Meier survival analysis||||0.018
91825045|NCT01114516|183526633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.05||||||||2.05|1.06|
91825046|NCT01114516|183526634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.393
91825047|NCT00132769|183526638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.48||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|4.18|||ANCOVA|||||4.18|-1.21|0.278
91825048|NCT00132769|183526639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.66||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.45|13.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.13|-24.45|0.543
91825049|NCT00132769|183526646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio between treatments|0.84||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|0.63|0.225
91952688|NCT01590810|183801963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.02|-5.79|0.052
91952689|NCT01590810|183801963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.43|-9.49|0.010
91825050|NCT01431508|183526647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 and Baseline||||<0.05
91825051|NCT01612546|183526657|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91825052|NCT01016834|183526662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the primary analyses and other PPMQ-R variables, the mean of the differences between each subject's rating of overall treatment satisfaction at the end of study based on the subject's experience using Sumavel DosePro and the rating at baseline based on the subject's pre-study triptan treatment were compared using a two-sided paired t-test at the 5% level of significance||||0.0007
91825053|NCT06748040|183526698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.2||P-value less than 0.05 is considered as statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.2|-2.4|0.4852
91825054|NCT01168999|183526783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91825055|NCT01168999|183526784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91825056|NCT01168999|183526785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91825057|NCT01168999|183526786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91825058|NCT01168999|183526787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||0.05
91825059|NCT01168999|183526788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91825060|NCT01282710|183526803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04627||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Agreement between SureCALL® and IUPC Contraction Peak Events~Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0."||||.04627
91825061|NCT01282710|183526803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1676||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Agreement between TOCO and IUPC Contraction Peak Events~Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0."||||0.1676
91825062|NCT02504645|183526804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2631
91825063|NCT01854554|183526806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Gray's test|Cumulative Incidence Function treating progressive disease (RANO) or death before cognitive function decline as a competing risk.||||||.74
91825064|NCT01854554|183526807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||.60
91952690|NCT01590810|183801963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-4.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.79|-14.20|<0.001
91825065|NCT01854554|183526808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.24
91825066|NCT02819726|183526810|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ration|95.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.07|104.37||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with fixed effect for treatment||104.37|87.07|
91825067|NCT02819726|183526810|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|93.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.54|102.15||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.15|85.54|
91825068|NCT02819726|183526810|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|98.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.49|107.45||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with fixed effect for treatment||107.45|89.49|
91825069|NCT02819726|183526811|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|94.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.91|101.81||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||101.81|86.91|
91825070|NCT02819726|183526811|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ration|94.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.21|102.16||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.16|87.21|
91825071|NCT02819726|183526811|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|100.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|108.65||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||108.65|92.68|
91952691|NCT01590810|183801963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-7.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.52|-16.51|<0.0001
91952692|NCT01590810|183801963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-6.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.53|-12.93|<0.0001
91825072|NCT02819726|183526812|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|96.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.52|102.46||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.46|90.52|
91825073|NCT02819726|183526812|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|98.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.64|105.05||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||105.05|92.64|
91825074|NCT02819726|183526812|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|102.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|109.14||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||109.14|96.14|
91825075|NCT02819726|183526813|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|94.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.03|101.23||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||101.23|89.03|
91825076|NCT02819726|183526813|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.61|105.3||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||105.30|92.61|
91825077|NCT02819726|183526813|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|104.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.54|110.95||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||110.95|97.54|
91825078|NCT02819726|183526814|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|89.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.2|102.79||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.79|77.20|
91825079|NCT02819726|183526814|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.72|118.56||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||118.56|88.72|
91952693|NCT01590810|183801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|8.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.25|-16.44|0.480
91825080|NCT02819726|183526814|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|115.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.51|133.21||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||133.21|99.51|
91825081|NCT02819726|183526815|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence between 2 study treatments would be declared if the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 in entirely contained within the equivalence margin of \[-0.6,0.6\]|LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.106|||ANCOVA|||Least square means and confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only||0.106|-0.422|0.2402
91825082|NCT02819726|183526815|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence between 2 study treatments would be declared if the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 in entirely contained within the equivalence margin of \[-0.6,0.6\]|LS Means Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.063|||ANCOVA|||Least square means and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only||0.063|-0.469|0.1346
91825083|NCT02819726|183526815|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence between 2 study treatments would be declared if the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 in entirely contained within the equivalence margin of \[-0.6,0.6\]|LS Means Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Least square means and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only||0.224|-0.314|0.7429
91825084|NCT02819726|183526824|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.6068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and Baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.250|-0.428|0.6068
91825085|NCT02819726|183526824|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and Baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.430|-0.249|0.5990
91825086|NCT02819726|183526824|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.532|||ANCOVA|||Week 53 (EOS) MabThera vs Rituxan. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and Baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.532|-0.165|0.3053
91825087|NCT02819726|183526825|OTHER||Difference (%)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|23.03||||||Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||23.03|-4.74|
91825088|NCT02819726|183526825|OTHER||Difference (%)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|11.22||||||Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||11.22|-15.95|
91825089|NCT02819726|183526825|OTHER||Difference (%)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.47|2.45||||||Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||2.45|-25.47|
91952694|NCT01590810|183801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.37|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.79|-23.37|0.086
91825090|NCT02819726|183526826|OTHER||Difference (%)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|22.46||||||ACR20 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||22.46|-4.07|
91825091|NCT02819726|183526826|OTHER||Difference (%)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|17.03||||||ACR50 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||17.03|-10.22|
91825092|NCT02819726|183526826|OTHER||Difference (%)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|7.51||||||ACR50 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||7.51|-19.10|
91825093|NCT02819726|183526826|OTHER||Difference (%)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|21.22||||||ACR70 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||21.22|-1.52|
91825094|NCT02819726|183526826|OTHER||Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|17.13||||||ACR70 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||17.13|-6.69|
91825095|NCT02819726|183526826|OTHER||Difference (%)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|||TWO_SIDED|92.0|-15.68|6.41||||||ACR70 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||6.41|-15.68|
91825096|NCT02819726|183526827|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.671|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.671|-3.230|0.1997
91825097|NCT02819726|183526827|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.996||0.9098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.074|1.848|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||1.848|-2.074|0.9098
91825098|NCT02819726|183526827|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.008||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||3.150|-0.817|0.2480
91825099|NCT02819726|183526827|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.909|0.996|||ANCOVA|||Tender Joint Count (TJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.996|-4.909|0.1931
91825100|NCT02819726|183526827|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||-0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.722|2.184|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||2.184|-3.722|-0.77
91825101|NCT02819726|183526827|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|4.18|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||4.180|-1.805|0.4352
91825102|NCT02819726|183526828|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.242||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.541|2.226|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Physician's Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||2.226|-10.541|0.2008
91825103|NCT02819726|183526828|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.242||-0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.771|5.994|||ANOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Physician's Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline||5.994|-6.771|-0.39
91825104|NCT02819726|183526828|OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.268||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.665|10.204|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Physician's Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline||10.204|-2.665|0.2498
91825105|NCT02819726|183526829|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.592||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0302|5.841|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Pain Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||5.841|-8.0302|0.7322
91825106|NCT02819726|183526829|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.623||0.5418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.347|4.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Pain Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||4.920|-9.347|0.5418
91825107|NCT02819726|183526829|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.633||0.7869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.136|6.169|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Pain Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||6.169|-8.136|0.7869
91952695|NCT01590810|183801964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.85|-6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.18|-28.85|0.006
91825108|NCT02819726|183526830|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.443||0.7097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.062|5.496|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||5.496|-8.062|0.7097
91825109|NCT02819726|183526830|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.453||0.6683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|5.317|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||5.317|-8.280|0.6683
91825110|NCT02819726|183526830|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.494||0.9548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.078|6.682|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||6.682|-7.078|0.9548
91825111|NCT02819726|183526831|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) HAQ-DI (0-3). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||0.000|-0.339|0.0505
91825112|NCT02819726|183526831|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|0.033|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) HAQ-DI (0-3). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||0.033|-0.307|0.1141
91825113|NCT02819726|183526831|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.204|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) HAQ-DI )0-3). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||0.204|-0.139|0.7111
91825114|NCT02819726|183526832|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871||0.8183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.113|3.253|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) CRP. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||3.253|-4.113|0.8183
91825115|NCT02819726|183526832|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.868||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.164|5.191|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) CRP. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||5.191|-2.164|0.4186
91825116|NCT02819726|183526832|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.885||0.3035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.768|5.655|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) CRP. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||5.655|-1.768|0.3035
91825117|NCT02819726|183526833|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|0.413|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 ( EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-ESR value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.413|-0.375|0.9249
91825118|NCT02819726|183526833|OTHER||LS Measn Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.442|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 ( EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-ESR value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.442|-0.351|0.05
91825119|NCT02819726|183526833|OTHER||LS Means Diference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.8962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 ( EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-ESR value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.430|-0.376|0.8962
91825120|NCT02819726|183526834|OTHER||Difference (%)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|7.83||||||Week 52 (EOS) Major Clinical Response. The 95% CIs for major clinical response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||7.83|-2.56|
91825121|NCT02819726|183526834|OTHER||Difference (%)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|6.67||||||Week 52 (EOS) Major Clinical Response. The 95% CIs for major clinical response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||6.67|-4.74|
91825122|NCT02819726|183526834|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|3.39||||||Week 52 (EOS) Major Clinical Response. The 95% CIs for major clinical response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||3.39|-6.75|
91825123|NCT02819726|183526835|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.9||||||Week 52 (EOS). Clinical remission is defined as score of Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) smaller than 3.3. The 95% CIs for clinical remission rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||3.90|-6.9|
91825124|NCT02819726|183526835|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|3.86||||||Week 52 (EOS). Clinical remission is defined as score of Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) smaller than 3.3. The 95% CIs for clinical remission rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||3.86|-7.07|
91825125|NCT02819726|183526835|OTHER||Differnce (%)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|5.83||||||Week 52 (EOS). Clinical remission is defined as score of Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) smaller than 3.3. The 95% CIs for clinical remission rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||5.83|-6.05|
91825126|NCT02819726|183526836|OTHER||Difference (%)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|15.1||||||Week 52 EULAR score 'Good'. EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response was classified using the individual amount of change in the DAS28-CRP score. The 95% CIs for EULAR response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||15.10|-12.59|
91825127|NCT02819726|183526836|OTHER||Difference (%)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|14.03|||Difference (%)|||Week 52 EULAR score 'Good'. EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response was classified using the individual amount of change in the DAS28-CRP score. The 95% CIs for EULAR response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||14.03|-13.75|
91825128|NCT02819726|183526836|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|12.91||||||Week 52 EULAR score 'Good'. EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response was classified using the individual amount of change in the DAS28-CRP score. The 95% CIs for EULAR response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||12.91|-15.14|
91825129|NCT02819726|183526842|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day 15 \[AUEC(0-d15)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-137.1|181.3||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||181.3|-137.1|
91825130|NCT02819726|183526842|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day 15 \[AUEC(0-d15)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|69.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-91.8|230.8||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||230.8|-91.8|
91825131|NCT02819726|183526842|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day 15 \[AUEC(0-d15)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-112.5|207.2||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||207.2|-112.5|
91825132|NCT02819726|183526842|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day week \[AUEC(0-w24)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|310.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-187.9|809.4||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||809.4|-187.9|
91825133|NCT02819726|183526842|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day week \[AUEC(0-w24)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|296.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-213.8|806.1||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||806.1|-213.8|
91825134|NCT02819726|183526842|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day week \[AUEC(0-w24)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-527.4|498.2||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||498.2|-527.4|
91825135|NCT00359762|183526845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority test was based on the upper 1-sided 97.5% CI for the hazard ratio of Exenatide/Glimepiride;the upper bound was compared to 1.25: if \<1.25, the hypothesis that the risk of treatment failure with Exenatide is more than 1.25 times greater than the risk with Glimepiride is rejected.Superiority test was based on the 2-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio. If CI excludes 1, the hypothesis that the risk of treatment failure with Exenatide is equal to that with Glimepiride is rejected.|Hazard Ratio|0.748||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|0.899|||Regression, Cox|Time to treatment failure was modeled using Cox regression with treatment and baseline HbA1c as predictive terms.||The null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (H1) for the primary analysis (i.e., non-inferiority) are:H0: hazards of treatment for Exenatide/hazards of treatment for Glimepiride \>=1.25.H1: hazards of treatment for Exenatide/hazards of treatment for Glimepiride \< 1.25. With 527 patients in each arm, the study would have approximately 90% power to conclude non-inferiority of Exenatide to Glimepiride.||0.899|0.623|0.0020
91825136|NCT00359762|183526846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|99.95|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier survival curves for time to treatment failure were compared between treatment groups using log rank test.||||0.0315
91825137|NCT00359762|183526847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.25|-12.58|0.7648
91952696|NCT01590810|183801965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|-9.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.59|-16.84|<0.0001
91825138|NCT00359762|183526848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.399||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-28.88|0.0528
91825139|NCT00359762|183526849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.06|-0.07|0.9040
91825140|NCT00359762|183526850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.05|0.2500
91825141|NCT00359762|183526851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.497||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.27|-9.40|0.9001
91952697|NCT01590810|183801965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.94|-6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.45|-13.94|<0.0001
91952698|NCT01590810|183801965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.45|-9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.19|-16.45|<0.0001
91825142|NCT00359762|183526852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.966||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|20.95|||ANCOVA|||Change in DI30/DG30 ratio from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||20.95|1.44|0.0246
91825143|NCT00359762|183526853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.81|1.53|0.0036
91825144|NCT00359762|183526854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.128||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Change in disposition index from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||11.50|3.15|0.0006
91825145|NCT00359762|183526855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.04|-0.31|0.0128
91825146|NCT00359762|183526856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.06|-0.26|0.0015
91825147|NCT00359762|183526857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.34|-1.03|<.0001
91825148|NCT00359762|183526858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.83|0.0109
91825149|NCT00359762|183526859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.97|-3.64|<.0001
91825150|NCT00359762|183526860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.55|||ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial (2 hours) plasma glucose from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.55|-2.84|<.0001
91825151|NCT00359762|183526861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.49|-6.31|<.0001
91825152|NCT00359762|183526862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.79|-7.61|<.0001
91825153|NCT00359762|183526863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.24|-3.18|0.0228
91825154|NCT00359762|183526864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.805||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and visit by treatment interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.86|-2.30|0.3737
91825155|NCT00359762|183526865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.08|-0.43|0.0042
91825156|NCT00359762|183526866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.18|-0.13|0.7914
91825157|NCT00359762|183526867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.10|0.02|0.0011
91825158|NCT00359762|183526868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.37|||Negative Binomial Model|||The number of hypoglycemic episodes by patient were compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial model with effects for treatment and baseline HbA1c and the logarithm of the days of exposure as the offset variable.||0.37|0.22|<.0001
91825159|NCT00359762|183526869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value at Period III as a covariate. The compound symmetric covariance structure was assumed.||0.55|-0.00|0.0508
91825160|NCT02461589|183526888|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-1.30|<0.0001
91825161|NCT02461589|183526888|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.08|-1.61|<0.0001
91825162|NCT02461589|183526888|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.42|-1.95|<0.0001
91825163|NCT02461589|183526888|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.60|-2.12|<0.0001
91825164|NCT01978119|183526893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non- inferiority was demonstrated if lower limit of the CI (0.025 one sided significance level) for the difference of the mean change from Baseline in trough FEV1 of FSC administered BID by capsule-based unit dose DPI versus FSC administered BID by multi-dose DPI is greater than -125 milliliter (mL).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.08|||Repeated Measures Mixed Models|||||0.080|-0.024|
91825165|NCT01978119|183526894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.039|0.334||||||||0.334|-1.039|
91825166|NCT01978119|183526895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.927||||||||0.927|-0.372|
91825167|NCT01978119|183526896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.088|||||Day 28 Change from Baseline Analysis|||0.088|-0.074|
91825168|NCT01978119|183526896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.022||||||95.0|-0.049|0.092|||||Day 56 Change from Baseline Analysis|||0.092|-0.049|
91825169|NCT01978119|183526897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|10.05||||||||10.05|-1.34|
91825170|NCT01978119|183526898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.20|
91825171|NCT01978119|183526900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|2.46||||||||2.46|-6.97|
91825172|NCT01978119|183526901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.9|
91825173|NCT01978119|183526902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.11||||||||3.11|-4.64|
91825174|NCT01958918|183527007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1850
91825175|NCT00659269|183527038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
91825176|NCT00908960|183527040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|43.17|||Fine and Gray regression|||||43.17|1.03|0.06
91825177|NCT02401672|183527043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91825178|NCT02401672|183527044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91825179|NCT02401672|183527045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91825180|NCT02401672|183527046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91825181|NCT01736852|183527048|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 10%, α = 0.025, power = 0.80,||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||.ample size calculations were performed using an expected rate of 4% for each group,a one-sided exact test, α = 0.025, power = 0.80, non-inferiority margin of 10% resulting in a sample size of 124 patients or 62 patients per treatment arm.||||0.06
91825182|NCT00403546|183527054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Baseline||1.12|-1.09|0.980
91825183|NCT00403546|183527054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||1.95|0.08|0.033
91825184|NCT00403546|183527054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||1.77|-0.32|0.171
91825185|NCT00403546|183527054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||1.62|-0.62|0.380
91825186|NCT00403546|183527054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||1.08|-1.32|0.840
91825187|NCT00403546|183527055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Baseline||0.88|-1.23|0.737
91825188|NCT00403546|183527055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||0.80|-1.09|0.764
91825189|NCT00403546|183527055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||1.32|-0.82|0.642
91825190|NCT00403546|183527055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||0.83|-1.50|0.570
91825191|NCT00403546|183527055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||1.17|-1.34|0.894
91825192|NCT00403546|183527057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Baseline||5.05|-8.68|0.599
91825193|NCT00403546|183527057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.53||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|9.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 1||9.37|-2.31|0.235
91825194|NCT00403546|183527057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.83||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 2||8.57|-3.80|0.449
91825195|NCT00403546|183527057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.64||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|10.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 4||10.56|-3.28|0.301
91825196|NCT00403546|183527057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|6.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 6||6.63|-8.13|0.842
91825197|NCT00403546|183527057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.33||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|14.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 8||14.09|-1.43|0.109
91825198|NCT00403546|183527057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Baseline||4.02|-5.62|0.741
91825199|NCT00403546|183527057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|6.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 1||6.19|-3.32|0.552
91825200|NCT00403546|183527057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.83||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 2||7.84|-2.18|0.268
91825201|NCT00403546|183527057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|6.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 4||6.56|-4.53|0.719
91825202|NCT00403546|183527057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 6||2.96|-8.68|0.334
91825203|NCT00403546|183527057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.38||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|10.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 8||10.37|-1.61|0.151
91825204|NCT00403546|183527059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.77||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with random slopes||At Baseline||9.50|-3.97|0.416
91825205|NCT00403546|183527059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||4.33|-3.59|0.854
91825206|NCT00403546|183527059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|6.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||6.58|-2.68|0.406
91825207|NCT00403546|183527059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.01||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||2.21|-8.23|0.256
91825208|NCT00403546|183527059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.37||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||4.45|-7.20|0.642
91825209|NCT00403546|183527061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Baseline||0.20|-1.55|0.135
91825210|NCT00403546|183527061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||1.21|-0.33|0.262
91825211|NCT00403546|183527061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||1.49|-0.33|0.209
91825212|NCT00403546|183527061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||1.07|-1.01|0.950
91825213|NCT00403546|183527061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||1.76|-0.61|0.340
91825214|NCT01168934|183527079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|43.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.68|47.56||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞)(dn) of crizotinib was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||47.56|39.68|
91825215|NCT01168934|183527082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|44.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.9|48.78||||||Natural log transformed AUClast(dn) of crizotinib was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||48.78|40.90|
91825216|NCT01070810|183527097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
91825217|NCT01070810|183527098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||Time to shock reversal was complicated by a high incidence of death prior to the event. To account for this we classified death as a competing risk event and used the estimated cumulative incidence function (CIF) to illustrate the comparison of CIFs between the two treatment groups using the Fine-Gray competing risk model. We tested the subdistribution hazards of these two CIF functions and obtained the estimated hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals.||1.62|0.61|0.97
91825218|NCT01070810|183527099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91825219|NCT01070810|183527100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91825220|NCT01070810|183527101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
91952699|NCT01590810|183801965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.49|-9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.19|-16.49|<0.0001
91825221|NCT05061446|183527107|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|19.29||||||||19.29|-5.96|
91825222|NCT05061446|183527107|OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|46.12||||||||46.12|6.52|
91825223|NCT05061446|183527108|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|19.29||||||||19.29|-5.96|
91825224|NCT05061446|183527108|OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|46.12||||||||46.12|6.52|
91825225|NCT05061446|183527109|OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|40.24||||||||40.24|-0.24|
91825226|NCT05061446|183527109|OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|52.48||||||||52.48|10.68|
91825227|NCT05061446|183527110|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|19.29||||||||19.29|-5.96|
91825228|NCT05061446|183527110|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|15.3||||||||15.30|-4.78|
91825229|NCT05061446|183527111|OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|53.6||||||||53.60|-1.22|
91825230|NCT05061446|183527111|OTHER||Difference in percentage|45.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|71.68||||||||71.68|19.30|
91825231|NCT02799082|183527168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||"The percentages stated relate to the total number of subjects for the respective week and treatment.~Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test stratified by center"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91825232|NCT02799082|183527169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91825233|NCT02799082|183527177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91825234|NCT02799082|183527178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91825235|NCT02442700|183527197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91825236|NCT00752908|183527206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91825237|NCT02610140|183527211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.215||||0.859125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|||1-sided p-value from log-rank test (stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment). P-value is calculated based on alpha level 0.0125.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (anetumab ravtansine / vinorelbine) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with Wald CIs, stratified by Time to progression (TTP) on 1st line treatment.|PFS anetumab ravtansine / vinorelbine||1,738|0.850|0.859125
91825238|NCT02610140|183527212|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.655624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.506||1-sided p-value from log-rank test (stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment). Alpha spending/boundary for interim was 0.00245. Alpha boundary value for final analysis was 0.02421.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (anetumab ravtansine/vinorelbine) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with Wald CIs, stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment.|OS anetumab ravtansine / vinorelbine||1.506|0.763|0.655624
91825239|NCT02610140|183527217|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%) improvement rate symptoms|4.65||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|17.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment||Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine||17.51|-8.20|0.244
91952700|NCT01590810|183801966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.11|-4.73|0.061
91952701|NCT01590810|183801966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.45|-4.00|0.016
91825240|NCT02610140|183527218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.313747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|1.779|||Log Rank|one-sided log-rank test stratified by time to progression (TTP) on first line treatment||Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine||1.779|0.386|0.313747
91825241|NCT02610140|183527219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924||||0.378916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.533|||Log Rank|one-sided log-rank test stratified by time to progression (TTP) on first line treatment||Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine||1.533|0.557|0.378916
91825242|NCT02610140|183527220|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%) improvement rate of pain|6.64||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|22.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment||||22.68|-9.40|0.214
91825243|NCT02610140|183527223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|39.3||||||||39.3|0.1|
91825244|NCT02610140|183527223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|35.9||||||||35.9|0.0|
91825245|NCT00887341|183527224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.238
91825246|NCT00887341|183527231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.121
91825247|NCT00887341|183527231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.809
91825248|NCT00887341|183527231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.367
91825249|NCT00887341|183527231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.339
91825250|NCT00887341|183527231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.017
91825251|NCT00887341|183527231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Chi-squared|||Final visit||||0.451
91825252|NCT00887341|183527232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.377
91825253|NCT00887341|183527232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.387
91825254|NCT00887341|183527232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.304
91825255|NCT00887341|183527232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.509
91825256|NCT00887341|183527232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.110
91825257|NCT00887341|183527232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Chi-squared|||Final visit||||0.504
91825258|NCT00887341|183527233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.327
91825259|NCT00887341|183527233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.786|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.786
91825260|NCT00887341|183527233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.482
91825261|NCT00887341|183527233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.680
91825262|NCT00887341|183527233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.690
91825263|NCT00887341|183527233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516|||||||Chi-squared|||Final Visit||||0.516
91825264|NCT00887341|183527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.970
91825265|NCT00887341|183527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.587
91825266|NCT00887341|183527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.184
91825267|NCT00887341|183527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.600
91825268|NCT00887341|183527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||Chi-squared|||Final Visit||||0.937
91825269|NCT01591681|183527249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||Sample size was computed to be 45 participants using the system for 42 nights (21 nights with system active and 21 control nights) for a total of 1,890 nights in order to have 90% power with a type 1 error rate of 5% to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in nocturnal hypoglycemia assuming a true population rate of 30% of control nights and 15% of intervention nights with hypoglycemia after adjusting for the correlation from repeated nights and misclassification due to sensor inaccuracy.||||<0.001
91825270|NCT01591681|183527250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||<0.001
91825271|NCT01591681|183527251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
91825272|NCT01591681|183527252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
91825273|NCT01591681|183527253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
91825274|NCT01591681|183527254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||0.71
91825275|NCT01591681|183527255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||0.62
91825276|NCT01591681|183527256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||0.10
91825277|NCT01591681|183527257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
91825278|NCT01591681|183527258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||0.98
91825279|NCT01591681|183527259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||0.93
91825280|NCT01312961|183527268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.077|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model with treatment groups and stratification factor (prior ICS/LABA combination therapy dose) as covariates.||0.280|0.021|<0.0001
91825281|NCT01306617|183527294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||For the percentage of subjects with HCV RNA suppressed below the LLOD from Week 4 through Week 12, if it was assumed that 60% of subjects would be successfully suppressed from Week 4 through Week 12, then 20 subjects in arm 1 would give a 95% 2-sided confidence interval (CI) of (38.5%, 81.5%), 10 subjects in arm 2 would give a 95% CI of (29.6%, 90.4%), and 15 subjects in arm 3 would give a 95% CI of (35.2%, 84.8%) for the percentage of subjects suppressed using the binomial exact method.||||0.547
91825282|NCT01306617|183527294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.207
91825283|NCT01306617|183527295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.061
91825284|NCT01306617|183527296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.061
91825285|NCT01306617|183527296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.375
91825286|NCT01306617|183527297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.312
91825287|NCT01306617|183527297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.012
91952702|NCT01590810|183801966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|-8.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-8.82|-14.42|<0.0001
91952703|NCT01590810|183801966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|-4.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.96|-11.34|<0.0001
91952704|NCT01590810|183801966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.81|-12.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-12.75|-20.81|<0.0001
91825288|NCT01306617|183527298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.312
91825289|NCT01306617|183527298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.012
91825290|NCT01306617|183527299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.395
91825291|NCT01306617|183527299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.010
91825292|NCT01306617|183527300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.048
91825293|NCT01208233|183527319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.735||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|LOCF was used to impute missing data.||||1.31|0.41|0.4962
91825294|NCT01208233|183527319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561||||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.29|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was based on OC.||||1.07|0.29|0.2517
91825295|NCT01208233|183527320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.942||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.972|5.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic hand||5.254|-4.972|0.9716
91825296|NCT01208233|183527321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2392||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.401|20.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic to non-paretic hand ratio (%)||20.177|1.401|0.1417
91825297|NCT01208233|183527322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4241||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.351|-3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic hand||-3.310|-17.351|0.0611
91825298|NCT01208233|183527322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2899||0.9433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.011|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-paretic hand||4.480|-4.011|0.9433
91825299|NCT01208233|183527323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8448||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.668|-3.957|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic to non-paretic hand ratio (%)||-3.957|-21.668|0.0654
91825300|NCT01208233|183527324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.972||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||LOCF was used to impute missing data.||1.76|0.54|0.9510
91825301|NCT01208233|183527325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854||||0.7234|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||LOCF was used to impute missing data.||1.51|0.48|0.7234
91825302|NCT01208233|183527326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6755||0.6759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.156|0.589|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.589|-1.156|0.6759
91825303|NCT01208233|183527327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.433||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.81|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||BI \>=95, LOCF was used to impute missing data.||2.54|0.81|0.4213
91952705|NCT01590810|183801967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.34|-5.56|0.029
91952706|NCT01590810|183801967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.22|-11.29|0.005
91825304|NCT01208233|183527327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.651||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||BI=100, LOCF was used to impute missing data.||2.98|0.92|0.2760
91825305|NCT01208233|183527328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4547||0.2118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|11.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.348|-0.150|0.2118
91825306|NCT01208233|183527329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7844||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.252|3.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.375|-1.252|0.5541
91825307|NCT01208233|183527330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4178||0.426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.874|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.205|-0.874|0.4260
91825308|NCT01208233|183527331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.477|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4394||0.65|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.547|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(L+R)/28 × 100%||9.500|-4.547|0.6500
91825309|NCT01208233|183527331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7431||0.5671|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.834|12.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(L/14) × 100%||12.583|-4.834|0.5671
91825310|NCT01208233|183527331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2816||0.843|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.771|7.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(R/14) × 100%||7.870|-5.771|0.8430
91825311|NCT01208233|183527332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0733||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.011|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(L R)/(L+R)||0.201|0.011|0.1512
91825312|NCT01208233|183527333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5041||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.929|-0.629|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.629|-1.929|0.0128
91952707|NCT01590810|183801967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.03|-6.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.93|-20.03|<0.001
91952708|NCT01590810|183801967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.98|-14.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-14.68|-21.98|<0.0001
91825313|NCT01208233|183527334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1226||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.248|-0.070|0.4713
91825314|NCT01208233|183527341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7201||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.026|2.995|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-paretic hand||2.995|-4.026|0.8501
91825315|NCT01891734|183527344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91825316|NCT01891734|183527345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91825317|NCT04028388|183527346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.65|0.56|0.1465
91825318|NCT04028388|183527350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.93|||Log Rank|||DOR is calculated in the subpopulation of subjects experiencing a response (CR or PR). Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome.||7.93|0.39|0.4576
91825319|NCT04028388|183527351|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.48|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Difference between the cohorts is tested with Log-rank test and estimated using Univariate Cox model.~Wilcoxon test is used if proportional hazards assumption is not fulfilled. Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome"||3.48|0.65|0.0776
91825320|NCT04028388|183527353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.49|||Log Rank|||"Difference between the cohorts is tested with Log-rank test and estimated using Univariate Cox model.~Wilcoxon test is used if proportional hazards assumption is not fulfilled. Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome."||2.49|0.79|0.2539
91825321|NCT04028388|183527354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.42|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Difference between the cohorts is tested with Log-rank test and estimated using Univariate Cox model.~Wilcoxon test is used if proportional hazards assumption is not fulfilled. Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome."||2.42|0.76|0.3062
91825322|NCT00129259|183527373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value for testing treatment effect uses change in ln(AUC+1) as the outcome variable and adjusts for baseline ln(AUC+1).||"Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in the 4-hour C-peptide AUC does not differ between treatment groups after adjusting for baseline C-peptide AUC.~Alternative hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in the 4-hour C-peptide AUC differs between the treatment groups after adjusting for baseline values."||||0.002
91825323|NCT00129259|183527374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusts for baseline HbA1c.||"Null hypothesis: The mean change in HbA1c from baseline (pre-treatment) to Month 24 does not differ between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: The mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Month 24 differs between treatment groups."||||0.697
91825324|NCT00129259|183527375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusts for baseline daily insulin use per kg||"Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in daily insulin use per kg does not differ between the treatment and control groups.~Alternative hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in daily insulin use per kg differs between the treatment and control groups."||||0.110
91825325|NCT00139997|183527400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
91825326|NCT00019682|183527409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
91825327|NCT00019682|183527410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Unadjusted 2 tail p value.|Log Rank|||||||0.008
91825328|NCT00019682|183527411|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91825329|NCT00019682|183527412|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-G scale||||>0.05
91825330|NCT00019682|183527412|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-F scale||||>0.05
91825331|NCT00019682|183527412|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 scale||||>0.05
91952709|NCT01590810|183801967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.29|-12.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-12.19|-20.29|<0.0001
91825332|NCT00019682|183527412|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SDS scale||||>0.05
91825333|NCT01543256|183527435|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin was 20%||||||0.008|||||||Exact non-inferiority|||||||.008
91825334|NCT01543256|183527436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.568
91825335|NCT01543256|183527437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial|||||||<.001
91825336|NCT01543256|183527438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.99
91825337|NCT01543256|183527439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.519
91825338|NCT01543256|183527440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial|||||||<.001
91825339|NCT00822510|183527441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91825340|NCT00822510|183527443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|0.79|||||ANOVA|||||||.79
91825341|NCT00822510|183527444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.001|||||ANOVA|||||||.001
91825342|NCT00822510|183527445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.001|||||ANOVA|||||||.001
91825343|NCT00822510|183527446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|0.71|||||ANOVA|||||||.71
91825344|NCT00822510|183527447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|0.01|||||ANOVA|||||||.01
91825345|NCT00116805|183527452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a sample size of 160 subjects in the TDF group and 80 subjects in the ADV group, a two group large-sample normal approximation test of proportions with a one-sided 0.025 significance level would have 95% power to reject the null hypothesis that the TDF treatment was inferior to the ADV treatment (the difference in proportions was less than -0.080) in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the TDF treatment was not inferior.|Difference in proportions|54.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|63.6||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x upper limit of the normal range \[ULN\] or \> 4 x ULN) difference is 0.|Z-test|2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), stratified by baseline ALT was used to evaluate difference between groups in proportion of complete responders.||||63.6|44.6|<0.001
91952710|NCT01590810|183801968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.93|-7.12|0.539
91825346|NCT00116805|183527453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|63.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|72.3||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference in zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and the CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||||72.3|53.8|<0.001
91825347|NCT00116805|183527454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|9.3||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Two-sided 95% CIs, stratified by baseline ALT (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN), were used to evaluate treatment group differences.||||9.3|-12.0|0.801
91825348|NCT00116805|183527459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.2||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference in zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and the CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||||17.2|-5.6|0.320
91825349|NCT00116805|183527465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|26.1||P-value corresponds to a Z-test. Statistical tests were not adjusted for baseline ALT stratum.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||||26.1|1.1|0.032
91825350|NCT00116805|183527466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|1.9||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||||1.9|-21.5|0.100
91825351|NCT00116805|183527471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.4||P-value above for HBeAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||This information pertains to HBeAg loss.||16.4|-4.2|0.245
91825352|NCT00116805|183527471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.9||P-value for HBeAg seroconversion corresponds to Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||This information pertains to HBeAg seroconversion.||14.9|-5.5|0.363
91825353|NCT00116805|183527472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|11.9||P-value above for HBeAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||This information pertains to HBeAg loss.||11.9|-11.3|0.963
91825354|NCT00116805|183527472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|11.7||P-value above for HBeAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \>4 x ULN).||This information pertains to seroconversion to anti-HBe.||11.7|-10.4|0.904
91825355|NCT00116805|183527473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.9||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and confidence interval (CI) are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to HBsAg loss.||19.9|1.9|0.018
91952711|NCT01590810|183801968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.50|-12.23|0.113
91952712|NCT01590810|183801968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.69|-8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-8.91|-19.69|<0.001
91825356|NCT00116805|183527473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.2||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and confidence interval (CI) are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to HBsAg seroconversion.||10.2|-1.5|0.148
91825357|NCT00116805|183527474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.5||P-value above for HBsAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to HBsAg loss.||6.5|-4.8|0.757
91825358|NCT00116805|183527474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.9||P-value above corresponds to Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to seroconversion to anti-HBs.||5.9|-4.2|0.733
91825359|NCT01159938|183527486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.3||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.30|-0.78|0.617
91825360|NCT01159938|183527486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.73||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.73|-1.23|0.732
91825361|NCT01159938|183527486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.73||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.73|-1.20|0.715
91825362|NCT01159938|183527486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.16||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.85|0.177
91825363|NCT01159938|183527486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.53||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.53|-0.94|0.579
91825364|NCT01159938|183527486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.21||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.19|0.167
91825365|NCT01159938|183527487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.72||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.72|-1.10|0.676
91825366|NCT01159938|183527487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.34||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.34|-1.27|0.957
91825367|NCT01159938|183527487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.85||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.85|-1.68|0.513
91825368|NCT01159938|183527487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.47|0.623
91952713|NCT01590810|183801969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.62|-9.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.11|-15.62|<0.0001
91825369|NCT01159938|183527487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.57||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.57|-0.51|0.916
91825370|NCT01159938|183527487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.31||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.73|0.413
91825371|NCT01159938|183527488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.34||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.34|-0.94|0.724
91825372|NCT01159938|183527488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|2.2||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||2.20|-1.05|0.479
91825373|NCT01159938|183527488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.41||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.41|-1.76|0.825
91825374|NCT01159938|183527488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.25||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.65|0.378
91825375|NCT01159938|183527488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.46||The p-value is for the LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120 mins post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.84|0.553
91952714|NCT01590810|183801969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-7.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.42|-13.74|<0.0001
91825376|NCT01159938|183527488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.42||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.42|-0.83|0.512
91825377|NCT01159938|183527489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.51||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-1.09|0.466
91825378|NCT01159938|183527489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.72||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.72|-1.60|0.449
91825379|NCT01159938|183527489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.96||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.96|-1.25|0.792
91825380|NCT01159938|183527489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.31||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.63|0.493
91825381|NCT01159938|183527489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.1||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.10|-1.25|0.091
91825382|NCT01159938|183527489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.9||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.90|-0.39|0.425
91825383|NCT01159938|183527490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.4||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.40|-1.36|0.275
91825384|NCT01159938|183527490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.784||95.0|-1.44|1.1||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-1.44|0.784
91825385|NCT01159938|183527490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.43||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.43|-2.01|0.197
91825386|NCT01159938|183527490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.11||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.90|0.122
91952715|NCT01590810|183801969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|-11.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-11.13|-16.12|<0.0001
91825387|NCT01159938|183527490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.31||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|-1.16|0.246
91825388|NCT01159938|183527490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.33||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-1.06|0.298
91825389|NCT01159938|183527491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.49||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.48||P-value is for the Least Square (LS) mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 60-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||-0.48|-6.50|0.024
91825390|NCT01159938|183527491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.09||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 60-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|The LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||3.09|-2.59|0.859
91825391|NCT01159938|183527491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.19||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|0.87||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.87|-5.25|0.155
91825392|NCT01159938|183527491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|2.3||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||2.30|-3.46|0.685
91825393|NCT01159938|183527491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.84||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|1.64||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 180-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||1.64|-5.33|0.292
91825394|NCT01159938|183527491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.04||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|5.33||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 180-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||5.33|-1.25|0.216
91952716|NCT01590810|183801969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|-10.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-10.08|-15.85|<0.0001
91952717|NCT01590810|183801970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.60|-0.50|0.175
91825395|NCT01159938|183527491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.87||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|0.18||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.18|-5.92|0.065
91825396|NCT01159938|183527491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|2.8||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||2.80|-2.96|0.954
91825397|NCT01159938|183527492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.27||P-value is for Least Square (LS) mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.27|-0.31|0.905
91825398|NCT01159938|183527492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.69||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.69|0.14|0.004
91825399|NCT01159938|183527492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.23|-0.41|0.584
91825400|NCT01159938|183527492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.44||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.44|-0.19|0.436
91825401|NCT04837482|183527509|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of AGN-190584 was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the least-square mean difference between AGN-190584 and vehicle was greater than the pre-specified margin of -0.25.|Least-Square (LS) Mean|-0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0602||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|-0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model with repeated measures||||-0.103|-0.346|0.0006
91825402|NCT02979535|183527517|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.16||||||Antigen HPV-16||1.16|0.773|
91952718|NCT01590810|183801970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.61|-0.25|0.076
91825403|NCT02979535|183527517|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.21||||||Antigen HPV-18||1.21|0.803|
91825404|NCT02979535|183527518|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.46||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||1.46|0.653|
91825405|NCT02979535|183527518|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.27||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||1.27|0.654|
91825406|NCT02979535|183527518|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.17||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.17|0.727|
91825407|NCT02979535|183527518|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.18||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.18|0.733|
91825408|NCT04820673|183527532|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P\<0.0001, calculated by t-test, corresponds to baseline response group domain scores in comparison to week-12 domain scores (CFB). CFB is calculated using available matching data for each domain. Higher domain scores indicate higher disease burden.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 vs Baseline||||<.0001
91825409|NCT00587587|183527538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value compares overall incidence of AEs between groups, ie Apligraf 12/17 and Control 10/13.~UADE is defined in 21CFR812.3(s)"|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test used to evaluate treatment differences between Apligraf subjects and Control subjects experiencing any AEs.||||1.0000
91825410|NCT00587587|183527539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5863||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5863
91825411|NCT00587587|183527540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3783||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3783
91825412|NCT00587587|183527541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment differences in scar firmness evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.7149
91825413|NCT00587587|183527542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment differences in scar thickness evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.1670
91825414|NCT00587587|183527543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7221|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Global assessments analyzed as ordinal ranks. Treatment differences in global assessment evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.7221
91825415|NCT00587587|183527544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Global assessments analyzed as ordinal ranks. Treatment differences in global assessment evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.4080
91825416|NCT00587587|183527545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9556||0.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Differences evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.9556
91825417|NCT01162005|183527546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91825418|NCT00466193|183527562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for treatment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91825419|NCT00466193|183527564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for treatment|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91825420|NCT00466193|183527567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0||||P-value is for treatment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0041
91825421|NCT00086346|183527573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Rank ANCOVA|||||||0.342
91825422|NCT00086346|183527574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between treatment groups of percentages of patients with biopsy-confirmed acute rejection.||||0.017
91825423|NCT00086346|183527575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||1 way ANOVA, two sided|||||||>0.05
91825424|NCT00086346|183527576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori criterion for declaring non-inferiority was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) having a ≥ 5% difference in graft loss. -5.2 is \< 5 % difference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||||95.0|-5.2|2.8|||||Weighted difference in percentage of graft loss: (CNI% minus SRL%); negative values are favorable to CNI group|||2.8|-5.2|
91825425|NCT01075074|183527592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Corrected for 6 comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||A sample size of 23 subjects per group was estimated to achieve 80% power to detect a 10 point difference in the aggregated QOR40 score for the 3 study groups to be compared assuming an overall standard deviation of 12.||||0.006
91825426|NCT01075074|183527592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|30.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||30|1|0.03
91825427|NCT01075074|183527592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|31.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||31|2|0.01
91825428|NCT01075074|183527592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12|-16|1.0
91825429|NCT01075074|183527593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||P values is corrected for 6 comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0003
91825430|NCT01075074|183527593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||Corrected for 6 comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0003
91825431|NCT01075074|183527593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|195.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.0|300.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||300|98|0.0004
91825432|NCT01075074|183527593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|195.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.0|278.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||278|98|0.0003
91825433|NCT01075074|183527593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.0|83.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||83|-105|0.86
91825434|NCT01075074|183527594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Corrected for multiple comparisons (n=6).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0005
91825435|NCT01075074|183527594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|38.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|50.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||50|8|0.01
91825436|NCT01075074|183527594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|40.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|47.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||47|12|0.003
91825437|NCT01075074|183527594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20|-18|0.95
91825438|NCT01075074|183527595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Corrected for multiple comparisons (n=6).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.03
91825439|NCT01075074|183527595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||60|0|0.01
91825440|NCT01075074|183527595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||60|0|0.04
91825441|NCT01075074|183527595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|30.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||30|-30|0.92
91825442|NCT05209191|183527608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91825443|NCT05209191|183527610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test.||||.38
91825444|NCT05209191|183527611|SUPERIORITY||Chi square|52.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.001
91825445|NCT01172938|183527612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|19.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|28.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||28.3|9.7|0.0001
91825446|NCT01172938|183527612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.3||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|20.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||20.4|2.2|0.0166
91825447|NCT01172938|183527613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.159||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|-0.06|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.060|-0.258|0.0017
91825448|NCT01172938|183527613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.113||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|-0.014|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.014|-0.211|0.0252
91825449|NCT01172938|183527614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|30.9||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||30.9|13.4|<0.0001
91952719|NCT01590810|183801970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.32|1.04|0.001
91825450|NCT01172938|183527614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|12.4||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|20.7||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.7|4.2|0.0038
91825451|NCT01172938|183527615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.182||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|-0.08||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.080|-0.283|0.0005
91825452|NCT01172938|183527615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.135||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.034||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.034|-0.236|0.0091
91825453|NCT01172938|183527616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.42||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.13||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.13|0.71|0.0056
91825454|NCT01172938|183527616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.4||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.40|-0.00|0.0504
91825455|NCT01172938|183527617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|26.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.8|6.6|0.0017
91825456|NCT01172938|183527617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|18.9|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.9|-1.2|
91825457|NCT01172938|183527618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-2.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.8|-12.9|0.0023
91825458|NCT01172938|183527618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.7|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.7|-10.8|
91825459|NCT01172938|183527619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.2|
91825460|NCT01172938|183527619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.3|-1.3|
91825461|NCT01172938|183527620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.1|
91825462|NCT01172938|183527620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.3|-1.3|
91825463|NCT01172938|183527621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-2.34|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.34|-7.41|
91825464|NCT01172938|183527621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|-1.86|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-1.86|-6.92|
91825465|NCT01172938|183527622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.31|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.31|-0.76|
91825466|NCT01172938|183527622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.25|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.25|-0.70|
91825467|NCT01172938|183527623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.23|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||4.23|0.43|
91825468|NCT01172938|183527623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.03|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||2.03|-1.77|
91825469|NCT01172938|183527624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|5.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||5.40|1.72|
91952720|NCT01590810|183801970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|8.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.15|3.14|<0.0001
91825470|NCT01172938|183527624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.88|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||3.88|0.21|
91825471|NCT01172938|183527625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|34.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||34.0|15.2|
91825472|NCT01172938|183527625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|21.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.5|3.4|
91825473|NCT01172938|183527626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.7|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-5.7|-15.4|
91825474|NCT01172938|183527626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.2|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.2|-12.0|
91825475|NCT01172938|183527627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.0|-1.6|
91825476|NCT01172938|183527627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.1|-1.6|
91825477|NCT01172938|183527628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.3|-1.2|
91825478|NCT01172938|183527628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.1|-1.5|
91825479|NCT01172938|183527629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-6.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.75|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-3.75|-9.00|
91825480|NCT01172938|183527629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|-1.79|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-1.79|-7.03|
91825481|NCT01172938|183527630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.46|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.46|-0.94|
91825482|NCT01172938|183527630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.22|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.22|-0.70|
91825483|NCT01172938|183527631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||4.10|0.32|
91825484|NCT01172938|183527631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.29|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||2.29|-1.50|
91825485|NCT01172938|183527632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|16.7|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.7|-10.1|
91825486|NCT01172938|183527632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|21.1|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.1|-6.5|
91825487|NCT01172938|183527633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|19.3|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.3|-13.4|
91825488|NCT01172938|183527633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|24.6|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.6|-9.1|
91825489|NCT01172938|183527634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|29.3|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||29.3|9.0|
91825490|NCT01172938|183527634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|26.8|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.8|6.4|
91825491|NCT01172938|183527635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|26.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.5|-0.1|
91825492|NCT01172938|183527635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|25.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.0|-2.4|
91952721|NCT01590810|183801970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.67|0.63|0.008
91825493|NCT01172938|183527636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|24.6|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.6|-6.8|
91825494|NCT01172938|183527636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|24.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.2|-8.7|
91825495|NCT01172938|183527637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|35.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||35.5|17.1|
91825496|NCT01172938|183527637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|23.1|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||23.1|5.4|
91825497|NCT01172938|183527638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.8|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.8|3.7|
91825498|NCT01172938|183527638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.0|3.0|
91825499|NCT01172938|183527639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.5|-0.4|
91825500|NCT01172938|183527639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.7|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||8.7|0.8|
91825501|NCT01172938|183527640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|21.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.5|8.3|
91825502|NCT01172938|183527640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|16.1|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.1|4.0|
91825503|NCT01172938|183527641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|14.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||14.2|4.8|
91825504|NCT01172938|183527641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.3|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||8.3|1.2|
91825505|NCT01172938|183527642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|17.9|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.9|-2.8|
91825506|NCT01172938|183527642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|23.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||23.0|0.8|
91825507|NCT01172938|183527643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|14.8|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||14.8|-17.7|
91825508|NCT01172938|183527643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|19.6|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.6|-14.8|
91825509|NCT01172938|183527644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|28.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||28.2|6.6|
91825510|NCT01172938|183527644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|27.9|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||27.9|5.6|
91825511|NCT01172938|183527645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.4|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.4|-10.7|
91825512|NCT01172938|183527645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|26.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.2|-8.5|
91825513|NCT00844194|183527671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean|-1.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.1|||ANCOVA|with last observation carried forward (LOCF)||||-1.10|-1.89|< 0.0001
91825514|NCT00844194|183527671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean|-1.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.04|||ANCOVA|||||-1.04|-2.30|< 0.0001
91825515|NCT00701389|183527770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the 90% CI is less than 5 mmHg, the primary hypothesis would be supported.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.0|||Mixed Effect Model|||100 mg sumatriptan/600 mg telcagepant minus 100 mg sumatriptan/telcagepant placebo||3.0|0.0|
91825516|NCT00701389|183527771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|2.7|||Mixed Effect Model|||sumatriptan placebo/600 mg telcagepant minus sumatriptan placebo/telcagepant placebo||2.7|-0.2|
91825517|NCT04808609|183527778|OTHER|feasibility test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.76|||Fisher Exact|||||6.76|0.24|0.77
91825518|NCT04808609|183527779|OTHER|feasibility test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.78|||Chi-squared|||||3.78|0.43|0.66
91825519|NCT04808609|183527780|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.86|-0.44|0.59
91825520|NCT04808609|183527780|OTHER|feasibility|Cohen's D|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||Results from Paired T-Test assessing the with-subject time effect on exhaled CO in ppm from baseline to 12 weeks||0.74|0.07|0.02
91825521|NCT04808609|183527781|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.78|-0.46|0.61
91825522|NCT04808609|183527782|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.80|-0.42|0.55
91825523|NCT04808609|183527783|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.62|-0.61|0.99
91952722|NCT01590810|183801971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.05|-3.70|0.557
91825524|NCT00562159|183527785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.4|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.40|-2.22|=0.005
91825525|NCT00562159|183527786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.26|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.26|-1.46|=0.015
91825526|NCT00562159|183527787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.06|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||0.06|-0.96|=0.084
91825527|NCT00562159|183527788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.05|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.05|-0.48|=0.022
91825528|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-5.1||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-5.1|-12.1|
91825529|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-10.8||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||-10.8|-20.1|
91825530|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-4.9||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-4.9|-12.0|
91825531|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-0.8||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-0.8|-7.8|
91825532|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.2||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-0.2|-4.6|
91825533|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.2||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-1.2|-7.0|
91825534|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.7||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||0.7|-2.7|
91825535|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.6||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-4.6|-11.3|
91952723|NCT01590810|183801971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.70|-3.65|0.175
91825536|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||1.6|-3.1|
91825537|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.9||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||1.9|-3.1|
91825538|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||0.5|-2.6|
91825539|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||2.0|-1.5|
91825540|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-3.9||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-3.9|-11.4|
91825541|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|14.0||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||14.0|8.6|
91825542|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.3||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||0.3|-6.9|
91825543|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|7.1||||||95.0|4.2|10.2||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||10.2|4.2|
91825544|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-14.0||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-14.0|-22.1|
91825545|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|15.4||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||15.4|10.2|
91825546|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|15.5||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||15.5|10.3|
91825547|NCT04382326|183527816|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.5||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||4.5|-2.2|
91825548|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.76||||||Serotype 1: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.76|0.63|
91952724|NCT01590810|183801971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.23|-3.04|0.951
91952725|NCT01590810|183801971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.88|1.34|<0.001
91825549|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.73||||||Serotype 3: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.73|0.61|
91825550|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.78||||||95.0|0.7|0.86||||||Serotype 4: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.86|0.70|
91825551|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82||||||Serotype 5: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.82|0.67|
91825552|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85||||||Serotype 6A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.85|0.70|
91825553|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.79||||||Serotype 6B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.79|0.62|
91825554|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.82||||||Serotype 7F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.82|0.70|
91825555|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.73|0.88||||||Serotype 9V: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.88|0.73|
91825556|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0||||||Serotype 14: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.00|0.81|
91825557|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74||||||95.0|0.67|0.82||||||Serotype 18C: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.82|0.67|
91825558|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.94||||||Serotype 19A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.94|0.77|
91825559|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.96||||||Serotype 19F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.96|0.78|
91825560|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.72||||||Serotype 23F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.72|0.57|
91825561|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|2.06||||||Serotype 8: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||2.06|1.71|
91825562|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.94||||||95.0|2.64|3.26||||||Serotype 10A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||3.26|2.64|
91825563|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.84||||||Serotype 11A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.84|1.51|
91825564|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.79|0.97||||||Serotype 12F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.97|0.79|
91825565|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.95||||||95.0|5.39|6.55||||||Serotype 15B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||6.55|5.39|
91825566|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.01||||||95.0|4.54|5.52||||||Serotype 22F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||5.52|4.54|
91825567|NCT04382326|183527817|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|4.85||||||Serotype 33F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||4.85|3.99|
91825568|NCT04382326|183527818|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.4||||||Diphtheria: 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||-1.4|-7.5|
91825569|NCT04382326|183527818|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||||||Tetanus: 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.0|
91825570|NCT04382326|183527818|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-0.2||||||95.0|-3.5|3.1||||||Pertussis (PT): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.1|-3.5|
91825571|NCT04382326|183527818|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-2.5|3.9||||||Pertussis (FHA): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.9|-2.5|
91825572|NCT04382326|183527818|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-4.7|2.2||||||Pertussis (PRN): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.2-Sided CIs are calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||2.2|-4.7|
91825573|NCT04382326|183527818|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|2.9||||||HBsAg: 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||2.9|-3.2|
91825574|NCT04382326|183527818|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.4|3.2||||||Poliovirus (Type 1): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.2|-3.4|
91952726|NCT01590810|183801971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|6.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.24|3.00|<0.0001
91952727|NCT01590810|183801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.12|-4.01|0.241
91952728|NCT01590810|183801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||5.48|-3.63|0.664
91952729|NCT01590810|183801972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.33|-1.03|0.114
91825575|NCT04382326|183527818|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-2.4|4.6||||||Poliovirus (Type 2): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||4.6|-2.4|
91825576|NCT04382326|183527818|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.1||||||Poliovirus (Type 3): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.1|-3.2|
91825577|NCT04382326|183527818|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||Hib (≥0.15 μg/mL): 2-Sided CI were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.0|-3.0|
91825578|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.72||||||Serotype 1: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.72|0.59|
91825579|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.76||||||Serotype 3: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.76|0.64|
91825580|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7||||||95.0|0.63|0.78||||||Serotype 4: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.78|0.63|
91825581|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69||||||95.0|0.61|0.77||||||Serotype 5: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.77|0.61|
91825582|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.65|0.81||||||Serotype 6A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.81|0.65|
91825583|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.7||||||Serotype 6B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.70|0.51|
91825584|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75||||||95.0|0.69|0.81||||||Serotype 7F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.81|0.69|
91825585|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.8||||||Serotype 9V: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.80|0.65|
91825586|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79||||||95.0|0.71|0.89||||||Serotype 14: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.89|0.71|
91825587|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.7|0.84||||||Serotype 18C: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.84|0.70|
91825588|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.86||||||Serotype 19A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.86|0.72|
91825589|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79||||||95.0|0.73|0.86||||||Serotype 19F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.86|0.73|
91825590|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.75||||||Serotype 23F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.75|0.58|
91825591|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.98||||||95.0|1.81|2.16||||||Serotype 8: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||2.16|1.81|
91825592|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.32||||||95.0|1.18|1.49||||||Serotype 10A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.49|1.18|
91825593|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.52||||||95.0|1.39|1.67||||||Serotype 11A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.67|1.39|
91825594|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||||95.0|0.54|0.67||||||Serotype 12F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.67|0.54|
91825595|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|5.3||||||Serotype 15B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||5.30|4.39|
91825596|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.06||||||95.0|3.68|4.48||||||Serotype 22F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||4.48|3.68|
91825597|NCT04382326|183527819|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.64||||||95.0|1.46|1.83||||||Serotype 33F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.83|1.46|
91825598|NCT04382326|183527827|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.29||||||95.0|1.05|1.58||||||Measles: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.58|1.05|
91825599|NCT04382326|183527828|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.38||||||Mumps: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.38|0.85|
91825600|NCT04382326|183527829|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48||||||Rubella: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.48|1.02|
91825601|NCT04382326|183527830|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17||||||Varicella: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution)||1.17|0.84|
91825602|NCT00618657|183527831|OTHER||Standard Error|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91825603|NCT00618657|183527831|OTHER||Standard Error|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91825604|NCT02710630|183527836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|119.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.838|139.834|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||139.834|101.838|
91825605|NCT02710630|183527836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|52.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|168.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.341|84.158|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||84.158|33.341|
91825606|NCT02710630|183527836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|59.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.255|76.955|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||76.955|45.255|
91825607|NCT02710630|183527836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|108.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.698|133.53|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||133.530|87.698|
91825608|NCT02710630|183527836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|110.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.939|129.297|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||129.297|93.939|
91825609|NCT02710630|183527837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|118.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.569|140.579|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||140.579|99.569|
91825610|NCT02710630|183527837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|57.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|132.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.502|85.837|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||85.837|38.502|
91825611|NCT02710630|183527837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|61.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|69.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.13|79.72|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||79.720|48.130|
91825612|NCT02710630|183527837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|108.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.704|133.629|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||133.629|87.704|
91825613|NCT02710630|183527837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|107.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.238|127.281|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||127.281|91.238|
91825614|NCT02710630|183527838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|118.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.627|137.621|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||137.621|101.627|
91825615|NCT02710630|183527838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|87.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.404|109.722|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||109.722|69.404|
91825616|NCT02710630|183527838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|71.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.828|86.648|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||86.648|58.828|
91825617|NCT02710630|183527838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|116.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.516|135.41|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||135.410|100.516|
91825618|NCT02710630|183527838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|109.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.452|127.75|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||127.750|94.452|
91825619|NCT02710630|183527839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|115.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.783|135.491|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||135.491|98.783|
91825620|NCT02710630|183527839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|50.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|173.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.519|80.689|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||80.689|31.519|
91952730|NCT01590810|183801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|14.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||14.81|-5.96|0.385
91825621|NCT02710630|183527839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|56.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.388|74.122|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||74.122|43.388|
91952731|NCT01590810|183801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|15.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||15.32|-6.16|0.385
91952732|NCT01590810|183801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|14.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||14.74|-4.44|0.276
91825622|NCT02710630|183527839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|106.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.554|130.732|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||130.732|87.554|
91825623|NCT02710630|183527839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|107.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.399|125.432|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||125.432|91.399|
91825624|NCT02710630|183527840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|115.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.74|137.644|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||137.644|96.740|
91825625|NCT02710630|183527840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|54.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|138.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.818|81.774|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||81.774|35.818|
91825626|NCT02710630|183527840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|58.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|71.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.489|76.431|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||76.431|45.489|
91825627|NCT02710630|183527840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|106.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.846|131.836|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||131.836|85.846|
91825628|NCT02710630|183527840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|103.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.74|122.628|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||122.628|87.740|
91825629|NCT02710630|183527841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|115.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.063|134.13|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||134.130|99.063|
91825630|NCT02710630|183527841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|83.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.033|106.163|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||106.163|66.033|
91825631|NCT02710630|183527841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|68.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.452|83.782|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||83.782|56.452|
91825632|NCT02710630|183527841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|107.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.616|129.51|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||129.510|88.616|
91825633|NCT02710630|183527841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|106.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.625|124.114|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||124.114|91.625|
91825634|NCT01038921|183527842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average change in systolic blood pressure from pre-treatment baseline to post-treatment at 10 weeks when those subjects were on Melatonin was compared to the average change in systolic blood pressure from pre-treatment baseline to post-treatment at 10 weeks when those same subjects were on Placebo using an intent-to-treat mixed model. Power was estimated based on having 30 subjects completing both the melatonin arm and the placebo arm.||||0.013
91825635|NCT02480621|183527874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.10
91825636|NCT01975389|183527904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.021469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.97|0.65|0.021469
91825637|NCT01975389|183527905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.007597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.93|0.60|0.007597
91825638|NCT01975389|183527906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.035958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.99|0.68|0.035958
91825639|NCT01975389|183527907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.015694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.95|0.64|0.015694
91825640|NCT01975389|183527908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.814224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.46|0.62|0.814224
91825641|NCT01975389|183527909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.018053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.96|0.65|0.018053
91825642|NCT01975389|183527910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.446033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.36|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.36|0.50|0.446033
91825643|NCT01975389|183527911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.029977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.97|0.57|0.029977
91825644|NCT01975389|183527912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.162615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.44|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.44|0.14|0.162615
91825645|NCT01975389|183527913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.051534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.00|0.59|0.051534
91825646|NCT01975389|183527914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.104998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.09|0.41|0.104998
91825647|NCT01975389|183527915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.294331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.24|0.50|0.294331
91825648|NCT01975389|183527917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.104998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.09|0.41|0.104998
91825649|NCT01975389|183527918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.34|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.34|0.60|0.601200
91825650|NCT01975389|183527919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.678061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.67|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.67|0.72|0.678061
91825651|NCT01975389|183527920|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.010457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.94|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.94|0.63|0.010457
91825652|NCT01975389|183527921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.509847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.01|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||2.01|0.71|0.509847
91952733|NCT01590810|183801973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|19.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||19.81|-0.81|0.069
91825653|NCT01975389|183527922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.90|0.58|0.002981
91825654|NCT01975389|183527923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.748975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.30|0.70|0.748975
91825655|NCT01975389|183527924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.626157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.32|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.32|0.63|0.626157
91825656|NCT01975389|183527925|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.91|-55.89|||MMRM|||Least square (LS) mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-55.89|-57.91|<0.001
91825657|NCT01975389|183527926|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-73.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.11|-72.5|||MMRM|||LS mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-72.50|-75.11|<0.001
91952734|NCT01590810|183801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.22|-1.28|0.383
91952735|NCT01590810|183801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.70|-2.79|0.002
91825658|NCT01975389|183527927|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-38.06|||ANCOVA|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% CI, and p-value were from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-38.06|-40.55|<0.001
91825659|NCT01975389|183527928|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-51.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.81|-50.94|||MMRM|||Non-HDLC: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-50.94|-52.81|<0.001
91952736|NCT01590810|183801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|-6.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.14|-10.08|<0.0001
91952737|NCT01590810|183801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|-3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.25|-9.74|<0.001
91952738|NCT01590810|183801974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|-7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.78|-12.84|<0.0001
91952739|NCT01590810|183801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.30|-5.43|0.216
91825660|NCT01975389|183527928|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|-16.86|||MMRM|||VLDL-C: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-16.86|-19.96|<0.001
91825661|NCT01975389|183527928|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-29.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.44|-26.96|||MMRM|||RLP-C: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-26.96|-31.44|<0.001
91825662|NCT01975389|183527928|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-51.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.37|-50.42|||MMRM|||Apo B: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-50.42|-52.37|<0.001
91825663|NCT01975389|183527928|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|7.5|||MMRM|||HDL-C: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||7.50|6.33|<0.001
91825664|NCT01975389|183527928|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|4.9|||MMRM|||Apo A-I: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||4.90|3.90|<0.001
91825665|NCT01975389|183527928|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.75|-37.22|||MMRM|||Total cholesterol: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-37.22|-38.75|<0.001
91825666|NCT01975389|183527929|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.83|||MMRM|||Triglycerides: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 on the difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and complete statin intolerance. The 95% CI was derived by exponentiating the LS-mean difference confidence interval from the log scale.||0.83|0.81|<0.001
91825667|NCT01975389|183527929|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.69|||MMRM|||Lp(a): LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI and p-values were from an MMRM model on the Difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and complete statin intolerance. The 95% CI was derived by exponentiating the LS-mean difference confidence interval from the log scale.||0.69|0.67|<0.001
91825668|NCT01975389|183527930|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.09|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI and p-values were from an MMRM model on the difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and complete statin intolerance.||1.09|1.02|0.002
91952740|NCT01590810|183801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.10|-9.51|0.046
91825669|NCT03735862|183527938|OTHER|Paired t-Test|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Difference between baseline and follow-up||||<0.001
91825670|NCT03735862|183527939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Difference between baseline and follow-up||||<0.0001
91825671|NCT01720069|183527965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.772
91825672|NCT01720069|183527966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.891
91825673|NCT01720069|183527967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.066
91825674|NCT01720069|183527968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.063
91825675|NCT01720069|183527969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.054
91825676|NCT01720069|183527970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.168
91825677|NCT01720069|183527970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.363
91825678|NCT01720069|183527970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.805
91825679|NCT00360334|183527972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71|||<|0.001||95.0|2.62|8.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the primary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the primary outcome||8.46|2.62|<0.001
91825680|NCT00360334|183527973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76|||<|0.001||95.0|3.11|10.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||10.64|3.11|<0.001
91825681|NCT00360334|183527974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91825682|NCT00360334|183527975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.28||95.0|0.44|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||1.26|0.44|0.280
91825683|NCT00360334|183527976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.191||95.0|0.42|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||1.19|0.42|0.191
91952741|NCT01590810|183801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.76|-14.10|0.002
91825684|NCT00360334|183527977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.363||95.0|0.66|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||3.07|0.66|0.363
91825685|NCT00360334|183527979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91825686|NCT00360334|183527980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91825687|NCT00360334|183527981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91825688|NCT00360334|183527982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91825689|NCT00360334|183527983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91952742|NCT01590810|183801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|-5.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.68|-16.64|<0.001
91825690|NCT00360334|183527984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.91||||0.001||95.0|3.7|210.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||210.54|3.70|0.001
91825691|NCT00360334|183527986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.014
91825692|NCT00360334|183527987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.100
91825693|NCT00360334|183527988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.125
91825694|NCT00360334|183527989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.471
91825695|NCT00360334|183527990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.601
91825696|NCT00360334|183527991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.650
91825697|NCT00360334|183527992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
91825698|NCT00360334|183527993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.667
91825699|NCT00360334|183527994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.675||||0.139||95.0|0.401|1.136|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||1.136|0.401|0.139
91825700|NCT00360334|183527995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.317||||0.001||95.0|0.159|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||0.630|0.159|0.001
91825701|NCT00360334|183527996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.797||||0.716||95.0|0.235|2.705|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||2.705|0.235|0.716
91825702|NCT00360334|183527997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||ANCOVA on ranks|||||||0.113
91825703|NCT00360334|183527998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA on ranks|||||||<0.001
91825704|NCT00360334|183527999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||ANCOVA on ranks|||||||0.740
91825705|NCT03809182|183528027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p-value less than .05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in plasmatic glucose levels between dexmedetomidine and 0.9% sodium-chloride groups.||||0.38
91825706|NCT03809182|183528028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||A p-value less than .05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in insulin levels between dexmedetomidine and 0.9% sodium-chloride groups.||||0.02
91825707|NCT01763567|183528034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91825708|NCT01763567|183528035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent of events correctly detected|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91825709|NCT01763567|183528036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent of events correctly detected|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91825710|NCT01763567|183528037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of false alert|85.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91825711|NCT01763567|183528038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of false alert|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91825712|NCT03017508|183528066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.34||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test on VAS scores during speech comparing sublingual riluzole to placebo||||0.056
91825713|NCT02162810|183528067|OTHER||||||<|0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||Due to the number of 0 cell counts, it is not possible to do individual statistics for each complication, so we looked at the incidence of complications overall between the two arms.||||<.62
91825714|NCT02162810|183528068|OTHER||||||<|0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.61
91825715|NCT02162810|183528069|OTHER||||||<|0.87|||||||Fisher Exact|||Improvement category: Chordee with Degloving||||<.87
91825716|NCT02162810|183528069|OTHER||||||<|0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||Improvement category: Ventral Chordee||||<.64
91825717|NCT02162810|183528069|OTHER||||||<|0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Improvement category: Chordee with Plication||||<.85
91825718|NCT00389324|183528075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The administration effect between SC and IV was assessed by exponentiation of the difference in least squares means between study phases (Test minus Reference) and the corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LSM ratio between study phases (Test/Reference) for AUC. The Test (SC) was to be considered non-inferior to Reference (IV) if the lower bound of 90% CIs for the geometric LSM ratios of AUC between the Test and Reference was above 0.80 (80%).|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|0.888||||||90.0|0.861|0.917|||ANOVA||An adjusted steady-state area under the concentration vs. time curve following SC administration based on IV dosing schedule was calculated as AUC0-τ,SC multiplied by 3 or 4 for subjects on every-3-week or every-4-week IV dosing schedule.|The IV phase was considered as the Reference study phase and the SC phase as the Test study phase. The ANOVA included calculation of least-squares means (LSM), differences between adjusted means and the standard error associated with these differences.||0.917|0.861|
91952743|NCT01590810|183801975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.80|-12.70|<0.0001
91952744|NCT01590810|183801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.96|-12.50|0.635
91825719|NCT01381172|183528151|OTHER|The primary analysis employed a Bayesian repeated measures linear model to estimate group differences in mean pVO2 at 24 weeks from baseline, with 30% borrowing of information (70% down-weighting) from the corresponding treatment group difference observed in the FIX-5 study subgroup. The Bayesian posterior probability would need to be \> 0.975 to be considered a positive result with statistical significance.||||||0.975||||||The posterior probability (Pr) that the mean difference in pVO2 (Δ3) between device and control groups is greater than zero must exceed 0.975 to meet the primary effectiveness endpoint.|Bayesian posterior probability|||The FIX-HF-5C Study was a study designed to confirm the preliminary evidence reported in the FIX-HF-5 subgroup analysis demonstrating improvement in subjects with LVEF 25-45% and NYHA class III-IV. A Bayesian statistical approach was employed to leverage the data available, particularly the pVO2 results, from the FIX-HF-5 subgroup.||||0.975
91825720|NCT02753751|183528163|SUPERIORITY|The Mantel-Haenszel test was used, accounting for each hospital as an individual stratum, and to obtain the pooled relative risks across hospitals without adjusting for other baseline factors. (Alert arm is the numerator, control arm is the denominator.) Patients discharged prior to 14 days without an outcome of interest were assumed to be free of that outcome at 14 days. A p-value of \<=0.04 was considered statistically significant to account for the interim analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||A p-value of \<=0.04 was considered statistically significant to account for the interim analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||In our retrospective analysis of patients with AKI at 3 potential study hospitals, the composite outcome was 24.5%. A clinically meaningful relative reduction in this risk would be 20%. 5,024 patients (2,512 in each group) would have 90% power to detect a difference in outcome at least this extreme at a two-sided alpha of 0.05 as calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. We have elected to increase this number by 20% to account for potential contamination.||1.13|0.93|0.67
91825721|NCT02667912|183528172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|21.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||21.4|0.3|0.045
91825722|NCT02667912|183528175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91825723|NCT02667912|183528176|OTHER|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.203
91952745|NCT01590810|183801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.58|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.22|-19.58|0.143
91825724|NCT02667912|183528177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|-11.9|0.27
91825725|NCT02667912|183528178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|19.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||19.3|-3.7|0.17
91825726|NCT02667912|183528181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213
91825727|NCT02667912|183528182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
91825728|NCT02667912|183528183|OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.304
91825729|NCT02667912|183528184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91825730|NCT02667912|183528185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91825731|NCT02667912|183528186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91825732|NCT02667912|183528187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91825733|NCT02667912|183528188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91825734|NCT02667912|183528189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
91952746|NCT01590810|183801976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|-6.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.01|-25.01|0.004
91825735|NCT02667912|183528190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
91825736|NCT02667912|183528191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.324
91825737|NCT02667912|183528192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.217
91825738|NCT02667912|183528193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.238
91825739|NCT02667912|183528194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.969
91825740|NCT02667912|183528195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91825741|NCT01047683|183528202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|-21.5||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.01 for the primary endpoint.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|A standard deviation of 45% in the TG measurements and a significance level of P \< 0.01 required a sample size of 69 completed patients per treatment group to provide greater than or equal to 90% power to detect a difference of 30% between AMR101 and placebo in the percentage of change from baseline in the fasting TG levels.||-21.5|-46.6|<0.0001
91825742|NCT01047683|183528202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.7||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-5.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-5.6|-33.3|0.0051
91825743|NCT01047683|183528203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-28.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|-13.9||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05 for secondary and exploratory endpoints.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-13.9|-43.4|0.0005
91825744|NCT01047683|183528203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.3||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-0.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-0.7|-30.3|0.1152
91952747|NCT01590810|183801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.79|-7.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.89|-13.79|<0.0001
91825745|NCT01047683|183528204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-6.3||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-6.3|-20.2|0.0006
91825746|NCT01047683|183528204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|2.2|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||2.2|-12.3|0.2367
91825747|NCT01047683|183528205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-3.2||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-3.2|-13.5|0.0019
91825748|NCT01047683|183528205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|1.9|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1.9|-7.8|0.2367
91825749|NCT01047683|183528206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.1||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||8.1|-12.9|0.6768
91825750|NCT01047683|183528206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|15.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||15.6|-5.4|0.3022
91952748|NCT01590810|183801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-5.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.91|-11.18|<0.0001
91825751|NCT01047683|183528207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-11.3||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-11.3|-25.0|<0.0001
91825752|NCT01047683|183528207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-1.4|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-1.4|-15.1|0.0182
91825753|NCT03447769|183528208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test.|||1.14|0.78|0.258
91825754|NCT03447769|183528213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.58||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test|PD-L1 \<1%||1.58|0.76|0.676
91825755|NCT03447769|183528213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.05||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test|PD-L1 ≥1% and \<49%||1.05|0.34|0.036
91825756|NCT03447769|183528213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.43||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test|PD-L1 ≥50%||2.43|0.73|0.823
91825757|NCT03447769|183528214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.72||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test.|CD8 \< median||1.72|0.87|0.872
91825758|NCT03447769|183528214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.33||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test.|CD8 ≥ median||1.33|0.62|0.303
91825759|NCT01385059|183528253|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91825760|NCT00022516|183528254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.6|0.14
91952749|NCT01590810|183801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|-7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.84|-13.44|<0.0001
91825761|NCT00022516|183528255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.65|0.3570
91825762|NCT00022516|183528256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.62|0.3178
91825763|NCT00022516|183528257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.6|0.06
91952750|NCT01590810|183801977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|-8.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-8.29|-13.97|<0.0001
91952751|NCT01590810|183801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.73|-3.19|0.547
91825764|NCT02328326|183528291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.18|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PAM, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PAM is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PAM score compared to patient participants in PACT.||5.18|0.02|0.048
91825765|NCT02328326|183528292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.67|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for baseline value of ukpds, insulin use, site, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline. Reference for comparison is PACT.|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in ukpds 5 year risk score is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' 5-year cardiovascular event risk.||2.67|-0.87|0.32
91825766|NCT02328326|183528293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.22|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Healthy Eating, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Healthy Eating is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly change patient participants' Healthy Eating scores compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.22|0.20|0.01
91825767|NCT02328326|183528294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.51|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of A1c, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in A1c is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' A1c score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.51|-0.17|0.33
91825768|NCT02328326|183528295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.82||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.35|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of SBP, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40.|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in SBP is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' SBP score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.35|-7.00|0.18
91825769|NCT02328326|183528296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.19|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PAID, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PAID is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PAID score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.19|-0.95|0.83
91952752|NCT01590810|183801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.62|-2.79|0.004
91825770|NCT02328326|183528297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.93|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PEPPI, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PEPPI is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PEPPI score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.93|-0.71|0.79
91825771|NCT02328326|183528298|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.4|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Cho to HDL Ratio, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40.|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Chol to HDL Ratio is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' Chol to HDL Ratio score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.40|-0.09|0.21
91825772|NCT02328326|183528300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.53|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of IOCQ, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in IOCQ is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' IOCQ score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.53|0.08|0.01
91825773|NCT02328326|183528301|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent distribution among categories|difference in count|-1.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||||Difference in count of those who stopped smoking in CO-IMPACT vs. those who stopped smoking in PACT.|||0.17
91825774|NCT02328326|183528302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.47|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Physical Activity, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Physical activity is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Physical activity score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.47|-0.56|0.87
91952753|NCT01590810|183801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|-2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.94|-6.23|<0.0001
91952754|NCT01590810|183801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.76|-4.98|<0.001
91952755|NCT01590810|183801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|-3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.59|-8.24|<0.0001
91825775|NCT02328326|183528303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.68|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Blood Sugar Home Testing, insulin use, randomization strat. variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Blood Sugar Home Testing is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Blood Sugar Home Testing score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.68|-0.22|0.31
91825776|NCT02328326|183528304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.89|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Blood Pressure Home Testing, insulin use, randomization strat. variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Blood Pressure Home Testing is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Blood Pressure Home Testing score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.89|-0.76|0.87
91825777|NCT02328326|183528305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.23|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Take Oral Meds as Prescribed, insulin use, randomization strat variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Take Oral Meds as Prescribed is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Take Oral Meds as Prescribed score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.23|-0.42|0.56
91825778|NCT02328326|183528306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.41|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for baseline value of Take Insulin as Prescribed, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Take Insulin as prescribed is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Take Insulin as Prescribed compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.41|-0.26|0.67
91825779|NCT02328326|183528307|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Foot Care is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Foot Care score compared to patient participants in PACT.|Median Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.75|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of Foot Care, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|||Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|0.75|-0.22|0.29
91825780|NCT02328326|183528308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.71|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of SE, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in SE is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly change patient participants' SE scores compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.71|0.09|0.01
91825781|NCT02328326|183528309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.55|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of Lorig\_CP, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Lorig\_CP is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Lorig\_CP score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.55|-0.34|0.67
91825782|NCT02328326|183528310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.16|||Regression, Linear||Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in CSIS is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' CSIS score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.16|-0.60|0.53
91825783|NCT02328326|183528311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.25|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PAID\_CP, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baselineNet difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PAID\_CP is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PAID\_CP score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.25|-0.61|0.50
91825784|NCT04289753|183528317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.69||||||||0.69|0.46|
91825785|NCT04289753|183528318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||||||||0.85|0.55|
91825786|NCT04289753|183528319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||||||||1.0|0.70|
91825787|NCT00366626|183528355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.32||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|3.69|||ANOVA|||This was a 2 gene (asn40asn vs 40asp) by two medication (naltrexone vs placebo) design. The main hypothesis was that the effect of naltrexone (mean naltrexone drinking - placebo drinking) would be greater in the 40asp subjects than in the asn40asn subjects. Thus the null hypothesis there would be no gene by medication interaction. The mean difference above is then the difference in the size of the naltrexone effect in the two genotypes, equivalent to the interaction.||3.69|-1.85|0.51
91825788|NCT00366626|183528356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.11|||ANOVA|||This was a 2 gene (asn40asn vs 40asp) by 2 medication (naltrexone vs. placebo)interaction analysis. The main hypothesis was that subjects who had 40asp OPRM1 allele would a greater naltrexone effect on drinking (Placebo - Naltrexxone) than the asn40asn subjects. Thus the null hypothesis was the gene by medication interaction.||4.11|-1.22|0.28
91952756|NCT01590810|183801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.67|-6.19|0.017
91825789|NCT01242527|183528366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Placebo adjusted % change from baseline|-21.68||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-2.89||P-value adjusted with Dunnett's procedure for multiple comparisons of Epanova vs olive oil|ANCOVA p-value on ranked data|ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|ANCOVA on log-scale TG with baseline value as covariate and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|||-2.89|-40.70|0.005
91825790|NCT01242527|183528366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Placebo adjusted % change from baseline|-21.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.32|-2.29||P-value adjusted with Dunnett's procedure for multiple comparisons of Epanova vs olive oil|ANCOVA p-value on ranked data|ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|ANCOVA on log-scale TG with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|||-2.29|-40.32|0.007
91825791|NCT01242527|183528366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Placebo adjusted % change from baseline|-26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.12|-8.38||P-value adjusted with Dunnett's procedure for multiple comparisons of Epanova vs olive oil|ANCOVA p-value on ranked data|ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|ANCOVA on log-scale TG with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|||-8.38|-45.12|<0.001
91825792|NCT02127307|183528421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.446|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3227|0.6156||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox proportional hazards model|||"AdreView-Heart Failure Group with H/M \<1.60 vs. H/M ≥1.60:~Data analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards model to demonstrate the relationship of consensus numeric H/M ratio and time to adverse cardiac events to identify participants with higher risk of death. Hazard (risk) of a death for a participant with H/M ratio at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/Hh (t)=Ψ,where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.6156|0.3227|<0.0001
91825793|NCT00983580|183528428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.448
91825794|NCT00983580|183528429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This statistical analysis compares the difference between the number of patients with No adenoma recurrence at 12 months with those with adenoma recurrence at 12 months.||||0.358
91825795|NCT00983580|183528431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.513
91825796|NCT04286594|183528464|OTHER|Change in single group over time|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.457|14.876|||t-test, 1 sided|||||14.876|8.457|<0.001
91825797|NCT05955560|183528488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||A two-sided paired t-test was used and p-value derived. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91825798|NCT04621500|183528493|OTHER|The sequencing transcriptional profile cannot be analyzed by a statistical method.|||||||||||||||||In this open label study, the RNA sequencing transcription analysis was performed to assess if the transcriptome would be modified by vitamin D supplementation and it uniformaly was.|||
91825799|NCT04745169|183528511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91825800|NCT04745169|183528512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91825801|NCT04745169|183528513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
91825802|NCT04745169|183528514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91825803|NCT04745169|183528515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91825804|NCT04745169|183528516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91825805|NCT04745169|183528517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91825806|NCT04745169|183528518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91825807|NCT04745169|183528519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91825808|NCT02055352|183528520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A change of 5-10% from baseline values is considered to be clinically important. The estimated adjusted treatment difference for budesonide 400 μg twice a day/ indacaterol 150 μg once daily minus fixed combination of fluticasone/ salmeterol 250/ 50 μg twice daily was displayed along with the associated one-sided 97.5% confidence interval. If the lower limit of this confidence interval was to the right (i.e. above) - 10 mL, then non-inferiority could be claimed.||||||0.004|||||||Mixed effects General linear model|||||||0.004
91825809|NCT00982020|183528543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures analysis terms included baseline BMI, baseline age, gender, intervention group, visit, region, intervention group\*visit.||||||0.150
91825810|NCT00982020|183528544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model terms included: baseline, baseline age, gender, intervention group, and region.||||||0.520
91825811|NCT00982020|183528546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.008
91825812|NCT00982020|183528547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.266
91825813|NCT00982020|183528548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, baseline age, gender, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.954
91825814|NCT00982020|183528549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.103
91825815|NCT00982020|183528550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.436
91825816|NCT01762761|183528551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|93.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.26|7.29|<0.001
91825817|NCT01762761|183528552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.54|66.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||66.33|8.54|<0.001
91825818|NCT01762761|183528553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|18.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.94|3.84|<0.001
91825819|NCT01762761|183528554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|0.13|0.001
91825820|NCT01762761|183528555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.21|0.306
91825821|NCT01762761|183528556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|9.34|||Log Rank|||||9.34|4.01|<0.001
91825822|NCT01762761|183528557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.37|0.05|<0.001
91825823|NCT01762761|183528558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|131.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||131.12|2.09|0.008
91825824|NCT01762761|183528559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||<0.001
91825825|NCT01762761|183528560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||<0.001
91825826|NCT01485861|183528637|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.56|0.1606
91825827|NCT01485861|183528637|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.66|0.5300
91825828|NCT01485861|183528637|SUPERIORITY|Strata are: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (prostate-specific antigen \[PSA\] only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.54|0.1689
91825829|NCT01485861|183528637|SUPERIORITY|Strata are: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.69|0.7484
91825830|NCT01485861|183528638|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.22|0.0064
91825831|NCT01485861|183528638|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.25|0.0285
91825832|NCT01485861|183528656|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.62|0.4170
91825833|NCT01485861|183528656|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.67|0.6712
91825834|NCT01485861|183528656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.27|0.62|0.5164
91825835|NCT01485861|183528656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.44|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.44|0.72|0.8955
91825836|NCT01485861|183528657|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.33|0.1472
91825837|NCT01485861|183528657|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.23|0.0157
91825838|NCT01485861|183528660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||=|0.0665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.51|= 0.0665
91825839|NCT01485861|183528660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||=|0.9319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.73|= 0.9319
91825840|NCT01485861|183528660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||=|0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.97|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior Enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||0.97|0.50|= 0.0710
91825841|NCT01485861|183528660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.31|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.31|0.70|= 0.7890
91825842|NCT01485861|183528661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||=|0.2906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.37|= 0.2906
91825843|NCT01485861|183528661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||=|0.2716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.35|= 0.2716
91825844|NCT01485861|183528662|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Difference in response rates|1.97|||=|0.7913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.25|14.18|||Chi-squared|||||14.18|-10.25|= 0.7913
91825845|NCT01485861|183528662|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Difference in response rates|-1.22|||=|0.8675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.24|10.8|||Chi-squared|||||10.80|-13.24|= 0.8675
91825846|NCT01485861|183528663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.43|||=|0.4176|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.43|58.32|||Chi-squared|||||58.32|-11.43|= 0.4176
91825847|NCT01485861|183528663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.43|||=|0.2802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.58|38.44|||Chi-squared|||||38.44|-7.58|= 0.2802
91825848|NCT01485861|183528664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.58|||=|0.3646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.65|26.8|||Chi-squared|||||26.80|-7.65|= 0.3646
91825849|NCT01485861|183528664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.22|||=|0.9821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.89|16.33|||Chi-squared|||||16.33|-15.89|= 0.9821
91825850|NCT01485861|183528665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.17|||=|0.8489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.93|24.58|||Chi-squared|||||24.58|-30.93|= 0.8489
91825851|NCT01485861|183528665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.38|||=|0.5186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.36|41.12|||Chi-squared|||||41.12|-16.36|= 0.5186
91825852|NCT01485861|183528666|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||=|0.678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|3.8|||Log Rank|||||3.80|0.45|= 0.6780
91825853|NCT01485861|183528666|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.8372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|3.02|||Log Rank|||||3.02|0.24|= 0.8372
91825854|NCT01485861|183528666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.7733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|3.5|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||3.50|0.17|= 0.7733
91825855|NCT01485861|183528666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.46|||=|0.4227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|16.59|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||16.59|0.36|= 0.4227
91825856|NCT01485861|183528667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.99|||=|0.3173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0||NA = Not estimable due to limited number of events observed||Log Rank||\>||||0.00|= 0.3173
91825857|NCT01485861|183528667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.99|||=|0.6171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0||NA = Not estimable due to limited number of events observed||Log Rank||\>||||0.00|= 0.6171
91825858|NCT01485861|183528668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.75|||=|0.6652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.47|17.97|||Chi-squared|||||17.97|-10.47|= 0.6652
91825859|NCT01485861|183528668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.48|||=|0.3734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|21.24|||Chi-squared|||||21.24|-6.29|= 0.3734
91825860|NCT01485861|183528669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.41|||=|0.7633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.76|28.58|||Chi-squared|||||28.58|-19.76|= 0.7633
91825861|NCT01485861|183528669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.41|||=|0.7633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.76|28.58|||Chi-squared|||||28.58|-19.76|= 0.7633
91825862|NCT01485861|183528670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.24|||=|0.8317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.07|19.54|||Chi-squared|||||19.54|-15.07|= 0.8317
91825863|NCT01485861|183528670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.14|||=|0.6139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.6|21.88|||Chi-squared|||||21.88|-11.60|= 0.6139
91825864|NCT01485861|183528671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|34.85|||=|0.0505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.14|62.56|||Chi-squared|||||62.56|7.14|= 0.0505
91825865|NCT01485861|183528671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-9.6|||=|0.4989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.54|13.35|||Chi-squared|||||13.35|-32.54|= 0.4989
91825866|NCT01485861|183528674|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.8483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.61|= 0.8483
91825867|NCT01485861|183528674|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.65|||Log Rank|||||1.65|0.70|= 0.7850
91825868|NCT01485861|183528674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.8847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.65|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.65|0.66|= 0.8847
91825869|NCT01485861|183528674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||=|0.8647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.63|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.63|0.67|= 0.8647
91825870|NCT01485861|183528675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||=|0.8271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.06|||Log Rank|||||2.06|0.39|= 0.8271
91825871|NCT01485861|183528675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||=|0.7383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|2.02|||Log Rank|||||2.02|0.35|= 0.7383
91825872|NCT01243944|183528726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|32.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.04|1337.0|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1337|5.04|< 0.0001
91825873|NCT01243944|183528727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|1144.0|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1144|4.24|<0.0001
91825874|NCT01243944|183528728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|9.06|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated using stratified exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by adjusting for the WBC/platelet status (abnormal vs normal) at baseline.||||9.06|1.50|0.0016
91825875|NCT03029208|183528748|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.14|||||An ANCOVA model including randomization stratification factors Baseline Hgb and treatment was performed to obtain a point estimate and two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (daprodustat-darbepoetin alfa).|||0.14|-0.34|
91825876|NCT03029208|183528749|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.4||||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|49.9|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used to compare the difference in this average monthly IV iron dose between arms, including factors for Baseline dose, treatment and the randomization stratification factors.|||49.9|-11.0|0.8949
91825877|NCT03029208|183528750|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.23||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|10.27|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||10.27|-3.82|0.8168
91825878|NCT03029208|183528750|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.21||||0.9793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|8.26|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||8.26|0.17|0.9793
91825879|NCT03029208|183528750|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.1||||0.9597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|8.7|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||8.70|-0.51|0.9597
91825880|NCT03029208|183528751|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|4.53|||ANCOVA||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at the derived end of treatment was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for treatment, prognostic randomization stratification factors.|||4.53|-4.72|0.4840
91825881|NCT03029208|183528751|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.99||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|4.82|||ANCOVA||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at the derived end of treatment was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for treatment, prognostic randomization stratification factors.|||4.82|-0.85|0.9156
91825882|NCT03029208|183528751|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.29||||0.7966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.33|||ANCOVA||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at the derived end of treatment was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for treatment, prognostic randomization stratification factors.|||4.33|-1.76|0.7966
91825883|NCT03029208|183528752|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of exacerbation rate|1.01||||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Negative binomial model||Model estimated exacerbation rates, ratio of model estimated exacerbation rates and CIs were estimated using a negative binomial model for the treatment group comparison.|||1.39|0.73|0.5174
91825884|NCT03029208|183528754|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.36|||||The difference in change from Baseline in post-randomization Hgb at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||0.36|-0.29|
91825885|NCT03029208|183528755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|-0.8||||0.5411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for treatment and randomization stratification factors were used to compare the number of responders between the treatment groups.|||10.7|-12.2|0.5411
91952757|NCT01590810|183801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.84|-8.43|<0.001
91825886|NCT03029208|183528756|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|11.27|||||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Difference has been reported.|||11.27|-4.45|
91825887|NCT03029208|183528757|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.54||||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.61|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.61|0.46|0.1538
91825888|NCT03029208|183528758|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.66|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group, dialysis type and dialysis start manner.|||3.66|0.31|0.5348
91825889|NCT03029208|183528759|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39||||0.6641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.44|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.44|-2.22|0.6641
91825890|NCT03029208|183528759|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.13||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.89|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.89|-0.63|0.1030
91825891|NCT03029208|183528759|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.48|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.48|-1.51|0.3157
91825892|NCT03029208|183528759|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.31||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.84|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||0.84|-3.46|0.8855
91825893|NCT03029208|183528760|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.67||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.66|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.66|-2.99|0.7146
91825894|NCT03029208|183528760|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.53||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.76|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||0.76|-3.82|0.9050
91825895|NCT03029208|183528760|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.28|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.28|-2.91|0.5950
91952758|NCT01590810|183801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.04|-9.94|0.005
91825896|NCT03029208|183528760|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|2.7|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||2.70|-3.17|0.5619
91825897|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.4523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|2.49|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||2.49|-2.21|0.4523
91825898|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.5222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|2.43|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.43|-2.57|0.5222
91825899|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.33||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|5.02|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||5.02|-0.35|0.0440
91825900|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.61||||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|0.46|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||0.46|-5.68|0.9523
91825901|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.91|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.91|-1.82|0.4811
91825902|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.11|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.11|-1.56|0.3834
91825903|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.24|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.24|-1.72|0.3983
91825904|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.5617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.15|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||2.15|-2.51|0.5617
91825905|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.15||||0.8336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|1.18|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.18|-3.48|0.8336
91825906|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.41||||0.9188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.57|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||0.57|-3.40|0.9188
91825907|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.6495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.99|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||1.99|-2.96|0.6495
91952759|NCT01590810|183801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.76|-10.90|<0.001
91825908|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.5737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.56|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||2.56|-3.09|0.5737
91825909|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.82|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||2.82|-2.15|0.3963
91825910|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|3.25|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||3.25|-2.01|0.3220
91825911|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.18|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||3.18|-2.13|0.3485
91825912|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.49||||0.8064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.9|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.90|-4.87|0.8064
91825913|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29||||0.8687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.98|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||0.98|-3.57|0.8687
91825914|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.7|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.70|-1.29|0.2435
91825915|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|1.41|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||1.41|-3.15|0.7747
91825916|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.7141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|1.81|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.81|-3.26|0.7141
91825917|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.03||||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|1.59|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.59|-3.65|0.7803
91825918|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.8556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.0|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||1.00|-3.35|0.8556
91825919|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.77|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.77|-2.61|0.4763
91825920|NCT03029208|183528761|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.73||||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|3.8|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||3.80|-2.35|0.3208
91825921|NCT03029208|183528762|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.02||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.46|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL vitality domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||1.46|-3.50|0.7910
91825922|NCT03029208|183528762|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.45||||0.8648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|1.14|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL vitality domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.14|-4.03|0.8648
91825923|NCT03029208|183528763|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.19|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL physical functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.19|-2.75|0.5879
91825924|NCT03029208|183528763|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.43||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.26|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL physical functioning domain scor was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.26|-4.12|0.8525
91825925|NCT03029208|183528764|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.3154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.14|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.14|-0.09|0.3154
91825926|NCT03029208|183528765|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.4||||0.7651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|5.9|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||5.9|-12.7|0.7651
91825927|NCT03029208|183528766|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.43||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|-0.82|||MMRM||Tired/Low energy/Weak domain: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.82|-12.05|0.9875
91825928|NCT03029208|183528766|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.11||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|0.3|||MMRM||Chest pain/Shortness of breath domain: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.30|-8.52|0.9663
91825929|NCT03029208|183528766|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.6||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-1.35|||MMRM||Cognitive domain: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-1.35|-11.84|0.9930
91952760|NCT01590810|183801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.69|-7.76|<0.001
91825930|NCT03029208|183528766|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.03||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|2.12|||MMRM||Shortness of breath, no activity: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.12|-8.19|0.8765
91825931|NCT03029208|183528766|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.27||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|0.94|||MMRM||Severity-short breath, Resting: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.94|-9.48|0.9464
91825932|NCT03029208|183528766|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.31||||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|2.47|||MMRM||Difficulty standing for long time: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.47|-13.09|0.9101
91825933|NCT03029208|183528766|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.52||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.86|||MMRM||Difficulty sleeping: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.86|-13.90|0.9586
91825934|NCT03029208|183528767|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.53|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 8 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.53|0.02|0.9810
91825935|NCT03029208|183528767|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.26|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 12 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.26|-0.17|0.6743
91825936|NCT03029208|183528767|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16||||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.4|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.40|-0.09|0.8997
91825937|NCT03029208|183528767|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.8835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.47|-0.12|0.8835
91825938|NCT02673697|183528780|NON_INFERIORITY|"The primary analysis will calculate the Bayesian posterior probability that the difference \[MACCECONTROL~\- MACCEPERCEVAL\] is lower than 0.05 (predetermined non-inferiority margin): The null hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority concluded, if the posterior probability exceeds 0.9775 at the final analysis."||||||0.9914||||||The null hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority concluded, if the posterior probability exceeds 0.9775 at the final analysis.|Bayesian|||"A the primary analysis will compare Perceval valve (Treatment arm) vs. standard sutured stented valve (Control arm) on the Per Protocol population.~A one-sided non-inferiority test, using the non-inferiority margin Δ=0.05, will be performed to compare the two arms on the proportion of subjects that are event-free at one year (primary analysis)."||||0.9914
91825939|NCT00289341|183528786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||for injection site reaction only||||0.001
91825940|NCT00289341|183528786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||for all other adverse events||||>0.2
91825941|NCT00289341|183528788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Linear Spline model|||||||0.016
91825942|NCT03893448|183528789|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-4.8|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-0.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site erythema Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.2|-9.3|= 0.039
91825943|NCT03893448|183528789|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-0.4|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site induration Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||3.7|-4.6|= 0.836
91825944|NCT03893448|183528789|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|2.9|||=|0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site pain Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||7.6|-1.9|= 0.235
91825945|NCT03893448|183528789|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|2.4|||=|0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site swelling Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||6.5|-1.7|= 0.260
91825946|NCT03893448|183528790|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-1.8|||=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Decreased appetite Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||2.8|-6.3|= 0.446
91825947|NCT03893448|183528790|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|1.0|||=|0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Irritability Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||5.1|-3.0|= 0.622
91825948|NCT03893448|183528790|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||=|0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Somnolence (drowsiness) Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||1.6|-7.6|= 0.202
91825949|NCT03893448|183528790|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||=|0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Urticaria (Hives) Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||2.3|-2.4|= 0.985
91825950|NCT03893448|183528791|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||0.4|-0.4|
91825951|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-1.8|-5.2|< 0.001
91952761|NCT01590810|183801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|7.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.42|-21.27|0.311
91825952|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|19.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||19.2|12.1|< 0.001
91825953|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.6|-4.0|< 0.001
91825954|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.2|-4.2|< 0.001
91825955|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.0||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-3.0|-7.1|< 0.001
91825956|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.3||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.3|-6.6|< 0.001
91825957|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.1|-1.9|< 0.001
91825958|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||0.6|-2.8|< 0.001
91825959|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||1.6|-1.6|< 0.001
91825960|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.7||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||0.7|-2.6|< 0.001
91952762|NCT01590810|183801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.44|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.69|-27.44|0.078
91952763|NCT01590810|183801980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.87|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.19|-29.87|0.027
91952764|NCT01590810|183801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-6.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.65|-12.90|<0.0001
91952765|NCT01590810|183801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|-2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.81|-11.57|0.003
91952766|NCT01590810|183801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.98|-12.40|0.001
91952767|NCT01590810|183801981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|-3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.25|-11.69|0.001
91952768|NCT01590810|183801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.45|-1.82|0.765
91952769|NCT01590810|183801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.20|-2.49|0.023
91952770|NCT01590810|183801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.36|-9.18|<0.0001
91952771|NCT01590810|183801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.44|-9.46|0.010
91952772|NCT01590810|183801982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|-5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.94|-11.28|<0.0001
91952773|NCT01590810|183801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.86|-4.89|0.160
91825961|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.8|-3.2|< 0.001
91825962|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.4|-2.1|< 0.001
91825963|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.7||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||2.7|-3.2|< 0.001
91825964|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F This analysis represents the difference between response rate to Serotype 22F in recipients of V114 and lowest response (Serotype 23F at 91.8) in recipients of Prevnar 13™ for shared serotypes, excluding serotype 3. Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||9.2|4.6|< 0.001
91825965|NCT03893448|183528792|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.3||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F This analysis represents the difference between response rate to Serotype 33F in recipients of V114 and lowest response (Serotype 23F at 91.8) in recipients of Prevnar 13™ for shared serotypes, excluding serotype 3. Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-1.3|-7.8|< 0.001
91825966|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.69|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.69|0.59|< 0.001
91825967|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|1.87|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.87|1.61|< 0.001
91825968|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.03|0.88|< 0.001
91825969|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.80|0.66|< 0.001
91825970|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.52|||=|0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.58|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.58|0.48|= 0.167
91952774|NCT01590810|183801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.24|-8.40|0.039
91952775|NCT01590810|183801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|-2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.92|-12.58|0.003
91952776|NCT01590810|183801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|-5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.09|-14.49|<0.001
91952777|NCT01590810|183801983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-5.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.31|-11.30|<0.0001
91952778|NCT01590810|183801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.09|-10.54|0.675
91952779|NCT01590810|183801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.98|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.46|-16.98|0.174
91825971|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.93|0.71|< 0.001
91825972|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.83|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.83|0.71|< 0.001
91825973|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.00|0.84|< 0.001
91825974|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.78|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.78|0.63|< 0.001
91825975|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.83|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.83|0.70|< 0.001
91825976|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.77|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.77|0.65|< 0.001
91825977|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.79|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.79|0.69|< 0.001
91825978|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.99|0.80|< 0.001
91825979|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|3.98|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F IgG GMC for Serotype 22F in recipients of V114 was compared to lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.35 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||3.98|3.33|< 0.001
91825980|NCT03893448|183528793|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.39|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F IgG GMC for Serotype 33F in recipients of V114 was compared to lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.35 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.39|1.10|< 0.001
91825981|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.72|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.72|0.62|< 0.001
91952780|NCT01590810|183801984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|-4.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.81|-22.55|0.006
91952781|NCT01590810|183801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|-6.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.03|-12.22|<0.0001
91825982|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.46|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.46|1.25|< 0.001
91825983|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.84|0.71|< 0.001
91825984|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.69|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.69|0.58|< 0.001
91825985|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.65|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.65|0.54|< 0.001
91825986|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.81|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.81|0.67|< 0.001
91825987|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.77|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.77|0.65|< 0.001
91825988|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.80|0.67|< 0.001
91825989|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.89|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.89|0.73|< 0.001
91825990|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.93|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.93|0.78|< 0.001
91825991|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.80|0.68|< 0.001
91825992|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.86|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.86|0.74|< 0.001
91952782|NCT01590810|183801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|-3.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.99|-9.73|<0.0001
91952783|NCT01590810|183801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-5.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.64|-11.51|<0.0001
91952784|NCT01590810|183801985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.55|-6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.50|-12.55|<0.0001
91825993|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.68|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.68|0.56|< 0.001
91825994|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|4.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|5.11|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F IgG GMC for Serotype 22F in recipients of V114 was compared to the lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.60 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||5.11|4.30|< 0.001
91825995|NCT03893448|183528794|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|2.83|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F IgG GMC for Serotype 33F in recipients of V114 was compared to the lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.60 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||2.83|2.36|< 0.001
91825996|NCT03893448|183528795|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Diphtheria toxoid % ≥0.1 IU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.1|-2.6|< 0.001
91825997|NCT03893448|183528795|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Tetanus toxoid: % ≥0.1 IU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.8|-0.4|< 0.001
91825998|NCT03893448|183528795|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis toxin (PT): % ≥ 5 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.9|-0.7|< 0.001
91825999|NCT03893448|183528795|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA): % ≥5 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.8|-1.3|< 0.001
91826000|NCT03893448|183528795|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis fimbrae types 2/3 (FIM 2/3): % ≥20 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||7.1|-3.1|< 0.001
91826001|NCT03893448|183528795|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis pertactin (PRN): % ≥5 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||6.8|-3.2|< 0.001
91826002|NCT03893448|183528795|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Poliovirus 1: % NAb ≥1:8 dilution Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.8|-0.7|< 0.001
91826003|NCT03893448|183528795|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Poliovirus 2: % NAb ≥1:8 dilution Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.6|-0.6|< 0.001
91952785|NCT01731600|183802006|OTHER||Incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.067|||||The incidence of inhibitory antibodies was calculated as number of patients with inhibitors during the main phase of the trial divided by number of patients in the main phase of the trial.|A one-sided, upper 97.5% confidence limit was provided based on an exact calculation in the binomial distribution.||0.067||
91826004|NCT03893448|183528795|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Poliovirus 3: % NAb ≥1:8 dilution Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.6|-0.6|< 0.001
91826005|NCT03893448|183528795|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Haemophilus influenzae Type B polyribosylribitol phosphate (Hib-PRP): % ≥0.15 ug/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.5|-4.3|< 0.001
91826006|NCT03893448|183528796|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - PT GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.09|0.89|< 0.001
91826007|NCT03893448|183528796|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - FHA GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.09|0.87|< 0.001
91826008|NCT03893448|183528796|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - FIM 2/3 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.28|0.91|< 0.001
91826009|NCT03893448|183528796|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - PRN GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.19|0.84|< 0.001
91826010|NCT03893448|183528797|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of VAQTA™ administered concomitantly with V114 to VAQTA™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2||p value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||2.2|-1.6|< 0.001
91826011|NCT03893448|183528798|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with V114 to M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.3||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Measles antigen ≥255 mIU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.3|-1.8|< 0.001
91826012|NCT03893448|183528798|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with V114 to M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Mumps antigen ≥10 mumps Ab units/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.2|-3.8|< 0.001
91826013|NCT03893448|183528798|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with V114 to M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Rubella antigen ≥10 IU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.5|-2.3|< 0.001
91826014|NCT03893448|183528799|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of VARIVAX™ administered concomitantly with V114 to VARIVAX™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.5|-3.2|< 0.001
91826015|NCT03893448|183528800|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of HIBERIX™ administered concomitantly with V114 to HIBERIX™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||-0.5|-2.2|< 0.001
91826016|NCT03893448|183528801|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|92.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.47|101.47|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||101.47|83.47|< 0.001
91826017|NCT03893448|183528801|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.16|33.26|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||33.26|26.16|< 0.001
91826018|NCT03893448|183528802|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Point Difference|95.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.1|96.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||96.5|93.1|< 0.001
91826019|NCT03893448|183528802|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Point Difference|85.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.3|87.7||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||87.7|82.3|< 0.001
91826020|NCT03893448|183528803|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|68.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.1|75.02|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||75.02|63.10|< 0.001
91826021|NCT03893448|183528803|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|44.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.04|49.14|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||49.14|41.04|< 0.001
91826022|NCT03893448|183528806|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Point Difference|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|19.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||19.2|12.1|< 0.001
91826023|NCT03893448|183528807|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|1.87|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.87|1.61|< 0.001
91826024|NCT03893448|183528808|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.46|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.46|1.25|< 0.001
91826025|NCT03321019|183528832|OTHER||F-statistic|8.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|ANOVA|Degree of freedom - 3, 278||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||<.0001
91826026|NCT03321019|183528833|OTHER||F-statistic|0.44||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Tukey's method was used to control for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom - 3. 278||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.72
91826027|NCT03321019|183528834|OTHER||F-statistic|3.048||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Dunnett's T3 method was used to account for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 3, 229||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.02
91826028|NCT03321019|183528835|OTHER||F-statistic|2.939||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value was adjusted in the analysis for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom - 3, 231||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.034
91826029|NCT03321019|183528836|OTHER||F-statistic|1.494||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|||||Tukey's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom - 3, 274||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.022
91826030|NCT03880578|183528837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|The outcome measure is change over time between treatment groups, reported as a mean adjusted difference.|change in the composite score of the ThyPRO between groups|||-5.7|-14.9|<0.001
91826031|NCT03880578|183528838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-4.34|0.06
91826032|NCT03880578|183528839|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||MAD obtained after log transformation of TSH|||2.03|1.27|<0.001
91826033|NCT03880578|183528840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FT3||-0.35|-0.87|<0.001
91826034|NCT03880578|183528840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FT4||0.15|-1.81|0.12
91826035|NCT03880578|183528841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.5|-14.6|<0.001
91826036|NCT03056690|183528850|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Week 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (week 8) and treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|LSMean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.07|||MMRM|||||0.07|-0.76|0.086
91826037|NCT03056690|183528856|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.2||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|12.5|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||12.5|-11.9|0.551
91826038|NCT03056690|183528857|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.9||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|19.1|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||19.1|-5.2|0.202
91826039|NCT03056690|183528858|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.7||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|13.8|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||13.8|-10.5|0.451
91826040|NCT03056690|183528859|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.1||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|18.1|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||18.1|-6.2|0.174
91826041|NCT03056690|183528860|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.86|1.9||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Function Subscale: Week 2||1.90|-4.86|0.235
91826042|NCT03056690|183528860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.84|0.89||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Function Subscale: Week 4||0.89|-6.84|0.103
91826043|NCT03056690|183528860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.78|1.6||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Function Subscale: Week 8||1.60|-6.78|0.154
91826044|NCT03056690|183528860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|1.77||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Symptoms Subscale: Week 2||1.77|-4.45|0.238
91826045|NCT03056690|183528860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.22|-0.24||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Symptoms Subscale: Week 4||-0.24|-7.22|0.039
91826046|NCT03056690|183528860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.93|0.81||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Symptoms Subscale: Week 8||0.81|-6.93|0.097
91826047|NCT03056690|183528860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean DIfference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|0.04||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Overall Impact Subscale: Week 2||0.04|-2.03|0.057
91826048|NCT03056690|183528860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|-0.29||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Overall Impact Subscale: Week 4||-0.29|-2.39|0.018
91826049|NCT03056690|183528860|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|0.3||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Overall Impact Subscale: Week 8||0.30|-2.02|0.111
91826050|NCT03056690|183528861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.05|0.75||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Function Subscale||0.75|-7.05|0.092
91952786|NCT02748096|183802048|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all the radiographic parameters .|t-test, 2 sided|This test applies to comparison between the two treatment arms and assesses all the radiographic parameters||The sample size was calculated from a previous study that used similar radiological assessments to compare OUKAs performed using conventional instrumentation and computer navigation. In this study, the standard deviation of the tibia varus/valgus angle for the control group was 3.6°. Assuming a minimum clinically important difference of 3°, the SMD would be 0.8. Hence with a power of 0.8 and significance level of 0.05, a total sample size of 44 patients (22 in each group) was required.||||<0.05
91826051|NCT03056690|183528861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.85|0.28||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms subscale||0.28|-6.85|0.065
91826052|NCT03056690|183528861|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|-0.01||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Overall Impact Subscale.||-0.01|-2.15|0.049
91826053|NCT03056690|183528862|SUPERIORITY|The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test. p-value is for the comparison of ASP0819 15 mg with Placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|2.24|||Likelihood test|||Week 2||2.24|0.91|0.192
91826054|NCT03056690|183528862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.07||The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test. p-value is for the comparison of ASP0819 15 mg with Placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Likelihod test|||Week 4||2.07|0.86|0.285
91826055|NCT03056690|183528862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.87||The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test. p-value is for the comparison of ASP0819 15 mg with Placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Likelihood test|||EOT||1.87|0.78|0.486
91826056|NCT03056690|183528863|SUPERIORITY|The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.05|||Likelihood test|||Week 8||2.05|0.85|0.305
91826057|NCT01944046|183528873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503||||||not adjusted primary outcome|Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline, age category, functionality category||||||0.503
91826058|NCT01944046|183528874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||not adjusted primary outcome, p threshold 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|adjustment for value at week 24,||||||0.61
91826059|NCT00153101|183528926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8462||95.0|0.92|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.92|0.8462
91826060|NCT00153101|183528926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was 1.13|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.0019||97.5|0.93|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.93|0.0019
91826061|NCT00153101|183528927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9086||95.0|0.93|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.93|0.9086
91826062|NCT00153101|183528927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was 1.13|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.0004||97.5|0.9|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.90|0.0004
91826063|NCT00153101|183528928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.4535||95.0|0.93|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.93|0.4535
91952787|NCT02748096|183802049|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91826064|NCT00153101|183528928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9421||95.0|0.89|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.89|0.9421
91826065|NCT00153101|183528929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.2909||95.0|0.94|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.94|0.2909
91826066|NCT00153101|183528929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.2534||95.0|0.94|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.94|0.2534
91826067|NCT00153101|183528930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2248||95.0|0.79|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.79|0.2248
91826068|NCT00153101|183528930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.1829||95.0|0.79|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.79|0.1829
91826069|NCT00153101|183528931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4984||95.0|0.82|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.82|0.4984
91826070|NCT00153101|183528931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.1203||95.0|0.97|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||||1.29|0.97|0.1203
91826071|NCT00153101|183528932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.15|||Regression, Cox|||||2.15|0.73|0.4221
91826072|NCT00153101|183528932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.7305||95.0|0.51|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||||1.60|0.51|0.7305
91826073|NCT00153101|183528933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.6248||95.0|0.54|1.45|||Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.54|0.6248
91826074|NCT00153101|183528933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.36|0.0751
91826075|NCT00153101|183528934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3682||95.0|0.63|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.63|0.3682
91826076|NCT00153101|183528934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6014||95.0|0.69|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.69|0.6014
91826077|NCT00153101|183528935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.255||95.0|0.91|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.91|0.2550
91826078|NCT00153101|183528935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.5297||95.0|0.86|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.86|0.5297
91826079|NCT00153101|183528936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4593||95.0|0.82|1.56|||Regression, Cox|||||1.56|0.82|0.4593
91826080|NCT00153101|183528936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7468||95.0|0.68|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||||1.32|0.68|0.7468
91826081|NCT00153101|183528937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.71|0.5461
91826082|NCT00153101|183528937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3436||95.0|0.68|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.68|0.3436
91826083|NCT00153101|183528938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0133||95.0|0.8|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.80|0.0133
91826084|NCT00153101|183528938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.1251||95.0|0.84|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.84|0.1251
91826085|NCT00153101|183528939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0213||95.0|0.67|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.67|0.0213
91826086|NCT00153101|183528939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2396||95.0|0.75|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.75|0.2396
91826087|NCT00153101|183528940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0111||95.0|0.83|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.83|0.0111
91826088|NCT00153101|183528940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.0606||95.0|0.85|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.85|0.0606
91826089|NCT00153101|183528941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.0082||95.0|1.05|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||||1.35|1.05|0.0082
91826090|NCT00153101|183528941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.2164||95.0|0.95|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.95|0.2164
91826091|NCT00153101|183528942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3732||95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.83|0.3732
91826092|NCT00153101|183528942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.3633||95.0|0.94|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.94|0.3633
91826093|NCT00153101|183528943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.2713||95.0|0.97|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.97|0.2713
91826094|NCT00153101|183528943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.515||95.0|0.95|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.95|0.5150
91826095|NCT00153101|183528944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3485||95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without diabetes at baseline||1.10|0.77|0.3485
91952788|NCT02748096|183802050|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91952789|NCT02389621|183802082|SUPERIORITY||Difference|36.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|48.5||Statistical tests were performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted using the stratification factors of platelet count at randomization and the planned primary invasive procedure.||||48.5|24.9|<0.0001
91826096|NCT00153101|183528944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.1235||95.0|0.96|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without diabetes at baseline||1.36|0.96|0.1235
91826097|NCT00153101|183528945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.869||95.0|0.89|1.11|||Chi-squared|||for subjects with available Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) at baseline||1.11|0.89|0.8690
91826098|NCT00153101|183528945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.4337||95.0|0.94|1.17|||Chi-squared|||for subjects with available Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) at baseline||1.17|0.94|0.4337
91826099|NCT00153101|183528946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2666||95.0|0.83|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without atrial fibrillation at baseline||1.05|0.83|0.2666
91826100|NCT00153101|183528946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.4784||95.0|0.85|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without atrial fibrillation at baseline||1.08|0.85|0.4784
91826101|NCT00153101|183528947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0483||95.0|0.76|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.76|0.0483
91826102|NCT00153101|183528948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2192||95.0|0.81|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.81|0.2192
91826103|NCT00153101|183528949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7764||95.0|0.85|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.85|0.7764
91826104|NCT00153101|183528950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0574||95.0|0.62|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||||1.01|0.62|0.0574
91826105|NCT00153101|183528951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1365||95.0|0.64|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.64|0.1365
91826106|NCT00153101|183528952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.694||95.0|0.82|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.82|0.6940
91826107|NCT00153101|183528953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.0245||95.0|1.06|2.35|||Regression, Cox|||||2.35|1.06|0.0245
91826108|NCT00153101|183528954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5798||95.0|0.36|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||||1.76|0.36|0.5798
91826109|NCT00153101|183528955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0006||95.0|0.65|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.65|0.0006
91826110|NCT00153101|183528956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0085||95.0|0.48|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.48|0.0085
91826111|NCT00153101|183528957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0015||95.0|0.69|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||||0.92|0.69|0.0015
91826112|NCT00153101|183528958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0101||95.0|1.08|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||||1.79|1.08|0.0101
91826113|NCT00153101|183528959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9563||95.0|0.82|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.82|0.9563
91826114|NCT00153101|183528960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.0868||95.0|0.98|1.41|||Chi-squared|||||1.41|0.98|0.0868
91826115|NCT00153101|183528961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0172||95.0|0.6|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.60|0.0172
91826116|NCT00153101|183528962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1431||95.0|0.78|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.78|0.1431
91826117|NCT00153101|183528963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8974||95.0|0.81|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.81|0.8974
91826118|NCT03169153|183528964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects repeated measures|||||||<0.0001
91826119|NCT00439777|183528965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming equal efficacy, a total of 88 events will give a power of 90% to demonstrate that rivaroxaban is at least as effective as the comparator, considering a relative non-inferiority upper CI margin for the hazard ratio of 2.0 (two-sided alpha=0.05). The mean overall incidence for the primary efficacy outcome of 3% was expected and therefore 1465 patients per group would be needed. This number was to be adjusted based on the observed overall incidence of symptomatic recurrent VTE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2067||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.68|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (confidence interval) (two-sided testing). Based on this model, rivaroxaban would be considered at least as effective as the comparator if the upper limit of the CI was less than 2.0.||1.68|0.75|0.0026
91826120|NCT00439777|183528966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.56||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox||The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.||1.56|0.86|0.33
91826121|NCT00439777|183528967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1499||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.14|0.63|0.275
91826122|NCT00439777|183528968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.93||nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.93|0.70|0.55
91826123|NCT00439777|183528969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3289||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.79||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.79|0.49|0.85
91826124|NCT00439777|183528970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08756||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||If the primary efficacy analysis shows that rivaroxaban is non-inferior to the comparator, the principal safety outcome was to be compared between treatment groups to maintain the overall type I error of 0.05 (2-sided) (a closed testing procedure).|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.07|0.76|0.23
91826125|NCT01175226|183529007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.020
91826126|NCT01072201|183529026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91826127|NCT01072201|183529027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91826128|NCT01072201|183529028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||0.05
91826129|NCT02752048|183529049|OTHER|Change in time to rise from the floor from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.378||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.757|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.000|-6.757|0.596
91826130|NCT02752048|183529049|OTHER|Change in time to rise from the floor from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.349||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|4.918|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.918|-2.220|0.433
91826131|NCT02752048|183529050|OTHER|Change in 10-m walk/run test from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.484||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.650|-1.618|0.382
91826132|NCT02752048|183529050|OTHER|Change in 10-m walk/run test from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.397||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.817|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.817|-1.610|0.501
91826133|NCT02752048|183529051|OTHER|Change in time to up and go from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.363|1.298|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.298|-2.363|0.549
91826134|NCT02752048|183529051|OTHER|Change in time to up and go from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.225||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.801|1.351|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.351|-1.801|0.767
91826135|NCT01880424|183529119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.001||95.0|1.21|2.09||Statistical significance (p\<0.05) was required in both co-primary efficacy parameters to meet the primary efficacy objective; both p-values met this criterion.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographic region|Odds ratio for response rate (linaclotide : placebo)|Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the linaclotide dose and placebo in the proportion of 12-week Abdominal Pain/Abdominal Discomfort Responders or there is no difference in the proportion of 12-week IBS Degree of Relief Responders. With 800 planned patients, the statistical power was expected to be approximately 95%, with an overall type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level (2-sided), based on assumptions from NCT00948818 (LIN-MD-31) study data.||2.09|1.21|0.0010
91826136|NCT01880424|183529120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.83|3.58||Statistical significance (p\<0.05) was required in both co-primary efficacy parameters to meet the primary efficacy objective; both p-values met this criterion.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographic region|Odds ratio for response rate (linaclotide : placebo)|Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the linaclotide dose and placebo in the proportion of 12-week Abdominal Pain/Abdominal Discomfort Responders or there is no difference in the proportion of 12-week IBS Degree of Relief Responders. With 800 planned patients, the statistical power was expected to be approximately 95%, with an overall type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level (2-sided), based on assumptions from NCT00948818 (LIN-MD-31) study data.||3.58|1.83|<0.0001
91826137|NCT01303627|183529190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Statistical analyses were performed x2 test or Mann Whitney U test as approriate. A p value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||The incidence of complications on removal of the cLMA has been reported 54 % in awake patients group A power analysis indicated that a minimum 16 patients in each group were required to demonstrate a difference that 50% reduction the complications (a power of 80% and α error 0.05).||||<0.05
91826138|NCT00996996|183529203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed response.|||100|90|
91826139|NCT00996996|183529204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a response.|||100|94|
91826140|NCT00996996|183529205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|80.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CR.|||80|59|
91826141|NCT00996996|183529205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CCR.|||6|0|
91826142|NCT00996996|183529205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|85.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR + confirmed CCR.|||85|65|
91826143|NCT00996996|183529205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|26.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed PR.|||26|9|
91826144|NCT00996996|183529206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|84.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR.|||84|64|
91826145|NCT00996996|183529206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CCR.|||8|0|
91826146|NCT00996996|183529206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|87.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR + CCR.|||87|68|
91826147|NCT00996996|183529206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|29.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a PR.|||29|11|
91826148|NCT01227889|183529232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.6||The p value from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|Log Rank||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. HR from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|||0.60|0.26|<0.0001
91826149|NCT01227889|183529233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.61|||||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. HR was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|||0.61|0.20|
91826150|NCT01227889|183529234|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.18|||||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. HR was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|||1.18|0.57|
91826151|NCT02203019|183529244|EQUIVALENCE|Outcome comparison used the Mann Whitney U test||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.107
91826152|NCT02203019|183529245|EQUIVALENCE|Outcomes were compared using a Mann Whitney U test.||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.260
91826153|NCT02203019|183529246|EQUIVALENCE|Outcomes were compared using a Mann Whitney U test.||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.376
91826154|NCT02203019|183529247|EQUIVALENCE|Outcomes were compared using a Chi square test.||||||0.739|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.739
91826155|NCT00795600|183529291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.364||0.849||95.0|-7.404|6.114||H01 (hypothesis): Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||6.114|-7.404|0.849
91826156|NCT00795600|183529292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.478||0.948||95.0|-7.588|6.407||H01: Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||6.407|-7.588|0.948
91826157|NCT00795600|183529293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|196.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|498.7||0.696||95.0|-805.8|1198.5||H01: Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||1198.5|-805.8|0.696
91826158|NCT00795600|183529294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|192.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|515.4||0.71||95.0|-844.0|1229.7||H01: Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||1229.7|-844.0|0.710
91826159|NCT00795600|183529295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|288.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|766.41||0.709||95.0|-1252.0|1828.4|||ANCOVA|||||1828.4|-1252.0|0.709
91826160|NCT00795600|183529296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.732||0.948||95.0|-5.668|5.313|||ANCOVA|||||5.313|-5.668|0.948
91826161|NCT00795600|183529297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1151.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|810.48||0.162||95.0|-2780.0|477.33|||ANCOVA|||||477.33|-2780.0|0.162
91826162|NCT00795600|183529298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.788||0.131||95.0|-6.34|0.846|||ANCOVA|||||0.846|-6.340|0.131
91826163|NCT00795600|183529299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|368.69||0.766||95.0|-851.3|630.51|||ANCOVA|||||630.51|-851.3|0.766
91826164|NCT00795600|183529300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.662||0.716||95.0|-3.949|2.729|||ANCOVA|||||2.729|-3.949|0.716
91826165|NCT00795600|183529301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695||0.483||95.0|-0.906|1.888|||ANCOVA|||||1.888|-0.906|0.483
91826166|NCT00795600|183529302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.909||0.952||95.0|-3.721|3.953|||ANCOVA|||||3.953|-3.721|0.952
91826167|NCT00795600|183529303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746||0.711||95.0|-1.778|1.221|||ANCOVA|||||1.221|-1.778|0.711
91826168|NCT00795600|183529304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.854||0.397||95.0|-5.31|2.141|||ANCOVA|||||2.141|-5.310|0.397
91826169|NCT00795600|183529305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.985||0.421||95.0|-30.99|13.159|||ANCOVA|||||13.159|-30.99|0.421
91826170|NCT00795600|183529306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.216||0.42||95.0|-17.55|7.43|||ANCOVA|||||7.430|-17.55|0.420
91826171|NCT00795600|183529307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.007||0.705||95.0|-31.1|21.178|||ANCOVA|||||21.178|-31.10|0.705
91826172|NCT00795600|183529308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.776||0.341||95.0|-14.19|5.007|||ANCOVA|||||5.007|-14.19|0.341
91826173|NCT00795600|183529309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.902||95.0|-0.064|0.073|||ANCOVA|||||0.073|-0.064|0.902
91826174|NCT00795600|183529310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.839||95.0|-8.525|6.947|||ANCOVA|||||6.947|-8.525|0.839
91826175|NCT00795600|183529311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.607||95.0|-0.105|0.062|||ANCOVA|||||0.062|-0.105|0.607
91826176|NCT00795600|183529312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.777|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.719||0.635||95.0|-9.254|5.7|||ANCOVA|||||5.700|-9.254|0.635
91826177|NCT00795600|183529313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.628||95.0|-0.663|0.403|||ANCOVA|||||0.403|-0.663|0.628
91826178|NCT00795600|183529314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.46||0.535||95.0|-46.03|24.182|||ANCOVA|||||24.182|-46.03|0.535
91826179|NCT00795600|183529315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.918|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.332||0.66||95.0|-10.65|6.813|||ANCOVA|||||6.813|-10.65|0.660
91826180|NCT00795600|183529342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967||0.518||95.0|-2.572|1.313|||ANCOVA|||||1.313|-2.572|0.518
91826181|NCT00795600|183529343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.283||0.673||95.0|-3.123|2.032|||ANCOVA|||||2.032|-3.123|0.673
91826182|NCT00795600|183529344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.738||95.0|-2.319|3.25|||ANCOVA|||||3.250|-2.319|0.738
91826183|NCT00795600|183529345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.168||0.346||95.0|-2.3|6.423|||ANCOVA|||||6.423|-2.300|0.346
91826184|NCT00795600|183529346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.173||0.781||95.0|-10.71|14.167|||ANCOVA|||||14.167|-10.71|0.781
91826185|NCT01659021|183529349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.37||P-value is from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (17p deletion/TP53 mutation, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) mutation, and disease status).|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are from the proportional hazard model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|||0.37|0.18|<0.0001
91826186|NCT01659021|183529350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.17|34.76||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|||34.76|8.17|<0.0001
91826187|NCT01659021|183529351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|483.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.63|2467.02||P-value was calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|||2467.02|94.63|<0.0001
91826188|NCT01659021|183529352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15||P-value is from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (17p deletion/TP53 mutation, IGHV mutation, and disease status).|Log Rank|||||1.15|0.54|0.247
91826189|NCT01659021|183529353|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.51|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model without any adjustments.|||0.51|0.17|
91826190|NCT01248884|183529357|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to diphteria antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.3||||||||2.3|-2.25|
91826191|NCT01248884|183529357|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to tetanus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.3||||||||2.3|-2.25|
91826192|NCT01248884|183529357|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to diphteria antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.27||||||||2.27|-2.25|
91826193|NCT01248884|183529357|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to tetanus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.27||||||||2.27|-2.25|
91826194|NCT01248884|183529359|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PT) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 1) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.11|1.44||||||||1.44|1.11|
91826195|NCT01248884|183529359|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PRN) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 1) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.14|1.54||||||||1.54|1.14|
91826196|NCT01248884|183529359|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PT) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 2) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|1.43||||||||1.43|1.1|
91826197|NCT01248884|183529359|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PRN) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 2) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.37|1.84||||||||1.84|1.37|
91826198|NCT01248884|183529360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to PRP antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK217744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.19|3.0||||||||3|-10.19|
91826199|NCT01248884|183529360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to PRP antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK217744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.53|7.7||||||||7.7|-6.53|
91826200|NCT01248884|183529361|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.27|4.63||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (ELISA)||4.63|-3.27|
91826201|NCT01248884|183529361|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.57|2.36||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (ELISA)||2.36|-4.57|
91826202|NCT01248884|183529361|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.62|3.8||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (CLIA)||3.8|-4.62|
91826203|NCT01248884|183529361|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.07|3.02||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (CLIA)||3.02|-5.07|
91826204|NCT01854827|183529396|SUPERIORITY|Percent was evaluated relative to 80% where statistical superiority was demonstrated if the one-sided, 90% Clopper-Pearson lower confidence bound was \> 80%.|Percent of patients|79.3|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|63.2||||||||The lower bound of the 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval was \< 80%, therefore the study failed to achieve the feasibility definition stated in the protocol.||63.2|
91826205|NCT01854827|183529397|SUPERIORITY|Percent was evaluated relative to 80% where statistical superiority was demonstrated if the one-sided, 90% Clopper-Pearson lower confidence bound was \> 80%.|Percent of patients|79.3|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|63.2||||||||The lower bound of the 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval was \< 80%, therefore the study failed to achieve the feasibility definition stated in the protocol.||63.2|
91826206|NCT01854827|183529398|OTHER|Percents with serious AEs prior to liver transplant were calculated, along with one-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval lower bounds.|Percent of patients|89.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|75.4||||||||||75.4|
91826207|NCT01854827|183529399|OTHER|Percent of patients with level 3-5 toxicity are presented along with one-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval lower bound.|Percent of patients|89.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|75.4||||||||||75.4|
91826208|NCT01854827|183529400|OTHER|Percent of patients with other expected AEs are presented along with one-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence limit lower bound.|Percent of patients|27.6|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|14.5||||||||||14.5|
91826209|NCT01854827|183529401|SUPERIORITY|One-sided testing for superiority of IVIG to historical control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5486|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||IVIG was compared to the historical placebo control from the START study (n=64): PMID: 24794368 NCT00294684||2.38||0.5486
91826210|NCT01854827|183529402|SUPERIORITY|One-sided testing for superiority of IVIG relative to historical control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.8455|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||IVIG was compared for superiority to the historical control of START study placebo (N=64). PMID: 24794368 NCT00294684||1.22||0.8455
91826211|NCT01854827|183529403|SUPERIORITY|One-sided.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.8431|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.24||One-sided|Regression, Logistic|||IVIG was compared for superiority to the historical START placebo control (N=64).||1.24||0.8431
91826212|NCT01854827|183529404|SUPERIORITY|One-sided for IVIG superior to historical START placebo control. PMID: 24794368 NCT00294684|Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.1||||||K-M estimates for survival for IVIG vs the historical START placebo control are provided, along with one-sided 90% upper bounds of the confidence intervals.||2.1||
91826213|NCT00736996|183529406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0125|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a 2-sided p-value \< 0.0125 (=0.05/4) to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||The mean change in domain score with PIO was compared with the mean change in domain score with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline domain score.||||<0.0125
91826214|NCT00736996|183529406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0125|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a 2-sided p-value \< 0.0125 (=0.05/4) to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||The mean change in domain score with EET was compared with the mean change in domain score with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline domain score.||||<0.0125
91826215|NCT00736996|183529407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with PIO was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
91826216|NCT00736996|183529407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with EET was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
91826217|NCT00736996|183529408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with PIO was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
91826218|NCT00736996|183529408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with EET was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
91826219|NCT02660944|183529444|SUPERIORITY|Two-sample t-test with Satterthwaite approximation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|4.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Day 85 RSLV-132 versus placebo||4.15|-3.42|0.845
91826220|NCT02660944|183529444|SUPERIORITY|Two-sample t-test with Satterthwaite approximation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Day 169 RSLV-132 versus placebo||3.70|-4.66|0.818
91826221|NCT03586999|183529457|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||The proportion achieving a complete response will be calculated and will compared to null proportion of 30%. The population proportion for complete response rate, p-value and 90% confidence intervals for the complete response rate will be calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||The study was to be suspended, if, at any time, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the true probability of achieving a complete response falls below 30% while assuming the treatment drug will elicit a 56% complete response rate. Statistically significant evidence for this low complete response rate is defined as an observed complete response rate whose upper one-sided 90% confidence limit is 0-30%. Sample size calculations were made assuming 80% power.||||.1
91826222|NCT04096560|183529467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.07|32.73||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||32.73|20.07|<0.001
91826223|NCT04096560|183529467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.68|36.07||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||36.07|23.68|<0.001
91826224|NCT04096560|183529467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|35.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.73|41.34||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||41.34|28.73|<0.001
91826225|NCT04096560|183529474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-6.16||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||-6.16|-14.07|<0.001
91826226|NCT04096560|183529474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-7.56||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||-7.56|-15.20|<0.001
91826227|NCT04096560|183529474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|-9.09||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||-9.09|-16.96|<0.001
91826228|NCT04096560|183529475|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.05|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.317||The incidence rate was the exponentiated LS means and the incidence rate ratio (IRR) was the exponentiated LS mean differences from the generalized estimating equation (GEE) Poisson regression model.|MMRM|The Poisson regression with natural log link was on the count of cataplexy per week.||||0.317|0.007|=0.002
91826229|NCT04096560|183529475|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.2|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.767||The incidence rate was the exponentiated LS means and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean differences from the GEE Poisson regression model.|MMRM|The Poisson regression with natural log link was on the count of cataplexy per week.||||0.767|0.050|=0.019
91826230|NCT04096560|183529475|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.15|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.482||The incidence rate was the exponentiated LS means and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean differences from the GEE Poisson regression model.|MMRM|The Poisson regression with natural log link was on the count of cataplexy per week.||||0.482|0.047|=0.001
91826231|NCT00534352|183529486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for Cmin as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|Least Square (LS) mean ratio|95.47||||||90.0|82.77|110.1||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (Cmin)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of Cmin. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||110.1|82.77|
91826232|NCT00534352|183529486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for Cmax as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|Least Square (LS) mean ratio|102.6||||||90.0|92.91|113.3||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (Cmax)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of Cmax. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||113.3|92.91|
91826233|NCT00534352|183529486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for AUC24 as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|LS means of ratios|98.97||||||90.0|89.23|109.8||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (AUC24)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of AUC24. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||109.8|89.23|
91826234|NCT00534352|183529486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for Css,av as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|Least Square (LS) mean ratio|99.3||||||90.0|89.39|110.3||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (Css,av)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of Css,av. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||110.3|89.39|
91826235|NCT00833924|183529532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of 30-day freedom from MAE|99.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|100.0|||Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis: The 30-day Freedom from MAE for patients treated with the Zenith® Low Profile AAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal (88%).||100|95.4|<0.01
91826236|NCT00833924|183529533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||12-month Device Success Rate|97.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.4|99.4|||Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis: The 12-month device success for patients treated with the Zenith® Low Profile AAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal (84%).||99.4|92.4|<0.01
91826237|NCT01144338|183529570|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.004|||Regression, Cox|||||1.004|0.832|0.061
91826238|NCT01144338|183529571|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1.3 vs. H1: HR \< 1.3|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.004|||Regression, Cox|||This analysis uses the same endpoint and cox regression method as the primary efficacy analysis. However, the statistical hypothesis is a non-inferiority test with a margin of HR=1.3.||1.004|0.832|< 0.001
91826239|NCT01144338|183529572|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.77|0.016
91826240|NCT01144338|183529573|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.76|0.096
91826241|NCT01144338|183529574|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.85|0.622
91826242|NCT01144338|183529575|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.70|0.095
91826243|NCT01144338|183529576|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.94|0.402
91826244|NCT01144338|183529577|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.78|0.485
91826245|NCT04796610|183529598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted for participant age|Results are presented for an indicator where 0=control and 1=intervention|||2.98|.1|0.49
91826246|NCT04796610|183529599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.82||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|146.91||Model is adjusted for participant age|Regression, Logistic||Results are presented for an indicator where 0=control and 1=intervention|||146.91|1.93|.011
91826247|NCT04796610|183529600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.97|||Regression, Linear|Model is adjusted for participant age|Results are presented for an indicator where 0=control and 1=intervention|||0.97|0.07|.03
91826248|NCT02059148|183529620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.38||||||||1.38|1.11|
91826249|NCT02059148|183529621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.23||||||||1.23|1.05|
91826250|NCT02059148|183529622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.95||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.00|1.00|0.0006
91826251|NCT00856583|183529657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated all-cause mortality ratio was \<1.5 (pre-specified), the null hypothesis was rejected. With this limit, 7,600 patient years of exposure (PYE) were required to ensure 80% power at the 5% significance level of rejecting the null hypothesis when assuming a mortality of 2 deaths per 100 PYE. As the actual mortality was only about half that anticipated, more exposure was necessary and the duration of the study increased markedly.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|1.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.|The hazard ratio is calculated as sertindole (numerator) versus risperidone (denominator).|The basis for the statistical analysis of the first primary outcome was the null hypothesis of an excess mortality in sertindole-treated patients compared to the mortality in risperidone-treated patients for the WRT+30 days period.||1.500|0.831|0.05
91826252|NCT00856583|183529657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 90% CI for the estimated all-cause mortality ratio was \<1.5 (pre-specified), the null hypothesis was rejected. With this limit, 7,600 PYE were required to ensure 80% power at the 5% significance level of rejecting the null hypothesis when assuming a mortality of 2 deaths per 100 PYE. As the actual mortality was only about half that anticipated, more exposure was necessary and the duration of the study increased markedly.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|1.405|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.|The hazard ratio is calculated as sertindole (numerator) versus risperidone (denominator).|The basis for the statistical analysis of the first primary outcome was the null hypothesis of an excess mortality in sertindole-treated patients compared to the mortality in risperidone-treated patients for the ORT period.||1.405|0.684|<0.05
91826253|NCT00856583|183529658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.84||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|5.55|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), region, year since start of enrollment||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||5.55|1.45|0.0022
91826254|NCT00856583|183529659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.78|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age and sex.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of the secondary primary outcome (one patient in the risperidone group reported more than one occurrence of this event) was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||4.78|0.63|0.29
91826255|NCT00856583|183529660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.41|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.41|0.36|0.34
91826256|NCT00856583|183529661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.28|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.28|0.40|0.26
91826257|NCT00856583|183529662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.13||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.98|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy).||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||4.98|0.91|0.081
91826258|NCT00856583|183529663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.32|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.32|0.33|0.24
91826259|NCT00856583|183529664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.85|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.85|0.70|0.59
91826260|NCT00856583|183529665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.29|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, duration of schizophrenia, time since last suicide attempt, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.29|0.66|0.65
91826261|NCT00856583|183529666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.99|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, duration of schizophrenia, time since last suicide attempt, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||0.99|0.45|0.044
91826262|NCT00856583|183529667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last antipsychotic medication (a-/typicals/both), region, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.57|1.01|0.040
91826263|NCT00856583|183529668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.43|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted: disease duration, time since last suicide attempt, last antipsychotic medication (a-/typicals/both), region, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.43|1.28|<0.0001
91826264|NCT03299192|183529688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This feasibility study is small and not designed to look at outcome statistics|GEE with Ancova features|||||||.001
91826265|NCT01418209|183529694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.02
91826266|NCT01418209|183529694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||p-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold of statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.02
91826267|NCT01418209|183529695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||VMS frequency values were log transformed for modeling.||||<0.001
91826268|NCT01418209|183529695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||VMS frequency values were log transformed for modeling.||||0.005
91952790|NCT02389621|183802083|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.|Difference|34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors of platelet count at randomization and the planned primary invasive procedure.||||46.8|22.8|<0.0001
91952791|NCT02389621|183802084|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.|Difference|52.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|62.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors of platelet count at randomization and the planned primary invasive procedure.||||62.9|42.0|<0.0001
91952792|NCT02389621|183802085|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.||||||0.0002|||||||van Elteren test|van Elteren test stratified by platelet transfusion during the study.||||||0.0002
91952793|NCT02389621|183802086|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
91952794|NCT03413618|183802163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91952795|NCT03413618|183802164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.049
91826269|NCT01418209|183529697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.01
91826270|NCT01418209|183529697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.07
91826271|NCT01418209|183529699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo.||||<0.001
91826272|NCT01418209|183529699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.03
91826273|NCT03779841|183529700|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.58|0.1612
91826274|NCT03779841|183529700|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.37|0.79|0.7789
91826275|NCT03779841|183529701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2972|||||||stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren)|||P-value is obtained from stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren) test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.2972
91826276|NCT03779841|183529701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8722|||||||stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren)|||P-value is obtained from stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren) test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.8722
91826277|NCT03779841|183529702|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.96|0.50|0.9814
91826278|NCT03779841|183529702|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.97|0.50|0.9715
91826279|NCT03779841|183529703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1281|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is from stratified log-rank test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.1281
91826280|NCT03779841|183529703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is from stratified log-rank test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.8820
91826281|NCT03779841|183529704|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.57|0.1623
91826282|NCT03779841|183529704|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.39|0.78|0.7776
91826283|NCT03779841|183529705|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.56|0.1603
91826284|NCT03779841|183529705|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.6706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.42|0.80|0.6706
91826285|NCT03779841|183529706|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.55|0.1583
91826286|NCT03779841|183529706|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.43|0.80|0.6694
91826287|NCT03779841|183529707|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.18|0.55|0.2578
91826288|NCT03779841|183529707|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.7526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.47|0.76|0.7526
91826289|NCT03779841|183529708|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.2549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.18|0.55|0.2549
91826290|NCT03779841|183529708|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.45|0.73|0.8544
91826291|NCT03779841|183529709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.14|0.48|0.1718
91826292|NCT03779841|183529709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.3801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.27|0.54|0.3801
91826293|NCT03779841|183529710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.5531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.39|0.54|0.5531
91826294|NCT03779841|183529710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.33|0.51|0.4213
91826295|NCT03779841|183529711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.73|0.49|0.8040
91826296|NCT03779841|183529711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.7573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.98|0.61|0.7573
91826297|NCT03779841|183529712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69||||0.4065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.67|0.28|0.4065
91826298|NCT03779841|183529712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.5257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||2.70|0.60|0.5257
91826299|NCT03779841|183529713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.11|0.55|0.1612
91952796|NCT03413618|183802166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91826300|NCT03779841|183529713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.35|0.74|0.9966
91826301|NCT03779841|183529714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.52|0.30|0.3374
91952797|NCT03413618|183802167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91952798|NCT03413618|183802169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91952799|NCT03413618|183802170|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91952800|NCT03246152|183802176|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between change in BCVA and the pre treatment, post treatment, and change in vascular density following 3-6 injections was performed.||||>0.05
91952801|NCT00423137|183802177|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-1.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.181||0.5305|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.||||||0.5305
91952802|NCT00423137|183802178|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1498|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.1498
91826302|NCT03779841|183529714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||2.45|0.62|0.5403
91826303|NCT03779841|183529715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.94||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|13.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||13.42|1.16|0.0163
91826304|NCT03779841|183529715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.7||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||9.64|0.76|0.1101
91826305|NCT03779841|183529716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.16|0.64|0.3339
91826306|NCT03779841|183529716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.4614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.42|0.85|0.4614
91826307|NCT03117387|183529719|OTHER|Bland-Altman analysis estimates bias between TOF-Cuff and electromyography.|bias|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.05|-0.05|0.05||||||"Paired measurements were compared using a Bland-Altman analysis modified for repeated measurements (http://sec.lumc.nl/method\_agreement\_analysis, Leiden, the Netherlands).~This Bland-Altman analysis corrects for between subject variability of repeated paired measurements in individual subjects."||0.05|-0.05|
91826308|NCT05349617|183529723|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|86.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|90.3||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups. Both coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared||Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 22||90.3|80|<0.0001
91826309|NCT05349617|183529724|SUPERIORITY||[GMT Ratio]|90.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|117.0||Both coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA model covers site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming log titers' normality. p-value tests equivalence of mean titers between groups.|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo).|Day 22||117|69|<0.0001
91826310|NCT05349617|183529730|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|79.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.3|84.6||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically (Day 15 tested prior to Day 183), such that each was only tested if both coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 15||84.6|72.3|<0.0001
91826311|NCT05349617|183529730|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|74.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|80.1||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically (Day 15 tested prior to Day 183), such that each was only tested if both coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 183||80.1|67.1|<0.0001
91826312|NCT05349617|183529731|SUPERIORITY||[GMT Ratio]|42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|56.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model covers site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming log titers' normality. p-value tests equivalence of mean titers between groups.|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 15||56|32|<0.0001
91826313|NCT05349617|183529731|SUPERIORITY||[GMT Ratio]|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|35.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model covers site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming log titers' normality. p-value tests equivalence of mean titers between groups.|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 183||35|22|<0.0001
91826314|NCT05349617|183529732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95 percent CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 15||||<0.0001
91826315|NCT05349617|183529732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95 percent CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 22||||<0.0001
91826316|NCT05349617|183529732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95 percent CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 183||||<0.0001
91826317|NCT05349617|183529733|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|91.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|94.6|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 15||94.6|86.0|<0.0001
91952803|NCT00423137|183802181|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.4472|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.4472
91952804|NCT00423137|183802182|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.6829|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.6829
91826318|NCT05349617|183529733|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|94.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|96.5|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 22||96.5|89.2|<0.0001
91952805|NCT00423137|183802183|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.1565|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.1565
91826319|NCT05349617|183529733|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|91.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|94.8|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 183||94.8|86.3|<0.0001
91826320|NCT05349617|183529733|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.9|87.5||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|Chi-squared||SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 15||87.5|75.9|<0.0001
91826321|NCT05349617|183529733|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|88.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|92.0|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 22||92.0|82.4|<0.0001
91826322|NCT05349617|183529733|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|82.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|86.8|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 183||86.8|75.2|<0.0001
91826323|NCT00746954|183529734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparisons among groups||||0.45
91826324|NCT04401579|183529739|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.15||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|1.00|0.047
91826325|NCT04401579|183529755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0||||||||0|-12|
91826326|NCT04401579|183529756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||||||||0|-10|
91826327|NCT04401579|183529766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|1.01|0.44
91826328|NCT04401579|183529776|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|1.06|0.002
91826329|NCT04401579|183529777|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|1.05|0.005
91826330|NCT04401579|183529778|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|1.07|0.003
91826331|NCT04401579|183529781|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.68||||||This analysis is for Asian participants.||1.68|0.73|
91826332|NCT04401579|183529781|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5||||||This analysis is for Black or African American participants.||1.50|0.75|
91826333|NCT04401579|183529781|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.37||||||This analysis is for White participants.||1.37|0.93|
91826334|NCT04401579|183529781|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74||||||This analysis is for Race of Other participants.||1.74|1.03|
91826335|NCT04401579|183529782|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.6||||||This analysis is for Not Hispanic or Latino participants||1.60|1.08|
91826336|NCT04401579|183529782|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31||||||This analysis is for Hispanic or Latino participants.||1.31|0.89|
91826337|NCT04401579|183529783|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.46||||||This analysis is for Male participants.||1.46|1.04|
91826338|NCT04401579|183529783|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||This analysis is for Female participants.||1.32|0.85|
91826339|NCT00489970|183529792|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.16|4.17|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||4.17|-1.16|
91826340|NCT00489970|183529792|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.52|2.07|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.07|-1.52|
91826341|NCT00489970|183529792|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.41|4.15|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||4.15|-3.41|
91826342|NCT00489970|183529792|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.69|2.07|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.07|-3.69|
91952806|NCT00423137|183802184|OTHER||Difference of least square means|1.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.185||0.3709|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.3709
91826343|NCT00489970|183529794|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PT GMC ratios (Boostrix Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.31|1.79|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Boostrix Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PT one month following vaccination||1.79|1.31|
91826344|NCT00489970|183529794|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-FHA GMC ratios (Boostrix Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.62|6.01|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Boostrix Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-FHA one month following vaccination||6.01|4.62|
91826345|NCT00489970|183529794|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PRN GMC ratios (Boostrix Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.07|4.25|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Boostrix Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PRN one month following vaccination||4.25|3.07|
91826346|NCT00489970|183529794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PT GMC ratios (Adacel Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|1.64||||||97.5|1.33|2.03|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Adacel Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PT one month following vaccination||2.03|1.33|
91826347|NCT00489970|183529794|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-FHA GMC ratios (Adacel Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.37|6.36|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Adacel Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-FHA one month following vaccination||6.36|4.37|
91826348|NCT00489970|183529794|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PRN GMC ratios (Adacel Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|4.47|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.58|5.57|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Adacel Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PRN one month following vaccination||5.57|3.58|
91826349|NCT00489970|183529795|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.67|2.85|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.85|-14.67|
91826350|NCT00489970|183529795|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.63|7.79|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||7.79|-10.63|
91826351|NCT00489970|183529795|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-8.56|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.33|2.73|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.73|-20.33|
91826352|NCT00489970|183529795|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-11.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.98|0.15|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||0.15|-22.98|
91826353|NCT00489970|183529796|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PT antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.09|3.08|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PT antigen, one month following vaccination.||3.08|-9.09|
91826354|NCT00489970|183529796|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against FHA antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.16|-1.4|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against FHA antigen, one month following vaccination.||-1.40|-13.16|
91826355|NCT00489970|183529796|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PRN antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-10.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-17.5|-3.38|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PRN antigen, one month following vaccination.||-3.38|-17.50|
91826356|NCT00489970|183529796|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PT antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.03|5.57|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PT antigen, one month following vaccination.||5.57|-10.03|
91826357|NCT00489970|183529796|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against FHA antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.38|8.66|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against FHA antigen, one month following vaccination.||8.66|-2.38|
91826358|NCT00489970|183529796|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PRN antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.53|3.18|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PRN antigen, one month following vaccination.||3.18|-14.53|
91826359|NCT02212028|183529821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|126.0|||ANOVA|||||126|10|0.022
91826360|NCT02212028|183529822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
91826361|NCT02646423|183529843|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05||||||||1.05|0.84|
91826362|NCT02646423|183529844|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||||||||1.16|0.86|
91826363|NCT02646423|183529845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19||||||||0.19|-0.16|
91826364|NCT02646423|183529846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.05||||||||1.05|-1.81|
91826365|NCT02646423|183529847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.27||||||||1.27|-1.96|
91826366|NCT02646423|183529848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.66||||||||1.66|-0.94|
91826367|NCT02646423|183529849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.09|
91826368|NCT02646423|183529850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.51||||||||1.51|0.46|
91826369|NCT02646423|183529851|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.56||||||||1.56|0.64|
91826370|NCT02646423|183529852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.81||||||||2.81|0.64|
91826371|NCT02646423|183529853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.62||||||||6.62|0.60|
91826372|NCT02646423|183529854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.35||||||||1.35|0.72|
91826373|NCT02646423|183529855|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.48||||||||1.48|0.86|
91826374|NCT04564833|183529858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91826375|NCT04564833|183529858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91826376|NCT04564833|183529859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3954|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3954
91826377|NCT04564833|183529859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0682|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0682
91826378|NCT04564833|183529860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6755|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6755
91826379|NCT04564833|183529860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6758
91826380|NCT04564833|183529861|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
91826381|NCT04564833|183529861|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
91826382|NCT00321919|183529882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.778976||||0.2036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of the time to first cardiovascular event in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group.|The null hypothesis stated that there was no difference with regard to the event-free distribution of the combined endpoint of all protocol specified cardiovascular events between Early Epoetin beta therapy and Late Epoetin beta therapy groups.||1.14|0.53|0.2036
91826383|NCT00321919|183529883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.744575||||0.4833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.7|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of an event of the time to death due to cardiovascular reasons in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group.|||1.70|0.33|0.4833
91826384|NCT00321919|183529885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.658259||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.15|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of the time to death for all causes in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy treatment group.|||1.15|0.38|0.1391
91826385|NCT00321919|183529888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.804594||||0.4985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.51|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of time to first cardiovascular intervention in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group|||1.51|0.43|0.4985
91826386|NCT00321919|183529890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82046||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of the time to first hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group.|||1.23|0.55|0.3419
91826387|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of General health scale of Quality of life for Year 1.||||0.0029
91826388|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of General health scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.0081
91826389|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Mental health scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0005
91826390|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Mental Health scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.0965
91826391|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical function scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0004
91826392|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical function scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.9864
91826393|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical Role scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0097
91826394|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical Role scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.1670
91826395|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Social function scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0058
91826396|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Social function scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.1455
91826397|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Vitality function scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0009
91826398|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Vitality function scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.0123
91826399|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Bodily pain scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.3155
91826400|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Bodily pain scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.7076
91826401|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Emotional role scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.1291
91826402|NCT00321919|183529897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Emotional role scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.5528
91826403|NCT01148810|183529902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian analysis|0.96|||||||||||||||Probability that the difference (BAF312-Placebo) is greater than the threshold|||
91826404|NCT02165722|183529916|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||<0.001
91826405|NCT02165722|183529916|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||<0.001
91826406|NCT02165722|183529916|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.||||<0.001
91826407|NCT02165722|183529916|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91826408|NCT02165722|183529917|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||0.001
91826409|NCT02165722|183529917|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.|||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91826410|NCT02165722|183529917|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91826411|NCT02165722|183529917|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91826412|NCT02731131|183529926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
91826413|NCT02731131|183529928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91826414|NCT02731131|183529929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
91826415|NCT02731131|183529930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
91826416|NCT02731131|183529931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
91826417|NCT02509624|183529948|OTHER||%Geometric least-square mean(GLSM) ratio|105.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.08|143.23||||||AUCinf of selonsertib||143.23|77.08|
91826418|NCT02509624|183529948|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|142.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.52|168.84||||||AUCinf of selonsertib||168.84|120.52|
91826419|NCT02509624|183529948|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|110.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.99|140.49||||||AUCinf of selonsertib||140.49|86.99|
91826420|NCT02509624|183529948|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|62.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.84|87.81||||||AUCinf of GS-607509||87.81|43.84|
91826421|NCT02509624|183529948|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|66.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.72|120.21||||||AUCinf of GS-607509||120.21|36.72|
91826422|NCT02509624|183529948|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|103.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.75|206.83||||||AUCinf of GS-607509||206.83|51.75|
91826423|NCT02509624|183529949|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|99.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.38|135.92||||||AUClast of selonsertib||135.92|73.38|
91826424|NCT02509624|183529949|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|141.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.5|169.55||||||AUClast of selonsertib||169.55|118.50|
91826425|NCT02509624|183529949|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|112.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.69|143.65||||||AUClast of selonsertib||143.65|87.69|
91826426|NCT02509624|183529949|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|61.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.06|86.98||||||AUClast of GS-607509||86.98|43.06|
91826427|NCT02509624|183529949|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|61.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.62|110.91||||||AUClast of GS-607509||110.91|33.62|
91826428|NCT02509624|183529949|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|96.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.47|190.67||||||AUClast of GS-607509||190.67|48.47|
91826429|NCT02509624|183529950|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|88.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.83|105.1||||||Cmax of selonsertib||105.10|74.83|
91826430|NCT02509624|183529950|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|91.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.76|105.52||||||Cmax of selonsertib||105.52|78.76|
91826431|NCT02509624|183529950|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|100.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.73|119.88||||||Cmax of selonsertib||119.88|83.73|
91826432|NCT02509624|183529950|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|71.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.58|93.5||||||Cmax of GS-607509||93.50|54.58|
91826433|NCT02509624|183529950|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|46.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.59|67.54||||||Cmax of GS-607509||67.54|32.59|
91826434|NCT02509624|183529950|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|93.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.6|130.5||||||Cmax of GS-607509||130.50|67.60|
91826435|NCT01055639|183529981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91826436|NCT01055639|183529982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91826437|NCT01055639|183529983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91826438|NCT01055639|183529984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91826439|NCT01055639|183529985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91826440|NCT01055639|183529986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91826441|NCT01055639|183529987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91826442|NCT01055639|183529988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91826443|NCT01055639|183529989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91826444|NCT02334800|183530051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|73.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.81|93.71||||||||93.71|57.81|
91826445|NCT02334800|183530051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.57|146.79||||||||146.79|90.57|
91826446|NCT02334800|183530051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|133.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.0|170.19||||||||170.19|105.00|
91826447|NCT02334800|183530052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|94.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.93|129.03||||||||129.03|69.93|
91826448|NCT02334800|183530052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|117.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.69|159.95||||||||159.95|86.69|
91826449|NCT02334800|183530052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|129.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.63|176.43||||||||176.43|95.63|
91826450|NCT02334800|183530053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|83.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.37|105.43||||||||105.43|65.37|
91826451|NCT02334800|183530053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.73|170.53||||||||170.53|105.73|
91826452|NCT02334800|183530053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|176.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.28|224.63||||||||224.63|139.28|
91826453|NCT02334800|183530054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|72.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.43|93.93||||||||93.93|56.43|
91826454|NCT02334800|183530054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.58|149.11||||||||149.11|89.58|
91826455|NCT02334800|183530054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.38|173.73||||||||173.73|104.38|
91826456|NCT02334800|183530055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|82.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.83|105.71||||||||105.71|63.83|
91826457|NCT02334800|183530055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.82|173.6||||||||173.60|104.82|
91826458|NCT02334800|183530055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|178.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.62|229.57||||||||229.57|138.62|
91826459|NCT02334800|183530058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|107.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.06|147.68||||||||147.68|78.06|
91826460|NCT02334800|183530058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|137.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.96|189.12||||||||189.12|99.96|
91826461|NCT02334800|183530058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|172.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.25|236.96||||||||236.96|125.25|
91826462|NCT00575588|183530074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.05|
91826463|NCT00575588|183530075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-28.5||Between group comparison significant after controlling overall alpha of the study|Fisher Exact|||||-28.5|-38.1|<0.0001
91826464|NCT00575588|183530076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.7|-1.7||Between group comparison significant after controlling overall alpha of the study|ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-2.7|<0.0001
91826465|NCT00575588|183530077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0046|-0.0001||Between group comparison significant after controlling overall alpha of the study|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0001|-0.0046|0.040
91826466|NCT00575588|183530078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Repeated Measures|||||0.06|-0.17|
91826467|NCT00575588|183530079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-30.0||||||||-30.0|-39.8|
91826468|NCT00575588|183530080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-2.2|||Repeated Measures|||||-2.20|-3.32|
91826469|NCT00575588|183530081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0048|-0.0022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0022|-0.0048|
91826470|NCT02265705|183530082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.9|2.5|0.001
91826471|NCT02265705|183530083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-0.31|0.001
91826472|NCT02265705|183530084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-1.25|0.001
91826473|NCT02265705|183530085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.3||||||||3.3|-0.5|
91826474|NCT02265705|183530086|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-2.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.9|-28.0|0.004
91826475|NCT02265705|183530087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.2|0.002
91826476|NCT02265705|183530088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|0.001
91826477|NCT02265705|183530089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-1.3|0.001
91826478|NCT02703844|183530090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0089
91826479|NCT00801684|183530108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The difference between the active treatment was compared to placebo. For a null hypothesis, the difference would equal 0 (zero).||||<0.0001
91826480|NCT02828111|183530112|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.132|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.132
91826481|NCT02828111|183530112|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.658|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.658
91826482|NCT02828111|183530112|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.142|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.142
91826483|NCT02828111|183530112|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.207|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.207
91826484|NCT02828111|183530112|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.077|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 2% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.077
91826485|NCT02828111|183530112|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.331|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 4% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.331
91826486|NCT02828111|183530112|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.117|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||This is the analysis of all four patidegib gel treatment groups combined compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.117
91826487|NCT02828111|183530116|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.038|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.038
91826488|NCT02828111|183530116|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.099|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.099
91826489|NCT02828111|183530116|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.198|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.198
91826490|NCT02828111|183530116|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.757|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.757
91826491|NCT02828111|183530117|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.043|||||||Fisher Exact|||at Week 12||||0.043
91826492|NCT02828111|183530117|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.312|||||||Fisher Exact|||at Week 12||||0.312
91826493|NCT02828111|183530117|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.353|||||||Fisher Exact|||at Week 12||||0.353
91826494|NCT02828111|183530117|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.093|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 2% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.093
91826495|NCT02828111|183530117|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 4% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||1.000
91826496|NCT02828111|183530117|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.157|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the analysis of all four patidegib gel treatment groups combined compared with combined vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.157
91826497|NCT00614939|183530118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.12|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||-0.12|-0.71|0.007
91952807|NCT00423137|183802185|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-52.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.48||0.0044|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0044
91826498|NCT00614939|183530119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.847||0.339||95.0|-37.91|13.22|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||13.22|-37.91|0.339
91826499|NCT00614939|183530120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.938||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.65|29.93|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||29.93|-38.65|0.798
91826500|NCT00614939|183530121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.815||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.93|106.94|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||106.94|-18.93|0.164
91826501|NCT00614939|183530122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.713|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.74|||Footnote|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||0.74|-2.10|
91826502|NCT00614939|183530123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.941|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.67|||Footnote|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||1.67|-2.14|
91826503|NCT00614939|183530124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|5.93|||Footnote|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||5.93|-1.05|
91826504|NCT00614939|183530125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.37|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=26 for saxagliptin and n=34 for placebo~\*Adjusted for baseline HbA1c"||||-0.37|-1.27|
91826505|NCT00614939|183530126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.475|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.28|18.33|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=17 for saxagliptin and n=16 for placebo~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||18.33|-54.28|
91826506|NCT00614939|183530127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.77|34.3|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=5 for saxagliptin and n=11 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||34.30|-65.77|
91952808|NCT00423137|183802186|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-67.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.29||0.0056|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0056
91952809|NCT00423137|183802187|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-62.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.42||0.0025|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0025
91826507|NCT00614939|183530128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.822|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.44|68.26|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=2 for saxagliptin and n=5 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||68.26|-144.44|
91826508|NCT00614939|183530129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.04|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=17 for saxagliptin and n=16 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||1.04|-2.99|
91826509|NCT00614939|183530130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.405|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.89|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=5 for saxagliptin and n=11 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||1.89|-3.66|
91826510|NCT00614939|183530131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|3.76|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=2 for saxagliptin and n=5 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||3.76|-8.04|
91952810|NCT00423137|183802188|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-40.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.8||0.0439|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0439
91826511|NCT02079805|183530146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.78||||||Telmisartan 40 mg, Azilsartan 20 mg||1.78|-0.89|
91826512|NCT00383435|183530162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91826513|NCT00383435|183530162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91826514|NCT00383435|183530163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91826515|NCT00383435|183530163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.029
91826516|NCT00383435|183530164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91826517|NCT00383435|183530164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.059
91826518|NCT02347761|183530173|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Squares Mea Difference (SE)|0.1036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0663|0.1409||The primary null hypothesis for this study is that the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for the SUN-101 50 mcg dose is equal to the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for Placebo.|MMixed Model Repeat Measurement|to control the family-wise Type I error rate,the Hochberg procedure(a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure)was used for comparisons of this endpoint|standard error of the least squares mean|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1409|0.0663|<0.0001
91826519|NCT02347761|183530173|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01896|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0589|0.1334||The primary null hypothesis for this study is that the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for the SUN-101 50 mcg dose is equal to the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for Placebo.|Mixed Model Repeat Measurement|to control the family-wise Type I error rate,the Hochberg procedure(a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure)was used for comparisons of the endpoint.|Standard error of the least squares mean|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1334|0.0589|<0.0001
91952811|NCT00423137|183802189|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-57.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.3||0.0129|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0129
91952812|NCT00423137|183802190|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-55.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.0037|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0037
91952813|NCT00423137|183802191|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.9076|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.9076
91826520|NCT02347761|183530174|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02076|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0856|0.1672||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|Least squares mean (SE)|||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1672|0.0856|<0.0001
91826521|NCT02347761|183530174|SUPERIORITY|In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|LS mean (SE)|0.1052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0647|0.1457|||LS mean (SE)|||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1457|0.0647|<0.0001
91826522|NCT01255358|183530191|OTHER|Changes from baseline (V1) at V2, V4 and V7 were analyzed with a RMANOVA design with age and ICARS at baseline as covariates. A Wilcoxon non-parametric test between visits was performed when the overall analysis was significant in order to help determine timing of effects|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary analysis on ICARS Total score has been conducted on the ITT Population employing carry-forward and carry-backward procedures for missing data imputation, in order to evaluate all enrolled patients.||-0.9|-7.1|0.02
91826523|NCT01255358|183530192|OTHER|Changes from baseline (V1) at V2, V4 and V7 were analyzed with a RMANOVA design with age and ICARS at baseline as covariates. A Wilcoxon non-parametric test between visits was performed when the overall analysis was significant in order to help determine timing of effects|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall analysis on the PP Population||-2|-8.4|0.0031
91826524|NCT01255358|183530197|OTHER|VABS Total score and subscales have been analyzed with a RMANOVA design, using age as covariate (dichotomized as Low- or High-, using median age as threshold).|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VABS total score at V7||1.8|0.8|<0.0001
91826525|NCT01255358|183530198|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|1|<0.0001
91952814|NCT00423137|183802192|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-13453.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16118.0||0.4121|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.4121
91952815|NCT00423137|183802193|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-78.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|298.91||0.7948|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.7948
91826526|NCT04079933|183530232|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|8.27|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square (LS) means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL||8.27|-33.5|0.2347
91826527|NCT04079933|183530232|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9||||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|10.2|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL||10.2|-33.9|0.2905
91826528|NCT04079933|183530233|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.72||||0.9433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.0|99.4|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in urinary total NNAL||99.4|-107|0.9433
91826529|NCT04079933|183530233|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.2||||0.8264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.0|97.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL||97.5|-122|0.8264
91826530|NCT04079933|183530234|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents||2.10|-4.35|0.4903
91826531|NCT04079933|183530234|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents||2.07|-4.88|0.4251
91826532|NCT04079933|183530235|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|13.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents||13.5|-33.2|0.4060
91826533|NCT04079933|183530235|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3||||0.4165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|14.7|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents||14.7|-35.4|0.4165
91952816|NCT00423137|183802194|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.064|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0640
91826534|NCT04079933|183530236|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-269.0||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1773.0|1235.0|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA||1235|-1773|0.7240
91826535|NCT04079933|183530236|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|50.5||||0.9508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1566.0|1667.0|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA||1667|-1566|0.9508
91826536|NCT04079933|183530237|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|7.12|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA||7.12|-45.1|0.1524
91826537|NCT04079933|183530237|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|16.3|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA||16.3|-40.4|0.4014
91826538|NCT04079933|183530238|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.507||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|-0.0674|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin||-0.0674|-0.946|0.0241
91826539|NCT04079933|183530238|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.367||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.843|0.108|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin||0.108|-0.843|0.1292
91826540|NCT04079933|183530239|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-0.803|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin||-0.803|-19.2|0.0333
91891200|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Ctime at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|2.08||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0031
91952817|NCT00423137|183802195|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.0587|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0587
91952818|NCT01005810|183802196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.24|1.05|0.029
91952819|NCT04196023|183802197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||p-value was calculated using GLM. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|adjusted for age, sex, education and baseline overall MoCA score||||||0.20
91826541|NCT04079933|183530239|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.76||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin||3.08|-16.6|0.1767
91826542|NCT04079933|183530240|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.2961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|1.34|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide||1.34|-4.36|0.2961
91826543|NCT04079933|183530240|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide||2.03|-4.12|0.5015
91826544|NCT04079933|183530241|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|6.68|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide||6.68|-30.9|0.2048
91826545|NCT04079933|183530241|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.32||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|12.8|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide||12.8|-27.4|0.4731
91826546|NCT04079933|183530242|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|-2.47|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day||-2.47|-5.25|<0.0001
91826547|NCT04079933|183530242|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-2.34|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day||-2.34|-5.14|<0.0001
91826548|NCT04079933|183530243|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-14.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day||-14.5|-30.5|<0.0001
91952820|NCT04196023|183802198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||p-value was calculated using GLM model. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|GLM model additionally adjusting for age, sex, education and baseline level.||||||0.90
91826549|NCT04079933|183530243|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-14.1|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day||-14.1|-30.4|<0.0001
91826550|NCT04079933|183530244|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.408||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.884|0.0673|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS mean change between study groups using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline=study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence||0.0673|-0.884|0.0919
91826551|NCT04079933|183530244|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.405||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.886|0.0751|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence||0.0751|-0.886|0.0975
91826552|NCT04079933|183530244|EQUIVALENCE|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.31||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|0.499|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS mean percent change between study groups using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline=study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"||0.499|-17.1|0.0643
91826553|NCT04079933|183530244|EQUIVALENCE|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.84||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|0.0661|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"||0.0661|-17.7|0.0517
91952821|NCT04196023|183802199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p-value was calculated using GLM model. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|GLM model additionally adjusting for age, sex, education and baseline level.||||||0.01
91952822|NCT04196023|183802200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-value was calculated using GLM model and false discovery rate (FDR)-adjustment. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|GLM model additionally adjusting for age, sex, education and baseline level.||||||0.05
91952823|NCT04359758|183802210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||The study was powered assuming 10% genetic testing uptake UC compared to 35% in ST. assuming these uptake rates and a two-tailed alpha of 0.05, a sample size of n=50 per arm would yield greater than 80% power.||||0.14
91952824|NCT04359758|183802210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Because education and marital status have been associated with genetic testing participation in prior research, we conducted a follow-up analysis in which we adjusted for education and marital status.||6.29|1.05|0.039
91952825|NCT04359758|183802211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|101 degrees of freedom.||||||0.13
91952826|NCT04359758|183802212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=102||||||0.78
91952827|NCT04359758|183802213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|df = 1, 101||Analysis of PROMIS anxiety||||0.97
91952828|NCT04359758|183802213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|df = 1, 101||Analysis of PROMIS Depression||||0.34
91826554|NCT04079933|183530245|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.216||||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study||||0.2160
91826555|NCT04079933|183530245|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.0648||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study||||0.0648
91826556|NCT04079933|183530246|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.5977||||0.5977|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study||||0.5977
91826557|NCT04079933|183530247|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|35.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of NNAL||35.5|-15.5|0.4388
91826558|NCT04079933|183530248|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites||1.38|-0.48|0.3390
91826559|NCT04079933|183530249|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-205.0||||0.4526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-745.0|334.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of S-PMA||334|-745|0.4526
91826560|NCT04079933|183530250|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin||0.2|-0.2|0.9440
91826561|NCT04079933|183530251|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carbon monoxide||1|-1|0.7484
91826562|NCT04079933|183530252|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1 (Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will be equivalent; Alternate hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT be equivalent|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1 (Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will be equivalent; Alternate hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT be equivalent||0|0|0.9992
91952829|NCT01797458|183802214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||||||Twenty-five teeth experienced at least one 'Minor' failure (reversible pulpitis, caries progression, and secondary caries): NRCT 9 (6.4%), CR 14 (10%), HT 2 (1.4%).|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis was no difference at 2 yrs among any of the 3 arms for the primary outcome of success or minor failure.||||0.02
91826563|NCT04079933|183530274|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.1661||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study||||0.1661
91826564|NCT04079933|183530274|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.2139||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study||||0.2139
91826565|NCT03207750|183530275|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-D antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-D concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.79||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations (≥ 0.1 IU/mL) of anti-D antibodies.||0.79|-0.80|
91826566|NCT03207750|183530275|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-T antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-T concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.77||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations (≥ 0.1 IU/mL) of anti-T antibodies.||0.77|-0.79|
91826567|NCT03207750|183530276|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-HB antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-HB concentration|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.16||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations (≥ 10 mIU/mL) of anti-HB antibodies.||0.16|-1.90|
91826568|NCT03207750|183530277|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-poliovirus type 1 antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-polio 1 concentration|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.15||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers (≥ 8 ED50) of anti-poliovirus type 1 antibodies.||1.15|-0.60|
91826569|NCT03207750|183530277|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-poliovirus type 2 antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-polio 2 concentration|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.98||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers (≥ 8 ED50) of anti-poliovirus type 2 antibodies.||0.98|-1.02|
91826570|NCT03207750|183530277|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-poliovirus type 3 antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-polio 3 concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.84||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers (≥ 8 ED50) of anti-poliovirus type 3 antibodies.||0.84|-0.87|
91952830|NCT04753606|183802316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.90|-44.03|<.0001
91952831|NCT04753606|183802316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.927|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.21|-28.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.15|-50.21|<.0001
91952832|NCT04753606|183802317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.90|-44.03|<.0001
91952833|NCT04753606|183802317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.927|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.21|-28.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.15|-50.21|<.0001
91952834|NCT04753606|183802318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.90|-44.03|<.0001
91952835|NCT04753606|183802318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.927|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.21|-28.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.15|-50.21|<.0001
91826571|NCT03207750|183530278|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PT antibodies should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for anti-PT antibodies.||1.03|0.86|
91826572|NCT03207750|183530278|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-FHA antibodies should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for anti-FHA antibodies.||1.08|0.92|
91826573|NCT03207750|183530278|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PRN antibodies should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for anti-PRN antibodies.||1.10|0.86|
91826574|NCT03207750|183530279|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 1 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 1.||1.14|0.93|
91826575|NCT03207750|183530279|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 3 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 3.||1.11|0.91|
91826576|NCT03207750|183530279|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 4 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 4.||1.09|0.90|
91826577|NCT03207750|183530279|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 5 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 5.||1.17|0.94|
91826578|NCT03207750|183530279|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 6A should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 6A.||1.12|0.92|
91826579|NCT03207750|183530279|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 6B should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 6B.||1.12|0.83|
91826580|NCT03207750|183530279|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 7F should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 7F.||1.08|0.91|
91826581|NCT03207750|183530279|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 9V should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 9V.||1.14|0.93|
91826582|NCT03207750|183530279|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 14 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 14.||1.13|0.89|
91952836|NCT04753606|183802319|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|-19.74|||ANCOVA|||||-19.74|-38.14|<.0001
91826583|NCT03207750|183530279|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 18C should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 18C.||1.14|0.92|
91826584|NCT03207750|183530279|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 19A should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 19A.||1.15|0.93|
91826585|NCT03207750|183530279|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 19F should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 19F.||1.12|0.95|
91826586|NCT03207750|183530279|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 23F should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 23F.||1.10|0.87|
91826587|NCT03207750|183530280|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentrations (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PRP antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-PRP concentration|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.28||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with concentrations (≥ 0.15 µg/mL) of anti-PRP antibodies.||2.28|-1.94|
91826588|NCT03207750|183530281|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentrations (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PRP antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-PRP concentration|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|3.99||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with concentrations (≥ 1.0 µg/mL) of anti-PRP antibodies.||3.99|-5.75|
91826589|NCT03207750|183530282|OTHER|p-value on the difference in seroresponse (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) between groups should be \<=0.025 for PT antigen.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value was computed by integrating on p-values of 1 sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in HRV Lyophilized group||To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PT antigen in subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with PCV-free-Liquid-HRV vaccine compared to subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with currently licensed lyophilized HRV vaccine where seroresponse was defined as percentage of subjects who showed a concentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in HRV lyophilized group.||||<.0001
91826590|NCT03207750|183530282|OTHER|p-value on the difference in seroresponse (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) between groups should be \<=0.025 for FHA antigen.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value was computed by integrating on p-values of 1 sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in HRV lyophilized group||To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to FHA antigen in subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with PCV-free-Liquid-HRV vaccine compared to subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with currently licensed lyophilized HRV vaccine where seroresponse was defined as percentage of subjects who showed a concentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in HRV lyophilized group.||||<.0001
91826591|NCT03207750|183530282|OTHER|p-value on the difference in seroresponse (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) between groups should be \<=0.025 for PRN antigen.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value was computed by integrating on p-values of 1 sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in HRV Lyophilized group||To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PRN antigen in subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with PCV-free-Liquid-HRV vaccine compared to subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with currently licensed lyophilized HRV vaccine where seroresponse was defined as percentage of subjects who showed a concentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in HRV lyophilized group.||||<.0001
91826592|NCT02504294|183530367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded since the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage was greater than the non-inferiority margin (-12.5%).|Difference in Percentage|-1.3975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6503|4.8553||||||Clustered binomial analysis using logistic regression method was performed and generalized estimating equation method was used to construct 95 percent (%) two-sided confidence intervals (CIs).||4.8553|-7.6503|
91952837|NCT04753606|183802319|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-40.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.16|-30.97|||ANCOVA|||||-30.97|-49.16|<.0001
91952838|NCT04753606|183802320|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|-19.74|||ANCOVA|||||-19.74|-38.14|<.0001
91952839|NCT04753606|183802320|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-40.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.16|-30.97|||ANCOVA|||||-30.97|-49.16|<.0001
91952840|NCT04753606|183802321|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|-19.74|||ANCOVA|||||-19.74|-38.14|<.0001
91952841|NCT04753606|183802321|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-40.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.16|-30.97|||ANCOVA|||||-30.97|-49.16|<.0001
91826593|NCT02504294|183530368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1062.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|803.95||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2643.2|519.2|||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and baseline ESA dose as covariate.||519.2|-2643.2|0.1874
91826594|NCT02255175|183530425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.501, df=33||||||.620
91826595|NCT02255175|183530426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.185, df=33||||||.855
91826596|NCT02255175|183530427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=-.310, df=33||||||.758
91826597|NCT02255175|183530428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.653, df=33||||||.518
91826598|NCT02255175|183530429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.465, df=33||||||.645
91826599|NCT02255175|183530430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=2.56, df=33||||||.015
91826600|NCT02255175|183530431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.705, df=33||||||.486
91826601|NCT02255175|183530432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.216, df=33||||||.831
91826602|NCT02255175|183530433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|F(1,33)=17.91||||||.0002
91826603|NCT05799495|183530434|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3178||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.08|-0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.262|-1.080|0.0181
91826604|NCT05799495|183530434|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3562||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.26|-0.344|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.344|-1.260|0.0127
91826605|NCT05799495|183530434|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.506|-0.827|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.827|-1.506|<.0001
91826606|NCT05799495|183530435|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3402||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.046|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-0.170|-1.046|0.0378
91826607|NCT05799495|183530435|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3718||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.782|-0.826|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-0.826|-1.782|0.0003
91826608|NCT05799495|183530435|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2803|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.509|-0.788|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-0.788|-1.509|<.0001
91826609|NCT05799495|183530435|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2732||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.287|0.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.416|-0.287|0.5931
91826610|NCT05799495|183530435|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2914||0.508|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.369|0.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.381|-0.369|0.5080
91826611|NCT05799495|183530435|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.501|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.073|-0.501|0.1692
91826612|NCT05799495|183530435|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2004||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.497|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.019|-0.497|0.1172
91826613|NCT05799495|183530435|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2178||0.3979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.337|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.224|-0.337|0.3979
91826614|NCT05799495|183530435|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1655||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.595|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||-0.170|-0.595|0.0109
91826615|NCT04177108|183530455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0098||95.0|0.28|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.28|0.0098
91826616|NCT04177108|183530455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.2396||95.0|0.42|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.42|0.2396
91826617|NCT04177108|183530455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9809||95.0|0.63|1.58|||Log Rank|||||1.58|0.63|0.9809
91826618|NCT04177108|183530456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6805||95.0|0.55|2.51|||Log Rank|||||2.51|0.55|0.6805
91826619|NCT04177108|183530456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.6314||95.0|0.55|2.64|||Log Rank|||||2.64|0.55|0.6314
91826620|NCT04177108|183530456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9164||95.0|0.52|2.06|||Log Rank|||||2.06|0.52|0.9164
91826621|NCT04737538|183530467|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-8.8|||Non-parametric method (Van Elteren test)|||||-8.8|-13.3|<0.0001
91826622|NCT04737538|183530468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.4488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||Non-parametric method (Van Elteren test)|||||2.4|-1.6|0.4488
91826623|NCT04737538|183530469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.1|||Non-parametric method (Van Elteren test)|||||-9.1|-13.8|<0.0001
91826624|NCT01652716|183530470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1349||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM)|Based on a repeated measures mixed model including fixed categorical effects of treatment||||-0.10|-0.63|0.0072
91826625|NCT01652716|183530471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2247|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2247
91826626|NCT01652716|183530472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.841||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|1.3||Adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|-21.7|0.1656
91826627|NCT01652716|183530473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4497||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.28|-0.48|0.3744
91826628|NCT01652716|183530474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.8957||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|58.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.64|-5.16|0.0985
91826629|NCT01422070|183530478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88|||generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation adjusts the confidence interval for the correlation of outcomes within-centre.|The fully adjusted multivariable logistic regression analysis showed an OR of 0.63 in favour of the presence of an intermediate care unit in the hospital|The null hypothesis was that hospital mortality of patients admitted to intensive care units with intermediate care unit in the hospital is similar to that of the patients admitted to intensive care units without intermediate care unit in the hospital||0.88|0.45|<0.05
91826630|NCT04122443|183530479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.9||||||||1.9|0.3|
91826631|NCT04122443|183530480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|29.0||||||||29|-3|
91826632|NCT04122443|183530481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|23.0||||||||23|-5|
91826633|NCT04122443|183530482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|21.0||||||||21|-10|
91826634|NCT05204134|183530486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91826635|NCT05204134|183530487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91826636|NCT05204134|183530488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91826637|NCT05204134|183530489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91826638|NCT05204134|183530490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91826639|NCT05204134|183530491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91826640|NCT05204134|183530492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91826641|NCT05204134|183530493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91826642|NCT05204134|183530494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91826643|NCT05204134|183530495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between 2 week run-in and 13 weeks Control-IQ use with adaptation.||||<0.001
91826644|NCT05204134|183530496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91826645|NCT05204134|183530497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91826646|NCT05204134|183530498|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91826647|NCT05204134|183530499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91826648|NCT05204134|183530500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91826649|NCT05204134|183530501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91826650|NCT05204134|183530502|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91826651|NCT05204134|183530503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91826652|NCT05204134|183530504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91826653|NCT05204134|183530505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91826654|NCT05204134|183530506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91826655|NCT05204134|183530507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91826656|NCT01312467|183530516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||A paired t-test|||||||> 0.773
91826657|NCT01968434|183530569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was calculated to detect a 0.75 point difference between any two treatment groups with a 90% power and p\<0.05. Such sample size was 60 subject which was elevated ot 75 subjects per group to account for drop outs. For comparison of cough evaluation before and after treatment a paired Student t test was used.||||<0.01
91826658|NCT01968434|183530570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91826659|NCT01968434|183530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91826660|NCT02199691|183530572|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|15.0||||||Serogroup A||15|3.4|
91826661|NCT02199691|183530572|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|29.0||||||Serogroup C||29|20.3|
91826662|NCT02199691|183530572|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|20.2||||||||20.2|12.3|
91826663|NCT02199691|183530572|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|24.8||||||Serogroup W||24.8|14.2|
91826664|NCT02199691|183530573|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.5||||||Serogroup A||10.5|-0.8|
91826665|NCT02199691|183530573|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.4||||||Serogroup C||2.4|-2.5|
91826666|NCT02199691|183530573|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.2||||||Serogroup Y||1.2|-4.3|
91826667|NCT02199691|183530573|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|2.6||||||Serogroup W||2.6|-7.3|
91826668|NCT02199691|183530574|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|0.99||||||PT: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.99|0.722|
91826669|NCT02199691|183530574|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|0.842||||||FHA: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.842|0.661|
91826670|NCT02199691|183530574|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|0.903||||||PRN: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.903|0.627|
91826671|NCT02199691|183530574|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|0.878||||||FIM: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.878|0.525|
91952842|NCT04753606|183802322|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|-11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-11.02|-25.51|<.0001
91826672|NCT02199691|183530575|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3||||||Serogroup Diphtheria||1.3|-3.3|
91826673|NCT02199691|183530575|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.9||||||Serogroup Tetanus||1.9|-1.2|
91826674|NCT02199691|183530576|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.3||||||HPV Type 6||6.3|-1.8|
91826675|NCT02199691|183530576|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9||||||HPV Type 11||3.9|-1.3|
91826676|NCT02199691|183530576|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.6||||||HPV Type 16||3.6|-1.9|
91826677|NCT02199691|183530576|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.6||||||HPV Type 18||3.6|-1.9|
91826678|NCT00612313|183530594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated rate of time spent well was evaluated using a Poisson regression with adjustment for CDRS-R score at the end of the acute phase, age group, and gender.|Regression, Poisson||Differencein percentages represents estimated percentage for medication management + CBT Arm minus estimated percentage for medication management only Arm.|||||.02
91826679|NCT02062502|183530636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conclusion of non-inferiority (similarity) is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease equal to or more than the prespecified criterion of 10.0 percentage points for Varicella zoster virus.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.2|-3.2|<0.001
91826680|NCT02062502|183530637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conclusion of non-inferiority (similarity) is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on fold-difference, excluding a decrease of 1.5 fold or more.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|0.85|<0.001
91826681|NCT02062502|183530637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Antibody Response Rate|97.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.4|98.9|||Exact CI method/binomial proportion|||The conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) being \>76%, and implies that the value of the parameter is statistically significantly greater than the prespecified acceptability criterion (76%).||98.9|94.4|<0.001
91826682|NCT00566228|183530678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.08|||Log Rank|||||2.08|0.62|0.690
91826683|NCT00566228|183530681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.679
91826684|NCT03320070|183530688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5076|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5076
91826685|NCT03320070|183530690|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
91826686|NCT03320070|183530692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0848|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0848
91826687|NCT03320070|183530694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2005
91826688|NCT03320070|183530696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9416|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9416
91826689|NCT03320070|183530698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1853|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1853
91826690|NCT03586648|183530700|SUPERIORITY|Statistically superiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens is greater than 32 points.|Least-square Mean|39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|45.9|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||Data only from the first period will be used if period effect is significant.||45.9|32.7|
91826691|NCT03586648|183530701|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistically superiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens is greater than -5 points.|Least-square Mean Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-3.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.||-3.3|-19.7|
91826692|NCT02041195|183530703|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|-1.72||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.72|-6.81|0.004
91826693|NCT02041195|183530703|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.23|-1.03|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|One-sided p-value.|A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.03|-6.23|0.012
91826694|NCT02041195|183530705|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.24|-1.89||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.89|-5.24|<0.001
91826695|NCT02041195|183530707|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|-1.0|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.00|-3.44|0.002
91826696|NCT00414700|183530717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, associated lesion(s) and location of lesion||Test for superiority||||0.003
91826697|NCT00414700|183530718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, associated lesion(s) and location of lesion.||Test for superiority||||0.010
91826698|NCT00414700|183530719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -9 % points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||||95.0|-3.28|6.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline Overall KOOS score, age, associated lesion(s) and location of lesion.||||6.90|-3.28|
91826699|NCT01138124|183530794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.75|1.51|<0.0001
91826700|NCT01138124|183530794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.82||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.46|1.34|0.0001
91826701|NCT01138124|183530794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.52||||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.36|0.98|0.0627
91826702|NCT01138124|183530794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.33||||0.2183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.08|0.85|0.2183
91826703|NCT01138124|183530795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.28|1.86|<0.0001
91826704|NCT01138124|183530795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy"|||3.85|1.66|<0.0001
91826705|NCT01138124|183530795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.03|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.03|1.51|0.001
91826706|NCT01138124|183530795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.44||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.49|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.49|1.32|0.0042
91826707|NCT01138124|183530795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.36|0.97|0.0645
91826708|NCT01138124|183530795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||3.11|0.87|0.1232
91826709|NCT01138124|183530795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.55||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.78|0.17|0.3160
91826710|NCT01138124|183530795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.48||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||1.57|0.15|0.2234
91826711|NCT01138124|183530795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.35||||0.3071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.42|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.42|0.76|0.3071
91826712|NCT01138124|183530795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.17||||0.6062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.11|0.65|0.6062
91826713|NCT01138124|183530795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.31||||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.97|0.58|0.5205
91826714|NCT01138124|183530795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.11||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.57|0.48|0.8042
91826715|NCT01138124|183530796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|4.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.86|2.04|<0.0001
91826716|NCT01138124|183530796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.46|1.85|<0.0001
91826717|NCT01138124|183530796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.75||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.13|1.47|0.0015
91826718|NCT01138124|183530796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.45||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.62|1.31|0.0053
91826719|NCT01138124|183530796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.68||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.99|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.99|0.94|0.0777
91826720|NCT01138124|183530796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.5||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.69|0.83|0.1762
91826721|NCT01138124|183530796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.82||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.28|0.29|0.6990
91826722|NCT01138124|183530796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.72||||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.01|0.26|0.5274
91826723|NCT01138124|183530796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.34||||0.3245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.39|0.75|0.3245
91826724|NCT01138124|183530796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.6388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.07|0.64|0.6388
91826725|NCT01138124|183530796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.11||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.51|0.49|0.796
91826726|NCT01138124|183530796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.94||||0.8772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.15|0.41|0.8772
91826727|NCT01138124|183530797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|4.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.47|1.88|<0.0001
91826728|NCT01138124|183530797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.11|1.71|<0.0001
91826729|NCT01138124|183530797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.19||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.25|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.25|1.12|0.0212
91826730|NCT01138124|183530797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.95||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||3.81|0.99|0.0522
91826731|NCT01138124|183530797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.87||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.32|1.05|0.0337
91826732|NCT01138124|183530797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.64||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.95|0.92|0.0947
91826733|NCT01138124|183530797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.42||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.16|0.64|0.3928
91826734|NCT01138124|183530797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.21||||0.6502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.72|0.54|0.6502
91826735|NCT01138124|183530797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.34||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.39|0.75|0.3275
91826736|NCT01138124|183530797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.6365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.08|0.64|0.6365
91826737|NCT01138124|183530797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.01||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.41|0.42|0.9858
91826738|NCT01138124|183530797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.87||||0.7671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.12|0.36|0.7671
91826739|NCT01138124|183530798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.79||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.63|1.22|0.0031
91826740|NCT01138124|183530798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.68||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.49|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.49|1.13|0.0095
91826741|NCT01138124|183530798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.99|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.99|0.91|0.0970
91826742|NCT01138124|183530798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.63||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.97|0.89|0.1123
91826743|NCT01138124|183530799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.53||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.44|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)"|||4.44|1.44|0.0012
91826744|NCT01138124|183530799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.34||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.14|1.32|0.0034
91826745|NCT01138124|183530799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.18||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.32|0.9|0.0856
91826746|NCT01138124|183530799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.14||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.28|0.87|0.0996
91826747|NCT01138124|183530799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.89||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.63|0.98|0.0563
91826748|NCT01138124|183530799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.77||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.43|0.92|0.0896
91826749|NCT01138124|183530799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.4||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.01|0.49|0.5308
91826750|NCT01138124|183530799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.39||||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.02|0.48|0.5458
91826751|NCT01138124|183530799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.87||||0.7744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.19|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.19|0.35|0.7744
91826752|NCT01138124|183530799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.83||||0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.11|0.33|0.6999
91826753|NCT01138124|183530799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.32||||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.47|0.39|0.6528
91826754|NCT01138124|183530799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.6722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.47|0.38|0.6722
91826755|NCT01138124|183530800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|3.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||5.85|1.79|<0.0001
91826756|NCT01138124|183530800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|5.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.28|1.59|0.0005
91952843|NCT04753606|183802322|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-16.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-16.76|-31.22|<.0001
91826757|NCT01138124|183530800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.54||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.25|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.25|1.03|0.042
91826758|NCT01138124|183530800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.4||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.98|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.98|0.96|0.0603
91826759|NCT01138124|183530800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.35||||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.65|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.65|0.69|0.3762
91826760|NCT01138124|183530800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.33||||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.63|0.68|0.4073
91826761|NCT01138124|183530800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.95||||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.12|0.29|0.9294
91826762|NCT01138124|183530800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.99||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.29|0.3|0.9875
91826763|NCT01138124|183530800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.19||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.63|0.54|0.66
91826764|NCT01138124|183530800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.45|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.45|0.5|0.8110
91826765|NCT01138124|183530800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.7||||0.3336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.96|0.58|0.3336
91952844|NCT04753606|183802323|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|-11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-11.02|-25.51|<.0001
91826766|NCT01138124|183530800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.63||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.84|0.55|0.3782
91826767|NCT01138124|183530801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.89||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.88|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.88|0.92|0.0841
91952845|NCT04753606|183802323|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-16.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-16.76|-31.22|<.0001
91826768|NCT01138124|183530801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.75||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.63|0.85|0.1313
91826769|NCT01138124|183530801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.03||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.34|0.78|0.1488
91826770|NCT01138124|183530801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.05||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.46|0.77|0.1495
91826771|NCT01138124|183530801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.44||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.22|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.22|1.42|0.0013
91826772|NCT01138124|183530801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.34||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.07|1.35|0.0026
91826773|NCT01138124|183530801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.78||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.69|0.68|0.2421
91826774|NCT01138124|183530801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.7||||0.2899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.53|0.64|0.2899
91826775|NCT01138124|183530801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.99||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.29|0.42|0.9723
91826776|NCT01138124|183530801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.91||||0.8206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.13|0.39|0.8206
91826777|NCT01138124|183530801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.8135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.82|0.35|0.8135
91826778|NCT01138124|183530801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.8173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.86|0.34|0.8173
91826779|NCT00987467|183530802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91826780|NCT00262834|183530814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare the differences (post-pre) between groups.||||||0.42
91826781|NCT00262834|183530815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare the differences (post-pre) between groups.||||||0.50
91826782|NCT00262834|183530816|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91826783|NCT00377819|183530834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.35%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|1.25|||Repeated Measures Model||Based on repeated measures model adjusting for treatment, length of prior alendronate stratification variable, visit, baseline value, machine type, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value by machine type interaction|||1.25|0.44|<0.0001
91826784|NCT00377819|183530835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.22%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.63|1.73|||Repeated Measures Model||Based on repeated measures model adjusting for treatment, length of prior alendronate stratification variable, visit, baseline value, machine type, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value by machine type interaction|||1.73|0.63|<0.0001
91826785|NCT00377819|183530836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91826786|NCT01054820|183530848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no change from baseline. Study powered at 95 percent (%) to detect a mean change of at least 1.2 units, with assumed standard deviation of at most 3.2 units.||||<0.0001
91826787|NCT01054820|183530849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||<0.0001
91826788|NCT01054820|183530850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91826789|NCT01054820|183530851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91826790|NCT01054820|183530852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91826791|NCT01054820|183530853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91826792|NCT01054820|183530856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91826793|NCT02239679|183530907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0166
91826794|NCT02239679|183530913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102||||||no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||0.0102
91952846|NCT04753606|183802324|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|-11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-11.02|-25.51|<.0001
91826795|NCT02239679|183530913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089||||||no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||0.0089
91826796|NCT02239679|183530914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||0.0004
91826797|NCT02239679|183530914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||no adjustment for multiple comparison|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
91826798|NCT00760929|183530981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4301||90.0|0.58|1.21|||Wald Test|||||1.21|0.58|0.4301
91826799|NCT00760929|183530981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0342||90.0|0.42|0.9|||Wald Test|||||0.90|0.42|0.0342
91826800|NCT01614210|183531008|OTHER||percentage decrease in Ki67 after 7 days|||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0001
91826801|NCT04321460|183531029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.564||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|16.039|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.039|1.66|0.007
91826802|NCT04321460|183531030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.716||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.898|14.268|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.268|1.898|0.002
91826803|NCT04495712|183531043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
91826804|NCT04495712|183531044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.07
91826805|NCT04495712|183531045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
91826806|NCT03669081|183531049|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the test was no difference between groups.||||||0.006||||||The significance level for this test was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We used an exact Wilcoxon rank sum test due to the skewed nature of the morphine equivalents data and the small sample sizes in each group.||||||0.006
91826807|NCT03669081|183531050|OTHER|The null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||||||0.029|||||||Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.029
91826808|NCT03669081|183531051|NON_INFERIORITY|We conducted a 1-sided non-inferiority test using an alpha level of 0.025, for a comparison of the fold change of creatinine levels (pre-operative creatinine/post-operative creatinine) in the Toradol group. Our minimum non-inferiority margin was 0.5, ie the post-operative creatinine level could only increase to at most two times the pre-operative creatinine level.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value was compared to a significance threshold of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The safety outcome was used to power our study.To achieve 90% power at a 2.5% significance level for testing that the post-surgery creatinine increase is at most two-fold (where 1.5 fold is expected), or alternatively for the pre-surgery creatinine group to be ≥0.5 times the post-surgery, we need 17 subjects in the toradol group. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority test (one sided t-test) using a coefficient of variation of 0.25 based on preliminary data.||||<0.0001
91826809|NCT03669081|183531052|OTHER|The null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91826810|NCT03669081|183531053|OTHER|The null hypothesis was no difference between groups.|||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91826811|NCT00706121|183531055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.02|||Log binomial regression|||||1.02|0.9|0.96
91826812|NCT00706121|183531056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||Log binomial regression|||||1.08|0.78|0.32
91826813|NCT00706121|183531058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||Log binomial regression|||||1.07|0.77|0.24
91826814|NCT00706121|183531059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1|||Log binomial regression|||||1.10|0.96|0.38
91826815|NCT01308749|183531064|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No analyses were completed, this is descriptive only and is an absolute value (number of participants).|||
91952847|NCT04753606|183802324|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-16.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-16.76|-31.22|<.0001
91952848|NCT04753606|183802325|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.503|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-21.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.62|-39.46|<.0001
91952849|NCT04753606|183802325|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.92|-27.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.14|-44.92|<.0001
91952850|NCT04753606|183802326|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.503|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-21.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.62|-39.46|<.0001
91952851|NCT04753606|183802326|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.92|-27.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.14|-44.92|<.0001
91826816|NCT01308749|183531068|EQUIVALENCE|Within group test of difference using t-scores adjusted by baseline score, no correction for multiple comparisons, nonparametric model||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
91826817|NCT01308749|183531070|EQUIVALENCE|t-test between groups||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|no adjustment for multiple comparison. non parametric||||||0.23
91826818|NCT02223390|183531081|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 60 was chosen as adequate to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two conditions.||||||0.08||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05. The p-value presented corresponds to the time by condition interaction parameter.|Mixed Models Analysis|To assess changes in PTSD symptoms over time by intervention condition, linear mixed models were fit using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS.||Statistical analyses reported below is for PCL - Total at 3 months.||||0.08
91826819|NCT02223390|183531082|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 60 was chosen as adequate to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a pilot RCT with two conditions.||||||0.05||||||A priori threshold was defined as p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91826820|NCT01666002|183531105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91826821|NCT01666002|183531106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91826822|NCT02585895|183531123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|74.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|86.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening LDL-C level|Treatment difference used apheresis as the reference.|||86.8|44.6|< 0.0001
91826823|NCT02585895|183531124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-52.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.18|-41.3|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model included treatment group, screening LDL-C level, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference used apheresis as the reference.|||-41.30|-64.18|< 0.0001
91826824|NCT02585895|183531125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-46.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.85|-36.9|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model included treatment group, screening LDL-C level, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference used apheresis as the reference.|||-36.90|-55.85|< 0.0001
91826825|NCT02585895|183531126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-35.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.39|-28.21|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model included treatment group, screening LDL-C level, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.||||-28.21|-43.39|< 0.0001
91826826|NCT01169467|183531131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.395
91826827|NCT03108924|183531136|OTHER||GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.13||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.13|0.53|
91826828|NCT03108924|183531139|OTHER||GMR|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|4.41||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||4.41|2.01|
91826829|NCT03108924|183531139|OTHER||GMR|4.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|6.96||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||6.96|2.82|
91826830|NCT03108924|183531139|OTHER||GMR|4.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|7.59||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||7.59|2.95|
91826831|NCT03108924|183531141|OTHER||GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.08||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.08|0.54|
91826832|NCT03108924|183531144|OTHER||GMR|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|5.2||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||5.20|2.01|
91826833|NCT03108924|183531144|OTHER||GMR|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.49|6.7||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||6.70|2.49|
91826834|NCT03108924|183531144|OTHER||GMR|4.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.65|7.39||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD Non-HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||7.39|2.65|
91826835|NCT03108924|183531146|OTHER||GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.03||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.03|0.52|
91826836|NCT03108924|183531149|OTHER||GMR|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|3.56||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||3.56|1.22|
91826837|NCT03108924|183531149|OTHER||GMR|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.25||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||3.25|1.10|
91826838|NCT03108924|183531149|OTHER||GMR|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|3.19||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD Non-HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||3.19|1.13|
91826839|NCT03108924|183531151|OTHER||GMR|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.9||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.90|0.88|
91826840|NCT03108924|183531154|OTHER||GMR|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.5||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.50|0.23|
91826841|NCT03108924|183531154|OTHER||GMR|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.35||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.35|0.14|
91826842|NCT03108924|183531154|OTHER||GMR|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD Non-HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.34|0.13|
91952852|NCT04753606|183802327|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.503|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-21.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.62|-39.46|<.0001
91826843|NCT03108924|183531156|OTHER||GMR|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.39||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.39|0.25|
91952853|NCT04753606|183802327|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.92|-27.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.14|-44.92|<.0001
91952854|NCT04753606|183802328|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|129.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.78|147.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||147.77|110.78|<.0001
91826844|NCT03108924|183531156|OTHER||GMR|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.16||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.16|0.07|
91826845|NCT05003791|183531195|OTHER|This was a cross-sectional design|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91826846|NCT05003791|183531196|OTHER|This was a cross-sectional design|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91826847|NCT05003791|183531197|OTHER|This was a cross-sectional design|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91826848|NCT02207829|183531198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternate hypothesis: the difference between the trt means (umeclidinium minus tiotropium) would be \> -50 milliliters (mL). If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance level) of the statistical test should fall above -50 mL, then umeclidinium may be deemed statistically non-inferior to tiotropium. If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance) of the statistical testing exceeded 0 then, umeclidinium may be deemed statistically superior to tiotropium.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.088|0.029|<0.001
91826849|NCT03285477|183531203|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 complete clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
91826850|NCT03285477|183531204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 partial clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
91826851|NCT00560833|183531223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.3|<0.01
91826852|NCT00560833|183531223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.2||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-3.1|<0.01
91826853|NCT00560833|183531223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-2.9|<0.01
91826854|NCT00560833|183531223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-2.9|<0.01
91826855|NCT00560833|183531225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-2.0|0.06
91952855|NCT04753606|183802328|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|164.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.9|182.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||182.76|145.90|<.0001
91826856|NCT00560833|183531225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-3.0|<0.01
91826857|NCT00560833|183531225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.9|<0.01
91826858|NCT00560833|183531225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.5||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.6|<0.01
91826859|NCT00560833|183531226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.09|0.62
91826860|NCT00560833|183531226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.12|0.02
91826861|NCT00560833|183531226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.13|0.01
91952856|NCT04753606|183802329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|129.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.78|147.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||147.77|110.78|<.0001
91826862|NCT00560833|183531226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.12|0.02
91826863|NCT00560833|183531227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.06|1.0
91826864|NCT00560833|183531227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.09|0.72
91826865|NCT00560833|183531227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.12|0.13
91826866|NCT00560833|183531227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.12|0.15
91826867|NCT03283670|183531228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HAMD-21 at 2 Hours, placebo vs 25% nitrous oxide||||0.55
91826868|NCT03283670|183531228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21, 25% nitrous oxide vs placebo at 24 hours||||0.47
91826869|NCT03283670|183531228|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HAMD-21 at 2 Hours, placebo vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.49
91826870|NCT03283670|183531228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21 at 24 hours, placebo vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.34
91826871|NCT03283670|183531228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21 at 2 hours, 25% nitrous oxide vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.94
91826872|NCT03283670|183531228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21 at 24 hours, 25% nitrous oxide vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.80
91826873|NCT01085318|183531229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|864.1||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.061
91952857|NCT04753606|183802329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|164.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.9|182.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||182.76|145.90|<.0001
91826874|NCT01085318|183531230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|644.99|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91826875|NCT00791765|183531297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||van Elteren's test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group||||||<0.0001
91826876|NCT00791765|183531298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group||||||<0.0001
91826877|NCT00791765|183531299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||2-sided pairwise van Elteren's test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group||Comparison of week 24 outcome to week 12 outcome (see Outcome Measure 1)||||<0.0001
91826878|NCT00791765|183531300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided test with modified ridit scores stratified by baseline body mass index group||||||<0.0001
91826879|NCT04295564|183531301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|155.9||This is a calculate p value|Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for the correlation between twin pairs and gestational age at birth (stratification variable), sex, and length at outpatient testing||||155.9|8.3|<0.05
91826880|NCT04295564|183531302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1||This is a calculated p value|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for correlation between twin pairs and gestational age at birth (stratification variable), sex, and length at outpatient test.||||1.1|0.1|<0.02
91826881|NCT04295564|183531303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|121.0||This is a calculated p value|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value adjusted for correlation between twin pairs and gestational age at birth (stratification variable), sex, and length at outpatient testing.||||121|4.5|<0.05
91826882|NCT04295564|183531304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.31||This is a calculated p value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.27|>0.05
91826883|NCT04295564|183531304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for gestational age at birth (stratification variable)||||1.31|0.27|>0.05
91826884|NCT04537923|183531306|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-1.24|<0.001
91952858|NCT04753606|183802330|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|129.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.78|147.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||147.77|110.78|<.0001
91826885|NCT04537923|183531307|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-1.08|<0.001
91826886|NCT04537923|183531307|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.92|-1.30|<0.001
91826887|NCT04537923|183531307|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.11|-1.49|<0.001
91826888|NCT04537923|183531308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.36|2.25|<0.0001
91826889|NCT04537923|183531308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|8.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.88|4.27|<0.0001
91826890|NCT04537923|183531308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|11.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.75|5.37|<0.0001
91826891|NCT04537923|183531309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.9|-11.5|<0.001
91952859|NCT04753606|183802330|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|164.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.9|182.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||182.76|145.90|<.0001
91826892|NCT04537923|183531309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.9|-14.5|<0.001
91826893|NCT04537923|183531309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.0|-16.7|<0.001
91826894|NCT04537923|183531310|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.7|-30.8|<0.001
91826895|NCT04537923|183531310|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-25.4|-40.6|<0.001
91826896|NCT04537923|183531310|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|-23.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.8|-39.3|<0.001
91826897|NCT04537923|183531311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-5.0|0.682
91826898|NCT04537923|183531311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-9.9|0.010
91826899|NCT04537923|183531311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.5|-16.0|<0.001
91826900|NCT04537923|183531312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.66|11.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.83|5.66|<0.001
91826901|NCT04537923|183531312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.44|24.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.96|11.44|<0.001
91826902|NCT04537923|183531312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.49|32.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.93|14.49|<0.001
91952860|NCT00489411|183802331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.73||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.20|0.26|0.003
91952861|NCT00489411|183802332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|7.88||||||||7.88|0.93|
91826903|NCT04537923|183531313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|43.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.46|18.36|<0.001
91826904|NCT04537923|183531313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.76|94.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||94.39|36.76|<0.001
91826905|NCT04537923|183531313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.49|127.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||127.33|47.49|<0.001
91826906|NCT04537923|183531314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|0.5|0.005
91826907|NCT04537923|183531314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|1.2|<0.001
91826908|NCT04537923|183531314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|1.2|<0.001
91826909|NCT04537923|183531315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|0.3|0.020
91826910|NCT04537923|183531315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.2|||ANCOVA|||||4.2|1.5|<0.001
91826911|NCT04537923|183531315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|0.7|0.004
91826912|NCT01261611|183531316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|An ANCOVA on the change from baseline, baseline TWSTRS Total score, baseline BTX status and pooled centre as explanatory variables was performed.||A pre-specified analysis of the LS mean difference between the Dysport NG and Placebo arms was performed. A total of 210 subjects were included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
91826913|NCT01261611|183531316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|An ANCOVA on the change from baseline, baseline TWSTRS Total score, baseline BTX status and pooled centre as explanatory variables was performed.||A pre-specified analysis of the LS mean difference between the Dysport and Placebo arms was performed. A total of 213 subjects were included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
91826914|NCT01261611|183531316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline TWSTRS Total score, BTX status at baseline and pooled centre as explanatory variables had been performed. The non-inferiority margin was 3 points.|LS mean difference|1.532|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.819|3.883||||||A pre-specified analysis of the LS mean difference between the Dysport NG and Dysport arms was performed. A total of 315 subjects were included in the analysis.||3.883|-0.819|
91952862|NCT00489411|183802333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|1.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.00|0.15|0.03
91952863|NCT00489411|183802334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65||||||||1.65|0.36|
91952864|NCT03841331|183802345|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-1.4||||0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used|At Week 10||11.1|-13.9|0.5861
91952865|NCT03841331|183802346|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.7||||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 2||8.7|-10.1|0.5651
91952866|NCT03841331|183802346|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-4.1||||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4|95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|6.7|-14.8|0.7769
91826915|NCT01808690|183531400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted multivariable models, which included sex, pubertal status, change in BMI, and baseline M/I.||Insulin function was defined as M/I (mg/kg/min)/(insulin). Power calculations were based on data from a small study in youth with poorly controlled T1DM, which reported a significant increase in M/I in the 11 participants treated with Metformin. On the basis of the effect size reported in that study, a sample size of 25 per group and an alpha of 0.05 provided us with 93% power to detect a difference of 1 SD in the primary outcome of M/I.||||0.005
91826916|NCT01808690|183531401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for the baseline value of the variable, sex, age, change in VO2peak, change in insulin sensitivity, and treatment condition.||||||0.46
91826917|NCT01808690|183531402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in SBP, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.04
91826918|NCT01808690|183531403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Threshold for significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in systolic blood pressure, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.04
91826919|NCT01808690|183531404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for the baseline value of BMI percentile, diabetes duration, and A1c.||||||0.01
91826920|NCT01808690|183531405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in SBP, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.03
91826921|NCT01808690|183531406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Threshold for significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in systolic blood pressure, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.8
91826922|NCT00674986|183531415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||||0.54|0.01|0.0416
91826923|NCT00674986|183531416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91826924|NCT00674986|183531417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2777||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2777
91826925|NCT00674986|183531418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1160
91826926|NCT00674986|183531419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1146||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1146
91826927|NCT00674986|183531420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0470
91826928|NCT00674986|183531421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
91826929|NCT00377234|183531423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Null hypothesis: Preference rate (including patients not expressing treatment preference and considering order treatments were received) for monthly ibandronate = 50%. Null hypothesis is rejected if P-value was below significance threshold of P \<0.05|Garts Test|||||||<0.0001
91826930|NCT00377234|183531423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-values for the primary analysis test whether the overall preference rate for ibandronate equals 50%. Preference within each sequence is not tested.|Prescott Test|||||||<0.0001
91826931|NCT01024569|183531442|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-2.21||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.027
91826932|NCT01024569|183531443|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||Mixed Effects Random Regression analysis was used to assess the effects of study condition on Hope outcomes.||||0.020
91826933|NCT01024569|183531444|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.029
91826934|NCT01024569|183531445|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.042
91826935|NCT01024569|183531446|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||.001
91826936|NCT03521635|183531465|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.0|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release|Mean changes from baseline of PDSS-2 score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||4.0|-2.7|0.688
91826937|NCT03521635|183531466|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of NHQ score by patients were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.8|-1.2|0.690
91826938|NCT03521635|183531466|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of NHQ score by caregivers were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.1|-2.7|0.376
91826939|NCT03521635|183531467|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of SCOPA-Sleep night-time sleep score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.7|-1.9|0.333
91826940|NCT03521635|183531467|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of SCOPA-Sleep overall night sleep score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.3|-0.8|0.374
91826941|NCT03521635|183531467|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of SCOPA-Sleep daytime sleepiness score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.5|-1.4|0.352
91826942|NCT03521635|183531468|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of EMO sore were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.2|-0.8|0.259
91826943|NCT03521635|183531469|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of PDSS-2 score \<18 were performed with treatment and baseline as the independent variables.||2.54|0.36|0.9373
91826944|NCT03521635|183531470|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.49|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of EMO score were performed with treatment and baseline as the independent variables.||7.49|0.73|0.1611
91826945|NCT03521635|183531471|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.2|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of PDQ-8 score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.2|-2.3|0.517
91826946|NCT03521635|183531472|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44||||0.2374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|36.85|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of CGI-I were performed with treatment as the independent variable.||36.85|0.57|0.2374
91826947|NCT03521635|183531473|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44||||0.2374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|36.85|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of PGI-I were performed with treatment as the independent variable.||36.85|0.57|0.2374
91826948|NCT03521635|183531474|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.7|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of ESS score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.7|-1.4|0.820
91826949|NCT00492349|183531493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model ANCOVA in which baseline served as the covariate and Smoking status and measurement occasions were between and within-groups factors, respectively.||||<0.05
91826950|NCT00492349|183531494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||||||All treatment main and interaction effect p-values were \> 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Mixed model ANCOVA in which baseline CPT Detectability served as the covariate and Smoking status and measurement occasions were between and within-groups factors, respectively.||||>0.05
91826951|NCT00492349|183531495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model ANCOVA in which baseline Antisaccade Errors served as the covariate and Smoking status and measurement occasions were between and within-groups factors, respectively.||||<0.05
91826952|NCT00626522|183531497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.280|0.131|<0.0001
91826953|NCT00626522|183531497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.329|||ANCOVA|||||0.329|0.180|<0.0001
91952867|NCT03841331|183802346|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|2.8||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 6||14.8|-9.1|0.3285
91952868|NCT03841331|183802346|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-2.3||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 8||9.8|-14.4|0.6525
91952869|NCT03841331|183802347|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|0.0||||0.4952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 2||5.7|-5.6|0.4952
91952870|NCT03841331|183802347|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|5.2||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|12.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 4||12.7|-2.3|0.0891
91952871|NCT03841331|183802347|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-4.2||||0.8447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 6||3.7|-12.1|0.8447
91826954|NCT00626522|183531497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.340|0.191|<0.0001
91826955|NCT01928719|183531502|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|5.58|||Regression, Cox||The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||5.58|1.95|<0.0001
91826956|NCT01928719|183531503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|5.81||Testing the effect of treatment group in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Age Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|The reference group is Same Nicotine Content Group.||5.81|1.99|<0.0001
91826957|NCT01928719|183531503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.03||Testing the effect of age group (ages 30-39) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 30-39 to the Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||1.03|0.26|0.06
91826958|NCT01928719|183531503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.66||Testing the effect of age group (ages 40-49) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 40-49 to the Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||0.66|0.17|<0.002
91826959|NCT01928719|183531503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.65||Testing the effect of age group (Ages 50-59) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 50-59 to Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||0.65|0.16|<0.002
91826960|NCT01928719|183531503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.18||Testing the effect of age group (Ages 60-65) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 60-65 to the Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||1.18|0.13|0.1
91826961|NCT01928719|183531503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.66||Testing the effect of working status in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Age, and BMI.||The reference group is not currently working.|The direction of comparison is currently working to not currently working.|2.66|0.92|0.1
91826962|NCT01928719|183531503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.67||Testing the effect of BMI Normal Weight group (\>=18.5 \& \<25) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and Age.|The direction of comparison is Normal Weight (\>=18.5 \& \<25) to Underweight (\<18.5) group.|The reference group is BMI Underweight (\<18.5)||0.67|0.1|0.006
91826963|NCT01928719|183531503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.92||Testing the effect of BMI Overweight group (\>=25 \& \< 30) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and Age.|The direction of comparison is Overweight (\>=25 \& \< 30) to Underweight (\<18.5) group.|The reference group is BMI Underweight group (\<18.5)||0.92|0.13|0.034
91826964|NCT01928719|183531503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.77||Testing the effect of BMI Obese group (\>=30) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and Age.|The direction of comparison is Obese (\>=30) to Underweight (\<18.5) group.|The reference group is BMI Underweight group (\<18.5)||0.77|0.13|0.011
91826965|NCT01928719|183531504|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|-1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||-1.75|-6.44|0.0006
91826966|NCT01928719|183531505|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-136.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-171.7|-101.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||-101.7|-171.7|<.0001
91826967|NCT01928719|183531506|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.03||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||-0.38|-7.68|0.0305
91826968|NCT01928719|183531507|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.81||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||3.33|0.28|0.0207
91826969|NCT01928719|183531508|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.4191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||0.23|-0.56|0.4191
91826970|NCT02099838|183531558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HbA1c between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
91826971|NCT02099838|183531558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HbA1c between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0650
91826972|NCT02099838|183531558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HbA1c between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0005
91826973|NCT02099838|183531559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of FPG between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
91826974|NCT02099838|183531559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of FPG between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0849
91826975|NCT02099838|183531559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of FPG between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0005
91826976|NCT02099838|183531560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2hPPG between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
91826977|NCT02099838|183531560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2428||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2hPPG between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.2428
91826978|NCT02099838|183531560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2hPPG between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0003
91826979|NCT02099838|183531561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of fasting insulin between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
91952872|NCT03841331|183802347|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.0||||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 8||9.4|-7.5|0.4174
91826980|NCT02099838|183531561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7353||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of fasting insulin between before and after treatment in Placebo group.. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7353
91826981|NCT02099838|183531561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of fasting insulin between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0013
91826982|NCT02099838|183531562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1147||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2-hour postprandial insulin between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.1147
91826983|NCT02099838|183531562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4006||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2-hour postprandial insulin between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.4006
91826984|NCT02099838|183531562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0614||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2-hour postprandial insulin between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0614
91826985|NCT02099838|183531563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3795||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TC between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3795
91826986|NCT02099838|183531563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4236||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TC between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.4236
91826987|NCT02099838|183531563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TC between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||1.0000
91826988|NCT02099838|183531564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3151||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TG between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3151
91952873|NCT03841331|183802347|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.7||||0.2756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 10||11.2|-5.8|0.2756
91952874|NCT03841331|183802348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.57|||ANOVA|||At Week 2||0.57|-0.49|0.4409
91952875|NCT03841331|183802348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.5496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.57||At week 4|ANOVA|||At Week 4||0.57|-0.65|0.5496
91952876|NCT03841331|183802348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.55|||ANOVA|||At Week 6||0.55|-0.78|0.6311
91952877|NCT03841331|183802348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4738||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.69|||ANOVA|||At Week 8||0.69|-0.65|0.02
91826989|NCT02099838|183531564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6963||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TG between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.6963
91826990|NCT02099838|183531564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3204||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TG between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3204
91826991|NCT02099838|183531565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0038||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HDL between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0038
91826992|NCT02099838|183531565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3812||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HDL between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3812
91826993|NCT02099838|183531565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HDL between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0108
91826994|NCT02099838|183531566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5476||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of LDL between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.5476
91826995|NCT02099838|183531566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1248||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of LDL between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.1248
91826996|NCT02099838|183531566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of LDL between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3620
91826997|NCT02099838|183531567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5636||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ALT between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.5636
91826998|NCT02099838|183531567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3681||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ALT between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3681
91826999|NCT02099838|183531567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2589||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ALT between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.2589
91827000|NCT02099838|183531568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7972||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AST between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7972
91827001|NCT02099838|183531568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7801||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AST between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7801
91827002|NCT02099838|183531568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8744||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AST between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.8744
91827003|NCT02099838|183531569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8034||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.8034
91827004|NCT02099838|183531569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7675||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TBil between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7675
91827005|NCT02099838|183531569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6918||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TBil between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.6918
91952878|NCT03841331|183802348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.3948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.78|||ANOVA|||At Week 10||0.78|-0.60|0.3948
91952879|NCT03841331|183802350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|9.87|||ANOVA|||At Week 2||9.87|-4.98|0.2440
91952880|NCT03841331|183802350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|6.65|||ANOVA|||At Week 4||6.65|-9.20|0.6349
91827006|NCT02099838|183531570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0339||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0339
91827007|NCT02099838|183531570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0997||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0997
91827008|NCT02099838|183531570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5015||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.5015
91827009|NCT01175382|183531581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to compare mean changes from baseline to 6 weeks among groups adjusting for baseline values and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used for imputation of missing data.||||<.0001
91827010|NCT01175382|183531582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test for differences in mean change from 6 weeks to 12 weeks in voiding frequency controlling for age and 6 week frequency. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||.0013
91827011|NCT01175382|183531583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2933|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in 24-hour voiding frequency differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline voiding frequency and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||0.2933
91827012|NCT01175382|183531584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to test means changes among the groups adjusting for baseline values and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||0.0051
91827013|NCT01175382|183531585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1402|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance comparing mean change score among groups controlling for age and baseline score||||.1402
91827014|NCT01175382|183531586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance comparing mean change in Nocturia among groups adjusting for baseline values of nocturia and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||0.0015
91827015|NCT01175382|183531587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance comparing mean change in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire from baseline to 6 weeks among groups after controlling for baseline value and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||<.0001
91827016|NCT01175382|183531588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||"Analysis of Covariance comparing mean chance in IPSS from baseline to 6 weeks among groups controlling for baseline IPSS values and age.~Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data."||||<.0001
91827017|NCT01175382|183531589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0022
91827018|NCT01175382|183531590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0222|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0222
91827019|NCT01175382|183531591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0217
91827020|NCT01175382|183531592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to test whether mean changes in Urgency Score from 6 weeks to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and 6 week Urgency Score. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.6690
91827021|NCT01175382|183531593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0812|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in Incontinence Episodes from 6 weeks to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and frequency of incontinence episodes at 6 weeks. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.0812
91827022|NCT01175382|183531594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5578|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to test whether mean changes in nocturia from 6 weeks to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and 6 week nocturia frequency. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.5578
91827023|NCT01175382|183531595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) from 6 to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and 6 week OAB-q score. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.0279
91827024|NCT01175382|183531596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2553|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in the International Prostate Symptom Scale (IPSS) from 6 to 12 weeks differed among groups||||0.2553
91827025|NCT01175382|183531597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3165|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3165
91827026|NCT01175382|183531598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8153|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8153
91827027|NCT01175382|183531599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5536|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5536
91827028|NCT01175382|183531600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2035|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Nocturia frequency differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline Nocturia frequency and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||0.2035
91827029|NCT01175382|183531601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0549|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Urgency Score differed among the groups after adjusting for Urgency Scoe and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||.0549
91827030|NCT01175382|183531602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Incontinent Episodes differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline Incontinent episodes frequency and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||0.5070
91827031|NCT01175382|183531603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0529|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Score and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||.0529
91827032|NCT01175382|183531604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2384|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in International Prostate Symptom Score from Baseline to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for baseline International Prostate Symptom Score and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.2384
91827033|NCT02019719|183531609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||E0 (g/dL)|-1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.03|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||-1.03|-1.72|
91827034|NCT02019719|183531609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED50 (mg)|21.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|42.64|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||42.64|9.99|
91827035|NCT02019719|183531609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Emax (g/dL)|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.61|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||8.61|3.20|
91827036|NCT02019719|183531609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Gamma|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.68|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||1.68|0.70|
91827037|NCT02019719|183531609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Var|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.88|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||0.88|0.50|
91827038|NCT02019719|183531609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MED (mg)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.41|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||3.41|0.75|
91827039|NCT02019719|183531609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||TD (mg)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.63|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||5.63|2.20|
91827040|NCT02019719|183531609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MAD (mg)|8.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|11.44|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||11.44|6.51|
91827041|NCT04535037|183531627|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of group GMC ratio (Infanrix Hexa over Vaxelis group) was above 0.5.|Adjusted GMC Ratio|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.185||||The 95% CI for GMC ratio derived from an ANOVA model on log10 transformed concentration was used. GMC was adjusted for DTPA vaccination of the mother.||To demonstrate that the Haemophilus influenzae type b(Hib) response of Infanrix Hexa Group is non-inferior to the Vaxelis Group in terms of anti-PRP GMCs, 1 month post-booster vaccination.||1.185|0.710|
91827042|NCT04535037|183531628|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the non inferiority of anti-PRP GMC ratio was met and the LL of the 2 sided 95% CI on group difference in the percentage (Infanrix Hexa over Vaxelis group) was more than -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|1.49||||The 2 sided 95% CI of group difference in seroconversion rate (Inv\_group minus Com\_group) was computed based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||To demonstrate that the Hib response in Infanrix Hexa group is non-inferior to Vaxelis Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-PRP antibody concentrations ≥ 5 µg/mL, 1 month post-booster vaccination.||1.49|-14.10|
91827043|NCT02031276|183531636|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|12.6||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) exposure.||27.5|-2.2|0.0955
91827044|NCT02031276|183531637|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|13.4||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||30.1|-3.3|0.1151
91827045|NCT02031276|183531638|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|12.0||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||20.6|3.5|0.0057
91827046|NCT02031276|183531639|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|18.7||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|33.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||33.0|4.4|0.0104
91827047|NCT02031276|183531640|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|2.4||||0.4977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||9.2|-4.5|0.4977
91827048|NCT02031276|183531641|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|7.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||13.0|1.7|0.0107
91827049|NCT02417246|183531647|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare mean values of AUC0-24 for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 16% difference in AUC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|222.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|131.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Average AUC from 0 to 24 hours (0-24) for patients on the 50mg dose of brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B were compared by a paired t-test (n=28)||||131.2|-41.1|0.3
91827050|NCT02417246|183531647|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of the AUC0-24 for Generic B to brand name metoprolol ER falls within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.95||The analysis included a total of 20 patients on Generic B and brand name metoprolol ER, which is less than the initial plan of including 38 patients.||||||0.95|0.76|
91827051|NCT02417246|183531647|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare mean values of AUC0-24 for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 16% difference in AUC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.5||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|74.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Average AUC0-24 for patients on the 50mg dose who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A were compared using a paired t-test (n=29)||||74.3|-60.0|0.8
91827052|NCT02417246|183531647|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of the AUC0-24 for Generic A to brand name metoprolol ER fell within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.01||This analysis included 21 individuals who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A, which is less than the initial plan of including 38 patients.||||||1.01|0.86|
91952881|NCT03841331|183802350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3407||||1.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|10.23|||ANOVA|||At Week 6||10.23|-6.40|1.91
91952882|NCT03841331|183802350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|8.97|||ANOVA|||At Week 10||8.97|-8.52|0.4960
91952883|NCT04640168|183802364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.909
91827053|NCT02417246|183531648|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare the mean values of Cmax for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t-test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 11% difference in Cmax.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Average Cmax for patients on the 50mg dose who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B were compared using a paired t-test (n=29)||||6.6|-1.5|0.2
91827054|NCT02417246|183531648|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of Cmax for Generic B to brand name metoprolol ER fell within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.95||The analysis included a total of 29 patients on Generic B and brand name metoprolol ER, which is less than the initial plan of including 38 patients||||||0.95|0.79|
91827055|NCT02417246|183531648|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare the mean values of Cmax for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t-test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 11% difference in Cmax.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Average Cmax for patients on the 50mg dose who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A were compared using a paired t-test (n=29)||||2.3|-7.3|0.3
91827056|NCT02417246|183531648|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of Cmax for Generic A to brand name metoprolol ER fell within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.23||The analysis included a total of 29 patients on Generic A and brand name metoprolol ER, which is less than a pre-planned sample size of 38.||||||1.23|1.02|
91827057|NCT02417246|183531649|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was used to model medication effect on HRV comparing brand name metoprolol ER to Generic B, adjusting for quartile, (quartile\*med) interaction, and treatment assignment.|Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0858|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0858
91827058|NCT02417246|183531649|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was used to model medication effect on HRV comparing brand name metoprolol ER to Generic A, adjusting for quartile,(quartile\*med) interaction, and treatment assignment.|Slope|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0168|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||p for medication\*quartile interaction considered significant if p\<0.025.|||||0.0168
91827059|NCT02417246|183531650|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B.|Slope|-2.39||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.203
91827060|NCT02417246|183531650|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B.|Slope|-0.543||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.671
91827061|NCT02417246|183531650|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory SBP by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A.|Slope|-2.371||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.200
91827062|NCT02417246|183531650|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory DBP by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A.|Slope|-2.329||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
91827063|NCT02417246|183531651|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour HR by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B.|Slope|1.233||||0.333|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.333
91827064|NCT02417246|183531651|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour HR by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A.|Slope|1.134||||0.368|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.368
91827065|NCT02896855|183531665|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.69||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.99|||Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the primary analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||0.99|0.49|0.0418
91827066|NCT02896855|183531665|OTHER||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.71||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.01|||Log Rank|This two-sided log-rank test was unstratified.|This unstratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the primary analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.01|0.50|0.0556
91827067|NCT02896855|183531665|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.81|||Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the final analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||0.81|0.45|0.0008
91827068|NCT02896855|183531665|OTHER||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.63||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85|||Log Rank|This two-sided log-rank test was unstratified.|This unstratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the final analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||0.85|0.47|0.0019
91827069|NCT02896855|183531667|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.68||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.03|||Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.03|0.45|0.0658
91952884|NCT04640168|183802381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.4||||||||13.4|1.8|
91952885|NCT04640168|183802382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.5||||||||5.5|-4.3|
91952886|NCT04640168|183802400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27||||||||1.27|0.80|
91827070|NCT02896855|183531667|OTHER||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.7||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06|||Log Rank|This two-sided log-rank test was unstratified.|This unstratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.06|0.46|0.0864
91827071|NCT02896855|183531669|OTHER||Difference in Objective Response|9.98||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|22.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistical test is stratified by disease type and hormone receptor status.|The difference in objective response is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab minus Arm A: Placebo. 95% CI was calculated using Hauck-Anderson method.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||22.60|-2.65|0.1126
91827072|NCT02896855|183531669|OTHER||Difference in Objective Response|9.98||||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|22.6|||Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|The difference in objective response is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab minus Arm A: Placebo. 95% CI was calculated using Hauck-Anderson method.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||22.60|-2.65|0.1108
91827073|NCT02896855|183531670|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.24|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.24|0.49|0.2867
91827074|NCT02896855|183531677|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.75|||||The treatment difference for change from baseline to maximum on-treatment decrease in LVEF is defined as Arm B: Pertuzumab minus Arm A: Placebo.|||0.75|-1.96|
91827075|NCT00941603|183531694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.2|||ANOVA|Least-square (LS) means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||0.2|-7.2|0.06
91827076|NCT00941603|183531694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.6||LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.|ANOVA|||||0.6|-6.7|0.10
91827077|NCT00941603|183531694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-5.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.0|||ANOVA|||LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||-2.0|-9.4|<0.01
91827078|NCT00941603|183531694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.4|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||2.4|-5.0|0.48
91827079|NCT00941603|183531694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.3|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||3.3|-4.0|0.85
91827080|NCT00941603|183531695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.4|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||0.4|-6.5|0.09
91827081|NCT00941603|183531695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.2|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||-0.2|-7.1|0.04
91827082|NCT00941603|183531695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-4.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-1.0|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||-1.0|-7.9|0.01
91952887|NCT04640168|183802401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.09|
91952888|NCT04640168|183802402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23||||||||1.23|0.94|
91827083|NCT00941603|183531695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.0|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||2.0|-4.9|0.41
91827084|NCT00941603|183531695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.2|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||4.2|-2.7|0.68
91827085|NCT01343407|183531730|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|-22.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.7|-8.7|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-8.7|-35.7|0.011
91827086|NCT01343407|183531730|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-18.9||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.1|-5.8|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-5.8|-32.1|0.023
91827087|NCT01343407|183531731|OTHER||LS Mean Ratio (LSMR)|0.48||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.72|||Linear mixed effects model||||% Inhibition: 52.2 (90% CI: 28.3, 68.2). The % Inhibition of FEV1\*hr (reduction of the allergen-induced LAR) for MK-1029 vs Placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-LSMR).|0.72|0.32|0.006
91827088|NCT01343407|183531731|OTHER||LS Mean Ratio (LSMR)|0.58||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.81|||Linear mixed effects model||||% Inhibition: 42.4 (90% CI: 19.3, 58.8) The % Inhibition of FEV1\*hr (reduction of the allergen-induced LAR) for MK-1029 vs Placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-LSMR).|0.81|0.41|0.012
91827089|NCT01343407|183531732|OTHER||LSM Difference|85.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.3|106.4|||Linear mixed effects model||Full inhibition is ≥74% inhibition of blood eosinophil CD11b expression at trough|||106.4|65.3|<0.001
91827090|NCT01343407|183531732|OTHER||LSM Difference|83.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.9|102.7|||Linear mixed effects model||Full inhibition is ≥74% inhibition of blood eosinophil CD11b expression at trough|||102.7|63.9|<0.001
91952889|NCT04640168|183802403|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23||||||||1.23|0.94|
91952890|NCT04640168|183802404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||||||||1.19|0.91|
91952891|NCT03557775|183802430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Result for time by group interaction (threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05).|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.041
91952892|NCT03557775|183802431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887||||||Result for time by group interaction. Statistical threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.887
91952893|NCT03557775|183802432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.733
91827091|NCT01767116|183531795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 73% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion because the point estimate was 100%..|For the primary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.2|
91827092|NCT01767116|183531795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 73% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|For the primary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.6|
91827093|NCT01767116|183531796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group was analyzed using a noninferiority margin of -10.5%. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed -10.5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|For the secondary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a -10% margin, a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per arm provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV compared with ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV (normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a 1-sample test for superiority).||1.4|-0.5|
91827094|NCT01767116|183531797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91827095|NCT01767116|183531798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|100.0|||||95% CI calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|For the secondary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.2|
91827096|NCT01767116|183531798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|100.0|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|For the secondary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.6|
91827097|NCT00968669|183531801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435|||||||ANOVA|Missing mean ACQ scores at Day 92 was imputed by last observation carried forward||||||0.435
91827098|NCT00968669|183531801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||ANOVA|Missing mean ACQ scores at Day 92 was imputed by last observation carried forward||||||0.828
91827099|NCT00968669|183531801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||ANOVA|Missing mean ACQ scores at Day 92 was imputed by last observation carried forward||||||0.628
91827100|NCT00968669|183531802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.271
91827101|NCT00968669|183531802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.319
91827102|NCT00968669|183531802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.502
91827103|NCT00968669|183531803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.756
91827104|NCT00968669|183531803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.047
91827105|NCT00968669|183531803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||1.000
91952894|NCT03557775|183802433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.702
91827106|NCT00968669|183531804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1764|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1764
91827107|NCT00968669|183531804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4031|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4031
91827108|NCT00968669|183531804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91827109|NCT00968669|183531805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8475|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8475
91827110|NCT00968669|183531805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0811|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0811
91827111|NCT00968669|183531805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91827112|NCT00968669|183531806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.938||||0.144|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma and steroid use||||||0.144
91827113|NCT00968669|183531806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.618||||0.395|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.395
91827114|NCT00968669|183531806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.863|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.863
91827115|NCT00968669|183531807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162||||0.717|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma and steroid use||||||0.717
91827116|NCT00968669|183531807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.467||||0.07|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.070
91827117|NCT00968669|183531807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955||||0.934|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.934
91827118|NCT00968669|183531808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.813
91827119|NCT00968669|183531808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.290
91827120|NCT00968669|183531808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.303
91827121|NCT00968669|183531809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 treatment was compared to placebo||||0.764
91827122|NCT00968669|183531810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 treatment was compared to placebo||||0.986
91827123|NCT00968669|183531811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955||||0.7171|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.7171
91827124|NCT00968669|183531811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.6219|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.6219
91952895|NCT03557775|183802434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.198
91952896|NCT03557775|183802435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.388
91827125|NCT00968669|183531811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.6182|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.6182
91827126|NCT00968669|183531812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.712|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.7120
91827127|NCT00968669|183531812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.5086|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.5086
91827128|NCT00968669|183531812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.5184|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.5184
91827129|NCT00968669|183531813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.837
91827130|NCT00968669|183531813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.756
91827131|NCT00968669|183531813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.224
91827132|NCT00968669|183531814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.409
91827133|NCT00968669|183531814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.847
91827134|NCT00968669|183531814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.968
91827135|NCT00968669|183531815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 dose groups versus placebo||||0.208
91827136|NCT00968669|183531816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 dose groups versus placebo||||0.574
91827137|NCT03836287|183531822|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.72|1.47|0.0004
91827138|NCT03836287|183531823|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.543||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.42|-11.0|||ANCOVA|||||-11.00|-48.42|0.0019
91827139|NCT00298233|183531833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|conditional univariate logistic regressi|analysis stratified by study site||Based on previous studies, assumption was made that 30% of children and 55% of adults treated with standard dose oseltamivir would test negative for virus on day five. This would require a sample size of 242 patients to show a 20% absolute improvement in cessation of viral shedding with 85% power and a two sided α of 0.05. To allow for study withdrawals, the target sample size was set at 300 patients.||||0.42
91827140|NCT00298233|183531834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.54
91827141|NCT00298233|183531835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel chi-square stratified by study site||||||0.54
91827142|NCT00298233|183531836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.48
91827143|NCT00298233|183531837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.66
91827144|NCT00298233|183531838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.58
91827145|NCT02371369|183531839|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||<0.0001
91827146|NCT02371369|183531840|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis||||||0.0043|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||0.0043
91827147|NCT02371369|183531841|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||<0.0001
91827148|NCT02371369|183531842|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment comparison between pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||0.0019
91827149|NCT02371369|183531843|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||<0.0001
91827150|NCT03855189|183531861|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827151|NCT03855189|183531861|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from ANOVA.||||<0.01
91827152|NCT03855189|183531861|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from ANOVA.||||0.06
91827153|NCT03855189|183531862|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.04
91827154|NCT03855189|183531862|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
91827155|NCT03855189|183531862|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.50
91827156|NCT03855189|183531865|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827157|NCT03855189|183531865|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827158|NCT03855189|183531865|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.11
91827159|NCT03855189|183531866|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.05
91827160|NCT03855189|183531866|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827161|NCT03855189|183531866|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.13
91827162|NCT03855189|183531867|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.06
91827163|NCT03855189|183531867|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
91827164|NCT03855189|183531867|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.81
91827165|NCT03855189|183531868|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
91952897|NCT03557775|183802436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.296
91827166|NCT03855189|183531868|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827167|NCT03855189|183531868|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.17
91827168|NCT03855189|183531869|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827169|NCT03855189|183531869|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
91827170|NCT03855189|183531869|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.39
91827171|NCT03855189|183531870|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827172|NCT03855189|183531870|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827173|NCT03855189|183531870|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.60
91827174|NCT03855189|183531871|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
91827175|NCT03855189|183531871|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
91827176|NCT03855189|183531871|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.54
91827177|NCT03855189|183531872|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827178|NCT03855189|183531872|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
91827179|NCT03855189|183531872|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.71
91827180|NCT03855189|183531873|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827181|NCT03855189|183531873|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827182|NCT03855189|183531873|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.77
91827183|NCT03855189|183531874|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.11
91827184|NCT03855189|183531874|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
91827185|NCT03855189|183531874|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.60
91827186|NCT03855189|183531875|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827187|NCT03855189|183531875|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827188|NCT03855189|183531875|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.59
91827189|NCT03855189|183531876|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.07
91827190|NCT03855189|183531876|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
91827191|NCT03855189|183531876|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.43
91827192|NCT03855189|183531877|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.09
91827193|NCT03855189|183531877|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.08
91827194|NCT03855189|183531877|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.96
91827195|NCT03855189|183531878|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
91827196|NCT03855189|183531878|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827197|NCT03855189|183531878|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.64
91827198|NCT03855189|183531879|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.25
91827199|NCT03855189|183531879|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
91827200|NCT03855189|183531879|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.26
91827201|NCT03855189|183531880|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827202|NCT03855189|183531880|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827203|NCT03855189|183531880|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.09
91827204|NCT03855189|183531881|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.05
91827205|NCT03855189|183531881|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827206|NCT03855189|183531881|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.07
91827207|NCT03855189|183531882|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.04
91827208|NCT03855189|183531882|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
91827209|NCT03855189|183531882|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.53
91827210|NCT03855189|183531883|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
91952898|NCT03557775|183802437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.040
91827211|NCT03855189|183531883|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827212|NCT03855189|183531883|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
91827213|NCT03855189|183531884|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
91827214|NCT03855189|183531884|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827215|NCT03855189|183531884|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.34
91827216|NCT03855189|183531885|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827217|NCT03855189|183531885|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827218|NCT03855189|183531885|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.04
91827219|NCT03855189|183531886|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.06
91827220|NCT03855189|183531886|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827221|NCT03855189|183531886|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
91827222|NCT03855189|183531887|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.13
91827223|NCT03855189|183531887|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827224|NCT03855189|183531887|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.07
91827225|NCT03855189|183531888|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
91827226|NCT03855189|183531888|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91827227|NCT03855189|183531888|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
91952899|NCT03557775|183802438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.887
91827228|NCT00167544|183531892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.49|30.29|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of total brain tissue volume was performed using multiple linear regression controlling for postmenstrual age at MRI scan to adjust for differences in timing at MRI. The distributions of potentially important confounding variables at baseline were compared in the two groups using parametric and non-parametric tests as appropriate. All analyses were performed using STATA 11.0. Please see PubMed: 23140612.||30.29|-19.49|<0.05
91827229|NCT04307186|183531896|OTHER|"McNemar test was used for the exploratory analysis of difference between the percentage of participants greatly prefer/prefer gadoquatrane and greatly prefer/prefer gadobutrol."|||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated. p \< 0.05 indicates a difference between the two reads; p \> 0.05 indicates the observed data do not contradict equality.|McNemar|||Reader 1||||<0.0001
91827230|NCT04307186|183531896|OTHER|"McNemar test was used for the exploratory analysis of difference between the percentage of participants greatly prefer/prefer gadoquatrane and greatly prefer/prefer gadobutrol."||||||0.5775||||||P-Value was calculated. p \< 0.05 indicates a difference between the two reads; p \> 0.05 indicates the observed data do not contradict equality.|McNemar|||Reader 2||||0.5775
91827231|NCT04307186|183531896|OTHER|"McNemar test was used for the exploratory analysis of difference between the percentage of participants greatly prefer/prefer gadoquatrane and greatly prefer/prefer gadobutrol."||||||0.3173||||||P-Value was calculated. p \< 0.05 indicates a difference between the two reads; p \> 0.05 indicates the observed data do not contradict equality.|McNemar|||Reader 3||||0.3173
91827232|NCT04307186|183531897|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of gadoquatrane versus gadobutrol was evaluated using CIs based on the t-distribution. A non-inferiority margin of 1 was used, i.e. meaning that a 95% two-sided CI for the mean difference gadoquatrane minus gadobutrol score must exclude the value -1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13||P-Value was calculated. Non-inferiority was achieved with a one-sided p-value lower than 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||Average reader||0.13|-0.24|<0.0001
91827233|NCT04307186|183531898|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.34|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.34|1.06|
91827234|NCT04307186|183531898|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.25|0.94|
91827235|NCT04307186|183531899|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.28|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||2.28|1.87|
91827236|NCT04307186|183531899|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.25|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||2.25|1.86|
91827237|NCT04307186|183531900|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.43|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.43|1.11|
91827238|NCT04307186|183531900|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.32|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.32|1.05|
91827239|NCT01587651|183531920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was assessed using a 95% CI of the difference in mean PRU between ticagrelor and prasugrel (2 arms combined). Under the assumption of 0 difference in mean PRU between prasugrel 10 mg QD MD and ticagrelor 90 mg BID MD, a common SD of 60 PRU (based on previous DSI studies and published data), and a drop-out rate not exceeding 15%, a sample size of 105 allows for the 95% CI to stay within ± 45 PRU (non-inferiority margin) with a power of 90%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|67.2||||||ANCOVA model included treatment as a main effect and pre-randomization baseline PRU as a covariate. The combined prasugrel groups were modeled as a single treatment. If the upper limit of the CI for the mean difference was not greater than 45 PRU, then the PD response to prasugrel 10 mg QD MD was deemed noninferior to that achieved by ticagrelor 90 mg BID MD.||67.2|24.9|
91827240|NCT00754845|183531926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||Log Rank|Stratified by the stratification factors at randomization||||0.91|0.48|0.01
91827241|NCT00754845|183531927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
91827242|NCT00754845|183531928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.73|0.83
91827243|NCT00754845|183531929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91827244|NCT00358735|183531936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91827245|NCT00358735|183531937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91827246|NCT00358735|183531938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
91827247|NCT00358735|183531940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.953
91827248|NCT00358735|183531941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.050
91827249|NCT00358735|183531942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
91827250|NCT00358735|183531943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.507
91827251|NCT00358735|183531944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.052
91827252|NCT00358735|183531945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.798
91827253|NCT00358735|183531946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.036
91827254|NCT03238001|183531949|NON_INFERIORITY|In order to show non-inferiority, a lower 90% confidence limit (CL) for the difference in kappa scores would need to be greater than or equal to -0.20. The 90% confidence interval was calculated based on 5000 bootstrapped differences in kappa scores.|Lower 90% CL for difference in Kappas|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.05|||||90% CI for Kappa of DCTclock/MoCA - Kappa of MMSE/MoCA (estimated with bootstrap method using 5000 bootstraps).|A two-one-sided tests approach was taken, where, prior to analysis, it was determined that a delta (equivalence margin) of 0.20 would be considered a significant difference between the DCTclock/MoCA kappa and the MMSE/MoCA kappa. The reasoning behind this determination can be found in the study's statistical analysis plan.||0.05|-0.12|
91827255|NCT00780962|183531968|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.6|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.0|||Wald|||"The study was powered to find a 10% absolute risk reduction in the rate of contrast-induced nephropathy (a=.05, 90% power). We initially estimated the need for 600 patients and repowered to 800 patients after the 1st interim analysis. The study was halted for futility at the 2nd interim analysis.~Reported here 357 (89.4%) of the 399 enrolled subjects who completed a second blood draw at the time the study closed."||6.0|-4.8|>0.5
91827256|NCT05732454|183531973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.76|||=|0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|8.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor (disease severity as measured by baseline IGA score 3 \[moderate\], 4 \[severe\]) derived from clinical database via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach was used.||8.83|-16.36|=0.5580
91827257|NCT05732454|183531974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.07|||=|0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|28.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor (disease severity as measured by baseline IGA score 3 \[moderate\], 4 \[severe\]) derived from clinical database via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach was used.||28.85|-10.70|=0.3685
91827258|NCT05732454|183531975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-29.22|||=|0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.53|-2.9|||Rubin's rule|||Jump-to-Control (JTC) method was used for evaluation. A complete imputed dataset was analyzed using analysis of covariance model including effects of treatment group, actual stratification factor, and baseline value. Multiple results of the treatment comparison were combined using Rubin's rules, reporting the combined treatment difference, its standard error, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value, across the visits.||-2.90|-55.53|=0.0303
91827259|NCT01262651|183532010|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.41||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.16|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.16|0.00|0.0854
91827260|NCT03822533|183532023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.089|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean difference using independent samples t-test.||0.089|-0.059|0.69
91827261|NCT03822533|183532023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.063||The linear regression analysis was needed to calculate the incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER). The p-value from this test was not relevant for the ICER calculation.|Regression, Linear|First step in a cost-efficiency analysis||Presenting β-values from linear regression analysis for group variable adjusted for baseline differences in EQ-5D-3L-index. The results from this analysis were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (mean difference in costs divided by mean difference in QALYs).||0.063|-0.093|
91827262|NCT03822533|183532024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-364.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-891.0|164.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent-samples t-test. Dependent variable cost items, independent variable group (physiotherapist or physician assessment)||164|-891|0.17
91827263|NCT03822533|183532024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-364.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-870.0|143.0||The linear regression analysis was needed to calculate the incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER). The p-value from this test was not relevant for the ICER calculation.|Regression, Linear|First step in a cost-efficiency analysis||||143|-870|
91827264|NCT03822533|183532025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-233.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-616.0|150.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent-samples t-test. Dependent variable cost items, independent variable group (physiotherapist or physician assessment)||150|-616|0.23
91827265|NCT03822533|183532025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-233.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-605.0|139.0||The linear regression analysis was needed to calculate the incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER). The p-value from this test was not relevant for the ICER calculation.|Regression, Linear|First step in a cost-efficiency analysis.||Linear regression analysis. The results from this analysis were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (mean difference in costs divided by mean difference in QALYs).||139|-605|
91827266|NCT03822533|183532028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-219.0|314.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||314|-219|0.72
91827267|NCT03822533|183532029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-178.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.0|118.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||118|-239|<0.01
91827268|NCT03822533|183532030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|6.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.2|-42|0.01
91827269|NCT03822533|183532031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|36.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||36|-59|0.62
91827270|NCT03822533|183532032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|15.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15|-13|0.87
91827271|NCT03822533|183532033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-254.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-728.0|220.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||220|-728|0.27
91827272|NCT03822533|183532034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.0|118.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||118|-113|0.96
91827273|NCT00304070|183532093|OTHER||2 Year EFS|0.89||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||2-year KM estimate|||We will test the 2-year EFS is 90% using the asymptotic distribution of the complementary log-log distribution of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate.||||0.44
91827274|NCT00304070|183532093|OTHER||2 Year EFS|0.53||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||2-year KM estimate|||We will test the 2-year EFS is 50% using the asymptotic distribution of the complementary log-log distribution of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate.||||0.40
91827275|NCT00304070|183532093|OTHER||2 Year EFS|0.55||||8.53e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||2-year KM estimate|||We will test the 2-year EFS is 15% using the asymptotic distribution of the complementary log-log distribution of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate.||||0.00000853
91827276|NCT04118348|183532102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|7.36|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||7.36|4.46|<.001
91827277|NCT04118348|183532102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|6.27|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||6.27|3.79|<.001
91827278|NCT04118348|183532102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||HMT-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||2.19|1.28|<.001
91827279|NCT04118348|183532102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|4.29|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||4.29|2.73|<.001
91827280|NCT04118348|183532102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|3.66|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||3.66|2.32|<.001
91827281|NCT04118348|183532102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|BPA was set as the reference group.||1.43|0.96|.114
91827282|NCT04118348|183532103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.15|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||4.15|2.02|<.001
91827283|NCT04118348|183532103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.3|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||3.30|1.57|<.001
91827284|NCT04118348|183532103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.27|||Regression, Logistic||HMT-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||2.27|1.04|.030
91827285|NCT04118348|183532103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.59|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||2.59|1.37|<.001
91827286|NCT04118348|183532103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||2.06|1.06|.021
91827287|NCT04118348|183532103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.71|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|BPA was set as the reference group.||1.71|0.95|.107
91827288|NCT00779246|183532104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis was that ASC and CHG would be no different in preventing acquisition of MRSA.||2.9|0.5|>0.05
91827289|NCT01046643|183532132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.222
91827290|NCT01046643|183532132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.107
91827291|NCT01046643|183532132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.127
91827292|NCT01046643|183532132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.954
91827293|NCT01046643|183532132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.385
91827294|NCT01046643|183532132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||Category = Right Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.310
91827295|NCT01046643|183532133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.594
91827296|NCT01046643|183532133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.653
91827297|NCT01046643|183532134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.452
91827298|NCT01046643|183532134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.868
91827299|NCT01046643|183532134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0||||Category = Right Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.549
91827300|NCT01046643|183532134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.124
91827301|NCT01046643|183532134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.158
91827302|NCT01046643|183532134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||Category = Right Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.055
91827303|NCT01046643|183532135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.561
91827304|NCT01046643|183532135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.726
91827305|NCT00823082|183532177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91827306|NCT00823082|183532178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91827307|NCT00823082|183532179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6115|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||At ICU discharge visit||||0.6115
91827308|NCT00823082|183532180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Follow-up visit||||0.1211
91827309|NCT00823082|183532180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ICU discharge visit||||1.000
91827310|NCT00823082|183532181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ICU discharge visit||||0.4870
91827311|NCT00823082|183532182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3897|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann test|||||||0.3897
91827312|NCT00823082|183532183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91952900|NCT03557775|183802439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance was set 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.663
91827313|NCT00823082|183532184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0004
91827314|NCT00823082|183532185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0209
91827315|NCT00823082|183532186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number of units of packed red blood cells||||0.7433
91827316|NCT00823082|183532186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7453|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Units of fresh frozen plasma||||0.7453
91827317|NCT00823082|183532186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2705|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Units of platelets||||0.2705
91827318|NCT00823082|183532187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4460
91827319|NCT00823082|183532188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4936|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4936
91827320|NCT00823082|183532189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Follow-up visit||||1.000
91827321|NCT00823082|183532189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6218|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ICU discharge visit||||0.6218
91827322|NCT00823082|183532190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann|||||||0.9574
91827323|NCT00823082|183532191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7489|||||||Hodges-Lehmann test|||||||0.7489
91827324|NCT03452917|183532192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.82|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.0||||Chi-squared||||||-8.0|0.82
91827325|NCT03452917|183532192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.66|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.5||||Chi-squared||||||-6.5|0.66
91827326|NCT03452917|183532193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.6|||Chi-squared|||||2.6|-6.0|0.44
91827327|NCT03452917|183532193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.0|||Chi-squared|||||4.0|-4.9|0.85
91827328|NCT03452917|183532194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.4|-0.9|0.12
91827329|NCT03452917|183532194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.6|-2.5|0.41
91827330|NCT03452917|183532195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.5|||Chi-squared|||||3.5|-8.3|0.42
91827331|NCT03452917|183532195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.9|||Chi-squared|||||3.9|-8.0|0.49
91827332|NCT03452917|183532196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.6|||Chi-squared|||||8.6|-7.8|0.93
91827333|NCT03452917|183532196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.3|||Chi-squared|||||13.3|-2.8|0.20
91827334|NCT03452917|183532197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.8|||Chi-squared|||||3.8|-7.7|0.50
91827335|NCT03452917|183532197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.7|||Chi-squared|||||3.7|-7.8|0.48
91827336|NCT03452917|183532198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.6|||Chi-squared|||||2.6|-6.0|0.49
91827337|NCT03452917|183532198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.0|||Chi-squared|||||4.0|-4.9|0.85
91827338|NCT03198000|183532199|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (-0.22, 0.44).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.055|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.055|-0.140|0.392
91827339|NCT03198000|183532199|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (-0.22, 0.44)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.107|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.107|-0.086|0.828
91827340|NCT03198000|183532200|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (0.80, 1.25).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.411|||GEE model|GEE model with treatment as factor.||||1.411|0.539|0.576
91827341|NCT03198000|183532200|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (0.80, 1.25)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.368|||GEE model|GEE model with treatment as factor.||||1.368|0.552|0.544
91827342|NCT03198000|183532201|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.074|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.074|-0.085|0.893
91827343|NCT03198000|183532201|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.084|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.084|-0.073|0.886
91827344|NCT03198000|183532202|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.02|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.020|-0.177|0.117
91827345|NCT03198000|183532202|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.041|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.041|-0.153|0.255
91827346|NCT03198000|183532204|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.78|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.78|-0.05|0.085
91827347|NCT03198000|183532204|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.64|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.64|-0.18|0.269
91827348|NCT03198000|183532205|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.10|-0.60|0.162
91827349|NCT03198000|183532205|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.14|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.14|-0.55|0.234
91827350|NCT03198000|183532206|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.19|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.19|-0.48|0.398
91827351|NCT03198000|183532206|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.13|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.13|-0.54|0.233
91952901|NCT03557775|183802440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.026
91827352|NCT04102501|183532254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5858|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5858
91827353|NCT04102501|183532255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8061
91827354|NCT04433767|183532300|OTHER||Slope|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||||< 0.001
91827355|NCT04433767|183532302|OTHER||Intercept|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.32|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.32|0.04|0.0127
91827356|NCT04433767|183532303|OTHER||Intercept|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.51|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.51|0.17|0.0005
91827357|NCT04433767|183532304|OTHER||Intercept|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.42|-0.04|0.1027
91827358|NCT04433767|183532305|OTHER||Intercept|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.37|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.37|-0.18|0.4846
91827359|NCT04433767|183532306|OTHER||Intercept|9.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.77||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.28|62.36|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||62.36|-44.28|0.7290
91827360|NCT04433767|183532307|OTHER||Intercept|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.9196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|4.78|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||4.78|-5.28|0.9196
91827361|NCT04433767|183532308|OTHER||Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||0.33|0.01|0.033
91827362|NCT04433767|183532309|OTHER||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||0.35|0.01|0.041
91827363|NCT04433767|183532310|OTHER||Slope|-11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|-4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-4.45|-17.81|0.001
91827364|NCT04433767|183532311|OTHER||Slope|-12.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|-5.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-5.33|-19.94|0.001
91827365|NCT04433767|183532312|OTHER||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-1.15|<0.001
91827366|NCT04433767|183532313|OTHER||Slope|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-0.34|-0.92|0.001
91827367|NCT04433767|183532314|OTHER||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-0.18|-0.65|<0.001
91827368|NCT04433767|183532315|OTHER||Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||0.23|-1.17|0.183
91827369|NCT04433767|183532316|OTHER||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.13|-0.74|0.170
91827370|NCT04433767|183532317|OTHER||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.80|0.00|0.051
91827371|NCT04433767|183532318|OTHER||Slope|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||-0.11|-0.33|<0.001
91827372|NCT04433767|183532319|OTHER||Slope|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.69|0.17|0.002
91827373|NCT04433767|183532320|OTHER||Slope|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.83|0.21|0.002
91827374|NCT04433767|183532321|OTHER||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||1.23|-1.05|0.876
91952902|NCT03557775|183802441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.721
91827375|NCT03176693|183532335|EQUIVALENCE|A power analysis was calculated based on findings reported by Weingarten et al. of more frequent episodes of hypotension (defined as difference of mean systolic blood pressure \<30% from baseline) in phenoxybenzamine compared with doxazosin (15.7% versus 5.1%). Using a standard deviation of 16 and 11 (derived from reported interquartile ranges, assuming normal distribution), respectively, to achieve 80% power using an alpha =.05, a total sample size of 56 patients was determined.||||||0.56||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: hemodynamic instability time will not differ between arms||||.56
91827376|NCT03325712|183532342|OTHER||Slope|0.8188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0725|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6966|0.941|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.9410|0.6966|
91827377|NCT03325712|183532343|OTHER||Slope|0.7708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6449|0.8967|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.8967|0.6449|
91827378|NCT03325712|183532344|OTHER||Slope|0.7167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4922|0.9412|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.9412|0.4922|
91827379|NCT03325712|183532345|OTHER||Slope|0.6825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1344|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4556|0.9094|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.9094|0.4556|
91827380|NCT03325712|183532346|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|102.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.18|121.25||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"Placebo matching BI 705564. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||121.25|87.18|
91827381|NCT03325712|183532346|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|93.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.94|108.32||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 2. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||108.32|79.94|
91952903|NCT03557775|183802442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.408
91952904|NCT03557775|183802443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.638
91952905|NCT03557775|183802444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.715
91952906|NCT03557775|183802445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.708
91827382|NCT03325712|183532346|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|109.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.59|116.42||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 3. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||116.42|103.59|
91827383|NCT03325712|183532346|OTHER||Ratio ( T/R)|108.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|127.66||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 5. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||127.66|92.00|
91827384|NCT03325712|183532346|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|109.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.43|128.79||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 4. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||128.79|92.43|
91827385|NCT03325712|183532347|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|100.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.99|119.31||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"Placebo matching BI 705564. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||119.31|83.99|
91827386|NCT03325712|183532347|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|84.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.29|98.62||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 2. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||98.62|72.29|
91827387|NCT03325712|183532347|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|109.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.34|126.88||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 3. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||126.88|94.34|
91827388|NCT03325712|183532347|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|95.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.75|114.21||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 5. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||114.21|79.75|
91827389|NCT03325712|183532347|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|90.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.75|114.59||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 4. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||114.59|70.75|
91827390|NCT02265237|183532348|SUPERIORITY|97.5% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 67% to achieve superiority. The predefined threshold of 67% was based on historical SVR rates for HCV genotype 4 (GT4)-infected subjects treated with pegIFN/RBV.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|92.4|100.0|||||The confidence interval was calculated using the Wilson score method.|The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between Part I (arms A and B) and Part II (arm C) using a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of 0.025 for each part. Additionally, a fixed sequence procedure for Part I was used to proceed through the primary efficacy comparisons in the following order: 1) test of superiority of arm B and 2) test of superiority of arm A. The primary outcome within Arm C was tested with a Bonferroni-corrected Type 1 error rate of 0.025 for superiority.||100.0|92.4|
91827391|NCT02265237|183532348|SUPERIORITY|97.5% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Wilson score method; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 67% to achieve superiority. The predefined threshold of 67% was based on historical SVR rates for HCV GT4-infected subjects treated with pegIFN/RBV.|Percentage of Participants|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|86.7|99.2|||||The confidence interval was calculated using the Wilson score method.|The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between Part I (arms A and B) and Part II (arm C) using a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of 0.025 for each part. Additionally, a fixed sequence procedure for Part I was used to proceed through the primary efficacy comparisons in the following order: 1) test of superiority of arm B and 2) test of superiority of arm A. The primary outcome within Arm C was tested with a Bonferroni-corrected Type 1 error rate of 0.025 for superiority.||99.2|86.7|
91952907|NCT03557775|183802446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.988
91952908|NCT00276458|183802449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001||95.0|-25.2|-14.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-14.5|-25.2|<0.001
91952909|NCT00276458|183802450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.273||95.0|-1.9|6.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||6.6|-1.9|0.273
91827392|NCT02265237|183532348|SUPERIORITY|97.5% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 67% to achieve superiority. The predefined threshold of 67% was based on historical SVR rates for HCV genotype 4 (GT4)-infected subjects treated with pegIFN/RBV.|Percentage of Participants|93.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|82.6|97.7|||||The confidence interval was calculated using the Wilson score method.|The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between Part I (arms A and B) and Part II (arm C) using a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of 0.025 for each part. Additionally, a fixed sequence procedure for Part I was used to proceed through the primary efficacy comparisons in the following order: 1) test of superiority of arm B and 2) test of superiority of arm A. The primary outcome within Arm C was tested with a Bonferroni-corrected Type 1 error rate of 0.025 for superiority.||97.7|82.6|
91827393|NCT02265237|183532349|SUPERIORITY|Treatment differences (with 95% confidence intervals) and corresponding P-value for the specified comparisons were estimated using stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion and continuity-corrected variance, adjusting for IFN/RBV treatment history (treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced).|Stratum-Adjusted MH Difference|-3.39||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|3.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||Within Part I (arm A and B), since superiority was demonstrated for both arms in the primary outcome measures, testing continued to the first secondary outcome measure.||3.07|-9.85|0.304
91827394|NCT02265237|183532350|SUPERIORITY|Treatment differences (with 95% confidence intervals) and corresponding P-value for the specified comparisons were estimated using stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportion and continuity-corrected variance, adjusting for IFN/RBV treatment history (treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced).|Stratum-Adjusted MH Difference|6.45||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|13.81|||Mantel Haenszel|||Within Part II (arm C), since superiority was demonstrated for the primary outcome measure, testing continued to the second secondary outcome measure.||13.81|-0.91|0.086
91827395|NCT00839072|183532374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax does not exceed 125%.|Ratio of the mean|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.99|69.81|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD/Desyrel®|||69.81|50.99|
91827396|NCT00839072|183532375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUCT is between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of the mean|78.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.7|88.51|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD/Desyrel®|||88.51|69.70|
91827397|NCT00839072|183532376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC∞ is between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of the mean|80.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.67|90.68|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD/Desyrel®|||90.68|70.67|
91827398|NCT00380068|183532380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.64|<|0.001||95.0|11.8|29.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 24||||29.3|11.8|<0.001
91827399|NCT00380068|183532381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.11|<|0.001||95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 24||||-0.3|-0.8|<0.001
91827400|NCT00380068|183532382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.001||95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 48||||-0.2|-1.0|0.001
91827401|NCT00380068|183532383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from baseline|-25.5||||||95.0|-33.6|-16.3|||||Percent change from baseline derived from Geometric Mean Ratio|||-16.3|-33.6|
91827402|NCT00380068|183532384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from baseline|-29.2||||||95.0|-39.8|-16.6|||||Percent change from baseline derived from Geometric Mean Ratio|||-16.6|-39.8|
91827403|NCT00380068|183532385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test performed on actual change from baseline WHO functional Class (eg, a change from WHO Class III to II is -1; a change from WHO Class IV to II is -2; etc).|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
91827404|NCT00380068|183532386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test performed on actual change from baseline WHO functional Class (eg, a change from WHO Class III to II is -1; a change from WHO Class IV to II is -2; etc).|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
91827405|NCT00380068|183532387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 24||||||<0.001
91827406|NCT00380068|183532388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 48||||||<0.001
91827407|NCT00380068|183532389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|89.4||||||95.0|84.4|92.8|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||92.8|84.4|
91827408|NCT00380068|183532390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|84.1||||||95.0|78.2|88.6|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||88.6|78.2|
91827409|NCT00380068|183532391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|95.3||||||95.0|91.4|97.4|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||97.4|91.4|
91827410|NCT00380068|183532392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|92.9||||||95.0|88.3|95.8|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||95.8|88.3|
91827411|NCT00380068|183532393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|95.0||||||95.0|88.5|97.9|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||97.9|88.5|
91827412|NCT00380068|183532394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|90.0||||||95.0|81.6|94.7|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||94.7|81.6|
91827413|NCT00380068|183532395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|97.1||||||95.0|93.6|98.7|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||98.7|93.6|
91827414|NCT00380068|183532396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|95.3||||||95.0|91.2|97.6|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||97.6|91.2|
91827415|NCT01297062|183532397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI), equivalent to the upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, for change from baseline in QTcP (exenatide - placebo) is below 10 msec.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.5||No adjustment on CI for the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Exenatide versus Placebo), Day, Time, Period, Sequence, and Day-Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept.|60 evaluable subjects gives more than 90% power to show non-inferiority of exenatide versus placebo, using t-test in 2-way crossover, alpha=0.05, true difference of 5 msec, and standard deviation of the within-subject difference of 10.04 msec.||-0.50|-2.21|
91827416|NCT01297062|183532398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of 2-sided 90% CI, equivalent to the upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, for change from baseline in QTcP (exenatide - placebo) is below 10 msec.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.88|-1.16||No adjustment on CI for the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Exenatide versus Placebo), Day, Time, Period, Sequence, and Day-Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept.|60 evaluable subjects gives more than 90% power to show non-inferiority of exenatide versus placebo, using t-test in 2-way crossover, alpha=0.05, true difference of 5 msec, and standard deviation of the within-subject difference of 10.04 msec.||-1.16|-2.88|
91827417|NCT01297062|183532399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of 2-sided 90% CI, equivalent to the upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, for change from baseline in QTcP (exenatide - placebo) is below 10 msec.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.15||No adjustment on CI for the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Exenatide versus Placebo), Day, Time, Period, Sequence, and Day-Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept.|60 evaluable subjects gives more than 90% power to show non-inferiority of exenatide versus placebo, using t-test in 2-way crossover, alpha=0.05, true difference of 5 msec, and standard deviation of the within-subject difference of 10.04 msec.||-0.15|-2.11|
91827418|NCT01297062|183532400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.82|8.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Moxifloxacin versus Placebo), Time, Period, Sequence, and Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept. Multiplicity adjusted CI for the mean difference is shown.|Assay sensitivity of moxifloxacin is established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for difference in change from baseline in QTcP (moxifloxacin - placebo) is greater than 5 msec.||8.12|2.82|
91827419|NCT01297062|183532401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.46|12.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Moxifloxacin versus Placebo), Time, Period, Sequence, and Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept. Multiplicity adjusted CI for the mean difference is shown.|Assay sensitivity of moxifloxacin is established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for difference in change from baseline in QTcP (moxifloxacin - placebo) is greater than 5 msec.||12.67|8.46|
91827420|NCT01297062|183532402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.71|13.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Moxifloxacin versus Placebo), Time, Period, Sequence, and Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept. Multiplicity adjusted CI for the mean difference is shown.|Assay sensitivity of moxifloxacin is established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for difference in change from baseline in QTcP (moxifloxacin - placebo) is greater than 5 msec.||13.13|8.71|
91827421|NCT01297062|183532405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0008||||0.5962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0017|0.0033|||Mixed Models Analysis||The linear mixed-effects model includes placebo-adjusted change from baseline in QTcP as response, plasma exenatide concentration as covariate, fixed intercept of zero, subject random slope.|The analysis is to test the significance of the linear regression slope (null hypothesis: slope equal to zero) between placebo-adjusted change from baseline in QTcP and exenatide concentration.||0.0033|-0.0017|0.5962
91827422|NCT03191903|183532406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5874|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5874
91827423|NCT03191903|183532407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0829|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0829
91827424|NCT03191903|183532408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4673|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4673
91827425|NCT03191903|183532409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9408|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9408
91827426|NCT03191903|183532410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7770
91827427|NCT03191903|183532411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7590
91952910|NCT00276458|183802451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0|-21.2|-11.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-11.7|-21.2|<0.001
91952911|NCT00276458|183802452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-15.8|-8.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-8.6|-15.8|<0.001
91952912|NCT00276458|183802453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.159||95.0|-17.7|-0.4||ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline triglycerides value|Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline triglycerides value.|"The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic.~(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)"|||-0.4|-17.7|0.159
91827428|NCT03191903|183532412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8309|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8309
91827429|NCT03191903|183532413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6215|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6215
91827430|NCT03191903|183532414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2160
91827431|NCT03191903|183532415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7026
91827432|NCT03191903|183532416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0438|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0438
91827433|NCT03149328|183532417|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates).||||||0.3||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||We will examine the trajectories of outcome measures for patients in the comparator and intervention groups. The area under the curve (AUC) will be calculated for each trajectory during the period that the patient is participating to create a summary score. Null Hypothesis is that both groups are the same.||||0.30
91827434|NCT03149328|183532418|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates).||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||We will examine the trajectories of outcome measures for patients in the comparator and intervention groups. The area under the curve (AUC) will be calculated for each trajectory during the period that the patient is participating to create a summary score. Null Hypothesis = both groups are the same||||0.28
91952913|NCT00276458|183802454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.001||95.0|-17.8|-9.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-9.6|-17.8|<0.001
91827435|NCT03149328|183532419|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical Significance was p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups in the number of hospitalizations"||||0.22
91827436|NCT03149328|183532419|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.1||||||Threshold for statistical Significance was p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups in the number of emergency room visits"||||0.10
91827437|NCT03149328|183532420|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.18||||||Threshold for statistical significance p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups"||||0.18
91827438|NCT03149328|183532421|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.79||||||Threshold for statistical significance p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups"||||0.79
91827439|NCT03149328|183532422|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)|||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups"||||<0.001
91827440|NCT02897141|183532458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||||0.001
91827441|NCT02897141|183532458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough or Shortness of Breath||||0.356
91827442|NCT02897141|183532458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||||0.001
91827443|NCT02897141|183532458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Diarrhea||||0.962
91827444|NCT02897141|183532458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.651|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difficulty falling or staying asleep||||0.651
91827445|NCT02897141|183532458|SUPERIORITY|Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difficulty remembering||||0.230
91827446|NCT02897141|183532458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Dizziness||||0.275
91827447|NCT02897141|183532458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.987|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||||0.987
91952914|NCT00276458|183802455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.681||95.0|-3.9|2.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo A-I value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||2.6|-3.9|0.681
91952915|NCT00276458|183802456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001||95.0|-17.5|-8.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C:HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-8.7|-17.5|<0.001
91827448|NCT02897141|183532458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fever, chills, sweats||||0.037
91827449|NCT02897141|183532458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.534|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Nausea or vomiting||||0.534
91827450|NCT02897141|183532458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Neuropathy||||0.002
91952916|NCT00276458|183802457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001||95.0|-26.5|-15.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C:HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-15.3|-26.5|<0.001
91827451|NCT02897141|183532458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.349|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Skin problems||||0.349
91827452|NCT02897141|183532458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight loss or wasting||||0.020
91827453|NCT02897141|183532459|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Physical functioning scale||||0.001
91827454|NCT02897141|183532459|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Median Difference (Final Values)|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.02||0.458|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Role limitations due to physical health scale||||0.458
91827455|NCT02897141|183532459|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.91||0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Role limitations due to emotional problems scale||||0.725
91827456|NCT02897141|183532459|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.807|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Energy/fatigue scale|\[Not specified\]|||0.807
91827457|NCT02897141|183532459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.693|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional well-being scale||||0.693
91827458|NCT02897141|183532459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.128|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social functioning scale||||0.128
91827459|NCT02897141|183532459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scale||||0.007
91827460|NCT02897141|183532459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General health scale||||0.960
91827461|NCT02897141|183532459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.836|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical health summary scale||||0.836
91827462|NCT02897141|183532459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.822|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental health summary scale||||0.822
91827463|NCT02897141|183532460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.529|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Function||||0.529
91952917|NCT00276458|183802458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0|-17.9|-8.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B:Apo A-I value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-8.3|-17.9|<0.001
91827464|NCT02897141|183532460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||||0.312
91952918|NCT00276458|183802459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001||95.0|-23.2|-11.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-11.4|-23.2|<0.001
91827465|NCT02897141|183532460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.841|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||||0.841
91827466|NCT02897141|183532460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.848|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||||0.848
91827467|NCT02897141|183532460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.208|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance||||0.208
91827468|NCT02897141|183532460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.754|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Satisfaction with participation in social roles||||0.754
91827469|NCT02897141|183532460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.454|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain interference||||0.454
91827470|NCT02897141|183532461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.252|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.252
91952919|NCT00276458|183802460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.841||95.0|-23.8|28.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment|"Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means.~(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)"|||28.8|-23.8|0.841
91952920|NCT00276458|183802461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.839||95.0|-26.1|8.3|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline CRP value|"The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic.~(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)"|||8.3|-26.1|0.839
91952921|NCT00276458|183802462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.001||95.0|3.8|19.47|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva + EZ versus Atorva.|||19.47|3.80|<0.001
91952922|NCT04259905|183802463|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91952923|NCT04259905|183802464|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91952924|NCT04259905|183802465|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91827471|NCT02897141|183532462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||CASE adherence index||||0.017
91827472|NCT02897141|183532462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06||0.338|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visual analogue scale||||0.338
91827473|NCT02897141|183532463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.743|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall||||0.743
91827474|NCT02897141|183532463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.166|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Quality of life||||0.166
91827475|NCT02897141|183532463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.899|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Perceived usefulness||||0.899
91827476|NCT02897141|183532463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.803|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Perceived ease of use||||0.803
91827477|NCT02897141|183532463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||User Control||||0.480
91827478|NCT00156065|183532488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Loss of Effect|0.8619||||||95.0|0.6912|0.9644|||||Loss of effect = increase in total PANSS \>=30% from start of current study; subjective worsening of schizophrenia/request for dose increase; Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness score \>=6; discontinuation for lack of efficacy.|||0.9644|0.6912|
91827479|NCT00156065|183532488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Loss of Effect|0.8834||||||95.0|0.7744|0.955|||||Loss of effect = increase in total PANSS \>=30% from start of current study; subjective worsening of schizophrenia/request for dose increase; Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness score \>=6; discontinuation for lack of efficacy.|||0.9550|0.7744|
91827480|NCT00156065|183532488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Loss of Effect|0.9376||||||95.0|0.7631|0.9952|||||Loss of effect = increase in total PANSS \>=30% from start of current study; subjective worsening of schizophrenia/request for dose increase; Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness score \>=6; discontinuation for lack of efficacy.|||0.9952|0.7631|
91827481|NCT02395120|183532505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.08||We addressed the issue of multiple testing, both multiple comparisons and multiple sites, using a gatekeeper approach. The use of 0.05 alpha level for each test maintained a 0.05 family-wise alpha level for the six tests (three at each site).|Regression, Logistic||||The primary outcome analysis utilized generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logit link for the binary dental care receipt outcome. The GEE analysis was conducted using dental care receipt outcomes as restorative care alone (ICDAS codes ≥3), as well as combined preventive (i.e. sealants) and restorative care (ICDAS codes ≥1). Models were fit separately to the overall data (all sites combined), the combined EC and WA sites (based on our original plan of two predominantly low-income school districts), and the BD schools alone. Each model included, as covariates, indicator variables for intervention, site (except for the model with BD alone), child grade, and caregiver demographic variables (race, education, marital status). Corresponding estimated odds ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals were computed.|3.08|1.21|<0.05
91827482|NCT01997398|183532508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences in baseline and 6-month postoperative scores were assessed using a series of repeated measures general linear models with a single within-subjects factor and no between-subjects factors.|Repeated measures general linear models|||||||<0.001
91827483|NCT02250612|183532525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.93
91827484|NCT02250612|183532525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.92
91827485|NCT02250612|183532525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
91827486|NCT02250612|183532525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
91827487|NCT02250612|183532525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
91827488|NCT02250612|183532525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
91827489|NCT02250612|183532526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
91827490|NCT02250612|183532526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
91827491|NCT02250612|183532526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
91827492|NCT02250612|183532526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.412
91827493|NCT02250612|183532526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.79
91827494|NCT02250612|183532526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.28
91827495|NCT01153633|183532547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2317||95.0||||F-test (2-sided), ANCOVA with baseline target ulcer size as covariate|F-test|||||||0.2317
91827496|NCT01153633|183532551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4905||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4905
91827497|NCT01153633|183532552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9945||95.0||||F-test (2-sided), ANCOVA with baseline target ulcer size as covariate|F-test|||||||0.9945
91827498|NCT00384085|183532553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.56||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.52||The type I error was controlled by performing a 2-tailed comparison at a p=0.0475 level for superiority testing.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|0.97|0.0628
91827499|NCT00384085|183532554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of Lantus/Apidra-1 would be established if the upper limit of the 2 sided, 99.75% CI for the difference in the mean change from baseline between Lantus/Apidra-1 and Novolog Mix 70/30 was \<0.5%.|Adjusted Mean of difference|-0.34||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.15||The type I error was controlled by performing a 2-tailed comparison at a p=0.0025 level for noninferiority testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.82|0.0359
91827500|NCT00384085|183532555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.66||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.64||The type I error was controlled by performing a 2-tailed comparison at a p=0.0475 level for superiority testing.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.64|1.04|0.0313
91827501|NCT00384085|183532556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean of difference|-0.31||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.63|0.0565
91827502|NCT00384085|183532557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.79||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.85|1.12|0.0140
91827503|NCT00384085|183532558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.02||||0.9268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|0.61|0.9268
91827504|NCT00384085|183532558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.11||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.73|1.19|0.0107
91827505|NCT00384085|183532558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.06||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.61|1.17|0.0121
91827506|NCT05912400|183532561|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain).|Spearman's Rho|||||||<0.01
91827507|NCT05912400|183532561|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.02
91827508|NCT05912400|183532561|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.03
91827509|NCT05912400|183532561|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index)||||||0.88
91827510|NCT05912400|183532561|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.36
91827511|NCT05912400|183532562|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used analyze correlation btwn ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain)||||||0.54
91827512|NCT05912400|183532562|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.36
91827513|NCT05912400|183532562|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.94
91827514|NCT05912400|183532562|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index).||||||0.53
91827515|NCT05912400|183532562|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.51
91827516|NCT05912400|183532563|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.36
91827517|NCT05912400|183532563|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.51
91827518|NCT05912400|183532564|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain).||||||<0.01
91827519|NCT05912400|183532564|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain).||||||0.54
91827520|NCT05912400|183532565|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.02
91827521|NCT05912400|183532565|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.36
91827522|NCT05912400|183532566|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.03
91827523|NCT05912400|183532566|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.94
91827524|NCT05912400|183532567|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index).||||||0.88
91827525|NCT05912400|183532567|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index).||||||0.53
91827526|NCT01944631|183532573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.321|0.095|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||0.095|-1.321|0.0895
91827527|NCT01944631|183532574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|0.113|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||0.113|-0.464|0.2310
91827528|NCT01944631|183532575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.042|0.156|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||0.156|-1.042|0.1465
91827529|NCT01944631|183532576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.102||0.8148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|6.845|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||6.845|-5.390|0.8148
91827530|NCT01944631|183532577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1887|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratifying for the variable 'baseline TSS'||||||0.1887
91827531|NCT01944631|183532578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1069||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|1.84|||Regression, Logistic||A value greater than one favours bisolviral|||1.840|0.666|0.6954
91827532|NCT04389762|183532587|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91827533|NCT04389762|183532588|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91827534|NCT04389762|183532589|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91827535|NCT04389762|183532590|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
91827536|NCT04389762|183532591|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91827537|NCT04389762|183532592|OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
91827538|NCT04389762|183532593|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91827539|NCT02605954|183532608|NON_INFERIORITY|With 200 participants randomized to switch to the E/C/F/TAF FDC group at Day 1 and 100 participants randomized to the ABC/3TC+3rd Agent group at Week 24, the lower limit of the observed one sided 97.5% confidence interval was expected to be greater than -0.120 (ie, non-inferiority margin of 12%) with \> 90% power when the percentage of responders in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint is at least 90% at Week 24.|Difference in Percentages|-4.4||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|-9.4|0.15
91827540|NCT02605954|183532609|NON_INFERIORITY|With 200 participants randomized to switch to the E/C/F/TAF FDC group at Day 1 and 100 participants randomized to the delayed switch group at Week 12, the lower limit of the observed one sided 97.5% confidence interval will be expected to be greater than -0.120 (ie, non-inferiority margin of 12%) with \> 90% power when the percentage of responders in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint is at least 90% at Week 12.|Difference in Percentages|-3.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.6|-8.3|0.17
91827541|NCT02605954|183532611|OTHER||Difference in least square mean|-36.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||||9|-80|0.11
91827542|NCT03214367|183532646|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.16|0.060
91827543|NCT03214367|183532646|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|0.04|0.003
91827544|NCT03214367|183532647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-20.6|||ANCOVA|||||-20.6|-35.3|<0.001
91827545|NCT03214367|183532647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.4|||ANCOVA|||||21.4|5.0|0.002
91827546|NCT03214367|183532648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-21.2|||ANCOVA|||||-21.2|-41.1|<0.001
91827547|NCT03214367|183532648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-17.6|0.235
91827548|NCT03214367|183532657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.16|0.184
91827549|NCT03740490|183532659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Each outcome was modeled using a mixed-effects regression with the change score as the dependent variable and treatment group (Smart-T vs. QuitGuide) as the predictor, restricted to participants who received or would have received that type of message.||0.08|-0.28|0.284
91827550|NCT03740490|183532660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.11|0.477
91827551|NCT03740490|183532661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.05|0.456
91827552|NCT03740490|183532662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.56|0.215
91827553|NCT00320216|183532757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi square test|Stratified by baseline weight \[\<=90kg vs \> 90 kg\].||||||<0.001
91827554|NCT00320216|183532757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91827555|NCT00320216|183532757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91827556|NCT00320216|183532757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||To control for the multiplicity for the primary endpoint analysis, the 4 pairwise comparisons between ustekinumab groups and placebo were performed sequentially at alpha = 0.05. The order of testing was prespecified from high to low doses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis:No difference between any ustekinumab group and placebo at an overall significant level of 0.05. Sample Size: With 300 participants (60 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in primary endpoint between ustekinumab groups and placebo using a CMH test with stratification by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power is \>99% at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.01
91827557|NCT00320216|183532758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91827558|NCT00320216|183532758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91827559|NCT00320216|183532758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|||||||<0.001
91827560|NCT00320216|183532758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between any ustekinumab group and placebo.||||<0.001
91827561|NCT01949480|183532819|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.643|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.643
91827562|NCT01949480|183532821|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value is calculated for the NRS at rest.||||.077
91827563|NCT01949480|183532821|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value is calculated for the NRS during deep inspiration at 24 hrs.||||0.39
91827564|NCT01949480|183532822|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.605
91827565|NCT01949480|183532823|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value is for the Local Anesthetic infused in 24 hrs.||||0.104
91827566|NCT01949480|183532824|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.308
91827567|NCT01949480|183532825|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.487
91827568|NCT01949480|183532826|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.493
91827569|NCT01949480|183532827|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.574|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.574
91827570|NCT01949480|183532828|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.913|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.913
91827571|NCT01949480|183532829|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.783|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.783
91827572|NCT00144339|183532831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.9524||95.0|-4.0|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Random-effects model|Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||4|-4|0.9524
91827573|NCT00144339|183532832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.2074||95.0|-2.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Random-effects model|Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||6|-2|0.2074
91827574|NCT00144339|183532833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2488||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.2488
91827575|NCT00144339|183532834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.0145
91827576|NCT00144339|183532835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.299||95.0|-12.0|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||4|-12|0.2990
91827577|NCT00144339|183532836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.8375||95.0|-9.0|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||7|-9|0.8375
91827578|NCT00144339|183532837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.1143||95.0|-14.0|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||2|-14|0.1143
91827579|NCT00144339|183532838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.787||95.0|-9.0|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||7|-9|0.7870
91827580|NCT00144339|183532839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.784||95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||0.3|-0.2|0.7840
91827581|NCT00144339|183532840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2705||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.2705
91827582|NCT00144339|183532841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.306
91827583|NCT00144339|183532842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8103||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.8103
91827584|NCT00144339|183532843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9814||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.9814
91827585|NCT00144339|183532844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.81|0.91|||Log Rank|Cox regression with treatment|Median estimated by Kaplan-Meier estimates; hazard ratio shown as tio vs. placebo|Cox regression||0.91|0.81|<0.0001
91827586|NCT00144339|183532845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.81|0.91|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio calculated as estimated number of events in tio/number of events in placebo|Poisson regression adjusted for overdispersion and treatment exposure||0.91|0.81|<0.0001
91827587|NCT00144339|183532846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3481||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3481
91827588|NCT00144339|183532847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0011||95.0|0.83|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided||Poisson regression adjusting for overdispersion with Pearson's method adjusting for treatment exposure. The logarithm of treatment exposure is used as offset when building the Poisson model.|Poisson regression adjusted for overdispersion and treatment exposure||0.95|0.83|0.0011
91827589|NCT00144339|183532848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1766||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1766
91827590|NCT00144339|183532849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0024||95.0|0.78|0.95|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|Cox regression||0.95|0.78|0.0024
91827591|NCT00144339|183532850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3413||95.0|0.82|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio of estimated number of events between tiotropium bromide and placebo|||1.07|0.82|0.3413
91827592|NCT00144339|183532851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.01||||0.8624||95.0|0.87|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio of estimated number of days of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation leading to hospitalization between tio and placebo|Poisson regression adjusting for overdispersion with Pearson's method adjusting for treatment exposure. The logarithm of treatment exposure is used as offset when building the Poisson model.||1.18|0.87|0.8624
91827593|NCT00144339|183532852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.098|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.098|0.077|<.0001
91827594|NCT00144339|183532853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.037|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|0.037|<.0001
91827595|NCT00144339|183532854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.11|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.110|0.087|<.0001
91827596|NCT00144339|183532855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.069|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.069|0.047|<.0001
91827597|NCT00144339|183532856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.115|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.115|0.091|<.0001
91827598|NCT00144339|183532857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.054|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.042|0.065|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.065|0.042|<.0001
91827599|NCT00144339|183532858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.104|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.104|0.078|<.0001
91827600|NCT00144339|183532859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.066|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.066|0.040|<.0001
91827601|NCT00144339|183532860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.107|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.107|0.081|<.0001
91827602|NCT00144339|183532861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.075|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.075|0.049|<.0001
91827603|NCT00144339|183532862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.109|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.109|0.081|<.0001
91827604|NCT00144339|183532863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.075|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.075|0.047|<.0001
91827605|NCT00144339|183532864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.114|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.114|0.085|<.0001
91827606|NCT00144339|183532865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.08|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.080|0.051|<.0001
91827607|NCT00144339|183532866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.11|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.110|0.080|<.0001
91827608|NCT00144339|183532867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.045|0.076|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.076|0.045|<.0001
91827609|NCT00144339|183532868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.103|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.103|0.073|<.0001
91827610|NCT00144339|183532869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.033|0.065|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.065|0.033|<.0001
91827611|NCT00144339|183532870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.211|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.211|0.168|<.0001
91827612|NCT00144339|183532871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.037|0.073|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.073|0.037|<.0001
91827613|NCT00144339|183532872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.228|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.228|0.180|<.0001
91827614|NCT00144339|183532873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.034|0.076|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.076|0.034|<.0001
91827615|NCT00144339|183532874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.173|0.222|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.222|0.173|<.0001
91827616|NCT00144339|183532875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.026|0.07|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.070|0.026|<.0001
91827617|NCT00144339|183532876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.221|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.221|0.167|<.0001
91827618|NCT00144339|183532877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.026|0.074|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.074|0.026|<.0001
91827619|NCT00144339|183532878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.216|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.216|0.161|<.0001
91827620|NCT00144339|183532879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.035|0.084|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.084|0.035|<.0001
91827621|NCT00144339|183532880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.213|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.213|0.157|<.0001
91827622|NCT00144339|183532881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.0005||95.0|0.021|0.074|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.074|0.021|0.0005
91827623|NCT00144339|183532882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.229|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.229|0.170|<.0001
91827624|NCT00144339|183532883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.038|0.093|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.093|0.038|<.0001
91827625|NCT00144339|183532884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.215|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.215|0.154|<.0001
91827626|NCT00144339|183532885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.002||95.0|0.017|0.076|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.076|0.017|0.0020
91827627|NCT00144339|183532886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.201|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.201|0.139|<.0001
91827628|NCT00144339|183532887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0365||95.0|0.002|0.061|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.061|0.002|0.0365
91827629|NCT00144339|183532888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.192|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.192|0.147|<.0001
91827630|NCT00144339|183532889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038||||0.0002||95.0|0.018|0.058|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.058|0.018|0.0002
91827631|NCT00144339|183532890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.21|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.210|0.161|<.0001
91827632|NCT00144339|183532891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.0018||95.0|0.014|0.06|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.060|0.014|0.0018
91827633|NCT00144339|183532892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.201|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.201|0.151|<.0001
91827634|NCT00144339|183532893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0069||95.0|0.009|0.055|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.055|0.009|0.0069
91827635|NCT00144339|183532894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.182|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.182|0.127|<.0001
91827636|NCT00144339|183532895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.002||95.0|0.015|0.065|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.065|0.015|0.0020
91827637|NCT00144339|183532896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.194|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.194|0.139|<.0001
91827638|NCT00144339|183532897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0165||95.0|0.006|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|0.006|0.0165
91827639|NCT00144339|183532898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.199|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.199|0.141|<.0001
91827640|NCT00144339|183532899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.0248||95.0|0.004|0.059|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.059|0.004|0.0248
91827641|NCT00144339|183532900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.196|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.196|0.136|<.0001
91827642|NCT00144339|183532901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.0004||95.0|0.022|0.078|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.078|0.022|0.0004
91827643|NCT00144339|183532902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.192|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.192|0.130|<.0001
91827644|NCT00144339|183532903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.0809||95.0|-0.003|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|-0.003|0.0809
91827645|NCT00144339|183532904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.182|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.182|0.119|<.0001
91827646|NCT00144339|183532905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.0915||95.0|-0.004|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|-0.004|0.0915
91827647|NCT00144339|183532906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.535|-2.226|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-2.226|-3.535|<.0001
91827648|NCT00144339|183532907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.771|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.461|-2.081|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-2.081|-3.461|<.0001
91827649|NCT00144339|183532908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.593|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.352|-1.834|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.834|-3.352|<.0001
91827650|NCT00144339|183532909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.384|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.191|-1.576|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.576|-3.191|<.0001
91827651|NCT00144339|183532910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.423|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.277|-1.569|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.569|-3.277|<.0001
91827652|NCT00144339|183532911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.345|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.229|-2.462|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-2.462|-4.229|<.0001
91827653|NCT00144339|183532912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.818|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.742|-1.894|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.894|-3.742|<.0001
91827654|NCT00144339|183532913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.303|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.266|-1.34|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.340|-3.266|<.0001
91827655|NCT00144339|183532914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0242||95.0|0.74|0.98|||Log Rank||Cox regression with treatment; hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|||0.98|0.74|0.0242
91827656|NCT00144339|183532915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0339||95.0|0.76|0.99|||Log Rank||Cox regression; cut-off at 4 years ; vital status form intended at 4 years; hazard ratio shown as tio vs. placebo|Hazard ratio of all cause mortality vital status was information followed-up after discontinuation; vital status information up to 1440 days after the start of treatment was used||0.99|0.76|0.0339
91827657|NCT00144339|183532916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0859||95.0|0.79|1.02|||Log Rank||Cox regression; cut-off at 4 years plus 30 days; vital status form intended at 4 years; hazard ratio shown as tio vs. placebo|||1.02|0.79|0.0859
91827658|NCT00144339|183532917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1936||95.0|0.67|1.08|||Log Rank||Cox regression with treatment; hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|||1.08|0.67|0.1936
91827659|NCT00144339|183532918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2377||95.0|0.71|1.09|||Log Rank||Cox regression; cut-off at 4 years plus 30 days; vital status form intended at 4 years; hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|||1.09|0.71|0.2377
91827660|NCT00144339|183532919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.84||||0.029||95.0|0.73|0.98|||Z-test|incidence rate = number of patients with event/ time at risk|Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.98|0.73|0.0290
91827661|NCT00144339|183532920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|1.44||||0.1158||95.0|0.91|2.26|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||2.26|0.91|0.1158
91827662|NCT00144339|183532921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.95||||0.7725||95.0|0.68|1.33|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.33|0.68|0.7725
91827663|NCT00144339|183532922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|1.25||||0.2666||95.0|0.84|1.87|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.87|0.84|0.2666
91827664|NCT00144339|183532923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.59||||0.0337||95.0|0.37|0.96|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.96|0.37|0.0337
91827665|NCT00144339|183532924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.58||||0.0537||95.0|0.33|1.01|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.01|0.33|0.0537
91827666|NCT00144339|183532925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.71||||0.0403||95.0|0.52|0.99|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.99|0.52|0.0403
91827667|NCT00144339|183532926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.84||||0.0001||95.0|0.77|0.92|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.92|0.77|0.0001
91827668|NCT00144339|183532927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|1.2||||0.4789||95.0|0.73|1.98|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.98|0.73|0.4789
91827669|NCT00144339|183532928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.84||||0.0014||95.0|0.76|0.94|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.94|0.76|0.0014
91827670|NCT00144339|183532929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.61||||0.0236||95.0|0.4|0.94|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.94|0.40|0.0236
91827671|NCT00144339|183532930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.95||||0.5064||95.0|0.81|1.11|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.11|0.81|0.5064
91827672|NCT00144339|183532931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.69||||0.0104||95.0|0.52|0.92|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.92|0.52|0.0104
91827673|NCT01156701|183532953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.12|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on influenza risk|||1.12|-1.42|
91827674|NCT01156701|183532953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.17|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.17|-0.93|
91827675|NCT01156701|183532953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.47|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.47|-0.75|
91827676|NCT01156701|183532953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.62|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.62|-1.15|
91827677|NCT01156701|183532953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.03|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.03|-0.51|
91827678|NCT01156701|183532953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on influenza risk|||1.01|0.99|
91827679|NCT01156701|183532953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.99|
91827680|NCT01156701|183532953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|0.99|
91827681|NCT01156701|183532953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.02|0.99|
91827682|NCT01156701|183532953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|0.99|
91827683|NCT01156701|183532954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.36|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on asthma risk|||0.36|-1.17|
91827684|NCT01156701|183532954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.03|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.03|-0.80|
91827685|NCT01156701|183532954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.18|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.18|-0.75|
91827686|NCT01156701|183532954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.85|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||0.85|-0.89|
91827687|NCT01156701|183532954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.11|-0.31|
91827688|NCT01156701|183532954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on asthma risk|||1.00|0.99|
91827689|NCT01156701|183532954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.99|
91827690|NCT01156701|183532954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|0.99|
91827691|NCT01156701|183532954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.01|0.99|
91827692|NCT01156701|183532954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|1.00|
91827693|NCT01156701|183532955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.54|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on pneumonia risk|||1.54|-0.61|
91827694|NCT01156701|183532955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||-0.04|-0.45|
91827695|NCT01156701|183532955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.09|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.09|-0.39|
91827696|NCT01156701|183532955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.81|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.81|-0.38|
91827697|NCT01156701|183532955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.02|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.02|-0.22|
91827698|NCT01156701|183532955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on pneumonia risk|||1.02|0.99|
91827699|NCT01156701|183532955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|1.00|
91827700|NCT01156701|183532955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|1.00|
91827701|NCT01156701|183532955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.02|1.00|
91827702|NCT01156701|183532955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|1.00|
91827703|NCT01156701|183532956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.4|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on bronchitis risk|||3.40|-0.83|
91827704|NCT01156701|183532956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.47|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.47|-0.98|
91827705|NCT01156701|183532956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.67|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.67|-0.85|
91827706|NCT01156701|183532956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.76|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||3.76|-0.70|
91827707|NCT01156701|183532956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.12|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.12|-0.44|
91827708|NCT01156701|183532956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on bronchitis risk|||1.03|0.99|
91827709|NCT01156701|183532956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.99|
91827710|NCT01156701|183532956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.01|0.99|
91827711|NCT01156701|183532956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.04|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.04|0.99|
91827712|NCT01156701|183532956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|1.00|
91827713|NCT01156701|183532957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.79|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on risk of any respiratory diagnosis|||2.79|-3.08|
91827714|NCT01156701|183532957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.25|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.25|-2.39|
91827715|NCT01156701|183532957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.35|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.35|-2.51|
91827716|NCT01156701|183532957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|4.14|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||4.14|-2.29|
91827717|NCT01156701|183532957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.59|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.59|-0.58|
91827718|NCT01156701|183532957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.03|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on risk of any respiratory diagnosis|||1.03|0.97|
91827719|NCT01156701|183532957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.98|
91827720|NCT01156701|183532957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|0.98|
91827721|NCT01156701|183532957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.04|0.98|
91827722|NCT01156701|183532957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|0.99|
91827723|NCT02232893|183532968|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91827724|NCT01764945|183532969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|82.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.69|92.54|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment B : treatment A)."||92.54|73.69|
91952925|NCT00634933|183802499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH), stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) use and geographic region, was used.||||0.061
91952926|NCT00634933|183802499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.120
91827725|NCT01764945|183532969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|83.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.65|94.3|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment C : treatment A)."||94.30|73.65|
91827726|NCT01764945|183532969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|83.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.69|94.28|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment D : treatment A)."||94.28|74.69|
91827727|NCT01764945|183532969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.94|97.04|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment F : treatment E)."||97.04|88.94|
91827728|NCT01764945|183532969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|96.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.55|101.43|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment G : treatment E)."||101.43|91.55|
91827729|NCT01764945|183532969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.88|99.24|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment H : treatment E)."||99.24|89.88|
91827730|NCT01764945|183532970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|74.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.44|83.83|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment B : treatment A)."||83.83|65.44|
91827731|NCT01764945|183532970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|73.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.33|84.68|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment C : treatment A)."||84.68|63.33|
91827732|NCT01764945|183532970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.94|89.99|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment D : treatment A)."||89.99|68.94|
91952927|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.570
91952928|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.200
91952929|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.616
91952930|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.671
91827733|NCT01764945|183532970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.42|85.84|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment F : treatment E)."||85.84|71.42|
91827734|NCT01764945|183532970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.54|88.46|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment G : treatment E)."||88.46|69.54|
91952931|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.108
91827735|NCT01764945|183532970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.35|87.94|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment H : treatment E)."||87.94|69.35|
91827736|NCT01764945|183532971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|82.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.98|88.55|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment B : treatment A)."||88.55|75.98|
91827737|NCT01764945|183532971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|80.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.58|87.83|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment C : treatment A)."||87.83|74.58|
91827738|NCT01764945|183532971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|79.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.84|84.67|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment D : treatment A)."||84.67|74.84|
91827739|NCT01764945|183532971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|91.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.53|95.84|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment F : treatment E)."||95.84|87.53|
91827740|NCT01764945|183532971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.76|99.24|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment G : treatment E)."||99.24|89.76|
91827741|NCT01764945|183532971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.42|97.63|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment H : treatment E)."||97.63|88.42|
91891201|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.18||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0036
91827742|NCT02911948|183532985|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was strictly below 0.0% for null hypothesis (H0): D=0.0% against the alternative (HA): D≠0.0%, where D is the mean difference (IDegLira - IDeg).|Treatment contrast|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pre-trial anti-diabetic treatment as fixed factors and corresponding baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-1.06|-1.50|<0.0001
91827743|NCT02854540|183533014|OTHER||Mean difference (percent)|59.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91827744|NCT03819660|183533045|OTHER||percentage|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91827745|NCT01136291|183533047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The homogeneity between the groups was compared by the Student's t test or the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and chi-square for categorical variables.A comparison between values before and after the study group session was performed by the Student's t test. The effect of the exercise was evaluated by repeated measures ANOVA, where the effect of time and group were evaluated on pressure, weight, Body Mass Index (BMI)and World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnarie domains.||||<0.05
91827746|NCT03965052|183533050|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91827747|NCT03965052|183533052|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Lissamine green treatment groups||||1.000
91827748|NCT03965052|183533052|OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fluorescein treatment groups||||0.667
91827749|NCT03965052|183533053|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91827750|NCT03965052|183533054|OTHER|||||||0.977|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||the analysis was per protocol||||0.977
91827751|NCT03965052|183533056|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
91827752|NCT02308033|183533082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91827753|NCT02308033|183533083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91827754|NCT02308033|183533084|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of normal Nugent scores at 7-14 days||||<0.001
91827755|NCT02308033|183533085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of the number of subjects whose reported their symptoms completely resolved||||0.034
91827756|NCT04773015|183533098|OTHER|||||||0.6371|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6371
91827757|NCT04773015|183533099|OTHER|||||||0.1448|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1448
91827758|NCT04773015|183533100|OTHER|||||||0.1507|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1507
91827759|NCT04773015|183533101|OTHER|||||||0.1189|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1189
91952932|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.174
91952933|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.010
91827760|NCT04964089|183533103|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4.5 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.03|-3.88|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization stratification factors, and continuous baseline BCVA as covariates.||||-0.29|-3.88|0.0083
91827761|NCT01221597|183533126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
91827762|NCT01221597|183533127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0451
91827763|NCT01221597|183533128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91827764|NCT01221597|183533129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0268
91827765|NCT01221597|183533130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0800
91952934|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.029
91952935|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.006
91952936|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.021
91952937|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.062
91827766|NCT01221597|183533131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3085
91827767|NCT01221597|183533132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6321|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6321
91827768|NCT01221597|183533133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7965|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7965
91827769|NCT01221597|183533134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91827770|NCT04153409|183533135|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Statistical comparisons of the 7 mean changes from baseline to different time-points (0-24 hours) were undertaken in one mixed effects model of analysis taking into account the cross-over nature of the study and the multiple time points within each period to explore a possible treatment effect in this small proof of concept study. Change from baseline at 0.5 hours is presented in this section|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.9733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 0.5 hours||1.19|-1.23|0.9733
91827771|NCT04153409|183533135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.4942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.79||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 1 hour. The change from baseline at 1 hour was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.79|-1.64|0.4942
91827772|NCT04153409|183533135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.6866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.97||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 1.5 hours. The change from baseline at 1.5 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.97|-1.46|0.6866
91827773|NCT04153409|183533135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 2 hours. The change from baseline at 2 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.32|-2.11|0.1488
91827774|NCT04153409|183533135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.86||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 4 hours. The change from baseline at 4 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.86|-1.57|0.5644
91952938|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.049
91952939|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.030
91952940|NCT00634933|183802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.005
91827775|NCT04153409|183533135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.51||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 8 hours, The change from baseline at 8 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.51|-1.91|0.2561
91827776|NCT04153409|183533135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.2||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 24 hours. The change from baseline at 24 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||1.20|-1.22|0.9875
91827777|NCT00148343|183533139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.75|||||Mixed model analysis. Slope is in reference to treatment x time interaction for full 36 weeks|||2.75|-0.2|
91827778|NCT00148343|183533140|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is in reference to from baseline to end of follow-up at 36 weeks.|||-0.09|-10.05|<0.05
91827779|NCT00148343|183533141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.096|14.716|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is in reference to start of treatment to end of follow up at 36 weeks|||14.716|-14.096|<0.05
91827780|NCT00148343|183533142|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|8.89|||||Mixed models analysis. Slope refers to baseline to final follow up at 36 weeks|||8.89|-12.79|
91827781|NCT00148343|183533143|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is in reference to baseline to end of follow-up at 36 weeks|||0.057|-0.045|<0.05
91827782|NCT00574587|183533149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||95% Confidence interval|54.0|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|20.0|34.0|74.0|||Simon's Mimimax 2-stage design|||||74|34|<0.10
91827783|NCT00121238|183533151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91827784|NCT01380327|183533155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.18) vs. high dose group (numerator=1.98).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT -high dose, Placebo - high dose||2.3|1.2|0.001
91827785|NCT01380327|183533155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.18) vs. low dose group (numerator=2.69).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||3.1|1.7|<0.0001
91827786|NCT01380327|183533156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.04) vs. high dose group (numerator=1.32).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - high dose, placebo - high dose||1.4|1.1|<0.0001
91827787|NCT01380327|183533156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.04) vs. low dose group (numerator=1.14).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||1.2|1.0|0.11
91827788|NCT01380327|183533157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value and associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.03) vs. high dose group (numerator=1.57).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - high dose, placebo - high dose||2.4|1.0|0.06
91827789|NCT01380327|183533157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.03) vs. low dose group (numerator=1.45).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||2.2|0.9|0.13
91827790|NCT01380327|183533158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|-12.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value\& associated CI is the treatment effect: baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in high dose group (-7.2) minus baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in placebo group (5.7) .|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - high dose, placebo - high dose||7.5|-33.2|0.21
91827791|NCT01380327|183533158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|13.5||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|34.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value\& associated CI is the treatment effect: baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in high dose group (19.2) minus baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in placebo group (5.7) .|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||34.1|-7.1|0.20
91827792|NCT03732209|183533173|SUPERIORITY||F value, group x time interaction|7.155||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value reflects the interaction between group (episodic future thinking, control) and time (baseline, Week 8)|ANOVA||Reported values in outcome measures data table reflect mean change in glycosylated hemoglobin for each group (Session 2 - Session 1)|Due to minimal data being available at Weeks 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only baseline (Week 0) and Week 8 data were included in the analysis.||||.017
91827793|NCT03732209|183533174|SUPERIORITY||F value, group x time interaction|4.885||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value reflects the interaction between group (episodic future thinking, control) and time (baseline, Week 8)|ANOVA||The values reported in the outcome measures data table reflect mean change in AUC (Session 2 - Session 1)|Due to minimal data being available at Weeks 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only baseline (Week 0) and Week 8 data were included in the analysis.||||.042
91827794|NCT03732209|183533175|SUPERIORITY||F value, group x time interaction|2.33||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value reflects the interaction between group (episodic future thinking, control) and time (baseline, Week 8)|ANOVA|||Due to minimal data available at Week 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only ratings from Week 8 were included in the analysis.||||.146
91827795|NCT03732209|183533176|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to minimal data available at Week 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only ratings from Week 8 were included in the analysis.||||.042
91827796|NCT05046795|183533177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|150.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.727|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.145|197.671|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||197.671|104.145|<0.0001
91827797|NCT05046795|183533178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|144.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.192|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.61|186.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||186.088|102.610|<0.0001
91827798|NCT05046795|183533179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|287.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.473|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|211.933|363.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||363.570|211.933|<0.0001
91827799|NCT05046795|183533180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|105.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|139.12|||ANCOVA|||||139.12|72.60|<0.0001
91827800|NCT05046795|183533181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|154.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.86|210.78|||ANCOVA|||||210.78|98.86|<0.0001
91827801|NCT05046795|183533182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-8.49|0.0064
91827802|NCT05046795|183533183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|1.16|0.0144
91827803|NCT00782340|183533220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHQ composite score as a co-variate.||||||0.003
91827804|NCT00782340|183533221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHDAS composite score as a co-variate.||||||0.003
91827805|NCT00782340|183533222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including a factor for randomized treatment along with the OHSA composite value at randomization as a covariate.||||||0.010
91827806|NCT00782340|183533223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||0.003
91827807|NCT00782340|183533224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including a factor for randomized treatment along with the OHSA composite value at randomization as a covariate.||||||0.009
91827808|NCT00782340|183533225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||<0.001
91827809|NCT00782340|183533226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors. As the this endpoint was not positive, no additional statistical analyses will be performed on secondary endpoints.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.327
91827810|NCT01306162|183533231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|214.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|191.0|240.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation.|150mg DE + 400mg DR same time (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||240|191|1.0000
91827811|NCT01306162|183533231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|130.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.0|151.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||151|112|0.6697
91827812|NCT01306162|183533231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|236.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.8||0.9992||90.0|173.0|321.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||321|173|0.9992
91827813|NCT01306162|183533231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|162.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.1||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.0|221.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||221|119|0.9171
91827814|NCT01306162|183533232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|187.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.3||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.0|215.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||215|162|0.9999
91827815|NCT01306162|183533232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|115.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.2||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|138.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||138|95|0.2207
91827816|NCT01306162|183533232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|225.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.1||0.9946||90.0|156.0|326.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||326|156|0.9946
91827817|NCT01306162|183533232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|133.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.0||0.6221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|190.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||190|94|0.6221
91827818|NCT01306162|183533233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|214.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.7||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.0|241.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||241|190|1.0000
91827819|NCT01306162|183533233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|132.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.3||0.7223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.0|155.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||155|113|0.7223
91827820|NCT01306162|183533233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|258.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.6||0.9993||90.0|182.0|365.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||365|182|0.9993
91827821|NCT01306162|183533233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|159.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|222.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||222|114|0.8875
91952941|NCT00634933|183802501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.014
91827822|NCT01306162|183533234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|180.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.6||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.0|207.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||207|156|0.9998
91827823|NCT01306162|183533234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|114.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.4||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|136.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||136|95|0.1866
91827824|NCT01306162|183533234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|234.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.7||0.9958||90.0|160.0|340.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||340|160|0.9958
91827825|NCT01306162|183533234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|126.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.6||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.0|179.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||179|89|0.5164
91827826|NCT00690755|183533239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
91827827|NCT02830594|183533325|EQUIVALENCE|Specifically, a sample-size of 14 patients will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.71 using a paired t-test with a 0.05 one-sided significance level. The effect size is the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference.||||||0.6|||||||Paired t Test|||||||0.60
91827828|NCT02830594|183533326|EQUIVALENCE|Specifically, a sample-size of 14 patients will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.71 using a paired t-test with a 0.05 one-sided significance level. The effect size is the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference.||||||0.87|||||||Paired t Test|||||||0.87
91827829|NCT02830594|183533327|EQUIVALENCE|Specifically, a sample-size of 14 patients will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.71 using a paired t-test with a 0.05 one-sided significance level. The effect size is the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference.||||||0.64|||||||Paired t Test|||||||0.64
91827830|NCT01934218|183533332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.7|||Basic longitudinal model|||||2.7|-2.7|0.988
91827831|NCT01934218|183533333|OTHER|Euflexxa would be considered superior to Gel-One if the difference in mean change from baseline in VAS pain score at week 26 was 5 mm or greater (on the 100mm VAS pain scale). If the difference in mean change values were within 5 mm, Gel-One would not be considered inferior to Euflexxa.||||||||||||||||A post-hoc non-inferiority comparison of the Gel-One mean change from baseline in VAS pain score at week 26 (Following 50-foot walk test) against the same assessment collected from subjects treated with Euflexxa in a separate study (PMID:19539353) was also performed.|Change from baseline (95% CI) for Euflexxa was -25.7 (-29.0, -22.4) and the difference between Euflexxa and Gel-One (95% CI) was -3.8 (-inf, -0.3).|||
91827832|NCT02279641|183533387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|133.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.0|159.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||159|111|
91827833|NCT02279641|183533387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|67.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.2|70.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||70.7|65.2|
91827834|NCT02279641|183533389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|111.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||111|93.3|
91827835|NCT02279641|183533389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.1|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||65.7|58.1|
91827836|NCT02279641|183533389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.4|104.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||104|88.4|
91827837|NCT02279641|183533390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.9|112.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||112|94.9|
91827838|NCT02279641|183533390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.1|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||65.7|58.1|
91827839|NCT02279641|183533392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.8|98.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||98.0|81.8|
91827840|NCT02279641|183533392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|119.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|125.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||125|114|
91827841|NCT02279641|183533393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.3|96.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||96.6|79.3|
91827842|NCT02279641|183533393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|193.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|177.0|210.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||210|177|
91827843|NCT02279641|183533393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||117|94.4|
91827844|NCT02279641|183533396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|111.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||111|87.7|
91827845|NCT02279641|183533397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|104.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||104|88.4|
91827846|NCT02279641|183533398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|104.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||104|88.4|
91827847|NCT02279641|183533399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.7|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||117|86.7|
91827848|NCT01682837|183533400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91827849|NCT01682837|183533401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91827850|NCT01682837|183533402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
91827851|NCT01682837|183533403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
91827852|NCT01682837|183533404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
91827853|NCT01682837|183533405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91827854|NCT01682837|183533406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
91827855|NCT01682837|183533407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
91827856|NCT01682837|183533408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91827857|NCT01664078|183533409|OTHER|The Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analysis set includes all subjects who had the aortic bifurcate device introduced into the body. This ITT analysis set will be used for all safety and clinical assessment endpoints.||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
91827858|NCT02877485|183533438|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.9||"Statistical Tests:~Independent t-test to assess differences in mean change in NOSE scores when comparing the two study groups, and p\<0.05 deemed statistically significant"|t-test, 2 sided||Change in Mean NOSE score from baseline to post saline versus change in NOSE score from baseline to post intranasal steroid.|"1\) H0: mean change in NOSE score from baseline after in study group 1 = mean change in NOSE score from baseline in study group 2~Power calculation: To detect a 20% difference in NOSE scores with 80% power and a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 required 20 participants per study group, for a total of 40 participants."||8.9|-6.0|0.7
91827859|NCT02877485|183533439|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-tests to assess differences in mean NOSE score when the treatment groups were combined (saline arm+ steroid arm) at five post-operative time intervals compared to the combined preoperative baseline scores. Significance at p\<0.05.|Paired t-test|||H0: Mean pre- treatment baseline patient NOSE score = Mean post- treatment baseline patient NOSE score.||||<0.001
91827860|NCT04369469|183533440|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0205||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1703|0.1293||One-sided Mantel-Haenszel test of the difference in two proportions stratified by intubated or not intubated on Day 1 and a family-wise Type I error of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||Two-sided 95% confidence interval using the Sato variance estimator, combined overall imputations.|||0.1293|-0.1703|0.6059
91827861|NCT01344460|183533485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|18.3|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Majority reader; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||15.2|<0.000
91827862|NCT01344460|183533485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|16.4|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 1; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||13.2|<0.000
91827863|NCT01344460|183533485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|24.0|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 2; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||20.5|<0.000
91827864|NCT01344460|183533485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|17.4|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|||Blinded reader 3; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||14.3|<0.000
91827865|NCT01344460|183533485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|25.6|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|||Clinical investigator; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||21.9|<0.000
91827866|NCT01344460|183533486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-2.2|
91827867|NCT01344460|183533486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-9.7|
91827868|NCT01344460|183533486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||5.1|
91827869|NCT01344460|183533486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-5.8|
91827870|NCT01344460|183533486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||11.7|
91827871|NCT01344460|183533487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.0|
91827872|NCT01344460|183533487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||9.1|
91827873|NCT01344460|183533487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.6|
91827874|NCT01344460|183533487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||11.2|
91827875|NCT01344460|183533487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||11.0|
91827876|NCT01344460|183533488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|54.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|46.2||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||46.2|
91827877|NCT01344460|183533488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|51.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|43.6||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||43.6|
91827878|NCT01344460|183533488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|54.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|45.5||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||45.5|
91827879|NCT01344460|183533488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|53.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|44.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||44.8|
91827880|NCT01344460|183533488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|71.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|64.7||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||64.7|
91827881|NCT01344460|183533489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|95.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.9||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||94.9|
91827882|NCT01344460|183533489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|95.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||93.8|
91827883|NCT01344460|183533489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|96.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.2||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||95.2|
91827884|NCT01344460|183533489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|95.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||94.8|
91827885|NCT01344460|183533489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||97.8|
91827886|NCT01344460|183533492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.28|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA Minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded Reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
91827887|NCT01344460|183533492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
91827888|NCT01344460|183533492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
91827889|NCT01344460|183533492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
91827890|NCT02120924|183533521|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the ratio of Test/Reference means was contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\].|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||||Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the ratio of Test/Reference means was contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\].|The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in the inflammatory (papules and pustules) lesion counts in PP population.||1.05|0.92|
91827891|NCT02120924|183533522|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided, continuity-corrected, 90% CI on the Test-to-Reference difference for the proportion of subjects with treatment success on the IGE was constructed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.028|0.116|||||Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\].|||0.116|-0.028|
91827892|NCT03483623|183533523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
91827893|NCT03483623|183533524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
91827894|NCT03483623|183533525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
91827895|NCT03483623|183533526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
91827896|NCT03483623|183533527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
91827897|NCT03483623|183533528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
91827898|NCT03483623|183533529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
91827899|NCT03483623|183533530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
91827900|NCT01884350|183533531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.24||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.7||P-value (two-sided) corresponds to the two-sample t-tests for difference in percentage of adherence at Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-2.18|0.8117
91827901|NCT01884350|183533532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is from a paired t-test comparing percent adherence at 12 and 24 Weeks. Only participants with available data at both Study Days 85 and 169 are included.|paired t-test|||Percent adherence at 12 Weeks v. Percent adherence at 24 Weeks||||<0.0001
91827902|NCT01884350|183533532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is from a paired t-test comparing percent adherence at 12 and 24 Weeks. Only participants with available data at both Study Days 85 and 169 are included.|paired t-test|||Percent adherence at 12 Weeks v. Percent adherence at 24 Weeks||||<0.0001
91827903|NCT01884350|183533533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|F-test p-value is obtained from the one-way ANOVA model||||||0.8707|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8707
91827904|NCT01884350|183533533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.6399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|4.68||P-values are obtained from the Cochran t-test for pairwise comparison between groups (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.68|-2.88|0.6399
91827905|NCT01884350|183533533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|3.29||P-values are obtained from the Cochran t-test for pairwise comparison between groups (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.29|-3.45|0.9616
91827906|NCT01884350|183533533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.24||P-values are obtained from the Cochran t-test for pairwise comparison between groups (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.24|-2.60|0.6341
91827907|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1924||||||\<=2 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.1924
91827908|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0305||||||\>=3 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0305
91827909|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107||||||Mini-mental state examination score|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0107
91827910|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6982||||||Higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.6982
91827911|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7277||||||Higher professional occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.7277
91827912|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7581||||||Intermediate occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.7581
91827913|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2328||||||Large employers and higher managerial and adm. occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.2328
91827914|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507||||||Lower managerial, administrative and professional occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.7507
91827915|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091||||||Lower supervisory and technical occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0091
91827916|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673||||||Never worked and long-term unemployed vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.6730
91827917|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0117||||||Routine occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0117
91827918|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Semi-routine occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.1910
91827919|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9559||||||Paroxysmal vs Persistent Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.9559
91827920|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264||||||Permanent vs Persistant Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0264
91827921|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087||||||\<=2 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.1087
91827922|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679||||||\>=3 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0679
91827923|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2128||||||Paroxysmal vs Persistant Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.2128
91827924|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3739||||||Permanent vs Persistant Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.3739
91827925|NCT01884350|183533534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||VKA status: Naive vs. Non-Naive|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.843
91827926|NCT02730819|183533551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-values of 0.05 or lower were considered statistically significant.||||0.006
91827927|NCT02730819|183533552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-values of 0.05 or lower were considered statistically significant.||||0.006
91827928|NCT03403634|183533554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|df = 11. one-sided as post treatment increases were of interest. the fold changes were log-transformed prior to inferences.||||||0.046
91827929|NCT00434057|183533578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity to melanoma|98.0||||0.05||95.0|95.1|100.0|||exact mid-P||"Of 127 melanomas, 114 melanomas had a pre-biopsy diagnosis of Melanoma can not be ruled out or Not melanoma, which qualified them for primary endpoint analysis of sensitivity. MelaFind correctly identified 112/114 melanomas."|MelaFind's sensitivity to cutaneous melanoma and 95% confidence intervals were determined.||100|95.1|0.05
91827930|NCT00434057|183533578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Specificty of MelaFind and examining dermatologists on the same set of pigmented skin lesions.||||0.02
91827931|NCT00823719|183533592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|85.7|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR for participants receiving Ofatumumab + DHAP treatment.|||85.7|48.2|
91827932|NCT00823719|183533592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.4|71.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR for participants receiving Ofatumumab + ICE treatment.|||71.9|36.4|
91827933|NCT00823719|183533592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|73.5|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR for participants receiving Total Ofatumumab + Chemotherapy treatment.|||73.5|47.4|
91827934|NCT02103439|183533608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions between the difference in the early virological response rate with Algeron and PegIntron should be higher than the non-inferiority margin of 0.2 (-20%)||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.227
91827935|NCT02103439|183533609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|the lower limit of the 95 % confidence interval between the difference in rate of rapid virological response with Algeron and PegIntron should be more than the non-inferiority margin (-20 %)|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.05
91827936|NCT00784810|183533637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|As above.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.002|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-5.65||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To achieve a study with 80% power at the 1-sided 5% significance level, for the purposes of demonstrating non inferiority, a sample size of 98 subjects per treatment group was required, i.e. a total of 196 subjects completing the study.|||-5.65|0.002
91827937|NCT02119416|183533654|OTHER|Maximum heart rate after 2 mg/kg of caffeine compared to baseline was assessed using a mixed effects regression model. Sex and pubertal stage were included in the model as time invariant predictors.|||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|mixed effects regression|||||||<0.05
91827938|NCT02119416|183533654|OTHER|We compared means of our dependent variables after administration of different doses of caffeine.|||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was set prior to the analysis and all comparisons were planned.|ANCOVA|||We used repeated measures ANOVAS and conducted planned comparisons between groups as post-hoc tests.||||< 0.05
91827939|NCT02119416|183533655|OTHER|mixed effects regression models were used with sex and pubertal stage as time invariant predictors.|||||<|0.05|||||||mixed effects regression|||order was included in the analysis. We examined caffeine dose.||||<0.05
91827940|NCT02119416|183533655|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91827941|NCT00377676|183533697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to test the primary hypothesis at a one-sided alpha = .05 and have a power of 0.9, when the non-inferiority margin is 1.5, the total number of subjects with all-cause SAEs that must be observed during the study was found to be 235. Assuming the placebo rate is 0.08, the required sample size was found to be 2991.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.27||Using the Lan and Demets alpha spending function for O'Brien-Fleming boundaries and the overall one-sided significance level of 5%, a level of 0.04068 was to be used at the interim analysis and 0.03938 at the time of the final analysis.|Regression, Cox||cycloset to placebo|||1.27||<0.05
91827942|NCT00377676|183533698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||In order to test the hypothesis for serious cardiovascular adverse events as for the primary endpoint at a one-sided alpha = 0.5 when the non-inferiority margin is 1.5, the final sample size of 3000 to 3300 subjects was to provide at least 62% power, assuming a hypothetical rate of events of 3.43%, or 103 to 113 cardiovascular SAEs. Upon demonstration of non-inferiority - a 2 sided using 95% CI was used to assess for superiority.||.96|.35|<0.05
91827943|NCT00377676|183533699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||If the standard deviation of HbA1c level is about 1.0% and the baseline and 24 week scores have a correlation of 0.50 then the effect size is 0.5%/1.0% = 0.50. For the metformin/SU analysis, 160 subjects assuming a standard deviation of 1.0% would provide a power of 90% power to detect differences in mean changes of 0.5% or larger.||||<0.001
91827944|NCT00377676|183533700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91827945|NCT03579459|183533708|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|Geometric Mean ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin A||1.18|0.86|
91827946|NCT03579459|183533708|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin A||1.18|0.86|
91827947|NCT03579459|183533708|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin A||1.17|0.85|
91827948|NCT03579459|183533708|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin B||1.31|0.87|
91827949|NCT03579459|183533708|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.31|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin B||1.31|0.88|
91827950|NCT03579459|183533708|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.23|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin B||1.23|0.83|
91952942|NCT00634933|183802501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.025
91952943|NCT00634933|183802501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.794
91952944|NCT00634933|183802501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.966
91827951|NCT02528214|183533717|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|28.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.81|40.67||Threshold for significance at two-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference represents reduction difference i.e. dupilumab - placebo.|The outcome measure was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included percentage reduction of OCS dose at Week 24 as the response variable, and treatment group, baseline eosinophil level, optimized OCS dose at baseline, region as covariates. Missing data was imputed using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||40.67|15.81|< 0.0001
91827952|NCT02528214|183533719|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|7.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome measure was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included the binary status of whether or not a participant achieved the 50% OCS dose reduction criterion as the response variable, and treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed by using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||7.67|2.06|< 0.0001
91827953|NCT02528214|183533720|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|8.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome measure was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included the binary status of whether or not a participant achieved a reduction of OCS dose to \<5 mg/day at Week 24 as the response variable, treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed by using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||8.39|2.39|< 0.0001
91827954|NCT02528214|183533721|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.73||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included binary status of whether or not a participant achieved their maximum possible reduction of OCS dose per protocol at Week 24 as the response variable, treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed by using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||4.73|1.4|0.0024
91827955|NCT02528214|183533722|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome measure was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included the binary status of whether or not a participant no longer required OCS at Week 24 as the response variable, and treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||5.1|1.47|0.0015
91827956|NCT00407537|183533731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-4.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|-3.89||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|It was estimated that each study site would on average complete 8 evaluable participants, therefore enrolling 164 sites, 1968 participants would provide at least 90% power to detect a 10% relative reduction in the 10-year predicted risk of total CHD at 12 months (as calculated from the Framingham model) from the control arm based on a two-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.||-3.89|-5.55|<0.001
91827957|NCT00407537|183533732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-3.93||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-3.93|-5.58|<0.001
91827958|NCT00407537|183533733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.72||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-0.72|-1.23|<0.001
91827959|NCT00407537|183533734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.59||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-0.59|-1.16|<0.001
91827960|NCT00407537|183533735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-1.15||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-1.15|-1.56|<0.001
91827961|NCT00407537|183533736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-1.14||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-1.14|-1.57|<0.001
91827962|NCT00407537|183533741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|||<|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-0.88|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-0.88|-5.42|<0.007
91827963|NCT00407537|183533742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|||<|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.37|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-0.37|-2.86|<0.011
91827964|NCT00407537|183533743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.5|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-3.50|-8.00|<0.001
91827965|NCT00407537|183533744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-1.92|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-1.92|-4.42|<0.001
91827966|NCT00407537|183533745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.71|-34.17||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||TC||-34.17|-43.71|<0.001
91827967|NCT00407537|183533745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.64|-30.99||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-30.99|-39.64|<0.001
91827968|NCT00407537|183533745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.13||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||2.13|-0.14|0.087
91827969|NCT00407537|183533745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-14.7||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effects linear model|||Triglycerides||-14.70|-32.60|<0.001
91827970|NCT00407537|183533746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.57|-28.56||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||TC||-28.56|-37.57|<0.001
91827971|NCT00407537|183533746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-25.95||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-25.95|-33.70|<0.001
91827972|NCT00407537|183533746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.86||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||1.86|-0.71|0.379
91827973|NCT00407537|183533746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.72|-7.81||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Triglycerides||-7.81|-28.72|<0.001
91827974|NCT00407537|183533747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.71|-34.17||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||TC||-34.17|-43.71|<0.001
91827975|NCT00407537|183533747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.64|-30.99||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-30.99|-39.64|<0.001
91827976|NCT00407537|183533747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.13||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||2.13|-0.14|0.087
91827977|NCT00407537|183533747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-14.7||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Triglycerides||-14.70|-32.60|<0.001
91827978|NCT00407537|183533748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.57|-28.56||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Total cholesterol||-28.56|-37.57|<0.001
91827979|NCT00407537|183533748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-25.95||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-25.95|-33.70|<0.001
91827980|NCT00407537|183533748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.86||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||1.86|-0.71|0.379
91952945|NCT00634933|183802501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.770
91827981|NCT00407537|183533748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.72|-7.81||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Triglycerides||-7.81|-28.72|<0.001
91827982|NCT03593655|183533754|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|1.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|generalized estimating equation|Poisson (log) link, adjusted for period, offset of number of visits per period, exchangeable correlation structure, and robust errors.|The incidence rate ratio compares FTC/TDF to the dapivirine vaginal ring.|Comparison of the proportion of participants experiencing a grade 2 adverse event between products, with a null hypothesis of no difference.||1.12|0.90|0.92
91827983|NCT00762320|183533764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=4||||||=.004
91827984|NCT00762320|183533769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=7||||||<.001
91827985|NCT01660763|183533831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.2|108.98|||ANCOVA|||||108.98|66.20|<0.001
91827986|NCT00952653|183533843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|71.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.08|78.33|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||78.33|65.08|
91827987|NCT00952653|183533844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|86.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.04|93.74|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||93.74|79.04|
91827988|NCT00952653|183533845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.43|97.97|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||97.97|87.43|
91827989|NCT00952653|183533846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.96|110.11|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||110.11|92.96|
91827990|NCT00952653|183533847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.04|78.72|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference)||78.72|66.04|
91827991|NCT00952653|183533850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|87.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.42|94.96|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference)||94.96|80.42|
91827992|NCT01365494|183533855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the post vaccination (day 14) ratio of GMCs between the groups (GMCGroup Zagreb / GMCGroup Essen) was greater than 0.667|Ratio of GMCs-Zagreb and Essen at day 14|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority in immune response of the Zagreb postexposure schedule of Rabipur to that of the conventional Essen postexposure schedule at study day 14||1.19|0.89|
91827993|NCT01365494|183533857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs-Zagreb and Essen at day 7|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48|||ANOVA|||||0.48|0.3|
91827994|NCT01365494|183533857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs-Zagreb and Essen at day 42|0.96||||||95.0|0.86|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|0.86|
91827995|NCT03021187|183533859|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.3|-0.7|< 0.0001
91827996|NCT03021187|183533859|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
91952946|NCT00634933|183802501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.456
91952947|NCT00634933|183802501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.880
91952948|NCT00634933|183802501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.814
91827997|NCT03021187|183533859|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.0|-1.4|< 0.0001
91827998|NCT03021187|183533859|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
91827999|NCT03021187|183533859|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
91828000|NCT03021187|183533859|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.2|-1.6|<0.0001
91828001|NCT03021187|183533860|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.0|-1.8|0.0392
91828002|NCT03021187|183533860|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.0|-3.0|0.0001
91828003|NCT03021187|183533860|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-2.3|-4.2|<0.0001
91952949|NCT00634933|183802501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.042
91952950|NCT00634933|183802501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.035
91952951|NCT00634933|183802501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.086
91828004|NCT03021187|183533860|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.6|0.0111
91828005|NCT03021187|183533860|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.2|<0.0001
91828006|NCT03021187|183533860|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-3.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-3.0|-4.4|<0.0001
91828007|NCT03021187|183533880|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.02||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.02|0.53|0.0627
91828008|NCT03021187|183533880|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.89||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.89|0.44|0.0083
91828009|NCT03021187|183533880|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.81||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.81|0.40|0.0019
91828010|NCT03021187|183533881|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.08||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.08|0.53|0.1210
91828011|NCT03021187|183533881|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.74||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.74|0.32|0.0007
91828012|NCT03021187|183533881|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.73||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.73|0.31|0.0006
91828013|NCT03351049|183533896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Compare the effectiveness of reactive support surfaces with and without low air loss in preventing pressure injuries||||0.8
91828014|NCT00718718|183533897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.026
91828015|NCT00718718|183533897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.052
91828016|NCT00718718|183533897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.026
91828017|NCT00718718|183533897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.104
91828018|NCT00718718|183533898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91828019|NCT00718718|183533898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91828020|NCT00718718|183533898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91828021|NCT00718718|183533898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91828022|NCT00718718|183533898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91828023|NCT00718718|183533899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.148
91828024|NCT02939105|183533904|OTHER||success proportion|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.3|96.2||||||||96.2|69.3|
91828025|NCT01802411|183533908|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|13.1||||0.5598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|57.0|||ANCOVA|||||57|-31|0.5598
91828026|NCT01812044|183533912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test of difference in medians between groups.||||||0.035
91828027|NCT01812044|183533912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test of difference in medians between groups.||||||0.189
91828028|NCT01812044|183533912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test of difference in medians between groups.||||||0.298
91952952|NCT00634933|183802501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.082
91828029|NCT02670629|183533937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91828030|NCT01165281|183533949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to demonstrate that the upper limit of the confidence interval of intergroup differences in change from baseline is not higher than the noninferiority margin of 1 with a 1-tailed significance level of 0.025 and 90% power, the sample size was calculated to be 133 patients in each group for a total of 266 patients. Assuming approximately 20% of patients would be excluded from the analyses, the target sample size was 330 patients.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.506|0.383|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and country as factors and baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||The primary hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the JNS024 ER group was not inferior to oxycodone CR as defined by the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference between JNS024 ER and oxycodone CR on the mean change from baseline of the NRS pain intensity score during the last 3 days of study drug administration. It was to be concluded that JNS024 ER is not inferior to oxycodone CR if the upper 95% confidence limit is less than 1 point.||0.383|-0.506|0.786
91828031|NCT00364858|183534008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Agresti and Min|-0.176||||||95.0|-0.357|0.058||||||Difference in proportion of Clinical Success = (Proportion of participants with Clinical Success Q4 - Proportion of participants with Clinical Success Q2).||0.058|-0.357|
91828032|NCT02099006|183534083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T test||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of loperamide than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.30
91828033|NCT02099006|183534083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of ketamine than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.33
91828034|NCT02099006|183534083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of gabapentin than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.65
91828035|NCT02099006|183534083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of amitriptyline and baclofen than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.25
91828036|NCT02099006|183534083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of ketoprofen than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||1.0
91828037|NCT02099006|183534084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of loperamide cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.31
91828038|NCT02099006|183534084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of ketamine cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||1
91828039|NCT02099006|183534084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of gabapentin cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.66
91828040|NCT02099006|183534084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of ketoprofen cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.42
91828041|NCT02099006|183534084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of amitriptyline/baclofen cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.79
91828042|NCT01308580|183534085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.214|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024|||||ONE_SIDED|98.89||1.184|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|The hazard ratio for OS was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization. Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 relative to 25 mg/m\^2 dose group was considered non-inferior if the upper bound of 1-sided 98.89% confidence interval of hazard ratio (20 mg/m\^2 versus 25 mg/m\^2) was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.214.||1.184||
91828043|NCT01308580|183534085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.922||||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|The hazard ratio for OS was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization. Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 was considered to be superior to 20 mg/m\^2 dose if the lower bound of 1-sided 95% confidence interval of hazard ratio was greater than 1.|||0.922|
91952953|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.325
91952954|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.338
91952955|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.983
91828044|NCT01308580|183534086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.099|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.24|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.24|0.974|
91828045|NCT01308580|183534087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.331|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.331|0.902|
91828046|NCT01308580|183534089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.025|1.393|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.393|1.025|
91828047|NCT01308580|183534091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.251|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.251|0.874|
91828048|NCT05932290|183534148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.71|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard models.|||0.71|0.37|<.0001
91828049|NCT05932290|183534149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.64|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HRs were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances.|||0.64|0.22|.0003
91828050|NCT05932290|183534152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Regression, Cox||HRs were estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard models.|||0.88|0.47|.0062
91952956|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.296
91828051|NCT05932290|183534153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.77|||Regression, Cox|IPTW HRs were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances.||||0.77|0.27|.0032
91828052|NCT00932893|183534178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.487|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.371|0.638||To control family-wise Type 1 error, a step-down procedure was applied in following order: PFS, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and disease control rate (DCR). Statistical significance: 1-sided at alpha=0.025.|Log Rank|||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log-rank test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score, brain metastases, and prior epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI) treatment. The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) from the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model were also presented.||0.638|0.371|<0.0001
91828053|NCT00932893|183534179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854||||0.1145||95.0|0.661|1.104||Statistical significance: 1-sided at alpha=0.025|Log Rank|||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG PS score, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified Cox proportional hazards model were also presented.||1.104|0.661|0.1145
91828054|NCT00932893|183534181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.394|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.463|4.676||Statistical significance: 2-sided at alpha=0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by ECOG PS, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The risk ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified CMH test were also reported.||4.676|2.463|<0.0001
91828055|NCT00932893|183534182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.502|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.297|1.741||Statistical significance: 2-sided at alpha=0.0004.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from CMH test stratified by ECOG PS, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The risk ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified CMH test were also reported.||1.741|1.297|<0.0001
91828056|NCT00932893|183534183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.697|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.368|2.103||Statistical significance: 2-sided at alpha=0.0004.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from CMH test stratified by ECOG PS, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The risk ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified CMH test were also reported.||2.103|1.368|<0.0001
91828057|NCT00932893|183534189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.497|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.373|0.661|||Log Rank|||The p-value was obtained from 2-sided unstratified log-rank test. The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the Cox Proportional Hazards model were also presented.||0.661|0.373|<0.0001
91828058|NCT01461668|183534298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.86|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval for the odds ratio is based upon the inversion Fisher's exact test|||1.86|0.08|0.320
91828059|NCT01760239|183534302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91828060|NCT01760239|183534303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.046
91828061|NCT01760239|183534304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
91828062|NCT01983293|183534305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91952957|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.575
91952958|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||1.000
91952959|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.573
91952960|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.563
91952961|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.768
91952962|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.977
91828063|NCT03147248|183534307|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the mean change from baseline of DAS28 (CRP) at Week 22 was greater that the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.6.|Difference of Least square mean|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.52|||||The least squares means and standard errors, estimate of treatment difference (CT-P13 SC 120 mg - CT-P13 IV 3 mg/kg), and 2-sided 95% CI obtained from the ANCOVA model.|Primary efficacy analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA considering the treatment as fixed effect and country, serum CRP concentration at Week 2 (≤0.6 mg/dL vs. \>0.6 mg/dL), and body weight at Week 6 (≤100 kg vs. \>100 kg) as covariates.||0.52|0.02|
91828064|NCT03248739|183534312|EQUIVALENCE|Based on occlusion data from the previously referenced prospective study, as well as a P-value of 0.05 and power of 0.80, the study will need to include 90 patients to demonstrate statistical significance. To ensure that power is adequate, we will plan to enroll 120 patients (60 in each arm).||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91828065|NCT01914926|183534317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Chi-Square test||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We estimated a sample size of 200 patients assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive diltiazem and metoprolol would achieve 80% power to detect non-inferiority using a one-sided two sample t-test. The margin of equivalence is -10.||||.0001
91828066|NCT03073603|183534537|NON_INFERIORITY|We performed a non-inferiority test for the proportions of the drug continuation and drug discontinuation arms experiencing a new MS relapse and/or MRI Brain Lesion over the course of the study duration. The non-inferiority margin used was 8%.|Difference in proportion|0.0753||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0063|0.15|||Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test for difference in two proportions||We tested the null hypothesis of inferiority with the proportion of disease events (i.e., new MS relapse and/or MRI brain lesion) for the drug discontinuation group being 8% greater than the proportion for the drug continuation group under the alternative that the two rates are equal.||0.1500|0.0063|0.521
91828067|NCT03073603|183534538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.766
91828068|NCT03073603|183534539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.604
91828069|NCT03073603|183534540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.198
91952963|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.249
91828070|NCT03073603|183534541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.354
91828071|NCT03073603|183534542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.831
91828072|NCT03073603|183534543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.252
91952964|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.268
91952965|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.089
91828073|NCT03073603|183534544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.983
91828074|NCT03073603|183534545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.155
91828075|NCT03073603|183534546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.748
91828076|NCT03073603|183534547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773
91828077|NCT03073603|183534548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
91828078|NCT03073603|183534549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.962
91828079|NCT03073603|183534550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91828080|NCT03073603|183534551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.406
91828081|NCT03073603|183534552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.348
91828082|NCT03073603|183534553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.086
91828083|NCT03073603|183534554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.575
91828084|NCT03073603|183534555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.733
91828085|NCT03073603|183534556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.733
91828086|NCT03073603|183534557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
91828087|NCT00373334|183534572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.528
91828088|NCT00373334|183534572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.341
91828089|NCT00373334|183534573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 2.5 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.746
91828090|NCT00373334|183534573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 5.0 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.262
91828091|NCT00373334|183534574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 2.5 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.609
91828092|NCT00373334|183534574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 5.0 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.938
91828093|NCT00413153|183534630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Initial samples size of N=16 calculated to provide 80% power to detect a 30% change in muscle glucose uptake between groups. Student's t-test used to compare change from baseline and determine treatment effect (net difference over time between the ATV/r vs. LPV/r groups).||||0.035
91828094|NCT00413153|183534631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs. LPV/r)||||0.12
91828095|NCT00413153|183534632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.002
91828096|NCT00413153|183534633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.02
91828097|NCT00413153|183534634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91828098|NCT00413153|183534635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.72
91828099|NCT00413153|183534636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.22
91828100|NCT00413153|183534637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Repeated Measures Ancova|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.004
91828101|NCT00413153|183534638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.0002
91828102|NCT00924885|183534650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary end-point was the 'overall pain experience', evaluated as described previously. Assuming the mean overall pain in the RN group to be 27 mm (value chosen after analysis of data from a previous study, Cerne et al., 2006) on VAS, with a standard deviation (SD) of 21.5 mm, 121 patients in each group would be needed to demonstrate a decrease in overall pain of 8 mm (30%) with 80% power and a significance level of 0.05 (two-tailed tests).||||0.04
91828103|NCT02508480|183534661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction. The p-value reported below is for group effect.||||0.66
91828104|NCT02508480|183534662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884||||||Group effect for Proactive Coping|Mixed Models Analysis|||"The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.~The p-value reported below is for group effect for Proactive Coping."||||0.884
91952966|NCT00634933|183802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.079
91828105|NCT02508480|183534662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543||||||Group effect for Avoidant Coping.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.~The p-value reported below is for group effect for Avoidant Coping."||||0.543
91828106|NCT02508480|183534663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||The p-value above is for the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.135
91828107|NCT02508480|183534664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared on the interpersonal function subscale using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.25
91828108|NCT02508480|183534664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118||||||The p-value represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared on the intrapsychic foundations subscale using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.118
91828109|NCT02508480|183534665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.917||||||The p-value is for group effect for tcpm\_days\_participated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction. The p-value reported below is for group effect for tcpm\_days\_participated.||||0.917
91828110|NCT02508480|183534666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The p-value above is for the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.017
91828111|NCT02508480|183534667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.597
91828112|NCT02508480|183534668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.076
91828113|NCT02508480|183534669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.978
91828114|NCT04969250|183534675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
91828115|NCT04969250|183534676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.40
91828116|NCT04969250|183534677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.078
91828117|NCT04969250|183534678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91828118|NCT04420221|183534700|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|-74.76||||0.8042||92.5|-680.61|36.62|||Log Rank|One-sided Group Sequential Design with non-binding beta, yielding two CIs based on cumulative alpha (92.5%) and beta (80.5%) spending|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio times 100.|||36.62|-680.61|0.8042
91828119|NCT04420221|183534701|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|-38.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-245.77|40.86|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio times 100.|||40.86|-245.77|
91828120|NCT04420221|183534702|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|-75.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.41|17.46|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio times 100.|||17.46|-295.41|
91952967|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.106
91952968|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.322
91828121|NCT01040130|183534706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0002||95.0|1.065|1.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 5 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.221|1.065|0.0002
91828122|NCT01040130|183534706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0003||95.0|1.062|1.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 10 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.219|1.062|0.0003
91828123|NCT01040130|183534707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.252|0.112|<0.0001
91828124|NCT01040130|183534707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.104|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.245|0.104|<0.0001
91828125|NCT01040130|183534708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0007||95.0|-1.205|-0.326|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.326|-1.205|0.0007
91828126|NCT01040130|183534708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.0051||95.0|-1.077|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.192|-1.077|0.0051
91828127|NCT01040130|183534709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.325|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.325|0.191|<0.0001
91952969|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.059
91828128|NCT01040130|183534709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.226|0.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.362|0.226|<0.0001
91828129|NCT01040130|183534710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.252|0.107|<0.0001
91828130|NCT01040130|183534710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0003||95.0|0.064|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.210|0.064|0.0003
91828131|NCT01040130|183534711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0447||95.0|-0.204|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.002|-0.204|0.0447
91828132|NCT01040130|183534711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.2132||95.0|-0.166|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.037|-0.166|0.2132
91828133|NCT01040130|183534712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.5698||95.0|-0.391|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.216|-0.391|0.5698
91828134|NCT01040130|183534712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.1003||95.0|-0.05|0.561|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.561|-0.050|0.1003
91828135|NCT01040130|183534713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0784||95.0|-0.258|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.014|-0.258|0.0784
91828136|NCT01040130|183534713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1013||95.0|-0.252|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.023|-0.252|0.1013
91828137|NCT01040130|183534714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0015||95.0|-0.339|-0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.081|-0.339|0.0015
91828138|NCT01040130|183534714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.503|-0.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.243|-0.503|<0.0001
91828139|NCT01040130|183534715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0005||95.0|0.052|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.185|0.052|0.0005
91828140|NCT01040130|183534715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0073||95.0|0.025|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.159|0.025|0.0073
91952970|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.250
91952971|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.255
91952972|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.105
91828141|NCT01040130|183534716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.275|0.136|<0.0001
91828142|NCT01040130|183534716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.285|0.146|<0.0001
91828143|NCT01040130|183534717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.9239||95.0|-0.115|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.127|-0.115|0.9239
91828144|NCT01040130|183534717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.7368||95.0|-0.144|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.102|-0.144|0.7368
91828145|NCT01040130|183534718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.8302||95.0|-0.146|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.118|-0.146|0.8302
91828146|NCT01040130|183534718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0202||95.0|-0.292|-0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.025|-0.292|0.0202
91828147|NCT01040130|183534719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.123|0.056|<0.0001
91828148|NCT01040130|183534719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.134|0.068|<0.0001
91828149|NCT01040130|183534720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.258|0.191|<0.0001
91828150|NCT01040130|183534720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.193|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.259|0.193|<0.0001
91828151|NCT01040130|183534721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0006||95.0|0.046|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.167|0.046|0.0006
91828152|NCT01040130|183534721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0017||95.0|0.037|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.158|0.037|0.0017
91828153|NCT01040130|183534722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.227|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.342|0.227|<0.0001
91828154|NCT01040130|183534722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.233|0.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.348|0.233|<0.0001
91828155|NCT01040130|183534723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|0.207|0.429|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.429|0.207|<0.0001
91828156|NCT01040130|183534723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|0.192|0.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.414|0.192|<0.0001
91828157|NCT01040130|183534724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.47|0.701|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.701|0.470|<0.0001
91828158|NCT01040130|183534724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001||95.0|0.502|0.734|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.734|0.502|<0.0001
91828159|NCT01866410|183534752|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4
91828160|NCT01866410|183534753|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5
91828161|NCT00553267|183534756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.77|-1.75||Doses tested against A10 in a hierarchical manner to address issues of multiplicity. T80/A10 was tested first, then T40/A10.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||"Testing that the combination treatments are superior to monotherapy A10.~The number of patients in the treatment arms ensure the tests have over 90% power."||-1.75|-3.77|<0.0001
91828162|NCT00553267|183534756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.86|-1.84||Doses tested against A10 in a hierarchical manner to address issues of multiplicity. T80/A10 was tested first, then T40/A10.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||"Testing that the combination treatments are superior to monotherapy A10.~The number of patients in the treatment arms ensure the tests have over 90% power."||-1.84|-3.86|<0.0001
91828163|NCT00553267|183534757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.15|-2.16|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-2.16|-5.15|<0.0001
91828164|NCT00553267|183534757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.35|-2.36|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-2.36|-5.35|<0.0001
91828165|NCT00553267|183534758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.32|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.32|1.21|0.002
91828166|NCT00553267|183534758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||<|0.001||95.0|1.37|2.65|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.65|1.37|<0.001
91828167|NCT00553267|183534759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.004||95.0|1.3|4.25|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||4.25|1.30|0.004
91828168|NCT00553267|183534759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.004||95.0|1.29|4.22|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||4.22|1.29|0.004
91828169|NCT00553267|183534760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.002||95.0|1.21|2.34|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.34|1.21|0.002
91828170|NCT00553267|183534760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||<|0.001||95.0|1.38|2.68|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.68|1.38|<0.001
91828171|NCT00553267|183534761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.027||95.0|1.04|2.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.00|1.04|0.027
91952973|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.001
91952974|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.019
91828172|NCT00553267|183534761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.008||95.0|1.12|2.15|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.15|1.12|0.008
91828173|NCT00553267|183534762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.006||95.0|1.14|2.21|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.21|1.14|0.006
91952975|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.011
91952976|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.113
91828174|NCT00553267|183534762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.002||95.0|1.2|2.32|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.32|1.20|0.002
91828175|NCT00553267|183534763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Stratified (for country) Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.006
91828176|NCT00553267|183534763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Stratified (for country) Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<0.001
91828177|NCT00833989|183534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference = GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||0.92|-0.03|
91828178|NCT00833989|183534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference = GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||1.13|0.25|
91828179|NCT00833989|183534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||0.80|-0.20|
91828180|NCT00833989|183534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||0.95|-0.24|
91828181|NCT00833989|183534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg- Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||1.09|-0.05|
91828182|NCT00833989|183534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||0.69|-0.61|
91828183|NCT00833989|183534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.11|0.15|
91828184|NCT00833989|183534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||0.86|-0.06|
91828185|NCT00833989|183534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||0.77|-0.29|
91828186|NCT00833989|183534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||1.12|0.10|
91828187|NCT00833989|183534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||1.08|0.09|
91828188|NCT00833989|183534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||0.73|-0.39|
91828189|NCT00833989|183534807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.981|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|19.71|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference =GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, visit 4||19.71|-0.60|
91828190|NCT00833989|183534807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|18.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||18.26|-1.32|
91828191|NCT00833989|183534807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|11.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||11.24|-11.1|
91828192|NCT00833989|183534807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.631|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|23.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||23.15|0.01|
91828193|NCT00833989|183534807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.411|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|19.89|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||19.89|-2.35|
91828194|NCT00833989|183534807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.195|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|13.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||13.21|-12.2|
91828195|NCT00833989|183534807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|20.66|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||20.66|-1.34|
91828196|NCT00833989|183534807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.198|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|18.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||18.13|-3.22|
91828197|NCT00833989|183534807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.959|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.60|-22.9|
91828198|NCT00833989|183534807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|22.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, visit 7||22.24|-3.07|
91828199|NCT00833989|183534807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|18.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||18.15|-6.37|
91828200|NCT00833989|183534807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.768|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|10.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||10.84|-17.1|
91828201|NCT00833989|183534808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.81|12.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||12.86|-15.81|
91828202|NCT00833989|183534808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|9.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.852|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|23.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||23.80|-4.08|
91952977|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.002
91828203|NCT00833989|183534808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.41|9.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||9.60|-20.41|
91828204|NCT00833989|183534808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|18.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||18.07|-22.87|
91828205|NCT00833989|183534808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|26.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||26.00|-15.95|
91952978|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.006
91828206|NCT00833989|183534808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.29|12.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||12.15|-32.29|
91828207|NCT00833989|183534809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||10.61|-10.4|
91828208|NCT00833989|183534809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|13.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||13.26|-7.75|
91828209|NCT00833989|183534809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|15.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||15.88|-6.17|
91828210|NCT00833989|183534809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|14.45|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||14.45|-12.1|
91828211|NCT00833989|183534809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.426|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|15.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||15.12|-11.0|
91828212|NCT00833989|183534809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|11.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||11.68|-16.1|
91828213|NCT00833989|183534809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.664|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|14.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||14.18|-12.9|
91828214|NCT00833989|183534809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.595||||95.0|-12.4|14.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||14.43|-12.4|
91828215|NCT00833989|183534809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|13.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||13.32|-15.2|
91828216|NCT00833989|183534809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.953|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|16.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||16.40|-11.9|
91828217|NCT00833989|183534809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.909|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|17.55|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||17.55|-10.5|
91828218|NCT00833989|183534809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.328|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|14.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||14.39|-15.4|
91828219|NCT00833989|183534810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|8.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||8.65|-5.33|
91828220|NCT00833989|183534810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|6.96|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||6.96|-7.56|
91828221|NCT00833989|183534810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.534|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|11.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||11.78|-2.67|
91828222|NCT00833989|183534810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.841|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|9.89|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||9.89|-5.78|
91828223|NCT00833989|183534810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||5.72|-10.4|
91828224|NCT00833989|183534810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.978|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|9.55|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||9.55|-6.68|
91828225|NCT00833989|183534810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|11.85|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||11.85|-4.94|
91828226|NCT00833989|183534810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.235|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|9.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||9.12|-8.15|
91828227|NCT00833989|183534810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|9.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||9.50|-7.97|
91828228|NCT00833989|183534810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|11.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||11.61|-5.53|
91828229|NCT00833989|183534810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||6.32|-11.5|
91828230|NCT00833989|183534810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.396|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|12.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||12.69|-5.22|
91828231|NCT00833989|183534811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|||||||Fisher Exact|||Visit 4||||0.9260
91952979|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.034
91952980|NCT00634933|183802517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.003
91828232|NCT00833989|183534811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5647|||||||Fisher Exact|||Visit 6||||0.5647
91828233|NCT00833989|183534812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.49|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 3||0.49|-3.17|
91828234|NCT00833989|183534812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 3||1.57|-1.95|
91828235|NCT00833989|183534812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|-1.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 3||-1.02|-4.83|
91828236|NCT00833989|183534812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.868|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|1.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||1.08|-2.47|
91828237|NCT00833989|183534812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.834|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.44|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||1.44|-1.98|
91828238|NCT00833989|183534812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.904|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||0.92|-2.77|
91828239|NCT00833989|183534812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|1.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.57|-3.64|
91828240|NCT00833989|183534812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|2.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||2.24|-2.97|
91828241|NCT00833989|183534812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.408|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.408|-0.66|
91828242|NCT00833989|183534813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.584|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|45.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||45.04|-6.11|
91828243|NCT00833989|183534813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.131|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|45.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||45.64|-3.66|
91828244|NCT00833989|183534813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|38.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||38.50|-14.9|
91828245|NCT00833989|183534813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|34.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||34.06|-2.63|
91828246|NCT00833989|183534813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.835|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|29.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||29.50|-6.38|
91828247|NCT00833989|183534813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.641|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|12.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||12.08|-27.1|
91828248|NCT00833989|183534814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.43|||ANCOVA||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Day 90 MoCA = Treatment + Day 5 MoCA|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||3.43|-4.12|
91828249|NCT00833989|183534814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|3.62|||ANCOVA||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Day 90 MoCA = Treatment + Day 5 MoCA|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||3.62|-3.96|
91828250|NCT00833989|183534814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.037|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|3.01|||ANCOVA||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Day 90 MoCA = Treatment + Day 5 MoCA|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||3.01|-5.31|
91828251|NCT00833989|183534815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.408|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.63|||ANCOVA||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Day 90 GDS Score= Treatment + Day 5 GDS Score"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||2.63|-3.12|
91828252|NCT00833989|183534815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.3|||ANCOVA||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Day 90 GDS Score= Treatment + Day 5 GDS Score"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||4.30|-1.20|
91828253|NCT00833989|183534815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.486|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.98|||ANCOVA||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Day 90 GDS Score= Treatment+Day 5 GDS Score"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||2.98|-3.09|
91828254|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2639|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|0.264|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 4 Day 30||0.264|-0.841|
91828255|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2637|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.862|0.241|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 4 Day 30||0.241|-0.862|
91828256|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|0.361|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 4 Day 30||0.361|-0.966|
91828257|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1841|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.593|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 7 Day 112||0.593|-0.184|
91828258|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1846|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.494|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 7 Day 112||0.494|-0.284|
91828259|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2602|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.965|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 7 Day 112||0.965|-0.132|
91828260|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.961|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.961|-0.650|
91828261|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8324|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.249|1.213|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 4 Day 30||1.213|-2.249|
91828262|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.436|1.898|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 4 Day 30||1.898|-2.436|
91828263|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5862|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.031|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 7 Day 112||2.031|-0.420|
91828264|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.183|1.168|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 7 Day 112||1.168|-1.183|
91828265|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|3.077|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 7 Day 112||3.077|-0.064|
91828266|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2976|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.056|4.344|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 4 Day 30||4.344|-1.056|
91828267|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1762|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.681|2.219|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.219|-2.681|
91828268|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4796|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.279|2.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.910|-3.279|
91828269|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.622|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9746|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.428|2.672|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 7 Day 112||2.672|-1.428|
91828270|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.356|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 7 Day 112||1.356|-2.560|
91828271|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.736|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 7 Day 112||4.736|-0.610|
91828272|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4588|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.494|4.607|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 4 Day 30||4.607|-1.494|
91828273|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.102|2.041|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.041|-3.102|
91828274|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5697|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.471|3.101|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 4 Day 30||3.101|-3.471|
91828275|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2689|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.996|3.367|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 7 Day 112||3.367|-1.996|
91828276|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0822|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.838|1.726|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 7 Day 112||1.726|-2.838|
91828277|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4792|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.884|5.322|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 7 Day 112||5.322|-0.884|
91828278|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.589|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.696|4.958|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 4 Day 30||4.958|-1.696|
91828279|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.508|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.219|2.203|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.203|-3.219|
91828280|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.369|3.588|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 4 Day 30||3.588|-3.369|
91828281|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5675|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.446|4.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 7 Day 112||4.150|-2.446|
91828282|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.074|2.359|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 7 Day 112||2.359|-3.074|
91828283|NCT00833989|183534816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.937|5.308|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 7 Day 112||5.308|-1.937|
91828284|NCT03980470|183534900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.198
91828285|NCT03980470|183534901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
91828286|NCT03980470|183534902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
91828287|NCT03980470|183534903|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91828288|NCT03980470|183534904|OTHER|Bland-Altmann analysis (bias)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91828289|NCT03750552|183534948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.58|-1.05|0.574
91828290|NCT03750552|183534949|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.28|-0.84|0.331
91828291|NCT03750552|183534950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.48|-1.01|0.481
91828292|NCT03750552|183534951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease type|The assumed common risk difference estimate and standard error are calculated using Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator. Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits are shown.|||0.17|-0.12|0.740
91828293|NCT03750552|183534952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease type|The assumed common risk difference estimate and standard error are calculated using Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator. Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits are shown.|||0.24|-0.02|0.0903
91828294|NCT00581230|183534965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0003
91828295|NCT00581230|183534966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
91828296|NCT02008890|183534980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||3.53|0.50|0.5722
91828297|NCT02008890|183534980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||6.60|1.04|0.0411
91828298|NCT02008890|183534981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.9431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|3.47|||Regression, Linear|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||3.47|-4.59|0.9431
91828299|NCT02008890|183534981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|0.88|||Regression, Linear|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||0.88|-7.14|0.1576
91828300|NCT02207816|183534988|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|74.38||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.0|97.14|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||97.14|-130|0.2235
91828301|NCT02207816|183534988|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-9.57||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.0|72.64|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||72.64|-339|0.8972
91828302|NCT02207816|183534988|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|30.58||||0.5333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.0|78.0|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||78.00|-119|0.5333
91828303|NCT02207816|183534988|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|44.2||||0.3523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.9|83.69|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||83.69|-90.9|0.3523
91828304|NCT02207816|183534989|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|53.68||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|81.13|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||81.13|-13.7|0.0930
91828305|NCT02207816|183534989|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|23.33||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.1|64.82|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||64.82|-67.1|0.5035
91828306|NCT02207816|183534989|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|32.08||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|69.87|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||69.87|-53.1|0.3504
91828307|NCT02207816|183534989|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|37.57||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|73.01|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||73.01|-44.4|0.2704
91828308|NCT02207816|183534990|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-5.26||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.69|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||7.69|-20.0|0.4434
91828309|NCT02207816|183534990|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-8.1||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|5.7|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||5.70|-23.9|0.2634
91828310|NCT02207816|183534990|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|0.62||||0.9278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|13.13|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||13.13|-13.7|0.9278
91828311|NCT02207816|183534990|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|5.32||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|17.09|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||17.09|-8.12|0.4189
91828312|NCT02207816|183534991|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|50.1||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|82.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||82.90|-32.2|0.1302
91952981|NCT00234533|183802533|OTHER|An one-way Analysis of Covariance (ANOVA) was used to calculate the between patient variation and within patient variation and then the ICC and its confidence limitations.|ICC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.92|||||An ICC ≥ 0.8 was considered satisfactory and indicative that a single sample would be representative of the overall IGF-I status.|An Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for the evening series (defined as 12:00 to 24:00) was determined for the overall ITT population to confirm whether only one measurement would be sufficient to accurately represent the IGF-I measurement over Weeks 21, 22 and 23. The ICC expresses the relative magnitude of the 2 components of the total variability, i.e. the biological variability and random error, in a series of measurements on different patients.||0.92|0.88|
91828313|NCT02207816|183534991|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|16.9||||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.9|65.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||65.90|-96.9|0.6897
91828314|NCT02207816|183534991|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|25.9||||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.9|70.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||70.90|-82.9|0.5299
91828315|NCT02207816|183534991|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|25.4||||0.5307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.1|70.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||70.70|-84.1|0.5307
91828316|NCT02207816|183534992|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|46.2||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|81.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||81.80|-45.0|0.1853
91828317|NCT02207816|183534992|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|35.0||||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|76.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||76.60|-69.3|0.3828
91828318|NCT02207816|183534992|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|31.2||||0.4112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|72.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||72.70|-66.5|0.4112
91828319|NCT02207816|183534992|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|30.8||||0.4121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|72.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||72.50|-67.6|0.4121
91828320|NCT02207816|183534993|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|40.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|58.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||58.80|15.70|<0.0001
91828321|NCT02207816|183534993|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effiicacy|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|60.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||60.80|17.40|<0.0001
91828322|NCT02207816|183534993|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|16.0||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|33.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||33.90|-6.60|0.0883
91828323|NCT02207816|183534993|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|13.0||||0.1889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|31.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||31.70|-10.7|0.1889
91828324|NCT02207816|183534993|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|16.4||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|34.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||34.00|-5.90|0.0770
91828325|NCT02207816|183534993|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|20.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||20.70|-25.8|1.0000
91828326|NCT02207816|183534993|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|20.8||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|46.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||46.90|-17.5|0.1624
91828327|NCT02207816|183534993|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-2.3||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|29.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||29.00|-47.6|0.9112
91828328|NCT02207816|183534993|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|9.2||||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|30.1|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||30.10|-18.0|0.4023
91828329|NCT02207816|183534993|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-4.4||||0.7091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|18.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||18.90|-34.5|0.7091
91828330|NCT02207816|183534993|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-1.4||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|23.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||23.60|-34.7|0.9361
91828331|NCT02207816|183534993|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-6.8||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|19.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||19.60|-42.0|0.6280
91828332|NCT02207816|183534994|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.4987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3779.0|100.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent severe anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||100.0|-3779|0.4987
91828333|NCT02207816|183534994|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4051.0|100.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent severe anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||100.0|-4051|1.0000
91828334|NCT02207816|183534995|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-254.6||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3399.0|32.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||32.50|-3399|0.1025
91828335|NCT02207816|183534995|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-398.6||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4642.0|-3.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||-3.20|-4642|0.0284
91828336|NCT02207816|183534995|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|36.7||||0.3543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.8|79.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||79.20|-78.8|0.3543
91828337|NCT02207816|183534995|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|3.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.0|63.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||63.20|-151|1.0000
91828338|NCT02207816|183534995|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|44.0||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.0|88.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||88.00|-120|0.3809
91952982|NCT00234533|183802533|OTHER|An one-way ANOVA was used to calculate the between patient variation and within patient variation and then the ICC and its confidence limitations.|ICC|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.93|||||An ICC ≥ 0.8 was considered satisfactory and indicative that a single sample would be representative of the overall IGF-I status.|An ICC for the morning series (defined as 06:00 to 12:00) was determined for the overall ITT population to confirm whether only one measurement would be sufficient to accurately represent the IGF-I measurement over Weeks 21, 22 and 23. The ICC expresses the relative magnitude of the 2 components of the total variability, i.e. the biological variability and random error, in a series of measurements on different patients.||0.93|0.90|
91952983|NCT00234533|183802534|OTHER||Fisher's F statistic (F) value|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the weekly timing effect (Week 21 versus Week 22 versus Week 23) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the weekly timing on the IGF-I levels; F value = 1.79 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.1678.|||
91952984|NCT00234533|183802534|OTHER||F value|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the daily timing effect (morning versus evening) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the daily timing on the IGF-I levels; F value = 1.06 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.3035|||
91952985|NCT00234533|183802535|OTHER||F value|83.97|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the patient's sex (male versus female) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the patient's sex on the IGF-I levels; F value = 83.97 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = \<0.0001.|||
91828339|NCT02207816|183534995|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|39.1||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.0|86.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||86.90|-140|0.5490
91828340|NCT02207816|183534995|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-46.3||||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.0|36.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||36.20|-249|0.3239
91828341|NCT02207816|183534995|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|47.6||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|84.1|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||84.10|-54.5|0.2184
91828342|NCT02207816|183534995|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-116.8||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-476.0|10.3|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||10.30|-476|0.0724
91828343|NCT02207816|183534995|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-81.0||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-393.0|27.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||27.90|-393|0.2055
91828344|NCT02207816|183534995|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-18.4||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-245.0|57.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||57.90|-245|0.8138
91828345|NCT02207816|183534995|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|24.4||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.0|78.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||78.40|-148|0.7887
91828346|NCT02207816|183534996|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|40.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.84|59.39|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||59.39|12.84|0.0077
91828347|NCT02207816|183534996|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-4.52||||0.7922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|24.8|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||24.80|-45.3|0.7922
91828348|NCT02207816|183534996|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|29.03||||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|51.67|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||51.67|-4.22|0.0802
91828349|NCT02207816|183534996|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|33.87||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|55.32|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||55.32|2.13|0.0387
91828350|NCT02207816|183534997|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|36.69||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|53.07|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||53.07|14.60|0.0028
91828351|NCT02207816|183534997|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|10.14||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|31.64|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||31.64|-18.1|0.4430
91828352|NCT02207816|183534997|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|30.99||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|50.04|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||50.04|4.67|0.0245
91828353|NCT02207816|183534997|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|34.24||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.74|52.61|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||52.61|8.74|0.0122
91828354|NCT02207816|183534998|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|23.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.93|30.71|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||30.71|15.93|<.0001
91828355|NCT02207816|183534998|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|19.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.81|26.71|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||26.71|10.81|<.0001
91828356|NCT02207816|183534998|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|15.55||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.72|23.54|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||23.54|6.72|0.0009
91828357|NCT02207816|183534998|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|13.15||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|21.39|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||21.39|4.05|0.0056
91828358|NCT02207816|183534999|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|35.5||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|54.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||54.00|10.00|0.0053
91828359|NCT02207816|183534999|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|11.7||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|35.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||35.20|-20.0|0.4255
91828360|NCT02207816|183534999|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|29.2||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|51.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||51.40|-2.40|0.0479
91828361|NCT02207816|183534999|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|18.1||||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|42.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||42.80|-16.9|0.2346
91828362|NCT02207816|183535000|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|35.9||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|54.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||54.40|10.30|0.0051
91828363|NCT02207816|183535000|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|14.0||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|37.1|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||37.10|-17.3|0.3340
91828364|NCT02207816|183535000|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|28.5||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|50.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Meenjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||50.50|-2.90|0.0511
91828365|NCT02207816|183535000|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|20.3||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|44.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Meenjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||44.20|-13.5|0.1729
91828366|NCT02207816|183535003|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|50.1||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-859.0|99.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||99.20|-859|0.6244
91828367|NCT02207816|183535003|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-5.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1358.0|92.3|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||92.30|-1358|1.0000
91828368|NCT02207816|183535003|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-188.9||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15000.0|76.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||76.80|-15000|0.6244
91952986|NCT00234533|183802535|OTHER||F value|68.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the patient's pubertal status (pubertal versus prepubertal) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the patient's pubertal status on the IGF-I levels; F value = 68.35 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = \<0.0001.|||
91952987|NCT00234533|183802536|OTHER||F value|10.73|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the disease condition (GHD versus TS) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the disease condition on the IGF-I levels; F value = 10.73 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0012.|||
91952988|NCT00234533|183802536|OTHER||F value|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the country cluster on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the country cluster on the IGF-I levels; F value = 2.20 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0701.|||
91828369|NCT02207816|183535003|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7509.0|98.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||98.80|-7509|1.0000
91828370|NCT02207816|183535004|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-98.8||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2098.0|71.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||71.50|-2098|0.6869
91828371|NCT02207816|183535004|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-406.0||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4650.0|-7.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||-7.80|-4650|0.0213
91828372|NCT02207816|183535005|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-98.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12000.0|89.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||89.60|-12000|1.0000
91828373|NCT02207816|183535005|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-304.8||||0.2154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20000.0|59.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||59.90|-20000|0.2154
91828374|NCT02207816|183535006|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-24.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.0|73.3|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||73.30|-526|1.0000
91828375|NCT02207816|183535006|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-77.1||||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-725.0|55.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||55.00|-725|0.3834
91828376|NCT02207816|183535006|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-297.5||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19000.0|60.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||60.70|-19000|0.3740
91828377|NCT02207816|183535006|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-498.1||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27000.0|27.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||27.40|-27000|0.1240
91828378|NCT02349295|183535030|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|8.48||model includes: treatment, geographic region, and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience (inadequate responder to 1 TNFi, inadequate responder to 2 TNFi, or intolerance to a TNFi).|Regression, Logistic|1\) uses a Wald's test , 2) Non-responder imputation (NRI) was used to calculate the response rates.||||8.48|2.65|<0.001
91828379|NCT02349295|183535030|OTHER|1\) uses a Wald's test , 2) Non-responder imputation (NRI) was used to calculate the response rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|6.78|||Regression, Logistic|||model includes: treatment, geographic region, and TNFi experience (inadequate responder to 1 TNFi, inadequate responder to 2 TNFi, or intolerance to a TNFi)||6.78|2.12|<0.001
91828380|NCT01259713|183535059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the interim analysis performed when 50% of the subjects had completed the study, an alpha of 0.0003 was spent. Therefore, the significance level for the 2-sided test in the primary analysis at the end of the study was 0.0497 (corresponding to 95.03% confidence interval (CI)).|Relative risk reduction|0.33||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.03|-0.32|0.66||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|A two-group Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level and 2:1 allocation of 354 randomized subjects (236 AmBisome, 118 placebo) would have 81% power to detect a relative reduction of 75% if the rate of IFI is 10% in the placebo group (based on unpublished data from the German Multicenter Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Working Group (GMALL) and consistent with the published rate of 16.4% in patients with hematological malignancies undergoing remission induction).||0.66|-0.32|0.24
91828381|NCT01259713|183535060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|0.25||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.5||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|||0.50|-0.11|0.15
91828382|NCT01259713|183535061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|-0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.47||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|||0.47|-0.94|0.97
91828383|NCT01259713|183535062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by region.|Log Rank|||||||0.33
91828384|NCT01259713|183535063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|0.25||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.53||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|||0.53|-0.19|0.22
91828385|NCT01259713|183535064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.32
91828386|NCT01259713|183535065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.32
91828387|NCT01259713|183535066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was from the log-rank test stratified by region.|Log Rank|Participants without consolidation/salvage therapy dates were censored using the earlier of the Early Termination and Study Completion dates.||||||0.69
91828388|NCT01259713|183535067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|0.08||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|Participants were not stratified for leukemia risk.||0.19|-0.04|0.20
91828389|NCT06111742|183535089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Induction||||<0.001
91828390|NCT06111742|183535089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||OR entry||||<0.001
91828391|NCT06111742|183535090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
91828392|NCT06111742|183535092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91828393|NCT01227681|183535099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is significant deterioration of UPDRS part III scores from baseline to post G-CSF injection one year||||0.64
91828394|NCT03508843|183535122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<.001
91828395|NCT03508843|183535123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<.001
91828396|NCT03508843|183535124|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||McNemar|||||||>.05
91828397|NCT00765843|183535126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||baseline comparisons||||0.78
91828398|NCT00765843|183535126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||one month comparisons||||0.21
91828399|NCT00765843|183535126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||three months comparisons||||0.93
91828400|NCT03555396|183535127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|6.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.46|-13.53|0.483
91828401|NCT03555396|183535128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.637
91828402|NCT03555396|183535129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.54||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|18.49||Difference in mean change in adherence from baseline to 6 month follow-up between individuals in the intervention and control arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|Multilevel linear mixed model with random effects (dyad \& intercept); adjusting for participant age, sex, baseline adherence, and partner HIV status||||18.49|0.59|0.037
91828403|NCT03555396|183535130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||Chi-squared|Fisher's Exact Test used for small sample sizes||||||0.621
91828404|NCT03814889|183535157|OTHER|||||||0.00025|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|Paired, ordinal data||||||0.00025
91828405|NCT03814889|183535158|OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|||||||0.0014
91828406|NCT03814889|183535159|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
91828407|NCT03814889|183535160|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
91828408|NCT03814889|183535163|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxcon Signed-Ranks|||||||0.001
91828409|NCT00958919|183535165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|9.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.38|2.69|.0004
91828410|NCT00958919|183535166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.85|0.49|.024
91828411|NCT00958919|183535167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91828412|NCT00958919|183535168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91828413|NCT00958919|183535169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91828414|NCT04256733|183535237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.23
91828415|NCT04256733|183535238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.57
91828416|NCT04256733|183535239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
91828417|NCT04542343|183535250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.246|3.754|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.75400|2.24600|<0.01
91828418|NCT04542343|183535251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.256785|-2.343215|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.343215|-4.256785|<0.001
91828419|NCT04542343|183535256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21818|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36828|-0.06809|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.06809|-0.36828|<0.01
91828420|NCT04542343|183535257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00459|0.10788|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10788|0.00459|<0.05
91828421|NCT01369342|183535260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
91828422|NCT01369342|183535260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
91828423|NCT01369342|183535261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||0.009
91828424|NCT01369342|183535261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
91828425|NCT01369342|183535262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
91828426|NCT01369342|183535262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
91828427|NCT01369342|183535263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
91828428|NCT01369342|183535263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
91828429|NCT01369342|183535264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
91828430|NCT01369342|183535264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
91828431|NCT00321854|183535265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.6503||95.0|-2.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-2.2|0.6503
91828432|NCT00321854|183535266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.9568||95.0|-1.7|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-1.7|0.9568
91828433|NCT00321854|183535267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.3|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-6.3|<0.0001
91828434|NCT00321854|183535268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.8|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||||-3|-5.8|<0.0001
91828435|NCT00321854|183535269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-4.1|<0.0001
91828436|NCT00321854|183535270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.8693||95.0|-1.8|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-1.8|0.8693
91828437|NCT00321854|183535271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.8155||95.0|-1.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-1.5|0.8155
91828438|NCT00321854|183535272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.0|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||||-3|-6|<0.0001
91828439|NCT00321854|183535273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.4|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-5.4|<0.0001
91828440|NCT00321854|183535274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.9|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-3.9|<0.0001
91828441|NCT00321854|183535275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7999||95.0|-1.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-1.5|0.7999
91828442|NCT00321854|183535276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7395||95.0|-1.1|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-1.1|0.7395
91828443|NCT00321854|183535277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-4.5|<0.0001
91828444|NCT00321854|183535278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.0|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-4|<0.0001
91828445|NCT00321854|183535279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0002||95.0|-2.7|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.7|0.0002
91828446|NCT00321854|183535280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9256||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.9256
91828447|NCT00321854|183535281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9792||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.9792
91828448|NCT00321854|183535282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001||95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-1.7|0.0001
91828449|NCT00321854|183535283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.6|<0.0001
91828450|NCT00321854|183535284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.5|<0.0001
91828451|NCT00321854|183535285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0376||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-0.5|0.0376
91828452|NCT00321854|183535286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1607||95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.1607
91828453|NCT00321854|183535287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0173||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.5|0.0173
91828454|NCT00321854|183535288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0007||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|0.0007
91828455|NCT00321854|183535289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4381||95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.4381
91828456|NCT00321854|183535290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.796||||0.5116||95.0|0.403|1.573|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.573|0.403|0.5116
91828457|NCT00321854|183535291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.153||||0.7913||95.0|0.403|3.299|||Regression, Logistic|||The ordinal responses (3 levels) were analysed using the proportional odds model extension of logistic regression||3.299|0.403|0.7913
91828458|NCT00321854|183535292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1702||95.0|-1.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.3|0.1702
91828459|NCT00321854|183535293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0009||95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.2|0.0009
91828460|NCT00321854|183535294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0005||95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.1|0.0005
91828461|NCT00321854|183535295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0422||95.0|-1.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-1.4|0.0422
91828462|NCT00321854|183535296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.573||||0.2149||95.0|-1.823|0.677|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.677|-1.823|0.2149
91828463|NCT00321854|183535297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.031||||0.0001||95.0|-3.125|-0.938|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.938|-3.125|0.0001
91828464|NCT00321854|183535298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.2605||95.0|0.0|0.026|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.026|0|0.2605
91828465|NCT00321854|183535299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.051|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.0|0.089|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.089|0|<0.0001
91828466|NCT00321854|183535300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.0489||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|0|0.0489
91828467|NCT00321854|183535301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0282||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|0|0.0282
91828468|NCT00321854|183535317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.8397||95.0|-5.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|-5.4|0.8397
91828469|NCT01816594|183535322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||All participantss||||0.811
91828470|NCT01816594|183535323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||wild type cohort||||0.830
91828471|NCT01816594|183535324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||mutant cohort||||0.786
91828472|NCT01816594|183535325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||All participants||||0.286
91828473|NCT01816594|183535326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||wild type cohort||||0.177
91828474|NCT01816594|183535327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||mutant cohort||||0.929
91828475|NCT01816594|183535328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.811
91828476|NCT01816594|183535329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.840
91828477|NCT01816594|183535330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.724
91828478|NCT01816594|183535331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||All participants||||0.964
91828479|NCT01816594|183535332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER+ participants - pCR||||0.546
91828480|NCT01816594|183535333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER- participants - pCR||||0.949
91828481|NCT01816594|183535334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER+ participants - ORR||||0.053
91828482|NCT01816594|183535335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER- participants - ORR||||0.949
91828483|NCT01816594|183535336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.666
91828484|NCT01816594|183535337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.803
91828485|NCT03905655|183535338|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
91828486|NCT03905655|183535338|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
91828487|NCT03905655|183535338|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
91828488|NCT03905655|183535339|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91828489|NCT03905655|183535339|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91828490|NCT03905655|183535339|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91828491|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
91828492|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
91828493|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
91828494|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
91828495|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
91828496|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
91828497|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
91828498|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
91828499|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
91828500|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.001
91828501|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
91828502|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
91828503|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||<0.001
91828504|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.002
91828505|NCT03905655|183535340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
91828506|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
91828507|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
91828508|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
91828509|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
91828510|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
91828511|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
91828512|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
91828513|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
91828514|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
91828515|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
91828516|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
91828517|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
91828518|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
91828519|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
91828520|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
91828521|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
91828522|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
91828523|NCT03905655|183535341|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
91828524|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
91828525|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
91828526|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
91828527|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
91828528|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
91828529|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
91828530|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
91828531|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
91828532|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
91828533|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
91828534|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
91828535|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
91828536|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
91828537|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
91828538|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
91828539|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
91828540|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
91828541|NCT03905655|183535342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
91828542|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
91828543|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
91828544|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
91828545|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
91828546|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
91828547|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
91828548|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
91828549|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
91828550|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
91828551|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
91828552|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
91828553|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
91828554|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
91828555|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
91828556|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
91828557|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
91828558|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
91828559|NCT03905655|183535343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
91828560|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||0.006
91828561|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||0.003
91828562|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.004
91828563|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.006
91828564|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||0.002
91828565|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||0.141
91828566|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||0.081
91828567|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.160
91828568|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.184
91828569|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||0.046
91828570|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||0.379
91828571|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||0.308
91828572|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.794
91828573|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.297
91828574|NCT03905655|183535344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||0.007
91828575|NCT03905655|183535345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
91828576|NCT03905655|183535345|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
91828577|NCT03905655|183535345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
91828578|NCT04723576|183535346|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.189||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|1.446|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||1.446|-1.068|.77
91828579|NCT04723576|183535347|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|0.238||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.785|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.785|-0.310|.39
91828580|NCT04723576|183535348|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.232||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.153|-0.618|.24
91828581|NCT04723576|183535349|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|0.134||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.352|-0.085|.23
91828582|NCT04723576|183535350|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|-0.051||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.078|-0.179|.44
91828583|NCT04723576|183535351|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Odds Ratio, log|-0.051||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.078|||Repeated measure logistic regression|using GEE method|Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.078|-0.179|.85
91828584|NCT04723576|183535352|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.484|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care|||0.484|-0.025|.08
91828585|NCT03204279|183535378|OTHER|No comparison between the two dose groups is performed, thus no statistical test is applied. In the next section the goodness of fit of the loess function correlating exposure and response is reported.|Pearson R|0.076||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||CR in the delayed phase vs AUC0-inf|loess (Local regression or polynomial)|The p-value represents the probability found if the correlation coefficient was zero (null hypothesis).|R is the Pearson correlation is a coefficient statistic that measures linear correlation between two variables CR in the delayed phase vs AUC0-inf|The population consist of all patients having CR in the delayed phase and AUC0-inf and Cmax, there is no comparison between the two dose groups.||||0.55
91828586|NCT03204279|183535378|OTHER|No comparison between the two dose groups is performed, thus no statistical test is applied. In the next section the goodness of fit of the loess function correlating exposure and response is reported.|Pearson R|-0.041||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||CR in the delayed phase vs Cmax|loess (Local regression or polynomial)|The p-value represents the probability found if the correlation coefficient was zero (null hypothesis).|R is the Pearson correlation is a coefficient statistic that measures linear correlation between two variables CR in the delayed phase vs Cmax|The population consist of all patients having CR in the delayed phase and AUC0-inf and Cmax, there is no comparison between the two dose groups.||||0.75
91828587|NCT04827212|183535380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.037
91828588|NCT04827212|183535381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons- P\<0.025; controlled for baseline values as there was a significant difference between groups at baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
91828589|NCT04827212|183535382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusted for multiple comparisons- P\<0.025; controlled for baseline value due to a significant difference between groups at baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
91828590|NCT04827212|183535383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
91828591|NCT04827212|183535384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
91828592|NCT04827212|183535385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
91828593|NCT04827212|183535386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91828594|NCT04827212|183535387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
91828595|NCT04827212|183535388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91828596|NCT04827212|183535389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
91828597|NCT04827212|183535390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
91828598|NCT04827212|183535391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91828599|NCT04827212|183535392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
91952989|NCT00234533|183802537|OTHER||F value|3.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the time of the year on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the time of the year on the IGF-I levels; F value = 3.65 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0139.|||
91952990|NCT00234533|183802537|OTHER||F value|7.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the calculated age at enrolment on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the calculated age at enrolment on the IGF-I levels; F value = 7.38 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0073.|||
91828600|NCT04827212|183535393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
91828601|NCT04827212|183535394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91828602|NCT04827212|183535395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91828603|NCT04827212|183535396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
91828604|NCT04827212|183535397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
91828605|NCT04827212|183535398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91828606|NCT04827212|183535399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91828607|NCT04827212|183535400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91828608|NCT04827212|183535401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.94
91828609|NCT04827212|183535402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
91828610|NCT04827212|183535403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
91828611|NCT03317002|183535404|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.04|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05||<0.001
91828612|NCT03317002|183535404|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.08||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10||0.001
91828613|NCT03317002|183535405|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.04|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05||<0.001
91828614|NCT03317002|183535405|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.09||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12||0.001
91828615|NCT01592435|183535418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05 All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician and are correct. They were rounded to fit four digits.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
91828616|NCT01592435|183535419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05 All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician and are correct. They were rounded to fit four digits.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.00
91828617|NCT02395042|183535486|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.15||||0.142|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.142
91828618|NCT02395042|183535486|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.319|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.319
91828619|NCT02395042|183535487|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.46||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.024
91828620|NCT02395042|183535487|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.02||||0.137|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.137
91828621|NCT01827904|183535597|SUPERIORITY|Percent change from Baseline at the 3 Month visit in the Exablate test vs. Sham control arms was tested using the t-test.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|alpha = 0.05 for the hypothesis test. H0: M3ExAblate ≤ M3Sham H1: M3ExAblate \> M3Sham||"Note that the Crossover group was a rescue treatment group and not integral to the experimental design statistical analysis."||||<0.001
91828622|NCT01910519|183535612|OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M183-TBA at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0039
91828623|NCT01910519|183535612|OTHER|||||||0.0368|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M115-cytokines-receptors cluster at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0368
91828624|NCT01910519|183535612|OTHER|||||||0.0465|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M74-transcriptional targets of glucocorticoid receptor at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0465
91828625|NCT01910519|183535612|OTHER|||||||0.0411|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M58-B cell development/activation at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0411
91828626|NCT01910519|183535612|OTHER|||||||0.0067|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M114.0-TBA at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0067
91828627|NCT04266028|183535613|OTHER|No statistical analyses were performed.|no statistical analyses were performed|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||No statistical analyses were performed||||No statistical analyses were performed.|No statistical analyses were performed.|||
91828628|NCT01458574|183535617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.2|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using Non-responder imputation (NRI).||31.2|15.3|<0.0001
91828629|NCT01458574|183535617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|37.6|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||37.6|21.4|<0.0001
91828630|NCT01458574|183535618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|32.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||32.5|16.0|<0.0001
91828631|NCT01458574|183535618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|41.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||41.0|24.2|<0.0001
91828632|NCT01458574|183535619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|43.2|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||43.2|17.4|<0.0001
91828633|NCT01458574|183535619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|42.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|56.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||56.5|27.9|<0.0001
91828634|NCT01458574|183535620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|30.6|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||30.6|14.8|<0.0001
91828635|NCT01458574|183535620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|32.4|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||32.4|16.4|<0.0001
91828636|NCT01458574|183535621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|23.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.7|10.6|<0.0001
91828637|NCT01458574|183535621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|27.1|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.1|13.5|<0.0001
91828638|NCT01458574|183535622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|35.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||35.5|18.1|<0.0001
91828639|NCT01458574|183535622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|37.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||37.7|20.3|<0.0001
91828640|NCT01458574|183535623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|28.3|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||28.3|14.1|<0.0001
91828641|NCT01458574|183535623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|33.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||33.8|19.0|<0.0001
91828642|NCT01458574|183535624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|43.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||43.1|18.1|<0.0001
91828643|NCT01458574|183535624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|44.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|57.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||57.2|31.8|<0.0001
91828644|NCT01458574|183535624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|41.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||41.4|18.7|<0.0001
91828645|NCT01458574|183535624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|55.3|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||55.3|31.1|<0.0001
91828646|NCT01458574|183535625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|35.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||35.0|13.8|<0.0001
91828647|NCT01458574|183535625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|52.3|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||52.3|28.7|<0.0001
91828648|NCT01458574|183535626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|39.7|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||39.7|20.9|<0.0001
91828649|NCT01458574|183535626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|37.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|46.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||46.4|28.1|<0.0001
91952991|NCT00234533|183802537|OTHER||F value|3.86|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the disease condition on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the disease condition on the IGF-I levels; F value = 3.86 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0511|||
91828650|NCT01458574|183535626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|40.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||40.2|22.4|<0.0001
91828651|NCT01458574|183535626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.9|50.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||50.5|32.9|<0.0001
91828652|NCT01458574|183535627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||38.7|20.9|<0.0001
91828653|NCT01458574|183535627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|49.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||49.0|31.4|<0.0001
91828654|NCT01458574|183535628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||31.2|15.3|<0.0001
91828655|NCT01458574|183535628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|32.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||32.4|16.4|<0.0001
91828656|NCT01458574|183535628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||31.2|15.3|<0.0001
91828657|NCT01458574|183535628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|38.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||38.2|21.9|<0.0001
91828658|NCT01458574|183535629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|23.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.7|10.6|<0.0001
91828659|NCT01458574|183535629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|27.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.7|14.0|<0.0001
91828660|NCT01458574|183535630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.7|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||15.7|4.5|0.0006
91828661|NCT01458574|183535630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.6||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.7|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||11.7|1.5|0.0092
91828662|NCT01458574|183535630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|16.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.2|5.0|0.0004
91828663|NCT01458574|183535630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|16.9|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.9|5.5|<0.0001
91828664|NCT01458574|183535631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||9.0|2.1|0.0029
91828665|NCT01458574|183535631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||5.8|0.3|0.0350
91828666|NCT01458574|183535632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.0|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||24.0|10.3|<0.0001
91828667|NCT01458574|183535632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|22.0|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||22.0|8.5|<0.0001
91828668|NCT01458574|183535632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|22.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||22.5|8.8|<0.0001
91828669|NCT01458574|183535632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|27.0|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.0|12.7|<0.0001
91828670|NCT01458574|183535633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|16.4|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.4|5.9|<0.0001
91828671|NCT01458574|183535633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||18.7|7.7|<0.0001
91828672|NCT01458574|183535634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|17.9|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||17.9|6.3|<0.0001
91828673|NCT01458574|183535634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.1||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|13.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||13.5|2.8|0.0021
91828674|NCT01458574|183535634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|16.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.2|5.0|0.0004
91828675|NCT01458574|183535634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|18.6|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||18.6|6.8|<0.0001
91828676|NCT01458574|183535635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||9.0|2.1|0.0029
91828677|NCT01458574|183535635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.6||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||7.8|1.4|0.0064
91828678|NCT01458574|183535637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.9|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 24||-1.9|-3.2|<0.0001
91828679|NCT01458574|183535637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.2|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 24||-2.2|-3.5|<0.0001
91828680|NCT01458574|183535637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.7|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 52||-1.7|-3.4|<0.0001
91828681|NCT01458574|183535637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.5|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 52||-2.5|-4.1|<0.0001
91828682|NCT01458574|183535638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|55.3|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||55.3|25.0|<0.0001
91828683|NCT01458574|183535638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|64.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||64.1|32.7|<0.0001
91828684|NCT01458574|183535638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|50.3|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||50.3|21.6|<0.0001
91828685|NCT01458574|183535638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|46.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|61.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||61.4|31.0|<0.0001
91828686|NCT01458574|183535639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|44.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||44.8|18.8|<0.0001
91828687|NCT01458574|183535639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|42.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|56.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||56.5|27.9|<0.0001
91828688|NCT01458574|183535640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|38.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|53.8|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||53.8|23.4|<0.0001
91828689|NCT01458574|183535640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|64.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||64.1|32.7|<0.0001
91828690|NCT01458574|183535640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|48.8|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||48.8|20.1|<0.0001
91828691|NCT01458574|183535640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|46.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|61.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||61.4|31.0|<0.0001
91828692|NCT01458574|183535641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.9||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|23.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.2|2.6|0.0074
91828693|NCT01458574|183535641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.2||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|24.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||24.1|2.4|0.0103
91952992|NCT00234533|183802538|OTHER||Mean difference|-164.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|159.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-483.35|-153.77||||||The Bland and Altman method was used to compare the results of each of the three simultaneous random capillary and serum measurements were compared. The difference between the capillary blood spot method and the serum IGF-I measurements is presented||-153.77|-483.35|
91952993|NCT00570492|183802552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to estimate the mean treatment difference in growth velocity over the treatment period, adjusting for baseline growth velocity, age, gender, and country.|||-0.06|-0.48|
91828694|NCT01458574|183535641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|27.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.5|6.2|0.0018
91828695|NCT01458574|183535641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.7||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|27.9|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.9|5.5|0.0029
91828696|NCT01458574|183535642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||15.7|0.1|0.0419
91828697|NCT01458574|183535642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.1||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|19.9|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||19.9|2.3|0.0121
91828698|NCT03394924|183535709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|52.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52|0.6|0.106
91828699|NCT03394924|183535709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|65.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.22|0.75|0.063
91828700|NCT03394924|183535713|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.47||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total bilirubin.||2.32|-1.39|0.616
91828701|NCT03394924|183535713|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.19||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total bilirubin.||2.16|-1.78|0.844
91828702|NCT03394924|183535713|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.67||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for conjugated bilirubin.||0.32|-1.67|0.18
91828703|NCT03394924|183535713|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.64||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for conjugated bilirubin.||0.44|-1.71|0.239
91828704|NCT03394924|183535713|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.21||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for unconjugated bilirubin.||2.73|-0.31|0.116
91952994|NCT00908375|183802581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was determined based on the primary outcome variable, the VAS pain score at three weeks. Based on the results of the study of Siddall et al., group sample sizes of 19 and 19 achieve 82% power to detect a difference of 2.00 between the null hypothesis that both group means are 6.50 and the alternative hypothesis that the mean of pregabalin group is 4.50 with estimated group standard deviations of 2.10 and 2.10 and with a significance level of 0.05 using a two-sided two-sample t-test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-6.0|3.0||The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis (P \< 0.05) was adjusted for multiple application of the test to the same data set using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3|-6|0.279
91828705|NCT03394924|183535713|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.72||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for unconjugated bilirubin.||2.28|-0.84|0.36
91828706|NCT03394924|183535714|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-25.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.07|-11.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for ALT.||-11.04|-40.07|0.001
91828707|NCT03394924|183535714|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.35||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-5.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for ALT.||-5.6|-37.1|0.009
91828708|NCT03394924|183535714|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.42||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|-10.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for AST.||-10.35|-32.48|0.000
91828709|NCT03394924|183535714|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-8.87|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for AST.||-8.87|-32.8|0.001
91828710|NCT03394924|183535714|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-86.49||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.78|-49.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for GGT.||-49.21|-123.78|0.000
91828711|NCT03394924|183535714|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-115.13||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.04|-75.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for GGT.||-75.22|-155.04|0.000
91828712|NCT03394924|183535715|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-26.66||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|9.79|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HA.||9.79|-63.1|0.148
91828713|NCT03394924|183535715|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.99||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.02|10.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HA.||10.05|-68.02|0.142
91828714|NCT03394924|183535715|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PIIINP.||-0.51|-5.68|0.02
91828715|NCT03394924|183535715|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.79||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PIIINP.||-0.97|-6.6|0.009
91828716|NCT03394924|183535715|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-41.96||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.47|-8.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TIMP 1.||-8.44|-75.47|0.015
91828717|NCT03394924|183535715|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-46.56||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.91|-11.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TIMP 1.||-11.21|-81.91|0.011
91828718|NCT03394924|183535715|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-9.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PRO C3.||-1.75|-17.7|0.018
91828719|NCT03394924|183535715|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.73||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|1.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PRO C3.||1.95|-15.41|0.125
91828720|NCT03394924|183535716|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.56|0.000
91828721|NCT03394924|183535716|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-0.54|0.002
91828722|NCT03394924|183535717|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.65|0.026
91828723|NCT03394924|183535717|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.26||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.57|0.104
91828724|NCT03394924|183535718|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|6.81||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.17|50.78|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fibrinogen.||50.78|-37.17|0.757
91828725|NCT03394924|183535718|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|31.77||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|77.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fibrinogen.||77.97|-14.42|0.174
91828726|NCT03394924|183535718|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.98||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for CRP.||1.23|-3.18|0.378
91828727|NCT03394924|183535718|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for CRP.||-0.83|-5.38|0.008
91828728|NCT03394924|183535719|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.34||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|3.76|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for IL6.||3.76|-3.07|0.841
91828729|NCT03394924|183535719|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.49||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for IL6.||1.04|-6.01|0.163
91828730|NCT03394924|183535719|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TNF α.||-0.05|-1.02|0.03
91828731|NCT03394924|183535719|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TNF α.||0.09|-0.9|0.11
91828732|NCT03394924|183535720|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for haptoglobin.||0.27|-0.25|0.944
91828733|NCT03394924|183535720|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for haptoglobin.||0.24|-0.3|0.83
91828734|NCT03394924|183535720|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for alpha2 macroglobulin.||0.1|-0.19|0.546
91828735|NCT03394924|183535720|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for alpha2 macroglobulin.||0.13|-0.18|0.785
91828736|NCT03394924|183535721|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TG.||0.08|-0.43|0.176
91828737|NCT03394924|183535721|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TG.||0.23|-0.3|0.783
91828738|NCT03394924|183535721|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.64||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TC.||0.03|-1.31|0.061
91828739|NCT03394924|183535721|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.63||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TC.||0.08|-1.34|0.08
91828740|NCT03394924|183535721|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.08||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HDL-C.||0.37|-0.21|0.584
91828741|NCT03394924|183535721|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.22||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HDL-C.||0.08|-0.51|0.148
91828742|NCT03394924|183535721|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for LDL-C.||0.05|-1.04|0.074
91828743|NCT03394924|183535721|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for LDL-C.||0.28|-0.87|0.304
91828744|NCT03394924|183535722|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for duration.||0.82|-0.32|0.378
91828745|NCT03394924|183535722|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.65||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for duration.||1.23|0.07|0.03
91828746|NCT03394924|183535722|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.53||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for degree.||1.03|0.04|0.036
91828747|NCT03394924|183535722|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for degree.||1.69|0.67|0.000
91828748|NCT03394924|183535722|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.02||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for direction.||0.96|-0.92|0.971
91828749|NCT03394924|183535722|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.01||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.99|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for direction.||1.99|0.04|0.042
91828750|NCT03394924|183535722|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for disability.||1.14|-0.4|0.336
91828751|NCT03394924|183535722|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.46||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for disability.||2.26|0.67|0.000
91828752|NCT03394924|183535722|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.48||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for distribution.||1.25|-0.29|0.214
91828753|NCT03394924|183535722|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for distribution.||2.02|0.44|0.003
91828754|NCT03394924|183535722|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.21||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|4.9|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total.||4.9|-0.47|0.103
91828755|NCT03394924|183535722|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|6.35||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|9.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total.||9.13|3.57|0.000
91828756|NCT03394924|183535723|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|12.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|30.06|||ANCOVA|||||30.06|-5.09|0.16
91828757|NCT03394924|183535723|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|25.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.67|43.48|||ANCOVA|||||43.48|7.67|0.006
91828758|NCT03394924|183535724|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.15||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|2.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for symptoms.||2.43|-2.72|0.908
91828759|NCT03394924|183535724|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.41||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for symptoms.||1.27|-4.09|0.298
91828760|NCT03394924|183535724|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.91||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.76|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for itch.||3.76|0.07|0.042
91828761|NCT03394924|183535724|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|5.38|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for itch.||5.38|1.55|0.001
91828762|NCT03394924|183535724|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.46||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|4.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fatigue.||4.04|-4.96|0.839
91828763|NCT03394924|183535724|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.32||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.36|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fatigue.||4.36|-5.00|0.891
91828764|NCT03394924|183535724|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.26||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|2.77|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for cognition.||2.77|-2.25|0.834
91828765|NCT03394924|183535724|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.3||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for cognition.||3.92|-1.33|0.327
91828766|NCT03394924|183535724|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.12||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|1.62|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for social.||1.62|-5.86|0.262
91828767|NCT03394924|183535724|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.78||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|3.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for social.||3.12|-4.68|0.69
91828768|NCT03394924|183535724|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.62||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for emotional.||0.95|-2.19|0.433
91828769|NCT03394924|183535724|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for emotional.||2.03|-1.28|0.653
91828770|NCT03394924|183535728|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.34||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.51|74.18|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19.||74.18|-71.51|0.971
91828771|NCT03394924|183535728|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.54||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.86|79.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19.||79.95|-68.86|0.882
91828772|NCT03394924|183535728|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-51.66||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.27|35.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4.||35.96|-139.27|0.242
91828773|NCT03394924|183535728|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-94.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.85|-3.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4.||-3.75|-184.85|0.042
91828774|NCT03394924|183535728|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.57||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.03|51.89|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA.||51.89|-101.03|0.52
91828775|NCT03394924|183535728|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-17.96||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.07|67.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA.||67.16|-103.07|0.672
91828776|NCT03394924|183535729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|44.54||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.97|295.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC0-8.||295.06|-205.97|0.611
91828777|NCT03394924|183535729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-29.98||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.28|351.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC0-8.||351.31|-411.28|0.819
91828778|NCT03394924|183535729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|24.41||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-251.92|300.74|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC2-8.||300.74|-251.92|0.818
91828779|NCT03394924|183535729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-10.53||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-435.33|414.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC2-8.||414.27|-435.33|0.948
91828780|NCT03394924|183535729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-91.7||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-475.92|292.51|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC0-8.||292.51|-475.92|0.412
91952995|NCT00908375|183802582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.0|1.0||The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis (P \< 0.05) was adjusted for multiple applications of the test to the same data using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|-2.0|0.282
91828781|NCT03394924|183535729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-250.18||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-605.33|104.98|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC0-8.||104.98|-605.33|0.094
91828782|NCT03394924|183535729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-83.7||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-279.15|111.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC2-8.||111.75|-279.15|0.266
91828783|NCT03394924|183535729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-238.19||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-470.22|-6.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC2-8.||-6.15|-470.22|0.047
91828784|NCT03394924|183535729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|28.41||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.2|237.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC0-8.||237.02|-180.2|0.694
91828785|NCT03394924|183535729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-39.5||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.32|185.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC0-8.||185.32|-264.32|0.615
91828786|NCT03394924|183535729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.93||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.6|235.46|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC2-8.||235.46|-229.6|0.974
91952996|NCT00908375|183802583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.0||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.0|16.0||The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis (P \< 0.05) was adjusted for multiple applications of the test to the same data using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16|-42|0.139
91952997|NCT02279888|183802599|OTHER|the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the freedom from DSRC rate at 24 months is greater than 80%|Kaplan Meier|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91828787|NCT03394924|183535729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-26.05||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.24|231.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC2-8.||231.15|-283.24|0.793
91828788|NCT01002872|183535782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
91828789|NCT01002872|183535783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.721
91828790|NCT01002872|183535784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.897
91828791|NCT01002872|183535785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
91828792|NCT01002872|183535786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.416
91828793|NCT01002872|183535787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
91828794|NCT01002872|183535788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.955
91828795|NCT01002872|183535789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91828796|NCT01002872|183535790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0066
91828797|NCT02388724|183535815|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% confidence intervals of the difference was more than -10% (non-inferiority margin), non-inferiority for Vonoprazan relative to Lansoprazole was declared.|Difference in percentages|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.822|6.087||||||||6.087|-3.822|
91828798|NCT02388724|183535816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.054|15.371||||||2 Weeks||15.371|-1.054|
91828799|NCT02388724|183535816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.763|8.395||||||4 Weeks||8.395|-4.763|
91828800|NCT02479412|183535994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05697||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08626|0.1401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 µg vs. PBO||0.1401|-0.08626|0.6379
91828801|NCT02479412|183535994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05663||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03645|0.1885|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 µg vs.PBO||0.1885|-0.03645|0.1827
91828802|NCT02479412|183535994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05679||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03494|0.2606|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.2606|0.03494|0.0108
91828803|NCT02479412|183535995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.214||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|1.528|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 µg vs. PBO||1.528|-11.24|0.1342
91828804|NCT02479412|183535995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|-4.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 µg vs. PBO||-4.075|-16.75|0.0016
91828805|NCT02479412|183535995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|-8.319|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 µg vs. PBO||-8.319|-21.18|<0.0001
91828806|NCT02479412|183535996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.139||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.06|-3.642|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 µg vs. PBO||-3.642|-24.06|0.0084
91828807|NCT02479412|183535996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.088||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.37|-4.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 µg vs. PBO||-4.149|-24.37|0.0062
91828808|NCT02479412|183535996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.137||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-9.689|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 µg vs. PBO||-9.689|-30.10|0.0002
91828809|NCT02479412|183535997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05856||0.6036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08579|0.1468|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.1468|-0.08579|0.6036
91828810|NCT02479412|183535997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05869||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09912|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1340|-0.09912|0.7670
91828811|NCT02479412|183535997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05874||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03943|0.2728|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.2728|0.03943|0.0093
91828812|NCT02479412|183535998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05377||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1415|0.07213|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.07213|-0.1415|0.5207
91828813|NCT02479412|183535998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05336||0.5983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07778|0.1342|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1342|-0.07778|0.5983
91828814|NCT02479412|183535998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05371||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04501|0.1684|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.1684|-0.04501|0.2538
91828815|NCT02479412|183535999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05743||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1367|0.09144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.09144|-0.1367|0.6945
91828816|NCT02479412|183535999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.000314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05755||0.9957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1146|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1140|-0.1146|0.9957
91828817|NCT02479412|183535999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05774||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04637|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.1830|-0.04637|0.2398
91828818|NCT02479412|183536000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.877||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.335|22.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||22.01|-1.335|0.0819
91828819|NCT02479412|183536000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.881||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.427|16.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||16.93|-6.427|0.3741
91828820|NCT02479412|183536000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.926||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7481|24.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||24.29|0.7481|0.0374
91828821|NCT02479412|183536001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.384||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.039|26.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||26.43|5.039|0.0044
91828822|NCT02479412|183536001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.419||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.534|25.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||25.06|3.534|0.0098
91828823|NCT02479412|183536001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.459||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.068|30.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||30.75|9.068|0.0004
91828824|NCT02479412|183536002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7189|0.03179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.03179|-0.7189|0.0723
91828825|NCT02479412|183536002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1903||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8631|-0.1073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||-0.1073|-0.8631|0.0124
91828826|NCT02479412|183536002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1914|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.183|-0.4224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.4224|-1.183|<0.0001
91828827|NCT02479412|183536003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1051||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5159|-0.09836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||-0.09836|-0.5159|0.0044
91828828|NCT02479412|183536003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1059||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3927|0.02789|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.02789|-0.3927|0.0883
91828829|NCT02479412|183536003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6397|-0.2205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.2205|-0.6397|<0.0001
91828830|NCT02479412|183536004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09139||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3466|0.01638|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.01638|-0.3466|0.0741
91828831|NCT02479412|183536004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09204||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2736|0.09201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.09201|-0.2736|0.3265
91828832|NCT02479412|183536004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09176||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4354|-0.07092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.07092|-0.4354|0.0070
91828833|NCT02479412|183536005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1626||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7414|-0.09563|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||-0.09563|-0.7414|0.0116
91828834|NCT02479412|183536005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1628||0.2732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5027|0.1438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1438|-0.5027|0.2732
91828835|NCT02479412|183536005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1636|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.091|-0.4411|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.4411|-1.091|<0.0001
91828836|NCT02479412|183536006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04982||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2057|-0.007755|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||-0.007755|-0.2057|0.0349
91828837|NCT02479412|183536006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05015||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1817|0.01756|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.01756|-0.1817|0.1052
91828838|NCT02479412|183536006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05044||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3028|-0.1025|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.1025|-0.3028|0.0001
91828839|NCT02479412|183536007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2946||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08779|1.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||1.258|0.08779|0.0247
91828840|NCT02479412|183536007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2965||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1607|1.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||1.017|-0.1607|0.1521
91828841|NCT02479412|183536007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2987||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3483|1.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||1.535|0.3483|0.0022
91828842|NCT02479412|183536011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|272.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|237.43|312.05|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 250 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||312.05|237.43|<0.0001
91828843|NCT02479412|183536011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|676.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|580.91|786.95|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 800 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||786.95|580.91|<0.0001
91828844|NCT02479412|183536012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|337.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|290.8|392.43|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 250 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||392.43|290.80|<0.0001
91828845|NCT02479412|183536012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|964.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|816.13|1140.13|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 800 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||1140.13|816.13|<0.0001
91828846|NCT01571362|183536033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.14||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was if unadjusted p was less than or equal to (\<=) 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Null Hypothesis: No treatment difference. Power was 90%, 2-sided Alpha of 0.05, with assumed difference of 1 point and assumed standard deviation of 2.4 points.||-0.14|-1.11|0.0114
91828847|NCT01571362|183536034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.7547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.29||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and Baseline score and final total daily dose of Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-0.94|0.7547
91828848|NCT01571362|183536035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1272|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid)||||||0.1272
91828849|NCT01571362|183536036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid and non-opioid).||||||0.0210
91828850|NCT01571362|183536037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0248|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid).||||||0.0248
91828851|NCT01571362|183536038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid).||||||0.0090
91828852|NCT01571362|183536039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0874|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid).||||||0.0874
91828853|NCT01571362|183536040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Worst Pain Score||||<0.0001
91828854|NCT01571362|183536040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Least Pain Score||||<0.0001
91828855|NCT01571362|183536040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Average Pain Score||||<0.0001
91828856|NCT01571362|183536040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Pain Right Now||||<0.0001
91828857|NCT01571362|183536040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Pain Severity Index||||<0.0001
91828858|NCT01571362|183536040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Pain Interference Index||||<0.0001
91828859|NCT01571362|183536041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Worst Pain Score||||<0.0001
91828860|NCT01571362|183536041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Least Pain Score||||<0.0001
91828861|NCT01571362|183536041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Average Pain Score||||<0.0001
91828862|NCT01571362|183536041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Pain Right Now||||<0.0001
91952998|NCT02279888|183802601|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.47|||Andersen-Gill||This analysis applies to Primary Outcome: HFH Rate|||0.47|0.39|<0.0001
91828863|NCT01571362|183536041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Pain Severity Index||||<0.0001
91828864|NCT01571362|183536041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Pain Interference Index||||<0.0001
91828865|NCT01571362|183536042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.18|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.18|-1.06|0.0056
91952999|NCT02279888|183802603|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.62|||Andersen-Gill|||||0.62|0.52|<0.0001
91828866|NCT01571362|183536042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.16|-1.12|0.0090
91828867|NCT01571362|183536042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||0.16|-0.91|0.1684
91828868|NCT01571362|183536042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.50|-1.46|<0.0001
91953000|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1||||0.32
91828869|NCT01571362|183536043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2||-0.02|-0.78|0.0412
91828870|NCT01571362|183536043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.48|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4||-0.48|-1.27|<0.0001
91828871|NCT01571362|183536043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.19|-1.08|0.0055
91828872|NCT01571362|183536043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.44|-1.27|<0.0001
91828873|NCT01571362|183536044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.27|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.27|-1.02|0.0007
91828874|NCT01571362|183536044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.32|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.32|-1.16|0.0006
91828875|NCT01571362|183536044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.18|-1.11|0.0070
91828876|NCT01571362|183536044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.44|-1.31|<0.0001
91828877|NCT01571362|183536045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.23|-1.05|0.0022
91953001|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir107||||0.38
91953002|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir128||||0.83
91828878|NCT01571362|183536045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.37|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.37|-1.21|0.0003
91828879|NCT01571362|183536045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.19|-1.23|0.0078
91828880|NCT01571362|183536045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.62|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.62|-1.52|<0.0001
91828881|NCT01571362|183536046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.21|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.21|-0.95|0.0022
91828882|NCT01571362|183536046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.37|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.37|-1.15|0.0002
91828883|NCT01571362|183536046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.16|-1.06|0.0078
91953003|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir141||||0.42
91828884|NCT01571362|183536046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.54|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.54|-1.35|<0.0001
91828885|NCT01571362|183536047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.04|-0.78|0.0285
91828886|NCT01571362|183536047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.11|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.11|-0.85|0.0106
91828887|NCT01571362|183536047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.4529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.27|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||0.27|-0.60|0.4529
91828888|NCT01571362|183536047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.25|-1.06|0.0018
91828889|NCT01571362|183536048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.20|-1.22|0.0061
91828890|NCT01571362|183536048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.19|-1.28|0.0087
91828891|NCT01571362|183536048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.06|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||0.06|-1.18|0.0769
91828892|NCT01571362|183536048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.53|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.53|-1.67|0.0002
91828893|NCT01571362|183536049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.06|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.06|-0.95|0.0250
91828894|NCT01571362|183536049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.43|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.43|-1.36|0.0002
91828895|NCT01571362|183536049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.25|-1.29|0.0038
91828896|NCT01571362|183536049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.50|-1.46|<0.0001
91828897|NCT01571362|183536050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.38|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.38|-1.22|0.0002
91828898|NCT01571362|183536050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.32|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.32|-1.25|0.0010
91828899|NCT01571362|183536050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.25|-1.32|0.0041
91828900|NCT01571362|183536050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.56|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.56|-1.52|<0.0001
91828901|NCT01571362|183536051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.14|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.14|-1.06|0.0115
91828902|NCT01571362|183536051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.16|-1.17|0.0099
91828903|NCT01571362|183536051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.10|-1.31|0.0222
91828904|NCT01571362|183536051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/ Early Termination.||-0.50|-1.54|0.0001
91828905|NCT01571362|183536052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.24|-1.09|0.0025
91828906|NCT01571362|183536052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.31|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.31|-1.23|0.0012
91828907|NCT01571362|183536052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.19|-1.27|0.0078
91828908|NCT01571362|183536052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.56|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.56|-1.52|<0.0001
91828909|NCT01571362|183536053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.04|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||0.04|-0.86|0.0727
91828910|NCT01571362|183536053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||0.00|-0.94|0.0501
91828911|NCT01571362|183536053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.37|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||0.37|-0.67|0.5704
91828912|NCT01571362|183536053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/ Early Termination.||-0.16|-1.12|0.0096
91953004|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir148b||||0.32
91953005|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir181b||||0.83
91828913|NCT01571362|183536054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-27.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.968||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.34|-6.16|||ANCOVA||Difference between treatment groups evaluated by ANCOVA with treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|||-6.16|-49.34|0.0120
91828914|NCT01571362|183536055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.5||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.29|95.55|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the average daily rescue acetaminophen during the Titration Period and final total daily study medication dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|||95.55|-103.29|0.9390
91828915|NCT01571362|183536061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 20% loss of analgesic response||||0.0014
91828916|NCT01571362|183536061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 30% loss of analgesic response.||||0.0024
91828917|NCT01571362|183536061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 40% loss of analgesic response.||||0.0006
91828918|NCT01571362|183536061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 50% loss of analgesic response||||0.0021
91828919|NCT01571362|183536063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors.||||||0.006
91828920|NCT01571362|183536073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to the End of Open-Label Titration Period.||||<0.0001
91828921|NCT01571362|183536074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline.||||<0.0001
91828922|NCT01571362|183536075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 2.||0.10|-2.20|0.0733
91828923|NCT01571362|183536075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.642||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.57||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 4.||0.57|-1.96|0.2783
91953006|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir185||||0.38
91828924|NCT01571362|183536075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.684||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.93||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 8.||1.93|-0.77|0.3951
91828925|NCT01571362|183536075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.614||0.9063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.28||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 12.||1.28|-1.14|0.9063
91828926|NCT01571362|183536076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.463||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.18||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted change from Baseline to Week 2.||0.18|-1.65|0.1139
91828927|NCT01571362|183536076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.44||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Baseline to Week 4.||0.44|-1.84|0.2264
91828928|NCT01571362|183536076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.619||0.5074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.63||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Baseline to Week 8.||1.63|-0.81|0.5074
91828929|NCT01571362|183536077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Bowker's test of symmetry|||||||<0.0001
91828930|NCT01571362|183536078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Bowker's test of symmetry|||||||<0.0001
91828931|NCT01571362|183536079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2211|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by opioid stratum.||||||0.2211
91828932|NCT01571362|183536080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5767|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by opioid stratum.||||||0.5767
91828933|NCT01571362|183536083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by opioid stratum.||||||0.0004
91828934|NCT01571362|183536084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Physical Functioning.||||<0.0001
91828935|NCT01571362|183536084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Role-Physical.||||<0.0001
91828936|NCT01571362|183536084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Bodily Pain.||||<0.0001
91828937|NCT01571362|183536084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for General Health.||||<0.0001
91828938|NCT01571362|183536084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Vitality.||||<0.0001
91828939|NCT01571362|183536084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Social Functioning.||||<0.0001
91828940|NCT01571362|183536084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Role-Emotional.||||<0.0001
91828941|NCT01571362|183536084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Mental Health.||||<0.0001
91828942|NCT01571362|183536084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Physical Component Score.||||<0.0001
91828943|NCT01571362|183536084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Mental Component Score.||||0.0026
91828944|NCT01571362|183536085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Physical Functioning, Role-Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role-Emotional, Mental Health, Physical Component Score, and Mental Component Score||||<0.0001
91828945|NCT01571362|183536086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.5181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.49||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Physical Functioning.||2.49|-1.26|0.5181
91828946|NCT01571362|183536086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.9733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.93||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Role-Physical.||1.93|-2.00|0.9733
91828947|NCT01571362|183536086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.914||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.18||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Bodily Pain.||4.18|0.57|0.0100
91828948|NCT01571362|183536086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.4712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.95||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for General Health Perceptions.||0.95|-2.06|0.4712
91828949|NCT01571362|183536086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.2898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.99||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Vitality.||0.99|-3.30|0.2898
91953007|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.77||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir194||||0.38
91828950|NCT01571362|183536086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.044||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.54||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Social Functioning.||3.54|-0.57|0.1565
91828951|NCT01571362|183536086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.348||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|1.79||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Role-Emotional.||1.79|-3.52|0.5220
91828952|NCT01571362|183536086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.995||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.98||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Mental Health.||1.98|-1.94|0.9865
91828953|NCT01571362|183536086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.885||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.77||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Physical Component Score.||2.77|-0.72|0.2491
91828954|NCT01571362|183536086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.43||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Mental Component Score.||1.43|-2.80|0.5219
91828955|NCT01571362|183536087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|3.71||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Physical Functioning.||3.71|-0.67|0.1731
91828956|NCT01571362|183536087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.127||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.32||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Role-Physical.||3.32|-1.12|0.3290
91828957|NCT01571362|183536087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.047||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.45||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Bodily Pain.||4.45|0.33|0.0232
91828958|NCT01571362|183536087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858||0.8139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.49||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for General Health Perceptions.||1.49|-1.89|0.8139
91953008|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.38||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir19a||||0.32
91953009|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir200a||||0.99
91828959|NCT01571362|183536087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.117||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|1.75||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Vitality.||1.75|-2.65|0.6878
91828960|NCT01571362|183536087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.12||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Social Functioning.||4.12|-0.13|0.0658
91828961|NCT01571362|183536087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.374||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.94||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Role-Emotional.||2.94|-2.48|0.8670
91828962|NCT01571362|183536087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|2.45||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Mental Health.||2.45|-1.71|0.7259
91828963|NCT01571362|183536087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|3.65||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Physical Component Score.||3.65|-0.32|0.0989
91953010|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir22||||0.38
91953011|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir223||||0.38
91953012|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir23a||||0.83
91953013|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir26a||||0.83
91828964|NCT01571362|183536087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.142||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|2.25||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Mental Component Score.||2.25|-2.25|0.9969
91828965|NCT01571362|183536088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91828966|NCT01571362|183536089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91828967|NCT01571362|183536090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91828968|NCT01571362|183536091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91828969|NCT01571362|183536092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.065||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of study drug during the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.065|-0.001|0.0605
91828970|NCT01571362|183536093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.999||0.7196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.66||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors; Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of study drug during the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.66|-3.22|0.7196
91828971|NCT01571362|183536094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.055||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.055|-0.013|0.2280
91828972|NCT01571362|183536095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.048||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|6.3||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||6.30|-1.77|0.2701
91828973|NCT01571362|183536096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3822|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Work Time Missed due to Low Back Pain.||||0.3822
91828974|NCT01571362|183536096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Impairment while Working due to Low Back Pain.||||<0.0001
91828975|NCT01571362|183536096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Overall Work Impairment due to Low Back Pain.||||<0.0001
91828976|NCT01571362|183536096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Activity Impairment due to Low Back Pain.||||<0.0001
91828977|NCT01571362|183536097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Work Time Missed due to Low Back Pain||||0.0017
91828978|NCT01571362|183536097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Impairment while Working due to Low Back Pain||||<0.0001
91828979|NCT01571362|183536097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Overall Work Impairment due to Low Back Pain||||<0.0001
91828980|NCT01571362|183536097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Activity Impairment due to Low Back Pain||||<0.0001
91828981|NCT01571362|183536098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.883||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|1.43||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.43|-10.06|0.1389
91828982|NCT01571362|183536098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|5.8||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||5.80|-11.56|0.5094
91828983|NCT01571362|183536098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.043||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|5.26||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||5.26|-10.81|0.4944
91828984|NCT01571362|183536099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.295||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|1.81||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.81|-15.33|0.1201
91828985|NCT01571362|183536099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.288||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|5.62||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||5.62|-15.60|0.3497
91828986|NCT01571362|183536099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.532||0.6008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|6.65||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||6.65|-11.41|0.6008
91828987|NCT01571362|183536100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.986||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|2.62||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||2.62|-17.29|0.1458
91828988|NCT01571362|183536100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.496||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.38|3.68||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||3.68|-22.38|0.1558
91828989|NCT01571362|183536100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.582||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|5.98||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||5.98|-16.25|0.3604
91953014|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir320b||||0.38
91828990|NCT01571362|183536101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.389||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|0.46||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.46|-8.95|0.0768
91828991|NCT01571362|183536101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.684||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.29||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||6.29|-4.30|0.7109
91828992|NCT01571362|183536101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.536||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|0.85||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||0.85|-9.14|0.1031
91828993|NCT01571362|183536102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.776||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|0.8||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.80|-10.26|0.0926
91828994|NCT01571362|183536102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.414||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|5.24||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||5.24|-8.42|0.6437
91828995|NCT01571362|183536102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.391||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|5.65||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||5.65|-7.84|0.7480
91828996|NCT01571362|183536103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.666||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|-3.07||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-3.07|-21.68|0.0098
91828997|NCT01571362|183536103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.336||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.63|-2.25||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.25|-23.63|0.0186
91828998|NCT01571362|183536103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.785||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|0.32||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||0.32|-18.72|0.0581
91828999|NCT01571362|183536104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.168||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|-2.25||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.25|-22.87|0.0177
91829000|NCT01571362|183536104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.998||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.19|-2.14||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.14|-26.19|0.0219
91829001|NCT01571362|183536104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.589||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.47|0.78||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||0.78|-21.47|0.0679
91829002|NCT01571362|183536105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.654||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|-2.27||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.27|-12.72|0.0052
91829003|NCT01571362|183536105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.999||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|1.29||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||1.29|-10.54|0.1249
91829004|NCT01571362|183536105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.818||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-2.64||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||-2.64|-13.74|0.0040
91829005|NCT04386096|183536141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91829006|NCT04386096|183536143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent Pre-Intention Factors||||0.30
91829007|NCT04386096|183536143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent Pre-Intention Factors||||0.71
91829008|NCT04386096|183536144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent Intention to take/give ADHD medicine regularly||||0.29
91829009|NCT04386096|183536144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent Intention to take/give ADHD medicine regularly||||0.19
91829010|NCT04386096|183536145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91829011|NCT04386096|183536146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
91829012|NCT04386096|183536148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Child Seek||||0.10
91829013|NCT04386096|183536148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Child Express||||0.51
91829014|NCT04386096|183536148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Parent Seek||||0.84
91829015|NCT04386096|183536148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Parent Express||||0.93
91829016|NCT04386096|183536148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Joint/Options||||0.43
91829017|NCT04386096|183536148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Child Seek||||0.94
91829018|NCT04386096|183536148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Child Express||||0.79
91829019|NCT04386096|183536148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Parent Seek||||0.61
91829020|NCT04386096|183536148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Parent Express||||0.10
91829021|NCT04386096|183536148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Joint/Options||||0.98
91829022|NCT04402866|183536211|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|1.142||||0.6137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|1.846|||Van Elteren test||Common Odds Ratio (TD-0903 vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% Wald confidence interval (CI) were obtained from the proportional odds regression model of RFD adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.||1.846|0.706|0.6137
91829023|NCT04402866|183536212|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|LS mean difference|-0.51||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.95|20.92|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group||20.92|-21.95|0.962
91829024|NCT04402866|183536213|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.153||||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.922|||Van Elteren test||Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 7||1.922|0.692|0.5918
91829025|NCT04402866|183536213|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.105||||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.878|||Van Elteren test|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 14|Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|1.878|0.651|0.6978
91829026|NCT04402866|183536213|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.295||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|2.388|||Van Elteren test|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 21|Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|2.388|0.702|0.3990
91829027|NCT04402866|183536213|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|2.299|||Van Elteren test||Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 28||2.299|0.605|0.6445
91829028|NCT04402866|183536214|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.06||||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.63||The p-value was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline age group (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group||14.63|-4.50|0.3005
91829029|NCT03667053|183536215|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo was evaluated inferentially using a pairwise two-sided log rank test stratified by injection site and age group.||||<0.001
91829030|NCT03667053|183536216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||Assessed at 30 minutes. Note that p-value was 0.0005 at 10 minutes and \<0.0001 at 15 and 20 minutes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group and injection site. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||0.0073
91829031|NCT03667053|183536217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was \<0.0001 at all time points (10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes)|ANOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 30, 20, 15, and 10 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91829032|NCT01059565|183536250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|0.91||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|5.06||"To correct for multiplicity, a family alpha spending rule was used to control the type 1 error rate of alpha=0.05.~A gate-keeping procedure to control family-wise Type 1 error was established a priori for primary and key secondary endpoints."|ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||"The primary analysis was a test for superiority. Null hypothesis was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.~A sample size of 50 participants per group provided at least 80% power to detect an 8.5% difference in mean AUCave of relative change from baseline in FEV1 % predicted through Week 24 using a two-sided 0.05-level test, assuming a common standard deviation of 15."||5.06|-3.24|0.663
91829033|NCT01059565|183536251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4158||||||To correct for multiplicity, a family alpha spending rule was used to control the type 1 error rate of alpha=0.05.|Negative binomial regression|The negative binomial regression model included an offset parameter which accounted for potential differing study durations due to discontinuations.||The primary analysis was a test for superiority. Null hypothesis was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.4158
91829034|NCT01059565|183536252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.18||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|1.78||To correct for multiplicity, a family alpha spending rule was used to control the type 1 error rate of alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||1.78|-4.43|0.939
91829035|NCT01059565|183536253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.77||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|4.86|||ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||4.86|-3.33|0.711
91829036|NCT01059565|183536254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.6||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.49|||ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||4.49|-3.30|0.762
91953015|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir598||||0.38
91953016|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir720||||0.83
91953017|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mir1915||||0.30
91829037|NCT01059565|183536255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|1.95||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|8.44|||ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||8.44|-4.54|0.553
91829038|NCT01059565|183536256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|2.99||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.28|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||7.28|-1.20|0.170
91829039|NCT01059565|183536257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.57||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|5.49|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||5.49|-10.62|0.528
91829040|NCT01059565|183536258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|3.62||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|8.34|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||8.34|-1.11|0.132
91829041|NCT01059565|183536259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.14||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value was based on a Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure model that included terms for treatment, visit, baseline, and treatment/visit interaction.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||0.56|-0.29|0.531
91829042|NCT01059565|183536260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.93||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.48|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||2.48|-0.62|0.232
91829043|NCT01059565|183536261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.103
91829044|NCT01059565|183536262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.646
91829045|NCT01059565|183536263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.284
91829046|NCT01981564|183536383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA F=3.55, df=1, p=0.06||||0.06
91953018|NCT01484691|183802615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1978||||0.38
91829047|NCT01869491|183536405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.31|<0.0001
91829048|NCT01869491|183536406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-0.29|0.0004
91829049|NCT01869491|183536407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.32|0.0001
91829050|NCT01869491|183536408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.32|0.0004
91829051|NCT01869491|183536409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91829052|NCT01869491|183536410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0433|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0433
91829053|NCT01869491|183536411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0503
91829054|NCT02105948|183536433|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.82|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98||Adjusted p-value to account for two treatment comparisons|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted for FEV1,smoking status and offset of log (time in on-and off-treatment period)|||0.98|0.68|=0.036
91829055|NCT02105948|183536433|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.82|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98||Unadjusted p-value.|Negative binomial mode||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period)|||0.98|0.68|=0.029
91829056|NCT02105948|183536434|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.98|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||Adjusted p-value to account for two treatment comparisons|Negative Binomial Model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period)|||1.12|0.85|>0.999
91829057|NCT02105948|183536434|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.98|||=|0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||Unadjusted p-value.|Negative binomial mode||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period)|||1.12|0.85|=0.731
91829058|NCT02105948|183536435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/placebo)|0.75|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94||Adjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.94|0.60|=0.036
91829059|NCT02105948|183536435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/placebo)|0.75|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.94|0.60|=0.012
91953019|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.53||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1||||0.26
91829060|NCT02105948|183536436|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.16|||=|0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75||Adjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.75|0.77|=0.598
91829061|NCT02105948|183536436|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.16|||=|0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.75|0.77|=0.479
91829062|NCT02105948|183536437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.2||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||3.2|-2.8|>0.999
91829063|NCT02105948|183536437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.2|||=|0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.2||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||3.2|-2.8|=0.901
91829064|NCT02105948|183536438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.5|-2.0|>0.999
91829065|NCT02105948|183536438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.8|||=|0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.5|-2.0|=0.244
91829066|NCT02105948|183536439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.89|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||Adjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.05|0.75|>0.999
91829067|NCT02105948|183536439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.89|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.05|0.75|=0.160
91953020|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.52||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir107||||0.26
91829068|NCT02105948|183536440|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49||Adjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.49|0.81|>0.999
91829069|NCT02105948|183536440|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.1|||=|0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.49|0.81|=0.556
91829070|NCT02105948|183536441|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.7|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.9|-1.5|>0.999
91829071|NCT02105948|183536441|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.7|||=|0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.9|-1.5|=0.532
91829072|NCT02105948|183536442|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.6|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.4|-1.5|>0.999
91829073|NCT02105948|183536442|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.6|||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.4|-1.5|=0.252
91829074|NCT02276482|183536467|OTHER||Difference in percentages|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.5|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||13.5|-6.3|
91829075|NCT02276482|183536468|OTHER||Difference in percentages|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.8|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||10.8|-3.4|
91829076|NCT02276482|183536469|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.4|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||4.4|-12.9|
91829077|NCT02276482|183536470|OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.7|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||7.7|-7.4|
91829078|NCT02276482|183536471|OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
91829079|NCT02005471|183536488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.29|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified analysis: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.29|0.18|<.0001
91829080|NCT02005471|183536488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.31|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model|Unstratified Analysis||0.31|0.19|<.0001
91829081|NCT02005471|183536490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.28|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.28|0.13|<.0001
91829082|NCT02005471|183536490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.3|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.30|0.14|<.0001
91829083|NCT02005471|183536492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factor: geographic region.||0.57|0.21|<.0001
91829084|NCT02005471|183536492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.56|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.56|0.22|<.0001
91829085|NCT02005471|183536494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.49|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factor: geographic region.||0.49|0.09|<.0001
91829086|NCT02005471|183536494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.46|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.46|0.09|<.0001
91829087|NCT02005471|183536495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.88|33.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for rates were constructed using Pearson- Clopper method. 95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.33|17.88|<.0001
91829088|NCT02005471|183536495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|15.37|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||15.37|3.97|
91829089|NCT02005471|183536496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.88|33.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for rates were constructed using Pearson- Clopper method. 95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.33|17.88|<.0001
91829090|NCT02005471|183536496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|15.37|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||15.37|3.97|
91829091|NCT02005471|183536497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.63|33.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.51|16.63|<.0001
91829092|NCT02005471|183536497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|7.88|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||7.88|2.68|
91829093|NCT02005471|183536498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.10|16.00|<.0001
91829094|NCT02005471|183536498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|7.85|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||7.85|2.68|
91829095|NCT02005471|183536500|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|||0.74|0.37|0.0002
91829096|NCT02005471|183536500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.76|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.76|0.39|0.0003
91829097|NCT02005471|183536502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.29|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.29|0.17|<.0001
91829098|NCT02005471|183536502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.31|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.31|0.19|<.0001
91829099|NCT02005471|183536506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.39|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.39|0.23|<.0001
91953021|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir128||||0.26
91829100|NCT02005471|183536506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.41|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.41|0.25|<.0001
91829101|NCT02005471|183536507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negativity Rates|49.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.44|57.64|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||57.64|40.44|<.0001
91829102|NCT02005471|183536507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|17.85|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||17.85|6.50|
91829103|NCT02005471|183536508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD negative rates|13.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|18.82|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||18.82|7.99|<.0001
91829104|NCT02005471|183536508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|69.35|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||69.35|3.82|
91829105|NCT00627705|183536519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||mixed effects regression models|F= 0.81||Cohen's d = 0.30||||0.449
91829106|NCT00627705|183536521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Aberrant Behavior Checklist irritability subscale (F = 6.80; p = \<.001; d = .96).|Mixed effects regression models|||F values were derived from the interaction of participant group (NAC vs. placebo) and time (week) in mixed effects regression models. Cohen's d was computed based on the standardized mean difference in the change from baseline to week 12.||||<.001
91829107|NCT00627705|183536523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||mixed effects regression models|degrees of freedom were 1, 22||F-values were derived from the interaction of Participant Group (NAC vs. Placebo) and Time (Week) in mixed effects regression models.||||.141
91829108|NCT01410448|183536537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0921|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0921
91829109|NCT02091167|183536617|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||We powered for a medium effect size based on our previous study with effect size (partial ղ2) of 0.10384 for the main within-subject factor in the two-way ANOVA with repeated measures. With a power of 80%, and a two-sided probability of a type I error of 5%, the resulting minimum sample size was 30 participants. To account for waiving or dropouts we increased the estimated sample size to approximately 10%, resulting in 33 subjects in total (approximately 16 to 17 subjects in each group).|"Most of data (age, patterns of crack-cocaine use, 5-items OCCS) were normally distributed according to the D'Agostino \& Pearson normality test, thus they were analyzed by parametric tests. Between-group (sham- and real tDCS) comparisons were conducted by unpaired Student´s t-tests. For all other non-parametric data (gender, schooling, employment, marital state and tobacco use), Chi-square or Fisher tests were used to compare sham and real tDCS groups.~Besides the two-way ANOVA with repeated measures followed by Bonferroni-corrected t-tests, linear regression analyses were done over craving scores obtained along the 4-week treatment (five time-points measurements) for both groups. Additional comparisons between initial and final OCDS scores were done by paired t-tests for each group, and differences between final and initial scores were compared between sham-tDCS and real tDCS groups with unpaired t-test."|||0.05
91829110|NCT02091167|183536618|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Two patients from each group were lost to follow-up after their discharge from the hospital.||||0.05
91829111|NCT02693665|183536640|SUPERIORITY|First measure of congruence was taken at 2 weeks post-baseline for controls, or immediately post-Session 2 for intervention dyads. Analysis presented here assessed differences between groups in agreement. This represents the underlying data without examining the pattern of congruence for each dyad over time. Longitudinal latent class analysis of congruence in responses over time between adolescents/families was conducted at the person not variable level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|9.57|||longitudinal latent class analysis|examined the pattern of change over time.||"Analysis was at the level of the dyad. AIM 1. To evaluate the efficacy of FACE-TC on patient-family congruence in treatment preferences.~H1a: FACE-TC participants will better maintain congruence over time, compared to controls.~H1b: Development of congruence may not be homogeneous and FACE-TC may influence the pattern of congruence development."||9.57|1.09|<0.05
91829112|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.00743162|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.094||The generalized mixed effect models are taking into account missingness by attrition. There were not missing values for the outcomes or predictors that we used.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model forced age, gender, race, family education, family income under the Federal Poverty level, on/off treatment.||Emotional distress-anxiety analysis at baseline comparing intervention and control.||1.094|0.928|<0.05
91829113|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05037501|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96438584|1.14403138||The generalized mixed effect models are taking into account missingness by attrition. There were not missing values for the outcomes or predictors that we used.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model forced age, gender, race, family education, family income under the Federal Poverty level, on/off treatment.||Emotional distress-anxiety analysis at 3 months post baseline comparing intervention and control. We hypothesized that anxiety would be lower in the intervention group compared to controls.||1.14403138|0.96438584|<0.05
91829114|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY|See earlier comments.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01136067|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92887892|1.10116656||See earlier comments.|t-test, 2 sided|See earlier comments.||This is analysis for 6 month outcomes of Emotional-distress - anxiety. See details in 3 month outcomes.||1.10116656|0.92887892|<0.05
91829115|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14070431|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04444724|1.2458325|||t-test, 2 sided||See earlier comments.|These are the 12 month outcomes for Emotional distress - anxiety. See earlier comments.||1.24583250|1.04444724|<0.05
91829116|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98078271|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89845609|1.07065301|||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is for the outcome Emotional distress - depressive symptoms. We hypothesized that adolescent in the intervention would have lower depressive symptoms compared to controls at 3, 6, and 12 month outcomes. The following are the baseline comparisons between control and intervention which were controlled for in the 3, 6, and 12 month analysis of outcomes.||1.07065301|0.89845609|<0.05
91829117|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04007715|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94970156|1.13905306|||t-test, 2 sided|||The results here are for the outcome variable Emotional Distress - Depressive symptoms at 3 month outcomes. We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would have lower depressive symptoms than controls.||1.13905306|0.94970156|<0.05
91829118|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07347088|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9806271|1.17510491|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesize that Emotional Distress - Depressive symptoms would be lower in intervention adolescents compared to controls at 6 months post intervention.||1.17510491|0.98062710|<0.05
91829119|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11582434|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01653156|1.22481585|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would have lower scores on Emotional Distress - Depressive symptoms compared to controls at 12 months post baseline.||1.22481585|1.01653156|<0.05
91829120|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.98803061|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89065531|1.09605195|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would have no differences in fatigue at baseline if randomization was successful. In this analysis we examine the baseline results.||1.09605195|0.89065531|<0.05
91829121|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13509797|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01959639|1.26368376|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention arm would report less Fatigue at 3 months outcome compared to controls.||1.26368376|1.01959639|<0.05
91953022|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir141||||0.87
91953023|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir148b||||0.29
91829122|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04944737|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94281417|1.16814089|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would report less Fatigue at 6 months post baseline compared to control adolescents.||1.16814089|0.94281417|<0.05
91829123|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11042568|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99383841|1.24068981|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that intervention adolescents would report less Fatigue than controls at 12 months post baseline.||1.24068981|0.99383841|<0.05
91829124|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9683347|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88658183|1.05762611|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that there would be no differences at baseline between intervention and control adolescents with respect to Pain Interference.||1.05762611|0.88658183|<0.05
91829125|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04450374|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95307464|1.1447037|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention compared to controls would report less Pain Interference at 3 months post baseline.||1.14470370|0.95307464|<0.05
91829126|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07182133|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97835451|1.17421748|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention compared to controls would report less Pain Interference at 6 months post baseline.||1.17421748|0.97835451|<0.05
91829127|NCT02693665|183536641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.09964781|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.00051223|1.20860622|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that at 12 month outcome adolescents randomized to the intervention would report less Pain Interference compared to control adolescents.||1.20860622|1.00051223|<0.05
91829128|NCT02693665|183536642|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning and Peace Subscale at 3 months post intervention||1.09|0.88|<0.05
91829129|NCT02693665|183536642|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning and Peace subscale at 6 months post intervention||1.08|0.88|<0.05
91829130|NCT02693665|183536642|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning and Peace subscale at 12 months post intervention||1.02|0.82|<0.05
91829131|NCT02693665|183536642|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Faith subscale score at 3 months post intervention||1.16|0.73|<0.05
91829132|NCT02693665|183536642|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Faith subscale at 6 months post intervention||1.21|0.76|<0.05
91829133|NCT02693665|183536642|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Faith subscale scores at 12 months post intervention||1.17|0.72|<0.05
91829134|NCT02693665|183536643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.15|||GEE model|||Caregiver Strain subscale at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.15|-0.42|<0.05
91829135|NCT02693665|183536643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36|||GEE model|||Positive Caregiving Appraisal subscale at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.36|0.02|<0.05
91829136|NCT02693665|183536643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32|||GEE model|||Caregiver Distress subscale at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.32|-0.35|<0.05
91829137|NCT02693665|183536643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.38|||GEE model|||Family Well-Being subscale at 3 months post-intervention, comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.38|-0.07|<0.05
91829138|NCT02693665|183536645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Intervention effect for quality of adolescent communication score controlling for age, gender, race, income and on active treatment.|It is the standard error of the slope, but this was not an option.|Quality of communication analysis for adolescents||||0.47
91829139|NCT02693665|183536645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Testing intervention effect for family member quality of communication score controlling for age, gender, race, income nd on active treatment.|This is standard error of the slope.|Quality of communication analysis for family member.||||<0.01
91829140|NCT02693665|183536651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adolescent positive score comparing intervention with TAU.||||<0.05
91829141|NCT02693665|183536651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adolescent negative worded score comparing intervention to TAU.||||<0.05
91829142|NCT02693665|183536651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Family member positively worded score comparing intervention with treatment as usual.||||<0.05
91829143|NCT02693665|183536651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Family member negative worded score comparing intervention to TAU.||||<0.05
91829144|NCT00844857|183536708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM) terms included baseline, country, treatment, visit, and treatment \* visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.~A conservative estimate of effect size of 0.4 was used in the sample size estimation for this study. A randomized ratio of 2:1 provided a 90% power with an effect size of 0.4."||||0.003
91829145|NCT00844857|183536709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.035
91829146|NCT00844857|183536710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.003
91829147|NCT00844857|183536711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Ordinal Logistic Regression Model terms include baseline CDRS-R, baseline YMRS, and treatment.|Ordinal Logistic Regression|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.007
91829148|NCT00844857|183536712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. MMRM terms included baseline, country, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.527
91829149|NCT00844857|183536713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. MMRM terms included baseline, country, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.030
91829150|NCT00844857|183536714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) Model terms included baseline, country, and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.002
91829151|NCT00844857|183536715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
91829152|NCT00844857|183536716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||||||P-value for Suicidal Ideation. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.309
91829153|NCT00844857|183536716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||||||P-value for Suicidal Behavior. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.667
91829154|NCT00844857|183536716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||||||P-value for Suicidal Ideation or Behavior. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.309
91829155|NCT00844857|183536717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
91829156|NCT00844857|183536718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545||||||P-value for ADHDRS-IV-PI Total Score. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline, country and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.545
91829157|NCT00844857|183536719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline, country and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.066
91829158|NCT00844857|183536720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
91829159|NCT00844857|183536721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
91829160|NCT00844857|183536722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline, country and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.050
91829161|NCT00844857|183536723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
91829162|NCT00844857|183536724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P-value for Fasting Glucose. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.980
91829163|NCT00844857|183536724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Fasting Cholesterol. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
91829164|NCT00844857|183536724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Fasting Triglycerides. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
91829165|NCT00844857|183536725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.005
91829166|NCT00844857|183536726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
91829167|NCT00844857|183536727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
91829168|NCT00570674|183536734|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.01
91829169|NCT00570674|183536735|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.01
91829170|NCT00570674|183536736|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Sign test|||||||0.52
91829171|NCT00570674|183536737|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Sign test|||||||0.39
91829172|NCT03069482|183536738|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.063|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.377|=|0.754|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.754
91829173|NCT03069482|183536739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.103|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.369||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Zero inflated negative binomial mixed methods regression.||||2.6|1.2|0.044
91829174|NCT03069482|183536740|OTHER||Percent accrual relative to target N|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||The goal of this outcome was to determine whether the trial could reach its enrollment target (90 participants).|||
91829175|NCT03069482|183536741|OTHER||Percent retention relative to target|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||We calculated the percent of retained participants relative to the retention target (N = 62)|||
91829176|NCT03069482|183536742|OTHER||Percent of respondents|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91829177|NCT03069482|183536744|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|8.29574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|16.453|||Yuen's trimmed mean t-test|||||16.453|0.138|0.046
91829178|NCT03069482|183536745|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|7.79514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.867|17.457|||Yuen's trimmed means t-test|||||17.457|-1.867|0.109
91829179|NCT03069482|183536746|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|2.22222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.50537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.492|8.943|||Yuen's trimmed means t-test|||||8.943|-4.492|0.50537
91829180|NCT03069482|183536747|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|5.83333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.27411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|16.54|||Yuen's trimmed means t-test|||||16.54|-4.88|0.27411
91829181|NCT00240487|183536794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary outcome variable is the mean PaO2/FiO2 in each group after 8 hours of study participation to determine whether timing of treatment with nitric oxide impacts outcome (immediate treatment versus delayed treatment).|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in mean PaO2/FiO2 ratios between the two groups will help to determine whether order of therapy (immediate treatment with nitric oxide versus delayed treatment with nitric oxide) impacts outcomes.||||>0.05
91829182|NCT04098939|183536797|EQUIVALENCE|Bland-Altman plots|Bland-Altman plots|0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.04||Analysis of Bland-Altman plots|Bland-Altman plots|Analysis of Bland-Altman plots|||Analysis of Bland-Altman plots|1.04|0.26|<0.05
91829183|NCT00778648|183536798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
91829184|NCT01217073|183536881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.5||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.50|-0.93|<0.001
91829185|NCT01217073|183536881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.45||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.45|-0.88|<0.001
91829186|NCT01217073|183536881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.27|-0.70|<0.001
91829187|NCT01217073|183536881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.28||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.28|-0.71|<0.001
91829188|NCT01217073|183536881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.28||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.06||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.06|-0.50|0.012
91829189|NCT01217073|183536882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|18.4||||||||18.4|-6.2|
91829190|NCT01217073|183536882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|24.7||||||||24.7|-0.1|
91829191|NCT01217073|183536882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|18.0||||||||18.0|-6.5|
91829192|NCT01217073|183536882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|17.7||||||||17.7|-6.8|
91829193|NCT01217073|183536882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|14.5||||||||14.5|-9.8|
91829194|NCT01217073|183536883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.1||||||||4.1|-4.1|
91829195|NCT01217073|183536883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.4||||||||2.4|-4.9|
91829196|NCT01217073|183536883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.0||||||||4.0|-4.1|
91829197|NCT01217073|183536883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.4||||||||2.4|-4.9|
91829198|NCT01217073|183536883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.9||||||||7.9|-1.7|
91829199|NCT01217073|183536884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|13.1||||||||13.1|-9.8|
91829200|NCT01217073|183536885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.6||||||||2.6|-9.1|
91829201|NCT01217073|183536886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|-30.7||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-30.7|-59.0|<0.001
91829202|NCT01217073|183536886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-41.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-27.8||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-27.8|-55.3|<0.001
91829203|NCT01217073|183536886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.9|-21.3||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-21.3|-48.9|<0.001
91829204|NCT01217073|183536886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-33.5|||<|0.001||95.0|-47.3|-19.7||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-19.7|-47.3|<0.001
91829205|NCT01217073|183536886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-18.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-4.8||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-4.8|-32.9|0.009
91829206|NCT01217073|183536887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-13.4||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-13.4|-29.4|<0.001
91829207|NCT01217073|183536887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-5.7||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-5.7|-21.3|<0.001
91829208|NCT01217073|183536887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-6.3||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-6.3|-22.2|<0.001
91829209|NCT01217073|183536887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-11.2||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-11.2|-26.9|<0.001
91829210|NCT01217073|183536887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-2.5||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.5||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||5.5|-10.4|0.539
91829211|NCT03561090|183536894|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.055||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|0.281|||MMRM||Treatment difference (IW-3718 - placebo)|Treatment difference calculated as least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group, and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.281|-0.172|0.6346
91829212|NCT03561090|183536895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.035||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.221|||MMRM||Treatment difference (IW-3718 - placebo)|Treatment difference calculated as LSM change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an MMRM model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group, and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.221|-0.151|0.7101
91829213|NCT03561090|183536896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|3.7|||||95% confidence interval (CI) for Difference in Responder Rates is obtained using the Newcombe CI.|||3.7|-14.7|
91829214|NCT03561090|183536896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio for Response (IW-3718 : placebo)|Treatment difference was calculated as the difference in the responder rates at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo. The 95% CI for the difference in the responder rates was obtained using the Newcombe CI. P value was based on the odds ratio for the response rate (IW-3718:placebo) obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline esophagitis status and baseline heartburn severity level (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3).||1.17|0.56|0.2531
91829215|NCT03561090|183536897|SUPERIORITY||Proportion ratio|0.938||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.382||Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion.|Negative binomial model||Proportion Ratio (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI: Placebo + PPI)|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||1.382|0.636|0.7445
91829216|NCT03561090|183536897|OTHER|Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion.|Difference in Proportion Ratio|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.074|||||Difference in Proportion Ratio, (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI) - (Placebo + PPI).|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||0.074|-0.103|
91829217|NCT00713648|183536908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean (Lambda)|0.048||||||95.0|0.0094|0.2501|||Poisson model (log-link)|The estimated rate was adjusted for age and overdispersion which was estimated by Pearson's chi-square statistic divided by its degrees of freedom.|Mean (Lambda) refer to the estimate of the annualised bleeding rate|||0.2501|0.0094|
91829218|NCT01426191|183536953|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
91953024|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir181b||||0.75
91953025|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir185||||0.36
91829219|NCT01426191|183536954|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91829220|NCT01715805|183536976|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-0.2||||0.7948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||MMRM with treatment group, study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by-visit interaction as the covariates was used for analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cariprazine + ADT - Placebo + ADT|||1.2|-1.6|0.7948
91829221|NCT01715805|183536977|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.7||||0.2784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||MMRM with treatment group, study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by-visit interaction as the covariates was used for analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cariprazine +ADT - Placebo + ADT|||0.5|-1.9|0.2784
91829222|NCT04313634|183536995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.611
91829223|NCT04313634|183536996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
91829224|NCT04313634|183536997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
91829225|NCT04313634|183536998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
91829226|NCT04313634|183537000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
91829227|NCT01392560|183537043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0011|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under euglycaemia condition for all patients||||0.0011
91829228|NCT01392560|183537043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test the difference between baseline and end of treatment under hyperglycaemia condition for all patients||||<0.0001
91829229|NCT01392560|183537043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from baseline|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under euglycaemia condition for hyperfilterers||||<0.0001
91829230|NCT01392560|183537043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-44.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under hyperglycaemia condition for hyperfilterers||||<0.0001
91829231|NCT01392560|183537043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.1524|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under euglycaemia condition for non-hyperfilterers||||0.1524
91829232|NCT01392560|183537043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.7585|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under hyperglycaemia condition for non-filterers||||0.7585
91829233|NCT02558010|183537052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was calculated, and does not indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91829234|NCT03301051|183537077|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - attack rate in vaccinated participants \[ARV\]/attack rate in unvaccinated participants \[ARU\]) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|48.6|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).|||48.6|17.6|
91953026|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir194||||0.89
91829235|NCT03301051|183537078|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|38.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|48.0|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||48.0|27.6|
91829236|NCT03301051|183537079|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|33.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|48.5|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||48.5|14.9|
91829237|NCT03301051|183537080|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|48.0|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||48.0|25.1|
91829238|NCT03301051|183537081|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.3|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||11.3|0.8|
91829239|NCT01359735|183537133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 04|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.263
91829240|NCT01359735|183537133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 13|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
91829241|NCT01359735|183537134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Over weeks 1 through 4 or Week 4?|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
91829242|NCT01359735|183537135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0594
91829243|NCT01359735|183537136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1354|ONE_SIDED|||||3 Weeks|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1354
91829244|NCT01359735|183537136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||12 Weeks|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5000
91829245|NCT01359735|183537137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 3 Post-surgery|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0841
91829246|NCT01359735|183537137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 12 Post-surgery|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1780
91829247|NCT01358526|183537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.77||A gate-keeping strategy and a Bonferroni-Holm method was used to control the family-wise (primary and secondary efficacy analysis) error rate at the 5% level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model repeated measures analysis of pain data using a pattern mixture model framework||||0.77|0.13|0.0055
91829248|NCT01358526|183537147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model repeated measures analysis|Mean difference (final values) is the treatment comparison estimated using mixed model repeated measures analysis with effect for treatment, time (weeks 4, 8, 12), treatment by time interaction, and prerandomization value. Subject is a random effect.|||9.8|0.9|0.0191
91829249|NCT01358526|183537148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||"The proportion of subjects responding much improved and very much improved was summarized by treatment group and compared between groups using an exact test"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0002
91829250|NCT01358526|183537149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test: responder as dependent variable, treatment as explanatory variable, dose at time of randomization as stratifying factor||Proportion of subjects with a response to treatment that is ≥ 30%||||0.0006
91953027|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.48||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir19a||||0.48
91829251|NCT01358526|183537150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test: responder as dependent variable, treatment as explanatory variable, dose at time of randomization as stratifying factor||Proportion of subjects with a response to treatment that is ≥ 50%||||0.0018
91829252|NCT01462344|183537151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority comparison was statistically significant if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI falls below 2.675, the non-inferiority margin, and the non-inferiority test one-sided p-value \<0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.285||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|2.272|||Regression, Cox||Estimated for Hazard ratio|||2.272|0.726|0.006
91829253|NCT01462344|183537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0024|0.0063|||||Estimated for Absolute risk difference|||0.0063|-0.0024|
91829254|NCT01462344|183537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.012|||||Estimated for Hazard ratio|||1.012|0.729|
91829255|NCT00360529|183537159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0454||95.0||||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||||0.0454
91829256|NCT00360529|183537159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024||95.0||||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||||0.0024
91829257|NCT00360529|183537160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.2606||95.0|-1.0|3.7||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||3.7|-1.0|0.2606
91829258|NCT00360529|183537160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.066||95.0|-0.1|4.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||4.6|-0.1|0.066
91829259|NCT00360529|183537161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.1601||95.0|-2.9|0.5||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||0.5|-2.9|0.1601
91829260|NCT00360529|183537161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.0001||95.0|-5.6|-2.2||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||-2.2|-5.6|0.0001
91829261|NCT00360529|183537162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1144||95.0|-0.3|0.0||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||0.0|-0.3|0.1144
91829262|NCT00360529|183537162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0001||95.0|-0.5|-0.2||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||-0.2|-0.5|0.0001
91829263|NCT00360529|183537163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0173||95.0|0.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||0.4|0.0|0.0173
91829264|NCT00360529|183537163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||0.5|0.2|0.0001
91953028|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir200a||||0.87
91829265|NCT00360529|183537164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.0071||95.0|0.4|2.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||2.6|0.4|0.0071
91829266|NCT00360529|183537164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.0001||95.0|1.4|3.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||3.6|1.4|0.0001
91953029|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir22||||0.53
91829267|NCT00360529|183537165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage responders|34.7||||0.0513||95.0|29.0|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Model includes treatment and centre||Flibanserin 25 mg bid versus placebo||40.4|29.0|0.0513
91829268|NCT00360529|183537165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage responders|38.6||||0.0059||95.0|32.6|44.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Model includes treatment and centre||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||44.6|32.6|0.0059
91953030|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir223||||0.57
91829269|NCT01218438|183537211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.012|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.024|||Poisson|||||0.024||<0.0001
91829270|NCT00907153|183537301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.0|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||-0.000|-0.034|0.05
91829271|NCT00907153|183537302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|3.62|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||3.62|-5.89|0.62
91829272|NCT00907153|183537303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.65||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|7.02|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||7.02|-14.32|0.48
91829273|NCT00907153|183537304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-0.96|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||-0.96|-12.07|0.02
91829274|NCT00907153|183537305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.28||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|16.54|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||16.54|-3.97|0.22
91829275|NCT00907153|183537306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.84||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.29|37.98|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||37.98|-210.29|0.33
91829276|NCT00907153|183537307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|17.34|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||17.34|-42.94|0.39
91829277|NCT00907153|183537308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.08||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.9|11.78|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||11.78|-161.9|0.09
91829278|NCT00907153|183537309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.59|34.06|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||34.06|-32.59|0.96
91829279|NCT00907153|183537310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.08||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|7.99|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||7.99|-1.84|0.21
91829280|NCT00907153|183537311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|24.64|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||24.64|-24.43|0.99
91829281|NCT00907153|183537312|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.93||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|6.26|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||6.26|-10.12|0.62
91829282|NCT00907153|183537313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.29|20.85|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||20.85|-20.29|0.98
91829283|NCT00907153|183537314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.24||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.61|55.08|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||55.08|-34.61|0.64
91829284|NCT00907153|183537315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.81|8.51|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||8.51|-22.81|0.88
91829285|NCT00907153|183537316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.15||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.41|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||2.41|-8.70|0.25
91829286|NCT00907153|183537317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|44.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.13|61.48|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||61.48|27.13|<0.001
91829287|NCT00907153|183537318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|5.2|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||5.20|-2.08|0.38
91953031|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir23a||||0.26
91953032|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir26a||||0.75
91953033|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir320b||||0.89
91829288|NCT00907153|183537319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.84||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.34|13.67|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||13.67|-29.34|0.46
91829289|NCT01552213|183537330|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.53|0.32
91829290|NCT01552213|183537331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91829291|NCT01552213|183537332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
91829292|NCT01552213|183537333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91829293|NCT01552213|183537334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
91829294|NCT01552213|183537335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
91829295|NCT01552213|183537336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91829296|NCT01552213|183537337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
91829297|NCT01552213|183537338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91829298|NCT01552213|183537339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
91829299|NCT01552213|183537340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91829300|NCT01552213|183537341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
91829301|NCT01552213|183537342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91829302|NCT01552213|183537343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
91829303|NCT02566031|183537345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.093|||ANCOVA|||||0.093|0.011|0.0129
91829304|NCT02566031|183537346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.098|||ANCOVA|||-45 min||0.098|0.017|0.0058
91829305|NCT02566031|183537346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.091|||ANCOVA|||-15min||0.091|0.009|0.0161
91829306|NCT02566031|183537347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.646|||ANCOVA|||||0.646|-0.033|0.0767
91829307|NCT02566031|183537348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.77|0.1008
91829308|NCT00000392|183537445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
91829309|NCT02647359|183537447|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|10.76||||0.4868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.914|43.434||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with age and baseline Maximum Reading Speed (both eyes) as covariates, and treatment as a factor.||43.434|-21.914|0.4868
91953034|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.32||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir598||||0.26
91953035|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir720||||0.87
91829310|NCT02219932|183537470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.26|||Regression, Logistic||fampridine vs. placebo|Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline MSWS-12 score, baseline TUG speed, age, screening Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data handled by multiple imputation. Hypothesis testing was performed at the 2-sided 5% significance level overall, with adjustment for testing multiple secondary endpoints.||2.26|1.15|0.006
91829311|NCT02219932|183537470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference for Adjusted Proportions|0.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.178||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline MSWS-12 score, baseline TUG speed, age, screening Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data handled by multiple imputation. Hypothesis testing was performed at the 2-sided 5% significance level overall, with adjustment for testing multiple secondary endpoints.||0.178|0.030|
91829312|NCT02219932|183537470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.7||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline MSWS-12 score, baseline TUG speed, age, screening Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data handled by multiple imputation. Hypothesis testing was performed at the 2-sided 5% significance level overall, with adjustment for testing multiple secondary endpoints.||1.70|1.06|
91829313|NCT02219932|183537471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline TUG speed, screening EDSS score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.||2.07|1.04|0.030
91829314|NCT02219932|183537471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference for Adjusted Proportions|0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.175||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline TUG speed, screening EDSS score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.||0.175|0.009|
91829315|NCT02219932|183537471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.51||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline TUG speed, screening EDSS score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.||1.51|0.99|
91829316|NCT02219932|183537472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.925|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-1.5|||mixed model for repeated measures|||||-1.50|-5.13|< 0.001
91829317|NCT02219932|183537473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.95|||mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.95|-0.13|0.141
91829318|NCT02219932|183537474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.573||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.86|||mixed model for repeated measures|||||1.86|-0.38|0.197
91829319|NCT04642638|183537477|OTHER||Difference in median|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.7|||||Post-baseline change from baseline in IFN-gamma ELISpot response magnitudes was compared between groups using differences in medians and associated non-parametric 95% confidence interval (CI).|||6.70|0.00|
91829320|NCT04642638|183537477|OTHER||Difference in median|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|17.8|||||Post-baseline change from baseline in IFN-gamma ELISpot response magnitudes was compared between groups using differences in medians and associated non-parametric 95% CI.|||17.80|3.30|
91829321|NCT04642638|183537477|OTHER||Difference in median|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||||Post-baseline change from baseline in IFN-gamma ELISpot response magnitudes was compared between groups using differences in medians and associated non-parametric 95% CI.|||0.00|-10.00|
91829322|NCT04642638|183537478|OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.632|||||95% CI of GMFR ratio is based on t-distribution, where GMFR ratio is based on the between-treatment-group comparisons.|||3.632|1.720|
91829323|NCT04642638|183537478|OTHER||GMFR Ratio|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.638|5.7|||||95% CI of GMFR ratio is based on t-distribution, where GMFR ratio is based on the between-treatment-group comparisons.|||5.700|2.638|
91829324|NCT04642638|183537478|OTHER||GMFR Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.893|||||95% CI of GMFR ratio is based on t-distribution, where GMFR ratio is based on the between-treatment-group comparisons|||0.893|0.512|
91829325|NCT00511004|183537493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.2
91829326|NCT00511004|183537494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
91829327|NCT04313881|183537521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.876||||0.5218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|1.312||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.312|0.585|0.5218
91829328|NCT04313881|183537522|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.203||||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.528||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.528|0.947|0.1299
91829329|NCT04313881|183537524|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|1.155||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.155|0.584|0.2563
91829330|NCT04313881|183537526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.212||95% CI for transfusion independence rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method. 2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.212|0.427|0.2191
91829331|NCT04313881|183537527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.285||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.285|0.746|0.8788
91829332|NCT04313881|183537528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.441||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.96||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for response rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.960|0.203|0.0375
91829333|NCT04313881|183537529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.947||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.629|1.426||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for response rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||1.426|0.629|0.7950
91829334|NCT04313881|183537530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.343||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.343|0.522|0.4610
91829335|NCT04313881|183537531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.297||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.297|0.802|0.8720
91829336|NCT04313881|183537532|SUPERIORITY|2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.605||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.857||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for response rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.857|0.428|0.0048
91829337|NCT01201629|183537589|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
91829338|NCT01201629|183537590|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91829339|NCT02415400|183537592|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin = 1.2|||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sided p-value for NI test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 1) Non-inferiority for the primary endpoint.||||<0.0001
91829340|NCT02415400|183537592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82|||2-sided p-value for superiority test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 2) Superiority for the primary endpoint||0.82|0.58|<0.0001
91829341|NCT02415400|183537593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.23|||2-sided p-value for superiority test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for aspirin vs placebo: 2) Superiority for the primary endpoint.||2.23|1.58|<0.0001
91829342|NCT02415400|183537594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2-sided p-value for superiority test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 2) Superiority for the primary endpoint.||||<0.0001
91829343|NCT02415400|183537595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.94|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 3) Superiority for all-cause death and all-cause rehospitalization.||0.94|0.75|0.0033
91829344|NCT02415400|183537596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.2219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.2|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for aspirin vs placebo: 3) Superiority for all-cause death and all-cause rehospitalization.||1.20|0.96|0.2219
91953036|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1915||||0.74
91953037|NCT01484691|183802616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.77||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1978||||0.36
91829345|NCT02415400|183537597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 4) Superiority for all-cause death and ischemic events.||1.13|0.75|0.4370
91953038|NCT03522506|183802617|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The least squares mean (LSM) sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|Least square mean difference|20.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.35|26.77|||Linear mixed effect model|||||26.77|13.35|<0.001
91953039|NCT03522506|183802617|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|24.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.64|31.06|||Linear mixed effect model|||||31.06|17.64|<0.001
91829346|NCT02415400|183537598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for aspirin vs placebo: 4) Superiority for all-cause death and ischemic events.||1.07|0.70|0.1742
91829347|NCT03825380|183537610|NON_INFERIORITY|"Primary tested:Non-inferiority of T4032 to Lumigan® on the change from baseline in IOP using a MMRM. 3 independent models will be performed, one for each time point (8:00, 10:00~\& 16:00). The 95% CI for treatment effect (difference T4032 - Lumigan) will be estimated at Wk 12. NI will be achieved if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups (T4032 - Lumigan) is lower than the margin of +1.5 mmHg for each of the 3 time points 8:00, 10:00 \& 16:00."|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.62|0.453
91829348|NCT00395876|183537611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.6||||0.0002||95.0|18.4|54.8||Stratified by baseline weight (\< 30 kg, ≥ 30 kg)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.8|18.4|0.0002
91829349|NCT00395876|183537612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.1385||95.0|-3.1|25.8||Stratified by baseline weight (\< 30 kg, ≥ 30 kg)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.8|-3.1|0.1385
91829350|NCT00395876|183537613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.9||||0.0093||95.0|7.1|42.6||Stratified by baseline weight (\< 30 kg, ≥ 30 kg)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.6|7.1|0.0093
91829351|NCT02270450|183537622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value less than 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|"A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the number of good days between patients assigned to surgery and patients assigned to non-surgical management."||||0.50
91829352|NCT02270450|183537623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the length of the initial hospital stay between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management. An interaction term between treatment and pathway was included.||||0.64
91829353|NCT02270450|183537624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A parallel logistic regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares NG tube use vs no NG tube use between patients assigned to surgery and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.60
91829354|NCT02270450|183537625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the number of days of NG tube use between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.47
91829355|NCT02270450|183537626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for nausea severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management. An interaction term between treatment and pathway was included.||||0.001
91829356|NCT02270450|183537626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for vomiting severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.008
91829357|NCT02270450|183537626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for bloating severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.04
91829358|NCT02270450|183537626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for pain severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management. An interaction term between treatment and pathway was included.||||0.01
91829359|NCT02270450|183537626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for constipation severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.007
91953040|NCT03522506|183802617|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM Difference|19.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.49|||Linear mixed effects model|||||26.49|13.30|<0.001
91829360|NCT02270450|183537627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A parallel logistic regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares ability to eat between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.52
91829361|NCT02270450|183537628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by pathway (randomized vs Patient Choice) was used to estimate the effect of treatment assignment (surgery vs non-surgical management) on overall survival.||1.09|0.45|0.12
91829362|NCT01968213|183537641|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.365|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|0.451|||Regression, Cox||||Analysis is performed by randomization strata of HRD classification by CTA, best response, and penultimate platinum progression-free interval.|0.451|0.295|<0.0001
91829363|NCT01968213|183537642|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.354|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|0.45|||Regression, Cox||||Analysis is performed by randomization strata of HRD classification by CTA, best response, and penultimate platinum progression-free interval.|0.450|0.278|<0.0001
91829364|NCT01581281|183537656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.34|1.48||A Bonferroni approach was used to control the type I error rate. Because there were three comparisons, the Bonferroni corrected level of significance is 0.017 (= 0.05 / 3).|Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of successful primary endpoint for amitriptyline relative to placebo. The analyses followed the intention to treat principle, imputing an outcome of failure for any participant who withdrew early for any reason or did not provide week 24 headache diary data (endpoint data). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days)."||1.48|0.34|0.2636
91829365|NCT01581281|183537656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.39|1.68||A Bonferroni approach was used to control the type I error rate. Because there were three comparisons of interest, the Bonferroni corrected level of significance is 0.017 ( = 0.05 / 3).|Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of successful primary endpoint for topiramate relative to placebo. The analyses followed the intention to treat principle, imputing an outcome of failure for any participant who withdrew early for any reason or did not provide week 24 headache diary data (endpoint data). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days)."||1.68|0.39|0.4821
91829366|NCT01581281|183537656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.49|1.59||A Bonferroni approach was used to control the type I error rate. Because there were three comparisons of interest, the Bonferroni corrected level of significance is 0.017 ( = 0.05 / 3).|Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of successful primary endpoint for topiramate relative to amitriptyline. The analyses followed the intention to treat principle, imputing an outcome of failure for any participant who withdrew early for any reason or did not provide week 24 headache diary data (endpoint data). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days)."||1.59|0.49|0.6107
91829367|NCT01581281|183537657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.9137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|5.95|||Regression, Linear|||The mean change from baseline in PedMIDAS score over time for the three groups was assessed using a linear regression model for each of the three pairwise comparisons (Amitriptyline relative to placebo, Topiramate relative to placebo, and Amitriptyline relative to Topiramate), adjusted for the baseline PedMIDAS score. The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||5.95|-6.64|0.9137
91829368|NCT01581281|183537657|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.84||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|1.49|||Regression, Linear|||The mean change from baseline in PedMIDAS score over time for the three groups was assessed using a linear regression model for each of the three pairwise comparisons (Amitriptyline relative to placebo, Topiramate relative to placebo, and Amitriptyline relative to Topiramate), adjusted for the baseline PedMIDAS score. The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.49|-11.16|0.1331
91829369|NCT01581281|183537657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.49||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|9.87|||Regression, Linear|||The mean change from baseline in PedMIDAS score over time for the three groups was assessed using a linear regression model for each of the three pairwise comparisons (Amitriptyline relative to placebo, Topiramate relative to placebo, and Amitriptyline relative to Topiramate), adjusted for the baseline PedMIDAS score. The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||9.87|-0.88|0.1011
91829370|NCT01581281|183537658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.59|1.15||Each comparison was tested using a Bonferroni corrected significance level of 0.017 (0.05/3).|Regression, Linear|||Another major secondary objective was to determine if the change in absolute headache days from baseline to week 24 differed between treatment groups. This objective was assessed using linear regression models, with three pairwise comparisons between treatment groups (Amitriptyline vs. Placebo, Topiramate vs. Placebo, and Amitriptyline vs. Topiramate). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.15|-2.59|0.3553
91829371|NCT01581281|183537658|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.52|1.24||Each comparison was tested using a Bonferroni corrected significance level of 0.017 (0.05/3).|Regression, Linear|||Another major secondary objective was to determine if the change in absolute headache days from baseline to week 24 differed between treatment groups. This objective was assessed using linear regression models, with three pairwise comparisons between treatment groups (Amitriptyline vs. Placebo, Topiramate vs. Placebo, and Amitriptyline vs. Topiramate). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.24|-2.52|0.4143
91829372|NCT01581281|183537658|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.68|1.52||Each comparison was tested using a Bonferroni corrected significance level of 0.017 (0.05/3).|Regression, Linear|||Another major secondary objective was to determine if the change in absolute headache days from baseline to week 24 differed between treatment groups. This objective was assessed using linear regression models, with three pairwise comparisons between treatment groups (Amitriptyline vs. Placebo, Topiramate vs. Placebo, and Amitriptyline vs. Topiramate). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.52|-1.68|0.9038
91829373|NCT01581281|183537659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.05|||Fisher Exact|||Tolerability was assessed by calculating the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group. Concerns regarding tolerability would be raised if the upper bound of a confidence interval was less than 65% or if the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period in either of the active treatment groups was significantly less than the placebo group.||5.05|0.85|0.1557
91829374|NCT01581281|183537659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.62|||Fisher Exact|||Tolerability was assessed by calculating the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group. Concerns regarding tolerability would be raised if the upper bound of a confidence interval was less than 65% or if the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period in either of the active treatment groups was significantly less than the placebo group.||5.62|0.95|0.0754
91829375|NCT01581281|183537659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.62|||Fisher Exact|||Tolerability was assessed by calculating the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group. Concerns regarding tolerability would be raised if the upper bound of a confidence interval was less than 65% or if the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period in either of the active treatment groups was significantly less than the placebo group.||1.62|0.49|0.7611
91829376|NCT01581281|183537660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3038|||||||Fisher Exact|||The occurrence of treatment-related SAE's was assessed in two ways: 1) percentage of subjects who experience any treatment-related SAE in each of the three groups was compared using Fishers exact test; 2) rates of treatment-emergent SAS's across the three groups were compared using a Poisson regression model. However, due to the small number of SAEs that were deemed treatment-emergent (4 in AMI, 1 in TPM, 0 in PBO), the parameter estimates did not converge for the Poisson regression model.||||0.3038
91829377|NCT01581281|183537660|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The occurrence of treatment-related SAE's was assessed in two ways: 1) percentage of subjects who experience any treatment-related SAE in each of the three groups was compared using Fishers exact test; 2) rates of treatment-emergent SAS's across the three groups were compared using a Poisson regression model. However, due to the small number of SAEs that were deemed treatment-emergent (4 in AMI, 1 in TPM, 0 in PBO), the parameter estimates did not converge for the Poisson regression model.||||1.000
91829378|NCT01581281|183537660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2139|||||||Fisher Exact|||The occurrence of treatment-related SAE's was assessed in two ways: 1) percentage of subjects who experience any treatment-related SAE in each of the three groups was compared using Fishers exact test; 2) rates of treatment-emergent SAS's across the three groups were compared using a Poisson regression model. However, due to the small number of SAEs that were deemed treatment-emergent (4 in AMI, 1 in TPM, 0 in PBO), the parameter estimates did not converge for the Poisson regression model.||||0.2139
91829379|NCT02081846|183537664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.047
91829380|NCT02081846|183537665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
91829381|NCT02081846|183537666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||censored Poisson model|||||||0.82
91829382|NCT02081846|183537667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Poisson model|||||||<0.01
91953041|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|14 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.2||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.73|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.73|-1.13|0.664
91829383|NCT02081846|183537668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
91829384|NCT02081846|183537669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.052
91953042|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|14 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.24||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.17|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.17|-0.69|0.605
91829385|NCT02081846|183537670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.12
91829386|NCT00535730|183537671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis of VZV antibody titers is 92%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the VZV antibody GMT ratio\[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>0.67.||||||0.244||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the VZV antibody responses at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to that in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly||||0.244
91829387|NCT00535730|183537673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|The one-sided p-value for testing acceptability for GMFR is computed based on t-test. CI is computed based on the t distribution||The hypothesis was that ZOSTAVAX™ elicits an acceptable VZV antibody response when administered concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23.||||<0.001
91829388|NCT00535730|183537674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||"The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody response to serotype 3 at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who~receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly."||||<0.001
91829389|NCT00535730|183537675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody responses to serotype 14 at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly.||||<0.001
91829390|NCT00535730|183537676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody responses to serotype 19A at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly.||||<0.001
91829391|NCT00535730|183537677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody responses to serotype 22F at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly.||||<0.001
91829392|NCT00295750|183537678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit was -10 percentage points.|Difference in cumulative probability|1.9||||||97.5|-1.8|5.7||||||A non-inferiority assessment determined whether degarelix was non-inferior to leuprolide with respect to the cumulative probability of testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL from Day 28 to Day 364.||5.7|-1.8|
91829393|NCT00295750|183537678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit was -10 percentage points.|Difference in cumulative probability|0.9||||||97.5|-3.2|5.0||||||A non-inferiority assessment determined whether degarelix was non-inferior to leuprolide with respect to the cumulative probability of testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL from Day 28 to Day 364.||5.0|-3.2|
91829394|NCT00295750|183537679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91829395|NCT00295750|183537679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91829396|NCT00295750|183537680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91829397|NCT00295750|183537680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91829398|NCT00295750|183537682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 14||||<0.0001
91829399|NCT00295750|183537682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 14||||<0.0001
91829400|NCT00295750|183537682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 28||||<0.0001
91829401|NCT00295750|183537682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 28||||<0.0001
91953043|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|14 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.26||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.66|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.66|-1.17|0.574
91829402|NCT00295750|183537683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative probability|85.8||||||95.0|79.8|90.1|||||95% confidence interval for the cumulative probability of completing the study without prostate specific antigen failure from Day 0 to Day 364.|||90.1|79.8|
91829403|NCT00295750|183537683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative probability|91.1||||||95.0|85.9|94.5|||||95% confidence interval for the cumulative probability of completing the study without prostate specific antigen failure from Day 0 to Day 364.|||94.5|85.9|
91829404|NCT00295750|183537683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative probability|85.9||||||95.0|79.9|90.2|||||95% confidence interval for the cumulative probability of completing the study without prostate specific antigen failure from Day 0 to Day 364.|||90.2|79.9|
91829405|NCT00936858|183537689|OTHER||6 month PFS probability|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We will declare the trial a success after observing 7 or more patients with PFS within 6 months. The study will have alpha = 0.092 and power =0.970, assuming a 6 month PFS probability of 0.12 for the null and a PFS probability of 0.35 as the alternative hypothesis.||||
91829406|NCT00584727|183537727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to etafilcon A sphere by having more eyes see 20/20||||<0.0001
91829407|NCT00584727|183537728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1334||||95.0|0.3625|0.7155|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was senofilcon A toric minus etafilcon A sphere.|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to etafilcon A sphere.||0.7155|0.3625|
91829408|NCT00584727|183537729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2161||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Aletrnative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to alphafilcon A toric by having more eyes within 5 degrees.||||0.2161
91829409|NCT00584727|183537730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1328||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to alphafilcon A toric by having more eyes within 5 degrees||||0.1328
91829410|NCT00584727|183537731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1393||||95.0|0.1529|0.489|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to alphafilcon A toric.||0.4890|0.1529|
91829411|NCT00584727|183537732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to etafilcon A sphere.||||<0.0001
91829412|NCT02512575|183537816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0238|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|0.887||||||||0.887|0.807|
91829413|NCT02512575|183537819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.869|0.991||||||||0.991|0.869|
91829414|NCT02512575|183537820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|0.978||||||||0.978|0.856|
91829415|NCT02512575|183537821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.11||||||||1.11|0.960|
91829416|NCT02512575|183537821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.08||||||||1.08|0.929|
91953044|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|10 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.29||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.11|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.11|-0.53|0.483
91829417|NCT02512575|183537821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.987|1.14||||||||1.14|0.987|
91829418|NCT02512575|183537821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|1.13||||||||1.13|0.983|
91829419|NCT02512575|183537821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.15||||||||1.15|0.995|
91829420|NCT02512575|183537821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.25||||||||1.25|1.09|
91829421|NCT02512575|183537821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.24||||||||1.24|1.07|
91829422|NCT02512575|183537821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.29||||||||1.29|1.11|
91829423|NCT02512575|183537821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.27||||||||1.27|1.11|
91829424|NCT02512575|183537822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.872|1.26||||||||1.26|0.872|
91829425|NCT02512575|183537822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.26||||||||1.26|0.874|
91829426|NCT02512575|183537822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.745|1.1||||||||1.10|0.745|
91829427|NCT02512575|183537822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|1.1||||||||1.10|0.762|
91829428|NCT02512575|183537822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.728|1.05||||||||1.05|0.728|
91829429|NCT02512575|183537822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.716|1.03||||||||1.03|0.716|
91829430|NCT02512575|183537822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.842|1.21||||||||1.21|0.842|
91829431|NCT02512575|183537822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.22||||||||1.22|0.846|
91829432|NCT02512575|183537822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.572|0.825||||||||0.825|0.572|
91829433|NCT02512575|183537823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|1.12||||||||1.12|0.861|
91829434|NCT02512575|183537823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.961||||||90.0|0.846|1.09||||||||1.09|0.846|
91829435|NCT02512575|183537823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.07||||||||1.07|0.829|
91829436|NCT02512575|183537823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.861|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.757|0.979||||||||0.979|0.757|
91829437|NCT02512575|183537823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.745|0.964||||||||0.964|0.745|
91829438|NCT02512575|183537823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.05||||||||1.05|0.815|
91829439|NCT02512575|183537823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|1.03||||||||1.03|0.798|
91829440|NCT02512575|183537823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.893|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.784|1.02||||||||1.02|0.784|
91829441|NCT02512575|183537823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.691||||||90.0|0.608|0.785||||||||0.785|0.608|
91829442|NCT04773587|183537847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.881|4.647|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Difference in vIGA-AD Success at Week 4||4.647|1.881|<0.0001
91829443|NCT04773587|183537848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.359|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site with multiple imputation of missing observations|Difference in vIGA-AD Success at Week 4||4.359|1.640|<0.0001
91829444|NCT04773587|183537849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.186|3.319|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|WI-NRS Success at Week 4||3.319|1.186|0.0089
91829445|NCT04773587|183537850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|5.457|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|WI-NRS Success at Week 2||5.457|1.450|0.0016
91829446|NCT04773587|183537851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.161|12.511|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|WI-NRS Success at Week 1||12.511|1.161|0.0159
91829447|NCT04773587|183537852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.102|4.795|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|EASI-75 at Week 4||4.795|2.102|<0.0001
91829448|NCT04773587|183537853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.707|3.843|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study stie and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 4||3.843|1.707|<0.0001
91829449|NCT04773587|183537854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|7.926|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Success at Week 2||7.926|2.310|<0.0001
91829450|NCT04773587|183537855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.815|229.388|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Success at Week 1||229.388|2.815|<0.0001
91829451|NCT04773587|183537856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.217|5.911|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 2||5.911|2.217|<0.0001
91829452|NCT04773587|183537857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.705|7.007|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 1||7.007|1.705|0.0002
91829453|NCT02625623|183537895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.41|||Log Rank|The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||1.41|0.88|0.8078
91829454|NCT02625623|183537896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.21|||Log Rank|The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||2.21|1.36|1.0000
91829455|NCT02625623|183537898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.709||||0.8764|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The treatment arms were compared by 1-sided CMH test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||||0.8764
91829456|NCT01316926|183537911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon manufacturing a site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|0.9204|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8556|0.99|||||Coefficient Variation (intra-individual). The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated.|||0.9900|0.8556|
91829457|NCT01316926|183537912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon manufacturing a site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.0467|||||Coefficient Variation (intra-individual). The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated.|||1.0467|0.8460|
91829458|NCT01316926|183537913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon manufacturing a site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|0.9333|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8502|1.0246|||||Coefficient Variation (intra-individual). The ratios between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated.|||1.0246|0.8502|
91829459|NCT02298192|183537914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority as given by H0: D ≥0.30% against HA: D \<0.30%.|Treatment Contrast|0.12||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority as given by H0: D ≥0.30% against HA: D \<0.30%.||0.28|-0.04|0.012
91829460|NCT02352948|183537922|OTHER|Sub-study A was not powered and thus no formal statistical comparisons were performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.93|||||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study A: durvalumab monotherapy treatment arm was compared with SoC.||0.93|0.42|
91953045|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|10 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.01||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.84|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.84|-0.81|0.972
91829461|NCT02352948|183537922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.05|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||1.05|0.61|0.109
91829462|NCT02352948|183537923|OTHER|Sub-study A was not powered and thus no formal statistical comparisons were performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04|||||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study A: durvalumab monotherapy treatment arm was compared with SoC.||1.04|0.49|
91829463|NCT02352948|183537923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.01|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||1.01|0.59|0.056
91829464|NCT02352948|183537924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.3|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with durvalumab monotherapy.||1.30|0.74|0.885
91829465|NCT02352948|183537924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.11|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with tremelimumab monotherapy.||1.11|0.56|0.153
91829466|NCT02352948|183537925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||The z-test statistic is the ratio of log-transformed ratio of the cumulative hazards in the 2 treatment arms divided by square root of the variance.|z-test|The variance is estimated using the delta method and Greenwood's formula.||For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||||0.063
91829467|NCT02352948|183537926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with durvalumab monotherapy.||1.12|0.68|0.282
91829468|NCT02352948|183537926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.92|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with tremelimumab monotherapy.||0.92|0.49|0.011
91829469|NCT02352948|183537927|OTHER|Sub-study A was not powered and thus no formal statistical comparisons were performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|10.1|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study A: durvalumab monotherapy treatment arm was compared with SoC.||10.10|1.61|
91953046|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|10 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.18||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.63|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.63|-0.99|0.654
91953047|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|6 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.01||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.85|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.85|-0.86|0.984
91829470|NCT02352948|183537927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.94|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||5.94|1.10|0.037
91829471|NCT02352948|183537927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.89|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with durvalumab monotherapy.||1.89|0.51|0.923
91829472|NCT02352948|183537927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|8.61|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with tremelimumab monotherapy.||8.61|0.91|0.109
91953048|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|6 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.29||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.57|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.57|-1.14|0.508
91829473|NCT02352948|183537931|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||0.85|0.49|0.002
91829474|NCT05054816|183537983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections.||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
91829475|NCT05054816|183537984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
91829476|NCT05054816|183537985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
91829477|NCT05054816|183537986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between two conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
91829478|NCT05054816|183537987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
91829479|NCT02010060|183537990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.074
91829480|NCT02010060|183537990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in waist circumference between AERO and CON||||0.684
91829481|NCT02010060|183537990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the AERO group and the AERO-PA group||||0.180
91829482|NCT02010060|183537991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body fat between the AERO-PA group and the CON group||||0.011
91829483|NCT02010060|183537991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.16
91829484|NCT02010060|183537991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body fat between the AERO and AERO-PA group||||0.258
91829485|NCT02010060|183537992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of body weight between the CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.104
91829486|NCT02010060|183537992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight between the CON and AERO groups||||0.578
91829487|NCT02010060|183537992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.300
91829488|NCT02010060|183537993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in cardiorespiratory fitness (L/min) between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.002
91829489|NCT02010060|183537993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in cardiorespiratory fitness (L/min) AERO and CON groups||||0.314
91829490|NCT02010060|183537993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in cardiorespiratory fitness (L/min) between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.041
91829491|NCT02010060|183537994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity between the CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.891
91829492|NCT02010060|183537994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity between the CON and AERO groups||||0.417
91829493|NCT02010060|183537994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.484
91829494|NCT02010060|183537995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Low density lipoprotein (LDL) between the CON and the AERO groups||||0.274
91829495|NCT02010060|183537995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Low density lipoprotein (LDL) between the CON and AERO groups||||0.461
91829496|NCT02010060|183537995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Low density lipoprotein (LDL) between AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.739
91829497|NCT02010060|183537996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in high density lipoprotein (HDL) between the CON and AERO-PA group||||0.837
91829498|NCT02010060|183537996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in high density lipoprotein (HDL) between the CON and AERO groups||||0.895
91829499|NCT02010060|183537996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.744|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.744
91829500|NCT02010060|183537997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol (mg/dL)||||0.067
91829501|NCT02010060|183537997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol (mg/dL) between the CON and AERO groups||||0.254
91829502|NCT02010060|183537997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol (mg/dL) between AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.501
91829503|NCT02010060|183537998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in triglyceride level between the AERO-PA and CON groups||||0.456
91829504|NCT02010060|183537998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in triglyceride level between the CON and AERO groups||||0.422
91829505|NCT02010060|183537998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in triglyceride level between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.136
91829506|NCT02010060|183537999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in glucose level between the CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.483
91829507|NCT02010060|183537999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in glucose between the CON and AERO groups||||0.274
91829508|NCT02010060|183537999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in glucose level between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.685
91829509|NCT02010060|183538000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in systemic inflammation between CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.489
91829510|NCT02010060|183538000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in systemic inflammation between the CON and AERO groups||||0.652
91829511|NCT02010060|183538000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in systemic inflammation between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.822
91829512|NCT02010060|183538001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes in steps between the CON group and the AERO-PA group||||<0.001
91829513|NCT02010060|183538001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes in steps between the CON and the AERO group||||0.648
91829514|NCT02010060|183538001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes in steps between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||<0.001
91829515|NCT02010060|183538002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in kilocalories (dietary intake) between CON and AERO-PA group||||0.226
91829516|NCT02010060|183538002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in caloric intake between the CON and the AERO groups||||0.215
91829517|NCT02010060|183538002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in caloric intake (kilocalories) between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.957
91829518|NCT02010060|183538003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin concentration between the CON and AERO-PA group||||0.337
91829519|NCT02010060|183538003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin level between the AERO and CON groups||||0.770
91829520|NCT02010060|183538003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin concentration between AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.515
91829521|NCT01292603|183538027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard non-inferiority margin of 0.8 for the ratio of Ctrough was used. The non-inferiority limit corresponds to a maximal 20 percent (%) loss in Ctrough which is considered acceptable given the high variability and range of Ctrough data, with an 80% power and a one-sided alpha of 0.05.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.269|1.852|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||1.852|1.269|
91829522|NCT01292603|183538028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.242|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||1.242|0.979|
91829523|NCT01292603|183538029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.719|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.653|0.792|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||0.792|0.653|
91829524|NCT01292603|183538030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|14.884|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.215|19.755|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||19.755|11.215|
91829525|NCT01292603|183538031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|1.139|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||1.139|0.895|
91829526|NCT01043432|183538041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regressions were utilized to model the outcomes of interest as a function of SA, TBI group, and the interaction between the two groups.||||>.05
91829527|NCT04307004|183538042|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in systolic blood pressure = mean systolic blood pressure when attended - mean systolic blood pressure when not attended (i.e., unattended).|||1.1|0.5|< 0.0001
91829528|NCT04307004|183538042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in diastolic blood pressure = mean diastolic blood pressure when attended - mean diastolic blood pressure when not attended (i.e., unattended)|||0.7|0.3|< 0.0001
91829529|NCT04307004|183538043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in systolic blood pressure = mean systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring - mean systolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring.|||-1.5|-3.0|< 0.0001
91829530|NCT04307004|183538043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in diastolic blood pressure = mean diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring - mean diastolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring.|||-1.4|-2.5|< 0.0001
91829531|NCT04307004|183538045|OTHER|Independent variable - Attended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - Left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended systolic blood pressure and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 participants with attended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.55|0.32|< 0.001
91829532|NCT04307004|183538045|OTHER|Independent variable - attended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended diastolic blood pressure measurements and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 with attended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.60|0.24|< 0.001
91829533|NCT04307004|183538045|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended systolic blood pressure and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 participants with unattended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.56|0.33|< 0.001
91829534|NCT04307004|183538045|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended diastolic blood pressure and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 participants with unattended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.55|0.19|< 0.001
91829535|NCT04307004|183538045|OTHER|Independent variable - awake systolic blood pressure on ABPM Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.74|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake systolic blood pressure from ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 554 participants with out-of-office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.74|0.47|< 0.001
91829536|NCT04307004|183538045|OTHER|Independent variable - awake diastolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.66|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 554 participants with out-of-office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.66|0.25|< 0.001
91829537|NCT04307004|183538045|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on HBPM. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.44|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with HBPM data and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.44|0.19|< 0.001
91829538|NCT04307004|183538045|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on HBPM Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index|beta coefficient|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with data on HBPM and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.40|0.05|0.01
91829539|NCT04307004|183538045|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with data on ABPM and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.59|0.32|< 0.001
91829540|NCT04307004|183538045|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on ABPM Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with data on ABPM and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.55|0.16|< 0.001
91829541|NCT04307004|183538046|OTHER|Independent variable - attended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended systolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on attended office blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.08|-0.47|0.17
91829542|NCT04307004|183538046|OTHER|Independent variable - attended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended diastolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on attended office blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.15|-0.70|0.20
91829543|NCT04307004|183538046|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended systolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on unattended blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.02|-0.55|0.07
91829544|NCT04307004|183538046|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended diastolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on unattended diastolic blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.06|-0.80|0.09
91829545|NCT04307004|183538046|OTHER|"Independent variable - awake systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.~Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio."|beta coefficient|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.31|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 523 participants with complete data on ABPM and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.31|-0.29|0.94
91829546|NCT04307004|183538046|OTHER|"Independent variable - awake diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.~Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio."|beta coefficient|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.66|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 523 participants with complete data on ABPM and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.66|-0.21|0.31
91829547|NCT04307004|183538046|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on HBPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete HBPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.26|-0.28|0.94
91829548|NCT04307004|183538046|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on HBPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.36|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete HBPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.36|-0.40|0.93
91829549|NCT04307004|183538046|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete ABPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.40|-0.21|0.54
91829550|NCT04307004|183538046|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.68|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete ABPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.68|-0.16|0.23
91829551|NCT01972841|183538059|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.01||Nominal p-value|Stratified rank ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.49|0.072
91829552|NCT01972841|183538059|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.04||Nominal p-value|Stratified rank ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.04|-0.44|0.033
91829553|NCT01972841|183538059|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1|||Stratified rank ANCOVA||Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.10|-0.58|0.001
91829554|NCT01972841|183538059|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.01|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.47|0.052
91829555|NCT01972841|183538060|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.01||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.57|0.040
91829556|NCT01972841|183538060|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.11||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.67|0.006
91829557|NCT01972841|183538060|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.21||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.76|0.001
91829558|NCT01972841|183538060|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.28||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.28|-0.84|<0.001
91829559|NCT01972841|183538061|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|10.0||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||10.00|-2.29|0.219
91829560|NCT01972841|183538061|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|14.89||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||14.89|2.61|0.005
91829561|NCT01972841|183538061|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|21.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.35|27.68||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||27.68|15.35|<0.001
91829562|NCT01972841|183538061|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|17.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.58|23.9||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||23.90|11.58|<0.001
91829563|NCT01972841|183538062|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|-2.27|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.27|-6.98|<0.001
91829564|NCT01972841|183538062|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|-3.44|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-3.44|-8.17|<0.001
91829565|NCT01972841|183538062|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-4.76|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.76|-9.50|<0.001
91829566|NCT01972841|183538062|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-3.74|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-3.74|-8.46|<0.001
91829567|NCT01972841|183538063|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.52|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.52|-0.03|0.077
91829568|NCT01972841|183538063|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.55|0.00|0.050
91829569|NCT01972841|183538063|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.65|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.65|0.10|0.008
91829570|NCT01972841|183538063|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.65|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.65|0.10|0.007
91829571|NCT01972841|183538064|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||1.04|0.72|0.135
91829572|NCT01972841|183538064|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||1.09|0.75|0.282
91829573|NCT01972841|183538064|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||0.85|0.59|<0.001
91829574|NCT01972841|183538064|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||1.06|0.73|0.172
91829575|NCT01972841|183538065|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.01|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.offset variable.||-0.01|-3.27|0.074
91829576|NCT01972841|183538065|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.3|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.30|-2.96|0.025
91829577|NCT01972841|183538065|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.73|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.73|-4.00|<0.001
91829578|NCT01972841|183538065|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.05|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.05|-3.23|0.024
91829579|NCT01972841|183538069|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||0.76|-0.39|0.520
91829580|NCT01972841|183538069|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||0.34|-0.82|0.413
91829581|NCT01972841|183538069|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||-0.34|-1.50|0.002
91829582|NCT01972841|183538069|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean diffrence|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||0.02|-1.13|0.060
91829583|NCT01972841|183538070|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.04|0.70|0.110
91829584|NCT01972841|183538070|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.10|0.73|0.288
91829585|NCT01972841|183538070|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.79|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.79|0.53|<0.001
91829586|NCT01972841|183538070|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.02|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.02|0.68|0.084
91829587|NCT01972841|183538071|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.13|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-3.09|0.114
91829588|NCT01972841|183538071|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.13|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-3.10|0.034
91829589|NCT01972841|183538071|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.12|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.12|-4.09|<0.001
91829590|NCT01972841|183538071|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.71|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.71|-3.70|0.012
91829591|NCT01972841|183538072|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.02|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.46|0.134
91829592|NCT01972841|183538072|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.02|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.45|0.043
91829593|NCT01972841|183538072|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean diffeence|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.15|-0.59|<0.001
91829594|NCT01972841|183538072|SUPERIORITY||Standard Error of the Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.019|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-0.54|-0.1|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50mg ) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.10|-0.54|0.019
91829595|NCT01972841|183538073|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.03|-0.69|0.074
91829596|NCT01972841|183538073|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.82|0.014
91829597|NCT01972841|183538073|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.28|-1.01|<0.001
91829598|NCT01972841|183538073|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.51|-1.24|<0.001
91829599|NCT01972841|183538074|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.96|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.96|0.81|0.006
91829600|NCT01972841|183538074|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.88|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.88|0.74|<0.001
91829601|NCT01972841|183538074|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.00|0.84|0.049
91953049|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|6 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.22||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.62|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.62|-1.06|0.605
91829602|NCT01972841|183538074|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.94|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.94|0.79|0.001
91829603|NCT01972841|183538075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.06|-1.28|0.073
91829604|NCT01972841|183538075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.48|-1.83|0.001
91829605|NCT01972841|183538075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-1.18|0.140
91829606|NCT01972841|183538075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.54|-1.88|<0.001
91829607|NCT01972841|183538076|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.19|0.065
91829608|NCT01972841|183538076|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.26|0.001
91829609|NCT01972841|183538076|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.02|-0.18|0.100
91829610|NCT01972841|183538076|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.26|0.001
91829611|NCT01972841|183538077|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.27|0.80|0.938
91829612|NCT01972841|183538077|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.25|0.79|0.967
91829613|NCT01972841|183538077|SUPERIORITY||Standard Error of the Mean|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.92|0.58|0.008
91953050|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|2 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.11||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.29|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.29|-1.06|0.847
91829614|NCT01972841|183538077|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.02|0.64|0.069
91829615|NCT01972841|183538078|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.64|-1.73|0.958
91829616|NCT01972841|183538078|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.11|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.11|-2.27|0.500
91829617|NCT01972841|183538078|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-3.62|0.028
91829618|NCT01972841|183538078|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.31|-3.13|0.108
91829619|NCT01972841|183538079|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.25|-0.25|0.993
91829620|NCT01972841|183538079|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.19|-0.30|0.650
91829621|NCT01972841|183538079|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.52|0.035
91829622|NCT01972841|183538079|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate||0.08|-0.43|0.169
91829623|NCT01972841|183538080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.68|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.68|1.11|0.003
91829624|NCT01972841|183538080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.68|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.68|1.11|0.004
91829625|NCT01972841|183538080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.95|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.95|1.29|<0.001
91829626|NCT01972841|183538080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.68|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.68|1.10|0.004
91829627|NCT01972841|183538081|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.50|1.01|0.039
91829628|NCT01972841|183538081|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.59|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.59|1.07|0.009
91829629|NCT01972841|183538081|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.77|||overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.77|1.19|<0.001
91829630|NCT01972841|183538081|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.84|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate||1.84|1.23|<0.001
91829631|NCT01972841|183538082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.64|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.64|1.07|0.011
91829632|NCT01972841|183538082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.75|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.75|1.14|0.002
91829633|NCT01972841|183538082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.06|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.06|1.32|<0.001
91829634|NCT01972841|183538082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.07|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.07|1.33|<0.001
91829635|NCT01972841|183538083|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.41|<0.001
91829636|NCT01972841|183538083|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.54|<0.001
91829637|NCT01972841|183538083|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-0.50|<0.001
91829638|NCT01972841|183538083|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-0.50|<0.001
91829639|NCT01972841|183538085|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.94|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.94|1.69|<0.001
91829640|NCT01972841|183538085|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|6.29|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.29|2.03|<0.001
91829641|NCT01972841|183538085|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|7.15|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.15|2.88|<0.001
91829642|NCT01972841|183538085|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|5.43|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.43|1.17|0.002
91829643|NCT01972841|183538086|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.65|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.65|1.60|0.001
91829644|NCT01972841|183538086|SUPERIORITY||Lest squares mean difference|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|7.4|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.40|2.34|<0.001
91829645|NCT01972841|183538086|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|6.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|8.63|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.63|3.55|<0.001
91829646|NCT01972841|183538086|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.33|1.27|0.003
91829647|NCT01972841|183538087|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.63|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.63|1.84|0.001
91829648|NCT01972841|183538087|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|7.22|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.22|2.42|<0.001
91829649|NCT01972841|183538087|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|7.75|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.75|2.93|<0.001
91829650|NCT01972841|183538087|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.81|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.81|2.01|<0.001
91829651|NCT01972841|183538088|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.85|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.85|1.98|<0.001
91829652|NCT01972841|183538088|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.86|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.86|1.98|<0.001
91829653|NCT01972841|183538088|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|7.32|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.32|2.42|<0.001
91829654|NCT01972841|183538088|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.72|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.72|0.84|0.008
91829655|NCT01972841|183538089|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.21|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.21|0.33|0.022
91829656|NCT01972841|183538089|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.19|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.19|0.31|0.023
91829657|NCT01972841|183538089|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.74|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.74|0.85|0.005
91829658|NCT01972841|183538089|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|2.89|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.89|-0.99|0.337
91829659|NCT01972841|183538102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.69|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.69|1.02|0.035
91829660|NCT01972841|183538102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.81|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.81|1.09|0.009
91829661|NCT01972841|183538102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.93|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.93|1.16|0.002
91829662|NCT01972841|183538102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.73|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.73|1.04|0.023
91829663|NCT01972841|183538103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.69|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.69|0.88|0.224
91829664|NCT01972841|183538103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.96|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.96|1.02|0.037
91829665|NCT01972841|183538103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.67|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.67|1.47|<0.001
91829666|NCT01972841|183538103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.26|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.26|1.21|0.002
91829667|NCT01972841|183538104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.72|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.72|0.97|0.077
91829668|NCT01972841|183538104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.53|0.87|0.321
91829669|NCT01972841|183538104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.53|1.46|<0.001
91829670|NCT01972841|183538104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.53|0.88|0.294
91829671|NCT01972841|183538105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.53|0.89|0.251
91829672|NCT01972841|183538105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.64|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.64|0.95|0.107
91829673|NCT01972841|183538105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.07|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||2.07|1.23|<0.001
91829674|NCT01972841|183538105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.85|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.85|1.08|0.012
91829675|NCT01972841|183538106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.67|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.67|1.01|0.044
91829676|NCT01972841|183538106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.84|1.11|0.006
91829677|NCT01972841|183538106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.9|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.90|1.13|0.004
91829678|NCT01972841|183538106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.08|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.08|1.23|<0.001
91829679|NCT01972841|183538107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.92|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.92|1.13|0.004
91829680|NCT01972841|183538107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.11|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.11|1.24|<0.001
91829681|NCT01972841|183538107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.07|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.07|1.22|0.001
91829682|NCT01972841|183538107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.04|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.04|1.21|0.001
91829683|NCT01972841|183538108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.78|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||1.78|0.98|0.065
91829684|NCT01972841|183538108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.27|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.27|1.24|0.001
91829685|NCT01972841|183538108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.36|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.36|1.32|<0.001
91953051|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|2 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.44||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.73|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.73|-1.61|0.455
91829686|NCT01972841|183538108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.04|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.04|1.12|0.007
91829687|NCT01972841|183538109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.87|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||1.87|1.11|0.007
91829688|NCT01972841|183538109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.17|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.17|1.28|<0.001
91829689|NCT01972841|183538109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.3|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.30|1.34|<0.001
91829690|NCT01972841|183538109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.19|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.19|1.29|<0.001
91953052|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|2 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.58||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.57|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.57|-1.74|0.317
91829691|NCT01972841|183538110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.45|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||1.45|0.87|0.381
91829692|NCT01972841|183538110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.7|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||1.70|1.01|0.040
91829693|NCT01972841|183538110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.0|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.00|1.21|0.001
91829694|NCT01972841|183538110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.03|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.03|1.21|0.001
91829695|NCT01972841|183538111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.59|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||1.59|0.96|0.095
91829696|NCT01972841|183538111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||1.62|0.98|0.073
91829697|NCT01972841|183538111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.13|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||2.13|1.29|<0.001
91829698|NCT01972841|183538111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.63|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||1.63|0.98|0.067
91829699|NCT01972841|183538112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.52|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.52|0.91|0.210
91829700|NCT01972841|183538112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.89|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.89|1.13|0.004
91829701|NCT01972841|183538112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.06|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.06|1.23|<0.001
91829702|NCT01972841|183538112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.05|1.23|<0.001
91829703|NCT01972841|183538113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.46|0.88|0.335
91829704|NCT01972841|183538113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.81|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.81|1.09|0.009
91829705|NCT01972841|183538113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.02|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.02|1.21|0.001
91953053|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|2.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.83|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.83|-3.18|0.001
91953054|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|2.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|-2.44|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.44|-4.79|<0.001
91829706|NCT01972841|183538113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.21|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.21|1.33|<0.001
91829707|NCT01972841|183538114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.43|0.86|0.416
91829708|NCT01972841|183538114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.59|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.59|0.96|0.105
91829709|NCT01972841|183538114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.16|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.16|1.28|<0.001
91829710|NCT01972841|183538114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.87|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.87|1.12|0.005
91829711|NCT03317977|183538136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
91829712|NCT00688636|183538139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0005
91829713|NCT01572727|183538144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.68||||||||1.68|0.82|
91829714|NCT04053764|183538152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|7.14||||||||7.14|0.53|
91829715|NCT04053764|183538154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.31||||||||2.31|0.23|
91829716|NCT04053764|183538155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.02||||||PCR Improvement||3.02|0.29|
91829717|NCT04053764|183538155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.2||||||Stable PCR||3.20|0.18|
91829718|NCT04053764|183538156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|4.65||||||From baseline to 3 months||4.65|-5.53|
91829719|NCT04053764|183538156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|11.4||||||From baseline to 6 months||11.40|-2.02|
91829720|NCT04053764|183538156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|11.68||||||From baseline to 9 months||11.68|-3.58|
91829721|NCT04053764|183538156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|13.67||||||From baseline to 12 months||13.67|-3.28|
91829722|NCT04053764|183538159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.21||||||||1.21|0.09|
91829723|NCT02935062|183538164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
91829724|NCT02935062|183538165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.011
91829725|NCT01483924|183538201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The difference in change in PASI score from baseline to Week 12 was compared all active treatment groups and the placebo group||||0.9048
91829726|NCT01483924|183538202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.1975
91829727|NCT01483924|183538203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6349
91829728|NCT01483924|183538204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6212|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6212
91829729|NCT02890381|183538205|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.0|86.0||||||||86|35|
91829730|NCT02890381|183538205|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.0|100.0||||||||100|61|
91829731|NCT02890381|183538206|OTHER||% vaccinees with unsolicited AEs|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|65.0||||||||65|14|
91829732|NCT02890381|183538206|OTHER||% placebo with unsolicited AEs|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.0|85.0||||||||85|15|
91829733|NCT02890381|183538211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Since the sample sizes are unequal, at the suggestion of the DSMB statistician, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that the proportions of \>=4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.64
91829734|NCT02890381|183538212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.73
91829735|NCT02195986|183538233|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established for the primary endpoint if the 90% confidence interval for the difference of responder rates (test - reference) from baseline to Day 8 for the primary endpoint is contained within \[-0.20, 0.20\], using the per-protocol population.|Difference|-0.0062|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1209|0.1084||||||The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT -PR \< -.20 or PT -PR \> .20 versus HA : -.20 ≤ PT -PR ≤ .20 Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PR = cure rate of reference treatment.||0.1084|-0.1209|
91829736|NCT02195986|183538234|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of test product vs placebo|Difference|0.3766|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2743|0.479|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the primary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.4790|0.2743|<0.0001
91829737|NCT02195986|183538234|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of reference product vs placebo|Difference|0.3542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.4514|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the primary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.4514|0.2570|<0.0001
91829738|NCT02195986|183538235|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established for the secondary endpoint if the 90% confidence interval for the difference of responder rates (test - reference) from baseline to Day 8 for the secondary endpoint is contained within \[-0.20, 0.20\], using the per-protocol population.|Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0687|0.1686||||||||0.1686|-0.0687|
91829739|NCT02195986|183538236|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of test product vs placebo|Difference|0.1387||||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.3054|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the secondary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.3054|-0.0280|0.1092
91829740|NCT02195986|183538236|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of reference product vs placebo|Difference|0.1196||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0491|0.2883|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the secondary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.2883|-0.0491|0.1805
91829741|NCT03265600|183538286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Unadjusted bivariate logistic regression|||||||0.006
91829742|NCT03265600|183538287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.25||||||0.19
91829743|NCT03265600|183538288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.36||||||0.12
91829744|NCT03265600|183538289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.34||||||0.08
91829745|NCT03265600|183538290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.57||||||<0.001
91829746|NCT03265600|183538291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.41||||||0.03
91829747|NCT03265600|183538292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.15||||||0.31
91829748|NCT03265600|183538293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.22||||||0.26
91829749|NCT03265600|183538294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.58||||||<0.001
91829750|NCT03265600|183538295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.75||||||<0.001
91829751|NCT02522715|183538306|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||two-sided exact binomial test|||One-sample binomial test with null hypothesis that the percentage of participants with PSA response 1 is equal to 25%.||||<0.01
91829752|NCT01808313|183538314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.53|64.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||64.66|42.53|<0.001
91829753|NCT01808313|183538315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.72|80.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||80.00|48.72|<0.001
91829754|NCT01808313|183538317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Week 12||||<0.001
91829755|NCT01808313|183538317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Week 24||||0.003
91829756|NCT01808313|183538318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.519|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Week 12|||0.519|0.366|<0.001
91829757|NCT01808313|183538318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.453|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Week 24|||0.453|0.303|<0.001
91829758|NCT03086447|183538355|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of monocular VA better than equal to 20/40 with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Binomial proportion with Agresti-Coull||All eyes (100%) in the Test group had acceptable VA throughout the study.|Proportion of eyes with overall acceptable VA assessed throughout the study period (up to 4-week) in the Test group was compared to the historical control acceptable rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||100|96.5|
91829759|NCT03086447|183538356|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of lens fit with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Binomial proportion with Agrestic-Coull||All eyes (100%) in the Test group had acceptable lens fit at fitting (visit 1).|Proportion of eyes with acceptable lens fit assessed at fitting (visit 1) in the Test group was compared to the historical control rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||100.0|96.5|
91829760|NCT03086447|183538357|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of lens stability with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Binomial proportion with Agrestic-Coull||All eyes (100%) in the Test group had acceptable stability at fitting.|Proportion of eyes with acceptable stability assessed at fitting (visit 1) in the Test group was compared to the historical control rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||100.0|96.5|
91829761|NCT03086447|183538358|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of absolute rotation with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Least square mean proportion|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.5|99.9||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Linear mixed model with binomial dist.||Above 80% of eyes in the Test group had acceptable rotation.|Proportion of eyes with acceptable absolute rotation assessed at 15-minute upon insertion (fitting, visit 1) in the Test group was compared to the historical control rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||99.9|97.5|
91829762|NCT03086447|183538359|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects per each study group is sufficient to demonstrate no statistical difference in the CS incidence rate between the Test and Control groups with a minimum of 80% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 0.005% with a correlation of 0.3 between eyes within subject.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|1.437||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Bayesian beta-binomial model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior estimate (Test over Control) was used to test no difference between the Test and Control groups.|odds ratio calculated as Test over Control|Proportion of eyes with unacceptable corneal staining (CS) throughout all planned and unplanned visits in the Test group was compared to that in the Control group.||1.437|0.004|
91829763|NCT03086447|183538360|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.5|||Linear mixed model|A 95% confidence interval for the least square mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control groups.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Sample size calculation was performed considering the effect size of 5 (Test minus Control) to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% at a 5% significance level.||11.5|2.1|
91829764|NCT03086447|183538361|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9|||Linear mixed model|A 95% confidence interval for the least square mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control groups.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Sample size calculation was performed considering the effect size of 5 (Test minus Control) to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% at a 5% significance level.||0.9|-7.2|
91829765|NCT03086447|183538362|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5 was used. This margin is based on a 10% difference in the distribution between the Test and Control groups.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.22|||Generalized LMM w/ binomial dist.||Odds ratio of Test over Control was calculated.|Proportion of eyes with optimal VA assessed at fitting in the Test group was compared to the Control group.||3.22|0.98|
91829766|NCT00435370|183538374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91829767|NCT03387852|183538400|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.423|||=|0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.88|||Regression, Logistic||SAR440340 300 mg vs. Placebo|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value derived from logistic regression with treatment, baseline eosinophil strata, region, background ICS dose level at randomization and number of exacerbation events (defined as required use of systemic \[oral and/or parenteral\] steroid treatment, or required hospitalization or emergency room visit) within 1 year prior to screening.||0.88|0.203|=0.0214
91829768|NCT03387852|183538400|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.52|||=|0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|1.057|||Regression, Logistic||SAR440340 + Dupilumab vs. Placebo|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value derived from logistic regression with treatment, baseline eosinophil strata, region, background ICS dose level at randomization and number of exacerbation events (defined as required use of systemic \[oral and/or parenteral\] steroid treatment, or required hospitalization or emergency room visit) within 1 year prior to screening.||1.057|0.256|=0.0709
91829769|NCT00809757|183538413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.412|0.342|||||Difference is Placebo MDI minus Levalbuterol UDV|195 subjects were randomized in order to achieve 150 subjects completing the study. The sample size was set based on FDA requirements, and was outside of statistical considerations.||0.342|-1.412|
91829770|NCT00809757|183538413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.714|0.335|||||Difference is Levalbuterol UDV minus Levalbuterol MDI|195 subjects were randomized in order to achieve 150 subjects completing the study. The sample size was set based on FDA requirements, and was outside of statistical considerations||0.335|-1.714|
91829771|NCT00809757|183538413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.771|||||Difference is Levalbuterol UDV minus Levalbuterol MDI|195 subjects were randomized in order to achieve 150 subjects completing the study. The sample size was set based on FDA requirements, and was outside of statistical considerations.||0.771|-1.080|
91829772|NCT00234065|183538486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% CI limit for the HR of cilostazol to aspirin was 1.33 (4/3) or lower , cilostazol would be non-inferior to aspirin.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.743||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.981||The log-rank test was used to verify the superiority of CLZ to ASA only if non-inferiority was verified. The adjusted significance level for the superiority test of the endpoint was set at 0.0471 (two-tailed) according to the O'Brien-Fleming method.|Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Number of Patients With First Occurrence of Stroke||0.981|0.564|0.0357
91829773|NCT00234065|183538487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.88||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.2|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||1.200|0.645|0.4189
91829774|NCT00234065|183538488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.4582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.194|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||1.194|0.675|0.4582
91829775|NCT00234065|183538489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|2.313|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||2.313|0.497|0.8600
91829776|NCT00234065|183538490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.994|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||0.994|0.643|0.0437
91829777|NCT00234065|183538491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.458||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.711|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||0.711|0.296|0.0004
91829778|NCT00126438|183538492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.73||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader A readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.73|0.18|0.001
91829779|NCT00126438|183538492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.72||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader B readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.72|0.18|0.001
91829780|NCT00126438|183538492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.72||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader C readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.72|0.17|0.001
91829781|NCT04414696|183538561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.5|-3.3|
91829782|NCT04414696|183538562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|14.5|||||Multivariable linear regression|||14.5|-23.5|
91829783|NCT04414696|183538563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|9.5||||||||9.5|-1.9|
91829784|NCT04414696|183538564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|21.5|||||Multivariable linear regression|||21.5|-18.9|
91829785|NCT04414696|183538565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.1|-3.7|
91829786|NCT04414696|183538566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.2|||||Multivariable linear regression|||4.2|-7.7|
91829787|NCT04414696|183538567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||||Multivariable linear regression|||2.1|-1.2|
91829788|NCT04414696|183538568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.1|-1|
91829789|NCT04414696|183538569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.2|-3.4|
91829790|NCT04414696|183538570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.3|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.3|-4.9|
91829791|NCT00785291|183538591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.45||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative). P-values are for a test of inferiority 2-sided and are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank tests are used for the two primary comparisons of PFS within an experimental arm relative to PFS within the control arm. The family-wise error rate will be controlled at a one-sided 0.025 level. This is achieved in a 3-arm trial with a common control group by conducting the marginal log-rank tests with a one-sided α = 0.0135. Sample size calculations are based on having high power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.36, in the control arm as compared to the experimental arms.||1.45|1.00|0.054
91953055|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|2.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-2.01|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.01|-4.32|<0.001
91829792|NCT00785291|183538591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.87||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative). P-values are for a test of inferiority 2-sided and are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank tests are used for the two primary comparisons of PFS within an experimental arm relative to PFS within the control arm. The family-wise error rate will be controlled at a one-sided 0.025 level. This is achieved in a 3-arm trial with a common control group by conducting the marginal log-rank tests with a one-sided α = 0.0135. Sample size calculations are based on having high power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.36, in the control arm as compared to the experimental arms.||1.87|1.28|<0.0001
91829793|NCT00785291|183538595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.47||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||1.47|0.92|0.20
91829794|NCT00785291|183538595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.61||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||1.61|1.01|0.038
91829795|NCT05183022|183538613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
91829796|NCT02120027|183538648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.986||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.53|0.64|0.949
91829797|NCT02120027|183538649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.86|0.88|0.193
91829798|NCT02120027|183538650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.032||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.53|0.70|0.872
91829799|NCT02120027|183538651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.339||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.26|0.79|0.272
91829800|NCT02120027|183538652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.153||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.81|0.73|0.567
91829801|NCT00985725|183538661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-12.7|0.0009
91829802|NCT00985725|183538662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.7|0.0465
91829803|NCT00985725|183538663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral recognition index||-0.9|-9.4|0.0181
91829804|NCT00985725|183538663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Inhibit subscale||-0.7|-7.7|0.0204
91829805|NCT00985725|183538663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Shift subscale||-1.4|-9.8|0.0090
91829806|NCT00985725|183538663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Emotional control subscale||0.4|-7.9|0.0793
91829807|NCT00985725|183538663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Self-monitor subscale||0.6|-7.0|0.1014
91829808|NCT00985725|183538663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-4.3|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition index||-4.3|-13.7|0.0002
91829809|NCT00985725|183538663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-4.2|||ANCOVA|||Initiate subscale||-4.2|-12.9|0.0002
91829810|NCT00985725|183538663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||Working memory subscale||-4.5|-13.7|0.0001
91829811|NCT00985725|183538663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||Plan/Organize subscale||-3.1|-11.9|0.0010
91829812|NCT00985725|183538663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Task monitor subscale||-0.3|-9.4|0.0357
91829813|NCT00985725|183538663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||Organization of materials subscale||-2.8|-11.1|0.0012
91829814|NCT00985725|183538668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-10.9|0.1731
91829815|NCT00993655|183538676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for stratification factors at randomization||Assume that the 9-month PD rate in IV arm (Arm 1) will be 40% (based on experience with data from NCIC CTG OV.16 and that of NCRI UK). The target sample size of 200 will enable the detection of a 19% difference between Arms 1 and 3 in 9 month progression disease rate post randomization with 80% power at two-sided 0.05 level.||||0.065
91829816|NCT00993655|183538677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.75|||Log Rank|Adjusting for stratification factors at randomization||||1.75|0.85|0.27
91829817|NCT00993655|183538678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.13|||Log Rank|Adjusting for stratification factors at randomization||||2.13|0.74|0.40
91829818|NCT03912259|183538684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.37|32.65||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs. IGA=4).||||32.65|11.37|<.0001
91829819|NCT02131272|183538720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered fulfilled if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between detemir and NPH was below or equal to 0.4%. The sample size was set to ensure 80% power for the full analysis set (FAS). However, efficacy conclusions cannot be drawn from the analysis due to low number of subjects included in the trial.|Least squares mean difference|0.17||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.09||p value is reported for 1 sided test|Mixed Models Analysis|||HbA1c measurements were analysed with a mixed model for repeated measurements with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, visit, age group, prior antidiabetic therapy and interaction between prior antidiabetic therapy and age group as fixed factors and the HbA1c baseline value as covariate. Interactions between visit and all factors and covariates were also included in the model.||1.09|-0.74|0.3075
91829820|NCT04162769|183538749|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.605|=|0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.228|2.674|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.674|-23.228|=0.1198
91829821|NCT04162769|183538749|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.515|=|0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.544|4.002|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.002|-21.544|=0.1783
91829822|NCT04162769|183538750|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34|=|0.9826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|18.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||18.11|-18.52|=0.9826
91829823|NCT04162769|183538750|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78|=|0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|32.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||32.21|-6.12|=0.1891
91829824|NCT04162769|183538751|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38|=|0.7694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.29|16.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.64|-12.29|=0.7694
91829825|NCT04162769|183538751|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|34.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||34.00|0.79|=0.0450
91829826|NCT04162769|183538752|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-14.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.295|=|0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.406|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.352|-28.406|=0.0558
91829827|NCT04162769|183538752|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.134|=|0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.737|3.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||3.397|-24.737|=0.1363
91829828|NCT04162769|183538753|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.33|=|0.7143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|26.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||26.41|-18.00|=0.7143
91829829|NCT04162769|183538753|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.09|=|0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.62|26.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||26.87|-16.62|=0.6488
91829830|NCT04162769|183538754|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.22|=|0.3981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|28.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.80|-11.27|=0.3981
91829831|NCT04162769|183538754|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.17|=|0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|35.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.15|-4.72|=0.1410
91829832|NCT04162769|183538755|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65|=|0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|23.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||23.38|-6.61|=0.2690
91829833|NCT04162769|183538755|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09|=|0.5428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|18.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||18.25|-9.56|=0.5428
91829834|NCT04162769|183538756|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.721|=|0.7163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.089|12.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||12.466|-18.089|=0.7163
91829835|NCT04162769|183538756|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.602|=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.284|1.805|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.805|-28.284|=0.0840
91829836|NCT00845663|183538834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Use of the 80-125 % bioequivalence range. If 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric LS Means (percent) is included within these limits, the devices are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS Means (percent)|101.33||||||90.0|92.84|110.58|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values with treatment as factor has been used as the basis for calculation of estimated value and confidence interval.|Ratio is Auto-injection device/Pre-filled syringe|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval||110.58|92.84|
91829837|NCT00845663|183538835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Use of the 80-125% bioequivalence range. If 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric LS Means (percent) is included within these limits, the devices are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS Means (percent)|97.7||||||90.0|89.06|107.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values with treatment as factor was taken as the basis for calculation of estimated value and confidence interval.|Ratio is Auto-injection device/Pre-filled syringe|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval||107.19|89.06|
91829838|NCT00845663|183538836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Use of the 80-125 % bioequivalence range. If 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric LS Means (percent) is included within these limits, the devices are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS Means (percent)|97.54||||||90.0|87.33|108.94|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values with treatment as factor was taken as a basis for calculation of estimated value and the confidence interval.|Ratio is Auto-injection device/Pre-filled syringe|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval||108.94|87.33|
91829839|NCT05585307|183538876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829840|NCT05585307|183538876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91953056|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|4.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-1.69||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.6|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.60|-2.78|0.003
91953057|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|4.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-3.21|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-3.21|-5.39|<0.001
91829841|NCT05585307|183538876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0013
91829842|NCT05585307|183538876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829843|NCT05585307|183538876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829844|NCT05585307|183538876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829845|NCT05585307|183538876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829846|NCT05585307|183538876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829847|NCT05585307|183538877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829848|NCT05585307|183538877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829849|NCT05585307|183538877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829850|NCT05585307|183538877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829851|NCT05585307|183538877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829852|NCT05585307|183538877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829853|NCT05585307|183538877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829854|NCT05585307|183538877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91829855|NCT01270347|183538915|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from Baseline to Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted was \> -4%.|LSMean difference|1.86||||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|4.39|||ANCOVA||Estimates were determined from an analysis of covariance model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), and age (12 to 18 years, \> 18 years), and Baseline FEV1 (\< 55%, . 55%).|||4.39|-0.66|0.1481
91829856|NCT01270347|183538916|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted is \> -4%.|LSMean difference|4.968||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.653|10.59|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), \& baseline as a covariate.|||10.590|-0.653|0.0830
91829857|NCT01270347|183538917|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted is \> -4%.|LSMean difference|1.57||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|3.411|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, the interaction between treatment group and visit, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline as a covariate.|||3.411|-0.272|0.0945
91829858|NCT01270347|183538920|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Sputum Density is \> -4%|LSMean difference|0.44||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.88|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline organism log density.|||0.88|-0.01|0.0530
91829859|NCT01270347|183538922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in Respiratory Domain of the CFQ-R is \> -4%|LSMean difference|3.19||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.32|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline value.|||6.32|0.05|0.0463
91829860|NCT02085408|183538924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.3|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio : clofarabine/(daunorubicin \& cytarabine)|||1.30|0.94|
91829861|NCT02085408|183538925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.94
91829862|NCT02486328|183538949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91829863|NCT02486328|183538950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91829864|NCT02486328|183538951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91829865|NCT02486328|183538952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91829866|NCT02486328|183538953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91829867|NCT02486328|183538954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91829868|NCT02491671|183539066|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.219||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.583|||Chi-squared|||||1.583|0.891|0.171
91829869|NCT02491671|183539067|SUPERIORITY||z|0.288|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test Unadjusted variance 274999.00 Adjustment for ties --21069.78 Adjusted variance 253929.22 z = 0.288; Prob \> \|z\| = 0.7735"|||||>0.05
91829870|NCT02491671|183539068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.351||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.879|||Chi-squared|||||1.879|0.657|0 .307
91829871|NCT02251990|183539071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value was based on a one-sided asymptotic test for a binomial proportion. A one-sided p-value \<0.0125 was considered supportive of a conclusion that the true SVR12 is \>73%.|one-sided asymptotic test|||A one-sided Wald test was used to test the null hypothesis, which was that the SVR12 rate for the ITG was ≤ the historical reference rate of 73%. The historical reference SVR rate for treatment-naive genotype 1 predominantly Asian participants treated with pegylated interferon/ribavirin was derived from 2 studies (PMCID: PMC417, PMCID: PMC3644280) after adjusting for an expected improved safety profile related to an interferon-free regimen.||||<0.001
91829872|NCT02251990|183539072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.6||||||Estimates and 95% CIs were calculated for between-treatment differences (ITG minus DTG) in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||9.6|-10.6|
91829873|NCT02251990|183539073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.9||||||Estimates and 95% CIs were calculated for between-treatment differences (ITG minus DTG) in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||0.9|-4.2|
91829874|NCT01201057|183539119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.006
91829875|NCT01201057|183539120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91829876|NCT01201057|183539121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.025
91829877|NCT03240692|183539134|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and frontal Default Mode Network (fDMN) functional connectivity||||0.036
91829878|NCT03240692|183539134|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and medial Default Mode Network (mDMN) functional connectivity||||0.008
91829879|NCT03240692|183539134|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and left Default Mode Network (lDMN) functional connectivity.||||0.06
91829880|NCT03240692|183539134|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and right Default Mode Network (rDMN) functional connectivity.||||0.017
91829881|NCT00683644|183539136|OTHER|The observed power in THQ for zinc is 0.16, and that for placebo is 0.06.|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91829882|NCT00683644|183539137|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.89
91829883|NCT00683644|183539137|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.36
91829884|NCT00683644|183539138|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.64
91829885|NCT00683644|183539138|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.93
91829886|NCT00622167|183539159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||0.0|||||Not done|||Plaque characteristics including plaque cross-sectional diameter, area measurements, plaque volume, and plaque morphology would be compared between IBIVUS, DSCT and angiography.||||0
91829887|NCT03858803|183539160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
91829888|NCT03858803|183539161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
91829889|NCT03858803|183539162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
91829890|NCT03858803|183539163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
91829891|NCT03858803|183539164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
91829892|NCT03858803|183539165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
91829893|NCT03858803|183539166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
91829894|NCT03858803|183539167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
91829895|NCT03858803|183539168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
91829896|NCT03858803|183539169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
91829897|NCT03858803|183539170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
91829898|NCT02194621|183539181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||>0.05
91829899|NCT02194621|183539182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91829900|NCT02194621|183539183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||>0.05
91829901|NCT02194621|183539184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.002
91829902|NCT02621931|183539252|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.15||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||-1.15|-2.46|<0.0001
91829903|NCT02621931|183539252|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-1.45||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||-1.45|-2.76|<0.0001
91829904|NCT02621931|183539254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.97||0.05 level of significance|ANCOVA|||||-0.97|-2.48|<0.0001
91829905|NCT02621931|183539254|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.09||0.05 level of significance|ANCOVA|||||-1.09|-2.61|<0.0001
91829906|NCT02621931|183539255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1: Active 675/placebo/placebo to Placebo||||<0.0001
91829907|NCT02621931|183539255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1: Active 675/225/225 to Placebo||||<0.0001
91829908|NCT02621931|183539255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2||||<0.0001
91829909|NCT02621931|183539255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2||||<0.0001
91829910|NCT02621931|183539255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||<0.0001
91829911|NCT02621931|183539255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||<0.0001
91829912|NCT02621931|183539255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall||||<0.0001
91829913|NCT02621931|183539255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall||||<0.0001
91829914|NCT02621931|183539256|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
91829915|NCT02621931|183539256|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
91829916|NCT02621931|183539257|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.73||0.05 level of significance|ANCOVA|||||-1.73|-2.95|<0.0001
91829917|NCT02621931|183539258|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
91829918|NCT02621931|183539258|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
91829919|NCT02621931|183539259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||0.0004
91829920|NCT02621931|183539259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
91829921|NCT00920426|183539267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.547|-1.632||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as fixed effect, and Baseline HIV-1 RNA as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.632|-2.547|<0.001
91829922|NCT00920426|183539293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.804|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.173|-1.436||ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect, and baseline HIV-1 RNA as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.436|-2.173|<0.001
91829923|NCT00920426|183539294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91829924|NCT01466985|183539304|SUPERIORITY|Doravirine was declared superior to placebo when the upper bound of the 90% CI was \<-1.|Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.37|||<|0.001||90.0|-1.6|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-1.60|<0.001
91829925|NCT01466985|183539304|SUPERIORITY|Doravirine was declared superior to placebo when the upper bound of the 90% CI was \<-1.|LS mean difference|-1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-1.51|<0.001
91829926|NCT00886340|183539311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||controlled for site, income, race/ethnicity|Mixed Models Analysis|||pilot test, used 20% of sample required for a full test of the hypothesis||||0.08
91829927|NCT02985866|183539315|SUPERIORITY|The first co-primary end point was superiority of CLC over SAP in terms of CGM-measured time below 70 mg/dL. The treatment groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect. Missing baseline data were handled by direct likelihood method. Model residuals were confirmed to be approximately normally distributed.|||||<|0.0001||||||To address the issue of multiple comparisons with 2 primary outcomes, the intervention was considered effective only if both co-primary outcomes were statistically significant at 5% level. P value for noninferiority NI (prespecified NI limit = 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and all participants with any amount of post randomization data were included in all analyses.||||<0.0001
91829928|NCT02985866|183539316|NON_INFERIORITY|The second co-primary end point was noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 180 mg/dL, with a noninferiority limit of 5%. The treatment groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect. Missing baseline data were handled by direct likelihood method. Model residuals were confirmed to be approximately normally distributed.|||||<|0.0001||||||To address the issue of multiple comparisons with 2 primary outcomes, the intervention was considered effective only if both co-primary outcomes were statistically significant at 5% level. P value for noninferiority NI (prespecified NI limit = 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and all participants with any amount of post randomization data were included in all analyses.||||<0.0001
91829929|NCT02985866|183539317|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
91829930|NCT02985866|183539318|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
91829931|NCT02985866|183539319|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
91829932|NCT02985866|183539320|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
91829933|NCT02985866|183539321|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
91829934|NCT02985866|183539322|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
91829935|NCT02985866|183539323|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
91829936|NCT00686166|183539339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact binomal test|||||||0.18
91829937|NCT02314624|183539342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Depression subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.734
91829938|NCT02314624|183539342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Anxiety subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline||We used a Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.27
91829939|NCT02314624|183539342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Stress subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline||We used a Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.75
91829940|NCT02314624|183539342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Suicide subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.812
91829941|NCT02314624|183539343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.036
91829942|NCT02314624|183539344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.664
91829943|NCT02314624|183539345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.764
91829944|NCT02314624|183539346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.440
91829945|NCT02314624|183539347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.09
91829946|NCT02314624|183539348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.19
91829947|NCT02314624|183539349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 1 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.15
91829948|NCT02314624|183539350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 1 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||<.001
91829949|NCT02314624|183539351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.14
91953058|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|4.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-2.76|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.76|-4.91|<0.001
91829950|NCT02314624|183539352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.22
91829951|NCT02314624|183539353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||<.001
91829952|NCT02314624|183539354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.001
91829953|NCT02314624|183539355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.99
91829954|NCT00464815|183539356|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate difference|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|14.87||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenA vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup A (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||14.87|1.63|
91829955|NCT00464815|183539356|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the group difference \[Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group\] in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate Difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|4.18||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenC vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup C (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||4.18|-1.65|
91829956|NCT00464815|183539356|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the group difference \[Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group\] in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|14.14||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenW-135 vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup W-135 (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||14.14|4.78|
91829957|NCT00464815|183539356|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference \[Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group\] in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate difference|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.89|21.37||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenY vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup Y (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||21.37|9.89|
91829958|NCT00464815|183539357|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of the percentages of subjects with any Grade 3 general symptom was lower than or equal to (≤) the pre-defined clinical limit of 3.0.|Risk Ratio (RR)|4.02||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|24.6|||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ vaccine versus Mencevax™ vaccine in terms of incidence of any Grade 3 general (solicited and unsolicited) symptom, the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio between Nimenrix and Mencevax groups (Nimenrix over Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with any grade 3 general symptom within 4 days after vaccination was computed for the safety analysis in study MenACWY-TT-036.||24.6|0.68|0.1456
91829959|NCT00483184|183539391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Results were expressed as mean or number. Normal distributed data among the treatment groups were compared by One-way ANOVA test, non-normal distributed data were compared by Kruskal Wallis test, and then Bonferroni post-hoc test was used for multiple comparisons. Differences from baseline within treatment groups were evaluated by repeated measures ANOVA test for normal distributed data, Freidman test for non-normal distributed data.||||0.404
91829960|NCT01992380|183539393|OTHER||ICC|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|0.988|||||Assessed the agreement between the test and retest imaging of the combination VOI SUVr|Intraclass correlation coefficient \[ICC(2,1)\] analysis from Shrout and Fleiss||0.988|0.935|
91953059|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|6.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.71||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.21|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.21|-1.63|0.130
91829961|NCT01992380|183539394|OTHER||ICC|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|0.986|||||Assessed the agreement between the test and retest imaging of the combination VOI SUVr|Intraclass correlation coefficient \[ICC(2,1)\] analysis from Shrout and Fleiss||0.986|0.926|
91829962|NCT02071173|183539397|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 87%. Lower one-sided 97.5% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|98.5|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|97.0|||||||Ho: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 87%, Ha: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 87%|||97.0|
91829963|NCT02071173|183539398|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 85%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|96.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.8|||||||Ho: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 85%, Ha: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 85%|||93.8|
91829964|NCT02071173|183539399|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 75%. Lower one-sided 97.5% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|94.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|92.0|||||||Ho: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V ≤ 75%, Ha: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V \> 75%|||92.0|
91829965|NCT02071173|183539400|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 75%. Lower one-sided 97.5% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|91.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|88.2|||||||Ho: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V ≤ 75%, Ha: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V \> 75%|||88.2|
91829966|NCT02071173|183539401|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 93%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|98.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.5|||||||Ho: The Implant through 3-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 93%, Ha: The Implant through 3-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 93%|||97.5|
91829967|NCT02071173|183539402|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 94%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|99.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.8|||||||Ho: The 3- through 24-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 94%, Ha: The 3- through 24-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 94%|||98.8|
91829968|NCT02071173|183539403|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 1.5 Volts. Upper one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If upper confidence limit was lower than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|0.56|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.58||||||Ho: The 3-month mean PCT ≥ 1.5 Volts, Ha: The 3-month mean PCT \< 1.5 Volts||0.58||
91829969|NCT02071173|183539404|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 3 mV. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|17.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.7|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude ≤ 3 mV, Ha: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude \> 3 mV|||16.7|
91829970|NCT02071173|183539405|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 3 mV. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|16.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|15.1|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude ≤ 3 mV, Ha: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude \> 3 mV|||15.1|
91829971|NCT02071173|183539406|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 300 ohms. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|776.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|753.0|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean pacing impedance ≤ 300 ohms, Ha: The 3-month mean pacing impedance \> 300 ohms|||753|
91829972|NCT02071173|183539407|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 300 ohms. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|805.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|763.0|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean pacing impedance ≤ 300 ohms, Ha: The 3-month mean pacing impedance \> 300 ohms|||763|
91829973|NCT02071173|183539408|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 4.5 seconds. Upper one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If upper confidence limit was lower than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|3.14|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||||||Ho: The mean detection time ≥ 4.5 seconds, Ha: The mean detection time \< 4.5 seconds||3.20||
91829974|NCT02071173|183539409|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 5 mV. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|18.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|6.2|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude ≤ 5 mV, Ha: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude \> 5 mV|||6.2|
91829975|NCT02071173|183539410|OTHER|Two one-sided tests (TOST) were performed.|Mean|468.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|463.0|472.0||||||Ho: Pacing impedance ≤ 300 Ω or pacing impedance ≥ 1200 Ω, Ha: 300 Ω \< Pacing impedance \< 1200 Ω||472|463|
91829976|NCT02071173|183539411|OTHER|Two one-sided tests (TOST) were performed.|Mean|702.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|659.0|744.0||||||Ho: Pacing impedance ≤ 300 Ω or pacing impedance ≥ 1200 Ω, Ha: 300 Ω \< Pacing impedance \< 1200 Ω||744|659|
91829977|NCT02071173|183539412|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 93%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|99.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.4|||||||Ho: Percent of successful conversion ≤ 93%, Ha: Percent of successful conversion \> 93%|||98.4|
91829978|NCT00515502|183539422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-3.0|
91829979|NCT00515502|183539422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-2.1|
91829980|NCT00515502|183539422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-1.4|
91829981|NCT00515502|183539422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-6.2|
91829982|NCT00515502|183539422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8|-1.3|
91829983|NCT00515502|183539422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.9|-0.7|
91829984|NCT00515502|183539422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.7|-0.1|
91829985|NCT00515502|183539423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|-2.47|
91829986|NCT00515502|183539423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.64|-0.57|
91829987|NCT00515502|183539423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.26|-0.35|
91829988|NCT00515502|183539423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|-4.11|
91829989|NCT00515502|183539423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|3.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.33|-1.44|
91829990|NCT00515502|183539423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.28|0.24|
91829991|NCT00515502|183539423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|7.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.02|0.34|
91829992|NCT00515502|183539424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-5.0|
91829993|NCT00515502|183539424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-7.6|
91829994|NCT00515502|183539424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.7|-2.2|
91829995|NCT00515502|183539424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-4.7|
91829996|NCT00515502|183539424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-7.7|
91829997|NCT00515502|183539424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-11.2|
91829998|NCT00515502|183539424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.0|-5.9|
91829999|NCT00515502|183539425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.902|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.39|-6.23|
91830000|NCT00515502|183539425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.834|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|-5.56|
91830001|NCT00515502|183539425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|6.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.07|-3.82|
91830002|NCT00515502|183539425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.697|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.69|-5.07|
91830003|NCT00515502|183539425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.562|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.38|-7.84|
91830004|NCT00515502|183539425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.898|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.59|-7.97|
91830005|NCT00515502|183539425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.618|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.02|-6.39|
91830006|NCT00515502|183539426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-5.1|
91830007|NCT00515502|183539426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-4.6|
91830008|NCT00515502|183539426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6|-0.0|
91830009|NCT00515502|183539426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-5.9|
91830010|NCT00515502|183539426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-3.5|
91830011|NCT00515502|183539426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.1|-3.5|
91830012|NCT00515502|183539426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.4|1.0|
91830013|NCT00515502|183539427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-5.08|
91830014|NCT00515502|183539427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-3.53|
91830015|NCT00515502|183539427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.335|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.88|-0.46|
91830016|NCT00515502|183539427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.50|-6.13|
91830017|NCT00515502|183539427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.366|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.07|-2.38|
91830018|NCT00515502|183539427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.514|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.82|-1.22|
91830019|NCT00515502|183539427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.867|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.25|1.81|
91830020|NCT00515502|183539428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.256|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.21|-9.82|
91830021|NCT00515502|183539428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.09|-4.70|
91830022|NCT00515502|183539428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.268|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|6.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.98|-10.06|
91830023|NCT00515502|183539428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.50|-13.84|
91830024|NCT00515502|183539428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.264|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|10.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.37|-6.65|
91830025|NCT00515502|183539428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|16.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.08|-2.35|
91830026|NCT00515502|183539428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.634|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|14.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.85|-7.59|
91830027|NCT00515502|183539429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.961|4.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.365|-4.961|
91830028|NCT00515502|183539429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2776|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.495|5.627|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.627|-3.495|
91830029|NCT00515502|183539429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0952|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.247|4.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.122|-8.247|
91830030|NCT00515502|183539429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1891|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.003|6.726|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.726|-6.003|
91830031|NCT00515502|183539429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.873|5.554|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.554|-6.873|
91830032|NCT00515502|183539429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.704|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.064|7.473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.473|-6.064|
91830033|NCT00515502|183539429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2233|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|5.993|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.993|-10.84|
91830034|NCT00515502|183539430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.542|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|5.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.15|-4.98|
91830035|NCT00515502|183539430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.34|-3.65|
91830036|NCT00515502|183539430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-7.49|
91830037|NCT00515502|183539430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.296|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|6.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.24|-6.89|
91830038|NCT00515502|183539430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|6.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.94|-6.13|
91830039|NCT00515502|183539430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.516|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.67|-5.34|
91830040|NCT00515502|183539430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.97|7.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.32|-8.97|
91830041|NCT00515502|183539431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9766|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.492|5.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.419|-2.492|
91830042|NCT00515502|183539431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9457|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.647|4.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.144|-3.647|
91830043|NCT00515502|183539431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.687|2.396|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.396|-7.687|
91830044|NCT00515502|183539431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6352|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.671|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.840|-2.671|
91830045|NCT00515502|183539431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5993|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.308|4.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.067|-6.308|
91830046|NCT00515502|183539431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.952|3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.280|-7.952|
91830047|NCT00515502|183539431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3802|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|1.504|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.504|-11.96|
91830048|NCT00515502|183539432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-9.7|
91830049|NCT00515502|183539432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-8.9|
91830050|NCT00515502|183539432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-13.5|
91830051|NCT00515502|183539432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-11.8|
91830052|NCT00515502|183539432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.4|-6.1|
91830053|NCT00515502|183539432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.5|-6.1|
91830054|NCT00515502|183539432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.2|-10.9|
91830055|NCT00515502|183539433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-3.6|
91830056|NCT00515502|183539433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-2.0|
91830057|NCT00515502|183539433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-3.9|
91830058|NCT00515502|183539433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-3.6|
91830059|NCT00515502|183539433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-3.3|
91830060|NCT00515502|183539433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-2.0|
91830061|NCT00515502|183539433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-4.1|
91830062|NCT03252587|183539455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||5.1|1.5|0.0006
91830063|NCT03252587|183539455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||3.4|1.0|0.0210
91830064|NCT03252587|183539455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||2.9|0.8|0.0781
91830065|NCT03252587|183539456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||4.8|1.4|0.0011
91830066|NCT03252587|183539456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||3.1|0.9|0.0434
91830067|NCT03252587|183539456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||3.1|0.9|0.0439
91830068|NCT03252587|183539457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||5.1|1.4|0.0012
91830069|NCT03252587|183539457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||3.0|0.8|0.0795
91830070|NCT03252587|183539457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||3.2|0.9|0.0673
91830071|NCT03252587|183539458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.5|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||8.5|1.9|0.0002
91953060|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|6.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-2.4|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.40|-4.24|<0.001
91830072|NCT03252587|183539458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||4.5|0.9|0.0371
91830073|NCT03252587|183539458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||5.1|1.1|0.0168
91830074|NCT03252587|183539459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|43.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||43.0|2.5|0.0006
91830075|NCT03252587|183539459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|22.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||22.0|1.5|0.0058
91830076|NCT03252587|183539459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.2||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|31.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||31.0|2.2|0.0009
91830077|NCT03252587|183539460|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.3|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||-0.3|-4.4|0.0131
91830078|NCT03252587|183539460|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.8|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||1.8|-2.3|0.4156
91830079|NCT03252587|183539460|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||-0.2|-4.5|0.0151
91830080|NCT03252587|183539460|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Swollen BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||-0.4|-2.2|0.0029
91830081|NCT03252587|183539460|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Swollen BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||0.2|-1.6|0.0516
91830082|NCT03252587|183539460|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Swollen BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||0.0|-1.8|0.0298
91830083|NCT03252587|183539460|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender + Swollen BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||-0.5|-2.0|0.0010
91830084|NCT03252587|183539460|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender + Swollen BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||0.1|-1.5|0.0343
91830085|NCT03252587|183539460|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender + Swollen BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||-0.3|-1.9|0.0050
91830086|NCT05098054|183539502|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares mean(GLSM) Ratio|214.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.47|446.45|||||"Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Moderate HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Moderate HI)"|||446.45|103.47|
91830087|NCT05098054|183539502|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|145.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.18|273.98|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Mild HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Mild HI)"|||273.98|77.18|
91830088|NCT05098054|183539503|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|299.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.75|801.17|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Moderate HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Moderate HI)"|||801.17|111.75|
91830089|NCT05098054|183539503|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|130.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.02|220.26|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Mild HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Mild HI)"|||220.26|77.02|
91830090|NCT05098054|183539504|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|316.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.68|849.97|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Moderate HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Moderate HI)"|||849.97|117.68|
91830091|NCT05098054|183539504|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|135.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.22|200.57|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Mild HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Mild HI)"|||200.57|91.22|
91830092|NCT04149405|183539511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
91830093|NCT04149405|183539512|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91830094|NCT04149405|183539513|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91953061|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|6.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-1.8|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-1.80|-3.62|<0.001
91830095|NCT04149405|183539514|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91830096|NCT04124926|183539515|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of vonoprazan to lansoprazole was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for the difference in EE rates between treatments (vonoprazan minus lansoprazole).|difference in percentage|8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|12.23||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.23|4.49|<0.0001
91830097|NCT04124926|183539516|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of each dose group of vonoprazan to lansoprazole was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for the difference in maintenance of healing rates between treatments (vonoprazan minus lansoprazole).|difference in percentage|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|15.53||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||15.53|1.80|<0.0001
91830098|NCT04124926|183539516|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of each dose group of vonoprazan to lansoprazole was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for the difference in maintenance of healing rates between treatments (vonoprazan minus lansoprazole).|difference in percentage|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|14.09||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||14.09|0.21|<0.0001
91830099|NCT04124926|183539516|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.||||||0.0136||||||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test|||||||0.0136
91830100|NCT04124926|183539516|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 10 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.||||||0.0436||||||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test|||||||0.0436
91953062|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|8.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.26||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.68|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.68|-1.20|0.577
91830101|NCT04124926|183539517|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -15%, noninferiority would be concluded.|difference in mean percentage|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.03|||||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated from Welch's t-test.|||7.03|-1.60|
91953063|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|8.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.32|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-1.32|-3.20|<0.001
91830102|NCT04124926|183539518|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|17.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|27.43||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||27.43|7.44|0.0008
91830103|NCT04124926|183539519|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|2.3||||0.4392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.04||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in sustained resolution rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||8.04|-3.50|0.4392
91830104|NCT04124926|183539520|SUPERIORITY|Observed p-value and not a formal test per the preplanned fixed-sequence testing procedure. The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.84|27.58||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||27.58|11.84|<0.0001
91830105|NCT04124926|183539521|SUPERIORITY|Observed p-value and not a formal test per the preplanned fixed-sequence testing procedure. The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|6.1||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|11.6||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||11.60|0.53|0.0348
91830106|NCT04124926|183539522|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|15.7||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|28.44||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole 15 mg group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||28.44|2.50|0.0196
91830107|NCT04124926|183539522|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 10 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|13.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|26.14||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole 15 mg group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||26.14|0.02|0.0490
91830108|NCT04124926|183539523|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -15%, noninferiority would be concluded.|difference in mean percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|6.72|||||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days between each vonoprazan group and the lansoprazole group was calculated from Welch's t-test.|||6.72|-2.63|
91830109|NCT04124926|183539523|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -15%, noninferiority would be concluded.|difference in mean percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|6.84|||||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days between each vonoprazan group and the lansoprazole group was calculated from Welch's t-test.|||6.84|-2.27|
91830110|NCT02167074|183539530|OTHER|The chi-square test (with Yates' correction when appropriate) or the Fisher exact test was used to compare the two needle types|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91830111|NCT04009291|183539546|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.2635
91830112|NCT04009291|183539546|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.6999
91830113|NCT04009291|183539546|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.1394
91830114|NCT04009291|183539547|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.1281
91830115|NCT04009291|183539547|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||> 0.9999
91830116|NCT04009291|183539547|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0604|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.0604
91830117|NCT00567242|183539585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2801|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1077|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.0709|||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Intention Group will show a significant rightward shift in lateral frontal laterality from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~H0: The Intention Group will show no shift in lateral frontal laterality from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~Since this is a repeated measures t test, the data are presented as the mean and standard deviation for for the post-treatment laterality index minus the pre-treatment laterality index."||-0.0709||<.05
91830118|NCT00567242|183539585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2768|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.3546|||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Control Group will show a significant rightward shift in lateral frontal lateral indices from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~H0: The Control group will show no shift in lateral frontal laterality indices from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~Since the analysis to test these hypotheses is a repeated-measures t-test, the mean and standard deviation are given for post-treatment laterality index minus pre-treatment laterality index."||0.3546||<.05
91830119|NCT00567242|183539586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.81||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Intention Group would show more improvement across treatment than the Control Group.~H0: The Intention Group and the Control Group would not show any difference in improvement across treatment."|||-1.81|<.05
91830120|NCT00567242|183539587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.26||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Intention Group would show more improvement across treatment than the Control Group.~H0: The Intention Group and the Control Group would not show any difference in improvement across treatment."|||0.26|<.05
91830121|NCT01181050|183539588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.9334||95.0|-0.54|0.5|||Mixed effect model repeated measures|||||0.50|-0.54|0.9334
91830122|NCT01181050|183539589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.06||||0.8293||95.0|-0.46|0.58|||Mixed effect model repeated measures|||||0.58|-0.46|0.8293
91830123|NCT01181050|183539590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.8867||95.0|-0.65|0.56|||Mixed effect model repeated measures|||||0.56|-0.65|0.8867
91830124|NCT03762135|183539619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||This relates to the entirety of the 6-week period.|GEE Linear Regression|Generalized Estimation Equation Linear Regression||||||0.044
91830125|NCT02474927|183539692|OTHER|Descriptive (Pre-Post)||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.36
91830126|NCT02474927|183539693|OTHER|Descriptive (pre-post)||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.16
91830127|NCT00866840|183539703|OTHER|||||||||||||||||No objective responses were seen in the first phase and accrual was stopped.|No objective responses were seen in the first phase and accrual was stopped.|||
91830128|NCT02943408|183539868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.90
91830129|NCT02943408|183539869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.99
91830130|NCT02943408|183539870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.56
91830131|NCT02943408|183539871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.85
91830132|NCT02943408|183539872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.43
91830133|NCT02943408|183539873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.82
91830134|NCT02943408|183539874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.50
91830135|NCT02943408|183539875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.56
91830136|NCT02943408|183539876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.92
91830137|NCT02943408|183539877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
91830138|NCT02943408|183539878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.35
91830139|NCT01106833|183539880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants with treatment success at 6 months is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.63
91830140|NCT01106833|183539880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants with treatment success at 24 months is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.44
91830141|NCT01106833|183539881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of overall survival during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.205
91830142|NCT01106833|183539882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of progression-free survival during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.141
91830143|NCT01106833|183539883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of failure-free survival during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.775
91830144|NCT01106833|183539884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death without relapse was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the rate of relapse during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.396
91830145|NCT01106833|183539885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death without initiation of secondary therapy is considered a competing risk for this endpoint||The null hypothesis is that the rate of initiation of secondary immunosuppressive therapy for chronic GVHD during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.219
91830146|NCT01106833|183539886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death without discontinuation of systemic immunosuppressive therapy is considered a competing risk for this endpoint||The null hypothesis is that the rate of discontinuation of systemic immunosuppressive therapy during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.706
91830147|NCT01106833|183539887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median prednisone dose at baseline is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.127
91830148|NCT01106833|183539887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median prednisone dose at 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.562
91830149|NCT01106833|183539887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median prednisone dose at 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.129
91830150|NCT01106833|183539888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in prednisone dose from baseline to 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.586
91830151|NCT01106833|183539888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in prednisone dose from baseline to 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.140
91830152|NCT01106833|183539889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median serum creatinine level at baseline is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.582
91830153|NCT01106833|183539889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median serum creatinine level at 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.208
91830154|NCT01106833|183539889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median serum creatinine level at 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.431
91830155|NCT01106833|183539890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in serum creatinine level from baseline to 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.147
91830156|NCT01106833|183539890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in serum creatinine level from baseline to 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.863
91830157|NCT01106833|183539891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.620
91830158|NCT01106833|183539891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 6 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.258
91830159|NCT01106833|183539891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 1 year post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.036
91830160|NCT01106833|183539891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 2 years post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.369
91830161|NCT01106833|183539892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.450
91830162|NCT01106833|183539892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 6 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.301
91830163|NCT01106833|183539892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 1 year post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.750
91830164|NCT01106833|183539892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 2 years post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.444
91830165|NCT01106833|183539893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.238
91830166|NCT01106833|183539893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at 6 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.546
91830167|NCT01106833|183539893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at 1 year post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.756
91830168|NCT01106833|183539893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at 2 years post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.554
91830169|NCT01106833|183539894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.685
91830170|NCT01106833|183539894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 2 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.105
91830171|NCT01106833|183539894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 6 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.039
91830172|NCT01106833|183539894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 1 year are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.278
91830173|NCT01106833|183539894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 2 years are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.804
91830174|NCT01106833|183539895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.631||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.631
91830175|NCT01106833|183539895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 2 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.759
91830176|NCT01106833|183539895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 6 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.391
91830177|NCT01106833|183539895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 1 year are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.222
91830178|NCT01106833|183539895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 2 years are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.527
91830179|NCT01106833|183539896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.763
91830180|NCT01106833|183539896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 2 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.133
91830181|NCT01106833|183539896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 6 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.953
91830182|NCT01106833|183539896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 1 year are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.398
91830183|NCT01106833|183539896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 2 years are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.309
91830184|NCT04953390|183539909|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91830185|NCT04953390|183539910|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||.029
91830186|NCT04953390|183539911|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91830187|NCT04953390|183539912|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test done on DIR2 and DIR3 results only, as the conditions were equal for these two settings. DIR1 was tested in a different condition.||All three DIR settings were tested, but only the DIR2 and DIR3 were compared in t-test. This is because DIR1 mic setting was tested in a different condition (i.e. softer noise).||||.14
91830188|NCT04953390|183539915|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0003
91830189|NCT03035292|183539919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||This value of \<0.05 is the calculated p value where the a priori threshold for statistical significance is considered to be p=0.05.|McNemar|||Sample size was based on a cataract prevalence of 20% in the enriched population and a predicted difference of 15% sensitivity and specificity between tests.||||<0.05
91830190|NCT03035292|183539921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The calculated p value was \<0.05. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||Evidence of superiority of intervention 2 over intervention 1 requires a significant difference in specificity of the intervention 1 and 2 between ethnicity groups.||||<0.05
91830191|NCT00677833|183539922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the difference in ACPR (PCR corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. The drug (AZ-CQ) was considered non-inferior with respect to this primary endpoint if the lower bound of this 95% CI was \>= -10% points.|ACPR percent difference|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.02|-2.18|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of Azithromycin/Chloroquine (AZ-CQ) at Day 28 is less than that of Artemether/Lumefantrine (AL); Alternative hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of AZ-CQ at Day 28 is greater than or equal (non-inferior) to that of AL by a non-inferiority margin of -0.1.||-2.18|-16.02|
91830192|NCT00677833|183539923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. The drug (AZ-CQ) was considered non-inferior with respect to this primary endpoint if the lower bound of this 95% CI was \>= -10% points.|ACPR percent difference|-6.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.05|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of AZ-CQ at Day 28 is less than that of AL; Alternative hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of AZ-CQ at Day 28 is greater than or equal (non-inferior) to that of AL by a non-inferiority margin of -0.1.||-0.05|-12.10|
91830193|NCT00677833|183539924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|-0.15|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 7.||-0.15|-9.93|
91830194|NCT00677833|183539924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-6.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-1.32|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 14.||-1.32|-12.15|
91830195|NCT00677833|183539924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|-0.75|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||-0.75|-12.82|
91830196|NCT00677833|183539924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-6.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|0.76|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||0.76|-14.59|
91830197|NCT00677833|183539924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-8.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.08|-0.18|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||-0.18|-17.08|
91830198|NCT00677833|183539925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.14|||Kaplan-Meier, curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||1.14|-8.40|
91830199|NCT00677833|183539925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|3.04|||Kaplan-Meier, curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||3.04|-10.79|
91830200|NCT00677833|183539925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-5.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.55|2.22|||Kaplan-Meier, curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||2.22|-13.55|
91830201|NCT00677833|183539926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|-0.15|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 7.||-0.15|-9.93|
91830202|NCT00677833|183539926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-7.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.54|-0.88|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 14.||-0.88|-14.54|
91830203|NCT00677833|183539926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-15.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.24|-3.94|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||-3.94|-26.24|
91830204|NCT00677833|183539926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-21.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.14|-9.39|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 28.||-9.39|-34.14|
91830205|NCT00677833|183539926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-18.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.05|-5.43|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||-5.43|-31.05|
91830206|NCT00677833|183539926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR Percent difference|-18.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.33|-5.65|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||-5.65|-31.33|
91830207|NCT00677833|183539927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.25|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 14.||1.25|-10.60|
91830208|NCT00677833|183539927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-13.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.21|-1.92|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||-1.92|-24.21|
91830209|NCT00677833|183539927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-19.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.16|-7.08|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 28.||-7.08|-32.16|
91830210|NCT00677833|183539927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-16.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.42|-3.33|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||-3.33|-29.42|
91830211|NCT00677833|183539927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR Percent difference|-16.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|-3.83|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)- (AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the Greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||-3.83|-30.04|
91830212|NCT00677833|183539934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-0.75|||large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 7||-0.75|-11.02|
91830213|NCT00677833|183539934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-1.95|||large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 14||-1.95|-13.14|
91830214|NCT00677833|183539934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-1.6|||large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 21||-1.60|-13.61|
91830215|NCT00677833|183539934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-9.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-2.87|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 28||-2.87|-15.64|
91830216|NCT00677833|183539934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.45|-0.97|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 35||-0.97|-14.45|
91830217|NCT00677833|183539934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|-1.6|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 42||-1.60|-15.43|
91830218|NCT00677833|183539935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-9.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|-0.74|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 7||-0.74|-18.27|
91830219|NCT00677833|183539935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|-1.55|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 14||-1.55|-19.23|
91830220|NCT00677833|183539935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-12.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|-4.04|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 21||-4.04|-21.45|
91830221|NCT00677833|183539935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|-2.6|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 28||-2.60|-19.62|
91830222|NCT00677833|183539935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.97|-1.71|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 35||-1.71|-18.97|
91830223|NCT00677833|183539935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-11.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.14|-2.28|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 42||-2.28|-20.14|
91830224|NCT00677833|183539936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2564|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier, log rank|||Time to event data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curve.||||0.2564
91830225|NCT00677833|183539937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier, log rank|||Time to event data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curve.||||<0.0001
91830226|NCT00677833|183539940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier, log rank|||Time to event data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curve.||||0.0006
91830227|NCT02184611|183539947|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.194||Analysis was performed using a MMRM model with covariates of treatment, Baseline, smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||UMEC versus Placebo.||0.194|0.113|<0.001
91830228|NCT02184611|183539948|OTHER||Least square Mean difference|0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5||Analysis performed using a MMRM model with covariates of treatment, BDI focal score, smoking status, country, Day, Day by BDI focal score and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||UMEC versus Placebo.||1.5|0.3|0.004
91830229|NCT02184611|183539949|OTHER||Least square Mean difference|0.125|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.147||Analysis performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, baseline (mean of the two assessments made 30 min and 5 min pre-dose on Day 1), smoking status and country.|ANCOVA|||UMEC versus Placebo.||0.147|0.103|<0.001
91830230|NCT02184611|183539958|OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-4.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-1.58||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 28, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-1.58|-7.21|0.002
91830231|NCT02184611|183539958|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-1.57||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 84, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-1.57|-7.61|0.003
91830232|NCT02184611|183539958|OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-3.03||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|0.1||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 168, UMEC Vs Placebo.||0.10|-6.15|0.058
91830233|NCT02184611|183539959|OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-1.49||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.17||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 28, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-0.17|-2.81|0.027
91830234|NCT02184611|183539959|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-0.68||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 84, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-0.68|-3.51|0.004
91830235|NCT02184611|183539959|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.68||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.86||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 128, UMEC Vs Placebo.||0.86|-2.22|0.386
91830236|NCT05159622|183539973|EQUIVALENCE|A net effect of 6 fluid oz/day (SD=1) was hypothesized among adult parents, assuming two sided alpha=0.05, power = 80%, and a minimum sample size of 60 adults.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. P-value of the interaction between treatment group and change in beverage consumption (fl oz/day).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91830237|NCT05159622|183539974|EQUIVALENCE|This was an exploratory outcome.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
91830238|NCT05159622|183539975|EQUIVALENCE|This was an exploratory outcome and therefore statistical power was not based on a hypothesis of this outcome.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91830239|NCT05159622|183539976|EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory outcome as for infants/toddlers based on parent-report|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91830240|NCT05159622|183539977|EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory outcome|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91830241|NCT03232983|183539986|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric Least Squares Means (LSMeans) were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.07|0.992|
91830242|NCT03232983|183539986|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.04|0.962|
91830243|NCT03232983|183539987|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.20|1.00|
91830244|NCT03232983|183539987|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.25|1.04|
91830245|NCT02633800|183539995|OTHER|Both Log-rank test and Cox regression analysis did not adjust stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9291||||0.8342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4856|1.7778||Unstratified Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|||Heregulin-high population - Patritumab vs Placebo||1.7778|0.4856|0.8342
91830246|NCT03945188|183540016|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.88|26.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.63|12.88|<0.001
91830247|NCT03945188|183540017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.42|32.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.36|18.42|<0.001
91830248|NCT03945188|183540018|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.03|29.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.32|13.03|<0.001
91830249|NCT03945188|183540019|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.99|34.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.39|18.99|<0.001
91830250|NCT03945188|183540020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.46|33.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.63|15.46|<0.001
91830251|NCT03945188|183540021|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.17|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.60|16.17|<0.001
91830252|NCT03945188|183540022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.78|22.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.98|10.78|<0.001
91830253|NCT03945188|183540023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.39|25.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.39|11.39|<0.001
91830254|NCT03945188|183540024|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.42|32.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.36|18.42|<0.001
91830255|NCT03945188|183540025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.66|21.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.03|10.66|<0.001
91830256|NCT03945188|183540026|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|38.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.02|18.51|<0.001
91830257|NCT03945188|183540027|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.79|34.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.07|15.79|<0.001
91830258|NCT03945188|183540028|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.48|34.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.84|17.48|<0.001
91830259|NCT03945188|183540029|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.49|16.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.14|6.49|<0.001
91830260|NCT03945188|183540030|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|15.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.73|4.73|<0.001
91830261|NCT03945188|183540031|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.79|26.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.98|13.79|<0.001
91830262|NCT03945188|183540032|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|13.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.38|4.93|<0.001
91830263|NCT03945188|183540033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.49|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||12.95|0.02|=0.049
91830264|NCT03945188|183540033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|22.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.74|7.32|<0.001
91830265|NCT03945188|183540033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.06|25.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||25.63|8.06|<0.001
91830266|NCT03945188|183540033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.71|30.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||30.61|12.71|<0.001
91830267|NCT03945188|183540033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.98|32.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||32.51|14.98|<0.001
91830268|NCT03945188|183540033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.83|30.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||30.24|11.83|<0.001
91830269|NCT03945188|183540033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.08|34.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||34.56|17.08|<0.001
91830270|NCT03945188|183540033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|32.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||32.14|14.80|<0.001
91830271|NCT03945188|183540033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.92|34.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||34.82|17.92|<0.001
91830272|NCT03945188|183540034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.59|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||7.30|-0.11|=0.057
91830273|NCT03945188|183540034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.88|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||11.90|1.86|=0.007
91830274|NCT03945188|183540034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.14|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.20|4.09|=0.001
91830275|NCT03945188|183540034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.89|22.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||22.83|9.89|<0.001
91830276|NCT03945188|183540034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.23|21.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||21.52|9.23|<0.001
91830277|NCT03945188|183540034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|23.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||23.75|11.85|<0.001
91830278|NCT03945188|183540034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|21.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||21.04|7.45|<0.001
91830279|NCT03945188|183540034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.25|25.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||25.81|14.25|<0.001
91830280|NCT03945188|183540034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.91|21.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||21.35|8.91|<0.001
91830281|NCT03945188|183540034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.16|22.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||22.87|12.16|<0.001
91830282|NCT03945188|183540034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.75|25.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||25.98|13.75|<0.001
91830283|NCT03945188|183540035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.83|||=|0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|14.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||14.68|-5.01|=0.336
91830284|NCT03945188|183540035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|27.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||27.15|7.06|<0.001
91830285|NCT03945188|183540035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.15|30.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||30.19|10.15|<0.001
91830286|NCT03945188|183540035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.45|33.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||33.43|13.45|<0.001
91830287|NCT03945188|183540035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.67|34.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||34.83|15.67|<0.001
91830288|NCT03945188|183540035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.77|38.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||38.64|19.77|<0.001
91830289|NCT03945188|183540035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.47|35.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||35.69|16.47|<0.001
91830290|NCT03945188|183540035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.35|38.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||38.02|19.35|<0.001
91830291|NCT03945188|183540035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|37.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||37.55|19.30|<0.001
91830292|NCT03945188|183540035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.55|38.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||38.64|20.55|<0.001
91830293|NCT03945188|183540035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.18|35.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||35.68|17.18|<0.001
91830294|NCT03945188|183540036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.93|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|15.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||15.81|-3.96|=0.240
91830295|NCT03945188|183540036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|27.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||27.53|7.48|<0.001
91830296|NCT03945188|183540036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|30.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||30.94|10.92|<0.001
91830297|NCT03945188|183540036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.15|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||34.10|14.15|<0.001
91830298|NCT03945188|183540036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.89|34.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||34.13|14.89|<0.001
91830299|NCT03945188|183540036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.13|39.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||39.01|20.13|<0.001
91830300|NCT03945188|183540036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.88|36.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||36.02|16.88|<0.001
91830301|NCT03945188|183540036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.01|38.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||38.68|20.01|<0.001
91830302|NCT03945188|183540036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|37.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||37.95|19.71|<0.001
91830303|NCT03945188|183540036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.97|39.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||39.03|20.97|<0.001
91830304|NCT03945188|183540036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|36.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||36.07|17.60|<0.001
91830305|NCT03945188|183540037|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.90|10.20|<0.001
91830306|NCT03945188|183540038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.45|45.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.28|18.45|<0.001
91830307|NCT04794803|183540039|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02164|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.02164
91830308|NCT04794803|183540039|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.20043|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: Supplemental oxygen requirement based on PaO2/FiO2||||= 0.20043
91830309|NCT04794803|183540039|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.30215|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: time to first invasive mechanical ventilation||||= 0.30215
91830310|NCT04794803|183540039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5637|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: time to first admission to ICU||||0.56370
91830311|NCT04794803|183540039|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.00132|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: time to first use of a rescue medication for any reason||||= 0.00132
91830312|NCT04794803|183540040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison at week 1||||0.731
91830313|NCT04794803|183540040|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOT||||1.000
91830314|NCT04794803|183540040|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOS||||1.000
91830315|NCT04794803|183540041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Fisher Exact|||at baseline||||0.353
91830316|NCT04794803|183540041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Fisher Exact|||At Day 1||||0.401
91830317|NCT04794803|183540041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Fisher Exact|||At Day 2||||0.066
91830318|NCT04794803|183540041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 1||||0.102
91830319|NCT04794803|183540041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOT||||0.314
91830320|NCT04794803|183540041|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOS||||1.000
91830321|NCT04794803|183540042|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||>0.999
91830322|NCT04794803|183540042|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||>0.999
91830323|NCT04794803|183540042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.050
91830324|NCT04794803|183540042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.0227
91830325|NCT04794803|183540043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 1||||0.122
91830326|NCT04794803|183540043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 2||||0.985
91830327|NCT04794803|183540043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 1||||0.857
91830328|NCT04794803|183540043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at EOT||||0.436
91830329|NCT04794803|183540043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At EOS||||0.350
91830330|NCT04794803|183540044|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.596|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.596
91830331|NCT04794803|183540044|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.667|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2||||0.667
91830332|NCT04794803|183540044|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.037|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1||||0.037
91830333|NCT04794803|183540044|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.293||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||0.293
91830334|NCT04794803|183540045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening and|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.539
91830335|NCT04794803|183540045|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||Day 2||||1.000
91830336|NCT04794803|183540045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||Week 1||||0.102
91830337|NCT04794803|183540045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||0.119
91830338|NCT04794803|183540045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||EOS||||0.515
91830339|NCT04794803|183540046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.366
91830340|NCT04794803|183540046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.489
91830341|NCT04794803|183540046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||0.486
91830342|NCT04794803|183540047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative quantity|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.790
91830343|NCT04794803|183540047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative quantity|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.961
91830344|NCT04794803|183540047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative quantity|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||0.619
91830345|NCT04794803|183540048|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||1.000
91830346|NCT04794803|183540048|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||1.000
91830347|NCT04794803|183540048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Day 2||||0.678
91830348|NCT04794803|183540048|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Week 1||||1.000
91830349|NCT04794803|183540048|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||1.000
91830350|NCT04794803|183540048|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||EOS||||1.000
91830351|NCT04794803|183540049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.696
91830352|NCT04794803|183540049|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||>0.999
91830353|NCT04794803|183540049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596||||||p-values are referred to a-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||0.596
91830354|NCT04794803|183540050|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||1.000
91830355|NCT04794803|183540050|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion||Day 1||||1.000
91830356|NCT04794803|183540050|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion||Day 2||||1.000
91830357|NCT04794803|183540050|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion||week 1||||1.000
91830358|NCT04794803|183540050|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||1.000
91830359|NCT04794803|183540052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline||||0.760
91830360|NCT04794803|183540052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.394
91830361|NCT04794803|183540052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.141
91830362|NCT04794803|183540052|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||>0.999
91830363|NCT04794803|183540053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline||||0.500
91830364|NCT04794803|183540053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1||||0.112
91830365|NCT04794803|183540053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.277
91830366|NCT04794803|183540053|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||>0.999
91830367|NCT04794803|183540054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2027||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.2027
91830368|NCT04794803|183540054|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||1.0000
91830369|NCT04794803|183540054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4469||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1 vs baseline||||0.4469
91830370|NCT04794803|183540054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2466||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.2466
91830371|NCT04794803|183540054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.1752
91830372|NCT04794803|183540055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6441||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.6441
91830373|NCT04794803|183540055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3529||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||0.3529
91830374|NCT04794803|183540055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3581||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.3581
91830375|NCT04794803|183540055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1666||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.1666
91830376|NCT04794803|183540055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0851||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.0851
91830377|NCT04794803|183540056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3359||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.3359
91830378|NCT04794803|183540056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3136||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||0.3136
91830379|NCT04794803|183540056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0441||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.0441
91830380|NCT04794803|183540056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0965||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.0965
91830381|NCT04794803|183540056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0519||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.0519
91830382|NCT04794803|183540057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.470
91830383|NCT04794803|183540057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||0.425
91830384|NCT04794803|183540057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.086
91830385|NCT04794803|183540057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.600
91830386|NCT04794803|183540057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.717
91830387|NCT01618162|183540058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Superiority of IDegLira versus placebo therapy would be concluded if the 95% CI for the treatment differences for change in HbA1c lied entirely below 0%; implying that the two-sided p-value calculated by the ANCOVA model for testing the hypothesis of no difference between treatments was less than 5%.||-0.87|-1.18|< 0.001
91830388|NCT02013622|183540065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from Baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 16 was tested at significance level of 0.05. Since this is an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
91830389|NCT02013622|183540066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||<0.0001
91830390|NCT02013622|183540067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||<0.0001
91830391|NCT02013622|183540070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0003
91830392|NCT02013622|183540071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0002
91830393|NCT02013622|183540072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0177
91830394|NCT02013622|183540073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 effectiveness||||<0.0001
91830395|NCT02013622|183540073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 side effects||||0.0031
91830396|NCT02013622|183540073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 convenience||||0.0005
91830397|NCT02013622|183540073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 global satisfaction||||<0.0001
91830398|NCT02013622|183540074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5133|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task p-inhibition failures (go cues)||||0.5133
91830399|NCT02013622|183540074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3774|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task p-inhibition failures (no-go cues)||||0.3774
91830400|NCT02013622|183540075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8897|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task mean reaction time (go cues)||||0.8897
91830401|NCT02013622|183540075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task mean reaction time (no-go cues)||||0.3401
91830402|NCT02013622|183540076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DDT||||0.4265
91830403|NCT02013622|183540077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DPDT for Delay Discounting Task k value||||0.2923
91830404|NCT02013622|183540077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DPDT for Probability Discounting Task h value||||0.9416
91830405|NCT02013622|183540078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DRT||||0.1815
91830406|NCT02013622|183540079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6648|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in AUC for food||||0.6648
91830407|NCT02013622|183540079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9812|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in AUC for money||||0.9812
91830408|NCT02013622|183540081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0306
91830409|NCT01640808|183540108|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.124||A two-sided significance level was set at 0.05. Adjustment of multiplicity considering interim analysis is conducted by the Lan DeMets' method of α consumption function.|Log Rank|||||1.124|0.720|0.351
91830410|NCT01640808|183540109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|1.085||A two-sided significance level was set at 0.05.|Log Rank|||||1.085|0.706|0.222
91830411|NCT01640808|183540110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.108||A two-sided significance level was set at 0.05.|Log Rank|||||1.108|0.703|0.279
91830412|NCT02192502|183540121|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority delta of a ratio of geometric means is 1.15.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||generalized linear model|This analysis used linear mixed model with repeated measurements with an unstructured correlation structure.||Assuming that NGAL values follow a log normal distribution as in previous studies with a coefficient of variation of 25%, we need 52 patients per group to have 90% power at the 0.025 significance level to be able to claim non-inferiority of HES to albumin using a non-inferiority delta of a ratio of geometric means of 1.15. After Adjusting for the interim monitoring and five potential dropouts and five pilot patients (which were not included in the analyses), we planned to enroll 140 patients||1.44|0.57|0.15
91830413|NCT02192502|183540122|NON_INFERIORITY|the delta for non-inferiority is 1.15|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.78||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|12.1|||Chi-squared|||||12.1|0.64|0.92
91830414|NCT02192502|183540123|NON_INFERIORITY|the non-inferiority delta was 1.15|geometric mean ratio|0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|5.0|0.21|0.95|||Regression, Linear|IL-18 was log-transformed||||0.95|0.21|0.002
91830415|NCT02192502|183540124|NON_INFERIORITY|the delta for non-inferiority is 1.15|geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.1|||Regression, Linear|IL-18 was log-transformed||||2.10|0.45|0.31
91830416|NCT02192502|183540125|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority delta was 1.15|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.61|<0.001
91830417|NCT04818346|183540153|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.49|-8.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-8.32|-34.49|0.0015
91830418|NCT04818346|183540153|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.63|-6.51|||MMRM|||||-6.51|-33.63|0.0040
91830419|NCT04818346|183540153|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-4.64|||MMRM|||||-4.64|-31.40|0.0086
91830420|NCT04818346|183540154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|220.998|||Wald test||Logistic regression: (response at Week 24 = treatment + stratification factor \[T-BSA involvement 8%-20%/\>20%\]).|||220.998|0.398|0.3574
91830421|NCT04818346|183540154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|273.479|||Wald test||Logistic regression: (response at Week 24 = treatment + stratification factor \[T-BSA involvement 8%-20%/\>20%\]).|||273.479|0.573|0.1992
91830422|NCT04818346|183540154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.9913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|126.386|||Wald test||Logistic regression: (response at Week 24 = treatment + stratification factor \[T-BSA involvement 8%-20%/\>20%\]).|||126.386|0.103|0.9913
91830423|NCT02273141|183540179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in success rate|8.22||||0.038|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, the primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of NER1006 regimen to SP+MS (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - SP+MS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-0.50|0.038
91830424|NCT02273141|183540180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|3.2||||0.027|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.56|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 regimen to SP+MS (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with highly effective cleansing of the colon ascendens as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - SP+MS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-5.56|0.027
91830425|NCT02273141|183540181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|2.42||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|11.12||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||11.12|-6.35|0.154
91830426|NCT02273141|183540182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|3.27||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|11.91||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||11.91|-5.56|0.212
91830427|NCT02273141|183540183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|4.43||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|13.1||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in PDR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||13.10|-4.36|0.064
91830428|NCT02273141|183540184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|2.95||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|11.51||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in PDR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||11.51|-5.96|0.278
91830429|NCT00529399|183540188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.98
91830430|NCT00529399|183540188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.51
91830431|NCT01506193|183540206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.78||||||"Immune response for anti-measles antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-measles seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||2.78|-1.82|
91830432|NCT01506193|183540206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|6.67||||||"Immune response for anti-mumps antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-mumps seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||6.67|-3.04|
91830433|NCT01506193|183540206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.29||||||"Immune response for anti-rubella antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-rubella seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||2.29|-1.23|
91830434|NCT01506193|183540206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.03||||||"Immune response for anti-varicella antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-varicella seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||2.03|-1.87|
91830435|NCT01506193|183540207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroresponse for rSBA-MenC was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroprotection rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|2.24||||||"Immune response for rSBA-MenC antibodies~Non-inferiority of Meningitec® conjugate vaccine co-administered with Priorix-Tetra™ compared to Meningitec® conjugate vaccine alone with respect to rabbit complement serum bactericidal assay (rSBA-MenC) antibody seroprotection rates (SPRs) at Day 42 after vaccination."||2.24|-3.39|
91830436|NCT06242444|183540226|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.465||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|13.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|||13.28|3.42|0.0012
91830437|NCT06242444|183540227|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|43.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|||43.76|30.90|<.0001
91830438|NCT06242444|183540228|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.462||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|8.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Reference Dentifrice.|||8.87|-0.97|0.1138
91830439|NCT06242444|183540230|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.213||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|8.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Reference Dentifrice.|||8.64|-4.21|0.4930
91830440|NCT06242444|183540234|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.462||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||9.32|-0.52|0.0789
91830441|NCT06242444|183540234|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.408||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||7.81|-1.82|0.2178
91830442|NCT06242444|183540235|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|35.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.213|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.69|41.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||41.54|28.69|<.0001
91830443|NCT06242444|183540235|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|33.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||33.21|21.14|<.0001
91830444|NCT06242444|183540236|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||1.97|1.53|<.0001
91830445|NCT06242444|183540236|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||1.78|1.42|<.0001
91830446|NCT06242444|183540237|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.362|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||0.362|0.252|<.0001
91830447|NCT06242444|183540237|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0257|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.293|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||0.293|0.190|<.0001
91830448|NCT02046980|183540242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.02839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|7.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.31|1.58|0.02839
91830449|NCT02046980|183540242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.67|1.25|0.0366
91830450|NCT04575467|183540249|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat thickness difference|-4.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-2.37|||Paired t-test|||||-2.37|-7.17|<0.01
91830451|NCT04575467|183540249|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat thickness difference|-4.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.02|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-2.73|||Paired t-test|||||-2.73|-6.97|<0.01
91830452|NCT04575467|183540249|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat thickness difference|-2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.83|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-0.01|||Paired t-test|||||-0.01|-5.95|<0.05
91830453|NCT04575467|183540250|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat volume difference|-114.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.88|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-171.99|-56.81|||Paired t-test|||||-56.81|-171.99|<0.01
91830454|NCT04575467|183540250|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat volume difference|-155.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|64.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.1|-87.3|||Paired t-test|||||-87.30|-223.10|<0.01
91830455|NCT04575467|183540250|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat volume difference|-119.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|113.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.86|-0.47|||Paired t-test|||||-0.47|-237.86|<0.05
91830456|NCT03336619|183540281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3765|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis used a Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset at enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.3765
91830457|NCT03336619|183540282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6331|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset at enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.6331
91830458|NCT03336619|183540283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7382|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7382
91830459|NCT03336619|183540284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3236|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset to enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.3236
91830460|NCT03336619|183540285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0483|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset at enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.0483
91830461|NCT01680328|183540338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||||95.0|-2.9|2.8||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||2.8|-2.9|
91830462|NCT01680328|183540338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|3.5||||||95.0|0.4|6.6||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||6.6|0.4|
91830463|NCT01680328|183540338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|7.2||||||95.0|4.6|9.7||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||9.7|4.6|
91830464|NCT01680328|183540338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|3.6||||||95.0|0.4|6.7||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||6.7|0.4|
91830465|NCT01680328|183540338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|7.2||||||95.0|4.4|10.0||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||10.0|4.4|
91830466|NCT01680328|183540338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|3.7||||||95.0|0.6|6.7||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||6.7|0.6|
91830467|NCT01680328|183540338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.4||||||95.0|-2.1|2.9||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean difference in injection pain on VAS after injection at different speeds was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain on a VAS after injection at different speeds.||2.9|-2.1|
91830468|NCT01680328|183540338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.7|1.9||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean difference in injection pain on VAS after injection at different speeds was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain on a VAS after injection at different speeds.||1.9|-2.7|
91830469|NCT01680328|183540338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|9.0||||||95.0|6.7|11.3||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. The mean difference in injection pain on a VAS (mm) between the thighs and abdomen was calculated as the least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain on a VAS (mm) between the thighs and abdomen.||11.3|6.7|
91830470|NCT01680328|183540339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0|0.5|1.4|||Odds ratio (OR)|||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.4|0.5|
91830471|NCT01680328|183540339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||||95.0|1.2|3.5||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||3.5|1.2|
91830472|NCT01680328|183540339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||||95.0|1.4|3.0||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||3.0|1.4|
91830473|NCT01680328|183540339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||||95.0|1.4|4.8||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||4.8|1.4|
91830474|NCT01680328|183540339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||||95.0|1.4|4.6||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||4.6|1.4|
91830475|NCT01680328|183540339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.7|1.5||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.5|0.7|
91830476|NCT01680328|183540340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.7|1.8||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'higher speed versus lower', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the higher speed - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.8|0.7|
91830477|NCT01680328|183540340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.6|1.2||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'higher speed versus lower', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the higher speed - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.2|0.6|
91830478|NCT01680328|183540341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||||95.0|2.4|5.5|||Odds ratio (OR)|||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain in the thighs - i.e. a worse condition.||5.5|2.4|
91830479|NCT01680328|183540342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-0.6|1.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.8|-0.6|
91830480|NCT01680328|183540342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-0.8|1.6||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.6|-0.8|
91830481|NCT01680328|183540342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.4|2.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.1|-0.4|
91830482|NCT01680328|183540342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-0.8|1.7||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.7|-0.8|
91830483|NCT01680328|183540342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-0.8|1.7||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.7|-0.8|
91830484|NCT01680328|183540342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-0.7|1.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.8|-0.7|
91830485|NCT01680328|183540342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.3|2.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.1|-0.3|
91830486|NCT01680328|183540342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-0.4|2.0||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.0|-0.4|
91830487|NCT01680328|183540342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.1||||||95.0|-0.1|2.3||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.3|-0.1|
91830488|NCT01680328|183540342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|2.3||||||95.0|1.0|3.5||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||3.5|1.0|
91830489|NCT01680328|183540342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.4||||||95.0|0.2|2.6||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.6|0.2|
91830490|NCT01680328|183540342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-0.6|1.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.8|-0.6|
91830491|NCT01680328|183540343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.3||||||95.0|-0.9|1.5||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||1.5|-0.9|
91830492|NCT01680328|183540343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-0.4|2.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||2.1|-0.4|
91830493|NCT01680328|183540343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6||||||95.0|0.3|2.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||2.8|0.3|
91830494|NCT01680328|183540343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|4.9||||||95.0|3.7|6.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||6.1|3.7|
91830495|NCT01680328|183540343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.7||||||95.0|0.5|2.9||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||2.9|0.5|
91830496|NCT00765193|183540360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.01||95.0|2.12|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary outcomes were the calculation of the absolute and relative risks of missing a skin cancer when TBSE is not performed, as well as the number of patients needed to examine by TBSE to find a skin cancer. The secondary outcome was to assess the magnitude of false-positive results obtained by TBSE||2.62|2.12|<0.01
91830497|NCT04370054|183540365|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measures negative binomial regression model was used to test non-inferiority with non-inferiority margin = 3 bleeds/year at the one-sided alpha level = 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-0.91||One-sided p-value is reported.|Generalized linear model (GLM)||Difference in mean = Mean PF-07055480 Total ABR - Mean FVIII Prophylaxis Total ABR.|A repeated measures GLM was used with bleeds as dependent variable in negative binomial distribution, an interaction of duration by treatment, and 'participant' as random and treatment \& duration of follow-up as fixed effect.||-0.91|-6.06|=0.0040
91830498|NCT04370054|183540366|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0086||||||One-sided p-value is reported.|One-sided exact binomial proportion test|||||||=0.0086
91830499|NCT04370054|183540367|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measures negative binomial regression model was used to test non-inferiority with non-inferiority margin = 3 bleeds/year at the one-sided alpha level = 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.45||One-sided p-value is reported.|Repeated measures GLM||Difference in mean = Mean PF-07055480 Total ABR - Mean FVIII Prophylaxis Total ABR.|A repeated measures GLM was used with bleeds as dependent variable in negative binomial distribution, an interaction of duration by treatment, and 'participant' as random and treatment \& duration of follow-up as fixed effect.||-2.45|-5.57|<0.0001
91830500|NCT04370054|183540368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-124.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.47|108.89||One-sided p-value is reported.|Paired t-test||Treatment Difference = (PF-07055480 AIR - FVIII Prophylaxis AIR).|||108.89|-139.47|<0.0001
91830501|NCT04370054|183540370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4076.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4728.3|-3423.8||One-sided p-value is reported.|Paired t-test||Treatment Difference (FVIII Consumption post-IP Infusion - FVIII Consumption during FVIII Prophylaxis).|||-3423.8|-4728.3|<0.0001
91830502|NCT00710424|183540415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated treatment effect|-0.12||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.36|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in treatment effect indicates an improvement in pain in favour of Sativex.|The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. The test was performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments.||0.36|-0.60|0.634
91830503|NCT00710424|183540416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.153||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|4.61|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean neuropathic pain scale scale score at the end of treatment was to be compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||4.61|-3.87|0.865
91830504|NCT00710424|183540417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.45||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.15|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean sleep quality numerical rating scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.15|-1.04|0.139
91830505|NCT00710424|183540418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.301||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.981|||Regression, Logistic|||In the analysis of Subject Global Impression of Change, the two treatment groups were compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The model incorporated centre group as a factor.||1.981|0.855|0.219
91830506|NCT00710424|183540419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.05||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.42|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean brief pain inventory (short form) composite score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.42|-0.51|0.841
91830507|NCT00710424|183540420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in weighted health state index score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre group as factors and baseline symptom score as a covariate.||0.03|-0.06|0.523
91830508|NCT00710424|183540421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.17||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.24|||ANCOVA|||The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was ANCOVA with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. The test was performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments. A negative difference in adjusted means indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.||0.24|-0.59|0.410
91830509|NCT00710424|183540424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.857||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||The numbers of responders were to be analysed using the difference in proportions and the odds ratio comparing the treatment groups with the provision of 95% CIs for the difference and odds ratio.||1.370|0.537|0.521
91830510|NCT01712009|183540434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|4.1|||||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|||4.1|-16.7|
91830511|NCT01712009|183540434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|6.3|||||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|||6.3|-14.5|
91830512|NCT01712009|183540434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|12.4|||||Loratadine minus Naproxen|||12.4|-8.0|
91830513|NCT01712009|183540435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|6.0|||||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||6.0|-14.4|
91830514|NCT01712009|183540435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.8|||||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cyces||7.8|-12.5|
91830515|NCT01712009|183540435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|12.0|||||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Dfference across all treatment cycles||12.0|-8.3|
91830516|NCT01712009|183540436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.2|||||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||3.2|-6.5|
91830517|NCT01712009|183540436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.6|||||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all cycles||3.6|-6.1|
91830518|NCT01712009|183540436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.9|||||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all cycles||4.9|-4.1|
91830519|NCT01712009|183540437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANOVA||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.0|-0.7|0.0881
91830520|NCT01712009|183540437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||-0.0|-0.7|0.0443
91830521|NCT01712009|183540437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.3|-0.4|0.8007
91830522|NCT01712009|183540438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||ANOVA||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.2|-1.1|0.1466
91830523|NCT01712009|183540438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||-0.0|-1.3|0.0411
91830524|NCT01712009|183540438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.5|-0.8|0.5689
91830525|NCT01712009|183540439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0775||95.0|-3.0|0.2|||ANOVA||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.2|-3.0|0.0775
91830526|NCT01712009|183540439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||-0.1|-3.1|0.0329
91830527|NCT01712009|183540439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all treatment groups||1.2|-1.7|0.7572
91830528|NCT01111123|183540465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||CI of 95%|Log Rank|||Probabilities of PGA not worsening were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method with a comparison between treatment group survival curves evaluated by the log-rank test statistic. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio for worsening of PGA (equivalent to a relative risk adjusted for follow-up time) and a corresponding 95-percent confidence interval.||||<0.05
91830529|NCT01111123|183540466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Secondary outcomes, including subject self-assessment and signs of psoriasis ratings, were analyzed as continuous dependent variables in these statistical models. Mixed modeling analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare the relationships between psoriasis symptoms over time in the placebo and steroid treatment groups||||<0.05
91830530|NCT01986881|183540467|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided p-value and the non-inferiority margin is a hazard ratio of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.848|1.114||Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.114|0.848|<0.001
91830531|NCT01986881|183540467|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided p-value and the non-inferiority margin is a hazard ratio of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.887|1.211|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.211|0.887|0.002
91830532|NCT01986881|183540467|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided p-value and the non-inferiority margin is a hazard ratio of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.773|1.065|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.065|0.773|<0.001
91830533|NCT01986881|183540469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.51||"Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum, and the interaction of time by treatment. The stratum was (insulin alone or insulin+metformin) and Time was a categorical variable."|cLDA Model|||||-0.51|-0.78|<0.001
91830534|NCT01986881|183540469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.44||"Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum, and the interaction of time by treatment. The stratum was (insulin alone or insulin+metformin) and Time was a categorical variable."|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.44|-0.71|<0.001
91830535|NCT01986881|183540471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.22||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.16||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA Model|||||0.16|-0.60|0.247
91830536|NCT01986881|183540471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.35||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.02||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA model|||||0.02|-0.72|0.063
91830537|NCT01986881|183540473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA Model|||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.001
91830538|NCT01986881|183540473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.43||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA model|||||-0.43|-0.89|<0.001
91830539|NCT01986881|183540474|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.75|1.034|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.034|0.750|0.108
91830540|NCT01986881|183540474|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.725|1.057|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.057|0.725|0.150
91830541|NCT01986881|183540474|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.735|1.068|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.068|0.735|0.188
91830542|NCT01986881|183540475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.767|1.113|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.113|0.767|0.385
91830543|NCT01986881|183540475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.739|1.139|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.139|0.739|0.417
91830544|NCT01986881|183540475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.75|1.154|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.154|0.750|0.494
91830545|NCT01986881|183540476|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.63|1.036|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.036|0.630|0.081
91830546|NCT01986881|183540476|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.638|1.137|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|"Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.~Renal"||||1.137|0.638|0.258
91830547|NCT01986881|183540476|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.568|1.028|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.028|0.568|0.065
91830548|NCT01986881|183540477|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|1.038||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.038|0.823|0.183
91830549|NCT01986881|183540477|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.086|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.086|0.831|0.450
91830550|NCT01986881|183540477|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.029|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.029|0.785|0.123
91830551|NCT01986881|183540478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.259|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.259|0.861|0.676
91830552|NCT01986881|183540478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.451|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.451|0.949|0.139
91830553|NCT01986881|183540478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.141|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.141|0.727|0.416
91830554|NCT01986881|183540479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.365||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|||1.365|0.820|0.663
91830555|NCT01986881|183540479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.505||A two-sided p-value compared Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and two-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||1.505|0.845|0.415
91830556|NCT01986881|183540479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.334||A two-sided p-value compared Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and two-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||1.334|0.736|0.953
91830557|NCT01986881|183540480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.902||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.902|0.539|0.006
91830558|NCT01986881|183540480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.932|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||0.932|0.502|0.016
91830559|NCT01986881|183540480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.964|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||0.964|0.524|0.028
91830560|NCT01986881|183540481|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor. The on-study approach included confirmed events that occurred between the randomization date and the on-study censor date.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.081||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.081|0.797|0.340
91830561|NCT01986881|183540481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|1.117|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.117|0.784|0.463
91830562|NCT01986881|183540481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.1|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.100|0.771|0.363
91830563|NCT01986881|183540482|SUPERIORITY|Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study. The on-study approach includes confirmed events that occurred between the randomization date and the on-study censor date.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.131||||||||1.131|0.898|
91830564|NCT01986881|183540482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.219||||||||1.219|0.937|
91830565|NCT01986881|183540482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.085||||||||1.085|0.828|
91830566|NCT01986881|183540483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.945||||||Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study. The on-study approach included confirmed events that occurred between randomization date and the on-study censor date.||0.945|0.716|
91830567|NCT01986881|183540483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|0.935|||||Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study.|||0.935|0.673|
91830568|NCT01986881|183540483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.001|||||Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study.|||1.001|0.725|
91830569|NCT01986881|183540484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.46|||cLDA Model|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.46|-0.55|<0.001
91830570|NCT01986881|183540484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.44|||cLDA model|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.44|-0.53|<0.001
91830571|NCT01986881|183540485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.43|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.43|-0.54|<0.001
91830572|NCT01986881|183540485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.45|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.45|-0.55|<0.001
91830573|NCT01986881|183540486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.3||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Ertugliflozin vs. Placebo|||-0.30|-0.45|<0.001
91830574|NCT01986881|183540486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.32||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|Ertugliflozin vs. Placebo.||||-0.32|-0.46|<0.001
91830575|NCT01986881|183540488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.21||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-0.21|-0.41|0.001
91830576|NCT01986881|183540488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.26||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA model|||||-0.26|-0.46|<0.001
91830577|NCT01986881|183540503|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-17.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.49|-15.63|||CLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-15.63|-19.49|<0.001
91830578|NCT01986881|183540503|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|-13.17|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-13.17|-17.03|<0.001
91830579|NCT01986881|183540510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
91830580|NCT01986881|183540510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
91830581|NCT01986881|183540511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
91830582|NCT01986881|183540511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
91830583|NCT01986881|183540519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-2.1|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.10|-3.45|<0.001
91830584|NCT01986881|183540519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-1.86|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.86|-3.21|<0.001
91830585|NCT01986881|183540520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Mean|-3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-2.45|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.45|-3.85|<0.001
91830586|NCT01986881|183540520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.89|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.89|-3.28|<0.001
91830587|NCT01986881|183540521|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-1.86|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.86|-3.57|<0.001
91830588|NCT01986881|183540521|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-1.85|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.85|-3.56|<0.001
91830589|NCT01986881|183540523|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-1.52|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.52|-3.68|<0.001
91830590|NCT01986881|183540523|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-1.71|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.71|-3.87|<0.001
91830591|NCT01986881|183540526|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.56|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.56|-1.37|<0.001
91830592|NCT01986881|183540526|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Means Squares|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.47|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.47|-1.28|<0.001
91830593|NCT01986881|183540527|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.39|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.39|-1.22|<0.001
91830594|NCT01986881|183540527|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.41|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.41|-1.24|<0.001
91830595|NCT01986881|183540528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.16|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.16|-1.19|0.010
91830596|NCT01986881|183540528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.71||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.2|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.20|-1.22|0.006
91830597|NCT01986881|183540530|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.1||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.10|-1.46|0.024
91830598|NCT01986881|183540530|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.81||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.13||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.13|-1.48|0.020
91830599|NCT01986881|183540533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.77|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.77|-2.07|<0.001
91830600|NCT01986881|183540533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-1.47|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.47|-1.78|<0.001
91830601|NCT01986881|183540534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-2.24|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.24|-2.67|<0.001
91830602|NCT01986881|183540534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.86|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.86|-2.28|<0.001
91830603|NCT01986881|183540535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-2.22|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.22|-2.83|<0.001
91830604|NCT01986881|183540535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.83|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.83|-2.39|<0.001
91830605|NCT01986881|183540537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-2.1|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.10|-2.97|<0.001
91830606|NCT01986881|183540537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.68|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.68|-2.52|<0.001
91830607|NCT01986881|183540540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Lease Squares Means|-1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-1.15|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.15|-2.41|
91830608|NCT01986881|183540540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.56|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.56|-1.82|
91830609|NCT01986881|183540541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Lease Squares Means|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.18|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.18|-1.58|
91830610|NCT01986881|183540541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.49|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.49|-0.91|
91830611|NCT01986881|183540542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.08|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|||1.08|-0.59|
91830612|NCT01986881|183540542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.95|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|||1.95|0.28|
91830613|NCT01986881|183540544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Lease Squares Means|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.66|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|2.66|0.31|
91830614|NCT01986881|183540544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.84|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|2.84|0.49|
91830615|NCT01986881|183540568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.9|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|0.9|-2.8|
91830616|NCT01986881|183540568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|2.1|-1.6|
91830617|NCT01986881|183540569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|8.4|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|8.4|-5.8|
91830618|NCT01986881|183540569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|5.4|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|5.4|-9.2|
91830619|NCT01986881|183540570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|20.4|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|20.4|-17.7|
91830620|NCT01986881|183540570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-1.2|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|-1.2|-37.5|
91830621|NCT01986881|183540571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|20.5|||||||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method|20.5|-5.1|
91830622|NCT01986881|183540571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|14.2|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|14.2|-12.3|
91830623|NCT01986881|183540573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.0|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|3.0|-2.9|
91830624|NCT01986881|183540573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.6|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|1.6|-4.0|
91830625|NCT01986881|183540576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.84|-17.96|||CLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-17.96|-32.84|<0.001
91830626|NCT01986881|183540576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-19.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-11.68|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-11.68|-26.80|<0.001
91830627|NCT01986881|183540577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.13|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.13|-2.37|<0.001
91830628|NCT01986881|183540577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.13|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.13|-2.12|<0.001
91830629|NCT01986881|183540578|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, stratum for insulin sub-study, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||3.83|1.61|<0.001
91830630|NCT01986881|183540578|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, stratum for insulin sub-study, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||4.12|1.64|<0.001
91830631|NCT01986881|183540579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.32||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-0.3|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.30|-4.35|0.025
91830632|NCT01986881|183540579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-0.82|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.82|-4.94|0.006
91830633|NCT01986881|183540580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.38||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.81|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.81|-1.56|0.533
91830634|NCT01986881|183540580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.6|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.60|-1.81|0.326
91830635|NCT01986881|183540583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-12.22||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.03|2.06|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||2.06|-27.03|0.105
91830636|NCT01986881|183540583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-13.53||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|1.0|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.00|-28.06|0.068
91830637|NCT01986881|183540584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.52||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.75|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.75|-1.79|0.418
91830638|NCT01986881|183540584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.07||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.18|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.18|-2.32|0.092
91830639|NCT01986881|183540585|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio relative to placebo|1.48||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.17|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||4.17|0.52|0.460
91830640|NCT01986881|183540585|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio relative to placebo|1.62||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.35|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||4.35|0.61|0.335
91830641|NCT01986881|183540586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.73||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.45|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||7.45|-2.00|0.255
91830642|NCT01986881|183540586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.81||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|7.48|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||7.48|-1.85|0.235
91830643|NCT01986881|183540587|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.98||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|4.86|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||4.86|-0.91|0.178
91830644|NCT01986881|183540587|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.73||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|4.58|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||4.58|-1.11|0.230
91830645|NCT01986881|183540588|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-31.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.68|-22.07|||CLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-22.07|-40.68|<0.001
91830646|NCT01986881|183540588|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-30.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-20.72|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-20.72|-40.23|<0.001
91830647|NCT01986881|183540589|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-1.24|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.24|-2.65|<0.001
91830648|NCT01986881|183540589|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.84|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.84|-2.30|<0.001
91830649|NCT01986881|183540590|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio relative to placebo|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.42|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||8.42|2.00|<0.001
91953064|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|8.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.72|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.72|-2.57|<0.001
91953065|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|1.75 hours post-infusion end: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.31||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.16|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.16|-0.55|0.475
91830650|NCT01986881|183540590|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio relative to placebo|5.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|12.49|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||12.49|2.86|<0.001
91830651|NCT01986881|183540591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.85||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||2.30|-4.00|0.597
91830652|NCT01986881|183540591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.57||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.73|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.73|-4.87|0.351
91830653|NCT01986881|183540592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.68||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.25|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.25|-2.60|0.490
91830654|NCT01986881|183540592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.05||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.96|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.96|-2.07|0.958
91830655|NCT04333420|183540593|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-16.4||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|20.3|||Linear repeated measures model|||||20.3|-53.2|0.3677
91830656|NCT04333420|183540594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.056|||Regression, Cox|including stratification by site||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) including stratification by site; 61 patients from sites with no events (no death) or from single patient sites with death factually make no contribution to the analysis outcome.||1.056|0.502|0.0941
91830657|NCT04333420|183540594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|0.955|||Regression, Cox|Without stratification by site||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) without stratification by site; Post-hoc analysis||0.955|0.476|0.0266
91830658|NCT04333420|183540594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.648||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|0.929|||Regression, Cox|Including random effect for site (frailty model)||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) including random effect for site (frailty model); Post-hoc analysis||0.929|0.453|0.0181
91830659|NCT04333420|183540594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.613||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.873|||Regression, Cox|Including stratification by country||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) including stratification by country; Post-hoc analysis||0.873|0.430|0.0067
91830660|NCT04333420|183540594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.0||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation of missing values|Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the Confidence Interval are given in percent|Sensitivity analysis; 369 patients were included in this analysis including the patient that was randomized in error and not treated. Missing values were imputed by multiple imputation.||-1.2|-20.8|0.0293
91830661|NCT04333420|183540594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0407|||||||Log Rank|||Post-hoc analysis||||0.0407
91830662|NCT04333420|183540595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|4.135|||Regression, Cox|Covariate: Treatment (IFX-1 + BSC)||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death)||4.135|0.103|0.6494
91830663|NCT04333420|183540599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.039|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 60-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death); Covariate: Treatment (IFX-1 + SOC)||1.039|0.519|0.0815
91830664|NCT04333420|183540600|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.352||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.762|17.465|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference (IFX-1 - Placebo) of percentage of patients with an improvement in the 8-point ordinal scale; Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the CI are given in percent|At Day 15||17.465|-2.762|0.1553
91953066|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|1.75 hours post-infusion end: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.14||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.72|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.72|-0.99|0.753
91953067|NCT03522506|183802627|SUPERIORITY|1.75 hours post-infusion end: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.99||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.15|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.15|-1.83|0.022
91953068|NCT03522506|183802628|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|22.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.58|29.3|||Linear mixed effect model|||||29.30|16.58|<0.001
91830665|NCT04333420|183540600|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.078||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.968|18.125|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference (IFX-1 - Placebo) of percentage of patients with an improvement in the 8-point ordinal scale; Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the CI are given in percent|At Day 28||18.125|-1.968|0.1181
91953069|NCT03522506|183802628|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|30.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.59|37.31|||Linear mixed effects model|||||37.31|24.59|<0.001
91830666|NCT04333420|183540601|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.081||||0.4105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.949|2.787|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference (IFX-1 - Placebo) of percentage of patients developing acute kidney failure; Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the CI are given in percent|||2.787|-6.949|0.4105
91830667|NCT04333420|183540602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.539||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|0.978||p-value refers to hazard ratio from cause-specific Cox proportional hazards model for first renal replacement therapy.|Regression, Cox|Covariate: Treatment (IFX-1 + SOC)||||0.978|0.297|0.0422
91830668|NCT01258608|183540611|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.7382|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.737||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test-stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.737||0.7382
91830669|NCT01258608|183540612|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.3156|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.288||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test-stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.288||0.3156
91830670|NCT01258608|183540613|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.007||||0.6121|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.346||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test-stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.346||0.6121
91830671|NCT01258608|183540614|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.066||||0.6925|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.43||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test - stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing Mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.430||0.6925
91830672|NCT01258608|183540615|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.3088|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.191||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test - stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing Mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.191||0.3088
91830673|NCT01258608|183540616|OTHER||Response rate difference|5.4||||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|26.6||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||26.6|-16.8|0.5458
91830674|NCT01258608|183540617|OTHER||Response rate difference|6.7||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|26.2||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||26.2|-13.4|0.3479
91830675|NCT01258608|183540618|OTHER||Disease control rate difference|-20.7||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|1.8||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||1.8|-40.8|0.0198
91830676|NCT01258608|183540619|OTHER||Disease control rate difference|-5.8||||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|13.8||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||13.8|-25.4|0.6558
91830677|NCT04250727|183540639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.601
91953070|NCT03522506|183802628|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.24|32.75|||Linear mixed effect model|||||32.75|20.24|<0.001
91953071|NCT03522506|183802629|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|14.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|22.08|||Linear mixed effect model|||||22.08|7.04|<0.001
91953072|NCT03522506|183802629|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|32.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.68|39.73|||Linear mixed effect model|||||39.73|24.68|<0.001
91953073|NCT03522506|183802629|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|25.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|33.14|||Linear mixed effect model|||||33.14|18.33|<0.001
91953074|NCT03522506|183802630|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|9.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|15.85|||Linear mixed effect model|||||15.85|3.35|0.003
91830678|NCT00447057|183540646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.897|||Log Rank|Log-rank test with 1-sided alpha of 0.20||||0.897|0.438|0.0047
91830679|NCT00447057|183540647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3909|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3909
91830680|NCT00447057|183540648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1808|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1808
91830681|NCT00447057|183540649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|0.887||1-sided significance level of 0.20|Log Rank|||||0.887|0.457|0.0034
91830682|NCT00447057|183540650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.981||1-sided significance level of 0.20|Log Rank|||||0.981|0.465|0.0190
91830683|NCT00184548|183540653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||||||Two-sided significance level 5%|Regression, Logistic|||Test for Odds ratio=1, corresponding to a null hypothesis of no difference in mortality for patients who died between groups for Blunt Trauma. Odds-ratio is adjusted for baseline covariates: Age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma -Scale Score (GCS), International Normalized Ratio (INR) and acute lung injury (P/F \> 200). Missing covariates are imputed by the mean value.||||0.934
91830684|NCT00184548|183540653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.589||95.0|0.64|2.17||Two-sided significance level 5%|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Treatment groups are compared using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as factor and adjusting for age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma -Scale Score(GCS), International Normalized Ratio (INR) and acute lung injury.||2.17|0.64|0.589
91830685|NCT00184548|183540655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means|0.9||||0.308||95.0|-0.83|2.63|||ANCOVA|||Baseline covariates: Age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma -Scale Score (GCS), International Normalized Ratio (INR) and acute lung injury.||2.63|-0.83|0.308
91830686|NCT00184548|183540657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift estimate|1.0||||0.038||95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|0.038
91830687|NCT00184548|183540658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.175||||0.384||95.0|0.817|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.690|0.817|0.384
91830688|NCT00184548|183540659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift estimate|2.0||||0.03||95.0|0.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4|0|0.030
91830689|NCT04493216|183540660|OTHER||Differences in percentage of participant|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|5.7|||||Differences in percentage of participant = Percentage of participant in GSK3640254 100 mg+ Placebo+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF - Percentage of participant in DTG+ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF|||5.7|-24.0|
91830690|NCT04493216|183540660|OTHER||Differences in percentage of participant|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|11.6|||||Differences in percentage of participant = Percentage of participant in GSK3640254 150 mg+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF - Percentage of participant in DTG+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF|||11.6|-13.5|
91830691|NCT04493216|183540660|OTHER||Differences in percentage of participant|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|0.3|||||Differences in percentage of participant = Percentage of participant in GSK3640254 200 mg+ Placebo+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF - Percentage of participant in DTG+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF|||0.3|-31.2|
91830692|NCT04605978|183540682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|5.49|||||Missing data and data post intercurrent event were imputed for the statistical analysis as specified in the statistical analysis plan.|||5.49|-0.61|
91830693|NCT02216123|183540690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.161|4.982|||||Confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on the Newcombe method. Percent treatment difference (TQ+CQ-PQ+CQ) has been presented.|||4.982|-4.161|
91830694|NCT02216123|183540692|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984||||||95.0|0.577|1.678|||||Hazards ratio was estimated from Cox Proportional Hazards Model with treatment and region as covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower chance of relapse with TQ+CQ compared to PQ+CQ.|||1.678|0.577|
91830695|NCT02216123|183540693|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.503|||||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox Proportional Hazards Model with treatment and region as covariates. A hazard ratio\<1 indicates a lower chance of relapse with TQ+CQ compared to PQ+CQ.|||1.503|0.442|
91830696|NCT03318523|183540724|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value were based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.3||||0.8976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.888|4.287|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 52||4.287|-4.888|0.8976
91830697|NCT03318523|183540724|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.5||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|4.312|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 52||4.312|-3.310|0.7960
91830698|NCT03318523|183540724|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.08||||0.9695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.805|3.956|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 52||3.956|-3.805|0.9695
91830699|NCT03318523|183540725|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.28||||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.035|4.483|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 72||4.483|-5.035|0.9093
91830700|NCT03318523|183540725|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|1.55||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.336|5.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 72||5.440|-2.336|0.4327
91830701|NCT03318523|183540725|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.17||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.051|3.719|||Mixed Model with repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 72||3.719|-4.051|0.9330
91830702|NCT03318523|183540727|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.41||||0.8828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.013|5.825|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||5.825|-5.013|0.8828
91830703|NCT03318523|183540727|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.84||||0.7019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.458|5.128|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure|||||5.128|-3.458|0.7019
91830704|NCT03318523|183540727|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.99||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.323|5.301|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||5.301|-3.323|0.6519
91830705|NCT03318523|183540729|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.53||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.851|0.794|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 52||0.794|-1.851|0.4327
91830706|NCT03318523|183540729|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.13||||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|1.225|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 52||1.225|-0.965|0.8155
91830707|NCT03318523|183540729|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.22||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.899|1.334|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 52||1.334|-0.899|0.7015
91830708|NCT03318523|183540730|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-1.03||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.276|0.213|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 72||0.213|-2.276|0.1038
91830709|NCT03318523|183540730|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.09||||0.8689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.933|1.103|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 72||1.103|-0.933|0.8689
91830710|NCT03318523|183540730|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.01||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.026|1.003|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 72||1.003|-1.026|0.9820
91830711|NCT03318523|183540730|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.26||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.563|1.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 96||1.040|-1.563|0.6930
91830712|NCT03318523|183540730|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.03||||0.9606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.053|1.001|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 96||1.001|-1.053|0.9606
91830713|NCT03318523|183540730|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.24||||0.6512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.269|0.794|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 96||0.794|-1.269|0.6512
91830714|NCT03318523|183540731|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.44||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.889|1.007|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 52||1.007|-1.889|0.5497
91830715|NCT03318523|183540731|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.197|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 52||1.197|-1.200|0.9980
91830716|NCT03318523|183540731|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.15||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|1.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 52||1.070|-1.374|0.8069
91830717|NCT03318523|183540732|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.21||||0.7968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.786|1.372|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 72||1.372|-1.786|0.7968
91830718|NCT03318523|183540732|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.53||||0.4211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.766|1.827|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 72||1.827|-0.766|0.4211
91830719|NCT03318523|183540732|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.15||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.448|1.143|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 72||1.143|-1.448|0.8166
91830720|NCT03318523|183540732|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.53||||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 96||1.240|-2.310|0.5535
91830721|NCT03318523|183540732|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.52||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.881|1.922|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 96||1.922|-0.881|0.4654
91830722|NCT03318523|183540732|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.36||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.051|1.763|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 96||1.763|-1.051|0.6184
91830723|NCT03318523|183540733|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.59||||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.742|3.925|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 52||3.925|-2.742|0.7274
91830724|NCT03318523|183540733|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.66||||0.6385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.094|3.411|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 52||3.411|-2.094|0.6385
91830725|NCT03318523|183540733|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.1||||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.718|2.91|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 52||2.910|-2.718|0.9467
91830726|NCT03318523|183540734|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.85||||0.6112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|4.114|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 72||4.114|-2.423|0.6112
91830727|NCT03318523|183540734|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.86||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.806|3.52|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 72||3.520|-1.806|0.5270
91830728|NCT03318523|183540734|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.06||||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.608|2.719|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 72||2.719|-2.608|0.9673
91830729|NCT03318523|183540734|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.65||||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.274|4.569|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 96||4.569|-3.274|0.7455
91830730|NCT03318523|183540734|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.1||||0.9506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.192|2.997|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 96||2.997|-3.192|0.9506
91830731|NCT03318523|183540734|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.69||||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.422|3.794|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 96||3.794|-2.422|0.6643
91830732|NCT03318523|183540735|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.005||||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0548|0.0438|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0438|-0.0548|0.8274
91830733|NCT03318523|183540735|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.009||||0.6671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0504|0.0323|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0323|-0.0504|0.6671
91830734|NCT03318523|183540735|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.033||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0751|0.0098|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0098|-0.0751|0.1313
91830735|NCT03318523|183540736|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.009||||0.7079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0562|0.0382|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0382|-0.0562|0.7079
91830736|NCT03318523|183540736|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|0.0||||0.9835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0392|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0392|-0.0400|0.9835
91830737|NCT03318523|183540736|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.027||||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0682|0.0134|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0134|-0.0682|0.1869
91830738|NCT03318523|183540737|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.008||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0625|0.0456|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0456|-0.0625|0.7585
91830739|NCT03318523|183540737|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|0.006||||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0391|0.052|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0520|-0.0391|0.7808
91830740|NCT03318523|183540737|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.022||||0.3532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0691|0.0248|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0248|-0.0691|0.3532
91830741|NCT02163733|183540739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%.|Geometric mean ratio|106.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.82|118.6|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. Linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. Least squares geometric mean ratio (LSGMR) Fed = 7847, Fasted = 7399.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 6% change in exposure was also assumed.||118.60|94.82|
91830742|NCT02163733|183540740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%|Geometric mean ratio|92.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.4|105.68|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. Linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. LSGMR Fed = 208.0, Fasted = 224.3.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 6% change in exposure was also assumed.||105.68|81.40|
91830743|NCT02163733|183540748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|81.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.86|113.83|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 497.6, Fasted = 613.2.|AZ5104||113.83|57.86|
91830744|NCT02163733|183540748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|88.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.21|119.32|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 235.0, Fasted = 266.4.|AZ7550||119.32|65.21|
91830745|NCT02163733|183540749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|76.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.31|106.32|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 9.163, Fasted = 11.95.|AZ5104||106.32|55.31|
91830746|NCT02163733|183540749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|82.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.99|112.74|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 4.236, Fasted = 5.109.|AZ7550||112.74|60.99|
91830747|NCT01654549|183540798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91830748|NCT01654549|183540798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91830749|NCT01654549|183540798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.01
91830750|NCT01654549|183540798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.01
91830751|NCT01654549|183540798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91830752|NCT05554237|183540807|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|83.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.67|93.29|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (for CTB 800 mg + AVP 1350 mg versus CTB 800mg only)|||93.29|74.67|
91830753|NCT05554237|183540809|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|89.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.24|92.23|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (for CTB 800 mg + AVP 1350 mg versus CTB 800mg only|||92.23|87.24|
91953075|NCT03522506|183802630|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|33.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.08|39.58|||Linear mixed effect model|||||39.58|27.08|<0.001
91830754|NCT05554237|183540812|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|89.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.47|92.41|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (for CTB 800 mg + AVP 1350 mg versus CTB 800mg only|||92.41|87.47|
91830755|NCT05554237|183540832|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|104.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.94|128.5|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||128.50|84.94|
91830756|NCT05554237|183540832|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|129.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.37|140.58|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||140.58|119.37|
91830757|NCT05554237|183540832|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|101.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.68|116.08|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||116.08|88.68|
91953076|NCT03522506|183802630|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|16.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|23.06|||Linear mixed effect model|||||23.06|10.77|<0.001
91830758|NCT05554237|183540832|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|86.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.48|101.59|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted) for CTB 400 mg + AVP 1350 mg only|Trans-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||101.59|74.48|
91830759|NCT05554237|183540834|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|102.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.67|117.8|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||117.80|88.67|
91830760|NCT05554237|183540834|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|133.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.84|149.36|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||149.36|119.84|
91830761|NCT05554237|183540834|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|99.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|110.1|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||110.10|90.70|
91830762|NCT05554237|183540834|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|89.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.27|105.63|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted) for CTB 400 mg + AVP 1350 mg only|Trans-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||105.63|75.27|
91830763|NCT05554237|183540840|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|93.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.37|112.02|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||112.02|78.37|
91830764|NCT05554237|183540840|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|113.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.31|144.76|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||144.76|88.31|
91830765|NCT05554237|183540840|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|107.06||||||90.0|92.77|123.54|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||123.54|92.77|
91830766|NCT05554237|183540840|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|80.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.32|95.27|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||95.27|68.32|
91830767|NCT05554237|183540840|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|89.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.7|116.02|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||116.02|69.70|
91830768|NCT05554237|183540840|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|97.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.08|113.41|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||113.41|84.08|
91830769|NCT05554237|183540841|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|102.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|115.87|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||115.87|90.37|
91830770|NCT05554237|183540841|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|117.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.61|138.0|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||138.00|100.61|
91830771|NCT05554237|183540841|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.12|128.98|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||128.98|104.12|
91830772|NCT05554237|183540841|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|85.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.37|103.32|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||103.32|70.37|
91830773|NCT05554237|183540841|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|97.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.83|121.06|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||121.06|78.83|
91830774|NCT05554237|183540841|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|102.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|111.58|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||111.58|94.80|
91830775|NCT05554237|183540856|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|105.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.64|128.39|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||128.39|86.64|
91830776|NCT05554237|183540856|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.24||||||90.0|51.81|347.81|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||347.81|51.81|
91830777|NCT05554237|183540856|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|91.17||||||90.0|79.54|104.51|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||104.51|79.54|
91830778|NCT05554237|183540856|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.46|185.9|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||185.90|71.46|
91830779|NCT05554237|183540858|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|114.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|130.43|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||130.43|101.10|
91830780|NCT05554237|183540858|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|140.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.17|189.34|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||189.34|104.17|
91830781|NCT05554237|183540858|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|101.46||||||90.0|90.79|113.39|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||113.39|90.79|
91830782|NCT05554237|183540858|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|123.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.25|137.67|||||Model is a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||137.67|110.25|
91830783|NCT02701985|183540892|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|4.27||||0.7955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|29.08|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||The proportion of patients who have ≥ 3 point reduction from baseline in ESSDAI score after 12 weeks of treatment was compared between the two treatment arms using a Pearson Chi-square test (two sided p-values, alpha 0.05). The difference in proportions and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided. Patients with missing data at Week 12 will be treated as non-responders in the analysis.||29.08|-20.55|0.7955
91830784|NCT02701985|183540893|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|1.14||||0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.92|26.19|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||The proportion of patients who have ≥ 1 point reduction from baseline in ESSPRI score after 12 weeks of treatment was compared between the two treatment arms using a Pearson Chi-square test (two sided p-values, alpha 0.05). The difference in proportions and corresponding 95% CI are provided. Patients with missing data at Week 12 will be treated as non-responders in the analysis.||26.19|-23.92|0.9877
91830785|NCT02701985|183540894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.13||||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.78|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||1.78|-2.04|0.8905
91830786|NCT02701985|183540895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.22||||0.6077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.64|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||0.64|-1.08|0.6077
91830787|NCT02701985|183540896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-2.06||||0.2846||95.0|-5.87|1.75|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable||1.75|-5.87|0.2846
91830788|NCT02701985|183540897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.33||||0.8134||95.0|-2.43|3.08|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable||3.08|-2.43|0.8134
91830789|NCT02701985|183540901|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.4266||95.0|-1.3|3.03|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||3.03|-1.30|0.4266
91830790|NCT02701985|183540902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6429||95.0|-0.21|0.34|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||0.34|-0.21|0.6429
91830791|NCT00989768|183540912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||In this study the null hypothesis was that BoNT-A1 had the same effect (halus)than the BoNT-A2.||||<0.0001
91830792|NCT00989768|183540913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91830793|NCT00989768|183540914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91830794|NCT00989768|183540915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91830795|NCT01362140|183540916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||"The primary hypothesis to be tested was that the percentage of participants with at least~1 RBC transfusion from week 5 to the EOTP was lower in the darbepoetin alfa group than in the placebo group. This hypothesis was confirmed if the incidence of RBC transfusion in the darbepoetin alfa group was lower and had a p-value \< 0.05 from a 2-sided Chi-square test."||||0.008
91830796|NCT01362140|183540917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The overall 2-sided CMH test with IPSS score as stratification factor.||If the primary hypothesis was confirmed, the secondary hypothesis to be tested was that the percentage of participants achieving an IWG erythroid response during the 24-week double-blind treatment period was greater in the darbepoetin alfa group than in the placebo group. This hypothesis was confirmed if erythroid response was higher in the darbepoetin alfa group and the p-value was \< 0.05 from a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the IPSS as a stratification factor.||||0.017
91830797|NCT03998618|183540956|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.12||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. multiply imputed data were used in analyses.||||0.25|-0.01|.018
91830798|NCT03998618|183540957|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.11||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24||P-value for study group x time interaction. Probabilities for the secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance = 0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.24|-0.02|.037
91830799|NCT03998618|183540958|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.07||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.2||P-value for study group x time interaction. Probabilities for the secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance = 0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.20|-0.06|.355
91830800|NCT03998618|183540959|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.08||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21||P-value for study group x time interaction for physical quality of life. Probabilities for the secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.21|-0.04|.167
91830801|NCT03998618|183540959|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.09||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.22||P-value for study group x time interaction for social/family quality of life. Probabilities for the six secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.22|-0.03|.105
91830802|NCT03998618|183540959|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.09||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.22||P-value for study group x time interaction for emotional quality of life. Probabilities for the six secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.22|-0.04|.142
91830803|NCT03998618|183540959|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26||P-value for study group x time interaction for functional quality of life. Probabilities for the six secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.26|0.01|.006
91830804|NCT02308748|183540978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-14.3||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in QTc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with mexiletine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-14.3|-25.2|0.025
91830805|NCT02308748|183540978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-14.1||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in QTc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with lidocaine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-14.1|-25.2|0.025
91830806|NCT02308748|183540978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-18.3||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in J-Tpeakc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with mexiletine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-18.3|-28.0|0.025
91830807|NCT02308748|183540978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-15.5||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in J-Tpeakc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with lidocaine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-15.5|-25.5|0.025
91830808|NCT02308748|183540979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.7||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|-1|0.025
91830809|NCT01994954|183540980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||A two-sided P-value of 0.05 or less was interpreted as a statistically significant result.|t-test, 2 sided|||The trial was designed to have 97% power at a type I error rate of 5% to detect a 25% intervention effect with respect to the primary outcome. this was done using an independent sample t-test. P-value was calculated, and a p-value of 0.05 or less was interpreted as statistically significant result.||||<0.03
91830810|NCT01994954|183540981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Power calculations were based on the primary analysis (t-test comparing changes). A sample size of 130 would have given 80% power, with 0.05 two sided type 1 error rate, to detect a 20% absolute difference in emotional role limitation on the PedsQL v2.0, which we considered to be statistically significant.||||0.38
91830811|NCT00449176|183540986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001||95.0|-1.22|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||The primary null hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the tapentadol ER group was not different from the placebo group for the primary endpoint. Assuming the mean treatment group difference of 0.7 with an SD of 2.7, 314 subjects per treatment group were estimated to provide 90% power to show that the tapentadol ER group was statistically different from placebo at an alpha level of 0.05. The total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to a treatment group for the study was 942.||-0.47|-1.22|<0.001
91830812|NCT01967732|183541032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|77.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.69|95.63|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||95.63|62.69|
91830813|NCT01967732|183541033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|74.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.52|90.14|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||90.14|61.52|
91830814|NCT05525494|183541034|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received portal (any type) reminder/recall messages to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.98|
91830815|NCT05525494|183541034|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received text (any type) reminder/recall messages to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.98|
91830816|NCT05525494|183541034|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received pre-appointment reminder/recall messages (portal and text) to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.02|1.00|
91830817|NCT05525494|183541034|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received a tailored reminder/recall messages based on their responses to a pre-commitment questionnaire (any type) to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.99|
91830818|NCT01988779|183541037|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the non-inferiority limit of topical therapy is 20% of that for oral therapy.||||||0.505|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.505
91830819|NCT01988779|183541039|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the non-inferiority limit of topical therapy is 20% of that for oral therapy.||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.390
91830820|NCT01988779|183541040|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the non-inferiority limit of topical therapy is 20% of that for oral therapy.||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.036
91830821|NCT02275065|183541042|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91830822|NCT02275065|183541042|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91830823|NCT02275065|183541042|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91830824|NCT02275065|183541042|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91830825|NCT02275065|183541045|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91830826|NCT02275065|183541045|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91830827|NCT02275065|183541045|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91830828|NCT02275065|183541045|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91830829|NCT02275065|183541046|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91830830|NCT02275065|183541046|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91830831|NCT02275065|183541046|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91830832|NCT02275065|183541046|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91830833|NCT00377403|183541059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significnace was p less than or equal to 0.05|ANOVA|Adjusted for disease severity at baseline||We used analysis of variance, controlling for disease severity at baseline to test the null hypothesis that there was no difference between study groups at this point in time.||||0.83
91830834|NCT00417079|183541061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A 2-sided significance level of 0.0452 was used for the final analysis based on an interim analysis performed after 307 events with an adjusted significance level of 0.016 based on the O'Brien-Fleming type 1 error spending function.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed by using a log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status (0-1 versus 2)||The study required an estimated sample size of 720 patients (360 per arm) in order to detect a 25% reduction in the hazard ratio for death in the cabazitaxel group relative to the mitoxantrone group with 90% power. The final analysis was planned for when 511 deaths had occurred.||||<0.0001
91830835|NCT00417079|183541062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91830836|NCT00417079|183541063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0005
91830837|NCT00417079|183541064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.76|||Log Rank|Log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio (HR) \< 1 favours the cabazitaxel group and \> 1 favours the mitoxantrone group.|||0.76|0.49|<0.0001
91830838|NCT00417079|183541065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.9|||Log Rank|Log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio (HR) \< 1 favours the cabazitaxel group and \> 1 favours the mitoxantrone group.|||0.90|0.63|0.0010
91830839|NCT00417079|183541066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
91830840|NCT00417079|183541067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.5192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.19|||Log Rank|Log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio (HR) \< 1 favours the cabazitaxel group and \> 1 favours the mitoxantrone group.|||1.19|0.69|0.5192
91830841|NCT00417079|183541068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6286||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6286
91830842|NCT00833638|183541069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 2.5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of subjects achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.086
91830843|NCT00833638|183541069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.006
91830844|NCT00833638|183541069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for day \<=3. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.019
91953077|NCT03522506|183802631|SUPERIORITY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used to evaluate the 1 hour post the end of infusion MWT. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI were estimated from the model, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.16||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|3.36|||ANOVA|||||3.36|-7.68|0.436
91830845|NCT00833638|183541069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for day \<=2. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.022
91830846|NCT00833638|183541069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||95.0||||P-value for day \<=1. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.573
91830847|NCT00833638|183541070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|18.34||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction were included.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 1 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||18.34|5.72|<0.001
91830848|NCT00833638|183541070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.48|19.12||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction were included.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 1 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||19.12|6.48|<0.001
91830849|NCT00833638|183541071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.51|22.29||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 2 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||22.29|8.51|<0.001
91830850|NCT00833638|183541071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|27.31||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 2 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||27.31|13.50|<0.001
91830851|NCT00833638|183541072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|21.71||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||21.71|6.83|<0.001
91830852|NCT00833638|183541072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.07|28.01||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||28.01|13.07|<0.001
91830853|NCT00833638|183541073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.42|22.06||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 4 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||22.06|6.42|<0.001
91830854|NCT00833638|183541073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.94|29.67||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 4 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||29.67|13.94|<0.001
91830855|NCT00833638|183541074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|21.55||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 5 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||21.55|6.30|<0.001
91830856|NCT00833638|183541074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|26.75||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 5 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||26.75|11.40|<0.001
91830857|NCT00833638|183541075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the time to onset of efficacy exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.301
91830858|NCT00833638|183541075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the time to onset of efficacy exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.046
91830859|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=14. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830860|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=13. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830861|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=12. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830862|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=11. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830863|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=10. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830864|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=9. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830865|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=8. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
91830866|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=7. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.001
91830867|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=6. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
91830868|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=5. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
91830869|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
91830870|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for day \<=3. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.009
91830871|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for day \<=2. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.038
91830872|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=14. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830873|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=13. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830874|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=12. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830875|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=11. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830876|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=10. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830877|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=9. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830878|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=8. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830879|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=7. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830880|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=6. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830881|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=5. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830882|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830883|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for day \<=3. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.003
91830884|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for day \<=2. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.008
91830885|NCT00833638|183541076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0||||P-value for day \<=1. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.246
91953078|NCT03522506|183802631|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA model was used to evaluate the 1 hour post the end of infusion MWT. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI were estimated from the model, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.29||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|3.23|||ANOVA|||||3.23|-7.81|0.409
91830886|NCT00833638|183541077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.05|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exist in patients who received placebo in the double-blind treatment period when comparing their proportion of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period (while receiving placebo) and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830887|NCT00833638|183541078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.22|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exist in patients who received tadalafil 2.5 mg in the double-blind treatment period when comparing their proportion of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 2.5 mg) and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830888|NCT00833638|183541079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exist in patients who received tadalfil 5 mg in the double-blind treatment period when comparing their proportion of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg) and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830889|NCT00833638|183541080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.11|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of successful intercourse attempts exist in participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg in the double-blind treatment period and did not respond to treatment when comparing their percentage of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91830890|NCT00127608|183541100|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean viral load between samples stored in liquid and samples stored dry was compared.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for all 2 by 2 comparisons.|The Geometric Mean Ratio of the viral load was calculated for dry over liquid storage condition.|||||<0.0001
91830891|NCT00127608|183541101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in mean viral load (in log10) (Papule swab minus Vesicle fluid)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4451||||0.0038||95.0|-0.769|-0.1213|||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for the comparison.||||-0.1213|-0.7690|0.0038
91830892|NCT00127608|183541101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in mean viral load (in log10) (Papule swab minus Vesicle swab)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.432||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7605|-0.1035|||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for the comparison.||||-0.1035|-0.7605|0.0060
91830893|NCT00127608|183541101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in mean viral load (in log10) (Vesicle fluid minus Vesicle swab)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00132||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3171|0.3435|||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for the comparison.||||0.3435|-0.3171|0.9952
91830894|NCT00127608|183541101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle fluid)|Geometric mean ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.76|||ANOVA|||Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle fluid)||0.76|0.17|
91830895|NCT00127608|183541101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle swab)|Geometric mean Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79|||ANOVA|||Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle swab)||0.79|0.17|
91830896|NCT00127608|183541101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Vesicle fluid over Vesicle swab)|Geometric mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.21|||ANOVA|||Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Vesicle fluid over Vesicle swab)||2.21|0.48|
91830897|NCT00160680|183541128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||=|0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.50|-0.96|=0.667
91830898|NCT03595579|183541146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91830899|NCT03595579|183541147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91830900|NCT05090709|183541152|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Stiffness values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
91830901|NCT05090709|183541152|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Stiffness values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
91830902|NCT05090709|183541157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
91830903|NCT05090709|183541157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
91830904|NCT05090709|183541162|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Sit-to-stand velocity values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
91830905|NCT05090709|183541162|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Sit-to-stand velocity values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
91830906|NCT05090709|183541167|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91830907|NCT05090709|183541167|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91830908|NCT05090709|183541169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including both time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
91830909|NCT05090709|183541169|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including both time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91830910|NCT05090709|183541174|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Muscle tone values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
91830911|NCT05090709|183541174|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Muscle tone values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
91830912|NCT05090709|183541179|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91830913|NCT05090709|183541179|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91830914|NCT05090709|183541184|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91830915|NCT05090709|183541184|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91830916|NCT05090709|183541189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
91830917|NCT05090709|183541189|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91830918|NCT05090709|183541194|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91830919|NCT05090709|183541194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
91830920|NCT05090709|183541199|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91830921|NCT05090709|183541199|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91830922|NCT05090709|183541204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
91830923|NCT05090709|183541204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
91830924|NCT03775200|183541205|OTHER|For this primary analysis, a sample size of 216 randomised participants (72:72:72) will provide 90% power at the alpha = 0.05 level to detect a 6-point difference in average MADRS total score between the optimal therapeutic dose of COMP360 and COMP360 1 mg, assuming the common standard deviation (SD) is 11.0.|Least Mean Square Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothetical strategy estimand - missing not at random (MNAR) and missing at random (MAR) imputation for missing data.|LSM difference of COMP360 25 mg compared to COMP360 1 mg.|The primary analysis was the comparison between COMP360 (25 mg or 10 mg) versus COMP360 1 mg. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score at Week 3 for COMP360 25 mg or COMP360 10 mg versus COMP360 1 mg. The alternative hypothesis was that were was a difference in mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score at Week 3 for COMP360 25 mg or COMP360 10 mg versus COMP360 1 mg.||-2.9|-10.2|<0.05
91830925|NCT03775200|183541206|OTHER||Least Mean Square Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothetical strategy estimand - MNAR and MAR imputation for missing data.||Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint using the per-protocol analysis set.||-1.8|-9.4|<0.05
91830926|NCT01644734|183541210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no change in the total CAT score between baseline and after 3 months.||||<0.001
91830927|NCT02858050|183541215|OTHER|||||||0.548306|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.548306
91830928|NCT02157779|183541219|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.68||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|-1.01||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Method used: Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, end of treatment, 3 mo f/u, and/or 6 mo f/u) were used in the HLM analyses.||-1.01|-10.32|.017
91830929|NCT02157779|183541220|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.||Population Description: All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, end of treatment, 3 mo f/u, and/or 6 mo f/u) were used in the statistical analysis. Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|0.06|-0.33|0.19
91830930|NCT02157779|183541221|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.09||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score||Population Description: All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the statistical analysis process.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|-0.09|-0.75|.011
91953079|NCT03522506|183802631|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA model was used to evaluate the 1 hour post the end of infusion MWT. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI were estimated from the model, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|16.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.37|22.18|||ANOVA|||||22.18|11.37|<0.001
91830931|NCT02157779|183541222|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 weeks (end of treatment, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the analyses.||0.11|-0.63|0.16
91830932|NCT02157779|183541223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.65||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-1.09||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 weeks (end of treatment), 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the statistical analyses.||-1.09|-22.20|.031
91830933|NCT02157779|183541224|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.56||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.6||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.||All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (week 12 (end of treatment), 3 month, and/or 6 month follow-up) were used in the statistical analysis.|A positive difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically higher than that for SI.|2.60|0.51|0.004
91830934|NCT02157779|183541225|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.15||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|3.07||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the statistical analysis process.||3.07|-7.37|0.416
91830935|NCT02157779|183541226|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.72||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|-1.5||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the analyses.||-1.50|-25.94|0.028
91830936|NCT02157779|183541227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|GLM Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance of means grouped by sessions 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12||All randomized participants with at least one DAR completed in each time frame (sessions 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12) were included in the analyses. The mean DAR scores for sessions 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12 were calculated and used as outcome variables in the GLM repeated measures ANOVA.||||0.13
91830937|NCT02157779|183541228|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.578|-0.063||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (week 4, week 8, week 12 (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analyses.||-0.063|-1.578|0.030
91830938|NCT02157779|183541229|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.085||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|-0.011||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||-0.011|-0.158|0.021
91830939|NCT02157779|183541230|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.073||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were used in the HLM analysis. Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.||0.073|-0.283|0.246
91830940|NCT02157779|183541231|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the statistical analysis. Data were winsorized and log 10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness.||-0.01|-0.27|0.036
91830941|NCT02157779|183541232|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.026||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.1614||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||0.1614|-0.213|0.786
91830942|NCT02157779|183541233|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13||Threshold for significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||0.13|-0.18|0.744
91953080|NCT03480243|183802634|OTHER||Cmax Estimate Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|2.27|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.27|1.59|
91953081|NCT03480243|183802634|OTHER||Cmax Estimate Ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|2.16|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.16|1.51|
91830943|NCT02157779|183541234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.038|-0.663||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.||-0.663|-3.038|0.002
91830944|NCT02157779|183541235|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.518|0.524||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, 12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.||0.524|-2.518|0.186
91830945|NCT02157779|183541236|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|3.09||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A positive difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically higher than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, 12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||3.09|-0.560|0.164
91830946|NCT02157779|183541237|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.33||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.92||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A positive difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically higher than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, 12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||2.92|-0.26|0.100
91830947|NCT02157779|183541238|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|0.27||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.||"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI, indicating less symptomatic distress.|0.27|-12.85|0.060
91830948|NCT02157779|183541239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.271||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.083|-0.458||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||-0.458|-6.083|0.023
91830949|NCT02157779|183541240|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.28||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.82||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||0.82|-3.39|0.23
91830950|NCT02548455|183541241|EQUIVALENCE|Freedom from left ventricular lead-related complications through 3 months was estimated to be 96.0% with a 95% lower confidence bound of 92.6% based on the Promote Q IDE study (NCT00990665), and 98.3% with a 95% lower confidence bound of 97.7% based on data from the Quadripolar Post-Approval study (NCT01555619).|Kaplan-Meier Estimate|85.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||"The hypothesis for the endpoint is:~H0: Freedom from LV lead-related complications through 3 months (91 days) ≤ 85% H1: Freedom from LV lead-related complications through 3 months (91 days) \> 85%~A total of 85 subjects were required to have at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at the 5% significance level at three months (91 days) post-implant or attempted implant. After accounting for 9% attrition, the required sample size was 94 subjects."||||0.05
91830951|NCT00386880|183541242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||During the acute migraine attack, 90% of allodynic subjects and 75% of subjects without allodynia had phonophobia.||||0.59
91830952|NCT03901326|183541253|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Rate of ICA without obstructive CAD or intervention within 90 days||||0.05
91830953|NCT03901326|183541253|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Rate of patients underwent revascularization||||<0.001
91830954|NCT03901326|183541254|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||Regression, Cox|||||1.30|0.59|0.80
91830955|NCT03901326|183541255|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91830956|NCT03901326|183541256|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91830957|NCT00423176|183541260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||||95.0|-1.14|0.25|||||For days 1-29|||0.25|-1.14|
91830958|NCT00423176|183541260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||||95.0|-1.65|0.0|||||For follow-up days 30-43|||0.00|-1.65|
91830959|NCT00423176|183541261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.8||||||95.0|-0.5|18.2|||||Change from baseline to endpoint|||18.2|-0.5|
91830960|NCT00420992|183541283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: P=0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons necessary.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment as factor and baseline pain score as covariate.||Null hypothesis: mean change from baseline is the same for ALO-01 and placebo.||||0.0445
91830961|NCT03712891|183541303|OTHER|t-test||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91830962|NCT01570829|183541338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0352
91830963|NCT01570829|183541339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91830964|NCT01570829|183541340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91830965|NCT01570829|183541341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Breslow-Day test p-value is 0.98||||||0.0001
91830966|NCT01570829|183541342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.0004
91830967|NCT01570829|183541343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.0004
91830968|NCT01570829|183541344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with waist circumference data.||||0.67
91830969|NCT01570829|183541344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with hip circumference data.||||0.26
91830970|NCT01570829|183541345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with Physical Health domain data.||||0.40
91830971|NCT01570829|183541345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with Mental Health domain data.||||0.34
91830972|NCT00675766|183541346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -1.69 to 1.38. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.28 to 1.36.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with overall neurocognitive performance at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of 14 individual neuropsychological measures assessing attention, processing speed, visuospatial skills, language, memory, executive function and motor skills, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.001
91830973|NCT00675766|183541346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.96 to 1.89. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.89 to 1.77.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with processing speed at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing speed of cognitive information processing, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||<0.005
91830974|NCT00675766|183541346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.30 to 2.44. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.82 to 2.00.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with attention at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing attentional abilities, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||< 0.01
91830975|NCT00675766|183541346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -1.76 to 0.95. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.18 to 0.84.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with executive function at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing working memory, set shifting, mental flexibility and problem solving, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||<0.07
91830976|NCT00675766|183541346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.30 to 1.94. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.83 to 2.11.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with language at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing verbal fluency and naming skills, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.09
91830977|NCT00675766|183541346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.00 to 1.68. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -2.33 to 1.90.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with memory at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing verbal and nonverbal learning and memory, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||.72
91830978|NCT00675766|183541346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.04 to 2.51. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -2.21 to 2.24.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with visuospatial skills at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing visuospatial and visuoconstructional abilities, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.65
91830979|NCT00675766|183541346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -4.04 to 1.33. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.24 to 2.37.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with motor skills at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing fine motor speed and dexterity, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.79
91830980|NCT00675766|183541346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|ONE_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's exact test with 1 degree of freedom.||Fisher's exact test compared the frequency of older and younger HIV+ adults who converted from neurocognitively intact to neurocognitively impaired on memory over a one year time period. We hypothesized that the older group would exhibit a greater proportion of individuals who declined during this interim.||||.044
91830981|NCT01018394|183541375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.1||A one tailed P of less than 0.2 was considered sufficient evidence to warrant a larger study.|Fisher Exact|1 tailed||The percentage of participants who reduced tobacco use by greater or equal to 50% from baseline was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test. A one tailed P of less than 0.2 was considered sufficient evidence to warrant a larger study.||5.1|0.7|0.108
91953082|NCT03480243|183802635|OTHER||AUC Estimate Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.17|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.17|1.50|
91830982|NCT04184791|183541390|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance (LM-ANOVA) model was used to determine the effect of L-Dopa, frequency, the interaction of levodopa and frequency, and the interaction of frequency and contact pairs on gait parameters. The fixed effects were L-Dopa condition (ON vs. OFF), stimulation frequency (LFS;60 Hz vs. HFS;180 Hz), contact pairs \[1-(R)/1-(L); 2-(R)/2-(L); 3-(R)/3-(L); 4-(R)/4-(L)\], and assistive device (presence vs. absence) and the patient effect was considered random.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91830983|NCT01669122|183541421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
91830984|NCT01669122|183541421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
91830985|NCT01669122|183541421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.97||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.97|0.91|
91830986|NCT01669122|183541422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.02||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||1.02|0.93|
91830987|NCT01669122|183541422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.03||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||1.03|0.94|
91830988|NCT01669122|183541422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.96||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.96|0.88|
91830989|NCT01669122|183541423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
91830990|NCT01669122|183541423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
91830991|NCT01669122|183541423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|0.96||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.96|0.90|
91830992|NCT01669122|183541424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges Lehmann estimate|Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.50|0.00|0.2208
91830993|NCT01669122|183541424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges Lehmann estimate|Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.25|-0.25|0.5695
91830994|NCT01669122|183541424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges Lehmann estimate|Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.50|0.00|0.0063
91830995|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|Inequality test.||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 and to 42.||||0.45
91830996|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 and to 42.||||<0.001
91830997|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||0.88
91830998|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||<0.001
91830999|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 42.||||0.21
91831000|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 42.||||<0.001
91831001|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.77
91831002|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.004
91831003|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 42.||||0.08
91831004|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 42.||||0.38
91831005|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||0.49
91831006|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||0.156
91831007|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 42.||||0.125
91831008|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91831009|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.72
91831010|NCT02962908|183541427|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.34
91831011|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.62
91831012|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.030
91831013|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.87
91831014|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.075|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.075
91831015|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.076|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 180.||||0.076
91831016|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 180.||||<0.001
91831017|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
91831018|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
91831019|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.55
91831020|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.55
91831021|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
91831022|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
91831023|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IL2 from day 0 to day 180.||||0.21
91831024|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IL2 from day 0 to day 180.||||0.48
91831025|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.62
91831026|NCT02962908|183541428|OTHER|inequality||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.23
91831027|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.80
91831028|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||<0.001
91831029|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.23
91831030|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.056
91831031|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.74
91831032|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||<0.001
91831033|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.34
91831034|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.010
91831035|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.096|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.096
91831036|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 180.Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.049
91831037|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.91
91831038|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.39
91831039|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.94
91831040|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||<0.001
91831041|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.044
91831042|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.98
91831043|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.48|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.48
91831044|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.28|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.28
91831045|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.7|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.70
91831046|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.175|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.175
91831047|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.24|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.24
91831048|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.8|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.80
91831049|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.023|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.023
91831050|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.015|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.015
91831051|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.81|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.81
91831052|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.34|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.34
91831053|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.3|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.30
91831054|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.105|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.105
91831055|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.38|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.38
91831056|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.44|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.44
91831057|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.58|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.58
91831058|NCT02962908|183541429|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.43|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.43
91831059|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||0.25
91831060|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 42||||1.0
91831061|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL-2 at day 42||||1.00
91831062|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 42||||1.00
91831063|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||<0.001
91831064|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 42||||<0.001
91831065|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL2 at day 42||||<0.001
91831066|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 42||||0.31
91831067|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||0.48
91831068|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||1.00
91831069|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL2 at day 180||||1.00
91831070|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 180||||0.59
91831071|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||<0.001
91831072|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||0.013
91831073|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL2 at day 180||||<0.001
91831074|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 180||||1.00
91831075|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||0.55
91831076|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||0.55
91831077|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 42||||1.00
91831078|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||0.29
91831079|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||1.00
91831080|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||1.00
91831081|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||1.00
91831082|NCT02962908|183541430|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 180||||1.00
91831083|NCT02962908|183541431|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 42. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.59
91831084|NCT02962908|183541431|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 42. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.001
91831085|NCT02962908|183541431|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 180. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.61
91831086|NCT02962908|183541431|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 180. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||<0.001
91831087|NCT02962908|183541432|OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 42. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 42."||||0.113
91831088|NCT02962908|183541432|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 42. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 42."||||<0.001
91831089|NCT02962908|183541432|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 180. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 180."||||0.399
91831090|NCT02962908|183541432|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 180. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 180."||||<0.001
91831091|NCT02962908|183541434|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 42 post-vaccination.||||<0.001
91831092|NCT02962908|183541434|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 42.||||<0.001
91831093|NCT02962908|183541434|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 180.||||<0.001
91831094|NCT02962908|183541434|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 180.||||<0.001
91831095|NCT02962908|183541437|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in the infection rates against any of the strains tested between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.662
91831096|NCT02962908|183541437|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in the infection rates against any of the strains tested between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.168
91831097|NCT02962908|183541438|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||The study was not powered to detected statistical significant differences in this outcome.|||>0.05
91831098|NCT02962908|183541438|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||Study not powered to detect statistically significant differences|||>0.05
91831099|NCT02962908|183541439|OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison in the duration of symptoms between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.513
91831100|NCT02962908|183541439|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the duration of symptoms between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.578
91831101|NCT02962908|183541439|OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of total symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.513
91831102|NCT02962908|183541439|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the total symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.200
91831103|NCT02962908|183541439|OTHER|||||||0.658|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the symptom peak between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.658
91831104|NCT02962908|183541439|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the symptom peak between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.640
91831105|NCT02962908|183541439|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the average symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.127
91831106|NCT02962908|183541439|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the average symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.201
91831107|NCT02962908|183541440|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison between groups on day 42||||0.85
91831108|NCT02962908|183541440|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison between groups on day 42||||0.042
91831109|NCT02962908|183541440|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison between groups on day 180||||0.69
91831110|NCT02962908|183541440|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.198|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison between groups on day 180||||0.198
91831111|NCT02962908|183541440|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.092|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison between groups on day 42||||0.092
91831112|NCT02962908|183541440|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of groups on day 42||||<0.001
91831113|NCT02962908|183541440|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of groups on day 180||||0.27
91831114|NCT02962908|183541440|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||comparisons between groups on day 180||||<0.001
91831115|NCT01420848|183541455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||It was used the Post Hoc and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the 3rd (12 sessions) Hypothesis: there is at least one difference among the groups.||||0.006
91831116|NCT01420848|183541455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||The statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||"It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.~It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the follow-up (after 15 days)."||||0.023
91831117|NCT01420848|183541456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||After ANOVA it was performed Post Hoc Test and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA)of the medium difference among the groups in the 3rd (12 sessions) Hypothesis: there is at least one difference among the groups (State Anxiety)||||0.012
91831118|NCT01420848|183541456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||After ANOVA, the Post Hoc Test was done and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||"It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the medium difference among the groups at the follow-up (after 15 days).~Hypothesis: there is at least one difference among the groups (State Anxiety)."||||0.005
91953083|NCT03480243|183802635|OTHER||AUC Estimate Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|1.97|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||1.97|1.36|
91831119|NCT01962493|183541477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1||Analysis based on square root transformation. Results back transformed for interpretation.|ANCOVA|Results were obtained from ANCOVA model with Site, Treatment, Treatment X Site, Smoking Status as fixed effects and baseline MLSI as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment. A negative difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between treatment groups||0.10|-0.51|0.1313
91831120|NCT01951625|183541485|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.122|||=|0.1506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.07|||t-test, 1 sided|||For the primary analysis, the three highest active treatment groups (BAY1021189 2.5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 10mg) were pooled and compared to the assigned placebo treatment group with a one-sided two-sample t-test at the significance level of 5 percent (%). Results are reported including 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the difference of means. The difference between the pooled treatment group and the placebo group is difference of means on the log scale.||0.07|-0.32|= 0.1506
91831121|NCT01951625|183541485|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.2494|||=|0.0483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0|-0.5|= 0.0483
91831122|NCT01951625|183541485|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.0731|||=|0.3042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.16|-0.31|= 0.3042
91831123|NCT01951625|183541485|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.0396|||=|0.3841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.18|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.18|-0.26|= 0.3841
91831124|NCT01951625|183541485|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.0151|||=|0.5444|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.24|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only.||0.24|-0.21|= 0.5444
91831125|NCT05338333|183541526|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if the least squares means difference upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens-by-visit interaction, period, sequence, and habitual lens stratum) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID210464 minus AOHG MF.|||0.00||
91831126|NCT04951336|183541527|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
91831127|NCT04951336|183541528|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.06||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
91831128|NCT04951336|183541529|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
91831129|NCT04951336|183541530|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.68||||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.359
91831130|NCT04951336|183541531|SUPERIORITY|age was included as a covariate||||||0.002||||||Differences were considered statistically significant for p-values \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,150)=6.374. The analysis was repeated using log-transformed values and the resultant p value was also \< 0.05||"The LME analysis compared antibodies between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across four time points (days 3, 14, 28, and 6 months). At baseline, participants with detectable anti-CoV-2 antibodies were deemed previously exposed and those with no or very low anti-CoV-2 Abs previously unexposed. Accordingly, all longitudinal analyses excluded baseline antibody data."||||0.002
91831131|NCT04951336|183541532|SUPERIORITY|age was included as a covariate||||||0.002||||||p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,157)=4.286. The analysis was repeated using log-transformed values and the resultant p value was also \< 0.05||"LME analysis compared antibodies between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across four time points (days 3, 14, 28, and 6 months). At baseline, participants with detectable anti-CoV-2 antibodies were deemed previously exposed and those with no or very low anti-CoV-2 Abs previously unexposed. Accordingly, all longitudinal analyses excluded baseline antibody data."||||0.002
91831132|NCT04951336|183541533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(8,325)=1.898. Age was included as a covariate in this analysis.||LME analysis compared symptoms between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across 5 time points (days 1-5)||||0.060
91831133|NCT04951336|183541534|SUPERIORITY|LME analysis compared symptoms between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across 5 time points (days 1-5)||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(8,309)=1.156. Age was included as a covariate in this analysis.||||||0.326
91831134|NCT03073148|183541548|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.3577|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.3577
91831135|NCT03073148|183541548|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.9917|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.9917
91831136|NCT03073148|183541549|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.3239|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.3239
91831137|NCT03073148|183541549|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.8343|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.8343
91831138|NCT03073148|183541550|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.4134|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.4134
91831139|NCT03073148|183541550|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.1192|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1192
91831140|NCT03073148|183541552|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.1753||||||Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1753
91831141|NCT03073148|183541552|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.1843|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1843
91831142|NCT03073148|183541553|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.0765|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.0765
91831143|NCT03073148|183541553|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.152|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1520
91831144|NCT00833560|183541576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|85.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.5|88.8|||Two - sided binomial test|||||88.8|81.5|<0.0001
91831145|NCT00833560|183541577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|87.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.6|91.0|||Two-sided binomial test|||||91.0|83.6|<0.0001
91831146|NCT00414817|183541580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.03|||Regression, Linear|2-tailed p-value based on linear regression adjusted for site, age, sex, co-morbid COPD, baseline use of short acting beta agonists, and baseline mMPR|Estimated adherence was approximately 2 percentage points higher for intervention group than for usual care group.|In all of our analyses we used duration of follow-up as a weighting variable to reflect the fact that our adherence measure becomes more accurate and reliable with longer follow-up. This weighting is reflected both in the formal statistical analyses and in the presentation of means and standard deviations given above. Also, sensitivity analyses that included daily oral steroid users and those with fewer than 3 months of follow-up yielded similar results to those presented here.||.030|.006|.002
91831147|NCT00414817|183541581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||Regression, Linear|2-tailed p-value adjusted for site, age, sex, co-morbid COPD, baseline use of short acting beta agonists, and baseline adherence.||In all of our analyses we used duration of follow-up as a weighting variable. This weighting is reflected both in the formal statistical analyses and in the presentation of means and standard deviations given above.||0.04|-0.23|0.175
91831148|NCT00414817|183541582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.06||2-tailed p-value based on overdispersed Poisson regression adjusted for site, age, sex, co-morbid COPD, baseline use of short acting beta agonists, and baseline mMPR|overdispersed Poisson regression|||In all of our analyses we used duration of follow-up as a weighting variable. This weighting is reflected both in the formal statistical analyses and in the presentation of means and standard deviations given above.||1.06|0.96|0.852
91831149|NCT03382782|183541583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (3, 172)||||||.025
91831150|NCT03382782|183541584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.243||||0.784|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.784
91831151|NCT03382782|183541584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.810
91831152|NCT03382782|183541585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.174
91831153|NCT03382782|183541585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.286|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.286
91831154|NCT03382782|183541586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.261
91831155|NCT03382782|183541586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.912
91831156|NCT03382782|183541588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 3, 172||||||0.11
91831157|NCT03382782|183541589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 3, 156||Mean systolic blood pressure||||0.09
91831158|NCT03382782|183541589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 3, 156||Mean diastolic blood pressure||||0.05
91831159|NCT03382782|183541591|SUPERIORITY|Intention-to-treat analyses. General Health subscale.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||||||0.121
91831160|NCT03382782|183541591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.71||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses. General Health subscale.||||0.193
91831161|NCT03382782|183541591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.181||||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intention-to-treat analyses. Bodily Pain subscale.||||0.835
91831162|NCT03382782|183541591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses, Bodily Pain subscale.||||0.513
91831163|NCT03382782|183541591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.37||||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intention-to-treat analyses, Physical Functioning subscale.||||0.097
91831164|NCT03382782|183541591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.184|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses, Physical Functioning subscale.||||0.184
91831165|NCT03382782|183541591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intention-to-treat analyses. Emotional Well-Being subscale.||||0.347
91831166|NCT03382782|183541591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.361||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses, Emotional Well-Being subscale.||||0.549
91831167|NCT03382782|183541592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.157||||0.855|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom = 2,182||Intention-to-treat analyses||||.855
91831168|NCT03382782|183541592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||0.915|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.915
91831169|NCT03382782|183541594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.508
91831170|NCT03382782|183541594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.198
91953084|NCT03480243|183802636|OTHER||Cmax,ss Estimate Ratio|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.77|2.55|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.55|1.77|
91831171|NCT00440531|183541598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single-group percentage|75.7||||||95.0|68.0|82.2||||||No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the primary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month post vaccination 3, among subjects who were seronegative at baseline.||82.20|68|
91831172|NCT00440531|183541598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single-group percentage|68.0||||||95.0|59.8|75.5||||||No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the primary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month post vaccination 3, among subjects who were seronegative at baseline.||75.50|59.80|
91831173|NCT00440531|183541599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Single-Group Percentage|84.0||||||95.0|77.0|89.6||||||No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the secondary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) for ENGERIX-B™ at 1 month post vaccination 3, among subjects who were seronegative at baseline.||89.60|77|
91831174|NCT03148470|183541679|OTHER|||||||0.932||||||This p-value refers to the effect of stimulation (cTBS vs iTBS).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.932
91831175|NCT03148470|183541680|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.642
91831176|NCT02249819|183541708|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for mean change from baseline in naming accuracy in the anodal vs. sham tDCS conditions Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean change of naming accuracy between anodal and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.694||||||The wilcoxon sign-ranked test was performed for this crossover design study in which subjects underwent measures across 2 study conditions (paired samples: mean change in anodal vs. sham condition). A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|wilcoxon sign-ranked test|Western Aphasia Battery used as a screening tool on admission only, to characterize level of severity. It was NOT an outcome measure.||||||0.694
91831177|NCT02570126|183541710|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for the Varilrix HSA-free vaccine as compared to Varilrix™ vaccine, the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (VAR\_HSA\_F minus VAR) in incidence of fever \> 39.0°C (\> 102.2°F) within 0-14 days after Dose 1 was to be equal to or below 5%|Difference in percentage between groups|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.08|||||Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettinen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=2.5%|Non-inferiority of Varilrix HSA-free vaccine to Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects reporting fever \> 39.0°C (\> 102.2°F) within 15-days (Days 0-14) after Dose 1 (VAR\_HSA\_F Group minus VAR Group)||1.08|-3.72|
91831178|NCT05224050|183541732|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in the DASS-21 total score from baseline to 2-weeks post-quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.54||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|2.89||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of the mean for the DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and at 2-weeks post-quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=20 who attended their 2-weeks post-quit session|||2.89|-6.98|0.40
91831179|NCT05224050|183541732|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in the DASS-21 total scores from 2-weeks post-quit to 1-month post-quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.15||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at 2-weeks post-quit and 1-month post-quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=19 participants who attended their 1-month post-quit session.|||1.98|-6.84|0.26
91831180|NCT05224050|183541732|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in the DASS-21 total scores from 1-month post-quit to 3-month follow up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.49||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|0.71||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at 1-month post-quit and 3-month follow up. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=16 participants who attended their 3-month follow up session.|||0.71|-6.21|0.11
91831181|NCT05224050|183541735|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare changes in cigarettes smoked per day from Baseline to Quit Day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.88|17.53||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from Baseline to Quit Date. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=22 participants who attended their Quit Date session.|||17.53|9.88|<0.001
91831182|NCT05224050|183541735|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from Quit Date to 2-weeks Post-Quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.02||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from Quit Date to 2-weeks Post-Quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=20 participants who attended their 2-weeks post-quit session.|||1.06|-0.83|0.80
91831183|NCT05224050|183541735|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from 2-weeks post-quit to 1=month post-quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.45||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from 2-weeks post-quit to 1-month post-quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=19 participants who attended their 1-month post-quit session.|||1.45|-1.41|0.97
91831184|NCT05224050|183541735|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from 1-month post-quit to 3-month follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from 1-month post-quit to 3-month follow-up. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=16 participants who attended their 3-month follow-up session.|||-0.17|-4.17|0.04
91831185|NCT01627327|183541744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.022||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.055|||ANCOVA|||||0.055|-0.012|0.201
91953085|NCT03480243|183802636|OTHER||Cmax,ss Estimate Ratio|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.78|2.56|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.56|1.78|
91831186|NCT00917579|183541747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell within (80%, 125%).|ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.34||||||90.0|91.33|99.52|||ANOVA|Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. AUClast + (Clast\*/kel), where Clast\* was the predicted plasma concentration at the last quantifiable time point estimated from the log-linear regression analysis.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (Test-Ref) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||99.52|91.33|
91831187|NCT00917579|183541748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both the AUCinf and Cmax fell within (80%, 125%). AUCinf method of determination includes AUC last calculated value.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.79||||||90.0|91.07|100.76|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. Log-linear trapezoidal method.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence interval was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||100.76|91.07|
91831188|NCT00917579|183541749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell within (80%, 125%).|ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.41||||||90.0|83.39|100.2|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals were obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||100.20|83.39|
91831189|NCT01175850|183541753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-test|Z-test of two proportions was used to compare treatment groups for all randomized subjects.||||||<0.001
91831190|NCT01175850|183541754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91831191|NCT01175850|183541755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91831192|NCT01175850|183541756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.926
91831193|NCT01175850|183541757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91831194|NCT01175850|183541758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91831195|NCT01175850|183541759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.859
91831196|NCT01175850|183541760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
91831197|NCT01175850|183541761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.096
91831198|NCT01175850|183541762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91831199|NCT01175850|183541763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.121
91831200|NCT01175850|183541764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91831201|NCT01175850|183541765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91831202|NCT01175850|183541766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.095
91831203|NCT01175850|183541767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.590
91831204|NCT01175850|183541768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.302
91831205|NCT01175850|183541769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.111
91831206|NCT01175850|183541770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.103
91831207|NCT01175850|183541771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
91831208|NCT01137474|183541773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9251||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-1.24||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction. Data after rescue were not included in the analysis. With 253 patients per group, there is \>80% power to detect a difference of 3.5 mm Hg at alpha=0.05, assuming a common SD of 14 mm Hg.||-1.24|-4.87|0.0010
91831209|NCT01137474|183541774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.33||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in the double-blind treatment period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model||Change from baseline to week 12 was calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction. With 253 subjects per group, there is \>98% power to detect a difference of 0.4% at a=0.05, assuming a common SD of 1.1%.||-0.33|-0.59|<0.0001
91953086|NCT03480243|183802637|OTHER||AUCtau Estimate Ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|3.03|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||3.03|2.02|
91831210|NCT01137474|183541775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0091||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-0.91||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at 2-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|ANCOVA|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 LOCF was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as covariate. Data after rescue are excluded from blood pressure analyses.||-0.91|-4.88|0.0043
91831211|NCT01137474|183541776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5811||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.14||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 was calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction. Data after rescue were not included in the analysis.||0.14|-2.15|0.0843
91831212|NCT01137474|183541777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6866|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.73||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at 2-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test not performed since previous tests were not significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to week 12 LOCF was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as covariate. Data after rescue are excluded from blood pressure analyses.||0.73|-1.96|
91831213|NCT01137474|183541778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0717|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.18||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test not performed since previous tests were not significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 was calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction.||-0.18|-0.46|
91831214|NCT02161133|183541779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.712
91831215|NCT02161133|183541780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91831216|NCT02161133|183541781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.45||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.244
91831217|NCT02161133|183541782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.057
91831218|NCT02161133|183541783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.382|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.382
91831219|NCT02161133|183541784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.703|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.703
91831220|NCT02161133|183541785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.168
91831221|NCT02161133|183541786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91831222|NCT01515410|183541787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.86||||0.0471||95.0|-13.62|-0.09||This p-value indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|No subjects early-terminated from the study.||"Percent OFF Time (%)"||-0.09|-13.62|0.0471
91831223|NCT00868439|183541792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91831224|NCT00868439|183541793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.027
91831225|NCT00868439|183541794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.101
91831226|NCT00868439|183541795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
91831227|NCT00868439|183541796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.136
91831228|NCT00868439|183541797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.015
91831229|NCT04109703|183541799|OTHER|The hypothesis is that the high level pulsed heat group will show statistically more pain relief than the low level steady heat group.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression was used to compare differences in primary outcome between treatment and control groups adjusting for initial pain level.||Demographic and clinical characteristics were tabulated by randomization group. The primary outcome was change in pain score from baseline to 30 minutes after treatment ended. Linear regression was used to compare differences in primary outcome between treatment and control groups adjusting for initial pain level. Unadjusted comparisons are also presented. Change in pain scores at each other post baseline time point were similarly analyzed.||||<0.05
91831230|NCT00338884|183541801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|44.8|||||ORR=proportion of subjects with confirmed CR or PR, relative to total subjects who received at least 1 dose of study medication, had a baseline disease assessment, and had the correct histological cancer type.|||44.8|26.7|
91831231|NCT00338884|183541807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5581|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5581
91831232|NCT00338884|183541807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7635|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7635
91831233|NCT00338884|183541807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8366
91831234|NCT00338884|183541807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.0278
91831235|NCT00338884|183541807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1988
91831236|NCT00338884|183541807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2898|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2898
91831237|NCT00338884|183541807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3567|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3567
91831238|NCT00338884|183541807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4547|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4547
91831239|NCT00338884|183541807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2809
91831240|NCT00338884|183541807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3259|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3259
91831241|NCT00338884|183541807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2702
91831242|NCT00338884|183541808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.7154
91831243|NCT00338884|183541808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6263
91831244|NCT00338884|183541808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9608|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9608
91831245|NCT00338884|183541808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.0300
91831246|NCT00338884|183541808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.0927
91831247|NCT00338884|183541808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2873
91831248|NCT00338884|183541808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3018|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3018
91831249|NCT00338884|183541808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4161
91831250|NCT00338884|183541808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3069|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3069
91831251|NCT00338884|183541808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2920
91831252|NCT00338884|183541808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2409
91831253|NCT00338884|183541810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5784
91831254|NCT00338884|183541810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.6251
91831255|NCT00338884|183541810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1639
91831256|NCT00338884|183541810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2782|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2782
91831257|NCT00338884|183541810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8627|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8627
91831258|NCT00338884|183541810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4620
91831259|NCT00338884|183541810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7575
91831260|NCT00338884|183541810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3566|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3566
91831261|NCT00338884|183541810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2809
91831262|NCT00338884|183541810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8758
91831263|NCT00338884|183541810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2702
91831264|NCT00338884|183541811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.7267
91831265|NCT00338884|183541811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8555|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8555
91831266|NCT00338884|183541811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2259
91831267|NCT00338884|183541811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2074|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2074
91831268|NCT00338884|183541811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4779|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4779
91831269|NCT00338884|183541811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3628
91831270|NCT00338884|183541811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.5460
91831271|NCT00338884|183541811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3637|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3637
91831272|NCT00338884|183541811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2229|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2229
91831273|NCT00338884|183541811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9759
91831274|NCT00338884|183541811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2179
91831275|NCT00338884|183541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5784
91831276|NCT00338884|183541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9625|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.9625
91831277|NCT00338884|183541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8519|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8519
91831278|NCT00338884|183541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.0513
91831279|NCT00338884|183541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4051
91831280|NCT00338884|183541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2548
91831281|NCT00338884|183541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5091
91831282|NCT00338884|183541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3133|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3133
91831283|NCT00338884|183541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9278|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.9278
91831284|NCT00338884|183541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4070
91831285|NCT00338884|183541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2703|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2703
91831286|NCT00338884|183541814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.7267
91831287|NCT00338884|183541814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8286|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8286
91831288|NCT00338884|183541814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6867|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6867
91831289|NCT00338884|183541814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.0450
91831290|NCT00338884|183541814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.1740
91831291|NCT00338884|183541814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2703|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2703
91831292|NCT00338884|183541814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3659|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3659
91831293|NCT00338884|183541814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3391
91831294|NCT00338884|183541814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9800
91831295|NCT00338884|183541814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3350
91831296|NCT00338884|183541814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2179
91831297|NCT00338884|183541817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR Versus PD||||0.0680
91831298|NCT00338884|183541818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR or (SD \> = 12 Weeks) Versus PD||||0.1159
91831299|NCT00338884|183541820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8519|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8519
91831300|NCT00338884|183541820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5879
91831301|NCT00338884|183541820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4757|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4757
91831302|NCT00338884|183541820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1933
91831303|NCT00338884|183541820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4187|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4187
91831304|NCT00338884|183541820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3795|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3795
91831305|NCT00338884|183541820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||1.0000
91831306|NCT00338884|183541820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.6333
91831307|NCT00338884|183541820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8679|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8679
91831308|NCT00338884|183541820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5920
91831309|NCT00338884|183541821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6939|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6939
91831310|NCT00338884|183541821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5871|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.5871
91831311|NCT00338884|183541821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4572|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4572
91831312|NCT00338884|183541821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.1120
91831313|NCT00338884|183541821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4896|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4896
91831314|NCT00338884|183541821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2369
91831315|NCT00338884|183541821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6709|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6709
91831316|NCT00338884|183541821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6382|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6382
91831317|NCT00338884|183541821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8481|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8481
91831318|NCT00338884|183541821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3731|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3731
91831319|NCT00338884|183541823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR Versus PD||||0.0292
91831320|NCT00338884|183541824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR or (SD \> = 12 Weeks) Versus PD||||0.1087
91831321|NCT00338884|183541826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3386
91831322|NCT00338884|183541826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1949|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1949
91831323|NCT00338884|183541826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7037
91831324|NCT00338884|183541826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5748
91831325|NCT00338884|183541826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7470
91831326|NCT00338884|183541826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4703|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4703
91831327|NCT00338884|183541826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8162|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8162
91831328|NCT00338884|183541826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5465|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5465
91831329|NCT00338884|183541826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3495|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3495
91831330|NCT00338884|183541826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6397|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.6397
91831331|NCT00338884|183541827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4632|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4632
91831332|NCT00338884|183541827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.1701
91831333|NCT00338884|183541827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8204|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8204
91831334|NCT00338884|183541827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5162|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.5162
91831335|NCT00338884|183541827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9437|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9437
91831336|NCT00338884|183541827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4013
91831337|NCT00338884|183541827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9595
91831338|NCT00338884|183541827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6249|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6249
91831339|NCT00338884|183541827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3731|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3731
91831340|NCT00338884|183541827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8263
91831341|NCT03492281|183541835|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.2|-0.8|<0.001
91831342|NCT03492281|183541835|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|=|0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.6|=0.0988
91831343|NCT03492281|183541836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
91831344|NCT03492281|183541836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.7|=0.0123
91831345|NCT03492281|183541837|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.2|-1.1|=0.0020
91831346|NCT03492281|183541837|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|=|0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||0.0|-0.9|=0.0648
91831347|NCT03492281|183541838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||23.4|9.7|<0.0001
91831348|NCT03492281|183541838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.4|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||16.7|2.1|=0.0120
91831349|NCT03492281|183541839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.3|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||12.1|0.4|=0.0360
91831350|NCT03492281|183541839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.9|||=|0.5447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||7.8|-4.1|=0.5447
91831351|NCT03492281|183541840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.8|||=|0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex and OAB type (wet/dry), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||12.7|0.9|=0.0235
91831352|NCT03492281|183541840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.7|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex and OAB type (wet/dry), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||10.0|-2.5|=0.2400
91831353|NCT03492281|183541841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.4|-1.0|<0.0001
91831354|NCT03492281|183541841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|=|0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.8|=0.0074
91831355|NCT03492281|183541842|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|=|0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.0||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||6.0|1.2|=0.0039
91831356|NCT03492281|183541842|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.7||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||5.7|0.5|=0.0210
91831357|NCT03492281|183541843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.1||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||28.1|14.3|<0.0001
91831358|NCT03492281|183541843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|20.7||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||20.7|5.9|<0.001
91831359|NCT03492281|183541844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.8||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||5.8|1.7|<0.001
91831360|NCT03492281|183541844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|=|0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.1|||MMRM|||||5.1|0.6|=0.0114
91831361|NCT03492281|183541845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-4.6||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-4.6|-9.2|<0.0001
91831362|NCT03492281|183541845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.2||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-2.2|-7.1|<0.001
91831363|NCT03492281|183541846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|18.1||CMH=Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH risk difference estimate was stratified by OAB type (wet/dry) and sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||18.1|6.7|<0.0001
91831364|NCT03492281|183541846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.9|||=|0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH risk difference estimate was stratified by OAB type (wet/dry) and sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||12.8|0.9|=0.0236
91831365|NCT03492281|183541847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||18.6|4.7|<0.001
91831366|NCT03492281|183541847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.5|||=|0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||18.9|4.2|=0.0022
91831367|NCT03492281|183541848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
91831368|NCT03492281|183541848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||0.0|-0.2|=0.0055
91831369|NCT03492281|183541849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.2|-0.4|<0.0001
91831370|NCT03492281|183541849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
91831371|NCT01569438|183541890|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.2||one-sided|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||MMRM approach was used to model the change from baseline as a function of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline score, and baseline score by week interaction.||0.2|-1.6|0.0734
91831372|NCT01569438|183541891|OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|1.8||one-sided|Mixed Model With Repeated Measures|||MMRM approach was used to model the change from baseline as a function of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline score, and baseline score by week interaction.||1.8|-3.9|0.2726
91831373|NCT01569438|183541892|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.1||one-sided|ANCOVA|||The one-way ANCOVA model was used to calculate change from baseline as a function of treatment and baseline score.||1.1|-1.7|0.3603
91831374|NCT01569438|183541893|OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|0.6||one-sided|ANCOVA|||The one-way ANCOVA model was used to calculate change from baseline as a function of treatment and baseline score.||0.6|-3.5|0.1183
91831375|NCT00452387|183541898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The test of association of PSA and imaging response tests the null hypothesis that the proportion of cases exhibiting PSA response is the same for patients with and without a favorable imaging response. A 2x2 table was constructed based on the number of the patients in imaging response (favorable and unfavorable) and PSA response (\>50% reduction and \<=50% reduction). The Fisher's exact test was used to test this hypothesis.||||0.55
91831376|NCT01693068|183541901|OTHER|A log-rank test stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) (using the interactive voice response system \[IVRS\] value) will tested the null hypothesis of no difference between the Pimasertib (first line) and the Dacarbazine treatment groups at the 5% level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.83|||Stratified Log Rank Test||The Hazard Ratio is obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazards model based on dacarbazine and pimasertib only stratified by baseline ECOG Performance Status.|||0.83|0.42|0.0022
91831377|NCT00579280|183541912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91831378|NCT00579280|183541913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91831379|NCT00579280|183541914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91831380|NCT00579280|183541915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
91831381|NCT00579280|183541916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91831382|NCT00579280|183541917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91831383|NCT00579280|183541918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Differences in response (70% or greater improvement) and remission (50% or greater improvement) rates between the groups.||||||<0.05
91831384|NCT00579280|183541919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91831385|NCT00579280|183541920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91831386|NCT00579280|183541921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91831387|NCT00579280|183541922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91831388|NCT00617344|183541942|OTHER|The associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|2.84||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||2.84|-7.44|
91831389|NCT00617344|183541942|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-2.0||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: 30 days post-injection 2||-2.00|-28.4|
91831390|NCT00617344|183541942|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|2.84||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||2.84|-7.44|
91831391|NCT00617344|183541942|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|8.75||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: 30 days post-injection 2||8.75|-15.0|
91831392|NCT00617344|183541942|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|11.1||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||11.1|-9.09|
91831393|NCT00617344|183541942|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.81||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: 30 days post-injection 2||3.81|-15.6|
91831394|NCT00617344|183541942|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.49||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||2.49|-10.9|
91831395|NCT00617344|183541942|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|31.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|43.2||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: 30 days post-injection 2||43.2|18.2|
91831396|NCT01077830|183541971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.09|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio obtained by dividing the crude rate of death (any cause) reported in the Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/40 arm by the crude rate of death (any cause) in the Placebo arm|||2.09|0.84|
91831397|NCT01077830|183541972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.06|||||Hazard Ratio obtained by dividing the crude rate of death from cancer reported in the Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/40 arm by the crude rate of death from cancer in the Placebo arm|||6.06|0.30|
91831398|NCT01077830|183541973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.11|||||Hazard Ratio obtained by dividing the crude rate of new cancers reported in the Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/40 arm by the crude rate of newly diagnosed cancers in the the Placebo arm|||1.11|0.27|
91831399|NCT01194570|183541976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Reduction (%)|29.337||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|51.456||P-value from a ranked ANCOVA on Percent Change from BL adjusting for rank of BL 25-Foot Timed Walk (25-FTW), Geographical Region (US vs ROW) and Age (\<=45, \> 45 years); missing observations imputed with LOCF.|Ranked ANCOVA||Relative reduction was calculated as -Relative change = - (Ocrelizumab response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using the Bootstrap method.|Estimates (back-transformed) based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix: log(Post-baseline(BL)/BL) = log(BL 25-FTW) + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + log (BL 25-FTW)\*Week. Relative reduction was calculated as -Relative change = -(OCR response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using the Bootstrap method.||51.456|-1.618|0.0404
91831400|NCT01194570|183541977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.924||P-value is from ranked ANCOVA on Percent Change from BL adjusting for rank of BL T2 lesion volume, Geographical Region (US vs ROW) and Age (\<=45, \> 45 years); missing observations imputed with LOCF.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Estimates (back-transformed) are based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix: log(Post-BL/BL) = log(BL T2 lesion volume) + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + log (BL T2 lesion volume)\*Week.||0.924|0.876|< 0.0001
91831401|NCT01194570|183541978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Reduction (%)|17.475||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.206|29.251|||MMRM||Relative reduction was calculated as -Relative change = - (Ocrelizumab response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using the Bootstrap method.|Estimates are from analysis based on MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Percentage Change = Brain Volume at Week 24 + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + Brain Volume at Week 24\*Week. Relative reduction was calculated as - Relative change = - (OCR response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using Bootstrap method.||29.251|3.206|0.0206
91831402|NCT01194570|183541979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.048|1.802|||MMRM||Difference in adjusted mean was calculated as Ocrelizumab SF-36 Physical Component Summary Score - Placebo SF-36 Physical Component Summary Score.|Estimates are from analysis based on MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change = Baseline PCS Score + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + Baseline PCS Score\*Week.||1.802|-1.048|0.6034
91831403|NCT04171102|183541981|OTHER|||||||0.028||||||\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
91831404|NCT01751126|183541982|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.76||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.27||ANCOVA with treatment as well as the baseline CFS and the exposure to Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) seasons (Hochberg procedure).|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.27|0.26|0.007
91831405|NCT01751126|183541982|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as well as the baseline CFS and the exposure to Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) seasons (Hochberg procedure).||||1.18|0.16|0.010
91831406|NCT00876915|183541988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.695||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|1.89|||stratified Cox|||||1.890|0.235|0.4795
91831407|NCT00876915|183541989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.019||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.236|131.632|||stratified Cox|||||131.632|1.236|0.0252
91831408|NCT02673398|183542003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Patients with higher risk scores were more likely to require a dose reduction. The lack of significance is most likely due to the small sample size.|Student's t-test was used to assess if geriatric risk score differed depending on whether or not a participant had a dose reduction (mean difference log2 risk = no dose modification - dose modification).||0.01|-0.82|0.05
91831409|NCT02673398|183542003|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to assess whether log2 geriatric toxicity risk score was a risk factor for the number of course completed.||||0.39
91831410|NCT02673398|183542004|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0398||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||The older the participant the lower the steady state value.|Least squares regression was used to assess the relationship between steady state neratinib concentration and age||||0.03
91831411|NCT02673398|183542004|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Geriatric risk score was not predictive of steady state concentration.|Least squares regression was used to determine if geriatric toxicity risk score at baseline was predictive of steady state neratinib concentration.||||0.57
91831412|NCT02178059|183542029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Approximately 34 healthy volunteers will be entered into the study in order to complete 30 evaluable volunteers. Based on the study SD-001-0268, a residual intra-individual standard deviation of 0.300/sqrt(2) = 0.212 can be expected on the natural log scale. With 30 completed volunteers there will be a 93% chance that the upper limits of two-sided 90% CI for Cmax and AUC ratios are \<1.25 provided that the true mean ratios are \<1.05.|Ratio of geometric means (%)|88.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.03|96.02|||||Comparison of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 (test) to Bricanyl Turbuhaler M2 (reference)|No increase in the exposure of plasma terbutaline after administration of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 will be concluded if the upper bound of the 90% CIs for the ratios of AUC and Cmax are both below 1.25||96.02|81.03|
91831413|NCT02178059|183542030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.17|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.17|-0.17|0.8052
91831414|NCT02178059|183542034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Approximately 34 healthy volunteers will be entered into the study in order to complete 30 evaluable volunteers. Based on the study SD-001-0268, a residual intra-individual standard deviation of 0.300/sqrt(2) = 0.212 can be expected on the natural log scale. With 30 completed volunteers there will be a 93% chance that the upper limits of two-sided 90% CI for Cmax and AUC ratios are \<1.25 provided that the true mean ratios are \<1.05.|Ratio of geometric means (%)|91.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.82|98.58|||||Comparison of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 (test) to Bricanyl Turbuhaler M2 (reference)|No increase in the exposure of plasma terbutaline after administration of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 will be concluded if the upper bound of the 90% CIs for the ratios of AUC and Cmax are both below 1.25||98.58|84.82|
91831415|NCT05616962|183542045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||0.473
91831416|NCT05616962|183542046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03199|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.03199
91831417|NCT05616962|183542047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate||||||0.408
91831418|NCT05616962|183542048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91831419|NCT05616962|183542049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91831420|NCT05616962|183542050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91831421|NCT05616962|183542051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91831422|NCT05616962|183542052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91831423|NCT05616962|183542053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91831424|NCT05616962|183542054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91831425|NCT05616962|183542055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91831426|NCT05616962|183542056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91831427|NCT05616962|183542057|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91953087|NCT03480243|183802637|OTHER||AUCtau Estimate Ratio|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.82|2.73|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.73|1.82|
91831428|NCT05616962|183542058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91831429|NCT05616962|183542059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91831430|NCT05616962|183542060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91831431|NCT05616962|183542061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
91831432|NCT05616962|183542063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00463|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.00463
91831433|NCT05616962|183542064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23077|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.23077
91831434|NCT05616962|183542065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00849|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.00849
91831435|NCT00857207|183542083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|dependent variable: post-treatment outcome; independent variables:pre-treatment measurement and group indicator.||Linear regression of change of cTOL time to first move in GMT versus BHW group||||0.0004
91953088|NCT04365387|183802662|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|14.5|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH).|||14.5|-10.3|
91831436|NCT00857207|183542083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.55||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||total time will significantly improve 10 weeks from post||||0.012
91831437|NCT00857207|183542083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Time to first move will significantly increase at 10 weeks from baseline to indicate better planning||||0.98
91831438|NCT00857207|183542084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.42||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired T-test, Behavioral Regulation Index will improve at week 10 from baseline||||0.15
91831439|NCT00857207|183542084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test of Metacognitive Index, MI will improve at 10 weeks compared to baseline.||||0.24
91953089|NCT04365387|183802663|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|5.7|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH.|||5.7|-14.9|
91831440|NCT00857207|183542085|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||optimal moves will significantly increase at 10 weeks from baseline||||0.30
91831441|NCT04098406|183542088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.4304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|27.3|||MMRM|||||27.3|-11.9|0.4304
91831442|NCT04098406|183542089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|19.7|||MMRM|||||19.7|-12.4|0.6519
91831443|NCT04098406|183542090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|94.0|||MMRM|||||94.0|-56.4|0.6158
91831444|NCT04098406|183542095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.6|||MMRM|||||3.6|-1.6|0.4249
91831445|NCT04098406|183542096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0350
91831446|NCT04098406|183542098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|23.9|||ANCOVA|||||23.9|-5.8|0.2237
91831447|NCT04098406|183542099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.815|||Log Rank|||||0.815|0.103|0.0125
91831448|NCT04098406|183542101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||MMRM|||||1.6|0.2|0.0177
91831449|NCT03014674|183542105|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for Cmax.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.11|||||Ratio (autoinjector/lyophilized drug) for Cmax has been presented|||1.11|0.98|
91831450|NCT03014674|183542105|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for Cmax.|Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.12|||||Ratio (safety syringe/lyophilized drug) for Cmax has been presented|||1.12|0.99|
91953090|NCT04365387|183802665|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|5.9|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH.|||5.9|-3.2|
91953091|NCT04365387|183802666|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|26.4|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH for non-Imputed values|||26.4|0.1|
91953092|NCT04365387|183802667|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|11.9|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH.|||11.9|-9.3|
91953093|NCT05770401|183802668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.76|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was there would be no significant difference in LCQ total score change from baseline to one-week post-treatment between groups.||5.76|.72|.014
91953094|NCT05770401|183802669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.804||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|0.46|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was there would be no significant difference in Cough Severity VAS Scores from baseline to one-week post-treatment between groups.||0.46|-32.7|.056
91831451|NCT03014674|183542106|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-t)|Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.15|||||Ratio (autoinjector/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-t) has been presented|||1.15|1.01|
91831452|NCT03014674|183542106|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-t).|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||||Ratio (safety syringe/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-t) has been presented|||1.12|0.97|
91831453|NCT03014674|183542106|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-inf).|Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||||Ratio (autoinjector/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-inf) has been presented|||1.13|1.00|
91831454|NCT03014674|183542106|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-inf).|Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.09|||||Ratio (safety syringe/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-inf) has been presented|||1.09|0.95|
91831455|NCT01316510|183542174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome (percentage of bifidobacteria in the final stool specimen)||||<0.01
91831456|NCT01316510|183542175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Secondary outcome (length of hospital stay) for all 24 infants (this included two infants with intestinal atresia, both in the placebo group)||||0.44
91831457|NCT00428090|183542180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-3.8|0.074
91831458|NCT00428090|183542180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.0|-3.0|0.338
91831459|NCT00428090|183542180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.1|-3.5|0.602
91831460|NCT00428090|183542181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-2.7|0.131
91831461|NCT00428090|183542181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.8|-2.4|0.315
91831462|NCT00428090|183542181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-3.5|0.105
91831463|NCT00428090|183542182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-2.2|0.272
91831464|NCT00428090|183542182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-2.2|0.297
91831465|NCT00428090|183542182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix||||0.4|-3.1|0.131
91831466|NCT00428090|183542183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-0.3|0.663
91831467|NCT00428090|183542183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.4|0.891
91831468|NCT00428090|183542183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|||0.3|-0.7|0.414
91831469|NCT00428090|183542184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix||||0.3|-0.3|0.913
91831470|NCT00428090|183542184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.4|0.276
91831471|NCT00428090|183542184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.8|0.025
91831472|NCT00428090|183542185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.2|0.939
91831473|NCT00428090|183542185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.4|0.307
91831474|NCT00428090|183542185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.8|0.009
91831475|NCT00428090|183542186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-2.0|0.116
91831476|NCT00428090|183542186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.2|-0.9|0.816
91831477|NCT00428090|183542186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-2.1|0.318
91831478|NCT00428090|183542186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in at Week 16 Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.3|-1.1|0.839
91831479|NCT00428090|183542186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.0|-0.3|0.165
91831480|NCT00428090|183542186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-3.4|0.073
91831481|NCT00428090|183542186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-2.2|0.272
91831482|NCT00428090|183542186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-2.2|0.297
91831483|NCT00428090|183542186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-3.1|0.131
91831484|NCT00428090|183542187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.0|-0.3|0.133
91831485|NCT00428090|183542187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.2|0.958
91831486|NCT00428090|183542187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.0|-0.5|0.085
91831487|NCT00428090|183542187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.0|-0.4|0.102
91831488|NCT00428090|183542187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.3|0.380
91831489|NCT00428090|183542187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.7|0.006
91831490|NCT00428090|183542187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.2|0.939
91831491|NCT00428090|183542187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.4|0.307
91831492|NCT00428090|183542187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.8|0.009
91831493|NCT00428090|183542188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.5|-1.6|0.957
91831494|NCT00428090|183542188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.2|-1.4|0.693
91831495|NCT00428090|183542188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.7|-2.2|0.798
91831496|NCT00428090|183542188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.8|-1.7|0.958
91831497|NCT00428090|183542188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.1|-2.1|0.998
91831498|NCT00428090|183542188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.639||95.0|-1.7|2.8||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.8|-1.7|0.639
91831499|NCT00428090|183542188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.7|-2.1|0.797
91831500|NCT00428090|183542188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.7|-2.9|0.942
91831501|NCT00428090|183542188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.1|-4.8|0.213
91831502|NCT00428090|183542189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.3|-2.1|0.919
91831503|NCT00428090|183542189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.4|-1.5|0.649
91831504|NCT00428090|183542189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.6||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.6|-1.1|0.279
91831505|NCT00428090|183542189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.6|-1.8|0.498
91831506|NCT00428090|183542189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in at Week 16 Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.6|-1.7|0.489
91831507|NCT00428090|183542189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.0||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||7.0|0.5|0.024
91831508|NCT00428090|183542189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||4.2|-1.6|0.385
91831509|NCT00428090|183542189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.8||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.8|-3.0|0.944
91831510|NCT00428090|183542189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.5||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||7.5|-0.4|0.078
91831511|NCT00428090|183542190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.5|-0.8|0.635
91831512|NCT00428090|183542190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.1|-0.2|0.194
91831513|NCT00428090|183542190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-1.3|0.325
91831514|NCT00428090|183542190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.2|-0.1|0.109
91831515|NCT00428090|183542190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.4|0.1|0.032
91831516|NCT00428090|183542190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-1.7|0.189
91831517|NCT00428090|183542190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-1.1|0.288
91831518|NCT00428090|183542190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-0.8|0.819
91831519|NCT00428090|183542190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.5|-1.5|0.306
91831520|NCT00428090|183542191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.07|-0.01|0.199
91831521|NCT00428090|183542191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.08|-0.01|0.094
91831522|NCT00428090|183542191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.09||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.09|-0.02|0.187
91831523|NCT00428090|183542191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.07|-0.01|0.134
91831524|NCT00428090|183542191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.05|-0.05|0.958
91831525|NCT00428090|183542191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.07|-0.03|0.374
91831526|NCT00428090|183542192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.2|-4.6|0.493
91831527|NCT00428090|183542192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.7|-3.2|0.883
91831528|NCT00428090|183542192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.2||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.2|-9.3|0.130
91831529|NCT00428090|183542192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.4|-6.6|0.198
91831530|NCT00428090|183542192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.6|-5.9|0.441
91831531|NCT00428090|183542192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||5.1|-5.8|0.898
91831532|NCT00428090|183542194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-2.1|0.027
91831533|NCT00428090|183542194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.5|-1.6|0.278
91831534|NCT00428090|183542194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.1|-1.2|0.993
91831535|NCT00428090|183542194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-2.0|0.196
91831536|NCT00428090|183542194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-1.9|0.353
91831537|NCT00428090|183542194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.9||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.9|-2.2|0.427
91831538|NCT00428090|183542195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-0.7|0.886
91831539|NCT00428090|183542195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-0.8|0.710
91831540|NCT00428090|183542195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.8|0.1|0.030
91831541|NCT00428090|183542196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.0|0.139
91831542|NCT00428090|183542196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.1|0.846
91831543|NCT00428090|183542196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.1|0.864
91831544|NCT00361140|183542216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.007
91831545|NCT00361140|183542217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.27||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|42.48|||Gray|Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16:1141-1154.||Sample size: dependent on dose escalation. Once the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is reached, a total of 30 patients will be accrued to that level. If maximally tolerated AUC is level 1, a total of 30 patients will be treated on this level using tacrolimus and methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis. This will provide 95% confidence intervals for 100-day non-relapse mortality and non-fatal toxicities with ½ widths not exceeding 0.18. Hazard ratios were calculated per the method of Gray (reference given)||42.48|0.92|.07
91831546|NCT02623322|183542221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.25|6.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.19|-12.25|0.3031
91831547|NCT02623322|183542221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.82|6.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.76|-12.82|0.3324
91831548|NCT02623322|183542222|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.25|6.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.19|-12.25|0.3031
91831549|NCT02623322|183542222|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.82|6.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.76|-12.82|0.3324
91831550|NCT02623322|183542226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7858|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|1.37|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=1||1.37|0.62|0.7858
91953095|NCT01683565|183802675|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in Pervasive Developmental Disorders Screening Test-II scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.67||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The sample size was determined based on the goal of confirming trial feasibility and estimating effect sizes for a full-scale trial, not for a definitive test of efficacy. The enrollment goal was 40, which would have provided an indication of an expected effect size for a larger full-scale trial (e.g., 53% power to detect a 2-point decrease (approximately 0.7-SD based on a prior study) in Pervasive Developmental Disorders Screening Test-II score). Funding limitations capped enrollment at 31.||||0.67
91831551|NCT02623322|183542226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.36|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=1||1.36|0.59|0.5170
91831552|NCT02623322|183542226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.89|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=7||0.89|0.45|0.0312
91831553|NCT02623322|183542226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.53|1.04|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=7||1.04|0.53|0.2044
91831554|NCT02450331|183542246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.892||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.081|||Log Rank|||||1.081|0.735|0.2446
91831555|NCT02450331|183542247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.3172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.109|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on PDL1 status, tumor stage after resection, and nodal status.||1.109|0.726|0.3172
91831556|NCT02450331|183542248|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.116|||Log Rank|||||1.116|0.626|0.2235
91831557|NCT02450331|183542249|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.134|||Log Rank|||||1.134|0.743|0.4291
91831558|NCT02450331|183542250|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.1994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.070|0.722|0.1994
91831559|NCT02080871|183542256|OTHER|This was a single-arm study designed to compare the primary outcome result to a performance goal based on published literature. The null hypothesis was the probability of a subject experiencing a Major Adverse Event (MAE) with use of study device is at least 17%. The alternate hypothesis was the probability of a subject experiencing a Major Adverse Event (MAE) with use of the study device is less than 17%.|||||<|0.001|||||||one-sided binomial exact test|||The sample size obtains over 90% power to statistically show the probability that a subject will experience an MAE with use of the study device is less than 17% when 12% or less of the subjects are lost to follow up prior to 9 months.||||<0.001
91831560|NCT03384173|183542353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91831561|NCT03384173|183542354|OTHER|Correlation, Pearson r|Pearson r correlation|0.16||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.37|||Pearson r correlation|||||0.37|-0.07|0.17
91831562|NCT03384173|183542355|OTHER|Correlation, Pearson r|Pearson r correlation|0.12||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.33|||Pearson r correlation|||||0.33|-0.11|0.32
91831563|NCT03384173|183542357|OTHER|Mann Whitney U non parametric test|||||<|0.01||||||"A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.~A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 30-39.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group is Secondary analysis #4, baseline values before caffeine dose.||||<0.01
91831564|NCT03384173|183542358|OTHER|Mann Whitney U non parametric test|||||<|0.001||||||A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group is secondary outcome #4, baseline values before caffeine dose||||<0.001
91831565|NCT03384173|183542359|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U non parametric t test|||||<|0.01||||||"A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.~A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup \>60% ' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison group is Secondary outcome #4, baseline caffeine values by subgroup||||<0.01
91831566|NCT03384173|183542360|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison group is secondary outcome #4, baseline values before caffeine dose||||<0.0001
91831567|NCT03384173|183542361|OTHER|Mann Whitney U non-parametric t-test|||||<|0.05||||||A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison group is Secondary Outcome #4, baseline before dose of caffeine.||||<0.05
91831568|NCT04493931|183542362|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.753|1.184||||||||1.184|0.753|
91831569|NCT04493931|183542363|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.742|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.742|-0.750|
91831570|NCT04493931|183542364|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.094|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.959|1.249||||||||1.249|0.959|
91831571|NCT04493931|183542365|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.059|1.265||||||||1.265|1.059|
91831572|NCT04493931|183542366|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.158|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.062|1.264||||||||1.264|1.062|
91831573|NCT04493931|183542367|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.635|0.84||||||||0.840|0.635|
91831574|NCT04493931|183542368|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|0.000|
91831575|NCT04493931|183542369|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.492|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate|||0.492|-1.000|
91831576|NCT04493931|183542370|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.433|0.525||||||||0.525|0.433|
91831577|NCT04493931|183542371|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.435|0.526||||||||0.526|0.435|
91831578|NCT04493931|183542372|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.274|1.845||||||||1.845|1.274|
91831579|NCT04493931|183542373|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|0.000|
91831580|NCT04493931|183542374|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|-0.233|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||-0.233|-1.000|
91831581|NCT04493931|183542375|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.217|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.085|1.363||||||||1.363|1.085|
91831582|NCT04493931|183542376|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.983|1.278||||||||1.278|0.983|
91831583|NCT04493931|183542377|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.242|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.046|1.475||||||||1.475|1.046|
91831584|NCT04493931|183542378|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|0.000|
91831585|NCT04493931|183542379|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.8|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.800|-0.250|
91831586|NCT04493931|183542380|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.622|2.278||||||||2.278|1.622|
91831587|NCT04493931|183542381|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.619|2.234||||||||2.234|1.619|
91831588|NCT04493931|183542405|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.051|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.824|1.34||||||||1.340|0.824|
91831589|NCT04493931|183542406|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.250|0.000|
91831590|NCT04493931|183542407|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.25|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||1.250|-0.500|
91831591|NCT04493931|183542408|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.094|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.987|1.212||||||||1.212|0.987|
91831592|NCT04493931|183542409|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.209||||||||1.209|0.991|
91831593|NCT04493931|183542412|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|-0.250|
91831594|NCT04493931|183542415|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.214|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.473||||||||1.473|1.000|
91831595|NCT04493931|183542416|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.27||||||||1.270|0.948|
91831596|NCT04493931|183542417|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.939|1.221||||||||1.221|0.939|
91831597|NCT04493931|183542418|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.292||||||||1.292|0.930|
91831598|NCT04493931|183542432|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.441|0.565||||||||0.565|0.441|
91831599|NCT04493931|183542433|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|0.439|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.521||||||||0.521|0.370|
91831600|NCT04493931|183542434|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|0.438|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.372|0.516||||||||0.516|0.372|
91831601|NCT04493931|183542435|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.129||||||||1.129|0.950|
91831602|NCT04493931|183542459|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.755|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.304|2.363||||||||2.363|1.304|
91831603|NCT04493931|183542460|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.833|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.769|0.902||||||||0.902|0.769|
91831604|NCT04493931|183542461|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.653|0.85||||||||0.850|0.653|
91831605|NCT04493931|183542462|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.782|1.018||||||||1.018|0.782|
91831606|NCT04493931|183542463|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.528||||||||1.528|0.876|
91831607|NCT04493931|183542464|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.142|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.016|1.283||||||||1.283|1.016|
91831608|NCT04493931|183542465|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.521|0.699||||||||0.699|0.521|
91831609|NCT04493931|183542466|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.526|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.448|0.618||||||||0.618|0.448|
91831610|NCT00420199|183542508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Comparison in the change from baseline of erosion score using the OMERACT 6 RA MRI score method between Abatacept and Placebo at Day 113 was based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). Change from BL = Post-BL measurement-BL value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and BL value a covariate.||0.76|-1.77|
91831611|NCT00420199|183542509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.103||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison in change from baseline of wrist synovitis using OMERACT 6 rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score method between abatacept and placebo at Day 113 based on a nonparametric analysis of covariance model. Baseline and changes from baseline of the total wrist synovitis scores were ranked, and the model included the rank score for change from baseline as the dependent variable with treatment group as a main effect and the rank score for baseline as an additional covariate.||||0.103
91831612|NCT00420199|183542511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.96|||ANCOVA|||Comparison in the change from baseline of Edema/Osteitis score using the OMERACT 6 RA MRI score method between Abatacept and Placebo at Day 113 was based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). Change from BL = Post-BL measurement-BL value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and BL value a covariate.||-0.96|-6.00|
91831613|NCT00420199|183542514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference from Placebo|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.42|||ANCOVA|||Comparison in the change from baseline of RAMRIS score using the OMERACT 6 RA MRI score method between Abatacept and Placebo at Day 113 was based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). Change from BL = Post-BL measurement-BL value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and BL value a covariate.||-1.42|-8.00|
91831614|NCT00420199|183542528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.078||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison in change from baseline of wrist synovitis using OMERACT 6 rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) score method between ABA and PLA at Day 113 based on a parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). The model included the score change from baseline as the dependent variable, treatment group as a main effect and baseline score as an additional covariate.||||0.078
91831615|NCT00558428|183542538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.9|-2.38|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-2.38|-4.90|<0.0001
91831616|NCT00558428|183542538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.18|-3.66|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-3.66|-6.18|<0.0001
91831617|NCT00558428|183542538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||||95.0|-2.66|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-0.14|-2.66|
91831618|NCT00558428|183542538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||||95.0|-3.93|-1.43|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-1.43|-3.93|
91831619|NCT00831779|183542569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4685||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|36.1||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||||36.10|5.75|0.0059
91953096|NCT01683565|183802676|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Competence scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.22
91831620|NCT00831779|183542570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4984||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|57.48||Secondary endpoint was tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||||57.48|-1.22|0.0598
91831621|NCT04020341|183542571|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for non-inferiority is if the Z-statistic for non-inferiority is greater than the Z-statistic boundary (2.065).|Adjusted Difference in Percent|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.1|||||||Observed Z statistic value for Noninferiority was 3.5554.|12.1|-3.6|
91831622|NCT04020341|183542571|SUPERIORITY|The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for superiority is if the one-sided p-value is less than the 0.019 p-value boundary.|Adjusted difference of Percent|4.3||||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.1|||1-sided p-value for Test of Superiority|||||12.1|-3.6|0.1445
91831623|NCT01814371|183542622|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.757|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.757
91831624|NCT01814371|183542623|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91831625|NCT01814371|183542624|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.687|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.687
91831626|NCT01814371|183542625|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91831627|NCT01814371|183542626|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.811|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.811
91831628|NCT01814371|183542627|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91831629|NCT01814371|183542628|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91831630|NCT01814371|183542629|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.050
91831631|NCT01814371|183542630|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91831632|NCT01814371|183542631|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
91831633|NCT01814371|183542632|EQUIVALENCE|testing equivalence of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91831634|NCT01814371|183542633|EQUIVALENCE|testing equivalence of before and after decolonization protocol.||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
91831635|NCT01814371|183542635|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.381|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.381
91831636|NCT01814371|183542636|EQUIVALENCE|testing equivalence of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.143
91831637|NCT04683926|183542637|OTHER||AUC(0-36) Estimate (β1)|1.0227|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of dose proportionality following 10, 20 and 30 mg fasted using a mixed-effects model based on a power function: ln(dependent variable) = β1×ln(Dose) + ln(β0) + ε. Random slope and intercept. 90% CI of β1 acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 modified to account for ratio of dose levels in this study as follows: \[1+ln(0.8)/ln(3), 1+ln(1.25)/ln(3)\], giving acceptance range of \[0.7969, 1.2031\]. If the 90% CI of β1 is within \[0.7969, 1.2031\], dose-proportionality is proven for the PK parameter.||||
91831638|NCT04683926|183542637|OTHER||AUC(inf) Estimate (β1)|1.0223|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of dose proportionality following 10, 20 and 30 mg fasted using a mixed-effects model based on a power function: ln(dependent variable) = β1×ln(Dose) + ln(β0) + ε. Random slope and intercept. 90% CI of β1 acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 modified to account for ratio of dose levels in this study as follows: \[1+ln(0.8)/ln(3), 1+ln(1.25)/ln(3)\], giving acceptance range of \[0.7969, 1.2031\]. If the 90% CI of β1 is within \[0.7969, 1.2031\], dose-proportionality is proven for the PK parameter.||||
91831639|NCT04683926|183542637|EQUIVALENCE|Absent food effect will be established if the 90% CI for the ratio of population geometric means between fed and fasted 30 mg doses, based on log-transformed data, is contained in the equivalence limits of 0.80-1.25 for AUC0-inf and Cmax.|AUC(0-inf) fed/fasted ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.12||||||Analysis of food effect on desmetramadol in the evaluable population using natural logarithm-transformed PK exposure parameters of desmetramadol enantiomers following administration of 30 mg desmetramadol in the fed and fasted states.||1.12|1.05|
91831640|NCT04683926|183542638|OTHER||Cmax Estimate (β1)|0.9899|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of dose proportionality following 10, 20 and 30 mg fasted using a mixed-effects model based on a power function: ln(dependent variable) = β1×ln(Dose) + ln(β0) + ε. Random slope and intercept. 90% CI of β1 acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 modified to account for ratio of dose levels in this study as follows: \[1+ln(0.8)/ln(3), 1+ln(1.25)/ln(3)\], giving acceptance range of \[0.7969, 1.2031\]. If the 90% CI of β1 is within \[0.7969, 1.2031\], dose-proportionality is proven for the PK parameter.||||
91831641|NCT04683926|183542638|EQUIVALENCE|Absent food effect will be established if the 90% CI for the ratio of population geometric means between fed and fasted 30 mg doses, based on log-transformed data, is contained in the equivalence limits of 0.80-1.25 for AUC0-inf and Cmax.|Cmax 90% fed/fasted ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.28||||||Analysis of food effect on desmetramadol in the evaluable population using natural logarithm-transformed PK exposure parameters of desmetramadol enantiomers following administration of 30 mg desmetramadol in the fed and fasted states.||1.28|1.08|
91831642|NCT01692782|183542645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The 4 mg and 8 mg SEP 225289 groups were compared to placebo using a MMRM analysis. The MMRM model included treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled center, baseline ADHD RS-IV with adult prompts score, and treatment-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the within subject correlation.||||
91831643|NCT01692782|183542645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.38||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-values of SEP 225289 4 mg versus placebo at Week 4 was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure.||The 4 mg SEP 225289 group was compared to placebo using a MMRM analysis. The MMRM model included treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled center, baseline ADHD RS-IV with adult prompts score, and treatment-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the within subject correlation.||||0.076
91831644|NCT01692782|183542645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.88||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value of SEP 225289 8 mg versus placebo at Week 4 was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The 8 mg SEP 225289 group was compared to placebo using a MMRM analysis. The MMRM model included treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled center, baseline ADHD RS-IV with adult prompts score, and treatment-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the within subject correlation.||||0.019
91831645|NCT04341116|183542656|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|27.0|||Fisher Exact|||||27|-6.5|.28
91831646|NCT00952367|183542669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.247|2.159|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=12.514||Age of mother bearing, \<=30 years vs \>30 years||2.159|1.247|<0.001
91831647|NCT00952367|183542669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.793||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.01|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.529||Household register, local vs nonlocal||1.010|0.622|0.060
91831648|NCT00952367|183542669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.369||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.672|32.479|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=7.524||Mother's education level, illiteracy vs postgraduate or above||32.479|1.672|0.006
91831649|NCT00952367|183542669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.443||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|11.843|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=2.671||Mother's education level, elementary school vs postgraduate or above||11.843|1.001|0.102
91831650|NCT00952367|183542669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.064||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|10.067|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.984||Mother's education level, junior middle school vs postgraduate or above||10.067|0.933|0.159
91831651|NCT00952367|183542669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.321||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.589|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.191||Mother's education level, senior high school/vocational high school/technical secondary school vs postgraduate or above||7.589|0.710|0.662
91831652|NCT00952367|183542669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.306|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|4.277|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=13.525||Mother's education level, college/university vs postgraduate or above||4.277|0.399|<0.001
91831653|NCT00952367|183542669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.217||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|6.831|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.095||Family monthly income per capita, \<=600 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||6.831|0.719|0.043
91831654|NCT00952367|183542669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.089||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|5.906|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=6.549||Family monthly income per capita, 600 to 1999 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||5.906|0.739|0.010
91831655|NCT00952367|183542669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.983||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|5.583|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=5.313||Family monthly income per capita, 2000 to 4999 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||5.583|0.704|0.021
91831656|NCT00952367|183542669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|3.267|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.824||Family monthly income per capita, 5000 to 7999 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||3.267|0.344|0.364
91831657|NCT00952367|183542669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.347|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.838||||3.347|0.100|0.175
91831658|NCT00952367|183542669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.516|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.666|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=25.960||Whether have brothers or sisters, no vs yes||0.666|0.400|<0.001
91831659|NCT00952367|183542670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.255||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|1.044|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.610||Birth information, preterm birth vs full-term birth||1.044|0.062|0.057
91831660|NCT00952367|183542670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.666||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.981|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.228||Household register, local vs nonlocal||0.981|0.451|0.040
91831661|NCT00952367|183542670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.182||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.844|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.074||Feeding manners within 6 months, pure breast feeding vs pure formula milk feeding||1.844|0.758|0.044
91831662|NCT00952367|183542670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.707||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.191|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.316||Feeding manners within 6 months, mixed feeding vs pure formula milk feeding||1.191|0.420|0.038
91831663|NCT00952367|183542670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|92.229||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.993|2130.5|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=7.438||Father's education level, illiteracy vs postgraduate or above||2130.500|3.993|0.006
91831664|NCT00952367|183542670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.671||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|40.608|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.079||Father's education level, elementary school vs postgraduate or above||40.608|0.537|0.778
91831665|NCT00952367|183542670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|35.956|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.096||Father's education level, junior high school vs postgraduate or above||35.956|0.649|0.756
91831666|NCT00952367|183542670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.513||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|26.03|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.807||Father's education level, senior high school/vocational high school/technical secondary school vs postgraduate or above||26.030|0.474|0.179
91831667|NCT00952367|183542670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.029||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|22.292|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.131||Father's education level, college/university vs postgraduate or above||22.292|0.412|0.077
91831668|NCT00952367|183542670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.984||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.0|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.648||Living space per capita, continuous variables||1.000|0.968|0.056
91831669|NCT00952367|183542670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.729||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.018|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.432||Vaccination history of Hib, no vs yes||1.018|0.522|0.064
91831670|NCT00952367|183542671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.871|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=5.538||Birth information, preterm birth vs full-term birth||0.871|0.221|0.019
91831671|NCT00952367|183542671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.546|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|0.703|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=21.938||Household register, local vs nonlocal||0.703|0.423|<0.001
91831672|NCT00952367|183542671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.137||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|9.652|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.341||Mother's education level, illiteracy vs graduate or above||9.652|0.473|0.559
91831673|NCT00952367|183542671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|5.394|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.238||Mother's education level, elementary school vs graduate or above||5.394|0.596|0.626
91831674|NCT00952367|183542671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.972||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|5.562|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.691||Mother's education level, junior middle school vs graduate or above||5.562|0.699|0.193
91831675|NCT00952367|183542671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.907||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|5.353|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.081||Mother's education level, senior high school/vocational high school/technical secondary school vs postgraduate or above||5.353|0.679|0.298
91831676|NCT00952367|183542671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.233||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|3.464|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=2.395||Mother's education level, college/university vs postgraduate or above||3.464|0.439|0.122
91831677|NCT00952367|183542671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.666||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.855|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=10.233||Whether have brothers or sisters, no vs yes||0.855|0.520|0.001
91831678|NCT05072080|183542684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|97.5||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups. All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared||Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 22||97.5|95.0|<0.0001
91831679|NCT05072080|183542686|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|206.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|183.0|232.0||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo).|Day 22||232|183|<0.0001
91831680|NCT05072080|183542688|EQUIVALENCE|Success criterion was pairwise GMT ratios (104:105, 105:106, 104:106) each with a two-sided 95% CI within \[0.667; 1.5\].|GMT Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed. GMT estimates and 95% CIs are derived from an ANOVA model that includes site and product lot as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers.|||1.14|0.85|
91831681|NCT05072080|183542688|EQUIVALENCE|Success criterion was pairwise GMT ratios (104:105, 105:106, 104:106) each with a two-sided 95% CI within \[0.667; 1.5\].|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12|||||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed. GMT estimates and 95% CIs are derived from an ANOVA model that includes site and product lot as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers.|||1.12|0.84|
91831682|NCT05072080|183542688|EQUIVALENCE|Success criterion was pairwise GMT ratios (104:105, 105:106, 104:106) each with a two-sided 95% CI within \[0.667; 1.5\].|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed. GMT estimates and 95% CIs are derived from an ANOVA model that includes site and product lot as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers.|||1.10|0.82|
91831683|NCT05072080|183542690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.3|96.8||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically, such that each was only tested if all 3 coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 15||96.8|94.3|<0.0001
91831684|NCT05072080|183542690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|85.6||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically, such that each was only tested if all 3 coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 183||85.6|81.7|<0.0001
91831685|NCT05072080|183542690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|48.1||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically, such that each was only tested if all 3 coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 8||48.1|43.8|<0.0001
91831686|NCT05072080|183542692|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|14.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 8||14|11|<0.0001
91831687|NCT05072080|183542692|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|144.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|128.0|162.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 15||162|128|<0.0001
91831688|NCT05072080|183542692|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|46.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 183||46|37|<0.0001
91831689|NCT05072080|183542694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 8||||<0.0001
91953097|NCT01683565|183802676|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in the BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes||||||0.92||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Problem scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.92
91953098|NCT01683565|183802676|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Dysregulation scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.88
91831690|NCT05072080|183542694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 15||||<0.0001
91831691|NCT05072080|183542694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 22||||<0.0001
91831692|NCT05072080|183542694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 183||||<0.0001
91831693|NCT05072080|183542696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|91.9|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 8||91.9|88.7|<0.0001
91831694|NCT05072080|183542696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|98.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|99.3||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Chi-squared||Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 15||99.3|97.2|<0.0001
91831695|NCT05072080|183542696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.8|98.5|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 22||98.5|95.8|<0.0001
91831696|NCT05072080|183542696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|97.9|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 183||97.9|94.8|<0.0001
91831697|NCT05072080|183542696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.5|66.7|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 8||66.7|62.5|<0.0001
91831698|NCT05072080|183542696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.3|98.4|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 15||98.4|96.3|<0.0001
91831699|NCT05072080|183542696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|98.1|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 22||98.1|95.5|<0.0001
91831700|NCT05072080|183542696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|91.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|92.7|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 183||92.7|89.4|<0.0001
91831701|NCT00736645|183542716|OTHER|||||||0.5137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5137
91831702|NCT00736645|183542716|OTHER|||||||0.8994|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8994
91831703|NCT00736645|183542716|OTHER|||||||0.3463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3463
91831704|NCT00736645|183542717|OTHER|||||||0.2609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2609
91831705|NCT00736645|183542717|OTHER|||||||0.7504|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7504
91953099|NCT01683565|183802676|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Externalizing scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.23
91953100|NCT01683565|183802676|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Internalizing scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.91
91953101|NCT01683565|183802676|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Austism Spectrum Disorder scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.03
91831706|NCT00736645|183542717|OTHER|||||||0.9727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9727
91831707|NCT02300220|183542719|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.071||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.676|||Regression, Cox|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Cox's proportional hazard model with pre-specified adjustment for patient's self-reported history of exacerbations over the previous year and with stratification for study centre. The onset of exacerbation will be monitored up to 90 days or at patient withdrawal.||1.676|0.684|0.764
91831708|NCT02300220|183542720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.703
91831709|NCT02300220|183542722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.239
91831710|NCT04322682|183542725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.61|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.61|0.081
91831711|NCT04322682|183542726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.67|||Chi-squared|||||1.67|0.19|0.291
91831712|NCT04322682|183542727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.60|0.077
91831713|NCT04322682|183542728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.25|0.080
91831714|NCT04322682|183542729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99||P-Value is for the comparison of the treatment group within patients with Covid-19 confirmed by PCR.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic-regression model including the treatment group, the PCR-confirmed Covid-19 subgroup factor (yes/no) and their interaction was performed.||||0.99|0.57|0.042
91831715|NCT02238379|183542733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Main Effect of Emotion|ANOVA|Spray (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) by Hemisphere (Left, Right) ANOVA||N170 Analysis||||.003
91831716|NCT02238379|183542733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Main Effect of Face Type|ANOVA|Spray (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) by Hemisphere (Left, Right) ANOVA||N170 Analysis||||.034
91831717|NCT02238379|183542733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Main Effect of Face Type|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) ANOVA||P300 Analysis||||.03
91831718|NCT02238379|183542733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Spray Type by Face Type Interaction|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) ANOVA||P300 Analysis||||.03
91831719|NCT02238379|183542733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.22||||||No Main Effects or Interactions|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) ANOVA||LPP Analysis||||>.22
91831720|NCT02238379|183542734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.14||||||No Main Effects or Interactions|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) and Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||N170 Analysis||||>.14
91831721|NCT02238379|183542734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.17||||||No difference between Spray Types|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test comparing Spray Type (Oxytocin vs Placebo)||P300 Analysis||||>.17
91831722|NCT02238379|183542734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.27||||||No difference between Spray Types|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test comparing Spray Type (Oxytocin vs Placebo)||LPP Analysis||||>.27
91831723|NCT02238379|183542735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Main Effect of Emotion|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo), Face Type (Infant, Adult), Emotion (Neutral, Distressed), and Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.006
91831724|NCT02238379|183542735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Main Effect of Hemisphere|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo), Face Type (Infant, Adult), Emotion (Neutral, Distressed), and Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.01
91831725|NCT02238379|183542736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Main Effect of Spray|ANOVA|Spray (oxytocin, placebo) by Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.03
91831726|NCT02238379|183542736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Main Effect of Hemisphere|ANOVA|Spray (oxytocin, placebo) by Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.008
91831727|NCT02238379|183542737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
91831728|NCT02238379|183542739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
91831729|NCT02238379|183542740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
91831730|NCT02238379|183542741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
91831731|NCT00605280|183542759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.3||Adjusted for glycolated hemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values not carried forward for missing post-baseline data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.30|1.32|0.0047
91831732|NCT00605280|183542760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.1904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||2.53|0.85|0.1904
91831733|NCT00605280|183542761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||3.34|0.74|0.2466
91831734|NCT00605280|183542762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||3.26|0.86|0.1388
91831735|NCT00605280|183542763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||0.99|0.07|0.0468
91831736|NCT00605280|183542764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|11.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||11.55|0.73|0.1124
91831737|NCT00605280|183542765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||1.42|0.16|0.1788
91831738|NCT00605280|183542766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|18.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||18.06|1.45|0.0048
91831739|NCT00605280|183542767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean|3.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.54|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||6.54|1.25|0.0040
91831740|NCT00605280|183542768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|4.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|7.29|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post baseline data.||||7.29|1.85|0.0011
91831741|NCT00605280|183542769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||0.74|0.24|0.0023
91831742|NCT00605280|183542770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||0.69|0.23|0.0008
91831743|NCT01311674|183542775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91831744|NCT01311674|183542776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91831745|NCT01311674|183542777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.84
91831746|NCT01311674|183542778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.24
91831747|NCT01311674|183542779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.27
91831748|NCT02959996|183542782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91831749|NCT02959996|183542783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
91831750|NCT02959996|183542784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91831751|NCT01329029|183542813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0633||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.002||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|||1.002|0.753|0.0529
91831752|NCT01329029|183542814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.073|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment by time interaction.||||0.073|0.038|<0.0001
91831753|NCT01329029|183542815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0889||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|0.952|||Generalized Linear Regression|Analyzed using a negative binomial regression model excluding a correction for overdispersion.|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|||0.952|0.601|0.0175
91831754|NCT01329029|183542816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0771||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.078||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Moderate COPD Exacerbations||1.078|0.775|0.2875
91831755|NCT01329029|183542816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.933||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Mild, Moderate or Severe COPD Exacerbations||0.933|0.675|0.0050
91831756|NCT01329029|183542816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0605||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|0.982||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|COPD Exacerbations treated with Glucocorticosteroids and/or Antibiotics||0.982|0.744|0.0262
91831757|NCT01329029|183542816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0528||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.947||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Moderate or Severe COPD Exacerbations and/or treated with Antibiotics||0.947|0.739|0.0047
91831758|NCT01329029|183542816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0899||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|0.96||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Generalized Linear Regression|Negative binomial regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates)|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Leading to Hospitalisation||0.960|0.604|0.0209
91831759|NCT01329029|183542818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0549||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.031||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.031|0.815|0.1461
91831760|NCT01329029|183542819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0842||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|0.974||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Wei-Lin-Weissfeld Method||A hazard ratio of \<1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment|||0.974|0.641|0.0270
91831761|NCT01329029|183542820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1209||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.027||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Wei-Lin-Weissfeld Method||A hazard ratio of \<1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|||1.027|0.546|0.0731
91831762|NCT01329029|183542821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NNTB|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|31.0||||||||31|4|
91831763|NCT01329029|183542824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0159|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.124||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and restricted maximum likelihood (REML).||||0.124|0.061|<0.0001
91831764|NCT01329029|183542825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.038||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and REML.||||0.038|0.013|<0.0001
91953102|NCT01683565|183802676|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Red Flag scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.07
91831765|NCT01329029|183542826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.12||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and REML.||||0.120|0.069|<0.0001
91831766|NCT01329029|183542828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0941||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.467|-0.098||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Compound symmetry covariance structure and REML.||||-0.098|-0.467|0.0027
91831767|NCT01329029|183542829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0439||0.7392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.071||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Compound symmetry covariance structure and REML.||||0.071|-0.101|0.7392
91831768|NCT01329029|183542832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2175||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.142||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and REML.||||0.142|-0.711|0.1909
91831769|NCT01329029|183542834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3468||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.99||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.990|0.528|0.9414
91831770|NCT01329029|183542835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5765||0.8876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|3.075|||Cox-proportional hazards model|Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||3.075|0.378|0.8876
91831771|NCT01329029|183542836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.268|1.845|||Cox-proportional hazards model|Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.845|1.268|<0.0001
91831772|NCT01329029|183542837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2691||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.484||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.484|0.326|0.3477
91831773|NCT01329029|183542839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3832||0.8208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|2.167||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||2.167|0.542|0.8208
91831774|NCT01329029|183542841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0865||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.162||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model|||||1.162|0.821|0.7943
91891202|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.05||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0089
91891203|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-4.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891204|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM30 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|1.62||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0239
91891205|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|0.93||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0435
91891206|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Ctime at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|1.26||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0126
91891207|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.73||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0294
91891208|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D1m at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|0.96||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0204
91891209|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D2m at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.41||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0004
91953103|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.31||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (10:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.31
91953104|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.47||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (12:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.47
91891210|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.95||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0013
91891211|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0003
91891212|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891213|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Redness at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891214|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.87||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0096
91891215|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Redness at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|0.36||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0003
91891216|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM10 at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|2.13||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0063
91953105|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.38||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (14:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.38
91953106|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.02||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (16:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.02
91953107|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.16||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (16:1n-7 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.16
91953108|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.02||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.02
91891217|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM30 at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|2.3||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0018
91891218|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Pa at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|3.22||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0134
91891219|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891220|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891221|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.264|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891222|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891223|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891224|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91953109|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.02||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:1n-9 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.02
91953110|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.21||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:2n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.21
91891225|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for PESC at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.43||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0313
91891226|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM5 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|1.92||||0.0481|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0481
91891227|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM10 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|2.57||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0171
91891228|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM30 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|3.84||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0007
91891229|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for dbase at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891230|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891231|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891232|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-3.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91953111|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.34||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:3n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.34
91953112|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.24||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:3n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.24
91891233|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891234|NCT05731999|183675986|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91891235|NCT05731999|183675988|OTHER||probability|0.000244|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The smallest odds ratio from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
91891236|NCT05731999|183675988|OTHER||probability|0.00586|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
91891237|NCT05731999|183675988|OTHER||probability|0.0193|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
91891238|NCT05731999|183675988|OTHER||probability|0.000488|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
91891239|NCT05731999|183675988|OTHER||probability|0.1133|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
91891240|NCT05731999|183675988|OTHER||probability|0.0107|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91891241|NCT02551653|183676022|OTHER||Mean Ratio|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|0.979|||||||Volume of Distribution - Heart, Left Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|0.979|0.682|
91891242|NCT02551653|183676022|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.472|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|1.891|||||||Volume of Distribution - Heart, Right Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.891|1.113|
91891243|NCT02551653|183676022|OTHER||Mean Ratio|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.241|||||||Volume of Distribution - Lung: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.241|0.692|
91891244|NCT02551653|183676023|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.189|||||||Mean Standardized Uptake Values - Heart, Left Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.189|0.846|
91891245|NCT02551653|183676023|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.269|||||||Mean Standardized Uptake Values - Heart, Right Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.269|0.853|
91891246|NCT02551653|183676023|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.34|||||||Mean Standardized Uptake Values - Lung: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.340|0.786|
91891247|NCT02770612|183676027|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We used a one sided one sample Wilcoxon test to compare the median number of oxycodone tablets chosen and prescribed to the institutional standard of 40 tablets of oxycodone 5mg on discharge||||<0.001
91891248|NCT02233803|183676028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority (NI) is demonstrated as the lower limit of CI for the difference is greater than the pre-specified NI margin of -1.25ML. The lower limit of the 95% CI for the treatment difference (NEUMOTEROL 400 -Symbicort Forte) was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -1.25 mL.|Difference of LS means|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.096||||||Sample size calculations are based on the primary efficacy endpoint (change from baseline in trough FEV1 at day 29). Assuming a within-subject standard deviation of 210 mL, 168 completed subjects are required to demonstrate the non-inferiority of BFF 400/12 mcg SINGLE CAPSULE INHALER and BFF 320/9 mcg TURBUHALER BID, assuming a true difference of -50 mL with 90% power and a 2.5% one-sided significance level. The pre-specified NI margin is set at -1.25mL.||0.096|-0.008|
91891249|NCT02233803|183676029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.384||||||||1.384|0.576|
91891250|NCT02233803|183676030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS means|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1||||||||1.1|0.1|
91891251|NCT03846453|183676031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.04|0.1871
91891252|NCT03846453|183676032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||ANCOVA|P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.||||0.23|-0.12|0.5549
91891253|NCT01989169|183676076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios were within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.215|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.116|1.323|||Mixed-effects Model||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio is for Treatment B to Treatment A.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in AUCinf, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||1.323|1.116|
91891254|NCT01989169|183676077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.115|1.327|||Mixed-effects Model||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio is for Treatment B to Treatment A.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in AUClast, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||1.327|1.115|
91891255|NCT01989169|183676078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.383|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.282|1.491|||Mixed-effects Model||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio is for Treatment B to Treatment A.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in Cmax, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||1.491|1.282|
91891256|NCT01114880|183676079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91891257|NCT01114880|183676081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91891258|NCT01114880|183676083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91891259|NCT01114880|183676085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91891260|NCT01114880|183676087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91891261|NCT01114880|183676089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||< 0.001
91891262|NCT01114880|183676091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91953113|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.5||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:4n-3 nmol/mL ) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.50
91891263|NCT01114880|183676093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91891264|NCT01114880|183676095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91891265|NCT01114880|183676097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91891266|NCT01114880|183676099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91891267|NCT03361605|183676146|SUPERIORITY|"Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT) such as testing if one treatment is superior to another. Therefore, here the Superiority indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the brain activity in response to sensory stimuli."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.349|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = BOLD Response During Sedation - BOLD Response During Baseline|The null hypothesis is no difference in BOLD response between sedated state and baseline.||||<0.0001
91891268|NCT03361605|183676147|SUPERIORITY|"Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT) such as testing if one treatment is superior to another. Therefore, here the Superiority indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the squeeze pressure in response to verbal instructions."|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09||0.00148|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = Squeeze Pressure During Sedation - Squeeze Pressure During Baseline|The null hypothesis is no difference in squeeze pressure between sedated state and baseline.||||0.00148
91891269|NCT04696653|183676171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
91891270|NCT04696653|183676172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8||||||hypertension||1.8|0.2|
91891271|NCT04696653|183676172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1||||||dyslipidemia||2.1|0.0|
91891272|NCT04696653|183676172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0||||||diabetes||2.0|0.1|
91891273|NCT04696653|183676173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Evidenced based practice||0.1|-0.6|
91891274|NCT04696653|183676173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||CUSP strategy||0.1|-0.6|
91891275|NCT04696653|183676174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||||||CUSP strategy||0.2|-0.6|
91891276|NCT04696653|183676174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Evidenced based practice||0.1|-0.5|
91891277|NCT04696653|183676175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||evidenced based practice||0.1|-0.5|
91891278|NCT04696653|183676175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||||||CUSP strategy||0.2|-0.5|
91891279|NCT04696653|183676176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2||||||||2.2|0.9|
91891280|NCT04696653|183676177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9||||||||1.9|1.1|
91891281|NCT04696653|183676178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||||||||1.4|0.7|
91891282|NCT04696653|183676179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6||||||||2.6|1.2|
91891283|NCT04696653|183676184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6||||||||1.6|1.0|
91891284|NCT04696653|183676185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
91891285|NCT04696653|183676186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
91891286|NCT04696653|183676187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
91891287|NCT04696653|183676188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
91953114|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.07||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (20:3n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.07
91953115|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.1||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (20:4n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.10
91891288|NCT04696653|183676189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.3|
91891289|NCT04696653|183676190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.3|
91891290|NCT04696653|183676191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||||0.3|-0.1|
91891291|NCT04696653|183676192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.1|
91891292|NCT04696653|183676193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
91891293|NCT04696653|183676194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.4|
91891294|NCT04696653|183676195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||||||||3.3|1.0|
91891295|NCT03921723|183676208|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to t) between treatment formulations (Prototype A versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.03||||||||1.03|0.91|
91891296|NCT03921723|183676208|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to t) between treatment formulations (Prototype B versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.2||||||||1.20|1.05|
91891297|NCT03921723|183676227|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to inf) between treatment formulations (Prototype A versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.03||||||||1.03|0.91|
91891298|NCT03921723|183676227|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to inf) between treatment formulations (Prototype B versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.13||||||90.0|1.06|1.2||||||||1.20|1.06|
91891299|NCT03921723|183676228|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for Cmax between treatment formulations (Prototype A versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.19||||||||1.19|1.01|
91891300|NCT03921723|183676228|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for Cmax between treatment formulations (Prototype B versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.33||||||||1.33|1.13|
91891301|NCT04091061|183676251|OTHER|90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|156.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.14|296.44|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference.|||296.44|83.14|
91891302|NCT04091061|183676251|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|125.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.51|237.13|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||237.13|66.51|
91891303|NCT04091061|183676251|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|123.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.54|233.68|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||233.68|65.54|
91953116|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.001||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (20:5n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.001
91953117|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.71||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (22:5n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.71
91891304|NCT04091061|183676252|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|156.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.07|301.16|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||301.16|81.07|
91891305|NCT04091061|183676252|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|165.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.95|319.29|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||319.29|85.95|
91891306|NCT04091061|183676252|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|152.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.96|293.32|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||293.32|78.96|
91891307|NCT04091061|183676253|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|156.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.95|300.6|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||300.60|80.95|
91891308|NCT04091061|183676253|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|165.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.82|318.67|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||318.67|85.82|
91891309|NCT04091061|183676253|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|152.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.99|293.29|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||293.29|78.99|
91891310|NCT00406692|183676258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Null Hypothesis: No difference in the mean daily standard drinks consumed for the baseline period and the zonisamide treatment weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in the mean daily standard drinks consumed between the baseline period and the zonisamide treatment weeks.||||<0.0003
91891311|NCT00406692|183676259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No significant change in the mean number of words produced during phonetic portion of the Controlled Word Association Test between the baseline period and the treatment weeks.||||<0.22
91891312|NCT00406692|183676260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No significant difference for mean scores obtained for baseline, week 4 and week 12.||||< 0.55
91891313|NCT04488770|183676309|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.93|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-24). Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure is used.|||0.93|0.61|
91953118|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.001||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (22:6n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.001
91891314|NCT04488770|183676310|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.98|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||0.98|0.65|
91953119|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.1||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (Total Omega-6) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.10
91891315|NCT04488770|183676311|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.98|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for log transformed parameter AUC(0-infinity). Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||0.98|0.65|
91891316|NCT04488770|183676312|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.75|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||0.75|0.46|
91891317|NCT04488770|183676313|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.11|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter C24h. Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||1.11|0.74|
91891318|NCT04488770|183676314|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||||Wilcoxon matched pair test was used to assess Food Effect for the parameter Tmax.|||2.000|0.000|
91891319|NCT04488770|183676315|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||||Wilcoxon matched pair test was used to assess Food Effect for the parameter Tlag.|||0.250|0.000|
91891320|NCT03547739|183676316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|6.18|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and couple age disparity.|Home visits as compared to Standard Care||6.18|2.88|<0.001
91953120|NCT01683565|183802677|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.1||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (total omega-3) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.10
91891321|NCT03547739|183676316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.45|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and couple age disparity.|HIV Self-testing as compared to Standard Care||5.45|2.50|<0.001
91891322|NCT03547739|183676317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.31|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and and couple age disparity.|Comparison of the Home Visit arm with Standard Care||1.31|1.12|.001
91891323|NCT03547739|183676317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.36|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and and couple age disparity.|Comparison of HIVST arm with Standard Care arm||1.36|1.17|.001
91891324|NCT03547739|183676331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.12|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model (binomial family and log link) with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth, length of couple relationship, and couple age disparity.|Comparison of the Home Visit arm with Standard Care||1.12|1.03|.011
91891325|NCT03547739|183676331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.08|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model (binomial family and log link) with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth, length of couple relationship, and couple age disparity.|Comparison of the HIVST arm with Standard Care||1.08|0.97|0.011
91891326|NCT03547739|183676332|OTHER||Kaplan Meier estimates|0.92||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.86|0.087
91891327|NCT03547739|183676332|OTHER||Kaplan Meier estimates|0.96||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.91|0.087
91891328|NCT03547739|183676332|OTHER||Kaplan Meier estimates|0.98||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.93|0.087
91891329|NCT01696955|183676361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91891330|NCT01696955|183676364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
91953121|NCT01195662|183802684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1485||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|-2.02||Endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05. Hierarchical closed testing procedure used.|Longitudinal repeated measures|Data from all weeks during the double-blind treatment period were included.||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis using 'direct likelihood', with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata, as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline SBP value and baseline SBP value-by-week interaction. Unstructured matrix for within-subject error variance-covariance used. 80% power to detect a difference of 4 mmHg in mean change from baseline, 75% power to meet both co-primary endpoints with overall Type I error.||-2.02|-6.54|0.0002
91891331|NCT01696955|183676365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
91891332|NCT01696955|183676366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
91891333|NCT00799981|183676370|OTHER|||||||0.8762|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The hypothesis that a 10 cm catheter provides equal emptying of the bladder as a 7 cm catheter was tested.||||0.8762
91891334|NCT00799981|183676371|OTHER|||||||0.7905|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7905
91891335|NCT00799981|183676372|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.00
91891336|NCT00799981|183676375|OTHER|||||||0.0273|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||In the table 0=No and 1=Yes.||||0.0273
91891337|NCT03192475|183676376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91891338|NCT03192475|183676377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
91891339|NCT03192475|183676378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91891340|NCT03192475|183676379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91891341|NCT03192475|183676380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91891342|NCT03192475|183676381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91891343|NCT03192475|183676382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91891344|NCT03192475|183676383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
91891345|NCT03192475|183676384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
91891346|NCT03192475|183676385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
91891347|NCT03192475|183676386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
91891348|NCT03192475|183676387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0009
91891349|NCT03192475|183676388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
91891350|NCT03192475|183676389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91891351|NCT03192475|183676390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
91891352|NCT03980808|183676393|EQUIVALENCE|A priori significance levels were set to 0.05. As this was a pilot study on a demonstration intervention, power analysis were not performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Total degrees of freedom (dof) = 17, with between groups dof = 1 and within groups dof = 16.||Composite scores were calculated for the knowledge based tests. Differences in the pre and post test composite scores were compared using ANOVA. We tested the null hypothesis that score changes in the intervention group and control group were the same.||||0.95
91891353|NCT03980808|183676394|EQUIVALENCE|A priori significance levels were set to 0.05. As this was a pilot study on a demonstration intervention, power analysis were not performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5376||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Composite scores were calculated for the behavioral self-report tests tests. Differences in the pre and post test composite scores were compared using ANOVA. We tested the null hypothesis that score changes in the intervention group and control group were the same.||||0.093
91891354|NCT01404429|183676407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.26|0.6
91891355|NCT03653208|183676413|OTHER||Slope|1.01||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1075
91891356|NCT03653208|183676414|OTHER||Slope|1.2||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0548
91891357|NCT00573859|183676452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A 2 (ADHD medication versus Placebo) repeated measure ANOVA||||<0.05
91891358|NCT00573859|183676453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Four-way repeated measure ANOVA||||<0.05
91891359|NCT00573859|183676454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Friedman's two analysis of ranks|||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance by ranks.||||<0.05
91891360|NCT00368927|183676468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With a sample size of 60 evaluable participants per intervention arm, we would have 90% power to detect a bronchial dysplasia response rate of 54% and 82% power to detect a bronchial dysplasia response rate of\> 51% among participants assigned to receive active sulindac (2-sided chi-square test with continuity correction; alpha=0.05).||||0.85
91891361|NCT00368927|183676469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A sample size of 60 participants per intervention arm would provide 90% power and 80% power to detect effect sizes of 60% and 52%, respectively, using a two-sample t-test(alpha=0.05).||||0.63
91891362|NCT01204710|183676476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.2201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.9||Analysis was stratified by the randomization stratification factor: best overall response to prior docetaxel-based chemotherapy.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is expressed as IMC-3G3 + Mitoxantrone / Mitoxantrone and estimated from Cox model.|||1.90|0.87|0.2201
91891363|NCT01204710|183676477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.61||Analysis was stratified by the randomization stratification factor: best overall response to prior docetaxel-based chemotherapy.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is expressed as Olaratumab + Mitoxantrone / Mitoxantrone and estimated from Cox model.|||1.61|0.72|0.7291
91891364|NCT01204710|183676478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3465
91891365|NCT01204710|183676479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6571|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6571
91891366|NCT01204710|183676480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4986|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4986
91891367|NCT03898167|183676493|OTHER||Relative Participation|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.8||95% CIs were calculated.||||Bivariable tables, Pearson chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric tests were used to compare demographic/health care characteristics by study group. Log binomial regression was used to calculate screening proportion, participation difference, and relative participation (calculated as relative risk), with 95% CIs. Overall participation difference and relative participation for SC and SC with patient navigation vs TR were calculated by combining numerators and denominators from each group.||2.80|1.99|
91891368|NCT04348435|183676506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.6113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6113
91891369|NCT04348435|183676506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.5039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5039
91891370|NCT04348435|183676506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8903
91891371|NCT04348435|183676507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.8171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8171
91891372|NCT04348435|183676507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.342||0.5034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5034
91891373|NCT04348435|183676507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.193||0.9948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9948
91891374|NCT04348435|183676508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2641
91891375|NCT04348435|183676508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8220
91891376|NCT04348435|183676508|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3097
91891377|NCT04348435|183676509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
91891378|NCT04348435|183676509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
91891379|NCT04348435|183676509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1713
91891380|NCT04348435|183676510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3868
91891381|NCT04348435|183676510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.9429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9429
91891382|NCT04348435|183676510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.9362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9362
91891383|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Energy/Fatigue - Treatment Contrast||||0.9333
91891384|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.483||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Energy/Fatigue - Treatment Contrast||||0.3627
91891385|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.604||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Energy/Fatigue - Treatment Contrast||||0.4160
91891386|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32||0.8768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Social Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.8768
91891387|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.344||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Social Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.0869
91891388|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.514||0.6864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Social Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.6864
91891389|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.571||0.2587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Physical Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.2587
91891390|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.417|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.316||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Physical Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.1250
91891391|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.732||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Physical Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.9780
91891392|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.925||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average General Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.8721
91891393|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.735||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average General Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.6694
91891394|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.073||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average General Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.3733
91891395|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.116||0.5594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Physical Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.5594
91891396|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.389||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Physical Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.2127
91891397|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.303||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Physical Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.4012
91891398|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.678|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.748||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Pain - Treatment Contrast||||0.0521
91891399|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.696||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Pain - Treatment Contrast||||0.4704
91891400|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.017||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Pain - Treatment Contrast||||0.0544
91891401|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Emotional Well Being - Treatment Contrast||||0.5535
91891402|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.969||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Emotional Well Being - Treatment Contrast||||0.4642
91953122|NCT01195662|183802685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0773|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.46|||Longitudinal repeated measures|Endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05. Hierarchical closed testing procedure was used.||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis used, with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata, continuous fixed covariates of baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-week interaction. Only data up to Week 12 included. All data used in the model even if participants discontinued prior to Week 12. A heirarchical closed testing procedure (sequential) was used and testing performed since first primary endpoint was significant.||-0.46|-0.76|<0.0001
91953123|NCT01195662|183802686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.368||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-1.76||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as a covariate was used. By applying sequential testing procedure, the testing was performed since the prior endpoint was significant.||-1.76|-7.14|0.0012
91891403|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.936||0.5692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Emotional Well Being - Treatment Contrast||||0.5692
91891404|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.592||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems - Treatment Contrast||||0.4642
91891405|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.444||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems - Treatment Contrast||||1.0000
91891406|NCT04348435|183676511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.526||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems - Treatment Contrast||||1.0000
91891407|NCT04348435|183676512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8628
91891408|NCT04348435|183676512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.5257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5257
91891409|NCT04348435|183676512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.659||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5467
91891410|NCT05014568|183676543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|H0: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is equal between tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream; H1: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is different between the tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream.||4.09|1.66|<0.0001
91891411|NCT05014568|183676544|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by vIGA-AD score at Baseline (vIGA-AD scores of 3 or 4) and age group (2-6 yrs, 7-11 yrs, 12-17 yrs, 18+ yrs)|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||3.00|1.57|<0.0001
91891412|NCT05014568|183676545|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|-4.66|||ANCOVA|age\*vIGA cohort and treatment as categorical covariates, and baseline %BSA as a continuous covariate||||-4.66|-7.69|<0.0001
91891413|NCT05014568|183676546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||7.09|1.98|<0.0001
91891414|NCT05014568|183676547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.54||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||2.31|1.03|0.0366
91891415|NCT00660543|183676626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences between groups were assessed by using the Student paired t test and were graphed by using Bland-Altman plots.||||||.003
91891416|NCT00660543|183676626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences between groups were assessed by using the Student paired t test and were graphed by using Bland-Altman plots.||||||.008
91891417|NCT04032613|183676651|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.2||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.20
91891418|NCT04032613|183676652|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.05||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.05
91891419|NCT04032613|183676653|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.004||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.004
91891420|NCT04032613|183676654|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.14||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.14
91891421|NCT01141647|183676657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|7.07||||||||7.07|1.80|
91891422|NCT02946853|183676705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.21|0.14|1.00
91891423|NCT02946853|183676706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.974|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.974
91891424|NCT02946853|183676707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Some patients did not undergo 6 month echocardiogram due to restrictions related to COVID-19.||||1.00
91891425|NCT02946853|183676708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|84.4|||Fisher Exact|||||84.4|0.1|1.00
91953124|NCT01195662|183802687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.39||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|Longitudinal repeated measures|||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline seated diastolic BP value and baseline seated diastolic BP value by week interaction.||0.39|-2.32|0.1619
91953125|NCT01195662|183802688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8635|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as a covariate. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the family-wise type I error rate related to the co-primary and secondary endpoints at the 2-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing of this endpoint was not performed since the prior secondary endpoint was not statistically significant.||-0.29|-3.68|
91953126|NCT01195662|183802689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0858|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23|||lLongitudinal repeated measures|||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline serum uric acid value and baseline seated serum uric acid value by week interaction. By applying sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05, no testing was performed since the prior secondary endpoint was not significant.||-0.23|-0.57|
91891426|NCT02946853|183676709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91891427|NCT02946853|183676710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|42.0|||Fisher Exact|||||42.00|0.00|1.00
91891428|NCT02946853|183676711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91891429|NCT02946853|183676712|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.7||||0.565|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.565
91891430|NCT02946853|183676713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|42.0|||Fisher Exact|||||42.0|0.0|1.00
91891431|NCT02369068|183676715|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|This test was selected since the distribution of the change in pain was not normal nor approximately symmetric.||The null hypothesis assumed there were no differences in the pain score change between groups. Significance level was set at 0.05.||||0.072
91891432|NCT02369068|183676716|OTHER|||||||0.624|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumed there were no differences in the median change pain severity between the groups. Significance level was set at 0.05||||0.624
91891433|NCT02369068|183676717|OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumed that there is no difference in the change in pain interference between the groups. Statistical significance was set at 0.05||||0.571
91891434|NCT02369068|183676718|OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumed that there was no difference in the distribution between the groups. Significance level was set at 0.05||||0.285
91891435|NCT00403767|183676732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority (NI) by a NI margin of 1.46 in hazard ratio (HR) based on on-treatment data from the per protocol population. The required number of primary efficacy endpoint events was determined based on the following assumptions: NI margin of 1.46, 1-sided alpha of 0.025, power of \>95% when true HR is 1, and exponential distributions. The margin was selected based on clinical appropriateness and quantitative analysis of relevant studies in Hart et al.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||||0.96|0.66|<0.001
91891436|NCT00403767|183676733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||The p-value Is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.95|0.65|0.015
91953127|NCT03039699|183802706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91953128|NCT03039699|183802707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0675||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||48 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0675
91891437|NCT00403767|183676734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11||The p-value is not adjusted for mulitple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternate hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.11|0.96|0.442
91891438|NCT00403767|183676735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.99|0.74|0.034
91891439|NCT00403767|183676736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.96|0.74|0.010
91891440|NCT00403767|183676737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.03|0.70|0.092
91891441|NCT00403767|183676738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.61||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.61|0.09|0.003
91891442|NCT00403767|183676739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.06||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.06|0.63|0.121
91891443|NCT00403767|183676740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.10|0.73|0.289
91891444|NCT00403767|183676741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.02|0.70|0.073
91891445|NCT05319912|183676754|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|75.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.23|110.02||||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA).||110.02|52.23|
91891446|NCT05319912|183676754|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|25.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.21|36.89||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||36.89|17.21|
91891447|NCT05319912|183676755|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|82.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.91|106.9||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||106.90|63.91|
91891448|NCT05319912|183676755|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|40.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.12|52.68||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||52.68|31.12|
91891449|NCT02229851|183676764|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.53|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.38|||ANCOVA||Somapacitan-Placebo|Changes in truncal fat percentage from baseline to the 34 week's measurements was analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, growth hormone deficiency (GHD) onset type, sex, region, diabetes mellitus (DM) and sex by region by DM interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate. The analysis was conducted using a multiple imputation technique where trajectory after a withdrawn subjects last observation was imputed based on data from the placebo arm.||-0.38|-2.68|=0.0090
91953129|NCT03039699|183802707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0675||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||72 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0675
91953130|NCT03039699|183802707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5569||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||96 hours timepoint comparison||||0.5569
91891450|NCT01276379|183676904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.29|||Log Rank|||||3.29|1.23|0.004
91891451|NCT01276379|183676905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.96|||Log Rank|||||3.96|1.33|<0.0001
91891452|NCT02729831|183676911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|12.0|||Regression, Linear|||The comparison groups were: Interactive decision versus Video decision aid.||12|6|<0.001
91891453|NCT02729831|183676912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|General Estimating Equations accounted for clustering of patients within surgeons and controlling for baseline EQ-5D, BMI, joint and education.||We tested for interaction effects. Comparison groups were: MD Usual Care vs. MD Provider report.||1.44|0.74|0.86
91953131|NCT03039699|183802708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0696||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||48 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0696
91953132|NCT03039699|183802708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0696||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||72 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0696
91891454|NCT02729831|183676912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|General Estimating Equations accounted for clustering of patients within surgeons and controlling for baseline EQ-5D, BMI, joint and education.||We tested for interaction effects. Comparison groups are: Interactive decision versus Video decision aid||1.47|0.76|0.75
91891455|NCT02729831|183676913|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|24.5|||Chi-squared|Compared patients who reported using all of the DA compared to everyone else.||Comparison groups were: patients who reported using all of the DA versus everyone else.||24.5|12.8|<0.001
91891456|NCT02729831|183676914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.065|||Regression, Linear|Generalized Estimating Equation accounting for clustering within surgeons. Model included treatment, sex, age, education, site and joint.||We included all 4 study groups, but the comparison group was: informed, patient centered decision yes vs. no.||0.065|0.016|<0.001
91891457|NCT02729831|183676915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|40.1|||Regression, Logistic|General estimating equations were used to account for clustering of patients within surgeons.||We included all 4 study groups, but the comparison group was: informed, patient centered (IPC) decision yes vs. no. We excluded those who did not provide information to calculate the IPC variable.||40.1|16.5|<0.001
91953133|NCT03039699|183802708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1998||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||96 hours timepoint comparison||||0.1998
91953134|NCT03039699|183802709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0039
91891458|NCT00864253|183676916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.792||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.631|0.992||An interim safety review was performed by DMC. An alpha spending function was utilized to preserve the overall Type 1 error at 0.050. The spending function allocated alpha of 0.001 and 0.049 to the interim and final analyses of PFS, respectively.|Log Rank|The treatment difference was tested using the stratified log-rank test, stratified by metastatic stage, region, and baseline LDH.||Two hundred fifty-seven (257) patients were to be randomized to each treatment group for a total of 514 patients. This sample size was chosen to provide at least 80% power for the final analysis (with a two-sided type I error of 0.049) to reject the null hypothesis that the ABI 007/dacarbazine hazard ratio (HR) for PFS is equal to 1.0. This sample size calculation was based on estimates of HR = 0.750. Proportional hazards were assumed.||0.992|0.631|0.044
91891459|NCT00864253|183676917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.578|1.196||At the time of the final PFS analysis, an interim analysis of survival was reported. The spending function allocated an alpha of 0.001 and 0.049 for the interim and final analysis, respectively, to preserve the overall Type I error at 0.050.|Log Rank|The treatment difference was tested using the stratified log-rank test, stratified by metastatic stage, region, and baseline LDH.||For the participant survival, at the time at least 417 events are recorded, this sample size provides at least 80% power with a two-sided Type 1 error of 0.049 to reject the null hypothesis that the ABI-007/dacarbazine hazard ratio is equal to 1.0. This was based on a HR = 0.760. Proportional hazards were assumed.||1.196|0.578|0.094
91891460|NCT00864253|183676918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.025|||Log Rank|The treatment difference was tested using the stratified log-rank test, stratified by metastatic stage, region, and baseline LDH.||||1.025|0.696|0.086
91891461|NCT00864253|183676919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.305||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.035|||Chi-squared|||||2.035|0.837|0.239
91891462|NCT00864253|183676920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.442||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|1.582|||Chi-squared|||||1.582|1.123|0.004
91891463|NCT00864253|183676921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.201||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|5.053|||Log Rank|||||5.053|0.959|0.057
91891464|NCT01747551|183676953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.72
91891465|NCT05384938|183677007|OTHER|Single group|Median time to response|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|160.0|||||Estimate for Time to Response using Kaplan-Meier method|Estimate for Time to Response (Days)||160.0|65.00|
91891466|NCT05384938|183677011|OTHER|Parametric Test|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 4 (Visit 2)||||<0.0001
91891467|NCT05384938|183677011|OTHER|Parametric Test|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 16 (Visit 4)||||<0.0001
91891468|NCT05384938|183677011|OTHER|Parametric Test|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24 (Visit 5)||||<0.0001
91891469|NCT02626455|183677013|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of PFS|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.125|||=|0.827974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.437||Significance level is 0.025.|Log Rank|PFS was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log- rank test. HR and 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.437|0.881|= 0.827974
91891470|NCT02626455|183677016|SUPERIORITY|ORR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus ORR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-1.25|||=|0.658652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|4.75||Significance level is 0.025. P-values are descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||4.75|-7.25|= 0.658652
91891471|NCT02626455|183677017|SUPERIORITY|ORR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus ORR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-0.8|||=|0.605183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|5.05||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||5.05|-6.64|=0.605183
91891472|NCT02626455|183677018|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of DOR|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145|||=|0.846204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.484||Significance level is 0.025, P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|DOR was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI were based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.484|0.883|= 0.846204
91891473|NCT02626455|183677019|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of DOR|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117|||=|0.801735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.443||Significance level is 0.025, P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|DOR was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI were based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.443|0.865|= 0.801735
91891474|NCT02626455|183677020|SUPERIORITY|CRR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus CRR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-2.74|||=|0.741153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|5.57||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||5.57|-11.06|= 0.741153
91891475|NCT02626455|183677021|SUPERIORITY|CRR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus CRR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-2.21|||=|0.696482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|6.2||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||6.20|-10.62|= 0.696482
91891476|NCT02626455|183677022|SUPERIORITY|DCR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus DCR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-3.95|||=|0.936009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|1.14||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference||||1.14|-9.04|= 0.936009
91891477|NCT02626455|183677023|SUPERIORITY|DCR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus DCR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-3.89|||=|0.944242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|0.9||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference||||0.90|-8.68|= 0.944242
91891478|NCT02626455|183677024|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of TTP|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006|||=|0.517849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.303||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|TTP was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.303|0.777|= 0.517849
91891479|NCT02626455|183677025|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of TTP|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971|||=|0.411398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.257||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|TTP was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.257|0.750|= 0.411398
91891480|NCT02626455|183677026|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of TTNT|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.289|||=|0.955865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.728||Significance level IS 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|TTNT was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.728|0.962|= 0.955865
91891481|NCT02626455|183677027|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of OS|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.132|||=|0.758563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.603||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|OS was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.603|0.800|= 0.758563
91891482|NCT02626455|183677028|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of time to deterioration in DRS-P|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.394|||=|0.999695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.149|1.691||Significance level IS 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|Time to deterioration in DRS-P was evaluated with one-sided stratified log-rank test.HR and its 95% CI are based on stratified Cox regression model.||||1.691|1.149|= 0.999695
91891483|NCT02626455|183677029|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of time to improvement in DRS-P|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||=|0.965639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|1.02||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|Time to improvement in DRS-P was evaluated with one-sided stratified log-rank test.HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.020|0.642|= 0.965639
91891484|NCT01200290|183677092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 8.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.324
91891485|NCT01200290|183677092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 16.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.031
91891486|NCT01200290|183677092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 24.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.076
91891487|NCT01200290|183677092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 36.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.013
91891488|NCT01200290|183677092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 52.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.553
91891489|NCT01200290|183677092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 64.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.132
91891490|NCT01200290|183677092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 76.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.230
91891491|NCT01200290|183677093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 8.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.335
91891492|NCT01200290|183677093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 16.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.043
91891493|NCT01200290|183677093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 24.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.073
91891494|NCT01200290|183677093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 36.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.004
91891495|NCT01200290|183677093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 52.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.699
91891496|NCT01200290|183677093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 64.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.095
91891497|NCT01200290|183677093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 76.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.082
91891498|NCT00775463|183677146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|0.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel Haenszel mean score test was used on the standardized reverse mid-ranks (overall reverse ranks divided by the number of ranks +1, or modified ridit scores; largely negative changes had ranks near 1 and largely positive changes had ranks near 0)of the residuals from an ordinary least squares regression with change in net ulcer burden at Week 20 as a linear function of Baseline PDEI or prostacyclin use (binary variable:Yes/No) and net ulcer burden at Baseline(continuous variable).||0.0|-1.0|0.20
91891499|NCT00775463|183677147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-0.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||0.40|-1.40|0.31
91891500|NCT00775463|183677148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-9.3||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|2.7||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The VAS-global assessments were recorded in centimeters, with possible values ranging from 0.0 to 15.0. The recorded value was divided by 15, then multiplied by 100 to convert it to the VAS-Global scale, with values ranging from 0 (no disease activity) to 100 (very severe disease). The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||2.7|-21.3|0.12
91891501|NCT00775463|183677149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-9.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|0.0||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The VAS-global assessments were recorded in centimeters, with possible values ranging from 0.0 to 15.0. The recorded value was divided by 15, then multiplied by 100 to convert it to the VAS-Global scale, with values ranging from 0 (no disease activity) to 100 (very severe disease). The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||0.0|-18.0|0.04
91891502|NCT00775463|183677150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-1.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline in CHFS Score were tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||2.0|-4.0|0.47
91891503|NCT00775463|183677152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||he difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline and at Week 20 in the mRSS was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||1.0|0.0|0.68
91891504|NCT00775463|183677153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-1.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score||2.0|-3.0|0.54
91891505|NCT00775463|183677153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Ef|-0.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||P value for Pain VAS|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value for Pain VAS||0.3|-1.6|0.18
91891506|NCT00775463|183677153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|0.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score||0.0|-1.0|0.10
91891507|NCT03651622|183677320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.98
91891508|NCT03651622|183677321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
91891509|NCT03651622|183677322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.40
91891510|NCT03651622|183677323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91891511|NCT03651622|183677324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
91891512|NCT03651622|183677325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
91891513|NCT03651622|183677326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
91953135|NCT03039699|183802710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of total CDS score from 24 hours to 48 and 72 hours of treatment between Ergoferon and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
91953136|NCT03039699|183802711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0044
91891514|NCT03651622|183677327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||The proposed sample size of n=72 was sufficient to ensure 60% power to detect a moderate effect size (Cohen h=0.68) and 80% to detect a large effect size (Cohen h=0.85) at a significance level of 0.10 for comparing difference in change among the 3 diets. By design, our primary goal for this pilot work is to inform the final efficacy design of a fully powered SMART, and the pilot SMART was therefore not designed to be fully powered for all analyses.||||0.39
91891515|NCT03651622|183677328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
91891516|NCT03651622|183677329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
91891517|NCT03651622|183677330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.96
91891518|NCT03651622|183677331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.34
91891519|NCT03651622|183677332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
91891520|NCT03651622|183677333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
91891521|NCT03651622|183677334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91891522|NCT00307684|183677375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89||||0.2586||95.0|-2.2055|7.9774||No adjustment for multiplicity was performed. threshold for significance: 0.05 (2-sided)|ANCOVA|treatment, sex and country as factors, age and baseline sum of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity scores as covariate||Based on preliminary results of a controlled study in adults with MPH, the mean (SD=9) change in CAARS total score from randomization to the 4 week post-randomization endpoint was estimated as +2.5 for PR OROS MPH and +14 for placebo. slightly more conservative, a mean change of 3 in the PR OROS MPH group and a mean increase of 10 in the placebo group were expected. With a two-sided type-I error of 5% and a power of 90%, 37 eligible subjects per group were required.||7.9774|-2.2055|0.2586
91891523|NCT00307684|183677378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3942||||0.2616||95.0|-12.1928|3.4044||No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the ranks with sex, treatment and country as factors and age and baseline score as a covariate||||3.4044|-12.1928|0.2616
91891524|NCT00307684|183677379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39||||0.5458||95.0|-5.5469|10.3213|||ANCOVA|treatment and country as factors baseline score as covariate||||10.3213|-5.5469|0.5458
91891525|NCT01744392|183677461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between percentages. Increases in value indicate improvement in adherence.||||.73
91891526|NCT01417104|183677523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.16|||<|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|9.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.47|0.85|<0.031
91891527|NCT01417104|183677524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.36|0.44|0.041
91953137|NCT03039699|183802712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5488||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 3 comparison||||0.5488
91953138|NCT03039699|183802712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 4 comparison||||0.8140
91953139|NCT03039699|183802712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1248||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 6 comparison||||0.1248
91891528|NCT02285153|183677571|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.225||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.792||Due to the low number of participants, the results of the statistical tests must be interpreted with caution!|Chi-squared|||||4.792|0.039|0.57
91891529|NCT02285153|183677572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.057
91891530|NCT02285153|183677573|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91891531|NCT02285153|183677574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.467
91891532|NCT01489891|183677577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Beta 0.1; Alpha 0.05|Median Difference (Final Values)|30.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91891533|NCT02045875|183677597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Effect of interaction of time and treatment group|ANOVA|||||||0.046
91891534|NCT02045875|183677598|OTHER||correlation coefficient|-0.508|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||correlation of asthma control and adherence|||||
91891535|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.002
91953140|NCT03039699|183802712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3889||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 10 comparison||||0.3889
91953141|NCT03039699|183802713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3593
91891536|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.23
91891537|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.18
91891538|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.02
91891539|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.004
91891540|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.01
91891541|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.21
91891542|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.77
91891543|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.77
91891544|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.14
91891545|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.45
91953142|NCT02451137|183802748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.4|1.01|1.39||Threshold for significance at 0.046 level.|Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used with treatment arm as a fixed effect and adjusted for: randomization strata of HbA1c target (\<8%,\<7%), sulfonylurea (SU) use (yes/no), glucagon like peptide1-receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) use (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c (as continuous).||1.39|1.01|0.0308
91953143|NCT01740297|183802784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Obtained from the unstratified logistic regression model.|||5.5|1.5|0.002
91953144|NCT01740297|183802787|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.4||P-value is descriptive|Chi-squared, Corrected||Obtained from the unstratified logistic regression model.|||3.4|1.1|0.033
91953145|NCT01740297|183802788|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.8||P-value is descriptive.|Chi-squared, Corrected||Obtained from the unstratified logistic regression model.|||5.8|1.4|0.007
91891546|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.79
91891547|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.77
91891548|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.03
91891549|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.12
91891550|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.29
91891551|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.01
91891552|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.08
91891553|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.61
91891554|NCT02270515|183677635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.02
91891555|NCT05745701|183677636|OTHER||test/reference ratios|195.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.13|236.71||||||Natural loge transformed Cmax of PF-07081532 administered without cyclosporine (Reference) or coadministered with cyclosporine (Test) were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test/Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs was obtained from the models. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||236.71|162.13|
91891556|NCT05745701|183677636|OTHER||test/reference ratios|282.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|258.81|307.55||||||Natural loge transformed Cmax of PF-07081532 administered without itraconazole (Reference) or coadministered with itraconazole (Test) were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test/Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs was obtained from the models. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||307.55|258.81|
91891557|NCT01607476|183677654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91891558|NCT01607476|183677654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91891559|NCT01607476|183677654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91891560|NCT01607476|183677655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91891561|NCT01607476|183677655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91891562|NCT01607476|183677655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91891563|NCT01821352|183677699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00005
91891564|NCT01821352|183677700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91891565|NCT01821352|183677701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91891566|NCT05260021|183677723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.25|||ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-2.35|<0.001
91891567|NCT05260021|183677724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-2.31|<0.001
91891568|NCT05260021|183677724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.29|||ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-2.57|<0.001
91891569|NCT05260021|183677725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|61.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||61.7|18.6|<0.001
91891570|NCT05260021|183677725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|72.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.2|31.1|<0.001
91891571|NCT05260021|183677725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|45.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.5|64.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.1|27.5|<0.001
91891572|NCT05260021|183677726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.55|< 0.001
91891573|NCT05260021|183677726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||||-0.47|-0.86|<0.001
91953146|NCT01740297|183802789|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.49||P-value is descriptive|Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model.|||2.49|0.80|0.228
91891574|NCT05260021|183677726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-0.68|< 0.001
91891575|NCT05260021|183677727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-28.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-8.0|||ANCOVA|||||-8.0|-49.7|0.007
91891576|NCT05260021|183677727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-23.6|||ANCOVA|||||-23.6|-64.3|< 0.001
91891577|NCT05260021|183677727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|-18.6|||ANCOVA|||||-18.6|-54.2|< 0.001
91891578|NCT05260021|183677728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|-3.05|||ANCOVA|||||-3.05|-9.31|< 0.001
91891579|NCT05260021|183677728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|-7.38|||ANCOVA|||||-7.38|-13.67|< 0.001
91891580|NCT05260021|183677728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|-5.66|||ANCOVA|||||-5.66|-11.05|< 0.001
91891581|NCT05260021|183677729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|50.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.3|8.6|0.006
91891582|NCT05260021|183677729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|60.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||60.2|18.8|< 0.001
91891583|NCT05260021|183677729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|52.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||52.1|17|< 0.001
91891584|NCT05260021|183677730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|64.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.4|22.3|< 0.001
91891585|NCT05260021|183677730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|67.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.7|26.4|< 0.001
91891586|NCT05260021|183677730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|64.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.1|26.3|< 0.001
91891587|NCT05260021|183677732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.089|-0.061|0.708
91891588|NCT05260021|183677732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.074|-0.076|0.976
91891589|NCT05260021|183677732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.071|-0.058|0.841
91891590|NCT05260021|183677733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.45|< 0.001
91891591|NCT05260021|183677733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.57|< 0.001
91891592|NCT05260021|183677733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.49|< 0.001
91953147|NCT01740297|183802791|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.23|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.23|0.56|0.348
91953148|NCT01740297|183802792|OTHER|||||||0.696|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.696
91953149|NCT01740297|183802793|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.46|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.46|0.44|0.474
91953150|NCT01740297|183802795|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.09|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.09|0.55|0.14
91891593|NCT01241604|183677766|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent non-parametric tests||||||0.753|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test|||||||.753
91891594|NCT02980731|183677784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||P-value is derived from a paired t-test of H0: mean difference (Week 48 - baseline) ≤ 5 versus H1: mean difference (Week 48 - baseline) \> 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.004
91891595|NCT02075476|183677817|EQUIVALENCE|Normality in sample distribution was tested using the Kolmororov-Smirnov test and graphic models. For descriptive variables we use Pearson's Chi-square, and for the study of numerical variables over time we use a mixed linear test.||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
91891596|NCT02075476|183677818|EQUIVALENCE|Normality in sample distribution was tested using the Kolmororov-Smirnov test and graphic models. For descriptive variables we use Pearson's Chi-square, and for the study of numerical variables over time we use a mixed linear test.||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91953151|NCT01740297|183802796|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.24|0.56|0.37
91891597|NCT02075476|183677819|EQUIVALENCE|Normality in sample distribution was tested using the Kolmororov-Smirnov test and graphic models. For descriptive variables we use Pearson's Chi-square, and for the study of numerical variables over time we use a mixed linear test.||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
91891598|NCT02731690|183677826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5303||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.5303
91891599|NCT02731690|183677826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1646||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.1646
91891600|NCT02731690|183677826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1189||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.1189
91891601|NCT02731690|183677826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0706||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0706
91891602|NCT02731690|183677827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0715||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0715
91891603|NCT02731690|183677827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1697||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.1697
91891604|NCT02731690|183677827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3428||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.3428
91891605|NCT02731690|183677827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0642||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0642
91891606|NCT02731690|183677828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0568||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0568
91891607|NCT02731690|183677828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0533||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.0533
91891608|NCT02731690|183677828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0459||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.0459
91891609|NCT02731690|183677828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5678||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.5678
91891610|NCT02731690|183677829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.5810
91891611|NCT02731690|183677829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0465||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.0465
91891612|NCT02731690|183677829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1047||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.1047
91891613|NCT02731690|183677829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0661||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0661
91891614|NCT02731690|183677830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.1615
91891615|NCT02731690|183677830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6201||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.6201
91891616|NCT02731690|183677830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9229||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.9229
91891617|NCT02731690|183677830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6307||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.6307
91891618|NCT02731690|183677831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0088
91891619|NCT02731690|183677831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2213||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.2213
91891620|NCT02731690|183677831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.0180
91891621|NCT02731690|183677831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.1970
91891622|NCT02731690|183677832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0752||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0752
91891623|NCT02731690|183677832|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.||||||0.6403||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.6403
91891624|NCT02731690|183677832|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.||||||0.2316||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.2316
91891625|NCT02731690|183677832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7635||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.7635
91891626|NCT02731690|183677833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0872
91891627|NCT02731690|183677833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.0073
91891628|NCT02731690|183677833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.0086
91891629|NCT02731690|183677833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0489||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0489
91891630|NCT00872989|183677835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.79|0.49
91953152|NCT02163759|183802821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|12.3||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|20.6||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value \<0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was the same in both the placebo and etrolizumab arms. The alternative hypothesis (H1): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was not the same in the placebo and etrolizumab arms.||20.60|1.59|0.0173
91891631|NCT00872989|183677837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.93|1.68|||Regression, Cox|||||1.68|0.93|0.83
91891632|NCT03573583|183677884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.36||No formal adjustment for type I error due to the pilot nature of the study. All significance tests were 2-tailed and an alpha level of 0.05 was required for significance.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline score.||Continuous variables were expressed as mean (SD) and categorical variables were as frequencies and percentages. A 2-sided independent-sample t test was used to compare group differences in change scores. Change scores were calculated as Week 16 measurements minus baseline measurements. Statistical analyses were done by a blinded statistician without knowledge of group membership.||4.36|0.22|0.03
91891633|NCT03573583|183677885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.77|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline score.||||1.77|0.31|0.009
91891634|NCT03573583|183677886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.67|||ANCOVA|Baseline as covariate||||2.67|-0.10|0.07
91891635|NCT03573583|183677887|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficients, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs)|Pearson's Correlation coefficient|0.19||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.64|||Pearson's Correlation coefficient|||||0.64|-0.35|0.49
91891636|NCT02915302|183677911|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in fever rate was \<5%.|Difference in Fever Rate|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.8|||||Fever rate: Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|Difference in fever rate was defined as the fever rate following a 0.5-mL dose of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine minus the fever rate following a 0.25-mL dose of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||3.80|-2.13|
91891637|NCT02915302|183677912|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (A/H1N1)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.77|||||A/H1N1 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H1N1 strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.77|1.19|
91891638|NCT02915302|183677912|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (A/H3N2)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.83|||||A/H3N2 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H3N2 strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.83|1.23|
91891639|NCT02915302|183677912|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (B Victoria lineage)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.62|||||B Victoria lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Victoria lineage strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.62|1.10|
91891640|NCT02915302|183677912|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (B Yamagata lineage)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.73|||||B Yamagata lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Yamagata lineage strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.73|1.20|
91891641|NCT02915302|183677913|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|10.0|||||A/H1N1 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H1N1 strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||10.0|0.189|
91891642|NCT02915302|183677913|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|8.99|||||A/H3N2 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H3N2 strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||8.99|-0.283|
91891643|NCT02915302|183677913|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (B Victoria lineage)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|5.56|||||B Victoria lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Victoria lineage strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||5.56|-2.78|
91891644|NCT02915302|183677913|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (B Yamagata lineage)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|7.36|||||B Yamagata lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Yamagata lineage strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||7.36|-0.465|
91891645|NCT01850446|183677917|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 20% (on each day). Type I error (alpha) level of 0.025 was prospectively planned for this analysis. Power of this analysis was planned to be greater than 0.8|Z-value|8.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Global test statistics (GTS) was constructed in accordance with O'Brien Procedures for Comparing Samples with Multiple Endpoints.|Z-test for Global test statistics|||Individual day analyses were combined into Global Test Statistics (patient diary analysis)||||<0.0001
91891646|NCT01850446|183677917|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 20% (on each day). Type I error (alpha) level of 0.025 was prospectievely planned for this analysis. Power of this analysis was planned to be greater than 0.8|Z-value|7.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Global test statistics (GTS) was constructed in accordance with O'Brien, P. (1984). Procedures for Comparing Samples with Multiple Endpoints. Biometrics, 40(4), 1079-1087. doi:10.2307/2531158|Z-test for Global test statistics|||Individual day analyses were combined into Global Test Statistics (physician's examination analysis)||||<0.0001
91891647|NCT01850446|183677918|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 1.2 degree\*day|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.027|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.23||||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of fever was measured as area under curve (body temperature-time)|||-0.23|0.027
91891648|NCT01850446|183677919|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority magrin was prespecified as 20% of comparator duration|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.63|||t-test, 1 sided|mean survival time estimates obtained from survival analysis were compared by means of t-test with infinite degrees of freedom||||0.63||0.02
91891649|NCT01850446|183677920|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 20% (on each day)|Z-value|6.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Global test statistics (GTS) was constructed in accordance with O'Brien, P. (1984). Procedures for Comparing Samples with Multiple Endpoints. Biometrics, 40(4), 1079-1087. doi:10.2307/2531158|Z-test for Global test statistics|||Individual day analyses were combined into Global Test Statistics||||<0.0001
91953153|NCT02163759|183802822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.1||||0.5055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|6.37||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||6.37|-12.61|0.5055
91891650|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.33|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day1 morning)||1.33||<0.001
91891651|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.013|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.59|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day2 morning)||2.59||0.013
91891652|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.084|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.66|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day3 morning)||2.66||0.084
91891653|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.22|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day4 morning)||2.2||0.22
91891654|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.07|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day5 morning)||1.07||0.04
91891655|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.13|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.98|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day6 morning)||0.98||0.13
91891656|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.135|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||severity of influenza symptoms (day1 morning)||0.74||0.135
91891657|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.67|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day1 evening)||2.67||0.004
91891658|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.94|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day2 evening)||2.94||0.05
91891659|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.447|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.08|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day3 evening)||3.08||0.447
91891660|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.042|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day4 evening)||1.4||0.042
91891661|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.313|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.53|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day5 evening)||1.53||0.313
91891662|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.087|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day6 evening)||0.77||0.087
91891663|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.41|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day1 physician's objective examination)||1.41||<0.001
91891664|NCT01850446|183677921|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.305|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.11|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day3 physician's objective examination)||3.11||0.305
91891665|NCT01850446|183677922|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Fever duration||0.5||0.02
91891666|NCT01850446|183677922|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.14|||t-test, 1 sided|||Non-specific symptoms duration||0.14||<0.001
91891667|NCT01850446|183677922|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.11|||t-test, 1 sided|||Nasal/ throat/ chest symptoms duration||0.11||<0.001
91891668|NCT01850446|183677923|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% (AUC ratio supposed to be less than 1.2)|AUC ratio|1.04||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17||bootstrap (100000 rep) confidence limits were constructed for AUC ratio|one-sample Z-test|AUC ratio was compared with N.I. margin||Severity of influenza was measured as area under curve (symptoms score-time)||1.17|0.9|0.015
91891669|NCT01850446|183677924|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.036|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.19|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day1)||0.19||0.036
91891670|NCT01850446|183677924|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.009|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.15|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day2)||0.15||0.009
91891671|NCT01850446|183677924|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.13|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day3)||0.13||<0.001
91891672|NCT01850446|183677924|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.13|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day4)||0.13||<0.001
91891673|NCT01850446|183677924|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.01|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day5)||0.01||<0.001
91891674|NCT01850446|183677925|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage of Patients Requiring Antibiotics Administration||0.03||<0.001
91891675|NCT01850446|183677926|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.014|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.15|||Z test for proportions|||Proportion difference of Patients With Negative Results (day3)||0.15||0.014
91891676|NCT01850446|183677926|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.037|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03|||Z test for proportions|||Proportion difference of Patients With Negative Results (day5)||0.03||0.037
91891677|NCT01850446|183677926|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03|||Z test for proportions|||Proportion difference of Patients With Negative Results (day7)||0.03||<0.001
91891678|NCT01850446|183677927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.59||P-value IL2 provided for between-group comparisson of difference from days 3 to day 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-2)||3.59|0.19|0.03
91891679|NCT01850446|183677927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|3.12||P-value IL2 provided for between-group comparisson of difference from day 7 to day 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-2)||3.12|-0.64|0.19
91891680|NCT01850446|183677927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IFN-γ)||||0.012
91891681|NCT01850446|183677927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IFN-γ)||||<0.0001
91891682|NCT01850446|183677927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-18)||||0.795
91891683|NCT01850446|183677927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-18)||||0.992
91891684|NCT01850446|183677927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-4)||0.92|0.02|0.04
91891685|NCT01850446|183677927|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-4)||0.79|-0.04|0.08
91891686|NCT01850446|183677927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-16)||||0.062
91891687|NCT01850446|183677927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-16)||||0.638
91891688|NCT01850446|183677928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Spontaneous IFN-α)||||0.065
91891689|NCT01850446|183677928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Spontaneous IFN-α)||||0.404
91891690|NCT01850446|183677928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Induced IFN-α)||||0.204
91891691|NCT01850446|183677928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (Induced IFN-α)||||0.386
91891692|NCT01850446|183677928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Spontaneous IFN-γ)||||0.592
91891693|NCT01850446|183677928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (Spontaneous IFN-γ)||||0.356
91891694|NCT01850446|183677928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Induced IFN-γ)||||0.475
91891695|NCT01850446|183677928|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (Induced IFN-γ)||||>0.99
91891696|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.364|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (leukocytes)||||0.364
91891697|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (leukocytes)||||0.07
91891698|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day1 to day 3 (neutrophils)||||0.607
91891699|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (neutrophils)||||0.028
91891700|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (lymphocytes)||||0.759
91891701|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (lymphocytes)||||0.777
91891702|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (monocytes)||||0.02
91891703|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (lymphocytes)||||0.343
91891704|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (eosinophils)||||0.575
91891705|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (eosinophils)||||0.912
91891706|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (basophils)||||0.242
91891707|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (basophils)||||0.102
91891708|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+)||||0.429
91891709|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.783|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+)||||0.783
91891710|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD4+)||||0.466
91891711|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD4+)||||0.945
91891712|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD8+)||||0.335
91891713|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD8+)||||0.66
91891714|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.01
91891715|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.573
91891716|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||0.472
91891717|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||0.69
91891718|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3-CD8+)||||0.727
91891719|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3-CD8+)||||0.554
91891720|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD19+CD3-)||||0.837
91891721|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD19+CD3-)||||0.967
91891722|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD119+)||||0.473
91891723|NCT01850446|183677929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.736|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD119+)||||0.736
91891724|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of neutrophils)||||0.282
91891725|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of neutrophils)||||0.071
91891726|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of lymphocytes)||||0.45
91891727|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of lymphocytes)||||0.58
91891728|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of monocytes)||||0.017
91891729|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of monocytes)||||0.019
91891730|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of eosinophils)||||0.424
91891731|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of eosinophils)||||0.666
91891732|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of basophils)||||0.268
91891733|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of basophils)||||0.031
91891734|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+)||||0.361
91891735|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+)||||0.699
91891736|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+CD4+)||||0.418
91891737|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+CD4+)||||>0.99
91891738|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+CD8+)||||0.172
91891739|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+CD8+)||||0.904
91891740|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.148
91891741|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.821
91891742|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||0.31
91891743|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||>0.99
91891744|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3-CD8+)||||0.43
91891745|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3-CD8+)||||0.821
91891746|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD19+CD3-)||||0.943
91891747|NCT01850446|183677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD19+CD3-)||||0.841
91891748|NCT00591721|183677931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.47|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|10.41|||t-test, 2 sided|Each baseline subscale score was subtracted from 7 week subscale score; t-tests assessed mean individual differences between groups.||Hypothesis: Individuals who participate in the program will report significantly reduced fatigue impact immediately post-intervention compared to individuals allocated to the wait-list control group.||10.41|-15.47|<0.05
91891749|NCT01639495|183677934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|60.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|68.8|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on exact binomial|||68.8|51.9|
91891750|NCT01639495|183677936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects with primary AEs|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|24.6|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval is exact binomial|||24.6|11.6|
91891751|NCT01639495|183677937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.6|98.2|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are exact binomial|||98.2|95.6|
91891752|NCT02366468|183677953|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin: -4 letters|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.27|||ANCOVA|including study treatment (DI, PRN) and center as factors and baseline BCVA as continuous covariate.||The primary objective was to demonstrate that the mean visit-averaged change from baseline of BCVA over month 1 to treatment completion for the DI arm was non-inferior to the PRN arm.||1.27|-3.04|0.002
91891753|NCT02366468|183677957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|28.56|||ANCOVA|containing the baseline values of the dependent variables as continuous covariates, and center and treatment as categorical covariates||||28.56|-17.10|0.620
91891754|NCT02366468|183677958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.66|30.59|||ANCOVA|containing the baseline values of the dependent variables as continuous covariates, and center and treatment as categorical covariates||||30.59|-33.66|0.925
91891755|NCT00359216|183677960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9219||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The p-value is obtained by F-test in ANCOVA to assess the treatment group difference in changes from baseline, adjusted for baseline.||||0.9219
91891756|NCT05540717|183677961|SUPERIORITY||relative difference (%)|-20.25||||0.00048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-9.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect||-9.49|-31.0|0.00048
91891757|NCT05540717|183677962|SUPERIORITY||relative difference (%)|-20.2||||0.00032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.13|-10.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect||Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect||-10.27|-30.13|0.00032
91891758|NCT05540717|183677963|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect|relative difference (%)|-26.54||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.15|-11.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dMS of CSMS on peak GPS||-11.94|-41.15|0.00080
91891759|NCT05540717|183677963|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect.|relative difference (%)|-26.6||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.49|-12.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dMS of CSMS on entire GPS||-12.72|-40.49|0.00031
91891760|NCT05540717|183677964|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect|relative difference (%)|-16.35||||0.00223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|-6.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dSS of CSMS on peak GPS||-6.44|-26.27|0.00223
91891761|NCT05540717|183677964|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect|relative difference (%)|-16.58||||0.00076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dSS of CSMS on entire GPS||||0.00076
91891762|NCT05540717|183677965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.00032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect, Baseline total RQLQ score as covariate and pooled geographical region as random effect||Average Total RQLQ Score During Peak GPS||-0.23|-0.76|0.00032
91891763|NCT05540717|183677966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Visit 7 of serum grass-specific IgG4 \[mg/L\]||4.7|3.28|<0.00001
91891764|NCT05540717|183677967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.254||||0.10846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.652|||Regression, Logistic|The probability of a well day was calculated using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) or similar approaches as appropriate.||Probability of Well Days During Peak (truncated) GPS||1.652|0.951|0.10846
91891765|NCT01144052|183677984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tests for efficacy were performed as this was a pilot study serving to generate first data and hypotheses.||||||0.125||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.125
91891766|NCT01144052|183677985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0|||||non-parametric|||||||0.447
91891767|NCT01144052|183677986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||non-parametric|||||||0.447
91891768|NCT01144052|183677987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
91891769|NCT01144052|183677989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tests for efficacy were performed, as this was pilot study serving to generate first data and hypotheses.||||||0.234||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p-value refers to nT2L at month 12||||||0.234
91891770|NCT00105001|183677992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.09
91891771|NCT00105001|183677992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm II relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-u\[|||1.1|0.4|0.10
91891772|NCT00105001|183677992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm III relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|||1.0|0.6|0.04
91891773|NCT00105001|183677993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.55
91891774|NCT00105001|183677994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.009
91891775|NCT00105001|183677994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm II relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|||1.4|0.5|0.51
91891776|NCT00105001|183677994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.8|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm III relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|||0.8|0.3|0.004
91891777|NCT00105001|183677995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.93
91891778|NCT00105001|183677996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.96
91891779|NCT00037830|183678037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis for Phase I was that at week 24, there is no difference between UPDRS motor scores in placebo vs. GM1-treated subjects.||||<0.0001
91891780|NCT00037830|183678038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis for Phase II is that long-term use of GM1 does not affect the progression of PD symptoms and that there is no benefit to early start of GM1 use.||||0.0368
91891781|NCT00037830|183678039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1903|||||||estimate of slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.1903
91891782|NCT00037830|183678039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||estimate slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.0063
91891783|NCT00037830|183678040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0502|||||||estimate of slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.0502
91891784|NCT00037830|183678040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||estimate slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.0003
91891785|NCT00037830|183678041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91891786|NCT00037830|183678042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1310
91891787|NCT00037830|183678043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis was paired sample t-test on change from baseline.||||<0.05
91891788|NCT00037830|183678044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91891789|NCT00037830|183678045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91891790|NCT00037830|183678046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91891791|NCT03582943|183678050|SUPERIORITY|A priori power analyses was designed to detect at least a 3 second difference in change in balance scores between groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of differences between groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.984
91891792|NCT03582943|183678050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of interaction between age and RLIC vs. sham|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.455
91891793|NCT03582943|183678050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of interaction between sex and RLIC vs. sham conditioning|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.803
91891794|NCT03582943|183678050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of interaction between BMI and RLIC vs. sham conditioning|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.233
91891795|NCT03582943|183678050|SUPERIORITY|Test of interaction between presence of co-morbidities and RLIC vs. sham conditioning|Mean Difference (Net)|4.12||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
91891796|NCT01177800|183678109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91891797|NCT01177800|183678110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden|||Change at Week 10: p-value was calculated by Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden method.||||<0.001
91891798|NCT01177800|183678111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91891799|NCT01177800|183678112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden|||Change at Week 26: p-value was calculated by Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden method.||||<0.001
91891800|NCT03527550|183678114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in negative urgency at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in negative urgency as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||0.95
91891801|NCT03527550|183678115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in positive urgency at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in positive urgency as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||0.64
91891802|NCT03527550|183678116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).|ANOVA|||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in stop-signal reaction time at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in stop-signal reaction time as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||0.91
91891803|NCT03527550|183678120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in distress intolerance at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in distress intolerance as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||.24
91891804|NCT01232738|183678137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.02|||Chi-squared|||Difference in slope of decline||0.02|-0.53|0.07
91891805|NCT01232738|183678138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
91891806|NCT02503852|183678147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.032
91891807|NCT02503852|183678147|OTHER|||||||0.0318||||||P value cited is the difference in non-vellus hair count between the low-dose ADRC NW3 group and the no-fat saline control at week 24|ANCOVA|||Non-vellus hair count in the low-dose ADRC group in the NW3 subgroup beginning at Week 6 (mean change from baseline persisting through weeks 12 , 24, and 52.||||0.0318
91891808|NCT03231800|183678149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.351|-3.137|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), mean SKAMP-CS at baseline, and site as fixed effects.||-3.137|-7.351|<0.001
91891809|NCT03231800|183678152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.612||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.694|25.017|||ANCOVA|||||25.017|2.694|0.016
91891810|NCT03231800|183678153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.508||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|23.017|||ANCOVA|||||23.017|1.105|0.031
91891811|NCT01133418|183678205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|General Linear Model|||||||.36
91891812|NCT01133418|183678206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||General Linear Model|||||||.86
91891813|NCT01133418|183678207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||General Linear Model|||||||.79
91891814|NCT01133418|183678208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||General Linear Model|||||||.77
91891815|NCT04150068|183678209|SUPERIORITY|The difference in percentage between 2 treatment groups was compared using an unconditional exact method using 2 invert 1-sided tests with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority.|Percentage Difference|70.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|90.0||The P value and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the point estimate of treatment difference in proportions was estimated and constructed using the Chan and Zhang method.|Chan & Zhang method|||||90.0|34.9|< 0.0001
91891816|NCT05316701|183678218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.47|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||0.47|0.14|<0.00001
91891817|NCT05316701|183678219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.43|||Gray's test|||Gray's test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||0.43|0.08|0.00002
91891818|NCT05316701|183678220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.11823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.22|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||1.22|0.20|0.11823
91891819|NCT05316701|183678221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.6|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||0.60|0.23|0.00003
91891820|NCT04679935|183678222|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-0.01|||MMRM model|||Week 40||-0.01|-7.47|
91891821|NCT04679935|183678222|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|-0.48|||MMRM model|||Week 44||-0.48|-8.78|
91891822|NCT04679935|183678222|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-0.58|||MMRM model|||Week 48||-0.58|-10.13|
91891823|NCT04679935|183678222|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|0.39|||MMRM model|||Week 52||0.39|-8.77|
91891824|NCT04679935|183678222|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-0.16|||MMRM model|||Mean of Week 40 to Week 52||-0.16|-8.56|
91891825|NCT04679935|183678230|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-0.39|||MMRM model|||Week 52||-0.39|-8.77|
91891826|NCT00969709|183678251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.23||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.54|-5.92|0.0186
91891827|NCT00969709|183678251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.99||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-1.29|-6.69|0.0038
91891828|NCT00969709|183678251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.86||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-2.12|-7.59|0.0005
91891829|NCT00969709|183678252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.41||||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||0.60|-3.42|0.1687
91891830|NCT00969709|183678252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean difference|-2.51||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.49|-4.54|0.0151
91891831|NCT00969709|183678252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.57||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.52|-4.62|0.0141
91891832|NCT02516332|183678253|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.038
91891833|NCT02516332|183678253|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91891834|NCT02516332|183678258|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.011
91891835|NCT02516332|183678258|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.036
91891836|NCT02217332|183678274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline to month 6 on log scale within the dexpramipexole treatment group.||Null hypothesis is the ratio of Month 6 to Baseline within the dexpramipexole group equals '1'.||||< 0.001
91891837|NCT02217332|183678275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885||||||Month 6/LOCF was used for the analysis of change from Baseline to Month 6 within the dexpramipexole group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.885
91891838|NCT02217332|183678279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline to month 3 on log scale within the dexpramipexole treatment group.||Null hypothesis is the ratio of Month 3 to Baseline within the dexpramipexole group equals '1'.||||<.001
91891839|NCT02217332|183678280|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Month 3/LOCF was used for the analysis of change from Baseline to Month 3 within the dexpramipexole group.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline to month 3 within the dexpramipexole treatment group||||||1.0
91891840|NCT02217332|183678281|SUPERIORITY||log scale|||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (paired)|||Null hypothesis is the ratio of Month 6 to Baseline within the dexpramipexole group equals '1'; 68% confidence interval is equal to plus/minus 1 standard error||||0.001
91891841|NCT00127205|183678285|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.49
91891842|NCT00127205|183678285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.94|0.24
91891843|NCT00127205|183678285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.90|0.50
91891844|NCT00127205|183678286|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.50
91953154|NCT02163759|183802823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|1.75||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||1.75|-11.66|1
91891845|NCT00127205|183678287|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for recurrence to bone||||0.93
91891846|NCT03377699|183678312|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for mean treatment difference in HbA1c is strictly below 0.4%.|Mean treatment difference|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Primary Estimand. Imputation of missing data was done within two groups of participants defined by randomised treatment arm based on a multiple imputation approach (x1000). For each of the 1000 imputed datasets last planned HbA1c prior to delivery after GW 16 was analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, region and the stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and a pregnancy status at randomisation-by-baseline HbA1c interaction.||0.08|-0.31|<0.0001
91891847|NCT03377699|183678312|EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for mean treatment difference in HbA1c is strictly below 0.4%.|Mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary Estimand. Imputation of missing data was done within two groups of participants defined by randomised treatment arm based on a multiple imputation approach (x1000). For each of the 1000 imputed datasets last planned HbA1c prior to delivery after GW 16 was analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, region and the stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and a pregnancy status at randomisation-by-baseline HbA1c interaction.||0.11|-0.27|0.3881
91891848|NCT02580305|183678336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.41
91891849|NCT02580305|183678336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.90
91891850|NCT02580305|183678337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.46
91891851|NCT02580305|183678337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.48
91891852|NCT02580305|183678338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.83
91891853|NCT02580305|183678338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.24
91891854|NCT02580305|183678339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.17
91891855|NCT02580305|183678339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.14
91891856|NCT02580305|183678340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.79
91891857|NCT02580305|183678340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.92
91891858|NCT00700427|183678341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91891859|NCT00700427|183678343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91891860|NCT00700427|183678344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Imputed (Attributed) Index Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91891861|NCT00700427|183678344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity/Impulsivity Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91891862|NCT00700427|183678344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for Inattention Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91891863|NCT00700427|183678344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Total ADHD Symptom Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91891864|NCT00700427|183678345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Imputed (Attributed) Index Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91891865|NCT00700427|183678345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity/Impulsivity Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91891866|NCT00700427|183678345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Inattention Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91891867|NCT00700427|183678345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Total ADHD Symptom Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91891868|NCT00700427|183678346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91891869|NCT00700427|183678347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91891870|NCT04587752|183678351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.047
91953155|NCT02163759|183802824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.9||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|20.62||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||20.62|-7.03|0.4434
91891871|NCT04587752|183678352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
91891872|NCT04587752|183678353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91891873|NCT04075994|183678384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Proportion of days covered assessed as a continuous measure (range 0-1) at 12 months between study arms adjusted for trial stratification factors (type of anticoagulant treatment). We determined that a sample size of 120 in the intervention group and 120 in the control group enables us to detect a minimum difference in PDC as small as 12.6% with 90% power. Power calculations assume use of 2-sided tests with 0.05 significance level.||||0.22
91891874|NCT01247285|183678390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.37|119.38|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||119.38|97.37|
91891875|NCT01247285|183678391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|109.14|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.14|92.90|
91891876|NCT01247285|183678392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.53|108.56|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.56|93.53|
91891877|NCT01247285|183678393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.53|111.64|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||111.64|98.53|
91891878|NCT01247285|183678394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.97|111.56|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||111.56|99.97|
91891879|NCT01247285|183678395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.76|107.77|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||107.77|94.76|
91891880|NCT01480219|183678398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.96|||Regression, Cox|||Crude hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model.||2.96|1.02|0.042
91891881|NCT01480219|183678398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.14|||Regression, Cox|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated using a parsimoniously adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model.||2.14|0.71|0.453
91891882|NCT01416389|183678438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This measure is compared between two treatment arms using a one-sided t-test. This measure followed a normal distribution.||||0.344
91891883|NCT01416389|183678439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.608|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.608
91891884|NCT01416389|183678441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.365
91891885|NCT01163292|183678473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 0||||0.144
91891886|NCT01163292|183678473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 26||||0.004
91891887|NCT01163292|183678473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 52||||0.006
91891888|NCT01163292|183678474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 0||||0.290
91891889|NCT01163292|183678474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 26||||1.000
91891890|NCT01163292|183678474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.001
91891891|NCT01163292|183678475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.335
91953156|NCT02163759|183802824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.8||||0.4122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|16.07||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||16.07|-6.72|0.4122
91891892|NCT01163292|183678476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 0||||0.266
91891893|NCT01163292|183678476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 26||||0.440
91891894|NCT01163292|183678476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 52||||0.609
91891895|NCT02643472|183678493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||||||0.73
91891896|NCT02643472|183678494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||STAI Y-1 data was used in these statistical analyses.||||0.12
91891897|NCT02643472|183678495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||||||0.03
91891898|NCT02643472|183678498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||||||0.06
91953157|NCT02163759|183802825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|9.26||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.26|-6.98|1
91891899|NCT02643472|183678499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91891900|NCT02643472|183678500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91891901|NCT02643472|183678501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
91891902|NCT02643472|183678502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant development status was evaluated with Bayley subscales. Cognitive subscale.||||0.92
91891903|NCT02643472|183678502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant development status was evaluated with Bayley subscales. Language subscale.||||0.58
91891904|NCT02643472|183678502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant development status was evaluated with Bayley subscales. Motor subscale.||||0.87
91891905|NCT02310100|183678530|OTHER|This is a one-group comparison to a performance goal.|binomial proportion|0.673||||0.0008|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.608||||Exact binomial|||H0: PE ≤ 54.9% Ha: PE \> 54.9% Where PE is the primary effectiveness endpoint rate.|||0.608|0.0008
91891906|NCT02310100|183678531|OTHER|One group comparison to a performance goal.|binomial proportion|0.081||||0.0013|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.124|||Exact binomial|||H0: PS ≥ 16.2% Ha: PS \< 16.2% where PS is the primary safety endpoint rate||0.124||0.0013
91891907|NCT00673400|183678532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||based on 28 pairwise matches|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Lifestyle (LS)||||0.1340
91891908|NCT00673400|183678532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0||||based on 29 matched pairs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Coping/behavior (C/B)||||0.088
91891909|NCT00673400|183678532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||based on 30 matched pairs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Depression/self-perception (D/S)||||0.0012
91891910|NCT00673400|183678532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||based on 30 matched pairs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Embarrassment (E)||||0.0074
91891911|NCT00673400|183678535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
91891912|NCT00673400|183678535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
91891913|NCT00673400|183678535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
91891914|NCT00673400|183678536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
91953158|NCT02163759|183802826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.9||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|29.5||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||29.50|4.49|0.0173
91953159|NCT02163759|183802826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.4||||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|18.32||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||18.32|-3.77|0.1886
91953160|NCT02163759|183802827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|9.88||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.88|-6.04|1
91891915|NCT00673400|183678536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
91891916|NCT00673400|183678536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
91891917|NCT00673400|183678537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0||||based on 28 pairwise matches|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Physical component summary (PCS)||||0.65
91891918|NCT00673400|183678537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||based on 28 pairwise matches|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Mental component summary (MCS)||||0.010
91891919|NCT01680640|183678538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Regression, Linear|||A total sample size of 100 participants, with a 14% drop out during the study and 43 participants in each group completing the study provided 85% power to detect a difference of 40% in liver fat (in the treatment arm compared with the placebo), using a power calculation test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. For change in liver fat percentage (and other secondary outcomes), ANCOVA will also be undertaken to assess effect sizes in the intervention group and placebo.||||=0.05
91891920|NCT01680640|183678538|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91891921|NCT01680640|183678539|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end-of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.00
91891922|NCT01680640|183678540|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
91891923|NCT01680640|183678541|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Beta-diversity indexes|Beta-diversity indexes were first visualized through a Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA)||||||<0.001
91891924|NCT00688870|183678542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 4||3.3|-6.8|
91891925|NCT00688870|183678542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||4.3|-4.6|
91891926|NCT00688870|183678542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||3.3|-6.8|
91891927|NCT00688870|183678542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 14||4.3|-4.6|
91891928|NCT00688870|183678542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||4.3|-4.6|
91891929|NCT00688870|183678542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||3.3|-6.8|
91891930|NCT00688870|183678542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-0.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||-0.3|-12.3|
91891931|NCT00688870|183678542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|99.2|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||99.2|89.4|
91891932|NCT00688870|183678542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|98.6|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||98.6|87.7|
91891933|NCT00688870|183678542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|37.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|48.9|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||48.9|26.2|
91891934|NCT00688870|183678542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|33.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||33.4|14.4|
91891935|NCT00688870|183678542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|99.7|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||99.7|91.6|
91891936|NCT00688870|183678542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.5|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||4.5|-4.6|
91891937|NCT00688870|183678543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 4||3.1|-6.9|
91891938|NCT00688870|183678543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||4.4|-4.6|
91891939|NCT00688870|183678543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||3.1|-6.9|
91891940|NCT00688870|183678543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 14||4.4|-4.6|
91891941|NCT00688870|183678543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||4.4|-4.6|
91891942|NCT00688870|183678543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||3.1|-6.9|
91891943|NCT00688870|183678543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||4.4|-4.6|
91891944|NCT00688870|183678543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|98.6|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||98.6|87.7|
91891945|NCT00688870|183678543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|90.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||90.1|72.0|
91891946|NCT00688870|183678543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|18.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||18.1|3.8|
91891947|NCT00688870|183678543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||4.4|-4.6|
91891948|NCT00688870|183678543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|97.9|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||97.9|86.0|
91891949|NCT00688870|183678543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.5|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||6.5|-3.4|
91891950|NCT00688870|183678544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.78|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.78|0.50|
91891951|NCT00688870|183678544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.17|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.17|0.70|
91891952|NCT00688870|183678544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.82|0.55|
91891953|NCT00688870|183678544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.06|0.67|
91891954|NCT00688870|183678544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.97|0.63|
91891955|NCT00688870|183678544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.94|0.60|
91891956|NCT00688870|183678544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.77|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.77|0.46|
91891957|NCT00688870|183678544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|202.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|157.04|261.32|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||261.32|157.04|
91891958|NCT00688870|183678544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|24.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.46|31.49|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||31.49|18.46|
91891959|NCT00688870|183678544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|7.41|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||7.41|4.37|
91891960|NCT00688870|183678544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|7.67|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||7.67|4.42|
91891961|NCT00688870|183678544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|96.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|122.17|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||122.17|75.60|
91891962|NCT00688870|183678544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.83|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.83|1.23|
91891963|NCT00688870|183678545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMC|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.84|0.49|
91891964|NCT00688870|183678545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.36|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.36|0.77|
91891965|NCT00688870|183678545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.05|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.05|0.64|
91891966|NCT00688870|183678545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.91|0.51|
91891967|NCT00688870|183678545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.99|0.57|
91891968|NCT00688870|183678545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.43|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||1.43|0.83|
91891969|NCT00688870|183678545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.92|0.52|
91891970|NCT00688870|183678545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|303.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.63|431.83|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||431.83|213.63|
91891971|NCT00688870|183678545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|10.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.77|14.62|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||14.62|7.77|
91891972|NCT00688870|183678545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|4.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|6.08|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||6.08|3.78|
91953161|NCT02163759|183802828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|13.8||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|22.15||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||22.15|2.97|0.1347
91891973|NCT00688870|183678545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|4.08|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||4.08|2.28|
91891974|NCT00688870|183678545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|145.84|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||145.84|75.60|
91891975|NCT00688870|183678545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|4.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|5.6|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||5.60|3.54|
91891976|NCT00688870|183678546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.735
91891977|NCT00688870|183678546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Significant, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.533
91891978|NCT00688870|183678546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.039
91891979|NCT00688870|183678546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.059
91891980|NCT00688870|183678546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91891981|NCT00688870|183678546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91891982|NCT00688870|183678546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91891983|NCT00688870|183678546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.275||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.275
91891984|NCT00688870|183678547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91891985|NCT00688870|183678547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.617||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Significant, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.617
91891986|NCT00688870|183678547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.810
91891987|NCT00688870|183678547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.810
91891988|NCT00688870|183678547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.674||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.674
91891989|NCT00688870|183678547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91891990|NCT00688870|183678547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.497||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.497
91891991|NCT00688870|183678548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91891992|NCT00688870|183678548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Significant, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91891993|NCT00688870|183678548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.044
91891994|NCT00688870|183678548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.076
91891995|NCT00688870|183678548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.496||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.496
91891996|NCT00688870|183678548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.361||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.361
91891997|NCT00688870|183678548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.635||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.635
91891998|NCT00688870|183678548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.244
91891999|NCT00688870|183678549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.076
91892000|NCT00688870|183678549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.735
91953162|NCT02163759|183802828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|0.5||||0.9138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|9.92||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||9.92|-8.95|0.9138
91892001|NCT00688870|183678549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91892002|NCT00688870|183678549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.477
91892003|NCT00688870|183678549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.805
91892004|NCT00688870|183678549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91892005|NCT00688870|183678549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.477
91892006|NCT00688870|183678550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.633||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.633
91892007|NCT00688870|183678550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91892008|NCT00688870|183678550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.527||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.527
91892009|NCT00688870|183678550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.613||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.613
91892010|NCT00688870|183678550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.753||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.753
91892011|NCT00688870|183678550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.748||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.748
91892012|NCT00688870|183678551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.327||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.327
91892013|NCT00688870|183678551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91892014|NCT00688870|183678551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.522||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.522
91892015|NCT00688870|183678551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.872||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.872
91892016|NCT00688870|183678551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.868||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.868
91892017|NCT00688870|183678551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.237
91892018|NCT00688870|183678552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.329
91892019|NCT00688870|183678552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.492||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.492
91892020|NCT00688870|183678552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.496||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.496
91892021|NCT00688870|183678552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.322
91892022|NCT00688870|183678552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.610
91892023|NCT00688870|183678552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.726||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.726
91892024|NCT00688870|183678552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.855||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.855
91892025|NCT00688870|183678553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.326||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.326
91892026|NCT00688870|183678553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91892027|NCT00688870|183678553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.714
91892028|NCT00688870|183678553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91892029|NCT00688870|183678553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
91892030|NCT00688870|183678553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.525||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.525
91892031|NCT01151410|183678563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Indicates statistical significance at 0.025 level for one sided non-inferiority testing at 4mmHg margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.4||||ANCOVA||||||-2.40|0.0040
91892032|NCT01253018|183678566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Sample size and power calculations were performed based on the difference in the FM score between the two groups with an assumed within group SD of 15.9, the correlation of 0.5 among repeated measures. 30 subjects enrolled in each arm of the study would give 80% power for detecting a difference of 8 points on the FM.~Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in FM between the two interventions groups at final training (12 week)."||||<0.05
91892033|NCT01253018|183678566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in FM between the two interventions groups at retention (24 weeks).||||<0.05
91892034|NCT01253018|183678568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in WMFT between the two interventions groups at final training 12 week.||||<0.05
91892035|NCT01253018|183678568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in WMFT between the two interventions groups at retention 24 weeks.||||<0.05
91892036|NCT01253018|183678569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in SIS Hand between the two interventions groups at final training week 12.||||<0.05
91892037|NCT01253018|183678569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in SIS Hand between the two interventions groups at retention week 24.||||<0.05
91953163|NCT02163759|183802829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|3.3||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||3.30|-10.27|1
91892038|NCT00548262|183678589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Success at EOT||73.6|44.6|
91892039|NCT00548262|183678590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|EIVT Success||73.6|44.6|
91892040|NCT00548262|183678590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|62.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Week 2 Follow-up Success||62.5|33.0|
91892041|NCT00548262|183678591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|73.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida albicans: Success||73.7|31.0|
91892042|NCT00548262|183678591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida famata: Success||100.0|0.0|
91892043|NCT00548262|183678591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida glabrata: Success||100.0|13.3|
91892044|NCT00548262|183678591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida krusei: Success||100.0|13.3|
91892045|NCT00548262|183678591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|46.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida parapsilosis: Success||46.5|0.0|
91892046|NCT00548262|183678591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida tropicalis: Success||100.0|55.2|
91892047|NCT00548262|183678591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|93.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Unidentifiable: Success||93.8|20.5|
91892048|NCT00548262|183678592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|73.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida albicans: Success||73.7|31.0|
91892049|NCT00548262|183678592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida glabrata: Success||100.0|13.3|
91892050|NCT00548262|183678592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida krusei: Success||100.0|13.3|
91892051|NCT00548262|183678592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|46.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida parapsilosis: Success||46.5|0.0|
91892052|NCT00548262|183678592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida tropicalis: Success||100.0|55.2|
91892053|NCT00548262|183678592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|93.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Unidentifiable: Success||93.8|20.5|
91892054|NCT00548262|183678593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|69.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida albicans: Success||69.0|26.3|
91892055|NCT00548262|183678593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida krusei: Success||100.0|13.3|
91892056|NCT00548262|183678593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|98.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida tropicalis: Success||98.4|41.6|
91892057|NCT00548262|183678593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|62.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Unidentifiable: Success||62.0|0.0|
91892058|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.1|73.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (Yes): Success||73.4|39.1|
91892059|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|93.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (No): Success||93.3|40.0|
91892060|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|71.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (Yes): Success||71.5|37.6|
91892061|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|99.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (No): Success||99.0|46.4|
91892062|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|72.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (Yes): Success||72.0|40.8|
91892063|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (No): Success||100.0|44.9|
91892064|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|71.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (Yes): Success||71.1|39.5|
91892065|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (No): Success||100.0|53.5|
91953164|NCT02163759|183802830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|26.3||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|37.86||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||37.86|12.10|0.0173
91892066|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|64.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (Yes): Success||64.9|12.0|
91892067|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|67.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|84.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (No): Success||84.2|51.3|
91892068|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
91892069|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
91892070|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|80.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (Yes): Success||80.1|35.7|
91892071|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|79.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (No): Success||79.2|40.8|
91892072|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Solid organ transplant (No): Success||73.6|44.6|
91892073|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
91892074|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
91892075|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|58.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|72.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Chemotherapy (No): Success||72.9|43.4|
91892076|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|55.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (Yes): Success||55.1|0.0|
91892077|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (No): Success||79.2|49.0|
91892078|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|78.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (Yes): Success||78.3|21.7|
91892079|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.7|79.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (No): Success||79.3|45.7|
91892080|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Neutropenic: Success||100.0|13.3|
91892081|NCT00548262|183678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|79.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Non-neutropenic: Success||79.7|44.4|
91892082|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.1|73.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (Yes): Success||73.4|39.1|
91892083|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|93.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (No): Success||93.3|40.0|
91892084|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|71.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (Yes): Success||71.5|37.6|
91892085|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|99.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (No): Success||99.0|46.4|
91892086|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|72.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (Yes): Success||72.0|40.8|
91892087|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (No): Success||100.0|44.9|
91892088|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|71.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (Yes): Success||71.1|39.5|
91892089|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (No): Success||100.0|53.5|
91892090|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|46.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|73.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (Yes): Success||73.3|19.1|
91892091|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|64.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|81.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (No): Success||81.4|47.7|
91892092|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
91892093|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
91892094|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.5|84.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (Yes): Success||84.8|41.5|
91892095|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|75.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (No): Success||75.5|36.5|
91892096|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Solid organ transplant (No): Success||73.6|44.6|
91892097|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
91892098|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
91892099|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|58.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|72.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Chemotherapy (No): Success||72.9|43.4|
91892100|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|82.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (Yes): Success||82.9|0.0|
91892101|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.3|76.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (No): Success||76.8|46.3|
91892102|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|86.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (Yes): Success||86.2|30.4|
91892103|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|76.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (No): Success||76.4|42.4|
91892104|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Neutropenic: Success||100.0|13.3|
91892105|NCT00548262|183678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|79.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Non-neutropenic: Success||79.7|44.4|
91892106|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|54.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (Yes): Success||54.3|20.7|
91892107|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|99.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (No): Success||99.5|50.5|
91892108|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|39.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|56.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (Yes): Success||56.1|22.7|
91892109|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|99.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (No): Success||99.0|46.4|
91892110|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|64.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (Yes): Success||64.4|33.0|
91892111|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|82.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (No): Success||82.9|0.0|
91892112|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.5|63.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (Yes): Success||63.2|31.5|
91892113|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|90.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (No): Success||90.0|10.0|
91892114|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|64.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (Yes): Success||64.9|12.0|
91892115|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|51.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|69.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (No): Success||69.2|34.0|
91892116|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|40.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (Yes): Success||40.2|0.0|
91892117|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|70.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (No): Success||70.1|38.0|
91892118|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|64.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (Yes): Success||64.3|19.9|
91892119|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.4|71.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (No): Success||71.6|32.4|
91892120|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|62.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Solid organ transplant (No): Success||62.5|33.0|
91953165|NCT02163759|183802830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|13.2||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|24.94||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||24.94|0.93|0.0313
91953166|NCT02163759|183802831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|8.45||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||8.45|-9.13|1
91953167|NCT02163759|183802832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.4434
91892121|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|40.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (Yes): Success||40.2|0.0|
91892122|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|70.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (No): Success||70.1|38.0|
91892123|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|46.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|61.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Chemotherapy (No): Success||61.4|31.6|
91892124|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|82.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (Yes): Success||82.9|0.0|
91892125|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|64.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (No): Success||64.4|33.0|
91892126|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|69.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (Yes): Success||69.6|13.8|
91892127|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|67.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (No): Success||67.3|32.7|
91892128|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Neutropenic: Success||100.0|13.3|
91892129|NCT00548262|183678596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|51.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|69.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Non-neutropenic: Success||69.9|33.5|
91892130|NCT00548262|183678597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|68.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.2|84.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE \<20 (EIVT): Success||84.0|53.2|
91892131|NCT00548262|183678597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|49.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE ≥20 (EIVT): Success||49.4|0.0|
91892132|NCT00548262|183678597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|71.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.5|86.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE \<20 (EOT): Success||86.4|56.5|
91892133|NCT00548262|183678597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE ≥20 (EOT): Success||31.6|0.0|
91892134|NCT00548262|183678597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|73.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE \<20 (Week 2 F/U): Success||73.5|40.7|
91892135|NCT00548262|183678597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE ≥20 (Week 2 F/U): Success||31.6|0.0|
91892136|NCT03592745|183678624|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to DC immediately following 3 weeks of training was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|32.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to 3 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91892137|NCT03592745|183678624|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to DC immediately following 3 weeks of training was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|87.0||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to 3 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.445
91892138|NCT03592745|183678624|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to week 16 (3 month follow-up after training) was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|95.0||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare the median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG from baseline to 16 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.678
91892139|NCT03592745|183678624|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to week 16 (3 month follow-up after training) was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|98.0||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare the median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG from baseline to 16 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.777
91892140|NCT03592745|183678625|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 3 weeks of training was assessed with the upper extremity fugl meyer score in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|112.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median change in Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score from baseline to 3 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91892141|NCT03592745|183678625|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 16 (3 month follow-up) was assessed with the Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|110.5||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median change in Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score from baseline to 16 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.950
91892142|NCT00293059|183678626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||inverting 2 one-sided tests|||||||< 0.0001
91892143|NCT04362189|183678698|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
91892144|NCT04362189|183678699|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|||||
91892145|NCT04362189|183678700|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
91892146|NCT04362189|183678701|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
91892147|NCT04362189|183678702|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
91953168|NCT02163759|183802832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.3374
91892148|NCT04362189|183678703|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||HB-adMSCs represents Numerator and Placebo represents Denominator.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
91892149|NCT04362189|183678710|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
91892150|NCT04362189|183678711|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
91892151|NCT04362189|183678712|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
91892152|NCT04362189|183678713|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
91892153|NCT05116540|183678778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.616||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.282|31.959|||ANCOVA|||||31.959|12.282|0.0002
91892154|NCT05116540|183678779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.844||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.307|28.221|||ANCOVA|||||28.221|3.307|0.0166
91892155|NCT05116540|183678780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.137|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.962||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.361|32.006|||ANCOVA|||||32.006|12.361|0.9905
91892156|NCT05116540|183678781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.747|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.274||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.329|28.177|||ANCOVA|||||28.177|3.329|0.8292
91892157|NCT05116540|183678782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.914|-0.195|||ANCOVA|||||-0.195|-2.914|0.0278
91892158|NCT05116540|183678783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.424|11.33|||ANCOVA|||||11.330|-0.424|0.0666
91892159|NCT05116540|183678784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.508||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.629|21.853|||ANCOVA|||||21.853|-1.629|0.0863
91892160|NCT05116540|183678785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.633||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.504|4.457|||ANCOVA|||||4.457|-2.504|0.5588
91892161|NCT05116540|183678786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.773|-2.413|||ANCOVA|||||-2.413|-6.773|0.0004
91892162|NCT02914275|183678828|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.88||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H1N1 vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||0.88|0.72|
91892163|NCT02914275|183678828|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.42||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H3N2 vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||1.42|1.15|
91892164|NCT02914275|183678828|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.24||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/YAM vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||1.24|1.01|
91892165|NCT02914275|183678828|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/VIC vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||1.09|0.86|
91892166|NCT02914275|183678829|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.1||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H1N1 vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||-5.1|-15.4|
91953169|NCT02163759|183802833|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
91892167|NCT02914275|183678829|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|7.8||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H3N2 vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||7.8|-2.54|
91892168|NCT02914275|183678829|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.2||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/YAM vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||8.2|-2.1|
91892169|NCT02914275|183678829|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.1||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/VIC vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||6.1|-4.2|
91892170|NCT00923260|183678838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91892171|NCT00923260|183678839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91892172|NCT00923260|183678840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91892173|NCT00923260|183678841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.86
91892174|NCT00923260|183678842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91892175|NCT00923260|183678843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91892176|NCT00923260|183678844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91892177|NCT00923260|183678845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
91892178|NCT00923260|183678846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91892179|NCT00923260|183678847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91892180|NCT00923260|183678848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91892181|NCT00923260|183678849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91892182|NCT00923260|183678850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91892183|NCT00923260|183678851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91892184|NCT00923260|183678852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91892185|NCT00923260|183678853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91892186|NCT00923260|183678854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91892187|NCT00923260|183678855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91892188|NCT00923260|183678856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91892189|NCT00923260|183678857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
91892190|NCT00923260|183678858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
91892191|NCT00923260|183678859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91892192|NCT00923260|183678860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
91892193|NCT00923260|183678861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
91892194|NCT00923260|183678862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91892195|NCT00923260|183678863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91892196|NCT00923260|183678864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
91892197|NCT00923260|183678865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91892198|NCT00923260|183678866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91892199|NCT00923260|183678867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
91892200|NCT00923260|183678868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91892201|NCT00923260|183678869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91892202|NCT00923260|183678870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91892203|NCT00923260|183678871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91892204|NCT00923260|183678872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91892205|NCT00923260|183678873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91892206|NCT00923260|183678874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91892207|NCT00923260|183678875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91892208|NCT00923260|183678876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
91892209|NCT00923260|183678877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91892210|NCT00923260|183678878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91892211|NCT00923260|183678879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91892212|NCT00923260|183678880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
91892213|NCT00923260|183678881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91892214|NCT00923260|183678882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91892215|NCT00923260|183678883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91892216|NCT00923260|183678884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
91892217|NCT00923260|183678885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91892218|NCT00923260|183678886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91892219|NCT00923260|183678887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91892220|NCT00923260|183678888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91892221|NCT00923260|183678889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
91892222|NCT00923260|183678890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
91892223|NCT00923260|183678891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
91892224|NCT00923260|183678892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91892225|NCT00923260|183678893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91892226|NCT00923260|183678894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
91892227|NCT00923260|183678895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91892228|NCT00923260|183678896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91892229|NCT00923260|183678897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91892230|NCT00923260|183678898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91892231|NCT00923260|183678899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91892232|NCT00923260|183678900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
91892233|NCT00923260|183678901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
91892234|NCT03828747|183678934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||-1.21|-4.56|0.0008
91892235|NCT03828747|183678934|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.287||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||-0.20|-5.31|0.0351
91892236|NCT03828747|183678935|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.295||0.5207||95.0|-3.39|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||1.72|-3.39|0.5207
91892237|NCT03828747|183678935|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.911||0.3704||95.0|-5.5|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||2.07|-5.50|0.3704
91892238|NCT03828747|183678936|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.3501||95.0|-0.29|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||0.82|-0.29|0.3501
91892239|NCT03828747|183678936|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||1.22|-0.87|0.7431
91892240|NCT03828747|183678937|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.5366||95.0|-0.58|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||1.11|-0.58|0.5366
91892241|NCT03828747|183678937|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.0851||95.0|-0.15|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||2.30|-0.15|0.0851
91892242|NCT04187989|183678965|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.478|0.466|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.466|-.478|.980
91892243|NCT04187989|183678966|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.621||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.621|-.092|.140
91892244|NCT04187989|183678968|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.421||Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.421|-.294|.724
91892245|NCT04187989|183678969|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.269|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.269|-.425|.656
91892246|NCT04187989|183678970|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|0.067||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|||0.067|-.746|.158
91892247|NCT04187989|183678971|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.495|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.495|-.210|.422
91892248|NCT04187989|183678972|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.381|||t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs||.381|-.328|.882
91953170|NCT02163759|183802834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.4434
91892249|NCT04187989|183678973|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|0.334||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.334|-.728|.497
91892250|NCT04187989|183678974|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.398|0.313||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.313|-.398|.813
91892251|NCT04187989|183678975|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|0.314||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.314|-.381|.849
91892252|NCT04187989|183678976|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.607|0.371||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.371|-.607|.667
91892253|NCT04187989|183678977|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|0.005|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs||.005|-.689|.051
91892254|NCT04187989|183678978|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.284|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model||We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|.284|-.412|.714
91953171|NCT02163759|183802834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6367||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.6367
91953172|NCT02163759|183802835|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
91892255|NCT04187989|183678979|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|0.311|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|: We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.311|-.531|.603
91892256|NCT04187989|183678980|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.597|||Cohen's D|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects)|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.597|-.273|.457
91892257|NCT04187989|183678981|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|0.156|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.156|-.686|.209
91892258|NCT04187989|183678982|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|0.328|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects)|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.328|-.541|.623
91892259|NCT03507777|183678990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
91892260|NCT03507777|183678991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2487|||||||A Cox regression model|||||||0.2487
91892261|NCT03507777|183678992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2952|||||||A Cox regression model|||||||0.2952
91892262|NCT00355199|183679012|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.48|||Regression, Cox||HR refers to R-HDS (R-CHOP is the reference level)|||1.48|0.66|<0.05
91892263|NCT00355199|183679014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.21|||Regression, Cox||HR refers to R-HDS (R-CHOP is the reference level)|||1.21|0.29|<0.05
91892264|NCT00355199|183679015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||Regression, Cox||HR refers to R-HDS (R-CHOP is the reference level)|||1.52|0.57|<0.05
91892265|NCT02071290|183679018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
91892266|NCT02071290|183679019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.287
91892267|NCT02071290|183679020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.597
91892268|NCT02071290|183679021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.307
91892269|NCT02071290|183679022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.646
91892270|NCT02071290|183679023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.757
91892271|NCT02071290|183679024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
91892272|NCT02071290|183679025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.967
91892273|NCT02071290|183679026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.637
91892274|NCT02071290|183679027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.664
91892275|NCT02071290|183679028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.661
91892276|NCT02071290|183679029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.916
91892277|NCT02071290|183679030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.437
91892278|NCT02071290|183679031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.353
91892279|NCT02071290|183679032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91892280|NCT02071290|183679033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.085
91892281|NCT02071290|183679034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.371
91892282|NCT02071290|183679035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.106
91892283|NCT02071290|183679036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.829
91892284|NCT02071290|183679037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.323
91892285|NCT02071290|183679038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.287
91892286|NCT02071290|183679039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
91892287|NCT02071290|183679040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.510
91892288|NCT02071290|183679041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.348
91892289|NCT02071290|183679042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.911
91892290|NCT05126563|183679047|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.53|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Extreme fatigue scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.53|-1.42|0.9416
91892291|NCT05126563|183679048|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.685||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.2|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Brain fog scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.20|-1.54|0.8021
91892292|NCT05126563|183679049|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.4417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.43|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms. - Headache scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.43|-0.63|0.4417
91892293|NCT05126563|183679050|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.98|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Sleep disturbances scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.98|-0.90|0.4550
91892294|NCT05126563|183679051|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.89|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Loss of taste scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.89|-0.98|0.9200
91892295|NCT05126563|183679052|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.6589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.56|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in PHQ-9 scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.56|-0.88|0.6589
91892296|NCT05126563|183679053|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.61|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms Extreme Fatigue scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.61|-1.29|0.8240
91892297|NCT05126563|183679054|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.9892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.36|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Brain Fog scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.36|-1.38|0.9892
91892298|NCT05126563|183679055|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.3952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.47|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Headache scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.47|-0.59|0.3952
91892299|NCT05126563|183679056|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.94|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Sleep Disturbances scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.94|-0.87|0.4504
91892300|NCT05126563|183679057|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.7318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.78|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Loss of Taste scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.78|-1.10|0.7318
91892301|NCT05126563|183679058|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.5485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.5|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Loss of Smell scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.50|-0.93|0.5485
91892302|NCT05126563|183679089|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.3577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.44|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Dyspnea at rest scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.44|-1.19|0.3577
91892303|NCT05126563|183679090|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.7196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.92|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Dyspnea during activity scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.92|-1.33|0.7196
91892304|NCT05126563|183679091|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.4847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.56|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Cough scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.56|-1.18|0.4847
91892305|NCT05126563|183679092|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.661||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.94|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Body aches scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.94|-0.71|0.3535
91892306|NCT05126563|183679093|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.78|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Joint Pain scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.78|-0.84|0.4746
91892307|NCT05126563|183679094|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-1.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.141||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|2.85|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Subject's energy - Fatigue Assessment form scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||2.85|-5.72|0.5059
91892308|NCT05126563|183679095|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-6.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.2269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.08|3.89|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (General Health) between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||3.89|-16.08|0.2269
91892309|NCT05126563|183679096|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.392||0.8735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.66|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in PHQ-9 scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||2.66|-2.91|0.8735
91892310|NCT05126563|183679097|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-3.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.4802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|6.22|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in PHQ-9 scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||6.22|-13.07|0.4802
91892311|NCT06612255|183679098|OTHER|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means with comparison presented as test (powder)/reference (tablet).|Fixed Effect Analysis|51.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.71|58.43||||||Results obtained from mixed effects model of natural log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters including terms for regimen, period and sequence fitted as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence fitted as a random effect.||58.43|45.71|
91892312|NCT00964886|183679104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANCOVA|||In an intent-to-treat analysis of all randomized participants assigned to experimental drug (desipramine) or active placebo (benztropine) an analysis of variance compared mean Descriptor Differential Scale scores at 12 weeks (or last observation carried forward) adjusted fro mean baseline score ( = ).||||0.7
91892313|NCT00964886|183679105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|Means are adjusted for baseline Roland and Morris scores.||In the intent-to-treat sample of all randomized participants assigned to experimental drug (desipramine) or active placebo (benztropine) an analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared mean Roland and Morris scores at 12 weeks adjusted for mean baseline scores.||||0.84
91892314|NCT00964886|183679106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6
91892315|NCT00964886|183679107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||This analysis compares outcomes for participants assigned at baseline to receive cognitive behavioral therapy or not to receive cognitive behavioral therapy (behavioral effect)||||0.8
91892316|NCT01871805|183679119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0056
91892317|NCT01871805|183679120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0251
91892318|NCT01871805|183679120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0203
91892319|NCT01871805|183679122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0010
91892320|NCT03535597|183679176|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.89|0.906
91892321|NCT03535597|183679176|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.53|||Chi-squared|||||1.53|1.09|0.002
91892322|NCT03535597|183679176|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.86|0.613
91892323|NCT03535597|183679177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-98.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91892324|NCT03535597|183679177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-120.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
91892325|NCT03535597|183679177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-94.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
91892326|NCT03535597|183679178|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.57|||Fisher Exact|||||2.57|0.23|0.744
91892327|NCT03535597|183679178|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.41|||Fisher Exact|||||3.41|0.31|>0.999
91892328|NCT03535597|183679178|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.46|||Fisher Exact|||||2.46|0.18|0.724
91892329|NCT03535597|183679179|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.76|||Fisher Exact|||||3.76|0.56|0.594
91892330|NCT03535597|183679179|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.26|||Fisher Exact|||||3.26|0.37|>0.999
91892331|NCT03535597|183679179|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.88|||Fisher Exact|||||3.88|0.55|0.581
91892332|NCT03535597|183679180|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|5.22|||Fisher Exact|||||5.22|0.71|0.284
91892333|NCT03535597|183679180|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.9|||Fisher Exact|||||5.9|0.75|0.243
91892334|NCT03535597|183679180|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.54|||Fisher Exact|||||5.54|0.74|0.266
91892335|NCT03484273|183679181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||Repeated Measured ANOVA was used to compare the 4 compression garment configurations.||||<0.001
91892336|NCT03484273|183679182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91892337|NCT03484273|183679183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91892338|NCT03484273|183679184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.01
91892339|NCT03484273|183679185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91892340|NCT03484273|183679186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.001
91892341|NCT03484273|183679187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.04
91892342|NCT00468104|183679189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||A univariate analysis was done to identify possible predictors of successful resolution of symptoms. The chi-square analysis was used to compare the percent successful.||||<0.001
91892343|NCT00294515|183679197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.66|0.25|<=0.0002
91892344|NCT00294515|183679198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.37|0.11|<0.0001
91892345|NCT00294515|183679199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.60|0.22|0.0001
91892346|NCT00294515|183679200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0126||95.0|0.35|0.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.88|0.35|0.0126
91892347|NCT00294515|183679201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.01||95.0|0.34|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.86|0.34|0.0100
91892348|NCT01941719|183679251|EQUIVALENCE|This trial aims to show the enhanced education is no better and no worse than the standard education|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1212||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level set at 0.05|ANCOVA|At each follow-up point, multivariate ANCOVA models were used to test for significant changes from the baseline||A mixed-effect model with repeated measures is used to compare the difference of group over time.||||0.0770
91892349|NCT01941719|183679252|EQUIVALENCE|This trial aims to show the new treatment is no better and no worse||||||0.6638||||||The threshold of significance level set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6638
91892350|NCT01941719|183679253|EQUIVALENCE|The test will compare the number of complications between the two groups|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
91892351|NCT01670760|183679271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.69
91892352|NCT01167452|183679272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS) analysis||We conducted a linear regression analysis of the log transformed elimination rate constant vs. the log transformed weight for each participant.||||0.0004
91892353|NCT01167452|183679272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Multiple Adaptive Regression Spline (MARS)||We conducted a linear regression analysis of the log transformed elimination rate constant vs. the log transformed body mass index for each participant.||||<0.0001
91892354|NCT00858364|183679304|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa to placebo) was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|The primary analysis used the Cox Proportional Hazard Model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin), with treatment group as the only covariate.||1.01|0.83|
91892355|NCT00858364|183679304|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa to placebo) was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|As a sensitivity analysis, an unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model with treatment group as the only covariate was conducted.||1.00|0.83|
91892356|NCT00858364|183679304|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was demonstrated for both OS and PFS and superiority was demonstrated for the transfusion endpoint, superiority was then tested for both OS and PFS using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiplicity.||||||0.07|||||||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin)||||||0.070
91892357|NCT00858364|183679304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test||||||0.047
91892358|NCT00858364|183679304|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||||||To evaluate the potential effect of cross-in (participants in the placebo group who began treatment with an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) at any point after randomization), a sensitivity analysis was conducted that included ESA use as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin).||1.02|0.84|
91892359|NCT00858364|183679305|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority was declared for OS, non-inferiority would be declared for PFS if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death or progression for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|The primary analysis of PFS used a Cox Proportional Hazard Model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin), with treatment group as the only covariate.||1.04|0.87|
91892360|NCT00858364|183679305|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority was declared for OS, non-inferiority would be declared for PFS if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death or progression for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|As a sensitivity analysis, an unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model with treatment group as the only covariate was conducted.||1.04|0.87|
91892361|NCT00858364|183679305|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was demonstrated for both OS and PFS and superiority was demonstrated for the transfusion endpoint, superiority was then tested for both OS and PFS using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiplicity.||||||0.31|||||||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).||||||0.31
91892362|NCT00858364|183679305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test||||||0.27
91892363|NCT00858364|183679305|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||||||To evaluate the potential effect of cross-in (participants in the placebo group who began treatment with an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) at any point after randomization), a sensitivity analysis was conducted that included ESA use as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin).||1.05|0.88|
91892364|NCT00858364|183679306|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was declared for OS and PFS, superiority would be declared for the transfusion endpoint if the p-value from a two-sided test of significance using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method was less than 0.05 in favor of the darbepoetin alfa group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.704|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|0.864|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|The primary analysis of the incidence of a transfusion or hemoglobin ≤ 8.0 g/dL from day 29 to EOETP was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method to test for treatment group differences while adjusting for the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin).||0.864|0.573|< 0.001
91892365|NCT00858364|183679306|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.705|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.866|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|As a sensitivity analysis a logistic regression analysis was conducted, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).||0.866|0.574|< 0.001
91892366|NCT00858364|183679308|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.173||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|1.401|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).|An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|||1.401|0.983|0.076
91892367|NCT00858364|183679308|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.173||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.401|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Unstratified analysis||||1.401|0.982|0.078
91892368|NCT00858364|183679310|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.741||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.901|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).|An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|||0.901|0.610|0.003
91892369|NCT00858364|183679310|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.758||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.913|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Unstratified analysis||||0.913|0.630|0.003
91892370|NCT01655693|183679316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||>|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Treatment comparison of DT pooled with BCS used non-stratified Log-rank test at significance level p=0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test is used after checking the proportional hazards (PH) assumption is valid. The Wilcoxon test is used when the PH assumption fails.|The hazard ratio was controlled for the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) and type II error rate as 15%.|Initial 24 month assessment: the primary aim was to demonstrate the superiority of DT pooled (20 mg/m2 and 30 mg/m2) compared to BSC treatment and not individual DT groups per protocol. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The comparison of treatment groups (pooled DT groups versus BSC group) was performed using a non-stratified log-rank test as the primary analysis. The Cox model and Wilcoxon test was used for sensitivity analysis.||||>0.991
91892371|NCT01655693|183679316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Treatment comparison of DT pooled with BCS used non-stratified Log-rank test at significance level p=0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test is used after checking the proportional hazards (PH) assumption is valid. The Wilcoxon test is used when the PH assumption fails.|The hazard ratio was controlled for the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) and type II error rate as 15%.|Follow-up 45 month assessment: the primary aim was to demonstrate the superiority of DT pooled (20 mg/m2 and 30 mg/m2) compared to BSC treatment and not individual DT groups per protocol. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The comparison of treatment groups (pooled DT groups versus BSC group) was performed using a non-stratified log-rank test as the primary analysis. The Cox model and Wilcoxon test was used for sensitivity analysis.||||0.796
91892372|NCT01655693|183679317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Treatment comparison with BCS using non-stratified Log-rank test at significance level p=0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for treatment variable was determined by Cox model. The hazard ratio was controlled for the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided) and type II error rate as 15%.|PFS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and plotted as curves by treatment group. For comparison between treatment groups (pooled DT 20 mg/m2 and 30 mg/m2 versus BSC) used Log-rank test as primary analysis. Hazard ratio, mean, and mean PFS rate were given with corresponding 95% CI.||||0.7
91892373|NCT01655693|183679318|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Treatment comparison with BCS using Fisher's exact test at significance level p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The comparisons between groups (pooled DT 20 mg/m2 and 30mg/m2 versus BSC) used Fisher's exact test.||||1.0
91892374|NCT00291642|183679367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|-2.09|||ANCOVA|||||-2.09|-4.61|<0.001
91892375|NCT00291642|183679367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.00|-4.50|<0.001
91892376|NCT00291642|183679367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.88|||ANCOVA|||||-2.88|-5.38|<0.001
91892377|NCT00291642|183679367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-2.49|||ANCOVA|||||-2.49|-4.99|<0.001
91892378|NCT01472549|183679433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.9|||Chi-squared|||||0.90|0.34|0.02
91892379|NCT01472549|183679434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91892380|NCT01472549|183679435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.37|||Chi-squared|||||1.37|0.43|0.37
91892381|NCT01472549|183679436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Chi-squared|||||1.80|0.30|0.49
91892382|NCT01472549|183679437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91892383|NCT01472549|183679438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.02||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.11|||Fisher Exact|||||22.11|0.18|0.56
91892384|NCT03001076|183679441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-28.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.376|-22.531|||ANCOVA|||||-22.531|-34.376|<0.001
91892385|NCT03001076|183679442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-23.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.777|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.005|-18.121|||ANCOVA|||||-18.121|-29.005|<0.001
91892386|NCT03001076|183679443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-17.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.94|-14.03|||ANCOVA|||||-14.030|-21.940|<0.001
91892387|NCT03001076|183679444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-19.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.341|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.908|-14.732|||ANCOVA|||||-14.732|-23.908|<0.001
91892388|NCT03001076|183679445|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-31.045|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.761|-17.401|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||-17.401|-44.761|<0.001
91892389|NCT03001076|183679446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|=|0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.877|5.812|||ANCOVA|||||5.812|-14.877|=0.388
91892390|NCT03001076|183679447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.845|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.528|-2.25|||ANCOVA|||||-2.250|-9.528|=0.002
91892391|NCT03001076|183679449|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-31.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.498|-26.682|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-26.682|-35.498|<0.001
91892392|NCT03001076|183679449|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-29.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.513|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.074|-24.168|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-24.168|-34.074|<0.001
91892393|NCT03001076|183679450|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-25.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.004|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.204|-21.308|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-21.308|-29.204|<0.001
91892394|NCT03001076|183679450|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-23.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.268|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.219|-19.276|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-19.276|-28.219|<0.001
91892395|NCT03001076|183679451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-20.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.513|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|-17.43|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-17.430|-23.390|<0.001
91892396|NCT03001076|183679451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.651|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.71|-15.206|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-15.206|-21.710|<0.001
91892397|NCT03001076|183679452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99|=|0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.663|9.059|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||9.059|-10.663|=0.873
91892398|NCT03001076|183679452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.131|=|0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.215|10.055|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||10.055|-10.215|=0.988
91892399|NCT03001076|183679453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.619|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.778|-5.394|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-5.394|-11.778|<0.001
91892400|NCT03001076|183679453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.712|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.798|-3.049|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-3.049|-9.798|<0.001
91892401|NCT04602221|183679455|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8242||0.9296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.975|7.297|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the primary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||7.297|-7.975|0.9296
91892402|NCT04602221|183679455|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|4.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8224||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.631|11.634|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the primary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||11.634|-3.631|0.2990
91953173|NCT02163759|183802836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.3708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.9|-2.4|0.3708
91892403|NCT04602221|183679455|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-1.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6608||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.565|6.05|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the primary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||6.050|-8.565|0.7322
91892404|NCT04602221|183679456|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.563||0.8249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.776|3.471|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||3.471|-2.776|0.8249
91892405|NCT04602221|183679456|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-1.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5889||0.4973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.091|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||2.091|-4.260|0.4973
91892406|NCT04602221|183679456|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-2.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5266||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.909|0.192|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.192|-5.909|0.0658
91892407|NCT04602221|183679457|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.0053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00798||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0106|0.0213|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.0213|-0.0106|0.5081
91892408|NCT04602221|183679457|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.0058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00798||0.4723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0102|0.0217|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.0217|-0.0102|0.4723
91892409|NCT04602221|183679457|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.0333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00767|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.0486|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.0486|0.0180|< .0001
91892410|NCT02327351|183679458|SUPERIORITY||survival distribution function|86.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.0|94.0|||Gray test|||||94|79|0.95
91892411|NCT02327351|183679464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.35
91892412|NCT02576587|183679546|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and AHI on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||Conditional logistic regression|||||1.00|0.97|0.054
91892413|NCT02576587|183679546|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA volume on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03|||Conditional logistic regression|N = 270 (135 cases and 135 controls)||||1.03|1.00|0.014
91892414|NCT02576587|183679546|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA volume index on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.06|||Conditional logistic regression|N=268 (134 cases and 134 controls)||||1.06|1.00|0.030
91892415|NCT02576587|183679546|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA systolic strain apical four-chamber (A4C) on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||Conditional logistic regression|N=214 (107 cases and 107 controls)||||1.01|0.96|0.39
91892416|NCT02576587|183679546|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA systolic strain apical two-chamber (A2C) on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02|||Conditional logistic regression|N=212 (106 cases and 106 controls)||||1.02|0.97|0.49
91892417|NCT02576587|183679547|OTHER||median of change|3.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|||Inter-Quartile Range of the change (post minus pre) is (-7.0, 13.7).|||0.16
91892418|NCT02576587|183679548|OTHER||median of change|1.8||||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|Inter-quartile range of the change (post minus pre) is (-2.0, 6.0).|||||0.088
91953174|NCT02163759|183802836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.8|-1.8|0.4477
91892419|NCT02576587|183679549|OTHER||median of change|-3.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|Inter-quartile range of the change (post minus pre) is (-8.0, -0.57).|||||0.006
91892420|NCT02576587|183679550|OTHER||median of change|-0.7||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|Inter-quartile range of the change (post minus pre) is (-6.2, 10.7).|||||0.59
91892421|NCT02576587|183679551|OTHER||mean of change|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.||||||0.65
91892422|NCT02576587|183679552|OTHER||mean of change|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.2||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.||||||0.65
91892423|NCT01056718|183679556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of treatment. Each subject served as his/her own control.||||<0.05
91892424|NCT01056718|183679557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
91892425|NCT01056718|183679558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
91892426|NCT01056718|183679559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.078
91892427|NCT01056718|183679560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.186
91892428|NCT01056718|183679561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
91892429|NCT01056718|183679562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
91892430|NCT01056718|183679563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.06
91892431|NCT01056718|183679564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
91892432|NCT01056718|183679565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
91892433|NCT01056718|183679566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.85
91892434|NCT01056718|183679567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.40
91892435|NCT01056718|183679568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.64
91892436|NCT01056718|183679569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.49
91892437|NCT01056718|183679570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.47
91892438|NCT01056718|183679571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.55
91892439|NCT01056718|183679572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.64
91892440|NCT01056718|183679573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
91892441|NCT01056718|183679574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.526
91892442|NCT01056718|183679575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
91892443|NCT01056718|183679576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.925
91892444|NCT01056718|183679577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
91892445|NCT01056718|183679578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.458
91892446|NCT01056718|183679579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.561|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.561
91892447|NCT01056718|183679580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.734|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.734
91892448|NCT01056718|183679581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.129
91892449|NCT00738894|183679590|SUPERIORITY|This is the first of two primary outcomes for this study. Assumptions for power calculations: expected event free for medical management 92% at 24 months; expected event free for device closure 96.4% at 24 months (55% risk reduction); 664 subjects randomly assigned 2:1 to device closure or medical management provides 80% power with 15% attrition (over 5 years) and 1-sided alpha = 0.024 to allow for interim analysis (interim analysis later rescinded from plan).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.62||1-sided p-value was adjusted for multiplicity with 2nd primary outcome using Dubey and Armitage-Parmer (D/AP) procedure.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (test/control) obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with treatment arm as sole explanatory variable, the exponentiated coefficient of which provided the hazard ratio. Unadjusted for multiplicity.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or lower recurrent stroke-free survivorship for device closure compared to medical management.~H0: Sd(t) ≤ Sm(t) for all t, versus H1: Sd(t) \> Sm(t) for all t, where Sd(t) and Sm(t) are true Kaplan-Meier product-limit survivor functions for the device closure and medical management arms and t is time from randomization to event or censoring.~Event-free subjects were censored at time of last follow-up. Significance threshold (1-sided alpha) = 0.025."||0.62|0.09|0.001
91892450|NCT00738894|183679591|SUPERIORITY|This is the second of two primary outcomes for this study. Assumptions for power calculations: expected proportion of brain infarct is 3-7 times the clinical stroke rate; expected brain infarct proportion for medical management 14.5% (2.9% clinical stroke x 5); expected brain infarct for device closure 6.5% (55% risk reduction); 597 subjects (10% attrition from 664) provides 73% power with 1-sided alpha = 0.0125 (based conservatively on a Bonferroni adjustment of alpha/2).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.056||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.108||1-sided p-value was adjusted for multiplicity with 1st primary outcome using Dubey and Armitage-Parmer (D/AP) procedure.|z-test, 1-sided||Unadjusted for multiplicity.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or higher proportion with brain infarct for device closure compared to medical management.~H0: Pm - Pd ≤ 0, versus H1: Pm - Pd \> 0, where Pd and Pm are true proportions of subjects with brain infarct for the device closure and medical management arms.~Significance threshold (1-sided alpha) = 0.025."||0.108|0.003|0.024
91892451|NCT02656329|183679595|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of AdreView™ group over SoC group was demonstrated if upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) (AdreView™ group / SoC) was equal to 1.20.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|3.719||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Log Rank||AdreView™ vs. Standard of Care|Analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by country, with method of treatment guidance (SoC vs AdreView™ group) as the only covariate.||3.719|0.295|0.8459
91892452|NCT00719329|183679617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations (GEE) to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Single CHX Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.81|0.70|
91892453|NCT00719329|183679617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.77|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations (GEE) to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Multiple CHX Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.77|0.66|
91953175|NCT02163759|183802837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.2|-2.1|1
91953176|NCT02163759|183802837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.7|-1.2|1
91892454|NCT00719329|183679618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.82|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|Generalized Estimating Equations to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Ratio Ratio - Comparing Single Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.82|0.74|
91892455|NCT00719329|183679618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.65|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|Generalized Estimating Equations to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Multiple Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.65|0.57|
91892456|NCT00719329|183679619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations to adjust for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Single Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.96|0.89|
91892457|NCT00719329|183679619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.63|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Ratio Ratio - Comparing Multiple Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.63|0.53|
91892458|NCT00452426|183679620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
91892459|NCT00452426|183679622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
91892460|NCT00452426|183679623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91892461|NCT03541174|183679625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference to placebo|-3.79||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.76|-0.82||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiSBP = baseline SiSBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.82|-6.76|0.0042
91892462|NCT03541174|183679625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference to placebo|-3.73||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.67|-0.78||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiSBP = baseline SiSBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.78|-6.67|0.0046
91892463|NCT03541174|183679626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference to placebo.|-5.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-3.71||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from DB-WD baseline in SiSBP = DB-WD baseline SiSBP + stratum (randomized treatment in DB part) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + DB-WD baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.71|-7.94|<0.0001
91892464|NCT03541174|183679627|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-3.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.31||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiDBP = baseline SiDBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.31|-5.57|<0.0001
91892465|NCT03541174|183679627|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-4.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-2.85||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiDBP = baseline SiDBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.85|-6.09|<0.0001
91892466|NCT03541174|183679628|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-4.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|-2.12|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean systolic (SBP)||-2.12|-6.25|<0.0001
91892467|NCT03541174|183679628|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-3.85|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean systolic (SBP)||-3.85|-7.94|<0.0001
91892468|NCT03541174|183679628|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|-2.98|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean diastolic (DBP)||-2.98|-5.66|<0.0001
91892469|NCT03541174|183679628|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-4.49|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean diastolic (DBP)||-4.49|-7.14|<0.0001
91892470|NCT03541174|183679629|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-5.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-3.76||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from DB-WD baseline in SiDBP = Double-blind withdrawal baseline SiDBP + stratum (randomized treatment in DB part) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + Double-blind withdrawal baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.76|-6.62|<0.0001
91892471|NCT03541174|183679630|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-6.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-4.56|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean systolic (SBP)||-4.56|-8.50|<0.0001
91892472|NCT03541174|183679630|OTHER||LSM Mean difference to placebo|-6.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-5.52|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean diastolic (DBP)||-5.52|-7.98|<0.0001
91892473|NCT00605215|183679631|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using baseline-adjusted negative binomial regression, where a participant's number of relapses during the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase served as the response variable and an offset based on the log of participant's exposure in years was employed to adjust for variability of treatment exposure. The model included baseline EDSS score, log of (prior 2-year number of relapses+1) and CGR as covariates.||1.020|0.664|0.0746
91892474|NCT00605215|183679631|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.741|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|0.92|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using baseline-adjusted negative binomial regression, where a participant's number of relapses during the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase served as the response variable and an offset based on the log of participant's exposure in years was employed to adjust for variability of treatment exposure. The model included baseline EDSS score, log of (prior 2-year number of relapses+1) and CGR as covariates.||0.920|0.596|0.0067
91892475|NCT00275262|183679640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||ANOVA|The statistical method used for a 1-way ANOVA between treatment groups.||The final on treatment values were included in the analysis.||||0.125
91892476|NCT00275262|183679641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||ANOVA|The statistical method used for a 1-way ANOVA between treatment groups.||The final on treatment values were included in the analysis.||||0.299
91892477|NCT03809429|183679673|OTHER||Difference|1.31||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.4|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||2.40|0.22|0.0185
91892478|NCT03809429|183679676|OTHER||Difference|1.14||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.15|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=10 mm at end of stimulation||2.15|0.12|0.0281
91892479|NCT03809429|183679676|OTHER||Difference|0.99||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.86|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=12 mm at end of stimulation||1.86|0.12|0.0258
91892480|NCT03809429|183679676|OTHER||Difference|0.58||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.2|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=15 mm at end of stimulation||1.20|-0.04|0.0672
91892481|NCT03809429|183679676|OTHER||Difference|0.21||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.63|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=17 mm at end of stimulation||0.63|-0.22|0.3390
91892482|NCT03809429|183679678|OTHER||Difference|1.11||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.41|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||2.41|-0.20|0.0962
91892483|NCT03809429|183679680|OTHER||Difference|0.51||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.27|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Number of embryos||1.27|-0.25|0.1894
91892484|NCT03809429|183679680|OTHER||Difference|-0.03||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.63|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Number of Good-quality embryos||0.63|-0.68|0.9361
91892485|NCT03809429|183679681|OTHER||Difference|0.37||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.94|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Total number of blastocysts||0.94|-0.20|0.2025
91892486|NCT03809429|183679681|OTHER||Difference|0.12||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.54|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Number of good-quality blastocysts||0.54|-0.31|0.5946
91892487|NCT03809429|183679687|OTHER||Difference|16.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.13|21.74|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||21.74|12.13|<0.0001
91892488|NCT03809429|183679688|OTHER||Difference|1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.92|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||1.92|1.19|<0.0001
91892489|NCT03809429|183679689|OTHER||Difference|6.99||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|16.7|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||16.70|-2.71|0.1579
91892490|NCT03809429|183679691|OTHER||Difference|7.66||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|17.14|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||17.14|-1.82|0.1134
91892491|NCT03809429|183679692|OTHER||Difference|8.81||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|18.14|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||18.14|-0.52|0.0642
91892492|NCT03809429|183679693|OTHER||Difference|7.74||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|16.97|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||16.97|-1.49|0.1002
91892493|NCT02245737|183679719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.447|0.594|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.594|-2.447|0.232
91892494|NCT02245737|183679719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.124|1.947|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.947|-1.124|0.599
91892495|NCT02245737|183679720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.609|1.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.669|-1.609|0.971
91892496|NCT02245737|183679720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.743|-1.580|0.923
91892497|NCT02245737|183679721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.172|0.899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.899|-1.172|0.796
91892498|NCT02245737|183679721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.660|-0.437|0.252
91892499|NCT02245737|183679722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.637|3.852|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.852|-1.637|0.428
91892500|NCT02245737|183679722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.918|2.655|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.655|-2.918|0.926
91892501|NCT02245737|183679723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.622|-0.322|0.533
91892502|NCT02245737|183679723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.630|-0.328|0.537
91892503|NCT02245737|183679725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.441|3.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.986|-0.441|0.116
91892504|NCT02245737|183679725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|3.704|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.704|-0.808|0.208
91892505|NCT02245737|183679726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|1.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.027|-0.391|0.379
91892506|NCT02245737|183679726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|0.721|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.721|-0.714|0.992
91892507|NCT02245737|183679727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.963|-45.578|||ANCOVA|||||-45.578|-56.963|<0.001
91892508|NCT02245737|183679727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.947|-60.022|||ANCOVA|||||-60.022|-70.947|<0.001
91892509|NCT02245737|183679728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.865|-53.108|||ANCOVA|||||-53.108|-62.865|<0.001
91892510|NCT02245737|183679728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.926|-68.575|||ANCOVA|||||-68.575|-77.926|<0.001
91892511|NCT02245737|183679729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.33||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.21|2.464|||ANCOVA|||||2.464|-42.210|0.081
91892512|NCT02245737|183679729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.78||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.555|5.938|||ANCOVA|||||5.938|-36.555|0.157
91892513|NCT02245737|183679730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.243|-0.002|||ANCOVA|||||-0.002|-5.243|0.050
91892514|NCT02245737|183679730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.618|0.373|||ANCOVA|||||0.373|-4.618|0.095
91892515|NCT02245737|183679731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.785|-8.574|||ANCOVA|||||-8.574|-18.785|<0.001
91892516|NCT02245737|183679731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.887|-12.428|||ANCOVA|||||-12.428|-22.887|<0.001
91892517|NCT02245737|183679732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.014|||ANCOVA|||||0.014|-0.033|0.426
91892518|NCT02245737|183679732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.018|||ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.029|0.660
91892519|NCT02245737|183679733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.003|||ANCOVA|||||0.003|-0.015|0.210
91892520|NCT02245737|183679733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.007|||ANCOVA|||||0.007|-0.013|0.568
91892521|NCT02245737|183679734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.258|-1.413|||ANCOVA|||||-1.413|-3.258|<0.001
91892522|NCT02245737|183679734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.118|-2.247|||ANCOVA|||||-2.247|-4.118|<0.001
91892523|NCT02929329|183679758|SUPERIORITY|"The overall type I error was 0.05 for 2-sided testing across primary and secondary outcomes.~Control for multiple comparisons was achieved using the following testing algorithm: if the primary outcome met the P-value threshold of 0.05, the alpha error would be divided unequally between cardiovascular death (96% of the overall alpha error, or 0.048) and change from baseline to week 24 in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score (4% of the overall alpha error, or 0.002)."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.99|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization setting and region, including terms for baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and treatment group.|Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|||0.99|0.86|0.0252
91892524|NCT02929329|183679758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211|||||||Stratified log-rank test|Log-rank test stratified by randomization setting and region.||||||0.0211
91892525|NCT02929329|183679758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.99|||||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Competing risk subdistribution hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence intervals for treatment were computed. Deaths not included in the endpoint were considered as the competing risk.||0.99|0.86|
91892526|NCT02929329|183679759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11||If significance for the primary outcome was determined, cardiovascular death was tested against an alpha of 0.048.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization setting and region, including terms for baseline eGFR and treatment group.|Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|||1.11|0.92|0.8555
91892527|NCT02929329|183679759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11|||||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Competing risk subdistribution hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence intervals for treatment were computed. Deaths not included in the endpoint were considered as the competing risk.||1.11|0.92|
91892528|NCT02929329|183679760|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.48|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|||0.48|-1.40|
91892529|NCT02929329|183679760|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.46|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|||4.46|0.54|
91892530|NCT02929329|183679760|SUPERIORITY|If significance for the primary outcome was determined, change from baseline in the KCCQ total symptom score was tested against an alpha of 0.002.||||||0.0278|||||||Omnibus F-test|||||||0.0278
91892531|NCT02929329|183679760|OTHER||Pooled treatment difference|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|4.51|||||Overall pooled estimate of treatment difference (Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo) using random effects meta-analysis approach.|||4.51|-2.55|
91892532|NCT02929329|183679760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.2|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|As a sensitivity for missing data due to death, joint longitudinal and survival models were fit using KCCQ TSS observed values with random subject slopes and intercepts for the longitudinal models with terms for baseline eGFR, region, and treatment by slope. The survival models were fit for all-cause death with baseline eGFR and treatment in the proportional hazard part of the models, KCCQ TSS modeled values as the shared parameterization, stratified by region with Weibull baseline functions.||0.20|-1.62|
91892533|NCT02929329|183679760|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.82|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|As a sensitivity for missing data due to death, joint longitudinal and survival models were fit using KCCQ TSS observed values with random subject slopes and intercepts for the longitudinal models with terms for baseline eGFR, region, and treatment by slope. The survival models were fit for all-cause death with baseline eGFR and treatment in the proportional hazard part of the models, KCCQ TSS modeled values as the shared parameterization, stratified by region with Weibull baseline functions.||3.82|0.80|
91892534|NCT02929329|183679761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03||If statistical significance was achieved for both the time to CV death and change from baseline in the KCCQ TSS, time to first heart failure hospitalization was to be tested at the full alpha.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization setting and region, including terms for baseline eGFR and treatment group.|Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the trial group and the baseline eGFR as covariates.|||1.03|0.87|0.1902
91892535|NCT02929329|183679761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.04|||||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the trial group and the baseline eGFR as covariates.|Competing risk subdistribution hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence intervals for treatment were computed. Deaths not included in the endpoint are considered as the competing risk.||1.04|0.88|
91892536|NCT02929329|183679762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09||If time to first heart failure hospitalization was statistically significant, time to all-cause death was to be tested with the same alpha as time to first heart failure hospitalization.|Regression, Cox||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the trial group and the baseline eGFR as covariates.|||1.09|0.92|0.9633
91892537|NCT01639560|183679811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.1|2.5|<0.001
91892538|NCT01639560|183679812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|24.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.0|2.2|0.001
91892539|NCT01639560|183679813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.3|1.0|0.047
91892540|NCT01639560|183679814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|16.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.5|1.5|0.009
91892541|NCT00774930|183679832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|This analysis does not include any imputation for the early roll over subjects||||||0.0165
91892542|NCT00774930|183679833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2544|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment group and 2 stratification variables at randomisation as factors and average frequency of diarrhoea per day during Screening||||||0.2544
91892543|NCT03292432|183679882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|15.2|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||15.2|-21.8|0.80
91892544|NCT03292432|183679883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|19.6|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/ml in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||19.6|-20.9|>0.99
91892545|NCT03292432|183679884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|7.2|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 24||7.2|-32.1|0.24
91892546|NCT03292432|183679884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|22.6|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 36 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 36||22.6|-16.0|0.76
91953177|NCT02163759|183802838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.6356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.5|-0.9|0.6356
91953178|NCT02163759|183802838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.1|-1.0|0.1253
91892547|NCT03292432|183679884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|27.4|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 48||27.4|-21.8|>0.99
91892548|NCT03292432|183679885|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|7.3|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 24 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 24||7.3|-32.7|0.26
91892549|NCT03292432|183679885|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|32.8|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 36 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 36||32.8|-11.2|0.42
91892550|NCT03292432|183679885|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|20.7|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 48 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 48||20.7|-29.5|0.77
91892551|NCT03292432|183679886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|25.3|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 12 and maintained to Week 48 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||25.3|-14.6|0.67
91892552|NCT03292432|183679887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentages of doses taken from Weeks 0 -12||||<0.001
91892553|NCT03292432|183679887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken from Weeks \>12 to 24||||<0.001
91892554|NCT03292432|183679887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken from Weeks \>24 to 36||||0.06
91892555|NCT03292432|183679887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken from Weeks \>36 to 48||||0.50
91892556|NCT03292432|183679888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken on time from Weeks 0 - 12||||<0.001
91892557|NCT03292432|183679888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken on time from Weeks \>12 - 24||||<0.001
91892558|NCT03292432|183679888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-value equal to a priori threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentages of doses taken on time from Weeks \>24 - 36||||0.05
91892559|NCT03292432|183679888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of doses taken on time from Weeks \>36 - 48||||0.49
91892560|NCT03292432|183679889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.33|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Risk ratio for SOC arm relative to TERA arm|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks 0 - 12||3.33|1.90|<0.001
91892561|NCT03292432|183679889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.89|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Risk ratio for SOC arm relative to TERA arm|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks \>12 - 24||1.89|1.29|<0.001
91892562|NCT03292432|183679889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.47|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|P-value from Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks \>24 - 36||1.47|1.03|0.020
91892563|NCT03292432|183679889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Risk ratio for SOC arm relative to TERA arm|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks \>36 - 48||1.30|0.90|0.39
91892564|NCT03292432|183679890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|21.1|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||21.1|-16.4|>0.99
91892565|NCT03292432|183679891|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.7||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|19.4|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving sustained virologic control in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||19.4|-9.0|0.71
91892566|NCT00911937|183679893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.08|-0.37|0.0030
91892567|NCT00911937|183679894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.01|-0.27|0.0772
91953179|NCT02163759|183802839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.0|-1.0|1
91953180|NCT02163759|183802839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.1|-0.7|1
91953181|NCT02163759|183802840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|10.9||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|19.48||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||19.48|-0.08|0.0364
91892568|NCT00911937|183679895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0001
91892569|NCT00911937|183679897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.01|-0.25|0.0827
91892570|NCT00911937|183679897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.04||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.04|-0.33|0.0112
91892571|NCT00911937|183679898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0023
91892572|NCT00911937|183679900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.16||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.16|-0.74|0.0026
91892573|NCT00911937|183679900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.22||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.22|-0.90|0.0014
91892574|NCT00911937|183679901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0016
91892575|NCT00911937|183679901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0004
91892576|NCT00911937|183679903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.16||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.16|-1.03|0.0072
91892577|NCT00911937|183679903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.32||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.32|-1.25|0.0009
91892578|NCT00911937|183679904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0041
91892579|NCT00911937|183679904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
91892580|NCT00911937|183679906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.19||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.19|-0.47|0.3954
91892581|NCT00911937|183679906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.11||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.11|-0.48|0.2166
91892582|NCT00911937|183679909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.08|-0.85|0.1018
91892583|NCT00911937|183679909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.25||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.25|-1.20|0.0027
91892584|NCT00911937|183679911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.33||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.33|-2.79|0.0131
91892585|NCT00911937|183679911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-1.08|-3.78|0.0004
91892586|NCT00911937|183679913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.8547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|15.46||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||15.46|-12.82|0.8547
91892587|NCT00911937|183679915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22||0.8396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|7.44||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||7.44|-9.14|0.8396
91892588|NCT00911937|183679917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-1.89||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-1.89|-6.84|0.0006
91892589|NCT00911937|183679919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.05||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||6.05|0.79|0.0110
91892590|NCT00911937|183679919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.79||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.79|0.50|0.0200
91892591|NCT00911937|183679919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.45||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||6.45|0.51|0.0218
91892592|NCT00911937|183679919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.68||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||3.68|0.03|0.0458
91892593|NCT00911937|183679919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.32||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.32|0.72|0.0100
91892594|NCT01498679|183679920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|59.7|||ANCOVA|||||59.7|42.2|<0.001
91892595|NCT03097484|183679950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91892596|NCT03097484|183679951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||0.05 is the calculated p-value (not the threshold for statistical significance)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91892597|NCT00633880|183679969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors. As the primary endpoint was not positive, statistical analysis was not performed on secondary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.509
91892598|NCT00633880|183679974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
91892599|NCT02186600|183680023|OTHER|Hierarchical linear modeling for intent-to-treat analysis to analyze time X group interactions, adjusted for baseline total body lean mass and height.||||||0.7|||||||hierarchical linear modeling|controlled for total lean mass and height||||||0.7
91892600|NCT02186600|183680024|OTHER|hierarchical linear modeling||||||0.01|||||||hierarchical linear modeling|||||||0.01
91892601|NCT02186600|183680025|OTHER|Hierarchical linear modeling|||||<|0.007|||||||hierarchical linear modeling|||||||<0.007
91892602|NCT03026075|183680026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||"The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of MCS in cleansing a poorly prepared colon.~A sample size of 47 patients is required as per a McNemar test to determine that the paired discordant proportions are significantly different under the followings assumptions:~Probability of Type I Error (α) = 0.05, Power (1 - β) = 0.8 Proportion switching from + to - = 0, Proportion switching from - to + = 0.6 Potential of dropout 10% (i.e. 4 cases)"||||<0.01
91892603|NCT04927247|183680051|OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|31.7|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||31.7|-15.8|0.6302
91892604|NCT04927247|183680052|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.16|||Stratified log-rank test|||||2.16|0.43|0.9382
91892605|NCT04927247|183680053|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-16.8||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|0.8|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||0.8|-34.4|0.1143
91892606|NCT04927247|183680054|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.09||||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.89|||Negative binomial model|||||1.89|0.63|0.7549
91892607|NCT02001064|183680088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.32
91892608|NCT02001064|183680089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||Cohen's d (ranks) = -.049|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
91892609|NCT02001064|183680090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Cohen's d=0.31|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91892610|NCT01468181|183680096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.67|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HbA1c at 26 Weeks||-1.67|-1.87|<0.001
91892611|NCT01468181|183680096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HbA1c at 52 Weeks||-1.55|-1.75|<0.001
91892612|NCT01468181|183680098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-40.0|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||FBG at 26 Weeks||-40.0|-47.8|<0.001
91892613|NCT01468181|183680098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-38.7|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||FBG at 52 Weeks||-38.7|-46.4|<0.001
91892614|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.55|-38.29|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-morning meal at 26 Weeks||-38.29|-46.55|<0.001
91892615|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.44|-38.76|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-morning meal at 52 Weeks||-38.76|-46.44|<0.001
91892616|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.18|-62.79|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-morning meal at 26 Weeks||-62.79|-74.18|<0.001
91892617|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.12|-60.04|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-morning meal at 52 Weeks||-60.04|-72.12|<0.001
91892618|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.32|-43.09|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-midday meal at 26 Weeks||-43.09|-53.32|<0.001
91892619|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.77|-42.24|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-midday meal at 52 Weeks||-42.24|-52.77|<0.001
91892620|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.02|-61.11|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-midday meal at 26 Weeks||-61.11|-73.02|<0.001
91892621|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.16|-57.18|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-midday meal at 52 Weeks||-57.18|-69.16|<0.001
91892622|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.67|-38.34|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-evening meal at 26 Weeks||-38.34|-49.67|<0.001
91892623|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.55|-38.21|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-evening meal at 52 Weeks||-38.21|-49.55|<0.001
91892624|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.32|-56.5|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-evening meal at 26 Weeks||-56.50|-69.32|<0.001
91892625|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.95|-54.74|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-evening meal at 52 Weeks||-54.74|-66.95|<0.001
91892626|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.93|-55.37|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Bedtime meal at 26 Weeks||-55.37|-66.93|<0.001
91892627|NCT01468181|183680099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.07|-54.25|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Bedtime meal at 52 Weeks||-54.25|-66.07|<0.001
91892628|NCT01468181|183680100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||<|0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Body weight at 26 Weeks||0.12|-0.40|<0.277
91892629|NCT01468181|183680100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Body weight at 52 Weeks||0.16|-0.42|0.382
91892630|NCT01468181|183680101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|31.18|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-B% at 26 Weeks||31.18|26.00|<0.001
91892631|NCT01468181|183680101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.73|30.41|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-B% at 52 Weeks||30.41|24.73|<0.001
91892632|NCT01468181|183680101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-S% at 26 Weeks||1.32|-6.46|0.194
91892633|NCT01468181|183680101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|65.0|-5.68|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-S% at 52 Weeks||2.27|-5.68|0.400
91892634|NCT00878826|183680102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||at 14-18 weeks gestational age||||0.4
91892635|NCT00878826|183680102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||at 24-28 weeks gestational age||||0.9
91892636|NCT00878826|183680102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||at 32-34 weeks gestational age||||0.3
91892637|NCT00513305|183680108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-value is from the Pearson chi-square test for testing the equality of two binomial proportions, assuming normal approximation of the binomial proportions.|Chi-squared|There were no adjustments for covariates. Since the primary endpoint was prespecified, no adjustment for multiplicity of endpoints was introduced||The hypothesis of equal complete remission rates between the two treatment groups was tested using a 2-sided, normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions test with two-sided alpha equal to 0.05.||||0.425
91892638|NCT00513305|183680109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.027||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.973|||Log Rank|||||1.973|0.535|0.829
91892639|NCT00513305|183680110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.31||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|33.343|||Log Rank||Estimate based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model adjusting for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, white blood count and presence of antecedent hematologic disorder.|||33.343|0.160|0.527
91892640|NCT00513305|183680113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.027||||0.8289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.973|||Log Rank||Estimate based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model adjusting for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, white blood count and presence of antecedent hematologic disorder.|||1.973|0.535|0.8289
91892641|NCT01011153|183680125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample sizes computed based on data from smaller studies provided 90% power for the comparison of sensitivity. Under the alternative hypothesis that the biopsy sensitivity of MelaFind would be 0.10 greater than the average biopsy/referral sensitivity of physicians (combined or separate), the probability that a 95% CI lies entirely above zero will be at least 90% when the standard error of the estimated difference is at most 0.0308.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.32|||ANOVA|||Using True Positives/All Positives, sensitivity values were calculated for MelaFind as well as the average of the 110 dermatologists.||0.32|0.18|<0.0001
91892642|NCT01011153|183680126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.34|||ANOVA|||Sensitivity||0.34|0.19|<0.0001
91892643|NCT01011153|183680126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.31|||ANOVA|||Sensitivity||0.31|0.16|<0.0001
91892644|NCT01011153|183680126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.33|||ANOVA|||Sensitivity||0.33|0.19|<0.0001
91892645|NCT01011153|183680126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.25|||ANOVA|||Specificity||-0.25|-0.46|<0.0001
91892646|NCT01011153|183680126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.31|||ANOVA|||Specificity||-0.31|-0.53|<0.0001
91892647|NCT01011153|183680126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Specificity||-0.30|-0.51|<0.0001
91892648|NCT01011153|183680127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||||0.0||||No comparison is being made.|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
91892649|NCT01011153|183680127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||||0.0||||No comparison is being made|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
91892650|NCT01011153|183680127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||||0.0||||No comparison is being made|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
91892651|NCT01011153|183680127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||||0.0||||N/A - No comparison is being made|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
91892652|NCT03014479|183680136|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|2.418||||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.546|6.382|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||6.382|-1.546|0.2305
91892653|NCT03014479|183680137|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|1.938||||0.4536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|7.027|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||7.027|-3.150|0.4536
91892654|NCT03014479|183680138|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|4.16||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|8.968|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||8.968|-0.649|0.0896
91892655|NCT03014479|183680139|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|-0.563||||0.8506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.448|5.323|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||5.323|-6.448|0.8506
91892656|NCT03014479|183680140|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|2.696||||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.018|8.41|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||8.410|-3.018|0.3533
91892657|NCT03014479|183680142|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|0.613||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.605|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||2.605|-1.380|0.5451
91892658|NCT01081132|183680167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.026|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.865|-3.187|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-3.187|-8.865|<0.001
91892659|NCT01081132|183680168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.010
91892660|NCT01081132|183680169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.115||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.024|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.024|-0.254|0.104
91892661|NCT01081132|183680170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.078|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.078|-0.192|0.408
91892662|NCT01081132|183680171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.037|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.037|-0.203|0.176
91892663|NCT01081132|183680172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|-0.036|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.036|-0.136|0.253
91892664|NCT01081132|183680173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.068|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.068|-0.061|0.912
91892665|NCT01081132|183680174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.081|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.081|-0.139|0.606
91892666|NCT01081132|183680175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.268|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.268|-0.064|0.228
91892667|NCT01081132|183680176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.065|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.065|-0.159|0.410
91892668|NCT01081132|183680177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.208||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.026|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.026|-0.443|0.082
91892669|NCT01081132|183680178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91892670|NCT01081132|183680179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Global Executive Composite||0.7|-5.3|0.134
91892671|NCT01081132|183680179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Behavioral Regulation Index||2.3|-4.0|0.579
91892672|NCT01081132|183680179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Metacognition Index||0.2|-5.6|0.072
91892673|NCT01081132|183680180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.8|-1.8|0.465
91892674|NCT03973931|183680184|NON_INFERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with an identity link and independence with unequal variances for the covariance structure of the 12 observations|||||<|0.05|||||||GEE|To account for multiple treatment comparisons significance levels of 0.05/3||||||<0.05
91892675|NCT03973931|183680185|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the longitudinal data (12 observations per patient) and estimated absolute differences in PDC between treatment group and usual care was analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with an identity link and independence with unequal variances for the covariance structure was used.|||||<|0.05||||||To account for multiple treatment comparisons significance levels of 0.05/3, and if any test was significant, a significance level of (R/3)\*(0.05/3) using the Holm method was used for the 3 pairwise comparisons, R=number of significant stage 1 tests.|GEE|||||||<0.05
91892676|NCT00432666|183680189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.3|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was equality of the chance (OR = 1) for a clinically relevant treatment effect between incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) and placebo at Week 4 for wrist flexors. Responders were defined as subjects with an improvement of at least 1 point in the Ashworth score compared with Baseline. The dependent variable was the response to treatment, the independent variables were treatment, Ashworth score at the Baseline Visit, pre-treated patient status, gender, age, BMI, and pooled sites.||8.30|1.90|<0.001
91953182|NCT02163759|183802840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-4.5||||0.3383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|5.07||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||5.07|-14.10|0.3383
91892677|NCT00705679|183680332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.21||The two-sided test a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 against an alternative of 0% effectiveness for estimated effectiveness levels between 33.3% and 50.0%.|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional-hazards model was stratified by site.|A ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm. A ratio more than 1 indicates a higher rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis is that the active product will be no more than 25% effective. The trial was designed so that 94 events per pairwise comparison are needed to detect 55% effectiveness while ruling out a lower effectiveness of 25% with 90% power and a false-positive error rate of 0.0025.||1.21|0.61|0.37
91892678|NCT00705679|183680335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.29||The two-sided test a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 against an alternative of 0% effectiveness for estimated effectiveness levels between 33.3% and 50.0%.|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional-hazards model was stratified by site.|A ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm. A ratio more than 1 indicates a higher rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis is that the active product will be no more than 25% effective. The trial was designed so that 94 events per pairwise comparison are needed to detect 55% effectiveness while ruling out a lower effectiveness of 25% with 90% power and a false-positive error rate of 0.0025.||2.29|0.97|0.07
91892679|NCT00705679|183680338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.49||The two-sided test a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 against an alternative of 0% effectiveness for estimated effectiveness levels between 33.3% and 50.0%.|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional-hazards model was stratified by site.|A ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm. A ratio more than 1 indicates a higher rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis is that the active product will be no more than 25% effective. The trial was designed so that 94 events per pairwise comparison are needed to detect 55% effectiveness while ruling out a lower effectiveness of 25% with 90% power and a false-positive error rate of 0.0025.||1.49|0.73|0.81
91892680|NCT00705679|183680339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.004
91892681|NCT03527173|183680340|NON_INFERIORITY|VE in reduction of shigellosis is demonstrated if lower limit (LL) of 90% CI of VE estimated with Miettinen-Nurminen (M-N) method is above 0. This estimated CI was complemented with Barnard test. The LL of the 90% CI for VE calculated with M-N method is above 0 if the p-value of the one-sided Barnard test is below 5%.|Vaccine efficacy rate|-9.4||||0.4266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-96.7|33.7|||1-sided Barnard Unconditional Exact Test|||To demonstrate the efficacy of two vaccinations with 25 µg of S. sonnei vaccine in healthy adults compared to placebo in preventing shigellosis, fulfilling the protocol primary case definition, after challenge with S. sonnei 53G strain. Vaccine efficacy (VE) rate was assessed as 1-Risk Ratio(RR) with RR = ratio of proportion of subjects with shigellosis in the vaccinated group on the proportion of subjects with shigellosis in the placebo group.||33.7|-96.7|0.4266
91892682|NCT01248780|183680359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91892683|NCT01248780|183680360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91892684|NCT01248780|183680361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91892685|NCT01248780|183680362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91892686|NCT00896051|183680365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.22|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: minimum plasma concentration (Cmin)||1.22|0.55|
91953183|NCT02163759|183802841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|6.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|12.3||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||12.30|-3.33|0.0900
91892687|NCT00896051|183680365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.16|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: maximum plasma concentration (Cmax)||1.16|0.80|
91892688|NCT00896051|183680366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.22|||Linear mixed effects model|linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time of intake to 24 hours after dosing (AUC24hr)||1.22|0.76|
91892689|NCT00896051|183680367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.33|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: Minimum plasma concentration (Cmin)||1.33|0.63|
91892690|NCT00896051|183680367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.27|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: maximum plasma concentration (Cmax)||1.27|0.86|
91892691|NCT00896051|183680368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.21|||Llinear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time of intake to 24 hours after dosing (AUC24hr)||1.21|0.81|
91892692|NCT00210470|183680388|EQUIVALENCE|The correlation of each of the above variables at biopsy/Day 1, surgery/Day 21, and change with percent change in the longest diameter (LD) of the primary tumor was calculated using Spearman rank correlations (183 correlations). Due to outliers in the distribution of percent change in the longest diameter, it was felt that the Spearman rank correlations would be more appropriate than Pearson correlations.|||||<|0.1|||||||Spearman Rank|||||||<0.10
91892693|NCT00007345|183680427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||An exact Cochran-Armitage trend test was used to compare the distributions. In view of the large number of tests performed, we only refer to those with P-values \<0.01 as statistically significant, with those for which 0.01 \<P\< 0.05 considered trends.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||<0.01
91892694|NCT04433585|183680432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.04|0.70|0.309
91892695|NCT04433585|183680432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.03|0.47|0.944
91892696|NCT04433585|183680432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.40|0.649
91892697|NCT04433585|183680433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.30|0.83|0.131
91892698|NCT04433585|183680433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.50|0.47|0.844
91892699|NCT04433585|183680433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|0.24|0.218
91892700|NCT04433585|183680434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.03|0.47|0.944
91892701|NCT04433585|183680434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.04|0.70|0.309
91892702|NCT04433585|183680434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.40|0.649
91892703|NCT04433585|183680435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.20|0.71|0.203
91892704|NCT04433585|183680435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|0.38|0.865
91892705|NCT04433585|183680435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.05|0.38|0.896
91892706|NCT02015455|183680460|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Median|-0.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, and site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Percent difference in median of the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||1.5|-2.9|0.54
91892707|NCT02015455|183680461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.0||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, prior opioid use, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||1.00|0.91|0.04
91892708|NCT02015455|183680462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, prior opioid use, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||0.99|0.90|0.02
91892709|NCT02015455|183680463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, prior opioid use, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||0.99|0.91|0.02
91892710|NCT02015455|183680467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.07||Statistical significance defined as P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||1.07|0.91|0.74
91892711|NCT00741390|183680529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.59||||||95.0|98.09|99.59||||||||99.59|98.09|
91892712|NCT00741390|183680529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|98.79|100.0||||||||100|98.79|
91892713|NCT00741390|183680529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|97.61|100.0||||||||100|97.61|
91892714|NCT00741390|183680529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|95.36|100.0||||||||100|95.36|
91892715|NCT00741390|183680529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|95.13|100.0||||||||100|95.13|
91892716|NCT00741390|183680530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.84|||<|0.001||95.0|6.8|10.84|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||10.84|6.80|<0.001
91892717|NCT00741390|183680530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.55||||0.003||95.0|3.63|8.55|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||8.55|3.63|0.003
91892718|NCT00741390|183680530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.46||95.0|-3.57|0.23|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||0.23|-3.57|0.460
91892719|NCT00741390|183680531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9||||0.017||95.0|1.14|4.9|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||4.90|1.14|0.017
91892720|NCT00741390|183680532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.001
91892721|NCT00741390|183680532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.002
91892722|NCT00741390|183680532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.761
91892723|NCT00741390|183680532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.004
91892724|NCT00620282|183680535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|7.43||||0.0549||95.0|-0.164|15.025||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in Ach-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||15.025|-0.164|0.0549
91892725|NCT00620282|183680535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|2.08||||0.5681||95.0|-5.215|9.375||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in Ach-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||9.375|-5.215|0.5681
91892726|NCT00620282|183680535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|5.35||||0.1668||95.0|-2.323|13.024||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in Ach-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||13.024|-2.323|0.1668
91892727|NCT00620282|183680536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|4.499||||0.2648||95.0|-3.535|12.534||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in SNP-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||12.534|-3.535|0.2648
91892728|NCT00620282|183680536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.709||||0.8518||95.0|-6.904|8.322||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in SNP-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||8.322|-6.904|0.8518
91892729|NCT00620282|183680536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|3.79||||0.3435||95.0|-4.194|11.774||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in SNP-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||11.774|-4.194|0.3435
91892730|NCT00620282|183680537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.536||||0.0023||95.0|-0.868|-0.203||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.203|-0.868|0.0023
91892731|NCT00620282|183680537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.077||||0.6207||95.0|-0.391|0.236||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.236|-0.391|0.6207
91892732|NCT00620282|183680537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.458||||0.0098||95.0|-0.8|-0.116||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.116|-0.8|0.0098
91892733|NCT00620282|183680538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-35.605||||||95.0|-46.797|-24.413||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in FPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-24.413|-46.797|
91892734|NCT00620282|183680538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-9.653||||0.0677||95.0|-20.041|0.736||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in FPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FPG as a covariate.||0.736|-20.041|0.0677
91892735|NCT00620282|183680538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-25.952||||||95.0|-37.429|-14.475||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in FPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-14.475|-37.429|
91892736|NCT00620282|183680539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-11.871||||0.4121||95.0|-40.943|17.201||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in PPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline PPG as a covariate.||17.201|-40.943|0.4121
91892737|NCT00620282|183680539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|3.815||||0.7622||95.0|-21.618|29.247||2-sided significance level of 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in PPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline PPG as a covariate.||29.247|-21.618|0.7622
91892738|NCT00620282|183680539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-15.686||||0.2651||95.0|-43.838|12.466||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in PPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline PPG as a covariate.||12.466|-43.838|0.2651
91892739|NCT00620282|183680540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.528||||0.0268||95.0|-2.873|-0.184||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.184|-2.873|0.0268
91892740|NCT00620282|183680540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-2.859||||||95.0|-4.139|-1.579||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.579|-4.139|
91892741|NCT00620282|183680540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|1.331||||0.0486||95.0|0.009|2.653||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline body weight as a covariate.||2.653|0.0090|0.0486
91892742|NCT00620282|183680541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-2.237||||0.7736||95.0|-17.829|13.354||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TC from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TC as a covariate.||13.354|-17.829|0.7736
91892743|NCT00620282|183680541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|1.912||||0.7993||95.0|-13.168|16.991||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TC from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TC as a covariate.||16.991|-13.168|0.7993
91892744|NCT00620282|183680541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.149||||0.5903||95.0|-19.582|11.284||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TC from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TC as a covariate.||11.284|-19.582|0.5903
91892745|NCT00620282|183680542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|3.702||||0.5583||95.0|-8.96|16.365||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in LDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||16.365|-8.96|0.5583
91892746|NCT00620282|183680542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|2.773||||0.6517||95.0|-9.537|15.082||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in LDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||15.082|-9.537|0.6517
91892747|NCT00620282|183680542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.929||||0.8822||95.0|-11.646|13.505||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in LDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||13.505|-11.646|0.8822
91892748|NCT00620282|183680543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.169||||0.9131||95.0|-3.273|2.935||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||2.935|-3.273|0.9131
91892749|NCT00620282|183680543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.723||||0.6362||95.0|-3.785|2.339||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||2.339|-3.785|0.6362
91892750|NCT00620282|183680543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.554||||0.7283||95.0|-2.643|3.751||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||3.751|-2.643|0.7283
91892751|NCT00620282|183680544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-36.709||||0.0694||95.0|-76.467|3.048||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TG as a covariate.||3.048|-76.467|0.0694
91892752|NCT00620282|183680544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-3.786||||0.844||95.0|-42.373|34.801||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TG as a covariate.||34.801|-42.373|0.844
91892753|NCT00620282|183680544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-32.923||||0.0994||95.0|-72.353|6.507||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TG as a covariate.||6.507|-72.353|0.0994
91892754|NCT00620282|183680545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.42||||0.2282||95.0|-1.118|0.278||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TNF-alpha from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TNF-alpha as a covariate.||0.278|-1.118|0.2282
91892755|NCT00620282|183680545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.018||||0.9569||95.0|-0.697|0.661||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TNF-alpha from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TNF-alpha as a covariate.||0.661|-0.697|0.9569
91892756|NCT00620282|183680545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.402||||0.2465||95.0|-1.097|0.293||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TNF-alpha from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TNF-alpha as a covariate.||0.293|-1.097|0.2465
91892757|NCT02217475|183680549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.816||||0.5194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|1.516|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||1.516|0.439|0.5194
91892758|NCT02217475|183680550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.934||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|3.614|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||3.614|1.035|0.0388
91892759|NCT02217475|183680551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|2.821|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||2.821|0.553|0.5920
91892760|NCT02217475|183680552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.396||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|3.628|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||3.628|0.537|0.4941
91892761|NCT02217475|183680553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.142||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|4.277|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||4.277|0.305|0.8434
91892762|NCT02217475|183680554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.201||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|4.352|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||4.352|1.113|0.0234
91892763|NCT02217475|183680555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.154||||0.7474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.752|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||2.752|0.484|0.7474
91892764|NCT01131182|183680647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Assessed for relative risk using prior therapy (monotherapy or combination therapy) as a stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
91892765|NCT05086276|183680657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.73||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||3.73|0.51|0.525
91892766|NCT05086276|183680657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|14.71||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||14.71|-7.52|0.525
91892767|NCT05086276|183680658|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.954|0.987||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.987|-0.954|0.973
91892768|NCT05086276|183680660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.34||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.06|0.160
91892769|NCT05086276|183680661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.41||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.41|0.03|0.027
91892770|NCT00777088|183680662|NON_INFERIORITY|The cumulative rate of ipsilateral stroke or neurologic death is not ≥ 20% at 180-day clinical follow-up and the cumulative rate of ipsilateral stroke or neurovascular death is not ≥ 25% at 5-year clinical follow-up|||||<|0.001|||||||Bayesian|||||||<.001
91892771|NCT00777088|183680663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The rate of complete IA occlusion without major parent artery stenosis exceeds 50% with a posterior probability \>0.975.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bayesian|||||||<0.001
91892772|NCT02489968|183680678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.67|||REML based MMRM|Model including baseline HbA1c, treatment, baseline renal function, prior use of antidiabetic drug, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.|Adjusted mean difference: Change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 10 mg + linagliptin 5 mg) - change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 10 mg + placebo)|||-0.67|-0.97|<0.0001
91892773|NCT02489968|183680678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.45|||REML based MMRM|Model including baseline HbA1c, treatment, baseline renal function, prior use of antidiabetic drug, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.|Adjusted mean difference: Change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 25 mg + linagliptin 5 mg) - change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 25 mg + placebo)|||-0.45|-0.73|<0.0001
91892774|NCT01982448|183680689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|23.68|||||Association between HRD status and pathologic response was measured by the odds ratio (OR).|In the Cisplatin treated patients, the relationship between HRD status and pathologic response was conducted by arm using a univariate logistic regression model and a likelihood ratio test with a one-sided type I error of alpha 0.05. Assuming 12.5% unevaluable, prevalence of HR deficiency 60%, 70 evaluable patients per in a given arm, there is \~80% power to detect a response rate of 52% in HR-deficient patients vs a 16% in HR non-deficient patients, corresponding to the Odds Ratio 5.7.||23.68|0.39|
91892775|NCT01982448|183680689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.95||||||In the Paclitaxel treated patients, the relationship between HRD status and pathologic response was conducted by arm using a univariate logistic regression model and a likelihood ratio test with a one-sided type I error of alpha 0.05. Assuming 12.5% unevaluable, prevalence of HR deficiency 60%, 70 evaluable patients per in a given arm, there is \~80% power to detect a response rate of 37% in HR-deficient patients vs a 16% in HR non-deficient patients, corresponding to the Odds Ratio 0.62.||4.95|0.19|
91892776|NCT01982448|183680690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|118.07||||||||118.07|0.23|
91892777|NCT01982448|183680690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.14||||||||4.14|0.09|
91892778|NCT02704754|183680709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91892779|NCT03730480|183680722|OTHER|count of number of results within 15% of reference analyzer||||||||||||||||count of number of responses|The number of results that are within 15% of reference analyzer is reported.|||
91892780|NCT02716818|183680745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|||=|0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.299|0.161|||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy variable was the natural logarithm of the mean of the 24-hour SDS profile for the natural logarithm of 17-OHP. The SDS profile was calculated as the SDS of log transformed 17-OHP concentration unsigned. The mean of the 24-hour SDS profile for each visit was the arithmetic mean of all the SDSs, with the first and last (13th) weighted one half relative to the intermediate SDSs.||0.161|-0.299|=0.5521
91892781|NCT02716818|183680746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|||=|0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.234|0.329|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to 24 Weeks in A4 Using an ANCOVA Model - The analysis conducted for the primary endpoint variable analysis of 17-OHP was repeated for A4.||0.329|-0.234|=0.7405
91892782|NCT02716818|183680747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037|||=|0.8186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.281|||ANCOVA|||||0.281|-0.354|=0.8186
91892783|NCT02716818|183680747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|||=|0.4655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.237|||ANCOVA|||||0.237|-0.508|=0.4655
91892784|NCT02716818|183680747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||=|0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.451|||ANCOVA|||||1.451|-1.32|=0.9081
91892785|NCT02716818|183680747|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.092|||=|0.6729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.527|||ANCOVA|||||0.527|-0.343|=0.6729
91892786|NCT02716818|183680747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|||=|0.5322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.489|||ANCOVA|||||0.489|-0.257|=0.5322
91892787|NCT02716818|183680747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.568|||=|0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.799|0.662|||ANCOVA|||||0.662|-1.799|=0.2885
91892788|NCT02716818|183680748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||=|0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.45|=0.9877
91892789|NCT02716818|183680748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||=|0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|0.43|=0.8498
91892790|NCT02716818|183680749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.294|0.374|||ANCOVA|||German subjects have been excluded from this analysis group as DEXA scans are not performed at German sites.||0.374|-2.294|=0.156
91892791|NCT02716818|183680749|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.425|||=|0.3392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|1.305|||ANCOVA|||German subjects have been excluded from this analysis group as DEXA scans are not performed at German sites.||1.305|-0.455|=0.3392
91892792|NCT02716818|183680750|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.009|||=|0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.025|||ANCOVA|||||0.025|-0.007|=0.2614
91892793|NCT00107120|183680758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.458||0.022||95.0|-6.2|-0.5||Two-sided at 5% level of significance p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANCOVA|The model included study center and treatment as factors and baseline core as covariate|Differences are Escitalopram-Placebo|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the Change from Baseline to Week 8 in CDRS-R total score between treatment groups. The power calculation was based on the change from baseline to Week 8 in CDRS-R total score (LOCF approach). Assuming an effect size (treatment group difference relative to standard deviation) of 0.325, a sample size of approximately 150 patients per treatment group was used to provide at least 80% power at a significance level of 0.05 using a two-sided test.||-0.5|-6.2|0.022
91892794|NCT00107120|183680759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|-0.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1128||0.008||95.0|-0.595|0.092||Two-sided at 5% level of significance|ANCOVA|The model included treatment and center as factors and baseline CGI-Severity score as covariate.|Differences are Escitalopram-Placebo|Missing values were imputed using the LOCF approach.||0.092|-0.595|0.008
91892795|NCT00107120|183680760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|2.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.324||0.103||95.0|-0.439|4.777||Two-sided at 5% level of significance|ANCOVA||Differences are Escitalopram-Placebo|ANCOVA on the Change from Baseline to Week 8 in CGAS score. The model included treatment and center as factors and baseline score as covariate. Missing values were imputed using the LOCF approach.||4.777|-0.439|0.103
91892796|NCT00704379|183680765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|16.2|||Log Rank|||||16.2|1.1|<0.05
91892797|NCT03699085|183680788|EQUIVALENCE|A p value of \< 0.05 suggests the groups are different.||||||0.38||||||A p value of \< 0.05 suggests the groups are different.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test is used, which ranks the values in each group, sums the ranks and determines the probability that they are the same. The probability p-value is reported.||||0.38
91892798|NCT03699085|183680789|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mixed effects regression models were used to determine whether patients in the intervention and control group manifested different patterns of change in days of heroin use in the past 30 days in terms of incidence-rate ratio. We applied a negative binomial distribution to help account for overdispersion of outcome data.|Incidence rate ratio|1.29||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.37||A p value of \< 0.05 suggests the groups are different.|Regression, Cox||A number greater than 1.0 indicates a higher incidence rate of heroin use in past 30 days for intervention group compared to control group|Comparison of control and intervention populations based on substance use measured utilizing a time-line follow back (TLFB) calendar administered by the research assistant to for past 30-day heroin use. This is a covariate-adjusted mixed effects regression model at TLFB timepoint of 6 months. A number greater than 1.0 indicates a higher incidence of heroin use in the past 30 days at the 6 month timepoint for intervention group compared to control group.||4.37|0.38|0.68
91892799|NCT00158860|183680796|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier estimates|27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|38.6|||Log Rank|||||38.6|16.0|<0.001
91892800|NCT00158860|183680796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.401|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.57|||Log Rank|||||0.570|0.282|<0.001
91953184|NCT02163759|183802841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.6||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|3.78||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||3.78|-11.07|0.3217
91892801|NCT00158860|183680797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91892802|NCT00371683|183680828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two criteria were to be met to demonstrate non-inferiority: the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Relative Risk should be \< 1.25, and the upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk difference should be \< 5.6%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.32||If p-value is less than 0.025, it is statistically significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.32|0.78|0.0635
91892803|NCT00371683|183680828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two criteria were to be met to demonstrate non-inferiority: the upper bound of the 95% CI for the relative risk should be \< 1.25, and the upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk difference should be \< 5.6%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.44||If p-value is less than 0.025, it is statistically significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.44|-2.22|<0.0001
91892804|NCT00371683|183680829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.23|||||If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the Relative Risk was \< 1 then superiority for the key secondary efficacy endpoint was demonstrated.|||2.23|0.70|
91892805|NCT00371683|183680829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.4||||||||1.40|-0.68|
91892806|NCT00371683|183680829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7779|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7779
91892807|NCT00371683|183680830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35||||||||1.35|0.80|
91892808|NCT00371683|183680830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|2.59||||||||2.59|-2.04|
91892809|NCT00371683|183680830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.7754
91892810|NCT00371683|183680831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.6||||||||2.60|0.77|
91892811|NCT00371683|183680831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.52||||||||1.52|-0.47|
91892812|NCT00371683|183680831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.2626
91892813|NCT00371683|183680832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.87||||||||1.87|0.63|
91892814|NCT00371683|183680832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.21||||||||1.21|-0.99|
91892815|NCT00371683|183680832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.7700
91892816|NCT00371683|183680833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.11||||||||2.11|0.68|
91892817|NCT00371683|183680833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.33||||||||1.33|-0.78|
91892818|NCT00371683|183680833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5443|TWO_SIDED||||||test of equality|For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates||||||0.5443
91892819|NCT00371683|183680834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.93||||||||4.93|0.20|
91892820|NCT00371683|183680834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.30|
91892821|NCT00371683|183680834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.9975
91892822|NCT00371683|183680835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.05|
91892823|NCT00371683|183680835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.1578
91892824|NCT00371683|183680836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.4||||||||2.40|0.65|
91892825|NCT00371683|183680836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.98||||||||0.98|-0.47|
91892826|NCT00371683|183680837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.95||||||||2.95|0.72|
91892827|NCT00371683|183680837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.06||||||||1.06|-0.30|
91892828|NCT00371683|183680837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.2873
91892829|NCT00371683|183680838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.2||||||||1.20|0.74|
91892830|NCT00371683|183680838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.63||||||||1.63|-3.30|
91892831|NCT00371683|183680838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6145|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.6145
91892832|NCT00371683|183680841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.05||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of MI/Stroke. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.05|-0.55|
91892833|NCT00371683|183680841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.09||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of MI. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.09|-0.46|
91892834|NCT00371683|183680841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Stroke. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.05|-0.30|
91892835|NCT00371683|183680841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of thrombocytopenia. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.05|-0.30|
91892836|NCT00371683|183680842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.14||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Major Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||-0.14|-1.49|
91892837|NCT00371683|183680842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||Major Bleeding Endpoint||||0.0533
91892838|NCT00371683|183680842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.33||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Clinically Relevant Non-Major Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.33|-1.87|
91892839|NCT00371683|183680842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||Clinically relevant Non-Major Bleeding endpoint||||0.1709
91892840|NCT00371683|183680842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.17||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||-0.17|-2.75|
91892841|NCT00371683|183680842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED||||||test of equality|For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates||Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major Bleeding endpoint.||||0.0338
91892842|NCT00371683|183680842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.13||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Any Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.13|-3.18|
91892843|NCT00371683|183680842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||Any Bleeding Endpoint.||||0.0816
91892844|NCT01237587|183680852|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Repeated Measures|||||0.00|-1.30|0.052
91892845|NCT01237587|183680853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Worst Pain||0.03|-1.40|.059
91892846|NCT01237587|183680853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Pain||0.02|-1.24|0.059
91892847|NCT01237587|183680853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Right Now||0.21|-1.23|.165
91892848|NCT01237587|183680853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||General Activity||-0.30|-1.65|0.005
91892849|NCT01237587|183680853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mood||0.16|-1.25|.128
91892850|NCT01237587|183680853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Walking ability||0.49|-0.90|.560
91892851|NCT01237587|183680853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Normal Work||0.45|-1.01|0.448
91892852|NCT01237587|183680853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relations With Other||-0.19|-1.42|.011
91892853|NCT01237587|183680853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep||0.55|-1.25|.443
91892854|NCT01237587|183680853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Enjoyment of Life||0.38|-0.96|.390
91892855|NCT01237587|183680853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||School Work||0.24|-1.44|.160
91892856|NCT01237587|183680855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.051
91892857|NCT01237587|183680856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.038
91892858|NCT01237587|183680857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.86|||ANCOVA|||Average Pain Score||5.86|-9.10|.669
91892859|NCT01237587|183680857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Worst Pain Score||2.53|-14.32|.169
91892860|NCT01237587|183680857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|5.94|||ANCOVA|||Pain Score Right Now||5.94|-9.53|.647
91892861|NCT01237587|183680858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.52|.146
91892862|NCT01237587|183680859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.23|.927
91892863|NCT01237587|183680860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.59|||ANCOVA|||||3.59|-1.54|.431
91892864|NCT01237587|183680861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|3.79|||ANCOVA|||||3.79|-1.95|.529
91892865|NCT01237587|183680862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.86|||ANCOVA|||||0.86|-2.52|.335
91892866|NCT01237587|183680863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Physical Symptoms Score||1.68|-1.59|.955
91953185|NCT02163759|183802842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.3||||0.7919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|10.8||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||10.8|-8.3|0.7919
91892867|NCT01237587|183680863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Harm Avoidance||0.70|-1.82|.381
91892868|NCT01237587|183680863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Social Anxiety||0.79|-1.66|.486
91892869|NCT01237587|183680863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Separation/Panic||0.79|-1.17|.700
91892870|NCT01237587|183680863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||2.69|-5.12|.540
91892871|NCT01139580|183680878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91892872|NCT01139580|183680881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91892873|NCT01285609|183680884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.072|||Log Rank|p-value based on an unstratified 2-sided log rank test|Hazard of Ipilimumab over Hazard of Placebo with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the single covariate|Hazard ratio = Ipilimumab with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin over Placebo with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin||1.072|0.767|0.2517
91892874|NCT01285609|183680885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.061||p-value based on stratified 2-sided log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard of Ipilimumab over Placebo with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with several stratification factors and treatment as the single covariate|Hazard ratio = Ipilimumab with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin over Placebo with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin||1.061|0.792|0.2421
91892875|NCT01285609|183680886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.0678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.009|||Log Rank|p-value based on an unstratified 2-sided log rank test|Hazard of Ipilimumab over Hazard of Placebo with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the single covariate|Hazard ratio = Ipilimumab with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin over Placebo with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin||1.009|0.749|0.0678
91892876|NCT01142115|183680887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimated difference VAS(Monza) minus VAS(SpeediCath)(i.e. the upper confidence limit) shall be less than 1cm to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.052||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.692|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.692|0.412|0.0018
91892877|NCT01142115|183680888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.805|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.604|12.939|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.939|2.604|<0.0001
91892878|NCT01142115|183680889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.822||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|1.767|||Proportional odds regression model|||||1.767|0.382|0.6160
91892879|NCT01142115|183680890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.8014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|2.646|||Proportional odds regression model|||||2.646|0.472|0.8014
91892880|NCT01142115|183680891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.503||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|39.106|||Regression, Logistic|||||39.106|0.314|0.3085
91892881|NCT01142115|183680892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.398||||0.4324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|3.225|||Proportional odds regression model|||||3.225|0.606|0.4324
91892882|NCT03208036|183680893|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .69
91892883|NCT03208036|183680893|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .74
91892884|NCT03208036|183680894|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .62
91892885|NCT03208036|183680894|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .24
91892886|NCT03208036|183680895|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .47
91892887|NCT03208036|183680895|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .09
91892888|NCT03208036|183680895|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .02
91892889|NCT03208036|183680895|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and the 5.5 month assessment.||||= .48
91892890|NCT03208036|183680895|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .66
91892891|NCT03208036|183680895|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5 month assessment.||||= .46
91892892|NCT03208036|183680896|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .68
91892893|NCT03208036|183680896|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .45
91892894|NCT03208036|183680897|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .81
91892895|NCT03208036|183680897|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .31
91892896|NCT03208036|183680898|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .79
91892897|NCT03208036|183680898|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .50
91892898|NCT03208036|183680899|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .47
91892899|NCT03208036|183680899|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .09
91892900|NCT03208036|183680899|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .02
91892901|NCT03208036|183680899|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and the 5.5 month assessment.||||= .48
91892902|NCT03208036|183680899|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .66
91892903|NCT03208036|183680899|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and the 5.5 month assessment.||||= .46
91892904|NCT03208036|183680900|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .99
91892905|NCT03208036|183680900|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .84
91892906|NCT03208036|183680901|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .25
91892907|NCT03208036|183680901|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .08
91892908|NCT03208036|183680901|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .14
91892909|NCT03208036|183680901|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .02
91892910|NCT03208036|183680901|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .24
91892911|NCT03208036|183680901|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .93
91892912|NCT03208036|183680902|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .98
91892913|NCT03208036|183680902|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .08
91892914|NCT03208036|183680902|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .08
91892915|NCT03208036|183680902|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .06
91892916|NCT03208036|183680902|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .28
91892917|NCT03208036|183680902|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .23
91892918|NCT00350103|183680918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) procedure was applied for missing daily diary entries between start of trial medication and Visit 8 or last intake of trial medication in the case of discontinuation during the Titration or Maintenance Phase.||-0.02|-0.88|=0.0410
91892919|NCT00350103|183680918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||=|0.2902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) procedure was applied for missing daily diary entries between start of trial medication and Visit 8 or last intake of trial medication in the case of discontinuation during the Titration or Maintenance Phase.||0.20|-0.65|=0.2902
91892920|NCT02559895|183680964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-1.68|0.0001
91892921|NCT02559895|183680964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.25|0.0182
91892922|NCT02559895|183680964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-1.39|0.0046
91892923|NCT02559895|183680965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|5.8|0.0007
91892924|NCT02559895|183680965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.3|-1.4|0.1126
91892925|NCT02559895|183680965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|1.0|0.0272
91892926|NCT02559895|183680966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.3|3.2|0.0066
91892927|NCT02559895|183680966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|2.4|0.0112
91892928|NCT02559895|183680966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.8|1.8|0.0170
91892929|NCT02559895|183680967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.0|9.8|0.0001
91892930|NCT02559895|183680967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.5|3.2|0.0085
91892931|NCT02559895|183680967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.0|3.7|0.0064
91892932|NCT02559895|183680968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0159
91892933|NCT02559895|183680968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0312
91892934|NCT02559895|183680968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1539|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1539
91892935|NCT04828837|183680995|SUPERIORITY|The intervention effect was evaluated using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) statistical method. Two-tailed tests were conducted, and p-values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||We used Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and Fisher's exact tests when more than 20% of cells have expected frequencies \<5 or less than 10 observations to examine the homogeneity between groups based on demographic characteristics.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Descriptive statistics, including count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were used to summarize the data.||||<0.05
91892936|NCT04828837|183680996|SUPERIORITY|The intervention effect was evaluated using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) statistical method. Two-tailed tests were conducted, and p-values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05||||||We used Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and Fisher's exact tests when more than 20% of cells have expected frequencies \<5 or less than 10 observations to examine the homogeneity between groups based on demographic characteristics.|The generalized estimating equation (GEE|||Descriptive statistics, including count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were used to summarize the data.||||<0.05
91892937|NCT04828837|183680997|SUPERIORITY|The intervention effect was evaluated using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) statistical method. Two-tailed tests were conducted, and p-values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05||||||We used Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and Fisher's exact tests when more than 20% of cells have expected frequencies \<5 or less than 10 observations to examine the homogeneity between groups based on demographic characteristics.|The generalized estimating equation (GEE|||Descriptive statistics, including count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were used to summarize the data.||||<0.05
91892938|NCT04828837|183680998|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91892939|NCT01397422|183680999|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.3||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate.||20 subjects per treatment arm provided 80% power using a 2-sided 2-sample test at 5% significance. The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint was that the response of the ADS-5102 340 mg group was equal to that of the placebo group.||-3.5|-19.1|0.0051
91892940|NCT01397422|183680999|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-17.8|0.0131
91892941|NCT01397422|183680999|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-13.4|0.1595
91892942|NCT01397422|183681000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.1|0.4314
91892943|NCT01397422|183681000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.5|0.5223
91892944|NCT01397422|183681000|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, baseline value is a covariate||||1.0|-0.6|0.6298
91892945|NCT01397422|183681001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-8.7|0.0038
91892946|NCT01397422|183681001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-9.8|0.0004
91892947|NCT01397422|183681001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate.||||0.9|-6.0|0.1469
91892948|NCT01397422|183681002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.2|||ANCOVA|||||5.2|0.8|0.0078
91892949|NCT01397422|183681002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.0|||ANCOVA|||||5.0|0.5|0.0179
91892950|NCT01397422|183681002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate||||5.5|1.1|0.0040
91892951|NCT01397422|183681003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.6355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.9|||ANCOVA|||||6.9|-11.2|0.6355
91892952|NCT01397422|183681003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.6|||ANCOVA|||||10.6|-7.2|0.7053
91892953|NCT01397422|183681003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2||||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|10.1|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate||||10.1|-7.7|0.7862
91892954|NCT01397422|183681004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0036
91892955|NCT01397422|183681004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2158
91892956|NCT01397422|183681004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1042|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Equally spaced scores||||||0.1042
91892957|NCT00760474|183681015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.157||0.083||||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference between the pre-dose (baseline) and post-dose values calculated as post-dose minus pre-dose (post minus pre).|Glu/Cr posterior insula||||0.083
91892958|NCT00760474|183681015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.436||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glu/Cr posterior insula||||0.436
91892959|NCT00760474|183681015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.306||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr posterior insula||||0.306
91892960|NCT00760474|183681015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.809||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr posterior insula||||0.809
91953186|NCT02163759|183802842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.8||||0.8327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|7.0||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||7.0|-8.7|0.8327
91892961|NCT00760474|183681015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.116|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.177||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mean difference between the pre-dose (baseline) and post-dose values calculated as post-dose minus pre-dose (post minus pre).|Glx/Cr posterior insula||||0.016
91892962|NCT00760474|183681015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.308||0.708||||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference between the pre-dose (baseline) and post-dose values calculated as post-dose minus pre-dose (post minus pre).|Glx/Cr posterior insula||||0.708
91892963|NCT00760474|183681015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.809||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.050.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glu/Cr anterior insula||||0.809
91892964|NCT00760474|183681015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glu/Cr anterior insula||||0.154
91892965|NCT00760474|183681015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr anterior insula||||0.960
91892966|NCT00760474|183681015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.937||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr anterior insula||||0.937
91892967|NCT00760474|183681015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.897||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glx/Cr anterior insula||||0.897
91892968|NCT00760474|183681015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.309||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glx/Cr anterior insula||||0.309
91892969|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.032||||0.6347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1081|0.1714||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Anterior Cingulate||0.1714|-0.1081|0.6347
91892970|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.079||||0.5181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3356|0.1771||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||BA22||0.1771|-0.3356|0.5181
91892971|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.072||||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2161|0.0714||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||BA40||0.0714|-0.2161|0.2987
91892972|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.029||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.1219||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_anIns||0.1219|-0.0640|0.5151
91892973|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.081||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2228|0.0599||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Amygdala||0.0599|-0.2228|0.2369
91892974|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.077||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1642|0.0092||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Cerebellum||0.0092|-0.1642|0.0758
91892975|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.025||||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0947|0.0452||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_DLPFC||0.0452|-0.0947|0.4609
91892976|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.111||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3745|0.1524||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Mid Insula||0.1524|-0.3745|0.3813
91892977|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.02||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0964|0.1361||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Mid Temporal Pole||0.1361|-0.0964|0.7200
91892978|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.168||||0.2099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1065|0.4434||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Orbito Front||0.4434|-0.1065|0.2099
91892979|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.003||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1047|0.0992||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||PAG||0.0992|-0.1047|0.9551
91892980|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0855|0.0848||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Posterior Insula||0.0848|-0.0855|0.9940
91892981|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.049||||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1792|0.0806||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Posterior Cingulate||0.0806|-0.1792|0.4291
91892982|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.027||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0496|0.1028||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Precuneus||0.1028|-0.0496|0.4670
91892983|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.044||||0.4443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0752|0.1624||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Putamen||0.1624|-0.0752|0.4443
91892984|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.127||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3704|0.1165||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_S2||0.1165|-0.3704|0.2823
91892985|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.105||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2481|0.0378||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_DLPFC||0.0378|-0.2481|0.1369
91892986|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.078||||0.2376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0573|0.2127||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_anIns||0.2127|-0.0573|0.2376
91892987|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.153||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3365|0.0313||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Amygdala||0.0313|-0.3365|0.0968
91892988|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.023||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.1062||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_BA23\_base||0.1062|-0.0610|0.5720
91892989|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.027||||0.5822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1303|0.0761||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_IPL\_base||0.0761|-0.1303|0.5822
91892990|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.044||||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2697|0.1824||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Insula\_base||0.1824|-0.2697|0.6851
91892991|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.013||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1699|0.1446||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Mid Insula||0.1446|-0.1699|0.8656
91892992|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.094||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2296|0.0407||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Mid Front\_DLPFC||0.0407|-0.2296|0.1562
91892993|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.012||||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0991|0.0754||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Mid Temporal Pole||0.0754|-0.0991|0.7752
91892994|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.01||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1912|0.2109||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Orbito Front||0.2109|-0.1912|0.9182
91892995|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.022||||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0829|0.1278||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_PAG||0.1278|-0.0829|0.6544
91892996|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.087||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0123|0.1863||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_pIns||0.1863|-0.0123|0.0813
91892997|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.052||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0956|0.2004||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_pIns||0.2004|-0.0956|0.4605
91892998|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.081||||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2484|0.0856||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Posterior Cingulate||0.0856|-0.2484|0.3136
91892999|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0||||0.9929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0885|0.0893||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Precuneus||0.0893|-0.0885|0.9929
91893000|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.002||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0815|0.0767||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Precuneus\_base||0.0767|-0.0815|0.9490
91893001|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.065||||0.5668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3019|0.1722||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Superior Temporal||0.1722|-0.3019|0.5668
91893002|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1398|0.1391||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Premotor||0.1391|-0.1398|0.9958
91893003|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.057||||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0659|0.1795||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Putamen||0.1795|-0.0659|0.3379
91893004|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.085||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2262|0.0565||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_S1||0.0565|-0.2262|0.2186
91893005|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.008||||0.8191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0843|0.0678||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Thalamus||0.0678|-0.0843|0.8191
91893006|NCT00760474|183681016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.012||||0.7647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0698|0.093||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Precuneus||0.0930|-0.0698|0.7647
91893007|NCT04664400|183681032|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.043
91893008|NCT04664400|183681033|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.036
91893009|NCT04664400|183681034|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.012
91893010|NCT04664400|183681035|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.835
91893011|NCT03762200|183681048|OTHER|Confidence Interval|percentage of sucesses|87.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|93.1||||||||93.1|79.4|
91893012|NCT03762200|183681049|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Percentage of Successes|77.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.4|85.3||||||||85.3|68.4|
91893013|NCT03762200|183681050|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Percentage of Successes|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.3|96.6||||||||96.6|85.3|
91893014|NCT01846494|183681080|OTHER|||||||0.6173|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6173
91893015|NCT01865747|183681101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.74|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) group and number of prior VEGFR TKIs.||||0.74|0.45|<0.0001
91893016|NCT01865747|183681102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank test was stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk group and number of prior VEGFR TKIs.||||0.83|0.53|0.0003
91893017|NCT01865747|183681103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91893018|NCT00611975|183681109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.8
91893019|NCT00611975|183681109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||>0.4
91893020|NCT00611975|183681110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asex questionnaires were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for ASEX scores were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-2 days before NMP).||||>0.6
91893021|NCT00611975|183681110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on ASEX scores||||>0.6
91893022|NCT00611975|183681111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||<.01
91893023|NCT00611975|183681111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<0.01
91893024|NCT00611975|183681112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.4
91893025|NCT00611975|183681112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<.0001
91953187|NCT02883400|183802848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91893026|NCT00611975|183681113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.7
91893027|NCT00611975|183681113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<.0001
91893028|NCT00611975|183681114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.9
91893029|NCT00611975|183681114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<.0001
91893030|NCT00611975|183681115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.9
91893031|NCT00611975|183681115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||>0.9
91893032|NCT00611975|183681116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.1
91893033|NCT00611975|183681116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||>0.7
91893034|NCT02233543|183681153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-1.21|0.2419
91893035|NCT02233543|183681154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.79||||0.2016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|20.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.08|-4.51|0.2016
91893036|NCT01302067|183681155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.66||Primary comparison was 8 mg VS. 4 mg (closed-testing method). Treatment effect of 8 mg VS. placebo was tested 1st. Treatment difference of 8 mg VS. 4 mg was tested if a statistically significant difference between 8 mg and placebo was shown.|ANCOVA|Using a closed testing procedure, no adjustments of α-level was needed at each stage of testing. Each was done at the 0.05 significance level.|Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Comparisons were done with 2-sided test at 5% significance level. Null hypothesis: mean change from BL in the number of UUI episodes per 24 hours in the 8mg group was same as 4mg group at Week 12. ANCOVA was used to compare 8mg and 4mg arms for numeric change from BL - Week 12. This included terms for treatment, country, centered BL value and centered BL by treatment interaction, in which centered BL (BL - mean BL) was used to ensure that treatment effect was estimated at mean covariate value.||-0.66|-1.16|<0.0001
91893037|NCT01302067|183681155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Treatment comparisons were performed with a two-sided test at the 5% significance level.||-0.06|-0.48|0.0109
91893038|NCT01302067|183681155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.39||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Treatment comparisons were performed with a two-sided test at the 5% significance level.||-0.39|-0.89|<0.0001
91893039|NCT01302067|183681156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.79||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.79|-1.48|<0.0001
91893040|NCT01302067|183681156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.1||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.10|-0.67|0.0082
91893041|NCT01302067|183681156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.41||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.41|-1.10|<0.0001
91893042|NCT01302067|183681157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-1.03||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-1.03|-1.76|<0.0001
91893043|NCT01302067|183681157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.23||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.23|-0.83|0.0006
91893044|NCT01302067|183681157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.51||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.51|-1.23|<0.0001
91893045|NCT01302067|183681158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
91893046|NCT01302067|183681158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0040
91893047|NCT01302067|183681158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
91893048|NCT01302067|183681159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
91893049|NCT01302067|183681159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
91893050|NCT01302067|183681159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
91893051|NCT01302067|183681160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.5||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.50|-1.02|<0.0001
91893052|NCT01302067|183681160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.01||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||0.01|-0.41|0.0662
91893053|NCT01302067|183681160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.3||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.30|-0.82|<0.0001
91893054|NCT01302067|183681161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
91893055|NCT01302067|183681161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
91893056|NCT01302067|183681162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
91893057|NCT01302067|183681162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0006
91893058|NCT01302067|183681162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0001
91893059|NCT01302067|183681163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.06||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-1.06|-2.04|<0.0001
91893060|NCT01302067|183681163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.11||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.11|-0.92|0.0121
91953188|NCT00333437|183802849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline|0.1786|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1613||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0294|0.3277||Not adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): post-pre FVC (liters) = 0||0.3277|0.0294|0.026
91893061|NCT01302067|183681163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.55||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.55|-1.52|<0.0001
91893062|NCT01302067|183681164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.49||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-1.49|-2.55|<0.0001
91893063|NCT01302067|183681164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.34||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.34|-1.22|0.0005
91893064|NCT01302067|183681164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.71||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.71|-1.77|<0.0001
91893065|NCT01302067|183681165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
91893066|NCT01302067|183681165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0348
91893067|NCT01302067|183681165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0003
91893068|NCT01302067|183681166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
91893069|NCT01302067|183681166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0002
91893070|NCT01302067|183681166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
91893071|NCT01302067|183681167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
91893072|NCT01302067|183681167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0057
91893073|NCT01302067|183681167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0008
91893074|NCT01302067|183681168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0007
91893075|NCT01302067|183681168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0091
91893076|NCT01302067|183681168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3901
91893077|NCT01302067|183681169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-12.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-9.45||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Change at Week 12- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-9.45|-15.49|<0.0001
91953189|NCT00333437|183802850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1035||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|4.4945||significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): Post-pre neutrophil count = 0||4.4945|-10.49|0.3652
91893078|NCT01302067|183681169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|-2.22||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Change at Week 12- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-2.22|-7.15|0.0002
91893079|NCT01302067|183681169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|-4.78||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Change at Week 12- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-4.78|-10.78|<0.0001
91893080|NCT01302067|183681170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|13.73||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||13.73|7.20|<0.0001
91893081|NCT01302067|183681170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.36||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||7.36|2.01|0.0006
91893082|NCT01302067|183681170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|9.03||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||9.03|2.53|0.0005
91893083|NCT01302067|183681171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|10.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.73|14.09||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||14.09|7.73|<0.0001
91893084|NCT01302067|183681171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|6.96||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.96|1.76|0.0010
91893085|NCT01302067|183681171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|9.72||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||9.72|3.39|<0.0001
91893086|NCT01302067|183681172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|10.51||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||10.51|4.40|<0.0001
91893087|NCT01302067|183681172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|6.23||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.23|1.24|0.0034
91893088|NCT01302067|183681172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.76||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.76|0.68|0.0164
91893089|NCT01302067|183681173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|9.97||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||9.97|5.03|<0.0001
91893090|NCT01302067|183681173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.7||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||5.70|1.65|0.0004
91953190|NCT00333437|183802850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.286|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.358||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.41|8.8426||significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): post-pre eosinophil count = 0||8.8426|-21.41|0.3485
91953191|NCT00333437|183802852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|264.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|194.66||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.256|444.32||Significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Not adjusted||H(0): post-pre walk distance = 0||444.32|84.256|0.0115
91953192|NCT00333437|183802853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8643|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5013||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4758|3.2527||significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): Post-pre DLCO = 0||3.2527|0.4758|0.0167
91953193|NCT03022526|183802854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7463
91953194|NCT03022526|183802855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5764
91953195|NCT03022526|183802856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7169|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7169
91893091|NCT01302067|183681173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|6.28||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.28|1.36|0.0023
91893092|NCT01302067|183681174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.56|12.18||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||12.18|6.56|<0.0001
91893093|NCT01302067|183681174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|6.53||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.53|1.93|0.0003
91893094|NCT01302067|183681174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|7.94||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||7.94|2.34|0.0003
91893095|NCT01302067|183681175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0016
91893096|NCT01302067|183681175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.8121
91893097|NCT01302067|183681175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0015
91893098|NCT01302067|183681176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||<0.0001
91893099|NCT01302067|183681176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0006
91893100|NCT01302067|183681176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0027
91893101|NCT00715962|183681177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used as the rate of falling was low.||||||<.05
91893102|NCT00715962|183681178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
91953196|NCT03022526|183802857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4226
91893103|NCT00266227|183681180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0195
91893104|NCT00266227|183681182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||||95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANOVA|Adjusted mean for Arm A (Rituxan) is -1.9 and adjusted mean for Arm B (Placebo) is -1.5.||Assessed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with retreatment group, baseline DAS28-ESR score, baseline RF status, and ≥20% improvement in both SJC and TJC at Week 24 from baseline (yes/no) as explanatory terms in the model.||-0.1|-0.7|
91893105|NCT02480153|183681226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval (CIs) calculated by the score statistic method were used for the inference of the equivalence for ACR20 at Week 12. Therapeutic equivalence could be established if the 2-sided 95% CI fell within (-14%, 14%). Non-responder imputation was applied. Comparisons between treatments were computed as PF-06410293 versus Adalimumab-EU.|Week 12 ACR20 response rate difference|-2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|4.44||||||||4.44|-10.38|
91893106|NCT02480153|183681226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval (CIs) calculated by the score statistic method were used for the inference of the equivalence for ACR20 at Week 12. Therapeutic equivalence could be established if 2-sided 90% CI fell within (-12%, 15%). Non-responder imputation was applied. Comparisons between treatments were computed as PF-06410293 versus Adalimumab-EU.|Week 12 ACR20 response rate difference|-2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.25|3.28||||||||3.28|-9.25|
91893107|NCT03241225|183681285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|8.61|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean change in EM/PROTECT group not significantly different from mean change in EM/MH group, at week 12.|Week 12||8.61|-1.43|0.16
91893108|NCT03241225|183681286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||1.05|-1.37|0.79
91893109|NCT03241225|183681286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||3.46|-0.70|0.19
91893110|NCT03241225|183681286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.99|5.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #3, Week 12||5.93|-14.99|0.37
91893111|NCT03241225|183681286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|-0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #4, Week 12||-0.73|-9.75|0.026
91893112|NCT03241225|183681286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #5, Week 12||2.27|-3.51|0.66
91893113|NCT03241225|183681287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||1.66|-0.26|0.14
91953197|NCT03022526|183802858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6873
91953198|NCT03022526|183802859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0452|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0452
91953199|NCT03022526|183802860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0899|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0899
91953200|NCT03022526|183802861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1265|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1265
91953201|NCT03022526|183802862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0328
91953202|NCT03022526|183802863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6824
91893114|NCT03241225|183681287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|1.55||Domain #2|t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||1.55|0.011|0.047
91893115|NCT03241225|183681287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #3, Week 12||1.64|-0.34|0.18
91893116|NCT00852540|183681297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|56.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.5|68.4|||||The estimated value is the percentage of participants achieving clinical response. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.|||68.4|45.5|
91893117|NCT00852540|183681297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|95.8|||||The estimated value is the percentage of participants achieving clinical response. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.|||95.8|72.6|
91893118|NCT00435591|183681328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.83||||||"Aggregated data were used to determine differences between groups. Statistical analysis is relevant to the aggregated data of all rows except the no assessment row."||0.83|-0.37|
91893119|NCT02074553|183681344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|100.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.14|108.44|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI).||108.44|93.14|
91893120|NCT02074553|183681344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|97.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.71|105.48|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||105.48|90.71|
91893121|NCT02074553|183681344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|86.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.32|93.5|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||93.5|80.32|
91893122|NCT02074553|183681344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.15|92.24|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||92.24|85.15|
91893123|NCT02074553|183681344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|80.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.08|83.39|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||83.39|77.08|
91893124|NCT02074553|183681344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|79.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.84|83.19|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||83.19|76.84|
91893125|NCT02074553|183681345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|99.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.83|106.99|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||106.99|91.83|
91893126|NCT02074553|183681345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|93.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|101.17|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||101.17|86.94|
91893127|NCT02074553|183681345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|80.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.41|86.7|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||86.7|74.41|
91893128|NCT02074553|183681345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|87.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.92|91.07|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||91.07|83.92|
91953203|NCT03022526|183802864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.449
91953204|NCT03022526|183802865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5996
91953205|NCT03022526|183802866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8009
91953206|NCT03022526|183802867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5422|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5422
91893129|NCT02074553|183681345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|78.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.76|82.11|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||82.11|75.76|
91893130|NCT02074553|183681345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|78.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.53|81.92|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||81.92|75.53|
91893131|NCT02074553|183681346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|90.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.33|99.12|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||99.12|82.33|
91893132|NCT02074553|183681346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|66.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.45|72.68|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||72.68|60.45|
91893133|NCT02074553|183681346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|41.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.4|45.03|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||45.03|37.40|
91893134|NCT02074553|183681346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|86.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.77|91.09|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||91.09|81.77|
91893135|NCT02074553|183681346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.01|81.2|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||81.20|73.01|
91893136|NCT02074553|183681346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.71|79.82|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.82|71.71|
91893137|NCT02074553|183681348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|91.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.34|102.05|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||102.05|82.34|
91893138|NCT02074553|183681348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|67.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.44|74.79|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||74.79|60.44|
91893139|NCT02074553|183681348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|34.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.83|38.21|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||38.21|30.83|
91893140|NCT02074553|183681348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|95.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.1|101.62|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||101.62|89.10|
91893141|NCT02074553|183681348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.67|78.16|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||78.16|68.67|
91893142|NCT02074553|183681348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|67.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.48|72.33|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||72.33|63.48|
91893143|NCT02074553|183681350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|95.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.54|104.79|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||104.79|87.54|
91893144|NCT02074553|183681350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|78.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.97|86.04|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||86.04|71.97|
91893145|NCT02074553|183681350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|53.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.27|58.98|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||58.98|49.27|
91893146|NCT02074553|183681350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|90.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.14|94.37|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||94.37|86.14|
91893147|NCT02074553|183681350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.52|77.15|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||77.15|70.52|
91893148|NCT02074553|183681350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|70.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.8|74.22|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||74.22|67.80|
91893149|NCT02074553|183681351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|93.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.24|102.78|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||102.78|84.24|
91893150|NCT02074553|183681351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|74.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.37|82.06|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||82.06|67.37|
91893151|NCT02074553|183681351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|43.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.78|48.53|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||48.53|39.78|
91893152|NCT02074553|183681351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|90.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.12|94.49|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||94.49|86.12|
91893153|NCT02074553|183681351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|72.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.48|76.12|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||76.12|69.48|
91893154|NCT02074553|183681351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|69.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.23|72.61|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||72.61|66.23|
91893155|NCT02074553|183681354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|98.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.25|106.95|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||106.95|91.25|
91893156|NCT02074553|183681354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|91.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.65|99.08|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||99.08|84.65|
91893157|NCT02074553|183681354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.81|79.47|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.47|67.81|
91893158|NCT02074553|183681354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.62|92.13|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||92.13|85.62|
91893159|NCT02074553|183681354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|77.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.99|80.6|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||80.60|74.99|
91893160|NCT02074553|183681354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|76.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.92|79.49|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.49|73.92|
91893161|NCT02074553|183681355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|89.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.7|97.84|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||97.84|81.7|
91893162|NCT02074553|183681355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|66.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.12|73.1|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||73.1|61.12|
91893163|NCT02074553|183681355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|42.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.68|46.32|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||46.32|38.68|
91893164|NCT02074553|183681355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.21|93.56|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||93.56|84.21|
91893165|NCT02074553|183681355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.99|79.86|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.86|71.99|
91893166|NCT02074553|183681355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.53|77.19|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||77.19|69.53|
91893167|NCT02074553|183681356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|97.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.85|105.21|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||105.21|89.85|
91893168|NCT02074553|183681356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|87.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.59|94.26|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||94.26|80.59|
91893169|NCT02074553|183681356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|67.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.71|73.43|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||73.43|62.71|
91893170|NCT02074553|183681356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.06|91.63|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||91.63|85.06|
91893171|NCT02074553|183681356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|76.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.03|79.65|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.65|74.03|
91893172|NCT02074553|183681356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.7|78.27|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||78.27|72.70|
91893173|NCT02342743|183681365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91893174|NCT02342743|183681366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91893175|NCT02342743|183681367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91893176|NCT02342743|183681368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91893177|NCT02342743|183681369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Threshold for statistical significance set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
91893178|NCT02342743|183681370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91893179|NCT02342743|183681372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Threshold for statistical significance set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.030
91893180|NCT00686725|183681376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.183
91893181|NCT00686725|183681377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.35
91893182|NCT00686725|183681380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.648
91893183|NCT00686725|183681381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.915
91893184|NCT00092495|183681400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893185|NCT00092495|183681400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893186|NCT00092495|183681401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893187|NCT00092495|183681401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893188|NCT00092495|183681402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893189|NCT00092495|183681402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893190|NCT00092495|183681402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893191|NCT00092495|183681403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893192|NCT00092495|183681403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893193|NCT00092495|183681403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893194|NCT00092495|183681404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91953207|NCT03022526|183802868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7374
91893195|NCT00092495|183681404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893196|NCT00092495|183681405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group||||||<0.001
91893197|NCT00092495|183681405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group||||||<0.001
91893198|NCT00092495|183681406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893199|NCT00092495|183681406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893200|NCT00092495|183681406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893201|NCT00092495|183681407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893202|NCT00092495|183681407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group||||||<0.001
91893203|NCT00092495|183681407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893204|NCT00092495|183681408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893205|NCT00092495|183681408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893206|NCT00092495|183681409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893207|NCT00092495|183681409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893208|NCT00092495|183681410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.01
91893209|NCT00092495|183681410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893210|NCT00092495|183681410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91953208|NCT03315780|183802869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-254.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.76|-170.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-170.28|-337.76|< 0.0001
91893211|NCT00092495|183681411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893212|NCT00092495|183681411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893213|NCT00092495|183681411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893214|NCT00092495|183681412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893215|NCT00092495|183681412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893216|NCT00092495|183681413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893217|NCT00092495|183681413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893218|NCT00092495|183681414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91953209|NCT03315780|183802872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|46.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||46.87|8.05|0.0100
91953210|NCT03315780|183802873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.81|0.63|0.0263
91953211|NCT03315780|183802874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.36||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-20.16|0.0800
91953212|NCT03315780|183802875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.39||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.35|87.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.57|-118.35|0.7475
91893219|NCT00092495|183681414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893220|NCT00092495|183681414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
91893221|NCT00092495|183681415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893222|NCT00092495|183681415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893223|NCT00092495|183681415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91893224|NCT01346475|183681473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Risk Ratio|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.66|||Incident risk ratio|The model is adjusted for period effects.||This study had 80% power to detect a 50% reduction in HSV genital shedding rates for high-dose valacyclovir compared to standard dose valacyclovir.||0.66|0.44|<0.001
91893225|NCT00618618|183681480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||-0.2|-1.0|0.005
91893226|NCT00618618|183681480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||-0.4|-1.4|0.001
91893227|NCT00618618|183681480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||0.0|-0.8|0.069
91893228|NCT00618618|183681481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||3.0|0.6|0.005
91893229|NCT00618618|183681481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||4.0|1.0|0.001
91893230|NCT00618618|183681481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||2.2|-0.3|0.122
91893231|NCT00618618|183681482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|38.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|65.7|||Fisher Exact|||||65.7|11.0|0.008
91893232|NCT00618618|183681482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|32.9||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|64.8|||Fisher Exact|||||64.8|1.0|0.172
91893233|NCT00618618|183681482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|22.9||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|54.2|||Fisher Exact|||||54.2|-8.4|0.252
91893234|NCT00618618|183681483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|46.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|75.9|||Fisher Exact|||||75.9|16.3|0.011
91893235|NCT00618618|183681483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|54.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|85.5|||Fisher Exact|||||85.5|23.0|0.013
91893236|NCT00618618|183681483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|24.3||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|57.3|||Fisher Exact|||||57.3|-8.7|0.296
91893237|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.2|-0.5|0.460
91893238|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.4|-0.5|0.906
91893239|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.2|-0.6|0.404
91893240|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.3|-0.5|0.791
91893241|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.6|-0.3|0.410
91893242|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.5|-0.3|0.733
91893243|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.5|-0.3|0.542
91893244|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.5|-0.4|0.882
91893245|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.4|-0.4|0.934
91893246|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.4|0.838
91893247|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.5|0.777
91893248|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.5|-0.4|0.795
91893249|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.0||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.4|-0.4|0.852
91893250|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.3|-0.6|0.444
91893251|NCT00618618|183681484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.5|-0.3|0.724
91893252|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.4|-0.4|0.934
91893253|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.2|-0.7|0.286
91893254|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.7|-0.1|0.190
91893255|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.2|-0.5|0.402
91893256|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.2|-0.7|0.290
91893257|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.4|-0.4|0.863
91893258|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.1|-0.7|0.128
91893259|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||-0.1|-0.9|0.018
91893260|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.3|-0.5|0.489
91893261|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||-0.1|-0.9|0.007
91893262|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||-0.4|-1.3|<0.001
91893263|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.1|-0.7|0.122
91893264|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||-0.2|-0.9|0.005
91893265|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||-0.3|-1.2|<0.001
91893266|NCT00618618|183681485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||-0.2|-1.0|0.007
91893267|NCT00618618|183681487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||4.8|-8.6|0.573
91893268|NCT00618618|183681487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|9.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||9.9|-6.3|0.653
91893269|NCT00618618|183681487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||8.1|-5.4|0.688
91893270|NCT01236365|183681498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in LDL-C between Atorvastatin and Placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91893271|NCT01236365|183681499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in hsCRP (6months minus 0months) between Atorvastatin and Placebo|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.913
91893272|NCT01236365|183681502|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91893273|NCT00955253|183681503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||between the placebo and guanfacine conditions||||0.013
91893274|NCT00558259|183681505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.02|0.25|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs placebo||0.25|0.02|<0.0001
91893275|NCT00558259|183681506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.03|0.27|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs placebo||0.27|0.03|<0.0001
91893276|NCT00558259|183681507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
91893277|NCT00558259|183681507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.06|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing DVT in Dabigatran group.|||1.06|0.04|
91893278|NCT00558259|183681507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|5.17|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing DVT in placebo group.|||5.17|2.21|
91893279|NCT00558259|183681508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo||||0.0004
91893280|NCT00558259|183681508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing PE in Dabigatran group.|||0.82|0.00|
91893281|NCT00558259|183681508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.52|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing PE in placebo group.|||3.52|1.16|
91893282|NCT00558259|183681509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2428|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo||||0.2428
91893283|NCT00558259|183681509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants with unexplained death in Dabigatran group.|||0.54|0.00|
91893284|NCT00558259|183681509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.09|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants with unexplained death in placebo group.|||1.09|0.04|
91893285|NCT00558259|183681510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4998||||||As the Cox model did not converge due to too few events, hazard ratios are not estimable.|Fisher Exact|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo - Analysis of time to first occurrence of an MBE during the treatment period - FAS - as treated.||||0.4998
91893286|NCT00558259|183681510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.05|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing MBE in Dabigatran group.|||1.05|0.04|
91893287|NCT00558259|183681510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.56|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing MBE in placebo group.|||0.56|0.00|
91893288|NCT00558259|183681510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.6|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo- Analysis of time to first occurrence of a MBE or CRBE during the treatment period - FAS - as treated.||5.60|1.52|0.0013
91893289|NCT00558259|183681510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.68|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo- Analysis of time to first occurrence of any bleeding event during the treatment period - FAS - as treated||2.68|1.23|0.0027
91893290|NCT00560560|183681585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The final analysis was intended to be a binomial test (death prior to 6 months, yes or no). However, 2 participants in the 30/kg mg group were censored prior to 6 months, so the six month Kaplan and Meier estimates were used for each group instead.|Test of probability of 6 month survival|p-Value \>0.05 applies to each group (20 mg/kg and 30 mg/kg). Greenwood's formula was used for standard deviation.||The hypotheses for each group were H0:p=0.45 vs H1:p\>0.45. There was one interim analysis for futility for each group based on the method of Case and Morgan. The futility boundary was not crossed for 20/kg mg group, but was crossed for the 30/kg mg group. It was recommended to investigators that participants be discontinued from treatment with 30 mg/kg of figitumumab.||||>0.05
91893291|NCT00006011|183681593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||"Primary outcome is measured as a treatment hazard ratio stratified by stage and assuming proportional hazards.~Recurrence-free survival hazard ratio: Arm 2 is relative to Arm 1."||1.17|0.69|
91893292|NCT02029872|183681634|OTHER|The study was powered for enrollment of 100 subjects with MRSA colonization at baseline. Despite substantial screening, we were unable to enroll enough subjects to meet the necessary sample size.||||||||||||||||Due to low enrollment in the intervention, statistical analysis was not possible.|The study was powered for enrollment of 100 subjects with MRSA colonization at baseline. Despite substantial screening, we were unable to enroll enough subjects to meet the necessary sample size.|||
91893293|NCT02318992|183681645|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.157
91893294|NCT02318992|183681646|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.041
91893295|NCT03310268|183681661|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.374|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.374|0.002|0.0476
91893296|NCT03310268|183681661|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.8411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.164|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.164|-0.202|0.8411
91893297|NCT03310268|183681661|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.393|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.393|0.020|0.0298
91893298|NCT03310268|183681662|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.649||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.376|1.975|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||1.975|-16.376|0.1232
91893299|NCT03310268|183681662|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.588||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.099|5.011|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||5.011|-13.099|0.3793
91893300|NCT03310268|183681662|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.648||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|6.017|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||6.017|-12.330|0.4979
91893301|NCT04797650|183681663|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.37||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.37|0.25|<0.0001
91893302|NCT04797650|183681663|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.45||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.45|0.27|<0.0001
91893303|NCT04797650|183681664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.46||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.46|0.31|<0.0001
91893304|NCT04797650|183681664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.45||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.45|0.26|<0.0001
91893305|NCT04797650|183681664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.45||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.45|0.30|<0.0001
91893306|NCT04797650|183681664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.5||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.50|0.31|<0.0001
91893307|NCT04797650|183681664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.46|0.32|<0.0001
91893308|NCT04797650|183681664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.59||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.59|0.41|<0.0001
91893309|NCT04797650|183681664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.52||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.52|0.38|<0.0001
91893310|NCT04797650|183681664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.58||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.58|0.40|<0.0001
91893311|NCT04797650|183681665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 4||0.01|-0.00|0.3175
91893312|NCT04797650|183681665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.05|-0.00|0.1020
91953213|NCT00451191|183802881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Simon's optimal two-stage design|||Simon's optimal two-stage design was applied to determine whether there was sufficient activity at either of the two dose levels to warrant further investigation. Each patient was considered either a successful or failed response. The response rate or proportion of patients treated successfully was examined in two stages. At both stages, the two dose levels were compared to pre-determined critical cut-off values. Sample size was based on significance level α=0.05 and power 90%.||||<0.05
91893313|NCT04797650|183681665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.05|-0.01|0.3103
91893314|NCT04797650|183681665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.14|0.06|<0.0001
91893315|NCT04797650|183681665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.17|0.06|<0.0001
91893316|NCT04797650|183681665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.24||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.24|0.14|<0.0001
91893317|NCT04797650|183681665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.27||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.27|0.13|<0.0001
91893318|NCT04797650|183681665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.29||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.29|0.18|<0.0001
91893319|NCT04797650|183681665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.35||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.35|0.19|<0.0001
91893320|NCT04797650|183681666|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.9||P-value was calculated by mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.9|-4.7|0.0039
91893321|NCT04797650|183681666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.2|-5.6|0.0027
91893322|NCT04797650|183681666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-5.1|-13.6|<0.0001
91893323|NCT04797650|183681666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-9.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-9.3|-19|<0.0001
91953214|NCT00656669|183802890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is a paired t-test to compare baseline IFP to IFP after completion of sunitinib monotherapy||From Taghian et al., we used a mean IFP of 6.5 at baseline and a standard deviation of 6.1. We would like to detect a 50% reduction of IFP (to 3.25 mmHg) with sunitinib monotherapy, so the effect size would be 3.25/6.1=0.53. A two-sided paired t-test has 80% power to detect an effect size of .53 and level of significance .05 when the sample size is 30 patients.||||0.0001
91893324|NCT04797650|183681666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-17.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-17.3|-28.8|<0.0001
91893325|NCT04797650|183681666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-22.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-22.7|-35.9|< 0.0001
91893326|NCT04797650|183681666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-28.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-28.2|-41.4|< 0.0001
91893327|NCT04797650|183681666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-32.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-32.6|-47.8|< 0.0001
91893328|NCT04797650|183681666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|-31.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-31.6|-45.9|< 0.0001
91893329|NCT04797650|183681666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-38.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-38.4|-54.8|< 0.0001
91893330|NCT04797650|183681666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-38.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-38.5|-53.4|< 0.0001
91893331|NCT04797650|183681666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|-44.2|||MMRM|||Week 24||-44.2|-61.4|< 0.0001
91893332|NCT04797650|183681667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by cochran mantel haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
91893333|NCT04797650|183681667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
91893334|NCT04797650|183681667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
91893335|NCT04797650|183681667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
91893336|NCT04797650|183681667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
91893337|NCT04797650|183681667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
91893338|NCT04797650|183681667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
91893339|NCT04797650|183681667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
91893340|NCT04797650|183681668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
91893341|NCT04797650|183681668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
91893342|NCT04797650|183681668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
91893343|NCT04797650|183681668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
91893344|NCT04797650|183681668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
91893345|NCT04797650|183681668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
91893346|NCT04797650|183681668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
91893347|NCT04797650|183681668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
91893348|NCT04797650|183681669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1|-1.5|< 0.0001
91953215|NCT00656669|183802891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7963||||||a priori threshold of \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|This is a paired t-test to compare baseline IFP to IFP after completion of paxlitaxel+sunitinib treatment||||||0.7963
91893349|NCT04797650|183681669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.1|-1.7|< 0.0001
91893350|NCT04797650|183681669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.3|-1.9|< 0.0001
91893351|NCT04797650|183681669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.5|-2.2|< 0.0001
91953216|NCT01241591|183802912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% lower confidence intervals (LCIs) of the difference for PGA and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%, and CP-690,550 10 mg was superior to placebo for PGA response and PASI75 at Week 12.|Mean Difference|-19.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|-11.76||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||-11.76|-26.55|
91953217|NCT01241591|183802912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|32.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.51|40.81||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo was concluded if the lower bounds of the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||40.81|23.51|
91893352|NCT04797650|183681669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.3|-2|< 0.0001
91893353|NCT04797650|183681669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.7|-2.5|< 0.0001
91893354|NCT04797650|183681669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.8|-2.5|< 0.0001
91893355|NCT04797650|183681669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-2.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-2|-2.8|< 0.0001
91893356|NCT04797650|183681670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1|-1.8|< 0.0001
91893357|NCT04797650|183681670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.1|-2|< 0.0001
91893358|NCT04797650|183681670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.2|-2|< 0.0001
91893359|NCT04797650|183681670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.4|-2.3|< 0.0001
91893360|NCT04797650|183681670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.3|-2.2|< 0.0001
91893361|NCT04797650|183681670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.5|-2.4|< 0.0001
91893362|NCT04797650|183681670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.7|-2.5|< 0.0001
91893363|NCT04797650|183681670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.8|-2.8|< 0.0001
91893364|NCT04797650|183681671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.12||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.12|0.05|< 0.0001
91893365|NCT04797650|183681671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.17|0.06|< 0.0001
91953218|NCT01241591|183802912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%.|Mean Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|9.05||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||9.05|-5.22|
91953219|NCT01241591|183802912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|53.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.81|61.65||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||61.65|44.81|
91953220|NCT01241591|183802913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%, and CP-690,550 10 mg was superior to placebo for PGA and PASI75 response at Week 12.|Mean Difference|-19.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.75|-11.83||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||-11.83|-26.75|
91893366|NCT04797650|183681671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.38||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.38|0.27|< 0.0001
91893367|NCT04797650|183681671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.45||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.45|0.28|< 0.0001
91893368|NCT04797650|183681671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.03|0.00|0.0409
91893369|NCT04797650|183681671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.09||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.09|0.01|0.012
91893370|NCT04797650|183681671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.26||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.26|0.16|< 0.0001
91893371|NCT04797650|183681671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.31||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.31|0.16|< 0.0001
91893372|NCT04797650|183681672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.4|0.7|< 0.0001
91893373|NCT04797650|183681672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.5|0.7|< 0.0001
91893374|NCT04797650|183681672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||1.8|1.1|< 0.0001
91893375|NCT04797650|183681672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.2|1.3|< 0.0001
91893376|NCT04797650|183681673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.5|0.7|< 0.0001
91893377|NCT04797650|183681673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.6|0.7|< 0.0001
91893378|NCT04797650|183681673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2|1|< 0.0001
91893379|NCT04797650|183681673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.1|1|< 0.0001
91893380|NCT04797650|183681674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
91893381|NCT04797650|183681674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.9|-1.5|< 0.0001
91893382|NCT04797650|183681674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
91953221|NCT01241591|183802913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|33.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.06|40.76||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||40.76|27.06|
91893383|NCT04797650|183681674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
91893384|NCT04797650|183681674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
91893385|NCT04797650|183681674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.4|-2|< 0.0001
91893386|NCT04797650|183681674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-1.8|< 0.0001
91893387|NCT04797650|183681674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.4|-2.1|< 0.0001
91893388|NCT04797650|183681675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.43||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.43|0.25|< 0.0001
91893389|NCT04797650|183681675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.54||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.54|0.33|< 0.0001
91893390|NCT04797650|183681675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.51||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.51|0.35|< 0.0001
91893391|NCT04797650|183681675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.57||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.57|0.37|< 0.0001
91893392|NCT04797650|183681675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.5||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.5|0.34|< 0.0001
91893393|NCT04797650|183681675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.63||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.63|0.44|< 0.0001
91893394|NCT04797650|183681675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.52||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.52|0.36|< 0.0001
91893395|NCT04797650|183681675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.62||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.62|0.42|< 0.0001
91893396|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
91893397|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.8|-1.4|< 0.0001
91893398|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.9|-1.3|< 0.0001
91893399|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
91893400|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1|-1.5|< 0.0001
91893401|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1.3|-1.9|< 0.0001
91893402|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
91893403|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
91953222|NCT01241591|183802913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%.|Mean Difference|4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|12.23||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||12.23|-2.57|
91893404|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 12||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
91893405|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 12||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
91893406|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 16||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
91893407|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 16||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
91893408|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 20||-0.9|-1.3|< 0.0001
91893409|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 20||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
91893410|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
91893411|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 24||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
91893412|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 12||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
91893413|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 12||-0.8|-1.4|< 0.0001
91893414|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 16||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
91893415|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 16||-1|-1.6|< 0.0001
91953223|NCT01241591|183802913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|58.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.25|64.81||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||64.81|51.25|
91893416|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 20||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
91893417|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 20||-1.1|-1.7|< 0.0001
91893418|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
91893419|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 24||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
91893420|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 12||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
91893421|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 12||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
91953224|NCT01945034|183802958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.0||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|57.56||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||57.56|-11.49|0.190
91893422|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 16||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
91893423|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 16||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
91893424|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 20||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
91893425|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 20||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
91893426|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 24||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
91893427|NCT04797650|183681676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 24||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
91893428|NCT04797650|183681677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0||P-value was calculated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||1.0|-0.1|0.1206
91893429|NCT04797650|183681677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.5367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||0.9|-0.5|0.5367
91893430|NCT04797650|183681677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||1.3|0.2|0.0064
91953225|NCT01945034|183802958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|39.7||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||39.70|-24.20|0.633
91893431|NCT04797650|183681677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||1.7|0.4|0.0011
91893432|NCT04797650|183681678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.3||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.3|0.19|< 0.0001
91893433|NCT04797650|183681678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.33||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.33|0.18|< 0.0001
91953226|NCT01945034|183802958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.87|23.3||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||23.30|-53.87|0.436
91893434|NCT02937454|183681695|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.01|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.01|0.62|0.059
91893435|NCT02937454|183681695|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||0.96|0.59|0.024
91893436|NCT02937454|183681696|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.0|0.64|0.050
91893437|NCT02937454|183681696|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||COVID-19 sensitivity analyses||0.97|0.62|0.024
91893438|NCT02937454|183681697|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.94|0.58|0.013
91893439|NCT02937454|183681697|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.9|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||COVID-19 sensitivity analyses||0.90|0.55|0.005
91953227|NCT01945034|183802959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.8||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|16.49||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (BLPSR), pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing (BLPIWB) terms. 95% CI not includes 0 for treatment effect. Upper limit of 95% CI\< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo. Comparison: tested at the 0.05 level of significance (2-sided). A comparison was eligible for being declared significant only if preceding comparison was significant.||16.49|-6.98|0.426
91953228|NCT01945034|183802959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.82||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, BLPSR, pooled site blocks, and BLPIWB terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo. Comparison: tested at the 0.05 level of significance (2-sided). A comparison was eligible for being declared significant only if preceding comparison was significant.||9.82|-11.90|0.850
91893440|NCT02937454|183681698|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.32|0.70|0.809
91893441|NCT02937454|183681698|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.29|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||1.29|0.68|0.687
91893442|NCT02937454|183681699|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.98|0.66|0.030
91893443|NCT02937454|183681699|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||0.97|0.65|0.023
91893444|NCT02937454|183681700|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.97|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.97|0.47|0.035
91893445|NCT02937454|183681700|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||0.88|0.42|0.009
91893446|NCT02937454|183681701|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.92|0.59|0.006
91893447|NCT02937454|183681702|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.94|0.63|0.009
91893448|NCT02937454|183681703|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.31|0.75|0.944
91893449|NCT02937454|183681704|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.39|||Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE)|The following variables are included in the GEE model: treatment, visit, baseline NYHA class, sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.39|0.93|0.196
91893450|NCT02937454|183681705|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 6||||0.208
91893451|NCT02937454|183681705|OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 24||||0.408
91893452|NCT02937454|183681705|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 52||||0.999
91893453|NCT02937454|183681706|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 2||||0.227
91893454|NCT02937454|183681706|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 4||||0.018
91953229|NCT01945034|183802959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.8||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.91|7.32||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, BLPSR, pooled site blocks, and BLPIWB terms. A comparison was eligible for being declared significant only if preceding comparison was significant.||7.32|-18.91|0.385
91893455|NCT02937454|183681706|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 6||||0.005
91893456|NCT02937454|183681706|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 12||||0.006
91893457|NCT02937454|183681706|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 24||||0.028
91893458|NCT02937454|183681706|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 36||||0.136
91893459|NCT02937454|183681706|OTHER|||||||0.329|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 52||||0.329
91893460|NCT04601870|183681714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|3.973|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.668 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for completing counseling in $50 arm vs. $0 arm|||3.973|.566|0.4137
91893461|NCT04601870|183681714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|3.973|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.668 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for completing counseling in $100 arm vs. $0 arm|||3.973|.566|0.4137
91893462|NCT04601870|183681714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|3.446|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.917 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for completing counseling in $50 or $100 arm vs. $0 arm|$0 vs. $50 or $100||3.446|.653|.3383
91893463|NCT04601870|183681715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.333||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|10.6751|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 1.243 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $50 arm vs. $0 arm|||10.6751|.5100|.2650
91893464|NCT04601870|183681715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8333||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1301|5.3369|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.037 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $100 arm vs. $0 arm|||5.3369|.1301|.8472
91893465|NCT04601870|183681715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.541||||0.5478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3731|6.364|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.361 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $50 or $100 arms vs. $0 arm|$0 vs. $50 or $100||6.3640|.3731|.5478
91893466|NCT04601870|183681715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3571||||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06355|2.007|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 1.456 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $100 arm vs. $50 arm|||2.0070|.06355|.2276
91893467|NCT01534689|183681722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91893468|NCT01534689|183681723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||results at 12 weeks compared to baseline||||<0.0001
91893469|NCT01160289|183681732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||The p-value was 1-sided and adjusted for multiple comparisons. The level of significance was 1-sided of 0.04.|ANCOVA|Treatment group (tx grp), baseline IIEF EF domain score, baseline testosterone level, tx grp\*baseline IIEF, tx grp\*testosterone level interactions.||Only the treatment effects of 1 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil and the treatment effects of 5 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil were analyzed.||||0.5
91893470|NCT01160289|183681732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||The p-value was 1-sided and adjusted for multiple comparisons. The level of significance was 1-sided of 0.04.|ANCOVA|The model included tx grp, baseline IIEF EF domain score, baseline testosterone level, tx grp\*baseline IIEF, tx grp\*testosterone level interactions.||Only the treatment effects of the treatment effects of 5 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil and 1 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil were analyzed.||||0.498
91893471|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|1.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.312||0.722||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.722
91893472|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-1.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.253||0.634||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.634
91893473|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-4.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.218||0.147||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.147
91893474|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-7.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.157||0.02||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.020
91893475|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.658||0.775||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.775
91893476|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|1.844|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.573||0.687||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.687
91893477|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-7.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.535||0.119||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.119
91893478|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-6.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.14||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.140
91893479|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|6.703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.302||0.207||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.207
91893480|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|9.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.206||0.079||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.079
91893481|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-5.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.301||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.301
91893482|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-2.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.067||0.568||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.568
91893483|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|4.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.566||0.464||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.464
91893484|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|5.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.463||0.356||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.356
91893485|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-11.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.418||0.038||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.038
91893486|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-10.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.312||0.054||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.054
91893487|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|4.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.603||0.454||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.454
91893488|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|5.796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.499||0.293||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.293
91893489|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-8.808|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.457||0.107||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.107
91893490|NCT01160289|183681733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-7.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.349||0.178||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.178
91893491|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.867||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.867
91893492|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.931||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.931
91893493|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.158||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.158
91893494|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.172||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.172
91893495|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401||0.579||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.579
91893496|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.115||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.115
91893497|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.668||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.668
91953230|NCT01945034|183802960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.0||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|20.91||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||20.91|-0.92|0.072
91953231|NCT01945034|183802960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|4.7||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||4.70|-15.40|0.296
91953232|NCT01945034|183802960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.53|-3.16||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-3.16|-27.53|0.014
91953233|NCT01945034|183802961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo||0.30|-0.10|0.305
91953234|NCT01945034|183802961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.29||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.29|-0.08|0.261
91953235|NCT01945034|183802961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.22||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms.||0.22|-0.22|0.996
91953236|NCT01945034|183802961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.36||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.36|-0.08|0.210
91953237|NCT01945034|183802961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.27||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.27|-0.14|0.556
91953238|NCT01945034|183802961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.17||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms.||0.17|-0.33|0.534
91953239|NCT01945034|183802962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.1||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.10|-0.27|0.354
91953240|NCT01945034|183802962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.07||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.07|-0.28|0.237
91953241|NCT01945034|183802962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.19||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms.||0.19|-0.23|0.871
91953242|NCT01945034|183802962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.0||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||-0.00|-0.43|0.050
91953243|NCT01945034|183802962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.15||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.15|-0.25|0.640
91953244|NCT01945034|183802962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.41||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms.||0.41|-0.08|0.180
91953245|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.51|||ANOVA|||At Rest 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.51|-0.38|0.771
91953246|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.07|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||-0.07|-0.88|0.022
91953247|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.05|-1.03|0.032
91953248|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.55|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.55|-0.38|0.720
91953249|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.15|-0.71|0.194
91953250|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.15|-0.89|0.163
91953251|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.64|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.64|-0.40|0.644
91953252|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.11|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.11|-0.85|0.129
91953253|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.09|-1.07|0.096
91953254|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.57|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.57|-0.50|0.905
91953255|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.22|-0.77|0.279
91953256|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.29|-0.90|0.315
91953257|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.91|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.91|-0.19|0.203
91953258|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.18|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.18|-0.83|0.207
91953259|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.07|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.07|-1.30|0.030
91953260|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.84|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.84|-0.32|0.372
91953261|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.36|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.36|-0.70|0.532
91893498|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.141||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.141
91893499|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.734||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.734
91893500|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.477||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.477
91893501|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.235||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.235
91953262|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.21|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.21|-1.08|0.189
91953263|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.24|0.264
91953264|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 4 hour Day 1:The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.22|-0.81|0.260
91953265|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.01|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.01|-1.23|0.054
91953266|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.81|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.81|-0.37|0.456
91953267|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.68|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.68|-0.42|0.639
91953268|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.57|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.57|-0.75|0.780
91953269|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.07|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.07|-0.04|0.071
91953270|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.32|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.32|-0.70|0.468
91953271|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.08|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.08|-1.33|0.027
91953272|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|-0.11|0.107
91953273|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.53|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.53|-0.57|0.947
91953274|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.16|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.16|-1.18|0.134
91953275|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.12|0.017
91953276|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.41|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.41|-0.60|0.715
91953277|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.15|-1.39|0.015
91953278|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.07|0.027
91893502|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.111||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.111
91893503|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.31||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.310
91893504|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.09||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.090
91893505|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.03||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.030
91893506|NCT01160289|183681734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326||0.004||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.004
91893507|NCT01160289|183681736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level \<340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.656
91893508|NCT01160289|183681736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level \<340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.460
91893509|NCT01160289|183681736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level \<340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.198
91893510|NCT01160289|183681736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91893511|NCT01160289|183681736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.671
91893512|NCT01160289|183681736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.259
91893513|NCT01160289|183681736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.441
91893514|NCT01160289|183681736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.433||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.433
91893515|NCT01160289|183681737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.13||||0.423||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.423
91893516|NCT01160289|183681737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.12||||0.443||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.443
91893517|NCT01160289|183681737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.084||||0.599||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.599
91893518|NCT01160289|183681737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.334||||0.029||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.029
91893519|NCT01160289|183681738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|-0.152||||0.148||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.148
91893520|NCT01160289|183681738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.216||||0.033||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.033
91893521|NCT01160289|183681738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.124||||0.224||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.224
91893522|NCT01160289|183681738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.189||||0.056||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.056
91893523|NCT01160289|183681738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.211||||0.031||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.031
91893524|NCT01160289|183681738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.227||||0.017||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.017
91893525|NCT01160289|183681738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.016||||0.866||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.866
91953279|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.65|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.65|-0.42|0.660
91893526|NCT01160289|183681738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.032||||0.726||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.726
91893527|NCT01160289|183681739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|-9.014|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
91893528|NCT01160289|183681739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-18.547|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
91893529|NCT01160289|183681739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-9.216|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
91893530|NCT01160289|183681739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-18.75|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
91893531|NCT01160289|183681739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.977||||0.776||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.776
91893532|NCT01160289|183681739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.78||||0.814||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.814
91893533|NCT01160289|183681739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-1.629||||0.627||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.627
91893534|NCT01160289|183681739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.128||||0.968||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.968
91893535|NCT01160289|183681740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|-0.006||||0.984||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.984
91893536|NCT01160289|183681740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.465||||0.076||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.076
91893537|NCT01160289|183681740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.387||||0.142||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.142
91893538|NCT01160289|183681740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.072||||0.776||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.776
91893539|NCT01160289|183681741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|5.031||||0.103||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.103
91893540|NCT01160289|183681741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean treatment difference|-3.225||||0.277||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.277
91893541|NCT01160289|183681741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|7.056||||0.019||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.019
91893542|NCT01160289|183681741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-1.201||||0.676||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.676
91893543|NCT01156792|183681750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|||=|0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.02|=0.268
91893544|NCT01156792|183681750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.00|=0.080
91893545|NCT01156792|183681750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|0.01|=0.017
91893546|NCT01156792|183681750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|0.03|=0.002
91893547|NCT01156792|183681751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.946|||=|0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.81|-4.91|=0.751
91893548|NCT01156792|183681751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.771|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|11.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.51|0.03|=0.049
91893549|NCT01156792|183681751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.983|||=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|11.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.32|-1.35|=0.123
91893550|NCT01156792|183681751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.93|18.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.35|5.93|<0.001
91893551|NCT01156792|183681752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.651|||=|0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.27|-3.97|=0.563
91893552|NCT01156792|183681752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|10.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.67|-0.47|=0.072
91893553|NCT01156792|183681752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.822|||=|0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.02|-1.37|=0.126
91893554|NCT01156792|183681752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.292|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|16.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.38|4.21|=0.001
91893555|NCT01156792|183681753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|1.06||||||||1.06|-9.36|
91893556|NCT01156792|183681753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|5.5||||||||5.50|-6.22|
91893557|NCT01156792|183681754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|||=|0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.18|=0.957
91893558|NCT01156792|183681754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.28|=0.213
91893559|NCT01156792|183681754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|||=|0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.20|=0.647
91893560|NCT01156792|183681754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|||=|0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.17|=0.894
91893561|NCT01156792|183681755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|||=|0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.23|=0.811
91893562|NCT01156792|183681755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|||=|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.34|=0.200
91893563|NCT01156792|183681755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.26|=0.415
91893564|NCT01156792|183681755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|||=|0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.26|=0.358
91893565|NCT01156792|183681756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.666|||=|0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|7.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.57|-2.24|=0.285
91893566|NCT01156792|183681756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|10.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.22|0.38|=0.035
91893567|NCT01156792|183681756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.036|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.70|-0.63|=0.090
91893568|NCT01156792|183681756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.602|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|9.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.14|0.06|=0.047
91893569|NCT01156792|183681757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.014|||=|0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.67|-3.64|=0.668
91893570|NCT01156792|183681757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.349|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|7.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.98|-1.29|=0.156
91893571|NCT01156792|183681757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.496|||=|0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.82|-3.83|=0.822
91893572|NCT01156792|183681757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||=|0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-2.94|=0.555
91893573|NCT01156792|183681758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.992|||=|0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.33|-2.35|=0.367
91893574|NCT01156792|183681758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.147|||=|0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.49|-2.20|=0.332
91893575|NCT01156792|183681758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.331|||=|0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.55|-1.88|=0.277
91893576|NCT01156792|183681758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.521|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.63|-2.59|=0.467
91893577|NCT01156792|183681759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.575|||=|0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.80|-3.65|=0.789
91893578|NCT01156792|183681759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.669|||=|0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|7.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.87|-0.54|=0.087
91893579|NCT01156792|183681759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.24|-3.84|=0.923
91893580|NCT01156792|183681759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.137|||=|0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|-5.08|=0.571
91893581|NCT01156792|183681760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.014|||=|0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.67|-3.64|=0.668
91893582|NCT01156792|183681760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.349|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|7.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.98|-1.29|=0.156
91893583|NCT01156792|183681760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.496|||=|0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.82|-3.83|=0.822
91893584|NCT01156792|183681760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||=|0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-2.94|=0.555
91893585|NCT01156792|183681761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.408||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.408
91893586|NCT01156792|183681761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.138||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.138
91893587|NCT01156792|183681761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.797||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.797
91893588|NCT01156792|183681761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.408||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.408
91893589|NCT00768079|183681762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|||||||Fisher Exact|||Non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.312
91893590|NCT00768079|183681762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
91893591|NCT00768079|183681762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.312
91893592|NCT00768079|183681762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
91893593|NCT00768079|183681764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.343
91893594|NCT00768079|183681764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
91893595|NCT00768079|183681764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.343
91893596|NCT00768079|183681764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
91953280|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.11|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.11|-1.18|0.107
91953281|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.13|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.13|0.10|0.020
91953282|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.40|-0.55|0.749
91953283|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.12|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.12|-1.27|0.019
91953284|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.96|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.96|-0.16|0.163
91953285|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.61|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.61|-0.43|0.727
91953286|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.32|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.32|-0.94|0.336
91953287|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.16|0.174
91893597|NCT00768079|183681764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.474|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.474
91893598|NCT00768079|183681764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
91953288|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.21|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.21|-0.73|0.277
91953289|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.04|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.04|-1.19|0.035
91953290|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.60|-0.50|0.858
91953291|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.42|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.42|-0.60|0.724
91953292|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.48|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.48|-0.76|0.651
91953293|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.05|-0.02|0.059
91953294|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.42|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.42|-0.57|0.766
91893599|NCT00768079|183681764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.474|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.474
91893600|NCT00768079|183681764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
91893601|NCT02585232|183681823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANCOVA|Caregiver education, cognitive status of the person with dementia, and baseline caregiver burden scores were included in the model as covariates.||||||.483
91893602|NCT02585232|183681824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||ANCOVA|Caregiver education, cognitive status of the person with dementia, and baseline Dyadic Adjustment Scale scores were included as covariates.||Only caregivers that were currently or previously in a romantic relationship (e.g., spouses, partners) with the person with dementia reported on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (i.e., N = 20, n = 9 in CC group and n = 11 in CC+C group).||||0.169
91893603|NCT02585232|183681825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline quality of life scores, education, and cognitive status were included as covariates in the model.||||||0.763
91893604|NCT02585232|183681826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline depression scores, cognitive status scores (i.e., MoCA), and education were included in the model as covariates.||||||0.780
91893605|NCT00682890|183681866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||P value on change at 3 months for placebo group||||0.63
91893606|NCT00682890|183681866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
91893607|NCT00682890|183681867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.51
91893608|NCT00682890|183681867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
91893609|NCT03028220|183681872|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91893610|NCT03028220|183681873|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91893611|NCT03028220|183681874|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91893612|NCT03028220|183681875|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91893613|NCT03028220|183681876|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91893614|NCT03028220|183681877|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
91893615|NCT03028220|183681878|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
91893616|NCT03028220|183681879|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.570
91893617|NCT03028220|183681880|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91893618|NCT03028220|183681881|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.910
91893619|NCT03028220|183681882|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.460
91893620|NCT03028220|183681883|OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.191
91893621|NCT00141219|183681884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.115||||0.289||95.0|0.785|1.583||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value in above table was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing Pregabalin and Placebo adjusted for center.|RR estimates relative responder rate between Pregabalin and Placebo (the ratio of the former responder rate to the latter). Estimated RR was center-adjusted ie, assumed common RR in all centers, then a weighted average of center specific RRs computed|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference in each of the centers.||1.583|0.785|0.289
91893622|NCT00141219|183681885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.644||||0.041||95.0|0.915|2.954||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value in above table was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing Pregabalin and Placebo adjusted for center.|RR estimates relative responder rate between Pregabalin and Placebo (the ratio of the former responder rate to the latter). Estimated RR was center-adjusted ie, assumed common RR in all centers, then a weighted average of center specific RRs computed|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference in each of the centers.||2.954|0.915|0.041
91893623|NCT00141219|183681886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.049||95.0|-1.0|0.0||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from the general linear model with treatment and center fitted as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypotheses stated there was no difference in pregabalin and placebo in the primary endpoint versus the alternative that there was. The target sample size was 234 subjects (156 and 78 respectively pregabalin vs placebo using a 2:1 ratio). The calculations assumed a 2-sided comparison at 0.05 alpha, 80% power and 3% dropout. Also, a treatment difference of 1 point and a standard deviation for endpoint mean pain scores of 2.5 were assumed based on previous studies.||-0.00|-1.00|0.049
91893624|NCT00141219|183681886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.729||95.0||||Interaction p-value based on adding interaction term to the main model.|General Linear Model|"In supportive model 1, a treatment by center independent variable added to the main model."||This was a supportive analysis of the primary endpoint to determine if the main results were generalizable across centers.||||0.729
91893625|NCT00141219|183681886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.979||95.0||||Interaction p-value based on adding interaction term to the main model.|General Linear Model|"In supportive model 2, a treatment by baseline mean pain independent variable added to the main model."||This was a supportive analysis of the primary endpoint to determine if the main results were generalizable across different baseline values.||||0.979
91893626|NCT00141219|183681887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.077||95.0|-1.0|0.05||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center fitted as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.05|-1.00|0.077
91893627|NCT00141219|183681888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.042||95.0|-0.75|-0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Mean Pain Score Weeks 1 to 8~Overall Comparison (8-week average)~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.01|-0.75|0.042
91893628|NCT00141219|183681888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.071||95.0|-0.79|0.03||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 1 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.03|-0.79|0.071
91893629|NCT00141219|183681888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.149||95.0|-0.72|0.11||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 2 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.11|-0.72|0.149
91953295|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.01|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.01|-1.19|0.053
91953296|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.92|-0.21|0.212
91953297|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.55|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.55|-0.49|0.911
91953298|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.3|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.30|-0.96|0.305
91953299|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.02|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.02|-0.05|0.075
91953300|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.6|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.60|-0.39|0.684
91953301|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.21|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.21|-0.98|0.208
91953302|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.85|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.85|-0.27|0.304
91953303|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.76|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.76|-0.27|0.356
91953304|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.58|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.58|-0.67|0.876
91953305|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.15|0.10|0.020
91953306|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.47|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.47|-0.50|0.940
91953307|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.06|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.06|-1.23|0.032
91953308|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.95|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.95|-0.21|0.206
91953309|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.81|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.81|-0.26|0.310
91953310|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.55|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.55|-0.74|0.771
91953311|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.24|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.24|0.13|0.016
91953312|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.54|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.54|-0.48|0.905
91953313|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.03|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.03|-1.28|0.039
91953314|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-0.27|0.276
91953315|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.82|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.82|-0.29|0.343
91953316|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.6|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.60|-0.73|0.849
91953317|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.29|0.19|0.009
91953318|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.43|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.43|-0.58|0.763
91953319|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.2|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.20|-1.43|0.010
91953320|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|-0.10|0.105
91953321|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.73|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.73|-0.38|0.533
91953322|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.35|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.35|-0.99|0.348
91953323|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.13|0.016
91953324|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.33|-0.69|0.483
91953325|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.25|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.25|-1.47|0.006
91953326|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.0|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.00|-0.19|0.177
91953327|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.70|-0.40|0.586
91953328|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.41|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.41|-0.92|0.448
91953329|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|0.02|0.043
91953330|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.39|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.39|-0.59|0.688
91953331|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.06|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.06|-1.25|0.032
91953332|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.99|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(AM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.99|-0.19|0.179
91953333|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.69|-0.40|0.609
91953334|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.4|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.40|-0.92|0.435
91953335|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.26|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.26|0.10|0.023
91953336|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.53|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.53|-0.54|0.987
91953337|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.03|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.03|-1.33|0.040
91953338|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.94|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.94|-0.31|0.319
91953339|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.69|-0.47|0.712
91953340|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.49|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.49|-0.91|0.557
91953341|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.28|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.28|0.14|0.015
91953342|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.79|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.79|-0.26|0.326
91953343|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.19|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.19|-1.08|0.167
91953344|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-0.33|0.350
91953345|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-0.23|0.235
91953346|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.76|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(PM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.76|-0.65|0.881
91953347|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.16|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.16|0.04|0.036
91953348|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.63|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.63|-0.40|0.656
91953349|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.14|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.14|-1.11|0.130
91953350|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.95|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.95|-0.30|0.304
91953351|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.78|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.78|-0.37|0.491
91953352|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.57|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.57|-0.82|0.726
91953353|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.07|0.029
91953354|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.68|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.68|-0.39|0.585
91953355|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.15|-1.15|0.131
91953356|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.04|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.04|-0.24|0.215
91953357|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.94|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.94|-0.24|0.244
91953358|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.66|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.66|-0.76|0.885
91953359|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.13|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.13|-0.04|0.067
91953360|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.73|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.73|-0.35|0.500
91953361|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.29|-1.02|0.276
91953362|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.92|-0.38|0.413
91953363|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.83|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.83|-0.37|0.448
91953364|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.69|-0.76|0.917
91953365|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.03|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.03|-0.13|0.132
91953366|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.72|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.72|-0.35|0.505
91953367|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.38|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.38|-0.92|0.422
91953368|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.76|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.76|-0.54|0.747
91953369|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.34|0.386
91953370|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.89|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.89|-0.57|0.668
91953371|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.08|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.08|-0.09|0.099
91953372|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.79|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.79|-0.29|0.365
91953373|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.41|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.41|-0.90|0.463
91953374|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.73|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.73|-0.60|0.845
91953375|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.02|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.02|-0.21|0.199
91953376|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.08|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||1.08|-0.41|0.375
91953377|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.27|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.27|0.07|0.028
91953378|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.92|-0.18|0.188
91953379|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.37|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.37|-0.97|0.375
91953380|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.89|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.89|-0.47|0.552
91953381|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.12|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.12|-0.14|0.126
91953382|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||1.05|-0.47|0.460
91953383|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|-0.09|0.095
91953384|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.94|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.94|-0.14|0.146
91953385|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.56|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.56|-0.75|0.769
91953386|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.96|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.96|-0.39|0.405
91953387|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.2|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.20|-0.05|0.073
91953388|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.04|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||1.04|-0.47|0.458
91953389|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.39|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.39|0.20|0.009
91953390|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.90|-0.20|0.209
91953391|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.22|-1.11|0.193
91953392|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.18|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.18|-0.18|0.149
91953393|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.06|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.06|-0.21|0.186
91953394|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.69|-0.84|0.845
91953395|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.14|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.14|-0.04|0.067
91953396|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.22|0.242
91893630|NCT00141219|183681888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.057||95.0|-0.82|0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 3 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.01|-0.82|0.057
91893631|NCT00141219|183681888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.044||95.0|-0.85|-0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 4 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.01|-0.85|0.044
91893632|NCT00141219|183681888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.051||95.0|-0.85|0.0||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 5 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.00|-0.85|0.051
91893633|NCT00141219|183681888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.178||95.0|-0.72|0.13||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 6 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.13|-0.72|0.178
91893634|NCT00141219|183681888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.104||95.0|-0.78|0.07||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 7 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.07|-0.78|0.104
91893635|NCT00141219|183681888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.039||95.0|-0.88|-0.02||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.02|-0.88|0.039
91893636|NCT00141219|183681889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.044||95.0|-0.74|-0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Duration Adjusted Average Change (DAAC)~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.01|-0.74|0.044
91893637|NCT00141219|183681890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.018||95.0|-1.19|-0.11||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.11|-1.19|0.018
91893638|NCT00141219|183681891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.024||95.0|-0.96|-0.07||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Weeks 1 to 8 Mean Sleep Score~Overall Comparison (8-week average)~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.07|-0.96|0.024
91893639|NCT00141219|183681891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.12||95.0|-0.86|0.1||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 1 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.10|-0.86|0.120
91893640|NCT00141219|183681891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.041||95.0|-0.99|-0.02||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 2 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.02|-0.99|0.041
91893641|NCT00141219|183681891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.017||95.0|-1.07|-0.1||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 3 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.10|-1.07|0.017
91893642|NCT00141219|183681891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.033||95.0|-1.02|-0.04||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 4 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.04|-1.02|0.033
91893643|NCT00141219|183681891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.078||95.0|-0.93|0.05||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 5 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.05|-0.93|0.078
91893644|NCT00141219|183681891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.038||95.0|-1.01|-0.03||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 6 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.03|-1.01|0.038
91893645|NCT00141219|183681891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.037||95.0|-1.02|-0.03||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 7 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.03|-1.02|0.037
91953397|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.43|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.43|-0.88|0.498
91953398|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.02|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.02|-0.34|0.330
91953399|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.13|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.13|-0.14|0.124
91953400|NCT01945034|183802963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.92|-0.61|0.687
91953401|NCT01945034|183802964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|4.95|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||4.95|-0.85|0.166
91953402|NCT01945034|183802964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-4.42|0.199
91953403|NCT01945034|183802964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-0.56|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.56|-7.04|0.022
91893646|NCT00141219|183681891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.015||95.0|-1.11|-0.12||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.12|-1.11|0.015
91893647|NCT00141219|183681892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.639||0.034||95.0|-10.82|-0.42||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Disturbance~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.42|-10.82|0.034
91953404|NCT01945034|183802964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.79|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||4.79|-1.30|0.260
91953405|NCT01945034|183802964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|2.32|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||2.32|-3.31|0.729
91953406|NCT01945034|183802964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|1.16|||ANOVA|||Weight Bearing over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||1.16|-5.64|0.196
91953407|NCT01945034|183802964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|47.28|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||47.28|2.49|0.030
91953408|NCT01945034|183802964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.2||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.24|-5.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||-5.23|-55.24|0.018
91953409|NCT01945034|183802964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.98|15.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||15.29|-25.98|0.611
91953410|NCT01945034|183802964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.8||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|37.36|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||37.36|-9.80|0.251
91953411|NCT01945034|183802964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.4||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|26.26|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||26.26|-17.37|0.689
91953412|NCT01945034|183802964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.3||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.69|17.01|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||17.01|-35.69|0.486
91953413|NCT01945034|183802965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|71.18|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 3 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||71.18|5.90|0.021
91953414|NCT01945034|183802965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.02|22.12|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 3 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||22.12|-38.02|0.603
91953415|NCT01945034|183802965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.93|-10.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 3 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-10.05|-82.93|0.013
91953416|NCT01945034|183802966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|87.7||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.48|161.85|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 7 days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||161.85|13.48|0.021
91953417|NCT01945034|183802966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.8||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.59|80.11|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 7 days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||80.11|-56.59|0.735
91953418|NCT01945034|183802966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-75.9||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.73|6.93|||ANOVA|||At Rest Over 7 days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||6.93|-158.73|0.072
91953419|NCT01945034|183802966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.0||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.43|126.52|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing Over 7 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||126.52|-34.43|0.261
91953420|NCT01945034|183802966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|37.3||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.13|111.8|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing Over 7 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||111.80|-37.13|0.325
91953421|NCT01945034|183802966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.7||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.64|81.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing Over 7 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||81.22|-98.64|0.849
91953422|NCT01945034|183802967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.49|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.49|0.0|0.042
91953423|NCT01945034|183802967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.4|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.40|-0.04|0.114
91953424|NCT01945034|183802967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms.||0.20|-0.34|0.598
91953425|NCT01945034|183802967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.19|-0.24|0.833
91953426|NCT01945034|183802967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.22|-0.18|0.853
91953427|NCT01945034|183802967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms.||0.29|-0.20|0.733
91953428|NCT01945034|183802969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.97|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to First Perceptible Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the Proportional Hazards (PH) model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||1.97|1.07|0.016
91953429|NCT01945034|183802969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to First Perceptible Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.95|0.53|0.022
91953430|NCT01945034|183802969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.69|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to First Perceptible Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.69|0.34|< 0.001
91953431|NCT01945034|183802969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.51|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to Meaningful Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||2.51|1.27|< 0.001
91953432|NCT01945034|183802969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.88|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to Meaningful Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.88|0.41|0.009
91953433|NCT01945034|183802969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.52|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to Meaningful Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.52|0.22|< 0.001
91953434|NCT01945034|183802971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for BLPSR and site block.||||||0.479
91953435|NCT01945034|183802971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for BLPSR and site block.||||||0.279
91953436|NCT01945034|183802971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for BLPSR and site block.||||||0.129
91953437|NCT02277665|183802984|SUPERIORITY|Chi-square|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.82|||Chi-squared|||||1.82|.17|= 0.33
91953438|NCT02277665|183802985|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
91953439|NCT02277665|183802986|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.35|||Chi-squared|||||1.35|0.15|= 0.16
91953440|NCT02277665|183802987|SUPERIORITY||Means Ratio|0.97||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.66|0.87
91953441|NCT02277665|183802988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
91953442|NCT02277665|183802989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91953443|NCT00463385|183803010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
91953444|NCT00463385|183803010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
91953445|NCT00463385|183803010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.758||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
91953446|NCT02354352|183803067|NON_INFERIORITY|Using a Type I error rate of 5%, we conducted a power calculation using a non-inferiority test on 12-month change in Ecc. If there is truly no difference in the 12-month Ecc change between the spironolactone and eplerenone groups, 46 patients (23 in each group) would result in at least 80% power to ensure that the lower limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval for the true difference between the spironolactone and eplerenone groups to be above the non-inferiority limit of -1.75.||||||0.5867|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5867
91953447|NCT04436497|183803147|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.307||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. zilucoplan slowed progression) was 0.2418. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by zilucoplan relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.307|0.874|
91953448|NCT04436497|183803149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.819||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Zilucoplan 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.48|-4.66|0.5495
91953449|NCT04436497|183803150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.409||0.7602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|5.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Zilucoplan 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||5.65|-7.73|0.7602
91953450|NCT04436497|183803151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6891|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6891
91953451|NCT01335620|183803155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Compare baseline to 24 weeks||||0.018
91953452|NCT02067728|183803163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0029
91953453|NCT02067728|183803164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3875
91953454|NCT02067728|183803165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91953455|NCT02067728|183803166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91953456|NCT02067728|183803167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
91953457|NCT02067728|183803168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.9|||Chi-squared|||||4.9|2.2|<0.0001
91953458|NCT02067728|183803169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.5|||Chi-squared|||||4.5|2.0|<0.0001
91953459|NCT02067728|183803172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4835
91953460|NCT02067728|183803173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5880
91953461|NCT00585468|183803181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0163
91953462|NCT00585468|183803182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91953463|NCT00585468|183803184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.146
91953464|NCT00585468|183803185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4937|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4937
91953465|NCT00585468|183803186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9669|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9669
91953466|NCT00585468|183803188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9607|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9607
91953467|NCT00978120|183803190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
91953468|NCT00978120|183803191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
91893648|NCT00141219|183681893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.309||0.128||95.0|-1.47|11.58||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Snoring Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||11.58|-1.47|0.128
91893649|NCT00141219|183681894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.887||0.103||95.0|-6.81|0.63||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Awaken Short of Breath or Headache~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.63|-6.81|0.103
91893650|NCT00141219|183681895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.018||95.0|0.08|0.8||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Quantity~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.80|0.08|0.018
91893651|NCT00141219|183681896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.504||95.0|0.67|2.24||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|OR estimated from model with Optimal sleep status (Yes/No) as response variable, and treatment, baseline Optimal sleep status as explanatory variables|"The OR estimates ratio of Odds of optimal sleep between Pregabalin and Placebo (ie, the former to the latter). Odds of optimal sleep in treatment group is ratio of Probability of having optimal sleep vs Probability of Not having optimal sleep"|"Week 8 Optimal Sleep~Optimal Sleep is a binary outcome derived from Sleep Quantity (SQ): the response is YES (or 1) if SQ = 7 or 8 hours per night.~Odds ratio measured the odds of optimal sleep in pregabalin to that in placebo.~Standard Error of the Mean equals Standard Error of the Odds Ratio (OR)."||2.24|0.67|.504
91953469|NCT00978120|183803194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.470
91953470|NCT00978120|183803195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.120
91893652|NCT00141219|183681897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.796||0.571||95.0|-5.33|9.63||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Adequacy~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||9.63|-5.33|0.571
91893653|NCT00141219|183681898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.349||0.046||95.0|0.08|9.34||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Somnolence~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||9.34|0.08|0.046
91953471|NCT00978120|183803196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.284
91953472|NCT00978120|183803197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91953473|NCT00978120|183803198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.341
91953474|NCT00978120|183803199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.020
91953475|NCT00978120|183803200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
91953476|NCT00978120|183803201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.173
91953477|NCT00978120|183803202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.362
91953478|NCT00978120|183803203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91953479|NCT00978120|183803204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
91953480|NCT00978120|183803205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
91953481|NCT01298323|183803222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-Statistic|1.29||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|16.37||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 10%|t-test, 2 sided|||||16.37|-3.44|0.199
91953482|NCT03655951|183803238|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.20
91953483|NCT03655951|183803239|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.69
91953484|NCT03655951|183803240|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.48
91953485|NCT03655951|183803241|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.36
91953486|NCT03655951|183803242|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.48
91953487|NCT03655951|183803243|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.41
91893654|NCT00141219|183681899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.044||0.3||95.0|-6.15|1.91||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Overall Sleep Problem~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||1.91|-6.15|0.300
91893655|NCT00141219|183681900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0325||0.429||95.0|-0.038|0.09||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Utility Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.090|-0.038|0.429
91893656|NCT00141219|183681901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.375||0.142||95.0|-1.18|8.18||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint VAS Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||8.18|-1.18|0.142
91893657|NCT00141219|183681902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.038||95.0|-1.66|-0.05||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Anxiety Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.05|-1.66|0.038
91893658|NCT00141219|183681903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.664||95.0|-1.05|0.67||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Depression Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.67|-1.05|0.664
91893659|NCT00141219|183681904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.473||95.0||||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance. p-value is from comparing Pregabalin versus Placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"To apply CMH, each category is given a numerical score; the method of modified rdit used to assign numeric scores."||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test on the null hypothesis of no treatment difference in all centers. CMH test comparing Pregabalin to Placebo adjusted for center.||||0.473
91893660|NCT00141219|183681905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.119||95.0||||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"To apply CMH, each category is given a numerical score; the method of modified rdit used to assign numeric scores."||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test on the null hypothesis of no treatment difference in all centers. CMH test comparing Pregabalin to Placebo adjusted for center.||||0.119
91893661|NCT00662818|183681947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.25|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||4.25|0.62|0.329
91893662|NCT00662818|183681948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||3.50|0.59|0.420
91893663|NCT00662818|183681952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||2.85|0.52|0.648
91893664|NCT00662818|183681953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||2.07|0.31|0.647
91893665|NCT00662818|183681954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||4.60|0.73|0.201
91893666|NCT00662818|183681955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||3.85|0.47|0.579
91893667|NCT02842151|183681993|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in A-Constant is manifest refraction minus autorefraction. The criteria for equivalence (based on paired difference t-test) was established if the bounds of the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) on the difference was contained within the equivalence range (-0.15, 0.15).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.346|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.13||||||To demonstrate equivalency at Site 1, A-constant with manifest refraction was compared to A-constant with autorefraction.||0.13|-0.03|
91893668|NCT02842151|183681993|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in A-Constant is manifest refraction minus autorefraction. The criteria for equivalence (based on paired difference t-test) was established if the bounds of the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) on the difference was contained within the equivalence range (-0.15, 0.15).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.595|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.07||||||To demonstrate equivalency at Site 2, A-constant with manifest refraction was compared to A-constant with autorefraction.||0.07|-0.21|
91893669|NCT02842151|183681993|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in A-Constant is manifest refraction minus autorefraction. The criteria for equivalence (based on paired difference t-test) was established if the bounds of the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) on the difference was contained within the equivalence range (-0.15, 0.15).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|-0.04||||||To demonstrate equivalency at Site 3, A-constant with manifest refraction was compared to A-constant with autorefraction.||-0.04|-0.22|
91893670|NCT01781078|183682007|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the success rate between the 2 randomized groups was compared to 10% using a one-sided Farrington-Manning score test for non-inferiority at a significance level of 0.05.|difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.9|||Farrington-Manning score test|||||3.9||<0.0001
91893671|NCT01781078|183682008|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the success rate between the 2 randomized groups was compared to 10% using a one-sided Farrington-Manning score test for non-inferiority at a significance level of 0.05.|difference|-0.1||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.0|||Farrington-Manning score test|||||5.0||0.0006
91893672|NCT01781078|183682008|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the success rate between the 2 randomized groups was compared to 10% using a one-sided Farrington-Manning score test for non-inferiority at a significance level of 0.05.|difference|0.0||||0.0002|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.7|||Farrington-Manning score test|||||4.7||0.0002
91893673|NCT02217501|183682020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6595||||||Alpha of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6595
91893674|NCT03748992|183682034|OTHER|Since no hypothesis testing was planned, no power analysis was required||||||||||||Non Applicable||Non Applicable||This was a single arm trial. there is no comparator group.|The overall response rates were calculated, and exact binomial confidence intervals was constructed.|||
91893675|NCT03748992|183682036|OTHER|Since no hypothesis testing was planned, no power analysis was required||||||||||||||||This was a single arm trial. there is no comparator group.|The overall response rates were calculated, and exact binomial confidence intervals was constructed.|||
91893676|NCT03924765|183682042|OTHER|A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on different exoskeleton assistance strategies (including the baseline of not wearing the exoskeleton) on the subject's overground self-selected walking speed by setting an alpha value to 0.05.||||||5e-06|||||||ANOVA|||Primary Outcome Measure - Arm/Group 1||||0.000005
91893677|NCT03924765|183682043|OTHER|A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on different exoskeleton assistance strategies (including the baseline of not wearing the exoskeleton) on the subject's step length asymmetry by setting an alpha value to 0.05.||||||0.131|||||||ANOVA|||Secondary Outcome Measure - Arm/Group 1||||0.131
91893678|NCT03691909|183682045|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.09||||||0.743
91893679|NCT03691909|183682046|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.10||||||0.714
91893680|NCT03691909|183682047|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.37||||||0.183
91893681|NCT03691909|183682048|OTHER|||||||0.775|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.05||||||0.775
91893682|NCT03691909|183682049|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.93||Tender Joint Count||||0.0008
91893683|NCT03691909|183682049|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.83||Swollen Joint Count||||0.003
91893684|NCT05121246|183682092|EQUIVALENCE|CI 90% of least squares geometric means must be entirely contained within the range \[80%-125%\].||||||||||||||||PK parameters will be determined using a non-compartmental analysis method. Bioequivalence between MB05 and EU-Synagis®, between MB05 and US-Synagis® and between EU-Synagis® and US-Synagis® will be established by analysis of variance for the PK parameters AUC0-inf, and Cmax.|PK parameters for each participant will be listed and summarised by treatment using descriptive statistics.|||
91893685|NCT05121246|183682093|EQUIVALENCE|CI 90% of least squares geometric means must be entirely contained within the range \[80%-125%\].||||||||||||||||PK parameters will be determined using a non-compartmental analysis method. Bioequivalence between MB05 and EU-Synagis®, between MB05 and US-Synagis® and between EU-Synagis® and US-Synagis® will be established by analysis of variance for the PK parameters AUC0-inf, and Cmax.|PK parameters for each participant will be listed and summarised by treatment using descriptive statistics.|||
91893686|NCT05038163|183682102|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.39|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.39|-0.63|<0.001
91893687|NCT05038163|183682102|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.33|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.33|-0.57|<0.001
91893688|NCT05038163|183682102|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.24|-0.44|<0.001
91893689|NCT05038163|183682103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.11|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.11|-0.55|0.003
91893690|NCT05038163|183682103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.35|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.35|-0.87|<0.001
91893691|NCT05038163|183682103|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.17|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.17|-0.48|<0.001
91893692|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.32|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Female or other||-0.32|-0.67|<0.001
91893693|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.36|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Male||-0.36|-0.70|<0.001
91893694|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Female or other||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
91893695|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.32|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Male||-0.32|-0.65|<0.001
91893696|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Female or other||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
91893697|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.27|||Regression, Linear|||Gender subgroup: Male|Unit: $ per 12-pack|-0.27|-0.57|<0.001
91893698|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-1.12|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native||-1.12|-3.34|<0.001
91893699|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.23|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Asian||-0.23|-1.15|<0.001
91893700|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.8|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander||0.80|0.80|<0.001
91893701|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.14|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Black or African American||1.14|-0.24|<0.001
91893702|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.37|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: White||-0.37|-0.63|<0.001
91893703|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: More Than One Race||-0.25|-1.67|<0.001
91893704|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.4|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported||0.40|-1.16|<0.001
91893705|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.19|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native||0.19|-1.07|<0.001
91893706|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.17|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Asian||-0.17|-0.91|<0.001
91893707|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander||0.00|0.00|<0.001
91893708|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.68|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Black or African American||0.68|-0.36|<0.001
91893709|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.31|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: white||-0.31|-0.57|<0.001
91893710|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.32|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: More Than One Race||-0.32|-2.04|<0.001
91893711|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.14|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported||0.14|-0.90|<0.001
91893712|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.04|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native||-0.04|-1.54|<0.001
91893713|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.12|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Asian||-0.12|-0.90|<0.001
91893714|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.8|||Regression, Logistic||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander||0.80|0.80|<0.001
91893715|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.71|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Black or African American||0.71|-0.79|<0.001
91893716|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.22|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: White||-0.22|-0.44|<0.001
91893717|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.06|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: More Than One Race||-0.06|-0.76|<0.001
91893718|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported||0.31|-0.85|<0.001
91893719|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.91|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic||0.91|-0.45|<0.001
91893720|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.39|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic||-0.39|-0.65|<0.001
91893721|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.38|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say||-0.38|-1.48|<0.001
91893722|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.38|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic||0.38|-0.70|<0.001
91893723|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.33|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic||-0.33|-0.57|<0.001
91893724|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.16|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say||-0.16|-1.42|<0.001
91893725|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.41|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic||0.41|-0.40|0.980
91893726|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic||-0.25|-0.47|<0.001
91893727|NCT05038163|183682104|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity Subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say||0.25|-1.03|<0.001
91893728|NCT05453201|183682110|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the functional disability subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.06
91893729|NCT05453201|183682110|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the symptom severity subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.004
91893730|NCT05453201|183682110|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the perceived overall health now subscale (1 item) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.10
91893731|NCT05453201|183682111|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 1 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.46
91953488|NCT03655951|183803244|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.87
91893732|NCT05453201|183682111|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 2 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.20
91893733|NCT05453201|183682111|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 3 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.42
91893734|NCT05453201|183682111|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 4 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.84
91893735|NCT05453201|183682111|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 5 (part 1) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.25
91893736|NCT05453201|183682111|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 6 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.26
91893737|NCT05453201|183682112|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon test|||This analysis uses the SBQ-R total score from pre- to post-intervention.||||.89
91893738|NCT05453201|183682113|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the MOCS (part A) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.80
91893739|NCT05453201|183682114|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the FSCQ score (all items) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.92
91893740|NCT05453201|183682114|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon test (paired)|||This analysis uses the FSCQ similarity subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.90
91893741|NCT05453201|183682114|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the FSCQ vividness subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.74
91893742|NCT05453201|183682114|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the FSCQ positivity subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.44
91893743|NCT05453201|183682115|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the PHQ-9 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.003
91893744|NCT05453201|183682116|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the GAD-7 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.01
91893745|NCT05453201|183682117|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the QOLS from pre- to post-intervention.||||.04
91893746|NCT05453201|183682118|OTHER|"The AIM measures an intervention's acceptability. Therefore, the goal is not change over time, the goal is to assess, descriptively, post-intervention acceptability. Because we assessed this measure at baseline (with expectations of the future treatment), we provide a paired t-test with the AIM at pre- and post-intervention."||||||0.24|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.24
91893747|NCT05453201|183682118|OTHER|"The IAM measures an intervention's appropriateness. Therefore, the goal is not change over time, the goal is to assess, descriptively, post-intervention appropriateness. Because we assessed this measure at baseline (with expectations of the future treatment), we provide a paired t-test with the IAM at pre- and post-intervention."||||||0.82|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.82
91893748|NCT05453201|183682118|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Paired t-test|||"The FIM measures an intervention's feasibility. Therefore, the goal is not change over time, the goal is to assess, descriptively, post-intervention feasibility. Because we assessed this measure at baseline (with expectations of the future treatment), we provide a paired t-test with the FIM at pre- and post-intervention."||||.38
91893749|NCT04688320|183682147|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of the non-inferiority was established as a difference in the primary efficacy endpoints between compared groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.52|||Welch's t-test|||||4.52|0.11|<0.05
91893750|NCT00383110|183682162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.648
91893751|NCT00383110|183682163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
91893752|NCT00383110|183682164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.675
91893753|NCT00383110|183682165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
91893754|NCT00383110|183682166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91893755|NCT00383110|183682167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91893756|NCT00153062|183682258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 1.075|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates||ASA+ER-DP vs clopidogrel||1.11|0.92|0.7830
91893757|NCT00153062|183682259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.07|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates||ASA+ER-DP vs Clopidogrel||1.07|0.92|0.8292
91893758|NCT00153062|183682260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates.||Telmisartan vs Placebo||1.01|0.87|0.1073
91893759|NCT00153062|183682261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates||Telmisartan vs Placebo||1.04|0.65|0.1007
91893760|NCT00153062|183682262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.2312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline Modified Rankin score as covariates||Telmisartan vs placebo||1.04|0.86|0.2312
91893761|NCT00910689|183682290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Post tests consisted of 6 pair wise contrasts: The first 3 contrasts compared each of the 3 additive treatments (Trial Arms 2, 3, 4) to OAT + PL (Trial arm 1); 3 additional contrasts compared the 3 additive treatments to one another.|Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferoni procedure was used to control the family-wise type I error for the 6 post test contrasts at .05. Adjusted p =.0083.||Omnibus Test: A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment,natural time(defined as natural log of months) and treatment-by-time interaction was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of missing values and to evaluate treatment effects(using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS statistical software,version 9;www.sas.com). A significant treatment by time interaction(p \< .05, 2-tailed) was followed by post-tests (see below). Details of significant post tests are reported as separate analyses.||||< .01
91893762|NCT00910689|183682290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893763|NCT00910689|183682290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|>|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .25
91893764|NCT00910689|183682290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|>|0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .98
91893765|NCT00910689|183682290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893766|NCT00910689|183682290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
91893767|NCT00910689|183682290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72|>|0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.29
91893768|NCT00910689|183682291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||6 pair wise contrasts were conducted: The first 3 contrasts compared each of the 3 additive treatments to OAT + PL. The 3 additional contrasts compared the 3 additive treatments to one another.|Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferoni procedure was used to control the family wise type I error for the 6 post test contrasts at .05. Adjusted p =.0083.||Omnibus test:A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (defined as the natural log of months), and the treatment-by-time interaction was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of missing values and to evaluate treatment effects (PROC MIXED, SAS 9).When the treatment by time interaction was significant (p \< .05, 2-tailed)post-tests were conducted (see below).Details of significant post tests are reported as separate analyses.||||< .03
91893769|NCT00910689|183682291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893770|NCT00910689|183682291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893771|NCT00910689|183682291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893772|NCT00910689|183682291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|>|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .02
91893773|NCT00910689|183682291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.35|>|0.79||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.79
91893774|NCT00910689|183682291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43|>|0.02||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.02
91893775|NCT00910689|183682292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Post tests consisted of 6 pair wise contrasts: The first 3 contrasts compared each of the 3 additive treatments (Trial Arms 2, 3, 4) to OAT + PL (Trial arm 1); three additional contrasts compared the 3 additive treatments to one another.|Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferoni procedure controlled the familywise type I error for the 6 contrasts at .05. Adjusted p=.0083.||Omnibus test:A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (defined as the natural log of months), and the treatment-by-time interaction and pretreatment Migraine Specific Quality of Life scores as covariate was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of missing values and to evaluate treatment effects (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS statistical software, version 9; www. sas.com).A significant treatment by time interaction (p \< .05, 2-tailed) was followed by post-tests||||<.005
91893776|NCT00910689|183682292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893777|NCT00910689|183682292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893778|NCT00910689|183682292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893779|NCT00910689|183682292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
91893780|NCT00910689|183682292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893781|NCT00910689|183682292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.38|>|0.87||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.87
91893782|NCT00910689|183682293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
91893783|NCT00910689|183682293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|>|0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .83
91893784|NCT00910689|183682293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .05
91893785|NCT00910689|183682293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Significant post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893786|NCT00910689|183682293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
91893787|NCT00910689|183682293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .20
91893788|NCT00910689|183682294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
91893789|NCT00910689|183682294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
91893790|NCT00910689|183682294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893791|NCT00910689|183682294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69|>|0.04||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.04
91893792|NCT00910689|183682294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|>|0.33||95.0||||Bonerfoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.33
91893793|NCT00910689|183682294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68|>|0.21||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.21
91893794|NCT00910689|183682295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893795|NCT00910689|183682295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893796|NCT00910689|183682295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
91893797|NCT00910689|183682295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85|>|0.56||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.56
91893798|NCT00910689|183682295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|>|0.08||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.08
91893799|NCT00910689|183682295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.83|>|0.03||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.03
91893800|NCT00189488|183682307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-17.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with Grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||-2.4|-33.4|0.034
91893801|NCT00189488|183682308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference (%)|0.5||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with severe GVHD, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||12.1|-11.0|0.929
91893802|NCT00189488|183682309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-6.5||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with Day 11 Methotrexate GVHD, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||6.4|-19.4|0.352
91893803|NCT00189488|183682310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-2.6||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with severe oral mucositis, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|"Participants with Unknown incidence are treated as Yes when constructing the differences, 95% confidence intervals and p-value."||9.0|-14.2|0.675
91893804|NCT00189488|183682311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.5||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||2.5|-1.5|0.953
91893805|NCT00189488|183682312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|2.0||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with opioid analgesic use, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||16.5|-12.5|0.797
91893806|NCT00189488|183682313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-5.5||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||1.8|-12.7|0.186
91893807|NCT00189488|183682314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-4.1||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-12.2|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||4.0|-12.2|0.219
91893808|NCT00645801|183682328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A 2-sided 2 sample t test was used to compare the overall cleanliness score between the 2 treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Based on the assumption that 70% of patients using PEG plus placebo (group 2) will have good results, by allocating 100 cases in each group, we will have 84% power to detect a difference of 18% or more in the effectiveness of PEG plus lubiprostone combination (group 1) (eg, 70% in group 2 vs. 88% in group 1) at the alpha level of significancelevel of significance.||||0.05
91893809|NCT00645801|183682329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||2 sided Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||<0.05
91893810|NCT00645801|183682330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91893811|NCT00759915|183682331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|109.98||||||90.0|100.1|120.8|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||120.8|100.1|
91893812|NCT00759915|183682333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|100.91||||||90.0|96.96|105.0|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||105.0|96.96|
91893813|NCT00759915|183682334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|96.5||||||90.0|92.3|100.97|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||100.97|92.3|
91893814|NCT00932113|183682343|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91893815|NCT01143038|183682350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|10.1|||||Based on the t-distribution|||10.1|8.3|
91893816|NCT01143038|183682350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bootstrap mean|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|10.0|||||Estimates are based on bootstrap method with 1000 samples with replacement.|Bootstrap analysis||10.0|8.3|
91893817|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of Interest is left anterior insula.||||0.2960
91893818|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left anterior insula.||||0.3450
91893819|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1192||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left anterior putamen.||||0.1192
91893820|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6639||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left anterior putamen.||||0.6639
91893821|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8295||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsal anterior cingulate cortex.||||0.8295
91893822|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsal anterior cingulate cortex.||||0.0078
91893823|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7153||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex.||||0.7153
91893824|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8511||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex||||0.8511
91893825|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4228||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex||||0.4228
91893826|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0611||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex||||0.0611
91893827|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9879||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left premotor cortex||||0.9879
91893828|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2065||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left premotor cortex||||0.2065
91893829|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1837||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area||||0.1837
91893830|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8195||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area||||0.8195
91893831|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left thalamus||||0.6420
91893832|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7475||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left thalamus||||0.7475
91893833|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9049||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex||||0.9049
91893834|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex||||0.1830
91893835|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5318||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right anterior insula||||0.5318
91893836|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9588||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right anterior insula||||0.9588
91893837|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7551||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsal anterior cingulate cortex||||0.7551
91893838|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7895||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsal anterior cingulate cortex||||0.7895
91893839|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9494||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex||||0.9494
91893840|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4482||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex||||0.4482
91893841|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9343||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex||||0.9343
91893842|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7711||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex||||0.7711
91893843|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4755||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex||||0.4755
91893844|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3982||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex||||0.3982
91893845|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4622||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right thalamus||||0.4622
91893846|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4604||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right thalamus||||0.4604
91893847|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2485||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex||||0.2485
91893848|NCT00657020|183682355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1931||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex||||0.1931
91893849|NCT00657020|183682356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4535||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered the response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.4535
91893850|NCT00657020|183682356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1811||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered the response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.1811
91893851|NCT00657020|183682357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6261||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.6261
91893852|NCT00657020|183682357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.0106
91893853|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5544||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex.||||0.5544
91893854|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6716||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex.||||0.6716
91893855|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7511||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left superior occipital cortex.||||0.7511
91893856|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7959||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left superior occipital cortex.||||0.7959
91893857|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6418||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex.||||0.6418
91893858|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2205||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex.||||0.2205
91893859|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5135||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex.||||0.5135
91893860|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9781||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex.||||0.9781
91893861|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3755||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex.||||0.3755
91893862|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2612||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex.||||0.2612
91893863|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8486||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right superior occipital cortex.||||0.8486
91893864|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right superior occipital cortex.||||0.8318
91893865|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7554||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex.||||0.7554
91893866|NCT00657020|183682358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5421||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex.||||0.5421
91893867|NCT00657020|183682359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1963||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.1963
91893868|NCT00657020|183682359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0959||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.0959
91893869|NCT00657020|183682360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.5400
91893870|NCT00657020|183682360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered the treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.1800
91893871|NCT01183234|183682361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the treatment regimen means were provided by back-transformation on to the linear scale and were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|0.993|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.993|0.915|
91893872|NCT01183234|183682362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the treatment regimen means were provided by back-transformation on to the linear scale and were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.931|
91893873|NCT01183234|183682363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.492|||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|||||0.492|-0.150|
91893874|NCT00370331|183682372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.2|||<|0.001||99.0|3.59|18.73|||Repeated measures model for binary data|Repeated measures model for binary data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)||||18.73|3.59|<0.001
91893875|NCT02313233|183682400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91893876|NCT02313233|183682401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91893877|NCT02313233|183682404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91893878|NCT02313233|183682405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91893879|NCT03618823|183682413|EQUIVALENCE|All pain scores were included due to the sample size. Alpha =.05 Power = .80 Desired effect size of 0.30 Size of n=145 in each group was determined, however this was not reached for sufficient power.||||||0.912|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-way mixed-model analysis of variance||There will be no difference in pain scores between opioid and non-opioid groups from before medication to after while controlling for total duration of mediation use (duration mean=10.11 days).||||.912
91893880|NCT03618823|183682414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.311||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|3.478|||Fisher Exact|||There will be no difference in ED (Emergency Department) or urgent care visits between opioid and non-opioid pain control groups.||3.478|.494|.630
91893881|NCT05383508|183682427|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|17.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.69|27.19||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the Cmax ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||27.19|10.69|
91893882|NCT05383508|183682427|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|19.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.89|31.87||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the Cmax ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||31.87|11.89|
91893883|NCT05383508|183682428|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.0||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift and Moses 95% CI|The objective of this study was to determine the Tmax difference of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||11.00|0.00|
91893884|NCT05383508|183682428|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift and Moses 95% CI|The objective of this study was to determine the Tmax difference of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||4.00|0.00|
91893885|NCT05383508|183682429|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|28.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|50.04||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the AUC0-infinity ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||50.04|16.00|
91893886|NCT05383508|183682429|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|26.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|53.69||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the AUC0-infinity ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||53.69|12.74|
91953489|NCT03655951|183803245|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.8
91953490|NCT03655951|183803246|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.32
91893887|NCT05383508|183682430|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|10.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|21.1||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the maximum ratio of background-corrected concentration over time of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||21.10|5.57|
91893888|NCT05383508|183682430|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|16.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|28.53||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the maximum ratio of background-corrected concentration over time of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||28.53|9.93|
91893889|NCT02224690|183682453|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.21||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|-4.09|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-4.09|-30.32|0.0135
91893890|NCT02224690|183682454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-11, 12-17 and 18-55 years)||||4.97|1.33|0.0043
91893891|NCT02224690|183682455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.13||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.26|-9.37|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-9.37|-33.26|0.0005
91893892|NCT02224690|183682456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.47|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor.|Odds of participants recording a lower score (improvement) on a continuous scale|||4.47|1.45|0.0012
91893893|NCT01506609|183682459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.162|||Log Rank|||||1.162|0.536|0.227
91893894|NCT01506609|183682459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.858||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.278|2.702|||Log Rank|||||2.702|1.278|0.001
91893895|NCT01506609|183682460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.218|||Log Rank|||||1.218|0.590|0.368
91893896|NCT01506609|183682460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.512||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.074|2.127|||Log Rank|||||2.127|1.074|0.017
91893897|NCT01506609|183682461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.434
91893898|NCT01506609|183682461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.019
91893899|NCT01506609|183682462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.027
91893900|NCT01506609|183682462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
91893901|NCT01506609|183682463|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-2.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.476||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.6||ANCOVA with treatment arm and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.60|-7.20|0.354
91893902|NCT01856868|183682508|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0434
91893903|NCT01856868|183682509|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0185|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0185
91893904|NCT01856868|183682510|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0434
91893905|NCT01856868|183682511|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0078
91893906|NCT01856868|183682512|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0025
91893907|NCT01856868|183682513|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0082
91893908|NCT01856868|183682514|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91893909|NCT01856868|183682515|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0238|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0238
91893910|NCT01856868|183682516|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0321
91893911|NCT01856868|183682517|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0182|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0182
91893912|NCT01856868|183682518|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0371
91893913|NCT01856868|183682519|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0257|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0257
91893914|NCT01856868|183682522|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a mixed model regression analysis, including fixed effects for height and weight using patient identity as source of random variation. As a pilot study, these measures were not subject to a formal power analysis but will be used in future sample size calculations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
91893915|NCT01856868|183682523|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a mixed model regression analysis, including fixed effects for height, weight and knee extension strength using patient identity as source of random variation. As a pilot study, these measures were not subject to a formal power analysis but will be used in future sample size calculations.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.6||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
91893916|NCT01856868|183682525|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a mixed model regression analysis, including fixed effects for height, weight and knee extension strength using patient identity as source of random variation. As a pilot study, these measures were not subject to a formal power analysis but will be used in future sample size calculations.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.159
91893917|NCT03954392|183682547|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Only one statistical test was conducted, therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons was needed.||Statistical analysis will compare the post-intervention scores on the primary outcome (Faux Pas Recognition Test scores), controlling for pre-intervention scores.||||< 0.05
91893918|NCT03954392|183682548|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.05
91893919|NCT00935818|183682563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with covariate included for study site.||2.12|1.05|0.03
91893920|NCT00935818|183682564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression - adjusting for study site||2.22|1.04|0.03
91893921|NCT00935818|183682565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
91893922|NCT00935818|183682566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression adjusted for study site||1.93|0.95|0.09
91893923|NCT00935818|183682567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression adjusting for study site||1.91|0.91|0.14
91893924|NCT00935818|183682568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression - adjusting for study site||2.07|0.93|0.11
91893925|NCT00935818|183682569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression - adjusting for site||2.05|0.96|0.08
91893926|NCT00604825|183682580|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.75||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.93||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 25 mg||1.93|-0.44|0.215
91893927|NCT00604825|183682580|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.21||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.37||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 75 mg||2.37|0.05|0.041
91893928|NCT00604825|183682580|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.92||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. Premarin 0.3 mg||-0.92|-3.20|<0.001
91893929|NCT00604825|183682581|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.15||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.38||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 25 mg||0.38|-0.08|0.202
91893930|NCT00604825|183682581|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.31||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.54||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 75 mg||0.54|0.08|0.008
91893931|NCT00604825|183682581|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.3||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. Premarin 0.3 mg||-0.30|-0.75|<0.001
91893932|NCT03465904|183682624|SUPERIORITY|Our power analysis indicated that a minimum of 239 patients per group was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 13.4% difference in the primary outcome, pain freedom at 2 h. Accounting for an estimated attrition rate of 20%, we aimed to enroll 299 patients per group.|||||<|0.05||||||All analyses were performed using SPSS, version 26.0 with two-sided levels of statistical significance established at p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|A Chi-square test of independent proportions was used to compare primary and secondary efficacy outcomes between groups.||Identical statistical analyses were performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) and the per protocol (PP) populations. The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients, who received any duration of sham or verum treatment and returned completed study materials. The PP population consisted of patients who strictly met inclusion criteria and completed at least 60 min of treatment.||||<0.05
91893933|NCT05593445|183682637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.41|||Chi-squared|||||2.41|0.29|0.737
91893934|NCT05593445|183682637|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|20.7|||||The 95% confidence interval for the response rate difference was constructed from approximately normal distribution.|||20.7|-29.2|
91893935|NCT05593445|183682638|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-0.47|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.47|-5.05|0.0188
91893936|NCT05593445|183682639|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.91|||MMRM|||||0.91|-1.96|0.4674
91893937|NCT05593445|183682640|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.869|||Log Rank||Cox regression model was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate.|||1.869|0.503|0.9072
91893938|NCT05559476|183682649|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the Upper Limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSVPreF3 OA vaccine is less than or equal (\<=)1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.35|||||The comparison is done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-A neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the Co-Ad Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.35|1.03|
91893939|NCT05559476|183682650|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.16|0.85|
91893940|NCT05559476|183682650|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.09|0.80|
91893941|NCT05559476|183682650|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.03|0.88|
91893942|NCT05559476|183682650|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.02|0.84|
91893943|NCT05559476|183682651|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSVPreF3 OA vaccine is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-B neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the Co-Ad Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.15|0.89|
91893944|NCT05559476|183682652|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|4.74||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||4.74|-8.15|
91893945|NCT05559476|183682652|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|2.48||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||2.48|-10.67|
91893946|NCT05559476|183682652|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-8.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-2.29||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 Victoria at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||-2.29|-14.75|
91893947|NCT05559476|183682652|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|0.56||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||0.56|-12.28|
91893948|NCT00925353|183682663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Actual lab results shown|1.0|||<|0.05||95.0|||||non-compartmental pharmacokinetic|The planned analysis was to estimate pharmacokinetic parameters. There were too few detectable values to be able to perform this analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Application of 4% lidocaine gel on the breasts and chest wall of healthy women occluded for one hour does not result in systemically toxic plasma concentrations of lidocaine or its principal metabolite, monoethylglycinexyliidie (MEGX), electrocardiogram changes, or adverse events.||||<0.05
91893949|NCT02349425|183682674|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-41.222||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.294|-15.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-15.127|-59.294|0.0055
91893950|NCT02349425|183682674|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-51.973||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.23|-27.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-27.397|-68.230|0.0008
91893951|NCT02349425|183682674|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-46.853||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.291|-16.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-16.206|-66.291|0.0075
91893952|NCT02349425|183682674|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-57.067||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.375|-30.771|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-30.771|-73.375|0.0009
91893953|NCT02349425|183682675|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-14.691||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.307|12.493|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||12.493|-35.307|0.2542
91893954|NCT02349425|183682675|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-25.165||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.014|-3.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-3.4210|-42.014|0.0267
91893955|NCT02349425|183682675|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-37.146||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.345|-7.3821|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-7.3821|-57.345|0.0198
91893956|NCT02349425|183682675|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-55.92||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.923|-30.797|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-30.797|-71.923|0.0006
91893957|NCT02349425|183682680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-6.8|-31.2|0.003
91893958|NCT02349425|183682680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-12.1|-36.7|<0.001
91893959|NCT02349425|183682680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.5|-49.0|0.005
91893960|NCT02349425|183682680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-14.7|-44.6|<0.001
91893961|NCT02349425|183682681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||7.2|-21.0|0.332
91893962|NCT02349425|183682681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-3.6|-23.3|0.008
91893963|NCT02349425|183682681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-15.7|-44.7|<0.001
91893964|NCT02349425|183682681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-11.0|-42.3|0.001
91893965|NCT02349425|183682682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-6.8|-23.5|<0.001
91893966|NCT02349425|183682682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-7.4|-26.1|<0.001
91893967|NCT02349425|183682682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-7.8|-31.1|0.002
91893968|NCT02349425|183682682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.3|-31.8|<0.001
91893969|NCT02349425|183682683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||4.0|-12.3|0.315
91893970|NCT02349425|183682683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.7|-13.7|0.030
91893971|NCT02349425|183682683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.1|-27.4|<0.001
91893972|NCT02349425|183682683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.0|-26.3|<0.001
91893973|NCT02349425|183682684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.6|-8.6|0.169
91893974|NCT02349425|183682684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||2.6|-7.5|0.341
91893975|NCT02349425|183682684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.9|-5.8|0.311
91893976|NCT02349425|183682684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.1|-8.6|0.128
91893977|NCT02349425|183682685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||5.9|-3.5|0.613
91893978|NCT02349425|183682685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||3.1|-4.3|.743
91893979|NCT02349425|183682685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||2.3|-4.1|0.589
91893980|NCT02349425|183682685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||2.9|-13.2|0.205
91893981|NCT02349425|183682686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||0.1|-1.4|0.0811
91893982|NCT02349425|183682686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.3|-2.2|0.0097
91893983|NCT02349425|183682686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.6|-2.6|0.0025
91893984|NCT02349425|183682686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.5|-2.8|0.0050
91893985|NCT02349425|183682687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||0.0|-1.4|0.0506
91893986|NCT02349425|183682687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.0|-1.7|0.0447
91893987|NCT02349425|183682687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.5|-2.2|0.0026
91893988|NCT02349425|183682687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.0|-2.2|0.0405
91893989|NCT02349425|183682688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||5.80|1.88|<0.001
91893990|NCT02349425|183682688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||5.38|1.66|<0.001
91893991|NCT02349425|183682689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.9|-23.2|0.096
91893992|NCT02349425|183682689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-6.3|-33.6|0.005
91893993|NCT02349425|183682689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-11.6|-40.7|<0.001
91893994|NCT02349425|183682689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|-19.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-19.1|-48.4|<0.001
91893995|NCT02349425|183682690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||6.2|-19.1|0.311
91893996|NCT02349425|183682690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||4.9|-19.7|0.232
91893997|NCT02349425|183682690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-3.6|-27.6|0.012
91893998|NCT02349425|183682690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.5|-30.4|0.043
91893999|NCT01190514|183682698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for AUC48 fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|95.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|105.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fasted (test); DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed AUC48: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||105.04|86.94|
91894000|NCT01190514|183682698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for AUC48 fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.17|105.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fed (test); DVS SR 50 mg fed (reference).~Natural log transformed AUC48: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||105.64|97.17|
91894001|NCT01190514|183682698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for AUC48 fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|108.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|117.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Food effect DVS SR 50 mg fed (test) versus DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed AUC48: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||117.01|101.10|
91953491|NCT03655951|183803247|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
91894002|NCT01190514|183682700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.37|101.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fasted (test); DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||101.20|89.37|
91894003|NCT01190514|183682700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|101.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.66|108.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fed (test); DVS SR 50 mg fed (reference).~Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||108.40|94.66|
91894004|NCT01190514|183682700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|115.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.59|122.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Food effect DVS SR 50 mg fed (test) versus DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||122.94|108.59|
91894005|NCT00706433|183682721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA with baseline total inflammatory lesion counts serving as the covariate.||Null hypothesis: equal median changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||0.7680
91894006|NCT00706433|183682722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7975||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Null hypothesis: equal success rates.||||0.7975
91894007|NCT00706433|183682723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|Rank transformed data.||Null hypothesis: equal median percent changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||>0.10
91894008|NCT00706433|183682724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|Rank transformed data.||Null hypothesis: equal median percent changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||>0.10
91894009|NCT00706433|183682726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1103||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA with baseline total inflammatory lesion counts serving as the covariate.||Null hypothesis: equal median changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||0.1103
91894010|NCT00706433|183682727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7228||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Null hypothesis: equal success rates.||||0.7228
91894011|NCT00706433|183682728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3416||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates||||0.3416
91894012|NCT00706433|183682729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5759||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5759
91894013|NCT00706433|183682730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4754||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4754
91894014|NCT00706433|183682731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4096||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4096
91894015|NCT00706433|183682732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5812||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5812
91894016|NCT00706433|183682733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8679||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8679
91894017|NCT00706433|183682734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3666||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3666
91894018|NCT00706433|183682735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3080
91894019|NCT00706433|183682736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894020|NCT00706433|183682737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894021|NCT00706433|183682738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894022|NCT00706433|183682739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3916||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3916
91894023|NCT00706433|183682740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8387||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8387
91894024|NCT00706433|183682741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1489||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1489
91894025|NCT00706433|183682742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
91894026|NCT00706433|183682742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4143||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4143
91894027|NCT00706433|183682742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0005
91894028|NCT00706433|183682742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0003
91894029|NCT00706433|183682742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
91894030|NCT00706433|183682742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
91894031|NCT00706433|183682742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.9700
91894032|NCT00706433|183682743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2544||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2544
91894033|NCT00706433|183682744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4321||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4321
91894034|NCT00706433|183682745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0317||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0317
91894035|NCT00706433|183682745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5818||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5818
91894036|NCT00706433|183682745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0395||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0395
91894037|NCT00706433|183682745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7426||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.7426
91894038|NCT00706433|183682745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0029
91894039|NCT00706433|183682745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2142||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2142
91894040|NCT00706433|183682745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0781
91894041|NCT00706433|183682746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9886||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.9886
91894042|NCT00706433|183682747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6907||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.6907
91894043|NCT00706433|183682748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0047
91894044|NCT00706433|183682748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6116||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.6116
91894045|NCT00706433|183682748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0209
91894046|NCT00706433|183682748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0513||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0513
91894047|NCT00706433|183682748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0019
91894048|NCT00706433|183682748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0089||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0089
91894049|NCT00706433|183682748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5260
91894050|NCT00706433|183682749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.7820
91894051|NCT00706433|183682750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4965||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4965
91894052|NCT00706433|183682751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0728||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0728
91894053|NCT00706433|183682752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5480
91894054|NCT00706433|183682753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0301||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0301
91894055|NCT00706433|183682753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0564||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0564
91894056|NCT00706433|183682753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4470
91894057|NCT00706433|183682753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2804||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2804
91894058|NCT00706433|183682753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1835||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1835
91894059|NCT00706433|183682753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0103
91894060|NCT00706433|183682753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1319
91894061|NCT00706433|183682754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894062|NCT00706433|183682755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4378||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4378
91894063|NCT00706433|183682756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3430
91894064|NCT00706433|183682757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894065|NCT00706433|183682758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894066|NCT00706433|183682759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894067|NCT00706433|183682760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894068|NCT00706433|183682761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894069|NCT00706433|183682762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894070|NCT00706433|183682763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894071|NCT00706433|183682764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894072|NCT00706433|183682765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894073|NCT00706433|183682766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894074|NCT00706433|183682767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894075|NCT00706433|183682768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0165||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0165
91894076|NCT00706433|183682768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2252||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2252
91894077|NCT00706433|183682768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0179
91894078|NCT00706433|183682768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0233||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0233
91894079|NCT00706433|183682768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1573
91894080|NCT00706433|183682768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2039||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2039
91894081|NCT00706433|183682768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894082|NCT00706433|183682769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1594||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1594
91894083|NCT00706433|183682770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5838||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5838
91894084|NCT00706433|183682771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0064
91894085|NCT00706433|183682771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0939||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0939
91894086|NCT00706433|183682771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3173
91894087|NCT00706433|183682771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2207||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2207
91894088|NCT00706433|183682771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0183
91894089|NCT00706433|183682771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0254
91894090|NCT00706433|183682771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894091|NCT00706433|183682772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4753||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4753
91894092|NCT00706433|183682773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1728||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1728
91894093|NCT00706433|183682774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0002
91894094|NCT00706433|183682774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5313||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5313
91894095|NCT00706433|183682774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0045
91894096|NCT00706433|183682774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0045
91894097|NCT00706433|183682774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0012
91894098|NCT00706433|183682774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0015
91894099|NCT00706433|183682774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894100|NCT00706433|183682775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0892||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0892
91894101|NCT00706433|183682776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4575||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4575
91894102|NCT00706433|183682777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8848||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8848
91894103|NCT00706433|183682778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0008
91894104|NCT00706433|183682778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4091||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4091
91894105|NCT00706433|183682778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0176
91894106|NCT00706433|183682778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0245
91894107|NCT00706433|183682778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0020
91894108|NCT00706433|183682778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0022
91894109|NCT00706433|183682778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9372||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.9372
91894110|NCT00706433|183682779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2390
91894111|NCT00706433|183682780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894112|NCT00706433|183682781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0463
91894113|NCT00706433|183682781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1261||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1261
91894114|NCT00706433|183682781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894115|NCT00706433|183682781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894116|NCT00706433|183682781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0947||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0947
91894117|NCT00706433|183682781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0886||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0886
91894118|NCT00706433|183682781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894119|NCT00706433|183682782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
91894120|NCT00706433|183682782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0255||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0255
91894121|NCT00706433|183682782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0576
91894122|NCT00706433|183682782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0686||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0686
91894123|NCT00706433|183682782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0004
91894124|NCT00706433|183682782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0005
91894125|NCT00706433|183682782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894126|NCT00706433|183682783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0006
91894127|NCT00706433|183682783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0245
91894128|NCT00706433|183682783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894129|NCT00706433|183682783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894130|NCT00706433|183682783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0097
91894131|NCT00706433|183682783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0146
91894132|NCT00706433|183682783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894133|NCT00706433|183682784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4235||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4235
91894134|NCT00706433|183682785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894135|NCT00706433|183682786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0865||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0865
91894136|NCT00706433|183682787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.6230
91894137|NCT00706433|183682788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0963
91894138|NCT00706433|183682789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4814||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4814
91894139|NCT00706433|183682790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7153||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.7153
91894140|NCT00706433|183682791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3832||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3832
91894141|NCT00706433|183682792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2908||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2908
91894142|NCT00706433|183682793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8096||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8096
91894143|NCT00706433|183682794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3080
91894144|NCT00706433|183682795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3208||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3208
91894145|NCT00706433|183682796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894146|NCT00706433|183682797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91894147|NCT04101318|183682800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.62|-0.38|0.625
91894148|NCT04101318|183682801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.737||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|2.908||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Proportional odds ratio model|Ordinal regression model for itching evaluated on a 5 point scale. Product and period are fixed effects and subject is a random effect.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||2.908|1.038|0.036
91894149|NCT04101318|183682802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|The mode had following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.20|-0.90|0.202
91894150|NCT04101318|183682803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|2.401||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Proportional odds ratio model|Ordinal regression model for pain evaluated on a 5 point scale. Product and period are fixed effects and subject is a random effect.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||2.401|0.781|0.267
91894151|NCT04101318|183682804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.30|-0.57|0.545
91894152|NCT04101318|183682805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.316||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|2.211||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Proportional odds ratio model|Ordinal regression model for burning evaluated on a 5 point scale. Product and period are fixed effects and subject is a random effect.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||2.211|0.783|0.293
91894153|NCT04101318|183682806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.27||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed repeated model with fixed effects|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|There is no difference between the two arms.||1.27|0.53|0.375
91894154|NCT04101318|183682807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed repeated model with fixed effects|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||1.40|0.49|0.482
91894155|NCT04101318|183682808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.14||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed repeated model with fixed effects||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|1.14|0.43|0.151
91894156|NCT04101318|183682809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.56|-0.39|0.725
91894157|NCT04101318|183682810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.56|-0.39|0.721
91894158|NCT04101318|183682811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.28||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.28|-0.38|0.753
91894159|NCT04101318|183682812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||4.18|-1.43|0.331
91894160|NCT04101318|183682813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.68||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|31.34||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||31.34|-7.98|0.239
91894161|NCT04101318|183682814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.31||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.31|-0.91|0.322
91894162|NCT04101318|183682815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.15|-0.44|0.343
91894163|NCT04101318|183682816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.21|-0.53|0.387
91894164|NCT04101318|183682817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.16|-0.18|0.899
91894165|NCT00717067|183682818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|129.17||||||90.0|92.16|181.04|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (mild) / reference (normal). AUClast was calculated using the log-linear trapezoidal method.||181.04|92.16|
91894166|NCT00717067|183682818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|88.31||||||90.0|61.97|125.83|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (moderate) / reference (normal). AUClast was calculated using the log-linear trapezoidal method.||125.83|61.97|
91894167|NCT00717067|183682818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|322.23||||||90.0|171.97|603.78|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (severe) / reference (normal). AUClast was calculated using the log-linear trapezoidal method.||603.78|171.97|
91894168|NCT00717067|183682819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|151.99||||||90.0|109.53|210.92|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (mild) / reference (normal).||210.92|109.53|
91894169|NCT00717067|183682819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|115.95||||||90.0|82.23|163.5|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (moderate) / reference (normal).||163.50|82.23|
91894170|NCT00717067|183682820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|121.01||||||90.0|83.15|176.13|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (mild) / reference (normal).||176.13|83.15|
91894171|NCT00717067|183682820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|70.9||||||90.0|47.83|105.1|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (moderate) / reference (normal).||105.10|47.83|
91894172|NCT00717067|183682820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|238.73||||||90.0|106.83|533.48|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (severe) / reference (normal).||533.48|106.83|
91894173|NCT00717067|183682822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|323.91||||||90.0|174.32|601.88|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (severe) / reference (normal).||601.88|174.32|
91894174|NCT00522873|183682850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0119|||||The number of women who had a biopsy classified as 'hyperplasia or worse' was divided by the number of women with an evaluable biopsy (i.e. classified as 'normal' after 1 year of treatment or as 'hyperplasia or worse' at any time during the study).|Exact 95% confidence interval for proportion of participants with hyperplasia or worse at EoS||0.0119|0.0000|
91894175|NCT00522873|183682851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|0.734||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.734|0.637|
91894176|NCT00522873|183682851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.593|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.684||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.684|0.496|
91894177|NCT00522873|183682852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|0.83||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.830|0.743|
91894178|NCT00522873|183682852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|0.904||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.904|0.756|
91894179|NCT00822172|183682860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||two-sample equal-variances t-test|||||||0.076
91894180|NCT00822172|183682861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||two-sample equal-variances t-test|||||||0.048
91894181|NCT00822172|183682862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||two-sample equal-variances t-test|||||||0.650
91894182|NCT01375114|183682878|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.67
91894183|NCT01375114|183682879|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
91894184|NCT01375114|183682880|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
91894185|NCT01375114|183682881|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91894186|NCT01375114|183682882|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
91894187|NCT01859988|183682883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-55.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-42.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|LS mean and standard error were obtained using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and randomization strata (moderate vs severe;Japan vs rest of world) and relevant baseline values as covariates. Multiplicity was controlled using hierarchical testing procedure:highest dose vs. placebo was tested first. Comparison order was 300 mg qw,300 mg q2w,200 mg q2w,300 mg q4w \& 100 mg q4w, vs placebo respectively. Testing continues only if previous comparison was statistically significant.||-42.4|-68.9|<0.0001
91894188|NCT01859988|183682883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-50.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-37.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-37.0|-63.3|<0.0001
91894189|NCT01859988|183682883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-34.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-34.1|-60.6|<0.0001
91894190|NCT01859988|183682883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-45.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-32.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q4w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.3|-58.5|<0.0001
91894191|NCT01859988|183682883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-13.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 100 mg q4w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.7|-39.8|<0.0001
91894192|NCT00652327|183682897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.0026
91894193|NCT00577473|183682916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0455||||0.4411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|16.11||4.8 g/day compared to 2.4 g/day|Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||16.11|-7.01|0.4411
91894194|NCT00577473|183682917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0331||||0.5677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|8.04|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||8.04|-14.67|0.5677
91894195|NCT00577473|183682918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0445||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.7|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||7.7|-16.6|0.4730
91894196|NCT00577473|183682919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0339||||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|15.26|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||15.26|-8.48|0.5761
91894197|NCT00577473|183682920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0766||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|19.74|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||19.74|-4.41|0.2150
91894198|NCT00577473|183682921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0351||||0.5569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|15.2|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||15.20|-8.18|0.5569
91894199|NCT00577473|183682922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1091||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|22.91|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||22.91|-1.10|0.0769
91894200|NCT00577473|183682923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1139||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|22.92|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||22.92|-0.13|0.0551
91894201|NCT00577473|183682924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0738||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|19.43|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||19.43|-4.66|0.2306
91894202|NCT00577473|183682925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0652||||0.2931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|18.64|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||18.64|-5.60|0.2931
91894203|NCT00577473|183682926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0051||||0.9349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|12.69|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||12.69|-11.67|0.9349
91894204|NCT00577473|183682927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.065||||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|17.73|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||17.73|-4.72|0.2583
91894205|NCT02595073|183682928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3353|||||||z-test, 2-tailed|||||||0.3353
91894206|NCT02595073|183682929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6190
91894207|NCT02884908|183682942|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at baseline (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
91894208|NCT02884908|183682943|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at baseline (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.90
91894209|NCT02884908|183682944|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at baseline (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
91894210|NCT01642251|183683022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|0.51||one-sided p value|Regression, Cox|adjusted for ECOG performance status, abnormal protein in the Cox proportional hazard model||The significance test reported here was for treatment arms comparison in patients within the male/abnormal LDH stratum||0.51|0.22|<0.001
91894211|NCT01642251|183683022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.09||one-sided p value|Regression, Cox|adjusted for ECOG performance status, abnormal protein in the Cox proportional hazard model||The significance test reported here was for treatment arms comparison in patients not in the male/abnormal LDH stratum.||1.09|0.60|0.18
91894212|NCT01642251|183683022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||p value for the interaction by treatment and stratification factor|Regression, Cox|||If there was a significant treatment-by-stratification factor interaction, the results would be reported separately for each stratum. Significance was defined as the p value was less than 0.05.||||0.028
91894213|NCT01642251|183683023|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.07|||Regression, Cox|stratified on the stratification factors used for randomization||||1.07|0.64|0.17
91894214|NCT01642251|183683025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91894215|NCT03988920|183683034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7439|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7439
91894216|NCT02632526|183683047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0433|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.31||||||||1.31|1.17|
91894217|NCT02632526|183683047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0124|0.656||||||||0.656|-0.0124|
91894218|NCT02632526|183683048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0813|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.36||||||Day 1||1.36|1.08|
91894219|NCT02632526|183683050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0851|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.38||||||Day 10||1.38|1.08|
91894220|NCT02632526|183683051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0692|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|1.66||||||||1.66|1.43|
91894221|NCT02632526|183683051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0315|0.669||||||||0.669|0.0315|
91894222|NCT02632526|183683052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0839|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|1.63||||||For Day 1||1.63|1.34|
91894223|NCT02632526|183683052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|1.6||||||Day 10||1.60|1.25|
91894224|NCT02632526|183683065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|28.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.98|37.73||||||Cmax||37.73|20.98|
91894225|NCT02632526|183683066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|64.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.34|76.74||||||AUC(0-τ)||76.74|54.34|
91894226|NCT01942590|183683116|OTHER|||||||0.0512|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0512
91894227|NCT01942590|183683116|OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.434
91894228|NCT01942590|183683117|OTHER|||||||0.0816||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0816
91894229|NCT01942590|183683117|OTHER|||||||0.3318||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.3318
91894230|NCT01942590|183683118|OTHER|||||||0.2074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2074
91894231|NCT01942590|183683118|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.332
91894232|NCT01942590|183683119|OTHER|||||||0.233||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.233
91894233|NCT01942590|183683119|OTHER|||||||0.142||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.142
91894234|NCT01942590|183683120|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.019
91894235|NCT01942590|183683120|OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.366
91894236|NCT01942590|183683121|OTHER|||||||0.161|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.161
91894237|NCT01942590|183683121|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.43
91894238|NCT01942590|183683122|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, week 18||||0.01
91894239|NCT01942590|183683122|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, week 52||||0.004
91894240|NCT01942590|183683122|OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, week 18||||0.154
91894241|NCT01942590|183683122|OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.211
91894242|NCT01942590|183683123|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.006
91894243|NCT01942590|183683123|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.007
91894244|NCT01942590|183683123|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.297
91894245|NCT01942590|183683123|OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.196
91894246|NCT01942590|183683124|OTHER|||||||0.3639|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline Week 18||||0.3639
91894247|NCT01942590|183683124|OTHER|||||||0.0371|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.0371
91894248|NCT01942590|183683125|OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.268
91894249|NCT01942590|183683125|OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.0036
91894250|NCT01942590|183683125|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.286
91894251|NCT01942590|183683125|OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.279
91894252|NCT01942590|183683126|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.479
91894253|NCT01942590|183683126|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.059
91894254|NCT01942590|183683126|OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.152
91894255|NCT01942590|183683126|OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.118
91894256|NCT01226095|183683304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91894257|NCT00857272|183683314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Fifteen percent has been established as an acceptable non-inferiority margin for evaluation of investigational bowel preparations in previous studies of FDA approved preparations (e.g. NuLytely, MoviPrep).|Difference in success rates|-2.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.8|||Chi-squared|||"The primary endpoint of preparation success was tested using a non-inferiority test based upon the difference D=P1-P2,~Null Hypothesis H0: P1-P2\<=D0 versus Alternative Hypothesis H1: P1-P2=D1\>D0,~Where P1 is the % of patients with successful preps in the HalfLytely 5mg group and P2 is the % of patients with successful preps in the HalfLytely 10mg group and D0 is the acceptable margin of equivalence equal to an absolute margin of 15%."||6.8|-11.9|0.005
91894258|NCT03283072|183683329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||ANCOVA|Within, within repeated measures ANCOVA (gender as co-variate).||||||0.592
91894259|NCT03283072|183683330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||ANCOVA|Within, within repeated measures ANCOVA (gender as co-variate).||||||0.721
91894260|NCT03283072|183683331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553|||||||ANCOVA|Within, within repeated measures ANVOA (gender as covariate)||||||0.553
91894261|NCT02552368|183683348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Paired t-Test|||||||0.002
91894262|NCT02552368|183683349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Signed-Rank Test for Performance COPM between Baseline and 12 weeks||||0.022
91894263|NCT02552368|183683349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Signed-Rank Test for Satisfaction COPM between Baseline and 12 weeks||||0.031
91894264|NCT00911768|183683350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416|<|0.05||95.0|-0.647|1.008|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.008|-0.647|<0.05
91894265|NCT00911768|183683351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was conducted. We just compared the difference of stimulated salivary rates between both groups at 8 weeks, because there were no definition of the effective margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.05||95.0|-0.576|-0.115|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.115|-0.576|<0.05
91894266|NCT00911768|183683352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was conducted. We just compared the difference of unstimulated salivary rates between both groups at 8 weeks, because there were no definition of the effective margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.05||95.0|-0.155|-0.017|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.017|-0.155|<0.05
91894267|NCT00998335|183683397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline versus 3 months||||0.03
91894268|NCT00545051|183683482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.41|||ANCOVA|||||4.41|2.09|<0.001
91894269|NCT00545051|183683483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.23|||ANCOVA|||||3.23|1.22|<0.001
91894270|NCT00545051|183683484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.25|-0.15|0.122
91894271|NCT00545051|183683484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.66|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||2.66|0.96|<0.001
91894272|NCT00545051|183683485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||sCTX at Month 1||||<0.001
91894273|NCT00545051|183683485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||sCTX at Month 6||||<0.001
91894274|NCT00545051|183683485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||sCTX at Month 12||||<0.001
91894275|NCT00545051|183683485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP at Month 1||||<0.001
91894276|NCT00545051|183683485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP at Month 6||||<0.001
91894277|NCT00545051|183683485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP at Month 12||||<0.001
91894278|NCT00545051|183683485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||TRACP at Month 1||||<0.001
91894279|NCT00545051|183683485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||TRACP at Month 6||||<0.001
91894280|NCT00545051|183683485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||TRACP at Month 12||||<0.001
91894281|NCT04193436|183683487|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|92.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.15|126.6||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model based on natural log transformed data.||126.60|68.15|
91894282|NCT04193436|183683487|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|134.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.61|183.17||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||183.17|98.61|
91894283|NCT04193436|183683487|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|139.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.69|192.78||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||192.78|100.69|
91894284|NCT04193436|183683488|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.61|119.53||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||119.53|63.61|
91894285|NCT04193436|183683488|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|102.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.59|140.15||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||140.15|74.59|
91894286|NCT04193436|183683488|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|83.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.18|116.62||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||116.62|60.18|
91894287|NCT04193436|183683489|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|121.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.69|167.31||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||167.31|88.69|
91894288|NCT04193436|183683489|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|178.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.96|245.18||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||245.18|129.96|
91894289|NCT04193436|183683489|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|195.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.31|273.03||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||273.03|140.31|
91894290|NCT04193436|183683490|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|114.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.13|148.63||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||148.63|88.13|
91894291|NCT04193436|183683490|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|136.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.75|176.67||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||176.67|104.75|
91894292|NCT04193436|183683490|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|117.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.61|155.03||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||155.03|89.61|
91894293|NCT01749904|183683495|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2 treatments were compared for each time point by visit. LS mean of each treatment group, the difference in the LS mean, and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference were obtained. Noninferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the CIs \<1.5 mmHg at all time points of each visit and \<1.00 mmHg for at least 5 out of the 9 time points. If noninferiority was determined, superiority at each time point could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI\<0 mmHg at all time points of each visit.|||||<|0.01||||||The ANCOVA results for the comparison of LS means of mean IOP between treatment groups demonstrated noninferiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol and also superiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol|ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91894294|NCT01749904|183683496|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91894295|NCT01749904|183683497|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91894296|NCT01749904|183683498|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No statistical analysis was performed on these proportions.|||
91894297|NCT01383499|183683524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.132||First step of closed testing procedure, where the active treatments are compared to placebo. If this statistical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as random effect.||Tio R5 minus Placebo||0.132|0.042|0.0002
91894298|NCT01383499|183683524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.149||Second step of closed testing procedure. If this statistical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as random effect.||Tio R2.5 minus Placebo||0.149|0.059|<.0001
91894299|NCT01383499|183683524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R1.25 minus Placebo||0.120|0.030|0.0011
91894300|NCT01383499|183683524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.057|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Tio R5 minus Tio R1.25||0.057|-0.034|
91894301|NCT01383499|183683524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.028|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Tio R5 minus Tio R2.5||0.028|-0.063|
91894302|NCT01383499|183683524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.074|||Mixed models repeated measures (MMRM)|||Tio R2.5 minus Tio R1.25||0.074|-0.016|
91953492|NCT03655951|183803248|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.05
91894303|NCT00477334|183683535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.98|||Hodges-Lehman Shift Model||Difference in time to healing= time to healing for Famciclovir-time to healing for Placebo. Hodges-Lehman shift model is used to estimate the difference in treatment effect. P-value is from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Participants who discontinued from the study before healing of non-aborted lesions was confirmed and participants who completed the study 21 days since treatment initiation without non-aborted lesion stages and without a final assessment on aborted lesion status are imputed according to the distribution of the time to healing among the subjects in the placebo group whose time to healing is greater than or equal to the observed discontinuation time. (Censor time)||0.98|-0.40|0.4161
91894304|NCT00477334|183683535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39|||Kaplan-Meier & Cox Regression||"Hazard ratio in time to healing=hazard rate of Famciclovir/hazard rate of Placebo.~Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center and gender as explanatory variables."|Participants who discontinued from the study before healing of non-aborted lesions was confirmed and participants who completed the study after 21 days since treatment initiation without non-aborted lesion stages and without a final assessment on aborted lesion status were censored at the time of the last clinical lesion observation.||1.39|0.74|0.9372
91894305|NCT00952120|183683543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|robust standard errors were used to account for the multiple observations per patient||||||0.80
91894306|NCT04745026|183683545|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.931|=|0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|7.21||Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||Irritability (Week 12)||7.21|-0.48|=0.085
91894307|NCT04745026|183683545|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|=|0.3107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|3.36|||Mixed models for repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Social Withdrawal Week 12)||3.36|-1.08|=0.3107
91894308|NCT04745026|183683545|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695|=|0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.42|||Mixed models for repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Stereotypic Behavior (Week 12)||1.42|-1.34|=0.9513
91894309|NCT04745026|183683545|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.943|=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|5.88|||Mixed models repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Hyperactivity/Noncompliance (Week 12)||5.88|-1.86|=0.305
91894310|NCT04745026|183683545|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517|=|0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.66|||Mixed models repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Inappropriate Speech (Week 12)||0.66|-1.4|=0.4754
91894311|NCT04745026|183683546|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|=|0.8506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|5.15|||Mixed models for repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Week 12||5.15|-4.26|=0.8506
91894312|NCT04745026|183683547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||=|0.7087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment arm, randomization variables and baseline score (CGI-S) covariates. Responders achieved a score of 1 or 2 at post-baseline visits.||Responders with 'Very Much Improved' or 'Much Improved' response at week 12||3.51|0.43|=0.7087
91894313|NCT04745026|183683548|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6108|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||=0.6108
91894314|NCT02926898|183683559|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|-54.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-35.6||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (ZX008 or placebo) and age group (\< 6 years, ≥ 6 years) as factors, and with log baseline frequency as a covariate, and log CSF as the outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||||-35.6|-67.2|<0.001
91894315|NCT02926898|183683560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model using a categorical response variable as a function of Treatment group, Baseline seizure frequency, and age group.||||||<0.001
91894316|NCT02926898|183683561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91894317|NCT00116337|183683572|OTHER|Statistical analyses was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test. A p value of \< 0.05 was taken as indicating statistical significance.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analyses will be performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test.||Each patient was served as their own control; comparisons was made at various points in the study. Clinical parameters was assessed before the study and also at several end points following the Reconditioning Phase.||||<0.05
91894318|NCT00116337|183683574|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation were compared with data obtained after implantation of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Freidman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. Statistical significance was assumed at P\<0.05. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± SEs.||||<0.05
91894319|NCT01415531|183683576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-4.8|||ANCOVA|||||-4.8|-7.7|<0.0001
91894320|NCT00122460|183683578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.986|||Stratified Log Rank|||"The primary analysis tested the equality of OS between treatment groups applying a 2-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%), taking into account the strata used for randomization (previous chemotherapy (CTX) \[no vs. yes\] and Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Hazard Ratio (HR) of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||0.986|0.644|0.036
91894321|NCT00122460|183683579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.672|||Stratified Log Rank|||"To test the equality of PFS between treatment groups, a two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%)was used, taking into account strata used for randomization (previous CTX \[yes/no\] and KPS \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median PFS time was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The HR of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||0.672|0.431|<0.0001
91894322|NCT00122460|183683580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.326||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.504|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was performed using the randomization strata previous CTX (no vs. yes) and KPS (\<80 vs. ≥80). Treatment group comparisons were performed two-sided with α=5%.||3.600|1.504|0.0001
91894323|NCT00122460|183683581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|4.441|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was performed using the randomization strata previous CTX (no vs. yes) and KPS (\<80 vs. ≥80). Treatment group comparisons were performed two-sided with α=5%.||4.441|1.870|<0.0001
91894324|NCT00122460|183683582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.593|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.727|||Stratified Log Rank|||"Treatment groups were compared applying a two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%), taking into account strata used for randomization (previous CTX \[yes/no\] and KPS \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median time to treatment failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The HR of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||0.727|0.484|<0.0001
91894325|NCT00122460|183683583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.168|||Stratified Log Rank|||"To test the equality of duration of response between treatment groups, the two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%) was used taking strata used for randomization into account (previous CTX \[no vs. yes\] and KPS \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median duration of response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The HR of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||1.168|0.497|0.21
91894326|NCT02054741|183683613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||||0.86|0.64|0.0001
91894327|NCT02054741|183683614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.50|0.85|0.39
91894328|NCT02054741|183683615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||||1.78|1.06|0.015
91894329|NCT02344004|183683639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants achieving culture conversion by Month 6 was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by smoking status and prior multi-drug regimen. The treatment comparison was tested at two-sided significance level of 0.05. The null hypothesis assumed that culture conversion by Month 6 is independent of treatment, and the alternative hypothesis assumed that culture conversion by Month 6 is associated with treatment.|The final analysis of the primary endpoint, the number of participants achieving culture conversion at by Month 6, was performed after the last participants completed Month 6 and his/her Month 6 sputum culture result was available.|||<0.0001
91894330|NCT02344004|183683640|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91894331|NCT02344004|183683641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7804|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||This was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of change from Baseline at Months 4\&6. MMRM included treatment, month, treatment-by-month interaction, combination of smoking status \& prior MDR (4 levels: Yes/Yes, Yes/No, No/Yes, and No/No) as fixed factors, baseline 6MWD as a covariate \& baseline 6MWD-by-month interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the MMRM.|"* Baseline is defined as the last non-missing value prior to first dose of study drug.~* Statistics were obtained from an mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) model with pattern-mixture modeling of missing values due to dropout, which included treatment, month, the treatment-by-month interaction, and the combination of smoking status and prior multidrug regimen as fixed factors, the baseline 6MWT distance as a covariate and baseline 6MWT distance-by-month interaction. MMRM included postbaseline data through Month 6.~* For baseline, n is the number of participants with a baseline score and at least 1 postbaseline score. For Month 6, n is the number of participants with a baseline score and a postbaseline score at the summarized visit."|||0.7804
91894332|NCT02344004|183683642|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.63|||Regression, Cox|||Kaplan Meier estimates for the distribution of time to culture conversion were constructed for treatment arms. The treatment comparison was made using the stratified log rank test for the ITT population. The estimated median time to culture conversion for each treatment arm was not estimable. The time to culture conversion was analyzed using Cox regression model to estimate hazards ratio.||7.63|2.01|<0.0001
91894333|NCT00138671|183683665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||90.0|-0.17|0.36||||||Week 6||0.36|-0.17|
91894334|NCT00138671|183683665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||||90.0|-0.27|0.26||||||Week 12||0.26|-0.27|
91894335|NCT00138671|183683665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||||90.0|-0.29|0.26||||||Week 26||0.26|-0.29|
91894336|NCT00138671|183683665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||||90.0|-0.36|0.2||||||Week 39||0.20|-0.36|
91894337|NCT00138671|183683665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||90.0|-0.23|0.35||||||Week 52||0.35|-0.23|
91894338|NCT00138671|183683665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||||90.0|-0.29|0.31||||||Week 52 LOCF||0.31|-0.29|
91894339|NCT00138671|183683666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.475||||||90.0|-23.47|14.518||||||Week 6||14.518|-23.47|
91894340|NCT00138671|183683666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.91||||||90.0|-30.04|8.232||||||Week 12||8.232|-30.04|
91894341|NCT00138671|183683666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.84||||||90.0|-42.51|-3.166||||||Week 26||-3.166|-42.51|
91894342|NCT00138671|183683666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.222||||||90.0|-28.52|12.075||||||Week 39||12.075|-28.52|
91894343|NCT00138671|183683666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.329||||||90.0|-29.27|12.616||||||Week 52||12.616|-29.27|
91894344|NCT00138671|183683666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.406||||||90.0|-13.7|16.514||||||Week 52 LOCF||16.514|-13.70|
91894345|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.884||||||90.0|-0.317|2.084||||||Week 1||2.084|-0.317|
91894346|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||||90.0|-0.728|1.668||||||Week 2||1.668|-0.728|
91894347|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.382||||||90.0|-0.815|1.579||||||Week 3||1.579|-0.815|
91894348|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.405||||||90.0|-0.793|1.602||||||Week 4||1.602|-0.793|
91894349|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.562||||||90.0|-0.642|1.766||||||Week 6||1.766|-0.642|
91894350|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.416||||||90.0|-0.809|1.641||||||Week 9||1.641|-0.809|
91894351|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||||90.0|-1.416|1.454||||||Week 11||1.454|-1.416|
91894352|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||||90.0|-1.127|1.308||||||Week 12||1.308|-1.127|
91894353|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.309||||||90.0|-1.551|0.934||||||Week 18||0.934|-1.551|
91894354|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.869||||||90.0|-2.123|0.384||||||Week 26||0.384|-2.123|
91894355|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.664||||||90.0|-2.968|-0.36||||||Week 39||-0.360|-2.968|
91894356|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.116||||||90.0|-3.829|-0.403||||||Week 50||-0.403|-3.829|
91894357|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.801||||||90.0|-3.204|-0.397||||||Week 51||-0.397|-3.204|
91894358|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.026||||||90.0|-3.384|-0.668||||||Week 52||-0.668|-3.384|
91894359|NCT00138671|183683667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.451||||||90.0|-3.003|0.101||||||Week 52 LOCF||0.101|-3.003|
91894360|NCT02084056|183683694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|103.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.703|106.747|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||106.747|100.703|<0.0001
91894361|NCT02084056|183683694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.047||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.721|110.202|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||110.202|93.721|0.0003
91894362|NCT02084056|183683695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|114.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.687|121.908|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||121.908|107.687|0.0113
91894363|NCT02084056|183683695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.075||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.543|111.609|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||111.609|86.543|0.0064
91894364|NCT02084056|183683696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|96.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.23|101.97|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||101.97|91.23|<0.0001
91894365|NCT02084056|183683696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|97.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.47|105.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||105.63|90.47|0.0002
91894366|NCT02084056|183683697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|97.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.046|104.257|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||104.257|92.046|<0.0001
91894367|NCT02084056|183683697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|105.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.705|115.861|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||115.861|96.705|0.0030
91894368|NCT02084056|183683698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|103.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.426|108.79|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||108.790|98.426|<0.0001
91894369|NCT02084056|183683698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.13|112.708|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||112.708|91.130|0.0019
91894370|NCT02084056|183683699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|95.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.73|101.62|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||101.62|89.73|<0.0001
91894371|NCT02084056|183683699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.73|106.27|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||106.27|90.73|0.0002
91894372|NCT00395460|183683700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by means of a Confidence Interval (CI) approach: noninferiority of Gadavist was assumed if the one-sided 95% CI for pGadavist-pMagnevist was lying entirely to the right of the value -delta, where p is the estimated change in CNR and with pre-defined non-inferiority margin delta of 15% (=6.52 or 15% of 43.467).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.939|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.83|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.897||||non-inferiority||||||-3.897|
91894373|NCT02943226|183683712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4487|||||||two sample t-test|||||||0.4487
91894374|NCT02943226|183683713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0112
91894375|NCT02943226|183683714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0784|||||||two sample t-test|||||||0.0784
91894376|NCT00298090|183683719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.48|||repeated measures model||A repeated measures model was used to assess whether the one-minute average StO2 values differed systematically between pre and post arterial line placement.|||1.48|-0.80|0.55
91894377|NCT01708213|183683721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Parametric Testing|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Parametric testing|||||||<0.05
91894378|NCT00324116|183683746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent responders|85.0||||||95.0|76.0|95.0|||||Proportion of responders estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Proportion of responders along with 95% CI calculated directly from estimate of survival distribution function. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects without missing data.|||95|76|
91894379|NCT00324116|183683747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.29||||||95.0|-6.83|-1.75|||||95% CI for the change in mean value obtained from one sample t-test.|6 weeks||-1.75|-6.83|
91894380|NCT00324116|183683747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.86||||||95.0|-9.06|-2.67|||||95% CI for the change in mean value obtained from one sample t-test.|12 weeks||-2.67|-9.06|
91894381|NCT00324116|183683747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.12||||||95.0|-16.28|-5.96|||||95% CI for the change in mean value obtained from one sample t-test.|54 weeks||-5.96|-16.28|
91894382|NCT00324116|183683748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|5.0||||||95.0|1.61|11.32|||||Proportion of subjects gaining vision was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations|||11.32|1.61|
91894383|NCT00324116|183683749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|22.5||||||95.0|14.22|32.11|||||Proportion of subjects maintaining vision was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations.|||32.11|14.22|
91894384|NCT00324116|183683750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|13.75||||||95.0|7.39|22.24|||||Proportion of subjects with severe visual loss was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations.|||22.24|7.39|
91953493|NCT03655951|183803249|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.04
91894385|NCT00324116|183683751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|25.97||||||95.0|16.28|34.81|||||Proportion of subjects progressing to \<=20/200 was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations.|||34.81|16.28|
91894386|NCT01451827|183683782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||1.00|0.96|0.0127
91894387|NCT01451827|183683782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.97||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||0.99|0.95|0.0108
91894388|NCT01451827|183683782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||1.00|0.96|0.0155
91894389|NCT01451827|183683782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.99||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||1.01|0.97|0.2417
91894390|NCT01451827|183683783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Frequency||0.99|0.31|0.0002
91894391|NCT01451827|183683783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Frequency||1.08|0.40|< 0.0001
91894392|NCT01451827|183683783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Frequency||1.25|0.58|< 0.0001
91894393|NCT01451827|183683783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Urgency||1.01|0.30|0.0004
91894394|NCT01451827|183683783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Urgency||1.01|0.29|0.0004
91894395|NCT01451827|183683783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Urgency||1.34|0.63|< 0.0001
91894396|NCT01451827|183683783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Nocturia||1.30|0.42|0.0002
91894397|NCT01451827|183683783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Nocturia||1.51|0.63|< 0.0001
91894398|NCT01451827|183683783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66|||ANCOVA|||Nocturia||1.66|0.80|< 0.0001
91894399|NCT01451827|183683784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.97||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||0.99|0.94|0.0209
91894400|NCT01451827|183683784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.96||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo||1.00|0.93|0.0287
91894401|NCT01451827|183683784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.96||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo||1.00|0.93|0.0298
91894402|NCT01451827|183683784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo||1.01|0.94|0.2306
91894403|NCT03406078|183683896|SUPERIORITY||Cumulative Odds Ratio|1.28||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.35|||Proportional odds model|Response variable: categorised % reduction from baseline in final OCS dose. Covariates in the model: treatment, region and daily OCS dose at baseline.||||2.35|0.69|0.434
91894404|NCT00467350|183683916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|"Similar to previous studies, the main outcome measure was the change in the child's main symptom. Changes were determined by the question Has your child's main symptom improved, stayed the same or gotten worse? The main symptom was defined as the chief complaint identified during the triage process. For analysis, responses were dichotomized into 2 groups: improved/better versus worse/same."|||||||||||||||||A χ2 test was used to examine the difference in probabilities of experiencing an outcome between treatment arms and differences were expressed by Mantel-Haenszel common OR estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI).|||
91894405|NCT03538301|183683918|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.004153||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008284|-0.000021|||random coefficient model|||Slope in FVC (L/week) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||-0.000021|-0.008284|0.049
91894406|NCT03538301|183683918|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.002112||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00626|0.002036|||random coefficient model|||Slope in FVC (L/week) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.002036|-0.006260|0.316
91894407|NCT03538301|183683919|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.091238||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199456|0.016979|||random coefficient model|||||0.016979|-0.199456|0.098
91894408|NCT03538301|183683919|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.039596||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148248|0.069056|||random coefficient model|||||0.069056|-0.148248|0.473
91894409|NCT03538301|183683920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0997||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1988|-0.0005|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in FVC (L) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||-0.0005|-0.1988|0.049
91894410|NCT03538301|183683920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0507||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1502|0.0489|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in FVC (L) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.0489|-0.1502|0.316
91894411|NCT03538301|183683921|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.16||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|11.28|||random coefficient model|||||11.28|-17.59|0.668
91894412|NCT03538301|183683921|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|13.13|||random coefficient model|||||13.13|-16.57|0.821
91894413|NCT03538301|183683922|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1897||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7869|0.4075|||random coefficient model|||Change from baseline to Week 24 in ppFVC||0.4075|-4.7869|0.098
91894414|NCT03538301|183683922|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9503||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5579|1.6573|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in ppFVC||1.6573|-3.5579|0.473
91894415|NCT03538301|183683923|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.53||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|10.34|||random coefficient model|||||10.34|-15.40|0.700
91894416|NCT03538301|183683923|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|12.07|||random coefficient model|||||12.07|-14.31|0.867
91894417|NCT03538301|183683926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6226|0.9147|||random coefficient|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.9147|-0.6226|0.708
91894418|NCT03538301|183683926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7038||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0695|1.4771|||random coefficient|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||1.4771|-0.0695|0.074
91894419|NCT03538301|183683926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6362|0.8641|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Not Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.8641|-0.6362|0.765
91894420|NCT03538301|183683926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.556||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1986|1.3107|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Not Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||1.3107|-0.1986|0.148
91894421|NCT03538301|183683927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|2.71|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in QLF Score (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||2.71|-3.68|0.765
91894422|NCT03538301|183683927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|4.47|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in QLF Score (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||4.47|-1.68|0.370
91894423|NCT03538301|183683927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.34|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Ground Glass Opacity (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.34|-0.70|0.499
91894424|NCT03538301|183683927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.54|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Ground Glass Opacity (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.54|-0.47|0.901
91894425|NCT03538301|183683927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.46|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Reticulation (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||3.46|-2.25|0.676
91894426|NCT03538301|183683927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|4.42|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Reticulation (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||4.42|-1.13|0.242
91894427|NCT03538301|183683927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.4|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Honeycombing (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.40|-2.82|0.140
91894428|NCT03538301|183683927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.56|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Honeycombing (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.56|-2.53|0.211
91894429|NCT03538301|183683927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|3.91|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Normal Lung (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||3.91|-2.16|0.568
91894430|NCT03538301|183683927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|2.09|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Normal Lung (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||2.09|-3.76|0.573
91894431|NCT03538301|183683927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|-0.81|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Emphysema (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||-0.81|-6.35|0.012
91894432|NCT03538301|183683927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|0.51|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Emphysema (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.51|-4.82|0.112
91894433|NCT03538301|183683928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.256
91894434|NCT03538301|183683928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.241
91894435|NCT03538301|183683929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|2.225|||Log Rank|||Time to First IPF Exacerbation or Death (weeks) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||2.225|0.189|0.517
91894436|NCT03538301|183683929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.678||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|2.324|||Log Rank|||Time to First IPF Exacerbation or Death (weeks) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||2.324|0.198|0.506
91894437|NCT03538301|183683929|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-9.3||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|5.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of First IPF Exacerbation (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||5.5|-25.2|0.313
91894438|NCT03538301|183683929|SUPERIORITY|The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|9.2|||Chi-squared|||Rate of First IPF Exacerbation (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||9.2|-22.6|0.376
91894439|NCT03538301|183683930|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|9.6|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Hospitalization for Respiratory Ailments (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||9.6|-19.2|0.713
91894440|NCT03538301|183683930|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.7|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Hospitalization for Respiratory Ailments (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||10.7|-19.2|0.713
91894441|NCT03538301|183683931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937|||||||Log Rank|||Overall Survival (weeks) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||||0.937
91894442|NCT03538301|183683931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Log Rank|||Overall Survival (weeks) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||||0.414
91894443|NCT03538301|183683931|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.9|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Mortality (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||10.9|-10.4|>0.999
91894444|NCT03538301|183683931|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|6.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Mortality (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||6.8|-13.1|>0.999
91894445|NCT03538301|183683932|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|4.6|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Deterioration of IPF Resulting in Lung Transplantation (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||4.6|-16.6|0.494
91894446|NCT03538301|183683932|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|4.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Deterioration of IPF Resulting in Lung Transplantation (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||4.5|-16.2|0.494
91894447|NCT03616977|183683933|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 2-sided 90% Confidence Interval is completely contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.06||||||||1.06|0.961|
91894448|NCT00515853|183683936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|||CCI final||||0.54
91894449|NCT03798691|183683940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||one month after series completion of two dose series||||0.16
91894450|NCT04548544|183683947|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||timepoint × group interaction|timepoint × group interaction F = 0.77, p = 0.38|||0.38
91953494|NCT03655951|183803250|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.42
91894451|NCT01586910|183683956|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.07. Posterior threshold for non-inferiority was 0.971|Posterior Median of the Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||The posterior probability of non-inferiority is \> 0.9999. The posterior probability is the probability of the event rate by updating the prior probability distribution with observed data using Bayes' Theorem.|Bayesian||95% Bayesian credible interval for the difference (TAVR-SAVR) was (-5.2%, 2.3%). The 95% credible interval is the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the posterior distribution.|Primary Hypothesis: TAVR with the Medtronic TAVR is non-inferior to SAVR for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke rate during a fixed follow-up of 24 months.||||
91894452|NCT00252733|183683989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.821||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.001|||Log Rank|Generalized||||1.001|0.673|0.0508
91894453|NCT05398237|183684059|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.0122||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 1 hour post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK).|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study||||0.0122
91894454|NCT05398237|183684059|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.009||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 24 hours post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK)|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study.||||0.009
91894455|NCT05398237|183684060|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.0063||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 1 hour post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK)|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study||||0.0063
91894456|NCT05398237|183684060|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.0056||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 24 hours post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK)|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study.||||0.0056
91894457|NCT02469389|183684147|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at BL (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.295|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Post-hoc mixed effects model analyses of all outcomes were performed adjusting for BL CAINS MAP score.||Analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes utilized a linear mixed effects model accounting for random therapy group effects and included all available data at baseline (BL), post-treatment (PT; 12-week), and follow-up (FU; 24-week) timepoints (TPs). Error terms across TPs were assumed correlated with unstructured correlation matrix. To test time specific hypotheses, terms in the mean model included separate indicators for PT \& FU \& interaction terms between these indicators and conditions.||||0.295
91894458|NCT02469389|183684148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.182
91894459|NCT02469389|183684149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.114
91894460|NCT02469389|183684150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.220
91894461|NCT02469389|183684151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91894462|NCT02469389|183684152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.903
91894463|NCT02469389|183684153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.535
91894464|NCT02469389|183684154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
91894465|NCT02469389|183684155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
91894466|NCT02469389|183684156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.498
91894467|NCT02469389|183684157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.079
91894468|NCT02469389|183684158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.539
91894469|NCT01079663|183684159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.1629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-1.19|0.1629
91894470|NCT01079663|183684160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.46|0.0347
91894471|NCT01014143|183684170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91894472|NCT03536143|183684233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0216
91894473|NCT03536143|183684234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0009
91894474|NCT01878214|183684235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
91894475|NCT01878214|183684236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.79
91894476|NCT01878214|183684237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Smoking frequency||||0.63
91894477|NCT01878214|183684237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Smoking quantity||||0.30
91894478|NCT01878214|183684238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.28
91894479|NCT01878214|183684239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Motivation to quit||||0.09
91894480|NCT01878214|183684239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Thinking about quitting||||0.04
91894481|NCT03038438|183684240|OTHER|Single arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Proportion|88.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|82.5||||Fisher Exact|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint, primary patency at 12 months, was tested against a PG of 75%. The null and alternative hypotheses tested appear below:~H0: π ≤ PG vs. HA: π \> PG where π is the primary patency rate at 12 months in the study population and PG is the performance goal of 75%. The primary effectiveness objective will be met if the lower limit of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval is above 75%."|||82.5|<0.0001
91894482|NCT03038438|183684241|OTHER|Single-arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Proportion|2.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||5.0|||Fisher Exact|||"The primary safety endpoint, major adverse events at 30 days post-procedure, was tested against a performance goal of 12.5%. The null and alternative hypotheses tested appear below:~H0: P ≥ PG vs. HA: P \< PG where P is the primary safety endpoint at 30 days in the study population and PG is the performance goal.~The primary safety objective will be met if the upper limit of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval is below 12.5%."||5.0||<0.0001
91894483|NCT03406260|183684288|NON_INFERIORITY|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates lasmiditan can be declared noninferior to placebo with noninferiority margin of 10 mmHg, i.e. the difference lasmiditan mean minus placebo mean is less than 10 mmHg.|LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-1.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1000.0|1.81|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||1.81|-1000|<0.0001
91894484|NCT03406260|183684288|NON_INFERIORITY|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates lasmiditan can be declared noninferior to placebo with noninferiority margin of 10 mmHg, i.e. the difference lasmiditan mean minus placebo mean is less than 10 mmHg.|LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1000.0|2.06|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||2.06|-1000|<0.0001
91894485|NCT00871780|183684291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||0.0003
91894486|NCT00871780|183684291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||0.0002
91894487|NCT00871780|183684292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||0.0148
91894488|NCT00871780|183684292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||0.0119
91894489|NCT00871780|183684293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||<0.0001
91894490|NCT00871780|183684293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||0.0157
91894491|NCT00871780|183684294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||<0.0001
91894492|NCT00871780|183684294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||<0.0001
91894493|NCT00871780|183684295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
91894494|NCT00871780|183684295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91894495|NCT00871780|183684295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91894496|NCT00871780|183684296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
91894497|NCT00871780|183684296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91894498|NCT00871780|183684296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91894499|NCT00871780|183684297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
91894500|NCT00871780|183684297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91894501|NCT00871780|183684297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91894502|NCT00871780|183684298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
91894503|NCT00871780|183684298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91894504|NCT00871780|183684298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91894505|NCT00871780|183684299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
91894506|NCT00871780|183684299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91894507|NCT00871780|183684299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91894508|NCT00871780|183684300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
91894509|NCT00871780|183684300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91894510|NCT00871780|183684300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91894511|NCT00871780|183684301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
91894512|NCT00871780|183684301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0016
91894513|NCT00871780|183684301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||0.0866
91894514|NCT00871780|183684302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
91894515|NCT00871780|183684302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91894516|NCT00871780|183684302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91894517|NCT00523640|183684392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion responding|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.44||||||||0.44|0.10|
91894518|NCT06377488|183684395|SUPERIORITY||least-square mean estimate|-0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|-0.056|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Visual Acuity scores at distance was estimated using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least-square mean (LSM).|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 9, 6 and 29 subjects were required to test the primary hypotheses for distance, intermediate and near, respectively.||-0.056|-0.115|
91894519|NCT06377488|183684395|SUPERIORITY||least-square mean estimate|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.005|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Visual Acuity scores at intermediate was estimated using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least-square mean (LSM).|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 9, 6 and 29 subjects were required to test the primary hypotheses for distance, intermediate and near, respectively.||0.005|-0.050|
91894520|NCT06377488|183684395|SUPERIORITY||least-square mean estimate|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.116|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Visual Acuity scores at near was estimated using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least-square mean (LSM).|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 9, 6 and 29 subjects were required to test the primary hypotheses for distance, intermediate and near, respectively.||0.116|0.051|
91894521|NCT06377488|183684396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|62.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.7|67.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for myopes only using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 29 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||67.5|56.7|
91894522|NCT06377488|183684396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|57.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.7|64.0|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for hyperopes only using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 29 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||64.0|51.7|
91894523|NCT06377488|183684397|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.943|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|0.968|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.902 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 96% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.968|0.908|
91894524|NCT06377488|183684398|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.988|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0058|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|0.997|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 96% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.997|0.974|
91894525|NCT06377488|183684399|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.006|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.017|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.017|0.000|
91894526|NCT06377488|183684400|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.011|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.011|0.000|
91894527|NCT06377488|183684401|SUPERIORITY||Least-square mean estimate|57.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.7|64.0|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|This is the analysis for hyperopes only. Mean estimates were conducted using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 42 and 55 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||64.0|51.7|
91894528|NCT06377488|183684401|SUPERIORITY||Least-square mean estimate|62.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.7|67.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|This is the analysis for myopes only. Mean estimates were conducted using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 42 and 55 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||67.5|56.7|
91894529|NCT06377488|183684402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|64.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|70.8|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for hyperopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 46 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE comfort scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||70.8|58.6|
91894530|NCT06377488|183684402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|64.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|69.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for myopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 46 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE comfort scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||69.5|59.0|
91894531|NCT06377488|183684403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|67.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|73.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for hyperopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 15 and 26 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE handling scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||73.5|62.2|
91894532|NCT06377488|183684403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|67.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|71.8|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for myopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 15 and 26 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE handling scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||71.8|62.2|
91894533|NCT06377488|183684404|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.966|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0135|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|0.988|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data.||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 5000 replicating trials, that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.988|0.933|
91894534|NCT02065687|183684423|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between BMI and metformin treatment (i.e. the parameter associated with the interaction term of BMI \* treatment is equal to 0).|Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.01787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27472||0.9482|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||The interaction between BMI and metformin treatment will be examined with an interaction term in a Cox proportional hazards model. Historical data indicate that approximately 50% of people are obese (BMI\>=30). For the purposes of examining the relationship, we will classify patients into two levels (high versus low) at the median BMI, which will increase the likelihood of detecting an interaction between metformin treatment and obesity.||||0.9482
91894535|NCT04494256|183684447|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.84|=|0.9924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|15.32||ANCOVA model included: treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline percent predicted SVC, baseline plasma NfL, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|||||15.32|-15.47|=0.9924
91894536|NCT04494256|183684448|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|=|0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.74||ANCOVA model included: treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline percent predicted SVC, baseline plasma NfL, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|||||3.74|-4.14|=0.9203
91894537|NCT04494256|183684449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|=|0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04||ANCOVA model included: treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline percent predicted SVC, baseline plasma NfL, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.41|=0.1069
91894538|NCT04494256|183684450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.29|||=|0.1003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|42.587|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by median baseline plasma NfL||||42.587|0.433|=0.1003
91894539|NCT04494256|183684451|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1143|||||||Kaplan-Meier product limit method|||||||=0.1143
91894540|NCT02483585|183684456|SUPERIORITY|A sequential testing procedure, specifically, the hierarchical gate-keeping procedures and Hochberg method, was used to maintain the 2-sided study-wise type I error at 0.05 between the primary and efficacy secondary endpoints.|LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.47|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-0.47|-1.61|< 0.001
91894541|NCT02483585|183684457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after the missing data were imputed as nonresponse, stratified by stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||2.27|1.12|0.010
91894542|NCT02483585|183684458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.21|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-0.21|-0.96|0.002
91894543|NCT02483585|183684459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after the missing data were imputed as nonresponse, stratified by stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||1.71|0.87|0.26
91894544|NCT02483585|183684460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after the missing data were imputed as nonresponse, stratified by stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||1.90|0.92|0.13
91894545|NCT00825916|183684471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.078
91894546|NCT00825916|183684471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.086
91894547|NCT00825916|183684471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.92
91894548|NCT00825916|183684471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.49
91894549|NCT00825916|183684472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.74
91894550|NCT00825916|183684472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.59
91894551|NCT00825916|183684472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.69
91894552|NCT00825916|183684472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||1.00
91894553|NCT00825916|183684473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.34
91894554|NCT00825916|183684473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.98
91894555|NCT00825916|183684473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.15
91894556|NCT00825916|183684473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.83
91894557|NCT00825916|183684473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.95
91894558|NCT00825916|183684473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.59
91894559|NCT00825916|183684473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.76
91894560|NCT00825916|183684473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.63
91894561|NCT00825916|183684473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.92
91894562|NCT00825916|183684473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.69
91894563|NCT00825916|183684474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.95
91894564|NCT00825916|183684474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.76
91894565|NCT00825916|183684474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.60
91894566|NCT00825916|183684474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.44
91894567|NCT00825916|183684474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.85
91894568|NCT00825916|183684474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.83
91894569|NCT01778023|183684475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|5.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|6.21|||ANOVA|The HV after 6 months of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA method with group and sex as fixed effects, and age as a covariate.||Let D be a mean difference of the primary endpoint between group A and group B. Null hypothesis H0: D = 0 vs. alternative H1: D ≠ 0 will be statistically tested by an ANOVA model.||6.21|4.09|<0.0001
91894570|NCT01090427|183684528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
91894571|NCT01090427|183684528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
91894572|NCT01090427|183684529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
91894573|NCT01090427|183684529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
91894574|NCT01090427|183684530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] will be used as factors in the model.||||||0.003
91894575|NCT01090427|183684530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] will be used as factors in the model.||||||<0.001
91894576|NCT01090427|183684531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
91894577|NCT01090427|183684531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
91894578|NCT01090427|183684532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0||||<0.001
91894579|NCT01090427|183684532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0||||<0.001
91894580|NCT01090427|183684532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0, 1, or 2||||<0.001
91894581|NCT01090427|183684532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0, 1, or 2||||<0.001
91894582|NCT01090427|183684533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PASI 50 responders||||<0.001
91894583|NCT01090427|183684533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PASI 50 responders||||<0.001
91894584|NCT01090427|183684533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||Participants with PASI score of 0||||0.014
91894585|NCT01090427|183684533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||Participants with PASI score of 0||||<0.001
91894586|NCT01090427|183684534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.003
91894587|NCT01090427|183684534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.028
91894588|NCT01090427|183684534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Psychosocial health summary score||||0.005
91894589|NCT01090427|183684534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Psychosocial health summary score||||0.063
91894590|NCT01090427|183684534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Physical health summary score||||0.007
91894591|NCT01090427|183684534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Physical health summary score||||0.020
91894592|NCT01090427|183684535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||0.027
91894593|NCT01090427|183684535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
91894594|NCT02891837|183684650|OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4930
91894595|NCT02891837|183684652|OTHER|||||||0.1924|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1924
91894596|NCT02891837|183684653|OTHER|||||||0.8678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8678
91894597|NCT02891837|183684660|OTHER|||||||0.6422|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6422
91894598|NCT02891837|183684661|OTHER|||||||0.7572|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7572
91894599|NCT02891837|183684663|OTHER|||||||0.3681|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3681
91894600|NCT02891837|183684667|OTHER|"Sample size calculated with nQuery 7.0. Assumed standard deviation = 50 h, \& mean values of 44 h (placebo) \& 14 h (L-citrulline group), estimated effect size = 0.600, yielding a sample size N=92/group (two-sided Wilcoxon-rank-sum test with 0.01 significance level and 90% power). Assumptions for standard deviation \& mean based on Study CIT-002-01 results.~To allow for subjects being enrolled but not assigned to the full analysis set (FAS), an overall N=95 subjects per group were to be enrolled."|Location shift|219.0||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|626.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment difference = L-citrulline - placebo For the mean and median values, that the estimated values are given in minutes \[min\]|H0: Composite endpoint in L-citrulline group = placebo group H1: Composite endpoint in L-citrulline group ≠ placebo group H0 tested using Wilcoxon-rank-sum test. Significance level = 1% (2-sided).||626.0|-88.0|0.1560
91894601|NCT02891837|183684667|OTHER||Location shift|813.1||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.5|1961.6||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The results of the T-test should be interpreted with caution since the endpoint is not normally distributed.|Treatment difference = L-citrulline - placebo. For the mean and median values, the estimated values are given in minutes|Post hoc analyses were done for US patients on mechanical ventilation for \<=48 hours. For all post hoc analyses a significance level of 5% was applied.||1961.6|-335.5|0.1627
91894602|NCT02891837|183684675|OTHER|||||||0.0326||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||"Values at 48 hours post-surgery start for all US patients on ventilation for ≤48 hours are presented.~Treatment group, baseline values and site were included as fixed factors, site\*treatment as interaction terms in this ANOVA. The normality assumption of residuals is critical for all considered timepoints. Please interpret results with caution."||||0.0326
91894603|NCT02891837|183684675|OTHER|||||||0.0026||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||"Values at 48 hours post-surgery start for ALL patients on ventilation for ≤48 hours are presented.~Treatment group, baseline values and site were included as fixed factors, site\*treatment as interaction terms in this ANOVA. The normality assumption of residuals is critical for all considered timepoints. Please interpret results with caution."||||0.0026
91894604|NCT00943111|183684684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size for study was based on expected stability rates of 95% for the Imiglucerase group and 85% for the Eliglustat group, power of 85%, a one-sided significance level of 0.025, a non-inferiority margin of 25%, and a 20% non-evaluable/drop-out rate. Eliglustat was declared non-inferior to Imiglucerase if the lower-bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference was within the non-inferiority margin of 25%.|Difference in Percentage Stable|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|4.2||||||||4.2|-17.6|
91894605|NCT00728910|183684701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was that the sequential addition of a fibrate and niacin to baseline atorvastatin therapy would not have any effect on apo-AI catabolism.||||>0.5
91894606|NCT00728910|183684702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that sequential addition of fibrate and niacin to baseline atorvastatin therapy would have no effect on apo-A1 production rates||||>0.5
91894607|NCT00728910|183684703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was that sequential addition of fibrate and niacin to baseline atorvastatin therapy would have no effect on post-prandial triglyceride levels following an oral fat load||||<0.0005
91894608|NCT00728910|183684703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0005
91894609|NCT04155203|183684704|EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects in each treatment group with clinical cure, defined as a SIRS score of 0 for all signs and symptoms at Visit 4/Follow-up (7 days after the end of treatment).|equivalence ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.19|2.7||||||||2.70|-8.19|
91894610|NCT02502097|183684734|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.5096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||5.1|-10.1|0.5096
91894611|NCT02502097|183684734|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.8983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||11.8|-13.4|0.8983
91894612|NCT02502097|183684738|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||7.2|-14.6|0.5005
91894613|NCT02502097|183684738|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|16.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||16.1|-19.8|0.8382
91894614|NCT02502097|183684739|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||9.2|-11.9|0.8008
91894615|NCT02502097|183684739|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||18.0|-17.6|0.9805
91894616|NCT02502097|183684742|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||2.4|-7.1|0.3279
91894617|NCT02502097|183684742|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.7772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||12.3|-9.2|0.7772
91894618|NCT02502097|183684743|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||3.6|-10.1|0.3493
91894619|NCT02502097|183684743|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.8952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||16.3|-14.3|0.8952
91894620|NCT02502097|183684744|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.6597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||5.2|-8.1|0.6597
91894621|NCT02502097|183684744|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||17.2|-13.1|0.7880
91894622|NCT02502097|183684748|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||1.3|-6.3|0.1856
91894623|NCT02502097|183684748|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.5658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||12.1|-6.6|0.5658
91894624|NCT02502097|183684749|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||1.1|-17.2|0.0847
91894625|NCT02502097|183684749|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||5.4|-17.0|0.3083
91894626|NCT02502097|183684750|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||1.3|-5.3|0.2290
91894627|NCT02502097|183684750|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||3.4|-3.5|0.9794
91894628|NCT02502097|183684751|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Week 1|||-0.4|-1.5|0.0009
91894629|NCT02502097|183684751|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Week 2|||-0.3|-1.7|0.0050
91894630|NCT02502097|183684752|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||2.5|-8.2|0.2938
91894631|NCT02502097|183684752|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||1.2|-9.2|0.1319
91894632|NCT02502097|183684753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.2175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||0.4|-1.5|0.2175
91894633|NCT02502097|183684753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||0.7|-1.4|0.5312
91894634|NCT02874924|183684770|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot study, therefore, no power calculation available.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.81||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|4.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis||4.86|-8.48|0.56
91894635|NCT01874431|183684791|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.926||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.799|1.074|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a last-observation carried-forward (LOCF) method for missing observations.||1.074|0.799|0.1973
91894636|NCT01874431|183684791|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.949||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|1.101|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||1.101|0.818|0.2808
91894637|NCT01874431|183684791|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.878||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.758|1.017|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||1.017|0.758|0.0723
91894638|NCT01874431|183684791|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.787||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.912|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.912|0.68|0.0039
91894639|NCT01874431|183684791|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.755||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.651|0.875|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.875|0.651|0.0009
91894640|NCT01874431|183684791|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.671|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.584|0.772|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.772|0.584|< 0.0001
91894641|NCT01874431|183684791|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.624|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.542|0.718|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.718|0.542|< 0.0001
91894642|NCT01874431|183684792|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.107||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|0.003|0.0428
91894643|NCT01874431|183684792|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.121||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.225|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.225|0.017|0.0223
91894644|NCT01874431|183684792|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.305|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.305|0.096|0.0002
91894645|NCT01874431|183684792|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.125||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.229|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.229|0.021|0.0181
91894646|NCT01874431|183684792|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.166||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|0.061|0.0019
91894647|NCT01874431|183684792|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.236|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.334|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.334|0.137|< 0.0001
91894648|NCT01874431|183684792|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.186||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.284|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.284|0.088|0.0002
91894649|NCT01874431|183684793|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.786||||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.337|1.765|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.765|-3.337|0.5454
91894650|NCT01874431|183684793|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.61||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.177|0.957|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.957|-4.177|0.2186
91894651|NCT01874431|183684793|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.918||||0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.503|1.667|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.667|-3.503|0.4859
91894652|NCT01874431|183684793|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.8||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.358|0.759|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.759|-4.358|0.1677
91894653|NCT01874431|183684793|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.613||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.183|-0.044|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.044|-5.183|0.0462
91894654|NCT01874431|183684793|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.228||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.643|0.187|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.187|-4.643|0.0705
91894655|NCT01874431|183684793|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.446||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.869|-0.022|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.022|-4.869|0.048
91894656|NCT01874431|183684794|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.863||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.022|0.297|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.297|-6.022|0.0757
91894657|NCT01874431|183684794|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.643||||0.6941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.851|2.565|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.565|-3.851|0.6941
91894658|NCT01874431|183684794|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.976||||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.155|1.203|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.203|-5.155|0.2228
91894659|NCT01874431|183684794|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.932||||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.098|1.234|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.234|-5.098|0.2313
91894660|NCT01874431|183684794|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.342||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.509|-0.176|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.176|-6.509|0.0386
91894661|NCT01874431|183684794|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.634||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.624|2.355|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.355|-3.624|0.677
91894662|NCT01874431|183684794|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.688||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.699|2.322|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.322|-3.699|0.6536
91894663|NCT01874431|183684795|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.044||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.471|0.383|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.383|-6.471|0.0816
91894664|NCT01874431|183684795|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.537||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.027|2.953|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.953|-4.027|0.7625
91894665|NCT01874431|183684795|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.301|||=|0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.759|2.157|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.157|-4.759|= 0.4603
91894666|NCT01874431|183684795|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.574||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.004|1.855|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.855|-5.004|0.3678
91894667|NCT01874431|183684795|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.727||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.191|1.736|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.736|-5.191|0.3279
91894668|NCT01874431|183684795|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.682||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.935|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.57|-4.935|0.3102
91894669|NCT01874431|183684795|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.511||||0.1317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.778|0.755|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.755|-5.778|0.1317
91894670|NCT02257567|183684821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.82||||0.5353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|25.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.38|-14.53|0.5353
91894671|NCT02257567|183684821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates (4.89|25.0||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|42.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.63|4.89|0.0128
91894672|NCT02257567|183684830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.69||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.68|20.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.86|-19.68|0.8817
91894673|NCT02257567|183684830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.5||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.66|44.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.74|7.66|0.0061
91894674|NCT02257567|183684832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-1.0||||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.66|16.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.46|-18.66|0.9523
91894675|NCT02257567|183684832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|30.0||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.48|47.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.37|9.48|0.0036
91894676|NCT02257567|183684833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.75||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|22.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.11|-15.14|0.6574
91894677|NCT02257567|183684833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|42.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.63|4.89|0.0128
91894678|NCT02257567|183684836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.88||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|21.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.72|-14.49|0.6225
91894679|NCT02257567|183684836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|30.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.94|47.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.12|9.94|0.0032
91894680|NCT02257567|183684837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-6.13||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|12.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.12|-24.14|0.4835
91894681|NCT02257567|183684837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|42.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.33|5.39|0.0096
91894682|NCT02257567|183684838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-0.5||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.07|13.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.71|-15.07|0.9390
91894683|NCT02257567|183684838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|37.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.64|54.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.71|15.64|0.0006
91894684|NCT02257567|183684839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|37.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.82|54.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.62|15.82|0.0005
91894685|NCT02257567|183684840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.19|0.0245
91894686|NCT02257567|183684841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.2451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.25|0.2451
91894687|NCT02257567|183684842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.20|<.0001
91894688|NCT02257567|183684843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.23|0.0003
91894689|NCT00946101|183684894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the calculation of the power to rule out a 10% increase of fever rate in vaccine recipients with 300 evaluable subjects (240 vaccine and 60 placebo recipients), it is assumed that the true fever rate in the monovalent vaccine group is 3.0% to 8.0%,and the true fever rate in placebo group is 0% to 3% lower than the fever rate in the vaccine group.|rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.1|||score|||The rate of subjects with fever between the two treatment groups was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo). The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals was evaluated against the pre-specified equivalence criterion of 10% which corresponds to the following hypotheses: H0 (null): rate difference ≥ 10%, HA (alternative): rate difference \< 10%||3.1|-6.4|
91894690|NCT00946101|183684895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|9.8|||score|||The number of subjects who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||9.8|-12.8|
91894691|NCT00946101|183684896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|13.8|||score|||The number of subjects who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||13.8|-9.6|
91894692|NCT00946101|183684897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|27.1|||score|||The number of subjects who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||27.1|5.5|
91894693|NCT00946101|183684898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|17.6|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compated following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||17.6|-8.4|
91894694|NCT00946101|183684901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|25.7|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||25.7|-0.4|
91894695|NCT00946101|183684904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|6.1|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||6.1|-19.7|
91894696|NCT00946101|183684907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|7.1|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||7.1|-20.3|
91894697|NCT00946101|183684916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|14.7|||score|||The number of subjects who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||14.7|-6.1|
91894698|NCT00946101|183684917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|15.1|||score|||The number of subjects who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||15.1|-5.8|
91894699|NCT00946101|183684918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|25.2|||score|||The number of subjects who achieved a post Dose 2 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||25.2|5.9|
91894700|NCT00495586|183684922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|24.3|||Chi-squared|||For the comparison of the efficacy of antibiotic versus placebo, we accepted a null hypothesis if the cure rate in the intervention group was the same or ±7% as that observed in the placebo arm. Based on previous studies, the expected rate of cure among patients assigned to antibiotic therapy was 90%. For an alpha of 0.05 and a beta of 0.2 and accepting possible losses of 15%, we calculated that the sample size is 677 patients in total.||24.3|3.7|<0.05
91894701|NCT02527343|183684945|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-66.83||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.17|-29.48|||ANCOVA|||||-29.48|-104.17|0.0009
91894702|NCT02527343|183684946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-25.69||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.03|2.65|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.65|-54.03|0.0736
91894703|NCT02527343|183684946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-53.33||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.71|-18.95|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||-18.95|-87.71|0.0039
91894704|NCT02527343|183684948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|0.3||||0.4108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.03|-0.43|0.4108
91894705|NCT02527343|183684948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|0.19||||0.7308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.34|-0.95|0.7308
91894706|NCT02527343|183684948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.2||||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 9||1.06|-1.45|0.7511
91894707|NCT02527343|183684948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.19||||0.7659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||1.13|-1.52|0.7659
91894708|NCT04426851|183684961|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.4|50.9|||||"Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg tablet fasted/BI 1358894 (C-14) 100 ug i.v.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)=14.3."|The Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas 'formulation' was considered as fixed.||50.9|41.4|
91894709|NCT04426851|183684962|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|141.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.3|154.6|||||Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fed/BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fasted. Intra -individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)=10.9.|The ANOVA model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence or block', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||154.6|129.3|
91894710|NCT04426851|183684964|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|65.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.6|78.0|||||Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fed/BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fasted. Intra - individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)=22.5.|The ANOVA model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence or block', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||78.0|54.6|
91894711|NCT04426851|183684965|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|148.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.1|159.5|||||Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fed/BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fasted. Intra - individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) =8.7.|The ANOVA model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence or block', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||159.5|138.1|
91894712|NCT02081417|183684981|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on the PCL-C if the interventions fell within 2.5 points of each other|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|-3.4|0.01
91894713|NCT01288521|183684987|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the tacrolimus biovailability alone is equal to the tacrolimus bioavailability when given with ketoconazole.||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|The bioavailability with Tac alone vs. Tac +keto was compared using linear model adjusting for sex and creatinine clearance.||The bioavailability of Tac alone vs. Tac +keto was compared using a general linear model including sex and creatinine clearance as covariates.||||0.006
91894714|NCT03086213|183684996|NON_INFERIORITY|the definition of non-inferiority analysis is that the new method is no less effective than standard interventions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.025||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|95.0||whether or not the p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom|Paravertebral nerve block arm represents the numerator and intercostal block represents the denominator for relative risk|null hypothesis||95|5|0.025
91894715|NCT03086213|183684997|SUPERIORITY|During the calculation of sample size,a sample size of 24 patients per group was calculated as being required to ensure 90% power of detecting the difference-if any-as statistically significant at the 5% level|||||<|0.05||||||the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom is defined as sample size subtraction one.||null hypothesis||||<0.05
91894716|NCT03086213|183685000|SUPERIORITY|During the calculation of sample size,a sample size of 24 patients per group was calculated as being required to ensure 90% power of detecting the difference-if any-as statistically significant at the 5% level||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Degree of freedom is defined as sample size subtraction one.||null hypothesis||||0.05
91894717|NCT01502631|183685002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.497||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|13.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 2||13.14|-1.93|0.2182
91894718|NCT01502631|183685002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.583||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.54|16.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 4||16.27|-2.54|0.2260
91894719|NCT01502631|183685002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.023||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.15|13.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 8||13.21|-7.15|0.6184
91894720|NCT01502631|183685002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.524||0.4912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.48|15.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 16||15.56|-6.48|0.4912
91894721|NCT01445301|183685042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||||-7.0|-15.0|<0.001
91894722|NCT01445301|183685042|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-12.9|<0.001
91894723|NCT01445301|183685044|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-1.5|-4.4|<0.001
91894724|NCT01445301|183685044|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||0.4|-4.0|0.113
91894725|NCT01445301|183685044|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||0.3|-4.2|0.084
91894726|NCT01445301|183685044|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-0.3|-5.1|0.026
91894727|NCT01445301|183685044|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-0.3|-5.0|0.030
91894728|NCT01445301|183685044|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-0.4|-6.5|0.028
91894729|NCT01445301|183685044|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||-1.7|-9.1|0.004
91894730|NCT01445301|183685044|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Odds Ratio (OR)|-5.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||-1.9|-9.6|0.003
91894731|NCT01445301|183685044|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-1.6|-9.4|0.006
91894732|NCT01445301|183685044|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-1.7|-9.5|0.005
91894733|NCT01445301|183685044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-1.1|-3.9|<0.001
91894734|NCT01445301|183685044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||-1.6|-4.7|<0.001
91894735|NCT01445301|183685044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||-0.9|-4.1|0.002
91894736|NCT01445301|183685044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-0.9|-4.5|0.003
91894737|NCT01445301|183685044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-1.0|-4.6|0.002
91894738|NCT01445301|183685044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-3.2|-8.8|<0.001
91894739|NCT01445301|183685044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||-4.7|-11.4|<0.001
91894740|NCT01445301|183685044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-6.2|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||-6.2|-13.1|<0.001
91894741|NCT01445301|183685044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-5.1|-12.1|<0.001
91894742|NCT01445301|183685044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.8|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-4.8|-11.6|<0.001
91894743|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.12|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-4.12|-11.30|<0.001
91894744|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-3.77|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-3.77|-13.24|<0.001
91894745|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|-4.41|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-4.41|-13.37|<0.001
91894746|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|-4.43|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-4.43|-13.82|<0.001
91894747|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|-4.75|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-4.75|-14.11|<0.001
91894748|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|-5.97|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-5.97|-15.12|<0.001
91894749|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.21||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|-1.69|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-1.69|-12.73|0.011
91894750|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.64||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-2.35|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-2.35|-12.93|0.005
91894751|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-3.26|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-3.26|-14.20|0.002
91894752|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|-3.06|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-3.06|-13.34|0.002
91894753|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-1.32|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-1.32|-10.29|0.011
91894754|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-2.50|-14.10|0.005
91894755|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-3.83|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-3.83|-14.72|<0.001
91894756|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|-3.39|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-3.39|-14.28|0.002
91894757|NCT01445301|183685045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-4.3|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-4.30|-15.06|<0.001
91894758|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.32|-5.48|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-5.48|-12.32|<0.001
91894759|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.18|-7.16|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-7.16|-15.18|<0.001
91894760|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-8.35|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-8.35|-15.90|<0.001
91894761|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-7.30|-15.37|<0.001
91894762|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.11|-7.25|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-7.25|-15.11|<0.001
91894763|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-3.88|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-3.88|-12.76|<0.001
91894764|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-5.3|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-5.30|-13.83|<0.001
91894765|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|-3.62|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-3.62|-12.03|<0.001
91894766|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|-3.53|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-3.53|-12.63|<0.001
91894767|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|-4.41|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-4.41|-12.71|<0.001
91894768|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|-4.68|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-4.68|-13.53|<0.001
91894769|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-5.8|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-5.80|-16.30|<0.001
91894770|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.97|-9.37|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-9.37|-18.97|<0.001
91894771|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.83|-8.25|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-8.25|-17.83|<0.001
91894772|NCT01445301|183685045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.05|-7.68|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-7.68|-17.05|<0.001
91894773|NCT01445301|183685046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91894774|NCT01445301|183685046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91894775|NCT01445301|183685047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.470
91894776|NCT01445301|183685047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||0.844
91894777|NCT01445301|183685047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||0.022
91894778|NCT01445301|183685047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||<0.001
91894779|NCT01445301|183685047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||<0.001
91894780|NCT01445301|183685047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.572
91894781|NCT01445301|183685047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||0.335
91894782|NCT01445301|183685047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||0.187
91894783|NCT01445301|183685047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||<0.001
91894784|NCT01445301|183685047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||0.006
91894785|NCT01445301|183685048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.002
91894786|NCT01445301|183685048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||<0.001
91894787|NCT01445301|183685048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||<0.001
91894788|NCT01445301|183685048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||<0.001
91894789|NCT01445301|183685048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||<0.001
91894790|NCT01445301|183685048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.480
91894791|NCT01445301|183685048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||<0.001
91894792|NCT01445301|183685048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||0.009
91894793|NCT01445301|183685048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||0.008
91894794|NCT01445301|183685048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||0.065
91894795|NCT00190749|183685067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||P-value for change to last observation|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.226
91894796|NCT00190749|183685067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value is change to last observation|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
91894797|NCT00190749|183685067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||P-value for change to last observation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.204
91894798|NCT00190749|183685068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.184
91894799|NCT00190749|183685068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.295
91894800|NCT00190749|183685069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.256
91894801|NCT00190749|183685069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.277
91894802|NCT00190749|183685070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.766
91894803|NCT00190749|183685070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.622
91894804|NCT00190749|183685071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.829
91894805|NCT00190749|183685071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.714
91894806|NCT00190749|183685072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.672
91894807|NCT00190749|183685072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.191
91894808|NCT00190749|183685073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.994
91894809|NCT00190749|183685073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.456
91894810|NCT00190749|183685074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.454
91894811|NCT00190749|183685074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.974||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.974
91894812|NCT00190749|183685075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.249
91894813|NCT00190749|183685075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.163
91894814|NCT00190749|183685076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.201
91894815|NCT00190749|183685076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.168
91894816|NCT00190749|183685077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.793
91894817|NCT00190749|183685077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.777||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.777
91894818|NCT00190749|183685078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.815
91894819|NCT00190749|183685078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.675
91894820|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 1||||0.393
91894821|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 1||||0.033
91894822|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 2||||0.392
91894823|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 2||||0.129
91894824|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Bahavior Item 3||||0.956
91894825|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 3||||0.846
91894826|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 4||||0.675
91894827|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 4||||0.306
91894828|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 5||||0.468
91894829|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 5||||0.739
91894830|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 6||||0.404
91894831|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 6||||0.711
91894832|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 7||||0.281
91894833|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 7||||0.805
91894834|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 8||||0.844
91894835|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Bahavior Item 8||||0.359
91894836|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 9||||0.642
91894837|NCT00190749|183685079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 9||||0.043
91894838|NCT00190749|183685080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on Least Squares Mean (LSMean) change||||||<.001
91894839|NCT00190749|183685080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.019
91894840|NCT00190749|183685080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change =Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.065
91894841|NCT00190749|183685081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||<.001
91894842|NCT00190749|183685081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.013
91894843|NCT00190749|183685081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change = Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.076
91894844|NCT00190749|183685082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.007
91894845|NCT00190749|183685082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.266
91894846|NCT00190749|183685082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change = Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.239
91894847|NCT00190749|183685083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-vales are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.274
91894848|NCT00190749|183685083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change.||||||0.105
91894849|NCT00190749|183685083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change= Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.609
91894850|NCT00190749|183685084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.406
91894851|NCT00190749|183685084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.011
91894852|NCT00190749|183685084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall group p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.076
91894853|NCT00190749|183685085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.456
91894854|NCT00190749|183685085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.712
91894855|NCT00190749|183685085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change= Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.689
91894856|NCT00190749|183685086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean||Total Score||||0.111
91894857|NCT00190749|183685086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean changes||Total Score||||0.159
91894858|NCT00190749|183685086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.951||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change =Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Total Score||||0.951
91894859|NCT00190749|183685086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Positive Subscale||||0.012
91894860|NCT00190749|183685086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean||Positive subscale||||0.002
91894861|NCT00190749|183685086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change =Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Positive subscale||||0.467
91894862|NCT00190749|183685086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Negative subscale||||0.365
91894863|NCT00190749|183685086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Negative subscale||||0.846
91894864|NCT00190749|183685086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Negative subscale||||0.559
91894865|NCT00190749|183685086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Anxiety-Depression subscale||||0.150
91894866|NCT00190749|183685086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Anxiety-Depression subscale||||0.612
91894867|NCT00190749|183685086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Anxiety-Depression subscale||||0.475
91894868|NCT00190749|183685087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.012
91894869|NCT00190749|183685087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.010
91894870|NCT00190749|183685087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of square ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.760
91894871|NCT00190749|183685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.943||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.943
91894872|NCT00190749|183685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.763
91894873|NCT00190749|183685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.832
91894874|NCT00190749|183685089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.623
91894875|NCT00190749|183685089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.853
91894876|NCT00190749|183685089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.591
91894877|NCT00190749|183685090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.302
91894878|NCT00190749|183685090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.922
91894879|NCT00190749|183685090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall group p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.479
91894880|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 1||||0.004
91894881|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 1||||0.001
91894882|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares, ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 1||||0.549
91894883|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 2||||0.011
91894884|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 2||||0.009
91894885|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 2||||0.793
91894886|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 3||||0.045
91894887|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 3||||0.027
91894888|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 3||||0.699
91894889|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 4||||0.002
91894890|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||ITem 4||||0.019
91894891|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 4||||0.733
91894892|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 5||||0.034
91894893|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 5||||0.235
91894894|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 5||||0.532
91894895|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 6||||0.242
91894896|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 6||||0.186
91894897|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 6||||0.799
91894898|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 7||||0.097
91894899|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 7||||0.214
91894900|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 7||||0.827
91894901|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 8||||0.151
91894902|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 8||||0.071
91894903|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 8||||0.629
91894904|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 9||||0.036
91894905|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 9||||0.112
91894906|NCT00190749|183685091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.806||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 9||||0.806
91894907|NCT00190749|183685092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.156
91894908|NCT00190749|183685092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.829
91894909|NCT00190749|183685092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.352
91894910|NCT00190749|183685093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.740
91894911|NCT00190749|183685093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are frm t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.760
91894912|NCT00190749|183685093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.997
91894913|NCT00190749|183685094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.176
91894914|NCT00190749|183685094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.237
91894915|NCT00190749|183685094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.996
91894916|NCT00190749|183685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.027
91894917|NCT00190749|183685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.545
91894918|NCT00190749|183685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.024
91894919|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||HDL particles, total||||0.009
91894920|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||HDL particles, total||||0.959
91894921|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline TReatment Pooled Investigator|ANCOVA|||HDL particles, total||||0.038
91894922|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||IDL||||0.013
91894923|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||IDL||||0.928
91894924|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||IDL||||0.049
91894925|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Medium small LDL||||0.009
91894926|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Medium small LDL||||0.662
91894927|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Medium small LDL||||0.12
91894928|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Small LDL||||0.099
91894929|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Small LDL||||0.304
91894930|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Small LDL||||0.024
91894931|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Very small LDL||||0.176
91894932|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Withn group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Very small LDL||||0.246
91894933|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator|ANCOVA|||Very small LDL||||0.033
91894934|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||VLDL mean particle size||||<0.001
91894935|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||VLDL mean particle size||||0.047
91894936|NCT00190749|183685096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||VLDL mean particle size||||0.221
91894937|NCT04493502|183685098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|41.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.4|-7.3|0.189
91894938|NCT04493502|183685099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.67||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-8.69|0.024
91894939|NCT04493502|183685100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.53|||ANCOVA|||||1.53|-1.44|0.949
91894940|NCT02891408|183685101|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean (GLSM) ratio|181.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.0|332.0||||||AUClast of Firsocostat||332|98|
91894941|NCT02891408|183685101|OTHER||GLSM ratio|881.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|488.0|1589.0||||||AUClast of Firsocostat||1589|488|
91894942|NCT02891408|183685101|OTHER||GLSM ratio|3081.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2446.0|3881.0||||||AUClast of Firsocostat||3881|2446|
91894943|NCT02891408|183685101|OTHER||GLSM ratio|430.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|185.0|998.0||||||AUClast of GS-834773||998|185|
91894944|NCT02891408|183685101|OTHER||GLSM ratio|4417.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1867.0|10449.0||||||AUClast of GS-834773||10449|1867|
91894945|NCT02891408|183685101|OTHER||GLSM ratio|14676.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7932.0|27153.0||||||AUClast of GS-834773||27153|7932|
91894946|NCT02891408|183685101|OTHER||GLSM ratio|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.0|173.0||||||AUClast of Fenofibric Acid||173|86|
91894947|NCT02891408|183685102|OTHER||GLSM ratio|183.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.0|337.0||||||AUCinf of Firsocostat||337|100|
91894948|NCT02891408|183685102|OTHER||GLSM ratio|869.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|482.0|1568.0||||||AUCinf of Firsocostat||1568|482|
91894949|NCT02891408|183685102|OTHER||GLSM ratio|2976.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2389.0|3708.0||||||AUCinf of Firsocostat||3708|2389|
91894950|NCT02891408|183685102|OTHER||GLSM ratio|399.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|179.0|892.0||||||AUCinf of GS-834773||892|179|
91894951|NCT02891408|183685102|OTHER||GLSM ratio|3843.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1641.0|9000.0||||||AUCinf of GS-834773||9000|1641|
91894952|NCT02891408|183685102|OTHER||GLSM ratio|10712.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6525.0|17585.0||||||AUCinf of GS-834773||17585|6525|
91894953|NCT02891408|183685102|OTHER||GLSM ratio|125.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.0|174.0||||||AUCinf of Fenofibric Acid||174|89|
91894954|NCT02891408|183685103|OTHER||GLSM ratio|169.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|326.0||||||Cmax of Firsocostat||326|87|
91894955|NCT02891408|183685103|OTHER||GLSM ratio|905.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|537.0|1526.0||||||Cmax of Firsocostat||1526|537|
91894956|NCT02891408|183685103|OTHER||GLSM ratio|2719.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1994.0|3708.0||||||Cmax of Firsocostat||3708|1994|
91894957|NCT02891408|183685103|OTHER||GLSM ratio|391.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.0|942.0||||||Cmax of GS-834773||942|163|
91894958|NCT02891408|183685103|OTHER||GLSM ratio|4470.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2170.0|9207.0||||||Cmax of GS-834773||9207|2170|
91894959|NCT02891408|183685103|OTHER||GLSM ratio|9278.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4945.0|17407.0||||||Cmax of GS-834773||17407|4945|
91894960|NCT02891408|183685103|OTHER||GLSM ratio|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.0|146.0||||||Cmax of Fenofibric Acid||146|81|
91894961|NCT00709852|183685114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91894962|NCT00709852|183685114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91894963|NCT00709852|183685114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91894964|NCT00709852|183685115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894965|NCT00709852|183685115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894966|NCT00709852|183685115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894967|NCT00709852|183685116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894968|NCT00709852|183685116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894969|NCT00709852|183685116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894970|NCT00709852|183685117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894971|NCT00709852|183685117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894972|NCT00709852|183685117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894973|NCT00709852|183685118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.984|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of interval is compared to noninferiority margin||BR 1||0.984|-0.199|
91894974|NCT00709852|183685118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.772|0.885|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval (CI) is compared to noninferiority margin||BR 2||0.885|-1.772|
91894975|NCT00709852|183685118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.0|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||BR 3||1.000|0.125|
91894976|NCT00709852|183685118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.78|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||AR||0.780|-0.439|
91894977|NCT00709852|183685119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894978|NCT00709852|183685119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894979|NCT00709852|183685119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894980|NCT00709852|183685120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894981|NCT00709852|183685120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894982|NCT00709852|183685120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894983|NCT00709852|183685121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894984|NCT00709852|183685121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894985|NCT00709852|183685121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894986|NCT00709852|183685122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894987|NCT00709852|183685122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894988|NCT00709852|183685122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894989|NCT00709852|183685123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894990|NCT00709852|183685123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894991|NCT00709852|183685123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894992|NCT00709852|183685124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894993|NCT00709852|183685124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894994|NCT00709852|183685124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894995|NCT00709852|183685125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894996|NCT00709852|183685125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894997|NCT00709852|183685125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894998|NCT00709852|183685126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.06|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91894999|NCT00709852|183685126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895000|NCT00709852|183685126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895001|NCT00709852|183685127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895002|NCT00709852|183685127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895003|NCT00709852|183685127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895004|NCT00709852|183685128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.532|0.851|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.851|-0.532|
91895005|NCT00709852|183685129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33||||95.0|0.0004|0.078|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.078|0.0004|
91895006|NCT00709852|183685129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||||95.0|-0.009|0.082|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.082|-0.009|
91895007|NCT00709852|183685129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||||95.0|-0.006|0.059|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.059|-0.006|
91895008|NCT00709852|183685130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7||||95.0|-0.601|0.622|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.622|-0.601|
91895009|NCT00709852|183685131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.3|||||||||||||for BR1|||||
91895010|NCT00709852|183685131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.9|||||||||||||for BR2|||||
91895011|NCT00709852|183685131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.8|||||||||||||for BR3|||||
91895012|NCT00709852|183685131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|18.4|||CI for paired percentages|confidence interval is given for AR; lower limit is compared to the noninferiority margin||||18.4|-0.5|
91895013|NCT00709852|183685132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|3.6||||||95.0|-5.9|13.1|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||13.1|-5.9|
91895014|NCT00709852|183685133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|8.3||||||95.0|-0.9|17.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||17.6|-0.9|
91895015|NCT00709852|183685134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895016|NCT00709852|183685134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895017|NCT00709852|183685135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.21||||95.0|-0.053|0.636|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.636|-0.053|
91895018|NCT00709852|183685136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895019|NCT00709852|183685136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895020|NCT00709852|183685137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895021|NCT00709852|183685137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895022|NCT00709852|183685138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895023|NCT00709852|183685138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895024|NCT00709852|183685139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.39||||95.0|-0.087|0.641|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.641|-0.087|
91895025|NCT00709852|183685140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895026|NCT00709852|183685140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895027|NCT00709852|183685141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895028|NCT00709852|183685141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895029|NCT00709852|183685142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||95.0|0.03|0.096|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.096|0.030|
91895030|NCT00709852|183685142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||||95.0|0.003|0.071|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.071|0.003|
91895031|NCT00709852|183685142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||||95.0|0.003|0.055|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.055|0.003|
91895032|NCT00709852|183685143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||||95.0|-0.049|0.078|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.078|-0.049|
91895033|NCT00709852|183685144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||||95.0|-0.009|0.065|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.065|-0.009|
91895034|NCT00709852|183685144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||||95.0|-0.04|0.02|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.020|-0.040|
91895035|NCT00709852|183685144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||||95.0|-0.015|0.035|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.035|-0.015|
91895036|NCT00709852|183685145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||95.0|0.042|0.153|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.153|0.042|
91895037|NCT00709852|183685145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||95.0|0.03|0.161|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.161|0.030|
91895038|NCT00709852|183685145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||||95.0|0.006|0.098|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.098|0.006|
91895039|NCT00709852|183685146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.2||||0.0082|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0082
91895040|NCT00709852|183685147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.9|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
91895041|NCT00709852|183685148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.8||||0.0039|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0039
91895042|NCT00709852|183685149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.2|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
91895043|NCT00709852|183685150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|-0.4||||||95.0|-3.8|2.9|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||2.9|-3.8|
91895044|NCT00709852|183685151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.7||||||95.0|-0.3|1.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.6|-0.3|
91895045|NCT00709852|183685152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.5||||0.0002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0002
91895046|NCT00709852|183685153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.6|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
91895047|NCT00709852|183685154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91895048|NCT00709852|183685155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.5||||0.0002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0002
91895049|NCT00709852|183685156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.1||||0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0001
91895050|NCT00709852|183685157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.6||||0.763|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7630
91895051|NCT00709852|183685158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.0||||||95.0|-3.1|3.1|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.1|-3.1|
91895052|NCT00709852|183685159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.5||||||95.0|-2.7|3.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.6|-2.7|
91895053|NCT00709852|183685160|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|-1.6||||||95.0|-10.1|6.9|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||6.9|-10.1|
91895054|NCT00709852|183685161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.5||||0.0006|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0006
91895055|NCT00709852|183685162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|19.4||||0.0004|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0004
91895056|NCT00709852|183685163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||0.6547|||||||McNemar|||||||0.6547
91895057|NCT00709852|183685164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.9|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
91895058|NCT00709852|183685165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|21.5|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
91895059|NCT00709852|183685166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||0.0833|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0833
91895060|NCT00709852|183685167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.5||||0.0236|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0236
91895061|NCT00709852|183685168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.9||||0.0186|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0186
91895062|NCT00709852|183685169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||0.7055|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7055
91895063|NCT00709852|183685170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
91895064|NCT00709852|183685171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.4|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
91895065|NCT00709852|183685172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.0||||0.1573|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1573
91895066|NCT00709852|183685173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|2.1||||||95.0|0.2|3.9|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.9|0.2|
91895067|NCT00709852|183685174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|6.5||||||95.0|1.5|11.4|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||11.4|1.5|
91895068|NCT00709852|183685175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.4|-1.4|
91895069|NCT00709852|183685176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.7||||||95.0|-0.3|1.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.6|-0.3|
91895070|NCT00709852|183685177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|1.1||||||95.0|-1.0|3.2|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.2|-1.0|
91895071|NCT00709852|183685178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.5||||||95.0|-0.5|1.5|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.5|-0.5|
91895072|NCT00709852|183685179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895073|NCT00709852|183685180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895074|NCT00709852|183685181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||||||||||||||||
91895075|NCT00709852|183685182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895076|NCT00709852|183685183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91895077|NCT00709852|183685184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||||||||||||||||
91895078|NCT00709852|183685185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||for all three readers|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91895079|NCT00709852|183685187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.06||||||||||||||||
91895080|NCT00709852|183685188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.6||||||||||||||||
91895081|NCT05249829|183685195|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.493|2.005||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration.||2.005|1.493|
91895082|NCT05249829|183685196|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 96% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.763|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.546|2.01||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration.||2.010|1.546|
91895083|NCT05249829|183685197|OTHER|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667. Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.535|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.409|1.672||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration.||1.672|1.409|
91895084|NCT05249829|183685198|OTHER|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667. Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.713|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.583|1.853||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration.||1.853|1.583|
91895085|NCT05249829|183685199|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.958|1.147||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the ancestral strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration. Reported statistical analysis based upon the number of participants with non-missing data at baseline and the corresponding timepoint (N=1818).||1.147|0.958|
91895086|NCT05249829|183685200|OTHER|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.104|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.032|1.18||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the ancestral strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration. Reported statistical analysis based upon the number of participants with non-missing data at baseline and the corresponding timepoint (N=1418).||1.180|1.032|
91895087|NCT05249829|183685207|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.493|2.005||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration.||2.005|1.493|
91895088|NCT05249829|183685207|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 96% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.763|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.546|2.01||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration. Reported statistical analysis based upon the number of participants with non-missing data at baseline and the corresponding timepoint (N=460).||2.010|1.546|
91895089|NCT00825825|183685274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.000704||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and citalopram medication periods.||||0.000704
91895090|NCT00825825|183685275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.62e-05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and citalopram medication periods.||||0.0000162
91895091|NCT00825825|183685276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.36e-06||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the citalopram and placebo medication periods.||||0.00000936
91895092|NCT00825825|183685277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the citalopram and placebo medication periods.||||0.0279
91895093|NCT00825825|183685278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00124||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and placebo medication periods.||||0.00124
91895094|NCT00825825|183685279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.33e-05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the placebo and citalopram medication periods.||||0.0000633
91895095|NCT00825825|183685280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0241||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and citalopram medication periods.||||0.0241
91895096|NCT00882687|183685281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3235|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3235
91895097|NCT00882687|183685281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9144|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9144
91895098|NCT00882687|183685281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3324
91895099|NCT00882687|183685282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5846|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5846
91895100|NCT00882687|183685282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1493
91895101|NCT00882687|183685282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0404
91895102|NCT00882687|183685283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0578
91895103|NCT00882687|183685283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8988|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8988
91953495|NCT03655951|183803251|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.11
91895104|NCT00882687|183685283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4709
91895105|NCT00882687|183685284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1773
91895106|NCT00882687|183685284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4222|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4222
91895107|NCT00882687|183685284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4326
91895108|NCT02649946|183685290|SUPERIORITY|TLPP evaluated at 6 months post-index procedure to assess if TLPP of COVERA is superior to that of PTA alone, by direct comparison.|||||<|0.001||||||Test successful if the one-side p-value is less than 0.025 and the result is in favor of the COVERA Vascular Covered Stent.|Chi-squared|||"Hypothesis: The (survival) rate in subjects treated with the COVERA Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) with respect to TLPP through 6 months is greater than that in subjects treated with PTA alone in the treatment of stenoses in the upper extremity venous outflow of subjects dializing with an AV fistula.~Sample size calculation: 238 randomized subjects \[214 evaluable\] will give 92% power with one-sided type 1 error = 0.025."||||<0.001
91895109|NCT02649946|183685291|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Farrington and Manning Exact Test is used to test the primary safety hypothesis. The test is successful if the one-sided p-value is less than 0.025.||||||0.0022|||||||Farrington and Manning|Non-inferiority test with non-inferiority margin of 10%.||"Hypothesis: The safety rate in subjects treated with the COVERA Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) is non-inferior to the safety rate in subjects treated with PTA alone through 30 days in the treatment of stenotic lesions.~Sample size: 238 randomized subjects \[226 evaluable\] will give 85% power with one-sided type 1 error = 0.025."||||0.0022
91895110|NCT04619251|183685316|OTHER|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range is not specified.|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|337.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|302.8|376.4|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV %) =15.9|The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subject and treatment. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||376.4|302.8|
91895111|NCT04619251|183685317|OTHER|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range is not specified.|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|184.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.0|218.0|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV %) =26.4|The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subject and treatment. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||218.0|156.0|
91895112|NCT04619251|183685318|OTHER|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range is not specified.|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|356.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|315.7|403.2|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV %) =18.4|The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subject and treatment. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||403.2|315.7|
91895113|NCT05326815|183685394|OTHER|Spearman Correlation.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91895114|NCT05172050|183685406|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.99||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.781||Upper limit is not estimable (NE) due to the low number of events||Regression, Logistic||||||1.781|0.0109
91895115|NCT05172050|183685406|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.414||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858||The upper limit is not estimable (NE), due to the low number of events||Regression, Logistic||||||0.858|0.0673
91953496|NCT03655951|183803252|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0003
91953497|NCT03655951|183803253|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.97
91895116|NCT05172050|183685406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.186||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.147||The upper limit was not estimable due to the low number of events|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm.|||2.147|0.0061
91895117|NCT05172050|183685406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.936||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938||The upper limit was not estimable due to the low number of events|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm|||0.938|0.0567
91895118|NCT05172050|183685407|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.663||||0.7121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|9.053|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.053|0.337|0.7121
91895119|NCT05172050|183685407|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.963|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|4.977|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.977|0.185|>0.999
91895120|NCT05172050|183685407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.5378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|20.153||Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm||20.153|0.350|0.5378
91895121|NCT05172050|183685407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.209|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|8.589||Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm||8.589|0.185|>0.999
91895122|NCT05172050|183685408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.114|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|5.708|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||at Day 14||5.708|0.219|>0.999
91895123|NCT05172050|183685408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.202||||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|22.116|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||At day 14||22.116|0.541|0.2553
91895124|NCT05172050|183685408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.6189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|18.532|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||at Day 28||18.532|0.294|0.6189
91895125|NCT05172050|183685408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|413.499|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||at Day 28||413.499|0.586|0.1662
91895126|NCT05172050|183685409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.972|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|4.906|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 7||4.906|0.193|>0.999
91895127|NCT05172050|183685409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.156|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.822|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 7||6.822|0.200|>0.999
91895128|NCT05172050|183685409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.066|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|5.478|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 28||5.478|0.208|>0.999
91895129|NCT05172050|183685409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.068||||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|12.58|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 28||12.580|0.369|0.5465
91895130|NCT05172050|183685412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3899||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 60mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 7 R60 vs Placebo||||0.3899
91895131|NCT05172050|183685412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4075||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 120 mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 7 R120 vs placebo||||0.4075
91895132|NCT05172050|183685412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3899||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 60mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 14 R60 vs placebo||||0.3899
91895133|NCT05172050|183685412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4075|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 120mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 14 R120 vs placebo||||0.4075
91895134|NCT05172050|183685412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6846||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 60mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 28 R60 vs placebo||||0.6846
91895135|NCT05172050|183685412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6614||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 120mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 28 R120 vs placebo||||0.6614
91895136|NCT05172050|183685414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|1.00|
91895137|NCT05172050|183685414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||p value= not estimable|Log Rank|||||1.00|1.00|
91895138|NCT02909764|183685417|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
91895139|NCT02909764|183685418|OTHER|Yates's chi-square analyses were used to determine which of the two cereals children in each group preferred at baseline and after the 8-week exposure period, and whether the number of children who shifted preference from the regular cereal at baseline to the low salt cereal after the exposure period differed between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Yates's chi-square analyses were used to determine which of the two cereals children in each group preferred at baseline and after the 8-week exposure period, and whether the number of children who shifted preference from the regular cereal at baseline to the low salt cereal after the exposure period differed between groups.||||<0.05
91895140|NCT02909764|183685419|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
91895141|NCT02909764|183685420|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.77
91895142|NCT02909764|183685421|OTHER|General estimating equations (GEE)|||||<|0.05|||||||GEE|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were conducted on the amount of cereal in grams ingested during 28 days home-exposure period. The GEE approach accounts for the repeated measurements of outcomes over time for each child and examines whether the slopes of the lines created differ between the treatment groups.||||<0.05
91895143|NCT02909764|183685422|OTHER|T-tests were conducted to determine whether differences in baseline blood pressure between groups|||||>|0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were conducted to determine whether differences in baseline blood pressure between the two groups.||||>0.40
91895144|NCT04617275|183685432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.23|19.85||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||19.85|-15.23|0.5863
91895145|NCT04617275|183685432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.41||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.75|-0.06||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.06|-34.75|0.0494
91895146|NCT04617275|183685432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.85||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.09|-13.61||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-13.61|-48.09|0.0019
91895147|NCT04617275|183685432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.66||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.0|-16.32||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-16.32|-51.00|0.0009
91895148|NCT04617275|183685432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.52||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.12|-1.92||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.92|-37.12|0.0343
91895149|NCT04617275|183685433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.41|14.76||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||14.76|-21.41|0.3804
91895150|NCT04617275|183685433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.65||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.44|-1.87||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.87|-37.44|0.0348
91895151|NCT04617275|183685433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.8||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.54|-15.05||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-15.05|-50.54|0.0014
91895152|NCT04617275|183685433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.85||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.9|-17.81||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-17.81|-53.90|0.0007
91895153|NCT04617275|183685433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.49||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.6|-10.37||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-10.37|-46.60|0.0052
91895154|NCT04617275|183685434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.58||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.97|-4.18||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-4.18|-46.97|0.0250
91895155|NCT04617275|183685434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.95||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.95|-11.95||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-11.95|-53.95|0.0053
91895156|NCT04617275|183685434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.07||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.41|-18.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-18.73|-61.41|0.0012
91895157|NCT04617275|183685434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.47||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.85|-24.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-24.10|-66.85|0.0003
91895158|NCT04617275|183685434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.63||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.19|-12.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-12.08|-55.19|0.0055
91895159|NCT04617275|183685435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.79||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.12|-7.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-7.47|-48.12|0.0127
91895160|NCT04617275|183685435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.67||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.51|-5.83||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-5.83|-45.51|0.0171
91895161|NCT04617275|183685435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.16|-26.72||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-26.72|-67.16|0.0001
91895162|NCT04617275|183685435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.79||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.32|-13.27||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-13.27|-54.32|0.0037
91895163|NCT04617275|183685435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.13||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.85|-21.4||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-21.40|-62.85|0.0005
91895164|NCT04617275|183685436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.9|9.21||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||9.21|-34.90|0.1678
91895165|NCT04617275|183685436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.85|6.21||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||6.21|-35.85|0.1223
91895166|NCT04617275|183685436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.97||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.66|-12.28||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-12.28|-55.66|0.0054
91895167|NCT04617275|183685436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.5398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.38|22.99||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||22.99|-20.38|0.5398
91895168|NCT04617275|183685436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.42||||0.1409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.56|7.72||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||7.72|-36.56|0.1409
91895169|NCT04617275|183685437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.65||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.31|-4.99||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-4.99|-52.31|0.0236
91895170|NCT04617275|183685437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.32||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.67|-4.97||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-4.97|-49.67|0.0226
91895171|NCT04617275|183685437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.85||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.11|-17.59||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-17.59|-64.11|0.0022
91895172|NCT04617275|183685437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.25||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.59|13.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||13.08|-33.59|0.2335
91895173|NCT04617275|183685437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.38||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.69|-0.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.08|-48.69|0.0494
91895174|NCT04617275|183685438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.13||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.13|-0.31|0.2485
91895175|NCT04617275|183685438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|-0.04||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.04|-0.48|0.0252
91895176|NCT04617275|183685438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|-0.12||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.12|-0.56|0.0053
91953498|NCT03655951|183803254|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.08
91895177|NCT04617275|183685438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|-0.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.10|-0.54|0.0090
91895178|NCT04617275|183685438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.05||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.05|-0.39|0.1066
91895179|NCT04617275|183685439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.19||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.19|-0.40|0.2740
91895180|NCT04617275|183685439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.08|-0.66|0.0196
91895181|NCT04617275|183685439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.30|-0.88|0.0006
91895182|NCT04617275|183685439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|-0.23||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.23|-0.82|0.0019
91895183|NCT04617275|183685439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.06||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.06|-0.66|0.0243
91895184|NCT04617275|183685440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.15||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.15|-0.62|0.1587
91895185|NCT04617275|183685440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|-0.27||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.27|-1.04|0.0027
91895186|NCT04617275|183685440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|-0.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.47|-1.24|0.0002
91895187|NCT04617275|183685440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.32||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.32|-1.10|0.0016
91895188|NCT04617275|183685440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|-0.28||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.28|-1.07|0.0027
91895189|NCT04617275|183685441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|-0.01||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.01|-0.86|0.0472
91895190|NCT04617275|183685441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.45||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.45|-1.29|0.0004
91895191|NCT04617275|183685441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|-0.68||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.68|-1.53|<0.0001
91895192|NCT04617275|183685441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|-0.5||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.50|-1.36|0.0003
91895193|NCT04617275|183685441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|-0.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.47|-1.34|0.0004
91895194|NCT04617275|183685442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|-0.19||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.19|-1.18|0.0116
91895195|NCT04617275|183685442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.46|-1.43|0.0008
91895196|NCT04617275|183685442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|-0.67||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.67|-1.66|<0.0001
91895197|NCT04617275|183685442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.4||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.40|-1.40|0.0017
91895198|NCT04617275|183685442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-0.55||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.55|-1.55|0.0004
91895199|NCT04617275|183685443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.2||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.20|-1.32|0.0132
91895200|NCT04617275|183685443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-0.46||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.46|-1.55|0.0014
91895201|NCT04617275|183685443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.69||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.69|-1.80|0.0002
91895202|NCT04617275|183685443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.16|-1.29|0.0174
91895203|NCT04617275|183685443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|-0.69||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.69|-1.82|0.0002
91895204|NCT04617275|183685444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.5||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.50|-1.02|0.2843
91895205|NCT04617275|183685444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.68||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.68|-0.84|0.4310
91895206|NCT04617275|183685444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|0.43||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.43|-1.07|0.2402
91895207|NCT04617275|183685444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|0.26||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.26|-1.24|0.1397
91895208|NCT04617275|183685444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.71||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.71|-0.85|0.4393
91895209|NCT04617275|183685445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|0.45||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.45|-2.00|0.1491
91895210|NCT04617275|183685445|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.5664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|1.34||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.34|-1.09|0.5664
91895211|NCT04617275|183685445|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|0.09||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.09|-2.33|0.0632
91895212|NCT04617275|183685445|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|0.2||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.20|-2.23|0.0847
91895213|NCT04617275|183685445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|1.3||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.30|-1.20|0.5264
91895214|NCT04617275|183685446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|-0.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.10|-2.86|0.0395
91895215|NCT04617275|183685446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|1.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.10|-1.63|0.3726
91895216|NCT04617275|183685446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|-0.98||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.98|-3.74|0.0028
91895217|NCT04617275|183685446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.23|-0.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.47|-3.23|0.0139
91895218|NCT04617275|183685446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|0.64||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.64|-2.19|0.1815
91895219|NCT04617275|183685447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.71|-0.61||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.61|-3.71|0.0112
91895220|NCT04617275|183685447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|0.8||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.80|-2.24|0.2161
91895221|NCT04617275|183685447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.02|-1.92||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.92|-5.02|0.0002
91895222|NCT04617275|183685447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.59|-0.51||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.51|-3.59|0.0147
91895223|NCT04617275|183685447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.56|-1.37||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.37|-4.56|0.0013
91895224|NCT04617275|183685448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.22|-0.7||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.70|-4.22|0.0111
91895225|NCT04617275|183685448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|0.68||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.68|-2.75|0.1600
91895226|NCT04617275|183685448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.03|-2.52||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-2.52|-6.03|<0.0001
91895227|NCT04617275|183685448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.68||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.42|-0.94||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.94|-4.42|0.0061
91895228|NCT04617275|183685448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.52|-1.89||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.89|-5.52|0.0005
91895229|NCT04617275|183685449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.22|-1.2||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.20|-5.22|0.0047
91895230|NCT04617275|183685449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.45|0.44||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.44|-3.45|0.1003
91895231|NCT04617275|183685449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.96|-2.95||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-2.95|-6.96|<0.0001
91895232|NCT04617275|183685449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.49|-0.51||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.51|-4.49|0.0197
91895233|NCT04617275|183685449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.03|-2.85||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-2.85|-7.03|<0.0001
91895234|NCT04617275|183685450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.12|0.19||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.19|-2.12|0.0836
91895235|NCT04617275|183685451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.07|-0.12||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.12|-3.07|0.0386
91895236|NCT04617275|183685452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|1.0||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.00|-3.99|0.1566
91895237|NCT04617275|183685453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|0.67||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.67|-5.91|0.0916
91895238|NCT04617275|183685454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.31|0.17||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.17|-6.31|0.0590
91895239|NCT04617275|183685455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|0.75||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.75|-8.23|0.0826
91895240|NCT04227704|183685467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
91895241|NCT04227704|183685468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91895242|NCT04227704|183685475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
91953499|NCT03655951|183803255|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.70
91953500|NCT03655951|183803256|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
91953501|NCT03655951|183803257|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.29
91953502|NCT03655951|183803258|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.36
91953503|NCT03655951|183803259|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.61
91953504|NCT03655951|183803260|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.72
91953505|NCT03655951|183803261|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.05
91953506|NCT03655951|183803262|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
91953507|NCT03655951|183803263|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.69
91953508|NCT03655951|183803264|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.11
91953509|NCT03655951|183803265|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.27
91953510|NCT03655951|183803266|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.83
91953511|NCT03655951|183803267|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0001
91953512|NCT03655951|183803268|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.20
91953513|NCT03655951|183803269|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
91953514|NCT03655951|183803270|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.62
91953515|NCT03655951|183803271|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.29
91953516|NCT03655951|183803272|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.14
91953517|NCT03655951|183803273|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.008
91953518|NCT03655951|183803274|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
91953519|NCT03655951|183803275|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
91953520|NCT03655951|183803276|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.69
91953521|NCT03655951|183803277|EQUIVALENCE|Binary outcomes were assessed with logistic regression.||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.4
91953522|NCT03655951|183803278|EQUIVALENCE|Binary outcomes were assessed with logistic regression.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.02
91953523|NCT03655951|183803279|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.27
91953524|NCT03655951|183803280|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.31
91953525|NCT03655951|183803281|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.11
91953526|NCT03655951|183803282|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.89
91953527|NCT03655951|183803283|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.41
91953528|NCT03655951|183803284|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.93
91953529|NCT03655951|183803285|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.83
91953530|NCT03655951|183803286|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.04
91953531|NCT03655951|183803287|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.13
91953532|NCT03655951|183803288|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
91953533|NCT03655951|183803289|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.96|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.96
91953534|NCT03655951|183803290|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.35
91953535|NCT03655951|183803291|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.24
91953536|NCT03655951|183803292|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.2
91953537|NCT03655951|183803293|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.18
91953538|NCT03655951|183803294|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Linear|||To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||.67
91953539|NCT03655951|183803295|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.57
91953540|NCT03655951|183803296|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.65
91953541|NCT03655951|183803297|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.84
91953542|NCT03655951|183803298|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
91953543|NCT03655951|183803299|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.65
91953544|NCT03655951|183803300|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
91953545|NCT03655951|183803301|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.95
91953546|NCT03655951|183803302|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.47
91953547|NCT03655951|183803303|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.003
91953548|NCT03655951|183803304|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.77
91953549|NCT03655951|183803305|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91953550|NCT03655951|183803306|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.06
91953551|NCT03655951|183803307|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.91|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.91
91953552|NCT03655951|183803308|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.95
91953553|NCT03655951|183803309|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.12
91953554|NCT03655951|183803310|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.98
91953555|NCT03655951|183803311|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.57
91953556|NCT03655951|183803312|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.98
91953557|NCT03655951|183803313|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.07
91953558|NCT03655951|183803314|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
91953559|NCT03655951|183803315|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.15
91953560|NCT02486263|183803331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91953561|NCT02486263|183803332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||Used Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Generalized Estimation Equation||Data presented as OR (95% CI) using Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) model with Conventional as reference.|Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) model was used for the comparison of differences between intervention groups from week 0 to week 5 for peristaltic response frequency.||1.6|0.4|0.99
91953562|NCT02486263|183803333|SUPERIORITY|Weight velocity in grams/day||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91953563|NCT02486263|183803334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
91953564|NCT02486263|183803335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.49
91953565|NCT01361308|183803372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91953566|NCT01361308|183803372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Week 12 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0090
91953567|NCT01361308|183803373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Clinical meaningfulness at week 4|Logit model|||||||0.001
91953568|NCT01361308|183803373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Clinical meaningfulness at week 12|Logit model|||||||0.055
91953569|NCT01361308|183803389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Week 4 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0017
91953570|NCT01361308|183803389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1658||||||Week 12 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.1658
91953571|NCT00066573|183803430|SUPERIORITY|To detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.80 between exemestane and anastrozole (ie, an improvement in 5-year EFS from 87.5% to 89.9%, with a two-sided 5% level test and 80% power, 6,840 patients and 630 events were needed for final analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.87|0.85
91953572|NCT00066573|183803431|SUPERIORITY|No power calculation for secondary analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.77|0.46
91953573|NCT02222246|183803438|NON_INFERIORITY|Change in pain scores from arrival to discharge||||||0.0311|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis for pain change was conducted using Hierarchical Linear Mixed Effects Model (HLM), adjusting for nested patient and site effects (N=126)||||||0.0311
91953574|NCT02222246|183803439|NON_INFERIORITY|Trajectory of pain across time (arrival to discharge)||||||0.0049||||||p-value for the protocol by time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||The trajectory of change in pain score was evaluated every 30 minutes over 120 hours (2 hours) rather than 6 hours because of expected missing data after 120 minutes due to discharge from the ED.||||0.0049
91953575|NCT02222246|183803439|NON_INFERIORITY|Emergency Department Arrival||||||0.9393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9393
91953576|NCT02222246|183803439|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 30 minutes||||||0.7259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7259
91953577|NCT02222246|183803439|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 60 minutes||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5300
91953578|NCT02222246|183803439|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 90 minutes||||||0.3678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3678
91953579|NCT02222246|183803439|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 120 minutes||||||0.2457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2457
91953580|NCT02222246|183803439|NON_INFERIORITY|Emergency Department Discharge||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
91953581|NCT02222246|183803440|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of nausea during Emergency Department Visit - YES||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91953582|NCT02222246|183803441|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of vomiting (YES) during Emergency Department visit||||||0.6625|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6625
91953583|NCT02222246|183803442|NON_INFERIORITY|Decrease in systolic BP (\>= 20% of baseline)||||||0.4473|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4473
91953584|NCT02222246|183803443|NON_INFERIORITY|Decrease in diastolic blood pressure (\>= 20% baseline)||||||0.5372|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5372
91953585|NCT02222246|183803444|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of oxygen desaturation (\<95%) YES during Emergency Department visit||||||0.2891|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2891
91953586|NCT02222246|183803446|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of sedation during Emergency Department visit.||||||0.3915|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3915
91953587|NCT02222246|183803447|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of the need for supplemental oxygen during Emergency Department visit||||||0.0726|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0726
91953588|NCT01646268|183803450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means|-4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|-2.45|||ANCOVA||Value describes the difference value of the mean change from baseline between Rotigotine and Placebo groups. The Value for this outcome was -4.6.|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference in the change in the sum of the score from the ADL and motor examination in the UPDRS (Parts II+II) between the active treatment and the placebo groups (i.e., the change from Baseline in the sum of the score from the ADL and motor examination in the UPDRS (Parts II+III) is the same for both groups).||-2.45|-7.18|<0.0001
91953589|NCT02544607|183803474|OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91953590|NCT02544607|183803475|OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
91953591|NCT02544607|183803476|OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91953592|NCT02544607|183803477|OTHER|||||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0499
91953593|NCT02544607|183803478|OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
91953594|NCT01969201|183803513|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was evaluated by calculating the 95% CI for the differences in pregnancy rates between the two treatment groups. If the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was greater than -0.10 (i.e. 10%), then Fostimon was to be considered not inferior to the control treatment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|4.42|||Fisher Exact|||||4.42|-9.88|0.49
91953595|NCT01969201|183803514|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91953596|NCT01969201|183803515|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91953597|NCT01969201|183803516|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
91953598|NCT01969201|183803517|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
91953599|NCT01969201|183803518|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
91953600|NCT01969201|183803519|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
91953601|NCT01969201|183803520|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
91953602|NCT01422876|183803524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.41|-0.75|<0.0001
91953603|NCT01422876|183803524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.32|-0.67|<0.0001
91953604|NCT01422876|183803524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.25|-0.59|<0.0001
91953605|NCT01422876|183803524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.21|-0.56|<0.0001
91953606|NCT01422876|183803525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.37|-9.48|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-9.48|-23.37|<0.0001
91953607|NCT01422876|183803525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-15.1|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-15.10|-29.30|<0.0001
91953608|NCT01422876|183803525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-4.37|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-4.37|-18.31|0.0015
91953609|NCT01422876|183803525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.21|-12.03|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-12.03|-26.21|<0.0001
91953610|NCT01422876|183803526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.1605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|2.11|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||2.11|-12.74|0.1605
91953611|NCT01422876|183803526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|1.61|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||1.61|-13.25|0.1246
91953612|NCT01422876|183803526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.06|-16.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-16.21|-31.06|<0.0001
91953613|NCT01422876|183803526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.71|-14.88|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-14.88|-29.71|<0.0001
91953614|NCT01422876|183803527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.03||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||1.03|-0.65|0.6604
91953615|NCT01422876|183803527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.44|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-1.44|-3.15|<0.0001
91953616|NCT01422876|183803527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.77||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||0.77|-0.91|0.8757
91953617|NCT01422876|183803527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.05|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-1.05|-2.77|<0.0001
91953618|NCT01422876|183803528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||0.06|-0.33|0.1785
91953619|NCT01422876|183803528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.21|-0.61|<0.0001
91953620|NCT01422876|183803528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.22|-0.61|<0.0001
91953621|NCT01422876|183803528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.37|-0.76|<0.0001
91953622|NCT01422876|183803529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.14||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||1.14|-0.88|0.8010
91953623|NCT01422876|183803529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.54||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||0.54|-1.48|0.3616
91953624|NCT01422876|183803529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||-0.21|-2.23|0.0178
91953625|NCT01422876|183803529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||-0.95|-2.97|0.0001
91953626|NCT01422876|183803530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.191|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.319|7.573|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||7.573|2.319|<0.0001
91953627|NCT01422876|183803530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.474|8.184|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||8.184|2.474|<0.0001
91953628|NCT01422876|183803530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.495|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|6.363|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||6.363|1.920|<0.0001
91953629|NCT01422876|183803530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.795||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.562|5.001|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||5.001|1.562|0.0005
91953630|NCT01422876|183803531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.893||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|3.274|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||3.274|1.095|0.0224
91953631|NCT01422876|183803531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.961||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.697|5.169|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||5.169|1.697|0.0001
91953632|NCT01422876|183803531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.065|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.768|5.314|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||5.314|1.768|<0.0001
91953633|NCT01422876|183803531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.462|7.522|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||7.522|2.462|<0.0001
91953634|NCT01491737|183803555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%.|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Primary Analysis. Log Rank tested the following: Null Hypothesis (H0): the distribution of the PFS time was the same in Arms A \& B; The Alternative Hypothesis (H1): the distribution of the PFS time was different in Arms A \& B. A Cox proportional hazards model tested the HR. If the HR of investigational arm (Arm A) compared with control arm (Arm B) with respect to PFS was assumed to be constant over time (λ) then the null (H0) and alternative hypotheses (H1) were: H0: λ =1; H1: λ ≠1.||0.89|0.48|0.0070
91953635|NCT01491737|183803555|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.89|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Final Analysis||0.89|0.50|0.0059
91953636|NCT01491737|183803556|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.91|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Primary Analysis. This study was not powered for overall survival (OS), so adequately powered statistical testing for this outcome measure was not possible.||1.91|0.69|0.5850
91953637|NCT01491737|183803556|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.52|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Final Analysis. This study was not powered for overall survival (OS), so adequately powered statistical testing for this outcome measure was not possible.||1.52|0.73|0.7833
91953638|NCT01491737|183803557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|7.6||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|21.3||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Chi-squared|||ORR for Arm A vs Arm B||21.3|-6.0|0.2537
91953639|NCT01491737|183803558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CBR|1.8||||0.7743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.8||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Chi-squared|||CBR for Arm A vs. Arm B||14.8|-11.2|0.7743
91953640|NCT01491737|183803559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.91||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%.|Log Rank|Log-rank test from unstratified analysis based upon Kaplan-Meier approach. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors of induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy.|Primary Analysis. Log Rank tested the following: Null Hypothesis (H0): the distribution of the DOR time was the same in Arms A \& B; The Alternative Hypothesis (H1): the distribution of the DOR time was different in Arms A \& B. A Cox proportional hazards model tested the HR. If the HR of investigational arm (Arm A) compared with control arm (Arm B) with respect to DOR was assumed to be constant over time (λ) then the null (H0) and alternative hypotheses (H1) were: H0: λ =1; H1: λ ≠1.||0.91|0.36|0.0181
91953641|NCT01491737|183803559|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.93|||Log Rank|Log-rank test from unstratified analysis based upon Kaplan-Meier approach. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors of induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy.|Final Analysis.||0.93|0.41|0.0205
91953642|NCT01491737|183803560|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.57||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%.|Log Rank|The log-rank test from unstratified analysis was based upon Kaplan-Meier approach. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including the induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Log Rank tested the following: Null Hypothesis (H0): the distribution of the TTR time was the same in Arms A \& B; The Alternative Hypothesis (H1): the distribution of the TTR time was different in Arms A \& B. A Cox proportional hazards model tested the HR. If the HR of investigational arm (Arm A) compared with control arm (Arm B) with respect to TTR was assumed to be constant over time (λ) then the null (H0) and alternative hypotheses (H1) were: H0: λ =1; H1: λ ≠1.||1.57|0.78|0.5597
91953643|NCT02743117|183803574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|1.3||||||||1.3|-8.1|
91953644|NCT02743117|183803575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|4.6||||||Up to Day 8||4.6|-22.2|
91953645|NCT02743117|183803575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|5.9||||||Up to Day 15||5.9|-21.6|
91953646|NCT00620776|183803579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model analysis (differential slopes over time) comparing the 26 patients who received combined treatment with at least one CBT session to the 35 patients randomized to venlafaxine XR alone (and received at least one dose) on HAM-A total scores. Only available scores were used (no imputation for missing data). Because the HAM-A demonstrated a relatively rapid improvement early in treatment and then a leveling off, a shifted log-transformation of time of assessment was implemented.||||.17
91953647|NCT00620776|183803580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.54
91953648|NCT00620776|183803581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.86
91953649|NCT00620776|183803582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline score as the covariate.||||.051
91953650|NCT00620776|183803583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.06
91953651|NCT00620776|183803584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.95
91953652|NCT00620776|183803585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline score as the covariate.||||.17
91953653|NCT00620776|183803586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline score as the covariate.||||.53
91953654|NCT00620776|183803587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed with ANCOVA with baseline data as covariate.||||.23
91953655|NCT00620776|183803588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed with ANCOVA including baseline data as covariate.||||.07
91953656|NCT00620776|183803589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.63
91953657|NCT00620776|183803590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.52
91953658|NCT04983589|183803591|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|37.4||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated using the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||37.4|17.3|<0.0001
91953659|NCT04983589|183803592|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|36.0||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated using the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||36.0|16.8|<0.0001
91953660|NCT04983589|183803593|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|46.7||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated based on the normal approximation using pooled variance without continuity correction.|||46.7|22.7|<0.0001
91953661|NCT04983589|183803594|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|20.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|32.6||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated using the normal approximation using pooled variance without continuity correction.|||32.6|8.6|0.001
91953662|NCT00761969|183803595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Survival, major-event-free survival and event-free survival of patients with PAD and control subjects was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. The numbers of non-fatal events and revascularization procedures (which could be more than one per person) were compared using the Poisson regression - the outcome being the number of events per person-year.||||<0.001
91953663|NCT00762073|183803610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.239||||0.5282|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5282
91953664|NCT00762073|183803610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.86||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0092
91953665|NCT00762073|183803610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.009||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0174
91953666|NCT00762073|183803611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1786
91953667|NCT00762073|183803611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0090
91953668|NCT00762073|183803611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0001
91953669|NCT00762073|183803612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.4959
91953670|NCT00762073|183803612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0040
91953671|NCT00762073|183803612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91953672|NCT00762073|183803613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0108
91953673|NCT00762073|183803613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0208
91953674|NCT00762073|183803613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91953675|NCT00762073|183803614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1095
91953676|NCT00762073|183803614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0264
91953677|NCT00762073|183803614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
91953678|NCT00762073|183803615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3769
91953679|NCT00762073|183803615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9363
91953680|NCT00762073|183803615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1235
91953681|NCT00762073|183803616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3444
91953682|NCT00762073|183803616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9258
91953683|NCT00762073|183803616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3215|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3215
91953684|NCT00762073|183803617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6729|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from Baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.6729
91953685|NCT00762073|183803617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from Baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.8894
91953686|NCT00762073|183803617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from Baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1532
91953687|NCT00762073|183803618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4197|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4197
91953688|NCT00762073|183803618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9787|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.9787
91953689|NCT00762073|183803618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.8987
91953690|NCT01265875|183803633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to day 4.||||.25
91953691|NCT01265875|183803633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to day 7.||||.19
91953692|NCT01265875|183803633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Day 30.||||.27
91953693|NCT01265875|183803635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Day 4.||||.52
91953694|NCT01265875|183803635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Day 30.||||.34
91953695|NCT00830310|183803638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<0.001
91953696|NCT00830310|183803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.002
91953697|NCT00830310|183803640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.001
91953698|NCT00830310|183803641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.001
91953699|NCT00830310|183803642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.001
91953700|NCT00830310|183803643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.011
91953701|NCT00830310|183803644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.038
91953702|NCT00830310|183803645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.002
91953703|NCT00830310|183803646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<0.001
91953704|NCT01049360|183803654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.245||Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.245|0.156|<0.0001
91953705|NCT01049360|183803654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.245|0.158|<0.0001
91953706|NCT01049360|183803655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.181|0.083|<0.0001
91953707|NCT01049360|183803655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.185|0.088|<0.0001
91953708|NCT01049360|183803656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.333|0.230|<0.0001
91953709|NCT01049360|183803656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.325|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.325|0.224|<0.0001
91953710|NCT02276274|183803657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0592|0.0264|||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-72) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0264|-0.0592|
91953711|NCT02276274|183803658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0592|0.0264|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-tlqc) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0264|-0.0592|
91953712|NCT02276274|183803659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1182|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0405|0.2769|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of Cmax with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.2769|-0.0405|
91953713|NCT02276274|183803661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0139|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0598|0.032|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-inf) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0320|-0.0598|
91953714|NCT02276274|183803676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0918|0.0638|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-48) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0638|-0.0918|
91953715|NCT02276274|183803677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0934|0.0605|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-tlqc) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0605|-0.0934|
91953716|NCT02276274|183803679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1518|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2356|-0.068|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of Cmax with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||-0.0680|-0.2356|
91953717|NCT02276274|183803681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0179|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.095|0.0591|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-inf) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0591|-0.0950|
91953718|NCT00145795|183803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to examine the significance of the difference in mean absolute increase in CD4+ count at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, CD4+ increase is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.81
91953719|NCT00145795|183803728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||||||Significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to examine the significance of the difference in mean absolute increase in CD4+ count at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, CD4+ increase is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.03
91953720|NCT00145795|183803729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ memory cell population at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ memory cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.08
91953721|NCT00145795|183803730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ naïve cell population at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ naïve cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.29
91953722|NCT00145795|183803731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ memory cell population at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ memory cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.29
91953723|NCT00145795|183803732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ naïve cell population at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ naïve cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.04
91953724|NCT00145795|183803733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD8+ cell population at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD8+ cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.21
91953725|NCT00145795|183803734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD8+ cell population at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD8+ cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.61
91953726|NCT04419558|183803737|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.12|0.6579
91953727|NCT01539512|183803746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.32|||Log Rank|P-value is from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||||0.32|0.10|< 0.0001
91953728|NCT01539512|183803749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.69||||||||0.69|0.11|
91953729|NCT02388906|183803751|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||0.86|0.60|0.0003
91953730|NCT02388906|183803752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.69|1.11|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.11|0.69|
91953731|NCT02388906|183803759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.9|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||0.90|0.63|
91953732|NCT00412360|183803768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall survival at one year post-randomization between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant. The targeted sample size of 110 participants per treatment group was sufficient to maintain a type I error rate of 5% and provide more than 86% power to detect an increase in overall survival from 57% among participants receiving a single unit graft to 77% for those receiving a double-unit graft.||||0.17
91953733|NCT00412360|183803769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in disease-free survival at one year post-randomization between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.11
91953734|NCT00412360|183803770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.29
91953735|NCT00412360|183803770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.04
91953736|NCT00412360|183803772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of Grade II-IV acute GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.78
91953737|NCT00412360|183803772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of Grade III-IV acute GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.02
91953738|NCT00412360|183803773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.51
91953739|NCT00412360|183803773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of extensive chronic GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.05
91953740|NCT00412360|183803775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of relapse between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.12
91953741|NCT00412360|183803776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment-related mortality between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.43
91953742|NCT01790633|183803780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons were not necessary. Significance was determined using P \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||We approached our analysis as a pilot study with the aim of addressing feasibility. 70% of patients seen at the MDM clinic obtain a test result with standard serology. Assuming a 20% increase in infection awareness and type 1 error of 0.05, and power of at least 0.9, a minimum of 82 participants per group would be needed.||||<0.001
91953743|NCT01790633|183803781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons were not necessary. Significance was determined using P \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91953744|NCT05436067|183803787|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Difference in head angle pitch - left between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||<0.001
91953745|NCT05436067|183803787|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Difference in head angle pitch - right between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||<0.001
91953746|NCT05436067|183803787|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||Difference in head angle yaw - extension between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.042
91953747|NCT05436067|183803787|OTHER|||||||0.111||||||Difference in head angle yaw - flexion between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.111
91953748|NCT05436067|183803788|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Difference in pitch range of motion between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.023
91953749|NCT05436067|183803788|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||<0.001
91953750|NCT05436067|183803789|OTHER|||||||0.057||||||Difference in pitch velocity between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.057
91953751|NCT05436067|183803789|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Difference in yaw velocity between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.003
91953752|NCT05436067|183803790|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Weight shift exercise - mediolateral range of motion|paired t-test|||||||0.035
91953753|NCT05436067|183803790|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Weight shift balance exercise anteroposterior range of motion|paired t-test|||||||0.006
91953754|NCT05436067|183803790|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Single leg balance range of motion|paired t-test|||||||0.024
91953755|NCT05436067|183803790|OTHER|||||||0.257||||||Single leg balance fluency|Shapiro Wilcoxon test|Data was not normally distributed.||||||0.257
91953756|NCT05689554|183803799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.306|||Log Rank|||||1.306|.944|0.11
91953757|NCT05689554|183803800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Regression, modified Poisson|||||1.7|.9|0.183
91953758|NCT00157157|183803814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||||95.0|1.29|19.06||||||||19.06|1.29|
91953759|NCT00157157|183803815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||||95.0|1.18|14.82||||||||14.82|1.18|
91953760|NCT00157157|183803816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5||||||95.0|1.05|19.25||||||||19.25|1.05|
91953761|NCT01678794|183803817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91953762|NCT01678794|183803818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91953763|NCT02260804|183803822|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin of ±17% was predefined.|Difference in proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.43|10.2||||||||10.2|-6.43|
91953764|NCT00563706|183803831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-12.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.37|-24.24|0.043
91953765|NCT00563706|183803831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.77||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|11.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||11.16|-24.70|0.457
91953766|NCT00563706|183803831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.61||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.81|-24.03|0.067
91953767|NCT00563706|183803831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.61||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.02|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.80|-16.02|0.567
91953768|NCT00563706|183803831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.71|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.92|-22.71|0.070
91953769|NCT00563706|183803831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.18||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.87|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||10.50|-16.87|0.647
91953770|NCT00563706|183803831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.73||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.00|-20.46|0.075
91953771|NCT00563706|183803831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|8.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.04|-10.92|0.765
91953772|NCT04074109|183803840|OTHER|This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.||||||||||||This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.|||||This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.|||
91953773|NCT04074109|183803840|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used. We report percentages and frequencies to show feasibility|This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.|||
91953774|NCT03965754|183803859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.18||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||9.18|4.00|<.001
91953775|NCT03965754|183803859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|7.76||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||7.76|3.36|<.001
91953776|NCT03965754|183803859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|5.17||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||5.17|2.17|<.001
91953777|NCT03965754|183803859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|11.71||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||11.71|1.16|.038
91953778|NCT03965754|183803859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.54||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||7.54|0.63|.256
91953779|NCT03965754|183803859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.89||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||5.89|0.43|.531
91953780|NCT03965754|183803859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.54||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||1.54|0.91|.202
91953781|NCT03965754|183803859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.88||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||0.88|0.49|.005
91953782|NCT03965754|183803859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.16||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||4.16|0.69|.276
91953783|NCT03965754|183803859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.16||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||2.16|0.25|.592
91953784|NCT03965754|183803860|SUPERIORITY|We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.65||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|1.04|.020
91953785|NCT03965754|183803860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled).||0.75|0.44|<.001
91953786|NCT03965754|183803860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled).||1.38|0.41|.359
91953787|NCT03965754|183803860|SUPERIORITY|We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.||||2.90|1.05|.035
91953788|NCT02983305|183803861|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms at baseline.||||||0.0001||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of visual field area at baseline.||||.0001
91953789|NCT02983305|183803861|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.0001||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of visual field area under intervention conditions.||||0.0001
91953790|NCT02983305|183803861|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test non-equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.003||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between study arms of the change in the visual field area (average of both eyes) detected between baseline and intervention.||||.003
91953791|NCT02983305|183803862|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms at baseline.||||||0.38||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of gait speed at baseline.||||0.38
91953792|NCT02983305|183803862|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.27||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of gait speed under intervention conditions.||||0.27
91953793|NCT02983305|183803862|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test non-equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.79||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between study arms of the change in the gait speed detected between baseline and intervention.||||0.79
91953794|NCT00706901|183803863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<0.01
91953795|NCT00706901|183803863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||0.02
91953796|NCT00706901|183803864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Zero-inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<0.01
91953797|NCT00706901|183803864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||.0002
91953798|NCT00706901|183803865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To examine differences between GMI and TCC on SECs, a two-component Weibull mixture model for effectively dealing with zero-heavy continuous data was conducted.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Weibull mixture model|||||||0.04
91953799|NCT00706901|183803865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A generalized linear mixed model with correlated errors to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the response within subjects was conducted.||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
91953800|NCT00706901|183803866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurement of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<0.01
91953801|NCT00706901|183803866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||<.0001
91953802|NCT00706901|183803867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurement of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<.0001
91953803|NCT00706901|183803867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||0.02
91953804|NCT00706901|183803868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurement of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||0.17
91953805|NCT00706901|183803868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||0.67
91953806|NCT03433482|183803870|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hSBA GMT ratio for serogroup A between the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 24 months and the licensed MenACWY vaccine is \> 0.5.|GMT ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.57|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To demonstrate non-inferiority of the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 24 months to that of currently licensed MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29 after a single dose vaccination||1.57|0.94|
91953807|NCT03433482|183803870|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the hSBA GMT ratios for serogroup A between the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 30 months and the licensed MenACWY vaccine is \> 0.5. Non-inferiority hypotheses testing will be conducted sequentially, starting from MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 24 months and subsequently with MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 30 months.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To demonstrate non-inferiority of the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 30 months to that of currently licensed MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29 after a single dose vaccination.||1.42|0.87|
91953808|NCT03433482|183803871|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.19|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq24 and ACWY\_1, at Day 29 against serogroup C||1.19|0.58|
91953809|NCT03433482|183803871|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.24|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq24 and ACWY\_1, at Day 29 against serogroup W||1.24|0.72|
91953810|NCT03433482|183803871|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.44|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq24 and ACWY\_1, at Day 29 against serogroup Y||1.44|0.82|
91953811|NCT03433482|183803871|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq30 and ACWY\_2, at Day 29 against serogroup C||1.64|0.79|
91953812|NCT03433482|183803871|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq30 and ACWY\_2, at Day 29 against serogroup W||1.45|0.84|
91953813|NCT03433482|183803871|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.26|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq30 and ACWY\_2, at Day 29 against serogroup Y||1.26|0.72|
91953814|NCT03433482|183803873|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29.||6.40|-1.94|
91953815|NCT03433482|183803873|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|4.72|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29.||4.72|-8.94|
91953816|NCT03433482|183803873|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29.||5.80|-8.11|
91953817|NCT03433482|183803873|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|4.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29.||4.74|-7.88|
91953818|NCT03433482|183803873|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|4.07|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29.||4.07|-4.29|
91953819|NCT03433482|183803873|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|9.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29.||9.30|-3.63|
91953820|NCT03433482|183803873|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|10.88|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29.||10.88|-2.89|
91953821|NCT03433482|183803873|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|3.26|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29.||3.26|-8.91|
91953822|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|6.32|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 1.||6.32|-2.69|
91953823|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|13.84|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 1.||13.84|0.01|
91953824|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|9.58|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 1.||9.58|-3.33|
91953825|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 1.||6.80|-4.86|
91953826|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|5.22|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 29.||5.22|-2.24|
91953827|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|5.46|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 29.||5.46|-6.32|
91953828|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|4.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 29.||4.18|-7.05|
91953829|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 29.||6.90|-2.81|
91953830|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|6.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 1.||6.33|-3.32|
91953831|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.35|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 1.||7.35|-6.60|
91953832|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|5.23|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 1.||5.23|-7.75|
91953833|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|4.98|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 1.||4.98|-6.69|
91953834|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|2.96|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 29.||2.96|-4.24|
91953835|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|6.64|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 29.||6.64|-3.99|
91953836|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|9.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 29.||9.33|-1.11|
91953837|NCT03433482|183803874|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|5.13|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 29.||5.13|-4.16|
91953838|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|5.99|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||5.99|-3.37|
91953839|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|14.13|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||14.13|0.25|
91953840|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|10.39|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||10.39|-2.57|
91953841|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|7.44|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||7.44|-4.44|
91953842|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|5.46|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||5.46|-1.94|
91953843|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||4.70|-6.66|
91953844|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|4.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||4.18|-7.05|
91953845|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||6.80|-2.67|
91953846|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|6.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||6.83|-3.32|
91953847|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.71|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||10.71|-3.00|
91953848|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|5.77|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||5.77|-7.24|
91953849|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|4.75|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||4.75|-6.99|
91953850|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|2.96|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||2.96|-4.24|
91953851|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|5.16|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||5.16|-5.16|
91953852|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|9.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||9.33|-1.11|
91953853|NCT03433482|183803875|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|5.37|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||5.37|-3.88|
91953854|NCT00437294|183803881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237||||||The 1-sided significance level was 0.20.|Log Rank|||||||0.237
91953855|NCT00437294|183803886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||||||1-sided significance level was 0.20.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91953856|NCT00437294|183803887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.812|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.812
91953857|NCT00437294|183803888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.181
91953858|NCT00461591|183803892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.54|0.1068
91953859|NCT00461591|183803893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.59|0.0412
91953860|NCT00518531|183803920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|19.7||All statistical hypothesis tests were conducted at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment was employed for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||19.7|1.3|0.0259
91953861|NCT00518531|183803921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|41.3||All statistical hypothesis tests were conducted at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment was employed for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||41.3|20.6|<0.0001
91953862|NCT00518531|183803922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||19.7|2.2|0.0138
91953863|NCT00518531|183803923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||37.7|17.6|<0.0001
91953864|NCT00518531|183803924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||18.5|1.1|0.0291
91953865|NCT00518531|183803925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||36.7|18.1|<0.0001
91953866|NCT04621227|183803944|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|202.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|167.14|246.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 120mg BID + rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 4\] vs Rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 1\])||246.41|167.14|
91953867|NCT04621227|183803944|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|283.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|233.68|344.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 200mg BID + rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 7\] vs Rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 1\])||344.51|233.68|
91953868|NCT04621227|183803945|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|50.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.27|60.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 120mg BID + midazolam 2mg \[Period 5\] vs Midazolam 2mg \[Period 2\])||60.50|42.27|
91953869|NCT04621227|183803945|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|50.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.06|60.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 200mg BID + midazolam 2mg \[Period 8\] vs Midazolam 2mg \[Period 2\])||60.78|42.06|
91953870|NCT00124709|183803954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0046||||0.7901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.0381|||ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, gender, baseline age (months), baseline EASI score, and baseline TBSA as explanatory variables||"A disease-free day in Step 2 or less was defined as a diary day with variable No or almost no eczema?=yes and medication used variable=no except emollients, yellow label medication 2X day, or medication deviation of yellow label medication 1x day."||0.0381|-0.0290|0.7901
91953871|NCT01728376|183803966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|25.3|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% Confidence Interval (CI) by Wilson score method|Difference in satisfactory response between treatment groups. Satisfactory response = cured + improved||25.3|-30.3|
91953872|NCT01728376|183803966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|45.7|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in satisfactory response between treatment groups. Satisfactory response = cured + improved||45.7|-13.0|
91953873|NCT01728376|183803966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|72.4|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in satisfactory response between treatment groups. Satisfactory response = cured + improved||72.4|-21.0|
91953874|NCT01728376|183803967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|39.8|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in success response between treatment arms||39.8|-29.8|
91953875|NCT01728376|183803967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|75.1|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in success response between treatment arms||75.1|0.7|
91953876|NCT01728376|183803967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|-10.0||||||95.0|-60.3|40.3|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in success response between treatment arms||40.3|-60.3|
91953877|NCT02411110|183803988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34||||0.505|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline value as a covariate; treatment group and stratification (age: \< 40 or ≥ 40 years and baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 6 or \> 6) as factors.|LiRIS® - Placebo|||||0.505
91953878|NCT03985982|183803992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This outcome measure is the first to be assessed in a hierarchical testing sequence using a one-sided alpha of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91953879|NCT03985982|183803993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the second test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous test shows statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Emotional domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
91953880|NCT03985982|183803993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the third test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous two tests show statistical significance at the alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Social Functioning domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
91953881|NCT03985982|183803993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the forth test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous three tests show statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Overall score - Change from Baseline at Week 4.||||<0.001
91953882|NCT03985982|183803993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the fifth test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous four tests show statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Appraisal of Lines Between Eyebrows - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
91953883|NCT03985982|183803993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the sixth test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous five tests show statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Age Appraisal VAS score||||<0.001
91953884|NCT05981365|183804019|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.2629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1673|1.3663||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3663|1.1673|
91953885|NCT05981365|183804019|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0758|1.3042||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3042|1.0758|
91953886|NCT05981365|183804020|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0215|1.393||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3930|1.0215|
91953887|NCT05981365|183804021|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1311|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0496|1.2189||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2189|1.0496|
91953888|NCT05981365|183804022|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.8228||||||90.0|0.6992|0.9683||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.9683|0.6992|
91953889|NCT05981365|183804023|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.5738|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4523|1.7054||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.7054|1.4523|
91953890|NCT05981365|183804024|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1491|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0807|1.222||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2220|1.0807|
91953891|NCT05981365|183804024|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.9494|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8759|1.0291||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.0291|0.8759|
91953892|NCT05981365|183804025|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.3316|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2558|1.4121||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.4121|1.2558|
91953893|NCT05981365|183804026|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1282|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.1896||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1896|1.0700|
91953894|NCT05981365|183804027|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.8047|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7173|0.9027||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.9027|0.7173|
91953895|NCT05981365|183804028|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|2.0611|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8789|2.2609||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||2.2609|1.8789|
91953896|NCT05981365|183804029|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1374|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0672|1.2122||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2122|1.0672|
91953897|NCT05981365|183804029|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.9371|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8643|1.0162||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.0162|0.8643|
91953898|NCT05981365|183804030|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.2713|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1939|1.3538||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3538|1.1939|
91953899|NCT05981365|183804031|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0688|1.1883||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1883|1.0688|
91953900|NCT05981365|183804032|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.7973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7039|0.9031||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.9031|0.7039|
91953901|NCT05981365|183804033|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|2.026|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8496|2.2193||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||2.2193|1.8496|
91953902|NCT05981365|183804034|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.7909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.716|0.8737||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.8737|0.7160|
91953903|NCT05981365|183804035|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0831|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9723|1.2065||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2065|0.9723|
91953904|NCT05981365|183804036|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.3138|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1871|1.4541||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.4541|1.1871|
91953905|NCT05981365|183804037|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.7958|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.742|0.8534||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.8534|0.7420|
91953906|NCT05981365|183804038|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0322|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9531|1.1179||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1179|0.9531|
91953907|NCT05981365|183804039|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0972|1.3069||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3069|1.0972|
91953908|NCT05981365|183804040|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.8018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7472|0.8604||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.8604|0.7472|
91953909|NCT05981365|183804041|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9888|1.1427||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1427|0.9888|
91953910|NCT05981365|183804042|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.2197|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1114|1.3385||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3385|1.1114|
91953911|NCT00617175|183804097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Negative binomial regression|||||||<0.001
91953912|NCT00505765|183804122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.21
91953913|NCT00505765|183804122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
91953914|NCT01207219|183804135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for statistical significance in these analyses was 0.01 adjusted for multiple comparisons .|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed-model analysis with a repeated-measures approach including an unstructured variance matrix||Data analysis was based on the Intention-to-Treatment (ITT) method. Differences between the three intervention groups over time (baseline and 12 weeks) were assessed with a Group x Time interaction term. A priori comparisons of the active intervention groups with the waitlist group were carried out with the same strategy if analyses including all the three groups meet the criterion of statistical significance (P\<0.01).||||<0.01
91953915|NCT01453296|183804162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.7|||||Day 1 maximum HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||5.7|-0.8|
91953916|NCT01453296|183804162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Day 14 maximum HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.7|-2.4|
91953917|NCT01453296|183804162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6|||||Day 14 maximum HR (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.6|-2.6|
91953918|NCT01453296|183804163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.7|||||Day 1 weighted HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||5.7|-0.8|
91953919|NCT01453296|183804163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Day 14 weighted HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.7|-2.4|
91953920|NCT01453296|183804163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6|||||Day 14 weighted HR (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.6|-2.6|
91953921|NCT01453296|183804164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.6|||||Day 1 maximum QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||6.6|-4.5|
91953922|NCT01453296|183804164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.3|||||Day 14 maximum QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||6.3|-3.2|
91953923|NCT01453296|183804164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.7|||||Day 14 maximum QTcF (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||5.7|-3.0|
91953924|NCT01453296|183804178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|6.61|||||Day 1 weighted QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||6.61|-2.59|
91953925|NCT01453296|183804178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|7.81|||||Day 14 weighted QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||7.81|-1.93|
91953926|NCT01453296|183804178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.08|||||Day 14 weighted QTcF (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||7.08|-0.70|
91953927|NCT00766727|183804179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.25|||TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||
91953928|NCT01068418|183804187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures regression analysis model was used to examine the effect of vitamin D3 therapy on the mean arterial pressure (mean of five measurements at each time point) before and during angiotensin II infusions, before and after vitamin D3 therapy.||||<0.05
91953929|NCT01068418|183804188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||threshold for significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures regression analysis model was used to examine the effect of vitamin D3 therapy on the renal plasma flow (mean of three measurements at each time point) before and during angiotensin II infusions, before and after vitamin D3 therapy.||||<0.01
91953930|NCT01015118|183804189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.98|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|Hazard ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI) and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level Area under curve 5 (AUC5) vs. Area under curve 6 (AUC6).||0.98|0.72|0.0239
91953931|NCT01015118|183804190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|Hazard ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI) and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||0.98|0.75|0.0286
91953932|NCT01015118|183804191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||0.97|0.72|0.0186
91953933|NCT01015118|183804192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||0.98|0.74|0.0256
91953934|NCT01015118|183804193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.17|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||1.17|0.83|0.8653
91953935|NCT01015118|183804194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.01|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||1.01|0.77|0.0749
91953936|NCT01015118|183804195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.82|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 favours nintedanib.|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusting for, macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||1.82|0.81|0.3490
91953937|NCT01015118|183804196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|6.69|||Mixed effect growth curve model|Mixed-effects growth curve models (longitudinal models) with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model.|Mean difference presented is the Adjusted mean difference. Difference calculated as nintedanib minus placebo. High values represent a worse level of symptoms.|Adjusted for the stratification factors macroscopic residual postoperative tumour at baseline (yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (IIB-III vs IV), and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||6.69|3.88|<0.0001
91953938|NCT01015118|183804197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-0.41|||Mixed effect growth curve model|Mixed-effects growth curve models (longitudinal models) with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model.|Mean difference calculated is the Adjusted mean. High values represent a better level of functioning. Difference calculated as nintedanib minus placebo.|Adjusted for the stratification factors macroscopic residual postoperative tumour at baseline (yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (IIB-III vs IV), and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||-0.41|-3.35|0.0124
91953939|NCT01522755|183804200|OTHER|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91953940|NCT01522755|183804201|OTHER|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91953941|NCT01522755|183804202|OTHER|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91953942|NCT03414658|183804203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.35|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.35|0.025
91953943|NCT03414658|183804203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|1.64|||Log Rank|||||1.64|0.8|0.32
91953944|NCT00480077|183804210|SUPERIORITY|The primary end point of the study, all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure, was analyzed on a time-to-first-event basis with the log-rank test. The hazard ratio (HR) associated with allocation to the access arm relative to control was estimated with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model containing the treatment group as a categorical factor.||||||0.063|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.063
91953945|NCT01215968|183804226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.83|2.62|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 10 over Day 3.||||2.62|1.83|
91953946|NCT01215968|183804226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|2.33|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 17 over Day 3.||||2.33|1.61|
91953947|NCT01215968|183804226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|2.29|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 24 over Day 3.||||2.29|1.59|
91953948|NCT01215968|183804226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|2.22|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 31 over Day 3.||||2.22|1.52|
91953949|NCT05966129|183804231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.7957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.8|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 42.1|23.8|-18.3|0.7957
91953950|NCT05966129|183804232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 0.9|0.5|-0.4|0.8255
91953951|NCT05966129|183804233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9054
91953952|NCT05966129|183804234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 2.4|0.5|-1.9|0.248
91953953|NCT05966129|183804235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.7|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 7.4|4.7|-2.7|0.6012
91953954|NCT05966129|183804236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7528|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7528
91953955|NCT05966129|183804237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91953956|NCT05182840|183804238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.168||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.0|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of 3 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.000|-0.337|0.0499
91953957|NCT05182840|183804238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.313|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of 10 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.313|-0.660|<.0001
91953958|NCT05182840|183804238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.246|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of 20 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.246|-0.596|<.0001
91953959|NCT05182840|183804238|OTHER|Null hypothesis: The dose-response curve is flat across the 3 BI 690517 doses and the placebo.||||||0||||||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|MCPMod Emax model fit|Emax model fit assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 690517 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod).~MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient."||||0.0000
91953960|NCT05182840|183804238|OTHER|Null hypothesis: The dose-response curve is flat across the 3 BI 690517 doses and the placebo.||||||0||||||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|MCPMod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption: No assumption is needed.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 690517 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod).~MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient."||||0.0000
91953961|NCT05182840|183804238|OTHER|Null hypothesis: The dose-response curve is flat across the 3 BI 690517 doses and the placebo.||||||0.0003|||||||MCPMod exponential model fit|Exponential model fit assumption: 15% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 690517 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod). MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||||0.0003
91953962|NCT05182840|183804239|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|0.0|||||"Median of 3 mg BI 690517 - Median of Placebo to BI 690517."|||-0.0|-28.6|
91953963|NCT05182840|183804239|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|-26.8|||||"Median of 10 mg BI 690517 - Median of Placebo to BI 690517."|||-26.8|-48.3|
91953964|NCT05182840|183804239|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-34.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-21.8|||||"Median of 20 mg BI 690517 - Median of Placebo to BI 690517."|||-21.8|-44.9|
91953965|NCT05182840|183804240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.033|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||0.033|-0.488|0.0867
91953966|NCT05182840|183804240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.469||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.737|-0.201|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.201|-0.737|0.0007
91953967|NCT05182840|183804240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.429||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.707|-0.151|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 6905177 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.151|-0.707|0.0027
91953968|NCT05182840|183804241|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|3.4|||||"Median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|||3.4|-38.6|
91953969|NCT05182840|183804241|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-37.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-18.2|||||"Median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517"|||-18.2|-52.2|
91953970|NCT05182840|183804241|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|-14.0|||||"Median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 6905177 - median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|||-14.0|-50.7|
91953971|NCT05182840|183804242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098||||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.119|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||0.119|-0.316|0.3737
91953972|NCT05182840|183804242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.502|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.275|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.275|-0.730|<.0001
91953973|NCT05182840|183804242|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.404||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|-0.184|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.184|-0.625|0.0004
91953974|NCT05182840|183804243|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|12.7|||||"Median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|||12.7|-27.1|
91953975|NCT05182840|183804243|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-39.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-24.0|||||"Median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|||-24.0|-51.8|
91953976|NCT05182840|183804243|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-16.8|||||"Median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|||-16.8|-46.5|
91953977|NCT05182840|183804244|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.72|1.16|0.0136
91953978|NCT05182840|183804244|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|12.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||12.49|3.94|0.0000
91953979|NCT05182840|183804244|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.48||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|9.71||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.71|3.09|0.0000
91953980|NCT05182840|183804245|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.88||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.88|1.19|0.0111
91953981|NCT05182840|183804245|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|11.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.49|3.49|0.0000
91953982|NCT05182840|183804245|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|9.44||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.44|2.88|0.0000
91953983|NCT05182840|183804246|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.09||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.09|1.04|0.0348
91953984|NCT05182840|183804246|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.08||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.08|2.40|0.0000
91953985|NCT05182840|183804246|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.02||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.67||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.67|2.91|0.0000
91953986|NCT05182840|183804247|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.88||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.88|1.19|0.0111
91953987|NCT05182840|183804247|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|11.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.49|3.49|0.0000
91953988|NCT05182840|183804247|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|9.44||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.44|2.88|0.0000
91953989|NCT05182840|183804248|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|5.74||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.74|1.03|0.0419
91953990|NCT05182840|183804248|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|14.08||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||14.08|2.64|0.0000
91953991|NCT05182840|183804248|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|14.25||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||14.25|2.64|0.0000
91953992|NCT05182840|183804249|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.02||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.02|1.19|0.0195
91953993|NCT05182840|183804249|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|15.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.35|2.65|0.0000
91953994|NCT05182840|183804249|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.39||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|15.67||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.67|2.60|0.0001
91953995|NCT05182840|183804250|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.42||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.42|0.93|0.0767
91953996|NCT05182840|183804250|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|8.91||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.91|1.89|0.0003
91953997|NCT05182840|183804250|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|10.24||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||10.24|2.15|0.0001
91953998|NCT05182840|183804251|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.02||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.02|1.19|0.0195
91953999|NCT05182840|183804251|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|15.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.35|2.65|0.0000
91954000|NCT05182840|183804251|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.39||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|15.67||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.67|2.60|0.0001
91954001|NCT05182840|183804252|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.04||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.04|0.82|0.1398
91954002|NCT05182840|183804252|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.42||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|19.02||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||19.02|3.73|0.0000
91954003|NCT05182840|183804252|OTHER|P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|10.9|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||10.90|2.28|0.0001
91954004|NCT05182840|183804253|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.79||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.79|0.77|0.1884
91954005|NCT05182840|183804253|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|15.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.72|2.94|0.0000
91954006|NCT05182840|183804253|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.94||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.94|2.00|0.0003
91954007|NCT05182840|183804254|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.46||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.46|0.76|0.2140
91954008|NCT05182840|183804254|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|8.85||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.85|1.93|0.0003
91954009|NCT05182840|183804254|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|11.71||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.71|2.52|0.0000
91954010|NCT05182840|183804255|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.79||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.79|0.77|0.1884
91954011|NCT05182840|183804255|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|15.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.72|2.94|0.0000
91954012|NCT05182840|183804255|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.94||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.94|2.00|0.0003
91954013|NCT05182840|183804256|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.61||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.61|1.32|0.0024
91954014|NCT05182840|183804256|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|6.86||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.86|2.39|0.0000
91954015|NCT05182840|183804256|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|6.55||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.55|2.29|0.0000
91954016|NCT05182840|183804257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.77||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.77|1.35|0.0019
91954017|NCT05182840|183804257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.59||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.59|2.20|0.0000
91954018|NCT05182840|183804257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|6.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.35|2.12|0.0000
91954019|NCT05182840|183804258|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.74||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||2.74|1.02|0.0418
91954020|NCT05182840|183804258|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.65||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.65|2.30|0.0000
91954021|NCT05182840|183804258|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|6.05||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.05|2.11|0.0000
91954022|NCT05182840|183804259|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.77||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.77|1.35|0.0019
91954023|NCT05182840|183804259|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.59||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.59|2.20|0.0000
91954024|NCT05182840|183804259|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|6.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.35|2.12|0.0000
91954025|NCT05182840|183804260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.45||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.45|1.09|0.0285
91954026|NCT05182840|183804260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.96||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.96|1.41|0.0038
91954027|NCT05182840|183804260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|8.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.72|1.97|0.0002
91954028|NCT05182840|183804261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.31||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.31|1.23|0.0116
91954029|NCT05182840|183804261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.52||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.52|1.46|0.0032
91954030|NCT05182840|183804261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|8.91||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.91|1.86|0.0004
91954031|NCT05182840|183804262|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.69||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||2.69|0.67|0.4092
91954032|NCT05182840|183804262|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|7.58||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.58|1.77|0.0005
91954033|NCT05182840|183804262|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|8.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.49|1.92|0.0002
91954034|NCT05182840|183804263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.43||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.43|1.06|0.0348
91954035|NCT05182840|183804263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|13.57||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||13.57|2.73|0.0000
91954036|NCT05182840|183804263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|7.52||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.52|1.71|0.0007
91954037|NCT05182840|183804264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.14||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.14|0.98|0.0578
91954038|NCT05182840|183804264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|11.78||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.78|2.23|0.0001
91954039|NCT05182840|183804264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|7.16||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.16|1.54|0.0022
91954040|NCT05182840|183804265|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.44||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.44|1.06|0.0342
91954041|NCT05182840|183804265|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|9.24||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.24|1.93|0.0003
91954042|NCT05182840|183804265|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|6.73||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.73|1.52|0.0023
91954043|NCT05182840|183804266|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.31||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.31|1.23|0.0116
91954044|NCT05182840|183804266|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.52||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.52|1.46|0.0032
91954045|NCT05182840|183804266|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|8.91||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.91|1.86|0.0004
91954046|NCT05182840|183804267|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.14||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.14|0.98|0.0578
91954047|NCT05182840|183804267|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|11.78||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.78|2.23|0.0001
91954048|NCT05182840|183804267|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|7.16||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.16|1.54|0.0022
91954049|NCT04242498|183804269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.422||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.221|4.804|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.804|1.221|0.004
91954050|NCT04242498|183804269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.287||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.22|4.291|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.291|1.220|0.003
91954051|NCT04242498|183804270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.722||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.182|6.267|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.267|1.182|0.007
91954052|NCT04242498|183804270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.007||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.374|6.581|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.581|1.374|0.002
91954053|NCT04242498|183804271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.798||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.378|1.683|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.683|0.378|0.497
91954054|NCT04242498|183804271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.541|2.041|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.041|0.541|0.868
91954055|NCT04242498|183804272|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.393|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.92|-0.867||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.867|-3.920|<0.001
91954056|NCT04242498|183804272|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.309|||<|0.001||97.5|-3.705|-0.914||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.914|-3.705|<0.001
91954057|NCT04242498|183804273|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.898||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.684|-0.113||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.113|-1.684|0.010
91954058|NCT04242498|183804273|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.265|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.978|-0.552||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.552|-1.978|<0.001
91954059|NCT04242498|183804274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.273||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.974|10.997||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.997|0.974|0.028
91954060|NCT04242498|183804274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.756||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.189|11.867||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.867|1.189|0.010
91954061|NCT00931515|183804300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91954062|NCT01375491|183804366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||See published paper.|ANOVA|See published paper.||See published paper.||||<0.05
91954063|NCT02985541|183804370|OTHER||3-year probability of getting pregnant|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.71||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) during Years 6-8||2.71|0.17|
91954064|NCT02383966|183804376|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.803||||||||0.803|0.400|
91954065|NCT02383966|183804377|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.568|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.795||||||||0.795|0.406|
91954066|NCT02383966|183804378|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.705|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.991||||||||0.991|0.502|
91954067|NCT02383966|183804379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.45||||||||5.45|1.52|
91954068|NCT02383966|183804380|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.95||||||||3.95|1.15|
91954069|NCT04888377|183804386|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary hypothesis of non-inferiority was tested by calculating the mean difference between treatment arms and its associated 90% confidence interval for the primary outcome. If the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval was greater than -4, then LDA was assumed to be non-inferior to placebo. If non-inferiority were assumed, a one-sided t-test would test the benefit of LDA compared to placebo. All models controlled for site as the original randomization stratification factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||For each outcome, the adjusted mean difference between treatment groups and the associated 95% confidence interval based on an ANCOVA model is presented.|ANCOVA||Mean difference is Aspirin-Placebo.|Assuming a non-inferiority margin of 4 points in the BSID-III cognitive score as clinically significant, and a true effect of LDA of not more than a 1 point decrease, a total sample size of 620 was determined to provide 80% power for a one-sided test for non-inferiority with a type I error of 5%. To test this secondary hypothesis, the sample size also provided over 90% power, at a two-sided type I error of 5%, to detect a difference of 4 points between LDA and placebo based on a two-sided test.||0.6|-2.2|0.25
91954070|NCT00526162|183804405|OTHER||percentage|0.0|||<|0.03|ONE_SIDED|97.0||||Using a confidence interval of 97%, the exact binomial upper confidence bound was 9.5% which is lower than the 10% set for the primary safety objective. Therefore, the actual p-value has not been calculated further.|One proportion binomial exact||The confidence interval was calculated based on 35 patients who completed 1-month follow-up at interim analysis.|||||<0.03
91954071|NCT05279807|183804410|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference pre vs post treatment|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-12.5|||Paired Samples T-Test|||Primary endpoint, verified on the single cohort of patients who completed the monotherapy run-in period, is calculated as the mean difference in sitting diastolic blood pressure between Visit 2 (Week 0, Baseline Visit of the combination therapy) and Visit 4 (Week 8, End of Study Visit). This is not a comparison of two different arms, but a comparison of two measurements taken from the same patient treated with combination therapy (single arm paired pre- vs. post-combination therapy comparison)||-12.5|-14.5|< 0.001
91954072|NCT01169259|183804411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.88|0.47
91954073|NCT01169259|183804411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.93|0.56
91954074|NCT01169259|183804412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.85|0.69
91954075|NCT01169259|183804412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.80|0.24
91954076|NCT01169259|183804413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.67|0.08
91954077|NCT01169259|183804413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.79|0.79
91954078|NCT01169259|183804414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.79|0.90
91954079|NCT01169259|183804414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.70|0.43
91954080|NCT01169259|183804415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.72|0.19
91954081|NCT01169259|183804415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||||1.39|0.94|0.17
91954082|NCT01169259|183804416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|0.73|0.67
91954083|NCT01169259|183804416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.83|0.31
91954084|NCT01169259|183804417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.86|0.53
91954085|NCT01169259|183804417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.82|0.21
91954086|NCT01169259|183804418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.78|0.73
91954087|NCT01169259|183804418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.59|0.003
91954088|NCT01169259|183804419|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.76|0.68
91954089|NCT01169259|183804419|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.83|0.72
91954090|NCT01169259|183804420|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.88|0.38
91954091|NCT01169259|183804420|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.76|0.73
91954092|NCT01169259|183804421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.87|0.87
91954093|NCT01169259|183804421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.90|0.79
91954094|NCT01169259|183804422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.83|0.33
91954095|NCT01169259|183804422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|1.00|0.056
91954096|NCT01169259|183804423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.79|0.38
91954097|NCT01169259|183804423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.76|0.18
91954098|NCT01169259|183804424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.59|0.024
91954099|NCT01169259|183804424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.73|0.58
91954100|NCT01169259|183804425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.84|0.62
91954101|NCT01169259|183804425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.84|0.72
91954102|NCT01169259|183804426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.79|0.78
91954103|NCT01169259|183804426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.63|0.016
91954104|NCT01169259|183804427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||||1.01|0.55|0.058
91954105|NCT01169259|183804427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.73|0.94
91954106|NCT01169259|183804428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.83|0.61
91954107|NCT01169259|183804428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.71|0.016
91954108|NCT01169259|183804429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||||1.39|0.83|0.61
91954109|NCT01169259|183804429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.74|0.74
91954110|NCT01169259|183804430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.42|0.37
91954111|NCT01169259|183804430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.39|||Regression, Cox|||||2.39|0.72|0.37
91954112|NCT01169259|183804431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.06|||Regression, Cox|||||3.06|0.84|0.15
91954113|NCT01169259|183804431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.26|0.04
91954114|NCT01169259|183804432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.95|||Regression, Cox|||||1.95|0.83|0.27
91954115|NCT01169259|183804432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.49|0.198
91954116|NCT01169259|183804433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.46|0.58
91954117|NCT01169259|183804433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.01|||Regression, Cox|||||2.01|0.60|0.76
91954118|NCT01169259|183804434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.71|0.56
91954119|NCT01169259|183804434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||||0.93|0.55|0.014
91954120|NCT01169259|183804435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.27||||||||1.27|0.92|
91954121|NCT01169259|183804435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15||||||||1.15|0.83|
91954122|NCT01169259|183804436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26||||||||1.26|0.82|
91954123|NCT01169259|183804436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||||1.29|0.84|
91954124|NCT05299359|183804437|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI is \>= 0.67, then the immune response to a single heterologous booster vaccination of TAK-019 is considered to be non-inferior of that to the primary series of TAK-019.|LS Mean Difference|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47||||||GMT ratio was calculated GMT of TAK-019-3001 on Day 15 divided by GMT of TAK-019-1501 study on Day 36.||1.47|0.95|
91954125|NCT04242446|183804476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.979|4.089|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.089|0.979|0.030
91954126|NCT04242446|183804476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.234||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.159|4.307|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.307|1.159|0.006
91954127|NCT04242446|183804477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.416||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.615|3.26||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.260|0.615|0.350
91954128|NCT04242446|183804477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.175||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.021|4.635|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.635|1.021|0.021
91954129|NCT04242446|183804478|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.574||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.472|-0.675||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.675|-4.472|0.002
91954130|NCT04242446|183804478|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.682|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.394|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||||-0.970|-4.394|<0.001
91954131|NCT04242446|183804479|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.551||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.521|0.418||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|ANCOVA|||||0.418|-1.521|0.201
91954132|NCT04242446|183804479|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.186||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.05|-0.322|||ANCOVA|||||-0.322|-2.050|0.002
91954133|NCT04242446|183804480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.618||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.489|5.352||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.352|0.489|0.367
91954134|NCT04242446|183804480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.757||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.909|8.364|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.364|0.909|0.041
91954135|NCT05644756|183804534|OTHER|The primary analysis examined changes in measurement-based care (MBC) collection over time using ANOVA. The study was not designed as a superiority, non-inferiority, or equivalence trial.|||||>|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.01
91954136|NCT04058990|183804558|NON_INFERIORITY|13.2% non-inferiority margin||||||0.0012|||||||Farrington-Manning|||\[Not Specified\]||||0.0012
91954137|NCT02203305|183804605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: Interval and condition (p\<0.001).||Recorded 50-word consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) words were evaluated for the poorer hearing ear 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction. Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
91954138|NCT02203305|183804605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p\<0.001).||Recorded 50-word CNC words were evaluated for the poorer hearing ear 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction. Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
91954139|NCT02203305|183804605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.||Recorded 50-word CNC words were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
91954140|NCT02203305|183804605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded 50-word CNC words were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
91954141|NCT02203305|183804605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.429||||||A logit transformation was applied to proportion correct data prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and group (p=0.429). Interaction: group and interval (p=0.387).||Comparison of word recognition between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.429
91954142|NCT02203305|183804606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.019||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.19) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p\<0.019).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.019
91954143|NCT02203305|183804606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.012||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.012) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.004).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.012
91954144|NCT02203305|183804606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
91954145|NCT02203305|183804606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
91954146|NCT02203305|183804606|OTHER|correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|0.42|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of age at implantation and sound source localization (RMS) at the 12-month interval with the cochlear implant, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation (one-tailed).||||=0.033
91954147|NCT02203305|183804606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.249||||||There were significant main effects of group (p\<0.001) and interval (p\<0.001). There was a non-significant interaction between group and interval (p=0.249).|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: group (p\<0.001) and interval (p\<0.001). Interaction: group and interval (p=0.249).||Comparison of sound source localization between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.249
91954148|NCT02203305|183804607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the Speech, Spatial, \& Qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) as measured with the total score were compared over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.001
91954149|NCT02203305|183804607|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.056||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the total score were compared over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||=0.056
91954150|NCT02203305|183804607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.448||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.488).||Responses on the SSQ over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Subscales include: speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.448
91954151|NCT02203305|183804607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.299||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: subscale (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.072). Interaction: subscale and interval (p=0.299).||Responses on the SSQ over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Subscales include: speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.299
91954152|NCT02203305|183804607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.018||||||There were significant main effects of interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001), and their interaction (p\<0.018).|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.018).||Responses on the SSQ Speech pragmatic subscale over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.018
91954153|NCT02203305|183804607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.767|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p=0.767). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.542).||Responses on the SSQ Spatial pragmatic subscale over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.767
91954154|NCT02203305|183804607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.242|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.003) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.242).||Responses on the SSQ Qualities of Hearing pragmatic subscale over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.242
91954155|NCT02203305|183804607|OTHER|Bivariate pearson correlation||||||0.37|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||0.370
91954156|NCT02203305|183804607|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.865||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.865
91954157|NCT02203305|183804607|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|0.6|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.005
91954158|NCT02203305|183804607|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|0.67|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.006
91954159|NCT02203305|183804607|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|-0.33|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the preoperative interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.152
91954160|NCT02203305|183804607|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.761|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the preoperative interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.761
91954161|NCT02203305|183804607|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.315|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the 12-month interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.315
91954162|NCT02203305|183804607|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.666|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the 12-month interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.666
91954163|NCT02203305|183804607|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: cohort (p=0.912), interval (p=0.463), and subscale (p=0.483). Interactions: 2-way or 3-way (p\>0.175).||Comparison of subjective benefit between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) on the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing subscales during the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||>0.175
91954164|NCT02203305|183804608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.161||||||"Significant effect of interval (p=0.046) and of condition (p\<0.001) and a non-significant interaction (p=0.161).~Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.046) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.161).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.161
91954165|NCT02203305|183804608|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.107||||||"Significant effect of condition (p\<0.001) and the interaction (p\<0.001). Non-significant effect of interval (p=0.107).~Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p\<0.001) and interval p=0.107). Interaction of condition and interval (p\<0.001).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||>0.107
91954166|NCT02203305|183804608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
91954167|NCT02203305|183804608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
91954168|NCT02203305|183804608|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.58||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of age at implantation and speech recognition in noise at the 12-month interval with the cochlear implant, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation.||||=0.580
91954169|NCT02203305|183804608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.743||||||A logit transformation was applied to proportion correct data prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effects: SNR (p=0.026) \& masker condition (p\<0.001). Interactions: cohort \& condition (p\<0.001), interval \& condition (p=0.015). Others (p\>0.140).||Comparison of speech recognition between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) for the three masker configurations (noise towards the better hearing ear, noise towards the poorer hearing ear, and noise from the front) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR; 0, 5, or 10 dB SNR) over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.743
91954170|NCT02203305|183804608|OTHER|pearson correlation|||||=|0.036||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of word recognition and speech recognition in noise, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation. Scores were averaged between 3 and 12 months post-activation as an estimate of asymptotic performance.||||=0.036
91954171|NCT02203305|183804609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.183||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.183) and condition (p=0.012). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.081).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.183
91954172|NCT02203305|183804609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.196||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.010) and condition (p=0.100). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.196).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.196
91954173|NCT02203305|183804609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||0.056
91954174|NCT02203305|183804609|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.21||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||=0.210
91954175|NCT02203305|183804610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.071||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.071) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p\<0.051)||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.071
91954176|NCT02203305|183804610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.109||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.109) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.052).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.109
91954177|NCT02203305|183804610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
91954178|NCT02203305|183804610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
91954179|NCT02203305|183804611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.024||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.018) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.024).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.024
91954180|NCT02203305|183804611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.187) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.219).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.219
91954181|NCT02203305|183804611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
91954182|NCT02203305|183804611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
91954183|NCT02203305|183804612|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) as measured with the global score were compared over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||=0.011
91954184|NCT02203305|183804612|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.264||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is calculated from the responses on the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales. Responses were compared to responses over the post-activation period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) with the cochlear implant using a repeated-measures ANOVA.||||=0.264
91954185|NCT02203305|183804612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.023||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.005) and subscales (p=0.001). Interaction: interval and subscales (p=0.023).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.023
91954186|NCT02203305|183804612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.643|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.643) and subscale (p=0.005). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.480).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.643
91954187|NCT02203305|183804612|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation (one-tailed)|||||=|0.947||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.947
91954188|NCT02203305|183804612|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.500
91954189|NCT02203305|183804612|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|-0.51|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.023
91954190|NCT02203305|183804612|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|-0.55|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.033
91954191|NCT02203305|183804612|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.208|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: cohort (p=0.541), interval (p=0.446), and subscale (p=0.208). Interactions: 2-way or 3-way (p\>0.287).||Comparison of subjective benefit between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) on the ease of communication, background noise, and reverberation subscales over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||>0.208
91954192|NCT02203305|183804613|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.221||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months)."||||=0.221
91954193|NCT02203305|183804613|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.538||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months)."||||=0.538
91954194|NCT02203305|183804613|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.218||||||There were no significant main effects of cohort (p=0.265) or interval (p=0.430). There was no significant interaction between cohort and interval (p=0.218).|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: cohort (p=0.265) or interval (p=0.430). Interaction: cohort and interval (p=0.218).||Comparison of subjective benefit between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||>0.218
91954195|NCT02203305|183804614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.322||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.084) and condition (p=0.322). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.125).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.322
91954196|NCT02203305|183804614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.317||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.014) and condition (p=0.317). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.118).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.317
91954197|NCT02203305|183804614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.017||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.017
91954198|NCT02203305|183804614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.292||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.292
91954199|NCT02203305|183804614|OTHER|pearson correlation|||||>|0.185|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of word recognition and speech recognition in noise, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation. Scores were averaged between 3 and 12 months post-activation as an estimate of asymptotic performance.||||>0.185
91954200|NCT02203305|183804615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.581||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.039) and condition (p=0.007). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.581).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.581
91954201|NCT02203305|183804615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.817||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p=0.005) and interval (p=0.528). Interaction: condition and interval (p=0.817).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.817
91954202|NCT02203305|183804615|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.008||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.008
91954203|NCT02203305|183804615|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.009
91954204|NCT02203305|183804615|OTHER|bivariate correlation|||||=|0.049||||||"Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.~This correlation was no longer significant when controlling for the hearing threshold at 8000 Hz."|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of age at implantation and performance at the 12-month interval with the cochlear implant, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation (one-tailed).||||=0.049
91954205|NCT02203305|183804615|OTHER|pearson correlation|||||>|0.185|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of word recognition and speech recognition in noise, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation. Scores were averaged between 3 and 12 months post-activation as an estimate of asymptotic performance.||||>0.185
91954206|NCT02203305|183804616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.070) and condition (p=0.440). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.047).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.440
91954207|NCT02203305|183804616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.379|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.250). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.379).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.379
91954208|NCT02203305|183804616|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.021|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.021
91954209|NCT02203305|183804616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.001
91954210|NCT02203305|183804617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.639||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.639). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.280).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.639
91954211|NCT02203305|183804617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.637|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.637). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.450).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.637
91954212|NCT02203305|183804617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.001
91954213|NCT02203305|183804617|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.002
91954214|NCT02203305|183804618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.671|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.020) and condition (p=0.406). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.671).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.671
91954215|NCT02203305|183804618|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.124|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.124) and condition (p=0.845). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.960).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||>0.124
91954216|NCT02203305|183804618|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.025|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.025
91954217|NCT02203305|183804618|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.442|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.442
91954218|NCT02203305|183804619|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct values were converted to rationalized arcsine units prior to analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparing word recognition (percent correct for CNC words) with a hearing aid at the pre-operative interval and the cochlear implant at the 12-month interval for the affected ear (masking presented to the contralateral ear).||||<0.001
91954219|NCT02203305|183804619|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparing word recognition (percent correct for CNC words) with a hearing aid at the pre-operative interval and the cochlear implant at the 12-month interval for the affected ear (masking presented to the contralateral ear).||||<0.001
91954220|NCT02203305|183804620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Participants listened with a bone conduction device preoperatively and with the cochlear implant at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. Repeated-measures ANOVA compared performance over time.||||<0.001
91954221|NCT02203305|183804620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Participants listening with a bone conduction device preoperatively and with the cochlear implant at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. Repeated-measures ANOVA compared performance over time.||||<0.001
91954222|NCT02203305|183804620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare localization performance with the cochlear implant to a bone-conduction device at the 12-month interval using a paired samples t-test.||||<0.001
91954223|NCT02203305|183804620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare localization performance with the cochlear implant to a bone-conduction device at the 12-month interval using a paired samples t-test.||||<0.001
91954224|NCT02203305|183804621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is calculated from the responses on the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales. Responses at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for unilateral hearing loss) were compared to responses over time with the cochlear implant using a repeated-measures ANOVA.||||<0.001
91954225|NCT02203305|183804621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is calculated from the responses on the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales. Responses at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for unilateral hearing loss) were compared to responses over time with the cochlear implant using a repeated-measures ANOVA.||||<0.001
91954226|NCT02203305|183804621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscales (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscales (p\<0.001).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction from the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over time with the cochlear implant.||||<0.001
91954227|NCT02203305|183804621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscales (p=0.010). Interaction: interval and subscales (p=0.001).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction from the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over time with the cochlear implant.||||<0.010
91954228|NCT02203305|183804622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) with the cochlear implant."||||<0.001
91954229|NCT02203305|183804622|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) with the cochlear implant."||||=0.003
91954230|NCT02203305|183804623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the total score were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for SSD) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.001
91954231|NCT02203305|183804623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the total score were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for asymmetric hearing loss) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.001
91954232|NCT02203305|183804623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"There were significant main effects of interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001) and interaction (p=0.001).~A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity."|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.001).||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the subscales (speech, spatial, \& qualities) were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for SSD) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the main effects of interval and subscale, and their interaction.||||<0.001
91954233|NCT02203305|183804623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.034||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.034).||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the subscales (speech, spatial, \& qualities) were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for asymmetric hearing loss) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the main effects of interval and subscale, and their interaction.||||<0.034
91954234|NCT02203305|183804623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001).||Responses on the SSQ Speech pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.001
91954235|NCT02203305|183804623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.192|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p=0.192). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.001).||Responses on the SSQ Spatial pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.192
91954236|NCT02203305|183804623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001).||Responses on the SSQ Qualities of Hearing pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.001
91954237|NCT02203305|183804623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.479|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.479).||Responses on the SSQ Speech pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.479
91954238|NCT02203305|183804623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.804|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p=0.804). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.090).||Responses on the SSQ Spatial pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.804
91954239|NCT02203305|183804623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.005).||Responses on the SSQ Qualities of Hearing pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.005
91954240|NCT02203305|183804624|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.001
91954241|NCT02203305|183804624|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.034
91954242|NCT02203305|183804625|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.001
91954243|NCT02203305|183804625|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.037
91954244|NCT02203305|183804626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||<0.001
91954245|NCT02203305|183804626|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.001
91954246|NCT02203305|183804627|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) with a bone-conduction device (preoperative interval) and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation interval. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices.||||=0.004
91954247|NCT02203305|183804627|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.004
91954248|NCT02203305|183804628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||<0.001
91954249|NCT02203305|183804628|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.727|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.727
91954250|NCT02203305|183804629|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.001
91954251|NCT02203305|183804629|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.090
91954252|NCT02203305|183804635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.923|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: electrode (p\<0.001), target stimulus (p=0.923), and interval (p=0.226). Interaction: electrode and interval (p=0.496).||A linear mixed effects model compared the main effects of target stimulus (click, tone), electrode (1-5), and interval (1, 3, 6, and 12 months) on the normalized pitch match.||||<0.923
91954253|NCT02203305|183804635|OTHER||||||>|0.164|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Correlation between pitch perception (normalized mean pitch match) and word recognition with the CI alone.||||>0.164
91954254|NCT02203305|183804635|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||>|0.367|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Correlation between pitch perception (normalized mean pitch match) and speech recognition in noise (masker from the front, masker towards the better hearing ear, and masker towards the poorer hearing ear).||||>0.367
91954255|NCT02203305|183804635|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||>|0.349|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Correlation between pitch perception (normalized mean pitch match) and sound source localization (RMS error).||||>0.349
91954256|NCT02203305|183804636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparison of the unaided threshold at 125 Hz at the preoperative and initial activation intervals for the 25 participants with unaided threshold of 80 dB HL or better at the preoperative interval.~The data from the SSD and AHL group were combined to review hearing preservation with long arrays. The inclusion criteria for the implanted ear were the same for the SSD and AHL groups and all subjects received the same 31.5 mm electrode array."||||<0.001
91954257|NCT02203305|183804636|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47|||||||ANOVA|generalized linear mixed-effects model||"Comparison of the unaided threshold at 125 Hz from the initial activation to the 12-month post-activation interval for the 9 participants with an unaided threshold of 95 dB HL or better at the initial activation interval.~The data from the SSD and AHL group were combined to review hearing preservation with long arrays. The inclusion criteria for the implanted ear were the same for the SSD and AHL groups and all subjects received the same 31.5 mm electrode array."||||=0.47
91954258|NCT02203305|183804637|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the bone-conduction device at the preoperative and 12-month intervals.||||=0.739
91954259|NCT02203305|183804637|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.553|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the bone-conduction device at the preoperative and 12-month intervals.||||=0.553
91954260|NCT02203305|183804638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.345||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|Main effect: interval (p=0.027) and masker condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and masker condition (p=0.345).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of interval (preoperative and 12-months) and masker condition (front, acoustic ear, or affected ear) on performance with the bone conduction device.||||<0.345
91954261|NCT02203305|183804638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.577||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|Main effect: masker condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.577). Interaction: interval and masker condition (p=0.055).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of interval (preoperative and 12-months) and masker condition (front, acoustic ear, or affected ear) on performance with the bone conduction device.||||<0.577
91954262|NCT02203305|183804639|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: coding strategy (p=0.023). Interaction: coding strategy and electrode (p=0.044). All other main effects and interactions were p\>0.160.||A linear mixed effect model assessed the main effects of stimulus, electrode, and coding strategy, and their interactions.||||>0.023
91954263|NCT02203305|183804639|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Pitch perception for electrode 1 (p=0.035). All other comparisons were p\>0.318.||Paired samples t-tests evaluated whether pitch perception (mean normalized pitch) differed between coding strategy for each electrode.||||>0.035
91954264|NCT02203305|183804640|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.084|||||||ANOVA|Main effects: condition (p=0.960) and interval (p=0.084). Interaction: condition and interval (p=0.433).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device) and interval (preoperative, 12-month) and their interaction on sound source localization.||||>0.084
91954265|NCT02203305|183804640|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.434|||||||ANOVA|Main effect: condition (p=0.434) or interval (p=0.687). Interaction: condition and interval (p=0.678).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device) and interval (preoperative, 12-month) and their interaction on sound source localization.||||>0.434
91954266|NCT02203305|183804641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.935||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|ANOVA|Main effects: condition (p=0.018), interval (p=0.012), and masker (p\<0.001). Interactions: interval and masker (p\<0.001). Other interactions: p\>0.117.||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device), interval (preoperative, 12-month), and masker condition and their 2-way and 3-way interactions on speech recognition in noise.||||<0.935
91954267|NCT02203305|183804641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.977||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|Effects: interval (p=0.012) and masker (p\<0.001). Interactions: interval\&masker (p=0.020) \& condition, interval, \&masker (p=0.035). Others: (p\>0.131).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device), interval (preoperative, 12-month), and masker condition and their 2-way and 3-way interactions on speech recognition in noise.||||<0.977
91954268|NCT03586427|183804642|OTHER|Mixed model of repeated measures least square estimates of change compared to placebo|||||>|0.05||||||Comparison of each dose level change from baseline to placebo baseline yielded P values \>0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Each dose group was compared to placebo||||>0.05
91954269|NCT03478982|183804656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.3|||=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|44.8|||Chi-squared|||||44.8|1.8|=0.0392
91954270|NCT03478982|183804656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.3|||=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|44.8|||Chi-squared|||||44.8|1.8|=0.0392
91954271|NCT00593385|183804661|OTHER||Meta-Analysis|9.67||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0||16.57||An exact one sided upper 95% confidence interval of the primary endpoint rate was calculated based on primary analysis population.|Exact test of the binomial distribution||To estimate primary endpoint rate, a meta-analysis was performed on data from 3 previous studies. The meta-analytical rate derived was 9.67%|The composite event rate to determine the performance metric of 16.57% was based on a meta-analysis performed on data from 3 previous studies(9.67%). A 6.9% margin was deemed acceptable at the time of study design. Rejection of the null hypothesis requires that the iCAST Covered Stent primary endpoint rate was significantly below 16.57%. Other assumptions for the analysis included a power of 80% and one-sided alpha error of 5%.||16.57||0.005
91954272|NCT00924313|183804706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of the histopathologic confirmed tumor and normal prostate tissue.|Spearman rank correlation|||||||<0.0001
91954273|NCT00924313|183804706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The reported p-value is representative of the BPH high uptake level.|Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.65
91954274|NCT00924313|183804709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.55
91954275|NCT00924313|183804711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.407
91954276|NCT01353586|183804720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of events|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.3|79.8|||||The above supplemental analysis is to estimate the rate of subjects without documented symptomatic AF at Day 240 using the Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis method to accommodate the censored information from the two withdrawn subjects.|||79.8|63.3|
91954277|NCT03992456|183804728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5126|||||||Un-Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.5126
91954278|NCT03992456|183804729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1512|||||||Un-Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.1512
91954279|NCT03992456|183804730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2506|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2506
91954280|NCT03992456|183804731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8865|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8865
91954281|NCT03992456|183804732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5455|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5455
91954282|NCT04637815|183804743|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables|||||||TWO_SIDED|0.0||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
91954283|NCT04637815|183804744|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
91954284|NCT04637815|183804745|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
91954285|NCT04637815|183804746|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
91954286|NCT04637815|183804747|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
91954287|NCT00326625|183804748|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||ANCOVA||Glatiramer acetate vs. Placebo|Analysis compares the ALSFRS-R slopes of change from baseline between treatment groups. Analysis includes the following covariates: time from randomization, treatment group, time by treatment interaction, center, Riluzole use, age, site of ALS onset, time from ALS onset and baseline ALSFRS-R score.||0.10|-0.22|0.4807
91954288|NCT00326625|183804749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.005|||Regression, Cox||Glatiramer acetate vs. Placebo|Analysis covariates are center, riluzole use, site of ALS onset, time from ALS onset, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline slow vital capacity (VC) and baseline body mass index (BMI).||2.005|0.560|0.8583
91954289|NCT02369874|183804809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.85|0.7624
91954290|NCT02369874|183804809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.72|0.1993
91954291|NCT02369874|183804810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.73|0.4590
91954292|NCT02369874|183804810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36||||||||1.36|0.85|
91954293|NCT02369874|183804811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.39||||||||1.39|0.63|
91954294|NCT02369874|183804812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33||||||||1.33|0.90|
91954295|NCT02369874|183804812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25||||||||1.25|0.84|
91954296|NCT02369874|183804813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.7||||||||1.70|0.67|
91954297|NCT02369874|183804813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.68||||||||1.68|0.66|
91954298|NCT02369874|183804815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.52||||||6 Month analysis||1.52|0.67|
91954299|NCT02369874|183804815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.46||||||6 Month analysis||1.46|0.64|
91954300|NCT02369874|183804815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.75||||||12 Month analysis||1.75|0.72|
91954301|NCT02369874|183804815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.57||||||12 Month analysis||1.57|0.63|
91954302|NCT02369874|183804818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21||||||||1.21|0.76|
91954303|NCT02369874|183804819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.39||||||||2.39|0.74|
91954304|NCT00761085|183804919|OTHER|No statistical comparisons||||||||||||||||"No statistical comparisons of methadone concentration in patients receiving methadone vs not receiving methadone (children or adults).~No statistical comparisons of methadone concentration in children vs adults"|No statistical comparisons|||
91954305|NCT00761085|183804920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91954306|NCT05261126|183804960|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-41.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-34.7|||cLDA||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||-34.7|-47.8|<0.001
91954307|NCT05261126|183804960|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-55.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-49.1|||cLDA||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||-49.1|-62.3|<0.001
91954308|NCT05261126|183804960|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-59.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.7|-52.5|||cLDA||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||-52.5|-65.7|<0.001
91954309|NCT05261126|183804960|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-60.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|-54.3|||cLDA||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||-54.3|-67.6|<0.001
91954310|NCT05261126|183804961|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|15.8|||||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||15.8|-15.5|
91954311|NCT05261126|183804961|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|11.2|||||MK-0616 12 mg vs Placebo|||11.2|-20.0|
91954312|NCT05261126|183804961|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|15.1|||||MK-0616 18 mg vs Placebo|||15.1|-16.3|
91954313|NCT05261126|183804961|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|13.8|||||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||13.8|-17.5|
91954314|NCT05261126|183804963|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-26.9|||cLDA||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||-26.9|-38.6|<0.001
91954315|NCT05261126|183804963|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-45.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-39.9|||cLDA||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||-39.9|-51.7|<0.001
91954316|NCT05261126|183804963|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-48.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-42.8|||cLDA||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||-42.8|-54.6|<0.001
91954317|NCT05261126|183804963|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Square Means|-51.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-45.9|||cLDA||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||-45.9|-57.7|<0.001
91954318|NCT05261126|183804964|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-29.4|||cLDA||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||-29.4|-42.4|<0.001
91954319|NCT05261126|183804964|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.0|-44.0|||cLDA||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||-44.0|-57.0|<0.001
91954320|NCT05261126|183804964|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-46.7|||cLDA||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||-46.7|-59.7|<0.001
91954321|NCT05261126|183804964|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-55.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-49.3|||cLDA||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||-49.3|-62.3|<0.001
91954322|NCT05261126|183804965|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|69.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.2|79.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||79.0|56.2|<0.001
91954323|NCT05261126|183804965|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|75.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.9|84.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||84.0|62.9|<0.001
91954324|NCT05261126|183804965|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|79.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|87.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||87.1|67.1|<0.001
91954325|NCT05261126|183804965|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|79.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|87.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||87.4|67.9|<0.001
91954326|NCT03901274|183804980|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.42|||||Parameter estimated with full information maximum likelihood|Intent-to-treat on three month outcomes with intake (i.e. Pretest covariate)||0.42|-0.74|
91954327|NCT03901274|183804980|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.09|||||Parameter estimated with full information maximum likelihood|Intent-to-treat on six month outcomes with intake (i.e. Pretest covariate)||-0.09|-1.20|
91954328|NCT04957979|183805033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Negative value represents smaller change in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Null hypothesis: Average change in composite care quality outcome is not different between patients receiving care in Medical/Nursing Model clinics and those receiving care in Medical/Social Model clinics.||0.1|-4.1|0.19
91954329|NCT04957979|183805033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Negative value represents smaller change in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Null hypothesis: Average change in composite care quality outcome is not different between patients receiving care in Medical/Nursing Model clinics and those receiving care in Medical/Social Model clinics.||-1.0|-5.6|0.005
91954330|NCT04957979|183805034|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.58||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.58|1.04|0.02
91954331|NCT04957979|183805034|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.38||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.38|0.868|0.45
91954332|NCT04957979|183805035|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.69||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.69|1.08|0.01
91954333|NCT04957979|183805035|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.33||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|1.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.81|0.969|0.08
91954334|NCT04957979|183805036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||0.81|0.51|0.0001
91954335|NCT04957979|183805036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.72||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||1.72|0.84|0.32
91954336|NCT04957979|183805037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||1.05|0.69|0.14
91954337|NCT04957979|183805037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||1.08|0.51|0.12
91954338|NCT04957979|183805038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.086||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|4.861||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||4.861|0.243|0.914
91954339|NCT04957979|183805038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.009||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|3.114||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||3.114|0.327|0.987
91954340|NCT04957979|183805039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.79||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.79|0.883|0.204
91954341|NCT04957979|183805039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.399||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.958|0.166|0.04
91954342|NCT04957979|183805040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.939||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.939|0.814|0.302
91954343|NCT04957979|183805040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.092||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.092|0.647|0.192
91954344|NCT04957979|183805041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|2.22||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||2.22|0.086|0.318
91954345|NCT04957979|183805041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|7.426||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||7.426|0.433|0.421
91954346|NCT04957979|183805042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.906||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.356||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.356|0.606|0.632
91954347|NCT04957979|183805042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.845||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|1.366||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.366|0.523|0.492
91954348|NCT04957979|183805043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.856||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.234||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.234|0.594|0.405
91954349|NCT04957979|183805043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.559||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|0.834|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.834|0.374|0.004
91954350|NCT04957979|183805044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.151||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.173||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.173|0.02|0.071
91954351|NCT04957979|183805044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.268||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||0.268|0.002|0.003
91954352|NCT04957979|183805045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.333||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.333|0.587|0.557
91954353|NCT04957979|183805045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.624||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.037||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.037|0.376|0.069
91954354|NCT04957979|183805046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.539||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|1.565||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.565|0.185|0.256
91954355|NCT04957979|183805046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|4.047||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||4.047|0.308|0.866
91954356|NCT04957979|183805047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.797||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|2.069||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||2.069|0.307|0.641
91954357|NCT04957979|183805047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.569||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|1.729||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.729|0.187|0.32
91954358|NCT04957979|183805048|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|13.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||13|5.6|<.001
91954359|NCT04957979|183805048|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher proportion of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||18|4.2|0.002
91954360|NCT04957979|183805049|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|11.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||11.0|0.86|0.023
91954361|NCT04957979|183805049|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|7.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher proportion of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||7.0|-14.0|0.5
91954362|NCT04957979|183805050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.19||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|t-test, 2 sided||Positive values reflect higher/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||0.19|0.06|<0.001
91954363|NCT04957979|183805050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.32||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|t-test, 2 sided||Positive values reflect higher/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||0.32|0.06|<0.001
91954364|NCT04957979|183805051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.06|-0.16|<0.001
91954365|NCT04957979|183805051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.03|-0.2|0.006
91954366|NCT04957979|183805052|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared|||||0.00|-4.9|0.059
91954367|NCT04957979|183805052|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.3||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-1.3|-10.0|0.014
91954368|NCT04957979|183805053|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|15.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared|||||15.0|6.8|<0.001
91954369|NCT04957979|183805053|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||20.0|4.7|0.001
91954370|NCT04957979|183805054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|t-test, 2 sided||Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-5|-10|<.001
91954371|NCT04957979|183805054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-2|-10|0.007
91954372|NCT04957979|183805055|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.14||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.14|-4.8|0.046
91954373|NCT04957979|183805055|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.52||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.52|-8.4|0.033
91954374|NCT04957979|183805056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.8||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-6.8|-13.0|<0.001
91954375|NCT04957979|183805056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-5.6||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-5.6|-17.0|<0.001
91954376|NCT04957979|183805057|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-4.1|-10.0|<0.001
91954377|NCT04957979|183805057|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-3.2||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social|||-3.2|-13.0|0.002
91954378|NCT04957979|183805058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.4||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-1.4|-5.5|0.002
91954379|NCT04957979|183805058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.4||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||1.4|-6.1|0.3
91954380|NCT03671746|183805059|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|=|0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed using Length of Stay (LOS) as this was the primary outcome. Using a significance level of 0.05 and assumed standard deviation of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients/group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was planned for 56 patients/group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).||||=0.275
91954381|NCT03671746|183805060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed using LOS as this was the primary outcome. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed standard deviation of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients/group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients/group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).||||<0.05
91954382|NCT03671746|183805061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The VAS model was adjusted for baseline levels as a covariate, which differed significantly between groups.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).||||<0.05
91954383|NCT03671746|183805062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.564
91954384|NCT03671746|183805063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.118
91954385|NCT03671746|183805064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||0.215
91954386|NCT03671746|183805065|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.043
91954387|NCT03671746|183805066|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.617|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.617
91954388|NCT03671746|183805068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||<0.05
91954389|NCT04410991|183805125|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|0.996||||0.9758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.315||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with number of adjudicated relapses onset between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), expanded disability status scale (EDSS) strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (United States \[US\], non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.315|0.754|0.9758
91954390|NCT04410991|183805126|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.582||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.891||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||0.891|0.380|0.0114
91954391|NCT04410991|183805127|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.925||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||0.925|0.444|0.0181
91954392|NCT04410991|183805128|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.165||||0.2362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.502|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new and/or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, baseline T2-hyperintense lesion count, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.502|0.905|0.2362
91954393|NCT04410991|183805129|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|2.118|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.502|2.987|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed number of MRI scans as the offset variable.||2.987|1.502|<0.0001
91954394|NCT04410991|183805130|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.053||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.05|||MMRM|||Covariates in the mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||0.050|-0.156|0.3100
91954395|NCT04410991|183805131|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|-0.612||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.493|1.269|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||1.269|-2.493|0.5235
91954396|NCT04410991|183805132|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.652||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.145|2.383||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||2.383|1.145|0.0079
91954397|NCT04410991|183805133|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|0.044||||0.4266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.153|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume, and cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume-by-visit interaction.||0.153|-0.065|0.4266
91954398|NCT01054443|183805166|OTHER||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test Statistic|0.173||||0.431|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The primary efficacy evaluation was to test if there was a linear relationship existing such that the higher the dose level, the larger the percentage of responders. The Cochran-Armitage trend test was employed by assigning the score 0, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 to placebo, lusutrombopag 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 mg group, respectively, at the 0.025 level of significance (1-sided) to determine the test statistic for detecting a dose-response in the percentage of responders.||||0.431
91954399|NCT01054443|183805167|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25544.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6202.8|44885.3|||||The difference of least squares means (LSMeans) between each of the lusutrombopag treatment groups and placebo was estimated after adjusting for the Baseline platelet count using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|||44885.3|6202.8|
91954400|NCT01054443|183805167|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11801.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8809.3|32411.9|||||The difference of least squares means (LSMeans) between each of the lusutrombopag treatment groups and placebo was estimated after adjusting for the Baseline platelet count using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|||32411.9|-8809.3|
91954401|NCT01054443|183805167|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|756.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18794.3|20307.5|||||The difference of least squares means (LSMeans) between each of the lusutrombopag treatment groups and placebo was estimated after adjusting for the Baseline platelet count using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|||20307.5|-18794.3|
91954402|NCT00296192|183805197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||||95.0|-2.9|8.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||8.7|-2.9|
91954403|NCT00296192|183805197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||||95.0|-5.7|6.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||6.0|-5.7|
91954404|NCT00296192|183805197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||||95.0|-2.8|8.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||8.6|-2.8|
91954405|NCT00296192|183805197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||||95.0|-7.4|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||4.6|-7.4|
91954406|NCT00296192|183805198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||||95.0|-25.7|8.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||8.5|-25.7|
91954407|NCT00296192|183805198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.63||||95.0|-34.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||0.4|-34.0|
91954408|NCT00296192|183805198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||||95.0|-18.2|15.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||15.4|-18.2|
91954409|NCT00296192|183805198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||||95.0|-23.3|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||12.2|-23.3|
91954410|NCT00296192|183805199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-20.6||||||95.0|-53.3|12.1|||Confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||12.1|-53.3|
91954411|NCT00296192|183805199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.4||||||95.0|-25.9|34.7|||95% confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||34.7|-25.9|
91954412|NCT00296192|183805199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0||||||95.0|-30.6|30.6|||95% confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||30.6|-30.6|
91954413|NCT00296192|183805199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.4||||||95.0|-25.9|34.7|||95% confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||34.7|-25.9|
91954414|NCT03504839|183805202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91954415|NCT03491800|183805236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
91954416|NCT03491800|183805237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
91954417|NCT03491800|183805237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
91954418|NCT03491800|183805238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.28||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91954419|NCT03491800|183805238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
91954420|NCT03491800|183805239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.25||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91954421|NCT03491800|183805240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91954422|NCT03491800|183805241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.2||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91954423|NCT03491800|183805242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-38.25||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91954424|NCT03491800|183805242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.0||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91954425|NCT03491800|183805242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
91954426|NCT03491800|183805243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91954427|NCT03491800|183805243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91954428|NCT05604521|183805244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3944|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the vaccine and control groups in the proportion of participants experiencing any local solicited AEs after any vaccination.||||0.3944
91954429|NCT05604521|183805244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3717|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the vaccine and control groups in the proportion of participants experiencing any systemic solicited AEs after any vaccination.||||0.3717
91954430|NCT05604521|183805244|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the vaccine and control groups in the proportion of participants experiencing any related unsolicited AEs after any vaccination.||||1.0
91954431|NCT03681769|183805253|EQUIVALENCE|Non-equivalence determined by p\<.05.||||||0.83||||||No site X time interaction (F12,270 = 0.614, p = 0.830).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.83
91954432|NCT03681769|183805254|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.53
91954433|NCT00750373|183805318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||We estimated that a sample size of 74 patients would provide 80% power to detect a significant difference with respect to the primary end point at the 2-sided significance level of 0.05, assuming that the in-hospital event rate would be 23% in the conventional treatment group and 3% in the early surgery group.||||<0.05
91954434|NCT05027958|183805323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05714
91954435|NCT03155269|183805325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0423||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1057|0.0211||The setting of the two-sided significance level of 0.025 was used for the 2 co-primary endpoints to ensure that the overall significance level for the primary endpoint was less than or equal to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group and strata as fixed effects, and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.|Difference is test product minus reference product such that a negative difference favors the test product.|||0.0211|-0.1057|0.1324
91954436|NCT03155269|183805326|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.03|0.489||The setting of the two-sided significance level of 0.025 was used for the 2 co-primary endpoints to ensure that the overall significance level for the primary endpoint was less than or equal to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group and strata as fixed effects, and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.|Difference is test product minus reference product such that a negative difference favors the test product.|||0.489|-0.030|0.0469
91954437|NCT02871921|183805344|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the MoCA score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline MoCA score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: MoCA at Month 6 Among participants with normal cognition||||0.87
91954438|NCT02871921|183805344|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the MoCA score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline MoCA score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: MoCA at Month 6 Among MCI||||.03
91954439|NCT02871921|183805345|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Category Fluency test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Category fluency animals Among participants with normal cognition||||0.03
91954440|NCT02871921|183805345|OTHER|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Category Fluency test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Category Fluency (Animals) at Month 6 Among MCI participants||||0.46
91954441|NCT02871921|183805346|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Stroy Immediate Recall score at Month 6, controlling for its baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Stroy Immediate Recall (paraphrase scoring) Among participants with normal cognition||||0.45
91954442|NCT02871921|183805346|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Story score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Story Immediate Recall (paraphrase) Among MCI||||0.41
91954443|NCT02871921|183805347|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Story test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Story Delayed Recall) (Paraphrase scoring) Among participants with normal cognition||||0.74
91954444|NCT02871921|183805347|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Story test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Story Delayed Recall (Paraphrase scoring) Among MCI||||0.90
91954445|NCT03056456|183805351|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.23||||||Day 1||1.23|0.810|
91954446|NCT03056456|183805351|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.25||||||Day 3||1.25|0.817|
91954447|NCT03056456|183805352|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.808|1.31||||||Day 1||1.31|0.808|
91954448|NCT03056456|183805352|SUPERIORITY|Day 3|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.32||||||||1.32|0.820|
91954449|NCT02234427|183805377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|5e-06||||||Above noted p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Analysis was performed using the TopHat/Cufflinks pipeline. The differential expression algorithm uses a beta distribution and the overdispersion with a negative binomial distribution.|negative binomial|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in gene expression before and after aspirin therapy||||<0.000005
91954450|NCT01244516|183805384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at -5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-5.91|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.|The direction of comparison is AAHP - AOA.|This comparison is between galyfilcon and lotrafilcon B. Ho: galyfilcon A -lotrafilcon B \<= -5. Ha: galyfilcon A - lotrafilcon B \> -5.||6.70|-5.91|
91954451|NCT01244516|183805384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at -5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-5.96|6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.|The direction of comparison is AAHP - BIO.|This comparison is between galyfilcon A and comfilcon A. Ho: gayfilcon A- comfilcon A \<= -5. Ha: galyfilcon A- comfilcon A\> -5.||6.79|-5.96|
91954452|NCT01244516|183805385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at \> 0.75. Superiority is concluded is the 97.4% CL \> 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|1.14|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.|The direction of comparison is AAHP/AOA.|The comparison is between galyfilcon A (AAHP) and lotrafilcon B (AOA) for comparing proportions of those with corneal staining and those without. Ho: OR = 1 for (AAHP/AOA). Ha: OR \> 1 for (AAHP/AOA).||2.44|1.14|
91954453|NCT01244516|183805385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at \> 0.75. Superiority is concluded is the 97.4% CL \> 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|1.14|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.||The comparison is between galyfilcon A (AAHP) and comfilcon A (BIO) for comparing proportions of those with corneal staining and those without. Ho: OR = 1 for (AAHP/BIO). Ha: OR \> 1 for (AAHP/BIO).||2.44|1.14|
91954454|NCT04668066|183805441|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|5.6||||0.6343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|32.6|||ANCOVA|||||32.6|-21.4|0.6343
91954455|NCT03810417|183805461|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91954456|NCT03810417|183805461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91954457|NCT00056472|183805481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||<|0.001||95.0|1.12|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Predicting remission rates of 40% in combination therapy and 20% in monotherapy subjects, 260 subjects randomized into the two treatment groups would provide \>80% power at a two-tailed alpha level of .05. Treatment efficacy was compared between groups based on intent-to-treat analyses for the longitudinal binary outcome of remission using mixed effects logistic regression with a random intercept that included treatment and time as fixed effects and a treatment by time interaction effect.||1.47|1.12|<.001
91954458|NCT00056472|183805482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||The p-value is for the overall mean CGI-S score compared to baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|This was a longitudinal analysis of CGI-S scores compared to baseline.||Intent-to-treat changes in global improvement from week to week compared to baseline (CGI-S) over the course of the trial using longitudinal mixed effects linear regression models. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall change in CGI-S.||||.02
91954459|NCT00056472|183805483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the overall mean across all time points between each treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Intent-to-treat between group comparison using longitudinal mixed effects regression.||||<.001
91954460|NCT00299546|183805559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between combined golimumab and placebo groups and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Group 1 vs. Combined Groups 2 and 3. A sample size of 140 patients per group provides a \>90% power assuming 50% of patients used Methotrexate (MTX) at baseline and 30% ACR 20 response in placebo and 40\~55% ACR 20 response in golimumab groups.||||<0.001
91954461|NCT00299546|183805559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX||Null Hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 between Group 1: Placebo and Group 2: 50 mg.||||0.001
91954462|NCT00299546|183805559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||Null Hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 between Group 1: Placebo and Group 3 :100 mg.||||<0.001
91954463|NCT00299546|183805560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX).||||||0.003
91954464|NCT00299546|183805560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||0.021
91954465|NCT00299546|183805560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||0.002
91954466|NCT00299546|183805561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methorexate (MTX).||||||<0.001
91954467|NCT00299546|183805561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
91954468|NCT00299546|183805561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
91954469|NCT00299546|183805562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX).||||||<0.001
91954470|NCT00299546|183805562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||0.002
91954471|NCT00299546|183805562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
91954472|NCT00299546|183805563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX).||||||<0.001
91954473|NCT00299546|183805563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
91954474|NCT00299546|183805563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
91954475|NCT01656850|183805573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91954476|NCT01656850|183805574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2786
91954477|NCT01656850|183805575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.420
91954478|NCT01656850|183805576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91954479|NCT01656850|183805577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2412
91954480|NCT01656850|183805578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3837
91954481|NCT01656850|183805579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9784|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9784
91954482|NCT01656850|183805580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5868|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5868
91954483|NCT01656850|183805581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1101
91954484|NCT01656850|183805582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7823
91954485|NCT01656850|183805583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5570
91954486|NCT01656850|183805584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6263
91954487|NCT01656850|183805585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8328|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8328
91954488|NCT01656850|183805586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7758|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7758
91954489|NCT01656850|183805587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0476
91954490|NCT01656850|183805588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1205
91954491|NCT01656850|183805589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1512
91954492|NCT01656850|183805590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7364
91954493|NCT01656850|183805591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1995
91954494|NCT01656850|183805592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8528
91954495|NCT00337727|183805614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Superiority based on 2-sided level of significance of 0.05, based on a logistic regression model that included terms for treatment group, region and gender.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.01
91954496|NCT00337727|183805615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Superiority based on 2-sided level of significance of 0.05, based on a logistic regression model that included terms for treatment group, region and gender.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.01
91954497|NCT04456998|183805642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-96.1||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.5|-8.8|||ANCOVA||GB002 vs. Placebo|||-8.8|-183.5|0.0310
91954498|NCT04456998|183805643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.5972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|30.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB002 vs. Placebo|||30.9|-17.9|0.5972
91954499|NCT02080273|183805644|OTHER|||||||0.919|||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.919
91954500|NCT02080273|183805645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
91954501|NCT02080273|183805646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
91954502|NCT02080273|183805647|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
91954503|NCT02080273|183805648|OTHER|||||||0.922|||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.922
91954504|NCT02080273|183805649|OTHER|||||||0.848||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline||||0.848
91954505|NCT02080273|183805650|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
91954506|NCT02080273|183805651|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
91954507|NCT03707145|183805653|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Partial Eta Squared was calculated based on ANOVA with Time (pre-post) as within subject factor and Empowerment (Professional led versus Patient Empowered) as between subject factor.||||
91954508|NCT03707145|183805654|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Partial Eta Squared was calculated based on ANOVA with Time (pre-post) as within subject factor and Empowerment (Professional led versus Patient Empowered) as between subject factor.||||
91954509|NCT04221477|183805660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.4||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|24.84||Test 1 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.84|1.95|0.0232
91954510|NCT04221477|183805661|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.88||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|23.18||Test 2 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.18|0.57|0.0421
91954511|NCT04221477|183805662|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.68||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|25.36||Test 3 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.04 with fallback method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.36|2.01|0.0227
91954512|NCT04221477|183805663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|3.84||||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|9.51||Test 4 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||9.51|-1.83|0.1842
91954513|NCT04221477|183805664|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-16.83||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.42|-6.23||Ranked 5 of 7 in the fixed sequence for type I error control. P-value is nominal as the hierarchical testing stops at the first non-significant endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-6.23|-27.42|0.0026
91954514|NCT04221477|183805665|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.36||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|20.12||Ranked 6 of 7 in the fixed sequence for type I error control.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.12|-3.41|0.1670
91954515|NCT04221477|183805666|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.35||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|1.2||Ranked 7 of 7 in the fixed sequence for type I error control.|ANCOVA|||||1.20|-3.89|0.2991
91954516|NCT04221477|183805667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.36||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.16||Not type I error controlled.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.57|0.0006
91954517|NCT04221477|183805668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||Not type I error controlled|ANCOVA|||||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
91954518|NCT04221477|183805669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.12||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.87||Not type I error controlled.|ANCOVA|||||2.87|-3.11|0.9384
91954519|NCT04221477|183805670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.89||Not type I error controlled.|Log Rank|||||1.89|0.91|0.1324
91954520|NCT04221477|183805671|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.37||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|24.82||Not type I error controlled.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.82|1.91|0.0237
91954521|NCT00965562|183805703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91954522|NCT00965562|183805704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91954523|NCT00965562|183805705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91954524|NCT00965562|183805706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
91954525|NCT00965562|183805707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91954526|NCT00965562|183805708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91954527|NCT00965562|183805709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.63||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group IDS score as compared to placebo|||0.24|-5.51|0.07
91954528|NCT00965562|183805709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group IDS scores as compared to placebo|||2.65|-2.85|0.94
91954529|NCT00965562|183805709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.07
91954530|NCT00965562|183805709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.94
91954531|NCT00965562|183805710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group PMTS scores as compared to placebo|||0.34|-3.60|0.10
91954532|NCT00965562|183805710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.81||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group PMTS scores as compared to placebo|||1.09|-2.71|0.40
91954533|NCT00965562|183805710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.06||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.10
91954534|NCT00965562|183805710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.37||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.40
91954535|NCT00965562|183805711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.35||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group CGI-S scores as compared to placebo|||0.03|-0.73|0.07
91954536|NCT00965562|183805711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.17||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group CGI-S scores as compared to placebo|||0.20|-0.54|0.36
91954537|NCT00965562|183805711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.92||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.07
91954538|NCT00965562|183805711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.44||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.36
91954539|NCT00965562|183805712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group DRSP scores as compared to placebo|||-0.04|-0.53|0.02
91954540|NCT00965562|183805712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group DRSP scores as compared to placebo|||0.28|-0.16|0.58
91954541|NCT00965562|183805712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.08||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.02
91954542|NCT00965562|183805712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.18||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.58
91954543|NCT00965562|183805713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.03||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group CGI Improvement scores as compared to placebo|||-0.35|-1.70|0.04
91954544|NCT00965562|183805713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group CGI Improvement scores as compared to placebo|||0.46|-0.86|0.54
91954545|NCT00965562|183805713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 2 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 2 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.04
91954546|NCT00965562|183805713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.32||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 2 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 2 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.54
91954547|NCT05455684|183805719|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||1.49|-3.24|=0.467
91954548|NCT05455684|183805724|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.52||||||||0.52|-2.21|
91954549|NCT05204563|183805732|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.0||||||||4.0|-3.5|
91954550|NCT05204563|183805733|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|8.7||||||||8.7|-0.4|
91954551|NCT05204563|183805734|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.4||||||Day 14||9.4|-3.0|
91954552|NCT05204563|183805734|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.3||||||Day 28||11.3|-3.4|
91954553|NCT05204563|183805735|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.3||||||Day 14||6.3|-5.4|
91954554|NCT05204563|183805735|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|9.8||||||Day 28||9.8|-3.9|
91954555|NCT05204563|183805736|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3||||||Day 14||3.3|-4.9|
91954556|NCT05204563|183805736|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.2||||||Day 28||7.2|-2.7|
91954557|NCT05204563|183805737|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.9||||||Day 14||8.9|-4.7|
91954558|NCT05204563|183805737|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.1||||||Day 28||9.1|-6.5|
91954559|NCT05204563|183805738|OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|9.7||||||Day 14||9.7|-25.3|
91954560|NCT05204563|183805738|OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|9.7||||||Day 28||9.7|-25.3|
91954561|NCT05204563|183805739|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|13.2||||||Day 4||13.2|-6.0|
91954562|NCT05204563|183805739|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|12.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||12.3|-5.3|
91954563|NCT05204563|183805739|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|9.3||||||TOC (Day 21)||9.3|-9.4|
91954564|NCT05204563|183805739|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|12.2||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.2|-6.9|
91954565|NCT05204563|183805740|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|13.6||||||Day 4||13.6|-18.1|
91954566|NCT05204563|183805740|OTHER||Treatment difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|26.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||26.3|-1.6|
91954567|NCT05204563|183805740|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|20.4||||||TOC (Day 21)||20.4|-10.5|
91954568|NCT05204563|183805740|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|24.7||||||LFU (Day 28)||24.7|-6.9|
91954569|NCT05204563|183805741|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|14.4||||||Day 4||14.4|-12.7|
91954570|NCT05204563|183805741|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|20.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.3|-3.7|
91954571|NCT05204563|183805741|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|21.9||||||TOC (Day 21)||21.9|-4.8|
91954572|NCT05204563|183805741|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|24.2||||||LFU (Day 28)||24.2|-3.0|
91954573|NCT05204563|183805742|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|12.8||||||Day 4||12.8|-8.3|
91954574|NCT05204563|183805742|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|10.1||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||10.1|-6.7|
91954575|NCT05204563|183805742|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||10.0|-9.2|
91954576|NCT05204563|183805742|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.6||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.6|-7.7|
91954577|NCT05204563|183805743|OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|12.2||||||Day 4||12.2|-21.4|
91954578|NCT05204563|183805743|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|21.2||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||21.2|-5.8|
91954579|NCT05204563|183805743|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|22.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||22.0|-9.4|
91954580|NCT05204563|183805743|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|27.1||||||LFU (Day 28)||27.1|-5.9|
91954581|NCT05204563|183805744|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|32.1||||||Day 4||32.1|-20.3|
91954582|NCT05204563|183805744|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|42.1||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||42.1|-5.4|
91954583|NCT05204563|183805744|OTHER||Treatment difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|47.5||||||TOC (Day 21)||47.5|-1.5|
91954584|NCT05204563|183805744|OTHER||Treatment difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|39.7||||||LFU (Day 28)||39.7|-11.6|
91954585|NCT05204563|183805745|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|25.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||25.3|-3.5|
91954586|NCT05204563|183805745|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|22.4||||||TOC (Day 21)||22.4|-9.7|
91954587|NCT05204563|183805745|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.7||||||LFU (Day 28)||24.7|-7.3|
91954588|NCT05204563|183805746|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|23.5||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||23.5|-2.3|
91954589|NCT05204563|183805746|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|20.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||20.0|-7.2|
91954590|NCT05204563|183805746|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|18.9||||||LFU (Day 28)||18.9|-8.2|
91954591|NCT05204563|183805747|OTHER||Treatment difference|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|44.8||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||44.8|-6.4|
91954592|NCT05204563|183805747|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|22.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||22.0|-24.3|
91954593|NCT05204563|183805747|OTHER||Treatment difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|12.5||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.5|-32.9|
91954594|NCT05204563|183805748|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|20.4||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.4|-7.9|
91954595|NCT05204563|183805748|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|24.5||||||TOC (Day 21)||24.5|-9.5|
91954596|NCT05204563|183805748|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|26.0||||||LFU (Day 28)||26.0|-8.6|
91954597|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|42.3||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||42.3|4.3|
91954598|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|29.2||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||29.2|-13.6|
91954599|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|33.5||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||33.5|-9.6|
91954600|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|63.7||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||63.7|-18.6|
91954601|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|47.6||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||47.6|-30.2|
91954602|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|38.9||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||38.9|-37.5|
91954603|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|46.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||46.3|-46.3|
91954604|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|46.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||46.3|-46.3|
91954605|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|56.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||56.9|-38.7|
91954606|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|37.9||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||37.9|-100.0|
91954607|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|-60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|17.9||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex TOC (Day 21)||17.9|-100.0|
91954608|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|-60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|17.9||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex LFU (Day 28)||17.9|-100.0|
91954609|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|53.3||||||Klebsiella aerogenes EOT (up to Day 14)||53.3|-100.0|
91954610|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-100.0|
91954611|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes LFU (Day 28)||100.0|-100.0|
91954612|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli TOC (Day 21)||86.7|-100.0|
91954613|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||86.7|-100.0|
91954614|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Citrobacter koseri TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-94.3|
91954615|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3||||||Citrobacter koseri LFU (Day 28)||94.3|-100.0|
91954616|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
91954617|NCT05204563|183805749|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
91954618|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|35.5||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||35.5|0.4|
91954619|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|48.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||48.3|-11.3|
91954620|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|45.7||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||45.7|-27.0|
91954621|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.1|29.4||||||Burkholderia cepacia complex EOT (up to Day 14)||29.4|-96.1|
91954622|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.1|29.4||||||Klebsiella aerogenes EOT (up to Day 14)||29.4|-96.1|
91954623|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|29.6||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||29.6|-100.0|
91954624|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|100.0||||||Serratia marcescens EOT (up to Day 14)||100.0|0.0|
91954625|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|20.0||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||20.0|-19.4|
91954626|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|40.7||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||40.7|-22.1|
91954627|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|39.8||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||39.8|-28.2|
91954628|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|90.3||||||Burkholderia cepacia complex TOC (Day 21)||90.3|-90.3|
91954629|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-75.0|
91954630|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|-60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|9.6||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex TOC (Day 21)||9.6|-100.0|
91954631|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|54.9||||||Escherichia coli TOC (Day 21)||54.9|-100.0|
91954632|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Citrobacter koseri TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-94.3|
91954633|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
91954634|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Serratia marcescens TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
91954635|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|22.7||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||22.7|-17.1|
91954636|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|34.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||34.3|-28.4|
91954637|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|33.0||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||33.0|-33.9|
91954638|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|90.3||||||Burkholderia cepacia complex LFU (Day 28)||90.3|-90.3|
91954639|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes LFU (Day 28)||100.0|-75.0|
91954640|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|-26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|68.5||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex LFU (Day 28)||68.5|-100.0|
91954641|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|36.5||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||36.5|-100.0|
91954642|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3||||||Citrobacter koseri LFU (Day 28)||94.3|-100.0|
91954643|NCT05204563|183805750|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
91954644|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|39.6||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||39.6|2.4|
91954645|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|62.0||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||62.0|-25.7|
91954646|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|33.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||33.9|-51.6|
91954647|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|61.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes EOT (up to Day 14)||61.0|-100.0|
91954648|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|69.3||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||69.3|-100.0|
91954649|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|32.1||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||32.1|-12.7|
91954650|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|53.2||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||53.2|-31.4|
91954651|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|33.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||33.9|-51.6|
91954652|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes TOC (Day 21)||100|-100.0|
91954653|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|69.3||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex TOC (Day 21)||69.3|-100.0|
91954654|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli TOC (Day 21)||86.7|-100.0|
91954655|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Citrobacter koseri TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-94.3|
91954656|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
91954657|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|35.6||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||35.6|-10.5|
91954658|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|43.5||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||43.5|-39.9|
91954659|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|49.6||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||49.6|-45.1|
91954660|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes LFU (Day 28)||100.0|-100.0|
91954661|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|69.3||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex LFU (Day 28)||69.3|-100.0|
91954662|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||86.7|-100.0|
91954663|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3||||||Citrobacter koseri LFU (Day 28)||94.3|-100.0|
91954664|NCT05204563|183805751|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
91954665|NCT05204563|183805752|OTHER||Treatment difference|30.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|64.8||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||64.8|-4.2|
91954666|NCT05204563|183805752|OTHER||Treatment difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|43.2||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||43.2|-19.1|
91954667|NCT05204563|183805752|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|29.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||29.9|-29.0|
91954668|NCT05204563|183805752|OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|41.1||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||41.1|-57.9|
91954669|NCT05204563|183805752|OTHER||Treatment difference|-39.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.1|9.4||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||9.4|-89.1|
91954670|NCT05204563|183805752|OTHER||Treatment difference|-45.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.8|3.5||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||3.5|-93.8|
91954671|NCT05204563|183805752|OTHER||Treatment difference|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|100.0||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||100.0|-59.8|
91954672|NCT05204563|183805752|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|76.9||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||76.9|-82.0|
91954673|NCT05204563|183805752|OTHER||Treatment difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.3|59.4||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||59.4|-95.3|
91954674|NCT05204563|183805752|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
91954675|NCT05204563|183805753|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|25.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||25.3|-4.9|
91954676|NCT05204563|183805753|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|19.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||19.0|-13.0|
91954677|NCT05204563|183805753|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|23.5||||||LFU (Day 28)||23.5|-7.6|
91954678|NCT05204563|183805754|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|20.8||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.8|-5.8|
91954679|NCT05204563|183805754|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|15.5||||||TOC (Day 21)||15.5|-11.6|
91954680|NCT05204563|183805754|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|17.4||||||LFU (Day 28)||17.4|-9.2|
91954681|NCT05204563|183805755|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|20.2||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.2|-10.6|
91954682|NCT05204563|183805755|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|20.4||||||TOC (Day 21)||20.4|-14.0|
91954683|NCT05204563|183805755|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|25.6||||||LFU (Day 28)||25.6|-8.4|
91954684|NCT05204563|183805756|OTHER||Treatment difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|36.9||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||36.9|-14.5|
91954685|NCT05204563|183805756|OTHER||Treatment difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|17.6||||||TOC (Day 21)||17.6|-28.4|
91954686|NCT05204563|183805756|OTHER||Treatment difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|12.5||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.5|-32.9|
91954687|NCT05643573|183805759|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.785|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.457|5.833|||Log Rank|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||5.833|2.457|<.0001
91954688|NCT05643573|183805759|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|3.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.839|||Gray's test|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||5.839|2.460|<.0001
91954689|NCT05643573|183805760|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|0.319|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|0.552|||Log Rank|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||0.552|0.185|<.0001
91954690|NCT05643573|183805760|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|0.316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.547|||Gray's test|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||0.547|0.182|<.0001
91954691|NCT05643573|183805761|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|1.61||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.207|2.149|||Log Rank|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||2.149|1.207|0.0011
91954692|NCT05643573|183805761|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|1.599||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.197|2.134|||Gray's test|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||2.134|1.197|0.0013
91954693|NCT02268214|183805778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0697|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.28|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-0.28|-0.56|<0.0001
91954694|NCT02268214|183805778|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0696|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.31|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-0.31|-0.58|<0.0001
91954695|NCT02268214|183805779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9555|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|-4.88|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-4.88|-12.56|<0.0001
91954696|NCT02268214|183805779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|-9.43|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-9.43|-16.75|<0.0001
91954697|NCT02268214|183805780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-2.41|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-2.41|-3.68|<0.0001
91954698|NCT02268214|183805780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3213|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|-3.08|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-3.08|-4.34|<0.0001
91954699|NCT02268214|183805781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4859|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-10.46|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-10.46|-20.22|<0.0001
91954700|NCT02268214|183805781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.505|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|-13.11|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-13.11|-22.95|<0.0001
91954701|NCT02268214|183805782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6273|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.46|-12.14|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-12.14|-22.46|<0.0001
91954702|NCT02268214|183805782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6482|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-13.73|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-13.73|-24.13|<0.0001
91954703|NCT02268214|183805783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1611|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|11.39|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||11.39|6.83|<0.0001
91954704|NCT02268214|183805783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1689|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.35|12.94|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||12.94|8.35|<0.0001
91954705|NCT02268214|183805784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|2.10|<0.0001
91954706|NCT02268214|183805784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1979|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.85|2.23|<0.0001
91954707|NCT03378921|183805809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||The threshold for statistical significance was P = 0.05|Log Rank|||The sample size (n = 26) was calculated according to the estimation that the remission rate in the FMT group would be 80% and 25% in the placebo group during the follow-up of 1 year. This difference of 55% was considered to be clinically meaningful. The significance level was selected to be 1%, and the power was set to 90%.||||0.183
91954708|NCT03677440|183805816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||This involves a repeated-measures ANOVA testing a condition (i.e., treadmill walking exercise training vs. stretching-and-toning exercise training)-by-time (i.e., baseline, follow-up) interaction on Symbol Digit Modalities Test scores.||||.34
91954709|NCT03677440|183805817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.01
91954710|NCT03677440|183805818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
91954711|NCT03677440|183805819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||||||.63
91954712|NCT03677440|183805820|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.067||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.20
91954713|NCT03677440|183805821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||||||.96
91954714|NCT03677440|183805822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||.55
91954715|NCT03677440|183805823|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.087||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.14
91954716|NCT03677440|183805824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||.69
91954717|NCT03677440|183805825|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.048||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.28
91954718|NCT01233284|183805837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.090|<0.0001
91954719|NCT01233284|183805837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.080|<0.0001
91954720|NCT01233284|183805837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.236|0.140|<0.0001
91954721|NCT01233284|183805838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.078|<0.0001
91954722|NCT01233284|183805838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.084|<0.0001
91954723|NCT01233284|183805838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.096|<0.0001
91954724|NCT01233284|183805839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.083|<0.0001
91954725|NCT01233284|183805839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.172|0.081|<0.0001
91954726|NCT01233284|183805839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.224|0.132|<0.0001
91954727|NCT01233284|183805840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0034||95.0|0.026|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.132|0.026|0.0034
91954728|NCT01233284|183805840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0087||95.0|0.018|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.124|0.018|0.0087
91954729|NCT01233284|183805840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.085|<0.0001
91954730|NCT01233284|183805841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0732||95.0|-0.005|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.113|-0.005|0.0732
91954731|NCT01233284|183805841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0177||95.0|0.012|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.131|0.012|0.0177
91954732|NCT01233284|183805841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0012||95.0|0.039|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.157|0.039|0.0012
91954733|NCT01233284|183805842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0149||95.0|0.013|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.115|0.013|0.0149
91954734|NCT01233284|183805842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0043||95.0|0.024|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.126|0.024|0.0043
91954735|NCT01233284|183805842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.086|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.189|0.086|<0.0001
91954736|NCT01233284|183805846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.737|<|0.0001||95.0|11.204|25.895|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||25.895|11.204|<0.0001
91954737|NCT01233284|183805846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.737|<|0.0001||95.0|10.55|25.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||25.240|10.550|<0.0001
91954738|NCT01233284|183805846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.739|<|0.0001||95.0|13.497|28.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||28.195|13.497|<0.0001
91954739|NCT01233284|183805847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|<|0.0001||95.0|13.84|28.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||28.662|13.840|<0.0001
91954740|NCT01233284|183805847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0001||95.0|7.166|21.988|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||21.988|7.166|0.0001
91954741|NCT01233284|183805847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.581|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.773|<|0.0001||95.0|14.166|28.997|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||28.997|14.166|<0.0001
91954742|NCT01233284|183805848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.8574||95.0|-1.363|1.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||1.134|-1.363|0.8574
91954743|NCT01233284|183805848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.3954||95.0|-1.789|0.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.708|-1.789|0.3954
91954744|NCT01233284|183805848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.9034||95.0|-1.327|1.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||1.173|-1.327|0.9034
91954745|NCT01233284|183805849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0296||95.0|-0.443|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||-0.023|-0.443|0.0296
91954746|NCT01233284|183805849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0454||95.0|-0.424|-0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||-0.004|-0.424|0.0454
91954747|NCT01233284|183805849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.061||95.0|-0.41|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.009|-0.410|0.0610
91954748|NCT01233284|183805850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0183||95.0|-0.273|-0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||-0.025|-0.273|0.0183
91954749|NCT01233284|183805850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0288||95.0|-0.262|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||-0.014|-0.262|0.0288
91954750|NCT01233284|183805850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0781||95.0|-0.235|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.013|-0.235|0.0781
91954751|NCT01233284|183805851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.1303||95.0|-0.193|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.025|-0.193|0.1303
91954752|NCT01233284|183805851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.2191||95.0|-0.177|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.041|-0.177|0.2191
91954753|NCT01233284|183805851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1163||95.0|-0.196|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.022|-0.196|0.1163
91954754|NCT01233284|183805852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.7501||95.0|-0.073|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.052|-0.073|0.7501
91954755|NCT01233284|183805852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.8401||95.0|-0.069|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.056|-0.069|0.8401
91954756|NCT01233284|183805852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.3237||95.0|-0.094|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.031|-0.094|0.3237
91954757|NCT01233284|183805853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.276||MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.276|-0.040|0.1402
91954758|NCT01233284|183805853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.305|-0.010|0.0656
91954759|NCT01233284|183805853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.299|-0.015|0.0766
91954760|NCT01233284|183805853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.249|-0.086|0.3371
91954761|NCT01233284|183805853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.303|-0.031|0.1097
91954762|NCT01233284|183805853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.363|0.029|0.0220
91954763|NCT01233284|183805853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.2062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.256|-0.056|0.2062
91954764|NCT01233284|183805853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.297|-0.014|0.0731
91954765|NCT01233284|183805853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.324|0.014|0.0333
91954766|NCT01233284|183805854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.2451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.312|-0.081|0.2451
91954767|NCT01233284|183805854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.405|0.012|0.0379
91954768|NCT01233284|183805854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.363|-0.030|0.0957
91954769|NCT01233284|183805854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.273|-0.139|0.5207
91954770|NCT01233284|183805854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.404|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.404|-0.009|0.0606
91954771|NCT01233284|183805854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.387|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.387|-0.026|0.0855
91954772|NCT01233284|183805854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.287|-0.104|0.3564
91954773|NCT01233284|183805854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.399|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.399|0.007|0.0424
91954774|NCT01233284|183805854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.370|-0.022|0.0815
91954775|NCT05405218|183805973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.13|0.46
91954776|NCT05405218|183805974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.2|0.92
91954777|NCT05405218|183805976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-0.08|0.09
91954778|NCT05405218|183805977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.06|0.9
91954779|NCT00710840|183806004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary outcome, difference in quadriceps torque between intervention (TKA Min) and Control TKA at 4 weeks, was tested using an analysis of covariance model. Confirmatory measures were evaluated at 4 and 12 weeks after surgery in the same way. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were compared using 2-sample t tests for continuous measures or a χ2 test for independent proportions for categorical measures. A 2-sided α level of .05 was designated for statistical significance.||||0.07
91954780|NCT00710840|183806005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91954781|NCT00710840|183806006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91954782|NCT00710840|183806007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91954783|NCT00157820|183806008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.67|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||An additional primary analysis was pre-planned: the odds ratio of CSAE-score between DC and SC obtained from SAS GENMOD procedure with the length of follow-up as an 'offset'.|"The assumed effect of the DC treatment was a reduction from 30 to 15% in the proportion of patients who develop a CSAE, as well as a 15% reduction in the mean of CSAE (from 6 to 5.1). The estimated sample size was 200 (DC true) vs. 100 (SC true) patients followed for 8 months, with a two-sided alfa \< 0.05 and a power of 88.8%.~The sample size was set up to 360 patients (120 patients per arm), considering losses in follow-up."||0.67|0.14|0.0028
91954784|NCT02207413|183806059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (D-QIV\_LP/ D-QIV\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H1N1 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.11|0.85|
91954785|NCT02207413|183806059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H3N2 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.18|0.94|
91954786|NCT02207413|183806059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Yamagata strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.16|0.91|
91954787|NCT02207413|183806059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Victoria strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.21|0.90|
91954788|NCT02207413|183806060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||ANCOVA|||The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H1N1 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.28|0.90|
91954789|NCT02207413|183806060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.39|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H3N2 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.39|1.00|
91954790|NCT02207413|183806060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.27|||ANCOVA|||The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Yamagata strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.27|0.91|
91954791|NCT02207413|183806060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.38|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Victoria strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate||1.38|0.99|
91954792|NCT00347776|183806092|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Log Rank|||"The log rank test was done to compare the survival rates between the tetracycline arm and the azithromycin arms combined.~The Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate risk factors and adjust for confounding in predicting recurrence."||0.98|0.45|.047
91954793|NCT00347776|183806093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||"We tried to evaluate if treating the immediate family members of the subject with oral azithromycin along with the subject had added advantage in reducing the rate of recurrent trichiasis in comparison to treating the subject alone with oral azithromycin post surgery.~The log rank test was done to compare the survival rates between the two intervention arms.The comparison results were expressed in person-years."||||0.19
91954794|NCT00347776|183806094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison group was the tetracycline group.|Surgery was considered a failure if there was trichiasis recurrence at 6 week follow-up.||1.10|0.36|
91954795|NCT02074982|183806126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.02|2.01|<0.0001
91954796|NCT03292731|183806192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||adjusted for cerclage|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for cerclage||logistic regression comparing drug concentration to the rate of sPTB||1.08|0.93|0.96
91954797|NCT03292731|183806193|OTHER||Slope|1.11||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.23|||Regression, Linear|||||2.23|0.00|0.05
91954798|NCT03292731|183806194|OTHER||Slope|1.56||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.87|||Regression, Linear|||||2.87|0.25|0.022
91954799|NCT03292731|183806195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||no adjustments|Fisher Exact|||Only RCT subjects utilized in neonatal safety analysis||||0.82
91954800|NCT00471237|183806199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.37|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12.||||1.37|-0.78|0.590
91954801|NCT00471237|183806199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.44|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12||||2.44|0.28|0.028
91954802|NCT00471237|183806199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.65|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12.||||2.65|0.51|0.011
91954803|NCT00471237|183806199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.69|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12.||||2.69|0.51|0.012
91954804|NCT00471237|183806207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.48|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||0.48|-1.38|0.680
91954805|NCT00471237|183806207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.89|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||1.89|0.01|0.192
91954806|NCT00471237|183806207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.73|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||0.73|-1.12|0.680
91954807|NCT00471237|183806207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.29|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||1.29|-0.59|0.680
91954808|NCT00471237|183806208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.04|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.04|-1.32|0.037
91954809|NCT00471237|183806208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.14|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.14|-1.43|0.017
91954810|NCT00471237|183806208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.64|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.64|-1.92|0.000
91954811|NCT00471237|183806208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.65|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.65|-1.95|0.000
91954812|NCT00471237|183806208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.17|-1.61|0.015
91954813|NCT00471237|183806208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.30|-1.74|0.006
91954814|NCT00471237|183806208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.63|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.63|-2.04|0.000
91954815|NCT00471237|183806208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.84|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.84|-2.30|0.000
91954816|NCT00848965|183806221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.68|||||Treatment difference (FP minus placebo) is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-0.68|-2.08|
91954817|NCT00848965|183806221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.93|||||Treatment difference (FP minus placebo) is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-0.93|-2.16|
91954818|NCT00848965|183806221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.11|||||Treatment difference (FP minus placebo) is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-1.11|-2.33|
91954819|NCT00848965|183806221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.19|||||Treatment difference is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-1.19|-2.60|
91954820|NCT02951182|183806242|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|8.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||13.8|3.5|0.0016
91954821|NCT02951182|183806242|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|10.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|15.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||15.8|5.5|0.0001
91954822|NCT02951182|183806242|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|12.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|17.4|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||17.4|6.7|0.0001
91954823|NCT02951182|183806243|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.4||||||||-12.4|-32.1|
91954824|NCT02951182|183806243|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-34.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-24.8||||||||-24.8|-44.7|
91954825|NCT02951182|183806243|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-33.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-18.3||||||||-18.3|-48.5|
91954826|NCT02951182|183806244|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|24.2||||||||24.2|5.3|
91954827|NCT02951182|183806244|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|28.6||||||||28.6|9.7|
91954828|NCT02951182|183806244|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|29.1||||||||29.1|10.8|
91954829|NCT02951182|183806245|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|26.8||||||||26.8|5.4|
91954830|NCT02951182|183806245|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|29.1||||||||29.1|7.9|
91954831|NCT02951182|183806245|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|28.4||||||||28.4|11.9|
91954832|NCT03112720|183806249|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||||\< 0.01 study terminated because of covid and no meaningfull numbers participated|||<0.01
91954833|NCT02181673|183806342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|53.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.8|60.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.90|45.80|<0.001
91954834|NCT01354015|183806373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||All statistical analysis used intent-to-treat methodology and all comparisons used a two-tailed test at the .05 level of significance. Continuous variables are reported as means and standard deviations. W||||0.2539
91954835|NCT00491322|183806379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91954836|NCT00517868|183806380|NON_INFERIORITY|A paired student t comparison was used to assess treatment differences as measured by 11 point numerical rating scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.14||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.43|2.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.16|-44.43|0.0363
91954837|NCT06067191|183806388|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-312.28||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.17|-135.38|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||-135.38|-489.17|0.0009
91954838|NCT06067191|183806389|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-1.45||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.47|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||-0.47|-2.43|0.0047
91954839|NCT06067191|183806390|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91954840|NCT06067191|183806391|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0051
91954841|NCT06067191|183806392|OTHER|||||||0.0077|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0077
91954842|NCT06067191|183806393|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-87.4||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.3|-10.49|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||-10.49|-164.30|0.0268
91954843|NCT06067191|183806394|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.99||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.15|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||0.15|-2.13|0.0865
91954844|NCT06067191|183806395|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0008
91954845|NCT06067191|183806396|OTHER|||||||0.8579|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8579
91954846|NCT06067191|183806397|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-93.95||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.26|6.36|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||6.36|-194.26|0.0658
91954847|NCT06067191|183806398|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-93.95||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.26|6.36|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||6.36|-194.26|0.0658
91954848|NCT06067191|183806399|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.93||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.52|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||0.52|-2.38|0.2030
91954849|NCT00806416|183806434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Administration of a 70 mg alendronate/2800 IU vitamin D3 final market combination tablet and the 70 mg alendronate market tablet, the GMR of the combination tablet/alendronate only tablet are contained within \[0.80,1.25\].|Least square mean ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.91|1.17||||||If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR) for total urinary excretion of alendronate of 70 mg alendronate/vitamin D3 combination tablet with respect to alendronate alone is 1.00 then a sample size =208 provided 99% probability of yielding a 90% CI for the total urinary excretion GMR within the interval of \[0.80, 1.25\]. These calculations were based on the observed-pooled within-subject standard deviation (log scale) of 0.521 obtained from earlier Phase 1 studies.||1.17|0.91|
91954850|NCT00806416|183806435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Administration of a 70 mg alendronate/2800 IU vitamin D3 final market combination tablet and a tablet containing 2800 IU vitamin D3, the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for AUC0-120 hr and Cmax, corrected for predose concentration, of the combination tablet/2800 IU vitamin D3 only tablet were contained within \[0.80,1.25\].|Least square mean ratio for AUC0-120 hr|0.88||||||90.0|0.81|0.95||||||If the true GMRs for AUC and Cmax for 70 mg alendronate/vitamin D3 combination tablet with respect to 2800 IU vitamin D3 alone were 1.00 then a sample size=28 provided \>99% probability of yielding a 90% CI for both AUC(0-120 hr) and Cmax GMRs within the interval of \[0.80, 1.25\]. The within-subject standard deviation of 0.14 ln ng•hr/mL for AUC(0-120 hr) (ng•hr/mL) and 0.14 ng/mL for Cmax was obtained from another phase 1 study.||0.95|0.81|
91954851|NCT00806416|183806436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Administration of a 70 mg alendronate/2800 IU vitamin D3 final market combination tablet and a tablet containing 2800 IU vitamin D3, the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for AUC0-120 hr and Cmax, corrected for predose concentration, of the combination tablet/2800 IU vitamin D3 only tablet were contained within \[0.80,1.25\].|least-squares mean for Cmax|0.89||||||90.0|0.84|0.95||||||If the true GMR ratios for AUC and Cmax for 70 mg alendronate/vitamin D3 combination tablet with respect to 2800 IU vitamin D3 alone were 1.00 then a sample of N=28 provided \>99% probability of yielding a 90% CI for both AUC0-120 hr and Cmax GMRs within the interval of \[0.80, 1.25\]. The within-subject standard deviation of 0.14 ln ng•hr/mL for AUC0-120 hr (ng•hr/mL) and 0.14 ng/mL for Cmax was obtained from another phase 1 study.||0.95|0.84|
91954852|NCT04035694|183806443|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.41
91954853|NCT04035694|183806444|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.11
91954854|NCT04035694|183806445|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.54
91954855|NCT04035694|183806446|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.38
91954856|NCT04035694|183806447|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.56
91954857|NCT04035694|183806448|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.09
91954858|NCT04035694|183806449|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.40
91954859|NCT04035694|183806450|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.74
91954860|NCT04035694|183806451|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.66
91954861|NCT04035694|183806452|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.78
91954862|NCT04035694|183806453|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.52
91954863|NCT04035694|183806454|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.74
91954864|NCT04035694|183806455|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.21
91954865|NCT04035694|183806456|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.27
91954866|NCT04035694|183806457|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.01
91954867|NCT04035694|183806458|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.23
91954868|NCT04035694|183806459|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.05
91954869|NCT04035694|183806460|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.95
91954870|NCT04035694|183806461|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.19
91954871|NCT04035694|183806462|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.92
91954872|NCT04035694|183806463|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.81
91954873|NCT04035694|183806464|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.81
91954874|NCT04035694|183806465|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.14
91954875|NCT04035694|183806466|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.82
91954876|NCT04035694|183806467|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.97
91954877|NCT04035694|183806468|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.89
91954878|NCT04035694|183806469|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.69
91954879|NCT04035694|183806470|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.63
91954880|NCT04035694|183806471|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.79
91954881|NCT04035694|183806472|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.93
91954882|NCT04035694|183806473|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.20
91954883|NCT04035694|183806474|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.11
91954884|NCT04035694|183806475|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.01
91954885|NCT04035694|183806476|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.64
91954886|NCT04035694|183806477|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.03
91954887|NCT04035694|183806478|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.65
91954888|NCT04035694|183806479|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||<.01
91954889|NCT04035694|183806480|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.20
91954890|NCT04035694|183806481|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.28
91954891|NCT04035694|183806482|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.58
91954892|NCT04035694|183806483|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.49
91954893|NCT04035694|183806484|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.55
91954894|NCT04035694|183806485|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.54
91954895|NCT04035694|183806486|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.95
91954896|NCT04035694|183806487|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|-4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.05
91954897|NCT04035694|183806488|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.75
91954898|NCT04035694|183806489|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.14
91954899|NCT04035694|183806490|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.03
91954900|NCT04035694|183806491|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.01
91954901|NCT04035694|183806492|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.02
91954902|NCT04035694|183806493|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.03
91954903|NCT04035694|183806494|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.57
91954904|NCT04035694|183806495|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.91
91954905|NCT04035694|183806496|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.72
91954906|NCT04035694|183806497|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.07
91954907|NCT04035694|183806498|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.56
91954908|NCT04035694|183806499|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.17
91954909|NCT04035694|183806500|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.89
91954910|NCT04035694|183806501|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.20
91954911|NCT04035694|183806502|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.78
91954912|NCT04035694|183806503|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.41
91954913|NCT04035694|183806504|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.34
91954914|NCT01102972|183806505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be established between the two arms if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL at Week 24 was -12% or greater.|Treatment difference of proportions|0.33||||0.937||95.0|-7.97|8.64||The p-value was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by initial antiretroviral regimen.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% confidence intervals were calculated (using Mantel-Haenszel weight) stratified by initial antiretroviral regimen.|||8.64|-7.97|0.937
91954915|NCT00318409|183806548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
91954916|NCT01360021|183806631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Geometic Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on the log transformed outcome variable with treatment and country as factor, and log transformed baseline FEV1 (pre-dose) as covariate.|Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid vs Budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid|The comparison of Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid with budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid for post dose FEV1||1.14|1.06|0.001
91954917|NCT01360021|183806631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a standard deviation of 0.2 (for pre dose FEV1) on the log-scale and 60 patients/arm, the width of the confidence interval will extend 0.072 from the point estimate on the log-scale. The lower and upper limits of the CI for the ratio of effects will thus be obtained by multiplying the estimated ratio by 0.931 and 1.075, respectively.|Estimated Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on the log transformed outcome variable with treatment and country as factor, and log transformed baseline FEV1 (pre-dose) as covariate.|The comparisons was used to assess therapeutic equivalence of Symbicort AC pMDI and Symbicort BA MDI. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated before proceeding to assess therapeutic equivalence of the 2 Symbicort products.|The comparisons of Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid with Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid for post dose FEV1.||1.05|0.97|
91954918|NCT01360021|183806632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a standard deviation of 0.2 (for pre dose FEV1) on the log-scale and 60 patients/arm, the width of the confidence interval will extend 0.072 from the point estimate on the log-scale. The lower and upper limits of the CI for the ratio of effects will thus be obtained by multiplying the estimated ratio by 0.931 and 1.075, respectively.|Estimated Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on the log transformed outcome variable with treatment and country as factor, and log transformed baseline FEV1 (pre-dose) as covariate.|The comparisons was used to assess therapeutic equivalence of Symbicort AC pMDI and Symbicort BA MDI. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated before proceeding to assess therapeutic equivalence of the 2 Symbicort products.|The comparisons of Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid with Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid, for pre-dose FEV1.||1.08|0.99|
91954919|NCT01360021|183806633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were be made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.81|14.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Morning peak expiratory flow (mPEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid||14.80|-11.81|0.825
91954920|NCT01360021|183806633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.11|46.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Morning peak expiratory flow (mPEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid minus Budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid||46.93|20.11|0.001
91954921|NCT01360021|183806633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|13.61|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Evening peak expiratory flow (ePEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||13.61|-10.66|0.810
91954922|NCT01360021|183806633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.01|44.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Evening peak expiratory flow (ePEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid and Budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid.||44.49|20.01|0.001
91954923|NCT01360021|183806634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||0.35|-0.10|0.272
91954924|NCT01360021|183806635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-0.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||-0.79|-11.41|0.025
91954925|NCT01360021|183806636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between BAI Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and pMDI Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||0.71|-0.19|0.258
91954926|NCT00650806|183806645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||ANOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center.||||-0.1|-1.6|0.031
91954927|NCT00650806|183806645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8|||ANOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center.||||-0.8|-2.4|<0.001
91954928|NCT00650806|183806645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||ANOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center.||||-0.6|-2.1|<0.001
91954929|NCT00650806|183806646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.02|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. Baseline body weight was a covariate.||||-0.02|-1.58|0.045
91954930|NCT00650806|183806646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. Baseline body weight was a covariate.||||-0.80|-2.40|<0.001
91954931|NCT00650806|183806646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.51|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. Baseline body weight was a covariate.||||-0.51|-2.07|0.001
91954932|NCT00650806|183806647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||-0.03|-0.59|0.031
91954933|NCT00650806|183806647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||-0.32|-0.90|<0.001
91954934|NCT00650806|183806647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||-0.20|-0.76|<0.001
91954935|NCT00650806|183806648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.317||95.0|0.6|5.6||P-value controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and Confidence Interval controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|||5.6|0.6|0.317
91954936|NCT00650806|183806648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.1||P-value controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and Confidence Interval controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|||11.1|0.9|0.059
91954937|NCT00650806|183806648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.0||P-value controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and Confidence Interval controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|||10.0|1.0|0.027
91954938|NCT00650806|183806649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.||||||0.117
91954939|NCT00650806|183806649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.||||||0.225
91954940|NCT00650806|183806649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.||||||0.317
91954941|NCT00650806|183806650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.17|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||2.17|-2.68|0.835
91954942|NCT00650806|183806650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.59|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||1.59|-3.47|0.466
91954943|NCT00650806|183806650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|1.09|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||1.09|-3.87|0.273
91954944|NCT00650806|183806651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.59|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.59|-3.85|0.149
91954945|NCT00650806|183806651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.6|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||1.6|-3.05|0.541
91954946|NCT00650806|183806651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.47|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.47|-4.03|0.121
91954947|NCT00650806|183806652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0091||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0071|0.0286|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.0286|-0.0071|0.239
91954948|NCT00650806|183806652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0095||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0174|0.0198|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.0198|-0.0174|0.900
91954949|NCT00650806|183806652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0092||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.0202|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.0202|-0.0160|0.822
91954950|NCT02242942|183806653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.51|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression model. Stratification factors: Binet and Geographic region.|||0.51|0.22|<0.0001
91954951|NCT02242942|183806654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.53|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratios were estimated by Cox regression model. Stratification factors: Binet and Geographic region.|||0.53|0.23|<0.0001
91954952|NCT02242942|183806655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.43||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|21.38||P-value was assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||21.38|5.47|0.0007
91954953|NCT02242942|183806656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.41|35.36||P-value was assessed using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||35.36|17.41|<0.0001
91954954|NCT02242942|183806657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|40.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.45|49.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||49.10|31.45|<0.0001
91954955|NCT02242942|183806658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|39.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.27|48.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||48.36|31.27|<0.0001
91954956|NCT02242942|183806660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|32.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.76|41.98|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||41.98|23.76|<0.0001
91954957|NCT02242942|183806661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|38.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.15|46.71|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||46.71|30.15|<0.0001
91954958|NCT02242942|183806662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.85||||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|8.33||P-value was assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||8.33|-4.63|0.5612
91954959|NCT02242942|183806664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.93||||0.7169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|6.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was assessed using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||6.51|-4.66|0.7169
91954960|NCT05014672|183806676|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.86||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|0.994|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.994|0.746|0.0206
91954961|NCT05014672|183806676|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.81||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|0.939|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.939|0.703|0.0057
91954962|NCT05014672|183806677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|-2.16||||0.2214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.785|3.458|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||3.458|-7.785|0.2214
91954963|NCT05014672|183806677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.63||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.859|6.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||6.120|-4.859|0.5910
91954964|NCT05014672|183806680|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.42||||0.5675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.454|5.285|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||5.285|-4.454|0.5675
91954965|NCT05014672|183806680|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.02||||0.5032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.886|4.926|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.926|-4.886|0.5032
91954966|NCT05014672|183806681|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.85||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.033|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.033|0.692|0.0491
91954967|NCT05014672|183806681|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.95||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.158|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.158|0.783|0.3099
91954968|NCT05014672|183806687|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.84||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|0.954|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.954|0.743|0.0039
91954969|NCT05014672|183806688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.3905||||0.3905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.496|4.153|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.153|-5.496|0.3905
91954970|NCT05014672|183806689|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.21||||0.5393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.968|4.381|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.381|-3.968|0.5393
91954971|NCT05014672|183806690|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.9||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.065|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.065|0.759|0.1079
91954972|NCT00145119|183806701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion (%)|8.0||||||||||||||||||
91954973|NCT04411641|183806702|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.88||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation.Covariates were treatment group,age at screening (\>40,\<=40 years),geographic region (United States \[US\], non-US),baseline EDSS score \& baseline gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).In this analysis, for participants who completed study with 3-month confirmation and continued to meet disability progression criteria throughout EOS, their 6-month CDP status was imputed via multiple imputation method.||0.880|0.546|0.0026
91954974|NCT04411641|183806703|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.944||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||0.944|0.607|0.0134
91954975|NCT04411641|183806704|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Relative Risk|0.622||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.897||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Derived using negative binomial model with the number of new and/or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score, and baseline number of T2 lesions as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||0.897|0.432|0.0110
91954976|NCT04411641|183806705|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.286||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||1.286|0.735|0.8428
91954977|NCT04411641|183806706|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.919|||Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||0.919|0.640|0.0040
91954978|NCT04411641|183806707|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.882||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.102|3.214|||Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||3.214|1.102|0.0206
91954979|NCT04411641|183806708|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|LS Mean Difference|0.082||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.197|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Covariates in the mixed-effect model with repeated measures were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume, and cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume-by-visit interaction.||0.197|-0.034|0.1646
91954980|NCT04342390|183806719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.363
91954981|NCT04342390|183806720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.633
91954982|NCT04342390|183806721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.433
91954983|NCT04342390|183806722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.822
91954984|NCT04342390|183806723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.554
91954985|NCT04342390|183806724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.186
91954986|NCT04342390|183806725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.921
91954987|NCT04584294|183806726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.06||The threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm. Analyses accounted for missing data in outcome and a priori adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE).||3.06|0.70|0.31
91954988|NCT04584294|183806726|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome. Our model accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) in R."|P-value and estimated OR (95% CI) is not available because the model did not converge.|||
91954989|NCT04584294|183806727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.38||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach. Analyses accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE).||2.38|0.79|0.26
91954990|NCT04584294|183806727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|9.76||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome. Our model accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) in R."||9.76|1.23|0.019
91954991|NCT04584294|183806728|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.48||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach. Analyses accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE).||0.48|-1.71|0.27
91954992|NCT04584294|183806728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|1.22||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome. Our model accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) in R."||1.22|-2.91|0.42
91954993|NCT04584294|183806729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.26||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||1.26|-0.56|0.45
91954994|NCT04584294|183806729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.02||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||2.02|-0.15|0.09
91954995|NCT04584294|183806730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|5.42||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||5.42|-9.94|0.56
91954996|NCT04584294|183806730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.72||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.37|-2.06||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||-2.06|-25.37|0.02
91954997|NCT04584294|183806731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.47||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||We used a multilevel regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||0.47|-0.38|0.84
91954998|NCT04584294|183806731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.25||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||1.25|-0.35|0.27
91954999|NCT04584294|183806743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.99||threshold for significance set at \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||0.99|-0.22|0.21
91955000|NCT04584294|183806743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.04||95.0|0.04|1.75||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||1.75|0.04|0.04
91955001|NCT00318357|183806750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Cox|||Mortality is compared between the arms of the CARE-HF study, using Cox proportional hazards regression. Data from the original CARE-HF trial and the CARE-HF Long Term Follow-up trial were combined for the analysis.||||0.007
91955002|NCT01392469|183806751|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.33||||||||1.33|1.03|
91955003|NCT01392469|183806751|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|1.59||||||||1.59|1.23|
91955004|NCT01392469|183806752|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.62||||||||1.62|1.14|
91955005|NCT01392469|183806752|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|2.03||||||||2.03|1.43|
91955006|NCT01392469|183806753|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.21||||||||1.21|0.82|
91955007|NCT01392469|183806753|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.31||||||||1.31|0.88|
91955008|NCT01392469|183806754|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.61||||||||1.61|1.03|
91955009|NCT01392469|183806754|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.95||||||||1.95|1.24|
91955010|NCT01256086|183806758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Relative potency of Novolizer compared to Aerolizer. Equivalence was to be concluded if the CI for the relative potency was completely covered by the interval (0.67, 1.50) according to OIP Guideline.|Relative potency|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.38|||||Fieller confidence interval for logarithm of relative potency|||1.38|0.94|
91955011|NCT03443973|183806761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline (BL) + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + Apolipoprotein E, Allele e4 (APOE e4) + Baseline ADAS COG13 + Baseline Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Group-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL).||0.17|-0.55|0.2998
91955012|NCT03443973|183806767|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4||-0.14|-2.41|0.0273
91955013|NCT03443973|183806768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.2918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.34|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4||2.34|-0.70|0.2918
91955014|NCT03443973|183806769|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||-0.02|-1.70|0.0438
91955015|NCT03443973|183806770|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||1.06|-0.01|0.0566
91955016|NCT03443973|183806771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||-0.14|-2.24|0.0260
91955017|NCT03443973|183806772|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.52|-0.59|0.9086
91955018|NCT03443973|183806773|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.90|-0.08|0.0629
91955019|NCT03443973|183806774|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.09|-0.51|0.2348
91955020|NCT03443973|183806781|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|-56.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.976|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.36|-48.56|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Type of Tracer + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||-48.56|-64.36|<.0001
91955021|NCT03443973|183806782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.7816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.04|0.7816
91955022|NCT03443973|183806782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Medial Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.03|0.6203
91955023|NCT03443973|183806782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Frontal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.03|-0.03|0.7754
91955024|NCT03443973|183806782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Parietal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.05|0.9022
91955025|NCT03443973|183806783|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-13.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.51|-2.87|||ANCOVA|||||-2.87|-22.51|0.014
91955026|NCT03443973|183806784|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.88|-6.21|||ANCOVA|||||-6.21|-21.88|<0.001
91955027|NCT03443973|183806785|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|-10.11|||ANCOVA|||||-10.11|-24.92|<0.001
91955028|NCT03443973|183806786|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.29|-12.97|||ANCOVA|||||-12.97|-28.29|<0.001
91955029|NCT04633434|183806810|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether the pretest and posttest scores are significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Estimation parameter based on paired t-test.|||||.690
91955030|NCT04633434|183806811|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest score change is greater than zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.052
91955031|NCT04633434|183806812|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.135
91955032|NCT04633434|183806813|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
91955033|NCT04633434|183806814|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91955034|NCT04633434|183806815|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91955035|NCT04633434|183806816|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.057
91955036|NCT04633434|183806817|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91955037|NCT04633434|183806818|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.352
91955038|NCT04633434|183806819|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.104
91955039|NCT04633434|183806822|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.106
91955040|NCT04633434|183806823|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.005
91955041|NCT04633434|183806824|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.082
91955042|NCT02329834|183806832|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval 80\<ratio of AUC\<125. The FDA guided Bioequivalence limit of 80 to 125% for the ratio of the product averages has been adopted for use of an average BE criterion.|% diff Geometric Least Squared Mean|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.77|104.75||||||||104.75|94.77|
91955043|NCT02329834|183806833|OTHER||% Diff Geometric Least Squared Mean|99.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.79|104.75||||||||104.75|94.79|
91955044|NCT00659945|183806839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The primary endpoint was the incidence of emesis at any time within the first 48 hours after surgery. Power analysis showed that a sample size of 69 patients per group was necessary to detect a significant decrease in the incidence of emesis from 33% in the placebo group to 15% in the aprepitant group using a Chi-square test with an alpha value of 0.05 and power of 80%.||||<0.05
91955045|NCT01976104|183806859|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|33.7|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|51.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the 60 mg avatrombopag and matched placebo treatment groups.||51.6|15.8|=0.0006
91955046|NCT01976104|183806859|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|72.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the 60 mg avatrombopag and matched placebo treatment groups.||72.7|36.5|<0.0001
91955047|NCT01976104|183806860|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|60.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|73.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups.||73.5|46.8|<0.0001
91955048|NCT01976104|183806860|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|53.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.8|71.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups||71.6|35.8|<0.0001
91955049|NCT01976104|183806861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|32.0|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value was based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for each avatrombopag treatment group versus placebo within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from Baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag versus placebo within each Baseline platelet count cohort was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% CI was the asymptotic (Moses) CI|||32.0|19.5|<0.0001
91955050|NCT01976104|183806861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|45.5|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value was based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for each avatrombopag treatment group versus placebo within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag vs. placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort is based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% confidence interval is the asymptotic (Moses) CI.|||45.5|25.5|<0.0001
91955051|NCT01353209|183806869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use||||||0.4
91955052|NCT01353209|183806870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use||||||0.7
91955053|NCT01353209|183806871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use||||||0.8
91955054|NCT01353209|183806871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.8
91955055|NCT01353209|183806872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use. P value was obtained for testing zero slope for log(VEGF-D).||||||0.015
91955056|NCT01283009|183806873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.40|0.58|0.635
91955057|NCT03237325|183806892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1798|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1798
91955058|NCT02684370|183806893|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|70.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|76.7||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||76.7|64.0|<0.001
91955059|NCT02684370|183806894|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|79.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.5|86.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||86.3|73.5|<0.001
91955060|NCT02684370|183806895|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|40.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.8|28.6|<0.001
91955061|NCT02684370|183806896|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|41.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||41.0|30.0|< 0.001
91955062|NCT02684370|183806897|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|57.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.4|65.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||65.3|50.4|< 0.001
91955063|NCT02684370|183806898|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|32.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||32.9|21.2|< 0.001
91955064|NCT02684370|183806899|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|33.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|44.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||44.3|22.7|< 0.001
91955065|NCT02684370|183806900|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|35.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||35.0|15.2|< 0.001
91955066|NCT02684370|183806901|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|32.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||32.1|15.5|< 0.001
91955067|NCT02684370|183806902|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|31.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||31.6|14.3|< 0.001
91955068|NCT02684370|183806903|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|48.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||48.6|27.9|< 0.001
91955069|NCT02684370|183806904|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|44.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||44.6|25.7|< 0.001
91955070|NCT02684370|183806905|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|45.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||45.9|27.0|< 0.001
91955071|NCT02684370|183806906|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|26.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||26.6|7.4|< 0.001
91955072|NCT02684370|183806907|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||27.3|7.3|< 0.001
91955073|NCT02684370|183806908|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|34.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||34.0|11.9|< 0.001
91955074|NCT02684370|183806909|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.765|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.496|-5.035|||van Elteren test|||P-value calculated by the van Elteren test stratified for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||-5.035|-6.496|<0.001
91955075|NCT00627094|183806917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.96||In order to obtain 90% power to show superiority of Biatain Ibu compared to Biatain, a sample size of 60 pts per group (assuming a 15% drop-out rate) was found by simulating data from multi-nomial distributions over time.|Chi-squared|Result based on ITT population (evening). PP-analysis show a strong tendency (not significant) in favour of Biatain Ibu supporting the ITT-analysis||The null hypothesis to be tested was that the distributions of categorical responses were the same.||2.96|1.02|0.0438
91955076|NCT02050373|183806947|OTHER|For the comparison between the LLLT and control groups the Pearson chi-square (χ2) or Fisher's Exact tests were used.|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Pearson chi-square (χ2) or Fisher's Exact tests were used, at three different times (AD, D7, HD), to analyze the oral mucositis severity in the comparison between the LLLT and control groups. Statistical analysis was not performed for each grade of oral mucositis separately.||||<0.05
91955077|NCT02050373|183806948|OTHER|Student's t test was used to numerical variables with normal distribution. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the cytokine values of the two groups (control and laser). The Friedman test was used to indicate differences by comparing cytokine levels at different times of assessment within each group. The Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used for paired analyzes of the saliva collection times in the groups. All tests were used to compare the groups at the three different times (AD, D7, HD).|||||<|0.05||||||p\<0,05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91955078|NCT04342130|183806949|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91955079|NCT00807040|183806957|OTHER|We tested this hypothesis in an intention-to-treat analysis using a two-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test, at a 0.05 alpha level. This analysis accommodated nonignorable missing LVESVI outcomes owing to the death of patients by assigning deceased patients the worst ranks in order on the basis of the time of death. We used multiple imputation for data that were missing for reasons other than death to calculate the 12-month LVESVI on the assumption that the data were missing at random.||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The trial was designed with a power of 90% to detect a between-group difference of 15 ml per square meter in the LVESVI from baseline to 12 months. We assumed a baseline LVESVI of 100 ml per square meter, improvements of 20 ml per square meter in the repair group and 35 ml per square meter in the replacement group, and equal 1-year mortality of 10 to 20% in the two groups. The primary null hypothesis was that there would be no between-group difference in the LVESVI at 12 months.||||0.18
91955080|NCT00807040|183806958|OTHER|We used the log-rank test to compare rates of death from baseline to 2 years.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.35|||Log Rank|||||1.35|0.46|0.39
91955081|NCT01783860|183806975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
91955082|NCT01783860|183806976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
91955083|NCT01783860|183806977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.007
91955084|NCT01783860|183806978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||> 0.05
91955085|NCT01783860|183806979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
91955086|NCT01783860|183806980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
91955087|NCT03992261|183806982|OTHER|"Mean, median, SD, minimum/maximum determined for total amount of test article used by each subject in Safety, Evaluable, and PK populations HPA Axis Suppression: Proportion of subjects manifesting laboratory evidence of adrenal suppression at EOS were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for Evaluable and Safety populations. Descriptive statistics for daily dose of test article were tabulated separately for suppressed and non-suppressed subjects.~PK: Screening, Day 8, Day 15"||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Outcome measure: extent of exposure, HPA axis suppression, and pharmacokinetic analysis.||||0.05
91955088|NCT00258310|183806983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9||||||||.90|.59|
91955089|NCT01833897|183807000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||F1,6.4=161.8,|linear mixed model|||||||<0.001
91955090|NCT01833897|183807001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91955091|NCT01833897|183807002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
91955092|NCT01833897|183807003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
91955093|NCT01833897|183807004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91955094|NCT02325739|183807011|OTHER||RP2D|120.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 (single agent - fasted) is 120mg.|||||
91955095|NCT02325739|183807011|OTHER||RP2D|120.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 (single agent - fed) is 120mg.|||||
91955096|NCT02325739|183807011|OTHER||RP2D|120.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 + PDR001 combination is for FGF401 120mg.|||||
91955097|NCT02325739|183807011|OTHER||RP2D|300.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 + PDR001 combination is for PDR001 300mg.|||||
91955098|NCT02255422|183807065|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0446||0.7321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1051|0.0743||P-Value relates to difference in change in peak work from baseline relative to placebo for all doses pooled. Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null hypothesis: wk 12 mean change from baseline (\[μ RTA 408\] - \[μ Placebo\]) in peak work = 0 w/kg. Positive change from baseline suggests improvement||Primary Objective: To evaluate the change in peak work during maximal exercise testing||0.0743|-0.1051|0.7321
91955099|NCT02255422|183807066|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-33.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6473||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.855|-10.042||P-value comparison is for difference in change in six minute walk distance from baseline within each dosage group relative to placebo. Statistical significance defined as p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The change from baseline in 6MWT was analyzed using the same MMRM model used for the primary efficacy endpoint. Analysis visits 0, 4, 8 and 12 used.||Secondary Objective: To evaluate the change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance at Week 4||-10.042|-56.855|0.0060
91955100|NCT02255422|183807066|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-3.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.53||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.133|19.207||Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05. The p-value comparison is for the difference in change in 6MWD from baseline within each dosage group relative to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The change from baseline in 6MWT was analyzed using the same MMRM model used for the primary efficacy endpoint. Analysis visits 0, 4, 8 and 12 used.||Secondary Objective: To evaluate the change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance at Week 8||19.207|-27.133|0.7325
91955101|NCT02255422|183807066|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-18.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0004||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.739|11.55||Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05. The p-value comparison is for the difference in change in 6MWD from baseline within each dosage group relative to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The change from baseline in 6MWT was analyzed using the same MMRM model used for the primary efficacy endpoint. Analysis visits 0, 4, 8 and 12 used.||Secondary Objective: To evaluate the change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance at Week 12||11.550|-48.739|0.2210
91955102|NCT03222570|183807067|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean difference|-0.88||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|4.7|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference estimated from fitting a linear regression model adjusting for baseline value of the measure.|||4.7|-6.56|0.76
91955103|NCT03222570|183807068|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean difference|-2.52||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|2.3|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference estimated from fitting a linear regression model adjusting for baseline value of the measure.|||2.3|-7.42|0.32
91955104|NCT03179462|183807079|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91955105|NCT04410978|183807118|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.061||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.393||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with number of adjudicated relapses onset between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), expanded disability status scale (EDSS) strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (United States \[US\], non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.393|0.808|0.6691
91955106|NCT04410978|183807119|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|1.278||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||1.278|0.565|0.4888
91955107|NCT04410978|183807120|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.819||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.151||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||1.151|0.582|0.2991
91955108|NCT04410978|183807121|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.084||||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.342|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new and/or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, baseline T2-hyperintense lesion count, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.342|0.876|0.4575
91955109|NCT04410978|183807122|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.86||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.358|2.548|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed number of MRI scans as the offset variable.||2.548|1.358|0.0001
91955110|NCT04410978|183807123|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.035||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.124|||MMRM|||Covariates in the mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||0.124|-0.053|0.4320
91955111|NCT04410978|183807124|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|1.873||||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|3.88|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||3.880|-0.135|0.0675
91955112|NCT04410978|183807125|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|1.245||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||1.245|0.554|0.3594
91955113|NCT04410978|183807126|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|0.196||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.298|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume, and cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume-by-visit interaction.||0.298|0.093|0.0002
91955114|NCT05153629|183807135|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of back pain.||||0.93
91955115|NCT05153629|183807135|OTHER|||||||0.76||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of abdominal/groin pain.||||0.76
91955116|NCT05153629|183807135|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of pain frequency.||||0.56
91955117|NCT05153629|183807135|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of nausea intensity.||||0.26
91955118|NCT05153629|183807136|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in back pain.||||0.55
91955119|NCT05153629|183807136|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in abdominal/groin pain.||||0.28
91955120|NCT05153629|183807136|OTHER|||||||0.39||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in pain frequency.||||0.39
91955121|NCT05153629|183807136|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in nausea intensity.||||0.26
91955122|NCT05153629|183807137|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91955123|NCT05153629|183807138|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91955124|NCT05153629|183807139|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of overall USDT score.||||0.80
91955125|NCT05153629|183807139|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of urinary symptoms.||||0.72
91955126|NCT05153629|183807139|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of pain.||||0.45
91955127|NCT05153629|183807139|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of daily life.||||0.42
91955128|NCT05153629|183807139|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of sexual life.||||0.36
91955129|NCT05153629|183807139|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of medical care/analgesic use.||||0.49
91955130|NCT05153629|183807139|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of overall quality of life.||||0.88
91955131|NCT04089566|183807144|SUPERIORITY|The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model used rank score as response, treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination (HINE) Section 2 (HINE 2), baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|Least square (LS) mean difference|26.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.941|34.172|||ANCOVA|||||34.172|17.941|< 0.0001
91955132|NCT04089566|183807167|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentages|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.46|71.81|||Fisher Exact||Exact unconditional confidence interval|||71.81|39.46|<0.0001
91955133|NCT04089566|183807168|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|26.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.812|34.526||ANCOVA model was used treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline HINE 2, baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||34.526|18.812|<0.0001
91955134|NCT04089566|183807169|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for each participant disease duration at screening, baseline log plasma NF-L and baseline CHOP INTEND total score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91955135|NCT04089566|183807170|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.251|=|0.8484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|11.299||ANCOVA model used rank score as response, treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline HINE 2, baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||11.299|-9.29|=0.8484
91955136|NCT04089566|183807171|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.497|=|0.1734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.693|14.939||ANCOVA model used rank score as response, treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline HINE 2, baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||14.939|-2.693|=0.1734
91955137|NCT04089566|183807172|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.51|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.78||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and adjustment for each participant disease duration at screening, baseline log plasma NF-L and baseline CHOP INTEND total score.|ANCOVA|||||0.78|0.33|=0.002
91955138|NCT04089566|183807215|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.86|||=|0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.2||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for each participant disease duration at screening, baseline log CSF NF-L and baseline CHOP INTEND total score.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.62|=0.3785
91955139|NCT04938687|183807309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
91955140|NCT04938687|183807309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91955141|NCT04938687|183807309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
91955142|NCT04938687|183807310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
91955143|NCT04938687|183807310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91955144|NCT04938687|183807310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
91955145|NCT04938687|183807311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.92
91955146|NCT04938687|183807311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
91955147|NCT04938687|183807311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
91955148|NCT04938687|183807312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
91955149|NCT04938687|183807312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91955150|NCT04938687|183807312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.073
91955151|NCT04938687|183807313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
91955152|NCT04938687|183807313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91955153|NCT04938687|183807313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91955154|NCT04938687|183807314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
91955155|NCT04938687|183807314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
91955156|NCT04938687|183807314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91955157|NCT04938687|183807315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91955158|NCT04938687|183807315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91955159|NCT04938687|183807315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91955160|NCT04938687|183807318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
91955161|NCT04938687|183807318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91955162|NCT04938687|183807318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91955163|NCT02087865|183807327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.12|6.63|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||6.63|-23.12|0.273
91955164|NCT02087865|183807328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.09|-5.73|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||-5.73|-21.09|0.001
91955165|NCT02087865|183807329|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.33|2.14|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||2.14|-19.33|0.115
91955166|NCT02087865|183807330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|4.25|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||4.25|-3.94|0.941
91955167|NCT02087865|183807331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.14|76.53|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||76.53|16.14|0.003
91955168|NCT02087865|183807332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.25|87.46|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||87.46|35.25|<0.001
91955169|NCT02087865|183807333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.04|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||-1.04|-5.65|0.005
91955170|NCT02087865|183807334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||-1.02|-7.58|0.011
91955171|NCT00741026|183807342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-rank|||||||0.0203
91955172|NCT00741026|183807343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0105
91955173|NCT00741026|183807344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0166|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0166
91955174|NCT00741026|183807345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0184|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0184
91955175|NCT00741026|183807346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0170
91955176|NCT03309072|183807354|OTHER|To compare the old and new faces' hit rate, we calculated the true positive rate (TPR: the proportion of positives that are correctly identified as such). A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with the TPR for both old and new faces as within-subjects variable and group (active vs sham) as between-subjects variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.66|||<|0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Difference between active tDCS and sham tDCS|||||<.049
91955177|NCT00367679|183807414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|5.7||||||95.0|0.7|19.2|||||The estimated value given is the percentage of participants who had a response out of the total participants.|||19.2|0.7|
91955178|NCT00367679|183807415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|8.6||||||95.0|1.8|23.1|||||The estimated value given is the percentage of participants who had a response out of the total participants.|||23.1|1.8|
91955179|NCT00367679|183807421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0028||95.0||||VEGF D|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0028
91955180|NCT00367679|183807421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0324||95.0||||VEGF A|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0324
91955181|NCT00367679|183807421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082||95.0||||VEGFR-2|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0082
91955182|NCT00367679|183807421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082||95.0||||c-KIT|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0082
91955183|NCT00367679|183807427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||<0.01
91955184|NCT00367679|183807427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Placental growth factor (PIGF)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||<0.01
91955185|NCT00367679|183807427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00024||95.0||||Interferon-inducible cytokine (IP-10)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.00024
91955186|NCT00367679|183807427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0||||Cutaneous T-cell attracting chemokine (CTACK)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0029
91955187|NCT00367679|183807427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062||95.0||||Stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1alpha)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0062
91955188|NCT00367679|183807427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069||95.0||||Monokine induced by interferon gamma (MIG)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0069
91955189|NCT00367679|183807427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093||95.0||||Tumor necrosis factor ligand (TRAIL)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0093
91955190|NCT00367679|183807427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||Interferon alpha 2 (IFN-alpha2)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.021
91955191|NCT00367679|183807427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||95.0||||Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.326
91955192|NCT01005680|183807441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex, and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.39|0.77|0.822
91955193|NCT01005680|183807442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.37||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.37|0.82|0.640
91955194|NCT01005680|183807443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.32||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and biases for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.32|0.78|0.928
91955195|NCT01005680|183807444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.79||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.79|0.51|0.887
91955196|NCT01005680|183807445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.61|0.67|0.861
91955197|NCT01005680|183807446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0|||||two-sided Z test|||||||0.451
91955198|NCT01005680|183807448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||95.0|||||two-sided Z test|||||||0.627
91955199|NCT00297882|183807455|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of AQ-AS compared to AL was assessed by constructing a one-sided, lower limit asymptotic 97.5% CI on the difference of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-corrected cure rates of AQ-AS when compared to AL. Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10% for AQ-AS.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample Size will be determined by N = {\[(Zα/2)/E\]\*2}pq where Where: n=sample size; Zα/2= Z value of a two-tailed test with 95% confidence level=1.96; p represents cure rate, q=1-p, which represents treatment failure rate of; E=precision of 5%||||>0.05
91955200|NCT00297882|183807456|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of AQ-AS compared to AL was assessed by constructing a one-sided, lower limit asymptotic 97.5% CI on the difference of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-corrected cure rates of AQ-AS when compared to AL. Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10% for AQ-AS.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample Size will be determined by N = {\[(Zα/2)/E\]\*2}pq where Where: n=sample size; Zα/2= Z value of a two-tailed test with 95% confidence level=1.96; p represents cure rate, q=1-p, which represents treatment failure rate of; E=precision of 5%||||>0.05
91955201|NCT02118896|183807459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.844|
91955202|NCT02118896|183807459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9321|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.858|
91955203|NCT02118896|183807459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.0000|1.0000|
91955204|NCT02118896|183807459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.949||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.949|0.790|
91955205|NCT02118896|183807459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9607|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|0.995||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.995|0.927|
91955206|NCT02118896|183807459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.985|
91955207|NCT02118896|183807459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.0000|1.0000|
91955208|NCT02118896|183807459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.0000|1.0000|
91955209|NCT02118896|183807459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.933|
91955210|NCT02118896|183807462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8391|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.949||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.949|0.729|
91955211|NCT02118896|183807462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.981||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula..||0.981|0.778|
91955212|NCT02118896|183807462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8816|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|0.981||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.981|0.782|
91955213|NCT02118896|183807462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.7769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.878||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.878|0.675|
91955214|NCT02118896|183807462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.981||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.981|0.693|
91955215|NCT02118896|183807462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9419|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.883|
91955216|NCT02118896|183807462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|1.000|
91955217|NCT02118896|183807462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.970|
91955218|NCT02118896|183807462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.933|
91955219|NCT04242264|183807463|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided Chi-squared test with alpha=0.05 was used to test the null hypothesis that the vaccine efficacy is zero, which is equivalent to testing that the relative risk of shigellosis is one.|Vaccine efficacy|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Chi-squared||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate.|The null hypothesis is that the absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) of preventing shigellosis is zero. The alternative hypothesis is that the absolute VE is greater than zero.||0.96|0.71|<0.001
91955220|NCT04242264|183807464|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate, but no formal hypothesis test was performed.|Vaccine efficacy|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.92||||||||0.92|0.44|
91955221|NCT04242264|183807464|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate, but no formal hypothesis test was performed.|Vaccine efficacy|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||||1.00|0.78|
91955222|NCT04242264|183807464|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate, but no formal hypothesis test was performed.|Vaccine efficacy|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0||||||||1.00|0.71|
91955223|NCT04221373|183807484|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 117.78||SCIM Total Score||||<0.01
91955224|NCT04221373|183807484|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.03||||||treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 5.59||SCIM Total Score||||0.03
91955225|NCT04221373|183807484|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.01||||||treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 8.02||SCIM R \& S scores||||0.01
91955226|NCT04221373|183807484|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 72.49||SCIM R \& S scores||||< 0.01
91955227|NCT04221373|183807485|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.02||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 5.82||LEMS||||0.02
91955228|NCT04221373|183807485|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 33.29||LEMS||||<0.01
91955229|NCT04221373|183807485|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.04||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 4.58||UEMS||||0.04
91955230|NCT04221373|183807485|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 15.34||UEMS||||<0.01
91955231|NCT04221373|183807485|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 8.06||TMS||||<0.01
91955232|NCT04221373|183807485|OTHER|TMS|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 38.91||||||<0.01
91955233|NCT04221373|183807485|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.02||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,21.7) = 6.23||TLTS||||0.02
91955234|NCT04221373|183807485|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.05||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1 26)=4.14||TLTS||||0.05
91955235|NCT04221373|183807486|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.485||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 0.51||Average worst pain intensity||||0.485
91955236|NCT04221373|183807486|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 26.71||Average worst pain intensity||||0.000
91955237|NCT04221373|183807486|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.832||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 0.05||Worst pain interference with day-to-day activities||||0.832
91955238|NCT04221373|183807486|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.033||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 5.21||Worst pain interference with day-to-day activities||||0.033
91955239|NCT04221373|183807486|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.692||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 42) = 0.16||Worst pain interference with overall mood||||0.692
91955240|NCT04221373|183807486|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.005||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 42) = 8.65||Worst pain interference with overall mood||||0.005
91955241|NCT04221373|183807486|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.946||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,21) = 0.01||Worst pain interfered with sleep||||0.946
91955242|NCT04221373|183807486|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.0002||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,21) = 11.94||Worst pain interference with sleep||||0.0002
91955243|NCT04221373|183807487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||Chi-squared|X\^2 (1, N = 23) = 0.35||Baseline||||0.554
91955244|NCT04221373|183807487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Chi-squared|X\^2 (1, N = 23) = 0.004||discharge from acute inpatient rehabilitation (average 2-3 weeks)||||0.949
91955245|NCT00561600|183807506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority of proportion successful with 8% non inferiority margin at 24 months|percentage difference|0.139||||0.872|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.225|||Chi-squared||The upper confidence limit was a priori determined to be a secondary endpoint|A non-inferiority test of the proportion successful for each treatment group will be the primary test of efficacy in this investigation. The null hypothesis is Ho: Xc-Xt ≥ 0.08 and the alternative hypothesis is HA:Xc-Xt \< 0.08 Sample size of 126 per group was needed assuming 93% success rates, this was increased to 150 per group to account for attrition.||.225||0.872
91955246|NCT00561600|183807507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite||||||0.167
91955247|NCT00561600|183807510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
91955248|NCT00561600|183807511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.762
91955249|NCT00561600|183807512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.869
91955250|NCT00561600|183807513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.799
91955251|NCT00561600|183807514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||<0.001
91955252|NCT00561600|183807515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.032
91955253|NCT00561600|183807516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||<0.001
91955254|NCT00561600|183807517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.882
91955255|NCT00561600|183807518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.005
91955256|NCT00561600|183807519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.237
91955257|NCT00561600|183807520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.001
91955258|NCT00561600|183807521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.121
91955259|NCT00561600|183807522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum Cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.012
91955260|NCT00561600|183807523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.103
91955261|NCT00561600|183807524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.001
91955262|NCT00561600|183807525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.300
91955263|NCT00561600|183807526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.079
91955264|NCT00561600|183807527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.766
91955265|NCT00561600|183807528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.018
91955266|NCT00561600|183807529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.689
91955267|NCT00561600|183807530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.048
91955268|NCT00561600|183807531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.782
91955269|NCT00561600|183807532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.061
91955270|NCT00561600|183807533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.957
91955271|NCT04139642|183807539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A mixed-effects model with provider as a random effect and month as a fixed effect was used to test the main effect of arm.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the rate of balance-related diagnosis as a percentage of total visits would be the same between the historical control period, the active control (weight-only), and the intervention (balance+weight), considering provider and month as co-variates.||||<0.0001
91955272|NCT04139642|183807540|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.15||||||Mixed-effects model with provider as a random effect and month as a fixed effect. Statistical significance a priori threshold set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the rate of balance-related referral as a percentage of total visits would be the same between the historical control period, the active control (weight-only), and the intervention (balance+weight), considering provider and month as co-variates.||||=0.15
91955273|NCT01040624|183807542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided binomial test of univariate probability distributions||||||<0.0001
91955274|NCT00577031|183807572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|||||||Signed-rank test|||Change from baseline to last visit||||0.0076
91955275|NCT01569074|183807595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.23||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07|0.39||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||0.39|0.07|0.059
91955276|NCT01569074|183807595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.24||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.39||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.39|0.08|0.054
91955277|NCT01569074|183807595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.06||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|0.08||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.08|-0.20|0.570
91955278|NCT01569074|183807595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.14||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.29||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.29|-0.02|0.262
91955279|NCT01569074|183807596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.11||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.21||Week 1|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.21|0.01|0.172
91955280|NCT01569074|183807596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.06||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.18||Week 1|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.18|-0.05|0.489
91955281|NCT01569074|183807596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.03||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.15||Week 1|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.15|-0.08|0.704
91955282|NCT01569074|183807597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.03|0.31||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.31|0.03|0.114
91955283|NCT01569074|183807597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.21||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.34||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.34|0.08|0.035
91955284|NCT01569074|183807597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.07||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.17|0.02||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.02|-0.17|0.334
91955285|NCT01569074|183807597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.04||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.06||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.06|-0.13|0.645
91955286|NCT01569074|183807598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.12||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.05|0.19||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.19|0.05|0.028
91955287|NCT01569074|183807598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.14||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|0.22||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.22|0.06|0.021
91955288|NCT01569074|183807599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren method stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.073
91955289|NCT01569074|183807599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.065
91955290|NCT01569074|183807599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren method stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.317
91955291|NCT01569074|183807599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.263||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren method stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.263
91955292|NCT01569074|183807600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.94|14.31|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||14.31|1.94|0.033
91955293|NCT01569074|183807600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.92|13.61|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||13.61|1.92|0.033
91955294|NCT01569074|183807600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.89|6.89|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||6.89|0.89|0.257
91955295|NCT01569074|183807600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|5.04|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.04|0.63|0.481
91955296|NCT01569074|183807601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.12|4.2|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||4.20|1.12|0.131
91955297|NCT01569074|183807601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|2.82|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||2.82|0.79|0.423
91955298|NCT01569074|183807601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.67|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.67|0.45|0.781
91955299|NCT01569074|183807601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.95|3.44|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||3.44|0.95|0.239
91955300|NCT01569074|183807602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.06|4.67||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ration \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||4.67|1.06|0.169
91955301|NCT01569074|183807602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.78||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.78|0.45|0.833
91955302|NCT01569074|183807602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|1.54||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.54|0.37|0.614
91955303|NCT01569074|183807602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|1.69||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.69|0.42|0.748
91955304|NCT01569074|183807603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.01||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|5.26|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.26|0.76|0.087
91955305|NCT01569074|183807603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.25||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.91|2.41|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||2.41|-1.91|0.881
91955306|NCT01569074|183807603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.42||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.64|1.8|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.80|-2.64|0.806
91955307|NCT01569074|183807603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.03||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.17|3.23|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||3.23|-1.17|0.548
91955308|NCT01569074|183807604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.12||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|5.82|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.82|0.42|0.139
91955309|NCT01569074|183807604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.47||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|5.07|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.07|-0.13|0.223
91955310|NCT01569074|183807604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.63||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.3|1.04|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.04|-4.30|0.432
91955311|NCT01569074|183807604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.45||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|4.09|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||4.09|-1.19|0.481
91955312|NCT01139801|183807621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|212.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|411.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||411.0|13.3|0.037
91955313|NCT00962013|183807628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin is 7%||||||0.0136|||||||Exact Binomial|||This revision study will demonstrate a 5-year survivorship of the Restoration Modular system not seven percent worse than an expected 95% survival rate using a lower 95% one-sided confidence bound.||||0.0136
91955314|NCT00962013|183807630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from HHS pre-op to HHS 5 year||||<0.0001
91955315|NCT00962013|183807631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from SF-36 Role-Physical pre-op score to 2 and 5 year scores||||<0.0001
91955316|NCT00962013|183807633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial|||Post-surgery femoral stem crack/fracture rate compared to 21% (pre-specified in protocol based on literature rates) Femoral subsidence rate compared to 18% (pre-specified in protocol based on literature rates)||||<0.0001
91955317|NCT02222168|183807651|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 fed' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale.This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio (Fed/Fasted)|95.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.593|126.682|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: fed (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||126.682|72.593|
91955318|NCT02222168|183807651|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 at bed-time' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect treatment was considered as fixed.|Ratio (Bed time/Fasted)|82.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.37|101.639|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: at bed time (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||101.639|66.370|
91955319|NCT02222168|183807652|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 fed' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale.This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio (Fed/Fasted)|107.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.697|119.318|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: fed (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||119.318|96.697|
91955320|NCT02222168|183807652|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 at bed-time' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect treatment was considered as fixed.|Ratio (Bed time/Fasted)|94.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.028|105.875|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: at bed time (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||105.875|85.028|
91955321|NCT02222168|183807653|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 fed' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale.This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio (Fed/Fasted)|107.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.709|119.301|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: fed (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||119.301|96.709|
91955322|NCT02222168|183807653|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 at bed-time' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect treatment was considered as fixed.|Ratio (Bed time/Fasted)|94.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.061|105.921|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: at bed time (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||105.921|85.061|
91955323|NCT00530621|183807654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.544||95.0|0.77|1.65||P-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and time since last chemotherapy.|Log Rank|||||1.65|0.77|0.544
91955324|NCT00530621|183807655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.171||95.0|0.42|1.17||P-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and time since last chemotherapy.|Log Rank|||||1.17|0.42|0.171
91955325|NCT00530621|183807656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.11||||0.01||95.0|1.19|3.75|||Regression, Cox|||||3.75|1.19|0.010
91955326|NCT00530621|183807657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.194||95.0|0.81|2.77||P-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score and time since last chemotherapy.|Log Rank|||||2.77|0.81|0.194
91955327|NCT00530621|183807658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.681|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.681
91955328|NCT02596009|183807662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|30.24|||paired t-test|||||30.24|23.70|<0.0001
91955329|NCT02596009|183807662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.15|58.72|||paired t-test|||||58.72|49.15|<0.0001
91955330|NCT04611152|183807664|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin|Adjusted mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-5.47|-2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization stratification factors, and continuous baseline BCVA and OCT CST.||||-2.17|-5.47|0.4162
91955331|NCT04611152|183807665|NON_INFERIORITY|"The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e. the non-inferiority margin is 10%"|Difference of weighted percentages|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-0.7|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by study identifier and randomization stratification variables.|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||2|-0.7|<0.0001
91955332|NCT04611152|183807666|NON_INFERIORITY|"The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e. the non-inferiority margin is 10%"|Difference of weighted percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.0|0.0|||||Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||0|0|
91955333|NCT01281475|183807670|SUPERIORITY|We modeled each outcome variable as a function of treatment (ie, levodopa versus placebo), visit (ie, baseline vs. 12-month follow-up) and the treatment-by-visit interaction; the interaction term tests whether the effect of levodopa treatment over time is significantly greater than that of the placebo group.||||||0.75||||||This was the calculated p value without correction for multiple comparisons|Generalized estimating equations|||We performed generalized estimating equations with an unstructured covariance matrix to account for inter-correlations within measurements on the same participant over time.||||0.75
91955334|NCT01275170|183807680|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[Renal Impairment/Healthy Control\]|GMR|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|2.39||||||||2.39|1.12|
91955335|NCT01275170|183807680|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|3.18||||||||3.18|1.51|
91955336|NCT01275170|183807680|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.37|7.04||||||||7.04|3.37|
91955337|NCT01275170|183807680|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.45|13.46||||||||13.46|6.45|
91955338|NCT01275170|183807680|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|2.58||||||||2.58|1.20|
91955339|NCT01275170|183807681|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.88||||||||1.88|0.64|
91955340|NCT01275170|183807681|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.77||||||||1.77|0.62|
91955341|NCT01275170|183807681|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|2.2||||||||2.20|0.77|
91955342|NCT01275170|183807681|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|3.96||||||||3.96|1.39|
91955343|NCT01275170|183807681|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.44||||||||1.44|0.50|
91955344|NCT01275170|183807682|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.9||||||||0.90|0.42|
91955345|NCT01275170|183807682|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.66||||||||0.66|0.31|
91955346|NCT01275170|183807682|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.3||||||||0.30|0.14|
91955347|NCT01275170|183807682|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.16||||||||0.16|0.07|
91955348|NCT01275170|183807682|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.84||||||||0.84|0.39|
91955349|NCT01275170|183807683|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.21||||||||1.21|0.82|
91955350|NCT01275170|183807683|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.22||||||||1.22|0.84|
91955351|NCT01275170|183807683|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.08||||||||1.08|0.74|
91955352|NCT01275170|183807683|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.16||||||||1.16|0.79|
91955353|NCT01275170|183807683|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|4.0||||||||4.00|2.70|
91955354|NCT01275170|183807686|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.84||||||||1.84|1.07|
91955355|NCT01275170|183807686|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.99||||||||1.99|1.17|
91955356|NCT01275170|183807686|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|3.26||||||||3.26|1.93|
91955357|NCT01275170|183807686|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.39|4.03||||||||4.03|2.39|
91955358|NCT01275170|183807686|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.29||||||||1.29|0.76|
91955359|NCT01275170|183807687|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.06||||||||2.06|0.65|
91955360|NCT01275170|183807687|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.89||||||||1.89|0.61|
91955361|NCT01275170|183807687|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|2.32||||||||2.32|0.75|
91955362|NCT01275170|183807687|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|4.33||||||||4.33|1.40|
91955363|NCT01275170|183807687|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.51||||||||1.51|0.49|
91955364|NCT01275170|183807688|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.93||||||||0.93|0.54|
91955365|NCT01275170|183807688|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.85||||||||0.85|0.50|
91955366|NCT01275170|183807688|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.52||||||||0.52|0.31|
91955367|NCT01275170|183807688|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.42||||||||0.42|0.25|
91955368|NCT01275170|183807688|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.31||||||||1.31|0.78|
91955369|NCT01275170|183807689|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.08||||||||1.08|0.61|
91955370|NCT01275170|183807689|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.26||||||||1.26|0.72|
91955371|NCT01275170|183807689|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.06||||||||1.06|0.61|
91955372|NCT01275170|183807689|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.09||||||||1.09|0.63|
91955373|NCT01275170|183807689|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|3.36||||||||3.36|1.93|
91955374|NCT01275170|183807692|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.49||||||||2.49|1.03|
91955375|NCT01275170|183807692|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|2.87||||||||2.87|1.21|
91955376|NCT01275170|183807692|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.64|8.59||||||||8.59|3.64|
91955377|NCT01275170|183807692|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|13.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.96|21.12||||||||21.12|8.96|
91955378|NCT01275170|183807692|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.32|5.69||||||||5.69|2.32|
91955379|NCT01275170|183807693|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|2.08||||||||2.08|0.75|
91955380|NCT01275170|183807693|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.87||||||||1.87|0.69|
91955381|NCT01275170|183807693|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|2.44||||||||2.44|0.90|
91955382|NCT01275170|183807693|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|4.09||||||||4.09|1.51|
91955383|NCT01275170|183807693|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.54||||||||1.54|0.57|
91955384|NCT01275170|183807694|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.97||||||||0.97|0.40|
91955385|NCT01275170|183807694|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.83||||||||0.83|0.35|
91955386|NCT01275170|183807694|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.27||||||||0.27|0.12|
91955387|NCT01275170|183807694|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.11||||||||0.11|0.05|
91955388|NCT01275170|183807694|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.43||||||||0.43|0.18|
91955389|NCT01275170|183807695|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.04||||||||1.04|0.62|
91955390|NCT01275170|183807695|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.17||||||||1.17|0.71|
91955391|NCT01275170|183807695|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.03||||||||1.03|0.62|
91955392|NCT01275170|183807695|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|0.97||||||||0.97|0.59|
91955393|NCT01275170|183807695|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|3.65||||||||3.65|2.16|
91955394|NCT01275170|183807701|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|2.15||||||||2.15|1.07|
91955395|NCT01275170|183807701|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.9||||||||0.90|0.45|
91955396|NCT01275170|183807701|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.94||||||||0.94|0.47|
91955397|NCT01275170|183807702|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.83||||||||1.83|0.63|
91955398|NCT01275170|183807702|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.01||||||||1.01|0.35|
91955399|NCT01275170|183807702|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.04||||||||1.04|0.36|
91955400|NCT01275170|183807703|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|3.4||||||||3.40|0.63|
91955401|NCT01275170|183807703|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|2.0||||||||2.00|0.41|
91955402|NCT01275170|183807703|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.78||||||||1.78|0.37|
91955403|NCT04755283|183807736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.314|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.513|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.513|0.192|<0.001
91955404|NCT04755283|183807736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.382|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|0.602|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.602|0.243|<0.001
91955405|NCT04755283|183807737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.263|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.572|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.572|0.121|<0.001
91955406|NCT04755283|183807737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.325||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.663|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.663|0.159|0.001
91955407|NCT04755283|183807738|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.638|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.638|0.332|<0.001
91955408|NCT04755283|183807738|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.912|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.912|0.512|0.010
91955409|NCT03743571|183807761|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.42||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.67, p = 0.42||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.42
91955410|NCT03743571|183807762|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.88||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.02, p = .88.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.88
91955411|NCT03743571|183807763|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.17||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 1.98, p = .17||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.17
91955412|NCT03743571|183807764|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.42||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.67, p = 0.42.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.42
91955413|NCT03743571|183807765|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.88||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.02, p = .88.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.88
91955414|NCT03743571|183807766|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.17||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 1.98, p = .17.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.17
91955415|NCT03743571|183807767|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.67||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,26) = 0.19, p = .67||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on the questionnaires, we completed 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham) and time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up) on outcome measures.||||.67
91955416|NCT03743571|183807768|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.96||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,26) \< .01, p = .96||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on the questionnaires, we completed 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham) and time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up) on outcome measures.||||.96
91955417|NCT03743571|183807769|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham),||||||0.43||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,26) = 0.65, p = .43||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on the questionnaires, we completed 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham) and time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up) on outcome measures.||||.43
91955418|NCT04115488|183807775|EQUIVALENCE|Data was analyzed using a negative binomial model with a logarithmic link function and fixed effects for the treatment group and stratification factors. Equivalence was tested based 95% confidence interval.|Exponentiated Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.944|||||Difference calculated as Tysabri minus PB006.|||0.944|-0.613|
91955419|NCT00972309|183807816|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91955420|NCT05554471|183807853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Hypothesis: the time to ambulation for the subjects using the MYNX CONTROL™ Venous VCD was significantly less than for those where manual compression was used.||||<0.001
91955421|NCT05554471|183807854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: the time to hemostasis for the MYNX CONTROL™ Venous VCD device is at least 5 minutes less than manual compression.||||<0.001
91955422|NCT05554471|183807856|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Hypothesis: The time to discharge eligibility for the subjects using the MYNX CONTROL™ Venous VCD was significantly less than for those where manual compression was used||||<0.001
91955423|NCT02062385|183807870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (Incidence V260 / Incidence Placebo)|69.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|79.7|||Clopper-Pearson|To calculate the confidence interval and associated p-value, an exact conditional method based on a Poisson distribution was used.||V260 will be considered efficacious if the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval for efficacy is \>0% at the final analysis||79.7|54.5|<0.001
91955424|NCT01939834|183807896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91955425|NCT02712359|183807924|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 8 Group minus Havrix 2 doses\_Year 8 Group) of percentage of subjects with anti-HAV antibody concentrations ≥ 15 mIU/mL was to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical non-inferiority limit of -10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-23.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.78|-18.29|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody: To demonstrate that 1-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 8 Group) was non-inferior to the 2-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 2 doses\_Year 8 Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, measured by ELISA, approximately 8 years after the administration of the last vaccine dose.||-18.29|-28.78|<0.0001
91955426|NCT02712359|183807925|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 10 Group minus Havrix 2 doses\_Year 10 Group) of percentage of subjects with anti-HAV antibody concentrations ≥ 15 mIU/mL was to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical non-inferiority limit of -10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-24.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.11|-19.03|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody: To demonstrate that 1-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 10 Group) was non-inferior to the 2-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 2 doses\_Year 10 Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, measured by ELISA, approximately 10 years after the administration of the last vaccine dose.||-19.03|-30.11|<0.0001
91955427|NCT03126682|183807978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212||||||Threshold of \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.212
91955428|NCT00798707|183807979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.69||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare each DVS SR dose to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||1.69|-0.75|0.452
91955429|NCT00798707|183807979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.72||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare each DVS SR dose to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||2.72|0.28|0.016
91955430|NCT00798707|183807980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure. p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.160
91955431|NCT00798707|183807980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure.p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.028
91955432|NCT00798707|183807981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.39|-0.01|0.066
91955433|NCT00798707|183807981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.41|0.01|0.038
91955434|NCT00798707|183807982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.68|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||2.68|-0.68|0.242
91955435|NCT00798707|183807982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||3.73|0.39|0.016
91955436|NCT00798707|183807983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.80|-0.62|0.802
91955437|NCT00798707|183807983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||1.43|0.01|0.048
91955438|NCT00798707|183807984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.363||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.99|0.93|0.1099
91955439|NCT00798707|183807984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||2.32|1.09|0.0154
91955440|NCT00798707|183807985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.41|0.54|0.5929
91955441|NCT00798707|183807985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.474||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||2.29|0.95|0.0852
91955442|NCT00798707|183807986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.277||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||1.89|0.86|0.2232
91955443|NCT00798707|183807986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.827||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||2.69|1.24|0.0022
91955444|NCT00798707|183807987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.158||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||1.67|0.80|0.4313
91955445|NCT00798707|183807987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.372||||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||1.97|0.95|0.0888
91955446|NCT00798707|183807989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.29|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score.||2.29|-0.10|0.073
91955447|NCT00798707|183807989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score.||2.24|-0.12|0.078
91955448|NCT00798707|183807989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score.||0.73|-0.13|0.176
91955449|NCT00798707|183807989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score.||0.77|-0.08|0.109
91955450|NCT00798707|183807989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life component score.||0.84|-0.02|0.064
91955451|NCT00798707|183807989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life component score.||0.78|-0.07|0.104
91955452|NCT00798707|183807989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|5.57|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score.||5.57|-2.98|0.538
91955453|NCT00798707|183807989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.62|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score||2.62|-1.76|0.689
91955454|NCT00798707|183807990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.05|-1.67|0.066
91955455|NCT00798707|183807990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-1.48|0.150
91955456|NCT00798707|183807991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.951||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||1.78|0.51|0.8758
91955457|NCT00798707|183807991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.165||||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||2.21|0.61|0.6397
91955458|NCT00798707|183807993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 8 (or ET).||||0.847
91955459|NCT00798707|183807993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 8 (or ET).||||0.847
91955460|NCT00798707|183807993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 9 (or ET + 1 week).||||0.720
91955461|NCT00798707|183807993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 9 (or ET + 1 week).||||0.720
91955462|NCT00798707|183807993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 10 (or ET + 2 weeks).||||0.720
91955463|NCT00798707|183807993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 10 (or ET + 2 weeks).||||0.720
91955464|NCT01299272|183808015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.485
91955465|NCT00464308|183808044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.11|||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Tests were 2-sided except for the non-inferiority test which was 1-sided.|Non-inferiority||Assumed that the true resolution rates in the rab20 and eso40 groups would be 30% (0.3). Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
91955466|NCT00464308|183808047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based upon the number of patients acheiveing complete resolution of HEARTBURN. A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.051|||<|0.05||95.0||||All statistical tests were interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).|non-inferiority||Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
91955467|NCT00464308|183808048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based upon the number of patients acheiveing complete resolution of HEARTBURN. A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.053|||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Tests were 2-sided except for the non-inferiority test which was 1-sided.|non-inferiority||Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
91955468|NCT00464308|183808049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based upon the number of patients acheiveing complete resolution of HEARTBURN. A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.061|||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Tests were 2-sided except for the non-inferiority test which was 1-sided.|non-inferiority||Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
91955469|NCT03926728|183808071|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs D \[D1, D2\].||||1
91955470|NCT03926728|183808071|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs E \[E1, E2\].||||1
91955471|NCT03926728|183808071|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs F \[F1, F2\].||||0.0007
91955472|NCT03926728|183808074|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs A2.||||1
91955473|NCT03926728|183808074|OTHER|||||||0.3956|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs F1.||||0.3956
91955474|NCT03926728|183808075|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs A2.||||1
91955475|NCT03926728|183808075|OTHER|||||||0.3956|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs F1.||||0.3956
91955476|NCT03926728|183808077|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs D \[D1, D2\].||||1
91955477|NCT03926728|183808077|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs E \[E1, E2\].||||1
91955478|NCT03926728|183808077|OTHER|||||||0.3229|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs F \[F1, F2\].||||0.3229
91955479|NCT01107834|183808099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.27
91955480|NCT01107834|183808100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.46
91955481|NCT01107834|183808101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.13
91955482|NCT01107834|183808102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.59
91955483|NCT01107834|183808103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.09
91955484|NCT01107834|183808104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.03
91955485|NCT03722849|183808105|OTHER||||||=|0.0028||||||No multiple comparisons as region of interest analysis defined a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests for non-parametric data||||=0.0028
91955486|NCT03722849|183808106|OTHER||||||=|0.007||||||No multiple comparisons as region of interest analysis defined a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests for non-parametric data||||=0.0070
91955487|NCT03722849|183808107|OTHER|Group comparisons (Cough versus healthy) for each measurement using repeated measures ANOVA.|||||=|0.0019|||||||ANOVA|with repeated measures||||||=0.0019
91955488|NCT03722849|183808109|OTHER|Group-wise comparisons using unpaired t-tests or one way ANOVA|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91955489|NCT03993288|183808110|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean value calculated by the least squares method did not exceed the predetermined boundary of non-inferiority of 5 g/L|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|4.38|||ANCOVA|||||4.38|-4.86|0.0032
91955490|NCT03533608|183808125|OTHER|Descriptive|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.51|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91955491|NCT03533608|183808126|OTHER|Descriptive|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91955492|NCT00915473|183808127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.98
91955493|NCT00915473|183808128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Severe Migraine Frequency||||0.52
91955494|NCT00915473|183808128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At least Moderate Migraine Frequency||||0.52
91955495|NCT00915473|183808128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Least Mild Migraine Frequency||||0.47
91955496|NCT00915473|183808129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
91955497|NCT00915473|183808130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
91955498|NCT01389024|183808131|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.216||||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.009|1.66|||Poisson Regression||We calculated confidence intervals from exact Poisson regression.|||1.66|.009|0.2914
91955499|NCT00529802|183808143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.23|||t-test, 2 sided|Relative changes in tumor size were log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption for the t-test.|Mean difference is the difference between Low and High SUV uptake groups in tumor size percent (%) change from baseline, and is reported on the raw scale. Tumor size changes were log-transformed for the t-test.|Relative changes in tumor size were log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption.||13.23|-9.3|0.69
91955500|NCT00529802|183808144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00109||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00063|0.004997|||Regression, Linear|Tumor size change (outcome variable) was log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption.|Outcome was log(tumor size at 8 weeks/tumor size at baseline), and the predictor was the early change in aveSUVmax \[(aveSUVmax at 2 weeks - aveSUVmax at baseline)/aveSUVmax at baseline\] x 100%.|The relationship between early changes in SUV uptake (from baseline to 2 weeks) and tumor size changes (from baseline to 8 weeks) were examined using linear regression models. Tumor size change was log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption.||0.004997|0.00063|0.013
91955501|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis - PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91955502|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.7||||||95.0|-4.8|3.3||||||For Pertussis - PTf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥26.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||3.3|-4.8|
91955503|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91955504|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-2.3||||||95.0|-6.4|1.7||||||For Pertussis - FHAf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥36.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.7|-6.4|
91955505|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥7.82 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91955506|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Pertussis - PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
91955507|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.1||||||95.0|-1.4|6.8||||||For Pertussis - PTf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (17.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||6.8|-1.4|
91955508|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
91955509|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (7.82 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
91955510|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-3.0||||||95.0|-8.0|2.5||||||For Pertussis - FHAf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (75.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.5|-8.0|
91955511|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-8.0||||||95.0|-14.9|-1.2||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||-1.2|-14.9|
91955512|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91955513|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.7||||||95.0|-3.7|9.2||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||9.2|-3.7|
91955514|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
91955515|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-3.1|1.8||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.8|-3.1|
91955516|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
91955517|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-2.3||||||95.0|-5.8|1.8||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.8|-5.8|
91955518|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
91955519|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-2.3||||||95.0|-7.6|3.0||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||3.0|-7.6|
91955520|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.3||||||95.0|-11.4|2.6||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||2.6|-11.4|
91955521|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.3||||||95.0|-5.0|4.3||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||4.3|-5.0|
91955522|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-3.6|3.5||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||3.5|-3.6|
91955523|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-3.1|3.0||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||3.0|-3.1|
91955524|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-3.1|1.9||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||1.9|-3.1|
91955525|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-3.2|5.0||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||5.0|-3.2|
91955526|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.5||||||95.0|-13.2|4.4||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||4.4|-13.2|
91955527|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.8||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||2.8|-1.7|
91955528|NCT00366678|183808150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.2||||||95.0|-3.1|4.5||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||4.5|-3.1|
91955529|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.9||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.9|-1.7|
91955530|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.9|4.9||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.9|-0.9|
91955531|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-4.9|2.1||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.1|-4.9|
91955532|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.8|3.8||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.8|-1.8|
91955533|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.4||||||95.0|-1.1|5.9||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||5.9|-1.1|
91955534|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.1||||||95.0|-5.8|2.7||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.7|-5.8|
91955535|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.9||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.9|-1.7|
91955536|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.8|3.3||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.3|-1.8|
91955537|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.3|3.0||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.0|-3.3|
91955538|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.5|2.4||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.4|-2.5|
91955539|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-1.8|4.4||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.4|-1.8|
91955540|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-4.9|2.1||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.1|-4.9|
91955541|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.8|3.8||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.8|-1.8|
91955542|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.3||||||95.0|-1.1|5.7||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||5.7|-1.1|
91955543|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.5|2.8||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.8|-5.5|
91955544|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.2||||||95.0|-3.1|4.7||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.7|-3.1|
91955545|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-2.9|5.4||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||5.4|-2.9|
91955546|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.3||||||95.0|-5.5|4.4||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.4|-5.5|
91955547|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.8|3.9||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.9|-1.8|
91955548|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-1.9|4.4||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.4|-1.9|
91955549|NCT00366678|183808151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-4.1|3.7||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.7|-4.1|
91955550|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.73|1.03||||||For serotype 4 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.03|0.73|
91955551|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83||||||95.0|0.67|1.03||||||For serotype 4 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.03|0.67|
91955552|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.04||||||95.0|0.86|1.26||||||For serotype 4 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.26|0.86|
91955553|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.77|1.13||||||For serotype 6B after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.13|0.77|
91955554|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.07||||||95.0|0.82|1.4||||||For serotype 6B after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.40|0.82|
91955555|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.69|1.1||||||For serotype 6B after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.10|0.69|
91955556|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.68|0.94||||||For serotype 9V after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.94|0.68|
91955557|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.71||||||95.0|0.59|0.85||||||For serotype 9V after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.85|0.59|
91955558|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.13||||||95.0|0.95|1.33||||||For serotype 9V after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.33|0.95|
91955559|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.73|1.06||||||For serotype 14 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.06|0.73|
91955560|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.58|0.9||||||For serotype 14 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.90|0.58|
91955561|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.22||||||95.0|1.0|1.49||||||For serotype 14 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.49|1.00|
91955562|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.69|0.97||||||For serotype 18C after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.97|0.69|
91955563|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.69|1.08||||||For serotype 18C after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.08|0.69|
91955564|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.78|1.15||||||For serotype 18C after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.15|0.78|
91955565|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.26||||||95.0|1.0|1.59||||||For serotype 19F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.59|1.00|
91955566|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.91||||||95.0|0.68|1.2||||||For serotype 19F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.20|0.68|
91955567|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.39||||||95.0|1.08|1.79||||||For serotype 19F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.79|1.08|
91955568|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.81||||||95.0|0.67|1.0||||||For serotype 23F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.00|0.67|
91955569|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.67|1.07||||||For serotype 23F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.07|0.67|
91955570|NCT00366678|183808152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.78|1.19||||||For serotype 23F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.19|0.78|
91955571|NCT00366678|183808155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.66|0.9||||||For Diphtheria the GMC ratio was calculated||0.90|0.66|
91955572|NCT00366678|183808155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.82|1.08||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio was calculated||1.08|0.82|
91955573|NCT00366678|183808155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.67|0.97||||||For Diphtheria the GMC ratio was calculated||0.97|0.67|
91955574|NCT00366678|183808155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.69|1.08||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio was calculated||1.08|0.69|
91955575|NCT00366678|183808156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.91||||||95.0|0.73|1.14||||||For Hib (PRP) the GMC ratio was calculated||1.14|0.73|
91955576|NCT00366678|183808156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.04||||||95.0|0.82|1.32||||||For Hib (PRP) the GMC ratio was calculated||1.32|0.82|
91955577|NCT00366678|183808157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.71|1.09||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.09|0.71|
91955578|NCT00366678|183808157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.66|1.03||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.03|0.66|
91955579|NCT00366678|183808157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.78||||||95.0|0.59|1.02||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.02|0.59|
91955580|NCT00366678|183808157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.72|1.41||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.41|0.72|
91955581|NCT00366678|183808157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.72|1.34||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.34|0.72|
91955582|NCT00366678|183808157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.84||||||95.0|0.6|1.17||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.17|0.60|
91955583|NCT00366678|183808158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.78|0.98||||||For Pertussis - FHA the GMC ratio was calculated||0.98|0.78|
91955584|NCT00366678|183808158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.92||||||95.0|0.84|1.02||||||For Pertussis - PT the GMC ratio was calculated||1.02|0.84|
91955585|NCT00366678|183808158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.72|1.0||||||For Pertussis - FHA the GMC ratio was calculated||1.00|0.72|
91955586|NCT00366678|183808158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.99||||||95.0|0.86|1.14||||||For Pertussis - PT the GMC ratio was calculated||1.14|0.86|
91955587|NCT01900392|183808163|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.1
91955588|NCT00315328|183808166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels ( from baseline to the outcome examination).||||0.96
91955589|NCT00315328|183808167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests used to assess treatment group differences in change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels ( from baseline to the outcome examination) among those with anisometropia only.||||0.78
91955590|NCT00315328|183808168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels ( from baseline to the outcome examination) among patients with strabismus or combined mechanism only.||||0.99
91955591|NCT00315328|183808169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To evaluate WITHIN each treatment group whether stereoacuity changed from baseline to outcome a Wilcoxon sign-rank test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of change from baseline was zero||||.04
91955592|NCT00315328|183808169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To evaluate WITHIN each treatment group whether stereoacuity changed from baseline to outcome a Wilcoxon sign-rank test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of change from baseline was zero||||0.003
91955593|NCT00315328|183808170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Positive mean favors atropine group.||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the parent questionnaire subscale scores at 17 weeks - Social Stigma subscale.||||<0.01
91955594|NCT00315328|183808171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Positive mean favors atropine group.||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the parent questionnaire subscale scores at 17 weeks - Compliance subscale.||||<0.01
91955595|NCT00315328|183808172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the parent questionnaire subscale scores at 17 weeks - Adverse events subscale.||||0.70
91955596|NCT00315328|183808173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||||95.0|-0.03|0.17||||||95% confidence interval constructed on the treatment group difference in proportion with amblyopic eye visual acuity 20/25 or better at 17 weeks.||0.17|-0.03|
91955597|NCT00315328|183808175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||||95.0|-0.02|0.18||||||95% confidence interval constructed on the treatment group difference of the proportion improving 15 or more letters from baseline to 17 weeks.||0.18|-0.02|
91955598|NCT00315328|183808176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Treatment equivalence was to be declared if the ends of the 2 1-sided 95% confidence intervals constructed on the difference between adjusted mean visual acuity scores were completely contained within the designated equivalence interval of +/- 5 letters.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||||95.0|-0.7|3.1|||ANCOVA|||The trial was designed to evaluate whether patching and atropine are equivalent treatments for amblyopia in children 7 to 12 years old. The sample size was computed based on a standard deviation of 17-week visual acuity scores of 10 letters, correlation between outcome and baseline visual acuity scores of 0.30 and 10% loss to follow up.||3.1|-0.7|
91955599|NCT00315328|183808179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||95% confidence interval constructed on the treatment group difference of mean change in fellow eye visual acuity from baseline to 17 weeks, adjusted for baseline fellow eye visual acuity.||2.2|0.4|
91955600|NCT00826176|183808181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||upper limit of tolerance interval (min.)|6.4||||||95.0|||||||The tolerance interval (TI) refers to a fixed proportion (in this trial set to 95%) of the population with a stated confidence (in this trial, 95%). Efficacy was to be claimed in case the upper limit of TI was below the prespecified margin of 10 min.|||||
91955601|NCT00826176|183808181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||upper limit of tolerance interval (min.)|3.2||||||95.0|||||||The tolerance interval (TI) refers to a fixed proportion (in this trial set to 95%) of the population with a stated confidence (in this trial, 95%). Efficacy was to be claimed in case the upper limit of TI was below the prespecified margin of 10 min.|||||
91955602|NCT00826176|183808181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two subject populations was to be claimed in the event that the two-sided 95% confidence interval was entirely within the interval ranging from -60 to +60 seconds.|median difference (seconds)|49.0||||||95.0|30.0|72.0|||||The estimated median difference (Chinese minus Caucasian) in time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9.|||72|30|
91955603|NCT00448630|183808186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||We hypothesize that atypical antipsychotic therapy effects the metabolic syndrome parameters, particularly body mass index.||||<0.001
91955604|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.490
91955605|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91955606|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.006
91955607|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91955608|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.003
91955609|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91955610|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.050
91955611|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0012
91955612|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0078
91955613|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91955614|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0133
91955615|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0142||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0142
91955616|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0265||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0265
91955617|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1613||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1613
91955618|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2644||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2644
91955619|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||5e-06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000005
91955620|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7385||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7385
91955621|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91955622|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6813||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6813
91955623|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0024
91955624|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2237||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2237
91955625|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5774||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5774
91955626|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000001
91955627|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2502||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2502
91955628|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5224||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5224
91955629|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91955630|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91955631|NCT00448630|183808187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8166||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8166
91955632|NCT00448630|183808188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||We hypothesize that atypical antipsychotic therapy effects the metabolic syndrome parameters, particularly body mass index.||||<0.001
91955633|NCT00448630|183808189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||<0.001
91955634|NCT00448630|183808190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.544
91955635|NCT00448630|183808191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.245
91955636|NCT00448630|183808192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.362
91955637|NCT00448630|183808193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.176
91955638|NCT00448630|183808194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||<0.001
91955639|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.524||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.524
91955640|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91955641|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.005
91955642|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91955643|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.009
91955644|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91955645|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.047
91955646|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
91955647|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0057||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0057
91955648|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9e-05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00009
91955649|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0201||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0201
91955650|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0095||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0095
91955651|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0386
91955652|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1976||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1976
91955653|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2383||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2383
91955654|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||2e-05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00002
91955655|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8297||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8297
91955656|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9081||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9081
91955657|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7386
91955658|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0024
91955659|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2587||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2587
91955660|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6263||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6263
91955661|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000001
91955662|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2589||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2589
91955663|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5153||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5153
91955664|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
91955665|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91955666|NCT00448630|183808195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8952||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8952
91955667|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.197
91955668|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.010
91955669|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.012
91955670|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91955671|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.282||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.282
91955672|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.040
91955673|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.004
91955674|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0193||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0193
91955675|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0065||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0065
91955676|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91955677|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3172||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3172
91955678|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0116||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0116
91955679|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0016
91955680|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2600
91955681|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2309||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2309
91955682|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0063
91955683|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8158||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8158
91955684|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3968||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3968
91955685|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7193||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7193
91955686|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0127||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0127
91955687|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2351||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2351
91955688|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5672||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5672
91955689|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00009
91955690|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1774||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1774
91955691|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6082||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6082
91955692|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
91955693|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0014
91955694|NCT00448630|183808196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5587||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5587
91955695|NCT00448630|183808197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.077
91955696|NCT00448630|183808197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.039
91955697|NCT00448630|183808197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.978||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.978
91955698|NCT00448630|183808197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91955699|NCT00448630|183808197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.593||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.593
91955700|NCT00448630|183808197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.987||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.987
91955701|NCT00448630|183808197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.174
91955702|NCT04662086|183808198|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Linear mixed-effects regression model|||A generalized linear mixed effects model with parameterization was utilized to capture the difference in change in viral shedding at day 10 between treatment arms. SARS-CoV2 viral RNA CT values were transformed using a standard Reference curve.||||0.20
91955703|NCT04662086|183808199|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.04||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model|Two-sided Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, and receipt of baseline receipt of monoclonal antibodies.||A two-sided log rank test at the 0.04999 level of significance for the final analysis required 78 events (i.e., sustained symptom resolution) to provide 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.91. Based on previous outpatient COVID-19 trials at Stanford, assumed placebo and treatment arm median time to symptom resolution of 10 and 5 days, respectively, for a total sample size of 120 patients. Participants with missing data lasting through Day 28 were censored on Day 28.||1.04|0.34|0.07
91955704|NCT04662086|183808201|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.01|||Linear mixed-effects regression model|||||1.01|0.38|0.05
91955705|NCT04662086|183808202|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.01||||||||1.01|0.34|
91955706|NCT04662086|183808203|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence of ED visits||||0.21
91955707|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #1 is for the genetic mutation TP53.||||0.035
91955708|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #2 is for ASXL1 genetic mutation||||0.72
91955709|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #3 is for SRSF2 genetic mutation||||0.28
91955710|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #4 is for IDH2 genetic mutation||||0.14
91955711|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #5 is for DNMT3A genetic mutation||||0.3
91955712|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #6 is for SF3B1 genetic mutation||||0.183
91955713|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #7 is for RUNX1 genetic mutation||||0.42
91955714|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #8 is for TET2 genetic mutation||||0.36
91955715|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #9 is for IDH1 genetic mutation||||0.1
91955716|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #10 is for NPM1 genetic mutation||||1
91955717|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #11 is for NRAS genetic mutation||||0.17
91955718|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||-Statistical analysis #12 is for U2AF1 genetic mutation||||1
91955719|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #13 is for MY05B genetic mutation||||0.6
91955720|NCT01687400|183808205|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #14 is for WT1 genetic mutation||||1
91955721|NCT01687400|183808206|SUPERIORITY||Overall Response Rate-for current study|0.744|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.836|||Chi-squared|1-sample Chi-square test to compare the overall response rate (ORR) to historical control (with ORR=0.25)||-The historical control of a 5-day regimen (Cashen et al 2010 JCO = NCT00358644) showed 25% (14 out of 55 participants) in overall response rate||0.836|0.652|<0.0001
91955722|NCT01687400|183808206|SUPERIORITY||Complete response rate-for current study|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.741|||Chi-squared|1-sample Chi-square test to compare the complete response rate to historical control (with CR=0.24)||-The historical control of a 5-day regimen (Cashen et al 2010 JCO = NCT00358644) showed 24% (13 out of 55 participants) in complete response rate.||0.741|0.538|<0.0001
91955723|NCT04253756|183808219|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority (Delta) was 5g/dl|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
91955724|NCT04253756|183808220|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin (Delta) was 10 minutes of run time, no other key parameters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
91955725|NCT03731325|183808224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||This mean difference represents the main effect of time from baseline to 15 weeks, regardless of group|Change in parent BMI from baseline at 8,11 to 15 weeks||||<0.01
91955726|NCT03731325|183808225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of time|ANOVA||This is the main effect of weight change at week 15, e.g. average weight change from baseline to week 15 in the entire sample of parents|repeated measures analysis of variance for time (0,8,11,15 weeks) for weight change (lbs)||||0.003
91955727|NCT03731325|183808226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||average difference in BMI percentile for entire sample|Repeated measures ANOVA for child BMI percentile at 0, 8, 11 and 15 weeks||||0.06
91955728|NCT03731325|183808227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||average change in delay discounting measure area under the curve for all participants (parents and children) in both groups from baseline to week 15|repeated measures ANOVA, reporting repeated measures effect only||||0.07
91955729|NCT03731325|183808228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Difference between weight at baseline and week 15 in lbs for all children, regardless of group|||||0.64
91955730|NCT00539006|183808243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001||95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FFNS - Mean Change in Placebo|FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2 compared with Placebo FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2.||-0.6|-1.5|<0.001
91955731|NCT00539006|183808243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.004||95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FPNS - Mean Change in Placebo|FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2 compared with Placebo FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2.||-0.2|-1.1|0.004
91955732|NCT00539006|183808244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH): stratified approximation to Prescotts test; variation of chi-square test for treatment sequence/subjects no preference.||Statistical analysis applies to FFNS and FPNS categories.||||<0.001
91955733|NCT03733301|183808248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.85|0.92|0.082
91955734|NCT03733301|183808248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.56|1.38|0.004
91955735|NCT03733301|183808249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.76|1.44|0.002
91955736|NCT03733301|183808249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.97|1.80|< 0.001
91955737|NCT03733301|183808250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.59|0.574
91955738|NCT03733301|183808250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.20|1.02|0.045
91955739|NCT03733301|183808251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.256||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.42|-2.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.73|-23.42|0.013
91955740|NCT03733301|183808251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.259|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|-11.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.78|-32.48|<0.001
91955741|NCT03733301|183808252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.81|0.61|0.364
91955742|NCT03733301|183808252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|6.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.34|1.15|0.022
91955743|NCT03733301|183808253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|5.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.61|1.48|0.002
91955744|NCT03733301|183808253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.46|1.98|<0.001
91955745|NCT03733301|183808254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.23|<0.001
91955746|NCT03733301|183808254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-1.33|<0.001
91955747|NCT03733301|183808255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.78|<0.001
91955748|NCT03733301|183808255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.30|-2.30|<0.001
91955749|NCT03733301|183808256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.49|1.47|<0.001
91955750|NCT03733301|183808256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.32|2.00|<0.001
91955751|NCT03733301|183808257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|5.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.31|0.32|0.715
91955752|NCT03733301|183808257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|10.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.56|0.86|0.083
91955753|NCT03733301|183808258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.663||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|-3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.24|-13.72|0.002
91955754|NCT03733301|183808258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|-9.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.14|-19.62|<0.001
91955755|NCT03733301|183808259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|19.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.37|0.53|0.204
91955756|NCT03733301|183808259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.99||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|38.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.53|1.27|0.025
91955757|NCT03733301|183808260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.87|-14.07|<0.001
91955758|NCT03733301|183808260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.584|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.78|-6.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.61|-16.78|<0.001
91955759|NCT03733301|183808261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.721
91955760|NCT03733301|183808261|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91955761|NCT03733301|183808262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.149||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.87|-17.65|||ANOVA|||||-17.65|-112.87|0.0073
91955762|NCT03733301|183808262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.038||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.43|-43.85|||ANOVA|||||-43.85|-138.43|0.0002
91955763|NCT03733301|183808263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.658|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.27|-25.60|< 0.001
91955764|NCT03733301|183808263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.672|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.42|-15.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.03|-33.42|< 0.001
91955765|NCT03733301|183808264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-4.96|0.006
91955766|NCT03733301|183808264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.043|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.18|-7.28|< 0.001
91955767|NCT03733301|183808265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.63|0.005
91955768|NCT03733301|183808265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.75|< 0.001
91955769|NCT03733301|183808266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||0.10|-1.57|0.083
91955770|NCT03733301|183808266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||-0.19|-1.85|0.016
91955771|NCT03733301|183808266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||0.00|-1.63|0.051
91955772|NCT03733301|183808266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||-0.10|-1.72|0.028
91955773|NCT03733301|183808267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.832||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-3.56|0.022
91955774|NCT03733301|183808267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.68|-4.94|< 0.001
91955775|NCT03733301|183808268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.569||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism||7.08|-3.06|0.435
91955776|NCT03733301|183808268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.569||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism||6.04|-4.10|0.706
91955777|NCT03733301|183808268|SUPERIORITY|Presenteeism|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.384||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.78|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.54|-16.78|0.066
91955778|NCT03733301|183808268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.336||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism||-2.17|-19.30|0.014
91955779|NCT03733301|183808268|SUPERIORITY|Work Productivity Loss|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.511||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-16.84|0.081
91955780|NCT03733301|183808268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.473||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.55|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work productivity Loss||1.88|-19.55|0.018
91955781|NCT03733301|183808268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.511||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.71|-2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment||-2.89|-16.71|0.006
91955782|NCT03733301|183808268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.39|-3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment||-3.61|-17.39|0.003
91955783|NCT03733301|183808269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index US||0.06|-0.01|0.176
91955784|NCT03733301|183808269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index US||0.09|0.02|0.004
91955785|NCT03733301|183808269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index UK||0.08|-0.01|0.176
91955786|NCT03733301|183808269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index UK||0.12|0.02|0.003
91955787|NCT03733301|183808270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|9.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.23|-0.98|0.113
91955788|NCT03733301|183808270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.592||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|11.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.16|0.96|0.020
91955789|NCT03733301|183808271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|18.36|||ANCOVA|||||18.36|1.46|0.022
91955790|NCT03733301|183808271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|25.88|||ANCOVA|||||25.88|8.79|< 0.001
91955791|NCT03733301|183808272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.03|1.46|0.006
91955792|NCT03733301|183808272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|11.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.87|1.77|0.002
91955793|NCT01965431|183808273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is the maximum acceptable extent of statistical and clinical noninferiority of an experimental treatment. Non-inferiority margin for this trial is 10ms.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.37|10.43|||||Maximum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|||10.43|5.37|
91955794|NCT01965431|183808274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.32|16.08|||||Maximum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|No formal hypothesis testing was done.||16.08|9.32|
91955795|NCT01965431|183808275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|1.73|||||Maximum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|No formal hypothesis testing was done.||1.73|-1.38|
91955796|NCT01965431|183808276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.98|-2.87|||||Minimum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|No formal hypothesis testing was done.||-2.87|-5.98|
91955797|NCT04636437|183808304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|3.92||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 48.||3.92|-1.20|0.23
91955798|NCT04636437|183808304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.34|1.57||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 48.||1.57|-3.34|0.41
91955799|NCT04636437|183808305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.99|2.64||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 24.||2.64|-0.99|0.31
91955800|NCT04636437|183808305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.76|-0.21||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 24.||-0.21|-3.76|0.012
91955801|NCT04636437|183808306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.33|4.77||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 48.||4.77|-1.33|0.20
91955802|NCT04636437|183808306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.43|1.44||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 48.||1.44|-4.43|0.25
91955803|NCT04636437|183808307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.23|2.9||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 24.||2.90|-3.23|0.90
91955804|NCT04636437|183808307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.47|1.51||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 24.||1.51|-4.47|0.26
91955805|NCT04636437|183808308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.2|24.59||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 48.||24.59|-22.2|0.91
91955806|NCT04636437|183808308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.7|15.47||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 48.||15.47|-29.7|0.48
91955807|NCT04636437|183808309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-48.6|18.2||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 24.||18.20|-48.6|0.30
91955808|NCT04636437|183808309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-51.8|14.76||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 24.||14.76|-51.8|0.21
91955809|NCT04636437|183808310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.84||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.4|8.72||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 48.||8.72|-14.4|0.58
91955810|NCT04636437|183808310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.88||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.0|4.2||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 48.||4.20|-18.0|0.16
91955811|NCT04636437|183808311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.1|6.27||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 24.||6.27|-12.1|0.47
91955812|NCT04636437|183808311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-24.2|-5.91||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 24.||-5.91|-24.2|<0.001
91955813|NCT04636437|183808312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.17|7.77||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 48.||7.77|-6.17|0.79
91955814|NCT04636437|183808312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.46||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.1|1.16||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 48.||1.16|-12.1|0.063
91955815|NCT04636437|183808313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.38||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.21|1.45||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 24.||1.45|-4.21|0.27
91955816|NCT04636437|183808313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.25|-2.66||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 24.||-2.66|-8.25|<0.001
91955817|NCT04636437|183808314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.55||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.3|13.44||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 48.||13.44|-10.3|0.77
91955818|NCT04636437|183808314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.23||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.7|6.2||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 48.||6.20|-16.7|0.30
91955819|NCT04636437|183808315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.78|9.15||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 24.||9.15|-8.78|0.96
91955820|NCT04636437|183808315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.2|2.55||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 24.||2.55|-15.2|0.11
91955821|NCT04636437|183808316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.07||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.93|21.06||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 48.||21.06|-4.93|0.16
91955822|NCT04636437|183808316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.89||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.37|21.15||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 48.||21.15|-3.37|0.10
91955823|NCT04636437|183808317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.28||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.42|14.99||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 24.||14.99|-6.42|0.37
91955824|NCT04636437|183808317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|10.77||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 24.||10.77|-10.0|0.94
91955825|NCT04636437|183808318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.77||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.08|7.63||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 48.||7.63|-2.08|0.20
91955826|NCT04636437|183808318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.44|6.87||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 48.||6.87|-2.44|0.28
91955827|NCT04636437|183808319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.68|5.25||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 24.||5.25|-1.68|0.24
91955828|NCT04636437|183808319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.91|2.78||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 24.||2.78|-3.91|0.70
91955829|NCT04636437|183808321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of Grade ≥3 AEs from entry to week 48.||||0.43
91955830|NCT04636437|183808321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of Grade ≥3 AEs from entry to week 48.||||0.26
91955831|NCT04636437|183808322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of \>10% reduction in CrCl from entry to week 48.||||0.008
91955832|NCT04636437|183808322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of \>10% reduction in CrCl from entry to week 48.||||0.068
91955833|NCT04636437|183808323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of premature discontinuation of study treatment from entry to week 48.||||0.20
91955834|NCT04636437|183808323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of premature discontinuation of study treatment from entry to week 48.||||0.56
91955835|NCT04636437|183808324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.43||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.62|8.47||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry total fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in total fat from entry to week 48.||8.47|-1.62|0.13
91955836|NCT04636437|183808324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.89|4.72||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry total fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in total fat from entry to week 48.||4.72|-4.89|0.97
91955837|NCT04636437|183808325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.18|2.8||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lean mass from entry to week 48.||2.80|-2.18|0.78
91955838|NCT04636437|183808325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.24||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.11|3.59||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lean mass from entry to week 48.||3.59|-1.11|0.23
91955839|NCT04636437|183808326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.71||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.48|9.9||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry trunk fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in trunk fat from entry to week 48.||9.90|-2.48|0.18
91955840|NCT04636437|183808326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.23|4.53||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry trunk fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in trunk fat from entry to week 48.||4.53|-7.23|0.60
91955841|NCT04636437|183808327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.45|9.83||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in limb fat from entry to week 48.|Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry limb fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|9.83|-1.45|0.094
91955842|NCT04636437|183808327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.76||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.59|7.11||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in limb fat from entry to week 48.|Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry limb fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|7.11|-3.59|0.46
91955843|NCT04636437|183808328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.19|6.56||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry appendicular lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in appendicular lean mass from entry to week 48.||6.56|-2.19|0.26
91955844|NCT04636437|183808328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.15||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.96|7.25||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry appendicular lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in appendicular lean mass from entry to week 48.||7.25|-0.96|0.084
91955845|NCT04636437|183808329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.57|2.13||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry hip bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in hip bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||2.13|-0.57|0.19
91955846|NCT04636437|183808329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.93|0.66||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry hip bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in hip bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||0.66|-1.93|0.27
91955847|NCT04636437|183808330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.57|2.58||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lumbar spine bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lumbar spine bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||2.58|-1.57|0.58
91955848|NCT04636437|183808330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.93|2.03||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lumbar spine bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lumbar spine bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||2.03|-1.93|0.95
91955849|NCT01821391|183808335|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2665|||||||Paired Student's t test|||||||=0.2665
91955850|NCT03417102|183808342|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.092|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.192||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during EP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.192|0.044|<0.0001
91955851|NCT03417102|183808344|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.108|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.207||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during TP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.207|0.056|<0.0001
91955852|NCT03417102|183808346|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.056|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.121||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during EP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.121|0.026|<0.0001
91955853|NCT03417102|183808348|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.21||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during EP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.210|0.046|<0.0001
91955854|NCT03417102|183808350|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-28.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.07|-18.37||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds (\<=10, \> 10) as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-18.37|-39.07|<0.0001
91955855|NCT03417102|183808351|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.37|-8.33||ANCOVA model included treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds (\<=10, \> 10) as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-8.33|-21.37|<0.0001
91955856|NCT00795210|183808361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis Test for overall difference between groups||||0.01
91955857|NCT00795210|183808362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
91955858|NCT01017731|183808364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||||||The p-value for QTc interval prolongation compared to baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0161
91955859|NCT02060526|183808409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between proportions|0.286||||0.4615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.745|||Fisher Exact|||95% exact unconditional confidence interval of the difference in proportion between each of the treatment groups and the untreated control group was considered for the parameter estimation.||0.745|-0.297|0.4615
91955860|NCT02060526|183808409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between proportions|0.143||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.647|||Fisher Exact|||95% exact unconditional confidence interval of the difference in proportion between each of the treatment groups and the untreated control group was considered for the parameter estimation.||0.647|-0.423|1.0000
91955861|NCT01441401|183808428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.045|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was baseline severity of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the baseline severity of epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe) and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||0.045
91955862|NCT01441401|183808428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Armitage (EXACT)|||"The factor tested was baseline severity of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no ordinal trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across the baseline severity of epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe)."||||0.017
91955863|NCT01441401|183808429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was baseline frequency of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the baseline frequency of epileptic seizure and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||0.018
91955864|NCT01441401|183808430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||0.034
91955865|NCT01441401|183808430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Armitage (EXACT)|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no ordinal trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across the increasing number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||0.005
91955866|NCT01441401|183808431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was treatment period with gabapentin. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the treatment period with gabapentin and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
91955867|NCT00929201|183808478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The FMI sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet and coadministration of corresponding doses of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets after consumption of a standard high-fat breakfast will be bioequivalent for metformin based on assessment of the AUC0-∞ for metformin \[i.e., the true metformin AUC0-∞GMR (sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet/co-administration of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets will be contained within (0.80, 1.25)\].|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.97||||||90.0|0.95|1.0||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio calculated as Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet divided by Sitagliptin 50 mg and metformin 500 mg individual tablets||1.00|0.95|
91955868|NCT00929201|183808479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The FMI sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet and co-administration of corresponding doses of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets after consumption of a standard high-fat breakfast will be bioequivalent for metformin based on assessment of the Cmax for metformin \[i.e., the true metformin Cmax GMR (sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet/ co-administration of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets will be contained within (0.80, 1.25)\].|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.95||||||90.0|0.93|0.98||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio calculated as Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet divided by Sitagliptin 50 mg and metformin 500 mg individual tablets||0.98|0.93|
91955869|NCT00566969|183808480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hierarchical linear model was used to account for unequal variance and covariance structures across time.||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||.10
91955870|NCT01817764|183808484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.074|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.110|0.038|<0.001
91955871|NCT00388674|183808502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.8|1.084|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.084|0.800|0.3553
91955872|NCT00388674|183808503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.713|1.012|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.012|0.713|0.0676
91955873|NCT00388674|183808504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.769|1.03|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.030|0.769|0.1182
91955874|NCT00388674|183808505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.478|||||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.478|0.817|
91955875|NCT00388674|183808506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.032|||||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.032|0.727|
91955876|NCT00388674|183808507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.365|||||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.365|0.608|
91955877|NCT01598740|183808538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0662||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) common slopes model for a 2-period crossover design.||||0.0662
91955878|NCT01598740|183808539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1899||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) common slopes model for a 2-period crossover design.||||0.1899
91955879|NCT00943826|183808575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.74||Stratified by Region and Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) Class|Log Rank||Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|||0.74|0.55|<0.0001
91955880|NCT00943826|183808576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Log Rank|Stratified by Region and RPA Class|Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|||1.02|0.76|0.0987
91955881|NCT00943826|183808577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.71||Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|Log Rank||Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|||0.71|0.53|<0.0001
91955882|NCT04764669|183808582|SUPERIORITY|Primary comparisons were: DLB without amyloid copathology versus DLB with amyloid copathology|Least squares mean difference|-20.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.635|37.591||||||||37.591|-77.635|
91955883|NCT04764669|183808582|SUPERIORITY|Primary comparisons were: PDD without amyloid copathology versus PDD with amyloid copathology.|Least squares mean difference|-175.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.407|-63.893||||||||-63.893|-287.407|
91955884|NCT00256217|183808590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.0|1.8|0.004
91955885|NCT00256217|183808591|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.49|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.49|0.10|0.016
91955886|NCT00877799|183808595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.057
91955887|NCT00877799|183808596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91955888|NCT00877799|183808597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91955889|NCT01785472|183808606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical test was made at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|least Square Means net difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001||95.0|-4.0|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-4.00|<0.001
91955890|NCT01803464|183808632|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox plus low-magnitude vibration group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled Standard Deviation (SD) of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91955891|NCT01803464|183808632|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91955892|NCT01803464|183808632|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the typically developing control group group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91955893|NCT01803464|183808633|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox plus low-magnitude vibration group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator|||||
91955894|NCT01803464|183808633|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91955895|NCT01803464|183808633|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the typically developing group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator|||||
91955896|NCT01803464|183808634|OTHER||Cohen's d|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox plus low-magnitude vibration group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91955897|NCT01803464|183808634|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91955898|NCT01803464|183808634|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the typically developing control group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91955899|NCT02424851|183808635|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91955900|NCT02424851|183808636|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91955901|NCT02424851|183808637|OTHER||||||=|0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis of SAEs.||||=0.48
91955902|NCT02424851|183808637|OTHER||||||=|0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis of AEs||||=0.25
91955903|NCT02424851|183808638|OTHER||||||=|0.31|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.31
91955904|NCT02424851|183808639|OTHER||||||=|0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.45
91955905|NCT02424851|183808640|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.33
91955906|NCT00703261|183808649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||cLDA|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA)||||0.006
91955907|NCT00703261|183808649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||cLDA|||||||0.277
91955908|NCT00703261|183808649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|4.5||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|9.6|||cLDA|||||9.6|-1.0|0.088
91955909|NCT00703261|183808650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0|||||cLDA|||||||0.195
91955910|NCT01125358|183808651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.37|0.0|||Multiple Comparisons with The Best (MCB)|LS mean difference = LS mean of 10 mg LY2140023 - LS mean of 80 mg LY2140023.||||0.00|-3.37|
91955911|NCT01125358|183808651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|0.32|||Multiple Comparison with The Best (MCB)|LS mean difference = LS mean of 160 mg LY2140023 - LS mean of 80 mg LY2140023.||||0.32|-2.42|
91955912|NCT01125358|183808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|6.12||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|MMRM|||||6.12|-25.80|0.222
91955913|NCT01125358|183808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-11.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.42|2.6||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|MMRM|||||2.60|-26.42|0.105
91955914|NCT01125358|183808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.46|7.55||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|MMRM|||||7.55|-23.46|0.308
91955915|NCT01125358|183808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|2.54||P-value is for PANSS Positive Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.54|-5.74|0.441
91955916|NCT01125358|183808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.03||95.0|-8.01|-0.44||P-value is for PANSS Positive Subscore.|MMRM|||||-0.44|-8.01|0.030
91955917|NCT01125358|183808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|2.01||P-value is for PANSS Positive Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.01|-5.96|0.323
91955918|NCT01125358|183808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|2.12||P-value is for PANSS Negative Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.12|-7.05|0.285
91955919|NCT01125358|183808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.26||P-value is for PANSS Negative Subscore.|MMRM|||||1.26|-7.10|0.166
91955920|NCT01125358|183808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|2.05||P-value is for PANSS Negative Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.05|-6.79|0.286
91955921|NCT01125358|183808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|2.63||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.63|-13.96|0.177
91955922|NCT01125358|183808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.4||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.40|-12.60|0.178
91955923|NCT01125358|183808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|4.51||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Subscore.|MMRM|||||4.51|-11.72|0.377
91955924|NCT01125358|183808653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.83|||MMRM|||||1.83|-0.10|0.077
91955925|NCT01125358|183808653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.65|||MMRM|||||0.65|-1.12|0.592
91955926|NCT01125358|183808653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.32|||MMRM|||||1.32|-0.53|0.395
91955927|NCT01125358|183808654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|13.65|||MMRM|||||13.65|-4.37|0.306
91955928|NCT01125358|183808654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|9.38|||MMRM|||||9.38|-7.74|0.849
91955929|NCT01125358|183808654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.259||95.0|-14.05|3.86|||MMRM|||||3.86|-14.05|0.259
91955930|NCT01125358|183808656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.354||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.354
91955931|NCT01125358|183808656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.181
91955932|NCT01125358|183808656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91955933|NCT02115373|183808659|OTHER||Median|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.446|7.195|||||TTP in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||7.195|1.446|
91955934|NCT02115373|183808659|OTHER||Median|3.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.858|4.238|||||TTP in months was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||4.238|2.858|
91955935|NCT02115373|183808660|OTHER||Median|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.413|3.68|||||PFS time in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||3.680|1.413|
91955936|NCT02115373|183808660|OTHER||Median|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|16.53|||||PFS time in months was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||16.53|0.03|
91955937|NCT02115373|183808661|OTHER||Median|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.413|3.844|||||PFS time in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||3.844|1.413|
91955938|NCT02115373|183808661|OTHER||Median|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.76|4.172|||||PFS time in months was was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||4.172|2.760|
91955939|NCT02115373|183808663|OTHER||Median|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.68|10.119|||||Overall Survival time in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||10.119|3.680|
91955940|NCT02115373|183808663|OTHER||Median|5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.092|8.181|||||Overall Survival time in months was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||8.181|5.092|
91955941|NCT04007406|183808710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold value for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91955942|NCT04007406|183808711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91955943|NCT04007406|183808712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91955944|NCT04007406|183808713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91955945|NCT04007406|183808714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical threshold was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91955946|NCT03159611|183808715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91955947|NCT03159611|183808716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
91955948|NCT03159611|183808717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
91955949|NCT03159611|183808718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.20
91955950|NCT03159611|183808719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91955951|NCT01984229|183808722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.0|137.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals (CIs).||137|102|
91955952|NCT01984229|183808723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|177.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.0|198.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||198|159|
91955953|NCT01984229|183808724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|175.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.0|195.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||195|157|
91955954|NCT01984229|183808728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|28.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.1|35.5|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||35.5|23.1|
91955955|NCT01984229|183808729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|66.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.7|77.4|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||77.4|56.7|
91955956|NCT01984229|183808730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.4|87.7|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||87.7|64.4|
91955957|NCT02072174|183808741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0242|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0242
91955958|NCT02072174|183808742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||patient diary data||||0.0026
91955959|NCT02072174|183808742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||doctor's examination data||||0.0127
91955960|NCT02072174|183808743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0394||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of variable on day 2, 3, 4 and 5 between Anaferon for Children and Placebo. Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, Day 1 covariate. Treatment\*visit interaction p-value is 0.3220."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0394
91955961|NCT02072174|183808743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction factor of variable on day 2, 3, 4 and 5 between Anaferon for Children and Placebo. Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, Day 1 covariate."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3220
91955962|NCT02072174|183808744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0043
91955963|NCT02072174|183808745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 2 (patient diary data)||||0.0104
91955964|NCT02072174|183808745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 3 (patient diary data)||||0.0041
91955965|NCT02072174|183808745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0484||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 4 (patient diary data)||||0.0484
91955966|NCT02072174|183808745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0603||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5 (patient diary data)||||0.0603
91955967|NCT02072174|183808745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 3 (doctor's examination)||||0.0056
91955968|NCT02072174|183808745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0994||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5 (doctor's examination)||||0.0994
91955969|NCT02072174|183808746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Days 1-7 (patient diary data)||||0.0084
91955970|NCT02072174|183808746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Days 1, 3, 5 and 7 (doctor's examination)||||0.0233
91955971|NCT02072174|183808747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0721|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0721
91955972|NCT02072174|183808748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
91955973|NCT02072174|183808749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3383|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3383
91955974|NCT02587117|183808750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mann Whitney test|||||||0.004
91955975|NCT02587117|183808751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mann Whitney test|||||||0.224
91955976|NCT01875731|183808775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.09||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|16.8|||Chi-squared|||||16.8|1.57|0.01
91955977|NCT01875731|183808776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.09|||Chi-squared|||||4.09|0.1|0.71
91955978|NCT06212544|183808777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91955979|NCT00684645|183808803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.609|||Cox proportional hazard|||Time to PFS was analyzed using survival analysis methodology. Model was fitted with sunitinib-induced hypertension included as a time-dependent covariate (presence versus absence of hypertension).||0.609|0.257|<0.0001
91955980|NCT00684645|183808804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.361||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.864|||Cox proportional hazard|||Time to OS was analyzed using survival analysis methodology. Model was fitted with sunitinib-induced hypertension included as a time-dependent covariate (presence versus absence of hypertension).||0.864|0.151|0.0221
91955981|NCT02513095|183808811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|76.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||76.8|0.6|0.396
91955982|NCT00391092|183808840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Log Rank (unstratified)|||||1.02|0.65|0.0775
91955983|NCT00391092|183808841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.74|0.9543
91955984|NCT00391092|183808842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|4.43||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|14.0|||Chi-squared||95% CI for the difference in response rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||14.0|-5.2|0.3492
91955985|NCT00391092|183808843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.98||||||||0.98|0.56|
91955986|NCT00391092|183808844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.76|0.5392
91955987|NCT00467038|183808847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|\<0.004 p value was common for all time points.||||||<0.004
91955988|NCT00467038|183808848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's LSD post-hoc, trend level|||||||0.08
91955989|NCT02545868|183808858|SUPERIORITY||normal distribution approximation|-30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-10.8||||||Difference in positive response, Group A minus Group B||-10.8|-50.5|
91955990|NCT02545868|183808859|SUPERIORITY||normal distribution approximation|-36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-16.7||||||Difference in positive response, Group A minus Group B||-16.7|-56.0|
91955991|NCT02545868|183808860|SUPERIORITY||normal distribution approximation|-47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-30.7||||||Difference in positive response, Group A minus Group B||-30.7|-63.2|
91955992|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|-38.8||||||Serotype 1||-38.8|-62.7|
91955993|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-43.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-30.1||||||Serotype 2||-30.1|-56.5|
91955994|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-48.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.2|-30.9||||||Serotype 3||-30.9|-65.2|
91955995|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-62.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|-48.4||||||Serotype 4||-48.4|-77.2|
91955996|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-53.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-39.7||||||Serotype 5||-39.7|-68.0|
91955997|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-20.7||||||Serotype 6B||-20.7|-54.4|
91955998|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.1|-43.6||||||Serotype 7F||-43.6|-73.1|
91955999|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-20.1||||||Serotype 8||-20.1|-45.7|
91956000|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-30.4||||||Serotype 9N||-30.4|-62.5|
91956001|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-40.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-25.1||||||Serotype 9V||-25.1|-55.7|
91956002|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-62.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|-48.4||||||Serotype 10A||-48.4|-77.2|
91956003|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|-35.6||||||Serotype 11A||-35.6|-69.4|
91956004|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-55.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-38.3||||||Serotype 12F||-38.3|-72.8|
91956005|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-9.7||||||Serotype 14||-9.7|-41.4|
91956006|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-47.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.9|-32.0||||||Serotype 15B||-32.0|-63.9|
91956007|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.4|-41.4||||||Serotype 17F||-41.4|-72.4|
91956008|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|-37.3||||||Serotype 18C||-37.3|-67.4|
91956009|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-30.4||||||Serotype 19A||-30.4|-62.5|
91956010|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-36.1||||||Serotype 19F||-36.1|-68.8|
91956011|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|-45.4||||||Serotype 20||-45.4|-77.5|
91956012|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.7|-42.0||||||Serotype 22F||-42.0|-71.7|
91956013|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-14.6||||||Serotype 23F||-14.6|-51.7|
91956014|NCT02545868|183808864|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-47.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|-33.5||||||Serotype 33F||-33.5|-62.2|
91956015|NCT02545868|183808865|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-5.3||||||||-5.3|-21.6|
91956016|NCT02545868|183808866|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-59.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-46.8||||||||-46.8|-72.6|
91956017|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-45.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|-27.6||||||Serotype 1- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-27.6|-62.7|
91956018|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-23.8||||||Serotype 2- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.8|-60.6|
91956019|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-49.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.4|-29.2||||||Serotype 3- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-29.2|-70.4|
91956020|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.7|-36.3||||||Serotype 4- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-36.3|-75.7|
91956021|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.4|-40.3||||||Serotype 5- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-40.3|-76.4|
91956022|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-12.2||||||Serotype 6B- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-12.2|-55.7|
91956023|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.8|-23.2||||||Serotype 7F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.2|-61.8|
91956024|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-23.8||||||Serotype 8- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.8|-60.6|
91956025|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-37.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-15.5||||||Serotype 9N- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-15.5|-58.9|
91956026|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-36.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|-16.0||||||Serotype 9V- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-16.0|-57.3|
91956027|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.8|-43.5||||||Serotype 10A- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-43.5|-80.8|
91956028|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|-29.2||||||Serotype 11A- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-29.2|-71.0|
91956029|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.9|-36.8||||||Serotype 12F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-36.8|-76.9|
91956030|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-0.2||||||Serotype 14- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-0.2|-41.4|
91956031|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-32.7||||||Serotype 15B- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-32.7|-72.8|
91956032|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|-25.8||||||Serotype 17F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-25.8|-66.8|
91956033|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.8|-23.2||||||Serotype 18C- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.2|-61.8|
91956034|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-9.7||||||Serotype 19A- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-9.7|-50.6|
91956035|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|-25.8||||||Serotype 19F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-25.8|-66.8|
91956036|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-59.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.0|-40.0||||||Serotype 20- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-40.0|-79.0|
91956037|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|-32.8||||||Serotype 22F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-32.8|-72.1|
91956038|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|-5.4||||||Serotype 23F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-5.4|-50.7|
91956039|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-49.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|-29.7||||||Serotype 33F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-29.7|-68.2|
91956040|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.1|-45.4||||||Serotype 1- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-45.4|-78.1|
91956041|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.6|-35.3||||||Serotype 2- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-35.3|-70.6|
91956042|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-55.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.3|-36.5||||||Serotype 3- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-36.5|-75.3|
91956043|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.6|-46.8||||||Serotype 4- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-46.8|-82.6|
91956044|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.6|-35.3||||||Serotype 5- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-35.3|-70.6|
91956045|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.3|-17.2||||||Serotype 6B- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-17.2|-59.3|
91956046|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.7|-40.9||||||Serotype 7F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-40.9|-76.7|
91956047|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-29.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.1|-12.7||||||Serotype 8- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-12.7|-46.1|
91956048|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-14.2||||||Serotype 9N- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-14.2|-56.4|
91956049|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|-18.2||||||Serotype 9V- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-18.2|-58.2|
91956050|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.8|-43.7||||||Serotype 10A- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-43.7|-79.8|
91956051|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.3|-17.2||||||Serotype 11A- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-17.2|-59.3|
91956052|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-39.6||||||Serotype 12F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-39.6|-78.0|
91956053|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|2.1||||||Serotype 14- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||2.1|-37.4|
91956054|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.6|-30.4||||||Serotype 15B- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-30.4|-69.6|
91956055|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-44.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-24.2||||||Serotype 17F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-24.2|-64.0|
91956056|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.4|-44.2||||||Serotype 18C- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-44.2|-79.4|
91956057|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.3|-33.6||||||Serotype 19A- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-33.6|-72.3|
91956058|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.6|-40.1||||||Serotype 19F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-40.1|-77.6|
91956059|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-70.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.4|-53.8||||||Serotype 20- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-53.8|-87.4|
91956060|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-67.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.8|-50.5||||||Serotype 22F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-50.5|-84.8|
91956061|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-47.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-26.1||||||Serotype 23F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-26.1|-68.0|
91956062|NCT02545868|183808868|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|-31.5||||||Serotype 33F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-31.5|-68.5|
91956063|NCT02545868|183808870|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-9.5||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-9.5|-41.6|
91956064|NCT02545868|183808870|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|7.3||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||7.3|-35.2|
91956065|NCT02545868|183808870|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-6.4||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-6.4|-45.5|
91956066|NCT02545868|183808870|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|11.8||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B)||11.8|-50.7|
91956067|NCT02545868|183808870|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|42.7||||||Strain = AHK4801 (Group A2 minus Group B)||42.7|-49.4|
91956068|NCT02545868|183808871|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.9|-21.7||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-21.7|-61.9|
91956069|NCT02545868|183808871|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-15.5||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-15.5|-59.7|
91956070|NCT02545868|183808871|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-59.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.2|-40.7||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-40.7|-78.2|
91956071|NCT02545868|183808871|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|-15.1||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-15.1|-76.0|
91956072|NCT02545868|183808871|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|42.7||||||Strain = AHK4801 (Group A2 minus Group B)||42.7|-49.4|
91956073|NCT02545868|183808872|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.2|-42.3||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-42.3|-80.2|
91956074|NCT02545868|183808872|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-54.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.3|-34.4||||||Strain = BPHU13 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-34.4|-75.3|
91956075|NCT02545868|183808872|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-82.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.1|-67.5||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-67.5|-97.1|
91956076|NCT02545868|183808872|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-6.1||||||Strain = BBRIS08 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-6.1|-67.2|
91956077|NCT02545868|183808872|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|50.5||||||Strain = AHK4801 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||50.5|-63.8|
91956078|NCT02545868|183808873|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.2|-42.3||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-42.3|-80.2|
91956079|NCT02545868|183808873|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-4.0||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||-4.0|-88.0|
91956080|NCT02545868|183808873|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-57.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.7|-38.1||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-38.1|-77.7|
91956081|NCT02545868|183808873|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-55.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-23.1||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||-23.1|-88.0|
91956082|NCT02545868|183808873|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-78.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.8|-62.2||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-62.2|-94.8|
91956083|NCT02545868|183808873|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-57.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-13.4||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||-13.4|-100.0|
91956084|NCT02545868|183808873|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-6.1||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-6.1|-67.2|
91956085|NCT02545868|183808873|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|17.4||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||17.4|-67.4|
91956086|NCT02545868|183808873|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|50.5||||||Strain = AHK4801 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||50.5|-63.8|
91956087|NCT01777191|183808899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.248|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.248
91956088|NCT01932801|183808902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||Denotes exact fit for the omnibus model|Chi-squared|Complete omnibus model stats: χ2(18, N=308) = 17.93, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA \< .001, SRMR = .07||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.461
91956089|NCT01932801|183808902|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.18||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period|z score for parameters||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.18|-.79|.01
91956090|NCT01932801|183808902|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.15|||z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control (one of three dummy-coded variables) during treatment period|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.15|-.67|.01
91956091|NCT01932801|183808902|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.06|||z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control (one of three dummy-coded variables) during treatment period|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||.06|-.52|.19
91956092|NCT01932801|183808903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347||||||Denotes exact fit for the omnibus model|Chi-squared|complete omnibus model statistics: χ2(20, N=308) = 21.89, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .02, SRMR = .03||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.347
91956093|NCT01932801|183808903|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-1.06||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-1.06|-3.39|.002
91956094|NCT01932801|183808903|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.82||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.25||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||.25|-1.89|.208
91956095|NCT01932801|183808903|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.58||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.42||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.42|-2.73|.025
91956096|NCT01932801|183808904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||"p value reflects omnibus model close fit"|Chi-squared|χ2(13, N=308) = 24.34, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .03||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.028
91956097|NCT01932801|183808904|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.42||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-0.76||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.76|-8.09|.047
91956098|NCT01932801|183808904|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|-2.19||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-2.19|-9.72|.009
91956099|NCT01932801|183808904|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.12||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-0.36||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.36|-7.88|.072
91956100|NCT01932801|183808905|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol frequency.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.6
91956101|NCT01932801|183808905|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol frequency.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.83
91956102|NCT01932801|183808905|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the HaRT-A vs control group effects on alcohol frequency.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.89
91956103|NCT01932801|183808905|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.65
91956104|NCT01932801|183808905|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the placebo vs control group effects on alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.87
91956105|NCT01932801|183808905|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the HaRT-A vs control group effects on alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.91
91956106|NCT01932801|183808905|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all 4 treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol related harm.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.54
91956107|NCT01932801|183808905|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all 4 treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the placebo vs control effects on alcohol-related harm.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.84
91956108|NCT01932801|183808905|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all 4 treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the HaRT-A vs control group effects on alcohol related harm|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.84
91956109|NCT01932801|183808906|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails two treatment arms: XR-NTX vs placebo effects on alcohol frequency and alcohol craving (PACS).|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of the craving (PACS) slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.65
91956110|NCT01932801|183808906|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails 2 treatment arms: XR-NTX vs placebo effects on craving and alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of the alcohol craving (PACS) slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.46
91956111|NCT01932801|183808906|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails two treatment arms: XR-NTX vs placebo effects on craving and alcohol-related harm|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of alcohol craving (PACS) slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.45
91956112|NCT01932801|183808907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Denotes exact fit for the omnibus model|Chi-squared|Complete omnibus model : χ2(12, N=308) = .75, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA \< .001, SRMR = .008||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.95
91956113|NCT01932801|183808907|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|Chi-squared|||"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model."||.16|-.24|.75
91956114|NCT01932801|183808907|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Chi-squared|Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)||"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model."||.04|-.34|.20
91956115|NCT01932801|183808907|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.29|||Chi-squared|Linear effects of HaRT-A compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)||"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model."||.29|-.09|.39
91956116|NCT01932801|183808908|SUPERIORITY||incident rate ratio|0.98|||>|0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16|||z|||We conducted a generalized estimating equations analysis (negative binomial distribution, log link) to test whether number of adverse events reported increased from baseline to the follow-ups differentially across placebo and XR-NTX groups||1.16|.83|>.84
91956117|NCT00568776|183808919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.14|0.71
91956118|NCT00568776|183808920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-6.33|0.18
91956119|NCT00568776|183808921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-0.06|0.17
91956120|NCT00568776|183808922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.62|-5.41|0.49
91956121|NCT00568776|183808923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.03|-3.73|0.77
91956122|NCT00568776|183808924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-0.63|0.54
91956123|NCT00568776|183808925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-3.43|0.65
91956124|NCT01563029|183808926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|22.4|||ANCOVA|Gate-keeper analysis||||22.4|9.6|<0.001
91956125|NCT01563029|183808926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|19.8|||ANCOVA||Inference for FF 100 μg versus (vs) placebo and FF 50 ug versus placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for the average of the higher two doses of FF (FF 100 ug and 50 ug ) versus placebo comparison.|||19.8|5.1|<0.001
91956126|NCT01563029|183808926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|26.9|||ANCOVA||Inference for FF 100 µg versus (vs) placebo and FF 50 ug versus placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for the average of the higher two doses of FF (FF 100 ug and 50 ug ) versus placebo comparsion.|||26.9|12.1|<0.001
91956127|NCT01563029|183808926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|26.0|||ANCOVA||Inference for FF 25 ug versus placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for both the FF 100 ug versus placebo comparison and the FF 50 ug versus placebocomparison.|||26.0|11.3|<0.001
91956128|NCT01563029|183808926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|21.4|||ANCOVA|||||21.4|6.7|<0.001
91956129|NCT01563029|183808927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.201|||ANCOVA|||||0.201|0.051|<0.001
91956130|NCT01563029|183808927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.094|||ANCOVA|||||0.094|-0.050|0.551
91956131|NCT01563029|183808927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.108|||ANCOVA|||||0.108|-0.041|0.379
91956132|NCT01563029|183808927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.137|||ANCOVA|||||0.137|-0.010|0.089
91956133|NCT01563029|183808928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.9|||ANCOVA|||||16.9|0.0|0.050
91956134|NCT01563029|183808928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|18.2|||ANCOVA|||||18.2|1.3|0.023
91956135|NCT01563029|183808928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|20.5|||ANCOVA|||||20.5|3.8|0.004
91956136|NCT01563029|183808928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|14.6|||ANCOVA|||||14.6|-2.1|0.143
91956137|NCT01563029|183808929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|19.0|||ANCOVA|||||19.0|3.4|0.005
91956138|NCT01563029|183808929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|21.1|||ANCOVA|||||21.1|5.7|<0.001
91956139|NCT01563029|183808929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|||<|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|16.1|||ANCOVA|||||16.1|0.7|<0.033
91956140|NCT01563029|183808929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.7|||ANCOVA|||||15.7|0.3|0.042
91956141|NCT01563029|183808930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|21.7|||ANCOVA|||||21.7|0.7|0.037
91956142|NCT01563029|183808930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|23.6|||ANCOVA|||||23.6|2.6|0.014
91956143|NCT01563029|183808930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|16.3|||ANCOVA|||||16.3|-4.5|0.266
91956144|NCT01563029|183808930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.6|||ANCOVA|||||16.6|-4.2|0.242
91956145|NCT01563029|183808931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|31.3|||ANCOVA|||||31.3|10.0|<0.001
91956146|NCT01563029|183808931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|28.6|||ANCOVA|||||28.6|7.2|0.001
91956147|NCT01563029|183808931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|22.1|||ANCOVA|||||22.1|0.9|0.033
91956148|NCT01563029|183808931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|27.3|||ANCOVA|||||27.3|6.0|0.002
91956149|NCT01563029|183808932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|10.2|||ANCOVA|||||10.2|-6.1|0.619
91956150|NCT01563029|183808932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.161||95.0|-2.3|13.9|||ANCOVA|||||13.9|-2.3|0.161
91956151|NCT01563029|183808932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12.0|-4.1|0.340
91956152|NCT01563029|183808932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.1|||ANCOVA|||||11.1|-5.0|0.459
91956153|NCT01563029|183808933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91956154|NCT01563029|183808933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91956155|NCT01563029|183808933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91956156|NCT01563029|183808933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91956157|NCT02780115|183808937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|1.96||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.74|||ANCOVA|||||4.74|-0.83|0.1663
91956158|NCT02780115|183808937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|4.77||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.56|||ANCOVA|||||7.56|1.98|0.0009
91956159|NCT02780115|183808937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|4.54||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.29|||ANCOVA|||||7.29|1.79|0.0014
91956160|NCT02780115|183808937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|4.81||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|7.58|||ANCOVA|||||7.58|2.03|0.0008
91956161|NCT00769132|183808939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two treatments are comparable if the geometric mean ratio is contained within the interval \[0.50-2.00\].|Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.12||||||90.0|0.9|1.38||||||The endpoint is the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7 following a 7 day course of daily dosing in the overall 24 hour collection interval. The point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[Treatment A/B\] of the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7.||1.38|0.9|
91956162|NCT00769132|183808939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.87||||||90.0|0.71|1.07||||||||1.07|0.71|
91956163|NCT00769132|183808939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8||||||90.0|0.65|0.98||||||||0.98|0.65|
91956164|NCT00769132|183808939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.89||||||90.0|0.72|1.09||||||||1.09|0.72|
91956165|NCT00769132|183808939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.91||||||90.0|0.74|1.12||||||||1.12|0.74|
91956166|NCT00769132|183808939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.02||||||90.0|0.83|1.25||||||||1.25|0.83|
91956167|NCT00769132|183808940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.04||||||90.0|0.92|1.17||||||||1.17|0.92|
91956168|NCT00769132|183808940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.9||||||90.0|0.8|1.01||||||||1.01|0.8|
91956169|NCT00769132|183808940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.56||||||90.0|0.49|0.63||||||||0.63|0.49|
91956170|NCT00769132|183808940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.58||||||90.0|0.51|0.65||||||||0.65|0.51|
91956171|NCT00769132|183808940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.62||||||90.0|0.55|0.7||||||||0.7|0.55|
91956172|NCT00769132|183808940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.64||||||90.0|0.57|0.72||||||||0.72|0.57|
91956173|NCT02723786|183808968|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The proportion of participants with DGF was 0.57, highest Posterior Density (HPD) 95% Credible interval (CI) (0.25,0.90). The posterior probability for the proportion of participants with DGF \<30% was 0.07 (HPD 95% CI \[0.00,1.00\]). The posterior probability for the proportion of participants with DGF \<50% was 0.34 (HPD 95% CI \[0.00,1.00\]).|||
91956174|NCT00127192|183808989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.3|-3.0||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-3.0|-4.3|<0.001
91956175|NCT00127192|183808989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-3.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.9|-2.6||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-2.6|-3.9|<0.001
91956176|NCT00127192|183808989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-3.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.9|-2.7||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-2.7|-3.9|<0.001
91956177|NCT00127192|183808989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-2.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.2|-2.0||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-2.0|-3.2|<0.001
91956178|NCT00127192|183808990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Tukeys linear trend test based on ANCOVA|Linear contrast including all groups was tested using ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline||||||<0.001
91956179|NCT00127192|183808990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.21|-0.86||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, but the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.86|-1.21|<0.001
91956180|NCT00127192|183808990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.14|-0.79||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.79|-1.14|<0.001
91956181|NCT00127192|183808990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.99|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.16|-0.82||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.82|-1.16|<0.001
91956182|NCT00127192|183808990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.69|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.85|-0.52||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.52|-0.85|<0.001
91956183|NCT00127192|183808991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-23.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-29.8|-16.6||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-16.6|-29.8|<0.001
91956184|NCT00127192|183808991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-20.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-27.4|-14.3||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-14.3|-27.4|<0.001
91956185|NCT00127192|183808991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-17.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-24.2|-11.2||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-11.2|-24.2|<0.001
91956186|NCT00127192|183808991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.3|-9.6||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-9.6|-22.3|<0.001
91956187|NCT03170271|183808995|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate of benralizumab was equal to the exacerbation rate of placebo.|Rate ratio|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65|||Negative binomial|||Comparison of annual exacerbation rates for benralizumab vs placebo (rate ratio). Treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in previous year and maintenance OCS use at baseline were included in the negative binomial model as covariates. The log of each patient's corresponding follow-up time was used as an offset variable in the model to adjust for patients having different follow-up times during which events occurred.||0.65|0.39|<0.0001
91956188|NCT03170271|183808996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-4.82|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SGRQ total score = Treatment + baseline SGRQ total score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SGRQ total score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis.||-4.82|-11.41|<0.0001
91956189|NCT03170271|183808997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.23|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 = Treatment + baseline pre-BD FEV1 + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + gender + age + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||0.23|0.09|<0.0001
91956190|NCT03170271|183808998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.27|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in ACQ-6 score = Treatment + baseline ACQ-6 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in ACQ-6 score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-0.27|-0.65|<0.0001
91956191|NCT03170271|183808999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours benralizumab to be associated with a longer time from randomization to the first exacerbation than placebo.|Comparison of time to first asthma exacerbation for benralizumab vs placebo. Treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in previous year and maintenance OCS use at baseline were included in the Cox proportional hazard model as covariates.||0.67|0.40|<0.0001
91956192|NCT03170271|183809000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|20.11||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.79|33.44|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in PEF = Treatment + baseline PEF + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from run-in baseline in morning PEF at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||33.44|6.79|0.0031
91956193|NCT03170271|183809000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|23.09||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.62|36.55|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in PEF = Treatment + baseline PEF + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from run-in baseline in evening PEF at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||36.55|9.62|0.0008
91956194|NCT03170271|183809001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|5.35||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|9.28|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for physical functioning at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||9.28|1.42|0.0077
91956195|NCT03170271|183809001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|11.14|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for role limitations due to physical health at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||11.14|2.45|0.0022
91956196|NCT03170271|183809001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.07||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|7.5|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for bodily pain at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||7.50|-1.36|0.1741
91956197|NCT03170271|183809001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.62||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|8.92|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for general health perceptions at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||8.92|2.32|0.0009
91956198|NCT03170271|183809001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.51||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|9.08|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for vitality at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||9.08|1.95|0.0025
91956199|NCT03170271|183809001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.12||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|7.46|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for social functioning at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||7.46|-1.22|0.1583
91956200|NCT03170271|183809001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.44||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.27|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for role limitations due to emotional problems at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||6.27|-1.38|0.2103
91956201|NCT03170271|183809001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.68||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|4.59|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for mental health at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||4.59|-1.23|0.2581
91956202|NCT03170271|183809001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.32||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.81|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 physical health component summary score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||3.81|0.84|0.0022
91956203|NCT03170271|183809001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.87||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.44|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 mental health component summary score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||2.44|-0.70|0.2751
91956204|NCT03170271|183809002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + baseline score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a responder classified as type 'Improvement' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.25|1.06|0.0233
91956205|NCT03170271|183809002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.16|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + baseline score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a responder classified as type 'Important Improvement' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.16|1.02|0.0401
91956206|NCT03170271|183809003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.86|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a CGI-C responder classified as type 'Much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.86|1.47|<0.0001
91956207|NCT03170271|183809003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|6.7|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a CGI-C responder classified as type 'Very much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||6.70|1.77|0.0003
91956208|NCT03170271|183809003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.87|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a PGI-C responder classified as type 'Much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.87|1.48|<0.0001
91956209|NCT03170271|183809003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.51|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a PGI-C responder classified as type 'Very much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||4.51|2.02|<0.0001
91956210|NCT03170271|183809004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.68|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in average PSIA score (top 3 ranked) =Treatment + baseline average PSIA score (top 3 ranked) + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in PSIA severity score for the average of top 3 ranked symptoms/impairments at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-0.68|-1.62|<0.0001
91956211|NCT03170271|183809004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.66|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in PSIA score (top ranked) =Treatment + baseline PSIA score (top ranked) + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in PSIA severity score of top ranked symptom/impairment at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-0.66|-1.64|<0.0001
91956212|NCT03170271|183809005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.91||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|-1.4|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score = Treatment + baseline SNOT-22 total score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-1.40|-16.42|0.0204
91956213|NCT02701049|183809022|OTHER|Among 109,994 patients who entered the ED during Mode 1, 19,742 had SOGI collected (18%). Among 88,143 patients who entered the ED during Mode 2, 3,630 had SOGI collected (4%).||||||||||||||||Historical controls included all patients entering participating EDs as identified by the Electronic Health Record.|Results were compared to historical control population from an electronic health record database, no other data were collected for these participants.|||
91956214|NCT03466060|183809040|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.3||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|bayesian multivariate hierarachical||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|1-Minute Follow-up Analysis||2.3|-6.4|
91956215|NCT03466060|183809040|SUPERIORITY||Posertior Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.7||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Bayesian Multivariate Hierarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|5-minute Follow-up Analysis||1.7|-6.8|
91956216|NCT03466060|183809040|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.5||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Bayesian multivariate hierarchical model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|45-Minute Follolw-up Analysis||1.5|-6.9|
91956217|NCT03466060|183809040|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.4|||Bayesian Multivariate Heirarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|2-Hour Follow-up Analysis||1.4|-6.5|
91956218|NCT03466060|183809040|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.1|||Bayesian Multivariate Heirarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|1-Minute Follow-up Analysis||3.1|-5.8|
91956219|NCT03466060|183809040|SUPERIORITY|95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.6|||Bayesian Multivariate Heirarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|5-Minute Follow-up Analysis||3.6|-5.0|
91956220|NCT03466060|183809040|NON_INFERIORITY|95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Posterior Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.3|||Bayesian Multivariate Hierarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|45-Minute Follow-up Analysis||2.3|-6.4|
91956221|NCT03466060|183809040|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.5||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Bayesian Mutlivariate Hiearachical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|2-Hour Follow-up Analysis||2.5|-5.8|
91956222|NCT01612780|183809041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Values of p \<0.05 were deemed statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Study sample size was established to test the hypothesis that the mean SNOT-20 score is reduced by at least 0.8 points from baseline to 1 year post procedure. Using this delta, a 1-sided alpha of 0.25, and 90% power, a sample size of 19 participants was adequate to test the hypothesis.||||<0.0001
91956223|NCT01610284|183809072|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89|||Log Rank|||FAS-Full population||0.89|0.67|<0.001
91956224|NCT01610284|183809072|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94|||Log Rank|||FAS-Main cohort||0.94|0.68|0.003
91956225|NCT01610284|183809072|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97|||Log Rank|||FAS-PI3K pathway activated||0.97|0.60|0.015
91956226|NCT01610284|183809072|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.03||||||FAS-PI3K pathway non-activated||1.03|0.67|
91956227|NCT01610284|183809072|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94||||||FAS-PI3K pathway unknown||0.94|0.52|
91956228|NCT01610284|183809073|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02|||Log Rank|||FAS-Full population||1.02|0.74|0.045
91956229|NCT01610284|183809073|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||Log Rank|||FAS-Main cohort||1.09|0.75|0.144
91956230|NCT01610284|183809073|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.08||||||FAS-PI3K pathway activated||1.08|0.61|
91956231|NCT01610284|183809073|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.24||||||FAS-PI3K pathway non-activated||1.24|0.77|
91956232|NCT01610284|183809073|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.06||||||FAS-PI3K pathway unknown||1.06|0.52|
91956233|NCT01856257|183809084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.512||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.999|15.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||The p-value, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from weeks 4, 12, 28, 36, and 52 to compare Group 2 to Group 1.|||15.024|-7.999|0.544
91956234|NCT01856257|183809084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.481|20.121|||Mixed Models Analysis||P-value estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from weeks 4, 12, 28, 36, and 52 to compare Group 3 to Group 1.|||20.121|-10.481|0.531
91956235|NCT00442338|183809115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.01||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.08|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and used the baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||Treatment difference in change from Baseline in FEV1 within the first 60 minutes after study drug administration was assessed as the difference in the least square (LS) means of time weighted average change FEV1 (0-60 min) using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.||0.08|-0.07|0.871
91956236|NCT00442338|183809115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and used the baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||Treatment difference in change from Baseline in FEV1 within the first 60 minutes after study drug administration was assessed as the difference in the LS means of time weighted average change FEV1 (0-60 min) using an ANCOVA model.||0.06|-0.08|0.794
91956237|NCT00442338|183809115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.02||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and used the baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||Treatment difference in change from Baseline in FEV1 within the first 60 minutes after study drug administration was assessed as the difference in the LS means of time weighted average change FEV1 (0-60 min) using an ANCOVA model.||0.09|-0.06|0.675
91956238|NCT05674721|183809142|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements if the 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means of Cmax were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|95.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.31|102.47||||||||102.47|88.31|
91956239|NCT05674721|183809143|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of Cmax were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|102.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.54|112.35||||||||112.35|93.54|
91956240|NCT05674721|183809144|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-t were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|99.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.76|101.61||||||||101.61|96.76|
91956241|NCT05674721|183809145|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-t were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|102.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.15|107.3||||||||107.30|98.15|
91956242|NCT05674721|183809146|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-inf were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.82|101.63||||||||101.63|96.82|
91956243|NCT05674721|183809147|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-inf were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|102.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.31|107.34||||||||107.34|98.31|
91956244|NCT04466956|183809172|OTHER|Statistical analysis was by intention-to-treat including all randomised participants, using Stata-12 software. Continuous data were summarised as mean and standard deviation, and categorical data as counts and percentages. Between group differences were reported with 95% confidence intervals, and p-values, using t-test to compare normally distributed data and chi-squared tests to compare categorical data.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Between group differences were reported with 95% confidence intervals, and p-values, using t-test to compare normally distributed data and chi-squared tests to compare categorical data.|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean worst pain scores were 5.98 and 6.88 in the standard care and VR groups respectively, with difference in means -0.9 (95% CI -2.1 - 0.28), p value 0.13. Mean anxiety scores at the end of the procedure were 3.94 and 4.4 in the standard care and VR groups respectively, with difference in means -0.46 (95% CI -2.1, 1.1), p value 0.57.||||<0.01
91956245|NCT00091507|183809173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.66|0.28
91956246|NCT00091507|183809174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.07|0.30|0.08
91956247|NCT00091507|183809175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.23|0.43|0.24
91956248|NCT00091507|183809176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.29|0.40|0.27
91956249|NCT00091507|183809177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.85|0.27|0.01
91956250|NCT00203931|183809180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
91956251|NCT00203931|183809181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test|||||||0.91
91956252|NCT00203931|183809182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91956253|NCT00203931|183809183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test|||||||0.046
91956254|NCT00203931|183809184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.029
91956255|NCT03506425|183809185|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
91956256|NCT03506425|183809186|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91956257|NCT03506425|183809187|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
91956258|NCT02181075|183809196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|95% confidence interval (CI)||A paired t-test was used for Part I (Arm 1) only. Analysis only applies to Part I (Arm 1) because only this study arm has matched Post-LTLD (i.e. post-drug alone) and Post-LTLD+FUS biopsy samples obtained from the same liver tumours before and after targeted drug delivery. In Part II of the study design in which drug delivery occurred completely non-invasively, no Post-LTLD tissue sample is obtained and only a single tumour biopsy is obtained following drug delivery (Post-LTLD+FUS).||||0.024
91956259|NCT04150107|183809202|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|Least mean squares||||<|0.9223|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.9223
91956260|NCT04150107|183809203|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.8871|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.8871
91956261|NCT04150107|183809204|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.9641|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.9641
91956262|NCT04150107|183809205|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.7922|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.7922
91956263|NCT04150107|183809206|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.9898|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.9898
91956264|NCT04150107|183809207|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.5165|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.5165
91956265|NCT00440193|183809211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming equal efficacy, a total of 88 events was calculated to give a power of 90% to prove that rivaroxaban is at least as effective as the comparator, considering a non-inferiority upper CI margin for the hazard ratio of 2.0 (two-sided α=0.05). A mean incidence for the primary efficacy outcome of 3% was expected and at least 1465 participants per group were determined to be necessary. This number was to be adjusted based on the observed overall incidence of symptomatic recurrent VTE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2179|<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (confidence interval) (two-sided testing). Based on this model, rivaroxaban would be considered at least as effective as the comparator if the upper limit of the CI was less than 2.0.||1.04|0.44|< 0.0001
91956266|NCT00440193|183809212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1616||0.044||95.0|0.53|0.99||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||0.99|0.53|0.044
91956267|NCT00440193|183809213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1828||0.027||95.0|0.47|0.95||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||0.95|0.47|0.027
91956268|NCT00440193|183809215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1204||0.77||95.0|0.76|1.22||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.22|0.76|0.77
91956269|NCT03409328|183809276|OTHER||F|38.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||<.001
91956270|NCT03409328|183809277|OTHER||F|6.69||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||.013
91956271|NCT03409328|183809278|OTHER||F|5.07||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||.029
91956272|NCT03409328|183809279|OTHER||F|0.38||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||.542
91956273|NCT03409328|183809280|OTHER||F|3.12||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||The outcome for this analysis is internalized stigma.||||.084
91956274|NCT03409328|183809280|OTHER||F|0.67||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||The outcome for this analysis is identity affirmation.||||.417
91956275|NCT03930615|183809285|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-16.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-6.5||A one-sided p-value ≤0.0249 was used for declaring statistical significance|Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo|It was hypothesized that LET is superior to placebo in the prevention of clinically significant CMV infection.|95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|-6.5|-25.8|0.0005
91956276|NCT03930615|183809286|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.7|||||Letermovir minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|4.7|-11.8|
91956277|NCT03930615|183809287|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6|||||Letermovir minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|8.6|-2.7|
91956278|NCT03930615|183809288|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.7||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|5.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.4|-16.8|0.1591
91956279|NCT03930615|183809289|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.7||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|5.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.4|-16.8|0.1591
91956280|NCT03930615|183809292|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-14.1||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-5.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|-5.0|-23.3|0.0012
91956281|NCT03930615|183809293|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.7||||0.1494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|5.1|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.1|-16.5|0.1494
91956282|NCT03930615|183809294|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.7||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.3|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.3|-3.8|0.6244
91956283|NCT03930615|183809295|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.3||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|8.4|-7.9|0.5264
91956284|NCT02864953|183809298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.71||P-value was analyzed by ordinal logistic regression adjusting for covariates: region, and IRT stratification factors including rtPA usage (yes/no), thrombectomy usage (yes/no), use of ASPECTS for screening (yes/no), baseline NIHSS (\<=20 vs. \>20).|Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|0.80|=0.4150
91956285|NCT02864953|183809300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.7413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.6||A logistic regression model was used to estimate an odds ratio (and 95% CI) of improvement on the mRS dichotomized as 0-4 vs. 5-6 at Day 90.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.72|=0.7413
91956286|NCT02864953|183809301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||=|0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.87||Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the two study arms to assess the treatment effects on midline shift.|ANOVA|||||1.87|-0.23|=0.1242
91956287|NCT00981019|183809308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Study was exploratory, thus no hypotheses had been formalized beforehand.~To analyze repeated measures outcomes (e.g., effect of the four different statistic scenarios on doctors' recommendation of screening, their judgment of screening's effectiveness, etc.), we used the McNemar chi-square test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.~To test for order effects (scenarios were randomly presented)Pearson's chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used."||||<0.05
91956288|NCT00865306|183809310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<.05
91956289|NCT00865306|183809311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<.01
91956290|NCT03377491|183809390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.68|0.039
91956291|NCT03377491|183809391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.68|0.137
91956292|NCT03377491|183809392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.67|0.151
91956293|NCT03377491|183809393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.094
91956294|NCT03377491|183809394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.029
91956295|NCT03377491|183809397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.57|0.128
91956296|NCT03377491|183809398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9311|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.9311
91956297|NCT02878850|183809399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|12.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.75|-6.85|0.55
91956298|NCT02878850|183809400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|11.21|||ANCOVA|||||11.21|-12.48|0.92
91956299|NCT02878850|183809401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.53|||ANCOVA|||||2.53|-1.83|0.75
91956300|NCT02878850|183809402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|6.53|||ANCOVA|||||6.53|-2.64|0.40
91956301|NCT02878850|183809403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||<|0.001||95.0|1.36|2.94|||Chi-squared|||||2.94|1.36|<0.001
91956302|NCT02878850|183809404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.65|||Chi-squared|||||3.65|0.44|0.87
91956303|NCT02878850|183809405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-0.08|0.08
91956304|NCT02878850|183809406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.73||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|6.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.10|-16.84|0.35
91956305|NCT02878850|183809407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.87|-1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.87|-68.87|0.04
91956306|NCT04231669|183809417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Linear Mixed-effects regression|||||||0.05
91956307|NCT03563716|183809439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|6.14|||||95% CI for odds ratio was constructed using the Wald method.|Stratified analysis based on PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 22C3 pharmDx, tumor histology status, and tobacco history.||6.14|1.07|
91956308|NCT03563716|183809440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis based on PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx, tumor histology status, and tobacco history.||0.90|0.37|
91956309|NCT06492226|183809447|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.754|103.346||||||||103.346|98.754|
91956310|NCT06492226|183809447|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.682|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.567|102.843||||||||102.843|98.567|
91956311|NCT06492226|183809448|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.63|110.514||||||||110.514|99.630|
91956312|NCT06492226|183809448|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.827|109.345||||||||109.345|100.827|
91956313|NCT06492226|183809449|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.749|109.339||||||||109.339|96.749|
91956314|NCT06492226|183809449|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.006|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.308|106.93||||||||106.930|97.308|
91956315|NCT06492226|183809450|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.685|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.956|106.76||||||||106.760|94.956|
91956316|NCT06492226|183809450|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.554|103.723||||||||103.723|92.554|
91956317|NCT06492226|183809451|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|105.025||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve (AUC0)-4h||105.025|99.090|
91956318|NCT06492226|183809451|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.419|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.062|103.833||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve (AUC0)-4h||103.833|99.062|
91956319|NCT06492226|183809451|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.393|103.529||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve AUC0-6h||103.529|98.393|
91956320|NCT06492226|183809451|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.08|102.217||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve AUC0-6h||102.217|98.080|
91956321|NCT06492226|183809451|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.754|103.346||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve AUC0-12h||103.346|98.754|
91956322|NCT06492226|183809451|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.682|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.567|102.843||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve AUC0-12h||102.843|98.567|
91956323|NCT06492226|183809451|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.881|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.4|101.426||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve AUC0-∞||101.426|96.400|
91956324|NCT06492226|183809451|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.863|99.232||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve AUC0-∞||99.232|94.863|
91956325|NCT06492226|183809452|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|89.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.557|95.064||||||||95.064|84.557|
91956326|NCT06492226|183809452|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|82.086|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.699|87.851||||||||87.851|76.699|
91956327|NCT06492226|183809453|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.997|100.07||||||||100.070|89.997|
91956328|NCT06492226|183809453|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|90.601|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.356|95.054||||||||95.054|86.356|
91956329|NCT06492226|183809454|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.411|102.58||||||||102.580|88.411|
91956330|NCT06492226|183809454|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|91.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.291|100.079||||||||100.079|83.291|
91956331|NCT06492226|183809455|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products.|Geometric Mean Ratio|83.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.783|91.213||||||||91.213|76.783|
91956332|NCT06492226|183809455|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products.|Geometric Mean Ratio|76.497|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.75|83.897||||||||83.897|69.750|
91956333|NCT05016960|183809465|OTHER|one group paired samples t test to compare scores at pre vs. post treatment||||||0.503|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.503
91956334|NCT05016960|183809466|NON_INFERIORITY|one group paired samples t test||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.230
91956335|NCT05016960|183809467|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.061
91956336|NCT05016960|183809468|OTHER|one group paired samples t test|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91956337|NCT05016960|183809469|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
91956338|NCT05016960|183809470|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.625
91956339|NCT05016960|183809471|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.134
91956340|NCT05016960|183809472|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.515|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.515
91956341|NCT05016960|183809473|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.410
91956342|NCT05016960|183809474|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.706|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.706
91956343|NCT05016960|183809475|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.062
91956344|NCT05016960|183809476|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.390
91956345|NCT05016960|183809477|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.38
91956346|NCT05016960|183809478|OTHER|One group paired samples t test||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.064
91956347|NCT06547814|183809507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.35|||||The Standard implementation arm was the reference group.|||1.35|0.79|
91956348|NCT04673175|183809510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson chi-squared test comparing the prevalence of clinical success between arms.||Comparison of the proportion of participants with clinical success at Day 30 between the prospective ceftolozane-tazobactam arm and matched historical controls.||||0.40
91956349|NCT04933474|183809531|OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary outcome will be the baseline vs. week 8 difference-in-difference in 7-day average NRS pain intensity scores, dichotomized into if the MCID of 2 is achieved. The between arm difference of achieving the MCID of 2 will be tested using Chi-squared test.||||0.088
91956350|NCT04933474|183809532|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.103
91956351|NCT04933474|183809533|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.774
91956352|NCT04933474|183809534|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.005
91956353|NCT04933474|183809535|OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.831
91956354|NCT04933474|183809536|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|1.44||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.02||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance without the continuity correction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used to compare the association between time (baseline and week 8) and opioid use (yes or no) while stratifying for the treatment groups. The null hypothesis is that the common odds ratio of the association between time and response across the treatment groups is equal to 1, versus the alternative hypothesis that the common odds ratio is not equal to 1.||2.02|1.03|0.031
91956355|NCT06269484|183809546|OTHER|No test was performed.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.24|||Proportions used for comparison|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Risk difference for proportions presented. The associated CI is the exact unconditional 90% (two-sided) computed based on score statistic.|||0.24|-0.24|
91956356|NCT06269484|183809546|OTHER|No test was performed.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.55|||Proportions used for comparison|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Risk difference for proportions presented. The associated CI is the exact unconditional 90% (two-sided) computed based on score statistic.|||0.55|0.09|
91956357|NCT06269484|183809546|OTHER|No test was performed.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.55|||Proportions used for comparison|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Risk difference for proportions presented. The associated CI is the exact unconditional 90% (two-sided) computed based on score statistic.|||0.55|0.09|
91956358|NCT06269484|183809547|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.82|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-0.62|-2.82|
91956359|NCT06269484|183809547|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.56|-1.66|
91956360|NCT06269484|183809547|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||2.25|0.09|
91956361|NCT06269484|183809548|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-0.43|-2.48|
91956362|NCT06269484|183809548|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-0.34|-2.42|
91956363|NCT06269484|183809548|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||1.09|-0.94|
91956364|NCT06269484|183809549|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.49|-1.10|
91956365|NCT06269484|183809549|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||1.52|-0.09|
91956366|NCT06269484|183809549|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||1.81|0.23|
91956367|NCT06269484|183809550|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.39|-0.40|
91956368|NCT06269484|183809550|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.93|0.12|
91956369|NCT06269484|183809550|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.92|0.14|
91956370|NCT06269484|183809551|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.22|-0.66|
91956371|NCT06269484|183809551|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.71|-0.18|
91956372|NCT06269484|183809551|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.92|0.05|
91956373|NCT06269484|183809552|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.775|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.836|-0.714|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-0.714|-2.836|
91956374|NCT06269484|183809552|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.637|0.639|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.639|-1.637|
91956375|NCT06269484|183809552|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.277|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.183|2.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||2.371|0.183|
91956376|NCT06269484|183809553|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|-0.417|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Note: Model assumption was violated due to skewed data distribution and the results should not be interpreted.|||-0.417|-9.700|
91956377|NCT06269484|183809553|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.736|4.624|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Note: Model assumption was violated due to skewed data distribution and the results should not be interpreted.|||4.624|-4.736|
91956378|NCT06269484|183809553|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.388|9.617|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Note: Model assumption was violated due to skewed data distribution and the results should not be interpreted.|||9.617|0.388|
91956379|NCT06269484|183809554|OTHER|No test was performed.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.15|||Proportions used for comparison|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Risk difference for proportions presented. The associated CI is the exact unconditional 90% (two-sided) computed based on score statistic.|||0.15|-0.31|
91956380|NCT06269484|183809554|OTHER|No test was performed.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.41|||Proportions used for comparison|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Risk difference for proportions presented. The associated CI is the exact unconditional 90% (two-sided) computed based on score statistic.|||0.41|0.02|
91956381|NCT06269484|183809554|OTHER|No test was performed..|Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.49|||Proportions used for comparison|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Risk difference for proportions presented. The associated CI is the exact unconditional 90% (two-sided) computed based on score statistic.|||0.49|0.09|
91956382|NCT06269484|183809555|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-3.8|-15.0|
91956383|NCT06269484|183809555|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|-6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-6.1|-17.7|
91956384|NCT06269484|183809555|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||3.0|-8.1|
91956385|NCT06269484|183809556|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-3.4|-9.7|
91956386|NCT06269484|183809556|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|-7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-7.6|-14.1|
91956387|NCT06269484|183809556|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-1.1|-7.4|
91956388|NCT06426927|183809594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Post-video vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91956389|NCT06426927|183809594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Study Day 2: 30 +/- 7 days vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91956390|NCT06426927|183809595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Post-video vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91956391|NCT06426927|183809595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Study Day 2: 30 +/- 7 days vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91956392|NCT06426927|183809596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Post-video vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91956393|NCT06426927|183809596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Study Day 2: 30 +/- 7 days vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91956394|NCT06426927|183809597|SUPERIORITY||Average Causal Mediated Effect (ACME)|0.01||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-video to post video, without covariates||||0.56
91956395|NCT04566666|183809645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1011
91956396|NCT04566666|183809645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2666|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2666
91956397|NCT04566666|183809645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7394|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7394
91956398|NCT04566666|183809646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1376|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1376
91956399|NCT04566666|183809646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1254|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1254
91956400|NCT04566666|183809646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2349|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2349
91956401|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||Binomial proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.3||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 100||7.3|0.0|
91956402|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.7||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 100||11.7|0.4|
91956403|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|1.8|0.0|9.4||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 100||9.4|0.0|
91956404|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.5||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 100||11.5|0.1|
91956405|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|61.7||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 50||61.7|32.5|
91956406|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.3|60.9||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 50||60.9|34.3|
91956407|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|56.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|69.3||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 50||69.3|42.4|
91956408|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|65.1||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 50||65.1|34.9|
91956409|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|27.2||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 75||27.2|5.9|
91956410|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|42.1||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 75||42.1|17.8|
91956411|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|39.7||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 75||39.7|15.5|
91956412|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|31.4||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 75||31.4|7.8|
91956413|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.3||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 90||7.3|0.0|
91956414|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|16.5||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 90||16.5|1.9|
91956415|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|17.0||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 90||17.0|1.9|
91956416|NCT04566666|183809648|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.5||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 90||11.5|0.1|
91956417|NCT06379893|183809663|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.8|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 1||22.8|8.3|<0.001
91956418|NCT06379893|183809664|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|13.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|20.9|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||20.9|5.2|0.001
91956419|NCT06379893|183809665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|2.1||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|11.3|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 3||11.3|-7.1|0.653
91956420|NCT06379893|183809666|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|707.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|278.9|1135.0|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||1135|278.9|0.001
91956421|NCT06379893|183809666|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|487.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|952.6|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||952.6|22|0.040
91956422|NCT06379893|183809666|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|130.8||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-365.6|627.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||627.2|-365.6|0.603
91956423|NCT06379893|183809667|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-0.028||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.049|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||0.049|-0.105|0.473
91956424|NCT06379893|183809667|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.009||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.091|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.091|-0.074|0.835
91956425|NCT06379893|183809667|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.11||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.198|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||0.198|0.023|0.014
91956426|NCT06379893|183809668|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.261||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.717|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||0.717|-0.196|0.261
91956427|NCT06379893|183809668|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.249||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.685|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.685|-0.188|0.263
91956428|NCT06379893|183809668|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.053||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|0.617|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||0.617|-0.512|0.854
91956429|NCT06379893|183809670|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|2415.2||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1466.3|6296.8|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||6296.8|-1466.3|0.221
91956430|NCT06379893|183809670|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|3041.7||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-868.5|6951.9|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||6951.9|-868.5|0.127
91956431|NCT06379893|183809670|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-2428.7||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7177.5|2320.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||2320.1|-7177.5|0.314
91956432|NCT06379893|183809671|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|3409.9||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2911.4|9731.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||9731.2|-2911.4|0.289
91956433|NCT06379893|183809671|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|3552.3||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3240.4|10345.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||10345.1|-3240.4|0.303
91956434|NCT06379893|183809671|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-7820.7||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15512.8|-128.5|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||-128.5|-15512.8|0.046
91956435|NCT06379893|183809672|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-8.392|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.196|-6.588|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||-6.588|-10.196|<0.001
91956436|NCT06379893|183809672|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-11.882|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.946|-9.818|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-9.818|-13.946|<0.001
91956437|NCT06379893|183809672|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-15.929|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.32|-13.537|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||-13.537|-18.320|<0.001
91956438|NCT06379893|183809675|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||-1.2|-1.7|<0.001
91956439|NCT06379893|183809675|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.7|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-1.7|-2.2|<0.001
91956440|NCT06379893|183809675|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.3|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||-2.3|-2.9|<0.001
91956441|NCT06379893|183809676|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-26.529|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.929|-21.129|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 1||-21.129|-31.929|<0.001
91956442|NCT06379893|183809676|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-36.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.09|-30.269|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||-30.269|-42.090|<0.001
91956443|NCT06379893|183809676|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-48.834|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.692|-41.976|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 3||-41.976|-55.692|<0.001
91956444|NCT06379893|183809677|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-9.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.011|-7.415|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||-7.415|-11.011|<0.001
91956445|NCT06379893|183809677|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-12.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.519|-10.621|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-10.621|-14.519|<0.001
91956446|NCT06379893|183809677|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-16.408|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.669|-14.146|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||-14.146|-18.669|<0.001
91956447|NCT06379893|183809678|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-8.912|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.401|-6.423|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||-6.423|-11.401|<0.001
91956448|NCT06379893|183809678|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-11.699|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.177|-9.221|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-9.221|-14.177|<0.001
91956449|NCT06379893|183809678|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-16.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.858|-13.473|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||-13.473|-18.858|<0.001
91956450|NCT06379893|183809679|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-0.1||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||0.1|-0.3|0.237
91956451|NCT06379893|183809679|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-0.2||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 14||0.0|-0.4|0.071
91956452|NCT06379893|183809679|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 21||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
91956453|NCT06379893|183809680|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.05|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||0.05|0.02|<0.001
91956454|NCT06379893|183809680|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.07|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 14||0.07|0.04|<0.001
91956455|NCT06379893|183809680|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.09|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 21||0.09|0.05|<0.001
91956456|NCT04233424|183809691|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-2.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.0|-6.7|0.152
91956457|NCT04233424|183809692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.8||||0.6219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3|-3.9|0.6219
91956458|NCT04233424|183809693|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.8||||0.4373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.2|||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||1.2|-2.8|0.4373
91956459|NCT06127147|183809700|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||\<0.001|||
91956460|NCT06127147|183809701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
91956461|NCT06127147|183809702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
91956462|NCT06127147|183809703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91956463|NCT06127147|183809704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91956464|NCT06232018|183809705|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0||Two-tailed Mann-Whitney U test; significance set at p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare POSAS scores between the two groups at 6 weeks . A two-sided p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The study was powered to detect a mean difference of 5 points in POSAS score with 80% power and a 5% alpha error.||4|-2|0.481
91956465|NCT06232018|183809706|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|-1.5|0.228
91956466|NCT06232018|183809707|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-1|0.446
91956467|NCT06232018|183809708|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|56.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|70.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||70|40|<0.001
91956468|NCT06232018|183809709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-1|0.421
91956469|NCT05339087|183809718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|baseline value as covariate||||||0.043
91956470|NCT05339087|183809718|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis||||||0.045|||||||Multiple imputation|||||||0.045
91956471|NCT05339087|183809719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Secondary endpoints statistically analyzed by a hierarchical testing strategy.||0.08|-0.64|0.116
91956472|NCT04322097|183809788|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = 0.05||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.80
91956473|NCT04322097|183809789|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = 0.05||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91956474|NCT02617563|183809802|EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA was performed with baseline ODI as covariate, and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least square mean difference of ODI improvement between two groups was calculated to test the hypothesis for the primary objective|Difference of Least Square Means|-1.76||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|2.59|||ANCOVA|||||2.59|-6.11|0.426
91956475|NCT03879577|183809832|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.1|67.9|||Exact binomial|||||67.9|38.1|<0.001
91956476|NCT03879577|183809836|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||-0.24|-0.91|0.0014
91956477|NCT03879577|183809837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||-0.07|-0.91|0.023
91956478|NCT03879577|183809838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||0.49|-0.22|0.44
91956479|NCT03879577|183809839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||0.80|-0.37|0.46
91956480|NCT03972488|183809864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.276|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.418|||Log Rank|Stratified one-sided P-value||||0.418|0.182|<0.0001
91956481|NCT03972488|183809865|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|7.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|18.4|||Stratified One-sided p-value|||||18.40|3.32|<0.0001
91956482|NCT03972488|183809866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.283|||Log Rank|Stratified one-sided P-value||Global Health Status||1.283|0.570|0.2222
91956483|NCT04526665|183809872|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.562|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.641|302.247|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization factors (ALP \>3xULN or TB\>ULN:Yes/No, and Baseline PBC Worst Itch NRS ≥ 4: Yes/No)||||302.247|7.641|<0.0001
91956484|NCT04526665|183809874|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.784||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.986|0.418|||mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.418|-1.986|0.1970
91956485|NCT04526665|183809875|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.343||||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.489|0.803|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, 4-week period and treatment by 4-week period interaction as fixed factors and adjusting for baseline and stratification factors.||||0.803|-1.489|0.5522
91956486|NCT07004010|183809922|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman|||This statistical analysis pertains to the right dermis and evaluates the trend across baseline, Week 6, and Week 12.||||<0.001
91956487|NCT07004010|183809922|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman|||This statistical analysis pertains to the left dermis and evaluates the trend across baseline, Week 6, and Week 12.||||<0.001
91956488|NCT07004010|183809922|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated measure|||This statistical analysis pertains to the right hypodermis and evaluates the trend across baseline, Week 6, and Week 12.||||<0.001
91956489|NCT07004010|183809923|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||Repeated measure|||||||0.264
91956490|NCT07004010|183809924|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Repeated measure|||Right thigh||||0.278
91956491|NCT07004010|183809924|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Repeated measure|||Left thigh||||0.061
91956492|NCT07004010|183809925|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated measure|||Right caliper||||<0.001
91956493|NCT07004010|183809925|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated measure|||Left caliper||||<0.001
91956494|NCT07004010|183809926|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated measure|||||||<0.001
91956495|NCT07004010|183809927|OTHER|||||||0.894|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.894
91956496|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
91956497|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6719|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline toend of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.6719
91956498|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.5000
91956499|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
91956500|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.1475
91956501|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.0420
91956502|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
91956503|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.5000
91956504|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.1563
91956505|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
91956506|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
91956507|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2324|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to post-treatment last visit||||0.2324
91956508|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.1016
91956509|NCT02408861|183809989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.8125
91956510|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.5000
91956511|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.5000
91956512|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.2500
91956513|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||1.000
91956514|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.2061
91956515|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0547|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.0547
91956516|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||1.000
91956517|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.5000
91956518|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.500
91956519|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.500
91956520|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||1.000
91956521|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.0195
91956522|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.0234
91956523|NCT02408861|183809990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.4375
91956524|NCT02408861|183809991|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
91956525|NCT02408861|183809991|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
91956526|NCT02408861|183809991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5000
91956527|NCT02408861|183809991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.5000
91956528|NCT02408861|183809991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.6250
91956529|NCT02408861|183809991|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
91956530|NCT02408861|183809992|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||1.000
91956531|NCT02408861|183809992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.7500
91956532|NCT02408861|183809992|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||1.000
91956533|NCT04814654|183810002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.989
91956534|NCT04814654|183810002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.60|0.949
91956535|NCT04814654|183810002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.61|0.882
91956536|NCT04814654|183810003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0726|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0726
91956537|NCT04814654|183810004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||12 month timepoint||||0.918
91956538|NCT04814654|183810004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.948
91956539|NCT04814654|183810004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0766|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0766
91956540|NCT04814654|183810005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.1839
91956541|NCT04814654|183810005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Chi-squared|||18 months||||.127
91956542|NCT04814654|183810006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7313|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7313
91956543|NCT04814654|183810007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1839
91956544|NCT04814654|183810008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2667|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2667
91956545|NCT04814654|183810009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
91956546|NCT04814654|183810010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1414
91956547|NCT04814654|183810011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.425
91956548|NCT04814654|183810023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9183|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9183
91956549|NCT05985304|183810058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91956550|NCT07165366|183810068|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|1.48||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for significance was alpha=0.05|ANOVA|degrees of freedom for ANOVA F-statistic were 2 for numerator d.f. and 118 denominator d.f.||Null Hypothesis is that there will be no difference in enamel hardness when different concentrations are used on enamel surfaces.||||0.231
